PUBLIC SESSION

MINUTES OF ORAL EVIDENCE

taken before

HIGH SPEED RAIL COMMITTEE

On the

HIGH SPEED RAIL (LONDON – WEST MIDLANDS) BILL

Tuesday 8 December 2015 (Afternoon)

In Committee Room 5

PRESENT:

Mr Robert Syms (Chair) Mr Henry Bellingham Sir Peter Bottomley Mr David Crausby

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Mr Mark Hendrick

_____________

IN ATTENDANCE

Mr James Strachan QC, Counsel, Department for Transport

WITNESSES

Mr Stephen Martin, Ms Luisa Auletta and Mr David Auger, Camden Cutting Group Mr Terence Ewing, Camden Association of Street Properties

Ms Frances Heron and Ms Louise Fletcher, Camden Town District Management Committee Ms Dorothea Hackman and Ms Carol Hardy, Regent Park Estate Residents

Mr Daniel Marcus Mr John Myers

Mr Brian Battershill Ms Ursula Brown Mr Martyn Swain

Ms Hero Granger-Taylor Mr Jairo Jaramillo

Mr Tim Smart, International Director for High Speed Rail, CH2M Hill Mr Peter Miller, Environment Director, HS2 Limited

_____________

IN PUBLIC SESSION

INDEX

Subject Page Camden Cutting Group (Cont’d) Submissions by Mr Martin 3 Submissions by Mr Auger 6 Response from Mr Strachan 12 Mr Smart, examined by Mr Strachan 15 Mr Smart, cross-examined by Mr Auger 20 Mr Smart, cross-examined by Ms Auletta 22 Closing comment by Mr Strachan 24 Closing submissions by Mr Auger and Ms Auletta 28 Daniel Marcus Introduction from Mr Strachan 30 Submissions by Mr Marcus 31 Response from Mr Strachan 33 Closing submissions by Mr Marcus 37 Camden Association of Street Properties Submissions by Mr Ewing 39 Response from Mr Strachan 43 Mr Miller, examined by Mr Strachan 43 Closing submissions by Mr Ewing 49 Camden Town District Management Committee Submissions by Ms Heron 51 Submissions by Ms Fletcher 57 Further submissions by Ms Heron 58 Response from Mr Strachan 62 John Myers and Daniel Bartlett Submissions by Mr Myers 68 Response from Mr Strachan 69 Regent’s Park Estate Residents Submissions by Ms Hackman 71 Submissions by Ms Hardy 75 Further submissions by Ms Hackman 76

3

Response from Mr Strachan 79 Closing submissions by Ms Hackman 83 Brian Battershill Submissions by Mr Battershill 85 Response from Mr Strachan 87 Ursula Brown Submissions by Ms Brown 88 Response from Mr Strachan 92 Closing submissions by Ms Brown 93 Martyn Swain Submissions by Mr Swain 94 Response from Mr Strachan 99 Closing submissions by Mr Swain 101 Hero Granger-Taylor Submissions by Ms Granger Taylor 103 Response from Mr Strachan 107 Steven Christofi Submissions by Mr Christofi 108 Response from Mr Strachan 117 Closing submissions by Mr Christofi 118 Maria Martinez Submissions by Mr Jaramillo 120 Response from Mr Strachan 123 Closing submissions by Mr Jaramillo 124

4

(At 14.00)

1. CHAIR: Order. Welcome back to the HS2 select Committee. We’re just getting

towards the last few slides of your petition. Who did I – I interrupted you, didn’t I?

Sorry.

Camden Cutting Group (Cont’d)

2. MR MARTIN: I’m going to start.

3. MS AULETTA: Just, sorry, one very quick thing. We’ve heard from a petitioner

who can’t attend tomorrow who wanted us to speak on their behalf. Should I mention

who that is?

4. CHAIR: Yes, and the petition number if you’ve got it.

5. MS AULETTA: It’s AP3 39, Residents of Camden Town.

6. CHAIR: Okay. And the name?

7. MS AULETTA: Derek Messecar.

8. CHAIR: Okay.

9. MS AULETTA: Derek, yes. Derek Messecar. So just that we are speaking on

his behalf today.

10. CHAIR: Okay. That’s great. Thank you. You don’t need to repeat what you said

this morning.

11. MR MARTIN: I’ve no desire to repeat. Our next topic is compensation, which

we know you’ve heard lots about. We have a few particular things we’d like to say.

Since the Camden Cutting has been left unprotected by much of the code of construction

practice and since it will be subject to significant adverse effects by the construction of

HS2, we would have expected HS2 to say, ‘Listen, we know this is going to be hard on

your neighbourhood, here’s some decent compensation like we’ve offered rural areas’,

but this hasn’t happened, and most of us are not after compensation. What we’re after is

to stay in our houses and for the construction work to be handled in such a way that can

be tolerable for us to stay where we are, but if it all gets too much we’d like to know that

5

we could move without losing a lot of money. We don’t want to be trapped in our

houses for 10 years.

12. So there’s several compensation schemes for rural areas: voluntary purchase offer,

alternative cash offer and homeowner payment. None of these are available in Camden.

People wishing to sell their property between 2016 and 2025 will certainly lose money.

Here is one example at the next slide. So this is a page from the environmental

statement that shows a photomontage of how Mornington Crescent will look for about

four years during construction. So one of the chairmen of our group lives behind that

hoarding on the right, and if you imagine that some time during those four years he

wanted to sell his flat I think it’s unlikely that Foxtons would choose this picture to put

in their magazine. So the fact that properties will decrease in value during the

construction, I don’t think you can argue with that.

13. So what we’re looking at is if people have to move during that time we need to

have a fair compensation scheme. So the only scheme that’s available to us right now is

the Need to Sell scheme. There are several steps to qualifying for this scheme,

including needing to show that HS2 has devalued your property, which is a reasonable

point of view, and you also have to prove a compelling reason to sell, which we think is

completely unreasonable. You can’t just move for your own reasons like anyone else.

If HS2 has made your property unsaleable you will not be able to get compensation,

unless you can provide personal circumstances that satisfy a tribunal that you have a

compelling reason to sell.

14. Some people may want to sell their property because of ill health or financial ruin.

We hope that this is not the case, and if it is we hope the Need to Sell panel will look

favourably on them, but some people will want to move because they don’t want to live

in the middle of Europe’s largest construction site for 10 years, or they may have a

personal reason that the tribunal doesn’t accept. And statistics so far that have been

produced by the Residents’ Commissioner in September this year show that eight of 58

applications were refused simply because a compelling reason to sell has not been

proven.

15. In rural areas if you’re within 120 metres of the line there’s several schemes you

qualify for automatically without having to show a reason to sell. And if we just go

6

back a few years to December 2010 when Philip Hammond, Secretary of State for

Transport said in the House, ‘I’ve indicated that we will seek to go further than has

happened with previous infrastructure schemes in the UK, because it is right and proper

that individuals who suffer serious financial loss in the national interest should be

compensated’, and we agree with that. And then the Government’s Noise Policy

Statement for England, which is part of the Planning Policy Framework, says that,

‘Environmental and social costs fall on those who impose them; the polluter pays.’ It

doesn’t say anything about the injured party needing to prove acceptable circumstances.

So what we’re asking for is that the Need to Sell scheme is modified so that you don’t

have to show a compelling reason to sell.

16. There’s a few furthermore detailed points about it, but if the only reason you’re

moving is because of HS2 we think that HS2 should pay all the ancillary costs for

moving, as well as the direct costs. There’s also a formula in the scheme where you

need to accept offers within 15% of your property value, which we think is unfair. We

don’t think – why you should have to accept a 14.9% loss in the value of your property.

And we also think that non-resident landlords should also be eligible for this scheme

because they will not be able to rent out the properties.

17. So we think the polluter-pays principle should be upheld, and we’d also like to say

that we endorse the compensation proposal that were – well, they haven’t presented

them yet, but there’s a fair HS2 Compensation Charter for London that was published

by Camden Council some time ago, which we would endorse, and they propose the

establishment of a panel to devise an urban compensation scheme, and we ask that this

is done. And we ask that there be urban equivalents to the voluntary purchase, cash

offer and homeowner payment schemes that are available in urban areas for the

construction period. And also in the fair Compensation Charter it addresses the needs of

council tenants and other long term tenants, who will suffer just as much as property

owners, and we feel that they’re affected by noise just as much as people who own their

properties and they need to be treated fairly. A particular measure that’s suggested in

that charter are personal compensation budgets, which would allow people to stay in

their homes instead of selling their property, and we ask that those measures are adopted

as well.

18. So next slide please.

7

19. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Do you mean 47?

20. MR MARTIN: Yes, okay.

21. MS AULETTA: No.

22. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: 16, 99, 47.

23. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): 47.

24. CHAIR: You can continue talking if you want.

25. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): It’s just the system’s moving a bit slowly.

26. MR AUGER: Do you have a paper copy in front of you?

27. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Yes, we do.

28. MR MARTIN: So those are our compensation requests.

29. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: We’ve had that. Could you move onto the next one

please?

30. MR AUGER: Okay. No, I just wanted to make sure, because obviously this slide

is quite a visual slide and if you couldn’t see it it was quite hard to – oh, there we go. So

hopefully we’ve seen through the course of our session today that there have been a

number of key decisions that have had to have been made in this project, and most of

them, if not all of them, certainly have been to the detriment of local residents in a

competing environment, as to how do you get this to work, how do you build a high

speed railway and bring it into the centre of an enormous city. And a lot of countries in

the world chose not to do that. They stop on the outskirts.

31. So questions about the alignment and, critically, the 18 trains an hour which

requires the fan, which you heard about the other day, that decision is responsible for the

Park Village East burette wall, Mornington Street Bridge coming down, the Regent’s

Park Estate buildings being demolished as a consequence of that decision. The line X

reinstatement to the benefit of Network Rail obviously has implications. The ability to,

as Steve described, provide noise mitigation at source is compromised because of

keeping the existing railway running. You could put a lot of additional screening in the

8

cutting but the four existing lines that keep running, A, B, C and D, you could put

screening up but you’d have to take line D out of service. And obviously the decision to

do that is that we can’t take line D out of service or do the work during the day because

the conventional railway has to keep running, and the decision of that means that the

impacts for residents are worse, but obviously the commuters still get into Euston

station. And there is a balancing act clearly that you will have to wrestle with as to what

are all these competing interests.

32. Again, the working hours is the requirement to do some of the work in possessions

because of keeping the conventional railway running. If you compromised the operation

of the railway you wouldn’t have to do as much at night, it wouldn’t be so bad for

residents, but you’d also then have difficulties with the train operators. So what we’re

saying is at the moment everything is against us, and, as we’ve seen, the ability to

negotiate, the ability to have your case heard, the ability to influence what’s going on is

much better if you’re Transport for London, for example, who didn’t need to appear

because they were able to negotiate and get their agreement, or a local authority, but not

necessarily for local residents.

33. HGVs we’ve talked about. The Hampstead Road Bridge we didn’t touch on in too

much detail because it’s covered before, but a lot of the height issues are about keeping

the flexibility, because the conventional station has yet to be designed and they need to

have the flexibility to move the tracks around, so you can’t have the number of piers that

you might want that would allow the railway bridge to be lower. So again that’s a

critical design decision that has been for the benefit of getting the scheme to work but

has consequences and impacts on local residents. And again the restricted

compensation, which I will mention, just to, kind of, pick up one point, in a moment, but

again that obviously keeps certain people happy, but residents feel it’s inequitable,

judging by the number of times you’ve heard it. If we move onto the next slide please.

34. This is my blob slide again, so this is obviously the residual effect, so this is what

we are left with. If everything that they do that they’re planning, this is how bad it can

be, and if it’s this bad we don’t have a right to complain because this is what’s in the

environmental statement. This is what, if the Bill goes through in its current form, we

are left with, and the critical issue is: is that fair? Is it nimbyism? The fact that it’s 85

decibels at the façade of the building means that slightly closer to the works as you walk

9

down the street it is over 85 decibels during the day, which implies people should be

wearing ear defenders. That, to me, does not sound like an equitable balance between

all the competing stakeholders.

35. Obviously I appreciate you have had a lot said about compensation, and we have

wrestled with how much to talk about it before you, recognising some of the comments

that you’ve made, but what I would like to do is to say that we have actually listened to

some of the arguments, and I’d like to pick out a comment that was made by the

promoter talking about compensation, and particularly talking about compensation in

relation to construction works. And there’s obviously a big difference between

operational, and the fact that the railway comes close to your house and it’s going to be

there forever, and obviously construction. And what they say, and this is coming from

part of paragraph 312 in Camden’s hearing, is, ‘What instead the law requires is that the

promoters of these works should do all that they reasonably can to mitigate the effects of

those works through physical mitigation, through policies such as noise insulation,

temporary rehousing where it’s justified and so on, and that is precisely the approach

that has been taken in this case, just as it has been in other major public works projects

such as Crossrail and HS1.’

36. That’s their position, but our position is you haven’t fully mitigated it. You

haven’t even half mitigated it. If there was full mitigation, if on this slide all these blobs

actually weren’t red and we weren’t left with all these horrendous adverse effects and

we sat here saying ‘Please give us compensation’, I could understand the justification

that says ‘We don’t compensate for construction works.’ But the fact is it’s not

mitigated fully. The fact is the balancing act between residents and Network Rail and

all the other interested parties is such the fact that it’s shifted. It’s completely skewed

and local residents are being left to pick up the pieces. So at the current point in time

it’s not we get mitigation or compensation. It’s the fact that we don’t really have

adequate in either. Yes, we might get some noise insulation, yes, it might work, we

might have a ventilation problem, it might be technically fixed, but even if that’s the

case that’s not our environment, that’s not our homes, that’s not our community. We

need more mitigation at source. We need the balance of those competing ambitions to

be challenged, and if that can’t be done, if the overriding decision is to keep the railway

running and to try and put this project through the centre of a major city in the world,

10

then the need is to actually provide alternatives and maybe that’s – you know, it’s going

to be a difficult choice, but actually I don’t think it’s one that’s unreasonable.

37. MR HENDRICK: Could I ask you, have you thought seriously of the

consequences of not keeping those lines open and running during the day? What do you

think the implications of it would be?

38. MR AUGER: I think it’s an extremely difficult decision, and we’ve asked HS2 if

the – how hard have they really worked to look at those possibilities about diverting

trains to other London terminals, because obviously that is part one of the solution. So

we’ve asked that question. We understand obviously that when Euston was last rebuilt,

several decades ago, a lot of services were diverted and that they have looked at it this

time and said it’s not possible. And we’ve accepted that, so it becomes a very difficult

decision, but the question is how hard has everybody worked in that balance? Is there

more that can be done? I don’t have any evidence to suggest that it could be done.

39. MS AULETTA: Also, you heard from Pan Camden Alliance this morning, and

certainly Richard Percival and a couple of other people who have been working with

them have looked at the possibility of diverting some lines in some locations. And it’s

not impossible. It’s just that the word hasn’t been given that that’s what needs to

happen, so it’s just we ask this question really as to whether or not that has been

sufficiently looked at so that –

40. MR HENDRICK: Well, before you say that needs to happen you need to make

obviously a good case for it and look at the possibilities and the alternatives. Are you

saying they’ve not done that?

41. MS AULETTA: We understand that part of the brief is that the railway needs to

continue to be able to operate in the way that it currently operates. I have architectural

training so, you know, when you have a brief there are certain parameters within that

brief and, you know, you can question the brief or you can simply take the brief as being

read and then provide the design solution for that brief. And in a way we’re just asking

whether or not there are some elements of the brief that could be re-looked at because

we have, continue to have, significant residual adverse effects, such perhaps that weren’t

understood right at the beginning when the brief was set.

11

42. MR HENDRICK: So are you saying then you’d be satisfied with maybe just

limited line usage, not total closing down of the throat?

43. MS AULETTA: Yes, it may just be line D that allows noise mitigation at source

that would really make a big difference to the acoustic environment in the area that

would have a big effect.

44. MR HENDRICK: Okay, well –

45. MS AULETTA: Just as rail, – you know, taking spoil out by rail.

46. MR HENDRICK: Yes, well, we could put those questions to HS2 afterwards if

you like.

47. MS AULETTA: Well, it would be really nice if we – if it’s possible for HS2 to

come back to the Committee maybe later on with –

48. MR HENDRICK: Well, it will be when you’ve finished.

49. MS AULETTA: Yes – some information about that.

50. CHAIR: Okay.

51. MR AUGER: I think what our issue would be is to the – what’s the residual

effect. Would, for example, closing line D be sufficient to reduce the significant effects

that we’re due to suffer? I think that’s the key thing is the impact, and that goes to the

what is the package of measures, how much can we improve it, which then goes to the,

well, if you can’t mitigate it, compensate it, stop people being trapped in their homes.

52. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Why don’t you go to the last page now while you’re

talking?

53. MR AUGER: Sorry?

54. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Why don’t you look at page 48 while you’re

talking? You’re summing it up, aren’t you?

55. MR AUGER: Yes, that’s –

12

56. MS AULETTA: Are we passing over to Stephen next?

57. MR AUGER: Could do.

58. MR MARTIN: So what we’ve asked for today is reasonable working hours,

tolerable construction noise, rail instead of road to remove the spoil, safer and cleaner

construction vehicles, a good design for the Hampstead Road Bridge and fair

compensation. So we have covered a lot of ground, but in our situation all these things

affect us and there isn’t one single answer that will make everything okay.

59. CHAIR: Right. Mr Strachan?

60. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Thank you. I’m going to just get Mr Smart to

explain to you what is going on in the Camden Cutting parts where the petitioners have

referred to the construction works, in much the same way as we did on the other side of

the line, but there we were focusing on the burette wall, Park Village East. On this side

there are some slight differences which we’ll just run through. Just before he gives you

that description, can I just make the general point that there is an apparent

misunderstanding as to the duration of what I would call the most intrusive works in

terms of noise or vibration, which I’m going to ask Mr Smart to deal with just to explain

what is going on.

61. And there is perhaps a misapprehension as to the role, both past role but more

importantly future role of authorities like the London Borough of Camden as part of the

future construction process. What I’m referring to, amongst many other things covered

in the assurance here in particular, for example, is the Section 61 consent process for

construction activities in the area under which we will be applying for consents under

Section 61 of the Control of Pollution Act. Camden will consider those applications and

as part of that consideration will be applying the statutory requirements of looking at

best practicable means in the way the construction takes place, and thereby seeking to

challenge, no doubt, what work we are doing and the construction work and the

resulting noise levels, for example, to minimise the effects on the local area and to set

parameters within which they operate.

62. And one of the things that you – I don’t know whether the Committee’s already

seen, but one of the assurances that Camden has sought in relation to construction noise

13

on a route wide basis is absolute clarification that, notwithstanding our threshold policy

noise levels that trigger noise insulation and rehousing, those are levels which we will

apply through our own policies, those don’t prejudice the operation of the local

authority’s Section 61 process, so that they themselves will consider what controls to

impose on construction activities, notwithstanding those levels that we have set

ourselves in terms of trigger levels in policy terms, for both LOAELs as they’re known

as, lowest observed adverse effect levels, and SOAELs. And in addition, of course, one

of the objectives for us is to bring down noise levels to LOAELs or below through the

use of best practicable means in terms of construction.

63. And you heard, for example, and there may be a common – a degree of consensus

between ourselves and the petitioner, but you heard last week – I’ve lost track of time

now, I think it was last week – from Mr Miller on examples of best practicable means

for construction noise, particularly noisy activities, such as the use of noise barriers,

which are local to the noise that’s being produced, i.e. more portable levels. That was

an example, I think, used by the petitioners, but the point about that is that’s already

built into the process, the Section 61 process, where those sorts of things are already part

of what Camden will no doubt expect from us, as indeed other local authorities where

construction activity is taking place.

64. I just wanted to set that in context, because there does appear to be a

misunderstanding as to the degree of continued involvement of the local authority in this

project, as with previous projects, both of this scale and indeed smaller projects, where

that specific statutory measure applies and there’s that layer of control. But having said

that, I would like just to explain the first point, get Mr Smart to really cover what is the

principal activities that are going on in the Camden Cutting which are of direct concern

to the petitioners, particularly along Mornington –

65. MR HENDRICK: Mr Strachan, before Mr Smart does, the petitioners mentioned

that the use of these portable screens may in some way be inhibited by the continued

operation of the line. Is that the case or not?

66. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Mr Smart will explain that. I understand that

certainly will be the case when you’re operating close to rail, that in the cutting there’ll

be a far more limited ability to use noise barriers of that kind. And he’ll no doubt cover

14

that, but there are methods as we’ve heard on the last occasion of reducing noise levels,

such as the contiguous piling method that’s proposed down in the cutting. I’m jumping

ahead, because Mr Smart’s going to explain this, but up on the road level itself where

we have to deal with the Mornington Road Bridge abutments, it’s there of course that

there’s a concern particularly about vibration levels and noise levels. There is the ability

both to control vibration through methods, which Mr Smart will explain, but also to use

the sorts of noise screening that you’re right – that you’re referring to. Certainly the

opportunities are more limited at the cutting level, but then one is further down into the

cutting itself. But rather than me try and explain it I will hand – subject to your

question, yes.

67. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: I think I understood the petitioners correctly to say that

Camden limit other developers to a maximum noise of 75 decibels whereas HS2 are

limiting to a maximum of 85. Could you –

68. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I don’t think that’s right, and I’ll just explain why,

and I think the petitioners were actually alluding to why that’s not quite right

themselves. What they referred to – I’m just trying to find the slide – is the noise

exposure category levels for new residential housing in a permanent state. And you will

probably be familiar with those noise exposure category levels for new housing. If

you’re putting in new housing next door to infrastructure you have to – the objective is

to limit the noise exposure category for the permanent position for those houses to

certain noise levels, such as the 75 dB that was mentioned. It’s not a level to measure

exposure to construction noise, which by its nature is of course not a permanent noise

experience. Indeed, it fluctuates even in these construction works, as we’re going to

come to, and it – there are different measures, and indeed there are different measures

that we have which are consistent for the operational position for the housing exposed to

the levels of the railway.

69. So, in short, what they were comparing is not like for like. There are different

approaches to dealing with construction noise in streets as compared with building new

houses next door to permanent noise sources, and you can readily see that, for example,

in relation to utility works, which – in streets, where one can be exposed to noise levels

from time to time which obviously exceed that 75 dB peak, subject to controls through

the Control of Pollution Act, but you can be exposed to those noise levels. But plainly

15

the policy that you have referred to is not seeking to prevent those sorts of construction

activities.

70. I’m not sure I’ve found their slide, but… I can’t remember which… So,

Mr Smart, can we just – I just want you just really, as briefly as possible, but just run

through the principal activities of concern, which are the ones which are of course

reported in the environmental statement as giving rise to either noise or vibration levels.

There is a pack which deals with the Mornington Terrace, Mornington Street, Crescent

and Delancey Street area, and if we could just get up on screen P11848(4).

71. MR SMART: Yes, that’s the one. Thank you. Right. I’m just going to give you

a quick overview on what we’re doing here, and I’ll go to a couple of other slides to

illustrate some of the particular points, but this is effectively what we call the dive

under, which is a vital piece of the throat engineering because effectively this allows a

two track railway to become a four track railway to meet the capacity, which I think the

Committee’s heard. You’ve heard about the burette’s installation along by Park Village

East, which is this area here, and we are now talking about the construction as it affects

this side of the railway, and that’s really centred on a number of things.

72. First of all, at the higher level it is the construction of the eastern abutment and

foundations for Mornington Street overbridge.

73. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): That’s obviously after it’s taken out and then the –

74. MR SMART: Yes, this is ready for the reconstruction. This is the reconstruction.

75. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: This is the brick one which you’re replacing?

76. MR SMART: Yes, we’re going to install some of the heritage street furniture.

That’s right, Sir Peter.

77. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): If you just – sorry, Mr Smart, just if you could just

go onto slide 5 just so everyone’s clear of what we’re talking about. There’s the

existing bridge, and that we’re proposing to replace it after we’ve done our line X

structures in the same style as it is currently. But in order to do that we’ve got to take it

out, do some works to the abutment it sits on, before reinstating it. Have I understood

correctly, Mr Smart?

16

78. MR SMART: That’s right.

79. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes. So if we go back to slide 4.

80. MR SMART: Yes. Go back to brackets four. Now, where we’re not in the

railway we are able to carry out our construction pretty much in daytime working.

There might be the odd activity where we might need extended hours, but that -such as

forming a burette down at this end. That’s pretty much daytime working. The problem

us in terms of getting – for working hours is the work that we have to do in the railway,

which is the structural work to the dive-under itself, both the south dive-under in read

and the north dive-under in blue.

81. Now, there are two principle activities which are what I would call the more

disruptive element of work in the throat. What we’ve completed those it does become –

we can work kind of within an enclave. But the first is to construct this structural wall

on here, on the eastern side, which is formed of a continuous pile wall. The type – just

to clarify, Mr Clifton-Brown, the points you raised earlier, that is the rotary board piles

that I was talking about. And they’re a combination of 1.8 and 1.2 metres diameter.

There’s 200 of them and we can probably do, with two rigs, about two in a week.

82. But we have to do that in the railway possession time and that is the constraint on

us in terms of the working hours, whether that be night or weekends. Because working

in the day during rail operations is going to be almost impossible.

83. I will come to the use of vibratory or sheet piles. There are a couple of areas

where we would need them and I’ll come to that in a moment. One’s a very limited area

on the surface at Mornington Street, and also down in the railway for the caissons,

which form the foundation for a Hampstead Road over-bridge. And I’ll come to how

we can mitigate that when I talk about a Mornington Street over-bridge. But just to

complete what we’re doing in the throat -

84. MR HENDRICK: A caisson is an underground pillar, is it?

85. MR SMART: Basically, yes. It’s dug out. It’s not piled; it’s dug out and then

cast with reinforced concrete.

86. Now, as I say this is the key wall, but we’ve got lots of other structural work to do.

17

To a certain extent that all happens when we’re isolated from the railway and behind

this main wall. So if we could now go to a cross-section, which is P11848(28). I think

this probably explains it quite well. This is the area where the petitioners are. This here

is this key structural wall that we have to get – this is the operational railway here – that

we have to construct, which is the 1.8 to 1.2 40-metre pile, which form that wall.

87. And as you have, Mr Strachan, with difficulty because we’re very constrained

working against the railway – in fact we can’t work there while the railway’s operating.

And to get a hoarding up would we – well, we haven’t got sufficient clearance. But one

could also say that actually because of the distance and the height one – I wonder; I’m

not a noise expert, as the Committee knows, but I wonder how effective that would be.

88. But this is the key activity where we need to work in the – apart from dismantling

the original old retaining walls, this is the key activity. Once we have that wall in we

can erect a hoarding there, and this work is done in isolation from the railway, and it is,

if you like – well, because we’re excavating we’re going lower, so the noise effect and

the vibration effects here are negligible to say the least, if not nothing.

89. The petitioners raise the issue about, well, how could we potentially do the work

with affecting – or should we take more – by perhaps taking more pain on the existing

railway. The difficulty is that this here is Line D, which is the fast line out. So if we are

to move this over at all to create a hoarding, et cetera, we fundamentally affect the

operation of Euston, because that is the fast line. And I think where you end up with

that is you end up with Euston looks very much like original Hybrid Bill scheme.

90. So I think that probably gives a good overview. Now, if I can just go to slide – I

think it’s the Mornington Street bridge. Yes. If we can go to P11848(10). So those

works, although of course they are done – have to be done in railway possession hours,

which could be weekends or could be nights, they are at the lower level. There is work

at the higher level, which is the eastern abutment to the Mornington Street Bridge,

which are these piles here. They’re 1.8 diameter piles.

91. Now, the vibration work that we’re talking about was actually not the piles,

because they are the fitting around the board ones that I talked about, but that you have

to construct a pile cap for concrete to form the – basically the founding layer for the

bridge deck. And that is where the ES was referring to these vibrating sheet piles.

18

92. Now, of course as the Committee has heard before we have to – we have to allow

an envelope that we know that we construct the works within, and that often leads us to

what we have termed before the works credible case, which we then articulate in the ES.

Now, this -these piles here, there’s only about four metres wide by 10 metres long, so

it’s quite a restrictive area. Whether we would need to use – these wouldn’t be vibrated

piles. Worst case we might have to vibrate the first two, but basically there’s a piling

technique which presses the piles down, working off the reaction of the other piles.

93. That is – I suspect here, if we’re in good clay, we wouldn’t even need to do that.

You could actually just use an excavator and normal sharing with soldier pile type,

which wouldn’t even be any sort of special piling. But we don’t know what the ground

conditions are yet so we have to allow for – for the eventuality that we might have to.

But it would be pressed in.

94. Here though, of course, we’re at higher level. We would be able to hoard off. We

wouldn’t have an open excavation there anyway, so there would be hoarding, and the

work that we’re doing there would be during the – not outside of core hours. There’s no

reason to do that work then. There’s nothing particularly special there unless there was

a utility connection that we had no idea that was there, that we’ll have to stumble across.

And of course we would use, as you’ve heard from Mr Strachan, best practicable means

of reducing all the noise there.

95. So I think that gives an overview of -

96. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Just in terms of the environmental statement, it’s

fair to say that the environmental statement does assume some construction at night, and

it also does assume, as a worst case, the use of a vibratory piling rig, which is why in the

vibration assessments one is getting the levels of vibration being caused to the nearby

properties, and that’s shown on P11762(3). But what you’re identifying, Mr Smart, as I

understand it, are methods of constructing that which would be examined in terms of

best practicable means.

97. MR SMART: Yes.

98. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Which may obviate the need to use any vibratory

primary.

19

99. MR SMART: We would also, as I mentioned earlier, potentially use – need to use

vibratory sheet piles for the caissons which form the foundations of Hampstead Road

bridge, but again that is not the higher level, as in the case of the Mornington Street

bridge, but that is at track level, so again lower.

100. CHAIR: So it’s precautionary whether or not it will be noisier. How long will it

take to do these?

101. MR SMART: Well, we’ve estimated that the longer – the most lengthy

construction time, sir, is forming that 200 piles of that outer wall, if you like, between us

and Line D. Now, that of course is very dependent on the number of possessions we

get, because although it might be a long time I emphasise that the work is very sporadic

in that time. As I say, it’s – probably the best we would do with two rigs is two piles a

week, assuming we get onto the railway for a reasonable amount of time. So that’s

liable to take in the order of 18 months, depending on railway possessions.

102. Now, obviously if you get longer possessions and are able to put potentially more

rigs on, that can be pulled back. If we get shorter possessions it will take longer. But

it’s probably in the order of – it’s two sections in about a month, and then about another

– sorry, a year. And then about another half-year, three-quarters of a year. So

somewhere around about 18 months to two years. We would look to pull that back, but

it depends on how we get on with the network rail in terms of possessions.

103. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): And, sorry, that was the wall in the cutting of the

Mornington Street bridge works which you were talking about -

104. MR SMART: No, that’s -

105. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): – which were up a level.

106. MR SMART: No.

107. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): What sort of duration are those?

108. MR SMART: Well, we would probably do the – I would suggest that that whole

foundation there, which includes doing the pile caps and the piling would be – happen in

three months. And that’s all in normal core hours.

20

109. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I think, Mr Smart, those are the two principal

activities that cause the noise trigger levels that have been reported in the environmental

statement. I’m not therefore going to ask Mr Smart any questions. I’ve got some

further points just to make about -

110. CHAIR: Let’s just go to the petitioner. Mr Martin, do you have any questions

about -

111. MR MARTIN: I’d like to say something about the noise. I mean -

112. CHAIR: Not say something, but do you have questions to ask?

113. MR MARTIN: No, I don’t have questions.

114. CHAIR: Okay.

115. MR AUGER: I have a couple of questions. Could you just clarify? I think you

said that for the wall in the middle of the cutting there were 200 piles, and I think you

said two a week.

116. MR SMART: That’s -

117. MR AUGER: Good going. So that’s 100 weeks?

118. MR SMART: Yes, that’s how I get – that was the – this section here. That was

my – a year to two years depending on the possession arrangements.

119. MR AUGER: Yeah. So you said – so a year to two years. That’s if you can do

two a week, because it’s dependent on possessions. Because I heard sort of 18 months,

a year to two years. But I think it’s – to me it sounds more like two years if you can do

the two a week, if you can get the possessions.

120. MR SMART: Well, we’ve estimated – our planning rate is on a fairly

conservative assumption, so I’m not anticipating – and I’ve added a good deal of

conservatism, because I think it’s actually in the order of a year for the 1.8 metre piles,

and about 36 months for the 1.2 metre piles. So it depends, when we get down there,

how we can work two fronts together.

121. So I think for the purposes of where we are now, knowing what we know about

21

the possessions, that the 18 months to two years is a conservative, and we’d obviously

look to pull that back. Because from our own construction point of view we would want

to complete the works as quickly as possible.

122. MR AUGER: I think we had another comment, but in terms of questions for the

witness I don’t have any more.

123. CHAIR: Any more questions for the witness? Okay.

124. MR HENDRICK: I don’t think you addressed the point you made in your

presentation about use of alternative stations and the line operations, but obviously not.

125. CHAIR: This gentleman will answer those points.

126. MR AUGER: My understanding was that he was a construction expert rather than

a railway scheduling expert.

127. MR SMART: The point is to do anything to try and speed up that work has a

fundamental effect on the railway operation. If we were to move out to create a bigger

working space and put hoardings up – and I don’t know how effective that will be given

you are some distance and we are at a low level anyway. We would take out Line D,

which is the fast line. And if you do anything more you end up back at the Hybrid Bill’s

scheme, which of course the initial provision was promoted to overcome the difficulties

of the existing railway. SO that’s really I think the size of it.

128. MR AUGER: But if I could just ask, I mean it is much more effective to put

sound screening very close to where the source of the noise -

129. MR SMART: It is. Absolutely.

130. MR AUGER: – than it is to put it much further away, is it not?

131. MR SMART: Absolutely, and it would be close, but as I explained we have a

problem with proximity for the track clearances. There will be a hoarding layer, but

there has to be for us to work. But because of where the piles will sit, when the rigs – so

the rigs must go behind the hoarding, and therefore when they come out to do the piles

we have to break the hoarding, move the rigs forward, do the piles and then bob back

again. So we can’t get that double layer of hoarding.

22

132. And as you’ve already said, to be very close, the rigs of course are at height. So it

will be difficult to do more. That’s not to say we would immediately say ‘No, we can’t

do more’, but I mean, just to explain some of the difficulties that we have.

133. MS AULETTA: Sorry, just a quick question. You mentioned the AP3 was put

forward to address problems with keeping existing railway with operations/

134. MR SMART: Well, other things, but that was -

135. MS AULETTA: And other things, yes, absolutely. But the AP3 scheme

effectively then restricts the ability for the existing railway to be redeveloped in due

course, because HS2 has taken up all of the remaining space within the station and in the

throat. So that effectively you’ve kicked the problem of redeveloping the existing

railway without having impacts on the existing commuters into touch in due course.

136. MR SMART: Well, we are doing things in the throat to enable the Euston plan.

So we are doing things there. I mean, I don’t know how – I think the Committee have

already heard about what we’re doing there, and that’s created other problems with vent

– head houses and vent arrangements.

137. MS AULETTA: That doesn’t answer my question. My question was in relation

to the existing railway being able to be developed once AP3 – once the AP3 scheme had

gone – you know, has happened.

138. MR SMART: Do you mean the rail tracks or the station?

139. MS AULETTA: Both.

140. MR SMART: Well, the station has been – we designed the station to enable the

future Greater Euston, if you like, which is to be done in conjunction with

Network Railway later. And the tracks of course, what HS2 does by having the

constrained two-track – effectively two-track approach, and then this if I may use the

term, quite clever arrangement with the diver under which turns it into four but in a

constrained…. We reduce the impact on the existing track, which does give Network

Rail the opportunity to grow the classic service, if I can use that term, in the way that

they want to.

23

141. MS AULETTA: But you – does the – there is no capacity within Euston Station

following HS2’s redevelopment to be able to – to enable -

142. MR SMART: No, I don’t believe that’s right, because we -

143. MS AULETTA: – the development of – the redevelopment of the classic side of

the Euston Station, because you’ve only got, what is it, six platforms left?

144. MR SMART: Well, it’s done in accordance with the Network Rail plan to

develop. We’ve also built in redundancy for London Underground for 2040, plus 41%,

I think. Off the top of my head I can’t recall what would enable – in terms of the classic

platforms, but I daresay we can – we can clarify that.

145. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: Can you tell the Committee what effect – because the

residents are pretty close, both in Mornington Street in the Granby Bridge – what effect,

in terms of noise and vibration, these pilings are going to have on residents?

146. MR SMART: Well, piling, I’m not anticipating any effect from the vibration,

because we’ve already heard about where we can press in with that. And the main load

bearing piles, the piling that we’re doing is, if you like, forming piles to hold the ground

open while we construct the actual foundations. So these bridges – well, these are – in

this area they’re founded on burettes – and you have heard about those, because it’s a

similar technique to Park Village East. Temporary -

147. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: Park Village East was going to be the screw type.

148. MR SMART: Not the – the burettes were different, for – these burettes are on

here. These are the diaphragm wall.

149. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: Yes.

150. MR SMART: And the contiguous piles are down at the track level to form that

cellular structure.

151. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: Yes. I’m talking about the vibration piles.

152. MR SMART: Yeah. Well, these are vibration piles – what we call the sheet piles.

It would only be here, and they are really to form the temporary hole, if you like, to

24

form the – to put load-bearing foundations in. Now, as I’ve indicated we would expect

that we could use this technique of pressing the piles in so you’re not actually vibrating

them in.

153. And at high level we would – once we’re out of the railway we would be able to

work- we can use – that is where we can – best practicable means allows us more

flexibility because we can use local shielding. We have got a better choice of plant

methodology and we can – more – as I say, it’s more straightforward to work in core

hours than – which you clearly can’t do in the railway throat.

154. So I’m not anticipating effect on the residents to be – certainly no more than

we’ve articulated in the ES, and I think in these areas here you can see because of how

we’re able to pull back on the effects of the sheet piling, it would be better. It would be

better, in fact.

155. CHAIR: Thank you, Mr Smart. You want some final comments.

156. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yeah. Could I just sweep up a few points while

Mr Smart takes his seat? I just pick up the number of issues raised. First of all, the

request for reasonable working hours. The question of working hours is part of the

section 61 process. We will be seeking approval of our working hours from the London

Borough of Camden in due course, having regard to all of the things you’ve just heard

about, best practicable means and legal effects of our construction on the surrounding

area, seeking to minimise it.

157. And as you’ve just heard, if there are the opportunities to minimise, for example,

the use of any vibrating techniques which therefore might have an adverse effect on

residents or the opportunity to do it in day hours rather than outside core working hours,

those are precisely the sorts of things one would expect to see covered through the

section 61 process in order to bring down all of the environmental statement worst

predicted effects to much better results for the residents.

158. But that’s part of the process that’s identified, and of course in a sense the

environmental statement is seeking to show the worst – realistic worst case scenario.

We expect to do much better when it comes to the approval of our section 61 using

those sorts of methods I’ve just identified.

25

159. The second point is in relation to the information paper, E23. I’ve already

identified, importantly, the section 61 processes free-standing to that, and the local

authorities will be able to control things as they see fit under the code – under the

section 61 process. But in E23 we have set out threshold levels, both the noise

insulation – you’ll probably need to go, sorry, a little bit further into E23.

160. I think I’ve shown you this page before. I just wanted to show you one bit that’s

been added in as a result of the discussions with Camden, I believe. If one goes to

appendix B on page 11 you can see Table 1, which has the noise thresholds for noise

insulation and temporary re-housing.

161. And you’ll recall they’re divided into different time periods. The noise insulation

trigger levels are in the penultimate column, the temporary re-housing trigger levels in

the far column, and they’re specific to different times of the day. And that’s where we

had the – for example, the 85 dB level during the day and, at the bottom, 65 at night, as

triggering temporary re-housing.

162. And as Mr Miller explained, and Mr Smart’s already identified, whilst we are

identifying eligibility for the properties in, for example, Mornington Street and

Mornington Terrace, for some of those properties for noise insulation, by use of the best

practicable means that we’ve been describing we don’t anticipate triggering any of the

re-housing trigger levels for noise in the construction period.

163. If we did, of course, then the temporary re-housing policy would apply. But just

to be clear we are anticipating, bearing in mind what we’ve shown, not triggering any of

those levels.

164. But if you just go down to section 5 you can see section 5 deals with – ‘some

buildings and occupants will be treated as special cases, such as’ – and the third bullet

point, ‘residential buildings exposed to levels of ground bore noise or vibration that are

predicted or measured to exceed the significant observed effect levels set out in table 3

of appendix A’ – which I’ll show you in a moment.

165. ‘Two or more consecutive days or night will also be considered on a case-by-case

basis. The sorts of measures that will be considered include work management methods

or, where this is not effective or appropriate, temporary re-housing.’

26

166. And if we go to table 3 of appendix A you can see that the vibration is similarly

subject both to LOAEL levels and SOAEL levels, which I understand, with that policy

I’ve just shown you, are equivalent to what’s being done for the Thames Tideway

Tunnel, where there is a trigger level therefore for vibration which could then trigger the

need for temporary re-housing where it’s expected to be for more than those two nights.

167. Can I – I give you all of these by way of indication of the level of control, but I go

back to the first point Mr Smart’s already made. Our primary objective, using best

practicable means, is to avoid going over these levels in the first place. And that’s the

sort of thing that Mr Smart’s explained, that we’ve assumed vibratory piling rigs. In

reality there’s the opportunity to either avoid those altogether or, if they are required,

only for one or two of the piles, and then to use the alternative method of pressing piles.

That’s all something that will need to be looked at through these processes.

168. I should point out that the paragraph 5 I read out, with that exception for vibration,

is a new version of IP 23 that’s come through the discussions with Camden on a

route-wide basis, dealing with the potential route statements and things in the

information paper as a result of those discussions. That should provide the petitioners

with a further degree of assurance of the level of scrutiny that Camden are applying to

this information policy.

169. The adoption of the trigger levels in information paper E23 for noise reflects the

approach that I understand is being used in other projects – the Thames Tideway Tunnel

– the sorts of level that we had identified. I think it was referenced in the North London

line extension, also including Lmax levels. That, as I understand it, was on a predictive

basis, whereas both our project and the Thames Tideway Tunnel project, I believe, both

are based not on predictive methods but monitoring methods, which are set out in these

information papers, to avoid – to monitor what noise occurs and to avoid exceeding

specific levels.

170. And if one goes to the same information paper, page 3, you can just see that. I

hope – sorry. Footnote 2 indicates, for example, ‘Noise characteristics such as impulses

and tones will be considered as set out within the British Standard’ – long details –

‘5228 2014, Code of Practice for Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and

Open Sites.’

27

171. Can I then turn to the issue of traffic? And I can be relatively short about traffic,

because – not because it’s not important but because it’s the subject of – it will be the

subject of transport – traffic management plans with the London Borough of Camden,

the detail of which is subject also to the further assurance letter of 30 November,

explaining what sorts of things will be specifically included for the Camden area in the

traffic management plans.

172. And again, it’s a long list which I don’t attempt to read out here, but the

petitioners can again be reassured that the sorts of issues that they’re raising as to, for

example, rat running or avoiding gridlock or ensuring the free flow of traffic, are all

points that we are very much live to, Camden are very much live to, and are reflected in

achieving the right traffic management plans for the area for the very simple reason –

not just for the benefit of existing residents, but it’s also essential for the project, in

order to construct this project in this area, to be able to access the site in able to meet our

timetables.

173. I wasn’t intending to say anything further about the Need to Sell scheme, because

I know you’ve heard an awful about it from us, and I know we’re revisiting

compensation as a matter of general principle with the Euston Action Group, and we can

deal with the general points there.

174. So for all those reasons, which were taken as quickly as possible, I understand the

concerns of the petitioners. There is disruptive activity in their location and there is

some noisy activity, but it’s of much more limited duration than appears to be thought to

be the case, and there are very well-established mechanisms for controlling the level of

construction noise, coupled with the protection of noise insulation and the re-housing

policy if triggered.

175. I don’t think I need to say anything else about the – sorry, I should have said the

Hampstead Road bridge, that is covered with an assurance with TfL. The design of that

bridge, a very detailed design in its appearance, will be the matter for subject of detailed

design. The engineering design of it is something where further study is going to be

undertaken to look at the height that can be achieved.

176. So unless there’s anything further you want me to cover, those are my response.

28

177. CHAIR: Which one of you is going to deliver the final comments?

178. MS AULETTA: Is it possible for us to each make a comment?

179. CHAIR: If they’re only all very brief.

180. MS AULETTA: Thank you. David, do you want to start briefly?

181. MR AUGER: Yes. We have consistently asked for access to the noise model that

tells what the actual predicted noises are through the project, to understand exactly when

the noisy parts are and when the quiet parts are. We dispute the idea that it’s two years

and hearing about parts of the scheme, because as Steve mentioned, one assessment

point in Mornington Terrace has 24 noisy months during the period of 2017 to 2020,

and then the same noise assessment has noise at night from 2018 to 2022 over

32 months.

182. So that’s 2017 to 2022. That’s a five-year period. But that’s only noise above a

certain threshold, which are the only durations that they tell us about. We’ve always

asked that says for any assessment they could tell us the predicted noise throughout the

entire construction. I appreciate it’s a model, but we’ve been consistently denied access

to the material that would actually put our minds at rest or tell us how noisy it’s going to

be outside these periods.

183. We’ve asked them repeatedly. They’ve continually refused. We would ask you to

ask them to give us the information.

184. CHAIR: That’s fairly long already if the other two colleagues are going to speak.

You made a good point. Right. Yes?

185. MR MARTIN: Sorry, just one more thing about the noise limits that were

mentioned. We accept that 85dB is the normal construction limit for re-housing under

the British standard. This is a 10-year project, and we maintain that 85dB is

unreasonable given the length of the project.

186. CHAIR: Okay. Thank you very much.

187. MS AULETTA: Two things to say. One is, Rupert Thornely-Taylor in his

response to HS2 earlier in the afternoon in this room talked about and I quote, ‘The

29

thing about construction noise is it’s of limited duration, as a consequence of which

noise levels that are allowed during the daytime are higher than is the case for

permanent noise sources from the operation of railways and highways. There is a

general acceptance that people are expected, to put it bluntly, to tolerate more noise

from construction sites than from permanent installations because otherwise nothing

would get constructed.’ Fair enough. ‘If they have tolerated more noise during the day

then there is a payback in that the levels in the evening and the shoulder periods are

reduced. It would not be appropriate or necessary to do that for a permanent noise

source where the daytime noise levels are lower.’ We just feel that that hasn’t really

been taken on board.

188. The very final point I wanted to make, this relates to Camden settlement letter

with the assurances. I don’t know if it’s possible to get up page 10 of 39 under

‘Community Engagement’, point four.

189. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): That should be 11427(10).

190. MS AULETTA: Thank you. I’m sorry, I don’t have the reference numbers.

191. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): That’s alright. I hope it’s the right page.

192. MS AULETTA: ‘Community Engagement’. Have you got it?

193. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes.

194. MS AULETTA: Jolly good. I’m going to take you to 4.2: ‘The Secretary of State

will require the nominated undertaker to engage with the London Borough of Camden

on the development of a Community Engagement Framework aimed at ensuring the

sections of the community, including businesses and individuals, are made aware of

developments in relation to the construction programme and local impacts.’ One of the

things that we’ve consistently found over the last four years is that engagement is more

than being made aware of, but there’s no chance to make a change and during our four

years we can’t actually pinpoint any place where we’ve actually been able to make any

changes.

195. The former chair of our group, Dick Booth, who you might hear from, I think,

possibly tomorrow, has written a little paper about our experience of community

30

involvement with HS2, which I won’t go through but there were just a couple of things

which I wanted to say. ‘Engagement must allow the community to influence outcomes,

not just be an exercise in informing them’, and this is one of our asks. ‘But stakeholders

included should include the local authorities and voluntary organisations and residents’

associations.’ So our engagement with HS2, and what concerns us about the letter of

assurance with Camden, is that the definition of engagement continues to be provision

of information rather than actual consultation and taking our opinions on board.

Unfortunately, the last four years have been a fairly fruitless exercise for us, to be

honest; some of us have spent a very long time doing this, and we really can’t point to

anything where we have made any even minor change, even Hampstead Road Bridge,

for example.

196. CHAIR: You should go into politics because you get the same feeling sometimes.

Right. Okay. Thank you very much.

197. MS AULETTA: If that could be heard I would be very grateful. Thank you for

your time.

198. CHAIR: Thank you. Thank you all three of you. We now go on to AP3: 135,

Daniel Marcus. Could you do a brief introduction, Mr Strachan?

199. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes, sir.

200. MS AULETTA: Is it possible for us to have a copy of the new E23 before

tomorrow so that we could actually have a look at it before we come back to you again

in various guises?

201. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I’m very happy to give you a copy but it is available

also on the website – the updated version as soon as its updated. Just for those who

aren’t in the room, it was updated 2nd December 2015. I think you can have my copy.

202. MS AULETTA: Thank you.

203. CHAIR: Right, Mr Strachan, you’re going to do a brief introduction.

Daniel Marcus

204. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes, sorry. I’m just going to show you...

31

Mr Marcus you’ve got a rather high-level of plan at P11687. Mr Marcus lives at

21 Cubitt Court on Park Village East if I’ve got the address correctly. I’ll just give you

a bit more detail of the plans, P11688, on the screen now, and you can see that Cubitt

Court is towards the bottom end of Park Village East which you were considering last

week, opposite the Granby Terrace Bridge. You can see the land affected by HS2.

We’re not actually taking Cubitt Court, but there are utility works in Park Village East,

there are obviously the construction activities in the cutting where the buildings and the

sidings are, and of course the Granby Terrace Bridge itself which is being reconstructed

and realigned. I don’t think Mr Marcus has got any slides.

205. MR MARCUS: No, I don’t.

206. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: We have seen the pictures.

207. MR MARCUS: That’s my building. I believe you have been by it, if I’m not

mistaken.

208. CHAIR: Yes, carry on.

209. MR MARCUS: My name is Daniel Marcus. Thank you very much for allowing

me to appear before you. I live in 21 Cubitt Court. It’s the edge of Park Village East

and Stanhope Street. I live in a one-bedroom apartment. Both rooms face onto the

cutting and are directly opposite Granby Terrace.

210. Firstly, I’m asking for two things in regards to compensation, and I’ll explain why

I’m not asking for anything else. Firstly is that during particularly noisy construction

periods that we be given the right to find alternative accommodation; and second, to

change the Need to Sell Scheme to a ‘Want to Sell Scheme’ as has been described by

my very eloquent neighbours. I’m not as eloquent as they are, I’m not as

knowledgeable as they are, I just have my own story to tell.

211. I moved into this apartment block – as you see it’s new – five years ago. There

are 41 apartments in this building, three floors are for disabled families or somebody

disabled with a family, one floor is housing association, and the rest of the block is

leaseholder, of which I am one. I believe I’m the only one from this block appearing.

You could say that I’m representing 41 apartments. I have my own apartment with my

32

partner who’s a massage therapist who works very odd hours, very late at night –

coming back late, starting late.

212. I have my own business. I employ two other people and I work in Camden.

Business is precarious. I don’t know if I’m going to be around next year and if I would

need to sell, given that HS2 might or probably will affect the value of my property, I

would like the ability to get its full value if I should need to sell. My sister owns an

apartment on the seventh floor, which is number two on the picture. I’m number one.

She is unemployed. She moved back with my mother and she rents her apartment as

income. She takes no money from the state. When building works start she will lose

her income. I do not believe that she would be able to rent her apartment out anymore.

213. If you look at the block, we’re less than 10 metres from Granby Terrace, Granby

Bridge, the old engineering works; we’re looking over the Park Village East retaining

wall. We’re going to be overlooking the demolition of the buildings opposite us and

then obviously the construction that’s going to take place following. HS2 has said that

there’s going to be nine periods of significant noise during the day and seven periods of

significant noise during the night between 2017 and 2024. I feel that we will not be able

to live in that block at all; it will be unliveable, uninhabitable.

214. A quick note, I actually wrote to the council about this because they had an article

out saying that all these blocks are going to be negatively impacted by HS2

construction, and there’d be a block next door to us but Cubitt Court was never

mentioned. They wrote back to me saying, ‘The council does not have the resources or

the mandate to negotiate on behalf of individual homeowners’, so I feel having tried to

engage with HS2, having tried to engage with the council, that I have to come to you

today to engage with you because nobody else will listen. I feel disenfranchised. I feel

that we have no voice. I feel that a solution is being imposed upon us, and I feel

absolutely and utterly helpless. To put things in context, when this period of

construction will end I will be 66 years old, and when HS2 is complete and Euston will

be open I will be 73 years old. I do not believe that anybody has the right to impose

such conditions on somebody without offering fair compensation. When I hear what’s

happening, for example, in regards to Heathrow Airport on the news, if we were to be

dealt with in the same way, that’s life, we have to have development, sometimes we

have to move on if we’re unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

33

However, under the present conditions something is being imposed upon on us where

we have no right to say anything except in front of this Committee, which is quite

honestly for me ridiculous. I shouldn’t have to get up to this level. I shouldn’t have to

get up to this level. I should be heard beforehand. Somebody should be talking to us.

215. The second thing is that if you’re going to impose a solution and then come along

and say, ‘Well, now you’ve reached the noise level you have to move out’, I can’t do

that. I get up in the morning, I work 10 hours a day, I travel around, I live from month

to month as we make our sales, I pay my salaries, we move on to the next month. I

can’t be told ‘From Monday to Thursday you have to move out, it’s too noisy.’ This has

to be organised a little bit better and has to be organised in a way to take into

consideration the people who are living around it. You guys have been there, you’ve

seen it. This area is tiny, we’re on top of each other, but it’s a wonderful area to live in

– a wonderful area. It has a level of peace and tranquillity that at the end of a hard day

it’s just a pleasure to get home. It will be a pleasure to get home today, to walk into our

neighbourhood, and to live in the neighbourhood it will be a pleasure. It will not be a

pleasure when construction starts, so it should be our right to get out. If we want to

come back afterwards, it should be our right to come back afterwards. So that is my

request.

216. I’m going to end on a very personal note, but I want you guys to know how I feel,

apart from what I’ve just said. I do business a lot in Asia. I actually have a factory in

Asia that makes hand-woven silk. When they do construction projects in my

neighbourhood – it’s in Laos actually, so it’s just north of Thailand – you don’t get any

warning from the government, you get told to get out and that’s it. You get told what to

do. I’m actually feeling ‘My goodness, it’s happening here in the United Kingdom’,

and I am shocked. I would never, ever have thought that this could happen in our

country in the way it’s happening today. We have got to be allowed to engage with

HS2. We have got to be given compensation and we have got to be treated a lot better

than we’ve been treated up to now. Thank you very much.

217. CHAIR: Okay. Thank you. Mr Strachan, do you want to comment?

218. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I think I’ve already identified that the construction

activities that we’re talking about are more confined in terms of noisy works than is

34

apparently understood to be the case. They are identified in the Environmental

Statement with durations and their maximum noise levels given. It may be that people

are treating that as a maximum noise level that will be experienced over the full duration

of the project. That’s not the case as Mr Smart’s explained. Just because Mr Marcus

has raised the issue can I just refer him to the Information Paper E23, which sets out the

circumstances where noise insulation will apply and the circumstances in which

temporary re-housing would apply? We don’t anticipate any need for temporary re-

housing. We do anticipate the need for noise insulation in Cubitt House and we’ve

reached assurances with Camden as to the process which will begin in March 2016 for

that work to put in these measures before any noisy works occur to minimise the effects

on residents. As to Need to Sell, the Committee knows about that, but for Mr Marcus’s

benefit there are a number of criteria for Need to Sell, and if of course he’s talking about

a future need to sell that might arise then he’ll be able to apply if that need were to arise

subject to the other criteria. He doesn’t have to apply now; it’s a discretionary scheme

that will continue to apply throughout the construction of the scheme up until the first

year of its operation.

219. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: And his sister’s problem?

220. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Sorry?

221. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: His sister’s problem?

222. MR MARCUS: She’s renting her apartment as income.

223. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I don’t know the details if someone would want to

rent...

224. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Suppose I had a flat which I don’t live in but I live

on the income of renting it out. If I find that the rent I can get drops dramatically

because of the construction, what happens then?

225. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): That’s not covered by the discretionary scheme. It’s

a discretionary scheme aimed at owner-occupiers, which is one of the criteria under the

scheme. It doesn’t compensate for all indirect losses, nor does the Compensation Code.

So it’s a discretionary scheme that goes further than the Compensation Code, but not as

35

far as covering that circumstance.

226. MR MARCUS: Can I ask –

227. MR BELLINGHAM: Sorry, hang on. Mr Strachan, Mr Marcus has mentioned

that there’s been a lack of engagement, a lack of proper dialogue, and an unwillingness

of HS2 to really take his concerns and complaints seriously. What do you say about

that?

228. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Well, I don’t want to obviously inflame the views

either way.

229. MR BELLINGHAM: I’m trying to de-inflame it.

230. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): No, absolutely, and I’m conscious that things I

might say he may not agree with, but HS2, as the Committee has heard, has gone to

some considerable lengths to try and engage with people. It is sometimes the case that

people regard engagement as a failure if we’re not able to do all of the things that they

would like us to do, and it’s taken as a position of HS2 not listening because we’re

unable to offer them the very things that they seek. But the process we are going

through and already have gone through does involve a considerable amount of listening

not just to individuals but also to the local authorities that represent the interests of the

individuals. You will see, for example, in the Camden assurances a whole host of

measures designed to protect residents of Camden, and that includes Mr Marcus, in the

details of how the construction of the scheme goes forward. That process is very much

part of the engagement. It may be that it’s not directly engaging with Mr. Marcus, but

many of the things he’s raising about noise protection are things which we are taking

forward with those who are representing his interests as the local authority. So I

understand the criticism being made, but I would ask for a global assessment of what

efforts HS2 is doing to listen to people and to take on board those assurances and reflect

them in appropriate agreements, which is why you’ve got such a lengthy letter to read

from Camden.

231. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: Mr Strachan, can I ask a question? It does seem to me

that this is actually a very interesting case. If a Petitioner lives in his house and has to

be temporarily re-housed because the conditions are so bad, but his sister who doesn’t

36

live in the house can’t let her house and loses the income thereby and gets nothing, is

that fair?

232. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I make two points about that. Re-housing is

principally about protecting the amenity of someone who’s actually in a property to

re-house them so that their sleep is not disturbed. It’s not there as a financial measure to

compensate people. It’s effectively avoiding an adverse environmental effect. So

consistent with that it doesn’t provide financial compensation for someone who’s not

actually having to move. That brings me back to the element of the discretionary policy

on Need to Sell, which does go further than the Compensation Code, because on any

building project in London one isn’t subject to such compensation that’s being sought.

That’s the real difference. The re-housing policy is to protect people from levels of

noise, if they were to occur – and I don’t need to repeat myself, we don’t anticipate it

happening – to make sure for that period they don’t have to have those levels of noise of

noise to disturb their day-to-day life. It’s not a financial compensation.

233. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: Would his sister with a let house qualify under the Need

to Sell Scheme?

234. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): If there was a tenant in the house then they would be

eligible for re-housing under the policy to protect that tenant.

235. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: Yes, but his sister would not qualify for the Need to

Sell Scheme.

236. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): No, she doesn’t because she’s not the main occupier

of the property.

237. CHAIR: Okay.

238. MR CRAUSBY: Can I ask, when his sister let the property was she an owner-

occupier at the time that the scheme was announced?

239. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I did emphasise the criteria. I don’t know the dates

of which she –

240. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: Can I ask Mr Marcus –

37

241. MR MARCUS: We also don’t fall under it because I moved in in April and she

moved in – well, she didn’t move in in the end because she couldn’t, but in December

when she bought the place.

242. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: In 2010?

243. MR MARCUS: 2010, correct, yes. No, I moved in in August, sorry. I bought in

August and the scheme ends in April 2010. I’m not eligible for the scheme.

244. I just wanted to ask HS2 a question, if it’s possible, in regards to noise mitigation.

Our building is built to the most modern standards in terms of noise insulation. In fact,

it’s incredibly quiet inside the building. We have amazing double-glazing, we have

everything necessary, however we still near the noise outside; it still does happen. You

can hear people, revellers on Friday and Saturday. It’s not too disturbing, it’s just

normal noise. However, when construction will start there will be significant noise. I

don’t see how they can put any more insulation into the building that’s been built to the

most modern standards. Perhaps you could comment on that.

245. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): The trigger levels for noise insulation are measured

at the outside on the assumption that the levels inside would be not subject to such

beneficial measures. If, in fact, there’s already full secondary glazing –

246. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Double-glazing rather than secondary glazing.

247. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Sorry, double-glazing. But there is still the

opportunity to consider additional noise insulation as part of the assessment of the

property and to assess whether or not the existing noise insulation is effective coupled

with the need for mechanical ventilation, if there is, as indicated, the need to open

windows, but that all happens as part of the assessment process.

248. CHAIR: Okay. We’re going to reflect on what you’ve told us. Any brief final

comments?

249. MR MARCUS: Sorry?

250. CHAIR: Any brief final comments, Mr Marcus?

251. MR MARCUS: Yes, on the point of my sister she had one opportunity in her life

38

to go and buy something. She went and bought something. This project is now going to

run between 2017 and 2024, and even if it doesn’t cover all those years there’s going to

be a significant number of years where she is not going to be able to let out her

apartment at full value and therefore she is going to lose from the building, and over a

number of years. I think with all due respect it sounds like you’re talking quite short-

term. You’re not talking short-term, you’re talking about a significant chunk of our

lives. She’s two years older than me. She’s 57 years old. This is her income from here

on in; that’s it, there are not going to be any more jobs for her at 57 years old and this is

her retirement income. She doesn’t rely on the Government; she doesn’t rely on

handouts, she just has this income. So I think it’s extremely unfair, and I feel from your

honourable comments that some of you actually support me.

252. CHAIR: Okay. Thank you very much.

253. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: Did you buy after you knew about HS2, you had prior

to knowledge?

254. MR MARCUS: When we moved, although the Bill was published in April 2010,

we didn’t hear about this. Maybe it is our fault, yes, because it was published and we

should have done whatever we should have done, but Notting Hill Housing Association

who built the building didn’t know about it, didn’t tell us about it. We didn’t find out

until a couple of years later.

255. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: Did your solicitor’s searches not throw it up?

256. MR MARCUS: No.

257. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: That may fall into a different category and you may

want to talk to HS2 about that. Not here.

258. CHAIR: Or see your solicitors. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much

Mr Marcus. Thank you for your contribution.

259. We are now on 1802, AP345, Camden Association of Street Properties, Petra

Dando. She’s not here? Is Petra Dando not here? The other clerk has gone in but if she

doesn’t turn up soon she’s going to lose her spot. Are you Petra Dando?

39

Camden Association of Street Properties

260. MR EWING: No, I’m the nominated representative and Ms Dando has asked me

to –

261. CHAIR: And your name is?

262. MR EWING: Mr Ewing, a Committee member. E-W-I-N-G.

263. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: And your first name?

264. MR EWING: Terence.

265. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Can you go to the seat slightly beyond?

266. MR EWING: Sure.

267. CHAIR: It always worries us when people sit down with a big pile of papers.

268. MR EWING: Are we on microphones?

269. CHAIR: No, you just speak. Now, I presume you’re not going to go through all

your hundreds of slides.

270. MR EWING: There won’t be any necessity for that. I’m only going to refer to

one or two.

271. CHAIR: Okay.

272. MR EWING: I have prepared some bullet points which I’m going to use as my

aide-memoir. I can provide two extra copies for the Chair and –

273. CHAIR: And for HS2, yes.

274. MR EWING: I shall be elaborating on them, but they are bullet points I must

emphasise.

275. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Would it help if you first of all read out your nine

questions at the end?

276. MR EWING: Yes, there are some questions on the cutting and Parkway Tunnel,

40

and some questions in relation to the station. I’m happy to do that. I think it’s on page

2 halfway down. This relates to Parkway Tunnel and the cutting area. I don’t want to

traverse on other organisations’ presentations, however, but we do have some questions

which we think are pertinent. (1) Why can’t the present Parkway Tunnel mouth be used

and remain rather than construct a new tunnel?

277. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Why do you need a new portal?

278. MR EWING: Yes. Why do you need a new portal? Why can’t the HS1 – it goes

through, I think, Rochester or somewhere, doesn’t it? That’s one question we would

ask. Then the next question would be: (2) why can’t the tracks run on the present left

side of the tracks in the present cutting, as it appears to us to be quite straight and level?

If that scenario is not acceptable then we pose the question: (3) why can’t the tracks run

on some sort of flyover above the present tracks in the cutting? If I might just have

some water.

279. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Shall I read out the next question? It saves time.

280. MR EWING: Yes, indeed. Yes.

281. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: The fourth of those is: (4) why can’t the tunnel

commence outside Euston and the tracks either run under the current ones or tunnel

behind the cutting wall into the hill?

282. MR EWING: That is right, sir, yes.

283. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Then if you want to go on to your second set of

questions.

284. MR EWING: Yes, this relates to the design and present plans for Euston Station.

The first question is: (1) why does the high speed station have to have 11 platforms?

We understand that there are 11 platforms proposed, and we’ll address you a little bit in

detail about that shortly. Then also: (2) why can’t the area in the present forecourt be

used to extend the station area?

285. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Do you mean to Euston Square?

286. MR EWING: Yes, but leading up to the bus-stop, so we’ve got something to say

41

about that because I understand the footprint issue is very much a live issue with

ourselves and other groups. (3) Is the extended area of the high speed train station

going to be used as some form of shopping mall? By that I mean the Melton Road

extension. (4) Why cannot the listed buildings, and that, I think, relates mostly to

Melton Street, be dismantled and reassembled elsewhere? Then (5), and I think this is a

question that many campaign groups have been asking is: why is it necessary to extend

the station across the Melton Street area to Regent’s Park Estate? (6) Why can’t the

high speed platforms be built underneath the present ones? We understand there’s car

park facilities underneath, although we accept there might be issues with the

Underground. (7) Alternatively, why can’t the high speed platforms be built above the

present ones? (8) Why can’t het station be built on two levels with waiting concourse

space above the platform areas, both above the concourse and the platform areas

themselves? (9) Why does the high speed station require all of the proposed

administrative and office space to be included in the Melton Street extension? So really

that is covering previous questions as to why other areas couldn’t be utilised?

287. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Can I try to help you and help us?

288. MR EWING: Yes.

289. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Nearly all of these issues have been dealt with in the

weeks before.

290. MR EWING: Yes, we understand.

291. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I’m wondering rather than you building up to why

you asked the questions, because why you asked the questions is relatively obvious and

clear, whether it might be sensible for you to forego taking us in detail through the lead-

up and perhaps we could ask HS2 if they could put a witness on who could give us some

of the answers to some of the questions.

292. MR EWING: Fine, fair enough.

293. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Would you be happy with that?

294. MR EWING: Yes, if we could just read out briefly what our issues and solutions

are.

42

295. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I’m not sure we want your solutions. In effect, the

question is ‘Why have they chosen to do what they’re doing?’, so we don’t need to have

your solutions, I think.

296. MR EWING: No, no.

297. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: You’ve given a copy to them and you might be able

to deal with them. So I think that it would be practical if we asked HS2 if they’d like to

deal with the four questions, if they reasonably can, on page 2, and the nine questions on

pages 3 and 4.

298. MR EWING: Yes. If I could say just before we do that that there are two issues.

One particular issue involving Harrington Square that we’ve been approached by some

of our members to raise. And also, although the Committee might think that this is

outside the scope of the present Bill, but we do raise some issues under the

Environmental Information Regulations about the disclosure of what have been referred

to as Major Projects Reports, and I think you’ve seen our presentations on that although

we accept you might take the view that they might be too wide.

299. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I think we would.

300. MR EWING: But we took the view that in view of the criticisms of lack of

consultation and lack of information –

301. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: But you’re wanting Harrington Square protected

from heavy goods traffic.

302. MR EWING: That is right.

303. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Okay. And was there another point?

304. MR EWING: Yes, that we wanted it restricted to Hampstead Road. I was

specifically asked to raise that by the residents who are some of our members. I think

you do have some photographs of Harrington Square, the street property on the side.

Rather famously, I think, it’s where the buses went into the – in historical times. We

take fully on board what has been emailed to us about the case law and the National

Policy Framework, but we thought we’d put them in so that they’re there (the Bonn rail

43

case and the well-recognised tests). I don’t want to go through them in detail.

305. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Okay, don’t even mention them anymore. Shall we

turn to HS2?

306. MR EWING: Yes, sure.

307. CHAIR: Okay. Mr Strachan.

308. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I think Mr Miller’s going to take up the gauntlet of

answering all the questions. Can I just make this point?

309. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Do you want me to lend you a copy of the questions

on page 2?

310. MR MILLER: Yes, that would be a good idea. Excellent. Thanks.

311. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): A lot of these questions obviously have been

answered or addressed in the many years of consideration of the design of the scheme,

and there’s quite a considerable body of information reporting alternatives in the

Environmental Statements for which the Petitioner can turn. I don’t think these are

questions that he’s put to us before, or indeed the group that he’s representing today, the

Camden Association of Street Properties, which I had understood to be concerned

principally with listed buildings. But I’m sure Mr Miller will at least point the

Petitioner in the right direction. Mr Miller, I think there are four questions on page 2.

‘Why can’t the present Parkway Tunnel mouths be used and remain? ‘I suspect you may

be able to answer that relatively quickly.

312. MR MILLER: Essentially we’ve got to create new tunnel portals to get the

alignment to move from the sort of fan of the tracks at Euston Station itself through to

Old Oak Common. So what we’ve done over the years is we’ve tweaked the alignment

in this location to try and get it under the West Coast Mainline insofar as we can, but

they’re dedicated tunnels all the way through to Old Oak Common. Essentially what’s

happening with the station is, and has traditionally been done, it has been developed in a

westerly direction, so the original station was over to the east, then there was a central

concourse, and it was extended to the west taking up part of St James’s Gardens in a

previous expansion, and now we’re in a situation where we’re expanding once again and

44

getting the high speed trains over to the west to get into those tunnel portals.

313. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): We then get to: ‘Why can’t the tracks run on the

present left side of tracks in the cutting?’ I think Professor McNaughton and Mr Smart

have already addressed that. The short answer, I think, Mr Miller, is that there isn’t

room, but you can tell me if that’s right or wrong.

314. MR MILLER: Yes, that’s correct, and part of the debate that’s been going on in

recent days has been the walling alongside Park Village East which I think has to come

down and be reconfigured to enable our track s to go in, and they’re quite tight within

the rail corridor at that point. So our tracks will be over on that side.

315. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): The third question is: ‘Why can’t tracks run on a

flyover above the present tracks in the cutting?’

316. MR MILLER: We did look at a wide range of options for going into Euston:

expansion options laterally, we’ve looked at options going down, and we’ve looked at

options going above. Certainly with the sort of constraining issues for going above

would be the Hampstead Road itself, so we would have to find a way of negotiating

Hampstead Road, and I think one of the original options that we had was actually a

flyover of Hampstead Road, and you can imagine what that would actually look like in

the townscape. We’ve alighted on the alignment that we have; it’s kept down, albeit

there’s a westerly lateral expansion of the station and we’re in the cutting there.

317. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): The fourth question: ‘Why can’t the tunnel

commence outside Euston and the tracks either run under the current ones or tunnel

behind the cutting wall into the hill?’ I think that might mean suggesting tunnelling

under Park Village East. I think that’s the suggestion.

318. MR MILLER: Yes, our consideration has been to keep the new railway works

within the railway corridor wherever we can. Our consideration is not to put it

underneath properties like Park Village East. We’ve heard in recent days that some of

those properties suffered because of the foundations in the Nash buildings. I understand

that they’re on raft foundations and there are many concerns about settlement and that

sort of thing. So our job of work is to keep it within the rail corridor and keep it safe

with a new retaining wall, the barrette kind of retaining walls that we’re proposing in

45

that corridor.

319. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Can we turn to page 3 of the document? ‘Why does

the high speed station have to have 11 platforms?’ I think that’s the first question.

320. MR MILLER: I’m not the operator but I think that has been answered before.

321. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: It’s phase 1 and phase 2.

322. MR MILLER: Yes.

323. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): That’s in the final scheme, if I can put it in that way.

324. MR MILLER: That’s correct, and I understand that our part of the station enables

the longer platforms and that’s partly why we’ve got sort of staggered platforms where

we have actually preserved the Royal College of General Practitioners’ building on the

western side.

325. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): For the record there is a slide P11279(14) which

shows the platform sequencing, because I think that was an issue that cropped up

previously. 18 current platforms and then 2026 to 2033 six high speed and 13 classics,

and then in 2033 11 and then 13. 11279(14).

326. MR MILLER: Yes, so that’s the latest configuration which is in the

Supplementary Environmental Statement in the Additional Provision.

327. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): The second question was: ‘Why can’t the area in the

present forecourt be used to extend the station area?’ That’s certainly, I think,

something Professor McNaughton covered in exploring the options that have been

looked at for the Euston Station process.

328. MR MILLER: There are two remaining buildings in the forecourt area. We do

have beneath the ground with our plans arrangements for London Underground and the

onward dispersal of passengers as HS2 comes on-stream, so there’ll be a new London

Underground passenger concourse beneath. Then we’ve got some other works which

go beneath and which connect with the District and Circle Line at Euston Square. So

there’s a lot going underneath, there’s a lot going on at the surface, and it’s fair to say

that Euston Square Gardens is within the Bloomsbury conservation area and we’ve

46

heard a little bit about that and concerns about losing trees and that sort of thing already.

329. CHAIR: What about the listed buildings?

330. MR MILLER: Those listed buildings are all masonry buildings and I believe

they’re not really the type of buildings which can be taken down and moved readily. I

think on HS1, from my memory, timber-type buildings were taken down, but we might

qualify that point. But it’s in a scheduled London Square as well, and our plan when

you look at the final restoration scheme for the station preserves insofar as we can the

frontage to Euston, the gardens themselves and where the portico buildings are.

331. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): The third question was whether the extended area of

the high speed station was going to be used as a shopping mall.

332. MR MILLER: There’s a possibility for over site development. What shape that

actually takes I don’t know. You can imagine that for the station itself there will be

shops, newsagents and that sort of thing. I have to say that if you look at Waterloo now,

or you look at Victoria, or you look at King’s Cross St Pancras, they do have many

more high street shops in them so they are becoming destinations in their own right. I

can only say that I would imagine that probably a ground floor or even a second floor up

might have those sorts of facilities.

333. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: So there is an expectation of development above the

station?

334. MR MILLER: There is indeed, yes.

335. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I think you’ve answered the question about listed

buildings being dismantled and removed elsewhere. ‘Why is it necessary to extend the

station across the Melton Street area to Regent’s Park Estate?’

336. MR MILLER: I think that’s simply because we need to have the platform space

for High Speed 2 and the configuration with getting the main lines over to the west and

to get into the tunnel portal it means that the western expansion of the station in our

view is the best way to do that, and that encroaches on Regent’s Park Estate, Melton

Street.

47

337. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Mr Miller, that view is also one now which is

reflected in the relative level of agreements being reached both with the London

Borough of Camden and indeed TfL.

338. MR MILLER: Yes, and I think it’s fair to say that the sort of partnership working

between HS2 and Network Rail has confirmed that as well.

339. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Then: Why can’t the high speed platforms be built

underneath the present ones?’ And I might just take that with: ‘Why can’t the high

speed platforms be built above the present ones?’, because I think both of those

questions go to options that have been referred to as ‘double-deck up’ or ‘double-deck

down’, which Professor McNaughton dealt with last Monday, but Mr Miller, if you

could just respond briefly to those two questions.

340. MR MILLER: I mentioned we had looked at an option of going up. We’ve also

looked at options going down. There was some evidence provided last week and there

are also, again, problems with going down in light of the Northern Line, as I understand

it.

341. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): The eighth question is: ‘Why can’t the station be

built on two levels with waiting concourse space above the platform areas, both above

the concourse and the platform areas themselves?’

342. MR MILLER: I think actually the station configuration does allow for that and

there’s a sort of central spine area as well. I think you will see that featuring in the

scheme.

343. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): The ninth question is: ‘Why does the high speed

station require all of the proposed administrative and office space to be included in the

Melton Street extension?’ I’m not sure I’ve fully understood that question.

344. MR MILLER: Oh, I see. there are buildings above the Melton Street extension.

That’s necessary for HS2. HS2 is on the western side of the station and so the facilities

to service the trains for those new station platforms will have to be on that side, and I

dare say that there are all sorts of administrative facilities and I dare say that there will

be control facilities and that sort of thing in those station buildings.

48

345. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I think finally the other issue was about the use of

Harrington Square, which is identified principally, I think, as an area for utilities’

diversion, completing the utilities’ diversion at the northern end of the Ampthill Estate

with a temporary diversion around Harrington Square, if I’m getting that right.

346. MR MILLER: Yes.

347. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): It’s Q4 of 2016 and in the second quarter of 2022, so

there’s a diversion around that area. I think we can probably see that on P11848(2)

where you can see the Harrington Square area and some diversion of traffic around it. I

think there was concern about not using Harrington Square for construction traffic. I

don’t know if you’ve got any comments on that, Mr Miller?

348. MR MILLER: I think we did look at this in light of Hampstead Road and buses

and that sort of thing the other day. We will have to use that area to maintain flows of

that sort of traffic on the roads. In light of the utilities in the area, because we are

moving things around as a result of the Hampstead Road we have to think about re-

providing the utilities across the whole area, so we have been working with the utilities

companies to establish what the reasonable distance is to go to replace things like

sewers, electrical facilities, and that sort of thing. That’s why you see these long pink

fingers, as it were, on the roads on our plans. This will be a comprehensive change to

the utilities as a result of the scheme, and clearly getting the utilities right benefits

everybody who receives those utilities, whether it’s telecoms, mains water, drainage,

sewers, and that sort of thing. So all of that has to be taken into account.

349. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I think P11848(17) gives one an indication of at

least the utility works at that time, which is shown in this corner of the section affecting

Harrington Square.

350. MR MILLER: Yes, that’s right.

351. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): And the utilities going across the corner of it.

352. MR MILLER: Yes. Then I think in our final plans as these works are finished if

we’re having to go across the Square for whatever reason then you’ll see in those final

plans schemes of restoration of those green areas that we will affect temporarily and

49

those will be put back, restored, into an equivalent form. I think it’s said elsewhere in

terms of the open spaces that are affected that certainly those open spaces will be

improved upon, because there are some losses.

353. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Thereafter, I think the road around Harrington

Square along Hampstead Road is used for construction access to the compound serving

the station. But Harrington Square is a one-way system. The Committee probably

know that, but it goes round in a clockwise way around Harrington Square, and that’s

the route for construction traffic to get down to the compound in that area.

354. MR MILLER: That’s right.

355. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I think, Mr Miller, you’ve probably answered all of

the questions that were directly raised by the Petitioner. I haven’t got any further

questions for you.

356. CHAIR: Okay. Well, you’ve got a top barrister to ask all of your questions of a

witness, what else do you want to do? Do you have any questions yourself?

357. MR EWING: Yes, it’s fine. Yes. I was just going to finish off by making some

observations, quite short ones, but I’m happy to answer any questions.

358. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: If you could stand him down you can then make

your concluding comments. That would be grand.

359. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes.

360. CHAIR: Okay. Concluding comments then. Thank you.

361. MR EWING: I’ve got no problems with asking questions but I’m not a technical

engineer so I don’t think it would be a very fruitful exercise.

362. CHAIR: No, no need to. Carry on Terence.

363. MR EWING: As I say, with the cutting and Parkway Tunnel we’re a little bit

confused what’s happening. I know that the engine sheds are going to be demolished,

but it’s unclear whether the red brick building just above it on Granby Terrace across the

bridge... What’s going to happen to that? We’d like some clarification on that.

50

364. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): That’s demolished.

365. MR EWING: Well, again, we couldn’t see the necessity for that. We could see

the necessity for the sheds below but we weren’t quite sure why the red brick building

was going. The other issue is the Granby Bridge. There are several pictures that you’ve

got in your presentations, but it appears to be new stonework. We were rather mystified

as to why the original stonework couldn’t be demolished and replaced. And the centre

of the bridge with the present architraves and so forth, and I think it’s got iron railings,

there’s one version with them replaced and another version with more modern, plainer

walls, so we’re not quite sure what exactly is being proposed when the Granby bridge is

replaced. We would urge that it be put in place exactly as it is with the original

stonework because if it’s brand new it’s going to look a bit odd. The present stonework,

particularly underneath the lamps is well weathered, so it all matches in. So we just

make those points.

366. Dealing with the Euston area, we note what you say about the listed buildings in

Cobourg Street and Melton Street. We think it’s a shame they can’t be taken apart and

re-built elsewhere. But we also can’t understand why the National Temperance Hospital

– although we accept it’s not a listed building we can’t understand why that is being

demolished.

367. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: We’ve been through that at length before.

368. MR EWING: Yes, I understand.

369. CHAIR: Yes.

370. MR EWING: We don’t think it’s necessary anyway. I think our photographs at

260 and 261, we would submit that there’s ample space there to burrow into a tunnel,

and we just draw your attention to what’s happened with High Speed 1 when it comes

up to St Pancras. I know it goes round a sharp curve and I know there’s a sort of hillock

and then it starts to go straight into the tunnel and under Barnsbury and it doesn’t come

uphill again until Ebbsfleet, and that got round all of the problems in that situation. I

hear what you say about the vibrations but it depends on how deep the tunnel would go.

371. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Okay, that’s probably enough on that. Thank you.

51

372. MR EWING: Yes. Right, fair enough. But I just make the point that modern

trains do climb quite steep gradients.

373. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: We saw that in your evidence.

374. MR EWING: Yes. I think that’s it, although I’d just draw to your attention to

Reading Station and the one in Berlin where it’s got lines on several levels. Imaginative

solutions have been used and we think that this requires a lot more imagination.

Certainly the actual designs that have been presented have come in for a lot of criticism.

We think that a golden opportunity is being missed for what could be a landmark site for

the capital city and we think that it is a missed opportunity to create a landmark building

and scheme of the highest quality, be it heritage based or mixed or completely

contemporary – styles differ. We take on board what other Petitioners have said about

the lack of involvement of the community groups and consultation. We think that for

such an important scheme as this we would urge the Committee to take on board what

has been submitted by all the other campaign groups that there should be much more

involvement. I’ll just draw to your attention that in the 19th century for St Pancras

Station I think there was a competition and we know Sir Gilbert Scott won it.

375. CHAIR: Okay, point taken. Thank you very much.

376. MR EWING: Thank you sir. Thank you.

377. CHAIR: Thank you. We move on to AP3 48, Camden Town District

Management Committee, 907952, represented by Frances Heron. Who’s going to kick

off then?

378. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: If Ms Heron could just describe first how the

Camden Town Committees work?

Camden Town District Management Committee

379. MS HERON: Yes. I’m really sorry. We sort of got ourselves in a muddle and

didn’t do a front page.

380. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Don’t worry, don’t worry.

381. MS HERON: And we’ve been muddled all night because the printers didn’t work.

52

Let me introduce myself. I’m Fran Heron. I live in Camden and have done for the past

30 years. I’ve chaired the Camden Town District Management Committee for some

years, probably too long.

382. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Are there five in the borough?

383. MS HERON: Yes, there are five in the borough and Camden is one. It covers a

similar catchment area to the Euston HS2 Action Group and also a similar area to the

CF1 north of Euston Station, but its primary focus is on local authority housing. We

meet four times a year. The meetings are open to the public, and it’s clerked by the

council, which is a bit of a historic blip; that comes because in the days of the old

housing committee there were elected members from each of the five districts. The

membership is elected members from tenants associations to this umbrella group.

384. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: So you might get a representative from any tenants

group or residents group coming up and being recommended to join the appropriate

register.

385. MS HERON: Yes. We also represent everybody but people who come to the

meetings are not –

386. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: It’s a slightly different approach to the Association

of Street Properties, which also represents tenants and leaseholders.

387. MS HERON: They have a more difficult task, as they cover the whole of the

borough, rather than a sort of an area with a boundary, sort of thing. Yes, so there are

about 6200 properties, LBC properties, in the two wards, which are St Pancras and

Somers Town and Regent’s Park Wards, which are also the wards which are most

seriously impacted by HS2.

388. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: That’s on page 3, I think, is the best illustration of

that.

389. MS HERON: Are we on page 3? Right. So about 25% of those are leaseholders,

and could I just say, before I go on any longer, another landlord, social landlord, in the

area is Origin Housing, which used to be St Pancras Housing and it has a significant

housing portfolio in Somers Town. It’s got a really great history as one of the

53

pioneering housing associations. Although Origin itself is going to make representation

to you, its tenants association missed the deadline and so asked if we would include

them. They face the same generic issues we do, so I would like you to just bear that in

mind. Thank you.

390. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: In your slides 4 and 5, we’ve got a figure for every

single resident locally. Have you counted St Pancras people in with that or is that just

the LBC?

391. MS HERON: No. When we go to four and five...

392. MS FLETCHER: Go back a slide, please.

393. MS HERON: We also made an error. The colours – you will have seen this slide

before.

394. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Yeah.

395. MS HERON: But we didn’t think it actually told the story of the trauma that

people were going to face and just how many. So if you go to the next slide, please.

396. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: You’ve brought your friends with you on paper.

397. MS HERON: I’ve brought my friends with me. So the top slide actually shows

the number of people that live within 30 metres.

398. MS FLETCHER: 60 metres.

399. MS HERON: 60 metres, not 300 metres. The lower grouping represents people

within 120 metres, and if you go to the next page...

400. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: That’s the real 300?

401. MS HERON: That is people within 300 metres. They live within 300 metres.

That’s a lot of people, and of course, they’re not the only people impacted. Everybody

that wants to go through Camden is going to be impacted, especially people who use

public transport or cyclists, pedestrians. There is going to be an awful lot of people

impacted. Next slide, please.

54

402. CHAIR: I had HS2 as running alongside the classic rail line. Presumably all

those people live within that distance of the classic rail lines as well.

403. MS FLETCHER: Yes. The distance is a combination of the classic rail and the

HS2 proposal.

404. MS HERON: I’m sorry. I haven’t introduced Louise, my colleague. She has

done all the mapping and statistical stuff. She’s a wizard at that.

405. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Does Louise have a family name?

406. MS FLETCHER: Fletcher.

407. MS HERON: Fletcher. I’m very sorry. Just a formality. Right, so next – we’ve

gone a bit further – so basically, we’re a very diverse community, as you can see from

this slide.

408. MS FLETCHER: Slide number 2.

409. MS HERON: Thank you. Just over 50% of the population are white and then we

have significant Asian and mixed communities. Basically, there are very, very, very

many languages spoken at local schools. The other pie chart shows the age distribution.

The biggest segment of that is five to 15 year olds. It’s predominantly a settled

community and it represents about 9% of the house holders in Camden, so I’m in a mix

here. Right, next slide, please. Back a slide, please. So these two slides show either

end of the age spectrum.

410. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I don’t think 65 is at any end of the age spectrum.

It’s right in the middle.

411. MS HERON: By the time HS2’s finished they will be. Approximately 1700

children between the ages of one and seven live within 300 metres, and obviously a lot

of them live outside of this, so basically, their entire childhood, they’re going to grow up

in a construction zone with very little access to open space play and game facilities.

This is not very good for their physical health. The older age group, over 65s, for the

majority of them, for the remainder of their retirement, will face living in blight and a

difficult situation, when they should be putting their feet up after they’ve earned their

55

rest. A great number of those people will not survive. They will just have to sit it out.

Well, I don’t know what to say. It’s just dreadful.

412. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Well, I’d have a drink of water first.

413. MS HERON: A drink of water first. Thank you.

414. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: And then later on you can tell us what’s in your

mind.

415. MS HERON: Well, I just wanted to point out that the young people are going to

be deprived of what normal young people have when they’re growing up, running

around and safety, and older people, in a lot of ways they will suffer from – what’s the

word I’m looking for?

416. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Disruption and...

417. MS HERON: Disruption, but not being able to get –

418. CHAIR: We did talk to some school children also from Camden, so we

understand their concerns.

419. MS HERON: Yes.

420. CHAIR: Can we keep going through the slides?

421. MS HERON: Yes.

422. CHAIR: Because they’re very good slides.

423. MS HERON: The next one is Mr Goodwill, in parliament, shedding – in October,

that the construction of the original Hybrid Bill proposal would have meant a far more

intense period of disruption for the community. Next slide, please. I think the top slide

shows the works. The red is the AP3 and while there are gaps, obviously, the second

slide underneath them all squashed up together, and it’s very clear from one slide which

is Mornington Street Bridge, there will be a significant increase in duration, and I

suggest that, because there’s a lot of additional people are being added to those that

would be able to be eligible for noise insulation, that the intensity is not lessened that

much either. Next slide, please.

56

424. So this is the construction compound, and you can see that the blue ones, which

are the majority, those will be in situ for a longer duration, and at least one would be an

extra seven years. Next slide, please. This slide shows the schools, quite a number in

Somers Town. They are all labelled with the...

425. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: We’ve gone through that in quite some detail

already.

426. MS HERON: Can you go back please? Thank you. What I wanted to show you

from this slide is that children have to get across particularly from Regent’s Park in the

west to the senior school, mainly Regent’s High in the east, and the bridges will be –

Granby Terrace Bridge will be demolished. Mornington Street, I’m not sure about. It

would definitely be demolished, but I don’t know whether you can get across another

one, and of course, the main Hampstead Road Bridge will be reduced to a single lane of

traffic in both directions for six years, which is not a very good way, I would suggest for

children to travel.

427. If we could have the next slide, please. This shows the core routes, the HGV

routes in the dotted puce line that shows – the green star is the senior school and the

orange, the compounds that make big barriers. I can’t point it out to you from here. I

can’t reach. So most children coming from this area here would normally either go

down Granby Terrace Bridge or across Hampstead, and then cut across through

Ampthill Square and then go down Charrington Street straight down there. We asked

some children in Netley School to show us how they got to school and that was the way

they normally went. When asked to plot themselves a route if they had these obstacles

in the way, they were unable to do so and I invite you to perhaps find a route for them.

It’s a really significant distance they will have to travel. They will have to come all the

way – people must have awfully long arms to reach...

428. MS FLETCHER: Do you want a pen?

429. MS HERON: Yes, please. This area here is the worst, because they’d have to

come a great distance south, and when they get to the Hampstead Road, they’d have to

go south again and down south and round the station, or they’ll have to go all the way

up through the bridge works around the top of Ampthill Square and down there. So it is

quite a significant route, and of course, that would be the same for elderly people, or

57

they might not be going to school; they might be going to places of worship or even to

get to the shops. So there’s a significant issue there.

430. CHAIR: Okay.

431. MS HERON: That we’re concerned about, and obviously there’s the safety issue.

I’m going to handover to my colleague to talk about the next four slides.

432. MS FLETCHER: The next four slides are just talking about the nature of the

people who reside in this area. The first slide is a map taken from indexes of multiple

deprivation, which was published in 2010, and it shows all of Camden with the green

highlighting of the DMC catchment area, and the darker the colour, the higher level of

deprivation. You can see that that area has a significantly dark area, showing that the

local population, there’s a high level of deprivation. Next slide, please. There is a

statistical correlation between the level of deprivation and life expectancy. There’s

almost an 11 and a half year gap from the least to the most deprived area and the life

expectancy of men, and similarly, an 8.9 year in the life expectancy of women.

433. Next slide, please. This is a slide of general health status, and this is taken from

2011 census data where people self-reported that their health is either bad or very bad,

and I’ve kind of put the station outline in for scale, but if you look on the far eastern

boundary, you see the large cluster of quite dark, and it’s interesting to note that that’s

an area that’s been living in construction, that’s had the British Library, the Crick

Institute...

434. MS HERON: That’s not – laterally the Crick Institute.

435. MS FLETCHER: Well, yeah. I’m not sure exactly when things started. St

Pancras, and this continues. They’re not enduring the renovation of Kings Cross. It’s

an interesting correlation. It does appear to have influence of health. Next slide, please.

436. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: But the number of people who have been living long

term in the Kings Cross goods yard hasn’t been very high.

437. MS FLETCHER: No.

438. MS HERON: Are there other people living in the goods yard?

58

439. MS FLETCHER: You are correct that it’s – however, these colours are for equal

area of persons.

440. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I understand that.

441. MS FLETCHER: In a census.

442. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I didn’t want to think that I was being led to believe

there was an area of high population in the old goods yard.

443. MS FLETCHER: No.

444. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: It’s not.

445. MS FLETCHER: It’s not.

446. MS HERON: No, it doesn’t go that far.

447. MS FLETCHER: Each of those blocks of colour represent approximately the

same number people. There’s just – the area is much bigger. If you go and look at the

detailed health statistics, this is the four closest GP practices to the cuttings and the –

under the AP3 station and the approach, and in this case, I plotted the reported

incidences of asthma, and the red line is the Camden average, and all four of them show

greater incidences of asthma. Similar sorts of things were seen in other health statistics,

but I didn’t plot them. So basically, the Camden Town DMC represents a vulnerable

population, both in terms of deprivation and health.

448. They suffer higher incidents of health issues, asthma, which is a respiratory

disease as well as others, and the pollution, dust and stress caused by a large

construction program is going to be very detrimental to their health, which is already

poor to begin with.

449. MS HERON: Thank you. The impacts from air pollution are well known, but I

was amazed to hear only a few days ago that the number of early deaths from air

pollution is three times greater than those from road traffic accidents. It’s a significant

problem. With the increased noise and sleep deprivation, it’s going to make it really

difficult for working, for children going to school. They’re not going to be able

concentrate properly if their sleep is disturbed. The whole impact of the area are going

59

to make people really stressed, and anxiety – we already have a lot people who suffer

from mental health problems in the area, and I suspect many more will, and I think I’m

the verge anyway.

450. Let us note that noise and sleep deprivation as used as a cruel and unusual

punishment. It’s not a joke. I’m very concerned about that aspect of the work. I

wanted to talk to you about trees. Next slide, please. I am passionately fond of trees, as

are a great deal of other people, and the idea of losing Saint James’ Gardens is

absolutely heartbreaking. It cannot be replaced. It’s irreplaceable. Some of the trees –

I’ve got the ages of the trees somewhere. Some of them, in Saint James’ Gardens, are

225 years old, and others in Euston Square Garden are 165 years old. I’d hoped that we

might have learnt from HS2 how they planned to protect as many trees as possible, and

they provided a one-page, annotated bullet points, which I can’t find.

451. Basically, they referred to the BS standards, and – next slide – the BS standard,

5837, which told me nothing, so of course, like so many other documents they produce,

you have to go and try and find out what that actually means. It turns out that there was

a publication which – a very comprehensive publication, obviously, but you couldn’t

possibly find out what this assurance was to work in accordance with these standards. I

wanted to talk a lot more about trees and reflect the thought, but safe to say that the idea

that one tree can replace another mature tree is ludicrous. I recommend an article that it

was in The Guardian.

452. I don’t know if anybody saw it in August this year, talking about treeconomics

and the financial and social benefits from trees, which are enormous. They’ve got some

software program called i-Trees, I believe, that’s about to be launched and made public

about now. It provides a financial assessment of the worth of trees in urban

environments and in London in particular. So it’s not just a – god, I’m emotional – trees

are not just attractive and nice to be with, but they provide the benefits of reducing air

pollution, they soften hard landscape, they provide habitat. One of the quotes from that

publication in The Guardian was that one giant plane tree on the embankment, it would

take approximately 60 trees at the normal size, that they sell to local authorities for

replanting, to provide the same leaf cover. 60.

453. It’s through the leaves of course that the air pollution is reduced. I won’t go on

60

any further with that, but I’d just like to talk about our HS2 experience briefly. I’ve just

pointed to one of the issues that we are absolutely up to our armpits in information

documents, papers and in those are endless links to yet more documents and more

information, but in relation to the information pertinent to local issues that we really

want to find out, you’ve got no chance. I mean, you can ask for weeks and months and

months and they stall and they promise and nothing happens, and you resort to freedom

of information. Since submitting evidence, whatever you call it, exhibits, last week for

these hearings, we’ve been absolutely inundated with paper. Inundated. Hundreds,

many hundreds of pages.

454. I would suggest that there were over 1000, and if you are going to do the job

properly, you would need to read them – not just read them, but consider the

implications of what is in them and decide what was the best action to take, and in those

hundreds of documents, there were links again to more and more information. I just

think it is completely impossible to assimilate this sort of information that’s thrown at

us. I believe HS2 Limited have a directorate that’s just Louise and I to try and get

through all of this on behalf of the people we represent, and I believe that my rights, and

by implication the rights of many others, have been impinged.

455. Article 6(3) of the Aarhus Convention rules that sufficient time be allowed for

people to participate and meet deadlines. Now, I’ve paraphrased that, but that is what it

means, and clearly, we haven’t had that time. So I just wanted to go to the...

456. CHAIR: Conclusions? Are you on the last one?

457. MS HERON: Conclusions and what we’d like...

458. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Are you dealing with your issues on construction at

the same time?

459. MS FLETCHER: Sorry?

460. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: You also have a petition in on how construction

affects you individually, I think.

461. MS HERON: In Ampthill Square, yes, on Thursday.

61

462. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Not the one that we have...?

463. MS HERON: It’s a terrible – we cause problems wherever we go.

464. MS FLETCHER: For some reason they put both of the petitions down as – one of

those petitions actually belongs to Ampthill Square, which will be heard on Thursday.

465. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Okay.

466. MS HERON: So we haven’t got our nice blue photos...

467. CHAIR: Okay. Shall we go through your last then?

468. MS HERON: Yes, yes.

469. CHAIR: Thank you.

470. MS HERON: A lot of these petitions echo what you’ve already heard. We

believe that there needs to be a comprehensive rebuild of Euston. Nothing else makes

sense, and if that is refused, we petition to reject AP3 in favour of Option 8, because it is

less damaging to us. Talking to people who know more about railways than I do, it’s

positive that AP3 will make it more difficult to develop the classic side of the station at

a later date and goodness knows when that might be. Meanwhile, that part of the station

is falling to bits. It’s rat-ridden and it’s full of asbestos, and that should have been

replaced probably before now.

471. We continue to believe that we should look at relieving the situation at Euston by

looking again at Old Oak Common. We believe that the alternatives have not been

properly assessed. I know for a fact, I have witnessed that very ungentlemanly like

behaviour has taken place, and I would like the Committee to convince themselves that

this is absolutely impossible to do before concluding that we have to live with what is

proposed, because a station within the footprint would still be extremely disruptive, but

if you listed the number of things that – the bad impacts that would happen to us by

AP3, and see how many of those are because of the expansion westwards, and what

High Speed Rail wants might be very different to what they actually need. Of course

they want the biggest station they can get and the biggest opportunity to make some

money out of it.

62

472. CHAIR: Okay, shall we get HS2 to start answering some of these points?

473. MS HERON: Can I just continue? I’m not a property owner, so it’s no skin off

my nose, but I do believe that should be improved, the compensation, and probably for

everybody. I think there should be a significant increase in the community fund, and to

remove the competitive elements from that, because it means that organisations with

staff resources can get professional applications into the front. I think it would be fairer

if it was allocated on the basis of the damage done to people and the duration.

474. I know you’ve heard a lot about the COCP and LEMP and I don’t know whether

you could get could get community arbitration, but we feel that nothing has convinced

us that any speedy remedy will be made to any breaches or serious problems we face.

For the relief of severance problems, might be by HS2 Limited funding a safe to school

bus and also a bus for the elderly, courtesy bus, so that they can go about their daily

business, and we are all concerned that, looking at emergency access when HS2 is being

constructed, should come sooner rather than later, because of all the road closures. I’ve

talked about tree replacement. One-for-one is the derisory and Camden, I’d ask for two

for one, and that wasn’t very good, so we would like to see more trees replaced. Thank

you.

475. CHAIR: Okay. Thank you very much indeed. Mr Strachan, most of these points

we’ve discussed before in some detail. Can you come straight on tree replacement,

emergency access to both the community and indeed the station, and the severance

problems, please?

476. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Certainly. In relation to trees and replacement, that

is a matter that’s been subject to discussion with Camden and we have reached

agreement with the assurance that I think I showed you previously, but it’s set out in

more detail in section 9 of the assurance letter of 30 November 2015, P11427(23), and

you will see there is a commitment to undertake extensive tree planting along the route

of the project, but in relation specifically to Camden, we are required to secure the

provision of the number of suitable replacement trees to replace the same number of lost

trees. So it’s a one-for-one replacement of any trees that are lost.

477. We need to maintain a record of any tree lost and those replanted, and of course,

insofar as it’s not reasonably practicable to plant the same number of replacement trees

63

of land within our control, we have to require a nominated undertaker to invite the

Council to identify locations, that’s on page 24, for the replacement trees and fund the

costs for the Council for providing those suitable replacement trees, with a view to

achieving the same number of replacement trees. It’s 11427(24), and you can see,

paragraph 9.4, you’ll see that there is a process for regular reviews and estimates of the

numbers lost and replacements of trees throughout the design, and, you’ll see, also to

review whether the size and species, just in 9.4, are appropriate for the locations and

also to put in replacement trees as soon as reasonably practicable after royal assent.

478. There is also a specific assurance to use all reasonable endeavours when

designing construction of the authorised works in and around Euston Square Gardens to

preserve the existing tree line around the edge of those gardens during construction. I

think you did hear from us earlier that, where, for example, we’re doing work in other

streets, utility works, for example in the Regent’s Park Estate, our general objective

would be to retain trees and the Petitioner, Ms Heron, referred to the British Standard on

tree protection. That is a document which is well known to planning authorities. It’s a

standard document which sets out a number of standard measures for the protection of

trees when carrying out construction works, such as the fencing off of route areas so that

they’re not compressed by construction activities and other protective measures to

ensure that you don’t damage trees in the vicinity whilst you are carrying our

construction.

479. Those are measures very much designed for the local authority to have in mind

when dealing with planning issues, but we’ve incorporated them into our proposals, that

we would comply with those standards. They are detailed and technical standards, but

of course, it’s an assurance we’ve given to comply with. I think the two other things

you asked me to respond to were the issue of severance. Can I just show you

P11320(1), just to explain what’s happening? We are alive to issues of severance. Just

working in turn, on the left-hand side. The red line is the Mornington Bridge, and

before we take that out, we put in an alternative pedestrian and cycle bridge over the

cutting. So that goes in before we take out the overbridge, to ensure that there’s a

continued link, pedestrian and cycle link, across the cutting at that location, which I

think was an issue of concern.

480. Granby Terrace of course, we do have to take out and do some works to, but we

64

retain a pedestrian and cycle route across the Hampstead Road Bridge throughout the

period of construction, and part of the complexity of the works are in retaining a link

across Hampstead Road Bridge, keeping that open to traffic and also pedestrians and

cyclists. So that will remain open throughout the bridge construction, so that any

temporary diversion from the Granby Terrace Bridge will be over the Hampstead Road

Bridge, and likewise, we’ve identified routes through after Melton Street and

Cardington Street become shut, there are various routes through to maintain

permeability of the scheme.

481. In addition, there’s a study to look at, of course, the east-west bridge across the

north throat of the station, which is the subject of the study that we’ve agreed with the

TfL. More generally, I took you to assurance earlier today, I don’t need to put it back

up, but just for the reference, P11427(15), paragraph 6.4, in assurance we’ve provided to

Camden, dealing with the general objective of keeping roads where we have to

otherwise close them, keeping them open for pedestrians and cyclists as far as

reasonably practical, to minimise the disruption to pedestrians and cyclists in the area,

there is also a specific assurance given in respect of schools to Camden, and that’s at

section 12 of the letter. And I don’t again think it’s necessary for me to get it up on

screen, unless you want.

482. MS HERON: No.

483. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): But, one of the things we have to do is to engage

with Camden and the schools to fully understand any impacts that may occur and

identify reasonable measures to mitigate them within the Code of Construction Practice,

that includes engaging with them on the detailed design of the traffic management

associated with the construction work and with a view to reducing as far as reasonably

practicable any disruption caused by such works to the efficient arrival and departure of

pupils, staff and other visitors to and from the school premises. So that’s specifically

designed to reducing the impacts of people travelling to and from schools during the

day.

484. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I think, going back to the final slide, the other issue

you asked me to –

485. CHAIR: Emergency access.

65

486. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes, emergency access. And that’s the subject of a

specific assurance. It’s also in the Code of Construction Practice, I should add, but as

part of the Transport Management Plans those had to be drawn up with reference to the

Emergency Services. And that’s paragraph 6. 1. 3 of the same assurance letter. We’re

well aware of the need to ensure the Emergency Services are fully taken into account in

our traffic management during the construction period.

487. CHAIR: When we did the visit it was raised by a number of residents who were

very concerned. Not only because of the works but if somebody inappropriately parks a

vehicle, then it’s very difficult to get a fire engine in.

488. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Absolutely. I think Mr Smart explained, even with

the very constrained sites, the attention will be given to ensure that we maintain

emergency access to even those roads where we’re shutting off properties to ensure that

the Emergency Service can always find a route through. So, it’s something that the

project’s very aware of and the Nominated Undertaker will have to bed into their

construction plans.

489. CHAIR: Brief final comments.

490. MS HERON: Could I ask a few questions?

491. CHAIR: You can. They don’t have to answer it but you can ask a question. I’m

sure it will be a very good question. I’m sure they’d love to answer it.

492. MS HERON: It’s a very good question. Mr Strachan, could you give us your

best estimate about how many of the 221 trees that are at risk in Euston will be

preserved?

493. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I don’t

494. CHAIR: Do you want to give a written answer to that?

495. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes.

496. CHAIR: That might be better.

497. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I don’t have an exact figure. What I know is there’s

66

an objective of minimising tree loss, protecting those trees where we work near them

and if any trees have to be lost, and some do because of the land take for the new

station, a re-provision on a one-to-one basis, in accordance with the assurance. I can

provide Ms Heron with a more detailed figure of the current estimate of tree loss.

498. CHAIR: Yes. The best possible estimate given the current available information.

And if you could copy it to clerk, we’ll put it up on the website as well and then we can

keep it up.

499. MS HERON: Another. A little one. Mr Strachan, could you tell us when the

Transport Management Plan will be ready because we are anxious with all the road

closures and the extra diversions people will make and the congestion it will cause and

what will happen if it goes horribly wrong?

500. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): The Transport Management Plan obviously has to

be agreed, approved by the London Borough of Camden so I can’t dictate the time

periods for it but clearly it’s a Transport Management Plan to be in place before the

major construction occurs. And I think that’s the subject of the assurance in Camden.

There isn’t a specific date, I don’t believe, as yet, but there’ll obviously have to be a

plan in place before construction takes place.

501. CHAIR: Most local authorities have got computer modelling for the amount of

traffic on roads and rat runs and everything else. My guess is that since there will be a

gap of some years between the start of the project, when there will be other building

projects and other things happening in Camden, but my guess is that although there’ll be

an outline that the final agreement will be towards the end because things may change

between now and then.

502. MS HERON: Towards the end of?

503. CHAIR: The construction should be starting in 2017. If they agreed a plan today,

but things change in the next two years, they’d have to amend the plan. So, my guess is

there’ll be discussions about the plan and it will be finalised before the construction

work finishes. It’s still likely to be a few years.

504. MS HERON: Before it finishes?

67

505. CHAIR: Before the construction starts.

506. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): That reassurance is 6.5.1. We will produce those

local traffic management plans prior to the commencement of any works under the Bill

and we’ll keep those management plans updated which is a further point that others

have made, keep them updated to address any issues.

507. CHAIR: All the way up the line, all the local authorities will be agreeing traffic

management plans. The final version will occur when they have the final amount of

information on traffic flows and junctions before construction starts. It’s probably

going to be a couple of years before you know the final situation and what’s going to

happen in terms of the streets.

508. MS HERON: Okay. Thank you.

509. CHAIR: Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you for the slides. We now move

on to 863, which is Jeremy Beasley and others from Cobourg Street. I call again.

Jeremy Beasley and others from Cobourg Street. Is Jeremy Beasley available?

510. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY If you look next door?

511. CHAIR: Nobody next door? Okay. In that case, we’ll take 950 AP3: 43,

Malcolm Billings, who I think is here. Is Malcolm Billings here? He was here at 9. 30

a.m. Right. Okay. That’s Malcolm Billings out. AP3 131 John Myers and Daniel

Bartlett.

John Myers and Daniel Bartlett

512. CHAIR: Are you John Myers?

513. MR MYERS: I’m John Myers, sir.

514. CHAIR: Okay. Have you been sworn in?

515. MR MYERS: Yes, I have.

516. CHAIR: Okay. Right.

517. MR MYERS: Shall I?

68

518. CHAIR: Yes, please.

519. MR MYERS: Thank you. Sir, I’ll be very brief. We have just two, simple,

specific requests about Drummond Street, where I’ve lived for 16 years. If I could

please ask for slide A170 – the next slide after this? Thank you.

520. Over the decades, as Euston Station has built and expanded, Drummond Street has

progressively lost its trees and indeed parts of Drummond Street have disappeared. One

third, as you know, of the remainder of Drummond Street is going to disappear for the

extension to the station together with the last of the trees in the area, which you see on

this slide. They’re the only trees we have left. And we’re worried that they won’t be

put back. As far as I’m aware there was a local authority when the previous trees were

lost so I’m sorry to say that the assurances to Camden don’t remove our worries on that

point. It’s a dense, urban street and those trees make a big difference to the quality of

live on Drummond Street. Our first request is just that those last trees near to

Drummond Street be replace with trees on Cobourg Street or somewhere near to

Drummond Street.

521. CHAIR: Okay.

522. MR MYERS: If I could ask for the next slide, please? Currently Drummond

Street sees one or close to a few heavy vehicles per day, mainly delivery vans travelling

slowly. Our part of the street, near to North Gower Street is lined with Georgian

buildings, built around 1820. Some of them Grade 2 listed. Because of the structure of

the street if you stand in one of these houses you can feel the building shake every time

a heavy vehicle goes past. And the reasons for that I hope are clear if you look at this

slide. It’s a typical narrow Georgian Street. Each house has a light well in front of it

with railings and then there are cellars in front which extend underneath the pavement

and underneath the roadway. The roadway itself is effectively one storey above the

prevailing ground level and basement of the houses and the light wells and in the

cellars. So part of the street is literally perched on top of the cellars and the brick walls

of those cellars and the light wells very efficiently transmit vibrations from the street

and shake the houses when heavy vehicles go past. Please let me know if that’s not

clear.

523. As far as we understand it, the promoter is planning up to 40 heavy vehicles a day

69

for years. They haven’t explained why that’s necessary on Drummond Street. In fact,

they’d originally told us there would only be a few vehicles. No work seems to have

been done to assess the specific structure of Drummond Street and the resultant effect of

those vehicles on the buildings and on the residents. The promoter refers to generic

research which shows that generally heavy vehicles don’t cause damage to buildings

and we entirely accept that’s true for a typical road lying on solid ground but, as you can

see from the slide, Drummond Street is very different to that.

524. We would suggest that there are many streets including the Hampstead Road

running to proposed site that can be used for construction traffic. And those other roads

don’t lie literally on top of rather fragile Georgian cellars connected to fragile Georgian

buildings. Our second request is that Drummond Street should not be used for heavy

construction traffic.

525. To conclude therefore we just have two requests: for a specific request to let us

have our trees back when the nightmare is over; and to have a re-think about heavy

vehicles on Drummond Street.

526. CHAIR: Okay. Mr Strachan? Drummond Street.

527. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): P11720 please? If I just show you. Just dealing

quickly with the two requests. You’ll see from the cursor from this point onwards to

the east is where land is required for the new station. And insofar as the trees there

which are being lost they’ll be subject to replacement in accordance with the assurance

I showed you for Camden. They obviously can’t be replaced on that location because

it’s where the station is but we will seek to agree appropriate replacement locations as

part of that review I took you to a moment ago.

528. In Drummond Street itself which isn’t affected by the station, and we’ve shown in

red where your property is, in fact it’s in relation to traffic generally as a result of the

scheme it’s an overall good news picture because of course as a consequence of this

Drummond Street becomes a cul de sac, whereas currently it would have had vehicles,

including HGVs, some occasional HGVs, which go past it, as a result of this scheme it

won’t. There is limited construction activity predicted on Drummond Street itself to

access this part of the site. In the ES it’s reported at less than 22 two-way vehicle trips a

day, not 40. So, two-way vehicle trips, which is obviously a relatively small number. I

70

can provide that level of assurance and point the petitioner to paragraph 3. 3. 39 of

Volume 5 of the Environmental Statement. And the same point I think is made in

paragraph 15. 4. 39 of the CFA 1 report, which is the environmental statement, where

we don’t, this level of activity for construction vehicles is to support the utility works in

the area. So, relatively low levels of activity, none of which we anticipate would have

any material detrimental effect on the properties. And of course as a result of this

scheme an overall beneficial effect in the reduction of traffic actually flows along

Drummond Street in the future.

529. CHAIR: Okay. Thank you.

530. MR MYERS: Sir, if I may? If it’s the case that traffic is solely for the utilities

works, then we could have no objection of course. I’m grateful for that clarification. It

hadn’t been clear before. As for the trees, Camden has many obligations and those

replacement trees, as I understand it, might go anywhere.

531. CHAIR: You want them close.

532. MR MYERS: Exactly.

533. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I said ‘solely to utilities,’ you’re right. It’s limited

to, yes, I think it is identified ‘in support of utility works,’ but, in any event, it’s below

the levels of 20 two-way vehicle trips per day.

534. CHAIR: Okay. I think that’s also a matter to take up with your local councillor

so that when they have discussions about replacement you get it close, on your way to

the pub, or whatever.

535. MR MYERS: Thank you, sir.

536. CHAIR: Okay. Thank you very much indeed. Right. We now go to AP3: 140

Regent Park Estate Residents, Dorothea Hackman, Carol Hardy, Joynal Uddin

Regent’s Park Estate Residents

537. CHAIR: Right, welcome.

538. MS HACKMAN: Thank you very much. Can I start by giving Joynal Uddin’s

71

apologies? Very sadly, his father has died and so he has travelled out of the country.

Therefore, I’m sorry, I’ll be delivering his section. I hope I won’t bore you to quickly

and I will try to talk quickly.

539. MS HACKMAN: Sorry. I will try to speak economically.

540. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: No. I’m sorry. I just spotted what you have at that

page you’ve got on the front page as well, so, that’s fine. This is very useful for us to

consider.

541. MS HACKMAN: The summary you mean? Yes. I will not repeat the summary.

But, if I can begin by going to slide 7? I’ll try and skip all the slides that are covered

but we might go back to some. There you can see that we’re actually speaking for

7,500 people and that’s why I think it very important that you actually listen to us

because you are our democratic recourse. You have seen fit to devote entire days to

fast forward –

542. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Just to confuse us, your slide 7 shows there, is our

slide 8 for those who are following their own packs. It’s not your problem.

543. MS HACKMAN: Okay. Thank you. I won’t necessarily call the other slides but

I just wanted you to realise quite how many households and how many usual residents

there are in the area.

544. We are not planning to talk about life expectancy, deprivation, general health and

asthma because you’ve seen those in the DMC presentation, nor to repeat all that has

been said about noise in the cutting presentation which very much applies to us as well

because large numbers of people are going to be in immediate proximity to construction

in very similar ways, with similar circumstances. Imprisoned in their own flats with the

inadequacy of that secondary glazing and blackout blinds which I suppose will keep out

the night time flood lighting as well but even so. Air quality has been adequately

covered by Paul Braithwaite in the first petition. But just to emphasise again that just

because we’re heavily polluted and the authorities haven’t done anything about it, that

is absolutely no reason to add to the level of pollution that we’re suffering in our area.

545. If we can go to slide 2? One of the great joys of moving around the Estate is that

72

the way finding pictures are not oriented north-south-east-west. You’ve actually got

Hampstead Road along the top there. But what you have also got is big red crosses on

the buildings that are going. This is the reason I think that the biggest impact has come

on the Regent Park Estate. I’d then like you to go to slide 3. And correct me, if I’ve

misunderstood, but there are a number of petitions which we are rapidly presenting

given that we have much in common but many of these petitioners have a specific point

that needs to be made so I’ll run through those if that’s okay?

546. For Jonathan. He has significant health problems which can be shared with the

Committee in confidence if that’s required and he works in painting restoration. There

are soaring property prices and even if he satisfies the Need to Sell Scheme because he’s

in Borrowdale he would need a level of financial compensation that would enable him

to relocate locally in like-for-like accommodation. And the sort of level of financial

compensation that people are likely to get, you’d be lucky to buy a garage, not a two-

bedroom flat in the area. We do need to address this issue.

547. The Muriels are a cornerstone of the Columbian expatriate community and they

feel their issues are very much in common with all of us but they do need to have

adequate parking. And as you know parking is going to be taken away on the estate.

They live in Coniston and Coniston is right next to where the demolitions are taking

place.

548. Shuma, who is alas out of the country until January, but hopefully will be back in

time for the Lords’ petition process, lives in Buttermere and she has an elderly father

with asthma so air quality is a main issue for her and the issue of their property.

549. Antonietta, who is sitting here today, at the back, has been incredibly depressed

by this entire issue over the last couple of years and this depression is absolutely due to

High Speed 2. I think that her biggest issues are habitability and security, as you see.

And it’s the sort of security that an elderly person worries about, is all these strangers

are coming on to the Estate, workmen and different people. Habitability – whether her

flat will still be habitable. And if alternative housing is provided, and it’s very difficult

to believe that it won’t be necessary, that High Speed 2 will be covering the insurance

and all other costs and securing her property while she is moved out. And I think these

are issues that the people are very worried about.

73

550. The next petitioners, Prateepachitti, his wife and son, are in Ainsdale which is one

the blocks that’s due to be demolished. They moved in in 2013 but were not informed

and therefore they want an equivalent tenure in advance that they can move into in the

Euston area and to only move once.

551. Various people live in Cartmel and they live above the ground floor and it’s only

the six flats on the ground floor, you’ll recall, that have received assurances from High

Speed 2 to Camden. They need to continue to live in the same area for family reasons

and Rosa, very reasonably points out that at her age she should not have to put up with

these things. And I think that’s something that’s been said by other petitioners.

552. Jacqueline, who lives in Richmond House, is very worried about severance, how

she will safely get home in the evenings with the roads cut off. Richmond House is just

north of the Regent Park Estate in the Peabody Estate Buildings. And coming home

safely with Park Village East closed is a big issue and she has moved into Richmond

House in order to be able to get home safely in the evenings. She doesn’t want to have

to come across the Estate from Albany Street.

553. Stephen has similar issues and health issues but for him he will be beside major

construction sites and will lose the pleasure of the gardens immediately outside that we

all enjoy.

554. The Ali family have actually lived in that flat for 37 years and you may remember

grandchild Ali, who was Shazad, who was in the video that was shown to you on the

30th. He and his older brother attend local schools and moving schools, coping with the

baby, needing a similar four-bedroom property in the Borough but nothing sufficient

compensation to buy one is a major issue for this family.

555. Martha lives with her aunt Rosa, from 975 –

556. CHAIR: Could you see if the lady outside is alright?

557. MS HACKMAN: Oh, that’s Fran.

558. CHAIR: Yes. She’s having a bit of a coughing fit.

559. MS HACKMAN: Yes, she does.

74

560. CHAIR: We haven’t lost any of these so far in the two years of the Committee. If

you just hold for a second?

561. MS HACKMAN: Yes, sure. She’s gone out so that you can hear.

562. CHAIR: Yes, I know but I’m just a bit concerned that if she’s out there on her

own.

563. MS HACKMAN: Yes.

564. CHAIR: Okay. All yours. Continue.

565. MS HACKMAN: Martha is the niece of Rosa and also lives in Cartmel, so

there’s the whole issue of the Hampstead Road Bridge being built immediately outside

their windows.

566. Faraden has massive health problems, which again can be shared in confidence if

they’re required. He lives in Eskdale which is due to be demolished and he’s extremely

anxious to be re-housed somewhere, anywhere, in equivalent housing on the number 24

bus route so that he can get between the hospitals that he needs to attend.

567. Dina and Amendra Tresta live on the first floor of Cartmel and they firmly believe

that AP3 has rendered their home uninhabitable and they are looking to be re-housed.

They also are leaseholders whereas Faraden was a tenant. I should have said that.

There are very big issues.

568. In Eskdale, we also have Cecilia, who needs to be adequately re-housed.

569. I leave these people with you. But these are people to whom High Speed 2

Limited’s proposals are causing massive continual anxiety in the community. And it

really isn’t good enough. I think you need to go away and think again.

570. Can we, therefore, now go through to slide 10, please? And I handover to my

colleague Carol.

571. MS HARDY: Hi. Good afternoon. Please be aware I’m a bit nervous.

572. CHAIR: So are we.

75

573. MS HARDY: My name’s Carol Hardy. You may remember you visited my flats

when you were on your tour back in November? I have lived on the Estate since I was

two years of age. And I currently live in Cartmel with my husband John, son Sam and

daughter Fay. And you’d be aware, we live on the fifth floor which is next to

Silverdale which, as you know, is going to be demolished. We’re going to be next to all

the dirt of the demolition, the burning, for the first years of the construction. We, like

the other people at Cartmel, are going to be trapped in our flats unable to relax with

open windows because of the dust and the noise during the summer months. And also

not being able to sleep because of all the noise from the piling and the burette walls at

night.

574. But my main issue is in the picture, as you can see. That’s from the fifth floor of

my front room window. My bedroom windows also back on to that as well, along

there. And can you imagine that, where that bus is now, being 4. 8 metres high, which

they’ve planned it to be. It’s going to be right in our faces, really. There’s also going to

be a great big wall that they’re going to be build.

575. MS HACKMAN: It’s the next slide.

576. MS HARDY: Sorry.

577. MS HACKMAN: That’s okay. Next slide?

578. MS HARDY: Next slide? The big wall that they’re going to build that’s going to

be right outside our windows and sealing our lights and making a barrier between us

and the other people on the other side of the bridge. My son does football training in

Somers Town and most of our friends live on that side of Somers Town as well. I

believe there’s no evidence that such a big, tall, wide bridge is necessary. But if it is to

be built a bigger size then can we have it that the design suits our environment, where

we live and doesn’t sever our community? Thank you.

579. CHAIR: That was pretty good.

580. MS HACKMAN: That was brilliant. Further to the Hampstead Road bridge,

could we have a look at the operational section, which is P11850(23)? P11850(23). I

particularly like this cross-section, aside from the point we’re about to make, because of

76

the little tree perched on top of the concrete plate there. Now, that’s important for a

later point that we make. You’ll notice that tree therefore could not have any roots

because there is no soil underneath it. This building on the left here is Cartmel and what

you’re seeing here is the little bridges they’re going to build and then this is the traffic

moving through. There is your bus. Was it the number 24?

581. MS HARDY: I believe it was. Yes.

582. MS HACKMAN: There’s your number 24 bus peering into the windows at

Cartmel. Thank you. Can we just go through to number 13, please? Number 13 and

14, and indeed 15, are all courtesy of Louise Fletcher, who’s work you will be familiar

with by now. You can see that the age range across Regent Park Estate is clearly

displayed for you. The main point that I wanted to make here was that 5% of the

people are currently over 75 and we do understand that High Speed 2 Limited is making

all these plans as if we weren’t here and that they could just drive through the Estate as

the Victorians used to when they wanted to build a railway or Kingsway. They’d just

build it straight through. However, it’s in the Equalities Impact Assessment, they

reported the 75 plus age group as 0. 4%. We think the level of accuracy, that really

reflects the level of accuracy. Next slide please.

583. This information, like all information that we’re using, is from the 2011 Census

from the ONS website. Just to show you that the majority of people on the Estate are

still tenants and of those who have exercised their right to buy, half of them are still

owner-occupiers, and that’s very important. And then finally amongst these slides,

before we get on to the inevitable trees, in slide 15 you can see that the Bangladeshi

residents, being such a high proportion of the Estate, are disproportionately affected by

the proposals. I’m not completely clear and perhaps you can just guide me here, I’m not

completely clear if I should mention the petitions of people who may not turn up to talk

about their petitions but I’m just reminded that the Patels, who are petition 1244 –

584. CHAIR: When you say ‘may not turn up,’ these are the people that may turn up

and give their own petitions?

585. MS HACKMAN: Yes. But given that we had four zeros before we spoke. I just

wanted to say that there are people in Eskdale who own flats that they rent out.

77

586. CHAIR: Yes but if they’re separate petitioners, they have the right to appear.

587. MS HACKMAN: They do. I just wanted to mention the fact that they –

588. CHAIR: Whether they do or don’t you shouldn’t really talk about their petition

otherwise.

589. MS HACKMAN: Okay. I won’t talk about their petition but I will make the

point in relation to slide 14 that there are leaseholders who are not occupiers.

590. CHAIR: Non-resident leaseholders.

591. MS HACKMAN: Exactly – who will be adversely affected by the fact they can’t

let their investments.

592. Moving on to the green space. You’ve got the trees in mid-air. You’ve got an

even better one of those actually, on 11850(26). P11850(26). We’re you’ve got a

whole row of trees in mid-air on concrete slabs. And these relate to the proposed

permanent space that you can see on P11271(3). You can see here that there’s this

triangle that is proposed to be re-provided to replace St James’ Gardens which is

completely gone. However, that triangle is exactly those trees perched on top of the

concrete. They couldn’t possibly be growing in the ground. And St James’ Gardens is

full of massive great trees, some of them 100s of years old, with roots that go down into

the ground into what was once a field. Can we now go to my slide 16, please?

593. I know that Camden have come to an agreement on receipt of the assurances with

High Speed 2. However, from our point of view, we have lost 10,000 square metres

permanently in St James’ Garden and also the Hampstead Road open space and the

Eskdale play area. I know that High Speed 2 have got a competing table that shows that

we’ve only actually lost 400 square metres but we still firmly feel that concreted areas

around a station in the public realm and trees that are apparently sitting on top of

concrete, so presumably they’re in tubs, are no replacement for an ancient garden, an

ancient, disused burial ground.

594. If you look at slide number 17, you can see that the Eskdale Play Area and the

Hampstead Road space, both of which are being taken from children for a construction

compound, and then these two crosses here are green spaces on which Camden is

78

building replacement housing. So we lose this little chain of green spaces. They’re like

a little chain of green beads that actually protect people from the pollution in the area,

and that is being taken away, and, in an inner city, can never be replaced.

595. I’ve now got slides of trees that we can go through pretty rapidly. Number 18,

Varndell Street. This is one which is going to be taken for replacement housing.

596. If you look at 19, this is an aerial view across the estate, and I’ve helpfully

crossed out the buildings that are going to be demolished and the bridges. Now, if you

look, you can see the pattern of trees. This is very important to us. This cluster of trees

here is St James’s Gardens. You can see the Robert Street trees.

597. What you can see on the next slide, number 20, is the historic map of the estate.

So you can see that the Haymarket, Clarence Gardens and what used to be called York

Square but is now Munster Square are still there. The pattern of trees that used to be

along these streets and in all of the gardens of the houses that didn’t survive have been

preserved. You’ve got the red stars marking the green spaces that will be lost.

598. Next slide, 21, shows you the Robert Street trees. They’re going to be hoiked out

in order to put the utilities in, which seems outrageous. I would have thought the

utilities should be made to go somewhere where they didn’t require the trees to be dug

up.

599. Next slide, 22. You’re familiar with this discussion. That’s actually a picture of

Euston Gardens. I still find it incomprehensible that Euston Gardens should be taken

away for 17 years, even if it’s given back again and with its trees chopped down.

600. Could we make the point in terms of tree loss about the reference that was made?

I don’t know if you’ve fully grasped the point. I think that that i-Tree report has gone

to the House of Lords on 2 December. It was certainly due to do so but we’ve been

rather busy here, so I haven’t checked. In that report, you’ve got estimations of what

those trees are actually worth to us. The huge plain trees are worth a quarter of a

million pounds for every metric tonne of particulate matter that they take out. They

also, of course, do carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide; the dire nitrogen dioxide that, you

know, that is threatening our children. I do think that this treeconomics analysis is well

worth being properly considered before we willy-nilly start chopping down trees that

79

desperately needs them to cope with the levels of pollution.

601. Whistling past St James’s Garden at number 27, if we go through quickly to 28.

You’re familiar with the schools issue, but you’ll know, therefore, that schools draw

circles around themselves. They take the children who live nearest. With three primary

schools the other side of the station – so Edith Neville, St Aloysius and St Mary & St

Pancras – those children who can’t get a place at Christchurch or Netley have to get

across. I don’t know about you but directing small children across building sites, albeit

pedestrian pathways are being kept open, does not seem to me to be a very good idea.

The older children, it’s a terrible idea as well. They will quite simply have to either

walk up here or I think – where’s Mornington Place? The replacement bridge? I think

is going to be across here somewhere. Or is it across there? Yes. And the suggestion

is that they should go to the Hampstead Road and walk over this pedestrian access

that’s going to be preserved there.

602. If we get to slide 30, please. I know that HS2 have got a slide which shows which

houses are entitled to qualify for noise insulation. But theirs is a very baffling slide,

possibly because the yellow number has taken out the bottom colours, so nobody can

quite work out what the blue represents, or, alternatively, you know, which ones are

suggested for what. But if we just look at the Camden one, which is equally baffling

because neither of these colours to me seems to be either pink or purple. It sort of looks

apricot. So I’m not quite sure which is which.

603. CHAIR: We’ve sort of done noise insulation quite a lot today.

604. MS HACKMAN: We have. But we haven’t pointed out that a lot more people

than are included need to be assessed for noise insulation, which is the only point that I

wanted to make on that slide.

605. I think, you’ll be glad to know, given that I’m sure blood sugar levels are

dropping, that those are all the issues that I wanted to make. Thank you.

606. CHAIR: Thank you very much to you both. Mr Strachan?

607. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I’m just going to try and pick up on things that we

haven’t discussed already today. The first, we did discuss a little bit about the

80

Hampstead Road bridge, and I took or made reference to the assurance that’s been

given to TfL to look at the height of the bridge itself, and, of course, TfL’s requirement

for two lanes of traffic on each side plus a cycle route. The cross-section that you were

taken to, just to be clear, P11850(24), predates that assurance. You can see, for

example, here, we’re showing six lanes of traffic to replace the current six lanes that

exist on the Hampstead Road Bridge. The TfL requirements is to have four lanes plus a

segregated cycle way. That would move, for example, the traffic, shown – the bus here,

for example, closer into the centre of the bridge, away from the properties, with the

segregated cycle route on the external side, close to the Cartmel building.

608. Whether one’s impressed or not, I’m telling you what the facts are. This is a six-

lane bridge shown in the cross-section. One of the assurances we’ve given is to reduce

it to four with a segregated cycleway. The concern was, I think, about traffic looking

into the Cartmel. That may be an existing situation for the residents currently on levels

1 to 6. The result of the change is traffic would be more in the centre with a segregated

cycle route to the outside. The bridge is 4.8 metres high currently on the design.

We’ve undertaken to agree a study to look at whether that could be reduced to meet all

of the operational requirements of the railway and the operational requirements of

getting a bridge across the railway.

609. The issue of trees, trees are shown here planted on the replacement open space,

which is decked open space. The research of how one achieves trees of a certain height

depends upon the tree pits that you provide in these decks. I’m told that, for example, a

three-metre tree pit can sustain 30 years growth for a 12 metre high tree, and for 1.4

metre pits you’re looking at something like eight metres after 30 years. I only mention

that not because I expect anyone to respond to it but it’s clearly something that’s been

considered as part of the future detailed design that will come forward for the design of

the green space of that replacement green space with the tree plantings. These tree

plantings are ones that are factored in to the design of the deck.

610. I’ve already covered the issue of trees generally with the Camden insurance. I’m

not going to go over that. But I do take issue with the notion that, for example, trees on

Robert Street would be hoiked out, as was described. I don’t know why that’s said.

I’ve explained utility works on Robert Street. Utility works don’t normally result in the

loss of trees when undertaken with compliance with the British Standard on tree

81

construction where you seek to minimise the effects on trees, and we’ve already looked

at the assurance about compliance with the British Standard. So I’m not sure of the

precise nature of the concern about the Robert Street trees.

611. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Are you saying you know you don’t have to take

the trees down or you don’t think –

612. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): We don’t anticipate taking them down. Of course,

utility works are necessary, and, you know, it would be imprudent for me to say one

could never do works of that kind without damaging trees. That does sometimes

happen. We anticipate not taking them down or needing to remove them.

613. The issue of the Euston Gardens, I already referred to the assurance which seeks

to protect the trees at the perimeter of Euston Gardens so far as reasonably practicable.

That reflects generally our objective in minimising tree loss in the area.

614. Can I just deal with the equalities assessment, which looked at, amongst other

things, the demographics of people in the Regent’s Park Estate, because I’m not sure

it’s a document we’ve actually looked at before in a committee. But there is an

equalities impact assessment update for the area dated September 2015. I think we’ve

been taken to task for inaccuracies in that document. I’ll just show you R1315(15) of

that document, which explains the methodology and how the data’s collated. You will

see the baseline context. Paragraph 2.2.1 takes statistical data from the 2011 census.

At the level of Lower Super Output Areas or LSOA’s for specific affected areas of

Euston, which provides statistical information for small, geographic areas and reflects

the characteristic of people residing in the areas affected by the revised scheme more

closely than the CFA level data used in the 2013 Equalities Impact Assessment.

615. Then you can see that reflected on slide 44, version R131544. Criticism is being

made of us identifying, for example, those over the age of 75 in particular demographic

areas. That’s not justified criticism. You can see, for example, that in these lower

output areas, we’ve taken the census data ranging from 0.4 in the Camden 023B area,

2.7 in 023C, 0.7 in 023D, 2.2 in 023E, and then there’s a Camden percentage of 5%

given. So the criticism was made of the data that’s being used is actually, when one

reflects on it, there’s a very considerable amount of information and then more precise

geographical information to look at particular errors in arriving at the overall

82

assessment of the impacts the project will have in particular locations. So I just wanted

to show you that. I think you can see that reflected on page 18 of the same document

where consideration has been given of the various affected groups, including age

groups. You can see that from 3.2.3, 3.2.4, where issues such as the aged groups of

people affected have all been considered.

616. On that note, can I just show you in relation to how that information is used,

because it’s not just a collation of data. If you take for example the issue of schools.

Page 27 of the document you can see we have looked at schools and educational

facilities based on the 2013 document where effects were being identified for schools,

both the Regent’s Park Children’s Centre and Maria Fidelis. That’s been updated in

2015. We still were identifying significant construction noise effects. Then you can

see at 3.2.55 amenity impacts relating to increases in HGV movement and air quality,

and pedestrian severance where we do have an impact making it more difficult to cross

the road, and we will ensure that measures within the draft COCP and the local

environment management plans are designed to ensure the safety of pedestrians is taken

into account in – and then it goes over the page – in the provision of diversion routes.

The draft COCP does that. That, of course, has been superseded to some degree by the

more specific assurances entered into with Camden for access to schools in the Camden

area with specific assurances given about dealing with ensuring one minimises

disruptions to people getting to school. I showed you some of the diversionary routes.

617. Whilst we’re just in this document, which I don’t think we’ve looked at before, on

page 56, perhaps in answer to a question raised by Mr Bellingham earlier in the day,

there is also an appendix which sets out some of the stakeholder engagement in Euston

that’s been used in the equalities impact assessment to try and address and understand

the nature of the issues that have been faced by residents in the area. You can see a

number of the initial meetings held on January and March 2015, and then further

engagement in May and June 2015 with six geographically-focussed subgroups by way

of example.

618. On the issue of open space, I already have referred you to our assurances and

Camden. I won’t go back over that.

619. I think the final point related to noise insulation. I hope I’ve clarified that the

83

slides we’ve produced identify in dark grey properties we anticipate where noise

insulation will be required and properties in light blue which are also such properties

but which happen to be listed buildings where this particular consideration of listed

building consent that would otherwise apply has to be addressed. That’s the reason for

the two different colours on the slide.

620. CHAIR: Thank you. Brief final comments, Ms Hackman?

621. MS HACKMAN: Yes. I’m so happy that we’re taking up the Equality Impact

Assessment because I didn’t believe that this was necessarily going to be a subject of

discussion.

622. There were three main points that were made, and I’d be very happy to call on the

expertise of Louise Fletcher if further information is required. But I think that if you

take the very large areas that were used by High Speed 2 in the analysis, you come up

with figures like 0.4 and 2.2. I don’t know. I haven’t performed that exercise. But the

exercise that we performed was a very precise drawing of the polygons for the

calculations that were based on the smaller areas, which meant that we’ve come up with

much more accurate statistics than High Speed 2 have.

623. MR MARK HENDRICK: Did you use census data?

624. MS HACKMAN: Yes. We used exactly the same census data. I can call Louise

–

625. CHAIR: No, you can’t, because you’ve lost your opportunity to call her.

626. MS HACKMAN: Okay. I’m sure that there’ll be a later occasion on which she

give you more detail about it.

627. CHAIR: Very good slides, by the way.

628. MS HACKMAN: Yes, they are good.

629. CHAIR: And I’m sure you know your subject.

630. MS HACKMAN: And I do think that you’ve challenged the wrong people on the

calculation of how many people are over 75 on the Regent’s Park Estate.

84

631. CHAIR: It looks a very young population compared with Worthing and Poole.

632. MS HACKMAN: Yes. On the subject – I’ll be quite brief – of schools, you will

notice that there is no mention whatsoever of Netley Primary. Yes, we talk about

Francis Holland School; yes, we talk about Northbridge House, but, oops, we did not

mention Netley Primary School when talking about the Regent’s Park Estate. Major

oversight.

633. Then we come on to the vexed issue of engagement. High Speed 2 have attended

two meetings on the Regent’s Park Estate: on June the 10th and subsequently in

August. For neither of these did they leaflet every home on the estate. I do think that if

that’s called adequate engagement then it’s not my definition of relating coherently by

informing everybody what’s happening. There are a large number of second speakers

on the estate, but not even the first language speakers were adequately informed.

634. On the matter of trees, Keith Sacre in this i-Trees report observes that the massive

35-metre plane trees in London that are so valuable to us here would require a

replacement of 60 of these – what he dismissively calls ‘lollipop’ trees, of 3.5 metres

with their 14 centimetre girths that can be sustained by the level of pot suggested – 60

such trees would be required to replace every London plane tree of several hundred

years’ age with deep roots, that is removed.

635. That’s it. Thank you very much for letting us come to you with our concerns. I

think, being able to participate in a democratic process has been really beneficial for the

community because we do not feel anybody has been listening to our voice. So we now

look to you to cause the action.

636. CHAIR: We’ve certainly been listening. Whether we can do anything about all

the matters you want, I’m not sure, but some of them maybe.

637. MS HACKMAN: Time will tell.

638. MS HARDY: Thank you.

639. CHAIR: Okay. Thank you very much to both of you for sparing some time

today. We now move on to 943, Brian Battershill.

85

Brian Battershill

640. MR BATTERSHILL: Hello. My name is Brian Battershill. I live at

23 Silverdale, that’s on the Regent’s Park Estate, one of the blocks that’s going to be

demolished. I’ve lived there for over 40 years. I’m 70 years old.

641. What I’d like to speak about – can you do the next slide, please? – is the unique

nature of this lot and the subsequent lots. When I first moved in all those years ago, I

expected it to be like London housing estates I’ve stayed with, Surrey council estates,

and I’ve been down to Cornwell. Occasional nod to the neighbour, maybe, but nothing

else. Yet when I moved in to Silverdale, the next day, two ladies were at my door with

a fresh-baked cake. As you probably know, this is an old fashioned custom to welcome

your neighbour. And I was quite taken aback. For the next few days I was even more

taken aback, because people would stop me and say, ‘Oh, you’re Brian, aren’t you?

You’re the new neighbour.’ I said, ‘Yes.’ I was, sort of, not used to this. I’d go in the

lobby and somebody would stop and I’d start talking.

642. I had a motorcycle and I was repairing it, and the Irish lady upstairs said, ‘Can

you look after Nancy for me?’ That was a five year old girl. ‘Make sure she doesn’t

wander away.’ I said, ‘Yes.’ She sticks her head out about half an hour later, ‘Where’s

Nancy?’ ‘Behind the ice cream cart.’ I was just taken aback. You don’t get this. It’s

like – excuse me one moment – it’s like it doesn’t matter who it was or what

nationality, everybody was completely cooperative.

643. CHAIR: Community.

644. MR BATTERSHILL: Community. That’s right. Yes. And I couldn’t

understand this because I’d never had this anywhere else before. Then I learnt that the

people from Somers Town, in the slums, were moved on mass over to Regent’s Park

Estate. This explains it. Because when people are in adversity, they always come

together.

645. Now, I’ve had this when I was a child at 3 years old. I had to run with my mother

with buckets to stop rain coming through the ceiling, you know, stop rats coming out

the floor, all this sort of thing. Well, when we moved to a new housing estate,

everybody stuck up their nose and they didn’t want to know you. Yet here, when the

86

people come from the slums, they didn’t change their attitude.

646. Now, over the years lots of people have come and exchanged from the residents

that are left. It is still the same. Can you do the next slide, please? That’s me, I’m

afraid. You’d get – like the Italian man. He would come along and he’d ask me advice

on the motorcycle. You’d get the Bangladeshi children watching me. Things like I’d

go in the lift and I’d here all these little voices saying, ‘Wait! Wait! Wait!’ and all

these Bangladeshi children come in, about this high, and they’d say, ‘We’re too small to

press the buttons,’ you know? It’s like other estates I’ve been on, everybody, sort of,

like, backs away from you, you know? You wouldn’t get little children talking to you

or mothers letting you look after their children.

647. We can move on now to the next slide. This is my home. Now, I was sitting in

my seat the other day, and I was looking at my home, and I was thinking, ‘All that’s

going to be rubble. How? Why?’ The reason I want to point this out is in the 1950s

when they started building these blocks of flats, that was the golden age of planners.

There’s no window in the whole of the estate you look out to onto somebody else.

What you look out to is a green lawn, bushes, trees, right? and flowerbeds.

648. Now, I’m quite fortunate because outside my French windows is Hampstead

Road open space. In the summer you can hear the children’s squeals of delight, running

around. The mother’s sitting down, talking. You get people walking through the estate

having a rest and sitting on the benches. You even have people picnicking there in

central London. It’s quite amazing. All through the year with the sun coming from the

east to the west, so I can see the seasons, I can see the trees changing, you know, and

what’s going to happen now is I’m going to be moved somewhere that’s not like this.

It’s not like this because it feels like a family. It’s not a council estate; it’s a family. It

doesn’t matter who you are in that council block, they all communicate with you and

attach with you.

649. My worry is – and also everybody else, because the first time they knew they

were going to be moved, the question they asked me was, ‘Are we going to be all

moved together?’ That’s how important it is. The thing is, HS2 in their reply said, ‘Oh,

we’ve got land and place to put you.’ But that’s not the thing. Once this is bulldozed

down and destroyed, it will be lost forever. You cannot replicate it. What I say is that

87

it’s no good saying ‘like for like’, it isn’t, because once this is destroyed, all it will be is

just a memory.

650. This is just like if you had an ancient forest – I know it sounds a bit, sort of,

ridiculous, but – that has grown up with special circumstances. You have motorways

proposed to go through them. This is just a wood. We’ll put some trees over there.

But the thing is that that can never be replicated, and neither can this block on

Silverdale.

651. Yet, the galling thing about is, to me, that places like Gospel Oak or other plans

other plans could mitigate destroying everything and destroying people’s lives and

destroying this community. Thank you for listening to me.

652. CHAIR: Thank you for being brief and giving us a flavour for the community

you’ve grown up in. Clearly, Camden will allocate some of the homes, and I think

probably to them needs to go your question whether you are your neighbours want to

try and stay together if you can. I’m not sure there’s anything more than you could say

from HS2, is there?

653. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Only that the arrangement that was made with

Camden is specifically with that in mind, where the reprovision of the social housing

has been agreed as part of the Regent’s Park Estate and around Netley and that’s

identified in the qualities and impact assessment as one of the things to address the

issue of community cohesion by limiting the dispersion of the community, by

reproviding social housing in the proximity. Of course, it won’t be the same as

Silverdale and I’m not suggesting –

654. MR BATTERSHILL: It can never be the same, no.

655. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): – but it is an agreement intended to address that

community cohesion issue, to keep people in the same community.

656. CHAIR: Thank you very much indeed for sharing your thoughts with us. I know

you’ve been sitting here all day.

657. MR BATTERSHILL: Yes. I’m not so bouncy as I was.

88

658. CHAIR: I notice that. Thank you. Right. We now go on to 970, AP3: 103,

Ursula Brown. Hello and welcome.

Ursula Brown

659. MS BROWN: Hello. Could we go on to the first of my sides, A16881. So I’m

Ursula Brown. I live in Robert Street on the Regent’s Park Estate. I’ve been there

since 1998. Since I retired I spend most of my time on the estate. I have various

chronic conditions which mean I need to keep active, and there are various activities

that I attend around the estate. I am an active member of the Third Age Project which

is also based on the estate.

660. I know some people look down on council estates but Regent’s Park Estate is a

really good one. It’s a lovely place to live. I just heard – you heard the last petitioner, I

think. You know, we really appreciate being able to live in such a wonderful place.

There’s a good community feeling. Although I’ve been there 17 years I still feel a bit

of newcomer because a lot of the people there have been there all their lives and their

families before them. When I have visitors they all comment on how quiet and peaceful

it is for central London. And you’ve heard about the design of the estate – how it’s

followed the previously existing streets, and lots of small green spaces and big trees that

make it feel not such a heavily, densely populated environment as it is. I moved there

and I expected to spend the rest of my life peacefully living there, but the HS2 work is

going to seriously impact on that.

661. Can we have the next slide, number two? That shows where I live – the red star –

in Robert Street. I think this is the nicest aerial view, because you can see just how

green it is, with all the trees. I know, when the Committee visited the estate, it was

November, so you didn’t see them in their full glory, but –

662. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: It was pretty good.

663. MS BROWN: Yes. Even the bare branches, I think, are good, but yes.

664. Go to the next slide, number three. So, this is a summary of the main works in

Robert Street that are going to be affecting me. And as you can see, they start next year,

89

in 2016, and go right on to 2033 and, even after 2033, there’s predicted to be a major

adverse effect from increased traffic. And notably, the first three bits of work are all

anticipated to happen before Royal Assent. So, that’s 18 years, which is a long time,

especially when you’re 65.

665. Can we have the next slide, please? Right. We spoke about Robert Street trees,

and I was very surprised because I thought it was said that no one was going to get rid of

the trees in Robert Street. SES2 states that, ‘Where underground service diversions are

predicted to be large scale and will require trenches greater than three metres wide by

three metres deep, it has been assumed that the works will require the removal of

existing street trees.’ And I have spoken to various officers from HS2 and they all think

that they’re going to chop down the trees in Robert Street. If that’s not true, that would

be wonderful.

666. But can we have the next slide, please? This is actually the view from my flat on

to Robert Street, and the impact of losing those trees would be so immense. And we

have heard a lot, as I say, about the importance of trees, not just as a visual amenity but

in terms of helping with air pollution and so on. If what we’re getting today is an

assurance that the trees will stay, then that is brilliant, but I’m certainly not satisfied

with the agreement that LBC has to replace trees one for one and to plant them not

necessarily in the place where they previously were, because, if they knock down my

trees and they plant another tree in Hampstead, that doesn’t really help me. So, yes, I’m

asking for the felling of street trees to be avoided, and I hope we’re going to be told, yes,

it is. And if any are lost, I’m asking that they should be replaced on the same site by

mature trees of similar species as quickly as possible.

667. If you go on to the next slide, please, this one is from the entrance to Woodhall,

and it shows just how close the National Temperance Hospital is, which is going to be

the main construction compound.

668. Maybe we could see slide P11748. Yes. This shows the construction routes,

including Robert Street and Stanhope Street. Yes. And I know that they’re now talking

about having deliveries by rail, and I really hope that will happen but, at the moment,

it’s just talk. And the plan, as we have it at the moment, is for massive numbers of

HGV movements every day around Euston, which will bring traffic disruption and

90

worsening of air pollution to the whole area.

669. Specifically on Robert Street, could I have slide A16887? Right. So, specifically

along Robert Street, it’s planned to make that the main HGV route between the main

construction compound and Granby Terrace, and the carriage shed at Park Village East,

and that’s got there the number of daily two-way trips. This is a residential street and

it’s heavily used by pedestrians. It’s really not suitable for that kind of traffic. Added to

that, there’s also a route from the lorry-holding area going along Robert Street to

Granby Terrace, which I haven’t been able to get any figures from HS2 how much that

amounts to. There’s two routes from the lorry-holding area: one goes along Robert

Street to get to Granby Terrace, and the ones going to the main construction area are

supposed to go the long way round, via Hampstead Road. And how they would police

that, I don’t know, but anyway.

670. As I say, it’s a tree-lined residential street. It’s heavily used by pedestrians.

There’s a 20 mph speed limit, traffic-calming measures. Most people on the estates

don’t have cars. When we’re going anywhere, we walk, so there’s lots of pedestrians

there. According to the SES2, the routes along Robert Street would be used up until the

end of 2020, when the new bridges would be open – the Granby Terrace bridge – but, on

HS2’s slides, they show construction traffic peaking in 2018, in 2020, and in 2024. So,

they obviously are still planning on using the residential streets, even when there’s

alternative routes available.

671. I’m also concerned about the impact on emergency-response times with all the

additional traffic, and I’m therefore asking for HS2 Limited to be required to use rail for

the removal of spoil and delivery of construction-related materials. I know we talked

about that and I know there are discussions going on about that.

672. CHAIR: We have discussed that quite a lot. Shall we just keep moving through

your slides?

673. MS BROWN: Yes. Okay. Just to comment that, even after 2025, in construction

stage B1 and in full operation, the increase in traffic on Robert Street has been rated as

major/adverse.

674. Can we go on to the next slide? Okay. This is about taxis. Between 2026 and

91

2033, the plan is for a new taxi rank along Cobourg Street that’s extended on to

Hampstead Road, forming a new junction opposite Robert Street – so, this here is the

new junction. And as it stands, I believe there’s supposed to be traffic lights at this new

junction, but there’s nothing to prevent taxis, rather than going along Hampstead Road,

to just go straight across into Robert Street and other residential streets on the Regent’s

Park Estate and use that as a short cut to wherever they want to go. And the predicted

numbers of taxis is very high. I think, 2026, the evening-peak-hour forecast is 452 pick-

ups and 633 set-downs, so that could result that only a proportion of those take Robert

Street and a lot of extra traffic on that street.

675. What I’m asking for is that, at that junction, there shouldn’t be an option to go

straight across. Traffic coming out of Cobourg Street and traffic coming out of Robert

Street should have to turn either right or left on to Hampstead Road, so it can’t be used

either to get in or to go across. I think those taxis need to be directed on to the national

road network.

676. Can we go on to the next slide? Yes. So, these are my asks. The first two, you’ve

already heard about. I’d just like to endorse what’s been said. Rail for delivery

removal, you’ve heard all about. Reconsider the siting and number of construction sites,

which could bring down the amount of construction traffic. Keep construction traffic

away from residential streets. And air-quality monitoring, I agree with what was said

this morning.

677. There’s a next page. So, yes, the ultra-low emissions zone, we’ve already heard

about, and I would like endorse that. The traffic-control measures at the new Cobourg

Street junction, I’ve just spoken about. And the street trees. I’d also like to have

sufficient visitor parking and loading bays to be retained in Robert Street. At the

moment as well as removing a number of parking bays from Robert Street and Stanhope

Street, the plan is to change some of the remaining ones from visitor bays into resident-

permit bays, and this would make it very difficult for those of us who might need an

occasional delivery or to bring in a tradesman – a plumber or something – for essential

repairs. There would be nowhere for them to stop, and I would like HS2 to reconsider

the balance of resident-parking bays rather more in favour of those of us who don’t run

cars, who may be a little bit more environmentally minded, but do need occasionally to

have visitor parking.

92

678. Okay. And then compensation and mitigation, you’ve already heard about and

you’re going to hear about again, so I would just like to agree that, and that’s me

finished.

679. CHAIR: Okay. Now, Mr Strachan, most of these points, you’ve already dealt

with at some stage over the last week or so. Taxis and the turning – would you like to

address us on that?

680. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes. If we just get slide A1688(8) back on the

screen and I’ll explain. It’s right that, in the current design, taxis would be able to go

across to Robert Street and drive down Robert Street in that current design. That is a

route which is currently open for use by through traffic, including taxis using Euston

Station.

681. MS BROWN: It doesn’t exist at the moment.

682. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): No, but the routes… sorry, the road down Robert

Street is a road that can be used by taxis or, indeed other traffic. However, in the

assurance we’ve provided to Camden, which is at paragraph 6.13 of the 3 November

letter, it provides, ‘P11427(18): In relation to the provision of roads for taxis and

private-hire vehicles, the Secretary of State will require the nominated undertaker to

work with the London Borough of Camden through the station-design process to seek to

maximise convenience to station users and minimise any adverse impacts on the local

community, including local residential communities, and open space, and those

principles will be applied based on determining the final design and the provision of

interim taxi facilities.’ And we will work with the London Borough of Camden and TfL

to ensure there’s appropriate management of both the interim and final taxi

arrangements. And as you would expect, the detailed arrangements of taxi movements

around the station and local traffic controls are clearly a matter for detailed design with

the Council and TfL.

683. CHAIR: So, if the residents made representations to Camden, then Camden can

factor in what the residents want here.

684. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Indeed, such as road closures or restrictions on

where taxis turned out of the station, but that’s clearly a matter for detailed design,

93

supplemented by that assurance we’re given.

685. Could I just –

686. CHAIR: One other point just to make was about more mature trees replacing

some of the trees lost. I presume they won’t all be saplings and, in some cases –

687. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): No. The size and the type is clearly part of the

assurance that was given to Camden, I indicated. And can I just… I hope to provide

some level of comfort. The Environmental Statement, as is always the case, adopts a

reasonable worst-case scenario, assuming there might be tree loss as a result of utility

works, where one is digging a trench of greater than three metres. And here, we’re

putting in a 42 inch water main.

688. But what I indicated earlier is, as that’s in the carriageway, not the footway, we

anticipate currently that we wouldn’t have material tree loss on Roberts Street. I can’t

give an assurance to that effect; I can merely indicate what we currently anticipate. But

if there were to be any tree loss then the replacement tree provision would apply and,

subject to the feasibility – and one can’t see at the moment why there wouldn’t be the

ability to put in a tree in the road that it’s currently in – the assurance would be directed

at trying to get the trees back in where they were lost from.

689. But I hope that provides some level of comfort as to why we don’t at the moment

anticipate the worst-case scenario occurring, the worst case being what was shown in

the Environmental Statement.

690. CHAIR: Okay. It looks like you’re going to look out your window and see some

trees.

691. MS BROWN: Well, I hope so. I do hope so. Can I…?

692. CHAIR: Yes, brief final comments.

693. MS BROWN: Just on the taxis, I mean, I take the point that at the moment

obviously taxis can go down Roberts Street and there’s nothing to prevent them but it’s

a big difference of the occasional taxi going down with when you’re opposite a massive

taxi rank and there’s hundreds of them going down. That’s the difference. Thank you.

94

694. CHAIR: Okay. Thank you very much indeed.

Martyn Swain

695. CHAIR: We’re now on AP3-114, Martyn Swain, in person. Welcome.

696. MR SWAIN: Hello. Welcome. I’m the petitioner. First of all, I’d like to thank

everybody for staying with it for such a long day. This is the first time I’ve ever been in

front of a select committee and it’s been a very interesting day. So, yeah, thank you for

listening to us all. And, with Christmas just around the corner, perhaps it’s time to offer

you all seasons greetings.

697. CHAIR: Thank you.

698. MR SWAIN: My name’s Martyn Swain. I’m a composer. I’m a leaseholder in

Rydal Water and I have, I suppose, a fairly specific set of circumstances. You’ll see

here my first slide.

699. In order to properly carry out my duties as a composer, I need to be very close to

the Fitzrovia area where something like 140 plus production companies are based. That

is effectively the centre of my industry. I work as a media composer so I write for TV

and film. Also in the location are a huge amount of editing suites where the music I

write is then put into the films themselves. And there are also a lot of recording studios

able to record for orchestras.

700. Now, my dilemma with HS2 is that, having spent three years living outside of

London and bought a family home up in York, I watched my turnover diminish by 60%;

which means that in order for my business to continue I need to return to London pretty

much with immediate effect. That I’ve now done but unfortunately I’m in a position

where a new build which was sanctioned on 3 September, with the planning application

being passed on that day with very short notice, is now taking place directly in front of

Rydal Water; and that means from early January I’ll be unable to carry out and ply my

trade from that address.

701. Generally I sit at a piano and I write. I’ve been able to do that for something like

15 years pretty regularly. But I also have a small recording unit where I record

overdubs of things like violins. I do it by running my own business which is well within

95

the terms of my mortgage agreement. But with this imminent new build about to take

place – a seven storey building, 17.5 metres away – I can say with certainty that I won’t

be able to ply my trade from that address.

702. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Is this new build linked to the scheme? Is this part

of the replacement housing?

703. MR SWAIN: That’s right, yes. Interestingly, the new build itself is placed inside

the safeguarding area, which is a bit bizarre really but there we are. So, in order to

continue to ply my trade, I need to move.

704. After the new build, we go straight into HS2. Directly opposite where I live, the

National Temperance Hospital is due for demolition, I believe. That area will then

become a depot for staff and transport which will be accessible 24 hours a day. The

idea that I can get through that period without my business being blighted is not feasible

really.

705. For instance, if I’m on a commission, a commission can last anywhere between a

week and anything up to a year; but typically between a week and three months. If on

day four, for instance, of a relatively short commission, drilling starts, that jeopardises

my entire project. The great advantage to me of being so close to Fitzrovia is that I can

generate a lot of work simply by saying to people that they can walk to my studio.

Now, it’s very important that they can do that because a lot of my work is very time

sensitive and I have to get things in on time; there is no leeway for failure in that

respect. If I can have a director or a producer come to my studio whilst I’m working,

we can fix a huge amount of potential issues there and then. Now, there are very few

people in that area who can offer that facility; so therefore, in terms of my earning

potential, it’s essential that I remain in that area. Anywhere I go from here would have

to be in a southerly direction. If I try and buy a similar property in the area, I’m not

going to be able to afford it.

706. Let’s just move on to the second slide here. This is a valuation. I was very

hesitant about sharing this with a roomful of people but it shows that my current

property is valued at around £450,000. That’s a reasonable estimate and it does show

the Committee the value of property in that area; it’s a small 43 square metre apartment.

I’ve adapted it to my own needs. I’ve soundproofed it. I’m lucky enough to have a

96

property which has a foot of concrete under its floor. It was originally built on the roof

of Rydal Water. So it fits my provisions absolutely perfectly. I’ve spent a lot of money

on it; it’s a very modern, contemporary apartment as you can see from the previous

drawing.

707. Now, if I want to move within range of Fitzrovia then I’m going to have to move a

considerable way north which will take away all of the advantages that I have being in

that location. The only way I can escape from the HS2 blight is by moving south, either

going to Fitzrovia itself or further east or west. I’ve done a lot of research and I’ve got

some papers here where I’ve looked into values of properties nearby. I can’t find a way

of getting an equivalent property where I’ll be able to work consistently in my own

studio without annoying anyone else, without them annoying me, for less than

£650,000. I’ve got examples here of two properties that I dug out from Rightmove

yesterday: one is valued at £625,000, is much smaller than my current flat; and the next

one is valued at £675,000.

708. Now, I’m reassured, very recently apparently because of this agreement with

Camden, that there is now in place… something that I can’t find… Oh, here we are.

The Business and Local Economy Fund. This apparently arose out of the agreement

recently with Camden. And part 8 of this refers to business mitigation. I haven’t gone

through this in great detail because it’s only just arrived but it refers to the Secretary of

State providing assistance to existing businesses, of which I’m one, within the London

Borough of Camden to find suitable alternative premises as a result of needing a move

due to the proposal scheme to find suitable alternative premises. This appears to apply

to me. It aims to help firms identify their property needs, which I already know, and

advise firms on what suitable property might be available as well as establishing close

contacts with property agents. And there seems to be quite a large fund which I should

be applying to. I welcome any feedback on how my business can interact with that

offer. That’s the Business and Local Economy Fund.

709. As I said, I don’t believe that there’s any chance that, with extensive demolition

work and a new build which is about to commence, I can realistically aim to stay in my

property and run a business. In fact, I’ve already had to rent a property over in Battersea

Square which is at least quiet. It’s a temporary solution because I’m in a residential

block in a rental property suddenly introducing a lot of soundproofing which isn’t

97

necessarily viable basically. But it does at least allow me to write in the short term.

710. I listened with great interest to the Camden Cuttings presentation. Everything

they said about sound insulation is accurate. If you consider that residential

soundproofing will probably restrict up to about 30 dB, the maximum it will reach in

terms of blotting out sound is about probably 60 dB, which is about what you’re

listening to now. A pneumatic drill operates at 100 dB plus. There’s no chance that a

sudden outburst of pneumatic drilling will save me from this situation.

711. As I said, my property is… Can we go to P11737? Basically, 11737 is a map

which shows my location in relation to the safeguarding area. It hasn’t come to this yet

but I can absolutely assure you that from the 10th floor I could actually jump into that

area. And the thought has crossed my mind with the level of difficulty I’ve experienced

trying to deal with HS2. But we’ll save that for another day and perhaps it’s not the

time of day to tell a joke.

712. But that outlines my situation. What I’m looking for is compensation. It’s a

unique form of compensation as far I can see, which is why I wanted to present my own

case to the Committee rather than being part of Dorothea’s speech to you earlier. And

that is my first ask.

713. My second ask concerns the AP3 adjustments to Euston Station itself. I’m a busy

working composer. I’ve had to sell my family property up in York recently. So I’ve had

very little time to go through this, so I apologise if I appear naïve at all. But, having

looked at the drawings of the most recent proposal, I see that there are three escalators

going up here. We have three escalators side by side coming down or going up from the

platform level at Euston. That’s the proposal. I believe there are only three escalators.

But having had talks with members of High Speed UK, it appears to me that, first of all,

that will create a massive amount of congestion if that’s the only way of emptying a

400 metre long train and getting everybody out of the station in good time. It seems to

me obvious that you should have, say, for instance, two escalators side by side all the

way down the platform so that everyone can actually get on to an escalator in good time.

714. I’m also informed that, if that was the case, the platforms would necessarily only

need to be…. Well, need to be less wide, and that would mean effectively that the

current footprint of Euston would be sufficient for the purposes of all of the new

98

activities to take place. I’d invite comments on that because it seems to be a

fundamental issue that appears to have been overlooked.

715. CHAIR: Okay. Thank you very much.

716. MR SWAIN: I do have one other issue, and it’s been mentioned a number of

times today about the strange relationship, really, between local members of the

community and HS2. I took the time to petition against the… or at least put my points

forward about the planning process which would mean that this current new build right

in front of Rydal Water is going to take place. I asked for various mitigation to be

looked at. It was fairly straightforward. I have no desire to leave Rydal Water but it

looks as though I’m going to have to. What I asked for was triple glazing to be

installed, or at least an extra internal layer of glazing, secondary glazing. And I also

asked for the installation of air conditioning so that you could actually breathe inside. I

suffer from asthma and I also have sinus problems so, to be honest, air conditioning isn’t

the best solution for me; it dries me out and it leaves me with all sorts of problems.

717. But none of these mitigation asks were heard at any point in the process; not at the

hearing itself, which I only found out about by hearsay because Camden didn’t inform

me of the date of the application hearing. I received a letter a few days after the hearing

was heard which, as I say, by chance I managed to attend. We were given a total of five

minutes to speak; that’s anybody who wanted to bring up points against that planning

application. And there was no discussion whatsoever about any mitigation. The case

has been exactly the same since the application was passed. I’ve continually asked

Sarah Haywood directly for some kind of response to those asks or mitigation and I’ve

been told that the mitigation can be handled by the constructors working responsibly

which, frankly, isn’t really a credible response I don’t think.

718. As to dealing with HS2 themselves, I’ve found their attitude quite hostile. Now, I

know you don’t want to hear this, to be honest, but I do have a proposal which I think

will benefit everybody. In fact, I think it will benefit this Committee with the amount of

time it has to spend dealing with this ongoing question. HS2 employees have in their

contract a clause which disallows them from being audio recorded in any situation, be it

one-to-one or be it at a public meeting. That has created a huge barrier and, in my view,

has rendered them completely unaccountable for a lot of what they say. I could go on

99

but I’ve made my point about that and I think it’s a very serious point; and if HS2 are

serious about properly engaging with any community then they need to get rid of that

clause.

719. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Put that on your blog or something, online

somewhere, your views on that.

720. MR SWAIN: Okay.

721. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: And your experience.

722. CHAIR: Mr Strachan?

723. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes. I’m afraid the system is down at the moment

so I won’t be able to show you any slides. But you may recall from what you saw that

Rydal Water is a building close to Hampstead Road, as was indicated. And what

Mr Swain is identifying is that London Borough of Camden have proposed a new

residential building of seven storeys in between Rydal Water and Hampstead Road,

which is what Mr Swain is referring to. I imagine he was also referring to the planning

application procedure and determination by the London Borough of Camden which I

cannot comment upon; that’s a matter for London Borough of Camden and its

procedures, although the five minute time for representations is consistent with local

authority practice generally – though it’s preceded by, of course, the ability to make

representations which are then taken into account.

724. As to Rydal Water itself, 22 Rydal Water, I believe that currently the noise

assessments weren’t identifying the need or the triggers for noise insulation in that

property. However, as I’ve shown you already in relation to the noise assurances with

Camden, we will be conducting further assessments with someone independent who’s

going to carry out a sample of properties to look at any additional properties that may

require noise insulation as a result of further work. And if it’s been suggested, as I think

it may be, that Rydal Water may be one such property, given its proximity to Hampstead

Road, then clearly that’s something that should be taken forward as a potential

contender for one of the samples for that further assessment work.

725. I’ve already explained how the noise insulation works in terms of trigger levels at

100

façade, looking at what levels would be experienced from what’s proposed in the area;

and it sounds as if Mr Swain, if he wants to put his property forward or that building

(because it’s more than just his property), that’s something we will listen to and see

whether that should be included in the sample.

726. MR SWAIN: Well, just briefly –

727. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Why don’t I finish and then you can come back?

728. MR SWAIN: Yeah.

729. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Then Mr Swain’s raised an issue about

compensation and the valuation of his property. I was listening to what he was saying,

indicating that he’s… I wasn’t quite sure – maybe this isn’t the process to go through

the details – but, as I understood it, he’s already rented another property for where he’s

living or maybe working from which of course would affect the issue of the ability to

apply under the Need to Sell scheme if he’s already in another property. I’m not totally

aware of the circumstances he was describing because I’d assumed, for the purposes of

his presentation, he was talking about 22 Rydal Water as his current residential

property; whereas it appears that the situation may be somewhat different. And of

course the letter’s written to him at his York property.

730. But rather than take time to go through that in front of the Committee, if he wants

to come and talk to us about his arrangements or where he’s currently living, we can

explain to him the Need to Sell scheme and how it operates and the relevant criteria; and

I’m very happy for us to do that. But, as a matter of principle, it is addressed at

residential dwellings, not business premises; and I’m not sure if he’s operating, from

what he was describing, as a business premises or as a residential dwelling. But that’s

something he can clarify with us, because he was explaining he was living somewhere

else at the moment. But that’s all I managed to pick up from what Mr Swain’s

identifying. But I suggest he come and talk to us about that.

731. I think the other… Yes, the Business and Local Economy Fund is a wider fund

which the Committee has heard about where applications can be made to that fund. I

don’t think it was addressing a specific issue he was raising. There are assurances about

business mitigation which are in section 8 of the Camden assurance letter which

101

explains the circumstances in which the nominated undertaker will develop a business

support strategy as a result of construction works in the area. But, as I said, I’m not at

the moment entirely clear as to Mr Swain’s circumstance and use of his property in the

building as to quite what he’s using it for. But no doubt we can explore that with him.

732. But, generally speaking, on the valuation of property, if he were seeking to sell

and apply for compensation under the Need to Sell Scheme as a result of the criterion

under that scheme, if he was successful under that, the full unblighted market value of

the property which is the basis upon which the compensation works. And that will take

into account the value as it stands of the property assuming the scheme weren’t going

ahead.

733. So I confess I’m not entirely sure of his circumstances, bearing in mind what he

said, but certainly we would suggest that he comes and talks to us so that we can

understand it a little bit more.

734. CHAIR: Okay.

735. MR SWAIN: I’d like to reply to that obviously.

736. CHAIR: Yes.

737. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Can I just ask this: when did you acquire the

property?

738. MR SWAIN: 12 years ago. So, yeah, I’m a leaseholder there and have been for a

while. The situation is that we decided… unfortunately my marriage has broken down

recently so we decided to sell the matrimonial home in York. Whether HS2 is going to

happen or not, I recognise that I needed to return to Rydal Water to work from that area

because, as I explained, over the last three years in York my incomes have dropped by

60%. I’m well-versed in how to get work by being in the local area, and being within

walking range of Fitzrovia is of fundamental –

739. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: There are some things you’ve got to be on the spot

and be available and deliver.

740. MR SWAIN: Absolutely.

102

741. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: And there are others which take a long time.

742. MR SWAIN: Yeah. A lot of work comes like that. If I’m on the spot then I get

the job; simple as that. The reason why I’m not there, as I say, is because of the

imminent new build. I had a builder in recently to do some work. His advice was, very

firmly, ‘you will not be able to work through this whatever we do

sound-insulation-wise’. So I’ve been forced to rent my flat, again at blighted value:

probably about two-thirds of what it would achieve if there was no new build and no

HS2 to follow.

743. So the impact of HS2 on me, in real terms, is that it’s currently endangering my

career. The idea that that can be solved by simply offering me full unblighted market

value for my property isn’t realistic because I need to be away from that area and I

won’t find an equivalent property, in my view, for less than something £650,000. And

that will mean a lot of adaptations in order to make that property fit for me to work

from.

744. As I say, I work from home. A lot of people do. It’s a residential property. It’s

not owned by the business but I do have a business. So if that doesn’t quite fit through

the letterbox of HS2, which comes as no surprise, then that leaves me scuppered,

frankly.

745. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Well, all I said is that you should talk to us about

your circumstances because they weren’t clear to me –

746. MR SWAIN: Well, what you said was that you would offer me up to the full –

747. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I think, rather than having a discussion that should

take place in private in public, I think the suggestion that having a discussion with HS2

is a significant one. It may or may not produce some result. I think, if you have the

view that the public purse would pay more than the value of the property that is being

disturbed, I think it’s not the way life is.

748. MR SWAIN: Sorry?

749. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: It’s not the way life is. So, have the discussion with

them and see where you get on the rest of it.

103

750. MR SWAIN: Yes, the reason why I wished to appear before this Committee is I

have had those discussions and they have been arduous.

751. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Well, that may be so. Good luck with the 13th door

when it comes.

752. MR SWAIN: Thank you very much.

753. CHAIR: Thank you very much, Mr Swain. I’m going to adjourn this for five

minutes, then we’re going to have petition 1800, AP3: 79, Hero Granger-Taylor. Order,

order.

Sitting suspended

On resuming—

Hero Granger-Taylor

754. CHAIR: Welcome back to the HS2 Select Committee. Welcome. We’d like to

kick off.

755. MS GRANGER-TAYLOR: Yes. Hello. I’m sorry to be appearing before you for

the third time, in fact, and I hadn’t intended to bring my private petition to you, but

something has turned up recently which I felt did need to be brought to your attention.

It’s both good and bad news, and I should say, first of all, that my most recent petition

concerned particularly the property in Ainsdale, which, of course, you know is one of

the blocks that’s going to be demolished. This belonged to my late husband, or rather it

belonged to a trust, and the person who – I forget what the name was – the beneficiary

of the trust was him, until he died, and since then it’s become my son, Roland, who’s

19. So, we have been trying to sell this to HS2.

756. Anyway, I should read… you’ve got my documents and, on… So, this is A17071.

At the end of the first section, there’s actually my major ask, which has been met by this

email I received from HS2 at 6.25 pm yesterday, but it’s not formalised – I haven’t got

an assurance. So, possibly, I’d just like to read out the main paragraph, and I might do.

So, this is from Damian Cox, who’s the petitioning manager, I think he’s called – the

petition advisor for my area:

104

757. ‘I understand that you wish to sell the property as soon as possible, given your

personal circumstances. I can confirm that HS2 Limited offer to purchase the flat under

the terms of the original contract changed to purchase date and valuation only, provided

that exchange and completion take place by 30 January 2016. The value will be that on

‘date of entry’ and there will also be payment of reasonable fees and the ‘basic loss

payment.’ Should there be any dispute on the valuation, there will be the ability to refer

to the Lands Tribunal and, should that occur, we will pay 90% of our estimate initially.’

758. So, the background is that these are more or less the terms of my ask in that

third… the last paragraph. That’s actually the fourth paragraph of the first page of my

two-page summary. So, what I particularly ask the Committee to do is to… is that you

direct HS2 to apply these offers that they’ve made in this –

759. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: That will have happened before we conclude, so I

think you can have confidence in what they say, we can have confidence but, if it

doesn’t happen during the timescale that they’ve suggested and, I suppose, you’re

agreeing, we’ll know.

760. MS GRANGER-TAYLOR: Okay. Thank you. But I would just like to mention

something about the problems that have arisen with this sale to HS2 of the flat, because

I think I’m the first leaseholder in Ainsdale to go through this process. And because it

particularly relates to the value of the flat, I think it’s important to show that the process

of getting the value right is not at all a straightforward one. So, although the block is

being demolished, it’s within safeguarding but it has been a difficult process, so I’m just

going to very, very quickly say the events.

761. My husband died – we were still married but we were estranged – in October

2010. For various reasons, we didn’t put it on the market straightaway, but we did at the

beginning of January 2013. I then had an attempt to sell it –

762. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Have you gone on to the second page?

763. MS HERO GRANGER-TAYLOR: Yes, there’s a brief, edited timeline there. So,

then we were getting offers but they were always behind the asking price at a time when

the market was going up very quickly, so I thought I would try and sell it to HS2,

because that would be the only way of getting the full value. So, in January 2014, I

105

appointed Savills to be my agents in this business, and they served a blight notice on

HS2 on 5 February 2014. So, I’d just like to point out that, if we sell it by 30 January

next year, which I jolly well hope we will do, that would be a process taking two years

for this relatively simple sale.

764. There were two things during the process. At that back of my papers – that’s 10,

11 and 12 – there’s a timeline which tells you all the events, which is very long. There

were two things which were very surprising to us and to… this is Savills’ compulsory

purchase department. One was that, 17 April this year, Mr Pugh, acting for HS2

Limited, wrote, ‘I am only prepared to recommend that HS2 reimburses reasonable fees

incurred after HS2 agree to the discretionary purchase of the property.’ Well, during

last year, there was a lot of to and fro about how we would – they rejected our blight

notice – on how we were going to sell the flat to them. Eventually, they said they would

accept a typical situation, where they would treat it as a blight notice, but this was not

formalised until September last year. So, from January to September, they were saying

they were not going to pay the fees, which, considering the confusion was really on their

side, seems to me pretty unacceptable. Apparently, the whole fee situation has now

been sorted out, but both Savills and I were extremely taken aback.

765. I should just mention that, in the meantime, we did say we tried to get them to buy

in it May last year – May this year – by serving a kind of ultimatum, which is actually

the letter from Richard Asher, which is –

766. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I think we understand it’s been awkward and

juddering. I don’t think you need to take us through more. You’ve provided the papers.

767. MS GRANGER-TAYLOR: Okay. There’s just one… I just need to mention the

most recent thing. And actually, on my page two, I put the wrong date. It’s actually 23

November this year, so just a couple of weeks ago. They rang saying they would buy it

– that was very decent of them – but it would be at the value agreed last year; that’s to

say, November last year, which followed the visit of the district valuer at the end of May

last year, so we’re talking about 18 months before, and this… I know London house

prices are terrifying, but they have been going up very, very rapidly, particularly for this

type of property. So that, when we tried to serve them a kind of ultimatum in May this

year, we said you can buy it from us at the value agreed last year - £420,000 – but at this

106

stage we think it’s worth £480,000. That’s in May this year.

768. So, they didn’t react in time for us to get on to the process of exchange or

anything, so we said, right, we’re going to renegotiate. Well, then, Savills had to wait

until some flats were sold on the Regent’s Park Estate to establish the value, which they

managed to do by September, when they wrote and said the value seemed to be

£515,000. So, when they say in November, they’re only going to pay £420,000, that’s a

huge difference. And they also said to us that they thought it was only worth £430,000.

This was on the telephone, which comes in the papers. That is a 4% rise,

approximately, over last year, which, of course, would be very untypical for what had

been happening in London over that time.

769. CHAIR: I think we’ve got the point. You’ve got the point over to the Committee.

I don’t think we need to go into any more detail.

770. MS GRANGER-TAYLOR: Yes, but I’m not giving that, which is my son’s

money. I am not making a present of it to HS2. I think we’ve come to the end of it, but

here I am. As you can tell, I’m a highly educated person, I have professional advice and

I can to the end of this. There must be a lot of people on the Regent’s Park Estate who

were encouraged to buy their flats who will have to go through that.

771. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I think the number of people who are in similar

situations is unlikely to be typical.

772. MS GRANGER-TAYLOR: Well, I guess it’s not so very atypical, I don’t feel.

773. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: No.

774. MS GRANGER-TAYLOR: Anyway, I’d just like to just say a few words about

Park Village East, which is where I live and where you visited my garden. Mr Cox

wrote to me, as it were, in response to my petition saying, ‘You really should think

about the Need to Sell scheme’, but I have been advised by Savills that I’m… I know

that it has become broader than the previous Exceptional Hardship Scheme, but you

heard from my neighbours, the Khans, they had been turned down. I don’t know that I

would be turned down. Maybe I would be accepted but I would be going into a process

which is much, much less clear than this Blight Notice process, which I’ve already had

107

so much trouble with, with the flat. So, I really, really don’t want to do the Need to Sell

scheme, because I mention in my petition I have a disorder – ADHD – which makes it

difficult for me to cope with a lot of paperwork. And I just don’t think it’s reasonable or

acceptable to treat people and give them only this discretional route of selling their

property. So, that completes my presentation. Thank you very much.

775. CHAIR: Thank you very much. Are we going to see you again or is this the final

occasion?

776. MS GRANGER-TAYLOR: I hope it’s the final one.

777. CHAIR: Okay.

778. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I don’t want to revisit the history, other than just to

put on the record that there are some missing dates, as far as our perspective is

concerned, as to what happened in terms of the sending out of engrossments for signing

and then of delay. I don’t think it’s going to assist the Committee to get into it and I’d

just put that on the record, but the important thing is that agreement now appears to be

reached on both sides as to what’s going to happen.

779. CHAIR: Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you.

780. MS GRANGER-TAYLOR: And just in response to say there was an oversight

with us, which we missed a document which should have been updated, but on HS2’s

side we’ve had quite a lot of errors in the documents we’ve received from them.

781. CHAIR: Okay. Thank you very much indeed. We now move on to AP3: 132,

Steven Christofi, who’s the next petitioner. Welcome.

Steven Christofi

782. MR CHRISTOFI: Thank you.

783. CHAIR: I understand you’re not going to go through all your slides, otherwise

we’re going to have to order pizzas.

784. MR CHRISTOFI: No. Half of those slides that I was shown were just my

supporting documents. They weren’t supposed to be slides. This is the Regent’s Park

108

Estate, you can see. You’ve seen it before. It’s about a quarter of a square mile, or half

a square mile. It’s been my home and my life for over 50 years. I was born, not on the

estate but just on the south-east corner, at UCH. I went to school on this estate. My

first job was here. I’ve seen a lot of changes. I’ve seen the Euston Tower being topped

out. I’ve seen my primary school being demolished, the main post office being pulled

down to make way for Facebook offices, but this is an unprecedented event because it

actually invades the estate. The imposition of this when I’m least able to cope – and I

understand you’ve had a letter from the clerk about my… I have never imagined that I

would be spending the next 10 years or the last 10 years, or whenever, in a construction

site.

785. Next slide, please. This is a picture of Stanhope Street. You’ve been here. Netley

School is behind us, to the right. Borrowdale is to the left. I understand another

petitioner lives on the estate. Woodhall is on the right. My flat is facing, on the left-

hand side. That’s Ennerdale block. There it is there – that’s right. I’m on the second

floor. So, I’ve got access out to Stanhope Street and I’ve got access out to Varndell

Street on the other side.

786. There are two compounds, apart from the Granby Terrace. They’ll be generating

that amount of traffic – HGVs – and I’ve got… These figures were from table 26 when

the AP3 came round first. I’ve since had a look at those bar charts that you’ve got for

each of the construction, and it’s concentrated the numbers. But it’s around about three

to five minutes for 19 months, six to nine minutes – these are the frequencies of HGVs,

not just for construction traffic – for 32 months. The total heavy flow from 2.8 to nine

minutes is over four years. Moderate flow, every 10 to 15 minutes, is another year and a

half plus, so it’s six years in total. This is mass transit numbers. This is what the

Central Line is like at the peak, and you’re asking me to tolerate this in HGV traffic.

These are going over humps. This is not a main road. The proposers haven’t asked this

from any other non-A road in the area. This is the only place where residential roads are

being asked to carry this amount of HGV traffic. No other road comes anywhere near

this level of traffic, which you know about.

787. Next slide, please. This is, basically, what the new HGV traffic is going to do.

Hampstead Road gets that amount; Stanhope Street gets the most. I thought that, when

they got to the bottom of Stanhope Street, they’d split, but they don’t – they go straight

109

to Hampstead Road, past Woodhall. And those are the percentage increases in HGV

traffic, and the yellow numbers – the percentage numbers – are the expected MOT

changes as a result of all this traffic. My house is the black square, just for reference,

and I think that’s all, really, we need to say about that, because you know the area so

well. But you’ll notice that the heaviest flows occur from Granby Terrace down to

Robert Street for the whole of the construction area, which I’ve already said.

788. Next slide, please. We’ll get through this in 10 years. We’ve moved up to the

next junction. We’ve moved further north from the Netley School junction with the

traffic lights, and this is the junction of Stanhope Street with Varndell Street. Notice the

parked cars. You’re asking construction traffic – this is a construction route. You’re

going to have to clear all this parking, and there’s going to be more parking being

cleared than anywhere else. That’s a diagrammatic version of the blocks and the

replacement housing that’s going to go up. I used to play in that garden when I was a

kid. We all did. Every single block – and this has been pointed out before, I know – but

every single block has a garden attached, and all the residents of those blocks are

entitled to use that garden. And there’s a little gate there, so, when I was a kid, we were

put down there, and your mum or your dad can look out the window and keep an eye on

your young kids. These are all going – these are all going.

789. I’ve forgotten what slide this number is now. Yes. I did little traffic counts – I

have a background in this – and those were the counts of cyclists that I got in the

morning peak, on a Monday morning peak: 33 cyclists in the morning peak for an hour,

and they’re going to have to compete with – that’s based on a maximum flow of 42 but I

can give you some other numbers, if you want – but we’ve already gone through the

numbers. It’s a danger to traffic, it’s a danger to cyclists, it’s a danger to me. And

again, these roads have recently been resurfaced and already they’re looking a bit

threadbare, and they were resurfaced two years ago. All of the estate was.

790. The proposers suggest that this section of Stanhope Street carries 60 HGVs a day.

I think they’ve mixed up Stanhope Street figures with Robert Street East, because

they’ve got Robert Street East carrying just two HGVs a day, whereas Robert Street

West carries 60. So, unless they’re thinking that, currently, all 60 that come along

Robert Street turn up Stanhope Street, because there’s nothing there to go for. I don’t

want you to think that Stanhope Street carries all those HGVs – they don’t. Stanhope

110

Street has a dustcart, and that’s it. And if there’s a HGV up there, he’s lost.

791. I’ve explained about the gardens and the importance of those to us. I appreciate

that HS2 have done base lines for 2017 for noise and air quality, but they haven’t done a

base line for what the urban landscape is going to look like. So, the noise difference

here in 2017 is going to be different to today, because the noise can disperse across that

park, and the same for other receptors across the estate, which we’ll see on other slides.

792. Can we have the next slide, please? I found this little chart from somewhere on

the internet. There it is – the reference is at the bottom. It was useful to tell me what

decibels were and what they meant, and HS2 say that my current noise level is higher –

more than 10 decibels higher – than Robert Street. They also say that my noise levels

are higher than the other end of Varndell Street, which is next to Hampstead Road.

Hampstead Road carries 34,000 vehicles a day. Robert Street carries anything

between… I say 2,000; they say 4,000. Albany Street is 14,000. Stanhope Street, less

than 1,000 or 500. Varndell Street, even less than 500. My current noise levels aren’t

more than 10 decibels higher than Robert Street. Robert Street has all the shops and it

has all the HGVs that are going through. That’s what I wanted to say about that. And

again, they forecast – those are the years there in red. It’s 2023. They forecast, for

Robert Street, it’ll only go up to 50, which is still less than what I am now, and they also

forecast Varndell Street the same, to go up by 2023, and it’s still less than I am, and I’d

like some clarification on that. I don’t understand. Whether I’m misreading the

numbers or not, I don’t know. Anyway. I will move on to the next slide, I think. If

they wish to come back on that, they can.

793. This is a quick one. I call it the ‘everything is rosy slide.’ This is my

interpretation of what they think is going to happen. I’ve looked through all their tables,

and they are huge tables – they go on for pages and pages – and I’ve put my roads onto

a map, and this is what it looks like. They think that Stanhope Street is going to have a

30% decrease – a minor/moderate beneficial effect in all stages: stage 1, 2017; stage 2,

2018; stage 3, 2023. And then, in the other charts, they say it’s going to come down

every three to five minutes, every nine minutes. The two are conflicting and I don’t

want the Committee to think that everything is rosy; it isn’t. I’m not sure why Varndell

Street has such a huge major adverse effect, because it gets closed off at the end of

2017, I think.

111

794. Next slide, please. I didn’t want to spend too much time on that. This is the

junction where the bus stops are. Any person who lives on the estate will eventually end

up at this junction either to catch the bus or cross the road to the hospital or go off to the

council offices. They have to cross Hampstead Road and the bus stop is just there. I’ve

picked it out in… Can I just have a little drink?

795. CHAIR: Yes, of course.

796. MR CHRISTOFI: I’ve picked it out in orange, so you can see it. That’s the

National Temperance bus stop. The other bus stop is at the top of the hill, where the big

blocks of flats are. At the top of the hill – I call it a hill; you call it the over-bridge.

Let’s just call it a bit of a hill. Those are the only two bus stops on the Hampstead Road

between Mornington Crescent station and Warren Street station. We need those bus

stops. They’re well placed. As you can see, there’s a pelican crossing to help us across,

just out of shot behind us, and there’s also a pelican crossing further up. Those are the

two signal-controlled crossings. There’s no other protected phase across Hampstead

Road, apart from down towards the Euston Road and Longford Street. There’s one

three.

797. CHAIR: Let’s keep going through the slides.

798. MR CHRISTOFI: Yes. I just wanted to mention about the traffic calming that

occurs on the estate. At the moment, we’re protected from rat-running because you

can’t turn right when you come out of Robert Street, which means you can’t turn south.

Now, all the lorries are going to be coming out and turning south, so you’re going to

unplug the traffic calming on the estate. Now, I know that you’re going to have local

traffic-management plans with Camden, but they can only object to things if they’re

unreasonable, and there’s no other way to get those lorries out of Stanhope Street and

Robert Street, because Varndell Street is shut and Granby Terrace is out, so there are no

roads between Camden High Street. The next road down is William Road – that’s a

minor road. There’s no signal crossing there. That’s Addison Lee’s anyway. So, the

effect of what they’re asking to do is to unplug the traffic-calming system – the system –

on the estate, and we’ll have all the rat-runners that used to come before those turns

were banned, and that’s an extra amount of traffic that’s coming down through the

estate. So, we’ll have all Albany Street’s traffic. It used to come across to avoid the

112

Euston Road junctions at Great Portland Street and the Euston Road underpass

junctions. Those are gyratory systems, and any opportunity to avoid them, people will

take it. If you allow lorries to turn right, then everyone else will.

799. I’ve mentioned the bus stops. They said that this junction will cope with all the

traffic by computer modelling, and they gave the example of the Olympics in their

response documents. The Olympics, when that was occurring, as I was speaking to a

petitioner earlier on, you got a gated system eventually into central London, and one of

the gates was the Drummond Street set of traffic lights, and you knew that because, after

Drummond Street, there was nothing; before Drummond Street, the queue stretched

back to the Temperance Hospital. And the same for Albany Street. The Olympics just

went on for two weeks or four weeks; you’re asking this road – and I don’t know if

you’re going to narrow it further up or whatever, or if you’re going to reduce the traffic,

but they’ve got flows coming down here throughout the construction period. They’re

assuming that Hampstead Road carries 14,000-19,000 but it doesn’t; it’s 34,000, and

that’s what those tables were. If anyone wants to query that, I’ve got the Department for

Transport figures there. So, that’s a matter for you to decide on.

800. Next slide, please. This is just a summary of the response documents that I

wanted to highlight. The thing about –

801. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: We’re less than halfway through the slides you’re

taking us through, I think, are you?

802. MR CHRISTOFI: Sorry?

803. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: We’re less than halfway through the slides you’re

taking us through.

804. MR CHRISTOFI: I’m halfway through the slides.

805. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Could you make a bit more progress?

806. CHAIR: We can read what’s on the slides quicker than you’re… You’re sort of

behind the curve, so –

807. MR CHRISTOFI: Yes, I’m not going to read you the slides. I’m just going to say

113

why they’re there.

808. CHAIR: Okay.

809. MR CHRISTOFI: The green one is there because this is how I read the AP3

document and the responses. Every time they say there’s a mitigation, it isn’t a

mitigation. It’s a mitigation because they’ve put the bridge back that they took away,

and they call that a mitigation. On the LEMPs – which I’ve forgotten what they mean,

but they’re those traffic-management plans – Camden can’t object to these things unless

it’s a reasonable thing, and a lot of the works that are being proposed are unavoidable

and you can’t change. For example, you can’t ban the right turn out of Robert Street,

because they’re proposed all the lorries coming out of it, so it would be unreasonable to

say, so it needs to be sorted out now.

810. They mentioned accidents. There’s been one serious injury on the estate in the

last five years – on the estate – one. One child. But they’ve mentioned this. I think it’s

wrong. I’ve given you the urban-area one for it, but all that traffic coming through

there, there’s going to be more than one just every five years, and I think I’m going to

be one of them as well. There’s only been four accidents elsewhere – sorry, four on

Hampstead Road and a couple on Albany Street – in the last five years.

811. The right-hand side of the slide, which I hope you’ve already read just now –

812. CHAIR: Yes, we already read that five minutes ago. Can you just pick it up?

813. MR CHRISTOFI: So, you can move on to the next slide, then. So, how on earth

– because this is what the response document said. They said, ‘Don’t worry, because all

the lorries will start using Granby Terrace bridge from 2018’, but if you look at the chart

on figure 9 and their chart, they’ve got the reconstruction of Granby Terrace bridge and

the opening of Granby Terrace bridge exactly the same, which is now. And if you can

just see the demolition of the south side of Hampstead Road bridge, it begins in 2022.

814. So, if you move on to the next slide, that’s what I’m suggesting. Rather than the

white line, which is the construction route, which would make a very good bus route, if I

was designing the bus route, because it goes past all the nice receptors – the schools and

the shopping area – I can’t see why they can’t make the Granby Terrace compound have

114

an access out on to Hampstead Road directly. As I’ve said before, why are we being

asked… why are we the only roads – the only minor roads – being used for construction

traffic – minor residential roads – when you’ve got, on one side, Hampstead Road, and

there’s the railway line on the other, but I won’t bother you with that, because you’ve

heard that to exhaustion. And then, from 2022, you can use Granby Terrace bridge,

which will be constructed in a slightly different area.

815. So, what I’m asking is that you’ve got the option here to use Hampstead Road

from day one, and then, from 2022, when the south side starts to be demolished –

Hampstead Road – you can then use Granby Terrace bridge. There’s no reason for you

to use Stanhope Street. My suspicion is that you’re using our residential roads because

you’re demolishing everything all in one go, so there’s no roads left. There are no roads

left in your plans – in the HS2 plans. There’s only Stanhope Street left, and that’s why

you’re using it, and that’s why –

816. CHAIR: Well, the local authority will be the people that eventually decide which

bridge will be used anyway.

817. MR CHRISTOFI: Well, if there’s only one road left, wouldn’t it be unreasonable

for the local authority to deny HS2 access to that road? That’s what I’m saying.

818. Next slide, please. I was going to use this slide to show the narrowness of the

footpath, because they want cyclists to dismount, and there’s only one footpath on the

back of the road, and cyclists won’t dismount. They’ll just jump on the footpath, and

it’s only about a metre wide, and they’ll knock pedestrians over. That’s my worry. I

then saw this spare railway line and I saw a slope going down, so I had just had a little

bit of fun and just thought you might use that to cart some spoil out using the railway

line.

819. Anyway, next slide. My apologies for that. This is the amount of parking that’s

being taken out. This is Harrington Street looking north towards the Granby Terrace

compound. That’s the amount of parking that’s there, and that’s the construction route,

and HS2 are saying they’re only taking 10 spaces out. Well, there’s more than 10

spaces there to take out, and that’s repeated throughout the estate, in Mackworth Street,

Stanhope Street, Varndell Street and Robert Street. I’m fortunate, because I’ve just

been given another parking space, because my existing parking space is being built on

115

by extra housing, and my new parking space is just on this junction.

820. Next slide. I’ll just go through the rest of them. We’re back at the junction again.

These are the replacement-housing flats, and what I want to mention here is the loss of

the willow trees. I’ve grown up with these willow trees. They were planted when I was

born and they’re about my age. There used to be four of them. One got chopped down

to make way for the West Euston Partnership building, which is where the seven-floor

block of flats is now. The other one is right on the edge of the seven-floor block of flats.

It’s got stunted growth, and that was root-damaged because of the Euston Partnership

Portakabins that went on them. The utilities show that whole safeguarded area. The

setback is because of the old motorway block scheme, but the willow trees are an

important landmark for us locals. It’s how we’re reminded that we’re home, and you

don’t get that in any other street in central London. You’ve heard previously about

trees, so next slide.

821. This is Munster Square and, if it wasn’t for the cars, we would not be able to date

this picture. The scene is exactly the same, and I support previous petitioners who say

that mature trees were designed around and can be designed around. This is 1963. I

was one year old. My school – my primary school – was just behind it. And the trees

are already there and the estate is not even 10 years old. It’s only about five years old

then. That’s Munster Square anyway.

822. Next slide, please, which I think is the Camden bypass. Yes, it is. This is a

photograph from one of my old engineering books and it shows the Camden Town

bypass. HS2 are about to achieve what this never did. You might think that this is trite

but this is an unprecedented event. If the motorway blocks in the 1960s wasn’t able to

achieve what HS2 are achieving, that’s the kind of scale that this thing is happening.

823. Next slide. That was – you’re building the Camden bypass. Just on Park Village

East, just to mention about the bridge, this is near the bridge. You walk down here. I

just wanted for HS2 to note that some of these structures have those little features, those

little balls – some of them don’t. The reason why they don’t is because they got

knocked off or run away or whatever. There’s about six or seven that are left. Could

you please, in the spirit of goodwill, replace the ones that are missing and make sure

these ones are put back, as per… Because it’s things like these and things like the

116

willow trees that lift the spirits on the estate. They help us to survive. We’ve got

balconies. We’ve got balconies either side of the blocks. All the flats have. We’re

going to use the use of those balconies. No amount of insulation is going to protect us

from those balconies.

824. I think that’s – there’s one more slide, which is… if you can indulge me just for a

little. No, there’s a couple more slides, sorry. These are my asks. We’ve seen the

alternative construction routes. Better planning for pedestrians. Not going to the

station, which I haven’t mentioned. Much of the report is about pedestrians and

wayfinding, and it’s designed around pedestrians going from and to the station. I don’t

need to be told where Regent’s Park is. That’s not a mitigation for the loss of space

that’s happening – the loss of open space that’s happening. Please save the willow trees.

Please look at the numbers again, which we’ve looked at. Please make sure that the bus

stops are available. Bring back the east/west bridge over the railway line. That is

currently a public right of way between Barnby Street right round the back of that out to

our estate. It saves me from having to walk all the way round what is, effectively, a

motorway, because it carries 30,000-odd traffic, all the way round, and it’s going to

carry more, just to get to people that I know who live in Somers Town. I’d rather be

able to carry on avoiding all that traffic and walking down that quiet street, which is

Barnby Street.

825. I’m obviously asking for respite from all these measures. I’ve also put in air

filters. There’s one there for sale that I’ve found. You can plug that into a window. It

costs about $70. One filters in and one blows out.

826. Next slide, please. This is thanks to the Camden Civic Society. I didn’t realise it

was them that did this, but this is Euston Station in 1834. You’ve probably just read it

all by now. I’m asking you to come to our aid again. You did it 150 years ago. Can

you please do it now? I should say that I’m a member of the tenants’ and leaseholders’

association and I’m here with the blessing of the chair. I’m on the committee of that

august body. I’m not per se representing all of them but I am speaking for the tenants

and leaseholders on the estate. We don’t want these lorries coming down here. We

want you to look for an alternative. I think there are alternatives that can be done. Help.

827. CHAIR: Okay. Thank you very much indeed. The construction traffic, we’ve

117

heard, are the worst case and, if the trains can take it out of Euston, that would

substantially reduce the number of vehicles.

828. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): It would, and that’s not currently reflected in the

figures you see. Those assume no excavated material by rail, so that assurance to take

forward investigation of that. If it yields material results, you’ll see a potential

reduction in the volumes of traffic being predicted in and around this area.

829. I’d just clarify that the Granby Terrace over-bridge is one that is constructed and

we bring it into use for construction traffic before it comes back into public use, in order

to minimise the effect on places like Stanhope Street. There still will be construction

traffic there but we have taken measures to try and reduce it by taking construction

traffic over it, once it’s ready to take out construction traffic.

830. The other things raised by the petitioner about the use, for example, of Hampstead

Road to serve the Granby Terrace over-bridge compound have been looked at but, as

you will have seen from other slides, the Hampstead Road bridge is constructed in

sections, and then sections slid across to the – I’m going to get the wrong term but

they’re slid across after they’ve been constructed alongside, in order to minimise the

effects on Hampstead Road itself, and there isn’t the ability, consequently, to take any

construction traffic through that worksite on the Hampstead Road. So, these are things

we have looked at to try and minimise the effects of traffic in the area, but we’ve come

up with what we consider to be the best solution. Those, obviously, will have to be the

subject of the local traffic-management plans with Camden, you’ve heard a lot about.

831. I don’t know if you wanted me to deal with anything else. The bus stop, we’ve

provisioned, for example –

832. CHAIR: Willow trees?

833. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Willow trees. Those trees, I think, are lost – or

some of those are lost – as a result of Camden’s new housing in that area. No doubt,

Camden have its own provision for replacement-tree planting or green space but, if we

take out any willow trees, then of course we will replace trees, and the species – for

example, if there’s a request for willow trees – that’s clearly something we can take on

board, as, I would hasten to add, are things such as the detailing on the wall that

118

Mr Christofi was referring to. I think Mr Miller has given evidence about this before,

about the general intention. Where we can reuse usable materials – and they aren’t

always usable – we would seek to do so. And of course, the detailed design, the finish

of many of these buildings will be the subject of detailed approval, as you know.

834. CHAIR: Okay.

835. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I don’t want to open up a new field, but if a local

resident has a particular medical need, is there somebody who they can approach in case

they need respite from work or dust or something?

836. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes, there is. Can I just go back a step? In relation

to those special circumstances, those are something already we’ve factored into the

noise-insulation policy with the ventilation requirements, and I think I’d showed you

paragraphs previously where that’s specifically identified. Clearly, we need to be able

to take into account particular circumstances. Medical needs is one but other special

circumstances. 10.10 of the assurance to –

837. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: It may be possible, when this petitioner has finished,

that someone might have a chat outside.

838. CHAIR: Okay. Thank you, Mr Strachan. Brief final comments?

839. MR CHRISTOFI: Just on the Granby Terrace bridge, you say it’s going to be

reopened for construction traffic. When is that going to be?

840. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): 2020, and then it comes back into full public use in

2023.

841. MR CHRISTOFI: I know that. It’s written in black and white that it reopens in

2020. The fact is you’re proposing mass transit from 2017 to 2020. What I got from

your response was that some of that traffic was going to go and start at 2018. So, for

four years, you’re using Stanhope Street as the Northern line.

842. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Well, there is construction traffic on Stanhope

Street, as is explained in the Environmental Statement. It does go up and down. It’s not

always at that peak level but it seems unavoidable to get to access that compound, for

119

the reasons explained. It will benefit if we can take out materials by rail.

843. MR CHRISTOFI: Is there any way that you can restructure the phasing of the

demolitions that are occurring? That’s why I’ve put the Hampstead Road bridge south

side as being demolished in 2022. Is there any way that you can re-jig this to prevent

Stanhope Street and Robert Street being the only ones. They’re getting more traffic than

Hampstead Road, they’re getting more traffic than Albany Street. No other residential

road is being asked of this. The next one down gets around about 20 on average – 30.

Why are we getting a peak of 200?

844. CHAIR: HS2 have their plans, you have your objections, we’re here to consider

the issue, so I think we’ll consider that as a request to the Committee.

845. MR CHRISTOFI: Thank you.

846. CHAIR: Thank you. I know you’ve had to sit quietly all day in the Committee.

It’s been quite hard going. Thank you for your evidence in front of the Committee.

Thank you very much indeed. We’re now at 857, Maria Martinez.

847. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I think I read once, when the original parliamentary

bill was put forward to build a railway line from Liverpool to Manchester in competition

with the canal, a clever lawyer persuaded otherwise sane MPs it was totally impossible

to put an engine on a wagon, put other wagons with freight, and it only got permission

so long as they had this kind of arrangement of pulling it along by stationary engines.

848. MR CHRISTOFI: That’s right. It was ‘Man cannot travel at such speeds.’ Yes.

849. CHAIR: Okay. Last petitioner. Maria Martinez represented by Jairo Jaramillo.

Hello. Last but not least.

Maria Martinez

850. MR JARAMILLO: Absolutely. If this is a marathon, we’ve certainly heard the

bell now and this is the final lap, I’m delighted to say.

851. CHAIR: It’s a bit like being at the Parliamentary count: it just seems to go on all

night and never ends, and I never understand why.

120

852. MR JARAMILLO: Well, I want to say, first of all, hello to everyone. Thank you,

everyone – everyone who has to be here, everyone who doesn’t but is showing solidarity

with us, for bearing with us until this late. Thank you very much, Committee members.

We truly do appreciate our chance to sit in front of you and present on the issues that are

affecting us.

853. Just very quickly, I’ve noticed the progress made between HS2 and Camden

Council over the last few days. We are very pleased that HS2 has recognised the need

for mitigation of impacts on residents, though we would also express our

disappointment that these have been such eleventh-hour developments. Nevertheless,

we thank the Committee and all involved for their work in getting these concessions, so

thank you very much.

854. So, if we go to the next slide, very quickly today I’m going to do an introduction.

We will talk about our list of asks. Then I will show you the main exhibits and I will

end with a summary. Today, this final one is something a little bit different and I

guarantee you will be out of here in 10 minutes, so you can hold me to that.

855. Next slide, please. So, my name’s Jairo Jaramillo. I’m 30 years old. I’m a

mechanical engineer. I’m here representing my mum, Maria Elena Martinez, who’s 61

years old and is a housekeeper. We’ve been residents in the Regent’s Park Estate for

almost 30 years and, for the purposes of this presentation, it should be assumed that all

the negative impacts that may befall my mother will also affect me. My aim today is

really to humanise this story and, again, remind the Committee, even though I doubt it

needs by now more reminding, the colossal undertaking that bringing a project like this

into central London is. The consequences of rushing things, of not taking the needs of

the community into consideration would be disastrous. But above all, it’s about

humanising today.

856. So, if we could have the next slide, please. So, other people have made more

detailed and researched arguments about how and why the effects of HS2 in the Euston

area should be mitigated. We’re not going to go over those again; other people have put

their case forward brilliantly and will continue to do so. For the record, we wish to

highlight our main concerns which the HS2 Euston Action Group raised in their

presentation to the Committee on 30 November 2015, namely those sections –

121

apologies, I don’t have the slide numbers to hand – but basically, we’re primarily

concerned about the leaseholders not getting like-for-like replacement homes, and the

cost of doing that, it being such a high-value central London area.

857. So, if we could have the next slide, please. We ask that the Committee gives

serious consideration to the points raised by the HS2 Euston Action Group with regard

to fair compensation. If, however, the scheme proceeds in its current guise, we ask that

the Committee ensure that HS2 are made to comply with all promises made regarding

compensation to the leaseholders, no opportunity whatsoever to water down

compensation levels and thus risk further financial loss, and/or physical displacement

from the Euston area for leaseholders. We ask also that HS2 be made to more seriously

consider the true cost of replacing the homes lost to demolition and be obliged to assist

Camden Council in the construction of replacement homes for all types of tenants. Very

summarised points that have been made better by others, so replacement homes and

compensation are our main concerns.

858. Could we have the next slide, please? So, this is where it gets a little bit different.

I wanted to almost invite you into our home. It’s 30 years that we’ve been in the area.

We see here my mum pregnant with me in early 1985. I’m legally obliged to say that

she looks just as good there now, so… The lady in the –

859. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I have to say you look a bit like her –

860. MR JARAMILLO: Thank you very much, sir. The lady in red that you see there

holding me is my Aunt Cecilia, who’s a resident of the Eskdale block, so she will also

be affected, and that’s me in one of the many green spaces around – I don’t exactly

which but surround our estate. So, every single photo demonstrates the life that my

mother and by, extension, of course, I have built in our community, the Regent’s Park

Estate. We see my very early years and this is our community so far through our eyes,

and I will keep coming back to that word ‘community’ because that’s what this is about

and this is what it’s always been about.

861. Next slide, please. This is one of my mum’s favourite sets of photos. You can

actually see this is the late 80s. This is the area in front of the Ainsdale block. You can

see the top left-hand photo shows the Ainsdale block, the Eskdale block, the Granby

Terrace sheds, and also Granby Terrace House on the right-hand side of the photo. This

122

is my dad gamely trying to keep up with me as I learn to ride my bicycle, and then me

with a friend in Regent’s park. The proud and cherished memories of the inhabitants of

the community are its lifeblood.

862. Next slide, please. So, my mother chose the Euston area for my formative

educational areas. I attended St Aloysius Infant and Primary Roman Catholic schools

within the Somers Town area. You can see how multicultural and inclusive these areas

were and are, and I’m delighted that other community members have spoken about this

in great length to you. This is a settled and well working community. And entrusting it

to help raise me, my mother believed in her community.

863. Next slide, please. We see here various social gatherings taking place over a

period of almost 15 years, from my 16th birthday in a local restaurant which doesn’t

exist anymore in Hampstead Road, to birthdays for children of friends of ours,

Christmas 2010 down in the lower left corner and, as of last year, summer, where we

had a large group of Colombians come together for a football match. All of these

people are people that live within the area. I won’t name them because they’ve already

petitioned or they will be petitioning to you. But again, you see here it’s a calm and

settled community, and the pictures show a community and celebration.

864. Next slide, please. So, our fondest memories are indelibly linked with the bricks,

mortar, trees, grass and, of course, people of the Regent’s Park Estate. My academic

and, indeed, life success thus far, we see here: top left, me receiving an award from

Imperial College in third year of mechanical engineering; the slow falling, me creating a

snowman; our allegiances, as such, to Arsenal – I hope that none of the Committee

members are Spurs fans and that that won’t be a prejudice against us in any way. But

you can clearly see the calm and settled community that my mother chose to live and,

ultimately, purchase our home in.

865. Next slide, please. So, my mother and I believe in and love London. I was born

here, raised here, educated here, and I still live and work here. I love London and I’m

not going anywhere. It is fully my mother’s intention to retire here and, when the time

comes, pass on her flat to me. 30 years of life and planning is now being thrown into

doubt.

866. Next slide, please. So, in summary, please consider carefully the well-researched,

123

cogent and reasoned arguments of all the Euston residents that have come before you in

the last few days and over the coming weeks. There must be fair compensation for all

residents affected, be they tenants, leaseholders or businesses. My mother, my aunt, my

godmother, their families and all our neighbours, past and present, are proud Regent’s

Park Estate residents. We have contributed over many years to cohabit peacefully in

this fantastic city and this estate that we call home, so please do not let our community

be taken away from us. I want to thank you for your time and, those of you that I don’t

see again, which I’m guessing will be a lot of you, just wish you a Merry Christmas.

Thank you very much for your time.

867. CHAIR: Thank you very much indeed. Mr Strachan.

868. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I think I showed you some slides specifically about

the Regent’s Park Estate for replacement-housing provisions in respect of leaseholders,

which I understand the petitioner’s mother is a leaseholder of the property, and there is a

provision, if I show slide P11850(20), just to remind you of the provision that is made

for leaseholders for full compensation of blight and open-market value, the home loss

payment, and reasonable disturbance and relocation costs. Obviously, there’s an

element of choice for those who are leaseholders as to where they relocate, but I

mentioned previously that the Camden planning application at the Regent’s Park Estate

also includes provision for the additional 24 units which will be available for purchase

by displaced resident leaseholders. So, there is provision for people to remain in the

same location. I readily accept, obviously, not in the same building, but the intention is

to minimise the effects on those who want to remain in the community, and you can see

that.

869. Can I just put up on the screen R1315(20) of the Equalities Impact Assessment,

because there’s one other important provision here. 3.2.14 was the point I made about

the additional 24 units. 3.2.15 and 3.2.16 are all about the importance of maintaining

social cohesion for those who are being affected by the scheme. And then 3.2.18, we

have agreed to provide Camden funding for appropriate specialist support for those,

according to their personal circumstances, who may be more vulnerable or experiencing

difficulties as a result of the demolition and relocation process. As we understand, it is a

difficult process, and that’s to help those who are affected in that way, to assist them in

adapting to the changes.

124

870. CHAIR: Okay. Brief final comments – do you have any?

871. MR JARAMILLO: Yes, we are fully aware. We have interacted with the

compensation consultation scheme. We’ve read with great interest what HS2 are

proposing. We do accept that it is going above and beyond what previous schemes did.

This is just our opportunity to, again, reiterate to the Committee that we absolutely want

every guarantee that HS2 will be held to those promises. I do read that the units will not

be funded by HS2 Limited. My mother, through one way or another, stands to lose

money because it won’t be… because the apartment being replaced will likely be

replaced by something newer and of higher value. Just be aware, of course, we are not

making these decisions willingly. We did not speculate to accumulate, as it were. The

property is lived in and we are very fully aware of the advantages that we have by living

where we do, and we want to continue to have that and continue to be part of our

community, because we are proud Londoners and we’re not going anywhere. But we

appreciate, yes, the efforts that HS2 are making and, hopefully, there will be further

concessions and agreements on compensation, but that’s for other presentations. Thank

you.

872. CHAIR: Okay. Well, thank you very much indeed. You’ve represented your

mother extremely well. You certainly have the gift of the gab and you can always make

a car salesman if you weren’t a mechanical engineer.

873. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: You did better in passing your degree than your own

time test.

874. CHAIR: Absolutely. Okay. Order, order.