High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill

Written evidence from Dr Chris Eaglen LLB (HSR 03)

 

The approach to consultations is a fishing approach not an iterative design and planning approach.  Please find why the preparation is not wise at this stage on such a singular Route and such a railway which requires much more infrastructure to be effective but at too high a cost and impact currently. For example there is the need to be able to show the balance of alternatives which the Chairman of HS2 said do not exist but they do and some have been included in the different court cases.

 

AVDC now is threatening to bring a case after the Hybrid Bill.  Why are the processes c asting off the peoples wishes like flares from a C130 or Chinook landing in Bagram or in Basra.  What is wrong with this project where a process has not had the normal iterative steps or a sensible development of a plan.

 

Draft Environmental Statement and Design Refinements formal submissions 

 

The documentation fails to demonstrate balance, local impacts and FAILS to make the do nothing options and alternative routes and sections impacts. A poorly approached design and maximimses damage to Aylesbury Va le areas and Buckinghamshire.  A how not to approach to large projects being approached as though minor change projects.  Fails for modern Britain to provide c apacities and strategic links.  Does not align with Secretary of State and promoters claims.

 

 Please is it possible to change the last page statement from 1 to 2 please: 

 

1. Responses to the consultation will be analysed and used to produce a summary report which will inform further development of the Environmental Statement and the draft Code of Construction Practice.

 

2. Responses to the consultation will be analysed and used to produce a summary report which will inform further development of the Environmental Statement and the draft Code of Construction Practice. We wish these comments to also be formed into a presentation to the Hybrid Bill and or the Independent Assessor to be appointed for the Paving Bill and Hybrid Bill to ensure a balance of disagreement with Route 3 because of the very poor reviews of alternatives and omission to refer to some non-HS2 led alternatives. Also because of the misrepresentation in the Draft Environmental Statement and failure to apply the SEA or its principles.

 

Hopefully there can be a recognition that the UK should not railroad poor processes through regardless of consequences.

 

The scrutiny group can request HS2 and the DFT demonstrate the baseline do nothing and other options more diligently. 

 

Communities and people have lost faith in the MPs and the current practices in Parliament shown by the vote and other votes which have such impacts on people's economical losses and detriments. 

 

July 2013

Prepared 10th July 2013