British Waterways Management of HS2 Interactions
Dear British Waterways Board,
My expectation is that British Waterways will by now be well aware of the UK government plans for a new high speed railway route designated HS2 (High-Speed 2). Indeed my hope is that British Waterways is already engaged in an active dialogue with the Department for Transport (DfT) regarding this project, this being with a view to ensuring that it does not adversely impact upon the waterways for which British Waterways are responsible.
Having recently reviewed some of the HS2 plans that have been made available on the DfT website, I am concerned that due consideration may not be given to certain areas and features of the waterways for which British Waterways are responsible. For example, whereas any new bridges that are required for roads are shown in the plans, bridges for canal crossings have not been shown. It is not clear to me whether or not there has been any consideration given to the water levels in the canals and the planned track level.
Clearly HS2 is a massive project and it has the potential to significantly impact upon the waterways and the users of those waterways. I need to know that British Waterways is taking all appropriate and reasonable steps to ensure that the impact is minimised and that all existing canal systems will remain navigable and that the 'quality of the waterways experience' will not deteriorate. I also need to know that restoration canal projects will not be compromised or rendered unfeasible as a result of HS2.
To this end, please provide a reference copy of the British Waterways plan for managing the waterway interface and all interactions with HS2, along with supporting risk assessments and an environmental impact assessment, etc. May I suggest that these documents are made available without delay on the British Waterways and/or Waterscape websites so that other interested parties can also examine the content and offer comments?
Yours faithfully,
CW
Dear Mr Wells
Thank you for your request for information dated 1st February 2010.
I understand that you have requested the following information:
The British Waterways plan for managing the waterway interface and all
interactions with HS2, along with supporting risk assessments and
an environmental impact assessment.
I am pleased to inform you that once we have confirmed the extent to which
the regulations permit the release of the information which you have
requested a response will be sent within a 20 working day timescale from
the date we received your request.
Yours Sincerely
Chris Gray
British Waterways
Information officer
01942 405732
Dear Mr Wells
Further to my correspondence with you of 4^th February 2011 I am
responding to your request for all documents regarding:
The British Waterways plan for managing the waterway interface and all
interactions with HS2, along with supporting risk assessments and
an environmental impact assessment.
High Speed Two
British Waterways is establishing a project team to respond to the formal
public consultation on High Speed Two (HS2) launched today. British
Waterways has requested a meeting with HS2's Stakeholder Engagement Team
to fully understand the detailed route for HS2 and to assess its impact on
any affected canals, navigable rivers, operational and non-operational
land, heritage assets, wildlife sites, canal restorations schemes and
other important sites and assets that we are responsible for. We will aim
to ensure that any impacts are mitigated and, where possible, enhanced.
We will also be investigating the impact of the proposals on the
waterways' commercial interests.
At this early stage, we are reviewing the potential interfaces between the
proposed route of HS2 and our network to establish a strategic
understanding of potential impacts. We will be able to comment further
once detailed investigations have been carried out as part of the formal
public consultations.
This project team will be led by Ian Runeckles (Strategic Planning
Manager-South).
If we haven't reasonably met your expectations in relation to a request
for information or you believe we may not have acted in accordance with
the above legislation you should write in the first instance to Kelly
Radley Head of Customer Relations, 64 Clarendon Road, Watford, Herts WD17
1DA outlining your concerns and asking for a review to be undertaken.
Your correspondence will be acknowledged and a review of your case will be
undertaken by one of British Waterways' directors.
Should you remain unsatisfied by the response you receive you are able to
contact the Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane,
Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF [1]www.ico.gov.uk/Global/contact_us.aspx.
Yours Sincerely
Chris Gray
Information Officer
British Waterways
01942 405732
From: Chris Gray
Sent: 04 February 2011 11:26
To: 'Chris Wells'
Subject: RE: Freedom of Information request - British Waterways Management
of HS2 Interactions FOIA22/10 - Mr Wells
Dear Mr Wells
Thank you for your request for information dated 1st February 2010.
I understand that you have requested the following information:
The British Waterways plan for managing the waterway interface and all
interactions with HS2, along with supporting risk assessments and
an environmental impact assessment.
I am pleased to inform you that once we have confirmed the extent to which
the regulations permit the release of the information which you have
requested a response will be sent within a 20 working day timescale from
the date we received your request.
Yours Sincerely
Chris Gray
British Waterways
Information officer
01942 405732
Dear Mr Gray,
Thank you for your letter of 28 February 2011, the content of which I found most encouraging.
I have noted from your letter that there are many HS2 related actions yet to be carried out by British Waterways – please add a more detailed timeline to these actions. I would still like to receive a reference copy of the British Waterways plan for managing the interface and all interactions with HS2, along with supporting risk assessments and an environmental impact assessment, etc. when these documents are available.
British Waterways has indicated that support from volunteers and other contributors to the ongoing preservation and maintenance, etc. of our waterways would be welcomed and indeed British Waterways has recently undertaken a publicity drive to this effect. I propose that the scope of this support should really be extended to the HS2 interface and interaction with the waterways. To this end, I strongly recommend that you bring much greater visibility to the British Waterways HS2 related activities by not only offering reference copies of the documents I have mentioned above on the British Waterways and/or Waterscape websites, but also by offering a more or less ‘real-time’ information flow about the British Waterways dialogue with the HS2 Stakeholder Engagement Team and other parties on these websites. I propose that doing so should facilitate an up to date general awareness of developments and should maximise the opportunities for interested parties to contribute in a timely manner.
Yours sincerely,
Chris Wells
Chris Wells left an annotation ()
Ian Runeckles of British Waterways provided me with the following update by email on 22 March 2011:
Good morning Chris
Further to your Freedom of Information request, I thought that it might help if I gave you an up-date on our progress.
We have now met representatives from High Speed Two (HS2) and have a better understanding of the proposed route and how it intersects with our network of inland waterways. As you may know, the maps made available on DfT’s website for the public consultation provide “a detailed depiction of the preferred route option that has been taken forward for public consultation”. At this stage, we therefore have no detailed engineering drawings providing any details relating to piling, tunneling, bridges, bridge abutments, retaining walls, cuttings, embankments and so on. This level of detail will come forward as part of the Bill Preparation following the Government’s expected announcement on its review of the public consultation at the end of the year. However, we now know where the proposed route will intersect with our operational canal network.
In terms of crossing points, HS2 intersects with British Waterways’ inland waterways as follows (starting at the London end):
Euston to Coleshill Jounction
1. Tunnel under Regent’s Canal (immediately to the west of Bridge 16 at Gloucester Road) at an estimated depth of 30m;
2. Tunnel under Paddington Arm (immediately under Bridges 6 and 7d at Scrubs Lane) at an estimated depth of 36m;
3. Bridge over the Paddington Arm (immediately over Bridge 16 in Northolt) at an estimated height of 3m above water level;
4. Viaduct over the Grand Union Canal (approximately 500m north of Bridge 181 and approximately 150m south of Harefield Marina) at an estimated height of 15m above water level;
5. Bridge over the Oxford Canal (approximately 50m east of Bridge 128) at an estimated height of 3m above water level. It also runs close to the Oxford Canal approximately 300m south-west of Bridge 127;
6. Viaduct over the Grand Union Canal (approximately 100m east of Bridge 31) at an estimated height of 7m above water level;
Coleshill Junction to Curzon Street (Birmingham Spur)
7. Bridge over the Birmingham and Warwick Junction Canal (immediately over Bridges 108A-C) at an estimated height of 3m above water level;
8. Viaduct over the Birmingham and Fazeley Canal – Digbeth Branch (immediately over Lock 6) at an estimated height of 12m above water level;
Coleshill Junction to Lichfield (connection to West Coast mainline)
9. Viaduct over the Birmingham and Fazeley Canal (between and over Locks 4 and 5) at an estimated height of 10m above water level;
10. Bridge over the disused Wyrley and Essington Canal (immediately over the Capper’s Lane Bridge) at an estimated height of 14m above water level and runs alongside the Coventry Canal (nearest point approximately 100m west of Bridge 84)
11. Bridge over the Trent and Mersey Canal (approximately 600m south-west of Bridge 52) at an estimated height of 1.5m above water level; and
12. Bridge over the Trent and Mersey Canal (immediately to the north of Woodend Lock) at an estimated height of 1m above water level.
To the best of my knowledge, the above list outlines all of HS2’s intersections with our current operational network. However, I must add a proviso that this list should not be regarded as definitive. In the event, that any further intersections come to light, I will of course let you know. Equally, if you are made aware of any other intersections with our current operational network or on-going or future restoration projects then I’d pleased to hear from them.
I hope this helps.
Kind regards, Ian
Ian Runeckles
Strategic Planning Manager (South)
British Waterways
1 Sheldon Square, Paddington Central, London, W2 6TT
D 020 7985 7231
M 07795 027362
E ian.runeckles@britishwaterways.co.uk
Chris Wells left an annotation ()
I offered the following email reply to Ian Runeckles on 25 March 2011:
Dear Mr Runeckles,
Thank for providing this update for British Waterways’ progress.
I shall upload your email to the WhatDoTheyKnow website so that other interested parties may be made aware of developments and can thereafter raise any concerns that they might have.
Meanwhile, may I offer you the following comments with regard to your Item 11) and Item 12):
a) I am very familiar with this section of the Trent & Mersey Canal and I have studied the proposed HS2 crossing points hereabouts to some extent.
b) I feel some sadness for the residents at the Woodend Lock cottage and I am wondering if the thought of having a new high-speed railway line pass more or less through their back garden ever crossed their minds when they moved in some years back. I doubt it very much, but dealing with such an issue is of course a matter for them to sort out. I just thought that I would mention it so as to highlight another disruptive influence and potential casualty of this HS2 project.
c) Of more concern to me at present are the expected relative heights of the HS2 line and the canal water level at both of these locations, i.e. 1.5 metres and 1.0 metre respectively. Assuming that the heights stated in your email are not typographical errors, I can only deduce that, should this HS2 project proceed, there will be a need to expend some serious design and construction effort if the canal here is to remain navigable. It may not be practical to elevate the HS2 line sufficient to provide adequate clearance with the canal at both of these proposed crossing points, thus British Waterways may well out of necessity be much more involved in the associated works. Thoughts that come to mind are suitably lowering the water level in the canal from a point somewhere just North of Woodend Lock and the proposed HS2 crossing point in 12) until the canal has passed under both of the proposed HS2 crossing points. This would probably entail the construction of a new lock to replace the lock currently situated at Woodend and deepening the entire section of canal between here and Shadehouse Lock / Bridge 52. It is just possible that this might impact upon the section of canal between Shadehouse Lock / Bridge 52 and Middle Lock just downstream.
d) As an alternative to the propositions offered in c) above, it might in the long run be more cost-effective to locally re-route the canal so that it stays on the Northern side of the proposed HS2 line. That way, whilst there would probably still be a need for a new lock to replace Woodend, the existing water level thereafter to Shadehouse Lock / Bridge 52 could stay as it is. There is of course the local flood plain near Woodend to consider and this might demand the construction of an ‘aqueduct’ if the canal is re-routed. It would appear that the HS2 planners have given some thought to the construction of a new viaduct here – it might even be feasible to integrate an aqueduct into this viaduct.
Whilst corresponding anyway, might I ask if you have given any consideration yet to offering information on this HS2 topic to interested parties via the British Waterways website or the Waterscape website?
Thank you again for your provision of this information. If I learn of any more interactions, I shall of course be in touch.
Regards, Chris Wells
Chris Wells left an annotation ()
I quizzed Ian Runeckles, British Waterways about the 'air gap' between the HS2 structure and the water level in the canal at locations 11) and 12). He offered the following information on 31 March 2011:
Dear Chris,
This is an issue that we immediately raised with HS2 and that they are reviewing. The air drafts are from the lowest point of the structure over the navigational channel to estimated water levels. Clearly, 1 and 1.5m clearances are unacceptable and we will, of course, make representations to HS2 to ensure that adequate navigational clearances are achieved, probably in the order of 3m clearances.
I hope this helps.
Regards, Ian
Ian Runeckles
Strategic Planning Manager (South)
British Waterways
1 Sheldon Square, Paddington Central, London, W2 6TT
D 020 7985 7231
M 07795 027362
E ian.runeckles@britishwaterways.co.uk
We work to defend the right to FOI for everyone
Help us protect your right to hold public authorities to account. Donate and support our work.
Donate Now
Chris Wells left an annotation ()
British Waterways has acknowledged my FOI request. I am not sure how any 'regulations' as such might impact upon their ability to reply.