EWR update 27/11/24 – Report by Councillor Moffat

/in , /by

SPM attended an online meeting given by EWR on 21st November and this is my report on the online meeting:

  • The train station in Cambrourne will be situated north of the A428.
  • The line crosses the A428 at Caldecote but will be via a cut and cover tunnel which means it passes Highfields underground and comes out once past houses.
  • The tunnel will be 1.5 km long (I must have misheard this distance as it cannot be that long). I will ensure I ask at the open meeting what the length is to be.
  • The A428 will be diverted at the area near Caldecote.
  • Once the line passes Comberton south towards the A603 the map they showed indicated it crosses Royston Lane near the T junction with the A603 and then crosses the A603. We need to check that they will never block access out of Royston Lane as it is a key route for many drivers.
  • When the line gets to Harlton it will go into a tunnel at Chapel Hill which will be 70 length as it passes Haslingfield.
  • The Hauxton junction with the Kings Cross line will be a grade separated junction which means no increase in width of kings cross line needed.
  • Hauxton level crossing will close and a footbridge over the line provided as well as a new road to connect each side of the village.
  • They said Cambridge South Station is already under construction – I assume some where near the bio medical campus/Addenbrookes.
  • The line will end at Cherry Hinton turnback near Sainsburys.
  • There is no Cambridge East station proposed but the turnback at Cherry Hinton may be possible in the future.
  • Consultation feedback can be:
    • Online at www.eastwestrail.co.uk/feedback;
    • Copies of the feedback from can be sent by freepost to EWR; and
    • Feedback can be given at the in-person open meetings.
  • EWR will submit a scoping report to the planning inspectorate in Jan 25 and the planning expectorate will consult will all consultee bodies including parish councils.

 

SPM then attended an online meeting with SCDC on Monday 21st November. It was an exact repeat of the presentation given by EWR on the 14th November as set out above, and this is my report on the online meeting:

  • The council broadly support the EWR project but will not give any rationale for supporting it as requested by David Revell of Haslingfield PC.
  • Sharon Erzinclioglu of Eversdens PC questioned their support given the fact all PCs along the route near here are very adversely affected without benefit, but they really could not answer that question properly.
  • We as a PC needs to raise our issues with SCDC and responding to the consultation in our own right in writing.
  • After the meeting I spoke to Sharon from Eversdens PC and she mentioned that she found out that in the summer, each Cambs CC member received a questionnaire on EWR and their constituent views on it. He responded to it online with no consultation with EPC nor us as far as I am aware and he said when asked that he could not provide a copy.  It appears he may not have taken our views into account.
  • There is a further EWR meeting being held at Haslingfield Village Hall next Tuesday at 7.30 arranged by David Revell where Bridget Smith will be attending to hear our views on EWR and for us to ask her questions.

 

SPM then attended a further EWR meeting hosted by Haslingfield Parish Council at their village hall on 26th November. My report is as follows:

The meeting was attended by members of the following Parish Councils:

  1. Comberton;
  2. Haslingfield;
  3. Kingston;
  4. Little Shelford;
  5. Great Shelford;
  6. Hauxton;
  7. Newton;
  8. Barrington;
  9. Highfields/Caldecote;
  10. Harstomn; and
  11. Eversdens.

Members of SCDC present were:

  1. Bridget Smith – Leader of SCDC; and
  2. Stephen Kelly – Head Director of Planning.

The Agenda was as follows:

  1. 2024 Consultation compared to 2021;
  2. SCDC’s rationale for supporting EWR Project;
  3. SCDC’s rationale for supporting the southern approach alignment;
  4. The PCs view on EWR;
  5. Disruption during construction;
  6. Land take; and
  7. Requests of SCDC – generally and PC by PC.

 

1.2024 Consultation compared to 2021

  • Hybrid electric instead of diesel
  • Freight up to one per hour
  • Lowered embankments and use of tunnels
  • 30m deep cuttings either side of Chapel Hill
  • Some improvements to road closures
  • Minor changes to land take

2. SCDC’s rationale for supporting EWR Project

  • In favour of rail in principle
  • Deficit in public transport
  • Planning policy is to have larger new settlements served with good transport links

3. SCDC’s rationale for supporting the southern approach alignment

  • Have never taken a view on the preferred route as we are not rail engineers
  • There will always be those for and against each route
  • We did the best to represent our constituents
  • The policy is to get people out of cars but get people to key employment areas
  • Government want the Bio Medical Campus (BMC) to expand by 2 or 3 times its current size
  • SCDC’s purpose is to highlight the impacts on the locality via a local impacts statement
  • It is the Government that wants the line to go to the BMC
  • Government say we need a further 100,000 houses on top of the current local 15 year plan, which SCDC refute as their plan is evidence based, whereas the Government’s position is not

4. The PCs view on EWR

  • Design is not fit for purpose
  • Not thought through properly
  • Northern route makes much more sense, is cheaper and less damaging to the environment and local people and it can still go to the BMC but also pick up the large new settlement of Northstowe
  • According to Greg Smith MP of Mid Bucks who went through the disruption of EWR’s construction and HS2 states: “there was a huge impact on local residents near the construction and it upended local businesses and residents alike – it was misery on a daily basis – they left local roads in an appalling state causing a risk to all road users – particularly around the construction compounds”

5. Disruption during construction

  • Effects on commuting both by rail and road
  • School runs
  • Medical appointments
  • Communities and socialising
  • Health – mental and physical
  • Economy – businesses of all sizes affected and farming
  • Comments from a Bucks resident: “EWR never listened to any concerns of residents about local issues – in our area it was an old disused line being resurrected, so it will be much worse for you – when they replaced a 2 lane road bridge they made it one lane with traffic lights which caused local congestion – we were told there would be no freight and now there is freight”

6. Land take

  • It was noted that large areas of land will be taken up by the construction and some of it will be very close to housing.
  • We need a buffer between housing and such sites.

7. Requests of SCDC – generally and PC by PC

  • General requests:
    • Ensure constructions sites to be no less than 150m from housing
    • Construction ombudsman to be appointed to liaise between locals and EWR – alternatively a SCDC technical representative – to ensure residents concerns are heard and taken into account
    • Maintain landscape where they can
    • Prepare an action plan for dealing with traffic congestion after discussions with Buck Council
    • Investigate a ban on freight at night – SCDC said they have no power to push for that in a DCO
    • Carry out independent baseline noise surveys for potentially sensitive receivers
    • Carry out a dilapidations survey of all affected local roads and keep EWR to maintaining them
    • Set up regular meetings with SCDC, local Parish Councils and EWR
  • Individual PCs concerns:
    • Caldecote:
      • Only one good road in and out of village, so cannot be cut off at any time – hence the need for EWR to agree to a bored tunnel not a cut and fill
      • Otherwise it would cut the village in 2 and force to use very poor and narrow road south and cut access to the shop and fuel station etc
      • It would also cut through ancient woodland
    • Comberton:
      • Ensure no road closures as few roads in and out of Comberton
      • Noise and disruption to pupils at CVC
      • Use of minor roads like Royston Lane for construction vehicles – importance of maintaining the road
      • Sight lines for junctions of Royston Lane and Washpit Lane on the A603 – sightlines must be maintained
      • Affect on residents to west of South street and Royston Lane and proximity of construction yards
    • Everdens:
      • Height of embankments currently 11m high – need to be reduced to nearer ground level
      • Access to comberton must not be cut off
      • Protection of local population of Barbastelle bats
      • 7m high embankment over Bourn brook – needs to be lower
    • Harlton:
      • Crossing over A603 is at 7m height – needs to be lower with road going over the top
      • No road closure to Haslingfield as it has the local shop and medical centre
    • Haslingfield:
      • They want a mined tunnel not cut and cover and less cutting depth at each end with more tunnel
      • Concern about construction traffic on their local narrow roads
    • Barrington:
      • Concerned about closure of Chapel Hill road
      • Concern about construction traffic on their local narrow roads
    • Harston:
      • Would like the line alignment to move south by 3 to 4 hundred meters towards Foxton to keep further away from residents houses
      • David Ravel commented at this point that instead of a grade separated line they could have a dive under line to avoid height of embankments
    • Newton:
      • Concerned about loss of connectivity to shops, worship, doctors’ surgery etc
      • Increased congestion on minor roads
      • Do not want construction traffic on local roads
      • Loss of small farms (one farm is losing 75 acres)
      • Height of line is a concern – needs to be kept lower
      • Noise pollution
      • Removal of access to Harston and amenities – the current proposal is inadequate – its far too long an alternative route – therefore option 1 is preferred by the PC
    • Hauxton:
      • Level crossing closing but a new road being built – concern about isolating part of the village – a long diversion
      • Footbridge must cater for cycles
    • Great Shelford:
      • We do not eant to become the next Trumpington with densely packed ugly housing – we need to retain green fields between us and Trumpington and the BMC
      • We do not want a 4 track through the village – keep to 2 track
      • Make sure the project fits with the GCP’s greenways plan

Closing notes:

  • Bridget Smith said that they were very frustrated with the lack of communication coming from EWR. District Councillors need to be informed of all details asap as they need to be able to consult with residents.
  • There was a general concern in the room about the number of new housing that the line might bring wit it to the local area. Stephen Kelly said they must evidence and justify any new housing to feed the economy as required. SCDC are evidence driven and will not allow Government to dictate more housing need if it is not correct for SCs.
  • SCDC will capture the general themes with some specifics to report back to EWR and Parish Councils to each send their list of Parish Specific detailed local issues to a central collating point to be identified by SCDC following the meeting.
  • SCDC’s advice on responding to the EWR consultation:
    • Scheme design – what needs to be changed
    • Construction Phase – mitigation – issues that arise:
      • Proximity of yards to residents properties
      • Conditions of roads – especially those used by construction traffic