In Part 1 of this two-part series of articles, Daniel Collins described his experience of working on the parliamentary phase of the HS2 Phase 2a project, which centred around engagement with objectors against the scheme and producing evidence to defend it against challenge. In Part 2, he discusses two case studies and a list of conclusions and lessons learned.
Two examples will be used to illustrate the process at the most extreme end of the spectrum. These potential scheme changes, arising from stakeholder engagement, would have necessitated a substantial change to the powers contained within the bill, a significant change in environmental impact and a large increase in cost.
Whitmore to Madeley tunnel
The Phase 2a scheme, as deposited to parliament, contained two tunnels at Whitmore and Madeley, approximately 1.2km and 1km in length respectively.
As part of the reasonable alternatives described in the Environmental Statement, one option was a single 6.4km-long tunnel to replace the two tunnels in the Bill scheme.
This single tunnel was reported as being significantly less complex to construct and would have had several environmental benefits; avoidance of property demolition, reduced loss of agricultural land, reduction in traffic impacts, reduction in visual impacts and avoidance of impacts on watercourses.
However, this single tunnel was also significantly more expensive to construct and operate due to the increased tunnelling length. [3]
Engagement with stakeholders in the affected communities identified a desire to adopt this single tunnel option. The onus was therefore on HS2 Ltd to substantiate the cost differential (£177 million) and evidence the judgment of the costs outweighing any engineering or environmental benefits.
The single tunnel option was therefore developed to a ‘concept design’, detailed enough to fully appraise its impact and present a fair comparative analysis of the two options.
The appraisal considered a wider range of technical disciplines than was evaluated prior to bill deposit, including tunnel ventilation, traction power design, temporary power supplies, utility diversions, shaft construction and construction traffic.
The findings of the comparative analysis were published in a report in March 2018 [4], prior to select committee hearings on the tunnel beginning in April 2018.
It determined that the single tunnel would be, in engineering terms, a ‘major worsening’ when compared to the two-tunnel scheme. Conversely, it reported that the single tunnel scheme would be a ‘major environmental improvement’.
The full engineering and environmental comparison matrices were published as appendices to the report. This transparency helped to defend the promoter’s position.
While the promoter and petitioner agreed on the environmental merits of the single tunnel, they disagreed over the costs. The report therefore contained a dedicated chapter about the cost assumptions, such as tunnelling rate and disposal of surplus excavated material.
A detailed cost breakdown was provided in an appendix to the report. Unsurprisingly, costs became the key topic of discussion during the subsequent select committee hearing [5] with the petitioners calling an expert witness who presented their own costings to the committee. [6]
Following the petition hearing, the select committee found in favour of the promoter’s two-tunnel scheme, stating in their first special report: “The committee has made an 'in principle' decision to reject petitioners’ preferences to put the whole Whitmore to Madeley Heath section in tunnel (the single tunnel)…the proposal for the single tunnel is a costly option and the committee would like to see an undertaking from HS2 to direct its resources instead towards improvements for the local and wider community.” [7]
Grid supply point connection at Parkgate
Following deposit of the Phase 2a hybrid bill, further design development work was carried out regarding the traction power supply. This showed that, for National Grid to meet HS2’s power supply requirements while maintaining resilient supply to the local area, additional physical power supply infrastructure would be needed.
The original grid supply point was at an existing substation, approximately 4km west of the Phase 2a route. The further development work demonstrated the need to relocate the grid supply point to a new substation at Parkgate, approximately 8km east of the route.
This change to the scheme was brought forward via Additional Provision 2 (AP2) to the Phase 2a Bill, which was deposited to parliament in February 2019.
An additional provision is, in effect, a mini-bill and is a mechanism for bringing forward changes to the original scheme, either as a result of design development, agreements with petitioners to develop scheme changes that require new legal powers, or to fulfil directions from the select committee on earlier petition hearings.
Engagement regarding this change began in September 2018 with a face-to-face meeting with three affected parish councils. This was followed in October 2018 by a public information event attended by over 200 people from the local community.
Given that the amended proposal was for three electrical circuits, carried on two parallel 7.7km rows of pylons ranging between 23m and 38m high, it was understandably controversial at a local level; there was confusion and disbelief at the information being conveyed by HS2 Ltd.
A report was therefore commissioned, which attempted to simply, coherently and logically explain the trail of events that resulted in the change, for people to read and digest in their own time. It addressed key recurring themes arising from the previous engagement meetings and events:
- The requirements of the traction power system for the railway;
- Development of the hybrid bill proposals;
- Design development following bill deposit;
- Alternative options that were considered.
Graphics were used to clearly explain key themes and concepts, such as the role of National Grid and where the boundaries of responsibility between National Grid and HS2 Ltd lay (Figure 4).
The report was also written in plain English, which was vitally important given that the House of Commons select committee’s second special report had specifically cited accessibility of HS2 Ltd documents as an area of concern. [8]
Figure 4 National Grid/HS2 infrastructure illustrative diagram [9]
The report, entitled ‘Grid Supply Point Connection at Parkgate’ [9], was published in February 2019 on the same day that AP2 was deposited to parliament.
The timing of publication meant that the background information in the report could be read alongside the full environmental impact assessment of the change.
It became clear during engagement that the parish councils were going to petition the House of Commons select committee, seeking to replace the pylons and overhead lines with underground cables.
This was not an issue where agreement would be reached between the promoter and the petitioner as the underground option was likely to require significant additional expenditure.
It was therefore incumbent on HS2 Ltd to produce evidence for the petition hearings, which illustrated a fair comparative analysis of an above-ground and underground option alongside the costs of each option, so that the committee could make an informed decision on the matter.
This evidence primarily took the form of a second report, published as an addendum to the first report described above. [10] This second report needed to both satisfy the stakeholders that their concerns had been heeded, investigated, and analysed thoroughly, and uphold scrutiny by the select committee.
For the AP2 Environmental Statement, the proposed traction power connection’s environmental impact was assessed across a 200m-wide corridor, including an assumption that all ecological habitats within that corridor would be lost during construction.
It also incorporated an assessment of the visual impacts of the tower (pylon) locations. This represented the reasonable worst-case environmental impact assessment but gave an unrealistic view of what the above-ground connection was likely to be in practice.
Adopting a similar methodology for an equivalent underground connection would not have adequately illustrated the differences between the two alternative schemes.
The second report therefore described a refined version of the AP2 scheme using a 65m-wide corridor. The same 65m-wide corridor was then used to fit a comparative underground alternative scheme, enabling a better comparison of the differences.
Both indicative schemes needed to be advanced to a level of preliminary design in order to adequately appraise their impacts and generate a fair cost comparison.
Collaboration with National Grid was also necessary to ensure that assumptions were accurate and in line with their work practices. For transparency, the entire engineering and environmental comparison matrices were published as appendices to the report.
Following the petition hearing, the select committee again found in favour of the promoter’s above-ground scheme, with their third special report stating, “We accept that the proposal in AP2 for the siting of overground pylons between Parkgate and the Newland Auto Transformer Feeder station contained in AP2 is the best option for provision of electricity to the railway.” [11]
There have been instances where the select committee have not found in favour of the promoter’s position, and lessons can also be learnt from these cases.
One example of this was a parish council who petitioned to replace a T-junction with a roundabout, citing improved access/egress to and from the village of Swynnerton with additional traffic calming benefits past a nearby property.
The select committee ultimately ruled in favour of the petitioner stating “HS2 Ltd should build a roundabout where the diverted Tittensor Road meets the A51”.[8]
While some high-level differences between the two options were presented, the topic received more attention from the select committee than the promoter had anticipated, and the promoter was underprepared.
There were site-specific issues that needed to be explained with thorough technical detail in relation to traffic capacity and potential impacts on pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians.
In this case, the expert witness and legal counsel had not been thoroughly briefed and prepared to address the differences between a roundabout and a T-junction at this location. This left them unable to fully defend the promoter’s position when questioned by the select committee members.
Additionally, the petitioner’s roundabout alternative had not been developed in enough detail by the promoter to properly explain the differences between the two schemes.
After developing the alternative, it emerged that the roundabout option required the diversion of a high pressure gas pipeline, construction of an additional retaining wall, provision of an balancing pond and maintenance access, increased amount of highway construction works on the A51 and additional land, both temporarily and permanently, from an adjacent holding.
Had these details been available at the select committee hearing, it may have influenced the select committee’s decision towards retaining the original T-junction as proposed by the promoter.
Conclusions and lessons learned
These conclusions and lessons learned are based on experiences on HS2 Phase 2a, but can be easily applied to other projects, settings or scenarios where it is necessary to present technical information to a non-technical audience.
Experience suggests that winning the favour of the select committee can be achieved by working collaboratively with petitioners, treating their objections to the scheme respectfully, working these suggestions through to a level where they can be fairly assessed, and finally (assuming that the outcome of the appraisal supports this) presenting how the proposed scheme remains, on balance, the most appropriate course of action.
Early engagement with prospective petitioners is key to gaining an early understanding of their concerns. This provides time to explore potential scheme alternatives in the necessary detail as this can be a lengthy process.
Additionally, engagement meetings with prospective petitioners are often the first opportunity that petitioners will have to see sketches and hear explanations from technical specialists defending the proposed scheme.
Transparency is important; where details supporting decision-making are available, such as costs or comparative reports, it should be considered that they be shared with stakeholders. This ensures there can be no accusations of hiding pertinent information.
However, the timing of publication of evidential reports needs to be carefully considered. While evidence for select committee hearings only need to be provided two working days in advance, petitioners and the committee members themselves need time to be able to consider and digest what is provided.
For evidence slides, the text needs to be clear and concise, and succinctly capture the key points of the arguments. Sketches, diagrams and annotated maps can be useful tools to illustrate concepts. Finally, correspondence should be as accessible as possible for ease of understanding by all parties.
(In Part I of this article, Daniel Collins described his experiences of working on the parliamentary phase of the HS2 Phase 2a project, which centred around engagement with petitioners (objectors) against the scheme and producing evidence to defend it against challenge. Part 1 can be read here.)
Author: Daniel Collins, engineering manager, HS2 Ltd, is a Chartered Engineer with a BE in Civil Engineering from NUI Galway and a MSc in Transport and Business Management from Imperial College London. His experience is primarily in the transportation sector, working in design consultancy in Ireland before moving to the UK to work on Transport for London's Cycle Superhighway programme.
References
3.) High Speed Two Ltd, 'High Speed Rail (West Midlands to Crewe) Environmental Statement Volume 2 Community Area Report CA4: Whitmore Heath to Madeley', 2017.
4.) High Speed Two Ltd, 'HS2 Phase 2a: Whitmore Heath to Madeley Tunnel Report', 2018.
5.) UK Parliament, 'Petitioner Evidence - Petitions 130, 108, 141 and 187 (April 23, 2018) (Afternoon)', April 24, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.parliament.uk/documents/1031797%20Hansard%20HSRBC%2023.04.18%20Afternoon.pdf. [Accessed June 4, 2020].
6.) UK Parliament, 'Petitioner Evidence - Petition 130 (23rd April 2018)', April 9, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.parliament.uk/documents/HOC%2000130%20Staffordshire%20CC%20and%20Others%20Petitioner%20REPLACEMENT.pdf. [Accessed 04 June 2020].
7.) Authority of House of Commons, 'House of Commons High Speed Rail (West Midlands to Crewe) Bill Select Committee First Special Report of Session 2017-2019'.
8.) Authority of House of Commons, 'House of Commons High Speed Rail (West Midlands to Crewe) Bill Select Committee Second Special Report of Session 2017-2019'.
9.) High Speed Two Ltd, 'Parkgate Report: Grid Supply Point Connection', 2019.
10.) High Speed Two Ltd, 'HS2 Phase 2a Select Committee: Grid Supply Point Connection at Parkgate - Addendum', 2019.
11.) Authority of House of Commons, 'House of Commons High Speed Rail (West Midlands to Crewe) Bill Select Committee Third Special Report of Session 2017-2019'.