HS20001

Written evidence submitted by Hyde Heath Village Society

As a regular contributor to the PAC regarding HS2, I thank the Committee for once again holding the Government, DFT and HS2 Ltd to account.

I remind the Committee of my substantial evidence to them and to the HS2 Select Committee during Phase 1 Petitioning in which I made it clear that the deliberate failure to undertake intrusive ground investigation studies would result in delays, descoping and additional cost. In multiple exchanges with the DFT and HS2 Ltd they have consistently denied my expert evidence and yet again my predictions have proved accurate.

It is with this in mind that I offer you yet another prediction. The delay or failure to build Euston will result in the failure to commission the line and the line cannot commence operations until Euston is constructed. Allow me to explain.

I believe it is the DFTs intention to “delay” parts of Phase 1, specifically the Euston to Old Oak Section and construction of the station at Euston.

HS2 have had 13 years to produce a working design for Euston and have failed. The Act is explicit that they MUST build Euston and in accordance with the lines set out in the Parliamentary Plans. If they cannot then they must confess same to Parliament before more money is spent. Failure to do this would constitute Fraud. 

To my primary point. High Speed 2 was granted consent under the Hybrid Bill procedure for while the projects benefits are public in nature the impacts are private. Consequently, the impacts were assessed as part of the 2013 Environmental Statement, and we provided a 330 page response specifically identifying the many issues assessed by the Statement we felt had been inaccurately assessed. We specifically questioned the many impacts the scheme would generate.

It is our belief that these impacts were misrepresented, however, during petitioning HS2 Ltd gave evidence which assured the MPs the impacts would not be exceeded.

This leads me to my question. How do they expect to commission Phase 1 of the Scheme if they cannot assess the impacts of the scheme since all of the Schedule 1 works which “MUST” be built have only been built in part?

To take one example, to commission the line HS2 must demonstrate it can operate to its specification and the impacts of that specification have not been exceeded and therefore will not generate impacts greater than assessed during the 2013 Environmental Statement? If the scheme is built in part, then how will HS2 and the DFT demonstrate that the impacts have not been exceeded since the scheme is only partly operational? A fully operational line will have higher impacts.

Equally what if changes occur to the Euston section in design or development which results in greater impacts on the Old Oak Common to Birmingham section. These impacts would be unknown and unassessed if the line is commissioned in advance of the Euston sections construction.

The Act states that Schedule 1 works “Must” be built which indicates the drafting never envisaged building in part. Nor did it envisage delayed delivery for certain parts. This is important in the context of the Statutory Protection afforded by the Act.

Statutory Protection for HS2 Ltd/sub-contractors falls away 1 year after practical completion of the works. In this time the DFT/HS2 Ltd and the operator must commission the line and bring the line into use. It is during this year that impacts are assessed/amendments made to meet the impacts as set out eg is operational noise greater than originally assessed.

After this 1 year period ends, statutory protection falls away and aggrieved parties may bring actions for damages as a consequence of the works. It would not make sense to approve commissioning in part since those affected on an operational Phase 1 section could claim damages yet those affected by the remaining works at Euston either cannot claim damages and/or HS2 Ltd/DFT/Contractors would not have any statutory protection while building at Euston. The Act and Statutory Protection cannot fall away in part!

Neither position would make logical sense.

The language of the Act is clear in that it granted the DFT and HS2 Ltd the powers such that they “may” construct and maintain the works specified in Schedule 1 but Schedule 1 is equally clear that they “MUST” build the schedule 1 works and in full.

I have exchanged correspondence with the DFT on this point and they originally sought to claim HS2 as a “permissive scheme”. I challenged this as it certainly was not Parliament’s intention the Act be permissive. The Introduction to the Act explicitly states “An Act to make provision for a railway between Euston in London and a junction with the West Coast Main Line at Handsacre in Staffordshire”.

The DFT have since confirmed they intend to build Euston and I accept they may have elected to delay the works at Euston but I maintain they have no powers to not build the works at Euston and no powers to build or commission the line in part unless they intend to do so without Statutory Protection.

I predict the DFTs next move will be to claim they will pass amending legislation to separate the Statutory Protection of the Euston section and rest of the line. The Act was passed by Hybrid Bill therefore amending legislation to separate Statutory Provisions would be to disproportionately impact persons affected by the Act who originally petitioned the Hybrid Bill in good faith.   

Or to put it another way, in the absence of an entirely new Hybrid Bill process for Phase 1, the DFT cannot commission Phase 1 of High Speed 2 without it being built as examined during the Hybrid Bill process. Building in part either means you cannot commission the line and bring it into use and/or you must build the Euston section without Statutory Protection.

In effect they can delay building the Euston section but they cannot commission and operate between Old Oak Common and Birmingham until Euston is built and commissioned.    

I look forward to the DFT confirming they have no intention of attempting to commission Phase 1 of the line in part or accepting liability to build Euston without the statutory protection of the Act.

March 2023