0968 IN PARLIAMENT HOUSE OF COMMONS SESSION 2013-2014

HIGH SPEED RAIL (LONDON TO WEST MIDLANDS) BILL

PETITION

Against^ On Merits - Praying to be heard &, c

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

THE HUMBLE PETITION of NORTH WESTMINSTER ACTION GROUP AGAINST HS2

SHEWETH as follows:-

1. A Bill (hereinafter referred to as "the Bill") has been introduced 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 and 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 Wanvickshire to Curzon Street in Birmingham; and for connected purposes."

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

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

4. Clauses 37 to 42 of the Bill deal with the regulatory regime for the railway.

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

6. The works proposed to be authorised by the Bill ("the Authorised Works") are specified in clauses 1 and 2 of and Schedule 1 to the Bill. They consist of scheduled works, which are described in Schedule 1 to the Bill and otherworks, which are described in clause 2 ofthe Bill.

7. Your Petitioner is North Westminster Against HS2 Action Group (hereinafter referred to as 'the Petitioner'), represented by Julius Hogban, the Petitioner's chairman of 35A Beethoven Street, Queen's Park, London W10 4LG. Your Petitioner is an action group established in May 2011, is a resident of the area for 3 5 years. The Petitioner represents the interests of residents of Queens Park/North Westminster who are directly or Indirectly affected by the Authorised Works, and in particular, the works referred to in paragraph 9 below. These local residents' rights, interests and, in some cases, property are injuriously affected by the Bill.

8. The residents represented by your Petitioner and their properties are located directly above or in the vicinity of planned tunnelSj a ventilation shaft and auto-transformer station proposed to be constructed in North Westminster/Queens Park area which is required under the current plans to construct HS2 and your Petitioner is concerned about the individual and cumulative impacts on their properties and the neighbourhood as a whole which will be injuriously affected by the works authorised by the Bill.

9. Objection is taken to the works proposed in North Westminster/Queens Park between Kilburn in the east and Old Oak Common. Those works consist mainly of a ventilation shaft, auto-transformer station and underground tunnel passing directly under many homes in the area.

INTRODUCTORY ISSUES

10. Your Petitioner strongly opposes the decision to construct the HS2 railway line terminating at Euston station because of the enormous impact the construction and operation of the line together with the ventilation shaft and auto-transformer substation will bring to our neighbourhood.

11: Notwithstanding the objection to the very principle of the Bill, your Petitioner recognises that Pariiament has decided to proceed with the HS2 railway by giving the Bill a second reading. There are several matters arising from the proposals in the Bill which are of considerable concern to your Petitioner. Your Petitioner believes the Queens Park/North Westminster neighbourhood and its environment will be unnecessarily injuriously affected by the Bill unless measures are implemented in an attempt to mitigate the impact of the proposed works.

ROUTE ALIGNMENT

12. Your Petitioner objects to the proposed alignment of the route under the Queens Park/North Westminster area, in particular, under the Queens Park Estate Area, which is predominantly residential, containing a conservation area and a number of listed buildings. The area has a history of housing with structural and subsidence issues due to an absence of foundations. These homes are at risk of noise, vibration and subsidence problems, all of which could lead to blight. 13. The Petitioner proposes that the route be realigned slightly to the north so that it passes under the existing West Coast Main Line ("WCML") which would thereby avoid the concerns raised above and have minimal impact on proposed HS2 journey times.

14. In light of concessions made by HS2 and the government that the HS2 project is not about speed, by allowing HS2 to travel at slightly less than the proposed speeds, additional curvature in the line would be permissible, thereby allowing the shift in the route to the north. This reduction in speed would also assist in other areas of the proposed route by allowing it to better follow existing transport corridors.

15. It is noted that the proposed speeds would result in one of the fastest high speed rail systems in the worid. When consideration is made to the short distance HS2 is proposed to cover, as compared to high speed rail projects in countries such as China which cover vast distances, it is difficult to see why such speed is required - particulariy when consideration is made to the enormous degree of mitigation that could be achieved by simply reducing the speed and allowing for more flexibility in the route of the proposed line.

16. The Petitioner notes that a reduction in speed would have significant environmental advantages noting the enormous amount of electricity required to reach the speeds proposed by HS2 (see "Climate" section below).

17. Despite repeated requests at the Community Forums held by HS2, including by the Petitioner and Westminster City Council, HS2 has failed to provide answers as to why the route cannot be aligned further north under the WCML and no analysis has been provided to enable adequate consideration of the two alternative options.

18. The Petitioner notes that a section of the proposed tunnel near the Adelaide Road vent shaft near has been moved to under the WCML and the reason for doing so was "in order to reduce the number of properties and structures that may be affected by settlement". This is exactly the same issue that concerns the Queens Park/North Westminster area.

19. As such, your Petitioner submits that the route in the Queens Park/North Westminster area should also be aligned to the north to run under the WCML.

LIMITS OF DEVIATION

20. Your Petitioner is concerned that paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 1 of the Bill provides that in constructing or maintaining any of the scheduled works the undertaker can deviate vertically upwards not exceeding three metres, vertically downwards to any extent and laterally to any extent within the limits of deviation shown on the deposited plans.

21. Your Petitioner is concerned that these deviations could potentially make significant differences to the impacts of the construction and operation of the high speed railway, for example by raising the tunnel height to the detriment of the residents above the tunnel, leading to increased risk of settlement and vibrations. These potential impacts are not adequately addressed in the environmental statement, which provides that the undertaker only has to use reasonable endeavours to adopt measures to reduce adverse environmental effects provided it does not add unreasonable cost or delay to the construction and operation. 22. Your Petitioner requests that the provisions to allow deviation should be deleted.,

SUBSIDENCE/GROUND SETTLEMENT

23. Subsidence/ground settlement information and analysis of the effect on properties above the tunnelling is all but absent from the Environmental Statement (other than part 10 of Volume Five: Technical Appendices). The Petitioner submits this be provided in order to fully assess the risk of settlement.

24. In particular, the Petitioner submits that information and analysis should be undertaken noting that many houses in the Queens Park Estate, a conservation area, are built on 12" foundations into clay soil and marshland. Subsidence is measurable. No analysis is provided on what impact this may have in terms of subsidence.

25. Subsidence/ground settlement information should include an historical review of tunnelling for at least HS1 and the jubilee line and should include information on subsidence that occurred both during construction and in the years since the tunnelling was undertaken (ie in terms of long terms effect of tunnelling). That review should be based on a proper sample of houses (preferably all) above those lines.

26. The Petitioner notes that a draft report was circulated at the Community Forums some time ago but has never been formalised and is absent from the Environmental Statement materials.

27. The Petitioner notes that no information is provided on the effect of tunnelling on the deep foundations of the new high rise residential apartment blocks built or being built as part of the South Kilburn redevelopment project directly along the course of the proposed route when travelling from east to west, up to the proposed site of the vent shaft and auto-transformer station at Salusbury Road. The Petitioner submits this particular issue should be considered in more detail.

28. The Petitioner further submits that consideration should be given to further deepening the tunnels to ensure it is not close to the deep foundations of these high rise buildings.

VENTILATION SHAFT AND AUTO-TRANSFORMER STATION

29. As the route of through the Queens Park/North Westminster area is in a tunnel, there will be np visual impacts apart from the proposed ventilation shaft and auto-transformer station at the junction of Salusbury Road and Kilburn Lane.

30. The Petitioner is extremely concerned about the impact of this ventilation shaft and auto-transformer station including the visual intrusion (as shown in Figure Nos. LV- 01-019 and LV-01-020 in Volume 2, CFA4 of the Environmental Statement ("ES") and the impacts during construction and any associated impacts on the surrounding residential area. The Petitioner agrees wifh the assessment of the visual impact in the ES (paragraphs 9.5.16to 9.5.29 of Volume 2, CFA4) which concludes that the proposed scheme will result in a major alteration to the view and that the magnitude of change is considered to be high leading to a major adverse effect in years 1, 15 and 60 of operation as no mitigation is proposed. In addition to the visual impact, the Petitioner is concerned about the impacts on emission levels, local transport and parking facilities. 31. The construction and operation of the Salusbury Road vent shaft will cause major disruption to residents, businesses and visitors to the Queens Park/North Westminster area in terms of noise, access and other construction issues.

32. An alternative site for the ventilation shaft and auto-transformer station has been proposed by the ("Brent") at the Canterbury Works site.

33. HS2 contend that the vent shaft and sub-station should remain at the Salusbury Road location largely because of the duration of the build. The Petitioner contends that this is insufficient reasoning when considering the objections of residents, Westminster City Council ("WCC") and the London Borough of Brent ("Brent"). In the scheme of over six years of construction in the area, the Petitioner contends slightly extended construction time is immaterial to this decision and information needs to be provided as to the comparative construction times for each option available so a proper comparison can be undertaken.

34. The Petitioner does not consider that the ES adequately deals with the possible alternative locations for the Salusbury Road ventilation shaft (paragraphs 2.7.3 to 2.7.7 of Volume 2, CFA4). Whilst the ES states that the preferred option has been selected because the shaft will have a shorter construction time than the other options considered, and hence the environmental impacts will be less, although no consideration has been given to the visual impact of the alternative location at Canterbury Works.

35. HS2 has conceded at the community forum meetings that the alternative site at Canterbury Works would work from a technical perspective but cited concerns for local residents to that alternative site and the nearby location of a school.

36. This confirmation of technical feasibility by HS2 is absent from the Environmental Statement.

37. No concern has been cited for local residents to the proposed Salusbury Road site noting the current building of an apartment block directly across the road from the proposed auto-transformer station and those houses to the rear of the proposed vent shaft.

38. When looking at effects on local residents, HS2 has failed to note that existing construction of a number of large high rise apartment blocks in the immediate vicinity of the vent shaft and auto-transformer station significantly increases the number of households and people affected by the proposed location. By the time construction of HS2 commences, the construction of these high rise apartments will be long since complete.

39. There is a suggestion in the report (Vol 2: para 9.3.14 of the ES) that these new residential developments largely replace buildings of a similar nature. Whilst this may be true of the Carlton Vale end of the South Kilburn redevelopment, this is not true of the Salusbury Road end where all the construction is new and replaces low rise buildings - dramatically increasing the number of households in close proximity to the proposed vent and auto-transformer station.

40. There is nothing to screen the vent shaft and auto-transformer station from the large number of residents who, by the time of HS2 construction, will live directly across the road from the vent shaft/ auto-transformer station site, nor from the thousands that pass by each day on their way to and from Queens Park Station - not even any form of vegetation.

41. Brent Council has asked for the vent shaft to be moved, HS2 have admitted the alternative proposal is feasible and yet HS2 continue with the Salusbury Road site - a site that affects the entire community. WCC has also requested that the site be relocated.

42. The Petitioner considers that information in the ES about the placement of the vent shaft/auto-transformer station and what it is replacing is misleading.

43. Little to no information is provided in the ES explaining that Brent has received planning permission for a key and central development to the neighbourhood at the proposed site ofthe vent and auto-transformer station (see planning application Case No. 12/0788 re site address Cullen House, Salusbury Road - referred to as CFS4/10 in Volume 5 re "Committed Developments").

44. As such, the suggestion that the vent shaft and auto-transformer station only replace a car park and a public toilet is misleading.

45. The opportunity cost to our community is enormous. This is assessed in the ES as only "medium sensitivity" and does not take into account the significant potential to the community that this particular site holds (both from a community perspective and financial perspective to Brent and local business) - noting especially its completely central location, forming part of the main thoroughfare to Queens Park tube from areas south ofthe tube station.

46. The potential development for Brent is a source of badly needed revenue for the council noting an ever-decreasing amount of resources for Brent Payment to Brent for the site by HS2 will not compensate for the true financial value for the site, nor more importantly for the significance to the on-going development ofthe community.

47. The Petitioner submits that a full analysis of all available site options must be provided and detailed reasons for the evaluation of each as an alternative must be provided.

48. The Petitioner further submits that an analysis must also be made of the socio­ economic impact on residents and businesses caused by the loss of Brent's redevelopment of the site as a result of the construction of the proposed vent shaft and sub-station on the same site. Such analysis must include the impact on the loss of additional social housing and impact on surrounding businesses and residential property values. Such analysis must also consider and compare the effect on such impacts of the placement of the vent and auto-transformer station on the alternative Canterbury Works site proposed by Brent and WCC.

49. The Petitioner submits thatthe site for the ventilation shaft and auto-transformer station should be moved to the Canterbury Works site proposed by Brent which will have fewer and less severe community impacts.

MITIGATING THE VISUAL EFFECT OF VENT SHAFT + AUTO-TRANSFORMER STATION 50. The ventilation shaft and auto-transformer station are substantial in size and will be visible from numerous viewpoints in the locality. They are extremely close to residential properties and in relation to many properties, taller in height creating views directly from many parts of the local area. They will be overbearing and dominant in the landscape.

51. Your petitioner is very concerned about the harm to visual and residential amenity.

52. The auto-transformer station has dramatically increased in size (approximately 50% larger) since the draft Environmental Statement and is a large and enormous eyesore in the heart of a community - which is acknowledged at paragraph 9.5:16 of Volume 2 of the ES as being "incompatible in an urban environment".

53. The ES states (see Vol 2: para 9.5.46) that "no other mitigation measures are considered practicable" in relation to the significant negative visual impact of the vent shaft and substation.

54. However, the Petitioner submits that the auto-transformer station should be constructed, as much as possible, underground to mitigate the effect on the local surroundings. Members of HS2 commented that this would be a possible form of mitigation at various information days when in fact, no mitigation has been offered at all.

55. In addition, WCC discussed the Cross Rail example in detail at the community forums explaining how vent shafts can be incorporated within developments and substations built underground.

56. No mitigation has been offered in terms of the vent structure itself - in terms of its proposed harsh and characteriess nature. No consideration has been made as to its inclusion as part of some other building project to ensure it blends into the surrounding area.

57. This mitigation proposal was raised by WCC at the community forums who cited other examples of vents forming part of other constructions rather than being fenced off and isolated like the one in question.

58. No consideration has been given to it forming part of Brent's plans for development of this area. In fact, no mitigation is offered at all. Not even tree planting (as is conceded in the report itself).

59. It is unclear why these mitigation measures have been ignored. The Petitioner submits that all of the above forms of mitigation should be applied.

60. The Petitioner also notes the absence of any references in the ES to the construction of vents and any problems and solutions that may have arisen. The Petitioner submits that such consideration is essential.

61. The proposal for the ventilation shaft and auto-transformer station needs to be considered carefully in consultation with WCC and Brent and in particular, the Petitioner submits that WCC and Brent should be entitled to prescribe requirements for the design and appearance of structures and their relationship to their location, and the extent to which noise and vibrations from the ventilation shaft should be reduced to an acceptable level. ELECTRO-MAGNETIC INTERFERENCE

62. Your Petitioner is extremely concerned by the prospect of electromagnetic fields adversely affecting human health and electrical equipment, both during the construction and during on-going operation of HS2, in particular in relation to the operation of the auto-transformer station.

63. No information is provided in relation to the electromagnetic radiation ("EMR") the auto- transfbrmer station will emit noting this is a high foot traffic area as those from Maida Hill, South Kilburn and the Queens Park Estate all walk to the Queens Park tube station via this site (or "important transport node" as referred to in 9.3.4 of the Volume 2 report).

64. The ES only considers potential discharge or leaks as a source of contamination and perversely, the effect of EMR on the scheme itself (rather than vice versa).

65. Your Petitioner requests that the promoter or Nominated Undertaker produce a statement of the method which will be used to monitor electromagnetic fields before, during and after construction, and that such statement will be adhered to.

66. The Petitioner submits that EMR from the auto-transformer station must be considered in detail to consider: Effects on human health Effects on animal health and habit (e.g. changes in nesting, bat foraging, movement)

Potential impact on existing and future technologies

TERMINUS AT OLD OAK COMMON 67. In the alternative to the mitigation proposals outlined above, your Petitioner submits that the terminus of HS2 should be Old Oak Common, and not Euston station. In doing so, all of the issues of concern raised above in this Petition would be mitigated in full.

68. No analysis has been provided as to why HS2 should not terminate at Old Oak Common (instead of Euston).

69. Evidence suggests that connection times from Old Oak Common to almost all London underground stations is faster than from Euston. HS2 assert this is not the case but has not provided any evidence to contradict it. The Petitioner submits that such evidence should be provided.

70. The Old Oak Common terminus proposal has been discounted by HS2 without any information being provided as to why - noting the enormous reduction in costs if the line does not continue as far as Euston.

71. This was raised as a mitigation option at the community forums and is not even mentioned in the ES.

72. Terminating at Old Oak Common would mitigate all problems in the area between Old Oak Common to Euston.

73. The Petitioner submits that a full analysis, including a full analysis of interconnectivity with existing public transport systems and cross rail should be undertaken to more fully consider Old Oak Common as the terminus for HS2. EFFECT ON OVERGROUND RAIL SERVICES

74. Rail services on the West Coast Main Line will be severely affected for the eight years taken to rebuild Euston station, and by local impacts. The plan to reduce the number of working platforms will cause very serious delays, and a lack of resilience to other difficulties. The proposal does not seem to be practicable as it stands.

75. No information is provided on the effect on the Queens Park tube station and surrounding communities of terminating the current London over ground Watford to Euston line at the Queens Park station during the period of construction at Euston. This will have an enormous and detrimental effect on the community and yet an assessment of this is completely absent.

76. Should the Watford to Euston line be suspended at Queens Park, the extra influx of passengers at this station seeking to travel onwards on the busy Bakerioo line will likely need to travel by bus, as the tube will be unable to cope.

77. The Petitioner submits that an analysis must be undertaken to ensure that existing infrastructure in Queens Park can cope with a significant increase in the number of passengers alighting here and transferring to other public transport services should the Watford to Euston line terminate at Queens Park tube station. Further, the Petitioner submits that such analysis must consider the impact to those other public transport services eg Bakerioo line and local bus routes and the costs of any necessary upgrades to such infrastructure to deal with such increases.

NOISE

78. Your Petitioner is concerned about the effects of noise arising frpm the construction of the high speed railway and associated development including heavy lorry traffic.

79. Your Petitioner is also concerned that the operation of the high speed railway may give rise to noise arising from the ventilation shaft. Noise both during construction and potentially, once HS2 is operational, would severely impact upon the use and enjoyment ofthe properties of local residents as well as on the neighbourhood's amenity.

80. 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 no noise can be felt in the properties of local residents and there are no other adverse effects.

81. Your Petitioner requests that there should be binding mitigation measures including an effective noise mitigation and monitoring system in place before commencement and during construction and operation of the high speed railway and associated development.

82. 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 an independent body to monitor and publically report on all aspects of environmental protection needed for 60 years. Binding mitigation measures should include but not be limited to full noise barriers and noise insulation for buildings and re-housing. The trigger levels at which point noiSe mitigation becomes necessary should be reduced.

83. Your Petitipner 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 forthe nominated undertaker.

84. Your Petitioner requests that Clause 35 and schedule 25 are deleted from the Bill.

85. Your Petitioner is also concerned that noise thresholds used in the Environmental Statement are inappropriate and have not been justified by reference to relevant British standards or Worid Health Organisation guidelines. In particular levels adopted in the Environmental Statement in respect of ground borne noise do not represent thresholds derived by reference to adverse effects that can be observed; rather they are levels that relate to likelihood of complaint. It follows that the appraisal in the Environmental Statement of ground borne vibration is entirely flawed. Your Petitioner submits that the noise thresholds adopted by HS2 in respect of ground borne noise does not reflect recent practice or experience. Your Petitioner is also concerned that the prediction methodology detailed in the Environmental Statement is not sufficienfly robust

VIBRATIONS

86. Your Petitioner requests that arrangements should be put in place to ensure the properties of local residents above the tunnels are not impacted by vibration and in the event vibration is experienced in local properties, your Petitioner submits that HS2 Ltd should be subject to binding mitigation requirements, including a requirement to reduce the speed of the trains travelling on its tracks to such extent that vibration would no longer be noticeable or to acquire affected properties at a fair market value.

87. 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 no vibration can be felt in the properties of local residents and there are no other adverse effects including using track bed, ballast and track technology utilised in other countries and on parts of Crossrail to minimise risk of ground borne noise.

VISUAL AMENITY - GENERAL

88. Your Petitioner is concerned about adverse impacts on the visual amenity of the properties of local residents and the neighbourhood during construcfion and operation of the high speed railway and associated development in particular from the construction of vents, aufo-transformer station and other buildings related to the construction of a tunnel. Your petitioner is concerned that these construction activities will be extremely disruptive to the local community and permanently disrupt visual amenity.

89. Your Petitioner notes that HS2 Ltd have promised to create a national panel to oversee the design of structures required to build the high speed railway yet no such body has yet been set up.

10 90. Your Petitioner requests that there should be binding mitigation measures to reduce the adverse impacts on visual amenity and the nominated undertaker should provide plans which demonstrate how new buildings will blend in with the surroundings and are well maintained. Your Petitioner further requests that a national panel, comprised of persons independent of the nominated undertaker, be appointed Without delay to oversee the design of structures required to build the high speed railway.

COMPENSATION FORPROPERTIES ABOVE THE TUNNELS

91. Your Petitioner represents a group of people directly and specifically affected by HS2, including during the construction period, and for which there is no compensafion available under the revised, compensation package for HS2.

92. Local residents' rights, interests and property are injuriously affected by the Bill, to which your Petitioner objects for reasons set out in this Petition.

93. Your Petitioner objects to Clause 18 bf the Bill, because no compensation has been made available for those above the tunnels who are Injuriously affected by the exercise of powers conferred by the Bill including, in relation to construction works. For the; duration of the construction of the line, and thereafter, both residential and commercial properties above the tunnels and/or close to construction works and construction compounds, are equally as blighted as those along the line of route, and yet there is presently no compensation available.

94. Your Petitioner submits that the complete lack of compensation provisions in relation tb properties above the tunnels or surrounding the ventilation shaft and auto-trahsformer station does not adequately compensate forthe loss and damage they may incur as a result of construction and operation of the high speed railway and associated developments (including ventilation shaft and auto-transformer station).

95. Your Petitioner requests that the Bill shbuld be amended to ensure persons above the tunnels and/or surrounding the ventilation shaft and auto-transformer station who are injuriously affected and adversely affected by loss of value should be entitled: to claim compensation:

96. Your Petitioner requests that the voluntary purchase announced on 9 April 2014 should be extended tb all properties butside of the safeguarded area and should not be limited to rural areas.

97. Your Petitioner requests that the home owner cash payments should be extended to all areas within; the: vicinity of the proposed high speed railway line, including those above the tunnels and/or surrounding the ventilation shafi: and auto-transformer station and the payment should be calculated so that all diminufioh in value is compensated.

98. Your Petitioner submits that the Bill Should be amended to ensure that your Petitioner is entitled to claini compensation where their Property is not compulsorily acquired for, among other matters, structural damage to the property, settlement impacts from noise and dust, and for injurious affection caused by the construction and operation of the high speed, railway and associated development. Your Petitioner requests a provision to enablesuch 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.

11 99. Your Petitioner requires an indemnity from the nominated undertaker that the proposed works will not be of long term or irreversible detriment to the land and interests of the residents your Petitioner represents. Such indemnity would also remedy any damage, claims, demands, proceedings, costs, damages, expenses and disruption arising from the construction and operation of the high speed railway and associated development

EFFECTS OF CONSTRUCTION

100. The time predicted for the construction of the proposed Salusbury Road vent shaft and auto-transformer construction site is a little over six years. Your Petitioner considers that the effects on local residents' living conditions for this length of time are unacceptable

101. The extreme effect of HS2 construction will have on all communifies caused by the disruption brought about by the road closures and diversions will have a dire effect on the efficiency of the emergency services due to this mammoth construction project.

102. The Petitioner requests that HS2 be required to ensure that the Nominated Undertaker conduct regular discussion with WCC and Brent, emergency service and public transport providers concerning planned closures and alterations to route as well as delays caused by the movement of construction related traffic.

AIR QUALITY AND DUST

103. Your Petitioner is concerned about the wider impact of construction related activities on the public realm, for example the impact that dust gen^erated from worksites would have on properties in the vicinity. Property maintenance would need to be carried out on a more regular basis. Your Petitioner submits that the cost of this should be borne by the promoter. This is particularly important for the buildings in conservation areas.

104. Your Petitioner submits that ail worksites should be screened to reduce the visual impact of the sites upon the local community, as well as to help reduce the impact of noise and dust from the worksites. Your Petitioner requests that WCC and Brent should be consulted upon the design and structure ofthe planned screens for each worksite so as to ensure, as far as possible, that the screens are effective and do not impact upon the local amenity.

105. Effective mifigation measures against noise, dust dirt and light pollution should be provided for residential premises located in the vicinity.

WASTE

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

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

12 108. Your petitioner requests that HS2 Ltd be required tb comply with the requirements of the Waste Frameworl< Directive and review its decisions on treatment of waste to ensure compliance with the waste hierarchy as detailed in that Directive. Such review should include publishing details of the "integrated design approach" to waste management and subject to consultation to enable effective public participation pn this issue.

109. The Petitioner submits that lessons must be learned from the Cross Rail experience in terms bf the removal of waste and the impact on roads and traffic, where large amounts of heavy waste are to be transported through London.

110. The Petitioner submits that input from Westminster City Council and the experiences of Cross Rail are essential.

111. The Petitioner further submits that consideration must also be given in advance to the use of the canal system as opposed to the already Congested road system.

112. The proposed vent site is the transport hub of the area. Removal of the waste Created by excavating the vent shaft and the duration for which this area will be affected will result in traffic chaps in the area for many years.

CODE OF CONSTRUCTION PRACTICE

113. Your Petitioner is concerned that the nominated undertaker's ongoing accountability to is unspecified. The Code of Constructibn Practice does not identify how any iead 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 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.

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

115: The standards Set out in the environmental statement and the Code of Construction Practice is of "reasonableness" and "reasonable endeavours". Your Petitioner submits that this should be replaced by a higher standard, i.e. "best practical means" and the measures Should be agreed with the relevant local authority and Community Forum Area. Measures should be subject tb independent assessment verifiable and challengeable. This applies to noise as well as other effects that are to be addressed in the Code of Construction Practice.

116. Your petitioner submits that a specific construction management plan should be produced to manage and ep-ordinate the operation of construction camps which shpuld cleariy outline the phases of activity and a co-ordinated management of their interaction, and a framework for enforceable measures. A construcfion management plan should be available to each Community Forum Area showing the timetables and community impact as well as mitigation measures.

13 117. Your Petitioner submits that clear and easy to follow enforcement mechanisms for local communities and local authorities should be included in the Bill. This would provide a commitment to recfify or compensate for environmental impacts.

PROVISION OF INFORMATION AND CONSULTATION

118. The Pefitioner has serious concerns over the provision of informafion supplied by the promoter of the Bill, both prior to the deposit of the Bill and up to the date of the deposit of this petition. This has meant that thorough and detailed assessments of the proposed project its impacts and benefits have been impossible to compile. Your Petitioner is concerned that requests fpr further informafion and responses to specific requests remain outstanding. In particular, your Petitioner is sfill to be satisfied about the adequacy of the Environmental Statement Baseline assumpfions made over a number of generic issues have sfili to be substanfiated. Ancillary documentafion such as the proposed Code of Construction Practice remains in a draft form which is neither acceptable in principle, nor in its presumpfions, proposalsand extent of detail.

ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT: ADEQUACY AND ACCURACY

119. In accordance with the standing orders of your Honourable House, comments on the Environmental Statement deposited with the Bill were invited in the newspaper notices that were published in accordance with the standing orders of your honourable House when the Bill was deposited. Your Petifioner accordingly sent very detailed cbmments to the promoter of the Bill in response, and these have been the subject of a report by the independent assessor appointed by your honourable House. That report contains little to no informafion on the issues raised by the Petifioner in response to the ES. Your Petifioner raised a great deal of concerns about the adequacy and accuracy of the Environmental Statement

EFFECT ON COMMUNITY (AND FACTUAL ERRORS IN ES)

120. Information in Vol 2 para 11.3.11 of the ES is factually inaccurate as it states that Cullen House includes approximately 10 dwellings. Brent's planning application for the same site (Case No. 12/0788) provides that Cullen House includes 31 fiats, 29 of which are social rent - consisfing of 21 studio fiats, seven 1 bedroom flats and one 2 bedroom flat The proposed new development includes 137 new flats, with 39 affordable flats - at a time when housing availability is in crisis (both private and affordable).

121. Construction noise and vibration is expected to affect a swathe of residential areas. This is due to both site operations and construction traffic.

122. Traffic and Transport during the constructibn phase of HS2 will be seriously affected throughout the route. Given a 5-7 year construction phase (albeit in two stages in our local area), these effects cannot be dismissed as 'temporary'.

123. The Petitioner considers that traffic congestion during the construction phase will be much worse than at present but the traffic assessment is inadequate to make any predictions regarding how much worse it will be, or what might be done to mitigate the adverse effects.

14 124. A number of roads and junctions are at capacity already during the rush hours. This situation does not appear to be recognised in the ES, which seems more concerned with the ability of the local roads to absorb the HS2 construction traffic rather than the effect of the construction works on the local traffic flows.

125. The ability of the local network to cater for increasing traffic levels when subject to a number of simultaneous road restrictions is something of great concern.

126. No consideration has been given to the potential combined impact on traffic, air pbllution, sound, noise and the community of the construction of the new Moberiy Sports centre at the other end of Kilburn lane, HS2 and any remaining stages of the South Kilburn redevelopment (to the extent such other developments are not complete at the time construction commences for HS2).

127. This will be further exacerbated in the event the terminates at Queens Park instead of Euston during the re-construction of Euston Station.

128. Loss of parking is also noted (Vol 2: para 12.4.51) in an area already lacking in parking facilities. No mitigation is offered. Construction at the alternative proposed Canterbury Works site would ensure such loss is mitigated. As would termination at Old Oak Common.

129. The deterioration of air quality due to increased and diverted traffic will be significant and contribute to the nuisance experienced by residents and loss of property value. The Petitioner submits there should be continual monitoring of the situation, and a scheme to compensate businesses and property owners for nuisance and blight.

130. HS2 will have a dramatic impact on the amenity of the area, both construction and as a result of the long last effect of the visual scar that is the vent shaft: and sub-station.

131. Information is generally insufficient throughout the ES eg explains that water mains/gas mains modifications will be required but doesn't explain how which prevents an analysis of any potential impact/

132. The Socio-economics Section in the ES considers in some detail the effect upon businesses directiy affected by the construction of the proposed route, but it does not consider at all the indirect effect on businesses and employment particulariy during, the construction phase, of the road constraints and diversions. Many people commute via roads, cycleways and footpaths that will be affected by the proposed route of HS2. They will have little choice but to continue, whatever diversions and delays they may face.

133. However, to a significant extent retail businesses depend on customers and trade travelling from other areas. If the effect of the construction works is to dissuade these customers from travelling to patronise these businesses, local economies will suffer, which could cause disincentives to invest in many areas. HS2 Ltd must fully recompense for any losses incurred by businesses and owners of residential property due to the construction and operation of the scheme.

134. It is clear that HS2 Ltd have significantly downplayed the possible job losses in the summary document The true cumulative effects of traffic congestion, rat running to avoid congestion, increase waiting times and increased pollution have not reasonably

15 been assessed. This is consistent with the down-playing of the negative effects of HS2 which belies the real impact that will be felt by business communities. Despite these concerns, HS2 Lfd has suggested that there are no ongoing efl'ects in many areas, which is blatantly absurd. Equally absurd is the idea suggested by HS2 Ltd that operational employment will be generated in areas which have no depots, stations or access to the rail line.

135. Measures must be taken to restore full signal strength and quality of radio frequency transmissions affected by the scheme.

ENVIRONMENT - UNDERGROUND WATER COURSES

136. The Petitioner notes that majority of the route has not been surveyed, meaning the "precautionary" results are in fact complete guesswork, where much, of the concrete data which has been supplied by Environmental Record Centres has been ignored.

137. London underground streams such as the Bourne run along Harrow Road and across the Queens Park Estate, and have caused serious flooding to properties.

138. No information has been provided as to the existence of historical watercourses over which the Queens Park Estate was constructed and about which many in the neighbourhood are aware.

139. The Petitioner considers that inadequate consideration has been given to the effect of such water courses on tunnelling and the placement of the vent shaft / auto-transformer station and the potential effect on subsidence.

140. The Petitioner submits that these watenways should be mapped and cleariy scoped out and evidence of these investigations and findings should be provided.

CLIMATE

141. High-speed rail is ideally proposed to reduce UK transport carbon. The ES must give better details on the methodology that will be used to assess the climate change impacts of this proposal, and how the impacts will be assessed.

142. The Petitioner submits that the ES should fully evaluate the use of electricity for the speeds planned. At these excessive speeds, they are set to use four times as much electricity as for usual high speed rail. The report must show that it's doing the best research and analyses to gain the best in class, not just minimal standards.

143. Consultees need to see that this compare-and-contrast is implemented, to know that the issue of carbon footprint is being taken seriously.

144. The Petitioner submits that specifically in relation to Queens Park/North Westminster, a study should be done comparing Old Oak Common as the terminus and its reduction on carbon emissions, in contrast to a Euston terminus.. As Old Oak Common is far better served by Crossrail and tube lines, the Petitioner submits that passengers going onto Euston will use more buses, thereby increasing carbon emissions. The Petitioner seeks to emphasize the importance of comparisons with Crossrail in studying the effects of increased carbon emissions.

16 145. Scenarios should include future trends in road and air travel, together with improvements in technology leading to reductions in Co2 emissions.

146. The Petitioner submits that a failure to reduce emissions beyond the government's own targets at the various assessment stages should be considered as a significant negative impact

In light of the above, the 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.

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

There are other clauses and provisions in the Bill which, if passed into law as they now stand will prejudicially affect the residents your Petitioner represents 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 PRAYS your Honourable House that the Bill may not be allowed to pass into law as it now stands and that they may be heard by themselves and witnesses in support of the allegations of this Petition against 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

Julius Hogben on behalf of the North Westminster Action Group Against HS2 SIGNED

17 IN PARLIAMENT HOUSE OF COMMONS SESSION 2013-2014

HIGH SPEED RAIL (LONDON TO WEST MIDLANDS BILL)

PETITION OF NORTH WESTMINSTER ACTION GROUP AGAINST HS2

AGAINST,

Julius Hogben on behalf of North Westminster Against HS2 Action Group