HS2 Preferred Scheme and Main Alternatives

HS2 London to the West Midlands
Appraisal of Sustainability
Appendix 6
March 2010 Preferred Scheme and Main Alternatives
AoS Information
A Report for HS2 Ltd
AoS
February 2011
HS2 London to the West Midlands: Appraisal of Sustainability
Appendix 6 –March 2010 preferred Scheme and Main Alternatives: AoS Information
HS2 London to the West Midlands

Appraisal of Sustainability AOS Framework Appendices
Appendix 6.1 Previously Published Scheme (HS2 March 2010 preferred Scheme)…………………………………………….……........1
Appendix 6.2 HS2 Line of Route 4 (LoR4)…………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 39
Appendix 6 –March 2010 preferred Scheme and Main Alternatives: Appendix 6.3 HS2 Line of Route 2.5 (LoR2.5)………………………………………………………………………..………………………. 57
Appendix 6.4 HS2 West Midlands Alternative …………………………………………………………………………………………………73
AoS information
Appendix 6.5 HS2 Iver Station Alternative……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 92
Appendix 6.6 HS2 Warwick Wharf Alternative ………………………………………………………………………………………………108
Appendix 6.7 HS2 London Station Alternatives ……………………………………………………………………………………………..123

55 Victoria Street
London SW1H 0EU
T 0207 944 4908
HS2enquiries@hs2.gsi.gov.uk
Principal author Nick Giesler

Key contributors Andrew Bryant, Andrew Mayes, Amanda Pownall, Sheenagh Mann, Sam Turner, Tony
Selwyn, Yaser Ali
Technical contributors Carbon and climate Matt Ireland; Tony Selwyn, Andrew Bryant;
Water Environment
Landscape & townscape Gillespies; Nick Giesler
Cultural heritage Cotswold Archaeology
Biodiversity Ecology Consultancy Ltd; Nick Giesler
Water and flood risk Water Environment; Andrew Bryant This report was commissioned by, and prepared for HS2 Ltd and the Department for Transport („DfT‟) by Booz & Co. (UK) Ltd
Air quality John Rowland, Enan Keogh (www.booz.com) and Temple Group Ltd (www.templegroup.co.uk) ('The Consultant'). The findings and conclusions set forth in this
report represent the best professional judgment of the Consultant based on information made available to it. The Consultant has
Noise and vibration John Fisk, Sasha Villa, Mark Southwood; relied on, and not independently verified, data provided to it by such sources and on secondary sources of information cited in the
Adnitt Acoustics report.
Community integrity and accessibility Vicky Ward, Sheenagh Mann
Third parties to whom DfT or HS2 Ltd may make this report available should not rely on the findings or conclusions set forth in this
Equality Vicky Ward; Future Inclusion report without obtaining independent professional advice and undertaking their own due diligence reviews. Any reliance on this
Health and well-being Institute for Occupational Medicine; Sheenagh report by a third party or any decisions made by any such third party based on this report, are the sole responsibility of such third
Mann party. The Consultant has not had and does not acknowledge any duty of care to any such third party with respect to the report, and
shall have no financial or other liability to any such party with respect to any matter related to any decisions made by any such party,
Socio-economics Derval Cummings, Stuart McCully, Colin
in whole or in part, on this report.
Buchannan consultants
Resources and consumption Andrew Mayes, Tony Selwyn, Sam Turner,
Andrew Bryant
Reviewers Mark Southwood, Adrian Foster, Stuart McCully, Roger Cooper
Structure of the AoS report and appendices Topic Direct effects Indirect effects
Landscape 50m either side of the route Up to 3km from the route
Non Technical Summary
Townscape 50m either side of the route 50-350m either side of the route
Main Report Volume 1
Heritage Route 50m either side of the route 50-350m either side of the route
Main Report Volume 2 – Plans and Appraisal Framework
stations Within construction footprint 350m perimeter from construction footprint
Appendix 1 – The Appraisal Process
Biodiversity (international sites) 50m either side of the route 10km from the route
Appendix 2 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Noise (encompassing all potential Not applicable 3km either side of surface line of route segments
Appendix 3 – Socio-economic Report contributions to noise impacts)
Appendix 4 – Associated Assessment Reports Vibration Not applicable 100m either side of line of tunnelled line of route
Appendix 5 – AoS Technical Reports segments and 200m either side of tunnelled line of
route segments located in a chalk ground formation
Appendix 6 – March 2010 Preferred Scheme and Main Alternatives: AoS information
Construction Route Not applicable 100m either side of construction corridor
effects
stations Not applicable 100m from station footprint
(disturbance)
Explanatory Notes Community Rural 25m either side of centre- 50m either side of centre-line, followed by manual
This appendix contains the appraisal of sustainability for the main alternatives (including appraisal (demolitions) line, followed by manual correction
frameworks and plans), as well the framework and plans for the previously published scheme (referred to in correction
this document as the HS2 March 2010 preferred Scheme). In general, mitigation that is „scheme wide‟ (e.g. Urban 15m either side of centre- 27.5m either side of centre-line, followed by manual
mitigation of impacts on flood zones and water bodies) has been detailed in these frameworks. In cases line, followed by manual correction; OR
correction; and, where against an existing railway, 40m from
where specific criteria could be assessed on a route wide basis an overall evaluation based on the appraisal
Impacts associated with centerline on opposite side of new railway from
by the AoS team is provided, rather than evaluations by route section. stations and depots are existing railway, followed by manual correction; and,
based on proposed As the construction footprints for depots and
Notes on evaluation construction footprints (no stations are at an advanced level of design, it is
buffering is adopted). assumed that any further land take would be
The evaluation frameworks in this appendix reflect the results of the appraisal undertaken in 2009/2010.
minimal.
The framework for the HS2 previous March 2010 preferred scheme in section 6.1 does not include the
mitigation that was incorporated after March 2010 which is in contrast to the evaluation framework for the The table above summarises the study buffers used for each topic1.
proposed scheme which is set out in Volume 2 which does include this mitigation. The following notes refer to specific elements of the AoS frameworks:
Key to evaluations
 Landslide data: landslide appraisal is based on a highly generalised version of the British Geological
Society landslide risk data. It is indicative only and is not intended to be used for scientific research. It
Evaluation Description has been provided in order to carry out low-detail “indicative” analysis of possible HS2 routes.
−− Highly unsupportive of objective  Carbon definitions: CO2 emissions have been defined as either “Tunnel (embedded and energy from
− Unsupportive of objective boring)” or “At-grade”, as reported in Objective 2a of all frameworks. “Tunnel (embedded and energy
o Neutral from boring)” includes emissions from boring activities and construction of the tunnel structure itself;
+ Supportive of objective “At grade” includes all other elements of the infrastructure, including tracks, viaducts, overhead lines
etc. It should be noted “At-Grade” elements are also required in tunnelled sections.
++ Highly supportive of objective
U Unknown at this stage of the design process  Air quality: Impacts on air quality could not be fully assessed in the absence of modal shift data.
N/A Not applicable  Construction-related impacts: The number of properties provided in these frameworks as potentially
In general, mitigation that is „scheme wide‟ (e.g. mitigation of impacts on flood zones and waterbodies) has affected by construction-related impacts (e.g. noise, dust etc) during construction includes properties
been detailed in these frameworks; whereas, mitigation measures that are more localised in their application that would be within an area 100m from the edge of a notional HS2 construction corridor but makes
(e.g. specific ecological features), have been set out in AoS Report volume 1. the theoretical assumption that all properties that would be within the construction corridor have been
removed and are therefore not affected by nuisance. In reality, some properties may remain.
In cases where specific criteria could be assessed on a route wide basis an overall evaluation based on the
appraisal by the AoS team is provided, rather than evaluations by route section.  Noise and Vibration: the noise and vibration results presented here for the March 2010 preferred
scheme and main alternatives are not comparable to those presented for the proposed route in the
Notes on calculations and data Main Report Volume 2 and Appendix 5.4. This is due to changes in operational assumptions used in
Calculated figures quoted in the AoS framework are estimates based on third party data sources and the noise modelling (such as speed and numbers of trains), calculation methodology (which was further
engineering designs available at the time sustainability assessments were carried out. As far as possible developed based on current research) and, primarily, the level of mitigation in the scheme being
these are an accurate reflection of the engineering drawings presented, however there may be minor appraised (the contribution the option would make to the core sustainability objective has been
discrepancies between these drawings and some calculated figures (e.g. lengths, areas, counts) quoted in appraised for the proposed route including additional indicative mitigation in Volume 2, whilst the
the AoS reports. following March 2010 preferred scheme and main alternatives are appraised based on the respective
scheme without additional mitigation).
1
The 100m corridor used in these studies to define the scheme is based on the 75m width required for a 2-track corridor plus 25m allowance for
access. This is different to the 110m corridor assumed in the HS2 Summary Report.
Appendix 6.1
HS2 March 2010 Preferred Scheme
Key sustainability features along the HS2 March 2010 March 2010 preferred scheme
1. Previously published Route 3 – summary of sustainability
The next five sections outline the implications of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme for each UK
sustainability priority. This is based on the information that has been available to date in terms of scheme
design and service demand. Further studies, should HS2 be progressed, would help to determine how any
adverse impacts might be reduced or mitigated and how neutral or positive impacts might be improved. It
would also allow greater certainty for some issues, based on increased design detail and more in depth
assessment of demand for HS2 including other rail services using space released on the West Coast Main
Line.
The implications of HS2 for climate change are highly dependent on issues outside the control of the
scheme. There is potential for HS2 to support reductions in greenhouse gases, depending primarily on how
electricity is generated in the future and the extent to which people opt to use HS2 and rail in preference to
cars and planes.
HS2 is less supportive of objectives for natural and cultural resource protection and environmental
enhancement, as would be expected given the potential scale and extent of the HS2 works and the relative
sensitivity of some areas traversed. However, the AoS has helped to minimise these impacts as far as is
possible at this stage, and continued support for scheme development would help to further mitigate impacts
on particularly sensitive areas such as the Chiltern Hills, and key features such as Hartwell House and
Stoneleigh Abbey.
The implications of HS2 for supporting sustainable communities would vary between different locations and
for different measures. Generally HS2 offers great potential for enhancing accessibility and economic
prosperity and welfare. However, it would also be highly disruptive at some locations during construction
and would give rise to operational noise and vibration impacts in some areas. One of the most sensitive
areas would be at Euston where a large number of residential demolitions would be required, affecting a
community in one of the more deprived areas of the UK. Considerable further work would be needed to try
to reduce these adverse impacts through mitigation.
Impacts on sustainable consumption and production are generally adverse since HS2 would require large
quantities of material resource and involve substantial landtake. Opportunities to limit these impacts would
be sought through the use of modern construction techniques that seek to use sustainable materials and
reduce waste.
Key features map

The key features of very high (red) and high importance (yellow) near to the HS2 March 2010 preferred
scheme are shown below.
2. HS2 and climate change

The appraisal considered climatic factors in two ways: the impact that a changing climate might have on
HS2 and the impact HS2 itself might have on climate change.
Resilience to climate change

As far as possible, HS2 would be designed and built to take full account of any changes to climate predicted
over the scheme‟s operational lifespan. In particular, in areas already likely to flood now and increasingly so
1
in the future, HS2 would be constructed on viaduct. Additional protection would be given to particularly A number of stately homes with protected buildings and grounds lie near to the route. Three would be
vulnerable parts of the network such as tunnel entrances and electricity supply locations. physically affected, at Shardeloes near Amersham, Hartwell House near Aylesbury and Stoneleigh Abbey
near Kenilworth. The grounds of Hartwell House are directly impinged by the scheme which would also
Greenhouse gases intrude greatly into views from the house. Impacts at Stoneleigh could hopefully be avoided altogether
The impact of the scheme on climate change would depend on any changes to the amount of CO2 through further changes to the alignment. Direct, although less significant impacts are likely at Shardeloes.
emissions that it brought about. These would depend on the new emissions caused by HS2, both from A Grade II* listed farmhouse at Hampton in Arden would potentially be demolished to make way for the car
construction and operation, and on the savings made by attracting people away from more carbon polluting park serving Birmingham Interchange Station. Continued design would seek to avoid this impact, although,
forms of transport. This is very difficult to predict as it relies heavily on other factors beyond the control of were this possible, impacts on the setting of this building would remain.
HS2. The most important benefit would be in displacing travel by air to travel by HS2. Reduced journey
In Birmingham the Curzon Street terminus would lie within a townscape whose character has declined in
times between London and the West Midlands would encourage a proportion of travellers from Manchester
recent years. HS2 would result in some major demolitions; including three Grade II listed buildings, as well
and Glasgow to use the train, which would join the high speed service near Lichfield, in preference to flying.
as some modern structures. However, the area is subject to extensive redevelopment as part of the
However, this benefit would only be realised if the number of domestic flights was reduced and the landing
Birmingham Eastside proposals. These would be significantly affected by HS2, but this could result in
and take-off slots were not replaced by other, possibly international, flights. Total carbon emissions from
improvements to the townscape were the two schemes to be coordinated.
international flights are typically an order of magnitude greater than UK domestic flights.
Were HS2 to extend further north, the further reductions in journey times from cities in the north of England Wildlife and biodiversity
and Scotland would encourage more air passengers to switch to high speed rail. As a result the potential
Early route development has managed to avoid most potential impacts on designated habitats and sites. No
carbon benefits of HS2 would be expected to be greater.
international sites would be adversely affected and impacts to nationally protected sites are restricted to just
The way that electricity used to power the trains is generated is also a consideration. The Government has a few locations: landtake at Long Itchington and Ufton Wood SSSI has mostly been avoided by tunnelling
ambitious plans to increase the contribution of renewables and nuclear generation at the expense of burning beneath it, but some landtake at its northern edge would be result where the tunnel emerges; river crossings
fossil fuels, such as coal and gas. Depending on how successful this is, it would have a significant influence at the Colne Valley and River Blythe would have small impacts on SSSIs here, but designs would seek to
on how much CO2 HS2 produces. minimise these.
A number of impacts on local and regional sites are also likely including some loss of ancient woodland in
3. HS2 and the natural and cultural environment the Chilterns. However, considerable effort would be made to further reduce these effects and to seek
opportunities, where possible, for enhancements through habitat creation and extension.
Landscape, townscape and cultural heritage
The main landscape impact of HS2 occurs in the Chiltern Hills. These extend for some 75km between Water and flooding
Hitchin in the north and the River Thames in the south. Any direct route between London and the West Water resources include rivers, streams and lakes, as well as underground supplies. Much has been done
Midlands (which a high speed railway would need to be) would inevitably need to pass through this area. to avoid direct impacts on these features, but they are widespread between London and the West Midlands
Considerable work has been undertaken during these early stages to ensure adverse changes to this so considerable further works would be required to ensure that national objectives for improving water
nationally protected landscape are kept low. Some 6.5km of the route would be in tunnel, over 5km is within quality are not compromised. It is possible that adverse impacts may arise at numerous locations where
the same corridor as the A413, and over 9km is in cutting, which would reduce some views of the scheme. rivers are crossed and where the route potentially impedes flows into rivers. Where these impacts could be
Opportunities to further reduce impacts would be sought as design detail increases; for example using highest, river diversions would be undertaken; for example for short sections of the Colne, the Cole, the
natural screening, earthworks, false cuttings and landscape planting. Tame and the Rea, although this introduces its own risks to water quality.
Within the Chilterns a protected Iron Age bank and ditch known as Grim‟s Ditch would be physically Equally, passage of the scheme over or through aquifers or areas with vulnerable groundwater would
affected, although further refinement of the scheme alignment is likely to reduce this impact. present major risks and would require mitigation to be put in place. This is the case in particular across the
Impacts on townscape are generally avoided and few areas of particular note would be affected. However, Colne Valley where the majority of vulnerable groundwater occurs, and between Brackley and Kenilworth,
at Euston the large new station would involve a major change within some historic areas. A large number of where high quality aquifers are prevalent.
demolitions would be required and this, together with the new station building, would result in townscape HS2 would also cross areas whose periodic flooding occurs relatively frequently in comparison to other
change that could adversely affect views from conservation areas, although this would depend on detailed areas (at least once every 100 years). It is important that, in doing this, the scheme does not increase flood
designs. Direct impacts would include loss of some locally important features, such as the majority of St risk to other areas and communities. In total the HS2 March 2010 preferred route passes across 17km of
James Gardens and six Grade II listed buildings and structures. However, the Euston Square Gardens in the highest risk flood areas. Scheme design here would be critical to ensuring that impacts are effectively
front of the existing station would be retained. The Grade II* listed 194a Euston Road would also be managed and avoided.
retained, but would be very close to the new station and, as it is attached to the Grade II listed 9 Melton
Street which would be demolished, would require very careful protection. The London Borough of Camden 4. HS2 and Sustainability Communities
has set out a vision for wider change in this area, and there are clear opportunities to ensure that HS2
develops in harmony with these. With further architectural development of the station design and a Air quality
coordinated response with Camden proposals, there is a clear opportunity to enhance large parts of this
townscape. HS2 would be electrically powered and so it would not directly result in air pollution. There is a risk that, at
HS2 stations, increases in road traffic might cause more local air pollution, but this is not expected to be
West of Old Oak Common the new surface route would run on the north side of the existing Chiltern Line. significant as most stations would have good public transport links.
The widening of the rail corridor has been kept as low as is feasible, but a number of demolitions between
here and West Ruislip would still be required.
2
Preliminary demand model outputs indicate that there is the potential for some modal shift from road to rail Interchange from HS2 to other public transport services is catered for at the terminus stations. Old Oak
(both HS2 and released capacity). However, the reduction in the number of road trips is not expected to be Common station would provide links with other rail lines. It is also proposed to include a light rail type
significant when considering overall traffic flows on the wider motorway network. „people mover‟ to provide a direct link between the Birmingham Interchange Station and Birmingham
International Airport from which other rail services can be accessed.
Noise and vibration
Health and well-being
Noise impacts from the HS2 March 2010 preferred route would result in up to about 350 dwellings
experiencing high noise levels (≥ 73dBLAeq). Some 21,300 dwellings could experience a noticeable The scheme has the potential to affect health and well-being both positively and negatively. The main
increase in rail noise (≥3dB LAeq compared with existing rail noise levels and >50dB LAeq). Some 200 non benefits stem from the reduced crowding on existing rail lines and the implications of this for improving
residential receptors (community; education; healthcare; and recreational/social facilities) within 300m of the journey ambience on busy commuter lines for rail passengers.
HS2 March 2010 preferred route have the potential to experience significant noise impacts.
Adverse impacts on mental wellbeing could arise from other environmental impacts, such as noise, where
However, in practice, a significant proportion of these potential impacts could be mitigated. A preliminary these are either sufficiently extreme to bring about indirect health effects on their own, or where they act in
appraisal of additional mitigation has indicated that the number of dwellings subject to high noise levels combination. However in very few cases are such impacts considered likely to result in adverse health
could be reduced to fewer than 50, with those dwellings experiencing a noticeable noise increase reduced to effects. Residents along and close to the route might experience disturbance from construction activity, but
about 9,700. Further detailed modelling and assessment would be required in order to identify how these this would not be expected to result in health impacts and moreover best practice techniques would be used
impacts could best be reduced. to control these impacts.
An estimated 9,400 houses over tunnel sections could experience vibration impacts. However, based on One location where there is a risk of mental wellbeing issues is around Euston Station due to the large
experience with HS1, mitigation measures, once developed and appraised, would be expected to remove number of demolitions and the general disruption to the local community this would entail. Careful and
the majority of these impacts. thorough consideration of potential health impacts would be necessary in determining how these works
should proceed and the particular sensitivities of affected residents, for example in terms of cultural needs,
Community impacts would need to be taken in to account.
Other impacts on people would arise from the physical impacts of HS2. The main area of potential
Economic prosperity
demolition would be at Euston with about 220 residential dwellings in the Regents Park Estate affected by
the loss of five blocks of flats. Some further 30 dwellings and a community hall in the area would also be HS2 would enhance economic competitiveness, support wider economic growth and maintain and enhance
demolished and a large part of St James Gardens would also be lost. Residents of some further 170 employment opportunities. In supporting economic competitiveness, the value of direct economic benefits to
dwellings would become newly exposed to the railway environment. People living here are in a relatively businesses of the service improvements HS2 would bring are estimated to be some £21.8 billion over 60
more deprived part of the country and this is likely to make them and the communities they live in particularly years; over 60 years; further direct economic benefits would be expected from the use of the capacity that is
vulnerable to these impacts. As mentioned earlier, the London Borough of Camden has set out its vision for freed on the West Coast Main Line. Both of these would create indirect economic benefits that arise when
improvements to the area around Euston and HS2 would be planned and designed to fit in with this, overall economic competitiveness is enhanced.
potentially resulting in wider social, environmental and economic benefits.
The largest economic benefits are for trips that originate in London, with around 36% of these benefits. The
Other communities affected by potential demolitions include those along the route between Old Oak next major group of beneficiaries are for trips originating in the North-west (22%) and the West Midlands
Common and West Ruislip where a total of around 20-30 residential properties would be demolished. (18%). Trips originating in the South-east and Scotland comprise 6% and 8% of these economic benefits
Works at the Hanger Lane road system in Ealing are likely also to require a number of demolitions. This respectively. Other regions also receive some small benefits.
would need to be reviewed during further scheme development.
There is also potential for HS2 to encourage businesses, directly and indirectly, to grow and prosper around
In Birmingham, some 30 dwellings would be demolished to make way for a new depot. Five student locations served by improved rail services. This includes both locations served by HS2 and locations served
accommodation blocks would be demolished within central Birmingham to make way for the new station. by the West Coast Main Line.
In a few places the route of HS2 could increase the sense of isolation of residents where properties become Businesses in London and Birmingham in particular would also be able to draw on a workforce from a wider
„islanded‟ by HS2 in combination with other roads and railways, although physical access to these areas area, and due to these workforce effects this wider area would in turn benefit economically as a result.
would be maintained. Locations so affected include the northern edge of Little Missenden, the southern
edge of Wendover and an area south of Stoke Mandeville. Economic welfare
HS2 would be expected to also benefit people making commuting, leisure and other personal journeys, and
Accessibility
support regeneration at Euston, Old Oak Common and central Birmingham. The direct economic benefits to
A number of footpaths and cycleways would be severed by the route, but it is anticipated that all would be people making these journeys are estimated as being some £11.0 billion over 60 years. These benefits are
reinstated where feasible, so permanent effects would be limited. During construction, however, severance expected to increase as options for using released capacity on the West Coast Main Line are refined.
may result in some temporary impacts.
HS2 stations adjacent to areas of deprivation are likely to provide local employment opportunities. Wider
In terms of access to public transport, households in London, Birmingham Liverpool, Manchester and benefits would arise if such stations increase the overall appeal of their vicinities for investment and
Glasgow are less likely to own cars than the population as a whole and so would benefit from the new increased development. For example, increased use of Euston is likely to have positive benefits for
services brought about by HS2. Other households in the West Midlands and Warwickshire tend to have regeneration in areas near the new station. Opportunities for enhanced commuter services on the West
quite high levels of car ownership. Although they would benefit from additional services introduced onto the Coast Main Line could support regeneration at Northampton in particular. Better connectivity with London
West Coast Main Line to take up the space vacated by intercity trains, they are unlikely to experience many would assist this.
constraints on accessibility currently. Having said that, places such as Coventry, Milton Keynes and
The Curzon Street Station and approach would have a serious impact on planned residential developments,
Northampton also include large areas of deprivation and their populations would be expected to benefit from
including at Curzon Street as part of a 130,000m2 mixed scheme including office, retail and leisure use, and
increased accessibility on the West Coast Main Line.
3
proposed developments for Birmingham City University. In the longer term these developments could be
restructured around the new high speed terminal to provide high density city centre commercial and mixed
use development.
Perhaps the best regeneration opportunity could come from a station at Old Oak Common. The interchange
between HS2 and Crossrail, along with the increased connectivity such a station could provide for
neighbouring areas, may offer significant opportunities for regeneration if supported by appropriate local
land use planning.
5. HS2 and sustainable consumption and production

HS2 would affect the land resource both adversely and beneficially. It generally supports planned land use
developments, as described above, for example at Old Oak Common and Euston, and it would result in a
number of previously developed „brownfield‟ sites, totalling some 230 hectares in extent, being brought back
to productive use.
Equally, although it would affect none of the most productive Grade 1 farmland, it would cross some 23km of
only slightly less productive Grade 2 farmland. The only significant impact to green belt is likely to arise
around the Birmingham Interchange Station, where a large section of green belt would be lost to
accommodate the station and associated facilities.
In terms of the waste generated by the scheme, particularly during its construction, almost 2 million cubic
metres of spoil would arise from tunnel excavation. This would be very costly to dispose of to landfill, and so
any opportunity to re-use this material either on other parts of the HS2 such as landscape or noise bunds, or
for other uses offsite would be sought.
In terms of the materials and resources to be used in constructing HS2, it is only possible to set out
principles at this stage. This is something that would be explored further during ongoing design. In general
it is expected that the scheme would seek to commit to using sustainable materials wherever practicable
and commercially viable; for example low carbon cement within concrete, recycled steel and aggregates, re-
used spoil, and sustainable timber. By the time that HS2 construction commences, the availability of
different high sustainability materials in the market could be fundamentally different from now.
4
Table 1 - Detailed Framework Evaluation Summary: Potential Impacts of the previously published Route 3
to Berkswell RS
Berkswell RS to
Euston to OOC
Colne Valley to
Euston Station
OOC to Colne
Coventry Gap
Coventry Gap
Rolling Stock
OOC Station
Aylesbury to
Tunnel from
Birmingham
Birmingham
interchange
West Coast
Kenilworth/
Kenilworth/
Brackley to
Curzon St
Aylesbury
Impacts
Main line
Brackley
Overall
Valley
depot
Spur
Reducing Greenhouse gas emissions and combating climate change
1. Climate Factors and Adaptability
1a) Improve resilience of rail Length of cutting through
– o o o – – – – – – o – o o
network against extreme geology vulnerable to landslip
weather events
Length of line at risk of flooding o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
2. Greenhouse Gases
2a) Contribute to the reduction Change in CO2 emissions as a This criterion has been assessed across the whole scheme, not by route section.
of greenhouse gas emissions by result of modal shift U
U*: There is a wide range in uncertainty associated with potential modal shift, which may result either in a net positive or net negative benefit.
facilitating modal shift from road
Carbon emissions from
and air to rail – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
construction (tunnel boring)
2b) Reduce relative contribution Relative efficiency in operations
made by rail to greenhouse gas b/t high speed and classic This criterion has been assessed across the whole scheme, not by route section.
emissions by applying energy trains U U*: There is a wide range in uncertainty associated with operational impacts, which may result either in a net positive or net negative benefit.
efficient technologies
Natural and cultural resource protection and environmental enhancement
3. Landscape and Townscape
3a) Maintain and enhance Landscape of national ––
o o o o –– o o o o o o o o
existing landscape character importance
Landscape of regional –
o o o – – o o o – o – o o
importance
3b) Maintain and enhance Townscape resources – – o o – – o – – – o – – –
existing townscape character
Strategically important views –– – o U U –– U – U U U U U U
4. Cultural Heritage
4a) Preserve and protect World heritage sites o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
archaeological assets
Scheduled monuments – o o o – – o – o – o o o o
4b) Preserve and protect historic Character of heritage resources ––
– o o – – – – o – –– o o –
buildings (national importance)
Character of heritage resources –
– o o – – – – – – o – o –
(regional importance)
4c) Preserve and protect historic Coherence and distinctiveness ––
landscapes of historic landscapes of
– o o o –– – –– o o o o o o
international and national
importance
Coherence and distinctiveness –
of historic landscapes of o o o o – o – o o o o o o
regional importance
5. Biodiversity
5a) Maintain and enhance Sites of international o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o
biodiversity importance
Sites of national importance – o o o o – – – o – o o o o
Sites of regional importance – o o o – – o – – – o – o o
Area of new habitat creation o + N/A + + o + + + + + + + +
6. Water Resources
6a) Protect surface water Impacts to river catchments – o o o – – – – o – o – – –
resources
Surface Water Bodies –– o o o o –– – – o –– o –– o ––
5
to Berkswell RS
Berkswell RS to
Euston to OOC
Colne Valley to
Euston Station
OOC to Colne
Coventry Gap
Coventry Gap
Rolling Stock
OOC Station
Aylesbury to
Tunnel from
Birmingham
Birmingham
interchange
West Coast
Kenilworth/
Kenilworth/
Brackley to
Curzon St
Aylesbury
Impacts
Main line
Brackley
Overall
Valley
depot
Spur
6b) Protect groundwater Groundwater resources (SPZs) –– o – – –– –– o o o – – o o o
resources
Groundwater flow in strategic ––
o o o o – –– –– o – – – – o
aquifers
7. Flood Risk
7a) Conserve and enhance the Extent of infrastructure in a 1 in –
o o o – – – – o - - – – –
capacity of floodplains a 100 year flood zone
Extent of infrastructure in a 1 in –
o o o – – – – o - o – – –
a 1000 year flood zone
Creating Sustainable Communities
8. Air quality
8a) Maintain and enhance local Change in total emissions (with U These criteria have been assessed across the whole scheme, not by route section.
air quality and without options) U*: The HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would potentially be unsupportive of the objective of maintaining and enhancing local air quality, however there is sufficient uncertainty
Stations on traffic air quality U about design details to assign „unknown‟ to these criteria.
9. Noise
9a) Maintain and enhance the Change in population ––
local noise environment potentially annoyed by U U U –– – – – – U U –– U U
operational noise
Present value benefits for ––
U U U –– – – – – U U –– U U
daytime operational residential
9b) Maintain local vibration Residential properties at risk of ––
NA – NA – – NA – NA NA NA NA NA NA
environment vibration and reradiated noise
10. Community Integrity
10a) Maintain and enhance Properties demolished or
–– –– o – – – o – – – o – – –
community integrity affected by landtake
Properties at risk of isolation – o o o o – o o – – o – o o
Properties demolished in 20%
–– –– o – o o o o o o o o – –
most deprived areas
Properties with high proportion
–– –– o – o o o o o o o – – –
of equality groups demolished
11. Accessibility
11a) Maintain and enhance Footpaths, nature trails and –
o o o o – – – – – o o o o
pedestrian access cycle paths severed
Areas of open access o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
11b) Maintain and enhance Improved access to public o
o
access to public transport transport
Improve option value +
These criteria have been assessed across the whole scheme, not by route section.
Deprived areas (20%) with + +*: The HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme is potentially supportive of the objective to maintain and enhance public transport access.
improved access to transport
11c) Maintain and enhance Potential to improve public + This criterion has been assessed across the whole scheme, not by route section.
public transport interchange transport interchanges +*: The HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme is potentially supportive of the objective to maintain and enhance public transport interchange.
Ability to accommodate mobility U U*: At this stage, insufficient information is available on detailed design to evaluate whether mobility impaired passengers would be accommodated. However, the HS2 March 2010
impaired preferred scheme is likely to be supportive of this objective.
12. Health and well being
12a) Maintain and improve Impacts on key determinants of This criterion has been assessed across the whole scheme, not by route section.
mental well-being –
mental well being o*: The HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme is potentially neither supportive nor unsupportive of the key determinants of mental well being.
No. Residential dwellings within
– – o – – – – – – – o – – –
100m of surface sections
6
to Berkswell RS
Berkswell RS to
Euston to OOC
Colne Valley to
Euston Station
OOC to Colne
Coventry Gap
Coventry Gap
Rolling Stock
OOC Station
Aylesbury to
Tunnel from
Birmingham
Birmingham
interchange
West Coast
Kenilworth/
Kenilworth/
Brackley to
Curzon St
Aylesbury
Impacts
Main line
Brackley
Overall
Valley
depot
Spur
Areas with highest 20%
U U*: There was insufficient data on areas of tranquillity available at the time of writing this report to appraise this criterion.
tranquillity
12b) Maintain and improve Potential to encourage a more
o
physical health healthy lifestyle These criteria have been assessed across the whole scheme, not by route section.
Key determinants of physical o*: The HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme is potentially neither supportive nor unsupportive of the objective of maintaining and improving physical health.
o
health
12c) Reduce health inequalities Key determinants of health This criterion has been assessed across the whole scheme, not by route section.
o
inequality o*: The HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme is potentially neither supportive nor unsupportive of the objective of reducing health inequalities.
13. Security and Safety
13a) Contribute to the reduction Change in likelihood of This criterion has been assessed across the whole scheme, not by route section.
of road traffic accidents o
accidents o*: It is not anticipated that the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would either contribute to or counteract the reduction of road traffic accidents.
13b) Protect against crime and Features that might increase U: At this stage, insufficient information is available on detailed design to evaluate whether security and safety would potentially be either supportive or unsupportive of the objective of
U
fear of crime crime protecting against crime or fear of crime
14. Economic Prosperity
14a) Support economic This criterion has been assessed across the whole scheme, not by route section.
competitiveness and make Business impacts for transport
++ ++*: The HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would by highly supportive of economic competitiveness (information has not been available with which to assess the scheme in terms of
efficient use of public funds users
whether it represents an efficient use of public funds).
14b) Support wider economic Changes in agglomerated
+ These criteria have been assessed across the whole scheme, not by route section.
growth and maintain and market competitiveness
enhance employment +*: The HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would be supportive of wider economic growth and maintaining and enhancing employment opportunities.
opportunities Labour market +
15. Economic Welfare

15a) Support wider economic Benefits for consumers and ++ This criterion has been assessed across the whole scheme, not by route section.
welfare growth commuters ++*: The HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would be highly supportive of the objective of supporting wider economic welfare growth
15b) Support planned Planned regional growth o o* o* o* o* o* o* o* o* o* o* o* o* o*
developments
Planned major housing and
sustainable housing – o* o* o* o* o* o* o* o* o* o* o* o* –*
development
Other planned major –
o* o* o* o* o* o* o* o* o* o* o* o* –*
developments
15c) Maintain and enhance Defined regeneration areas + This criterion has been assessed across the whole scheme, not by route section.
regeneration +*: The HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would be supportive of regeneration.
Sustainable Consumption and Production
16. Soil and land resources
16a) Maintain and enhance land Grade 1 and 2 agricultural land – o o o o – o – – – o o o o
resources
Length of Green Belt crossed –– o o o – – o – – – –– – o o
Land designated for mineral o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o
extraction
Waste disposal – o o o o o – o o o o o o o
16b) Encourage the use of High risk brownfield sites
+ o o o o + + + o + o + o o
brownfield sites bought back into beneficial use
17. Waste Generation
17a) Prevent and minimise Volumes on inert and non
waste production hazardous materials potentially – o – o – – o – o o o o o o
requiring off line disposal
Volumes of hazardous waste
U U: At this stage, there is insufficient data on hazardous materials and information on detailed design to evaluate volumes of hazardous waste to be treated.
potentially requiring treatment
18. Resource Use
7
to Berkswell RS
Berkswell RS to
Euston to OOC
Colne Valley to
Euston Station
OOC to Colne
Coventry Gap
Coventry Gap
Rolling Stock
OOC Station
Aylesbury to
Tunnel from
Birmingham
Birmingham
interchange
West Coast
Kenilworth/
Kenilworth/
Brackley to
Curzon St
Aylesbury
Impacts
Main line
Brackley
Overall
Valley
depot
Spur
18a) Conserve and protect Potential to make more efficient U: At this stage, insufficient information is available on detailed design (including possibilities for reuse of materials and use of recycled materials) to evaluate the extent to which the
U
primary material resources use of resources HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme is either supportive or unsupportive of the objective to conserve and protect primary material resources. However, as it would require thousands of
Potential to re-use materials U tons of steel and concrete, it can be assumed that the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would be unsupportive of this objective overall.
Note: Items marked (*) should be read with particular caution and considered in the context of data limitations associated with
these criteria.
8
Issue Equivalent Core Evaluation Criteria (Measures / Contribution option would make Commentary
NATA Sustainability Indicators) to core sustainability objective
Objective or Objective
TAG Unit -- - o + ++ U N/A
1. No NATA 1a. Length of line in cutting through geology Overall - There are no cut works in areas identified as having Significant Landslide Potential. In total 59.2km of cut track works are to be in
-
Climatic equivalent Improve resilience vulnerable to landslip. (Determined by BGS areas identified as having Moderate Landslide Potential
factors and of rail network Landslide Hazard Assessment areas
Euston station (including throat) - 0m of cut works in Significant Landslide Potential areas. 0m of cut works in Moderate Landslide Potential
adaptability against extreme "Moderate" and "Significant") o
areas.
weather events
Tunnel from Euston to Old Oak Common (OOC) - 0m of cut works in Significant Landslide Potential areas. 0m of cut works in Moderate
o
Landslide Potential areas.
OOC station (including box and throats) - 0m of cut works in Significant Landslide Potential areas. 0m of cut works in Moderate Landslide
o
Potential areas.
OOC to Colne Valley Junction - 0m of cut works in Significant Landslide Potential areas. 11,100m of cut works in Moderate Landslide
-
Potential areas.
Colne Valley Junction to Aylesbury - 0m of cut works in Significant Landslide Potential areas. 1,600m of cut works in Moderate Landslide
-
Potential areas.
Aylesbury to Brackley (A421 crossing) - 0m of cut works in Significant Landslide Potential areas. 6,900m of cut works in Moderate
-
Brackley (A421 crossing) to Kenilworth/Coventry gap - 0m of cut works in Significant Landslide Potential areas. 17,500m of cut works in
-
Moderate Landslide Potential areas.
Kenilworth/Coventry gap to Berkswell Rail Station - 0m of cut works in Significant Landslide Potential areas. 2,200m of cut works in
-
Berkswell Rail Station to West Coast Main line (Lichfield) - 0m of cut works in Significant Landslide Potential areas. 14,000m of cut works in
-
Birmingham Interchange Station (including throats) - 0m of cut works in Significant Landslide Potential areas. 0m of cut works in Moderate
o
- Birmingham spur - 0m of cut works in Significant Landslide Potential areas. 5,900m of cut works in Moderate Landslide Potential areas.
Rolling stock depot (Washwood Heath) - 0m of cut works in Significant Landslide Potential areas. 0m of cut works in Moderate Landslide
o
Potential areas.
Curzon Street station and approach - 0m of cut works in Significant Landslide Potential areas. 0m of cut works in Moderate Landslide
o
Potential areas.
Length of line at risk of flooding in Flood Overall - This route crosses a total of 16.3km of Flood Zone 3. A neutral score has been assigned to this category since the measurement of
Zone 3. (H) track within the flood plain is repeated in the Flood Risk issue. Nevertheless, the adaptability to climatic factors is certainly related to the
length of line in the flood plain, although as a strategic infrastructure the final design would allow for rare flood events and current best-
practice assumptions for climate change to ensure that the line remains unaffected by the 100-year flood, including an allowance for climate
o change. Mitigation (and resilience to flooding) is achieved by design - subject to cost and other constraints. It is theoretically possible to
virtually eliminate the risk of flooding through change in vertical alignment or tunnelling, although this is not always practical given other
sustainability constraints. Practical considerations may be to allow sections of the line to flood for given flood events (larger than 100-year
+climate change for example), but on critical sections where the consequences of flooding are particularly severe, to raise the standard of
protection to reduce any residual risk to an acceptable level.
o Euston station (including throat) - No track in Flood Zone 3
o Tunnel from Euston to Old Oak Common (OOC) - No track in Flood Zone 3
o OOC station (including box and throats) - No track in Flood Zone 3
o OOC to Colne Valley Junction - 704m of track in Flood Zone 3
o Colne Valley Junction to Aylesbury – 2,745m of track in Flood Zone 3
o Aylesbury to Brackley (A421 crossing) – 1,576m of track in Flood Zone 3
o Brackley (A421 crossing) to Kenilworth/Coventry gap – 2,493m of track in Flood Zone 3
o Kenilworth/Coventry gap to Berkswell Rail Station - No track in Flood Zone 3
o Berkswell Rail Station to West Coast Main line (Lichfield) – 2,496m of track in Flood Zone 3
o Birmingham Interchange Station (including throats) - 75m of track in Flood Zone 3
o Birmingham spur – 5,990m of track in Flood Zone 3
o Rolling stock depot (Washwood Heath) - The depot curtilage is within not within Flood Zone 3
o Curzon Street station and approach - 271m of track in Flood Zone 3
9
2. Greenhouse Reduce 2a. Change in CO2 equivalent (CO2e) Operational Carbon (60 year lifetime): -12 to +14.6 MtCO2e.
gases greenhouse Contribute to the emissions released as a result of modal The range of uncertainty associated with these estimates is significant and may result in the net carbon emissions over the 60 year lifetime
U
gases. See reduction of shift achieved from conventional rail/road being positive or negative. (Outlined in the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Appendix 2.5).
also TAG Unit greenhouse gas and flights to high speed rail.
3.3.5 emissions by Carbon emissions resulting from Total Embedded Carbon for the March 2010 preferred scheme is estimated to be 874,600 tonnes CO2 (of which an estimated 181,000
Greenhouse facilitating modal construction in terms of embedded carbon tonnes CO2 is as a result of tunnels). Carbon from tunnels accounts for approximately 20% of the overall Total Embedded Carbon.
Gases Sub- shift from road and and carbon emissions resulting from tunnel Embedded Carbon represents the energy used in the manufacture of the scheme, including energy from the materials used to build the rails,
Objective and air to rail boring rail driveway, stations, viaducts, tunnels and energy from tunnel boring.
TAG Unit -
3.5.4 CBA Embedded carbon numbers reported in the framework are for the purpose of sifting the different routes at the optioneering stage of the
study. The embedded carbon numbers reported in the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Appendix 2.5 were calculated as part of a more detailed
analysis. This detailed analysis also took into account carbon emissions from the transport of bulk materials and carbon emissions from the
transportation of spoil material.
- Euston station (including throat) - estimated to be 17,100 tonnes CO2.
Tunnel from Euston to Old Oak Common (OOC) – estimated to be 95,100 tonnes CO2, (of which an estimated 74,000 tonnes CO2 is as a
-
result of tunnels).
- OOC station (including box and throats) – estimated to be 11,600 tonnes CO2.
- OOC to Colne Valley Junction – estimated to be 71,700, (of which an estimated 24,500 tonnes CO2 is as a result of tunnels).
Colne Valley Junction to Aylesbury – estimated to be 183,700 tonnes CO2, (of which an estimated 72,900 tonnes CO2 is as a result of
-
tunnels)
- Aylesbury to Brackley (A421 crossing) – estimated to be 76,900 tonnes CO2.
Brackley (A421 crossing) to Kenilworth/Coventry gap – estimated to be 169,000 tonnes CO2, (of which an estimated 9,600 tonnes CO2 is as
-
a result of tunnels).
- Kenilworth/Coventry gap to Berkswell Rail Station - estimated to be 10,500 tonnes CO2.
- Berkswell Rail Station to West Coast Mainline (Lichfield) - estimated to be 138,400 tonnes CO2.
- Birmingham Interchange Station (including throats) - estimated to be 11,600 tonnes CO2.

- Birmingham spur - estimated to be 65,800 tonnes CO2.
- Rolling stock depot (Washwood Heath) - estimated to be 11,600 tonnes CO2.
- Curzon Street station and approach - estimated to be 11,600 tonnes CO2.
2b. Relative efficiency in operations between The development of a new rail infrastructure allows for design measures to reduce electrical demand from individual Traction Motor Units
Reduce relative high speed trains and rolling stock and (TMUs) and the HS2 route as a whole. These design measures include track alignment (gradients and curves) and TMU aerodynamics
contribution made classic trains although the greatest efficiency gains are associated with on-TMU or trackside capture of electricity generated by TMUs when braking.
by rail to Retrofit of these design features within the existing rail infrastructure would inevitably be limited and the efficiency gains would not be as
greenhouse gas U great as for HS2.
emissions by
applying energy
efficient
technologies
Natural and cultural and resource protection and environmental enhancement
3. Protect and 3a. Impacts on the coherence and Overall - The route has direct and indirect impacts on landscape areas of national importance, including travelling directly through the
--
Landscape enhance Maintain and distinctiveness of landscape resources of Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty for 14.1km.
and landscape. enhance existing national importance crossed by surface or
o Euston station (including throat) - No direct/ indirect physical/ visual impact on any landscape of national importance
Townscape See also TAG landscape cut and cover sections, e.g. AONBs, ASVs,
Unit 3.3.7 character Special Landscape Areas, National Parks, o Tunnel from Euston to Old Oak Common (OOC) - No direct/indirect physical/ visual impact on any landscape of national importance
Landscape National Scenic Areas (Scotland).
o OOC station (including box and throats) - No direct/ indirect physical/ visual impact on any landscape of national importance
and TAG Unit (E, H)
3.3.6 o OOC to Colne Valley Junction - No direct/ indirect physical/ visual impact on any landscape of national importance
Environmental
Capital Colne Valley Junction to Aylesbury - 4.4km length of track would lie within a 3km zone of visual influence (ZVI) of the Chilterns AONB and
-- 14.1km with a direct physical impact, traversing through the area. 9.3km is located in cutting and 5.2km is in close proximity to the A413.
6.5km of the route would pass through the Chilterns in tunnel.
o Aylesbury to Brackley (A421 crossing) - No direct/ indirect physical/ visual impact on any landscape of national / importance
o Brackley (A421 crossing) to Kenilworth/Coventry gap - No direct/indirect physical/visual impact on any landscape of national / regional
10
importance
Kenilworth/Coventry gap to Berkswell Rail Station - No direct/ indirect physical/visual impact on any landscape of national/ regional
o
importance
o Berkswell Rail Station to West Coast Main line (Lichfield) - No direct/indirect physical/visual impact on any landscape of national importance
o Birmingham Interchange Station (including throats) - No direct/ indirect physical/visual impact on any landscape of national importance
o Birmingham spur route - No direct/indirect physical/visual impact on any landscape of national l importance
o Rolling stock depot (Washwood Heath) - No direct/indirect physical/visual impact on any landscape of national importance
o Curzon Street station and approach - No direct/indirect physical/visual impact on any landscape of national importance
Impacts on the coherence and Overall - The route has an indirect impact on a number of areas of regional importance, including multiple areas designated as country
-
distinctiveness of landscape resources of parks.
regional importance crossed by surface or
o Euston station (including throat) - No direct/indirect physical/visual impact on any landscape of regional importance
cut and cover sections, e.g. country parks,
Regional Landscape Designations o Tunnel from Euston to Old Oak Common (OOC) - No direct/indirect physical/visual impact on any landscape of regional importance
(Scotland)
o OOC station (including box and throats) - No direct/indirect physical/visual impact on any landscape of regional importance
(E, H)
OOC to Colne Valley Junction - 1.1km and 2.25km length of track would lie within a 3km zone of visual influence of the Denham Country
-
Park and Bayhurst Wood Country Park respectively.
Colne Valley Junction to Aylesbury - The route also would lie within a 3km zone of visual influence of the Denham and Bayhurst Wood
-
Country parks (4.2km and 4.5km respectively)
o Aylesbury to Brackley (A421 crossing) - No direct/indirect physical/visual impact on any landscape of regional importance
o Brackley (A421 crossing) to Kenilworth/Coventry gap - No direct/indirect physical/visual impact on any landscape of regional importance
o Kenilworth/Coventry gap to Berkswell Rail Station - No direct/indirect physical/visual impact on any landscape of regional importance
Berkswell Rail Station to West Coast Main line (Lichfield) - 2.2km, 2.2km and 7.5km length of track would lie within a 3km zone of visual
-
influence of the Sheldon Country Park, Kingfisher Country Park and Kingsbury Water Park respectively.
o Birmingham Interchange Station (including throats) - No direct/indirect physical/visual impact on any landscape of regional importance
- Birmingham spur - 13km length of track would lie within a 3km zone of visual influence of the Kingfisher Country Park.
o Rolling stock depot (Washwood Heath) - No direct/indirect physical/visual impact on any landscape of regional importance
o Curzon Street station and approach - No direct/indirect physical/visual impact on any landscape of regional importance
Protect and 3b. Impacts on the coherence and Overall - The corridor begins at Euston station where it has a direct impact on a number of modern and historic buildings and important
enhance Maintain and distinctiveness of townscape resources public open spaces surrounding the station building. The route is in tunnel as it passes through London to Old Oak Common Station and
townscape. enhance existing crossed by surface or cut and cover through Hammersmith and Fulham. The route passes on surface through a number of London Boroughs, established residential areas and
See also TAG townscape sections - Ruislip local centre and commercial areas. As the route passes between Aylesbury to Brackley in predominantly open countryside there
Unit 3.3.8 character (E, H) are no significant townscape impacts. As the route approaches the West Midlands it impacts upon the residential edge of Kenilworth,
Townscape Coleshill and employment areas within Birmingham. The route approaches Curzon Station through established industrial areas some of
Sub Objective local historical importance.
and TAG Unit
Euston station (including throat) - The corridor approach would have a major direct impact on the established residential structures west of
3.3.6
the station through the removal of Cardington Street/Melton Street and surrounding buildings. A number of both modern and historic
Environmental -
buildings and important green and public open spaces including St James's Gardens and the station plaza would be physically affected.
Capital
The station would bring about a significant change to the setting of the historically significant Euston Square Gardens.
Tunnel from Euston to Old Oak Common (OOC) - Overall length of corridor is 7.8km all of which is in tunnel. No direct/ indirect impact on
o
major settlements.
OOC station (including box and throats) - The route directly impacts a large scale Carriage Shed within the existing rail sidings. No major
o
townscape impacts are anticipated.
OOC to Colne Valley Junction - The overall length of the corridor is 23.8km of which 2.6km is in tunnel running under Hammersmith and
Fulham. The route has a direct impact on settlements including: LB Ealing (affected by 8.8km of the route), LB Brent (affected by 10km of
the route) and LB Hillingdon (affected by 5km of the route). This includes a direct impact on 'big box' industrial and business units within
-
Park Royal and Perivale Park, established residential development adjacent to the railway lines within Sudbury, Perivale and Northolt. The
corridor also directly impacts upon Ruislip local centre and commercial/industrial and established residential areas adjacent to the railway
lines. Harrow is within 300m of the route and is indirectly affected by 130m of the route.
Colne Valley Junction to Aylesbury - Overall length of corridor is 38.5km of which 10.7km is in tunnel. This route section would have a direct
- impact on 1.2km of the urban edge of Wendover which comprises large modern detached houses in ribbon development and indirect
impacts at Aylesbury (affected by 500m of the route) and a large detached house in ribbon development on the eastern edge of the historic
11
hamlet of Lower Hartwell. Settlements within 300m of the route include: Aylesbury – south western edge, modern residential areas of
Coldharbour and Southcote (affected by 2.3km of the route), Wendover, South Heath - western edge wooded area and cluster of houses
(affected by 1.1km of the route), Hillingdon (affected by 150m of the route), Denham Green (affected by 1km of the route), Amersham
(affected by 100m of the route) and Wendover (affected by 1.8km of the route).
o Aylesbury to Brackley (A421 crossing) - Overall length of corridor is 27km. No direct/ indirect impact on major settlements.
Brackley (A421 crossing) to Kenilworth/Coventry gap - Overall length of corridor is 54.4km, of which 1.4km is in tunnel. Route would have a
direct impact on the major settlements of: Brackley which includes existing employment properties in Brackley East (affected by 310m of the
route), Greatworth Trading Estate (affected by 130m of the route) and Chipping Warden along its northern edge which includes a number of
- semi-detached houses within a designated Conservation Area (affected by 170m of the route). The historic village of Stoneleigh, also a
designated conservation area would be affected by the route (around 0.5km). Settlements within 300m of the route include: Kenilworth
(affected by 0.4km of the route), Brackley (affected by 1km of the route), Greatworth (affected by 0.5km of the route) and Chipping Warden
(affected by 0.78km of the route).
Kenilworth/Coventry gap to Berkswell Rail Station - Overall length 3.7km. The route has a direct impact on the village of Burton Green,
- Coventry which includes large semi-detached and detached houses (affected by 0.42km of the route). The south western edge of Coventry
(Gibbet Hill) is also within the wider study area and indirectly affected by 0.67km of the route.
Berkswell Rail Station to West Coast Main line (Lichfield) - Overall length of corridor is 40.8km. The route has a direct impact on the major
settlements of: Birmingham - eastern edge which includes the Birmingham Business Park (affected by 0.65km of the route), Coleshill Hall,
(North Warwickshire) - four pairs of brick built semi-detached houses within an industrial area at Minworth (affected by 0.57km of the route)
- and Lichfield - large scale business units within Britannia Enterprise Park and a depot on the edge of Steethay village (affected by 0.87km of
the route). Settlements within the wider study area of 300m include: Balsall Common (affected by 1.5km of the route), the north eastern
edge of the village of Hampton in Arden (affected by 0.5km of the route), Birmingham (affected by 1.67km of the route), Coleshill (North
Warwickshire) (affected by 1.2km of the route) and Lichfield (affected by 2.5km of the route).
Birmingham Interchange Station (including throats) - situated in a triangle of green land enclosed by roads on the eastern edge of
o
Birmingham. No townscape impacts anticipated.
Birmingham spur - Overall length of corridor is 25.6km. The route has a direct impact on the major settlements of: Birmingham which
includes the Birmingham Business Park (affected by 6.5km of the route), Coleshill (North Warwickshire) - farm and short row of semi-
detached houses (affected by 0.45km of the route), Water Orton - four pairs of linked semi-detached houses in ribbon development (affected
-
by 0.2km of the route) and Sutton Coldfield (affected by 0.1km of the route). The route also directly impacts upon Castle Bromwich
Business Park. Settlements within the wider study area of 300m include: Birmingham (affected by 2.75km of the route), Coleshill (North
Warwickshire) (affected by 0.95km of the route), Sutton Coldfield (affected by 0.88km of the route) and Water Orton 2.25km of the route).
Rolling stock depot (Washwood Heath) - The depot site would have a direct impact on an established industrial area incorporating large
-
scale warehouse, storage and distribution uses with associated areas of surface parking adjacent to the M6 motorway.
Curzon Street station and approach - Overall length of the corridor approach is 2.1km cutting through Birmingham. The route directly
impacts a number of warehouses and works and a public house on its approach to the terminus. The area is dominated by surface car
- parking areas, fragmented townscape and poorly defined green spaces. Freeman Street and Seymour Street have retained some of its
industrial heritage and townscape quality which includes a prominent corner warehouse building (at the junction of Seymour and Albert
Street) although much of the integrity of the surrounding block structure has also been lost to „gap sites‟ and surface parking areas.
Strategically important views and/or key Overall - views to and from designated Conservation Areas may be affected by the route at Euston Station, and around the villages of Lower
--
vistas physically affected Hartwell and Stoneleigh.
(E, H)
Euston station (including throat) - The station would lie within the strategic view corridor from Primrose Hill to St Paul's Cathedral and within
the background assessment area of the strategic view corridors from Greenwich and Blackheath. Views to and from surrounding
Conservation Areas (Bloomsbury, Camden Town and Regents Park), and towards landmark buildings may be physically affected. In
particular, views along Cardington Street on the western edge of the station building towards key landmarks such as the Government
-
Offices and Bloomsbury Garden of Friends House within Bloomsbury Conservation Area are likely to be affected by the major changes
proposed for the Station. The scale of any proposed development around the Carriage shed to the west of the station should also be
sensitive to the views and setting of Camden Town conservation area, in particular, the panoramic views from Mornington Terrace across
the railway cutting to the south are identified as a key view in the conservation area character appraisal.
o Tunnel from Euston to Old Oak Common (OOC) - no impact on views as the corridor is in tunnel.
U OOC station (including box and throats) – Local data available does not highlight any strategic views.
U OOC to Colne Valley Junction - Local data available does not highlight any strategic views.
Colne Valley Junction to Aylesbury - The route is likely to directly impact upon the linear view to and from Hartwell House (Grade I Listed),
-- Lower Hartwell. Note: It is not known whether the view is statutorily protected or its national/ regional importance although as the wider
estate is designated as a Historic Park and Garden this is highly likely.
U Aylesbury to Brackley (A421 crossing) - No documented information available from local authorities
- Brackley (A421 crossing) to Kenilworth/Coventry gap - Stoneleigh Village - The open views across Motslow Hill to the south from Vicarage
12
Road are important to the maintenance of the character of the Conservation Area. There is likely to be a direct impact by the route in this
location.
U Kenilworth/Coventry gap to Berkswell Rail Station - No documented information provided by local authorities
U Berkswell Rail Station to West Coast Main line (Lichfield) - No documented information available from local authorities
U Birmingham Interchange Station (including throats) - No documented information available from local authorities
U Birmingham spur - Local data available does not highlight any strategic views.
U Rolling stock depot (Washwood Heath) - Local data available does not highlight any strategic views.
U Curzon Street station and approach - Local data available does not highlight any strategic views.
4. Protect the 4a. Impacts on World Heritage Sites and other o Overall - No World Heritage Sites lie within the station footprints, route impact corridor or the 350m buffer area.
Cultural heritage of Preserve and assets of acknowledged international
o Euston station (including throat) - No World Heritage Sites lie within the station footprint or the 350m buffer area.
heritage historic protect importance(E)
resources See archaeological o Tunnel from Euston to Old Oak Common (OOC) - No World Heritage Sites lie within the impact corridor or the 350m buffer area.
also TAG Unit assets
3.3.9 and TAG o OOC station (including box and throats) - No World Heritage Sites lie within the impact corridor or the 350m buffer area.
Unit 3.3.6 o OOC to Colne Valley Junction - No World Heritage Sites lie within the 100m impact corridor or the 350m buffer area.
Envt Capital
o Colne Valley Junction to Aylesbury - No World Heritage Sites lie within the 100m impact corridor or the 350m buffer area.
o Aylesbury to Brackley (A421 crossing) - No World Heritage Sites lie within the 100m impact corridor or the 350m buffer area.
o Brackley (A421 crossing) to Kenilworth/Coventry gap - No World Heritage Sites lie within the 100m impact corridor or the 350m buffer area.
o Kenilworth/Coventry gap to Berkswell Rail Station - No World Heritage Sites lie within the 100m impact corridor or the 350m buffer area.
Berkswell Rail Station to West Coast Main line (Lichfield) - No World Heritage Sites lie within the 100m impact corridor or the 350m buffer
o
area.
o Birmingham Interchange Station (including throats) - No World Heritage Sites lie within the station footprint or the 350m buffer area.
o Birmingham spur - No World Heritage Sites lie within the impact corridor or the 350m buffer area.
o Rolling stock depot (Washwood Heath) - No World Heritage Sites lie within the depot footprint or the 350m buffer area.
o Curzon Street station and approach - No World Heritage Sites lie within the station footprint or the 350m buffer area.
Impacts on Scheduled Monuments (SMs) Overall- One (1) Scheduled Monument, Buckinghamshire Grim's Ditch, would be physically impacted by the route. Five (5) Scheduled
crossed by surface or cut and cover - Monuments lie within the 350m buffer area. (Brakenbury Farm Moated Site, Mound with ditch near Savay Farm, Roman Villa near Chipping
sections. Warden, Lower Thorpe Bowl Barrow, Moated Site near Middelton Farm).
(E)
o Euston station (including throat) - No Scheduled Monuments lie within the station footprint or the 350m buffer area.
o Tunnel from Euston to Old Oak Common (OOC) - No Scheduled Monuments would be impacted by tunnel
o OOC station (including box and throats) - No Scheduled Monuments lie within the impact area or the 350m buffer area
OOC to Colne Valley Junction - No Scheduled Monuments lie within the impact area. One (1) Scheduled Monument is located within the
-
350m buffer area (Brakenbury Farm Moated Site).
Colne Valley Junction to Aylesbury – One (1) Scheduled Monument, Buckinghamshire Grim's Ditch, would be physically impacted by the
- route. One (1) further Scheduled Monument would lie within the 350m buffer area (Mound with Ditch and Outer Bank 200ft South of Savay
Farm).
o Aylesbury to Brackley (A421 crossing) - No Scheduled Monuments lie within the impact corridor or the 350m buffer area
Brackley (A421 crossing) to Kenilworth/Coventry gap - No Scheduled Monuments lie within the impact corridor. Two (2) Scheduled
-
Monuments lie within the 350m buffer area (Roman Villa near Chipping Warden, Lower Thorpe Bowl Barrow)
o Kenilworth/Coventry gap to Berkswell Rail Station - No Scheduled Monuments lie within the impact corridor or the 350m buffer area
Berkswell Rail Station to West Coast Main line (Lichfield) - No Scheduled Monuments lie within the impact corridor. One (1) Scheduled
-
Monument would lie within the 350m buffer area (Moated Site near Middelton Farm).
o Birmingham Interchange Station (including throats) - No Scheduled Monuments lie within the impact corridor or the 350m buffer area
o Birmingham spur - No Scheduled Monuments lie within the impact corridor or the 350m buffer area
o Rolling stock depot (Washwood Heath) - No Scheduled Monuments lie within the impact corridor or the 350m buffer area
o Curzon Street station and approach - No Scheduled Monuments lie within the impact corridor or the 350m buffer area
13
4b. Impacts on the character of heritage Overall - No Grade I listed buildings lie within the physical impact corridor. One (1) Grade II* (Park Farmhouse) would be impacted by a
Preserve and resources of national importance crossed -- proposed road at Birmingham Interchange Station; however, detailed planning may avoid impacts to this building. 11 Grade I and 26 Grade
protect historic by surface or cut and cover sections II* listed buildings lie in the 350m buffer area.
buildings (Grade I and II* Listed Buildings, Scotland
Euston station (including throat) - No Grade I or II* Listed buildings lie within the station footprint. Within the 350m buffer area there are
Category A)
- seven (7) Grade I and 14 Grade II* listed buildings, one (1) of which (194a Euston Road) would lie immediately outside the proposed station
(E, H)
footprint.
o Tunnel from Euston to Old Oak Common (OOC) - No Grade I or II* listed buildings would be impacted by tunnel
o OOC station (including box and throats) - No Grade I or II* listed buildings within the impact corridor or 350m buffer zone
OOC to Colne Valley Junction - No Grade I or II* listed buildings would be physically impacted upon. Two (2) Grade II* listed buildings lie
-
within the 350m buffer area (main front block and canteen block, Hoover Factory)
Colne Valley Junction to Aylesbury - No Grade I or II* listed buildings lie in the physical impact corridor. One (1) Grade I (Savay Farm, the
- Savay;)and three (3) Grade II* listed buildings (Church of St Mary, Lychgate and Churchyard Wall to St Mary‟s Church, and Pavilion (The
Cot) south east of Hartwell House) lie within the 350m buffer area
Aylesbury to Brackley (A421 crossing) - No Grade I or II* listed buildings lie in the physical impact corridor. Two (2) Grade I listed buildings
-
lie within the 350m buffer area (Church of St Mary and St Nicolas)
Brackley (A421 crossing) to Kenilworth/Coventry gap - No Grade I or II* listed buildings lie within the physical impact corridor or within the
-
350m buffer area. However the Grade II* Stare bridge would lie within 370m and may receive indirect impacts.
o Kenilworth/Coventry gap to Berkswell Rail Station - No Grade I or II* listed buildings within the impact corridor or 350m buffer zone
Berkswell Rail Station to West Coast Main line (Lichfield) - No Grade I or II* listed buildings lie within the impact corridor. Three (2) Grade II*
-
listed buildings lie within the 350m buffer area (Lavendar Hill Farmhouse and Diddington Farmhouse).
Birmingham Interchange Station (including throats) - No Grade I listed buildings lie within the physical impact corridor. One (1) Grade II*
-- listed building (Park Farmhouse) would lie underneath proposed carpark/road; however, detailed design may avoind impacting this feature.
No Grade I or Grade II* buildings lie within the 350m buffer area
o Birmingham spur - No Grade I or II* listed buildings within the impact corridor or 350m buffer zone
o Rolling stock depot (Washwood Heath) - No Grade I or II* listed buildings within the impact corridor or 350m buffer zone
Curzon Street station and approach - No Grade I or II* listed buildings lie within the station footprint. One (1) Grade I (British Rail Goods
- Office (Curzon Street Station) and four (4) Grade II* listed buildings (Birmingham Gun Barrel Proof House, Parish Church of St Martin,
Monument to Lord Nelson and City Arcade) lie within the 350m buffer area.
Impacts on the character of heritage Overall - 16 Grade II listed structures would be physically impacted. 314 Grade II Listed buildings are located within the 350m buffer. Direct
resources of regional importance crossed - impacts to the Hartwell Conservation Area and Warwick Bar Conservation Area. There may also be direct adverse physical impacts on the
by surface or cut and cover sections, e.g. Bloomsbury Conservation Area. A further 11 Conservation areas are located within the 350m buffer.
Conservation Areas, Grade II Listed
Euston station (including throat) – six (6) Grade II listed structures would be physically impacted upon, which include Stature to Robert
Buildings,
Stephenson in Euston Station forecourt, 14-15 Melton Street and attached railings, 9 Melton Street and attached railings, railings around
(E, H)
Euston Square Gardens, Parkway Tunnel and Cutting near the station throat, and Drinking Fountain in St James Gardens. Two more listed
objects reside in St James Gardens which fall outside the station footprint but may be physically affected during construction. Potentially,
-
the monuments at St James Garden‟s could be relocated to any remaining areas of St James‟ Garden, or to any compensatory open spaces
created by the scheme. Possible effects on the setting of part of Bloomsbury Conservation area, including physical impacts due to
construction activities adjacent to the Station. Within the 350m buffer area there are 155 Grade II listed buildings. Possible slight negative
impacts on Camden Town and Regents Park Conservation Areas.
o Tunnel from Euston to Old Oak Common (OOC) - No Grade II listed buildings be impacted by tunnel
o OOC station (including box and throats) - No Grade II listed buildings are within the physical impact corridor or 350m buffer area
OOC to Colne Valley Junction - No Grade II listed buildings are within the physical impact corridor. Nine (9) Grade II listed buildings within
-
the 350m buffer area
Colne Valley Junction to Aylesbury - One (1) Grade II listed building would lie within the impact corridor (Glebe House). 63 Grade II listed
buildings lie within the 350m buffer area. Direct impacts to the Hartwell Conservation Area which is located around Hartwell House. Sections
-
of the conservation area would be severed and the setting would be severely impacted, Three (3) Conservation Areas are located within the
350m buffer (Wendover, Amersham Old Town and Shardeloes Parkland)
Aylesbury to Brackley (A421 crossing) - No Grade II listed buildings are within the physical impact corridor. 13 Grade II listed buildings within
-
the 350m buffer area. Two (2) Conservation Areas within the 350m buffer, (Chetwode and Turweston).
Brackley (A421 crossing) to Kenilworth/Coventry gap - One (1) Grade II listed building would lie within the physical impact corridor (4-5
- Strareton Village). 43 Grade II listed buildings within the 350m buffer area. Two (2) Conservation Areas within the 350m buffer (Chipping
Warden and Stoneleigh).
14
Kenilworth/Coventry gap to Berkswell Rail Station - No Grade II listed buildings are within the physical impact corridor. One (1) Grade II
-
listed building within the 350m buffer area
Berkswell Rail Station to West Coast Main line (Lichfield) – Four (4) Grade II listed buildings lie within the physical impact corridor (Barn at
- Lavendar Hall Farm, Coleshill Hall Farmhouse, a Barn approx. 20m south east of Dunton Hall, and Dunton Hall itself). 12 Grade II listed
buildings within the 350m buffer area
o Birmingham Interchange Station (including throats) - No Grade II listed buildings lie within the physical impact corridor or 350m buffer area
Birmingham Spur - One (1) Grade II listed building is within the physical impact corridor (Coleshill Hall Farmhouse). One (1) Grade II listed
-
building within the 350m buffer area. One (1) Conservation Area within the 350m buffer, (Water Orton).
o Rolling stock depot (Washwood Heath) - No Grade II listed buildings are within the physical impact corridor or 350m buffer area.
Curzon Street station and approach – three (3) Grade II listed buildings lie within the physical impact area (Fox and Grapes Public House,
Section of railway bridge into Curzon Street Station over Digbeth Branch Canal, and Lawley Street Railway Viaduct), but it may be possible
- to avoid direct impact upon them. 17 Grade II listed buildings lie within the 350m buffer area. Negative impacts on the historic fabric of
Warwick Bar Conservation which would lie within the physical impact area. Potential negative visual impacts to the nearby Digbeth/Deritend
Conservation Areas which falls within the 350m buffer.
4c. Impacts on the coherence and Overall – three (3) Grade II* Registered parks and gardens are located within the physical impact corridor. Two (2) Grade I Registered parks
--
Preserve and distinctiveness of historic landscapes of are located within the 350m buffer area
protect historic international and national importance e.g.
- Euston station (including throat) - One (1) Grade I park, Regents Park, is located within the 350m buffer area
landscapes Grade I and II* Registered Parks and
Gardens, Registered Battlefields o Tunnel from Euston to Old Oak Common (OOC) - in tunnel so no impact on historic landscapes
(E, H)
OOC station (including box and throats) - No Grade I or II* Registered parks and gardens within the physical impact corridor or 350m buffer
o
area
o OOC to Colne Valley Junction - No Grade I or II* Registered parks and gardens within the physical impact corridor or 350m buffer area
Colne Valley Junction to Aylesbury - Two (2) Grade II* Registered parks and gardens within the physical impact corridor (Shardeloes and
--
Hartwell House). None within the 350m buffer area
Aylesbury to Brackley (A421 crossing) - No Grade I or II* Registered parks and gardens within the physical impact corridor. One (1) Grade I
-
park, Waddesdon Manor, just extends into the 350m buffer area
Brackley (A421 crossing) to Kenilworth/Coventry gap - One Grade II* Registered park and garden within the physical impact corridor
--
(Stoneleigh Abbey). None within the 350m buffer area
Kenilworth/Coventry gap to Berkswell Rail Station - No Grade I or II* Registered parks and gardens within the physical impact corridor or
o
350m buffer area
Berkswell Rail Station to West Coast Main line (Lichfield) - No Grade I or II* Registered parks and gardens within the physical impact
o
corridor or 350m buffer area
Birmingham Interchange Station (including throats) - No Grade I or II* Registered parks and gardens within the physical impact corridor or
o
350m buffer area
o Birmingham spur - No Grade I or II* Registered parks and gardens within the physical impact corridor or 350m buffer area
Rolling stock depot (Washwood Heath) - No Grade I or II* Registered parks and gardens within the physical impact corridor or 350m buffer
o
area
o Curzon Street station and approach - No Grade I or II* Registered parks and gardens within the physical impact corridor or 350m buffer area
Impacts on the coherence and Note: Two undesignated historic landscapes of potentially regional importance would be physically impacted upon, which are the Chilterns
-
distinctiveness of historic landscapes of and the Northamptonshire Uplands.
regional importance, e.g. Grade II
o Euston station (including throat) – No historic landscapes of regional importance are affected
Registered Parks and Gardens
o Tunnel from Euston to Old Oak Common (OOC) No historic landscapes of regional importance are affected
o OOC station (including box and throats) - No historic landscapes of regional importance are affected
o OOC to Colne Valley Junction - No historic landscapes of regional importance are affected
Colne Valley Junction to Aylesbury - One (1) undesignated historic landscape of potentially regional importance (Chilterns) would lie within
-
the impact corridor.
o Aylesbury to Brackley (A421 crossing) - No historic landscapes of regional importance are affected
Brackley (A421 crossing) to Kenilworth/Coventry gap - One (1) undesignated historic landscape of potentially regional importance
-
(Northamptonshire Uplands) would lie within the physical impact corridor.
o Kenilworth/Coventry gap to Berkswell Rail Station - No historic landscapes of regional importance are affected
15
o Berkswell Rail Station to West Coast Main line (Lichfield) - No historic landscapes of regional importance are affected
o Birmingham Interchange Station (including throats) - No historic landscapes of regional importance are affected
o Birmingham spur - No historic landscapes of regional importance are affected
o Rolling stock depot (Washwood Heath) - No historic landscapes of regional importance are affected
o Curzon Street station and approach - No historic landscapes of regional importance are affected
5. Support 5a. Impacts on sites of international importance Overall - There are no direct effects on any sites of international importance and there are not likely to be significant indirect effects.
Biodiversity biodiversity Maintain and crossed by surface or cut and cover o However in the case of the River Mease SAC works affecting any tributaries flowing towards the Tame must be carried out to avoid impacts
See also TAG enhance sections, e.g. SACs and candidate SACs on otters that may use these water courses.
Unit 3.3.10 biodiversity (cSAC), SPAs and potential SPAs (pSPA)
o Euston station (including throat) – No significant effect
Biodiversity and Ramsar sites.
Sub-objective (E) o Tunnel from Euston to Old Oak Common (OOC) - No significant effects
and TAG Unit
o OOC station (including box and throats) - No significant effects
3.3.6
OOC to Colne Valley Junction - Windsor Forest and Great Park SAC is 8,350 metres from the centreline of the LoR. The qualifying features
o
are woodland habitats and an invertebrate associated with ancient trees. There is no potential for adverse effects as a result of the scheme.
o Colne Valley Junction to Aylesbury - No significant effects
o Aylesbury to Brackley (A421 crossing) - No significant effects
o Brackley (A421 crossing) to Kenilworth/Coventry gap - No significant effects
o Kenilworth/Coventry gap to Berkswell Rail Station - No significant effects
Berkswell Rail Station to West Coast Main line (Lichfield) - the centreline of the LoR would lie approximately 8.6 and 6.6 kilometres from
Cannock Chase and the River Mease SACs respectively. One of the qualifying features for Cannock Chase is Northern Atlantic wet heaths
with cross leaved heath Erica tetralix, which is potentially vulnerable to changes in ground water flows. This habitat is confined to valley
bottom situations within the site, and the extent to which it depends on local and more distant hydrology is not known. However the distance
of the route and the lack of any tunnelled sections north of Birmingham suggest that any adverse effects on hydrology are very unlikely. The
River Mease is of European significance in terms of habitat quality and for populations of otter, white clawed crayfish and two species of fish
(bullhead and spined loach). White clawed crayfish and both fish species require clean, well oxygenated water and have specific habitat
preferences in terms of bank structure, and channel substrates and vegetation. All of these species have limited capacity for dispersal. Otter
o have large territories and are highly mobile, and are susceptible to habitat fragmentation, death and injury if their habitat is affected by
transport schemes. There are no direct impacts on the SAC but indirect effects could arise via tributaries from sedimentation and pollution,
killing otter or fragmentation of non SPA supporting habitat for otter. However, it is considered very unlikely that any significant adverse
effects on the integrity of the SAC would arise. The Mease is a tributary of the Tame and the Tame would lie between the route and the
SAC. This precludes any inputs into the SAC during construction or operation. Although all of the aforementioned species may occur in
tributaries lying between the route and the Tame there it is highly unlikely that that they support populations of international significance but
would be of regional significance. The potential for habitat degradation of non SAC habitat would be avoided through measures to protect
tributaries during construction and by ensuring that bridge design and construction methods have minimal impacts on habitats, or the
movement of otter.
o Birmingham Interchange Station (including throats) - No significant effects
o Birmingham spur - No significant effects
o Rolling stock depot (Washwood Heath) - No significant effects
o Curzon Street station and approach - No significant effects
Impacts on sites of national importance Overall - A single SSSI would experience partial land-take by the scheme. Moderate habitat loss would occur at one other site and minor
crossed by surface or cut and cover - loss at two others. Significant bird disturbance is likely to occur at one site. In the context of the entire scheme, damage to SSSIs has been
sections, e.g. SSSIs, Geological SSSIs, largely avoided and effects are thought to be minor adverse.
NNRs.
o Euston station (including throat) - no significant effects
(E)
o Tunnel from Euston to Old Oak Common (OOC) - no significant effects
o OOC station (including box and throats) - no significant effects
OOC to Colne Valley Junction - No significant effects, the nearest SSSI/NNR is Ruislip Woods designated for the presence of large areas of
ancient woodland on clay substrates, as well as areas of grassland. It is important for woodland birds and invertebrates, as well as for its
o
flora. At is closest the centreline of the LoR is 1,634 metres away in cutting. It is not likely to result in disturbance or changes to hydrology. It
is entirely to the south of the SSSI/NNR and would not cause additional fragmentation to the constituent parts of the site.
16
Colne Valley Junction to Aylesbury - At its closest point this section of the centreline of the LoR is 1,056m from Ruislip Woods SSSI/NNR
and is in cutting. The route would not result in habitat loss, fragmentation or indirect effects to Ruislip Woods. The route crosses the
southern and eastern-most part of the Mid Colne Valley SSSI on a viaduct. The SSSI is designated principally for its wintering wildfowl and
breeding wetland and woodland birds, also for woodland and calcareous grassland. The route would result in shading of a small proportion
of open water by substantial removal/shading of valley-side woodland and possibly grassland habitats. However, the effects on the site and
- particularly open water habitats had been limited by the alignment of the route. The alignment also limits fragmentation of bird habitat within
the SSSI, but may still result in additional fragmentation of the SSSI from any significant non-SSSI habitat to the south. There would be
considerable disturbance to birds during construction. Adverse operational effects on birds would be limited to some extent to the location of
the route in the southern and eastern parts of the SSSI, as far as possible from large areas of open water. The centreline of the LoR is in
cutting approximately 230 metres from Bacombe and Coombe Hills SSSI. Although adverse effects on grassland, botanical and invertebrate
interest are unlikely, the site is considered to be sufficiently close to require protection during construction.
Aylesbury to Brackley (A421 crossing) - Sheephouse Wood SSSI would lie within 50m of the LoR and is designated for its ancient clay
woodland, wet grassy rides, uncommon invertebrates, mainly butterflies, and woodland birds. The route is adjacent to existing rail and is
situated along the western edge of the SSSI. The extent of habitat loss would be limited as the route is on fill/viaduct in the vicinity of the
- site, and a proportion of the habitat affected appears to be on the existing embankment, so is not ancient. While ancient woodland cannot be
created or effectively translocated, some level of mitigation could be achieved through attempting coppice and ground flora translocation and
by improved management of the affected and nearby SSSI and non SSSI woodlands. There are also good opportunities to link the SSSI to
other woodlands, including Finemere Wood SSSI which is 211 metres from the centreline for the LoR.
Brackley (A421 crossing) to Kenilworth/Coventry gap - The route affects Long Itchington and Ufton Wood SSSI where the tunnel portal
would disturb or take a section of SSSI at its northern tip, construction of the tunnel portal is likely to take more of the SSSI with increased
impacts to the site. The SSSI is designated for ancient clay woodland, locally scarce plants, breeding woodland birds. The nearby Ufton
-
Fields SSSI supports limestone grassland and is unfavourable condition. Improved management of this and linkage to the remnants of the
woodland SSSI could be considered. The Upper Cherwell at Trafford House SSSI, designated for fluvial processes is over 1,500 metres
from the centreline from the LoR, there is potential for adverse effects if upstream flow is altered.
o Kenilworth/Coventry gap to Berkswell Rail Station - no significant effects
Berkswell Rail Station to West Coast Main line (Lichfield) - The route involves a single crossing on viaduct of the River Blythe SSSI
designated as a diverse, unmodified river course of importance for rich plant community, also invertebrates, and as a nationally important
example of a declining habitat type. The crossing is perpendicular to the channel and it is assumed that it would not therefore require
footings in the channel itself. Due to the alignment shading would also be minimal. The SSSI is currently in unfavourable (no change)
condition due to pollution, agricultural inputs, shading and invasive species. Mitigation/compensation options could involve improving nearby
sections of the riparian corridor through providing a buffer from any damaging adjacent land uses, addressing point sources of pollution etc.
The centreline from the LoR is approximately 80 metres from Berkswell Marsh SSSI, the largest remaining area of fen meadow in the West
Midlands, and also containing wet woodland. The route is in cutting or at grade at this location and shading would not therefore occur.
-
Adverse effects on hydrology are unlikely as the site is dependent on water from part of a tributary of the River Blythe within the site, rather
than on sub-surface hydrology. At its closest point the centreline of the LoR is 117m from Coleshill and Bannerly Pools SSSI designated for
mire and bog habitats and various wet alder woodland types. The route is on embankment (cut according to shape files) close to the site but
distances are sufficient for additional shading and hydrological effects to the intervening M42 to be unlikely. The centreline of the LoR is
approximately 250 metres from Middleton Pool SSSI designated for breeding wildfowl and woodland birds. The route is on fill and bridge in
the vicinity of the site and construction disturbance is likely. Operation disturbance would be limited by distance and but may be additional to
that caused by a road along the site's western boundary. Tree planting between the site and the route and bird deflectors would reduce any
adverse effects.
o Birmingham Spur - No significant effects
o Curzon Street station and approach – No significant effects
Impacts on sites of regional importance Overall - The assessment has been based on available information on BAP habitats, SINCs, ancient woodland and LNRs, as well as review
crossed by surface or cut and cover of plan and profile drawings. This does not provide a complete picture of features of regional value as the information on SNCIs outside of
sections, e.g. RIGS, SINCs, BAP habitats. London and Birmingham is not complete. However, it can be concluded that impacts on BAP habitats is less severe than other route options
-
(E) in much of the route. Areas where data is deficient include large areas of intensive farmland of relatively low ecological value, however loss
and fragmentation of hedges and groups of ponds (both UK BAP habitat) as well as culverting of minor water bodies would occur along
much of the route. Overall it is considered that effects are likely to be minor adverse.
Euston station (including throat) - no effects at London-wide level but there would be habitat loss from St. James' Gardens Site of Local
o Importance for Nature Conservation (local sites are designated primarily to allow enjoyment of common wildlife in areas deficient in better
quality wildlife habitat)
o Tunnel from Euston to Old Oak Common (OOC) - no effects likely but depends on location of inspection shafts
o OOC station (including box and throats) - The western end of the tunnel would pass beneath Kensal Green Cemetery SINC, which supports
unimproved neutral grassland containing several plant species which are rare in London. Wormwood Scrubs and Little Wormwood Scrubs
17
Park SINCs are situated immediately south of Old Oak Common and designated for rough/acid grassland habitats, the former site also
supporting a good population of common lizards. The Grand Union Canal, also designated as a SINC immediately east and north of the
proposed Box Station. Despite proximity of the works to these sites there is not likely to be any unmitigable adverse effects on the SINCs.
OOC to Colne Valley Junction - Although the route is adjacent to existing track, construction activities and additional landtake would affect a
number of SINCs, including several water courses which would be vulnerable to siltation and pollution. Habitat loss and shading for riparian
SINCs would be limited because the route is approximately perpendicular to the water courses. Effects on railside SINCs would be limited
in part because of the recent origin and replaceability of habitats present (given the allocation of sufficient land), the limited amount of habitat
loss and maintenance of habitat corridors, albeit narrowed, at most locations. From east to west the following sites would be affected: The
River Brent would be crossed on viaduct immediately north of the existing track. There is very little riparian habitat north of the existing line
- and direct effects would be limited. Perivale Wood SINC and LNR is immediately adjacent to the works and habitat loss would occur. There
would additional shading of the Grand Union Canal and habitat loss from designated railside land at Northolt. Shading and habitat loss
would affect the Yeading Brook SINC at Ruislip Manor, where there would also be further loss of designated railside land. Loss of railside
land would also occur to the north of Ruislip Depot north of an area known to support Great Crested Newts (to the south of existing track).
There would be habitat loss, including removal of a pond, and shading where the route crosses the Old Priory Meadows and River Pinn
SINCs. Finally there would be habitat loss from railside land Colne Valley Junction. The most significant habitat loss it that from Perivale
Wood which may remove an area of unimproved grassland.
Colne Valley Junction to Aylesbury - This element involves crossing the central part of the Mid Colne Valley SINC on viaduct resulting in
removal or shading of ancient woodland, marsh/swamp, lake, running water, wet woodland/carr and possibly wet grassland. The habitat
affected includes areas of reed bed UK BAP habitat as well as areas of lowland mixed deciduous woodland and wet woodland. There would
- be additional fragmentation of bird habitat as the proposed viaduct is some distance to the north of the existing railway. Although a
significant proportion of the route through the Chilterns is in bored tunnel there would be localised loss of woodland habitat, notably north of
Amersham at Keepers Wood, Mantles Wood, Durham Farm, Sibley Coppice and Farthings Wood. Overall the extent of habitat loss and
fragmentation in the Chilterns is limited and considered not significant.
Aylesbury to Brackley (A421 crossing) - 1.2km of lowland mixed deciduous woodland and wet woodland UK BAP habitat (both also ancient)
within 50m of centreline of the LoR (Decoypond Wood and Sheephouse Wood). Adverse effects would be limited as the route is along one
edge of the main woodland block which is also an SSSI (see above). Nearby the route passes along north western edge of Glebeland Lake
- Nature Reserve (SNCI) removing lake side woodland and likely to result in disturbance to wildfowl during construction. The majority of small
areas of wet woodland near Newton Purcell and at Brackley would be removed. If the SSSI status of the largest area of mapped BAP habitat
is disregarded, the extent of habitat loss is not considered significant. The route would also involve fragmentation of small groups of ponds
to the north of Aylesbury as well crossings over a number of small water courses.
Brackley (A421 crossing) to Kenilworth/Coventry gap - Up to 1km each of wet woodland and lowland mixed deciduous woodland UK BAP
habitat (all also ancient woodland) potentially affected. Effects on the main area of lowland deciduous woodland is as a result of a tunnel
- portal at the northern tip of Long Itchington and Ufton Wood SSSI (mentioned above), while a large area of wet woodland (North and South
Cubbington Woods) and smaller blocks of lowland deciduous woodland would be intersected by the route (Sutton Spinney and Motslowhill
Spinney).
Kenilworth/Coventry gap to Berkswell Rail Station - Approximately 280m of the route is within 50m of wet woodland. The route also
intersects with the northern part of Crackley Wood LNR and would fragment it from the nearby Rough Knowles Wood. One (1) area of fen/
- UK BAP habitat/Ancient Woodlands (Black Waste Wood) within 350m of the route. Small additional areas of woodland not noted as BAP or
ancient would also be affected. The area is rich in ponds and there is likely to be some fragmentation. Overall, as a site of county
significance would be affected, severity is considered to be minor adverse.
Berkswell Rail Station to West Coast Main line (Lichfield) – Five areas of UK BAP and/or ancient woodland habitat are within 50 metres of
the route and direct habitat loss is therefore likely to arise. North Wood comprising wet woodland UK BAP habitat (also ancient), is crossed
by the route which is on a mixture of cut, fill and viaduct in the vicinity of the site. This would result in significant habitat loss, as well as
fragmentation and possibly hydrological change to the remainder of the site. Round Hill Wood comprises ancient/mixed deciduous woodland
UK BAP habitat and is crossed by the route which is mixture of fill and viaduct close to the site. This would result in habitat loss from the
western part of the site only, it is therefore likely that that a proportion of the wood can be retained. Whittington Heath (lowland heathland UK
BAP habitat) is intersected by the route (which is on cut and fill in the vicinity of the site) but only the narrow westernmost part of the site is
affected and therefore the extent of habitat loss would be limited. Tomhay Wood (ancient/mixed deciduous woodland UK BAP habitat) is
within 50 metres of the route which is at grade/on retained fill in the vicinity of the site. Habitat loss would be limited as again only the narrow
westernmost part of the site is affected. Rookery comprises ancient/mixed deciduous woodland UK BAP habitat and is 50 metres from the
-
centre line of the route. It is likely that there would be limited habitat loss from the eastern edge of the wood.
Six areas of UK BAP and/or ancient woodland habitat are between 51 and 350 metres of the route and may be subject to indirect effects.
Sixteen Acre Wood comprising fen, grassland and lowland deciduous woodland UK BAP habitat and also ancient woodland is between 80
and 225 metres from the site, the fen/grassland area being closest. The route is on a mixture of cut, fill and viaduct in the vicinity of the
route. Due to distance there is limited potential for habitat loss or shading, and changes to hydrology are also unlikely as the site is upstream
of the route. Dunton Wood comprised ancient wet woodland UK BAP habitat and 300 metres from the route which is on cut and viaduct. No
adverse effects are likely. Middleton Pool comprising fen and reedbed UK BAP habitat is 250 metres from the route at its closest point and
there is no potential for habitat loss. The site is downstream of Langley Brook and the route‟s crossing over the brook would not affect
surface water flows to the site and adverse effects on hydrology are unlikely. Roger‟s coppice comprises ancient wet woodland UK BAP
habitat and is situated 190 metres from the route. There is no potential for habitat loss and as the site is upstream of the route there is no
18
potential for adverse effects on hydrology. Snake Hill contains lowland meadows UK BAP habitat and is 100 metres from the route with no
potential for habitat loss. The site is adjacent to the Black Brook which crossed by the route but the crossing would not cause changes to
surface water flows that may affects the site‟s hydrology. Vicar‟s Coppice supports ancient wet woodland UK BAP habitat and is 150 metres
from the route which is at grade. No adverse effects on the site are likely to occur.

Birmingham spur – Around 50 m of the route is within 50m of an area of wet woodland UK BAP/ancient woodland habitat (Park Hall SNCI)
and could potentially cause adverse effects due to shading and changes in hydrology. Mitigation should ensure that the sites hydrological
regime is not permanently affected and identify areas for woodland colonisation. Due to the size of affected habitat, effects are not
significant. The route intersects Park Hall SNCI largely on a new viaduct in the eastern part of the site, but avoids much of the western part
of the SINC, although the River Tame within the site boundary would be affected in this area. Mitigation should involve improving riparian
-
habitat along any realigned sections of the river and contributing to habitat management elsewhere in the site. Although the route avoids
direct effects and separated from the site by existing rail, bird interest at Minworth Sewage Works SNCI could be affected during
construction. The route also crosses a small area of lowland meadows BAP habitat (Manor Drive). The route intersects with over 2km water
courses designated as SLINCs (Site of Local Importance for Nature Conservation) on viaduct largely adjacent to existing track. Limited
habitat loss or additional fragmentation.
Curzon Street station and approach - The approach to Curzon Street Station would involve crossing and shading a small section of canal
o
designated as a SLINC (Site of Local Importance for Nature Conservation)
Area of potential new habitat creation Overall - Much of the route passes through low lying open country side where there would be the opportunity to reinstate hedges and ponds
o
(E) and improve watercourses in the vicinity of the route. Effects at the local level may be minor beneficial if sufficient to offset fragmentation.
Euston station (including throat) - There is scope to provide habitat within the remaining area of St. James' Garden and on the roofs of
+ structures built in the process of remodelling Euston Station that could provide an overall increase in habitats of local value in the vicinity of
the station.
N/A Tunnel from Euston to Old Oak Common (OOC)
OOC station (including box and throats) - There are three SNCIs in close proximity to Old Oak Common. All would benefit from habitat
+
creation or management in order to compensate for any habitat loss in the works area.
OOC to Colne Valley Junction - There is likely to be scope for enhancing all the river corridors crossed by the route to an extent that
+
exceeds the adverse effects of additional shading and fragmentation caused.
Colne Valley Junction to Aylesbury - Less than half of the route through the Chilterns to Aylesbury is in tunnel, limiting habitat loss and the
opportunities for habitat creation. North of Amersham there are some extensive cuttings passing through woodland and agricultural land.
o There are occasional opportunities to create links between woodland fragments. Creating links between nearby unaffected woods could
provide compensation and enhancement, and could benefit dormouse. Steep cuttings and chalk spoil could enable the creation of
calcareous grassland, potentially adjoining other areas of existing chalk grassland.
Aylesbury to Brackley (A421 crossing) - Relatively flat land in the Thames and Avon Vales (NE Natural Area) contains rivers and water
bodies of high nature conservation value. The restoration and creation of ponds (potentially mitigated adverse effects on amphibian
populations), wet grassland (for waders) and the decanalisation of nearby river and stream courses would both be appropriate
+ compensation/enhancement. Planting of new hedges and small woodlands in the vicinity of the route would reduce fragmentation of habitat
networks required by amphibians, bats and badger, and provide foraging and nesting habitat for farmland birds. It is difficult to quantify the
magnitude of effect at the landscape level but if implemented at a sufficient scale could provide an overall increase in the amount of wildlife
habitat in a largely intensively farmed landscape.
Brackley (A421 crossing) to Kenilworth/Coventry gap - Similarly to Thames and Avon Vales the Midlands Clay Pastures NE Natural Area is
characterised by intensive agriculture. Rivers, streams, hedges, ponds and wet grassland are features of notable wildlife value in the wider
+
landscape. Opportunities to reduce fragmentation of these features would form mitigation for the effects of the route and there is potential to
contribute to wider initiatives to restore wildlife habitat in the agricultural landscape.
+ Kenilworth/Coventry gap to Berkswell Rail Station - as above
Berkswell Rail Station to West Coast Main line (Lichfield) - Principally through improvements to the Blythe SSSI corridor through creation of
buffer habitats such as reed bed, wet grassland and ditches, removing scrub, providing otter holts and kingfisher nest sites, invasive species
control, livestock fencing, improving the ecology of any engineered sections of river bank etc. Elsewhere any isolated habitat between the
route and other transport corridors could be used for habitat creation. More generally, much of the route would lie within Midlands Plateau
+
Natural Area. The latter contains important remnants of lowland heath UK BAP habitat, but the route does not intersect with any areas
identified in the GIS data set for this habitat. However, there may be opportunities to contribute to the maintenance or linkage of small
remnants included in the network of local wildlife sites. Otherwise, measures to enhance the farmed landscape through reinstating or
improving networks of hedges and waterways, or creating or restoring ponds are appropriate.
+ Birmingham Interchange Station (including throats) - features such as swales associated with SuDS could increase wildlife habitat in the
19
locality.
Birmingham spur - Any isolated habitat between the route and other transport corridors could be used for wetland or other habitat creation.
+ There is potential to improve canal side and riparian habitat in the vicinity of the route, particularly the River Tame. There would be
opportunities to improve the nature conservation interest of Park Hall SINC including grassland and wetland creation and management.
+ Rolling stock depot (Washwood Heath) - Features such as swales associated with SuDS could increase wildlife habitat in the locality
+ Curzon Street station and approach - There is potential to improve canal side and riparian habitat in the vicinity of the station. Biodiverse
roofs on new station buildings could be of value to the local population of black redstart, particularly in combination with other existing green
roofs in the city centre.
2 2
6. Protect the 6a. Impacts on river catchments. Overall - Impact is assessed as area (km ) of diverted catchment runoff, which is assumed to be proportional to the measured area (km ) of
Water water Protect surface (Area of catchment upstream of river catchment upstream of the proposed line, as well as the number of major river crossings and the number of minor (i.e. catchment less than
2 2
resources environment. water resources crossing points, number of major river 50km ) river crossings. The total catchment upstream of this route amounts to 5,457km , with 25 Major River crossings and 76 Minor River
See also TAG crossings, number of minor river crossings. It is impractical to mitigate the effects on the catchment hydrology completely and it is inevitable that overland flow would be
Unit 3.3.11 crossings). - collected adjacent to the track by filter drain and piped to convenient crossing points such as culverts and bridges. This would have a local
Water (E) effect on river catchment hydrology, concentrating the rate of discharge into rivers at selected points (with a likely increase in erosion) and
Environment altering the characteristics of river morphology with a possible adverse effect on river quality. Consequently route sections which only cross
2
Sub-objective minor rivers (catchments less than 50km ) are assigned a neutral score since the effects would be only local and route sections which cross
and TAG Unit major rivers are assigned a minor negative score due to the cumulative effects of diversions of minor tributaries.
3.3.6
o Euston station (including throat) - No river crossings.
Environmental
Capital o Tunnel from Euston to Old Oak Common (OOC) - No river crossings.
o OOC station (including box and throats) - No river crossings.
2
OOC to Colne Valley Junction - Total catchment upstream of river crossings 179km . One (1) major river crossings, six (6) minor river
-
crossings.
2
Colne Valley Junction to Aylesbury - Total catchment upstream of river crossings 750km . One (1) major river crossings, seven (4) minor
-
river crossings.
2
Aylesbury to Brackley (A421 crossing) - Total catchment upstream of river crossings 438km . Four (4) major river crossings, 11 minor river
-
crossings.
2
Brackley (A421 crossing) to Kenilworth/Coventry gap - Total catchment upstream of river crossings 1,361km . Seven (7) major river
-
crossings, 22 minor river crossings.
2
Kenilworth/Coventry gap to Berkswell Rail Station - Total catchment upstream of river crossings 2km . No major river crossings, two (2)
o
minor river crossings.
2
Berkswell Rail Station to West Coast Main line (Lichfield) - Total catchment upstream of river crossings 959km . Five (5) major river
-
crossings, 27 minor river crossings.
2
Birmingham Interchange Station (including throats) - Total catchment upstream of river crossings 5km . No major river crossings, one (1)
o
minor river crossing.
2
- Birmingham spur - Total catchment upstream of river crossings 1,328km . Five (5) major river crossings, three (3) minor river crossings.
2
Rolling stock depot (Washwood Heath) - Total catchment upstream of river crossings 352km . One (1) major river crossing, no minor river
-
crossings.
2
Curzon Street station and approach - Total catchment upstream of river crossings 83km . One (1) major river crossing, no minor river
-
crossings.
2
Impacts on surface water bodies. Six (6) river crossings may require major river diversions (catchments greater than 50km ) and five (5) which may require a minor river
2
(Number of major river diversions, number diversion (river catchment less than 50km ). Eight (8) navigable canals and nine (9) reservoirs are intersected by the route.
of minor river diversions, impacts on Diversion of any main river would have significant effects on river morphology and riparian habitat, and hence the quality of the river as
artificial water bodies, impacts on specified in the Water Framework Directive (WFD). As such, diversion of a major river is assigned a major negative score and diversion of a
reservoirs). --
minor main river is assigned a minor negative score. Assuming crossings of artificial water bodies are constructed using responsible
(E, H) methods, they should not have a direct effect on the water resource, however they may adversely affect the use of these water bodies for
recreation, so crossing of a lake or reservoir is assigned a minor negative score. Crossing of a canal is not considered to be a significant
impact provided that it does not interfere with the navigation of the canal.
o Euston station (including throat) - No major river diversions. No minor river diversions.
o Tunnel from Euston to Old Oak Common (OOC) - No major river diversions. No minor river diversions.
o OOC station (including box and throats) - No major river diversions. No minor river diversions.
o OOC to Colne Valley Junction - No major river diversions. No minor river diversions. One (1) navigable canal crossing (Grand Union Canal)
20
2
Colne Valley Junction to Aylesbury – One (1) major river diversion (River Colne, upstream catchment of 725km , x:504212 y:188903,
diversion length of 750m, moderate WFD quality). Likely mitigation realignment proposed line or large clear-span structure to avoid
--
interference from longitudinal crossing. One (1) navigable canal crossing (Grand Union Canal). Passes directly over four (4) reservoirs
(Harefield Lake, Savay Lake, Korda Lake, Hartwell Lake).
2
Aylesbury to Brackley (A421 crossing) – One (1) minor river diversion (Tributary of Padbury Brook, upstream catchment of 3km , x:463281
- y:230418, diversion length 100m, unknown WFD quality). Likely mitigation is pseudo-natural realignment of brook adjacent to track, planting
and reinstatement of riparian zone. Passes directly over two (2) reservoirs (Finemere pond, Grebe Lake).
2
Brackley (A421 crossing) to Kenilworth/Coventry gap – two (2) minor river diversions (Tributary of Great Ouse, upstream catchment of 1km ,
2
x:458892 y:238926, diversion length 200m, moderate WFD quality) and (Tributary of River Itchen, upstream catchment of 3km , x:442431
- y:258560, diversion length 200m, moderate WFD quality). Likely mitigation is pseudo-natural realignment of brook adjacent to track, planting
and reinstatement of riparian zone. Three (3) navigable canal crossings (Boddington Feeder, Oxford Canal, Grand Union Canal). Passes
directly over two (2) reservoirs (Edgcote House Lake, Stoney Thorpe Pond)
o Kenilworth/Coventry gap to Berkswell Rail Station - No major river diversions. No minor river diversions.
Berkswell Rail Station to West Coast Main line (Lichfield) – Two (2) major river diversions. First major diversion is River Cole (upstream
2
catchment of 122km , x:419037 y:288243, diversion length of 500m, moderate WFD quality). Second major diversion is River Cole
2
(upstream catchment of 126km , x:419008 y:289319, diversion length of 500m, moderate WFD quality). Likely mitigation realignment
-- proposed line or large clear-span structure to avoid interference from longitudinal crossing. One (1) minor river diversion (Tributary to River
2
Blythe, upstream catchment of 5km , x:424504 y:277716, diversion length 200m, Moderate WFD quality). Likely mitigation is pseudo-natural
realignment of brook adjacent to track, planting and reinstatement of riparian zone. Two (2) navigable canal crossings (Birmingham and
Curzon Canal, STW Aqueduct). Passes directly over one (1) reservoir (Curborough Lakes).
o Birmingham Interchange Station (including throats) - No major river diversions. No minor river diversions.
2
Birmingham spur – Two (2) major river diversions. First major diversion is River Tame (upstream catchment of 360km , x:413620 y:290298,
diversion length of 2,000m, moderate WFD quality) possible positive impact as existing river is in concrete channel below M6 motorway and
diversion could provide opportunity for reinstatement of natural river banks and exposure to sunlight. Second major diversion is River Tame
2
-- (upstream catchment of 402km , x:415729 y:290896, diversion length of 1,300m, moderate WFD quality). Likely mitigation realignment
proposed line or large clear-span structure to avoid interference from longitudinal crossing. One (1) minor river diversion (Tributary to River
2
Tame upstream catchment of 1km , x:418817 y:290880, diversion length 700m, Moderate WFD quality). Likely mitigation or betterment is
pseudo-natural realignment of brook adjacent to track, planting and reinstatement of riparian zone
o Rolling stock depot (Washwood Heath) - No major river diversions. No minor river diversions.
2
Curzon Street station and approach – One (1) major river diversion (River Rea, upstream catchment of 83km , x:408917 y:287464, diversion
-- length of 250m, moderate WFD quality). Likely mitigation realignment proposed line or large clear-span structure to avoid interference from
longitudinal crossing. One (1) navigable canal crossing (Digbeth Branch Canal).
6b. Impacts on groundwater Source Protection Overall - the route requires cut or tunnel through 4,800m of SPZ1, and 21,400m of cut or tunnel through SPZ2. A significant proportion of the
Protect Zones (SPZs). UK drinking water is obtained through the abstraction of ground water and this process is licensed by the Environment Agency. Each
groundwater (Length of cut or tunnel through SPZ1 abstraction licence is associated with a corresponding Source Protection Zone to prevent pollution of the ground water subject to
resources and/or SPZ2). abstraction. Cutting or tunnelling through source protection zones is likely to have significant detrimental effects on the quality of the water
--
(E, H) and on the flow within the aquifer. Where Source Protection Zones are affected, it would be necessary to employ specialised boring and
construction techniques to minimise the risk of pollution and to mitigate the effects of obstructing the ground water flow regime. Route
sections which cut or tunnel through SPZ1 are assigned a major negative score and routes which cut or tunnel through SPZ2 are assigned a
minor negative score.
o Euston station (including throat) - No cut or tunnel through SPZ1, no cut or tunnel through SPZ2
- Tunnel from Euston to Old Oak Common (OOC) - No cut or tunnel through SPZ1, 1,200m of cut or tunnel through SPZ2
- OOC station (including box and throats) - Cut measurements included in "Tunnel from Euston to OOC"
-- OOC to Colne Valley Junction - 600m of cut or tunnel through SPZ1, 600m of cut or tunnel through SPZ2
Colne Valley Junction to Aylesbury – 4,200m of cut or tunnel through SPZ1, 19,100m of cut or tunnel through SPZ2. Source protection
zones are in place to protect major abstractions for public water supply, at least three of which are authorised to abstract approximately
3
-- 20,000m per day. Exact abstraction details are not publically available, but pumping stations which may be affected include Amersham,
Northmoor, West Hyde, Chalfont St Giles, Wendover. In many of these cases it is likely that the cut or tunnel would be above or below the
aquifer, however more detailed assessment is required.
o Aylesbury to Brackley (A421 crossing) - No cut or tunnel through SPZ1, no cut or tunnel through SPZ2
o Brackley (A421 crossing) to Kenilworth/Coventry gap - No cut or tunnel through SPZ1, no cut or tunnel through SPZ2
o Kenilworth/Coventry gap to Berkswell Rail Station - No cut or tunnel through SPZ1, no cut or tunnel through SPZ2
- Berkswell Rail Station to West Coast Main line (Lichfield) - No cut or tunnel through SPZ1, 500m of cut or tunnel through SPZ2
21
- Birmingham Interchange Station (including throats) - Cut measurements included in "Berkswell Rail Station to West Coast Main line"
o Birmingham spur - No cut or tunnel through SPZ1, no cut or tunnel through SPZ2
o Rolling stock depot (Washwood Heath) - No cut or tunnel through SPZ1, no cut or tunnel through SPZ2
o Curzon Street station and approach - No cut or tunnel through SPZ1, no cut or tunnel through SPZ2
Impacts on groundwater flow in strategic Overall - The route requires cut or tunnel through 25,600m of "good-quality and good-yield" aquifer, and 21,100m of cut or tunnel through
aquifers. aquifer of "good-quality (poor yield)" or aquifer of "good-yield (poor quality)". The Water Framework Directive (WFD) classifies groundwater
(Length of cut or tunnel through aquifers resources in terms of the potential yield of the aquifer and the chemical quality. In both cases, classifications are either good or poor.
classified as "good yield" and/or "good Aquifers of poor yield potential or poor chemical quality are unlikely to be of strategic importance as a water resource, however if the aquifer
quality" under the WFD). can provide large volumes of good chemical quality, it is likely to be of strategic importance. Tunnelling or cutting through a strategic aquifer
--
(E, H) would have a significant detrimental effect on the water resource and must be carefully controlled. Specialist excavation and construction
techniques would be required in these cases, in order to protect the aquifer and to ensure that the natural flow of groundwater is maintained.
Cut or tunnel passing through aquifers with both "Good Yield" and "Good Chemical Quality" is considered to be a major detrimental impact
on an important resource and is assigned a major negative score. Cut or tunnel through an aquifer with only "good quality" or only "good
yield" is assigned a minor negative score.
Euston station (including throat) - No cut or tunnel through "good-quality and good-yield" aquifer, no cut or tunnel through aquifer of "good-
o
quality" or aquifer of "good-yield"
Tunnel from Euston to Old Oak Common (OOC) - No cut or tunnel through "good-quality and good-yield" aquifer, no cut or tunnel through
o
aquifer of "good-quality" or aquifer of "good-yield"
OOC station (including box and throats) - No cut or tunnel through "good-quality and good-yield" aquifer, no cut or tunnel through aquifer of
o
"good-quality" or aquifer of "good-yield"
OOC to Colne Valley Junction - No cut or tunnel through "good-quality and good-yield" aquifer, no cut or tunnel through aquifer of "good-
o
quality" or aquifer of "good-yield"
Colne Valley Junction to Aylesbury - No cut or tunnel through "good-quality and good-yield" aquifer, 700m of cut or tunnel through aquifer of
-
Aylesbury to Brackley (A421 crossing) – 3,500m cut or tunnel through "good-quality and good-yield" aquifer, no cut or tunnel through aquifer
of "good-quality" or aquifer of "good-yield". Subject to Environment Agency information on aquifer structure and vulnerability, likely mitigation
--
would involve specialist construction techniques to avoid pollution of the aquifer and provision of groundwater bypass routes to mitigate any
obstructions to normal groundwater flow.
Brackley (A421 crossing) to Kenilworth/Coventry gap – 22,100m cut or tunnel through "good-quality and good-yield" aquifer, 3,200m of cut
or tunnel through aquifer of "good-quality" or aquifer of "good-yield". Subject to Environment Agency information on aquifer structure and
--
vulnerability, likely mitigation would involve specialist construction techniques to avoid pollution of the aquifer and provision of groundwater
bypass routes to mitigate any obstructions to normal groundwater flow.
Kenilworth/Coventry gap to Berkswell Rail Station - No cut or tunnel through "good-quality and good-yield" aquifer, no cut or tunnel through
o
aquifer of "good-quality" or aquifer of "good-yield"
Berkswell Rail Station to West Coast Main line (Lichfield) - No cut or tunnel through "good-quality and good-yield" aquifer, 13,400m of cut or
-
tunnel through aquifer of "good-quality" or aquifer of "good-yield"
Birmingham Interchange Station (including throats) - No cut or tunnel through "good-quality and good-yield" aquifer, cut or tunnel through
- aquifer of "good-quality" or aquifer of "good-yield" included in route section "Berkswell Rail Station to West Coast Main line (Lichfield)"
above
Birmingham spur - No cut or tunnel through "good-quality and good-yield" aquifer, 3,800m of cut or tunnel through aquifer of "good-quality"
-
or aquifer of "good-yield"
Rolling stock depot (Washwood Heath) - No cut or tunnel through "good-quality and good-yield" aquifer, cut or tunnel through aquifer of
-
"good-quality" or aquifer of "good-yield" included in route section "Birmingham Spur" above
Curzon Street station and approach - No cut or tunnel through "good-quality and good-yield" aquifer, no cut or tunnel through aquifer of
o
7. No NATA 7a. Extent of infrastructure within 1 in 100 year Overall - This route crosses a total of 16,348m of Flood Zone 3 with 25 major river crossings. Flood Zone 3 represents land which is
Flood risk equivalent Conserve and flood zones (Flood Zone 3) expected to flood more frequently than once in 100 years. From a sustainability perspective, it is obviously preferable to avoid any
enhance the (E, H) development within the flood plain, however, within the context of this type of development crossing of flood plains is inevitable. Crossing of
capacity of Flood Zone 3 has the potential to have a significant adverse impact, however in most cases, it should be possible to mitigate the flood risk
- issues through design, adjusting vertical track alignment and designing river crossings so that they have a minimal effect on flood flow. It
floodplains
may also be possible, in cases where the consequences of occasional flooding are relatively low such as fields, parks or rural areas, to
accept a small increase in the risk of flooding at the local scale to avoid disproportionate costs of mitigation. Virtually all route sections cross
the floodplains of major rivers at some point, but crossings proposed are large viaducts across entire floodplains to minimise any adverse
effects on flood water levels. As such, and in contrast to major river diversions, viaduct crossings of Flood Zone 3 is assigned a minor
22
adverse score.
o Euston station (including throat) - No track in Flood Zone 3, no major river crossings
o Tunnel from Euston to Old Oak Common (OOC) - No track in Flood Zone 3, no major river crossings
o OOC station (including box and throats) - No track in Flood Zone 3, no major river crossings
- OOC to Colne Valley Junction - 704m of track in Flood Zone 3, one (1) major crossing (River Brent)
- Colne Valley Junction to Aylesbury – 2,745m of track in Flood Zone 3, one (1) major crossing (River Colne)
Aylesbury to Brackley (A421 crossing) – 1,576m of track in Flood Zone 3, four (4) major river crossings (River Thame, three (3) separate
-
crossings of the Padbury Brook)
Brackley (A421 crossing) to Kenilworth/Coventry gap – 2,493m of track in Flood Zone 3, seven (7) major river crossings (Great Ouse, River
-
Cherwell, River Itchen, River Leam, River Avon Warwickshire, River Sowe,)
o Kenilworth/Coventry gap to Berkswell Rail Station - No track in Flood Zone 3, no major river crossings
Berkswell Rail Station to West Coast Main line (Lichfield) – 2,496m of track in Flood Zone 3, five (5) major river crossings (River Blythe,
-
River Tame, Black Brook, and two (2) separate crossings of the River Cole)
- Birmingham Interchange Station (including throats) - 75m of track in Flood Zone 3, no major river crossings
Birmingham spur – 5,990m of track in Flood Zone 3, five (5) major river crossings (River Cole, 2 separate crossings of the River Tame, two
-
(2) separate crossings of the River Rea)
- Rolling stock depot (Washwood Heath) - The depot is not within Flood Zone 3, no major river crossing.
- Curzon Street station and approach - 271m of track in Flood Zone 3, one (1) major crossing (River Rea)
Extent of infrastructure within 1 in 1,000 Overall - This route crosses a total of 18,943m of Flood Zone 2. Flood Zone 2 represents land which is expected to flood more frequently
year flood zones (Flood Zone 2). than once in 1,000 years, but not as frequently as once in 100 years. A 1,000 year return period is usually far in excess of the flood design
(E) criteria for this type of infrastructure. Consequently, the extent of track in Flood Zone 2 represents a measure of the residual risk in the
design where it becomes more economic or sustainable to accept the consequences of such rare events than to mitigate against them in
design. This also serves as a measure of resilience to the effects of climate change. For critical components of the track where the
-
consequences of flooding could be particularly severe such as at the entrance to tunnel sections, it may prove more sustainable to design
these sections to a higher standard. As for Flood Zone 3, it is obviously more sustainable to avoid Flood Zone 2 completely, however, in the
context of this development it is impractical to do so. Crossing of Flood Zone 2 is considered to have a minor adverse impact and is likely to
be highly mitigable. A neutral score is assigned to crossing of Flood Zone 2 for minor rivers and a minor negative score is assigned for
crossing of Flood Zone 2 for a major river.
o Euston station (including throat) - No track in Flood Zone 2, no major river crossings
o Tunnel from Euston to Old Oak Common (OOC) - No track in Flood Zone 2, no major river crossings
o OOC station (including box and throats) - No track in Flood Zone 2, no major river crossings
- OOC to Colne Valley Junction – 1,347m of track in Flood Zone 2, one (1) major crossing (River Brent)
- Colne Valley Junction to Aylesbury – 2,959m of track in Flood Zone 2, one (1) number major crossing (River Colne)
Aylesbury to Brackley (A421 crossing) – 1,849m of track in Flood Zone 2, four (4) major river crossings (River Thame, three (3) separate
-
crossings of the Padbury Brook)
Brackley (A421 crossing) to Kenilworth/Coventry gap – 2,831m of track in Flood Zone 2, seven (7) major river crossings (Great Ouse, River
-
Cherwell, River Itchen, River Leam, River Avon Warwickshire, River Sowe, Finnam Brook)
o Kenilworth/Coventry gap to Berkswell Rail Station - No track in Flood Zone 2, no major river crossings
Berkswell Rail Station to West Coast Main line (Lichfield) – 3,395m of track in Flood Zone 2, five (5) major river crossings (River Blythe,
-
River Tame, Black Brook and two (2) separate crossings of the River Cole)
o Birmingham Interchange Station (including throats) - 83m of track in Flood Zone 2, no major river crossings
Birmingham spur – 6,208m of track in Flood Zone 2, five (5) major river crossings (River Cole, 2 separate crossings of the River Tame, two
-
(2) separate crossings of the River Rea)
- Rolling stock depot (Washwood Heath) - Approximately half of the depot curtilage is within Flood Zone
- Curzon Street station and approach - 271m of track in Flood Zone 2, one (1) major crossing (River Rea)
23
Creating sustainable communities
8. Improve local 8a. Change in total emissions 'with' and Overall - Operational details of the scheme not sufficiently known in order to adequately appraise against this criteria.
Air quality air quality. Maintain and 'without' option as a result of modal shift
U
See also TAG enhance local air from road to rail within study area
Unit 3.3.3 quality. (E, H)
Local Air
Impacts on air quality from traffic Overall - Operational details of the scheme not sufficiently known in order to adequately appraise against this criteria.
Quality Sub-
associated with stations. Impacts to Air
objective (nb:
Quality Management Areas (AQMA)
see strategic
(E, H, Eq)
approach set U
out in Section
1.2 of this
unit) and 3.3.4
Regional Air
Pollution
9. Reduce noise. 9a. Change in the population potentially Overall - ~ 3,900 more people potentially annoyed by operational noise. Note: A realignment of the HS2 March 2010 preferred route at
--
Noise and See also TAG Maintain and annoyed by operational noise (E, H) Aylesbury and Wendover provided in February 2010 has been incorporated into these results.
vibration Unit 3.3.2 enhance the local U Euston station (including throat) - Only minor airborne noise annoyance potential from station and throat - not appraised.
Noise Sub- noise environment
Note: the objective (nb: U Tunnel from Euston to Old Oak Common (OOC) - Minor potential for airborne noise increase due to tunnel vent shafts - not appraised.
approach see strategic
presented approach set U OOC station (including box and throats) - Minor potential for airborne noise increase due to station and throat - not appraised.
here follows out in Section -- OOC to Colne Valley Junction - ~ 1,400 people
the webTAG 1.5 of this
guidance, unit) and TAG - Colne Valley Junction to Aylesbury - ~ 650 people
which has Unit 3.3.2
been used to - Aylesbury to Brackley (A421 crossing) - ~ 200 people
Supplementar
assess the y Guidance - Brackley (A421 crossing) to Kenilworth/Coventry gap - ~ 400 people
HS2 March
2010 preferred - Kenilworth/Coventry gap to Berkswell Rail Station - ~ 50 people
route only. U Berkswell Rail Station to West Coast Main line (Lichfield) - (included in Birmingham spur)
U Birmingham Interchange Station (including throats) - Minor potential for airborne noise increase due to station - not appraised.
-- Birmingham spur - ~ 1,200 people
U Rolling stock depot (Washwood Heath) - Minor potential for airborne noise increase due to depot - not appraised.
U Curzon Street station and approach - Minor potential for airborne noise increase due to station and throat - not appraised.
The Present Value of Benefits (PVB) for Overall ~ - £194million / ~1,450 dwellings qualifying for noise insulation (> 68 dBA and increase ≥ 1 dBA) / ~ 450 dwellings ≥ 73 dBA / ~ 27
daytime operational-related residential dwellings > 81 dBA
noise --
Note: A realignment of the HS2 March 2010 preferred route at Aylesbury and Wendover provided in February 2010 has been incorporated
into these results.
U Euston station (including throat) - Only minor airborne noise annoyance potential from station and throat - not appraised.
Tunnel from Euston to Old Oak Common (OOC) - Minor potential for airborne noise increase due to tunnel vent shafts - not appraised, as
U
specific locations have not been identified at this stage of the design development.
U OOC station (including box and throats) - Minor potential for airborne noise increase due to station and throat - not appraised.
-- OOC to Colne Valley Junction ~ - £ 76 million / ~ 1,000 dwellings qualifying for noise insulation
- Colne Valley Junction to Aylesbury ~- £ 30 million / ~ <50 dwellings qualifying for noise insulation
- Aylesbury to Brackley (A421 crossing) ~- £ 9 million / ~ <50 dwellings qualifying for noise insulation
- Brackley (A421 crossing) to Kenilworth/Coventry gap ~- £ 20 million / ~ <50 dwellings qualifying for noise insulation
- Kenilworth/Coventry gap to Berkswell Rail Station ~ -£ 3 million / ~ <50 dwellings qualifying for noise insulation
U Berkswell Rail Station to West Coast Main line (Lichfield) - (included in Birmingham spur)
U Birmingham Interchange Station (including throats) - Minor potential for airborne noise increase due to station - not appraised.
-- Birmingham Spur ~ -£ 61 million / ~ <50 dwellings qualifying for noise insulation
U Rolling stock depot (Washwood Heath) - Minor potential for airborne noise increase due to depot - not appraised.
U Curzon Street station and approach - Minor potential for airborne noise increase due to station and throat - not appraised.
24
No NATA 9b. Nos. of residential properties at risk of - Overall ~ 9,500 dwellings / ~ 500 non-residential properties
equivalent Maintain local vibration and reradiated noise
N/A Euston station (including throat) - No Tunnelling
vibration (E, H)
environment - Tunnel from Euston to Old Oak Common (OOC) ~ 8,700 dwellings / ~ 350 non-residential properties.
N/A OOC station (including box and throats) - No Tunnelling
- OOC to Colne Valley Junction - ~ 100 dwellings / ~ 100 non-residential properties (tunnelling only)
- Colne Valley Junction to Aylesbury ~ 600 dwellings / ~ 50 non-residential properties (tunnelling only)
N/A Aylesbury to Brackley (A421 crossing) - No Tunnelling
- Brackley (A421 crossing) to Kenilworth/Coventry gap – <50 dwelling
N/A Kenilworth/Coventry gap to Berkswell Rail Station - No Tunnelling
N/A Berkswell Rail Station to West Coast Main line (Lichfield) - No Tunnelling
N/A Birmingham Interchange Station (including throats) - No Tunnelling
N/A Birmingham spur - No Tunnelling
N/A Rolling stock depot (Washwood Heath) - No Tunnelling
N/A Curzon Street station and approach - No Tunnelling
10. No NATA 10a. Nos. of properties demolished or affected Total number of demolitions–
Community equivalent Maintain and by landtake Dwellings: 429
integrity enhance (H)
Community: 23
community integrity
Commercial:121
-- Industrial: 30
Total: 603
The most significant demolitions along this route occur around the proposed station areas at either end of the scheme. The route in
2
particular bisects a newly built commercial property providing student accommodation (~748 temporary student units). Note: the student
accommodation blocks have been counted as a single commercial property, not as residential dwellings or individual „blocks‟. There are also
around 250 dwellings likely to require demolition around Euston Station under this scheme.
Euston station (including throat) –
Dwellings: 247
Community: 3
Commercial: 20
Industrial: 0
--
Total: 270
Total of 247 dwellings are likely to be demolished (including 220 in the Regents Park Estate). These are predominantly in and around the
Regents Park Estate, but also in the areas to the west of the station (Drummond, Melton Street etc.). There is some community terraced
housing along Cobourg St and Drummond St which would be exposed. 20 commercial properties would also be demolished, including
some small business units, the Thistle Hotel, IBIS Hotel, and a number of office blocks. A community Hall in Regents Park Estate, a Sports
Area in St James Garden and a University College of London building would similarly be demolished.
Tunnel from Euston to Old Oak Common (OOC) –
Dwellings: 0
Community: 0
o Commercial: 0
Industrial: 0
Total: 0
No demolitions required, the route runs in tunnel along this section
OOC station (including box and throats) –
- Dwellings: 23
Community: 0
2
http://miranda.hemscott.com/ir/utg/ar_2007/ar.jsp.
25
Commercial: 0
Industrial: 0
Total: 23
There are 23 dwellings at risk from demolition at the West end of the Old Oak Station footprint. The shallowness of the tunnel beneath the
dwellings, the proximity to the station and space needed for construction places them at risk. Demolition may be avoided following detailed
design; however, it is probable that these dwellings would be untenable during the construction period and possibly during operation.
OOC to Colne Valley Junction-
Dwellings: 20
Community: 3
-
Commercial: 21
Industrial: 3
Total: 47
Colne Valley Junction to Aylesbury –
Dwellings: 20
Community: 3
-
Commercial: 2
Industrial: 2
Total: 27
Aylesbury to Brackley (A421 crossing) -
Dwellings: 7
Community: 0
o
Commercial: 1
Industrial: 0
Total: 8
Brackley (A421 crossing) to Kenilworth/Coventry gap –
Dwellings: 14
Community: 3
-
Commercial: 10
Industrial: 2
Total: 29
Kenilworth/Coventry gap to Berkswell Rail Station –
Dwellings: 22
Community: 1
-
Commercial: 0
Industrial: 1
Total: 24
Berkswell Rail Station to West Coast Main line (Lichfield) –
Dwellings: 17
Community: 1
-
Commercial: 25
Industrial: 6
Total: 49
Birmingham Interchange Station (including throats) –
Dwellings: 0
Community: 0
o
Commercial: 0
Industrial: 0
Total: 0
26
Birmingham spur –
Dwellings: 23
Community: 7
Commercial: 31
-
Industrial: 5
Total: 66
23 dwellings would be demolished, including a group of 10 residencies along Attleborough Lane, Water Orton). It must also be noted that
this route also requires the demolition of Coleshill Hall which currently serves as a commercial building.
Rolling stock depot (Washwood Heath) -
Dwellings: 31
Community: 0
-
Commercial: 8
Industrial: 6
Total: 45
Curzon Street station and approach –
Dwellings: 5
Community: 2
Commercial: 3
- Industrial: 5
Total: 15
Three (3) commercial properties are to be demolished. One of these consists of several blocks of student accommodation comprising
3
approximately 748 short term units (based on address points). (Note: the student accommodation blocks have been counted as a single
commercial property, not as residential dwellings or individual „blocks‟). In addition, five (5) industrial properties would be demolished. The
two (2) community properties identified are car parks.
Nos. of properties at high risk of isolation Overall - There are 164 dwellings at risk of isolation along the route. Access would still be maintained for all of these dwellings however they
(H) would be bounded by new major transport infrastructure. The Water Orton area and surrounds are already subject to significant levels of
-
physical isolation from existing infrastructure, i.e. the M42, M6 and A446, however the route alignment may bisect or shorten these areas
still further. In addition, three (3) areas are identified east of Little Missenden and West of Wendover, and in Burton Green.
o Euston station (including throat) - There are no areas at risk of isolation.
o Tunnel from Euston to Old Oak Common (OOC) - This area is in tunnel therefore no properties are at risk of isolation
o OOC station (including box and throats) - There are no properties at risk of isolation
OOC to Colne Valley Junction - The majority of this route would lie along an existing railway line and therefore no areas of isolation are
o
identified
Colne Valley Junction to Aylesbury – three (3) areas identified as the route diverges from the A413 just east of Little Missenden and west of
- Wendover and South of Stoke Mandeville as the route diverges away from the existing rail line. 36 dwellings affected in total, although
access would still be maintained in these areas.
Aylesbury to Brackley (A421 crossing) – five (5) small areas have been identified; east of Brackley and Waddeston however there are no
o
dwellings within these areas.
o Brackley (A421 crossing) to Kenilworth/Coventry gap - No areas of isolation identified.
Kenilworth/Coventry gap to Berkswell Rail Station – One area identified between the route and the A446, with 11 dwellings identified.
Another area has been identified below Burton Green with 56 dwellings affected. The majority of these lie along the A429 so isolation for
-
these dwellings would be limited. The settlement of Burton Green would also be severed by the route alignment, further isolating a number
of properties to the west of the alignment.
Berkswell Rail Station to West Coast Main Line (Lichfield) - There are a number of areas of isolation identified, although this section of the
route is already heavily constrained by existing transport infrastructure. The majority of these areas have already been divided and islanded
-
by the M42, the A446, the M6. However, the route alignment narrows these areas further (40 dwellings affected). There is also one small
area east of Lichfield accounting for six (6) dwellings
o Birmingham Interchange Station (including throats) - no severance identified
- Birmingham Spur - there are three (3) areas identified in the Water Orton area between the route and the M6, 12 dwellings identified in total.
o Rolling stock depot (Washwood Heath) - no areas of isolation identified
27
Curzon Street station and approach – One (1) area identified between existing rail infrastructure and the route alignment, affecting three (3)
o
dwellings
Properties in the 20% most deprived areas Overall - There are limited impacts on properties in the 20% most deprived wards along the length of the March 2010 preferred route. One
demolished or at high risk of isolation key exception to this is the Euston area, where major adverse impacts in terms of property demolitions and landtake have been identified.
(H, Eq) -- Potentially adverse impacts on residential and commercial properties are also identified in Washwood Heath and surrounds including Saltley
Business Park in Birmingham along the line of the existing railway and within the depot footrpint. These issues are considered in more
detail in the Equality Screening Report (Volume 2, Appendix 2.7).
Euston station (including throat) - Euston station footprint would lie within a 20% most deprived area. There are no areas of isolation,
however approximately 250 individual dwellings are likely to be demolished in the vicinity of Euston Station, predominantly within the
--
Regents Park Estate. A further approx. 170 dwellings are at risk of demolition, of which the majority are Council-owned blocks. The equality
screening report considers this issue in more detail.
o Tunnel from Euston to Old Oak Common (OOC) - None. Route section entirely in tunnel
OOC station (including box and throats) - There are no areas of isolation, although 23 dwellings would be demolished. Mitigation via
-
tunnelling is an option for these.
OOC to Colne Valley Junction - There are areas of the 20% most deprived along this route section however there are no demolitions within
o
these areas. There are no areas of isolation.
o Colne Valley Junction to Aylesbury - No 20% most deprived areas
o Aylesbury to Brackley (A421 crossing) - No 20% most deprived areas
o Brackley (A421 crossing) to Kenilworth/Coventry gap – No 20% most deprived areas
o Kenilworth/Coventry gap to Berkswell Rail Station - No 20% most deprived areas
o Berkswell Rail Station to West Coast Main line (Lichfield) - No 20% most deprived areas
o Birmingham Interchange Station (including throats) – No 20% most deprived areas
Birmingham spur - The approach from Castle Bromwich to the Birmingham stations lies in a 20% most deprived area. There are no areas of
o
isolation however, there is one (1) residential dwelling one (1) community facility to be demolished.
Rolling stock depot (Washwood Heath) - There are 30-35 dwellings to be demolished along Common Lane, in an area of 20% most
-
deprived
Curzon Street station and approach - There are up to five (5) dwellings in a 20% most deprived area either at risk or isolation or demolition.
-
There are no community facilities.
Properties with disproportionately high Overall - Impacts along the March 2010 preferred route are limited with the exception of effects on the BAME communities within the Euston
numbers of equality groups demolished or station footprint which are likely to be disproportionately affected. There may also be potential effects along the Birmingham spur and
--
at high risk of isolation, where known. Curzon Street station and Washwood Heath depot site. The line of route does not affect equality groups with the possible exception of a
(H, Eq) slightly older population at Burton Green.
Euston station (including throat) - This area includes a higher than proportionate percentage of the Asian population in an area where there
-- are to be a significant number of residential dwelling demolitions, including that of social housing. The Equality Screening Report provides
more detailed information (Volume 2, Appendix 7).
o Tunnel from Euston to Old Oak Common (OOC) - None. Route section entirely in tunnel
OOC station (including box and throats) – No areas of isolation. There are 23 residential dwellings to be demolished, although there is the
- possibility that this can be mitigated. There is a slightly higher than average proportion of the Black population although this is unlikely to
result in significant impacts.
OOC to Colne Valley Junction - The proportion of ethnic origin groups in the wards along this route alignment are generally consistent with
o
the corresponding Borough averages and as such no priority equality target groups have been identified.
o Colne Valley Junction to Aylesbury - No equality target groups identified
o Aylesbury to Brackley (A421 crossing) - No equality target groups identified
o Brackley (A421 crossing) to Kenilworth/Coventry gap – No equality target groups identified
Kenilworth/Coventry gap to Berkswell Rail Station – Over 20 residential dwelling demolitions in the town of Burton Green in a ward that
o
holds a slightly higher than average proportion of the population aged over 60 years of age, although this is unlikely to be significant.
o Berkswell Rail Station to West Coast Main line (Lichfield) - No equality target groups identified
o Birmingham Interchange Station (including throats) – No equality target groups identified
Birmingham spur – The Washwood Heath and Nechells ward on the Birmingham spur to the west of the depot identify BAME communities.
-
Limited number of residential dwellings demolished, although the demolition of Saltley Business Park could have a potential impact.
28
Rolling stock depot (Washwood Heath) – there is potential for 30-35 residential demolitions in the Washwood Heath ward, which includes a
- proportionally high number of BAME communities than the Borough average. The Equality Screening Report considered this in more detail
(Vol 2, section 2.7)
Curzon Street station and approach - The ward covering the Curzon Street has a high Asian population (46.4%). At the Super Output Area
level, there is one area which contains a higher than proportionate percentage of the Black population (14.2% compared to 6.2% for the
- Borough), of which there are a number of dwellings at risk of demolition, although the majority of these are commercial/industrial buildings
and therefore impacts to deprived communicates are unlikely. The proportion of children and older people is consistent with the ward
average.
11. Reduce 11a. Nos. of strategic footpaths, bridleways, Overall – The route dissects a total of six (6) national cycle routes, 13 local cycle routes, 24 OS footpaths, and one (1) national trail. Many of
Accessibility severance. Maintain and nature trails and cycle paths severed these occur on existing roads, where it has been assumed access would be maintained. Some routes however (described below) would be
-
See also TAG enhance pedestrian and/or requiring diversion impacted as they are located on tracks or across open land. Even these impacts however, are only likely to occur in the short term (e.g.
Unit 3.6.2 access (E, H, Eq) during construction), and would be further assessed as part of an EIA.
Reducing
o Euston station (including throat) - No features affected
Severance
Sub- o Tunnel from Euston to Old Oak Common (OOC) - No features affected (in tunnel)
Objective.
o OOC station (including box and throats) - No features affected
OOC to Colne Valley Junction - Eight (8) cycle routes intersected (7 local, 1 national). These are all either on existing roads or under the
o railway viaduct so access is expected to be maintained There are two (2) OS footpaths which lie under the existing rail viaduct or along an
A road, so access to these would be maintained also.
Colne Valley Junction to Aylesbury - There are six (6) cycle routes intersected (3 local, 3 national), six (6) OS footpath crossings and one (1)
National Trail crossing. The majority of these are along existing roads or would fall under viaducts, however there may be a few disruptions.
To the west of Wendover, one (1) local cycle route and OS footpath (the Icknield Way Path) intersect the route along a minor road. This
-
road then follows the route for approximately 650m, so there may be disruption to these paths if they are taken over during construction or
even operation. An additional two (2) OS footpaths could be interrupted to the north of Aylesbury as they do not follow any existing roads but
run across open land.
Aylesbury to Brackley (A421 crossing) - There is one (1) national cycle route intersected, which lies on an existing road so access is
- expected to be maintained. An additional four (4) OS footpaths are intersected, two of which lie on existing roads. The remaining two (2)
(including the Midshires Way) lie on tracks and therefore may be disrupted.
Brackley (A421 crossing) to Kenilworth/Coventry gap – one (1) local cycle route intersected which lies along an existing road so access is
expected to be maintained. Six (6) OS footpaths are intersected (the Coventry Way, Centenary Way and Grand Union Canal Walk, some
-
on more than one occasion) although these lie either on existing roads or along the canal so access should be maintained. The Centenary
Way may be disrupted on two occasions when it crosses open land.
Kenilworth/Coventry gap to Berkswell Rail Station - The Coventry way is intersected on an existing road then follows the route along a
-
disused railway for approximately 1.5km. There is likely to be disruption to this path during the construction period.
Berkswell Rail Station to West Coast Main Line (Lichfield) – One (1) local and one (1) national cycle route intersected. Access maintained
on the local route, although there may be disruption to the national cycle route. Mitigation would be expected if this is the case. There are
-
an additional four (4) crossings of OS footpaths; access is expected to be maintained with the exception of one which runs along a narrow
track.
o Birmingham Interchange Station (including throats) - No features intersected
o Birmingham spur - No features intersected.
o Rolling stock depot (Washwood Heath) - No features intersected.
Curzon Street station and approach – One (1) local cycle route intersected. The route stops at the existing railway line so the same should
o
be expected with the proposed alignment. One (1) OS footpath intersected however this runs alongside an existing road.
Impacts on areas of open access, including Overall - Only one (1) CROW area affected (registered common land). This area is already bisected so the impact would be through
o
common land and greens minimal land take. There are no other features affected.
(H, Eq)
o Euston station (including throat) - No features affected
o Tunnel from Euston to Old Oak Common (OOC) - No features affected (in tunnel)
o OOC station (including box and throats) - No features affected
OOC to Colne Valley Junction – One (1) CROW area. Already bisected by an existing railway, although the alignment may require some
o
landtake.
o Colne Valley Junction to Aylesbury - No features affected
o Aylesbury to Brackley (A421 crossing) - No features affected
29
o Brackley (A421 crossing) to Kenilworth/Coventry gap - No features affected
o Kenilworth/Coventry gap to Berkswell Rail Station - No features affected
o Berkswell Rail Station to West Coast Main line (Lichfield) - No features affected
o Birmingham Interchange Station (including throats) - No features affected
o Birmingham spur - No features affected
o Rolling stock depot (Washwood Heath) - No features affected
o Curzon Street station and approach - No features affected
Improve 11b. Potential for improved access to public The fact that London, Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester and Glasgow are places with a higher than average proportion of households
access to the Maintain and transport for non-car users without cars, and are connected to HS2 high speed services, demonstrates a positive for the Accessibility appraisal. These areas represent
public enhance access to (H) a significant proportion of the UK population. For released capacity services in the West Midlands to the south of Birmingham, affected
transport public transport places such as Warwickshire, Solihull and Coventry all have relatively high levels of car ownership. In places to the immediate north of
system. See London, all places exhibit very high levels of car ownership. Therefore, any improvements in released capacity services in these areas are
TAG Unit not likely to benefit many households with low levels of car ownership. Of the other major towns along the WCML that would be affected by
3.6.3 and o released capacity changes, both Crewe and Stoke-on-Trent exhibit lower than average levels of car ownership, although the impacts of
3.6.1 Option changes in service levels for these areas are not yet fully understood. While it is difficult to make a comprehensive assessment at this stage
Values Sub- of scheme design, on balance, the evidence suggests a neutral score for this assessment.
objective. In considering the gains in accessibility for people without cars and populations in economically deprived areas, it is important to consider
issues relating to personal affordability. While many areas would gain from high speed rail connections, many people in these areas would
not be able to afford these services. Any move to a premium fare structure would exacerbate these issues.
Potential to improve option values The gains from the new high speed option across a large proportion of the population would be offset to some degree by the incremental
(H) + nature of HS2 as an option for accessing major cities along the WCML, where very good road and rail links are in place. On balance,
impacts are expected to be positive.
Population in the 20% most deprived areas All of London, Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Preston, Carlisle, and Glasgow have large areas of deprivation and derive large benefits
with better access to public transport from HS2. While benefits from released capacity are less clear, places such as Coventry, Milton Keynes and Northampton also exhibit large
services areas of deprivation. It is only a selection of areas along the London end of the WCML and through Solihull near Birmingham that do not
(H, Eq) + show areas of deprivation. These correspond to the high car ownership areas identified above. The assessment score is single positive.
In considering the gains in accessibility for people without cars and populations in economically deprived areas, it is important to consider
issues relating to personal affordability. While many areas would gain from high speed rail connections, many people in these areas would
not be able to afford these services. Any move to a premium fare structure would exacerbate these issues.
Improve 11c. Potential to improve public transport HS2 presents an opportunity to enhance public transport interchange in relation to:
transport Maintain and interchanges as a result of option Euston – interchange connectivity would be improved to existing rail, bus and underground rail services
interchange. enhance public (H, Eq)
See TAG Unit Old Oak Common - interchange connectivity would be improved to existing rail and underground rail services
transport
3.7.1 interchange Birmingham Interchange - Provided that aviation is considered public transport, interchange connectivity would be improved to existing
Transport + aviation bus and rail services
Interchange Curzon- interchange connectivity would be improved to existing rail and bus services
Sub-Objective
This assessment is based on limited information. Nevertheless, HS2 presents an opportunity to enhance public transport interchange
through the provision of modern station facilities and competitively tendered rolling stock operations. This could be offset due to potential
issues relating to linkages with other services, particularly at the Birmingham terminal.
Ability to accommodate mobility impaired All stations and the fleet of trains would be designed to encourage active use by mobility impaired passengers. This is a matter of detailed
access with option U design
(H, Eq)
12. Improve 12a. Impacts on the key determinants of mental Appraisal summary for all criteria on impacts to mental well-being:
Health and journey Maintain and well-being (H, Eq) Climate/adaptability: no mental well-being impacts.
well-being ambience. improve mental
See TAG Unit Greenhouse gases: no mental well-being impacts
well-being
3.3.13 Landscape and townscape: unlikely to result in significant mental well-being issues though some changes to physical changes to
Journey landscape. People are likely to be able to adapt so any impacts would only be short term and the number of people affected is likely to be
Ambience relatively small.
Sub-Objective -
Cultural heritage: no mental well-being impacts.
Biodiversity: no mental well-being impacts.
Water resources: no mental well-being impacts.
Flood risk: no mental well-being impacts.
Air quality: no mental well-being impacts.
Noise and vibration: potential impacts to mental well-being due to increase in noise levels. Also need to consider the cumulative impacts.
30
This is further discussed below.
Community integrity: some potential for minor mental well-being impacts as a result of changes to community structures due to demolition of
structures, land take and severance. This is further discussed below.
Accessibility: some potential for short term mental well-being impacts due to temporary change in access, but overall benefit is positive.
Further discussed below.
Security and safety: scheme has limited effect on security and safety other than road traffic accidents, and thus no mental well-being
impacts are likely.
Economic prosperity: no mental well-being benefits.
Economic welfare: some potential for positive mental well-being benefits though employment opportunities, though likely to be very limited.
Soil and land: no mental well-being impacts
Waste generation: mental well-being impacts unable to be appraised due to lack of appropriate design information.
Resource use: physical well-being impacts unable to be appraised due to lack of appropriate design information.
The scheme has the potential to affect mental well-being and well-being both positively and negatively.
Mental well-being impacts unable to be appraised due to lack of appropriate design information for criterion relating to waste generation and
resources use.
The scheme has the potential to affect mental well-being and well-being both positively and negatively.
The main benefits arise from released capacity on existing rail lines, improving the journey ambience and reducing overcrowding on busy
commuter lines for rail passengers. Actual benefits with regard to this are unknown until the indicative results from the modal shift analysis
are fully completed.
The negative impacts on mental well-being are predominantly due to increased noise annoyance, and community/physical severance, which
would affect those residents living along the route or those newly exposed to the railway line. Each of these issues is discussed below.
There have been few studies on the well-being effects of high speed rail lines. The main mental well-being impacts of such noise levels
identified by the World Health Organisation are: annoyance; negative social behaviour (aggressiveness, protest and helplessness), and
interference with speech communication. However, impacts to mental well-being are not likely to be significant due to factors outlined above
in relation to sleep disturbance.
Community and physical severance: impacts due to severance are likely to be limited due to the issues raised above in relation to physical
health. However, vulnerable groups (e.g. the elderly or disabled) may experience annoyance during periods of temporary change in access
to some communities, services and facilities. As access would be maintained however, impacts (if any) would be short term and affected
groups should be able to adapt with assistance and thus no significant impacts are predicted.
Significant negative impacts mental well-being and well being are most likely where there are cumulative impacts in one area, for example,
noise impacts combined with a reduction in quality of the visual landscape and greater difficulty in accessing services.
No. of residential dwellings within 100m of Overall –
surface sections of line (potential for Dwellings 7,453.
nuisance during construction) (E, H)
Community 100.
-
Commercial 835.
Industry 166.
Total 8,554
- Euston station (including throat) - Commercial 115, Community 18, Industry 8, Dwelling 2,094
o Tunnel from Euston to Old Oak Common (OOC) - Commercial 0, Community 0, Industry 0, Dwelling 0
- OOC station (including box and throats) - Commercial 3, Community 0, Industry 2, Dwelling 89
- OOC to Colne Valley Junction - Commercial 398, Community 40, Industry 69 Dwelling 3,755
- Colne Valley Junction to Aylesbury - Commercial 11, Community 3, Industry 9, Dwelling 135
- Aylesbury to Brackley (A421 crossing) - Commercial 4, Community 1, Industry 5, Dwelling 59
- Brackley (A421 crossing) to Kenilworth/Coventry gap - Commercial 9, Community 6, Industry 11, Dwelling 64
- Kenilworth/Coventry gap to Berkswell Rail Station - Commercial 1, Community 0, Industry 1, Dwelling 50
- Berkswell Rail Station to West Coast Main line (Lichfield) - Commercial 85, Community 10, Industry 15, Dwelling 147
o Birmingham Interchange Station (including throats) - Commercial 1, Community 0, Industry 0, Dwelling 0
- Birmingham spur - Commercial 72, Community 10, Industry 23, Dwelling 596
- Rolling stock depot (Washwood Heath) - Commercial 12, Community 1, Industry 9, Dwelling 385
- Curzon Street station and approach - Commercial 125, Community 8, Industry 12, Dwelling 79
31
Impacts on areas with highest 20% of Some information on tranquillity is provided in Volume 1, though this does not provide information on the areas in the highest 20% and thus
U
tranquillity scores (H) his criteria cannot be appraised at this stage.
Encourage 12b. Potential to encourage a more healthy Assessment summary for all criteria on impacts to physical health:
physical Maintain and lifestyle (e.g. through more active travel Climate/adaptability: See flooding (7) above.
fitness. See improve physical options) when accessing the network
TAG Unit (H) Greenhouse gases: some potential health benefits if reductions achieved, but not tangible at a regional or local level on the basis of HS2‟s
health contribution
3.3.12
Physical Landscape and townscape: adverse effects on landscape and townscape would not manifest on physical health.
Fitness Sub- Cultural heritage: no physical health impacts.
Objective
Biodiversity: no physical health impacts.
Water resources: potential for minor physical health benefits if positive improvement to river quality or groundwater.
Flood risk: health impacts only if flooding occurs, and very low risks of this as a result of HS2 would be local in extent and extremely
infrequent.
Air quality: potential for physical impacts to health (e.g. respiratory illness etc) due to change in air quality caused by modal shift. In addition,
there are a number of people who live within 100m, of the route who may be at risk of disturbance (see criterion above). This is further
discussed below.
Noise and vibration: potential impacts to physical health due to increase in noise levels (e.g. sleep deprivation etc). This is further discussed
below.
o Community integrity: some potential for minor physical impacts as a result of changes to community structures due to demolition, land take
and severance (though impacts more likely to be related to mental wellbeing)
Accessibility: potential disruption to footpaths may cause potential decrease in physical activity, but general intention is to maintain all
existing rights of way and thus impacts to physical health are unlikely.
Security and safety: unlikely to be reduction on RTA and thus physical health improvements are unlikely. Not possible to assess physical
health impacts due to reduction in crime.
Economic prosperity: no physical health benefits.
Economic welfare: economic development opportunities in some areas may cause positive impacts to physical health though this is unlikely
to occur in the short term, or to be widespread.
Soil and land: no physical health impacts
Waste generation: physical health impacts unable to be assessed.
Resource use: physical health impacts unable to be assessed.
This criterion has been considered for the March 2010 preferred route option.
Effects for these criteria would be most apparent at stations. The Curzon Street station at Birmingham would tie in with existing public
transport options and the stations at London (Euston) are existing stations which would be modified, and thus new travel options are not
created as a result of the route. The scope therefore, to further encourage a healthier lifestyle is limited.
Impacts on the key determinants of Any potential impacts to physical health would most likely be as a result of increase/exacerbation of cardiovascular and respiratory disease
physical health (due to changes in air quality during construction).
(H) Construction effects - people within 100m of the construction footprint of the route are potentially at risk of disturbance during construction
and operation.
The Air Quality assessment findings are likely to show that there would be negligible effects on air quality during operation, given the
scheme is electrically powered and thus impacts on cardiovascular and respiratory disease are unlikely. In some areas there may be
specific local issues: for example, there may be some potential increase/redistribution of motor vehicle air pollution from residents of the
surrounding area accessing the Birmingham Interchange Station. Key factors influencing the significance of this impact would include:
low population density to the east and the airport to the west;
the extent and promotion of cycling/pedestrian access to the Station (discussed above), and the provision of appropriate facilities;.
o the cumulative issues associated with the proximity to the airport and motorway, which are likely to be more significant contributors to the
overall air quality in the area; and health status and lifestyle factors such as smoking, which could increase vulnerability to air quality
changes.
Although construction and operation would mostly take place during daytime hours, tunnelling (causing groundborne noise) and track
maintenance (causing airborne noise) would likely occur during the night creating a potential for night-time sleep disturbance at nearby
sensitive properties. The number of people who would be affected in this way is unknown at this stage. The noise and vibration appraisal
(see Noise appendix 3.5, Volume 3) presents results of daytime operational noise annoyance.
Other issues:
The effects on mortality and life expectancy have been considered and are also believed to be negligible, due to the limited physical
health improvements noted above.
There is unlikely to be any affect on access to services such as health facilities. Existing access to be maintained (severance would be
32
minimised through maintaining all roads), and there are limited opportunities for improvement in access due to the lack of stations.
Emergency medical transport between major cities would continue by road or air.
Road traffic injuries are discussed separately below in 13a
No NATA 12c. Impacts on the key determinants of health Assessment summary for all criteria on impacts on determent of health inequalities:
equivalent Reduce health inequality Climate/adaptability: no impacts to determinants of health inequality.
inequalities (H, Eq)
Greenhouse gases: no impacts to determinants of health inequality
Landscape and townscape: no impacts to determinants of health inequality.
Cultural heritage: no impacts to determinants of health inequality.
Biodiversity: no impacts to determinants of health inequality.
Water resources: no impacts to determinants of health inequality.
Flood risk: no impacts to determinants of health inequality.
Air quality: no impacts to determinants of health inequality.
Noise and vibration: potential impacts to mental well-being due to increase in noise levels. Also need to consider the cumulative impacts.
Community integrity: some potential for minor mental well-being impacts as a result of changes to community structures due to demolition,
land take and severance.
Accessibility: some potential for short term mental well-being impacts due to temporary change in access, but overall benefit is positive.
Further discussed below.
Security and safety: scheme has limited effect on security and safety other than road traffic accidents, and thus no mental well-being
impacts are likely.
Economic prosperity: no mental well-being benefits.
Economic welfare: some potential for positive mental well-being benefits though employment opportunities, though likely to be very limited.
Soil and land: no mental well-being impacts
o Waste generation: mental well-being impacts unable to be appraised.
Resource use: physical well-being impacts unable to be appraised.
For the purpose of this scheme, the key determinants of health inequality include employment, deprivation, access to services and facilities,
isolation/severance,
The March 2010 preferred route option overall would not significantly affect (positively or negatively) health inequalities along the route. This
is because:
Access to existing health services and facilities would be maintained;
Impacts resulting in isolation or severance are unlikely, and where they occur, would be short term and affected groups would be able to
adapt with assistance;
While some employment opportunities would arise as a result of the scheme, the numbers are not significant, and would not necessarily be
accessed by people living in locations where significant impacts would be experienced.
There are likely to be some short term positive economic impacts due to the presence of the construction workforce (e.g. cafe, convenience
stores etc), though these are unlikely to be significant, nor encourage wider stimulus to the local economy.
There are unlikely to be any significant impacts to current physical and mental well-being.
Impacts on deprived areas are localised to two main locations: London and approaches and the Birmingham spur. Where this does occur,
any changes in access to health services or facilities would be temporary, and it is anticipated that affected groups would be able to adapt
with assistance.
There is potentially likely to be a large shift in existing business passengers moving to use the new service. While this would increase
existing capacity this is likely to mean a loss of revenue from passengers buying higher value tickets. This could make the existing standard
trains serving London and Birmingham less viable to run and hence increase the ticket prices for standard train journeys or fewer services.
Given that current projections estimate that there would be a significant increase in overall passengers in the medium it is unclear whether
this would offset the potential loss of business customers to HS2. The likelihood of this impact is unknown at this stage.
13. Reduce 13a. Change in likelihood of accidents as a Preliminary demand model outputs indicate that there is the potential for some modal shift from road to rail (both HS2 and released
Security and accidents. Contribute to the result of option (modal shift) capacity). However, the reduction in the number of road trips is not expected to be significant when considering overall traffic flows. The
safety See TAG Unit reduction of road (H, Eq) resultant shift may reduce a small number of road traffic accidents from some existing motorways but is unlikely to have any measurable
o
3.4.1 traffic accidents effect on road traffic incident rates. Until more detailed road traffic modelling has been undertaken, this objective remains unknown.
Accidents
Sub-Objective
Improve 13b. Features that might increase crime or fear This criterion would not be known so far in advance of detailed design. The stations, footbridges and other pedestrian access areas would
security. See of crime U be assumed to be designed in accordance with 'Secured by Design' (www.securedbydesign.com). It is recommended that attention be given
Protect against
33
TAG Unit crime and fear of (H) to the design of tunnels or viaducts in order to reduce the potential effect of an increase in crime or fear of crime and reduction in perceived
3.4.2 Security crime safety. There would also be the assumption that safe waiting rooms would be incorporated into the design specification accreditation sought
Sub-Objective under the Government, British Transport Police ad Crime Concern Secure Stations Scheme.
14. To support 14a. Net business impacts for transport users Total business user benefits were estimated as being equivalent to be around £17.6 Bn, (NPV, 60 years, 2009 prices and values). This
Economic sustainable Support economic (i.e. excluding environmental and wider represents very large benefits, reflecting the large journey time savings that HS2 affords and the high levels of underlying demand on the
prosperity economic competitiveness economic benefits and costs) WCML.
activity and and make efficient
get good use of public funds ++
value for
money. See
TAG Units
3.5.1 to
3.5.14.
Provide 14b. Changes in agglomeration, market The potential for HS2 high speed services to generate wider economic benefits due to agglomeration is limited. It can be expected that
beneficial Support wider competiveness and labour productivity further refinements of the released capacity strategy would deliver agglomeration benefits by enhancing labour catchments for firms in both
+
wider economic growth London and Birmingham. Output gains in imperfectly competitive markets are modelled as a proportion of business user benefits and there
economic and maintain and are expected to be significant.
impacts. See enhance Impacts on labour markets Labour market impacts are expected to be marginal to slightly positive, however, land use changes over time may magnify benefits along
TAG Unit employment the WCML at the expense of the London, Birmingham and Manchester hinterlands, as well other parts of the UK. Labour market impacts
Units 3.5.8 opportunities + may be enhanced by any agglomeration impacts, and hence could be positive overall. This depends crucially on released capacity benefits.
and 3.5.10 to
3.5.14,
15. Provide 15a. Net benefits for consumers and commuters Total consumer and leisure user benefits were estimated as being equivalent to around £11.1 Bn (NPV, 60 years, 2009 prices and values),
Economic beneficial Support wider (Eq) primarily due to high demand in the leisure market. This represents a very large benefit, reflecting the large journey time savings that HS2
transport user ++ affords and the high levels of underlying leisure demand on services between the major centres of London, Birmingham, Manchester,
welfare economic welfare
impacts, wider growth Liverpool and Glasgow.
economic
impacts and 15b. Impacts on planned regional growth areas The HS2 route passes approximately 2km to the west of identified growth areas in Aylesbury which forms part of the Milton
integrate with Support planned Keynes/Aylesbury Vale Growth Area as defined in the SE Regional Spatial Strategy. Within this, Aylesbury is identified as a Regional Hub
land use developments o and Centre of Significant Change and is proposed for additional housing. It is the administrative centre and county town for
policy. See Buckinghamshire. This opportunity to realise the longer term potential of the town to provide higher order functions and fulfil role of a
TAG Unit regional hub would be dependent upon improved strategic transport connections (no stations are planned as part of this project)
Units3.5.1 to Impacts on planned major housing and There are significant impacts to a major regeneration/development project at the proposed site of the Curzon Street Station. However,
3.5.14, Tag sustainable housing developments throughout the rest of the route there are no known impacts to any other planned major housing and sustainable housing developments.
Unit 3.7.2
Land Use There are major housing sites for the proposed expansion of Aylesbury in line with the RSS. These are predominantly to the east of the town
Policy Sub- and so would not be affected or prejudiced by the proposed HS2 route alignment which passes to the west of the town. Inclusion of an
-
Objective intermediate station to the north would be of benefit to existing and new communities around Aylesbury.
Curzon Street Station: Serious impact on planned residential developments as part of the Eastside regeneration project, located on the site
of the proposed HS2 Curzon Street station. Projects within the Eastside development potentially affected include Curzon Park and City Park
Gate.
Impacts on other planned major There are no known impacts to planned major developments along the majority of the route, with the exception of those at Curzon Street,
developments where the scheme would have a serious impact on planned mixed use developments as part of the Eastside project. The proposed station
could impact a number of aspects of the development project including:
2
Curzon Park a 130,000m mixed scheme including office, retail and residential use as well as on proposals for Birmingham City
University.
Birmingham City University Campus west of New Canal Street in the central part of the proposed station, incorporating the universities
conservatoire and its art and design facilities. Birmingham City University‟s proposal for a university campus; concert hall ; theatre and
- retail is due to commence on site in 2010 as part of a financed development requiring them to move from existing premises the following
year.
Curzon Gate, at the proposed stations eastern end, which forms the rail approach to Curzon Street, would require demolition. This would
comprise of~ 748 units of recently completed student units at the junction of Curzon Street and Lawley Queensway.
City Park Gate a mixed use development which could include 850 apartments, office, retail and hotel facilities.
There may be some opportunity to reconfigure new development potential around the new station when completed although it is difficult at
this stage to predict how much and what development would be viable following construction of HS2.
34
15c. Impacts on other defined regeneration Overall - Demand modelling has been being undertaken by HS2 to assess both the growth and regeneration impacts likely to result from the
Maintain and areas improvements in connectivity and journey times from the high speed link. This would include both direct impacts as well as any additional
enhance (E, H, Eq) benefits arising from released capacity on classic lines and their implications for regeneration areas.
regeneration The presence of HS2 stations adjacent to areas of deprivation is likely to provide modest opportunities for employment for local residents.
Wider benefits would arise if such stations increase the overall appeal of their vicinities for investment and increased development. For
example, increased use of the Euston site through growth of HS2 traffic, including potential use of HS2 to access Heathrow, is likely to have
positive benefits for current plans to regenerate Euston.
Furthermore, the release of capacity on the WCML, which may provide opportunities for enhanced commuter services, could complement
existing plans for regeneration. Northampton in particular, has already been identified as a location for future growth and regeneration.
+ Better connectivity with London would assist this.
Perhaps the best regeneration opportunity would come from a station at Old Oak Common. The interchange between HS2 and Crossrail,
along with the vastly increased connectivity such a hub could provide for neighbouring areas, may offer significant opportunities for
regeneration. However, plans to regenerate and develop the site appear to be only embryonic at this stage.
More broadly, it is important to note that most regeneration benefits can only be realised in the context of a broader regeneration strategy for
the relevant locations. These need to address wider social issues, such as housing, the built environment, skills and crime. Reliance on
HS2 stations in isolation is unlikely to succeed as the core of any objective to promote regeneration.
In conclusion, HS2 can make a worthwhile contribution to regeneration at station locations, but to fully unlock those benefits would require
more comprehensive strategies that go beyond transport.
Euston station (including throat) - Overall the scheme has the potential to have a number of positive effects on the local community and
provide a catalyst for change and for other regeneration/development proposals to come forward.
The proposed mixed use approach complies with the policies and targets of the London Plan and the Camden Unitary Development Plan.
The ranges of uses to include housing, commercial, retail, access would link/function together with the surrounding land uses, communities
and places in a sustainable way.
Euston is an area with particularly deprived communities. It also has a poor quality environment and sense of place particularly in and
around Euston Station. Consequently, the Euston Station site is designated in the London Plan as an Area of Intensification and is subject
to supplementary planning guidance produced by Camden Council (Euston Planning Framework SPD, April 2009).
Two development sites included in the SPD would be physically affected and prejudiced by the proposed redevelopment of Euston Station
as they fall partly within the proposed red line boundary. These sites are known as the Granby Terrace carriage shed and the former BHS
depot site on Hampstead Road.
In contrast, other development sites included in the SPD notably the national Temperance Hospital on Hampstead Road and the Euston
Police Garage on Drummond Crescent are likely to come forward and benefit from the redevelopment of Euston Station.
+ Due to the physical and operational constraints of the development additional land take is required to the east of the existing rail corridor.
This would have a negative effect on a local level. The existing commercial, residential and open space, particularly St James‟s Garden
could potentially be relocated over the Station Concourse Area and a Grade II* Listed Building 194a Euston Road would be retained.
Furthermore, in line with Camden Unitary Development Plan the proposal retains Euston Square and Euston Square Gardens as valuable
public open space.
Mitigation to account for the loss of public housing and other land uses is presented in a mitigation plan (see Volume 1 Figure 30 Section
7.16) which gives an outline of the possible development of the station to include commercial, public housing, open space and access. The
mitigation plan also provides a response to the community issues and other issues to be addressed through mitigation measures. The plan
details the provision of new public housing to mitigate for housing to be lost as a result of the proposals. This would be positive in the long
term as the proposed housing is located in close proximity to the existing public housing. The proposal would provide an appropriate mix of
uses including a substantial amount of new housing in line with the SPD.
The improved public transport accessibility and capacity provided by the proposal as well as the proposed range of mixed uses would bring
about a significant number of new homes and jobs. The quality of the environment in and around the station and relationship between
spaces and surrounding buildings would also be improved. Given these regeneration impacts the scheme would help towards a more
sustainable future for the area and its economy in line with the objectives of the SPD.
Old Oak Common comprises industrial and vacant land and lies within the local authority area of Hammersmith and Fulham and in one of
London‟s growth corridors (Western Wedge). The site is also in close proximity to the London Borough‟s of Ealing and Brent. The location of
the proposed station is land locked between existing rail networks and Wouldesden Junction station to the north of the site. The existing rail
networks include Great Western Line, West Coast Main Line, Chiltern Line, Heathrow Express, the London Underground Bakerloo Line, and
the London Overground. The Grand Union Canal also runs through the centre of the site to the east and west.
Old Oak ward is one of the most deprived wards in England in terms of social and employment deprivation. Old Oak Common together with
+ Wouldesden Junction fall within one of West London‟s Opportunity Areas known as Park Royal (London‟s largest industrial site) as identified
within the London Plan and is subject to a draft Planning Framework produced by the GLA in 2008. Increasing access by public transport is
a key aim of Opportunity Areas. The strategic importance of Park Royal in maximising future economic and employment opportunities in
this area of London is reinforced in a study undertaken for GLA/LDA/SEEDA/ SEERA called „The Western Wedge‟.
Due to its location, surrounding land uses, and existing transport infrastructure HS2 interchange at Old Oak Common could also serve
CrossRail and presents a major regeneration opportunity that is likely to provide the catalyst to bring forward other redevelopment projects in
West London as well as creating a number of different employment opportunities. Examples of recent redevelopment projects in West
35
London which are creating new job opportunities are Westfield Shopping Centre and the redevelopment of the Guinness site (known as First
Central).
The redevelopment of Old Oak Common as a strategic rail interchange site would help meet the target for the Park Royal Opportunity Area
which is to accommodate 11,000 new jobs over the next 20 years. Furthermore, one of the objectives of the Sustainability Appraisal
prepared for the framework document is to:
“to stimulate regeneration and urban renaissance that maximises benefit to the most deprived areas and communities and to improve
efficiency in land use through the sustainable reuse of previously developed land and existing buildings”.
An interchange at Old Oak Common would help achieve this objective as it would reuse previously developed land and would help bring
forward future development at Park Royal. In addition, London Plan Policy 4B.3 seeks to maximise the development potential of sites of
which the use is compatible with existing land use and built form.
Old Oak Common has the potential to deliver a range of mixed uses to meet market demand including residential, commercial and industrial
(bio-medical) and would therefore offer a range of employment opportunities for existing and new communities. It would assist in attracting
inward investment to the wider area and to the site itself.
Overall a HS2 interchange station at Old Oak Common presents a major regeneration opportunity for West London and would help deliver
other planning aspirations such as development in and around Wouldesden Junction.
16. No NATA 16a. Impacts on Grade 1 and 2 agricultural land Overall - Over this route as a whole, no Grade 1 Agricultural Land would be affected. A total of 242.5 hectares of Grade 2 Agricultural Land
-
Soil and land equivalent Maintain and crossed by surface or cut and cover falls within the 100m buffer zone and is crossed by 22.1km of the route.
resources enhance land sections
o Euston station (including throat) - No Grade 1 or 2 Agricultural Land affected over this route section.
resources (E)
o Tunnel from Euston to Old Oak Common (OOC) - No Grade 1 or 2 Agricultural Land affected over this route section.
o OOC station (including box and throats) - No Grade 1 or 2 Agricultural Land affected over this route section.
o OOC to Colne Valley Junction - No Grade 1 or 2 Agricultural Land affected over this route section.
2
Colne Valley Junction to Aylesbury - No Grade 1 Agricultural Land affected. 0.49km (49ha) of Grade 2 Agricultural Land extending over a
-
length of 4.7km would be affected over this route section, predominantly between Great Missenden and Wendover
o Aylesbury to Brackley (A421 crossing) - No Grade 1 or 2 Agricultural Land affected over this route section
2
Brackley (A421 crossing) to Kenilworth/Coventry gap - No Grade 1 Agricultural Land affected. 0.85km (85ha) of Grade 2 Agricultural Land
- extending over a length of 7.8km would be affected over this route section. This comprises an area near the village of Chipping Warden,
Northants, and also to the East of Leamington Spa, Warwickshire,
2
Kenilworth/Coventry gap to Berkswell Rail Station - No Grade 1 Agricultural Land affected. 0.015km (1.5ha) of Grade 2 Agricultural Land
-
over a length of 0.066km would be affected on this route section, just north of Kenilworth and south of Coventry
2
Berkswell Rail Station to West Coast Main line (Lichfield) - No Grade 1 Agricultural Land affected. 1.07km (107ha) of Grade 2 Agricultural
- Land over a distance of 9.49km would be affected along this route section, predominantly in areas south of Berkswell and south east of
Lichfield
o Birmingham Interchange Station (including throats) - No Grade 1 or 2 Agricultural Land affected over this route section.
o Birmingham spur - No Grade 1 or 2 Agricultural Land affected over this route section.
o Rolling stock depot (Washwood Heath) - No Grade 1 or 2 Agricultural Land affected over this route section.
o Curzon Street station and approach - No Grade 1 or 2 Agricultural Land affected over this route section.
Length of Green Belt land crossed by -- Overall –85.4km of Green Belt affected.
surface sections
o Euston Station – 0km of Green Belt affected.
o Tunnel from Euston to Old Oak Common (OOC) - 0km of Green Belt affected.
o OOC station (including box and throats) – 0km of Green Belt affected.
- OOC to Colne Valley Junction – 0. 7km of Green Belt affected.
- Colne Valley Junction to Aylesbury – 20.7km of Green Belt affected.
o Aylesbury to Brackley (A421 crossing) – 0km of Green Belt affected.
- Brackley (A421 crossing) to Kenilworth/Coventry gap – 13.0km of Green Belt affected.
- Kenilworth/Coventry gap to Berkswell Rail Station – 3.9km of Green Belt affected.
- Berkswell Rail Station to West Coast Main line (Lichfield) – 34.6km of Green Belt affected.
-- Birmingham Interchange Station (including throats) - 2.4km of Green Belt affected. A large section would removed from Green Belt to
36
accommodate station, motorway realignment and parking areas associated with the Station.
- Birmingham spur – 10.1km of Green Belt affected
o Rolling stock depot (Washwood Heath) - 0km of Green Belt affected
o Curzon Street station and approach- 0km of Green Belt affected
Area of land designated for mineral o Overall - No known mineral sites affected
extraction that is sterilised as a result of
o Euston station (including throat) - No known mineral sites affected
option
o Tunnel from Euston to Old Oak Common (OOC) - No known mineral sites affected
o OOC station (including box and throats) - No known mineral sites affected
o OOC to Colne Valley Junction - No known mineral sites affected
o Colne Valley Junction to Aylesbury - No known mineral sites affected
o Aylesbury to Brackley (A421 crossing) – No mineral sites affected
o Brackley (A421 crossing) to Kenilworth/Coventry gap - No known mineral sites affected
o Kenilworth/Coventry gap to Berkswell Rail Station - No known mineral sites affected
o Berkswell Rail Station to West Coast Main line (Lichfield) - No known mineral sites affected
o Birmingham Interchange Station (including throats) - No known mineral sites affected
o Birmingham spur - No mineral sites affected.
o Rolling stock depot (Washwood Heath) - No mineral sites affected
o Curzon Street station and approach- No mineral sites affected
2
Area of land designated for waste disposal - Overall - One Authorised Landfill sites of 0.088km (8.8ha) would be affected along this route.
physically affected by option
o Euston station (including throat) - No currently Authorised Landfill sites
o Tunnel from Euston to Old Oak Common (OOC) - No currently Authorised Landfill sites
o OOC station (including box and throats) - No currently Authorised Landfill sites
o OOC to Colne Valley Junction - No currently Authorised Landfill sites
o Colne Valley Junction to Aylesbury - No currently Authorised Landfill sites
2
Aylesbury to Brackley (A421 crossing) - Currently 0.088Km (8.8 ha) of Authorised Landfill extending over 1.36km of the route section. This
-
is a disposal site immediately south east of Calvert
o Brackley (A421 crossing) to Kenilworth/Coventry gap - No currently Authorised Landfill sites
o Kenilworth/Coventry gap to Berkswell Rail Station - No currently Authorised Landfill sites
o Berkswell Rail Station to West Coast Main line (Lichfield) - No currently Authorised Landfill sites
o Birmingham Interchange Station (including throats) - No currently Authorised Landfill sites
o Birmingham spur - No currently Authorised Landfill sites
o Rolling stock depot (Washwood Heath) - No currently Authorised Landfill sites
o Curzon Street station and approach - No currently Authorised Landfill sites
16b. Number of "high risk" brownfield sites + Overall - 23 identified brownfield sites that could be brought back into beneficial use, either wholly or partially, equivalent to 227.93 ha.
Encourage the use brought back into beneficial use, either o Euston station (including throat) - No identified brownfield sites.
of brownfield sites wholly or partially.
(E, H) o Tunnel from Euston to Old Oak Common (OOC) - No identified brownfield sites.
o OOC station (including box and throats) - No identified brownfield sites.
o OOC to Colne Valley Junction - No identified brownfield sites.
+ Colne Valley Junction to Aylesbury – five (5) brownfield sites identified, equivalent to 22.02 ha.
+ Aylesbury to Brackley (A421 crossing) – three (3) brownfield sites identified, equivalent to 82.07 ha.
+ Brackley (A421 crossing) to Kenilworth/Coventry gap – four (4) brownfield sites identified, equivalent to 6.92 ha.
o Kenilworth/Coventry gap to Berkswell Rail Station - No identified brownfield sites.
37
+ Berkswell Rail Station to West Coast Main line (Lichfield) – five (5) brownfield sites identified, equivalent to 66.30 ha.
o Birmingham Interchange Station (including throats) - No identified brownfield sites.
+ Birmingham spur – six (6) brownfield sites identified, equivalent to 50.62 ha.
o Rolling stock depot (Washwood Heath) - No identified brownfield sites.
o Curzon Street station and approach - No identified brownfield sites.
3
17. No NATA 17a. Volumes of inert and non-hazardous waste Overall - Waste spoil generated = 1.85M m . It is assumed that waste is dominated by tunnel spoil, with a balance achieved between
2
Waste equivalent Prevent and spoil potentially requiring off-line disposal - cuttings and land raising elsewhere and demolition waste being a small contributor. Tunnel spoil has been estimated as πr L, where L =
generation minimise waste as a result of option length and r = radius. There is a mixture of single bore and twin bore tunnels along the route - specified below.
production (E, H)
o Euston station (including throat) - Negligible (no tunnels)
3
Tunnel from Euston to Old Oak Common (OOC) - Volume of waste spoil generated = 0.88M m . Tunnel is twin bore, with an assumed
-
diameter of 8.5m.
o OOC station (including box and throats) - Negligible (no tunnels)
3
- OOC to Colne Valley Junction - Volume of waste spoil generated = 0.29M m . Tunnel is twin bore, with an assumed diameter of 8.5m.
3
Colne Valley Junction to Aylesbury - Volume of waste spoil generated = 0.60M m . Tunnel is single bore, with an assumed diameter of
-
8.5m.
o Aylesbury to Brackley (A421 crossing) - Negligible (no tunnels)
3
Brackley (A421 crossing) to Kenilworth/Coventry gap - Volume of waste spoil generated = 0.08M m . Tunnel is single bore, with an
-
assumed diameter of 8.5m.
o Kenilworth/Coventry gap to Berkswell Rail Station - Negligible (no tunnels)
o Berkswell Rail Station to West Coast Main line (Lichfield) - Negligible (no tunnels)
o Birmingham Interchange Station (including throats) - Negligible (no tunnels)
o Birmingham spur - Negligible (no tunnels)
o Rolling stock depot (Washwood Heath) - Negligible (no tunnels)
o Curzon Street station and approach - Negligible (no tunnels)
Volumes of hazardous waste spoil Detailed design and land investigation is required to appraise this criterion, which would be undertaken at a subsequent stage of appraisal.
potentially requiring pre-treatment prior to U
off-site disposal, (H)
18. No NATA 18a. Potential to make more efficient use of At this stage of the scheme the type and quantity of individual materials to be used is not clear. This is something that would be explored
Resource use equivalent Conserve and resources further during the detailed design stage. In general it is expected that the scheme would seek to make a commitment to utilise sustainable
protect primary materials, particularly sustainable concrete that makes use of low-carbon cement, recycled steel, recycled aggregates, re-use of spoil on site
material resources U and FSC timber where timber is required. This would depend on a number of considerations, including technical requirements for different
structures (tunnel lining, viaducts and track slab), availability and commercial considerations. Mechanisms for achieving other
environmental criteria in relation to material specification would need to be delivered, where practicable, through contractual specification
and procurement policy.
Potential to re-use materials as a result of As above, at this stage of the scheme the type and quantity of individual materials to be used is not clear. This is something that would be
option (e.g. demolition materials) U explored further during the detailed design stage. It is expected that the scheme would seek to re-use materials where possible. Again, this
would depend on a number of factors such as the technical and structural requirements of the scheme.
38
Appendix 6.2
HS2 Line of Route 4 (LoR4)
39
Oxley Mead, Pokers Pond Meadow, High Wood and Meadow and Whittlewood Forest (the latter also
Summary containing Buckingham Thicks NNR), as well as the River Blythe SSSI. The impacts of the HS2 March 2010
The introduction of the Line of Route 4 alternative (hereafter called LoR 4) between Old Oak Common and a preferred scheme to three SSSIs would be of far lower magnitude.
point north of Kenilworth would result in a better performance against some sustainability objectives and a The risk of indirect impacts to nearby SSSIs is however slightly lower for the LoR 4 alternative. Impacts on
worse performance against others. This alternative would result in fewer adverse impacts for landscape and regional sites and BAP habitats are also slightly less for the alternative.
townscape, cultural heritage, water resources, flooding, construction disturbance and operational noise. It
would result in greater adverse impacts for biodiversity, potential vibration and community integrity. Water resources
The substitution of LoR 4 to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would result in lower impacts on both
Climatic factors and adaptability
surface water and ground water resources. The alternative would affect a 22% smaller upstream catchment
The LoR 4 alternative would potentially be more resilient to extreme weather events than the HS2 March area and require a smaller number of major river crossings (17 major crossings as opposed to 25). It would
2010 preferred scheme. It would pass in cutting or retained cut through some 45% less geology of require one less major river diversion and three fewer minor river diversions. It would also require fewer
moderate landslide potential (32.5km against 59.2km), and cross about 30% less high risk flood zone crossings of navigable water and reservoirs.
(11.8km against 16.3km). Engineering solutions would, however, ensure that these risks to the scheme were
With respect to groundwater, the LoR 4 alternative presents a lower risk to groundwater resources since it
mitigated.
would pass in cut or tunnel through about 40% less SPZ1 and around 50% less SPZ2. It would, however,
Greenhouse gases pass over slightly more (+5%) aquifer of both good chemical quality and potential yield and pass over
slightly more (+15%) aquifer with either good chemical quality or good potential yield representing slightly
There would be no significant differences in respect to greenhouse gas emissions from operation were this greater risk to groundwater.
alternative to be used, although the greater length of tunnel would result in higher embedded carbon from
construction. Flood risk
Landscape and Townscape As noted above under climatic factors and adaptability, substitution of the HS2 March 2010 preferred
scheme with this main alternative would affect 30% less high flood risk land. However, scheme design
Landscape and townscape impacts resulting from the LoR 4 Alternative would be less than those for the using viaduct would be expected to ensure risks to flow and flood capacity would be mitigated as far as
HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme. The main difference between LoR 4 and the HS2 March 2010 practicable. No significant differences to flood risk would therefore be expected with this alternative.
preferred scheme in terms of landscape impacts depends on their respective impacts on the Chilterns
AONB. The LoR 4 alternative would directly affect about 50% less of this nationally protected landscape Air quality
(6.8km against 14.1km). However, it would impinge substantially more through indirect impacts on the
HS2 is unlikely to result in air quality effects arising from the generated traffic along the length of the route,
AONB‟s setting owing to its longer passage within the nominal 3km visual envelope (14.1km against 4km).
away from stations, particularly when such small traffic changes, should they occur, would be dispersed over
It would have fewer effects on regional landscape resources, avoiding the setting of country parks in
such a wide area.
contrast to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme, which impinges two such areas.
Townscape impacts would also be less with the LoR 4 alternative. Major settlements in London would be Noise and vibration
avoided by the extensive length of tunnel north of Old Oak Common. Other areas with decreased impacts
The substitution of LoR 4 into the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would result in significantly fewer
include Wendover, Aylesbury, Colharbour, Amersham, Denham Green, Kenilworth and Brackley. It would
people potentially annoyed by operational noise (1,850 compared with 4,000 for the HS2 March 2010
have adverse impacts on some townscapes such as those at the historic Kings Langley, as well as lesser
preferred scheme), principally due to its longer lengths of tunnel through London. Equally, the number of
effects on Hemel Hempstead, Cheddington Village and Berkhamsted. However, these are considerably
dwellings qualifying for noise insulation would be significantly less (about 170 compared with about 1,450 for
fewer than for the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme). Present value disbenefits would be about £90M, which is an
improvement compared to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
Cultural heritage
The greater length of tunnel beneath London for the LoR 4 alternative would, however, result in the potential
Substitution of LoR 4 within the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would result in fewer adverse impacts
for many more vibration impacts, unless mitigated with an estimated 17,300 dwellings so affected
on historic and cultural resources. The alternative would avoid the impact on the scheduled monument of
(compared with 9,500 for the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme) and 750 non residential properties
Grim‟s ditch (in contrast to HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme) and would have similar impacts on settings.
affected (compared with around 500 for the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme).
Where they vary, neither option would result in direct impacts to listed buildings, although LoR 4 would affect
the settings of a slightly smaller number (two less Grade I and four less Grade II* and significantly fewer Community integrity
Grade II).
The substitution of LoR 4 into the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would result in an estimated 30 fewer
Impacts on Registered Parks and Gardens would also be less with the LoR 4 alternative. Three such areas dwellings demolished, a small reduction overall. Taking all properties into account (residential and other),
would be significantly affected by the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme; only one by LoR 4, at Ascott this alternative would result in approximately 550 demolitions in comparison with the HS2 March 2010
House (Grade II*). The avoidance of impacts on undesignated historic landscapes of potentially regional preferred scheme, which would demolish approximately 610. The preference for the LoR 4 alternative is
importance by LoR 4 is of marginal significance. therefore marginal in this respect.
However, the differences are clearer when considering community severance. With the substitution of LoR
Biodiversity
4, approximately 75 additional properties would become isolated by transport infrastructure, which is an
The alternative would not trigger appropriate assessment, since it (like the HS2 March 2010 preferred increase of up to 50% over the numbers so affected by the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
scheme) would result in no significant impacts to Natura 2000 sites. However, in other ways the alternative
would have greater adverse impacts on ecological resources. It would directly impact the SSSI complex of
40
By taking the scheme in tunnel through the outskirts of London, the alternative would affect a lower
proportion of deprived areas than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
Accessibility
There would be no significant differences to pedestrian access were the LoR 4 Alternative to be substituted
within the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme; the alternative would affect marginally more cycle routes, but
would have an equivalent impact on open land when compared with the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
There would be no differences in respect to interchange with public transport were this alternative to be
used.

In terms of risk of disturbance and nuisance during construction potential impacts on residents would be
significantly less were LoR 4 adopted, with some 3,825 (50%) fewer residential properties within 100m of the
edge of the route compared with the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
In the longer term, the much smaller operational noise impacts resulting from this main alternative would
remove one source of potential health impacts, but increased risk of vibration might equally add another.
However, such impacts are not predicted to be sufficiently great as to become manifest as health impacts for
either scheme.
No significant differences are likely for impacts on physical health, health inequalities, road traffic accidents
or crime/fear of crime between the schemes.
Economic welfare and prosperity

The LoR 4 alternative would pass to the west of Milton Keynes which is a designated Growth Area in the
Government's Sustainable Communities Plan, as well as the sub regional strategy; and it forms part of the
Milton Keynes and South Midlands Growth Area designated in the South East RSS. The route has been
amended to avoid an area identified for proposed new housing development in the Milton Keynes LDF
between the village of Newton Longville and the A421 Buckingham Road. With the HS2 March 2010
preferred route also avoiding impacts on the Aylesbury Vale growth area, both schemes would be equivalent
in terms of their potential impacts on regional growth, housing, or general planned development and
regeneration.
Soil and land resources

There are no clear differences between LoR 4 and the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme. Adoption of the
alternative would result in a reduced impact on agricultural land, with about 15% less Grade 2 land affected;
but would affect two quarries compared with none. The potential areas of brownfield land brought back into
productive use by the LoR 4 alternative would also be less (14 sites equivalent to 150ha compared with 23
sites equivalent to 230ha for the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme). LoR4 also affects more Green Belt
land.
Waste generation
Approximately 5.3Mm3 of waste spoil would arise from the tunnelling, which is significantly more than the
1.85Mm3 of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
Resource use
At this stage of the scheme the type and quantity of individual materials to be used is not clear. This is
something that would be explored further during the detailed design stage.
41
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions and combating climate change and its effects
1. No NATA 1a. Length of line in cutting through geology Overview of this alternative –
Climatic equivalent Improve resilience vulnerable to landslip. (Determined by - Areas of Significant Landslide Potential – 0km of cut works
factors and of rail network BGS Landslide Hazard Assessment
Areas of Moderate Landslide Potential –16.1km of cut works
adaptability against extreme areas "Moderate" and "Significant")
weather events Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
Areas of Significant Landside Potential – there would be 0km of cut works, which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
-
Areas of Moderate Landslide Potential – there would be 32.5km of cut works, which is less than the 59.2km for the HS2 March 2010
preferred scheme.
Length of line at risk of flooding in Flood Overview of this alternative –
Zone 3. (H) Crosses 2.9km of Flood Zone 3, 5 major river crossings.
Adaptability to climatic factors is related to the length of line in the flood plain, however a neutral conclusion has been assigned to this
category since the measurement of track within the flood plain is repeated in the Flood Risk issue.
As strategic infrastructure, the final design would allow for rare flood events and current best-practice assumptions for climate change
o
to ensure that the line remains unaffected by the 100-year flood, including an allowance for climate change.
Mitigation (and resilience to flooding) is achieved by design - subject to cost and other constraints. It is theoretically possible to virtually
eliminate the risk of flooding through change in vertical alignment or tunnelling, although this is not always practical (or preferable)
given other sustainability constraints. For critical areas where the consequences of flooding would be particularly severe, the standard
of protection would reduce any residual risk to an acceptable level. In less critical locations, practical considerations may be to allow
sections of the line to flood for given flood events (larger than 100-year +CC for example).
Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
o
Would cross 11.7km of Flood Zone 3, which is less than the 16.3km crossed by the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme
2. Reduce 2a. Change in CO2 equivalent (CO2e) Overview of this alternative –
Greenhouse greenhouse Contribute to the emissions released as a result of modal Regardless of which alternative is incorporated, the HS2 scheme would have negative benefits in terms of reducing greenhouse gas
gases gases. See reduction of shift achieved from conventional rail/road emissions due to its construction and requirement for new rolling stock. However, the magnitude of these negative benefits is over-
U
also TAG Unit greenhouse gas and flights to high speed rail. shadowed by the range in uncertainty associated with operational impacts, which may result in either a net positive or net negative benefit.
3.3.5 emissions by This is due to the uncertainty associated with policy delivery in decarbonising electricity generation in the UK and securing reductions in air
Greenhouse facilitating modal travel. Both these policies are external to HS2.
Gases Sub- shift from road
Objective and Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
and air to rail U
TAG Unit This alternative would be equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
3.5.4 CBA Overview of this alternative –
Carbon emissions resulting from
construction in terms of embedded Total Embedded Carbon for LOR4 is estimated to be 829,700 tonnes CO2 (of which an estimated 397,400 tonnes CO2 is as a result of
carbon and carbon emissions resulting tunnels).
from tunnel boring
Embedded Carbon represents the energy used in the manufacture of the scheme, including energy from the materials used to build the
- rails, rail driveway, stations, viaducts, tunnels and energy from tunnel boring.
Embedded carbon numbers reported in the framework are for the purpose of sifting the different routes at the optioneering stage of the
study. The embedded carbon numbers reported in the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Appendix 2.5 were calculated as part of a more
detailed analysis. This detailed analysis also took into account carbon emissions from the transport of bulk materials and carbon emissions
from the transportation of spoil material.
- Estimated to be 1,203,000 tonnes CO2, (of which an estimated 471,400 tonnes CO2 is as a result of tunnels)
Carbon from tunnels would account for approximately 39% of the overall Total Embedded Carbon.
2b. Relative efficiency in operations between The development of a new rail infrastructure allows for design measures to reduce electrical demand from individual Traction Motor Units
Reduce relative high speed trains and rolling stock and (TMUs) and the HS2 route as a whole. These design measures include track alignment (gradients and curves) and TMU aerodynamics
contribution made classic trains although the greatest efficiency gains are associated with on-TMU or trackside capture of electricity generated by TMUs w hen braking.
emissions by
applying energy
efficient
technologies
3. Landscape Protect and 3a. Impacts on the coherence and Overview of this alternative –
--
and enhance Maintain and distinctiveness of landscape resources of 6.8km length of track would lie within a direct physical impact (i.e. surface route), traversing through the Chilterns AONB and ~14.1km
42
Townscape landscape. enhance existing national importance crossed by surface (length) of tracks lie within 3km zone of visual influence (ZVI) of the area.
See also TAG landscape or cut and cover sections, e.g. AONBs,
Unit 3.3.7 character ASVs, Special Landscape Areas,
Landscape National Parks, National Scenic Areas The scheme would have direct and indirect impacts on landscape areas of national importance, including travelling through the Chilterns
and TAG Unit (Scotland).(E, H) Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
3.3.6 -- Replacing the line of route 4 section with this alternative would not introduce, or remove, any landscapes of national importance, however
Environmental it would directly impact 7.3km less of the AONB than the 14.1km for the March 2010 preferred route.
Capital There would also be 9.7km more track having indirect impacts (on the 3km zone of visual impact area) than the 4.4km for the HS2 March
2010 preferred scheme.
Impacts on the coherence and Overview of this alternative –
o
distinctiveness of landscape resources of No direct / indirect physical / visual impact on any distinctive landscape of regional importance.
regional importance crossed by surface Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
or cut and cover sections, e.g. country
parks, Regional Landscape Designations Replacing the line of route elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative would result in:
(Scotland) Decreased impact within 3km zone of visual influence – the HS2 March 2010 preferred route has 5.3km of track within a 3km zone of
(E, H) - visual influence for the Denham Country park which the line of route 4 avoids.
Decreased impact within 3km zone of visual influence – the HS2 March 2010 preferred route has 6.7km of track within a 3km zone of
visual influence for the Bayhurst Wood Country parks, which the line of route 4 avoids.
This alternative has a lesser effect on landscape resources of regional significance than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
Protect and 3b. Impacts on the coherence and Overview of this alternative –
enhance Maintain and distinctiveness of townscape resources Direct and indirect impacts on townscapes, including:
townscape. enhance existing crossed by surface or cut and cover
The route has a direct impact on 0.35km in Ivinghoe/ Pitstone (9.1km indirectly, mainly a business area).
See also TAG townscape sections
Unit 3.3.8 (E, H) Direct impact on residential ribbon development on the western edge of the historic town of Kings Langley (within 300m of the route,
character - affected by 0.2km of the route),
Townscape
Sub Objective Indirect impacts to Hemel Hempstead (affected by 0.67km of the route), residential properties in Cheddington Village (affected by
and TAG Unit 1.1km) and historic town of Berkhamsted (affected by 1.78km of the route).
3.3.6 Other settlements within the 300m visual influence zone include: Drayton Parslow (0.85km of the route); Gibbet Hill, a prosperous
Environmental suburb of Coventry is located within 300m of the route (affected by 0.6km of the route).
Capital Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
Replacing the line of route of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative would result in:
Increased impacts to settlements as above (excluding Gibbet Hill)
Decreased impacts to major settlements along the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme line of route including LB Ealing (8.8km of
route), LB Brent (10km of route) and LB Hillingdon (5km of route). This includes reduced impacts to industrial/business units in Park
- Royal and Perivale Park, residential areas of Sudbury, Perivale and Northolt and Ruislip local area
Decreased impacts to Greatworth Trading Estate, Brackley East commercial properties and Chipping Warden (contains some
dwellings within a designated Conservation area)
Decreased impacts to 0.2km of the urban edge of Wendover, and to settlements within 300m of the route including; Aylesbury,
Colharbour, Southcote, South Heath, Hillingdon, Denham Green, Amersham, Brackley, Kenilworth, Greatworth and Chipping Warden
This alternative has a lesser effect on townscape resources than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
Strategically important views and/or key Overview of this alternative –
vistas physically affected U
No documented information available from local authorities
(E, H)
There is limited information available on strategic views for line of route 4 and therefore it is unknown if replacing the route elements with
the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative would result in any further strategically important views being impacted. It
- would, however avoid impacts on Hartwell House (Colne Valley Junction to Aylesbury).
Primary impacts are recorded for Euston and Warwick Wharf station option, which would all be common to either this or the HS2 March
This alternative has a slightly lesser effect on strategically important views than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
4. Protect the 4a. Impacts on World Heritage Sites and Overview of this alternative –
Cultural heritage of Preserve and other assets of acknowledged World Heritage Sites:
heritage historic protect international importance o
Within 100m impact corridor – none
resources See archaeological (E)
also TAG Unit assets Within 350m buffer area – none.
3.3.9 and Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
TAG Unit
3.3.6 Envt o World Heritage Sites for the whole combined scheme:
Capital Within 100m impact corridor – none (0), which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
43
Within 350m buffer area – none (0), which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
Replacing the line of route 4 elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative would not result in any further World
Heritage Sites being impacted or avoided. This alternative is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
Impacts on Scheduled Monuments (SMs) Overview of this alternative –
crossed by surface or cut and cover Scheduled Monument:
sections. -
Within the 100m impact corridor – none (0).
(E)
Within the 350m buffer area – four (4).
Scheduled Monuments for the whole combined scheme:
- Within the 100m impact corridor – none (0), which is less than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (1).
Within the 350m buffer area – five (5), which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (5).
Replacing the line of route elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative would reduce impacts on Scheduled
Monuments.
4b. Impacts on the character of heritage Overview of this alternative –
Preserve and resources of national importance crossed Listed buildings:
protect historic by surface or cut and cover sections -
Within the 100m impact corridor – no Grade I or II* Listed buildings.
buildings (Grade I and II* Listed Buildings,
Scotland Category A) Within the 350m buffer area – one (1) Grade I Listed building and two (2) Grade II* Listed buildings
(E, H) Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
Listed buildings within the 100m impact corridor:
Grade I – none (0), which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (0).
Grade II* – one (1), which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (1).
-- Listed buildings within the 350m buffer area:
Grade I – nine (9), which is slightly less than for the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (11)
Grade II* – 22, which is slightly less than for the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (26).
Replacing the line of route elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative would slightly decrease impacts on
Listed Buildings.
Impacts on the character of heritage Overview of this alternative –
resources of regional importance crossed Within the 100m impact corridor there are:
by surface or cut and cover sections, e.g.
Two Grade II Listed buildings
Conservation Areas, Grade II Listed -
Buildings, Within the 350m buffer area there are:
59 Grade II Listed buildings
Note: Conservation Areas located on alternative routes have not been identified.
For the combined scheme, within the 100m impact corridor there would be:
Grade II Listed buildings – 16, which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (16)
Conservation areas – two (2) which is less than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (3).
Note: If the line of route is substituted, there would then be no impacts to the two undesignated historic landscapes of potentially regional
importance within the 100m impact corridor (Chilterns and Northamptonshire Uplands), which are affected in the HS2 March 2010
- preferred scheme.
For the combined scheme, within the 350m buffer area there would be:
Grade II Listed buildings – 245, which is less than for the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (314).
Conservation areas – five (5).
Replacing the LoR4 elements in the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would result in the same impacts on historic resources within
100m, but would be better than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme in respect of Grade II listed buildings within 350m.
4c. Impacts on the coherence and Overview of this alternative –
Preserve and distinctiveness of historic landscapes of Within the 100m impact corridor there are:
- No Grade I Registered Parks or Gardens
Gardens, Registered Battlefields One Grade II* Registered Parks or Garden (Ascott House).
(E, H) No Registered Battlefields
44
The route intersects a very small section of the north east edge of Ascott House Registered Park and Garden overall impacts are expected
to be minor and mitigable.
Within the 350m buffer area there are:
No Grade I Registered Parks or Gardens.
One Grade II* Registered Park, Stoneleigh Abbey, extends into the 350m buffer area
No Registered Battlefields
Grade I Registered Parks or Gardens – none (0), which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
Grade II* Registered Parks or Gardens – one (1) (Ascott House), which is less than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (3 -
Shardeloes; Hartwell House; Stoneleigh Abbey).
Registered Battlefields – none (0), which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
-
Grade I Registered Parks or Gardens – one (1), which is less than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme, (2 - Regents Park;
Waddesdon Manor).
Grade II* Registered Park and Gardens – two (2): Stoneleigh Abbey and Packington Hall, extends into the 350m buffer area; which is
slightly greater than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (1).
Registered Battlefields – none (0).
Replacing the line of route elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative would reduce impacts down to one
Grade II* registered park and garden in the 100m zone and remove impacts to two others, but in other ways is equivalent to the HS2
March 2010 preferred scheme.
distinctiveness of historic landscapes of Within the 100m impact corridor there are:
o No Grade II Registered Parks or Gardens
No Grade II Registered Parks or Gardens
Grade II Registered Parks or Gardens – none (0), which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (0).
If the line of route is substituted, there would then be no impacts to the two undesignated historic landscapes of potentially regional
importance within the 100 impact corridor (Chilterns and Northamptonshire Uplands), which are affected in the HS2 March 2010 preferred
o
scheme.
Grade II Registered Parks or Gardens – none (0)
Replacing the line of route 4 elements in the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would decrease impacts on historic resources within
100m, but in other ways is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
5. Biodiversity Support 5a. Impacts on sites of international Overview of this alternative –
biodiversity Maintain and importance crossed by surface or cut and No direct effects on any sites of international importance and there is not likely to be significant indirect effects.
See also TAG enhance cover sections, e.g. SACs and candidate Sites in the vicinity include:
Unit 3.3.10 biodiversity SACs (cSAC), SPAs and potential SPAs
o Richmond Park SAC (7.4km from the line of route);
Biodiversity (pSPA) and Ramsar sites.
Wimbledon Common SAC (8.7km from the line of route);
Sub-objective (E)
One area of Chilterns Beechwoods SAC on a mixture of cut and fill (1.3km from the line of route). Indirect effects from ground water
and TAG Unit
3.3.6 change or dust are not considered likely. (Note: There are several distinct areas of Chilterns Beechwood classified as SAC‟s
throughout the region).
No direct effects on any sites of international importance and there is not likely to be significant indirect effects, which is equivalent to the
o HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
In both cases it is unlikely that there would be effects on SACs, replacing the line of route elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred
scheme with this alternative is equivalent in effects.
Impacts on sites of national importance Overview of this alternative –
crossed by surface or cut and cover -- The route results in habitat loss and fragmentation of a NNR/SSSI and would reduce the value of a nationally important woodland complex
sections, e.g. SSSIs, Geological SSSIs,
Oxley Mead SSSI (within 2.4km), Pokers Pond Meadow SSSI (within 1.4km), High Wood and Meadow SSSI (within 1.7km) - All
45
NNRs. designated for flood plain grassland, fen or marshy grassland, potentially affected by changes in surface or subsurface water flows. Due
(E) to distance effects are unlikely.
Whittlewood Forest SSSI (also contains Buckingham Thicks NNR) is within 25m and the NNR is within 52m - route is on relatively flat
land, requiring minor cut and fill, some habitat loss is likely during construction. The route would pass between the largest woodland
block and several small areas, so fragmentation of closely associated woodland blocks would occur and is likely to have adverse effects
on dormice, bats and birds. Mitigation could be achieved by creating additional woodland habitat elsewhere on the SSSI boundary,
however loss of ancient woodland habitat is not mitigable. Fragmentation could be mitigated to some degree by strengthening
woodland/hedgerow links between blocks and planting as close to the line as possible to create a flyover for bats but this would not
directly address the severance caused by the route on dormice and other less mobile species.
Additional SSSIs potentially impacted by the scheme include:
Astridge Common and Woods SSSI within 2.1km - a number of ponds and old trees potentially sensitive to hydrological change, due to
distance this is unlikely.
Pitstone Quarry SSSI (geological) within 100 metres – in cutting at closest route to the site, no effects likely and there is an intervening
existing railway between the site and the proposed route.
Tring Reservoirs within 1.3km - supports nationally important numbers of wildfowl that could be disturbed during construction, however,
the route is in cut and distant from the site so adverse effects are unlikely.
Waverley Wood Farm SSSI (geological) within 174m – route is in cutting, no effects likely.
Middleton Pool SSSI within 250m.
The combined scheme would:
Result in habitat loss and fragmentation of a NNR/SSSI and would reduce the value of a nationally important woodland complex (SSSI -
Oxley Mead, Pokers Pond Meadow, High Wood and Meadow, Whittlewood Forest containing Buckingham Thicks NNR)
Result in direct impacts on 1 SSSI (River Blythe), less than for the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme which impacts the 3 SSSIs but to
a lesser extent (River Blythe, Long Itchington Wood; Mid Colne Valley)
Be within 100m of 2 SSSIs (Whiteacre Heath, Pitstone Quarry), which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme
--
Be within 250m of 2 SSSIs (Waverley Wood Farm, Middleton Pool), which is less than for the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with 4
SSSIs
Be within 500m of 1 SSSI (Coleshill and Bannerley Pools), which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme
Be within 1km of 1 SSSI (Ruislip), which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
Replacing the line of route elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative would be slightly worse than the HS2
March 2010 preferred scheme because of the impacts to sites of National importance due to the effects on the SSSI/NNR woodland
complex. However, the March 2010 preferred scheme would directly impact three SSSI‟s compared to this alternative which would only
impact two.
Impacts on sites of regional importance Overview of this alternative –
crossed by surface or cut and cover Does not intersect any SLINC‟s (Site of Local Importance for Nature Conservation) directly; however, College Lake Wildlife Centre SINC
sections, e.g. RIGS, SINCs, BAP would lie adjacent to the route on viaduct over Chiltern Railway Line, resulting in adverse construction phase effects and additional
habitats. operational effects from rail noise and movement.
(E)
Affects 1.55km UK BAP/ancient woodland habitat. An additional ~ 3.3km of route crosses Lowland Mixed Deciduous Woodland UK BAP
- habitat (much also ancient woodland) on embankment or in cutting, mainly in the Chilterns. Route would lie within 50m of UK BAP/ancient
woodland habitat for ~1.5km, for which the route is in cutting or embankment. In all cases mitigation should:
focus on creating additional woodland edge habitat or linking affected habitat to nearby areas with additional planting. This does not
mitigate for the loss of ancient woodland but could add ecological value by improving the local network of habitat.
Avoid adverse effects from new planting either shading old trees or other valuable habitat with.
Replacing the line of route elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative would result in the following:
Direct impacts on SINCs would be reduced, by moving the scheme out of Park Hall SINC
- Length of UK BAP habitats within 50m would be reduced by ~0.5km
Direct impacts on SLNICs (Sites of Local Nature Conservation significance) would be reduced.
It should be noted that there has been limited information on SINCs available outside London and Birmingham.
Replacing elements of the March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative would likely result in slightly fewer impacts on regionally
significant habitats and sites than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
Area of potential new habitat creation Overview of this alternative –
(E) + Potential for enhancement of:
Woodlands within the Chilterns - would be damaged and fragmented. Several opportunities for enhancement through creating links
46
between fragments, including suitable planting along cutting and embankment; links between nearby unaffected woods and could
benefit dormouse; steep cuttings and chalk spoil could enable the creation of calcareous grassland, potentially adjoining other areas
of existing chalk grassland
West Anglian Plain Natural Area Rivers Natural Area - characterised by intensive arable farming, streams, drains hedges, ponds and
wet grassland are features of notable wildlife value in the wider landscape. Opportunities to reduce fragmentation of these features
would form mitigation for the effects of the route and there is potential to contribute to wider initiatives to restore wildlife habitat in the
agricultural landscape. Restoring connectivity in the stream and hedgerow network would offset the effects of fragmentation caused by
the route to some extent.
Midlands Clay Pastures and the Midlands Plateau Natural Area – The former is characterised by farmed landscape (including features
such as hedgerows and mature trees, ponds and small watercourses and rough grassland). Opportunities for enhancement include
the creation of new hedges and scrubby habitat along cutting and embankment to connect existing woodland (which would mitigate
adverse effects on bats); woodland planting could be considered for any areas isolated by the route (assuming land parcels do not
already have value for wildlife), again benefiting bats; the creation and restoration of ponds. The latter contains important remnants of
lowland heath UK BAP habitat, of which the route does not intersect. Opportunities for enhancement include; the maintenance or
linkage of small remnants included in the network of local wildlife sites and as above.
The potential for habitat creation across the whole combined scheme would be largely limited to reinstatement of hedges and ponds in low
lying open country side, which dominates the landscape impacted by the whole scheme.
o
Due to the greater impacts on the Blythe River SSSI, if this alternative were adopted, there would be potential for more extensive river
improvement works, but this potential is out-weighed by the direct impacts themselves.
The potential for habitat creation is considered to be equivalent to that for the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
6. Protect the 6a. Impacts on river catchments. Overview of this alternative –
Water water Protect surface (Area of catchment upstream of river Total number of river crossings:
resources environment. water resources crossing points, number of major river
Five (5) major crossings (Great Ouse, River Leam , Rivers Avon and Sowe, Finham Brook);
See also TAG crossings, number of minor river
2
Unit 3.3.11 crossings). 55 minor crossings (i.e. catchment less than 50km ).
Water (E) 2
The total area of catchment upstream of this corridor is 1,510km .
Environment
- The area of diverted runoff is assumed to be proportional to the total catchment area upstream of river crossings.
Sub-objective
and TAG Unit It is impracticable to mitigate the effects on the catchment hydrology completely and it is inevitable that overland flow would be collected
3.3.6 adjacent to the track by filter drain and piped to convenient crossing points such as culverts and bridges. This would have a local effect
Environmental on river catchment hydrology, concentrating the rate of discharge into rivers at selected points (with a likely increase in erosion) and
Capital altering the characteristics of river morphology with a possible adverse effect on river quality.
2
Catchments less than 50km are assigned a neutral score since the effects would be only local and routes which cross major rivers are
assigned a minor negative score due to the cumulative effects of diversions of minor tributaries.
Would result in the following river crossings:
17 major crossings, which is less than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (25).
- 88 minor crossings, which is more than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (76).
2
The total area of catchment upstream of this combined alternative is 4,239km , which is less than for the HS2 March 2010 preferred
2
scheme (5,457km ).
Impacts on catchments would be fewer in terms of major river crossings if this alternative were adopted.
Impacts on surface water bodies. Overview of this alternative –
(Number of major river diversions, Total number of river crossings – see CSO6a (above).
number of minor river diversions, impacts
No Major river diversions
on artificial water bodies, impacts on
reservoirs). Minor diversions may be required –
2
(E, H) One likely diversion of a tributary of Great Ouse (upstream catchment of 3km , X:478959 Y:234331, diversion length 1,250m, WFD
quality not yet appraised).
Other features intersected include:
-
Four navigable canal crossings (Grand Union Canal x3, Disused canal x1).
One reservoir (Old Tun Copse Lakes).
Passes near to one reservoir (Wappenbury Lake)
General notes:
Diversion of any main river would have significant effects on river morphology and riparian habitat, and hence the quality of the river as
specified in the WFD. Diversion of a major river is assigned a major negative evaluation and diversion of a minor main river is assigned
a minor negative evaluation.
Assuming crossings of artificial water bodies are constructed using responsible methods, they should not have a direct effect on the
47
water resource, however they may adversely affect the use of these water bodies for recreation, so crossing of a lake or reservoir is
assigned a minor negative evaluation.
Crossing of a canal is not considered to be a significant impact provided that it does not interfere with the navigation of the canal.
Potential mitigation includes:
Focusing detailed design on avoiding the need for diversions.
Pseudo-natural realignment of brook adjacent to track, planting and reinstatement of riparian zone.
Total number of river crossings – see CSO6a (above).
Possible river diversions include:
Major diversions – five (5), which is less than for the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (6).
-- Minor diversions – three (3), which is less than for the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (5).
The scheme would also cross:
Navigable waters – seven (7), which is less than for the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (8).
Reservoirs – three (3), which is less than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (9).
Overall, the number of potential diversions is greater for the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme than this alternative.
6b. Impacts on groundwater Source Overview of this alternative –
Protect Protection Zones (SPZs). Impacts on SPZ 1 – 3km of scheme, all of which is cut/tunnel/portal.
groundwater (Length of cut or tunnel through SPZ1
Impacts on SPZ 2 – 8.2km of scheme, all of which is cut/tunnel/portal.
resources and/or SPZ2).
(E, H) Source protection zones are in place to protect major abstractions for public water supply, at least one of which is authorised to
3
abstract approximately 20,000m per day. Exact abstraction details are not publicly available, but pumping stations which may be
affected include Eastbury, Hunton Bridge and The Grove. In many of these cases it is likely that the cut or tunnel would be above or
below the aquifer, however more detailed assessment is required. Subject to Environment Agency information on abstraction, likely
mitigation would involve specialist construction techniques to avoid pollution of the aquifer and possible groundwater bypass routes to
mitigate any obstructions to normal groundwater flow.
General notes:
-- A significant proportion of the UK drinking water is obtained through the abstraction of ground water and this process is licensed by the
Environment Agency. Each abstraction licence is associated with a corresponding SPZ to prevent pollution of the ground water subject
to abstraction.
Cutting or tunnelling through source protection zones is likely to have significant detrimental effects on the quality of the water and on
the flow within the aquifer.
Although aquifers are 3-dimensional features, it is assumed for the purposes of this exercise that larger SPZs (in plan) correspond to
larger abstractions and consequently these are more important and more difficult to mitigate.
Where large SPZs are affected, it may be necessary to employ specialised boring and construction techniques to minimise the risk of
pollution and to mitigate the effects of obstructing the ground water flow regime.
Routes which cut or tunnel through SPZ1 are assigned a major negative evaluation and routes which cut or tunnel through SPZ2 are
Cut works/tunnel through:
-- SPZ 1 – 3.0km, which is less than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (4.8km).
SPZ 2 – 9.9km, which is less than for the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (21.4km).
Adopting this alternative would decrease potential impacts on SPZ1 by 1.2km and SPZ 2 by 11.5km
Impacts on groundwater flow in strategic Overview of this alternative –
aquifers. Length of scheme through aquifers of:
(Length of cut or tunnel through aquifers
Both good chemical quality (CQ) and good potential yield (PY) – 26.9km.
classified as "good yield" and/or "good
quality" under the WFD). Either good CQ or good PY – 7.1km.
(E, H) General notes:
--
The Water Framework Directive classifies groundwater resources in terms of the potential yield (PY) of the aquifer and the chemical
quality (CQ). In both cases, classifications are either good or poor.
Aquifers of poor PY or poor CQ are unlikely to be of strategic importance as a water resource. However, if the aquifer can provide large
volumes of good CQ, it is likely to be of strategic importance.
Tunnelling or cutting through a strategic aquifer would have a significant detrimental effect on the water resource and must be carefully
controlled. Subject to Environment Agency information on aquifer structure and vulnerability, specialist excavation and construction
48
techniques would be required in these cases, in order to protect the aquifer and to ensure that the natural flow of groundwater is
maintained.
Cut or tunnel through aquifers with:
Both „good PY‟ and „good CQ‟ is considered to be a major detrimental impact on an important resource and is assigned a major
negative evaluation.
Either „good PY‟ or „good CQ‟ is assigned a minor negative evaluation.
Length of combined scheme through aquifers of:
-- Both good chemical quality (CQ) and good potential yield (PY) –26.9km, which is greater than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme
(25.6km).
Either good CQ or good PY –24.3km, which is greater than for the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (21.1km).
Were this alternative adopted, impacts on aquifers would be greater.
7. No NATA 7a. Extent of infrastructure within 1 in 100 Overview of this alternative –
Flood risk equivalent Conserve and year flood zones (Flood Zone 3) Length of line in Flood Zone 3 – 2.9km.
enhance the (E, H)
Total number of major river crossings – 5 (see CSO6a above).
capacity of
floodplains General notes:
It is preferable to avoid any development within the flood plain, however within the context of this type of development, crossing of flood
plains is inevitable.
Crossing of Flood Zone 3 has the potential to have a significant adverse impact.
-
Virtually all routes cross the floodplains of major rivers at some point, but crossings proposed are large viaducts across entire
floodplains to minimise any adverse effects on flood water levels. As such and in contrast to major river diversions, viaduct crossings of
Flood Zone 3 is assigned a minor adverse score.
Potential mitigation:
In most cases, it should be possible to mitigate the flood risk issues through design, adjusting vertical track alignment and designing
river crossings so that they have a minimal effect on flood flow.
It may also be possible, in cases where the consequences of occasional flooding are relatively low such as fields, parks or rural areas,
to accept a small increase in the risk of flooding at the local scale to avoid disproportionate costs of mitigation.
Length of line in Flood Zone 3 – 11.8km, which is less than for the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (16.3km).
- Total number of major river crossings – 25 major crossings. 88 minor (see CSO6a above) which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010
preferred scheme for major crossings and greater for minor crossings (25 major, 76 minor).
The length of scheme crossing Flood Zone 3 would be reduced if this alternative were adopted. However, it is noted that the scheme has
been designed to cross Flood Zone 3 on viaducts so as to minimise impacts on flood flows.
Extent of infrastructure within 1 in 1,000 Overview of this alternative –
year flood zones (Flood Zone 2). Length of line in Flood Zone 2 – 3.3km.
(E)
Total number of river crossings – (see CSO6a above).
General notes:
Flood Zone 2 represents the extent of flooding with a 1,000-year return period and this is usually far in excess of the design criteria for
this type of infrastructure.
Consequently, the extent of track in Flood Zone 2 represents a measure of the residual risk in the design where it becomes more
economic or sustainable to accept the consequences of such rare events than to mitigate against them in design.
-
This also serves as a measure of resilience to the effects of climate change.
For critical components of the track where the consequences of flooding could be particularly severe such as at the entrance to tunnel
sections, it may prove more sustainable to design these sections to a higher standard.
As for Flood Zone 3, it is obviously more sustainable to avoid Flood Zone 2 completely, however in the context of this development it is
impractical to do so.
Crossing of Flood Zone 2 is considered to have a minor adverse impact and is likely to be highly mitigable.
A neutral evaluation is assigned to crossing of Flood Zone 2 for minor rivers and a minor negative evaluation is assigned for crossing of
Flood Zone 2 for a major river.
- Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
49
Length of line in Flood Zone 2 – 21.7km, which is greater than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (18.9km).
Total number of major river crossings – 25 (see CSO6a (above)).
The length of scheme crossing Flood Zone 2 would be slightly increased if this alternative were adopted.
8. Improve local 8a. Change in total emissions 'with' and Overview of this alternative –
U
Air quality air quality. Maintain and 'without' option as a result of modal shift Operational details of the scheme are not sufficiently known in order to adequately appraise against this criteria.
See also TAG enhance local air from road to rail within study area
Unit (E, H) Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
quality. U
3.3.3Local Air Operational details of the scheme are not sufficiently known in order to adequately appraise against this criteria.
Quality Sub- Impacts on air quality from traffic Overview of this alternative –
objective (nb: associated with stations. Impacts to Air U
Operational details of the scheme are not sufficiently known in order to adequately appraise against this criteria.
see Strategic Quality Management Areas (AQMA)
approach set (E, H, Eq) Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
out in Section Operational details of the scheme are not sufficiently known in order to adequately appraise against this criteria.
1.2 of this U
unit) and 3.3.4
Regional Air
Pollution
9. Reduce noise. 9a. Change in the population potentially Overview of this alternative –
-
Noise and See also TAG Maintain and annoyed by operational noise Population potentially annoyed by operational noise ~600 people
vibration Unit 3.3.2 enhance the local (E, H) Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
Noise Sub- noise environment --
Note: the Population potentially annoyed by operational noise for the combined scheme would be ~1,850 people, which is fewer than for the HS2
objective (nb: 3
approach March 2010 preferred scheme (3,900 people)
see Strategic
presented The Present Value of Benefits (PVB) for Overview of this alternative –
approach set
here follows daytime operational-related residential
out in Section PVB = ~ -£28 million
the webTAG noise -
1.5 of this Dwellings qualifying for noise insulation = ~ 67 (> 68 dBA and increase ≥ 1 dBA), of which ~ 39 dwellings ≥ 73 dBA and ~ 18 dwellings >
guidance,
unit) and TAG 81 dBA
which has
Unit 3.3.2
been used to
Supplementar Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
assess the PVB = ~ -£90 million, which is lower magnitude of impact than for the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (~-£194 million)
4
y Guidance --
HS2 March
2010 Dwellings qualifying for noise insulation = ~ 170, which is fewer than for the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (~1,450)
preferred Residential noise (or the costs of mitigation for this) would be less were this alternative to be adopted.
route only. No NATA 9b. Nos. of residential properties at risk of Overview of this alternative –
--
equivalent Maintain local vibration and reradiated noise ~ 8,600 dwellings and ~ 400 sensitive non-residential properties at risk of vibration and reradiated noise if not mitigated.
vibration (E, H) Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
environment For the combined scheme, properties potentially impacted by vibration and re-radiated noise:
--
Residential dwellings – 17,300, which is greater than for the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (9,500).
Non-residential buildings – 750, which is greater than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (~500).
10. No NATA 10a. Nos. of properties demolished or affected Overview of this alternative –
Community equivalent Maintain and by landtake Total number of demolitions for this alternative:
Dwellings: 42
community
integrity Community: 4
Commercial: 10
-
Industrial: 4
Total: 60
General notes:
The most significant single area for demolitions is Hampton in Arden area. The calculations in rural areas are based on the 100m
impact corridor; therefore it is likely that this number could be reduced during detailed design.
-- Properties likely to be demolished or affected by land take include:
Total number of demolitions for this alternative:
3
Note: A realignment of the HS2 March 2010 preferred route at Aylesbury and Wendover provided in February 2010 has been incorporated into the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme results.
50
Dwellings: 410, which is less than the March 2010 preferred scheme (429).
Community: 18, which is less than the March 2010 preferred scheme (23).
Commercial: 97, which is less than the March 2010 preferred scheme (121).
Industrial: 27, which is less than the March 2010 preferred scheme (30).
Total: 552
This option would reduce the overall number of demolitions compared with the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
Nos. of properties at high risk of isolation Overview of this alternative –
(H) Up to 110 dwellings are identified as being at high risk of isolation. Key locations include:
Two areas identified as being at high risk of isolation where the route diverges from the A41, one to the south of Hemel Hempstead and
- the other to the southeast of Berkhamsted, with a total of 43 dwellings affected (across both areas). The town of Felden bounded by the
route although not formally identified as an area at high risk of isolation due to its distance away from the route. There are also 4 small
areas at high risk of isolation to the east of Tring bounded by the Grand Union Canal (67 properties in total) and an area to the west of
Leighton Buzzard, although no properties are affected. Limited potential for realignment as this would greatly increase the number of
demolitions.
The dwellings at high risk of isolation for this combined option are:
-
~238 dwellings, which is greater than for the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (~164).
Adoption of this alternative would increase the number of properties at risk of isolation, or associated mitigation costs.
Properties in the 20% most deprived Overview of this alternative –
o
areas demolished or at high risk of No 20% most deprived areas along this route.
isolation Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
(H, Eq)
There are limited impacts on properties in the 20% most deprived wards, with key areas being Euston and the area of Washwood Heath
-- and Saltley Business Park, see details in the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme Framework.
Adopting this alternative for the line of route would take the alignment out of one (1) 20% most deprived area (Old Oak Common to Colne
Valley Junction). It is marginally better than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
Properties with disproportionately high Overview of this alternative –
numbers of equality groups demolished Unlikely to be effects on equality target groups.
or at high risk of isolation, where known. -
Up to 21 residential dwellings may be demolished in the town of Burton Green, north of Kenilworth. This is within a ward where there is a
(H, Eq)
higher percentage of people aged 60 and over compared to the borough levels.
-- Adopting this alternative for the line would not introduce additional impacts for equality target groups. Effects to Burton Green, Washwood
Health and Euston would remain the same. Overall this would be equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
11. Reduce 11a. Nos. of strategic footpaths, bridleways, Overview of this alternative –
Accessibility severance. Maintain and nature trails and cycle paths severed There would be limited impacts to some paths, as set out below:
See also TAG enhance and/or requiring diversion
Cycle routes intersected:
Unit 3.6.2 pedestrian access (E, H, Eq)
Reducing National cycle routes – two (2).
Severance Regional cycle routes –one (1).
-
Sub-
Local cycle routes – five (5).
Objective.
On existing roads, so interruption likely to be limited to the construction period
Footpaths intersected :
OS footpaths intersected – 13 (including The Chiltern Way x3, Grand Union Canal Walk x2, Ouse Valley Way, Oxford Canal Walk,
Centenary Way). Disruption to many as they cross open land, however, access is expected to be maintained.
The combined scheme would have limited impacts to some paths, as set out below:
National cycle routes – four (4), which is less than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (6).
- Regional cycle routes - one (1), which is greater than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (0).
Local cycle routes- 13, which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (13).
OS footpaths intersected – 21, which is fewer than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (24).
National Trails – one, which is equivalent to the March 2010 preferred scheme (1).
51
Overall, this option can be considered to be equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
Impacts on areas of open access, Overview of this alternative –
including common land and greens - Limited impacts on features.
(H, Eq)
A very small area of the countryside and rights of way (Registered Common Land) would be bisected. No isolation expected.
o Limited impacts on features.
One (1) CROW (registered Common Land) with be bisected which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
Improve 11b. Potential for improved access to public Overview of this alternative –
o
access to the Maintain and transport for non-car users As per the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
public enhance access (H)
transport Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
to public transport o
system. See This alternative would be equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
TAG Unit Potential to improve option values Overview of this alternative –
3.6.3 and +
(H) As per the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
3.6.1 Option
Values Sub- Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
+
objective. This alternative would be equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme
Population in the 20% most deprived Overview of this alternative –
+
areas with better access to public As per the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
transport services
(H, Eq) Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
+ This alternative would be equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme
Improve 11c. Potential to improve public transport Overview of this alternative –

+
transport Maintain and interchanges as a result of option As per the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
See TAG Unit Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
transport +
3.7.1 interchange This alternative would be equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme
Transport Ability to accommodate mobility impaired Overview of this alternative –
Interchange access with option u All stations and the fleet of trains would be designed to encourage active use by mobility impaired passengers. This is a matter of detailed
Sub-Objective (H, Eq) design.
12. Improve 12a. Impacts on the key determinants of Overview of this alternative –
-
Health and journey Maintain and mental well-being Key determinants of wellbeing are equivalent of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
well-being ambience. improve well- (H, Eq)
See TAG Unit Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
being -
3.3.13 No alternative changes the scheme enough to substantially alter the determinants of wellbeing.
Journey Overview of this alternative –
No. of residential dwellings within 100m
Ambience
of surface sections of line (potential for Commercial 37
Sub-Objective
nuisance during construction)
(E, H) Community 11
-
Industry 14
Dwelling 211
Total - 273
For the combined scheme, the number of properties within 100m of the construction footprint of the scheme includes:
Dwelling - 3,651, which is significantly less than the March 2010 preferred scheme (7,453)
Community - 61, which is less than the March 2010 preferred scheme (100).
- Commercial - 450, which is less than the March 2010 preferred scheme (835).
Industrial -86, which is less than the March 2010 preferred scheme (166)
Total – 4,248
The number of residential and commercial/industrial properties within 100m of the construction footprint of the scheme is significantly fewer
if this route was adopted.
Impacts on areas with highest 20% of Overview of this alternative –
tranquillity scores U
At the time of writing data is not available to enable the appraisal of this criteria
(H)
U Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
52
Some information on tranquillity is provided in AoS Volume 1, though this does not provide information on the areas in the highest 20%
and thus his criteria cannot be appraised at this stage.
Encourage 12b. Potential to encourage a more healthy Overview of this alternative –
physical Maintain and lifestyle (e.g. through more active travel o Effects for this criterion are most apparent at proposed stations although there are no stations incorporated into this particular route. This
fitness. See improve physical options) when accessing the network alignment does not allow the opportunity to encourage a healthier lifestyle unless it is considered with connecting stations.
TAG Unit health (H)
3.3.12 Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
Physical o This alternative does not alter any station configurations. Impacts remain the same for the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this
Fitness Sub- alternative
Objective
Impacts on the key determinants of Overview of this alternative –
physical health Any potential impacts to physical health would most likely be as a result of increase/exacerbation of cardiovascular and respiratory disease
(H) (due to changes in air quality during construction).
scheme is electrically powered and thus impacts on cardiovascular and respiratory are unlikely. In some areas there may be specific
local issues: for example, there may be some potential increase/redistribution of motor vehicle air pollution from residents of the
the extent and promotion of cycling/pedestrian access to the Station (discussed above), and the provision of appropriate facilities.
the cumulative issues associated with the proximity to the airport and motorway, which are likely to be more significant contributors to
the overall air quality in the area; and
o health status and lifestyle factors such as smoking, which would increase vulnerability air quality changes.
Other issues:
o
Impacts are the same for the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative.
No NATA 12c. Impacts on the key determinants of Overview of this alternative –
equivalent Reduce health health inequality This alternative route option would not reduce or widen health inequalities along the route.
o All existing transport routes and connections would be preserved so access to services would not generally be affected during the
construction and operation phases.
There may be some disruption which would require consideration and potential mitigation. It is also unlikely that the route would
increase/exacerbate cardiovascular and respiratory diseases.
o Were this alternative to be adopted it is unlikely to result in health inequalities different from those of the HS2 March 2010 preferred
scheme.
13. Reduce 13a. Contribute to Change in likelihood of accidents as a Overview of this alternative –
Security and accidents. the reduction of result of option (modal shift) Preliminary demand model outputs indicate that there is the potential for some modal shift from road to rail (both HS2 and released
safety See TAG Unit road traffic (H, Eq) o capacity). However, the reduction in the number of road trips is not expected to be significant when considering overall traffic flows. The
3.4.1 accidents resultant shift may reduce a small number of road traffic accidents from some existing motorways but is unlikely to have any measurable
Accidents effect on road traffic incident rates. Until more detailed road traffic modelling has been undertaken, this objective remains unknown.
Sub-Objective
o Were this alternative to be adopted it is unlikely to result in additional increases or decreases in road traffic accidents, this alternative is
considered equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme..
Improve 13b. Features that might increase crime or Overview of this alternative –
security. See fear of crime U
Protect against This criterion would be tested during detailed design.
53
TAG Unit crime and fear of (H) The stations, footbridges and other pedestrian access areas would be assumed to be designed in accordance with the 'Secured by
3.4.2 Security crime Design' document
Sub-Objective Tunnel and viaduct sections would need to be designed to reduce the potential effect of an increase in crime or fear of crime and
reduction in perceived safety.
There would also be the assumption that safe waiting rooms would be incorporated into the design specification accreditation sought
under the Government, British Transport Police and Crime Concern Secure Stations Scheme.
U
Considered to be equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme
14. Economic To support 14a. Net business impacts for transport users Overview of this alternative –
prosperity sustainable (i.e. excluding environmental and wider ++
Support economic As per the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
economic competitiveness economic benefits and costs)
activity and Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
and make efficient
get good use of public This alternative would be equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
value for funds
money. See ++
TAG Units
3.5.1 to
3.5.14.
Provide 14b. Changes in agglomeration, market Overview of this alternative –
+
beneficial Support wider competiveness and labour productivity As per the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
wider economic growth
economic Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
and maintain and +
impacts. See enhance This alternative would be equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
TAG Unit employment Impacts on labour markets Overview of this alternative –
Units 3.5.8 +
opportunities As per the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
and 3.5.10 to
3.5.14, Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
+
This alternative would be equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
15. Economic Provide 15a. Net benefits for consumers and Overview of this alternative –
++
welfare beneficial Support wider commuters As per the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
transport user economic welfare (Eq)
impacts, wider Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
growth ++
economic This alternative would be equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
impacts and 15b. Impacts on planned regional growth Overview of this alternative –
integrate with Support planned areas Passes to the west of Hemel Hempstead which is a government and RSS designated Key Growth Area
land use developments Passes to the West of Milton Keynes which is a designated Growth Area in the government's Sustainable Communities Plan as well
policy. See o as the sub regional strategy and forms part of the Milton Keynes/Aylesbury Vale Growth Area designated in the South East RSS. The
TAG Unit route has been amended to avoid an area identified for proposed new housing development in the Milton Keynes LDF between the
Units3.5.1 to village of Newton Longville and the A421 Buckingham Road. Part of this land was previously identified for a possible intermediate
3.5.14, Tag interchange station
Unit 3.7.2
Land Use o
Policy Sub- Were this option to be adopted it would pass the growth area near Milton Keynes and would avoid the Aylesbury Vale growth area.
Objective The option is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
Impacts on planned major housing and Overview of this alternative –
+
sustainable housing developments See CSO15b (above)
- The combined scheme (particularly at Curzon Street station) has a significant impact on planned housing (and other) development. There
are no other known impacts on planning housing development proposals. This is equivalent to the March 2010 preferred scheme.
Impacts on other planned major Overview of this alternative –
developments o
None known
Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred
- The combined scheme has a significant impact on planned mixed development (particularly at Curzon street). This alternative would not
significantly alter the impacts to that identified for the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme..
15c. Impacts on other defined regeneration Overview of this alternative –
o
Maintain and areas None identified
enhance (E, H, Eq)
regeneration +
There is a range of regeneration opportunities associated with development of stations at both ends of the scheme. Impacts a mostly
54
identified at stations, this alternative would not significantly alter the impacts of the March 2010 preferred scheme.
16. No NATA 16a. Impacts on Grade 1 and 2 agricultural Overview of this alternative –
Soil and land equivalent Maintain and land crossed by surface or cut and cover Grade 1 Agricultural Land affected – 0 hectares
resources enhance land sections
Grade 2 Agricultural Land affected – 107.8 hectares, extending over 9km
resources (E)
Key areas include:
-
2.9km, east of Tring, Herts
1.29km, Wicken, west of Milton Keynes
2.21km, east of Leamington Spa near the village of Earthorpe
2.58km, east of Kenilworth
Agricultural land impacted by the scheme:
Grade 1 Agricultural Land affected – 0 hectares, which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme
-
Grade 2 Agricultural Land affected – ~216.3 hectares (compared with the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (251.5 hectares)
Adoption of this alternative would reduce total land-take/direct impacts on Grade 2 agricultural land in the line of route, however it would
span a longer length of the route.
Length of Green Belt land crossed by Overview of this alternative –
surface sections - Green Belt land affected by the scheme:
Green Belt land affected – 33.1 km.
-- Green Belt land affected by the combined scheme:
Green Belt land affected – 94.45km, which is greater than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (85.4km)
Area of land designated for mineral Overview of this alternative –
extraction that is sterilised as a result of Mineral sites affected:
-
option Quarry at Pitstone, Bucks;
Quarry at Bubbenhall ,Warwickshire.
- Two additional quarries would be affected as above, and none removed as a result of this line of route combination. This is has greater
impacts than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (0).
Area of land designated for waste Overview of this alternative –
-
disposal physically affected by option Authorised Landfill sites (existing) affected – one (12.9 ha)
- One (1) authorised landfill site would be impacted by the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme, which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010
preferred scheme (located south east of Calvert, Buckinghamshire)
16b. Encourage Number of "high risk" brownfield sites Overview of this alternative –
the use of brought back into beneficial use, either + Brownfield sites – three (3) identified sites (total 4.2ha), some of which could potentially be brought back into beneficial use, either wholly
brownfield sites wholly or partially. or partially
+ The combined scheme would bring 14 identified brownfield sites (total ~149.1 hectares), some of which could potentially be brought back
into beneficial use, either wholly or partially, compared with the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (23 sites, ~227 hectares).
17. No NATA 17a. Volumes of inert and non-hazardous Overview of this alternative –
- 3
Waste equivalent Prevent and waste spoil potentially requiring off-line Volume of waste spoil generated = 4.42M m . (Tunnel sections at the south of the route)
generation minimise waste disposal as a result of option Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
production (E, H) - 3 3
Volume of waste spoil generated = 5.3M m , which is more than for the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (1.85M m ).
Volumes of hazardous waste spoil Overview of this alternative –
potentially requiring pre-treatment prior to U Unknown at this stage. Further studies and/or land investigations, based on detailed design, would be required in order to adequately
off-site disposal appraise against this criteria.
(H)
U Unknown at this stage. Further studies and/or land investigations, based on detailed design, would be required in order to adequately
appraise against this criteria.
55
18. Resource No NATA 18a. Potential to make more efficient use of Overview of this alternative –
use equivalent Conserve and resources At this stage of the scheme the type and quantity of individual materials to be used is not clear. This is something that would be explored
protect primary further during the detailed design stage.
material resources In general it is expected that the scheme would seek to make a commitment to utilise sustainable materials, particularly sustainable
concrete that makes use of low-carbon cement, recycled steel, recycled aggregates, re-use of spoil on site and FSC timber where
U
timber is required.
This would depend on a number of considerations, including technical requirements for different structures (tunnel lining, viaducts and
track slab), availability and commercial considerations.
Mechanisms for achieving other environmental criteria in relation to material specification would need to be delivered, where
practicable, through contractual specification and procurement policy.
At this stage of the scheme the type and quantity of individual materials to be used is not clear. This is something that would be explored
further during the detailed design stage.
It is anticipated that this would be roughly equivalent regardless of which option were adopted in the line of route.
Potential to re-use materials as a result of Overview of this alternative –
option (e.g. demolition materials) As above, at this stage of the scheme the type and quantity of individual materials to be used is not clear. This is something that would
U be explored further during the detailed design stage.
It is expected that the scheme would seek to re-use materials where possible.
Again, this would depend on a number of factors such as the technical and structural requirements of the scheme.
U At this stage of the scheme the type and quantity of individual materials to be used is not clear. This is something that would be explored
It is anticipated that this would be roughly equivalent regardless of which option were adopted in the line of route.
56
Appendix 6.3
HS2 Line of Route 2.5 (LoR2.5)
57
upstream catchment area. It would require 14 more minor river crossings and one less major river diversion.
Summary It would also require fewer crossings of navigable water and reservoirs.
The introduction of the Line of Route 2.5 alternative (hereafter called the LoR 2.5) between the Colne Valley With respect to groundwater, the LoR 2.5 alternative presents a lower risk to groundwater resources since it
and Brackley would result in few significant differences from the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme in terms would pass in cut or tunnel through about 23% less SPZ1 and around 70% less SPZ2. It would differ little in
of sustainability impacts. It would have a less adverse impact on landscape, but greater impacts on terms of risks to aquifers when compared to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
townscape. Impacts from operational noise would be less, but impacts from vibration, greater if not
mitigated. Its greater lengths of tunnel would result in larger quantities of spoil which impose their own Flood risk
impacts on the land resource and climate change. Impacts would be little different in terms of cultural
heritage, biodiversity, water resources, flood risk, community integrity and health risks. As noted above under climatic factors and adaptability, substitution of the HS2 March 2010 preferred
scheme with this main alternative would affect marginally more (about 2%) high flood risk land. However,
Climatic factors and adaptability scheme design using viaduct would be expected to ensure risks to flow and flood capacity would be
mitigated as far as practicable. No significant differences to flood risk would therefore be expected with this
LoR 2.5 would be little different to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme in terms of resilience to extreme alternative.
weather events. It would pass in cutting or retained cut through some 14% less geology of moderate
landslide potential (50.7km against 59.2km), and cross about 2% more high risk flood zone (17.3km against Air quality
16.3km). Engineering solutions would, however, ensure that these risks to the scheme were mitigated.
HS2 is unlikely to result in air quality effects arising from the generated traffic along the length of the route,
Greenhouse gases away from stations, particularly when such small traffic changes, should they occur, would be dispersed over
such a wide area.
There would be no significant differences in respect to greenhouse gas emissions were this alternative to be
used. Noise and vibration
Landscape and townscape The substitution of the LoR 2.5 alternative into the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would result in fewer
people potentially annoyed by operational noise (3,500 compared with 4,000 for the HS2 March 2010
Landscape and townscape impacts resulting from LoR 2.5 would be similar to those for the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme). The number of dwellings qualifying for noise insulation would be less than the March
preferred scheme. LoR 2.5 would directly affect about 40% less of the Chilterns AONB (8.8km against 2010 preferred scheme with about 1,200 affected. Present value disbenefits would be about £190M, which
14.1km), but would establish a wholly new transport corridor. It would impinge marginally less (by about is an improvement on the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (£200M).
400m) through indirect impacts on the AONB‟s setting owing to its shorter passage through the nominal 3km
visual envelope. In terms of effects on regional landscape resources, LoR 2.5 would affect two country The additional sections of tunnel with LoR 2.5 would result in more vibration impacts if not mitigated with an
parks: Bayhurst Wood and Denham, which is two fewer than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme. estimated 10,900 residential properties affected (compared with 9,500 for the HS2 March 2010 preferred
scheme), although other properties affected would remain the same as the HS2 March 2010 preferred
Townscape impacts would be greater with LoR 2.5. It would avoid some of the settlements affected by the scheme (around 500).
HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (for example, Coldharbour, Southcote, South Heath and the western
edge of Aylesbury) but would equally affect another series of towns and villages, including Chalfont St. Community integrity
Giles, Gerrards Cross, Haddenham, Ilmer, Chearsley, Dorton (both designated conservation areas), and
Kingsey. Impacts on strategic views would, however, be less with LoR 2.5 through avoidance of impacts at The substitution of the LoR 2.5 alternative within the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would result in 50
Hartwell House. more demolitions, including 30 more residential properties.
The LoR 2.5 alternative would result in a slightly higher number of residential properties becoming isolated
Cultural heritage by transport infrastructure, with some 190 properties affected compared with about 160 for the HS2 March
Substitution of LoR 2.5 within the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would result in slightly fewer adverse 2010 preferred scheme.
impacts on historic and cultural resources. The alternative would avoid the scheduled monument (Grim‟s There are no differences in respect of deprived communities affected.
Ditch) that is potentially affected by the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme. Direct impacts on listed
buildings would be of a similar order of magnitude. However, two fewer less Grade II* registered park and Accessibility
garden would be physically affected by this alternative.
The substitution of LoR 2.5 into the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would result in slightly fewer
Biodiversity impacts. The alternative would affect two fewer cycle routes, and seven fewer footpaths, although it is
expected that these rights of way would be maintained.
LoR 2.5 would not trigger appropriate assessment, since it (like the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme)
would result in no significant impacts to Natura 2000 sites. In terms of impacts on nationally designated There would be no differences in respect to public transport interchange were this alternative to be used.
sites, it is not significantly different to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
Impacts on SINCs and BAP habitats would be largely similar, with different sites affected (notably
Snakemoor LNR), but overall impacts are similar in terms of magnitude. In terms of risk of disturbance and nuisance during construction potential impacts on residents would be
slightly higher should LoR 2.5 be adopted, with around 60 additional dwellings within 100m of the edge of
Water resources the route compared with the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
The substitution of LoR 2.5within the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would result in few significant Equally, the same general health risks are associated with the LoR 2.5 alternative. The main locations
differences with respect to surface water. The alternative would affect a marginally larger (by about 6%) where risks are identified - at Euston and to a much lesser extent - Burton Green, are relevant for both
schemes.
58
No significant differences between the schemes are likely for impacts on physical health or health
inequalities.
Security and safety

No significant differences between the schemes are likely for road traffic accidents or crime/fear of crime.

LoR 2.5 would not pass any areas designated for growth. The HS2 March 2010 preferred route passes the
Aylesbury Vale growth area, but avoids impacts on it. Both schemes would therefore be equivalent in terms
of their potential impacts on regional growth, housing, or general planned development and regeneration.

Adoption of the alternative would result in a slightly increased impact on Grade 1 agricultural land, with
about 8ha affected in comparison to none by the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme. It would also affect up
to 10% more Grade 2 agricultural land than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
Green Belt land affected would be approximately 4km less than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
The potential areas of brownfield land brought back into productive use by LoR 2.5 would be less with 19
sites equivalent to 150ha compared with 23 sites equivalent to 230ha for the HS2 March 2010 preferred
scheme.
Waste generation
Substitution of the LoR 2.5 alternative within the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would result in
significantly more spoil being produced owing to the greater amount of tunnel with this scheme, 3.6Mm3
compared with 1.85Mm3.
Resource use
59
Climatic equivalent Improve vulnerable to landslip. (Determined by o Areas of Significant Landslide Potential – 0km of cut works
factors and resilience of rail BGS Landslide Hazard Assessment
Areas of Moderate Landslide Potential – 0km of cut works
adaptability network against areas "Moderate" and "Significant")
extreme weather Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme–
events Areas of Significant Landside Potential – there would be 0km of cut works, which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
-
preferred scheme.
Zone 3. (H) Crosses 5,200m of Flood Zone 3.
General notes:
Adaptability to climatic factors is related to the length of line in the flood plain. However, a neutral evaluation has been assigned
because track length within the flood plain is covered under CSO7a (see below).
o As strategic infrastructure, the final design would allow for rare flood events and current best-practice assumptions for climate change to
ensure that the line remains unaffected by the 100-year flood, including an allowance for climate change.
eliminate the risk of flooding through change in vertical alignment or tunnelling, although this is not always practical (or preferable) given
other sustainability constraints. For critical areas where the consequences of flooding would be particularly severe, the standard of
protection would reduce any residual risk to an acceptable level. In less critical locations, practical considerations may be to allow
Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme -
o
Would cross 17.2km of Flood Zone 3, which is more than the 16.3km crossed by the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme
Greenhouse greenhouse Contribute to the emissions released as a result of modal Regardless of which alternative is incorporated, the HS2 scheme would have negative benefits in terms of reducing greenhouse gas
gases gases. See reduction of shift achieved from conventional rail/road emissions due to its construction and requirement for new rolling stock. However, the magnitude of these negative benefits is over-
U
also TAG greenhouse gas and flights to high speed rail. shadowed by the range in uncertainty associated with operational impacts, which may result in either a net positive or net negative benefit.
Unit 3.3.5 emissions by This is due to the uncertainty associated with policy delivery in decarbonising electricity generation in the UK and securing reductions in air
Gases Sub- shift from road Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
Objective and air to rail U
and TAG This alternative would be equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
Unit 3.5.4 Carbon emissions resulting from Overview of this alternative –
CBA construction in terms of embedded Total Embedded Carbon for LOR2.5 is estimated to be 417,200 tonnes CO2 (of which an estimated 198,600 tonnes CO2 is as a result of
carbon and carbon emissions resulting tunnels).
from tunnel boring
- Estimated to be 1,031,200 tonnes CO2, (of which an estimated 306,700 tonnes CO2 is as a result of tunnels). Carbon from tunnels
accounts for approximately 30% of the overall Total Embedded Carbon.
2b. Relative efficiency in operations between Overview of this alternative –
Reduce relative high speed trains and rolling stock and The development of a new rail infrastructure allows for design measures to reduce electrical demand from individual Traction Motor Units
contribution made classic trains (TMUs) and the HS2 route as a whole. These design measures include track alignment (gradients and curves) and TMU aerodynamics
by rail to U although the greatest efficiency gains are associated with on-TMU or trackside capture of electricity generated by TMUs when braking.
greenhouse gas Retrofit of these design features within the existing rail infrastructure would inevitably be limited and the efficiency gains would not be as
emissions by great as for HS2.
applying energy
efficient
technologies
3. Protect and 3a. Impacts on the coherence and Overview of this alternative –
enhance distinctiveness of landscape resources of --
Landscape Maintain and Commencing in the dense urban area of Inner London and leading out into and through the Chilterns AONB, dissecting the sensitive
60
and landscape. enhance existing national importance crossed by surface landscape both along overland and through tunnel, crossing tracts of farmland and mature woodland.
Townscape See also landscape or cut and cover sections, e.g. AONBs, The overall length of this section is 35km of which 15.6km is a tunnel. 9.5km of this alternative has a direct physical impact on the
TAG Unit character ASVs, Special Landscape Areas, Chilterns AONB. A further 4.2km length of the track would lie within a 3km zone of visual influence of the AONB.
3.3.7 National Parks, National
Landscape There would be a number of valleys throughout the AONB that would require viaducts to cross deeper valleys, there are likely to be
Scenic Areas (Scotland).(E, H) increased impacts to the AONB at these locations.
and TAG
Unit 3.3.6 Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
Environment Replacing the Line of Route elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative would result in:
al Capital -- 9.5km of direct physical impact on the Chilterns AONB, this is less than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (14.1km).
The length of the track which would lie within a 3km zone of visual influence of the AONB would remain similar 4.2km compared to
4.4km for HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
distinctiveness of landscape resources of - The route has no direct impact on distinctive landscape of regional or local importance.
regional importance crossed by surface 4,750m of track would lie within a 3km zone of visual influence of the Bayhurst Wood and Denham Country Parks.
or cut and cover sections, e.g. country Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
parks, Regional Landscape Designations
Replacing the Line of Route elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative would result in:
(Scotland)
(E, H) - No country parks are directly impacted, which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme
There would be a reduction of Indirect impacts on the Denham and Bayhurst Wood Country Parks by ~7km (reduction in track within
zone of visual influence), representing an overall lower magnitude of impact than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme
enhance Maintain and distinctiveness of townscape resources The corridor begins in the dense urban area of Inner London with a direct impact on the townscape passing through a number of London
townscape. enhance existing crossed by surface or cut and cover Boroughs.
See also townscape sections The route has a direct impact on major settlements including: Denham Green (affected by 1,040m of the route) and Higher Denham
TAG Unit character (E, H) (affected by 535m of the route).
3.3.8 Settlements within 300m of the route include: London Borough of Hillingdon (affected by 215m of the route), Denham Green (affected by
Townscape --
385m of the route), Higher Denham (affected by 350m of the route), Chalfont St./Gerard's Cross (affected by 235m of the route) and
Sub Longwick (affected by 25m of the route)
Objective The western edge of Haddenham characterised by modern residential development is within 300m of the route and is affected by 2 km
and TAG of the route. The railway line provides a buffer between the corridor and the urban edge as such no significant townscape impacts are
Unit 3.3.6 foreseen. The route also has an indirect impact on the small settlements of Ilmer, Chearsley (both designated Conservation Areas),
Environment Dorton and Kingsey.
al Capital
Reduced or avoided townscape impacts at Coldharbour, Southcote, South Heath and the western edge of Ayelsbury, which are affected
-- by the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
Increased/new townscape impacts at Chalfont St. Giles, Gerrards Cross, Haddenham, Ilmer, Chearsley, Dorton (both designated
Conservation Areas), and Kingsey
On balance, townscape impacts are likely to be greater in terms of geographical spread with this alternative.
vistas physically affected The corridor is likely to be evident in a number of view corridors from surrounding villages and settlements as it passes through open
(E, H) countryside.
- The corridor is likely to be visible in views from and towards the Denham village Conservation Area although as it follows the line of the
existing railway track the impact is not expected to be significant.
The corridor is likely to be evident in views from the northern approaches to the village of Chearsley which give long distance views
southwards across Aylesbury Vale to the Chiltern Hills.
-
Reduced/Avoidance of impacts at Hartwell House, Lower Hartwell.
Introduction of new impacts on views from and towards the Denham village Conservation Area although not significant
heritage historic protect international importance o
Within 100m impact corridor – none (0)
resources archaeological (E)
See also Within 350m buffer area – none. (0)
assets
TAG Unit Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
3.3.9 and World Heritage Sites:
o
TAG Unit Within 100m impact corridor – none, which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (0).
3.3.6 Envt
Within 350m buffer area – none, which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (0).
61
Capital Impacts on Scheduled Monuments (SMs) Overview of this alternative –
crossed by surface or cut and cover - Within the 100m impact corridor – none (0).
sections. Within the 350m buffer area – two (2).
(E) Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
Within the 100m impact corridor – none (0), which is less than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (1)
-
Within the 350m buffer area – six (6), which is greater than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (5)
This represents a lower magnitude of impact than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme, which directly impacts on Grims ditch.
Preserve and resources of national importance crossed Listed buildings within the 100m impact corridor:
protect historic by surface or cut and cover sections
Grade I – none (0).
Scotland Category A) - Grade II* – none (0).
(E, H) Listed buildings within the 350m buffer area:
Grade I – one (1).
Grade II* – three (3).
Grade I – none (0), which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (0)
Grade II* – one (1), which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (1)
--
Listed buildings within the 350m buffer area:
Grade I – nine (9), which is less than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (11).
Grade II* –26, which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (26)
This represents a similar magnitude of impact to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
Grade II Listed buildings – one (1)
Conservation Areas, Grade II Listed -
Buildings, (E, H) Within the 350m buffer area there are:
Grade II Listed buildings – thirty (30)
Within the 100m impact corridor there are:
Grade II Listed buildings –16 which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (16).
Conservation areas – two (2) (Bloomsbury and Warwick Bar Conservation Areas) which is less than the HS2 March 2010 preferred
scheme (3).
- Within the 350m buffer area there are:
Grade II Listed buildings –270 which is lower than for the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (314).
Conservation Areas – seven (3), which is less than the HS2 March 2010 preferred Scheme (11).
The magnitude of impacts from this alternative is comparable to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme, albeit that the number of directly
impacted Grade II listed buildings would be reduced by two with this option.
Grade I Registered Parks or Gardens – none (0).
Gardens, Registered Battlefields Grade II* Registered Parks or Gardens –none (0)
(E, H) - Registered Battlefields – none (0)
Grade II* Registered Park and Gardens – one (1) (Bulstrode Park)
Registered Battlefields – none (0)
62
Grade I Registered Parks or Gardens – none (0), which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (0).
Grade II* Registered Parks or Gardens –two (1), which is less than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (3).
-
Grade I Registered Parks or Gardens – one (1), which is less than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (2).
Grade II* Registered Park and Gardens – one (1), which is greater than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (0)
This alternative would reduce the number of Grade II* Parks directly impacted by the scheme from three to two.
Registered Parks and Gardens o Grade II Registered Parks or Gardens – none (0)
Grade II Registered Parks or Gardens – one (1) (Denham Palace)
o For the combined scheme, within the 350m buffer area there would be:
Grade II Registered Parks or Gardens – one (1), which is greater than the March 2010 preferred scheme (0).
The magnitude of impacts from this alternative is comparable to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
5. Support 5a. Impacts on sites of international Overview of this alternative –

Biodiversity biodiversity Maintain and importance crossed by surface or cut and o The nearest SAC to the site is The Chilterns Beechwoods at which point HS2 is in tunnel at its closest point 1,200m, with a portal around
See also enhance cover sections, e.g. SACs and candidate 2,000m away. It is not considered that adverse effects would arise as the route is predominantly in tunnel in the vicinity of this SAC site.
TAG Unit biodiversity SACs (cSAC), SPAs and potential SPAs
3.3.10 (pSPA) and Ramsar sites. (E) Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
Biodiversity o
No direct effects on any sites of international importance and there are not likely to be significant indirect effects.
Sub-
objective Impacts on sites of national importance Overview of this alternative –
and TAG crossed by surface or cut and cover No significant effects are anticipated on ecological sites of national importance
Unit 3.3.6 sections, e.g. SSSIs, Geological SSSIs, The nearest NNR from the route is Ruislip Woods (which is also a SSSI), which is over 1.1 km away. The route is on the surface at this
NNRs. point, and alongside an existing railway line. Adverse effects in the NNR are not likely.
(E) The nearest SSSI is Old Rectory Meadows 223 m to the north of the track (which is alongside an existing rail). The site is important for
o its wet grassland but this is probably dependent on a watercourse to the south, therefore adverse effects are not likely. Other nearby
wetland SSSIs are all >500m away from the track. Despite proximity no effects are likely. With the exception of Windsor Hill (249m
away) the remaining SSSIs some of which are constituents of the Chilterns Beechwoods SAC are more than 1.5 km away and effects
are not likely
The route is 2,000m from Long Herdon Meadow designated for waders and wildfowl which would be potentially affected by disturbance,
and alluvial/flood plain grassland potentially vulnerable to changes in hydrology. The distance means that effects are possible though
probably unlikely
No additional direct impacts to any SSSI or NNRs
- Avoidance of the indirect impacts on 3 SSSI features (Ruislip Woods, Bacombe and Coombe Hill and Sheephouse Wood) incurred by
HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
New indirect impacts to Old Rectory Meadows would be introduced.
This alternative would have less impact on SSSIs and NNRs than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme, but the effect is small
crossed by surface or cut and cover Route appears to cause minor adverse effects on a number of regional receptors, mainly woodland habitat also LNRs and SINCs
sections, e.g. RIGS, SINCs, BAP
4.5 km of the route at surface level is within 50m of ancient/semi-natural broad leaved woodland UKBAP habitat. This implies that the
habitats. -
amount of habitat loss and fragmentation would be significant, as also indicated by the plan and profile drawings
(E)
A total of 970 m of the route is within 50m of ancient woodland, the amount of woodland loss implied by this figure is regarded as minor
adverse, the degree of fragmentation involved is not known.
63
300m of the route is within Snakemoor LNR. Habitat loss would arise. 780 m of the route is within 50 m of UKBAP Lowland Mixed
Deciduous Woodland habitat (likely to be subsumed within the ancient woodland area.
Tunnel portals around a viaduct at Hughendon Valley may impact BAP habitats located above the portals, this would be dependent on
the amount of cutting required for the portals and would be determined in detailed design.
- Impacts on SINCs and BAP habitats would be largely similar. The specific features impacted would change, but the approximate number of
impacted sites and the intensity and scale of impact would be similar to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
(E) The route passes through a relatively diverse landscape. Much of the route passes through farmed landscapes, in which habitat networks
of hedges, woodlands, stream courses etc are an important ecological feature and which would be fragmented but can be reinstated along
the route and nearby. Some of the route is on clay providing opportunities for pond creation and management, while other areas are freely
drained giving potential for created dry open habitat. Given the possible scale of effects it is unlikely that overall benefits would arise.
A substantial portion of the alternative route is within the Chilterns which contain large amounts of calcareous woodland and grassland.
Woodlands within the Chilterns would be damaged and fragmented. There are several opportunities to create links between fragments.
o
Creating links between nearby unaffected woods could provide compensation and enhancement, and could benefit dormouse. Steep
cuttings and chalk spoil could enable the creation of calcareous grassland, potentially adjoining other areas of existing chalk grassland.
While new woodland planting and linkages are of value, much of the woodland affected would be ancient and not restorable
The potential for habitat creation would depend on the nature of construction to some degree. The route is within the Midvale Ridge and
cuttings and tunnel portals within it may provide opportunities for creating calcareous habitats. The area is noted for the presence of dry
and wet woodland. The route may result in fragmentation of these areas but there may be opportunities for compensation though
hedgerow planting and management and creation of woodland to link existing areas.
o Habitat creation opportunities are likewise restricted through the Chilterns AONB. Overall impacts are expected to be broadly similar to the
major river crossings- five (5, Including Colne, Thame and Ray)
See also crossings, number of minor river
2
TAG Unit crossings). minor river crossings- 32 (i.e. catchment less than 50km )
3.3.11 (E) 2
The total area of catchment upstream of Corridor 2.5 is 1,542km (excluding minor rivers not shown on OS).
Water
General notes:
Environment -
Sub- The area of diverted runoff is assumed to be proportional to the total catchment area upstream of river crossings.
objective It is impracticable to mitigate the effects on the catchment hydrology completely and it is inevitable that overland flow would be collected
and TAG adjacent to the track by filter drain/s and piped to convenient crossing points such as culverts and bridges. This would have a local effect
Unit 3.3.6 on river catchment hydrology, concentrating the rate of discharge into rivers at selected points (with a likely increase in erosion) and
Environment altering the characteristics of river morphology with a possible adverse effect on river quality.
al Capital 2
Catchments less than 50km are assigned a neutral evaluation since the effects would be only local and routes which cross major rivers
are assigned a minor negative score due to the cumulative effects of diversions of minor tributaries.
Would result in the following river crossings:
25 major crossings, which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (25).
- 93 minor crossings, which is more than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (76).
2
The total area of catchment upstream of this combined alternative is 5,811km , which is slightly greater than for the HS2 March 2010
2
preferred scheme (5,457km ).
Impacts on catchments would be greater if this alternative were adopted.
(number of major river diversions, Total number of river crossings – (see CSO6a above).
No major river diversions
reservoirs). Grand Union Canal intersected on existing rail bridge at Colne Valley
(E, H) -
Minor diversions may be required –
2
Chearsley Brook (X: 471399 Y: 209944 Catchment size = 32km , Water Framework Directive (WFD) quality Poor);
2
Chilton Brook (X: 469309 Y: 211833 Catchment size = 1km , WFD quality Poor)
General notes:
64
specified in the WFD. Diversion of a major river is assigned a major negative evaluation and diversion of a minor main river is assigned
a minor negative evaluation.
Focusing detailed design on avoiding the need for diversions.
Major diversions – five (5), which is less than for the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (6).
Minor diversions – six (6), which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (6).
--
Navigable waters – eight (8), which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (8).
Reservoirs – two (2), which is less than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (9).
Overall, the number of potential diversions is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme than this alternative, as are crossings of
navigable waters. However, impacts reservoirs is significantly less than for the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
Protect Protection Zones (SPZs). Cut works/tunnel (including portals) through:
SPZ 1 – 3.1km.
(E, H) SPZ 2 – 4.1km.
General notes:
A significant proportion of the UK drinking water is obtained through the abstraction of ground water and this process is licensed by the
to abstraction.
--
Routes which cut or tunnel through SPZ1 are assigned a major negative evaluation and routes which cut or tunnel through SPZ2 are
-- SPZ 1 – 3.7km, which is less than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (4.8km).
Adopting this alternative would decrease potential impacts on SPZ 1 by 1.1km and on SPZ 2 by 15km
Both good chemical quality (CQ) and good potential yield (PY) – 3.7km.
-- quality (CQ). In both cases, classifications are either good or poor.
maintained.
65
Both „good PY‟ and „good CQ‟ is considered to be a major detrimental impact on an important resource and is assigned a major negative
evaluation.
Either „good PY‟ or „good CQ‟ is assigned a minor negative evaluation.
Both good chemical quality (CQ) and good potential yield (PY) – 25.8km, which is more than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme
-- (25.6km).
Either good CQ or good PY – 23.6km, which is greater than for the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (21.1km).
Flood risk equivalent Conserve and year flood zones (Flood Zone 3) Length of line in Flood Zone 3 – 5.2km.
enhance the (E, H)
Total number of major river crossings – four (4)
capacity of
- Virtually all routes cross the floodplains of major rivers at some point, but crossings proposed are large viaducts across entire floodplains
to minimise any adverse effects on flood water levels. As such and in contrast to major river diversions, viaduct crossings of Flood Zone
3 is assigned a minor adverse evaluation.
Length of line in Flood Zone 3 – 17.2km, which is greater than for the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (16.3km).
Total number of major river crossings –
- 23 major river crossings, which is less than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (25).
93 minor river crossings, which is greater than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (76)
The length of scheme crossing Flood Zone 3 would be increased if this alternative were adopted. However, it is noted that the scheme has
Extent of infrastructure within 1 in 1000 Overview of this alternative –
(E)
Total number of major river crossings – four (4)
General notes:
Flood Zone 2 represents the extent of flooding with a 1000-year return period and this is usually far in excess of the design criteria for
-
As for Flood Zone 3, it is more sustainable to avoid Flood Zone 2 completely. However, in the context of this development it is
impracticable to do so.
A neutral evaluation is assigned to crossing of Flood Zone 2 for minor rivers and a minor negative evaluation is assigned for crossing of
Flood Zone 2 for a major river.
Length of line in Flood Zone 2 – 20.3km, which is essentially the same as the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (18.9km).
-
Total number of major river crossings –
23 major river crossings, which is less than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (25).
66
93 minor river crossings, which is greater than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (79).
Major river crossings would be reduced by two (2), compared with the current HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
8. Improve 8a. Change in total emissions 'with' and
Air quality local air Maintain and 'without' option as a result of modal shift Operational details of the scheme not sufficiently known in order to adequately appraise against this criteria.
U
quality. See enhance local air from road to rail within study area
also TAG quality. (E, H)
Unit Impacts on air quality from traffic
3.3.3Local associated with stations. Impacts to Air
Air Quality Quality Management Areas (AQMA)
Sub- (E, H, Eq)
objective
(nb: see
strategic
approach set U Operational details of the scheme not sufficiently known in order to adequately appraise against this criteria.
out in
Section 1.2of
this unit) and
3.3.4
Regional Air
Pollution
9. Reduce 9a. Change in the population potentially Overview of this alternative –
noise. See annoyed by operational noise --
Noise and Maintain and ~ 450 people would potentially annoyed by operational noise.
vibration also TAG enhance the local (E, H)
Unit 3.3.2 Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
Note: the noise environment -- 4
approach Noise Sub- ~3,500 people, which is less than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (3,900) .
objective
presented The Present Value of Benefits (PVB) for Overview of this alternative –
here follows (nb: see
strategic daytime operational-related residential -- ~-£22 million
the webTAG noise
guidance, approach set ~50 dwellings qualifying for noise insulation
which has out in
been used Section 1.5
of this unit) Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
to assess 5
the HS2 and TAG ~ - £190 million, which is less than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (-£194M)
Unit 3.3.2 --
March 2010 ~ 1,200 dwellings qualifying for noise insulation, which is less than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (1,450)
preferred Supplement
ary This represents a lower magnitude of adverse impact than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme
route only.
Guidance
No NATA 9b. Nos. of residential properties at risk of Overview of this alternative –
equivalent Maintain local vibration and reradiated noise -- ~2,100 dwellings at risk of vibration and reradiated noise.
vibration (E, H)
~100 sensitive non-residential properties (tunnelling only)
environment
~10,900 dwellings, which is greater than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (~9,500).
--
~500 sensitive non-residential properties from tunnelling, which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (~500)
This alternative would increase the number of affected dwellings, and the number of non-residential properties.
Community equivalent Maintain and by landtake Total Properties potentially demolished :
Dwellings: 74
community
-
Commercial: 19
Industrial: 3
Total: 99
General notes:
4
67
The calculations in rural areas are based on the 100m impact corridor; therefore it is likely that this number could be reduced during
detailed design.
Total Properties potentially demolished :
Dwellings: 476, which is greater than the March 2010 preferred scheme (429).
Community: 23, which is equivalent to the March 2010 preferred scheme (23).
-
Commercial: 137, which is greater than the March 2010 preferred scheme (121).
Industrial: 31, which is greater than the March 2010 preferred scheme.
Total demolitions: 662
Overall the scheme would have slightly more demolitions with this alternative.
(H) 58 dwellings affected along the route option. The risk of isolating properties and communities is considered to be low overall.
-
Main area of isolation lies to the south of Haddenham where the town of Ilmer is bounded by LoR2.5 and an existing railway (31 dwellings
affected).
186 dwellings affected along the entire route, which is greater than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (164)
-
The risk of isolating properties and communities is considered to be low overall, equivalent to the March 2010 preferred scheme with minor
adverse impacts predicted.
areas demolished or at high risk of o
None of the 20% most deprived areas would be affected by demolition or landtake
isolation
-- As for the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme, the substituted sections of the route also impact none of the 20% most deprived areas.
There is no change to deprived areas from this alternative.
numbers of equality groups demolished o
There are no target equality groups identified along the route
or at high risk of isolation, where known.
-- As for the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme, the substituted sections of March 2010 preferred route do not impact any priority equality
groups. There is no change to equality groups from this alternative.
Accessibility severance. Maintain and nature trails and cycle paths severed Limited effects to access of paths as the majority lie on existing roads. Main effects during construction, although access is expected to be
See also enhance and/or requiring diversion maintained after construction.
TAG Unit pedestrian access (E, H, Eq)
3.6.2
Reducing National cycle routes – none (0).
Severance o
Regional cycle routes – none (0).
Sub-
Local cycle routes – five (5). All are on existing roads so access is expected to be maintained and effects are limited to construction
Objective.
periods.
OS footpaths intersected – four (4) intersected which are also all on existing roads
National cycle routes – two (2), which is less than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (6).
Regional cycle routes - none (0), which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (0).
-
Local cycle routes, 15, which is greater than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (13).
OS footpaths intersected – 17, which is less than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (24).
National Trails – one (1), which is equivalent to the March 2010 preferred scheme (1).
Overall, this option would introduce slightly less impacts on strategic paths, trails and cycle routes.
Impacts on areas of open access, - Overview of this alternative –
68
including common land and greens Single small area of Registered Common Land to the east of Seer Green intersected.
(H, Eq)
- One area of registered common land would be impacted. Due to the size of the CROW land intersected the magnitude of this impact is little
different to that of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
access to transport for non-car users o
Maintain and As per the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme
the public enhance access (H)
transport Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
to public transport o
system. See This alternative would be equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme
TAG Unit
Potential to improve option values Overview of this alternative –
3.6.3 and +
(H) As per the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme
3.6.1 Option
Values Sub- Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
objective. +
areas with better access to public +
As per the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme
transport services
+
This alternative would be equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme
transport interchanges as a result of option +
See TAG Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
transport +
Unit 3.7.1 interchange This alternative would be equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme
Transport
Ability to accommodate mobility impaired Overview of this alternative –
Interchange
access with option U All stations and the fleet of trains would be designed to encourage active use by mobility impaired passengers. This is a matter of detailed
Sub-
(H, Eq) design
Objective
U
12. Improve 12a. Impacts on the key determinants of well- Overview of this alternative –
Health and journey Maintain and being There is the potential to impact on the key determinants of well being along the route where it is close to urban areas. However, these are
well-being ambience. improve well- (H, Eq) anticipated to be slight and therefore adverse effects to well-being unlikely.
See TAG being This is predominantly on residents living along the route or those newly exposed to the railway line due to the noise and visual intrusion
Unit 3.3.13
and community/physical severance e.g. reduced access to community facilities and retail amenities.
Journey -
Ambience Noise and visual effects are anticipated. However, effects on community facilities are limited. It is recommended that should noise
Sub- levels raise above the recommended WHO guidance threshold, then mitigation measures should be put in place to minimise this effect.
Objective Negative effects to well being are most likely where there are cumulative impacts in one area, for example, noise impacts combined
with a reduction in the quality of the visual landscape and greater difficulty in accessing facilities and amenities in a deprived
neighbourhood with an existing poor environment.
-
This alternative would be equivalent to the March 2010 preferred scheme.
No. of residential dwellings within 100m Overview of this alternative –
of surface sections of line (potential for Dwellings 289 (excluding Tunnelling).
nuisance during construction) Community 3
(E, H) - Commercial 21
Industry 12
Total 315
Dwellings 7,548, which is less than the March 2010 preferred scheme (7,453).
Community 99, which is less than the March 2010 preferred scheme (100).
-
Commercial 841, which is greater than the March 2010 preferred scheme (835)
Industrial 164, which is less than the March 2010 preferred scheme (166).
8,642,Total
69

At the time of writing tranquillity mapping had not been received.
(H)
U Some information on tranquillity is provided in Volume 1, though this does not provide information on the areas in the highest 20% and thus
his criteria cannot be appraised at this stage.
physical Maintain and lifestyle (e.g. through more active travel o Effects for these criteria are most apparent at proposed stations although there are no stations incorporated into this particular route. Line
of Route 2.5 does not allow the opportunity to encourage a healthier lifestyle unless it is considered with connecting stations.
TAG Unit health (H)
3.3.12 Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
Physical o This alternative does not alter any station configurations. Impacts remain the same for the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this
Fitness Sub- alternative.
Objective
Other issues:
o
Impacts are the same for the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative.
equivalent Reduce health health inequality This alternative route option would not reduce or widen health inequalities along the route.
All existing transport routes and connections would be preserved so access to services would not generally be affected during the
o
construction and operation phases.
There may be some disruption which would require consideration and potential mitigation. It is also unlikely that the route would
increase/exacerbate cardiovascular and respiratory diseases.
o Were this alternative to be adopted it is unlikely to result in health inequalities different from those of the HS2 March 2010 preferred
scheme.
13. Reduce 13a. Change in likelihood of accidents as a Overview of this alternative –
Security and accidents. Contribute to the result of option (modal shift) Preliminary demand model outputs indicate that there is the potential for some modal shift from road to rail (both HS2 and released
safety See TAG reduction of road (H, Eq) o capacity). However, the reduction in the number of road trips is not expected to be significant when considering overall traffic flows. The
Unit 3.4.1 traffic accidents resultant shift may reduce a small number of road traffic accidents from some existing motorways but is unlikely to have any measurable
Accidents effect on road traffic incident rates. Until more detailed road traffic modelling has been undertaken, this objective remains unknown.
Sub-
Objective Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
o The inclusion of the LoR2.5 to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would not significantly increase or decrease the likelihood of road
traffic accidents.
70
security. See Protect against fear of crime This criterion would not be known so far in advance of detailed design. Footbridges and other pedestrian access areas would be assumed
U
TAG Unit crime and fear of (H) to be designed in accordance with the 'Secured by Design' document. It is recommended that attention be given to areas of tunnel or
3.4.2 crime viaduct in order to reduce the potential effect of an increase in crime or fear of crime and reduction in perceived safety.
Security
Sub- U
Objective This alternative is considered equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme
14. To support 14a. Net business impacts for transport users Overview of this alternative –
Economic sustainable (i.e. excluding environmental and wider ++
Support economic As per the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
prosperity economic competitiveness economic benefits and costs)
get good use of public
value for funds Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
money. See ++
TAG Units
3.5.1 to
3.5.14.
beneficial competiveness and labour productivity +
Support wider As per the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
and maintain and +
impacts. See enhance This alternative would be equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme
TAG Units employment Impacts on labour markets Overview of this alternative –
3.5.8 and opportunities +
As per the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
3.5.10 to
3.5.14, Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
+
15. Provide 15a. Net benefits for consumers and Overview of this alternative –
Economic beneficial commuters ++
Support wider As per the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
welfare transport economic welfare (Eq)
user Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
growth ++
impacts, This alternative would be equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme
wider 15b. Impacts on planned regional growth Overview of this alternative –
economic Support planned areas The route has been aligned to avoid the regional growth areas in Aylesbury.
o
impacts and developments
integrate No growth points are to be impacted by this route.
with land use Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
policy. See o
As for March 2010 preferred scheme, although the distance from the growth areas at Aylesbury is increased
TAG
Units3.5.1 to Impacts on planned major housing and Overview of this alternative –
3.5.14, Tag sustainable housing developments o The route passes to the east of Bicester and avoids the Eco Town known as North West Bicester where 5,000 homes are being proposed
Unit 3.7.2 by Cherwell District Council.
Land Use
Policy Sub- Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
Objective - As for March 2010 preferred scheme, no additional benefits would be realised. No additional developments are known that would be
impacted by this alternative.
developments o
There are no known impacts on planned major developments.
- As for March 2010 preferred scheme, no additional benefits would be realised. No additional developments are known that would be
impacted by this alternative.
areas o
Maintain and There are no known regeneration areas/opportunities impacted by this route.
enhance (E, H, Eq)
regeneration Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
+ As for March 2010 preferred scheme, no additional benefits would be realised. No additional developments are known that would be
impacted by this alternative

16. No NATA 16a. Impacts on Grade 1 and 2 agricultural - Overview of this alternative –
71
Soil and equivalent Maintain and land crossed by surface or cut and cover Agricultural land impacted by the scheme:
land enhance land sections
Grade 1 Agricultural Land affected – 8.1ha
resources resources (E)
Grade 2 Agricultural Land affected – 82.5ha
-
Grade 1 Agricultural Land affected – 8.1ha, which is greater than HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme, (none).
Grade 2 Agricultural Land affected – 276ha, which is greater than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme, (251.5ha).
Length of Green Belt and crossed by Overview of this alternative –
Green Belt land affected – 17.2km.
Green Belt land affected – 81.9km, which is less than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (85.4km)
extraction that is sterilised as a result of o
No minerals sites physically affected
option Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
o
No mineral sites affected with this alternative. This is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
disposal physically affected by option o
No currently authorised landfill sites physically affected by the route option
- 2
One Authorised Landfill site of 0.088km (8.8ha) would be affected. The same as for the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
16b. Number of "high risk" brownfield sites Overview of this alternative –
brought back into beneficial use, either +
Encourage the 4 identified brownfield sites could be brought back into beneficial use, either wholly or partially, equivalent to 3.87 Ha.
use of brownfield wholly or partially. Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
sites (E, H)
+ 19 identified brownfield sites could be brought back into beneficial use, either wholly or partially, which is 4 less than the HS2 March 2010
preferred scheme (23).
equivalent waste spoil potentially requiring off-line - 3
Waste Prevent and Waste spoil generated = 2.35 Mm .
generation minimise waste disposal as a result of option Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
production (E, H) - 3 3
Waste spoil generated = 3.6 Mm , which is significantly more than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (1.85Mm )
Unknown at this stage.
off-site disposal (H)
U
Unknown at this stage.
18. No NATA 18a. Potential to make more efficient use of Overview of this alternative –
Resource equivalent Conserve and resources At this stage of the scheme the type and quantity of individual materials to be used is not clear. This is something that would be explored
use protect primary further during the detailed design stage. In general it is expected that the scheme would seek to make a commitment to utilise sustainable
material resources U materials, particularly sustainable concrete that makes use of low-carbon cement, recycled steel, recycled aggregates, re-use of spoil on
site and FSC timber where timber is required. This would depend on a number of considerations, including technical requirements for
different structures (tunnel lining, viaducts and track slab), availability and commercial considerations. Mechanisms for achieving other
option (e.g. demolition materials) As above, at this stage of the scheme the type and quantity of individual materials to be used is not clear. This is something that would be
U
explored further during the detailed design stage. It is expected that the scheme would seek to re-use materials where possible. Again,
this would depend on a number of factors such as the technical and structural requirements of the scheme.
72
Appendix 6.4
HS2 West Midlands Alternative
73
Summary With respect to groundwater, there would be no significant differences in terms of impacts on SPZs, but the
main alternative would overlie a 70% greater area of aquifer with either good chemical quality or good
The introduction of the West Midland main alternative past Birmingham International alongside the WCML in
potential yield representing greater risk to groundwater.
place of the March 2010 preferred spur at Water Orton, would result, overall, in a worse performance
against the sustainability objectives. For most issues the two would not be significantly different. However,
Flood risk
for noise and, to a lesser extent, water resources the West Midlands alternative would be clearly inferior to
the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme. Differences in community impacts revolve around the smaller As noted above under climatic factors and adaptability, substitution of the HS2 March 2010 preferred
number of demolitions for the alternative, but the greater amount of severance and islanding. Only for land scheme with this main alternative would affect marginally less high flood risk land. However, scheme design
resources would the alternative be better, but only marginally so. using viaduct would be expected to ensure risks to flow and flood capacity would be mitigated as far as
practicable. No significant differences to flood risk would therefore be expected with this alternative.
Air quality
This alternative would result in no significant differences to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme. It would
be marginally more resilient to extreme weather events, with cutting or retained cut affecting about 6% less HS2 is unlikely to result in air quality effects arising from the generated traffic along the length of the route,
geology of moderate landslide potential, and crossing about 8% less high risk flood zone. Engineering away from stations, particularly when such small traffic changes, should they occur, would be dispersed over
solutions would, however, ensure that these risks to the scheme were mitigated. such a wide area.
Greenhouse gases Noise and vibration

There would be no significant differences in respect to greenhouse gas emissions from operation were this The substitution of this main alternative into the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would result in
alternative to be used. Embedded carbon would be some 6% less. marginally more people who would potentially be annoyed by operational noise (4,400 compared with 4,000
for the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme). However, the number of dwellings qualifying for noise
Landscape and townscape insulation would be significantly more (about 2,200 compared with about 1,450 for the HS2 March 2010
preferred scheme). Present value disbenefits would be about -£240M, which would be a further -£40M when
There would be no significant differences to landscape resources were the West Midland Alternative to be
compared to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
substituted within the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme. The alternative would result in marginally more
adverse impacts on the landscape owing to its greater effects on two country parks (Kingfisher and There would be no differences with respect to vibration.
Sheldon), but the overall difference would be negligible.
Community integrity
With respect to townscape, the West Midland Alternative would shift the concentration of impacts away from
the suburbs and settlements of Water Orton, Coleshill and Sutton Coldfield to places such as Hampton in The substitution of this main alternative into the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would result in around
Arden, Balsall, Whitacre and Whittington, effectively increasing impacts within residential areas and reducing 100 fewer demolitions, with some 500 predicted compared with an estimated 610 for the HS2 March 2010
them in industrial areas of Birmingham. The main townscape impacts of HS2 would still be in London and preferred scheme.
central Birmingham, so these changes would be relatively minor; but overall, substitution of the West However, this main alternative performs worse in terms of community severance. With the substitution of
Midlands alternative would result in a marginally worse townscape impact for the scheme as a whole. the West Midlands alternative, an additional 300 properties would become isolated by transport
infrastructure, which is a 190% increase over the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme. The town of Hampton-
Cultural heritage
in-Arden is already surrounded by major transport infrastructure; while this area would be further narrowed
There would be no significant differences to cultural heritage were the West Midland Alternative to be by the West Midlands alternative, the dwellings affected have not been included as they are already isolated
substituted within the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme. The alternative would result in marginally more to some degree.
adverse impacts on the settings of a small number of scheduled monuments, listed buildings and one
By removing the scheme from Castle Bromwich, the alternative would affect a lower proportion of deprived
registered park and garden, but the differences are so small as to be negligible.
areas, but as the impacts here would mostly be within an industrial part of the area, no significant
differences between the two are envisaged.
Biodiversity
There would be no significant differences to biodiversity were the West Midland Alternative to be substituted Accessibility
within the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme. The alternative would not trigger the need for appropriate
There would be no significant differences to pedestrian access were the West Midland Alternative to be
assessment; it would be a little closer to one SAC (River Mease) and a little further from another (Cannock
substituted within the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme. No significant differences are identified in terms of
Chase) but no significant impacts would be expected on either. Impacts on other designated features would
severance of rights of way.
be roughly the same; impacts on the River Blythe SSSI may be marginally worse, but impacts on regional
sites slightly better than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme. There would be no significant differences in respect to public transport interchange were this alternative to
be used.
Water resources
The substitution of this main alternative to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would result in more
adverse impacts on both surface water and ground water resources. The alternative would affect a 30% The risk of disturbance and nuisance during construction has been determined on the basis of properties
greater upstream catchment area, although it would result in half the number of major river diversions than within 100m of the scheme. Potential impacts on residents would be greater if the West Midland Alternative
the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme. In addition, the opportunity to introduce the canalised River Tame to were adopted, with about 30% more dwellings affected. Impacts on community facilities would be slightly
a more natural open channel would be lost with this alternative. less.
74
In the longer term, the greater operational noise impacts resulting from this main alternative would
exacerbate one cause of potential health impacts, but such impacts are not predicted to be sufficiently great
as to become manifest as health impacts for either scheme.
No significant differences are likely for impacts on physical health, health inequalities, road traffic accidents
or crime/fear of crime between the schemes.

No significant differences are considered likely in respect to regional growth, housing, or general planned
development and regeneration were the West Midlands alternative to be substituted within the HS2 March

Adoption of the West Midlands alternative would result in decreased impact on agricultural land (about 15%
less Grade 2 land affected), compared with the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme, but one more landfill
site affected. The potential areas of brownfield land brought back into productive use would be slightly less
(about 15%). Impacts to Green Belt would be broadly the same as the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
Waste generation
Estimated spoil arisings from the scheme with the West Midlands alternative substituted would be very
similar to the March 2010 preferred scheme, since it involves only a short section (650m) of single bore
tunnel.
Resource use
75
Issue Equivalent Core Sustainability Evaluation Criteria (Measures / Contribution option would make Commentary
NATA Objective (CSO) Indicators) to core sustainability objective
Objective or
Climatic equivalent Improve resilience vulnerable to landslip. (Determined by BGS - Areas of Significant Landslide Potential – 0km of cut works
factors and of rail network Landslide Hazard Assessment areas
Areas of Moderate Landslide Potential –10.4km of cut works
adaptability against extreme "Moderate" and "Significant")
weather events Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
Areas of Significant Landside Potential – there would be 0km of cut works, which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
-
preferred scheme.
Zone 3. (H) Crosses 6.6km of Flood Zone 3.
General notes:
Adaptability to climatic factors is related to the length of line in the flood plain. However, a neutral score has been assigned because
track length within the flood plain is covered under CSO7a (see below).
o As strategic infrastructure, the final design would allow for rare flood events and current best-practice assumptions for climate change to
o
Would cross 14.9km of Flood Zone 3, which is less than the 16.3km crossed by the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme
2. Reduce 2a. Contribute to the Change in CO2 equivalent (CO2e) Overview of this alternative –
Greenhous greenhouse reduction of emissions released as a result of modal Regardless of which alternative is incorporated, the HS2 scheme would have negative benefits in terms of reducing greenhouse gas
e gases gases. See also greenhouse gas shift achieved from conventional rail/road emissions due to its construction and requirement for new rolling stock. However, the magnitude of these negative benefits is over-
TAG Unit 3.3.5 emissions by and flights to high speed rail. U
shadowed by the range in uncertainty associated with operational impacts, which may result in either a net positive or net negative benefit.
Greenhouse facilitating modal This is due to the uncertainty associated with policy delivery in decarbonising electricity generation in the UK and securing reductions in air
Gases Sub- shift from road and travel. Both these policies are external to HS2.
Objective and air to rail
TAG Unit 3.5.4 Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
CBA U This alternative would not result in any change to CO2 equivalent emissions from modal shift. This alternative is equivalent to the HS2
Carbon emissions resulting from Overview of this alternative –
construction in terms of embedded carbon Total Embedded Carbon for the West Midlands alternative is estimated to be 180,600 tonnes CO 2 (of which an estimated 6,200 tonnes CO2
and carbon emissions resulting from tunnel is as a result of tunnels).
boring
study. The embedded carbon numbers reported in the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Appendix 2.5 were calculated as part of a more detailed
analysis. This detailed analysis also took into account carbon emissions from the transport of bulk materials and carbon emissions from the
transportation of spoil material. Total embedded carbon 177,015 tonnes CO2.
- Estimated to be 732,000 tonnes CO2, (of which an estimated 113,200 tonnes CO2 is as a result of tunnels).Carbon from tunnels accounts for
approximately 15% of the overall Total Embedded Carbon.
2b. Reduce relative Relative efficiency in operations between The development of a new rail infrastructure allows for design measures to reduce electrical demand from individual Traction Motor Units
contribution made high speed trains and rolling stock and (TMUs) and the HS2 route as a whole. These design measures include track alignment (gradients and curves) and TMU aerodynamics
by rail to classic trains although the greatest efficiency gains are associated with on-TMU or trackside capture of electricity generated by TMUs when braking.
greenhouse gas U Retrofit of these design features within the existing rail infrastructure would inevitably be limited and the efficiency gains would not be as
promoting energy
efficient
technologies
Landscape enhance distinctiveness of landscape resources of o
Maintain and No impacts on any landscape of national importance.
76
Objective or
and landscape. See enhance existing national importance crossed by surface or Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
Townscape also TAG Unit landscape character cut and cover sections, e.g. AONBs, ASVs, The scheme would have direct and indirect impacts on landscape areas of national importance, including travelling through the Chilterns
3.3.7 Landscape Special Landscape Areas, National Parks, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Replacing the West Midlands section with this alternative would not introduce, or remove, any
--
and TAG Unit National Scenic Areas (Scotland).(E, H) landscapes of national importance.
3.3.6
Environmental This alternative is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
Capital Impacts on the coherence and Overview of this alternative –
distinctiveness of landscape resources of Direct and indirect impacts on landscapes of regional importance, including:
regional importance crossed by surface or
-- Direct physical impact on 310m of the Kingfisher Country Park.
cut and cover sections, e.g. country parks,
Regional Landscape Designations Scheme within a 3km zone of visual influence for Kingfisher Park (4.7km of track), Sheldon Country Parks (2.7km) and Kingsbury water
(Scotland) park (5.8km of track)
Replacing the West Midlands elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative would result in:
Increased direct impacts - direct physical impact on 310m of the Kingfisher Country Park, compared with only visual impacts for the HS2
Increased impact within 3km zone of visual influence for Sheldon Country Park (2.7km of track), compared to the HS2 March 2010
-- preferred scheme (2.2km of track)
Decreased impact within 3km zone of visual influence for the Kingsbury water park (5.8km of track) and Kingfisher Country Park (4.7km
of track)compared with the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme which includes impacts for Kingfisher Country Park (15.2km) and
Kingsbury Water Park (7.5km).
This alternative has a greater direct impact on landscape resources of regional significance than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme and
less impact in the 3km zone of influence, although this alternative would lie closer to relevant features.
enhance Maintain and distinctiveness of townscape resources Direct and indirect impacts on townscapes, including:
townscape. See enhance existing crossed by surface or cut and cover
Impacts on Birmingham include: 11.9km has direct impact on Birmingham (including industrial and business areas and the residential
also TAG Unit townscape sections
areas of Solihull, Marston Green (and school), highly populated areas of Saltley and Bordesley Green); 0.05m is within the 300m visual
3.3.8 character (E, H)
influence zone.
Townscape Sub
Objective and Impacts on Hampton in Arden include: 1.6km of direct impacts for rail corridor widening (terraced properties along Station Road have
TAG Unit 3.3.6 frontage to the rail corridor and flats/employment units off Marsh Lane very close to corridor); 970m has a direct impact on the settlement
Environmental (residential areas on the north and eastern edge, large modern detached properties, Old Station Road on north eastern edge of village);
- 1.1km is within the 300m visual influence zone.
Capital
Impacts on Balsall include: 260m direct impact on the settlement (new residential development on north eastern edge); 1.17km is within
the 300m visual influence zone (northern edge).
Impacts on Whitacre Heath include: 0.25km direct impact on a farmstead and a small number of large detached houses on the outskirts;
1km is within the 300m visual influence zone.
Impacts on Whittington (highly planned semi-detached and detached houses set around a series of curvilinear through streets and cul de
sacs) include: 0.61km direct impact; 0.5km within the 300m visual influence zone.
Other settlements within the 300m visual influence zone include: Tamworth (0.43km of scheme), Hopwas village (a designated
Conservation Area) (0.92km of scheme).
Replacing the West Midlands elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative would result in:
Impacts within Birmingham: shifting concentration of effects away from the suburbs/settlements of Water Orton, Coleshill and Sutton
Coldfield to those set out above. This would effectively increase impacts within residential areas and reduce impacts on more industrial
areas of Birmingham.
- Impacts on other settlements: reducing impacts on Hampton in Arden, Whiteacre Heath and Whittington, but introducing direct and visual
impacts near Minworth, Lichfield and Steethay.
Overall, the primary townscape effects of the combined scheme are within London, particularly around Euston (which also occur for the HS2
March 2010 preferred scheme), and within Birmingham itself. Given the shift towards more impacts within residential areas that would be a
consequence of adopting this West Midlands alternative, it is considered to have a greater impact on townscape than the HS2 March 2010
preferred scheme would.
vistas physically affected - The corridor may be visible in views into and out of Hopwas village Conservation Area, near Tamworth. There is limited documented
(E, H) information provided by local authorities.
-- Replacing the West Midlands elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative would not result in any further
strategically important views being impacted or avoided. Primary impacts are recorded for Euston, Hartwell House (Colne Valley junction to
77
Objective or
Aylesbury), which would all be common to either this or the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme. However, there is limited information
available for the West Midlands.
This alternative is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
4. Protect the 4a. Impacts on World Heritage Sites and other Overview of this alternative –
Cultural heritage of Preserve and assets of acknowledged international World Heritage Sites:
heritage historic protect importance o
Within 100m impact corridor – none (0).
incl. resources See archaeological (E)
architectural also TAG Unit assets Within 350m buffer area – none (0).
and 3.3.9 and TAG Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
archaeologi Unit 3.3.6 Envt
Capital World Heritage Sites for the whole scheme:
cal
Within 100m impact corridor – none (0), which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
o
Replacing the West Midlands elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative would not result in any further World
Heritage Sites being impacted or avoided. This alternative is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
crossed by surface or cut and cover SMs:
sections. -
Within the 100m impact corridor – one (1).
(E)
Within the 350m buffer area – three (3).
SMs for the whole scheme:
- Within the 100m impact corridor – two (2), which is greater than for the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (1).
Within the 350m buffer area – seven (7), which is greater than for the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (5).
Replacing the West Midlands elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative would increase impacts on SMs.
buildings (Grade I and II* Listed Buildings, Scotland
Category A) - Grade II* – none (0).
Grade II* – five (5).
Grade II* – none (0), which is less than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (1).
- Listed buildings within the 350m buffer area:
Grade I – 12, which is slightly greater than for the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (11)
Grade II* – 29, which is slightly greater than for the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (26)
Replacing the West Midlands elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative would slightly increase impacts on
Listed Buildings.
Grade II Listed buildings – six (6).
Buildings, Conservation areas – one (1)
(E, H) - Within the 350m buffer area there are:
Grade II Listed buildings – 52.
Conservation areas – none (0).
See HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme for more information on station options.
78
Objective or
Grade II Listed buildings – 17, which is slightly more than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme 16;
Conservation areas – Three (3) (Hartwell, Bloomsbury and Digbeth), which is equivalent to the March 2010 preferred scheme (3).
Note: In addition, two undesignated historic landscapes of potentially regional importance are in the 100m impact corridor (Chilterns and
Northamptonshire Uplands).
Grade II Listed buildings – 353, which is greater than for the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (314).
Conservation areas – ten (10)
Replacing the West Midlands elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative would increase impacts on historic
resources within 350m, but in other ways is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
Gardens, Registered Battlefields Grade II* Registered Parks or Gardens – none (0).
(E, H) - Registered Battlefields – none (0).
Grade II* Registered Park and Gardens – one (1): Packington Hall, extends into the 350m buffer area.
For the combined scheme, within the 100m impact corridor there are:
Grade II* Registered Parks or Gardens – three (3) (Shardeloes; Hartwell House; Stoneleigh Abbey), which is equivalent to the HS2
For the combined scheme, within the 350m buffer area there are:
--
Grade I Registered Parks or Gardens – two (2) (Regents Park; Waddesdon Manor), which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred
scheme (2).
Grade II* Registered Park and Gardens – one (1): Packington Hall, extends into the 350m buffer area; which is slightly greater than the
HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (0).
Replacing the West Midlands elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative would introduce impacts in the 350m
buffer zone for Packington Hall, but in other ways is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
- Grade II Registered Parks or Gardens – none (0).
Grade II Registered Parks or Gardens – none (0).
Grade II Registered Parks or Gardens – none (0), which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
In addition, two undesignated historic landscapes of potentially regional importance are in the 100m impact corridor (Chilterns and
- Northamptonshire Uplands).
Grade II Registered Parks or Gardens – none (0) , which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (0).
This alternative is the equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
5. Support 5a. Impacts on sites of international importance Overview of this alternative –
Biodiversity biodiversity See Maintain and crossed by surface or cut and cover o
No direct effects on any sites of international importance and there is not likely to be significant indirect effects.
79
Objective or
also TAG Unit enhance biodiversity sections, e.g. SACs and candidate SACs It is considered very unlikely that any significant adverse effects on the integrity of the River Mease SAC would arise:
3.3.10 (cSAC), SPAs and potential SPAs (pSPA) The River Mease is of European significance in terms of habitat quality and for populations of otter, white clawed crayfish and two
Biodiversity and Ramsar sites. species of fish (bullhead and spined loach). White clawed crayfish and both fish species require clean, well oxygenated water and have
Sub-objective (E) specific habitat preferences in terms of bank structure, and channel substrates and vegetation. All of these species have limited capacity
and TAG Unit for dispersal. Otter have large territories and are highly mobile, and are susceptible to habitat fragmentation and killing and injury if their
3.3.6 habitat is affected by transport schemes.
There are no direct impacts on the SAC, but indirect effects could arise via tributaries from sedimentation and pollution, killing otter or
fragmentation of non SPA supporting habitat for otter. The Mease is a tributary of the Trent and the Trent would lie between the route and
the SAC. This precludes any inputs into the SAC during construction or operation. Although all of the aforementioned species may occur
in tributaries lying between the route and the Trent there it is highly unlikely that that they support populations of international significance
but would be of regional significance. The potential for habitat degradation of non SAC habitat would be avoided through measures to
protect tributaries during construction and by ensuring that bridge design and construction methods have minimal impacts on habitats, or
the movement of otter.
Scheme works affecting any tributaries flowing towards the Trent must be carried out to avoid impacts on otter that may use these water
courses in addition to the SAC.
No direct effects on any sites of international importance and there is not likely to be significant indirect effects, which is equivalent to the
o The scheme would be closer to the River Mease SAC (4.7km, as opposed to 6.6km away for the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme),
however it would take it further away from Cannock Chase SAC (see HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme Framework for more details).
Although in both cases it is unlikely that there would be effects on SACs, replacing the West Midlands elements of the HS2 March 2010
preferred scheme with this alternative would slightly increase the possibility of impacts on one SAC (River Mease).
crossed by surface or cut and cover A number of SSSIs are potentially impacted by the scheme:
sections, e.g. SSSIs, Geological SSSIs,
Direct impacts on River Blythe SSSI - multiple crossings of the river increase the likelihood and significance of incremental effect in terms
NNRs.
of shading and fragmentation. Some crossing points are in close proximity to existing road bridges and others over more natural
(E)
stretches of the river. Would also require ~100m diversion of the channel, resulting in habitat loss, changes in downstream fluvial
processes and adverse effects during construction, however, it is likely that compensatory habitat can be provided along the realigned
section and effects are therefore partially mitigable.
- Whiteacre Heath SSSI within 25m – a former gravel pit designated for its wintering and breeding bird assemblage. There would be
significant construction phase impacts on the SSSI but habitats present can be readily restored and recreated. The route is on
embankment and viaduct in the vicinity of the SSSI so operational effects are likely to interrupt flight lines from nearby water bodies.
Coleshill and Bannerly Pools SSSI within 560m – hydrologically sensitive wet heath and ponds. This is sufficiently close for adverse
effects on the hydrology of this area.
Middleton Pool SSSI within 900m – limited potential for effects on hydrology, but sufficiently distant for effects to be unlikely.
Bickenhill Meadows SSSI within 1.0km – flood plain grassland and streams. Potential for impacts through changes to surface water
flows, but the distance and intervening landuse mean this is unlikely.
The combined scheme would:
Result in direct impacts on three (3) SSSIs (River Blythe – multiple crossings; Long Itchington and Ufton Wood; Mid Colne Valley), which
is more than for the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme, which impacts the same three SSSIs but to a lesser extent (River Blythe – single
crossing)
within 100m of two (2) SSSIs (Sheephouse Wood; Whiteacre Heath), which introduces the possibility of impacts on Whitacre Heath, but
reduces the possibility of impacts on Berkswell Marsh SSSI, which would be within 100m of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
- within 250m of three (3) SSSIs (Bacombe and Coombe; Finemere Wood; Long Itchington and Ufton Woods), which is less than for the
HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with 4 SSSIs (which would bring Middleton Pool closer)
within 500m of one (1) SSSI (Coleshill and Bannerley Pools), which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme
within 1km of three (3) SSSIs (Ruislip Woods; Middleton Pond; Bickenhall Meadows), which is more than for the HS2 March 2010
preferred scheme (1 – Ruislip Woods).
Although in both cases effects on SSSIs are limited, impacts on the River Blythe SSSI would be greater if this alternative were adopted over
the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme. The possibility of indirect effects on nearby SSSIs is approximately equivalent, although the
specific effects would be slightly different in each case.
crossed by surface or cut and cover - Intersects one SLINC (Site of Local Importance for Nature Conservation):
sections, e.g. RIGS, SINCs, BAP habitats.
However, this would be adjacent to existing track with very limited habitat loss or additional fragmentation.
80
Objective or
(E) The proposed location for the new ticket office and carpark for Marston Green Station is within the SLINC resulting in greater habitat loss.
Within 50m of UK BAP habitats (ancient woodland ~1.6km, of which ~600m is also wet woodland). In all cases mitigation would need to:
Focus on creating additional woodland edge habitat or linking affected habitat to nearby areas with additional planting. This does not
mitigate for the loss of ancient woodland but could add ecological value by improving the local network of habitat.
Avoid adverse effects from shading old trees or other valuable habitat with new planting.
The route would also be in close proximity of Kingfisher and Sheldon Country Parks, which support wetland birds and woodland, habitat loss
and disturbance may potentially arise but the location of sensitive habitat within these large sites is not known.
Replacing the West Midlands elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative would result in the following:
Direct impacts on SNCIs would be reduced, by moving the scheme out of Park Hall SINC
- Length of UK BAP habitats within 50m would be reduced by ~0.5km
Direct impacts on SLINCs (Sites of Local Nature Conservation significance) would be reduced.
It should be noted that there has been limited information on SINCs available outside London and Birmingham.
This alternative is likely to have slightly fewer impacts on regionally significant habitats and site than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
(E) Potential for enhancement of:
River Blythe SSSI – an extended length of the river corridor could be enhanced to achieve significant benefits, for example through
identifying and removing point sources of pollution, reed bed creation on any heavily polluted tributaries, and providing a buffer along
+ sections affected by agricultural runoff.
Ancient/UKBAP wet woodland - limited mitigation may be possible through linking the site to their woodlands through planting new or
strengthening existing hedges, riparian woodland and woodland edge habitat but this would not fully compensate for any loss of ancient
woodland.
SLINC – potential for compensatory habitat creation and management as compensation for the proposed carpark.
The potential for habitat creation across the whole combined scheme would be largely limited to reinstatement of hedges and ponds in low
lying open country side, which dominates the landscape impacted by the whole scheme.
o
Due to the greater impacts on the Blythe River SSSI, if this alternative were adopted, there would be potential for more extensive river
improvement works, but this potential is out-weighed by the direct impacts themselves.
The potential for habitat creation is considered to be equivalent to that for the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
11 major crossings (including the River Blythe x 6; River Cole; River Tame x 3; Bourne Brook);
2
Unit 3.3.11 crossings). 17 minor crossings (i.e. catchment less than 50km ).
Water (E) 2
The total area of catchment upstream of this corridor is 4,920km .
Environment
General notes:
Sub-objective -
and TAG Unit The area of diverted runoff is assumed to be proportional to the total catchment area upstream of river crossings.
3.3.6 It is impractical to mitigate the effects on the catchment hydrology completely and it is inevitable that overland flow would be collected
Environmental adjacent to the track by filter drain and piped to convenient crossing points such as culverts and bridges. This would have a local effect
Capital on river catchment hydrology, concentrating the rate of discharge into rivers at selected points (with a likely increase in erosion) and
altering the characteristics of river morphology with a possible adverse effect on river quality.
2
Catchments less than 50km are assigned a neutral score since the effects would be only local and routes which cross major rivers are
assigned a minor negative score due to the cumulative effects of diversions of minor tributaries.
Total number of river crossings:
25 major crossings, which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (25).
-
62 Minor crossings, which is less than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (76).
2
The total area of catchment upstream of this combined alternative is 7,733km , which is greater than for the HS2 March 2010 preferred
2
scheme (5,457km ).
(number of major river diversions, number -- Total number of river crossings – (see CSO6a above).
of minor river diversions, impacts on
Major river diversions
81
Objective or
2
artificial water bodies, impacts on One likely diversion of the River Blythe (catchment of 162km , X: 421340, Y:284280, near Packington Park).
reservoirs). Minor diversions may be required –
(E, H) 2
One possible diversion near Birmingham International Rail (upstream catchment 4km , WFD quality not designated);
2
One possible diversion near Balsall Common (upstream catchment 4km , WFD quality not designated).
Navigable waters – two (2).
Reservoirs – none (0) (Scheme passes within 100m of Shustoke Reservoirs (X: 422939, Y:291310).
General notes:
specified in the WFD. Diversion of a major river is assigned a major negative score and diversion of a minor main river is assigned a
minor negative score
Focussing detailed design on avoiding the need for diversions.
Major diversions – three (3), which is less than for the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (6).
Minor diversions – five (5), which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (5).
--
Reservoirs – nine (9), which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (9).
Overall, the number of potential diversions is fewer for the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme than this alternative. However, some of
these diversions are likely to be avoidable during detailed design.
6b. Impacts on groundwater Source Protection Overview of this alternative –
Protect groundwater Zones (SPZs). Cut works/tunnel (including portals) through:
resources (Length of cut or tunnel through SPZ1
SPZ 1 – 0km.
and/or SPZ2).
(E, H) SPZ 2 – 0km.
General notes:
A significant proportion of the UK drinking water is obtained through the abstraction of ground water and this process is licence by the
Environment Agency. Each abstraction licence is associated with a corresponding SPZ to prevent pollution of the ground water subject to
abstraction.
o
Cutting or tunnelling through source protection zones is likely to have significant detrimental effects on the quality of the water and on the
flow within the aquifer.
Routes which cut or tunnel through SPZ1 are assigned a major negative score and routes which cut or tunnel through SPZ2 are assigned
a minor negative score.
Cut works/tunnel (including portals) through:
-- SPZ 1 – 4.8km, which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
Adopting this alternative would decrease potential impacts on SPZ 2 by 0.5km
- Both good chemical quality (CQ) and good potential yield (PY) – 0km.
82
Objective or
maintained.
score.
Either „good PY‟ or „good CQ‟ is assigned a minor negative score.
Both good chemical quality (CQ) and good potential yield (PY) – 25.6km, which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme
-- (25.6km).
Either good CQ or good PY – 35.9km, which is significantly more than for the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (21.1km).
7. No NATA 7a. Extent of infrastructure within 1 in 100 year Overview of this alternative –
Flood risk equivalent Conserve and flood zones (Flood Zone 3) Length of line in Flood Zone 3 – 7.5km.
protect the capacity (E, H) Total number of major river crossings – 11 (see CSO6a above).
of floodplains
General notes:
- Virtually all routes cross the floodplains of major rivers at some point, but crossings proposed are large viaducts across entire floodplains
3 is assigned a minor adverse score.
In most cases, it should be possible to mitigate the flood risk issues through design, adjusting vertical track alignment and designing river
crossings so that they have a minimal effect on flood flow.
It may also be possible, in cases where the consequences of occasional flooding are relatively low such as fields, parks or rural areas, to
accept a small increase in the risk of flooding at the local scale to avoid disproportionate costs of mitigation.
Length of line in Flood Zone 3 – 15.3km, which is less than for the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (16.3km).
- Total number of major river crossings – 26 major, 62 minor (see CSO6a (above)).
The length of scheme crossing Flood Zone 3 would be reduced if this alternative were adopted. However, it is noted that the scheme has
(E)
Total number of major river crossings – 11 (see CSO6a (above)).
General notes:
- economic or sustainable to accept the consequences of such rare events than to mitigate against them in design.
83
Objective or
A neutral score is assigned to crossing of Flood Zone 2 for minor rivers and a minor negative score is assigned for crossing of Flood
Zone 2 for a major river.
Length of line in Flood Zone 2 – 17.6km, which is less than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (18.3km).
-
Total number of major river crossings – 26 major, 62 minor (see CSO6a above).
The length of scheme crossing Flood Zone 2 would be reduced if this alternative were adopted.
8. Improve local air 8a. Change in total emissions 'with' and Overview of this alternative –
quality. See also 'without' option as a result of modal shift U
Air quality Maintain and Operational details of the scheme not sufficiently known in order to adequately appraise against this criteria.
TAG Unit enhance local air from road to rail within study area
3.3.3Local Air (E, H) Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme-
quality. U
Quality Sub- Operational details of the scheme not sufficiently known in order to adequately appraise against this criteria.
objective (nb:
Impacts on air quality from traffic Overview of this alternative –
see Strategic U
associated with stations. Impacts to Air Operational details of the scheme not sufficiently known in order to adequately appraise against this criteria.
approach set
out in Section Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme-
(E, H, Eq)
1.2 of this unit)
Operational details of the scheme not sufficiently known in order to adequately appraise against this criteria.
and 3.3.4 U
Regional Air
Pollution
See also TAG annoyed by operational noise --
Noise and Maintain and Population potentially annoyed by operational noise - 1,600 people
Vibration Unit 3.3.2 Noise enhance the local (E, H)
Sub-objective Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
Note: the noise environment
(nb: Strategic -- Population potentially annoyed by operational noise for the combined scheme would be - 4,300 people, which is greater than for the HS2
approach approach set March 2010 preferred scheme (3,900 people)
5
presented out in Section
here follows The Present Value of Benefits (PVB) for Overview of this alternative –
1.5) and TAG
the daytime operational-related residential PVB = ~- £100 million
Unit 3.3.2 --
webTAG noise
Supplementary Dwellings qualifying for noise insulation = ~ 950 (> 68 dBA and increase ≥ 1 dBA), of which ~ 400 dwellings ≥ 73 dBA and ~ <50 dwellings
guidance, Guidance > 81 dBA
which has
been used Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
6
to assess PVB = ~ -£234 million, which is greater disbenefit than for the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (~-£194 million)
the HS2 --
Dwellings qualifying for noise insulation = ~ 2,200, which is significantly greater than for the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (~1,450)
March 2010
preferred Residential noise (or the costs of mitigation for this) would be significantly greater were this alternative to be adopted.
route only. No NATA 9b. Nos. of residential properties at risk of Overview of this alternative –
equivalent Maintain local vibration and reradiated noise Properties potentially impacted by vibration and re-radiated noise:
vibration (E, H) o
Residential dwellings – none (0).
environment
Non-residential buildings – none (0)
For the combined scheme, properties potentially impacted by vibration and re-radiated noise:
-
Residential dwellings – 9,500, which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (9,500).
Non-residential buildings – 500, which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (500).
5
84
Objective or
Community equivalent Maintain and by landtake Properties likely to be demolished or affected by landtake include:
Integrity enhance community (H) Dwellings 30
integrity
Community 2
Commercial 8
-- Industrial 4
Total: 44
General notes:
The most significant single area for demolitions is Hampton in Arden area
The calculations in rural areas are based on the 100m impact corridor, therefore it is likely that this number could be reduced during detailed
design.
Properties likely to be demolished or affected by landtake include:
Overall – Total number of demolitions–
Dwellings: 388, which is less than the March 2010 preferred scheme (429).
-- Community: 17, which is less than the March 2010 preferred scheme (23).
Commercial: 65, which is less than the March 2010 preferred scheme (121).
Industrial: 17, which is less than the March 2010 preferred scheme (30).
Total: 487.
This alternative would result in fewer demolitions than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme, if it was incorporated into the scheme.
(H) Up to 360 dwellings are identified as being at high risk of isolation. Key locations include:
One area affected as it is bounded by the A432 (7 dwellings affected). Little scope for realignment
Two areas identified as areas of isolation primarily from the new route triangle (281 dwellings affected) although this area encircles Hams
Distribution Park. The route is predominantly on viaduct although the area is still bordered by major infrastructure.
-
Two areas identified as areas of isolation (25 dwellings affected) in the area west of Tamworth as it converges with an existing railway
line.
One area of isolation between the A45 and the route (38 dwellings affected).
The town of Hampton-in-Arden lies along the B4102, is an area already surrounded by major transport infrastructure, causing some degree
of isolation. While the line of route would narrow this area, the 300 dwellings affected have not been included in this count.
The dwellings at high risk of isolation for this combined option are:
-
~460 dwellings, which is significantly greater than for the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (~164).
Adoption of this alternative would significantly increase the number of properties at risk of isolation, or associated mitigation costs.
Properties in the 20% most deprived areas Overview of this alternative –
demolished or at high risk of isolation -
No isolation impacts in the 20% most deprived wards. There are approximately seven (7) residential demolitions in these areas.
(H, Eq)
There are limited impacts on properties in the 20% most deprived wards, with key areas being Euston and the area of Washwood Heath
including Saltley Business Park, see details in the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme Framework.
--
Adopting this alternative for the West Midlands would take the alignment out of one (1) 20% most deprived area (Castle Bromwich to
terminal station). However, the locations impacted are adjacent to the existing rail corridor and it is predominantly industrial in character. It
is considered that this alternative is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
numbers of equality groups demolished or Unlikely to be effects on equality target groups.
at high risk of isolation, where known. -
Up to seven (7) residential dwellings may be demolished along the approach to Birmingham, where the line follows an existing railway. This
(H, Eq)
is in an area where there is a high percentage of BAME communities compared to the ward levels, although they are not clustered.
-- Adopting this alternative for the West Midlands would neither remove nor introduce impacts for equality target groups. The combined
scheme would be equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
85
Objective or
11. Reduce 11a. Nos. of strategic footpaths, nature trails and Overview of this alternative –
Accessibility severance. See Maintain and cycle paths severed and/or requiring There would be limited impacts to some paths, as set out below:
also TAG Unit enhance pedestrian diversion
3.6.2 Reducing access (E, H)
Severance Sub- National cycle routes – one (1) Likely to be interruption during construction, but potential for underpass as the scheme is elevated at this
Objective. point.
o Regional cycle routes – none (0).
Local cycle routes – none (0).
OS footpaths intersected – one (1) at the junction of the A452, but adjacent to a road so no isolation expected.
Other paths nearby include:
100m from National Cycle route around northern end of Birmingham Int. Airport. Path not severed. Impacts are unlikely.
National cycle routes – six (6), which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (6).
-
Local cycle routes, 13, which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (13).
OS footpaths intersected – 21, which is less than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (24).
Overall, this option would introduce slightly more impacts on strategic paths, trails and cycle routes.
Impacts on areas of open access, including Overview of this alternative –
common land and greens o Limited impacts on features.
(H)
No relevant features impacted
Limited impacts on features.
o One (1) CROW (registered Common Land) would be intersected resulting in some landtake. However, this falls along an existing rail
corridor so access impacts would be minimal.
Adopting this alternative would be equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
Improve access 11b. Potential for improved access to public Overview of this alternative –
to the public Maintain and transport for non car users (H) + The central Birmingham Station would provide a single new point of access for HS2 passengers within the West Midlands, in an area that
transport enhance access to would allow a wide range of people to access the station, see interchange (CSO11c, below).
system. See public transport
TAG Unit 3.6.3 Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
Access to the The combined scheme would have three (3) stations – Euston, Old Oak Common and central Birmingham (compared with the HS2 March
th
Transport o 2010 preferred scheme, which has a fourth (4 ) station – Birmingham International Interchange station (adjacent to Birmingham
System Sub- International airport/rail station/NEC centre).
Objective and The HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme therefore performs better in terms of providing access to public transport.
3.6.1 Option
Values Sub- Potential to improve option values Overview of this alternative –
(H) +
objective. As per the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
+
Population in the 20% most deprived areas Overview of this alternative –
with better access to public transport +
services
(H) Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
+
transport Maintain and interchanges as a result of option + The station option provides good interchange potential. The concourse would spill passengers out adjacent to Moor St Station and bus
interchange. enhance public (H) interchange, and is within 800m of Birmingham New Street station.
See TAG Unit transport + Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
86
Objective or
3.7.1 Transport interchange The combined scheme would have three (3) stations – Euston, Old Oak Common and central Birmingham, compared with the HS2 March
Interchange h
2010 preferred scheme, which has a fourth (4 ) station – Birmingham International Interchange station (adjacent to Birmingham International
Sub-Objective airport/rail station/NEC centre). A transit system would provide easy/efficient interchange between these facilities.
The HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme performs slightly better in terms of public transport interchange.
access with option U No information available. All stations and the fleet of trains would be designed to encourage active use by mobility impaired passengers.
(H, Eq) This is a matter of detailed design.
U All stations and the fleet of trains would be designed to encourage active use by mobility impaired passengers. This is a matter of detailed
design.
12. Improve journey 12a. Impacts on the key determinants of mental Overview of this alternative –
Health and ambience. See Maintain and well-being As described in the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme. Significant negative impacts mental well-being and well being are most likely where
well-being TAG Unit 3.3.13 improve mental (H, Eq) - there are cumulative impacts in one area, for example, noise impacts combined with a reduction in quality of the visual landscape and
Journey well-being greater difficulty in accessing services. (See HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme Framework for more details). Washwood Heath does not
Ambience Sub- display significant cumulative impacts.
Objective
Adopting the West Midlands alternative would increase impacts (noise, visual, accessibility) impacts within residential areas of Birmingham
- than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme. The greater noise impacts resulting from this main alternative would exacerbate one possible
cause of health impacts, but such impacts are not predicted to be sufficiently great as to become manifest as health impacts for either
scheme.
No. of residential dwellings within 100m of Overview of this alternative –
surface sections of line (potential for Properties within 100m of the construction footprint of the scheme:
nuisance during construction)
Dwellings- 3,893
(E, H
- Community- 42
Commercial - 191
Industrial- 54
Total 4,180
For the combined scheme, the number of properties within 100m of the scheme includes:
Dwellings 10,218, which is greater than the March 2010 preferred scheme (7,453)
Community 118, which is greater than the March 2010 preferred scheme (100),
- Commercial 857, which is greater than the March 2010 preferred scheme (835).
Industrial 171, which is greater than the March 2010 preferred scheme (166).
Total 11,364
The number of residential dwellings, Industrial, commercial and community properties affected within 100m of the construction footprint of
the scheme is significantly less if this West Midland alternative was adopted.
(H)
physical fitness. Maintain and lifestyle (e.g. through more active travel As described in the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme Framework, the following issues have the potential to impact on physical health:
See TAG Unit improve physical options) when accessing the network
Effects for these criteria would be most apparent at stations. The station at Birmingham would tie in with existing public transport options
3.3.12 Physical health (H)
and the stations at London (Euston) are existing stations which would be modified, and thus new travel options are not created as a result of
Fitness Sub-
the route. The scope therefore, to further encourage a healthier lifestyle is limited. To maximise benefits, the following should be
Objective
o considered:
During detailed design, it is recommended that bicycle lock-up/storage facilities are reviewed and cycle paths considered in order to
encourage cycling into the stations. Pedestrian walkways and connections to existing walkways are recommended to encourage walking
to the stations.
The interchange station near Birmingham International Airport would need to be integrated with existing transport links and additional
links should be provided if there is a lack of connecting transport (buses, cycle paths and pedestrian walkways).
87
Objective or
The service should have a storage area in a carriage for bicycles and allow cyclists to take their trains onboard without paying any
additional charge.
If recreational walking/cycling routes are affected by severance, there may be some reduction in physical health due to reduced access to
such activities. Any disruptions however, are likely to be temporary (during construction of the route, or while alternative access to
prepared), be locally specific, affect a relatively small number of people. It would be a general intention to maintain all existing rights of way.
Impacts to physical health therefore, are likely to be minor.
o There would be three stations (Euston, Old Oak Common, central Birmingham), which is one less than the HS2 March 2010 preferred
scheme (which also includes Birmingham International Interchange station).
scheme is electrically powered and thus impacts on cardiovascular and respiratory are unlikely. In some areas there may be specific local
issues: for example, there may be some potential increase/redistribution of motor vehicle air pollution from residents of the surrounding
area accessing the Birmingham Interchange Station. Key factors influencing the significance of this impact would include:
the cumulative issues associated with the proximity to the airport and motorway, which are likely to be more significant contributors to the
overall air quality in the area; and
Other issues:
The levels of these are considered to be limited for the combined scheme and therefore would not cause impacts on the key determinants of
o physical health, which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme. This combined scheme would not include the Birmingham
International Interchange station, which itself might be a source of possible physical health effects arising from vehicle air pollution. Impacts
are to be conformed during detailed designed.
No NATA 12c. Impacts on the key determinants of health Overview of this alternative –
equivalent Reduce health inequality For the purpose of this scheme, the key determinants of health inequality include employment, deprivation, access to services and facilities,
inequalities (H) isolation/severance,
This alternative would not significantly affect (positively or negatively) health inequalities along the route. This is because:
While some employment opportunities would arise as a result of the scheme, the numbers are not significant, and would not necessarily
o be accessed by people living in locations where significant impacts would be experienced.
There are likely to be some short term positive economic impacts due to the presence of the construction workforce (e.g. cafe,
convenience stores etc), though these are unlikely to be significant, nor encourage wider stimulus to the local economy.
Impacts on deprived areas are localised to two main locations: London and approaches and the Birmingham spur. Where this does
occur, any changes in access to health services or facilities would be temporary, and it is anticipated that affected groups would be able
to adapt with assistance.
existing capacity this is likely to mean a loss of revenue from passengers buying higher value tickets. This could make the existing standard
88
Objective or
trains serving London and Birmingham less viable to run and hence increase the ticket prices for standard train journeys or fewer services.
Given that current projections estimate that there would be a significant increase in overall passengers in the medium it is unclear whether
this would offset the potential loss of business customers to HS2. The likelihood of this impact is unknown at this stage
o Were the West Midlands alternative to be adopted it is unlikely to result in health inequalities different from those of the HS2 March 2010
preferred scheme.
Reduce 13a. Contribute to Change in likelihood of accidents as a Preliminary demand model outputs indicate that there is the potential for some modal shift from road to rail (both HS2 and released
accidents. See the reduction of result of option (modal shift) capacity). However, the reduction in the number of road trips is not expected to be significant when considering overall traffic flows. The
TAG Unit 3.4.1 road traffic (H, Eq) o resultant shift may reduce a small number of road traffic accidents from some existing motorways but is unlikely to have any measurable
Accidents Sub- accidents effect on road traffic incident rates. Until more detailed road traffic modelling has been undertaken, this objective remains unknown.
Objective
o Were the West Midlands alternative to be adopted it is unlikely to result in additional increases or decreases in road traffic accidents, this
alternative is considered equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
Improve 13b. Features that might increase crime or fear Overview of this alternative –
security. See Protect against of crime This criterion would be tested during detailed design.
TAG Unit 3.4.2 crime and fear of (H)
The stations, footbridges and other pedestrian access areas would be assumed to be designed in accordance with the 'Secured by
Security Sub- crime Design' document
Objective U
Tunnel and viaduct sections would need to be designed to reduce the potential effect of an increase in crime or fear of crime and
U
Considered to be equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
Economic sustainable ++
Support economic (i.e. excluding environmental and wider As per the March 2010 preferred scheme
Prosperity economic competitiveness and economic benefits and costs)
activity and get Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
make efficient use
good value for of public funds This alternative would be equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme
money. See ++
TAG Units 3.5.1
to 3.5.14.
beneficial wider competiveness and labour productivity +
Support wider As per the March 2010 preferred scheme
economic economic growth
impacts. See Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
and maintain and +
TAG Unit Units enhance This alternative would be equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme
3.5.8 and 3.5.10 employment Overview of this alternative –
Impacts on labour markets
to 3.5.14, opportunities +
As per the March 2010 preferred scheme
+
15. Provide 15a. Net benefits for consumers and commuters Overview of this alternative –
Economic beneficial (Eq) ++
Support wider As per the March 2010 preferred scheme
welfare transport user economic welfare
growth ++
economic This alternative would be equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme
impacts and Overview of this alternative –
15b. Impacts on planned regional growth areas
integrate with o
land use policy. Support planned No impact on planned regional growth areas.
See TAG Unit developments Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
Units3.5.1 to o Were this option to be adopted it would neither increase nor reduce impacts on regional growth areas, therefore it is considered to be
3.5.14, Tag Unit equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
3.7.2 Land Use
Policy Sub- Impacts on planned major housing and Overview of this alternative –
Objective sustainable housing developments o
No impact on planned housing development
89
Objective or
The combined scheme (has a significant impact on planned housing (and other) development in the vicinity of a Curzon Street terminus as
set out in more detail for the March 2010 preferred scheme. There are no other known impacts on planning housing development
proposals.
developments o
No impact on other planned major development
Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme–
- The combined scheme has a significant impact on planned mixed development in the vicinity of a Curzon Street terminus as set out in more
detail for the March 2010 preferred scheme. There are no other known impacts on planning housing development proposals.
areas o
Maintain and None known
enhance (E, H, Eq)
regeneration
There is a range of regeneration opportunities associated with development of stations at both ends of the scheme. The adoption of this
+ West Midlands alternative would not influence regeneration in these locations beyond those impacts already set out above for the
Birmingham station alternative locations and in more detail for the March 2010 preferred scheme for both the Birmingham and London
alternative station locations. There are no other regeneration areas impacted by the scheme.
16. No NATA 16a. Maintain and Impacts on Grade 1 and 2 agricultural land Overview of this alternative –
Soil and equivalent enhance land crossed by surface or cut and cover Agricultural land impacted by the scheme:
land resources sections
Grade 1 Agricultural Land affected – 0 hectares
resources (E)
- Grade 2 Agricultural Land affected – 68 hectares
Key areas include:
3.5km, north of Balsall Common
2.85km, north of Middleton and Hademoor
- Grade 1 Agricultural Land affected – 0 hectares, which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme
Grade 2 Agricultural Land affected – 212.5 hectares, which is greater than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (251.5 hectares)
Adoption of this alternative would decrease impacts on Grade 2 agricultural land in the West Midlands.
- Green Belt land affected by the combined scheme:
Green Belt land affected – 84.2 km, which is slightly less than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (85.4km).
Mineral sites affected – none known
option
o
No mineral sites affected. This is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
Area of land designated for waste disposal Overview of this alternative –
physically affected by option -
Authorised Landfill sites (existing) affected – one, at Hampton in Arden (1.8 ha, intersected for 240m)
- Two (2) authorised landfill sites would be impacted by the alternative scheme, which is more than for the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme
(1, south east of Calvert, Buckinghamshire)
16b. Encourage the Number of "high risk" brownfield sites Overview of this alternative –
use of brownfield brought back into beneficial use, either + Brownfield sites - 14 identified sites (total 76.55ha), some of which could potentially be brought back into beneficial use, either wholly or
sites wholly or partially. partially
(E, H)
+ The combined scheme would bring 26 identified brownfield sites (total ~187.6 hectares), some of which could potentially be brought back
into beneficial use, either wholly or partially, compared with the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (23 sites, ~227 hectares). The potential
90
Objective or
benefits are considered to be roughly equivalent, although the potential area of land that could be used is greater for the HS2 March 2010
preferred scheme.
17. No NATA 17a. Volumes of inert and non-hazardous waste Overview of this alternative –
equivalent spoil potentially requiring off-line disposal 3
Waste Prevent and Volume of waste spoil generated = 0.04M m . There is limited tunnelling required for this option.
generation minimise waste as a result of option
General notes:
production (E,H)
- It has been assumed that waste would be dominated by tunnel spoil, with a balance achieved between spoil from cuttings and land-
raising requirements (i.e. re-use within the scheme).
Demolition waste is expected to contribute a negligible volume of waste to the tunnel spoil volumes.
Tunnel spoil has been calculated based on circular tunnels with a diameter of 8.5m.
- 3 3
Volume of waste spoil generated = 1.89M m , which is greater than for the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (1.85M m ).
Volumes of hazardous waste spoil Detailed design and land investigation required to appraise this criteria, which would be undertaken once detailed designs are know.
off-site disposal, (H)
18. No NATA 18a. Conserve and Potential to make more efficient use of Overview of this alternative –
Resource equivalent protect primary resources At this stage of the scheme the type and quantity of individual materials to be used is not clear. This is something that would be explored
use material resources further during the detailed design stage.
In general it is expected that the scheme would seek to make a commitment to utilise sustainable materials, particularly sustainable
concrete that makes use of low-carbon cement, recycled steel, recycled aggregates, re-use of spoil on site and FSC timber where timber
U is required.
This would depend on a number of considerations, including technical requirements for different structures (tunnel lining, viaducts and
track slab), availability and commercial considerations.
Mechanisms for achieving other environmental criteria in relation to material specification would need to be delivered, where practicable,
through contractual specification and procurement policy.
U further during the detailed design stage.
It is anticipated that this would be roughly equivalent regardless of which option were adopted in the West Midlands.
option (e.g. demolition materials) As above, at this stage of the scheme the type and quantity of individual materials to be used is not clear. This is something that would be
U explored further during the detailed design stage.
It is expected that the scheme would seek to re-use materials where possible.
Again, this would depend on a number of factors such as the technical and structural requirements of the scheme.
U further during the detailed design stage.
It is anticipated that this would be roughly equivalent regardless of which option were adopted in the West Midlands.
91
Appendix 6.5
HS2 Iver Station Alternative
92
Summary
The station would be located on the GWML and would be connected to the HS2 March 2010 preferred
scheme by twin bore tunnels 23km long.
Many of the impacts predicted for this option are similar to those for the T5 and T6 loop options. However,
the amount of additional CO2 generated would be less while the impacts on water and flood risk are
predicted to be worse.
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions and combating climate change

Approximately 50% of the station and the approaches including the tunnel portals would be within the Flood
Risk Zone 3 area of the Colne Valley. This would be difficult to mitigate.
The construction of the station and the tunnels would give rise to approximately 270,000tCO2e.
Natural and cultural resource protection and environmental enhancement

There would be minor townscape impacts near the proposed station but no impacts of concern in terms of
cultural heritage.
There would be no direct impact on Natura 2000 sites, although the South West London Water Bodies SPA
lies some 4.5km south of the station, and confirmation from Natural England would be required with respect
to any potential need for appropriate assessment. Two SSSIs lie directly above the tunnels but impacts are
likely to be minimal.
This option would generate issues in respect of water and flood risk, including the loss of an existing water
treatment works close to the site of the proposed station. There would also be issues relating to flood risk,
as noted above, and there may be impacts to the River Colne if any diversion is required to accommodate
the station and throats.

Around 20 properties at the eastern tunnel portal near Northolt are at risk of demolition, and potentially more
than 50 dwellings would be impacted by visual intrusion. Around 10-15 other demolitions would be
expected as a result of construction access, emergency access and vent shafts. It is possible that this
number could be reduced during detailed design.
Settlement may also affect residential properties above the tunnels and shallower tunnels may cause
vibration and re-radiated noise impacts.
Sustainable consumption and production

The proposed station site would be partly within the Green Belt.
The excavation of the station box and the tunnels would generate a significant amount of spoil, some of
which could be re-used on site for landscaping, but most would need to be disposed of remotely.
93
factors resilience of rail BGS Landslide Hazard Assessment
Areas of Moderate Landslide Potential –0km of cut works
and network against areas "Moderate" and "Significant")
adaptabilit extreme weather
y events - Areas of Significant Landside Potential – 0km of cut works, which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (0).
Areas of Moderate Landslide Potential – 59.2km of cut works, which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (59.2).
Zone 3. (H) This alternative crosses 0.5km of Flood Zone 3, including:
Eastern approach and LOR3 connection - Portal emerges in Flood Zone 3. Difficult to mitigate.
Station and throats - Approximately 50% of station and throat located within flood zone 3, cutting off floodplain of River Colne, a major
2
river with catchment of 826km . Difficult to mitigate without significant horizontal and vertical alignment. Even if designed to high
standard, the residual risk and consequences of flooding would be considerable.
Western approach and LOR3 connection – 0km in Flood Zone 3.
General notes:
o Adaptability to climatic factors is related to the length of line in the flood plain. However, a neutral score has been assigned because
As strategic infrastructure, the final design would allow for rare flood events and current best-practice assumptions for climate change to
o Would cross 16.8km of Flood Zone 3, which is greater than the 16.3km crossed by the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme
Greenhou greenhouse Contribute to the emissions released as a result of modal This alternative could provide potentially better connectivity with Heathrow although there is a degree of uncertainty about how this might
se gases gases. See shift achieved from conventional rail/road U
reduction of influence modal shift and therefore the overall carbon emissions for this alternative. There is also potential for this alternative to increase
also TAG Unit greenhouse gas and flights to high speed rail. localised car use and this should be considered in the next stage of the project.
3.3.5 emissions by
Greenhouse Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
facilitating modal
Gases Sub- shift from road Addition of Iver Station to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would have negative benefits in terms of reducing greenhouse gas
Objective and and air to rail emissions due to its construction. However, the magnitude of this impact is overshadowed by the range of uncertainty associated with
U
TAG Unit 3.5.4 potential operational impacts, which is strongly influenced by assumptions relating to changes in air travel. However, overall the carbon
CBA emissions from this alternative would be expected to be greater than for the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme. The HS2 March 2010
preferred scheme and requirement for new
construction in terms of embedded Total Embedded Carbon for the Iver Station alternative is estimated to be 269,500 tonnes CO2 (of which an estimated 205,100 tonnes CO2
carbon and carbon emissions resulting is as a result of tunnels).
from tunnel boring
- Estimated to be 1,144,100 tonnes CO2 (of which an estimated 386,100 tonnes CO2 is as a result of tunnels) Carbon from tunnels accounts
for approximately 34% of the overall Total Embedded Carbon.
Reduce relative high speed trains and rolling stock and U The development of a new rail infrastructure allows for design measures to reduce electrical demand from individual Traction Motor Units
by rail to although the greatest efficiency gains are associated with on-TMU or trackside capture of electricity generated by TMUs when braking.
greenhouse gas Retrofit of these design features within the existing rail infrastructure would inevitably be limited and the efficiency gains would not be as
94
applying energy
efficient
technologies
and landscape. enhance existing national importance crossed by surface
Townscap See also TAG or cut and cover sections, e.g. AONBs, Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
landscape
e Unit 3.3.7 character ASVs, Special Landscape Areas, No additional impacts on any landscape of national importance to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme. This alternative is equivalent to
--
Landscape National Parks, National Scenic Areas the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
and TAG Unit (Scotland). (E, H)
3.3.6
Environmental
distinctiveness of landscape resources of Indirect impacts on landscapes of regional importance, including:
Capital
regional importance crossed by surface
or cut and cover sections, e.g. country - 1.9km and 1.1km length of track located within 3km zone of visual influence of the Thorney and Langley Country Parks respectively.
parks, Regional Landscape Designations 0.95km length of the eastern approach would lie within 3km zone of visual influence of the Thorney and Langley Country Parks.
(Scotland)
The entire length of the station would lie within the zone of visual influence of the Thorney Country Park.
(E, H)
- Inclusion of the Iver Station to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would result in:
Slight increase in indirect impacts to county parks.
enhance Maintain and distinctiveness of townscape resources Direct impacts on townscapes, including: marker
See also TAG sections The length of the eastern approach is 13.5km, of which 12.5km is in tunnel through Iver/Iver Heath, Higher Denham and Tatling End.
townscape
Unit 3.3.8 character (E, H) - The station approaches have a direct impact on major settlements of Iver and Ritchings Park (affected by 800- 1,700m of the route) and
Townscape this would include (a) the Ridgeway industrial estate near the western tunnel portal as it exits the tunnel portal and (b) Richings Park
Sub Objective (affected by 600m of the route).
and TAG Unit
Direct impact on Iver Water Treatment Works although this is not considered significant in townscape terms.
3.3.6
Environmental Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
Capital - Inclusion of the Iver Station to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would result in:
Additional impact on settlements of Iver and Richings Park
vistas physically affected (E, H) U
No documented information available from local authorities on strategic views in this area.
--
No documented information available from local authorities on strategic views in this area.
heritage historic protect international importance(E) o
resources See Within 100m impact corridor – none (0).
archaeological
also TAG Unit assets Within 350m buffer area – none (0).
3.3.9 and TAG
Unit 3.3.6 Envt Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
o Within 350m buffer area – none (0), which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
The Inclusion of the Iver Station to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would not result in any further World Heritage Sites being
impacted.
crossed by surface or cut and cover Scheduled Monuments:
sections. o
(E) Within the 100m impact corridor – none (0).
Within the 350m buffer area – none (0).
- SMs for the whole scheme including the Iver Station:
Within the 100m impact corridor – one (1), which is the same as the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (1).
95
Within the 350m buffer area – five (5), which is the same as the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (5).
The Inclusion of the Iver Station to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would not result in any further impacts on SMs.
Scotland Category A) o Grade II* – none (0).
Grade II* – none (0).
Grade I – 11, which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (11).
Grade II* – 26, which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (26).
The Inclusion of the Iver Station to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would not increase or decrease impacts on Grade I and II*
Listed Buildings.
Grade II Listed buildings – None (0)
Buildings (E, H) - Conservation Areas - none (0)
Grade II Listed buildings – two (2)
Conservation Areas – none (0)
Grade II Listed buildings – 16, which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (16).
Conservation Areas – two (3), which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (3).
-
Grade II Listed buildings – 316 which is slightly greater that the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (314) marker
Conservation Areas – three (3), which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.(3)
The Inclusion of the Iver Station to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would slightly increase impacts on Grade II Listed Buildings.
protect historic international and national importance
landscapes e.g. Grade I and II* Registered Parks
and Gardens, Registered Battlefields Grade II* Registered Parks or Gardens – none (0).
(E, H) o Registered Battlefields – none (0)
Grade II* Registered Park and Gardens – none (0).
Registered Battlefields – none (0)
--
Grade II* Registered Parks or Gardens – three (3), which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
96
Grade I Registered Parks or Gardens – two (2), which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
Grade II* Registered Park and Gardens – none (0), which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
In addition, as for the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme, two undesignated historic landscapes of potentially regional importance are in
the 100m impact corridor (Chilterns and Northamptonshire Uplands).
The Inclusion of the Iver Station to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would not result in any further impacts on Historical
Landscapes.
o Grade II Registered Parks or Gardens – none (0)
The Inclusion of the Iver Station to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would not increase impacts on Grade II registered Parks and
Gardens.
Biodiversit biodiversity Maintain and importance crossed by surface or cut and Eastern approach and LOR3 connection - The route is 8,350 metres from Windsor Forest and Great Park, designated for priority
y See also TAG enhance cover sections, e.g. SACs and candidate woodland types and invertebrates associated with ancient trees. Habitats are potentially vulnerable to hydrological change but are
Unit 3.3.10 biodiversity SACs (cSAC), SPAs and potential SPAs distant from the route and adverse effects would not occur.
Biodiversity (pSPA) and Ramsar sites.
Sub-objective (E) The route is approximately 4,400 metres north of the South West London Water Bodies SPA/Ramsar site and approximately 3,500-
and TAG Unit 3,600 metres north of the nearest known non SPA supporting habitat. All water bodies lie to the south of the M4 while the proposed
3.3.6 route is to the north.
The route is largely in bored tunnel, limiting potential disturbance of qualifying species. The nearest access shafts on the eastern
approach are to further to the northeast, the nearest water bodies are in Stockly park Golf Course and Business Park and are not likely
o to support significant numbers of qualifying species. It is not thought that adverse effects would arise.
All water bodies lie to the south of the M4 while the proposed route is to the north.
The station and throat are situated adjacent to former gravel workings which are likely to support qualifying species. However, these
water bodies are to the north of the SPA complex and have not been identified as supporting habitat for qualifying species. Operational
effects are not likely to cause significant additional disturbance to that caused by adjacent national rail, the M25 and industrial activity. it
is considered unlikely that an appropriate assessment is required but this should be confirmed through survey of the nearby water
bodies.
The nearest access shaft on the western approach is further to the north, distant from water bodies likely to support qualifying species
and separated from them by the M25. It is not thought that adverse effects would arise.
o The Inclusion of the Iver Station to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would not likely result in an increase of impacts to sites of
international importance. There are unlikely to be adverse impacts associated with Iver Station, but additional surveys may be required to
confirm this.
crossed by surface or cut and cover The western approach intersects Kingcup Meadows and Oldhouse Wood and Old Rectory Meadows SSSIs. The route is in tunnel beneath
sections, e.g. SSSIs, Geological SSSIs, o both sites and emergency shafts sufficiently distant to avoid adverse effects. Both sites support wet grassland communities potentially
NNRs. affected by changes in hydrology but both appear to depend on surface water flows and adverse effects are not likely to occur. Black park
(E) is approximately 2,000 metres from the route. It supports wet heath but adverse effects would not occur due to the scheme.
- The Inclusion of the Iver Station to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would not increase direct impacts on any sites of national
importance and is not likely to increase significant indirect effects.
crossed by surface or cut and cover -
The eastern approach is in tunnel beneath Yeading Brook Fields which is important for wet grassland habitats and uncommon plants.
97
sections, e.g. RIGS, SINCs, BAP There are no inspection shafts in the site.
habitats. The route is within Little Britain site of metropolitan importance, a section of the Colne Valley with a remarkable variety of wildlife
(E)
habitats, including lakes, rivers, scrub, areas of wasteland, woodland and grassland and supporting otter, wildfowl and water vole. The
effect of the route in terms of habitat loss and fragmentation would be very limited as it occupies raised land adjacent to existing rail. It is
likely that significant disturbance to wildfowl during construction but operational effects are not likely to cause significant additional
disturbance to that caused by adjacent national rail, the M25 and industrial activity.
Western approach and LOR3 connection - there is no available data but plan and profiles indicate that shafts avoid ecologically
interesting areas with the exception of a small area of woodland.
Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme – The Inclusion of the Iver Station to the
-
HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would not significantly increase impacts to sites of regional importance.
(E) o Western and eastern approaches and LOR3 connection - NA there is insufficient land affected.
Station and throats - NA site is too constrained
o
Overall - NA insufficient land take
No major crossings
2
Unit 3.3.11 crossings). o No minor crossings (i.e. catchment less than 50km ).
Water (E) 2
Total area of catchment upstream of this corridor is 0km .
Environment
Western and eastern approaches and LOR3 connection are predominantly below ground. The station and throats are designed to mitigate
Sub-objective
any effects on river catchment, however, some channels of the River Colne may be crossed by the station footprint and throats, this would
and TAG Unit
need further examination at a more detailed level.
3.3.6
Environmental Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
Capital Would result in the following river crossings:
25 major crossings (see HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme for details), which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme
(25).
-
76 minor crossings, which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (76).
2
Total area of catchment upstream for the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with the Iver Station is 5,457km which is equivalent to the
The Inclusion of the Iver Station to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would not likely increase the impacts on river catchments.
(number of major river diversions, Total number of river crossings – see CSO6a (above).
Major river diversions -
reservoirs). Major river diversions – none (0)
(E, H) Minor river diversions -
Minor river diversions – none (0)
The station box and throat occupy part of the valley utilised by the River Cole. The placement of the station may require some small
diversions of parts of the river. However the impacts and extent of any changes are unknown at this stage and may need to be addressed
during detailed design phases.
-- Navigable Waters -
Possible minor diversion of Grand Union Canal at portal of western approach to be investigated in more detail.
Significant loss of riparian habitat at the station and throats due to width of floodplain and lakes.
General notes:
-- Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme – Total number of river crossings – see
98
CSO6a (above).
Major diversions – six (6), which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (6).
Navigable waters – nine (9), which is slightly more than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (8).
The Inclusion of the Iver Station to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would have a minor increase in the number of Navigable waters
crossed. There would be significant additional impacts to riparian habitats with the Iver Station.
and/or SPZ2). SPZ 1 – 1.5km.
resources
(E, H) SPZ 2 – 3.5km.
3
The eastern and western approaches intersect at least one SPZ which is authorised to abstract approximately 20,000m per day. Exact
abstraction details are not publically available, but pumping stations which may be affected include Northmoor.
General notes:
--
to abstraction.
Routes which cut or tunnel through SPZ1 are assigned a major negative score and routes which cut or tunnel through SPZ2 are
assigned a minor negative score.
-- SPZ 1 – 6.3km, which is slightly greater than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (4.8km).
SPZ 2 – 24.9km, which is greater than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (21.4km).
The Inclusion of the Iver Station to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would have an increase in both SPZ1 and SPZ2 intersected.
classified as "good yield" and/or "good Both good chemical quality (CQ) and good potential yield (PY) – 0km.
quality" under the WFD). Either good CQ or good PY – 0km.
o Aquifers of poor PY or poor CQ are unlikely to be of strategic importance as a water resource. However, if the aquifer can provide large
maintained.
Both „good PY‟ and „good CQ‟ is considered to be a major detrimental impact on an important resource and is assigned a major
negative score.
--
Both good chemical quality (CQ) and good potential yield (PY) – 25.6km, which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
(25.6km)
99
Either good CQ or good PY – 21.1km, which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme. (21.1km).
The Inclusion of the Iver Station to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would not have any additional impacts on strategic aquifers

Flood risk equivalent Conserve and year flood zones (Flood Zone 3) Length of line in Flood Zone 3 – Station and eastern portal.
enhance the (E, H)
Total number of major river crossings – (see CSO6a above).
capacity of
floodplains Most of the Iver Station line is in tunnel. The Station and eastern portal are both located in Flood Zone 3.
Station and throats - Approximately 50% of station and throat located within Flood Zone 3 resulting in cutting off of 80% of the Colne
2
floodplain (major river with an upstream catchment of 826km ). Major adverse impact which would be difficult to mitigate.
Flood Zone 3 represents land which is expected to flood more frequently than once in 100 years. From a sustainability perspective, it is
obviously preferable to avoid any development within the flood plain. In this case the proposed location of the station and the vertical
alignment would result in cutting off of the River Colne floodplain and this would be difficult to mitigate, resulting in significant adverse
impacts.
Eastern approach portal emerges in Flood Zone 3 and would be difficult to mitigate.
-- General notes:
It is preferable to avoid any development within the flood plain, however within the context of this type of development crossing of flood
Virtually all routes cross the floodplains of major rivers at some point, but crossings proposed are large viaducts across entire floodplains
-- The Inclusion of the Iver Station to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would significantly increase the flood risk impacts as the station
would occupy a large portion of the River Colne flood plain resulting in significant adverse affects.
year flood zones (Flood Zone 2). Length of line in Flood Zone 2 – Large portion of station and throats, the surface section of the eastern approach and LOR3 connection
passes through Flood Zone 2 of a major river (Colne)
(E)
General notes:
- This also serves as a measure of resilience to the effects of climate change.
-
The Inclusion of the Iver Station to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would have additional minor adverse affects on Flood Zone 2.
U
Air quality air quality. See Maintain and 'without' option as a result of modal shift Operational details of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme not sufficiently known in order to adequately appraise against this criteria.
also TAG Unit enhance local air from road to rail within study area(E, H) Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
3.3.3Local Air quality. U
Operational details of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme not sufficiently known in order to adequately appraise against this criteria.
100
Quality Sub- Impacts on air quality from traffic Overview of this alternative –
objective (nb: associated with stations. Impacts to Air U
Operational details of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme not sufficiently known in order to adequately appraise against this criteria.
see strategic Quality Management Areas (AQMA)
approach set Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
(E, H, Eq)
out in Section Operational details of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme not sufficiently known in order to adequately appraise against this criteria.
1.2 of this unit) U
and 3.3.4
Regional Air
Pollution
U
Noise and See also TAG Maintain and annoyed by operational noise(E, H) Population potentially annoyed by operational noise - ~ 0 people
vibration Unit 3.3.2 enhance the local Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
Note: the Noise Sub- noise environment -- Population potentially annoyed by operational noise for the combined scheme would be ~- 3,900 people, which is equivalent to the HS2
approach objective (nb: 6
see strategic March 2010 preferred scheme (3,900 people) .
presented
approach set The Present Value of Benefits (PVB) for Overview of this alternative –
here U
out in Section daytime operational-related residential PVB = ~ -£0 million
follows the
1.5 of this unit) noise
webTAG Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
guidance, and TAG Unit
7
3.3.2 PVB = ~-£194 million, which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (~-£194 million) .
which has --
been used Supplementar The Inclusion of the Iver Station to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would not increase or decrease the magnitude of the present
to assess y Guidance value or benefits, or the number of dwellings qualifying for noise insulation.
the HS2 No NATA 9b. Nos. of residential properties at risk of Overview of this alternative –
March equivalent Maintain local vibration and reradiated noise Properties potentially impacted by vibration and re-radiated noise:
2010 vibration (E, H) --
preferred Residential dwellings – ~ 2,400
environment
route only. Non-residential buildings - ~ 100
--
Residential dwellings –~ 11,800, which is significantly greater than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (9,500).
Non-residential buildings – ~ 550, which is greater than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (500).
Communit equivalent Maintain and by landtake o Properties likely to be demolished or affected by landtake include – 17 at the eastern tunnel portal. Potentially a further 10-15 at risk due to
y integrity enhance (H) vent shafts and emergency and construction access requirements.
community
integrity
Properties likely to be demolished or affected by landtake:
--
620 which is slightly greater than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (603).
The Inclusion of the Iver Station to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would slightly increase the number of properties demolished.
(H) o
Properties at high risk of isolation include: - none (0)
Properties at high risk of isolation include:
-
164 which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
The Inclusion of the Iver Station to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would not increase the number of properties isolated.
o
areas demolished or at high risk of No isolation or demolition impacts in the 20% most deprived wards.
isolation Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
(H, Eq)
There are limited impacts on properties in the 20% most deprived wards along the length of the March 2010 preferred route. One key
-- exception to this is the Euston area, where significant adverse effects in terms of property demolitions. The Washwood Heath area may
also be subject to potential impacts on BAME communities.
The Inclusion of the Iver Station to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would not increase the impacts to properties in the 20% most
deprived areas.
Properties with disproportionately high o Overview of this alternative –
6
101
numbers of equality groups demolished Overall - No equality groups identified along the route
or at high risk of isolation, where known.
-- The Inclusion of the Iver Station to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would neither remove nor introduce impacts for equality target
groups. The combined scheme would be equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
Accessibili severance. Maintain and nature trails and cycle paths severed There would be limited impacts to some paths, as set out below:
ty See also TAG enhance and/or requiring diversion o Cycle route intersected – one (1) local cycle route intersected along existing railway so access is anticipated to be maintained.
Reducing OS footpaths intersected – none (0)
Severance
Sub-Objective.
- Local cycle routes, 13, which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (13).
OS footpaths intersected – 24, which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (24).
National Trails – one (1), which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (1).
The inclusion of Iver Station to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would neither remove nor introduce impacts to strategic pathways
and cycle routes.
including common land and greens Limited impacts on features:
(H, Eq) o
One (1) Small area (approximately 50m) of Registered Common Land) CROW land potentially affected as it lies along the existing
railway impacts may occur if the railway is widened.
o Potential for 2 CROW areas to be affected, this is a slight increase to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (1).
The inclusion of the Iver Station to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would have a slight increased impact on Registered Common
Land
access to the Maintain and transport for non-car users There would also be increased rail connectivity between the GWML and the WCML, and better connections for the north to Heathrow.
public (H) o
enhance access However, released capacity services would be largely unchanged by this option. It is considered that the overall increase in accessibility is
transport to public transport not sufficient to justify increasing the assessment score criteria under the Sustainability Objective.
system. See Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
TAG Unit 3.6.3
o The inclusion of the Iver Station to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would not significantly improve access to public transport for non
and 3.6.1
Option Values car users.
Sub-objective. Potential to improve option values Overview of this alternative –
(H) There would also be increased rail connectivity between the GWML and the WCML, and better connections for the north to Heathrow.
+
However, released capacity services would be largely unchanged by this option. It is considered that the overall increase in accessibility is
not sufficient to justify increasing the assessment score criteria under the Sustainability Objective (11b, 11c).
+
The inclusion of the Iver Station to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would not significantly improve option values.
areas with better access to public There would also be increased rail connectivity between the GWML and the WCML, and better connections for the north to Heathrow.
+
transport services However, released capacity services would be largely unchanged by this option. It is considered that the overall increase in accessibility is
(H, Eq) not sufficient to justify increasing the assessment score criteria under the Sustainability Objective
+ The inclusion of the Iver Station to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would not significantly improve access to public transport for
population in the 20% most deprived areas.
transport Maintain and interchanges as a result of option + (Assuming aviation can be considered public transport) Iver Station creates an additional connection to Heathrow Airport for High Speed
interchange. enhance public (H, Eq) Rail Services. Whilst existing links to Heathrow exist from London, this HS2 option would add an additional connectivity and potentially
102
See TAG Unit transport enable national and international interchange options with the Southwest of England via The Great Western Main Line (GWML) and
3.7.1 interchange Birmingham and the West Midlands via HS2. However, it should be noted that an additional connection would be required to link Iver
Transport Station itself with Heathrow.
Interchange Further potential also exists with possible connections to Crossrail via Iver Rail Station (GWML)
Sub-Objective
The inclusion of the Iver Station would significantly increase possibilities for interchanges with other public transport be equivalent to the
HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme
access with option As per the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme
(H, Eq) U
All stations and the fleet of trains would be designed to encourage active use by mobility impaired passengers. This is a matter of detailed
design
U
design
Health and journey Maintain and mental well-being(H, Eq) U
Key determinants are equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
well-being ambience. See improve mental
TAG Unit well-being Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
3.3.13 Journey U
No alternative changes the scheme enough to substantially alter impacts on key determinants
Ambience
Sub-Objective No. of residential dwellings within 100m Overview of this alternative –
of surface sections of line (potential for Properties within 100m of the construction footprint of the scheme:
nuisance during construction) (E, H) Dwellings-1 (Excludes Tunnels) ,
o Community- 1
Commercial- 1
Industrial- 3
Total -6
Properties within 100m of the construction footprint of the scheme:
Dwellings 7,454 which is slightly greater than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (7,453)
Community 101, which is slightly greater than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (100)
- Commercial 836, which is slightly greater than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (835)
Industry 169, which is slightly greater than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (166)
Total: 8,562
The inclusion of the Iver Station to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would lead to a slight increase to properties with 100m of the
construction footprint of the scheme with the potential to be affected by nuisance during construction.
(H)
physical Maintain and lifestyle (e.g. through more active travel As described in the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme Framework, the following issues have the potential to impact on physical health:
Climate/adaptability: See flooding below.
TAG Unit health (H)
3.3.12 Greenhouse gases: some potential health benefits if reductions achieved, but not tangible at a regional or local level on the basis of
Physical HS2‟s contribution
Fitness Sub- o
Objective
Flood risk: health impacts possible only if flooding occurs. This has a low likelihood, and is likely to be local in extent and extremely
infrequent.
Air quality: potential for physical impacts to health (e.g. respiratory illness etc) due to change in air quality caused by modal shift. This is
further discussed below.
103
Noise and vibration: potential impacts to physical health due to increase in noise levels (e.g. sleep deprivation etc). This is further
discussed below.
Community integrity: some potential for minor physical impacts as a result of changes to community structures due to demolition of
structures, land take and severance (though impacts more likely to be related to mental wellbeing)
Security and safety: unlikely to be reduction on traffic accidents and thus physical health improvements are unlikely. Not possible to
assess physical health impacts due to reduction in crime.
Economic welfare: economic development opportunities in some areas may cause positive impacts to physical health though this is
unlikely to occur in the short term, or to be widespread.
Effects for this criterion would be most apparent at stations:
The Iver Station would exist as a primary link to Heathrow Airport it is expected to tie in with existing transport links and establish new links
directly to Heathrow.
o There would be five stations (Euston, Old Oak Common, central Birmingham, Birmingham International Interchange station and the Iver
Station), which is one more than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
Other issues:
o The levels of these are considered to be limited for the Iver Station and therefore would not cause impacts on the key determinants of
physical health, which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
equivalent health inequality o
Reduce health No impacts to the determinants for health inequality.
o The inclusion of the Iver Station to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would not significantly affect (positively or negatively) health
inequalities along the route.
Security accidents. See Contribute to the result of option (modal shift) Preliminary demand model outputs indicate that there is the potential for some modal shift from road to rail (both HS2 and released
and safety TAG Unit 3.4.1 reduction of road (H, Eq) o capacity). However, the reduction in the number of road trips is not expected to be significant when considering overall traffic flows. The
Accidents traffic accidents resultant shift may reduce a small number of road traffic accidents from some existing motorways but is unlikely to have any measurable
Sub-Objective effect on road traffic incident rates. Until more detailed road traffic modelling has been undertaken, this objective remains unknown.
o
The inclusion of the Iver Station to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would not significantly increase or decrease the likelihood of
104
road traffic incidences.
security. See Protect against fear of crime This criterion would be tested during detailed design.
Security Sub- crime Design' document
Objective
U Tunnel and viaduct sections would need to be designed to reduce the potential effect of an increase in crime or fear of crime and
U
Economic sustainable Support economic (i.e. excluding environmental and wider It is anticipated that this option would involve a small increase in journey times between London and the West Midlands compared to the
prosperity economic competitiveness economic benefits and costs) ++ HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme option due to the extra distance covered. This is likely to reduce overall user benefits. Without
activity and get and make efficient additional modelling results, it is not possible to predict whether the reduction would be sufficient to warrant changing the assessment
good value for use of public score for the user benefit criteria (14a, 15a).
money. See funds Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
TAG Units
3.5.1 to 3.5.14. ++ The inclusion of the Iver Station to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would not result in any additional significant impacts or benefits.

beneficial Support wider competiveness and labour productivity The wider economic benefits of the scheme could be enhanced. This is due to the contribution Iver Station would provide in improving
wider economic growth accessibility to international locations for more of the UK. This could enhance the profile of more locations for foreign investment.
economic and maintain and Heathrow, as one of the busiest airports in the world, is more likely than other airports to support this kind of economic activity, and its
impacts. See enhance future expansion could reinforce the benefits.
TAG Unit Units employment If Heathrow expansion did not occur, HS2 may facilitate the use of Birmingham International as an additional London area airport. Travel
3.5.8 and opportunities times between Birmingham International and Euston would not be dissimilar to accessing Gatwick, Luton or Stansted from central London.
3.5.10 to Iver Station may be envisaged to allow connections between flights at Heathrow and flights at Birmingham. An optimistic view would be
3.5.14, for Birmingham to work in parallel with Heathrow to provide hub capacity through HS2. Resulting growth in destinations and flight
+ frequencies at Birmingham would have wider economic benefits for the West Midlands by further enhancing its international connectivity.
However, it is reasonable to expect that Birmingham would face fierce competition from other airports, including the larger European hubs.
Another scenario is that Birmingham International can provide a ready alternative for low cost carrier flights currently operating to Gatwick,
Stansted and Luton, rather than Heathrow. Although, rail fares between London and Birmingham could present a barrier to this type of
development.
While it is unlikely that overall wider economic and labour market impacts would be sufficiently different from the HS2 March 2010 preferred
scheme to warrant changing the assessment score, the factors outlined above could reinforce the potential for regeneration in Birmingham.
As there are no deprivation areas near the Heathrow site, the gains at Birmingham would be to offset the losses at Old Oak Common,
which expects to benefits from regeneration under the March 2010 preferred option. Therefore, the assessment scores for both wider
economic benefits and regeneration would be unchanged from the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme option (14b, 15c)
+
The inclusion of the Iver Station to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would not result in any additional significant impacts or benefits.
Impacts on labour markets Overview of this alternative –
o
Please see 14b (above)
+
The inclusion of the Iver Station to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would not result in any additional significant impacts or benefits.
Economic beneficial Support wider commuters It is anticipated that this option would involve a small increase in journey times between London and the West Midlands compared to the
welfare transport user economic welfare (Eq) ++ HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme option due to the extra distance covered. This is likely to reduce overall user benefits. Without
impacts, wider growth additional modelling results, it is not possible to predict whether the reduction would be sufficient to warrant changing the assessment
economic score for the user benefit criteria (14a, 15a).
impacts and Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
integrate with ++
land use The inclusion of the Iver Station to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would not result in any additional significant impacts or benefits.
policy. See 15b. Impacts on planned regional growth Overview of this alternative –
TAG Unit areas o
Support planned There are no designated regional growth areas that apply to this option.
105
Units3.5.1 to developments Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
3.5.14, Tag o
There are no known impacts on planned housing and sustainable housing developments.
Unit 3.7.2
Land Use Impacts on planned major housing and Overview of this alternative –
sustainable housing developments o
Policy Sub- There are no known impacts on planned housing and sustainable housing developments.
- The inclusion of the Iver Station to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would not result in any additional impacts to major housing or
sustainable housing developments
developments ++ There are no known impacts on planned major developments although potential benefits may exist to any extensions to Heathrow Airport
rd
(3 Runway and T6)
- The inclusion of the Iver Station to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would not result in any additional impacts to major
developments, but it may benefit any expansion schemes undertaken at Heathrow.
Maintain and areas The proposed location of Iver station and part of the route to and out of this station for the Heathrow connection may impact on a proposed
enhance (E, H, Eq) Locally Significant Industrial Site (LSIS - Tavistock Road, West Drayton) designated within the Hillingdon Local Development Framework
+
regeneration as well as the South Hillingdon Area Action Plan. LSISs are considered appropriate locations for employment use. The Iver Station option
may therefore contribute towards the regeneration of southern Hillingdon and towards the objectives of the South Hillingdon Area Action
Plan.
+ The inclusion of the Iver Station to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would not result in any additional impacts to regeneration areas,
but it may benefit a locally significant industrial site.
Soil and equivalent Maintain and land crossed by surface or cut and cover Agricultural land impacted by the scheme:
land enhance land sections
(E) Grade 1 Agricultural Land affected – 0 hectares
resources resources o
Key areas include:
An area along the western exit of the station.
- Grade 1 Agricultural Land affected – 0 hectares, which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme. Grade 2 Agricultural
Land affected –251.5 hectares, which is equivalent to the with the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (251.5 hectares)
The inclusion of Iver Station to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would increase impacts to Grade 1 Agricultural land.
Green Belt land affected by the combined scheme:
--
Green Belt land affected – 87.9km, which is greater than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (85.4km).
The inclusion of Iver Station to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would slightly increase impacts to Green Belt.
option
o
No mineral sites affected, this is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme
No currently authorised landfill sites
2
One currently authorised landfill sites 0.088km (8.8ha)would be affected, this is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme
-
The inclusion of the Iver Station to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would not have any additional impacts to any areas of land
designated for waste disposal.
106
Encourage the Brownfield sites - 16 identified sites that could be brought back into beneficial use, either wholly or partially, equivalent to 137 Ha.
use of brownfield wholly or partially.
sites (E, H)
+ The inclusion of the Iver Station to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme could bring 39 Brownfield sites (equivalent to 364.9 hectares)
back into beneficial use either wholly or partially, this is greater than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (23 sites, 227.93 hectares)
Waste equivalent Prevent and waste spoil potentially requiring off-line 3
Waste spoil generated = 2.43M m . It is assumed that waste is dominated by tunnel spoil, with a balance achieved between cuttings and
disposal as a result of option - 2
generation minimise waste land raising elsewhere and demolition waste being a small contributor. Tunnel spoil has been estimated as πr L, where L = length and r =
production (E, H) 4.25m (i.e. 8.5m diameter bore).
- 3 3
Volume of waste spoil generated = 4.28M m , which is significantly more than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (1.85M m ).
Volumes of hazardous waste spoil U Overview of this alternative –Detailed studies and Land investigations required to appraise this criterion.
potentially requiring pre-treatment prior to
off-site disposal(H) U
Detailed studies and Land investigations required to appraise this criterion.
Resource equivalent Conserve and resources further during the detailed design stage. In general it is expected that the scheme would seek to make a commitment to utilise sustainable
use protect primary materials, particularly sustainable concrete that makes use of low-carbon cement, recycled steel, recycled aggregates, re-use of spoil on
material resources U site and FSC timber where timber is required. This would depend on a number of considerations, including technical requirements for
option (e.g. demolition materials) U explored further during the detailed design stage. It is expected that the scheme would seek to re-use materials where possible. Again,
107
Appendix 6.6
HS2 Warwick Wharf Alternative
108
Community integrity
Summary
The Warwick Wharf alternative would require approximately 5% more demolitions of buildings (including
There is a small preference for the HS2 March 2010 preferred Curzon Street Birmingham terminus over the dwellings) than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme and would increase the number of properties at risk
main alternative at Warwick Wharf. However, this is based on a number of marginal preferences. That the of isolation by about 8%. Conversely, the Warwick Wharf alternative would require about 2% fewer
difference is not greater is perhaps not surprising given the close proximity of their respective areas and the demolitions within the 20% most deprived areas. However, in terms of the overall numbers of properties
fact that they would deliver largely the same facility in more or less the same part of Birmingham. involved these percentages would represent a small difference between the two.
There would be a marginal preference for the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme at Curzon Street in terms
of townscape and cultural heritage, biodiversity, water resources and flood risk, community integrity and Accessibility
health and well being but a preference for the Warwick Wharf alternative in terms of the impact of the HS2 There is no difference between the Warwick Wharf alternative and the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme in
March 2010 preferred scheme on the planned regeneration of the eastern part of Birmingham city centre. terms of access for pedestrians or cyclists nor in terms of access to public transport.
However, it is envisaged that the new station would be a catalyst for development in this central part of
Birmingham so while some currently planned development would be frustrated in the short term, in the Health and well-being
longer term it is likely to proceed, albeit in a different way.
The Warwick Wharf alternative would impact less than 1% more residential properties during construction
Climatic factors and adaptability then the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
There would be no difference in terms of resilience to extreme weather events if the Warwick Wharf Safety and security
alternative were to become part of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme although there would be a small
increase in the length of infrastructure at risk of flooding. There would be no discernable difference between the Warwick Wharf alternative and the HS2 March 2010
preferred scheme in terms of safety and security.
Greenhouse gases
There would be no difference between the Warwick Wharf alternative and the HS2 March 2010 preferred
scheme in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. The Warwick Wharf alternative would have no impact on planned development or on regeneration areas and
in that sense would be March 2010 preferred to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme which would impact
Townscape and cultural heritage the planned Birmingham Eastside development.
The Warwick Wharf alternative would result in more impacts than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme in Soil and land resources
terms of townscape and cultural heritage. The Warwick Wharf alternative would transect the Warwick Bar
Conservation Area and the Digbeth/Deritend Conservation Area impacting on the historical street patterns There would be no difference between the Warwick Wharf alternative and the HS2 March 2010 preferred
and the built character of the area. It would however be slightly better in terms of indirect impacts on a small scheme in terms of agricultural land, Green Belt, mineral sites or landfill sites. The Warwick Wharf
number of Grade I listed buildings. It would generate a slight increase in indirect impacts on the zone of alternative could potentially bring one more brownfield site back into use than the HS2 March 2010 preferred
visual influence for country parks. scheme.
Biodiversity Waste generation
There would be no difference in terms of impacts to sites of international or national importance or in terms There would be no difference between the Warwick Wharf alternative and the HS2 March 2010 preferred
of the potential for habitat creation. The Warwick Wharf alternative would be marginally worse in that it scheme in terms of the amount of waste potentially generated.
crosses part of a site of local importance for nature conservation.
Resource use
Water resources and flood risk There would be no difference between the Warwick Wharf alternative and the HS2 March 2010 preferred
There is very little difference between the Warwick Wharf alternative and the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme in terms of the potential to make more efficient use of or to re-use resources.
scheme in terms of water resources and flood risk. The Warwick Wharf alternative would affect a slightly
larger upstream catchment area but would require one less diversion of a major river. The Warwick Wharf
alternative would have marginally more length of line within Flood Risk Zones 2 and 3.
Air quality
No differences were identified between the Warwick Wharf alternative and the HS2 March 2010 preferred
scheme in terms of air quality.
Noise and vibration

There would be no difference between the Warwick Wharf alternative and the HS2 March 2010 preferred
scheme in terms of noise and vibration.
109
factors resilience of rail BGS Landslide Hazard Assessment
Areas of Moderate Landslide Potential –0km of cut works
and network against areas "Moderate" and "Significant")
adaptabilit extreme weather
y events - Areas of Significant Landside Potential – there would be no additional km to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme
Areas of Moderate Landslide Potential – 59.2km of cut works which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme
Zone 3. (H) station and approach - 421m of track in Flood Zone 3
General notes:
Adaptability to climatic factors is related to the length of line in the flood plain. However, a neutral score has been assigned because
o As strategic infrastructure, the final design would allow for rare flood events and current best-practice assumptions for climate change
to ensure that the line remains unaffected by the 100-year flood, including an allowance for climate change.
eliminate the risk of flooding through change in vertical alignment or tunnelling, although this is not always practical (or preferable)
given other sustainability constraints. For critical areas where the consequences of flooding would be particularly severe, the standard
of protection would reduce any residual risk to an acceptable level. In less critical locations, practical considerations may be to allow
o Would cross 16.5km of Flood Zone 3, which is greater than the 16.3km crossed by the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme
Greenhou greenhouse Contribute to the emissions released as a result of modal Regardless of which station alternative is used at Birmingham, there would be a negative benefits in terms of reducing greenhouse gas
se gases gases. See reduction of shift achieved from conventional rail/road emissions due to its construction and requirement for new rolling stock. However, the magnitude of these negative benefits is over-
U
also TAG Unit greenhouse gas and flights to high speed rail. shadowed by the range in uncertainty associated with operational impacts, which may result in either a net positive or net negative benefit.
3.3.5 emissions by This is due to the uncertainty associated with policy delivery in decarbonising electricity generation in the UK and securing reductions in air
Gases Sub- shift from road Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
Objective and and air to rail
TAG Unit 3.5.4 U Replacing Curzon Station of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative would not result in any change to CO2 equivalent
CBA emissions from modal shift. This alternative is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.

construction in terms of embedded Total Embedded Carbon for the Warwick Wharf alternative is estimated to be 11,600 tonnes CO 2.
carbon and carbon emissions resulting
from tunnel boring
- Estimated to be 874,600 tonnes CO2, (of which an estimated 181,000 tonnes CO2 is as a result of tunnels). Carbon from tunnels accounts
Reduce relative high speed trains and rolling stock and The development of a new rail infrastructure allows for design measures to reduce electrical demand from individual Traction Motor Units
by rail to although the greatest efficiency gains are associated with on-TMU or trackside capture of electricity generated by TMUs when braking.
greenhouse gas U Retrofit of these design features within the existing rail infrastructure would inevitably be limited and the efficiency gains would not be as
applying energy
efficient
technologies
110
and landscape. enhance existing national importance crossed by surface
Townscap See also TAG or cut and cover sections, e.g. AONBs, Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
landscape
e Unit 3.3.7 character ASVs, Special Landscape Areas, The scheme would have direct and indirect impacts on landscape areas of national importance, including travelling through the Chilterns
Landscape National Parks, National Scenic Areas -- Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Replacing the West Midlands section with this alternative would not introduce, or remove, any
and TAG Unit (Scotland).(E, H) landscapes of national importance.
3.3.6 This alternative is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
Environmental Overview of this alternative –
Impacts on the coherence and
Capital
distinctiveness of landscape resources of - Indirect impacts on landscapes of regional importance, including:
regional importance crossed by surface
1.35km length of track would lie within a 3km zone of visual influence of the Kingfisher Country Park
or cut and cover sections, e.g. country
parks, Regional Landscape Designations Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
(Scotland) - Inclusion of the Warwick Wharf Station to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would result in:
(E, H) Slight increase in indirect impacts to county parks, with the additional potential indirect impacts at the Kingfisher Country Park
enhance Maintain and distinctiveness of townscape resources Direct impacts on townscapes, including:
The route directly impacts on 'big box' employment units within Saltley Business Park and a number of industrial and depot buildings
See also TAG townscape sections
Unit 3.3.8 (E, H) on its approach to the station.
character --
Townscape The route transects the Warwick Bar and Digbeth/Deritend Conservation Areas having a significant impact on both the historical grid
Sub Objective iron street pattern and built character of the areas.
and TAG Unit
3.3.6 The route directly impacts a number of mid-nineteenth to mid-twentieth century warehouse complexes and works as well as a number
Environmental of locally important landmarks.
Capital Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
Inclusion of the Warwick Wharf Station to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would result in:
-- Additional direct impacts to settlements, particularly the Warwick Bar and Digbeth /Deritend Conservation Areas
Overall, townscape impacts would be slightly greater for the Warwick Wharf alternative than for the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
vistas physically affected (E, H) There are good views towards the Warwick Bar and Digbeth /Deritend Conservation Areas (see CSO 3b above). Specifically views include
-- lines of sight eastwards, down Bordesley Street from its junction with Park Street and up towards Camp Hill and beyond which may be
affected by the proposals. The wide view to the south and west gained from Belmont Row is particularly significant and wider views of the
City Centre landmarks may also be affected by the route.
-- No documented information provided by local authorities for strategic view impacts at Curzon street. It is therefore assumed that the
impacts from Warwick Wharf would be of greater adverse magnitude, and would contribute to an overall greater impact for the HS2
scheme.
Within the Station footprint – none (0).
resources See archaeological
also TAG Unit assets Within 350m buffer area – none (0).
3.3.9 and TAG Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
Unit 3.3.6 Envt
o Within 350m buffer area – none (0), which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
The Inclusion of the Warwick Wharf Station to the March 2010 preferred Scheme would not result in any further World Heritage Sites being
impacted.
crossed by surface or cut and cover Scheduled Monument:
sections. o
Within the Station footprint – none (0).
(E)
Within the 350m buffer area – none (0).
SMs for the whole scheme:
-
Within the 100m impact corridor – one (1), which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (1).
111
The Inclusion of the Warwick Wharf Station to the March 2010 preferred Scheme would not result in any further impacts on SMs.
Preserve and resources of national importance crossed Listed buildings within the Station footprint:
Scotland Category A) - Grade II* – none (0).
Grade II* – four (4).
Grade I – 11, which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (11)
Grade II* – 26, which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (26)
The Inclusion of the Warwick Wharf Station to the March 2010 preferred Scheme would slightly reduce the impacts on Grade I Listed
Buildings.
resources of regional importance crossed Within the Station footprint there are:
Grade II Listed buildings – Two (2)
Buildings, - Conservation Areas – Two (2), Warwick Bar and Digbeth/Deritend.
(E, H) Within the 350m buffer area there are:
Grade II Listed buildings – 28
Conservation Areas – none (0).
Grade II Listed buildings – 15, which is one less than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (16).
Conservation Areas – Three (4), which is slightly more than the HS2 March 2010 preferred Scheme (3).
Grade II Listed buildings – 325 which is slightly greater than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (314)
Conservation areas – Two (2), which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred Scheme (2),
The Inclusion of Warwick Wharf Station to the March 2010 preferred Scheme would decrease direct impacts, but increase indirect impacts
on Grade II Listed Buildings and Local Conservation Areas.
Preserve and distinctiveness of historic landscapes of Within the Station footprint there are:
Gardens, Registered Battlefields o Grade II* Registered Parks or Gardens – none (0).
(E, H) Within the 350m buffer area there are:
Grade II* Registered Park and Gardens – none (0).
Grade II* Registered Parks or Gardens – three (3), which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
-- Registered Battlefields – none (0), which is equivalent to the March 2010 preferred scheme
Grade I Registered Parks or Gardens – two (2), which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
Grade II* Registered Park and Gardens – none (0), which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
Registered Battlefields none (0) , which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme
112
The Inclusion of Warwick Wharf Station to the March 2010 preferred Scheme would not result in any further impacts on Historical
Landscapes of national importance.
distinctiveness of historic landscapes of Within the Station footprint there are:
regional importance, e.g.. Grade II
o Grade II Registered Parks or Gardens – none (0)
Grade II Registered parks and gardens – none (0), which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (0).
Two undesignated historic landscapes of potentially regional importance would be physically impacted upon, which is the equivalent to
- the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
Within the 350m buffer area:
Grade II Registered parks – none (0), which is the equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (0).
Impacts on the coherence and distinctiveness of historic landscapes of regional importance would be equivalent to the HS2 March 2010
preferred scheme.
Biodiversit biodiversity importance crossed by surface or cut and o No SACs, SPAs or RAMSAR sites are impacted by Warwick Wharf Station
Maintain and
y See also TAG enhance cover sections, e.g. SACs and candidate
Unit 3.3.10 SACs (cSAC), SPAs and potential SPAs Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
biodiversity
Biodiversity (pSPA) and Ramsar sites. o The Inclusion of Warwick Wharf Station to the March 2010 preferred Scheme would not result in any changes to the SACs, SPAs or
Sub-objective (E) RAMSAR sites affected byHS2.
and TAG Unit Impacts on sites of national importance Overview of this alternative –
3.3.6 o
crossed by surface or cut and cover No SSSIs or RAMSAR sites are impacted by Warwick Wharf Station
sections, e.g. SSSIs, Geological SSSIs, Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
NNRs. -
(E) The Inclusion of Warwick Wharf Station to the March 2010 preferred Scheme would result in any changes to impacts on SSSIs or NNRs.
crossed by surface or cut and cover The approach to Warwick Wharf Station would involve crossing and shading of a canal designated as a SLINC (Site of Local Importance
sections, e.g. RIGS, SINCs, BAP o
for Nature Conservation). It would cross the central part of the SLINC and therefore fragment the remaining sections of habitat forming the
habitats. site.
(E)
- The inclusion of Warwick Wharf into the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would slightly increase the direct impacts on the canal located
at the station approach. However, this is a site of local rather than regional importance, and thus over the whole scheme this difference in
impact due to the scheme is marginal.
(E) + There is potential to improve canal side and riparian habitat in the vicinity of the station. Biodiverse roofs on new station buildings could be
of value to the local population of black redstart, particularly in combination with other existing green roofs in the city centre.
o
The inclusion of Warwick Wharf into the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would not alter the area of potential new habitat creation.
- 1 major river crossing
2
Unit 3.3.11 crossings). No minor crossings (i.e. catchment less than 50km ).
Water (E) 2
Total catchment upstream of river crossings 80km .
Environment
Sub-objective Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
and TAG Unit Would result in the following river crossings:
3.3.6 25 major crossings (see HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme for details), which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme
Environmental - (25).
Capital
76 minor crossings, which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (76).
2 2
Total area of catchment upstream for the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with Warwick Station is 5,454km which is 3km less than the
113
The inclusion of the Warwick Wharf Station to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would not likely increase the impacts on river
catchments.
(number of major river diversions, Total number of river crossings – (see CSO6a above).
Major river diversions -
reservoirs). No major river diversions
(E, H) Minor river diversions -
No minor river diversions
Navigable Waters -
- Single crossing of Dibgeth Branch Canal
General notes:
Focus on avoiding the need for diversions during detailed design;.
Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme – Total number of river crossings – see
CSO6a (above).
Major diversions – five (5), which is one less than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (6).
--
The Inclusion of Warwick Wharf Station to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would result in a slight decrease to impacts on surface
water bodies, largely due to the reduction in number of major river diversions.
groundwater (Length of cut or tunnel through SPZ1 o
SPZ 1 – 0km.
(E, H) SPZ 2 – 0km.
SPZ 1 – 4.8km, which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme
--
SPZ 2 – 21.4km, which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme
The Inclusion of Warwick Wharf Station to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would not change the magnitude of either both SPZ1
and SPZ2 intersected.
Both good chemical quality (CQ) and good potential yield (PY) – 0km.
quality" under the WFD). Either good CQ or good PY – 0km.
o quality (CQ). In both cases, classifications are either good or poor.
maintained.
114
Both „good PY‟ and „good CQ‟ is considered to be a major detrimental impact on an important resource and is considered a major
negative impact.
-- (25.6km)
Either good CQ or good PY – 21.1km, which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme. (21.1km).
The Inclusion of Warwick Wharf to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would not have any additional impacts on strategic aquifers
Flood risk equivalent Conserve and year flood zones (Flood Zone 3) Length of line in Flood Zone 3 – 421m
enhance the (E, H)
capacity of
- It is preferable to avoid any development within the flood plain, however within the context of this type of development, crossing of flood
Virtually all routes cross the floodplains of major rivers at some point, but crossings proposed are large viaducts across entire floodplains
3 is considered a major negative impact.
- Length of line in Flood Zone 3 – 16,498m, which is 150m more than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (16,348m)
The Inclusion of Warwick Wharf Station to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would not significantly increase the flood risk impacts.
year flood zones (Flood Zone 2). Length of line in Flood Zone 2 – 433m
(E)
General notes:
- This also serves as a measure of resilience to the effects of climate change.
As for Flood Zone 3, it is obviously more sustainable to avoid Flood Zone 2 completely; however in the context of this development it is
- Length of line in Flood Zone 2 – 19,105m, which is slightly more than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (18,943m)
The Inclusion of Warwick Wharf to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would have additional minor adverse effects on Flood Zone 2.
air quality. See 'without' option as a result of modal shift U
Air quality Maintain and Operational details of the scheme not sufficiently known in order to adequately appraise against this criteria
also TAG Unit enhance local air from road to rail within study area(E, H)
3.3.3Local Air Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
quality. U
Quality Sub- Operational details of the scheme not sufficiently known in order to adequately appraise against this criteria
objective (nb: Overview of this alternative –
Impacts on air quality from traffic
see strategic U
associated with stations. Impacts to Air Operational details of the scheme not sufficiently known in order to adequately appraise against this criteria
approach set
out in Section
(E, H, Eq) Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
1.2 of this unit) Operational details of the scheme not sufficiently known in order to adequately appraise against this criteria
U
and 3.3.4
Regional Air
115
Pollution
Noise and See also TAG Maintain and annoyed by operational noise(E, H) U Minor potential for airborne noise increase due to station and throat – low speeds at terminating stations would reduce possible rolling
vibration Unit 3.3.2 enhance the local stock noise impacts. Actual numbers of affected people is unknown.
Note: the Noise Sub- noise environment
objective (nb: Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
approach
presented see strategic -- Population potentially annoyed by operational noise for the combined scheme would be - 3,900 people, which is equivalent to the HS2
8
here approach set March 2010 preferred scheme (3,900 people)
follows the out in Section Overview of this alternative –
The Present Value of Benefits (PVB) for
webTAG 1.5 of this unit) o
daytime operational-related residential PVB = ~ £0 million
guidance, and TAG Unit
noise
which has 3.3.2 Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
been used Supplementar 7
PVB = ~ £194 million/ 1,450 dwellings for noise insulation, which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (~£194 million) .
to assess y Guidance --
The Inclusion of Warwick Wharf Station to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would not increase the present value or benefits, or the
the HS2
number of dwellings qualifying for noise insulation.
March
2010 No NATA 9b. Nos. of residential properties at risk of Overview of this alternative –
preferred equivalent Maintain local vibration and reradiated noise Properties potentially impacted by vibration and re-radiated noise:
route only. vibration (E, H) o
Residential dwellings – 0 (no tunnelling)
environment
Non-residential buildings – 0 (no tunnelling)
- Residential dwellings –~9,500, which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (~9,500).
Non-residential buildings – ~500, which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (~500).
The overall vibration environment would not be different from the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with the inclusion of Warwick Wharf.
Communit equivalent Maintain and by landtake Properties likely to be demolished or affected by landtake include
y integrity enhance (H)
Dwellings: 19
community
- Commercial: 21
Industrial: 2
Total: 42
Total of 19 residential properties would be demolished, mostly around the proposed station footprint. The 2 electricity sub stations to be
demolished are counted as industrial.
Total properties likely to be demolished or affected by landtake include:
Dwellings: 443
Community: 21
--
Commercial:139
Industrial: 27
Total: 630, compared to 603 for the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme,
The Inclusion of Warwick Wharf Station to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would increase the number of properties demolished.
(H) -
Areas of potential isolation identified although the alignment is predominantly on viaduct. 17 dwellings affected.
Properties at high risk of isolation include:
-
The Warwick Wharf alternative station would increase the number of properties at risk of isolation to 178, 14 more than the HS2 March
2010 preferred scheme (164).
Properties in the 20% most deprived - Overview of this alternative –
7
116
areas demolished or at high risk of There is one dwelling at risk of demolition. No areas of isolation in the 20% most deprived.
isolation
-- The Inclusion of Warwick Wharf Station into the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would reduce the number of demolished properties in
the 20% most deprived areas by 3 (from 164 to 161)
numbers of equality groups demolished The ward covering the Wharf station and approach has a high percentage of the Asian population (46.4%) and the remainder comprising of
or at high risk of isolation, where known. o 37.4% White and 9.65% Black. The proportion of children and older people is consistent with the ward average. At the Super Output Area
(H, Eq) level, there is one area which contains a higher than proportionate percentage of the Black population (14.8%), of which there are a
number of residential dwellings at risk of demolition, although the majority of demolitions are to commercial/industrial buildings.
-- The Inclusion of Warwick Wharf Station to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would neither remove nor introduce impacts for equality
target groups. The combined scheme would be equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
Accessibili severance. Maintain and nature trails and cycle paths severed There would be limited impacts to some paths, as set out below:
ty See also TAG enhance and/or requiring diversion
Reducing National cycle routes – six (6), which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (6).
Severance - Regional cycle routes - none (0), which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (0).
Sub-Objective.
-
Local cycle routes, 15, which is greater than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (13).
OS footpaths intersected – 28, which is greater than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (24).
The Inclusion of Warwick Wharf Station would be equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
including common land and greens o Limited impacts on features:
(H, Eq)
No Registered Common Land CROW land potentially affected.
o Limited impacts on features.
Potential for 1 CROW area to be affected, this is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (1).
access to the Maintain and transport for non-car users o As per March 2010 preferred scheme.
public enhance access (H) This station replaces an equivalent size facility, which is also in the centre of Birmingham, with similar connectivity.
transport to public transport
system. See Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
TAG Unit 3.6.3 o The inclusion of the Warwick Wharf Station to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would not significantly improve access to public
and 3.6.1 transport for non car users.
Option Values
Potential to improve option values Overview of this alternative –
Sub-objective.
(H) The gains from the new high speed option across a large proportion of the population would be offset to some degree by the incremental
+ nature of HS2 as an option for accessing major cities along the WCML, where very good road and rail links are in place. On balance,
impacts are expected to be positive. As per March 2010 preferred scheme, this station replaces an equivalent size facility, which is also in
the centre of Birmingham, with similar anticipated costs.
+
The inclusion of Warwick Wharf Station to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would not significantly improve option values.
117
areas with better access to public + As per March 2010 preferred scheme.
transport services This station replaces an equivalent size facility, which is also in the centre of Birmingham, with similar connectivity.
(H, Eq)
+ The inclusion of the Warwick Wharf Station to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would not significantly improve access to public
transport for populations in the 20% most deprived areas.
transport Maintain and interchanges as a result of option As per March 2010 preferred scheme.
interchange. enhance public (H, Eq) +
This station replaces an equivalent size facility, which is also in the centre of Birmingham, with similar connectivity. Interchange
See TAG Unit transport connectivity would be improved to existing rail and bus services at Moor Street and potentially New Street stations.
3.7.1 interchange
Transport Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
Interchange + The inclusion of the Warwick Wharf Station to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would not significantly alter the overall improvement
Sub-Objective to public transport interchanges.
access with option No information available.
(H, Eq) U
design
No information available.
U All stations and the fleet of trains would be designed to encourage active use by mobility impaired passengers. This is a matter of detailed
design. However, the inclusion of the Warwick Wharf Station to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would not significantly as it
replaced a similar sized station facility, with equivalent design requirements in terms of mobility and access.
Health and journey Maintain and mental well-being (H, Eq) As described in the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme. Significant negative impacts to mental well-being and well being are most likely
ambience. -
well-being improve mental where there are cumulative impacts in one area, for example, noise impacts combined with a reduction in quality of the visual landscape
See TAG Unit well-being and greater difficulty in accessing services. (See HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme Framework for more details).
3.3.13 Journey
Ambience Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
Sub-Objective As for March 2010 preferred scheme.
-
The inclusion of the Warwick Wharf Station to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would not be significant as it replaces a similar sized
station facility, with equivalent design requirements.
No. of residential dwellings within 100m Overview of this alternative –
of surface sections of line (potential for Properties within 100m of the scheme:
nuisance during construction) (E, H)
Dwellings 139 (Excludes Tunnels)
- Community 10,
Commercial 159,
Industrial 12.
Total 320
Properties within 100m of the construction footprint of the scheme:
Dwellings, 7,511, which is greater than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (7,453).
Community 102, which is greater than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (100).
- Commercial 869, which is greater than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (835).
Industry 166, which is the equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (166).
Total 8,650
The inclusion of Warwick Wharf Station in the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would lead to an increase of 100 properties within 100m
of the construction footprint of the scheme which would have the potential to be affected by nuisance during construction.
U
tranquillity scores At the time of writing tranquillity mapping had not been received.
(H)
118
physical Maintain and lifestyle (e.g. through more active travel As described in the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme Framework, the following issues have the potential to impact on physical health:
Effects for these criteria would be most apparent at stations. The station at Birmingham would tie in with existing public transport options
TAG Unit health (H)
and the station at London (Euston) is an existing station which would be modified. The scope therefore, to further encourage a healthier
3.3.12
o lifestyle is limited.
Physical
Fitness Sub- If recreational walking/cycling routes are affected by severance, there may be some reduction in physical health due to reduced access to
Objective such activities. Any disruptions however, are likely to be temporary (during construction of the route, or while alternative access to
prepared), be locally specific, affect a relatively small number of people. It would be a general intention to maintain all existing rights of
way. Impacts to physical health therefore, are likely to be minor.
o
There would be the same number of stations with this alternative compared to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
Other issues:
o The levels of key determinants of physical health are considered to be limited for Warwick Wharf Station and therefore would not cause
impacts on the key determinants of physical health, which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
equivalent Reduce health health inequality For the purpose of this scheme, the key determinants of health include employment, deprivation, access to services and facilities,
inequalities (H, Eq) isolation/severance,
This alternative would not significantly affect (positively or negatively) health inequalities along the route. This is because:
While some employment opportunities would arise as a result of the scheme, the numbers are not significant, and would not necessarily
o be accessed by people living in locations where significant impacts would be experienced.
There are likely to be some short term positive economic impacts due to the presence of the construction workforce (e.g. cafe,
convenience stores etc), though these are unlikely to be significant, nor encourage wider stimulus to the local economy.
Impacts on deprived areas are localised to two main locations: London Euston and the Washwood Heath area. Where this does occur,
any changes in access to health services or facilities would be temporary, and it is anticipated that affected groups would be able to
adapt with assistance.
existing capacity this is likely to mean a loss of revenue from passengers buying higher value tickets. This could make the existing
119
standard trains serving London and Birmingham less viable to run and hence increase the ticket prices for standard train journeys or fewer
services. Given that current projections estimate that there would be a significant increase in overall passengers in the medium term, it is
unclear whether this would offset the potential loss of business customers to HS2. The likelihood of this impact is unknown at this stage
o Were the Warwick Wharf alternative to be adopted it is unlikely to result in health inequalities different from those of the HS2 March 2010
preferred scheme. This is largely due to the fact that it replaces a similar station facility in a nearby location.
Security accidents. See Contribute to the result of option (modal shift) Preliminary demand model outputs indicate that there is the potential for some modal shift from road to rail (both HS2 and released
and safety TAG Unit 3.4.1 reduction of road (H, Eq) o capacity). However, the reduction in the number of road trips is not expected to be significant when considering overall traffic flows. The
Sub-Objective effect on road traffic incident rates. Until more detailed road traffic modelling has been undertaken, this objective remains unknown
o Were the Warwick Wharf alternative to be adopted it is unlikely to result in incident rates that are different from those of the HS2 March
2010 preferred scheme. This is largely due to the fact that it replaces a similar station facility in a nearby location.
Security Sub- crime U
Design' document
Objective
U Considered to be equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme. This is largely due to the fact that it replaces a similar station facility
in a nearby location, with similar design requirements in terms of crime prevention.
Economic sustainable Support economic (i.e. excluding environmental and wider ++ This option would not involve a small increase in journey times between London and the West Midlands compared to the HS2 March 2010
prosperity economic competitiveness economic benefits and costs) preferred scheme option as no extra distance covered.
get good value Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
use of public
for money. funds The inclusion of Warwick Wharf to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would not result in any additional significant impacts or benefits.
See TAG ++
Units 3.5.1 to
3.5.14.
beneficial competiveness and labour productivity +
Support wider As per the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme. This alternative would be equivalent to the station (Curzon Street) that it replaces.
and maintain and
impacts. See enhance + The inclusion of Warwick Wharf Station to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would not result in any additional significant impacts or
TAG Unit employment benefits.
Units 3.5.8 opportunities Overview of this alternative –
Impacts on labour markets
and 3.5.10 to +
3.5.14, Please see 14b (above)
+ The inclusion of Warwick Wharf Station to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would not result in any additional significant impacts or
benefits.
Support wider As per the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme. This alternative would be equivalent to the station (Curzon Street) that it replaces.
welfare transport user economic welfare (Eq)
growth
economic ++ The inclusion of Warwick Wharf Station to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would not result in any additional significant impacts or
impacts and benefits.
integrate with Overview of this alternative –
15b. Impacts on planned regional growth
land use o
Support planned areas There are no designated regional growth areas that apply to this option.
policy. See
developments
TAG Unit Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme –
Units3.5.1 to o The inclusion of Warwick Wharf Station to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would not result in any additional significant impacts or
3.5.14, Tag benefits. This alternative would be equivalent to the station (Curzon Street) that it replaces.
Unit 3.7.2
Impacts on planned major housing and o Overview of this alternative –
120
Land Use sustainable housing developments There are no known impacts on planned housing and sustainable housing developments.
Policy Sub-
o The inclusion of Warwick Wharf to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would result in the avoidance of significant adverse impacts on
planned housing (and commercial) development at Curzon Street Station.
developments o
There are no known impacts on major planned developments.
o The inclusion of Warwick Wharf to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would result in the avoidance of significant adverse impacts on
planned mixed developments at Curzon Street Station.
areas o
Maintain and There are no known impacts on defined regeneration areas.
enhance (E, H, Eq)
regeneration
o The inclusion of Warwick Wharf to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would not result in different impacts on regeneration areas than
the station it replaces (Curzon Street).
Soil and equivalent Maintain and land crossed by surface or cut and cover Agricultural land impacted by this alternative:
land enhance land sections o
resources resources
Agricultural land impacted by the scheme would not change.
-
The inclusion of Warwick Wharf to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would not result in different impacts on agricultural land than the
station it replaces (Curzon Street).
surface sections o Green Belt land affected by the scheme:
Green Belt land affected – 0km.
Green Belt land affected – 85.4km, which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (85.4km).
Mineral sites affected – No mineral sites affected
option
o
No mineral sites affected, this is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme
No currently authorised landfill sites
2
One currently authorised landfill sites 0.088km (8.8ha)would be affected, this is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme
-
The inclusion of Warwick Wharf Station to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would not have any additional impacts to any areas of
land designated for waste disposal.
Encourage the Brownfield sites – one (1) brownfield site identified, equivalent to 23.58 Ha.
use of brownfield wholly or partially.
sites
+ The inclusion of Warwick Wharf Station to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme could bring 24 brownfield sites back into beneficial use,
either wholly or partially. This is one more than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (23).
equivalent waste spoil potentially requiring off-line o
Waste Prevent and Waste spoil generated at Warwick Wharf station and approach is expected to be negligible (no tunnels)
generation minimise waste disposal as a result of option
production - 3 3
Volume of waste spoil generated = 1.85M m , which equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (1.85M m ).
121
Overall - Unknown at this stage. Detailed studies and land investigations required in order to appraise this criteria.
off-site disposal(H)
U
As for March 2010 preferred scheme. Detailed studies and land investigations required in order to appraise this criteria.
Resource equivalent Conserve and resources further during the detailed design stage. In general it is expected that the scheme would seek to make a commitment to utilise sustainable
use protect primary materials, particularly sustainable concrete that makes use of low-carbon cement, recycled steel, recycled aggregates, re-use of spoil on
material resources U site and FSC timber where timber is required. This would depend on a number of considerations, including technical requirements for
option (e.g. demolition materials) U explored further during the detailed design stage. It is expected that the scheme would seek to re-use materials where possible. Again,
122
Appendix 6.7
HS2 London Station Alternatives
123
the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme in relation to Grade I and II* buildings, which places at risk 11 and 28
London Station alternative - Euston double deck buildings respectively.
Summary Biodiversity
The Euston double deck alternative performs similarly to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme London The double deck option would be little different to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme. No features of
terminus for most topics. It would give rise to more noise impacts due to the elevated tracks allowing ecological importance are physically affected by the double deck option through landtake. St James
greater propagation of impacts to surrounding high rise residential properties. It also performs less well in Gardens may be affected through construction however effective site controls would be employed to modern
terms of its potential for future development, since it offers less over-site development potential than the standards that would keep effects such as dust emissions to a practicable minimum.
HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme. It would be similar to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme in terms
of townscape effects with the greater prominence of the new station building offset by its smaller footprint. Water resources and flood risk
However, the Euston double deck alternative is superior in terms of its community impacts, as it would The double deck option would be little different to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme. No flood
require fewer demolitions and would offer greater potential to resettle residents in the area. These would, in protection zones or source protection zones are affected by the proposals.
turn, present fewer risks to the health and well-being of affected residents.
Air quality
Based on assessment of only preliminary outputs from the demand model at key stations, there is expected
The station is outside of any designated flood zones and the station itself is unlikely to cause or exacerbate to be no discernible difference in the potential air quality effects between the two Euston options, although
any local flooding issues. impacts from the double deck option may be concentrated within a smaller location. These effects may be
mitigated (e.g. in detailed design work for the stations and redesigned of access and egress arrangements
Greenhouse gases due HS2).
There would be no significant differences in respect to greenhouse gas emissions were this alternative to be
used. Embedded carbon is estimated at some 28,000tCO2e consisting of emissions due to construction of Noise and vibration
the station. This is some 11,000tCO2e more than the HS2 March 2010 preferred option at Euston. The double deck option would be worse than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme because noise from
elevated classic line services could increase the number of people annoyed by noise in the vicinity of the
Townscape and cultural heritage Ampthill Estate, Regent‟s Park Estate, properties to the south of Park Village East and properties adjacent to
Landscape, townscape and heritage impacts resulting from the double deck option would be similar to those the railway corridor in the vicinity of Mornington Crescent.
for the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme. The Euston double deck station would take up the same
footprint as the current Euston Station except for the frontage which would require an extension southwards Community integrity
to the north edge of Euston Square Gardens and the demolition of office blocks immediately fronting the The double deck option would be better than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme because of its fewer
existing concourse. The new station would require careful design in the vicinity of Euston Square Gardens, demolitions and greater potential to resettle residents in the area. The double deck station and its
a listed London Square which forms the north part of the Bloomsbury Conservation Area. The station throat approaches from the north would affect a number of building plots identified for residential development as
would require widening to the west and construction lands would require the demolition of the BHS storage part of the LB Camden‟s Euston SPD. The station approach would require the demolition of dwellings in the
facility, a petrol station and several blocks of housing within and adjacent to the Regent‟s Park Estate. The north part of Regent‟s Park Estate but those may be accommodated in new housing above the station.
Carriage Shed at Granby Terrace would also be required during construction. Generally the townscape
fabric would be maintained with possibilities for relocating business space above the station to the east and Fewer dwellings than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would be affected through demolition and
housing to the west on the BHS site. land-take, with approximately 90 properties taken from the Regent‟s Park Estate that could be
accommodated locally either on development sites identified in the SPD.
New high level platforms would be introduced to accommodate the classic line services and a large structure
carrying those lines would be introduced to the west of the station and would extend northwards above a Accessibility
remodelled Hampstead Road and would descend and remove the Granby Terrace Road overbridge to join
the existing WCML railway corridor. This new structure would introduce a significant high level, visually Access is unlikely to be compromised by the proposals although some disruption could be anticipated during
intrusive structure and an elevated operational railway close to community housing at the Ampthill Estate construction. With the completed scheme, west-east access would be improved providing enhanced
and Regent‟s Park Estate. The structure would also be highly visually intrusive to properties adjacent to the permeability to pedestrian movement in the area. The potential to increase transport interchange with
railway corridor at Mornington Terrace and the southern end of Park Village East which include listed existing rail, bus and underground services would be the same as the March 2010 preferred scheme.
structures within two conservation areas. The double deck structure would be located approximately 44m Overall, no significant differences are anticipated from the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
above ordnance datum, but this is below the strategic view of St Paul‟s from Primrose Hill. A new strategic
view to the Palace of Westminster from Parliament Hill, currently being considered by the Mayor of London, Health and well-being
may restrict the extent of the double deck structure in the vicinity of Hampstead Road and Granby Terrace. As well as requiring the demolition of fewer residential properties, the double deck option could afford a
The station would require the displacement of the Grade II listed Stephenson statue that would be relocated better opportunity for the relocation of community housing displaced from the Regent‟s Park Estate. The
as part of the proposals, and may impact the listed railings around Euston Square Gardens. The structure scheme would however introduce a permanent high level railway adjacent to existing housing and is likely to
would also be highly visually intrusive to historic properties adjacent to the railway corridor at Mornington cause additional noise and visual impacts for housing north of the station although these are not expected to
Terrace, part of the Camden Conservation Area and the southern end of Park Village East, adjacent to the differ significantly in comparison with the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
Regent‟s Park Conservation Area. No other listed structures are physically affected through land take or Overall, therefore, the risks of health impacts would be similar for both options, although these risks could be
demolition but seven Grade I, 14 Grade II* and 153 Grade II listed buildings are in close proximity and their largely mitigated.
setting could be affected by the new station and high level throat or during construction. This is fewer than
124
Economic welfare and prosperity commercial development, amenity proposals and public realm. Given the large improvements envisaged
under the Masterplan, these would be compromised by this HS2 option.
The double deck option would be inferior to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme in respect of future
development above the station and would not respond as effectively to the intensification and sustainable The station would also require the demolition of some of the remaining railway heritage protected under the
mixed use development opportunity envisaged for the location through the Mayor‟s plan and the local Kings Cross Masterplan and which forms part of the St Pancras Conservation area. The area includes a
authority‟s SPD, with only about a third of the area above the station being available for development. number of listed buildings and other important structures around the Regent‟s Canal and former rail lands
that would be lost, including the German Gymnasium ( Grade II); Stanley Building and Offices (Grade II);
The site is further constrained by sight lines of the strategic view of St Paul‟s from Primrose Hill. Although
Eastern Coal Drops and Offices (Grade II); the Granary (Grade II), Western Transit Shed and Regeneration
the double deck structure would be below these sight lines, this would limit the development potential above
House.
the station itself.
Biodiversity
The Kings Cross Lands option would be marginally worse than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
The inclusion of the double deck option would not significantly affect any soil or land resources.
There is risk to the Regent‟s Canal Site of Metropolitan Importance for Nature conservation and the Camley
Waste generation Street Natural Park from the effects of noise and pollution during construction, although the application of
modern construction controls would keep these effects to a minimum.
The double deck option would generate less waste from demolition compared to the HS2 March 2010
preferred scheme. Water resources and flood risk
Resource use The Kings Cross Lands option would be worse than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme. Two culverted
watercourses would be crossed by the proposed station and their course may conflict with the proposed
The double deck Euston station would require additional material to be brought to site to construct the high structures required. The Regent‟s Canal would need to be diverted and would need to be accommodated in
level structure however there would be opportunities for dealing with the import of these materials through a structure above the proposed cut and cover station.
rail transportation with good railway links along the WCML.
Air quality
London station alternative - Kings Cross Lands
Based on assessment of only preliminary outputs from the demand model at key stations, there is expected
Summary to be no discernible difference in the potential air quality effects between the Kings Cross Lands option and
the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
The Kings Cross Lands station alternative would be inferior to both the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme
and the double deck Euston alternative because the station proposal would effectively blight the Kings Noise and vibration
Cross Masterplan in the medium term and compromise the anticipated socio-economic benefits of this
scheme. In addition, committed development and a substantial portion of the railway heritage that would The Kings Cross Lands option would be generally preferable to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme at
otherwise be protected by the Masterplan, would be demolished by this HS2 option. Euston. Few airborne noise effects could be anticipated from the below ground station however the station
and the tunnelled approaches may give rise to groundborne noise and vibration. The numbers of properties
In terms of landuse, most of the existing site is either cleared and awaiting development or contains existing likely to be affected as a result of this proposal have not been appraised because the location of approach
listed or other structures to be retained. New development which has so far taken place, apart from the St tunnels has not been determined.
Pancras International complex and associated rail corridors has been very limited. At the southern end,
where the HS2 station would be located, there is the existing Best Western Great Northern Hotel and to the Community integrity
east of the Kings Cross development site on York Way there has been some new development for
The Kings Cross Lands option would be better than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme because,
residential and office uses but these would not be affected by the proposal.
although it potentially impacts communities and their facilities, its direct impacts would be substantially on a
Climatic factors and adaptability community that is not yet in place. The station and its approaches from the north would affect a number of
building plots identified for residential development as part of the Kings Cross Masterplan. This may result
The proposed station is outside of any designated flood zones but the below ground station would need to in people being affected by groundborne noise and vibration, but these would need to be mitigated. The
be designed in such a way to minimise risks from flooding. The station itself is unlikely to cause or amenity space identified in the Masterplan would also be affected and the integration of public space with
exacerbate any local flooding issues. housing and commercial buildings would be compromised.
Greenhouse gases Three community facilities would be affected together with 20 commercial buildings, both existing and
proposed. The local authority aspirations for sustainable development and communities in this location are
There would be no significant differences in respect to greenhouse gas emissions were this alternative to be likely to be disrupted by the proposals. The benefits of the Masterplan would include improvements for local
used. Embedded carbon is estimated at about 21,000tCO2e consisting of emissions due to construction of job creation, social mobility and social inclusion in a location recognised for being one of the most deprived
the station. This is some 4,000tCO2e more than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme at Euston. areas of London and a station would delay those benefits from being realised.
Landscape, townscape and cultural heritage Accessibility

Landscape, townscape and historical impacts resulting from the Kings Cross Lands option would be greater Access is unlikely to be compromised by the proposals although some disruption could be anticipated during
than those for the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme. The Kings Cross Lands are subject to a Masterplan construction. No significant differences are anticipated from the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
for redevelopment which includes protection of buildings with railway heritage value, as well as new
125

The inclusion of Kings Cross Lands as a terminus for HS2 would be less likely to result in impacts on health
and well-being than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme at Euston, although some local residents would
have experienced a long construction period from the building of the HS1 terminus and associated railway
works and the development taking place in the Kings Cross Lands. Construction of this option could
therefore exacerbate any existing health problems.

The Kings Cross Masterplan would be significantly disrupted by the terminus in this location. Although the
HS2 terminus would be designed to accommodate future development above, the demolition of the
committed parts of the Masterplan are likely to cause substantial disruption to the development aspirations
and those affected by that disruption may not return even if a future development opportunity were available.
A terminus arrangement in this location could effectively stall the Kings Cross Masterplan proposals and
effectively blight the area for a number of years and disrupt the opportunity for sustainable growth in this part
of London. The proposal is likely to receive a lot of local and regional opposition as a result.

The inclusion of the Kings Cross Lands option would not significantly affect any soil or land resources.
Waste generation
Additional tunnels to link the HS2 March 2010 preferred route to a Kings Cross Lands terminus, the
approach tracks below ground and the cut and cover station would cause substantial additional waste in
comparison to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
126
1. No NATA 1a. Length of line in cutting through Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview of this alternative –
Climatic equivalent Improve resilience geology vulnerable to landslip. Kings Cross Lands station (including throat)
factors and of rail network (Determined by BGS Landslide o
Areas of Significant Landslide Potential – 0km of cut works
adaptability against extreme Hazard Assessment areas
"Moderate" and "Significant") Areas of Moderate Landslide Potential – 0km of cut works
weather events
Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred
scheme –
Areas of Significant Landside Potential –0km of cut works, which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
- Areas of Moderate Landslide Potential – 59.2km of cut works, which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme
(59.2km).
Replacing Euston Station in the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative would not result in any increase in areas of
landslide potential.
Euston Station - double deck (including throat): Overview of this alternative –
Euston double deck (including throat)
o
Areas of Significant Landslide Potential – 0km of cut works
Areas of Moderate Landslide Potential – 0km of cut works
Euston Station - double deck (including throat): Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred
scheme –
Areas of Significant Landside Potential – there would be 0km of cut works, which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred
scheme.
-
Areas of Moderate Landslide Potential – there would be 59.2km of cut works, which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred
scheme (59.2km).
Replacing Euston Station in the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative would not result in any increase in areas of
landslide potential.
Length of line at risk of flooding in Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview of this alternative –
Flood Zone 3. (H) o
No track in Flood Zone 3
scheme –
The route would cross 16.3km of Flood Zone 3, which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (16.3km).
General notes:
Adaptability to climatic factors is related to the length of line in the flood plain. However, a neutral score has been assigned
because track length within the flood plain is covered under CSO7a (see below).
o As strategic infrastructure, the final design would allow for rare flood events and current best-practice assumptions for climate
change to ensure that the line remains unaffected by the 100-year flood, including an allowance for climate change.
protection would reduce any residual risk to an acceptable level. In less critical locations, practical considerations may be to allow sections
of the line to flood for given flood events (larger than 100-year +CC for example).
o
No track in Flood Zone 3
scheme –
The route would cross 16.3km of Flood Zone 3, which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (16.3km).
General notes:
Adaptability to climatic factors is related to the length of line in the flood plain. However, a neutral score has been assigned
o because track length within the flood plain is covered under CSO7a (see below).
As strategic infrastructure, the final design would allow for rare flood events and current best-practice assumptions for climate
change to ensure that the line remains unaffected by the 100-year flood, including an allowance for climate change.
protection would reduce any residual risk to an acceptable level. In less critical locations, practical considerations may be to allow sections
127
of the line to flood for given flood events (larger than 100-year +CC for example).
2. Reduce 2a. Change in CO2 equivalent (CO2e) Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview of this alternative –
Greenhouse greenhouse Contribute to the emissions released as a result of Regardless of the London station which is incorporated into the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme, there would have negative benefits in
gases gases. See reduction of modal shift achieved from terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions due to its construction and requirement for new rolling stock. However, the magnitude of
also TAG Unit conventional rail/road and flights to U
greenhouse gas these negative benefits is over-shadowed by the range in uncertainty associated with operational impacts, which may result in either a net
3.3.5 emissions by high speed rail. positive or net negative benefit. This is due to the uncertainty associated with policy delivery in decarbonising electricity generation in the
Greenhouse facilitating modal UK and securing reductions in air travel. Both these policies are external to HS2.
Gases Sub- shift from road and
Objective and Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred
air to rail
TAG Unit 3.5.4 scheme –
U
CBA Replacing Euston Station of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative would not result in any change to CO2 equivalent
emissions from modal shift. This alternative is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
Regardless of the London station which is incorporated into the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would have negative benefits in terms
of reducing greenhouse gas emissions due to its construction and requirement for new rolling stock. However, the magnitude of these
U
negative benefits is over-shadowed by the range in uncertainty associated with operational impacts, which may result in either a net
positive or net negative benefit. This is due to the uncertainty associated with policy delivery in decarbonising electricity generation in the
UK and securing reductions in air travel. Both these policies are external to HS2.
scheme –
U
Replacing Euston Station of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative would not result in any change to CO2 equivalent
emissions from modal shift. This alternative is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
Carbon emissions resulting from Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview of this alternative –
construction in terms of embedded Total Embedded Carbon for the Kings Cross Lands Station is estimated to be 26,600 tonnes CO 2 (of which an estimated 9,600 tonnes CO2
carbon and carbon emissions is as a result of tunnels).
resulting from tunnel boring
scheme –
- Estimated to be 884,100 tonnes CO2, of which an estimated 190,600 tonnes CO2 is as a result of tunnels). Carbon from tunnels accounts
Embedded carbon 789,890
Total Embedded Carbon for Euston Double Deck Station is estimated to be 27,600 tonnes CO2.
scheme –
-
Estimated to be 885,100 tonnes CO2, (of which an estimated 181,000 tonnes CO2 is as a result of tunnels). Carbon from tunnels accounts
2b. Relative efficiency in operations The development of a new rail infrastructure allows for design measures to reduce electrical demand from individual Traction Motor Units
Reduce relative between high speed trains and rolling (TMUs) and the HS2 route as a whole. These design measures include track alignment (gradients and curves) and TMU aerodynamics
contribution made stock and classic trains although the greatest efficiency gains are associated with on-TMU or trackside capture of electricity generated by TMUs when braking.
emissions by
applying energy
efficient
technologies
128
3. Protect and 3a. Impacts on the coherence and Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview of this alternative –
Landscape enhance distinctiveness of landscape o
and landscape. enhance existing resources of national importance
Townscape See also TAG crossed by surface or cut and cover Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred
landscape character
Unit 3.3.7 sections, e.g. AONBs, ASVs, Special scheme –
Landscape Landscape Areas, National Parks, Replacing Euston Station with this alternative does not represent a significant difference in the impacts to landscapers of national
--
and TAG Unit National Scenic Areas (Scotland). importance as the route would still have direct (for ~14km) and indirect impacts (~4.4km) on landscape areas of national importance,
3.3.6 (E, H) including travelling through the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
Environmental This alternative is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
Capital
o
No impacts on any landscape of national importance.
scheme –
The scheme would have direct (for ~14km) and indirect (~4.4km) impacts on landscape areas of national importance, including travelling
--
through the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Replacing Euston Station with this alternative does not represent a significant
difference in the impacts to landscapers of national importance.
Impacts on the coherence and Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview of this alternative –
distinctiveness of landscape o
No impacts on any landscape of regional importance.
resources of regional importance
crossed by surface or cut and cover Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred
sections, e.g. country parks, Regional scheme –
Landscape Designations (Scotland) - The route has an indirect impact on a number of areas of regional importance, including multiple areas designated as country parks.
(E, H) Replacing Euston Station with this alternative would not impact or affect any landscapes of regional importance.
o
No impacts on any landscape of regional importance.
scheme –
- Replacing Euston Station with this alternative would not impact or affect any landscapes of regional importance. The route would have an
indirect impact on a number of areas of regional importance, including multiple areas designated as country parks.
Protect and 3b. Impacts on the coherence and Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview of this alternative –
enhance Maintain and distinctiveness of townscape This part of the Kings Cross area has experienced significant change which has already resulted in the loss of elements of heritage
townscape. enhance existing resources crossed by surface or cut merit, fragmentation of the urban grain and radical change to the character and appearance of the area.
See also TAG townscape and cover sections Change has also resulted in some buildings and structures standing alone, comparatively isolated from their former context.
Unit 3.3.8 character (E, H)
Townscape -- Nevertheless, these buildings continue to contribute positively to the industrial character and appearance of the Conservation Area,
Sub Objective although they currently do lack a meaningful and coherent visual context.
and TAG Unit The corridor approach and station would have a further adverse affect on the character and appearance of the Conservation Areas
3.3.6 with the demolition of a number of surviving buildings and structures of heritage importance which relate to the railway and gas
Environmental industries and to the Regent‟s Canal.
Capital
scheme –
Townscape impacts are likely to be more significant with this alternative than the Euston terminus of the HS2 March 2010 preferred
scheme.
Impacts removed from the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme would include:
--
Less impact on historic and modern buildings
Less impact on open spaces (St James‟ Gardens and Euston Square Gardens)
Increased impacts to conservation and heritage areas
Increased impacts to historical structures
129
Euston station - double deck (including throat) - The corridor approach and station would have an temporary adverse affect on the
established block structure and street layout west of the station through the removal of Cardington Street/Melton Street during
- construction.
A number of both modern and historic buildings including the prominent Government Offices and important green and public open
spaces including St James's Gardens and the station plaza would be indirectly affected during construction.
The station would also encroach upon and change the function of the historically significant Euston Square Gardens.
scheme –
- Replacing Euston Station on the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative would have similar impacts to townscape as the
HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme. This option would be more prominent in terms of townscape and potentially offers fewer options for
improvement as there would be limited development potential above the station, although this would be offset by the smaller footprint
required for this option.
Strategically important views and/or Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview of this alternative –
key vistas physically affected The station lies within two strategic view corridors (from Kenwood and Parliament Hill to St Paul's Cathedral) these would not be
(E, H) affected by the proposals.
Views to and from adjacent Conservation Areas and towards landmark buildings within the station lands are likely to be affected by
-
the proposals as a result of the required demolition of a number of buildings.
Due to on-going and proposed developments in the area, and in parts the open and undeveloped nature of the site, there are many
revealing vistas across the site. Few of these have an extended history though some newly opened views can be shown as
valuable.
scheme –
Replacing Euston Station on the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative would have a slight reduction in impacts to
strategically important views and vistas. While Kings Cross lies in strategic view corridors the scheme is unlikely to affect them, where as
-- Euston options are more likely to impact strategic views.
Primary impacts are recorded for Hartwell House (Colne Valley junction to Aylesbury) option, which would all be common to either this or
the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme. However, there is limited information available on strategic views for the West Midlands.
This alternative is considered slightly better than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
The station would lie directly within one strategic view corridor (Primrose Hill to St Paul's Cathedral), and in the background of the
Blackheath point and Greenwich Park views of St Pauls Cathedral. These would not be affected by the proposals; however the
strategic view corridors may restrict development above the station.
-
Views to and from surrounding Conservation Areas (Bloomsbury, Camden Town and Regents Park), and towards landmark
buildings may be physically affected. In particular, views along Cardington Street on the western edge of the station building
towards key landmarks such as the Government Offices and Bloomsbury Garden of Friends House within Bloomsbury
Conservation Area are likely to be affected by the major changes proposed for the Station.
scheme –
Replacing Euston Station on the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this double deck alternative would not significantly alter impacts
-- to strategic and local views. The double deck option would be higher but would still not impact the view corridor.
Primary impacts are recorded for Hartwell House (Colne Valley Junction to Aylesbury) option, which would all be common to either this or
the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme. However, there is limited information available on strategic views for the West Midlands.
This alternative is considered equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
4. Protect the 4a. Impacts on World Heritage Sites and Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview of this alternative –
Within 100m impact corridor – none
resources See archaeological
also TAG Unit assets Within 350m buffer area – none.
3.3.9 and TAG Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred
Unit 3.3.6 Envt scheme –
Capital
World Heritage Sites for the whole scheme:
o
Within 100m impact corridor – none (0), which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
Replacing Euston Station of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative would not result in any further World Heritage Sites
130
being impacted. This alternative is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
World Heritage Sites:
o
Within 100m impact corridor – none (0)
Within 350m buffer area – none (0)
scheme –
World Heritage Sites for the whole scheme:
o Within 100m impact corridor – none (0), which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
Replacing Euston Station of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative would not result in any further World Heritage Sites
being impacted. This alternative is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
Impacts on Scheduled Monuments Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview of this alternative –
(SMs) crossed by surface or cut and Scheduled Monuments:
cover sections. o
Within the 100m impact corridor – none
(E)
Within the 350m buffer area – none.
scheme –
Scheduled Monuments for the whole scheme:
- Within the 100m impact corridor – one (1), which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (1).
Replacing Euston Station of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative would not result in any further Scheduled
Monuments being impacted. This alternative is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
Scheduled Monuments:
o
Within the 100m impact corridor – none (0)
Within the 350m buffer area – none (0)
scheme –
Scheduled Monuments for the whole scheme:
- Within the 100m impact corridor – one (1), which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (1).
Replacing Euston Station of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative would not result in any further Scheduled
Monuments being impacted. This alternative is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
4b. Impacts on the character of heritage Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview of this alternative –
Preserve and resources of national importance Listed buildings, within the station footprint and throat:
protect historic crossed by surface or cut and cover
buildings sections (Grade I and II* Listed
Buildings, Scotland Category A) - Grade II* – four (4).
(E, H) Within the 350m buffer area:
Grade I – four (4).
Grade II* - one (1).
scheme –
Grade I – none (0), which is greater than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (0).
-- Grade II* – five (5), which is greater than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (1).
Grade I – eight (8), which is less than for the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (11).
Grade II* – 13, which is less than for the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (26).
Replacing Euston Station of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative would improve impacts to historic buildings of
131
national importance.
Listed buildings, within the station footprint and throat:
- Grade II* – none (0).
Within the 350m buffer area:
Grade I – seven (7).
Grade II* - 14
scheme –
--
Grade I – 11 which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (11).
Grade II* – 26, which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (26).
Replacing Euston Station of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative would not result in further impacts to nationally
listed buildings. This alternative is considered to be equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
Impacts on the character of heritage Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview of this alternative –
resources of regional importance Listed buildings:
crossed by surface or cut and cover
Within the station footprint and throat:
sections, e.g. Conservation Areas,
Grade II Listed Buildings (E, H) Grade II Listed buildings – seven (7).
- Conservation areas – one (1).
Conservation areas – one (1).
scheme –
Grade II Listed buildings – 17, which is greater than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (16).
Conservation areas –three (3), which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (3).
In addition, two (2) undesignated historic landscapes of potentially regional importance are in the 100m impact corridor (Chilterns and
- Northamptonshire Uplands).
Grade II Listed buildings – 203, which is less than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (314).
Conservation areas – two (2), which is less than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
Replacing Euston Station of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative would result in a large reduction in listed buildings
within the 350m buffer zone, and a slight increase in impacts to Grade II listed buildings. This alternative is considered to be equivalent to
the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
Grade II Listed buildings – two (2).
- Conservation areas – one (1) would be impacted during construction.
Conservation areas – three (3).
- scheme –
132
Grade II Listed buildings – 12, which is less than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (16).
Conservation areas – three (3), which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (3).
In addition, two undesignated historic landscapes of potentially regional importance are in the 100m impact corridor (Chilterns and
Northamptonshire Uplands).
Grade II Listed buildings – 312, which is slightly less than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (314).
Conservation areas – three (3), which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (3).
Replacing Euston Station of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative would result in a small reduction in listed buildings
within the both the station footprint and 350m buffer zone. Overall this alternative is would be similar to the HS2 March 2010 preferred
scheme.
4c. Impacts on the coherence and Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview of this alternative –
Preserve and distinctiveness of historic landscapes Within the station footprint and throat there are:
protect historic of international and national
landscapes importance, e.g. Grade I and II*
Registered Parks and Gardens, Grade II* Registered Parks or Gardens – none (0).
Registered Battlefields o Registered Battlefields – none (0).
(E, H)
Within the 350m buffer area there:
Grade II* Registered Park and Gardens – none (0)
scheme –
Grade II* Registered Parks or Gardens – three (3) (Shardeloes; Hartwell House; Stoneleigh Abbey), which is equivalent to the HS2
March 2010 preferred scheme (3).
Registered Battlefields – none (0), which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (0).
--
Grade I Registered Parks or Gardens – one (1) (Waddesdon Manor), which is less than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (2).
Grade II* Registered Park and Gardens – none (0), which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (0).
Replacing Euston Station of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative would not result in any further impacts to any
landscapes of national or international importance. There would be one less Registered Park within the 350m buffer zone. This alternative
is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
Within the station footprint and throat there are:
Grade II* Registered Parks or Gardens – none (0).
- Registered Battlefields – none (0).
Grade I Registered Parks or Gardens – one (1).
Grade II* Registered Park and Gardens – None (0).
133
scheme –
Grade II* Registered Parks or Gardens – 3 (Shardeloes; Hartwell House; Stoneleigh Abbey), which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010
--
Grade I Registered Parks or Gardens – 2 (Regents Park; Waddesdon Manor), which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred
scheme (2).
Grade II* Registered Park and Gardens – none (0), which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (0).
landscapes of national or international importance. This alternative is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
Impacts on the coherence and Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview of this alternative –
distinctiveness of historic landscapes Grade II Registered Parks and Gardens:
of regional importance, e.g. Grade II
Registered Parks and Gardens -
Grade II Registered Parks or Gardens – one (1).
scheme –
-
Grade II Registered Parks or Gardens – one (1), which is greater than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (0).
Replacing Euston Station of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative would have a slight increase in impacts Registered
Gardens.
o Grade II Registered Parks or Gardens – none (0).
scheme –
-
Replacing Euston Station of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative would not have any additional impacts on Grade II
Parks and Gardens. This alternative is considered equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
5. Support 5a. Impacts on sites of international Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview of this alternative –
Biodiversity biodiversity importance crossed by surface or cut o
Maintain and No direct or indirect effects on any sites of international importance.
See also TAG enhance and cover sections, e.g. SACs and
Unit 3.3.10 candidate SACs (cSAC), SPAs and Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred
biodiversity
Biodiversity potential SPAs (pSPA) and Ramsar scheme –
Sub-objective sites. o There are no direct effects on any sites of international importance and there is not likely to be significant indirect effects.
and TAG Unit (E) Replacing Euston Station of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative would not result in any further impacts to any
3.3.6 biodiversity sites of international importance.
o
No direct or indirect effects on any sites of international importance.
134
scheme –
o There are no direct effects on any sites of international importance and there is not likely to be significant indirect effects.
biodiversity sites of international importance.
Impacts on sites of national Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview of this alternative –
importance crossed by surface or cut o
No direct or indirect effects on any sites of national importance.
and cover sections, e.g. SSSIs,
Geological SSSIs, NNRs. Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred
(E) scheme –
A single SSSI would experience partial land-take by the scheme. Moderate habitat loss would occur at one other site and minor loss at two
- others. Significant bird disturbance is likely to occur at one site. In the context of the entire scheme, damage to SSSIs has been largely
avoided and effects are thought to be minor adverse.
o
No direct or indirect effects on any sites of national importance.
scheme –
A single SSSI would experience partial land-take by the scheme. Moderate habitat loss would occur at one other site and minor loss at two
- others. Significant bird disturbance is likely to occur at one site. In the context of the entire scheme, damage to SSSIs has been largely
avoided and effects are thought to be minor adverse.
Impacts on sites of regional Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview of this alternative –
importance crossed by surface or cut The route would result in additional shading and fragmentation of the Regents Canal which is of Metropolitan Importance for Nature
and cover sections, e.g. RIGS, - Conservation.
SINCs, BAP habitats. It would also result in additional disturbance to Camley Street Natural Park which is also of metropolitan importance.
(E)
Both sites would be adversely affected by noise, light and dust during construction and operation.
scheme –
Replacing Euston Station of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative would result in the following:
-
Additional impacts at two (2) sites of metropolitan importance.
This alternative would slightly increase impacts on sites of regional importance. Overall it is considered that the affects are likely to be
minor adverse.
No effects at London-wide level
-
There may be habitat loss during construction from St. James' Gardens Site of Local Importance for Nature Conservation (local
sites are designated primarily to allow enjoyment of common wildlife in areas deficient in better quality wildlife habitat)
scheme –
Replacing Euston Station of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative would result in the following:
- Impacts to St James Gardens, a site of local importance for nature conservation. However, this is equivalent to the HS2 March
This alternative would not increase impacts on sites of regional importance. Overall it is considered that the affects are likely to be minor
adverse.
Area of potential new habitat creation Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview of this alternative –
(E) + There may be scope to provide habitat on the roofs of structures built in the process of remodelling Kings Cross that could provide
limited compensatory habitat in the vicinity of the scheme.
scheme –
o
Replacing Euston Station of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative could slightly increase areas of new habitat
creation across the scheme.
135
+ There is scope to provide on the roofs of structures built in the process of remodelling Euston Station that could provide an overall
increase in habitats of local value in the vicinity of the station.
scheme –
o
Replacing Euston Station of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative would slightly increase areas of new habitat
creation across the scheme.
6. Protect the 6a. Impacts on river catchments. Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview of this alternative –
Water water Protect surface (Area of catchment upstream of river - Total number of river crossings:
Minor river crossings – two (2) (culverted watercourses).
Unit 3.3.11 crossings). Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred
Water (E) scheme –
Environment Total number of river crossings:
Sub-objective
and TAG Unit - Major crossings – 25 (including River Blythe x 6; River Cole; River Tame x 2; Bourne Brook), which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010
3.3.6 preferred scheme (25).
2
Environmental Minor crossings – 78 (i.e. catchment less than 50km ), which is greater than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (76).
Capital Replacing Euston Station of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative would slightly increase crossings of minor rivers.
Euston Station - double deck (including throat): Overview of this alternative –-
-
Minor river crossing – none (0)
Major river Crossing – none (0)
scheme –
- Major crossings - 25 (including River Blythe x 6; River Cole; River Tame x 2; Bourne Brook), which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010
2
Minor crossings – 76 (i.e. catchment less than 50km ), which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (76).
Replacing Euston Station of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative would not result in additional river crossings.
Impacts on surface water bodies. Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview of this alternative –
(number of major river diversions, Total number of river crossings – see CSO6a (above).
number of minor river diversions,
Major River Diversions:
impacts on artificial water bodies,
impacts on reservoirs). Major diversion - one (1) of Grand Union Canal which passes directly under proposed station.
(E, H) Navigable Waters – one (1) Grand Union Canal.
General notes:
--
scheme –
Major diversions – seven (7), which is greater than for the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (6).
-- Minor diversions – five (5), which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (5).
Navigable waters – nine (9), which is greater than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (8).
Replacing Euston Station of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative would increase the number or major river
diversions.
136
No river diversions
General notes:
o Diversion of any main river would have significant effects on river morphology and riparian habitat, and hence the quality of the river as
scheme –
Major diversions – six (6), which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (6).
-- Minor diversions – five (5), which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (5).
Replacing Euston Station of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative would not have any increased impacts on surface
water bodies.
6b. Impacts on groundwater Source Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview of this alternative –
Protect groundwater Protection Zones (SPZs). Cut works/tunnel (including portals) through:
resources (Length of cut or tunnel through SPZ1
SPZ 1 – 0km
and/or SPZ2).
(E, H) SPZ 2 – 0km
General notes:
to abstraction.
o
scheme –
SPZ 2 – 21.4km, which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
Replacing Euston Station of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative would not have any increased impacts on Source
Protection Zones.
Impacts on SPZ 1 – 0km of scheme
Impacts on SPZ 2 – 0km of scheme
General notes:
o
to abstraction.
137
scheme –
SPZ 2 – 21.4km, which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
Replacing Euston Station of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative would not have any increased impacts on Source
Protection Zones.
Impacts on groundwater flow in Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview of this alternative –
strategic aquifers. Length of scheme through aquifers of:
(Length of cut or tunnel through
aquifers classified as "good yield"
and/or "good quality" under the WFD). Either good CQ or good PY –0km.
o volumes of good CQ, it is likely to be of strategic importance.
maintained.
score.
scheme –
-- Both good chemical quality (CQ) and good potential yield (PY) – 25.6km, which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
Either good CQ or good PY – 21.1km, which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
Replacing Euston Station of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative would not have any increased impacts on Strategic
Aquifers.
Length of scheme through aquifers of:
Either good CQ or good PY –0km.
General notes:
o quality (CQ). In both cases, classifications are either good or poor.
maintained.
138
score.
scheme –
--
Either good CQ or good PY – 21.1km, which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
Replacing Euston Station of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative would not have any increased impacts on Strategic
Aquifers.
7. No NATA 7a. Extent of infrastructure within 1 in 100 Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview of this alternative –
Flood risk equivalent Conserve and year flood zones (Flood Zone 3) Length of line and station in Flood Zone 0km.
enhance the (E, H)
Total number of major river crossings – two (2) (see CSO6a above).
capacity of
o Virtually all routes cross the floodplains of major rivers at some point, but crossings proposed are large viaducts across entire floodplains
scheme –
- Length of line in Flood Zone 3 – 16.3km, which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (16.3km).
Replacing Euston Station of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative would not have any increases in track crossing
Flood Zone 3.
Length of line and station in Flood Zone 0km.
General notes:
o Virtually all routes cross the floodplains of major rivers at some point, but crossings proposed are large viaducts across entire floodplains
to minimise any adverse effects on flood water levels. As such and in contrast to major river diversions, viaduct crossings of flood zone 3
is assigned a minor adverse score.
scheme –
Flood Zone 3.
Extent of infrastructure within 1 in Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview of this alternative –
1,000 year flood zones (Flood Zone o Length of line in Flood Zone 2 – 0km.
2).
139
(E) General notes:
As for Flood Zone 3, it is obviously more sustainable to avoid Flood Zone 2 completely; however in the context of this development it is
A neutral score is assigned to crossing of Flood Zone 2 for minor rivers and a minor negative score is assigned for crossing of Flood Zone
2 for a major river.
scheme –
Flood Zone 2.
Length of line in Flood Zone 2 – 0km.
Total number of major river crossings – 1 (see CSO6a (above).General notes:
o This also serves as a measure of resilience to the effects of climate change.
A neutral score is assigned to crossing of Flood Zone 2 for minor rivers and a minor negative score is assigned for crossing of Flood Zone
2 for a major river.
scheme –
Flood Zone 2.
8. Improve local 8a. Change in total emissions 'with' and Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview of this alternative –
air quality. See 'without' option as a result of modal U
Air quality Maintain and Operational details of the March 2010 preferred scheme not sufficiently known in order to adequately appraise against this criteria.
also TAG Unit enhance local air shift from road to rail within study area
3.3.3Local Air (E, H) Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred
quality.
Quality Sub- U scheme –
objective (nb: Operational details of the March 2010 preferred scheme not sufficiently known in order to adequately appraise against this criteria.
see strategic Euston Station double deck (including throat): Overview of this alternative –
approach set U
out in Section Operational details of the March 2010 preferred scheme not sufficiently known in order to adequately appraise against this criteria.
1.2 of this unit) Euston Station double deck (including throat): Overview of this alternative –
U
and 3.3.4 Operational details of the March 2010 preferred scheme not sufficiently known in order to adequately appraise against this criteria.
Regional Air Impacts on air quality from traffic Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview of this alternative –
Pollution associated with stations. Impacts to U
Operational details of the March 2010 preferred scheme not sufficiently known in order to adequately appraise against this criteria.
Air Quality Management Areas
(AQMA) Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview of this alternative –
U
140
(E, H, Eq) Euston Station - double deck (including throat): Overview of this alternative –
U
U scheme –
9. Reduce noise. 9a. Change in the population potentially Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview of this alternative –
See also TAG annoyed by operational noise(E, H) U
Noise and Maintain and Minor potential for airborne noise increase due to station and throat - not appraised
Vibration Unit 3.3.2 enhance the local
Noise Sub- Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred
Note: the noise environment
objective (nb: scheme –
approach
Strategic -- Population potentially annoyed by operational noise for the combined scheme would be ~ 3,900 people, which is equivalent to the HS2
presented 8
approach set March 2010 preferred scheme .
here follows
the webTAG out in Section Replacing Euston Station of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative may have population potentially annoyed be noise.
guidance, 1.5) and TAG
Unit 3.3.2 Euston Station - double deck (including throat): Overview of this alternative –
which has U
Supplementar Potential for airborne noise increase due to station and throat - not appraised
been used
to assess y Guidance
the HS2 scheme –
March 2010 -- Population potentially annoyed by operational noise for the combined scheme would be ~3,900 people, which is equivalent to the HS2
preferred March 2010 preferred scheme .
9
route only.
Replacing Euston Station of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative may have population potentially annoyed be noise.
The Present Value of Benefits (PVB) Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview of this alternative –
for daytime operational-related U
Minor potential for airborne noise increase due to station and throat - not appraised
residential noise
scheme –
PVB = ~ -£194 million
--
Dwellings qualifying for noise insulation: ~ 1,450 dwellings qualifying for noise insulation (> 68 dBA and increase ≥ 1 dBA) / ~ 450 dwellings
≥73 dBA / ~ 27 dwellings > 81 dBA
U
Potential for airborne noise increase due to station and throat - not appraised
scheme –
PVB = ~ -£194 million
--
Dwellings qualifying for noise insulation: ~ 1,450 dwellings qualifying for noise insulation (> 68 dBA and increase ≥ 1 dBA) / ~ 450 dwellings
≥ 73 dBA / ~ 27 dwellings > 81 dBA
No NATA 9b. Nos. of residential properties at risk of Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview of this alternative –
equivalent Maintain local vibration and reradiated noise Properties potentially impacted by vibration and re-radiated noise:
vibration (E, H) U
environment
scheme –
- Residential dwellings – ~9,500, which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
Non-residential buildings – ~500, which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
Replacing Euston Station of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative would not increase impacts from vibration and
reradiated noise.
U
Properties potentially impacted by vibration and re-radiated noise:
8
141
scheme –
- Residential dwellings – 9,500, which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
Non-residential buildings – 500, which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
Replacing Euston Station of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative would not increase impacts from vibration and
reradiated noise.
10. No NATA 10a. Nos. of properties demolished or Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview of this alternative –
Community equivalent Maintain and affected by landtake Dwellings: 0
integrity enhance community (H)
Community: 3
integrity
- Commercial: 20
Industrial: 0
Total: 23
Demolitions are further covered in CSO15 (below)
scheme –
Overall –
Dwellings: 182, which is less than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (429)
- Community: 23, which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (23)
Commercial: 121, which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (121)
Industrial: 30, which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (30)
Total demolitions: 356, which is less than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (603)
Replacing Euston Station of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative would decrease the total demolitions significantly.
Dwellings: 88
Community: 0
Commercial: 8
-- Industrial: 0
Total: 96
This is predominantly the area around the Regents Park Estate. There is also some community terraced housing along Cobourg St and
Drummond St which would be exposed.
The commercial premises would include a number of office blocks.
scheme –
Overall –
Dwellings: 270, which is less than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (429).
Community: 20, which is less than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (23).
--
Commercial: 109, which is less than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (121).
Industrial:30, which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (30).
Total demolitions: 429, which is less than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (603).
Replacing Euston Station of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative would decrease the total demolitions across the
scheme.
Nos. of properties at high risk of Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview of this alternative –
isolation o
Properties at high risk of isolation identified – none (0).
(H)
- scheme –
Properties at high risk of isolation identified
142
164, which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (164).
Replacing Euston Station of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative would not expose any further properties to risk of
isolation.
o
Properties at high risk of isolation identified – none (0).
scheme –
Properties at high risk of isolation identified
-
164, which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (164).
Replacing Euston Station of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative would not expose any further properties to risk of
isolation.
Properties in the 20% most deprived Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview of this alternative –
areas demolished or at high risk of - The station lies predominantly in a 10% most deprived area and the remainder in a 20% most deprived area.
isolation There are no areas of isolation and no residential dwellings that have been identified for demolition.
(H, Eq)
scheme –
-
Replacing Euston Station of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative would significantly improve impacts across the
scheme to properties in the 20% most deprived areas, as the greatest impacts to these areas lie around Euston Station.
Euston station lies partially in a 10% most deprived area and the remainder in a 20% most deprived area.
There are no areas of isolation, however approximately 220 dwellings are likely to be demolished in the vicinity of Euston Station,
--
predominantly within the Regents Park Estate, a predominantly Council-owned housing estate.
A further 166 dwellings are at risk of demolition, comprising Council-owned blocks and 19 terraced properties.
The equality screening report considers this issue in more detail (Volume 2, Appendix 2.7).
scheme –
-- Replacing Euston Station of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative would not impact any additional properties in the
20% most deprived areas across the scheme, as the greatest impacts to these areas lie around Euston Station. This alternative would be
equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
Properties with disproportionately Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview of this alternative –
high numbers of equality groups Kings Cross Lands station (including throat) - There is a proportionately high Asian population within the Ward and Super Output
demolished or at high risk of isolation, o
Area within the Kings Cross Lands station footprint (27.1% in the SOA compared to the borough average of 10.4%).
where known. There are however no areas of isolation or residential dwelling demolitions.
(H, Eq)
scheme –
-
Replacing Euston Station of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative would significantly improve impacts across the
scheme to properties containing equality target groups.
There is a proportionately high Asian population within the Ward and Super Output Area within the Euston station footprint (34.4% in the
-- SOA compared to the borough average of 10.4%).
There are a significant number of residential dwelling marked for demolition creating a significant adverse impact.
scheme –
--
Replacing Euston Station of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative would neither remove nor introduce impacts for
equality target groups. This alternative would be equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
11. Reduce 11a. Nos. of strategic footpaths, Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview of this alternative –
Accessibility severance. Maintain and bridleways, nature trails and cycle Strategic paths intersected:
See also TAG enhance pedestrian paths severed and/or requiring
o Local cycle route intersected – none (0).
Unit 3.6.2 access diversion
Reducing (E, H, Eq) National cycle route intersected – none (0)
Severance OS footpaths intersected – none (0).
Sub-Objective.
- Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred
scheme –
143
Replacing Euston Station of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative would neither remove nor introduce impacts to
strategic pathways and cycle routes.
Strategic paths intersected:
Local cycle route intersected – none (0).
o
National cycle route intersected – none (0)
OS footpaths intersected – none (0).
Access is unlikely to be compromised with this alternative, there may be potential for some west- east benefits for pedestrians movements.
scheme –
-
National Trails – one (1), which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (1).
strategic pathways and cycle routes.
Impacts on areas of open access, Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview of this alternative –
including common land and greens o
No Impacts to access and common land
(H, Eq)
scheme –
o
CROW (registered Common Land) intersected – one (1), which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
areas of open access
o
No Impacts to access and common land
scheme –
o
CROW (registered Common Land) intersected – one (1), which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
areas of open access
Improve 11b. Potential for improved access to Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview of this alternative –
access to the public transport for non-car users o
public enhance access to (H)
transport Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred
public transport
system. See o scheme –
TAG Unit 3.6.3 This alternative would be equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme
and 3.6.1 o Euston Station - double deck (including throat): Overview of this alternative –
144
Option Values As per the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme
Sub-objective.
o scheme –
Potential to improve option values Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview of this alternative –
(H) +
+ scheme –
+
+ scheme –
Population in the 20% most deprived Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview of this alternative –
areas with better access to public +
transport services
(H, Eq) Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred
+ scheme –
+
+ scheme –
Improve 11c. Potential to improve public transport Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview of this alternative –
transport Maintain and interchanges as a result of option Potential to significantly increase interchange opportunities with existing rail, high speed rail (HS1) bus and underground services. With the
interchange. (H, Eq) ++
enhance public connection to HS1 and the channel tunnel and continental Europe the Kings Cross Lands alternative would provide connectivity to other
See TAG Unit transport public transport services, and potentially prevent duplication of services that might be required with international connections from Euston.
3.7.1 interchange
Transport Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred
Interchange scheme –
++
Sub-Objective This inclusion of this alternative into the March 2010 preferred scheme would be significantly better than the HS2 March 2010 preferred
scheme in terms of connectivity to other public transport.
+
Potential to increase interchange opportunities with existing rail, bus and underground services that currently service Euston.
+ scheme –
Ability to accommodate mobility Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview of this alternative –
impaired access with option As per the March 2010 preferred scheme
(H, Eq) U
design
scheme –
U As per the March 2010 preferred scheme
design
As per the March 2010 preferred scheme
U
design
145
scheme –
U As per the March 2010 preferred scheme
design
12. Encourage 12a. Impacts on the key determinants of Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview of this alternative –
Health and physical Maintain and mental well-being(H, Eq) - Key determinants are equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
well-being fitness. See improve mental
TAG Unit well-being Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred
3.3.12 - scheme –
Physical No alternative changes the scheme enough to substantially alter impacts on key determinants
Fitness Sub-
Objective Euston Station - double deck (including throat): Overview of this alternative –
The scheme would introduce a permanent high level railway adjacent to some of the existing housing, and this is likely to generate some
-
additional noise and vibration impacts. Although this is not likely to be significantly different to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
Overall this is considered to be equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
- scheme –
No alternative changes the scheme enough to substantially alter impacts on key determinants
No. of residential dwellings within Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview of this alternative –
100m of surface sections of line Properties within 100m of the construction footprint of the scheme (Excludes Tunnels):
(potential for nuisance during
Dwellings 58
construction)
(E, H) Community 3
- Commercial 82
Industrial 0
Total: 143
Properties in this area are most susceptible to potential construction effects, including noise, dust, visual and traffic impacts.
scheme –
Properties within 100m of the construction footprint of the scheme (Excludes Tunnels):
Dwellings 5,417, which is less than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (7,453).
Community 85, which is less than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (100).
-
Commercial 802, which is less than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (835).
Industry 158, which is less than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (166).
Total 5,415, which is less than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (8,554).
Replacing Euston Station of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative would significantly reduce the numbers of
dwellings and properties exposed to potential nuisance.
Dwellings 2,094.
Community 18.
-
Commercial 115.
Industrial 8.
Total: 2,235
Properties in this area are most susceptible to potential construction effects, including noise, dust, visual and traffic impacts.
scheme –
- Dwellings 7,453, which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (7,453).
Community 100, which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (100).
Commercial 835, which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (835).
Industry 166, which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (166).
146
Total 8,554, which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (8,554).
Replacing Euston Station of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative would not increase or reduce the numbers of
dwellings and properties exposed to potential nuisance.
Impacts on areas with highest 20% of Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview of this alternative –
tranquillity scores U Some information on tranquillity is provided in Volume 1, though this does not provide information on the areas in the highest 20% and thus
(H) his criteria cannot be appraised at this stage.
scheme –
U
Some information on tranquillity is provided in Volume 1, though this does not provide information on the areas in the highest 20% and
thus, this criterion cannot be appraised at this stage.
scheme –
U
Some information on tranquillity is provided in Volume 1, though this does not provide information on the areas in the highest 20% and thus
Improve 12b. Potential to encourage a more healthy Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview of this alternative –
journey Maintain and lifestyle (e.g. through more active As described in the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme Framework, the following issues have the potential to impact on physical health:
ambience. See improve physical travel options) when accessing the
TAG Unit health network
3.3.13 Journey (H) Greenhouse gases: some potential health benefits if reductions achieved, but not tangible at a regional or local level on the basis of
Ambience HS2‟s contribution
Sub-Objective Water resources: potential for minor physical health benefits if positive improvement to river quality or groundwater.
infrequent.
Air quality: potential for physical impacts to health (e.g. respiratory illness etc) due to change in air quality caused by modal shift. In
addition, people who live within 100m of the route may be at risk of disturbance. This is further discussed below.
discussed below.
o
The central Birmingham station would tie in with existing public transport options;
Kings Cross station is already established, however there is the opportunity to allow for the provision of bicycle storage, cycle paths and
pedestrian walkways to the station.
Old Oak Common would be a new station in close proximity to existing tube and mainline services.
Birmingham international
There is scope to further encourage a healthier lifestyle. Benefits can be maximised, as set out under the HS2 March 2010 preferred
scheme Framework.
scheme –
o
There would be four stations (Kings Cross Lands, Old Oak Common, central Birmingham and Birmingham International Interchange
station), which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
147
As described in the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme Framework, the following issues have the potential to impact on physical health:
Greenhouse gases: some potential health benefits if reductions achieved, but not tangible at a regional or local level on the basis of
HS2‟s contribution
infrequent.
Air quality: potential for physical impacts to health (e.g. respiratory illness etc) due to change in air quality caused by modal shift. In
addition, people who live within 100m of the route may be at risk of disturbance. This is further discussed below.
discussed below.
o
The central Birmingham station would tie in with existing public transport options;
Euston station has excellent accessibility and is served by a range of interchange opportunities, as well as facilities for cyclists and
walkers.
Old Oak Common would be a new station in close proximity to existing tube and mainline services.
Birmingham International
There is scope to further encourage a healthier lifestyle. Benefits can be maximised, as set out under the HS2 March 2010 preferred
scheme Framework.
scheme –
o
There would be four stations (Euston Double Deck, Old Oak Common, central Birmingham and Birmingham International Interchange
station), which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
Impacts on the key determinants of Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview of this alternative –
o
health status and lifestyle factors such as smoking, which would increase vulnerability air quality changes.
Other issues:
148
scheme –
The impacts to physical health are considered to be limited for the combined scheme and replacing Euston Station of the HS2 March 2010
o
preferred scheme with this alternative is not likely to increase or reduce the impacts and is considered equivalent to the HS2 March 2010
preferred scheme.
To be further confirmed pending detailed design.
Any potential impacts to physical health would most likely be as a result of increase/exacerbation of cardiovascular and respiratory disease
(due to changes in air quality during construction).
Other issues:
scheme –
The impacts to physical health are considered to be limited for the combined scheme and replacing Euston Station of the HS2 March 2010
o
preferred scheme with this alternative is not likely to increase or reduce the impacts and is considered equivalent to the HS2 March 2010
preferred scheme.
To be further confirmed pending detailed design.
No NATA 12c. Impacts on the key determinants of Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview of this alternative –
equivalent health inequality o
Reduce health As per the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
scheme –
o As per the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
Replacing Euston Station of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative is unlikely to result in health inequalities different
from those of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
o
scheme –
o
Replacing Euston Station of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative is unlikely to result in health inequalities different
149
from those of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
13. Reduce 13a. Change in likelihood of accidents as a Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview of this alternative –
Security and accidents. See Contribute to the result of option (modal shift) Preliminary demand model outputs indicate that there is the potential for some modal shift from road to rail (both HS2 and released
safety TAG Unit 3.4.1 reduction of road (H, Eq) o capacity). However, the reduction in the number of road trips is not expected to be significant when considering overall traffic flows. The
Sub-Objective effect on road traffic incident rates. Until more detailed road traffic modelling has been undertaken, this objective remains unknown.
scheme –
o
Replacing Euston Station of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative is considered equivalent to the March 2010
preferred scheme.
Euston Station - double deck (including throat): Overview of this alternative – –
Preliminary demand model outputs indicate that there is the potential for some modal shift from road to rail (both HS2 and released
o capacity). However, the reduction in the number of road trips is not expected to be significant when considering overall traffic flows. The
resultant shift may reduce a small number of road traffic accidents from some existing motorways but is unlikely to have any measurable
effect on road traffic incident rates. Until more detailed road traffic modelling has been undertaken, this objective remains unknown.
scheme –
o
Replacing Euston Station of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative is considered equivalent to the March 2010
preferred scheme.
Improve 13b. Features that might increase crime or Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview of this alternative –
The stations, footbridges and other pedestrian access areas would be assumed to be designed in accordance with the 'Secured by Design'
Security Sub- crime document.
Objective
U
Design' document
There would also be the assumption that safe waiting rooms would be incorporated into the design specification accreditation
sought under the Government, British Transport Police and Crime Concern Secure Stations Scheme.
U scheme –
This criterion would be tested during detailed design.
The stations, footbridges and other pedestrian access areas would be assumed to be designed in accordance with the 'Secured by Design'
document.
o
Design' document
There would also be the assumption that safe waiting rooms would be incorporated into the design specification accreditation
sought under the Government, British Transport Police and Crime Concern Secure Stations Scheme.
o
14. To support 14a. Net business impacts for transport Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview of this alternative –
Economic sustainable users (i.e. excluding environmental ++
Support economic As per the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme
prosperity economic competitiveness and wider economic benefits and
activity and get costs) Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred
and make efficient
good value for ++ scheme –
use of public funds
money. See This alternative would be equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme
TAG Units Euston Station - double deck (including throat): Overview of this alternative –
3.5.1 to 3.5.14. ++
++ Euston Station - double deck (including throat): Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred
scheme –
150
Provide 14b. Changes in agglomeration, market Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview of this alternative –
beneficial competiveness and labour +
Support wider As per the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme
wider economic growth productivity
economic Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred
and maintain and
impacts. See + scheme –
enhance
TAG Unit Units employment This alternative would be equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme
3.5.8 and opportunities Euston Station - double deck (including throat): Overview of this alternative –
3.5.10 to +
3.5.14, As per the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme
+ scheme –
Impacts on labour markets Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview of this alternative –
o
o scheme –
o
o scheme –
15. Provide 15a. Net benefits for consumers and Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview of this alternative –
Support wider As per the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme
welfare transport user economic welfare (Eq)
impacts, wider Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred
growth
economic ++ scheme –
impacts and This alternative would be equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme
integrate with Euston Station - double deck (including throat): Overview of this alternative –
land use ++
policy. See As per the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme
TAG Unit Euston Station - double deck (including throat): Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred
Units3.5.1 to ++ scheme –
3.5.14, Tag This alternative would be equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme
Unit 3.7.2
Land Use 15b. Impacts on planned regional growth Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview of this alternative –
areas o
Policy Sub- Support planned Impacts on planned regional growth areas – None identified (0)
Objective developments
scheme –
o
Replacing Euston Station of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative would not have additional impacts on planned
regional growth areas.
o
Impacts on planned regional growth areas – None identified (0)
scheme –
o
regional growth areas.
Impacts on planned major housing Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview of this alternative –
and sustainable housing Site is location of significant sustainable communities‟ development in a deprived area of Camden and Islington. The current Kings Cross
developments -- Lands Masterplan would help create employment, provide new housing and amenity space. A Kings Cross Lands station would disrupt
these aspirations and affect a substantial proportion of the initial phase of that development and future development phase that are
planned.
-- scheme –
Replacing Euston Station of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative would have significant increased impacts on
151
planned housing developments.
o
Impacts on planned housing developments – None identified (0)
scheme –
--
housing developments.
Impacts on other planned major Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview of this alternative –
developments Site is location of significant sustainable communities‟ development in a deprived area of Camden and Islington. The current Kings Cross
-- Lands Masterplan would help create employment, provide new housing and amenity space. A Kings Cross Lands station would disrupt
these aspirations and affect a substantial proportion of the initial phase of that development and future development phase that are
planned.
scheme –
--
Replacing Euston Station of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative would have an increased impact on planned major
developments.
o
Impacts on planned major developments – None identified (0)
scheme –
--
Replacing Euston Station of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative would not have additional impacts on other
planned major developments.
15c. Impacts on other defined regeneration Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview of this alternative –
Maintain and areas Site is location of significant sustainable communities‟ development in a deprived area of Camden and Islington. The current Kings Cross
enhance (E, H, Eq) Lands Masterplan would help create employment, provide new housing and amenity space. A Kings Cross Lands station would disrupt
--
regeneration these aspirations and affect a substantial proportion of the initial phase of that development and future development phase that are
planned and would also be likely to affect the timing and nature of any other regenerative development which could be expected to occur in
the wider surrounding area with an HS2 station here.
scheme –
--
Replacing Euston Station of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative would have an increased impact on defined
regeneration areas.
+
Impacts on planned regional growth areas – None identified (0)
scheme –
+
Replacing Euston Station of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative would have would not have additional impacts on
other defined regeneration areas.
16. No NATA 16a. Impacts on Grade 1 and 2 agricultural Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview of this alternative –
Soil and equivalent Maintain and land crossed by surface or cut and o Grade 1 Agricultural Land affected – 0 hectares
land enhance land cover sections
resources resources
scheme –
Grade 2 Agricultural Land affected – 251.5 hectares, which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
Replacing Euston Station of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative would not have an increased impact on agricultural
land.
Euston Station - double deck (including throat): Overview of this alternative
o Grade 1 Agricultural Land affected – 0 hectares
152
scheme –
Grade 2 Agricultural Land affected – 251.5 hectares, which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
Replacing Euston Station of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative would not have an increased impact on agricultural
land.
Length of Green Belt land crossed by Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview of this alternative –
surface sections o Green Belt land affected by the scheme:
scheme –
--
Green Belt land affected – 85.4km, which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
Euston Station - double deck (including throat): Overview of this alternative -
o Green Belt land affected by the scheme:
scheme –
--
Green Belt land affected – 85.4km, which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
Area of land designated for mineral Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview of this alternative –
extraction that is sterilised as a result o
of option
o scheme –
o
o scheme –
Area of land designated for waste Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview of this alternative –
Currently authorised landfill sites – None (0)
scheme –
- 2
One Authorised Landfill sites of 0.088km (8.8ha)would be affected along this route. This is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred
scheme.
o
Currently authorised landfill sites – None (0)
scheme –
- 2
One Authorised Landfill sites of 0.088km (8.8ha)would be affected along this route. This is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred
scheme.
16b. Number of "high risk" brownfield sites Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview of this alternative –
brought back into beneficial use, o
Encourage the use No identified Brownfield sites.
of brownfield sites either wholly or partially.
(E,H) Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred
scheme –
+ Replacing Euston Station of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative would cross 23 identified Brownfield sites that
could be brought back into beneficial use, either wholly or partially, equivalent to 227.93Ha. This is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010
preferred scheme.
o Euston Station - double deck (including throat): Overview of this alternative
153
No identified Brownfield sites.
scheme –
+ Replacing Euston Station of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme with this alternative would cross 23 identified Brownfield sites that
could be brought back into beneficial use, either wholly or partially, equivalent to 227.93Ha. This is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010
preferred scheme.
17. No NATA 17a. Volumes of inert and non-hazardous Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview of this alternative –
equivalent waste spoil potentially requiring off- 3
Waste Prevent and Waste spoil generated = 3.03M m .General notes:
generation minimise waste line disposal as a result of option
- It has been assumed that waste would be dominated by tunnel spoil, with a balance achieved between spoil from cuttings and land-
production (E,H)
- scheme –
3 3
Volume of waste spoil generated = 4.88M m , which is significantly more than the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (1.85M m ).
Euston Station - double deck (including throat): Overview of this alternative -
Negligible (No tunnels)
General notes:
o
It has been assumed that waste would be dominated by tunnel spoil, with a balance achieved between spoil from cuttings and land-
- scheme –
3 3
Volume of waste spoil generated = 1.85M m , which is equivalent to the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme (1.85M m ).
Volumes of hazardous waste spoil Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview of this alternative –
potentially requiring pre-treatment U
Detailed studies and Land investigations required to appraise these criteria.
prior to off-site disposal
(H) Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview when combined with other elements of the HS2 March 2010 preferred
U scheme –
U
U scheme –
18. No NATA 18a. Potential to make more efficient use Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview of this alternative –
Resource equivalent Conserve and of resources At this stage of the scheme the type and quantity of individual materials to be used is not clear. This is something that would be explored
use protect primary further during the detailed design stage.
material resources In general it is expected that the scheme would seek to make a commitment to utilise sustainable materials, particularly sustainable
U
timber is required.
This would depend on a number of considerations, including technical requirements for different structures (tunnel lining, viaducts
and track slab), availability and commercial considerations.
scheme –
It is anticipated that this would be roughly equivalent to the London Terminus of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
U
154
timber is required.
scheme –
It is anticipated that this would be roughly equivalent to the London Terminus of the HS2 March 2010 preferred scheme.
Potential to re-use materials as a Kings Cross Lands Station (including throat): Overview of this alternative –
result of option (e.g. demolition At this stage of the scheme the type and quantity of individual materials to be used is not clear. This is something that would be explored
materials) further during the detailed design stage.
U
timber is required.
scheme –
U
U
timber is required.
scheme –
U
155
Appendix 6.8
Plans of March 2010 Preferred Scheme and Main Alternatives
156
517500 520000 522500 525000 527500 530000 532500 535000 537500 540000 542500
192000
Enfield London Borough Epping Forest District Key
Dolis Brook
M1 March 2010 Preferred Route
Surface
Harrow London Borough Tunnel
WCML
190000
Barnet London Borough Haringey London Borough

Redbridge London Borough
W Waltham Forest London Borough
188000
186000
Brent London Borough A406 A41 Hackney London Borough
Camden London Borough

Islington London Borough
STRATFORD
WILLESDEN
184000
River Brent
Newham London Borough
Euston Station
A12
182000
Ealing London Borough
A40 City and County of the City of London Tower Hamlets London Borough
LING
City of Westminster London Borough LONDON Client:
Old Oak Common Station

180000
Kensington and Chelsea London Borough Job Title:
HS2
HAMMERSMITH
Drawing Title:
Hounslow London Borough

A4 Overview
178000
March 2010 Preferred Route

Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough
GREENWICH (Map 1 of 8)
London Terminus and Approach
Drawing Status: Drawing Number: Map No:
Southwark London Borough Version 4 HS2-BZT-00-DR-SU-00010 1

Greenwich London Borough
River Thames This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with
176000
the permission of Ordnance Survey on

behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationary Office
© Crown copyright
Lambeth London Borough 0100049190
WANDSWORTH 0 0.5 1 2 3 4
RICHMOND km
174000
Wandsworth London Borough

Lewisham London Borough
Richmond upon Thames London Borough
STREATHAM
172000
I
Merton London Borough
Kingston upon Thames London Borough Bromley London Borough
Croydon London Borough
157
500000 502500 505000 507500 510000 512500 515000 517500 520000 522500 525000
Hertsmere District (B)

Key
M25 Surface
Three Rivers District
Tunnel
192000
River Colne NORTHWOOD Dolis B WCML

Chiltern District
M1
A4180 Barnet London Borough
River Misbourne
190000
Harrow London Borough
HARROW
River Pinn
188000
GERRARDS
CROSS A413 Yeading Brook
186000
Brent London Borough A406 A

South Bucks District Camden London Borough
M25 WILLESDEN
184000
Hillingdon London Borough A40 River Brent

A4007 HILLINGDON
City of Westminster London Borough Client:
182000

A4020 A40 Job Title:
HS2
EALING
H Old Oak Common Station
Drawing Title:
180000
Overview
(Map 2 of 8)
West London
HAMMERSMITH
Slough (B) Drawing Status: Drawing Number: Map No:
M4 A4 Version 4 HS2-BZT-00-DR-SU-00011 2
178000
This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with

© Crown copyright
Hounslow London Borough 0100049190
0 0.5 1 2 3 4
A4 km
176000
HEATHROW
Windsor and Maidenhead (B)
AIRPORT WANDS
RICHMOND Wandsworth London Borough
174000
Richmond upon Thames London Borough
Spelthorne District (B)
I
172000
Runnymede District (B) Kingston upon Thames London Borough Merton London Borough
158
480000 482500 485000 487500 490000 492500 495000 497500 500000 502500 505000
Key

A41 Surface
210000
Tunnel
WCML
Aylesbury Vale District
WENDOVER
208000
Dacorum District (B)
H
206000
PRINCESS
204000
RISBOROUGH
A413
CHESHAM
202000
GREAT
MISSENDEN Client:
200000
Chiltern District
Job Title:
River Chess HS2
AMERSHAM
A4010 Drawing Title:
198000
Overview
Wycombe District March 2010 Preferred Route
(Map 3 of 8)
Chilterns
Version 4 HS2-BZT-00-DR-SU-00012 3
196000

RICKMANSWORTH © Crown copyright
0100049190
A355 0 0.5 1 2 3 4
km
194000
HIGH WYCOMBE M25

192000
River Colne
South Bucks District
M40
I BEACONSFIELD River Misbourne
190000
159
462500 465000 467500 470000 472500 475000 477500 480000 482500 485000
Milton Keynes (B)

Key
A421 A421 March 2010 Preferred Route

232000
Surface
Tunnel
230000
A4421
Claydon Brook
WINSLOW
228000
Padbury Brook
STEEPLE
CLAYDON HS2 Potential Infrastructure Depot
226000
A413
a y Line
Cherwell District
R ailw
ey
tchl
224000
ord -Ble
Oxf
222000

Client:
River Ray River Ray

A4
Job Title:
HS2
220000
Doddershall Brook Drawing Title:
Overview
(Map 4 of 8)
Aylesbury Vale
218000
A41 Fleet Marston Brook Version 4 HS2-BZT-00-DR-SU-00013 4

© Crown copyright
0100049190
Dacorum District (B)
216000
0 0.5 1 2 3 4
km
AYLESBURY
BRILL
214000
River Bear
River Thame
I
212000
South Oxfordshire District
160
445000 447500 450000 452500 455000 457500 460000 462500 465000 467500 470000
Key
254000

River Cherwell Surface
Tunnel
Daventry District
Stratford-on-Avon District
HINTON
High Furlong Brook
252000
A361
BLAKESEY
250000
TOWCESTER
River Tove
248000
River Cherwell
246000
South Northamptonshire District

244000
SILVERSTONE
Client:
242000
Job Title:
HS2
BANBURY MIDDLETON Drawing Title:
CHENEY Overview
(Map 5 of 8)
240000
Brackley
A422 River Great Ouse

Drawing Status:
Version 4
Drawing Number:
HS2-BZT-00-DR-SU-00014
Map No:
5
© Crown copyright
238000
0100049190
Cherwell District
0 0.5 1 2 3 4
BRACKLEY Aylesbury Vale District km
236000
River Great Ouse

234000
BUCKINGHA
I
161
427500 430000 432500 435000 437500 440000 442500 445000 447500 450000 452500
276000
Coventry District (B) Key

Solihull District (B)
Canley Brook March 2010 Preferred Route
Surface
RUGBY Tunnel
Finham Brook WCML

274000
River Sowe River Avon A423 A45

272000
KENILWORTH
A46
Rugby District (B)
A426
270000
River Leam River Leam

River Avon
268000
Warwick District
ROYAL LEAMINGTON
SPA
266000
WARWICK
Client:
River Itchen
264000
Job Title:
HS2
A425 Drawing Title:
Overview
262000
SOUTHAM March 2010 Preferred Route

(Map 6 of 8)
Royal Leamington Spa
260000

© Crown copyright
0100049190
0 0.5 1 2 3 4
Stratford-on-Avon District
km
258000
BISHOP'S
Daventry District
M40 ITCHINGTON
A423
256000
I South Northamptonshire District
162
405000 407500 410000 412500 415000 417500 420000 422500 425000 427500 430000
Key
Walsall District (B) SUTTON Surface
296000
M6 TOLL KINGSBURY
COLDFIELD Tunnel
WCML
KINGSTANDING
294000
M6
292000
Washwood Heath - River Tame

Proposed Rolling Stock Depot River Bourne Nuneaton and Bedworth District (B)
A38
Curzon Street Station
290000
North Warwickshire District (B)

ASTON
Birmingham District (B)

M6 COLESHILL
288000
River Cole River Blythe

BIRMINGHAM
A452
286000
Client:
M6
Job Title:
River Rea BIRMINGHAM HS2
284000
INTERNATIONAL Drawing Title:
Overview
AIRPORT March 2010 Preferred Route
A41 A45 (Map 7 of 8)
Birmingham and Approaches
A435 Drawing Status: Drawing Number: Map No:
282000
Birmingham Interchange Station

M42 This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with
© Crown copyright
0100049190
Solihull District (B) Coventry District (B) 0 0.5 1 2 3 4

280000
km
SOLIHULL
A34 River Blythe
278000
TILE HILL
Bromsgrove District
A452
I
276000
Warwick District
Canley Brook
163
405000 407500 410000 412500 415000 417500 420000 422500 425000 427500 430000
318000
Key

East Staffordshire District (B) Surface
Cannock Chase District
River Trent
Tunnel
316000
WCML
Bourne Brook
A51 South Derbyshire District
A515
314000
A38
Link to WCML North
312000
North West Leicestershire District

River Mease
310000
LICHFIELD
Lichfield District
308000
River Tame M42 Client:

306000
M6 TOLL A38 Job Title:
HS2
TAMWORTH Drawing Title:
Overview
304000
(Map 8 of 8)
WCML Connection
Tamworth District (B) Drawing Status: Drawing Number: Map No:
Hinckley and Bosworth District (B)
302000
Bourne Brook © Crown copyright
0100049190
ALDRIDGE North Warwickshire District (B)

0 0.5 1 2 3 4
km
Walsall District (B)
300000
M6 TOLL A5
298000
Birmingham District (B)

Langley Brook
I SUTTON
M6 TOLL
M42
KINGSBURY
164
517500 520000 522500 525000 527500 530000 532500 535000 537500 540000 542500
192000
Dolis Brook Key

Surface
Lee Valley (Special Protection Area) Tunnel

190000
WCML
World Heritage Site
Ramsar
W Regents Park Special Areas of Conservation
(Grade I Registered Park & Garden)
Special Protection Areas
188000
SSSI
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Kensal Green Cemetery National Nature Reserves

(Grade I Registered Park & Garden) National Park
Epping Forest
Scheduled Monuments
(Special Area of Conservation,
186000
SSSI) Parks & Gardens

A406 A41 Historical Battlefields
!
. Listed Building Grade I
Start of tunnel from Euston Station
STRATFORD Listed Building Grade I
!
. Listed Building Grade II*
WILLESDEN
184000
Listed Building Grade II*

River Brent
Euston Station
A12
182000
A40
LING LONDON Client:

180000
Job Title:
Dept of Health and Social Security HS2
HAMMERSMITH Numbers 2-16,22-34, 36a, 36b Park Village East
(Listed Buildings Grade II*) Drawing Title:
A4 March 2010 Preferred Route (Map 1A)

178000
GREENWICH Sustainability Features

London Terminus and Approach
Wimbledon Common Drawing Status: Drawing Number: Map No:
(SSSI, Special Area of Conservation) Version 4 HS2-BZT-00-DR-SU-00018 9

176000

© Crown copyright
0100049190
RICHMOND km
174000
STREATHAM
172000
I
Richmond Park
(Registered Park & Garden, SSSI,
Special Area of Conservation)
165
517500 520000 522500 525000 527500 530000 532500 535000 537500 540000 542500
192000
Key
Dolis Brook
Surface
Tunnel
190000
WCML
Ancient Woodland
BAP Habitats
W Local Nature Reserves
Country Parks
188000
National Trust Covenants
National Trust Ownership
Countryside & Rights of Way

Kensal Green Cemetery
Community Forests
(SINC)
Forestry Commission Woodland
186000
Doorstep Greens
A406 A41 Millennium Greens
Start of tunnel from Euston Station RSPB Sites

STRATFORD National Cycle Route
WILLESDEN
184000
River Brent
Euston Station
A12
182000
A40
LING LONDON Client:

180000
Job Title:
HS2
HAMMERSMITH
Drawing Title:
A4 March 2010 Preferred Route (Map 1B)

178000
Sustainability Features
GREENWICH London Terminus and Approach
Wormwood Scrubs and Little Wormwood Scrubs
(Local Nature Reserve,Public Right of Way, SINC) Drawing Status: Drawing Number: Map No:
176000

© Crown copyright
0100049190
RICHMOND km
174000
STREATHAM
172000
I
166
517500 520000 522500 525000 527500 530000 532500 535000 537500 540000 542500
192000
Key
Dolis Brook
Surface
Tunnel
WCML
190000
.
! Listed Building Grade II
Listed Building Grade II

W Agricultural Land Grade 1
Agricultural Land Grade 2

188000
Authorised Landfill Sites
Flood Risk Zone 3
Flood Risk Zone 2
Individual Source Protection Zones

186000
Parkway Tunnel and Cutting

A406 A41 (Listed Buildings Grade II)

STRATFORD
WILLESDEN
184000
Statue of Robert Stephenson

River Brent (Listed Building Grade II)
Euston Station
A12
182000
Railings around Euston Square gardens

(Listed Building Grade II)
A40
LING LONDON Client:
Drinking Fountain in St James Garden

Old Oak Common Station (Listed Building Grade II) Numbers 9,14,15 and attached railings
180000
Melton Street
Job Title:
(Grade II Listed Buildings)
HS2
HAMMERSMITH
Drawing Title:
A4 March 2010 Preferred Route (Map 1C)

178000
176000

© Crown copyright
0100049190
RICHMOND km
174000
STREATHAM
172000
I
167
517500 520000 522500 525000 527500 530000 532500 535000 537500 540000 542500
192000
Key
Dolis Brook
Surface
Tunnel
WCML
190000
!
. Key Growth Area Locations
!
. Growth Point
W !
. Additional Growth Points
!
. Locally Identified Areas for Growth
Growth Areas
188000
Indices of Deprivation Most Deprived 20%
Green Belt
186000
A406 A41
STRATFORD
WILLESDEN
184000
River Brent
Euston Station
A12
182000
A40
LING LONDON Client:

180000
Job Title:
HS2
HAMMERSMITH
Drawing Title:
A4 March 2010 Preferred Route (Map 1D)

178000
Community & Spatial Planning Features

176000

© Crown copyright
0100049190
RICHMOND km
174000
STREATHAM
172000
I
168
500000 502500 505000 507500 510000 512500 515000 517500 520000 522500 525000
Key

Surface
Mid Colne Valley (SSSI)
Tunnel
192000
Ruislip Woods M1 World Heritage Site
A4180 (SSSI, National Nature Reserve) Ramsar
Special Areas of Conservation

River Misbourne Special Protection Areas
190000
SSSI

HARROW National Nature Reserves
Mound with Ditch and Outer bank River Pinn
200ft South of Savay Farm National Park
(Scheduled Monument)
188000
Scheduled Monuments
WEST RUISLIP Parks & Gardens

GERRARDS Kensal Green Cemetery Historical Battlefields
CROSS A413 Yeading Brook (Grade I Registered Park & Garden) !

Listed Building Grade I

186000
!
Savay Farm
(Grade I Listed Building) A406 A Listed Building Grade II*
M25 Brackenbury Farm Moated Site

WILLESDEN
184000
A40 River Brent
A4007 HILLINGDON
Client:
182000
A4020 Hoover Factory - Main Front Block A40 Job Title:

and Canteen Block HS2
(Grade II* Listed Building) EALING
Drawing Title:
180000
March 2010 Preferred Route (Map 2A)

West London
HAMMERSMITH
178000

© Crown copyright
0100049190
Wimbledon Common
0 0.5 1 2 3 4
(Special Area of Conservation, SSSI)
A4 km
176000
HEATHROW
AIRPORT WANDS
RICHMOND
174000
Richmond Park
South West London Waterbodies SSSI, Registered Park & Garden)
I
(Special Protection Area)
172000
169
500000 502500 505000 507500 510000 512500 515000 517500 520000 522500 525000
Key
Northmoor Hill Wood March 2010 Preferred Route

M25 (Local Nature Reserve, Ancient Woodland) Surface
Tunnel
192000
River Colne NORTHWOOD Dolis B

WCML
Reed Beds (BAP Habitat) M1 Ancient Woodland
BAP Habitats
A4180 Local Nature Reserves
Mid Colne Valley
River Misbourne (SINC)
Perivale Wood Country Parks
190000
(Local Nature Reserve, National Trust Covenants

Ancient Woodland,SMI)
National Cycle River Pinn (SINC) National Trust Ownership
Route HARROW Countryside & Rights of Way
River Pinn Community Forests

188000
WEST RUISLIP Doorstep Greens
GERRARDS Millennium Greens

(SINC)
RSPB Sites
National Cycle Route
Ruislip Golf Course and Old Priory Meadows
(SINC)
186000
Frays Valley
A406 A
(Local Nature Reserve)
Yeading Brook (SINC)

M25 WILLESDEN
184000
North Denham Green Woodland

(BAP Habitat, Ancient Woodland, Public Right of Way) A40 River Brent
A4007 HILLINGDON
Client:
182000
HS2
Grand Union Canal (SINC), EALING
H National Cycle Route Old Oak Common Station
Drawing Title:
180000
March 2010 Preferred Route (Map 2B)

West London
HAMMERSMITH
178000

© Crown copyright
0100049190
0 0.5 1 2 3 4
A4 Wormwood Scrubs and Little Wormwood Scrubs km
176000
(Local Nature Reserve, SINC)

HEATHROW
AIRPORT WANDS
RICHMOND
174000
I
172000
170
500000 502500 505000 507500 510000 512500 515000 517500 520000 522500 525000
Key

Surface
Tunnel
192000
M1 .
A4180 Listed Building Grade II

River Misbourne Agricultural Land Grade 2
190000
Flood Risk Zone 3

HARROW Flood Risk Zone 2
River Pinn
188000
GERRARDS
186000
A406 A
M25 WILLESDEN
184000
A40 River Brent

A4007 HILLINGDON
Client:
182000
HS2
EALING
Drawing Title:
180000
March 2010 Preferred Route (Map 2C)

West London
HAMMERSMITH
178000

© Crown copyright
0100049190
0 0.5 1 2 3 4
A4 km
176000
HEATHROW
AIRPORT WANDS
RICHMOND
174000
I
172000
171
500000 502500 505000 507500 510000 512500 515000 517500 520000 522500 525000
Key
M25 Surface
Tunnel
192000
M1 !
A4180 !
. Growth Point
!
River Misbourne !
190000
Green Belt
Growth Areas
HARROW Indices of Deprivation Most Deprived 20%

River Pinn Indices of Deprivation Most Deprived 50%
188000
WEST RUISLIP
GERRARDS
186000
A406 A
M25 WILLESDEN
184000
A40 River Brent

A4007 HILLINGDON
Client:
182000
HS2
EALING
Drawing Title:
180000
March 2010 Preferred Route (Map 2D)

Spatial Planning Features
West London
HAMMERSMITH
178000

© Crown copyright
0100049190
0 0.5 1 2 3 4
A4 km
176000
HEATHROW
AIRPORT WANDS
RICHMOND
174000
I
172000
172
480000 482500 485000 487500 490000 492500 495000 497500 500000 502500 505000
Key
HS2 Preferred Route
A41 Surface
Tunnel
210000
WCML
Parish Church of St Mary World Heritage Site
(Listed Building Grade II*)
Ramsar
WENDOVER Special Areas of Conservation

208000
SSSI
Bacombe & Coombe Hills
(SSSI) Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
H National Nature Reserves
Chilterns National Park

206000
(Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty) Scheduled Monuments
Parks & Gardens
Historical Battlefields
!
PRINCESS Grim's Ditch Listed Building Grade I

204000
(Scheduled Monument) !
RISBOROUGH
A413 Listed Building Grade II*
Chilterns Beechwood - Kimble Warren

(Special Area of Conservation & SSSI)
CHESHAM
202000
Chilterns Beechwood - Windsor Hill

GREAT
MISSENDEN Shardeloes Client:
200000
(Grade II* Registered Park & Garden)

Chilterns Beechwood - Park Wood / Naphill Common/
The Coppice / Bradenham Wood Job Title:
(Special Area of Conservation & SSSI) River Chess

AMERSHAM HS2
198000

Chilterns
196000

0100049190
A355 0 0.5 1 2 3 4
km
194000
HIGH WYCOMBE M25

192000
River Colne
M40
190000
173
480000 482500 485000 487500 490000 492500 495000 497500 500000 502500 505000
Key

National Trail A41 Surface
210000
Tunnel
WCML
Ancient Woodland
BAP Habitats
WENDOVER Local Nature Reserves

208000
Bacombe Hill Country Parks

(Local Nature Reserve, Public Right of Way,
BAP Habitat)
H Countryside & Rights of Way
Community Forests
206000
Durham Farm Forestry Commission Woodland

(Ancient Woodland, BAP Habitat) Doorstep Greens
Millennium Greens
RSPB Sites
Jenkins Wood
PRINCESS (Ancient Woodland, BAP Habitat)
204000
RISBOROUGH National Cycle Route

A413
Sibleys Coppice
(Ancient Woodland, BAP Habitat)
CHESHAM
202000
Havenfield Wood
Mantles Wood / Farthings Wood
GREAT (Ancient Woodland, BAP Habitat,
Forestry Commission Woodland,SINC)
MISSENDEN Client:
Weedonhill Wood / High Spring/ Ostlers Wood/
200000
Keepers Wood / Ash Grove

(Ancient Woodland, BAP Habitat,
Rook Wood Forestry Commission Woodland,SINC) Job Title:
(Ancient Woodland, BAB Habitat, River Chess HS2

Forestry Commission Woodland) AMERSHAM
198000

Chilterns
196000

0100049190
A355 0 0.5 1 2 3 4
km
194000
HIGH WYCOMBE M25

192000
River Colne
M40
190000
174
480000 482500 485000 487500 490000 492500 495000 497500 500000 502500 505000
Key
A41 Surface
Tunnel
210000
WCML
.
WENDOVER Agricultural Land Grade 1

208000
Flood Risk Zone 3
Flood Risk Zone 2

H Individual Source Protection Zones
206000
PRINCESS
204000
RISBOROUGH
A413
CHESHAM
202000
GREAT
MISSENDEN Client:
200000
Job Title:
River Chess HS2
AMERSHAM
Barns & Outhouses at Hyde Farmhouse
198000

(Listed Building Grade II) Sustainability Features
Chilterns
196000

0100049190
A355 0 0.5 1 2 3 4
km
194000
HIGH WYCOMBE M25

192000
River Colne
M40
190000
175
480000 482500 485000 487500 490000 492500 495000 497500 500000 502500 505000
South East Aylesbury

Key
A41 Surface
Tunnel
210000
WCML
!
!
. Growth Point
WENDOVER !
!
.
208000
Locally Identified Areas for Growth
Growth Areas

H
Green Belt
206000
PRINCESS
204000
RISBOROUGH
A413
CHESHAM
202000
GREAT
MISSENDEN Client:
200000
Job Title:
River Chess HS2
AMERSHAM
198000

Chilterns
196000

0100049190
A355 0 0.5 1 2 3 4
km
194000
HIGH WYCOMBE M25

192000
River Colne
M40
190000
176
462500 465000 467500 470000 472500 475000 477500 480000 482500 485000
Key

232000
Surface
Tunnel
World Heritage Site

Church of St Marys and St Nicholas
Ramsar
(Listed Building Grade I)
230000
SSSI
A4421 Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
National Nature Reserves

Claydon Brook National Park
WINSLOW
228000
Scheduled Monuments
Parks & Gardens
Padbury Brook
STEEPLE Historical Battlefields
!

226000
Church of St Mary !
(Listed Building Grade I) Listed Building Grade II*
Sheephouse Wood A413
a y Line (SSSI)
R ailw
ey
tchl
224000
ord -Ble
Oxf Finmere Wood
(SSSI)
222000
Client:
River Ray River Ray

A4
Job Title:
HS2
220000

Aylesbury Vale
218000

© Crown copyright
0100049190
216000
0 0.5 1 2 3 4
km
Waddesdon Manor
AYLESBURY
BRILL
214000
Hartwell House
River Bear
River Thame
I
212000
Pavilion (The Cot) South-East

of Hartwell House
177
462500 465000 467500 470000 472500 475000 477500 480000 482500 485000
Key

232000
Surface
National Cycle Route Tunnel
Ancient Woodland
BAP Habitats
Glebeland Lake Local Nature Reserves

230000
(Local Nature Reserve) Country Parks
A4421 National Trust Ownership

Claydon Brook Community Forests
WINSLOW
228000
Doorstep Greens
Padbury Brook
STEEPLE Millennium Greens
CLAYDON HS2 Potential Infrastructure Depot RSPB Sites
226000
Twyford
(BAP Habitat) Decoypond Wood
(Ancient Woodland, BAP Habitat) A413
a y Line Sheephouse Wood
yR ailw (Ancient Woodland, BAP Habitat)
chle
224000
B let
ord-
Oxf Thames and Avon Vale (NE Natural Area) Balmore Wood
Finemere Wood
222000

Client:
River Ray River Ray

A4
Job Title:
HS2
220000

Aylesbury Vale
218000

© Crown copyright
0100049190
216000
0 0.5 1 2 3 4
km
AYLESBURY
BRILL
214000
River Bear
River Thame
I
212000
178
462500 465000 467500 470000 472500 475000 477500 480000 482500 485000
Key
A421 Finmere Quarry A421 March 2010 Preferred Route

232000
(Authorised Landfill Site) Surface
Tunnel
.

230000
A4421 Flood Risk Zone 3
Flood Risk Zone 2

Claydon Brook Individual Source Protection Zones
WINSLOW
228000
Padbury Brook
STEEPLE
226000
A413
a y Line Calvert Landfill Site
(Authorised Landfill)
R ailw
ey
tchl
224000
ord -Ble
Oxf
222000
Client:
River Ray River Ray

A4
Job Title:
HS2
220000

Aylesbury Vale
218000

© Crown copyright
0100049190
216000
0 0.5 1 2 3 4
km
AYLESBURY
BRILL
214000
River Bear
River Thame
I
212000
179
462500 465000 467500 470000 472500 475000 477500 480000 482500 485000
Key
A421 A421 South West Milton Keynes March 2010 Preferred Route
232000
Surface
Tunnel
!
!
. Growth Point
!
230000
!
Growth Areas
A4421 Indices of Deprivation Most Deprived 20%

Claydon Brook
WINSLOW
228000
Green Belt
Padbury Brook
STEEPLE
226000
A413
a y Line
R ailw
ey
tchl
224000
ord -Ble
Oxf
222000
Client:
River Ray River Ray

A4
Job Title:
HS2
220000

Aylesbury Vale
218000

© Crown copyright
North East Aylesbury 0100049190
216000
0 0.5 1 2 3 4
km
East Aylesbury
AYLESBURY
BRILL
214000
River Bear
River Thame
I
212000
180
445000 447500 450000 452500 455000 457500 460000 462500 465000 467500 470000
Key
254000

Tunnel
HINTON World Heritage Site
High Furlong Brook Ramsar

252000

A361 Special Protection Areas
SSSI
BLAKESEY Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

250000
National Park
TOWCESTER Scheduled Monuments
Upper Cherwell at Trafford House Parks & Gardens
(SSSI) Historical Battlefields
River Tove
!
248000

River Cherwell
!
Roman Villa Listed Building Grade II*
246000
Lower Thorpe Bowl Barrow

The Manor House

244000
(Listed Buildings Grade II*) SILVERSTONE

Client:
242000
Job Title:
HS2
CHENEY March 2010 Preferred Route (Map 5A)

Brackley
240000

Drawing Status:
Version 4
Drawing Number:
Map No:
25
Turweston House and Church of St Mary's the permission of Ordnance Survey on
(Listed Buildings Grade II*) © Crown copyright

238000
0100049190
0 0.5 1 2 3 4
BRACKLEY km
236000
River Great Ouse

234000
BUCKINGHA
I
181
445000 447500 450000 452500 455000 457500 460000 462500 465000 467500 470000
Key
254000

Tunnel
HINTON Ancient Woodland
High Furlong Brook BAP Habitats

252000
Local Nature Reserves

A361 Country Parks

BLAKESEY
250000
Community Forests
TOWCESTER Forestry Commission Woodland
Doorstep Greens
Millennium Greens
River Tove
RSPB Sites
248000
River Cherwell
Midlands Clay Pastures (NE Natural Area)

246000
Halse Copse 1
244000
SILVERSTONE
Client:
Halse Copse 2
Radstone
242000
Job Title:
(BAP Habitat) HS2
CHENEY March 2010 Preferred Route(Map 5B)

Brackley
240000

Drawing Status:
Version 4
Drawing Number:
Map No:
26
© Crown copyright
238000
0100049190
0 0.5 1 2 3 4
BRACKLEY km
236000
River Great Ouse

234000
BUCKINGHA
I
182
445000 447500 450000 452500 455000 457500 460000 462500 465000 467500 470000
Key
254000

Tunnel
HINTON .
High Furlong Brook Listed Building Grade II

252000

A361 Agricultural Land Grade 2
BLAKESEY Flood Risk Zone 3
Flood Risk Zone 2

250000

TOWCESTER
River Tove
248000
River Cherwell
246000
244000
SILVERSTONE
Client:
242000
Job Title:
HS2
CHENEY March 2010 Preferred Route (Map 5C)

Brackley
240000

Drawing Status:
Version 4
Drawing Number:
Map No:
27
© Crown copyright
238000
0100049190
0 0.5 1 2 3 4
BRACKLEY km
236000
River Great Ouse

234000
BUCKINGHA
I
183
445000 447500 450000 452500 455000 457500 460000 462500 465000 467500 470000
Key
254000

Tunnel
HINTON !
High Furlong Brook !

. Growth Point
252000
!
A361 !
!
. Scottish Growth Points
BLAKESEY Growth Areas

250000

TOWCESTER
Green Belt
River Tove
248000
River Cherwell
246000
244000
SILVERSTONE
Client:
242000
Job Title:
HS2
CHENEY March 2010 Preferred Route (Map 5D)

Brackley
240000

Drawing Status:
Version 4
Drawing Number:
Map No:
28
© Crown copyright
238000
0100049190
0 0.5 1 2 3 4
BRACKLEY km
236000
River Great Ouse

234000
BUCKINGHA
I
184
427500 430000 432500 435000 437500 440000 442500 445000 447500 450000 452500
276000
Key
Surface
RUGBY Tunnel
Finham Brook WCML

274000
World Heritage Site
River Sowe River Avon A423 A45 Ramsar

Stoneleigh Abbey
272000
KENILWORTH (Grade II* Registered Park & Garden)

SSSI

A46 National Park
Scheduled Monuments
A426
270000
Parks & Gardens
!

River Leam River Leam !
River Avon
268000
ROYAL LEAMINGTON
SPA
266000
WARWICK
Client:
River Itchen
264000
Job Title:
HS2
Long Itchington & Ufton Woods A425 Drawing Title:
(SSSI) March 2010 Preferred Route (Map 6A)
262000
SOUTHAM Sustainability Features


Ufton Fields (SSSI)
260000

© Crown copyright
0100049190
0 0.5 1 2 3 4
km
258000
BISHOP'S
M40 ITCHINGTON
A423
256000
I
185
427500 430000 432500 435000 437500 440000 442500 445000 447500 450000 452500
276000
Key
Rough Knowles Wood Kings Wood Surface
(Ancient Woodland, BAP Habitat) (Ancient Woodland ,BAP Habitat) RUGBY Tunnel
Finham Brook Motslowhill Spinney WCML

274000
(Ancient Woodland, BAP Habitat) Ancient Woodland
River Sowe River Avon A423 A45 BAP Habitats
Country Parks
272000
KENILWORTH Weston & Waverley Woods


Forestry Commission Woodland) Countryside & Rights of Way
A46 Community Forests
North and South Cubbington Wood
Crackley Wood Forestry Commission Woodland
(Local Nature Reserve,
(Ancient Woodland, BAP Habitat) A426
270000
Doorstep Greens
Ancient Woodland, Millennium Greens
BAP Habitat, SINC)
RSPB Sites
River Avon
268000
Broadwells Wood
Sutton Spinney
ROYAL LEAMINGTON (BAP Habitat)
SPA
266000
WARWICK
Client:
River Itchen
264000
Long Itchington Wood

Job Title:
HS2
A425 Drawing Title:

262000

260000

© Crown copyright
0100049190
0 0.5 1 2 3 4
km
258000
BISHOP'S
M40 ITCHINGTON
A423
256000
I
186
427500 430000 432500 435000 437500 440000 442500 445000 447500 450000 452500
276000
Key
Surface
RUGBY Tunnel
Finham Brook WCML

274000
.
River Sowe River Avon A423 A45 Listed Building Grade II

272000
KENILWORTH Authorised Landfill Sites
Numbers 4,5 Stareton Village Flood Risk Zone 3

(Listed Building Grade II) Flood Risk Zone 2
A46 Individual Source Protection Zones
A426
270000

River Avon
268000
ROYAL LEAMINGTON
SPA
266000
WARWICK
Client:
River Itchen
264000
Job Title:
HS2
A425 Drawing Title:

262000

Ufton Farm Landfill Site
260000

© Crown copyright
0100049190
0 0.5 1 2 3 4
km
258000
BISHOP'S
M40 ITCHINGTON
A423
256000
I
187
427500 430000 432500 435000 437500 440000 442500 445000 447500 450000 452500
276000
Key
Surface
RUGBY Tunnel
Finham Brook WCML

274000
!
River Sowe River Avon A423 A45 !

. Growth Point
!
!
!
.
272000
KENILWORTH Scottish Growth Points
Growth Areas
A46 Indices of Deprivation Most Deprived 50%
Green Belt
A426
270000

River Avon
268000
ROYAL LEAMINGTON
SPA
266000
WARWICK
Client:
River Itchen
264000
Job Title:
HS2
A425 Drawing Title:

262000
SOUTHAM Community & Spatial Planning Features

260000

© Crown copyright
0100049190
0 0.5 1 2 3 4
km
258000
BISHOP'S
M40 ITCHINGTON
A423
256000
I
188
405000 407500 410000 412500 415000 417500 420000 422500 425000 427500 430000
Key
SUTTON Surface
296000
M6 TOLL KINGSBURY
COLDFIELD Moated Site South East of Middleton Farm
Tunnel
WCML
World Heritage Site
Ramsar
KINGSTANDING
294000
SSSI
M6 Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

292000
National Park
Washwood Heath - River Tame Scheduled Monuments
Proposed Rolling Stock Depot River Bourne
Parks & Gardens
A38 Historical Battlefields
!
290000

ASTON !

M6 COLESHILL
288000

BIRMINGHAM Coleshill & Bannerly Pools
A452 (SSSI)
286000
Client:
Birmingham Gun Barrel Proof House

M6
Park Farmhouse Job Title:
River Rea Birtish Rail Goods Office BIRMINGHAM (Listed Building Grade II*) HS2
284000

AIRPORT Sustainability Features
A41 A45 Birmingham and Approaches
282000
River Blythe Version 4 HS2-BZT-00-DR-SU-00042 33

M42 (SSSI) This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with
© Crown copyright
0100049190
Berkswell Marsh 0 0.5 1 2 3 4

280000
(SSSI) km
SOLIHULL
A34 River Blythe
278000
TILE HILL
Lavender Hall Farmhouse
A452
I
276000
Canley Brook
189
405000 407500 410000 412500 415000 417500 420000 422500 425000 427500 430000
Key
SUTTON Surface
296000
M6 TOLL KINGSBURY
COLDFIELD North Wood
Tunnel
WCML
Ancient Woodland
BAP Habitats
KINGSTANDING
294000
Minworth Sewage Works Local Nature Reserves

Dunton Wood
(SNCI) (BAP Habitat) Country Parks

M6 National Trust Ownership

Parkhall Wood
292000
(Ancient Woodland, BAP Habitat, SNCI) Community Forests

Washwood Heath - River Tame Forestry Commission Woodland
Proposed Rolling Stock Depot River Bourne Doorstep Greens
A38 Millennium Greens
RSPB Sites
290000

ASTON Manor Drive (BAP Habitat)
M6 COLESHILL
288000

BIRMINGHAM Coleshill Pools
(BAP Habitat)
A452
286000
Client:
M6
Job Title:
284000
INTERNATIONAL Sixteen Acre Woods Drawing Title:
(Ancient Woodland, BAP Habitat) March 2010 Preferred Route (Map 7B)
282000

© Crown copyright
0100049190
0 0.5 1 2 3 4
280000
km
Black Waste Wood

SOLIHULL (Ancient Woodland,
BAP Habitat)
A34 River Blythe
278000
TILE HILL
A452
I
276000
Canley Brook
190
405000 407500 410000 412500 415000 417500 420000 422500 425000 427500 430000
Key
SUTTON Surface
296000
M6 TOLL KINGSBURY
COLDFIELD Tunnel
WCML
.

KINGSTANDING
294000
Dunton Hall and Barn Agricultural Land Grade 2
(Listed Buildings Grade II) Dunton Landfill Site Authorised Landfill Sites
M6 Flood Risk Zone 3
Flood Risk Zone 2

292000

A38
Coleshill Hall Hospital and
Curzon Street Station attached Coach House and Stable Block
290000
ASTON (Listed Buildings Grade II)
M6 COLESHILL
Coleshill Hall Farmhouse
288000

BIRMINGHAM
A452
286000
Client:
Lawley Street Railway Viaduct M6

Job Title:
1838 Section of Railway bridge into
284000
Curzon Street Station INTERNATIONAL Drawing Title:

(Listed Building Grade II) March 2010 Preferred Route (Map 7C)
282000

Fox and Grapes Public House © Crown copyright
(Listed Building Grade II) 0100049190
0 0.5 1 2 3 4
280000
km
SOLIHULL
A34 River Blythe
278000
TILE HILL
Barn at Lavender Hall Farm Crabmill Farmhouse
(Listed Building Grade II) (Listed Building Grade II)
Lavender Hall A452

I
(Authorised Landfill Site - Closed)
276000
Canley Brook
191
405000 407500 410000 412500 415000 417500 420000 422500 425000 427500 430000
Key
SUTTON Surface
296000
M6 TOLL KINGSBURY
COLDFIELD Tunnel
WCML
!
!
. Growth Point
KINGSTANDING !
294000
!
Growth Areas
M6 Indices of Deprivation Most Deprived 20%

292000
Green Belt
A38
290000
ASTON
M6 COLESHILL
288000

BIRMINGHAM
A452
286000
Client:
M6
Job Title:
284000

AIRPORT Community & Spatial Planning Features
282000

© Crown copyright
0100049190
0 0.5 1 2 3 4
280000
km
SOLIHULL
A34 River Blythe
278000
TILE HILL
A452
I
276000
Canley Brook
192
405000 407500 410000 412500 415000 417500 420000 422500 425000 427500 430000
318000
Key
Cannock Chase (Area of Outstanding
Natural Beauty,Special Area of Conservation) March 2010 Preferred Route
Surface
River Trent Tunnel
WCML
316000
Bourne Brook World Heritage Site
Ramsar
A51 Special Areas of Conservation
A515 River Mease

SSSI
314000

National Park
A38 Scheduled Monuments
Link to WCML North
312000
Parks & Gardens
River Mease !

!
310000
LICHFIELD Listed Building Grade II*

308000

306000
HS2

304000
WCML Connection
302000
0100049190
ALDRIDGE 0 0.5 1 2 3 4
km
300000
M6 TOLL A5
Middleton Pool
(SSSI)
298000
Langley Brook
I
Sutton Park (National Nature Reserve, SSSI)
M42
SUTTON
M6 TOLL KINGSBURY
193
405000 407500 410000 412500 415000 417500 420000 422500 425000 427500 430000
318000
Key
Surface
River Trent Tunnel
WCML
316000
Bourne Brook Ancient Woodland
BAP Habitats
A51 Local Nature Reserves
A515 Vicars Coppice Country Parks
(Ancient Woodland, BAP Habitat) National Trust Covenants

314000

Tomhay Wood
(Ancient Woodland, BAP Habitat) Countryside & Rights of Way
Community Forests
A38 Forestry Commission Woodland

Link to WCML North
312000
Doorstep Greens
Millennium Greens
National Cycle Route River Mease RSPB Sites
Forest of Murcia
(Community Forest)
310000
LICHFIELD
Whittington Heath
(BAP Habitat)
308000

306000
HS2
Snake's Hill March 2010 Preferred Route (Map 8B)

304000
(BAP Habitat)
WCML Connection
Roundhill Wood
Rookery Version 4 HS2-BZT-00-DR-SU-00047 38
(Ancient Woodland, BAP Habitat) This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with
302000
0100049190
ALDRIDGE 0 0.5 1 2 3 4
km
300000
M6 TOLL A5
Roger's Coppice
Middleton Pool
(BAP Habitat)
298000
Langley Brook
I SUTTON
M6 TOLL
M42
KINGSBURY
194
405000 407500 410000 412500 415000 417500 420000 422500 425000 427500 430000
318000
Key
Surface
River Trent Tunnel
WCML
316000
Bourne Brook .

314000
Flood Risk Zone 3
Flood Risk Zone 2
A38
Link to WCML North
312000
River Mease
Groundwater Source Protection Zone

310000
LICHFIELD
308000

306000
HS2

304000
WCML Connection
302000
0100049190
ALDRIDGE 0 0.5 1 2 3 4
km
300000
M6 TOLL A5
298000
Langley Brook
I SUTTON
M6 TOLL
M42
KINGSBURY
195
405000 407500 410000 412500 415000 417500 420000 422500 425000 427500 430000
318000
Key
Surface
River Trent
Tunnel
WCML
316000
Bourne Brook !
!
. Growth Point
A51 !
A515 !
Growth Areas
314000
Green Belt
A38
Link to WCML North
312000
River Mease
310000
LICHFIELD
308000

306000
HS2

304000
WCML Connection
302000
0100049190
ALDRIDGE 0 0.5 1 2 3 4
km
300000
M6 TOLL A5
298000
Langley Brook
I SUTTON
M6 TOLL
M42
KINGSBURY
196
470000 472500 475000 477500 480000 482500 485000 487500 490000 492500 495000 497500 500000 502500 505000 507500 510000 512500 515000 517500 520000 522500 525000 527500 530000 532500
220000
A5 Luton (B) Key
ddershall Brook March 2010 Preferred Route
Line of Route 4 Central Bedfordshire North Hertfordshire District
218000
A41 Fleet Marston Brook March 2010 Preferred Route

Surface
M1
216000
Tunnel
A4146
Line of Route 4 (LoR 4)
214000
River Bear East Hertfordshire District Surface

River Thame AYLESBURY Tunnel
212000
Line of Route 2.5 (LoR 2.5)

ley Brook A41 Surface
A418
210000
Tunnel
Dacorum District (B) St. Albans District (B)
Welwyn Hatfield District Iver Connection
WENDOVER
BERKHAMSTED
208000
HEMEL Surface
Scotsgrove Brook HEMSTEAD Tunnel

206000
THAME WCML
PRINCESS
204000
RISBOROUGH
A413 M25
River Gade Broxbourne District (B)
Line of Route 2.5
202000
CHESHAM
GREAT
MISSENDEN
200000
River Chess WATFORD

A4010 Chiltern District AMERSHAM Hertsmere District (B)
198000
Watford District (B)
River Colne
BOREHAM WOOD Enfield London Boro
196000
RICKMANSWORTH BUSHEY
Wycombe District A355
194000
HIGH WYCOMBE M25 Barnet London Boro

Client:
192000
River Colne Harrow London Boro Dolis Brook

M1
M40 NORTHWOOD
BEACONSFIELD River Misbourne
190000
Haringey London Boro Job Title:

A4180 River Pinn HARROW
HS2
188000
Old Oak Common

GERRARDS Yeading Brook Station Drawing Title:
CROSS A413 Alternative Routes (Map 1 of 3)

186000
Camden London Boro

Brent London Boro A406 A41 Routes Overview
Hillingdon London Boro Euston
South Bucks District London and London Approaches
South Oxfordshire District M25 Station
184000
A40 WILLESDEN
River Brent Drawing Status: Drawing Number: Map No:
A4007 HILLINGDON
182000
MAIDENHEAD Ealing London Boro

A4020 A40 This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with
SLOUGH EALING LONDON the permission of Ordnance Survey on

180000
© Crown copyright
M4 0100049190
Slough (B) Yeading Brook HAMMERSMITH
M4 A4 0 1.25 2.5 5 7.5 10
178000
Windsor and Maidenhead (B) Iver Station km

A4 River Thames
176000
HEATHROW Hounslow London Boro

AIRPORT WANDSWORTH
RICHMOND
174000
Start of tunnel from

Euston Station
Reading (B) Richmond upon Thames London Boro
Wokingham STREATHAM
172000
Wandsworth London Boro

Bracknell Forest (B) Spelthorne District (B)
170000
Merton London Boro
I
West Berkshire Runnymede District (B)
Kingston upon Thames London Boro
168000
Croydon London Boro
Elmbridge District (B)

Surrey Heath District (B) Sutton London Boro
197
432500 435000 437500 440000 442500 445000 447500 450000 452500 455000 457500 460000 462500 465000 467500 470000 472500 475000 477500 480000 482500 485000 487500 490000 492500 495000
River Itchen East Northamptonshire District (B) Key

264000
Rugby District (B)

DAVENTRY March 2010 Preferred Route
Warwick District A425 NORTHAMPTON
Surface
262000
SOUTHAM Wellingborough District (B)

Tunnel
Northampton District (B)
260000

Surface
Daventry District A361
BISHOP'S
258000
Tunnel
M40 ITCHINGTON Bedford (B) Line of Route 2.5 (LoR 2.5)
A423
256000
Stratford-on-Avon District Surface

March 2010 Preferred Route Tunnel
254000
High Furlong Brook Line of Route 4 WCML

River Cherwell
HINTON
252000
A361
BLAKESEY
250000
TOWCESTER
River Tove
248000
River Cherwell
South Northamptonshire District

246000
A5
244000
SILVERSTONE
Milton Keynes (B)
242000
MIDDLETON
BANBURY CHENEY
240000

MILTON KEYNES
238000
M1
BRACKLEY Client:
236000
River Great Ouse
River Great Ouse

234000
Job Title:
BUCKINGHAM
HS2
A421 A421
232000
A43 River Ouzel Drawing Title:

A5
Alternative Routes (Map 2 of 3)
Routes Overview
230000
Central Section
Cherwell District A4421
River Claydon Brook
228000
WINSLOW Drawing Status: Drawing Number: Map No:

STEEPLE
Central Bedfordshire Version 4 HS2-BZT-00-DR-SU-00051 42
Padbury Brook
226000

LEIGHTON BUZZARD behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationary Office
A413 © Crown copyright
Line
w ay
Rail
224000
0100049190
tc hley
or d -Ble
Ox f
BICESTER Aylesbury Vale District
0 1.25 2.5 5 7.5 10
222000
River Ray km
River Ray
A418
West Oxfordshire District
220000
Doddershall Brook
Line of Route 2.5
218000
A41 Fleet Marston Brook

216000
214000
BRILL River Bear
I River Thame AYLESBURY Dacorum District (B)

212000
South Oxfordshire District

Oxford District (B)
Chearsley Brook A418 A41
198
402500 405000 407500 410000 412500 415000 417500 420000 422500 425000 427500 430000 432500 435000 437500 440000 442500 445000 447500 450000 452500 455000 457500 460000 462500 465000
A51
A515 East Staffordshire District (B) Melton District (B) Key
314000
South Derbyshire District

Link to WCML North A38
312000
Charnwood District (B) Surface

River Mease North West Leicestershire District
Tunnel
Alternative Route into and around Birmingham
310000
LICHFIELD Line of Route 4 (LoR 4)

(WCML Alternative Connection)
Surface
308000
Lichfield District Tunnel

March 2010 Preferred Route River Tame M42 WCML Alternative Connection
306000
M6 TOLL A38 Surface

TAMWORTH Tunnel
304000
City of Leicester (B) WCML

Tamworth District (B)
302000
Hinckley and Bosworth District (B)

Bourne Brook
ALDRIDGE
300000
Walsall District (B) M6 TOLL A5

Oadby and Wigston District (B)
298000
Langley Brook Blaby District

SUTTON M42
296000
COLDFIELD M6 TOLL KINGSBURY

North Warwickshire District (B)
KINGSTANDING
294000
M6
Washwood Heath - Proposed
292000
Rolling Stock Depot River Tame

A38 River Bourne
290000
ASTON
Fazeley Street Nuneaton and Bedworth District (B)
M6 COLESHILL
Station BIRMINGHAM Harborough District
288000
River Blythe
Birmingham District (B) River Cole
Client:
A452
286000
BIRMINGHAM M6
INTERNATIONAL
284000
AIRPORT NEC Birmingham Interchange Station Job Title:

River Rea Warwick Wharf Station
A41
HS2
A45
A435
282000
Drawing Title:
M42
Station Alternatives Alternative Routes (Map 3 of 3)
Coventry District (B) Routes Overview
280000
COVENTRY West Midlands

SOLIHULL
River Blythe
278000
A34 TILE HILL Drawing Status: Drawing Number: Map No:
Solihull District (B) Version 4 HS2-BZT-00-DR-SU-00052 43

A452 Leamington-Coventry Railway
276000

Canley Brook behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationary Office
Rugby District (B)
RUGBY © Crown copyright
274000
Finham Brook 0100049190
Bromsgrove District River Avon A423 A45

0 1.25 2.5 5 7.5 10
River Sowe
272000
KENILWORTH km
A46
Daventry District
270000
A426
Warwick District River Leam River Leam

268000
River Avon
ROYAL LEAMINGTON
SPA
266000
Redditch District (B) Stratford-on-Avon District WARWICK

Line of Route 4
River Itchen
264000
I
DAVENTRY
A425
262000
SOUTHAM
Wychavon District
199
470000 472500 475000 477500 480000 482500 485000 487500 490000 492500 495000 497500 500000 502500 505000 507500 510000 512500 515000 517500 520000 522500 525000 527500 530000 532500
220000
A5 Key
ddershall Brook March 2010 Preferred Line of Route 4
218000
Church of St Giles
A41 Fleet Marston Brook (Listed Building Grade II*)
Surface
Tunnel
M1
216000

Waddesdon Manor
A4146
Surface
Pistone Quarry
214000
River Bear (SSSI)

Tunnel
Chilterns Beechwoods - Aldbury Common
River Thame AYLESBURY (Special Area of Conservation & SSSI)
Hartwell House
212000
(Grade II* Registered Park & Garden) Surface
Tunnel
ley Brook A41
A418
210000
Roman Settlement Epping Forest

Parish Church of St Mary
(Scheduled Monument) (Special Area of Conservation,
Iver Connection
Pavilion (The Cot) South East SSSI)
of Hartwell House Surface
(Listed Buildings Grade II*)
WENDOVER
BERKHAMSTED
208000
Tunnel
Bacombe & Coombe Hills

HEMEL World Heritage Site
Scotsgrove Brook (SSSI)
Chilterns
HEMSTEAD Ramsar
206000
Chilterns Beechwoods - Kimble Warren (Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty)

THAME (Special Area of Conservation & SSSI)
PRINCESS Grim's Ditch Special Protection Areas
204000
RISBOROUGH
A413 M25 SSSI
Chilterns Beechwoods - Windsor Hill
River Gade
202000

CHESHAM
GREAT
MISSENDEN National Park
200000
Shardeloes
Scheduled Monuments
River Chess WATFORD
A4010 AMERSHAM Parks & Gardens
198000
River Colne !
Aston Rowant and BOREHAM WOOD
196000
Kensal Green Cemetry

Chilterns Beechwoods - Aston Wood Listed Building Grade I
(Registered Park & Garden)
National Nature Reserve RICKMANSWORTH BUSHEY !
.
& SSSI) Various Tombs Listed Building Grade II*
A355 (Grade II* Listed Buildings)
194000

Chilterns Beechwood - Park Wood / Naphill Common/ Mid Colne Valley (SSSI)
Grim's Ditch
The Coppice / Bradenham Wood
(Special Area of Conservation & SSSI) HIGH WYCOMBE M25 Mound with Ditch and Outer bank
200 ft South of Savay Farm
Client:
192000
Line of Route 2.5 River Colne
M1
Dolis Brook
M40 NORTHWOOD Regents Park
(Grade 1 Registered Park
190000
& Garden)
Ruislip Woods
(SSSI & National Nature Reserve)
Job Title:
HS2
188000
Old Oak Common

CROSS A413 Alternative Routes (Map 1A)

186000
Brackenbury Farm
Old Rectory Meadows Moated Site A406 A41 Sustainability Features
(Scheduled
(SSSI)
Monument) Euston London and London Approaches
M25 Station
184000
A40 WILLESDEN
Burnham Beeches River Brent Drawing Status: Drawing Number: Map No:
(Special Area of Conservation, SSSI, National Nature Reserve) Savay Farm
(Grade 1 Listed Building) A4007 HILLINGDON
182000
Hoover Factory - Main Front

Kings Cup Meadows and Old House Wood Block and Canteen Block
MAIDENHEAD (SSSI) A4020 (Grade II* Listed Buildings) A40 This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with

180000
© Crown copyright
M4 0100049190
Yeading Brook HAMMERSMITH
Windsor Forest and Great Park Grand Union Canal M4 A4 0 1 2 4 6 8
178000
(Special Area of Conservation)

Iver Station km
A4 River Thames
176000
HEATHROW
AIRPORT WANDSWORTH
RICHMOND
174000

Richmond Park
South West London Waterbodies (Registered Park & Garden, Euston Station
(Special Protection Area) Special Area of Conservation)
STREATHAM
172000
170000
Wimbledon Common
(SSSI & Special Area of Conservation)
I
168000
Dept of Heath and Social Security

Numbers 2-16,22-34,36a,36b Park Village East
200
470000 472500 475000 477500 480000 482500 485000 487500 490000 492500 495000 497500 500000 502500 505000 507500 510000 512500 515000 517500 520000 522500 525000 527500 530000 532500
220000
A5 Key
ddershall Brook March 2010 Preferred Line of Route 4
218000

Surface
Ashridge Estate
(National Trust Ownership, Public Right of Way, BAP Habitat)
M1 Tunnel
216000
A4146 Line of Route 4 (LoR 4)

Dickshill Wood
(Ancient Woodland, BAP Habitat) Surface
214000
National Trail
River Bear
Pancake/Hockeridge Wood Tunnel
River Thame AYLESBURY (Ancient Woodland, BAP Habitat)
National Trail Cokers Spring Line of Route 2.5 (LoR 2.5)

212000
Snakemoore (Ancient Woodland, BAP Habitat)

(Local Nature Reserve) Surface
Great Wood
ley Brook A41 Tunnel
A418 (Ancient Woodland, BAP Habitat)
210000
Hamberlins Wood
National Cycle Route (Ancient Woodland, BAP Habitat)
Coleshill Wood
Iver Connection
Bury Wood Surface
WENDOVER (Ancient Woodland, BAP Habitat)
BERKHAMSTED
208000
Bacombe Hill Oak Corner Tunnel

(Local Nature Reserve, Public Right of Way,
BAP Habitat)
(Ancient Woodland, BAP Habitat) HEMEL
WCML
Scotsgrove Brook HEMSTEAD
206000
Durham Farm The Grove/The Wings Ancient Woodland

THAME (Ancient Woodland, BAP Habitat) (Ancient Woodland and BAP Habitat)
BAP Habitats
PRINCESS Jenkins Wood
204000

RISBOROUGH National Cycle Route
A413 Sibleys Coppice M25 Country Parks
River Gade
Line of Route 2.5 Havenfield Wood (Ancient Woodland, BAP Habitat)
202000

CHESHAM National Trust Ownership
GREAT Mantles Wood (Ancient Woodland,
BAP Habitat, Forestry Commission Woodland,SINC) National Trust Covenants
MISSENDEN Weedonhill Wood / High Spring/ Ostlers Wood
200000
National Cycle Route /Keeprs Wood/ Ash Grove (Ancient Woodland,

BAP Habitat, Forestry Commission Woodland, SINC)
Community Forests
National Trail River Chess WATFORD Watling Chase
A4010 AMERSHAM (Community Forest)
198000
Rook Wood
(Ancient Woodland, Doorstep Greens
BAB Habitat,
Forestry Commission River Colne
Woodland) BOREHAM WOOD Millennium Greens
196000
RSPB Sites
A355 National Cycle Route
194000
Siblets Wood National Trail

HIGH WYCOMBE (Ancient Woodland,
BAP Habitat)
M25 Northmoor Hill Wood
(Local Nature Reserve, Ancient Woodland)
Pughs Wood/Pennhouse Groves, Penbury Grove Client:
192000
Branches Wood, Charcoal Grove

(Ancient Woodland & BAP Habitat) River Colne Dolis Brook
Reed Beds (BAP Habitat) M1
M40 NORTHWOOD
BEACONSFIELD River Misbourne Mid Colne Valley
190000
(SINC)
Seagrave Lane Woods/Owlsears Wood/ Starveacre Wood Job Title:
(Ancient Woodland, BAP Habitat) A4180 River Pinn HARROW
HS2
188000
Ruislip Gold Course and Old Priory

Meadows (SINC)
Old Oak Common
Pitmans Wood GERRARDS Yeading Brook Station Drawing Title:
((Ancient Woodland, Forestry Commission Woodland,
CROSS A413 Perivale Wood Alternative Routes (Map 1B)
186000
BAP Habitat)
(Local Nature Reserve
& Ancient Woodland,SMI) A406 A41 Sustainability Features
River Pinn
(SMI)
Euston London and London Approaches
M25 (SINC) Station
184000
North Denham Green Woodland

(BAP Habitat, Ancient Woodland, A40 WILLESDEN
Public Right of Way) River Brent Drawing Status: Drawing Number: Map No:
A4007 HILLINGDON
182000
Grand Union Canal (SINC)

MAIDENHEAD Frays Valley
(Local Nature Reserve) A4020 National Cycle Route
A40 This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with
SLOUGH
Islip Manor
(Local Nature Reserve) EALING LONDON the permission of Ordnance Survey on
180000
© Crown copyright
M4 Yeading Brook (SINC)
0100049190
M4 A4 0 1.25 2.5 5 7.5 10
178000
Thornley Park
(Country Park) Wormwood Scrubs and Little Wormwood Scrubs
Iver Station (Local Nature Reserve,
Public Right of Way, SINC) km
A4 River Thames
176000
HEATHROW
AIRPORT WANDSWORTH
RICHMOND
174000

Euston Station
STREATHAM
172000
170000
I
168000
201
470000 472500 475000 477500 480000 482500 485000 487500 490000 492500 495000 497500 500000 502500 505000 507500 510000 512500 515000 517500 520000 522500 525000 527500 530000 532500
220000
Great Seabrook House/Seabrook Farmhouse/
Bridge over Union Canal
A5 Key
ddershall Brook (Listed Building Grade II)
Line of Route 4 March 2010 Preferred Route

218000
A41 Fleet Marston Brook Office Building at Pistone

(Listed Building Grade II) Surface
M1 Tunnel
216000
March 2010 Preferred Route A4146 Line of Route 4 (LoR 4)

Folly Bridge
Surface
214000
River Bear (Listed Building Grade II)
River Thame AYLESBURY Parkhill Bridge

Tunnel
212000

Surface
ley Brook A41
A418
210000
The Old Cottage & Birkhamsted Lodge

Tunnel
Iver Connection
WENDOVER
BERKHAMSTED
208000
Surface
HEMEL
HEMSTEAD Tunnel
Scotsgrove Brook
206000
WCML
THAME
.
PRINCESS The Lodge
204000

Foxhill Farmhouse RISBOROUGH Listed Building Grade II
(Listed Building Grade II) A413 M25
River Gade
Flood Risk Zone 2
202000
CHESHAM
GREAT Agricultural Land Grade 1
Line of Route 2.5 MISSENDEN Agricultural Land Grade 2

200000
Flood Risk Zone 3

River Chess WATFORD
A4010
Barns & Outhouses
at Hyde Farmhouse
AMERSHAM Authorised Landfill Sites
198000

River Colne
BOREHAM WOOD
196000
A355
194000
Railings around Euston

Square Gardens
HIGH WYCOMBE M25
Client:
192000
Seagrave's Farmhouse & Barn

(Listed Building Grade II) River Colne Dolis Brook
M1
M40 NORTHWOOD
190000
Savay Farm & outbuildings Statue Robert Stephenson

(Listed Building Grade II) (Listed Building Grade II)
Job Title:
A4180 River Pinn HARROW HS2
188000
Old Oak Common

CROSS A413 Alternative Routes (Map 1C)

186000
A406 A41 Sustainability Features

Brackenbury House Parkway Tunnel and Cutting Euston London and London Approaches
M25 (Listed Building (Listed Building Grade II)
Station
184000
Grade II)
A40 WILLESDEN
A4007 HILLINGDON
182000
MAIDENHEAD A4020 A40 This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with

180000
© Crown copyright
M4 0100049190
M4 A4 0 1.25 2.5 5 7.5 10
178000
Iver Station km
A4 River Thames
176000
HEATHROW
AIRPORT WANDSWORTH
RICHMOND
174000

Euston Station
STREATHAM
172000
Drinking Fountain in St James Garden

170000
Numbers 9,14,15 and attached railings

Melton Street
I
(Grade II Listed Buildings)
168000
202
470000 472500 475000 477500 480000 482500 485000 487500 490000 492500 495000 497500 500000 502500 505000 507500 510000 512500 515000 517500 520000 522500 525000 527500 530000 532500
220000
A5 Key
ddershall Brook March 2010 Preferred Route
Line of Route 4
218000
A41 Fleet Marston Brook March 2010 Preferred Route

Surface
M1
216000
North East Aylesbury Tunnel

A4146
East Aylesbury Line of Route 4 (LoR 4)
214000
River Bear Surface

River Thame AYLESBURY Tunnel
212000
South East Aylesbury Line of Route 2.5 (LoR 2.5)

ley Brook A41 Surface
A418
210000
Tunnel
WENDOVER Iver Connection

BERKHAMSTED
208000
HEMEL Surface
Scotsgrove Brook HEMSTEAD Tunnel
206000
THAME WCML
PRINCESS
!
204000
RISBOROUGH
Line of Route 2.5
A413
River Gade
M25 !
. Growth Point
!
202000
CHESHAM
GREAT !
MISSENDEN
200000
Green Belt
River Chess WATFORD Growth Areas

A4010 AMERSHAM
198000
River Colne Indices of Deprivation Most Deprived 50%

BOREHAM WOOD
196000
A355
194000
HIGH WYCOMBE M25

Client:
192000
River Colne Dolis Brook

M1
M40 NORTHWOOD
190000
Job Title:
HS2
188000
Old Oak Common

CROSS A413 Alternative Routes (Map 1D)

186000
A406 A41 Community & Spatial Planning Features

Euston London and London Approaches
M25 Station
184000
A40 WILLESDEN
A4007 HILLINGDON
182000
MAIDENHEAD A4020 A40 This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with

180000
© Crown copyright
M4 0100049190
M4 A4 0 1.25 2.5 5 7.5 10
178000
Iver Station km
A4 River Thames
176000
HEATHROW
AIRPORT WANDSWORTH
RICHMOND
174000

Euston Station
STREATHAM
172000
170000
I
168000
203
432500 435000 437500 440000 442500 445000 447500 450000 452500 455000 457500 460000 462500 465000 467500 470000 472500 475000 477500 480000 482500 485000 487500 490000 492500 495000
River Itchen Key

264000

Long Itchington & Ufton Woods
(SSSI)
A425 NORTHAMPTON
262000
SOUTHAM Surface
Line of Route 4
Ufton Fields (SSSI) Tunnel
260000

A361 Surface
BISHOP'S
258000
Tunnel
MarchM40 ITCHINGTON
2010 Preferred Route Line of Route 2.5 (LoR 2.5)
A423
256000
Church of Holy Trinity

Surface
Tunnel
254000
High Furlong Brook River Cherwell WCML
World Heritage Site

HINTON
252000
A361 Ramsar
BLAKESEY Special Areas of Conservation

250000
Roman Villa
TOWCESTER Special Protection Areas
River Tove SSSI
248000
River Cherwell
Lordsfield Farm Moated Site
Lower Thorpe Bowl Barrow

246000
A5
National Park
Whittlewood Forest Scheduled Monuments
244000
The Manor House

(Listed Buildings Grade II*) SILVERSTONE (SSSI)
Parks & Gardens
242000
MIDDLETON !
Whittlewood Forest and Buckingham Thick Copse . Listed Building Grade I
BANBURY CHENEY (SSSI & National Nature Reserve)

240000
A422 River Great Ouse !

.
Turweston House and Church of St Mary's
MILTON KEYNES Listed Building Grade II*
238000
Church of St Mary M1 Listed Building Grade II*

BRACKLEY Client:
236000
River Great Ouse
River Great Ouse

234000
BUCKINGHAM Job Title:
HS2
A421 A421
232000

Church of St Marys and St Nicholas A5
(Grade I Listed Building) Alternative Routes (Map 2A)
230000
Church of St Mary
(Listed Building Grade I) Central Section
A4421
River Claydon Brook
228000

STEEPLE
Line of Route 2.5 Version 4 HS2-BZT-00-DR-SU-00057 48
Padbury Brook
226000
LEIGHTON BUZZARD the permission of Ordnance Survey on

Sheephouse Wood A413 © Crown copyright
Line (SSSI)
w ay
Rail Ascott House
224000
0100049190
tc hley (Grade II* Registered Park & Garden)
or d -Ble
Ox f Finmere Wood
BICESTER (SSSI) 0 1.25 2.5 5 7.5 10
222000
River Ray km
River Ray
A418
220000
Doddershall Brook
218000
Church of St Giles
A41 Fleet Marston Brook (Listed Building Grade II*)
216000
Waddesdon Manor
Pistone Quarry
214000
BRILL River Bear (SSSI)
I River Thame AYLESBURY

Hartwell House
212000
204
432500 435000 437500 440000 442500 445000 447500 450000 452500 455000 457500 460000 462500 465000 467500 470000 472500 475000 477500 480000 482500 485000 487500 490000 492500 495000
River Itchen Key

264000

A425 NORTHAMPTON
262000
SOUTHAM Surface
Line of Route 4 Tunnel

260000

A361 Surface
BISHOP'S BAP Habitat near Adstone
258000
(BAP Habitat)
ITCHINGTON Tunnel
M40
A423 Line of Route 2.5 (LoR 2.5)
256000
Surface

254000
High Furlong Brook River Cherwell Southfields Wood

WCML
HINTON
252000
Ancient Woodland
A361
BAP Habitats
BLAKESEY
250000
TOWCESTER Local Nature Reserves
River Tove Buckingham Thick Copse Country Parks

248000
River Cherwell
Gostelow Copse National Trust Ownership
(Ancient Woodland, BAP Habitat) Old Tun Copse
246000
A5
Briary Wood/ Ashalls Copse Countryside & Rights of Way
Halse Copse 1
244000
(Ancient Woodland, BAP Habitat) SILVERSTONE Community Forests

Halse Copse 2
242000
MIDDLETON Radstone Doorstep Greens

(BAP Habitat)
BANBURY CHENEY Millennium Greens

240000
A422 River Great Ouse RSPB Sites

Leckhampstead/Lilby Woods MILTON KEYNES
(Ancient Woodland, Forestry Commission Woodland, National Cycle Route
238000
BAP Habitat) M1
BRACKLEY Client:
236000
Broadway/Thrift Woods
River Great Ouse (Ancient Woodland, BAP Habitat)
River Great Ouse

234000
Salden Woods
BUCKINGHAM (Ancient Woodland, BAP Habitat)
Job Title:
HS2
A421 A421
232000

A5
College Wood Alternative Routes (Map 2B)
230000
Public Right of Way near Stoke Road Farm

Glebeland Lake
(Local Nature Reserve)
Central Section
A4421
River Claydon Brook
228000

STEEPLE
Line of Route 2.5 CLAYDON HS2 Potential Infrastructure Depot
Padbury Brook
226000

Decoypond Wood
e
wa y Lin Sheephouse Wood
Rail
224000
(Ancient Woodland, BAP Habitat) 0100049190

tc hley
or d -Ble Twyford Balmore Wood
Ox f
BICESTER (BAP Habitat) (Ancient Woodland, BAP Habitat) 0 1.25 2.5 5 7.5 10
222000
Finemere Wood
River Ray (Ancient Woodland, BAP Habitat) km
National Cycle Route River Ray
A418
220000
Ascott Estate
(National Trust Ownership)
Doddershall Brook
218000

216000
214000
BRILL River Bear National Trail

212000
205
432500 435000 437500 440000 442500 445000 447500 450000 452500 455000 457500 460000 462500 465000 467500 470000 472500 475000 477500 480000 482500 485000 487500 490000 492500 495000
River Itchen Key

264000
Line of Route 4
A425 NORTHAMPTON
262000
SOUTHAM Surface
Tunnel
260000
Ufton Farm Landfill Site

(Authorised Landfill Site)
A361 Surface
BISHOP'S
258000
ITCHINGTON Tunnel
M40
A423
256000
Surface
Tunnel
254000

March 2010 Preferred Route .
!
HINTON Listed Building Grade II
252000
A361 Listed Building Grade II

BLAKESEY Flood Risk Zone 2
250000
TOWCESTER
River Tove
248000
River Cherwell Agricultural Land Grade 2
Flood Risk Zone 3

246000
A5 Authorised Landfill Sites

Foscote House/Hill Farmhouse and outbuildings
244000
SILVERSTONE
242000
MIDDLETON
BANBURY CHENEY
240000

MILTON KEYNES
238000
M1
Bridge Grand Union Canal
BRACKLEY (Listed Building Grade II)
Client:
236000
River Great Ouse
River Great Ouse

234000
Finmere Quarry
(Authorised Landfill Site)
HS2
A421 A421
232000

A5
Alternative Routes (Map 2C)
230000
Central Section
A4421
River Claydon Brook
228000
WINSLOW Horton Dene/Lanthorn Drawing Status: Drawing Number: Map No:

STEEPLE Cottage/Kings Head Cottage
Padbury Brook
226000

Calvert Landfill Site

Line
w ay (Authorised Landfill)
Rail
224000
0100049190
tc hley
or d -Ble
Ox f
BICESTER 0 1.25 2.5 5 7.5 10
Lower Greatmoor Farmhouse
222000
(Listed Building Grade II) km

River Ray
River Ray
A418
220000
Great Seabrook House/Seabrook Farmhouse/

Bridge over Union Canal
Doddershall Brook (Listed Building Grade II)
218000
A41 Fleet Marston Brook Office Building at Pistone

216000
Line of Route 2.5

214000
BRILL River Bear

212000
206
432500 435000 437500 440000 442500 445000 447500 450000 452500 455000 457500 460000 462500 465000 467500 470000 472500 475000 477500 480000 482500 485000 487500 490000 492500 495000
River Itchen Key

264000

A425 NORTHAMPTON
262000
SOUTHAM Surface
Tunnel
260000
Northern Alignment (LoR 4)

A361 Surface
BISHOP'S
258000
Tunnel
M40 ITCHINGTON
Northern Alignment Southern Alignment (LoR 2.5)
A423 (LoR 4)
256000
Surface
Tunnel
254000
HINTON !
252000
A361
!
. Growth Point
BLAKESEY
!
250000
TOWCESTER
!
River Tove
248000
River Cherwell Green Belt
Growth Areas
246000

A5
244000
SILVERSTONE
242000
MIDDLETON
BANBURY CHENEY
240000

MILTON KEYNES
238000
West Milton Keynes M1

BRACKLEY Client:
236000
River Great Ouse
River Great Ouse

234000
HS2
A421 A421
232000
A43 South West Milton Keynes River Ouzel Drawing Title:

A5
South Milton Keynes Alternative Routes (Map 2D)
Community &Spatial Planning Features
230000
Central Section
A4421
River Claydon Brook
228000

STEEPLE
Southern Alignment Version 4 HS2-BZT-00-DR-SU-00060 51
(LoR 2.5) Padbury Brook
226000

Line
w ay
Rail
224000
0100049190
tc hley
or d -Ble
Ox f
BICESTER 0 1.25 2.5 5 7.5 10
222000
River Ray km
River Ray
A418
220000
Doddershall Brook
218000

216000
North East Aylesbury
East Aylesbury
214000
BRILL River Bear

212000

207
402500 405000 407500 410000 412500 415000 417500 420000 422500 425000 427500 430000 432500 435000 437500 440000 442500 445000 447500 450000 452500 455000 457500 460000 462500 465000
A51
A515
Key
314000
River Mease
A38 March 2010 Preferred Route

Link to WCML North
312000
Surface
River Mease
Tunnel
310000

Alternative route into and around Birmingham
Cannock Chase
(Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, (WCML Alternative Connection) Surface
308000
Special Area of Conservation, SSSI)

Tunnel
River Tame M42 WCML Alternative Connection
306000
M6 TOLL A38 Surface
TAMWORTH Tunnel
304000
March 2010 Preferred Route WCML
World Heritage Site

302000
Bourne Brook Ramsar

ALDRIDGE
300000
Sutton Park (National Nature Reserve, SSSI)

M6 TOLL A5 Special Protection Areas
Middleton Pool
(SSSI)
SSSI
298000

Langley Brook
SUTTON M42 National Nature Reserves
296000
COLDFIELD M6 TOLL KINGSBURY National Park

Moated Site South East of Middleton Farm
(Scheduled Monument) Scheduled Monuments
KINGSTANDING
294000
Parks & Gardens

M6
292000
Rolling Stock Depot River Tame !

A38 River Bourne
290000
ASTON !
Curzon Street M6 COLESHILL
Station BIRMINGHAM Listed Building Grade II*
288000
Coleshill & Bannerly Pools

River Blythe (SSSI)
River Cole
Client:
A452
286000
Birmingham Gun Barrel Proof

House (Listed Building Grade II*)
BIRMINGHAM Park Farmhouse
(Listed Building Grade II*) M6
Birtish Rail Goods Office INTERNATIONAL
284000

River Rea Warwick Wharf Station Diddinton Hall & Farmhouse (Listed Building Grade II*)
A41
HS2
A45
A435
282000
Drawing Title:
River Blythe (SSSI)
M42
Station Alternatives Alternative Routes (Map 3A)
280000
Berkswell Marsh
(SSSI)

SOLIHULL
River Blythe
278000

Lavender Hall Farmhouse
(Listed Building Grade II*) Version 4 HS2-BZT-00-DR-SU-00061 52
276000


274000
River Avon A423 A45

0 1.25 2.5 5 7.5 10
River Sowe
272000
KENILWORTH Stoneleigh Abbey km

(Grade II Registered Park & Garden)
A46
270000
A426

268000
River Avon
ROYAL LEAMINGTON
SPA
266000
Line of Route 4
WARWICK
River Itchen
264000
I
DAVENTRY
Long Itchington & Ufton Woods A425
(SSSI)
262000
SOUTHAM
Ufton Fields (SSSI)
208
402500 405000 407500 410000 412500 415000 417500 420000 422500 425000 427500 430000 432500 435000 437500 440000 442500 445000 447500 450000 452500 455000 457500 460000 462500 465000
A51
A515
Key
314000
Vicars Coppice
(Ancient Woodland, BAP Habitats)
312000
Tomhay Wood Surface

(Ancient Woodland, BAP Habitat) River Mease
Tunnel
310000
LICHFIELD
Forest of Murcia Whitting BAP Habitat
(Community Forest) Surface
308000
Tunnel
River Tame M42
WCML Alternative Connection
306000
Hopwas Hays Wood

M6 TOLL A38 (Ancient Woodland, BAP Habitat)
Snake's Hill Surface
(BAP Habitat)
TAMWORTH
304000
Tunnel
Roundhill Wood
WCML
302000
Rookery
(Ancient Woodland, BAP Habitat) Ancient Woodland
Bourne Brook
ALDRIDGE
BAP Habitats
300000
M6 TOLL A5
Middleton Pool
(BAP Habitat)
Roger's Coppice Country Parks

298000
(Ancient Woodland, BAP Habitat) North Wood

Langley Brook National Trust Ownership
SUTTON M42
296000
KINGSBURY National Trust Covenants

COLDFIELD M6 TOLL
Manor Drive (BAP Habitat)
Dunton Wood
KINGSTANDING (BAP Habitat)
294000
Minworth Sewage Works

(SNCI) Alternative route into and around Birmingham Community Forests
M6 Parkhall Wood
(Ancient Woodland, BAP Habitat,SNCI)
(WCML Alternative Connection) Forestry Commission Woodland
292000
Rolling Stock Depot River Tame Whitacre Pool Doorstep Greens

(BAP Habitat)
A38 River Bourne
Millennium Greens
290000
ASTON
Curzon Street
Old Park Plantation BAP Habitat RSPB Sites
M6 COLESHILL
Station BIRMINGHAM National Cycle Route
288000
River Blythe Duke End BAP Habitat

River Cole
Coleshill Pools Client:
A452 (BAP Habitat) Todds Rough
286000

Kingfisher BIRMINGHAM M6
(Country Park
& BAP Habitat) INTERNATIONAL
284000

A41
Sixteen Acre Woods
HS2
A45
A435
282000
Black Waste Wood

Drawing Title:
M42
Station Alternatives Alternative Routes (Map 3B)
Broadwells Wood
280000

SOLIHULL
River Blythe
278000
276000

Motslowhill Spinney
(Ancient Woodland, BAP Habitat) RUGBY © Crown copyright
274000
River Avon A423 A45

River Sowe Bubbenhall Wood 0 1.25 2.5 5 7.5 10
Broadwells Wood (Ancient Woodland, BAP Habitat)
272000
(Ancient Woodland, BAB Habitat) KENILWORTH km

Princethorpe Great Wood
Crackley Wood A46 (Ancient Woodland, BAP Habitat)
(Local Nature Reserve, Ancient Woodland,
270000
BAP Habitat, SINC) Kings Wood A426

North and South Cubbington

Wood (Ancient Woodland, River Leam River Leam
268000
River Avon
BAP Habitat)
Weston & Waverley Woods National Cycle Route
ROYAL LEAMINGTON Forestry Commission Woodland)
SPA Line of Route 4

266000
Sutton Spinney
WARWICK (BAP Habitat)
River Itchen
264000
I
DAVENTRY
A425
262000
SOUTHAM
209
402500 405000 407500 410000 412500 415000 417500 420000 422500 425000 427500 430000 432500 435000 437500 440000 442500 445000 447500 450000 452500 455000 457500 460000 462500 465000
A51
A515
Key
314000

312000
Surface
River Mease
Tunnel
310000
LICHFIELD Northern Alignment (LoR 4)

(WCML Alternative Connection) Surface
308000
Tunnel
306000
Hopwas Bridge & Black and White Cottages (4)

M6 TOLL A38 (Listed Building Grade II)
Surface
TAMWORTH Tunnel
304000
WCML
.
302000
Bourne Brook Listed Building Grade II

ALDRIDGE
Lawley Street Railway Viaduct
Flood Risk Zone 2
300000

M6 TOLL A5
Lawley Street Railway Viaduct
298000
(Listed Building Grade II) Agricultural Land Grade 2

Langley Brook Flood Risk Zone 3
SUTTON M42
296000
COLDFIELD M6 TOLL KINGSBURY Authorised Landfill Sites

Dunton Hall and Barn Individual Source Protection Zones
KINGSTANDING
294000
M6 Dunton Landfill Site Shustoke House & outbuildings (2)

292000

A38 River Bourne
290000
ASTON
Station BIRMINGHAM Coleshill Hall Farmhouse
288000

River Blythe
River Cole
The Queens Head Client:
Public House A452
286000
(Listed Building
Grade II)
BIRMINGHAM M6
Garrison Lane Nursery
School (Listed Building INTERNATIONAL
Grade II)
284000

A41
HS2
A45
A435
282000
Coleshill Hall Hospital and

attached Coach House and Stable Block Drawing Title:
M42
Station Alternatives Alternative Routes (Map 3C)
280000
Crabmill Farmhouse
SOLIHULL (Listed Building Grade II)
River Blythe
278000

Barn at Lavender Hall Farm
(Listed Building Grade II) Version 4 HS2-BZT-00-DR-SU-00063 54
276000

Lavender Hall Canley Brook behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationary Office
(Authorised Landfill Site - Closed)
274000
Number 4 &5 Stareton Village

Finham Brook (Listed Building Grade II)
0100049190
River Avon A423 A45

0 1.25 2.5 5 7.5 10
River Sowe
272000
Bubbenhall Landfill Site

KENILWORTH km
Grounds House
A46 (Listed Building Grade II)
270000
A426

268000
River Avon
ROYAL LEAMINGTON
SPA
266000
WARWICK Line of Route 4

March 2010 Preferred Route River Itchen
264000
I
DAVENTRY
A425
262000
SOUTHAM
210
402500 405000 407500 410000 412500 415000 417500 420000 422500 425000 427500 430000 432500 435000 437500 440000 442500 445000 447500 450000 452500 455000 457500 460000 462500 465000
A51
A515
Key
314000

312000
Surface
River Mease
Tunnel
310000

(WCML Alternative Connection)
Surface
308000

306000
M6 TOLL A38 Surface
TAMWORTH Tunnel
304000
WCML
!
302000
ALDRIDGE
Bourne Brook !
. Growth Point
!
300000
M6 TOLL A5
!
!
. Scottish Growth Points
298000
Green Belt
Langley Brook
SUTTON M42 Growth Areas
296000
COLDFIELD M6 TOLL KINGSBURY

KINGSTANDING Indices of Deprivation Most Deprived 50%

294000
M6
292000

A38 River Bourne
290000
ASTON
Station BIRMINGHAM
288000
River Blythe
River Cole
Client:
A452
286000
BIRMINGHAM M6
INTERNATIONAL
284000

A41
HS2
A45
A435
282000
Drawing Title:
M42
Station Alternatives Alternative Routes (Map 3D)
280000

SOLIHULL
River Blythe
278000
276000


274000
River Avon A423 A45

River Sowe 0 1.25 2.5 5 7.5 10
272000
KENILWORTH km
A46
270000
A426

268000
River Avon
ROYAL LEAMINGTON
SPA Line of Route 4
266000
WARWICK
River Itchen
264000
I
DAVENTRY
A425
262000
SOUTHAM
211
530000
Key
Euston Station Footprint
!
Parkway Tunnel !
!
. Listed Building Grade II
Public Open Space
Local Conservation Area
Registered Parks & Gardens
Client:
Job Title:
HS2
Drawing Title:
Euston Station
Environmental Features Map
March 2010 Preferred Route Station
Statue of Robert Stephenson
St James Gardens
© Crown copyright
Euston Square Gardens 0100049190
0 35 70 140 210 280
Drinking Fountain in St James Gardens Meters

War Memorial, 2 Lodges, Railings around

Euston Square Gardens
Melton Street - Numbers 14,15
Department of Health and Social Security
and attached railings, 194a Euston Road
I
Melton Street - Number 9
212
530000
Key
Euston Station Footprint

Surface
Indices of Deprivation - Most Deprived 10%
Indices of Deprivation - Most Deprived 20%
Client:
Job Title:
HS2
Drawing Title:
Euston Station
Indices of Multiple Deprivation
© Crown copyright
0100049190
0 35 70 140 210 280
Meters
I
213
407500
Key
Curzon Street Station Footprint

Surface
!
!
!
Statutorily Listed Buildings

1838 Section of railway bridge into Curzon Street Station Grade
(Listed Building Grade II) I
II*
II
Locally Listed Buildings

Grade
A
B
British Rail Goods Office
(Listed Building Grade I) C
Public Open Space
Private Open Space
Private Playing Field
Grand Union Canal Conservation Area

The Woodman Public House
(Listed Building Grade II) Lawley Street Railway Viaduct Grand Union Canal
Flood Risk Zone 3
Flood Risk Zone 2
Church of St Michael
Client:
Birmingham Gun Barrel Proof House

(Listed Building Grade II*) Job Title:
HS2
Drawing Title:


Grand Union Canal
© Crown copyright
0100049190
0 37.5 75 150 225 300
Meters
Fox and Grapes Public House
Old Moor Street Station

I
214
407500
Key
Warwick Wharf Station Footprint
Alternative Approach to Warwich Wharf

Surface
!
!
!
Statutorily Listed Buildings

Grade
I
II*
II
Locally Listed Buildings

Grade
A
Public Open Space
Private Open Space
122 Fazeley Street B5 Lawley Street Railway Viaduct Private Playing Field
(Listed Building Grade II) (Listed Building Grade II) Local Conservation Area
Ringway Engineering Service Company
(Listed Building Grade II) Grand Union Canal Conservation Area
Grand Union Canal
Flood Risk Zone 3
Flood Risk Zone 2
Client:
106 Garrison Lane B9

Job Title:
HS2
Drawing Title:
Warwick Wharf Station

Alternative Birmingham Station Option
© Crown copyright
0100049190
0 40 80 160 240 320

Garrison Lane Nursery School
(Listed Building Grade II) Meters
Old Moor Street Station

The Ince House
I
215
522500
Key
Old Oak Common Station Footprint

HS2 - Northern Platform
Classic Line - Southern Platform

Surface
Tunnel
Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough
!
!
!
Statutory Listed Buildings

I
Grand Union Canal (Local Conservation Area)
II*
II
Public Open Space

District Boundary
182000
Client:
Job Title:
HS2
Drawing Title:
Old Oak Common

Wells House Road - properties at risk from shallow tunnelling Environmental Features Map
Wormwood Scrubs (Local Nature Reserve) © Crown copyright
0100049190
0 35 70 140 210 280
Meters
I
216
390000 395000 400000 405000 410000 415000 420000 425000 430000 435000 440000 445000 450000 455000 460000 465000 470000 475000 480000 485000 490000 495000 500000 505000 510000 515000 520000 525000 530000 535000 540000 545000 550000 555000 560000 565000 570000 575000
Key
320000
Link to WCML March 2010 Preferred Route

315000
Surface
Tunnel
310000
WCML
305000
Washwood Heath -
Proposed Rolling Stock
Depot
300000
295000
290000
Birmingham
285000
280000
Curzon Street Coventry

Station
275000
270000
Royal Leamington
265000
Spa Daventry
260000
255000
250000
245000
Banbury Client:
240000
Milton Keynes
235000
Job Title:
230000
HS2
Drawing Title:
225000
HS2 Potential Infrastructure Depot

March 2010 Preferred Route Overview
Bicester
220000
215000

Aylesbury Old Oak Common Station
210000

205000
© Crown copyright
0100049190
200000
0 3.75 7.5 15 22.5 30
Euston Station km
195000
190000
High Wycombe
185000
London
180000
175000
Heathrow Airport
I
170000
165000
217
390000 395000 400000 405000 410000 415000 420000 425000 430000 435000 440000 445000 450000 455000 460000 465000 470000 475000 480000 485000 490000 495000 500000 505000 510000 515000 520000 525000 530000 535000 540000 545000 550000 555000 560000 565000 570000 575000
Key
320000

315000
Surface
310000
Tunnel
Washwood Heath Line of Route 4 (LoR 4)

305000
- Proposed Rolling Surface

Stock Depot
300000
Tunnel

295000
Surface
290000
Birmingham Tunnel
Birmingham Interchange Station WCML Alternative Connection
285000
Surface
Birmingham Station
280000
Tunnel
Options Coventry
(Curzon Street Iver Connection
275000
and Warwick Wharf) Surface

270000
Tunnel
WCML
Royal Leamington
265000
Spa Daventry
260000
255000
250000
245000
Banbury Client:
240000
Milton Keynes
235000
Job Title:
230000
HS2
Drawing Title:
225000
HS2 Potential Infrastructure Depot

All Route Options Overview
Bicester
220000
215000
Aylesbury Old Oak Common Station Drawing Status: Drawing Number: Map No:
210000

205000
© Crown copyright
0100049190
200000
0 4 8 16 24 32
London Station Options
km
(Euston and Kings Cross)
195000
190000
High Wycombe
185000
London
180000
175000
Heathrow Airport
I
170000
165000
218

HS2 Preferred Scheme and Main Alternatives

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

HS2 Preferred Scheme and Main Alternatives

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HS2 London to the West Midlands

HS2 London to the West Midlands

A Report for HS2 Ltd

Principal author Nick Giesler

Key features map

2. HS2 and climate change

Resilience to climate change

5. HS2 and sustainable consumption and production

15. Economic Welfare

- Birmingham Interchange Station (including throats) - estimated to be 11,600 tonnes CO2.

o Birmingham Interchange Station (including throats) - No significant effects

Health and well-being

Economic welfare and prosperity

Soil and land resources

Improve 11c. Potential to improve public transport Overview of this alternative –

Security and safety

Economic welfare and prosperity

Soil and land resources

5. Support 5a. Impacts on sites of international Overview of this alternative –

Impacts on areas with highest 20% of Overview of this alternative –

Sustainable Consumption and Production

Greenhouse gases Noise and vibration

Economic welfare and prosperity

Soil and land resources

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions and combating climate change

Natural and cultural resource protection and environmental enhancement

Creating sustainable communities

Sustainable consumption and production

7. No NATA 7a. Extent of infrastructure within 1 in 100 Overview of this alternative –

Provide 14b. Changes in agglomeration, market Overview of this alternative –

Biodiversity Waste generation

Noise and vibration

Carbon emissions resulting from Overview of this alternative –

Landscape, townscape and cultural heritage Accessibility

Health and well-being

Economic welfare and prosperity

Soil and land resources

Harrow London Borough Tunnel

Barnet London Borough Haringey London Borough

Brent London Borough A406 A41 Hackney London Borough

Camden London Borough

Ealing London Borough

Old Oak Common Station

Kensington and Chelsea London Borough Job Title:

Hounslow London Borough

March 2010 Preferred Route

Southwark London Borough Version 4 HS2-BZT-00-DR-SU-00010 1

the permission of Ordnance Survey on

Lambeth London Borough 0100049190

Wandsworth London Borough

Hertsmere District (B)

River Colne NORTHWOOD Dolis B WCML

Harrow London Borough

Brent London Borough A406 A

Hillingdon London Borough A40 River Brent

Ealing London Borough

This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with

Hounslow London Borough 0100049190

Richmond upon Thames London Borough

Spelthorne District (B)

March 2010 Preferred Route

Aylesbury Vale District

Dacorum District (B)