High Speed Rail Bill Select Committee: Statement by Chair on on Kingsbury, Middleton, Water Orton, Hampton-in-Arden, and other matters

1. CHAIR:  Welcome everybody.  Sorry for the late start.  Members of Parliament were affected by the traffic in various forms, whether it was train or road, but we will now make a start.

2. Before we start on the first order of business we should like to make some decisions and comments in a certain number of areas.  Kingsbury we believe to be a special case because of the size of the railhead and its potential use in phase two.  We believe that HS2 has got the message on the expeditious handling of certain sensitive properties in that area.  We expect to see fast progress on those.  We also expect greater acknowledgement about the effect on the district of a likely phase two and how to handle concerns arising from it.  HS2’s record of engagement there should have been better.  We expect a further look at the reliability of traffic predictions taking full account of the potential displaced traffic.  We anticipate that Kingsbury will have a strong bid for money from the Community and Environment Fund.

3. At Middleton there has already been a lowering and horizontal adjustment of the line.  On the facts presented we are not convinced that a further adjustment would be merited.

4. Water Orton will be particularly affected by the line.  We have asked for various notes from the promoters and will keep matters in this area under review, particularly the availability of the wish to sell or the need to sell scheme for blighted residencies close to the proposed line.
 
5. The Hampton-in-Arden petitioners presented their case formidably.  We are confident that their impressive abilities will contribute to reaching sensible outcomes with HS2 and Solihull on their particular issues of concern, especially viaduct design and flooding.  If there are unresolved problems, they should feel free to inform us and there will be time to call them back.

6. There are two other points which I should like to make.  If petitioners have information relevant to their submissions which is sensitive or confidential, they should feel free to write to us rather than to read it out in a public session. We would be happy with that with the caveat that if the information is significant to the promoter we may need to take a different approach. We would only share the information with the promoter with the particular petitioner’s permission.

7. On the World Health Organisation noise guidelines, petitioners may wish to note that we have heard the case on these and we do not need to hear it repeated, although we will consider noise as a route-wide issue at a later stage and the guidelines may be relevant then.  I shall make further announcements tomorrow.