High Speed Rail Sponsorship

William Perrin

Via e-mail to:

Patrick Bateson

Department for Transport

Zone 4/15

Great Minster House

33 Horseferry Road

London

SW1P 4DR

Web Site:

FOI 10112

12 July 2013

Dear Mr Perrin

Thank you for your information request of 30th April 2013. You requested the following information:

Copies of all correspondence, meeting notes, spread sheets and other information exchanged between DfT and HS2 concerning plans for Euston station during the period 1 March 2013 and 22 April 2013

Your request has been considered under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Environmental Information Regulations.

I am writing to confirm that the Department does hold the information you requested but has decided that some of this information cannot be disclosed for the reasons given below. The information that can be released is:

Relevant extracts from High Speed Rail Board Meeting 11 March 2013

Relevant extract from High Speed Rail Progress Report March 2013

HS2 Ltd Board Paper regarding Euston Station (with redactions see below)

Material used for Euston Community Forum April 2013

Various emails (or extracts of emails) exchanged between HS2 Ltd and DfT

In all case names have been redacted from documents as they are not within the scope of your request and fall under both s.40 of the FOI Act and Reg.13 of the Environmental Information Regulations – the full texts of which can be found at the end of this response.

A copy of the above information is enclosed.

The information being withheld relates to item 3 above and falls and under the following exceptions in the EIR:

Sections 12 (4) (e) unfinished documents and
Sections 12 (5) (e) confidentiality of commercial information.

In addition the Department does not hold Appendix B of item 3 above, and therefore regulation 12(4) (a) applies.Where we have indicated that we do not hold the information requested we are relying on regulation 12(4) (a) – does not hold that information at the time of the request.

Most of the exceptions under the EIR regulations are subject to the public interest test, but the Information Commissioner’s Office recognises that it can be impossible to do a meaningful public interest test if the information is not held. Therefore, one has not been carried out.

In applying the exemption under section 12 (5) (e) we have had to balance the public interest in withholding the information against the public interest in disclosure.

In this case the release of costing information has been withheld as releasing costs could have an adverse effect on any tendering process.

In keeping with the spirit and effect of the Freedom of Information Act, all information is assumed to be releasable to the public unless exempt.A copy of this response and the information provided may now be published on the web-site, together with any related information that will provide a key to its wider context.

If you are unhappy with the way the Department has handled your request or with the decisions made in relation to your request you may complain within two calendar months of the date of this letter by writing to the Department’s Information Rights Unit at:

Zone D/01

Ashdown House

Sedlescombe Road North

Hastings

East Sussex TN37 7GA

E-mail:

Please see attached details of DfT’s complaints procedure and your right to complain to the Information Commissioner.

If you have any queries about this letter, please contact me. Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future communications.

Patrick Bateson

Your right to complain to DfT and the Information Commissioner

You have the right to complain within two calendar months of the date of this letterabout the way in which your request for information was handled and/or about the decision not to disclose all or part of the information requested. In addition a complaint can be made that DfT has not complied with its FOI publication scheme.

Your complaint will be acknowledged and you will be advised of a target date by which to expect a response. Initially your complaint will be re-considered by the official who dealt with your request for information. If, after careful consideration, that official decides that his/her decision was correct, your complaint will automatically be referred to a senior independent official who will conduct a further review. You will be advised of the outcome of your complaint and if a decision is taken to disclose information originally withheld this will be done as soon as possible.

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at:

Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF

Annex A

Exemption in full
EIR 12 (5) (e) (e)the confidentiality of commercial or industrial information where such confidentiality is provided by law to protect a legitimate economic interest;
Public interest test factors for disclosure / Public interest test factors against disclosure
The proposed HS2 station at Euston is a public sector significant investment. The cost of possible alternative schemes is of specific interest to this particular information request / On the assumption that HS2 receives the necessary powers through Royal Assent of the Hybrid Bill, a commercial tendering process will be required for Euston station works.
Releasing any cost information may subsequently disadvantage HS2 Ltd in achieving the most economically advantageous position when negotiating with contractors.
Decision
Release report but withhold sections containing cost information

Item 1 - Relevant extracts from High Speed Rail Board Meeting 11 March 2013

High Speed Rail Board 11 March 2013 Department for Transport

Agenda:

3.Design change decision timetable

Extract from Agenda Item 3

On Euston XXoutlined further technical discussions were due to take place with Camden on Friday. It was important to bring output from this together before going to Ministers. XXXXXXXXXXXX(XX) reminded the Board that the discussions with Camden were ongoing and that the consultation will focus on an outline design, with the opportunity for this to be altered before the final ES is produced. A strategic group had now been established on Camden which XXsaid could be a model for other locations.

Item 2 - Relevant extract from High Speed Rail Progress Report March 2013

High Speed Rail

Progress Report

Report to HSR Board

March 2013

Relevant extract from - 2. Key Issues

Design changes

In the next month submissions are due to be made to Ministers on major design changes including Euston and the HS1-HS2 link. Should delays impact on these submissions, it presents a threat to the timetable and our ability to meet the current plan for finalising documentation ahead of the launch of the Environmental Statement and Design Changes consultation due to launch on 8 May. This risk is due to be discussed further by the Phase 1 Project Delivery Group with an update provided at the HSR Board meeting.

Item 3 - HS2 Ltd Board Paper regarding Euston Station (with redactions)

Euston Station

Author:

/ XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Sponsor:

/ XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Purpose:

For Approval

Summary:

/ The initial design for Euston station assumed a single level, completely rebuilt and expanded station at Euston, serving high speed services alongside classic services. All of the twenty-four platforms would be built below ground level, with concourse facilities provided above at ground level. This was known as the Post Consultation Route (PCR) design and was compliant with the Sponsors requirements to deliver the overall HS2 Ltd Transport Proposition (which included capacity for 18 HS2 services per hour each way and the specified classic service during and after construction with effective interconnectivity and dispersal at Euston).
It is now clear that this original solution is not acceptable in terms of cost and construction programme impact and HS2 Ltd have worked with Network Rail (NR) and Transport for London (TfL) to develop an alternative (known as the ‘Option 8 Concept’ to illustrate the maturity of the design and comparison with the other, discarded options). Approval is now required for both the inclusion of the Option 8 Concept in the draft Environmental Statement and the way forward on developing the design.
The Board is asked to:

Approve the recommendation to the Secretary of Sate to include the Option 8 Concept in the draft Environmental Statement in order to meet Sponsors Requirements.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Note the further work to be done to validate the design and address stakeholder concerns

Background
The announcement in January 2012 reflected the design consulted on in 2011 and no additional commitments were made at that stage.
Through thedesign work undertaken during the second half of 2012, it became clear that the scale of work at Euston and the complexity of the phasing to deliver the range of stakeholder requirements for this scheme led to an extension of the construction programme from 8 to 12 years, with HS2 opening late in 2028 and with major cost escalation.
In order to address these issues an alternative solution was developed to provide a transport proposition based on the minimum work to meet the HS2 requirements . In order to provide for additional transport works and ensure the design is suitable, beyond the minimum HS2 requirements, a further iteration has been developed jointly with NR and TfL that assumed refurbishment of the NR concourse, entrances and exits to the station, but did not involve significant change to the remaining classic platform layout. This concept was presented to the DfT, NR and TfL on 6th February and agreed in principle.
Further work has since validated the concept andinitial preliminary design has started. A further presentation was made on 5th March.
The Option 8 Concept
Eleven new high speed platforms would still be lowered into the ground alongside the existing Euston station with a new concourse and platform access above them at ground level. The existing classic platforms 1 – 15 and concourse are retained in their current position and level, rather than rebuilding them at a lower level in the base scheme. Two existing short platforms would be removed to enable lengthening of other platforms resulting in thirteen platforms being available for classic services.
The existing concourse is refitted and joined to the new high speed one to create a singular large space at ground level.
Retention of most of the existing station platform and tracks would remove the need to undertake complex rail staging works throughout the build and would enable the programme to be reduced by two years on that required for the original, full scale, solution and bring the completion date back to 2026. This option would however require Network Rail to undertake 1-2 years of advance works in the classic throat to configure the tracks that feed the retained platforms. xxxx xxxxx xxxxxxx xx xxxxxxxx xx xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxx xxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxx xx xxx xxxxxx xx xxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxx xxxxxxxx xx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxx
Servicing of trains and the whole station would be from the existing but reconfigured space above the northern end of the classic platforms, known as the Parcels Deck instead of a new facility provided at either ground or basement level .
The retention of the classic platforms at their current level would reduce opportunities along Eversholt Street to create active frontages e.g. retail units.
Enhancements to the Underground station would still form a core part of the scheme, but with an enlarged Underground concourse provided in the existing car park area, rather than a mined solution. Additional access to the Underground platforms, as well as new entrances to the station, an external entrance and a link to Euston Square station would still be provided.
This option would retain the un-paid crossing of Euston Road.
An access point for future connectivity to Crossrail 2 could be provided.
The Option 8 Concept would no longer require the demolition of 1 Eversholt Street or the Podium buildings at the front of the station, nor would it conflict with the current bus station. Both of these are considered to hinder access to the front of the station and would ideally be demolished as part of a masterplan. Equally, undermining of the grade 2* listed building owned by the RCGP would no longer be necessary. Taxi drop off may be more difficult on Eversholt Street than previously proposed because that road would not be reconfigured under this proposal, but the rebuilt Cobourg Street on the western side would still be a suitable location.
The proposed east / west link road would remain and provide permeability, although it is likely this would feel more like a bridge rather than a street with open frontages.
The area in the throat would be largely unaffected, with the exception that the Option 8 Concept would not require land outside the current boundary on the eastern side; this would save a playground, community hall and a number of back gardens.
Opportunities
Oversite development (OSD) to the western, high speed, side of the station will be possible under the Option 8 Concept on a similar scale to that which had originally been envisaged. OSD over the NR area requires further consideration in the context of retention of the platforms at their current ground level. Where pedestrian permeability was possible across the entire width of the original design, under the Option 8 Concept it would be restricted to east/west connections at the front of the station (linking Drummond Street) and the east/west link road. North/south permeability improvements would be possible through improvement of the new Cobourg Street and Eversholt Street urban realm.
We are working in partnership with Camden and the GLA on the Euston Area Plan (EAP), which provides the overall framework for regeneration and development of the Euston area. Through this mechanism we are identifying how the proposed Euston scheme would seek to obtain the optimum possible solutions for Euston station in the future to aid achievement of a positive regeneration and economic solution for the surrounding area. EAP aspirations to cover the throat and immediately north of the station are unaffected by Option 8 and development at the station front, replacing the Podium and 1 Eversholt Street building would be possible.
Cost - entire section withheld
Risks
There are a number of uncertainties which are proportionate and in line with the concept design stage. The primary design-related risk is about whether the concept will prove to be fully adequate and suitable to deliver the transport proposition as the design is developed further. The HS2 Ltd, NR and TfL teams working on the concept regard this as a low risk and have conducted sufficient early work to manage it.
The level of detail available for the concept design for Euston Station in the draft ES will not match that included for the remainder of the route. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. This will be largely managed by running a parallel consultation on the changed design.
As the design matures there is a risk of scope creep and concessions to stakeholders will be conceded around the edges of the area masterplan. Allied to this is the risk of cost increases driven by the need to undertake refurbishment at a greater cost than replacement. It is important therefore that there is clarity with stakeholders over the scope of the works, included in the Bill, the programme and where costs sit.
There is currently no provision in the concept design for Over Site Development (OSD) and no decking to allow for it. Introducing this at this stage will impose additional construction cost and possible schedule risk. It will also be important to ensure that the powers sought in the hybrid Bill are sufficient to allow for OSD if required.
The revised construction programme requires NR to mobilise now in order to prepare and deliver the necessary enabling works by January 2017. This key element may be at risk if, for example, funding and authority is not made available.
Draft Environmental Statement
HS2 Ltd now requires a decision on what to include in the draft Environmental Statement for publication in May 2013. The options are limited to the original PCR design and the proposed Option 8 Concept. As this would be a significant departure from the design announced in January 2012, a parallel consultation on the changes at Euston will also be required. The differences in the significant environmental impacts between the schemes are largely related to the duration of the construction impact, which is reduced by two years and the scale of excavations (reduced by approximately one third). In order to complete the drafting and approval of the documents to be consulted upon, HS2 Ltd requests a decision no later than 28th March 2013.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Key Stakeholders
At the meeting on 5th March the Department, Network Rail and Transport for London reviewed the Option 8 concept designs. This meeting confirmed the scope of works to deliver the Euston transport proposition, recognising that scope would be validated through the design process using the Transport Assessment and other modelling outcomes. Network Rail are content in principle, but would require a mechanism to enable fast mobilisation to progress design for enabling works and further clarification regarding the co-ordination of future oversite development. A marginal thinning of peak services would be required during Euston construction works – this would need to be addressed through the WCML re-franchising process. On the basis that the minimum transport proposition scope has been confirmed, Transport for London are also content with the proposals but would want resolution regarding funding of costs that may fall to others and further understanding of the scope of urban realm works offered in line with the Euston Area Plan (EAP)
HS2 Ltd informed the Chief Executive of London Borough of Camden on 25th February and met the Leader of the Council on 1st March. The EAP Strategic Board chaired by the Leader of the Council met on 5th March. LBC’s position is that they do not feel able to support the new option, citing the reduced urban regeneration opportunities as their reason. A programme of engagement with Camden and the EAP team has been drawn up to work through the opportunities associated with the Option 8 concept. Further briefings for elected members and officials are planned throughout March 2013.
The Mayor of London and GLA
In working with the Euston Area Plan team it has become clear that GLA are largely supportive of the proposed design and believe that regeneration of the area is still possible using this concept.HS2 Ltd is currently unsighted on the Mayor’s views.
Further Work
The immediate objective is to review and approve the material required for the draft ES and Route Development Consultations in May 2013. In parallel with this the design teams will continue to work with Network Rail and Transport for London to deliver a detailed proposal for consideration by Ministers in early May 2013.
It is intended that a preliminary design, assured by HS2 Ltd, will be available by the time the draft ES consultation begins, in order to allow Ministers to review the proposal in advance of the consultation responses being reported.

Appendix A – Cost Appendix withheld