Answers (!) from HS2 Ltd with regards to the Warburton/Lowton section Viaduct/route: I am writing regarding your request for information received xx June 2013. Your request has been considered under the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR) 2004. In your email you asked the following: 1. Could you please provide more details with regards to the planned viaduct over the Manchester Ship Canal at Warburton/Rixton (Hollins Green/Glazebrook). The route announced on 28 January 2013 was arrived at by balancing passenger demand, engineering requirements and naturally occurring ground opportunities / constraints, cost and likely impacts on the environment and communities. Wherever practicable the design work on the route to date minimises possible impacts on settlements and properties, as well as on important environmental features. The proposal to construct a viaduct over the Manchester Ship Canal was driven by these factors. It is also notable that the existing transport corridors crossing the Manchester Ship Canal use similar viaduct structures, for example the Thelwall Viaduct crosses some 4.5km to the east of the proposed HS2 crossing and Warburton Bridge crosses approximately 800m to the east of the proposed HS2 crossing. 2. Can you please give estimated costs for the current proposed viaduct and the miles of additional banking required pre and post, more so on the northern side of the canal as the banking is for quite some distance. We do not hold this data as the costs for the earthworks are automatically generated for longer sections of route. In this case the route section, HSM21, is 11.8km and costs £185m, excluding the cost of land and risk. We do not calculate smaller sections of earthworks supporting the viaduct independently. 3. Can you also please provide a rough estimate for the alternative tunnelling and cuttings required, bearing in mind the pre and post savings against banking where the tunnelling option could run in cuttings or at ground level. The decision to discount the tunnel options was influenced by the additional cost of tunnel infrastructure up to 5km in length, when compared to a 1.2km viaduct. The increase in earthworks costs were also an influencing factor considering that the deep retained cuttings required for a tunnel solution, would also be more expensive than the embankments required for a viaduct, even if they were of an equivalent length. We have not undertaken a full design of the equivalent tunnel solution for crossing the Manchester ship canal, as such we do not hold this comparative cost information. All our route options have been considered on a whole route basis which ensures that we consider engineering requirements, naturally occurring ground conditions, cost and likely impacts on the environment and communities holistically as part of the route selection process. Information related to the unit cost of tunnels, structures and earthworks can be found on the DfT website in the HS2 cost and risk model report. https://gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69741/hs2-cost-and-risk-model-report.pdf 4. Can you also please provide details with regards to the social and environmental impacts within this area and the likely range (distance from track) for compensation to nearby residents (Warburton, Hollins Green, Glazebrook and Culcheth). Regarding the potential social and environmental impacts in relation to the proposed scheme within your area, you are encouraged you to view the recently published Sustainability Statement available to view on the HS2 website. Volume 1 (the main report of the Appraisal of Sustainability) describes the potential sustainability benefits and adverse impacts of the proposals, as well as explaining how sustainability has helped support the scheme selection and design. This is based on an early stage of design. At a later stage, and following the now open public consultation, an environmental impact assessment will be carried out on the Government’s preferred scheme. With regards to the second part of question 4, please refer to the response to question 6 (below). hs2.org.uk/phase-two/route-consultation/document-library 5. Can you please provide details of the additional noise pollution from an elevated viaduct and bankings as opposed to at normal ground running height, and additionally the benefits if the line is in a cutting and also if covered over (cut and shut). I would be happy with a case study/norms for comparison rather than an analysis on this exact circumstance as I assume a detailed study in this location has yet to be carried out? A viaduct crossing over the canal would not cause additional noise pollution than a surface section of line running at ground height. Noise barriers would be provided on viaducts and embankments, as required. The barrier locations, height, lengths and design would be carefully developed at the next stage of design and during the environmental impact assessment. HS2 does not hold case studies for comparison of noise from viaducts and surface railways. However, High Speed One demonstrates how noise from high speed railway viaducts can be effectively controlled. Should you wish to attend, the nearest event to you will be in Culcheth on 21st November 2013. Additional information on the scheduling of events is available on the HS2 Ltd website: Information Events. hs2.org.uk/phase-two/route-consultation/document-library?phase2_consultation=604 6. Compensation with regards to the location of property should the preferred route become the chosen route, with said viaduct - as it will be visible/audible from my property. Compensation will be payable to any qualifying property interest whose property is wholly or partly acquired for the HS2 scheme. Such compensation will be fall to be negotiated under the existing code of compensation for compulsory purchase. If it cannot be settled by negotiation with the benefit of appropriate professional advice then it will be referred to the Land Chamber of the Upper Tribunal for settlement. It is possible that in addition to the Phase 2 Exceptional Hardship Scheme, launched on 17 July 2013, that in due course additional discretionary compensation schemes, over and above the normal compensation code, may be introduced. For Phase 1 of HS2 the Department for Transport is about to do a public consultation on a package of such schemes. We will have to await the outcome of this to see what is likely to apply. For people who do not lose any property but may be impacted by physical effects of the scheme, then there is recourse to Part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973, which could provide compensation in relation to impact on property value of noise, physical emissions etc. This would require at least 12 months of operation of the scheme before being applicable. Visual impact or loss of views is not however something that would normally be compensatable. However, as part of the environmental impact assessment and design development, consideration will be given to how likely significant impacts from the proposed scheme could be mitigated. Where we have stated that we do not hold the information we are relying on EIR exception 12 (4)(a) which is subject to a public interest test. However, the Information Commissioner’s Office recognises that it can be impossible to do a meaningful public interest test (PIT) if the information is not held. As such, a PIT has not been carried out. The following link sets out regulation12 (4) (a) in full: legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/3391/regulation/12/made.
Posted on: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 13:14:01 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015