High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill

House of Lords and House of Commons

EXAMINATION OF A PUBLIC BiLL Which is prima Facie Hybrid

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill

Wednesday 8 January 2014

Before:

The Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills:

MR PETER DAVIS, Counsel for Domestic Legislation, House of Commons

MR MATTHEW HAMLYN, Clerk of Bills, House of Commons

MR PETER MILLEDGE, Counsel to the Chairman of Committees, House of Lords

MS CHRISTINE SALMON PERCIVAL, Deputy Head of the Legislation Office, House of Lords

MRS ALISON GORLOV of WINCKWORTH SHERWOOD

appeared as Parliamentary Agent for the Bill.

There also appeared:

MR DARREN WHITE, Parliamentary Clerk, Eversheds LLP (working with Winckworth Sherwood on the Bill)

MR PAUL GILFEDDER, London Planning Manager, HS2 Limited

(10.00 am)

643.MR HAMLYN: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome back to our adjourned meeting of the Examiners of the two Houses to consider and conclude our consideration of the High Speed Rail (London-West Midlands) Bill. I know it is a high speed Bill and this has not been a particularly high speed examination. I am sorry, but as the Secretary of State has said, it is a very big undertaking, so I am afraid perhaps the examinations are a bit bigger and more complicated than they are on some other legislation. I would particularly like to thank Alison Gorlov for the work she and her colleagues have put in since our last meeting, giving us additional information which obviously we have had a chance to digest since our last meeting.

644.When we adjourned there were two outstanding Standing Orders to consider, which are: Standing Order 13 in relation to Clause 47, and Standing Order 27A in relation to the deposit of the Environmental Statement and the material that was found to be missing. We will deal with those two in a moment, but just one little bit of housekeeping first. We proved Standing Order 10 at our last meeting, but we subsequently discovered there was a slight omission in the proof1, so could we just go through that again for the record to get that right?

645.MRS GORLOV: Yes, indeed. Sir, I had been proposing simply to take the two proofs-it is the last two paragraphs on page 10 of the Statement of Proofs-and I think you have the corrected copy of the statement.

646.MR HAMLYN: Do we all have that? Yes.

647.MRS GORLOV: Mr White, do you prove that the newspaper notices, marked 1 to 58, previously handed in were duly published in the area of the local authorities, once in each of two consecutive weeks as mentioned in the proof?

648.MR WHITE: I do.

649.MRS GORLOV: And do you prove that in so far as required by the Standing Order the newspaper notices are in the same terms?

650.MR WHITE: I do.

651.MR HAMLYN: Thank you very much for that. So we have crossed that "t" and dotted that "i"; thank you very much. On Standing Order 13 we had a query about how it engaged with Clause 47 and the agent subsequently sent us a note. I can confirm and we have already said to her that the Examiners are now content that as far as Clause 47 is concerned, the Bill is compliant with Standing Order 132. That disposes that without any further discussion.

652.We come to the main thing for discussion this morning, which is Standing Order 27A and the missing pages that were found in Annex 5 to the environmental statement. The agent sent us last night or first thing this morning a further note addressing the issues we had raised; we have also had further information from HS2 Limited about the exact nature of the omissions. Is there anything you want to add to that very helpful and thorough note that you sent us, Mrs Gorlov, or any particular points? There is no need to go through it all in detail because we have read it, but is there anything else you wanted to add?

653.MRS GORLOV: Yes, there are just a few, if I may. First of all, the simplest of them: footnote 1 on page two is an incorrect reference. Reflexes hit the reference for the original EIA directive. The current directive is 2011/92/EU.

654.MR DAVIS: Sorry, can you repeat that?

655.MRS GORLOV: 2011/92/EU.

656.MR HAMLYN: Thank you for that.

657.MRS GORLOV: Secondly-this I am afraid reveals that this document was not floated past all the people who should have seen it as a draft-it has been drawn to my attention that it does not quite state the function of Table 2 correctly. What the note says is that Table 2 is a table setting out a list of all the committed developments that were assessed-the shortlist, as it were-Table 1 being the long-list of those to be assessed. Table 1 is indeed the long-list of the developments that were to be assessed. Table 2 is not a list of the assessed properties. The assessed properties are stated in the relevant CFA reports, but there is not a separate list of them. The note is correct that all the properties assessed as being affected are identified, but they are identified in the relevant CFA reports, the ones covering those properties, not also listed in Table 2.

658.MR HAMLYN: That is a helpful clarification. In paragraph 3 of your note you say, "The affected developments are specified in full in Table 2", but they are actually specified in the relevant CFA reports.

659.MRS GORLOV: That is right. The outcome is reported in the relevant CFA reports. The rest of the sentence is incorrect.

660.MR HAMLYN: Thank you very much.

661.MRS GORLOV: I think that does not make any substantial difference to the note, but my next point does. It has been explained to me that the CFA reports actually contain rather more than this note gives them credit for. Perhaps if I can take it step by step.

662.MR HAMLYN: Thank you.

663.MRS GORLOV: Table 1 is a complete list of all the committed developments that fell to be assessed within the assessment area, the assessment area being the strips of 250 metres or 500 metres. It has been explained to me that those developments included all sorts of things that could not possibly be relevant for assessment, things like changes of use, bollards or little things of that sort, and so the Table 1 list was gone through and those developments that did not require assessment were filtered out. What were then assessed were the developments that had been identified as potentially being affected or having a cumulative effect. Those were assessed to see whether they did indeed give rise to such an effect or would be affected.

664.MR MILLEDGE: I did not catch what you said after the "or". You said "filtered out or".

665.MRS GORLOV: They were assessed for two things. The assessments were for whether the developments themselves would be affected by the project and whether they would give rise to a cumulative effect when the effects of those developments were accumulated with HS2.

666.MR MILLEDGE: Thank you.

667.MRS GORLOV: Those were the two levels of assessment. The developments that had been assessed in that way were those that had been filtered out of Table 1 because, as I say, Table 1 includes developments that were not relevant for assessment. The CFA reports identified the developments that had been assessed as affected. In doing so, they also identify which were the developments that were assessed. That does have a pretty significant effect on the need for Table 1 and the importance of Table 1 because it means that all of the relevant table 1 information is in fact in the body of the CFA reports. As a result, anybody with an interest in a committed development that might fall to be affected by HS2 will have been able to see from the relevant CFA report whether his development was in fact assessed and will also be able, of course, to see whether it was assessed as being affected. That I think slightly alters the status of table 1 for the purpose of your Inquiry.

668.MS SALMON PERCIVAL: Is it the case that there is no information contained in the missing pages that was not already present in the documents that were deposited originally?

669.MRS GORLOV: There is. Table 1 includes the committed developments that were filtered out because they did not require assessment. That is only to be found by doing a subtraction exercise and, as regards Solihull and points north, that information is not to be found in the USB copies of CT-0004-000.

670.MS SALMON PERCIVAL: Right, thank you.

671.MR HAMLYN: Were there any other points you wanted to raise about the note you sent to us?

672.MRS GORLOV: Yes, I think there was one other if I might just remind myself. Yes, it is in relation to this question about whether the corrected pages amount to supplemental environmental information. If you were to find that the ES in the form in which it was initially deposited is a compliant ES for the reasons that we have explained, then I think this question of whether this additional material is supplemental material must fall away because, if it is a compliant ES, then whatever the additional material does it is not required for compliance with the Directive.

673.MR HAMLYN: Sorry, do you want to continue?

674.MRS GORLOV: The second point is this then. If you were to find instead that the ES is not compliant then it would not be supplemental information either because if the ES was not compliant at day one then something has to happen-and that is another issue-but the additional material cannot possibly have been supplementing the ES for compliance with the directive because the ES was not in place. There was not a compliant ES to supplement.

675.MR HAMLYN: I see what you mean.

676.MRS GORLOV: So I think whatever way you look at it, and the note was sort of groping at what I have just said, this material is not supplementary environmental information within the scope of SO 224A and 83A.

677.MR DAVIS: Let us take both sides of this. First, let us assume that what was deposited in time, if I may say so, added to what was deposited out of time comprises the environmental statement. Then I think the logic must be that if that total is the environmental statement and the original stuff deposited in time is not the environmental statement, then am I right in assuming that it must follow as a matter of logic that at worst the environmental statement has been put in late, but there is no issue at all on supplementary environmental information?

678.MRS GORLOV: If you were to find that the ES, as deposited in time, is not a compliant ES then, yes, that is right. There can be no question of supplemental information. Of course, we are saying that the fact that this missing material was not there on day 1 does not make the ES non-compliant. It was still a compliant ES.

679.MR DAVIS: Let us take this the other way round. Your other hypothesis is that what was deposited in time was the environmental statement. Then I think your argument after that is that therefore anything extra, as it was not needed for the purpose of meeting the requirements of the EU directive, cannot be supplementary environmental information.

680.MRS GORLOV: Not within the scope of the Standing Order.

681.MR DAVIS: Yes, right. Now, the environmental statement of course is required to comply with certain very specific themes in the UK’s implementing regulations. Supplementary environmental information is defined as information deposited after the deposit of the environmental statement to supplement that statement for the purpose of meeting the requirements of any EU directive. If you are looking at the bare minimum I can see the logic, but how do you deal with the possible other interpretation of the Standing Order, which is that what you are looking at for showing meeting the requirements of the directive is a different thing. Supposing the United Kingdom Government were facing a challenge saying this environmental statement as a whole does not meet the requirements of the directive, how do you deal with the argument that it is inconceivable that they would not put the whole statement in to show they had indeed complied?

682.MRS GORLOV: I am not sure I quite follow the question. Let me explain why. The EIA regulations replicate what is in the directive. They contain a list of the information that has to go in an ES. As I hope was explained in the note that you have had, that is not a box-ticking exercise and the applicable standard is one that is less than that of absolute perfection. I think it was Lord Hoffmann who said he thought that it was an imperfect world and it would be unreasonable to expect absolute perfection. There is what I think is described as the margin of appreciation; there is a margin of error that is an acceptable one for the purposes of deciding whether an ES complies with the requirements of our domestic regulations and the directive. The reason for that is that the procedures allow for the additional information to be added in due time, picked up and taken account of, and so one ought not to be unduly legalistic and pedantic about it. There is no point. I think that must be the reason behind it.

683.It follows that if this missing information falls into that category of stuff that perhaps actually does not need to have been there, but anyway even its absence allows for a compliant ES, for the purposes of compliance the ES, as deposited, is a complete document. It can be added to. Anything can be improved, but it does not mean that the unimproved version is non-compliant simply because it is unimproved.

684.MR DAVIS: Yes, OK. I think there are two possible approaches. If one is looking at what is needed for minimum compliance, then I see the logic entirely of what you say. If we are looking at supposing someone said to the UK Government in terms of the hybrid Bill, "Look, you have not complied with the spirit of the directive. What you have done is not enough", it would hamstring the Government quite unduly in any defence to that challenge to say, "We only want the court to consider the stuff that was deposited without the extras".

685.MRS GORLOV: We would not be saying that.

686.MR DAVIS: Well, when you say it would not be saying it, I agree it would not be saying that. It would say, "Look at all this stuff. We’ve clearly complied". The logic of that is that in terms of meeting the requirements of the directive, if you start from that premise it follows-at least it arguably follows-that that is supplementary.

687.MRS GORLOV: I think one does first have to look at how the UK Government approach environmental assessment. The criteria explained in this note are those applied to environmental statements outside Parliament and they are criteria that have been set by the courts against the background that, at the end of the day, it is actually the same thing that could happen that the UK Government could be taken to task in any case. The fact is that the standards set by the courts are those to which environmental statements outside Parliament must adhere. Mr Davis, I do not think you are saying that the standard imposed by Parliament should be different simply because this ES is in Parliament. From the Commission’s point of view, it is subject to exactly the same rules as any other ES. That is why we say it is appropriate to apply the criteria laid down by the courts. There is an exact parallel. The procedures in this case will allow for exactly the processes that apply in a planning situation, where there is a planning enquiry or, for example, transport and works act orders, or development consent orders. All those processes allow for any deficiencies to be flushed out, dealt with and taken account of, and proceedings in Parliament are exactly the same within exactly the same European rules. That is why we say exactly the same standards and criteria must be applied.

688.MR DAVIS: First, I do not think it should necessarily be assumed that the Examiners take for granted that what is to be operated here is identical to what is to be operated in a court. What the Examiners, in my view, need to take into account is whether the Standing Orders have been complied with and, to the extent that they have not been complied with if that is the finding, how far the non-compliance goes. I think it is common ground between us that at worst there has been a gap of probably up to 17 days from the 56 days. Simply, I look at this provision-what supplementary environmental information means-and see it as by no means a closed question that it is purely there to find the bare minimum that is needed for a court.

689.MRS GORLOV: No, that is not giving the Government credit for their own ES and those who wrote it. An ES is not designed to get away with the bare minimum. It is designed to produce the requisite information in the best way that is possible. For that reason, quite often you will find that ESs have in them material that is not strictly required by the directive simply because somebody is explaining his craft and how he got there. That does not mean that without that information the ES would be bare bones/getting away with it/skeletal. It would be perfectly adequate.

690.There is information here which we say did not need to be there for compliance, and one may or may not choose to include it, but that does not have any bearing at all on whether the ES is a compliant document. There is no need to say, "Oh, we should have put in a bit more because it would have been nice to do so and we will be taken to task if we did not". Either the document is compliant or it is not compliant. That is what the court looks at, that is what the Commission looks at and we submit that is what Parliament ought to be looking at.

691.MR HAMLYN: Sorry, could you repeat that last bit?

692.MRS GORLOV: We would submit that that is what Parliament ought to be looking at. I take the point that the directives, regulations and the Standing Orders are all written in slightly different terms, but Standing Order 27A refers specifically to the regulations; it refers to the information required by the planning EIA regulations. It is not saying that these regulations should be deemed to apply, but what it is doing is requiring an ES that complies with those regulations. It is perfectly legitimate, therefore, to say that in complying with SO 27A one is producing an ES that complies with the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations in their own terms, namely subject to all the criteria laid down by the courts.

693.I think there is a genuine difficulty in suggesting that the standards applied by Parliament should somehow be different, not least because that begs the question: what should those standards be? One can say we have identified some other material we chose to add, but the truth of the matter is there is probably more out there one could add if one wanted to. It does not mean one has to, but does it mean that Parliament is asking for something that is triple-gold plated and would like a little bit more. This is not mentioned to be facetious, you understand; I am just trying to reduce it to the absurd perhaps, so you can see the difficulty here.

694.I wonder if I could just add one other thing, which is a different point, but it bears on what Mr Davis just said. Supplemental information is additional material and there is a distinction to be drawn between what is truly supplemental and a correction. As we have said in the note, this missing material, now that it is added back, does not supplement anything at all. It corrects a patent error, insofar as any thing in this ES is really patent, but it is there on the face of the document if you can find the right bit of it.

695.MR HAMLYN: Thank you. Is there anything from you, Peter?

696.MR DAVIS: I think we have explored this as much as we can.

697.MR HAMLYN: I think so too. Do other Examiners wish to make any further questions or comments on this point?

698.MR MILLEDGE: No.

699.MS SALMON PERCIVAL: No.

700.MR HAMLYN: OK. I think you have helpfully corrected one or two points and amplified others in your written statement, and you and Peter Davis had a good exploration of the legal issues. I take your point that Parliament has to take decisions on the basis of a set of laws, I suppose, but I am slightly nervous as a parliamentary official to make an assumption on behalf of Parliament myself that they should be identical to what a court has said. However, that is something that the Examiners will discuss in private in a moment.

701.Could I just put one point to you? When we were discussing this issue, of course, having looked at your note and previous discussions, the Standing Order requires us to determine whether the Bill is compliant-i.e. that an environmental statement has been deposited by a particular date. The starting point of "What is an environmental statement?" is a document that is by HS2, ‘"Understanding the environmental statement". That describes what the environmental statement is and it has a very helpful chart explaining the contents, which includes everything you thought you had deposited on 29 November. Clearly it was your intention, until the archaeologists in Oxfordshire discovered the first missing page, that what you thought you had deposited on the 29th was the environmental statement. That would be one starting point if we wished to get away from a technical discussion about what precisely would be regarded by Parliament, by the courts or by the European Commission as being an environmental statement. I do not know whether you want to comment on that rather simple approach: "Was it an environmental statement?" It is what has been described to us as an environmental statement.

702.MRS GORLOV: I think I would, rather, because I suspect that is not quite right. Suppose we had produced a two-volume document, one volume of which was absolutely definitely necessary for compliance with the standing order and the other volume was surplus material that gave-let me think of something really silly-a potted history of high speed rail. It is interesting to have, nice stuff that sort of supplements the ES if you write it the right way, but it is clearly not required by the directive. Both volumes are described as the complete ES; patently, however, you could drop volume two and still have a compliant ES. We say that that is the position here. There was material that we wanted to have in here that was in fact, in the case of the document we have been talking about, in the hard copy. We wanted it there; it was not there, but like my example, it was not needed for compliance. The fact that we called the totality of the thing an ES, and it had missing material and it had corrections that were going to be made, did not mean that it was not a compliant ES, because one has to look at the substance of the document, not simply what somebody chooses to call it.

703.MR HAMLYN: Thank you. I felt I wanted to advance that proposition just to test it, as it were. You also in your note helpfully invite us to do a number of things, but then also equally helpfully go on to suggest that were we to do something else the Standing Orders Committee then might wish to do certain things. The other question which the Examiners will have to discuss is precisely what the decision is that is to be taken, and then which is the appropriate part of Parliament to take that decision, if you see what I mean. Is there anything else we want to ask at this stage or do we have enough to go and make a decision, fellow Examiners? In which case I think we will adjourn briefly while we quickly confer among ourselves, unless there is anything else you want to add.

704.MRS GORLOV: Before you do, could I just ask whether you want any clarification from HS2 about what I said in opening about the fact that the CFA reports do in fact identify the relevant committed developments that were assessed?

705.MR HAMLYN: I think we would find that helpful, if you could. Thank you.

706.MR GILFEDDER: Good morning. I am Paul Gilfedder; I am the London area town planning manager at HS2. Just to describe the process that Alison’s already set out more fully, Table 1, which included all the applications data we have collected for the entire buffer zone, listed all the applications out and they were then mapped in the maps that were included both electronically and then by hard copy. We then filtered those applications to remove ones that would not be material to the environmental assessments-small applications for changes of use, eight car parking spaces and that sort of minor application. The ones that went through that filtering process were then assessed in each CFA and in each CFA there is a section called "committed developments", which identifies the relevant applications that are then taken through a fuller assessment process and, where appropriate, reported by each topic specialism. For larger applications-residential developments or large commercial things that could have cumulative effects with HS2-they were identified in section two of each CFA and then further assessed through a CFA process.

707.MR HAMLYN: And that resulted in Table 2, did it?

708.MR GILFEDDER: No. Table 2 was a table that summarised the proposed developments. The proposed developments would largely include information for the local authorities and people reading the ES. Proposed developments are applications that have yet to be determined or application sites that were emerging through local policy planning documents. As they did not have permission or were not adopted sites in local planning documents, they were just included as information as context to the assessment for what might come forward in the future. They were not actually put through the filtering process or assessed as they were not committed schemes. Table 2 was purely for information and the schemes within them were not assessed because they did not have planning permission.

709.MR HAMLYN: Are there any questions that Examiners want to ask on those points of fact? Thank you very much. If there is nothing else, I am asked-I am sorry-if we could stay here and everyone else could withdraw for a few minutes because we do not have another room this morning.

Examination suspended from 10.33am until 11.03am

(11.03 am)

710.MR HAMLYN: Thank you for bearing with us during our private deliberation. I am sorry that we did not have a separate room. We considered the further arguments advanced by the agent for the promoters on the compliance of the Bill with Standing Order 27A and we find non-compliance as to time. On Standing Order 224A or 83A in the House of Lords, which is the corollary Standing Order, having carefully read that Standing Order we find technical compliance with that Standing Order because of the wording of the Standing Order, which refers simply to a date that needs to be put on the notice. We have already dealt with Standing Order 13. We will obviously make our formal report to the two Houses and that will be sent to the agent and others by email as soon as possible after this meeting. We would also like to append to the transcript a corrected version, if possible, of Ms Gorlov’s very helpful note3 because I think that will make the transcript of this meeting much easier to understand for the lay reader. Perhaps through the clerk to the Examiners we could sort that out after the meeting.

711.MRS GORLOV: I wonder if I might just ask one thing. Is the correction permitted to be more than a little bit of adjustment? Can I introduce some supplemental information?

712.MR HAMLYN: I think it was to put into the document itself the points you made to us orally because I think it will make it a more useful document for the reader.

713.MRS GORLOV: Thank you very much.

714.MR HAMLYN: If that is everything we are adjourned. Thank you very much.

The Examination was adjourned at 11.05 am.

Appendix 1: Corrected version of the Examiners’ Proof

CORRECTIONS ARE ON PAGES, 10, 12, 13, 15, 25, 27 and 42

1

HOUSE OF LORDS AND HOUSE OF COMMONS

Statement of Proofs

to be given before the Examiner(s) of Petitions for Private Bills,

before the Introduction of the Bill

Standing Orders 4 to 59, House of Lords Standing Order 83A(3) and House of Commons Standing Order 224A(3)1

TUESDAY 17th DECEMBER 2013

HIGH SPEED RAIL (LONDON – WEST MIDLANDS) BILL

Standing Order 4

Contents of Notice2

Handed in affidavit[s] marked [severally] [___].

DARREN WHITE Handed in the following newspaper[s]:

Area: Route wide

No.

Title

Publication Date

1

The Times

26/11/2013

2

The Times

03/12/2013

Area: Greater London, Hertfordshire and Buckinghamshire

3

London Evening Standard

28/11/2013

4

London Evening Standard

05/12/2013

5

Islington Tribune

29/11/2013

6

Islington Tribune

06/12/2013

7

Camden New Journal

28/11/2013

8

Camden New Journal

05/12/2013

9

Metro

28/11/2013

10

Metro

05/12/2013

11

Ealing Gazette

29/11/2013

12

Ealing Gazette

06/12/2013

13

Harrow Observer

28/11/2013

14

Harrow Observer

05/12/2013

15

Uxbridge Gazette

27/11/2013

16

Uxbridge Gazette

04/12/2013

17

Fulham & Hammersmith Chronicle

29/11/2013

18

Fulham & Hammersmith Chronicle

06/12/2013

19

Watford Observer

29/11/2013

20

Watford Observer

06/12/2013

21

Hampstead Highgate Express

28/11/2013

22

Hampstead Highgate Express

05/12/2013

23

Brent & Kilburn Times

28/11/2013*

24

Brent & Kilburn Times

05/12/2013*

Area: Hertfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Northamptonshire

25

Buckinghamshire Advertiser & Examiner

28/11/2013

26

Buckinghamshire Advertiser & Examiner

05/12/2013

27

Bicester Advertiser

28/11/2013

28

Bicester Advertiser

05/12/2013

29

South Bucks Wycombe & Chiltern Star

27/11/2013

30

South Bucks Wycombe & Chiltern Star

04/12/2013

31

Banbury Guardian

28/11/2013

32

Banbury Guardian

05/12/2013

33

Buckingham & Winslow Advertiser

29/11/2013*

34

Buckingham & Winslow Advertiser

06/12/2013*

35

Bucks Advertiser

29/11/2013*

36

Bucks Advertiser

06/12/2013*

37

Bucks Herald

27/11/2013*

38

Bucks Herald

04/12/2013*

39

Daventry Express

28/11/2013

40

Daventry Express

05/12/2013

Area: Warwickshire, Staffordshire, Solihull and Birmingham

41

Lichfield Mercury

28/11/2013

42

Lichfield Mercury

05/12/2013

43

Sutton Coldfield Observer

29/11/2013

44

Sutton Coldfield Observer

06/12/2013

45

Tamworth Herald

28/11/2013

46

Tamworth Herald

05/12/2013

47

Birmingham Mail

28/11/2013

48

Birmingham Mail

05/12/2013

49

Cannock Chronicle

28/11/2013

50

Cannock Chronicle

05/12/2013

51

Coventry Telegraph

29/11/2013

52

Coventry Telegraph

06/12/2013

53

Solihull News

29/11/2013

54

Solihull News

06/12/2013

55

Leamington Spa Courier*

29/11/2013

56

Leamington Spa Courier*

06/12/2013

Area: Manchester

57

Manchester Evening News

28/11/2013

58

Manchester Evening News

05/12/2013

Notes

Those papers marked with an asterisk are copies printed off the internet and hard published copies will be supplied as soon as they are received from the publishers.

The Leamington Spa Courier of 29/11/13 published notice with the pages out of order. An additional notice was published on 13/12/13. A copy will be supplied.

The Sutton Coldfield Observer of 5/12/13 published the notice with the final page missing. An additional notice was published on 12/12/13. A copy will be supplied.

the [___] circulating in [___] of the [___] and

the [___] circulating in [___] of the [___] and

the [___] circulating in [___] of the [___] and

the [___] circulating in [___] of the [___];

marked [severally 1 to 58, containing notice of the [introduction of ] [application for] the bill.

MONICA PETO Proved that [in so far as is required by the Standing Orders] each notice contains a concise summary of the purposes of the bill and that wherever it is proposed to amalgamate with any company, to sell or lease the undertaking, to purchase or take on lease the undertaking of any authority, company or other person[s], to enter into working agreements or traffic arrangements, the notice names the authority, company or person[s], with, to, or from whom it is proposed that the amalgamation, sale, purchase, lease, agreement, or arrangement is to be made.

MONICA PETO Proved that [in so far as is required by the Standing Orders] each notice states that on and after 4th December as from 29th November 2013 a copy of the bill may be inspected and copies obtained at a reasonable price at the offices of HS2 Ltd, Eland House, Bressenden Place, London, SW1E 5DU in London and at the following office[s]:

a) [___] being an office in Cardiff;

b) Eversheds LLP, 3-5 Melville Street EH3 7PE being an office in Edinburgh;

c) [___] being an office in Belfast;

d) [___] being an office in the area of the council of the county [district] [London borough] [county borough] [local government area] [the Greater London Authority] who are promoting the bill;

e) [___] being an office in the area of the council of the county [district] [London borough] [county borough] [local government area] [the Greater London Authority] whose or whose members' or officers' functions are altered by the bill;

f) [___] being an office in the district [county] [county borough] in which is situated the parish [community] the functions [powers], [duties] of the council [parish [community] meeting] or members or officers of which are altered by the bill;

g) Eland House, Bressenden Place, London, SW1E 5DU being an office in the county [metropolitan district] [unitary district] [London borough] [county borough[s]] [local government area[s]] in which the principal office of the [promoters] [Minister in charge] of the bill is situated;

Greater London Authority, City Hall, The Queen's Walk, London, SE1 2AA;

Buckinghamshire County Council, County Hall, Walton St, Aylesbury, HP20 1UA;

Hertfordshire County Council, County Hall, Pegs Lane, Hertford, SG13 8DQ;

Northamptonshire County Council, County Hall, Northampton, NN1 1ED;

Oxfordshire County Council, Speedwell House, Speedwell Street, Oxford, OX1 1NE;

Staffordshire County Council, Wedgwood Building, Stafford, ST16 2DH;

Warwickshire County Council, P O Box 43, Shire Hall, Warwick, CV34 4TH;

Birmingham City Council, 1 Lancaster Circus, Queensway, PO Box 14439, Birmingham, B4 7DQ;

Manchester City Council, Level 5, Town Hall Extension, Albert Square, PO Box 532, Manchester, M60 2LA;

Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council, Council House, Manor Square, Solihull, B91 3QB;

City of Westminster, 11th Floor East, Westminster City Hall, 64 Victoria Street, London, SW1E 6QP;

London Borough of Brent, Civic Centre, Engineers Way, Wembley, HA9 0FJ;

London Borough of Camden, Town Hall, Judd Street, London, WC1H 9JE;

London Borough of Ealing, Perceval House, 14-16 Uxbridge Road, Ealing, London, W5 2HL;

London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham, King Street, Hammersmith, London, W6 9JU;

London Borough of Hillingdon, Civic Centre, High Street, Uxbridge, Middlesex, UB8 1UW;

London Borough of Islington, Town Hall, Upper Street, London, N1 2UD.

Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea, Kensington Town Hall, Hornton Street, London, W8 7NX;

And at the following libraries:

Amersham Library, Chiltern Avenue, Amersham, Buckinghamshire, HP6 5AH;

Atherstone Library and Information Centre, Long Street, Atherstone, Warwickshire, CV9 1AX;

Aylesbury Study Centre, County Hall, Walton Street, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, HP20 1UU;

Balsall Common Library, 283 Kenilworth Road, Balsall Common, West Midlands, CV7 7EL;

Banbury Library, Marlborough Road, Banbury, Oxfordshire, OX16 5DB;

Beaconsfield Library, Reynolds Road, Beaconsfield, Buckinghamshire, HP9 2NJ;

Bicester Library, Old Place Yard, Bicester, Oxfordshire, OX26 6AU;

Brackley Library, Manor Road, Brackley, Northamptonshire, NN13 6AJ;

Brereton Library, Talbot Road, Rugeley, Staffordshire, WS15 1AU;

Buckingham Library, Verney Close, Buckingham, Buckinghamshire, MK18 1JP;

Burntwood Library, Sankeys Corner, Bridge Cross Road, Burntwood, Staffordshire, WS7 2BX;

Camden Town Library, Crowndale Centre, 218 Eversholt Street, London, NW1 1BD;

Cannock Library, Manor Avenue, Cannock, Staffordshire, WS11 1AA;

Castle Bromwich Library, Hurst Lane North, Castle Bromwich, Solihull, West Midlands, B36 0EY;

Castle Vale Library, Spitfire House, 10 High Street, Castle Vale, Birmingham, West Midlands, B35 7PR;

Chalfont St Giles Community Library, High Street, Chalfont St Giles, Buckinghamshire, HP8 4QA;

Chalfont St Peter Community Library, High Street, Chalfont St Peter, Buckinghamshire, SL9 9QA;

Chelmsley Wood Library, 10 West Mall, Chelmsley Wood Shopping Centre, Birmingham, West Midlands, B37 5TN;

Chesham Library, Elgiva Lane, Chesham, Buckinghamshire, HP5 2JD;

Coleshill Library, 19a Parkfield Road, Coleshill, Warwickshire, B46 3LD;

Gerrards Cross Library, 38 Station Road, Gerards Cross, Buckinghamshire, SL9 8EL;

Great Missenden Library, High Street, Great Missenden, Buckinghamshire, HP16 0AL;

Greenford Library, Oldfield Lane, SouthGreenford, Middlesex, UB6 9LG;

Harefield Library, Park Lane, Harefield, Middlesex, UB9 6BJ;

Harlesden Library, Craven Park Road, London, NW10 8SE

High Wycombe Library, 5 Eden Place, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP11 2DH;

Ickenham Library, Long Lane, Ickenham, Middlesex, UB10 8RE;

Iver Heath Library, St Margaret's Close, Iver Heath, Iver, Buckinghamshire, SL0 0DA;

Kenilworth Library, Smalley Place, Kenilworth, Warwickshire, CV8 1QG;

Kentish Town Library, 262-266 Kentish Town Road, London, NW5 2AA;

Kilburn Library Centre, 12-22 Kilburn High Road, London, NW6 5UH;

Leamington Spa Library, Royal Pump Rooms, Parade, Leamington Spa, Warwickshire, CV32 4AA;

Library of Birmingham, Centenary Square, Broad Street, Birmingham, West Midlands, B1 2ND;

Lichfield Library, The Friary, Lichfield, Staffordshire, WS13 6QG;

Little Chalfont Community Library, Cokes Lane, Little Chalfont, Amersham, Buckinghamshire, HP7 9QA;

Manchester City Library, Elliot House, 151 Deansgate, Manchester, M3 3WD; and

Marston Green Library, Land Lane, Birmingham, West Midlands, B37 7DQ

Polesworth Library and Information Centre, Bridge Street, Polesworth, Tamworth, Warwickshire, B78 1DT;

Princes Risborough Library, Bell Street, Princes Risborough, HP27 0AA.

Rugeley Library, 12 Anson Street, Rugeley, Staffordshire, WS15 2BB;

Shenstone Library, Main Street, Shenstone, Staffordshire, WS14 0NF;

Shepherds Bush Library, 6 Wood Lane, London, W12 7BF;

Solihull Central Library, Library Square, Homer Road, West Midlands, B91 3RG;

South Ruislip Library, Victoria Road, South Ruislip, Middlesex, HA4 0JE;

Southam Library, Unit 9 Brewster’s Corner, Pendicke Street, Southam, Warwickshire, CV47 1PN;

St Pancras Library, Camden Town Hall Extension, Argyle Street, London, WC1H 8NN;

Stafford Library, Shire Hall, Market Street, Stafford, Staffordshire, ST16 2LQ;

Swiss Cottage Central Library, 88 Avenue Road, London, NW3 3HA;

Tamworth Library, Corporation Street, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 7DN;

Ward End Library, Washwood Heath Road, Birmingham, West Midlands, B8 2HF;

Warwick Library, Shire Hall, PO Box 2, Warwick, Warwickshire, CV34 4UB;

Water Orton Community Library, Mickle Meadow, Coleshill Road, Water Orton, Warwickshire, B46 1SN;

Wendover Community Library, High Street, Wendover, Buckinghamshire, HP22 6DU;

Winslow Library, Park Road, Winslow, Buckinghamshire, MK18 3DN;

Woodford Halse Library, Village Hall, Woodford Halse, Northamptonshire, NN11 3RL; see note

Note. Despite making prior arrangements with the district council, on delivery of the documents it was discovered Woodford Halse Library is closed. Visitors are redirected to Middleton Cheney Library and the documents have been deposited there.

h) [___] being an office in each of the [county] [counties] [metropolitan district[s]] and [London borough[s]] [unitary district[s]] and [county borough[s]] [local government area[s]] in which works to which Standing Order 27 applies are to be constructed, or lands or rights to use lands are to be compulsorily acquired or in which are to be situated works, or are situated lands, in respect of which the time limited by a former Act for any such purpose is sought to be extended by the bill.

MONICA PETO Proved that each notice also states that objections may be made by deposit of a petition in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments or the Private Bill Office of the House of Commons, and that information regarding the deposit of such petitions may be obtained from either of those offices or from the agents for the [promoters] [bill].

MONICA PETO Proved that each notice is headed by the short title of the bill and is subscribed with the name[s] of the person[s] responsible for the publication of the notice.

ALISON GORLOV Considers that this Standing Order has been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has not been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has been complied with in all respects except as regards time.


Standing Order 4A

Availability of copies of bill

Handed in affidavit[s] marked [severally] [___].

JANICE HECKSCHER Proved that copies of [relevant parts of] the bill were made available in the manner and at the offices mentioned in the notices.

Note: the promoter has complied with this standing order in respect of the requirement under Standing Orders to deposit copies with the local authorities and has advised them of their duties under the Local Government Act 1972 to make the documents available for public inspection. On a sample check it was discovered that in some cases documents were not readily available. Details are attached in appendix A

ALISON GORLOV Considers that this Standing Order has been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has not been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has been complied with in all respects except as regards time.

Standing Order 5

Further particulars in case of certain bills

MONICA PETO Proved that [in so far as is required by the Standing Orders] each notice contains-

(a), (b), (c), (e) and (f) a) the names of the [districts] [London boroughs] [county] [counties] [county boroughs] and [parishes] [communities] in which any lands or works are or will be situated in respect of which plans are required to be deposited;

b) a statement of the officers with whom plans, sections and books of reference have been deposited in accordance with the requirements of Standing Orders 27 and 36;

c) a general description of the nature of the works proposed to be authorised by the bill;

TIMOTHY MUSGRAVE d) the name or description of any common or commonable land, public park or public open space, or protected square mentioned in the Schedule to the London Squares Preservation Act 1931, the surface of which is to be compulsorily acquired or used, the [London borough] [district] [and [parish] [community]] in which it is situated and an estimate of the area of so much of its surface as is proposed to be compulsorily acquired or used;

e) a general description of any specified public footpath or bridleway proposed to be stopped up or diverted;

f) a general description of the roads or streets which may be affected by the exercise of the power to alter or disturb the surface of a street or road and the circumstances in which, and the extent to which it is envisaged that power may be exercised.

ALISON GORLOV Considers that this Standing Order has been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has not been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order is not applicable to the bill.

Standing Order 6

Gas works, burial ground, etc. bills

Proved that [in so far as is required by the Standing Orders] each notice states the name of the [district] [London borough] [county] [county borough] [and [parish] [community]] in which gas works, sewage works, works for the manufacture or conversion of residual products of gas or sewage, station for generating electricity, sewage farm, cemetery, burial ground, crematorium, destructor, or hospital for infectious diseases [are] [is] intended to be made, constructed or extended.

Proved that this Standing Order has been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has not been complied with.

ALISON GORLOV Proved that this Standing Order is not applicable to the bill.

Standing Order 7

Tramway bills

Proved that [in so far as is required by the Standing Orders] each notice specifies at what point or points and on which side of the street or road it is proposed to lay any tramway, so that for a distance of 10 metres or upwards a less space than 3 metres [or, (it being intended to run on the tramway carriages or trucks adapted for use upon railways), a less space than 3.3 metres] shall intervene between the outside of the footpath on either side of the street or road and the nearest rail of the tramway.

Proved that this Standing Order has been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has not been complied with.

ALISON GORLOV Proved that this Standing Order is not applicable to the bill.

Standing Order 8

Tramway or tramroad bills

Proved that [in so far as is required by the Standing Orders] each notice specifies the gauge to be adopted for the proposed tramway or tramroad and the motive power to be employed.

Proved that this Standing Order has been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has not been complied with.

ALISON GORLOV Proved that this Standing Order is not applicable to the bill.

Standing Order 9

Waterway, &c. bills

Proved that [in so far as is required by the Standing Orders] each notice contains the name or description of every existing waterway from which, or from any feeder of which, water is to be diverted into any existing or intended waterway (or into any intended variation, extension or enlargement of that waterway), whether the water is to be abstracted directly or indirectly and whether under any agreement with the proprietors or otherwise.

Proved that this Standing Order has been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has not been complied with.

ALISON GORLOV Proved that this Standing Order is not applicable to the bill.

newspaper notices

Standing Order 10

Publication generally

Handed in affidavit[s] marked [severally] [___].

Proof in case of bill promoted by a local or joint3authority of notice in a newspaper circulating there

Proved that the bill is promoted by the council of the county [district] [London borough] [county borough] [local government area] of [___] [the Greater London Authority] [a joint authority, namely ___].

Proved that the newspaper notice marked [severally [___] and] [___] previously handed in, was duly published, in the area of the said local [authority] [authorities], once in each of two consecutive weeks, with an interval of not less than six clear days between the two publication dates, the second publication being not later than 11th December [201_].

Proved that [in so far as is required by the Standing Orders] the several newspaper notices are in the same terms.

____________________________

Proof in case of bill altering functions etc., of the council or members or officers of local authorities of notice in a newspaper circulating there

Proved that the bill alters functions of the council of the [Greater London Authority] [county] [district] [London borough] [county borough] [local government area] [parish] [community] of [___].

Proved that the newspaper notice marked [severally [___] and] [___] previously handed in was duly published, in the area of the said local [authority] [authorities], once in each of two consecutive weeks, with an interval of not less than six clear days between the two publication dates, the second publication being not later than 11th December [201_].

Proved that [in so far as is required by the Standing Orders] the several newspaper notices are in the same terms.

____________________________

Proof in case of bills not promoted by a local or joint authority

ALISON GORLOV Proved that the bill is not promoted by a local or joint authority.

ALISON GORLOV Proved that the principal office of [the Minister in charge of the bill] [___ promoting the bill] is [are] situated in the county [metropolitan district] [unitary district] [London borough] [county borough] [local government area] of the City of Westminster.

DARREN WHITE Proved that the newspapers marked [severally] 1 and 2 previously handed in were duly published, in the area of the said local [authority] [authorities], once in each of two consecutive weeks, with an interval of not less than six clear days between the two publication dates, the second publication being not later than 11th December 2013.

DARREN WHITE Proved that [in so far as is required by the Standing Orders] the several newspaper notices are in the same terms.

____________________________

Proof in case of bills relating to works to which Standing Order 27 applies or authorising compulsory acquisition of lands.

TIMOTHY MUSGRAVE Proved that the bill relates to [works which are to be] [and lands which are] situated in:

Greater London;

The counties of Buckinghamshire, Hertfordshire, Northamptonshire, Oxfordshire, Staffordshire and Warwickshire;

The metropolitan boroughs of the City of Birmingham, City of Manchester and Solihull; and

The London boroughs of Brent, Camden, City of Westminster, Ealing, Hammersmith & Fulham, Hillingdon, Islington and Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea

the [county] [counties] [metropolitan district[s]] [London borough[s]][unitary district[s]] [county borough[s]] [local government area[s]] of [___].

TIMOTHY MUSGRAVE Proved that the said local authority areas are the only ones in which any new works to which Standing Order 27 applies are to be constructed, or in which any lands or rights to use lands are intended to be compulsorily acquired, or in which any works are to be constructed, or lands are situated in respect of which the time limited by a former Act for their construction or compulsory acquisition, or of a right to use the lands, is sought to be extended.

DARREN WHITE Proved that the newspaper notice[s] marked severally 1 to 58 previously handed in, was were duly published, in the area of the said local [authority] [authorities], once in each of two consecutive weeks, with an interval of not less than six clear days between the two publication dates, the second publication being not later than 11th December 2013.

DARREN WHITE Proved that [in so far as is required by the Standing Orders] the several newspaper notices are in the same terms.

ALISON GORLOV Considers that this Standing Order has been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has not been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has been complied with in all respects except as regards time.

Standing Order 10A

Publication of notice relating to works bill

Handed in affidavits marked [severally] [___].

DAVID WALKER Handed in a list marked A [severally].

DAVID WALKER Proved that the list marked A contains at least one place of public resort in each of the local authority areas in which the lands are or works will be situated.

JANICE HECKSCHER Proved that copies of the newspaper notice were displayed at each place of public resort mentioned in the said list for 2 consecutive weeks ending not later than 11th December 2013.

ALISON GORLOV Proved that this Standing Order has been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has not been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has been complied with in all respects except as regards time.

Proved that this Standing Order is not applicable to the bill.

gazette notice

Standing Order 11

DARREN WHITE Produced the London and Edinburgh [Belfast] Gazettes of 26th November 2013 containing a notice of the bill.

DARREN WHITE Proved that each [such] notice was published not later than 11th December 2013.

MONICA PETO Proved that [in so far as is required by the Standing Orders] each [such] notice states:

a) the short title of the bill;

b) the time within which that objection may be made by deposit of a petition in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments or the Private Bill Office of the House of Commons and that information regarding the deposit of such petitions may be obtained from either of those offices or from the agents for the [promoters] [bill];

c) the offices at which copies of the bill may be inspected and obtained mentioned in the full notice in respect of the London Gazette notice and at offices in Edinburgh and London in respect of the Edinburgh Gazette notice

d) the officers with whom plans have been deposited under Standing Orders 27 and 36.

ALISON GORLOV Considers that this Standing Order has been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has not been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has been complied with in all respects except as regards time.

street notice

Standing Order 12

Tramway, trolley vehicle system, underground railway or tramroad

Handed in affidavit[s] marked [severally] [___].

MICHAEL CROWTHER Proved that not later than the [15th] 12th November 2013 application was made in writing to every

ANTHONY PRATT authority having the control of any street or road, the surface of which it is proposed to alter or disturb

RAJ RANDHAWA in the construction of the [tramway] [trolley vehicle system] any underground railway [tramroad] for

TREVOR WILDING directions as to the manner in which the notice required by Standing Order 12 was to be posted in such

street or road.

MICHAEL CROWTHER Proved that as the notice required by Standing Order 12 was kept posted-

ANTHONY PRATT a) in or as close as reasonably possible to every street or road the surface of which it is proposed to

RAJ RANDHAWA alter or disturb in connection with the construction of the [tramway] [trolley vehicle system] any

TREVOR WILDING underground railway [tramroad];

ASHLEY PARRY JONES b) for not less than fourteen consecutive days beginning not later than 20th 25th 29th November;

c) [in such manner as the authority having control of the road directed] or [in some conspicuous position in every such street or road, no directions having been received by the relevant authority within seven days after the application for directions];

[and that the notice stated the place or places at which plans of the [tramway] [underground railway] [tramroad] would be deposited for public inspection under Standing Orders 27 and 36 with local government offices for areas comprising the street or road or any part of it.

Proved that this Standing Order has been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has not been complied with.

ALISON GORLOV Considers that this Standing Order has been complied with in all respects except as regards time.

Proved that this Standing Order is not applicable to the bill.

public footpath or bridleway notice

Standing Order 12A

Stopping up etc. of public footpaths or bridleways

Handed in Affidavit[s] marked [severally]

MICHAEL CROWTHER Proved that as from 20th 25th 29th November 2013 the notice required by Standing Order 12A was‌ displayed

ANTHONY PRATT in a prominent position at the ends or as close as reasonably possible to the ends of the part of any specified public footpath or bridleway proposed to

RAJ RANDHAWA be stopped up or diverted.

TREVOR WILDING

ASHLEY PARRY JONES Proved that this Standing Order has been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has not been complied with.

ALISON GORLOV Considers that this Standing Order has been complied with in all respects except as regards time.

Proved that this Standing Order is not applicable to the bill.


Standing Order 13

Notice to owners, etc.

Handed in affidavit[s] marked [severally] [___] with list[s] annexed marked [severally] [___] signed by the deponent[s respectively].

DAVID WALKER Handed in lists marked [severally] B1, B2, B3 and B4 with Post Office receipts attached thereto signed by the witness[es respectively]. (notices served by Recorded Delivery post in time)

DAVID WALKER Handed in lists marked [severally] C1, C2, C3, C4 and C5 with Post Office receipts attached thereto signed by the witness[es respectively]. (notices served by Recorded Delivery post out of time)

DAVID WALKER Handed in lists marked [severally] D1, D2, D3 and D4 signed by the witness[es respectively]. (notices served personally in time)

DAVID WALKER Handed in a lists marked [severally] E signed by the witness[es respectively]. (notices served personally out of time)

DAVID WALKER Handed in lists marked [severally] F1, F2, and F3 with Post Office receipts attached thereto signed by the witness[es respectively]. (notices served by International Signed For post in time

DAVID WALKER Handed in lists marked [severally] G1 and G2 with Post Office receipts attached thereto signed by the witness[es respectively]. (notices served by International Signed For post out of time

MICHAEL Proved that on or before 5th December 2013 as regards list[s] marked B1 to B4, D1 to D4, F1 to F3

CROWTHER and on or before 13th December 2013 as regards list[s] marked C1 to C5, E, and G1 and G2

RAJ RANDHAWA [they severally] gave notice in writing, in a form following that set out in Appendix A to the Standing

ANTHONY PRATT Orders as closely as possible, to the parties mentioned in such list[s], in accordance with Standing Orders

TREVOR WILDING 22 and 24.

MICHAEL Proved that in the case of notices forwarded by post-

CROWTHER

ANTHONY PRATT a) such notices were posted on or before 2nd December [2013] as respects lists B1 to B4 and F1 to

RAJ RANDHAWA F3 and on or before 13th December 2013 as respects lists C1 to C5 G1 and G2

TREVOR WILDING

TIMOTHY b) that [none] 185 of such notices were [was] returned by the Post Office

MUSGRAVE as undelivered.

A note on returned notices is at appendix B

MICHAEL CROWTHER Proved that the [lists marked B1 to B4, C1 to C5, B1, B2, D1 to D4, E, F1 to F3, and G1 and G2

ANTHONY PRATT together contain] the names of all the owners, or reputed owners, lessees, or reputed lessees, and occupiers

RAJ RANDHAWA of each parcel of land or house for the acquisition of or right to use which compulsory powers are

TREVOR WILDING proposed to be authorised by the bill, or in respect of which an extension of the time limited by any former Act for that purpose is sought, or which may be rendered liable to the imposition of an improvement charge (except those owners or lessees whose identity could not after reasonable enquiry be ascertained).

ALISON GORLOV Proved that this Standing Order has been complied with as respect lists marked B1 to B4, D1 to D4 and F1 to F3.

Proved that this Standing Order has not been complied with.

ALISON GORLOV Proved that this Standing Order has been complied with in all respects except as regards time as respects lists marked C1 to C5, E and G1 and G2.

Proved that this Standing Order is not applicable to the bill.

Standing Order 14

Notice to frontagers in case of tramways

Handed in affidavit[s] marked [severally] [___] with list[s] annexed marked [severally] [___] signed by the deponent[s respectively].

Handed in a list[s] marked [severally] [___] signed by the witness[es respectively].

Handed in affidavit[s] marked [severally] [___] with list[s] annexed marked [severally] [___] with Post Office receipt attached thereto signed by the deponent[s respectively].

Handed in a list[s] marked [severally] [___] with Post Office receipts attached thereto signed by the witness[es respectively].

Proved that on or before 5th December [201_] as regards list[s] marked [___], s/he [they severally] gave notice in writing to the parties mentioned in such list[s] in accordance with Standing Orders 22 and 24 that stated the intention to apply for a bill whereby it is proposed to authorise the construction of a tramway in such position in the road that a less space than 3 metres [3.3 metres] will intervene between the outside of the footpath on either side of the road and the nearest rail of the tramway.

Proved that in the case of notices forwarded by post and shown in list(s) marked [___]-

a) that such notices were posted on or before 2nd December [201_]; and

b) [none] [___] of such letters were [was] returned by the Post Office as undelivered.

Proved that the [list marked [___] contains] [lists marked respectively [___] and [___] together contain] the names of all the owners, or reputed owners, lessees, or reputed lessees, and occupiers of all houses, shops, or warehouses abutting upon any part of any street, or road, along which it is proposed to lay any tramway, where for a distance of 10 metres or upwards it is proposed that a less space than 3 metres [or 3.3 metres] shall intervene between the outside of the footpath on either side of the road and the nearest rail of such tramway.

Proved that this Standing Order has been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has not been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has been complied with in all respects except as regards time.

ALISON GORLOV Proved that this Standing Order is not applicable to the bill.

Standing Order 15

Notice to owners and lessees of railways etc. affected by proposed tramway or trolley vehicle system

Handed in affidavit[s] marked [severally] [___] with list[s] annexed marked [severally] [___] signed by the deponent[s respectively].

Handed in a list[s] marked [severally] [___] signed by the witness[es respectively].

Handed in affidavit[s] marked [severally] [___] with list[s] annexed marked [severally] [___] with Post Office receipt attached thereto signed by the deponent[s respectively].

Handed in a list[s] marked [severally] [___] with Post Office receipts attached thereto signed by the witness[es respectively].

Proved that on or before 5th December [201_] as regards list[s] marked [___], s/he [they severally] gave notice in writing to the parties mentioned in such list[s] in accordance with Standing Orders 22 and 24 that stated the intention to apply for a bill whereby it is proposed to authorise the construction of a tramway [trolley vehicle system]-

a) crossing a railway, tramroad, tramway or trolley vehicle system on the level; or

b) crossing a railway, tramroad, tramway, trolley vehicle system or canal by means of a bridge; or

c) otherwise affecting or interfering with a railway, tramroad, tramway, trolley vehicle system or canal,

[and that the notices stated the place or places at which the plans of the proposed tramway had been or would be deposited for public inspection].

Proved that the [list marked [___] contains] [lists marked respectively [___] and [___] together contain] the names of all the owners or reputed owners and lessees or reputed lessees of railways, tramroads, tramways, trolley vehicle systems or canals to be crossed, affected or interfered with by the tramway [trolley vehicle system] proposed by the bill.

Proved that in the case of notices forwarded by post and shown in list(s) marked [___]-

a) that such notices were posted on or before 2nd December [201_]; and

b) [none] [___] of such letters were [was] returned by the Post Office as undelivered.

Proved that this Standing Order has been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has not been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has been complied with in all respects except as regards time.

ALISON GORLOV Proved that this Standing Order is not applicable to the bill.

Standing Order 16

Notice to mill-owners, etc., where water is to be impounded or abstracted

Handed in affidavit[s] marked [severally] [___] with list[s] annexed marked [severally] [___] signed by the deponent[s respectively].

Handed in a list[s] marked [severally] [___] signed by the witness[es respectively].

Handed in affidavit[s] marked [severally] [___] with list[s] annexed marked [severally] [___] with Post Office receipt attached thereto signed by the deponent[s respectively].

Handed in a list[s] marked [severally] [___] with Post Office receipts attached thereto signed by the witness[es respectively].

Proved that on or before 5th December [201_] as regards list[s] marked [___], s/he [they severally] gave notice in writing to the parties mentioned in such list[s] in accordance with Standing Orders 22 and 24 that stated-

a) the intention to apply for a bill whereby it is proposed to authorise the impounding of the waters of, or the abstraction of water from, a stream at a point at which the stream is not navigable;

b) the name (if any) by which the stream is known at the point at which the water is intended to be impounded or abstracted;

c) the [district] [London borough] [county] [county borough] [and parish [community]] in which that point is situated; and

d) the time and place of deposit of the plans, sections and books of reference with the proper officers of councils of [counties] [metropolitan districts] [unitary districts] [London boroughs] [county boroughs].

Proved that in the case of notices forwarded by post and shown in list(s) marked [___]-

a) that such notices were posted on or before 2nd December [201_]; and

b) [none] [___] of such letters were [was] returned by the Post Office as undelivered.

Proved that the [list marked ____ contains] [lists marked respectively ____ and ____ together contain] the names of all the owners, or reputed owners, lessees, or reputed lessees, and occupiers of all mills, factories or other works using the waters of ____ at any point [within a distance (measured along the course of the stream) of 32 kilometres below the point at which water is intended to be impounded or abstracted] or [situated between the point at which water is intended to be impounded or abstracted and the point at which such waters flow into or unite with [___] being a navigable stream].

Proved that this Standing Order has been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has not been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has been complied with in all respects except as regards time.

ALISON GORLOV Proved that this Standing Order is not applicable to the bill.

Standing Order 17

Notice to owners and occupiers of houses in case of gas works, burial ground, etc., bills

Handed in affidavit[s] marked [severally] [___] with list[s] annexed marked [severally] [___] signed by the deponent[s respectively].

Handed in a list[s] marked [severally] [___] signed by the witness[es respectively].

Handed in affidavit[s] marked [severally] [___] with list[s] annexed marked [severally] [___] with Post Office receipt attached thereto signed by the deponent[s respectively].

Handed in a list[s] marked [severally] [___] with Post Office receipts attached thereto signed by the witness[es respectively].

Proved that on or before 5th December [201_] as regards list[s] marked [___], s/he [they severally] gave notice in writing to the parties mentioned in such list[s] in accordance with Standing Orders 22 and 24 that stated the intention to apply for a bill whereby it is proposed to authorise-

a) the construction of gasworks, sewage works, works for the manufacture or conversion of the residual products of gas or sewage or a station for generating electricity; or

b) the making, construction or extension of a sewage farm, cemetery, burial ground, crematorium, destructor, or hospital for infectious diseases.

Proved that in the case of notices forwarded by post and shown in list(s) marked [___]-

a) that such notices were posted on or before 2nd December [201_]; and

b) [none] [___] of such letters were [was] returned by the Post Office as undelivered.

Proved that the [list marked [___] contains] [lists marked respectively [___] and [___] together contain] the names of all the owners, or reputed owners, lessees, or reputed lessees, and occupiers of every dwelling house situated within 275 metres of the land intended to be used for any of the proposed purposes.

Proved that this Standing Order has been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has not been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has been complied with in all respects except as regards time.

ALISON GORLOV Proved that this Standing Order is not applicable to the bill.

Standing Order 18

Notice to owners, etc., in case of relinquishment of works

Handed in affidavit[s] marked [severally] [___] with list[s] annexed marked [severally] [___] signed by the deponent[s respectively].

Handed in a list[s] marked [severally] [___] signed by the witness[es respectively].

Handed in affidavit[s] marked [severally] [___] with list[s] annexed marked [severally] [___] with Post Office receipt attached thereto signed by the deponent[s respectively].

Handed in a list[s] marked [severally] [___] with Post Office receipts attached thereto signed by the witness[es respectively].

Proved that on or before 5th December [201_] as regards list[s] marked [___], s/he [they severally] gave notice in writing to the parties mentioned in such list[s] in accordance with Standing Orders 22 and 24 that stated the intention to apply for a bill whereby it is proposed to authorise the relinquishment of the whole or any part of a work authorised by any former Act, but not constructed.

Proved that in the case of notices forwarded by post and shown in list(s) marked [___]-

a) that such notices were posted on or before 2nd December [201_]; and

b) [none] [___] of such letters [were] [was] returned by the Post Office as undelivered.

Proved that the [list marked [___] contains] [lists marked respectively [___] and [___] together contain] the names of all the owners or reputed owners, lessees or reputed lessees, and occupiers of each parcel of land in which any part of the work proposed to be relinquished, might have been situated.

Proved that this Standing Order has been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has not been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has been complied with in all respects except as regards time.

ALISON GORLOV Proved that this Standing Order is not applicable to the bill.

notices to owners, etc., of alteration or repeal of statutory
provisions, etc.

Standing Order 19

Notice to owners, etc., in case of alteration or repeal of protective provisions

Handed in affidavit[s] marked [severally] [___] with list[s] annexed marked [severally] [___] signed by the deponent[s respectively].

Handed in a list[s] marked [severally] [___] signed by the witness[es respectively].

Handed in affidavit[s] marked [severally] [___] with list[s] annexed marked [severally] [___] with Post Office receipt attached thereto signed by the deponent[s respectively].

Handed in a list[s] marked [severally] [___] with Post Office receipts attached thereto signed by the witness[es respectively].

Proved that on or before 11th December [201_] as regards list[s] marked [___], s/he [they severally] gave notice in writing to the parties mentioned in such list[s] in accordance with Standing Orders 22 and 24 that stated the intention to apply for a bill whereby it is proposed to alter or repeal any express statutory provision now in force for:

a) the protection of the owner or reputed owner, lessee or reputed lessee or occupier of any specifically designated property, or

b) the protection or benefit of any public trustees or commissioners, corporation or other person, specifically named in such provision;

Proved that the [list marked [___] contains] [lists marked respectively [___] and [___] together contain] the names of all the persons for the time being entitled to enforce any such statutory provision (except those persons whose identity could not after reasonable enquiry be ascertained);

Proved that in the case of notices forwarded by post and shown in list(s) marked [___]-

a) that such notices were posted on or before 8th December [201_]; and

b) [none] [___] of such letters were [was] returned by the Post Office as undelivered.

Proved that the [list marked [___] contains] [lists marked respectively [___] and [___] together contain] the names of all the persons for the time being entitled to enforce any express statutory provision now in force for:

a) the protection of the owner or reputed owner, lessee or reputed lessee or occupier of any specifically designated property, and

b) the protection or benefit of any public trustees or commissioners, corporation or other person, specifically named in such provision,

which is proposed to be altered or repealed (except those persons whose identity could not after reasonable enquiry be ascertained);

Proved that this Standing Order has been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has not been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has been complied with in all respects except as regards time.

MONICA PETO Proved that this Standing Order is not applicable to the bill.

Standing Order 19A

Notice in case of alteration of court order

Handed in affidavit[s] marked [severally] [___] with list[s] annexed marked [severally] [___] signed by the deponent[s respectively].

Handed in a list[s] marked [severally] [___] signed by the witness[es respectively].

Handed in affidavit[s] marked [severally] [___] with list[s] annexed marked [severally] [___] with Post Office receipt attached thereto signed by the deponent[s respectively].

Handed in a list[s] marked [severally] [___] with Post Office receipts attached thereto signed by the witness[es respectively].

Proved that on or before 11th December [201_] as regards list[s] marked [___], s/he [they severally] gave notice in writing to the parties mentioned in such list[s] in accordance with Standing Orders 22 and 24 that stated the intention to apply for a bill containing provisions the effect of which is to confer power to disregard an order or undertaking now in force made by or given to a Court.

Proved that in the case of notices forwarded by post and shown in list(s) marked [___]-

a) that such notices were posted on or before 8th December [201_]; and

b) [none] [___] of such letters were [was] returned by the Post Office as undelivered.

Proved that the [list marked [___] contains] [lists marked respectively [___] and [___] together contain] the names of all the persons (or their personal representatives) at whose instance an order or undertaking now in force was made by or given to a Court and power to disregard which is conferred by the bill (except those persons (or their personal representatives) whose identity could not after reasonable enquiry be ascertained).

Proved that this Standing Order has been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has not been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has been complied with in all respects except as regards time.

MONICA PETO Proved that this Standing Order is not applicable to the bill.

Standing Order 19B

Notice to debenture holders

Handed in affidavit[s] marked [severally] [___] with list[s] annexed marked [severally] [___] signed by the deponent[s respectively].

Handed in a list[s] marked [severally] [___] signed by the witness[es respectively].

Handed in affidavit[s] marked [severally] [___] with list[s] annexed marked [severally] [___] with Post Office receipt attached thereto signed by the deponent[s respectively].

Handed in a list[s] marked [severally] [___] with Post Office receipts attached thereto signed by the witness[es respectively].

Proved that on or before 11th December [201_] as regards list[s] marked [___], s/he [they severally] gave notice in writing to the parties mentioned in such list[s] in accordance with Standing Orders 22 and 24 that stated the intention to apply for a bill containing provisions the effect of which is to vary the rights of all or any of the debenture holders of any local authority, or of any company within the meaning of the Companies Act 20064, or otherwise constituted.

Proved that in the case of notices forwarded by post and shown in list(s) marked [___]-

a) that such notices were posted on or before 8th December [201_]; and

b) [none] [___] of such letters were [was] returned by the Post Office as undelivered.

Proved that the [list marked [___] contains] [lists marked respectively [___] and [___] together contain] the names of all the persons:

a) who hold such debentures, and

b) power to vary whose rights is contained in the bill.

Proved that this Standing Order has been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has not been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has been complied with in all respects except as regards time.

MONICA PETO Proved that this Standing Order is not applicable to the bill.

Standing Order 20

Handed in affidavit[s] marked [severally] [___] with list[s] annexed marked [severally] [___] signed by the deponent[s respectively].

Handed in a list[s] marked [severally] [___] signed by the witness[es respectively].

Handed in affidavit[s] marked [severally] [___] with list[s] annexed marked [severally] [___] with Post Office receipt attached thereto signed by the deponent[s respectively].

Handed in a list[s] marked [severally] [___] with Post Office receipts attached thereto signed by the witness[es respectively].

Proved that on or before 11th December [201_] as regards list[s] marked [___], s/he [they severally] gave notice in writing to the parties mentioned in such list[s] in accordance with Standing Orders 22 and 24 that stated the intention to apply for a bill whereby it is proposed to alter or repeal any express statutory provision relating to nuisance arising on any lands.

Proved that the [list marked [___] contains] [lists marked respectively [___] and [___] together contain] the names of all the owners, lessees and occupiers of dwelling houses situated within 275 metres of the said lands (except those persons whose identity could not after reasonable enquiry be ascertained).

Proved that in the case of notices forwarded by post and shown in list(s) marked [___]-

a) that such notices were posted on or before 8th December [201_]; and

b) [none] [___] of such letters were [was] returned by the Post Office as undelivered.

Proved that this Standing Order has been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has not been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has been complied with in all respects except as regards time.

MONICA PETO Proved that this Standing Order is not applicable to the bill.

Standing Order 21

Notice in case of application for compulsory running powers

Handed in affidavit[s] marked [severally] [___] with list[s] annexed marked [severally] [___] signed by the deponent[s respectively].

Handed in a list[s] marked [severally] [___] signed by the witness[es respectively].

Handed in affidavit[s] marked [severally] [___] with list[s] annexed marked [severally] [___] with Post Office receipt attached thereto signed by the deponent[s respectively].

DAVID WALKER Handed in a list[s] marked J [severally] with Post Office receipts attached thereto signed by the witness[es respectively].

DAVID WALKER Proved that on or before 11th December 2013 as regards list[s] marked J, he [they severally] gave notice in writing to the parties mentioned in such list[s] in accordance with Standing Orders 22 and 24 that stated the intention to apply for a bill whereby it is proposed to take compulsory running powers over any railway or tramroad.

DAVID WALKER Proved that in the case of notices forwarded by post and shown in the list(s) marked J-

a) that such notices were posted on or before 8th December 2013; and

b) none of such letters were [was] returned by the Post Office as undelivered.

DAVID WALKER Proved that the [list marked J contains] [lists marked respectively [___] and [___] together contain] the names of all the persons owning or working the railways or tramroads over which compulsory running powers are proposed to be taken by the bill.

ALISON GORLOV Considers that this Standing Order has been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has not been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has been complied with in all respects except as regards time.

Proved that this Standing Order is not applicable to the bill.

____________________________

Compliance with Standing Order 22 (Mode of giving notice) does not need to be separately proved as it specifies how the notices required by Standing Orders 13 to 21 shall be given.

Compliance with Standing Order 23 (Evidence of Notice) does not need to be separately proved; it states what constitutes evidence of the giving of a notice).

Compliance with Standing Order 24 (Notice on Sunday, etc., invalid) does not need to be separately proved; it states on which days notices may not be given and is referenced in several proofs.

____________________________

Standing Order 25

Consents in case of tramway bill

Proved that the [___] the Promoters of the bill are the local [and highway] authority having jurisdiction over the public streets and roads along which [the whole] [two-thirds] of the length of each continuous tramway is proposed to be constructed.

Produced a [certificate] [printed copy[ies] of the bill], with the seal[s] of [signed by [___] ] [a letter from [___] ] of the local authority[ies] and highway authority[ies] having jurisdiction over the public streets and roads along which [the whole] [two-thirds] of the length of each continuous tramway is proposed to be constructed, in testimony of the consent of the said local [and highway] authority [authorities] to the bill.

Proved that this Standing Order has been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has not been complied with.

ALISON GORLOV Proved that this Standing Order is not applicable to the bill.

Standing Order 25A

Consents required under the Greater London Authority Act 1999

Handed in affidavit[s] marked [severally] [___].

Proved that on or before 27th November [201_], in accordance with Standing Order 201 of the House of Lords and Standing Order 209 of the House of Commons, s/he [they severally] deposited copies of pre-deposit consents in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Private Bill Office in the House of Commons.

Proved that the copies of the pre-deposit consents so deposited were those required under Standing Order 25A(1)(a).

Proved that on or before 27th November [201_], in accordance with Standing Order 201 of the House of Lords and Standing Order 209 of the House of Commons, s/he [they severally] deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Private Bill Office in the House of Commons a statement that the relevant consent provision for the purposes of Standing Order 25A(1) does not apply to the bill.

Proved that SO 25A is not applicable to the bill because it is not promoted by the Greater London Authority, Transport for London, the London Development Agency nor the council of a London borough.

Proved that the statement was required to be so deposited under Standing Order 25A(1)(b).

____________________________

Proved that on 11th December [201_], or as soon as practicable thereafter, in accordance with Standing Order 201 of the House of Lords and Standing Order 209 of the House of Commons, s/he [they severally] deposited [copies of pre-deposit consents and post-deposit confirmations of consents] [a statement that the relevant withdrawal provision for the purposes of Standing Order 25A(3) applies] [a statement that the relevant amendment provision for the purposes of Standing Order 25A(3) applies] in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Private Bill Office in the House of Commons.

Proved that [the copies of consents and confirmations of consents so deposited were those required] [the statement so deposited was the statement required] under Standing Order 25A(3)(a).

Proved that on 11th December [201_], or as soon as practicable thereafter, in accordance with Standing Order 201 of the House of Lords and Standing Order 209 of the House of Commons, s/he [they severally] deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Private Bill Office in the House of Commons a statement that the relevant consent provision for the purposes of Standing Order 25A(3) does not apply to the bill.

Proved that the statement required under Standing Order 25A(3)(b) was so deposited.

Proved that this Standing Order has been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has not been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has been complied with in all respects except as regards time.

ALISON GORLOV Proved that this Standing Order is not applicable to the bill.

____________________________

Compliance with Standing Order 26 (Deposits on Sunday, etc., invalid) does not have to be separately proved as it states on which days notices or deposits may not be made and is referenced in several proofs.

____________________________

Standing Order 27

Deposit of plan, book of reference, section, etc.

Proper officer of local authority

Handed in affidavit[s] marked [severally] [___].

JANICE HECKSCHER Proved that on or before 28th November 2013 she [they severally] deposited, in accordance with Standing Order 26, the following documents-

a) [so much of] a plan of the works or alteration of the works and of the lands and buildings [as relates to works, lands or buildings in their respective areas];

b) a book of reference;

c) a section of the works to be constructed or altered;

d) any ordnance map required by Standing Order 27(5);

with the proper officer[s] of the council[s] of the county [counties] [metropolitan district[s]] [unitary district] and [London borough[s]] [county borough] [local government area] of: [___].

The counties of Buckinghamshire, Hertfordshire, Northamptonshire, Oxfordshire, Staffordshire and Warwickshire;

The metropolitan boroughs of the City of Birmingham, City of Manchester and Solihull;

The London boroughs of Brent, Camden, City of Westminster, Ealing, Hammersmith & Fulham, Hillingdon, Islington and Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea

Proved that none of those documents were returned by the Post Office as undelivered.

JANICE HECKSCHER Proved that the said proper officer[s] [is] [are] the proper officer[s] of the county [counties] [metropolitan district[s]] [unitary district[s]] and [London borough[s]] [county borough] and [local government area] in which it is proposed-

a) to authorise the construction of works to which Standing Order 27 applies; or

b) compulsorily to acquire any lands or buildings, or rights to use any lands or buildings; or

c) to impose an improvement charge on lands or buildings.


Clerk of the Parliaments, House of Commons Private Bill Office and government departments

Handed in affidavit[s] marked [severally] [___].

DAVID WALKER Proved that on or before 20th 28th November 2013 [they severally] deposited as required by Standing Order

DARREN WHITE 27(8), and in accordance with Standing Order 26, a copy of each plan, section, book of reference and

(HOUSE) ordnance map in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments, in the Private Bill Office of the House of

JANICE HECKSCHER Commons and at the relevant government department[s] and public bodies specified in the list kept under

(GOVT. DEPTS) Standing Order 1A.

JAN PODKOLINSKI Proved that the ordnance maps deposited under this Standing Order are on the scale of 1/50,000 with the line of the railway or tramroad delineated on them so as to show its general course or direction.

See note on sewers attached at appendix C

Proved that this Standing Order has been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has not been complied with.

ALISON GORLOV Considers that this Standing Order has been complied with in all respects except as regards time.

Proved that this Standing Order is not applicable to the bill.

Standing Order 27A

Environmental Assessment

Handed in affidavit[s] marked [severally [___].

DAVID WALKER Proved that on or before 4th December 2013, s/he [they severally] deposited, in accordance with

DARREN WHITE Standing Order 26, copies of [an environmental statement containing the information referred to in

(HOUSE) Standing Order 27A(1)(a) and (3) of the House of Lords and Standing Order 27A(1)(a) and (4) of the

JANICE HECKSCHER House of Commons [and of any direction or statement or reasons required by House of Lords Standing

(GOVT. DEPTS) Order 27A(4) or Standing Order 27A(5) of the House of Commons]] [a direction by the Secretary of State

that no environmental statement is necessary] in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments, the Private Bill

PETER MILLER Office in the House of Commons and at the offices of any government departments or public bodies at

(CONTENT) which copies of the bill are required by Standing Orders 39, as specified in the list kept under Standing Order 1A, to be deposited.

See Note at appendix D

JANICE HECKSCHER Proved that every environmental statement deposited and every non-technical summary were made available for inspection, and for sale at a reasonable price, at the offices referred to in Standing Order 27A(5) of the House of Lords and Standing Order 27A(6) of the House of Commons.

ALISON GORLOV Considers that this Standing Order has been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has not been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has been complied with in all respects except as regards time.

Proved that this Standing Order is not applicable to the bill.

____________________________

Standing Order 28 was repealed in 1964

____________________________

Standing Order 29

Deposit of map in case of tramway, etc bill

Handed in affidavit[s] marked [severally] [___].

Proved that on or before 20th November [201_] s/he [they severally] deposited, in accordance with Standing Order 26, copies of [an] ordnance map[s] in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments, in the Private Bill Office of the House of Commons, and at the [___] and [___] respectively, being the relevant government department(s) [and public bodies] specified in the appropriate list kept under Standing Order 1A.

Proved that the ordnance map[s] so deposited are on a scale of not less than 1/10,000 with the line of the proposed tramway or trolley vehicle system marked on [it][them].

Proved that this Standing Order has been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has not been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has been complied with in all respects except as regards time.

ALISON GORLOV Proved that this Standing Order is not applicable to the bill.

Standing Orders 30

Deposit of map in case of a bill for supply of electricity

Handed in affidavit[s] marked [severally] [___].

Proved that on or before 20th November [201_] s/he [they severally] deposited, in accordance with Standing Order 26. copies of [an] ordnance map[s] at the [___] being the relevant government department(s) [and public bodies] specified in the appropriate list kept under Standing Order 1A.

Proved that the ordnance map[s] so deposited are on a scale of not less than 1/50,000 with the proposed area of electricity supply marked on [it][them].

Proved that this Standing Order has been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has not been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has been complied with in all respects except as regards time.

ALISON GORLOV Proved that this Standing Order is not applicable to the bill.

Standing Order 30A

Deposit of map in the case of a bill for taking water supply

Handed in affidavit[s] marked [severally] [___].

Proved that on or before 20th November [201_] s/he [they severally] deposited, in accordance with Standing Order 26, copies of [an] ordnance map[s] in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments, in the Private Bill Office of the House of Commons, and at the [___] and [___] respectively, being the relevant government department(s) [and public bodies] specified in the appropriate list kept under Standing Order 1A.

Proved that the ordnance maps so deposited-

a) are on the scale of not less than 1/50,000 and show [by a distinguishing mark the position of each reservoir, well, conduit or other work proposed to be authorised by the bill] [by a clearly marked line the catchment area or gathering ground from which the waters of any river, stream or lake proposed as a source of supply are derived],

b) are on the scale of 1/50,000 and show respectively the existing limits of water supply and the area proposed to be added.

Proved that this Standing Order has been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has not been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has been complied with in all respects except as regards time.

ALISON GORLOV Proved that this Standing Order is not applicable to the bill.

Standing Order 31

Deposit of copy of plan, etc., in case of bill affecting tidal lands

Handed in affidavit[s] marked [severally] [___].

Proved that on or before 20th November [201_] s/he [they severally] deposited, in accordance with Standing Order 26, a copy of-

a) so much of the deposited plan[s] [and section[s]] as relates to the tidal lands below the level of mean high-water springs, and

b) [an] ordnance map[s]5

at the [___] being the relevant government department(s) [and public body [bodies]] as required by this Standing Order and as specified in the appropriate list kept under Standing Order 1A

Proved that the copy of the [appropriate part of the] plan[s] [and section[s]] referred to above is marked "TIDAL WATERS" and that all Tidal Waters below the line of high water at mean high water springs are coloured blue [and the dimensions as regards span and headway of the nearest bridge across the same tidal waters above and below any proposed bridge are marked] upon the copy of the plan[s] [and section[s]] so deposited.

Proved that the ordnance map[s] deposited under this Standing Order [has][have] the position and extent or route of the proposed works shown on them.

Proved that this Standing Order has been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has not been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has been complied with in all respects except as regards time.

Jan Podkolinski Proved that this Standing Order is not applicable to the bill.

Standing Order 32

Deposit of copy of plan, etc., of bill affecting fisheries

Delivered to the Environment Agency

Handed in affidavit[s] marked [severally] [___] with list[s] annexed marked [severally] [___] signed by the deponent[s respectively].

DAVID WALKER Handed in a list[s] marked [severally] K signed by the witness[es respectively].

JANICE HECKSCHER Proved that on or before 20th 26th November 2013 s/he [they severally] deposited, in accordance with Standing Order 26, a copy of so much of the deposited plans and sections as relates to any proposed dam, weir, or obstruction to the passage of fish in any river or estuary, or to any proposed sewer discharging into any river or estuary, at each of the offices of the Environment Agency mentioned in the list marked K1 [being] [which include] the Agency’s principal regional office[s] for the area[s] containing the river[s] or estuary[estuaries] affected.

Posted to the Environment Agency

Handed in affidavit[s] marked [severally] [___] with list[s] annexed marked [severally] ____ with Post Office receipt attached, signed by the deponents respectively.

Handed in a list[s] marked [severally] [___] with Post Office receipt attached, signed by the witness[es respectively].

Proved that on or before 17th November [201_], s/he [they severally] posted, using the recorded delivery service and addressed with sufficient directions, a copy of so much of the deposited plan[s] and section[s] as relates to any proposed dam, weir, or obstruction to the passage of fish in any river or estuary or to any proposed sewer discharging into any river or estuary to each of the offices of the Environment Agency mentioned in the list marked [___] [being] [which include] the Agency’s principal regional office[s] for the area[s] containing the river[s] or estuary [estuaries] affected and that such plans and sections were not returned by the Post Office as undelivered.

____________________________

Proved that the said [list marked [___] contains] [lists marked [___] and [___] respectively together contain] the names of all the principal regional offices of the Environment Agency for the areas containing any rivers or estuaries affected.

Considers that this Standing Order has been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has not been complied with.

ALISON GORLOV Proved that this Standing Order has been complied with in all respects except as regards time.

Proved that this Standing Order is not applicable to the bill.

Standing Order 33

Banks of river

Delivered to the Environment Agency

Handed in affidavit[s] marked [severally] [___] [with list[s] annexed marked [severally] [___] signed by the deponent[s respectively]].

Handed in a list[s] marked [severally] [___] signed by the witness[es respectively].

Proved that on or before 20th November [201_], s/he [they severally] deposited, in accordance with Standing Order 26, a copy of so much of the deposited plan[s] and section[s] as relate[s] to the portion of any work affecting the banks, foreshore or bed of any river, together with any ordnance map required by Standing Order 33(2), at each of the offices of the Environment Agency mentioned in the list marked [___] [being] [which include] the Agency’s principal regional office[s] for the area[s] containing the river[s] affected.

Posted to the Environment Agency

Handed in affidavit[s] marked [severally] [___] [with list[s] annexed marked [severally] [___]] with Post Office receipt attached, signed by the deponent[s respectively].

JANICE HECKSCHER Handed in a list marked [severally] L with Post Office receipts attached signed by the witness[es respectively].

JANICE HECKSCHER Proved that on or before 17th 28th November 2013, s/he [they severally] posted, using the recorded delivery service and addressed with sufficient directions, a copy of so much of the deposited plan[s] and section[s] as relate[s] to the portion of any work affecting the banks, foreshore, or bed of any river, together with any ordnance map required by Standing Order 33(2), to each of the offices of the Environment Agency mentioned in the list marked L [being] [which include] the Agency’s principal regional office[s] for the area[s] containing the river[s] or estuary [estuaries] affected and that such plans, sections and ordnance map were not returned by the Post Office as undelivered.

____________________________

JANICE HECKSCHER Proved that the said list marked L contains [lists marked [___] and [___] respectively together contain] the names of all the principal regional offices of the Environment Agency for the areas containing any rivers affected.

JAN PODKOLINSKI Proved that the depth of every proposed tunnel below the bed of any river, or the span and headway of every proposed bridge over every river, included in the plan, are marked on the copies of the plan so delivered or sent.

JAN PODKOLINSKI Proved that any ordnance map[s] so deposited [has] [have] the position and extent or route of the proposed works shown on them.

Proved that this Standing Order has been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has not been complied with.

ALISON GORLOV Considers that this Standing Order has been complied with in all respects except as regards time.

Proved that this Standing Order is not applicable to the bill.

Standing Order 34

Deposit of copy of plan, etc., in certain transport related cases

JAN HECKSCHER Proved that on or before 20th 26th November 2013 s/he [they severally] deposited, in accordance with

Standing Order 26, a copy of the deposited plan, section (if any) and book of reference, [together with a copy of any ordnance map6 marked in accordance with Standing Order 34(b)] at the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, the Environment Agency, Natural England, English Heritage and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, being the relevant government department[s] [and public body [bodies] ] as required by this Standing Order and as specified in the list kept under Standing Order 1A.

Proved that this Standing Order has been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has not been complied with.

ALISON GORLOV Considers that this Standing Order has been complied with in all respects except as regards time.

Proved that this Standing Order is not applicable to the bill.

Standing Order 35

Deposit of copy of plan, etc., in certain cases with Commissioner of Police

JANICE HECKSCHER Proved that on or before 20th 26th November 2013 s/he [they severally] deposited, in accordance with Standing Order 26, at the Office of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis a copy of so much of the deposited plans and sections as relates to the construction of any work by which street traffic or the regulation of street traffic in the Metropolitan Police District may be affected.

Proved that this Standing Order has been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has not been complied with.

ALISON GORLOV Considers that this Standing Order has been complied with in all respects except as regards time.

Proved that this Standing Order is not applicable to the bill.

Standing Order 367

Deposit of copy of plan, etc., in certain cases with certain local authorities

Delivered to local authorities

Handed in affidavit[s] marked [severally] [___] [with list[s] annexed marked [severally] [___] signed by the deponent[s respectively]].

DAVID WALKER Handed in a list marked M [severally] signed by the witness[es respectively].

JANICE HECKSCHER Proved that on or before 20th 28th November 2013, s/he [they severally] deposited, in accordance with Standing Order 26, a copy of so much of the deposited plans, sections and books of reference as relates to their respective local government areas with the respective officers mentioned in the list marked M.

Posted to local authorities

Handed in affidavit[s] marked [severally] [___] with list[s] annexed marked [severally] [___] with Post Office receipt attached, signed by the deponent[s respectively].

Handed in a list[s] marked [severally] [___] with Post Office receipt attached signed by the witness[es respectively].

Proved that on or before 17th November [201_], s/he [they severally] posted, using the recorded delivery service and addressed with sufficient directions, a copy of so much of the deposited plan, section, and book of reference as relates to their respective districts to the respective officers mentioned in the said list[s] marked [___] and that such plans, sections and books of reference were not returned by the Post Office as undelivered.

____________________________

JANICE HECKSCHER Proved that the said [list marked M identifies] [lists marked [___] together identify] all the areas, proper officers and chairmen mentioned in Standing Order 36(1)(a) to (d) and that those areas are the only such areas to which the plan, section or book of reference relates.

Proved that this Standing Order has been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has not been complied with.

ALISON GORLOV Considers that this Standing Order has been complied with in all respects except as regards time.

Proved that this Standing Order is not applicable to the bill.

Standing Order 37

Deposit of copy of plan, etc., in certain circumstances

JANICE HECKSCHER Proved that on or before 20th 26th November 2013 s/he [they severally] deposited, in accordance with Standing Order 26, copies of so much of the deposited plans, sections and books of reference as relates to any churchyard, burial ground, cemetery or other land proposed to be compulsorily acquired or used at the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Coroners’ Unit (Ministry of Justice), the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs and the Home Office, being the relevant government department[s] [and public body [bodies] ] as required by this Standing Order and as specified in the appropriate list kept under Standing Order 1A

Proved that this Standing Order has been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has not been complied with.

ALISON GORLOV Considers that this Standing Order has been complied with in all respects except as regards time.

Proved that this Standing Order is not applicable to the bill.

Standing Order 38

Deposit of printed copies of bills in Parliament Office, Vote Office and House of Commons Private Bill Office

Proved that on or before 27th November [201_], s/he [they severally] deposited in accordance with Standing Order 26, Standing Order 201 of the House of Lords and Standing Order 209 of the House of Commons, a printed copy of the bill in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments, in the Private Bill Office of the House of Commons and in the Vote Office.

Proved that the title of the bill contains the reference required by House of Lords Standing Order 38(5).

Proved that there is attached to every copy of the bill a printed memorandum:

a) describing the bill generally and, subject to Standing Order 38(4), every clause in the bill, and

b) including a statement of opinion, by or on behalf of the promoters, as to the compatibility of the provisions of the bill with the Convention rights (as defined in the Human Rights Act 1998

Proved that this Standing Order has been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has not been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has been complied with in all respects except as regards time.

ALISON GORLOV Proved that this Standing Order is not applicable to the bill.

Standing Order 39

Deposit of bills at government departments and public bodies

JANICE HECKSCHER Proved that on or before 4th December 2013 s/he [they severally] deposited, as specified in the appropriate list kept under Standing Order 1A and in accordance with Standing Order 26, printed copies of the bill.

JANICE HECKSCHER Proved the bill [relates to a matter to which the Births and Deaths Service Act 1953 or the Registration Service Act 1953 or any Act amending those Acts relates] [affects education or educational endowments, or relates to public libraries] [affects charities or charitable trusts] [affects the Duchy of Cornwall] [affects property vested in, or under the management of, the Forestry Commissioners or contains references to those Commissioners] [extends to Scotland] [extends to Wales] [extends to Northern Ireland] [affects street traffic or the regulation of street traffic in the Metropolitan Police District] and that copies of the bill were deposited as required by this Standing Order and as specified in the appropriate list kept under Standing Order 1A.

ALISON GORLOV Proved that those deposits are the only deposits required to be made under Standing Order 39.

ALISON GORLOV Considers that this Standing Order has been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has not been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has been complied with in all respects except as regards time.

____________________________

Standing Order 40 was repealed in 1986

____________________________

Standing Order 41

Delivery of copies of certain bills to highway authorities

Delivered to highway authorities

Handed in affidavit[s] marked [severally] [___] [with list[s] annexed marked [severally] [___] signed by the deponent[s respectively]].

DAVID WALKER Handed in a list marked [severally] N signed by the witness[es respectively].

JANICE HECKSCHER Proved that on or before 4th December [2013] s/he [they severally] delivered, in accordance with Standing Order 26, a printed copy of the bill at the office of each of the highway authorities mentioned in the list[s] marked N .

Posted to highway authorities

Handed in affidavit[s] marked [severally] [___] with list[s] annexed marked [severally] [___] with Post Office receipt attached signed by the deponent[s respectively].

Handed in a list[s] marked [severally] [___] with Post Office receipt attached signed by the witness[es respectively].

Proved that on or before 1st December [201_] s/he [they severally] posted by recorded delivery service addressed with sufficient directions a printed copy of the bill to the office of each of the highway authorities mentioned in the list[s] marked [___] and that none of such bills was returned by the Post Office as undelivered.

____________________________

JANICE HECKSCHER Proved that the said list marked N contains [lists marked [___] and [___] respectively together contain] the name of every highway authority liable for the maintenance of the streets or roads in whose area it is proposed to authorise any persons other than the highway authority to break up or otherwise interfere with any street or road other than one shown on the deposited plans.

ALISON GORLOV Considers that this Standing Order has been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has not been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has been complied with in all respects except as regards time.

Proved that this Standing Order is not applicable to the bill.

Standing Order 42

Delivery of copies of bills affecting watercourses to Environment Agency

Delivered to the Environment Agency

Handed in affidavit[s] marked [severally] [___] [with list[s] annexed marked [severally] [___] signed by the deponent[s respectively]].

JANICE HECKSCHER Referred to the list marked K [severally] [___] already handed in and signed by the witness[es respectively].

JANICE HECKSCHER Proved that on or before 4th December 2013, s/he [they severally] delivered, in accordance with Standing Order 26, a printed copy of the bill to each of the offices of the Environment Agency mentioned in the list marked K [being] [which include] the Agency’s principal regional office[s] for the area[s] containing the watercourse[s] affected.

Posted to the Environment Agency

Handed in affidavit[s] marked [severally] [___] [with list[s] annexed marked [severally] [___]] with Post Office receipt attached, signed by the deponent[s respectively].

Handed in a list[s] marked [severally] [___] with Post Office receipt attached signed by the witness[es respectively].

Proved that on or before 1st December [201_] s/he [they severally] posted, using the recorded delivery service and addressed with sufficient directions, a printed copy of the bill to each of the offices of the Environment Agency mentioned in the list marked [___] [being] [which include] the Agency’s principal regional office[s] for the area[s] containing the watercourse[s] affected and that the bill was not] [none of the bills were] returned by the Post Office as undelivered.

JANICE HECKSCHER Proved that the said [list marked K contains] [lists marked [___] and [___] respectively together contain] the names of all the principal regional offices of the Environment Agency for the areas containing watercourses affected by the bill.

ALISON GORLOV Considers that this Standing Order has been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has not been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has been complied with in all respects except as regards time.

Proved that this Standing Order is not applicable to the bill.

Standing Order 43

Delivery of copies of bills affecting rivers or estuaries to Environment Agency

Delivered to the Environment Agency

Handed in affidavit[s] marked [severally] [___] [with list[s] annexed marked [severally] [___] signed by the deponent[s respectively]].

Handed in a list[s] marked [severally] [___] signed by the witness[es respectively].

Proved that on or before 4th December [___], s/he [they severally] delivered, in accordance with Standing Order 26, a printed copy of the bill to each of the offices of the Environment Agency mentioned in the list marked [___] [being] [which include] the Agency’s principal regional office[s] for the area[s] containing the river[s] or estuary [estuaries] affected.

Posted to the Environment Agency

Handed in affidavit[s] marked [severally] [___] [with list[s] annexed marked [severally] [___]] with Post Office receipt attached, signed by the deponent[s respectively].

JANICE HECKSCHER Referred to the list marked [severally] L already handed in with Post Office receipt attached signed by the witness[es respectively].

JANICE HECKSCHER Proved that on or before 1st December 2013 s/he [they severally] posted, using the recorded delivery service and addressed with sufficient directions, a printed copy of the bill to each of the offices of the Environment Agency mentioned in the list marked L [being] [which include] the Agency’s principal regional office[s] for the area[s] containing the river[s] or estuary [estuaries] affected and that the bill was not] [none of the bills were] returned by the Post Office as undelivered.

JANICE HECKSCHER Proved that the said list marked L contains [lists marked [___] and [___] respectively together contain] the names of all the principal regional offices of the Environment Agency for areas containing rivers or estuaries affected by the bill.

ALISON GORLOV Considers that this Standing Order has been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has not been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has been complied with in all respects except as regards time.

Proved that this Standing Order is not applicable to the bill.

Standing Order 44

Delivery of copies of certain bills to local authorities

Delivered to local authorities

Handed in affidavit[s] marked [severally] [___] [with list[s] annexed marked [severally] [___] signed by the deponent[s respectively]].

Handed in a list[s] marked [severally] [___] signed by the witness[es respectively].

Proved that on or before 11th December [201_], s/he [they severally] Delivered in accordance with Standing Order 26, a printed copy of the bill [or notice in writing of the provisions of the bill to which Standing Order 64 applies] to the proper officer of each of the local authorities mentioned in the list[s] marked [___].

Posted to local authorities

Handed in affidavit[s] marked [severally] [___] [with list[s] annexed marked [severally] [___] with Post Office receipt attached, signed by the deponent[s respectively].

Handed in a list[s] marked [severally] [___] with Post Office receipt attached signed by the witness[es respectively].

Proved that on or before 8th December [201_], s/he [they severally] posted, using the recorded delivery service and addressed with sufficient directions a printed copy of the bill [or notice in writing of the provisions of the bill to which Standing Order 44 applies] to the proper officer of each of the local authorities mentioned in the list[s] marked [___] and that none of the bills [notices] was returned by the Post Office as undelivered.

Proved that the [list marked [___] contains] [lists marked [___] and [___] respectively together contain] the names of all the local authorities whose areas comprise the whole or any part of the area within which the [___] supply or are authorised to supply water.

Proved that this Standing Order has been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has not been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has been complied with in all respects except as regards time.

ALISON GORLOV Proved that this Standing Order is not applicable to the bill.


Standing Order 45

Deposit and form of estimates

Handed in affidavit[s] marked [severally] [___].

DAVID WALKER Proved that on or before 4th December 2013, s/he [they severally] deposited, in accordance with Standing

DARREN WHITE Order 201 of the House of Lords and Standing Order 209 of the House of Commons, in the Office of the

(HOUSE) Clerk of the Parliaments and in the Private Bill Office and the Vote Office of the House of Commons,

JANICE HECKSCHER[and, in accordance with Standing Order 26, at the Department for Communities and Local Government,

(SO1A) the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, the Environment Agency, Natural England, English Heritage and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, being the relevant government departments and public bodies as required by this Standing Order and as specified in the list kept under Standing Order 1A] an estimate of expense, and any copy of it, required by Standing Order 45.

DAVID WALKER Proved that the Estimate of Expense is prepared in the form set out in Appendix B to the Standing Orders, or as near to it as circumstances permit.

JAN PODKOLINSKI Proved that the estimate was made by Alison Munro, Chief Executive HS2 Ltd, and is signed by [him][her].

ALISON GORLOV Considers that this Standing Order has been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has not been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has been complied with in all respects except as regards time.

Proved that this Standing Order is not applicable to the bill.

____________________________

Standing Order 46 was repealed in 1990

____________________________

Standing Order 47

Deposit of statement as to houses and persons on land to be acquired

Handed in affidavit[s] marked [severally] [___].

TIMOTHY MUSGRAVE Proved that s/he [they severally] prepared a statement in accordance with the requirements of Standing Order 47 in respect of any area to which that Order applies in which it is proposed-

a) to authorise the acquisition compulsorily or by agreement, of any specified land on which houses are standing in which (so far as can be ascertained) thirty or more persons are residing; or

b) to revive, or to extend the time limited for the exercise of, any power for such acquisition of such land

and that the statement shows the name of that area, the total number of those houses in that area, and the total number (so far as can be ascertained) of persons residing in them.

ALISON GORLOV Proved that the bill does not confer, revive, or extend the time limited for the exercise of any power to acquire compulsorily or by agreement in any area to which Standing Order 47 applies any specified land on which houses are standing in which (so far as can be ascertained) thirty or more persons are residing] or

Proved that-

a) the Act conferring power to acquire compulsorily or by agreement any specified land on which houses are standing the powers of which are proposed to be revived, or the time limited for the exercise of which it is proposed to extend, was passed not more than four years before the date of the deposit of the Petition for the present bill; and

b) a statement in pursuance of Standing Order 47 was deposited in respect of the bill for that Act; and

c) the bill does not confer, revive, or extend the time limited for the exercise of any power to acquire compulsorily or by agreement in any area to which Standing Order 47 applies any specified land on which houses are standing in which (so far as can be ascertained) thirty or more persons are residing other than the houses included in that statement.

ALISON GORLOV Considers that this Standing Order has been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has not been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order is not applicable to the bill.

Standing Order 48

Description of plan

Handed in affidavit marked [___].

JAN PODKOLINSKI Proved that every deposited plan is drawn to a scale of not less than 1/15,000, and describes the lands which, or rights to use which, may be compulsorily acquired or which are rendered liable to the imposition of an improvement charge and describes the line or situation of the whole of the work, and the lands in or through which it is to be constructed or altered, or through which any communication to or from the work may be made.

JAN PODKOLINSKI Proved that there is no alternative line or work laid down on the plan.

JAN PODKOLINSKI Proved that the limits of lateral deviation from the line of the proposed work are defined upon the plan, and all lands included within those limits are marked on it.

[Proved that an enlarged plan, upon a scale of not less than 1/5,000, is added of any building yard, courtyard or land within the cartilage of any building or of any ground cultivated as a garden, either in the line of the proposed work or included within the limits of deviation defined upon the plan.]

JAN PODKOLINSKI Proved that where tunnelling as a substitute for open cutting, or a viaduct as a substitute for solid embankment, is intended, the tunnelling or viaduct is marked on the plan, and in the case of tunnelling by a dotted line.

JAN PODKOLINSKI Proved that where under any Standing Order a length is required to be stated on the deposited plan it is stated in kilometres and metres.

ALISON GORLOV Considers that this Standing Order has been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has not been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order is not applicable to the bill.

Standing Order 49

Particulars in case of waterways, etc.

Proved that the plans show the brooks and streams to be directly diverted into any intended waterway cut, reservoir, or aqueduct, or into any intended alteration of them, for supplying them with water.

Proved that this Standing Order has been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has not been complied with.

ALISON GORLOV Proved that this Standing Order is not applicable to the bill.

Standing Order 50

Particulars in case of railways and tramroads

JAN PODKOLINSKI Proved that the plan has marked on it the distances in kilometres from one of the termini, and that a memorandum of the radius of every curve, except a curve having a radius exceeding 1.6 kilometres in length, is noted on the plan.

JAN PODKOLINSKI Proved that where it is intended to form a junction with an existing or authorised line of railway or tramroad, the course of that line is shown on the plan for a distance of 750 metres on each side of the proposed junction, on the same scale as the railway or tramroad proposed to be constructed or altered shown on the plan.

ALISON GORLOV Considers that this Standing Order has been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has not been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order is not applicable to the bill.

Standing Order 51

Particulars in case of diversion of roads, etc.

JAN PODKOLINSKI Proved that-

a) where it is proposed to divert, widen, or narrow any public carriage road, navigable river, canal, railway, or tramroad, the course of the diversion and the extent of the widening or narrowing is marked upon the plan, and

b) where it is intended to divert any public footpath or bridleway, the course of the diversion is marked upon the plan.

ALISON GORLOV Considers that this Standing Order has been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has not been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order is not applicable to the bill.

Standing Order 52

Particulars in case of tramways

Proved that where it is proposed to construct or alter a tramway, the plan indicates the proposed position of each tramway in relation to the street or road in which it is to be laid, and where not along the centre, the distance from an imaginary line drawn along the centre of such street or road.

Proved that where the tramway is to be laid so that between any points for a distance of 10 metres or upwards the space intervening between the outside of the footpath on either side of the street or road and the nearest rail of each tramway will be less than 3 metres [(it being intended to run thereon carriages or trucks adapted for use of railways) 3.3 metres], the tramway between those points is indicated on the plan by a thick dotted line on the side or sides where the narrow places occur, and that the width of the street or road at those places is also marked on the plan.

Proved that double lines (including passing-places) are indicated on the plan by a double line and the distance between the centre lines of each line of tramway is marked on it.

Proved that the distances in kilometres from one of the termini of each tramway are marked on the plan.

Proved that the total length of the street or road upon which each tramway is to be laid (i.e., the length of route of each tramway) and the length of each double and single portion of the tramway and the total length of double and single portions respectively are stated on the plan.

Proved that this Standing Order has been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has not been complied with.

ALISON GORLOV Proved that this Standing Order is not applicable to the bill.

Standing Order 53

Plan to define improvement and improvement area

Proved that where it is proposed to render any lands or houses liable to the imposition of an improvement charge the plan defines the improvement, and also the limits of the area within which the charge may be imposed.

Proved that this Standing Order has been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has not been complied with.

ALISON GORLOV Proved that this Standing Order is not applicable to the bill.

Standing Order 54

Contents of book of reference

Handed in affidavit marked [___].

TIMOTHY MUSGRAVE Proved that the deposited book[s] of reference [is] [are] in the same terms, and contain[s] the names of

MICHAEL CROWTHER all the owners or reputed owners, lessees or reputed lessees, and occupiers of all lands and houses which,

ANTHONY PRATT or rights to use which, may be compulsorily acquired, or which are rendered liable to the imposition of an

RAJ RANDHAWA improvement charge, (except those owners or lessees whose identity could not after reasonable enquiry

TREVOR WILDING be ascertained) and describe[s] such lands and houses respectively.

See note at appendix E

ALISON GORLOV Considers that this Standing Order has been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has not been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order is not applicable to the bill.

Standing Order 55

Section

JAN PODKOLINSKI Proved that every deposited section-

a) is drawn to the same horizontal scale as the plan to which it relates and to a vertical scale of not less than 1/1,250;

b) shows the surface of the ground marked on the plan, the intended level of the proposed work, the height of every embankment, the depth of every cutting, and a datum horizontal line which is the same throughout the whole length of the work and any branch of it and is referred to some fixed point stated in writing on the section near some portion of the work or in the case of a waterway, cut, public carriage road, railway or tramroad near one of the termini; and

c) states the distance of the fixed point of the datum line above or below an ordnance a bench mark in the locality of the proposed works, and near one of the termini, and the height of such bench mark above the ordnance datum of Newlyn.

states the distance of the fixed point, in the locality of the proposed works and near one of the termini, and the height of such fixed point above the ordnance datum of Newlyn.

See note at appendix F

JAN PODKOLINSKI Proved that where tunnelling as a substitute for open cutting, or a viaduct as a substitute for solid embankment, is intended, it is marked on the section.

JAN PODKOLINSKI Proved that-

a) wherever the extreme height of any embankment or the extreme depth of any cutting exceeds 1.5 metres, the extreme height over, or depth under, the surface of the ground is marked in figures upon the section; and

b) where any bridge or viaduct of more than three arches intervenes in any embankment, or where any tunnel intervenes in any cutting, the extreme height or depth is marked in figures on each of the parts into which the embankment or cutting is divided by the bridge, viaduct, or tunnel.

ALISON GORLOV Considers that this Standing Order has been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has not been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order is not applicable to the bill.

Standing Order 56

Section of improvement, etc., of navigation

Proved that the section specifies the levels of both banks of any river whose navigation is to be improved; and, where any alteration is intended to be made in the levels, it describes the alterations by metres or parts of a metre.

Proved that this Standing Order has been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has not been complied with.

ALISON GORLOV Proved that this Standing Order is not applicable to the bill.

Standing Order 57

Section of railway or tramroad

JAN PODKOLINSKI Proved that the line of railway or tramroad marked on the section corresponds with the upper surface of the rails.

JAN PODKOLINSKI Proved that-

a) the distances on the datum line are marked to correspond with those on the deposited plan;

b) a vertical measure from the datum line to the line of the railway or tramroad is marked in metres or parts of a metre at the commencement and termination of the railway or tramroad and at each change of its gradient or inclination; and

c) the proportion or rate of inclination between every two consecutive vertical measures is also marked.

JAN PODKOLINSKI Proved that wherever the line of the railway or tramroad is intended to cross any waterway or (otherwise than on the level) any public carriage road, railway or tramroad-

a) the height of the intended railway or tramroad over, or depth under, the surface of the waterway, road, railway or tramroad; and

b) the height and span of each arch of any bridge and viaduct by which the railway or tramroad will be carried over the waterway, road, railway or tramroad are marked in figures at every crossing, and that where the railway or tramroad will be carried across any such public carriage road, railway or tramroad on the level, the crossing is so described on the section.

JAN PODKOLINSKI Proved that where it is proposed to construct or alter a railway or tramroad so as to form a junction with an existing or authorised line of railway or tramroad, the gradient of the existing or authorised line is shown on the deposited section, for a distance of 750 metres on each side of the point of junction on the same scale as the railway or tramroad proposed to be constructed.

ALISON GORLOV Considers that this Standing Order has been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has not been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order is not applicable to the bill.

Standing Order 58

Section of tramway

Proved that all distances on the deposited section of a tramway are marked to correspond with the distances marked on the deposited plan, and that the gradients of the road on which the tramway is to be laid are also marked on the section.

Proved that this Standing Order has been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has not been complied with.

ALISON GORLOV Proved that this Standing Order is not applicable to the bill.

Standing Order 59

Cross sections of roads, etc.

Proved that where any alteration is intended to be made in the water level of any canal, or in the level or rate of inclination of any public carriage road, railway or tramroad, which will be crossed by the intended railway or tramroad-

a) the alterations are stated on the deposited section, and each alteration is numbered;

b) cross sections in reference to the numbers, on a horizontal scale of not less than 1/5,000, and on a vertical scale of not less than 1/500, are added, which show the present surface of the road, canal, railway or tramroad, and their intended surface when altered;

c) the greatest of the present and intended rates of inclination of the portion of the road, railway or tramroad intended to be altered are also marked in figures on the deposited section; and

d) where any public carriage road is crossed on the level a cross section of that road is added which extends for 180 metres on each side of the centre line of the railway or tramroad.

Proved that this Standing Order has been complied with.

Proved that this Standing Order has not been complied with.

ALISON GORLOV Proved that this Standing Order is not applicable to the bill.

Standing Order House of Lords 83A, House of Commons 224A1

Comments on environmental Statement

Handed in affidavit[s] marked [severally] [___].

MONICA PETO Proved that each notice published under Standing Order 10 states that any person who wishes to make comments on the environmental statement should send them to the Secretary of State for Transport, that they should be received on or before 24th January 2014 and should be made in the following manner by sending them to the Secretary of State for Transport, FREEPOST, RTEC-AJUT-GGHH, HS2 Phase One Bill Environmental Statement, PO Box 70178, London, WC1A 9HS Email: HS2PhaseOneBillES@dialoguebydesign.com as specified by the relevant Minister.

MONICA PETO Proved that 24th January 2014 falls no earlier than the 56th day after the first publication of the notice.


APPENDIX A

Mystery Shopper Exercise – results to date:

London Boroughs, visited 10 December 2013, by two HS2 Mystery Shoppers

Ealing: Perceval House

I was advised to look on their ‘self- service computers’ for the documents. The computers only showed the Ealing Council website so I searched for HS2 and found a link to the HS2 website.  I asked a member of staff for assistance and they said as far as they were aware looking at the HS2 website was the only place to view the documents. She said I could take a ticket and wait for another member of staff but she was sure they would only direct me to the HS2 website. There was a 30 minute wait to talk to someone else, so I left.

Hillingdon: Civic Centre, Uxbridge

The receptionist didn’t really know what I was talking about and said that I was the first person to ask about HS2 and printed documents. They then remembered they had an email about it which said something like ‘if any resident or member of the public comes in with a query about HS2 and the Hybrid Bill, you should advise them to call HS2 (they then gave me the PET phone number). They then called someone who said I could go upstairs to the office to look at the documents on the computer, but not printed copies.

Brent: Civic Centre, Wembley

Again, the receptionist didn’t know what I was talking about and gave me the telephone number of the planning department (and the FOI department) to call. I rang the planning dept. number but it just went to answerphone.  There was a library inside the Civic Centre so I asked in there as well and they didn’t know where I could find the documents either.

London Boroughs visited 10 & 11 December 2013.

Hammersmith & Fulham Civic Centre – King Street

There is a well signposted HS2 exhibition area to the right of the main reception that is visible to the public – no need to ask reception, you can just walk up to it. The exhibition is well lit with a seating area consisting of a display table and chairs.  All the Bill documents are well displayed on an open book case.  There is also a dedicated HS2 computer (I took a photo of this if you would like to see it). Although when I tried to use the computer I could not get it to work and the receptionist was very busy.

RB Kensington & Chelsea – Kensington Town Hall, Horton Street

The receptionist had no idea what I was talking about as I was the first person who had asked to see the Bill documents.  She tried to find someone in the planning department but could not get a response.  After about 10 minutes she suggested I try the library which is on the same site as the Town Hall. I did the short walk across to the library and was referred to the reference section.  None of the Hybrid Bill documents are on display in the library, and the staff were not aware that the bill was published.

Camden Town Hall – Judd Street

The reception staff knew about HS2 and the Bill– they handed me Camden’s new flyer " Camden’s Conversation on High Speed 2", which explains how the council plans to petition parliament.  I was then directed to the library to view the documents, which is a short walk from the Town Hall. At the library the front of house staff were unsure that the documents existed in the library but was very helpful in trying to find out.  I had to explain that I was directed there by staff in the Town Hall.  After about 10minutes I made my way into the library and was shown to a section which contains several copies of every bill document as well as a dedicated well signposted HS2 computer.  I could not access the computer as a member of the public was using.

Westminster City Hall – Victoria Street

Again the reception staff had a vague idea what I was talking about but could not help.  I was directed to use the internal phone to call the planning department which I did.  I was then told that I needed to speak to the Planning Policy Team who would be available after 10am as the planning general enquiries team could not help.


APPENDIX B

NOTE ON RETURNED S0 13 NOTICES

14,760 Parliamentary Notices under Standing Order 13 were dispatched by recorded delivery, International Signed For and in person to all persons contained in the Book of Reference between 25th and 27th November 2013:

·1,458 by hand

·11,328 by Recorded Delivery

·1,974 by International Signed For

A formatting issue was identified on 4th December which had resulted in the contents of Schedule G (Air Rights) being illegible. 97 notices were re-served between 6th and 7th December 2013.

36 notices were posted and monitored on site where the Owner remained Unknown after enquiries. One of these site notices yielded new ownership information, which after further enquiries resulted in 1 additional notice being served.

185 of the served notices were returned by the Post Office as undelivered between 28th November and 13th December 2013:

·22 were marked "not called for" or "refused". These notices were re-served by first class post between 28th November and 13th December 2013

·For a further 38 returns, enquiries revealed that the interest has ceased to exist in the property since the original referencing enquiries were made. The deletions have been recorded in the Book of Reference. Where a new interest has been identified additional notices have been served.

·For a further 23 returns, despite additional enquiries, it has not been possible to effect service due to the party having gone away and their whereabouts being unknown. In each the notice has been delivered personally to the property in which the party is believed to have an interest.

·For the remaining 102 returns, enquiries revealed incomplete or incorrect addresses. In these cases a new notice was prepared and served either personally or by post between 28th November and 13th December 2013.

Following initial service of SO13 notices late information received resulted in the service of a further 319 notices served either by recorded delivery, International Signed For or personally between 28th November and 13th December 2013. 38 of these additional notices were served on parties with cellar interests in Princess Road on 10th December, with incorrect information in Schedule A and incorrect plans were attached to the notice. The notices referred incorrectly to plot 522 when they should have referred to plot 252. These notices were re-served with correct information on 11th December 2013.

One land parcel (plot 432 in Camden) was incorrectly described and certain parties omitted from the Book of Reference. A full audit of all land parcels across the London section of the route confirmed this was a one-off omission. SO13 notices were subsequently served on all affected parties in plot 432 with a revised parcel description.


APPENDIX C

NOTE ON SO27 AND SEWERS

1.SO27(1) requires that in the case of a bill whereby (among other things) it is proposed to authorise the construction of works to which the standing order applies there must be a deposited (among other documents) a plan and section of the works. The works to which SO27 applies (see SO27(6)) include sewers and waterworks.

2.SO48(1) requires the plan to show the centre line of the work and any limits of deviation. SO55 sets out the requirements for sections.

3.Neither ‘sewer’ nor ‘waterworks’ is defined in the standing orders. Perhaps reflecting the range of meaning those words can have in common parlance, statutory definitions are extremely wide, capturing works that could range from the very major to the insignificant2.

4.In common with almost all projects authorising works, the HS2 works involve the diversion of utility apparatus, including water and sewerage pipes. It will be noted that a large number of sewer diversions is included in the scheduled works3. These works are shown in the plans and sections as required by the standing orders mentioned above. In addition, again in common with other legislation authorising works, clause 2 of the Bill makes additional, separate provision to authorise, among other things, the alteration, or alteration of the position of, mains, sewers and drains (clause 2(1)(g)); the construction of culverts (clause 2(1)(c)); and the carrying out and maintenance of such other works, of whatever description, as may be necessary or convenient (clause 2(1)(i)). The clause 2 power would be exerciseable, within the Bill limits only, for the purposes of or in connection with the scheduled works or otherwise for Phase One purposes as defined in clause 62. Clause 2 authorises works in terms of generic descriptions, not specific known works, and none of the clause 2 works is shown on the plans and sections.

5.To have included plans and sections for every sewer or water pipe which is to be altered or diverted would have been quite impracticable. Quite apart from the numbers of individual works that would be involved, the existence of smaller sewers and pipes is often unknown to the undertakers themselves and comes to light only at the detailed design stage, or sometimes not until construction. In fact, since protective provisions normally included in works Bills provide for diversions to be agreed with the undertaker concerned, the diverted route will not be fixed until that later stage. The routes that can be determined at this stage are those that are substantial and might reasonably be regarded as structures rather than pipes. Reflecting this, in preparing Schedule 1 to the Bill the convention adopted has been to seek specific authorisation as individual authorised works for those sewers the internal diameter of which exceeds 1 metre.

6.This convention has, to the personal knowledge of the Agents for the Bill, been adopted for hybrid Bills over the course of the last 30 to 40 years. Annex C2 is a list of the Acts passed, following the promotion of hybrid works bills, promoted since 1987. All of them provide for the authorisation of both specific works and ancillary works. In all cases there are either no or very few specifically authorised sewers or water pipes but of the six Act the ancillary works provisions in three of them are similar to clause 2 of the Bill in authorising such works on a non-specific basis. This practice reflects works authorisations in Private Acts. Annex C3 is a sample list of Private Acts passed between 1906 and 1992 where sewers and water pipes are either not mentioned at all or are the subject of ancillary powers only.

7.The position can be rationalised in several ways. Annex C4 is a copy of a letter from the Agents for the Bill to the then Examiner of Petitions for Private Bills in the Commons (a letter in the same terms was sent to Ms Salmon Percival in the Lords). It is included largely for completeness, but it illustrates that the history of works legislation and the requirements of standing orders have concentrated on the public and substantial nature of the works. The Examiners are invited to agree that for the reasons explained below this reflects the purpose and effect of SO27.

8.The context of the SO27 requirements is that the works to be specifically shown on plans and sections are those the construction or alteration of which is to be authorised by the Bill. A bill authorising works operates at several levels. It must provide authorisation for–

(a) acquisition of all necessary land or rights in land;

(b) any other necessary interference with the rights of third parties;

(c) the undertaker to do things that would otherwise be outside its legal competence;

(d) the works themselves so far as necessary to ensure that their existence is lawful and cannot be challenged by an action for nuisance; and

(e) as a corollary to (d), deemed planning permission.

9.It is only 8(d) that calls for specific authorisation for any particular work. It follows that the works for which specific authorisation is necessary are limits to those that amount to structures or major interferences with third parties or those that are so essential to the project that the undertaker needs a right to construct is not conditional on being (in terms of clause 2) connected with the main works. Consistent with this, smaller works in the nature of pipes do not need to be specifically authorised. For that reason they are not within the scope of SO27.


ANNEX C1

Works Nos. 1/6, 1/9, 1/9A, 1/9B, 1/9C, 1/12, 1/12A, 1/12B, 1/12C, 1/12D, 1/26, 1/28, 1/29, 1/33, 1/34, 1/38, 1/39, 1/44, 1/53, 1/55, 1/56, 1/57, 1/58, 1/59, 1/65, 3/31, 3/34, 3/37, 3/204, 3/211, 3/212, 3/219, 3/222. 3/228, 3/229, 3/230, 3/231, 3/232, 3/233.


Annex C2

Acts since 1987 the subject of Hybrid Bills authorising works which either did not specifically authorise sewers, diversions or water apparatus as centre line works or which did so on a limited basis

Channel Tunnel Act 1987

Dartford-Thurrock Crossing 1988

Severn Bridge Act 1992

Cardiff Bay Barrage Act 1993

Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996

Crossrail Act 2008


ANNEX C3

Sample of Private Acts authorising works which did not specifically authorise sewers, sewer diversions or water apparatus as centre line works

Great Northern Railway Act 1906

Great Eastern Railway Act 1912

Central London and Metropolitan District Railway Act 1924

London Midland and Scottish Act 1934

British Transport Commission Act 1949

British Transport Commission Act 1959

London Transport Act 1965

Tyneside Metropolitan Railway Act 1973

London Transport Act 1981

South Yorkshire Light Rail Transit Act 1988

Midland Metro Act 1989

Heathrow Express Act 1991

London Underground Act 1992


operated as a ‘living instrument’, we believe their interpretation has to be looked at in the context in which they were originally written.4

The SO27(6) list of works to which the standing order applies originally appeared in the standing order describing the three classes of private Bills, which was first enacted in 1837. The paragraph listing the works Bills within the 2nd Class (which is the precursor to the SO27(6) list) opened with the words "Bills for making … any Public Works such as …". In 1837-38 the words "any Public Works such as" were omitted so that the list ceased to be merely exemplary and became definitive.

Between 1837 and 1936 the list was altered in ways that reflected the changes in infrastructure and its description. So, for example, in 1889 "Turnpike Roads’ were replaced by ‘public carriage road’, ‘Street Tramway’ was added in 1867-68 (‘Street’ was omitted in 1870) with ‘Tramroad’ making its first appearance in 1888. ‘Waterworks’ was in the original 1837 list but ‘sewer’ was not added until 1848.

‘Public Works’

Under the 1837 standing order the essential pre-requisite for a 2nd Class Bill was that it sought to authorise public works, the listed descriptions being only examples. The 1837-38 amendment (see above) removed the express reference to public works. However, the nature of the works themselves indicates that the intention was to provide a definitive list, not to widen the scope of the standing order to capture works that were not of a public character.

This is consistent with the general law. It has never, for example, been necessary to get statutory authorisation for every cut conveying water to, say, a farm, or a private bridge, private sewer for the drainage of specific premises or reservoir holding water for use on private land. These are works that a landowner may carry out by virtue of ownership. Particularly latterly this may be subject to requirements to obtain statutory consents, but these fall short of authorisation per se. By way of example, planning, abstraction and navigation authority consents are required for the specific purposes of, respectively, regulating the appearance and mode of carrying out land development and the use of land, protecting water resources and safeguarding the public navigation. These consents cannot lawfully be given for reasons outwith the applicable statutory purposes. In particular, such consents in respect of works carried out by and for private persons do not confer immunity from action for public nuisance.

By contrast, works providing infrastructure for public use will by their nature impact on the public at large and so carry the risk of such action. A primary effect of statutory authorisation is to provide immunity from action for nuisance. It follows that such immunity is only justified – and Parliament will only grant it – where there is a public interest in the works.

The position of what is now the SO27(6) list in the Standing Orders has changed over the years but the context, the promotion of public Bills authorising infrastructure works, remains unaltered.

There are also some historical pointers. It will be apparent from the chronology given above that infrastructure was added to or omitted from the list as need arose. This is especially significant in relation to sewers which were not added to the list until 1848. Any pipe or conduit for the conveyance of foul or waste water is a sewer, whatever its size. As regards a public interest element, the word extends to land drains and similar drainage works, many of which have for centuries been – and are still – vital to the drainage of low lying areas. Since the 16th century at least bodies of commissioners of sewers were established to take responsibility for this important public infrastructure and these, or successor bodies, were still in existence in the 19th century. However, notwithstanding the public nature of such sewerage works, they were not originally included in the standing order list of 2nd Class Bills. This begs the questions what was the trigger for their inclusion in 1848 and what does this tell us about the sewers intended to be caught by the standing order.

We have not yet had an opportunity to research the history of this beyond Williams,5 but it seems likely that the addition of sewers may have been connected with the improvement of public sewers and the initiation of new sewerage systems in London and elsewhere following the first outbreak of cholera in Britain in 1831 and regular outbreaks thereafter, including a major epidemic in London in 1848-49. In London, for example, general powers to provide public sewers were increased in the City6 and established elsewhere on a London-wide basis.7 It would be consistent with this that the context of an 1848 Standing Orders amendment "sewer" referred to the major public sewers which were then being created.

It follows from this that the SO27(6) works are by their nature public works. This immediately reduces the scope of the works that SO27 might potentially cover. If, for example, the construction of a railway was known to call for the reconstruction of, say, a private reservoir serving private land or sewers constructed by landowners to drain their own land, the railway would require a plan and section in accordance with SO27 but the private reservoir and sewers would not. These would remain private accommodation works for the benefit of the affected landowners.

Scale of public works

As regards size generally, and consistent with what we say above concerning nuisance and the need for legislation at all, there was evidently a perception that 2nd Class works were of a significant size.8 This is consistent with the structural nature of the major infrastructure works being constructed throughout the 19th century. Examples are major sewerage systems such as Bazalgette’s in London (begun 1859, completed 1875) and the provision of modern waterworks by municipalities and other local authorities, as well as private water companies, for the supply of clean water to growing urban populations.

Precedents

The nature of the Examiners’ decisions of which we have reports indicates that there may well be a decision that gave rise to the 1 metre practice that has been adopted. Unfortunately, due to building works, the relevant volumes in the Parliamentary Archives will not be available until 1 November. Pending further investigation the following may be useful indicators.

In the case of the Southport Improvement Water Bill 1866–67 the Examiner decided (23 January 1867) that neither a well nor a water tower is a waterwork which requires a section (already decided as to wells in the Maidstone Water Bill 1860). By contrast, in the case of the Hydraulic Power Company Bill 1866-67 the Examiner decided (31 January 1867) that works for the abstraction of water from the rivers Irwell and Mersey and the construction of a system of pipes to take the water to a reservoir were waterworks. From this we deduce that the standing order was designed to catch structures (so not a well) performing a function in the nature of apparatus (hence not a water tower which in structural terms might be a building and functionally is only a raised water tank).

We have also seen reference to a decision on the Chichester Water Bill 1872 that a fish pond is not a reservoir within the standing order, again emphasising the structural nature of the works to which the standing order relates.

The Acts authorising works also support the view that only large water and sewerage pipes have to be treated as centre line works requiring a plan and section. If all sewers and water pipes came within the SO27 list it should follow that any works Bill would have a very large number of specified works for their diversion or alteration, particularly where the principal works to be authorised involve works on or near a highway. We accordingly looked at modern railway and tramway Acts passed between 1906 and 1992, all of them cases where the authorised works would have necessitated alterations to utility pipes. Had such alterations been centre line works they would have had to have been described in the descriptions of works. There were no such descriptions. See examples on the attached list.

Finally, we could not claim that common practice is automatically right because it has existed for a long time. However, we ought to say that the practice described in our letter of 4 June is one to which we as a firm have, to the personal knowledge of at least two people in this office, operated without challenge since 1979. In doing so we have followed the practice recorded in the notes of earlier generations of Parliamentary Clerks.

We are writing in similar terms to Christine Salmon Percival, copied to Peter Milledge, in the House of Lords and are also copying this letter to Peter Davis.

Yours faithfully,

Winckworth Sherwood LLP

DT 020 7593 5005

DF 020 7593 5199

agorlov@wslaw.co.uk

cc Peter Davis

Enc

APPENDIX D

NOTE ON ES

1.Between 2 and 4 December 2013, as the result of an internal review and, separately, enquiry from the county archaeologist at Oxfordshire HS2 became aware that some cultural heritage survey drawings were missing from the USB and website version of the ES. The pages were in the hard copies, however.

2.On advice from Parliamentary Agents HS2’s consultants responsible for the ES undertook a full audit of the ES as appearing in the USB, website and hard copy formats as deposited and made available for the public. This revealed that a number of pages were missing from technical reports in Volume 5 of the ES. Details are in Annex D1.

3.The audit revealed that the omissions, amounting to a total of 877 pages, had arisen in the preparation of (mainly) the electronic documents for deposit. They were caused by system and handling errors. However, the missing material had been taken into account in writing the ES main report.

4.The ES consists of a main report which comprises a Non-Technical Summary and Volumes 1 to 4. These volumes contain the major part of the information referred to in SO27A as being required to be stated in an ES deposited pursuant to that Standing Order, certain background information being in Volume 5. In addition, Volume 5 contains technical appendices with additional information which supports the information provided in the ES main report but which is not requisite ‘core’ information required by the Standing Order.

5.None of the information in the omitted pages results in the ES omitting such core information. This is explained in detail in Annex D2.

6.Accordingly SO27 has been complied with in all respects. However, the missing material had to be made available. This has been achieved in the following ways:

Location

Date

Action taken

All deposit locations except the Houses of Parliament

12.12.13

USB stick sent first class post containing complete copies of all documents found to have missing pages.

Covering letter explains these documents were incomplete as originally provided. Instructions provided on how to download corrected copies to the original USB stick to replace the incomplete documents if recipients want.

Deposit locations as respects which hard copies previously requested

16.12.13

Replacement complete copies sent by courier.

NB Formal deposit is the e-copy sent as per 7 above.

Houses of Parliament (Standing Order deposits)

16.12.13

USB stick as 7 above and complete hard copies of the affected documents delivered by hand to the Private Bill Offices.

Courtesy copies – MPs whose constituencies include land within the Bill limits

16.12.13

USB stick with a full set of the Bill documents, affected documents corrected, hand delivered by DfT sent to each affected MP.

Courtesy copies – MPs and Peers

16.12.13

Supply of USB sticks as 10 above delivered by hand to the Private Bill Offices for onward transmission to the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office to be handed to Members/Peers on request.

Public to whom ES material already sent

16.12.13

Audit being undertaken of what relevant material sent and whether in e- or hard copy.

16.12.13

Replacement USB sticks as 10 above/replacement complete hard copies of affected documents to be sent by courier.

Public requesting ES material in future

USB sticks as 10 above/ complete hard copies of affected documents will be sent by first class post.


Environmental Statement – table of omissions (11/12/13)

ES document

Issue

No. of pages affected

USB/web

Hard-copy

Volume 5 – Cultural Heritage

CH-004 series

285 figures showing locations and results of geo-physical surveys for cultural heritage investigations are missing from USB/web version of CFA 6 to 15. Of these, 12 figures are also missing from the hard-copy versions of CFA 6 and 14

285 pages

(1 figure per page)

12 pages

(1 figure per page)

Volume 5 – Community mapbook

CM-01

Map Number CM-01-040a-L1 is missing from the Volume 5 map book for Community. The maps provide a visual description of the identified significant effects on community resources.

1 page

1 page

Volume 5 – Planning Data
CT-004-000

Hard copy. Web-version is an earlier version of document meaning that some rows from the planning data tables were missing.

·Table 1 – missing CFA 23, 25 & 26 (25 rows)

·Table 2 – missing CFA23 -26 (33 rows)

7 pages

N/A

Volume 5 – Land Quality

LQ-001-025/LQ-001-026

CFA23 and 24 – Missing LQ site inspection and relevant data from USB/web and printed copy.

CFA25 and 26 – Missing site inspection notes and relevant data on USB/web version only

Pages TBC (CFA23 and CFA24)

80 pages (CFA25)
138 pages (CFA26)

Pages TBC (CFA23 and CFA24)

Volume 5 – construction noise assessment

SV-003-025

CFA25 – 1 x duplicate (p.41) page instead of p.38. Page 38 missing as a result.

N/A

1 page

Volume 5 – Landscape & visual

LV-001-021

CFA21 – earlier version of document on web and in hard-copy. Page 68, figure includes a dummy photo for the baseline summer view and statement ‘Photo to be provided by EOC’.

1 page

1 page

Volume 5 – Waste & material resources

WM-001-000

Missing two annexes: (1) tables of excavated material volumes, (2) BRE report on railway construction waste benchmarks).

50 pages

N/A

Volume 5 – Cultural Heritage

CH-002-006/CH-002-014

CFA 6 and 14 – 10 rows from Gazetteer data table are missing.

This is publically available data.

2 pages

2 pages

Volume 5 – Agriculture
AG-001-018

CFA 18 – P. 25 missing in hard-copy only. This should include a section of a table summarising effects on farm holdings.

N/A

1 page

Volume 5 – Traffic & Transport Annex B(i) Baseline survey report
TR-001-000

Duplicate page 173/174 – means a table on p. 174 is missing. The missing table should provide details of raw data for a junction (site 109) that was surveyed to establish the baseline transport conditions for Camden High Street/Hampstead Rd/Eversholt St.

1 page

1 page


Materiality of omissions from the HS2 Phase One Environmental Statement ("ES")

The ES consists of a main report which comprises a Non-Technical Summary and Volumes 1 to 4. These volumes contain the major part of the information referred to in SO27A as being required to be stated in an ES deposited pursuant to that Standing Order, certain background information being in Volume 5. In addition, Volume 5 contains technical appendices with additional information which supports the information provided in the ES main report but which is not requisite ‘core’ information required by the Standing Order.

Agriculture

The accidental omission of page 25 in the printed version of Appendix AG-001-018 has resulted in there being no details shown of the baseline conditions and the assessment undertaken of the effects on four holdings (CFA18/3, 18/6, 18/8 and 18/9) in this document.  However, the summary baseline and the results of the assessment of the effects on these holdings are shown in Tables 8, 10 and 12 of the ES Volume 2 main report for CFA18. Hence the ES main report contains the necessary information required to describe the baseline conditions and assess the likely significant effects on holdings. The omission of this material does not therefore affect the completeness of the information as presented in the ES main report.

Community

Map Number CM-01-040a-L1 was accidentally omitted from the Volume 5 map book for Community. The map provides a visual description of the identified significant effects on community resources. The text which explains the significantly affected community resources which feature on the missing map is described in full both in the ES Volume 2 Community Forum main report and in the accompanying Volume 5 appendix. As a full verbal description of likely significant effects is provided, the omission of the map showing the same information graphically does not affect the completeness of the information as presented in the ES.

Construction Noise

The accidental omission of page 39 in the printed version of appendix SV003-025 has resulted in there being no tabulated results for the assessment of construction traffic noise (on roads where the flows are potentially significant) in this document.  The omitted table (which is present in the web version of the appendix) has a single line of results related to the change in noise levels along a road due to construction traffic flows and concludes that no significant effects are likely from this source of noise.  The ES is only required to report where there are identified significant actual or likely effects. This means that the ‘zero outcome’ shown in the table is not information required to be reported in the ES. The omission of this table does not therefore affect the completeness of the information as presented in the ES main report.

Cultural heritage – geophysical surveys

The accidental omission of 285 geophysical survey figures from the web versions of the Volume 5 Appendix CH-004 series for CFA 6 to 15 and 12 geophysical survey figures from the printed version of Volume 5 Appendix series CH-004 for CFA 6, 8 and 14 has resulted in the graphical representation of the findings of the surveys not being included in the ES documents.  However, a full description of the survey findings is provided in the Volume 5 CH-004 series reports and where likely significant effects have been identified, these are fully described in the relevant Volume 2 CFA reports.  The ES main report therefore contains all necessary information required to report the likely significant effects on archaeological assets. The omission of these figures does not therefore affect the completeness of the information as presented in the ES main report.

Cultural heritage – gazetteer data tables

The accidental omission of 10 rows of data from the gazetteer from the Volume 5 Appendix CH-002-006 for CFA 6 and Appendix CH-002-014 for CFA 14, which is publicly available data, has resulted in missing information relating to 10 specific cultural heritage assets. A description of likely significant effects using this information, which was available for the environmental assessment, has been included in the appropriate Volume 2 CFA reports and in the accompanying Volume 5 Appendix text. Hence the ES main report contains all necessary information required to report the likely significant effects.  The omission of this material does not therefore affect the completeness of the information as presented in the ES main report.

Land quality

There has been an inadvertent omission of certain baseline data from the web and printed versions of the Land Quality Volume 5 (LQ-001 series) for CFA 18, 23, 24, 25 and 26. The data relates to site inspection notes and records of data received from local authorities and other organisations. However a full description of significant effects, drawing on this information, which was available for the assessment, has been included in the relevant Volume 2 CFA reports as well as in the explanatory text in Volume 5. Hence the ES main report contains all the necessary information required to report the likely significant effects on land quality. The omission of this material does not therefore affect the completeness of the information as presented in the ES main report.

Landscape and visual

Appendix LV 001-021 contains, in error, a dummy photograph for the baseline summer view from viewpoint 341.2.008 ‘View north-east from residential properties on Flats Lane’. The likely significant effects of works during construction and operation on the residential properties from this viewpoint are fully described in the ES Volume 2 main report for CFA 21. Given this complete statement of information is in the main report, the omission of this baseline summer viewpoint photograph from the appendix does not affect the completeness of the information as presented in the ES main report.

Planning

CT-004-000 contains two tables which have missing rows pertinent to CFAs 23 to 26. These tables contain lists of Committed Developments and Proposed Developments.

Table 1 – Committed Developments:

Developments with planning permission or sites allocated in adopted development plans, on or close to the Proposed Scheme, are already shown on the ES maps in Volume 2 and are also already listed in the Committed Developments section of each relevant CFA Chapter.    The fact that some data was missing from USB sticks is therefore not an issue, as the same data was stated in the ES main report.

Table 2 - Proposed Developments:

Planning applications yet to be determined and sites that are proposed allocations in development plans that have yet to be adopted, on or close to the Proposed Scheme, are termed 'proposed developments'.   Such applications have not been included in the ES assessment/main report, and are not required to be. The omission of this material does not therefore affect the completeness of the information as presented in the ES main report.

Waste

The two missing annexes from WM-001-00 are:

Table of excavated material volumes – this consists of two tables: 

Table 1 sets out the detail of the types of material that make up the total material and waste quantities that are presented in the Volume 2 and Volume 5 CFA reports.  This detail is additional background material, all the relevant information having been provided in the Volume 2 main report as well as in Volume 5 reports.  The omission of this material does not therefore affect the completeness of the information as presented in the ES main report.

Table 2 sets out the detail of materials and waste by former English planning regions through which the Proposed Scheme will pass.  Again the information pertinent to the ES is contained in the relevant section of the ES main report (Volume 3, Section 14). The missing table is additional background material, all the relevant information having been provided in the Volume 3 main report. The omission of this material does not therefore affect the completeness of the information as presented in the ES main report.

BRE report on railway construction waste benchmarks – this report was commissioned to provide a metric which could be used in calculating the construction waste forecast for the Proposed Scheme.  The metric is included and explained in the ES main report in Volume 3 (Section 14) text.  The missing report was included only to indicate the source of this information. All the relevant information having been provided in the Volume 3 main report, the omission of the separate report does not affect the completeness of the information as presented in the ES main report.

Traffic and Transport

The missing data from the Traffic & Transport Annex B(i) baseline survey report

TR-001-000 forms part of the survey report supporting data. The assessment of the data and any environmental implications to which it gives rise are separately reported elsewhere in the ES main report at Volume 2 ES as well as in Volume 5. The survey data is only supporting material and its omission has no effect on the Transport Assessment or the ES.  Hence the ES main report contains all the necessary information required to report on transport effects.  The omission of this material does not therefore affect the completeness of the information as presented in the ES main report.


APPENDIX E

NOTE ON BOOK OF REFERENCE

Note on Unknown Owners:

The Book of Reference as deposited contains 36 "unknown" entries in the owners and lessees columns. Despite referencing enquiries (searches at Land Registry, Electoral Roll, 192.com and Companies House, and enquiries of Rural Payments Agency, local authority departments, site visits, letters and telephone calls) and the posting of notices on the sites in question it has been impossible to trace the parties concerned. In such cases a SO13 notice has been affixed to the property. In one case this yielded a response and a SO13 notice was served on the individual concerned.

Note on Unknown Occupiers:

Volumes 1.1 and 1.2 of the Book of Reference contains 1,108 tenants across social housing estates, where the name of the occupier has not been established following enquiries of the local authority, site visits, letters and telephone calls. After 5 months of requests, a partial tenancy list was obtained from London Borough of Camden on 8th November, 3 days before the Book of Reference went to print. All names on this tenancy list were incorporated into the Book of Reference. In each of the 1,108 occurrences noted above, a SO13 notice has been served on "The Occupier". Where the name of the occupier has subsequently been established in response to the SO13 notice, an amended notice has been served on the correctly named party.

Volume 4 of the Book of Reference contains 742 occupiers of the student accommodation blocks (including self-contained accommodation units) at Curzon Gateway where the names of the occupiers have not been established following enquiries and requests of both the property owners and their agents. No tenancy list was forthcoming and a SO13 notice was served in each case on "The Occupier" in respect of the relevant accommodation unit address.


APPENDIX F

NOTE ON BENCHMARKS

Introduction

This describes how the requirement in Standing Order 55 (2) and (3) has been addressed in the Plans and Sections for the HS2 Bill.

Fixed Points

SO 55(2) requires that the datum line for the section of each scheduled work should be referred to some fixed point near some portion of the work. Compliance with this requirement has been achieved by establishing a network of fixed points using such robust elements as drainage gullies or manhole covers, located at convenient and accessible locations near the proposed works.

Ordnance Benchmarks

SO55(3) requires the section to state the distance of each such fixed point above or below an ordnance bench mark in the locality of the proposed works and the height of the bench mark above ordnance datum Newlyn.

The OS ceased maintenance of the network of benchmarks in 1972, and in 2000 adopted a system of surveying based on global positioning systems (GPS) (using radio signals from satellites in orbit around the earth). According to the OS there are approximately 500 000 of these non-maintained benchmarks still remaining (this number is reducing due to property development, road widening and similar changes) which, as they have not been maintained for 30 years, the OS advises should not be relied upon to accurately define ordnance datum Newlyn Reflecting this the Institution of Civil Engineers have noted that in respect of ordnance benchmarks; "their use ceases to be best practice for height referencing for general geospatial engineering and civil engineering work". The OS continue to maintain a network of Fundamental Benchmarks, which they use to calibrate the GPS surveying system. These FBMs are located in secure locations and are not generally accessible to the public.

Compliance with SO55(3)

The result is that the ordnance benchmarks referred to in SO55(3) have some of them disappeared and all of them are unreliable. For all practical purposes, therefore, these ordnance benchmarks have ceased to exist. The requirement in SO55(3) is therefore not capable of being met.

It was considered that no benefit would be served by referencing the fixed points to obsolete benchmarks whose levels could not be guaranteed and would need to be verified. The levels of the fixed points have therefore been related directly to ordnance datum at Newlyn, rather than to such intermediate benchmarks.

Practical implications

For normal surveying purposes, current best practice for determining levels is to use a GPS instrument, corrected using data provided by OS, rather than measuring levels from a fixed point. Persons affected by the scheme wishing to verify levels stated in the Bill documents could be expected to utilise such best practice, and would be most unlikely to utilise the fixed points identified on the Plans and Sections. If reference had been made to such ordnance benchmarks as may remain in the locality of the scheduled works (and in some cases there were none), this would not have provided users with an accurate way of determining levels. Indeed, because the remaining ordnance benchmarks are unreliable, reference to them would have given the misleading impression that they were accurate.

1

SESSION 2013-14

Statement of Proofs

to be given before the Examiner(s) of Petitions for Private Bills,

before the Introduction of the Bill

Standing Orders 4 to 59 and Lords Standing Order 83A(3) (Commons Standing Order 224A(3))

TUESDAY 17th DECEMBER 2013

HIGH SPEED RAIL (LONDON – WEST MIDLANDS) BILL

Winckworth Sherwood LLP

Minerva House

5 Montague Close

London

SE1 9BB

Parliamentary Agents

Appendix 2: Corrected note from Winckworth Sherwood referred to in paragraphs 710ff

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Missing pages in CT-004-000 and other Volume 5 documents

1.This note has been prepared to assist the Examiners in considering whether one of the omissions from Volume 5 of the Environmental Statement ("ES") has any implications on compliance with Standing Orders. It also addresses issues raised in Sharpe Pritchard’s letter to the Examiners of 6 January and further questions asked by the Examiners on 7 January. Both these relate to all the pages missing from Volume 5 of the ES.

The issue – CT-004-000

2.The specific omission in CT-004-000 is detailed in the third item on the Table of Omissions from the USB/web versions of the Phase One Environmental Statement (Volume 5) which was passed to the Examiners on 20 December 2013. The omitted material is part of Table 1 of document CT-004-000 ("Table 1"), a list ("the long list") of committed developments that were identified as existing in the assessment area. . The omission did not affect hard copies of the ES, in which the long list is printed in full.

3.The exercise was to assess committed developments for possible significant direct environmental effects or cumulative effects with HS2. Not all the committed developments required assessment in this way. The nature of some of them meant that they were not relevant for assessment.1 The remainder were assessed.

4.The relevant CFA Reports report which committed developments were assessed and the outcome of that assessment. The ES as deposited on 25 November accordingly contained a complete statement of the committed developments that were assessed as being affected in the way described in paragraph 3 above.

5.The omission in Table 1 having been identified, corrected material, including a corrected version of CT-004-000, was published between 12 and 16 December 2013. Details are in paragraph 7 of Appendix D to the Statement of Proofs. Accordingly, by 17 December 2013 anyone interested in a committed development listed in Table 1, but not mentioned in the relevant CFA Report, had the opportunity of discovering that the development had been on the long list but had been assessed as not being affected.

6.The ES was deposited between 25 and 29 November 2013, all but one of the copies having been deposited by close of business on 28 November. It is understood that the Examiners are questioning whether the delay between the USB/web versions of the ES having initially been made available and the publication of corrected documents might potentially prejudice those interested in developments on the long list but not mentioned in the relevant CFA Report. The maximum delay is 18 days i.e. 29 November – 16 December 2013, both inclusive. The Secretary of State does not consider there to be any prejudice at all – and that is a matter that can if necessary be addressed at the hearing on 8 January – but in terms of compliance with the Standing Orders the issue for the Examiners appears to be slightly different.

7.SO 27A requires the deposit of the environmental statement that contains the information referred to in Part 2 of Schedule 4 to (now – see SO 27A(7)) the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 (SI 2011/1824), together with information referred to in Part 1 of Schedule 4 to the extent required by SO27A (1)(a)(i). In considering whether that requirement has been complied with, the question is, therefore, whether the omission of information missing from Table 1 is information referred to in Schedule 4 that is required for inclusion in the ES. It is submitted that this missing information is not required and that the uncorrected ES stated all the information required for compliance with SO 27A.

What makes a compliant ES?

8.For compliance with SO 27A an environmental statement must contain the required Schedule 4 information. Schedule 4 (which replicates provision in the environmental assessment Directive2 ("the Directive")) lists the categories of information to be provided. The item that is relevant to the present case is paragraph 4 of Part 1, the requirement to include "A description of the likely significant effects of the development on the environment …". Thus what is required is not an objective statement of ascertained facts but, rather a statement of the outcome of an assessment. Such a statement is included in the ES in the relevant CFA Reports. Those of the committed developments omitted from Table 1 that are assessed as being affected are reported as shown in Figure 1. Figure 1 also shows the number of affected developments as against the total assessed.

FIGURE 1

CFA Reports on committed developments specified on missing pages and assessed as being affected

Numbers: Committed developments specified on missing pages (a) in total (b) assessed as affected

CFA23: Section 2.1.18

CFA23 – of the six committed developments/applications recorded in Volume 5, two are reported in Volume 2 CFA23.

CFA25: Section 2.1.23

CFA 25 – of the two committed developments/applications recorded in Volume 5, two are reported in Volume 2, CFA25.

CFA26: Section 2.1.26

CFA 26 – of the seventeen committed developments/applications recorded in Volume 5, eight are reported in Volume 2, CFA26

The assessment supported by CT-004-000 accordingly states in full the information required by paragraph 4.

9.Paragraph 3 of Part 2 of Schedule 4 requires an environmental statement to include "the data required to assess and identify the main effects which the development is likely to have…". The full assessment given in the ES is derived from details of thet potentially affected committed developments. It may therefore be that paragraph 3 calls for the inclusion of the complete long list. If so, the omissions from Table 1 mean that for 18 days the ES lacked a quantity of baseline information. (It should be observed at this point that the quantity is not significant given the overall size of the project and the number of committed developments involved.)

10.It is not accepted that the omission contravened paragraph 3. At the same time, it is neither necessary nor helpful to argue that narrow point. The issue instead falls to be resolved on the basis of what is the required standard for an environmental statement that complies with SO 27A. As SO 27A is simply the means of implementing the Directive in Parliament, the criteria to be applied in determining whether an environmental statement in Parliament complies with the Directive must be the same as those applied by the courts when deciding the same question in relation to other environmental statements. Paragraphs 10 to 13 illustrate the position taken by the courts.3

11.The courts will only strike down an environmental statement where something has gone wrong with [the planning] process such that the statement is so deficient that it cannot be regarded as an ES at all. In R(Blewett) v Derbyshire County Council4 Sullivan J said:

"I have dealt with it in some detail because it does illustrate a tendency on the part of claimants opposed to the grant of planning permission to focus upon deficiencies in environmental statements … and to contend that because the document did not contain all the information required by Schedule 4 it was therefore not an environmental statement … . Unless it can be said that the deficiencies are so serious that the document cannot be described as, in substance an environmental statement for the purposes of the Regulations, such an approach is in my judgment misconceived. It is important that decisions on EIA applications are made on the basis of "full information", but the Regulations are not based on the premise that the environmental statement will necessarily contain the full information. The process is designed to identify any deficiencies in the environmental statement so that the local planning authority has the full picture, so far as it can be ascertained, when it comes to consider the "environmental information" of which the statement will be but a part."

12.The courts have actively discouraged challenges to the quality of the ES. In Blewett5 Sullivan J said:

"Ground 1 in these proceedings is an example of the unduly legalistic approach to the requirements of Schedule 4 to the Regulations that has been adopted on behalf of claimants in a number of applications for judicial review seeking to prevent the implementation of development proposals. The requirement that "an EIA application" (as defined in the Regulations) must be accompanied by an environmental statement is not intended to obstruct such development. As Lord Hoffman said in R v North Yorkshire County Council ex parte Brown [2000] 1 AC 397, at page 404, the purpose is "to ensure that planning decisions which may affect the environment are made on the basis of full information". In an imperfect world it is an unrealistic counsel of perfection to expect that an applicant’s environmental statement will always contain the "full information" about the environmental impact of a project. The Regulations are not based upon such an unrealistic expectation. They recognise that an environmental statement may well be deficient, and make provision through the publicity and consultation processes for any deficiencies to be identified so that the resulting "environmental information" provides the local planning authority with as full a picture as possible. There will be cases where the document purporting to be an environmental statement is so deficient that it could not reasonably be described as an environmental statement as defined by the Regulations … but they are likely to be few and far between."

13.Thus the standard for challenging environmental statements is a high one, which may be reflected in the fact that, out of a large number of challenges to EIA in recent years, there have not been many successful challenges to the content of environmental statements6:

"Having regard to the decisions of Mr Justice Sullivan referred to above [Blewett ,,,], in my judgment the Claimant does not meet the high standard which is required to challenge the sufficiency of the environmental statements."

14.The courts are not likely to welcome a ‘box ticking’ approach whereby the decision-maker is required in a mechanistic way to go through the ES against the list of matters contained in Schedule 4 to the EIA Regulations. The question of whether the ES constitutes a valid ES in terms of the Regulations is an issue probably to be decided in the round, of course taking into account any aspects which consultees say should have been addressed, or addressed more thoroughly. In the Pampisford Estate Farms case7 Coulson J, refusing permission for an attack on an inspector’s decision that an ES was valid, said:

"46. The Inspectorate then had to decide whether this was an Environmental Statement within the meaning of the Regulations. They reached a conclusion that it was an Environmental Statement. In so doing, they considered the raft of material that they had received. It seems to me plain that, on the basis of all the information, a conclusion had been reached that this was an Environmental Statement within the meaning of the Regulations, and it does not seem to me that that decision could be described as irrational. In my judgment the Inspectorate applied the right test. They had a good deal of material to consider and reached a proper decision.

47. It seems to me that to suggest that, in a response of this sort, the Inspectorate has to go through some sort of box-ticking exercise, ticking off the bits of Part I and Part II that they thought were met, would … not be, in my judgment, an appropriate test or hurdle for this court to set …"

15.It should be noted that these decisions relate to the assessments themselves, not to the inclusion (or otherwise) of the material on which the assessments are based. In the present case the omitted material was in fact assessed, as reflected in the CFA Reports. The omission of some of the baseline material in some published versions of CT-004-000 does not accordingly have any bearing on the assessment itself. In these circumstances case law clearly shows that this minor error should not render the entire ES non-compliant from day 1.

16.The omission has been made good (see paragraphs 4 and 5 above). The decisions are clear that an ES is not to be treated as non-compliant because it is deficient or has gaps in it. There may well be gaps in the information available, but provided these are not such as to affect the ability of the [decision maker] to determine that any effects are not likely to be significant, they will not vitiate the decision.8

Effect of omissions in Table 1

17.The effect of the omission is relevant to the question whether the omission makes the ES so deficient that it cannot be regarded as an ES at all (see paragraph 10 above). If, contrary to these submissions, the Examiners were to consider that the omission means that at the time of initial deposit the ES did not after all comply with SO 27A, it is also relevant to deciding what action might best be taken. The Examiners are invited to agree that if the omission from Table 1 has had any impact at all that impact is negligible.

18.The ES reports in full all those committed developments assessed as being affected. The maps showing the areas assessed include all the land on which all the Table 1 committed developments are located. A person with an interest in a committed development can therefore see whether the development is within the assessment area and whether it has been assessed as affected.

19.Where, on the face of a defective copy of CT-004-000, a committed development is in the assessment area but is not in Table 1 as one of the developments that was assessed, there is a mismatch between the map and the Table. It is significant that HS2 has not had any enquiries about such a mismatch, so it appears no one has been misled.

20.In these circumstances the Examiners are invited to agree that no action is required over and above the provision of replacement documents as happened in December 2013. If, however, the Examiners were to consider that the matter should after all be referred to the Standing Orders Committee, it is submitted that this should be on the basis of only a temporary technical breach. Accordingly, the ES should be treated as sufficient and SO 27A should be suspended so far as necessary to give effect to that.

Questions from the Examiners 7 January 2014

Given that the full complement of the ES documents was originally purported to be, in totality, the ES, how can it now be claimed that these documents minus the missing pages also constitute the complete ES?

21.Paragraphs 7 to 15 above explain the basis on which it is to be decided whether an environmental statement contains the information necessary for compliance. The explanation is directed to CT-004-000 but the same principles apply to the whole of the E and all the missing pages. In addition, in relation to material missing from other documents in Volume 5, the Examiners have Appendix D to the Statement of Proofs and the summary Table of Omissions referred to in paragraph 2 above. For the reasons given in Appendix D and the Table of Omissions, none of this other material is supplemental or otherwise within the definition of "supplementary environmental information" (see below).

22.A decision on the status of the missing material and ES compliance is a judgment to be made in accordance with the principles outlined above. It is not dependent on the title of the document or other indications of what the document purports to be.

Given that the missing pages were deposited after the deposit of the ES and on the assumption that they were deposited "for the purpose of meeting the requirements of any EU Directive relating to environmental assessment", how would you meet the argument that the missing pages constitute "supplementary environmental information" for the purposes of HL SO 83A (2) and (8) [HC SO 224A(2) and (8)]?

23.The question relates to the deposit of the ES in Parliament and at the government and other offices specified in the SO 1A list, as required by SO 27A. The omissions in CT-004-000 were in the USB and web copies only. For the purposes’ of framing this note it has been assumed that some of the SO 1A recipients requested the deposit of e-copies on USBs, but that remains to be checked.

24.If all the SO 27A deposits of the ES were hard copies (as were the deposit copies in Parliament), the deposited copies will all have contained the complete CT-004-000 and so the question above will not arise in relation to that document.

25.HL SO 83A(2) and (8) [HC SO 224A(2) an (8)] are concerned with the provision of "supplementary environmental information", defined in (2) as "additional information … to supplement [the ES] for the purpose of meeting the requirements if any EU Directive relating to environmental impact assessment".

26.The standing order was framed to formalise the requirements in the event of the deposit of additional provisions altering the proposed works beyond the scope of the ES as deposited in 2013. The provision of corrected e-copies of CT-004-000 does not supplement the ES or relate to new proposals. However, the question addresses the possibility that this may nonetheless be caught by the definition.

27.The missing pages in CT-004-000 are not supplemental information. They do not supplement anything. Their provision in new e-copies of the document merely corrects an error which, insofar as anything in the ES is readily traceable, is a patent error (see paragraphs 17 and 18 above).

28.As regards the other missing pages, for the reasons given in Appendix D and the Table of Omissions, none of that other material is supplemental or otherwise within the definition of "supplementary environmental information". Accordingly, the Examiners’ question does not arise in relation to this other material.

29.If, contrary to these submissions, the Examiners were to decide that the provision of the pages missing from CT-004-000 or any of the other documents does after all amount to the deposit of "supplementary environmental information", it is further submitted that the nature of the missing information as explained in this note, the impact of the omissions and the corrections that have occurred make both advertisement and a further consultation period unnecessary. If, however, the Examiners were to consider that the matter should after all be referred to the Standing Orders Committee, it is submitted that this should be on the basis that the action actually taken is sufficient and that, accordingly, SOs 83A and 224 should be suspended so far as necessary to give effect to that.

Sharpe Pritchard’s letter to the Examiners 6 January 2014

30.The representations made by Sharpe Pritchard on behalf of a number of local authorities can be reduced to two issues. They say, first, that their clients need time to consider whether the explanations about the missing pages (the information in the Table of Omissions) are correct. Second, they say they are awaiting "further additional information from HS2 … which will assist [the local authorities] in their assessment about the ES".

31.On the first point, the Table of Omissions is quite specific about why the missing information is not required for compliance with SO 27A and precise references are given. The task of checking the references should take a matter of a few hours, no more, certainly not long enough to warrant an extension of the consultation period.

32.The second point is the subject of separate exchanges with Sharpe Pritchard. Their clients have requested information in GIS format, it is understood to enable them to check the accuracy of calculations used in the ES. The information does not at present exist in that format and so needs to be converted. The process of converting CAD data to GIS layers is known by those familiar with these programs to give rise to technical problems (essentially the two programs do not speak to each other very well) and the task of producing properly converted material is a long one, particularly given the very significant volume of material in this case. The work is in hand but is not yet complete.

33.That explains why the "further additional information" has not been provided. More importantly, however, it is not information that is a part of the ES and the local authorities can assess and comment on the ES quite adequately without it. What they cannot do is cross-check calculations in the way they would like. It is understood that they wish to do this and the project has been happy to assist so far as it can. However, such material cannot be required as missing ES material (and indeed the local authorities do not seem to be requesting it as if it were) and the absence of it does not preclude proper and full comments being prepared.

34.For these reasons it is submitted that the representations in Sharpe Pritchard’s letter do not justify any further consultation period in respect of the missing pages.

8 January 2014

Winckworth Sherwood LLP


[1] see paragraph 75.

[2] The Examiners found SO 13 non-compliant as to time on Day 1. See paragraph 198 .

[3] See Appendix 2

[1] Standing Order 3 requires all private bills (except personal bills) to be examined in respect of compliance with Standing Orders 4 to 68 so far as applicable. Examination of Standing Orders 60 to 68 takes place where necessary at a later stage in the bill’s passage through Parliament. In the case of a public bill which is examined under Lords Standing Order 83 (Commons Standing Order 224), Standing Order 83A(4) (Commons Standing Order 224A(4)) also requires compliance with Standing Order 83A(3) (Commons Standing Order 224A(3) to be examined.

[2] The content of the notice is also dealt with in Standing Order 83A(3)/Order 224A(3) later in this proof.

[3] see section 239 and the definition of “joint authority” in s.270(1) of the Local Government Act 1972

[4] The Standing Order refers to the Companies Act 1985 the relevant provision of which has been superseded by the Companies Act 2006.

[5] for a bill to which Standing Order 27 applies

[6] only required if the bill authorises the construction of a railway or tramroad

[7] deposits under this Standing Order are only required for a bill to which Standing Order 27 ( D eposit of plan,

[7] book of reference, section, etc. ) applies

[1] In the case of any bill which is examined under Lords Standing Order 83 (Commons Standing Order 224), Lords Standing Order 83A(4) (Commons Standing Order 224A(4) also requires compliance with Lords Standing Order 83A(3) (Commons Standing Order 224A(3) to be examined.

[2] “Sewer” is defined by the Water Industry Act 1991 as including all sewers and drains (not being drains within the meaning given by this section [i.e. a drain used for the drainage of a building]) which are used for the drainage of buildings and yards appurtenant to buildings. “Waterworks” is not a term defined in the Water Industry Act, but in the Public Health Act 1936 it is defined as including streams, springs, wells, pumps, reservoirs, cisterns, tanks, aqueducts, cuts, sluices, mains, pipes, culverts, engines and all machinery, lands, buildings and things for supplying or used for supplying water, or used for protecting sources of water supply.

[3] See Annex C1.

[4] See Williams ‘ Historical Development of Private Bill Procedure and Standing Orders in the House of Commons ’ HMSO 1949 Vol. II p.12 et seq. and p. 39 et seq.

[5] Op cit.

[6] See the City of London Sewers Act 1848 (c.clxiii).

[7] See the Metropolitan Commission of Sewers Act 1848 (c.112).

[8] “Class 2 appears to be confined to Bills which authorize the making, maintaining or varying, railways, tramways, or works of an engineering or structural character …” Cyril Dodd ‘ Private Bill Procedure ’. Eyre & Spottiswoode 1898 p.7. See also the preamble to the Waterworks Clause Act 1837 (c.17) which describes the works to which the Act relates as “waterworks for supplying towns with water”.

[1] The example mentioned to the Examiners (see transcript paragraph 663) was generic, not an identified example. Actual examples are developments that are too distant from HS2 works to result in an additional significantly affected receptor and which are not of a scale that could result in cumulative effects; and minor developments – extra car parking spaces and (another development) internal adjustments to a building – which will not result in an additional receptor and are not of a scale that could result in cumulative effects

[1]

[2] Council Directive 2011/92/EU, article 5.3 (Part 2) and Annex IV (Part 1).

[3] Passages in italics are taken from ‘ Environmental Impact Assessment ’ [2 nd edn] Stephen Tromans QC (pub Bloomsbury Professional 2012), chapter 4.87 et seq.

[4] [2004] Env LR 569 at para 66.

[5] [2003] EWHC 2275 (Admin), [2004] Env LR 29 at para 4.

[6] R (Helford Village Development Company Ltd) v Kerrier District Council [2009] EWHC 400, para 57, per HH Judge Michael Kay QC. For examples of unsuccessful challenges see e.g. R v Derbyshire County Council, ex parte Murray [2001] Env LTR 26; Kilmartin Properties (TW) Ltd v Tunbridge Wells Borough Council [23003] EWHC 3137 (Admin), [2004] Env LR 36; R (Littlewood) v Bassetlaw District Council [2008] EWHC 1812, [2009] Env LR 21.

[7] R (Pampisford Esatate Farms Limited) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [20101] EWHC 131 (Admin), paras 46-47.

[8] R (PPG 11 Ltd) v Dorset County Council [2003] EWHC 1311 (Admin), 2003 1 P & CR 504, paras 49 and 50.

Prepared 24th January 2014