Eversheds LLP One Wood Street EC2V 7WS - Gov.uk

Eversheds LLP Martin Woods
Solicitors and Parliamentary Agents Head of the TWA Orders Unit
One Wood Street Department for Transport
London Zone 1/14-18
EC2V 7WS Great Minster House
33 Horseferry Road
London SW1P 4DR

Enquiries: 020 7944 2487

Our ref: TWA/14/APP/04
Your ref: SLEVIND/292050-000009

Web Site: www.gov.uk/dft/twa

2 September 2015

Dear Sirs,

TRANSPORT AND WORKS ACT 1992
APPLICATION FOR THE PROPOSED NETWORK RAIL (BLACKTHORN AND
PIDDINGTON) (LAND ACQUISITION) ORDER

1. I am directed by the Secretary of State for Transport (“the Secretary of State”) to say
that consideration has been given to the report of the Inspector, Alan Boyland BEng (Hons)
DipTP CEng MICE MCIHT MRTPI, who held a public local inquiry between 10 and 12
March 2015 into the application made by your clients Network Rail Infrastructure Limited
(“NR”) for the Network Rail (Blackthorn and Piddington) (Land Acquisition) Order (“the
Order”) to be made under sections 1 and 5 of the Transport and Works Act 1992 (“the
TWA”).

2. The Order would authorise NR to acquire compulsorily land and rights over land and
temporarily to use land in connection with works to stabilise railway embankments at
Blackthorn and Piddington in Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire (“the works”). The Order
would not authorise the works themselves since they are to be carried out partly within NR’s
existing operational land under permitted development rights1 and partly outside NR’s
current operational land boundary under planning permissions granted by Cherwell District
Council2 and Aylesbury Vale District Council3.

3. Enclosed with this letter is a copy of the Inspector’s report. His conclusions are set
out in section 6 of the report and his recommendation is at section 7.

Summary of Inspector’s recommendation

4. The Inspector recommended that the Order be made with modifications.

1 Granted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (S.I.
2015/596).
2 Granted on 25 April 2014 (13/01805/F).
3 Granted on 4 July 2014 (13/03285/APP).

Summary of Secretary of State’s decision

5. For the reasons given in this letter, the Secretary of State has decided to make
the Order, with modifications.

Secretary of State’s consideration

6. Careful consideration has been given to all the arguments put forward by, or on the
behalf of, the parties. The Secretary of State’s consideration of the Inspector’s report is set
out in paragraph 7 below. Where not stated in this letter, the Secretary of State can be
taken to agree with the Inspector’s conclusions as set out in the report. All paragraph
references, unless otherwise stated, are to the Inspector’s report (“IR”).

7. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusions at section 6 of the IR
for the reasons given by the Inspector. These conclusions are summarised below.

a. The powers in the Order are justified given the undisputed need for the works
to provide a cost-effective and permanent solution to the problem of instability along
the section of railway at Blackthorn and Piddington (IR 6.2-5). The works would bring
clear public benefits by minimising the need for emergency repairs and speed
restrictions, so facilitating a punctual, safe and reliable railway (IR 6.14-15).

b. There is no alternative to carrying out the works to the embankment and
related drainage systems in this location, and no practicable or safe alternatives had
been identified to carrying out the works from the land that would be acquired under
the Order (IR 6.7-9). As for an alternative to the proposed permanent maintenance
access road, NR’s evidence of past difficulties in securing access to the
embankments by negotiation is uncontested; these difficulties would be exacerbated
if access were required more frequently in the future (IR 6.11).

c. There is nothing to indicate that the access road would propose a safety risk
to users, the railway or people in the locality, nor a security risk to adjoining land and
properties, including farm premises (IR 6.16, 20).

d. During the construction phase, the minor and temporary adverse effects of
construction traffic can be mitigated through the Construction Traffic Management
Plan required by a condition attached to the planning permission for the works
granted by Aylesbury Vale District Council. The adverse effects of construction traffic
on residential amenity are similarly likely to be minor and temporary. During the
operational phase, traffic arising from maintenance of the embankments would be
infrequent (IR 6.17-19).

e. The agricultural land that would be acquired permanently appears to be of
low quality and prone to waterlogging. No evidence has been submitted that there
would be an adverse effect on the viability of the affected farms, nor that livestock
would be adversely affected by noise from carrying out the works. The loss of grazing
land and the loss of land at one property used for keeping horses would be matters
for compensation (IR 6.21-22).

f. NR’s proposals would pose minimal risk to the surrounding water
environment, subject to mitigation, and would have no negative impact on flood risk
elsewhere. The extent of the flood compensation measures is justified and has been
determined by the planning permissions already given for the works (IR 6.10, 6.23-
26).

g. NR will use its reasonable endeavours to secure the continuity of the mains
water supply and to maintain access to properties adjacent to the railway during
construction works (IR 6.28-30).

h. There is a compelling case in the public interest to justify the use of powers
to acquire and use land compulsorily for both the works and the permanent
maintenance access road. In relation to the road, the powers are justified to enable
NR to implement a continuing maintenance regime, to meet modern design and
construction standards and to fulfil its Network Licence duties (IR 6.31-35). The
provisions in the Order are in accordance with the conditions provided by law and the
works are fully funded. There are unlikely to be any impediments to implementation
of the powers in the Order and all the land and rights in land sought are necessary to
carry out the works (IR 6.36-40).

The proposed TWA Order

8. The Secretary of State is satisfied that the form of the Order as recommended by
the Inspector is appropriate, subject to a number of minor drafting changes which do not
materially alter the effect of the Order. He is satisfied that none of the modifications made
to the Order since application, individually or in combination, would make a substantial
change in the proposals such as would require notification to affected persons under
section 13(4) of the TWA.

Secretary of State's overall conclusions and decision

9. For the reasons given at paragraph 7 above, the Secretary of State agrees with the
Inspector that the Order should be made and has decided to do so, subject to the minor
modifications referred to in paragraph 8 above. He is satisfied that all the compulsory
acquisition powers sought are justified to enable implementation and maintenance of the
works that have already been granted planning permission so as to secure the continued
safe and efficient operation of this part of the national railway network.

Notice under section 14 of the TWA

10. This letter constitutes the Secretary of State's notice of his determination to make
the Order with modifications, for the purposes of section 14(1)(a) and section 14(2) of the
TWA. Your clients are required to publish newspaper notices of the determination in
accordance with section 14(4) of the TWA.

Challenge to decisions

11. The circumstances in which the Secretary of State's decisions may be challenged
are set out in the note attached at the Annex to this letter.

Distribution
12. Copies of this letter are being sent to those who appeared at the inquiry and to all
statutory objectors whose objections were referred to the inquiry under section 11(3) of the
TWA but who did not appear.
Yours faithfully,

Martin Woods

ANNEX

RIGHT TO CHALLENGE ORDERS MADE UNDER THE TWA
Any person who is aggrieved by the making of the Order may challenge its validity, or the
validity of any provision in it, on the grounds that—

• it is not within the powers of the TWA; or
• any requirement imposed by or under the TWA or the Tribunals and Inquiries Act

1992 has not been complied with.
Any such challenge may be made, by application to the High Court, within the period of 42
days beginning with the day on which notice of this determination is published in the London
Gazette as required by section 14(1)(b) of the TWA. This notice is expected to be published
within three working days of the date of this decision letter.

A person who thinks they have grounds for challenging the decision to make the
Order is advised to seek legal advice before taking action.