PUBLIC SESSION

MINUTES OF ORAL EVIDENCE

taken before

HIGH SPEED RAIL COMMITTEE

On the

HIGH SPEED RAIL (LONDON – WEST MIDLANDS) BILL

Wednesday, 7 January 2015 (Morning)

In Committee Room 5

PRESENT:

Mr Robert Syms (In the Chair)

Sir Peter Bottomley Mr Henry Bellingham

Yasmin Qureshi _____________

IN ATTENDANCE:

Mr Timothy Mould, QC, Lead Counsel, Department for Transport

Witnesses:

Mr Kyn Aizlewood and Mrs Vicki Aizlewood Mr Anthony Cotterill Ms Ruth Jackson Mr Darren Jackson Mr David Perkins Mr James Fielding

____________

IN PUBLIC SESSION

2

INDEX

Subject Page

Mr and Mrs Aizlewood

Introduction from Mr Mould 4

Submissions from Mr Aizlewood 4

Submissions from Mr Mould 12

Closing Submissions from Mr Aizlewood 18

Mr Anthony Cotterill

Introduction from Mr Mould 20

Submissions from Mr Cotterill 20

Submissions from Mr Mould 24

Ms Ruth Jackson

Submissions from Ms Jackson 29

Submissions from Mr Mould 33

Mr and Mrs Perkins

Submissions from Mr Perkins 39

Submissions from Mr Mould 40

Questions from the Committee 41

Mr and Mrs Fielding

Submissions from Mrs Fielding 44

Submissions from Mr Mould 45

3

(At 9.30.am.)

1. CHAIR: Order, order. Welcome and good morning everybody to the HS2 Select

Committee. We are again on Burton Green today and we start off with Kyn and Vicki

Aizlewood. Who is going to kick off? Are you just going to give an introduction?

2. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I will if that is convenient to you, yes.

3. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Before we start can I just one question that I ought

to have known the answer to. Who makes the decision on exceptional hardship? Is it

the promoters or is it some independent person?

4. MR MOULD QC (DfT): It is made by an official within the Department for

Transport who then obviously makes that recommendation to the Secretary of State.

5. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Thank you.

6. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Administratively the process involves consideration of

the papers and the facts within the promoter’s organisation, which then reports to the

department.

7. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Might I make a suggestion that if that official

wanted to appear to explain this decision I would be very interested in hearing the

explanation.

8. MR MOULD QC (DfT): On a particular decision?

9. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: This is good, just as an example. I am sorry to

interrupt you. Do carry on but I just wanted to make that absolutely plain.

10. MR MOULD QC (DfT): What I have done, and you have given me the

opportunity to mention it, is I have just checked overnight to see what the statistics are

in terms of success rate with applications. I think you were given a figure of about one

in three or one in four and that corresponds to what I have been told, about 25% of total

applications made under EHS have been successful.

4

Mr and Mrs Aizlewood

11. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Mr and Mrs Aizlewood live at 315 Cromwell Lane.

Their property is shown outlined in red on the aerial photograph in front of you. As you

can see, they are situated to the west of the railway line as it passes through Burton

Green at a distance of some 70 metres. The property will therefore fall within the limits

of the rural support zone. That means that when the full package of discretionary

policies comes into operation shortly, they will have the option as I understand them to

be eligible owner/occupiers under that scheme – they own their property and occupy it

and they have lived there I think for upwards of 13 years – of asking the Secretary of

State to purchase their property or, assuming that it comes into operation broadly in

accordance with the proposals consulted upon, of making an application for an

alternative cash offer. I think with that having been said, I will hand over to Mr

Aizlewood.

12. MR AIZLEWOOD: Thank you. Vicki and I have been married for nearly 30

years. I grew up in Coventry. We relocated to Burton Green nearly 14 years ago.

Vicki’s mum lived with us for a while before she died and then we have raised a family

there. Izzy and Mike are both adults. They have left, fled the nest, so it is just us and

our cat who live in our nice five-bedroomed house in Burton Green.

13. Thank you for inviting us along today. We have a number of slides we would like

to run through. Slide 1 is up there now, I can see. I would like to take any questions at

the end, if that is okay. Could we move straight to slide 2, please? We made quite a

large number of points in our petition, which are referenced in the table shown at slide

2. We tried to distinguish in the table those issues that pertain to the period before HS2

is operational and those afterwards. We received a 33-page promoter response

document, which did clarify a few points but was generally quite unhelpful in that it

appeared largely ‘cut and paste’ and did not really address many of the specific points

that we raised. We have subsequently and quite recently seen drawings labelled AP2,

which are part of the documentation here today which do show some improved

mitigation to some of the concerns we raise with regard to the construction phase.

14. Our aim today is not to cover everything. I think yesterday you heard from the

parish council, the village hall association and a number of others. You will have

5

discussed bored tunnels, demolition of properties, village hall issues, and the Greenway

so we are not proposing to cover any of that today. The issues that we want to talk

about today are about us. Slide 3, please. Those are the issues that we want to cover

today on that slide. Our aim is really to summarise our position as it applies to us

specifically as members of the community, to share with you a sense of the impact that

HS2 has had upon us, and to highlight the choice that we feel has been taken away as a

result of the Government’s failure so far to introduce an effective and fair compensation

scheme. In summary, we are petitioning for a choice between a fair level of

compensation if we choose to stay in Burton Green and the opportunity to leave Burton

Green without financial penalty if we choose otherwise.

15. We have been living with HS2 for nearly five years and it has consumed a

considerable amount of our time and those of others within the community. So, at the

forefront of concerns in the lives of many who live in Burton Green, as you will have

heard yesterday, and this has involved significant amounts of time. Slide 4, please.

16. MR BELLINGHAM: The loss of income, can you explain that? You are going to

come to this in more detail in a second?

17. MR AIZLEWOOD: I am coming to that.

18. MR BELLINGHAM: If you could, because I am quite interested in that point.

19. MR AIZLEWOOD: Yes, of course. So, we spent a considerable amount of time

finding out about the proposals, researching, just understanding what it is that is

proposed will be done to us where we live to assess the impact it has on the community

and trying to do our bit to redress the balance and influence what we see as the big

engine of government. For me personally it has involved time spent living apart from

my family whilst working in London during the week and over the past two years a lot

of time spent commuting. I will come on to that as well later. I reckon at least about

£30,000 we have spent either in terms of rental or additional costs of travel that we have

incurred that we would not have incurred if we had had the opportunity to move earlier

in the process.

20. I think the significant part of our frustration and, frankly, despair at times has

arisen because of the unduly restrictive nature of the exceptional hardship scheme and

6

the government’s persistent failure to put in place an appropriate alternative. Earlier this

year we were momentarily delighted as residents in this voluntary purchase zone, this 60

to 120 metre area, that we would be offered a choice and encouraged to stay. However,

when we looked at the detail that is currently being proposed, the compensation seems

quite tiny and refers to a need to sell, which seems to us quite reminiscent of the

exceptional hardship scheme.

21. Slide 5, please. I was made redundant from my consulting job in January 2011

and found it quite difficult to get back into work. I work in the NHS. We put our house

on the market and three months later we applied to the exceptional hardship scheme,

which was in May of that year. It was a very difficult time for us personally, shrouded

in anxiety and uncertainty as to the future and it was four months before I received any

kind of reasonable job offer. So, I took a job in Central London just up the road from

here, and a pay cut initially on a short-term contract in order to get back into work and

pay the mortgage. Then our exceptional hardship application was turned down in

August. The slide which I have put up here is an extract from the letter we received and

you know the last sentence.

22. So, I would have needed to actually turn down the job and remain on

unemployment benefit for months in order to have made a successful application to the

exceptional hardship scheme and to me that does not seem right. I do not see why

compensation should only be available to people with exceptional hardship. You have

to put yourself through the process that was required in order to be assessed by this

panel. Even then we may or may not have received a full market valuation.

23. I just want to talk briefly about applying some of the principles here. Could we

move to slide 6, please? I think it is clear that we are materially impacted by the

proposed HS2 route a short distance from the line. HS2 is a Government project and it

has been accepted that we should be fully compensated but no such scheme currently

exists. We feel we have been disempowered, basically, because we have no means to

move and there is no offer in place and has not been for the past five years to

compensate us for the problems if we stay.

24. So, I guess there is no doubt in our minds that when my temporary job in London

was made permanent we would have moved. That is something we have done

7

throughout my career, we have moved several times. My children have grown up and

fled the nest, as I said earlier, and we have always relocated with work, so we would

have moved there but the consultation scheme that was proposed at the time was

deemed so unfair as to be illegal. It was thrown out after judicial review, so our

opportunity to move at that time was removed. So, we cannot afford to move given the

substantial blight affecting the property. During the first 10 years we lived at Cromwell

Lane we invested in the property rather than in a pension scheme, so moving house

would have meant we would effectively have to lose something like a six-figure sum

which would be equivalent to a significant part of our pension provision. You just can’t

do that when the Government has at the same time committed that it would give us the

opportunity to gain full market value.

25. So, I turned to long-distance commuting. I currently spend four hours a day, four

days a week, roughly, travelling into and out of London. Could I have slide 7, please?

That slide summarises my journey into work. You can do it in less than two hours but it

is quite rare. It usually takes a little over two hours to do it allowing for connections and

so forth. I have also just shown for your information what that journey would be like if

HS2 were up and running, so in 11 years’ time if I was still working here it might shave

about 15 to 20 minutes off my two-hour commute although I suspect the season ticket

might be quite prohibitive.

26. MR BELLINGHAM: Unless a new station is built in Burton Green.

27. MR AIZLEWOOD: Indeed.

28. MR BELLINGHAM: Option Z, I think.

29. MR AIZLEWOOD: Yes, thank you. That brings me to make a concern that I

have with regard to the feasibility of being able to continue to commute into London to

Euston Station on the West Coast Main Line whilst still living in Burton Green. Slide 8,

please. I do not believe everything I read in the Daily Mail. I do not usually read the

Daily Mail at all, in fact. However, it was widely reported here and in other media that

HS2 envisaged significant disruption on the West Coast Main Line for commuters

particularly during the construction phase and the redevelopment of Euston Station.

More recently there have been reports in the Evening Standard and in construction

journals about problems with those actual plans for Euston Station itself. I think that all

8

of that was based upon Freedom of Information Act material that’s been released by

HS2.

30. So, all or none of that may be true, I don’t know. Nevertheless, for it to be a

viable option for us to remain in Burton Green we need some assurance that myself and

thousands of other people who commute into Euston Station on the West Coast Main

Line will be able to do that during the construction phase of HS2.

31. Our final point is a general point about the impact of HS2 on us, our community

and our environment because it clearly will change forever. Slide 9, please. I think the

point we are making, and this may have been made to some extent yesterday as well, is

that both during and after construction the proposed changes will impact the

environment significantly so we can take a peaceful walk along the rural Greenway now

but it will be less peaceful with a 300 miles per hour train running 17 times an hour

alongside it, even with mitigations.

32. In the exhibits sent to us on 2 January were included several exhibits relating to

calculations of noise. There is some calculation about ambient noise, noise during

construction and post-construction. Those show that for us during the 11 month

construction of a cut and cover tunnel we would be significantly impacted, which we

would expect from the excavation works taking place so close to where we live.

Another diagram suggested that the construction period was 24 months.

33. They also seem to suggest, though, that because the average noise level once HS2

is running will only increase by one to two decibels, the impact of the noise from HS2

will be marginal. That is referenced in, I think, P2370. We think that that is complete

nonsense. It is just a nonsense statistic. No one hears average noises; they hear real

noises, actual noises, and the noise from a very large high speed train entering a tunnel a

short distance from where we live travelling at 300 miles per hour 17 times an hour

potentially between 5 a.m. and midnight we just do not believe would be marginal even

after allowing for the mitigations that have been put forward. Indeed, I think it is also

referenced in one of the other slides. P2369 suggests that the highest noise during the

15-year period is not identified as significant but actually is a similar figure in terms of

decibel levels – it is there at the bottom – to the noise during construction. So, right at

the very bottom of that slide, P2369, which is on the screen now, says, ‘Cromwell Lane,

9

max 3 stars, 66/69’. I do not really know how loud that is but it is a similar level of

decibels to 67/74, which is identified as significant during the construction phase. So,

perhaps we can talk about that in a moment.

34. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I can tell you that it is some 5 dB below the highest

night time individual noise event that you experience in this part of Cromwell Lane at

the present time, which is 74.3.

35. MR AIZLEWOOD: I don’t know what 5 dB is.

36. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: It is a noticeable increase in the level of noise,

basically.

37. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Or a decrease.

38. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Or a decrease, yes.

39. MR AIZLEWOOD: Okay, thank you. Finally, what do we want? The impact of

HS2 on us for the past five years has been to disempower us. We have had our choices

taken away and we feel stuck in our beautiful family home. We cannot afford to move

yet the consequences of staying where we are quite scary. So, notwithstanding our

support for the deep bore tunnel, which we believe is the only fundamental way to

address the raft of concerns that we and others have raised about post-construction

noise, we want to have a choice restored.

40. Could we have slide 10? The current proposal upon which the Government are

currently consulting or have consulted appears to offer a choice for people like ourselves

in that voluntary purchase zone with the suggestion of either buying at full market value

or making an alternative cash offer to tempt people to stay and basically tough it out.

41. However, we see a number of failings in that proposal and fundamentally the

position that people who take the alternative cash offer find themselves in a few years

later, if their circumstances change. That might be reasonable if the period is a 12-

month period, but over the next 12 years, which is the period likely until the trains are

actually running, many people’s circumstances are very likely to change. I will be

retired, for one thing. If they do and people subsequently want to move away, they will

have to apply to a need to sell panel, which sounds a lot like the exceptional hardship

10

scheme. We have been there. We don’t want to go back to that and throw ourselves on

other’s mercy at a time when you are most vulnerable. It is not a good place. It is also

clear from the paperwork that has been consulted upon that under the need to sell you

would get significantly less than the market value simply because you didn’t need to sell

as opposed to want to sell. For us and many others the current proposal, however well-

intentioned, to encourage people to stay, is to be avoided. So, the need to sell would

have to be replaced by a want to sell in making it easier not harder to actually exercise a

choice.

42. If the current scheme eventually translates into a definite scheme later this month,

the only viable option for us would be to move even though we would actually like to

stay. We have thought about what might tempt us to stay and we have tried to capture

that in slide 10. I would like to highlight that this is not just about the money; this is

about mitigation, assurance, and some flexibility. So, perhaps the panel might care to

comment as to whether they see anything unreasonable in the table at slide 10. For

example, in the absence of a real choice we do not think we should have to pay the

Government tax, the stamp duty, on buying an equivalent house having been forced out

of our current home by HS2. Thank you for listening. We are happy to take any

questions. There might be a point that you raised earlier.

43. CHAIR: Would you like to add anything there, Mrs Aizlewood?

44. MRS AIZLEWOOD: I think that Kyn has probably said everything that we need

to say really. All I can say is that Burton Green is a wonderful place to live and the

thought of all this turmoil that we have been having over the past few years has been

really difficult. It seems a shame. I feel that we are being forced out even though we

don’t really want to go because of the uncertainty of the future. We have been through

the exceptional hardship scheme. We have been turned down. I don’t want to be in a

position, if we decided to take the cash offer and stay, of being turned down again when

our position might be even worse than it was the last time we applied. It is a real strain,

isn’t it, to have to go through that.

45. CHAIR: And a strain on family life?

46. MRS AIZLEWOOD: As for the exceptional hardship scheme, a few years before

Kyn got made redundant we had a house full of five of us. Then the two kids went off

11

to university. My mother unfortunately died and then Kyn gets made redundant, gets a

job in London and has to go and live in London for the first two years because we felt

that the commuting wasn’t viable. So, I had a house of five that went down to just me

and the cat and it was just awful, it really was. So, somebody else telling me that that is

not exceptional was really hard to cope with. I am sorry.

47. MR AIZLEWOOD: That is all right. This has been a joint effort in terms of the

presentation, so it has been very difficult.

48. MR BELLINGHAM: Can I ask you about Rent a Room. How old are your

children now?

49. MR AIZLEWOOD: They are 25 and 22.

50. MR BELLINGHAM: So, obviously you have the possibility of renting out a

room.

51. MR AIZLEWOOD: We have a granny annex, so we have rented that out under

the Rent a Room scheme, so basically we have a lodger and the income from that helps

to offset some of the cost of the season ticket.

52. MR BELLINGHAM: Just remind us what you said about the difficulties you are

going to have filling that room during the construction phase.

53. MR AIZLEWOOD: W ell, it is a very nice place to live now. It is a very quiet

space and the people we have had as lodgers in there valued the quiet it gives them.

54. MR BELLINGHAM: Exactly.

55. MR AIZLEWOOD: If you are going to do a cut and cover tunnel you are going to

have to do a lot of construction work; there is a 24 months phase on one of the

programmes we saw. So, I do not think, with the best will in the world, it is going to be

quiet. It is actually right at the front of the house so it is the nearest part of our house to

where a lot of construction work will take place. So, we wouldn’t imagine we are going

to get many people wanting to rent.

56. MR BELLINGHAM: Sure, well certainly not at the price you were able to charge

before.

12

57. MR AIZLEWOOD: Well, that is right. We get an income of about £500 a month.

58. CHAIR: Okay. Mr Mould?

59. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Can we start with P2369, please, which you saw a

minute ago? Mr and Mrs Aizlewood’s property, as you know, is situated on Cromwell

Lane. This shows you the existing noise environment and the predicted noise during

both construction and operation for the assessment point that corresponds to their

property. You can see the existing noise environment on the top line. In daytime it is

just above 46, and 40 at night. The highest, as I mentioned earlier, is 74 – no doubt

traffic on the road – and then for construction purposes the figures are set out in the

right-hand column: daytime, just under 56 and evening 46, night time, 41. Then we

look at the position during construction first of all.

60. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: What do you think causes that 74 highest night time

noise?

61. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I suggest it is probably the passing of a vehicle on the

road because they live on Cromwell Lane itself. It is difficult to think of what would be

a more obvious candidate for that – a motorbike, perhaps.

62. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: And the location is where?

63. MR MOULD QC (DfT): The location is on Cromwell Lane.

64. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: The 204 223 location?

65. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes. Let me just show you that. It is P2366. So, you

can see there it is an assessment location.

66. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: And there are similar noise levels for the other two,

the 204 138 and 204 255?

67. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes, and as you can see, as it happens for prediction

purposes the assessment point is actually somewhat closer to the construction works and

the railway than their property but I do not take any point on that because we are using

this as a property for their property. So, if we go back to 2369 you can see that for

operational purposes at the bottom effectively there is no significant change. That

13

reflects the fact that the railway is in tunnel as it passes through Burton Green, so the

change of 2 dB during the day and a night time change of 1 dB would not, generally

speaking, be significant. Then for construction, during the peak period if you look

towards the right-hand side of the table, ‘Impact of duration, months’, 11 months, so for

just under a year of peak construction they are experiencing noise levels on an ambient

basis that are significantly higher than those that they experience at the present time: 56

at the present time going up to 67, 74, during that peak period.

68. Of course, one can conceive of many major development schemes up and down

the country, industrial development, housebuilding, retail development and other

infrastructure projects, where the peak period of construction may last some months and

there will be people who live in the vicinity who will experience noise and disturbance

and other disruption as a result. I suggest to you that an 11-month duration is not an

obviously extraordinary period of construction if one thinks about the range of

development that takes place. That is the context in which one then turns to the policies.

I want to look forward before I look back, if I may.

69. Looking forward, if we turn back to the petitioners’ last slide, with the coming

into operation of the package there is a choice for these petitioners. Falling within the

rural support zone, if they decide that they do want to move, for example because they

do want to take the opportunity to move closer to London, where, as I understand it,

Mr Aizlewood works, which is an aspiration which is wholly independent of the project,

that option would be open to them and they would be able to do that, as you know, on a

sale to the Government of their property on an unblighted basis. That is the essential

purpose of the rural support zone scheme. They would not receive the costs of moving

but then if the reason for wishing to move is that Mr Aizlewood wants to move closer to

his place of work, that would be a motive that would arise independently of the project

anyway, so they would expect to pay those costs, the costs of moving, the stamp duty

and so forth, just as any other person who was moving house so that they could move

closer to their new place of work would have to do. So, in this case that, I would

suggest, seems perfectly reasonable, that they should receive the unblighted value of

their property but not any additional administrative purchase costs. If they want to stay,

then the alternative cash offer will be available to them assuming that that policy is

initiated in accordance with the consulted arrangements.

14

70. MR BELLINGHAM: That is if they stay?

71. MR MOULD QC (DfT): If they stay, yes. As I say, I qualify that by saying that

that is what the public consultation on the policy proposed. It has not yet been finalised

but that is if it were finalised on that basis. If they subsequently decide during the

lifetime of the discretionary policies, which as you know extend up until the end of the

first year of operation, that they want to move then they would be able to apply under

the need to sell policy and they would be expected to account for the alternative cash

payment that they had received so they would be expected to net that off against the

price payable to them if their need to sell application was successful.

72. CHAIR: So, the £22,000 does not stop them going into a scheme; it just means

that they don’t get paid twice?

73. MR MOULD QC (DfT): That’s right, yes. Putting it in a nutshell, if they decide

to go under the BPZ, they get the unblighted value of their property. If they decide to

stay they can take the cash offer and if they subsequently decide they wish to go and

they can secure agreement under the need to sell, then they would get the unblighted

value but of course they would net off the cash offer they had already received. So,

there is a genuine choice available to them under those arrangements. I would suggest

to you that that, with respect, is a reasonable settlement to support people in the

Aizlewoods’ position which reflects, as it is intended to do, the long gestation of the

project and the impact of generalised blight upon them, and it serves to meet the needs

that they have explained to you during the course of their presentation this morning in a

way that is fair to them but also fair to the public purse.

74. That is looking forward. Looking back, they did apply, as you know, under the

exceptional hardship scheme. If we go to A665, they were unsuccessful in that

application. That application will have been considered by the panel and by the

Secretary of State and the decision as reflected in that letter reflects an assessment of the

facts at that time. One can debate whether or not if one had been making that decision –

members of the Committee may think that if they had been making that decision they

might have reached a different view but that was the decision that was reached on the

facts as they were presented at that time and the reason given for rejecting the

application is set out on the page. I need just to explain because, Sir Peter, you asked

15

me the question at the beginning, how are these things dealt with and I gave you a very

truncated answer. I ought to explain to you that the assessment of the facts and of the

merits of the application under the system is made by a panel which consists of three

members, typically, two of whom are drawn from an independent panel of professionals

who are appointed by the Government, one of whom is drawn from a panel of HS2

representatives. In each case the panel which considers the application is chaired by one

of the independent members. So, you have a majority of independent members, two to

one, and one of those people chairing it. I will provide to the Committee a current

published note which lists the members of the panel, both independent and HS2, and

summarises the way that the panel works. As you can see, the panel in this case, which

I have just described, considered the application and made the recommendation to the

Secretary of State that the application not be accepted.

75. So, that is what happened. I understand that the Aizlewoods weren’t happy about

the outcome – why would they be – and I understand that they see it as having led them

to a situation where they have incurred expenditure which they think they would not

necessarily have incurred had the application been accepted, but that is the nature of the

process. What I have emphasised to you today is that looking forward from today there

is a different settlement that is going to present itself to them in a very short time and I

suggest to you that whether they choose to stay or go at the present time that provides

them with an appropriate remedy to cover the concerns that they have put before you.

76. MS QURESHI: I have just a couple of questions. I understand the point you

made about the fact that it is effectively an independent panel, or a majority of members

are independent, but do they have a set of guidelines telling them what is hardship and

what is exceptional hardship?

77. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes, the criteria against which they assess applications

on their specific facts are explained in the guidance, which is published and, as you can

see, in each case where an application is not accepted a letter is sent to the applicant

giving reasons against the criteria for the decision not to accept the application. So, it is

a transparent process and one which accords with conventional public administrative

legal requirements about consistency of approach, consistency of guidance and a

reasoned decision on the basis of those grounds.

16

78. CHAIR: Any more questions, Sir Peter?

79. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I am going to resist the temptation to be unfair. I

want to be fair. I can see that the panel and the Secretary of State in 2011, three and a

half years ago, would have said, ‘A criterion is not met’. It is perfectly obvious that

during the last three and a half years there has been exceptional hardship in terms of

finance and in terms of family life and uncertainty. The hardship would be, if

commuting, the loss of the equivalent to £75,000 after tax. You have the cost of the

commuting and you have the imputed costs of an extra two hours a day, at least,

travelling. If you allowed, say, an hour to get from home to Coventry or an hour to get

from home to Victoria Street, that doubles the time. Take £20 an hour – I am not

terribly interested in what you are paid but that roughly comes to £75,000. So, if

someone has to pay £75,000 over three and a half years, or it may be five years, that is

heavy. It is a hardship and it is exceptional. It is a hardship. If the letter said, ‘By the

way, if your job, which is less than a year at the moment, turns into a permanent job,

please reapply because that then would overcome this criterion on which you are

disqualified’, I think that would be a good thing. We haven’t seen the whole letter and it

is in the past so it does not matter too much. I believe that it would have been better to

have been explicit saying, ‘If during the next year your job turns into one without a

limit, please reapply because then you might qualify’. I think what has clearly happened

is exceptional in terms of the hardship, in terms of cost to family life of either four days

a week or an extra two hours a day lost in terms of travelling.

80. Having said that, I want to ask one other question. We are presuming that this

project goes ahead and we will accept, say 12 months of serious activity going on

around and that the noise levels afterwards are not going to be exceptional. It may be

that the household will say, ‘Look, we’ve got through the first three and a half years.

What we need now is to have the option of a choice rather than actually having to make

a decision.’ If the new scheme comes in of the need to sell and they apply for it and get

approved, can they defer taking that up for a period?

81. MR MOULD QC (DfT): They can. That is the arrangement. You mentioned

yesterday that you are meeting in a private session with officials tomorrow and it may

be that you will seek confirmation of that tomorrow.

17

82. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Because it seems to me that the past is the past but

they have suffered.

83. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes.

84. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: We can’t do anything about that, and most

reasonable people would accept the point you make that the reason for them asking for

the exceptional hardship approval was to do with the job linked to the fact that the

railway was there but the job was the main reason for applying.

85. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes.

86. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: So, if we accept your point that the additional costs

aren’t going to be met, I think that the key point is the top line of their page 10, 60.10,

which is ‘Restoration of a choice’. If it turns out that this new scheme comes in and

they apply and are approved that then gives them a choice and I think then it is not

perfect but it is a great deal further forward, in my view, than this present situation.

87. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I am very grateful for that. I do not want to prolong

matters but just two short points. On that last point because they fall within the VPZ, as

things stand they actually have a choice. The choice is available to them for as long as

the voluntary purchase scheme remains in operation and, as you know, it is proposed to

remain in operation until a year after opening. So they are, in that sense, in a better

position than someone who receives a favourable decision under the need to sell because

unless and until they decide to move they always have that option under the VPZ to

move at the unblighted value.

88. The second point is this. You raise the point and I understand entirely why you

do, that when they received that letter it would have been helpful to them to know that if

the employment circumstances became more permanent, they could reapply, but in fact

it was made very clear in the EHS guidance that the fact that an application on current

circumstances has not been accepted was no bar to reapplying if circumstances change.

So, I do not know whether that was spelt out specifically in the body of the letter but it

was certainly a feature of the scheme that it was not a once and for all process. You

could reapply on the basis that your circumstances had changed. I do not know whether

the decision was made not to reapply by these applicants.

18

89. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: That is again going into the past.

90. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes.

91. CHAIR: I think that the point is that you can have an independent panel but

unless the guidance is right all they can do is to interpret the guidance, which is why the

new scheme is important. The second point is that I think Sir Peter makes a very good

point that when people are getting a response, if it is negative I do not think it is

unreasonable that they should be signposted as to how they might get a positive

response if something within their application changed, otherwise all that will happen is

that people will go away disappointed not realising that, say, if employment status or

something else changes then actually the door opens. I think that the point of these

schemes has to be to help people, not to slam doors.

92. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Nobody reasonably could quarrel with that and we learn

as we go along. I cannot tell you whether there was something said in the letter. There

was one point you made just at the start of that. It will come back to me.

93. CHAIR: The guidance.

94. MR MOULD QC (DfT): The guidance, yes. The guidance was, of course, itself

the subject of consultation. There was a consultation on the criteria which should

inform the exceptional hardship policy way back in 2010, I think, before that policy so

whatever view you take about the appropriateness of those criteria, people were given

an opportunity to comment on them before they were locked down.

95. CHAIR: Sometimes consultation is not all it is cracked up to be.

96. MR MOULD QC (DfT): As a public lawyer, I couldn’t possibly quarrel with that.

97. CHAIR: No. I am sorry, Mr Aizlewood, you want to raise another point?

98. MR AIZLEWOOD: Yes, could I come back on just two or three of those points?

99. CHAIR: Yes, certainly.

100. MR AIZLEWOOD: On the exceptional hardship scheme, that was then and this is

now. There are criteria published and they are very good and one of them is about what

19

distinguishes exceptional as opposed to any other form of hardship, and there are no

criteria that describe that. So, yes, we could have reapplied and gone through the same

three or four month process and come up with a slightly different answer reappraising

what somebody thought was deemed exceptional. So, that was essentially part of our

concern about the need to sell scheme because it does sound remarkably like the

exceptional hardship scheme under a different banner. So, we would not want a

position where if we exercised a choice to take a cash offer, our circumstances change

and we then put ourselves back into the exceptional hardship scheme position.

101. The other thing that needs to be said and was not said earlier is that my

understanding under the need to sell scheme is that you would not get full market value

for your house because your circumstances would, by definition, be about needing to

sell. Therefore people who need to sell in the market usually accept lower than the

market value for their house because they need to sell. In that situation we would end

up losing money on that, so we would not get the full market value.

102. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: We have heard Mr Mould say to us, ‘unblighted

value’, which I reckon is willing buyer, willing seller rather than a distressed sale, so our

expectation would be that that is an interesting point to have raised; I hope it is not a

relevant one.

103. MR AIZLEWOOD: It may turn out not to be relevant but my understanding was

that that was the position on which it was consulted.

104. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: It is most certainly as you put it.

105. MR AIZLEWOOD: Yes.

106. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: You had a point about noise, I think, as well.

107. MR AIZLEWOOD: Yes, there is a point about the noise. I understand the

relevance of having an average noise level if we are talking about a road, if somebody is

building a motorway next to us or something, so you would have a continual roar of

traffic. I also understand that with the train going through a tunnel where it actually

goes into the tunnel it is not going to be very noisy, we hope. There may be some

vibration, we don’t know, but it shouldn’t be noisy, but a large train entering and exiting

20

a tunnel is likely to cause noise and that is intermittent. It will happen for a few

seconds. There will be a noise and then it will be quiet and to just work out an average

noise level based on possibly two or three minutes of loud noise within an hour is a

nonsense. That is not a relevant statistic. That is important. So, to say that the average

noise level moves by a couple of decibels really does not address the issue. Thank you.

108. CHAIR: Okay. Any brief final comments?

109. MR AIZLEWOOD: I think we have had our say. Thank you very much.

110. CHAIR: Thank you very much indeed. Now we move to Mr Anthony Cotterill.

Mr Anthony Cotterill

111. CHAIR: Good morning.

112. MR COTTERILL: Good morning. First of all I would like to say thank you very

much indeed for inviting me here today to be able to put my points, and a further thank

you for actually taking the time and trouble to visit us in Burton Green. We have not

had many visits of very important people so to see you there was very nice indeed, so

thank you.

113. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Thank you. Mr Cotterill lives at Westwood in Red Lane

in Burton Green. We have an outline of his property on the aerial photograph. As you

can see, he is to the west of the railway line, some 240 metres from the centre line of the

railway. There are just two things that I would actually remind you of from yesterday,

that under the revised construction arrangements that have been promoted as AP2, Red

Lane is not to be used as a construction route for heavy vehicles, and the material

stockpile that was proposed under the Bill scheme to be located to the east of his

property on the agricultural field that you see just beyond the tree line on the aerial

photograph has now been shifted to the eastern side of the railway line so that it would

be located beyond the trace some 300 metres or so distant from Mr Cotterill’s property.

I think those are the two most relevant changes so far as he is concerned.

114. CHAIR: Mr Cotterill?

115. MR COTTERILL: Thank you very much indeed. I am 74 years of age. I have

21

lived in Burton Green for 41 years so you can say I am an elder resident, if you like, in

Burton Green. I have enjoyed living there and I certainly have had peace and

tranquillity during the time that I have actually lived in Westwood, Red Lane. Both my

daughters were born there and my wife died there some 20 years ago so from an

emotional point of view I don’t really want to leave but I am aware that there are going

to be some marked differences as far as I am concerned once this construction work

begins. There will be extra traffic on Red Lane. Red Lane is already a very busy road,

certainly in the morning between seven and nine o’clock. A lot of commuters use that

road and, of course, even saying there will be no construction traffic going up and down,

and I doubt that frankly, there will be construction traffic at the top of the lane and that

will cause a backlog of traffic all the way down Red Lane anyway. So, there is going to

be construction work.

116. Also, there will be construction work to the rear. I am pleased to hear from

Mr Mould today about the stockpile that was originally going to be at the back of my

property. I would like to say too that I am not 240 metres away from the railway; it is

about 110 metres from the bottom of my garden. My garden goes straight on to the

Greenway and there is work going to take place within 15 metres of my back garden,

my very quiet orchard.

117. MR BELLINGHAM: Can we just get back to the picture of your house?

118. MR MOULD QC (DfT): It is the Greenway to Burton.

119. MR COTTERILL: It actually touches the Greenway. My garden goes right the

way down. My back gate goes on to the Greenway and then 15 metres the other side

where the trees are there. That is where the construction works are going to take place.

120. MR BELLINGHAM: Right.

121. CHAIR: Carry on,

122. MR COTTERILL: Thank you. So, my cause for petition is that I have a personal

residential blight at the moment, which I shall demonstrate to you later. Also, because

of the construction work that is taking place, there is a local community blight, i.e. the

moving of the village hall, which you visited, and the other construction works that are

22

going to go on. Can we have a look at A6543 please? As far as I am concerned, the

increased traffic will put a stress on a known accident black spot immediately in front of

my property and also on my personal journeys from home. In fact I conducted a straw

poll last week and 80% of my journeys turn right, which means up towards the

construction area, and 20% turn down. So, as far as I am concerned, my journeys will

be detrimentally impacted during the duration of the construction. I am pleased to hear

that the proposed material stockpile approximately 15 metres from the rear of my

property is now going to be removed but, of course, they are replacing that with

balancing ponds and landscape works, which still means that quite a lot of construction

work will be going on. In fact, you have been down the Greenway and you know how

quiet it is. When you walk down there, other than birdsong, you can hear your hair

grow, so it is very, very quiet indeed. I will come on to HS2’s noise limits a little later.

123. Can we now move on to the next one? This is where I live. I have actually taken

photographs of Red Lane where I live. You can see on the right-hand side that is the

road that is coming down. You can see what a bad bend it is. My bank is right next to

the road and I have had as many as three or four accidents a week when it is frosty. The

most recent one that I had was a 40 tonne load of manure deposited on my lawn.

Somebody came down there a bit quick, so it is a busy road and despite the fact that the

route is going to be taken at the top of the road now, there will still be an increase in

traffic. Concrete will be delivered, sand will be delivered and all the other things that go

on with a construction project. I know this because I have spent 60 or 70 years in the

construction industry anyway so I am well aware of the situation. So, I am indicating

there where it is. Where the brown is on that one, particularly, they have now put

balancing ponds in. In fact, if you look at the top photograph on the right-hand side,

that is the field at the back of me as it is at the moment and that is where there will be

some landscaping and balancing ponds. Despite what our friend Mr Mould may say,

there will be considerable noise once that is going on. If you see the photograph on the

left-hand side, the photograph taken from the rear of my property, that is the Greenway

and those are the trees there. So, that is what I am saying.

124. The promoter’s response to my comments has been that they have relied on the

Construction Code of Practice. I am delighted to hear that but I know that although we

try to work to those, you don’t necessarily find that the lad who is actually doing the job

23

knows anything about construction codes of practice, and it is invariably exceeded. The

other point of course is that it has no teeth either, so although it is a code of practice, it

does not necessarily mean that they will stick to it. So, I am going to say that at the

front and back of my property I shall be materially affected by noise from the

construction works and noise at the front by the extra traffic that undoubtedly will be

using that road.

125. The whole of Burton Green, as the previous petitioner said in front of you, has

been blighted since it was first announced, and naturally so. People are concerned.

What you don’t know about, you are very worried about, so what it means is that as far

as we are concerned, we have been in a difficult situation. I have not tried to sell my

house and I do not really want to sell it but the situation may be, as I said, that in the

future it may be necessary for me to sell.

126. Can we move to slide number 5, please? I had an independent valuation done just

last week by a guy who is a chartered surveyor. He is well known to HS2. He knows

the area and he knows the property that is in the area, etc., and he tells me that my

property will be 20% from what it should be because of the blight situation. Now, 20%

in real terms means that my house value, if it was not blighted today, would be worth

nearly £700,000. In fact, if I tried to sell it today I would be very lucky to get £550,000

for it, which is an enormous amount of money to have lost. I think that providing

compensation for people as and when they want to sell – I should be in a situation from

the Government for them to reimburse me for that loss which is through no fault of

mine. If you are going to build a railway which is going to cost nearly £50 billion on

current estimates, surely you can spend money on compensating the people that are

being affected by it and if you can’t then you shouldn’t build it, in my opinion, but there

we are. So, that shows what it is.

127. Can we move on now to the next one, which is the local community? I am very

much involved in the local community. There are lots of things taking place, as far as

we are concerned. The village hall has to be demolished. The access to the Greenway

is dramatically limited during the construction period of four to five years and also the

impairment of the value of the Greenway as a key pedestrian route and a cycle route.

That is going to be taken away from us and is something that we enjoy immensely, as

you saw when you made the visit. The promoter’s response acknowledges the impact

24

but the recommendations do little to mitigate concerns. What he is doing is he has said,

‘Well, we are going to divert the path. There is going to be some disruption’. The fact

that they are going to be building a 300 to 400 miles per hour railway line right next to it

I can tell you means that there is going to be some disruption there and it will affect all

the people who live in Burton Green.

128. Could we move on to the next slide, please? What I am saying for your

consideration, gentlemen, is that there is personal residential blight. The compensation

boundaries really ought to be drawn from the edge of the construction zone and not the

centre of the line where construction is taking place outside and either side of the line, in

some places more than others. By doing that if you are affected this will be a fair way

of doing it. Also, as to the local community blight, in my opinion, I would like to

commission the Committee to consider a deep bore tunnel, which I am sure you have

heard many times before, through Burton Green, which will minimise the impact on the

village. We already have 16 empty houses at the moment. There are more which will

be empty. The whole scheme is going to chop out the heart of the village and it will be

very difficult over the next 10 years. I certainly won’t be about then. I’ll be pushing up

the daisies somewhere but Burton Green should continue. Gentlemen, thank you for

your time.

129. CHAIR: Thank you very much for your presentation. Mr Mould?

130. MR MOULD QC (DfT): On traffic, our revised proposals, as you know from

yesterday, take construction traffic off Red Lane, Hob Lane and Cromwell Lane.

131. CHAIR: So, does that mean that occasionally there may be vans with construction

workers going to a site but not heavy goods vehicles?

132. MR MOULD QC (DfT): That is right. As to noise, can we put up 2514, please.

The construction noise assessment is in the middle of the table, as the Committee

knows. You can see that based on a current assessment for this property of a daytime

noise level of just 57, the prediction is that construction noise would be between 57 and

66 dBA. That is for a relatively short duration. The peak noise impact duration, which

you can see further along the page, is one to two months. So, outside that period, whilst

there clearly will be construction noise, which will be noticeable by the petitioner, it will

be of a lesser level than is shown there. I can show you a principal reason why that is by

25

going to P2171. Under the revised construction arrangements, if we can just find our

way to Red Lane and move eastwards, you can see that beyond the notation,

‘Kenilworth Greenway’ there is a bund shown. So, if you just move the cursor an inch

to the right and down a bit, that is a bund that will be constructed during the

construction phase in order to shield properties on Red Lane from the noise of

earthworks to construct the false cutting that you can see is proposed just to the east of

that. So, that is part of the mitigation that will be proposed.

133. CHAIR: Mr Cotterill mentioned balancing ponds.

134. MR MOULD QC (DfT): There is not a proposal for balancing ponds in the

immediate vicinity of this property but there is a balancing pond proposed to the south.

If we can move the cursor about an inch, it is just in that location. It is shown on the

operational plan at 2184.

135. CHAIR: So, building the bund will clearly be noisy?

136. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes.

137. CHAIR: And there will be some noise from the railway and the balancing pond

down the road.

138. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes. We can see that. Of course, the only noise that is

likely to be associated with the balancing ponds during operation would be the

occasional vehicle that needs to access them, which would use the roadways that are

shown coming in from the east, but the ponds themselves, of course, do not produce any

appreciative noise.

139. CHAIR: But they would have to be dug out though?

140. MR MOULD QC (DfT): They have to be dug out, yes, but as you can see the

bund is there to help to shield that. My understanding is – if I’ve got this wrong I will

let you know – that the peak noise that I showed you a few minutes ago is largely

associated with the construction of that bund. So, in order to create a noise bund we

have to make some noise but the idea is that that will then help to shield the noise from

the earthworks that are required to construct the railway line.

26

141. CHAIR: Do we have any idea how high the bund is?

142. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I do not. I will find that out for you.

143. CHAIR: Okay.

144. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Then finally on compensation, this gentleman would not

fall within the rural support zone, so if he wished to make application, it would be under

the need to sell scheme. Under the current proposed arrangements he would be eligible

for a homeowner payment of £22,000 but, as you know, that is subject to the final

publication of the policy.

145. CHAIR: Okay, all right.

146. MR COTTERILL: Can I just go back? I don’t know what number this is in your

presentation.

147. MR MOULD QC (DfT): 2509.

148. MR COTTERILL: 2509. As you can see from this, there is my property. There

are two small balancing ponds immediately at the rear and a large balancing pond to the

right, which is what I said, not what you said, Mr Mould. Those will have to be

constructed and then be fed and they will be checked and everything else. At one stage

you had a road going down there. You have now taken that out, but I still say that

whilst all that construction work is going on, it is going to impact on my property, which

is silent at the moment.

149. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I am not quarrelling with that proposition.

150. MR COTTERILL: And I also do not agree with your figures either because I

think that they are a little disingenuous inasmuch as you have gone on averages.

Nobody works on averages. There will be construction work going on in there. There

will be diggers, excavators and everything else, which will seriously affect my

enjoyment of that garden.

151. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I will say this once and then I do not have to say it 12

times. As the Committee knows, the way in which Mr Thornely-Taylor has presented

the noise assessment is consistent with well-established practice. Petitioners might say

27

that no one works on averages. Noise assessments work on the basis of the indices and

the predictions that the Committee has been provided with. That is the way in which it

is done.

152. MR COTTERILL: Well, it might be but in practice it doesn’t mean that I shan’t

be receiving noise in my back garden, which at the moment is completely quiet.

153. MR MOULD QC (DfT): As I said, I agree. You will be affected by noise during

construction.

154. CHAIR: Any final comments?

155. MR COTTERILL: I would just like to say thank you very much indeed for

hearing my petition.

156. CHAIR: That is all right. Safe journey back.

157. MR COTTERILL: Thanks very much indeed.

158. CHAIR: What did you do in the building industry? Were you a builder at some

point?

159. MR COTTERILL: I had my own construction company and was a property

developer.

160. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: You’ve kept your hearing.

161. MR COTTERILL: Well, I did spend a long time in construction and, as I say, I

had my own business and I am retired now and I miss it.

162. CHAIR: Yes.

163. MR COTTERILL: And I am going to be looking at this for some time yet.

164. CHAIR: It would appear.

165. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Keep your professional eye in as well.

166. MR COTTERILL: That’s right. Thank you very much indeed.

28

167. CHAIR: Thank you, Mr Cotterill. Now, Ruth Jackson.

Ruth Jackson

168. MS JACKSON: Good morning.

169. CHAIR: Hello.

170. MS JACKSON: First of all, I do apologise, because you can probably tell, I’ve

almost lost my voice, so I hope everyone can hear me and if it comes and goes, please, I

have to apologise now, it’s a bit of a struggle to talk.

171. CHAIR: Mr Mould, are you going to show us where that – I presume you have a

house in the area?

172. MS JACKSON: I do, yes, so hopefully, it’s coming up now.

173. CHAIR: So should we put up a plan?

174. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes it’s actually on the screen, P2373. I think I’m’ right

in saying your property’s called Stonegate?

175. MS JACKSON: It is, yes.

176. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Stonegate, Red Lane. As you can see, it’s on the eastern

side of Red Lane and it’s about 193 metres from the railway, though I accept that the

works will be taking place closer. It also bands – is bounded on its long south western

boundary by the area that you heard yesterday is now our proposed site for relocating

the village hall. And I believe…

177. MR BELLINGHAM: So where’s that?

178. MR MOULD QC (DfT): That’s the area that is sort of shaded.

179. MR BELLINGHAM: It’s the shaded area?

29

180. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes.

181. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Right.

182. MR MOULD QC (DfT): And there is also, I understand, a public right of way

that runs immediately alongside the south western boundary of the property. Thank

you.

183. CHAIR: Right.

184. MS JACKSON: Well, my name’s Ruth Jackson and I live at the property with my

husband Darren. I’ve personally lived there for 27 years and it is our home and I want

to use the word ‘home’ and not keep using the word ‘property’, because it’s more than a

property, and it’s also our major asset. I was made redundant back in 2009, I had a very

well paid, high pensioned, job, as a human resources director. I’m still employed in that

profession, but I took an option to downsize at that time, and take a lower paid job,

lower pension, such that we decided that when the time came to retire, that we’d have

our assets in the house and that was a conscious choice, and that decision was made

before I knew about HS2.

185. Within my submission, I’d like to just – if you could bring up slides 3-6 please,

because I just want to show you what the views from our property are. There’s a

selection of photos. So I just want to show you – this is a view from one of our

windows, I think it’s our dining room, facing across the field. If you could go to the

next one please? That’s one from one of our bedrooms; they all face onto the rear. Next

one, please. That’s from the kitchen window and the patio, and the final one? That’s

just looking to the rear of our garden.

186. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: We’ve all got green eyes.

187. MS JACKSON: Yes. I just wanted to show that because I think it’s quite

important to see where we live and the rural location that we’re in. I specifically bought

the property at the time, and I shall read from the householder’s particulars at the time,

30

but the impressive feature was that it had panoramic views over open farmland and was

a peaceful location, and that’s what we bought into at the time, and I resent the fact that

that’s no longer going to be the case.

188. Since we’ve been there, we have – we have considerably extended the property

and improved the grounds, so we’ve spent a lot of money on the property. It’s very

difficult to put a pre-blight value, but we reckon it’s between about £600,000 £650,000

at the moment, it’s difficult to say, but clearly at the moment, it’s worth nothing, I

suspect.

189. We own the house outright and as I said before, it’s part of pension plan and that’s

a simple fact really. What we’ve now lost obviously, is not only we’ve lost our pension

plan, but we’ve actually lost any right of choice. We keep talking in this room about the

need to sell, but actually, it’s more important than that, that it’s the human right of

having a choice, and at the moment, we have no choice. We’re stuck in this property

and we can’t do anything. It’s not a question of whether want to retire or death of a

partner, or change of a job, it’s being able to move at the time that we want because we

want to move somewhere and that has now been taken away from us.

190. I do actually feel it’s abuse of human rights, because part of the Human Rights Act

article 8, protocol 1, article 1, actually does give the right to peaceful enjoyment of the

property, and that clearly is going to be taken away from us.

191. In my mind, there is some confusion at the moment about which proposal we’re

talking about because obviously, I was looking at the AP1 proposal, which is more

radical, but it came very close to Christmas to me, that we’re now looking at AP2.

Perhaps HS2 could clarify to me at the moment which proposal we are actually talking

about and whether they are just proposals, because at the moment, I am confused as to

what I’m actually arguing about.

192. MR MOULD QC (DfT): We are proposing AP2. The reason why that is a

proposal is that it requires changes to the Bill that is before Parliament which will need

to be brought forward in the form of an additional provision, but our intention is to bring

those forward in the course of the sittings of this Committee.

31

193. CHAIR: And you’re going to petition against that, if you don’t like that, so you’ll

have another opportunity.

194. MS JACKSON: Yes, so as of today, I’m unclear as to what I’m petitioning

against.

195. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Although the form is petitioning against, say what

you want.

196. MS JACKSON: I was going to anyway.

197. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: And that –

198. MS JACKSON: Have no doubt about that. Well, if I could just talk about the

AP1 proposal then, because I didn’t want to get shot down in flames saying, ‘Well, it’s

now going to be AP2’. But if we could look at the slide that shows the construction

phase of AP1 please. It may be better if I could actually see the promoter’s slide of that

because I’m not sure that that’s particularly clear to the –

199. Okay. I’m not sure how clearly you can actually see our property there, but if you

can see Red Lane on there, and then you can see the Burton Green tunnel south portal

satellite compound? That’s in that rather beautiful field that I just showed you some

pictures of.

200. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Your property is just to the north of that?

201. MS JACKSON: Yes. But I mean, it’s quite difficult to get the scale of things, but

to be honest with you, that field’s probably not quite as big as it may look on this

particular map. I think we all know that if we have a compound there, it’s not going to

stay within the bounds of that little orange blob, it’s going to affect the field, let’s be

honest. There’s going to be exits in and out…

202. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I think the answer to your previous question, don’t

32

spend too much time on AP1 because that is going to be washed away, so – I think you

illustrated quite well – if you look at P2372, I think it gives us – 2372 – and that again

shows us where AP1 was to have been, but won’t be.

203. MS JACKSON: Yeah. Well, we probably could do with actually seeing AP2

please if you’ve got it please.

204. MR MOULD QC (DfT): 2171.

205. MS JACKSON: Okay. So, I mean that shows a clear field, although there is

intention to put the village hall there.

206. CHAIR: We understand it’s a little bit up in the air, but that may change.

207. MS JACKSON: Yes. I mean, I’m very supportive of the village hall, we’re a

very active part of the community and I use the village hall, but I didn’t buy a property

to be next to the village hall, to be quite honest. I was also quite concerned that it was

more put towards our property as opposed to the other side of the field which has

recently only had some mobile homes put there and I feel that I’ve been there 27 years

and I don’t see why it should not be closer to something that’s only been there since the

summer.

208. But, as you can see, even if we go with the AP2 proposal we are still majorly

affected by the railway line that sits behind us, because the entrance to the tunnel

probably runs directly behind our property, therefore, I don’t wish to get into debate

about decibel limits, because I think that it’s still quite arbitrary and no-one really

knows, but clearly, it is going to have an impact on us, long term. Also, there will be

construction, even if it’s not actually in the field, that’s going to affect us.

209. We would add that also talking about the noise, that it’s an unknown quantity, but

all I can say is that when we’ve had some work done on the other side of this field in the

summer, it was very noisy. We noticed it; it ruined the peace of our property. So,

actually, I think it doesn’t really matter what the decibel level are, I think we have to

accept that they’re going to be higher than we currently enjoy. We can sit in our back

33

garden and all we will hear is the birds. Okay, there’s a bit of traffic but because that’s

at the front of the house, you don’t hear that, but we will just hear the birds and the

quiet. Whatever happens, it’s going to be noisier than that; therefore, there is an impact

on our existing property.

210. I don’t actually see how we’re ever going to adequately sit in our back garden, or

have our bedroom windows open in the future because the noise levels will be higher

than we’re currently used to. If you’re used to living next to a railway line, you’re

probably used to sleeping through it. If you’re not, then it’s a major consideration.

211. I mentioned before about the fact that you’ve taken away our right of choice away,

that is probably our main concern. We feel at the moment, there’s no value in our

property and we feel that we want to get out of this nightmare because we’ve lived with

the stress for long, and I can’t reinforce to you, how stressful this has been on the effect

of ourselves personally, not knowing what our future’s going to be, how it’s going to be

when the HS2 is finally running. I’m going to be in my late sixties by then, I would

have hoped to made my retirement plans, provisions, as my husband will have done, but

at the moment, we’re stuck, so whichever proposal we go to, the end result will be that

not till 2026/27 will we know the true impact of HS2, and by that time, it becomes too

late to us. Hopefully, we won’t be pushing up the daisies, but we certainly will be well

into wanting to enjoy a peaceful retirement. That’s all I want to say on the matter.

Thank you for listening.

212. CHAIR: Would you like to add anything, Mr Jackson?

213. MR JACKSON: Just what my wife’s basically said. We’ve got peaceful and

tranquillity right now, the views say what – as you see, and it’s just going to be

destroyed and we’re a prisoner in our own homes at the moment, we don’t know what to

do, so – that’s really what I want to say, thank you.

214. CHAIR: Mr Mould? Clearly AP2 is better than AP1 for the Jacksons.

215. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes, I wasn’t going to take time on AP1, if you’ll

forgive me on that basis. What I wanted to show you was the P2192. I’m not sure if

34

you did see this yesterday, so it might be helpful. This is one of the standard exhibits.

The purpose of showing you this is, as you see from the title, it is intended to show the

enhancement that comes on the permanent scheme from the AP2 proposal, and in

particular, if you can see the village hall proposal there, and you can see the petitioners’

property just to the north. The intention is that Mr and Mrs Jackson, and others who live

in this part of the village, along Red Lane, should see some improved – an improved

noise environment as result of extending the tunnel southwards by some 50 metres and

by lowering the alignment of the railway by two metres at this point.

216. We are also able to, through modifying the design, to improve the embankment

over which the greenway is to be reinstated, and the overall effect of that, is that the

predicted noise levels from the permanent operation of the railway, whereas before, we

were predicting that noise levels would increase by up to five decibels during the day

and three decibels during the night, that those are now reduced to two decibels during

the daytime and one decibel during night time.

217. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Just noticeable.

218. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Just noticeable, but significantly less than under the Bill

scheme itself. There will, as you see, there is proposed to be, not only the earthwork

arrangement, but also landscape planting to the west of the railway line both on the

immediate and false cutting and embankments, but also within the area surrounding the

proposed village hall site, and that is intended to provide visual screening to residents,

including Mr and Mrs Jackson during operation. The detailed arrangements for the

location of the village hall, if this is indeed the site to which it is relocated, that’s

obviously a matter that will be resolved when the final design is addressed.

219. But there is one matter that does provide a bit of a constraint and that is that there

is a fuel pipeline that runs beneath that field and that needs to be relocated as part of the

railway development in any event, but if the village hall is located in this field, then

obviously, its location and the diversion of the fuel pipeline need to be dealt with so that

the arrangements are sensible, in both respects.

220. MS JACKSON: Can I interject there? I was wondering when the fuel line was

35

going to get mentioned. That fuel pipeline literally is metres from our house. Our

property is built about three metres above the field, so actually visual screening is a

nonsense because unless you were actually to put a tower block there, you would never

visually screen. I’m very concerned about the fuel pipeline because it’s so close to our

house and the way that our garden is constructed, there’s lots of railway sleepers to hold

it in. I can’t imagine what it’s going to do to the foundations of the house and the

property as far as that’s concerned. And the noise of that, which is potentially, I think

about 11 months.

221. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I think we can anticipate any work on the pipeline

would have to have the effect of a party wall agreement, where we’ll have to guarantee

that they don’t do anything to reduce the stability of your home or garden.

222. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes.

223. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Present law requires them to give you that assurance

and have an independent surveyor make sure that it happens. So that’s one of the few

things I wouldn’t worry about too much.

224. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Whether it’s a party wall agreement or whether it’s –

225. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Well, it’s equivalent.

226. MR MOULD QC (DfT): But you’re absolutely right. And in fact, I would expect

that the diversion of that pipeline would actually improve the position so far as the

petitioners’ are concerned.

227. MS JACKSON: You’ve still got the work to take place though, haven’t you?

228. MR MOULD QC (DfT): You can’t secure the improvement without doing the

work, that’s for sure. Just on the question of visual impact, I take the point about the

topography, but if you just look at P2187, where we just – it’s a trip down memory lane

for the Committee, but I think you were shown these sections yesterday. The relevant

section is section 5, which broadly corresponds to the Jackson’s property, and you can

36

see, as Mrs Jackson very rightly said, that her property, and the properties on Red Lane

are at a higher level than the – the ground slopes away towards the railway line, but you

can still see that there is an opportunity there to provide screening and the combination

of false cuttings and the embankments that the railway going into the tunnel at this

point, and the opportunity to plant trees which will obviously grow and improve the

screening as the years go by, there is an opportunity there to provide some screening. I

suggest that it will be reasonably effective, but that’s a matter for judgement, clearly.

229. CHAIR: Okay, thank you. Any further comments, brief, final comments, Mrs

Jackson?

230. MS JACKSON: I do find it concerning that I’m sat here today and we are talking

about two proposals that bother me and that I’m not really sure where this is going.

231. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: It’s better than only having one.

232. MS JACKSON: Well, yes, but it does make it quite difficult as a petitioner, and

you know, we’re not experts, I’m not a building expert and I have no knowledge of this

kind of situation, I’ve never been to the Houses of Parliament before, so it does make it

quite difficult and I just want to say that it’s just added to the overall stress of the whole

process and I think it’s a very sad day for us this is actually happening as far as Burton

Green’s concerned, as far as ourselves, but thank you for listening to us.

233. CHAIR: We deal with the process of change as we go along, and additional

provisions happen, and from what we can see, the additional provision is an

improvement, I’m sure the improvement you want is not to have the railway, but clearly,

if you’re move construction sites and traffics, and things the other side of the line, that

should make things easier for you, but we still understand…

234. MS JACKSON: I mean, I’m not saying it’s not a betterment of the situation, but

it’s just that it’s the timing and sitting around Christmas, and being advised of these

things at late point is actually quite difficult within the process.

235. CHAIR: Do we know when the additional provision two in this area – is it after

37

the General Election?

236. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes.

237. CHAIR: And as I said earlier, the opportunity to petition if there are aspects of

that that you do not like, and then it will – may come back to us and form part of the

Bill.

238. MS JACKSON: So we’ll see you in the summer then.

239. CHAIR: There are number of people who will be coming back and back and

back.

240. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Can I trouble you with one point? I do apologise. I’m

always being – probably from behind to tell me that I haven’t quite got something right.

I’m told with the pipeline, it may not – we’re not absolutely convinced it will be

necessary to remove the existing, but I don’t think that affects your point, Sir Peter.

Whether we cap it off, or whether we move it, we will still clearly have to make sure we

take all reasonable steps to protect neighbouring property.

241. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: And you will take reasonable steps, you don’t affect

the neighbouring properties, is what I –

242. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes, because if we do, we have to pay for it, yes.

243. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: The way I see it, is that’s your petition, and coming

here has helped, it helps to reinforce the sense that AP2 matters, which makes things

less worse; it doesn’t make them perfect, it makes them less worse. And I think that

you, together with your fellow residents in the village, have actually put these forward

in way which has been proper and effective.

244. MS JACKSON: Thank you.

245. CHAIR: Thank you very much Mr and Mrs Jackson, safe journey back. We now

38

move on to Sandra and David Perkins. Good morning, Mr Perkins, you’re on your own

today, are you?

Mr and Mrs Perkins

246. MR PERKINS: I am on my own, some people have to work.

247. CHAIR: Right, we’ve got up on the screen where you live.

248. MR MOULD QC (DfT): That’s right, 2384. Mr and Mrs Perkins are the owners

of two properties in Red Lane. One is number 1, The Hollies, and the second is Ash

Horn. I think I’m right in saying that Ash Horn is the property that fronts onto Red

Lane.

249. MR PERKINS: They both front onto it.

250. MR MOULD QC (DfT): They both front onto it. The –

251. MR PERKINS: That isn’t actually where I live, but close enough.

252. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Right.

253. MR PERKINS: I’m next door; I’m in a semi-detached cottage. When you visit it,

you actually park outside and – if you remember.

254. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I am right, there are two properties, aren’t there?

255. MR PERKINS: There’s two properties.

256. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes. Good, well I won’t – I won’t get things even

further wrong than that. I’ll handover to you.

257. CHAIR: Okay. Carry on, Mr Perkins.

39

258. MR PERKINS: Right. My wife and myself moved to The Hollies, which is the

cottage, the semi-detached cottage, over 30 years ago. I’m now 64, in a couple of days’

time, and obviously, we’re looking to retire now.

259. Twenty years ago, I built a home for my parents next door to me on part of my

garden, and when my mother died, we intended to sell this property to finance an

extension to our house, which is 170 years old, in much need of repairs and

refurbishment. Then we were going to sell that property to fund a pension as neither my

wife nor myself have any form of pension. My wife has a state pension, I don’t. So we

were wanting to realise as much capital as possible, obviously. This was our pension

plan, basically. And also, our house is no longer suitable for us. The garden’s much too

long; it’s a rambling old place. And Burton Green has no facilities, with no doctors,

shops, one bus a week. We need to move. Also, my wife has health issues, so she does

regularly visit the doctor.

260. When my parents died – my mother was the last one to die, we took advice from

estate agents and spent an awful lot of our savings refurbishing it, because it was very

dated. I’m talking new bathrooms, kitchen, new flooring throughout, re-decoration

throughout. And at the same time, I’d obtained planning permission for The Hollies,

our semi-detached cottage, to extend it, with the view to maximising the value so that

we could sell and fund our pension.

261. Then we heard about the railway and I stopped, so we are in a situation where

we’re living in a half built extension and have done for four years now. We’re about 20

metres from the VPZ. We’re one of 14 properties on the south side of the railway, as I

call it. The properties north of us, up to and beyond the railway, all fall within the VPC.

And to my knowledge, there are only two couples that intend to stay when the

construction work starts, and I have asked. Add to this, the successful need to sell

applicants, and the families that can afford to take a hit on their properties that are going

to move, this could lead to over 60 abandoned or rented properties between separating

us from the rest of the village. We, as you see, we’re right on the edge of the village.

262. Now what I want out of this, I want to be included within the VPZ, so I can move

because the uncertainty and certainty with the need to sell and exceptional hardship just

40

doesn’t allow me to get on with the rest of my life.

263. I’ve looked at the maps of HS2 and they generally do a good job avoiding heavily

populated areas, until they got to Burton Green. Now, right through the middle of the

village, and this is a unique situation, it doesn’t happen anywhere else. And I think it

should be treated like that. HS2 feel we do not warrant a bored tunnel, but this is the

only option that will hold the community together. For that reason, I request that you

give the tunnel further consideration. Basically, everything else has been covered by

everybody else, so I don’t think I need to carry on, other than I endorse all the noise, the

– on the subject of average noises, I mean, where we are, as you can see, where it enters

the tunnel, we’re going to get a blast noise from that, that isn’t taken into consideration.

We’re going to get trains crossing in front of that; that isn’t taken into consideration.

It’s just – basically a nonsense, I mean I could fire a shotgun in my garden, take the

average over half an hour, and be quite a pleasing sound. Anyway, thank you for

listening to me.

264. CHAIR: Thank you. Mr Mould?

265. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Of course, on that last point, the Committee’s been told

that the noise assessment takes account of the affects of the operation of the railway,

including trains entering and leaving tunnels, and porous portal of course, are part of the

mitigation that is designed to address that. This is a property that would – or these are

properties that would experience the reduced change in operational noise that I

mentioned for Mr and Mrs Jackson who live three or four doors down, if I can put it that

way, further south down Red Lane. So, I don’t need to go over that again.

266. I explained yesterday by reading out to you a paragraph from the Secretary of

State’s policy document, the thinking behind the geographical boundary for the VPZ

and the unspecified areas beyond which would be subject to the need to sell. I don’t

want to go over that again, but Mr and Mrs Perkins may wish to consider applying,

under the need to sell policy, when it comes into operation. He mentioned that they are

particularly concerned to realise a capital receipt for the purposes of pension planning

and retirement, and I suggested yesterday that, for petitioners such as – I think it was Mr

Langton yesterday and Mr Perkins today, that may be way forward in the immediate

41

future, and then see whether the remedy that he seeks becomes available as a result of

that application.

267. CHAIR: Okay. Sir Peter?

268. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I don’t want to get too much into Mr Perkins’

circumstances and property owning in public, but if one takes – presumably, there are

two elements: one is, were I to have a property I’m partly developing, because it makes

it nicer to live in, and incidentally, will have a better sale value afterwards, I can put it in

terms of asking for advice, which you won’t give, but would I be best advised to

complete the work? And the second thing, is if I happened to own two properties,

because of family circumstances, under the need to sell, would get unblighted value for

both, or could I only get unblighted value for one, or is that an issue that is up in the air,

or is there some discretion that the promoters have to say, ‘In these circumstances, a

household may not want to leave one of their properties behind’?

269. MR MOULD QC (DfT): I don’t want to appear unhelpful, but I’m reluctant to go

too far down the road with those sorts of questions, I think they are much better

addressed, if I may say so, in the context of a specific application, because then we’ll

understand the full facts, and I was looking at some of the proprietary information that’s

available on properties in Red Lane publically yesterday, and it’s, as you would

imagine, it’s by no means straightforward, some of it. But what I would say is that, as

you anticipate, in your question, somebody like Mr Perkins would be very well advised

to obtain legal advice about issues such as, would it be best advised to complete his

development or not, and then to, in light of that, to consider, if he chooses to do so, to

consider how he should formulate an application under the need to sell policy.

270. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Can I then ask a sort of a different question, getting

at the same sort of point? Were I to own a home as non residential freeholder, is there

any provision at the moment for me to sell it?

271. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Under one of the policies? No, generally speaking you

need to be an owner occupier in order to come within the need to sell. There is an

arrangement which is in relation to reluctant landlords, if you recall, people who have

42

effectively, almost not through choice but because they have no other option, have

moved and let out their property. But generally speaking it follows, in that sense the

discretionary policies, in terms of qualifying applicants, they follow the arrangements

that apply under statute in relation to statutory blight.

272. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: And if we anticipate that a household like the

Perkins’s household, would want to at least explore, if not actually make an application

for need to sell, and if they had professional advisers, surveyor or lawyer, is there

someone within the promoter’s team who they can consult before putting in an

application to make sure they don’t make obvious mistakes in –?

273. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes. Within the promoter, there is a section that is

dedicated to administering these schemes and there will be officials who have that

responsibility, and certainly there will be – clearly guidance will be issued, but there

will be… And I would have thought that if – yes, that’s fine.

274. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I think we’re left with the impression that a

household like the Perkins could apply under need to sell when that scheme comes in,

for at least one of their properties, if not, what they own together. It may also be that

they might get approval for one, but not for the other and they might have to wait for the

other until the scheme’s settled down.

275. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes, that’s possible.

276. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: We don’t know –

277. MR MOULD QC (DfT): No.

278. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: But I think at least we can anticipate they can get

half way there?

279. MR PERKINS: I can’t do one without the other. I can’t finish The Hollies

without selling the other, and I can’t sell – I can’t do that, because I don’t know whether

I’d be able to sell The Hollies. I mean, we’re – I mean it’s proven we’re accepting 40%

43

off prices in our road.

280. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Well, one professional adviser in a letter to

somebody else said 20%, but let’s not argue that.

281. MR PERKINS: Yes, it’s between 25 and 40.

282. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I think that were I in your position, I’d try to get

someone with me, have discussions and then see what happens when the scheme comes

in. You’ve been put in a quandary and there must be…

283. MR PERKINS: Well, I would have retired four years ago if this hadn’t happened.

284. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: There must be at least worst way out, or way

forward, anyway. We hope there is.

285. CHAIR: Any final comments, Mr Perkins?

286. MR PERKINS: Not really, no.

287. CHAIR: We understand your situation.

288. MR PERKINS: Okay. Thank you.

289. CHAIR: Thank you very much.

290. MR PERKINS: Thank you.

291. CHAIR: Now we have James and sorry – we have, yes, James and Alison

Fielding. Good morning. I see you’ve been waiting patiently for your opportunity.

We’ve got where you live up – I presume that is where you live, on the –?

44

Mr and Mrs Fielding

292. MRS FIELDING: Yes, that’s us.

293. CHAIR: Okay. Would you like to kick off, Mrs Fielding?

294. MRS FIELDING: Thank you. Yesterday, the community from Burton Green

described the impact HS2 would have on our village. We would like to concentrate on

our particular situation and the compensation proposals. Slide 1 shows our property,

428 Cromwell Lane, edged red. We are 130 metres from the line, and 10 metres outside

the Voluntary Purchase Zone.

295. The second slide shows the Additional Provision one proposals. This incorporates

two satellite compounds and the HGV route coming up Hob Lane and going down Red

Lane. The affect of this original proposal is that we would be surrounded by constant

disruption during the construction phase.

296. The third slide shows the Additional Provision two proposals, which for us, alter

the situation considerably. The satellite compounds have been moved and access, which

was to be in the field alongside our house, has gone. We are relieved that under the

revised proposals, much of the disruption during the construction phase would be moved

away from our house, and we therefore hope that the Additional Provision two

proposals will be adopted, otherwise our concerns described in our original petition still

apply.

297. Although the AP2 proposals provide for less disruption, the HS2 project still has a

considerable negative impact on our property and they prevent us from being able to sell

our house at its unblighted value. We have lived at the property for 27 years, and been

retired for eight years. The HS2 construction period will take place at a time when we

may want to downsize to a smaller, more manageable property, which is nearer to shops

and amenities, particularly, if we were unable to drive. The disruption caused by HS2

will have a significantly detrimental effect on the value of our property. However, the

current compensation schemes which apply to us are inadequate and do not address the

problem of not being able to sell.

45

298. Under the home owner payment, we are within Zone one, so would only qualify

for a cash payment of £22,500. This is described in the property proposals of April

2014 as, ‘An amount enabling us to share in the benefits of HS2’. This home owner

payment would not match the loss in value of our property caused by HS2. Our

property comes under the need to sell scheme, but the scheme’s criteria of a pressing

need, and compelling reason to sell are unreasonable and lack clarity. It is uncertain if

an application to the need to sell scheme would be successful, and this again would

prevent us from being able to sell our property for its true value.

299. In conclusion, adequate proposals must be put in place to ensure that we are able

to sell our property at its full unblighted value at any time, and alternatively, we should

be brought within the provisions of the voluntary purchase zone, giving us certainty that

we will be able to achieve full unblighted value if, for any reason, we wanted to sell.

300. CHAIR: Thank you. Anything to add, Mr Fielding?

301. MR FIELDING: No. I hear what Mr Mould has to say with the progression of

AP2 proposal, but that proposal was only made known to us just before Christmas when

a lot of our paperwork had already been submitted, or written in preparation for today.

It’s good news, if it goes ahead, but it still leaves us in, as my wife said, in a blighted

area, which generally, Burton Green is blighted, full stop, whether you’re within

construction compound areas, or near to the railway.

302. CHAIR: Okay, thank you very much. Mr Mould?

303. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Again, I’ve explained the thinking behind the

geographical limit of the voluntary purchase zone and, as Mrs Fielding rightly said, as

things stand, when the package comes into operation, the element which would be most

directly relevant to their circumstances would be the need to sell scheme. The set of

circumstances that she envisaged, which was that as the years go by, they may wish to,

because of access to shops, being unable perhaps less – more reluctant to drive…

304. MRS FIELDING: There’s no way of getting…

46

305. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Those sound like the sort of circumstances that would,

certainly go some way towards supporting an application under the need to sell scheme,

so again, I make same the point, it would be, I thought have thought the sensible thing

might be to consider, at an appropriate time, making such an application, and taking it

through the process. And I again emphasise, that that scheme will remain open until a

year after coming into operation of the railway, and as Sir Peter reminded me this

morning, the arrangements are that people can make application; they don’t have to take

it up straight away. So, if a time comes when you can envisage in a year…

306. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: It gives a choice.

307. MR MOULD QC (DfT): It gives a choice, exactly. So that’s really my answer to

Mr and Mrs Fielding, on the part of the key point in their petition.

308. MRS FIELDING: Thank you.

309. CHAIR: Any final comments, Mrs Fielding?

310. MRS FIELDING: No, thank you.

311. CHAIR: Okay, thank you very much indeed. We have run out of petitioners,

although I understand some are arriving at the train station now?

312. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes.

313. CHAIR: I think therefore we will adjourn till two o’clock.

314. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Right.

315. CHAIR: But I would stress, in public now, that people should be here at 9.30, and

that if, in the future, we end up in the situation where we’re missing several petitioners,

and the Committee is ready to sit, they will not be heard, unless there are exceptional

family reasons. On this occasion we will sit at 14:00. Order, order.