MINUTES OF ORAL EVIDENCE. taken before HIGH SPEED RAIL COMMITTEE. On the HIGH SPEED RAIL (LONDON WEST MIDLANDS) BILL

Transcription

1 PUBLIC SESSION MINUTES OF ORAL EVIDENCE taken before HIGH SPEED RAIL COMMITTEE On the HIGH SPEED RAIL (LONDON WEST MIDLANDS) BILL Thursday 30 October 2014 (Morning) In Committee Room 5 PRESENT: Mr Robert Syms (In the Chair) Mr Henry Bellingham Sir Peter Bottomley Mr Michael Thornton IN ATTENDANCE Mr James Strachan QC, Counsel, Department for Transport Ms Jacqueline Lean, Counsel, Department for Transport Witnesses: Mr Ian Strachan Ms Elizabeth Strachan Mr Tim Smart, International Director for High Speed Rail, CH2M Hill Mr Colin Smith, Property Consultant IN PUBLIC SESSION

2 INDEX Subject Page Interim announcement on Petitions 783 and Overview from Mr Strachan QC 3 Ian and Elizabeth Strachan Submissions from Mr Ian Strachan, 5 Submissions from Mr Strachan QC 16 Mr Smart, examined by Mr Strachan QC 19 Mr Smart, cross-examined by Mr Ian Strachan 22 Mr Smith, examined by Mr Strachan QC 26 Mr Smith, cross-examined by Mr Ian Strachan 32 Mr Smith, further examined by Mr Strachan QC 35 Ronald and Pauline Hughes Overview from Mr Strachan QC 41 Submissions from Mr Ian Strachan 43 Submissions from Mr Strachan QC 44 2

3 (at 9.30) 1. CHAIR: Good morning, everybody. Welcome to the HS2 Select Committee session. Today we hear from a number of petitioners, beginning with Ian and Elizabeth, represented by Mr Ian Strachan. 2. Before we start, we have an interim announcement by way of confirmation of our view of two petitions. Petitions 783 and 784 were from Mr and Mrs Sadler and their elderly mother, Mrs Doreen Round. They have a farmhouse with two dwellings and a farm very near to the proposed link to the West Coast Mainline, but they do not want to leave the area. We sympathise with their situation and we would encourage them to explore with the local authority whether or not there is a planning option for a new build home that would not involve the demolition of their current dwelling, which seems to us the nub of the issue between them and HS2, and we think they ought to be doing that now, before we consider any further action, if appropriate. 3. Mr Ian Strachan, you re dealing with your petition first, aren t you today, and normally we start off with an overview from the HS2 representative. Are you happy with that? 4. MR IAN STRACHAN: No problem. 5. CHAIR: Okay. Mr James Strachan. 6. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Thank you, sir. It may be difficult on the transcript to pick up who s speaking at what time. But I m very pleased to introduce Mr Strachan as someone who pronounces his name correctly, and could I please ask for P776 just to give you the broad location, in regional terms, of Mr and Mrs Strachan s property, and it may be helpful if I just identify now that Mr and Mrs Hughes, who Mr Strachan is representing as well, are next door neighbours to Mr and Mrs Strachan as I ll point out as we go through. 7. But I ll take the location of both of their properties together, and you can see that they live near Lea Marston, and if we could just look at P777 we ve got a more a close up map of their property which lies off Blackgreaves Lane, and Blackgreaves Lane joins 3

4 the Kingsbury Road to the left on the picture. That s the A4097, and the Committee will be aware that the Kingsbury Railhead is just to the top part of that picture. The proposed Kingsbury Railhead, and if I could just show you, the Committee, P796, that is Mr and Mrs Hughes property, which is next door. 8. If we could go back to the aerial map, P778, just want to just give you a bit more context. You can see Mr and Mrs Strachan s property from above. To the north is the Lea Marston Hotel and Golf Course, which I understand the Committee stopped at on one of the visits, so that gives you context of where we are. And P780, please, that is a photograph of the junction of Blackgreaves Lane with Kingsbury Road. It s a junction Mr and Mrs Strachan are concerned about. It s their junction onto the Kingsbury Road. Where the photograph s taken is showing you the right hand side of the photograph, and if I could then just show P782. Just to give you some further context. 9. The site of the Kingsbury Road Railhead Site is shown coloured green. This is post-construction. If one looks to the bottom right hand side of the picture, the plan, you can see the Kingsbury Road overbridge. That is a bridge which is constructed to carry the Kingsbury Road over both the Leeds spur and the HS2 line, and I hope the Committee can make out that just to the right of where it says sorry, where the arrow is pointing, we may need to just zoom in there, but there s a light grey line if you just go further to the right, thank you the light grey line shows the alignment of the existing Kingsbury Road, running diagonally just to the right, yes. So that s the existing Kingsbury Road, and under the scheme the road is re-aligned onto the Kingsbury Road overbridge and then tied in, to the north, with the existing Kingsbury Road. Under the scheme that Kingsbury Road overbridge is constructed first, and the Kingsbury Road remains open and once it s constructed it s then tied into the existing Kingsbury Road, over a period of perhaps an overnight possession or a weekend possession. So there should not be any material impact on Kingsbury Road carrying the traffic. That s the idea of the scheme. 10. The principal source of concern for Mr and Mrs Strachan, which I m sure he ll explain to you, is about the construction caused the construction traffic and the construction effects of Kingsbury Road Railhead site. The draft environmental statement, just by way of context, the draft environmental statement originally proposed 4

5 a railhead at close to a location at Hams Hall, and there was consultation on the draft environmental statement. The Kingsbury Road Railhead site was subsequently introduced, and communicated to the local communities in September, October and November 2013, and then found its way into the Environmental Statement, which is before the Committee. And, in addition, Mr and Mrs Strachan are concerned about the compensation issues relating to their property. As they ve explained in their petition, they want to move from their property elsewhere. I m sure Mr and Mrs Strachan will explain that in more detail. I hope that gives you a sufficient context at this stage. 11. CHAIR: Okay, thank you. Mr Ian Strachan. Ian and Elizabeth Strachan 12. MR IAN STRACHAN: Thank you. Good morning Mr Chairman, gentlemen of the Committee. As you know, we are Ian and Elizabeth Strachan of The Granary, and to save the Committee time, as we ve discussed, I ll be representing Ryan and Pauline Hughes as well. Conveniently, as you can see from the map that s already on the screen we live within about 330 metres of major elements of HS2. Most of which can be seen on here, but there are, in fact, 20 individual elements of construction that are within 330 metres of us, notwithstanding the line itself. 13. As things stand, we do not qualify for safeguarding, or any automatic rights of compensation. And it s our view that, whilst we re not against HS2 per se, as a project, we just believe that those affected by it should be fairly compensated for their unique and, most importantly, individual circumstances. For example with us where there is a cumulative impact which is not taken into consideration in any of the standard compensation measures. So we re here today to ask you to review the compensation in place for the local community, and for what the area will face over the next 15 years minimum. 14. If I could direct you to A188(9) and A188(10) afterwards. So again this just gives a bit more context as to where we are with relation to all of the works which, to be fair, we have covered. A188(2) to A188(6) should give the Committee some idea of the property itself that we are talking about. So, as you can see, it s a barn conversion in a 5

6 rural community, which we purchased three and a half years ago as an investment in order to live in a rural or semi-rural environment. If we can just move onto the next page please, and again please. And again. Okay, thank you. We want to cover a number of specific areas with regards to our petition, starting with engagement. And within our petition we highlight that HS2 has failed in their duty to engage in a meaningful and timely manner, which, in all the public documents that are published, that is what HS2 states they are intending or have done. They have fundamentally failed to do this in our area, and we would like to point to some areas of the petition response document from HS2 which will help to demonstrate this point. We don t have these as exhibits, I m assuming they are filed. 15. On page 8 of the response document it is quoted that between the 16 May and 11 July is the period of which they were consulted on the draft environmental statement, and the design refinement report. And on page 8 as well, it s quoted that the last community forum event was being held in September P792, exhibit, shows the timeline of engagement for the Kingsbury area, to which Lea Marston falls in. And as you can see, the community forum events were held between April 2012 and September Sorry, September As you can see, the Railhead, which is the biggest impact on our area was first discussed at the forum on 17 September. It failed to specify whether this was 2012 or We know this to be You can also see there s a public drop in event in Kingsbury for Phase 2, which was held on 23 October. Again, we know this to be Whilst this engagement timeline looks thorough, you can also see, from our petition on page 3, that the correspondence we first had from HS2 was on the 30 October 2013, which is a full three months after the end of the consultation period, and after all of the events they detail in their response document. Therefore this timeline in P792 cannot be seen to apply to us, and cannot be used to demonstrate meaningful and timely dialogue. In fact, if anything, it demonstrates the opposite. 17. We d also like to highlight that one of our elderly neighbours, not Mr and Mrs Hughes, but one of our other elderly neighbours, was actually unaware of HS2, specifically for the railhead in our area until we filed our petition in May Now HS2 recognised, themselves, that the Railhead was a late development, and specified it 6

7 on page 8 of the response document. They say that in recognition of this they provided informative events. These information events are what we refer to in our petition on page 5 as the, Hastily arranged community meeting held on the 5 December Whilst this is listed in the timeline on P792 as an engagement, we d like to make the point that we were made aware of this meeting from a neighbour and did not receive the letter from HS2 until after the meeting was held. 18. The specific information event could also not be deemed to be meaningful and timely. I won t go into too much detail, but during the meeting, and in response to serious points and concerns raised by the local community who were, quite understandably, like ourselves in shock at the inclusion of the Railhead at such a late stage, the HS2 representative appeared to laugh and say that she was noting points from the community when, in fact, not points had ever been noted or ever communicated back to us. The meeting only served as a purpose to let us know there was nothing that could be done about the Railhead, and that, in effect, it was a done deal. It was not a meaningful session where we felt listened to. Nor was it a session that could be deemed to be meaningful dialogue. It was very much an afterthought and arranged due to the uproar in the local area once the plans had become known. 19. Moving onto exhibit A188(8) please. I appreciate we ve covered some of these in Mr Strachan s initial introduction, so as you can see this map is dated 21 March So our question is, if HS2 was engaged in meaningful and timely discussion, why they did not raise this in March 2013, why they waited an additional seven months before discussing it with the local community. This delay and failure is wholly improper and, on page 8 of HS2 s response document, HS2 state that they consider, That due process and procedure was followed and I d like it on record that today we cannot see how this is the case. 20. Since admitting our petition we ve received vastly increased correspondence from HS2 and we now feel that we are certainly on the radar. Obviously yourselves visited the area, which we can see as a positive step. 21. MR BELLINGHAM: Mr Strachan, did we meet you when we were? 7

8 22. MR IAN STRACHAN: No, you didn t. No. 23. MR BELLINGHAM: We went to a junction quite nearby. We looked at we stopped at a junction, we went to another junction. We then went to the golf course, I seem to remember. 24. MR IAN STRACHAN: Yes, so we are we weren t at that particular meeting due to work commitments 25. MR BELLINGHAM: Fair enough. 26. MR IAN STRACHAN: But I believe you met Sharon Meanley? 27. MR BELLINGHAM: We did. That s right. 28. MR IAN STRACHAN: Whose house is probably 500 metres from our house. 29. MR BELLINGHAM: Quite understood. 30. MR IAN STRACHAN: In terms of the engagement, obviously which is the point we re talking about, we d like to detail a meeting that we have subsequently had with HS2, with Ms Caitlin Pickavance, an area petition adviser, and her colleague, Alex Cooper, which was held on 1 September We were approached by HS2 as were Ron and Pauline Hughes, and this was the first time we ve had any meaningful, proactive dialogue. Not during the consultation period, but after it had got to the point where we d actually had to petition in order to have our voice heard. Again, unfortunately the subjects, or the content of this meeting cannot be described as meaningful or timely. The main point of the meeting appeared to be to put us off petitioning, and there were some interesting points and comments made by Caitlin which we d like to bring to your attention. To date these points and comments have not been added to the meeting notes, despite two requests to do so. Caitlin told us that petitioning would not change the compensation in place. She told us that there would be no negotiation on the location of the Railhead, using words such as, We won t change, and that will never change. Caitlin told us that consulting earlier could mean that 8

9 things get emotional, which I can say is true. Caitlin did, however, apologise for the lack of engagement and the late notification of the Railhead. She stated that the reason for this was that HS2 had to get the Bill through Parliament formally and that waiting a few months to consult properly would have meant the Bill wasn t at Parliament on time. She went on to say that she would rather it wasn t that way. 31. Caitlin said that she was sorry that it happened. When we clarified that the lack of engagement consultation was due to needing it to rush through Parliament she went on to say that she would have liked us to have a few years notice. She then went on to say that if people keep getting upset, then HS2 would not consult with them beforehand. This meeting further highlighted to us the lack of regard for the specific individuals, and the lack of integrity and open and honest communication. The meeting itself, however, was very open. Unfortunately, the notes do not reflect this. I did ask to tape the meeting and was told I was not allowed to do so. HS2 have also written to us on 16 October 2014, again to try and put us off petitioning and steer us towards the Exceptional Hardship Scheme, which we ll come onto in a moment. It s our feeling that the treatment of local residents and lack of consultation is not recognised by any form of compensation, and we respectfully ask that you find that HS2 have failed in their duty to engage and consult in a meaningful and timely manner, and that you recognise this for local residents in some kind of compensation package. If there are no further questions on engagement, I ll move onto the cumulative impact in the area. 32. In our petition on page 6 we highlight the lack of regard and fair compensation for the cumulative impacts of the 20 or so elements in our area. Now this was noted in our petition and was failed to be responded to in our petition response document, which focussed entirely on the environmental statement. Currently, as I m sure you know and as I m sure has been covered, compensation only focuses compensation and safeguarding only focuses on distance to one element of HS2. It does not consider those living, like ourselves, with the cumulative impact of a greater number of engineering and construction works. We cannot see how this is fair, how one size fits all. And the blight to properties near to more than one element of HS2 is significant is not currently recognised in any scheme, and we respectively ask that you recognise the cumulative impact in any form of compensation package. 9

10 33. MR BELLINGHAM: Can I just ask you, have any properties in your immediate locality been put up for sale, so we can measure the level of blight? 34. MR IAN STRACHAN: Yes. And 35. MR BELLINGHAM: You re going to mention that? 36. MR IAN STRACHAN: We ll come to that shortly, with some examples. 37. MR BELLINGHAM: Excellent, thank you. 38. MR IAN STRACHAN: In terms of human rights, on page 10 of our petition we make reference to the European Convention on Human Rights, which HS2 responded to on page 25 of their response document. They however refer to those who have had their land compulsorily taken, and this is not us and therefore does not relate to the point in our petition. Our petition refers to the right to private and family life and home, and that the cumulative impact is too great an intrusion to this right, and there are currently no compensation points that reflect this. Again, we respectfully ask that you recognise the cumulative impact for local residents. 39. In terms of environmental impact, we found that some elements of the environmental statement were laughable, and we responded to this in our document, but again received no feedback. Nor can we see any amendment as a result. Living by open fields, as you ve seen from the pictures and the maps, will be substantially different to living by the 20 construction elements, and this blight on our local community, which we ll come onto in terms of the effect on house prices, is not currently recognised by any form of compensation. 40. MR BELLINGHAM: I think it would be helpful if we could could we go to a do we have an aerial picture of it again? Just so we can put what you re saying into context with a photograph. Is there a photograph? 41. MR IAN STRACHAN: There s a 10

11 42. MR BELLINGHAM: That s excellent. 43. MR IAN STRACHAN: In fact there s a more close up one if it would help. 44. MR BELLINGHAM: I think it would be helpful to have this on the screen as Mr Strachan talks, because it really does get into the right context. 45. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Just to cover, and I know I ve made reference to the 20 or so elements of HS2. Just to go through them for completeness. We re talking about the Railhead proposed for the Kingsbury Road, the A4097 Kingsbury Road overbridge main compound. The Kingsbury Road overbridge. The Kingsbury Road overbridge satellite compound. The Kingsbury Road main compound for rail systems. The diversion of the Kingsbury Road. The Kingsbury Road Railhead approach tracks. The M42 Marston Box Structure. The Leeds Spur. The Leeds Spur diveunder. The Curdworth Cutting. These are all taken from HS2 documentation. Birmingham and Fazeley Canal Viaduct, central, north and south satellite compounds. The Cuttle Mill Mid Point Auto-transformer Station. The Seeley Lane Overbridge Satellite Compound and Seeley Lane Overbridge, Seeley Lane - which is bridleway to be upgraded. The Coleshill Junction. The Curdworth Viaduct and the Water Orton Viaducts and Satellite Compounds. 46. MR IAN STRACHAN: Moving on to community in isolation. Obviously you ve been to the area, you know that it s a semi-rural collection of hamlets and small community dwellings. On page 18 of the response document, HS2 stated that lots of residential properties would have a significant adverse effect on the local community. And within the environmental statement there are also other areas which HS2 deem to have significant adverse effect. These adverse effects are not recognised in any form of compensation, nor does anything different appear to have been done as a result of these significant adverse effects. On page 19 of the response document, HS2 state that congestion effect was assessed to be minor and not significant, and did not identify any potential significant increases in traffic flow along the routes referred to by ourselves, namely the Kingsbury Road. We fail to see how this can be the case. Clearly you ve not been there during rush hour. 11

12 47. The Kingsbury Road already backs up from the motorway island, which is not currently shown on this map but is approximately another 300 yards further to the left of the bottom left hand corner of the map. All the way already extends past Blackgreaves Lane during periods of rush hour. This is without road works, construction works, construction traffic, construction workers and the increased traffic coming from other areas to avoid construction elements of HS2. We cannot see how that is deemed insignificant, or not significant. 48. Where Kingsbury Road is busy and backed up, people already use Blackgreaves lane as they cut through. Children and pets play in this lane, and the number of people that drive down there currently, which is a single track road, is already too much for that road to handle, and it s our fear that that will become more as and when the construction is taking place. And again, we don t see that as insignificant. Also, when the Kingsbury Road is busy people already use the Hams Hall and Lea Marston to cut through, and again that will only increase. 49. On page 21 of the response document, HS2 respond that during construction traffic is expected to cause additional congestion. The construction is due to last 15 years, and this 15 years of additional congestion is not recognised, and nothing appears to have been done as a part of this finding. As a result of this finding. Just to reiterate, at present no compensation reflects the disruption to daily living and increase to local residents walking or cycling on the road. 50. CHAIR: But presumably you re affected by Phase 2 as well? 51. MR IAN STRACHAN: Yes. We re affected by Phase 1, Phase 2 and all the construction work. These are the main points of our petition. And in our petition, as I ve said, we compensation for this specific location be reviewed in isolation due to the unique nature of this, compared to other areas of the High Speed line. 52. The most specific point we want to make as well today is the definition of the Railhead as, Temporary. I don t see how 15 years can be classed as temporary, but that is in all the documentation how it has been set up. The legal definition, as I m sure you know, is three years. We ask that this is the railhead is amended and deemed to 12

13 be a permanent fixture in line with the legal definition of temporary. 53. So coming on now to your question, Mr Bellingham, in terms of affecting the area. In our petition we asked HS2 to buy our home at 100% of its un-blighted open market value as fair compensation. And if we go to exhibit A188(12) we can see some valuations for our home from the beginning of this year, from a number of estate agents. Next page please. This was so if I just refer you to the suggested asking price, depending on timescales range from 350,000 to 400,000 with offers over 350,000 being considered. Move to the next slide please. Next one please. And again, please. Again, please. This is a demonstration of the market value from Connell s was believed to be, as you can see the date there, 24 January It s worth point out at that point that the Railhead was obviously known to people in the local area, but had not widely disseminated to areas outside of Lea Marston, Kingsbury and the surrounding areas. Certainly this estate agent was not aware of it. Next 54. MR BELLINGHAM: Is there a date? 55. CHAIR: It says its 24 of 56. MR IAN STRACHAN: MR BELLINGHAM: , yes, thank you. 58. MR IAN STRACHAN: Next page, please. This is from another estate agent who had actually sold us the property for 338,000 three years previously. Skip to the next page please. This individual agency had recommended marketing the property at 375,000 in the current climate. Again, this gentleman was not aware of the Kingsbury Railhead when he gave this valuation. Since filing our petition I do apologise, we actually marketed our property with Paul Carr, who was the second estate agent, not covered under this evidence, but our market value or our listing value was 389,000. Midway between the Connell s valuation of 350,000 and 400, SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Sorry, the valuation of the prices they suggested asking? 13

14 60. MR IAN STRACHAN: Yes. Since submitting our petition and having been on the market for over six months, or around about six months, we have actually, as of very recently, exchanged contracts on a sale on our house. Which we have done so at a substantial loss to what we had originally paid for it. Not just a substantial loss compared to the market values that you ve been shown here, but a substantial loss compared to what we physically paid for it. And that value is 315,000. It s worth noting that the original value on our property, by the gentleman who subsequently exchanged contracts with us, was 290,000 on the basis of full knowledge of the blight in the area. 61. MR THORNTON: Could you just remind me when you bought your house, sorry? 62. MR IAN STRACHAN: May MR THORNTON: Thank you. 64. MR IAN STRACHAN: So for us this is a cash loss of 23,000, which we have regrettably accepted in order to move on with our life, and to move away from the home that we bought which we had planned to be in for longer than we are now, and hoped to actually safeguard our investment, not lose money on it. And there are no compensation schemes in place that allow for this adverse and substantial loss, due to the blight of HS2. We therefore ask that you recognise and compensate for this loss in recognition of the impact of HS2 in our area and also the complete lack of consultation and engagement. 65. I d also like to highlight exhibit A188(22), which is an example of a recent sale of a barn. Three bedrooms, freehold, exactly the same type property, situated approximately three to five miles away, and not blighted by HS2. That barn was recently sold for 377,500. As stated at the beginning of this, we re not against HS2 per se. We just believe that those affected and blighted should be adequately compensated, and that should form part of the overall HS2 business case. We ask the Select Committee to review compensation and safeguarding for this area on that basis. 14

15 Everyone affected adversely affected by HS2 should be fairly compensated for their actual losses, which we feel we can demonstrate we have actually suffered. Those are the main points we wished to cover in our petition. I have some specific points for Mr and Mrs Hughes. I propose if 66. CHAIR: Okay. 67. MR IAN STRACHAN: Continue on our petition if you have any questions? 68. CHAIR: Right, well, would your wife would you like to make any comments? Or 69. MRS STRACHAN: I think probably the hardest part for us has been the lack of consultation with HS2. Finding out about it in October when they could have told us about it in March, for us, is not acceptable. It s had a big impact on us over the last year, and we are one of the few that have been lucky enough to actually move on from this, whereas our neighbours are still there and still facing this. 70. MR IAN STRACHAN: And it s worth pointing out that some of our neighbours still do not know the full extent of the works that are going on in our area. We re talking about people that live in the same four barn conversion properties, who have no idea that they could petition, had no idea what petitioning involved, and really had no idea as to what how their life is going to change in the next 15 years. And it s only through us working with them, and trying to educate them, that they have any idea as to what is going to face them over the next few years. 71. CHAIR: Okay. Presumably you want to stay in the area, but not too near the railway? 72. MR IAN STRACHAN: That s correct, yes. 73. CHAIR: Okay. Mr James Strachan. 74. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Just let me ask one thing. What you re showing us 15

16 here is a house that was sold in April at 374,000, and you re saying that there s a graph indicates it may now be valued at 392,000? 75. MRS STRACHAN: No. At the very, very top of that page you can see that the property 4 Old Langley Hall was sold in April for 377,500. There s a picture of it, very small picture on the bottom, that shows that it s very similar to our house. I think the graph just it s presumably showing changes. 76. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: So is it sort of 377,500 figure? 77. MR IAN STRACHAN: The point we re trying to make is just that an equivalent barn, in our area, has sold for that value, which is what we were advertised as our market value. 78. MR THORNTON: The sort of price you would have accepted happily. 79. MR IAN STRACHAN: Very happily, yes. 80. CHAIR: And you have pointed out your loss is that you lost 23,000 on your purchase price, and that isn t assuming the property might have gone up. 81. MR IAN STRACHAN: Yes. I m not taking into account the fact that we would have hopefully looked to increase our the value of our house. That is purely money which has now gone as so therefore we re not able to put that into an onward purchase. 82. CHAIR: Okay. Mr James Strachan. 83. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Thank you. What I ll propose to do, if it s convenient to the Committee is I m going to ask Mr Smart just to deal briefly with construction traffic. Because that was a point raised, a concern. And Mr Smith to deal with compensation, briefly. Could I just respond to the other general issues now, if it s convenient? 16

17 84. CHAIR: Okay. 85. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Which is the question of engagement, and cumulative impacts. On the issue of engagement, could we just have P792 back up please? I think I explained briefly that the original in draft environmental statement the proposal was for a railhead at Hams Hall and, as a result of the consultation in that process, the proposals changed and it wasn t until September 2013 it was changed, and it was then discussed, once that change was being promoted by the prompter, was then raised and discussed in the community form on 17 September, and as you can see there were two specific events to deal with the Railhead proposal, and of course it then featured in the Environmental Statement and, as the Committee will be aware, that statement is a matter upon which people can make representations, and the proposal, in the environmental statement. 86. Of course, it wasn t identified before, or raised as a proposal before, because it wasn t part of the original proposal in the draft ES, and it would have been, at that stage, wrong to put it in for all the consequential problems it creates if people think it is part of the proposal. So as soon as it was known it was part of the proposal, steps were taken to alert the local community to discuss it at those various events, and then to allow people the opportunity to make representations on it. 87. I note that, obviously, I appreciate Mr and Mrs Strachan mean that they got later notice of it than other people, but that s a consequence of the evolution of the scheme. But certainly efforts were made to publicise it as fully as possible once that became a proposal known, and to listen to people. I note, of course, Mr and Mrs Strachan had said they don t regard HS2 as having listened to what petitioners are saying, and there is always a tension with carrying out engagement, listening to people but, on balance, deciding a specific course of action is the, on balance, the one that s preferable with the fact that the petitioners will then feel that their points haven t been listened to. 88. The points have been listened to, and all of the consultation response have been considered, and could I, just by way of illustration of that, in the petition response document that Mr Ian Strachan is referring to earlier, you ll see, on our 16(8) I think is our could I just draw your attention to paragraph 9. There s reference there, In order 17

18 to provide further clarification on this issue, the promoter has shared the appraisal detailing the reasons for choosing the Kingsbury Road as the best overall location for the Railhead with the petitioner. We haven t put that document in the exhibits, but there is a report, and the Committee can have it as necessary, there is a report dealing with the comparative effects of the Hams Hall proposal as originally proposed, an alternative to it, and the Kingsbury Railhead. In that report the various advantages and disadvantages are weighed and assessed. Not just cost, although clearly cost is a factor. But all of the environmental benefits and disbenefits, and it s therefore I appreciate it s an emotional issue for those affected, but it s not right that the HS2 hasn t considered, carefully, the comments made and weighed them up in making a decision to proceed with a certain option. I understand that it s not the option that Mr and Mrs Strachan would prefer, but it is one that s been carefully considered. If necessary we can provide the Committee with that document. It was provided to Mr and Mrs Strachan. It s a lengthy document well, it s a quite lengthy document, with the appraisal set out. But I do want to put on the record that whilst I appreciate the way Mr and Mrs Strachan feel, we don t accept that we haven t listened to points being made, and those points have been taken on board. 89. There were specific comments about a meeting held on 1 September 2014, and points made as to what was or were not included in the minutes. I can say, on the record, that the points that haven t been included in the minutes at Mr Strachan s request is because they don t reflect what the people from HS2 believe they said to Mr and Mrs Strachan at the time. There may be misinterpretation, as there always is. The important point about that is that we have endeavoured, through those meetings, to consider the petition, and to identify their concerns expressed in the petition and to see whether those concerns can be resolved. Which I understand is the ideal process. 90. For example, in the relation to compensation which was raised, and is raised by Mr and Mrs Strachan, we identified that there is both an exceptional hardship scheme and a proposed need-to-sell scheme, which the Committee s heard about, where if it were the case that they are getting less than reasonable value for their property, and they meet the other criteria, there is the ability to make an application, under that scheme, for HS2 to purchase the property at un-blighted value. Mr Smith will deal with that very briefly for the Committee. That is a scheme which is not affected by the safeguarding 18

19 zones. It was one that Mr and Mrs Strachan could have submitted to, made an application to if they had wished, and it was drawing their attention to that scheme. It s part of those discussions. It s not 91. MR IAN STRACHAN: Can I respond to that now? Or do I 92. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Well, I m relaxed myself, but I if it s, if you want to 93. CHAIR: You ll have the opportunity in a moment to cross-examine witnesses as well. But I mean but well shall we get your witnesses in first, Mr Strachan? 94. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Absolutely. Can I so that s a response to engagement. Can I just, before we get to just one other point. The Committee will be aware that last week Warwickshire were before the Committee. One of the issues raised was a special management zone. A liaison officer which - and undertaking or assurance, sorry, should get it correct. An assurance was given to Warwickshire regarding the type of special management zone around Kingsbury Railhead. I just draw it to your attention because that s a specific assurance even about telling someone to deal with the effects, construction effects around the Kingsbury Road Railhead. But I m going to then just turn to the two other main issues: the construction traffic and compensation. I can take it in either order, but I was going to suggest Mr Smart dealt with the construction traffic effects. 95. CHAIR: Let s hear Mr Smart. 96. MR SMART: Good morning. 97. CHAIR: Good morning. 98. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Mr Smart. Obviously one of the things Mr and Mrs Strachan have raised is the amount of construction traffic generated in this area, specifically affecting the Kingsbury Road and Blackgreaves Lane. You heard that a moment ago. 19

20 99. MR SMART: Yes, I did, yes MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Could you we ve got a plan showing the construction phase, P MR SMART: Yes MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): And I m not going to ask to go to it now, but there is the petition response document that the was sent. Mr Strachan refers to various parts of the environmental statement where the traffic effects are assessed. So it s in more detail. What I m going to ask you to do, Mr Smart, is probably summarise what s been assessed, what the traffic impacts are and what s been assessed, and why it is it s considered it s not going to give rise to the sorts of traffic congestion problems Mr and Mrs Strachan are concerned about MR SMART: Yes. The transport assessment addresses the issue of construction traffic as a whole in this area. And puts construction traffic in the context of the existing baseline traffic. What you can see on the slide in front of you is the Kingsbury Road overbridge main compound, which is just on the west bottom of the schematic. Now, that is the main compound from which both the Kingsbury Road Railhead and indeed the Main HS2 trace would be constructed, and that is the first five years of the construction time, and we ve assessed there that the sort of average vehicles on the road there is, we put on, is about 225 with a peak of 260, which occurs for 9 months 104. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Is that a day or an hour? 105. MR SMART: That s daily two-way flow, sir, and then there s some HGVs, 120, 125. So that s from that compound. But then following completion of the Kingsbury Road Railhead, it then moves to be used as a railhead. So that it goes through three phases, the Railhead: The construction, the use for the systems construction of the HS2 railway systems, and then the use during commissioning of the railway Now, during the time that it is operating as a railhead, that s where the peak 20

21 flows of traffic occur, going down Kingsbury road towards the Railhead, and that s been assessed at between 400 and 465 peaking vehicles. But that s over a five month period, between the dates that you see for the use of the Railhead, Now, what I should say is that s very much a credible worst case scenario. Because what that does is assumes that every worker that is going into that railhead is travelling in their own car, which clearly won t happen. And it also assumes that they re all arriving at the same time, when they won t be because there are shift patterns. So, in fact, even taking that worst case we are not assessing a significant impact on the existing roads. The worst impact we have is, indeed, during the 7 to 8 o'clock westbound time on that on Kingsbury Road, and, as I say, we ve assessed that there s about a 10 to 12 per cent increase. We believe the road is capable of that. But we will reduce that, and if I could just highlight two points to underline that really. First, if we could go to the CFA 20, paragraph 12(4)(iii) on page MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): So this is from the Environmental Statement? 108. MR SMART: This is from the Environmental Statement, yes MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes, have you got that? 110. MR SMART: I just want to underpin the point that we will look to manage the situation on the local roads by introducing measures to control the workforce and how they so if we could just look at 12(4)(iii), and you will see that we will look at reducing private cars, and that s the bulk of what happens during that peak time of five months on that railhead, and during that time there s reduced HGVs. They drop down to about 10, because clearly the railhead is fed from Network Rail, which is the main construction feed. So that is the first thing. And secondly, the Committee will be aware, from discussions with Warwickshire County Council, that we ve already put in place assurances for the A446 about how we will limit the construction generally on the roads, and that is a further effect that will reduce construction traffic in the area generally CHAIR: Can I ask, you said there was a shift pattern. Will work be going on at night? 21

22 112. MR SMART: Work there will be work at night, because it s a 24 hour construction site, but the activities at night will be limited to those less noisy activities CHAIR: But there will be lights, there will be some noise? 114. MR SMART: There will be. There will be lights and there will be some noise CHAIR: Okay. And there was reference to 15 years of traffic. Is that 116. MR SMART: Yes. I m not clear where I completely understand Mr and Mrs Strachan s concerns. I m not clear where the 15 years comes from. I can only assume that might include some element of Phase 2, but basically the time period for us would be 10 years, but I should point out that the back end of that, which is the sort of 2024 to 2027 is commissioning, so that s not so noisy, and the bulk of the use of the railhead happens between December 22 and September 24, which is about just under a two year period where that s the key construction of the systems MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Well I think I ll leave 118. CHAIR: 10 years is still quite a long time. 10 or 15 years. I mean sometimes murderers don t get that. Right, okay. Mr Strachan? 119. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I haven t got any more questions, but Mr Ian Strachan might CHAIR: Mr Ian Strachan, would you like to ask any questions of Mr Smart please? 121. MR IAN STRACHAN: Yes, I just really wanted to clarify. You mentioned that not all it was a worst case scenario, not all workers would be driving to the compound. I m just interested to know how else they would be getting there MR SMART: Well we would look to use, basically, using buses. And the other 22

23 thing is, because of the shift pattern, that the big figure of 400 is a 465 worst peak, is the total people that are on that compound over the 24 hour period. But they won t all be working for 24 hours. So first of all there s a phasing of the coming to work, and secondly we d be looking to use buses and other means, and multi encouraging workers, if they are going to use, you know, cars, it s sensible that they have four people in a car and not one in a car. But that s the assessment has been done on worst case MR IAN STRACHAN: And I think there s the general point that we would like to make, and we made it in our initial argument, is that that is already a terrible road for traffic, and I know that from having lived there and commuted on it twice a day for three years. I didn t see anything in the plans which makes me think that s going to get any better. If anything it s certainly going to get worse, and it s not it s not insignificant. Because it s not insignificant now MR SMART: The technical appendices, point 5, does go into the effects of this. It s about a 10 to 12 per cent increase over that over the peak five months of the that ll be the worst time, and I think predicting some queues of around 14 vehicles at key junctions. But I appreciate the concerns, and obviously we are doing our best to mitigate the effects on traffic flow CHAIR: Can I ask, I mean men getting to the site, clearly they many are going to be in vans. But you re going to have deliveries also going to the compound. I mean heavy goods vehicles. Presumably some of the heaviest stuff would come down a line, would it? The Network Rail? 126. MR SMART: Yes, and that s the main point of a railhead, is actually to relieve the roads, and then take the trains that come off the National Rail Network into the reception sidings and then unload there. That s the key point CHAIR: Okay. Mr Strachan. Ian Strachan MR IAN STRACHAN: Was there any consideration of, rather than accessing the compound from the Kingsbury Road, to spur off from the M42 junction, the M42 Motorway itself? Because that, to me, seems like a more logical way to create an 23

24 entrance to the site, which runs alongside the M42 as it is, rather than taking lorries and people off of that M42 onto a smaller A road to then put them into the compound MR SMART: Well that was a the issue with that is how you cross our existing works and getting to the Kingsbury Road, and that would actually mean that it was a very complicated and, actually, to be frank, costly construction sequence to achieve such a thing, and it would also wouldn t give an efficient use of the layout of the Railhead, which is vital to ensure that we don t don t have trains that are either standing on the National Rail Network or causing disruption MR THORNTON: Can I just ask 131. CHAIR: Yes, Michael MR THORNTON: You say you can t the most efficient use. Surely the most efficient use is decided by how you decide to design it? So surely if you decided to design it so it could fit in with traffic coming off the motorway, then it would be an efficient use. It s only not efficient use if you don t redesign the thing. You haven t built it yet. It s absolutely no problem, surely, in looking at a way to redesign it so it would be efficient. It seems very strange to me that you re saying you can t do it because it won t work, so we won t do it MR SMART: Well we haven t MR THORNTON: Well, you have MR SMART: We d have to put that into the design mix. What I m saying was we ve looked at the best way of access, of all the needs of the Railhead in terms of how we use it, because there s a lot of work that goes on there, fabricating of overhead lines, etc., so the and bearing in mind this is a five month activity. I mean, to put another junction off a motorway, and then across our works and then into that site would, my view, not be the most practicable way of doing it CHAIR: Okay. Mr Ian Strachan, sorry we interrupted. 24

25 137. MR IAN STRACHAN: I just think on that point there has to be a compromise somewhere. I appreciate what you re saying in that, yes, you ve looked at the design and the access, and you ve looked at what s most suitable for you, and for HS2 and for the works. There has to be some sort of compromise between what s suitable for you and what s acceptable to the local residents MR SMART: No, I totally appreciate that point, and Mr James Strachan earlier mentioned about the sifting that we do, and of course when we look at anything like this, a major part of our works, we always take into account a range of issues on and that includes the effects on the local community and the traffic, and it s part of that mix of balancing the whole of the whole way we can achieve what we need to do, but whilst minimising the effects, and also, of course, trying to reduce the construction time so that in I know, I take the point on the length of time here, sir, but and also achieve satisfactory progress CHAIR: And Warwickshire will be involved in that? Warwickshire County Council? 140. MR SMART: This is now we ve now, as Mr Strachan pointed out, our Mr Strachan, we ve agreed a special management zone here, which includes close liaison with the communities. Single points of contact, and the whole way, and of course, all of the issues around traffic which you ve already heard, and the things that we have in the Code of Construction Practice, to ensure that we ve got the most efficient way of managing what we do, in this area, with respect to the local community and the transport network CHAIR: Mr Ian Strachan, any more questions? No? Okay MR IAN STRACHAN: Thank you SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: It looks like you were thinking of saying something to Mr James Strachan at some stage. Do you remember what that was? 25

26 144. MR IAN STRACHAN: Yes, thank you. That was related to your point regarding the EHS as a potential compensation 145. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I think Mr Smith s just about to come and talk about that CHAIR: We are going to have the conversation with Mr Smith in a moment MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I m quite happy to for you to put the question, but it might be helpful 148. CHAIR: Thank you, Mr Smart. Good morning, Mr Smith MR SMITH: Good morning, sir CHAIR: Mr James Strachan MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Thank you very much. Mr Smith, we ve heard about Mr and Mrs Strachan s situation. Their land itself has not been acquired under the scheme. They re not within the safeguarding zone, but you ve heard discussion about both the Exceptional Hardship Scheme and I referred to the need-to-sell scheme. I know the Committee s heard about these to some degree already, but could you just explain why it is I was suggesting Mr and Mrs Strachan could potentially have applied under those the Exceptional Hardship Scheme and the need-to-sell scheme which is coming into play, I think, in the end of this year? 152. MR SMITH: Yes. Perhaps I could just give a little bit of background to begin with. Previous major railway projects have had hardship policies that have applied to property owners, like Mr Strachan, who are not in the safeguarding area, but they may well be affected and people may suffer hardship as a result of not being able to sell their property at a reasonable price due to the railway proposals So, in 2010, HS2 announced a discretionary Exceptional Hardship Scheme, which was similar to previous hardship schemes and it was launched on a temporary 26