EXHIBIT LIST Reference No: HOL/00530 Petitioner: DB Cargo (UK) Limited DB Cargo International Limited Rail Express Systems Limited Published(formally DB to SchenkerCollaboration (UK Area: Limited) Monday 21-Nov-2016
Page 1 of 182
No Exhibit Name Page
1 A703 Summary of Arguments.pdf (A703) 2 - 3
2 A704 Presentation.pdf (A704) 4 - 15
3 A705 HoC Select Committee transcript 28012016.pdf (A705) 16 - 35
4 A706 HoC Select Committee 2nd Report Feb 2016.pdf (A706) 36 - 148
5 A707 DfT Response to Select Committee Report Mar 2016.pdf (A707) 149 - 182
HOL/00530/0001
HOUSE OF LORDS SELECT COMMITTEE: HS2 (LONDON – WEST MIDLANDS) BILL
Petition 530: DB Cargo
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. DB Cargo has a long lease on the Willesden Euroterminal site that runs until 2119. This is close to a freehold interest. The Euroterminal operates as a multi-purpose rail freight terminal. It is a unique facility which is of very considerable importance to rail freight nationally. It is open access, so all freight operators are able to use the terminal on the same terms as DB Cargo uses it.
2. There are many public benefits arising from the use of the Euroterminal for freight. The Euroterminal supports the construction industry in London. It is used to deliver aggregates and materials to London and to remove waste and spoil. This is vital to support construction in London, especially for much needed new housing (including at Old Oak and Park Royal). It could also be important to delivering projects such as the Thames Tunnel and Crossrail 2.
3. There are significant benefits in having freight transported by rail rather than road, including
in CO2 emissions and road safety. And the Euroterminal will play an increasingly important role in handling containerised freight being transported to and from continental Europe. The Euroterminal was originally established to handle Channel Tunnel freight traffic.
4. HS2 wants to use the Euroterminal for its construction works. It wants virtually all the site for 8 years and then wants a reduced area of the site for another 9 years. But HS2 does not need all the site and does not need it permanently.
5. HS2 has sought power to acquire the Euroterminal permanently. This will end DB Cargo’s ability to operate the Euroterminal. It would be virtually impossible to replace if lost.
6. DB Cargo is content for HS2 to occupy as much of the Euroterminal as it reasonably needs during construction. With the drop in channel tunnel rail freight in recent years due to the situation in Calais, and because DB Cargo has made the investment, there is some capacity at the Barking Euro Hub in the short to medium term which can accommodate some of that activity. DB Cargo can return to the site after 8 years. Beyond that period, if the Euroterminal is lost, the lack of freight terminal capacity would limit the growth of rail freight nationally.
7. DB Cargo is content with HS2’s plans to reconfigure the site and would not need HS2 to reinstate it at the end of the occupation.
1
A703 (1) HOL/00530/0002
8. DB Cargo is also content to agree a rent or compensation payment in advance, to provide financial certainty to HS2. It would be likely to be much cheaper to the public purse to allow DB Cargo to retain its long leasehold interest, rather than forcing it to pursue compensation for the reinstatement of the facility elsewhere or for the extinguishment of its operations.
9. DB Cargo is prepared to enter into a lease with HS2 in order to ensure that the site can be used for the construction phase. In any event, the fallback position should at most be temporary occupation of the terminal under Schedule 16 and not permanent acquisition. That would mean that the Euroterminal could continue to operate, to an extent during HS2’s construction – as not all the site is required all the time – and then after construction.
10. The House of Commons Select Committee asked HS2 to negotiate with DB Cargo in good faith on the basis of a lease rather than outright acquisition. HS2 agreed but in its March 2016 response added the caveat that this was subject to temporary occupation not costing more than acquisition, the so-called “economic test”.
11. HS2 did nothing to progress a lease, despite being pressed, for some nine months. The Commons Committee suggested we should return to the Lords if the matter was not resolved. There has been a burst of activity recently from HS2 and discussions on a lease are now well advanced. But the matter is not resolved.
12. The major stumbling block is HS2’s “economic test”, namely that HS2 will not pay more for temporary occupation than permanent acquisition would cost. As HS2 factors into the cost of permanent acquisition the amount it would recover in selling the interest in land when it is no longer needed – offsetting the original acquisition cost by the subsequent sale proceeds – temporary occupation would almost always cost more.
13. The operation of the “economic test” is unfair. The Euroterminal site is only needed by HS2 temporarily so it should only be taken temporarily. DB Cargo should not be deprived of its site for purely financial reasons. This concern underlay the Commons Committee’s view.
14. We ask this Committee to require HS2 to remove the Euroterminal from permanent acquisition and to finalise the lease, with temporary possession as a fallback if required, but without applying the “economic test” in this case.
RICHARD HONEY Francis Taylor Building, Temple 21 November 2016
2
A703 (2) HOL/00530/0003 Presentation to Select Committee on the High Speed (London – West Midlands) Bill DB Cargo - Willesden Euroterminal
24 November 2016 Simon Ives FRICS, Property Consultant
November 2016
A704 (1) HOL/00530/0004 DB Cargo - a leading provider of railfreight & logistics in the UK
. DB Cargo is a leading provider of rail freight & logistics services in the UK and across Europe.
. DB Cargo is the largest UK rail freight operator moving about 70m tonnes by rail each year.
. London and the South East is a key growth area for all product types and for all rail freight operators.
. DB Cargo holds a lease on the Willesden Euro Terminal until April 2119 – a further 102 years.
. Within the “Ring Fencing Deed” of November 1997, the site is defined as a core asset to support Channel Tunnel rail freight operations.
A704 (2) HOL/00530/0005 2 Willesden Euroterminal Site, North West London
Willesden Euroterminal site
A704 (3) HOL/00530/0006 3 Willesden Euroterminal Site Plan - boundaries
Network Rail Main sidings Virtual Quarry
Tarmac Cement Plant Gantry cranes
Office block Spoil export operation Storage yard
A704 (4) HOL/00530/0007 4 The site currently has a number of tenants who base and operate parts of their business from Willesden
. The site is configured as a multipurpose railfreight terminal of some 8 ha (20 acres). Its current primary use is to support the construction industry in the North West of London, importing aggregates and exporting spoil. . There is no other facility of equivalent scale in north-west London. There are presently eleven occupiers: Tarmac (lease expires November 2023) Network Rail (lease expires June 2019); and Nine other tenants and licensees, all terminable on less than 6 months notice. . Like almost all UK rail freight sites, Willesden is subject to open access rules as defined by the ORR
A704 (5) HOL/00530/0008 5 Current activity
Headcode Origin Destination . Up to 10 daily trains importing construction materials and exporting 4G50 Willesden Washwood Heath spoil across the country 6D53 Willesden Mountsorrell 6Z77 Willesden Studdfarm . These trains operate at up to 1500 tonnes payload, equivalent to 1300 6Z15 Willesden Barrington HGV movements per day 6M92 Willesden Calvert 6Z16 Willesden Barrington . Freight trains reduce CO2 emissions by around 75% when compared with 6O96 Willesden Northfleet road vehicles 6Y15 Willesden Northampton 6Z56 Willesden Calvert 6T47 Willesden Calvert
A704 (6) HOL/00530/0009 6 Significance of Rail Freight in London
. Rail freight is transforming itself; government targets suggest 100% growth by 2034. . Key markets are changing; traffic in the construction and automotive sectors and in containerised freight is growing strongly. . The Mineral Products Association recorded annual growth to September 2015 of 8.5%. It predicts an average 3.7% growth until 2018 then 2.3% per annum until 2023. . London's growth requires substantial construction activity: the Mayor’s office suggests 50,000 new homes per annum and 600 new schools. . New infrastructure provision, supported by the National Infrastructure Plan, is forecast to grow at 11% per annum. . Rail freight performs well in bulk haul environments as projects like the Olympic Park and Crossrail demonstrate.
A704 (7) HOL/00530/0010 7 Rail is uniquely placed to move large volumes of freight into London – but it needs infrastructure
. DB Cargo is investing, especially in the south-east. It has recently opened a new terminal at Barking and has agreements to operate the two new proposed intermodal terminals at Radlett and Colnbrook. . Governmental targets and the environmental imperative demand more efficient carriage of goods and products. Rail is inherently and uniquely able to contribute. . Projected growth and existing road congestion in London pose unique problems, rail freight can offer a solution to help reduce road congestion. . Rail can help to improve air quality by providing an alternative to road vehicles. This is particularly important in light of the ultra low emission zone targets. . DB Cargo is also upgrading its existing estate with plans for new multi-user facilities at Bow and Cricklewood each with the capacity to accommodate several forms of traffic. . The rail freight industry plans significant growth in channel tunnel traffic. The loss of capacity at the Willesden site could severely constrain connectivity into A704 (8) HOL/00530/0011 London- a key market. 8 HS2 plans to take the whole site but there is no guarantee that it will be returned to rail freight use
. CPO the entire Willesden site – though it needs the whole site only for eight years, part of the site would be released after the initial eight years.
. Clear site of all current tenants except Tarmac (whose lease expires in 2023 anyway).
. Sell the land for best value at the end of the project, quite probably for a different use.
. HS2 has used a value argument to avoid taking a lease but it has not acknowledged the potential cost of equivalent reinstatement.
. DB Cargo’s own investigations have shown there to be no comparable or viable alternative freight facility in north-west London.
A704 (9) HOL/00530/0012 9 The House of Commons Select Committee’s comments (28 January 2016)
Mr Clifton-Brown: . “…this Bill is oppressive to a property owner…they should be given the opportunity to negotiate with H52 as to whether they wish to grant you a 17- year lease...”
. “I think you should negotiate in good faith with these petitioners, using compulsory purchase as the last resort, not the first resort.”
Sir Peter Bottomley: . “…the petitioners and the promoters — and Government— to find a way forward which protects the public interest; allows the purpose of the Bill to be achieved; that doesn’t trample unnecessarily on private interests post-construction.”
A704 (10) HOL/00530/0013 10 House of Commons Select Committee Report and Assurances
. The Commons SC asked the Promoter to “…negotiate…in good faith…the Promoter agreed.”
. The Promoter then qualified its agreement in its response document to the extent that it would negotiate “...provided this does not increase the cost…”
. The SC also made the point that “…we remain concerned that the permanent occupation powers are being used too extensively...” and that “…the Government should be circumspect in considering economics of land occupation given the railway’s objective of developing the economy...” A criterion equally applied to rail freight.
. Despite three separate prompts by DB Cargo, the Promoter only offered a draft lease at the beginning of November 2016 and on terms calculated to make temporary occupancy more expensive than permanent acquisition.
. It is difficult to conclude that the Promoter has any objective other than selling the site for a non-rail use and for a large profit after its use.
A704 (11) HOL/00530/0014 11 Changes Required
. Rail freight markets are changing rapidly. Land for rail use is in very short supply in south-east England and especially in London.
. Willesden Euroterminal must be retained if rail freight is to meet both its policy and its specific objectives in the capital.
. The Promoter should only take the site temporarily or commit to make specific provisions for its replacement in the same geographical area.
A704 (12) HOL/00530/0015 12 be guidance. The mechanics as to how that is provided and timescate is what we would seek the guidance from the Committee on. There’s no reason why, for example, the Secretary of State couldn’t undertake to issue guidance at an early stage. Clearly, what
we’re suggesting here is a clause, an amendment to the Bill, which will focus the minds
hopefully to get that gtiidance but it is critical that we have guidance.
279. CHAIR: Okay. Thank you very much for your contribution.
PB Schenker Rail (UK) Limited and others
280. CHAIR: We now have DB Schenker Rail?
281. MR BIRD QC: This is a very much more site-specific an issue and concerns the
Willesden Euroterminal site which I think you’ve heard evidence on before in terms of how it’s essential to use. DB Schenker are the owners of the Willesden Euroterminal Site.
282. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Is this the one that’s going to transport the tunnel?
283. MR BIRD QC: Yes. Can Ijust make, again, five brief points? Just to summarise
the position. And then I’m going to call Mr Simon Ives to give evidence. He is the property director of DB Schenker.
284. The Willesden Euroterminal tunnel is configured as a multi-purpose rail freight
terminal. And currently has a throughput of some 1. 25 million tonnes per annum.
There is no other facility of equivalent scale in northwest London. And land for such
facilities is rarely available. The Euroterminal is thus a scarce and valuable facility—
285. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: Sorry to stop you. It doesn’t mean a lot unless I’ve
seen a map so I know what we’re talking about.
286. MR BIRD QC: Alright. Ifwe could take up the DB Schenker’s slide. We go, within that, please, 20583. It has an aerial photograph of the Euroterminal site. And
just of down to the right is the Willesden Junction Station.
287. MR MOULD QC (Dff): Perhaps, if I can just, to try and remind the Committee, if you’ll forgive me Simon?
57
A705 (1) HOL/00530/0016 288. MRBIRDQC: Ofcourse.
289. MR MOULD QC (Df[): You’ll recall, not long ago, you heard a petition from Double 4, who were occupiers of certain plots within this site. And Mr Smart gave evidence to you as regards the usage for which the project would require to use this site, for construction purposes; the importation of materials from tunnel construction going
eastwards into Euston, and westwards out, in towards, in the Northok tunnel. I hope that may refresh your memory a little bit. Yes.
290. MR BIRD QC: Apologies. And indeed as I indicated DB Schenker has a tease of
the site, with 103 years remaining. tt’s currently in the process of bringing forward a
number of, it calls, Super Terminals, of which Willesden is proposed to be the third. They will provide for occupation by a number of rail freight related companies each
sharing common infrastructure. HS2, as we understand it, require the depot for the purposes of a work site related to Old Oak Common and associated tunnelling and that
use is consistent with its current and indeed proposed future use by DB Schenker. And there’s no evidence that HS2’s requirements could not be met by the acquisition of temporary rights rather than compulsory acquisition. DB Schenker has offered alternatives of a lease or a management arrangement but both have been rejected and we say there’s no compelling case in the public interest to justify the extent of the rights
being sought in the Bill. Indeed, the public interest lies firmly in favour of temporary possession only during the period of the works, that return to DB Schenker on
completion of Phase I or 2024, whichever is the earlier. And that’s consistent with KS2’s Information Paper C4 on land acquisition policy. That’s a brief summary. I’d better turn then to Mr Simon Ives and ask him to give evidence by reference to the
slides, just explaining the site: how it’s used; how important it is to rail freight; how
important it is to DB Schenker; and why it is they need it back after the works.
291. MR IVES: If you could go back to slide 2, please? Yes, my company
DB Schenker is the largest single provider of rail freights services in the UK. We’re a subsidiary of Deutsche Bahn in Germany. We employ about 3,000 people in the UK, 3,200 people, and generally move about 70 miltion tonnes of product per annum by rail.
Rail freight is changing. I’ll come on to that in a few moments. But, basically, we are
seeing significant shortfatl in capacity in all our market sectors in London and the
southeast. In that context, our 103-year lease on the Willesden Euroterminal site is a
58
A705 (2) HOL/00530/0017 key piank in the future growth of our business. Sir Peter made the point a moment ago
about the reference to Channel Tunnel. Yes. the site is protected for, safeguarded, under the ring fencing deed of November ‘97 as a core asset within the Channel Tunnel operating framework. Perhaps go on to the next slide, if we might?
292. Mr Bird touched on this earlier. The blue line delineates the boundary of our
lease. The single access to the site is to the bottom right hand corner of the site, up Channel Gate Road, of the A4000. Old Oak Lane. And, as Mr Bird pointed out,
Willesden Junction Station isjust off this slide, the top right hand side.
293. The site currently has two long-term tenants, being Network Rail, where they use
the site for their virttial quarry. That lease expires in 2019. And to Tarmac. There lease
expires in 2023. And I’m officially advised that HS2 is in separate discussion with Tarmac about the possibility of retaining that facility on the site, even during the HS2 construction programme. Next slide, please?
294. As Mr Bird pointed out a moment ago, this is a multi-purpose rail freight terminal.
Its current primary use is to support the construction industry in the northwest of
London. And its main activity at the moment is the importation of aggregates and the
export of spoil from various building sites around the capital. There is no other facility ofa similar size in this quadrant of London.
295. And I mentioned the two principal leases to Tarmac and Network Rail a few
moments ago. There are nine other occupiers on the site. Some of whom are active in rail freight. Others are just carrying out other activities on the site. An important point to note about this that all those nine are on leases that can be terminated at short notice.
We, I, being cognisant of the need a) to protect the site for the Channel Tunnel use, potentially, and b) since 2012, of the interest in the site from High Speed 2, have sought to keep the site as flexible as possible. And in that context we have never let, or we
have not let, any new leases that don’t have six-month termination provisions in them. So, all the nine occupiers, those nine occupiers, can be taken out of the site on service of six months’ notice. An important point to stress is that like almost all UK rail freight sites, Willesden Euroterminal is open access. That means any freight operator can bring
any train in and use the site at any time provided there is space. It’s our site but our terms of reference, as governed by the ORR require us to make that space available on
50
A705 (3) HOL/00530/0018 terms equivalent to those which we charge ourselves. We cannot operate a punitive charging regime for third parties. We cannot put artificial restrictions on the use of the
site by third parties. It is truly open access. So, the entire freight community can use
Willesden Eurotermina I. Next slide?
296. This slide simply illustrates the trains running in and out of Willesden at the moment. Not all of those trains operate every day but typically there are about five
trains a day, running in and out ofWillesden at the moment. As Mr Bird commented a few moments ago, the average annual volume of traffic running out of that terminal
presently is about I and a quarter million tonnes. And as Ms Simpson commented earlier, the C02 emissions emitted by our rail freight our roughly one quarter those of road traffic movements. Notwithstanding the fact we’re taking alt those trucks off the
road as well. Next slide, if I may?
297. The current situation at Willesden is not necessarily representative of where we
see the site in terms of out company’s long-term future or the long-term future of the
industry as a whole. Our rnatket is changing. And Professor McNaughton alluded to
the need of timetables to change on a regular basis; or to respond to need. Government targets suggest a 100% growth in rail freight activity by 2034. And as Ms Simpson’s slides indicated our markets are changing. As recently as 10 days ago, we hauled our first train for General Motors from Ellesmere Port down to Barking and then from Barking on to Germany. We took Vauxhall cars manufactured in Ellesmere Port into Germany and we brought Vauxhall cars manufactured in Russelsheim into the UK. It’s the first time we’ve done that in many, many years. And our new facility at Barking,
which I’ll touch on in a moment, has enabled that to happen.
29$. More pertinently, in the context of High Speed 2, as discussed a few minutes ago, the Mineral Products Association did record substantial annual growth in the year to
September last year of 8. 5% in a single year but its average annual growth of 3. 7%
per annum until 201$ and then 2. 3% until 2023. It has no projections beyond that save
that it says that it thinks activity will continue to increase roughly in line with GDP. More pertinently too, London’s growth requires substantial additional construction activity. The Mayor’s office suggests 50,000 new homes per annum, or 45 to 50,000 new homes per annum and 600 new schools. This site falls within the Old Oak Common and Park Royal Development Corporation area where 25,000 new homes and
60
A705 (4) HOL/00530/0019 55,000 jobs are proposed. How are the construction materials proposed to be delivered to this site without some sort ofrail freight activity?
299. In addition to the construction activity, more infrastructure is likely to be required
in London. Projects in the pipeline include Thames Tideway Tunnel, Crossrail 2 — all these activities are core users of rail freight as evidence by rail freights support and my company’s own involvement in the construction ofOlympic Park and the removal of the
spoil from that, and the activity we undertook for Crossrail in East London last year or in 2013.
300. MR BIRD QC: Now, you mentioned, just pausing. you mentioned Old Oak and
Patk Royal Development Corpotation there. As I understand it, they’re in the process of
developing a local plan to provide a framework for development in that area. Is there any reference to the Willesden Euroterminal?
301. MR IVES: As recently as 6 January, OPDC or Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation, OPDC issued a draft local plan. This has not yet been put
out to consultation. It was supposed to have come out this month but in fact will come
out in February, the Corporation’s website now states. But it does make specific
reference to Willesden Euroterminal and it says that the site is a: ‘Key strategic asset in the context of rail freight movement specifically for the sort of uses we are currently putting through the site: The export of waste and building spoils and the import of construction materials too’. So, in that context, our current activity and our proposed
future activity is entirety in accordance with OPDC’s emerging draft framework.
302. MR BIRD QC: Sorry, I interrupted you. You were about to move to slide 7.
303. MR IVES: Right. Ms Simpson indicated earlier that the rail freight industry is
investing, not only in new railing stock but in new facilities. DB Schenker is no
different to the rest ofthe industry. t mentioned a moment ago that we recently opened a terminal at Barking, specifically to service the Channel Tunnel market. And we have
agreements in place with property developers to operate proposed terminals at Radlett, which was granted planning permission tate last year or in September. Sorry, early last year. And at Colnbrook which is currently the subject of a planning appeal, due to be determined in April.
61
A705 (5) HOL/00530/0020 304. Government targets and the environmental imperative demand a more efficient carriage of construction materials and other types of freight. Projected growth in population and increasing congestion, proposed new building activities in London pose unique problet-ns for this environment. In response, we are working with other stakeholders. principally the aggregates companies, to develop three, what we’ve termed
super depots. As Mr Bird commented a few moments ago, that at Beau is currently the subject of several planning applications to London Legacy Development Corporation
and I myself met David Goldstone, Chief Executive of LLDC about the application as
recently as November. That at Cricklewood is the subject of ongoing debate with the
London Borough of Barnet and is required to support the development of the Brent
Cross development, Brent Cross Cricklewood scheme, which is not only the extent of the shopping centre but the creation of about 5,000 iiew homes. An existing rail terminal has to be re-located to make way for that new development so we’re going to
make more efficient use of the one that we under-use at the moment in Cricklewood and
turn it into our super terminal.
305. The principle of the super tetiiiinal, I should perhaps explain, is that the traditional
model of aggregates distribution into a city like London is that an occupier, be it CEMEX or Lathrge or London Concrete, takes a lease on a specific site and then only that occupier’s traffic runs into that site. The super terminal proposal, as evidenced by the planning applications at Beau, is that four occupiers will share the same site. And four occupiers will use the same piece of rail infrastructure. It allows us to improve
efficiency. It reduces cost. It reduces the environmental impact of the necessary impact of moving construction materials out of London. Incidentally, we have a similar scheme
proposed in Birmingham on the Washwood Keaths upside site to which CEMEX will have to be relocated as a consequence of HS2. The super depots will probably carry in
the region of 2 million tonnes per annum each. Each of our trains carries a payload equivalent to 60 to 75 8-wheel Heavy Goods Vehicles. And each of those super depots
will be built in a flexible manner so that other forms of traffic can be carried when the super— if the aggregates market should tail off. Traditionally, the aggregates market has
followed the property market. When the property market is buoyant, the aggregates
market is buoyant. When the property market is depressed, the aggregates market tends to folLow. tf we build these terminals in a flexible format, we will be able to move containerised traffic into them as welt. Next slide, please.
62
A705 (6) HOL/00530/0021 306. This simply gives you the location of the three proposed sites at the moment. In
particular, we haven’t overlaid because it became far too confusing but the proposed
development of large scale residential activity in London, there is something like 100 proposed tower blocks for the city at the moment, with, ironically, a strong bias to the east and west of the centre of London. So, the terminals we’re proposing will service that construction market pretty adequately, we think. Neil slide, please.
307. We’ve had ongoing discussions with HS2 since December 2012 about a number
of property holdings and specifically in the context of Willesden. I think it’s fait to say that we’ve reached some sort of understanding with HS2 over the four major pieces of
real estate that it’s asked us for. The fifth. Willesden, is the only one where we seem to
be struggling. HS2 has not been entirely consistent in saying that it wants to purchase
the site outright. We had a meeting with them in November 2019. when Mr Morris of HS2 said that he would recommend that they would only take the site on a temporary
basis. Subsequently. HS2 has changed its stance back to an outright acquisition of this
piece of land. Our concerns are that if HS2 acquires the site, it will clear the site of all
the cunent tenants and displace all the businesses. Well, I suppose it will for at least the
seven years of its construction period. And more pertinent, it will then seek to recover best value by selling the site on the open market at the end of the constrtiction period.
Quite simply, the rail freight industry will not be able to afford to buy it back. We cannot compete on a level basis with builders of warehouses or car show rooms or
industrial premises. We will lose the site to rail freight if it is bought compulsorily from
us. As Mr Bird commented a few moments ago and I illustrated, the OPDC has
identified the site within the last three weeks, or the document was presented to its
Board in the last three weeks, as a potential longterm rail freight location. Why then
can we not keep it, please?
30$. We have offered HS2 two alternative proposals. One was a straight forward tease of the site for a limited number of years. The other was a management agreement by which we might manage the site on its behalf. It has rejected both of those. And
moreover, it was only on 3 December did it say to us that it might want the site for 15
years, not seven as originally proposed. The grounds it gave for that was that it now
envisages constructing Euston over an extended period and that it would need Willesden
as a builders’ yard, in effect, to support the construction of Euston. If I tell you that the
63
A705 (7) HOL/00530/0022 first phase, you’ii be thmiliar with the site of Granby Terrace, which is also our land, that’s only four acres. If that can be sufficient for a builders’ yard to construct Euston, why on earth would HS2 want 20 acres over a 15-year period? We are at a loss to
understand why HS2 will not rent this site to us or at least give us an assurance that it
will only take the site temporarily, and then we can have it back please after the construction period.
309. There is no viable alternative, even if there were, 20 acres in northwest London at
prevailing industrial rates in Park Royal are £2.5 million an acre. The land alone will cost £50 million. The connectivity into the railway line and the signalling into the
railway line and the planning processes we would have to go through; I would estimate would push the cost of an equivalent replacement to well over £100 million. We’re
offering to rent it to HS2 for a period of seven or even part of it for a bit longer, if it
needs it. If I argue the cost of equivalent reinstatement as the basis of compensation
from HS2, it’s going to cost the taxpayer a nine figure sum. We’re prepared to rent it for a great deal less than that.
310. So, in summary, unless Mr Bird?
311. MR BIRD QC: No I think you’ve turned to the changes required which you’ve set out on the slide and effectively speak for themselves.
312. MR IVES: And we ask the Committee, would you please ask HS2 to reconsider its stance on this matter?
313. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: Can I ask you? You’re clearly an expert at running these sites more efficiently than virtually anybody else. Have you examined HS2’s operations and have you worked out what you think the area they need to have to operate those operations?
314. MR IVES: We don’t dispute they will want the majority of the site for the main part of the seven-year construction period. They haven’t explained their proposal in detail to us and as you will be aware, they’re still going through the first stages of the
procurement process. But we think it likely they will want the majority of the site for
the seven years — or most of the seven years. I reiterate my statement that we don’t think they will need anything like the whole of the site for the following seven years and
64
A705 (8) HOL/00530/0023 we’re at a loss to understand why they say they do.
315. CHAIR: Okay. Mr Mould?
316. MR MOULD QC (Dff): Thank you. If we could just put up P15390(1), just to
have the site in front of us. As Mr Smart explained when he gave evidence to you in
response to the Double 4 petitioner, this site is required as a main construction site, but more specifically, as a main railhead for HS2, to serve rail-based importation and exportation of materials from the works in the Victoria Road area. But also, looking forward, to support rail based importation and exportation in relation to Euston. And it’s important to understand that the figure of seven years has been put to you. That
figure is very likely to be an under-estimate of the duration of the length of time that we will require use of these rail based facilities because our planning at the moment has got to embrace the likely use of these facilities for as long as we are constructing the works under the Bill at Euston. which, as you’ll recall, for the second 81 phase of works at Euston, are likely to extend us into the early 2030s.
317. So, I think that whilst I’m not saying that we guarantee that we will continue to
use these sidings and this site in its entirety for that length of time — our current
planning, in order to discharge the constrctction of the works under this Bill, this site and
these sidings, are an important resource to the project. Now, I stress these sidings
because the implication is that this is no more than a work site, albeit a very important
one. This is actually a very good example of what the rail freight industry in their
previous petition they were urging upon you, which is the project should look to
maximise the rail-based importation and exportation of materials so as to provide a more
sustainable construct ion arrangement. Bcit more particularly, to support commercially
the rail freight industry in this country. This site is key to that. And it’s key to that throughout the construction of HS2. Now, it may very well be that DB Schenker will play a part in that process as one of the providers. We’re the customer, they’re the
providers. There are others who are the providers. But this is going to be a rail freight, HS2 works here will support the rail freight market in this country throughout the whole
of the process of constructing the Phase I railway. So, there’s actually something of a
false premise here on which this petition is based because it’s based, as you saw, from
the heading of slide 9, ‘HS2 plans to take the site from the rail freight market but has no
plan to return it’. Not at all. HS2 intends that—
65
A705 (9) HOL/00530/0024 31$. SIR PETER BOITOMLEY: No. The first line, just to— it says: ‘CPO the entire Willesden site’.
319. MR MOULD QC (Dif): Yes, but ‘CPO it’ — take, there’s an important point
there. I was going to come to that next. But, the first point I make: HS2 is actually
looking to use this site in a way that is completely consistent with its continuing function as an important part of the rail freight market. Admittedly, it’s for a particular type of rail freight. It’s the importation and exportation of materials to serve H52 but that’s rail freight; that’s the rail freight—
320. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Which agrees with that final point on that page 9, that page, yes, 9, 2058(9)
321. MR MOULD QC (DfD: Yes, but they don’t question that we have to use this
site. This isn’t a case about finding an alternative. This is a case about the terms upon which we take this facility. And the next point on that point—
322. SIR PETER BOTFOMLEY: Yes, but plainly the question is whether you need to
buy it or whether you don’t.
323. MRMOULDQC(DfF): Yes.
324. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: And whether you would return it to them; or
whether you wouldn’t. It’s not actually whether it continues to be a freight area because
they want it to be a freight area; you want it to be a freight area. That’s not the issue.
325. MR MOULD QC (Dif): Welt, it’s the context in which that issue should be considered. And I’m going to come to that now because they have a long leasehold
interest in this land. The freehold rests with Network Rail which is the custodian, the strategic railway authority for this country. And under the terms of the Protective Provisions Agreement that we have Network Rail, we will not acquire the freehold interest in this land. So. the freehold will remain, come what may, throughout and after
this process has been completed, remain with Network Rail and it will be for them to decide, ultimately, what the future of these lands shoctld be, once KS2 has quit them. So, the notion that the effect of HS2 is to remove this as a rail freight facility is again
wrong. [t will remain — the opportunity to retain it in that use will remain not only
66
A705 (10) HOL/00530/0025 during the works which HS2 are proposing, but also thereafter.
326. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: Is that actually correct, Mr Mould? First of all, what is
the length of lease that —
327. MR MOULD QC (DII): 900 years or so, I think.
32$. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: 900 years.
329. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: So, they have a valciable asset here, approaching freehold. Surely, they have a fundamental tight to expect that they will get their land back at the end of this process?
330. MR MOULD QC (Dif): No, there’s no fundatiiental tight. I’m not sure where
that right would be tooted. The position is that we require these lands for upwards of 17
years, on the basis that I put to you. We require to clear this site. l’llcome back. We’re
going to retain the key strategic infrastructure operation here which is the Lafarge Tarmac facility. That will be retained. We’ve given assurances to that effect. We’re
going to relocate, in conjunction with Network Rail, Network Rail’s virtual quarry and
ballast cleaning expert. The other short term uses which are there whilst the land is not actually required for rail tises, those are going to go, but that’s consistent with the
historic and continuing use of this site in any event. You’ve heard about that already.
331. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: Surely a fair thing to do would be for DB Schenker to
grant youa sub-lease for 17 years so that they get it back again in 17 years?
332. MR MOULD QC (Df[): Well no, because we need to clear the site. We need to
reconfigure it fundamentally. So, the site will be changed radically from its current layout. The duration of use, the need for the site and the terms upon which we will be
dealing with it under the Network Rail arrangements I’ve mentioned, aLlsupport the
exercise of compulsory purchase powers in relation to this site. That is perfectly
consistent with our stated policy on land acquisition, which is: where we need to take —
and to change — lands for work site use for a long period of time that we will exercise
compulsory purchase rather than employing our Schedule 15 powers. So, this is completely consistent with that purpose.
333. But there’s the added public interest. safeguard, that the land freehold will remain
67
A705 (11) HOL/00530/0026 with Network Rail under the terms of the Protective Provisions Agreement and it will be
for them to decide at the end of the process, no doubt in conjunction with the Secretary of State, what its future use should be.
334. MR HENDRICK: If that’s the case then why was the initial approach to DB Schenker for seven years rather than the much longer period that you’re talking about now?
335. MR MOULD QC (DfF): I can’t answer that question. What I’m telling you is
what I am told. And the Bill makes clear, I tiiean bear in mind that AP3, which promotes the revised Euston Scheme, was the first time that the Bill sought powers to carry out works that would endure up to 2033, so, at the time when the Hybrid Bill was
deposited, it was expected that the Bill would have been delivered, the project would have been delivered by 2026. Now, we’re talking about a major component, Euston Station, were the Bill authorises and contemplates work going ononthe second phase of
Euston up to 2033.
336. MR HENDRICK: So are you saying that’s there’s no alternative but acquisition?
337. MR MOULD QC (DfO: Am I saying what? Sorry?
338. MR HENDRICK: There’s no alternative other than acquisition?
339. MR MOULD QC (DfF): I’m saying that our approach here is that everything
points to us retaining the power to acquire this land compulsoriLy. Those are the powers
that we seek under this Bill and that the alternative which is put forward, which is some form of temporary occupation, whilst we have the power to do that under the Bill
because Schedule 15 is ttnrestricted. tt gives us the power to occupy any of the lands for which we have compulsory acquisition powers, to occupy those temporarily. As stated
in our policy, in C4, this site ticks all of the boxes which suggest that we indicate that as
a matter ofpolicy, it is in the public interest that we acquire it rather than use it.
340. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: You’re making a choice essentially to use it. The government or promoters are making a choice.
341. MRMOULDQC(Dm: Yes.
68
A705 (12) HOL/00530/0027 342. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: And are you instructing us as to why each of the alternatives put forward by the petitioners would some way frustrate the purposes of the Act or the Bill?
343. MR MOULD QC (Dff): Yes, I am. The first point is that the degree of change
and the length of time means that the Secretary of State does not think it is likely to be economic for him to exercise temporary powers here rather than to exercise compulsory
purchase powers is the first point.
344. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: So the costs would be the same? Sorry. Is that: there’s no cost saving by agreeing to one of the alternatives put forward by the petitioners?
345. MR MOULD QC (Dff): There’s much more likely to be an increase in costs,
that’s the concern here. You’ve heard about the economic consideration that we have in relation to major and substantially enduring construction sites. But then there are the
more strategic questions that I’ve put forward; that this is a site which is presently in
multi-occupation. Given how central it is. I mean this is arguably the most important work site and rail-based and rail head that we have in this project. And the Secretary of
State has — his position at that moment is that he would wish to take this land, subject to
the arrangements with Network Rail, to clear it physically and to clear it of title, so that
he then has it available for the vital role that it would play in the construction of HS2
and then its restoration, following completion of the HS2 works, that is something that
then the fundamental public interest point that is made by these petitioners that it should
remain thereafter as a vital, strategic rail resource. But that is something that will be subject to the custodianship of Network Rail that will retain the freehold and therefore the Committee need have no immediate concerns about that.
346. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: On the face of it we’re being asked —
347. MR MOULD QC (Dif): They will get their compensation for the loss of their leasehold.
34$. SIR PETER BOflOMLEY: One issue which they may want to come back on, is
whether the cost to the projectlGovernment would be higher if what they ask for is granted.
69
A705 (13) HOL/00530/0028 349. MRMOULDQC(Dff): Yes.
350. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Or if we block the promoter’s getting what they’re
after in the Bitt. The second is whether in effect we’re being asked to provide some
kind of bonus to Network Rail, who’d rather not have been in this long lease? It seems to me to be the two presenting issues.
351. MR MOULD QC (Dffl: There’s much more likely to be an increase in cost the
Secretary of State take this land subject to the arrangements so that he then has it available it’s restoration following the completion
352. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: Can I come in on the back of that? I’ve listened carefully to what the petitioners have had to say and I’ve listened carefully to your
eloquence, Mr Mould. This is the first time, from what I’ve heard, I believe this Bill is
oppressive to a property owner, a valuable — his long lease. I think that they should be given the opportunity to negotiate with H52 as to whether they wish to grant you a 17-
year lease if that’s what it takes and have their property transformed. We all accept that
is necessary but that would be their choice — to have it back at the end of the 17 years,
albeit transformed and negotiate with you a price that might be equivalent — whether its
leased or whether its compulsory purchased — but I do think these property owners should be given that choice.
353. MR MOULD QC (Dif): Well, if we give them that choice, with respect, we find
ourselves in a position where we are in what is arguably the most vital construction site
for this railway, we find ourselves at the risk of having to negotiate terms with a
landowner who may or may not be willing to enter into terms with us. That is the risk
that is presented by that.
354. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: But you have the whip hand if they don’t, because you
can compulsorily acquire it. But, what I’m simply saying to you is that I think you ought to enter into negotiations with them to give them the choice.
355. MR MOULD QC (Dffl: We have negotiated with them and we’ve indicated that following those negotiations we would wish, that the Secretary of State intends, as things stand, to exercise his powers of compulsory acquisition. So, if all you’re saying
is that we should have another go, then so be it. I don’t hold out much hope.
70
A705 (14) HOL/00530/0029 356. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: No. I say to you I think that, at the moment, the way
it’s being presented to me, I think it is oppressive what this Bill is trying to do to these
property owners. I make that on the public record and I think you should negotiate in
good faith as to whether they should have a lease or whether it should be compulsorily acquired.
357. MR MOULD QC (DfF): May I just remind you? Ifthat is the Conmiittee’s wish,
so be it. But may I just remind you, the Committee, that we explained in considerable detail during the course of ptevious sittings why, if there was to be a choice between
outright acquisition and temporary occupation, that choice should be confined to the
exercise of the alternative powers that are under the Bill. That is to say: outright
acqtlisition under Clatise 4 or temporary occupation under Clause Schedule 15. Btit the one thing that was inimical to the Secretary of State’s judgment of the public interest was if temporary occupation was considered to be appropriate that that should take place
under the terms of the tease. The Bill provides a mechanism under the Schedule 15 to
enable occupation under statute, for which there is compensation, under the same
Schedule, which covers any loss that is referable to that occupation. And therefore,
there is no need for leasehold, separate leases, to be entered into. And the policy reason
why that is something to be avoided is particularly in a case like this, where you have
multiple occupancy, if the Secretary of State is driven to negotiating leases or under
leases or sub-under leases —
35$. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: But the petitioners made it clear that they can give
notice within six months to all the lessees as I understand it on the site.
359. MR MOULD QC (DfD: But. we then have to deal with the situation of Lafarge who are to remain on the site on are basis. We have to deal with Network Rail who themselves have an under-lease of these premises. If we are to continue negotiations for
temporary occupation for as long as 17 years, then that should be on the basis that we will take occupation under the term of Schedule 15, on appropriate terms. And if you remember, that was an arrangement that the Committee found acceptable in relation to other petitioners in the vicinity of Birmingham Interchange Station, for example, where
the paradigm that we have followed is we have been willing, in appropriate cases, far
less intensive and far less enduring works than we’re dealing with here, in terms of
timescale, I might add. We’ve been willing to give assurances about temporary use but
71
A705 (15) HOL/00530/0030 that is on terms as to the level of compensation that will be payable so that the public
purse is not exposed to a degree of compensation liability that is out of proportion, which would flow from compulsory acquisition. And other terms as to occupation but expressly on the basis that to start taking leasehold titles, partictilarly on a multiple
occupancy and a multiple let, premises such as this, is to create unnecessary complexity,
unnecessary tisk and unnecessary liabilities in what is a very, very large and complex
project in its own right. That is why Schedule 15 is in there.
360. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: I hear what you say Mr Mould. But as far as I’m
concerned and I can’t speak for the rest of the Committee, I think you should negotiate
in good thith with these petitioners, using compulsory purchase as the last resort, not the first resort. And that there would be an equivalence of a financial agreement that would not put either HS2 or the petitioners at a disadvantage financially as to which option
would be pursued. And I would say to the petitioners, if they can’t negotiate this matter
in good faith, they have the opportunity to petition the House of Lords afterwards.
361. MR MOULD QC (Dif): The only thing I would say in response to that is I would certainly not accept that the negotiations that have taken place hitherto have been
anything other than in good faith.
362. MRCLIFTON-BROWN: No, I’m not saying that.
363. MR MOULD QC (DfF): No, I know.
364. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: I’m saying that prospectively going —
365. MR MOULD QC (DII): I ought to have that on the record.
366. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: One thing where the petitioners may be able to help,
one of the points made by Mr Mould, quite properly — and possibly — is that the alternative to taking over the lease completely and extinguishing it, the alternative would be more expensive to the public purse with no gain. Do you think that’s right?
367. MR IVES: There are two points I think that really we need to address. Firstly, comparative costs and secondly, alternatives. And that embraces the ability to clear the site and make it available to H52.
72
A705 (16) HOL/00530/0031 368. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I know we’re interrupting Mr Mould, who hasn’t finished speaking.
369. MRIVES: Ofcourse, I appreciate that.
370. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: But, help us in—
371. MRMOULDQC(Dm: Yes,well
372. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: No, I wasn’t inviting you to come back yet. Try to
— it will be helpful for us—
373. MR MOULD QC (Dff): No, no, of course.
374. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: But, that was why I say as part of the negotiations there is no reason why an equivalent cost couldn’t be arrived at and that would be up to the two negotiators to arrive at.
375. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Could you just rehearse this?
376. MR IVES: I think there are a number of issues arising from Mr Mould’s point of
view —
377. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Could you keep yocir voice up a bit?
378. MR IVES: The rents that we achieve on the sites we’ve let are broadly
comparable with market rents and in this context the likely annual rent would be
probably around 3% of the total cost of replacement of the Willesden site, possibly a
little less than that. So, even to take it for seventeen years —
379. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Is less than two thirds?
380. MRIVES: Yes, well, it’s 54%, yes.
381. SIRPETERBOTTOMLEY: Yes.
382. MR IVES: So, it would only be half the cost of the acquisition of the site. Or the
cost of equivalent reinstatement of the site. And the point that Mr Mould makes is that want to substantially re-model the site but we have no problem with that because the
73
A705 (17) HOL/00530/0032 changes they will make to it, to make it more efficient for their own purposes, could
well suit us in the long run as well.
383. MR HENDRICK: As a matter, how much is it likely to appreciate over the period concerned?
384. MRIVES: Appreciate?
385. MR HENDRICK: Yes. Or depreciate.
386. MRIVES: I think that’s finger in the air somehow, Ican’t—
387. MR HENDRICK: Over 17 years.
388. MRIVES: If I were able to predict property inflation I’d be very, very wealthy. I
genuinely don’t know. Property tends to have an eight-year cycle and it rises for five
and dips for three and so on. As a profession, I’ve worked through four ofthose now.
389. SIR PETER BOTTOM LEY: I think the sense we get is that actually buying out your interest would cost significantly more than having the use of the site for a period,
even up to 25 years, let’s say 20 years, even more than 15 or 17. And the second issue,
which I think’s been cleared quite easily is that you don’t actually mind what happens to
the site, if it’s there for railways and assuming you’d have it back for railways, it’s not
going to be a loss. It might be a gain.
390. MR BIRD QC: And that’s not just in the private interest of the company. It’s in the long-term public interest for the reasons we’ve explained. And my learned friend
referred to the thct that ultimately it will be Network Rail that decides but again, that
introduces a level of uncertainty which isn’t there at the moment. We know at the
moment that it isa long term resource for rail freight for the next 100 years.
391. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: We may have been a bit unfair on the promoters but
I don’t think it’s clear to us either that the costs of the alternatives are greater or that the
effect on the ground is adverse to the public or private interest. Although it is the private interest here which were supposed to be considering when a petition comes up.
392. MR BIRD QC: I appreciate it is but obviously you need to weigh the competing public interests. And we see there is no obvious competing pubLic interest in support of
74
A705 (18) HOL/00530/0033 the promoter’s case. Certainly not one which overrides the —
393. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Perhaps we’d better let the promoter — we have interrupted him.
394. MR MOULD QC (DfF): Obviously, I’m responsive to the debate and I’m
responsive to the mood of the Committee which is clear. What I’m going to suggest is
this. I think in the light of the debate that’s taken place, the Committee is not persuaded that there isn’t room for further negotiation here on the question whether outright acquisition is actually justified and whether the Secretary of State should think again
about this case and whether occupation, for the purpose of the works, is achievable and
is justifiable in the public interest. I put it that way not because I ignore the private interest but because ultimately the Secretary of State has to make a judgment on that basis as well.
395. So, I therefore would say this: There is the opportunity for as I think Mr Clifton-
Brown said for this matter to return if necessary to the second Flouse. There is no question of the need for any AP here. It’s a question of whether to exercise powers
under Clause 4 or powers under Schedule 15. And so I therefore, I’m willing to accept effectively the direction of the Committee that there should be further discussion of this between the parties with a view to achieving a mutually acceptable outcome. Ijust want
to make jtlst in order to ensure that expectations are understood, I think there would be,
there is, I know, considerable resistance, on the part of the Secretary of State, to enter
into some sort of lease. I think that if there is to be, this process that I’ve just outlined, I think the Secretary of State would expect to focus on the choice between outright acquisition and the exercise ofpowers under Schedule 15. No docibt subject to any such bespoke assurances or conditions that may be put forward for consideration, but not to consider entering into some form ofdirect leasehold, private leasehold arrangement with
the petitioners. So, on that basis, I leave the matter with the Committee.
396. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: At the risk of prolonging this matter, can I just ask the
petitioners one final question? There was a little bit in our discussion of, I thought, perhaps distance of opinion, on how to deal with these sub-lease holders. Could you
just tell us what the difficulty with giving sub-lease holders notice is and what might cause a problem with H52?
75
A705 (19) HOL/00530/0034 397. MR IVES: There are two sub-tease holders who’s leases expire after 2017, Tarmac and Network Rail, to which Mr Mould referred. He said that HS2 were giving
assurances to Tarmac. And Network Rail, I think, can be dealt with by other means. The remaining sub-tenants, of which there are time, all are on leases that can be terminated on six months’ notice.
398. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: Okay.
399. CHAIR: Okay?
400. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I think just to sum up for my colleagues, first of all,
it was very helpful the way the promoters have responded. Secondly, I don’t think that we would want to direct how something was done. One point is that the amount of
money to the public purse, to achieve something. And the second, I think we can understand this, the promoters need to have sufficient control to be able to achieve what they want without spending all their time having to get involved in long arguments with
people. And I stispect those are things which the petitioners could help resolve. So, I think it’s right that we shouldn’t try to determine this issue and that there is scope in the
Upper House and between the petitioners and the promoters — and Government— to find
a way forward which protects the public interest; allows the purpose of the Bill to be
achieved; that doesn’t trample unnecessarily on private interests p0 st-constructio ii.
401. CHAIR: I think that there’s enough doubt here that further discussions ought to
take place. I think clearly that given that the Lords will take some while to deal with the
issues, and it’s something that they can deal with, then I think you coctld discuss things
and then see how things pan out there. But, I think it’s been a useful discussion.
402. MR BIRD QC: Thank you very much for your—
403. CHAIR: Order, order. That’s the end of today. If you could clear the room, please and let us clear our thoughts.
76
A705 (20) HOL/00530/0035 House of Commons Select Committee on the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill
High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill
Second Special Report of Session 2015–16
Special Report, with Annexes, together with formal minutes relating to the report
Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 22 February 2016
HC 129
A706 (1) HOL/00530/0036 Select Committee on the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill The Select Committee on the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill provides individuals and bodies directly and specially affected by the Bill with the opportunity to object to the Bill’s specific provisions and to seek its amendment, although not to object to the principle of the Bill.
Current membership Mr Robert Syms MP (Conservative, Poole) (Chair) Sir Henry Bellingham MP (Conservative, North West Norfolk) Sir Peter Bottomley MP (Conservative, Worthing West) Geoffrey Clifton-Brown MP (Conservative, The Cotswolds) Mr David Crausby MP (Labour, Bolton North East) Mr Mark Hendrick MP (Labour (Co-op), Preston)
Publication Committee reports are published on the Committee’s website at www.parliament.uk/hs2-committee-commons and by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. Evidence relating to this report is also available on the Committee’s website.
Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are Neil Caulfield (Clerk), Miguel Boo Fraga (Committee Assistant), and Joanna Nurse (Media Officer).
Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill Select Committee (Commons) Committee, House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 3250; the Committee’s email address is [email protected].
A706 (2) HOL/00530/0037 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16 1
Contents
Summary 5
1 The Committee’s task 8
2 The Bill and the Committee 9 The HS2 Phase One Hybrid Bill 9 The Bill and the HS2 railway 9 Additional provisions 9 The Committee 12 Changes in Committee membership 12 Committee programme and decision making 13 Form of decisions and Bill amendments 14 Acknowledgments 15
3 Visits 17
4 Principal conclusions and recommendations 19 Birmingham 19 Birmingham Curzon Street and related matters 19 Washwood Heath 21 Staffordshire 22 North Warwickshire 22 Kingsbury and Water Orton 22 Other issues 24 West Midlands 26 Birmingham Interchange 26 Hampton-in-Arden 26 Other issues 27 South Warwickshire 27 Vertical alignment 27 Roads 27 Burton Green 28 Stoneleigh 28 Wormleighton and Priors Hardwick 28 Other issues 28 Northamptonshire 30 Chipping Warden and Aston-le-Walls 30
A706 (3) HOL/00530/0038 2 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16
Culworth and Lower Thorpe 30 Radstone 30 Oxfordshire 30 Wardington 30 Mixbury 31 North Buckinghamshire 33 Turweston 33 Chetwode 33 Twyford 33 Calvert and Steeple Claydon 33 FCC waste transfer station 34 Quainton and Waddesdon 35 Aylesbury and Stoke Mandeville 36 The Chilterns 36 The Bill scheme 36 Long tunnel options 37 Shorter tunnel options 38 Wendover 40 AONB 41 Hydrogeology 42 Roads in north Buckinghamshire and the Chilterns 42 Vent shafts 43 Pylons 43 Other issues 43 Heathrow 44 Heathrow spur 44 Heathrow Express depot relocation 44 Conclusion 46 The Colne Valley, Hillingdon, Denham and environs 48 The Bill scheme 48 The tunnel case 48 Viaduct design 50 Traffic 50 Other construction issues 51 Amenities 51 Harefield 52
A706 (4) HOL/00530/0039 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16 3
Hillingdon Outdoor Activities Centre (HOAC) 52 Other issues 53 Old Oak Common and West London 55 Ealing and Northolt 55 Wells House Road, Midland Terrace, Island Triangle and Stephenson Street 55 Wormwood Scrubs 56 North London 56 Canterbury Works vent shaft 56 Alexandra Place vent shaft 57 Euston and Camden 57 The proposed railway in Camden and Euston 57 Strategic alternatives 58 Adelaide Road vent shaft 59 Addressing construction impacts in Camden 60 Euston station 62 Links to HS1 63 Conclusion 63 Cases settled by negotiation 64 Further acknowledgments 65
5 The Need to Sell scheme and compensation 66 Background 66 Principles of compensation 66 Discretionary compensation schemes 67 Our previous recommendations on the Need to Sell scheme 69 The most recent Government response and our views on it 70 Applications from the same area 71 Businesses 71 Valuations and offers 71 Lending 72 Suggestions of a property bond 72 Specific cases 73 Other points 73 Conclusions 73
6 Route-wide issues and farms 75 Environmental issues and ecology 75 Operational noise 77
A706 (5) HOL/00530/0040 4 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16
Construction, air quality and vibration 80 Highways 82 Design, consultation and engagement 82 Business and Community 83 Land take and temporary or permanent occupation 84 Farm issues and tax 85 Development and railway 86
7 Locus standi 89
8 Recommendations for future hybrid bill procedure 90 Hybrid bill procedure 90 The petition deposit process 91 Rights of audience 92 Hearings and programming 93 Decision making 94 Conclusions on procedural reform 94
Conclusions 95
Annex One 96
Annex Two 108
Annex Three 110
Formal minutes 111
A706 (6) HOL/00530/0041 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16 5
Summary This report contains the final directions and recommendations of the Select Committee on the High Speed 2 Phase One Hybrid Bill after 160 days of sittings over nearly two years.
Our responsibility was to hear petitions from those specially and directly affected by the Bill and, where we believed it was appropriate, to suggest modifications, assurances, undertakings or mitigation to address petitioners’ concerns.
We have directed a number of amendments to the proposed HS2 Phase One project. Notably, we have directed a longer Chilterns bored tunnel, greater noise protection for Wendover, better construction arrangements in Hillingdon, and a remodelled maintenance depot at Washwood Heath to maximise local job opportunities. We have said there should be a coherent approach to the redevelopment of Euston.
In many cases not specifically mentioned in this report we have intervened to encourage fairness, practical settlements, the giving of assurances, or better mitigation.
We have recommended amendments to the operation of the discretionary compensation schemes which we believe will result in greater fairness and a more functional property market in areas near to the proposed line.
We also suggest improvements to the procedure for dealing with hybrid bills. We trust they will help achieve better processes for the further anticipated phases of HS2.
Our work on Phase One, we believe, helps to add substantial environmental, social and design benefits to the scheme, commensurate with good use of public money and a viable engineering design.
A706 (7) HOL/00530/0042 6 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16
Robert Syms MP, Chair of the HS2 Select Committee
A706 (8) HOL/00530/0043 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16 7
A706 (9) HOL/00530/0044 8 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16
1 The Committee’s task 1. Our instructions were to consider petitions against the Bill and ‘additional provisions’ to it (additional provisions being, for these purposes, amendments that potentially affect other bodies and individuals). We had powers to amend the Bill but not on its principle, which the House defined as:
[ … ] the provision of a high speed railway between Euston in London and a junction with the West Coast Main Line at Handsacre in Staffordshire, with a spur from Water Orton in Warwickshire to Curzon Street in Birmingham, and intermediate stations at Old Oak Common and Birmingham Interchange.
Also not at issue before us was the railway’s “broad route alignment”.1 The “broad route alignment” language was chosen to permit an element of sensible discretion. We had power to make changes within but not outside that alignment.
2. A total of 2,586 petitions was deposited against the Bill and its additional provisions, of which 1,918 petitions were deposited against the Bill itself and 668 were against additional provisions.2 We heard nearly 1,600 of these. Approximately 800 petitions were withdrawn from the process or were not the subject of any appearance before the Committee. Many petitioners chose sensibly and helpfully to associate themselves with one or more other petitioners whose petition issues were similar or identical, and elected not to appear on that basis. There were approximately 300 of these, representing somewhat more than 10% of total petition numbers. They are listed in Annex 1. We thank them.
3. The members of the Committee before the General Election in May 2015 were: Robert Syms MP, Henry Bellingham MP, Sir Peter Bottomley MP, Ian Mearns MP, Yasmin Qureshi MP and Michael Thornton MP. From July 2015 the members were: Robert Syms MP, Sir Henry Bellingham MP, Sir Peter Bottomley MP, Geoffrey Clifton-Brown MP, David Crausby MP and Mark Hendrick MP.
1 HC Deb, 29 April 2014, col 771 [Commons Chamber] 2 www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/high-speed-rail-london-west-midlands- bill-select-committee-commons/publications/
A706 (10) HOL/00530/0045 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16 9
2 The Bill and the Committee
The HS2 Phase One Hybrid Bill
The Bill and the HS2 railway
4. The High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill contains the proposed legislative powers for building Phase One of the first major rail route north of London since the 19th century. Our interim report outlined the main features of the proposed railway and the history of the Bill. It explained the nature of hybrid bills.3
5. As well as authorising the works needed to build the railway, the Bill contains powers for compulsory acquisition of land and property rights, including subsoil to enable tunnel works, and for temporary land use. The Bill also grants deemed planning permission for the railway.
6. The Bill was promoted by the Department for Transport (‘the Promoter’). The works it provides for will be carried out by one or more Nominated Undertakers. One of these is likely to be HS2 Limited, which has been responsible for design preparation on the railway to date. Others might be involved, such as Network Rail.
7. The Promoter’s expert witnesses were: Professor Andrew MacNaughton, Chief Engineer to the project, Tim Smart, principal engineering witness, Peter Miller, environmental expert, Rupert Thornely-Taylor, noise expert, Colin Smith, compensation expert, and Professor Robert Mair, Baron Mair, expert on ground settlement issues.
Additional provisions
8. Additional provisions are amendments to the Bill powers which go beyond the scope of the original proposals and which may potentially have adverse direct and special effects on particular individuals or bodies, over and above any effects on the general public.4 If they have such effects, they may, like the Bill, be petitioned against. Some new works proposed by the Promoter did not require additional Bill powers but were predicted to give rise to new environmental effects that were assessed as significant. Such works triggered the production of further environmental statements assessing those additional environmental effects. The Bill authorises railway and associated development to the extent of both its scheduled works and the works assessed in the environmental and supplementary environmental statements.5 The works described in the supplementary environmental statements could be petitioned against, because they could be argued to have direct and special adverse effects in certain cases.
9. The Promoter promoted five sets of additional provisions to the Bill. There were four supplementary environmental statements. For convenience, a table of each of the additional provisions and supplementary environmental statements is set out in Annex 2, with a description of their content (in indicative, not comprehensive, terms). It is worth noting that some of the additional works promoted by the Promoter gave effect to compromises
3 High Speed Rail (London - West Midland) Bill Select Committee, First Special Report of Session 2014–15, HC 338 4 HS2 Ltd, Information Paper, B8: Additional Provisions, (October 2015) 5 Clauses 19 and 63
A706 (11) HOL/00530/0046 10 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16
reached with affected parties. Additional provisions can therefore be a means of achieving a more generally acceptable programme of works.
10. AP1 related to relatively minor matters such as utility works and footpath diversions. There was no need for an accompanying supplementary environmental statement.
11. AP2 (and SES1) embodied a number of significant improvements to the railway design across the route, including a lowering of the line north of Lichfield to put it under instead of over the A38, vertical realignment of the line near Hints in Staffordshire to drop it deeper into that locality’s wooded landscape, a longer green tunnel6 at Burton Green in Warwickshire, and a bypass at Chipping Warden in Northamptonshire. Three of these changes resulted in part from the Committee process. AP2 also proposed a relocation of the Heathrow Express depot from Old Oak Common to Langley, near Slough, to allow for HS2 construction at Old Oak Common, and a grade separated flyover for the Great Western main line. The latter two changes were notable among issues that were objected to by petitioners.
12. AP3 (and SES 2) split the programme for building the HS2 platforms at Euston station into stages. One purpose was to reduce the impacts on users of the existing railway. The extension of the project duration was not popular with Camden residents. Construction impacts would be experienced over a longer period. Arguably, the change would postpone the overall redevelopment of Euston when compared with the timings permitted by the Bill scheme.
13. AP4 (and SES3) notably contained provisions for the Chilterns bored tunnel extension as directed by the Committee. In addition, AP4 proposed amended construction arrangements in Hillingdon, including a smaller compound at Harvil Road and a new haul road to mitigate traffic impacts. The latter was not without opposition because of its possible impacts on a site of special scientific interest. AP4 also contained provision for moving Water Orton primary school, and passive provision for a Crossrail station interchange at Kensal Portobello which had been pressed for by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea as a potential means to promote regeneration.
14. AP5 related to relatively minor works in several locations along the line, including utility works, car park relocations and public rights of way diversions, together with additional land for the proposed people mover at Birmingham international station. SES4 set out works for a southward extension of the Wendover green tunnel, together with enhanced noise mitigation.
15. The main environmental statement and each of the supplementary environmental statements were the subject of consultation. The responses to those consultations were studied and summarised for the House by an independent assessor. Each of five summary reports was published on the Bill webpage.7
16. Each of the additional provisions and supplementary environmental statements was examined for compliance with the relevant private business standing orders, which include requirements relating to public notification and adequate description of the proposed works.
6 A green tunnel is a type of cut and cover tunnel 7 services.parliament.uk/bills/2015–16/highspeedraillondonwestmidlands.html
A706 (12) HOL/00530/0047 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16 11
17. For each of the additional provisions, there were a number of technical non- compliances deriving merely from the timings stipulated by the private business standing orders. (Hybrid bills do not usually comply with all standing order timings (except by happenstance), because the standing orders assume a November starting point and the relevant dates are taken to apply to the year in which the Bill was deposited. The HS2 Additional Provisions spanned two parliamentary Sessions.) The consequent technical non-compliances were reported to the Standing Orders Committees of each House which, in accordance with practice, dispensed with the need to comply with these standing orders so far as they related to the dates set out in them.8
Table 1: Table with date of examinations and Standing Order Committee meetings
Examination HC SOC HL SOC
Bill 17.12.13 adjourned and met again 8.1.14 15.1.14 20.1.14
AP1 13.10.14 28.10.14 4.11.14
AP2 15.9.15 25.11.15 1.12.15 (AP2 & 3) (AP2 & 3) AP3 20.10.15 & 29.10.15
AP4 24.11.15 8.12.15 9.12.15
AP5 15.1.16 26.1.16 27.1.16
18. On AP1, in addition to the technical non-compliances, the Promoter omitted to post a number of notices in the affected areas of Finmere and Mixbury. This was rectified with a further petitioning period, requiring an Order of the House.9 On AP2, the Promoter omitted to provide certain environmental data (some 77 pages) relating to bat populations. The omitted data showed effects that were actually less adverse than the incomplete data, so essentially no potential prejudice flowed from the omission. The Promoter nevertheless extended the consultation period and the Standing Orders Committees dispensed with the non-compliance. On AP3, there was a memorial (a complaint of non-compliance with standing orders) from the Camden Cutting Group, alleging substantive non-compliance through failure to provide adequate detail on the proposed cuttings works. The Examiners did not accept this complaint.
19. On AP4/SES3, the Chilterns Society complained of substantive non-compliance with the need for a satisfactory environmental statement through failure to provide full and accurate traffic data (23 out of 245 pages had either incorrect data or references to incorrect data). The Examiners rejected the substantive complaint on the basis that the resulting traffic assessment was unaffected, but found procedural non-compliance on the grounds of the missing data. The Promoter re-opened the consultation period, and the Standing Orders Committees accordingly dispensed with the non-compliance. There was one
8 The proceedings of the Commons Standing Orders Committee can be found here: www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/standing-orders/ Those of the Lords can be found at: www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/lords-select/standing-orders/ 9 Votes and Proceedings, 28 October 2014, p 396
A706 (13) HOL/00530/0048 12 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16
substantive non-compliance in relation to AP5. When this was noted by the Examiners the Promoters indicated that Ministers would not proceed with the amendment concerned, which related to bridleway provision.
20. Despite their ultimate willingness to dispense with these various more substantial non-compliances on the basis of extended consultation periods, the Commons Standing Orders Committee deprecated the omissions and errors, following as they did a similar incident with the Bill, to which our interim report of 2014–15 referred.10
21. The House passed motions instructing us to consider each of the additional provisions and supplementary environmental statements.11 We accepted the case for each of the proposed sets of additional provisions on the basis of assurances provided by the Promoter. The additional provisions were not formally accepted by the Committee until the end of the petitioning hearings. They are made formally to the Bill as we report it to the House.
The Committee
Changes in Committee membership
22. Before the May 2015 General Election, our members were Robert Syms MP, appointed to chair the Committee, Henry Bellingham MP (as he then was), Sir Peter Bottomley MP, Ian Mearns MP, Yasmin Qureshi MP and Michael Thornton MP. Michael Thornton was not returned to Parliament at the election. We are most grateful for his conscientious contribution and support. By Order of the House of 7 July 2015, Ian Mearns MP and Yasmin Qureshi MP were discharged from the Committee and Geoffrey Clifton-Brown MP, David Crausby MP and Mark Hendrick MP were appointed. The new members confirmed that they had no personal or constituency interest in the Bill. They were briefed by the Clerk and the Promoter on procedure, petitioning, the proposed route, tunnelling and engineering, noise and compensation, and took part in familiarisation visits.
23. We pay tribute to the astute chairmanship of Robert Syms, and to the informal deputy Chairs, Ian Mearns and David Crausby. We thank Sir Henry Bellingham for acting as our informal Whip.
10 HC (2014–15) 338, para 11 11 The dates of the Standing Orders Committees meetings are indicated in Annex 2
A706 (14) HOL/00530/0049 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16 13
Previous Committee Members
Committee programme and decision making
Programme
24. Following the General Election, we picked up on the work of our predecessor Committee, beginning with the matter of the Colne Valley viaduct and whether it should be replaced with a tunnel. Having heard the petitions on that issue, we announced on 15 July 2015 that we were not convinced by the arguments for replacing the viaduct with a tunnel. The cost estimates were high (almost certainly more than £200m), and would clearly have remained high even with greater scrutiny, which we decided was not merited. We said that the priority should be on mitigating construction and traffic impacts in the Hillingdon area. South Buckinghamshire will be affected in like manner. Our concerns translated into the form of works improvements contained in AP4, which we considered in January 2016.
25. Toward the end of July 2015 we considered the case for the proposed Chilterns long tunnel as made by some of its principal exponents. We announced on 21 July 2015 that we had not been convinced by the case for the Chilterns long tunnel as articulated by those petitioning bodies. We noted in passing that, had there been an overwhelming case for the long tunnel, we would have expected to have heard it from those principal protagonists. The arguments for and against the long tunnel proceeded on the basis of more finely balanced points. We directed preparation of an additional provision for a northward extension of the bored tunnel in the Chilterns, for reasons set out in our discussion of the Chilterns tunnel arguments below. As noted previously, this extension became part
A706 (15) HOL/00530/0050 14 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16
of AP4. We requested a review of noise mitigation in Wendover. The resulting proposals became part of SES4
26. In September 2015, we heard from the many hundreds of Chilterns petitioners whose petitions mostly took the form of somewhat generic objections and mitigation requests. Many pressed passionately the case for a long Chilterns tunnel. We heard other Chilterns and Buckinghamshire petitioners in October and November 2015, with further fervent argument in favour of a long tunnel, and discussion of other issues, including possible traffic problems. We heard substantial argument about the relative merits of the Chilterns northward tunnel extension in November 2015 and January 2016, including from petitioners against AP4. The benefits of AP4 relative to the Bill scheme were broadly accepted. Many petitioners persisted with their arguments for the long tunnel.
27. In December 2015, we heard petitions from Camden and Euston, including petitions on AP3.
28. In November and December 2015 and January 2016 we considered locus standi challenges to AP2, AP4 and AP5 (SES4) petitions. As we explain in the chapter of this report on locus standi, many—although not all—of these petitions were allegations not that the additional provisions were harmful but that they did not adequately deal with complaints against the Bill itself. Broadly, we upheld the locus challenges in these cases on the basis that complaints against the Bill were ‘live’ until this final report. Additional provision petitions should be about alleged adverse effects of the additional provision, not whether the additional provision is not good enough in addressing the effects of the Bill.
29. AP2 and AP4 petitions not already heard were programmed for January 2016. These included petitions against the relocation of the Heathrow Express depot to Langley. They also included petitions in relation to the revised construction arrangements in Hillingdon and South Buckinghamshire. AP5 petitions, which mainly concerned noise mitigation in Wendover, were heard in February 2016.
30. The high numbers of petitioners prompted some prognostications of programming doom. Petitioners did not often need to sit late with us into the evening. We are grateful to those petitioners who responded positively to our exhortations regarding grouping and association, and marshalling of arguments. This helped avoid going over familiar ground.
31. Many petitioners wanted to attend the proceedings in person to show support for fellow petitioners, with especially high numbers from the Chilterns and Camden. We had space in the committee room for about 40 members of the public. At our request the House authorities provided a spill-over room for several weeks in September and December 2015 and briefly again in January 2016. This helped address an important element of participation: as had been predicted to us by the Speaker, some petitioners were content not to address the Committee on the basis that they nevertheless attended and were recognised as having attended.
Form of decisions and Bill amendments
32. This report contains general recommendations as well as recommendations on specific petitions. During the hybrid bill process, the Promoter has also offered significant
A706 (16) HOL/00530/0051 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16 15
assurances in individual cases, as well as generally.12 The Bill itself contained substantial mitigation against adverse effects. Additional provisions have set forth further mitigation. It can be assumed that, in cases we do not expressly mention, we were content not to intervene on the position taken by the Promoter by way of the mitigation in the Bill itself, the additional provisions, general assurances, the specific assurances offered by the Promoter to petitioners and/or the position as it stood following the Government’s response to our 2014–15 interim report.
33. Many of our directions have been effected through assurances and/or negotiated settlement of one sort or another rather than requiring changes to the Bill language.13 For instance, we wanted to flag that a spur to Heathrow will not be implemented in construction of HS2. That will take effect through a direction that the relevant Bill powers for passive provision will not be exercised, rather than through Bill amendments. The additional provisions required substantial amendments. Counsel for the Promoter presented us with a list of these and described their scope. We have noted above how these are dealt with procedurally.
34. We have published the formal minutes of the Committee separately. These record petitioners’ hearings dates.14
Acknowledgments
35. We greatly appreciate the contributions of parliamentary colleagues and their staff who have so assiduously supported and promoted the interests of their constituents. They helped us identify their foremost concerns. Dealing with HS2 caseloads has been a major undertaking. In some constituencies it has been a full-time job for Members’ staff. The HS2 committee support team led by Lucy Lagerweij has performed an outstanding job, under great pressure. The programme manager, David Walker, has been a model of efficiency, tact and good humour. He has been praised publicly by many petitioners. We pay tribute to the good-natured responsiveness and professionalism of the Promoter’s counsel and expert witnesses.
36. Many parts of the House service assisted us ably in achieving our schedule, including the Doorkeepers, the security staff, the Hansard reporters, the broadcasting and sound staff, and the catering staff, who provided evening food for the public for heavily attended sessions, on several occasions at short notice. The Committee assistants Miguel Boo Fraga and Michelle Garratty merit particular thanks for their reliability, tenacity, patience and good humour over nearly two years of proceedings. They very capably administered hundreds of hours of petition hearings, often simultaneously with the petitioning deposit processes for the five separate sets of additional provisions, several of which happened almost back-to-back (if not simultaneously). Many hundreds of petitioners were welcomed to the Committee corridor. Huge amounts of evidence and programme material needed organising and publishing when the Committee was not actually sitting. They took on and accomplished that task conscientiously.
12 HS2 Ltd, Register of undertakings and assurances, December 2014 13 The changes to Clause 47 discussed below are an exception. 14 See Committee website. Evidence from proceedings was also published there. ‘P’ numbers designate Promoter evidence; ‘A’ numbers designate petitioner evidence.
A706 (17) HOL/00530/0052 16 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16
37. We gratefully acknowledge too the contribution of others from across the House service who volunteered to assist in accepting petitions on a rota basis during petitions deposit periods, sacrificing recess days or days in their regular workplaces to help out. Their contribution was vital. We are grateful to Neil Caulfield, Clerk to this Committee. His legal experience, good humour, and constant energy, together with his wisdom and common sense, have made it possible for us to carry forward our duties. We understand the high regard in which he has been held by petitioners. We thank him for leading his team and we thank them all together for their resilience and help in making possible the fulfilment of our responsibilities during hearings and in producing this report.
A706 (18) HOL/00530/0053 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16 17
3 Visits 38. Before the May 2015 General Election, Committee members visited areas on the proposed line north of Buckinghamshire, as well as the Colne Valley, Hillingdon, Harefield, Ruislip, Northolt and Old Oak Common. There were also visits to Crossrail, to HS1 in Kent, and to the Arup sound laboratory in London.
39. In June 2015, Committee members visited north Buckinghamshire and the Chilterns. Following the change of Committee membership which took place on 7 July 2015, the new Committee members requested their own visit to those areas. To be most valuable, the visit needed to take place before the September 2015 hearings of Chilterns petitioners, so it was arranged for a day in August 2015. We regret the failure to respect the published arrangements for community meetings on that day. The planned manageable number of community meetings, and the timetable, were disrupted when all stops on the itinerary were treated as opportunities for mass lobbying. Important stops were missed, which frustrated some of the objectives of the visit. This was unfortunate.
40. The new Committee members visited the Arup sound laboratory in October 2015. Later in that month, all Committee members revisited the sound laboratory for a demonstration of train pass noise as modelled for a sample site, based on a location near Aylesbury. This was useful.
41. In December, the newer Committee members had the opportunity to visit the Old Oak Common area as part of a wider visit by the Committee to north London, Camden and Euston. In January 2016, Committee members undertook a visit to the proposed site for relocation of the Heathrow Express depot in Langley, near Slough.
42. The Committee is immensely grateful to all who helped in organising the visits, including local MPs, their constituency and research staff, local authority staff and local residents. The visits were made possible by the hard work of HS2 staff, particularly Jeffrey Wright.
A706 (19) HOL/00530/0054 18 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16
Table 2: Location visited by Committee members
Date Location visited by Committee members 8 July 2014 Arup sound laboratory 15 July 2014 Birmingham Curzon Street to Water Orton and Kingsbury, accompanied by Dan Byles MP and Rt Hon Caroline Spelman MP
16 Sept 2014 Birmingham Interchange site to Lichfield, accompanied by Rt Hon Car- oline Spelman MP, Dan Byles MP, Christopher Pincher MP and Michael Fabricant MP 17 Sept 2014 Crossrail site at Limmo peninsula, Canning Town 7-8 Oct 2014 South Warwickshire, accompanied by Rt Hon Jeremy Wright MP and Jim Cunningham MP, and Mixbury, Oxfordshire 27 Oct 2014 South Northamptonshire, accompanied by Rt Hon Andrea Leadsom MP 2 Dec 2014 HS1 in Kent 15 Jan 2015 Denham, Colne Valley, Harefield and Ruislip, accompanied by Rt Hon Dominic Grieve MP and Nick Hurd MP 5 Mar 2015 Old Oak Common and Northolt, accompanied by Angie Bray MP, Andy Slaughter MP and Stephen Pound MP 11 June 2015 Aylesbury and Wendover, accompanied by Rt Hon David Lidington MP 22 June 2015 The Chilterns, including Wendover Dean, accompanied by Rt Hon Cheryl Gillan MP 26 June 2015 North Buckinghamshire, accompanied by Rt Hon John Bercow MP. 10 Aug 2015 North Buckinghamshire and the Chilterns, accompanied in part by Rt Hon Cheryl Gillan MP, and the representatives of Rt Hon John Bercow MP and Rt Hon David Lidington MP (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown MP, David Crausby MP, and Mark Hendrick MP attending) 15 Oct 2015 Arup sound laboratory (sound demonstrations for new Committee mem- bers) 27 Oct 2015 Arup sound laboratory (model of Aylesbury location) 9 Nov 2015 Old Oak Common, accompanied by Dr Rupa Huq MP and Andy Slaughter MP; Kilburn and Hampstead, accompanied by Tulip Siddiq MP; Camden and Euston, accompanied by Sir Keir Starmer QC MP. 11 Jan 2016 Slough, Langley and Iver, accompanied by Rt Hon Dominic Grieve MP and Fiona MacTaggart MP.
A706 (20) HOL/00530/0055 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16 19
4 Principal conclusions and recommendations
Birmingham
Birmingham Curzon Street and related matters
43. We began our hearings with petitions from central Birmingham. Principal issues were the design and configuration of Curzon Street station and land use there and to the east. Our interim report of 2014–15 emphasised the need for connectivity through and across the station to accommodate the needs of adjoining businesses and undertakings as well as rail users.
44. We are pleased that Birmingham City Council was offered sufficiently satisfactory draft assurances that it was able to dispense with a substantive appearance before the Committee. Key among the assurances offered were: involvement in station design, good station permeability, cooperation on relocating displaced businesses within Birmingham where possible, and provision of local apprenticeships. A strategy was agreed to mitigate the impact of HS2’s requirement for temporary closure of Saltley viaduct. There will need to be convenient access between the Curzon Street station and Birmingham New Street station.
45. We said early on that we wanted an accommodation to meet the needs of Curzon Park Limited. We are pleased that in addition to Curzon Park Limited retaining certain land, it will retain scope for recovery of land subject to feasibility. The Promoter will consult Curzon Park Limited during the detailed design of Curzon Street Station with regard to development potential of the retained land.
A706 (21) HOL/00530/0056 20 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16
A706 (22) HOL/00530/0057 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16 21
Washwood Heath
46. Washwood Heath, 3.5km east of Curzon Street, will be the site for HS2’s rolling stock maintenance depot. The depot’s location and ability to operate efficiently will be critical to the railway’s functioning. Early in our proceedings we heard arguments for moving it to a site near the proposed Birmingham interchange station. Recognising that a quick decision was needed to provide certainty, we said in December 2014 that we were not persuaded by arguments in favour of the alternative site. We gave the reasons in our interim report of 2014–15.
47. Washwood Heath is in an area of high unemployment. Although the maintenance depot will create jobs, Rt Hon Liam Byrne MP persuaded us that its potential for additional regeneration needed more recognition. We directed a review to minimise the temporary and permanent use of land by the Promoter, and to maximise opportunities for employers to establish themselves as soon as possible after construction. Mr Byrne was instrumental in pushing the review forward.
48. Much progress has been made. Through Professor MacNaughton’s skill and work, creative engineering proposals have been developed to permit some 30% less land take including through provision of underground balancing ponds.15 The area potentially to be handed back after construction is 50% greater than in the Bill scheme. Mr Byrne told us that, as a result, up to 3,000 jobs, rather than 300, stand to be created.
49. Two issues remained: the extent of land required temporarily for construction arisings, and the location of land to be handed back. Each affects the extent of further opportunities for job creation. Mr Byrne favoured an alternative for the former, at Saltley Business Park. The Promoter was concerned not to prejudice the needs of existing businesses at that site. On land to be handed back, the issues were with its accessibility and value.
50. The current owner of the land at Washwood Heath pressed the Committee to put the Promoter under an obligation of using best endeavours to find a solution in relation to both matters. We wanted to achieve a sensible consensual solution. The parties came back with an agreed draft direction, with only the question of a best endeavours obligation outstanding between them. We decline to force the Promoter’s hand to the extent of imposing a best endeavours obligation. Accordingly, we give the following direction (which is in terms agreed by the parties):
In December 2014 we directed a review to minimise the temporary and permanent use of land by the Promoter at Washwood Heath and to maximise opportunities for other employers to establish themselves as soon as possible following construction. We note, though issues remain, the progress which has been made between HS2 and AXA to date in terms of the land take required for the Depot and drainage. We reiterate our general view that both the permanent and temporary land take should be the minimum as far as possible and for the shortest time, with a hand-back configuration that after construction will attract maximum business use of the residual site. As such, the Promoter should, using its reasonable endeavours, continue to seek to reduce further the extent of land (whether for permanent or temporary use) including land required for construction and associated works and/or the duration for which the land is
15 HS2 Ltd, Information Paper, E17: Balancing ponds and replacement food storage (June 2015)
A706 (23) HOL/00530/0058 22 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16
required in order to maximise the prospect of early development and job creation. We also encourage all relevant parties to facilitate the early, coordinated and comprehensive development of employment land at Washwood Heath.
Staffordshire
51. Our interim report of 2014–15 explained that the Bill as presented would have taken the railway over the A38 near Streethay, north of Lichfield. This was strongly opposed by the local community and its Member of Parliament, Michael Fabricant MP. AP2 proposed a revised scheme whereby the line will pass under the A38. Parties affected by the revision had the opportunity to petition against it.
52. The main petitioning concerns were the diversion of Wood End Lane consequential on the revision, access issues, and additional land take, including for mitigation planting. The Inland Waterways Association, for instance, pressed for a changed alignment of that road. The Promoter is considering whether that can be achieved. The alternative may raise safety concerns. The Promoter will review the Wood End Lane arrangements if the prospect of local property development re-emerges as the outcome of a planning appeal. In the main, it appears that sensible accommodations have been or will be reached with AP2 petitioners. We abide by our endorsement of the AP2 route revision.
53. The Lichfield Cruising Club has facilities on the Wyrley and Essington Canal but will require replacement hard standing provision because of the HS2 works. AP2 exacerbates the impact. We found the Club’s requests to be reasonable. Subject to satisfactory costs audits we expect the Promoter to fund replacement accommodation.
54. AP2 contains significant improvements for the valued woodland landscape near Hints, including a green bridge for Brockhurst Lane, reduced intrusion into Rookery Wood, better screening of the railway, and additional planting to enhance connectivity between woodlands. The value of that amenity had been emphasised to us on our visit to the area with Christopher Pincher MP.
North Warwickshire
Kingsbury and Water Orton
55. We heard petitioners from these communities in the 2014–15 Session and again in the 2015–16 Session in relation to the additional provisions. Craig Tracey MP and Dan Byles, the current and former Members for North Warwickshire, each addressed us. Our 2014–15 interim report dealt with some principal issues.
56. Kingsbury will be the location of a major construction railhead, possibly also for Phase Two. It is to be the subject of a special management zone. We directed special arrangements in relation to a number of petitions. Residents were concerned about traffic volumes at the Dunton traffic island. The Promoter told us that optimised traffic signalisation would assist. The Promoter has said that it will seek to design balancing ponds to accommodate the wishes of local residents.
A706 (24) HOL/00530/0059 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16 23
A706 (25) HOL/00530/0060 24 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16
57. In Water Orton, the proposed haul road will be used as far as is practical to avoid incursion of traffic into the village. The junction of Gorsey Lane and the A446 forms the gateway to Water Orton. We expect the design of the viaduct at that location to be sympathetic to the local environment. The local action group questioned whether more extensive mitigation planting was possible but the Promoter said that the land in question might form a suitable relocation site for the local rugby club. We are pleased that the Promoter agreed to fund the moving of Water Orton Primary School with a contribution of £3.5m. We endorse the emphasis placed by Craig Tracey MP on the need to ensure the welfare of the children during the move.
Other issues
58. The owner of the Grimstock Hotel in Gilson is nearly 70 and wishes to make retirement plans.16 The project will not intrude that severely on the property physically, but we heard that the business is suffering detriment. The Promoter would incur the cost of an element of compensation for this business in any event. A disputed claim would incur legal fees. Both the owner and the hotel employees deserve some certainty. We have directed acquisition of the hotel. The Promoter can sell it on or run it as a going concern, possibly with the owner as a consultant.
59. Patrick Dillon is the owner of Dunton Hall and surrounding land. He operates a business on the land and may in future want to exercise mineral extraction rights. The Promoter proposed an alternative access to accommodate those activities without intruding on the needs of a neighbouring landowner at Reindeer Park. Among other matters, Mr Dillon sought an assurance that if the Promoter were at any point to acquire Reindeer Park a different access could be considered. The Promoter said that that could prejudice the value of any future interest in Reindeer Park. We have pressed the Promoter to reconsider its position on that issue. The matter can be pursued in the House of Lords if necessary.
60. In Curdworth we expect a sympathetic viaduct design for the crossing of the Birmingham and Fazeley canal in a sensitive location.
61. The north Warwickshire area will experience major effects from the project. We urge the Promoter to be assiduous in maintaining contact with the constituency MP, as with all Members with constituencies on the line.
16 The petitioner was Silklink Ltd
A706 (26) HOL/00530/0061 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16 25
A706 (27) HOL/00530/0062 26 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16
West Midlands
Birmingham Interchange
62. Traffic issues are especially important in this area. We welcome the accommodation reached between the Promoter and the National Exhibition Centre to in relation to the impact of traffic on the NEC (as well as on provision of a stop for the NEC on the people mover from the Birmingham Interchange). We also welcome the announcement by Highways England in September 2015 that among the key projects in its £1.8bn package of road improvements in the Midlands will be an upgrade to junction 6 of the M42 (with the A45, near the NEC and Birmingham Airport). This will prepare for the arrival of the HS2 Birmingham Interchange station and further development in the area over the next decade.
Hampton-in-Arden
63. East of the village of Hampton-in-Arden, a viaduct is required to allow the route to cross the River Blythe. In the Bill as presented, the viaduct was approached on an embankment approximately 250m long, which might have presented an obstruction to river drainage. With prompting from local people, the Promoter substituted by means of AP2 a longer viaduct of some 480m, at an extra cost of approximately £10m. This will be more permeable to river drainage. We note that the longer viaduct is also perceived as potentially bringing an improved visual appearance to the railway profile in the area. The local Member of Parliament, Rt Hon Caroline Spelman MP, stressed the importance of a sympathetic viaduct design. We are confident from our interaction with local residents and representative groups that they will employ their considerable knowledge and expertise to engage constructively in the design process.
64. The viaduct will require substantial construction work. In addition, because the line will bisect Diddington Lane—the less significant of two roads that exit Hampton-in-Arden eastward to the A452—a bridge and some realignment are required if that that road is to be kept open. Petitioners from the village argued against continued road access except for farm traffic. They maintained that straightening and rebuilding the road would encourage an increase in traffic volume and speed. They were worried about increased traffic from the Birmingham Interchange station. The local landowner, the Packington Estate, was among those pressing for continued general access on various grounds including the risk of rubbish dumping on a gated road. Whereas the Bill as presented would have seen the road stopped up, AP2 presented a scheme for continued general access.
65. We favoured the proposed AP2 scheme. Access to Diddington Lane can be regulated if appropriate. The Promoter told us that it could live with that. Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council can be approached with concerns about traffic speed and volume, and will be able to take traffic calming or prohibition measures if they are needed. We note that construction traffic will avoid the village.
66. The Promoter has given assurances that subject to feasibility it will use reasonable endeavours to support the relocation of a local recycling centre, currently located off the A45, to a brownfield site rather than the greenfield site proposed in AP4. The railway necessitates a relocation. Residents were understandably worried that any access to the proposed AP4 site from Diddington Lane might cause nuisance. Although we heard that
A706 (28) HOL/00530/0063 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16 27
the site would be reached from the A45, residents remained concerned, believing that traffic volume on the A45 might induce a change of position. We hope that the brownfield alternative comes to fruition. It would also avoid new intrusion onto greenbelt land, whose value was emphasised by Rt Hon Caroline Spelman MP.
Other issues
67. Mrs Spelman was concerned about a number of other ways in which the project would affect her constituency, such as the relocation of the Island Project School for autistic children and access and alternative parking accommodation for the National Motorcycle Museum. We are glad that there are plans for satisfactory resolution in each case.
68. The Government response to our 2014–15 report accepted that measures to address the environmental condition of the River Tame might sensibly be the subject of a bid for support funds.
69. In relation to the issues raised by the Coleshill Estate regarding permanent acquisition of land and future provisions of easements, we are satisfied that the Promoter’s positions are reasonable ones.
70. Richard Lloyd of the Heart of England Railway Action Group argued for better noise attenuation at the playing fields at Chelmsley Wood. His detailed insight is often helpful. We would like some greater recognition by the Promoter of the needs of those using the playing fields. There should be sensible arrangements on footpaths there and elsewhere in this area.
71. We gave our recommendations on Balsall Common and Berkswell in our 2014–15 report, including a review of noise mitigation. The Promoter has set out a number of noise mitigation options on which it will consult with the local community at detailed design stage. We are content with this approach.
South Warwickshire
Vertical alignment
72. We asked the Promoter to review whether the vertical alignment of the line could be lowered in this area and what the benefits might be. The Promoter explained that lowering the line would push it deeper into the water table, which would require flood risk management and greater land take. Cuttings at Offchurch and Cubbington will already be deep. The Promoter pointed out that significant adverse noise effects were predicted in relation to only nine dwellings. We decided against recommending any lowering of the line here.
Roads
73. Substantial agreement was reached with Warwickshire local authorities on highways matters. They did not press for a grade separated development of the A46/Stoneleigh Road junction as part of the bill, because it would have required an additional provision. They would pursue this proposal by other means, and had received assurances that the Promoter would not act to obstruct it. We are pleased that the Promoter conceded provision of
A706 (29) HOL/00530/0064 28 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16
a wider and safer cycleway along the A423 in response to urging from Rt Hon Jeremy Wright MP. Mr Wright told us he was sceptical about the suitability of the B4115 for use even temporarily as a construction route. The Promoter said that it would seek to build substitute slip roads for construction use quickly.
Burton Green
74. AP2 produces a short extension of the tunnel at Burton Green to provide additional mitigation. It will produce a small noise reduction. Rt Hon Jeremy Wright MP pressed for modelling of noise at the tunnel portals to reassure residents. We have repeatedly sought such modelling and have been disappointed with the Promoter’s reasons for not providing it: technical difficulties, and the anticipation that tunnel boom can be designed out. The Promoter has managed to produce models elsewhere. If the model were to show no tunnel boom, so much the better.
75. We received a welcome update on the number and condition of HS2 lettings in Burton Green.
Stoneleigh
76. The route was moved away from the village of Stoneleigh during an early review of the route. Changes to the alignment of the B4115 under AP4 will benefit local ancient woodland. We welcome that.
Wormleighton and Priors Hardwick
77. Petitioners from this area argued that the line should pass under the Oxford Canal. This would require deep cuttings and security from water ingress from the canal onto the railway. We were not convinced that the line should be lowered, but we recognise that this is a sensitive matter, in particular because the contour canal meanders for a considerable distance around the proposed route. The design of the viaduct to take the railway over the canal needs to reflect the area’s special nature.
Other issues
78. We are pleased that, following Committee promptings, accommodations were reached with Kenilworth Golf Club and with the owners of Dale House.
A706 (30) HOL/00530/0065 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16 29
A706 (31) HOL/00530/0066 30 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16
Northamptonshire
Chipping Warden and Aston-le-Walls
79. On our visit to this area, Rt Hon Andrea Leadsom MP noted a number of traffic safety concerns. We are pleased that, under AP2, Chipping Warden will benefit from provision of a bypass. Furthermore, construction traffic will reach the railway trace without unduly intruding on the small nearby habitation of Aston-le-Walls. Our interim report of 2014– 15 directed provision of a roundabout at the intersection of the A361 and the Welsh Road. These improvements will together offer an important legacy of road improvements in the area.
80. We heard remaining concerns about substantial existing flood risk in the Chipping Warden area and the possibility that tunnel construction will exacerbate it. We have directed a high-level study of drainage needs.
Culworth and Lower Thorpe
81. The Promoter accepted our recommendation to provide better noise protection for Culworth by means of a noise barrier on the north side of the Lower Thorpe viaduct. Provision has been made in AP4.
Radstone
82. Our 2014–15 interim report sought consideration of a lateral movement of the line away from Radstone. The Promoter told us that the challenge was to avoid consequential adverse effects on Turweston, to the south.
83. Since the Radstone Residents Group appeared before the Select Committee in February 2015, the Promoter and the residents group have worked collaboratively to agree changes to the scheme that offer increased noise and visual mitigation for the residents of Radstone. This includes an 800m-long, 5m-high trackside noise barrier as the route passes the village, and a commitment to lower the railway’s vertical alignment and to increase the height of earth bunds. On that basis, the group withdrew its petition against the Bill. We are pleased with this improved outcome.
84. We note that, in Greatworth, construction of HS2 may present an opportunity to improve the local footpath network.
Oxfordshire
Wardington
85. Victoria Prentis MP and residents of Wardington addressed us with concerns about proposals to route spoil movement by road through Wardington village on the A361. The purpose would be to use earth excavated at Greatworth and Turweston for earthworks construction at Lower Boddington. Very high HGV movements would be required over an extended period of possibly between 1½ to 2 years. The Promoter is considering how to reduce the volume of materials needed at Lower Boddington, as well as an alternative spoil removal route using a conveyor over the A43, which we heard could achieve reductions
A706 (32) HOL/00530/0067 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16 31
of up to some 30% of heavy vehicle movements. We were encouraged by that creative approach. Nevertheless, we believe the possible traffic burden on Wardington needs careful attention. The village has been seeking a bypass, and would struggle to cope with the currently proposed HGV movements. We urge the Promoter to assist in finding ways to address matters.
Mixbury
86. Mixbury is a horse riding and training area. It is quiet. There were concerns about the risk of horse startle, particularly at Hollow Barn on the Westbury circular ride where several bridleways will converge to cross the line. Our interim report of 2014–15 prompted the Promoter to develop better screening at this location. Mrs Prentis told us that local businesses and bridleway users remained sufficiently worried to have considered raising funds for greater noise barrier protection themselves. We direct the Promoter to go one step further than it already has on the basis that there should be some local funding contribution too. The Promoter should seek a 1:1 matched funding arrangement with local interested bodies for provision of greater barrier protection in the vicinity of the bridleway crossing.
A706 (33) HOL/00530/0068 32 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16
A706 (34) HOL/00530/0069 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16 33
North Buckinghamshire
Turweston
87. Petitioners from Turweston needed a solution to address the intrusion of the line on the important village playing field. We asked the Promoter to think about alternative grounds that would not incur ongoing costs to the parish council. It may be that undergrounding of power lines could be part of the answer. The Promoter is examining that and has commissioned an analysis of options which will be shared with the parish council when completed. The Promoter gave assurances on movement of construction traffic through the village.
Chetwode
88. Chetwode is an historic small village whose quite widely separated habitations will be severed by the line. Rt Hon John Bercow MP and Aylesbury Vale District Council underlined residents’ worries about the potential separation of residents in the community, and about noise impacts and effects on important and long-standing institutions such as the ancient church. We listened carefully to these concerns and we examined the noise impacts. We asked the Promoter for a report and detailed costings on possibilities for mitigation. We heard that tunnel options offering substantial increases in noise protection would cost between 14 and 24 times more than noise barrier options. A green bridge option would cost at least four times more while offering only minimal additional noise protection and arguably only minor landscape and integration benefits. Although we concluded that additional costs of that order would not be proportionate, we stipulated that there should be noise barrier protection extending to both ends of the village, at an additional cost of £3m.
Twyford
89. Twyford residents expressed concern about noise impacts from the route. The route has already been moved to reduce noise impacts. The local church is within the lowest observed adverse effect level for noise together with eight properties. In response to our request at the time of the school’s appearance before us, the Promoter wrote to the Twyford Church of England school with assurances about maintenance of access provision. To allow one of the two roads to be open during construction, works on School Hill and West Street will not be carried out simultaneously. Perry Hill will be open throughout. We ask the Promoter to ensure that concerns about access to medical provision at Steeple Claydon are addressed.
Calvert and Steeple Claydon
90. Calvert is the location for the proposed infrastructure maintenance depot and will be a construction railhead. The permanent site will occupy some 37ha. Construction works will occupy some 146ha, taking place over approximately nine years, we heard concerns about the cumulative impacts of construction, including from spoil placement and materials stockpiling. Residents were worried about access to vital local services in Steeple Claydon. They pressed for some quid pro quo from the impact of the project—in particular in the form of broadband provision.
A706 (35) HOL/00530/0070 34 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16
91. Trains will run at their maximum speed in the area. Some local properties are predicted to experience noise above the lowest observed adverse effect levels (‘LOAEL’). A 5m noise barrier will be constructed for operation, with early planting of tree screening. There will be funding of £1m to support measures for further mitigation beyond that stipulated in the environmental statement. The operational site will need 24-hour lighting provision. Lighting use will be minimised consistent with functioning of the site. Known technology will be deployed to reduce light spillage. This should be the best available. Lighting provision will satisfy environmental guidance for a ‘dark sky’ installation.
92. We heard that assistance will be provided with accessibility between Calvert and Steeple Claydon. We address requests for broadband in the route-wide section of our report.
93. We were not convinced that the Promoter should be required to fund a possible railway station on the East-West rail link although we fully understand why interested parties may want to pursue discussion on this.
94. Clive Higgins has a business at Steeple Claydon. His concern was about potential effects on access of a new overbridge crossing the East-West rail link, The Promoter said that its design choices were constrained by engineering requirements on the north side of the railway. We would like the Promoter to revisit this to see whether there are ways to secure better access provision for Mr Higgins.
95. The Promoter has provided Great Moor Sailing Club with a report which should allay their concerns about access during and after construction.
FCC waste transfer station
96. Calvert is the location of two significant pieces of waste disposal infrastructure operated by FCC: an energy from waste (‘EFW’) centre, and a rail-to-road transfer station for transferring waste from an existing railway to a site adjacent the EFW centre. The transfer station is quite close to the residential community.
97. The impact of the proposed HS2 scheme on the transfer facility would include the need to relocate FCC’s sidings nearer to Calvert and to build a new overbridge. FCC was concerned that those changes could expose it to claims for nuisance through their potential impact on the community (although the Promoter has forward with assurances on FCC’s possible financial exposure). It proposed an alternative, new site for the transfer station, nearer the EFW centre and further from Calvert. This option has the support of the landowner, the Claydon Estate. The difficulty is that there are protected Bechstein and other bat populations in the woodland on the alternative, southern site.
98. Rt Hon John Bercow MP and Calvert Green Parish Council were among those who pressed for a solution to recognise the concerns of Calvert residents while accommodating environmental protections. FCC wanted the alternative site to be promoted by an additional provision. That would probably delay passage of the Bill. We said that we wanted to see the alternative, southern site brought to fruition if possible. We wanted the Promoter to concentrate its mind on how to accommodate the protected bat species through alternative planting, connectivity and other mitigation measures.
A706 (36) HOL/00530/0071 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16 35
99. The Promoter suggested promotion of a Transport and Works Act Order (or appropriate planning permissions) to seek to accomplish the same outcome, subject to environmental consent being forthcoming. It has agreed to fund that promotion, subject to internal departmental review.
100. There are clear advantages to local residents and to FCC for the sidings to be located at the identified southern site, without difficulty for the rail project per se. We recognise the contributions made on all sides in achieving agreements and assurances that have come close to resolving all issues or to agreeing how remaining points or future problems will be decided.
101. We are grateful to the petitioners and to the promoters for their clear response to the request we made for more to be agreed. They have made sensible suggestions on how this report could deal with remaining points. We conclude that their cooperation and discussions on specific problems are likely to make further or complete progress before consideration in the Lords. While restating our strong preference for the southern site, we do not try to impose, or to anticipate what the parties can best decide together. Reasonable requests by FCC should be compatible with the Promoter’s proportionate concern for the public purse. We emphasise that the potential benefits of the southern location to the people of Calvert should be fully taken into account. The Claydon Estate owns other land in this area of the line. It sought reductions in land take and greater connectivity of woodland. We hope these can be achieved.
Quainton and Waddesdon
102. The A41 runs through Waddesdon and will be used for construction traffic. AP2 has reduced the extent of mass haul through the area. We heard arguments for either a temporary or permanent relief road to bypass the village. Opinion among local interested parties was divided. A temporary road would cost in the region of £4m and was not believed by the Promoter to constitute good value for money as it would leave provide no lasting benefit. Residents have requested a cost-benefit analysis for a permanent relief road which the Promoter will produce shortly. This will take account of environmental effects.
103. We were not convinced that there should be any change to the Promoter’s proposed road alignment at Quainton.
104. Properties at Doddershall owned by Mr Christopher Prideaux and his son Mr David Prideaux will be significantly affected by the line. The Promoter has worked with them to achieve substantial improvements in the effect of the project, including on land take. We applaud those efforts. We hope that other outstanding issues in relation to this estate will be similarly resolved.
105. Further down the line, at Sedrup, petitioners sought sympathetic consideration of bunding. AP4 proposed enhanced mitigation earthworks. The Promoter explained that further bunds may create a flood risk. We ask that noise protection in the area be sensitively designed.
A706 (37) HOL/00530/0072 36 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16
Aylesbury and Stoke Mandeville
106. We note that communities in and around Stoke Mandeville would not have welcomed greater intrusion of the railway potentially resulting from certain longer tunnel options as proposed by Chilterns petitioners.
107. Many petitioners were exercised about the potential volume of traffic around Aylesbury, which lacks any ring road. The Bill contains passive provisions to permit a future ring road.17 The Promoter will undertake its works on the Chilterns railway line to Princes Risborough in such a way as to permit future provision for a ring road.
108. AP2 proposed better screening and bunding of the A4010 Stoke Mandeville bypass to alleviate noise impacts at locations such as Booker Park school. The Promoter has offered to fund up to £150,000 of modelling of traffic effects in relation to the A4010 Stoke Mandeville bypass. If the modelling demonstrates unacceptable impacts, the Promoter will provide assistance with an extension to the bypass.
109. The Buckinghamshire traffic management plan will need to address the importance of access to Stoke Mandeville hospital.
110. There is limited green space amenity to the west of Aylesbury. We asked the Promoter to collaborate with local authorities and landowners and reach an understanding on a proposed linear park. Since the hearing the Promoter has provided an assurance acceptable to Aylesbury Vale District Council that £500,000 will be made available for the provision of public access, subject to agreement with relevant landowners.We would like the Promoter to take another look at screening and noise mitigation of the Stoke Mandeville maintenance loops for those in nearby communities. In any event, residents should receive as much early certainty as possible about the height of the railway at this point. We asked that there be some demonstration of the effects of passing over high- speed points. This may help to allay concerns.
111. We understand the Promoter is in continuing discussions with Aylesbury Park Golf Course about the prospect of an advance payment to provide relief for ongoing business costs. This is with a view to establishing whether there such a payment is justified and to support the necessary business case, if appropriate. The parties are in active negotiations concerning the basis of the wider compensation claim.
The Chilterns
The Bill scheme
112. The Bill proposed a 13.4km deep-bored tunnel under the southern section of the Chilterns—to be tunnelled northward from the M25. Going north, the line would run over ground, partly in cutting and partly on embankments and viaducts. The viaducts would be at Wendover Dean and Small Dean. A green tunnel would have been constructed at South Heath. The line would then run west of Wendover in green tunnel, emerging from the Chilterns to the north of Wendover. Tunnel vent shafts would be required at Chalfont St Giles, Amersham and Great Missenden.
17 That is, the railway will be built so as to permit a future ring road.
A706 (38) HOL/00530/0073 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16 37
Long tunnel options
113. Petitioners put the case for a tunnel extending under the entire Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (‘AONB’).18 Among them was the Member for Chesham and Amersham, Rt Hon Cheryl Gillan MP. Petitioners relied on the AONB’s statutory protection. They argued that a longer tunnel would provide enhanced environmental protection, would avoid visual intrusion into the landscape (by the Wendover Dean and Small Dean viaducts in particular), and would mitigate noise. They were concerned about construction impacts including spoil placement and traffic effects. The Promoter argued that the proposed route had already been designed to mitigate adverse effects.
114. Two longer tunnel options were initially proposed.
115. CLTi (Chilterns Long Tunnel with intervention gap)19 comprised a more level route under the Chilterns than the Promoter’s scheme, emerging further north of Wendover than the Promoter’s Wendover green tunnel. The total tunnel length with this scheme would be 29km.
116. Proponents of CLTi argued that its smoother vertical alignment under the Chilterns would save energy costs. Tim Smart of HS2 Ltd explained that the major driver of operating costs for tunnels was not gradient but air resistance.20 We had already heard in relation to Hillingdon’s tunnel proposals that tunnels are generally more expensive to maintain than surface route. We noted that CLTi might also affect the location of the maintenance loops at Stoke Mandeville.
117. T3i comprised a 23.9km long tunnel with a closer vertical alignment to that of the Promoter’s scheme. Its intervention gap was to be at Wendover Dean. Like CLTi, it was to be bored and fitted out from two ends. The case for T3i was presented by the Chiltern Ridges Action Group (‘CRAG’).21
118. The Promoter told us that powering a tunnel boring machine from north of Wendover might not be feasible. A 9km-long high-voltage power line might be needed. The Promoter also argued that construction of the tunnel would not eliminate traffic impacts within the Chilterns because of the need for an intervention gap. It could substantially exacerbate traffic effects at the northern end of the tunnel bore because of the need for spoil removal.
119. There were varying assessments of land amenity and social value and of the costs of business and community disruption caused by potential traffic disruption from the Promoter’s scheme. The Promoter explained that the project economics included a £1bn cost item for environmental effects of the line as a whole, and for their mitigation.
120. Proponents of the tunnel options argued with some merit that visual and noise mitigation of an intervention gap would be easier than for viaducts. They argued that the tunnel would involve a smaller land take than the Promoter’s scheme by some 10%—for instance, by eliminating the need for balancing ponds. Proponents of the tunnel argued that it could avoid potentially costly hydrogeological issues at Wendover. The Promoter
18 The main case was heard from 13 to 21 July 2015 19 An intervention gap is a surface part of the tunnel required in part for emergency access 20 Oral evidence taken on 15 July, HC (2015–16) 129, para 259 [Mr Tim Smart, HS2 Ltd] 21 See proceedings of 20 July 2015
A706 (39) HOL/00530/0074 38 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16
observed contingency provision had been made for such issues in its costings. We return to hydrogeology issues below.
121. The net additional cost of CLTi was estimated at £485m. The Promoter’s estimate of the net additional tunnel costs of its T3i proposal was £349m. Those figures were attributable principally to tunnel construction and fitting out costs, which were high in comparison with the potential savings from not building embankments and viaducts.
122. We were sceptical about costs estimates from all parties. We do not believe it was justifiable to say that the Promoter went out of its way to mark up costs of certain options.22
123. In weighing the case for a tunnel throughout the entire AONB, we considered the extent of mitigation of the Promoter’s scheme in the AONB compared with that offered by the tunnel options, the feasibility of the tunnel options, the traffic effects of each scheme, and cost. We had in mind that substantially greater relative benefits might derive from a shorter tunnel extension option which we consider below. We announced on 22 July 2015 that we had not been convinced by the arguments for a tunnel under the entire AONB as presented by the bodies which might have been expected to present the most persuasive case. We remained of that view having heard other petitioners in the autumn of 2015.
124. A longer tunnel proposal that emerged later was TBOW (‘tunnel bored one way’).23 This would involve boring northward from the M25 under the entire AONB to north of Wendover. It would have avoided certain construction impacts north of the AONB although not necessarily without effects elsewhere. The economics of it relied on successfully arguing that HS2 Ltd’s tunnelling rate assumptions were unduly conservative. Failing that, it was acknowledged that the project would be delayed.
125. Comparative tunnelling rates were discussed in great detail but we found no reason to doubt the validity of the Promoter’s estimates. Their realistic caution was the right approach. On TBOW’s case, the net additional cost of their proposal was £42.5m. The Promoter estimated that, on its assessment of tunnelling rates and the consequent costs, the overall net additional cost would be £412m. As before, we engaged scepticism. There were other choices before us with much more clearly defined costs and benefits. We decided that the case for the TBOW proposal had not been made out.
Shorter tunnel options
South Heath and Leather Lane tunnel extensions
126. In broad terms, two other options were proposed for extending the principal bored Chilterns tunnel northward: a 2.6km extension to South Heath (proposed by the Promoter), and a 4.1km extension to Leather Lane (proposed by the Residents Environmental Protection Association). Among the notable benefits of the first were substantially reduced construction effects at South Heath through removal of the need for an excavated green tunnel, a reduction in the number of tunnel portals, and the elimination of impacts on the Mantles Wood ancient woodland. The project’s effects on the village of Hyde End would be essentially eliminated. A further vent shaft would require construction, on Frith Hill. The emergence of the bored tunnel further north-west would require different construction
22 Oral evidence taken on 16 September, HC (2015–16) 129, para 167 [Mark Hendrick MP] 23 The case for this was heard over several days, principally on 25 November 2015
A706 (40) HOL/00530/0075 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16 39
access arrangements which would have some impact on the village of Great Missenden (principally traffic effects and the visual impact of a haul road, which we discuss in the section on roads below).
127. We favoured the South Heath extension option and directed an additional provision to implement it. We took into account the benefits for Mantles Wood, the overall benefit to the AONB, the reduction in requirement for agricultural land, and the significantly reduced construction noise impact on South Heath. The costs of the extension are estimated at £47m. The Independent Assessor’s summary of responses to the AP4 consultation notes that the extension is perceived as a major improvement.24
128. The operational noise and other benefits of AP4 compared with the Bill scheme were disputed. Modelling predicted AP4 would eliminate significant noise effects on a large number of South Heath homes.
129. Arguments for an extension of the bored tunnel to Leather Lane were pressed right up to the end of our proceedings, notably by residents of Potter Row, a lane running parallel to the section of the line constructed north of the bored tunnel portal. South Heath residents argued that additional tunnelling would further reduce the operational noise impact on South Heath, but we were not convinced that noise impacts will be as significant as the community appears to believe. There are some 30–40 properties on Potter Row. The potential benefits of a longer tunnel for this area were much harder to perceive than for the area immediately to the south. We heard that the Leather Lane extension would cost of the order of £40m on top of the South Heath option. We were not convinced that there would be significant environmental benefit. Our view was that it was not justified.
130. To the extent that the northern Chilterns portal occupies a bigger footprint under AP4, we would expect the Promoter to seek if possible to alleviate that at design stage; for instance, through the use of retained cuttings. This might help reduce the effect on Grim’s Ditch, which is a scheduled ancient monument. The Promoter told us that it would seek to mitigate the visual impact of the portal. The Promoter has said that it will consult on where to install noise barriers within the cutting north of the tunnel portal.
24 HS2 Independent Assessor, High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Additional Provision (AP4): Report of the Independent Assessor on comments on the Supplementary Environmental Statement and AP4 Environmental Statement, HC (2015–16) 846, page 9
A706 (41) HOL/00530/0076 40 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16
HS2 Committee visit to Wendover
Wendover
131. Petitioners from Wendover were concerned about operational and construction noise effects—including at St Mary’s church and the Chiltern Way Federation school, possible vibration damage to old buildings lacking foundations, and visual impacts. They were worried about blight on local businesses and loss of tourism. They were especially worried about peak noise.
132. Rt Hon David Lidington MP pressed the case for a bored or mined tunnel instead of the cut-and-cover tunnel proposed in the Bill. Alternatively, residents wanted a covered section south of Wendover, including the viaduct at Small Dean. When we gave our preliminary view that a long tunnel through the entire AONB was not justified, we said that we were minded to recommend a southward extension of the proposed Wendover tunnel unless the Promoter produced a very convincing scheme of further noise mitigation.
133. The Promoter came forward with a proposal in SES4 for a short southward tunnel extension and enhanced noise barrier protection. Significantly, the Promoter indicated that it would also pursue installation of protection against existing noise from the A413. This will be developed in cooperation with the highway authority. It is predicted to reduce the cumulative overall noise levels to the east of the railway to below those which are currently experienced.
134. Wendover residents disputed the benefits of SES4. They disliked the visual intrusion that may derive from the southward tunnel extension and from greater noise barrier protection. There is a trade-off between effectiveness of barriers and visual intrusion.
A706 (42) HOL/00530/0077 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16 41
The Promoter has offered to provide funds to Aylesbury Vale District Council for visual mitigation of barriers.
135. Under the Bill scheme, 18 dwellings in Wendover were predicted to experience noise effects at or above the lowest observed adverse level (on an averaged basis), and 392 to experience maximum noise effects at or above the lowest observed adverse level. With the SES4 scheme, those figures are reduced to zero and 122. The latter figure is 19 higher than for an alternative mitigation scheme with higher, more visually intrusive barriers.25 As we have already indicated, there is a trade-off between mitigating noise and visual effects. We incline to the view that the visual impact of taller barriers at the north of Wendover may be less acceptable than noise effects.
136. The Promoter has allocated some £250,000 to noise protection measures for St Mary’s church. Representatives of the church were not satisfied with the SES4 mitigation. Among their requests was a design error assumption of 5dB and a radically higher mitigation fund for the church. We forbear from commenting on the latter, which exceeded by a factor of three the amount that we heard was spent on improving the church as a concert venue.26 We believe the church will sufficiently benefit from the SES4 mitigation package including the protection it provides in relation to noise from the A413.The cost of the SES4 proposal will be approximately £10m. Protection from noise from the A413 will cost in the region of £1m. The latter will provide direct benefit to the church. In comparison, we heard that the costs of bored and mined tunnel would be upwards of £200m. We do not believe that a bored or mined tunnel would be justified. We believe that the SES4 proposal constitutes a proportionate and adequate package of mitigation for Wendover.
AONB
137. The Chilterns AONB is protected under statute. Protection was established in 1965, under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. The current protection derives from section 82(1) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. Section 85 of that Act imposes a duty on public bodies, when acting so as to affect an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, to have regard to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the AONB’s natural beauty.
138. The Promoter argued that the Secretary of State had fulfilled the duty in statute by mitigating the design of the railway in the Chilterns AONB.27
139. Under the Bill scheme, 13.3km of the route through the Chilterns was to be in tunnel. Under AP4 this is extended to 15.9km. This will result in some 60% of the route through the Chilterns from the M25 being tunnelled.
140. The major visible elements of the railway in the Chilterns will be the viaducts at Wendover Dean and Small Dean and the approaches to them. A large part of the rest of the over ground line will become part of the landscape although it will be visible to those crossing it. A total of some 4km of footpaths will be diverted. The Promoter has taken steps to avoid ancient woodland and our suggested tunnel extension will result in the preservation of substantially more. We acknowledge that there will be major temporary
25 A2081(8) 26 Oral evidence taken on 30 June, HC (2015–16) 129, para 14 [Rt Hon David Lidington MP said that the cost had been £950,000] 27 The case on this was heard from 13 to 21 July 2015
A706 (43) HOL/00530/0078 42 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16
construction impacts of the railway at the viaducts, at Wendover, and in the area of Bury Farm. There will be significant traffic impacts during construction, although these would to some extent accrue from any scheme.
141. On balance, we do not believe that these mitigated effects represent an intrusion into the AONB that is inconsistent with its status, having regard to the size of the AONB as a whole and the significance of the project. HS1 in Kent is a demonstration of the ability of high-speed rail to blend into the landscape.
142. A number of residents will be significantly affected by construction and operation, such as those near viaducts. Provision for them should begin as soon as possible. There should be regular engagement with them. Successful and sympathetic design of the viaducts at Wendover Dean and Small Dean will be critical to the reputation of the project both at completion and in decades to come.
143. The Promoter has agreed to the establishment of a Chilterns AONB Review Group whose members will include Buckinghamshire County Council, Chiltern District Council, Wycombe District Council, Aylesbury Vale District Council, the Chilterns Conservation Board, Natural England and HS2 Ltd. The Group will identify measures for environmental enhancement in the Chilterns in addition to those already proposed in the environmental statement. Items for discussion will include woodland planting, balancing ponds, design of footpath diversions, ecological and landscape connectivity, viaduct design and vent shaft design. The Promoter will provide funding for the group of up to £3m.
144. The Promoter has said that it will use reasonable endeavours to ensure that earthworks will be sensitively integrated into the landscape, such as by responding to natural contours. It will preserve or record any findings at the Grim’s Ditch ancient monument.
Hydrogeology
145. Chilterns petitioners were concerned about several hydrogeological issues. Principally, these were: possible disruption by the green tunnel to the flow of underground spring water that feeds local watercourses and canals at Wendover, the potential for water loss to the Misbourne caused by tunnelling, and pollution effects. The Promoter was aware that there might be a need to install pumping facilities to address the first of these. (The Wendover Arm Canal feeds some 1m gallons of water a day into the Grand Union Canal.) We heard about ways to address the other two. Construction approval will require input from the Environment Agency. We want the Promoter to address the matter of hydrogeological surveying as a priority.
Roads in north Buckinghamshire and the Chilterns
Location of the AP4 haul road
146. Under AP4, construction traffic from the north tunnel portal would obtain access to the road network via a haul road onto the A413. Concerns were expressed about the effect of this on local traffic movements. Petitioners from Great Missenden in particular were worried also about safety—especially as there is a nearby school—about the visibility of the road from the village, and about effects on the local economy. Many petitioners told us that the A413 is already congested in peak periods at this point.
A706 (44) HOL/00530/0079 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16 43
147. In consultation with the local authorities, the Promoter is considering another option in the form of a haul road further north. We heard that this may be more difficult to build. It would require construction of a new roundabout which may itself disrupt traffic flow. Efficient movement of construction materials to and from the Hunts Green spoil placement site is important and this may or may not favour a different haul road location. (The haul road will be used for tunnelling machinery as well as excavated material.) We encourage the county council and the Promoter to find the solution with least impact, taking account of local opinions. The solution must be safe, and make allowance for vulnerable residents and road users.
Other roads issues
148. The Promoter has acknowledged that further work is needed on traffic solutions in Buckinghamshire. A total of 24 junction capacity issues and 47 junction safety issues have been identified as needing consideration. A process of further work has been agreed with Buckinghamshire County Council and Aylesbury Vale District Council. We heard that possible solutions include temporary signalling, alteration of junction boundaries, and management of site traffic ingress and egress. Issues with the Beaconsfield bypass have been resolved by reassurances about the commencement of mass haul operations.
149. Given the possible pressure on traffic in the Chilterns, the Promoter may want to consider the idea of developing a traffic ‘app’ so that residents and business can obtain real-time information on traffic.
Vent shafts
150. There will be vent shafts in the Chilterns at Chalfont St Giles, Amersham, Little Missenden and Frith Hill. Construction should have only moderate impacts but we note the need for careful management at the Little Missenden site which is some way into countryside. Design should be undertaken in sympathy with the local setting and with local involvement in choice of profile and materials in all cases.
Pylons
151. Petitioners from the Misbourne valley pressed for mitigation of the overall effect of the railway through removal of pylons and undergrounding of high-voltage cables. They pointed to recent precedent in other Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The Promoter observed that undergrounding would cost approximately ten times more, and would not be without its own environmental effects, such as additional land requirement at the point where cables enter or emerge from underground. Despite that, we believe that where new infrastructure intrudes on sensitive landscape there is merit in listening to what local inhabitants believe to be the appropriate balance, and in considering removal of pylons in appropriate cases.
Other issues
152. The Hunts Green spoil placement area is required to manage the movement of spoil onto highways. The Promoter should seek to minimise and mitigate its effects with
A706 (45) HOL/00530/0080 44 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16
precautions against flooding and visual screening (if that is possible and desirable in view of the site location). Its planned height and extent should be reduced as much as possible.
153. Public rights of way are an important amenity for the Chilterns. Both temporary right of way diversions and restored paths should take into account their importance to the community and the economy. We heard a sensible suggestion for displaying maps with diversions and new routes at local rail stations to help visitors.
154. Paul Fullagar runs horse training premises at Frith Hill. We expect a sensible arrangement to be reached with him in relation to access and the possible effect of HGV movements on his business, if the haul road to the north portal site remains as proposed in AP4.
Heathrow
Heathrow spur
155. The Bill contained provisions that could have been used to provide passive provision for a future spur from the railway to Heathrow. The Secretary of State has confirmed that the spur will not be built as part of HS2 Phases One or Two,28 but there remains a risk of blight on properties on the trajectory of the previously envisaged spur. We direct the Promoter not to use the Bill powers to implement passive provision for a Heathrow spur. To avoid confusion, the Promoter should take immediate steps to ensure that relevant landowners and communities are fully informed of the change.
Heathrow Express depot relocation
156. Building the Old Oak Common facility requires the Heathrow Express train shed depot to be relocated. Professor MacNaughton explained that Langley, near Slough, had been the preferred option for that relocation,29 but that interaction with the timing of Crossrail construction had been expected to block that choice. The Bill as presented therefore proposed relocation to the North Pole sidings in north Kensington, which were previously used for Eurostar trains.
157. The Crossrail problem was overcome by postponing the relocation date for the Heathrow Express depot to 2019, after which Crossrail construction will be complete. In the meantime, it was realised that there would in any case have been electrical operational difficulties in allowing Heathrow Express trains to use the North Pole sidings. As a result, AP2 proposed relocation to Langley, instead of to the North Pole sidings. There were petitions against that relocation from interested parties including Slough Borough Council, Fiona Mactaggart MP, Langley, Slough and Iver residents, Iver Parish Council, Colne Valley Park Community Interest Company and local boat owners on the Slough Arm Canal. Their concerns included obstruction of alternative regeneration uses for the proposed site, the effects of construction traffic—including on local air quality, and the visual and other impacts of the depot on canal boat residents. The canal boat owners were aggrieved not to have been recognised earlier as affected parties. That was indeed an unfortunate failing on the part of the Promoter.
28 HC Deb, 9 March 2015, 225879 [Commons written answer] 29 See transcript for 26 Jan 2016. The proposed site for the depot is on land formerly used for railway use.
A706 (46) HOL/00530/0081 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16 45
158. The canal boat residents may need to be rehoused during construction. They have a legitimate expectation that such rehousing will be convenient, comfortable and suitable to accommodate what may be unusual practical needs. As far as reasonably possible the effect on the community of boat owners as a whole should be recognised and addressed. Non-essential intrusion into the character of the area such as by removal of any trees lining the canal should be avoided.
159. Fiona Mactaggart MP and Rt Hon Dominic Grieve MP reinforced the concerns we heard about from residents in Slough, Langley and Iver on the volume of local heavy goods traffic and on the already poor local air quality. In addition, Mrs Mactaggart expressed concern about dust from contaminated land.
160. The Promoter has said that it will contribute £1.4m to the costs of a relief road in Iver to reflect additional costs of bridging over the railway. Bangors Road South was identified as particularly dangerous for heavy traffic. Dominic Grieve welcomed the position under AP2 whereby a maximum of 15% of HS2 construction traffic—some 8 HGVs per hour— would use Bangors Road South during the 12-month peak construction period. He pressed for a stronger commitment. We expect the local highway authority to address this, such as through the traffic management plan or weight limits on non-HS2 vehicles. The Promoter stated that it would endeavour not to use this road at all unless it became really necessary.
161. Everfortune Ltd and Thorney Lane LLP are owners of land to be used for the Heathrow Express relocation. They proposed alternative sites west of Paddington (including the North Pole sidings). Professor MacNaughton told us why those were not feasible for operational and maintenance reasons.30 There is an issue relating to the extent of indemnity against liability for the contaminated land, which we expect the parties to be able to resolve. Failing that, it can be raised before our colleagues in the Lords.
162. These petitioners were also concerned about the extent to which their land will be taken for environmental mitigation. (Some 30ha will be taken for that purpose, compared with about 3-4ha for the actual depot.) We request that the Promoter reconsider whether this extent of land use is necessary.
163. Colne Valley Park CIC was concerned about the future of green belt land in this area. The park receives some two million visits per year. They wanted assurance that land proposed for floodplain mitigation and woodland habitat creation to the east of the proposed depot will remain earmarked as such should ownership change. They sought a liaison panel for all construction projects in the area around Langley, to allow residents to communicate with these projects, and a fund for measures to benefit the community. Rt Hon Dominic Grieve MP emphasised the importance of the park as an amenity for the west of London.
164. A solution is needed, taking account of ultimate land ownership, to address cumulative impacts of construction and to provide some certainty in relation to the green belt for those who enjoy its benefits.
165. The Promoter has agreed to provide substantial (£6.25m) funding for public realm and highways improvements in this locality, and for a study of alternative railway land in
30 See above
A706 (47) HOL/00530/0082 46 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16
the area that might be used for some of the regeneration purposes previously earmarked for the depot site. This is a welcome announcement
166. On the proposed western rail to Heathrow tunnel access, local Members of Parliament and residents argued for better coordination between that project and HS2 construction. Professor MacNaughton told us that the link was still at design stage. The Promoter has agreed to cooperate with other interested parties.
167. BNP Paribas can pursue their arguments about alternative road access to the F sidings in north Kensington before our Lords colleagues. We heard that a review will be forthcoming in May 2016.
Conclusion
168. Relocating the Heathrow Express depot has raised difficult issues. Other options appear not to be viable. On the basis of the assurances offered by the Promoter we conclude that the AP2 proposal for relocation to Langley should proceed.
A706 (48) HOL/00530/0083 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16 47
A706 (49) HOL/00530/0084 48 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16
The Colne Valley, Hillingdon, Denham and environs
The Bill scheme
169. Under the Bill scheme, the line will emerge from the Chilterns tunnel immediately south-east of the M25 and run over ground as far as Ruislip, crossing the Colne Valley on a 3.4km viaduct. Large construction compounds in this area will be located near West Hyde and at Harvil Road in Ickenham. A vent shaft will be constructed at South Ruislip, near the tube station.
The tunnel case
170. Petitioners presented arguments for a 6.6km tunnel under the Colne Valley instead of a viaduct.31 In pressing that case, they relied principally on the viaduct’s visual intrusiveness, the noise impact of trains crossing it, and environmental effects. A number of environmental risks were cited. These included greater flood risk and possible groundwater contamination through potential damage to aquifers caused by pile driving to create the viaduct piers.
Impact of the viaduct
171. That the viaduct will be clearly visible was not in dispute, though the Promoter’s route succeeds in tucking the north-western end of the viaduct into wooded landscape. We kept in mind that railway architecture can have its own aesthetic merit. We were conscious that the Colne Valley landscape is a man-made one, with lakes that are the result of many years of gravel extraction. The man-made landscape is nevertheless green and pleasant, and an important amenity for a large number of people.
172. With mitigation, the penetration of train noise into the vicinity of the viaduct is envisaged to extend to some 400m to 600m from the line, assessed in terms of lowest observed adverse impact contours.32 There will be an adverse effect on the tranquility of the area. The Promoter emphasised that its modelling was based on a reasonable worst case for noise travel, including adverse wind directions and temperatures. Actual effects would at times be more localised. A small number of significant local adverse effects on residents could be mitigated. Sound reflection from the lake surfaces would not be perceptible because of the minimal (50ms) interval between the arrival of direct and reflected sounds.
173. We were not convinced that appropriate engineering cannot protect aquifers. In any event, the tunnel option would require a 700m safety intervention gap which might present similar challenges. Neither were we convinced that the viaduct would increase flood risk. The Promoter will take precautions.
174. Certain other arguments lacked credibility. Comparison of viaduct construction with the HS1 Medway viaduct failed to take account of the parallel M2 road building project. The Medway is a tidal river. The project to cross it with multiple viaducts was inevitably more intrusive. We were far from convinced that maintaining a tunnel would be cheaper than maintaining a surface route given the associated complexities of ventilating, cooling
31 See proceedings of 15–16 June 2015 32 See the noise section of the route-wide chapter
A706 (50) HOL/00530/0085 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16 49
and providing access. On balance, the evidence was that sale of tunnel arisings (to offset the cost of tunnel construction) would not be commercially viable.
Tunnel construction issues
175. We heard that tunnel boring from a proposed site at Transport for London’s Ruislip depot would present serious and expensive engineering challenges that could delay the project. Building a tunnel would not eliminate construction traffic. (Much of the anticipated construction traffic is associated not with the viaduct but with the Northolt tunnel which will run east from Ruislip.) Road closures would still be required. It is clear that the area already has a huge traffic and consequent air quality problem, as emphasised to us by Nick Hurd MP and Rt Hon Dominic Grieve MP.
176. We heard about the relative costs of constructing the tunnel and the viaduct. HS2 Ltd estimated the net additional cost of building the design of tunnel proposed by Peter Brett Associates at £583m.33 They estimated at £314m the net additional cost of building a different tunnel design with a shorter intervention gap, avoiding use of the TfL Ruislip depot for tunnel construction.34
177. Estimates that the net additional cost could be as low as £64m failed to include critical cost items such as the cost of moving and disposing of spoil and property values, which we heard would alone push the net additional cost above £200m. Adding the cost of vent shafts, tunnel systems and a more complex construction site with difficult geology raised the net further cost nearer £300m. On top of that were the cost of an intervention gap and the costs of possible delayed construction from more difficult work. The total could be nearer £500m.35
178. Even with a massive contingency for environmental effects of the viaduct, and eliminating the cost of the not-to-be-constructed Heathrow spur, estimates of the net additional cost of a tunnel over a viaduct exceeded £200m. We did not direct further studies because we doubted that these would converge on a figure significantly less than £200m.
179. We announced on 15 July 2015 that we had not been convinced by arguments for a tunnel. We directed reports on options for relocating the construction railhead from Harvil Road and/or adjustments to access roads to the railhead and construction compounds. We called for significant further interventions on traffic issues. We said we needed more reassurance on traffic modelling. We return to this below. Evidence we heard subsequently did not dissuade us from the view we had announced on 15 July 2015. We believe the viaduct is the right option.
180. Although the number of residential properties close to the viaduct is not high, we recognise that a limited number of nearby residents will be adversely affected by it. Among them are canal boat owners and other residents along the Grand Union Canal. Their needs should be accommodated. The Promoter should undertake further baseline noise assessments and ensure there is proper monitoring of noise during construction
33 P6204(44) 34 P6202(13) 35 See transcript of 16 June 2015
A706 (51) HOL/00530/0086 50 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16
and on operation. Visual screening from construction work may also be appropriate. The viaduct construction sites must be properly secured.
Viaduct design
181. Stations aside, the Colne Valley viaduct will be the most significant visible engineering feature of the HS2 Phase One route. It will have international significance and its design should reflect that. Having argued against a viaduct, local people deserve that its design be respectful and respectable. We hope the Promoter will be open to that challenge. Sympathetically and imaginatively design, the viaduct can become a suitable symbol for the country’s future high-speed railway network.
Traffic
182. The Hillingdon, Ickenham and Ruislip localities clearly have a serious traffic and air quality problem. We heard that it has high numbers travelling to work by car and high population growth. There is a particular problem associated with commuting on a north- south axis. There were significant variation in estimates of the economic cost of traffic delays but that there is a risk of cost was not in doubt. A tunnel would not be a panacea.
183. The Promoter already had proposals to address a number of traffic pressure points, including slip roads to the M25 from the West Hyde compound to alleviate pressure on the A412. In response to our preliminary decision on the tunnel the Promoter undertook a detailed look at measures to address traffic issues, particularly construction traffic to and from the proposed Harvil Road compound.
184. In AP4, the Promoter proposed a custom haul road as the primary route from the A40 to the compound instead of Harvil Road itself. The Promoter told us that the haul road offered substantial (significantly more than 50%) benefits to HS2 traffic volumes on Swakeleys Road and Harvil Road. We have heard that the sidings at Harvil Road will also be completed earlier to permit more spoil removal by rail. There are further proposals including possible signalisation at important roundabouts and management of traffic movements to avoid peak commuting times.
185. We heard argument in favour of an alternative, more westerly haul road from the A40 to the Harvil Road site, which would avoid intruding on golf club land. HS2 explained that this would take longer to build, exacerbating the traffic situation, and would interfere with the A40. We were not convinced that that alternative would work. A haul road alternative proposed by London Wildlife Trust slightly to the east will be examined. Although this would intrude somewhat more into ancient woodland at Pinnocks Wood it would reduce the impact on another nearby SSSI.
186. Although overall it produced benefits, AP4 actually increased predicted traffic volumes on certain roads. The Promoter acknowledged that its current modelling predicted some exceeding of capacity. When Nick Hurd MP appeared before us in late January 2016, the Promoter conceded that a satisfactory solution to address HS2’s impact was ‘not there yet’. Significant improvements have been achieved, but more progress is needed.
187. Transport for London and London Borough of Hillingdon have given feedback on HS2 modelling. The Mayor of London and Nick Hurd MP have sought an assurance
A706 (52) HOL/00530/0087 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16 51
that main roads will carry not more than 550 HGV movements per day. The Promoter is refining its approaches, for example on the capacity of Swakeleys Road roundabout. Studies will report in May 2016. The ability of Swakeleys roundabout to cope safely with construction traffic is critical. It is apparently already in breach of EU air quality limits. With project commencement due in 2017, credible traffic management plans including ways to deal with peak construction periods will need to follow swiftly thereafter.
188. Denham, although some distance from the line itself, has its own set of traffic issues which HS2 will exacerbate. Among these are congestion on the A412 and potential problems at Old Rectory Lane, Cheapside Lane and Tilehouse Lane, (which will be partly closed). The Promoter is funding assessments, for example to look at sensitive junctions on the A412. South Buckinghamshire District Council has accepted assurances. We heard that the Promoter will remedy any damage arising from temporary diversions. We believe the Promoter should be open to the idea of shuttle bus provision from Denham to important locations such as hospitals.
189. On the issue of the Lower Road factory ingress and egress to the Martin Baker premises, existing congestion locally means that assistance with provision of alternative or improved access may well become a matter for decision by the Secretary of State. The traffic analysis showed that HS2 is not expected to exacerbate it beyond single figure percentage increases. We do not believe it is a matter for the Promoter of this Bill but benefits would clearly flow from a new access road were the relevant authorities to pursue it.
Other construction issues
190. Other issues arise from the extent of construction and spoil placement sites in this area. AP4 petitioners from Harefield, Ickenham and Ruislip were concerned about the protracted periods of spoil placement use, fearing dust, pollution, blight and flood. These are justified worries. The Promoter has given assurances that spoil height should be no greater than 3m permanently or 5m temporarily. We want the spoil placement areas to be minimised in height and extent, to be properly screened, and for screening planting to start early. Local hedgerows should be protected. The needs of locals moving round the sites should be taken account of, for example with cycle paths. There should be regular community forums to provide feedback on contractor compliance with the construction code. We heard that the area around West Hyde is a frost pocket where sound travels. Sound barriers should be effective and visually sensitive. Top quality mitigation of conveyor belts removing tunnel spoil will be important not just in Hillingdon but at all project sites, both for sound and visual effects.
Amenities
191. The project will have a heavy environmental footprint in this area. Steps can be taken to leave a legacy of environmental improvement. Following the interim decision on the tunnel, the Promoter came forward with offers of funding of £3.25m for restoration works following construction. In view of the particular value of green space in and around Hillingdon, Denham, Ickenham, Harefield and Ruislip, we believe the aspiration of no net biodiversity loss should apply to this area as a case in its own right.
A706 (53) HOL/00530/0088 52 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16
192. Access to walks along and around the Grand Union Canal was a particular priority. We are pleased that London Borough of Hillingdon was offered satisfactory assurances by the Promoter on local public rights of way, including their restoration after construction. Better than satisfactory restoration of the West Hyde compound would be another way for the project to address local concerns for the long term.
193. A Colne Valley Park Regional Panel is to be established comprising local authorities, Natural England and the Hertfordshire and Middlesex Wildlife Trust, with an independent chair and funding from the Promoter. There will be consultation on its terms of reference. Through that body, the project should work to bequeath positive environmental legacies to Hillingdon and its environs. The panel may also want to consider projects such as improved user access, better visitor facilities and sensible footpath reconfigurations following HS2 construction. We hope that the Promoter will consider funding for those aspirations. There will also be assistance with effects on local golf facilities. We address the Hillingdon Outdoor Activities Centre separately.
Harefield
194. Harefield villagers shared the concerns of the area on traffic, particularly on its possible impact on business and access to the famous hospital. Construction traffic will not go through the village itself, although we heard that Harvil Road is considered part of the village. There were concerns about a large (25ha) sustainable placement site but AP4 has addressed those. A 3m-high noise barrier has been proposed to address noise impacts on 48 residential properties which were assessed as being subject to minor noise impacts.
195. For engineering reasons, a feeder station providing electrical power to the railway requires to be built near the village of South Harefield. Residents objected to its location at the northerly end of South Harefield Road, which provides a relatively rural approach to the village. They sought its relocation alongside the autotransformer station at Ickenham. Tim Smart of HS2 Ltd explained why this was not feasible.36 We brought pressure to bear on the Promoter to find a solution that would accommodate concerns. Subject to feasibility and an environmental assessment, the Promoter has provided an assurance that the feeder station will instead be relocated to a less obtrusive, more southerly location on South Harefield Road. We think the language qualifying this assurance by feasibility is reasonable. We welcome the progress made on relocation. We trust that a solution will be found for an acceptable relocation and appropriate mitigation screening.
Hillingdon Outdoor Activities Centre (HOAC)
196. HOAC is a sailing and outdoor activities centre situated on Harefield No. 2 lake, which is one of the Colne Valley lakes formed from gravel extraction. The proposed HS2 viaduct crosses the lake. Construction of the viaduct will take place from a site immediately adjacent to its premises. We heard a great deal about the value of this amenity, which is used by 40,000 people a year and has created the equivalent of 30 jobs. There was wide support for the work it undertakes with children, including disadvantaged children. There is also a rowing club.
197. HS2 Ltd’s position until 2014 had been that the centre might be able to continue in use during and after construction. The operators were adamant that this would not be 36 Oral evidence taken on 25 January 2016, HC (2015–16) 129
A706 (54) HOL/00530/0089 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16 53
feasible. Some of its coaching and camping activities require tranquility. Nick Hurd MP and the former Member for Uxbridge, Sir John Randall, pressed the need for a solution.
198. An alternative location for the centre has been identified at another gravel extraction site, in Denham. Planning consents are still required. The alternative location would not initially provide the same area of water as the current facility but there is potential for expansion to an area of similar size. The Promoter has given assurances of support in taking this forward, and for funding. We understand that the funds required are likely to be of the order of tens of millions of pounds. To permit a staged move, the Promoter has also given assurances that would allow the centre to remain active on its current site until 2018.
199. We welcome the work that has been done in developing this possible alternative for a valued and valuable amenity. We hope it comes to fruition. The way forward will be in determining the most that can be achieved and who can contribute. Subject to planning approvals being obtained in sufficient time, the Committee would wish to see HOAC relocated to the Denham Quarry Site, if HOAC decide that that is preferable to staying put.
Other issues
200. The Denham Water Ski clubhouse is located essentially underneath the north-western end of the proposed viaduct and will require relocating. We commend its owner on developing a successful undertaking which sits successfully alongside several artificially created sites of special scientific interest. The owner should expect cooperation from the Promoter in pursuing a planning application for an alternative clubhouse.
A706 (55) HOL/00530/0090 54 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16
A706 (56) HOL/00530/0091 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16 55
Old Oak Common and West London
Ealing and Northolt
201. With Stephen Pound MP, we visited the proposed locations of three vent shafts in the Ealing and Northolt areas: at Mandeville Road, Green Park Way,37 and Westgate near Hanger Lane. There were concerns about utilities works near one site but the construction and mitigation arrangements we heard about were satisfactory. We encourage the Promoter to consider how to reduce the impact of spoil removal and to examine ways in which spoil might be deployed usefully.
202. The River Island clothing company has business premises in Ealing. AP4 gives the Promoter powers to put car parking facilities onto that land to accommodate car parking space displaced by construction works on the Westgate vent shaft. River Island objected, saying that, whereas the displaced car parking could be the subject of monetary compensation, the effect on their business would be unquantifiable and could reduce their ability to expand. The Promoter agreed to commission a review of requirements and options which will report by May 2016, and which will include examination of access issues. If the study finds that there remains a need for the Promoter to use River Island premises, the Promoter should minimise the duration and extent of intrusion onto the premises of this successful business. We are pleased that the Promoter has agreed to seek to avoid any permanent acquisition. An agreement between the parties provides a dispute resolution procedure. The petitioner will be free to appear before the House of Lords select committee if necessary.
Wells House Road, Midland Terrace, Island Triangle and Stephenson Street
203. Old Oak Common and adjacent areas provide the construction site for tunnel boring both east to Euston and west to Northolt, as well as for development of the Old Oak Common station itself. Construction will involve essentially 24-hour working, with a continuously operating spoil removal belt, and will extend over some seven to ten years, when the community of some 2,200 residents in Wells House Road, Midland Terrace and Island Triangle will be more or less surrounded by HS2 works. The Promoter’s counsel acknowledged that they are specially affected. Residents’ concerns included noise, construction traffic volume, traffic congestion, access for residents and businesses, air quality, the location of a substation, viaduct height, reduction in the limited local availability and visibility of green space, and blight. They sought a dedicated community fund. Their case was pressed by Dr Rupa Huq MP, as it had previously been by the former constituency Member, Angie Bray. We note that, unlike areas certain other parts of the line that are heavily affected by construction, Old Oak Common will ultimately accrue some direct benefit from the proximity of the high-speed rail station to the locality, along with other important new infrastructure.
204. London Borough of Ealing succeeded in obtaining wide-ranging assurances from the Promoter to seek to address construction and operation problems. The flyover for Great Western Main Line will have a noise barrier on the Wells House Road side. A temporary logistics tunnel will be constructed under Old Oak Common Road to permit spoil removal
37 Green Park Way will be where the Northolt tunnel eastbound (from West Ruislip) and westbound (from Old Oak Common) tunnel boring machines are brought to the surface.
A706 (57) HOL/00530/0092 56 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16
and delivery of material using rail. Closure of Old Oak Lane will be minimised as far as practical. Pedestrian access along it will be retained—including for pushed cycles. There will be a supplementary bus service along Victoria Road. Special provision should be made for vulnerable people; for example, to receive food deliveries.
205. The project will evaluate whether HGV entrances can be kept away from homes. Other measures will include provision of visually acceptable noise barriers and noise- reducing hoardings, reduction of light pollution and pollution monitoring. Certain plant machinery will be locally insulated. Properties will be assessed for acoustic glazing, and ventilation requirements.
206. Assurances to Ealing Borough Council also cover landscaping. Tree loss in Victoria Gardens and Cerebos Gardens will be minimised. It is important that the project provide a legacy of public open space and highways improvement in this densely populated area.
207. Stephenson Street and adjacent roads form a conservation area next to the Euroterminal rail transfer depot which will be used for spoil removal and material delivery. The Promoter is considering ways to alleviate the long-term impacts of construction. Residents will be eligible for noise insulation if such broader mitigation cannot be implemented.
208. There project will entail some unavoidable difficulties for this area. Worthwhile concessions have been won and more may be forthcoming.
Wormwood Scrubs
209. Wormwood Scrubs will be the location for some utilities reconfiguration (a sewer rerouting). There was concern among local interest groups about adequate restoration after the works. We heard that, additionally, a permanent pedestrian access onto the Scrubs might be created in connection with the railway. The local Member of Parliament, Andy Slaughter MP, believed that this would be inconsistent with its use as amenity. We endorse his request that HS2 Ltd seek to reach a position of certainty on protecting the Scrubs, and offer appropriate assurances. We welcome the Promoter’s shift in position on the proposed broader mitigation arrangements at Wormwood Scrubs.
North London
Canterbury Works vent shaft
210. Whereas the Bill proposed a vent shaft at Salusbury Road in Kilburn, AP4 proposed a substitute location at Canterbury Road, on land owned by a motor trader and repairer. This locality had recently seen intensive building work and local residents were sceptical about the enforceability of good construction practices. They were concerned about the proximity of the works to the nearby St Mary’s primary school. They questioned whether and why the apparently greater development value of Salusbury Road had prompted the shift of location. The local Member of Parliament, Tulip Siddiq MP, appeared before us and reinforced the arguments vociferously articulated by local people—especially parents of children at the school.
211. The peak period of vent shaft construction works will last for some six months. Construction traffic will mostly avoid the school approach road by using Albert Road, and
A706 (58) HOL/00530/0093 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16 57
will avoid Canterbury Road during the school drop-off collection hours. The Promoter came forward with some £500,000 of measures to mitigate noise effects on the school and to provide ventilation to safeguard interior air quality. We are satisfied that these are reasonable measures and that accordingly there is no reason to propose a further relocation of the vent shaft. We have directed a study of whether construction may have adverse effects on the school’s outside recreation space. If there are predicted adverse effects from, for example, HGV movements or spoil dust, measures should be taken to alleviate them. Subject to a risk assessment, staff from the Nominated Undertaker should be assigned to secure the safety of children entering and leaving the school, for instance at unusual hours.
212. Subject to appropriate legal arrangements, the operator of the premises to be used for the vent shaft should expect to be able to benefit from business relocation compensation, including the 90% upfront payment element of compensation that is intended to assist with cash flow.
Alexandra Place vent shaft
213. This vent shaft will be in a built-up and busy area, with business and residential property immediately adjacent. The main construction period will take some six months. There were concerns over traffic emissions and safety.
214. We agree with petitioners that this is a sensitive location for construction with a high population density. Together with the Canterbury Road vent shaft it is possibly the most sensitive in an urban area. The Promoter explained that alternative construction route options involving Loudon Road are not practical and would not receive Transport for London consent. We accept that, but the Promoter must tread carefully here. Construction traffic and activity should be timed to take account of local residents. Depending on local wishes, the Promoter may need to look at more considerate working hours avoiding weekends and busy traffic periods. It has provided assurances that the vent shaft façade will be designed to fit sympathetically with local Grade II listed buildings.
Euston and Camden
The proposed railway in Camden and Euston
215. Going east from Old Oak Common, the railway is planned to run in bored tunnel to a portal south of Parkway in Camden, and then further—within a box construction—as far as Granby Terrace. It would enter Euston on new tracks west of the existing railway system and terminate at platforms within a westward-extended, remodelled Euston station. The number of rail platforms would increase initially from the current 18 to 19 (comprised of 13 conventional and six high-speed platforms), to accommodate HS2 Phase One. For HS2 Phase Two that would increase to 24 (13 conventional and eleven high-speed). It is worth noting that the ultimate reduction by five in the number of conventional service platforms is offset by an increase from zero to 11 in the number of high-speed service platforms.
216. Under the Bill scheme, the 11 high-speed platforms would have been built as a single construction project ending in 2026, in time for Phase One operation. This would have provided generous accommodation for the Phase One services coming into operation
A706 (59) HOL/00530/0094 58 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16
in 2026. It would have required a significant intrusion onto five conventional platforms, with consequent services effects. On the other hand, after that pain had been endured, remaining development of the station could have commenced in 2026.
217. AP3 proposed a two-phase construction of the high-speed platforms; the first phase to take place by 2026 and the second by 2033. That would reduce service impacts, but postpone the date on which development of the remaining station could be embarked on.
218. The proposed new Euston tracks and station premises require substantial rebuilding and demolitions. Notable among these are the rebuilding and raising of Hampstead Road Bridge, the demolition of flats and other buildings adjoining Hampstead Road and north of Drummond Street, the rebuilding of Mornington Street bridge, ground anchoring works at Park Village East on the west side of Camden cutting to facilitate tunnel creation, train shed demolitions, and the construction of three head house and ventilation facilities down the west of the Camden cutting. There would be a vent shaft from the tunnel at Adelaide Road, north of Euston. There will be substantial utilities works in various surrounding areas, notably the Ampthill estate flats. The long high-speed platforms require demolition of two office blocks outside the current station, north of Euston Road. It was impressed on us on our visit to Camden with Sir Keir Starmer MP that the project will have a massive impact. Sir Keir’s predecessor as Member for Holborn and St Pancras, Frank Dobson, gave evidence to us on this in Committee.
219. Petitioners from Camden and Euston were generally even more opposed to the AP3 scheme than the Bill scheme, on the basis that it would prolong construction duration in an area with a substantially higher residential population (notably more than around St Pancras HS1 rebuilding). Occupation of green space for construction would be extended. Petitioners argued that AP3 could also result in a missed opportunity for holistic regeneration of the station and the area.
220. At a strategic level, petitioners questioned the need to terminate the high-speed railway at Euston. So far as the proposed project was concerned, residents, businesses, schools, cyclists and churches were among those we heard who were concerned about the extent of demolition works and rehousing needed, about social disruption and about the effects of such long-term construction on mental and physical health. They wanted significant compromises from the Promoter on mitigation.
Strategic alternatives
Possible terminus at Old Oak Common
221. Given the strength of feeling about the effects of building at Euston, we heard argument on a proposed alternative terminus at Old Oak Common, even though the Bill’s principle includes a Euston terminus.38 We were not persuaded that an Old Oak Common terminus would be viable either permanently or temporarily, for several reasons. We heard that a large number of HS2 journeys will be to and from central London. To reach central London by changing from an HS2 terminus Old Oak Common would place undesirably high dependence on a single underground service: Crossrail. The evidence was that overall journey times from Old Oak Common via Crossrail would for most destinations be longer than onward travel from Euston. (Canary Wharf was an exception.) Preference 38 See proceedings of 30 November and 1 December 2015
A706 (60) HOL/00530/0095 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16 59
for Euston would mean many passengers wishing to travel to central London continuing to choose the West Coast Main Line, reducing the opportunity for capacity improvement.
Alternative approaches to Euston
222. Several petitioning bodies came forward with ideas on how to reduce the extent of construction works north of Euston. We heard that the Euston Express idea of using existing track width to avoid widening the Euston station approach ‘throat’ was ingenious but flawed. It would disrupt Watford electric services and possibly also the Bakerloo line. It would affect freight services travelling between the West Coast Main Line and the eastern rail region. It would require high levels of night-time construction in a residential area. The complexity of its engineering would increase cost. Most significantly, it would reduce West Coast Main Line capacity by some 25%, whereas the Promoter’s scheme would achieve capacity requirements up to 2040 with a substantial margin.
Double deck
223. We heard about a proposed ‘double-deck’ option that would avoid a westward extension. This incorporated an attractive architectural design for the station. It would produce only 14 platforms and would leave no room for services without intruding on links to London underground.
224. We concluded that these alternatives to the Promoter’s scheme were not viable. Petitions on the Promoter’s Bill scheme and AP3 scheme for Euston were heard in December 2015.
Adelaide Road vent shaft
225. The first proper vent shaft in the tunnel north of Euston is proposed to be constructed in part of the area of a nature reserve to the west of Adelaide Road.39 Under AP3, construction would require the entire closure of Adelaide Road—an important thoroughfare—for a substantial period of some four months. Local people were concerned about the closure, the environmental impact on the nature reserve, and the visual impact of the vent shaft on the area. They argued for an alternative vent shaft location at Juniper Crescent.
226. The Juniper Crescent site would require a realignment of the railway which would slightly extend journey times (by less than a minute). Its location would make construction more difficult than at Adelaide Road. We heard that this could cost between £6m and £19m more.
227. We invited the Promoter to produce a revised proposal in relation to road closure for construction at Adelaide Road. The Promoter came forward with an amended plan involving only a single-lane closure, with traffic light control to permit two directional flow. We heard that the Nominated Undertaker will work to reduce the four-month closure period if possible. We are satisfied with that solution. The vent shaft design will need to be approved by the local authority. We expect it to be sympathetic to the area’s valued architectural heritage. Planting of mitigation screening will start early on.
39 There are smaller ventilation and control shafts further south
A706 (61) HOL/00530/0096 60 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16
Addressing construction impacts in Camden
228. In relation to the broader project in Camden, the Borough Council and the Promoters succeeded in agreeing a set of assurances which were outlined to us on 1 December 2015. These built on a number of existing agreements which included provision of replacement social housing in the area.
229. There will be a study of whether the proposed replacement Hampstead Road Bridge can be lowered in profile so that its impact is reduced. 1,025 properties are to be fitted with acoustic mitigation and ventilation and surveys will be carried out to establish whether others should also benefit. A plan to maximise the amount of waste removal carried by rail will be developed by May 2016. This may alleviate the extent of lorry use of the Zoological Society of London car park facilities, where there is a small but significant population of hedgehogs.
230. There will be funding of up to £5m for replacement and enhanced recreational space, including £500,000 for conservation. The Promoter will contribute up to £4.1m to the costs of building, fitting out and running a skills centre. Other measures have been proposed including on the design of vent shafts and related infrastructure.
231. We heard that there is a methodology for assessing settlement in locations such as Park Village East. Monitoring will continue after construction until any further settlement is minimal.
232. We have some specific directions for further mitigation. We want monitoring of air quality to feed into an assessment of whether rehousing should occur in cases where air quality deteriorates. This should keep in mind an aspiration of improving the baseline air quality in Camden. The current position is clearly unsatisfactory.
233. Residents from both sides of the Camden cutting were worried about the duration and extent of the works in the cutting and about incidental effects of the project such as loss of parking. There, at Ampthill estate, and in other areas particularly close to construction, we would like residents to be consulted on their preferences for how to moderate the impact of the construction programme. Start-up and shutdown hours might be moderated, for instance. We want the Promoter to avoid adding to the burden carried by the area with works such as night-time surveys. Night-times should be off limits for such activities. Periodic construction breaks and non-working Saturdays should be consulted on and considered. If parking can be usefully reinstated for short periods of construction inactivity, it should be.
234. The intrusion of utilities works onto the recreational and other outdoor space of Ampthill estate is undesirable but probably unavoidable. Residents are right to be worried about it. We want the Nominated Undertaker to use the best available mitigation equipment to reduce noise intrusion here and in similar locations. We want a programme of works to compensate for loss of these amenities. We mention club memberships and provision of access to recreational amenities as possible ideas. There may be other, better ideas.
235. No more than six months after the start of the works, there should be an assessment of compliance with noise limits and a survey of health impacts. The Promoter should reconsider rehousing based on the outcome of that survey. It may need to revisit the noise
A706 (62) HOL/00530/0097 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16 61
limits and hours applicable to construction work in Camden at that point. Throughout the project we expect the Nominated Undertaker to consult conscientiously, thoroughly and sympathetically to address any specific problems with non-compliance. It should listen to what residents say about what might help, and respond with more than average diligence.
236. The choice of sound insulation and other mitigation measures should be in sympathy with construction and architecture and take fair account of residents’ views on what is visually acceptable. We mention Silsoe House in particular.
237. We direct these measures as ways to address the duration and intensity of construction in Camden. We do not envisage that they should necessarily be extended to other areas of the project. Camden is exceptional, and needs special treatment. Many residents are going to have to put up with disturbance on a scale beyond the experience in most other locations.
Conclusions on assurances
238. We are satisfied that progress has been made in meeting the legitimate concerns of Camden residents. We hope that more can be achieved as design work and preparation for beginning construction continue.
Park Village Studios
239. This recording studio operates in sensitive premises near to the Camden cutting. It had concerns about notice of works and about vibration and noise effects. The Promoter is considering a mitigation plan and a framework for surveys to address those concerns.
Stephenson Way and Drummond Street businesses and hotels
240. Businesses, hotels and professional and academic organisations in and around Stephenson Way will be severely affected by construction. They need proper notice of when works will commence so that they can organise their activities. We believe a minimum of three months’ notice is appropriate—preferably more. The Promoter has agreed to establish a business mitigation user group to discuss problems and solutions. These will be helpful. We urge the Promoter to respond positively to the needs of petitioners from this area in the period between our report and the Lords select committee stage. The activities of several of the organisations we heard from are noise and/or vibration sensitive. We would like the Promoter to pay the reasonable costs of risk assessment and surveying to determine sensitivity to construction effects such as vibration.
241. There should be a footfall survey in relation to Drummond Street and neighbouring restaurants and shops to establish usage patterns. That will help address how to retain business. The Promoter should consider ways to make the route from Euston to Drummond Street attractive and friendly.
A706 (63) HOL/00530/0098 62 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16
Euston station
242. We heard that the HS2 side of Euston station will be designed to facilitate permeability and allow the classic side of the station to be developed to a broadly similar level. There is a problem, which is that the terrain at Euston is not flat: the west of the station is higher, and the HS2 platforms will be dug down into it. HS2 envisage what they call a north-south ‘spine’ down the station to accommodate this with the realities of differential construction times. Sir Keir Starmer MP was among those who argued that the spine would create an artificial divide. There are probably compromises to be had: sloped surfaces between sections of the station might be difficult to fit within a two-stage building project but could be created later, for instance, once alternative thoroughfares exist.
243. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Transport have both strongly expressed their aspirations for an innovative and visionary, comprehensive redevelopment of Euston station. This is especially important given that Prof. MacNaughton told us that—by 2037—250,000 people will use HS2 Euston each day. We share the view that Euston’s ultimate design needs an holistic approach. The Committee agrees with Camden that the opportunity for such a redevelopment should not be wasted and that the final appearance of the station should be a coherent whole.
244. A Euston Integrated Programme Board has been established to consider integration of the HS2 side of the station with the classic services side of the station with public engagement. Members of the Board will include HS2 Ltd, Transport for London, the Greater London Assembly, Network Rail and Camden Borough Council. Interested parties met in February 2016 to determine the Board’s terms of reference and remit. Separately, the Euston Station Design Panel will examine the particular needs of the high-speed services station. These bodies will report to overarching strategic panels—the Euston Strategic Board and the Euston Station Strategic Redevelopment Board.
245. These bodies should start work as soon as possible on a design brief for a coherent station. They will need to communicate with each other and with interested parties. We wish them success.
Crossrail 2
246. HS2 works will make allowance for access to a future Crossrail 2. As Councillor Sarah Hayward of Camden Borough Council suggested, delivery of a comprehensive station design must also take account of Crossrail 2 and be timed around it.
Property owned by Euston Estates
247. Euston Estates are the leaseholders of four buildings designed by Richard Seifert on the south side of Euston station: three towers and a podium building. The podium building is integrated with the easternmost tower. Those two buildings will be used by HS2 during construction but are proposed to be handed back after 17 years of building work. The two western towers will need to be demolished to allow for HS2’s long platform lengths.
248. The freehold is owned by Network Rail. The leasehold owners of the properties have a long lease of more than 100 years. They did not want to be forced to re-enter the two undemolished properties after a period as long as 17 years, during which time they will
A706 (64) HOL/00530/0099 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16 63
have essentially no control over them, and little ability to plan for the potential state of the property market on reacquisition. By then, Euston will be an entirely different place. They were also fearful about the uncertain application of statutory compensation arrangements so far in the future. They wanted the Promoter to buy them out.
249. They further argued, in our opinion with merit, that if the Secretary of State acquired the additional property it would open up substantial greater scope for redevelopment, including by potentially marrying the current leasehold interest with the freehold and putting new property arrangements in place.
250. The position of Euston as a site of major redevelopment means that conventional occupation and compensation arrangements are not appropriate. We have strong doubts about the use of temporary possession powers in this instance. The leasehold owners will be in a difficult position if forced to re-enter what will be by then a radically different property in condition and situation.
251. The leasehold owners and the Promoter reached agreement on two options: outright purchase or a bespoke compensation framework. That framework includes a mechanism for assessing compensation that overcomes the statutory uncertainties, including an arbitration process and provision to override statutory limitation provisions. The properties will be valued by the end of February 2016 and the Secretary of State will consult with HM Treasury and by 1 May 2016 decide whether to purchase. The 1 May 2016 deadline will allow time for a petition in the House of Lords if necessary.
Links to HS1
252. The Bill as presented included an HS2-HS1 link between Old Oak Common and St Pancras. There were strong objections to the effects that that would have had from Camden. There were criticisms of its likely functionality. Before we began our work, the Government decided that it would not proceed with the link between HS2 and HS1.40 The House’s instructions to the Committee included a specific instruction not to consider petitions on whether there should be such a link.
253. The economics of cross-continental rail travel and modal shift from aircraft use are complex. The question of a continuous fixed link between HS1 and HS2 was outside our remit. We do not comment on it save to express a view that the success of and need for a national high-speed network is not necessarily contingent on a fixed link to the international network. Journey patterns are complicated.
254. Quick and comfortable ways to get between HS1 and HS2 will nevertheless be needed. Euston and St Pancras are some 800m apart. A tunnel between them could run under roads parallel with Euston Road, arriving in the northern part of St Pancras. The coherent design plan we have suggested as an imperative for Euston should include convenient ways to get between HS1 and HS2.
Conclusion
255. The AP3 Euston scheme has advantages for existing rail users. The effects of its longer duration must be recognised and addressed. A coherent plan for Euston station is needed
40 This followed the recommendations of Sir David Higgins’s review published in March 2014
A706 (65) HOL/00530/0100 64 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16
to meet the expectations of rail users, underground travellers, businesses, local residents and the country’s capital.
Visit to Netley Primary School
Cases settled by negotiation
256. Many petitions we heard involved issues that were better addressed by detailed negotiation between the parties, such as in matters of commercial treaty. The petitions hearings nevertheless helped facilitate negotiations in several ways. First, they compelled the parties to expose their positions to a degree of public scrutiny, which provided an incentive to pragmatism. Second, they inserted an element of time pressure into discussions. Third, they allowed us to intervene publicly to encourage movement toward agreement in certain cases where we believed that to be appropriate. Fourth, they created an opportunity for us to intervene informally to encourage one or other party to be more reasonable, thereby catalysing settlement.
A706 (66) HOL/00530/0101 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16 65
Further acknowledgments
257. We have acknowledged several debts of gratitude in this report. A further one is owed to local authorities, their councillors, employees and representatives, for their assiduous attention to the needs of their residents, businesses and other bodies, for their success in achieving much of benefit, and for the helpful way they appeared before us.
Petitioners in Committee
A706 (67) HOL/00530/0102 66 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16
5 The Need to Sell scheme and compensation
Background
Principles of compensation
258. Property owners41 affected by public works projects such as HS2 are entitled to compensation available under the compensation code—a combination of statute and case law. 42 There are additional discretionary schemes applying to HS2, outlined below.
259. The compensation code principles applicable to homeowners, businesses and other property owners affected by HS2 may be very broadly summarised as follows.
Displaced owners
• Owners who must be displaced to enable construction to take place receive compensation based on open market value, including displacement costs, with downward adjustment in compensation for any ‘betterment’ resulting from the displacement
• Displacement costs for owners of residential property who must be displaced include removal expenses and related costs and fees, including stamp duty
• So that displaced owner occupiers are not out of pocket, and to permit easier acquisition of alternative property, 90% of compensation as estimated by HS2 Ltd is payable in advance of claim settlement, after possession is taken for the works
• In addition to compensation payable for acquired land, owners and occupiers can apply for the following loss payments
• ‘Home loss payments’ to home owner-occupiers: £49,000 or 10% of the open market value of the property, whichever is lower
• ‘Basic loss payments’ to freehold owners of land and business property: £75,000 or 7.5% of the open market value of the property, whichever is lower
• ‘’Occupier loss payments’ to occupiers of land and business property: £25,000 or 2.5% of the open market value of the property, whichever is lower43
• The Promoter will seek to avoid the need for businesses to close entirely. If a business must be entirely extinguished, the owner receives compensation for its value as a going concern
41 Freehold or leasehold owner of land 42 HS2 Ltd, Information Papers, C4, C5, C7, C8 and C9 43 Broadly speaking, basic loss payments and occupier loss payments apply where home loss payments do not. There are different, more complex, provisions for agricultural occupiers.
A706 (68) HOL/00530/0103 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16 67
Non-displaced owners
• Non-displaced owners whose property value is diminished because of the project can claim compensation for that diminution under Part One of the Land Compensation Act 1973, from one year after railway operation begins
• Severance of a property provides grounds for a diminution in value claim; the landowner can also expect the Promoter to mitigate the effect of severance through reasonable access provisions, and may compel the Promoter to acquire land that becomes unworkable
• Disturbance compensation is also payable where there is an effect on business output; for example, temporary or permanent loss of profits, or loss of crops
• Under section 10 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965, compensation is payable for actual damage caused by construction (for example, physical damage caused by vibration from digging machinery) or interference with legal rights such as access. It cannot normally be claimed for construction effects such as noise. Instead, the Nominated Undertaker must take steps to mitigate such effects
Compulsory purchase and safeguarding
260. Property to be compulsorily acquired under the Bill powers is subject to the compensation code. Land needed for the route is also safeguarded to protect against conflicting development.44 Safeguarding may end up extending beyond compulsory purchase powers (where the extent of the land required for the works is reduced in the design process).
261. Safeguarding of land for HS2 triggers statutory blight provisions by which affected owner occupiers can serve blight notices to require purchase of their property. (Owner occupiers of business property can serve a blight notice if the rateable value of their property is less than £34,800. This is significant, because the £34,800 cap carries over to another important scheme discussed below.)
Discretionary compensation schemes
Express purchase scheme
262. In April 2014, the Government announced an ‘express purchase scheme’ to assist property owner occupiers by smoothing the operation of the statutory blight regime to HS2. The scheme smooths the application of the normal rules by including simplifying assumptions on the physical extent of property that must be within safeguarding to trigger the automatic acceptance of a blight notice. Under the express purchase scheme, those with property in—or which was in—the surface safeguarded zone can require purchase of their property at full, unblighted market value, plus 10% home-loss compensation up to a maximum of £49,000, together with reasonable moving costs including stamp duty, legal and surveyors’ fees and removal costs. (There is an assumption of material detriment if more than 25% of land is safeguarded.) The Government also announced a rent-back scheme to allow owner-occupiers to continue living in the property.
44 The most recent safeguarding directions for the route are those from 26 June 2014
A706 (69) HOL/00530/0104 68 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16
Rural support zone
263. The Government has sought to recognise the perceived greater relative impact of the railway in rural areas. A rural support zone beginning at Ickenham in west London extends up the line as far as Handsacre in Staffordshire and into Birmingham to just west of Water Orton. Two further compensation schemes operate in the rural support zone.
Voluntary purchase scheme
264. The Government will offer to buy properties at full, unblighted market for owner- occupiers in the rural support zone who are outside the safeguarding zone, up to 120 metres from the line. Unlike express purchase, legal fees, removal costs and stamp duty are not included in this offer. Our March 2015 interim report commented on that distinction.45 A rent-back option applies.
Alternative cash offer
265. Alternatively, owners of such properties can elect to receive a cash sum of 10% of the unblighted value of their property, with a minimum payment of £30,000 and a cap of £100,000.
Homeowner payment zone and payments
266. Owner-occupiers immediately beyond line of the rural support zone and between 120m and 300m from the line are eligible for a cash payment as follows:
• Zone 1: 120m to 180m from the line: £22,500
• Zone 2: 180m to 240m from the line: £15,000
• Zone 3: 240m to 300m from the line: £7,500
Need to sell scheme
267. The Need to Sell scheme extends to urban areas and operates with no defined boundary. There are five criteria for a successful application:
• A qualifying interest:
• owner occupation and a freehold interest, or a leasehold interest with more than three years remaining
• non-occupiers may also be eligible if they can demonstrate that they are letting their property reluctantly (investment property is not covered)
• owner-occupiers of business premises with an annual rateable value not exceeding £34,800 are also covered (the cap is carried over from the statutory blight regime), as are owner-occupiers of agricultural units
• Location in an area likely to be substantially affected by HS2 construction or operation
45 HC (2014–15) 338, paras 109 –111
A706 (70) HOL/00530/0105 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16 69
• Inability to sell, and no offer within 15% of the realistic unblighted asking price
• No prior knowledge of HS2 (that is, purchase, or the means of finding out about HS2 Phase One, took place before 11 March 2010 when the Phase One route was announced)
• Compelling reason to sell, such as being placed under an unreasonable burden in the next three years if unable to move.
268. Applications are reviewed for completeness by the scheme secretariat. The decision on applications is made by a Panel, and is reviewed by a Department for Transport official. There is no appeal mechanism, but there is a complaints procedure, and further applications can be submitted.
269. A rent-back option applies to Need to Sell scheme purchases. ‘Need to Sell’ replaced the previous Exceptional Hardship Scheme for Phase One. An Exceptional Hardship Scheme remains in place for Phase Two.
Special circumstances
270. In addition to these schemes, the decision document on the property consultation said, “there will inevitably be some instances where it is appropriate for Government to go further … HS2 Ltd will therefore work directly with property owners of atypical properties or those who are experiencing special circumstances in order to consider how their needs can best be met while protecting the interests of the taxpayer.”46
Our previous recommendations on the Need to Sell scheme
271. Our May 2015 interim report expressed several areas of dissatisfaction with the Need to Sell scheme arising from what petitioners had told us about its procedures and scope. We recommended procedural improvements. For instance, practices among local estate agents of refusing to market properties (or not doing so without upfront fees) should, we said, be clearly stated in the application materials as equivalent in demonstrating inability to sell. We wanted consistency on criteria acceptance between successive applications. We asked the Promoter to consider the retrospective compensation cases of property owners who had not applied under any scheme but who had already sold at substantial discount owing to blight, perhaps through an urgent need to move. On the substance of the scheme, we said we wanted a more considerate, generous approach, including a recognition that people’s ‘age and stage’ in life might be good reason to want to move.
272. In several respects the Government responded positively. Our recommendation on the treatment of refusal to market policies and upfront fees was accepted. It was agreed that the schemes should be better promoted and advertised, and that feedback should be given on unsuccessful applications so that applicants might be better equipped in future attempts. The Government said it believed there would be issues of equity with any broad policy of retrospective compensation, but that some exceptional cases might exist. Those cases would be considered on their merits.
273. In October 2015, we asked parliamentary colleagues to tell us whether these policy changes were translating into more acceptances and better treatment. In December
46 Secretary of State for Transport, Decision Document Property Compensation Consultation 2013 for the London- West Midlands HS2 route, CM 8833, April 2014 chapter 9
A706 (71) HOL/00530/0106 70 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16
2015, we produced further recommendations. We said that while we were pleased with the increased acceptance rates, the overall number of successful applications needed considerable improvement. We wanted more use of valuers with local knowledge. We recommended automatic review of all applications pending for longer than eight weeks.
The most recent Government response and our views on it
274. The Government published its response in early February 2016.47 Several recommendations on process and on areas of substance were accepted, which we welcome.
275. The acceptance rate is now hovering at around 60%, which is better than for the Exceptional Hardship Scheme. We understand that acceptances are up to nearly 100— 25 more than in November. Completed sales have more than doubled since November. 48 These developments are welcome. In February 2016, the Residents Commissioner made recommendations on how to target potential applicants with better information, including wider communication and regular, six-monthly review.49
276. We understand that HS2 Ltd has communicated with all residents within 1km of the line to alert them to the Need to Sell scheme. HS2 Ltd should continue to communicate the scheme widely. Nevertheless, overall take-up is still only at low levels compared with the numbers that might ultimately be expected to apply under the scheme.
277. On our wish for more appropriate treatment of applications based on ‘age and stage’, the Government has said that work is under way to understand what options may be available to help address the Select Committee’s concerns. The Government has said that the issues are complex and that it intends to respond substantively later in the year together with its views on Phase 2A compensation, the consultation on which closes on 25 February 2016.
278. The Government has cited what it says is the relatively high acceptance rate already being achieved under ‘Need to Sell’ for those approaching retirement or already retired: 24 accepted applications out of 37 (65%). We are not so convinced. The rate is barely 5% higher than the overall acceptance rate.
279. Although we acknowledge that not everyone in or approaching retirement will need to sell their property because of HS2, older people have restricted freedom to adapt their financial plans in response to changed circumstances. Putting it plainly, they cannot build into their plans an additional 10 or 20 years of income to address new situations. Many also face a challenge not shared by the younger: that their home becomes itself a physical burden. We believe these realities should more significantly inform the starting assumptions of those assessing scheme applications. There should be a bigger margin in the acceptance rates to reflect that. It is difficult to imagine justification of less than 90% acceptance on applications by those over 70 or who will be over 70 when the project commences.
47 This was published on the Committee website 48 During the main evidence session on compensation issues, HS2 Action Alliance told us that they estimated there was scope for some 700 applications along the route. We heard from officials that they expected some 150 applications per year over the lifetime of the scheme: perhaps 2,000 in total. 49 HS2 Ltd, Residents’ Commissioner, Report 3, February 2016
A706 (72) HOL/00530/0107 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16 71
280. In its review, which we believe should have started earlier, the Government should examine how policy changes might be developed to reflect these points. The Government should provide an update to the House before Third Reading. We would expect to see substantial progress by the time our colleagues in the Lords are considering the Bill.
Applications from the same area
281. Responding to our recommendation about applications from neighbours within blighted communities, the Government said that when the panel and decision makers consider applications against criterion 3 (effort to sell), HS2 Ltd will ensure they are aware of successful applications in close proximity to or neighbouring the applicant’s property. Applications from the same area as those of successful applicants will not receive automatic acceptance, but decision makers will need to provide clear reasons for rejecting them. We are satisfied with this.
282. Our interim report of 2015–16 wanted more recognition of areas that will suffer especially egregious effects from construction. The Government response explained that there had been special treatment of a number of hardship cases arising from construction impacts, for instance at Kingsbury. We welcome the statement that the Need to Sell Panel would treat further such applications with sympathy.
Businesses
283. We said that the £34,800 rateable value cap for ‘Need to Sell’ business applications was not appropriate in the case of London businesses; too many would exceed the cap. The Government said it would prefer to maintain the cap’s “tried and tested” approach, applying a discretion in the case of hardship cases, but conceded that 33% would exceed the cap in the case of Drummond Street. That is too high. It would not be unfair if, illustratively, all the businesses in Drummond Street had the same scope for obtaining compensation.
284. We heard that the figure of £34,000 was set some time ago and would be reviewed in 2017. We want a re-evaluation such that the proportion of London businesses falling within the cap is broadly the same as elsewhere. We would like Department of Transport to liaise with other Departments to carry through a review as soon as possible, before the most potentially damaging aspects of construction work begin to affect businesses in London.
Valuations and offers
285. On the need for greater local input to valuations, the Government said that it would work to implement a revised process for the valuation of properties for ‘Need to Sell’ that will allow more local valuers to be used (although a review was previously promised for autumn 2015). We welcome that review. We have heard from a number of people who feel very disadvantaged by the current rules. We believe it is right for the ‘Need to Sell’ process to be fair, and seen to be fair. We are also particularly pleased that the requirement not to have received an offer within 15% of the realistic asking price is to be reviewed across the country. We heard a lot about the perceived unfairness of assuming that all property vendors start out asking substantially more than they think they should get. There was a perception, perhaps justified, that this operated as a tax on the affected population.
A706 (73) HOL/00530/0108 72 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16
286. We previously said that acceptances under the scheme should stand as acceptances, unless there are unusual circumstances. In stating that it might be in everyone’s interests for applicants to keep their property on the market, the Government response says the emergence of a “suitable offer” might allow a normal purchase to proceed without Government intervention. We agree, but once an applicant has been accepted such a suitable offer should be defined as one matching or better than the scheme offer. Once accepted under the scheme, owners should have certainty of their financial position rather than face the risk that a third party can undercut and unpick their security of position.
Lending
287. We had been expecting the members of Council of Mortgage Lenders and its members to recognise that no valuer should declare an affected property either valueless or unmortgageable if blight reduces the present open market value by normal amounts. We heard of cases where valuers had put a ‘nil’ value on properties or had recommended against any loan provision, which is clearly nonsense. We also wanted the Council to take the lead in developing information guides for borrowers affected by HS2, to reassure them that lenders are aware of the significance of the project and have considered how to address lending in the light of it. An industry position on this need not be anti-competitive; the point here is to have a set of responses based on recognition of an issue, not the same response from everyone. The Council could act to limit itself to being collator of a wish list to which its members provide individual answers.
288. Although some conversations have taken place between the Council and its members, and the CML Valuation Panel has confirmed that there is no blanket policy of refusing lending in cases of blight, we were disappointed not to have had more open and effective cooperation on this. We welcome the discussions that have taken place between the Council and HS2 to share information. We welcome too the Council’s recommendation to its members to review their policies. We hope that more will be forthcoming. It will reflect badly on the sector if it fails to grasp what is needed. Action is required.
Suggestions of a property bond
289. A property bond would be a form of underwriting of property value that would run with the property and would take the form of a binding agreement to purchase it (where the Government would act as purchaser of last resort), or an agreement to compensate for blight. We heard arguments, notably from HS2 Action Alliance, that a property bond scheme should be preferred over the Government schemes.50
290. Proponents of the property bond concept argued that it would better support the market in areas of blight and that to that extent its cost could to some extent be self- limiting. They said it would be fairer to property owners than schemes which operate only where there is a need to sell. The Government argued that property bonds could inhibit recovery from blight by discouraging efforts to maximise sale value, and in some forms could expose the taxpayer to potential collusion in depressing sale prices. We said that we were open to the idea of a property bond if there was insufficient improvement in the Need to Sell scheme. At our request, the Government provided a note on the difference between its figures for operating a bond scheme and those presented by HS2 Action Alliance. HS2
50 Oral evidence taken on 20 November 2014, HC (2014–15) 338
A706 (74) HOL/00530/0109 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16 73
Action Alliance responded with their own note.51 We have reflected and concluded that the case that a property bond scheme should be preferred over other options was not sufficiently established.
291. Those interested in how the French have dealt with the wish to sell and the cases where an owner can require purchase may read the House of Commons Library materials on the subject.
Specific cases
292. We kept a watch list of petition cases where we felt that there should probably be a successful outcome if an application under Need to Sell were made. Among those, not every petitioner has yet applied. Some applications are pending. Of those that have been decided in principle, we are content that the outcome in a high proportion of instances was as we would have wished. That sufficiently satisfied us on the quality of process that we do not comment on the small number of outcomes. We have made general observations on valuation, but we do not believe it appropriate to remark in this report on the valuation process in individual cases.
Other points
293. Our interim report suggested that some medical matters could be inexpensively cleared up through straightforward communication with the applicants’ general practitioner. The Government response said that there might be confidentiality and data protection issues with that approach but that missed the point: if the applicants agree there should not be a problem.
294. In its response, the Government agreed to our recommendation on automatic review of cases pending for more than eight weeks. The response stated that a “larger pool of decision makers had been identified and trained.” We welcome the recruitment of greater staff numbers which will help expedite consideration of applications. We note that decision making should primarily be for the NTS panel. Final sign off by Department officials should be sign-off for the purposes of monitoring budgets and checking on any outlying decisions.
295. We are glad that the cumulative effect of Phases One and Two has been recognised. The acknowledgment of that effect on local people and businesses could still be better stated.
Conclusions
296. The Need to Sell scheme is a better scheme than its predecessor. It is still improving. We ask and expect that it continue to do so. Many of our suggested improvements have been adopted. Work remains to be done in addressing the greater needs of a higher proportion of older applicants. Valuation should work better. The lending sector should establish a proper set of responses to HS2. The business rate value cap for Need to Sell applications needs reviewing for London. All these things need to happen quickly to take account of those who are already being affected by Phase Two and 2A. If the scheme works sufficiently well, many people will feel more comfortable staying in their homes, and effects
51 See Committee publications
A706 (75) HOL/00530/0110 74 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16
on communities will be alleviated. Beyond ‘Need to Sell’ there is still little recognition of the effects of others who are blighted including tenants and licenced occupiers.
A706 (76) HOL/00530/0111 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16 75
6 Route-wide issues and farms
Environmental issues and ecology
Environmental authorisation for the project
297. The Bill provides legislative authority for the HS2 Phase One project. The Environmental Impact Assessment Directive52 deriving from the Aarhus Convention expressly does not apply to projects adopted through national legislation, but Article 1(4) requires that the Directive’s objectives of assessment and scrutiny are achieved through the legislative process. The project therefore proceeds subject to a process of scrutiny, and compliance with what are known as environmental minimum requirements, which derive from various sources including the Code of Construction Practice and the undertakings and assurances given by the Promoter.53 The Bill’s authority extends to the effects described in the environmental statements.54
298. The Committee’s job was a part of the Bill’s scrutiny. We followed due process. We did not consider it part of our role to judge the adequacy of the overall scrutiny process. Our work was to hear petitioners and responses. Wider issues could arguably have detracted from our specified task.
299. Early on, we heard argument on whether the environmental statement was adequate.55 It will be recalled that the paper version of the environmental statement notoriously omitted 877 pages of its intended content (though the electronic copy did not). It was argued in respect of other omissions and errors that they were more serious, and prevented those objecting from adequately making their case. Chapter 2 of this report refers to one set of such errors which related to traffic data.
300. It was clear to us that describing the effects of a new railway route from London to Birmingham and beyond would be work in progress for some time, not complete and perfect at the start. Many petitioners complained that there was too much, not too little, information. Certain mistakes and omissions we observed were regrettable more for causing confusion (which they did) than for being seriously misleading. That is not to say that errors or omissions would never be a significant problem. Reliable traffic modelling on final analysis will be crucial. The project and its environmental effects will continue to be refined. We decided that those wishing to object knew enough on the basis of the published environmental statements to make out their objections.
301. We make one observation, however, which is that it appears to be in the control of the Promoter to decide when an environmental effect is significant enough to merit a new statement. We wonder whether there should be some independent input into that.
52 EU 2011/92 53 HS2 Ltd, Information Papers, B5 and E1 54 HS2 Ltd, Information Papers, E1-28 describe these matters 55 The main case was heard on 23 and 27 October 2014
A706 (77) HOL/00530/0112 76 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16
Ecology
302. The Promoter has an objective that the project seek to achieve no net loss of biodiversity.56 The early analysis of how that objective will be pursued was only recently published.57 The analysis has been criticised for lack of granularity and accuracy. Woodland and wildlife trusts were among those who believed HS2 Ltd had overemphasised the potential benefit of connectivity along the railway while underestimating severance effects. They questioned why the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs model had not been used. The Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire Wildlife Trust believed that a substantial (more than 10%) proportion of the net loss calculation scores were incorrect and that on a different version of net loss calculation HS2 Ltd may be only half way to meeting the no net loss aspiration. Warwickshire authorities were among those concerned that the net loss calculations were not sufficiently broken down by area. The Promoter told us that it believed the current no net loss deficit was only 3% and that would endeavour to eliminate that through detailed design.
303. We direct the Promoter to identify an independent third party arbiter to review the different net loss metrics and publish its findings so that HS2 Ltd can be challenged on its figures if appropriate. Natural England is one possibility.
304. An Ecology Review Group will monitor the biodiversity and ecology aspects of the project. Its members will include Natural England, local authorities, nature conservation non-governmental organisations and relevant specialists. Environmental groups wanted the Ecology Review Group set up immediately. The Promoter said that establishment should wait until more detailed design work could be considered. Our colleagues in the Lords may wish to consider that question along with issues arising from the only recently published no net loss calculations.
305. Losses to the environment could be relatively more significant in urban areas with little green space. This should be recognised through specific extra allocations to Birmingham and Camden on top of the current Community and Environment Fund budgets. The visual impression created by the railway will depend to some extent on the maintenance of its security infrastructure and the land adjacent to that. We expect the Nominated Undertaker and its successors as operators of the railway to set appropriate standards for maintenance.
306. We were concerned to hear reports of high failure rates for tree planting on HS1. We asked the Promoter to look into that. We want the early planting of tree mitigation to be more than just an aspiration. The Promoter should provide clear assurances that it will undertake such work as soon as reasonably practicable.
307. We heard that some bird and bat populations might be particularly at risk from the operational railway. (Approximately 1% of the UK population of barn owls is near the route and faces threat.) Measures to protect those populations by encouraging habitat and foraging shifts are required.
56 HS2 Ltd, Information Papers, E2 57 HS2 Ltd, No net loss in biodiversity calculation, Methodology and Results, (December 2015)
A706 (78) HOL/00530/0113 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16 77
308. We have been helped and impressed by professional and amateur experts on wildlife and the natural environment. Contributions from local authorities were authoritative and helpful. Knowledge has been advancing. We acknowledge the efforts made by the Promoter.
Animal welfare
309. The tenant of Upper South Farm at Doddershall, Mr Goss, has a cattle shed which will be very near to the line. The Promoter estimated that the closest façade was 40m away and that this would fall outside the relevant threshold noise contour. We were not satisfied with this and we asked for more work. The response we received said “since Committee the effect of noise on animals has been looked into in further detail and our approach to this subject can be found from the noise, sound and methodology, assumptions and assessment report, volume 5 of the main Environmental Statement”.
310. We asked what the new work had elicited. It then emerged that the further look referred to a US research paper of which the Committee had already been informed. We were not happy with that. We want a proper look at how animals in such conditions might be affected and whether better mitigation should be provided in this particular case. The RSPCA might be invited to contribute a paper. Mr Goss also need a sensible solution on how to move livestock around the farm once the railway arrives.
Operational noise
Noise
311. The Promoter’s approach to dealing with train noise is set out in HS2 Information Paper E20 and within Volume 5 of the main environmental statement. It proceeds from the Noise Policy Statement for England whose objective is that of noise management and control through—
• avoiding significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life
• mitigating and minimising adverse impacts on health and quality of life
• where possible, contributing to the improvement of health and quality of life
— while taking account of the economic and social benefit of the proposed activity.
312. As applied, to HS2, this has involved defining a significant observed adverse effect level (‘SOAEL’) of noise above which exposure is considered undesirable. The planning process should be used to avoid such effects by appropriate mitigation, including by altering design and layout and by provision of insulation. The choice and design of the HS2 route has taken that into account. It has further involved defining a lowest observed effect level (‘LOAEL) and taking steps for noise levels between LOAEL and SOAEL to mitigate and minimise impacts on health and quality of life. Measures still take account of the economic and social benefit of the activity.
313. There are data to support certain assumptions about LOAEL. There is no standard definition of SOAEL. The Promoter has adopted measures of each which take account of time of day. These are set out in the following table.
A706 (79) HOL/00530/0114 78 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16
Table 3: Noise effect levels for permanent residential buildings
Time of day Lowest Observed Ad- Significant Observed Adverse Effect verse Effect Level Level (dB) (dB)
Day (0700–2300) 50 LpAeq, 16hr 65 LpAeq, 16hr
Night (2300–0700) 40 LpAeq, 8hr 55 LpAeq, 8hr
Night (2300–0700) 60 LpAFMax 80 LpAFMax (at the façade, from any (at the façade, from more than 20 nightly noise event) nightly train passbys), or
85 LpAFMax (at the façade, from 20 or fewer nightly train passbys)
314. There is a short and helfpul glossary of noise terminology in HS2 Information Paper
E20. LPAeq is an index which expresses the effect of a changing noise as a continuous equivalent. It is not a simple arithmetic average because sound is measured in decibels, employing a logarithmic scale, so an arithmetic average would be misleading. Instead, it averages the total sound energy received over a defined period. Different periods can be chosen.
315. For a constant noise source, and under normal conditions, changes of under 3dB are not perceptible. A 10dB increase represents approximately a doubling in loudness. A 10dB
decrease is approximately a halving in loudness. With LAeq, doubling the sound energy or
the sound duration increases LAeq by 3dB. Ten times the sound energy or ten times the
duration increases the LAeq by 10dB.
316. LpAFMax is an index of maximum noise. World Health Organisation (WHO) methodology favours its measurement at the façade (wall or window) of the receptor building,58 where maximum noise is experienced more intensely than in the ‘free field’.59
317. HS2 Ltd have modelled the effects of HS2 trains. The modelling methodology is in Volume 5 of the environmental statement.60 It is based on a reasonable worst case. For instance, it assumes moderately windy conditions. Noise sources penetrate further in those conditions. With no wind, they penetrate less; with higher wind, the wind itself tends to mask the noise. The model also makes allowance for phenomena such as temperature inversion within valleys, which can cause sound to penetrate further.
318. The adoption of the noise criteria in the table for the purposes of environmental minimum requirements means the Promoter should (subject to assessment of social and economic benefit) avoid average noise exceeding 65dB in daytime or 55dB at night. Between 50dB and 65dB (daytime) and 40 and 55dB (night-time), noise effects should (subject to assessment of social and economic benefit) be mitigated and minimised. Under the assessment in HS2 Information Paper E20, maximum night-time noise exceeding 80 or 85dB (depending on train frequency) should be avoided. The effects should be minimised or mitigated from 60dB to that level.
58 It is actually measured 1m from the façade 59 ‘Free field’ is defined as more than 3.5m from sound-reflecting surfaces 60 In the memorably titled SV-001-000 section
A706 (80) HOL/00530/0115 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16 79
319. These criteria provide a number of layers of protection. In addition, noise receptors which fall outside those protections but are predicted to experience more than certain levels of change in noise are assessed for further protection depending on local circumstances. This offers an additional level of protection against intrusion into the existing environment.
320. For each locality along the proposed line, Volume 5 of the environmental statement contains colour coded tables of noise measurements and modelling data which show the current (baseline) position, the predicted noise effects from high-speed trains, and the additive position. There are contour maps showing the extent of train noise effects in terms of magnitude and change. Volume 5 contains highly detailed descriptions of the qualitative noise characteristics of each locality. Volume 2 of the environmental statement summarises the position for each area.
321. The generally received wisdom is that train noise is qualitatively less annoying than motor vehicle noise (for the same dB level). The applicability of this to the noise characteristics of high-speed trains as opposed to conventional trains was disputed by some petitioners.
322. Train noise will be mitigated. Earth bunds absorb and protect from noise. Noise barriers close to the source or a receptor can be effective. (Hence, if near the track they tend to be more effective at rail level where they protect against the noise of train wheels.)
323. We heard the case on noise principally on 12 October 2015 and 4 November 2015 although we had already become familiar with the arguments before that.
324. Five main arguments were deployed by those who objected to HS2 on the basis of its noise effects.: that high-speed train noise was inherently undesirable, that the levels of threshold noise in the HS2 Ltd’s framework of protection measures were too high, that train noise would disrupt tranquility and change the character of areas, that averaged noise is not what matters to people, and that maximum noise was more important— particularly for a railway whose frequency will be up to 36 train passes an hour at peak times. On the latter, petitioners pressed for contour maps showing the extent of penetration of maximum noise.
325. During our two years of sittings we have become familiar with ambient noise and other noise sources. We do not agree that the HS2 Ltd has set the thresholds too high, particularly as mitigation will be applied on the basis of modelling that assumes a reasonable worst case. Averaged noise level of 65dB is not high. The Promoter has conceded that the trains will be audible but argued that the train noise should not intrude unduly on the basis of the designs and mitigations proposed.
326. We heard HS1 high-speed trains in Kent. They are noisy near the track but within short distances the noise is significantly moderated and less intrusive, even in tranquil areas away from motorways. HS2 trains may be quieter. Among the closest residential buildings to the line will be houses in Aylesbury. We heard demonstrations of modelled train noise passes for that location at the Arup sound lab. Even based on this very proximate location, we found the noise level significantly noticeable, but not such as to be intolerable.
327. We heard that contour maps of maximum noise are not practical because the methodology whereby maximum noise is measured at the façade is highly susceptible to variation over short distances. The free-field methodology would not be, but is does not tie
A706 (81) HOL/00530/0116 80 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16
in with WHO assumptions. It seems counterintuitive to argue on that basis. The spread of maximum noise is, however, shown in the environmental statement data tables.
328. It seems clear that maximum noise and train frequency are the main underlying grievances for many objectors, largely based on concerns about changes to tranquility. Under the proposals contained in HS2 Information Paper E20, maximum noise will be a criterion for mitigation. Train frequency will not be sustained at peak levels throughout the day. It will be important for the railway’s operators to monitor whether there are areas where levels exceed the predictions of the models and take remedial steps. There may be other instances where intervention outside of that required by the Promoter’s approach is appropriate. If such interventions cannot be achieved through modifications to the railway itself they may be achievable through other means such as through quietening of roads.
329. Issues on noise can be complicated. This report is no substitute for personal experience and a partial exposition is no substitute for the expertise on all sides offered to the Committee. We trust that we will not seem partial with the observation that we found Rupert Thornely-Taylor understood points made by and for petitioners. His explanations were accessible. It was usually clear to us on the day that there was a rationale to the approach by the Promoter of the Bill.
Rail speed
330. The pantograph to conduct electricity from cable to train makes a noise. We heard that good design can reduce noise from the pantograph. Nevertheless, noise increase goes up more rapidly over speeds exceeding 300kph. On that basis, we heard a case for limiting train speed from 360kph to 300kph to reduce noise. That would be a substantial limitation. It would achieve at most a 3–4dB decrease in noise (assuming no other mitigation applied)—perceptible but not massive. We do not believe that future operators of high-speed rail should have their hands tied on speed to the extent of a 16% speed reduction from maximum speed to achieve a barely perceptible benefit. In any event, the average speed of trains taking account of position on the route in terms of gradient and curvature and proximity to stations will be 320kph, not 360kph. Most trains will not be travelling at full speed all the time.
Construction, air quality and vibration
Construction effects
331. The Promoter has established lowest observed adverse effect levels and significant observed adverse effect levels for construction noise. These are set out in the table below.
LpAeq,T is the decibel level for equivalent average noise which will trigger mitigation analogous to that for operational noise. There are different trigger levels for different times of day and different days of the week.
A706 (82) HOL/00530/0117 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16 81
Table 4: Construction noise effect levels for permanent residential buildings (outdoor at the façade)
Day Time (hours) Averaging Lowest Significant Period T Observed Observed Adverse Effect Adverse Effect Level Level LpAeq,T LpAeq,T (dB) (dB) Mondays to 0700 - 0800 1 hour 60 70 Fridays 0800 - 1800 10 hours 65 75 1800 - 1900 1 hour 60 70 1900–2200 1 hour 55 65 Saturdays 0700 - 0800 1 hour 60 70 0800 - 1300 5 hours 65 75 1300 - 1400 1 hour 60 70 1400–2200 1 hour 55 65 Sundays & 0700–2200 1 hour 55 65 public holidays Any night 2200–0700 1 hour 45 55
332. The Code of Construction Practice, set out in HS2 Information Paper D3, will govern construction operations. Petitioners wanted it to be directly enforceable. The duration of the HS2 construction project will insert a strong element of self-policing into compliance with the code; contractors will face termination of contract if they breach it. A further incentive is that legislation could be introduced after the commencement of the project if necessary. There will be a Construction Commissioner as well as a Complaints Commissioners and a small claims scheme.61 The efficacy of all these will be closely scrutinised. Adjustments can be made if necessary.
333. The Promoter has commissioned a study on the effects of construction noise which will report by mid-2016 and will recommend standards. It will be important to follow through on its observations. Depending on the outcome of the study it may be appropriate to revisit aspects of the trigger times and levels.
334. The policy on management of construction traffic is set out in HS2 Information Papers E13 and E14. A traffic management plan will need approval by each local authority. Modern technology will be used for reducing noise on construction sites. We heard about how construction traffic will be managed through real-time radio monitoring. Except where no likely air quality problem is identified, lorries will need to comply with the Euro VI standard for emissions. Local authorities will need to agree traffic management plans before work begins. Safe interaction of construction traffic with pedestrians and other road users will be imperative. Drivers should receive proper training including on driving safely near cyclists. Lorries may be required to have safety devices installed along with means for increasing visibility.
335. The section of this report on environment comments that the environmental statement is a living document and could not be expected to be entirely error-free from inception. The accuracy of future traffic modelling data will be critical. There are those who are assiduous in checking it.
61 HS2 Ltd, Information Papers, C10 and G3
A706 (83) HOL/00530/0118 82 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16
Ground settlement and vibration
336. The Promoter has set out its policy on ground settlement from tunnelling in HS2 Information Paper C3 and in an online guide to settlement.62 Professsor Mair explained to us the extent of settlement from tunnelling and how it is minimised through appropriate engineering.63 The Promoter will offer a legal deed of settlement to all those within 30m of the line to protect their position, for which pre-registration is possible.
337. There was some unfortunate underestimating of tunnel depth, by quite significant amounts, for certain petitioners in west London. No adverse environmental effects were anticipated to result from the corrected data, but the mistake was regrettable.
338. The Promoter’s position on dealing with operational vibration is set out in HS2 Information Paper E21. We are satisfied that the railway can be engineered to avoid undue effects of vibration. We do not comment further.
Highways
339. The Government has said that it will make good on additional local authority maintenance costs attributable to HS2, applying its doctrine of ‘no new burdens’. The Promoter has observed that certain roads will be handed back to local authorities in better condition after construction. We heard that progress has been made on reaching agreement on roads maintenance cost sharing, with Warwickshire, Buckinghamshire and Camden as case studies.
340. There are several areas along the route where traffic pressure is already at or near critical levels. Unlike shorter transport schemes, HS2 cannot bring specific benefit to adjoining areas that are not within the hinterland of a station. Among the benefits that improvements in local roads could bring to the quality of local life and the vigour of local economies are better safety, less congestion, quicker journey times and better design.
341. We propose to the Secretary of State that local authorities along the HS2 route be able to bid to the Department for Transport for funding for such schemes if they are appropriate and capable of timely implementation. Such schemes might include improvements not just for motor vehicle users but for cyclists, horse riders and walkers, as well as better provision for the young, old or disabled. In any event, we would like HS2 to leave a legacy of improved road traffic risk identification and safety improvement along the route.
Design, consultation and engagement
Design
342. The Promoter’s position on design is set out in HS2 Information Papers D1, D5 and G6. The Bill’s provisions on design consultation are contained in schedule 16. Following discussion with the Camden Borough Council, the lead local authority on design, schedule 16 will be amended to bring the Bill into line with the equivalent provisions of the Crossrail Act 2008 on the freedom of local authorities to impose conditions on design.
62 HS2 Ltd, Guide to Settlement, (September 2015) 63 HS2 Ltd, Information Papers, D7c
A706 (84) HOL/00530/0119 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16 83
343. We expect a truly consultative approach to design of sensitive parts of the railway, with an element of dialogue and choice, not a one-way information flow. We have encouraged the Promoter to develop a flowchart for community involvement and we invite them to try out the inclusive approach we recommend with the flowchart itself.
344. The cost of design will be material, but so will sensitivity to the local landscape, geology and architecture. Viaducts and vent shafts will need especially careful attention. We have mentioned several by name. Many or most will merit the same careful treatment.
345. There should be a positive architectural legacy from the railway’s interaction with the canal network in this country. The Canal and River Trust’s presentation on our final day of hearings impressed us. There are ways to achieve the conjunction of railway and waterway in a manner pleasing to the eye, including use of good materials, retention and framing of views, retention of open space near the waterside, and softening of views against the horizon. We would expect a presumption that the perspective of canal users will be strongly taken into account in the design of infrastructure.
Public engagement
346. We commented in our 2014–15 report on HS2 Ltd’s mixed record of public engagement. We are aware of the report of the Parliamentary and Health Services Ombudsman which found serious failings in HS2 Ltd’s engagement with a community in Staffordshire which will be particularly severely affected. There is work to be done in improving approaches and responses to the public.
347. It can be difficult to mollify those whose lives face disruption. Many petitioners commented on the sensitivity with which many HS2 Ltd staff had handled their issues. Apologies when errors are made go far. As the project moves toward commencement, considerate engagement and helpful provision of information will be even more important. HS2 Ltd will need to pay attention to communicating and explaining its decisions. We hope that the Residents Commissioner will do the same, and consider different lines of communication to her office.
348. The task of negotiating with nearly 2,600 petitioners was not an easy one for HS2 Ltd or the Promoter. For the future, we strongly encourage more cooperation between local authorities and the Promoter in setting timetables for negotiation, not least because the outcome of those negotiations is often critical to what other petitioners have to add. Assurances absolutely must be published early so that other petitioners know what has already been decided. Our successor committees on any future hybrid bills may wish to consider programming all local authorities early on so increase the incentive for proper engagement and compromise. Petitioners who followed in the programme would then know what had been achieved.
Business and Community
Community and Environment Fund and Business and Local Economy Fund
349. These funds will provide a total £30m in funding to support communities and businesses on the route.64 The Government position is that this amount is in proportion
64 HS2 Ltd, Information Papers, C12
A706 (85) HOL/00530/0120 84 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16
to the similar funds made available in relation to HS1. There are 25 local authorities on the HS2 Phase One route. Buckinghamshire County Council alone has ideas for some £15m in spending throughout the county, and has argued that the HS1 fund was solely for environmental items. Warwickshire has ideas for some £8m of spending. Buckinghamshire has pointed to higher funds for other infrastructure projects. It has observed that taken over the life of the project the sum of £30m amounts to only £3m per year. It has argued that the total funding envelope for community and environment projects and for business and local economies should at least £150m.
350. We recommend that the funding envelope of both funds should be substantially increased. We suspect the Government is aware that the amounts are too low. We want to see specific allocations to certain communities to avoid bidding wars.
351. As a separate point, we hope that local businesses capable of benefiting from construction will be actively involved in the Promoter’s contract awards. These may include undertakings engaged in equipment and vehicle maintenance, and catering support.
Business rate effects
352. Construction of HS2 may reduce business rate income. The Promoter is in discussions with local authorities. We suspect that highways and environmental health matters will be of more significant concern. Our colleagues in the Lords may wish to consider the question of the effect of HS2 construction on business rates.
Schools and places of worship
353. Impacts of construction on schools should be monitored during construction and for one year after the HS2 building project. Maintaining safe and proper access will be critical. The Promoter should be open to financial support for schools if there are, for instance, demonstrable adverse effects on roll numbers that affect a school’s viability or its capacity for employing teaching staff. It should endeavour to maximise the amount of construction work in school holidays.
354. Places of worship will need consistent and considerate treatment. The Promoter should be prepared to postpone work that interferes with unavoidable activities such as funerals. There should be a hotline for such matters. We would also like the Promoter to consider some specific support for religious and similar institutions whose legal status may prevent or make difficult a conventional claim for lost revenue. Conventional claims may also be inappropriately elaborate in such cases. The remedy should be a fund that is readily accessible and easy to negotiate.
Land take and temporary or permanent occupation
355. The Promoter’s powers of land acquisition and occupation are set out in the Bill. The Promoter has given undertakings on minimising the extent of acquired land. During our proceedings, we frequently directed or attempted to nudge the Promoter toward either smaller land take or shorter duration of occupation, particularly in the case of farms. As we conclude our work, we remain concerned that the permanent occupation powers are being used too extensively. We do not intervene to direct that the Secretary of State should not consider the economics of particular cases, but we do believe that the Government
A706 (86) HOL/00530/0121 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16 85
should be circumspect in considering economics of land occupation given the railway’s objective of developing the economy, helping to change the economic geography of the country for the better.
Farm issues and tax
Farm issues
356. As a general observation, we have been impressed by the pragmatic approach taken by farmers affected by the line. We could mention many.
357. Several common themes emerged from farm petitions: the need for construction to work around the seasonal and long-term business nature of farming, less than ideal choices for locating mitigation planting, disputes over extent of land take and access, and tax issues. We directed preparation of a farmers’ pack which would set out common helpful approaches. The National Farmers Union is involved in negotiating it. We are pleased that several cases in which the farmer suggested alternative mitigation locations have been settled following hearings before the Committee. We have directed different access arrangements in several cases where it was clear that the farmer’s suggestion made sensible use of their knowledge of the terrain.
Specific farms
358. We were concerned at the extent of land take at Hunts Green Farm,65 particularly in relation to the rare ancient pasture, and we said we wanted improvements. We welcome the progress that has been made in addressing that. The Promoter explained that it cannot eliminate activity on the eastern side of the railway, but that it will avoid use of certain sensitive areas for temporary stockpiling if feasible. We welcome the accommodation that has been reached concerning Hammonds Hall Farm.66 We want the Promoter to devise a flood risk scheme to address potential concerns about flooding at Marsh Mills Farm.67 We expect the Promoter to work sensibly to a solution on access, land take and drainage issues at Nash Lee Farm.68
359. Mr and Mrs Howie farm in Hillingdon. They employ a number of farm workers on land that was used for World War II food production.69 Effects of the project include mitigation planting and the presence of an electricity feeder station. We encourage the Promoter to look at ways to reduce impacts on the farm activities.
360. It is open to petitioners including farmers who petitioned this Committee to raise outstanding matters later in the Lords. Amongst those considering their position is Bob Lewis of Springfield Farming Ltd.70 Many petitioners who appeared before us have made substantial progress in negotiating sensible outcomes with the Promoter.
65 Petitions 670 and AP4:178 66 Petitions 90, 91 and AP4:87 67 Petition 1149 68 Petition 1173 69 Petition 471 70 Petitions 50 and AP4:180
A706 (87) HOL/00530/0122 86 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16
Tax
361. Farmers whose land is compulsorily acquired by the Promoter may find themselves landed with a large and unwelcome capital gains tax liability if unable to reinvest the purchase proceeds in replacement land, premises or fixed plant within the normal ‘rollover relief’ periods. The size and scale of the HS2 project means that competition for replacement land will be intense, and real estate prices will probably increase. The estate of any farmer unfortunate enough to die while the purchase proceeds remain uninvested may also incur inheritance tax liability.
362. The Department said that HS2 may result in some increased land availability of parcels along the line which HS2 itself resells, but we doubt that that will be sufficient. We were told that HS2 should not be treated differently from other infrastructure projects but we believe the likely intensity of competition for land along the HS2 route merits its treatment as a special case.
363. We wrote to HM Treasury seeking a generalised extension of the discretion to extend rollover relief periods in the case of HS2, or at least a statement that there would be a starting assumption of such extension. We did not want farmers spending money on detailed individual tax advice when a general position or set of starting assumptions could be usefully set out.
364. HM Treasury said that it would write to farmers to advise them of existing rollover relief discretions. We wished for greater certainty and clarity. There is precedent for extended discretion in cases from other business sectors.71 The Treasury should make it clear that the enhanced rollover relief periods will apply to all those whose land is acquired for the project. As it will take HS2 some ten years to bring its Phase One rail project to fruition, there is a case for allowing farmers a comparable period for reinvestment.
Development and railway
Development and planning
365. We heard argument that the powers in clause 47 whereby the Secretary of State may acquire land for regeneration purposes were too broad. We were presented with two sets of compromise language: one from the Promoter, requiring the Secretary of State to consult on use of the powers; and one from Camden Borough Council which would tie exercise of the power to the vicinity of the works and/or to local plans. We decided the latter would be too restrictive. The power is a backstop power designed to prevent ‘ransom strips’ obstructing regeneration.72 We favoured the Promoter’s language. We direct an appropriate amendment to the Bill.
366. We heard that in certain areas such as green belt areas local planning policy prevents net increase in building numbers. Where residents particularly adversely affected by the line want to move away and build new property, the dilemma in planning terms is whether they should be permitted to do so only with demolition of the current premises. The land on which the premises are demolished would clearly be of substantially lower value to the acquiring body—probably the Promoter. There is an analogous issue with
71 Executors of Ralph Louse Brown v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1996] STC (SCD) 27 72 HS2 Ltd, Information Papers, C11
A706 (88) HOL/00530/0123 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16 87
agricultural premises. We heard a small number of cases but there will be others. We took this up with the Department of Communities and Local Government. The Minister wrote to local authorities to encourage them to have regard to the impact of HS2 when deciding on planning applications.73 As the project nears commencement we would like the Department of Communities and Local Government to remind local authorities of the sensible position. Wholly unnecessary demolition should clearly be avoided.
Broadband
367. The Bill makes passive provision for installation of broadband infrastructure on the route, but not actual installation such as ducting and cabling. Several areas which will not stand to gain directly from the railway and which lacked broadband access pressed the case for active broadband provision, to mitigate for some of the pain of construction.
368. The Government has said that commercial need and a commercially justifiable proposition would require to be demonstrated. It told us that most areas between London and Birmingham are planned to be “fairly well served” by fibre broadband providers, adding that it might be more efficient to provide more poorly served areas with broadband access via cabling not from the HS2 route but other rail routes, or road routes. The Government accepted that this might not be the case everywhere. It noted that in the areas where it is not there would still need to be a demand for a commercially viable broadband service. The Promoter said it would be meeting the Department of Culture, Media and Sport and the telecommunications industry in May 2016 to define the market, and level of demand.
369. The Department of Culture, Media and Sport can establish which areas within, say, 3km of the HS2 route are unlikely to have superfast broadband provision and good 4G mobile telephone coverage by 2018 (the year after anticipated start of construction). Few if any of those living close to the route will benefit directly from the HS2 project. The Government is wrong to believe that the test for providing broadband and mobile access is whether the telecommunications industry can be offered a commercially viable market in such localities. If commercial propositions are not speedily forthcoming the Government should fund the provision. We do not direct whence the cabling comes; industry operators and Government can make a commercial assessment of that. We direct that, one way or another, the provision of a modern railway is to be associated with achieving modern high-speed communication along its route.
Railway assets
370. The project will be making substantial use of existing railway infrastructure and assets. Some of those may not be in good condition. Using it to the extent required by a project of this nature might create annoyance to residents. The Nominated Undertaker should fund reasonable improvements in such cases. A petitioner from Camden described poorly maintained gates, currently not that frequently used, whose increased use would irritate. There will be other examples. The Nominated Undertaker should be alert to them and respond quickly. There may also be low-cost aesthetic enhancements to railway property that can be made as a way to mitigate the perceived impact of construction.
73 Letters of 12 and 18 March 2015, published on Committee website
A706 (89) HOL/00530/0124 88 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16
Some of the existing railway assets in and around Ruislip might benefit from some care and attention, for instance.
Freight
371. An important element in construction is the proposed railhead at what is currently the Euroterminal rail site in Willesden. The freight operator DB Schenker has a more than 100-year-long lease from Network Rail on the property. The site is currently the subject of various subleases. We heard that the Promoter needs an extended period of up to 17 years access to the site for construction. While we acknowledge that the Promoter should not be required to enter into complex negotiations for sub-licences from multiple landlords, outright acquisition would displace the current occupant from valued business premises. If that is to happen, it should not be with one eye on what other parties might want or might have wished for. We asked the Promoter to reconsider alternatives to and to negotiate with DB Schenker in good faith, on the basis of DB Schenker’s existing lease between Network Rail rather than what might have been. The Promoter agreed.
372. Several freight operators perceived a lack of ambition and urgency in endeavours to secure benefits from the project for their industry. They pressed for the Bill to require that the Secretary of State issue guidance on principles for use of rail capacity released by HS2. Professor MacNaughton told us that the door was open to discussion through working groups but that legislating for discussion was not appropriate. We agree, and we recognise that there are procurement law boundaries to such discussions. The long investment lead times that will be needed to exploit released capacity persuaded us of the need for greater engagement.
West Coast Main Line operation
373. ‘Line X’ is an important ‘dive-under’ tunnel in the throat of Euston station which enables West Coast Main Line and other services to switch platforms without crossing the tracks in the throat at surface level. It plays an important part in maintaining capacity. We were pleased to hear that the period for which it will need to be closed is to be minimised.
374. Coventry will benefit from the proximity of the proposed Birmingham Interchange station and is among those being consulted on the name of the station. We welcome the assurances given to Coventry City Council (and to other parties with interests in West Coast Main Line services to the Midlands) about future Coventry service provision on the classic rail network and about passive provision for possible future “four tracking” of the West Coast Main Line at Berkswell.
375. The Promoter has set out its aspirations and capacity in the world of HS2 in HS2 Information Paper A2. Exact service frequencies on the West Coast Main Line in general will be a matter for future regulation. The rail network as a whole should be seeking to meet the needs of passengers and local economies and improve their experience of rail use.
A706 (90) HOL/00530/0125 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16 89
7 Locus standi 376. Petitioners against hybrid bills and additional provisions need to show that one or more of the bill provisions (or additional provisions or supplementary environmental statements) directly and specially affect them, the purpose of the petitioning process being precisely to protect those who may suffer particular adverse effects beyond effects on the public at large.
377. Challenges to the locus standi of petitions against the Bill itself were addressed in our interim report. The Promoter challenged the locus standi of 35 out of 182 AP2 petitions,74 three out of 144 AP3 petitions, 165 out of 278 AP4 petitions, and 13 out of 22 AP5 petitions. (None of the AP1 petitions was challenged.) As we have commented elsewhere in this report, of the AP2 and AP4 petitioners who were challenged, many had expressed discontent not principally with the additional provisions themselves but with the alleged inadequacy of the additional provisions in addressing their concerns with the Bill itself. That does not provide locus standi.
378. Of the AP2 petitioners whose locus was challenged, one conceded he was not directly affected but claimed to represent the views of others. Those ‘others’ could have petitioned themselves, so we upheld the locus challenge. A further AP2 petitioner was concerned that because of her proximity to the East-West railway she would be affected by HS2’s use of that railway. That was not a sufficiently special effect; we sympathised, but many people live close to railways and roads that will be used to some extent by the project. We upheld the AP2 locus challenges in all but two cases, where we felt that the benefit of the doubt should be given. In those two cases we requested that the petitioners be brief in their submissions.
379. One AP3 challenge was not contested by the petitioner. The other two challenges concerned petitioners (Andrew Bodman and the South Northamptonshire Action Group) who were concerned about the effect of the project on conventional train services from Northamptonshire into Euston. We upheld the challenges on the basis that the petitioners were not specially affected compared with the general travelling population. (There are, in any event, other means for those petitioners to make their opinions known.)
380. Some of the 165 AP4 challenges were not contested. The contested challenges were heard in three days of sittings when we sat for about 14 hours. We are grateful to the AP4 petitioners for grouping their presentations on locus. We exercised our discretion to grant locus in three cases where we felt that it would be equitable to do so in the circumstances. In one case, we refrained from a decision on the basis that that would allow sensible discussions. In other cases, it was clear to us that AP4 would be substantially advantageous to the petitioners. Such disbenefits as were associated with it would be brought to our attention by other petitioners.
381. 11 of the 13 AP5 locus challenges were not resisted. Two AP5 petitioners elected to appear to express their discontent with AP5, but stated in the Committee Room that they were not thereafter resisting the locus challenge. Accordingly, we were not required to make any decisions on locus on AP5.
74 Three challenges were subsequently withdrawn, however.
A706 (91) HOL/00530/0126 90 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16
8 Recommendations for future hybrid bill procedure
Hybrid bill procedure
382. Infrastructure projects require proper scrutiny, and a new national railway network demands particular public attention and involvement. The Government has accepted that there are legal obligations in relation to such involvement.75
383. Although other evaluation mechanisms are possible, there are some advantages to the hybrid bill route. First, each Chamber of the national legislature has more than one opportunity to consider the principle of the project set out in the Bill, and can amend its provisions. Second, there is parliamentary scrutiny of the Bill’s provisions in a public bill committee of each House. Third, select committees of each House consider detailed complaints against the Bill in the form of petitions from specially adversely affected parties. Those select committees have wide powers to direct changes to the hybrid bills: by refusing to proceed if they believe the promoting public body is being obstructive, committees can exert political pressure for change, even if that change is outside their strict remit. Fourth, decisions are made by politicians with an understanding of the needs of, constraints on and realistic options open to the Administration, and—given their experience dealing with their constituents—an understanding of the needs of petitioners. Last, putting overall direction of the project in the hands of primary legislators gives potentially greater procedural flexibility: through the legislature, the Administration can do what needs to be done to accommodate particular circumstances. Decisions in Parliament are less susceptible to legal challenge.
384. We acknowledge several criticisms of hybrid bill process. Notable among these are that many of the current petitioning procedures and hearing arrangements have been inherited from previous eras and are no longer fit for purpose. Some have taken also the view that the Administration has rather too much sway over the process and its timing. (Notwithstanding what we say about select committees having power to dig their heels in, the exercise of that power has in practice been limited.) The process requires a huge time commitment from the politicians appointed to the select committees, which has a severe impact on their other duties. Recruitment to those committees may become very difficult.
385. We note three more specific problems with the current hybrid bill process. One is that the select committee charged with hearing petitions does not come into being until petitioning is effectively already happening. This means that the committee has no opportunity to determine the early procedures that will apply to the very subject matter it will be dealing with, including in the build-up period during which petitioners are already organising and drafting. A second, related, problem is that petitioning happens without sufficient guidance on who should petition, and what about. This certainly results in an inclusive process. It can be seen as too inclusive. There should be less petitioning, with more focus on serious detriment. Clearer, and authoritative, guidance is needed on what constitutes locus standi—that is, what will result in a right to be heard on a petition. The third problem is that there is simply far too much repetition of the same issues before the Committee. There is a conception, based on our experience, that weighing in with another
75 See the environment section of the route-wide chapter
A706 (92) HOL/00530/0127 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16 91
angle on the same point will help strengthen a case. It does not. If some believe that there is a democratic right for everyone who wants to show up to have their say to repeat issues for as long as it takes, they are wrong. Such a conception does not serve the democratic process.
386. Although the number of petitions deposited against the HS2 Phase One Bill did not break records (that honour goes to the Channel Tunnel Bill),76 we have broken records with the number of petitions we have heard and with the Committee’s number of sitting days. We do not believe that spending nearly two years on this process is sensible or sustainable in terms of recruitment of future hybrid bill committee members. Nor is it necessary or indeed helpful to petitioners.
387. Some suggested that we should be open to hearing as many variations on the same themes as there were exponents of those themes. We learned that there are diminishing returns from such an approach. For instance, though we have said that there are serious issues to be addressed around the HS2 project’s use of roads in Buckinghamshire, we had more than got the message about each potential problem after the tenth repetition.
388. There are ways to address these problems through some quite easily achievable procedural changes.
The petition deposit process
389. At present, a fee of £20 is charged to each petitioner. Petitions must be deposited in person in Parliament, or through an agent, who must also attend in person, or through a Member. The burden on Members of collecting and depositing petitions from petitioners who decide not to make the journey personally is substantial. Petitioners have to come back again, possibly more than once, if they want to petition against an additional provision. Although deposit in person provides some limited opportunity for checking, and for obtaining procedural advice, it seems hard to justify given the travel expenses incurred by petitioners who do not delegate the job to their Member of Parliament, and the highly constrained time available for checking in the final days of petitioning deposit, when hundreds of petitions can be received each day. In many cases, travel costs exceed the £20 petitioning fee.
390. The defenders of the current system argue that it deters speculative or spurious petitions and continual amendment of petitions by petitioners who realise they want to include another point. It should be possible to design a new system which is not dependent on personal attendance at Westminster but which retains safeguards. Such a system should almost certainly be electronic. (In this context we note the successful introduction in the last Parliament of a “portal” for the electronic submission of written evidence to select committees.) A new system could allow some limited scope for petition amendment in the light of changed circumstances; say, once, a sensible number of weeks before the relevant hearing.
391. On the question of petitioning fees, for our part we favour retention of a deposit fee to discourage speculative or spurious petitioning. The financial impact can be reduced by sharing the cost of a petition, for example between members of residents associations.
76 The Committee on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill heard some 260 petition cases of 993 deposited. The Committee on the Channel Tunnel Bill heard some 660 from 4,835 deposited.
A706 (93) HOL/00530/0128 92 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16
392. Many have commented that the traditional petitioning language required is old- fashioned and off-putting. To make the process more inclusive, the language used in hybrid bill petitioning can be brought up to date, in line with changes agreed by the House for public petitions. That this has not happened before is a function of the recent relative infrequency of hybrid bills. We also believe there would be merit in revisiting the somewhat Victorian language and complex architecture of the private business standing orders, from which much of the hybrid bill procedure derives, to bring that up to date and make the standing orders more accessible. With the prospect of several more hybrid bills in the near future, these and other procedural updates will be worthwhile, and needed.
Rights of audience
393. The Promoter, in deference to the Committee, initially took a cautious approach to locus standi challenges on the Phase One Bill and challenged only 24 out of 1,918 petitions. This was understandable; at the start of proceedings and without the benefit of a recent comparable hybrid bill on which to base its decisions, a hybrid bill committee could be expected to want to show latitude to petitioners. (On Crossrail, the promoters challenged no petitions at all.)
394. With the benefit of nearly two years’ experience, we believe that there should be a stricter approach to locus standi. Past convention has been that hybrid bill committees should make their own determinations on locus. (This is different from the practice in relation to private bills, where a separate committee, the Court of Referees, makes such decisions.) The current method could be retained, or replaced by a different mechanism. We believe that it is a priority that strong guidelines on acceptable locus should be set out before the establishment of the Committee and before petitioning starts. This would make the “terms of trade” much clearer to all parties. Such guidelines could, for instance, establish distances from the Bill works whereby petitioners beyond those limits could expect to have their locus challenged and the challenge upheld. They could also illustrate instances where locus will almost certainly not be upheld, such as where petitioners no longer live in the area, are petitioning from abroad, are in effect suggesting changes to general transport policy, or are complaining about possible service impacts or nuisances that are common to the wider travelling public or the public generally. Similar guidelines should be established on what constitutes locus standi to object to an additional provision. Additionally, guidelines could spell out that generic objections about local effects are better made in one petition from a single representative group, or a few such groups, than in multiple repetitive, ‘template’ petitions.
395. Whatever vehicle is decided on for agreeing the guidelines on locus standi, when it comes to the process of deciding on challenges brought by the Promoter we would emphasize the importance to efficient process of the locus standi challenge process taking place in writing as far as possible. In our view, the House authorities should recommend locus guidelines, consider the locus challenges and recommend decisions for the Committee, which could then review those decisions and hear any locus challenges orally if it wished.
A706 (94) HOL/00530/0129 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16 93
Hearings and programming
396. At present, the powers of hybrid bill committees are somewhat indeterminate, at least partly because they derive from the standing orders relating to private business, which do not always mesh neatly with hybrid bill practice. The position is not helped by the fact that the last thorough review of practice in hybrid bill committees was nearly 70 years ago, in 1948.77 (The phrase “hybrid bill” does not even appear in the standing orders of either House.) This situation is unsatisfactory. It opens the committee and its supporting advisers to a barrage of questions about scope of powers. It would be better and fairer to have greater certainty from the outset.
397. The application of private business standing orders and Court of Referees’ rules to hybrid bills should be clarified. The present conventions, such as those on applicable time limits, lack transparency and cause confusion. We thank Joe Rukin of Stop HS2 for drawing our attention to this. There should also be more practical rules for appointing representative agents. Roll B formalities, such as the certificate of respectability, are redundant and should be simplified, and there should be scope for a petitioner to appoint more than one agent to accommodate business availability, vacation arrangements and sickness.
398. Much greater clarity about the powers of the committee would help bear down on the amount of time spent in committee, and ensure that time was spent as effectively as possible. The aim should be to ensure that lead organisations, residents associations and other seriously affected individuals and bodies get to set out their points fully, while those who wish merely to reinforce points already made may do so only within an allocated time, or after agreeing to group together. Hybrid bill committees should have express discretion over programming, including in choosing lead petitioners, imposing time limits, and grouping together of petitioners. Committees might be given discretion to appoint a programming sub-committee to hear representations on such matters. This overall approach would act as an additional disincentive to so-called ‘template’ petitioning from those who arguably use the petitioning process more as a way to register an objection on principle than because they are themselves particularly affected. Such petitions could be strictly programmed and/or grouped.
399. Although petitioners understandably wanted to vent some spleen about the impact of the HS2 project, we heard too much reciting of past history for the sake of it. We believe the Chair should have an express power to direct the order of addressing the committee between petitioner and promoter, so that where appropriate the promoter could open and explain any points that have become non-issues. Committees should also have an express power to restrict the volume of evidential submissions and the numbers of witnesses. If committees had that power, they could choose to use it sparingly, given its deterrent effect. The lack of such a power meant in our case that hundreds of pages of evidence were submitted that have seldom been referred to, with occasional parades of witnesses who, with due respect to their enthusiasm and commitment, were not always witnesses on a point of fact but, rather, supporters of a point of view.
400. At present there is no provision for allowing petitioners to make their ‘appearances’ in writing. To make even a simple independent point, petitioners must appear in person or otherwise forsake any appearance. This is unfair on such petitioners and should be
77 Report of the Committee on Hybrid Bills (Procedure in Committee), HC 191, 1947–48
A706 (95) HOL/00530/0130 94 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16
changed. If petitioners perceive no disadvantage in making a written submission rather than appearing in person, then their judgment should be respected. Putting it the other way round, it may be that oral submissions should be restricted to those principally affected.
Decision making
401. At several stages during our proceedings, questions were raised about whether we could or would issue preliminary determinations before having heard all relevant petitions, including petitions on additional provisions. We accept that the starting point should be to hear all relevant arguments on an issue before announcing a determination. However, we believe there are cases where, once the major exponents of an argument have been heard, the likely sensible conclusion becomes obvious, and to delay a determination - and thus decision - might incur financial cost. We believe there may be merit in giving future hybrid bill committees should be given an express power to issue preliminary decisions.
Conclusions on procedural reform
402. We leave it to others to determine the means by which the kind of reforms we have outlined above might be implemented, but one simple approach could be a revision to standing orders allowing delegation of certain procedural powers to hybrid bill committees. We urge the House, and Ministers, to consider such changes in good time before the next hybrid bill is introduced. Suitably drafted, such revisions should make the process simpler and less time-consuming, without affecting the Government’s need to get its legislation through or of petitioners to make their case effectively.
403. Lest it be thought that these reflections indicate dissatisfaction with all those who addressed us on their petitions, we state that we have particularly appreciated the knowledge, commitment and contribution of many local representative groups, including parish councils and residents’ associations. Many who appeared before us clearly made huge efforts to persuade by succinctness, relevance and acute observation. We applaud their immensely hard work.
A706 (96) HOL/00530/0131 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16 95
Conclusions 404. HS2 will profoundly transform this country’s railway network. It is right to have processes—albeit they should be proportionate—to allow those adversely affected to voice their concerns and complaints and seek design improvements and redress. The task of dealing with nearly 2,600 petitions (of which nearly 1,600 were heard) was a challenging one for the Committee and its staff. It required many sitting hours, much behind-the-scenes negotiating, a degree of flexibility from petitioners on appearance dates, and a great deal of work from them in grouping their cases and in researching and presenting arguments. In many cases, there has been a substantial financial cost in preparing submissions, as well as an emotional cost. We are grateful to all those whose efforts helped achieve the task within a period that ensured fair scrutiny.
405. We wanted to see a fairer, broader and more efficient compensation system for those affected by the proposed railway. Through the efforts of parliamentary colleagues, petitioners and others, we heard of some severe difficulties with compensation and shortcomings in the available schemes. We recognise that we will not have satisfied those who wanted radically different compensation structures, but the modifications we have prompted should go a long way toward achieving a more just and appropriate framework.
406. There may be better ways for the scrutiny process to operate in future. We have suggested some. We invite those concerned, including colleagues in the Lords who will undertake a similar task to ours, to reflect on them. As far as our own task is concerned, we have endeavoured always to be sympathetic, even when we did not agree that we should intervene. Where we believed there was unfairness or scope for sensible improvement, we directed change. We believe the proposed railway will be a better one thanks to the improvements and compromises that the select committee process has brought about. The Bill goes forward for further consideration and for decisions by this House and the House of Lords.
A706 (97) HOL/00530/0132 96 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16
Annex One Petitioners listed in normal type asked to be associated with those shown in bold above them. This was to indicate their support for the petitioning arguments set out in Committee by the bold listed petitioners.
Petition Petitioner number 27 Bernice Fuggle 29 Christopher Seagrave
33 Little Kingshall Village Society 11 Claire Fallowfield AP1: 11 Mrs Claire Fallowfield 341 Patricia Ellis 1160 Marcus Thompson and others
57 George Rivas 131 Ronald and Margaret Gordon
83 Wendover HS2 Action Group 12 Jeffrey Patrick Addison and others 100 Fletcher and Sally Nicholson 593 Penelope Miles 1002 Ronald and Patricia Fisher 1719 Sarah Lapham 1720 Lorraine Irvine
106 Halton Parish Council 833 Christine Maylor
189 Barnaby Usborne Lee Gate group 123 Peter and Jan Dale Mair 157 Paul and Rosemary Holloway 339 Tracey Knowles 347 Freya Knowles 350 George Knowles 351 Paul Knowles 573 Michael Cottam 1024 Robert May 1236 Kathryn Rice 1268 Trevor and Lynda Pearce 1269 Arabella and James Norton 1271 Graham and Anne Pearce 1281 Jenny Wooding 1537 Mr Stewart Leslie Vaughan and Jane Rosalind Vaughan
A706 (98) HOL/00530/0133 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16 97
Petition Petitioner number
1551 Leslie Robins 1552 Michael and Sarah Hurd 1555 Elizabeth Benwell 1556 Joanne Crabb 1571 Susan Santer 1574 Sheryl Pope 1572 Jodie Santer 1575 Lucinda Drought 1576 Sheila Barnaby 1599 George Barnaby 1600 Derek Pereira 1271 Graham and Anne Pearce 1281 Jenny Wooding 1537 Mr Stewart Leslie Vaughan and Jane Rosalind Vaughan 1551 Leslie Robins 1552 Michael and Sarah Hurd 1555 Elizabeth Benwell 1556 Joanne Crabb 1571 Susan Santer 1574 Sheryl Pope 1572 Jodie Santer 1575 Lucinda Drought 1576 Sheila Barnaby 1599 George Barnaby 1600 Derek Pereira
510 David and Diana Jones and the Lee Green group 95 Mr C J O Syer 352 Pamela Garner 1274 Gerard O’Doherty and Penelope Haddon 1282 Anthony Brignull 1283 Rhodri James 1463 David Gurney 1505 Stavroula Brignull 1507 Diana Morley 1529 Kathryn Gurney 1536 Patricia Mitchell 1558 Sally Knowles 1596 Isabella -Jones 1598 Christine Fanthome 1677 Rudolph Kalveks 1679 Brian and Margaret Thaiss
A706 (99) HOL/00530/0134 98 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16
Petition Petitioner number 1694 William Baxter CBE 1697 Fiona Baxter 510 David and Diana Jones and the Lee Green group 95 Mr C J O Syer 352 Pamela Garner 1274 Gerard O’Doherty and Penelope Haddon 1282 Anthony Brignull 1283 Rhodri James 1463 David Gurney 1505 Stavroula Brignull 1507 Diana Morley 1529 Kathryn Gurney 1536 Patricia Mitchell 1558 Sally Knowles 1596 Isabella -Jones 1598 Christine Fanthome 1677 Rudolph Kalveks 1679 Brian and Margaret Thaiss 1694 William Baxter CBE 1697 Fiona Baxter
512 Wendover Parish Council 306 Susan MacDonald 307 Nigel and Margaret Copelin 1287 Veronica Challinger 1691 Cynthia Waterhouse
605 The Wendover Society 1196 Dudley Hugh Page 1198 Patricia Riley-Page AP5: 11 Andrew Burnett AP5: 12 Jacqueline Burnett
633 The Delancey Street Residents’ Association 924 Mrs Penelope F Jones AP3: 56 Mrs Penelope F Jones 1601 Renzo and Annette Marchini 632 Raymond Lionel Clausen 955 Alberto and Deolinda Tojeira AP3: 23 Russell Keith Grant & Nadine Margaret Hobson
653 Paul Fullagar 330 Mrs Clare Smith
A706 (100) HOL/00530/0135 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16 99
Petition Petitioner number 332 Mr David Smith
694 The Chesham Society 349 Michael and Angela Standing 1879 Elizabeth Pooley
750 James Conboy 696 Chris Honey 697 Maria Waite 698 Laura Collins 699 Richard Brock 739 Miriam Westendarp 1577 Karla Macugay 1918 Jean Kuipers
758 Ellesborough Parish Council 373 Helen Robinson
761 Chiltern Society 328 Nancy Neville
770 Great Missenden Village Association 138 Alan Arnold Jones 198 La Petit Auberge 572 Michael Wintgens 1900 Diana Rose 1910 Anne-Marie Lowe 1914 Christine Cooper 1917 Margaret Brown 1920 Mr Gerry Lowe
771 Great Missenden Stop HS2 554 Mrs Anne Kaneko 1311 Mr I and Mrs M Denson
870 Chesham Town Council 1879 Elizabeth Pooley
911 Ms Fiona McGuire and Mr Jonathan Duncan 1029, AP3: 32 Franca Nilda Fubini
1017 Ballinger Road Residents Association 114 Angela and Brian Reeve
A706 (101) HOL/00530/0136 100 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16
Petition Petitioner number 1039 Neville Worthington 1043 Nicola Worthington 1130 Dr Ian Paul Jalowiecki and Mrs Susan Jalowiecki
1036 Malcolm Barry Hafner 338 Jeffrey Lewis Ellison
1131 Andrew J Cordiner 1547 Mrs Susan Evelyn Alaway
1414 Martin Sheppard and Lucy Sheppard 976 Dorothy Sharp 1345 Christopher McLaverty and Sara Webster AP3: 122 Professor Howard Jacobs and Mrs Sandra Jacobs AP3: 118 Rosemary Jane Basone AP3: 119 Susan Jane Knight AP3: 117 Miss Rosemond Miskin 1412 Lucy Sheppard 1413 Martin Sheppard
1165 Wood Lane Residents Association 654 Mrs Elaine Farmer 1228 Nilesh Shah 1181 William Timothy Simon Lee 1164 Rosamund Wood
1184 Great Missenden Parish Council 126 Caragh Barnes 137 Peter Hawksley 522 Katharine Stephenson 523 David Stephenson 1051 The Governing Body of Great Missenden CE Combined School 1206 Anne Mitchell 1273 Keith Fowler and Vicki Fowler 1525 Robert and Joanna Withers 1594 Edward Howells 1595 William Howells 1655 Mrs Jennifer Hallesy 1810 Roger Longdin 1845 Peter Gutteridge 1872 Louise Maher 1884 Patricia Strugnell (was associated 1869 The Misbourne School) 1903 Betty Lawrie
A706 (102) HOL/00530/0137 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16 101
Petition Petitioner number 1919 Vanessa Martin 1920 Gerry Lowe 1921 Catherine James
1186 South Heath Action Group 1034 Amanda Joyce McCurry 1830 Dr Ian Paul Jalowiecki and Mrs Susan Jalowiecki
1214 The Lappetts Lane (South Heath) Neighbourhood Watch Scheme 193 Susan Atkins 196 Fiona Baker trading as Nutty Birds 197 Frances Cutler Soft Furnishings 199 John and Mary Fausset-Baker 209 Anita Hiscock 527 Jonathan Cutler 558 Colin and Mary Spence 559 Mary Spence trading as Over the Garden Wall 564 South Heath Garden Centre and Nursery Limited 566 Paul Burke All Clear 686 Martin Richard and Georgina Bolton 687 Derek and Audrey Arnott 1182 Clive Nicholls 1185 Thomas and Margaret Johnstone 1210 Janet Bowden 1212 David Bowden 1224 Ann Pummell 1812 Derek Jones 1214 The Lappetts Lane (South Heath) Neighbourhood Watch Scheme 193 Susan Atkins 196 Fiona Baker trading as Nutty Birds 197 Frances Cutler Soft Furnishings 199 John and Mary Fausset-Baker 209 Anita Hiscock 527 Jonathan Cutler 558 Colin and Mary Spence 559 Mary Spence trading as Over the Garden Wall 564 South Heath Garden Centre and Nursery Limited 566 Paul Burke All Clear 686 Martin Richard and Georgina Bolton 687 Derek and Audrey Arnott 1182 Clive Nicholls 1185 Thomas and Margaret Johnstone 1210 Janet Bowden
A706 (103) HOL/00530/0138 102 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16
Petition Petitioner number 1212 David Bowden 1224 Ann Pummell 1812 Derek Jones 686 Martin Richard and Georgina Bolton 687 Derek and Audrey Arnott 1182 Clive Nicholls 1185 Thomas and Margaret Johnstone 1210 Janet Bowden 1212 David Bowden 1224 Ann Pummell 1812 Derek Jones
1185 Thomas and Margaret Johnstone 1210 Janet Bowden 1212 David Bowden 1224 Ann Pummell 1812 Derek Jones
1267 Matthew Hollier and Susan Matheson 1029, AP3: 32 Franca Nilda Fubini
1286 Colin and Rita Sully Swan Bottom 1826 Nicholas and Anne Butterworth 1597 Elizabeth Stacey AP4: 00103 Christopher Glyn Jones
1326 Barton Hartshorn Parish Meeting 1354 Joyce Tudor-Hughes
1442 Aylesbury Town Council 284, AP1: 38 Cllr Freda Roberts MBE
1465 Thomas Brocket Sly Corner Ballinger 680 Nevil Coulson 1018 Adrian Simpson 1019 Jessica Simpson 1279 Gerald and Marian Tomkins 1280 Sharon Clark 1528 Jean Wheeler 1537 Stewart and Jane Vaughan 1546 Alan and Janet Joyner 1549 Jane Neal 1550 Roderick Neal
A706 (104) HOL/00530/0139 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16 103
Petition Petitioner number 1651 Martin Price 1676 Christopher Edwards 1706 Tina Winn
1512 Wendover Parish Council 12 Jeffrey Addison & Others 74 Alexander Clapperton 103 Ursula Drackford and others 105 Frank Bretherton 304 John Vince 305 Jonathan and Enid M Clover 306 Susan MacDonald 307 Nigel and Margaret Copelin 585 Marion Clayton 594 Michael and Jean Payne 775 Eileen Robinson 777 Aidan Byles 778 Rosa Woosley 1287 Michael Alan Payne and Jean Angela Payne
1590 Victoria Parola 1593 Giovanni Delana 1591 HS2 Action Alliance Ltd 1913 Yolanda Longdin AP4:147 Susan Raynsford
1681 Dunsmore Society 75 Christopher Royal 586 Christopher Lacey 1199 Sandra Lacey 1154 Suzanne Lord 1194 Ruth Malleson 1079 Jill Baldwin 1450 Margaret Smith 1449 Adrian Smith
1775 Alice and Ilse Gray 976 Dorothy Sharp
1793 David and Mary Stewart 360 Ann Minogue
1816 Amersham Society
A706 (105) HOL/00530/0140 104 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16
Petition Petitioner number 342 David Hanrahan 744 David Sawyer 1498 Christopher Pearson 1499 Jennifer Pearson
1827 The HS2 Amersham Action Group 139 Susie Roche 336 Jacqueline Harvey 551 Paul Cassin 553 Peter Burrows 655 Graeme, Gerladine, and Matthew Carney 677 Alan Jarvis 700 Barrie Lucke 733 Charles Law 742 Brenda M Liddiard 1015 David Sommer 1325 Andrew and Geraldine Baxter 1340 Ian Golton 1500 Sidney Thompson 1815 Michael Izza 1850 Gillian Izza 1821 Kevin F Sowden 1825 Geraldine Marshall-Andrew 1882 Robert Wine 1864 Amersham and District Residents’ Association 1898 Amersham Action Group 1849 Amersham Ladies Walking Club 511 Anne Myhill 1861 Mr John Bannister 1673 Susan Wilson
1877 Prof T Payne 360 Ann Minogue
1878 Hyde End Residents Group 136 Susan Collins 135 Christopher Collins 127 Anthony Upward 333 Edward Collins 656 Emilia Sheffield 661 Henry Sheffield 666 Frederick Sheffield 669 Timothy Sheffield
A706 (106) HOL/00530/0141 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16 105
Petition Petitioner number 660 Nicholas Van Cutsem 668 George Van Cutsem 670 Alice Van Cutsem 671 Alexandra Sheffield 667 Martha Hadden-Paton 672 Harry Hadden-Paton 637 Olivia Van Vredenburch 640 Ella Van Vredenburch 657 Jemima Van Vredenburch 658 Tatiana Van Vredenburch 662 Flora Van Vredenburch 673 Hugo Van Vredenburch 659 Rebecca Hadden-Paton 665 Mrs Natasha Van Vredenburch 663 Carlos Martins 642 Chloe Martins 690 Celia Martins 190 Mr B and Mrs J Cooley 207 Philip Tillyer and Julia Tillyer 1202 Mark Western 682 Martin Hilder 1204 Patricia Mellor 1205 George Mellor 1860 Brynmor and Ann Neal 1846 Evelyn Godoy 1815 Michael Izza 1850 Gillian Izza
Group A 70 D S Beaumont
Group F 1019 Jessica Simpson
Group M Group M 1866 Jill Bowman 1867 David Brennan
Group N 1892 Michael Watson Walls & Catherine Walls 1901 Norman Pearce
A706 (107) HOL/00530/0142 106 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16
Petition Petitioner number Group Q 1292 Seer Green Church of England School 437 Wavelength Companies Limited
AP3: 46 Mr Gervais Williams and Miranda Glossop 1649 Mrs Tanya Morgan 1352 Rosemary Zena Hunt 1648 Dr Julia Chapman 1302 Mr Amit Green and Mrs Jane Tobin Green 372 Jill Babington 364 Paul Hackworth
AP3: 49 Ampthill Square Tenants and Residents Association (Frances Heron) 1342 Peter Astor
AP3: 104 The Royal College of General Practioners 1468 Mr Azad Ali & Others AP3: 112 Faridon Mohammed Said 973 Jirawat Prateepachitti, Kanoungnuch Kinnorn and Thanawat Singtosap 975 Rosa Helena Aranda 1685 Martha Lucia Giraldo AP3: 113 Amendra and Dina Shrestha 948 Mrs Antonietta Winton AP3: 99 Antonietta Winton 967 Mr Stephen de Winter 865 Guillermo Muriel & Others 854 Jonathan Zokay 916 Shuma Begum
AP3 107 Gloucester Avenue Association petition AP3: 76 Jeffrey Twentyman 1801 Edward Bragiel and Julia Clark 1683 Mr Peter Lyons on behalf of the Harmood Street, Clarence Way and Hartland Road Residents Association AP3: 127 Dr Elizabeth Horder 1421 Nick Powell 976 Dorothy Sharp 923, AP3: 95 Sally Kindberg 855 Colin and Anna Ludlow AP3: 47 Robert and Lenka Speight AP3: 128 Mr Adam Henry Teeger 1345 Christopher McLaverty and Sara Webster AP3: 122 Professor Howard Jacobs and Mrs Sandra Jacobs
A706 (108) HOL/00530/0143 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16 107
Petition Petitioner number AP3: 118 Rosemary Jane Basone AP3: 119 Susan Jane Knight AP3: 117 Miss Rosemond Miskin 1412 Lucy Sheppard 1413 Martin Sheppard
A706 (109) HOL/00530/0144 108 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16
Annex Two Table of additional provisions and supplementary environmental statements
Date Subject matter Number Number deposited of of petitions petitions (Date of heard instruction to the Com- mittee to consider) AP1 10th Amendments to accommodate: 42 27 September 2014 requirements of landowners and occupiers; changes to the design of the works author- ised by the Bill; and
the requirements of utility undertakers. AP2 13th July Amendments to accommodate: 182 122 SES1 2015 the vertical and horizontal realignment of the proposed railway in the vicinity of the A38 and Trent and Mersey Canal;
the requirements of landowners and occupi- ers; and
changes to the design of the works author- ised by the Bill;
amendments conferring additional power;
to carry out works for the purpose of provid- ing a new Heathrow Express depot in conse- quence of the displacement of the existing depot because of the exercise of powers conferred by the Bill; and
to provide sidings for Crossrail services at Old Oak Common that could be extended in the future to create a connection between the West Coast Main Line Railway and the Great Western Main Line. AP3 17th Sep- Amendments to accommodate: 144 107 SES2 tember 2015 changes to the design of Euston Station; and the requirements of landowners and occu- piers and changes to the design of works authorised by the Bill.
A706 (110) HOL/00530/0145 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16 109
Date Subject matter Number Number deposited of of petitions petitions (Date of heard instruction to the Com- mittee to consider) AP4 12th Octo- Amendments to accommodate: 278 90 SES3 ber 2015 the requirements of landowners and occupi- ers; and
changes to the design of the works author- ised by the Bill; and
amendments relating to the extension of the Chiltern tunnel AP5 3rd Decem- Amendments to accommodate: 22 6 SES4 ber 2015 the requirements of landowners and occu- piers and changes to the design of works authorised by the Bill.
A706 (111) HOL/00530/0146 110 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16
Annex Three List of statements from the Chair
Date Subject matter 12 June 2014 Programming and Committee operations 1 July 2014 Programming and Committee operations; locus standi notice period 16 July 2014 Publication of petition response documents 16 and 21 July 2014, Locus standi decisions on main petitions 5 January 2015 1 September 2014 Overall programming 10 September 2014 Birmingham Curzon Street 30 October 2014 Planning policy 26 November 2014 Farm land take; Need to Sell; Birmingham tunnelling 9 December 2014 Environmental statement; planning policy 16 December 2014 Washwood Heath; Need to Sell 12 January 2015 Balsall Common and Berkswell 13 January 2015 Kingsbury, Middleton, Water Orton, Hampton-in-Arden; sen- sitive medical information; World Health Organisation noise guidelines 14 January 2015 Colne Valley programming; Committee operations; policy on second petition appearances 10 February 2015 Approach to Phase Two petition subject matter 16 March 2015 Petitioners who do not give notice of non-appearance 17 March 2015 Burton Green 18 March 2015 Offchurch and Cubbington; Southam; Ufton; Long Itchington 23 March 2015 Wormleighton; Chipping Warden; Greatworth 8 June 2015 Clarification of interim report regarding Wormleighton 15 July 2015 Colne Valley tunnel 20 July 2015 Heathrow spur passive provision; Colne Valley and South Buck- inghamshire 22 July 2015 Provisional Chilterns long tunnel decision 24 September 2015 Programming 30 November 2015 Locus standi decisions–AP2 7 and 17 December Locus standi decisions–AP3 2015 15 December 2015 Locus standi decisions–AP4 17 December 2015 Committee operations
Data Source: High Speed Rail (London–West Midlands) Bill Select Committee website
A706 (112) HOL/00530/0147 High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16 111
Formal minutes
Monday 22 February
Members present:
Mr Robert Syms, in the Chair
Sir Henry Bellingham Mr David Crausby Sir Peter Bottomley Mr Mark Hendrick Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Draft Report High( Speed Rail (London–West Midlands) Bill Select Committee: Second Special Report), proposed by the Chair, brought up and read.
Ordered, That the draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.
Paragraphs 1 to 406 read and agreed to.
Annexes agreed to.
Resolved, That the Report be the Second Special Report of the Committee to the House.
Ordered, That the Chair make the Report to the House.
[The Committee adjourned.
A706 (113) HOL/00530/0148
House of Commons High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill Select Committee
Promoter’s Response to the Select Committee’s Second Special Report of Session 2015-16
March 2016
A707 (1) HOL/00530/0149 The Department for Transport has actively considered the needs of blind and partially sighted people in accessing this document. The text will be made available in full on the Department’s website. The text may be freely downloaded and translated by individuals or organisations for conversion into other accessible formats. If you have other needs in this regard please contact the Department.
Department for Transport Great Minster House 33 Horseferry Road London SW1P 4DR Telephone 0300 330 3000 Website www.gov.uk/dft General enquiries: https://forms.dft.gov.uk
© Crown copyright 2016
Copyright in the typographical arrangement rests with the Crown.
You may re-use this information (not including logos or third-party material) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or e-mail: [email protected] .
Where we have identified any third-party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
2
A707 (2) HOL/00530/0150 Introduction
1. This document constitutes the response of the Promoter of the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill to the Second Special Report of the 2015- 16 session (hereafter referred to as ‘the report’) published on 22 February 2016 by the House of Commons Select Committee on the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill (hereafter referred to as ‘the Bill’).
2. The Bill is being promoted by the Secretary of State for Transport. Responsibility for delivering the various actions that are outlined in this response will rest with either HS2 Ltd, the Department for Transport or the relevant Nominated Undertaker. The terms ‘Promoter’ and ‘we’ are used at various points in this document to encompass all of these parties.
3. The Select Committee made clear in their report that they have confined their directions and recommendations to areas where they felt an intervention was necessary and in cases where they do not expressly mention anything, it can be assumed that they were content not to intervene on the position taken by the Promoter. This response similarly aims to only address the matters raised by the Select Committee in their report, where an action from the Promoter was sought or where a clarification was deemed to be beneficial.
4. Commitments given in this document are subject to delivery within existing Bill powers unless otherwise expressly stated. Where existing assurances are referenced, the reader may wish to refer to the draft Undertakings and Assurances register for the complete text upon which the Secretary of State is bound 1.
Promoter’s response
In paragraphs 44 and 45 of the report, in relation to Birmingham Curzon Street, the Select Committee notes:
“We are pleased that Birmingham City Council was offered sufficiently satisfactory draft assurances that it was able to dispense with a substantive appearance before the Committee. Key among the assurances offered were: involvement in station design, good station permeability, cooperation on relocating displaced businesses within Birmingham where possible, and provision of local apprenticeships. A strategy was agreed to mitigate the impact of HS2’s requirement for temporary closure of Saltley viaduct. There will need to be convenient access between the Curzon Street station and Birmingham New Street station.” “We said early on that we wanted an accommodation to meet the needs of Curzon Park Limited. We are pleased that in addition to Curzon Park Limited
1High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: register of undertakings and assurances https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/high-speed-rail-london-west-midlands-bill-register-of- undertakings-and-assurances 3
A707 (3) HOL/00530/0151 retaining certain land, it will retain scope for recovery of land subject to feasibility. The Promoter will consult Curzon Park Limited during the detailed design of Curzon Street Station with regard to development potential of the retained land.”
5. The Promoter has offered several assurances to Curzon Park Ltd, including that they will be consulted on the design of Curzon Street station, to ensure the development potential of Curzon Park Ltd’s land is properly appreciated. The assurances also include giving further consideration to the extent to which Curzon Park Ltd’s land can be taken temporarily rather than permanently.
6. In paragraphs 46 to 50 of the report, the Select Committee summarises the outcome of the representations made to them with respect to the Washwood Heath site. Following the review of the rolling stock maintenance depot that was undertaken by the Promoter, assurances were given to AXA and Birmingham City Council that reflected the changes made to the scheme including the reduction in land take and the resulting increase in land available for development post construction. This includes the potential for provision of underground balancing ponds, which remain options that are being considered by the Promoter as we continue to seek further reductions in land take through the detailed design stage for both operation and construction.
7. The Promoter is seeking to put in place a Memorandum of Understanding with the relevant parties that will set out how the parties will work together to ensure the development of employment land is brought forward in a coordinated and comprehensive way, with a view to maximising opportunities for jobs.
8. Paragraph 53 of the report summarises the Select Committee’s consideration of representations from the Lichfield Cruising Club. The Promoter has agreed with the Cruising Club that their concrete slipway and dry dock area are assets that will be eligible for compensation. We have further agreed that we will meet the reasonable upfront costs for a contractor and designer to assist with considering options for relocating the affected elements. We are confident that this approach will mitigate the impact of HS2 on the Cruising Club.
9. Paragraph 58 of the report summarises the representations made by Silklink Ltd, the owners of the Grimstock Country Hotel. The Promoter will acquire the Hotel and is considering how the Hotel can be managed as a running business throughout the construction phase with a view to providing the employees of the Hotel with some certainty.
10. Paragraph 59 of the report summarises the representations from Patrick Dillon, the owner of Dunton Hall. The Promoter will continue discussions regarding the position of access to Mr Dillon’s land and Reindeer Park up to the date when the land is occupied for HS2 works in this area. At the present time, the Promoter does not propose to acquire any part of Reindeer Park Lodge outside of Bill limits. The owner of that property and business has
4
A707 (4) HOL/00530/0152 indicated that he does not wish to sell to the Promoter any land outside of Bill limits. He petitioned against any enhanced use of the proposed agricultural access into Mr Dillon’s severed land. The emerging local authority plan envisages that access for minerals extraction on Mr Dillon’s land should be taken via Hams Lane. In the event that the owner of Reindeer Park Lodge wishes to sell his property to the Promoter, this would be considered in accordance with the provisions of the Compensation Code and discretionary acquisition schemes. If, as a result, the property came into the ownership of the Promoter, access arrangements would be reviewed at that time.
In paragraph 61 of the report, the Select Committee notes:
“The North Warwickshire area will experience major effects from the project. We urge the Promoter to be assiduous in maintaining contact with the constituency MP, as with all Members with constituencies on the line.”
11. The Promoter can confirm that arrangements are in place for ongoing engagement with the MP’s constituency office. The Promoter will also continue to maintain contact with offices of the constituency MPs along the line of route.
In paragraph 66, under the Hampton in Arden section, the Select Committee notes:
“The Promoter has given assurances that subject to feasibility it will use reasonable endeavours to support the relocation of a local recycling centre, currently located off the A45, to a brownfield site rather than the greenfield site proposed in AP4. The railway necessitates a relocation. … We hope that the brownfield alternative comes to fruition.”
12. The Promoter will continue to discuss with Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council and the relevant landowner, the possibility of relocating the local recycling centre to a brownfield site or another suitable alternative site and will seek to resolve this issue in a timely manner, taking reasonable steps with a view to ensuring that there is no impact on the continuity in delivery of the Council’s waste management service.
In paragraph 70 of the report, the Select Committee notes:
“Richard Lloyd of the Heart of England Railway Action Group argued for better noise attenuation at the playing fields at Chelmsley Wood. His detailed insight is often helpful. We would like some greater recognition by the Promoter of the needs of those using the playing fields. There should be sensible arrangements on footpaths there and elsewhere in this area.
13. The Promoter will provide a noise attenuation barrier in the vicinity of Heath Park, which is the location of the existing playing fields, as well a barrier proposed alongside the route as it passes the site for the replacement playing field, which is next to the Birmingham Business Park. On that basis, the Promoter feels that users of the playing field will be adequately protected from noise such that the playing field can be used for its intended purpose.
5
A707 (5) HOL/00530/0153 The recommendation on the arrangements of footpaths in the area is noted and will be addressed as part of the detailed design process, where we will work with the highway authority, the Local Access Forum, user groups such as the Ramblers, and the community to identify suitable arrangements.
In paragraph 73 of the report, in relation to roads in North Warwickshire, the Select Committee notes:
“Mr Wright [Rt Hon Jeremy Wright MP] told us he was sceptical about the suitability of the B4115 for use even temporarily as a construction route. The Promoter said that it would seek to build substitute slip roads for construction use quickly.”
14. The Promoter has committed to a package of traffic management measures in the North Warwickshire area to mitigate the effects of construction traffic on the local road network, including a one way system for construction traffic on the B4115, some amendments to the A46/Stoneleigh Road junction and provision of a temporary slip road for construction traffic. The use of the B4115 for construction traffic mitigates the significant effects that would otherwise occur at the Stoneleigh Road junction. The Promoter will ensure the timely construction of the new slip road, which will be needed in order to facilitate the one way system for the B4115. The slip road will mitigate the effect of using the B4115.
In paragraph 74 of the report the Select Committee notes:
“AP2 produces a short extension of the tunnel at Burton Green to provide additional mitigation. It will produce a small noise reduction. Rt Hon Jeremy Wright MP pressed for modelling of noise at the tunnel portals to reassure residents. We have repeatedly sought such modelling… If the model were to show no tunnel boom, so much the better.”
15. The Environmental Statement (ES) explains what we have done to assess aerodynamic noise. The Promoter has extended porous portals across the route to give greater confidence that the perceived problem of ‘tunnel boom’ will not occur. The Promoter remains of the view that porous tunnel portals will not demonstrate ’tunnel boom’ and as such no noise effect would be discernible, even if it were possible to produce an effective demonstration model for the sound energy of the pressure wave emitted from porous tunnel portals. The Promoter will continue to keep modelling options under review.
In paragraph 80 of the report, the Select Committee notes:
“We heard remaining concerns about substantial existing flood risk in the Chipping Warden area and the possibility that tunnel construction will exacerbate it. We have directed a high-level study of drainage needs .”
16. The Promoter has recently commissioned consultants to undertake the high level drainage feasibility study and will produce a report that will aim to provide comfort to the local community that the local drainage concerns will be effectively managed.
6
A707 (6) HOL/00530/0154
In paragraph 85 of the report the Select Committee notes:
“…we believe the possible traffic burden on Wardington needs careful attention. The village has been seeking a bypass, and would struggle to cope with the currently proposed HGV movements. We urge the Promoter to assist in finding ways to address matters.”
17. Given the challenges of delivering a bypass in this area, the Promoter has provided a number of assurance to Wardington Parish Council on measures to reduce the volume of HS2 construction traffic on the A361, including placing a limit on the number of HS2 construction vehicles passing through the village and commencing construction of a dedicated haul road between Greatworth and the Chipping Warden Road Head as soon as reasonably practicable in the construction programme. We will continue to work with Oxfordshire County Council and Northamptonshire County Council on local measures which will form part of the Local Traffic Management Plan.
In paragraph 86 of the report the Select Committee notes:
“…local businesses and bridleway users remained sufficiently worried to have considered raising funds for greater noise barrier protection themselves. We direct the Promoter to go one step further than it already has on the basis that there should be some local funding contribution too. The Promoter should seek a 1:1 matched funding arrangement with local interested bodies for provision of greater barrier protection in the vicinity of the bridleway crossing.”
18. The Promoter understands the desired location of a noise barrier to be along the section of embankment at Mossy Corner, rather than adjacent to the bridleway. To recognise the specific circumstances in this location, the Promoter has provided an assurance to Mixbury Parish Council to engage further on mitigation to the bridleway in this location. If further noise mitigation is deliverable within the authority of the Bill and funding is forthcoming from the local community, as suggested, we will provide match- funding and deliver it.
In paragraph 87 of the report, the Select Committee notes:
“Petitioners from Turweston needed a solution to address the intrusion of the line on the important village playing field. We asked the Promoter to think about alternative grounds that would not incur ongoing costs to the parish council. It may be that undergrounding of power lines could be part of the answer. The Promoter is examining that and has commissioned an analysis of options which will be shared with the parish council when completed. The Promoter gave assurances on movement of construction traffic through the village.”
19. Since the Committee finished its hearings, the Promoter has completed work on the underground option of powerlines in the vicinity of the playing field at Turweston, and has offered a set of assurances to the Parish Council. The
7
A707 (7) HOL/00530/0155 Promoter is having ongoing discussions with the Parish Council to consider how to reduce the impact of the scheme on the playing fields. In paragraph 91 of the report, in relation to the proposed maintenance depot at Calvert, the Select Committee notes: “The operational site will need 24-hour lighting provision. Lighting use will be minimised consistent with functioning of the site. Known technology will be deployed to reduce light spillage. This should be the best available. Lighting provision will satisfy environmental guidance for a ‘dark sky’ installation.” 20. The Promoter will ensure the lighting provision associated with the operational depot minimises the light spillage from the depot as far as reasonably practicable.
In paragraph 94 of the report, the Select committee notes: “Clive Higgins has a business at Steeple Claydon. His concern was about potential effects on access of a new overbridge crossing the East-West rail link. The Promoter said that its design choices were constrained by engineering requirements on the north side of the railway. We would like the Promoter to revisit this to see whether there are ways to secure better access provision for Mr Higgins.”
21. The Promoter is committed to providing a safe and effective means of providing access for Mr Higgins and will continue to refine proposals during detailed design. Any change of the road realignment in this area is likely to move the impact from one landowner to another and, given the engineering constraints, the amount of land required for an alignment passing further to the south would be greater than that currently required. For those reasons the Promoter would only wish to consider such a move if it was acceptable to all affected parties.
In paragraph 101 of the report, with respect to the FCC waste transfer station, the Select Committee notes:
“The Claydon Estate owns other land in this area of the line. It sought reductions in land take and greater connectivity of woodland. We hope these can be achieved.”
22. In designing the southern sidings, the Promoter will seek to introduce further connectivity of woodland and where reasonably practicable, reduction in land acquisition.
In paragraph 104, under the Quainton and Waddesdon section, the Select Committee notes:
“Properties at Doddershall owned by Mr Christopher Prideaux and his son Mr David Prideaux will be significantly affected by the line. The Promoter has worked with them to achieve substantial improvements in the effect of the project, including on land take. We applaud those efforts. We hope that other outstanding issues in relation to this estate will be similarly resolved.”
8
A707 (8) HOL/00530/0156 23. The Promoter has made significant changes to the configuration of ecological mitigation which have reduced the amount of land being acquired from the Doddershall Estate. The Promoter is having on-going discussions on the petitioners’ remaining concerns, which relate to access arrangements and noise mitigation, with a view to coming to an acceptable conclusion.
Also under that section, in paragraph 105, the Select Committee notes: “Further down the line, at Sedrup, petitioners sought sympathetic consideration of bunding … We ask that noise protection in the area be sensitively designed.”
24. The Promoter will ensure that all noise mitigation measures, both at Sedrup and elsewhere along the line of route, are designed in a manner that is sensitive to the local area.
In paragraph 110 of the report, the Select Committee notes:
“We would like the Promoter to take another look at screening and noise mitigation of the Stoke Mandeville maintenance loops for those in nearby communities. In any event, residents should receive as much early certainty as possible about the height of the railway at this point. We asked that there be some demonstration of the effects of passing over high speed points. This may help to allay concerns. “
25. The Promoter will review proposals for screening and noise mitigation for the Stoke Mandeville maintenance loops in line with the Environmental Minimum Requirement commitments, liaising as appropriate with Aylesbury Vale District Council.
26. The Promoter will make available to the local community in Stoke Mandeville, an approximate sound demonstration of the noise effect of a train passing over high speed points later this year.
27. The Promoter will inform Stoke Mandeville Parish Council, on behalf of the local community, of the height of the railway once that is fixed.
In paragraph 130 of the report, the Select Committee notes:
“To the extent that the northern Chilterns portal occupies a bigger footprint under AP4, we would expect the Promoter to seek if possible to alleviate that at design stage; for instance, through the use of retained cuttings. This might help reduce the effect on Grim’s Ditch, which is a scheduled ancient monument. The Promoter told us that it would seek to mitigate the visual impact of the portal. The Promoter has said that it will consult on where to install noise barriers within the cutting north of the tunnel portal.”
28. As detailed design progresses, the Promoter will seek cost effective means of reducing the overall width of the cutting in the vicinity of the northern portal of the Chilterns tunnel. Given the depth of the line at this location, this is unlikely to involve a retained cutting, but it may be possible to reduce land take through steeper side slopes.
9
A707 (9) HOL/00530/0157
29. The Promoter recognises the importance of reducing harm to our heritage and will continue to seek to reduce the effect on the Grim’s Ditch scheduled monument, both in terms of the physical impact on the scheduled monument, and in terms of changes to its setting. Discussion are on-going with Historic England and will continue.
In paragraph 142 of the report, the Select Committee notes:
“A number of residents will be significantly affected by construction and operation, such as those near viaducts. Provision for them should begin as soon as possible. There should be regular engagement with them. Successful and sympathetic design of the viaducts at Wendover Dean and Small Dean will be critical to the reputation of the project both at completion and in decades to come.”
30. The Promoter has committed to various levels of public engagement depending on the scale of proposed structures (details are set out in Information Paper D1). Both of these viaducts are key design elements, which will mean that they will be subject to local engagement on their design. The Promoter is already working with parties affected by the two viaducts in the Chilterns AONB.
In paragraph 145 of the report, the Select Committee notes:
“Chilterns petitioners were concerned about several hydrogeological issues. … We want the Promoter to address the matter of hydrogeological surveying as a priority. “
31. The Promoter has started ground investigation surveys in this area to further investigate the impacts of the Wendover green tunnel and north cutting on hydrogeological features. The ground investigation will comprise the intrusive investigation of the underlying geology, monitoring the level and quality of the groundwater level, and the monitoring the flow and quality of the spring.
In paragraph 147 of the report, the Select Committee notes:
“In consultation with the local authorities, the Promoter is considering another option in the form of a haul road further north. We heard that this may be more difficult to build. It would require construction of a new roundabout which may itself disrupt traffic flow. Efficient movement of construction materials to and from the Hunts Green spoil placement site is important and this may or may not favour a different haul road location. (The haul road will be used for tunnelling machinery as well as excavated material.) We encourage the county council and the Promoter to find the solution with least impact, taking account of local opinions. The solution must be safe, and make allowance for vulnerable residents and road users.”
32. The Promoter has offered an assurance to Buckinghamshire County Council which provides for an option to construct an alternative haul road alignment further north along the A413. This is on the basis that the alternative
10
A707 (10) HOL/00530/0158 proposed by the Council can be constructed within a reasonable timescale, that it does not create significantly worse environmental effects that cannot be mitigated and that it does not increase costs or otherwise affect the economic, timely and safe construction of the railway. As part of the process of effecting this assurance, the views of the local community will be taken into account. The solution must be safe, and make allowance for vulnerable residents and road users’.
In paragraph 149 of the report, the Select Committee notes:
“Given the possible pressure on traffic in the Chilterns, the Promoter may want to consider the idea of developing a traffic ‘app’ so that residents and business can obtain real-time information on traffic.“
33. The Promoter will work with existing traffic information providers to consider options for how to best utilise and integrate our planned construction traffic information into existing popular traffic information applications.
In paragraph 151 of the report, the Select Committee notes:
“Petitioners from the Misbourne valley pressed for mitigation of the overall effect of the railway through removal of pylons and undergrounding of high- voltage cables. … The Promoter observed that undergrounding would cost approximately ten times more, and would not be without its own environmental effects, such as additional land requirement at the point where cables enter or emerge from underground. Despite that, we believe that where new infrastructure intrudes on sensitive landscape there is merit in listening to what local inhabitants believe to be the appropriate balance, and in considering removal of pylons in appropriate cases. “
34. The Promoter will consider local opinions in the design of new pylons in the Misbourne Valley area. The Promoter will seek opportunities to limit new intrusions on the landscape from pylons as far as reasonably practicable.
In paragraph 152 of the report, the Select Committee notes:
“The Hunts Green spoil placement area is required to manage the movement of spoil onto highways. The Promoter should seek to minimise and mitigate its effects with precautions against flooding and visual screening (if that is possible and desirable in view of the site location). Its planned height and extent should be reduced as much as possible.”
35. The Promoter confirms that Hunt’s Green permanent sustainable placement area is no longer required for the delivery of the Proposed Scheme and has now been removed from the scheme. The Promoter will still require the temporary use of part of this area to manage earthwork movements and is continuing to discuss options for reducing the impact of this temporary use with the landowner.
In paragraph 153 of the report, the Select Committee notes:
11
A707 (11) HOL/00530/0159 “Public rights of way are an important amenity for the Chilterns. Both temporary right of way diversions and restored paths should take into account their importance to the community and the economy. We heard a sensible suggestion for displaying maps with diversions and new routes at local rail stations to help visitors. “
36. The Promoter will work with the relevant local communities in the Chilterns, as part of its engagement during construction, to identify opportunities to provide information on diversions and new routes, including at local rail stations.
In paragraph 154 of the report, the Select Committee notes:
“Paul Fullagar runs horse training premises at Frith Hill. We expect a sensible arrangement to be reached with him in relation to access and the possible effect of HGV movements on his business, if the haul road to the north portal site remains as proposed in AP4. “
37. The Promoter will continue to engage with Mr Fullagar with a view to addressing the effects upon his business and, as far as reasonably practicable, will maintain access to his property during construction.
In paragraph 155 of the report, the Select Committee notes:
“The Bill contained provisions that could have been used to provide passive provision for a future spur from the railway to Heathrow. The Secretary of State has confirmed that the spur will not be built as part of HS2 Phases One or Two… We direct the Promoter not to use the Bill powers to implement passive provision for a Heathrow spur. “
38. The Promoter will not use the powers in the Bill to provide passive provision for a Heathrow spur. This assurance will be added to the Undertakings and Assurances Register and the Promoter will take immediate steps to ensure relevant landowners and communities are informed of this change.
In paragraph 158 of the report, the Select Committee notes:
“The canal boat residents may need to be rehoused during construction. They have a legitimate expectation that such rehousing will be convenient, comfortable and suitable to accommodate what may be unusual practical needs. As far as reasonably possible the effect on the community of boat owners as a whole should be recognised and addressed. Non-essential intrusion into the character of the area such as by removal of any trees lining the canal should be avoided. “
39. The Promoter has agreed to treat the Langley canal boat residents as special cases with respect to the noise insulation and temporary rehousing policy (further details of this policy can be found in HS2 Information Paper E23) and will, where appropriate, work with the residents to ensure they are consulted on aspects of any planned temporary relocation. During the detailed design of the replacement floodplain storage area to the south of the canal, the 12
A707 (12) HOL/00530/0160 removal of trees lining the canal will be avoided as far as reasonably practicable. In the event that it proves necessary to remove any trees lining the canal, new planting will be provided.
In paragraph 159 of the report the Select Committee notes:
“Fiona Mactaggart MP and Rt Hon Dominic Grieve MP reinforced the concerns we heard about from residents in Slough, Langley and Iver on the volume of local heavy goods traffic and on the already poor local air quality. In addition, Mrs Mactaggart expressed concern about dust from contaminated land.”
40. The draft Code of Construction Practice includes measures that will be applied, where appropriate, to control dust generated during the construction of the Proposed Scheme, including that undertaken on or adjacent land affected by contamination. The Promoter will consult with the local authority and the Environment Agency regarding control or protection measures, which may include appropriate methods for excavating and handling contaminated material.
In paragraphs 161 and 162 of the report, in relation to Thorney Lane LLP, the Select Committee notes:
“Everfortune Ltd and Thorney Lane LLP are owners of land to be used for the Heathrow Express relocation. They proposed alternative sites west of Paddington (including the North Pole sidings). Professor MacNaughton told us why those were not feasible for operational and maintenance reasons. There is an issue relating to the extent of indemnity against liability for the contaminated land, which we expect the parties to be able to resolve. Failing that, it can be raised before our colleagues in the Lords.”
“These petitioners were also concerned about the extent to which their land will be taken for environmental mitigation. (Some 30ha will be taken for that purpose, compared with about 3-4ha for the actual depot.) We request that the Promoter reconsider whether this extent of land use is necessary.”
41. Thorney Lane LLP are the owners of the land being used for the Heathrow Express depot relocation. The Promoter will be offering a further commitment on land ownership with respect to the land required for environmental mitigation. We are preparing an agreement for Thorney Lane LLP, which will capture this and the assurances previously offered to them. Everfortune Ltd do not own land at the same location but have operations in Park Royal, which are affected by the requirement to bring the ‘F Sidings’ back into operation, separate from the Langley relocation site.
In paragraphs 163 and 164 of the report, the Select Committee notes:
“Colne Valley Park CIC was concerned about the future of green belt land in this area. The park receives some two million visits per year. They wanted assurance that land proposed for floodplain mitigation and woodland habitat
13
A707 (13) HOL/00530/0161 creation to the east of the proposed depot will remain earmarked as such should ownership change.”
“A solution is needed, taking account of ultimate land ownership, to address cumulative impacts of construction and to provide some certainty in relation to the green belt for those who enjoy its benefits.”
42. The Promoter recognises that the Colne Valley Regional Park is an important recreational area, which is covered by a number of environmental designations, and the Proposed Scheme at Langley does not change the green belt designations in the local area.
43. The Promoter will engage with other committed major transport infrastructure projects in the immediate vicinity of the Heathrow Express depot construction site to understand the environmental impacts of these projects and the local residents will be kept informed about HS2 construction activities in the area.
44. Discussions are ongoing with the local landowner on land ownership of land proposed for floodplain mitigation and woodland habitat creation, with maintenance of habitats fulfilled in accordance with HS2’s policy.
In paragraph 180 of the report, in relation to the Colne Valley Viaduct, the Select Committee notes:
“Although the number of residential properties close to the viaduct is not high, we recognise that a limited number of nearby residents will be adversely affected by it. … The Promoter should undertake further baseline noise assessments and ensure there is proper monitoring of noise during construction and on operation. …The viaduct construction sites must be properly secured.“
45. In advance of the commencement of construction works, the Nominated Undertaker will seek to obtain consents for the proposed construction works from the local authority, under Section 61 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974. This application process will require noise assessments to be undertaken and baseline noise monitoring locations, including those along the Grand Union Canal, will be agreed with the local authority. The process of prediction, evaluation and assessment of noise and vibration will continue throughout construction, as will discussion with the local authority. Construction sites will be secured and visually screened in line with the controls set out in the Code of Construction Practice monitoring framework.
46. Noise monitoring during operation of the railway will be carried out in accordance with the operational noise and vibration monitoring framework which sets out actions that are required if the measured sound level is worse than expected.
In paragraph 186 of the report, in relation to Hillingdon, the Select Committee notes:
14
A707 (14) HOL/00530/0162 “Although overall it produced benefits, AP4 actually increased predicted traffic volumes on certain roads. The Promoter acknowledged that its current modelling predicted some exceeding of capacity…. Significant improvements have been achieved, but more progress is needed.“
47. The Promoter is working with Transport for London and the London Borough of Hillingdon to identify how we can further reduce traffic impacts in Ickenham. The results from this work are due to be reported in May 2016 and further improvements to mitigate the traffic impacts will be considered thereafter.
In paragraph 188 of the report, the Select Committee notes:
“Denham, although some distance from the line itself, has its own set of traffic issues which HS2 will exacerbate. …. We believe the Promoter should be open to the idea of shuttle bus provision from Denham to important locations such as hospitals.”
48. In developing the Local Traffic Management Plan, the Promoter will consider the location of and routes to and from key facilities such as hospitals, fire stations and ambulance stations. If a shuttle bus for Denham residents to important locations is deemed beneficial in that context, the Promoter will work with the local authority to provide this service.
In paragraph 190 of the report, the Select Committee notes:
“Other issues arise from the extent of construction and spoil placement sites in this area. AP4 petitioners from Harefield, Ickenham and Ruislip were concerned about the protracted periods of spoil placement use, fearing dust, pollution, blight and flood. These are justified worries. The Promoter has given assurances that spoil height should be no greater than 3m permanently or 5m temporarily. We want the spoil placement areas to be minimised in height and extent, to be properly screened, and for screening planting to start early. Local hedgerows should be protected. The needs of locals moving round the sites should be taken account of, for example with cycle paths. There should be regular community forums to provide feedback on contractor compliance with the construction code. We heard that the area around West Hyde is a frost pocket where sound travels. Sound barriers should be effective and visually sensitive. Top quality mitigation of conveyor belts removing tunnel spoil will be important not just in Hillingdon but at all project sites, both for sound and visual effects.”
49. The Promoter continues to engage with the London Borough of Hillingdon and Transport for London with the aim of reducing the extent of sustainable placement in the West Ruislip and Ickenham area. The results from this work are due to be reported in May 2016 and further opportunities to reduce sustainable placement will be considered subsequently. The detailed design of sustainable placement sites will be subject to approval of the local planning authority under Schedule 17 of the Bill and the Promoter will seek to ensure that the permanent placement of excavated material is incorporated into the existing landform as far as possible.
15
A707 (15) HOL/00530/0163
50. Regarding the screening of sustainable placement areas during construction, it is proposed that a number of temporary material storage areas be created along the boundary of the sustainable placement sites, so as to provide visual screening of construction activities from adjacent residential properties. Seeding, planting or sealing of bunds will be undertaken as soon as reasonably practicable.
51. In accordance with the Code of Construction Practice, prior to the commencement of construction works associated with sustainable placement of surplus excavated material, surveys of hedgerows, ditches and field boundaries will be completed as appropriate. It is not feasible to protect all existing hedgerows within the proposed sustainable placement sites, given the constraints this would place on the capacity of the proposed sites and the provision of an integrated landscape design. However, upon completion of permanent earthworks, where hedgerows have been removed, they will be replanted on their existing alignments as soon as is reasonably practicable.
52. The Promoter is continuing to engage with the London Borough of Hillingdon with respect to the temporary and permanent diversion of Public Rights of Way and has provided the London Borough of Hillingdon with a number of assurances in relation to these routes.
53. In responding to the HS2 Residents' Commissioner’s third report, the Promoter has outlined its approach to ongoing engagement through a number of mechanisms, including proactive group engagement, such as community engagement events and the re-establishment of the community forum meetings, taking account of feedback received during their previous use.
54. The design of the conveyors, for example whether they are open or enclosed systems, will take into consideration the potential noise generated by the conveyors and further assessment of the predicted effects on any receptors within close proximity. The Nominated Undertaker will carry out such noise predictions during application for Section 61 consents (Control of Pollution Act 1974), with reference to the Environmental Minimum Requirements.
55. The Promoter will look to provide sound barriers in this area that will perform to the standards set out in the Environmental Statement and, in accordance with the design policy, their appearance will be sympathetic to their local context, environment and setting.
In paragraph 191 of the report, the Select Committee notes:
“The project will have a heavy environmental footprint in this area. Steps can be taken to leave a legacy of environmental improvement. Following the interim decision on the tunnel, the Promoter came forward with offers of funding of £3.25m for restoration works following construction. In view of the particular value of green space in and around Hillingdon, Denham, Ickenham, Harefield and Ruislip, we believe the aspiration of no net biodiversity loss should apply to this area as a case in its own right.”
16
A707 (16) HOL/00530/0164
56. The Promoter will consider an area within the Hillingdon, Denham, Ickenham, Harefield and Ruislip environs within which a no net biodiversity loss target will be applied.
In paragraph 192 of the report, the Select Committee notes:
“Access to walks along and around the Grand Union Canal was a particular priority. We are pleased that London Borough of Hillingdon was offered satisfactory assurances by the Promoter on local public rights of way, including their restoration after construction. Better than satisfactory restoration of the West Hyde compound would be another way for the project to address local concerns for the long term.”
57. As part of the approvals process under Schedule 17 of the Bill, the local planning authority will have a role in determining the restoration plan for the construction site at West Hyde. The Committee heard from a number of petitioners in this area with differing views on what they would wish to see here, including from the current landowner who wished to continue to farm the land following construction. The Promoter will work with the planning authority to determine the most appropriate outcome in this area. In paragraph 193 of the report, the Select Committee notes:
“A Colne Valley Park Regional Panel is to be established comprising local authorities, Natural England and the Hertfordshire and Middlesex Wildlife Trust, with an independent chair and funding from the Promoter. There will be consultation on its terms of reference. Through that body, the project should work to bequeath positive environmental legacies to Hillingdon and its environs. The panel may also want to consider projects such as improved user access, better visitor facilities and sensible footpath reconfigurations following HS2 construction. We hope that the Promoter will consider funding for those aspirations. There will also be assistance with effects on local golf facilities.”
58. The Promoter has established the Colne Valley Panel and the Panel have held four meetings to date. An independent chair has recently been appointed to take forward its work in the developing an Additional Mitigation Plan. The Promoter has agreed to provide £3 million of funding to support the delivery of the agreed measures.
59. The Promoter also recognises the impact of the scheme on council run community recreational facilities in the London Borough of Hillingdon (LBH), particularly in relation to Uxbridge and West Ruislip Golf Courses, the Hillingdon Outdoor Activity Centre and various cycle and walking routes. Whilst the scheme does not acquire these facilities outright nor prevent their activities continuing it is sympathetic to the cumulative impact on the recreation facilities in the area. The Secretary of State has therefore also provided an assurance to LBH that requires the Promoter to enter into an Agreement with LBH, which will inter alia include a contribution to LBH of up to £3.3 million to be used on discrete projects relating to the recreational,
17
A707 (17) HOL/00530/0165 amenity and well-being uses within the LBH, including potential reconfiguration of the golf courses.
In paragraph 199 of the report, in relation to the Hillingdon Outdoor Activity Centre (HOAC), the Select Committee notes:
“We welcome the work that has been done in developing this possible alternative for a valued and valuable amenity. We hope it comes to fruition. The way forward will be in determining the most that can be achieved and who can contribute. Subject to planning approvals being obtained in sufficient time, the Committee would wish to see HOAC relocated to the Denham Quarry Site, if HOAC decide that that is preferable to staying put.”
60. The Promoter acknowledges the Select Committees wishes to see the proposal for HOAC to be relocated to the Denham Quarry site come to fruition. Whilst the Promoter recognises that relocation is not the most economic course of action, we understand that this is an important community asset for Hillingdon and the surrounding area and the strong commitment to the ongoing operation of HOAC made by Hillingdon, and others, in front of the Committee.
61. This is why the Promoter continues to progress work to relocate this facility and to this end we have recently commenced public engagement on the proposed planning application.
62. However, relocation cannot be at any cost - it needs to balance the needs of the community against the need to protect the public purse. Success in this regard will depend upon all parties acting reasonably and reassurance on the longer term ongoing financial support for any new centre akin to their current operating model.
In paragraph 200 of the report, the Select Committee notes:
“The Denham Water Ski clubhouse is located essentially underneath the north-western end of the proposed viaduct and will require relocating. We commend its owner on developing a successful undertaking which sits successfully alongside several artificially created sites of special scientific interest. The owner should expect cooperation from the Promoter in pursuing a planning application for an alternative clubhouse.”
63. The Promoter will fund the reasonable costs for a planning application by the petitioner for an alternative clubhouse.
In paragraph 201 of the report, the Select Committee notes:
“… we visited the proposed locations of three vent shafts in the Ealing and Northolt areas: at Mandeville Road, Green Park Way and Westgate near Hanger Lane… We encourage the Promoter to consider how to reduce the impact of spoil removal and to examine ways in which spoil might be deployed usefully.”
18
A707 (18) HOL/00530/0166 64. The Promoter is in ongoing dialogue with the London Borough of Ealing on this point and will continue to look for opportunities to reduce the number of construction traffic movements with respect to excavated material removal. Excavated material which cannot be beneficially reused for the earthworks of the Proposed Scheme will be used in other local construction projects or the restoration of mineral sites where such opportunities are identified.
In paragraph 204 of the report, which relates to Old Oak Common Lane, the Select Committee notes:
“Special provision should be made for vulnerable people; for example, to receive food deliveries.”
65. The Promoter has agreed to compensate the London Borough of Ealing for reasonable additional transport costs that they may incur when providing for vulnerable residents due to the closure of the road. This might include additional food delivery costs as a result of having to take longer routes.
In paragraph 205 of the report, the Select Committee notes:
“The project will evaluate whether HGV entrances can be kept away from homes. Other measures will include provision of visually acceptable noise barriers and noise reducing hoardings, reduction of light pollution and pollution monitoring. Certain plant machinery will be locally insulated. Properties will be assessed for acoustic glazing, and ventilation requirements.”
66. In developing its detailed design and construction plans, and as part of its efforts to mitigate, as far as reasonably practicable, the impact of the Proposed Scheme on residents of Wells House Road, the Promoter will consider a range of options for the location of the vehicular entrance to the Old Oak Common Station main compound from Old Oak Common Lane.
67. Other mitigation measures will reduce construction effects such as noise, light and air pollution so far as reasonably practicable, in accordance with the Code of Construction Practice.
In paragraph 206 of the report, the Select Committee notes:
“Assurances to Ealing Borough Council also cover landscaping. Tree loss in Victoria Gardens and Cerebos Gardens will be minimised. It is important that the project provide a legacy of public open space and highways improvement in this densely populated area.”
68. The Promoter has agreed assurances with the London Borough of Ealing in relation to the legacy of public open spaces. These include the temporary and permanent provision of playground facilities, a study on the potential for public realm restoration works, including the provision of additional semi- mature trees and a study on potential highway improvements.
19
A707 (19) HOL/00530/0167 In paragraph 209 of the report, the Select Committee notes:
“Wormwood Scrubs will be the location for some utilities reconfiguration (a sewer rerouting). … We heard that, additionally, a permanent pedestrian access onto the Scrubs might be created in connection with the railway. The local Member of Parliament, Andy Slaughter MP, believed that this would be inconsistent with its use as amenity. We endorse his request that HS2 Ltd seek to reach a position of certainty on protecting the Scrubs, and offer appropriate assurances.”
69. While the pedestrian access in question is an aspiration of the Mayor of London’s Old Oak Common and Park Royal Development Corporation rather than the Promoter, we will work with the relevant partners to continue to identify pragmatic solutions to any outstanding concerns relating to the use of the Scrubs as an amenity.
In paragraph 211 of the report, in relation to St Mary’s School in Kilburn, the Select Committee notes:
“The peak period of vent shaft construction works will last for some six months. Construction traffic will mostly avoid the school approach road by using Albert Road, and will avoid Canterbury Road during the school drop-off collection hours. The Promoter came forward with some £500,000 of measures to mitigate noise effects on the school and to provide ventilation to safeguard interior air quality. We are satisfied that these are reasonable measures and that accordingly there is no reason to propose a further relocation of the vent shaft. We have directed a study of whether construction may have adverse effects on the school’s outside recreation space. If there are predicted adverse effects from, for example, HGV movements or spoil dust, measures should be taken to alleviate them. Subject to a risk assessment, staff from the Nominated Undertaker should be assigned to secure the safety of children entering and leaving the school, for instance at unusual hours.”
70. The environmental assessment undertaken for the Canterbury Works vent shaft includes an assessment of the impact of construction on the school, including its outside spaces. As detailed construction plans are developed, the Promoter will review the predicted effects on the school’s outside space with a view to alleviating, so far as reasonably practicable, any adverse effects on school children using these areas. The Promoter has agreed to enter into an agreement to contribute a sum of up to £500,000 for improvements to mitigate the impact of construction noise on the school building. The Nominated Undertaker will engage further with St Mary’s School in advance of the commencement of construction works, and continue to do so during construction of the Proposed Scheme, in order to ensure the continued safety of children entering and leaving the school site.
20
A707 (20) HOL/00530/0168 In paragraph 214 of the report, with respect to the Alexandra Place Vent Shaft, the Select Committee notes:
“Construction traffic and activity should be timed to take account of local residents. Depending on local wishes, the Promoter may need to look at more considerate working hours avoiding weekends and busy traffic periods.”
71. The Promoter will take forward this recommendation through the development of the Local Environmental Management Plan (LEMP) and Local Traffic Management Plans, which it will develop with input from the local authority. Working hours will be agreed with the relevant local authority on behalf of local residents as part of securing the necessary consents under Section 61 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974.
In paragraph 232 of the report, under the section headed Addressing Construction Impacts in Camden, the Select Committee notes: “We want monitoring of air quality to feed into an assessment of whether rehousing should occur in cases where air quality deteriorates.”
72. The Promoter is committed to reducing the air quality effects of the scheme, and has given a robust assurance to manage its impacts in Camden, by means of ongoing measurement, review and assessment. Due to the particular circumstances of duration and intensity of construction in Camden, the Promoter will monitor air quality to identify where air quality has deteriorated materially as a direct result of HS2 construction and in the event that such deterioration has occurred the Promoter will work with the London Borough of Camden to seek to agree appropriate mitigations, including rehousing if appropriate.
Also under the Camden construction impacts section, in paragraph 233, the Select Committee notes:
“There, at Ampthill estate, and in other areas particularly close to construction, we would like residents to be consulted on their preferences for how to moderate the impact of the construction programme. Start-up and shutdown hours might be moderated, for instance. We want the Promoter to avoid adding to the burden carried by the area with works such as night-time surveys. Night-times should be off limits for such activities. Periodic construction breaks and non-working Saturdays should be consulted on and considered. If parking can be usefully reinstated for short periods of construction inactivity, it should be.”
73. The Promoter recognises that residents in Camden whose homes are particularly close to the construction works for HS2, such as Ampthill Estate, will wish to be consulted on the mitigation measures for these works. HS2 will engage with local community representatives on the Local Environment Management Plans (LEMPs). Furthermore, engagement on the Community Liaison Plans will include mechanisms for residents associations and other established groups to communicate their preferences regarding how the
21
A707 (21) HOL/00530/0169 impacts of the construction programme can be moderated, including consideration of construction breaks and non-working Saturdays.
74. With respect to survey works, the Promoter will use all reasonable endeavours to avoid night-time working hours unless it is necessary for these to be undertaken during the night-time for example for safety reasons, including where surveys need to be completed in close proximity to the railway and cannot therefore be completed when trains are in operation. Where it is identified that night surveys are required and have the potential to cause disturbance, these will be discussed with the London Borough of Camden, and where reasonably practicable the local residents will be notified prior to commencement.
75. Working hours will be agreed with relevant local authorities as part of securing consents under Section 61 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974.
76. The Promoter will endeavour to reinstate parking space for the Ampthill Estate where it is practicable to do so during suitable periods of inactivity within the construction programme.
Further in the same section, in paragraphs 234 and 235, the Select Committee notes:
“The intrusion of utilities works onto the recreational and other outdoor space of Ampthill estate is undesirable but probably unavoidable. .... We want the Nominated Undertaker to use the best available mitigation equipment to reduce noise intrusion here and in similar locations. We want a programme of works to compensate for loss of these amenities. We mention club memberships and provision of access to recreational amenities as possible ideas. There may be other, better ideas. “
“No more than six months after the start of the works, there should be an assessment of compliance with noise limits and a survey of health impacts. The Promoter should reconsider rehousing based on the outcome of that survey. It may need to revisit the noise limits and hours applicable to construction work in Camden at that point. Throughout the project we expect the Nominated Undertaker to consult conscientiously, thoroughly and sympathetically to address any specific problems with non-compliance. It should listen to what residents say about what might help, and respond with more than average diligence.”
77. The Promoter has committed to minimising impacts at residential properties and their external amenity spaces, in accordance with Planning Practice Guidance. The lead contractors’ Environmental Management System will include measures and processes for managing noise and vibration during construction, including any steps that would be taken when measured levels are greater than predicted.
78. The Promoter can confirm that it will conduct an assessment of compliance with noise thresholds six months after the start of main construction works. Furthermore, the Promoter will commence a survey within six months of the
22
A707 (22) HOL/00530/0170 start of the works to consider health impacts experienced by residents that are attributed to noise from the construction of HS2. The results of this latter survey may be used to review the criteria of noise mitigation, noise thresholds and construction hours.
79. The assurances provided to the London Borough of Camden include a commitment to further consider a specific group of residential properties not identified as being likely to quality for noise insulation. The results of this study will be considered for a potential review of the criteria for noise mitigation.
80. The Promoter has committed to fund improvements to open space at Ampthill Estate to mitigate the impact of construction of the authorised works. The scope of this work will be agreed between the Promoter and the London Borough of Camden.
In paragraph 240 and 241 of the report, the Select Committee notes:
“Businesses, hotels and professional and academic organisations in and around Stephenson Way will be severely affected by construction. They need proper notice of when works will commence so that they can organise their activities. We believe a minimum of three months’ notice is appropriate— preferably more. … The activities of several of the organisations we heard from are noise and/or vibration sensitive. We would like the Promoter to pay the reasonable costs of risk assessment and surveying to determine sensitivity to construction effects such as vibration.”
“There should be a footfall survey in relation to Drummond Street and neighbouring restaurants and shops to establish usage patterns. That will help address how to retain business. The Promoter should consider ways to make the route from Euston to Drummond Street attractive and friendly.”
81. The Promoter provided an assurance to the London Borough of Camden with respect to specific actions that will be undertaken to mitigate the impact of business in the local area and has also provided specific assurances to businesses on Stephenson Way and Drummond Street. The Promoter accepts the Select Committee’s recommendation to provide businesses, hotels and professional and academic organisations in and around Stephenson Way with a minimum of 3 months’ notice of when the main construction works in this locality will commence. For those properties in Stephenson Way likely to be significantly affected by HS2 construction noise, the Promoter will undertake further surveys to determine sensitivity to construction effects and appropriate mitigation measures.
82. The Promoter acknowledges the suggestion for a footfall survey to be carried out and is already in discussions with the traders on this issue.
In paragraph 254 of the report, the Select Committee notes:
“Quick and comfortable ways to get between HS1 and HS2 will nevertheless be needed. Euston and St Pancras are some 800m apart. A tunnel between
23
A707 (23) HOL/00530/0171 them could run under roads parallel with Euston Road, arriving in the northern part of St Pancras. The coherent design plan we have suggested as an imperative for Euston should include convenient ways to get between HS1 and HS2. “
83. The assurances provided by the Promoter to the London Borough of Camden, included the provision of £3 million of funding to support the creation of a linear park and an enhanced walking route between HS1 and HS2 along Phoenix Way. We have previously considered the scope for the provision of a pedestrian tunnel between HS1 and HS2 but the presence of vibration sensitive equipment at the Crick Institute together with the significantly higher capital cost meant that this was not a feasible option. If Crossrail 2 comes forward with a joint Euston / St Pancras station there could be scope for underground pedestrian access to be provided between HS1 and HS2 as part of that scheme.
Need to Sell
In chapter 5 of the report, which covers the Need to Sell scheme and compensation, in paragraph 279 and 280, the Select Committee notes:
“There should be a bigger margin in the acceptance rates to reflect that. It is difficult to imagine justification of less than 90% acceptance on applications by those over 70 or who will be over 70 when the project commences.”
“The Government should provide an update to the House before Third Reading. “
84. The Promoter accepts that older people may have restricted freedom to adapt their financial plans in response to changed circumstances and also that the home of an older person is more likely to present a physical burden. We are in the process of conducting a full review of these issues and how they are treated and considered under the Need to Sell scheme. We will set out our conclusions and bring forward appropriate changes alongside the launch of the Need to Sell scheme for Phase 2a of HS2, which we expect to happen this Spring.
85. In particular, we believe that the issue of a home being a physical burden is more complex than other areas that the NTS panel considers. The review we are currently undertaking considers the nature of the changes needed to address this issue and is an area on which guidance will be issued. We will also consider if there are any further changes needed to the scheme and, if appropriate, we will consult on those alongside the consultation for the Phase 2b Need to Sell scheme, later this year.
In paragraph 286 of the report, the Select Committee notes:
“We previously said that acceptances under the scheme should stand as acceptances, unless there are unusual circumstances. In stating that it might be in everyone’s interests for applicants to keep their property on the market, 24
A707 (24) HOL/00530/0172 the Government response says the emergence of a “suitable offer” might allow a normal purchase to proceed without Government intervention. We agree, but once an applicant has been accepted such a suitable offer should be defined as one matching or better than the scheme offer. Once accepted under the scheme, owners should have certainty of their financial position rather than face the risk that a third party can undercut and unpick their security of position.”
86. The Promoter agrees that applicants should have certainty of their financial position once they have been accepted onto the scheme. We will, therefore, consider what changes are necessary to ensure the Need to Sell scheme recognises this and make any necessary changes to the scheme alongside the launch of Need to Sell for Phase 2a of HS2 this Spring.
In paragraph 288 of the report, the Select Committee notes:
“Although some conversations have taken place between the Council and its members, and the CML Valuation Panel has confirmed that there is no blanket policy of refusing lending in cases of blight, we were disappointed not to have had more open and effective cooperation on this. We welcome the discussions that have taken place between the Council and HS2 to share information. We welcome too the Council’s recommendation to its members to review their policies. We hope that more will be forthcoming.”
87. The Promoter is committed to working with Council of Mortgage Lenders and its members on a long term basis to better share information on order to help minimise cases of lending refusals.
Route-wide issues
In paragraph 301 of the report, the Select Committee notes:
“It was clear to us that describing the effects of a new railway route from London to Birmingham and beyond would be work in progress for some time, not complete and perfect at the start. Many petitioners complained that there was too much, not too little, information. Certain mistakes and omissions we observed were regrettable more for causing confusion (which they did) than for being seriously misleading. That is not to say that errors or omissions would never be a significant problem. Reliable traffic modelling on final analysis will be crucial. The project and its environmental effects will continue to be refined. We decided that those wishing to object knew enough on the basis of the published environmental statements to make out their objections.”
“We make one observation, however, which is that it appears to be in the control of the Promoter to decide when an environmental effect is significant enough to merit a new statement. We wonder whether there should be some independent input into that.”
88. The question of whether there are new or different significant environmental impacts has to be determined in accordance with the criteria set out and
25
A707 (25) HOL/00530/0173 consulted on in the Scope and Methodology Report that formed the basis for the assessment in the original Environmental Statement. We consider that this sets out as clearly as possible the definitions of significance for the various environmental topics accepting that an element of professional judgment is required for many such impacts.
In paragraph 303 of the report, the Select Committee notes:
“We direct the Promoter to identify an independent third party arbiter to review the different net loss metrics and publish its findings so that HS2 Ltd can be challenged on its figures if appropriate. Natural England is one possibility.”
89. The Promoter will work with the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to identify an appropriate independent body to review the no net loss calculations.
In paragraph 306 of the report, the Select Committee notes:
“We were concerned to hear reports of high failure rates for tree planting on HS1. We asked the Promoter to look into that. We want the early planting of tree mitigation to be more than just an aspiration. The Promoter should provide clear assurances that it will undertake such work as soon as reasonably practicable.”
90. The Promoter will take steps to review the new tree planting and seek out opportunities to reduce the failure rates of new trees and also consider where it can provide early planting, wherever reasonable and practicable.
In paragraph 307 of the report, the Select Committee notes:
“We heard that some bird and bat populations might be particularly at risk from the operational railway. (Approximately 1% of the UK population of barn owls is near the route and faces threat.) Measures to protect those populations by encouraging habitat and foraging shifts are required.”
91. The Promoter will develop further measures that provide additional protection for at risk bat and bird populations during detailed design, wherever reasonably practicable.
In paragraphs 309 and 310 of the report, the Select Committee notes:
“The tenant of Upper South Farm at Doddershall, Mr Goss, has a cattle shed which will be very near to the line. The Promoter estimated that the closest façade was 40m away …”
“We want a proper look at how animals in such conditions might be affected and whether better mitigation should be provided in this particular case. The RSPCA might be invited to contribute a paper. Mr Goss also needs a sensible solution on how to move livestock around the farm once the railway arrives.”
26
A707 (26) HOL/00530/0174 92. The Promoter will continue to discuss accommodation works with Mr Goss, including access arrangements, during the detailed design stage. The Bill already includes access provisions to cross the railway by using Station Road and we will continue to discuss solutions for Mr Goss as part of detailed design.
93. With respect to the noise impact on Mr Goss’ livestock, the Promoter will work with relevant animal and noise experts to commission an investigation of the likely impacts on livestock from railway noise, which will include identifying potential mitigation measures for any likely impacts. The Promoter will aim to conclude such work ahead of Royal Assent to the Bill. Alongside this, the RSPCA will also be invited to contribute their thoughts on this issue.
In paragraph 332 of the report, the Select Committee notes:
“The Code of Construction Practice, set out in HS2 Information Paper D3, will govern construction operations. Petitioners wanted it to be directly enforceable. The duration of the HS2 construction project will insert a strong element of self-policing into compliance with the code; contractors will face termination of contract if they breach it. A further incentive is that legislation could be introduced after the commencement of the project if necessary. There will be a Construction Commissioner as well as a Complaints Commissioners and a small claims scheme. The efficacy of all these will be closely scrutinised. Adjustments can be made if necessary.”
94. The Promoter would like to clarify that contractors will face a sanction for any breach of the Code of Construction Practice. In the event of multiple or persistent breaches that sanction may extend to termination of contract. The role of the Construction Commissioner is proposed to embrace the role of the erstwhile planned Complaints Commissioner.
In paragraph 334 of the report, the Select Committee notes:
“… Local authorities will need to agree traffic management plans before work begins.”
95. If the number of large goods vehicles to or from a site exceeds 24 per day, any local roads used by large goods vehicles must have been approved by the relevant planning authority (that is the unitary authority or county council for the area) under the planning regime established under Schedule 17 of the Bill. Under the terms of the Code of Construction Practice, local authorities will be consulted extensively on the development of the Local Traffic Management Plans. Excavated material, equipment and materials that need to be moved along the public highway by large goods vehicles to and from construction sites will be required to follow designated construction routes. Local authorities will not have a formal approval role in relation to Local Traffic Management Plan. As explained, such plans will be developed in close consultation with local authorities.
27
A707 (27) HOL/00530/0175 In paragraphs 340 and 341 of the report, the Select Committee notes:
“There are several areas along the route where traffic pressure is already at or near critical levels. Unlike shorter transport schemes, HS2 cannot bring specific benefit to adjoining areas that are not within the hinterland of a station. Among the benefits that improvements in local roads could bring to the quality of local life and the vigour of local economies are better safety, less congestion, quicker journey times and better design.” “We propose to the Secretary of State that local authorities along the HS2 route be able to bid to the Department for Transport for funding for such schemes if they are appropriate and capable of timely implementation. Such schemes might include improvements not just for motor vehicle users but for cyclists, horse riders and walkers, as well as better provision for the young, old or disabled. In any event, we would like HS2 to leave a legacy of improved road traffic risk identification and safety improvement along the route.”
96. The Government is already contributing £6 billion to the Local Growth Fund this Parliament for investment in local transport, including £475 million for major schemes. In addition, the construction of HS2 will provide a range of junction and road improvements to ensure that construction traffic can operate safely and efficiently. The Promoter has also committed that where such road improvements are only temporary the Nominated Undertaker will, at the request and agreement of the highways authority, leave them as permanent improvements. However, the Promoter recognises the Select Committee’s ambition to do something above and beyond this in terms of leaving a legacy of improved road safety. Therefore, we will provide up to £30 million to support road safety schemes in the non-urban local authority areas along the Phase One line of route.
97. The Promoter wishes to minimise any additional administrative burden on local authorities to administer such a fund and so will look to use existing funding mechanisms to allocate this funding. Local authorities receive an allocation of funding to support local transport schemes as part of their annual settlement. In addition, the Local Growth Funds that are administered by the Local Enterprise Partnership network include an allocation for local transport schemes. The Promoter will consider the most appropriate mechanism for achieving the objectives set out by the Select Committee recommendation and how the funding will be allocated between local authority areas, and provide a further update on this ahead of the Lords Select Committee hearings concluding.
In paragraphs 343 and 344 of the report, with respect to the design related issues, the Select Committee notes:
“We expect a truly consultative approach to design of sensitive parts of the railway, with an element of dialogue and choice, not a one-way information flow. We have encouraged the Promoter to develop a flowchart for community involvement and we invite them to try out the inclusive approach we recommend with the flowchart itself.”
28
A707 (28) HOL/00530/0176 “The cost of design will be material, but so will sensitivity to the local landscape, geology and architecture. Viaducts and vent shafts will need especially careful attention. We have mentioned several by name. Many or most will merit the same careful treatment.”
98. The Promoter shares the Select Committee’s views that the design of key elements such as vents, viaducts and bridges merit careful attention. We are committed to engaging with local communities on key design elements along the route. Such engagement will involve dialogue and choice as design develops. We will illustrate the process in a flow diagram as recommended by the Select Committee. The Promoter will ensure that key design elements (including those mentioned by the Select Committee in the footnote below 2) are designed to maintain the local environment and local amenity. The local community engagement process mentioned above will be a key element in realising this objective.
In paragraphs 305 and 350 of the report, the Select Committee notes:
“Losses to the environment could be relatively more significant in urban areas with little green space. This should be recognised through specific extra allocations to Birmingham and Camden on top of the current Community and Environment Fund budgets. The visual impression created by the railway will depend to some extent on the maintenance of its security infrastructure and the land adjacent to that. We expect the Nominated Undertaker and its successors as operators of the railway to set appropriate standards for maintenance.”
“We recommend that the funding envelope of both funds should be substantially increased. We suspect the Government is aware that the amounts are too low. We want to see specific allocations to certain communities to avoid bidding wars”
99. The Promoter commits to providing an additional £10 million of funding for the Community and Environment Fund and the Business and Local Economy Fund, making available a total of £40 million for these funds.
100. The aim of the Funds is to support good quality bids, therefore the drawdown of this full £40 million will depend on enough good quality bids coming forward for funding. For this reason we do not think that it is sensible to allocate the full funding geographically as, while this may stop bidding wars between communities, it may also mean that lower quality bids are supported in one area even though there are better quality bids elsewhere.
2 Design elements referred to in the Select Committee report include the Chattle Hill Box Structure (viaduct in Water Orton) (paragraph 57), the Birmingham and Fazeley Canal viaduct in Curdworth (paragraph 60), the River Blythe viaduct (paragraph 63), the Oxford Canal viaduct (paragraph 77), the viaducts at Wendover Dean and Small Dean (paragraph 142), the vent shafts in the Chilterns at Chalfont St Giles, Amersham, Little Missenden and Frith Hill (paragraph 150), the Colne Valley viaduct (paragraph 181), the Alexandra Place vent shaft (paragraph 214) and the Adelaide Road vent shaft (paragraph 227). 29
A707 (29) HOL/00530/0177 101. However, the Promoter recognises that it would be useful for communities to have an indication of the likely minimum spend they would receive from these funds. We will, therefore, provide indicative allocations of a portion of the fund on a Local Economic Partnership or other appropriate local level. This will indicate the minimum spend that an area would be likely to receive depending on them bringing forward bids of a sufficient quality. We will develop these indicative allocations and publish them by the end of the Lords Select Committee hearings.
In paragraph 353 of the report, the Select Committee notes:
“Impacts of construction on schools should be monitored during construction and for one year after the HS2 building project. Maintaining safe and proper access will be critical. The Promoter should be open to financial support for schools if there are, for instance, demonstrable adverse effects on roll numbers that affect a school’s viability or its capacity for employing teaching staff. It should endeavour to maximise the amount of construction work in school holidays.”
102. With respect to financial support for schools that experience adverse effects as a result of the construction and operation of the Phase One scheme, the Promoter will continue to work with affected schools and Local Education Authorities to understand any impacts and what mitigation might be provided.
103. As part of its obligations under the Code of Construction Practice, the Promoter will endeavour to minimise the disruption caused by construction on the activity of a school and this is likely to include undertaking certain works during school holidays. Furthermore, the Code of Construction Practice also obliges the Promoter to ensure, as part of the site-specific traffic management measures, that the Nominated Undertaker manages construction traffic in the vicinity of schools to maintain safe access. This will be monitored during the construction phase and arrangements will be put in place to monitor impacts for one year after construction activity in the area has finished.
In paragraph 354 of the response of the report, the Select Committee notes:
“Places of worship will need consistent and considerate treatment. The Promoter should be prepared to postpone work that interferes with unavoidable activities such as funerals. There should be a hotline for such matters. We would also like the Promoter to consider some specific support for religious and similar institutions whose legal status may prevent or make difficult a conventional claim for lost revenue. Conventional claims may also be inappropriately elaborate in such cases. The remedy should be a fund that is readily accessible and easy to negotiate.”
104. As part of the local engagement process, the Promoter will engage with places of worship with a view to avoiding conflict with their activities. In particular through sharing information in advance about the timing of work in the vicinity of their premises. In this way, the Promoter expects that neither
30
A707 (30) HOL/00530/0178 the works of the Nominated Undertaker nor the activities of the places of worship will require postponement.
105. There are very few places of worship along the route whose income is likely to be affected by construction of the scheme. The Promoter will consider, on a case by case basis, making appropriate arrangements to reimburse places of worship in the unlikely event that they suffer a significant loss of revenue resulting from an inability to undertake core activities.
In paragraph 355 of the report, the Select Committee notes:
“The Promoter’s powers of land acquisition and occupation are set out in the Bill. The Promoter has given undertakings on minimising the extent of acquired land. During our proceedings, we frequently directed or attempted to nudge the Promoter toward either smaller land take or shorter duration of occupation, particularly in the case of farms. As we conclude our work, we remain concerned that the permanent occupation powers are being used too extensively. We do not intervene to direct that the Secretary of State should not consider the economics of particular cases, but we do believe that the Government should be circumspect in considering economics of land occupation given the railway’s objective of developing the economy, helping to change the economic geography of the country for the better.”
106. The Promoter does not seek to acquire more land than is necessary to construct and operate Phase One of HS2 in a timely and economic manner. The Promoter has already offered many assurances reducing land take from the powers originally sought in the Bill. There is however a sensible balance to be drawn between minimising land take and reducing the size of work sites, which could result in prolonging construction activity, and increasing the cost of construction. The extent of land take will be reviewed at the detailed design stage with the aim of reducing it further.
107. The Promoter has given wide ranging assurances to the NFU and CLA on the issue of temporary versus permanent land take and has issued an explanatory note on the use of temporary occupation powers under Schedule 17 of the Bill rather than outright acquisition. Temporary occupation costs can be high where occupation is for long periods, in urban areas and on development sites. In these circumstances, the Promoter will seek to be reassured that it is economic to proceed with temporary occupation in accordance with the duty to protect the public purse.
In paragraph 358 of the report, the Select Committee notes:
We want the Promoter to devise a flood risk scheme to address potential concerns about flooding at Marsh Mills Farm. We expect the Promoter to work sensibly to a solution on access, land take and drainage issues at Nash Lee Farm.”
108. We note that the Committee’s report refers to flooding concerns at Marsh Mills Farm heard on 24 November. The flooding concern heard about on 24 November related to Old Mill Farm. Having confirmed with Committee staff,
31
A707 (31) HOL/00530/0179 we respond on the basis that the Committee’s direction was intended to apply to Old Mill Farm. As part of the Environmental Statement, the Promoter undertook a Flood Risk Assessment for the area that includes Scotsgrove Brook (Bonny Brook). The Promoter will undertake further flood risk assessments as part of detailed design and will work with the relevant statutory bodies, including the Environment Agency, to ensure that the drainage structures to be constructed will not increase flood risk to people or communities in the area.
109. The Promoter is investigating a range of solutions to the issues raised at Nash Lee Farm and will be in a position to share them with the petitioner.
In paragraph 359 of the report, the Select Committee notes:
“Mr and Mrs Howie farm in Hillingdon. They employ a number of farm workers on land that was used for World War II food production. Effects of the project include mitigation planting and the presence of an electricity feeder station. We encourage the Promoter to look at ways to reduce impacts on the farm activities.”
110. The Promoter recognises that the project does impact Park Lodge Farm and in Additional Provision 4 has reduced the size of sustainable placement required on the land. The Promoter will work with the tenant farmer, Mr and Mrs Howie, their agents and the London Borough of Hillingdon with a view to reducing land required for landscaping and the National Grid feeder station.
In Paragraph 363 and 364, in relation to taxation matters, the Select Committee notes:
“We wrote to HM Treasury seeking a generalised extension of the discretion to extend rollover relief periods in the case of HS2, or at least a statement that there would be a starting assumption of such extension. We did not want farmers spending money on detailed individual tax advice when a general position or set of starting assumptions could be usefully set out.”
“HM Treasury said that it would write to farmers to advise them of existing rollover relief discretions. We wished for greater certainty and clarity. There is precedent for extended discretion in cases from other business sectors. The Treasury should make it clear that the enhanced rollover relief periods will apply to all those whose land is acquired for the project. As it will take HS2 some ten years to bring its Phase One rail project to fruition, there is a case for allowing farmers a comparable period for reinvestment.”
111. In the letter to the Select Committee from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, dated 26 January 2016, the Government explained that it keeps all taxes under review as part of the usual policy making progress and the Select Committee’s suggestion will be noted and considered as part of that. The letter further notes that the Government will need to balance the provision of certainty for some individuals with other considerations, such as the impact on other projects.
32
A707 (32) HOL/00530/0180 In paragraph 365 of the report, the Select Committee notes:
“We heard argument that the powers in clause 47 whereby the Secretary of State may acquire land for regeneration purposes were too broad. We were presented with two sets of compromise language: one from the Promoter, requiring the Secretary of State to consult on use of the powers; and one from Camden Borough Council which would tie exercise of the power to the vicinity of the works and/or to local plans. We decided the latter would be too restrictive. The power is a backstop power designed to prevent ‘ransom strips’ obstructing regeneration. We favoured the Promoter’s language. We direct an appropriate amendment to the Bill.”
112. The Promoter notes the decision of the Select Committee with respect to the amendments and these have been made in the Bill as reported by the Select Committee.
In paragraph 369 of the report, the Select Committee notes:
“The Department of Culture, Media and Sport can establish which areas within, say, 3km of the HS2 route are unlikely to have superfast broadband provision and good 4G mobile telephone coverage by 2018 (the year after anticipated start of construction). Few if any of those living close to the route will benefit directly from the HS2 project. .... If commercial propositions are not speedily forthcoming the Government should fund the provision. … We direct that, one way or another, the provision of a modern railway is to be associated with achieving modern high-speed communication along its route.”
113. The Promoter understands that the Select Committee’s concerns in relation to broadband provision are focussed on communities in non-urban areas along the line of route. We will work with the Department of Culture, Media and Sport to understand the current plans for superfast broadband and 4G mobile connectivity in the relevant areas and what other measures could be considered to help enable those areas receive connectivity as a priority.
In paragraph 370 of the report, the Select Committee notes:
“The project will be making substantial use of existing railway infrastructure and assets. Some of those may not be in good condition. Using it to the extent required by a project of this nature might create annoyance to residents. The Nominated Undertaker should fund reasonable improvements in such cases. A petitioner from Camden described poorly maintained gates, currently not that frequently used, whose increased use would irritate. There will be other examples. The Nominated Undertaker should be alert to them and respond quickly.”
114. The Promoter will ensure the Nominated Undertaker works with Network Rail to identify opportunities to maintain, and where appropriate make improvements to, those elements of existing rail infrastructure that will be frequently used during the construction phase and may benefit from being upgraded.
33
A707 (33) HOL/00530/0181 In paragraph 371, in relation to freight and the Euroterminal rail site, the Select Committee notes:
“We asked the Promoter to reconsider alternatives to and to negotiate with DB Schenker in good faith, on the basis of DB Schenker’s existing lease between Network Rail rather than what might have been. The Promoter agreed.”
115. The Promoter will negotiate in good faith alternative temporary occupancy arrangements under Schedule 16 of the Bill, provided this does not increase the cost to the project compared with outright acquisition, and practical arrangements can be agreed with the petitioner.
Future hybrid Bill Procedure
116. In chapter 8 of the report, the Select Committee makes some recommendations in relation to the procedure for dealing with hybrid Bills. The Government is considering whether there should be a review of how the hybrid Bill process works, and of the Standing Orders for Private Business that apply to hybrid Bills, and is discussing with the House Authorities how such a review could be taken forward. We would expect that the Select Committee’s recommendations would be fully considered within any such review.
Conclusion
117. The Promoter gratefully acknowledges the Select Committee’s report and recommendations. Members of the Select Committee have devoted considerable time and effort to providing conscientious and balanced deliberations on the petitions presented to them. The Promoter would like to thank members for the patient and dedicated manner in which they have approached their task.
118. We recognise the demands this process has placed on petitioners. The Promoter has always endeavoured to be as accommodating as reasonably practicable. We have listened to those affected by the scheme and in many cases been able to make the changes being called for.
119. The commitments in this response will require ongoing diligence with respect to design and construction methodology, transparency and clarity in communication with affected parties and swift resolution of outstanding issues. The Promoter will ensure it makes every effort to fulfil these requirements.
34
A707 (34) HOL/00530/0182