GRALISTAIR
Established Member
Whose money is he spending may I ask?As long as he's not spending his own money, he'll carry this on, because he thinks he's important
Whose money is he spending may I ask?As long as he's not spending his own money, he'll carry this on, because he thinks he's important
I suspect that donations go some way towards the costs.Whose money is he spending may I ask?
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.I suspect that donations go some way towards the costs.
It's Time to Take Legal Action Against HS2 (Again)
I am a wildlife TV presenter & conservationist – please donate to our fundraiser to take the fight to HS2 Ltd today.www.crowdjustice.com
8. HS2 already obsolete because of technological change - business users market all but disappeared due to Covid-19 - spending on broadband would be better
Just for clarity, the quote you attributed to me was not my opinion, it was a representation of comments made by Chris Packham.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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.You might very well think that; I couldn’t possibly comment...
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.* 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.
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.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.
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.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.