Agenda item

The Committee will receive an update report on the East West Rail project and hear from representatives from East West Rail.

Contributors:

East West Rail Alliance

Mark Cuzner, Director

Jez Baldock, Deputy Director

East West Rail Company

Kate Campbell, Senior Communications Manager

Network Rail

Peter Hume, Joint Sponsor Lead

Buckinghamshire Council

Cllr Steve Broadbent, Cabinet Member for Transport

Cllr Peter Martin, Deputy Cabinet Member for Transport – HS2/East West Rail

Dr Laura Leech, Head of Major Projects

Susan Browning, EWR Stakeholder & Team Leader

• The Chairman welcomed Mark Cuzner and Kate Campbell (East West Rail Alliance) and Pip Hoskins (Network Rail) to the meeting then invited the Cabinet Member for Transport, Councillor Steven Broadbent, to introduce the item.
• The Cabinet Member thanked Cllr Martin for working on the East-West Rail (EWR) project, which was now in its fourth year. Visible progress had been made in the last 12 months, notably in Winslow where the station had been built. The infrastructure was due to be completed by the end of 2024 and the service due to start in 2025.
• On behalf of residents, the Council had a duty to hold national construction projects to account. This was so that disruption to the road network and to communities was mitigated. Section 3 of the report detailed work to clear mud from the roads, manage traffic flows and lessen the effect of dust on nearby communities. Despite the large number of road closures and diversions, the Council had not granted all requests. Permits had been refused or altered in order to let the public and school transport through. He mentioned that some businesses had suffered and could apply for a limited mitigation payment, but this was not an easy process.
• The Cabinet Member recognised that East West Rail had delivered temporary and permanent road repairs, which substantially mitigated the impact of the construction work on local roads. He thanked East West Rail for substantially completing 20 roads and acknowledged that some road defects remain.
• The Cabinet Member chaired the EWR Mainline Partnership, which includes all the authorities on the route and has continued to lobby central government for the Aylesbury spur to be built. He noted the mitigation measures on day-to-day activities and mentioned that Council marshals were providing oversight.
• In 2023 the National Audit Office report on railways mentioned how Buckinghamshire Council had championed local residents. He hoped that work to maintain communications with residents had been effective. He felt it important to understand the importance of good communications.
• Cllr Martin, the Deputy Cabinet Member for Transport, recorded his thanks to Susan Browning who had worked on mitigation for this project.  The Chairman stated that the entire committee echoed Cllr Martin’s thanks.

Mark Cuzner, Director of the East West Rail Alliance, made the following points during the EWR presentation:

• The Cabinet Member was thanked for his positive comments on road repairs.
• The track was almost complete and all 10 footbridges were completed before schedule to reinstate public rights of way. Eight out of the ten compounds had been restored.
• The completion dates had not changed – the infrastructure would be complete in the third quarter of 2024. Both stations were being completed and the foundations for the car park at Winslow station had been laid.  The bridges built over roads had now opened. Any risks to the completion date had been managed and EWR had taken the delivery date seriously to minimise disruption. Once the infrastructure was completed, work would be done on the systems - Signalling, Power and Communications (SPAC).
• Near compounds, some road repairs needed to be completed but the Verney Junction compound had been put back to its former condition.
• The project realised that mud and dust had been a problem for residents and road sweepers had been used to mitigate this. Now that the major works were almost complete, the impact on residents would be much reduced. An officer noted that EWR had been very responsive to complaints about mud and dust.
• The project has been designed to take climate resilience into account and the drainage put in place could cope with increased levels of rainfall.
• There was a commitment to provide 10% Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG). This was assessed by taking measurements before and after the works. There was currently a 5.6% BNG, this would increase to 10% by Q3 of 2024.
• Contributions of over £3 million had been made to community schemes.  As the project winds down, these funds will dwindle but EWR was currently donating material to local social groups.
• The project had received industry recognition and had been put forward for national award schemes. It was good to see that the project had been held to account by local authorities.
• Pip Hoskins extended her thanks to Susan Browning and Laura Leech for their work on the project.

The following points were made during the Select Committee’s discussion:

• There was a discussion of other projects where planting had been problematic. With EWR, Network Rail would be progressively responsible for planting maintenance in the railway corridor whilst landowners were required to sign agreements to look after planting on private land. Where landscaping was done, there was always a failure rate but any plants which had died within a year of being planted were replaced.  Survival rates had been relatively high compared to previous years. During the winter months, work had also been done to cut back weeds.
• Mark Cuzner advised that relatively few trees had been removed and this was because the railway corridor already existed. It was not the preferred strategy to move mature trees. Most of the mature trees near to the line had been retained and these had been given priority over shrubs. The planting carried out had been appropriate to existing fauna and the walking and cycling paths. The remaining planting would be in the general locality of the line rather than the railway corridor. Planting had made a real improvement to the local habitat. EWR agreed to provide more detail on planting at the request of a Member.

Action: Mark Cuzner

• Members of the committee requested again for EWR to supply figures for how many and what trees had been cut down and for how many trees had been saved by being moved.  Members complained that this had been asked for at previous meetings but had not yet been supplied.  East West Rail committed to supplying the information.

Action: Mark Cuzner

• Members of the committee expressed serious concerns about pollution resulting from the diesel trains to be used on the EWR. Mention was made of the hybrid flex trains which were to be used when the project was planned. Particular mention was made of Winslow station, which was sited next to a school. The decision was questioned in the light of the aim to reach net zero emissions by 2050. It was noted that diesel trains were at their most polluting when accelerating out of a station. It was confirmed that the rolling stock used on the line would be new.
• All the new and modified structures on the line have taken account of electrification so that it can be installed at a later date. Passive provision had been designed in at the start of the project. Some of the existing bridges were repaired rather than renewed, others had the gauges raised.
• The Cabinet Member for Transport detailed figures from the National Audit Office which showed the cost of the EWR was between £5.7 and £6.6 billion. The estimate to fully electrify the line was up to £1 billion. A range of power options were currently being considered by EWR and the Department for Transport. EWR would present plans for future powering of the line at the consultation on the remainder of the line later this year. 
• Diesel trains had been chosen as they provided the fastest way of putting the line in use. They were a temporary measure until another form of power was put in place – EWR and the government were still exploring future plans. All diesel trains would be phased out by 2040. A Member expressed their fear that diesel trains would continue to be used on the line until 2040.
• Members of the committee asked for details of the overall cost savings, if any, due to using diesel trains at the start and then replacing these with electric trains in the near future and at the latest by 2040.
• The bridges had been given an anti-graffiti coating but when graffiti had been noticed, it had taken some weeks to procure its removal. The station tannoy would be tested during the final stages of electrical installation.  Communications would be sent out to residents before the middle of 2024.
• The committee discussed its support for the Aylesbury spur to the ERW line, noting it had been part of the original plan. Network Rail had put in passive provision to add the spur at a later date which meant that there was no technical reason why it could not be built in the future with minimal disruption. The representatives acknowledged  the desire for the Aylesbury spur but advised that no funding decision had been made by the Government. EWR would let the committee know when the funding was clarified. The Cabinet Member noted that the Aylesbury spur remains on the project plan as a dotted line. The Chairman would write a letter to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the committee expressing its support for the Aylesbury spur. The Cabinet Member would then pass this message on to the government.

                                                                                       Action: Chairman/Scrutiny Officer

• There was mention of the disruption caused by HS2 in the county and a Member pointed out that this line would be of no benefit to residents. The Chairman noted that the next committee meeting was planned for 28^th March 2024 which would deal solely with HS2.
• The full benefits of the line would not be realised until Oxford and Cambridge were linked.  This would bring new jobs, benefit business and link academia.
• The representatives were confident in the current estimated timings of the project and their associated RAG risk ratings.
• Footbridges over the line had steps and were not designed for access by those with disabilities. As they had replaced rural paths which were mainly accessible for those on foot, this had not been practical. The Chairman noted that some would be disappointed at this.
• Currently, two passenger trains in each direction per hour were planned. There would be one or two freight trains each way per hour. Once the formal announcement of the operator was made by the Government, a new series of communications about the timetable would follow. Information on any freight trains planned to run overnight was requested as soon as possible.

The Chairman thanked everyone for contributing and their attendance.