Note of meeting between ORR and DfT
| Date | 05 June 2008 |
| Section | EWS Regulation 29 appeal regarding HS1 |
EWS Appeal under Regulation 29 of the Railways Infrastructure (Access
and Management) Regulations 2005 – HS1 Charging
Meeting between ORR and DfT
Thursday, 5 June 2008
Attendees:
ORR - Brian Kogan (BK), Jessica Walters (JW), Bill Hammill (BH), Mary
Chauhan (MC), Tim Griffiths (TG) and Neil Leedham (NL)
DfT – Timothy Wellburn (TW), Gareth Williams (GW) and Susie Northfield
(SN).
Introduction / purpose of meeting
1. BK opened the meeting and a roundtable introduction took place. BK
explained the background to the appeal and advised that ORR had sent all
appeal papers to the parties to the appeal and had requested their
representations.
2. BK further explained that ORR had already met with EWS (at EWS’
request) to discuss the general appeals process under the Regulations. It had
been agreed at that meeting that the note of the discussion would be shared
with the parties to the appeal and BK advised that the same would happen
with the note of this discussion and made it clear that because of ORR’s
appeal role that ORR might not be able to respond to queries by DfT and that
therefore none of the discussion relating to the appeal could be off the record.
3. GW confirmed that DfT would shortly be making its formal
representations on the appeal.
Process going forward / timescales
4. GW commented that EWS appeared to be appealing in part against the
HS1 future-charging framework, which had yet to be established.
5. JW explained to DfT that ORR could not comment on this particular
issue and that it was for DfT to consider whether this should be covered in its
response. BK added that ORR assumed DfT would, in its formal
representations, comment on the issues raised by EWS. ORR could give no
advice to DfT in this regard.
6. TW observed that the EWS appeal was based on CTRL/HS1 not
setting charges in compliance with the Regulations, which could not in his
opinion be interpreted by DfT. ORR (BK and JW) reiterated the earlier point
that it was for DfT to decide how they approached their response.
Doc # 316500.02
To continue reading
Request your trial