HS2 appeal hearing (Packham -v- The Secretary of State for Transport and others)

Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
18,818
Location
Nottingham
I suspect that donations go some way towards the costs.

If he sets out his stall as wanting to get HS2 cancelled, rather than, say, more mitigation in sensitive areas, then anyone along the entire HS2 route who feels aggrieved is potentially going to throw some money at him.

We didn't have crowdfunding when the M40 was built.
 

158756

Member
Joined
12 Aug 2014
Messages
1,119
8. HS2 already obsolete because of technological change - business users market all but disappeared due to Covid-19 - spending on broadband would be better
We can't know yet whether this is true, but this risk does exist. If rail travel never returns to the levels of 2019, and HS2 is never used to anything like it's full potential, people in the future will think we were idiots to start building it just as the market was disappearing.
 

JonathanH

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
4,964
We can't know yet whether this is true, but this risk does exist. If rail travel never returns to the levels of 2019, and HS2 is never used to anything like it's full potential, people in the future will think we were idiots to start building it just as the market was disappearing.
Just for clarity, the quote you attributed to me was not my opinion, it was a representation of comments made by Chris Packham.

For what it is worth, I think the reality is that if the market really reduced, and it appears that some leisure travel is more likely to recover than business travel, it would just mean a reduction in use of the classic routes for their existing purpose.

I don't think an appeal to the Supreme Court could be brought on those grounds. It is too much of an unknown and we are not building HS2 for its worth in 2030, it is a long term investment.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
18,818
Location
Nottingham
Even a 10% shift of travel from road to rail would double the number of passengers on the rail network. I think HS2 will be needed sooner or later in any case even if Covid cuts travel demand permanently.
 

tspaul26

Member
Joined
9 Jun 2016
Messages
454
Can someone explain whether the associated 'Hillingdon' judgement is a threat to HS2 or not? I appreciate it is localised but it seems to still be a hindrance.
It offers scope for additional delay and increased costs for HS2, but without in itself causing the whole project to be scrapped.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Events Co-ordinator
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
15,050
Location
Manchester
The Hillingdon case is a little disappointing really. HS2 Limited should have just complied with the process laid down for their planning application in the way in which the London Borough of Hillingdon wanted it to be complied with, rather than defending (and then of course losing, with costs) their case at the Court of Appeal.
 

tspaul26

Member
Joined
9 Jun 2016
Messages
454
The Hillingdon case is a little disappointing really. HS2 Limited should have just complied with the process laid down for their planning application [*] in the way in which the London Borough of Hillingdon wanted it to be complied with, rather than defending (and then of course losing, with costs) their case at the Court of Appeal.
HS2 was not represented in the Court of Appeal: it was DfT and MHCLG who lost. HS2 was represented in the High Court below and won!

It is also still an open question as to whether Hillingdon’s interpretation of the legislation is correct. HS2 and the Government took the position that it is not necessary for the planning authority to insist on investigations being done where HS2 is already obliged to undertake them anyway.

It is interesting that the Court of Appeal also concluded that Hillingdon erred in law in how it approached the determination of the original schedule 17 application.

* These are not planning applications because the HS2 Act has granted deemed planning permission already.
 

ForTheLoveOf

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2017
Messages
6,343
HS2 was not represented in the Court of Appeal: it was DfT and MHCLG who lost. HS2 was represented in the High Court below and won!

It is also still an open question as to whether Hillingdon’s interpretation of the legislation is correct. HS2 and the Government took the position that it is not necessary for the planning authority to insist on investigations being done where HS2 is already obliged to undertake them anyway.

It is interesting that the Court of Appeal also concluded that Hillingdon erred in law in how it approached the determination of the original schedule 17 application.

* These are not planning applications because the HS2 Act has granted deemed planning permission already.
For all of Hillingdon's big-mouthed claims, the truth of the matter is that they just don't like the railway passing through their borough as they won't have any benefit from it. It's an understandable approach in certain respects but it would be nice if they'd admit as much, and stop pretending that it's about anything else. I mean, this is just the height of pettiness for its own sake.
 

tspaul26

Member
Joined
9 Jun 2016
Messages
454
For all of Hillingdon's big-mouthed claims, the truth of the matter is that they just don't like the railway passing through their borough as they won't have any benefit from it. It's an understandable approach in certain respects but it would be nice if they'd admit as much, and stop pretending that it's about anything else. I mean, this is just the height of pettiness for its own sake.
You might very well think that; I couldn’t possibly comment...
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Events Co-ordinator
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
15,050
Location
Manchester
For all of Hillingdon's big-mouthed claims, the truth of the matter is that they just don't like the railway passing through their borough as they won't have any benefit from it. It's an understandable approach in certain respects but it would be nice if they'd admit as much, and stop pretending that it's about anything else. I mean, this is just the height of pettiness for its own sake.
Oh yes without doubt. I'm not agreeing with Hillingdon's approach one little bit. I'm merely saying it's a shame their nonsense wasn't more effectively outwitted before it got this far. Unfortunately it is still a season of insanity with protestors on the ground as well as in Conservative-run councils too.
 

ForTheLoveOf

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2017
Messages
6,343
You might very well think that; I couldn’t possibly comment...
Certainly if I were a Hillingdon "ratepayer" I would be demanding an explanation for how the council can justify wasting so much public money on having one part of the government argue against another, using the resources of a third part of the government. I mean, as a taxpayer more generally I find it disgusting how councils always seem to find money down the back of the sofa for stuff like this, and then complain they're skint and so need to raise council tax.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Events Co-ordinator
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
15,050
Location
Manchester
* These are not planning applications because the HS2 Act has granted deemed planning permission already.
Good point. Although Hillingdon themselves refer to them as 'planning applications under the HS2 Act', though it may be said that that's an unhelpful description of it in several ways.
 

tspaul26

Member
Joined
9 Jun 2016
Messages
454
Good point. Although Hillingdon themselves refer to them as 'planning applications under the HS2 Act', though it may be said that that's an unhelpful description of it in several ways.
It exemplifies the problem that most planning authorities are having: they treat them as planning applications when they are not.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
18,818
Location
Nottingham
For all of Hillingdon's big-mouthed claims, the truth of the matter is that they just don't like the railway passing through their borough as they won't have any benefit from it. It's an understandable approach in certain respects but it would be nice if they'd admit as much, and stop pretending that it's about anything else. I mean, this is just the height of pettiness for its own sake.
Residents of the affected part of Hillingdon would benefit from Chiltern's proposed connecting service to Old Oak Common, which would provide access to HS2 and also to Heathrow.
Certainly if I were a Hillingdon "ratepayer" I would be demanding an explanation for how the council can justify wasting so much public money on having one part of the government argue against another, using the resources of a third part of the government. I mean, as a taxpayer more generally I find it disgusting how councils always seem to find money down the back of the sofa for stuff like this, and then complain they're skint and so need to raise council tax.
Government cuts have generally left Tory councils with more funds to spare than Labour ones. It's also in or near the PM's constituency.
 

Top