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.
I spent Friday in Kent looking first-hand at the impact that the Channel Tunnel High Speed rail route had had there. I travelled to Ashford with the Managing Director of Southeastern, the rail company that operates the local rail services serving the whole of Kent. In the county, I met parish councillors from two villages beside which HS1 was built, local campaigners fromk the Ebbsfleet/Gravesham area, Kent County Councillors and KCC officers, including planners who had been closely involved in coping with the railway’s construction and operation. I also stood right by the HS1 route while both a local fast service and a Eurostar train passed.
Inevitably, one day can only give you a brief impression of what people in Kent went through and live with now. To start with, there are two major differences between HS1 and the proposed HS2. First, Kent actually has stations – at Ashford and Ebbsfleet- and not just the Eurostar services but fast local services run along the HS1 tracks. So there are some benefits to local people in terms of better services to be weighed against the adverse impact. Second, for most of its length HS1 runs alongside a six-lane motorway. There is simply no comparison between that and the Misbourne Valley route. To label them equally as “transport corridors” is risible.
Southeastern told me that they now had more passengers from towns like Ashford and Folkestone using the high speed services than using the conventional trains, despite a 20 per cent fare premium for the high speed option. They argued that passengers were willing to pay the extra because they valued the time saved from the daily commute and the opportunities that that gave to them for leisure and family life. I challenge them as to whether this meant that they were providing a rich man’s service. They denied this, arguing that their trains were used by people on average incomes too. In don’t know whether there are published figures to show the number of passengers from different income groups. The local campaigners and parish councillors were more sceptical about the transport benefits. they said that the Department for Transport’s original predictions of passenger numbers and revenue had not come close to being fulfilled and said that they resented paying through taxes and higher fares for a line that only a minority of the county’s population used.
It was difficult to gauge the noise impact, in large part because the proximity of the motorway inevitably dulled the impact of train noise. While the noise from the two trains that I observed was less intrusive and shorter in duration than I had expected, those trains were shorter and travelling more slowly (140mph for the local service and 180 mph for Eurostar) than is predicted for HS2 (250 mph). Local campaigners said that while noise barriers did work pretty well, out in open country with no noise barrier the impact was much greater. To my mind this reinforced the need for detailed and reliable noise maps to be available for study and comment before any final decision is taken on HS2.
I saw a cut and cover tunnel at the edge of one village. Visually, I would not immediately have known that there was a tunnel there had I not been expecting it. The village road had been reinstated over the top of the tunnel and the depth of the topsoil layer meant that oak trees were now growing on top of the structure. However, the parish councillor from that village said that construction had meant disruption, temporary road closures and diversions and a lot of dust over a couple of years. He also said that compensation had been ungenerous and taken far too long to get settled. Kent County Council briefed me about rescue archaeology along the route and on how some historic buildings had been dismantled and relocated.
In terms of lessons learned, Kent CC said that with hindsight they would have engaged earlier over the issue of overhead gantries, which were visually very intrusive, and tried to get the DfT to waive its normal rules about safety barriers on bridges. It was the inflexible imposition of these rules that had left a number of country lanes looking permanently suburbanised, when there was no objective need for large concrete barriers in such locations. One of the things that had worked well was the establishment of an environmental fund, financed by central government and administered by an independent trust, that could give local groups grants to finance local environmental projects.
What came across from all the conversations I had is that that people in Kent, whether officials, councillors or grass-roots campaigners are happy to share their experiences with colleagues in Buckinghamshire. They too had to go through the experience of learning very quickly about a range of technical issues and drawing on their knowledge may help Bucks constituents in their campaign.
This study was mentioned in a lot of this morning’s broadcast media but was not, when I checked, available on Network Rail’s web site. However, a journalist has kindly emailed me a copy which I have posted here.
I recently received a letter from AVDC concerning the Wendover Conservation Area and potential alternations to its boundaries. AVDC have produced a draft document including proposed boundary changes which can be viewed online. A consultation on the proposals is running until 21 October 2011 and I encourage anyone with strong views on this to respond to the consultation. Details of where to view the documents and how to respond to the consultation and enclosed in a copy of the letter I received below.
Buckinghamshire County Council recently sent me a briefing regarding the four Southern Cross care homes in Buckinghamshire. These are as follows:
Chiltern Court Care Home (Wendover)
Coombe Lodge Care Home (Wendover)
Hillside Nursing Home (Aylesbury)
Lakeside Nursing Home (Aylesbury)
I thought that constituents might wish to see a copy of the briefing (see below). The key section is as follows:
The situation regarding all of Southern Cross homes involves the landlords appointing new operators for the homes (other than Southern Cross) and negotiations are well underway in most homes to be able to announce who the new operators will be by the end of the first week in August. GMB (Britain’s General Union) have now published most of the names of the Southern Cross landlords on their website.
The clear message is that all homes in Buckinghamshire are efficiently run and that no difficulties are anticipated in attracting new providers. Once the new providers are known we are hoping to hold joint resident / family / new operator/ Southern Cross meetings to allay any fears or concerns that families and residents may have.
Southern Cross continue to have care quality at the top of everything they are doing just now.
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.
