Minutes of Oral Evidence

PUBLIC SESSION MINUTES OF ORAL EVIDENCE taken before HIGH SPEED RAIL COMMITTEE On the HIGH SPEED RAIL (LONDON – WEST MIDLANDS) BILL Tuesday 24 November 2015 (Afternoon) In Committee Room 5 PRESENT: Mr David Crausby (Chair) Mr Henry Bellingham Sir Peter Bottomley Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Mr Mark Hendrick _____________ IN ATTENDANCE Mr Timothy Mould QC, Lead Counsel, Department for Transport Mr Edward Briggs, Partner, Bidwells Mr Simon Ricketts, King & Wood Mallesons WITN ESSES Mr Thomas Jenkinson, the Chiltern Brewery Mr George Jenkinson, the Chiltern Brewery Mr Robert Brown Mr Trevor Lane Ms Monica Bonham Mrs D Williams Mr Richard Stewart-Liberty _____________ IN PUBLIC SESSION INDEX Subject Page The Chiltern Brewery (Cont’d) Response from Mr Mould 4 Closing submissions by Mr Thomas Jenkinson 10 Richard and Oliver Stewart-Liberty and Tatiana Wilde, and others Introduction from Mr Mould 15 Submissions by Mr Briggs 19 Evidence of Mr Brown 21 Response from Mr Mould 28 Further submissions by Mr Briggs 35 Response from Mr Mould 39 Paul Pusey, John Cragg, Roger Pusey and Edward Briggs Introduction from Mr Mould 40 Submissions by Mr Briggs 41 Response from Mr Mould 43 Closing submissions by Mr Briggs 45 Trevor Lane of Lane’s Landscape Contractors Introduction from Mr Mould 47 Evidence of Mr Lane 48 Submissions by Mr Briggs 49 Response from Mr Mould 51 Marsh Hill Farm Ltd Statement by M r Mo uld 52 Monica Bonham and Bridget Gill Introduction from Mr Mould 53 Submissions by Mr Briggs 54 Response from Mr Mould 56 Great and Little Kimble cum Marsh Parish Council Introduction from Mr Mould 57 Submissions by Mr Briggs 57 Response from Mr Mould 59 2 Closing submissions by Mr Briggs 61 D Williams Introduction from Mr Mould 63 Submissions by Mr Briggs 64 Response from Mr Mould 67 Closing submissions by Mr Briggs 72 Richard Stewart-Libe rty Submissions by Mr Stewart-Liber ty 74 Response from Mr Mould 77 Frederic von Oppenheim, Baroness Marie-Rose von Oppenheim and Kimberley Ltd Introduction from Mr Mould 79 Submissions by Mr Ricketts 80 3 (At 14.00) 1. CHAIR: Order, order. Mr Mould? The Chilte rn B re wery (Co nt’d) 2. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Thank you. I’ll just respond to each of the requests that have been put forward to you by these petitioners. First of all, tunnel, very quickly; each of the tunnel schemes that has been argued to you by petitioners over recent months, has had, as it’s point at which the railway emerges into the open air, a location of a northern portal just to the north of Wendover. It follows that any of those tunnel schemes would result in no improvement for these petitioners, because they lie on a site which is to the north of Wendover. But in addition to that point, any of the tunnel schemes that you have heard would involve a prolonged and sizeable worksite in the vicinity of their brewery in order to serve the construction of an extended Chiltern tunnel. So, it’s a case, I’m afraid of be careful what you wish for, in so far as that issue is concerned. 3. Turning to the question of a relief road, I understand that this is a brewery which thrives on passing trade, and one of the points that was made during the course of the presentation was that it is advantaged by being well connected on the local and regional road network for its customers. A relief road would not seem to be consistent with those locational advantages. 4. But in any event, I mentioned to you, in opening, this petition, that the traffic that will be added into the existing flow on Nash Lee Road, past this property, as a result of HS2, is minimal in any relative sense. In an e xis ting flow of 7,000 vehicles a day, each way, HS2 will be adding 240 vehicles each way, which, by my calculation, is a something of the order of 3.5%, which, in ordinary traffic management assessment speak, is something that would be regarded as immaterial, or something that is lost in the rounding, or the variation in daily flows. 5. So, that is the context in which the concerns raised by the petitioners needs to be understood. There is no basis, in our submission, in the light of those facts, for contemplating the introduction of a relief road, as proposed by these petitioners, in this railway Bill. 4 6. The next point, if I can turn please to – 7. MR HENDRICK : Mr Mould, are you making a point that the HGV drivers who may be working on the construction, are actually potential customers for the – 8. MR MOULD QC (DfT): No, I wasn’t making that point, although I see no reason in principle why, at least some of them, shouldn’t be – 9. CHAIR: Passing trade. 10. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Could be, indeed, sir. 11. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: They want to take it home and drink it there, rather than drive with it? 12. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Absolutely. Yes. We saw the artist’s impression of the brewery as it presents on the road frontage, I’m sure that that is truly representative of its delights when you see it in the flesh. And it may well be that some of those HGV operatives, whether in heavy vehicles or in cars and vans, may see the brewery and may decide that they would like to go and buy some beer for the weekend, who knows? But my point was really a broader point was that if there is to be a case for road works associated with this railway Bill, surely the basis for any such introduction into this Bill has to be that without those road works, the impact of HS2 construction traffic will be so sizeable as to be unacceptable, and in the flows that I have described to you, which are shown on the evidence which is before you and I’ve described in opening, that case is simply impossible to make. 13. So, if we turn then to A16503, much of the presentation was predicated on the premise that HS2 proposes to close these highways for an appreciable period of time. That premise is false. We do not propose to close these highways for any appreciable period of time, there is no plan to close these highways, in order to construct HS2. And by close, I mean to stop traffic on these roads for more than possibly a short period of less than a day, for example, in order, as the petitioner said, to run the string of the overhead power cable from one side of Nash Lee Road to the other. 14. I mentioned in the course of the presentation, that in order to overcome the point that was fairly made, how do you get traffic from the road head, across Nash Lee Road 5 onto the haul road to the north, there will clearly need to be some traffic control measures introduced in order to achieve that. I suspect that one obvious thing that may happen is the need to introduce te mpo rar y signals at that point. But that is a different thing from a road closure. That is something that is part and parcel of being a user of the highway network in this country, and it applies to those who live on the highway network, and to those who have businesses and work on the highway network. It is part of the ebb and flow that you take, in order to enjoy the benefits of living in a successful plural economy. 15. And for that reason, no compensation is payable, under the general law and we make no proposal to pay compensation in relation to this Bill for any passing inconvenience that may result from temporary traffic lights, things of that kind. 16. In the event that, totally unplanned, and I hope that I am understood on that, if, for some unforeseeable reason, there is a need for some wholly unplanned closure of the roads to which these petitioners refer, and as that closure is of the order of that which they clearly experience, unfortunately for them, when the works are being carried out, I think by the water company, and that d ire ctly affects their enjoyment of their access, so their customers, they, their operatives, their workers, are unable to get, for an appreciable period of time, in and out of their premises, and their business suffers, then they would be entitled to recover compensation, and they would have a claim under the general law, under section 10 of the Compulsory Purchase Act. 17. It’s not possible to quantify what the compensation would be, it would be the diminution in the value of their property and when their property is essentially – its benefit is as a place of business, it would reflect the loss of turnover that they would have – Mr Clifton-Brown is well aware of these points. 18. But I wish to emphasise, because time and again, one finds that people appear not to be aware of the evidence that we present to the Committee. Speaking on evidence that you’ve heard from Mr Miller, from Mr Smart; we do not plan to close these highways. Under this Bill. 19. MR BELLINGHAM: Can I just have further clarification about – you don’t plan to –? 6 20. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Close these highways. 21. MR BELLINGHAM: So that is absolutely categorical guarantee that… 22.

Load more