Copy of my petition to the House of Lords on HS2

April 25, 2016 office

To the House of Lords

Session 2015–16

PETITION against the

High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill

THE PETITION OF ANDREW HARTLEY DISMORE

Declares that:

The petitioner is specially and directly adversely affected by clauses 1- 65 of the bill, the scheduled works contained in Schedules 1 and 2 and the third Additional Provision (hereinafter called “AP3”)
The petitioner is Andrew Hartley Dismore AM, who is the elected London Assembly Member for Barnet and Camden. As such the petitioner is responsible for representing the people of Camden to the Mayor of London and Greater London Authority and has a responsibility towards the protection of said constituents, including the protection of property rights, security and interests and those of the citizens, inhabitants of Camden. The petitioner can be contacted at the London Assembly in writing at City Hall, The Queens Walk, London, SE1 2AA or by email at andrew.dismore@london.gov.uk .
The petitioner is injuriously affected by the Bill, to which the petitioner objects for reasons amongst others, hereinafter appearing.
The petitioner alleges that the Bill is completely unacceptable to the inhabitants of the area affected.
The petitioner alleges that his constituents and their property, rights and interests in their area and the inhabitants thereof could be injuriously and prejudicially affected by the provisions of the Bill and AP3 if passed into law in their present form and they accordingly object to the Bill and AP3 for the reasons, amongst others, hereinafter appearing.
The petitioner requests an independent technical assessment of current plans, and of the alternative railway schemes.
The Bill includes powers for the Secretary of State and Nominated Undertaker to undertake works of construction which are estimated to take at least 10 years to complete and will include creation of dust, noise pollution and poor air quality.
The construction works will lead to increased lorry movements in the Euston area. The scheme will visually blight the area over the minimum 10 years period and 24 hour working will leading to sleep deprivation and health issues for the petitioner’s constituents living within the HS2 construction area.
The Bill if not amended will mean that social housing tenants who are to be evicted from their homes will not be rehoused locally. The compensation offer for home owners who purchased their properties under ‘right to buy’ and for leaseholders ranges from inadequate to scandalous. The compensation arrangements for the London Borough of Camden to rehouse affected citizens are poor. There should be compensation for those who wish to stay but where any mitigation offered cannot fully address the problems caused by HS2, both for reluctant landlords and for tenants.
Citizens residing nearby will be affected by 10 years of local devastation. Little in the Bill offers assistance to residents affected and little mitigation, if any is offered. Residents ‘blighted’ by the Bill’s proposals will not receive the same compensation arrangements as those living outside Greater London. The petitioner urges your noble house to look at an urban property bond that will unwind itself once the work is complete.
The petitioner is concerned to ensure that the hours during which construction activities take place are restricted so as to ensure that disturbance is minimised for residents of the Borough, businesses, tourism, educational establishments and health care facilities.

The type, proximity and inter-related nature of the many proposed work sites that will be required strongly suggests to The petitioner that 24 hour working will be inevitable over extended periods if the Promoters and Nominated Undertaker are to meet their proposed timetable. The works in the Borough will take place in high density urban areas and in very close proximity to hundreds of residents and businesses, as well as others visiting the area. The petitioner asks that the Promoters be required to give an undertaking fundamentally to review their construction strategy to reduce the impacts of construction activities and to do so in close and open cooperation with residents so that schemes and methods of work can be devised that will minimise adverse impacts. The petitioner specifically does not consider that the proposed COCP currently relied upon by the Promoters is adequate to meet these particular circumstances.
It is unclear what the impact of the Bill will be on properties in this highly densely populated and commercially intense area of London. The petitioner’s constituents residing in the area remain extremely concerned over the effect of vibrations from large construction works.
Residents whose properties are affected who are outside the compensation zones will not be compensated for this blight, despite living within an affected geographical area.
Air pollution within the Euston area is already amongst the worst in London. The petitioner does not believe that the construction plans included in the Bill address the issue of air pollution in Euston and believes that they need to be revisited and amended. The duration of works will mean that residents will have increased pollution levels for at least 10 years.
The petitioner has concerns relating to the effect on businesses which apply throughout the Borough, where an estimated 244 businesses are in the safeguarded area, 62 businesses are affected by demolition and many hundreds more will be detrimentally affected by the impact of construction.

Euston in particular is one of London’s most successful commercial areas. It has an internationally renowned concentration of research and knowledge services alongside creative and cultural industries. Euston’s highly varied business environment also includes membership organisations, hotels, specialist independent and cultural businesses and local shops.
Businesses in the affected area face economic ruin. The Bill does not offer compensation arrangements for businesses facing losses from the proposal. No mitigation is offered to those businesses affected especially those in Drummond Street which rely upon the current Euston terminus.
As a result of demolition, 29 businesses in the Euston area will be forced to close or relocate. Major disruption from construction will deter visitors and reduce local spend in the economy.
It will be difficult for all the effects mentioned above to be mitigated to a satisfactory degree. The petitioner requests your noble House to require the Promoters or the Nominated Undertaker to implement at least the following mitigation measures: a) Significantly enhanced compensation for businesses: businesses must be fully compensated by HS2 Ltd for all adverse impacts of the scheme in advance; b) Business advice and support service: provision of a point of contact for advice and support service for businesses, providing businesses with access to specialist professional support and legal advice to enable businesses to plan for HS2 and maintain business as usual;c) Access to specialist commercial property support: for businesses forced to relocate due to the direct or indirect effects of HS2, fully funded support to find similar alternative accommodation in Camden or in the redeveloped station site, linked to a comprehensive package of compensation. This will maintain jobs and economic activity in the area alongside established ties and networks within the business community.
The petitioner is not satisfied that full consideration has been given to the severity of the detrimental impact of the cumulative effects of the proposed works, and the pressure that those effects will have on housing in the Euston area (including both sides of the station and Ampthill Estate), the railway cutting and associated areas. An assessment of the cumulative impacts and proper baseline surveys need to be undertaken by the Promoter in advance of the construction of the works and appropriate mitigation measures should be determined.
There are at least 250 homes which are located very close to the works in the Euston area and which the petitioner considers need further review to ensure they will be habitable during the construction phase and when the trains start operating. There will be significant impacts due to increased traffic and road closures, loss of amenity and greenery, and effects of noise, vibration and dust from nearby construction works for at least 10 years.
In addition to these 250 homes, some hundreds of others in the Euston area will inevitably experience a number of cross cutting cumulative impacts for a long period of time. The Environmental Statement deposited with the Bill (the “ES”) acknowledges that cumulative impacts arise from the construction of the Bill’s proposals, but does not assess them. The petitioner considers it essential that the Promoters should carry out a habitability assessment forthwith to determine if any occupiers of those numerous homes would need re-housing on a temporary or permanent basis and for those that do not need rehousing, how the adverse impacts they face can be mitigated. The petitioner requests a commensurate undertaking be required from the Promoters to this effect.
The petitioner strongly opposes the decision to construct the HS2 railway line with a terminus station at Euston because of the devastating impact the construction and operation of the line will bring to parts of the Borough, which no amount of mitigation or compensation can address. Across the Borough the proposals will include the demolition of 223 homes (including 136 units of social housing in the Euston area). Over 62 businesses will be forced to close or relocate due to demolition with 242 businesses located within the safeguarded area. Many hundreds of additional homes and businesses will be put at risk due to their proximity to the proposed line. There will be a negative impact on local schools, the loss of open spaces and community facilities, and demolition of listed buildings.
Tunnelling is also proposed to go through parts of the Borough and as a result two ventilation shafts would need to be built within the Borough at Alexandra Place and Adelaide Road. Considerable disruption to the many residents and several businesses will be caused by the ventilation shaft works. Alternative sites have not been fully explored to mitigate this impact.
Clause 48 allows the Promoter to compulsorily purchase property where HS2 “gives rise to the opportunity for regeneration or development of any land”. This power is not constrained geographically to the vicinity of the railway line, stations or depots so is very wide-reaching. The concern remains with this clause because it has the potential to interfere with Camden Council’s own regeneration schemes. For example, it would be within the remit of the Bill to compulsorily purchase property in parts of the Regents Park Estate to allow it to develop the land adjoining the railway line that comes into its ownership upon Royal Assent. Or to compulsorily purchase the current Post Office site and the entire Ampthill Estate to enable it to develop the land behind the station as a regeneration opportunity linked to the station. As it presently stands the Bill would only require consultation with the local authority before proceeding and as these are not identified in the Local Plan as sites for regeneration then regard for the Local Plan would not prevent compulsorily purchasing property. The petitioner requests your noble House to remove this clause entirely.
The petitioner contends that the compensation framework devised under the ‘Need to Sell’ scheme is unfairly applied to urban areas, compared to rural. The petitioner requests that a scheme should be developed by Camden Council and costed up instead.
There are very many matters arising from the proposals in the Bill as proposed for amendment by AP3 which are of considerable concern to the petitioner. The petitioner believes the amendments contained within AP3 and the provisions of the Supplementary Environmental Statement 2 and the AP3 Environmental Statement (“SES”) that accompany it do not overcome the petitioner’s objections to the scheme, which were set out above, and therefore Camden, its inhabitants, its businesses and its environment will be unnecessarily injuriously affected by the Bill unless additional measures are implemented in an attempt to mitigate the impact of the proposed works.

Euston Station Design

The amendment to the station’s design contained in AP3 would provide for the construction of the station in a staged programme that would take seven years longer to construct than the Bill scheme, meaning the construction of the HS2 station alone would not be completed until 2033, very significantly increasing the detrimental impacts on residents and businesses in Camden. The first stage, described as Stage A, would be the building of the six High Speed 2 tracks required for Phase 1 of the Bill and would include subsurface platforms and ground level concourses. The second stage, stage B1, would be the lowering of five tracks in the existing station to provide the High Speed 2 tracks required for Phase 2 of the Bill. The construction programme assumes that the final stage described as Stage B2 and being the remainder of the existing station works, could be redeveloped by Network Rail as the owner of the existing station at some as yet undetermined time in the future. Both Stage A and Stage B1 are said to incorporate passive provision that would allow the existing station to be redeveloped at a later date (outside the HS2 Bill process) and joined into the HS2 Station to create a comprehensively developed station.
The petitioner wishes to ensure that any alternative solution for the station takes account of the Euston Area Plan, which has been developed jointly by Camden Council and the Mayor of London, rather than the Hybrid Bill proposal consisting of an additional section of station bolted onto the current structure. Unfortunately, the amendments in AP3 as described above do not address the petitioner’s concerns and do not take account of the primary objectives in the Euston Area Plan.
The continuing desire of the Promoter of the Bill to design the HS2 station in isolation from the existing station, which AP3 and the SES would authorise, would severely limit the ability of all parties involved (including the petitioner, Camden Council, Transport for London, Network Rail the Mayor of London and the Promoter) to achieve the Euston Area Plan objectives; particularly permeability, well planned over-site development across both sites and the delivery of an integrated world-class station. The spine building proposed in the AP3 design, which runs north to south between the proposed HS2 station and the existing station would prevent the type and layout of development that could otherwise be possible for the existing station, were a truly integrated approach to be adopted.
The reintroduction of Line X creates additional significant construction works that will detrimentally affect the residents adjoining the throat. The Promoter has not adequately assessed (or assessed at all in places) the detrimental impacts the extended duration of the phased scheme will have on the health of residents, schools, organisations and other “receptors”, nor has a community safety audit been undertaken.
There is no acknowledgement of the Crossrail 2 proposals in the station design proposed in AP3. This is very likely to result in a missed opportunity to integrate Crossrail 2 fully into Euston Station and result in unnecessary additional land take to build the Crossrail 2 scheme leading to additional and unnecessary demolition, an unacceptable loss of homes and further significant disruption in the local area; all of which would not be necessary if the whole station site was planned at the same time. These issues and others lead the petitioner to the inevitable and unfortunate conclusion that the station design proposed in AP3 and the SES is wholly inappropriate.
To overcome the issues identified by the petitioner there must be a full and comprehensive development of the proposed HS2 works and the existing station to form one integrated station on a level deck, with provision to ensure the future delivery of over site development above the station and tracks, including a commitment to funding the Network Rail station redevelopment. This would entail the tracks within the existing station being lowered to the same underground level as the proposed HS2 tracks with a shared concourse covering the whole station at ground floor level. This alternative solution must take into account the Euston Area Plan, provide for coordination of all the elements of a strategic transport interchange, and for other proposed transport infrastructure projects such as the proposed upgrades to the Northern Line. It must require sharing worksites with Crossrail 2 and working with Network Rail, Transport for London and Crossrail 2’s Nominated Undertaker to integrate better HS2 with Crossrail 2.
The proposals for a comprehensive station at Euston must enable the creation of a world class sustainable station building design which allows appropriate scale and quantum of over-station and other associated development, including replacement of and new open space and housing, and provision of sustainable drainage to bring about a high quality public realm. This should also include improvements to the eastern façade on Eversholt Street, replacing the existing blank and imposing wall with ground level activity, and improved pedestrian and cycle connectivity in and around the station, including a dedicated high quality, well lit and signed pedestrian walking connection to St Pancras as an alternative to Euston Road, always ensuring community safety. It must take into account the surrounding ultra-low emission zone (“ULEZ”), provide the best possible local transport integration, provide for the best use of the space to the front of the station and be developed in such a way as to protect and enhance the business profile of the area, addressing congestion within the station and elsewhere.
The petitioner believes that there is no need for a linear bus station in front of the station when the existing street network can be utilised. Camden Council have given a commitment jointly with the Mayor of London to produce a Planning Brief for the over-site development associated with the station, which will require detailed discussion and technical input in terms of station design work from the promoters and Network Rail. The petitioner seeks a similar commitment from the Promoters to undertake and share work on station design. Of crucial importance to the petitioner is the inclusion of the local community in the design process.
The petitioner requests that a temporary station at Old Oak Common should be provided, through the provision of turnback sidings or any other appropriate mechanism to allow Old Oak Common to function as a temporary station, to allow a sufficient amount of time to be given to the design and construction of Euston Station and importantly, to reduce the impact on the residents and businesses of Camden. The petition asks your noble House to request an independent adjudicator to undertake a cost-benefit analysis.Transport
According to the SES, the scale of excavated waste identified as arising from the proposed works in AP3, originating from the Euston area alone will be 2.5 million tonnes. This is 21% more than identified in the original Bill scheme. Demolition and construction waste will amount to a further 1 million tonnes according to the SES, 26% more than identified in the original Bill scheme. As a result the further intensification of lorries and heavy goods vehicles will incrementally increase the unacceptable levels of risk to pedestrians, cyclists and other road users across a wide area of the borough. It will also increase the air pollution so that it further exceeds an already unacceptable level. The geographical extent of the impacts (including lorry and HGV routes), the duration of works, and the volume of lorry and HGV traffic will have significant and avoidable negative impacts on Camden.
The petitioner considers the use of rail for the delivery and removal of all construction related materials; spoil and equipment would overcome a considerable number of issues arising from the construction impacts of the scheme from road safety, noise and air pollution, to ground settlement. The SES assumes removal of waste material by road with only an unspecified limited volume that could be moved by rail. The petitioner therefore requests your noble House to require that the Promoters adopt the principle that rail haulage is used for the delivery and removal of all construction related materials, spoil and equipment unless transport by rail is manifestly impractical in particular circumstances. This has been achieved in the construction of Crossrail and would reflect best practice. Feasibility work carried out by TfL also indicates that this would be possible.
Where it is demonstrated by your Promoters to be impractical to use rail haulage the petitioner asks your noble House to require the Promoters to restrict lorry routes to the Transport for London Road Network and Strategic Road Network and in any event avoid routes of a sensitive nature. To that end the petitioner asks your noble House to require the Promoters to enter into a binding Sustainable Construction Transportation Plan with Camden Council and Transport for London to agree specific routes for lorry movements associated with demolition, construction and utilities works (to be coordinated between the various work sites and construction compounds), lorry holding areas and fully funded mitigation that provides a network of safe pedestrian, school and cycle routes with penalties applied for non-compliance. This plan will need to take into account the impact on utilities, on emergency response times, and on development and change across the borough during the construction period and would therefore need ongoing agreement for changes from Camden Council and Transport for London.
Given the disproportionate risks of Heavy Goods Vehicles to cyclists and other vulnerable road users, the petitioner also requests that construction arrangements include a commitment to industry best practice on the safety and sustainability of construction vehicles, including the industry-led Construction Logistics and Cycle Safety (CLOCS) standards and Freight Operator Recognition Scheme (FORS). A commitment to meet London’s Ultra Low Emission Zone standards (which will be in place from Euston Road southwards) would assist in minimising air quality impacts.
The Code of Construction Practice (COCP) is still in draft and evolving as further iterations are published. One of the outstanding issues is that HS2 Ltd. has agreed to collect monitoring data from construction compounds, but then refuses to share this. An assurance on air quality secured the sharing of data but this has not been translated into the COCP for the remaining data collected.
The east-west link bridge at the northern end of the station, which was included in the original Bill scheme, would not be provided in AP3. This omission will exacerbate the petitioner’s concerns about the design of the existing station and the proposed station, where there is an absolute barrier to movement from east to west across the station. The petitioner considers this east-west link bridge is essential to allow safe travel and permeability of this part of the Borough at this point from east to west for cyclists and pedestrians. The bridge would also assist with pedestrian access between Euston and HS1 at St Pancras, and with access for passengers arriving at Euston Station using classic services to the relocated taxi rank facilities. Even with the comprehensive redesign that the petitioner is requesting, the reinstatement of this east-west link bridge should be provided by the Promoters in the final scheme.
In the context of the significant increase in rail demand and the need for the delivery and removal of all construction related materials, spoil and equipment by rail, the petitioner is concerned that in order to construct HS2 the classic rail services will need to be reorganised in some way. This could involve diversion of rail services, short termination or some other rearrangement in the interim. This could have a detrimental effect on local residents and businesses, commuters and visitors to Camden. Therefore the petitioner considers it vital that, as options are developed, Camden Council are involved in the organisational process along with other key stakeholders. To achieve that, the petitioner asks your noble House to require the Promoter to enter into a Construction and Rail Service Plan before construction commences, with a view to reducing the construction time at Euston and enabling the use of rail to transport material used during the demolition and construction process in a more sustainable manner, reducing the unacceptable impact of lorries and heavy goods vehicles on the Borough.
The petitioner is concerned about how changing patterns in the movement of traffic and pedestrians in and around the station will be dealt with during and after construction. The petitioner considers that the proposals for taxi facilities will exceed demand and create additional unnecessary congestion. The petitioner is keen to ensure that the strategic needs of safe, high quality provision for movement by cyclists and pedestrians is taken into account better at the station, with fully integrated cycle parking that does not encroach on open spaces. The Promoter should be required to fund any temporary or permanent changes to the highway network to achieve that aim.
The petitioner shares the concerns of Transport for London about the protection of onward access to interchange with London Underground during construction of the station works. Disruption to that access would worsen the already inadequate onward provision at surface level for pedestrians, cyclists and bus services. Careful management and mitigation would need to be agreed with Transport for London and Camden Council, and any necessary mitigation must be funded by the Promoter.
The petitioner requests that the Promoter must be required to demonstrate the need for the proposed height and size of the replacement Hampstead Road Bridge, given the likely disruption that will be caused during and following construction as a result.Open and Green Space
The amount of open and space that would be lost remains the same in AP3 as was proposed in the Bill but the proposals for replacement have been revised. According to the proposals set out in AP3 and the SES, the period over which the public will have to endure the temporary loss of open space will be extended until 2033 – a period of more than 15 years. The temporary open space measures proposed for that period remain unsatisfactory and there is no commitment to the quantity or quality of the mitigation measures to be provided.
The proposals for the replacement of open and green space on a permanent basis would not provide equivalence in terms of quantum, quality or location. For example, the proposed open space to the north of the station appears to the petitioner to be poorly designed, with its use not clearly illustrated. It is shown as an island of open space between a large road bridge, service road, turn around point and taxi circulation space. That is most unlikely to be a well-used and vibrant open space, more a poorly designed area that has the potential to attract anti-social behaviour. Further, an additional development block which is unconnected to the station has been added in AP3, appearing on an area that was previously provided as open space under the original proposals in the Bill, which further exacerbates the loss of quantum of permanent open space.
The petitioner asks your noble House to require the Promoter to enter into an agreement with Camden Council to secure an ongoing mitigation programme to address temporary reprovision of open and green space during construction including the identification of specific opportunities to mitigate the severe loss of open and green space to the local community, including the commitment actively to seek temporary or ‘pop-up’ solutions throughout the construction phase, ensuring that construction sites and compounds are not left idle for extended periods.
The petitioner asks your noble House to require the Promoter to enter into joint working with Camden Council to identify and create high quality open spaces which can be used to provide permanent reprovision of open spaces lost as a result of the HS2 scheme.
The petitioner agrees with the House of Commons Select Committee recommendation that Camden and Birmingham should receive specific extra financial allocations (on top of the Community and Environment Fund) in recognition of the significance of the environment in urban areas.

Habitability

The proposed changes in the nature, location and position of construction and construction sites, and the timing of the construction works as set out in AP3 and the SES will mean that more residential properties are likely to be adversely affected by AP3 than would be affected under the Bill as deposited. The petitioner notes that the SES identifies approximately 1,025 residential buildings that are forecast to experience noise levels higher than originally assessed; however, there is some uncertainty as to whether the Promoters will provide noise mitigation to those properties. The cumulative impact arising from construction of the scheme (including not just noise, but also dust and other impacts) are not adequately assessed nor are the impacts of the numerous utilities works that are scheduled during the construction phase. The petitioner considers it essential that the Promoters are required to provide an undertaking to agree to implement and maintain the following package of measures at its own cost:-

all the dwellings within the residential blocks identified in the SES as experiencing noise levels higher than the noise insulation trigger levels (“the qualifying properties”), and any subsequent properties identified as being so affected, should be provided with an appropriate noise insulation and ventilation package (as agreed by Camden Council) regardless of any on-site mitigation, unless otherwise agreed by Camden Council and/or the property owner;
currently the boundary for the SES is tightly, and in places incorrectly defined; as the baseline noise monitoring was not adequate and the model does not take account of the urban terrain adequately. The trigger level should not be LAeq (Equivalent Continuous Level) Significant Observed Adverse Effect Level, but LAmax (Maximum Sound Level) as the loudest noises cause the greatest disturbance;
a habitability assessment (such as the adapted Housing Health and Safety Rating System proposed by Camden Council), should be carried out on the qualifying properties (together with properties that fall within 10% of the noise threshold used to determine the location of the qualifying properties) in order to establish whether additional appropriate mitigation measures are required to ensure habitability of the qualifying properties;

this customised approach for a package of mitigation, informed by the habitability assessment should be agreed with Camden Council and/or the property owner prior to installation;
a further habitability assessment should be undertaken after the mitigation measures have been installed with a view to assessing the effectiveness of the mitigation measures; and
if the measures installed do not sufficiently mitigate the impacts, the residents of the property will be rehoused at the cost of the Promoter.Children’s Services

The petitioner notes that according to the SES, new major adverse significant effects have been identified in relation to several schools and children’s services in Camden. However, it is with some concern that the petitioner considers the assessment of impacts on those identified schools and children’s services in the SES is flawed and does not describe the actual scope and magnitude of detrimental effects that will be experienced.
In order to ensure there are no negative residual impacts on children’s services the petitioner asks that your noble House requires the Promoter to provide mitigation measures required by Camden Council.
The petitioner asks that your noble House requires the Promoter to enter into an agreement with Camden Council to provide a social worker to assist families with vulnerable children during the decanting of those buildings on and around the Regents Park Estate that are required to be demolished for the HS2 scheme and during the beginning of the construction phase (in total for a minimum of the five years), but no legally binding commitment has yet been made.
An agreement has been entered into which allows the Maria Fidelis Lower School which is currently located on the North Gower Street site, to be relocated to the Upper School’s site on Phoenix Road to create a consolidated school complex. The necessary permissions are currently being obtained to allow the school to be built but the timing currently projected shows that the new school will not be completed before the promoter intends to commence the HS2 scheme works. The petitioner considers that the school would be so severely disrupted by the proposed construction works that it would not be able to operate effectively at the North Gower Street site. Therefore the petitioner asks your noble House to require the Promoter to undertake not to commence any works of construction or demolition in the vicinity of the Maria Fidelis North Gower Street site until such time as the pupils of the school have been moved to their new school in Phoenix Road.Impact on Utilities
There are numerous references in AP3 and the SES to the need to divert existing utilities on and around the station construction sites which will cause major disruption to all aspects of the borough, including for residents, business and road users.
The Promoter has failed adequately to assess the impact of utilities works, including on emergency services’ response times and bus journey times. The petitioner asks that these impacts are fully assessed and any adverse impacts on residents, businesses, pedestrians and cyclists, emergency services’ response times and bus journey times are appropriately managed and mitigated. This should be included in the Sustainable Construction Transportation Plan.
Despite the proposed extensive utilities work, there is no explanation of plans the Promoter may have to produce to prevent or manage any disruption to utility supplies to local residents or business. The petitioner asks your noble House to require the Promoter to put in place an emergency response plan to deal with any utility failures that result from the construction works. This plan should include provision to provide temporary accommodation, transport, food and other support to those residents who have suffered utility failure for a long period of time, all at the cost of the Promoter.General
The petitioner is concerned that there is no overall management of the construction phase of the station and surrounds. There are a number of proposed construction work sites but there is nothing governing the interaction between these construction sites nor any mechanism for maximising spaces for innovative uses when they are not being used for construction for (as an example) the use of temporary open space or other temporary uses, or for a holistic assessment of the Euston area when making any applications for approval to Camden Council for specific sites all of which would ensure a holistic joined-up operation, which would also reduce the impact on the roads and thereby lessen the detrimental impacts on the residents, business owners and visitors to the London Borough of Camden. The petitioner asks your noble House to require that the Promoters adopt a Euston Management Plan that would secure the above in consultation with other stakeholders in and around the station which could be updated from time to time with the Council’s approval.
There are other clauses and provisions in AP3 which, if passed into law as they now stand, will prejudicially affect the rights and interest of the petitioner’s constituents and other clauses and provisions necessary for their protection and benefit are omitted therefrom.

The petitioner therefore asks the House of Lords that he, or someone representing him in accordance with the rules and Standing Orders of the House, be given an opportunity to give evidence on all or some of the issues raised in this petition to the Select Committee which considers this Bill.

AND the petitioner remains, etc.

Signed Andrew Hartley Dismore AM

Andrew Dismore

Former Labour Assembly Member for Barnet and Camden

Copy of my petition to the House of Lords on HS2