London – West Midlands) Bill

PUBLIC SESSION

MINUTES OF ORAL EVIDENCE

taken before

HIGH SPEED RAIL COMMITTEE

On the

HIGH SPEED RAIL (LONDON – WEST MIDLANDS) BILL

Wednesday 24 June 2015 (Morning)

In Committee Room 5

PRESENT:

Mr Robert Syms (Chair) Sir Peter Bottomley Mr Henry Bellingham Ian Mearns

______

IN ATTENDANCE

Mr Timothy Mould QC, Lead Counsel, Department for Transport Mr Edward Briggs, Bidwells Ms Charlotte Jones, Ruislip Against HS2

WITN ESSES

Mr Clive Medcraft Mr Philip Corthorne, Chair of Governors, Sacred Heart Catholic Primary School

Mr Peter Miller, Head of Environment and Planning, HS2 Ltd

______

IN PUBLIC SESSION

INDEX

Subject Page

Mr Clive Medcraft Submissions by Mr Medcraft 3 Response from Mr Mould QC 6

Fred and Jean Dawson, et al. Submissions by Mr Briggs 8 Response from Mr Mould 20 Mr Miller, questioned by Mr Mould 21 Mr Miller, questioned by Mr Briggs 37

The Governing Bodies of Ruislip High School, Ruislip Gardens Primary School and Sacred Heart Catholic Primary School Submissions by Ms Jones 39 Submissions by Mr Corthorne 51 Response from Mr Mould 56 Closing submissions by Ms Jones 61

(At 09.30)

1. CHAIR: Order, order. We will make a start. Welcome to the HS2 Committee. We welcome Mr Clive Medcraft, who is petitioner 1757. Could we put up where Mr Medcraft lives or comes from on the screen?

Mr Clive Medcraft

2. MR MEDCRAFT: You can see really that I live in the heart of the village, and so it’s important for me to get about. I work in the village as well; I’m based at home. I have a TVAV servicing business and I need to be able to get out to see clients –

3. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: A TV…?

4. MR MEDCRAFT: Audio servicing. So I need to be able to collect and deliver equipment, although I’m based at home and I do the work at home on stuff, and so it’s important that I can get out the village basically. So obviously I know a lot has been said about traffic, so I’m not going to have you all glaze over with blow-by-blow comments on that. Just to say, also, my wife works in Ealing; she needs to be able to commute out of the area, so anything that can be done to minimise the impact – the obvious impact – on the road structure, is something that I’m seeking to achieve.

5. If we could go to the next slide. I’m not David Bailey – I’m sure you’ve seen lots of this as well, cars. Next slide, as well, please? That’s the end of that. Then the next slide? And again please? Probably melodramatic what I’m saying there, but basically you get the gist of it; it looks nice now. I worry about the appearance of it when work commences. That’s just a simplistic illustration that I put together to show how I envisaged things looking more in the area, once the major works start, setting up the 06 Harvil Road Compound. Go to the next slide please? Then obviously we’re also familiar with that compound that I just mentioned so we can skip onto the next on please?

6. Now, obviously from a road point of view, the main concern to me is this Brackenbury Cutting. I don’t know if actually refer to it as the Copthall C utting or the Harvil Road Compound? I’ve called it that. What you see on the horizon is basically a hill that needs to be demolished and then spread all over some fields nearby. I’ve tried

to capture the sort of depth down, at the track bed level, where the railhead has to be established. Obviously the Colne Valley commissioned tunnel proposal seeks to eradicate the need for that, and that would obviously be something that I would love, but I understand that it’s not something that can be taken lightly, and I’m aware of the response from HS2 Limited to what their principal objections are regarding that cavern that has to be excavated and the difficulties there, and it’s been likened to working through a letterbox to decorate your hallway, which maybe I would have used a different analogy, along the lines of keyhole surgery. That it’s actually a challenge to be able to demonstrate how you could implement precision and ingenuity in the invasion, delivering something like that. Because a side issue, that I understand that the whole project, the prestige of it is going to be something that we’re going to want to be able to showcase and maybe export new competencies that are going to maybe something of benefit from implementing the scheme. I know that’s not something that is going to be decided upon quickly.

7. So leaving that now, if we can just take, flash through the next two slides quite quickly: it’s just pictures I’ve managed to grab of where the sustainable placement is scheduled to be. Again, I understand that one of them might have moved or something, but they’re still going to be things like that roughly where they’re shown, to my understanding. Next slide please? So, the alternative I just touched upon, which is the tunnel and then I understand that quite substantial consideration was given to simply relocating to the TfL – keeping the viaduct, but I also understand that HS2 Limited have raised objections regarding the logistics of that, that you still have to have the Harvil Road compound and actually, so that that actually almost completely dials out the advantage of that relocation, so it’s my understanding that that’s probably off the table. So, really it’s just the tunnel that I’m looking for, hoping for.

8. CHAIR: I’m not sure a tunnel would benefit you, because it would mean West Hyde would have substantial amounts of traffic, which would mean would divert through Harefield, so Harefield would catch it.

9. MR MEDCRAFT: And also, the other objection I’ve got is the way it’s going to look through the Colne Valley with the viaduct. Of course, the views that we saw from the pub, The Old Orchard –

10. CHAIR: When we had a crowd at the top?

11. MR MEDCRAFT: That’s it, yes. It’s actually going to be more intensive because of the intervention gap, and so on. But I mean, I still think that the mitigation to the Colne Valley itself, and the absence of the congestion on the road that might arise from taking away that compound is something – at the look of it, is going to be horrible. That view is going to be ruined; irrespective of what’s done with that is going to be adversely affected. So we know we have to expect that if the scheme goes ahead. So really, my focus is just about being able to get about, and there are loads of other things that are upsetting – like the impact on the Colne Valley, the restrictions upon its use. I mean, my kids will probably be leaving home by the time it starts to recover from the shock of it.

12. CHAIR: Clearly if you say, ‘I’ll see you at 10 o’clock to fix your television or fit an audio visual system’, and you arrive there at 11.00, it isn’t going to be very popular is it?

13. MR MEDCRAFT: That’s never a good idea. I’ve tried to just keep it to pragmatism because everyone’s emotional about what it’s going to do to the area, potentially. So, can we just step through, and then I can see what they are, whether we need to spend any time on them. Next slide please? Okay, we have talked about that, so we can skip that, please? In my petition response documentation the – we pretty much knew how it was going to go, how HS2 Limited would approach the tunnelling proposition, but the only thing that is a little bit annoying, I suppose is, when we were first asking for consideration of that, the main reason was the provision for the Heathrow Spur. But when the PRD came back, and there was no mention of that, and it seemed to focus mainly on the – what I’ve got here, which is the Misbourne River Action Group and Affinity Water and people like that were concerned about the risks of tunnelling through a chalk aquifer. The annoying thing was that, on the one hand we were being told that that is not something that would be a good idea under the Colne Valley; but a very similar scheme is being adopted for the Chiltern Tunnel, under very similar geological conditions and HS2 sent a team of people along – which I discovered just be doing a bit of research – sent a team along of experts, who argue why it’s not a problem doing some of the works elsewhere. So, I notice that that wasn’t really a theme that carried through the Hillingdon Borough hearings so much, but I don’t know. I think

the analogy is that it’s like a subcutaneous implant, a tunnel; whereas the piers are like multiple stab wounds. So, I would just hope that some of that is considered, because I understand that there could be an implication for the drinking water supplies.

14. Really, I think that’s pretty much all I’ve got to say.

15. CHAIR: Okay, could you remind us where you wife works?

16. MR MEDCRAFT: She works in Ealing Hospital in a hospice, so her commute is atrocious.

17. CHAIR: And there’s one road through Harefield, essentially?

18. MR MEDCRAFT: Yes.

19. CHAIR: I understand your concern; thank you very much for being brief a nd getting through your slides very quickly. Mr Mould?

20. MR MOULD QC (DfT): On that last point that Mr Medcraft made about the need to tunnel through chalk, the Committee won’t need reminding that the issue that was raised last week by Hillingdon was not so much the feasibility of tunnelling through chalk, including chalk which carried a drinking water aquifer. But, as to whether there was a clear comparative advantage of tunnelling through chalk rather than founding a viaduct in chalk, and our position on that, you’ll recall, was that we were prepared to assume that, essentially, in terms of engineering and controlling potential impacts on the aquifer, going through the chalk or founding a viaduct in the chalk were essentially neutral. That was the position I took last week so I hope that gives some comfort to the petitioner on that point.

21. Last Thursday, 18 June, in the morning, if you recall, I sought to summarise our position in relation to the perceived advantages of a main construction site for the Northolt Tunnel at the TfL depot at West Ruislip as opposed to Harvil Road. I won’t go through those points again, because they’re on the record.

22. The other point perhaps to remind the Committee of is that we have given assurance to Buckinghamshire County Council in relation to the A412. If you remember, it took the form of three principle points: the first was that we will seek to

bring the M25 slips into operation as soon as we reasonably can, and in advance of the main construction works at West Hyde. Secondly, that whilst we are constructing the slips, the traffic on the A412 will be limited to construction traffic for that purpose and to certain, limited categories of traffic which are associated with site setup at West Hyde. The third was that we would carry out a review of the operation of three specified junctions on the A412 that Buckinghamshire were particularly concerned about, and if that review showed that those junctions would be at or about capacity, and that the position would be materially worsened by the introduction of HS2 traffic, then we would commit to spend up to £100,000 on works to improve the performance of those junctions. So those, I think, are the key points.

23. I did show you – or Mr S trachan may have shown you – a sequence of slides which showed the phasing of operations at the Harvil Road worksite, passing from initial site setup all the way through to the four years of railway fit out. Do you remember, we saw that, actually, from a relatively early point, that site is being progressively restored to agricultural and open uses. I’m not going to show you those again unless you’d like me to, but we may come to them a bit later today.

24. CHAIR: Okay, thank you. When we heard from a number of petitioners from Harefield in March, we saw a lot of photos of lorries stopped and traffic jammed up and clearly there are going to be difficulties and problems that need managing. It shouldn’t be anybody’s objective but to be helpful to local businesses as far as one can. Any brief final comments, Mr Medcraft?

25. MR MEDCRAFT: I think that really concludes it. The thing is, I was scheduled, prior to the GE, but it had to be put now. So, you will have heard so much from people in my area, it’s not probably productive to –

26. CHAIR: How is business?

27. MR MEDCRAFT: Could be better.

28. CHAIR: Are you getting paid?

29. MR MEDCRAFT: Just about. Everyone has a different perspective on what ‘being paid’ is.

30. CHAIR: Alright, thank you very much.

31. MR MEDC RAF T: Thank you.

32. CHAIR: We now move on to Bidwells, who are representing 1170, Fred and Jean Dawson; 1169, Toby and William Dalton; 318, West London Composting Limited –of which I understand we’re going to get a short statement; 319, Martin and Jennifer Grundon. Welcome back!

Fred and Jean Dawson, et al.

33. MR BRIGGS : Thank you, good morning everyone. Mr C hairman, we’ve got four petitioners that I’m appearing for this morning. We think it’s sensible to deal with them all as a group because they are in relatively close proximity to each other. One of them, West London Composting, we think we are almost there in resolving things, so I’ve got a very short statement to deal with that. But the rest of them, I think we need to deal with to get the other three. The principles are pretty generic in terms of the impact of the scheme.

34. CHAIR: Do you want to dispose of West London Composting first?

35. MR BRIGGS: Yes, that would be the most sensible thing. West London Composting have in recent days received some revised plans from HS2, particularly the plans P6870 and P6871, which I’m not sure if we’ve got them up? These avoid the maturation site. West London Composting, I think you’ve been to the site, so rather than explain in detail, if I point that the red box in the middle is the maturation site, and the plans now seem to avoid that. We have asked HS2 for a definitive assurance that an additional provision will be brought into this Committee. We haven’t had that definitive assurance yet, and therefore if we don’t get that definitive assurance, we would like to reserve the right to come back and talk to you. But provided we get that definitive assurance, we will be content with that position.

36. CHAIR: Okay, fine.

37. MR BRIGGS: So just for the record, really.

38. CHAIR: Thank you.

39. MR BRIGGS: Now, I think it might be sensible, Mr Chairman, if we have an overview of the other properties affected – Mr and Mrs Grundon, Mr and Mrs Dawson and the Dalton brothers, who all farm within the proximity of the line. I’m no t s ure whether we have got a plan showing all of them in context with each other?

40. MR MOULD QC (DfT): P6905 gives an overview – P6907?

41. MR BRIGGS : That shows the Grundon’s property. If I point my finger here, Mr and Mrs Grundon live in this property here, Rose Hall Farm, which is approximately a mile from the trace of the route. The proposal is to bring a large quantity of what’s known as sustainable placement to the areas highlighted in red and in green to their property, which is mainly farmland. Mr Grundon also has a part share in another property here, which is also similarly affected. The impact of the sustainable placement is significant on their property, as you would imagine. They have a pair of cottages just where I’m pointing here, right next to the maturation site, which the sustainable placement comes right up to the rear garden. Clearly up here, where they live, the sustainable placement proposals come right up to their garden as well. The proposals there, effectively, take out virtually all of their farmland. So, the impact of the scheme is significant, particularly when they are quite some way from the trace.

42. Similarly if we can go to Dalton and Dawson?

43. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Dawson is on 6873.

44. MR BRIGGS: And we’re on the other side of the railway line, now. The red there is Mr Dawson’s property. The bloc next to the railway is similarly affected with proposals for a mixture of sustainable placement, and I think there’s going to be a compound. There is also a proposal under an additional provision to utilise this bloc of land here, the rectangular –

45. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: The small one?

46. MR BRIGGS: Yes, at a 90-degree angle, for storage of material, which will take up the majority of that area. You again will see Mr Dawson and his family live here, at the farmstead. There, the impact of the scheme is therefore significant.

47. Mr Dalton, as you can clearly see on that same plan, he owns the grey area, or the

majority of the grey area that fits in the 90-degree angle, approximately there, and his farmhouse sits in there. So, the other blocs of land that are shown in grey, that he doesn’t own; he has an agricultural tenancy on, so he actually farms that whole bloc of land. Again, the scheme takes out virtually his entire land holding and comes right up to the back of his house.

48. So I think that’s an overview of the circumstances with which we are faced. Principally, we have a number of generic concerns about this. One is the principle of sustainable placement, and how sustainable it actually is; and the impact that that might have going forward. Two, if it is deemed that the sustainable should be appropriate, what happens to the land afterwards, and what are the appropriate designations. I am sure we will see some plans in a minute that show the majority of this land is then shown as either being woodland planting, or grassland habitat – which without any assurances to us, seems to rule out any future agricultural operations on the farms at all. That, given the proximity of these farms to the urban fringe; these families have farmed this land for many years. They’ve got a tight community; it appears that there is a risk of wiping out a complete agricultural community in this area.

49. CHAIR: It’s the one unusual part of this part of London where there are actually fa r ms ?

50. MR BRIGGS: Yes. And the Dalton family have milked cows and provided milk for generations to central London. The Dawson family have farmed and the Grundon family have farmed for many years; these are people who have been here a long time. The scheme at the moment pays no due to that, and just says, ‘There’s a bit of land, let’s put soil on it.’ This is the crux of it. If the sustainable placement is necessary and we have concerns that it is necessary, then if it happens, what state does it leave the land in afterwards? What is the impact of the supposed environment designations, the woodland habitat and the grassland habitat created there afterwards? The concerns particularly are that we have very little information from HS2 as to that. We are getting a bit more information now, but it’s been sketchy.

51. There are some specific issues and some specific points that we would like to deal with in terms of the individuals, in terms of if it is deemed that this land will be used for sustainable placement, we would like to come up with some proposals to try and push

back the barriers, so that certainly they are away from the residential dwellings, so that these people can have some form of sensible living, particularly during construction and thereafter, and not be surrounded by big piles of soil and dust and everything else that goes with it.

52. If I can turn to the Grundons to begin with, we have produced an exhibit which is A1131, if we can find that one? I can hopefully explain this. Our intention – or our proposal is that we push back the areas of sustainable placement so they are curtailed by the thick, brown lines which we would like to create some form of bunding between our property and the works, particularly during construction so we are screened from it. Then we have the sensible paddocks around the property that we can continue to use, for the cottages at the bottom left-hand corner, and the house at the top. Mr and Mrs Grundon keep horses and they also run a kennels there, and they need somewhere to exercise their horses and they need somewhere for their kennels. The current proposal is, we have nothing. So, our proposal is that we have some additional provisions come in, that push back these boundaries and take part of this sustainable placement out, so that we can at least have some functionality going through the construction.

53. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Usable, amenity land?

54. MR BRIGGS: Yes. That is I think where we pretty much are with Mr and Mrs Grundon. It’s specifically – I’ll come back to the woodland and the habitat creation as a general point. But specifically, that’s what we would like to do with them.

55. If I can go back to the previous slide which showed Mr Dalton?

56. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Just before you go on, can we be reminded of what the height of this –

57. MR BRIGGS: Well I’m very glad you asked that, in the HS2 documents they state that the height will be three metres –

58. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Up to –

59. MR BRIGGS: And yet they’ve produced recently an additional cross-section that indicatively, it seems to be higher than three metres. So I am working on three metres,

but I think we need clarity on that to confirm that it will be no more than three metres.

60. If I can point to Mr Dalton’s homestead, what we asked for – and you can probably see the feint outline, there is a slightly rectangular shaped paddock running down there.

61. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Zoom in a bit, I think?

62. MR BRIGGS: Which we have similarly asked if we can push back the boundaries there to enable Mr Dalton to have some form of living. The principle of that is that we would save a mature hedgerow which has been there for many years, and if they could taper the sustainable placement, coming up to the field behind it, that would at least, in the same way as Mr and Mrs Grundon, it would give them some form of functionality.

63. MR MEARNS: Mr Briggs, I am sure you covered it, but could you just remind me, what’s happening in the dog tooth areas around the edge?

64. MR BRIGGS: Those areas are not owned by Mr Dalton, they’re owned by a separate company that have owned them historically for many years. I suspect it was at a time when there was ribbon development before –

65. MR MEARNS: But Mr Dalton uses it?

66. MR BRIGGS : Yes, he has an agricultural tenancy of it. He’s got a lifetime tenancy and it’s secure –

67. MR MEARNS: So although he doesn’t own it, he loses the use of it?

68. MR BRIGGS: He uses it yes; he farms it.

69. MR MEARNS: Right, okay.

70. MR MOULD QC (DfT): If I can just interrupt, just to answer that point. I have put up this plan which shows our proposed final arrangement, and you can see that those areas do form part of the overall scheme for sustainable placement.

71. MR BRIGGS: And that plan quite clearly shows the hedge line of the field that we are looking to exclude; you can see that one there, and that’s the one we would like out of it.

72. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: There seems to be two issues. One is around the habitations – land which could be used and give them some better life and better use. The second question is, assuming you have this sustainable placement, raising of the land with spoil, what it should appropriately be used for, and whether future agricultural use has to be ruled out, and whether it has to be woodland or grass or something? Those seem to be the two issues?

73. MR BRIGGS: Yes, and I would like to come back to that generic point, but those are the specifics of what we would like to try and deal with. If we go on to the need or otherwise of sustainable placement. We do question the whole policy here of just finding a piece of land chucking lots of soil on it. I accept there’s a balance between traffic movements and other, but some of this land is over a mile away from the trace. It does seem to me that, is this an appropriate use of land, particularly the proximity to the urban fringe. Is it not possible to come up with a further proposal, even if there is a need for some sustainable placement? The volumes that we are seeing on this land and elsewhere seem to me unacceptable.

74. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Sorry for asking questions to which we’ve probably heard an answer before. Does the spoil get here by lorry or does it get here on the moving belt?

75. MR MOULD QC (DfT): It gets here by lorry, which travels over dedicated haul roads that are created for that purpose. If we can show you that on the previous slide, P6924, this relates obviously to the area to the south of the railway line, which concern Mr Dalton, but you can see marked out in the yellow are the – so the source of the arisings – the source of the material is the construction of the Copthall Cutting to create the Harvil Road railhead. Then the material is brought by wagon along these haul roads which are created for that purpose, and then in order to deposit the material on Mr Dalton’s land, obviously the wagons come along that spur and then move across the s ite.

76. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: So, in effect, the roads are keeping the haul lorries off the public roads?

77. MR MOULD QC (DfT): That’s the idea, yes.

78. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Which is presumably the reason – it’s not just a straight cost run; it’s also a community –

79. MR MOULD QC (DfT): You have it in a nutshell, if I may say so.

80. CHAIR: But the other problem is, because you don’t want to make it obtrusive, it’s only three metres, which means you need more hectares to do it?

81. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes.

82. CHAIR: I can remember a conversation we had with Stephen Pound about vent shafts, about whether the spoil could go where the area off the A41, which the kids play on, which is an artificial hill. So whether one could find somewhere in the area, just to ruin one site –

83. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: The Ickenham Ski Slope!

84. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I rather rudely interjected when Mr Briggs was speaking a few moments ago, but just to emphasise the words, ‘up to three metres’. I can come back to his later.

85. SIR PETER BO TTOMLEY: I think one metre extra or not is – it’s a visual issue. It’s a question of whether you can use less land if you have it higher and whether discussions with the farmers could take place.

86. MR MEARNS: Given that the proportionality between, for instance, the hedged area which was the paddock and the rest of the land. If you took that paddock out, you might add another half a metre or less to the overall plane. That would be a matter of negotia tio n?

87. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Mr Miller will speak to you briefly about this in a moment but I think you can take that as a given. We are clearly not going to be looking to force either of Mr Briggs’ clients to accept materials at a significant height in very close proximity in the areas we mentioned. That’s something which we need to have as a priority when we get to the detail of this, and we need to discuss very closely with his clients this kind of thing, so that we can make the practical arrangements work for them as best we can.

88. MR MEARNS: It does seem, Mr Mould, that given the overall land take of this particular petitioner’s land use, the retention of the paddocks seems a small aspect doesn’t it?

89. MR MOULD QC (DfT): It’s an entirely reasonable ask, and whilst I can’t make an unqualified promise as to precisely what we can do – le t’s put it this way, that will be right at the top of the agenda for the detailed design -

90. MR MEARNS: What’s the difference between a ‘given’ and ‘unqualified’ –

91. MR MOULD QC (DfT): You are assuming that I’m someone who can answer that question as a lawyer.

92. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I am sorry to break into your presentation Mr Briggs, but I’m just trying to be clear in my own mind about what the issues were.

93. MR BRIGGS: Absolutely. Thank you for that. Now, the next stage is – again, I think this – I was picking up from where I was, talking about sustainable placement generally and the impact here. We can understand, my clients can understand the need for certainly some temporary storage because of the construction constraints. But it does seem to me that if we look at the HS2 Hybrid Bill proposals on sustainable placement, which I don’t know what number they are but –

94. MR MOULD QC (DfT): 6255 is the –

95. MR BRIGGS: That one there? I don’t know whether we can look at that? This talks about a hierarchy of dealing with the waste and particularly, sustainable placement. It also talks about the West Ruislip railhead as being critically important. And the second paragraph states that, ‘The surplus material generated during the excavation of the tunnel will be transported offsite via the West Ruislip railhead. So there’s a principle there that once that railhead is built, the material from the tunnel will be taken away. But then it goes on, the fourth paragraph, it says, ‘The majority of the surplus excavated material generated prior to the operation of Ruislip railhead would be disposed of through the sustainable placement.’ Now the question I propose here is, once the West Ruislip railhead is in operation, is it not beyond the wit of our incredibly clever engineers and transport planners to use the railhead to take off material to the

larger area – I think Calvert was mentioned, or wherever it might be – and temporarily store that soil so that we can then have something back afterwards that we can carry on using as we’ve done before?

96. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Is this top soil or…?

97. MR BRIGGS: No, this is sustainable placement. It seems to me that if we can move it, rather than spending a lot of energy in making it all very pretty and flat why don’t we just pile it up, and just move it off site once the railhead is going? Now, without wanting to take any words out of Mr Miller’s mouth, I suspect that they’ll say they are looking at that. But looking at that is not quite the reassurance I would like. It’s like other assurances we get: ‘Our assurance will be maybe’. But maybe is equally maybe not.

98. MR MEARNS: It’s an oft-used phrase in my neck of the woods, that there’s a hole appeared in the road and officials from Gateshead Council are looking into it!

99. MR MOULD QC (DfT): In that case, if I may say so, the road exists, whereas here we are at a much earlier stage in the planning of a railway, and as you know, detailed design is something that is to come.

100. MR MEARNS: But if a road has got a major hole in it, it’s not a road anymore.

101. CHAIR: The other point, Mr Mould, is that people who have businesses have to plan.

102. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Of course.

103. CHAIR: And they can’t wait for the railway to do detailed planning otherwise their businesses are going to go bust.

104. MR MOULD QC (DfT): And I entirely accept that point, and we must move as fast as we reasonably can on this.

105. CHAIR: Sorry Mr Briggs, carry on.

106. MR BRIGGS: That’s a point. I struggle to accept the HS2 position, is that we don’t really know – which I suspect is what Mr Miller will tell you, without wishing to

put words in his mouth. This is a very important scheme; it has a fundamental impact on people’s lives, and I don’t really know is not good enough, quite frankly. So that is the position on sustainable placement. We have very little information on the impact on it, the drainage, the maintenance of it going forward, the stability of it. We have nothing.

107. Then we can go on to the supposed habitat creation. Clearly I have spoken to this Committee before about areas of woodland being identified. If we can go back to a plan that will show the final intentions of the land.

108. MR MOULD QC (DfT): P6931 is Mr Dalton.

109. MR BRIGGS: This is Dalton or Dawson? Now, it’s difficult with my failing eyesight!

110. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Dalton.

111. MR BRIGGS: The field, that one there, that is proposed to have woodland planting. The remainder, I believe, is grass and habitat creation. This is at the end. Now, I am assuming at the moment, that under Schedule 15, this land will be returned to us, and we will briefly talk about that in a minute. But, what we are still very unclear on is what the designation of grass and habitat creation means. Does that mean that we can farm it in the way we’ve farmed it, which is a mix of arable and grass? Does it mean that we have to maintain it as if it were a special site of scientific interest? What does it mean? If in 20 or 30 years’ time, this land was owned for development, if planning policy changed, does that mean that land is precluded from that use because of the covenants of HS2? We have no idea, and we would like some clarity on that.

112. Similarly with the woodland. We have talked about previously – and I don’t want to labour the point – about this no net loss in biodiversity. This land is actually, as it stands, quite a diverse ecological reserve. There’s a lot of wildlife on it. Frankly, we don’t need trees planted on it to continue and maintain that. We have limited enough acreage as it is, and not only have we got to suffer either a temporary or permanent land piling or deposition of soil onto it; then to add insult to injury, we then have trees planted on it, which does nothing for us and we can’t use it. We have had this before. I have seen nothing yet from HS2 that the metric that’s calculated gives them a definitive

answer with this. There seems to be a subjective opinion. Standing back and looking where we are, there has got to be a better solution. It is almost an insult to my clients to say that they don’t farm it in an ecological way. They do; they have looked after it for years; they don’t need HS2 or anyone else telling them how to do it.

113. CHAIR: We have heard that from almost every farm up the line; they accept that there’s a railway going across, but when they lose two or three more fields for tree planting or something, then that drives them around the bend.

114. MR BRIGGS : But I have to labour the point, Mr C hairman.

115. CHAIR: Yes.

116. MR BRIGGS: And a similar point from Mr Grundon – I don’t know whether we’ve got his plans? Here again my eyesight is failing, but I think these colours are deliberately designed – we have grassland and woodland habitat there, and a similar thing. This is a small landholding; it is important to us, what are we going to end up with? There has got to be a better way of dealing with this; there has got to be a more transparent and open and definitive approach. Not this one that is hidden behind closed doors saying, ‘This is an opinion of someone we never really get to talk to’. So, those points are – I’m not sure whether there’s much more that I can say that hasn’t already been said on that.

117. Turning to future ownership. We are concerned that we do, hopefully, get this land returned to us under schedule 15. I am concerned that the economic test that’s referred to in schedule 15 is less than clear. I think the phrase is, ‘When economic to do so, the land will be returned…’ but no one has specifically said to me yet, ‘Yes, that land will definitely be returned’. Again, to use Mr Mearns’ phrase, I was told that under the assurances given, that the ‘Secretary of State may only require a permanent interest…’. I would rather say, ‘Will only require the permanent interest…’ rather than, ‘May only…’, because we need some definition. If this land is not going to be returned for us in six or seven years’ time, we might as well pack up and go away. It’s just not good enough to have these ‘ma ys ’ and ‘maybes’ and ‘what ifs’. We need specifics. If the scheme isn’t properly designed at the moment, well, why are we here petitioning now until we actually know what we’re dealing with. So if an air of frustration comes out, it’s because I’ve dealing with this for a long time, and we seem to be still no clearer

on a lot of things.

118. Those are the generic issues. There’s a specific issue with Mr Dawson particularly. Mr Dawson is sitting behind me, and I don’t want to particularly – but Mr Dawson is a certain age that inheritance tax becomes quite a relevant issue to him. He’s in his 80s. I have been given the copies of various letters from HMRC, in respect to how the tax position will be treated in these circumstances. But it doesn’t really give the clarity that Mr Dawson needs. We talked about the unusual nature of where this land is; these small farms, and given what is happening, if this proposal goes ahead, that agricultural land will be wiped out. Now, Mr Dawson – the chance of him being able to buy additional agricultural land will be infinitesimal, because there is just none around; he’s not going to buy a 10 acre field in Northampton. If he loses land, he will suffer in terms of, at his age, inheritance tax will be a big issue. This at the moment, he can pass this down to his family tax free under current rules because it’s an agricultural holding, and I appreciate this Committee is not going to change Treasury tax collection rules. But what I would like is some guidance to HS2 that they need to take this into account when dealing with the compensation issues. The wording I have seen so far in respect of HMRC doesn’t go that far, and if there is an additional tax liability created by this, I believe it’s only right and proper that HS2 should deal with that in compensation.

119. CHAIR: We have taken up these issues with the Exchequer Secretary at the Treasury, HMRC, and they have moved a little bit. But basically, their argument is, ‘HMRC are reasonable people’. Clearly, down the line, a farmer wants rather more than that. There’s flexibility within the law but I think we need something much more specific about how the extraordinary circumstances of the railway will affect farmers not only at phase one but at phase two and phase three, all the way up the line, because clearly this will have a big impact, and on Capital Gains Tax.

120. MR BRIGGS: I understand, and it’s really re-emphasising the point, because it’s specifically relevant, given Mr Dawson’s age; it’s a specific concern to him. That is really, I think, pretty much – I’ve dealt with sustainable placement, I’ve dealt with the land take and the habitat creation, the tax position, moving the boundaries back. I think, at the moment, that’s pretty much our position and our concerns, Mr C hairman.

121. CHAIR: Okay, I think we are going to have see HMRC again on tax before we

finish.

122. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Would it help if we ask Mr Briggs if he would like to write to the Committee, not necessarily pinning Mr Dawson’s name to it, but illustrating one or two examples of what could happen, if you’re either caught on an interim basis or you can’t find replacement land?

123. MR BRIGGS: I can do that.

124. CHAIR: And copy in the local Member of Parliament.

125. MR BRIGGS : I can do that.

126. CHAIR: Mr Mould?

127. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Just on that point, can I just remind the Committee o f one thing I made clear when we heard the presentation from the Country Land Owners’ Association and the National Farmers’ Union. I did say that there is a matter of basic legal principle: where a tax liability is incurred by a person whose land is compulsorily purchased, or which is used compulsorily – I make that point advisedly – and but for that acquisition or use, that tax liability would not have been incurred, and they are not otherwise able to set that liability off, then that liability to that extent will form part of their claim for land compensation. That is the established position.

128. SIR P ETER BO TTOMLEY: We understand that, and that’s helpful and we’re all grateful to have heard that. If I am an 85 year old farmer with the expectation that my land could go down to my children and to their children without having the inheritance tax, but because the land has been either bought from me or taken to be used, and I then die, that inheritance tax – what the Committee has heard – might be affected whether I die before or after the land is taken or used or when its returned. So there are uncertainties which are still built in. It’s not the forum to solve all that.

129. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I entirely accept that and I wasn’t in any way seeking to suggest that there was a simple solution; it was simply that there is an underlying legal regime which the Committee knows about, but in deference to Mr Briggs –

130. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Which is a convention rather than a commitment?

131. CHAIR: The real problem, Mr Mould, is that that would require the family involved going back to the project and then having further discussion, negotiation and time passing. I think somehow we just need to have a clearer – so people have a map and know where they are actually going rather than they are going to have an argument with HS2 for five or six or ten years over whether or not some money is coming –

132. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes, what I have said is very much a back stop, I accept that.

133. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: And the circumstances in which one might justify three subjunctives.

134. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes, I fear it is an inescapable function of expressing a legal proposition, as you know. Thank you. I am going to call Mr Miller if I may to deal with the first question? We will put up P6255(1) please? Mr Miller, Mr Briggs has a number of questions, the first of which was – we’re not entirely convinced by the case for sustainable placements. I just wonder if you can just, to a degree, remind the Committee of why that’s a feature of the scheme in this area?

135. MR MILLER: Yes, what we’ve got to do is – well, what we are thinking about is building the tunnel and getting to a point where we can make that, our construction around the head work as efficiently as possible. So, in doing that, we’ve got to think about building that out, taking down the ground just to the north of the Chiltern Line, the Copthall Cutting, which I think you may have heard about yesterday and get that ready so that we can get a railhead in place to make the construction effort a little easier all around, for the tunnel and for the rest of the build.

136. MR MOULD QC (DfT): And just to pick up the penultimate – the middle bullet on this page, really summarises the point – that the material we’re dealing with is really, principally, material that is associated with the creation of the railhead and the facility at the Copthall Cutting?

137. MR MILLER: That’s right, because the railhead is not available to us day one, we’ve got to build the railhead before we can get on with the build of the railway, and there is a sequence of activities that need to be accounted for.

138. MR MOULD QC (DfT): And then the penultimate bullet makes the point that I think the Committee themselves mentioned a few moments ago, that there’s an environmental balance being struck here between more vehicles on the road, and an alternative means of dealing with that material before the railhead becomes available?

139. MR MILLER: That’s right. People are very much concerned about the use of the roads in this area, and our response is to try and tackle that and to get a rounded approach to build the railway and to keep everything on programme.

140. MR MOULD QC (DfT): The final point I think is an important one isn’t it, that we haven’t reached the end of the road here; we continue to examine ways of improving the quantity of material that we can take away by rail, and that’s something which continues to be pursued with the relevant rail authorities?

141. MR MILLER: That’s right, we’ve very much challenging the sustainable placement that’s in the Bill, to see whether we can make improvements to overcome the traffic issues and to limit the effect on people’s land; the concerns that Mr Briggs has been talking about this morning and some of that we are more confident about now – or we are getting more confident as more detail comes forward and what I’m expecting is that when we get into the detailed design proper – which is not right at this moment, it’s to come – and when we get into the design and build phase, then we should be bringing other people’s views about how to construct this railway to bear on this particular issue, and we think that that is going in one direction, to help reduce sustainable placement and we also think that that will help with the traffic situation as well.

142. CHAIR: Can I ask something to be clear? Clearly a spoil heap is temporary; a sustainable placement is permanent?

143. MR MILLER: That’s right.

144. CHAIR: Okay. And could there be any situation where it wasn’t permanent? It was just until the project was finished and one tried to return some of the land, took the soil off, took the planting off and return something to agricultural land?

145. MR MILLER: It’s possible. We sort of talked about that on the other side of the Colne Valley. Ideally, we would like to ensure that we are handling material once,

that’s the best situation, that’s the most economic way of dealing with things. That’s really the challenge in a ll o f this. As soon as you get into two or three different movements, you’re into something more expensive. In some ways, that actually provides a clue to where the contractors will go to with this; they will look to minimise that, and if we’re demonstrating that we are trying to reduce the sustainable placement we can aim to improve on that, challenge the contractors further, and then they can decide how they’re going to get that spoil away. But you are right, you could hold it and you could take it away at a later stage, but your costs will go up.

146. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Can we then, just onto the next slide, pick up a couple of points that have been raised? First of all, the duration of this aspect of the scheme is dealt with in the second bullet there isn’t it?

147. MR MILLER: That’s right, 18 months at each of the sites, yes.

148. MR MOULD QC (DfT): And we also address the – we give a basic indication of the dimensions of sustainable placement on any given site in the penultimate bullet on that page?

149. MR MILLER: That’s right yes. We’ve worked to the maximum height of three metres.

150. MR MOULD QC (DfT): And we will come to this in a moment but it says, ‘As a matter of general principle, the land restored as ecological planting or returned to agricultural’. We’ll come back to that in a moment?

151. MR MILLER: Yes.

152. MR MOULD QC (DfT): And then the point that you’ve made already that we will continue to examine options to reduce the amount of excavated material for sustainable placement?

153. MR MILLER: Yes, that’s an ongoing process.

154. MR MOULD QC (DfT): If we then just turn onto number four, P6255(4), is a graph which we will just comment on briefly and then I just want to go to a couple of phasing plans. Just tell us what this is showing us, Mr Miller?

155. MR MILLER: What this is showing is the various stages of excavation and it gives an indication of our ability to get material away using the railhead.

156. MR MOULD QC (DfT): So stage one – does that correspond to any particular sustainable placement site in this area which Mr Briggs’ clients are concerned with?

157. MR MILLER: What’s happening here is we are taking out the material, essentially from Copthall Cutting to get to the railhead itself, to get that sort of flat piece of ground, and the material is moving away to the north of the Chiltern Line and onto the Grundon family’s land, in the Newyears Green area. So it’s the northern part – the land will be built up there in the first instance.

158. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: What are the units on this?

159. MR MILLER: It looks like widths and depths.

160. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Well, at some stage –

161. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes. It’s cubic metres of material, I think.

162. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: On the up or the across?

163. MR MOULD QC (DfT): That’s metres on the bottom. I’ll confirm that with you in a minute. Then the second stage, we can see that the railhead is beginning to come into operation. Is that right?

164. MR MILLER: Yes, that’s right. Once you get your railhead in place, then it starts to open up opportunities to move material away by rail to another location, or away from this area.

165. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Okay. I want to illustrate that on a timeline. If we turn to P6210, please. These are the maps that show the phases of the activities at Harvil Road. They’re focused on traffic movements, but they do help to give an indication of the broad phasing of the sustainable placement activity. This is phase two, which, as you can see from the timeline towards the bottom of the page, is years two to three of the construction phase.

166. MR MILLER: That’s right.

167. MR MOULD QC (DfT): And we can see that the Copthall cutting is being excavated.

168. MR MILLER: That’s the hatched area there.

169. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes. And then we can see things going on on the Grundon land. The brown areas are what?

170. MR MILLER: That’s topsoil stripping in this area, and then you can see the two areas which you saw on the aerial photograph a little earlier. Those are the areas that start to receive that material from the Copthall cutting.

171. MR MOULD QC (DfT): And we can see that at this stage nothing of significance is happening on Mr Dalton’s or Mr Dawson’s land.

172. MR MILLER: No; that comes a bit later. That comes at another stage.

173. MR MOULD QC (DfT): If we then turn to the next slide, P6211, phase three.

174. MR MILLER: Perhaps whilst we’re waiting for that, as we’re getting into that phase, you can see on the Grundons’ land, that’s drawing to a close there and the plan for mitigation and compensation is being implemented. Then at this time the land –

175. SIR PETER BO TTOMLEY: Is compensation the grassland and trees, or is compensation money to people?

176. MR MILLER: From my perspective it’s for the grassland and trees. There is that other form of compensation, which is money, obviously.

177. MR MOULD QC (DfT): We can see that the topsoil storage at the top, in the area of the Grundons’ land, has gone by this time, which reflects the completion.

178. MR MILLER: That’s right. That will have moved back in as part of a restoration plan on that land, so that material which was sort of skimmed off will then be re-used.

179. MR MOULD QC (DfT): And then if we move south of the railway, we see that things are beginning to happen on Mr Dawson’s and Mr Dalton’s land.

180. MR MILLER: Yes, that’s right. On this plan it shows an area of land just here

whic h is part of an Additional Provision, which is used for topsoil storage. So, we’ve got material coming out of here needing to be handled in this area of land here, and through the plans as we’ve developed them, we needed more land in the Additional Provision because of the topsoil placement. So, that gets displaced from here into that area of land here. That brings that into account through our construction proposals.

181. MR MOULD QC (DfT): That was taking us to the end of year three. If we move to the next phase, which is 6212, we see that use of Mr Dalton’s land has now increased.

182. MR MILLER: That’s right. The sustainable placement is taking place, because at the moment we see that the train movements are taking the material away from the tunnel by rail, and so we’ve still got material which is coming into here, and we’ve got it at the moment from south to north being restored, albeit at a higher level when we’ve raised the land as part of this sustainable placement activity.

183. MR MOULD QC (DfT): And that takes us up through to year six. Just to complete the picture, if we go to the next slide, P6213. This is just to complete the sequence.

184. MR MILLER: Yes. You can see what’s happening here. We’re sort of finalising the land restoration and the sustainable placement. On this plan it’s bringing back the fields into the same sort of grain as they are at the moment. The topsoil storage area has disappeared over here; that will be restored to, essentially, the current use. Then the final activity up here, which is the woodland will be replaced in that final stage. That’s broadly the plan at the moment. The reason why we can’t get on with the final outcome in this location is because that’s the area we’ll use for the tunnel segments – the manufacture there – and that goes across and then down to fit out the tunnel.

185. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Thank you. We can see from that sequence and the evidence you’ve given that there’s an interaction between rail-based removal of material, including tunnel spoil and other arisings from the work site, and the need for sustainable placement. But insofar as the Grundon land is concerned, at the moment, given where that sits within the overall construction phasing that we’ve just seen, do you see there as being realistically much opportunity to remove the need for sustainable placement on that land – given where it sits within the overall phasing of the project?

186. MR MILLER: No, because the Copthall cutting here requires us to move the material away, and we don’t have the opportunity to get that away by rail, so our plan is to take that up on the haul roads which we’ve identified and then do the land-ra is e in those areas of land. So, everything is happening to the north in that first phase. So, in our plan, the Grundons’ land receives that material.

187. MR MOULD QC (DfT): But is the position the same in relation to Mr Dalton’s land, which, as we’ve seen, comes into play a little later in the programme?

188. MR MILLER: Sorry, is it the same?

189. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Is it the same? Are there any opportunities to seek to reduce the degree of usage of Mr Dalton’s land, subject to further work on the detailed design of the project?

190. MR MILLER: Yes. We see that there are opportunities for that. We’re at a point where we probably can’t do very much about that at the moment; we need to understand more about the detailed design and the final construction arrangements. But it seems to me that there’s a prospect with the railhead of looking at that again.

191. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Thank you. Can we just go back to P6255(4)?

192. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Is the railhead permanent, or is it just there for the construction and fitting out?

193. MR MOULD QC (DfT): It does remain as a permanent facility because it will provide a maintenance siding for the railway. I hope I can answer the question you posed about the X and the Y axis. The Y axis is metres in height and the X axis is metres width. What it’s showing is a cross-section, effectively, of the volumes of material at the various stages of the process of sustainable placement.

194. Now, Mr Miller, that’s the first of Mr Briggs’s questions, which is about the case for sustainable placement and how it would operate as a construction technique. Can we go to the next question, which is the after-use issue? For that purpose I think we’ll take the Grundons first and put up A1131, if we may. You heard Mr Briggs’s –

195. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Is this the newts and the invertebrates one, or is that

one of the other ones?

196. MR MOULD QC (DfT): This is the cordon sanitaire, I think, to provide the Grundons with some usable grazing land and also to provide some degree of separation, I think, from the dwellings and the sustainable placement. What’s your response on this in terms of the detailed design and restoration process?

197. MR MILLER: I was talking about this with Mr Briggs before we came into the committee room. I understand that this is, as you’ve said, essentially providing a buffer to the properties where people live. I think we need to sit down and have a discussion about that and see how we can work that into our final plans to provide that buffer on that land. I think there’s a good prospect of that being worked through. I’m not sure it would look exactly like that when we get to it, but I can understand where you’re coming from; you’re largely looking at the field boundaries in each case, and I think that there is scope to try and emulate that with our earth field bunding around and trying to get those properties back to a more pleasant outlook. So, we will have to continue that conversation.

198. CHAIR: Do you want to come in on that specific point, Mr Briggs? Are you happy with that?

199. MR BRIGGS: I’m happy to have a further discussion. I suppose it depends on how far that discussion goes. I make the point that I’ve had numerous discussions with HS2, but it’s actually getting some specifics that concerns me. It’s this ‘maybe’ or ‘will’ question.

200. CHAIR: You mean it’s getting a decision which is more important, rather than discussion.

201. MR BRIGGS: Yes. And how quickly that would be and if we can’t get satisfaction whether we can come back to this Committee.

202. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I think the easiest thing for us and perhaps the most productive thing for you would be that after the discussions, if there is agreement, someone might let us know. If there isn’t agreement, to have in writing what the disagreements are would be a helpful thing.

203. MR BRIGGS: Yes.

204. CHAIR: Yes. We certainly would want a report back. Sorry to interrupt you, Mr Mould.

205. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Not at all. Can I just very quickly go through the other points on the same theme, effectively? Mr Miller, if we can just turn to P6918, again, I hope with a view to the process that’s just been identified taking this point in as well. Mr Briggs’ evidence was that he would wish the landowners’ wishes as regards after-use of this land to be taken into account by the project and careful consideration as to how, as far as reasonably possible, those aspirations could be met. We can see the balance between woodland and grassland and we know that it’s intended that there should be an ecological benefit from both of those. Does that rule out productive grazing and equestrian use of these lands and the arrangement of the balance between woodland and grassland to allow for that?

206. MR MILLER: I think all of that can be accommodated. We’ve laid out our plan through the Environmental Statement, and even on this plan it’s moved on because of the composting facility. I think that as part of that discussion we can have that continued debate to see how we can make this land work well from an ecological perspective and to work as well as we can get it for those who own it and operate their business from it. We will do our best to try and come up with a plan to help that a lo ng.

207. MR MEARNS: Mr Miller, the opening line was that ‘more of that can be accommodated’. It is the scale of the ‘more’ which is the important factor, isn’t it?

208. MR MILLER: It is. We do have to meet our commitments for the mitigation for the ecological response – the compensation and mitigation that we’ve set out in our plans – so I can’t draw on here directly today what that would look like. I think there needs to be a sensible conversation with the landowner and with our ecologists, but I’m sure that we can come up with a good plan which will accommodate both.

209. MR MEARNS: So it’s a practically usable ‘more’ as opposed to a gesture ‘more’.

210. MR MILLER: Yes. I think the plan which was shown a little earlier on looks at the land just up here where there is a desire, I believe, for a paddock – you’ll correct me

if I’m wrong – and in this area to make sure that’s all grassland and available for the business use. I know it is a little bit difficult to see on these screens, but there is grassland in there, so I think that actually there is quite a lot of scope to get that right there. A little bit further down there is some woodland. It may be that we swap over the woodland and the grassland to accommodate that in the best way possible. It’s all happening in the same sort of place and I think that if we can get a similar outcome, perhaps in a slightly different configuration, on that land, we can accommodate both objectives.

211. CHAIR: And the status of the land – although it’s in the Bill for a particular use, the petitioner’s representative raised the point: in 10, 20 or 30 years, does this give any special status to the land?

212. MR MILLER: It is providing a response to the environmental effects reported in the Environmental Statement, so it’s directly related to the Bill and how it will be enacted. If there is a further development potential – this might be more relevant for the other area of land – as I understand it, if the green belt were to be released and new housing were to infill that triangle of land, then the mitigation and compensation would have to be accounted for as part of that development. Whoever comes forward at that point will have to take that into account and provide an alternative response, and that will have to be dealt with with the authorising body at that moment in time.

213. CHAIR: Okay. But it doesn’t preclude the farmer’s great-grandchildren becoming multi-millionaires.

214. MR MILLER: No. I don’t think this is stymying –

215. CHAIR: Good. Right. Mr Briggs, do you want to –

216. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Connectivity is one of the words that is here that makes sense. From my days as Minister for agriculture for Northern Ireland, we often found that a hedge and double headland provided connectivity rather than a whole field. Is that still roughly the same for some things?

217. MR MILLER: Yes, I think so. The hedgerows through here are obviously very important. Because we have taken the ecological response out of the composting

facility, I think that there is an issue with making sure that those sorts of things are part of that connectivity. In fact, when you look at it through this lozenge of land as it goes back down to the remnants of the Copthall woodland, you can see those hedgerows and you can get a feel for how we’re trying to link these things up and create blocks of woodland as well as improving grassland – and there will be hedgerows in there as well.

218. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: And for the bats, there’s a question of where they can rest and whether the conditions are such to provide them with a larder.

219. MR MILLER: Yes. Bats like flying around in places where there’s something to eat, so, yes. And through here, this will reinforce that and hopefully support those species.

220. CHAIR: Before I go back to Mr Mould, Mr Briggs, are you broadly happy with that?

221. MR BRIGGS: Specifically on the future development side, perhaps the more specific issue that’s more likely to arise, rather than a great housing estate, is, for example, the West London Composting site with the increase in green-waste recycling. That’s grown over a period of time. The likelihood is that that will continue to grow as we as a nation recycle more, particularly given where that site takes its product from. That seems to be woodland planting around that. Are we going to have a preclusion from extending the maturation site, which we’re all aware of, because of these proposals?

222. MR MILLER: I think my answer to you on that is that we’ve got to come forward with detailed plans to satisfy the local authority under Schedule 16 and they will also be keen to understand that we’ve been able to take account of a whole range of issues, including business interests, and I don’t see this as being an exception. So, it may well be that if we come forward with a plan which enables some flexibility on your land – presumably in this corner over here, or wherever it is – with the woodland that still enables that operation or that further expansion of that operation, that seems to me to be compatible. I think there is still scope for understanding what your objectives are on that land. We’ve all seen that site; I’ve seen the big machine out there. That’s obviously a good recycling of organic waste which can be re-used locally, so I don’t think we want to discourage that, and I’m sure that we can work that within the plan.

Clearly it would be useful to understand when that is likely to come forward so that we can have that conversation with Hillingdon as we go.

223. MR MOULD QC (DfT): The technical control mechanism here, if you remember, was one that was embraced within that suite of assurances that we showed you in the context of the NFU debate, whereby where land had an importance to the mitigation of the railway looking forward through the operational phase, in agreeing only to use that land temporarily we would expect the landowner to give appropriate commitments, which we could enforce. Now, obviously that would provide the legal basis for the scenario which you put to Mr Miller. Mr Miller showed how in practice that would be something that the planning authority would look to mediate in deciding whether or not to allow planning permission for a future development, but the Secretary of State would also have a stake in that and he would need to consider separately from the planning process whether and on what terms he was prepared to release or to modify those commitments so as to allow some future use to take place which might, in principle, seem to be in conflict with the environmental mitigation. It would probably be possible to align his interests in that respect with the public interest in devising what the then correct choice about land use for that land would be, but there would be those two separate strands to that which would need to be addressed.

224. CHAIR: Okay. Anyway, this is the second major item of discussion which you had, Mr Briggs, for the project.

225. MR BRIGGS : Yes. I think what we wouldn’t want to have is a situation where the Secretary of State is holding a landowner to ransom by being a beneficiary to a covenant where the landowner can’t do anything with it. That throws up a whole new issue, which I think we need to consider. I appreciate we need to have a further discussion with Mr Miller, but the point I make is the timescale of this. I would be grateful if you would give HS2 some direction as to the timescale, because I’ve been on the receiving end of a timescale that seems to be ‘mañana’ on certain occasions, and I would like to be specific as to when HS2 are going to come and talk to us about these issues.

226. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Well, I would like to report back to you on this before you complete your current sessions – that is to say, before the summer recess. I hope we

can report back before that, but –

227. CHAIR: Okay. Can we have a progress report before the summer recess? We do need to sort this out and I’d like to know definitively what’s going on certainly before the Bill goes back to the House so that we can make adjustments if adjustments need to be made.

228. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes, of course. I think we’ve covered the points of principle, but can we just put up P6931? We’ve focused on the Grundon land and we ought not to ignore the points arising on the Dalton and the Dawson land. We don’t need to repeat the points you’ve just made, which apply to this land as much, but there is one point I’d like clarity on. There’s a concern amongst the landowners as to, if they get this land back, whether they would be able to use it for grazing purposes. We’ve focused on development, but let’s talk about grazing. Is grassland habitat something that is never to be used by cow or beast, or is it possible to manage it?

229. MR MILLER: Yes, it is. Everything from this red line downwards – essentially we’re raising the ground and, as I said before, we’re trying to put that ground back to the current grain of the field structure. Although we’re enhancing the grassland for an ecological purpose, that is compatible with the uses that are currently there on site. So, ultimately, it will look similar, a bit raised, with the same sort of operation on it.

230. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: So it can be used for crops and for livestock.

231. MR MILLER: Yes.

232. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Have I missed something out?

233. MR BRIGGS: Cropping, cereal production and livestock. That’s what it’s used for at the moment, but it’s termed in here as ‘grassland’ –

234. MR MILLER: Sorry; I didn’t realise cereal was in there. Then that would affect it.

235. MR BRIGGS: A cereal is a grass crop. It’s a different type of grass. That’s the clarity that I need. Can we put a fertiliser on it? Can we spray it? What can we do?

236. MR MILLER: Right, okay. The land use there is for species-rich grassland

throughout. That’s the plan there. If there is cereal on there, that will, I believe, preclude that.

237. MR MOULD QC (DfT): You could take a hay crop and you could graze it, I think is the point.

238. MR MILLER: That’s right, yes.

239. MR BRIGGS : Can you put fertiliser on it?

240. MR MILLER: No.

241. CHAIR: Right. F urther questions?

242. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Silage hay?

243. MR MILLER: It’s that sort of thing, yes, which are the sorts of crops that are generally associated with being species-r ic h.

244. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I think these sorts of discussions are better outside the room rather than inside the room. For us, what may matter is whether this has to be a species-rich grassland because it’s connectivity there, or whether it’s because it’s offset for some other place which is being disturbed. If it’s a question of some other place which is being disturbed, then I think perhaps we ought to be prepared to listen to arguments about whether this is the right place to have that offset. I’m sort of feeling my way into this.

245. MR MILLER: It is partly offsetting from elsewhere and it’s partly dealing with replacing what is there already. As Mr Briggs said – I’m not trying to insult the landowners, by the way – it does support wildlife. What we’re trying to do is bring that back and also to look at that as an offset of what is happening elsewhere. So, it is both on this land.

246. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Would it be right for us to assume that in discussions with Mr Briggs and his clients you and your ecological advisers can see whether there are particular things the farmers would like to have? Sometimes instead of having engineers’ lines, local knowledge and local features can matter and things perhaps come out with the same kind of result but much more happiness.

247. MR MILLER: Certainly happy to have that conversation. I think what we’re saying about trying to tackle the sustainable-placement issue overall – although we don’t have definitive answers for that because there’s more work to be done, if we’re able to reduce the area of sustainable placement here, that will start to free up that land and the type of response that we might be able to provide on that land. There are a number of steps that we need to go through and that we need to develop through time. If, for example, we can get more material away by rail, we may find ourselves disturbing less land here. I can’t guarantee it at the moment, but we may get to a point where actually there might be just a temporary need to use the land and then get away from that, and then we’re likely to be in a different ecological kind of response.

248. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: So you wouldn’t necessarily then need to take land to offset losses of species-rich grassland habitat elsewhere.

249. MR MILLER: It’s possible, yes.

250. CHAIR: So, if the land returns to the farmer but it returns with a lower agricultural classification because he can’t generate income and cereals and other things on it, presumably that would be subject of compensation.

251. MR MILLER: Yes. Ultimately it gets to a compensation event. That’s not always the ideal outcome, but there is that recourse.

252. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: If you turn grade one or grade two land into woodland, you’re reducing its value by about –

253. MR MILLER: I don’t know if this is grade one or grade two land.

254. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: What sort of grade is it?

255. MR BRIGGS: Grade three.

256. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Okay. Well, grade three land to woodland is still a significant reduction in value.

257. MR MILLER: It is, yes. The issue of woodland is on this other land up here, which is our response to the loss of woodland in the Copthall cutting area. I think you will have seen the photographs yesterday about that; it’s quite a significant piece of

woodland. Our idea is to try to respond to that on the other side of the railway. That has a benefit from an ecological perspective and a landscape perspective, but it obviously has an impact on the farmer’s land in this location.

258. MR MOULD QC (DfT): There’s also, I think, an existing belt of woodland, isn’t there, in this white land?

259. MR MILLER: Yes, the Copthall Covert there. There is a chunk of woodland belt there.

260. MR MOULD QC (DfT): And that’s not taken for the scheme. We’re looking to avoid that.

261. MR MILLER: Yes, that’s right. We try not to use the woodland if we can.

262. CHAIR: I’m not sure we’ll get very much farther today, but the essential point is that the project is going to be a little more flexible and have a discussion with the petitioners about seeing whether they can meet some of the objectives the petitioner wants.

263. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes. We’ve set up the way forward for this, actually, with the two letters that we sent to the Daltons and the Dawsons last week, which contain some assurances. I’m not going to show you them because they foreshadow the process that we’ve just been discussing, but certainly that’s the intention.

264. MR MILLER: The other thing I would add to that is we have had, I believe, a good meeting with the NFU, the country landowners’ association and the CAAV as well to make some progress on the farm pack that you’ve requested. We’re getting our thoughts together on that about how we bring those objectives and aims together in one portfolio, if you will, and we’re intending to have that as an open discussion with those bodies in the summer. Hopefully we can come back in September with that pack in place, and hopefully that will provide further comfort to farmers that we’ve got a portfolio for each package of land; we all know what’s going on, when, and how we’re going to go about the business so that people can plan their business lives going forward.

265. CHAIR: Have you anything to add, Mr Mould?

266. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Just one more point, relating to Schedule 15. The Committee’s heard a lot about this, but if I can, just for Mr Briggs’ benefit, remind you of Mr Smith’s evidence, which is in a nutshell to this effect: if agricultural land is made available to the Secretary of State on a temporary basis for construction works under Schedule 15, it will normally be considered economic for him to acquire temporary rights of occupation, provided the land concerned is planned to be used solely for agricultural purposes after it’s handed back to the landowner. As you’ll recall, that’s the means in practice of securing that the price we pay for temporary use is not materially higher than the price we would pay for permanent acquisition.

267. CHAIR: Okay. Any further points you want to raise, Mr Briggs?

268. MR BRIGGS: I’ve just got one more point, to pick up something from earlier on. Can I go back to 6255(3) – I think it is? I’m speaking from my numbers here. It’s the construction programme. I don’t know whether, Mr Miller, this is your remit or not. If you look at that table, in the bottom section, ‘rail installation works’, on the second line it says: ‘Construction of temporary railhead for mass haul’. Is that the one you’re referring to in the West Ruislip railhead? Is that when it’s constructed in the early part of 2018 on this programme?

269. MR MILLER: I believe it is, yes. I think that’s on the second phase drawing.

270. MR BRIGGS: And then the red line is when it’s removed in the beginning of 2022. Is that right?

271. MR MILLER: Yes, it is.

272. MR BRIGGS: So, that railhead will be there for four years.

273. MR MILLER: Yes, I believe that’s right. Yes.

274. MR BRIGGS: So there is an ability to move material from it for a four-year period.

275. MR MILLER: Yes. You’re right, and that is subject to the deta il – what the path availability will be at that point, yes.

276. MR BRIGGS: I think the point, Mr Chairman, is this railhead will be there for

four years. Coming back to the point of sustainable placement, there is a four-year window to move material from this site elsewhere. That’s the point I make.

277. MR MILLER: I take that point.

278. CHAIR: The ‘ e lse where ’ is the prob le m.

279. MR BRIGGS: Well, I think there are places elsewhere. I think you heard from Mr Miller previously – he said one of the issues is cost. Then it comes down to the contractor and the contractor doing things in the cheapest way, and we’re balancing cheapness against actually something that once you’ve lost you’ll never get it back again.

280. MR MILLER: No, it’s not as straightforward as that. It is the availability of the paths on the network, ensuring that we can get that away as the tunnel is being built on that continuous basis.

281. MR BRIGGS: But you did refer to costs and the contractors, Mr Miller.

282. MR MILLER: There are costs inevitably.

283. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Additionally.

284. MR BRIGGS : S ir, I think that’s a very interesting point there, that we’ve got a fo ur-year window. As far as I can see, it can be done; I just worry that we’re just looking at cheapness against all else. That’s the only other point I want to make.

285. MR MILLER: I’ve explained to you we’re looking at that.

286. CHAIR: Alright. So, you’re going to go and chat with HS2 and hopefully have more than a chat but actually get some decisions, or answers, as to how your clients will be affected; and you’ll be able to report back in July about how things are going.

287. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes. Just lest there be any misunderstanding, for those who are watching, this slide should not be misinterpreted as an indication that the railhead will disappear at the end of the process here. As I said to Sir Peter, there will be a siding retained on a permanent basis at Harvil Road. This is focusing on a different question.

288. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: It’s not a running commentary on everyone who’s presented evidence to us, whether as witness or as agent, but I think that it is notable, although there are other firms, Mr Briggs, you have kept to the issues that matter to the clients and ones that are useful to us, and we thank you.

289. MR BRIGGS: Thank you.

290. CHAIR: Thank you. Okay. We’re going to now move on to the next petitioner. We’re going to have a three-minute comfort break by Committee request and then we’ll go on to the schools in Ruislip. Order, order.

Sitting suspended.

On resuming—

291. CHAIR: Order, order. Welcome back, everybody. We now have petitioners 813, which is the Governing Body of Ruislip High School and the Governing Body of Ruislip Gardens Primary School, and 1055, the Governing Body of Sacred Heart Catholic Primary School, being represented by Charlotte Jones. Welcome. Good morning.

The Governing Bodies of Ruislip High School, Ruislip Gardens Primary School and Sacred Heart Catholic Primary School

292. MS JONES : Good morning. Thank you very much.

293. CHAIR: Can we have up where they are?

294. MS JONES: Yes. Could I have P6843, just as an overview, please? As you know, I’m Charlotte Jones, although I’m mostly known as Lottie to family and friends, so Charlotte feels a little bit formal this morning; I’m happy for you to call me Lottie. I’ve also got with me Philip Corthorne, who is the Chair of Governors at Sacred Heart Catholic Primary School. We’ve decided today to join all three petitions together, hopefully to save you some time, because our issues are broadly the same.

295. I’ve lived in Ruislip for 15 years and I’m also the chair of Ruislip Against HS2. I’ve represented the Ruislip community on HS2 matters for the last five years and I’m regularly in touch with about 2,000 residents when I share HS2 information. There are

many, many people in Ruislip who would like to have petitioned but haven’t, because we’ve decided, as people did in Ickenham and Harefield, to take a collective approach, otherwise we would have had hundreds of people sitting here saying exactly the same thing. I’m hoping on that basis you will allow me a little bit of time not only to talk about the schools but to talk about the wider community of the schools, of which they’re an integral part, and I’d like to introduce you to a little bit more of the Ruislip area, if I may.

296. CHAIR: Okay.

297. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: 6843 I think would be useful.

298. MR MOULD QC (DfT): We’re trying to get it. We’re having a problem at the moment.

299. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Okay.

300. MS JONES: So, just a map of the whole area. I’ll carry on.

301. CHAIR: Okay. Thank you.

302. MS JONES: I just want to start by giving our overall position in Ruislip. As you’ll know, the route through Ruislip here is planned to be in a tunnel. We are enormously grateful and relieved by that, but it wasn’t always the case. The original route was planned to be overground. The result of that would have been absolutely devastating to our community, and the blight and stress that that original overground route would have caused, and did cause at the time, has not been forgotten.

303. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Colleagues were saying that the Sacred Heart School is where the ‘R’ of Ruislip is, where it says ‘Ruislip High School’. Is that right?

304. MS JONES: Yes. Unfortunately the exhibits have been separated, but –

305. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: But that gives us the three schools, I think.

306. MS JONES: Yes. Given that we have been mitigated with a tunnel, I’d like to say at this point that we totally support London Borough of Hillingdon’s calls for an extended tunnel through Harefield and Ickenham and, if not all the way through the

Colne Valley, then at least through Ickenham so that the residents there might also benefit from the relief of mitigation of a tunnel, as we’ve been afforded.

307. Our petitions today predominantly deal with West End Road and the proximity of the schools to West End Road, and in particular the traffic on West End Road, which will come as no surprise to the Committee. I don’t intend to keep repeating myself about how much traffic there is on West End Road already. My intention is to talk you through the issues of Ruislip and let you draw your own conclusions about how it will affect West End Road.

308. The other issues that we’ll be dealing with with these petitions are the effects on the community from the utility works. I’d really like to emphasise at this point that we’re not petitioning against and we’re not objecting to the utility work being carried out. We absolutely understand that it’s a necessity. We know that it needs to be done before any tunnelling can take place and it’s part and parcel of the mitigation that we have. However, we are very concerned about the way in which the utility works are being planned. We don’t think it’s been done very well so far and we think that, unfortunately, too little account has been taken of local issues for the surrounding areas. We think it’s vital that you as a Committee understand our local concerns and, in order for the work to be planned better, we’d like to have a little bit more input with HS2 Limited so that we can hopefully help the community to function throughout the work that needs to be done. That’s our position in Ruislip.

309. MR MEARNS: If you don’t mind, I’ll just make a little interjection here. I’m a school governor myself and I actually think it’s vitally important that HS2 have a proper consultation with individual schools, because in the period when the youngsters are attending these schools during the construction phase, this is the period when it’s these children’s only chance at an education. Therefore, because of that, it’s important that as much mitigation can be done to cut down the effects on the children’s education, because it’s the only chance they get. I think that’s an important matter that we’ve all got to take on board; it doesn’t matter where we come from.

310. MS JONES: So far there hasn’t been any consultation with any of the three schools other than the interaction that myself and P hilip have had with them. None of the schools were actually sent any consultation information throughout the last few

years.

311. Could I have my first slide up, which is A1127(2)? I’m going to start off with Ruislip Gardens Primary School. This is the school that my daughter attends, and I’m also chair of the parent forum there. The school is situated on Stafford Road on the Ruislip Gardens estate and, as you can see, we have 453 pupils at the moment and 96 staff. The school was expanded just last year. The expansion works have been finished and we’re now a three-fo rm-entry school. It’s expanded quite rapidly, and so the pupil and staff numbers will rise to 700 and 110 at full capacity in the next few years. The catchment area is obviously Ruislip; however, since the expansion we’re accepting children from further away – Northolt, Yeading, Hayes, and even as far away as Carpenders Park, which is near Watford.

312. MR MEARNS: Is that because parents work in the vicinity of the school, do you think?

313. MS JONES: Sometimes, yes, and just because the catchment area has been widened.

314. MR MEARNS: Right.

315. CHAIR: Do any kids come into the school from Ealing at all?

316. MS JONES: Not as far as I know from Ealing.

317. CHAIR: Is Northolt on the boundary: a bit of Ealing and a bit of Hillingdon?

318. MS JONES: That’s right, yes. Could I have the next slide, please? This map shows you an aerial view just of the Ruislip Gardens estate. At the top end of the picture you can see where the primary school is. What I’d like to point out is the proximity of the estate and the school to the utility works planned on West End Road, which are denoted by the red arrows there. The important thing to point out here is that whilst the estate is pretty large, the only access in and out of the whole estate is Bedford Road. You can see the blue arrow pointing to it just there. That’s the only access to the whole estate, which is approximately 800 homes as well as the school. Adjacent to Bedford Road is the access to the West Ruislip depot, which has been talked about quite a lot, which the Committee might remember we visited briefly when you came to see

the Colne Valley. It’s not very easy to see on this map but it is pretty much just a very small slip road adjacent to the end of Bedford Road. This is a pretty dangerous junction at the best of times. It is controlled by traffic lights, but it does cause an awful lot of congestion and a lot of difficulty in turning out of Bedford Road, particularly if you’re trying to turn left.

319. Moving on, then, it’s not only residents and school children that actually come in and out of the estate; what you can see at the far end of Bedford Road – at the top of Bedford Road, where these trees are – is the access point to Ickenham Marshes, which again we’ve been talking about a little bit. This is Ickenham Marshes, just behind the school here. There are a lot of people that would come into the estate specifically to access the marshes. Local scout groups often camp up there; lots of dog walkers; families – that sort of thing. It’s a very popular green space and it’s managed as a nature reserve by the London Wildlife Trust.

320. In the bottom right-hand corner of this picture, you’ll be able to see the proximity of RAF Northolt to the Ruislip Gardens estate. I haven’t shown all of the aerodrome on that map, but just so that you can see the proximity there. Obviously, RAF Northolt brings in a lot of traffic to the area, not only by road but also on the flight paths. The flights at RAF Northolt have recently increased to 12,000 a year, which averages at about 40 flights a day. This is significant because each time a flight goes over, the lights on West End Road will turn to red to allow the planes to come in low over the actual road. Given that there are an extra seven sets of traffic lights between the Polish War Memorial and Ruislip Gardens, you’ll be able to understand that the traffic is stopping an awful lot during the day.

321. Given the proximity to RAF Northolt, there are also local concerns about the possibility of tunnelling in this area and also the utility works throwing up the possibility of coming across unexploded munitions. This might sound a little bit fa r-fetched, but it’s not as far-fetched as it might seem. When RAF Northolt recently, in the last few years, added some extra buildings onto this site, it is known that unexploded munitions were found on the site. Munitions have also been found within Ruislip and most notably last year one at Ruislip Lido, I believe. There are often stories in the paper and in the media about this sort of thing happening across London with these types of works, so there is a local concern given that we are so close to these 800 homes here.

322. Next slide, please. This is Ruislip High School, which is located on Sidmouth Drive. This is a secondary school. It’s a relatively new school; it only opened in 2006. There are 971 pupils and 135 staff. Again, the catchment area is Eastcote, Northolt, South Harrow and just out as far as Greenford, and I’m told that staff travel in from much further away than that, with the furthest away coming from Milton Keynes. It’s Ofstedded as an excellent school, and we attract some top teachers to this school.

323. MR MEARNS: They don’t do ‘excellent’ anymore, Ofsted. Outstanding.

324. MS JONES: Outstanding.

325. MR MEARNS: Alright. Okay.

326. MS JONES : Thank you. You might – or you might not – recognise the picture of Ruislip High School, because it’s also known as Rudge Park Comprehensive from the popular TV comedy series ‘The Inbetweeners’, which is filmed at the High School. I’m rather hoping you haven’t seen it and if you have, I’d just like to say it doesn’t reflect the pupils that go there now.

327. Can we go on to the next slide, please? Here, again, you can see the position of the High School in proximity to West End Road and I’ve marked again the utility works with the red arrows. The access to Sidmouth Drive is at one end; West End Road; and at the far end, which is just slightly off this map, is Victoria Road, which is going to be close to the location of the ventilation shaft. I think we had a little bit of confusion about whether the Committee had visited Victoria Road and the vent shaft a couple of weeks ago. I’m fairly certain that you didn’t visit the Victoria Road vent shaft in Ruislip but it was the one near Old Oak Common. I think the confusion arose because there are two Victoria Roads. Anyway, Victoria Road runs parallel to West End Road, and it’s just slightly off this map. It goes into South Ruislip. There’s the two entrances to the access to the school.

328. I’d also like to point out then the importance of the green space behind the High School here. This whole area is used for PE lessons and for all outdoor activities that the students from Ruislip High have. It’s also used before and after school. What you can’t see marked out there is there’s an athletics track; the perimeter of the whole of that field is used for cross-country. Just to the far end of that, there is a footpath, which is

the Jim O’Neill Walk, which leads all the way up to Victoria Road. What you can’t see are all the little informal footpaths that run off that across this green space. There are an awful lot of people, particularly commuters, who would use this green space to cut across from South Ruislip, particularly from Bridgwater Road, and they’d be coming down onto West End Road to access the bus stops and Ruislip Gardens tube station. Just next to this red arrow here, where the utility work is planned to go on to this green space – it’s not very obvious, but this is a children’s play park. This is locally known as Banana Park. There’s also a small basketball area there too. Just across from there, the building right next to that play park is the 4th Ruislip Scout Hut, which has its access on New Pond Parade. Beavers, Cubs and Scout meetings take place there on a daily basis, as well as other community activities.

329. I think that’s enough on that slide. Can you go on to the next one then, please? This is our third school. This is Sacred Heart Catholic Primary School. It’s located on Herlwyn Avenue. We have 681 pupils and 95 staff. The catchment area is Ruislip, Harefield, Eastcote and Northwood, which is slightly further out. This is because it’s a faith school and they accept children from other neighbouring parishes. This particular school is in the parish of The Most Sacred Heart Church, which is on Pembroke Road, which is located just off Ruislip High Street.

330. Between the three schools, we’ve got over 2,000 children. It needs to be said that these are not the only three schools in the area. There are several more schools. We’re very lucky in Ruislip; we have a choice of an awful lot of schools, but this gives you an idea of the density of the population here: there are at least three or four other primary schools in the area and one other high school. Most of those will come under South Ruislip, and I know that South Ruislip will be making a representation to you as well.

331. Next slide, please. You can see the location now of Sacred Heart School is just further up the other end of West End Road. It’s further away from the planned utility works, but you can see from here that there is a section of utility work at the top end of Herlwyn Avenue. There are only two entrances to what I’ll call the Herlwyn Avenue estate, both of which are accessed from West End Road. There’s very limited parking around the outside of the school for parents to drop off children, so a designated zone is made in the rugby club car park, which is just next door to the school, but the second drop-off zone is at the top of Herlwyn Avenue, just at the top of where the utility works

would be. Residents and parents all comply with a voluntary one-way system. When parents drive into the estate, they turn left and then take a circular route around Crosier Way and all the way up through Herlwyn Avenue and round the corner. If you’re coming in at the bottom of the estate, you’d come in off West End Road and follow Herlwyn Avenue all the way along. Both of those routes help the traffic flow not only within the estate but also off West End Road. Unfortunately, those utility works sit right in the middle of that one-way system.

332. Just behind the top of Herlwyn Avenue, you can also see these green spaces. Again, the fields here are used by the children for outdoor activities and PE, but the access to the fields behind the school is just at the top of Herlwyn Avenue here. There are two gates here which you can’t see on the map, but parents and residents and people coming in to use this as a recreational facility would use these access points at the top of the road.

333. MR MEARNS: Who owns those fields?

334. MS JONES: The London Borough of Hillingdon. These green spaces are popular not only with the rugby club and rugby players, but runners and walkers, and children come and play there.

335. Can I move on, then, to the next slide, please? I hope so far everything that I’ve said to you helps you to get a picture of where we are in Ruislip and how West End Road is integral to getting access to those three schools and the surrounding areas. This is a summary of the utility work that we’ve been given by HS2 Limited. We were only given it last month. We have been asking for details of the utility work for the last two or three years. We were told it wasn’t available, but HS2 Limited have said that they have been actually working with the utility companies since 2012 – since we’ve been asking.

336. On the chart here you can see the number of assets to be either protected or diverted on West End Road number nine; six on Bridgwater Road; five on Long Drive and Station Approach. I’m going to concentrate on West End Road for now, though. The chart predicts the best-case scenario of timeframes, as far as we understand it. We’re told that it’s possible that not all of this work will need to take place, and hopefully only 50% of the work will need to take place. However, it does say that this

could be amended during the detailed design stage, so it could also be revised upwards. We did ask what the timescale would be in the worst-case scenario if, indeed, all nine assets didn’t just need protecting but all nine needed diverting, and we were told that those predictions didn’t exist.

337. The prediction for West End Road is that the road would need to be dug up, if you like, for six months. As far as we know, there’s a Victorian sewer that runs down the middle of West End Road, and that would be our main concern. I think the other utilities possibly would be of smaller concern. I’m not 100% sure because we haven’t got those details, but we do know that that runs in the middle of West End Road. Six months sounds relatively insignificant after all you’ve heard about seven to nine years of construction sites in Harefield and in Ickenham, but in reality six months is a long time when you’re in such a densely built-up area and when so many people are relying on West End Road as their route in and out of Ruislip. If West End Road is held up for six minutes, believe you me, the rest of the borough knows about it. I hope you’ll understand the importance of that.

338. Can I have the next slide, please? Now that you can see the whole area mapped out here, you can see that there are more utility works than just Herlwyn Avenue and West End Road. I think it’s important to say that this utility work on West End Road can’t be viewed in isolation. It has to be taken into consideration with the work that’s going to happen in South Ruislip on Bridgwater Road, Long Drive and Station Approach. We also have the ventilation shaft work that will be happening just up off Victoria Road as well. The impact is cumulative, as far as we’re concerned; it’s not all just happening in one place. It’s the effect of how it will happen in the wider area. Again, I’m not going to talk too much about South Ruislip, because they will be making their own representations to you, but this really highlights the importance of looking at it all in the round and understanding how West End Road is absolutely vital in getting anywhere in this area and how it’s going to be affected.

339. It is, in fact, the displaced traffic that we are concerned with. We all know that West End Road is clogged up at the best of times. It very rarely runs freely. If anything happens up on the A40, you know about it within seconds. You’ve already heard how displaced traffic already comes through from other parts of Ruislip but also from West Ruislip and from Ickenham, but it’s the displaced traffic during that peak construction

time and, in fact, through the whole of the construction time that’s going to affect West End Road. The vast amount of traffic that won’t be able to access the A40 at Swakeleys roundabout will undoubtedly be coming down West End Road in order to try to get to the Polish War Memorial, unless they go an enormously long route all the way round through South Ruislip and try to get onto the A40 via the Northolt exit. HS2 Limited have said to us even as recently as the last couple of weeks that there will be no significant impact on West End Road. They cite this because it’s not a construction route. I find it jaw-droppingly outrageous that they would think that there is no impact on West End Road. You only have to stand on the road for a few minutes each day to understand the reality of that.

340. At this point I’d just like to talk a little bit about Ruislip High Street, given that it is an extension of West End Road. The community and many residents were particularly grateful that Tim Mould made an apology – I think it was last week – about the use, or the actual non-use, of Ruislip High Street. It was brushed over slightly during that presentation, so I just want to elaborate on that, because it is really important.

341. HS2 Limited caused literally years of confusion on this matter. The ES clearly described the use of the A4180, Bury Street, Ladygate Lane, and HS2 Limited negated that the High Street was ever included in the ES. It was clearly described as a construction route; however, there were never any maps of this area, other than the ones that the London Borough of Hillingdon helped us to draw up to enable people to understand where that construction route would go. Through the community forums and meetings and letters and emails, we spent months trying to explain to HS2 Limited that the A4180 is, in fact, Ruislip High Street, and we have had apologies in the past to say that they didn’t understand that; however, they then went on to confuse people further by sending conflicting letters and emails, either saying that it was to be used or it wasn’t to be used. Now we understand that it will only be used in exceptional circumstances. No map ever showed the High Street; no corrected maps were ever issued, despite many requests; and no clear explanation or apology has ever been given up until now. It is appreciated, but I think it’s important to highlight it, because it caused an enormous amount of confusion and an enormous amount of stress, in fact leading one lady to sell her house on Bury Street because she just couldn’t bear thinking

that she might be on a construction route; she couldn’t bear the stress of not knowing.

342. Even now, in some of our PRDs – not mine, but in the Chamber of Commerce – HS2 are still perpetuating this mistake. In a meeting recently, the PRD stated that they absolutely would not be using the A418, which we and the people in Oxford I’m sure will be very grateful for, because it’s not in Ruislip. Their mistake now is to call the A4180 the A418. There’s still an awful lot of confusion with Breakspear Road being confused with Breakspear Road South. Again, this is really important, because if they’re saying that they’re going to use Breakspear Road, this gives a completely different construction route to those exceptional-circumstance lorries. So, we would really ask HS2 Limited to make sure that they have truly understood the roads in our area. We’d like you to understand that I’ve only raised this point because it illustrates how little faith the residents have in HS2 Limited because they have failed to understand our road system – even to understand what they’re called – and it has really shaken our faith in them that they will be able to engage with us if they haven’t understood this simple detail.

343. Concentrating back on West End Road, we’ve talked a lot about traffic but what we haven’t considered is how many pedestrians might use West End Road, as well a s cyclists. There are no pedestrian counts, but obviously, with the amount of children walking to and from these three schools in the area, there’s a significantly high volume of people that would walk up and down West End Road – not only students, but people accessing buses, tubes, shops, homes and other leisure facilities.

344. While we’re talking about other leisure facilities, something that isn’t marked on the map but I’d just like to draw your attention to – just on the map where it says ‘Ruislip Manor’ – just above there to the left, that’s the site of our local football club, which, rather confusingly, is Wealdstone FC. It has a small stadium there, which has a capacity of 2,600, and whilst that would mostly be used at weekends, it is used an awful lot by the local football teams for the youth league – a lot of tournaments take place there. But importantly, Wealdstone allow team coaches of fans to park up within their car park on match days at Wembley so that the fans can come and use Ruislip Statio n to get to Wembley on the Metropolitan line. So, some weekends there can be an enormous amount of traffic coming in to park at the football club, and often there’ll be coaches coming down there as well.

345. Just moving further back up towards Ruislip Gardens, I just want to draw your attention to the crossings that are vital in this area, and they fall right between the points of the utility work. There are two crossings, one between New Pond Parade, where people cross between the shops to get from one side of West End Road to the other; and the other is at the end of Bedford Road, which crosses over to Ruislip Gardens tube station. Ruislip Gardens station is on the Central line and there are approximately 20,000 journeys made to and from Ruislip Gardens station on a weekly basis. That’s an awful lot people pouring in and out of the pavements around that area.

346. West End Road has two bus routes, most notably the E7, which links Ruislip with Ealing. An awful lot of people use that route rather than the tube to save having to change, because there are two branches of the Central line and you need to change, but it’s heavily used by students, commuters and shoppers. Then we also have the lesser- known 696 bus route, which only has two buses daily that pick up children that go to Bishop Ramsey School, which is on the other side of Ruislip going out towards Eastcote. It’s a faith school, and so this shuttle bus is put on from one side of Ruislip to the other, and obviously, if that bus is delayed, there are no alternatives for those children. It goes without saying also that on New Pond Parade there are a series of shops and businesses. These will be highly impacted by the utility works, but I’m not going to talk about that too much now because that’s going to be raised in a further presentation.

347. Can I have the next slide, please? These are some pictures from a presentation that was given to us on utility works. They’re provided by HS2 Limited. We’d like to believe that these utility works that are going to happen on West End Road are going to be this neat and seemingly un-intrusive – if I could have the next slide, please – however, we rather think that the reality is going to be somewhat different. I’m sure you may have seen some of these pictures before. I took these pictures on a site visit to the Victoria Dock when we went to visit Crossrail. These were taken just last year: 2014. We were shown this site specifically as an example of what we might expect. If I can have the next slide, please. The section to the left of this picture, between the houses and this fence through the middle of the picture, was work that was being carried out on a sewer, rather like, possibly, what might happen on West End Road.

348. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Can I sort of – it’s fine. You’re talking a bit too

much on this bit. The question is: will there be access to the school and will there be a gyratory system? Those seem to be the key issues.

349. MS JONES: Yes, but also how long the utility works might take.

350. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: We don’t need too much on this.

351. MS JONES : Okay. That’s fine. I can move on.

352. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Because it’s for them to answer that; it’s not –

353. MS JONES: Okay. Just to say that the work on this site that we were taken to had been in place for over a year, and there had been over 100 complaints already made.

354. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: That’s there. What we’re looking for is what’s going to happen with you. This bit is not the best bit for you to be going on about at length.

355. MS JONES: Okay. I just want to demonstrate that we were taken to this site to be able to understand how the utility works might affect us and this is what we have to go on. So, the next slide is one more picture just to show that between the utility work and these houses there was just space for one person, a bicycle or a single buggy, but there was actually no room to manoeuvre those things alongside of these works. What seriously concerned us was that there was no designated access for emergency vehicles, and we were told that in the case of an emergency the vehicles would actually have to come through the middle of the construction site and they’d have to make way that way. We were told that workers often had to help people with their shopping and deliveries by taking them through the construction site and handing them over the fences or actually through the windows of their houses. This would be particularly pertinent to the utility work on Bridgwater Road.

356. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: We’ve got the point. Please.

357. MS JONES: Okay. Fine. I’m going to then hand over to Philip, who’s going to talk a little bit more.

358. MR CORTHO RNE: Thank you. F irst of all, if it’s helpful, I can assure you that I will be brief. I’ve no slides, but there are three aspects that I would like to comment on

and make some additional comment on briefly. They relate to air quality, traffic impact and HOAC.

359. I’m Chair of Governors at Sacred Heart Catholic Primary School, where I have been a governor since 2002. Until last year I was also a parent at the school, which all four of my children have attended. Three of them suffer with asthma, so I can very much identify with these problems on a personal level. When all is said and done, this is all about impacts on people’s lives. I would add that I talk to you not as a subject expert on public health and air quality; rather, to present a human account of the existing impact of traffic volumes. Much has been said about that. I would just add that the assertion from High Speed 2 Limited, as set out in their petition response document, that there will be no increase in traffic volumes in West End Road betrays a woeful ignorance of the reality in Ruislip to anyone who lives there.

360. The Committee will already have heard and will continue to hear from petitioners in relation to air quality issues, whose evidence I endorse and support. There was a first-class example of that from the Ickenham Residents Association; I would endorse that too. But I do think it’s important that I speak about them in the context of local schools in the Ruislip area. There has undoubtedly been an increase in the prevalence of asthma. Staff at Sacred Heart tell me this is becoming more and more evident among younger children. The Director of P ublic Health, London Borough of Hillingdon, tells me that there is a growing body of medical evidence highlighting heightened concerns about the potential risks from environmental pollution to people with respiratory and other such illnesses. Asthma attacks, I can assure you, are very serious and frightening for an affected child and can also be very stressful for people who witness them, particularly parents, and I know that from experience.

361. We’ve already heard about concerns about construction and development around High Speed 2 and traffic impacts, but I would just add to that, if I may, that much of the increased traffic will be standing still, given the likelihood of gridlock, and therefore the emissions will be of greater concern. Just to give some figures in terms of numbers, it’s estimated that there are approximately 3,500 school-age children living with asthma in Hillingdon. Over 554 children aged five to nine with asthma are estimated as living within 1km of the High Speed 2 route, out of which 192 are within 1km of the route above ground and 362 are within 1km of the proposed tunnel works. Sacred Heart has

an estimated 47 out of a total of 671 children with asthma. Although we have defined levels of acceptable air quality in Europe, the NHS Choices website states that there is evidence that there are significant health risks below this threshold. There is no evidence of a safe level of emissions, which is a point that I would like to make.

362. Turning briefly to road safety issues, a joint OECD and UNICEF study found that the majority of serious injuries suffered by children are through being hit by cars, and the majority of these by other parents driving children to school. At Sacred Heart over the years, we have done our best to be good neighbours: to minimise the road-traffic impact of our school, with an active safer routes plan, a walking bus, walk-to-school days, as well as developing two drop-off areas designed to maximise traffic flow, as Lottie has indicated, to reduce the impact on the wider road network. We have also done this to minimise the risk of injury, but of course it is a constant challenge, requiring vigilance at all times. Having said that, staff tell me that existing traffic levels frequently result in people arriving late at school, whether that’s staff or parents – people who you would have thought have allowed reasonable time for the journey – and of course getting back into the main traffic system from the drop-off point you can often become gridlocked, so the whole thing comes to a standstill. That’s the situation now. The concern for us, then, is that additional traffic which we contend would exist as a result of the development that is being put forward would exacerbate those problems and reduce our ability to be good neighbours moving forward.

363. MR MEARNS: Mr Corthorne, in a nutshell, it’s your assertion that although there’s very little direct traffic from HS2, there will be a lot of displaced traffic from the other routes –

364. MR CORTHORNE: That is very much my point. Absolutely. Although I’ m no t a governor at Ruislip Gardens or Ruislip High School, since the Committee has so kindly agreed to hear all three Ruislip school petitions together, I am in a position to add that the figures for children suffering from asthma in Ruislip Gardens and Ruislip High are 43 out of 453 and 134 out of 971 respectively. I would just briefly add that Ruislip Gardens also promotes the walk-to-school initiative, along with Big Pedal, and has significantly increased provision of bike and scooter parks to encourage more school journeys that way. Again, these initiatives could be similarly compromised, as we see it, as a result of High Speed 2 construction traffic.

365. I would like to make a final point about HOAC. I endorse the comments of the previous petitioners about HOAC. This is a wonderful facility and plays a much cherished part in the curriculum and recreational activity of our pupils, and contributes significantly to their health and wellbeing. Indeed, Sacred Heart were there only last week. We take 90 Year 6 children annually for two full days and have done so for the last eight years, and we’re hoping to extend that to Year 5 children next year. The site offers opportunities for environmental studies, and the water sports would not otherwise be readily accessible to us. Similarly, Ruislip High will be taking Year 10 pupils there in July, as will Ruislip Gardens, who are taking their Year 6 leavers. These trips are often booked a year in advance, and the uncertainty as to the future of HOAC could sadly result in schools having to plan alternative trips from 2017. The suggestion of High Speed 2 Limited during the HOAC presentation that the facility could somehow be used during construction is plainly absurd, as schools just wouldn’t consider trips there unless it was maintained in its current form or at a new location.

366. That concludes my comments. Thank you for listening. I will hand back to Lottie, who will come on to the community requests.

367. CHAIR: Thank you very much.

368. MS JONES : I hope overall we’ve given you just a snapshot of Ruislip life and the surrounding community and how we think that the utility work is going to impact on us. As you know, we have had some assurances already, which were sent to us last week. If I could have slide P6852, which is the letter of assurance. Most of the assurances that we’ve had have been to do with the timing, the coordination and the phasing of the utility works. We certainly welcome these assurances and we’re very encouraged by the offers that we’ve been given to take into consideration our main concerns, and so we do accept the assurances in principle. However, the governing bodies of the three schools have yet to meet for their final meeting of the year and it is something that we will need to go and feed back to them and get some feedback from them also.

369. But in principle, we would like to push a little bit further on these assurances and we do require some further clarification of some of the wording to ensure that the community involvement is integral at every stage of the planning of this work. We’d like to clarify what the word ‘engage’ means. We think it should mean a full and proper

consultation with regular meetings. We’d like to be able to trust that this will be more than a box-ticking exercise and an infinitely better experience than our community forums were. Where HS2 Limited talk about ‘reasonable notice’, we’d like very much to be involved in deciding what that reasonable notice is. We’d like to have some communication with the school to help them to help the community to plan in advance for the work. Where the wording says ‘shall have regard for’ kind of implies that they’ll listen to us and listen to our concerns but not necessarily implement them. We very much want to stress how much input we want to have here, and we’d also like to have written explanation where our concerns can’t be met so that we can explain to the community how and why that has happened. We should also like the community to receive regular communication from HS2 Limited, particularly through leaflets and letters. Popping something on a website or on Twitter isn’t really enough for our community and up until now it has been left to community groups to help display information in the community and get information out. We feel that that should be down to HS2 Limited and not to us to do.

370. We do have a few further requests that haven’t actually been addressed, and I’ll just run through those very briefly and then that will be us finished. We’d like to see a transport plan that specifically ensures that the E7 and the 696 bus routes won’t be disrupted. We’d like safer provisions of alternative pedestrian crossings during the work time. We’d like to be guaranteed that there will be unrestricted access to the green spaces that we’ve talked about, but also to include the access to the 4th Ruislip Scout Hut from New Pond Parade. If access to the play park is temporarily lost, we would like to have some sort of alternative provided. As far as air quality is concerned, the schools would like to request pollution monitoring at each school location in order to be able to inform HS2 Limited if the levels become unacceptable and so that we can work out a plan to reduce the traffic in the area if that becomes the case. Stating the obvious, we would like equivalent facilities to be provided should HOAC close. As far as RAF Northolt is concerned, we’d like to see some contingency plans, with HS2 talking to RAF Northolt, even in the most unlikely of events of finding any unexploded munitions in the area. The school and the residents closest by would be particularly grateful to know that there was a plan should any emergency or any security risk arise. Lastly, we’d like to see a contingency plan in the event of any disruption to the utility services. I know that HS2 Limited have said that they will give prior notice to residents when the

work begins, but in the event that the water, the electricity or the gas, or whatever it is, gets cut off for an hour or two here or there, it would have a significant impact on all the schools. Without any of those services for even a couple of hours, the schools would need to close, so we’d like to see some sort of contingency plan should an emergency arise. That’s the end of our requests.

371. CHAIR: Thank you very much. Mr Mould.

372. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I’m pleased that the assurances that you see on the screen have been welcomed and I’m pleased that, broadly speaking, they seem to provide a sensible way forward to seeking to manage any effects, principally from traffic, that may result from the utilities works that may be carried out along West End Lane and Herlwyn Avenue and the other roads that you saw. I’m conscious of the fact that we’re here dealing with a petition by three schools rather than a community petition and so I’ll focus my comments on that.

373. It’s important to bear in mind, of course, that the main construction works here are being carried out underground; this is an area which is where the railway is in tunnel. The petitioner has very fairly acknowledged that. You I think have already been told and you’re aware of the reason why provision is made for utilities works at various places along the route of the tunnel section. Broadly speaking, twofold: firstly, precautionary measures to protect the public interest from service outages, to use the jargon; and secondly, asset protection, to protect the utility companies’ assets. As has been alluded to in the presentation just now, the expectation is that by no means all of the works that are assessed in the Environmental Statement will actually need to be carried out. That will only become clear when we’re at a more detailed stage of development of the project.

374. Returning to what is on the screen, the key point is that those who build the railway and who need to coordinate investigation, monitoring of utilities in question and a decision as to whether any works are required and the extent of those works, before they do so should engage with the schools that you have heard about today so as to understand how the schools work, any particular concerns that they have, any particular effects that digging up the street might have on those schools, the way kids get to school and that kind of thing, and that they should seek to accommodate those as far as they

reasonably can into their detailed working plans. Engagement means listening to what the schools tell those at the point when they’re planning the details of the works in question so that, as far as they reasonably can, what the schools tell them about the possible conflict between the works in question and the operation of the school can be accommodated.

375. Now, they can’t always be accommodated because, as we know, if you do have to dig up the street for a few weeks and you have to operate a temporary traffic light system then there will probably be some disruption to parents bringing their children to school in the morning, but, again, you can seek to mitigate that by the hours during which the works in question are being done. It’s commonplace not just for this project but for other projects carried out in urban areas such as this to build into their detailed construction arrangements some accommodation of school drop-off times and school pick-up times to allow for that. That’s the sort of thing that’s envisaged in the code of construction practice.

376. A key point of which I want to remind the Committee from last week, which Mr Mearns raised with me when he drew the analogy of herding ferrets, is that this railway is going to be built under the powers conferred by the Bill. Where utilities companies are deploying their own existing powers to do works which are part and parcel of the HS2 project, I gave an undertaking to the Committee on day one that the Secretary of State would require those works to be undertaken in accordance with the construction commitments he has given through the code of construction practice and so forth. Therefore, there is an opportunity to bring some level of co-ordination to the way these works are done. That is the way that other projects of this kind have been constructed. Broadly speaking, I think I am right in saying the experience is that it has worked reasonably well. I am sure people could come forward and point to instances where things have not been done as well as they might. If I may say so, that is inevitable, but, broadly speaking, it provides for a sensible, workable solution. These assurances are given against the backdrop of the general provisions in the code of construction practice and the undertaking that I gave.

377. If one turns to 6851 and sees what is envisaged here, the area within which utility works on West End Road are provided for is shown on the plan. If you read the little box, you see there are nine assets to protect or divert; the anticipated duration of

construction works is up to six months; you get a sense of the daily vehicle movements and the number of workers associated with it. That can be no more than an estimate at the moment, but that gives a sense of it.

378. CHAIR: It is an estimate. Are we talking about it all being done in one period of six months, or a month closure to deal with something, then two months go by and there is another month of work?

379. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: They do not know what needs doing.

380. MR MOULD QC (DfT): What we can say is that, broadly speaking, at this stage we would expect these works to be done towards the beginning of the project, because they are by and large protected works. One would want to ensure that the protection was in place before one brought the main tunnelling work through the subsoil at depth in this area.

381. MR MEARNS: Given the number of people actually working on that and the period of time, would it be possible to make a more concerted effort, say, during the summer holidays, for instance?

382. MR MOULD QC (DfT): It may well be. I know this is frustrating to people. I cannot say to you that we can commit now to doing any works that are required, including investigations and so forth, during the summer of 2018. Certainly, it will be in the contractors’ interests—one begins to sound like a broken record—to try to time works which might otherwise cause disruption to traffic and so forth, because during term time there tends to be more traffic on the road passing a school than during the summer holidays. It will be in his interest to try to take that into account in planning his works. He cannot allow that tail to wag the construction dog, but he can take it into account and try to draw an appropriate balance.

383. MR MEARNS: But the promoters could endeavour to work with contractors to ensure that is done wherever possible.

384. MR MOULD QC (DfT): That is what we say in paragraph 2 on page 6852(2). That is what we have said in the assurance that has been given, which has been welcomed by the petitioners. To go back to that, one of the things we will seek to do is

‘co-ordinate any separate elements of utilities works on any particularly relevant road, phased so as to minimise the overall impact due to associated traffic restrictions in the area.’ One point I passed over is the second bullet dealing with the ‘timing of any particularly disruptive short-term activities to avoid hours of peak activity for schools or businesses.’ That sets out the approach we are committing to follow here. The detail of it is, yet again, something we simply cannot commit to at this stage, because we just do not know. Our case is that we are moving forward on the right path here.

385. Ms Jones referred to a number of detailed matters she would like us to consider, building on this assurance. Rather than try to deal with those now, I suggest we respond to her on those points in a further letter. Having heard what she says, I think that to many of them the response will be that they are so unlikely to happen it is not necessary to give any assurance. Given that the limited nature of the works we may have to do in the vicinity of these schools, the idea that we are going to obstruct and prevent access to local open space seems to me, frankly, fanciful. I think we had best write to her about that rather than ventilate that before you.

386. CHAIR: Mr Mearns made the point about engaging with the schools. The schools are a resource in a sense; they have the e-mails of all the parents. Therefore, provided the schools know in advance what is going to happen, the parents will be organised. One of my perceptions is that Hillingdon parents seem more disciplined and organised than parents elsewhere. We have heard on a number of occasions about voluntary one-way systems and everybody else. If that is the case, it would seem to me one could manage the difficulties a lot easier.

387. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes. What I envisage here is that a meeting will be set up between the local liaison of the nominated undertaker with the school in advance of any works beginning and locking down the plans for those works in the area. That meeting will lead to a timetable being put forward for the school to work to so they can notify the parents. That is how these things will be dealt with in practice.

388. CHAIR: The other point raised about West End Road is that, if you come past the Polish memorial and go up the road, there are lots of traffic lights. You get by Northolt and are held up. Usually, it is a few rather than lots of cars. As to that, one does need to have a conversation to see whether or not that can be dealt with. We are going to need to

look at ways of freeing up traffic in the area, because there will be knock-on effects on West End Road.

389. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Because there is more than a possibility of HS2-related traffic being on West End Road in relation to these utilities works, the way traffic uses that road—timing and so forth—will form part of the traffic management plan for the area, so we will have to look at those questions. This is not one of those cases where there will be a requirement for a schedule 16 consent because the numbers are too low for that, but in clause 14 of the code of construction practice we refer specifically to the need for traffic management plans to cover all the range of works, and to consider particularly the effect on schools. That is one of the factors mentioned specifically.

390. Can I deal with the point on air quality about which you have heard a couple of times? Let me put up P6939. This slide brings up to date on the map the revised work which we said would be published in the supplementary environmental statement fairly shortly. Although it is not terribly easy to read, the routes mapped here are the main ones for the railway. I do not know whether or not we can blow it up slightly. As a result of the various factors you have heard about over recent days, such as the use of clean vehicles, the revisiting of our modelling and so forth, we are now showing that essentially the effect of HS2 traffic on existing air quality is negligible. It is important to see that these two schools are located way off to the right and well away from the concentrations of air quality issues that might arise, at least in theory, from the use of roads through Ickenham by significant proportions of HS2 traffic. Even allowing for some local dispersal, the point is that our modelling is not showing the prospect of any real effect on air quality in the immediate vicinity of these schools.

391. The final point is about the Crossrail site you were shown. It is important to bear in mind that that is a tunnel portal worksite. It does include some utilities works, but it is nothing like those who have the railway running underneath them in tunnel will experience. The visit was principally to enable people to see how a works site, in this case to support the Ruislip tunnel portal, was likely to look based on experience.

392. CHAIR: If you are to write to the petitioner dealing with some of the more detailed points in the presentation, can you copy it to the Committee so we have sight of what is being discussed?

393. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes, of course.

394. CHAIR: Ms Jones?

395. MS JONES: I would come back on one or two of those points. As I said to Sir Peter, the utility work I showed in those photographs was literally the section to the le ft-hand side. I did point that out. That was all utility work at that point of the construction site.

396. We are still concerned about air quality given the amount of displaced traffic on West End Road that we still do not think has been taken into consideration sufficiently, but I will not labour that point any further.

397. We work on the assurances, but we would request further clarification of some of the points in our requests. We are grateful that we have been offered meetings and that those meetings will happen with the school. I would quite like to determine when that might start.

398. However unlikely some of the outcomes we are concerned about, we would still like to see some contingency plans in place given how densely populated the area is and how many people are likely to be affected. We would like that reassurance. Even if they are unlikely scenarios we would still like to see something in place for those.

399. In summary, we hope that you have understood why we have raised all these concerns with you today and their importance. We did not bring the petition before you lightly. Because we are a London borough literally thousands of people will be affected, even in a short space of time for utilities works. Ruislip is a very large but close community and works very hard to function in harmony with its environment. It is vital that if HS2 eventually goes ahead we should protect our community from the disruption, and that we have the best possible mitigation of the effects of such an enormous project that will be of absolutely no benefit to our local area.

400. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: From my experience, nominated undertakers can be required to do things. They need to make sure that their contractors and subcontractors and the utilities’ contractors and subcontractors take account of the assurances being offered. Can I suggest that you may consider putting in a subsequent letter that not just

the undertaker but the others would be involved in trying to meet the requirements of the local community and schools?

401. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I am happy to do that, but I reiterate the point I have made on a number of occasions, which I suspect you are prompting me to repeat. In this case the effect of the statute is that a nominated undertaker is responsible effectively for underwriting the performance of these matters by his chain of subcontractors. In order to ensure that he has redress on that he will make sure he builds very clearly into the subcontracts all of the relevant commitments that have been made in the area within which the subcontractor is working so he can hold them to it.

402. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I just say, not for the sake of worrying everybody, that when electricity work was done outside my home in my constituency the notification to residents came a week after work had been completed.

403. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Every time it rains a puddle forms outside my house. That little lake was created last time some water works were carried out there, so I understand the point.

404. CHAIR: Thank you very much, everybody. We are going to meet again at two o’clock.