EXHIBIT LISTReference No: HOL/00472Petitioner: HS2 Euston Action GroupPublished to Collaboration Area: Monday 05-Sep-2016

Page 1 of 71

No Exhibit Name Page

1 A193_HEAG Presentation.pdf (A193) 2 - 33

2 A194_HEAG Slides.pdf (A194) 34 - 47

3 A195_HEAG Photos.pdf (A195) 48 - 71

HOL/00472/0001

1

Presentation to the Select Committee HS2 Euston Action Group

7 September 2016 (Petition Number 472)

1. Introduction

1. The HS2 Euston Action Group (“HEAG”), is an unincorporated association established at a Public Meeting chaired by Frank Dobson MP (as he was then) on 11 February 2014. Frank Dobson is now the President of the Action Group and Kier Starmer MP is a member of our Steering Group. The Action Group covers the area of CFA1. The membership currently consists of 26 community groups and 345 individuals. HEAG described its role in greater detail when it appeared on its locus standi challenge on 7 June 2016. The Committee gave HEAG permission to petition without limitation. 2. HEAG has agreed to take the lead on behalf of community groups in respect of the following issues:

(i) Setting the Scene on the impact of HS2 on the Euston Communities: Session 1 – p.2-14 (ii) Compensation: Session 2 – p.15-25 (iii) Clause 48; and Session 3 – p.26 (iv) The Need for an Independent Adjudicator; Session 4 – p.27-32 (v) Community Engagement.

3. Paul Braithwaite, a member of HEAG’s Steering Committee, will be presenting HEAG’s “asks” on air quality when he gives evidence on behalf of the Netley Primary School. The other “lead” petitioners will be covering the other “asks” raised in our petition:

(i) Netley Primary School (664 – 7 September): Air Quality. (ii) St Pancras Church Euston PCC (357 – 7 September): Trees, Open Space. (iii) Park Village East Heritage Group (241 – 8 September): Express purchase. (iv) Regents Park TRA (154 – 12 September): Transport – Road; Spoil and Construction materials by Rail; Demolition. (v) Ampthill Square TRA (589 – 12 September): Hampstead Road Bridge, Utility Diversions. (vi) Somers Town Neighbourhood Forum (762 – 12 September): Impact of Crossrail 2. (vii) Camden Cutting Group (382 – 13 September): Construction Noise, residential mitigation; cumulative impacts; Vent Shafts; Old Oak Common as temporary terminus.

A193 (1) HOL/00472/0002

2

Session 1: Setting the Scene Introduction 1. The aim of this presentation is to give an introduction to the impact of HS2 on the Euston communities. The HS2 Euston Action Group (“HEAG”) has consistently argued that the Promoter has underestimated the cost and practical difficulties of bring HS2 into a densely populated, high value area such as Euston. 2. The Euston area has been blighted since March 2010, when the Promoter’s plans for an HS2 terminus at Euston were first announced. Over six years later, the Promoter’s plans for Euston are still “work in progress” and are unacceptable. The Promoter is no longer able to deliver a London terminus at Euston by 2026. The current proposal delivers half a station by 2033, the Promoter having abandoned plans for a new station which integrates the existing classic platforms. The Promoter has not addressed the immense practical problems of upgrading the remaining classic services into the new station at Euston after the HS2 side of the station has been completed. Neither does the current proposal provide an integrated transport system with links to HS1, Heathrow or Crossrail 2. Crossrail 2 must be integrated into plans for a comprehensive redevelopment of Euston Station. The relationship between the London termini at Euston and Old Oak Common (“OOC”) still requires further consideration. 3. HEAG’s primary concern is the immense damage and disruption to Camden, its residents and passengers using Euston over the coming decades, not only as a result of the construction of HS2 but the redevelopments of the classic platforms and the construction of the Crossrail 2 station. The Promoter’s approach at Euston has been to deliver HS2 platforms whilst seeking to minimise the impact on rail passengers using the classic services during the construction period. This has determined its approach in AP3 which extends the end of the construction period from 2026 to 2033. 4. This approach has overridden its stated approach to mitigation in the Supplementary Environmental Statement (“SES”) which is stated to be based on the following hierarchy:

(i) Avoiding the adverse impact: A new station at Euston could, and should, be constructed within the footprint of the existing station. (ii) Where this is not possible, reducing the adverse impact: The failure to devise and provide funding for an integrated station at Euston will extend the adverse impact of the construction works to 2033 and well beyond. (iii) Abating the adverse impact: The Promoter has given no adequate consideration to moving spoil and construction material by rail rather than road. Despite an assurance given to the Select Committee to produce a plan by no later than May 20161, this is still no more than work in progress. The current proposal is to move no more than 14.8% of spoil and construction material by rail. HEAG believes that the target should be closer to 90% as achieved by Crossrail.

1 Camden Assurance (23.2.16) – [5.1.3]).

A193 (2) HOL/00472/0003

3

(iv) Restoring or reinstating a feature after the adverse effects have occurred: The Promoter has failed to engage with the local community on how it will replace the public open spaces and mature trees in the Euston area. (v) When none of these options mitigate the adverse impact, to compensate for the loss or damage caused: The Promoter is offering no compensation for the unprecedented adverse impact of the construction works on those living adjacent to the construction site in Euston. Many Euston petitioners do not believe that the noise insulation that is being offered will be appropriate for the age and character of many of the properties in the Euston area.

5. The planning process where an Environmental Statement is necessary, is designed to protect local residents by allowing the local planning authority to consider the environmental impacts from the scheme on local residents. The "Constructor" seeking permission, is encouraged to minimise the impacts to an acceptable level otherwise permission is unlikely to be obtained. In the current Hybrid Bill process this has been misused by the Promoter. The Promoter, in a vast range of the construction impacts in the Camden area, has simply reported the effects as "significant adverse" which is the highest impact category. It is thus uncapped, so that once an effect reaches this level, although the actual impact may get worse, the way it is reported cannot be. In a normal situation the planning authority would reject the application, asking for specific binding details of mitigation, however in this instance the suggestion is that an attempt will be made to reduce where possible but only following approval of the scheme as it stands. 6. While the Promoter will argue the impacts will be less when the work is carried out, it is important to remember that while they have stated this, no specific details have been given. The assessed levels remain as specified in the SES. The consideration of Parliament is the permission the Promoter is seeking, not good intentions. The Promoter argues this is the normal process with hybrid bills, and that the details will only be available when contractors are appointed. This process is not new, but the Promoter in this instance has taken this approach to justify assumptions without appropriate details (despite the experience from previous similar projects such as Crossrail). What is new is that the proper engagement with impacted parties has been flawed, as was reported by the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (29.3.16)2 and Bynoe (21.4.16)3. While the size and duration of this scheme is such that new innovative ways to protect residents should be found, the reality is the promoter has sought to weaken the residents’ position as far as possible restricting access to information, either deliberately or by ensuring that the process of approval occurs prior to the provision of the relevant information. 7. The promoter’s approach to the Hybrid Bill process has been to draw up a theoretical scheme which has maximum adverse impact on residents – the community has consistently been told that the SES represents the worst case scenario – thus enabling even small improvements to be touted as mitigation. The reality is that the underlying proposal is so far

2 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmpubadm/793/793.pdf 3 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/518239/Final_Report_11_April_2016.pdf

A193 (3) HOL/00472/0004

4

beyond the levels of what should be acceptable for an exemplar project that this offers no reassurance or control whatsoever. 2. The Euston Area 8. HEAG has its origins in the Promoter’s Community Forum Area, CFA01. The Euston CFA runs south from Camden Town to just south of Euston Road and from Regents Park in the West to Kings Cross in the East. Adjacent areas to the north are CFA03 (Primrose Hill to Kilburn) and CFA02 (Camden Town). CFA2 is of less importance given the Promoter’s decision in March 2014 to abandon the HS2/HS1 link. It is now proposed that passengers should walk from Euston to St Pancras through Somers Town. 9. The layout of the area is defined by city planning and transportation infrastructure in the early 19th century. Main line stations are all situated to the north of Marylebone and Euston Roads, which was outside London at the time as it was accepted that the railways should not be brought into the densely occupied city, with the underground partly conceived to continue these journeys southwards. Regents Park effectively forms a barrier to permeability to the west, with the railway lines into Kings Cross and St Pancras the physical barrier to the East. Surface transport links in the area are defined by the presence of the Park and railway lines. Travelling across the area there are only four road bridges across the last mile of the railway into Euston, and none north of Parkway until the railway enters the tunnel past the Adelaide Road Nature Reserve. Three of the bridges will be demolished and reconstructed with the other significantly impacted through works at and adjacent to the junction that occupies the bridge. 10. The plans for Euston station are all predicated on the fact the disruption to the existing railways must be minimised and that all the HS2 trains must terminate at Euston. Hence the new HS2 scheme involves a station to the west of the existing station with associated demolitions, and with the new approaching lines running to the west of the existing lines resulting in demolitions of the residential areas of Regents Park. The expansion of the railway and removal of bridges results in major diversion of utilities, while the need for additional land for the railway assets and bridges means that it is proposed to site many of the construction compounds on current open space or residential streets. The duration of the scheme means that a generation of children will miss out on the opportunity for safe play in the open air near their homes. 11. The desire to minimise the impact on the existing railway means that much of the proposed works will be at night, potentially every night for long periods. In the Euston area 2.5 times the number of homes will need noise insulation compared with the central section of Crossrail. Yet unlike Crossrail where over 100 homes exceeded the re-housing threshold, the Promoter has not identified a single home as being eligible for re-housing due to noise thresholds being exceeded.

A193 (4) HOL/00472/0005

5

3. The “AP3” Station at Euston – a proposal that is not fit for purpose 12. HEAG has consistently argued that HS2 Ltd have underestimated the cost and practical difficulties of bringing HS2 into Euston. We are now being offered just half a station, constructed at twice the original cost in twice the time. 13. Euston Station must be redeveloped in a single unified package. The current proposal is equally unsatisfactory for (i) local residents and businesses, (ii) existing rail users and (iii) Camden Council as the local planning authority. 14. The Promoter is now proposing to develop Euston in three phases:

Stage A (to the west of the existing station) will involve the construction of the six platforms needed when Phase 1 of HS2 is completed. These will be constructed between 2017 and 2026. Works to the front of the station will provide London Underground enhancements.

Stage B1 (within the existing station footprint) will provide the five further platforms needed by 2033 when Phase 2 is completed. Construction will take place between 2026 and 2033.

Stage B2, the redevelopment of the existing station, is currently unfunded. We are told that Network Rail will be seeking funds “as part of future control periods”. No investigation has been carried out as to the feasibility of rebuilding and lowering the 11 remaining classic platforms once Stages A and B1 have been completed.

15. On 1 December 2015, Tim Mould QC outlined the government’s current position to the House of Commons Select Committee (“HCSC”):

(i) A new integrated station at Euston is “not deliverable within appropriate funding constraints”. This is the assessment of “the government, the Chancellor, the Prime Minister”. There is no timetable for the government to come forward with funding to complete the final phase. Network Rail does not see this as a priority for their capital programme. This remains the position. (ii) No additional statutory powers will be required by Network Rail to redevelop the station. Neither HS2 Ltd nor Network Rail has yet made any estimate of the cost of completing the station. The best assistance that the Promoter was able to provide to the Committee was that the cost depends “on your piece of string”. The Spending Review and Autumn Statement 20154 included no funding commitment to Stage B2. (iii) The SES which was published to accompany AP3, is premised on Stage B2 starting after 2033.

4 See https://www.gov.uk/government/topical-events/autumn-statement-and-spending-review-2015

A193 (5) HOL/00472/0006

6

(iv) Crossrail 2 will require a separate Hybrid Bill. On 7 July 2016, TfL published its Response to Issues raised in its Autumn 2015 Crossrail 2 Consultation5. This is premised on a scheme constructed to the east of Eversholt Street, as it cannot currently be integrated into the existing station. As a result, 150 homes, the Travelodge Hotel and a number of businesses will be lost. This could be considerably reduced, were Crossrail 2 to be integrated into the existing station. TfL (at [10.2.1]) rule out the provision of an underground pedestrian connection between Euston and St Pancras.

Half a Station 16. In March 2010, the last Labour government published the white paper “High Speed Rail”6. Sir Terry Farrell described how Euston “could become one of the greatest stations in the world. The proposals include not only new platforms but also a remodelled and expanded tube station and dedicated bus and taxi interchanges providing direct and seamless access to the station concourse”. It was recognised that the existing Euston Station would need to be redeveloped within the timescale of HS2.

17. AP3 will now result in a partial station, there being no proposals (or funding) for Stage B2. On 9 November 2015, the HCSC visited Euston. They were asked to visualise the Spine Building that in 2033 will become a barrier to movement between the classic and the high speed platforms. The Committee were also informed about the blank façades, the poor quality public realm, level changes and the poor quality of the buildings and the environment. Twice the Cost

18. In March 2010, the cost of the new station was estimated at £1bn7. By March 2012, the cost of a new level deck station had increased to £1.2bn8. By April 2013, the estimated cost of the level deck option had risen to £2bn and HS2 Ltd devised Option 8 (the scheme in the Bill) at a reduced cost of £1.6bn9. In March 2014, David Higgins, newly recruited with his proven track record at Network Rail, announced that Option 8 was “not ambitious enough” and proposed a brand-new station fit for the C2110. On 9 October 2014, HS2 Ltd (Alison Munro) reported that his level deck scheme was “not fundable”11. The estimated cost of the downsized AP3 station at Euston is now £2.25bn12. This figure does not include the costs of land acquisition, mitigation or compensation. Twice the Time 19. The Bill was premised on a new HS2 station being completed as part of Phase 1 by 2026. Whilst this was not explicitly stated in the Bill, this timetable was specified in both the ES

5 See https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/crossrail2/october2015/user_uploads/rtir.pdf 6 www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/228887/7827.pdf 7 “High Speed Rail” DfT (March 2010) 8 “HS2 Cost and Risk Model Report” (March 2012) 9 See Hansard (11.7.13) 10 See HS2 Plus (17.3.14) 11 See minutes of the Extraordinary Meeting of the Euston OAPF Strategic Board 12 See written answer to PQ 11002

A193 (6) HOL/00472/0007

7

(November 2013)13 and the Explanatory Note (28 May 2015)14. A new station is now to be completed in three phases: Stage A (by 2026); Stage B1 (by 2033) and Stage B2 (which may commence before or after 2033, no funding yet having been identified). 20. The new timetable seems to have been devised to meet the requirements on HS2 Ltd to deliver six High Speed compatible platforms by 2026 and a further five by 2033. There has been no regard for the impact on residents. This will have a particular impact on three neighbourhoods, namely the Ampthill Square Estate, Regents Park Estate and the Drummond Street area which will be surrounded by a construction site for the next 18 years. However the wider communities will also be affected by the construction traffic and the traffic gridlock for an additional 7 years. Stage B2 21. The SES does not address the practical difficulties of completing Stage B2 as a level deck station after the High Speed platforms have been constructed. Your Petitioner suggests that the practical problems would be immense:

(i) This dysfunctional approach to the new station will cause unacceptable misery to local residents for a period closer to 25, rather than 18 years. (ii) The development of the 11 remaining classic tracks in isolation will cause immense disruption to existing and future rail users. The sad reality, as the upgrading at London Bridge has shown, is that such construction works have a much greater impact on the operation of a station than the planners predict. Were a level deck option to be adopted, this would require the lowering of the existing classic lines and the removal of additional quantities of spoil. It is doubtful whether this work could be executed without closing Euston station to classic train passengers. (iii) The Euston area would be blighted for a generation. Camden Council would not be able to achieve the benefits of its Euston Area Plan. To achieve the full benefits, including social housing and jobs for local people, there must be an integrated strategy for the redevelopment of Euston station within a realistic time frame.

The Impact of HS2 on Members of HEAG 22. Your Petitioner embraces a number of communities with their distinct identities:

(i) Camden Cutting – The area to the east and west of the existing line with Granby Terrace to the south and Parkway to the north. Mornington Terrace, Clarkson Row Mornington Crescent and Park Village East directly abut the railway line as it comes out of Euston station until it goes underground at the Parkway Portal. The 15 metre cutting in the Euston throat will be dropped by a further 35 metres. The retaining wall in Park Village East will be demolished and rebuilt, Park Village East will be closed during this period. Night time work will affect all the properties in the area. Properties on both sides

13

[2.3.6] of the CFA1 (Nov 2013) 14

See [10] of the Explanatory Note

A193 (7) HOL/00472/0008

8

of the Cutting will qualify for noise insulation but heritage issues around the type of insulation (internal vs external) are unresolved. Considerable utility diversion works required from Park Village East and over the Mornington Street Bridge which is to be demolished, and replaced removing a quiet link used by many pedestrians who will find the narrow temporary replacement difficult to use/access. (ii) The Regents Park Estate – This is the largest estate in Camden. It was constructed in the post-war years and is a diverse community. 193 dwellings are to be demolished. Another 250 flats may be rendered uninhabitable, particularly at Cartmel, Augustus House, Coniston, Langdale and the Tarns given the proximity to works. There is a high level of overcrowding; and concern the construction works will make life intolerable. Open space and play areas are particularly important for these families. Two playgrounds are to be lost and a number of open spaces. Construction traffic is to drive through the heart of the estate. This would not be necessary were spoil to be moved by rail. The AP3 plan to raise Hampstead Road Bridge by 4.8m will destroy the environment of neighbouring tenants. Tenants will have no access to a bus stop on Hampstead Road (currently in front of Silverdale) during the constructions works and subsequently. There is concern there will be traffic gridlock caused by Hampstead Road Bridge whilst is rebuilt between 2016 and 2023. Utility diversions mean significant trenches through the estate on the same roads as the construction routes. (iii) The Ampthill Square Estate – The Ampthill Square Estate lies to the north of Euston Station. Gillfoot tower block looks directly down onto the station. The plans used by HS2 Ltd in the Environmental Statement are over 10 years out of date. Five years ago, the estate regeneration was completed at a cost of some £20m. A secure area was developed which has successfully addressed the past problems of drug abuse and anti-social behaviour, a fact not reflected in the Environmental Statement. The removal of the Hampstead Road Bridge and scale of extension to the station means considerable utility works are to be executed within the estate between 2016 and 2022 with major assets being installed across the estate to house utility diversions. A construction compound is proposed in the Estate car park which will involve the stopping up of Barnaby Street. AP3 will extend the time that the Estate will be affected from 2026 until 2033 and beyond. All dwellings in Ampthill Square are significantly adversely affected. (iv) The Drummond Street area – the triangle surrounded by Hampstead Road, Eversholt Street and Euston Road. Drummond Street has a well preserved grid of historic regency terraces, containing a mix of residential and commercial uses within a tight-knit historic urban grain. It has a vibrant, distinctive character, and Drummond Street itself is recognised for its specialist ethnic shops and restaurants. To the north of the Drummond Street area, St James’s Gardens is a historic open space that contains the Grade II listed structures that relate to its history as a burial ground and the National Temperance Hospital which has local heritage value. Most of this area will be destroyed by AP3. It could be preserved were the new HS2 platforms to be constructed within the footprint of the existing station. The Maria Fidelis School will be forced to move. The communities that remain will now live in the midst of a construction site for a minimum of an additional 7 years (the timescale extended from 2026 to 2033 and beyond). In areas of Drummond Street, NO2 levels will increase by 6.3 ug/m3, pushing pollution levels up to

A193 (8) HOL/00472/0009

9

more than double the EU limit. Any benefits that might otherwise arise from the EAP will be deferred by a similar period. Local businesses will struggle to survive. Residents in Cobourg Street will live within 3 metres of the construction works. No assessment has been made as to whether their homes will remain fit for habitation. Some of the residents affected are old and infirm. No compensation is offered. (v) The Somers Town area to the east of the existing station. The length of time that this area will be affected by construction works is now extended from 2026 to 2033 and beyond. This area will also be affected by construction of Crossrail 2 (2020 to 2030). 150 additional homes are at risk if the new Crossrail 2 station is not integrated with the new station. At some uncertain date, Phase B2 will be constructed (rebuilding the remaining classic lines). Utility diversion works will have an adverse effect on this area, particularly in Chalton Street which will impact upon the Chalton Street Market. The works in Eversholt Street will now take 58% longer. The following locations will have significant residual adverse effects from N02 between 2016-2026: Eversholt St; Euston Rd; Polygon Rd; Phoenix Rd; Ossulston St; and Chalton St. The SES proposed that the community play area on the Churchway Estate at the east end of Lancing Street should be used for a construction compound. (vi) South of Euston Road area, already heavily impacted by other infrastructure projects (UCH) will be impacted by traffic diversions around Euston and construction traffic. The Promoter has repeatedly tried to down play the significant adverse impacts in this area.

23. The Promoter is seeking to be allowed to create an unprecedented level of adverse environmental impacts on these communities, both with regard to the period of time over which the works will be executed, and the unmitigated adverse impact of the works on the local community. Many of these difficulties arise from the decision of the Promoters to bring HS2 into Euston, a densely populated area with high land values. The Action Group highlighted a number of factors in its petition.

(i) Euston is not a brown field site (unlike the former situation at King’s Cross or Stratford). It is a quiet, residential area with some 2,986 people living within 60m of the construction works; a further 3,186 within 120m; and 11,414 within 300m (a total of some 17,586 people). It includes areas of high deprivation with a number of elderly, infirm and disabled people. (ii) 220 dwellings are to be demolished (now 5 higher because of the new development at Granby House). Whilst the 136 secure tenants are to be rehoused in the area, the lessees (many of whom are Right to Buy applicants) are being forced to move out of the area. Crossrail 2 now threatens the loss of a further 150 homes in Somers Town (to the east of the station). This is only necessary because Crossrail 2 cannot currently be integrated into the redevelopment of the east side of the classic station. This is a total of 370 homes affecting some 1,600 people. (iii) In the SES, the Promoter assessed 1,025 dwellings as experiencing noise higher than the noise insulation trigger. This figure has now risen to over 1,300. This is not from changing the criteria but simply applying the proposed rules to the area

A193 (9) HOL/00472/0010

10

impacted. Measures are already in place to assess some 850 additional homes for additional mitigation. This is a total of 2,150 homes affecting some 8,000 people. Many properties will not qualify but residents will still face elevated levels of noise that is harmful to health. (iv) Construction works will be executed within 10m of the front doors of properties in Cobourg Street15 (where a Berlin wall is to be constructed along the pavement); Park Village East16; the Ampthill Square Estate and Regents Park. Petitioners will suggest that the trigger level is too high and that more properties will be rendered uninhabitable. A single loud noise at night is sufficient to disturb sleep. (v) HS2 Ltd has identified the need for a larger service and logistics basement in the station for which vehicular access is required. The proposed plan will involve raising Hampstead Road Bridge by 4.8m, blighting the landscape of those who live in the area. Residents on the north part of the Regents Park Estate and Ampthill Square will be denied access to the bus stop outside Silverdale and the bus stop southbound adjacent to the petrol station (derelict since 2010). This will also impact upon the streetscape, creating a massive barrier between the Regents Park Estate and Ampthill Square Estate communities. (vi) Extensive works will be executed outside normal working hours, to minimise the impact on existing rail passengers, at the expense of local residents and businesses. Works will be executed at night, over weekends and during holiday periods – just the periods when everyone is entitled to quiet enjoyment of their homes. Construction noise is inherently disturbing to sleep patterns and to health. Whilst Network Rail is obliged to pay compensation to the train operating companies for any disruption to their services, there is no such requirement for HS2 Ltd to compensate local residents and businesses. The Promoter is therefore going for the cheapest option, regardless of the basic principle that the “polluter should pay”. (vii) The amount of spoil that must be removed has increased from 2.8m to 3.5m tons (a 22% increase)17. This is equivalent to the waste generated by 26 miles of tunnelling for Crossrail. The SES was premised upon the Promoter removing all spoil and transporting all construction materials by road. Much of this will be transported through quiet residential areas. The SES speaks of 800 two-way lorry movements a day, some 90% of these being HGVs. (viii) Whilst the two main compounds remain under AP3, the compound at the Podium has increased in size by 37% (an increase from 11,800 sqm to 16,200 sqm). The size of the National Temperance compound, which will entail the removal of 30 mature trees from St James’ Gardens, is now 4,400 sqm (an increase of 45%).

15 Not mentioned in the SES 16 [12.4.86] and [12.4.89] of CFA1 (2015) 17 p.53 CFA1 (2013); p.105 CFA (2015)

A193 (10) HOL/00472/0011

11

(ix) There will be a loss of 20,000 square metres of existing open space in the borough. St James Gardens will be lost forever. It is currently proposed to remove more than 200 mature trees. (x) The number of satellite compounds within the Euston area has increased from 12 to 17. Access to two of these compounds is through the heart of the Regents Park Estate. Three of the additional satellite compounds are at Park Village East (north), Cobourg Street and Melton Street. A large construction compound is to be sited within the Ampthill Square estate (xi) The Euston Square Garden is to be used as a construction site for 18 years despite being protected by the London Squares Preservation Act 1931. This Act was specifically passed in the light of the developments which were occurring in the area on public open spaces, namely two of a quartet of squares at Endsleigh Gardens which disappeared beneath Friends House and the gardens of Mornington Crescent upon which the Art Deco Carreras Building was built. (xii) The number of locations in the Euston area where there will be significant residual adverse effects from N02 between 2016-2026 has increased from four (Eversholt St; Ampthill Sq; Euston Rd; Hampstead Rd) to 23 (Euston Rd; Albany St, Augustus St; Hampstead Rd; Robert St; Varndell St; Park Village West; Stanhope St; North Gower St; Park Square East; Eversholt St, Polygon Rd; Phoenix Rd; Ossulston St; Chalton St; Mornington Crescent; Harrington Sq; Barnby St; Parkway; Delancey St; Bayham Street; Arlington Rd)18. Again, this is simply unacceptable. The following locations will now also face significant adverse effects from NO2 between 2026 and 2033: Eversholt St; Ampthill Sq; Euston Rd; and Hampstead Rd19.

The House of Commons Select Committee 24. The HCSC (at [255]) concluded its section on the Camden petitions in these terms:

“The AP3 Euston scheme has advantages for existing rail users. The effects of its longer duration must be recognised and addressed. A coherent plan for Euston station is needed to meet the expectations of rail users, underground travellers, businesses, local residents and the country’s capital.”

HEAG is concerned about the lack of progress in a number of areas which will be raised by Euston petitioners. (i) Comprehensive Redevelopment of Euston Station 25. The HCSC (at [242] – [246]) recognised the need for a comprehensive redevelopment of Euston Station which must take account of Crossrail 2. The Euston Station Strategic Redevelopment Board (“ESSRB”) has been established. However, the problem is one of finance. There is no commitment to fund Stage B2. Proposals are still at an early stage in

18

p.144 CFA1 (2013); p.145-5 CFA1 (2015) 19

[7.5.12] CFA (2015)

A193 (11) HOL/00472/0012

12

Network Rail’s “Governance for Railway Projects” (“GRIP”) process. Not even a feasibility study has been completed. Crossrail 2 is therefore being progressed to the east of Eversholt Street. (ii) Noise Mitigation 26. Petitioners are extremely sceptical as to whether effective noise mitigation will be put in place prior to the commencement of the HS2 works that trigger the need for noise insulation. We understand that the demolition of the DB Schenker Carriage Shed, the first works to trigger this threshold, is to commence in April 2017. Under the Camden Assurance ([10]) an independent assessor was to be appointed to (i) agree a package of measures with Camden ([10.1]); (ii) assess whether a number of additional properties would require noise insulation ([10.5]) and (iii) determine the habitability of six flats at Cartmel ([10.11]). The process of consultation and pre-installation survey works were to commence “in Spring 2016” ([10.2]), and the evaluation of the Cartmel flats was to be completed “by end April 2016”. The independent assessor has yet to be appointed. (iii) Movement of Spoil and Construction material by Rail 27. The SES was premised on all spoil and construction material being transported by road, namely 3.5m tons with up to 800 two-way lorry movements a day. Under Camden Assurance ([5.1]), the Promoter was to maximise in so far as is reasonably practicable the volume of material to be moved by rail. A “plan” was to be submitted to the Euston Integrated Programme Board (“EIPB”) and the ESSRB by “no later than May 2016”. A report was submitted to the ESSRB on 27 June, but that this was no more than a feasibility study. On 27 July, the report20 was made available to community groups. The current proposal is to move a mere 14.8% of spoil and construction material by rail. There is a strong dissenting view from Camden and TfL to the Promoter’s position at pp.66-72. Crossrail moved 90% by rail. (iv) Hampstead Road Bridge

28. The decision to raise Hampstead Road Bridge by 4.8m is a major concern to HEAG’s members. HEAG believes that this will render Cartmel uninhabitable. Under TfL Assurance ([5]), the Promoter agreed to assess proposals for minimising the increase in height of the Bridge. A report was to be submitted to the EIPB “no later than May 2016”. On 22 July, the report21 was made available to community groups. The Promoter has adopted Option 8, the cheapest one and the one that would do the least to mitigate the impact on local residents. Option 1 would entail the demolition of Cartmel. However, Cartmel residents already face the double whammy of 10 years of construction works and living next to the heightened Hampstead Road Bridge. They are likely to prefer to be rehoused. HEAG understands that the Promoter now accepts that six ground floor flats will be rendered uninhabitable. This option would reduce the construction period by 12 to 18 months and would significantly deflect the adverse impact away from the Ampthill Square Estate. In addition the community has been given to understand that Option 1 unlocks the potential for far more material to be

20

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/material-by-rail-euston-station-strategic-redevelopment-board-report 21 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/540256/FINAL_HRB_report_for_publication_v_1.pdf

A193 (12) HOL/00472/0013

13

moved by rail and for congestion to be reduced considerably as the replacement bridge is built before the old bridge is demolished. (v) The Demolition of the three bridges in Mornington Street, Granby Terrace and Hampstead Road 29. The demolition and reconstruction of these three bridges is going to have a major impact on local residents. HEAG does not believe that the alternatives have been properly addressed as they should have been before AP3 and the accompanying SES were lodged in parliament. HEAG understands that the possibility is being considered of moving the Parkway portal further south and potentially, partially or completely avoiding the demolition of these bridges. This confirms our view that the scheme that this House is being asked to approve is no more than work in progress or a theoretical construct, which should not be approved in its current form. It is premised on a completely unacceptable “worst case scenario” which lets HS2 Ltd off the hook in terms of proper environmental mitigation. The Promoter’s Engagement Programme 30. When HEAG appeared before the Select Committee on 7 June, we described our frustrations at the inadequacies of the Promoter’s Community Engagement Programme. Many of the petitioners who appear before your Committee will vent these frustrations. The Promoter did not convene any meetings of the Euston Community Representation Group (“ECRG”) between 15 September 2015 and 27 April 2016, despite our requests for continuing engagement. On 27 April, the community representatives and councillors unanimously rejected HS2’s proposed engagement plan. 31. On 29 June, a delegation met HS2 Ltd’s Chief Executive, Simon Kirby. He accepted that HS2’s engagement had ‘not been good enough’ and that a ‘step change was required’; Bynoe (21.4.16) was a wake up moment for HS2 Ltd and the PACAC report (29.3.16) ‘had made very uncomfortable reading’. He noted that the most telling criticism of HS2 Ltd’s engagement was that nothing had ever changed as a result of it. He agreed with the principle that engagement must be two way. On 27 July, we had a follow up meeting. 32. There have been two further meetings of the ECRG on 14 July and 17 August, with an independent chair, Rosemary Jackson QC, a commercial lawyer and mediator. Over the last six weeks, community groups have gained access to a number of reports. There is also a proposal for a working party on Environmental Minimum Requirements. In October, the ECRG will be reviewing its terms of reference and will seek to identify key performance indicators. These should recognise the principles behind the Aarhaus Convention, based on the twin pillars of access to relevant environmental information and public participation in decision-making. We are now where we should have been more than two years ago. As it is, HEAG’s members are unable to see any meaningful improvements in the scheme as a result of their participation in the Promoter’s engagement programme. Conclusions

33. In the House of Commons, the Camden petitions were heard last because of the Promoter’s failure to formulate viable plans for Euston station. On 8 September 2015, the

A193 (13) HOL/00472/0014

14

Promoter published AP3. By 23 October, we were required to lodge our petitions. By late November, our petition was listed before the HCSC. Your Petitioner’s members felt that they were seriously prejudiced by the late stage at which their petitions were heard. Having been informed of the assurances that the Promoter had given to the Camden Council, the HCSC were perceived to have little interest in any additional “asks” from community groups. Some felt that they had almost given up as they came to the end of their ordeal. 34. HEAG remains of the view that the Promoter’s plans for Euston remain seriously flawed. Many of the practical difficulties of bringing HS2 into Euston have yet to be properly addressed. Indeed, these cannot be addressed until there is the political commitment to bring HS2 into an integrated station at Euston which fully incorporates Crossrail 2. This is a matter of finance. Neither the government nor Network Rail is willing to fund this. 35. HEAG’s “ask” is that construction works should not commence on the proposed HS2 station at Euston until the HS2 Ltd has obtained the necessary powers and funding for the comprehensive development of the station at Euston. A prerequisite to this is a comprehensive environmental statement and an acceptable timetable for the completion of the project.

A193 (14) HOL/00472/0015

15

Session 5: Compensation 1. Introduction 1.1 The House of Commons Select Committee (“HCSC”) (at [237]) recognised that Camden is “exceptional and needs special treatment”. The government has not recognised this through either the mitigation or the compensation that is being offered. 1.2 In Euston, 2,986 people (1,238 households) live within 60 metres of the construction site; a further 3,186 (1,331) live within 120 metres; and 11,414 (4,642) within 300 metres. Thus 17,568 people (7,211 households) would be entitled to a home owner payment were they to live in a rural area. 1.3 The Promoter has recognised the need to introduce a number of measures to supplement the National Compensation Scheme in rural areas, but not Euston. Since the Bill was introduced in the Commons on 25 November 2013, the impact on homes or businesses in the Euston area has become progressively worse. The AP3 proposals, announced on 8 September 2015, not only extend the construction works from 2026 to 2033, but also increase the intensity of the impact of the works. The additional impact of the comprehensive redevelopment of Euston station has yet to be assessed. 1.4 In their interim report, the HCSC identified a primary aim of compensation as being to give “residents the confidence to stay, ensuring continuity and coherence within their communities”22. We endorse this principle. 1.5 At Appendix 1, there is an Advice from Sir Keir Starmer QC MP on the impact of the ECHR. Recognising the developing European jurisprudence, the Promoter has proposed a number of special measures for rural areas. Our complaint is that these do not extend to Euston:

(i) The Express Purchase Scheme: A recent government publication23 states that “If you own and live in a property that is very close to the line of the route and is in the designated ‘surface safeguarding area’, you could apply for it to be purchased”. In rural areas, the line has been drawn to embrace all properties within 60 metres of the new line. In Euston, it has been drawn only to include those properties which are to be demolished, save for four properties at 117-125 Parkway. Residents who live within 10 metres of the construction works, whether in Cobourg St, Park Village East, Mornington Terrace, Regents Park Estate (including Cartmel), or in Ampthill Square, are excluded from the scheme. (ii) The Rural Support Zone: “There are payment and purchase schemes for people who live up to 120 metres from the line of the route (where not covered by safeguarding)”. In rural areas, eligible homeowners within 120m of the centre of the line may require the government to acquire their homes at 100% of its unblighted value under the Voluntary Purchase Scheme. Alternatively, if they do

22

See [134] of the First Special Report. 23

Quotes taken from “Do you know about HS2? Find out about the support for people who live near the HS2 route” (August 2016) – see link

A193 (15) HOL/00472/0016

16

not wish to sell, they can claim a lump-sum payment of the unblighted market value of their property (from a proposed minimum of £30,000 to a maximum of £100,000) under the “Alternative Cash Offer”. This scheme does not extend to urban areas. (iii) The Home Owner Payment: “There will be cash payments for people who own and live in properties in the homeowner zone, which is typically up to 300 metres from the line of the route, next to the rural support zone”. Homeowners are entitled to a cash payment if they live between 120 and 300 metres from the line. The payments range from £7,500 to £22,500, depending on how close they live to the line. (iv) The Need to Sell Scheme “A purchase scheme for people who have a compelling reason to sell their property, but can’t do so – other than at a significantly reduced price – because of HS2”. This is the only scheme that is available in urban areas. There are numerous flaws to this scheme.

1.6 HEAG’s approach to compensation is based on the following principles:

(i) If homeowners who would otherwise wish to remain in their homes, conclude that they are compelled to sell because they can no longer occupy them, they should have the benefit of the Express Purchase Scheme. This should extend to all properties in the Euston area which will be subject to “significant adverse effect”. (ii) If home owners want to move, but are unable to do so without incurring unacceptable loss, they should be covered by the Voluntary Purchase Scheme. If they are forced to fall back on the discretionary Need to Sell Scheme this must be modified to address the manifest flaws in the scheme. (iii) HEAG’s desired outcome is to bind the community together through 17 years of unprecedented construction works. This best achieved through mitigating the impact of the construction works and compensating residents through a “Euston Cash Offer”. It must be recognised that mitigation measures can only reduce, and cannot eliminate, the adverse impact of the construction works.

2. The Principles behind our Proposals 2.1 The Promoter has suggested a number of reasons for the disparate treatment of urban properties impacted by construction:

(i) The State does not compensate for the adverse impact of construction works. The Land Compensation Act 1973 was introduced to address the blight caused by the construction of motorways. It is ill equipped to address the impact of bringing HS2 into a densely populated high density area such as Euston. This is the largest construction project in Europe, and the impact on Euston is unprecedented both with regard to the duration and the impact of the construction works. Many of the works will be executed at night, over weekends and over holiday periods to

A193 (16) HOL/00472/0017

17

minimise the impact on existing rail users. Whilst residential mitigation measures may reduce the impact on the 1,300 properties to be subjected to “significant adverse effects”, this will provide no protection when residents open their windows, sit in their gardens or go about their day-to-day activities in their neighbourhood. The practical difficulties of designing and implementing devising acceptable residential mitigation measures for individual dwellings may result in many residents declining the mitigation that is offered. (ii) The Euston area will benefit economically from the new railway24. No evidence is adduced to support this proposition. The Euston area is already a high value area, close to Central London and with excellent transport links. The reality is that most residents in the area will not see the completion of the scheme. The area will continue to be blighted until the scheme is completed. (iii) Those living in the area are used to noise from the railway: Euston is a quiet residential area. It is not the noise from the railway that it is the problem; it is rather the construction works. (iv) Those living in urban areas are used to construction works: These works are of an unprecedented length and intensity. Kings Cross is no precedent, as it was largely a brown field site. The Victorians always built their new railways on the edge of urban conurbations.

2.2 HEAG suggests that the following principles should underpin any compensation package:

(i) The compensation that falls to be assessed and paid as a result of the HS2 scheme must be fair and proportionate and arrived at by a process which gives proper weight to the interests of all those affected by the scheme. The Promoter has failed to carry out any such assessment. (ii) Compensation should not only be grounded in property rights. It must reflect the wider human rights which are undoubtedly affected the HS2 scheme. Long established communities will be destroyed, family and private life will be severely disrupted and every conceivable type of pollution will affect the environment for many years. (iii) there should be equity between those living in rural and urban areas. Any disparate treatment must be objectively justified.

2.3These principles are consistent with those outlined by the Secretary of State in his 2013 consultation25, namely: (i) Fairness; (ii) Value for Money; (iii) Community Cohesion; (iv) Feasibility, Efficiency and Comprehensibility; (vi) Functioning of the Housing Market; (vi) The Best Balance between these Criteria.

24

see [3.1.1] of “Property Consultation 2014. 25

See “Property Compensation” Consultation (2013)

A193 (17) HOL/00472/0018

18

2.4 One of the stated reasons for the “Alternative Cash Offer” is to encourage people to remain in their communities so that communities can ‘thrive’. This principle applies equally to those who live in the Euston area. We have a number of distinctive and vibrant communities. It is very much an area at ease with itself. Those communities now face a unique threat. 3. Our Compensation “Asks” (i) The Express Purchase Scheme 3.1 The “Express Purchase” scheme should be extended to the Euston area in respect of the 1,300 properties in locations where there are “predicted unmitigated significant adverse residual in-combination effects” will continue well in excess of twelve months. These are the homeowners who may be forced to move because of the adverse impact of the construction works. In such circumstances, they should not only be able to sell their properties without loss, but also have the benefit of “home loss” and “disturbance” payments. 3.2 HEAG accepts that once the construction works have been completed, there will be no significant long term impact on property prices for most properties in the Euston area. Such a decision would not necessarily be a costly one, given the long-term value of the assets that the government might acquire. However, there are some properties on which the Promoter accepts that the operation of the scheme will have a major adverse effect on the amenities of residents which will be permanent and significant. For example, properties at Cartmel, Coniston, Langdale and Augustus House are identified26. 3.3 The Park Village East Heritage Group will be making more detailed submissions on the Express Purchase Scheme. HEAG notes that there are a number of other properties in the Euston area which are in a similar position to the Nash Terraces in Park Village East, whether in Cobourg St, Mornington Terrace, Regents Park Estate (including Cartmel), or in Ampthill Square. (ii) The Voluntary Purchase Scheme 3.4 The “Voluntary Purchase” scheme should be extended to the Euston area in respect of all properties within 120m of the construction works where the home owners want to move, but is unable to do so without incurring an unacceptable loss. HEAG would define “an unacceptable loss” as 15% or more of the unblighted value, having regard to both the current value of the property and the price at which the property was originally bought. If the homeowner is able to establish this, the government should be required to purchase the property at its unblighted value. 3.5 HEAG does not believe that homeowners in Euston should be required to establish the additional requirements under discretionary Need to Sell Scheme where the property is identified in the SES as suffering significant adverse effects necessitating the installation of mitigation measures within the home. 26

[8.5.4] and [8.5.8] of CFA1 (2015)

A193 (18) HOL/00472/0019

19

(iii) Need to Sell Scheme 3.6 The Promoter should be required to relax four of the five conditions that must be satisfied for the “Need to Sell” scheme:

3.6.1 No prior knowledge – applicants must have bought their property before 11 March 2010 This rule must be relaxed given the uncertainty and the Petitioner’s changing plans for Euston. HEAG proposes that it should not apply to any purchaser who purchased their property between 11 March 2010 and the date of the Royal Assent, provided that the homeowner is able to establish that they purchased their property at an unblighted price. This 11 March 2010 “without knowledge” rule will have a much greater impact on urban, rather than rural areas, given the greater turnover of properties and the uncertainty about the government’s plans for Euston. The extent of the impact of HS2 on Euston was only known when the AP3 proposals were published on 8 September 2015. Last year, HS2 only seemed to blight the top range of the local property market. Evidence suggests that more properties are now being blighted. Blight will take hold when the construction works commence. This will then continue until 2033 or when the construction works are finally completed. The current rule will merely “bake the blight”. When construction works start, purchasers will not only be deterred by impact of the works. They will also know that their ability to sell will be handicapped by their exclusion from this scheme. This issue has been raised by the Residents’ Commissioner in her Fourth Report.

David Higgins responded on 25 August in these terms27: “We recognise the Residents’

Commissioner’s concerns about eligibility for some of the property schemes. At the

moment, this includes a requirement for applicants to have no prior knowledge of

HS2 when they purchased their property. This principle is in place to protect the

schemes from being exploited or seen as a profit-making opportunity. It is a complex

issue but we are having ongoing discussions with the mortgage industry and the DfT

to see if the ‘no prior knowledge’ criterion can be improved in future.”

3.6.2 Effort to sell – applicants must have marketed their property without success for at least three months, with no offers within 15% of a realistic (unblighted) asking price

The average price of a property in the area is £1m. A homeowner of the average home will be expected to incur a loss of £150k, before they can benefit from the scheme. A homeowner may need to sell their home to fund their retirement. It is not reasonable to expect them to incur such a substantial loss. Those entering the property market in Euston may have committed themselves to mortgages of up to

27

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/548448/Response_to_May_16_ResComm_report.pdf

A193 (19) HOL/00472/0020

20

90% to fund their purchases. This rule could leave such home owners with a negative equity. We suggest that there should be a discretion to waive this rule where an applicant is able to establish exceptional financial hardship.

3.6.3 Compelling reason to sell – a compelling reason to sell the property now, or that the applicant would be placed under an unreasonable burden if unable to sell their property in the next 3 years. We agree with the Select Committee ([116] of their First Special Report) that this rule is too restrictive and should extend to anyone with a justifiable reason to move, including those motivated by their “age and stage” in life.

3.6.4 Property type – owner-occupier or ‘reluctant landlord’ - needing to rent the property as a result of HS2 The rateable value limit of £34,800 for businesses in London should be increased to £135,000. The HCSC (at [283]-[284]) noted that the rateable value cap was not appropriate in the case of London businesses; too many would exceed the cap. This has a particular impact on Drummond Street where many of the double fronted business units have rateable values in excess of £60,000. In their response to the report, the government did not address these paragraphs. However, on 21 March 2016, HM Treasury issued a “Consultation on Further Reform of the Compulsory Purchase System”28. This proposed (at [51]) a higher rateable value limit for servicing a blight notice within Greater London. However, it considered that further research was required on the appropriate limit. Camden Council has now provided that research. This scheme should extend to all property owners, including those who rent out their properties. For a number of local residents, this is their pension pot. Rents are likely to slump as a consequence of the construction works. Many landlords have purchased properties to fund their retirement and with the assistance of a mortgage. The slump in rents could result in the rental income being insufficient to service the mortgage. Property blight could preclude the landlord from selling.

3.6.5 Location – no fixed outer boundary, but impact of HS2 must be established. We have no recommendations to make in respect of this fifth condition.

(iv) A Euston Cash Offer 3.7 HEAG’s desired objective is to bind our diverse and vibrant community together through some 10-25 years of unique disruption. HEAG therefore proposes an annual cash payment to any household who will be significantly and adversely affected by the construction works. HEAG proposes payments in the following sums: 28

See https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/further-reform-of-the-compulsory-purchase-system

A193 (20) HOL/00472/0021

21

(i) £3,000 per annum to the 1,300 households in locations where there are “predicted unmitigated significant adverse residual in-combination effects”. These households are identified in [14.3.13] of the SES and map numbers SV-06-001 and 002 (30.3.16). (ii) £1,000 per annum to those households who will be subjected to “significant adverse effects”. This is likely to include an additional 2,000 households.

3.8 HEAG has linked the proposed payments to the extent of the adverse impact of construction works. We note that the “home owner payment” for rural areas is rather based on distance from the line. On the basis of our proposal, we estimate that some 3,300 households would qualify at a cost of some £5.9m per annum. This would extend to some 40% of those who live within 300m of the construction works in the Euston area. 3.9 HEAG does not want residents to be forced to move away from the area which would fracture the social cohesion of our vibrant and diverse communities. To date, the Promoter has been deaf to our pleas for a compensation scheme that will achieve this. There is evidence that our community is starting to fragment. Some of our members have felt compelled to sell their homes before the construction works commence and both their lives and homes become blighted. The number of those choosing to leave the area will accelerate when construction works commence. 3.10 HEAG proposes that the payment should be made to any household with any “interest in the dwelling” where a member of the household has been in occupation of the dwelling as his only or main residence for a period of at least twelve months on the qualifying date for the annual payment. This should be defined to include any Rent Act protected tenant. This replicates the statutory entitlement for a home loss payment in Section 29 of the Land Compensation Act 197329. 3.11 This scheme would not only benefit home owners. It would also benefit long term social and private residential tenants. The Euston area includes a large number of social tenants who have occupied their homes for many years, some for all their lives. They are currently excluded from any compensation. The National Compensation Code is premised solely on property rights. HEAG’s approach rather focuses on the Article 8 right to respect for one’s home and private life. 3.12 This scheme would also reassure the local property market. It would (a) reduce the impact of blight on property sales; (b) reassure the private rented sector (some residents have let out their properties as part of their pension schemes); and (c) reduce the danger that void properties would become hard to let for social landlords (Camden Council do not intend to reduce the social rents for their blighted properties in Euston).

29

It is to be noted that the government proposes to restrict the payment of the “home owner payment” in rural areas to those with a leasehold interest “for a certain term of years, not less than three years of which remain unexpired on the date that the application is signed” (see [2.3.4] of “Rural Support Zone Schemes – Guidance Notes and Application Form” at link.

A193 (21) HOL/00472/0022

22

3.13 As with the governments’ rural support zone schemes, the payment should also be made to owner-occupiers of business premises. A rateable value limit of £34,800 is inappropriate given land values in the Euston area and should be raised to £135,000. 3.14 There are precedents for such payments. In December 1999, Railtrack made cash payments ranging from £150 to £300 (depending upon the location and the nature of the property) as compensation for upgrading works to the West Coast executed over the Christmas period in the Camden Cutting. Gatwick is proposing to offering annual payments of £1,000 per annum to 4,100 homes, should it be permitted to build a second runway30. 4. The Fair Determination of Compensation Claims 4.1 The Promoter should establish procedures for determining claims for compensation which comply with Article 6 of the European Convention. Applications for compensation must be determined and payments made promptly. Strict time limits must be imposed. There should be an appeal to an independent and impartial body. Currently, there is only a right of appeal in respect of home loss and disturbance payments. The Land Compensation Act 1973 permits an appeal to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber). HEAG rather proposes that all appeals should go to the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber).

5. Community & Environment and Business & Local Economy Funds 5.1 The Promoter is proposing a Community & Environment Fund (“CEF”) and Business and Local Economy Fund (“BLEF”) which will have a combined budget of £30m for the period to 2026. HEAG asks that there be specific funds earmarked for Camden throughout the period of construction work, currently 2017 to 2033, with separate funds for businesses and community groups, with a total of £1m per annum for the two funds. HEAG suggest that the split should be £750k per annum for the Community & Environment Fund and £250k per annum for the Business & Local Economy Fund. 5.2 Whilst in rural areas, there may be an emphasis on projects which will leave a sustainable legacy, in Euston, the priority should rather be to address the adverse impact of the construction works. The emphasis should therefore be on projects which make life more bearable for all the diverse communities in Euston whose lives are blighted by the works. 5.3 The Promoter is proposing that the management of the funds will be outsourced to an existing grant-managed body which will be selected through a competitive process31. If the principle of a “Camden” fund is agreed, HEAG would ask that the funds should be administered locally with a strong community input. There are a number of charities who would be competent to administer such a fund. We agree that applications for grants should be invited from community-based voluntary organisations, charitable and not-for-profit bodies, social enterprises, schools and local authorities. 5.4 The HCSC (at [350]) recommended that the funding envelope of both funds should be substantially increased. It suspected that the Promoter is aware that the amounts are too

30

See link 31

See [5] at p.73 of HEAG’s PRD

A193 (22) HOL/00472/0023

23

low. The Committee wanted to see specific allocations to certain communities to avoid bidding wars. In its response (at [99] – [101], the government has agreed to increase the funding to £40m. It is proposing indicative allocations and proposes to publish them before the end of the Lords’ Select Committee hearings. 5.5 HEAG welcomes the proposal (1.9.16) for a £3.5m Camden Fund. We welcome the invitation to nominate a member of the local community to the Board. We note that the adequacy and utilisation of the £3.5m allocation will be reviewed after two years. 5.6 However, HEAG is not sure how the Camden fund will relate to the CEF and BLEF. Our concern is that Camden applicants to the CEF and BLEF may be prejudiced because of the existence of the Camden Fund. In any event, the CEF and BLEF are time limited to 2026, whilst construction works in Euston will extend to 2033. HEAG prefers an annual budget, albeit that it might be front-loaded to facilitate projects which will be put in place at the early stages of the construction. An annual budget for the life of the construction works would impose a financial incentive on the nominated undertaker to complete the works expeditiously. 6. Conclusion 6.1 The Select Committee (at [237]) recognised that Camden is “exceptional and needs special treatment”. We ask the Promoter to recognise this.

Appendix: Compensation and Human Rights

1. Euston is the area in the country where the impact of HS2 will be greatest. Many residents and businesses will suffer substantial loss. Thus their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (‘ECHR’), incorporated into our law by the Human Rights Act 1998, are engaged.

2. That puts an onus on HS2 Ltd to demonstrate that any interference with those rights is legitimate, fair and proportionate. That brings the question of compensation, and how it is to be determined, into sharp focus.

3. Whether these issues of compensation are considered under Article 6 ECHR (the right to a fair determination of civil rights and obligations), Article 8 (the right to respect for private life, family and home), Article 1 of Protocol 1 (the right not to be deprived of property save in certain prescribed circumstances) or Article 14 (the prohibition of discrimination), two fundamental principles apply:

(a) First, any compensation must be fair and proportionate.

(b) Second (and linked), that the procedure for a determining what compensation is fair and proportionate must itself be fair and must afford a proper opportunity to those affected to influence the final determination.

A193 (23) HOL/00472/0024

24

4. Assessing the fair and proportionate compensation that falls to be paid in such circumstances requires a detailed, careful and painstaking analysis of all relevant facts and matters, which takes properly into account the interests actually at stake in Euston, the particular impact of HS2 on the locality (both in the long term and the short term) and the actual damage likely to be inflicted.

5. Although legal case-law makes it clear that relevant authorities obviously have a degree of discretion in their choice of the approach and procedure to be adopted in determining compensation in any given circumstances, and while recognising that the discretion is fairly wide when it comes to the implementation of schemes such as urban planning schemes, the discretion narrows where key interests of individuals are at stake, particularly where their right to a settled and secure place in the community is in issue (see Connors v UK, 27 May 2004; affirmed in Yordanova v Bulgaria, 5 June 2012).

6. Since loss of a home is the most extreme form of interference with key interests under Article 8 ECHR, anyone at risk of such loss is entitled to a particularly high standard of procedural fairness (Kay v UK, 12 September 2010; affirmed in Yordana v Bulgaria, 5 June 2012).

7. Against that background, the proposals for compensation in relation to HS2 must be scrupulously fair and proportionate. And the process for assessing compensation must be fully informed, transparent and, above all, give due weight to the interests of all of those affected by the scheme.

8. So far the approach taken to compensation has fallen far short of the legitimate expectations of the local communities most affected. The 2011 compensation consultation exercise was struck down as unlawful, the rules of the 2012 compensation schemes were then so tightly drawn as to provide only the most limited assistance to those living in urban areas, such as Euston, and the 2013 consultation on further compensation proposals shows no evidence that the representations of local community groups and individuals have been taken into account.

9. It is therefore critical that the representations made in this submission and other responses by those most affected are now given the considerable weight that they deserve. Meaningful consultation is a must. +

10. Four factors are particularly relevant:

(a) Euston is not a brown field site (unlike King’s Cross or Stratford). It is rather a vibrant, diverse, densely populated community in an area with high property values.

(b) The extent of time that those living in the Euston area will be affected by the construction works. It is now apparent that the new station will not be completed after 2033, at the earliest. The impact will be aggravated by the construction works associated with Crossrail 2. The Over Station Development will extend beyond 2033.

(c) The extent to which works will be executed outside normal working hours, namely at night, over weekends and during holiday periods, in order to keep the existing station open during the construction period.

A193 (24) HOL/00472/0025

25

(d) The cumulative impact of the noise, dust, vibration, ventilation, air pollution, loss of safe access routes, loss of amenity and daylight, construction traffic, bridge closures, congestion and works being executed at anti-social times. Euston Road is already one of the most polluted areas in Britain. HEAG has urged HS2 Ltd to agree a methodology with Camden Council to assess whether homes will be rendered “unreasonable to continue to occupy”, an objective “habitability test”.

11. The stated approach adopted by HS2 to mitigations has been “a hierarchy, whereby priority has been given to avoiding or preventing effects; and then (if this was not possible), to reducing or abating them; and then, if necessary, to offsetting them through repair (restoration or reinstatement) or compensation”. Where other mitigation measures are impossible, or have been rejected in favour of other interests, there is a particular duty on the State to bring forward compensation measures which are fair and proportionate. The government has failed to do so.

12. All the key questions are covered in the body of these submissions, along with valuable background and context. However, it is important to recognise a critical flaw running through the entire compensation scheme that is proposed. That critical flaw is that the scheme is grounded only in property rights and ignores the wider human rights which are undoubtedly affected the HS2 scheme. Of course properly rights will be adversely affected by the scheme and of course fair and proportionate compensation need to be paid for that interference. On this issue, the discriminatory nature of the proposed arrangements with resulting unfairness to urban areas has already been clearly flagged.

13. But property rights are not the only rights affected. Long established communities will be destroyed, family and private life will be severely disrupted and every conceivable type of pollution will affect the environment for many years. Thus the right to respect for family and private life, and the right to a home (in the broader sense of the word), which are protected rights under the Human Rights Act 1998, are clearly engaged. Yet the proposed compensation arrangements make no meaningful provision for the interference with these rights.

14. No scheme which ignores these basic rights can properly be described as fair or proportionate.

Sir Keir Starmer QC MP Holborn and St Pancras 2 September 2016

A193 (25) HOL/00472/0026

26

Session 3 - Clause 48

1. HEAG does not consider that this power is required and urge that it should be removed from

the Bill. We adopt the submissions made by Mr Cameron QC in the HCSC on behalf of local

authorities that the power is both unnecessary and undesirable32. We anticipate that we will

be adopting the submissions made on behalf of local authorities to your Lordship’s House.

2. HEAG rather see it rather from the viewpoint of the local property owners and residents who

fear abuse of power by any public authority. Local authorities already have sufficient powers

and this power has not been considered necessary in previous similar Acts. Any additional

powers of compulsory acquisition must be necessary and proportionate. The Promoter is

unable to justify it on these grounds.

3. HEAG accepts that the exercise of any power must be justified before the Upper Tribunal

(Lands Chamber) and that the Promoter would need to exercise the power in a manner that

is proportionate, lawful and reasonable. HEAG is not impressed by the argument that the use

of the power is prescribed by [3.9] of Information Paper C11. These Information papers are

constantly being re-written, the current versions being “1.3”.

32

[184] – [185] Transcript (1.12.15)

A193 (26) HOL/00472/0027

27

Session 4: Independent Adjudicator

1. The Select Committee has already heard from Robert Latham about the profound

impact of the current plans for Euston on the local communities, businesses and the

environment. The Petitioners key concerns are summarised in paragraphs 8-13 of the

Petition and not repeated here.

2. In advance of the appearance of the Camden Petitioners before the House of

Commons Select Committee, a number of assurances were made to Camden Council

which are intended to help protect the lives and livelihoods of its residents and

businesses from the many years of the worst aspects of the HS2 construction. Those

assurances, set out in various letters and now recorded in the draft register of

undertakings and assurances, cover a wide range of issues, most of which are of

direct relevance to the issues raised then, and now, by Euston community

petitioners, including assurances on community engagement itself. Relevant

assurances were also given to the Greater London Authority/Transport for London.

3. These assurances are intended to supplement commitments made in the

Environmental Minimum Requirements for the project, which include things such as

the draft Code of Construction Practice, which themselves include commitments on

measures such as local environmental management plans and a route wide traffic

management plan.

4. Given the scale, extent and duration of the HS2 construction works in Euston, it is

vital that these, and other, measures intended to protect local communities and

businesses are capable of simple, practical and effective enforcement by those

whose lives, livelihoods and environment are most affected.

5. Nothing short of an independent regulatory body charged with reviewing and

monitoring progress during the construction, with power to enforce the assurances,

Environmental Minimum Requirements, Code and other commitments, will suffice.

A193 (27) HOL/00472/0028

28

6. That is why a key ‘ask’ of the HEAG is the creation of an Independent Adjudicator, as

set out in paragraph 87 of the Petition:

‘Your petitioner supports the case for the creation of an Independent

Adjudicator. The Adjudicator should have responsibility to deal with matters

arising from the construction of HS2, including ensuring that the nominated

undertaker complies with any undertaking and assurances. The current

suggestion that local residents and businesses should have to escalate their

concerns through their local authority is not going to be workable. Neither is it

satisfactory that recourse should then be through the Secretary of state and

thereafter to Parliament.’

An amendment to this effect was tabled at the third reading of the Bill. It proposed

the creation of a body corporate known as the Office of the HS2 Adjudicator, with

enforcement, inspection and information functions.

7. The Promoter resists the creation of an Independent Adjudicator on the basis that:

‘The issues relating to adverse effects at Euston are essentially local and will

be managed under the Code of Construction Practice (CoCP) and wider

Environmental Minimum Requirements (EMRs) of the project. The controls

contained in the EMR’s, along with the powers contained in the Bill and the

Undertakings and Assurances given by the Promoter will, as the CoCP sets out

‘ensure that impacts which have been assessed in the EU will not be

exceeded’.’

8. This response does not begin to meet the concerns raised by the Petitioners.

9. HS2 Information Paper E1 makes clear that:

‘The Secretary of State has … published draft Environmental Minimum

Requirements (EMRs), which set out the environmental and sustainability

A193 (28) HOL/00472/0029

29

commitments that will be observed in the construction of the Proposed

Scheme.’

But the same paper also makes clear that the primary form of enforceability of the

EMRs is through the contract:

‘… any nominated undertaker will be contractually bound to comply with the

controls set out in the EMRs. However, where it is considered necessary, these

documents will be supplemented or varied in site specific undertakings in

order to deal with specific issues around a particular site.’

10. Counsel gave an undertaking to Parliament on behalf of the Secretary of State

concerning enforcement of EMRs to the following effect:

“Insofar as the Environmental Minimum Requirements are not directly

enforceable against any person appointed as the nominated undertaker, the

Secretary of State will take such steps as he considers reasonable and

necessary to secure compliance with those requirements.”

This reinforces the point that enforcement is primarily contractual, with the

Secretary of State only stepping in where EMRs are not directly enforceable.

11. Thus the route to enforceability for local communities and businesses is long,

complicated and highly impracticable: as HS2 recognises in Information Paper E1, the

steps it is suggested should be taken to ensure there is an investigation into any

concern that the EMRs are not being met are as follows:

Report to the nominated undertaker – the first step is to report any breach to

the nominated undertaker. The nominated undertaker will implement the

necessary corrective action.

A193 (29) HOL/00472/0030

30

Report to the Secretary of State – if unsatisfied by the nominated undertaker’s

response the issue can be reported to the Department for Transport, which

can direct the nominated undertaker to implement corrective action.

Report to Parliament – if unsatisfied with the Department for Transport’s

response, the issue can be reported – to the Speaker of the House of Commons

or if it related to the undertaking given or accepted by the House of Lords

Select Committee then to the Chairman of Committees in the house of Lords

under Standing Order 130.

12. As for assurances in particular, Information Paper E1, accepts that:

‘Assurances (including those relating to EMRs) will be enforceable against any

person appointed as the nominated undertaker through the Secretary of

State’s undertaking … This means that in the event of a failure to comply with

an assurance, recourse will be through the Secretary of State, and the

Secretary of State is answerable to Parliament for securing compliance’.

13. In other words, whether it be EMRs in general or assurances in particular, the only

enforceability is the very opposite of the simple, practical and effective enforcement

by those whose lives, livelihoods and environment are most affected that the

Petitioners contend for.

14. Moreover, there are significant problems – both substantive and procedural – with

this proposed approach.

15. Substantially, the process is, in effect, one of self-policing. There is simply no

independent monitoring, investigation or enforcement of the assurances and/or

EMR. Given the significance of these intended protections and the extent to which

A193 (30) HOL/00472/0031

31

local communities and businesses will have to rely on them for many years, that is

wholly unsatisfactory.

16. The limitations and inadequacy of the approach suggested by the Promoter become

even more apparent when it is appreciated that although the EMRs require HS2 and

its contractors to adopt measured to reduce the adverse environmental effects

reported in the Environmental Statement, there is an in-built caveat, namely that:

‘… provided that such measures are reasonably practicable and do not add

unreasonable cost or delay to the construction or operation of the project.’

That is manifestly a test that – if the EMRs and assurances are to be of any comfort to

local communities – needs independent assessment.

17. Procedurally, to suggest that those locally affected by a failure to comply with an

assurance should have to raise the matter with the Secretary of State – or even

potentially the Speaker – in Parliament is an unrealistic as it is unworkable. As set out

above, given the scale, extent and duration of the HS2 construction works in Euston,

it is vital that all measures intended to protect local communities and businesses are

capable of simple, practical and effective enforcement by those whose lives,

livelihoods and environment are most affected.

18. The position under the Code of Construction practice is no better. It sets out details

and working practices in relation to site preparation. But, again, the primary means

of enforcement is through the contract. Measures are promised to monitor the

effectiveness of the CoCP, including the creation of a Construction Commissioner.

19. But the Commissioner’s role is limited to construction and, further, as HS2

Information Paper G3 makes clear, even then the Commissioner’s role will not cover:

Complaints that have not first been considered by the nominated undertaker’s

helpdesk;

A193 (31) HOL/00472/0032

32

Complaints relating to planning conditions and other matters that are subject

to approval of statutory authorities;

Matters considered by Parliament in approving the project;

Matters dealt with by the Office of Rail Regulation, and operations rail

matters dealt with by train operating companies and passenger watchdogs;

Matters under investigation by the Health and Safety Executive;

Complaints relating to property compensation issues;

Claims for losses over £7,500;

Complaints relating to settlement deeds (see Information Paper C3: Ground

Settlement and C10: Small Claims Scheme for further details);

The operation of the HS2 railway or services; or

Matters relating to the HS2 Safeguarding Directions.

20. These are significant limitations which, taken together, mean that local communities

and businesses will have very little real protection over the many year of intense

disruption in and around the Euston area.

21. What is required is simple: an independent body capable of the practical and

effective enforcement of all measures intended to protect the lives, livelihoods and

environment are most affected. That is the ‘ask’ made by HEAG on its own behalf and

on behalf of others.

A193 (32) HOL/00472/0033

A194 (1) HOL/00472/0034

A194 (2) HOL/00472/0035

A194 (3) HOL/00472/0036

A194 (4) HOL/00472/0037

A194 (5) HOL/00472/0038

A194 (6) HOL/00472/0039

A194 (7) HOL/00472/0040

A194 (8) HOL/00472/0041

A194 (9) HOL/00472/0042

A194 (10) HOL/00472/0043

A194 (11) HOL/00472/0044

A194 (12) HOL/00472/0045

A194 (13) HOL/00472/0046

A194 (14) HOL/00472/0047

1

Photos – Views of the Euston area

1. Camden Cutting

2. 117-125 Park Village East

3. Old Riding School, 1 Park Village East

4. Park Village East

5. Silsoe House, Park Village East

6 Richmond House, Park Village East

7. Tintern House, Cubitt House, Eskdale

8. Tintern House

9. Junction Delancey Street and Mornington Terrace

10. Mornington Terrace

11. Mornington Street

12. Clarkson Row, Mornington Terrace

13. Mornington Crescent

14. Ampthill Square Estate

15. Ampthill Square Estate – low rise

16. Granby House & Ainsdale

17. Coniston and Silverdale, Hampstead Road

18. Coniston

19. Cobourg Street

20. Bree Louise, Cobourg Street

21. Derelict Garage, Hampstead Road

22. National Temperance Hospital

23. Cllr Robinson in Carlton Street

A195 (1) HOL/00472/0048

2

1. Camden Cutting

A195 (2) HOL/00472/0049

3

2. 117-125 Parkway

A195 (3) HOL/00472/0050

4

3. Old Riding School, 1 Park Village East

A195 (4) HOL/00472/0051

5

4. Park Village East

A195 (5) HOL/00472/0052

6

5. Silsoe House, Park Village East

A195 (6) HOL/00472/0053

7

6. Richmond House, Park Village East

A195 (7) HOL/00472/0054

8

7. Tintern House, Cubitt House, Eskdale

A195 (8) HOL/00472/0055

9

8. Tintern House, Augustus Street

A195 (9) HOL/00472/0056

10

9. Junction of Delancey Street and Mornington Terrace

A195 (10) HOL/00472/0057

11

10. Mornington Terrace

A195 (11) HOL/00472/0058

12

11. Mornington Street

A195 (12) HOL/00472/0059

13

12. Clarkson Row, Mornington Terrace

A195 (13) HOL/00472/0060

14

13. Mornington Crescent

A195 (14) HOL/00472/0061

15

14. Ampthill Square Estate

A195 (15) HOL/00472/0062

16

15. Ampthill Square Estate – low rise blocks

A195 (16) HOL/00472/0063

17

16. Granby House and Ainsdale

A195 (17) HOL/00472/0064

18

17. Coniston & Silverdale, Regents Park Estate

A195 (18) HOL/00472/0065

19

18. Cartmel, Hampstead Road

A195 (19) HOL/00472/0066

20

19. Cobourg Street

A195 (20) HOL/00472/0067

21

20. Bree Louise, Cobourg Street

A195 (21) HOL/00472/0068

22

21. Derelict Garage, Hampstead Road

A195 (22) HOL/00472/0069

23

22. National Temperance Hospital

A195 (23) HOL/00472/0070

24

23. Cllr Robinson in Carlton Street

A195 (24) HOL/00472/0071