Meeting documents

Following concerns raised by residents about traffic management issues across the county caused by works being carried out to prepare for the construction of HS2, the Cabinet Member and Lead Officers will be attending to provide a verbal update on HS2 Ltd and their contractors and the role and position of the Council.

Contributors:

Mark Shaw, Cabinet Member for Transportation

Martin Dickman, Environmental Services Director

Laura Leech, HS2 Programme Manager

The Chairman welcomed the Cabinet Member and his Officers and invited them to provide their update.

In response to a number of resident and Member concerns raised about traffic issues caused as a result of HS2 Ltd.’s exploratory investigations which had started, the Cabinet Member presented a verbal update statement to the Committee on High Speed 2. The statement read as follows:

"The HS2 Act provides powers for HS2 Ltd (and its contractors) to interfere temporarily with any highway in order to carry out the Phase 1 works.  These powers are known as "Temporary interference" and are set out in paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 to the Act.  The powers allow HS2 Ltd. to stop up, alter or divert the highway, divert traffic from it or prevent persons passing along it, break up or interfere with it or temporarily remove street furniture.  In exercising these powers, HS2 Ltd. must provide reasonable access for pedestrians to or from premises abutting the highway.

Where the highway is listed in Table 3 of Part 4 of Schedule 4 to the Act, HS2 Ltd is required to consult the highway authority with respect to public safety and convenience before the power is exercised.

Where the highway is not listed within Table 3 (of the HS2 Act), then the consent of the highway authority is required. Consent cannot be unreasonably withheld. 

In both cases, HS2 Ltd and its contractors consult with the Council and other key stakeholders through the local Traffic Liaison Group meetings, which have been established along the whole of the HS2 Phase 1 route to facilitate such engagement.

There are environmental controls in place to ensure that the impacts of construction are minimised, as far as reasonably practicable. In addition, HS2 Ltd and its contractors are required to comply with any Undertakings and Assurances given by the Secretary of State to Parliament as the Bill progressed through Parliament during petitioning.

We continue to work closely with HS2 Ltd and its contractors to ensure that all interference with the highway is appropriate, safe and minimises impacts on road users, as far as reasonably practicable, whilst recognising that Parliament has determined that the scheme must proceed.

The legislation allows for disputes between HS2 Ltd and the highways authority to be heard at arbitration if the parties agree or, failing that, must be determined by the Secretary of State. 

The Council will use this course of action as and when it considers it is necessary.

The Council has not and will not compromise on the safety of road users. Congestion and delay are inevitable consequences of a construction project of this magnitude; however, the Council will use its limited powers to ensure as far as is reasonably practicable that the scheme is not prejudicial to users of the county road network".

Following the Cabinet Member’s statement, Member questions and the resulting discussions raised the following points:

• Communication and engagement with HS2 Ltd: Members heard that the Council worked closely with HS2 Ltd and the Main Works Contractors and that a Council representative attended the Birmingham office once a week. The Chief Executive and the Leader met with HS2 Ltd four times a year to go through the strategic issues.  The challengefor the Council was that  not all the information requested from HS2 had been forthcoming which meant it could not be sharedwith the public., for example HS2 Ltd had yet to share the programme of works.
• Access to information: Members asked when the council would get proper information from HS2 Ltd as it was currently inadequate. Members were told that Council officers had been requestingr the programme of works for the last two years. HS2 Ltd needed to step up in terms of communication and dissemination of information to the Council as the highways authority and to Members and residents. The Council genuinely did not have the information and answers they would expect to have. Members asked how this could be escalated to HS2 Ltd and were told that they needed to encourage residents to go to the HS2 website to complain, request information etc. in order to encourage HS2 to respond.The Council’s role to ensure the safety of residents when exploratory work involved other utility services: Members were told that the works of HS2 Ltd were not treated any differently than any other works and safety was always of utmost importance.  There were review meetings held every Friday on certain works with contractors, utilities, and police etc. to discuss issues, concerns and ways forward. The Cabinet Member was confident that the appropriate mechanisms were in place; however, they were not always getting the right answers.
• Integration of major infrastructure schemes and understanding of traffic movements: A Member asked about whether there was an integrated picture and information on traffic movements resulting from HS2 and East West Rail and how these projects worked together. The Member highlighted that residents were finding it hard to respond to the East West Rail consultation without this information. Members were told that local Traffic Liaison Groups and day to day contact with HS2 Ltd considered the issues facing local communities. The Cabinet Member told the Committee that they knew it was an ideal opportunity to integrate works of the two major schemes where possible to minimise impact. Officers were extremely disappointed that HS2 Ltd in the development of their schemes had not adequately addressed the impacts of East West Rail. Officers at the Council had been pushing for HS2 Ltd to take those issues and details into account. Members were reminded that it was an HS2 project and that the Council would keep the pressure on them. Further funding had been allocated for a new highways person who would focus on driving this work forward.
• How local Members could be kept informed: Members were reminded that this was not a County Council scheme, it was a HS2 Ltd scheme and so the Council can’t be seen to lead on it. Residents and Members should contact HS2 Ltd rather than the Council with issues. The Council’s role was to monitor how HS2 are dealing with the issues.

Members agreed that they wanted to call HS2 Ltd into a future meeting to follow up on some of the concerns raised and question them directly.

ACTION: HS2 Ltd to be invited to attend a future meeting.

                                                                                    Dr L. Leach and Ms K Wager