HS2

There is something which wont go away in terms of the enduring concerns over the implementation of this piece of costly infrastructure, particularly from a rural perspective. This story tells us……

Five hundred years ago, the English village of Doddershall was destroyed when Thomas Pigott, the rags to riches Lord of the Manor, evicted the tenants, pulled down their houses and turned the land over to sheep farming. The locals “went tearfully away and were brought to idleness, ending their lives in extreme poverty”, as Cardinal Wolsey noted. Now, present day locals are wrought up as the remains of the village in Buckinghamshire could be completely lost with the construction of the HS2 railway line.

The high-speed train is due to dissect the country, cutting down travel time for the modern commuter, but in the process tearing through 1,000 years of history. The earthwork remains of Doddershall are considered to be “a heritage asset of high value as an extant example of medieval settlement,” according to an Environment Statement Cultural Heritage report.

The Bucks Archaeological Society, supported by the local community, has written to HS2 Limited, appealing for a full archaeological survey and excavation of the remains of the village that was recorded in the Domesday Book in 1085.

While the Government yesterday designated a handful of medieval villages in Northamptonshire as “scheduled monuments”, meaning they will be protected from development, Doddershall over the border wasn’t so lucky. And neither were many other villages across the country that are under threat more than ever because of modern life.

I have to confess I wonder what all the fuss is about in terms of half an hour of saved travel time and how it justifies spending such a huge amount. This article tells us:

The government has no convincing case for spending £50bn building the HS2 rail link between London and the North, a report by the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee says.

The government’s main arguments in favour of HS2 – increasing railway capacity and rebalancing the economy – were still to be proven, peers said.

There are less-expensive options than HS2, they said on Wednesday.

A government spokesman said HS2 would deliver big benefits.

Lord Hollick, chairman of the Lords’ committee, said overcrowding on the West Coast Main Line was largely a problem on commuter trains and on long-distance services on Friday nights and some weekends.

“The Government have not carried out a proper assessment of whether alternative ways of increasing capacity are more cost-effective than HS2,” he said.

“In terms of rebalancing, London is likely to be the main beneficiary from HS2. Investment in improving rail links in the North of England might deliver much greater economic benefit at a fraction of the cost.”

Theres a marvellous circular irony to this story which tells how the settlement in question lost out in the face of progress and now protestors want to preserve its “lost” status in a bid to halt further progress. It tells us:

Five hundred years ago, the English village of Doddershall was destroyed when Thomas Pigott, the rags to riches Lord of the Manor, evicted the tenants, pulled down their houses and turned the land over to sheep farming. The locals “went tearfully away and were brought to idleness, ending their lives in extreme poverty”, as Cardinal Wolsey noted. Now, present day locals are wrought up as the remains of the village in Buckinghamshire could be completely lost with the construction of the HS2 railway line.

The high-speed train is due to dissect the country, cutting down travel time for the modern commuter, but in the process tearing through 1,000 years of history. The earthwork remains of Doddershall are considered to be “a heritage asset of high value as an extant example of medieval settlement,” according to an Environment Statement Cultural Heritage report.

The Bucks Archaeological Society, supported by the local community, has written to HS2 Limited, appealing for a full archaeological survey and excavation of the remains of the village that was recorded in the Domesday Book in 1085.

While the Government yesterday designated a handful of medieval villages in Northamptonshire as “scheduled monuments”, meaning they will be protected from development, Doddershall over the border wasn’t so lucky. And neither were many other villages across the country that are under threat more than ever because of modern life.

I like to keep Hinterland readers up to date with the unfolding of the HS2 story. I have always felt that infrastructure compensation is poorly conceived and implemented. I do sometimes struggle to see what these proposals offer to rural England. It is clear they will have a physically disruptive impact on rural dwellers close to the line – will the city benefits (to London, Birmingham and beyond) cancel out any rural inconvenience? The story tells us:

Homeowners living closest to the proposed route of HS2 will be able to sell their property to the government on improved terms in an express purchase scheme launched on Wednesday. mollified

The scheme, which will pay people living within 60 metres of the high-speed rail line 110% of their property’s unblighted market value plus expenses, is part of a revised compensation and assistance package announced after a public consultation.

Other measures immediately available include a “rent-back” scheme for residents who want to sell but remain in their homes.

Owner-occupiers up to 120 metres from the line will be able to sell to the government at full unblighted market value up to a year after trains start running, or receive a cash payment of 10% of the value of their home if they do not want to move.

A “need-to-sell” scheme, for homeowners anywhere near the route who need to move for work or health reasons but cannot find buyers due to HS2, will replace the current, narrower emergency hardship scheme.

Further compensation to rural homeowners living 120 to 300 metres from the line remains under consideration, with potential payments of £7,500 to £22,500.

My head is in a spin about this HS2 thing. I am more convinced by business case 5 which concentrates on the overall need for more capacity than shaving a few minutes off the journey from Brum to the Smoke. I know in my guts however that costs will spiral out of control and I am not sure that the environmental issues linked to the route are fully resolved – this article suggests HM official opposition are equally undivided. I hope it is for logical rather than political reasons. This story tells us:

Labour tensions over the future of Britain’s first high-speed rail line north of London will burst into the open on Thursday when an ally of Ed Miliband warns of “divisive” briefings within the party.

After David Cameron said that Miliband was “too weak” to make a decision on HS2, former cabinet minister John Denham urges his party to act in the national interest and support the project.

In an article for Progress magazine Denham writes: “Labour’s policy – confusingly revealed not by a clear policy process but by a briefing here, an interview there, an aside in a speech over there – [has become] less certain. There has even been divisive briefing about who in Labour is in charge of the policy.”

The former local government secretary, who served as parliamentary aide to Miliband until earlier this year, intervened on the eve of the final commons stages of the high speed rail (preparation) bill which will allow the initial preparations for HS2 to go ahead.

Labour supports the bill although its MPs will only be subject to a one-line whip on Thursday, which means they do not have to be at Westminster for the votes. The government has warned Labour that it would be prepared to abandon HS2 if the party does not offer whole-hearted support when MPs vote on the hybrid bill, which would allow construction on the London to Birmingham line to begin in 2017, in March.

I instinctively don’t believe this – am I being too cynical. This article tells us:

Bridget Rosewell, a leading economist and director of Network Rail, said the benefit costs calculated by KPMG had only accounted for current productivity being able to move more freely. She argued that the new connectivity would create economic growth that could not yet be seen.

At a fringe event also attended by Transport Secretary Patrick McLauglin, Ms Rosewell said: “The estimates that we’ve got are all about productivity benefits. But they are just about shifting things from one place to another. They’re not about creating anything new. If we take the KPMG £15bn, my guess is that we can add at least 25pc to that on how market access creates new growth that we haven’t thought about.”

Ms Rosewell said the estimates were based on similar calculations she made on the benefits of the extension of the Northern Line in London.

Mr McLaughlin said the true benefits of HS2, which could cost as much as £50bn to build, could not be calculated properly by financial models. “We’re not building this [to be used] for five years or 10 years, this railway will be being used in 100 years,” he said. “Sometimes you can’t get that on a benefit cost ratio analysis. When you look at the benefit/cost ratio for the Jubilee line in London it didn’t stack up but if it hadn’t been built nor would Canary Wharf have been built.”

I heard on radio 4 that the cost benefit analysis undertaken for HS2 did not take into account that lost hours of work should be moderated to take into account the benefits of working on the train. Hard to believe? I fear many tears before bed time linked to such a huge capital project. We are hardly the world’s best when it comes to running such things. This article proifiles the views of the Institute of Directors. It tells us:

Walker, publishing a survey of more than 1,300 business leaders, argued that the money could be better spent elsewhere. “Station upgrades, inter-city improvements, tunnels, electrification and capacity improvements should all be considered alternatives. It is time for the government to look at a thousand smaller projects instead of falling for one grand folly,” he said.

IoD members have growing concerns that the line will benefit London more than the regions for which HS2 supporters claim it offers a lifeline. Even when the costs of the scheme were said to be just over £30bn, at the start of the year, the organisation was warning that businesses needed convincing of its economic value.

Although Labour leaders still support the scheme, former grandees Lord Mandelson and Alistair Darling have said it should be scrapped. Ed Balls, the shadow chancellor, said on Friday that there would be no “blank cheque” from a Labour Treasury.

I know I have a number of readers with strong views on HS2 so this  interesting article on its impact on the judicial review as a tactical device in the debate over public policy will be of interest – to me it represents an interesting aspect of the broader debate arising from the initiative. The article tells us:

It looks like it’s all systems go for HS2. The recent ruling on the high-speed rail from London to Birmingham and Manchester to Leeds gave the green light to the project. The government won nine out of the 10 points being challenged by various local authorities and action groups. It fell down on one area and has taken it on the chin agreeing to re-run its compensation consultation process.

There may still be appeals, but the government will no doubt see the outcome of this case as a step forward in its aim of reducing the number of judicial reviews in which legislative and executive actions are subject to review by judiciary.

Last year David Cameron set out the government view that judicial reviews are a barrier to economic growth and there was a need to reduce excessive regulation. He said that some challenges brought were completely pointless. Many objected to proposed changes, calling them an attempt to restrict an important area of administrative law hastily and without proper thought.

Judicial reviews call government decision making to account, so many will be sceptical as to whether this is a welcome change. The big questions are about whether these changes are as radical as they seem, and what they will actually achieve.

It is proposed that there be a reduction in the time limit for bringing a claim relating to procurement or planning. On the face of it this would stifle claims. But in reality the shorter timescales are limited to two distinct areas where most challenges are brought under specific legislation by well-informed participants, so time is not a crucial factor. To avoid appeal cases proliferating and speed up the claim process it is perhaps better to have clarity – after all you will know if you have a legal claim and can then muster support quickly.