Compensation Consultation

With the prospect of a few days off work for many of our readers, we thought you might like to take the time to put together a response for the compensation consultation or the safeguarding consultation which are going on until 31st January 2013.

Main link to the Consultations home page:

Overview of the Property and Compensation Consultation

Full Property and Compensation Consultation document (49 pages):

How to respond (on-line and paper doc)

We’d love to see a copy of your response: if you want to share it with us, please email a copy to

Tips (if you are writing a short response, some of these might not be relevant):

  • Start with a direct response to each question such as “No, I do not agree with …. because ….”  If you do not provide the summary of your key points, you leave it to the person analysing your response to make their own summary of your argument – and remember that they are probably temporary staff/students on low wages who know nothing about the issue!
  • Do not say things like “as I said above”. The analyst is not allowed to guess which bit of ‘the above’ you are meaning. If it needs saying again in relation to a particular question, then say it again in your response.
  • Feel free to use bullet points, numbering, bold and any other device to make your argument and all of its supporting points crystal clear.
  • Please remember that all residents (all your family members) can respond.  If you wish to do this online you will need an email address per respondent as the system only allows one reply per email address.
  • Look across all of the questions and stick to the specific issue of each question. However, if there is no place for a particular argument then add it in against the ‘next best’ question and ENSURE IT IS INCLUDED IN YOUR SUMMARY. It is notable (and bad practice) that there is no section for ‘any other issues’ in this consultation. If you need such a section then put it in.
    • The Government says it is interested in
      • whether or not you agree with its proposals
      • why you agree or disagree
      • any additional evidence that you feel it should consider in reaching its final decisions
      • and we are invited to attach additional evidence to the response form, making it clear which question it refers to.

For more guidance please download:

PS Happy Christmas from all of us at Stop HS2.

5 comments to “Compensation Consultation”
  1. Mitigations and alternatives are with the scope of EIA law. There is the need for several categories of responders and a web page to have examples of completed responses for individuals to tailor to their circumstances with a page for have you thought about this and how could I improve this or approach that.
    Pages are needed for those 60m from the route. People with road changes and congestion, those who fear accidents and crashes will increase. Those 60m to 120m from the route or in proposed planning restricted areas like Sedrup and Quainton. Those whose buildings will be demolished and homes taken. Those who did not know hpw routes were changed near Turweston. Those who lose their leisure facility, golf course or walk of wood. Be expressive about the impacts losses and severity.

  2. Is there any point in spending time filling in yet more forms on com pension

    Is there any point in yet more filling in more forms on compensation when they either loose or take not a scrap of notice of it after all the government says it still
    Only a policy document

    • That’s pretty much what I thought at first but now feel that if we don’t respond they will say that we accept their proposals which I certainly don’t
      I will be ensuring they have received my reply and keeping a copy of it and can only hope everyone affected responds

  3. Compensation from the impacts of noise, proximity and view changes depends on mitigations for many people and businesses. Prearrangements by some have left others with greater impacts.

    Mitigations are required and should have been in the designs before a route was preferred. The AOS should have had pre route and post route impact comparisions.

    Mitigation delivery depends on how DFT insist or leave to funder and contractor discretions what is intended and what is delivered.

    Perhaps there is a step in the Judicial Review opportunities for the Parish, Local Authority and Counties to put forward their suggestions and requirements for the mitigations to reduce impacts that could be costed. Unless these costed requirements are within the submissions the compensation responses are words and the JR goes back to the legislative arguments and not the practical example of omissions and faliures to meet legitimate expectations.

    With mitigations and Environment Statements planned into the Parliamentary internalised processes it is more likely there will be disappointments for Parishes, communities and route side homes and businesses.

    The DFT HS2 is setting out forward steps when it may be reasoned that prematurity with Route 3 and AOS and now EIA activities are leading many along the road through a Pilgrim’s Process of feeling they are not connecting with the constructive planning and design processes.

    The Community Forums are not evolving the actual mitigating arrangements and there is little tangible being produced by HS2 to deal with in the third dimension of heights and views. It has been about plans and vague plans.

    The HS2 consultants have not delviered details of the route on the larger scale to rationalise impacts and certainly the differences between imaginary tunnels are leaving vacuums of detail not alternatives.

    It is possibly time for the people directly impacted within say 500m each side of the route to be working out what they want for their section of the route with others either side of the location by upto 5km because the straight and curved sections and the changes in elevation are being limited by the desire for super fast speeds.

    There may be the need on a Parish basis and a wider basis for recognising the next set of Judicial Reviews require evidence and example and the practical example frmo actual locations such as Wendover, Stoke Mandeville, Aylesbury, Quainton, Twyford, Chetwode and Turweston are needed within a legal process as that is the final opportunity to request the courts to consider if you have or have not been treated with respect and fairness.
    Many consider they have not been and have been disconnected from the Pilgrim’s Process to their loss.

Comments are closed.

2010-2023 © STOP HS2 – The national campaign against High Speed Rail 2