Who do these people think they are?
WHO do the Department of Transport and HS2 Ltd think they are?
In the last few days they have published another of their typically-jargoned ‘consultations’, this time about the crucial financial impacts on homeowners affected by HS2. It is noticeably designed to confuse and intimidate and discourage.
The 20+ page document is (to quote the sub-heading) ‘seeking evidence on the suitability, benefits and risks of introducing a Property Price Support Scheme (PPSS) for HS2’.
It takes the form of a written Technical Consultation to residents, many of whom have been living under the threat of losing their homes to make way for the HS2 line for a considerable period of time.
How dare they present what in effect is an ‘exam’ test paper asking residents to comment on the nature of the Property Price Support Scheme that should be adopted?
How dare they present questions to ordinary, decent citizens who have no expertise in these matters such as ‘How could a PPSS lead to the reduction or eradication of generalised blight’?
How dare they attempt to further expose already vulnerable residents by seeking written answers from them to questions such as ‘What do you think is the best PPSS model for HS2’?
Any decent MP and local authority would have pre-empted these processes collectively and immediately upon confirmation of the proposed HS2 route, so that both the Department for Transport and HS2 Ltd. would be in absolutely no doubt as to local feelings on the matter of ‘blight’ and all its ugly spinoffs.
The PPSS consultation is an insulting exercise prepared by those who care nothing about the lives of people impacted by HS2.
Why are the instigators and authors of ‘Government-speak’ consultation papers so afraid of making things simple to understand?
To the shame of local MP and local authorities, they have thus far offered no meaningful protection from HS2 to those most adversely affected by it. Don’t they recognise for example, that the market value of one’s home is but one aspect of its true value to the homeowner?
It is the therefore only right and proper that the full and real value to the homeowner be addressed with due regard to the ‘immeasurable’ value in addition to the cost of the physical building.
And it would be immensely helpful if they chucked all their less-than-impressive and deliberately complicated writing style in the nearest ‘surplus to foreseeable or projected anticipatory requirement receptacle’.
Once again we see just how alien the concepts of simplicity, let alone generosity and compassion are in the collective mindsets of both Government and HS2. David Briggs The Green Kingston on Soar