This is an HTML version of an attachment to the Freedom of Information request 'HS2 compensation consultation'.

HS2 Hybrid Bill Petitioning 
Summary of SMBC Asks – 23/09/13 
 

Background 
The Council has a developed a significant number of ‘asks’ and ‘propositions’ for 
consideration by HS2 Ltd and Government throughout further development of the HS2 
scheme.    
The ‘asks’ set out by this note reflect those submitted by the Council in response to the recent 
HS2 Ltd consultations on its Draft HS2 Environmental Statement and Design Refinements.  
These ‘asks’ (set out in no particular order) are of the high-level, strategic nature relevant for 
consideration as part of the Hybrid Bill petitioning process.  
1) 
Socio-economic Benefits – UK Central, Skills and Employment 
To ensure the success of HS2 it is vital that the socio-economic benefits that may be 
generated both directly and indirectly by HS2 are identified and realised. 
UK Central has been launched recently by the Council and it sets a direction for 
managed growth across a wider geographical area than the HS2 Interchange station. 
Plans for HS2, should therefore be aligned with emerging plans for UK Central 
(http://www.uk-c.com/ (formerly referred to as the ‘M42 Economic Gateway’ in 
Solihull)) so that the economic growth potential associated with HS2 is captured for the 
benefit of Solihull and the wider region, including the Greater Birmingham and Solihull 
Local Enterprise Partnership area.  
There is a need for intervention to ensure that procurement and employment 
opportunities (and the accessibility of those opportunities) arising from the construction 
and operational phases of HS2 do not bypass the local economy.  This should be 
implemented via a strategic partnership approach between HS2 Ltd, the Council and 
its partners including a statement of intent in the Construction Code of Practice, 
development of a Skills and Employment Strategy and inclusion of Targeted 
Recruitment and Training clauses in contracts and supply chain engagement and 
development activities. 
2) 
Balsall Common Tunnel 
The Draft ES does not propose a deep bore tunnel in the Berkswell / Balsall Common 
area.   
It does however consider 3 different tunnel options as ‘scheme alternatives’.  Whilst 
each of the tunnel options would have some form of impact, the Draft ES does 
acknowledge that (relative to the proposed scheme) the implementation of a deep 
bore tunnel would give rise to environmental and community benefits.  However, it 
concludes that the magnitude of the benefits that would be generated would not be 
“substantial enough to justify the increased cost and construction programme”.  The 
Draft ES does not provide evidence of the analysis carried out to support such a 
conclusion.   
HS2 Hybrid Bill Petitioning 
Summary of SMBC ‘Asks’ 
 
- 1 - 

The Council considers that the implementation of a tunnel in the Balsall Common area 
will avoid the problems associated with crossing the West Coast Mainline and mitigate 
the enormous environmental impact on the local area.  Serious reconsideration should 
therefore be given to running HS2 in a deep bore tunnel at this location.  Furthermore, 
more detailed ‘Cost-Benefit Analysis’ information is required, and has already been 
formally requested, in order for the Council to better understand the HS2 Ltd decision 
making processes carried out to date.  
3) 
Hampton in Arden Realignment / Tunnelling 
The Draft ES does not propose realignment and / or tunnelling for the section of HS2 
that runs to the east of Hampton in Arden.   
In its meeting with the Secretary of State, the Council requested consideration of the 
realignment of HS2, and / or tunnelling where possible, to minimise impacts on 
Hampton in Arden. 
The Draft ES does not refer to options having been considered for realignment or 
tunnelling adjacent to Hampton in Arden.  Clarification on this matter is therefore 
required.   
4) 
Heath Park, Chelmsley Wood 
In the vicinity of Chelmsley Wood, the alignment of HS2 has been shifted to the east, 
relative to that announced in January 2012.  The impact of HS2 on the Bluebell 
Recreation Ground and the Chelmsley Wood area is therefore reduced.  However, 
there remains an impact on Heath Park, over which HS2 is proposed to pass on a 
viaduct – there will be both a temporary and permanent loss of greenspace and 
significant visual and noise impacts on local residents. 
Clarification is required on how the noise and visual impact of the viaduct over Heath 
Park will be mitigated, as well as the provision of like-for-like facilities to cater for the 
loss of greenspace; simply compensating financially is considered unacceptable.  
Options for mitigation should be developed through consultation with the Council and 
local communities. 
5) 
Wider Landscape Enhancement – Extent of Assessment Corridor 
The Draft ES sets out a range of mitigation (and, potentially, enhancement) measures 
within a finite corridor extending along the route of HS2.  There appears to have been 
little consideration given towards providing mitigation measures and enhancements in 
more remote locations away from the railway. 
Opportunities should be explored to provide improvements of, and enhancement to, 
the wider area surrounding HS2.  Landscape, ecological, heritage and green 
infrastructure enhancements could go some way towards offsetting the localised 
impacts of the railway (for communities and eco-systems etc.) as well as enhancing 
views from HS2 for its users.  Early investment in these measures is important to 
ensure that the associated benefits are realised and established in advance of the 
opening of HS2. 
6) Community 
Fund 
In its response to the Government / HS2 Ltd consultation on Property Compensation, 
the Council raised its concern regarding the impacts of both the construction and 
operation of HS2.  The response suggested the establishment of a ‘Community Fund’ 
to provide a form of mitigation of / compensation for the effects of HS2 on local 
communities. 
HS2 Hybrid Bill Petitioning 
Summary of SMBC ‘Asks’ 
 
- 2 - 

It is understood that a 'Countryside Initiative' was set up in association with HS1 to 
provide enhancement of landscape, biodiversity and heritage in areas affected by the 
railway through the provision of grants, advice, support and advocacy.  A similar 
initiative should be set up in association with HS2, perhaps within the context of 
delivering enhancements to the wider landscape surrounding the railway.  
Any Community Fund arrangement that is set up should be done so on a local area 
basis.  Funding should be apportioned to each area to enable local improvements to 
be delivered in those areas.  Establishment of a ‘single pot fund’, to which all local 
areas could bid and compete for funds, would be considered inappropriate.  HS2 Ltd 
should engage with the Council throughout the development and administration of any 
form of Community Fund scheme.  
7) 
Noise Impact and Design Speed  
The Draft ES includes a series of noise contour maps, which provide an indication of 
the noise levels generated by HS2 through the borough. 
Whilst useful, the mapping is difficult for residents and communities to interpret as it 
does not demonstrate the increase in noise levels that they will be subject to relative to 
those currently experienced.  This is due to baseline noise assessment remaining on-
going. 
Furthermore, the noise mapping released refers only to ‘average’ noise levels; it does 
not provide an indication of the ‘peak’ levels of noise that will be generated by HS2.  
The impact of peak noise is considered especially important for members of the local 
community as it is likely that the peak level of noise generated by HS2 will be most 
intrusive form of noise, for example in disrupting sleep. 
In order to fully understand the impact of noise generated by HS2, the Formal ES 
should include an assessment of the impact of peak noise and should demonstrate the 
increase in average noise levels that will be experienced throughout areas affected by 
HS2. 
The Formal ES should also consider the environmental benefits that may be brought 
about through a reduction in design speed of the railway in the Solihull area – it is 
likely that the impact of noise will be decreased in association with a reduction in 
design speed.  Furthermore, a lower design speed will enable tighter turning radii to be 
achieved, which could enable the railway to be realigned such that it passes further 
away from local communities, thereby further reducing impacts on those communities.  
8) 
Construction – Haul Routes, Enforcement, Engagement, Management and 
Funding. 

The Draft ES highlights roads that will be used as haul routes to serve HS2 
construction sites, and provides an indication as to the potential usage of these roads. 
The Council’s view is that, where possible, construction sites should be accessed 
directly from ‘A’ roads to minimise impacts on communities and ensure that roads of a 
suitable construction standard and width are used. 
A number of the roads identified by HS2 Ltd as being used to serve construction 
compounds are considered unsuitable; for example Truggist Lane and Lavender Hall 
Lane in Balsall Common; Diddington Lane, Hampton in Arden; Water Orton Road, 
Castle Bromwich and Middle Bickenhill Lane, Bickenhill. 
HS2 Hybrid Bill Petitioning 
Summary of SMBC ‘Asks’ 
 
- 3 - 

Clarification is required in more detail as to the intended use of these roads, and 
whether alternative options for construction site access are available (for, example 
through the construction of new, temporary roads and / or through use of the land 
upon which HS2 will be built). 
The Council is aware that the HS2 Hybrid Bill may not affect the general permitted 
development and works privileges afforded to Statutory Undertakers.  It is important 
that works undertaken by Statutory Undertakers are well coordinated with those 
associated with the construction of HS2 such that disruption to the operation of the 
local highway network is minimised; clarity is required as to how this will be achieved. 
Clarity is required on the role of the Council in enforcing all construction activities (not 
just limited to haul routes) that do not comply with the requirements of the CoCP and / 
or any other agreements that may be established.  Appropriate funding should be 
provided for Council resources in association with enforcing upon HS2-construction 
related activities. 
It is also important that engagement with local communities is continued throughout 
the construction process to enable a two-way flow of information and discussion with 
those directly affected by construction activities.  The Draft CoCP makes reference to 
the development of a Stakeholder Engagement Framework; clarity is therefore 
required as to how HS2 Ltd and its construction contractors intend to engage with local 
communities throughout the construction of HS2. 
Communities should have a clear and effective link to HS2 to ensure any concerns are 
dealt with effectively and quickly. 
9) 
Viaduct Design  
The Draft ES includes photomontages of proposed viaducts.  The photomontages 
illustrate that a relatively bland and imposing concrete structure will form the basis of 
the proposed viaducts. 
It is understood that the photomontages are, at this stage, purely indicative of the type 
of material that will be used in viaduct construction.  It is therefore vital that HS2 Ltd 
works with the Council, and local communities, to develop viaduct design proposals 
that are iconic, attractive and complement and showcase the character of the area in 
which they are proposed. 
Similar principles should be applied to the design and development of the proposed 
‘people mover’ link between the Interchange Station and the NEC, Birmingham 
International Station and Birmingham Airport.  
10) Kenilworth 
Greenway 
The Draft ES indicates that a section of the Kenilworth Greenway will be used as a 
haul route during the construction of HS2, and that a temporary diversion route will be 
provided to cater for this loss. 
Part of the temporary footpath is proposed to run through a flood plain, which is known 
to flood from time to time.  It is important that the temporary measures are provided to 
an equivalent standard to that of the Greenway and that appropriate measures are put 
in place to prevent and / or mitigate any flooding issues that may arise.  
Following construction of HS2, the Draft ES suggests that the Greenway will be 
reinstated to its current standard.  Given the impact on the Greenway (and the 
surrounding area) associated with the operation of HS2, the Council considers that 
opportunities to enhance the Greenway substantially should be captured in association 
with its reinstatement. 
HS2 Hybrid Bill Petitioning 
Summary of SMBC ‘Asks’ 
 
- 4 - 

Furthermore, the opportunity should be explored to deliver, in association with HS2, an 
effective link between the northern end of the Greenway and Balsall Common village 
centre.  
11) 
Lack of background information, evidence and analysis 
The Draft ES has been released to show the current thinking of HS2 Ltd and to gauge 
opinion on some of the mitigation measures that are currently proposed.  It therefore 
includes statements on the significance of HS2-generated effects for a number of 
potential impacts, e.g. the effects of noise on people, the effect of road closures, the 
effect on cultural heritage assets etc. 
However, due to a number of assessments remaining on-going, there is a lack of 
evidence supplied in support of those statements.  It is therefore difficult to form an 
informed decision as to whether or not the statements put forward by Draft ES are 
valid. 
Furthermore, not all potential environmental impacts appear to have been addressed 
by the Draft ES.  For example, no information appears to have been provided in 
relation to either the potential electromagnetic interference or the potential for light 
pollution that may be generated by the scheme. 
In order for the Council to fully understand the impacts of HS2, it is important that the 
Formal ES includes all the analysis and evidence relied upon in drawing its 
conclusions.  The analysis should be provided in relation to all effects generated by 
HS2, not solely those identified as being ‘significant’. 
 
  
HS2 Hybrid Bill Petitioning 
Summary of SMBC ‘Asks’ 
 
- 5 -