HS2 Euston Action Group Newsletter
HS2 EUSTON ACTION GROUP
18th Newsletter – 7 February 2016
Introduction
The Action Group last published a Newsletter on 13 December, when community groups were finalising their petitions to the Select Committee. HS2 Ltd has suspended all community engagement until the Select Committee (“SC”) have published their final report which is likely to be at the end of this month. The Bill was before the SC for 21 months. On occasions, the SC sat from 09.30 until after 21.30. The impatience of some members became only too apparent in December.
This Newsletter takes stock of the current situation as we await the publication of the SC’s report. It includes a number of web-links. Please note the passages that we have highlighted. The Newsletter addresses the following issues:
1. The Timetable for the Hybrid Bill
2. Petitioning in the House of Lords
3. Publication of Assurances and Undertakings
4. Inquiry Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee
5. Euston Station – Half a Station at Twice the Price in Twice the Time
6. The Euston Station Strategic Redevelopment Board
7. Old Oak Common
8. HS2 Works – The Issues
9. HS2 Investigative Works
10. Compensation
11. HS2’s Engagement Process
12. Camden’s Engagement Programme
13. The Future Role of the Action Group
1. The Timetable for the Hybrid Bill
1.1 On 12 January, Robert Syms MP, the SC Chair commented that the Bill will go to the House of Lords (“HofLs”) in “the summer” where it is going to “run probably for 12 months at least” (see [306] of the Transcript). This suggested that there is now little chance that the Bill will receive the Royal Assent by December 2016.
1.2 The official view is that Robert Syms “sometimes has an interesting perspective on time”. The Bill will go to the HofLs in March. Whether it can make it out of there in nine months is “anyone’s guess”.
1.3 The immediate timetable is as follows:
(i) On Thursday (4 February), the SC concluded its hearing of evidence. A number of Camden petitioners (including the Action Group) have written to the SC to seek to influence its final deliberations. Camden Council is also intending to write to clarify a number of issues.
(ii) The SC plans to publish its Final Report in “mid February”. On 11 February, Parliament rises for a week. The report is likely to be published shortly after its return. It is difficult to anticipate what approach the SC will adopt.
(iii) The Bill will be briefly considered by a Public Bill Committee.
(iv) In March, the Bill will return to the floor of the House of Commons for the Report Stage and Third Reading. At this stage, amendments may be moved. This is a matter which we will be discussing with our two MPs.
(v) In March, the Bill will move to the House of HofLs where it will go through the same process as in the HofLs (1st Reading; 2nd Reading; Select Committee, Public Bill Committee and 3rd Reading). If there is any disagreement between the two Houses, the process of “ping pong” will then start.
1.4 On 17 December, the Independent Assessor published its report on “Summary of Issues” arising from the Supplementary Environmental Statement (“SES”) AP3 SES. This report is, again, underwhelming. 38 comments were made in respect of CFA1 (Euston); 11 CFA 2 (Camden Town to Kings Cross) and 16 to CFA3 (Primrose Hill to Kilburn). The main issues raised were (i) sound, noise and vibration; (ii) traffic and transport; (iii) air quality; (iv) community; (v) ecology; (vi) waste and material resources. Compensation dropped down to No. 9. The summary is superficial. Indeed, the Action Group has seen little evidence that anyone involved with HS2 has had any proper regard to the detailed responses that we have made to this, and previous, consultations. It is all part of a paper trail that leads to a brick wall.
2. Petitioning in the House of Lords
2.1 The approach that will be adopted by the HofLs is unclear. The government has no majority in the HofLs. Will the HofLs march to the speed set by the government? The HofLs only have a revising role. However, to date, the case for HS2 has not been subject to robust intellectual analysis. This was recently addressed by Pewter Delow in his excellent blog “Speaking Truth to Power”. We should also recall the excellent work done by the HofLs’ Economics Affairs Committee.
2.2 Normally, the HofLs would not revisit issues which have been considered and resolved by a SC in the Commons. However, it seems likely that the SC in their Final Report will leave a number of issues to be revisited by the HofLs, for example “rail, not road”. Camden Petitioners will need to make the case that the Commons SC did not adequately resolve the substance of their petitions.
2.3 It is also unclear whether the SC will start or finish with Euston. The Action Group would urge the SC to start with Euston. The greatest difficulties arise at Euston; this would give the SC the space to refer matters back to HS2 for further consideration. In the Commons, we all felt that we were being rushed by an unrealistic timetable set by the SC to conclude the Camden petitions by Christmas.
2.4 On 26 January, at the suggestion of the SC, Camden Council sent a Note with a list of suggestions on how to improve the process of securing assurances. We should ask the HofLs’ SC to heed the following recommendations:
(i) The Promoter Response Documents (PRDs) should to set out specific offers to the petitioners rather than vague responses to issues raised by petitioners.
(iii) There should be a clear structure and timetable for negotiations, with the potential for the SC or an independent body to require that offers of assurances are made to petitioners within a given timescale;
(iv) The Promoter should take a more collaborative, and less commercial, approach to negotiations, with a greater commitment to sharing information and working towards common objectives and outcomes, rather than a narrow focus on engineering considerations;
(v) The Promoter should ensure that senior officials or those with decision making authority are involved earlier in negotiations, so that decisions are not delayed unnecessarily.
2.5 The approach adopted in the Final Report of the Commons’ SC is likely to be critical as to how the HofLs see their role. At a meeting on 21 January, the Council informed community groups that they are still considering their strategy in the HofLs.
3. Publication of Assurances and Undertakings
3.1 The object of the petition process has been to secure assurances and undertakings to mitigate the impact of HS2 of those whose private rights will be adversely affected. Petitioners in Camden have found this to be a painful process. Community groups have found that they have embarked upon a paper trail that has ended up hitting a brick wall.
3.2 A number of assurances have been offered to businesses, such as the Drummond Street Traders and the Stevenson Way Community Group. Little has been offered to community groups. HS2 has rather preferred to negotiate with Camden Council and gave the SC the impression that Camden was negotiating on our behalf.
3.3 On 22 January, the Action Group wrote to the SC complaining of HS2’s failure to publish the “Camden assurances”, despite assurances that they would do so. We sought publication of all assurances whether given to public authorities, businesses and community groups. We argued that petitioners were prejudiced by not having access to these assurances. HS2 last updated their Schedule of Undertakings and Assurances on 20 January. The most recent assurances which have been published are those dated 23 September 2015. None relate to Camden.
3.4 On 1 February we were invited to return to the SC (see Transcript). The Council’s lawyers were present, and this enabled us to rebut HS2’s suggestion that the Council had done their job by publishing the relevant assurances. HS2 offered to publish the assurances in March which was not acceptable to the SC. Robert Syms directed HS2 Ltd to publish all the assurances and undertakings “as a matter of urgency”. He added that MPs would be compromised when tabling any amendments at Report Stage and the Third Reading if publication has not occurred. His eye was on Keir Starmer MP, who was present at the hearing.
3.5 Sir Peter Bottomley suggested that the “underlap in understanding” about what assurances had been published by the Council should be resolved by “corridor discussion”. On 5 February, the Action Group wrote to the SC setting out our understanding of the current situation. Camden Council is also to write to the SC.
3.6 The Council have informed us that the assurances set out in HS2’s letter, dated 30 November (see Link), are subject to further discussion on “points of detail”. When community groups appeared before the SC, we were unaware that this was only a draft document. It is apparent that these assurances, which reportedly took four years to negotiate, are written in such vague terms as to be little more than aspirations as opposed to legally enforceable commitments. The latest draft is currently with HS2 Ltd. The Council will publish it when a revised version has been agreed.
3.7 The Council have not published any of their route-wide assurances. The current position is as follows:
|
Assurance Letter |
Publication status |
|
Route-wide planning assurances |
In discussion since December, changes agreed with HS2, LBC waiting for them to be incorporated by HS2, and will then be published |
|
Route-wide air quality assurances |
As above |
|
Route-wide CoCP assurances |
As above |
|
Route-wide Heritage assurances |
More significant alterations required by LBC and agreed with HS2, currently with HS2 to draft |
|
Route-wide clause 47 |
Amendments to be submitted to Committee. |
|
Construction Sound, Noise and Vibration |
These include proposals for an Independent Advisory Service, but not for an Independent Compensation Panel (an “ask” which was abandoned). These have been agreed between LBC and HS2 Ltd, but the letter has been incorrectly addressed. For this reason, it has not yet been published by LBC. |
3.8 In their latest Newsletter, the Council has offered to publish a summary of Assurances received by individual petitioners with their permission on their website. They have already added a community assurance on Mornington Place. We encourage community groups to take up this offer. It will assist with the process of transparency.
3.9 TfL have recently set up a dedicated page to HS2 – see Link. This includes their Assurance Letter, dated 7 December. Assurance 1, relating to “Delivering the Euston Vision”, includes an additional role for the Euston Station Strategic Redevelopment Development (ESSRB), which was not included in the Council’s assurance, namely “the identification of third-party funding/financing for any rebuilding of the Euston Mainline Station” ([1.2]). The Action Group is concerned that the ESSRB will use the over station development (OSD) as a cash cow to fund the development of the mainline station.
3.10 The Council has secured an assurance that HS2 will seek to maximise, so far as is reasonably practicable, the volume of excavated spoil and construction material that can be brought in by rail, rather than road. A plan is to be submitted to the Euston Integration Programme Board by no later than May. The adequacy of this plan is something that can be reviewed in the HofLs.
4. Inquiry Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee
4.1 On 20 January 2016, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee set up inquiry into HS2 complaints. Their Terms of Reference include: (i) The quality of HS2 Ltd’s communication and engagement with residents who may be affected by HS2; (ii) The way in which HS2 Ltd deals with complaints about its engagement with residents; (iii) Ways in which HS2 Ltd could improve its communication and engagement with residents who may be affected by HS2; and (iv) Ways in which HS2 Ltd could improve its complaint handling procedures.
4.2 Evidence must be submitted by 11 February (see Link). Community groups are encouraged to respond. Martin Swain is coordinating a response of the Regents Park Residents. Martin Sheppard has submitted evidence on behalf of the Gloucester Avenue Association. Camden Council will also be submitting evidence.
5. Euston Station – Half a Station at Twice the Price in Twice the Time
5.1 On 25 November, the Chancellor revised the cost of HS2 from £50.4bn (at 2011 prices) to £55.7bn (at 2015 prices). In March 2014, the government abandoned the HS2/HS1 link, saving £0.7bn. HS2 is now proposing to develop Euston in three phases:
· Stage A (to the west of the existing station) will involve the construction of the six platforms needed when Phase 1 of HS2 is completed. These will be constructed between 2017 and 2026. Works to the front of the station will provide London Underground enhancements.
· Stage B1 (within the existing station footprint) will provide the five further platforms needed by 2033 when Phase 2 is completed. Construction will take place between 2026 and 2033.
· Stage B2, the redevelopment of the existing station, is currently unfunded. I have been informed that Network Rail will be seeking funds for this work “as part of future control periods”.
5.2 On 1 December, Tim Mould QC (HS2 Ltd’s Counsel) outlined to the HS2 Select Committee the government’s current position:
(i) a new integrated station at Euston is “not deliverable within appropriate funding constraints”. This is the assessment of “the government, the Chancellor, the Prime Minister”. There is no timetable for the government to come forward with funding to complete the final phase.
(ii) No additional statutory powers will be required by Network Rail to redevelop the station. Neither the HS2 Ltd nor Network Rail has yet made any estimate of the cost of completing the station. The best assistance that the HS2 Ltd was able to provide to the Committee was that the cost depends “on your piece of string”. The Spending Review and Autumn Statement 2015 includes no commitment to fund this.
(iii) The Supplementary Environmental Statement (“SES”) which was published to accompany AP3, is premised on Stage B2 starting after 2033.
(iv) Crossrail 2 will require a separate Hybrid Bill. However, on 29 October Transport for London launched their latest Consultation on Crossrail 2 (the deadline for responses was 8 January). This is premised on a scheme constructed to the east of Eversholt Street, as it cannot currently be integrated into the existing station. As a result, 150 homes, the Travelodge Hotel and a number of businesses are at now risk. This would not be necessary, were Crossrail 2 to be integrated into the existing station.
5.3 The current position is equally unacceptable to the local residents and businesses, Camden Council, existing rail users and Transport for London. We have discussed the current position with Keir Starmer MP. He opposes HS2 as believes that £55.7bn could be better spent on upgrading the whole of the rail network. However, if it is to proceed, HS2 must deliver an integrated station at Euston that is fit for the C21. If the government is unable to deliver this within its existing budget, he will urge the Shadow Cabinet to reconsider its support for the scheme at the Report Stage and Third Reading. Old Oak Common should be used as a temporary terminus until the government is able to devise acceptable proposals for Euston.
6. The Euston Station Strategic Redevelopment Board (“ESSRB”)
6.1 The ESSRB is to be established as “expeditiously as possible” following confirmation that the Council will no longer be pursuing any opposition to the Hybrid Bill “on issues of the design and implementation of the HS2 Euston Station and comprehensive redevelopment”. It is understood that this confirmation has been provided and that Terms of Reference will be agreed by March 2016 together with a forward plan for the year ahead.
6.2 There is to be no community representative on the ESSRB, unlike the Redevelopment Board at Old Oak Common (see Link). In response to a Question No: 2016/0231 (29.1.16), Andrew Dismore AM has obtained the following assurance from the Mayor: “It is essential that the community as well as local businesses are fully represented in the development of Euston. The LB of Camden is working closely with HS2 Ltd to ensure that the views of the local community are heard”.
6.3 On 8 March, Rupert Walker will be addressing the London Assembly about HS2’s plans for Euston. The Labour Group have requested details of the savings from stopping HS2 at OOC. The Mayoral and London Assembly elections in May provide an opportunity to probe all the Mayoral candidates on their position on HS2.
7. Old Oak Common
7.1 The Action Group argued before the Select Committee that if HS2 is to proceed, the main terminus should be at Old Oak Common, with the possibility of some trains coming through to Euston using classic-compatible trains on existing tracks. On 22 January, Tim Stockton, on behalf of Pan Camden, sent additional material to the SC in support of our contention that journey times with an interchange at OOC will be at least as quick and convenient for passengers a Euston.
7.2 On 4 February, Pan Camden convened a meeting with Tony Berkeley who is promoting the Euston Design Scheme. The meeting also provided an opportunity to discuss the issue of “rail not road”. The fright industry is satisfied that a significant proportion of spoil and construction material could be transported by rail were there to be the political will to do so.
8. HS2 Works – The Issues
8.1 There are a number of critical issues that need to be resolved:
(i) What HS2 Works can be executed prior to the Hybrid Bill receiving the Royal Assent?
(ii) What HS2 works can be executed prior to a noise insulation package being put in place for qualifying properties?
(iii) Which properties qualify for the sound insulation package? The Council assurance refers to two classes of property, namely “1,025 properties” which have been accepted as qualifying for the package, and an additional (unquantified) number of properties which are still to be assessed.
(iv) to what extent will the relevant property owners (who may tenants, long lessees or investment landlords) be engaged in devising the sound insulation package for their dwellings? Will a standard package be offered on a “take it, or leave it” basis. Or, will it be designed having regard to the age, character and location of the individual dwelling?
8.2 These issues should have been resolved when the Council agreed their assurances with HS2. Regretfully, they were not. On 1 February, the Silsoe House petitioners wrote to the SC asking it to address these issues in their Final Report.
8.3 On 4 February, Guy Burkill QC wrote to the SC on behalf of the Park Village East Heritage Group asking it to give some guidance as to what works are permitted under the High Speed Rail (Preparation) Act 2013 (“the Paving Act”). He draws the distinction between “preparatory” and “pre-construction activity such as surveying and design” which are permitted, and “construction works” which can only be executed when the Hybrid Bill receives the Royal assent.
8.4 The practical position seems to be as follows:
(i) Although the assurance refers to “1,025” properties, it is apparent that this is only an approximation. These properties are specified in [14.3.19] of the SES. For many blocks and streets, only an approximate number of qualifying properties are specified. The Council has stated that this is intended to cover the facades of properties which faced onto the main construction sites along the Euston throat area.
(ii) The exact methodology and independent who will assess the additional group of properties has yet to be finalised. We understand HS2 Ltd are currently working with the Council to agree a programme, including identifying milestones for the delivery of the assurances. Park Village East and Mornington Terrace are to be included in the first phase.
(iii) HS2 have indicated to the Council that the noisy works that will trigger the need for the noise insulation package will not start until March 2017.
(iv) However, this does not address the utility diversion works. It is unclear as to who will execute these works and whether the various utilities (water, electricity, gas, telephone and cable) will be executed together (creating major disruption) or individually (extending the works over many months). HS2 informed the SC that they intend to start utility works in (i) Albany Street in Q2 2016; Cobourg Street in Q2:2016 (lasting until Q1: 2020); and PVE in Q4: 2016 (lasting until Q4: 2022). HS2 have recently informed the PVE Heritage Group that “the impacts from utilities works are expected to be less than a month at each Assessment Location”. This seems most unlikely.
(v) We highlight the following:
(a) these utility diversions cannot be described as “pre-construction activity such as surveying and design”. If not permitted by the Paving Bill, the statutory authority for these works has yet to be identified.
(b) the phrase “HS2 works” in the Council assurance seems to be referable to [14.3.19] of the SES. For both PVE and Cobourg Street, utility works are included in the list of construction activities which trigger the noise insulation package.
(c) We must ensure that the Council does not permit HS2 to water down the assurances that have been given, in the guise of redrafting “points of detail”.
9. HS2 Investigative Works
9.1 On 28 January, residents in Camden Cutting received letters from Network Rail, dated 19 January, stating that investigation surveys, using hand held tools, a drilling rig and a generator are to be executed, day and night, between February 6 and March 4.
9.2 The Council has now confirmed that it received an application from Network Rail for permission to do ground investigation works between February and December 2016, starting with these ground investigation works. Details of these works and Camden procedures can be found on their web-site (see Link). Network Rail applied for consent from the Council under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 Section 61. This consent was required because of their proposals to carry out work outside of core-working hours, specifically during weekday and weekend nights.
9.3 We understand that noise monitoring points will be located one metre from the façade of the homes nearest to the noisiest night-time works. The Council have also suggested that Network Rail arrange an automatic monitoring point at a house façade in Mornington Street.
9.4 Network Rail are to erect noise barriers which will consist of acoustic blankets attached to fence panels surrounding the generators.
9.5 Communication about the detail of works and its distribution is the responsibility of Network Rail. Network Raid should have given two weeks advance notice of the works as required by the Council’s “strict conditions”. They failed to comply with this condition.
9.6 A number of residents have telephoned the 24-Hour Helpline (03457 114141). When I telephoned on Friday, 29 January, the operator had no knowledge about the proposed works. My concerns were logged and I was promised a reply. By return, I was asked to complete a Customer Satisfaction Survey. I have yet to receive any substantive response to my inquiry.
10. Compensation
10. 1On 17 December, the Select Committee publish a Special Report on the Need to Sell Scheme. This addressed some of our concerns:
- Exposure to particularly intensive and prolonged construction works may well provide another valid reason to want to move and that this is particularly acute in Camden. The Committee suggests there is some scope for recognising people in this situation by way of communal benefit or benefits.
- Business rateable value limit of £34,800 may be too low for London businesses, particularly having regard to the Drummond Street businesses.
- Provision should be made to non-resident landlords whose rental income may be reduced during construction blight, for example, where this income provides a critical element of a small pension.
- The DfT is asked to consider whether the requirement to have not received an offer within 15% of the property’s realistic asking price should be reviewed for London, where asking prices are often achieved or even exceeded.
10.2 The Need to Sell Scheme is a discretionary scheme. The Action group have argued that the Express Purchase Scheme should be extended to urban areas to properties which are directly adjacent to the construction works. Residents compelled to move by years of intensive and prolonged construction works should receive the same compensation as in rural areas.
11. HS2’s Engagement Process
11.1 The last meeting of the Euston Community Representative Group was held on 15 September 2015. HS2 intend to come up with proposals for their next round of engagement after the SC have published their Final Report. Last year HS2 failed to come up with the Key Performance Indicators to assess the “outcomes” achieved from their engagement programme. They rather judged it by “outputs” namely the number of meetings that they held.
11.2 The Action Group has no intention of expending any further time in negotiating Terms of Reference or KPIs. We have found the whole engagement process with HS2 to be both frustrating and unrewarding. We will not participate unless satisfied that HS2 Ltd have learnt lessons. We expect them to propose Terms of Reference and KPIs which will lead to engagement which is real and effective, rather than theoretical and illusory.
11.3 On Wednesday, 24 February, HS2 are launching a new office at the National Temperance Hospital in Hampstead Road. It will also house Collective, a Camden Town Unlimited-backed initiative where local start-up companies are already taking advantage of low cost office space and working in a collaborative environment. HS2 see this office as a key part of their engagement plans. It will be supported by a community relations team and a programme of information updates and events to involve the local community in our plans for the station and work in their area. At 11.00, Simon Kirby, HS2’s Chief Executive, will be offering refreshments to the press and local politicians/signatories. At 17.30, the local community are invited to a drop-in event. We are asked to pass on the invitation to anyone who may be interested to attend.
12. Camden’s Engagement Programme
12.1 On 21 January, the Council met community representatives. We asked what engagement Camden is going to develop given the responsibilities that Camden has taken upon itself under the assurances (whether with the Leader, Cabinet members, ward councillors and officers). We await further details of what they propose.
12.2 The Council has accepted the role as a buffer between community groups and HS2. Section 14 of their Assurances relates to “Escalation of Concerns”. If the nominated contractor is not complying with any assurance, it is for the Council to raise this with the nominated undertaker. The Council will find that sitting between a rock and a hard place can be extremely painful. Community Groups would much prefer direct access to an independent regulatory body. On 1 February, HS2AA argued for such a body when they appeared before the SC.
12.3 The Council must also ensure that it has robust procedures to address complaints. Parking will be a particular problem, particularly for residents who are old, infirm or have disabilities. Last week, a number of residents in Silsoe House complained that the parking bays had been suspended between Nos.34-50 PVE between January 26 and 5 February even though Thames Water were working higher up the street and had informed local residents that there was no chance that the works would reach this location during this period. On 3 February, Camden’s Customer Service Officer responded that Thames Water’s contractor had confirmed that (i) the works were essential (which had not been disputed); (ii) were in progress (which was not true in this location and had been the substance of the complaint) and (iii) that they “would be out of there by 05/02/2016 so please bear with them”. No works had started by 5 February. On Saturday 6 February, resident found that the Council had suspended the parking bays for a further two weeks!
12.3 Over recent months, the Council has published much more useful material on their web-site. All members should sign up to the Camden Newsletter (see Link). Camden Council welcome questions sent to them at highspeed2@camden.gov.uk. They have agreed to publish Responses to Frequently Asked Questions.
13. Future Role of the Action Group
The Action Group will be holding a public meeting after the Select Committee has published its final report. Keir Starmer has agreed to attend. It will an opportunity for the local community to consider the next phase of HS2. It will also be an opportunity to consider whether the Action Group has a continuing role. The Action group does not have the resources to continue its current level of activity. Engagement at the Euston level has not proved effective. The focus of future activity should rather be at a more local community level.
We welcome feedback on the issues raised in this Newsletter.
