30-Nov-2023

Bowood Lane

HS2 Appeal granted

The Planning Inspector has now issued a ruling on the Bowood Lane overbridge. In essence he has rejected the road safety and environmental arguments for ‘carriageway reduction’ and ‘additional greening’ (proposed by Bucks Council and Others) and will now allow a 5.5 m carriageway (i.e. two vehicle widths, albeit with single carriageway road markings) on the overbridge, with a 1.5 metre wide verge on either side.

He concludes:

• The Appeal is allowed in that approval is given for HS2 Ltd’s plans and specification subject to minor changes (listed in Para 1A) and the deletion of Conditions 1 to 7 previously imposed by Bucks Council (Para 1B and 13)

 

Amongst other things, he also says:

• … that providing two, 2.5 metre wide verges planted with grass or a mixture of grass, wildflower grassland and/or scattered low density woody species, with a 3.5 metre wide carriageway between them, in his view would not mimic a sense of being within a hedge lined Holloway and that providing 2.5 metre wide grassed verges would appear no more in keeping with Bowood Lane than having 1.5 metre wide verges. (Para 42)
• … that the modifications sought by the Council in practice would not meaningfully contribute to the BLo’s integration into its local landscape context, with them, in particular, doing nothing to lessen the inevitable truncation of the Holloway (Para 49)
• … from a visual perspective the design and external appearance for the overbridge, as proposed by the appellant, would be unobjectionable and does not require modification to preserve either the local environment or the historic interest of the area. (Para 50)
• … when the specific circumstances of the proposed BLo are taken account, full compliance with the AONB guidance is not possible and should not be a bar to approval being given to the proposed BLo’s design. (Para 51)
• (and strangely) to develop a design that ignored the physical carriageway limitations of the rest of Bowood Lane and the vehicle sizes it can accommodate without modifications would be illogical and a futile exercise. (Para 62)

(Summary - C.S. )

41. .... However, with all of that said, I consider it should be recognised that a 70 metre long overbridge, no matter how it appeared externally, would give the impression of being an alien structure in Bowood Lane, regardless of it being in the AONB and affecting a holloway. In that regard I consider it is of no particular consequence whether BL is or is not treated as being an asset of heritage significance. ( & I dont care ???)

Schedule 17 Application - part refused

Go to the AVDC planning site & search for 22/01330/HS2. The Decision Notice gives grounds for refusal (in part), based on the Case Officer's report (see pages 46, 63 and 70)

HS2 Appeal

(Select Appeals, search for 22/00095/REF) This document sets out the grounds for the appeal (at page 18 of 33)

6.19 even a minor collision that did not result in alien items on the track would result in the suspension of the operation of the railway until a structural engineer has been able to confirm the structural integrity of the bridge and safety checks have been carried out on the line below. HS2 estimates that such an event would cost in the region of £500,000 for each hour that the railway remained suspended.

How ??

Woodland Transplantation -
another triumph for HS2 ?

 

Soil from the Ancient Woodland (recently felled) at Jones Hill Wood was transported to an adjacent field, as part of a mitigation exercise. Mark Kier issued this report on the success (or otherwise) of the operation, and the state of the associated new planting (illustrated above).

The report was submitted to Fusion ( the contractor responsible), who sent this annotated version by way of a reply. Mark in turn made this reply to the excuses response provided by Fusion.

It would appear from the report (and photographs), section 3, that the relocation exercise has not been a great success, which will surprise no-one. The difficulties were first pointed out in 2012, after Justine Greening suggested the procedure.

In addition, section 4.2 states
"A watering regime was established for the trees during the works. Upon demobilisation from the site watering ended."
which raises the question - who is now responsible for ongoing maintenance of the planting ? According to the HS2 helpdesk,

"Fusion remain the HS2 maintenance contractor for HS2 planted woodlands in the Chilterns. Arrangements are currently being made to transfer responsibility to the main works contractors ALIGN and EKFB respectively."

As this planting is supposed to form an element of the so called 'Green Corridor' (cf 'Green Tunnel'), it doesn't inspire confidence in the level of mitigation to be expected, or in the 'no net loss (of biodiversity' policy.

Bats

See our Bats page for the latest news. Thames Valley Police were recently called in to investigate the felling of one of the (4) Oak trees on the south side of the lane. Fortunately, no bats at all were present, officer - none whatever ...