As is presumably the case for all other residents of Cubbington, a leaflet bearing the title ‘The Cubbington Link’ has recently dropped through my letterbox. The front page informs the reader that this is the “first newsletter” from Cubbington Parish Council. For many years now, residents who have an interest in the business of Cubbington Parish Council have been able to keep up with council affairs via the council’s page in ‘Parish News’, but the council has obviously decided that, for whatever reason, there was a need for a publication solely devoted to council matters and that any associated cost represents a good use of council-tax payers money.
I have to say that I find the tone of the new publication rather too self-congratulatory for my liking – the council describes its members variously as having “a wealth of experience” and “commitment” and claims that it is a body that “exemplifies local governance that is closely connected with its community, striving to enhance the quality of life for its residents” – and that’s all on the first inside page!
Turning another page, the reader learns of a flood working group that has been “diligent in its efforts” and “is a testament to the council’s commitment to safeguarding the community’s well-being”.
By the time that I reached the back page of the leaflet, I was becoming rather tired of being told how good the council is. After all, as a resident I expect the council to be worthy of the precept that it receives from each council taxpayer and, if the council is not up to scratch, then I would hardly expect the author(s) of the leaflet to own up to the fact.
Hook, line and sinker!
However, when I read the final page my mild annoyance turned to anger – you see the subject covered on that page is HS2, a topic that have more than a passing interest in. In particular, the article refers to the changes to the design of the cutting through South Cubbington Wood that were revealed to residents at a public meeting held in April 2022. These changes were made at a time when the costs of the HS2 project were skyrocketing and represent, in my view, a design review where the chief motivation was cost-cutting.
As the council’s article correctly states, the concrete retaining walls that were a mitigating feature included in the original design have been ditched and the railway will now run in a V-section cutting with sloping grass sides. What the article fails to mention is that the new cutting design is also shallower than the original, which results in a general increase in trackbed height of two metres and requires the Rugby Road bridge over the railway, and the associated road embankment, to be two metres higher.
Apart from this important omission, what got my goat about the article was that it repeats, parrot-fashion, the justification for the change offered by the HS2 representatives at the public meeting that it reduces the environmental impact of this section of the line – so nothing to do with getting the cost down, of course.
Whilst I have to agree that the change offers a short-term reduction in environmental impact, in terms of carbon emissions generated by the construction and fewer lorries on our roads, it is the long-term environmental consequences that will, I feel, have the greater impact on Cubbington residents, in particular the increase in noise pollution from trains as they speed through the parish resulting from the cumulative effect of the changed cutting profile and the increase in trackbed height, plus the increased traffic noise consequent upon the raising of Rugby Road.
Let’s look at the figures
It was obvious to me when I first saw the new design that increased noise pollution levels could be expected and I asked about this at the April 2022 public meeting, but no one on the HS2 side was able (or perhaps willing) to answer my question.
In fact, I had to wait a couple of years to get my answer: when Warwick District Council (WDC) e-published a report written by HS2 contractor Balfour Beatty Vinci (BBV) that the latter was required to submit to WDC under the planning approvals process[1]. This report provides a recalculation of noise prediction figures appropriate to the revised design and compares them to the equivalent figures that were included in the Environmental Statement (ES) that was published in 2013[2].
The BBV report provides a table that looks at the noise generated at various locations in and around Cubbington by a single train pass (termed LpAFmax)[3]. The final column of the table gives the figure that BBV have calculated that is appropriate to the revised design. Three columns to the left of that is what BBV have identified as the equivalent level calculated in 2013 for the original design as given in the ES, so the difference between corresponding figures in the two columns represents the increase in noise pollution resulting from the design change. In fact, as I have pointed out to one of the authors of the BBV report, they have extracted the wrong figure from the ES and the figures for the original design should be 3dB lower than those that have been quoted by BBV[4].
BBV have provide train by-pass noise calculations for 22 locations and in around Cubbington. If the BBV error is corrected, then all of the locations bar two show an increase in noise levels of between 1dB and 8db[5].
Let’s get to the point
I think that, taking account of the situation I have described, it is fair to ask two questions relating to the performance of Cubbington Parish Council (CPC).
The first of these is “should CPC have known about the increase in noise pollution that would result from the design change?”.
My answer to my own question is “yes”. If CPC had, like other parish and town councils in the Kenilworth & Southam Parliamentary Constituency, taken advantage of the opportunity to attend the meetings bringing together representative of local communities and HS2 Ltd and its contractors that have been organised by the then MP[6], Sir Jeremy Wright, they would have heard me, in May 2023, present a paper describing the impacts on noise of the design change. I did try to encourage CPC to send a representative to attend these meetings but to no avail, so sadly they missed the opportunity to increase their awareness of issues raised and learn from the experiences of other councils. I have certainly benefitted from attending.
The second question is “if armed with the information about increase noise pollution, what should CPC have done about it?”.
I know from the many conversations that I have had with Cubbington residents that fear of what the impact will be of noise from HS2 trains is high on their list of concerns. The increases that I have identified are not insignificant and I really think that CPC should have opposed the design change, rather than as the initial issue of ‘The Cubbington Link’ would indicate, warmly support it. At the very least, the issue of noise should have been mentioned in the CPC’s leaflet.
[1] Noise Demonstration Report for Cubbington to Stonehouse Area, 1MC08-BBV-EV-REP-NS01_NL03-100087, Balfour Beaty Vinci (the document is downloadable from the list at https://planningdocuments.warwickdc.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=_WARWI_DCAPR_95701).
[2] London-West Midlands Environmental Statement, Volume 5 Technical Appendices, CFA17 Offchurch and Cubbington, Operational Assessment SV-004-017, Sound, noise and vibration, High Speed Two (HS2) Limited, November 2013 (https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20140810181503/http://assets.dft.gov.uk/hs2-environmental-statement/volume-5/sound/Vol5_CFA17_Sound_noise_and_vibration_operational_assessment_SV-004-017.pdf).
[3] In Table 4.
[4] The ES provides two figures; the higher of these relates to trains of the type currently running on the Eurostar service and these were included in the ES to cover the possibility of direct trains to Europe serving stations on the HS2 network. Since this possibility has long been discounted, these higher figures are irrelevant and what BBV should have used is the lower one in each pair that reflects the lower-noise specification set for trains purchased for HS2. BBV have refused to acknowledge this error.
[5] Sensitivity to noise varies from person to person and is dependent upon the nature of the noise, but a good rule of thumb is that 3dB increase is just noticeable, 5dB is clearly noticeable and 10dB is twice as loud.
[6] Due to Parliament being prorogued, there is no MP at the time of writing.
