Ms Hero Granger-Taylor and her team at Hodge Jones & Allen Solicitors have this week submitted an application to the Court of Appeal against HS2 Ltd and the Secretary of State for Transport over concerns the current ‘Three Tunnels’ design for the Euston Approaches is dangerous.
In response, HS2 Ltd ‘strongly disputes’ any suggestion that the current designs poses any threat to the structural integrity of the retaining wall at Park Village East.
On 5 June, Mr Justice Jay ruled in favour of HS2 Ltd and the Secretary of State for Transport (the Defendants) in a case brought by Ms Granger-Taylor who had argued that the ‘Three Tunnels’ design risked the catastrophic collapse of the cutting retaining wall along Park Village East.
Judge Jay noted in his judgement in the court hearing last month, HS2 Ltd has employed highly-skilled and world-leading experts to ensure safety is a priority in the design and construction of the railway.
Ms Granger-Taylor had, in Mr Justice Jay’s view, failed to establish that the ‘Three Tunnels’ design was inherently unsafe. Mr Justice Jay ruled he could not, on the evidence submitted, conclude that the design was so inherently flawed in the vicinity of a 12 metre high retaining wall close to Ms Granger-Taylor’s home that no engineering solution could be found to construct it safely.
Ms Granger-Taylor’s grounds for appeal lie with the argument that the Defendants failed in their duty of candour to disclose all relevant evidence to the Judge during proceedings.
It is argued that the Defendants failed to provide sufficient information to demonstrate that the outbound tunnel could be constructed in a safe manner under the retaining wall. Their leading expert. alluded to calculations made, but these were never actually presented.
In his ruling, the Honourable Judge made the following finding: “I have to take Mr Wood’s evidence at its face value and accept that calculations have been performed…. showing that the tunnel can be constructed safely despite the engineering challenges.”
That finding formed part of the reasoning for why Ms Granger-Taylor’s primary submission was rejected by the Court.
As a second basis for appeal, Ms Granger-Taylor’s team challenges what might have been a misunderstanding on the part of the Honourable Judge, perhaps due to hearing having been held remotely, that opposing expert witnesses addressed the structural integrity of the design on two different premises – a 250mm thick reinforced tunnel wall versus a one metre thick without reinforcement.
The appeal comes in the days before the UK Government is due to respond to the Oakervee Review of HS2, published in February 2020, in which major concerns were raised over the design for the Euston Approaches. Mr Justice Jay acknowledged that the Government response to the review still has the potential to derail the ‘Three Tunnels’ design altogether.
Ms Granger-Taylor said: “If HS2 Ltd has calculations which show that there is no risk of the catastrophic collapse of the Park Village East retaining wall, I do not understand why they have not produced them. Instead they have wanted to fight me and would not agree to an adjournment before the High Court hearing in May.
“This is despite the fact that the Oakervee Report, in what is without doubt a reference to the ‘Three Tunnels’ design, describes HS2 Ltd’s current proposals for the Euston Approaches as carrying ‘major risks’ (9.17). My position remains that they do not have a feasible design for bringing their trains into Euston. I have come to the conclusion they want to fight this case because, without Euston as the London terminus, the business case for HS2 does not stack up (Full Business Case, 5.16).”
Jayesh Kunwardia, Partner at Hodge Jones & Allen, who represents Ms Granger-Taylor, said: “We have concerns over HS2 Ltd’s duty of candour and their provision of all relevant documents during this case. There is evidence to suggest that some information was not disclosed as it should have been. Due the importance and timeliness of this case, we have asked the Court to consider the application for permission urgently and for a decision to be made within four weeks.”
Counsel for Ms Granger-Taylor is Christopher Jacobs at Landmark Chambers.
In response, HS2 says it employs world renowned, experienced professional design consultants, who follow rigorous design and assurance process which includes formal internal review (by the design consultant and HS2 engineering) and third party independent checking by similarly qualified consultants.
An HS2 Ltd spokesperson said: “HS2 Ltd has always strongly disputed any suggestion that the current designs poses any threat to the structural integrity of the retaining wall at Park Village East and, as Judge Jay noted in his judgement in the court hearing last month, we have employed highly-skilled and world-leading experts to ensure safety is a priority in the design and construction of the railway.
“Following that conclusive verdict in the high court, we are surprised and disappointed that the claimant is seeking leave to appeal and will continue to make a robust case for the Euston tunnel designs.”
Overview of outline design of Euston Approaches shared with the community can be found here here: https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/commonplace-cloudfront/resources/projects/hs2ineuston/Euston+v2b.compressed.pdf
Photo credit: HS2 Ltd
