Download High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill PDF

TitleHigh Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill
File Size985.3 KB
Total Pages132
Table of Contents
Introductory page
Chapter 1: Introduction
	The HS2 Phase One hybrid bill
		The House of Commons Select Committee
		Appointment of the House of Lords Select Committee
		A review of hybrid bill procedure
Chapter 2: The Select Committee in the House of Lords
	Who petitioned?
		The Role of the Select Committee
		Additional Provisions
		Working practices and programming
		Locus Standi (the right to be heard)
		Hearing petitions and approaches to decisions
		Directions given during proceedings
		This report
Chapter 3: Directions on specific petitions
		Edward McMahon (petition no. 008)
		Laurence, Matthew and Alison Reddy (petition no. 243)
		HW Taroni Metals Ltd (petition no. 594)
		Coleshill Estate (petition no. 523)
		Diddington Lane (Victoria Woodall and 50 others, petition no. 637)
		Burton Green Village Hall Trustees (petition no. 760)
		Andrew and Jennifer Jones (petition No. 706)
		Ivan, Heather and Nancy Banister (petition no. 749)
		Mr and Mrs Raitt (petition no. 041)
		Chetwode Parochial Church Council (petition no. 074)
		Springfield Farming Ltd (petition no. 132)
		Mr Geoffrey Brunt (petition no. 338)
		Robert and Sara Dixon (petition no. 600), James Adam and Others (petition no. 378), Sheila Ansell (petition no. 822) and Rosemary and Ian Chisholm (petition no. 370)
		Mary Godfrey and Claudia and Crescenzo D’Alessandro (petition nos. 386 and 249)
		Iver Parish Council, Ivers Community Group and Richings Park Residents’ Association (petition nos. 639, 702 and 666)
		Double 4 Limited (petition no. 293)
Chapter 4: Staffordshire to Oxfordshire
	Birmingham, Staffordshire, Solihull
Chapter 5: Buckinghamshire
	Chetwode, Twyford, Steeple Claydon and Calvert
		Aylesbury and Stoke Mandeville
		Dunsmore, The Lee, Ballinger Common
		South Heath
		Great Missenden and Little Missenden
		Table 1: Traffic flows: A413 and B485
		Amersham and the Chalfonts
Chapter 6: Colne Valley, Hillingdon and Old Oak Common
	Relocation of the Heathrow Express depot
		Colne Valley
		Old Oak Common
Chapter 7: Camden
		Euston Station
		Table 2: Rail passengers arriving at Euston in the AM peak period
		Land to the west of Euston Station
		The Regent’s Park Estate
		Park Village East
		Parkway, Delancey Street, Albert Street, Arlington Road
		Mornington Terrace, Mornington Place, Mornington Crescent
		The Ampthill Square Estate
		Somers Town
		Recommendations on improved compensation
		Table 3: Cost to the promoter
Chapter 8: Compensation
		Table 4: Homeowner payment
		Residential tenants and business property
		The Need to Sell Scheme
		Table 5: Need to Sell Scheme applications
		Table 6: Need to Sell Scheme applications: Update (November 2016)
		Statutory compensation (and what it is paid for)
		Modifications to the statutory compensation code
		Balance between town and country in non-statutory schemes
		Uncompensated blight
		Uniformity and special cases
		Human Rights
Chapter 9: Environmental Issues
		Measuring loss of biodiversity
		Air quality and monitoring air pollution
			Environmental regulation
			Monitoring in Camden and elsewhere
		Climate change
		Ancient woodlands
		Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
		Public rights of way (including equestrian concerns)
		Bird strike and bat strike
		Urban environments: green spaces
		Urban environments: hedgehogs in Regent’s Park
Chapter 10: Other route wide issues
	Public engagement
		Design of viaducts, bridges and other structures
		Operational noise
		Table 7: Examples of noise intensity
			Intolerable and tolerable noise
			Sources of operational noise
			The promoter’s proposed limits, and mapping of noise contours
		Table 8: Noise limits
			Further points on noise
			Compulsory purchase and compensation
			Tax issues
			Other farming issues
		Compulsory acquisition for regeneration or relocation
		Subventions for business rates
		Movement of materials by rail
		Table 9: Rail passengers arriving at Euston in the AM peak period
		Permanent or temporary land take?
			The Secretary of State’s policy
Appendix 1: List of Members and declarations of interest
Appendix 2:  Locus Standi rulings
Appendix 3: Additional Provisions
Appendix 4: Amendments made by the Select Committee
Appendix 5: Mr Clive Higgins and Mrs Margaret Higgins (petition no.180)
	Ruling by the Select Committee
Appendix 6: FCC Waste Services (UK) Limited (petition no. 780)
Appendix 7: Petitions heard during the final days of hearings
	Friends Life Limited (petition no. 406)
	Aston Villa Football Club (petition no. 533)
Document Text Contents
Page 1

Ordered to be printed 12 December 2016 and published 15 December 2016

Published by the Authority of the House of Lords


Select Committee on the High Speed Rail
(London - West Midlands) Bill

HL Paper 83

Special Report of Session 2016–17

High Speed Rail
(London - West
Midlands) Bill

Page 2

Select Committee on the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill
The Select Committee on the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill provides
individuals and bodies directly and specifically affected by the bill with the opportunity to
object to the bill’s specific provisions and to seek its amendment, although not to object to the
principle of the bill.

The members of the Select Committee on the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill
Lord Brabazon of Tara Baroness O’Cathain
Lord Elder (from 25 May 2016) Lord Plant of Highfield (until 25 May 2016)
Lord Freeman Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe (Chair)
Lord Jones of Cheltenham Lord Young of Norwood Green

Declaration of interests
See Appendix 1

A full list of Members’ interests can be found in the Register of Lords’ Interests:

All publications of the Committee are available at:

Parliament Live
Live coverage of public sessions of the Committee’s meetings are available at:

Committee staff
The staff of the Committee were Christopher Clarke (Clerk), Andrew Conway (Committee
Assistant), and Mary Harvey (Administrative Support).

Contact details
All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Select Committee on the High
Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill, Legislation Office, House of Lords, London SW1A
0PW. Telephone 020 7219 2468. Email [email protected]
mailto:[email protected]

Page 66


with, the statute provides a defence to a common law claim: see the speech
of Lord Hoffmann in Wildtree Hotels Ltd v Harrow LBC [2001 2 AC 1]. The
payment of compensation for disruption and pecuniary loss has been regarded
as a matter to be dealt with, if at all, under the statutory compensation code
as it has been gradually developed by Parliament.

254. However, the statutory provisions as to compensation for this type of loss
are notoriously difficult and obscure. They persist in the use of the obscure
expression “injurious affection,” which was a key concept in the Lands
Clauses Consolidation Act 1845. Over forty years ago Lord Wilberforce said
in Argyle Motors (Birkenhead) Ltd v Birkenhead Corporation [1975] AC 99,

“The relevant section of the Act of 1845 (section 68) has, over a hundred
years, received through a number of decisions, some in this House, and
by no means easy to reconcile, an interpretation which fixes upon it
a meaning having little perceptible relation to the words used. This
represents a century of judicial effort to keep the primitive wording—
which itself has an earlier history—in some sort of accord with the
realities of the industrial age.”

Despite at least two opportunities for reform (Law Commission reports in
2003 and 2004, and the Localism Act 2011), section 10 of the Compulsory
Purchase Act 1965 remains in force without significant amendment. The
Neighbourhood Planning Bill, now before the House of Commons, may
prove to be another lost opportunity.

255. The text of section 10 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 is as follows:

“(1) If any person claims compensation in respect of any land, or
interest in land, which has been taken for or injuriously affected by the
execution of the works, and for which the acquiring authority has not
made satisfaction under the provisions of this Act, or of the special Act,
any dispute arising in relation to the compensation shall be referred to
and determined by the Upper Tribunal.

(2) This section shall be construed as affording in all cases a right to
compensation for injurious affection which is the same as the right
which section 68 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 has been
construed as affording in cases where the amount claimed exceeds £50.

(3) [Extended meaning of “acquiring authority” in some cases]”

256. In his book The Law of Compulsory Purchase and Compensation (2014), to
which we acknowledge our debt, Mr Michael Barnes QC has commented
(paragraph 10.5), with a degree of understatement:

“It is perhaps unfortunate that when section 68 of the Lands Clauses
Consolidation Act 1845 was re-enacted as section 10 of the Compulsory
Purchase Act 1965 the opportunity was not taken to state in explicit
modern form the exact circumstances in which a claim could be made
for injurious affection to land caused by the execution of works under
statutory powers where no land was acquired from the claimant.”

257. Mr Barnes goes on (paragraph 10.6) to summarise three categories of
statutory compensation.

Page 67


(1) When part only of an owner’s land is acquired, the owner may be
entitled to compensation under section 7 of the Compulsory Purchase
Act 1965 for detriment to the land retained by him (so far as caused by
the works as a whole, and not merely the works on the part of his land
that is acquired).

(2) When no part of an owner’s land is acquired, the owner may be
entitled to compensation for a reduction in its value caused by the use of
works carried out in the vicinity, even though no land is acquired. This
right was introduced by Part I of the Land Compensation Act 1973, and
reflects the growing activity at that time in the construction of motorways
and airports. The detriment must be caused by some “physical factor”,
defined in section 1(2) as “noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke and
artificial lighting, and the discharge on to the land of any solid or liquid

(3) An owner from whom no land is acquired may also be entitled to
compensation under section 10 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965
for detriment caused by “the execution of the works”- that is, during
the construction phase. This right is (in Barnes’ words) “hedged with
substantial conditions and limitations”.

258. The general effect, in short, is that where land is detrimentally affected by
the HS2 project, but none of the land is compulsorily acquired, the owner
may possibly have two different claims to statutory compensation, neither of
which is likely to be simple or straightforward: a claim under section 10 of
the 1965 Act in respect of detriment during the construction phase, and a
claim under Part I of the 1973 Act in respect of continuing detriment after
the high-speed line comes into operation. An owner whose land is acquired
in part may have a single claim under section 7, which covers both phases
but is concerned mainly with any long-term reduction in the value of the
retained land. Loss of business profits is taken into account, if at all, only as
evidence of a reduction in the land’s capital value.

Modifications to the statutory compensation code

259. Clauses 4 to 9 of the bill make large parts of the statutory compensation code
applicable to the HS2 project, subject to modifications set out in Schedules
6, 9, 10 and 11. Schedules 5, 7 and 8 are concerned with specifying purposes
and geographical areas for which the modified provisions are applied.
Clause 4 and Schedule 6 are the principal measures, being concerned with
the straightforward compulsory purchase of land. The other clauses and
schedules deal with special cases; Clause 5 and Schedule 9 are concerned
with the acquisition of rights over land (as opposed to ownership of the land).

260. Some provisions in Schedule 9 call for mention, as they were the subject of
some inconclusive debate between leading counsel with expert knowledge of
this field. The debate related to the right to fix subterranean ground anchors
(inserted at an angle of about 30 degrees from the horizontal plane) which
are to be used in the works on both sides of the Camden Cutting. Schedule
9, paragraph 2 (3) and (9) apply a substituted section 7 of the Compulsory
Purchase Act 1965, and a substituted section 44 of the Land Compensation
Act 1973, to the assessment of compensation in that unusual engineering
situation. It is common ground that these provisions have an enlarging effect,

Page 131


On absolute noise levels he referred to a publication entitled Acoustics for
Schools: a Design Guide, published by the Institute of Environmental
Management. which was said to advise that for outdoor teaching in schools
the noise level should be below 50 dB L eq 30 min.

9. The evidence about outdoor teaching was far from satisfactory. Referring
to the publication mentioned above, the witness said (at para 261) that the
guidelines for “outdoor learning areas” at schools should not exceed 55dB
Leq 30 mins, and that they should include “at least one” below 50dB.
Counsel then put to him (at para 264) a leading question to the effect that
the level of 50dB was supported by authority, to which the witness agreed.
He asked another leading question (at para 273) referring to 50dB as the
criterion “for outdoor teaching and learning areas.”

10. As regards noise change (that is, the difference in the level of noise at a
particular place before and after some significant event, in this case the
operation of the new railway) he said that the Bodymore Heath site had been
chosen for its tranquillity, and that a prospective change of 5 dB, and even 10
dB for some pitches, made it necessary to undertake relocation of the whole
ground. He also gave evidence about noise levels at the practice grounds of
some other well known clubs (Arsenal, Chelsea, Fulham and Watford). He
was critical of a report on these grounds prepared by Arup.

11. In cross-examination Mr Stephenson agreed (at paras 564–567) that there
is, and has been since the club moved in, an active quarry near the first-team
pitches, He agreed that he had removed quarry vehicles from his baseline
figures. He agreed that in referring to the ground’s tranquillity he had
stripped out activity at the quarry, although it is a feature of the environment.
He left it out, he said, because it was not going to last indefinitely.

12. Mr Stephenson agreed that there are no standard acoustic guidelines for
sound levels at a football training ground. He had taken 50dB, not 55dB, as
the advised level for outdoor teaching of schoolchildren and had applied it
to this case. He agreed that a 3m noise barrier at the side of the track would
do better than 55 dB for all except the nearest academy pitches, and that the
level would be below 55 dB, though not below 50 dB, for the FTPs. He said
(at para 642) that he had tried to reflect the “layman’s anecdotal concerns”
of the coaches, and did not agree that their concerns might be exaggerated
or misplaced.

13. Mr Thornley-Taylor, the promoter’s expert, gave evidence that HS2’s
baseline figures did take account of quarry activity, and of the busy A4091
on the other side of the line of route. In his view the school guideline of 50
dB relied on by Mr Stephenson was appropriate for the teaching of a small
group having a lesson out of doors; apart from that special case the normal
school guideline for outdoor activity was 55 dB. In his opinion noise change
was of much less importance than the absolute noise level. He referred to the
“Lombard effect” when everyone finds that they have to talk more loudly in
order to be heard, and said that some coaches spoke or shouted above 62dB
(and so got omitted from the RPS baseline).

14. He also said that Mr Stephenson must have been misinformed about the
proposed passage of trains. On this stretch of line there would be 24 trains
an hour, 14 of 200m in length, which would be at maximum noise level for
two seconds, and the other ten of 400m which would be at that level for four

Page 132


seconds. Moreover most of the trains would be travelling at 330kph, not 360
as Mr Stephenson had assumed. In answer to a question from Lord Elder
he thought that if the players were called together in a group for a talk they
would probably be closer to the coach than ten metres.

15. In cross-examination Mr Thornley-Taylor said that in his view a constant
hum was more, not less distracting than regular intermittent noise, to which
people become habituated. He did not agree that the use of the practice
ground would be similar to a school; he would describe the training ground
as a group of sports grounds where spoken communication is important,
referring to riding schools as a possible parallel. He agreed that if 50 dB were
the right level, not all the first team pitches would be acceptable. He said that
he had walked round the quarry land and seen some item of equipment on
each part of it. There had not been an increase in quarry activity as a result
of the plans for HS2; the infilling had been taking place for years.

16. Where they differ, we prefer the evidence of Mr Thornley-Taylor. Mr
Stephenson’s omission of any reference to the quarrying activity was
unfortunate in an expert witness, and his stated reasons for the omission were
unconvincing. He was led into a summary of the published guidance which
was at best incomplete. We think that Mr Thornley-Taylor was probably
right in his view that the 50dB guideline (in the context of “school or college,
hospital, hotel and library” is appropriate for a class of schoolchildren which
happens to be held outdoors. Noise during the construction phase will be
restricted under assurances that have been offered. The assurances also
cover the academy pitches.

17. Mr Thornley-Taylor disavowed any football expertise but expressed his
opinion that with a three-metre noise barrier the FTPs do not require
relocation. We agree. That is all we can sensibly decide on this complicated
matter in which the oral evidence was limited, and there was no time at all
for oral argument.

Similer Documents