In Part I of this article, Chartered Engineer Daniel Collins describes his experiences of working on the parliamentary phase of the HS2 Phase 2a project, which centres around engagement with petitioners (objectors) against the scheme and producing evidence to defend it against challenge.

In Part 2, two case studies will be presented along with a list of conclusions and lessons learned.

Introduction

The journey of HS2 Phase 2a through parliament began with the deposit of the High Speed Rail (West Midlands to Crewe) Bill in July 2017.

This bill, once enacted, authorises works to construct and operate the railway, compulsory purchase of land and property rights, and a wide range of ancillary activities, such as interference with highways and utilities.

It also grants development consent (deemed planning permission) and disapplies other existing legislation, such as listed building and ancient monument regulations.

Bill deposit comprises the text of the bill itself, plans and sections, an estimate of expense, a book of reference (a register of land, property, and the respective owners and occupiers affected by the bill), and other supporting documentation including an environmental statement.

This triggers a first reading of the bill in the House of Commons, which is a procedural step before consultation on the environmental statement begins. Following this is a second reading in the House of Commons.

This involves debate and, if required, a vote. If passed, the principle of the scheme is set. For Phase 2a, the vote at second reading passed by a wide margin of 295 votes to 12 and demonstrated strong cross-party support in parliament for the project. Once the bill passes its second reading, this initiates a period known as ‘petitioning’.

Petitioning

Where an individual or organisation’s property or interests are 'specially or directly affected' by the proposed scheme, they have the right to object ('petition') to a select committee of members of parliament.

The committee acts in a quasi-judicial role, hearing evidence from both the petitioner and the promoter on the matters of concern, before determining what action, if any, should be taken (the secretary of state for transport is the promoter of the bill, with HS2 Ltd acting on his behalf).

Petitioning issues can range from concerns about construction traffic routes or the use of agricultural land for environmental mitigation purposes, to requests for tunnels or other major route alignment changes.

Figure 1: Houses of Parliament Committee Room 5

Inherent risks of the petitioning process for both the promoter and the petitioner are that the committee finds in favour of the other's argument or that a solution is prescribed that neither party is happy with.

In order to avoid these risks, many petitioning issues can be resolved in advance of select committee hearings. This is typically done by way of an assurance.

This is a unilateral written commitment from the promoter that the construction contractors ('nominated undertaker') must comply with. In these cases, the promoter and petitioner will seek a mutually beneficial solution for both parties.

Assurances attempt to reduce as much uncertainty as possible for Petitioners without unduly constraining the detailed designers and construction contractors.

This flexibility is important in order to deliver the scheme in a timely, economic manner. An example of an assurance could be avoiding use of construction traffic routes at school pick-up and drop-off times.

The issues that tend to be heard in front of the select committee are therefore those on which no common ground can be reached between the promoter and petitioner.

Typically, these issues would involve the need for significant additional expenditure or would, in the promoter’s view, place undue constraint on the contractor. In some instances, it may be that both parties simply agree to disagree about the scale of the impact or the ability to comply with the project’s environmental minimum requirements.

The committee’s role then becomes that of a neutral observer who hears the evidence in front of them and decides on an appropriate outcome.

Preparation of evidence: Stakeholder meetings and verbal evidence

Evidence used to defend the scheme against challenge can take many forms and can be presented in many fora: conversations, emails, letters, meeting minutes, reports, sketches, maps, for example.

Defending the proposed scheme does not begin at select committee hearings with evidence bundles but at a one-to-one level with stakeholders, often over a period of months and years.

Once stakeholders who may be impacted are identified, it is important for the promoter to discuss possible concerns with them. This is usually a face-to-face meeting in a council office, a land agent’s office, a village hall or an individual’s home.

These settings, and the face-to-face communication style, allow for a less formal interaction and a more open dialogue on issues of concern.

Having a competent, suitably prepared team who are capable of clearly articulating the promoter’s position is the first step in providing evidence to successfully defend challenges to the proposed scheme.

These verbal communications with stakeholders, along with accompanying sketches or marked-up plans that might be used to aid discussions, are an underrated and possibly overlooked step as the first piece of evidence that a prospective petitioner will see or hear from the promoter defending the proposed scheme.

Evidence bundle

No later than two business days in advance of a select committee hearing, both the promoter and petitioner can submit evidence that they would like to use during the hearing.

The promoter’s evidence bundle would typically include correspondence, location maps showing the proposed works relative to the Petitioner’s landholding or administrative area, and a series of evidence slides addressing specific points in the petition.

Example evidence slides are shown below in Figure 2 and Figure 3. These show how months of detailed technical work, engagement and preparation need to be condensed to a series of bullet points or sketches, which neatly and succinctly capture the vital points of an argument.

Figure 2: Example of evidence slide from Select Committee evidence bundle(1)

Figure 3: Example of evidence slide from Select Committee evidence bundle(2)

Technical analysis

Where a petitioner proposes an alternative to the scheme as it is designed, it needs to be developed to a similar level as the hybrid bill design so that its relative merits and demerits can be properly assessed and explained.

(In Part 2 of this article, to be published on November 17, two case studies will be presented along with a list of conclusions and lessons learned.)

Author: Daniel Collins, engineering manager, HS2 Ltd, is a Chartered Engineer with a BE in Civil Engineering from NUI Galway and a MSc in Transport and Business Management from Imperial College London. His experience is primarily in the transportation sector, working in design consultancy in Ireland before moving to the UK to work on Transport for London's Cycle Superhighway programme.

References

1.) HS2 Ltd, 'Promoter Evidence P1175 (24 April 2019) Grid Supply Point Connection at Parkgate', April 24, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/hs2-phase-2a/written-evidence/P1175%20Grid%20Supply%20Point%20Connection%20at%20Parkgate%20(1).pdf. [Accessed May 11, 2020].

2.) HS2 Ltd, 'Promoter Evidence (April 24, 2018)', January 18, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmhs2/evidence/madeley-tunnel-17-19.pdf. [Accessed June 1, 2020].