bullet Anti-HS2 fund

Please contribute to our anti-HS2 Fighting Fund.

bullet Environmental items

Read a summary of our response to the Environmental Statement here and our detailed response here.

We submitted evidence to the Environmental Audit Committee in March. Read more here.

Bucks County Council have updated their baseline environmental audit. Read more here (9MB PDF).

bullet HS2 meets the Misbourne

Notes from the bilateral meeting with HS2 on the impact of tunnelling through the Misbourne Valley can be downloaded here.

bullet Fun raising

Get the protest song by Dirty Mavis. Each sale contributes funds to the HS2 fight.

bullet Join in

Become a member of the Chiltern Society.

Join one of the online campaigns (see top right for Facebook):
Twitter Twitter

Share this page with your online network:
Share this

< HS2 homepage

Dunsmore, Wendover and Halton

1.1.6 states that the Government believes HS2 should be linked to Heathrow. The fact they have excluded the link from this document altogether brings into account the choice of route. One of the key terms of reference for HS2 was to link to Heathrow. As this is now off the table, the alternative routes should be looked at again, and a proper Environmental Impact Assessment completed. The other assumption is that elimination of the Heathrow link reduces the headline capital expenditure numbers.

1.3.6 This states that there is some flexibility to alter both the horizontal and vertical alignment of the route. While this may be acceptable generally this is not acceptable in an AONB. As an example, Grim’s Ditch, a scheduled ancient monument, is already impacted by the proposed scheme. Moving the line to the west could create a further loss. There is also flexibility to move the vertical alignment a maximum of three metres upwards. This is unacceptable in an AONB, where raising the line could add considerably to the visual and noise impact. If these are not prohibited, at least they should be subject to agreement with the relevant local authority.


2 - Overview

2.1.6 claims to list the key road structure. However it omits the B4009 Tring Road, which links Wendover to the A41 and Tring. This road is a major commuter route. In addition it fails to list the Ellesborough Road, which provides a principal link to Ellesborough, Princes Risborough and High Wycombe linking up with A4010.

2.1.7 fails to mention that the proposed route also crosses the Ridgeway, a major National Trail going back to prehistoric times, together with the Icknield Way. However these are mentioned in 2.1.12 under recreation and leisure.

2.2.6 describes the route from the South Heath Cutting to Wendover Dean. It identifies a ‘sustainable placement area’ where approximately 1,000,000 M3 of excavated material will be dumped on an area 1.3km long 450m wide and up to 5m high. This is on Hunts Green Farm, adjoining the proposed route between Leather Lane and Bowood Lane. It includes:

  • five overbridges, generally one metre above existing ground level;
  • the loss of part of Grim’s Ditch;
  • various landscaping efforts, and
  • a land drainage scheme.

The impact will mainly be a trench starting at 17m deep and coming down to 0m. The catenary towers etc will emerge from the trench like a set of teeth. The overbridges, at one metre above ground level, could be expanded into green bridges to improve migration paths for animals.

2.2.8 describes the route from Wendover Dean to Small Dean This comprises:

  • A 100m embankment up to 9m high
  • 500m viaduct 18m above existing ground level with 3m noise barriers to the west
  • from the start of the embankment to 70m north of the viaduct.
  • 150m embankment up to 8m high
  • 500m cutting up to 7m deep
  • 3 land drainage / balancing ponds

The impact will be the introduction of a series of embankments and a viaduct up to 18m high, with a 500m cutting, creating a completely alien feature in this wide valley. These will be topped by catenary towers, adding visual, noise and light pollution into this peaceful scenery.

2.2.10 describes Small Dean area. This comprises:

  • 900m embankment up to 11m high
  • 500m viaduct 14m high across the A413
  • 700m embankment up to 12m high
  • 2 underbridges
  • 6 land drainage / balancing ponds
  • Various landscaping including a 5m embankment high north and south of Rocky
  • Lane with 3m acoustic fences on top.
  • Various areas of landscape planting.

The high embankment / viaduct across this wide valley will add visual, noise and light pollution. These will be completely alien features in the landscape.

2.2.12 describes the Wendover Green Tunnel. This involves:

  • A 1.3km cut and cover tunnel
  • The diversion and reinstatement of Ellesborough Road and Bacombe Lane
  • The diversion and reinstatement of various PRoWs including the Ridgeway and
  • the Icknield Way
  • Landscaping works.

The temporary impact of this on Wendover and the surrounding area will be serious with regard to noise, dust pollution and traffic disruption. The permanent impact will be substantially less, mainly through the noise reduction afforded by the tunnel.

2.2.14 describes the Wendover North Cutting to Stoke Mandeville South. This comprises:

  • 1.6km cutting up to 11m deep
  • 250m long embankment up to 2m
  • 2 overbridges
  • 3m and 5m high acoustic barriers along most of the route
  • 3 land drainage / balancing ponds
  • Maintenance loops north of B4009. These will be 4 tracks wide with a service road on each side.
  • Mitigation via some wetland and grassland area being created

This section adds more alien features into the flat flood plain of the Aylesbury Vale. The main impact will be visual with the noise reduction landscaping topped with 3m and 5m acoustic fences. The maintenance loop takes a large area of land and will add noise at night with trains being prepared from 22.00 to leave at midnight and returning at 05.00 with unloading to 07.00.

2.3.12 sets out what will happen at main compounds:

  • Storage of bulk materials
  • Receipt storage, loading/unloading of excavated material.
  • Fabrication of temporary works equipment and finished goods
  • Fuel and plant storage
  • Office space
  • Parking
  • Welfare facilities
  • Possibly staff accommodation.

2.3.20 states that Small Dean Viaduct will be a main compound and

  • will be operational for four years three months. Living accommodation for 170 to 240 workmen.


Access Routes

2.3.20 Small Dean viaduct main compound

Accessed via the A413, B4009, A4010 and the M40 and/or to the M40 via A4129 and A418 from A4010 and/or A413, A355, A40 and the M40 in the west, and the A413, A40 and the M40 in the east.

2.3.21 Leather Lane overbridge satellite compound

Accessed via Leather Lane, Potter Row, Frith Hill, B485 Chesham Road, A413 and the M40 and/or A413, A355, A40 and the M40.

2.3.29 Bowood Lane overbridge satellite compound and Wndover Dean viaduct satellite compound

Accessed via site haul road from Leather Lane, Potter Row, Frith Hill, B485 Chesham Road, A413 and the M40.

2.3.36 Rocky Lane underbridge satellite compound/Wendover auto-transformer station satellite compound and Small Dean viaduct launch satellite compound

Accessed via Rocky Lane, A413, B4009, A4010 and the M40 and/or the M40 via A4129 and A418 from A4010 and/or A413, A355, A40 and the M40 in the west; and A413, A40 and the M40 in the east.

2.3.49 Wendover green tunnel (south) satellite compound and Wendover green tunnel (north) satellite compound

Accessed via a site haul road at Small Dean viaduct main compound from the A413, B4009, A4010 and the M40 and/or the M40 via A4129 and A418 from A4010 and/or A413, A355, A40 and the M40 in the west; and A413, A40 and the M40 in the east.

2.3.62 B4009 Nash Lee Road overbridge satellite compound

Accessed via Nash Lee Road, A413, B4009, A4010 and the M40 and/or the M40 via A4129 and A418 from A4010 and/or A413, A355, A40 and the M40 in the west; and A413, A40 and the M40 in the east.

Footpaths that will be closed or diverted for varying periods from 6 months to 3 years.

Ref Footpath Temporary diversion Permanent diversion Comments
2.3.26 TLE/2 50m

Reinstated over TLE/2 overbridge
2.3.26 TLE/3 550m Across Bowood Lane overbridge

2.3.35 TLE/5 100m via WEN/36 negligible Diverted under Wendover Dean viaduct
2.3.35 WEN/36 100m negligible Diverted under Wendover Dean viaduct
2.3.35 WEN/39 100m Original alignment Diverted under Wendover Dean viaduct
2.3.45 Bridleway 400m Stopped up

2.3.45 WEN/57 negligible Original alignment Via WEN/14, WEN/13/B, WEN/13/C
2.3.45 WEN/57 Bridleway 2,200m Original alignment Via WEN/14, WEN/27/BW, WEN/13/BW
2.3.56 WEN/14 Bridleway Open 100m Permanent diversion over green tunnel
2.3.56 WEN/13A 200m Reinstated Over green tunnel
2.3.56 WEN/6 800m Reinstated Over green tunnel
2.3.56 WEN/11 300m Reinstated Over green tunnel
2.3.56 WEN/55 200m Reinstated Over green tunnel +20m
2.3.67 ELL/25 650m 600m 200m east across new Nash Lee Road overbridge

The above schedule demonstrates the enormous impact that building HS2 will have on the access routes for walkers, cyclists and riders in the upper Misbourne Valley.


Work Camps

Ref Name Time open No workers Comments
2.3.20 Small Dean Viaduct Main Compound 4.25 years 90-135 Managed Small Dean Viaduct Main Compound
2.3.21 Leather Lane Over bridge 1.25 years 75-130 Managed Small Dean Viaduct Main Compound
2.3.29 Bowood Lane Over Bridge 2.00 years 65-125 Managed Small Dean Viaduct Main Compound
2.3.30 Wendover Dean Viaduct 2.00 years 95-95 Managed Small Dean Viaduct Compound
2.3.38 Rocky Lane Under Bridge 6.75 years 25-80 Managed Small Dean Viaduct Compound
2.3.38 Rocky Lane Under Bridge – rail 1.5 years 27-40 Managed Chiltern Main Compound – rail
2.3.39 Small Dean viaduct Launch 2.00 years 100-100 Managed Small Dean Viaduct Compound
2.3.50 Wendover Green Tunnel – South 2.75 years 70-90 Managed Small Dean Viaduct Compound
2.3.51 Wendover Green Tunnel – North 2.50 years 65-80 Managed Small Dean Viaduct Compound
2.3.59 Wendover Green Tunnel – South – Rail 1.25 years 10-10 Managed Chiltern Main Compound – rail
2.3.62 B4009 Nash Lee Road Over Bridge 7.00 years 30-45 Managed Small Dean Viaduct Compound
2.3.62 B4009 Nash Lee road Over Bridge – rail 2.00 years 25-45 Managed Chiltern Main Compound – rail

Total Workers – civils


Total Workers – rail


Properties Demolished

Ref Road / Area No. of residential properties No. of outbuildings No. of commercial
2.3.34 Durham Farm 1 4

2.3.43 Road Barn Farm 1 3

2.3.43 Network Rail railway bridge

2.3.43 National Grid Pylons

2.3.54 30 Ellesborough Rd 1

2.3.54 32 Ellesborough Rd 1

2.3.54 34 Ellesborough Rd 1

2.3.54 36 Ellesborough Rd 1

2.3.54 38 Ellesborough Rd 1

2.3.54 40 Ellesborough Rd 1

2.3.54 Community Facility – Wendover Cricket Ground

2.3.54 National Grid Pylon

2.3.65 National Grid Pylons


Total Demolitions 8 7 10

2.3.82 states that inert excavated material (spoil) will be placed on land at Hunt’s Green Farm in CFA 10. This is unacceptable in an AONB. The landscape should not be reshaped to accommodate excess spoil it should be removed from the AONB. A better alternative would be to avoid the AONB altogether or at least to tunnel underneath to avoid changing this designated landscape.

2.3.85 Table 3 states that 6,976,960 tonnes of material will be excavated in CFA 9. As solid material this will be approx. 2,800,000 m3 with bulking up this will be close to 4,000,000 m3. This is a huge amount of spoil to dispose without creating a completely different land contour.

2.3.82 Table 1 shows that 5,105,809MT of excavated spoil will be generated in this CFA. Per 2.3.78 the majority of this will be reused as engineering fill material or for landscaping. This gives a clear picture of the degree of change that will be forced onto the AONB if the scheme goes ahead as proposed.


Community Forum Engagement

The Society has had representatives at the Community Forum meetings for CFA 10. These have been an almost complete waste of time. The HS2 staff were unwilling to participate if the meeting was recorded, which seems odd for engagement with the community. They changed the minutes when items recorded did not suit their stance. They failed to respond to a number of requests.

2.5.4 contains the main the concerns of the forums, and are still valid seeing that there has been hardly any change in the proposed scheme. However it fails to list the concern over access to the main A&E centre for the area at Stoke Mandeville Hospital.

2.5.5 talks about the consultation on the Draft Environmental Statement. This was full of errors, inconsistencies and ‘this will be dealt with in the Final ES’. It is apparent that no notice has been taken of the responses to that consultation.

2.5.6. The HS2 staff who attended the forums were either supercilious or were not allowed to engage in a serious debate about anything. The Area Manager's main concern was to avoid agreeing to anything.


Route Section Main alternatives

2.6.3 briefly reviews the proposal for an extended Chiltern bored tunnel. It argues that part of the reason for not adopting this would be the impact of having a main compound at the tunnel portal near Stoke Mandeville. While this is true, it would remove one main compound at Small Dean plus 8 satellites in CFA 10 and 4 satellites in CFA 9. If the tunnelling was totally from the south, the dewatering part of the compound would not be needed.

2.6.4 / 7 discusses the disposal of surplus spoil. Three options were considered:

Remove spoil to Calvert by railway

The scheme, using the spoil in local engineering works, landscaping and dumping

the rest on agricultural land

Removal of surplus spoil by road to landfill.

The assertion is that there is approximately 1,000,000M3 of surplus spoil to be removed, which is estimated to require 240,000 truck movements. Even with 120,000 full truck movements this equates to 8.5M3 per truck, which seems extremely low or an error.


Extended Chiltern Tunnel

The various alternatives looked at have all been rejected on cost grounds although

2.6.11 recognises the environmental, cultural and heritage benefits that would derived from a fully bored tunnel to the northwest of Wendover. What has not been recognised is that the essential nature of the AONB would be preserved. The social and economic damage through the disruption of up to seven years with construction and loss of visitors has also been ignored.

Raising the alignment by 5m reduces the cost of construction as stated in 2.6.32 and 2.6.34, but increases the environmental impact of visual, noise and light pollution. In a large number of sections the catenary towers have become visible. Where bridges could have followed the contours of the land these are now generally raised adding a visual distraction to the landscape. The opportunity to create wide green bridges has been lost, which would not only accommodate PRoWs, but would also allow room for animal migration paths, which the proposed scheme ignores completely.

Leather Lane is a sunken lane, a very ancient form of byway and typical of the Chiltern landscape. It would be preferable for this type of landmark to be retained. A fully bored tunnel would achieve this.


3 - Agriculture, forestry and soils

3.2.3 sets out an assumption that agricultural land disturbed through construction of the route to pre-existing quality. This needs to be assessed on a field by field basis as disturbing the underlying soil can change drainage patterns and introduce a change in the chemical balance of the land, eg when applying chalk to a previously acidic soil. Also this is subject to the Code of Construction Practice being observed properly, which was not the general experience with HS1 in Kent.

3.3.17 states that as there is a high likelihood of encountering BMV land in this CFA and so this makes BMV land a resource of low sensitivity. The assumption that because there is plenty of BMV land in the area somehow devalues its sensitivity is ludicrous.

3.3.20 notes that Grim’s Ditch is of Iron Age date and represents a substantial land division that still survives as standing earthworks to wittingly destroy this part of our cultural heritage is unacceptable,

3.3.23 notes that approximately 18% of the study area i.e. within 2km (3.2.2) of the proposed route is wooded, and that as the national average is 10%, which makes woodland a resource of low sensitivity. This is a fatuous comment. The UK is under-forested compared with the rest of Europe. The country needs a greater density of forest to help with CO2 reduction. As such woodland is a receptor of high sensitivity. As most of the woodland is ancient woodland, this makes it even more sensitive as a receptor.

Table 3 shows the holdings within the 4km wide zone. This comprises 17 holdings totalling 1,184ha.of which 6 have not been spoken to. This again shows how little effort has gone into establishing the baseline

3.4.7 says that restored land will be subject to five years of managed aftercare, meaning a further period of disruption, although necessary.

3.4.8 states that 235.9 ha will be needed during the construction period, of which 171.1ha will be BMV land. Only 112.9ha of this will be restored, leaving a permanent land take of BMV land of 58.2ha.

3.4.9 demonstrates the impact of the assessment in 3.3.17 that BMV land is a resource of low sensitivity, in that an impact of high magnitude is converted into a moderate adverse effect.

Table 5 sets out the impact on the 17 holdings. Of these the report in 3.4.18 considers that 12 holdings will suffer major/moderate or moderate effects during construction. However the ratings are suspect as for example, Hartley Farm, where 88% of the land is required, but this rated as a moderate adverse impact. This calls into account the whole of the assessment of impact.

3.4.19 states that no farm enterprises are particularly sensitive to noise or vibration during the construction period. However only 11 owners have been interviewed, and a number of the holdings have horses and cattle, which are sensitive to noise. Again the quality of analysis and opinion is called into doubt.

3.4.20 Table 8 shows the permanent land take which includes 98ha of farmland and 13.8ha of woodland. 3.4.21 states that BMV land is a receptor of moderate sensitivity in this study area. What this means is that because there is a lot of BMV land in the study area, the impact of a loss is moderate. However, nationally BMV land is a receptor of high sensitivity. Using this interpretation the impact is a major adverse impact. This again demonstrates the unreasonable assumptions used in assessing the impact of the proposed scheme.

3.4.24 sets out the loss of woodland as 2.1ha, which is assessed as insignificant, as there is a lot of forestry in the area. Refer to 3.3.23 above on the unrealistic assessment of the loss of woodland.

3.4.25 Table 7 sets out an assessment of the permanent impact. Again the assessment of the impact is called into question, by the moderate adverse effect on Hartley Farm. Not only is a large part of the holding taken, the access to land is also severed. This would appear to be a major impact.

3.4.32 /33 Permanent impacts are described as loss of 58.2 ha of BMV land with a moderate impact and 10 properties with permanent impacts. 3.5.2 states that potential impacts from operation are noise from trains and warning signals, and the propensity of operational land to harbour noxious weeds. However it fails to list the impact of light at night from trains and the pantograph.


4 - Air Quality

4.2.3 sets out that the degree of significance of air pollution is dependent on the number of receptors nearby. Thus less than 10 properties, within 20m of a site, heavily impacted by dust is considered insignificant.

4.4.5 sets out dust generating activities will occur at the construction of the Wendover green tunnel, the Wendover Dean and Small Dean viaducts, a series of cuttings and embankments, and the B4009 Nash Lee Road overbridge. Effectively all along the route when haul roads are included.

4.4.6 In Vol 5 AQ-001-010, the assessment for Wendover Tunnel and Bacombe SSSI is that there is no significant impact. The SSSI is of national importance with rare plants, and will be heavily impacted by dust from the Wendover tunnel construction. This assessment needs to be revisited.


5 - Community

5.3.1 The baseline data only covers 1km from the Proposed Scheme. However this underestimates the impact on the surrounding communities as communities near Wendover especially to the west such as Ellesborough are closely inter-connected.

5.3.5 covers Wendover, but only within 300m of the proposed route. This fails to recognise the main centre of the town which lies within 500m of the proposed route. Also Kings Ash and The Lee, which lie close to the route, have not been identified.

5.3.8 identifies the new facilities being built at Wendover for the Chiltern Way Federation, which operates two schools for boys with behavioural and emotional issues. These sites serve a large part of Bucks including Aylesbury. Children are brought in daily by taxi or bus. The development is very close to the proposed route and will be severely impacted both during the construction and operational phases.

5.4.5 identifies the A413 as an HGV route serving CFA11.

5.4.6 / 7 identifies the loss of two residential properties in Wendover Dean. The assessment is that these are not significant at a community level.

5.4.8 states that there are no permanent effects, having identified the impact of the view of the construction of the Small Dean viaduct in 5.4.4. This is an inconsistent assessment.

5.4.9 / 5.4.18 sets out the impacts on Wendover and details the temporary impact on properties in Bacombe Lane and the Ellesborough Road. However it fails to consider the impact on St Mary’s Church and Wendover House School, which will both be affected by views of the construction, and the heavy traffic on the A413.

There will be a significant impact on traffic on the A413. This will cause traffic to back up in Wendover between 07.00 and 09.00 and in the late afternoon. Businesses in Wendover will be impacted by the loss of tourism based on walkers, who will be put off accessing the area because of construction. The construction has also blighted property in the area, affecting estate agents and solicitors. In addition the impact on Wendover of between 175 and 250 men on their own from the Small Dean Main compound has not been considered. Wendover does not have suitable facilities for their entertainment in the evening. This will have a severe adverse impact on the town.

The severe permanent impact of losing six houses in Ellesborough Road and the loss of the cricket field and pavilion is recognised.

5.5.1 / 2 identifies no significant operational effects on Wendover Dean, Dunsmore and Wendover. This ignores the change in the view for a number of houses, the additional noise and particularly light pollution, particularly as the line is raised on embankments and viaducts up to 18m high.


6 - Cultural Heritage

6.2.2 refers to the study area as being the proposed route + 500m. However it also states that all designated heritage assets in the Zone of Theoretical View (ZTV) have been considered.

6.2.4 states that not all areas of survey identified in the archaeological risk model were available for survey. Another example of incomplete survey work. Suggest that work should be completed before second reading.

6.3.3 sets out the partial loss of Grim’s Ditch a scheduled ancient monument, the loss of ancient woodland and the loss of 1 Grade II listed building. All of the above adverse impacts would be avoided by either selecting a different route or an extended fully bored tuneel to the north of Wendover.

6.3.4 sets out the designated heritage assets in the ZTV. In reviewing Vol 5 CH-002-010, it was noticeable with regard to buildings and groups of buildings that ‘setting adds to value’ It is therefore a reasonable assumption that building a substantial embankment and two viaducts through the Misbourne Valley will have a significant adverse impact on the value of these buildings

6.3.6/7 list non designated heritage assets which lie wholly or partly in the proposed scheme. This includes 11 sites with identified archaeological remains. This also includes 16 hedgerows and groups of hedgerows that are historically important. 6.3.8 lists 20 historic buildings whose settings are likely to be impacted. 6.3.9/47 give a cultural overview of this part of the route, and shows the significant loss of artefacts and heritage assets that there is likely to be if the proposed scheme proceeds as planned.

6.3.47 mentions the old turnpike road, but does not set out the historical background. There were two coach companies that operated a service to Buckingham. At each community there were two public houses to service the competing lines. One mainly used the Red Lion, and the other the Kings Head, Arms or Crown. Major taverns were at Amersham, Gt Missenden and Wendover. Interim halts were at Little Missenden, the Halfway House.(now The Firecrest)

6.4.4/15 describes the temporary impacts on heritage assets, and give a picture of the devastation that will be caused. This will affect a number of Grade II listed buildings. Such buildings are often described as being of moderate value. This description again seeks to downgrade the quality of the buildings impacted.

6.4.17/30 describes the permanent impacts on heritage assets. 6.4.18 describes the impact on Grim’s Ditch, with part of this scheduled ancient monument being destroyed. 6.4.27 sets out that sections of 16 hedgerows will be removed, describing this a moderate impact. However the loss of hedgerow’s will have a major adverse impact on the look of the Misbourne Valley, and will also serious impact on the movement of wild animals through the valley.

6.4.28/30 describe impacts on the settings of Grim’s Ditch, 4 Grade II listed buildings at Wendover Dean Farm, 2 Grade II listed buildings at Upper Wendover Dean Farm, Grade II* listed Wellwick Manor and 2 Grade II listed buildings at Wellwick Farm. Other than the High Adverse Impact on Grim’s Ditch, the others are ‘considered’ moderate adverse impacts. This is a complete under valuation of these buildings.

6.4.33/35 set out significant residual effects including:

  • Loss of an extensive range of archaeological assets, including pre-historic, Bronze Age, Iron Age, Roman and mediaeval items, as well as ridge and furrow field patterns
  • Loss of two farm complexes comprising 6 Grade II listed buildings
  • 6 houses

The setting of several historic settlements and buildings will be affected by the presence of the constructed scheme, including landscaping, overbridges and other associated infrastructure. This presence will affect these assets through physical loss or severance of landscape elements or disruption of landscape associations that contribute to their value.

6.5.3 assesses the impact of the Proposed Scheme and noise on the southern part of Wendover, where St Mary’s (Grade II*) as a major adverse impact.

6.5.4 / 6 assesses the impact of the proposed scheme and noise on Wendover Dean Farm, Upper Wendover Scheme Farm and Old Mill House as a moderate adverse impact. These are all Grade II listed building, which will have both their setting and their tranquillity dramatically changed. Again a totally unrealistic assessment.


7 - Ecology

7.2.2 talks about a WFD assessment being carried out. 7.2.3 Significant areas not accessed for ES. Large areas of farmland and particularly hedges could shelter wildlife. Survey should be completed before Second Reading

7.3.3 details local designated sites Bacombe and Coombe Hill SSSI is within 25m of the Proposed Route. It has species rich calcareous grassland and is a Biodiversity Action Plan site. It is the only known site for the fringed gentian in the UK. The northern part of the SSSI is designated as a Local Nature Reserve.

7.3.4 details 2 Biological Notification Sites. Areas of both of these are needed for the proposed route: the Wendover Rifle Range and grassland at North Lee.

White Helleborine, a species of principal importance, was reported as present on the line in the Draft ES. This is not mentioned in the final ES. Has this disappeared or is this just an omission?

7.3.5 details 2 areas of ancient woodland which are required for the proposed route: Jones Hill Wood and Rushmoor Wood. These ancient woodlands represent an irreplaceable resource.

7.3.10 22 km of hedgerows in the land required for construction. Not all actually inspected. All surveyed proved to be habitats of principal importance and 2.5km qualify as important hedgerows. Again the surveys need to be completed before the second reading of the hybrid bill.

7.3.12 lists grasslands near or on the route. It recognises the value of Bacombe Hill SSSI. Access was not available to the Wendover Rifle Range or the Grassland at North Lee.

7.3.14 Four ponds are affected by the development, only two were inspected, one of which was found to support great crested newts and as such is a habitat of principal importance. They are dismissed as of local/parish value. Another example of down playing the quality of habitat found. Surveys need to be completed before second reading.

7.3.16 / 7 10 ha of orchards is affected by the scheme. All of this is BAP local habitat.

7.3.20 Table 8 sets out a list of protected species. This includes 10 areas where bats have been found, including a maternal roost of brown long-eared bats, a species of principal importance. The majority of these are in the Misbourne Valley, and would be affected by trains.

Barn owls, representing 1.5% of the county population have been found along the line. These are particularly sensitive to trains.

Two breeding pairs of red kites found. The red kite is common in this area. It is not uncommon to see 6 or 8 birds at the same time. This again suggests that the ES has been rushed.

The ES fails to address re-establishment of migration paths for badgers, deer and other animals.

7.4.4 draws the conclusion that there will be no impact from the construction on Bacombe and Coombe Hill SSSI, although the construction area comes within 25m. The SSSI overlooks the construction of the ‘cut and cover’ Wendover Tunnel. Not only will there be a significant amount of dust created digging out the trench nearby, but the proposed route is being used as a haul road to service the site at the north portal. This will be a source of dust and other pollutants for three years, which is a significant period of time. The assessment relies on the CoCP being properly implemented, which was not the experience in Kent. The key question is ‘Should such a risk be contemplated on such a sensitive receptor of national importance?’

7.4.7 states that 22km of hedgerows will be removed in CFA 10 during construction, of which 2.5 km qualify as important hedgerows. However as a significant proportion of the 22 km have not been inspected, this is an inadequate assessment. This will have a significant impact on animal migration, bats and Barn Owls.

There is a discussion in Water Resources on the impact of construction of the Wendover Tunnel on the flow of groundwater. This could easily affect the Weston Turville Reservoir SSSI, which could have a major adverse impact.

7.4.11 states that: one barn owl nesting site is in the proposed construction area, and will need to be moved. The assessment is that there is a risk of losing this breeding pair. Barn owls are now under pressure nationally.

7.4.14 accepts that there are great crested newts, and loss of ponds will have an adverse effect. However they propose no action to protect this population.

7.4.16 / 21 assesses the impact on bats. Although losing a number of roosts and removing 22 km of hedgerows, which are used by the bats as navigation aids, the conclusion that there will be no significant impact. Evidence again of taking an over-optimistic stance to adverse impacts.

7.4.27 / 40 sets out mitigation measures. These include translocation of ancient wood soils, planting extra trees and translocation of species. Hedgerows will be re-established, but they will still be divided by the substantial embankments with barriers on top. Some migration paths will be possible utilising the Wendover Dean viaduct. The covering over and replanting of the Wendover Tunnel will allow the reintegration of the land. However this benefit would be obtained by a fully bored tunnel throughout the AONB, without the significant temporary and permanent adverse effects.

7.5 deals with the impact of operations on ecology. 7.5.1 sets out three avoidance and mitigation methods:

  1. Wendover Tunnel will allow bats and other animals to safely pass over the railway
  2. The creation of planted embankments on roads, PRoWs and other crossing points will encourage them to fly at a safe height over the railway
  3. The Small Dean viaduct will allow bats and other animals to pass safely under the railway

All of these are true as such. However,the Wendover Tunnel does not help the Misbourne Valley. The Small Dean viaduct will help, but will not compensate for the embankments and cuttings, which are more than twice the length of the viaduct.The reality is that a fully bored tunnel would provide avoidance rather than mitigation.

7.5.3 / 6 sets out the serious risk of bats colliding with trains and /or disoriented by the passing noise. The conclusion sets out that this is dependent on the flight pattern of the bat species. This truism does not address the serious risk to bats from the new line

7.5.7 identifies that breeding bird densities can be reduced by noise, but dismiss the impacts of trains as they pass quickly. The assessment ignores the fact that with 18 trains per hour each way less than two minutes between each passing train, the noise will be continuous.

7.5.8 identifies that barn owls are likely to be killed by passing trains. 7.5.11 identifies putting up nesting boxes 1.5km from the line as a form of mitigation, in the hope that barn owls would find them. Better mitigation would be tunnel to north of Wendover and obviate any of these issues. Overall the ecological surveys are incomplete. They have been carried out in less than a year. Three full years are normally needed.


8 - Land Quality

8.2.3 identifies access constraints. Not all sites considered to have the greatest potential for contamination have been visited, and proposes to rely on a desk top study. This is not satisfactory in an AONB. All the sites should be visited and reported on to Parliament, before the second reading of the hybrid bill

8.3.7 The White Cretaceous chalk is designated as a principal aquifer by the Environment Agency. 8.3.8 The southern 3km will be located in a Source Protection Zone (SPZ) 8.3.9 identifies three Public Water Supply abstraction points in the CFA. The Government should consider an alternative route to avoid the risk to public water supplies.

8.3.23 Table 9 sets out receptors and their sensitivity. People, principal aquifers and Bacombe Hill SSSI are identified as receptors with High sensitivity. 8.4.2 sets out that further investigations will take place to in order to confirm the full extent of areas of contamination and a risk assessment. These studies should be carried out and reported to Parliament before the second reading of the hybrid bill.


9 - Landscape and Visual Assessment

9.2.2 describes the Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV), but then excludes the temporary impacts of cranes and other large construction equipment. and more importantly excludes the impacts of the overhead line equipment on the view. The former is understandable, the latter is considered to be direct obfuscation. With the line running mainly on embankments and viaducts in the AONB, the catenary towers will be highly obtrusive. At night there will be a line of light flashes every few minutes as the train passes.

9.2.4 states that: access was limited. Professional judgement has been used to approximate the likely views from these locations. Is this acceptable in an AONB? We believe that the Environmental Statement should be completed, now that the Government has passed the Provisioning bill, which also gives the right to access land.

9.3.5 / 13 These set out 9 Landscape Character Areas. (LCA):

  • The Lee Undulating Valley Slopes
  • Wendover Gap
  • Settlement (Wendover)
  • Chiltern Scarp (Wendover West)
  • Chiltern Scarp (Coombe Hill)
  • Wendover Foothills
  • Risborough Foothills
  • Longwick Vale
  • Southern Vale

Four LCAs have not been included in Vol 2 although covered in Vol 5 LV-000-010. These are:

  1. Great Hampden
  2. Chiltern Dip Slopes
  3. Chiltern Scarp (East)
  4. Wendover Foothills (East)

One of these is germane to the understanding of the impact on the Misbourne Valley. This is Great Hampden LCA, which includes Dunsmore, which is heavily impacted by the embankments and Small Dean viaduct.

Those in the Misbourne Valley, Wendover and the Chiltern Scarp are generally considered to be tranquil and have a high sensitivity to change. Wendover is considered to have medium tranquillity.

The assessment of Wendover Foothills is critiqued for having electricity pylons, and with these and its closeness to Wendover is assessed as having low tranquillity, despite the assessment of Wendover’s tranquillity as medium.

A review of the winter and summer photographs from selected viewpoints shows these generally not to be views of the proposed route. As such are they relevant?

9.4.5 / 39 covers the temporary visual impacts on the area. The ES concludes that these will have major adverse effects in five LCAs and moderate adverse effects in four LCAs during a period of up to 7.5 years. All of the major adverse impacts and three of the moderate adverse impacts would be eliminated by a fully bored tunnel to north of Wendover.

9.4.44 / 148 evaluates the impact from various viewpoints:

Viewpoint Ref Area Daytime Impact Nighttime Impact
095.2.002 Wendover Dean Major adverse Moderate adverse
095.3.001 Wendover Dean Major adverse

095.3.002 Cockshoot Wood Major adverse

096.3.002 King’s Lane Major adverse

096.4.002 Potter Row Moderate adverse

097.2.001 Wendover Dean Major adverse

097.2.003 Upper Wendover Dean Major adverse Moderate adverse
097.3.001 Bowood Lane Major adverse

097.4.001 Cobblershill Lane Moderate adverse

098.2.001 King’s Lane Moderate adverse Moderate adverse
098.3.001 Bowood Lane Major adverse

098.3.003 Kings Ash Major adverse

099.2.001 Rocky Lane Major adverse Moderate adverse
099.3.001 Little Hampden Moderate adverse

099.4.001 Cobblershill Lane Moderate adverse

099.5.001 The Firecrest Moderate adverse Moderate adverse
100.2.001 Rocky Lane Moderate adverse Moderate adverse
100.2.002 Rocky Lane Moderate adverse Moderate adverse
100.4.001 Rocky Lane Moderate adverse

101.2.002 Dunsmore Major adverse Major adverse
101.2.003 Small Dean Major adverse Moderate adverse
101.2.004 Small Dean Lane Major adverse Major adverse
101.2.005 Rocky Lane Moderate adverse Moderate adverse
101.2.006 Small Dean Major adverse Major adverse
101.3.001 Icknield Way Moderate adverse

101.4.001 Dunsmore Lane Moderate adverse

101.4.002 Small Dean Lane Moderate adverse

102.3.001 Hogtrough Lane Major adverse

103.2.001 Ellesborough Road Major adverse Moderate adverse
103.3.001 Bacombe Lane Major adverse

105.2.001 Ellesborough Road Major adverse Moderate adverse
105.2.002 Wellwick Farm Moderate adverse Insignificant
105.3.001 Coombe Hill Moderate adverse

105.3.002 Aylesbury Ring west Major adverse

105.3.003 Bacombe Hill Major adverse

106.3.001 WEN/54 Moderate adverse

107.2.002 Nash Lee Major adverse Moderate adverse
108.2.001 Nash Lee Lane Major adverse Major adverse
108.4.001 A413, Nash Lee Moderate adverse

109.2.001 Princes Risborough Road Moderate adverse Insignificant
109.4.001 Nash Lee Road Moderate adverse

Major Adverse 23 5

Moderate Adverse 18 11



The above summarises the impacts on viewpoints as assessed by HS2. 15 of the major adverse day impacts and four of the major adverse night impacts are in the Misbourne Valley. This gives a good indication of the major impact construction would have on this peaceful part of the AONB.

9.5 sets out the permanent impacts. 9.5.2 sets out mitigation measures and sets out a view of the impact in 2026, 2041 and 2086, i.e. 60 years after the scheme opens.

9.5.6 / 27 sets out the landscape assessment by LCA. However only three of the LCAs are included:

  1. Wendover Gap
  2. Wendover Foothills (West)
  3. Longwick Vale

For Wendover Gap the assessment sets out the impacts of the cuttings embankments and viaducts will result in a noticeable reduction in tranquillity.

9.5.10 concludes ‘Therefore due to these changes which will be incongruous with the character of the area, the magnitude of change is considered to be medium in year 1 of operation.’ This assessment is optimistic at best. A shallow valley in an AONB will have a major raised scar across it introducing regular extra noises from trains, and this is assessed as moderate. Frankly this is a ludicrous assessment.

Further more the assessment fails to take into account the impact of trains operating at night and in the early morning bringing light pollution with it, or the impact of maintenance being carried out between 12.00 and 5.00.

9.5.34 / 209 report on the impact on viewpoints:

Viewpoint Ref Area Year 1 Impact Nighttime Impact
095.2.002 Wendover Dean Moderate adverse Insignificant
095.3.001 Wendover Dean Moderate adverse

095.3.002 Cockshoot Wood Moderate adverse

096.3.002 King’s Lane Major adverse

096.4.002 Potter Row Moderate adverse

097.2.001 Wendover Dean Major adverse Insignificant
097.2.003 Upper Wendover Dean Major adverse Insignificant
097.3.001 Bowood Lane Major adverse

097.4.001 Cobblershill Lane Moderate adverse

098.2.001 King’s Lane Moderate adverse Insignificant
098.3.001 Bowood Lane Moderate adverse

098.3.003 Kings Ash Major adverse

099.2.001 Rocky Lane Major adverse Insignificant
099.3.001 Little Hampden Moderate adverse

099.4.001 Cobblershill Lane Moderate adverse

099.5.001 The Firecrest Moderate adverse Insignificant
100.2.001 Rocky Lane Moderate adverse Insignificant
100.2.002 Rocky Lane Not assessed

100.4.001 Rocky Lane Moderate adverse

101.2.002 Dunsmore Moderate adverse Insignificant
101.2.003 Small Dean Major adverse Insignificant
101.2.004 Small Dean Lane Moderate adverse Insignificant
101.2.005 Rocky Lane Moderate adverse Insignificant
101.2.006 Small Dean Major adverse Insignificant
101.3.001 Icknield Way Moderate adverse

101.4.001 Dunsmore Lane Moderate adverse

101.4.002 Small Dean Lane Moderate adverse

102.3.001 Hogtrough Lane Moderate adverse

103.2.001 Ellesborough Road Moderate adverse Insignificant
103.3.001 Bacombe Lane Major adverse

105.2.001 Ellesborough Road Moderate adverse Insignificant
105.2.002 Wellwick Farm Not assessed Not assessed
105.3.001 Coombe Hill Moderate adverse Insignificant
105.3.002 Aylesbury Ring west Not Assessed

105.3.003 Bacombe Hill Moderate adverse

106.3.001 WEN/54 Not Assessed

107.2.002 Nash Lee Major adverse Insignificant
108.2.001 Nash Lee Lane Major adverse Insignificant
108.4.001 A413, Nash Lee Not Assessed

109.2.001 Princes Risborough Road Moderate adverse Insignificant
109.4.001 Nash Lee Road Moderate adverse

Major Adverse 11

Moderate Adverse 25

Not Assessed 5 1



The ES concludes that overall there will be a moderate adverse effect in Year 1. This completely underestimates the change in the landscape with deep cuttings from Mantles Wood to the south portal of the South Heath Tunnel, and loss of considerable woodland. The change is considered to be a major adverse impact.

Even in year 15 and year 60 there will be a substantial adverse impact, through creating a huge trench. In addition the almost constant noise of trains night and day will reduce the level of tranquillity substantially. The assessment of light from operations as insignificant is to fail to understand the views of clear starlight nights that are normal in the Chilterns AONB. The reality is that at night there will be the intrusion of light flashing from the Pantograph, and lights from passing trains, not including the lights required for maintenance working


10 - Socio-economics

10.3.9 The quality of the assessment is shown by the comment that average unemployment in England was 7% in 2011, when according to the ONS it was 8.1%

10.4.3 states that: no non-agricultural businesses have been identified, which are expected to experience significant amenity effects from the proposed scheme. This completely ignores the impact of the scheme on:

  • People visiting the area
  • Local businesses which rely on tourism, shops, restaurants, cafes
  • Local businesses providing professional services such as estate agents and solicitors
  • The adverse impact on business creation, due to traffic etc, with people choosing to set up business elsewhere
  • The adverse impact of getting new employees because of the traffic disruption
  • The impact on Wendover of between 175 and 245 single men looking for entertainment at night. This will almost certainly impact the existing local market for restaurants.

10.4.6 Construction employment is not necessarily a benefit. As the report recognises, unemployment is very low compared to the national average. Currently there is plenty of work in the area for people involved in the construction industry. The main impact of HS2 on the economic activity in the area therefore will be to allow contractors to increase contract rates.

10.4.16 / 18 tries to give the impression that there will be a net benefit to the area. However they have not identified the impacts set out above, or more cynically have chosen to ignore them.


11 - Sound Noise and Vibration

11.2.1 / 7 set out the baseline sound as measured by HS2. This shows that the baseline is generally 45db to 50db during the day, with some parts of Wendover impacted by higher sound levels. It also states that a night-time the sound level is generally around 10db less. This assessment ignores the note in Volume 1 that there are areas even greater tranquillity in areas like The Lee and the hidden valleys.

11.2.9 sounds reasonable as they are saying that they will assess against a background of 2012/13. However the real impact is the change in sound level that will take place whether it is during construction or with the introduction of trains.

11.3.5 states that: the assessment assumes the principles and management processes set out in the draft CoCP will be implemented. This is a big caveat, based on people’s experience with HS1 in Kent

11.3.9 assesses that three houses on Bacombe Lane and 10 houses on Ellesborough Road will be subjected to noise in excess of 75db during the day. Table 13 shows 5 and 20 houses impacted. Which is correct?

As these two roads bracket Bacombe SSSI, one would assume that this will also be impacted by loud noise. This does not appear to be reported as an adverse impact in the Ecology section.

11.3.15 identifies a severe impact of 60db on Wendover House School, St Mary’s Church and the Witchell Road Community Centre. 11.3.21 states that HS2 Ltd will continue to seek reasonably practicable measures to further reduce or avoid these significant effects. In doing so HS2 Ltd will continue to engage with stakeholders to fully understand the receptor. It would seem reasonable that if a proper Socio-Economic Survey had been done this would already be known.

11.4.2 sets out the expected train schedule with up to 18 trains per hour each way between 07.00 and 22.00, effectively a train less than every two minutes. This will provide an almost constant elevated sound level. The bigger intervals before and after the peak hours will create a greater rise and fall in the noise level compared to the ambient noise, and at a time when people will be trying to sleep.

11.4.4 talks about avoidance and mitigation measures, claiming that the development of the proposed scheme has, as far as reasonably practicable, kept the alignment away from main communities and low in the ground. This is completely untrue as in this CFA, where there are viaducts (as high as 18m) and embankments. This again raises the question of what reasonably practicable means. It is quite practicable to build a fully bored tunnel to the north of Wendover. However it might not be reasonably cheap.

11.4.5 claims that: new technology and improved track laying methods will reduce the train noise by 3db. Obviously this has been used in the assessment, but seeing the issues with Chinese high speed trains, is it reasonable?

11.4.15 states that: the Interim Target defined by the World Health Organisation Night Noise Guidelines for Europe is set at a lower level than those set out in the Noise Insulation (Railways and other Guided Transport Systems) Regulations 1996.However HS2 still seeks to use the levels set out in the Regulations. As the WHO target is an Interim Target, the noise levels used in assessing the impacts of HS2 need to be set at a lower level than the Interim Target. E.g. 5db below.

11.4.16 states that: ground borne vibration will be avoided or reduced through the design of the track or track bed. This needs to state will be avoided. The reduced is another let out for the contractors and designers.

11.4.37 sets out that the WHO interim Target is 55dB. However on reading the relevant WHO document the target is 55dB,Lnight, outside, which means that the average noise should not exceed this outside a building at night, which is defined as 23.00 to 07.00. This interim target compares with Night noise guideline of 40 dB, Lnight, outside. The interim target is supposed to be used only in exceptional circumstance. The guide also says that health is adversely affected when there is noise exceeding 40dB,LAmax.inside. Examples given of events that cause this are aircraft and trains. The conclusion from this is that the standards being used by HS2 are too low.Of course these issues would not exist with a fully bored tunnel to the north of Wendover.


12 - Traffic and Transport

12.2.1 The assessment in Volume 1 is inadequate. The rush hour is defined at 08.00 to 09.00 and 17.00 to 18.00 in CFA 9. As recognised in the Community analysis a lot of people in CFA 10 commute to work. Many of the commuters use their cars either to get to a station or to drive to work. The A413 both south and north of Wendover are very busy from 6.30 onwards to around 9.15. For Wendover the morning rush starts before 07.00 with trains running every 16min from around 6.30. These trains pick up a large number of passengers at Wendover. Commuters come from all around the area, north, south, east and west.

There is another commuter surge between 09.00 and 09.15 for the first train with reduced fares. The schools in Wendover, start receiving children from 08.15 until 9.00, with many of the children being brought by car. Because of the grammar school system in Bucks, children in CFA 10 and the wider area around Wendover attend secondary schools in Wendover and in Aylesbury mainly by bus.

These buses are on the road from before 08.00. The afternoon rush hour commences around 15.00 with children being picked up from primary school. This continues through to 16.30. Commuters start to return around 17.00, arriving both by car and rail. The rush starts to decline around 19.00.

12.2.4 talks about the bus routes, but ignores the impact of school buses. Wendover House a school for children with emotional and behavioural issues draws pupils from across South and Mid Bucks arriving by taxi.

12.2.5 seeks to play down the impact of HS2 on traffic flows, but as the baseline is so inadequate, the study certainly fails to estimate the impacts realistically.

12.3.3 talks about PRoW surveys to establish footpath use. These were carried out during a very short period. The assessment needs to be carried out over a much longer period to get a true assessment.

12.3.4 sets out the roads believed to be affected. This however fails to take account of the pressure on Wendover caused by traffic issues especially on the A413 Wendover bypass.

12.3.6 sets out the buses on routes surveyed, but ignored Route 50 Aylesbury, Wendover, Halton to Ivinghoe, which uses the A413 north of Wendover.

12.4.1 sets out avoidance and mitigation methods. However many of these are not used in CFA 9. The haul route map TR-03-054 shows clearly that the haul routes will all be on local roads, with no haul roads along the route. HGVs will use designated routes that are reasonably practicable. What does this mean?

12.4.2 states that: the draft CoCP include measures which seek to reduce the impacts and effects of deliveries of construction materials and equipment. As the rush hour has been incorrectly defined, such measures will be redundant.

12.4.3 states that: a travel plan will be put in place. Again this is more of a hope and a prayer than any real solution.

12.4.9 Table 17 sets out the construction sites in CFA 10 and the traffic movements. This indicates the impact on various roads in CFA 8, 9 and 10.

Road CFA Min Cars LGVs Max Cars LGVs Min HGV Max HGV
A413 South 8 80 100 90 100
A413 South 9 390 490 150 210
A413 South 10 650 810 170 230

1120 1400 410 540

B485 9 310 400 100 150
B485 10 200 260 170 230

510 660 270 410

Potter Row 10 200 260 30 40

Rocky Lane 10 180 210 50 70

Small Dean Lane 10 270 340 90 120

A413 North 10 50 110 40 90

B4009 10 50 110 40 90

The above table shows the cumulative impact on the A413 from activities in CFA 9 and CFA 10. The assessments are optimistic because of failure to assess the rush hour properly. The likelihood is that the A355 to Beaconsfield will take the majority of vehicles on A413.

12.4.13 identifies the junctions that will have a major adverse effect. The majority of these relate to the A413 South of Wendover. However it does not highlight the impact on the A413 and B485.

12.4.14 sets out the temporary road closures. Bacombe Lane generates little traffic, but the closure of Small Dean Lane will add traffic to the already stressed A413.

12.4.15 identifies the roads which will be severely impacted. However it fails to highlight the impact on Potter Row from works in CFA10.

12.4.19 draws the conclusion that the effect on accidents will be insignificant. However with a significant increase in traffic and the amount of HGVs on the road it is likely that accidents will increase substantially.

12.4.20 identifies impacts on PRoWs and identifies a moderate adverse impact due to a 2.2km diversion of the Icknield Way. This fails to recognise the impact of the Proposed Scheme on visitors who come to the area to walk and cycle.

12.4.21 claims there will be no impact on bus services. However as school buses failed to be identified and the rush hour definition is inadequate, this conclusion is suspect. More work is needed over a longer period.

12.4.22 identifies that the construction of the proposed scheme will require some temporary rail possessions of both the lines to Marylebone via Princes Risborough and Amersham. These are claimed to be either at night or on weekends, and therefore have no significant effects, but could impact rail users using Wendover. Also see 12.4.28, which uses reasonably practicable, and states that rail replacement services will be provided where necessary when rail possessions are in place. Taking this with the inadequate rush hour definition, this is more than a suspect conclusion.

12.4.23 / 25 deals with cumulative effects, and that flows from CFA 9 and CFA 11 have been included in assessment. The table above at 12.4.9 shows that there is a significantly greater impact on CFA 10 than assessed. In particular access routes to the various sites show a wide variety of access routes, the site tables show significantly less routes. See also Volume 5 Technical Appendices. 11.2.5 & 6.


13 - Water resources and flood risks

13.1.3 sets out key environmental issues relating to water resources and flood risk, in particular the risk to groundwater quality and the risk of a substantial reduction / change affecting the Weston Turville SSSI.13.2.3 states that site visits were undertaken the Weston Turville SSSI and numerous springs in and around Wendover. 13.3.9 Table 19 sets out the geology of the CFA with assessments of water quality. 

13.4.8 states that drainage of the Wendover Tunnel could intercept groundwater feeding the springs which feed the Weston Turville SSSI, giving a moderate adverse impact. It also states that when the tunnel is completed, the groundwater flow would return to previous flow paths. . As stated below the intercept of the groundwater table by the Wendover cut and fill tunnel will be at about 10 metres. This flow will not be able to return to its original pathways as they will have been destroyed by the digging out of the cutting. So these two paragraphs are contradictory. The springs discussed in 13.1.3 will be potentially permanently disrupted, until the water flow from the Wendover tunnel finds a new pathway. 

13.4.9 indicates that the Wendover North Cutting will interfere with the flow of groundwater to the head of the Stoke Brook. Intent to return water from drains to the Stoke Brook 1km downstream.13.4.23 / 24 admits risk of turbidity from pile-driving, but will be diluted in the aquifer. 13.4.25 admits there could be a serious impact of turbidity on Public Water Supplies. The claim there are no works below water table, has not been substantiated. 

The key problematic zone in this CFA is the Wendover “Green Tunnel” and associated cuttings. As indicated under the discussion of CFA9, the term Green Tunnel is a misnomer in that such constructions are no more than cuttings which have been backfilled following tunnel emplacement. Where such cuttings transect ground below the level of the water table there is the potential risk of flooding.

CFA 10 Appendix WR003-010 (Flood risk assessment), Section 6.4.4 (p.17) states that “there is the potential for the Wendover green tunnel and the Wendover north cutting… to act as groundwater sinks, with excavation up to 10 m below potential groundwater levels. There is a significant risk of flooding to these elements from the bedrock groundwater”. By p.24 of the same document (section 8.4.1.) the impact on risk of flooding from groundwater indicates that there is “potential” for the tunnel and cutting to obstruct groundwater flow “if below the water”. It states further that  “the susceptibility of groundwater emergence from the Chalk aquifer at natural ground level is relatively low”. These statements are both contradictory and misleading.

This tunnel and cutting will be excavated through the Grey Chalk Group. This well defined geological unit (Bailey & Wood, 2010) comprises a series of alternating claystone and limestone beds. The latter are well known throughout this region to act as major groundwater conduits, with important limestone beds (Dixoni and Doolittle Limestones) being the sources of numerous springs along the basal Chiltern escarpment. Groundwater flow should be expected to be concentrated at these levels and should they be transacted within the tunnel and associated cuttings they are likely to result in long term water ingress and heightened flood risk. This potential risk is effectively hidden, if not dismissed, in the Environmental Statement and shows a lack of knowledge regarding the local geological conditions and its impact on groundwater flow.


Volume 5 Technical Appendices
Waste and material resources (WM-001-000)

11.2.5 The construction of the Proposed Scheme within the Dunsmore, Wendover and Halton area may also be able to beneficially incorporate selected types of excess excavated material from other areas along the route. (11.2.6) Excess excavated materials are anticipated to be transported from the Stoke Mandeville and Aylesbury and the Waddesdon and Quainton areas southwards along the construction corridor.

12.4.25 of the CFA10 report states that from the north, including Stoke Mandeville and Aylesbury area (CFA11), the cumulative construction traffic flows of approximately 70 cars per day (two-way) and 10 HGV (two-way) have been included in the assessment for this area.

Does the HGV figure include those transporting this excavated material.

Also covered in Volume 5 responses.