The local NHS consultation closes on 16 April.
To see a short and jargon-free summary and to comment online you can look HERE.
The proposals include changes to hospital services at Stoke Mandeville and Wycombe. There’s been a fair bit of coverage in the local media already but if you haven’t yet what is being suggested and want to have your say, do follow the link.
At the beginning of this year a number of constituents sent me their thoughts concerning the proposed route for HS2, and particularly the alignment between Hartwell House, Aylesbury, and Fairford Leys. On the 3rd of March I wrote to Philip Hammond, Secretary of State for Transport, to pass on their concerns regarding this issue. Mr Hammond has now responded to my letter, and a copy is posted below.
I recently wrote to Alison Munro, chief executive of HS2 Ltd, regarding volume II of the Appraisal of Sustainability report about HS2, and particularly with regard to its claims about noise. I asked what assumptions were made in the report about the nature, scope, and cost of noise mitigation measures, and what technical work was undertaken to support its claims. A copy of Ms Munro’s response can be seen below.
I recently wrote two letters to Philip Hammond regarding the alternative high speed rail route which was developed by Arup. I have now received a response, and have posted a copy below.
In April I posted on this blog some guidelines on responding to the public consultation on HS2, which were written by the Chiltern Countryside Group (CCG) (see my blog-post of April 5 2011).
The CCG has now revised its guidelines slightly, and I have posted a copy of the most recent version below.
As I said back in April, this document is a useful resource for those writing a response to the consultation, although as the document states, it is important to remember that the most effective responses will be personalised ones, as opposed to copied-and-pasted ones.
A number of constituents have written to me to ask whether HS2 would be used to carry freight as well as passengers if it were built. I wrote to Philip Hammond to pass on this question, and recently received a response, which helps to clarify the matter. I have posted a copy below.
Over the past few months I have written several letters and emails to Philip Hammond, Secretary of State for Transport, regarding HS2. Many of these, as well as the responses received, have been posted on this web-site.
I recently received a letter from Mr Hammond, which answered several of my letters in one go. The letters it refers to are as follows:
- A letter about the effects of construction works on the local economy
- A letter asking how many buildings along the proposed route will need demolishing
- A letter asking why a route along the M1 and M40 corridors has not been pursued
- A letter asking whether the benefit-cost ratio for HS2 has been revised since December 2009
- A letter asking whether the Department for Transport will undertake another consultation if it switches to a new preferred route following the current consultation
- A letter asking several questions about the consultation process, such as the implications of the period of ‘purdah’ preceding the local elections of 5 May
- An email passing on several questions from a local HS2 action group
- A letter regarding the availability of the consultation documents
A copy of Mr Hammond’s response can be seen below.
The Department for Transport published a revised business case for HS2 alongside the consultation document that it isued a few weeks ago.
The analysis of this case by the HS2 Action Alliance was presented to MPs and their staff today (thanks to Andrea Leadsom MP for organising the meeting) and you can read the analysis here.
An email arrived from some constituents today drawing my attention to a website from a pro-HS2 organisation called Yes to HS2 or Campaign for High Speed Rail. It’s a free country so the supporters of HS2 are as entitled as its opponents to ount a campaign. But I was a bit irritated to see that they quoted my post on the Greengauge report (below) as somehow indicating that I supported the project! News to me – and I tend to think that people who misrepresent others are betraying a lack of confidence in the qualityof their own arguments. Anyhow, this outfit lists its board which includes a large number of business men (too many I’d have thought to be a meaningful executive board). It’s director is David Begg, a former Labour councillor and adviser to the Labour governments on transport policy. I couldn’t see any details of its funding but its address appear to be a PO box number in Wilton Road SW1. No doubt we shall hear more from them in coming months.
Greengauge 21 is a company that has long supported High Speed Rail, and has weighed in behind the HS2 proposal. They’ve recently published a report in which they argue that it would be possible for the government to link HS2 to improvements to local rail services that would give people in Bucks and neighbouring counties some benefits to set against the financial and environmental costs of HS2.
They say that new services could be run from Aylesbury to Watford Junction and the West Coast Main Line via a new (but oft-mooted) Croxley link and that a new link to Heathrow could provide direct rail access to and from the airport for the Wycombe-Risborough branch of the Chiltern Line.
It’s an interesting line of argument and one that I hadn’t heard before. Better local rail services would be attractive, though I noted that Greengauge did not envisage these being provided until after HS2 had been completed. Indeed, they seem to reckon that the prospect of a direct Chiltern Line-Heathrow connection in particular would have to wait until much later. And of course money would have to be found to finance the new links suggested.
Of course nothing that Greengauge suggests would lessen the environmental impact of HS2 and I doubt that their proposals would make any difference either to the business case for HS2 which is the subject of such vigorous controversy. But I’d be interested to know what my constituents think.
