0937

PETITION AGAINST A PRIVATE BILL

IN PARLIAMENT HOUSE OF COMiVIONS SESSION 2013-14

HIGH SPEED RAIL (LONDON - WEST MIDLANDS) BILL

Against - on merits - Praying to be heard [ih Person] [by Agent] [by Counsel] &c

To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.

THE HUMBLE PETITION of KATHERINE SYKES, DOUGLAS HOUSE, ROMAIN RACHIDI AND GEORGE HOFFMAN-HOWARD

SHEWETH as follows:-

1. A Bill (hereinafter referred to as "the Bill") has been introduced and is now pending in your honourable House entitled "A Bill to make provision for a railway between Euston in London and a junction with the West Coast Main Line at Handsacre in Staffordshire, with a spur from Old Oak Common in the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham to a junction with the Channel Tunnel Rail Link at York Way in the London Borough of Islington and a spur from Water Orton in Warwickshire to Curzon Street in Birmingham; and for connected purposes".

2. The Bill is presented by Mr Secretary McLoughlin, supported by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Theresa May, Secretary Vince Cable, Secretary lain Duncan Smith, Secretary Eric Pickles, Secretary Owen Paterson, Secretary Edward Davey, and Mr Robert GoodwilL

3. Clauses 1 to 36 set out the Bill's objectives in relation to the construction and operation of the railway mentioned in paragraph 1 above. They include provision for the construction of works, highways and road traffic matters, the compulsory acquisition of land and other provisions relating to the use of land, planning permission, heritage issues, trees and noise. They include clauses which would disapply and modify various enactments relating to special categories of land including burial grounds, consecrated land, commons and open spaces, and other matters, including overhead lines, water, building regulations and party walls, street works and the use of lorries.

4. Clauses 37 to 42 of the Bill deal with the regulatory regime for the railway. 5. Clauses 43 to 65 of the Bill set out a number of miscellaneous and general provisions, including provision for the appointment of a nominated undertaker ("the Nominated Undertaker") to exercise the powers under the Bill, transfer schemes, provisions relating to statutory undertakers and the Crown, provision about the compulsory acquisition of land for regeneration, reinstatement works and provision about further high speed railway works. Provision is also made about the application of Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations.

6. The works proposed to be authorised by the Bill are specified in clauses 1 and 2 of and Schedules 1 and 2 to the Bill. They consist of scheduled works, which are described in Schedule 1 to the Bill and other works, which are described in clause 2 of and Schedules 2 and 3 to the Bill.

7. Your Petitioners are the occupiers of 41 Regent's Park Road, , London, NWI 7SY ("the Property"), a property that will be affected by the scheduled works. Your Petitioners' Property will not be demolished as a result ofthe Bill but it is located close both to major demolition and construction sites for the Scheme, such as. Euston, the Regent's Park estate, Adelaide Road, Park Village East and Parkway; and also to some other areas that are required for works, such as Gloucester Avenue and Princess Road. Your Petitioners' Property is also very near to, and adjacent to, roads which will be used by construction traffic during the construction ofthe Scheme, such as Parkway, Albany Street and Camden High Street. Indeed, your Petitioners understand that Regent's Park Road will or may be used for construction traffic and are fully expecting to suffer from significant disturbance due to noise, dust, pollution and vibration.

8. The location of your Petitioners' Property is such that it is almost completely surrounded by areas in which works are scheduled to take place. Euston station, the Regent's Park estate and Morningtpn Crescent lie a short distance to the south; Adelaide Road close-by to the north; and the existing railway curves round from both the near south to the north-west. Both ofthe tunnels that HS2 Ltd proposes to build from Euston to Old Oak Common will run underneath Primrose Hill. The new twin tunnels will be bored from Parkway/Park Village East, very close to the bottom of Regent's Park Road, and will continue their passage underneath the south east section of Primrose Hill, travelling north-west. The close proximity and all-encompassing nature of so much of the work is a significant concern for all four of your Petitioners, even more so for one of the Petitioners who also works at the Property.

9. Primrose HilMs a very special place and unlike any other in London. The name 'Primrose Hill' refers both to Primrose Hill village and Primrose Hill itself ('The Hill"), which is a royal park attached to the Regent's Park. A leafy conservation area consisting mostly of houses built in and around 1840-50, the village is known for its quiet, tranquil quality and prolific greenery. It contains an abundance of trees in its streets. Its small high street is filled with small independent boutiques, coffee shops and restaurants. One ofthe least urban parts of London, it presents a stark contrast to neighbouring, bustling Camden. External access to the village is limited as it bordered by Regent's Park, the Regent's Canal, London Zoo and The Hill to the south and west, and the railway to the north and east. The Regent's Canal is a conservation area in its own right. Most of Primrose Hill village's streets are narrow and used for access only; the only through road is Regent's Park Road which itself is not very busy and is rarely used for any vehicle heavier than a single decker bus. Perhaps owing to its narrow streets, and the relative lack of traffic. Primrose Hill village has a strong community ethos: street parties and fetes are held several times a year. The Hill itself is one ofthe least formal ofthe royal parks and is much used by families and groups of friends for games and picnics in the summer. It is popular with dog-walkers, exercisers and sunbathers and its less maintained areas contain wild grasses and flowers, such as bluebells and cow parsley. In some areas, the Hill has more of a feel of a large meadow than a royal park and with the cries of London Zoo's exotic birds in the background, it is sometimes easy to forgetthat the Hill is actually in London.

10. Your Petitioners and their interests are Injuriously affected by the Bill, to which your Petitioners object for reasons amongst others, hereinafter appearing.

11. The Effects of HS2 Plus

11.1 The Euston area will suffer some of the most severe, detrimental environmental impacts along the entire HS2 route. Euston will be the location of two major construction compounds and 10 further satellite construction compounds. The associated extensive traffic and activities of the HS2 construction works and their associated utility works will create significant noise, dust, vibration, pollution and other amenity effects for local residents and businesses. There is likely to be damage and maintenance requirements beyond normal wear and tear to residential and commercial premises. These impacts will seriously reduce the ease and amenity of the area as a place to live near, work in, travel through and interconnect with.

11.2 There will be severe disruption of transport and access affecting residents over a much wider area, including your Petitioners, for more than 13 years. This will include public transport disruption, road closures and diversions and the re-routing of services, leading to increased traffic and congestion in already highly congested areas. This will affect pedestrians, cyclists, buses and other road users and will result in millions of pounds of costs to businesses and members ofthe local community.

11.3 Your Petitioners object to the proposals in the Bill for the design of Euston Station ("the Station") because they seem to incorporate the worst of all possible options and be the most injurious for local residents. The Bill would authorise an additional building to house HS2 platforms to the west of the existing Station. The proposals would fail to provide conditions that would maximise economic growth through over-site development, fail to enhance or integrate adequately with the local transport network, including pedestrian and cycle connectivity, and fail to minimise the impacts on local communities from the redevelopment. They are divorced from the wider local community and planning context. Insufficient attention has been paid to dealing with the already serious issue of overcrowding on the , addressing onward travel and impacts on local transport from HS2, and to coping with increased passenger levels during the construction period. This will significantly impact your Petitioners, who travel to and through Euston by tube, bus or bicycle every day. 11.4 Since the introduction of the Bill, the report entitled "HS2 Plus" has been published, 1n which the chairman of HS2 Limited, Sir David Higgins, reviewed the project and made recommendations to the Government about the future plans for the scheme. In that report Sir David proposed that the Government should look at a more comprehensive redevelopment of the Station. In response to the report, the Secretary of State said that he will ask HS2 Ltd and Network Rail to develop more comprehensive proposals for the redevelopment of Euston, working with the rail industry and the local community. Your Petitioners welcome the fact that the government now recognises that the plans for the Station contained within the Bill are inappropriate and require further consideration.

11.5 However, as a result of the Government's response to HS2 Plus, your Petitioners find themselves in an almost impossible position with regard to Euston. Whilst the existing plans for Euston will impact your Petitioners adversely, some of the new, alternative ideas that have been floated in the media in recent weeks will be significantly more impactful and harmful. For example, the proposal to redevelop all the land between the Station and Parkway would have catastrophic consequences for your Petitioners and indeed their entire community, given its huge scale and the inevitably long timescale (possibly 20 years) the work would take to complete. The size and the complexity of the eventual development at Euston will have a direct relationship on the amount of harm and damage that your Petitioners will suffer: the redevelopment of Euston station within the existing station footprint (eg the plans for DDD2) over 10 years would be a completely different scenario from a much enlarged station, stretching from Euston to Parkway, over 20 years, and have a significantly reduced impact on your Petitioners. Your Petitioners understand that a new public consultation may be opened once the Government announces its plans. Consequently your Petitioners must reserve their position in general on Euston, given the uncertainty that has been created. It is not clear when, whether and how the Promoters will alter the Bill and the accompanying documents to take account of the Government's response to HS2 Plus. But until a clearer idea of the alternative proposals is announced, your Petitioners are unable to discern precisely what it is they are petitioning about.

11.6 Your Petitioners are delighted that the honourable House has instructed the Select Committee not to hear any petition that relates to the HSl-2 link, and welcomes this recognition by Government that their plans were flawed. However, your Petitioners note that the promoters of HS2 have not provided any information to tell them how this will impact the details set out in the Environmental Statement that was deposited with the Hybrid Bill ("the Environmental Statement"). Consequently, because your Petitioners are in no position to judge what has changed as a result (e.g. the identity of HGV traffic routes, numbers of lorries using them, location and number of construction compounds) they reserve the right to petition on this subject at a later date. The government's previously proposed plans for the HSl-2 link (as set out in the Environmental Statement) affect your Petitioners quite as much as many other matters, given the location of their Property.

12 Adelaide Road Ventilation Shaft and Headhouse

12.1 Your Petitioners have several concerns about the proposals for the Adelaide Road ventilation shaft, which also requires the construction of an on-surface headhouse measuring 20m x 30m x 4.5m high (in relation to road level). The proposed location of the shaft is adjacent to Adelaide Road, a vital thoroughfare providing access between and , and would be adjacent to the Adelaide Road Local Nature Reserve, a considerable community resource. It would also impact on the environment ofthe Primrose Hill Conservation Area. Adelaide Road lies just beyond the Regent's Park Road bridge, which is at the north end of Primrose Hill village.

12.2 The construction and operation of the Adelaide Road shaft and headhouse will cause major disruption to your Petitioners in terms of noise, access and other construction issues and will have a significant adverse impact on the adjoining open space including the local nature reserve. According to the Environmental Statement, the construction period will be longer than five years, in two phases, with significant noise and visual effects lasting one year and three months. The main construction compound is estimated to generate typically more than one hundred daily two way HGV movements.

12.3 The Environmental Statement suggests that Adelaide Road will need to be closed fully for a period of approximately four months during construction of the shaft, during which all traffic, including buses, and presumably local residents including those who live on Adelaide Road itself, will be diverted along England's Lane and Hill. Any such closure (in whole or part) and diversion will cause great inconvenience to those who live in, use and access the area (including emergency vehicles) and will result in severe congestion in the surrounding area (ie Primrose Hill) and use of inappropriate roads in residential areas by vehicular traffic and construction vehicles. Your Petitioners are not convinced that the Promoters have considered every alternative properiy and request your honourable House to require more suitable arrangements to minimise the need for highways closures and diversions, minimise disruption from activity associated with construction (including utilities works) and ensure that any diverted traffic avoids unsuitable roads having sufficient regard to Camden's Network Management Plan and the amenities of the area, particulariy considering the needs of residents, businesses and services, pedestrians and cyclists. Any displaced resident parking should be replaced in a convenient location.

12.4 The proposals will cause major detrimental disruption to the Adelaide Road open space including the nature reserve and its woodland, semi-improved neutral grassland, hedgerow, scrub and pohd habitats. In turn, this will result in loss of amenity for user groups including the local Green Gym. The temporary and permanent loss of some ofthe land, combined with greater levels of enclosure and the impact of the presence and appearance of the shaft structure will have a severe effect on the ecology of the site and will diminish the amenity value of the reserve. Your Petitioners are concerned about the lack of consideration that has been given to the effects of the proposed shaft on the community and its environment.

12.5 Your Petitioners consider that in order to avoid many of the issues mentioned above, the Promoters should be required by your honourable House to provide an undertaking to Camden Council securing specific covenants that ensure construction impacts, including those on the Adelaide Road Local Nature Reserve, are minimised throughout construction and that road closures are avoided, and that funding is secured for ecological improvements, including replacement of trees and enlarging the existing local nature reserve using remaining space on Network Rail land. Your Petitioners would also ask that the Promoters be required to create a bespoke design for the vent shaft, with green walls and sympathetic screening and hoarding that are appropriate to the open space and nature reserve setting.

12.6 Only a few metres away from the Adelaide Road compound, on the other side of the Regent's Park Road bridge, lies the site which was originally identified for the construction ofthe HSl-2 Link Portal. As stated above, your Petitioners are delighted that your honourable House will not be considering any petitions in relation to the link. However, because the Environmental Statement has not been updated to reflect the impact that this will have on the construction of the high speed railway in practical terms, your Petitioners are unsure whether or not the construction compound, headhouse and network rail substation that are described in the Environmental Statement will actually now go ahead as planned. If they do, their construction would cause major disruption to north Primrose Hill for many years, possibly eight, with significant noise, pollution and visual effects. This would significantly impact your Petitioners' ability to use the shops and amenities in that part of the village and may also impact upon pedestrian and cyclist access to tube station.

12.7 Your Petitioners consider that in order to avoid many of the issues mentioned above, the Promoters should be required by your honourable House to provide Camden Council with an undertaking to secure specific covenants ensuring that all construction impacts, including those relating to noise and pollution as described more fully in clauses 17 and 18 below, are minimised throughout construction and that any road closures are avoided.

13 Traffic: General

13.1 Your Petitioners are concerned that the construction ofthe high speed railway and associated development in and around Primrose Hill and on the wider area will impact significantly upon the quiet enjoyment of the Property and the neighbourhood by way of noise, disturbance, visual intrusion and traffic increases.

13.2 Your Petitioners are concerned about the impact that so much construction will have on public transport, particulariy their ability to move about freely, and continue their day-today business without undue disruption and delay.

13.3 Your Petitioners are concerned about the use of unsuitable roads by large vehicles delivering equipment and supplies, and removal of spoil during the construction works as well as use of highways by other vehicles. The use and routing of large vehicles within the vicinity of the Property is a matter of great concern to your Petitioners.

13.4 Your Petitioners request that hours for the movement of construction traffic are limited to 09:00 to 17:00 Monday to Friday, and there are limits on the number of vehicle movements, limits on the size of vehicles, and other miscellaneous related matters. 13.5 Your Petitioners request that large vehicles as weil as other construction traffic must be strictly controlled, having regard to the particular sensitivities of the area. Your Petitioners therefore request that the Nominated Undertaker should be subject to binding mitigation measures in relation to the control of all construetion traffic, assessment of suitability of roads for construction traffic, routeing of lorries and other vehicles in accordance with a list of routes to be agreed with the Nominated Undertal

13.6 Your Petitioners request that binding mitigation measures should include traffic management plans to be agreed between the Nominated Undertaker, Camden Council and the relevant highway authority to be monitored and enforced by environmental health officers.

13.7 Your Petitioners request that, as part of the traffic management plans above, all construction traffic is cleariy identifiable as such and residents are provided with a helpline number so that they can immediately report any transgressions of agreed guidelines.

13.8 Your Petitioners are concerned about the risk to public safety (particularly pedestrians and cyclists) posed by large, heavy lorries and articulated vehicles, especially in light ofthe fact that so many ofthe local roads are narrow residential streets. Your Petitioners are also concerned about traffic leaving and entering the many construction sites and compounds.

13.9 Your Petitioners request that risk assessments are completed by the Nominated Undertaker, relevant statutory undertakers and emergency services in relation to the access and transport issues raised by construction activity for each Community Forum Area. Your Petitioners request that the results of these risk assessmentsare made available to the public.

13.10 Your Petitioners are concerned about the wear and tear, and degradation to the highways as a result of construction traffic.

13.11 Your Petitioners request that appropriate funding should be provided by the nominated undertaker to the highways authority for the maintenance, repair and re-instatement of highways required as a result of use by construction traffic.

13.12 Your Petitioners are particulariy concerned about the safety of cycling and walking and request that these modes of travel are promoted as part of the proposals under the Bill. The Euston Road is already an area of particular risk to cyclists as it is much used by academics, students and medical professionals cycling between college sites, hospital sites and research facilities. Your petitioners would ask your honourable House to require that the Nominated Undertaker should prohibit the use of the London Cycle Grid, Quietways and all other cycle routes for construction traffic, with effective arrangements to protect cyclists and pedestrians from construction traffic, especially at key points such as junctions and links. The Nominated Undertaker should also be required to develop safe cycle routes through and around the development sites and minimise disruption to both pedestrians and cyclists by accommodating their access needs duringthe construction period. 13.13 Your Petitioners are concerned that the response times of emergency vehicles will be lengthened by the many road closures that are planned in the area, particularly if they affect the Euston Road and the roads running alongside the proposed Euston Station development site, such as Road and Eversholt Street and other routes in the Borough used by emergency services, such as Camden High Street and Adelaide Road. Any disruption along these routes would have serious consequences. Your Petitioners request that the Promoters be required to ensure that the Nominated Undertaker will conduct regular discussions with Camden Council and emergency and public transport providers, concerning planned closures and alterations to routes.

13.14 In order to minimise the major and widespread impacts of construction traffic lasting over more than a decade across the various communities stretching from Euston to Primrose Hill and beyond, your Petitioners ask your honourable House to require that the Promoters adopt the principle that rail haulage is used for the delivery and removal of all construction related materials, spoil and equipment unless transport by rail is manifestly and demonstrably impractical in particular circumstances, those circumstances to be cleariy defined and exclusive of any cost considerations.

14 Traffic: Regent's Park Road

14.1 Your Petitioners are particularly concerned about the use of Regent's Park Road for construction traffic as they believe that neither the road nor the buildings on it will be able to withstand the pressure of dozens or hundreds of daily HGV journeys. Regent's Park Road is a quiet residential road with a 20 mph speed limit containing regularly spaced speed bumps. On the very rare occasions when a heavy lorry, perhaps transporting a skip, travels past your Petitioners' Property, the walls, windows and floors at the front of the Property all vibrate. Your Petitioners feel that their Property, which was built in 1840 and lies on very shallow foundations, is not sufficiently robust to withstand the impact of large quantities of HGVs and other construction traffic passing by every day for a decade.

14.2 Moreover, notwithstanding that it is the widest road in Primrose Hill village. Regent's Park Road is still essentially a village high street, typically full of pedestrians, cyclists, mothers pushing prams and people walking their dogs. In recent years the Camden Butterfly Conservation Society has established two habitats for butterflies on Regent's Park Road, both of which would be damaged if the essentially quiet nature ofthe road was to change.

14.3 Your Petitioners respectfully ask your honourable House to require that HGVs are prohibited from using that part of Regent's Park Road which runs south of Regent's Park Road bridge as a route for HGVs or other construction traffic. This simple measure would help your Petitioners immensely and would also help to maintain the special peace and tranquillity of Primrose Hill village. It would also help to prevent accidents.

14.4 If, however, your honourable House feels that this is not possible your Petitioners would request that no HGV weighing more than a single decker bus be allowed to travel on Regent's Park Road and that use by any other construction vehicles is strictly limited. 14.5 In addition, your Petitioners request that the Promoters pay for them to commission a structural survey ofthe Property, both before the works commence to establish a baseline, and afterwards in order to establish what impact the traffic has had on the structure pf the Property.

14.6 Your Petitioners request that appropriate compensation should be provided by the Nominated Undertaker for any loss or damage to the Property related to the use of Regent's Park Road by any traffic related to the construction of the high speed railway.

15 Waste

15.1 Your Petitioners are concerned that the impact on local communities of the amount of waste to be excavated and removed from the construction of the high speed railway has been underestimated and the environmental impacts of removal and disposal of such waste has been needlessly worsened because of the primacy (in UK and EU law) of the requirement to seek to avoid disposal of waste and comply with the principles ofthe waste hierarchy has been ignored by HS2 Ltd.

15.2 Your Petitioners are concerned that the forecasts provided for each Community Forum Area for amounts of waste to be excavated and removed from that area appear to be contradictory and take insufficient account of local authority planning policies.

15.3 Your Petitioners requestthat:

15.3.1 The entire materials balance and movement from the high speed railway be re­ presented in a consistent and more readily accessible form.

15.3.2 Your Petitioner request that the Bill be amended so that:

15.3.2.1 The Secretary of State and the Nominated Undertaker be required to comply with the requirements of the Waste Framework Directive and review its decisions on treatment of waste to ensure compliance with the waste hierarchy as detailed in that Directive. Such review should include publishing details of the "integrated design approach" to waste management and subject to consultation to enable effective public participation on this issue.

15.3.2.2 The Secretary of State, the Nominated Undertaker and the relevant local authority be required to agree arrangements for monitoring and enforcement of mitigation measures designed to safeguard local communities near the construction sites for the high speed railway and associated development from adverse effects created by waste. Such plans to be overseen by an independent body picked by Parliament. 16 Transport of Hazardous Materials

16.1 Your Petitioners are concerned by the significant amount of hazardous waste which is due to be excavated and transported by road in the area where your Petitioners reside. Your Petitioners believe that the plans for such a significant number of lorry movements have not been properiy assessed. Your Petitioners submit that a full Health Impact Assessment is undertaken for the area and a report provided to Parliament on the health impacts of these proposals. Your Petitioners humbly submit that the Hybrid Bill should be amended to ensure that your Petitioners and others living in their community have recourse to binding enforcement mechanisms in the event that the disruption or health impacts arising from the transport of hazardous materials is more acute than forecast by HS2 Ltd.

17 Environment: Air Quality and Pollution

17.1 Your Petitioners are concerned about the potential adverse impacts on air quality as a result of the construction and operation of the high speed railway line and associated development.

17.2 Under Directive 2008/50/EC, the Government has clear legal duties towards all citizens of the UK, including those in the Borough of Camden. The UK is already in breach of this directive and, in terms of its current compliance to this directive, rates 28th out of the 28 members of the EU.

17.3 Levels of pollution in the Borough already exceed the legal limits imposed by Directive 2008/50/EC in some areas, and especially so around Euston. Almost three times the legal limit of nitrogen oxide was found there in 2010. The demolition and construction work planned by HS2, together with 1,000 or more predicted daily HGV lorry movements, will make this considerably worse.

17.4 The proposed construction works will lead to significant increases in two ofthe most serious air pollutants. Nitrogen Dioxide (N02) and Particulate Matter (PMIO and PM2.5). There are also likely to be increases in pollutants as a result ofthe operation of HS2. This will have a vety serious effect on the health of Camden's residents, in a borough where 8% of deaths can already be attributed to air pollution. However, the Promoters have no strategy for preventing the air pollution its hundreds or thousands of daily lorry movements will cause. This increase in pollution, deliberately caused by HS2 Ltd and in flagrant breach of Directive 2008/50/EC, will therefore constitute a major health threat to many people in the Borough and will undoubtedly be responsible for many avoidable deaths. In Community Forum Area report 2, the section on air quality asserts (p. 58, 4.4.9) that 'There are no permanent effects anticipated to arise during the construction ofthe Proposed Scheme'. However your Petitioners would argue that even one death, caused by a deliberate increase in air pollution and therefore avoidable, is a 'permanent effect'.

17.5 The above will come against a background of mounting health impacts of air pollution generally, and its links to heart disease, asthma and cancer. This is of particular concern to

10 your Petitioners, especially one of them who suffers from asthma already. The key ways in which the proposals under the Bill will impact on local air quality are as follows:

17.5.1 Air pollution from construction sites and construction vehicles: your Petitioners believe it highly likely thatthe Promoters have underestimated these impacts in the Environmental Statement. Cumulative impacts have not been considered and it appears that not all affected locations have been correctly identified. Air pollution impacts from construction are assessed as being insignificant and no additional mitigation other than those that would be applied to any standard development in the Borough. Yet with up to 1,000 HGV journeys being made through the Borough, every day, for at least 10 years, your Petitioners submit that this seems unlikely indeed. Your Petitioners strongly disagree with the assessment in the Environmental Statement.

17.5.2 Road traffic impacts during, construction: Road closures and diversions will lead to increases in congestion which in turn will lead to increases in concentrations of pollution on some of the most polluted roads in the Borough, including Euston Road and Hampstead Road. Some of the worst predicted increases 1n N02 are on a scale that is unprecedented in the Borough. Tb make matters worse, initial appraisal of the Environmental Statement indicates that these impacts are likely to have been significantiy underestimated. The impact of increased air pollution will not only be felt on Camden's major arterial routes, because as congested traffic finds a route out of gridlock, previously quiet residential streets will be similarly affected.

17.5.3 Operational Impacts: Operation of HS2 is predicted to increase pollution in some locations in the area around Euston including Eversholt Street, Euston Road and Parkway.

17.6 Your Petitioners know that Pariiament takes environmental considerations seriously and hopes that your honourable House will agree that the Promoters should implement a level of mitigation against air pollution that truly reflects the scale of the proposed works, rather than simply falling back on standard measures used for smaller schemes. The length of time that the proposed project will take - at least a decade - Is no small matter and should not be disregarded. In particular, your Petitioners would ask your honourable House to require the Promoters to implement the following measures at the very least:

17.6.1 Introduce an Ultra-low Emission Zone around Euston Station, only allowing zero or low emission vehicles to service the Station, amongst other measures.

17.6.2 Pollution monitoring: funding sufficient real-time air pollution monitors (both for particulate matter and N02) during the construction phase, and to continue to fund monitors in Euston duringthe operational phase.

17.6.3 Ongoing impact analysis: A commitment to provide funds to Camden Council to enable them to undertake an on-going independent assessment of the real-worid

11 impacts of the construction work once it commences.

17.6.4 Exposure Reduction: In the ES, no consideration is given to the effect of air pollution on commuters, residents and other users of affected roads and open areas. A commitment should be provided to fund air quality awareness which includes signposting and highlighting cleaner routes that pedestrians can take to avoid the most polluted areas forthe duration ofthe works.

17.6.5 Planted Hoardings: Your Petitioners request that a commitment should be required of the Promoters to ensure that during the construction phase the Nominated Undertaker utilises green hoardings and green screens.

17.6.6 Low Emission Construction Vehicles and Machinery: Your Petitioners request your honourable House to require a binding undertaking from the Promoters that the Nominated Undertaker will be required to use the lowest emission construction vehicles and machinery on the market as well as ensuring that Construction vehicles should meet the latest European Emission Standard; and that construction machinery adheres to the latest EU and GLA limits, and must be Energy Saving Trust Non-Road-Mobile-Machinery certified.

17.6.7 Use of rail: Your Petitioners request your honourable House to require a binding undertaking from the Promoters that the Nominated Undertaker will be required to adopt the principle that rail haulage is used for the delivery and removal of all construction related materials, spoil and equipment unless transport by rail is manifestly and demonstrably impractical in particular circumstances, those circumstances to be cleariy defined and exclusive of any cost considerations.

17.7 In addition, your Petitioners request that the Bill be amended so that before construction an air quality baseline monitoring study, benchmarked against the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010, is undertaken and that a copy of this report is made public. Your Petitioners submitthat the Bill should be amended so that an air quality mitigation plan, together with thresholds for air quality, are produced for each Community Forum Area, applicable both during the construction and operation of HS2.

17.8 Your Petitioners request that Camden Council is provided with powers to monitor air quality in accordance with binding mitigation plans and in the event that air quality thresholds are breached, your Petitioners submitthat the Bill should be amended to enable Camden Council to require the cessation of construction activities until such point as air quality thresholds are complied with.

18 Environment: Noise, Vibration and Dust

18.1 The construction impacts of the high speed railway project are likely to include (but not limited to) noise, dust, artificial light pollution and decreased accessibility around homes and businesses. The cumulative impact of these environmental issues are likely to reduce quality

12 of life for residents and impact on health, the profitability and sustainability of businesses and the usage of community facilities. Noise levels from the construction phase should therefore be reduced as much as possible. The methodology for assessing, identifying, reporting and mitigating impacts, including cumulative impacts, from construction noise and vibration must be suitable and sufficient, so as to ensure that the noise and impacts of the project are appropriately reported and are reduced as much as possible.

18.2 Your Petitioners request that the methodology for assessing construction impacts to be adopted by the Promoters and the Nominated Undertal

18.3 During the construction phase, dust is likely to be produced which could have an impact on health and quality of life. AH dust mitigation and management procedures must comply with the GLA's Control of Dust and Emissions Supplementary Planning Guidance, or the latest equivalent guidance in operation at the time and this must include sufficient baseline assessments prior to the commencement of works. Sufficient real-time air pollution monitors, for example fine dust monitoring stations for construction dust must be placed within the Borough during the construction phase. Particular regard should be given to the management and mitigation of dust in residential areas, those which experience significant footfall, and in relation to sensitive people (eg sufferers from asthma, like one of your Petitioners).

18.4 Your Petitioners are concerned about the noise and vibration caused by the construction and operation of the high speed railway. Your Petitioners are concerned that there appears to be no mechanism in the Bill to deliver a properly noise mitigated railway.

18.5 Your Petitioners are concerned that the fundamental calculations needed for forecasting noise impacts, known as the Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) and Significant Observed Adverse Effect Level (SOAEL) have not been correctiy identified and were set too high in the Environmental Statement, leading to material underestimation of the adverse noise and significant adverse noise impacts likely to arise from the high speed railway.

18.6 Your Petitioners are concerned that the thresholds adopted in the Environmental Statement for noise limits were set above what the Worid Health Organisation considers acceptable. Your petitioner considers this issue is likely to become more pressing given the moves by the Worid Health Organisation to set new lower targets on the basis of the latest medical research onthe impact of noise on human health.

18.7 Your Petitioners are concerned that the specific impacts of ground borne noise have not been properly considered or explained to impacted communities and the limit for ground borne noise does not reflect recent or practice or experience and the methodology used for predicting the impact of ground borne noise is insufficiently robust and no amelioration measures have been suggested to deal with this problem.

13 18.8 Your Petitioners therefore request:

18.8.1 HS2 Ltd be instructed to issue revised noise thresholds covering the LOAEL and SOAEL for noise exposure, in rural and urban areas and during the day and at night­ time which reflect World Health Organisation guidelines including World Health Organisation guidelines on peak noise (60db max pass-by outside, giving 45db inside).

18.8.2 HS2 Ltd be required to set noise limits for construction which are in line with World Health Organisation limits and local authorities be provided with enforcement powers to order the cessation of construction activities in the event such anticipated exposures are breached.

18.8.3 HS2 Ltd be obliged to commit to designing the high speed railway to operate in such manner that the revised noise exposures are not breached.

18.8.4 A binding requirement included in the Bill for noise monitoring with obligations on HS2 Ltd to introduce additional mitigation measures, including reduction in train speeds, in the event forecast noise levels are exceeded.

18.9 Your Petitioners are concerned about the cumulative impact of noise and/or vibration from multiple contractors contributing individually to the total construction noise and also from vibration within the immediate location of their Property. In order to manage these impacts, your Petitioners require the Promoter to delineate its construction contract packages in a suitable manner from the outset, having regard to the fact that the primary means of mitigation must be at the noise sources and along the pathway with suitable application of construction working methods, practices and selection of equipment.

18.10 Your Petitioners are concerned that Clause 35 of the Bill and Schedule 25 provide that appeals against notices or against failure to give consent or the giving of qualified consent under the Control of Pollution Act 1974, section 60 (control of noise) and section 61 (prior consent for work on construction sites) may be referred to the Secretary of State or arbitration. Your Petitioner is also concerned that Schedule 25 would provide a defence to statutory nuisance forthe Nominated Undertaker.

18.11 Your Petitioners request that Clause 35 and Schedule 25 are deleted from the Bill.

19 Code of Construction Practice

19.1 Your Petitioners are concerned that the Nominated Undertaker's ongoing accountability is unspecified. The proposed Code of Construction Practice has no statutory basis as it is not in the Bill. Assessment in the Environmental Statement is made on the assumption that the Code of Construction Practice and the strategies will be fully effective; however the Code of Construction Practice has no legal status. The Code of Construction Practice does not identify how any lead contractors will be made to comply, and the redress and appropriate action that

14 might be taken in the event that the contractors do not comply with the Code of Construction Practice.

19.2 Your Petitioners submit that the Code of Construction Practice should be incorporated into the Bill. Pariiament and not the Nominated Undertaker should be accountable forthe project. Any monitoring required under the Code of Construction Practice should involve Camden Council as well as independent experts with effective oversight and redress arrangements in the event of non-compliance with the Code of Construction Practice.

19.3 The standards set out in the Environmental Statement and the Code of Construction Practice is of "reasonableness" and "reasonable endeavours". Your Petitioner submits that this should be replaced by a higher standard, i.e. "best practical means" which should be on the face ofthe Bill. The measures should be agreed with the relevant local authority. Measures should be subject to independent assessment, verifiable and challengeable. This applies to noise as well as other effects that are to be addressed in the Code of Construction Practice.

19.4 Your Petitioners are concerned to ensure that the hours during which construction activities take place are restricted so as to ensure that disturbance is minimised for residents. Your Petitioners submit that 09:00 - 17:00 Monday to Friday will be more than adequate.

19.5 The type, proximity and inter-related nature of the many proposed work sites that will be required strongly suggests to your Petitioners that the Promoters envisage 24 hour working over extended periods if the Promoters and Nominated Undertaker are to meet their proposed timetable. Indeed, the Environmental Statement actively anticipates 24 hour working, including weekends, bank holidays and even Christmas Day. The Environmental Statement completely forgets that the proposed works in the Borough of Camden will take place in high density urban areas and in very close proximity to thousands of residents and businesses, as well as others visiting the area, such as commuters. Your Petitioners ask that the Promoters be required to give an undertaking to fundamentally review their construction strategy to reduce the impacts of construction activities and to do so in close and open co-operation with Camden Council so that schemes and methods of work can be devised that will minimise adverse impacts. Your Petitioners specifically do not consider that the proposed Code of Construction Practice currently relied upon by the Promoters is adequate to meet these particular circumstances.

19.6 The adverse impacts of sleep deprivation on health and well-being are well known. It should not be forgotten that the proposed works are scheduled to last for at least 10 years in some places. Your Petitioners humbly ask your honourable House to require the Promoters and the Nominated Undertaker not to work overnight, or on bank holidays or weekends, except in cases of dire emergency, which must be immediately notified to Camden Council. Your Petitioners request that, except in cases of dire emergency, no work is carried out outside the hours of 09:00 -17:00 Monday to Friday.

15 20 Nominated Undertaker

20.1 Your Petitioner has concerns in relation to the appointment of a Nominated Undertaker and the associated risk of them failing to fulfil their obligations, and the fettering of the Secretary of State's discretion by agreement with the Nominated Undertaker.

20.2 Your Petitioner requests that there should be a provision inserted into Clause 43 enabling enforcement against the Secretary of State in the event of the Nominated Undertaker failing to fulfil their obligations.

20.3 The Bill should also be amended so that undertakings given by the Secretary of State during the passage of the Bill are enforceable by the beneficiaries of the undertaking In the courts against the Secretary of State or the Nominated Undertaker.

21 Compensation

21.1 Your Petitioners consider that the provisions in the Bill relating to compensation for those whose land is to be acquired under the Bill and those who will be affected by the construction and the operation of the proposed works even though their land is not acquired, is completely inadequate. Your Petitioners note in particular that the Promoters have consulted on compensation proposals related to the Bill and recently made decisions following that consultation process. It is with great regret that your Petitioners note that residents of rural communities are to be treated in a different, preferential way from residents in Camden. Residents in rural areas will be able to claim the benefits of the Promoters' voluntary purchase scheme and other measures, which are not available to residents of the Borough. Your Petitioners understand that the reason for this is that the Promoters consider that residents of urban areas like the Borough are used to having to put up with the adverse effects of construction works and railway noise and therefore are in some way more immune to their effects. Your Petitioners consider this to be both grossly unfair and utterly illogical. However, adopting the Promoters' own rationale for a moment, your Petitioners consider that there must be a very good case for affording better treatment to the residents of Primrose Hill. As stated in paragraph 9 of this Petition, Primrose Hill is a leafy conservation area, and one ofthe least urban parts of London. Primrose Hill itself, which is at the heart of the village, is a royal park, directly connected with the Regent's Park and London Zoo. Primrose Hill village contains some of London's prime, most expensive, real estate. And yet, for the vast majority of residents and businesses that will be affected by the plans for HS2, there is no compensation on offer for the losses that will be sustained as a result of HS2. The area is already blighted. Your Petitioners are aware of one block of flats close to their Property where apartments are normally sold within weeks; yet during 2014 nine of these flats have come on to the market and none has even received an offer.

22.2 Your Petitioners submit that the compensation provisions in relation to property that is not compulsory acquired and other matters are not sufficient to compensate your Petitioners adequately for the loss and damage they may incur as a result of construrtion and operation of the high speed railway and associated development.

16 22.3 Your Petitioners request that the Bill should be amended to ensure your Petitioners and other persons outside the safeguarding area who are injuriously affected and adversely affected by loss of value should be entitled to claim compensation.

22.4 Your Petitioners request thatthe Bill should be amended to ensure your Petitioners and other persons outside the safeguarding area who are injuriously affected and adversely affected by loss of value should beentitled to compensation at full market value in a 'no-scheme world'.

22.5 Your Petitioners also support the concept of a Property Bond and humbly requests that the honourable House considers this fully. Your Petitioners assert that it cannot be just and equitable that any part of their own private capital is used, compromised or jeopardised because of the construction of the new high speed railway. For all four of your Petitioners, their Property represents their life savings.

23 Provision of Information and Consultation

23.1 Your Petitioners have serious concerns over the provision of information supplied by the promoter of the Bill, both prior to the deposit of the Bill and up to the date of the deposit of this Petition. This has meant that thorough and detailed assessments of the proposed project, its impacts and benefits have been impossible to compile. Your Petitioners are concerned that requests for further information and responses to specific requests remain outstanding. In particular, your Petitioners are still to be satisfied about the adequacy ofthe Environmental Statement. Baseline assumptions made over a number of generic issues have still to be substantiated. Ancillary documentation such as the proposed Code of Construction Practice remains in a draft form which is neither acceptable in principle, nor in its presumptions, proposals and extent of detail.

23.2 Your Petitioners consider that the Environmental Statement, including the non-technical summary that is supposed to make it easier for people to understand, provides inconsistent and limited (often generic) Information on impacts, limited and incomplete baseline information to support these impacts, fails to reflect the deprivation of the areas most affected by the proposal, includes constant inaccuracies on what Is in or out of the construction zones, provides no clarity on when the construction works will actually commence or the timeframe of construction impacts, no information on tunnelling and/or settlement impacts, nothing on what is meant by 'temporary' impacts, no assessment of the impacts on vulnerable residents such as asthma sufferers, no clear works programme, no trafflc management programme, no thorough assessment of noise and air impacts, and inadequate risk assessment on land disturbance. The full range of health impacts has not been properiy assessed. The transport assessment in the Environmental Statement is based on unreliable traffic and pedestrian baselines due to deficiencies in data collection, insufficiently substantiated estimates and inappropriate application models, resulting in a general under-estimation of impacts. Inadequate consideration has been given to the broader amenity effects that will arise through cumulative impacts. No consideration appears to have been given to the timing, cumulative impact and effect of railway construction work with essential utility works, such as the installation of new gas and electricity facilities, water mains

17 and sewer work, which is likely to be extensive.

23.3 A number of the surveys needed to make the Environmental Statement baseline reliable were never carried out (such as land contamination) or completed (such as ecology) within the Borough, thereby reducing much of the baseline information to speculation and guesswork. A full and comprehensive list of properties affected by the proposed scheme, including properties to be demolished. Is a serious omission from the information provided: and makes assessment extremely difficult. There is inadequate information presented: in the Environmental Statement as to what the mitigation measures currently proposed are and their justiflcation. As a result, the Environmental Statement is, in your Petitioners' view, totally deficient.

23.4 The information relevant to the Prinirose Hill area is contained in not one, but three, GFA reports (numbers 1-3) together with a plethoraof associated documents including map books, trafflc books and construction codes. The relevant material is poor quality, opaque and unindexed, dotted unsequentially amongst 50,000 pages of text. An index atleast would have made it easier for people to flnd the information of relevance to them. However, the nature, quantity, presentation, content and limited availability of the material has made it almost impossible for an ordinary person to engage with it. Moreover, although subsequentiy extended, the extraordinarily short eight week consultation period, designated over the Christmas and New Year holidays, acted as a further deterrent.

23.5 Consequently your Petitioners are concerned that individual residents have found it very difficult to determine the cumulative impacts of the project on his or her property. For example, the noise, air quality and transport impacts have been reported separately and there is no spatial presentation of the information or basic description of the cumulative environmental impacts at any given location. The effect of this is that neither your Petitioners nor other interested parties are in a position to completely understand the scale of impact on the environment, nor assess whether the mitigation proposals are adequate at any given location, despite their very best endeavours to do so over many months.

23.6 The Independent Assessor's report was published on 9 April 2014. Your Petitioners consider that the report represents such a high level summary of the issues and concerns raised by your Petitioners and others, that it does not reflect their magnitude or depth. The report appears to be focused on the number and type of response and not the quality or depth of comments made. With over 22,000 responses submitted: to the Environmental Statement Consultation, your Petitionersare concerned that such a very short summary wiltnot provide your honourable House with an accurate representation of the comments made and that consequently it may have omitted vital and essential information.

23.7 Your Petitioners consider the Promoters should be required to produce an addendum to the Ehvironmental Statement which addresses all the deficiencies raised by your Petitioners in this Petition and by Camden Council in its consultation response and its Petition, and the concerns raised by the Environmental Audit Committee in its report published on 7 April 2014. Your Petitioners would also request your honourable House to require the Promoter

18 to provide additional information about surveys and monitoring (including reporting to relevant London database holders), utilities liaison, business liaison on handling complaints, and to provide a helpline.

24 In light of the above, your Petitioners reserve the right to raise the above matters and any further matters of concern relating to the substance ofthe Bill and this Petition that may arise from continuing discussions, the preparation and publication of reports, any possible revisions that may be made to current work site proposals or any other matters relevant to our expressed concerns that may occur in due course and prior to out representation before the Select Committee.

25 There are other clauses and provisions in the Bill which, if passed into law as they now stand will prejudicially affect your Petitioners and their rights (including their human rights) interests and property and for which no adequate provision is made to protect your Petitioners and other clauses and provisions necessary for their protection and benefit are omitted therefrom.

YOUR PETITIONERS therefore humbly pray your Honourable House that the Bill may not be allowed to pass into law as it now stands and that they may be heard by Themselves and witnesses in support of the allegations of this Petition against so much of the Bill as affects the property, rights and interests of your Petitioners and in support of such other clauses and provisions as may be necessary or expedient for their protection, or that such other relief may be given to your Petitioner inthe premises as your Honourable House shall deem meet.

AND your Petitioners will ever pray, &c.

Signed Katharine Sykes.

Signed Douglas House.

Signed Romain Rachidi.

Signed George Hoffman-Howard.t

19 IN PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF COMMONS SESSION 2013-14

HIGH SPEED RAIL (LONDON - WEST MIDLANDS) BILL

PETITION OF KATHERINE SYKES AND DOUGLAS HOUSE AND ROMAIN RACHlDl AND GEORGE HOFFMAN-HOWARD

AGAINST - ON MERITS - PRAYING TO BE HEARD [IN PERSON] [BY AGENT] [BY COUNSEL] &C

KATHERINE SYKES, DOUGLAS HOUSE, ROMAIN RACHIDI> GEORGE HOFFMAN-HOWARD

20