Welcome to
the Buckinghamshire Councils’
HS2 Summit
Preparing Buckinghamshire for the Select Committee
Process
8th October 2014
Welcome
Sir Henry Aubrey-Fletcher
Lord Lieutenant for Buckinghamshire
8th October 2014
Introduction to speakers
• Martin Tett – Leader, Buckinghamshire County
Council
• Alastair Lewis - Partner and Parliamentary Agent,
Sharpe Pritchard LLP
• Alan Goodrum – Chief Executive, Chiltern DC
• Hilary Wharf – Director, HS2 Action Alliance
• Alexandra Day – Bucks CC HS2 Engagement Business
Manager
3
Outline of Agenda
• Tunnel Update (15 mins)
• Select Committee (45 mins)
– Format/Presenting
– Evidence/witness
Coffee/Tea Break (20mins)
•
•
•
•
Experience of the Select Committee (15 mins)
Select Committee visit to Buckinghamshire (10mins)
Future Community Support (15 mins)
Questions
4
HS2 Summit
8 October 2014
Alan Goodrum
Chief Executive
Chiltern & South Bucks District Councils
 HS2’s approach to mitigation
 Why a tunnel
 The amendments already agreed
 Extending the tunnel
 HS2 response
 The Green Route Plus
HS2: Approach to Mitigation
(ES vol.1 Fig 43 Nov 2013)
Why a tunnel
 The A413 ‘arterial valley’ ‘route 3’ ‘transport corridor’
 Longest surface section
 Greatest length of AONB
 Mitigated by
- hidden in tunnel (32% AONB @ 2009)
- shallow or deep cuttings
- the transport corridor itself
The amended route 2012
(Mantles Wood)
Claimed Advantages:
 Reduced impacts on the landscape and communities
in or around the AONB
 Avoids the aquifer/ground water
 Less spoil
 Savings (£250-300m)
Extending the Tunnel Options
REPA (Intermediate)
CRAG (T2, HS2 Reference, Full)
“All performed well on environmental grounds compared with (the
HS2 scheme)”
 reduction in landscape and visual, ecological, cultural heritage,
noise, community and agricultural impacts on the AONB
 CRAG most potential but:
- £ cost
- intervention gap
- time
(ES vol 2 CFA9 Nov 2013)
Going Underground: The Green Route
1) Protect the AONB
2) Mitigate the impact on our communities
3) Provide a better engineering solution
Co-operative effort
AVDC, BCC, CCB, CDC
Route Long Sections
Going Underground: Comparisons
HS2 Proposal REPA₁
CRAG
Green
Length km
13.4
15.8
23.7
24.7
Northern
Portal
Little
Missenden
Leather Lane
Wendover
South of Nash
Lee
160
160
880
129
106
310
370
Distance from 160
(m) Wendover
Station
Climb (m)
Cost (+£m)
149
0
130
%
1 Latest figure provided by REPA 16.9km in length
1.5/2
Meeting with Sir David Higgins:
“radical alternative”
1) New consultation, environmental statement,
amendments – add five years - £ billions to the cost
2) £ cost: tunnels x 6 surface
3) Other tunnels wanted: Leeds: Sheffield
4) Agreed to examine, but look at more than one
scheme
The Green Route +
 Cost and construction time
 ‘Safety in railway’ tunnels EU regs
 Sensitivity of northern portal
- appearance
- noise
- residential properties
- Nash Lee Road
 Parallel work on environmental impact
 Risk
 Target: end of November
HS2 BillBuckinghamshire Summit
The Select Committee Process
Alastair Lewis
Sharpe Pritchard LLP
Committee website
• See link at end
• Has links to useful documents, including
information about appearances, transcripts of
hearings
• You can sign up for email updates from
Parliament
Watching the proceedings
• Attending in person: best way to see how the
committee works
• Watching on the internet: see link at end
• Reading the transcripts
The Committee
•
•
•
•
•
•
Robert Syms (chairman): Poole (Con)
Henry Bellingham: NW Norfolk (Con)
Sir Peter Bottomley: Worthing W (Con)
Ian Mearns: Gateshead (Lab)
Yasmin Qureshi: Bolton SE (Lab)
Mike Thornton: Eastleigh (LD)
Committee members
• Early days, but points to note:
– Quorum is 3, and that means members may come
in and out: so far absences have not been high
– Varying level of questioning between members
has been demonstrated, but they have asked a
good number of well-informed questions
The Clerk
• The clerk is Neil Caulfield, assisted by Miguel
Boo Fraga
• Advises the committee on procedure
• Will advise petitioners on procedure to some
degree
• Channel of communications to committee
• Sits with the committee
Other key people
• Tim Mould QC: counsel for the promoter (plus
a team)
• HS2 witnesses
• Winckworth Sherwood and Eversheds: the
two firms of agents acting for the promoter
• David Walker of Winckworth Sherwood:
primary contact for programming
Order of proceedings
• Geographical order, starting at Birmingham
City Centre
• Staffordshire due on 14 October
• Then Warwickshire and all points south
• Buckinghamshire: unlikely to be until new year
Order of proceedings
• We will generally hear local authorities first within each
locality, in the following order: county councils, then
district and unitary councils, then parish and town
councils, followed by community groups, other public
bodies, businesses, and then individuals.”
• You may find that on the day there is some waiting
around – but be there in good time. You may find that
you are put off to a later date if other cases run on
Notice of hearing
• “The Committee strongly encourages the agents
for HS2 to arrange the petition programme to
allow for at least four weeks’ notice of hearings
to petitioners, unless there are exceptional
reasons for not giving such notice.”
• Before then, Winckworth Sherwood (probably
David Walker) will contact petitioners to discuss
dates
Availability
• “Petitioners with particular difficulties about
certain dates should certainly have their needs
accommodated, but there is a duty on petitioners
and their representatives to make themselves
available, subject to reasonable allowance being
made for other considerations. We do, however,
expect particular consideration to be given by Mr
Walker to the needs of disabled and otherwise
disadvantaged petitioners.”
Time estimates
• David Walker should ask for a time estimate
from petitioners and it will be transmitted to
the committee. Petitioners may need to justify
requests for long time periods
• The committee is beginning to “load the
programme”
Sitting times
• Mondays: 2.00-5.00 and 7.00-9.00 (and
beyond)
• Tuesdays: 9.30-12.30 and 2.00-5.00
• Wednesdays: 9.30-11.30 and 2.00-5.00
• Thursdays: 9.30-12.30
Committee Room 5
• Located in main building – no advance notice
needed to enter, but give plenty of time for
security
• Members sit at a horseshoe table, parties face
them, public sit behind the parties
• Members and public have screens for
displaying documents
Committee room layout
Etiquette
• Participants are not expected to stand when addressing
the committee
• Addressing members as “sir”, “madam”, “Mr X” etc is
acceptable
• Quasi-judicial role: the committee should not be
approached informally or outside the room, and
submissions should not be sent to the members
directly
• Dress appropriately
• Don’t be late
Should an appearance be made at all?
• The committee will not read the petition of a
petitioner who does not appear
• Therefore, if they want their views to be made
known, petitioners should appear on their
petition, or lend support to another petitioner
who does appear (eg by letter of support or
appearing as a witness or presenting a joint
case)
Order of proceedings: scenario 1: no
evidence called by petitioner
• Counsel for promoters may make brief
introductory remarks (unless petitioner objects)
• Petitioner (or representative) makes statement to
the committee (referring to documents, if any)
• Committee may ask questions (during or after the
statement)
• Counsel for promoters respond and may be
questioned by committee
• Petitioner (or representative) responds
Order of proceedings: scenario 2:
evidence called by petitioner
• Witnesses sworn in/affirmed by clerk
• Counsel for promoter may make brief introductory remarks (unless
petitioner objects)
• Petitioner (or representative) makes brief opening remarks and calls
witnesses (referring to documents, if any)
• Committee may ask questions (during or after the giving of evidence) and
counsel may cross-examine each witness. Petitioner may re-examine on
points raised
• Counsel for promoter may call evidence (but does not have to): procedure
as above
• Counsel for promoter sums up and may be questioned by committee
• Petitioner (or representative) responds and may be questioned by
committee
Presentation tips
• “The Committee will take time to hear and understand
petitioners’ arguments. However, unnecessarily lengthy
argument on either side will be deprecated, as will
reading out of speeches without good reason.
Petitioners should feel free to include in their evidence
a summary of their arguments, of no more than two
pages. If they do, they can assume the Committee will
have read it and that there will be no need to expand
on it in the hearing.” (Committee guidance note)
Presentation tips
• Committee is unlikely to be impressed with:
– Repetition
– Waffle
– Aggressiveness to HS2 or (especially) to the
committee
– Complaining without explaining what remedy is
sought from the committee
– Pulling rabbits out of the hat: do not come forward
with new engineering solutions at the last minute
– Bombardment of correspondence
Presentation tips
• Committee is likely to be impressed with:
– Concise delivery of the key points: choose your
battles carefully – you don’t have to fight every
point
– Joint presentations
– Interesting and informative exhibits and evidence
– Individuals making their own cases
An intimidating experience?
• Committee has shown already that they will
treat petitioners fairly and with respect
• Committee likely to put petitioners without
professional representation at their ease
• But don’t turn up late…..
Early preparation
• Never too early to begin preparation (see evidence
preparation later)
• Petition Response Document should be received at
least 4 weeks before the appearance
• Any exhibits to be given to committee should be sent
to HS2 no later than two working days in advance of
the appearance, along with names of witnesses and
person who will present the case (rule applies to HS2
as well)
Petition response document
• Response to each paragraph of the petition
• Quite detailed, but likely to be in standard
form, referring to information papers
• Study the information papers – they are
important
Common issues
• “Where a series of petitions addresses related issues,
the Committee will invite the second and subsequent
petitioners to say whether they wish to make points
not already addressed by the first petitioner. These
petitioners will be asked to address only those further
points, unless there are exceptional reasons.
Petitioners choosing not to speak will be deemed for
formal purposes to have appeared, provided they or
their agent are present in the room and identify
themselves.” (Committee guidance note)
Joint cases
• The committee will appreciate petitioners
with similar concerns clubbing together and
making a joint appearance through one
spokesperson (with or without evidence in
support)
Committee decisions
• Decisions unlikely to be announced at the end of each
case
• Encouragement may be given to HS2/petitioners to
resolve concerns and report back
• Some “big ticket” decisions may be made early,
particularly those requiring additional provisions
• Other decisions likely to be left to the end or at
recesses but indications given some may come sooner
• Government may respond: and may not agree
What can the committee do?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Changes in the route alignment – so long as they are within the “broad
alignment” of the railway
Amend the bill and/or the deposited plans
Require the promoter to give an undertaking or assurance about a particular
matter
Require the promoter to amend one of the Bill’s supporting documents (eg
the code of construction practice, the environmental minimum requirements)
Require the promoter to carry out a further environmental assessment on a
particular aspect
Provide encouragement for promoters/petitioners to reach agreement
Make recommendations to government/give “warm words”
How will the committee decide?
• It is likely that in most cases it will simply be a case of cost vs
benefit
• Quote from the report of the Commons Committee on HS1:
“We have said that in making our decisions we have been mindful of
cost: we have had to reach a compromise between the cost and the
benefit of proposals to alter the link. Cost was not the only consideration,
however: often the promoter and the Petitioner sought to call into
question the practicality of one another’s proposals, and we had to gauge
whether or not either or both were possible.”
• Committee will reject expensive engineering alterations where they
are unconvinced that they are justified: an example on HS1 being
Boxley long tunnel (where alternative improvements were secured
instead), and other tunnel proposals
Locus
• Even though locus standi may not have been
challenged at the outset, be prepared for
HS2’s counsel to suggest to the committee
that the points you make are not within your
remit and/or are more appropriately dealt
with by others
Preparation and exchange of evidence
• Statements to be read by petitioners and
written proofs of evidence to be given orally
need not be submitted to HS2 or the
committee
• Exhibits (documents to be handed to the
committee) have to be exchanged 2 days in
advance
Proofs of evidence
• Name, address and occupation of witness;
involvement with project
• Summarise what the evidence covers and
what the committee is being asked to do
• Explain the problem being tackled
• Explain the solution
• Refer to exhibits throughout
Technical evidence
• If promoter agrees an alternative design is
achievable in engineering terms, then no need
to provide detailed engineering evidence: give
it to them well in advance (no rabbits out of
hats) and seek to agree feasibility
• If technical reports and evidence is going to be
relied on, seek to agree in advance if possible
Exhibits
• Essential part of the case: this is what the committee
will have in front of them, on screen and in hard copy
• Number each one “A1”, “A2” etc
• Use photographs, maps, tables, short textual extracts,
bullet points
• Set out what you want the committee to do
• Let the exhibits tell the story: imagine someone picking
them up having not heard the evidence: would they
still be able to see what was being sought and
understand why?
Example of exhibit: text
Example of exhibit: plan
Example of exhibit: request
Assumptions to be made
• Assume:
– The committee will not read any document given in
advance
– The committee will not read any lengthy or
complicated document
– The committee will not spend time “out of hours”
working on the documents
– The committee will be familiar with HS2’s counsel and
main witnesses
Negotiations
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Will there be any? Chairman has encouraged HS2 to agree things
HS2 are leaving things late: Birmingham examples
Is there value in negotiating? Absolutely: Staffordshire and Lichfield
Better to meet together with other petitioners or will it be “divide
and rule”?
If meeting together – make sure you are coordinated
Accepting offers before Select Committee – can you accept some,
but fight on other points?
When to stop pushing for more mitigation – what are the
committee realistically likely to accept?
Withdrawing the petition
Second House undertakings/reserving your rights to the Lords
Negotiations: points to remember
• Keep copies of correspondence
• Keep a note of meetings and seek to agree
minutes
• “Without prejudice” correspondence and
notes can’t be used as evidence
Undertakings and assurances
• See information paper B4
• Register of undertakings and assurances
• Overarching undertaking to Parliament given
in opening address
Nature of undertakings and assurances
• Legally binding formal agreements: the best option but likely to be
agreed by HS2 only where there is a “land” interest. Enforceable in
the courts
• Assurances and undertakings in a letter or in the PRD: make sure
that HS2 agree that they will be entered in the Register of
Undertakings and Assurances
• Information Papers: these are not binding unless they are reflected
in an undertaking or assurance that itself is in the Register. Possibly
might give rise to legitimate expectation claim in courts if breached
• How binding are assurances and undertakings? Unlikely to be
enforceable in the courts – Bill of Rights: but consider the
precedents (HS1 and Crossrail) and future Bill promotions
Examples of success
• HS1 – House of Commons (1)
– Boxley long tunnel rejected but lowering required
– Assurances on HS1 and M2 works to be constructed
together so no “double whammy”
– Ashford: Urging DfT to provide county council with extra
funding for an associated road
– Aylesford: Additional crossing point to be provided
– Certain demolished listed buildings to be reconstructed
without delay
– Leacon: A rural lane not to be used by HGVs
– Harrietsham: A short additional rural tunnel to be provided
Examples of success
• HS1 – House of Commons (2)
– Hoo Junction: Not to be used as railhead (promoters said it
was never going to be)
– Waterloo spur: must be constructed
– Northfleet Station: consideration to be given to pedestrian
link
– Support use of spoil to reclaim land
– Mardyke: Line diverted away from housing estate
– Barking tunnel extension approved (major change)
– King’s Cross/Caledonian Rd: Fully tunnelled option (major)
Examples of success
• HS1 – House of Lords (1)
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Boxley long tunnel again rejected but further lowering required
Retained wall cuttings for certain ancient woodlands
Islington horizontal alignment
Charing: lowering of viaduct if practicable (shows importance of having idea of
costs)
Eyhorne St: extension of tunnel and lowering
M2 at Sellindge: undertaking given that noise levels would not increase –
backed by requirement that M2 would be resurfaced if they did
HGVs not to use a further rural road
Construction bridge across Regents Canal to minimise use of public roads
Newington: construction site should not be used
Examples of success
• HS1 – House of Lords (2)
– Forum to be set up to resolve location of a feeder station
– Inter-departmental working group on blight (set up after Commons should
investigate 2 particularly bad cases
– Further efforts to be made in providing rehousing solution for King’s Cross
residents
– CTRL required to purchase 3 houses even though occupiers failed the hardship
test and 1 further should receive extra compensation for moving costs
– Undertaking to provide businesses with full information about date and terms
of any relocation required
– Farmers whose land is taken temporarily for construction should retain the
freehold
– Encouraged DfT funding for Medway Towns northern relief road
Examples of failure
• HS1 – House of Commons
– Boxley long tunnel – not allowed, but more mitigation
and lowering required
– Central railways group freight requests
– Extended tunnel at Sandling
– Lowering of line at Saltwood
– Sandway tunnel extension
– Longer tunnel at Harrietsham
– Moving construction site at Harrietsham
Examples of failure
• HS1 – House of Commons (2)
– Tunnel extension at Eyhorne Street, but lowering of line
encouraged if practicable
– Reduction in number of Medway bridges
– M2 park and ride and other highway improvements at Medway
– Tunnel beneath Ashenbank and Cobham woods
– South Thameside development roads
– North Kent line connection on viaduct not embankment
– Changes to St Pancras station
– Requirement for parish councils to be consulted
Examples of failure
• HS1 – House of Lords
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Boxley long tunnel: but further mitigation secured
Bluebell Hill tunnel extension
Rainham horizontal alignment
Marlowe Park M2 horizontal alignment
Sandling tunnel
Cobham tunnel
Increase in countryside management scheme funding and Inner
Thames Marshes compensatory scheme funding
– Noise from vent shafts
– Moving Harrietsham construction site
– Marley pit: Use of alternative spoil disposal site
Examples of failure
• HS1 – House of Lords (2)
– King’s Cross residents: better temporary rehousing during
construction (but better efforts should be made)
– Special compensation for named individuals (but
encouragement given for them to be treated better)
– Changes to deed relating to ground settlement
– Protection for businesses outside limits of bill
– Statutory undertakers cases
– Minimum railway services
– Use of St Pancras chambers to be found within 2 years
– Disputes over heritage deeds
Useful links
• Select Committee website:
http://tinyurl.com/p8koc9x
• Watching proceedings: www.parliamentlive.tv
• HS2 Information papers:
http://tinyurl.com/pf8uk97
Coffee and Tea Break
HS2AA Experiences
Hilary Wharf, HS2AA
8 October 2014
www.hs2actionalliance.org
73
Engagement so far
 Been in front of committee twice
• On timetabling
• To defend locus challenge
 Exchanged considerable correspondence
• On process
• On experts
 Tried to establish rapport with committee
• Neil Caulfield
• David Walker

HS2AA petition
........ so what have we learnt?
74
How the Committee works….








Rules: No fixed rules
Precedent: Take parliamentary precedent seriously
MPs: Take other MPs views seriously
Laws v remit: Not familiar with EIA, laws etc
Powers: Can’t make promoter (HS2 Ltd) do anything
Must listen?: no – onus on us to persuade & engage
Decisions: No comeback – can’t JR them
Views: Can express their views at any time
........ what about the members?
75
What members are like
Robert Syms Neil
Caulfield Yasmin
CHAIR
Ian Mearns
Qureshi
(Clerk)
(Poole)
(Gateshead)
Henry
Bellingham
(Norfolk)
•
•
•
•
(Bolton)
Michael
Thornton
(Eastleigh)
“Pressed men”
Not specialists
MPs – not wholly independent
React to what they hear not read
Sir Peter
Bottomley
(Worthing)
........ and the “enemy”?76
What about the promoter?
Jacqueline
Lean
Tim Mould, QC,
landmark chambers
James Strachan, QC,
39 Essex St
• Constant presence – an unhealthy relationship
• Introduce petitioners summarising the issues
• Well resourced – team on hand to research and
feed ammunition
• But won’t want to argue the unarguable
• Will strongly resist spinning out the process eg ES
........ so are there some tips ?77
In front of the Committee….
Dragons Den
or………..
Cosy fireside chat?
........ neither, but both instructive!
78
Do’s, don’ts and tips
 Dragons den………..
–
–
–
–
 Cosy fireside chat…..
There to help if your case is good
One shot only
‘Props’ to get the message over
Think about obvious questions
– Treat as a conversation
– Assume they have read nothing
– Cameras not intrusive, but
empty chairs will be!
 Pointers………..
–
–
–
–
–
Do watch their body language
Do wake them up – be ‘different’ and memorable
Don’t be intimidated – not Alan Sugar!
Quasi-legal, but not like judges – get them to like you
Visuals and 2-page summary good, but promoter gets to see
them beforehand too – so can be a double edged sword!
– Be “short, sweet, clear and upbeat”
........ and prepare, prepare, prepare!
79
Presenting: it takes two to tango!
DIY
OR
with an
accomplice
?
Roll B agent + petitioner as “witness” can help
keep you on track
........ what about visuals to get the message across? 80
Aerial shots can help..…
........ Grims Ditch, Woodlands home and the Hunts Green dump
81
And another…..…
........ Wendover dean and the viaduct
82
Or something very simple…….
........ making the point!
83
Signposting and communicating….
Tier 1
M
it
i
g
a
ti
o
n
H
i
e
r
a
r
c
h
y
Wendover
Nash Lane
CDC
tunnel
T
r
u
e
CRAG tunnel
C
o
s
t
Tier 2
Longer
Wendover
green tunnel
Box
viaduct
Retained
cuttings
4km
REPA
tunnel
B
a
s
e
Tier 3
Green
bridges
Noise
barriers
Retained
cuttings
Deeper
cuttings
Take spoil
from
AONB
11 km
A mitigation hierarchy for AONB
Footpath
crossings
Mantles Wood
84
HS2AA petitioning
 Locus challenge – won!
– We do represent individuals and affiliated groups
– It’s right that we can take “route-wide” issues on people’s behalf
 Petition – likely to go at least twice
–
–
–
–
ES deficiencies eg noise, waste, carbon, biodiversity
Fair compensation
Independent oversight body - for promises and eventual outcome
Reduction in design speed
 Compensation : won an extra appearance!
– to correct HS2 Ltd presentation inadequacies
........ concerns on compensation
85
Compensation messages
 Minister’s “commitments”: honour them!
– “full & fair for those most directly affected” (McLoughlin);
“no significant losses” (Hammond); “very generous” (the PM)
 Blight evidence (PwC): real, large & here-to-stay:
– average 40% to 20% loss (120m to 500m); & agents say further
– HS1 not an appropriate model for HS2
– Blight not temporary – at these levels to 2023
 ‘Need to Sell’ scheme: rules must change:
– hardship based despite its re-labelling; misrepresented to Select Co.
 Property Bond solution: keep up the pressure
– Rejected, yet a £30m - £158m net cost and proven case by PwC
........ and finally
86
HS2AA Party Conference message….
........ £50bn+ on HS2 is not a sensible use of public money
87
Buckinghamshire County Council
Buckinghamshire Councils’ HS2 Summit
Select Committee visit to Buckinghamshire
Martin Tett, Leader
Buckinghamshire County Council
8th October 2014
Buckinghamshire County Council
Previous HS2 Select Committee visits…
•
Before petitions are heard, the HS2 Select Committee visits the affected area
•
Coach with representatives
from HS2 Ltd, petitioners,
and MPs
Previous visits:
• Birmingham and Solihull
• Lichfield to Birmingham
• Warwickshire (yesterday)
• Oxfordshire (this morning)
•
•
Visiting threatened wildlife in Staffordshire (16-09-14)
Source: Staffordshire Wildlife Trust http://www.staffs-wildlife.org.uk/news/2014/09/18/hs2-select-committee-visitthreatened-wildlife-areas-staffordshire
The site visits are usually organised by the Promoter (HS2 Ltd)
Different formats and degrees of organisation
89
Buckinghamshire County Council
Influencing where the Select Committee visit…
•
Drafting an itinerary
•
We are proposing three days of visits – however this may not be agreed
•
•
Unsure exactly when the Select Committee will visit Buckinghamshire
Likely to be during the winter (possibly January/February) - short days
•
•
Currently drafting itinerary from feedback at workshops and some partners
This will be circulated for comments
•
Please note, it is unlikely that the Select Committee can visit every
community affected in the time allocated to us, however Council
representatives will aim to provide additional commentary during the visit
90
Buckinghamshire County Council
How to get the most out of the visit…
•
Organised and helpful
•
Clear, concise and useful info
•
Buckinghamshire at it’s best
– the people and the environment
HS2 made an unscheduled stop to see residents
of Bodymoor Heath (16-09-14) Source: STOP HS2
http://stophs2.org/news/12121-grand-day-hs2-committee
•
Visualise the route
•
Respectful commentary about mitigation
91
Buckinghamshire County Council
What action groups and individuals can do…
•
Send us your thoughts on the draft itinerary (to be circulated Oct/Nov)
•
Think about appropriate ways to show local concerns
•
Work together with the Councils to put on an organised and professional
visit
•
Organise and nominate one local representative per group/area
•
Remember – it may be tempting to discuss the principle, however for the
Select Committee audience focus on mitigation
•
We must leave a good impression with the Select Committee
92
Buckinghamshire County Council
Summary – aims for a successful Select Committee visit
•
Fair representation of Buckinghamshire
•
Avoid information overload
•
Show respect to the Select Committee and the Parliamentary process
•
Helpfully illustrate and visualise where the scheme will be located
•
Non-party political
•
Respectful lobbying for appropriate and justified mitigation
•
Co-ordinated and well-organised visit
•
One final slide on the Community and Environment Fund….
93
Buckinghamshire County Council
HS2 Community and Environment Fund
•
51m wrote to the Prime Minister end August requesting a
fund
•
Separate fund from formal compensation and mitigation
•
Lessen the burden of hosting national infrastructure
•
Community led and locally controlled
•
A workshop being hosted by Department for Transport end
October
•
A million per km? approx. £230m for Phase 1?
94
Buckinghamshire Councils’ HS2 Summit
Community Support
Alexandra Day
Buckinghamshire County Council
8th October 2014
Supporting our communities…
30 Parishes
14 County Councillors
25 District Councillors
200 attendees (2013)
656 recipients
39 (over 12 months)
130 attendees (Mar)
160 attendees (Sep)
130 attendees (Oct)
1. Petitioning
2. Select Committee
96
Listening to your feedback…
“Need more
info to be
available on
highways!”
“More public
encouragement
to attend future
sessions”
"We need to
have noise
covered"
www.buckscc.gov.uk/HS2
"Would have been
helpful to have
been told more
before the meeting
about what to
expect - could
prepare"
“Further
discussions
needed”
97
Help us to help you…
• Patience, ideas and feedback
• Local intelligence – photographs, experience
• Fair local representation
• Buckinghamshire Compensation and Mitigation
Panel (BCMP)
• Swift information sharing and decision-making –
undertakings & assurances
• Utilise more effectively local Members, local
area forums and existing networks
• Dissemination of information
98
Support over the coming months…
•
•
•
•
•
•
Buckinghamshire Blueprint Version 2.2
Local Workshops November and January
Select Committee FAQs – updated
Select Committee Visit Planning
Visit the Select Committee
Drop-In Sessions with BCC HS2 Project Team
…plus regularly updated website content, fortnightly email updates,
a dedicated mailbox for queries and presentations at Local Area
Forums
99
Summary…
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Online support
Local representatives - BCMP
Workshops – November and January
Clearer communication of progress…
Select Committee: organised and prepared
Increase awareness of HS2
Alexandra Day
Email: hs2blueprint@buckscc.gov.uk
Website: www.buckscc.gov.uk/HS2
100
Buckinghamshire Councils’ HS2 Summit
Questions for the Panel?
101