Annex D of HAL Response to TFL Application
| Section | Transport for London appeal under regulation 29 and complaint under regulation 30 of the Railways Infrastructure (Access and Management) Regulations |
Annex D
Response to TFL’s Application pursuant to Regulations 29 and 30 of The Railways
Infrastructure (Access and Management) Regulations 2005
Page & Para No
HAL Comment
Page 1, Para 1
-
Page 1, Para 2
-
Page 1, Para 3
-
Page 2, Para 4
This is untrue, HAL was encouraged by DfT to extend the
timeline to publish our Network Statement and Network Code
as the Crossrail Sponsors wanted to continue to negotiate
changes to our position. HAL acquiesced to this.
Page 2, Para 5
After which, dialogue and responses between the Crossrail
Sponsors and HAL continued for many months.
Page 2, Para 6
Discussions continued with the Crossrail Sponsors throughout
this period without agreeing final changes. The Crossrail
Sponsors were well aware that all changes needed to be
incorporated with any question over charges resolved. As we
agreed at the time it was likely that a further consultation may
be needed if significant changes were required there was
benefit in holding back on piecemeal updates.
Page 2, Para 7
This is simply not true – we were in constant discussion with
the Crossrail Sponsors giving full explanations. Very in depth
discussion took place – it was agreed both sides should
continue to revisit all the objections and responses to avoid
any misinterpretation.
Page 2, Para 8
Discussed at length, as the Minutes will show, the parties
could not reach an agreement. Our positions were opposed
and neither party was able to change position.
Page 3, Para 9
The Crossrail Sponsors were invited to join and on occasion
sent a representative tri-partite workshop sessions with NR.
Action plans were produced and shared with the Crossrail
Sponsors at each of the meetings that followed during the last
quarter of 2015. It is somewhat disturbing to create a different
impression.
Page 3, Para 10
Changes to drafting had been provided to the Crossrail
Sponsors piece by piece, they were well informed. HAL had
continued to wait for the ORR decision on charging in order to
include in its final drafting for December 2015. Unfortunately
more time was required to reach the charging decision so in
the meantime HAL published its interim documentation so as
not to delay further.
Page 3, Para 11
This is entirely untrue. HAL and the Crossrail Sponsors met
on many occasions (without taking into account meetings
cancelled by the Crossrail Sponsors). The meetings, at times
were tense and adversarial, HAL has remain committed
throughout.
To continue reading
Request your trial