HS2 judicial review - strength of legal case?

[Padav]

@nerd: Which - given the Hybrid Bill procedure - means that the project as a whole is not necessarily delayed.

Which brings us back full circle to the unavoidable conclusion that the Judicial Challenge(s) is a delaying tactic, plain and simple and it won't even deliver that goal either, simply wasting time and money (much of it from council taxpayers in the local authorities involved) in the process.

Meanwhile it's full steam ahead at HS2 Ltd (if you can call a process that sees construction begin in 2016 and finish circa 2033, full steam ahead?).

The real tragedy here is that all this hot air is deflecting public scrutiny from focussing in the two places it really should be aiming;
1. Nationally on the entire procurement / tendering process - we should have absolute transparency with all tenders and associated dialogue up on a dedicated website for everyone (taxpayers are funding this project!) to see, in order to drive down the total cost to nearer £20bn from the estimated £34bn
2. Locally in the form of constructive engagement through civic society groupings to ensure best practice in terms of mitigation for adversely affected individuals / communities and environmental protection.

Neither of these vital things is happening because of the distractions orchestrated by the likes of Councillor Martin Tett, leader of Bucks County Council and Chairman of the 51M Group of local councils. He really should be hung out to dry!

 

[nerd]

@nerd: Which - given the Hybrid Bill procedure - means that the project as a whole is not necessarily delayed.

Which brings us back full circle to the unavoidable conclusion that the Judicial Challenge(s) is a delaying tactic, plain and simple and it won't even deliver that goal either, simply wasting time and money (much of it from council taxpayers in the local authorities involved) in the process.

Meanwhile it's full steam ahead at HS2 Ltd (if you can call a process that sees construction begin in 2016 and finish circa 2033, full steam ahead?).

The real tragedy here is that all this hot air is deflecting public scrutiny from focussing in the two places it really should be aiming;
1. Nationally on the entire procurement / tendering process - we should have absolute transparency with all tenders and associated dialogue up on a dedicated website for everyone (taxpayers are funding this project!) to see, in order to drive down the total cost to nearer £20bn from the estimated £34bn
2. Locally in the form of constructive engagement through civic society groupings to ensure best practice in terms of mitigation for adversely affected individuals / communities and environmental protection.

Neither of these vital things is happening because of the distractions orchestrated by the likes of Councillor Martin Tett, leader of Bucks County Council and Chairman of the 51M Group of local councils. He really should be hung out to dry!

Not entirely so Padav.

The attempt by HS2AA to obtain judicial review of the blight compensation proposals is not at all a delaying tactic; on the contrary, it appears to me that DfT were bounced by the Treasury into sharply curtailing the scope of the compensation scheme below the level indicated in the consultation proposals. In particular, the offered scheme is based on 'hardship'; property owners must now not only demonstrate that they have been unable to sell their houses at the pre-scheme rate, they must also show personal hardship forcing a sale (divorce, change of job, severe financial straits). Winning the case will not delay the project at all; but it will result in large scale expenditure up-front on behalf of the Treasury, buying out blighted homes. The enviromental challenges from HS2AA are more about forcing an extra round of consultation on aspects of the scheme, but experience has shown this to be a good way of keeping the window of opportunity open for alternative actions to become politically favoured. A year is a very long time in politics

I would agree though, that the challenges by 51m are chiefly political grandstanding - and have little chance of forcing any change or delay on the behalf of DfT.

 

[chris eaglen]

There are some clear statutory grounds because HS2 and DFT may have acted outside the powers. Hs2 is not HS1 mark 2 but a narrow but significant departure. It possibly fails to represent the objectives of the EU TEN requirements of intermodal shifts and specified objectives. The 2009/2010 knowledge and resources left several statutory areas and project development unaddressed and this is a grounds in JR. There were other routes and method that were not considered in the haste to issue and pick up poorly developed command papers. The work is not well done todate with adhoc changes and no consistent process of engaging those directly affected. Legal challenge is a legitimate process as with the public inquests and inquiries from Lord Huff and the Heck, Potters Bar and Grayrigg incidents. There is no legitimate operational railway authority guiding HS2 and this is of concern for many of the public. With the dependancy on ERTMs there are many other operating practices and issues not addressed where currently HS2 does not have sole authority. JR is a process to ensure your safety and fair treatments to citizens alike. Too much politics is the reason this project is now losing some credibility particularly in the methods to get to Route 3 and not variations any new alternatives.

 

[nerd]

Quote 2: that HS2 ltd failed to publish a 'Strategic Environmental Assessment' beofre teh consultation as required for policies and programmes impacting on the environment under European law. HS2 did publish an 'Appraisal of Sustainability' before the consultation, which they (and the Government) claim covered the topics required for an SEA. This is accepted by HS2AA; but they claim that the AoS did not go into enough detail.

Could the objectors win? Much less possible; but it would turn on how much detail the court beleive should have been in the AoS for it to represent a valid SEA for the purposes of consulation. (note that there is nothing here about a detailed 'Evironmental Impact Assessment'; there will still need to be one of those, but it does not have to precede the consultation). If the court find in favour of the objectors, there will need to be a second, environmental, consultation.

NO SEA process was completed for HS2 todate. The AOS was not scoped to meet the requirements of the SEA. Suggest the reading of the AOS based on limited maps was primarily a desk top overview without local resourcing and knowledge which missed significant issue. It was not scoped for construction phase land take and issues arising.

Article (15) says: In order to contribute to more transparent decision making and with the aim of ensuring that the information supplied for the assessment is comprehensive and reliable, it is necessary to provide that authorities with relevant environmental responsibilities and the public are to be consulted during the assessment of plans and programmes, and that appropriate time frames are set, allowing sufficient time for consultations, including the expression of opinion.

Insufficient time and space was provided. The omissions and assumptions make the document as sizable as it is inadequate for particular locations and communities to assess impacts and as such it is not an Appraisal but a preliminary broad commencement to a requirement that no party resourced adequately.

HS2 ltd now undertaking a technical consultation on the scope and methodology for the Environmental Impact Assessment

http://www.hs2.org.uk/press-release...Impact-Assessment-scope-and-methodology-82195

As I read it, HS2 ltd see the issues that Chris raises above with reference to 'particular locations and communities', as being relevant to the EIA stage, rather than the SEA stage. No doubt the courts will take a view in due time, but I suspect that HS2 have fairly good legal advice backing up their interpretation.

 

[Tiny Tim]

Projects like HS2 are so huge it would be impossible for any organisation (least of all the government) to make it 'loophole proof'. Equally, 'anti' groups will try any legalistic moves they can find. Most big civil engineering projects suffer from this, it's always been the way. Our government may not be the brightest bunch, but even they knew this would happen, even if they couldn't predict the actual objection. It may explain why there's such a big delay before construction is planned to start, these legal entanglements can only last so long.

Whether the anti-HS2 campaigners have any valid legal grounds is more or less irrelevant. They may score a few points and get some changes made, but as long as successive governments stick to their guns the project will proceed.

Lawyers are, as has already been said, happy to take money for any case, however unlikely to succeed; It's difficult to see how this can be changed, it's not simply about planning applications, but the whole way the courts work. I'm not sure it's possible to stop apparently hopeless cases without depriving genuine plaintiffs from access to justice.

 

[WatcherZero]

The DfT has also released statistics from its public consultation last year showing that people living in the most affluent areas along the route were 10 times more likely than the poorest to oppose the scheme. Almost 12,000 of the 55,000 responses came from the Hemel Hempstead area, with a tiny minority supporting the scheme. The Dft said 63% of respondents lived less than nine miles of the proposed route from London to the West Midlands, while 96% of responses received from Leeds and Manchester, 94% of responses from Glasgow and 85% from Birmingham agree with HS2. Overall, one in three respondents was in favour.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/apr/11/railways-hs2-fewer-economic-benefits

Hmmmmmm not much to say about the location and identity of objectors as im sure everyone already guessed. One notable thing is they have been systematically removing any hazy or theoretical benefits alongside non-direct benefits from the BCR equation making it less open to challenge, the downside being of course this lowers the benefits.

Dont let this scheme supported by the people of the nation to be undone by southern nonces!

 

[DXMachina]

The stupid thing is that HS2 doesn't even really affect Hemel Hempstead - thanks to about 8 miles of sideways distance and the combination of Box Hill and Featherbed Down / Sheethanger Common sprawling upwards between Hemel and Amersham there should be no impact on HH at all until the point that the WCML service pattern changes

I grew up there: Nothing ever happens there apart from the occasional detonating oil plant. I reckon the locals are just bored...

 

[chris eaglen]

Route 3 will be a rolling strip exposing 120K homes and 240K people to dust in a 1Km wide prevailing wind zone.



The diversion to avoid Aylesbury of more tunneling across the Vale would reduce these numbers to 80.4K homes and 160.8K people. A reduction and more is possible with further change to Route 3.



The Route 2.5 which is only half a route length reduces the exposures to dust to 12K homes and 24K people (including the children).



The route options being considered with people in the North of Buckinghamshire which were called Route 3.5 and 3.6 reduced the number of homes impacted to 9K or 10K and the people impacted to 18K or 20K.



This is a 10 to 1 reduction in the construction phase impacts which affect people living in parts of Buckinghamshire a county which has not got a trunk road grid permitting diversion of journey by car or bus. Also has large tractors numbers as many farms.



Given the Government has added cost since December 2011 for rail and road engineering more than impact mitigation to the route 3 through the re-engineering and allocation of more tunneling it is possible to deduce the AOS reviews from 2009/10 to 2010/2011 were not fully scoped and to consider a number of relevant factors for the construction phases for people, amenities, dairy farmers and for general traffic work and agricultural road/lane movements.



Validating the housing and population in the different strips for routes and the Central to West Buckinghamshire corridor using the numbers on the community charge or the poll registrations to add the different population centres is possible and AOS did not consider these steps.

Local knowledge from the Parish Councils would have enabled the weak bridges and narrow lane effects to be taken into account by HS2 to show the benefits of the west to central Buckinghamshire.



There is to be a Dairy in Aylesbury and the future impact on the milk production volume loss through the location of Route 3 needs to be addressed as some farms now to be cut in two by the route 3 may stop production undermining the large scale dairy. Again part of sustainablity assessments not carried out.



In the presentation of cases to the court reasoned presentation that the narrowness of the route 3 preference and the early discard of route 2.5 or similar were not sound comparative development actions is a challenge for the HS2 route selection process which was concluded too early in the 2010 period with little attention since.


There may not have been sufficient work carried out to obtain the best route through Buckinghamshire to meet the single objective of fastest rail between London and Birmingham. If the remit had been London to Edinburgh HS2 would be along the East Coast with 150Km of flat land and not up through Cumbria to Glasgow. The remit from HS2 is very confused currently and there is little certainty from the people attending the current forums being tested in Buckinghamshire last week and this about important details.



For example Route 2.5 can extended further with 2km of tunneling near Croughton and not be only half the route length. It is also possible to extend Route 2.5 or a similar western Buckinghamshire route from Ickenham to Kenilworth but it was not taken to this stage when routes should still be under consideration through to the end of EIA SEA. There is choice of route, other than route 3 and the likely Kent experience blight wide impact arguments used in 2011 were always to fail because of the much lower population and housing densities along a western corridor east of the M40 and west of Route 3. Again lack of local knowledge and no front end aerial video analysis which was undertaken in mid-2011 privately for £6K.



The result of a more central route would be a reduction from circa preliminary estimates of 120K house and 240K people impacted by construction dust and traffic dispruption for a long period of years to as few as 10K house and 20K people with a western route between the M40 and route 3, reducing the human costs and compensation. This would permit a higher budget for mitigation tunnels where needed which have not been addressed fully.

The previous SOS suggested reappraisal when B/C was below 1.6/1. Now 1.2/1 is being muted but without the demographic and farming and local transport/incident costs being fully assessed. The Appraisals of Sustainability were not focussed on the construction main blighting period but on the final operational scheme. Getting to the route in operation was not addressed.


Housing value losses total currently along Route 3 at circa preliminary estimates of £2.5B reductions in negative equity and selling price terms. The numbers of people impacted by route 3 is probably 20 times more than a more western route to the west of route 3 and to the east of route 2/M40.



HS2 route selection and objectives can be restructured/reconfigured to have reduced central Buckinghamshire impacts on dairy farming, housing (current and future) devaluations and on the exposure of the people to the construction period dust, noise and traffic congestion detrimental effects which will impact many vulnerable people near Stoke Mandeville, businesses, farming operation and amenities.


HS2 design planning and analyses has not been gold standard and possibly does not achieve a bronze with route 3. Need to reappraise and determine what is being attempted. If this was a strategy to date it has not succeeded. Suggest the DFT and HS2 should reconsider with the new resources the options and aviod litigation brought about by poor design management and pronouncements ahead of factual and validated plans.



Perhaps the UK's engineering planning and demographic/social modelling teams could recalibrate the route selection area for an early review and reduce the inbalances between rhetoric claims for and against HS2 to find grounds for early negotiations to avoid the UK HMG wasting millions on pound spent on the wrong route only to discover in two years time that there were significant preliminary shortcomings not addressed by the Transport Select Committee of the HS2 and DFT teams in the formation stages. Late discovery would damage the reputations of the UK consulting sector which needs to be avoided as it is a key to global earnings.



It seems opportune for the Secretary of State for the Department for Transport and HS2 Limited to be asking its specialists what can be done to improve the situations and bring the people of Buckinghamshire to a position of trust in the processes of demonstrated duty of care and consideration for ways of life and living in the countryside county. It is not just about the Chilterns but about the 110Km through Buckinghamshire.


The key issue now is that route 3 is a maximum impact route on Buckinghamshire and it damages ways of life and enjoyment and livelihoods through a corridor that is not supported by sufficient road, narrow lanes and tracks and which has some weak bridge infrastructure to deliver such a project.



Now is the time when reconsideration is sensible as protection of the people and the national interests. It is not about loop-holes but poor remit development and inadequate detail and local knowledge and failure to engage with all the competent bodies who could have reached a better solution for specific railway requirements which have become clouded as more political influences are emerging. Hopefully the All Party Parliamentary High Speed Rail Group will determine somethings have not gone right and will not be corrected until cool heads review what is needed where and justified properly.

 

[SS4]

Toffs don't want a railway in their backyard? I thought we'd moved on from the 1850s

 

[Chris125]

If the remit had been London to Edinburgh HS2 would be along the East Coast with 150Km of flat land and not up through Cumbria to Glasgow. The remit from HS2 is very confused currently and there is little certainty from the people attending the current forums being tested in Buckinghamshire last week and this about important details.

I think that just exposes how confused your own arguments are - relieving the long term capacity crisis facing the WCML has always been at the core of the argument, and business case, for building HS2 which is why most in not all suggested routes serve Birmingham and Manchester.

Even if building a dedicated HSL through to Scotland was a core objective of HS2 it would need to go via the West Midlands to be economic.

Chris

 

[HSTEd]

Where would the dust in this "prevailing wind zone" come from?

If its being stripped off the ballast (surely not as the dust would be washed off in short order?) could that not be solved simply by switching to slab track?

As to the HS2 Ltd arguments in favour of capacity and so on, they make lots and lots of statements about how stopping trains would destroy capacity and so on, but then decide to apparently rely on short, probably single deck, trains for most of the day.

THe majority of costs for modern trains are staffing and capital purchase cost, therefore a 400m double deck train with a single crew that is in service all day is far cheaper than a 200m train that is in service all day and a seperate 200m train that is only brought out at peak periods (and needs its own catering crew/guard).

You can always dump any surplus seats resulting from running 400m long double deck trains with 1200 seats off-peak as cheap advance fares (extra maintenance and energy use would set a minimum of ~£5-6 for London to Birmingham before you are in a better position than otherwise).v

If this is about capacity why are they planning on wasting stock and platform space for the better part of the day?

 

[nerd]

As to the HS2 Ltd arguments in favour of capacity and so on, they make lots and lots of statements about how stopping trains would destroy capacity and so on, but then decide to apparently rely on short, probably single deck, trains for most of the day.

THe majority of costs for modern trains are staffing and capital purchase cost, therefore a 400m double deck train with a single crew that is in service all day is far cheaper than a 200m train that is in service all day and a seperate 200m train that is only brought out at peak periods (and needs its own catering crew/guard).

You can always dump any surplus seats resulting from running 400m long double deck trains with 1200 seats off-peak as cheap advance fares (extra maintenance and energy use would set a minimum of ~£5-6 for London to Birmingham before you are in a better position than otherwise).v

If this is about capacity why are they planning on wasting stock and platform space for the better part of the day?

Exactly the opposite HSTEd.

From the Jan 2012 review of technical specifications.

Trains running only along HS2 infrastructure, known as “captive”, could be “off-the-shelf” European standard high speed trains with known costs and performance. If required for capacity reasons, this includes the potential use of double deck trains. .

Off-the-shelf European high speed trainsets are 200m long as standard, so there is no possibility of ordering 400m sets. On the other hand, it is clear from the document that double deck configurations of captive sets are entirely possible. European standard sets are commonly run as doubles, and that appears to be HS2's intention too.

. However, our principle of allowing some HS2 trains to run through on to the classic rail network to provide journey time benefits to a wider range of destinations requires that HS2 trains for these services must be compatible with the UK classic rail network gauge (height and width). This is smaller than the HS2 high speed European standard gauge. So classic compatible sets would be a high speed train design modified for the smaller gauge. Eurostar currently uses a UK compatible gauge high speed train.

The classic-compatible sets are going to be bespoke by definition; so the 200m length standard will not apply - and consequently the review of technical specifications now suggests that some sets 260m long should be ordered, specfically for the Newcastle Phase 2 services, but also perhaps for other routes where platforms are long enough to fit them. But of course UK loading guages rule out double deck carriages on classic-compatible sets.

You are right that HS2 are emphasizing capacity above all; and it is clear that they are indeed intending that the sets they order will carry the maximum number of passengers they can - exactly as you recommend they should.

 

[HSTEd]

Off-the-shelf European high speed trainsets are 200m long as standard, so there is no possibility of ordering 400m sets. On the other hand, it is clear from the document that double deck configurations of captive sets are entirely possible. European standard sets are commonly run as doubles, and that appears to be HS2's intention too.
.

The technology required for 400m TGV is already proven, (the TGV Grande Capacite proposal) with the central two power cars in the 200m double set replaced with two new trailers fitted with powered bogies (the Duplex trailer with powered bogie concept was tested during that high speed test run).
It would be not unreasonable order new trains "off the shelf" (well as off the shelf as these things inevitably will be with typical modifications for British conditions).
Indeed, AGV is even simpler than this as you can simply replace the two driving cab equipped "traction units" with two additional intermediate ones.

Double sets gain practically no crew manning benefits over two individual trains as both sets require catering crews and guards.

Additionally it appears that significant numbers of CC sets will be ordered as 250m formations, which is wasteful of 150m of platform space as it is too long to be coupled to another train.

 

[nerd]

It may well be that when the order is put out to tender, there will be a range of 400m sets on the market; in which case I am sure that - for exactly the reasons you give - HS2 will be in the market for some.

As you say, the 260m classic-compatible sets may possibly create issues for platforms space in the new Euston, which is why the numbers bought may be restricted. However, a 200m classic-compatible set is unlikely to be able to provide sufficient space for the 550 seats that HS2 were seeking as standard for their train sets - unless they are configured without First Class 1+2 seating.

But I think you can rest assured that HS2 won't be skimping on capacity - whether on the captive or classic-compatible sets.

 

[aylesbury]

Toffs don't want a railway in their backyard? I thought we'd moved on from the 1850s

I am not a toff and live only half a mile from the proposed line,we will be seriously inconveinenced by this as the main road to Oxford will be diverted via a small hamlet and brought into Aylesbury via a housing estate that cant cope with traffic that passes through it now. North of the town it passes very close to a vast new housing estate and a parkway station .The route from Wendover will cut through good farming land echoing the note about the Arla dairy being built and possible loss of milk yield.Surely a compromise will be reached as Bucks does indeed not have the diversion routes that exist elsewhere ,and also has many ssi,s and beautiful countryside that is being dispoiled by new house building 90% of us are not toffs.

 

[moggie]

.The route from Wendover will cut through good farming land echoing the note about the Arla dairy being built and possible loss of milk yield..

The anti's get more and more desperate every day - so at what speed do trains have to pass before cows stop ignoring them (as they appear to be able to do anywhere else in the country except Bucks) and take fright - what a absolute load of bullocks!

Did you see what I did there

 

[brianthegiant]

I am not a toff and live only half a mile from the proposed line,we will be seriously inconveinenced by this as the main road to Oxford will be diverted via a small hamlet and brought into Aylesbury via a housing estate that cant cope with traffic that passes through it now. North of the town it passes very close to a vast new housing estate and a parkway station .The route from Wendover will cut through good farming land echoing the note about the Arla dairy being built and possible loss of milk yield.Surely a compromise will be reached as Bucks does indeed not have the diversion routes that exist elsewhere ,and also has many ssi,s and beautiful countryside that is being dispoiled by new house building 90% of us are not toffs.

Where were all the defenders of the Chilterns AONB and SSSIs when the Wendover and Amersham bypasses were being built?

If we didn't build HS2 the impact on farmland would be greater from motorway construction which has a much higher land take per passenger-mile.

Regarding the Arla mega dairy, what about it's impact on the local environment? consolidation of smaller dairies, resulting in increased truck movements? I dont recall Arla producing anything organic, so the herbicides and pesticides used in their milk production wont be helping any SSSIs either...

 

[DXMachina]

Also, if you are expecting us to sit in judgment between the national importance of a dairy and the national importance of a new north-south rail link, don't expect to win

The railway line needs to go through there. Cows can be raised anywhere, hell you can put one in my back garden if you like.....

 

[NSEFAN]

Where were all the defenders of the Chilterns AONB and SSSIs when the Wendover and Amersham bypasses were being built?

If we didn't build HS2 the impact on farmland would be greater from motorway construction which has a much higher land take per passenger-mile.

It's easier to get away with building new roads because the locals are more likely to directly benefit from them; it's easy to put a junction on a motorway. Selling HS2 to these people is harder, as there is less direct benefit, especially given there won't be a station for the Chilterns.

 

[dggar]

.........

Regarding the Arla mega dairy, what about it's impact on the local environment? consolidation of smaller dairies, resulting in increased truck movements? I dont recall Arla producing anything organic, so the herbicides and pesticides used in their milk production wont be helping any SSSIs either...

Very true, The Archers are wrestling with these sorts as issues right now.

Does HS2 go anywhere near Ambridge????????????

 

[HSTEd]

Very true, The Archers are wrestling with these sorts as issues right now.

Does HS2 go anywhere near Ambridge????????????

If so, can we realign it so we have to demolish the entire place?

 

[LE Greys]

If so, can we realign it so we have to demolish the entire place?

Hear! Hear!

 

[WestCountry]

The railway line needs to go through there.

No it doesn't - it should be tunnelled underneath the Thames estuary until it's not visible from land, then run to Liverpool on a viaduct built 50 miles out to sea. Triangular junctions would be provided off Norwich, Hull, Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Wick, Oban and Glasgow, with the line reverting back into tunnel (somehow) for the trip into shore. This would provide an excellent service to some of the UK's most isolated communities, with no damage to the environment!

Stage 2 would then go to Liverpool the other way, with branches to Dover, Brighton, Portsmouth, Exeter, Plymouth, Bristol/Cardiff, Swansea, Aberwystwth, Holyhead and Bangor, providing the UK with a national transport network.

 

[moggie]

The route from Wendover will cut through good farming land echoing the note about the Arla dairy being built and possible loss of milk yield.Surely a compromise will be reached as Bucks does indeed not have the diversion routes that exist elsewhere ,and also has many ssi,s and beautiful countryside that is being dispoiled by new house building 90% of us are not toffs.

Hilarious - maybe not TOFFS, but NIMBYS - guilty as charged;

http://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/acrid

http://www.thegrocer.co.uk/fmcg/arla-megadairy-gets-first-acrid-whiff-of-opposition/218779.article

Can't blame anyone for wishing to preserve their backyard but seems there's some double talk being used here which blows the intergrity based on a concern for milking cows / milk yields somewhat out of the water somewhat.