The Display Boards

 

Why a feature ?

Most of our concerns with the proposed structure relate to the decision to make this vent shaft a feature – an ‘expressive, sculptural building’. This decision was apparently guided by the Chilterns AONB design panel, a body which has never (to our knowledge) undertaken any public consultation about any aspect of HS2 design. Several reasons for the feature designation have been advanced –

• The site will form a new gateway to Old Amersham
  As the site is some 4m below the A404 approaching from High Wycombe, there is no necessity for this. The proposed design resorts to the Aluminium ‘Crown’, and gaps in the screening, to be visible from the A404.
  Whielden Lane is hardly a ‘Gateway to Amersham’, as approaching traffic cannot turn right onto it from the A404.  Also, the majority of traffic travelling from the south along the A404 will travel round Old Amersham along the A413 by-pass.
   
  
• The site constraints prevent the structure being hidden
  This has been blamed on the slope – but as the site has been levelled, it is not clear why the slope should have any effect.
  
  
• There is an opportunity to do so
  Probably the more honest answer. From the viewpoint of local inhabitants, this conspicuous structure will serve as a reminder of the environmental destruction caused by HS2. The shape, somewhat reminiscent of a ‘Motte and Bailey’ castle built to subdue the local population, reinforces the triumphalist message.

• The area is “semi urban”
  As can be seen from 3rd board, this is a rural area, not urban.

The Boards

A consideration of the design boards seems to us a better structure to the response than is offered by the questionnaire.

3 – Landscape and site context

The ‘expressive, sculptural form’ does not (in our opinion) ‘integrate the new building into the (rural) landscape’.  Also this comment contradicts the idea of making it a “design feature”.
Thank you for saving the Toothwort.

4 – Landscape design

The gaps in screening which provide the ‘framed views’ strongly suggest that were these gaps closed, the structure would be far less conspicuous.  There is inconsistency in the screening shown in this board, and Headhouse Design boards 9 and 10.  The latter boards do not show the screening along the A404.

5 – Ecology

A good effort, given the restricted nature of the site.  However, it remains isolated (by roads) from surrounding woodland. A ‘green corridor’ could be established alongside Whielden Lane, under the A413 bridge, to connect with the area beside the hospital.

6 – Headhouse design

It appears that emergency vehicles will be unable to drive in, around the headhouse and out again, but instead must turn around among the unidentified structures to the SW end of the site. This suggests a neglect of basic functionality.

7, 8- Headhouse design (II & III)

Flints in a gabion cage have a rather tenuous connection to the use of flint in local buildings, which requires a certain amount of skill to master. Having ‘made reference to local materials’ in the landscape walls, the compound wall of weathered steel then achieves the opposite effect, using a material not frequently encountered in the Chilterns.
Despite the holes in the upper section, the height of over 4m will be very dominant when viewed from Whielden Lane. The application of sealant to facilitate the removal of graffiti suggests that a high degree of maintenance, or a permanent security patrol, will be required for the foreseeable future.

9, 10, 11 - Headhouse design (IV, V, VI)

Why use a conical shape ‘to reduce the scale of the building’, then add an aluminium ‘Crown’ to draw attention to it?
Uplighting would gratuitously increase light pollution in the AONB, conflicting with the advice in 3.10.9 of the design panel report.
Boards 9 and 10 demonstrate the complex and busy nature of the junctions of the A404/A413, and A404/Whielden Lane. Such a prominent architecturally striking feature at a busy roundabout junction is likely to cause accidents due to drivers taking their eyes off the road when distracted by the looming structure. 
A better solution would be to provide a ‘green roof’ for the headhouse, to render it less conspicuous. It may also have advantages in water management, and in suppressing low frequency noise from the ventilation fans. The 60m deep foundations will presumably accommodate any extra weight, and the view from the public right of way would be much improved.   Additional planting all round the site, would help to obscure the building.

Conclusion

This attempt to create a feature of the Amersham vent shaft, which could easily remain fairly inconspicuous, is out of place in an AONB and has a number of issues.
If the decision to create a feature cannot be overturned, as a minimum we propose replacing the crown with a green roof and making the compound wall a colour that does not stand out so much in the surrounding countryside.

• The structure should be surrounded by trees so that it is less conspicuous, and does not distract drivers at the busy and complex A404/A413 junction.
  
  
• More attention should be given to ecology, by making a green corridor between the vent shaft site and the hospital area.
  
  
• We suggest that more consideration is given to the site plan in the event of an emergency, in particular the available space for emergency vehicles and the ability for vehicles to drive round the head house rather than having to turn round amongst the unidentified structures.