The meeting initiated the process of a series of similar meetings with our local community, and others along the line, over the next two years. This is one of the preparatory stages being carried out by HS2 Ltd to improve mitigation measures and thereby minimise the impact on communities and the environment from any adverse effects posed by HS2.

It was made clear from the start that all those from the community in attendance were against HS2, and that by attending the meeting the individuals concerned were in no way endorsing the project. This was fully accepted by HS2 Ltd representatives, and it was made clear that if our opposition against HS2 should not succeed, that the input from the community forum would potentially help us improve the design of HS2 should it go ahead as planned by the government.

Those from the community who attended were well-informed and handled the meeting with tact and penetrating questions that in many cases left HS2 Ltd officials a bit stumped. It was clear that very little environmental assessment had been done, which is essential for big infrastructure projects to go ahead. The community was assured by HS2 Ltd that it would provide information on matters of concern where information was publicly available.

No promises were made however, and HS2 Ltd made it clear that they could not confirm that any of the input we gave to the process would affect the outcome of the mitigation measures in our area. It would be up to the Secretary of State to approve any mitigation adjustments suggested by locals along the planned route, and no assurances could be given at this time or indeed until the Secretary of State makes her final decision.

Whilst that gives little comfort to many, the meeting was a success in the sense that those attending were well informed and able to ask some very constructive and probing questions that made the HS2 Ltd representatives think and take note- literally, as the meeting resulted in 9 pages of A1 notes of recommendations and requests for detailed information. It was positive to see a more open and cooperative approach by HS2 Ltd, following last year’s disastrous consultation road show that was arguably little more than a one-sided sales pitch.

Further updates will be provided as the forum meetings progress.

If you wish to contribute to these forums, which are by nature closed focus groups, do contact John Killip at 39 Upper Street Quainton or by email at johnkillip@btinternet.com

The Delay

We can welcome the news that Justine Greening has decided to delay the decision on HS2 from the 20th December to until mid-January in order to investigate the possibility of an extra tunnel through the Chilterns and further environmental assessment of the impact of the entire HS2 route.

Justine Greening now seems to be taking stock of the findings of the Transport Select Committee which urged for greater consideration of environmental impact. It is encouraging that the new Transport Secretary is listening and approaching the decision with appropriate caution (a marked contrast from her predecessor Mr Philip Hammond). With plans to further investigate the environmental impact of the HS2 route ahead of the final decision, this can only be applauded.

The Tunnel

The proposal of an extended tunnel past Amersham has been met with mixed reaction. The BBC are reporting this as a political move to appease Tory MPs along the route and prevent rebellion. CPRE are happy to see the chilterns AONB being better protected. Martin Tett, Leader of Bucks County Council and head of the 51 M group, has recieved the news cautiously, questioning where the extra £500 million has been sourced from and how other parts of the line may suffer from reduced mitigation funding. He stated the tunnel does not alter his position against HS2 which has significant flaws in the business, environmental and economic cases.

Let’s face it, this is only a 1.5 mile tunnel extension on a 100 mile rail line which threatens aquifers, lakes, flood plains, 50+ ancient woodland, important biodiversity sites, a large colony of the rarest bat/mammal in Britain (Bechstein’s bat), and 80% of UK black hairstreak butterflies – and that’s just some of the ones we know of in the absence of a strategic environmental assessment. The new tunnel would not resolve any of these threats and is more about aesthetics rather than the more important functionality of aquifers and woods etc. The new tunnel is really a sticking plaster for a mass infrastructure project that is holisitically flawed.

The Black Hole

The Telegraph reported today that a report commissioned by 51 M and produced by 2 transport economists has reviewed the economic case and estimated the benefits to the tax payer could be only half the £34 billion expenditure, leaving an £8.5 billion gap in finances or black hole which would need to be filled through raising tax or spending cuts. This report further reinforces the weakness of the economic case at a time of such austerity.

Let’s also recall that the cost of environmental mitigation has not been factored into the total cost. Bat bridges can cost £500,000 each and we know that in one complex of woodland on the route there is a significant Bechstein’s bat colony which was not picked up before the route was selected owing to reliance on desk based research using data that was not current. It is anticipated this is not a one-off occurence so there is no way to estimate total cost of environmental mitigation until the true picture of what needs to be protected emerges.

The delayed decision and the extra tunnel appear to be a proactive response to HS2′s well documented problems, but only time will tell if this extended decision-making period will yield the right the results.

Last week the government’s Transport Select Committee announced the conclusion of their inquiry into High Speed 2.

Although the Committee came out in favour of HS2, the report expressed serious concerns about key aspects of the project, including its environmental impact.

These concerns are summarised and responded to by the Berks, Bucks and Oxon Wildlife Trust (BBOWT) who released their response, published here.

————————————————————–

Press Statement from the Berks, Bucks & Oxon Wildlife Trust on the Transport Select Committee Report into High Speed Rail

8 November 2011

This statement is from Matt Jackson, Head of Conservation Policy & Strategy at the Berks, Bucks & Oxon Wildlife Trust

The Transport Select Committee report into High Speed 2 sets out clear challenges for the Government. The report highlights a number of areas where changes in approach are needed if the Government decides to go ahead. The Berks, Bucks & Oxon Wildlife Trust is writing to the Secretary of State urging her to take account of the committee’s recommendations before she makes decisions on the way forward for a high speed rail network, and specifically HS2.

Nationally, the Wildlife Trusts have been calling for the impacts of the whole route to be taken into account – a point the committee is very clear about. Extract from paragraph 14 of the Report Summary: “It is also of concern that the Government intends to reach a decision on whether to proceed with Phase I before information on the Y network is published and before many of the environmental impacts for both phases are clear. We recommend that no decision is taken until such strategic information on Phase II is published, appraised and consulted upon.”

The Berks, Bucks & Oxon Wildlife Trust has consistently called for the Government to undertake a Strategic Environmental Assessment of the environmental impacts of the whole HS2 route including the Y routes north of Birmingham. This would include assessing alternatives to high speed rail and the current proposed route.

The Transport Select Committee was also clear that the current proposals do not take sufficient account of the impact they would have on the local natural environment. Extract from paragraph 83 of the Report states: “We recommend that the revised business plan for HS2 should take account of the Government’s new approach to economic appraisal, which places a monetary value on natural capital. It should also make explicit whether this approach would suggest changes to the alignment or design of the route proposed by HS2 Ltd.”

The Berks, Bucks & Oxon Wildlife Trust welcomes this recommendation, and urges the Government to align its commitment to being the ‘greenest Government ever’, and its ambitions in the Natural Environment White Paper, with its approach to the wider public transport network.

5 October 2011

The Government’s controversial HS2 (high speed rail) proposal could be stopped in its tracks by a significant colony of rare and highly protected Bechstein’s bats, and it seems nobody has told the Secretary of State for Transport.

Under the Freedom of Information Act, the Berks, Bucks & Oxon Wildlife Trust has obtained copies of emails between Natural England (the Government’s wildlife advisors), and HS2 Ltd about the colony of Bechstein’s bats in Bernwood Forest, Buckinghamshire.

These reveal that on 7 June, Natural England advised HS2 Ltd:‘There is potential for Bechstein’s to be a showstopper, but it could be that it won’t be a problem or that it might require redesign of the scheme…but we simply don’t know with the survey information which is currently available. Therefore we urge HS2 to undertake surveys (ASAP) in order to understand the likelihood of impacts.’

Seven weeks after HS2 Ltd was advised to get the bat survey work done as soon as possible, David Lidington MP wrote to the Secretary of State for Transport asking what action the Department had taken ‘to assess the effect that HS2 would have on this rare wildlife species.’

The Secretary of State’s reply on 30 August states:‘No assessments have yet been undertaken on the effects of the HS2 proposal on Bechstein’s bats in the Bernwood Forest, as this issue is very much at a local level.’

Matt Jackson, Head of Conservation Policy at Berks, Bucks & Oxon Wildlife Trust, who initiated the Freedom of Information request, comments: “It seems that nobody has told the Secretary of State for Transport that the presence of these bats has the potential to be a showstopper.

“The Secretary of State’s reply to David Lidington shows that advice from Natural England to HS2 Ltd is not being passed to him.” says Matt Jackson.

The Wildlife Trust took legal advice about the bat colony and sent it to the Department of Transport through the formal HS2 consultation process in July.

Matt Jackson points out: “The legal advice highlights the need for the Secretary of State to be certain that the HS2 development will not have a significant effect on the bats before he is able to make a decision whether or not to proceed with HS2.

“We are very worried because it looks as though vital information about the Bechstein’s bat colony is simply not getting through to the Secretary of State – who is ultimately deciding whether or not HS2 goes ahead.

“At a time when the Department for Transport is actively encouraging railway companies to compete for HS2 contracts – even though a decision has not yet been made – it seems that the Secretary of State is being kept in the dark about the significance of the Bechstein’s bat colony.”

Bechstein’s bats are aEuropean Protected Species and UK Biodiversity Action Plan species. They have the highest possible level of statutory wildlife protection in the UK.

The North Bucks Bat Group, which is taking part in a four-year survey of Bechstein’s, observed at least 65 bats emerging at dusk from their roost inside a tree in woodland west of the HS2 route.  Tiny radio tracking devices on female Bechstein’s enabled the bat detectors to record them crossing the proposed HS2 route into woodland which the route will go through.

Bechstein’s bats are known to occur in 10 woods within the Bernwood Forest area of Buckinghamshire, including the Wildlife Trust’s Finemere Wood nature reserve.  This colony could be the most significant population in England, and better than many of the existing Special Areas of Conservation where Bechstein’s bats are known to breed.

When it was announced a couple of weeks ago that the campaign against HS2 had succeeded in obtaining its goal of over 100,000 signatures to secure a debate about the controversial project in the main chamber, there was great excitement amongst campaigners.

Yet soon after the petition was submitted to parliament, it was announced that the petition could not be considered because many of the signatures had been obtained on paper, and that the online signatures would need to be submitted via the government’s own recently updated e-petitions webpage. Stop HS2, who started and submitted the petition, were told to start all over again using the new system.

Whilst the news was met with much anger and frustration, fortunately it was announced just this week that a full main chamber parliamentary debate had been secured through the lobbying of MPs, lead by Warks MP Dan Byles, for Thursday 13th October 2011.

This is another milestone for the against HS2 campaign, and campaigners should congratulate themselves for all the hardwork that has gone into securing this debate, which has taken a lot of blood sweat and tears since this debacle began back in March 2010.

This month sees the last of the submissions of interested parties to the Transport Select Committee, who will announce the findings of their inquiry in due course.

Buckinghamshire County Council News Release

Martin Tett, chairman of 51m, the group of 18 local councils challenging the Government’s proposal to build HS2, a £32 billion rail project, responded with astonishment at Transport Secretary, Philip Hammond’s comment to Tuesday’s Transport Select Committee that railways had become a ‘rich man’s toy’ and some fares were ‘eye-wateringly expensive’.

Mr Hammond’s comments came at the final session of Transport Select Committee, which was taking oral evidence on High Speed Rail 2. He admitted that the new route would benefit the same group of more affluent passengers who could afford the fares on the West Coast Mainline.

Asked whether HS2 could be made more affordable he replied: “Uncomfortable fact number one is that the railway is already relatively a rich man’s toy. People who use the railway on average have significantly higher income – simple fact.”

51m’s Chairman, Martin Tett,Leader of Buckinghamshire County Council, said: “The attitude revealed by the Transport Secretary’s choice of words are deeply worrying. Uncomfortable fact number one is that this astronomically expensive project is coming off the rails. Mr Hammond’s comments show there is a complete lack of reality as to what High Speed 2 is meant to be achieving. In the midst of aims about redressing economic imbalances we now we have a £32 billion rail service the majority of the public will never be able to afford to travel on. Over a 60 year project life for HS2, these more affluent users will only pay 60% of the cost – the rest will be picked up by ordinary taxpayers, including those on middle and low incomes who are bearing the brunt of the current recession.

“MPs yesterday raised some fundamental issues about the scheme and didn’t really get any assurances that there was a coherent business case supporting it. By contrast what did emerge was an inflexible determination to hang onto to high speed when the key issue is about getting more capacity on the rail network. 51m has clearly shown that the additional capacity required can be provided far more quickly and cheaply by upgrading the existing rail line, leaving money available to improve road and rail infrastructure across the whole country.”

For more information on HS2 and the 51m group, visit the website at www.51m.co.uk

Although the consultation ended a week ago, HS2 continues to attract detractors and critics from across the nation.

Notably today a former Bridgend council leader, Jeff Jones, announced his opposition to the scheme, which up until now has been fully backed by Welsh political leaders.

Since the plans to build HS2 were first announced by the government last March, Welsh MPs have supported the scheme. The MP for South Clywd, Susan Ellan-Jones has so enthusiastically embraced the policy that she is now leading a cross-party campaign to lobby for the line. Ellan-Jones and other’s argue that HS2 would bring improved transport links to North and Mid-Wales, and have used the policy as a political lever to oppose the Welsh Secretary Cheryl Gillan, who opposes the scheme.  Jeff Jones said, “  “Instead of seeing this as an easy hit on Gillan perhaps they need to step back  a bit and really assess whether this will benefit any part of Wales.”

Having read the report submitted by local councils opposing HS2, an alliance known as 51M, Jeff Jones is the first Welsh political leader to make a statement against it. He said:“”I can’t understand why any Welsh MP sees any political mileage in  supporting the scheme.

“I never realised for a start that HS2 needs a new station in Birmingham. In  other words travellers from North Wales will have a 10 minute walk to the new Curzon Street station  from New Street. Given that HS2 only reduces journey to Birmingham by 35 minutes  and that of course assumes that the assumptions are right then there doesn’t  seem much benefit for travellers from North Wales.

“As for South Wales travellers, the MPs haven’t pointed out the severe  disruption that HS2 will cause during its construction because a new station  will be built at Old Oak Common, on the Great Western line in West London. This  is on top of the construction delays caused by the new depot for Cross Rail.

“Then of course there is the cost: £780m just to get the bill through at a  time of cutbacks and before even one rail has been laid.

The 51M group have calculated that HS2 will cost each constituency £51 million in contributions towards the cost of the project. The total contribution to the construction of HS2 by Welsh taxpayers will be over £2 billion, which does not include on-going subsidy contributions.   And yet Wales, like many regions outside of the four cities to be connected by the Y-shaped network, is unlikely to benefit from HS2 and could even loose out as a result.

Not only will there be no direct link to Wales on the new route,  in a recent report by the pro-lobby group Greenguage 21 it was stated that Wales’ economy could be negatively affected by HS2 by inhibiting its growth.

Welsh regional transport itself is in urgent need of upgrading, but cuts are threatening to restrict improvements desparately needed to encourage ecomonic growth.

In January 2011, the Welsh Assembly stated that the Welsh rail network was desperately lagging behind other parts of the UK, and was still not getting its fair share of investments, just months after the Welsh government made 12% cuts to its economic and transport department. Following these calls, The Cardiff Business Partnership (CBP) made a further plea for a crucial investment of at least £2.5bn over 10 years, to connect Cardiff, Newport and the valleys, in order to make a “significant contribution to improving Wales’ economic fortunes”. They warned that if they did not invest further in transport, it would be hard to raise Wales out of recession.

Jerry Marshall of the AGAHST Federation said, “HS2 will be a massive white elephant, it will cost every household in Wales over £1000, and it will put much more urgent transport projects in Wales onto the back burner.”

31st July, 2011

They weren’t racing to register their support for trains moving at 250mph.   They just wanted trains moving at any speed at all.

There have been some technical difficulties with the online response website today, which may have made it difficult for some to respond to the consultation. In case you have had any difficulties sending in your response, either online or by post, we have been advised by HS2 Ltd that you can email your response to the DfT directly on highspeedrail@dft.gsi.gov.uk .

Similarly people responding on the same computer, have found that they cannot complete the survey, as the computer’s IP address is noted when you reply and it won’t allow more than one person to register with the same address. We therefore recommend that ask other members of the household to send in their response to the above address, using their own email address to avoid your responses being discounted as duplicates.

Groups, such as the Parish Council, can send in a response too, and sending it via a second email address to this email address would also make this possible.

Thanks for supporting the campaign!