The Phase 1 Environmental Statement consultation finishes next THURSDAY 27th FEBRUARY. Everyone can respond, even if they are not directly affected by Phase 1 –
One of our regular commenters reminds us to “Please compare how your CFA map book construction maps CT-05 -xx series are very different to the Draft maps in May 2013 documents and both are different to the Hybrid Bill maps/plans.”
The consultation website says this about submitting responses:
We’re looking for comments on the environmental statement for the high speed rail route for HS2 Phase One.
This consultation is required by parliamentary rules to allow member of the public and other interested parties to comment on the environmental statement which accompanies the HS2 Phase One hybrid Bill.
The HS2 Phase One environmental statement includes:
- likely significant environmental impacts along the route
- measures to manage and reduce these
Consultation responses will be summarised by an independent assessor appointed by Parliament and used to inform the House of Commons’ debate on the scheme at Second Reading.
A draft version of the environmental statement was consulted on from May to July 2013. Comments received during this consultation have informed the final environmental statement.
Please only use the channels listed below when responding to this consultation. We cannot guarantee that responses sent to any other addresses will be included in this consultation.
There is no limit to the size of consultation responses that will be accepted. Many email providers set a 25MB limit per single emailed response as standard practice to protect against systems failing. We are happy to receive responses over 25MB by alternative means, including via free file sharing sites or on a memory stick sent through the post.
Confidentiality and data protection
Responses from organisations will not have the author’s details removed prior to publication. All other responses will be published with the author’s details removed. Don’t include any information that you don’t want made public. Read more about confidentiality and data protection for this consultation.
Ways to respond
Complete a response form and either
HS2 Phase One Bill Environmental Statement
PO Box 70178
Your finding is material to submit to the Environmental Audit Committee to address two of their questions:
The Environmental Audit Committee inquiry will examine:
1. The extent to which specific route-wide environmental impacts are adequately reflected and addressed in the Environmental Statement.
2. The overarching systems and processes which will guide how environmental considerations are taken into account in the detailed routing of the track and the use of local environmental protection measures (but not examining the route itself).
The make up of the 55k pages and their formation into the document were teams.
Ive been trying to get my head around the ES, particularly methodology, specific HS2 research and authorship.
Can anyone advise me?
Despite its size the ES remains is largely a gestural report with little well founded research. It is very fragmented and finding specific information can mean referring to multiple scattered chapters. I am sure such labour intensive trails are deliberate attempts to make info gathering and challenges criticism difficult/labour intensive.
The ES is a permissive vehicle rather than a strict scientific enquiry.
Areas of doubt and lack of knowledge are glossed over and the division of the land mass into ‘areas’ negates much of the true environmental impact of the scheme as a whole, This is deliberate.
With the draft ES I asked HS2ltd specifically about authorship and ‘signing off’by named accountable people. Though a reply was promised none was forthcoming. Nor did the DFT or minister seem to know.
I can find little scientific accountability in the ES. It seems it was a desktop appraisal of other peoples work ( and these were unlikely undertaken for the purpose of examining the impact of HS2. Together with poor/inadequate surveys. Lack of access was cited
which is not scientifically adequate. Its like making a person specific medical diagnosis without assessing the patient.
Risk to the environment is not scientifically quantified with statistical guidance/error. A more subjective ‘impression’ of impact is presented with little supporting hard facts. Hence the divergence in opinion between HS2 ltd and bodies with greater experience and information.
Mitigations appear hypothetical in some very serious areas. Little scientific accountability to the concerns of Statutory AONB concerns or Woodland Trust and other well founded bodies