IN PARLIAMENT HOUSE OF COMMONS SESSION 2013-2014

HIGH SPEED RAIL (LONDON TO WEST MIDLANDS) BILL

Against - On Merits - Praying to be heard by counsel, &c.

TO THE HONOURABLE THE COMMONS OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND IN PARLIAMENT ASSEMBLED.

THE HUMBLE PETITION of LAFARGE TARMAC TRADING LIMITED

SHEWETH as follows:-

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

2. The Bill is presented by Mr Secretary McLoughlin, supported by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mrs Secretary May, Mr Secretary Cable, Mr Secretary Duncan Smith, Mr Secretary Pickles, Mr Secretary Paterson, Mr Secretary Davey and Mr Robert Goodwill.

3. The Bill is promoted by the Secretary of State for Transport (hereinafter called "the Promoter").

Relevant clauses of the Bill

4. Clause 1 (Power to construct and maintain works for Phase One of High Speed 2) of the Bill would enable the nominated undertaker to construct and maintain the works specified in Schedule 1 ("the scheduled works") and deviate within the limits of deviation.

5. Clause 2 (Further provision about works) of the Bill would enable the nominated undertaker to carry out the works in Clause 2 and Schedule 2 and Schedule 3 to the Bill.

6. Clause 3 (Highways) would enable the nominated undertaker to exercise the powers in Schedule 4 to the Bill.

7. Clause 4 (Power to acquire land compulsoriiy), Schedule 5 and Schedule 6 of the Bill would enable the Secretary of State to compulsorily acquire so much of the land within the Act limits (within'the limits of deviation for the scheduled works, or within the limits of the land to be acquired or used) as may be required for Phase One purposes and sets out applications of compensation provisions.

8. Clause 5 (Acquisition of rights in land). Schedule 7 and Schedule 8 of the Bill would enable the Secretary of State to exercise the powerunder Clause 4 to create or acquire easements and impose restrictive covenants. Clause 5 of the Bill would also enable Schedule 9 that contains provisions about the application of compulsory purchase legislation.

9. Clause 6 (Acquisition of part of land) of the Bill would enable the provisions of Schedule 10 to apply instead of section 8(1) of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965.

10. Clause 7 (Acquisition of airspace) of the Bill would enable the Secretary Of State to exercise the power under Clause 4 in relation to air space over the land only. Clause 7 excludes the limitation on only selling part of a house, building, manufactory, park or garden belonging to a house under section 8(1) of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965.

11. Clause 8 (Acquisition of subsoil or under-surface) and Schedule 11 of the Bill would enable the Secretary of State to exercise the power under Clause 4 only in relation to subsoil or under surface of the land. Clause 8 excludes the limitation on only selling part of a park or garden belonging to a house under section 8(1) of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965.

12. Clause 9 (Highway subsoil) of the Bill would enable the nominated undertaker to enter upon, take and use for the purposes of the works authorised by the Act so much of the subsoil of any highway within the Act limits as is required for the construction or maintenance of those works, without being required to acquire that subsoil or any interest in it Clause 9 of the Bill would also enable Schedule 12 and restnctions on powers to use subsoil and acquire land.

13. Clause 10 (Termination of power to acquire land) of the Bill would enable the Secretary of State to make an order extending the termination date for exercising the power to acquire land by 5 years and would enable Schedule 13 that contains provisions about a right to require acquisition where an order is made.

14. Clause 11 (Extinction of rights over land) and Schedule 14 of the Bill would enable the extinguishment of private rights of way, rights of common, easements, liberties, privileges rights, advantages, natural nght to support and restrictions under contract.

15. Clause 12 (Extinction of rights of statutory undertakers) of the Bill would apply section 271 to 273 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (extinguishment of rights of statutory undertakers) in relation to land held by the Secretary of State as being land which is required for or in connection with the works authorised by the Act as they apply in relation to land acquired or appropriated as mentioned in section 271(1) of that Act

15. Clause 13 (Exclusion of new rights of way) of the Bill would exclude the acquisition of rights of way by prescription or user over land.

17. Clause 14 (Temporary possession and use of land) would enable the nominated undertaker to exercise the powers in Schedule 15 of the Bill including specified land and land within the limits of deviation. 18. Clause 15 (Use of roads) would enable the nominated undertaker to use roads situated on land in Schedule 8 and paragraph 2 of Schedule 11.

19. Clause 16 (Cranes) of the Bill would enable the nominated undertaker to use airspace for the Oversailing of Cranes.

20. Clause 17 (Enforcement of restrictions on land use) of the Bill would enable the Secretary of State to enforce the prohibition or restriction of use of land imposed by covenant or agreement between a person interested in the land (the promisor) and the Secretary of State against persons deriving title from or under the promisor

21. Clause 18 (Compensation for injurious affection) of the Bill would enable section 10(1) of the Compulsory Purchase act 1965 to have effect in relation to iand injuriously affected by the execution of works underthe Act by the nominated undertaker.

22. Clause 19 and Schedule 16 (Deemed planning permission) of the Bill would deem planning permission to be granted, impose planning conditions and require the nominated undertakerto submit details to the planning authorities for approval.

23. Clause 20 (Time limit on deemed planning permission) of the Bill would enable the Secretary of State to extend the time for beginning development beyond the 10 year time limit

24. Clause 21 (Power to disapply deemed planning perrnission) of the Bill would enable the Secretary of State by order to provide that the deemed planning permission does not apply to development consisting of operations for the maintenance or alteration of the work which begin on or after a day specified in the order.

25. Clause 22 (Parking at Birmingham Interchange: limit on deemed planning permission) of the Bill would limit the application of the deemed planning permission in relation to development involving parking spaces.

26. Clause 23 (Development Consent) of the Bill would provide that the works authorised by the Act do not require consent underthe Planning Act 2008.

27. Clause 24 (Listed buildings) and Schedule 17, Clause 25 (Ancient monuments) and Schedule 18, Clause 26 (Burial grounds) and Schedule 19, Clause 27 (Consecrated land). Clause 28 (Commons and open spaces). Clause 29 (Trees), Clause 30 (Overhead lines), Clause 31 (Water) and Schedule 20, Clause 32 (Buildings) and Schedule 21 and 22, Clause 33 (Street works) and Schedule 23, and Clause 34 (Lorries) and Schedule 24 of the Bill would disapply or modify statutory controls.

28. Clause 35 (Noise) of the Bill would enable Schedule 25 and provide the nominated undertaker with a defence in respect of statutory nuisance.

29. Clause 36 (Local Acts) and Schedule 26 of the Bill would disapply or modify statutory controls under local Acts relating to London, Oxfordshire, Staffordshire and the West Midlands.

30. Clauses 37 to 46 of the Bill, together with the associated schedules confirm provisions relating to the modification and discharge of the railways regulatory regime as well as miscellaneous and general provisions relating to statutory undertakers and nominated undertakers and the transfer of functions. 31. Clause 47 (Compulsory acquisition of land for regeneration or relocation) of the Bill would enable the Secretary of State to compulsorily acquire any land if the construction or operation of Phase One of HS2 gives rise to the Opportunity for regeneration or development of the land.

32. Clause 48 (Power to carry out reinstatement works) of the Bill would enable the nominated undertaker to carry out re-instatement works within the Act limits where the operation or use of the whole or part of an undertaking is discontinued or substantially impaired as a result of the exercise of any power under the Act.

33. Clause 50 (Power to Apply Act to further high speed rail works) of the Bill would enable a Transport and Works Act order to apply any provision of the Act with or without modification, to anything authorised by the order.

34. Clause 51 (Rights of entry for further high speed rail works) of the Bill would enable an authorised person in connection with a Bill or proposed Bill for a high speed railway line in Great Britain to enter any land within 500 metres of the proposed route of the line for surveying the land or facilitating compliance with EU environmental protection legislation.

35. Clause 52 (Exercise of rights of entry) of the Bill would enable provisions relating to exercising rights of entry.

36. Clauses 53 to 56 of the Bill, together with the associated Schedules contain provisions relating to Crown Land, Highways for which Secretary of State is highway authority) and Royal Parks.

37. Clause 57 ("Deposited plans" and "deposited sections") of the Bill would enable a copy of deposited plans or deposited sections, or any extract from those plans or sections, certified as such by the Secretary of State to be admissible in any proceedings as evidence of its contents.

38. Clause 58 (Correction of deposited plans) of the Bill would enable the Secretary of State to apply to two justices for the correction of the plans or book of reference.

39. Clause 59 (Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations) of the Bill would enable the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations to have effect as if the definition of "EIA development" in regulation 2(1) and regulation 8 are amended.

40. Clause 60 (Arbitration) of the Bill would enable differences to be referred to and settled by a single arbitrator to be agreed between the parties or appointed by the President of the Institution of Civil Engineers

41. Clause 61 (Notices and other documents) of the Bill would enable provisions relating to the delivering of documents and notices.

42. Clause 62 ("Phase One Purposes") of the Bill would enable the definition of "Phase One Purposes".

43. Clause 64 (Financial provision) of the Bill would enable the payment of expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of the Act and any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment Your Petitioner and its Properties

44. Your Petitioner is Lafarge Tarmac Trading Limited (registered company number 00453791) which also represents the interests of Lafarge Aggregates Limited (registered company number 00297905) and Lafarge Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited (registered company number 00066558) and other companies within the Lafarge Tarmac group (hereinafter referred to as "the Petitioner"). Your Petitioner is a joint venture company formed following the merger of Lafarge UK and Anglo American Pic's Tarmac business, to create the UK's leading construction materials and services company. The 50:50 joint venture, which is equally owned by Lafarge UK and Anglo American Pic, combines both companies' cement & lime, aggregates, readymix concrete, asphalt and asphalt surfacing, maintenance services, and waste services businesses. Your Petitioner began trading on 7 January 2013, following final clearance from the UK Competition Commission. Your Petitioner is organised around four areas Of business:

• Readymix Concrete.

e Cement & Lime & Powders and Chemical Stone.

• Contracting.

» Aggregates & Asphalt

45. Your Petitioner and companies within its group holds interests in the properties listed below and have been served with notices in relation to the intended compulsory acquisition of the whole or part of their properties ("the Properties"):

• Notice number C271/004308: Willesden railway depot, Channel Gate Road. Willesden ("the Willesden Depot"). The Willesden Depot is identified within the HS2 Phase 1 Environmental Statement's Community Forum Area Report 4 Kilburn (Brent) to Old Oak Common.;

« Notice number C271/004308: Park Royal readymix and aggregates depot Park Royal Road, Ealing ("Park Royal Depot") within Community Forum Area 5 Northolt Corridor;

® Notice number C271/008005: Broadwater Quarry, Middlesex ("Broadwater Quarry") within Community Forum Area 7 Colne Valley; and

• Notice number C274/000307: Portland House, Bickenhill Lane, Solihull, Birmingham, B37 7BQ ("Portland House") within Community Forum Area 24 Birmingham Interchange and Chelmsley Wood.

46. In addition your Petitioner received a letter dated 2 May 2014 stating that HS2 Ltd are "seeking powers over additional parcels of land in order to incorporate minor refinements to ttie proposed route" of Phase 1 of HS2. The additional land being included consists of temporary rights over additional land required by National Grid to allow access and ensure safe working, and a requirement to oversaii property to construct a diverted overhead line. The letter, however fails to set out to which parts of your Petitioner's Properties this applies.

Your Petitioner's Concerns 47. You Petitioner supports the principle of the construction and operation of a high speed railway and associated development between London and the West Midlands. Your Petitioner seeks to work together with the Promoter, the Government HS2 Ltd and relevant local authorities to facilitate the provision of Phase 1 of HS2. Your Petitioner also seeks to enter into an agreement with the Promoter to address its concerns.

48. Your Petitioner is, however, apprehensive about the provisions of the Bill as they may affect their Properties. For this reason, and having regard to the more detailed particulars referred to below, your Petitioner has grave concerns about the Bill and its provisions as set out In this Petition and it alleges and is prepared to prove that it and its property, rights and interests are injuriously and prejudicially affected by the Bill for the reasons (amongst others) set out below.

49. Your Petitioner is concerned about the individual and cumulative impacts on its Properties which will be injuriously affected by the works (whether scheduled works pursuant to clause 1 or works pursuant to clause 2 or any other works authorised by the Bill) herein after described as "the Works".

50. Your Petitioner is also concerned about those parts of the Properties that will not be compulsorily acquired but are within close proximity of the Works will be injuriously affected by the Bill.

51. Your Petitioner is concerned that the Works will significantly adversely affect their interests by seriously inhibiting your Petitioner's ability to operate its business.

Willesden Depot

52. Under notice number C271/004308 property numbers 130 and 145 are subject to compulsory acquisition. Under the Bill, property number 145 will be compulsorily acquired for the provision of a work site and access for construction, however it is unclear for what purpose property number 130 will be compulsorily acquired. Community Forum Area Report CFA4 Kilburn (Brent) to Old Oak Common of the HS2 Phase 1 Environmental Statement provides that two cement silos would be demolished and the accompanying Map Book plan reference CT-05-009a-R1 shows the Willesden Depot as being used for a construction compound and for temporary material stockpiles. Your Petitioner's operations will be extinguished, thus injuriously affecting your Petitioner's interests.

53. At present the Wiilesden Depot includes a 350 metre railhead located within the Willesden Euroterminal site, 2 bespoke cement storage silos with ancillary pneumatic unloading and associated compressors, linking to the aforementioned railhead, and HGV vehicular access onto Channel Gate Road.

54. The Willesden Depot is a key strategic location for both sustainable delivery of cement by rail into London as well a key strategic location for road networks. The Willesden Depot receives trains, each carrying in the region of 1,700 tonnes of cement haul, from your Petitioner's Tunstead Cement Works, Derbyshire ("Tunstead Cement Works") and is accessible by HGVs for the subsequent distribution of cement to your Petitioner's batching plants. There are approximately 14 ready mix batching plants served from the Willesden Depot and none of these batching plants can accept cement by rail, the cement must be road delivered. 55. The extinguishment of your Petitioner's operations would result in the loss of your Petitioner's only inward bound rail linked cement distribution depot inside the M25 and one of Only a limited number of rail connected distribution depots operated by the limited number of UK cement manufacturers. The market requirements would need to be sen/ed by alternative means such as road haulage. Transferring current cement supplies from rail to road would be more expensive and require in the region of 3,667 additional HGVs travelling between Tunstead Cement Works and London per annum. Based on a round trip distance of 320 miles this would be around 1,173,440 additional road miles by HGV. On the basis that your Petitioner anticipates year on year growth then it is likely that this figure for HGVs would increase year on year.

56. For the reasons set out in your Petitioner's HS2 Phase 1 Environmental Statement Consultation response entitled HS2 Environmental Statement Consultation Representations on betialf of Lafarge Tarmac Trading Limited your Petitioner submits that the magnitude of the direct impacts on the Willesden Depot have not been adequately assessed. Furthermore the indirect climate, traffic and transport, air quality, and noise and vibration effects arising from the extinguishment of the Willesden Depot should have been taken into account in the Environmental Impact Assessment ("EIA") process. The failure to incorporate these within the EIA means the overall significance of the potential likely significant effects is very likely to be understated.

57. Extinguishment of the Petitioner's operations at the Willesden Depot is likely to result in increased costs for road haulage, loss of profits and employee redundancies. Other costs associated with relocation include, but are not limited to, acquiring a new site, obtaining pianning permission and environmental permits, professional fees for consultants, engineers, surveyors and solicitors, differential costs such as rent and rates, removal costs, new infrastructure, new equipment, depreciation for related items and employee costs.

58. Your Petitioner requests that the Promoter enters a binding agreement with your Petitioner for the relocation of the existing Willesden Depot to an equivalent site meeting its site selection criteria as agreed with your Petitioner. The nominated undertaker should assist your Petitioner with securing both planning permission and the relevant environmental permit for an equivalent depot. The Promoter would ensure the depot is operational before extinguishing the existing Willesden Depot

Park Roval Depot

59. Under notice number C271/004308 property numbers 322, 323, 324, 325, 326 and 359 will be subject to compulsory acquisition. Underthe Bill, property numbers 322, 323 and 324 will be compulsorily acquired for the diversion or installation of, or works to, utilities apparatus at the Park Royal Depot, however it is unclear for what purpose property numbers 325, 326 and 359 will be compulsorily acquired. It appears from the Community Forum Area Report CFA5 Northolt Corridor of the HS2 Phase 1 Environmental Statement and the accompanying Map Book plan references CT-05- 010b and CT-06-010b that the high speed railway will be in the vicinity of the Park Royal Depot and tunnelling works will be under or in the vicinity of your Petitioner's land. We believe that diversion and installation of utilities is the only purpose for which the Park Royal Depot is required, however this has not been confirmed in writing by the Promoter or HS2 Ltd. 60. The Park Royal Depot is a ready mix and aggregates depot serving the north west London construction and building sectors. The Park Royal Depot includes two separate plants manufacturing ready mixed concrete and screeds.

61. The Works under the Bill are likely to result in disruption to your Petitioner's operations, including but not limited to difficulties with access onto the highway and disruption to the supply of utility services. This is likely to impact on the ability of the Petitioner to serve the market, resulting in a loss of business and profits.

62. Your Petitioner does not consider that all of the property numbers set out in the notice number C271/004308 are required for the purposes of the Bill. Your Petitioners believes it is unnecessary and inequitable to seek to acquire permanent rights in relation to the Park Royal Depot where limited and temporary rights along the eastern boundary of the Park Royal Depot are sufficient for construction of the Works.

63. Your Petitioners request that the Bill is amended so that only limited and temporary rights can be acquired in relation to the eastern boundary of the Park Royal Depot

64. Your Petitioner requests that the Promoter enters a binding agreement with your Petitioner limiting their acquisition powers to temporary rights for the Works along the eastern boundary of the Park Royal Depot. The binding agreement would include but not be limited to an obligation to liaise with your Petitioner prior to commencing any of the Works at Park Royal Depot and within the vicinity of the Park Royal Depot a restriction on construction hours so that the Works are strictly limited to outside of your Petitioner's operating hours, an obligation to maintain free and uninterrupted access to the Park Royal Depot at all times, an obligation to consult your Petitioner on the routing of construction traffic, and an obligation to ensure the continual and uninterrupted supply of mains electric power and water.

Broadwater Quarry

65. Under notice number C271/008005 property numbers 763, 782, 784, 785, 786and 791 will be subject to compulsory acquisition and property numbers 785 and 791 will also be subject to the compulsory acquisition of a right over the property and the right to use any road on the property. Under the Bill, properiy numbers 784 and 786 will be compulsorily acquired for provision of environmental mitigation and property numbers 763 and 782 for the provision of work site, and access for construction and maintenance, however it is unclear for what purpose property numbers 785 and 791 will be compulsory acquired. Community Forum Area Report CFA 7 Colne Valley of the HS2 Phase 1 Environmental Statement and the accompanying Map Book plan reference CT-05-020 shows that there will be a "satellite" construction compound on property number 763, and plan reference CT-06-020 shows that there will be a viaduct and a re-alignment of the River Colne either on, or in the vicinity of, your Petitioner's land. According to the Map Book reference plan CT-05-020 the Broadwater Lake area and nearby lakes are part of a Site of Special Scientific Interest.

66. Broadwater Quarry is a dormant sand and gravel quarry containing approximately 500,000 tonnes of unworked reserve. Part of the Broadwater Quarry is subject to a lease granted to the established and longstanding Broadwater Sailing Club and thus your Petitioner is concerned that the Works will adversely affect the club and the beneficial use of Broadwater Quarry. 67. Your Petitioner is gravely concerned that the Works at Broadwater Quarry will significantly adversely affect the permitted restoration scheme. Your Petitioner requests that the Promoter enters into a binding agreement to mitigate all adverse impacts to the restoration scheme.

68. Your Petitioner is concerned that the Works will significantly adversely affect your Petitioner's property by sterilising valuable mineral reserves.

Portland House

69. Under notice number C274/000307 property number 54 is subject to compulsory acquisition. Under the Bill it is unclear for what purpose property number 54 is required. We believe property number 54 is required for stanchion bases in connection with the proposed "people mover".

70. Your Petitioner is concerned that the Works will result in loss of car parking spaces thus creating access problems for employees as well as visitors to Portland House, your Petitioner's Headquarters.

71. In addition the Petitioner's head office, Portland House, from which it co-ordinates its operations would be within close proximity of a people mover and accordingly your Petitioner is concerned that its property and interests would be injuriously affected.

72. Your Petitioner requests that the Promoter enters a binding agreement to minimise disruption to the occupier's operations including but not limited to liaising with your Petitioner in relation to designs to limit the number of car parking spaces that are lost as a result of HS2 Phase 1 and the routing of construction traffic.

Compulsory purchase and acquisition of airspace, subsoil, rights and related matters

73. Your Petitioner objects to the provisiions of clauses 4 to 18 and 47 of the Bill which adversely affect and interfere with their Properties. Under these provisions, and in particular those in clauses 4 to 9 of the Bill, the Promoter would be able to acquire compulsorily any one or all of those of your Petitioner's Properties within the limits of deviation, or at least so much of the airspace, subsoil and undersurface or such new rights, under or over the Properties as the Promoter may require for the purposes of the construction and use of the Works. In respect of these Properties your Petitioner questions the need for such extensive powers, fearing that their exercise could lead to damage to these Properties and serious adverse effects on current and future operations at the Properties, with the result that significant loss and damage could be suffered by your Petitioner.

74. Your Petitioner humbly submits that the Promoter should not be permitted by means of the Bill to interfere with private property rights and interests unless, and except to the extent (if any) that this can be demonstrated both to be necessary for the purposes of the Bill and to be in the public interest.

75. Your Petitioner has not been provided with full justification for the proposals in the Bill affecting their Properties and it is not satisfied that it is necessary or appropriate for the limits of deviation to be drawn so widely so as to or that it is necessary or expedient for the other powers of the Bill to apply at all or in the manner or to the extent proposed. 76. Your Petitioner also humbly submits the clause 47 of the Bill is unjustified and without precedent as the power to acquire land is not limited spatially or by time and should therefore be removed from the Bill as it may be used against other properties owned by your Petitioner and its other companies within the Lafarge Tarmac group at any time.

77. Accordingly, your Petitioner humbly submits that the Promoter should demonstrate and be put to strict proof of the need for and desirability of the proposals in the Bill, as affecting your Petitioner's Properties, and that the limits of deviation of the resulting powers for the compulsory acquisition of land or of interests in land, the power to construct the Works and the exercise of the Works and ancillary powers within the limits of deviation should be restricted in relation to your Petitioner's Properties to the extent (if any) to which they can be strictly justified so as to minimise or prevent interference with those Properties. In particular, your Petitioner contends that any interest in its Properties acquired by the Promoter (in terms of the area over which it is to subsist, the form in which it is to take at law and any express or implied constraints which may be imposed upon the remainder of your Petitioner's Properties) should be strictly limited only to that which is absolutely necessary for the construction, safe operation and maintenance of the Works.

Compensaf/on

78. Your Petitioner further humbly submits that such provisions with regard to compensation in respect of compulsory acquisition and other matters as are proposed in the Bill are inadequate to compensate your Petitioner for the loss, damage and inconvenience which it might suffer as a result of the construction and subsequent use of the Works. Further provisions should, your Petitioner submits, be included in the Bill, including provisions respecting the making and assessment of claims for compensation, and amendments to the Compensation Code, as well as indemnifying your Petitioner for any loss they might suffer as the result losses incurred in the shadow of the HS2 proposals as well as the Works themselves.

79. Your Petitioner requests that further provisions should be made within the Bill to cover all loss and damage suffered as a result of compulsory acquisition including but not limited to assistance for businesses in relation to relocation to an equivalent site as well as securing planning permission, environmental permit and any other necessary consents for an equivalent site.

80. Your Petitioner also objects to the compensation provisions of the Bill in that those provisions are totally inadequate to compensate your Petitioner in circumstances where no land (or interests in land) is acquired by the Promoter under the Bill, but where the value of such land and the Properties erected thereon is reduced or where such iand and the Properties erected thereon is otherwise adversely or injuriously affected by the construction or use of the Works. Your Petitioner therefore submits, that the Bill should be amended to provide adequate compensation in this regard.

81. Your Petitioner submits that the Bill should be amended to ensure that your Petitioner is entitled to claim compensation where their property is not compulsorily acquired for, amongst other matters, structural damage to the property, settlement impacts from noise and dust impacts on visual amenity, interference with access, interference with supplies of services and for injurious affection caused by the construction and operation of the high speed railway and associated development Your Petitioner requests a

to provision to enable such claim to be made separately from any claim for compensation in respect of the acquisition of land or interests under the powers of compulsory acquisition in the Bill.

82. Your Petitioner also submits that the Bill should be amended to ensure that your Petitioner is entitled to claim professional fees including but not limited to fees for consultants, engineers, surveyors and solicitors.

Mitigation of works proposed to be authorised by the Bill

83. Your Petitioner is concerned about the impact of the construction and operation of a high speed railway and its associated development on its Properties for those reasons including but not limited to paragraphs 47 to 72 above.

84. Your Petitioner is concemed that the Promoter's on-going accountability is unspecified. The Code of Construction Practice does not identify how any lead contractors will be made to comply and the redress and appropriate action that might be taken in the event that the contractors do not comply with the Code of Construction Practice. Assessment in the HS2 Phase 1 Environmental Statement is made on the assumption that the Code of Construction Practice and the strategies will be fully effective, however, the Code of Construction Practice has no legal status.

85. Your Petitioner submits that the Code of Construction Practice should be incorporated into the Bill. Pariiament and not the nominated undertaker should be accountable for the project Any monitoring required underthe Code of Construction Practice should involve the relevant local authority as well as independent experts.

85. The standards set out in the HS2 Phase 1 Environmental Statement and the Code of Construction Practice is of "reasonableness" and "reasonable endeavours". Your Petitioner submits that this should be replaced by a higher standard, i.e. "best practical means".

87. Your Petitioner requests that the Promoter is subject to binding mitigation measures to mitigate the impacts of the Works before commencement and during construction and operation of the high speed railway and associated development These binding mitigation measures should; include but not be limited to provisions to ensure continual and uninterrupted supply of utility services, designs to minimise disruption to access and car parking, minimising highway closure and congestion, liaising with your Petitioner in advance of highway closures and traffic routing, traffic routing, alternative routes, provision of bridges where land is severed, provision of appropriate funding to the highway authority for repair and reinstatement in relation to degradation resulting from construction traffic and limiting construction hours to avoid interference with your Petitioner's operations.

88. Your Petitioner requests that the nominated undertaker should be compelled to use best available techniques in the construction and operation of the high speed railway and its associated development to ensure that there are no other adverse effects.

89. The binding mitigation and monitoring measures should be decided by a panel of independent experts on the basis of independent expert evidence. For example the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee's report entitled HS2 and the environment thirteenth Report of Session 2013-2014 dated 7 April 2014 recommended

11 an independent body to monitor and publically report on all aspects of environmental protection needed for 60 years.

90. Your Petitioner is concerned that clause 35 of the Bill and Schedule 25 provide that appeals against notices or against failure to give consent or the giving of qualified consent under the Control of Pollution Act 1974, section 60 (control of noise) and section 61 (prior consent for work on construction sites) may be referred to the Secretary of State or arbitration. Your Petitioner is also concerned that Schedule 25 would provide a defence to statutory nuisance for the nominated undertaker. Your Petitioner requests the Promoter should be subject to binding mitigation measures to minimise adverse impacts.

Services

91. Your Petitioner is concerned that there is the potential for disruption to utilities and other services provided to its Properties. Any disruption in the services to is unacceptable to your Petitioner because it is likely to result in a loss of business and a loss of profits.

92. Your Petitioner requests that the nominated undertaker should be subject to binding mitigation measures in relation to any disruption to services and contingency measures in the event of disruption to services. The binding measures should include implementing alternative proposals prior to any relocation of utilities and indemnifying your Petitioner for any loss or damages arising from the Works.

Deemed grant of planning permission

93. The Bill would enable a deemed grant of planning permission subject to planning conditions. Hence, detailed proposals in relation to the construction and operation of the high speed railway and associated development as well as restoration are not provided.

94. Your Petitioner submits that in light of the potential adverse impacts, this approach is not acceptable. Accordingly, your Petitioner requests that detailed proposals for construction, operation and restoration should be included within the Bill.

Nominated undertaker

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

96. Your Petitioner requests that there should be a provision inserted into clause 43 enabling enforcement against the Secretary of State in the -event of the nominated undertaker failing to fulfil their obligations.

Amendments to statutory railway provisions

97. Your Petitioner is concerned in respect of the provisions relating to the modification and discharge of the railways regulatory regime in particular clauses 37 to 42 of the Bill and the related Schedules. Your Petitioner is concerned that the provisions threaten the current and projected level of service to the Willesden Depot, Park Royal Depot and other depots that they utilise.

12 98. Your Petitioner requests that prior to the implementation of clauses 37 to 42, appropriate safeguards are put in place to protect the interests of existing rail operators and users in relation to design, levels of service, line closures, line alterations, access to depots, current and projected levels of service, and frequency and timing of services, capacity and congestion.

99. Your Petitioner requests that the Promoter is subject to a binding obligation with your Petitioner that no alterations are made to the railway network, including but not limited to line closures, line alterations, changes to frequency and timing of services, increases in the number of trains using the railway network and reductions in capacity, that would adversely affect the current and projected levels of service and impede access to your Petitioner's Park Royal Depot and Willesden Depot and any other depots that your Petitioner may utilise.

Environmental Statement

100. Your Petitioner is concerned by the absence of any specific provision to compel the nominated undertaker to implement mitigation measures identified in the HS2 Phase 1 Environmental Statement accompanying the Bill. Failure to include such provision would, your Petitioner submits, be contrary to the purposes of the ElA Directive.

101. Your Petitioner submits that the HS2 Phase 1 Environmental Statement accompanying the Bill is deficient for the reasons set out in their Environmental Statement Consultation response entitled HS2 Environmental Statement Consultation Representations on behalf of Lafarge Tarmac Trading Limited. Your Petitioner also submits their reasons and comments as set out in the consultation response have not been fully reported in the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee's report entitled HS2 and the environment thirteenth Report of Session 2013-2014 dated 7 April 2014.

102. Firstly, the direct socio-economic effects of the Phase 1 of HS2 is inadequate and underplays the true magnitude of the change that would occur there. To this end, the EIA takes no account of the strategic importance of the Willesden Depot nor the significant challenge of finding an appropriate alternative site, which would provide your Petitioner with a comparable strategic location from which to serve an established market.

103. Secondly, the consideration of the indirect effects of the Phase One of High Speed 2 is inadequate as it fails, to take account of the impact that relocated businesses would have on baseline environmental conditions. To this end, there is no evidence that the EIA process has considered the indirect effects associated with the probable Consequences of an increase in the number of HGVs arising from the extinguishment of your Petitioner's Willesden Depot

EIA Directive

104. Your Petitioner submits that article 6(4) of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive in relation to eariy and effective opportunities to participate in the environmental decision making procedures has not been complied with. There are errors of fact in the HS2 Phase 1 Environmental Statement that have not been corrected prior to the second reading of the Bill. There is no process for updating these

13 errors and engaging with the public thus preventing early and effective participation in accordance with article 6(4).

105. Your Petitioner submits that the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive is also breached because there is no mechanism for updating the HS2 Phase 1 Environmental Statement and updating the assessment of the environmental impacts.

106. Your Petitioner submits that the Bill is contrary to article 6(4), article 8 and article 9 of the EIA Directive because there is no adequate mechanism within the Bill to define and constrain the development of proposed mitigation measures in a sufficiently precise and definitive matter so that the Works constructed are not materially different from what has been assessed in the HS2 Phase 1 Environmental Statement.

Blight and uncertainty for future operational planning

107. Your Petitioner respectfully submits that the proposals contained in the Bill have the potential to cause blight on your Petitioner's Properties. Your Petitioner fears that prospective purchasers and lessees will state that the proposals so blight the Properties that they are not interested in acquiring any part of them due to the prospect of the Works. Moreover, the Bill does not contain adequate provisions for compensating such blight and the Bill does not contain adequate provisions for compensating such blight and your Petitioners respectfully submit that it should do so.

108. Your Petitioner respectfully submits that the blight is compounded by the uncertainty over the time period for compulsory acquisition and the time period for implementation of the planning permission as well as the powers to extend these time periods under clauses 10 and 20 of the Bill. The uncertainty over these time periods will mean that your Petitioner's operational planning is adversely impacted upon and this will potentially result in the loss of business and profits.

109. The Bill does not contain adequate provisions for compensating such losses as a result of operational uncertainty and your Petitioners respectfully suggest that it should do so. Your Petitioner would like a binding commitment from the Promoter to acquire its Willesden Depot before a specific date.

Indemnity

110. Your Petitioner submits that the Promoter should be required to indemnify them from all claims and demands which may be made in consequence of the construction, use or maintenance of the Works under the Bill, or their failure or want of repair, or in consequence of any act or omission of the Promoter, his contractors or agents in carrying out the Works under the Bill.

Gosfs

111. Your Petitioner submits that provision should be made for the Promoter to repay to your Petitioner all proper costs, charges and expenses (including the proper fees of such professional advisers as they may instruct) reasonably incurred in consequence of the Bill or of any provision made as a result of this Petition.

Conclusion

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

113. For the foregoing and connected reasons your Petitioner respectfully submits that, unless the clauses of the Bill are removed or amended as requested, then the Bill should not be allowed to pass into law.

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

YOUR PETITIONER THEREFORE HUMBLY PRAY your Honourable House that the Bill may not be allowed to pass into law as it now stands and that they may be heard by their Counsel, Agents and witnesses in support of the allegations of this Petition against such of the clauses and provisions of the Bill as affect the property, rights and interests of your Petitioner and in support of such other clauses and provisions as may be necessary or expedient for their protection, or that such other relief may be given to your Petitioner in the. premises as your Honourable House shall deem meet

AND your Petitioners will ever pray, &c

Christopher Stanweli Partner on behalf of NABARRO LLP Acting as Agent for the Petitioner

15 IN PARLIAMENT HOUSE OF COMMONS SESSION 2013-2014

HIGH SPEED RAIL (LONDON TO WEST MIDLANDS BILL)

PETITION OF LAFARGE TARMAC TRADING LIMITED

Against - On Merits - Praying to be heard by counsel, &c.

Agent for the Petitioner:

Christopher Stanweli Partner on behalf of MARARRO LLP

Reference CFS/CTB/HET/L2228/00057