Another Fine Consultation Mess – HS2 Ltd Get It Wrong Again

From 51M, the alliance of local authorities fighting HS2. From more on the responses to the 2011 consultation, which Dialogue by Design and the Department for Transport lost, see Some of the missing HS2 consultation responsesHS2 Ltd admit to ignoring consultation responses from those opposed to HS2. and Department for Transport admit to ignoring another set of HS2 consultation responses.

Dialogue by Design (DbyD), the company being used by HS2 Limited to collate and analyse the responses to the Environmental Statement consultation, announced yesterday that they will only accept files of up to 20mb.

Martin Tett, Chairman of the 51m, the alliance of local authorities fighting HS2, said:

“Unbelievable! This is the very same company that ‘lost’ hundreds of responses in the 2011 HS2 consultation. DbyD hardly inspire confidence due to their past incompetence. The content of the Environmental Statement is far from perfect so the best way that many people have of presenting their concerns is through images, maps and photographs. As a result, many of the responses being sent into this consultation will far exceed 20mb, especially those from local authorities.”

When challenged by officers at the London Borough of Hillingdon about the unfairness of this, the response from the HS2 petition office was:

“.. unfortunately Dialogue by Design (DbyD) are unable to lift the limit on the mailbox. The alternatives are to post a hard copy or you could also put everything on a disk and send it by post or courier. Another option is to break up the response into two emails (maybe by putting all maps, photos in one email and the written response in another) highlighting that both emails make up the response. Emails confirming receipt of your ES response will then be sent out.”

Martin Tett added: “Our past experience of DbyD was of them losing vital consultation response emails, so this is just not good enough. We insist that they raise this mailbox limit to give everyone a fair chance of submitting what they need to. Why should individuals and any other respondents incur costs through printing out hard copies, getting couriers or posting via recorded delivery? Submitting hard copies is ridiculous in this electronic age. With the amount of money that has already been squandered on this pointless project, surely increasing a mailbox isn’t too much to ask?”

NB The Environmental Statement consultation finishes on Thursday, 27th February.

Share Button
Share this...
Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterPin on PinterestShare on LinkedInEmail this to someone
,
4 comments on “Another Fine Consultation Mess – HS2 Ltd Get It Wrong Again
  1. With climate change and floods causing so much damage done to property .We should drop hs2 and the 50billions spend on traveling at normal speeds on our existing rail lines and work on lines which have been closed over the past years .Who would want to travel at 300mph on a train when the winds and rain of recent times .The experts say this is the weather of the future years .so traveling at high speed will not work in our country .So let’s not waste any more money on hs2 And have a good steady train which we can all use

  2. With the conservatives coming third to ukip and over 50% against building hs2 you would think he would have got the message by now and ditch his idea before he gets suffed by labour coming out and saying we are not supporting hs2

  3. Not since the Domesday Book can anything of the detail laid out in this Environmental Statement have been attempted. A totally clinical if not cynical operation wherein the total destruction of a landscape, farmstead or business is described as having a ‘significant adverse effect’ – today’s equivalent of a Norman’s ‘one in the eye’ for Harold.
    As HS2 knows that flooding the scene with masses of information leaves us all overwhelmed, I do not expect anyone else will plod through:
    http://assets.dft.gov.uk/hs2-environmental-statement/volume-2/Volume_2_CFA21_Drayton_BassettHints_and_Weeford.pdf
    3.3.35 Table 8 sets out the sensitivity of individual holdings to change.
    Packington Moor Farm – “High”
    Impacts on holdings (farms)
    3.4.14 Land may be required from holdings both permanently and temporarily.
    Table 10: Summary of temporary construction effects on holdings
    Holding reference/name Total area required Construction severance Disruptive effects Scale of
    construction effect
    Area to be
    restored
    CFA21/13
    Packington Moor 13.0ha – 5% Low Medium Low Major/Moderate adverse
    0.4ha
    Permanent effects
    Community facilities
    5.4.35 The Proposed Scheme will require the demolition of most of the buildings at
    Packington Moor Farm, including ….Overall, the permanent loss of these facilities at the farm is therefore assessed as a major adverse effect which is significant.

    6.4.7 Packington Moor Farm (DHW214), an asset of moderate value, will have its immediate and wider rural setting considerably altered during construction of the main line and demolition of farm buildings.

    6.4.41 Packington Moor Farm (DHW214), an asset of moderate value, will be approximately
    50m from the Proposed Scheme. A group of 15 non-designated buildings within the
    farm complex will also be demolished to enable construction of the main line. The
    farmhouse will be retained but it will lose its farm complex setting and relationship to
    local landscape. This will constitute a high adverse impact and major adverse effect.

    6.5.7 Packington Moor Farm (DHW214), an asset of moderate value, will experience an
    increase in noise, affecting the asset’s quiet rural setting. This will result in a low
    adverse impact. There will also be a high adverse permanent construction impact as a
    result of changes to the setting of the asset. The combined presence and operation of
    the Proposed Scheme will adversely alter key characteristics of the setting of this
    asset, resulting in a high adverse impact and major adverse effect.
    HS2 line map:
    http://assets.hs2.org.uk/sites/default/files/consulation_maps/pdf/HS2-HS2-PL-MAP-000-000100-P03.pdf

    As PD would say “they’re ‘aving a larf”.

  4. Given past experience, would anyone like to take bets on DbyD being able to match up two parts of an email? surelat yet another accident waiting to happen!

Comments are closed.

2010-2017 © STOP HS2 – The national campaign against High Speed Rail 2