LEGAL action is being considered by HS2 campaigners after it emerged more than 400 responses to its consultation will not be considered.

Responses from action groups, councils and an MP were all inadvertently missed out of the Department for Transport's analysis.

But Transport Secretary Justine Greening said had they been included in the DfT's report it would not have altered her thinking about the next stage of the project - prompting campaigners to brand the consultation "a shambles".

The HS2 Action Alliance says it is now considering taking legal action after its response was missed out.

Director Hilary Wharf said: "To lose our first consultation response back in 2010 was unfortunate but to lose it again smacks at carelessness.

"As a leading opposition organisation this is quite shocking. We gave extensive evidence in our 150 page report which covered material that is still excluded from the consultation summary.

"We have also been talking to our lawyers, and it is hard to see how the HS2 consultation and the decision to proceed, can conceivably meet the standards set for a public consultation."

The 51m action group has already applied for a judicial review in a bid to stop the London to Birmingham line being built and chairman Martin Tett said the latest revelations would strengthen their case in court.

He told the Bucks Free Press: "Losing over 400 consultation responses is really a shambles, an unmitigated mess. It illustrates the inadequate way HS2 have handled the entire process.

"One of the reasons we've put in for a judicial review is because we feel the consultation process was flawed - this is further evidence of that.

"It's not just the number of responses they've mislaid, it's who they've mislaid. There's the HS2 Action Alliance, which is the umbrella group, the Heathrow Hub, who are lobbying for a different route, the Wildlife Trust and six councils - these aren't insignificant organisations to overlook.

"They are trying to say the response from the Heathrow Hub has the same weight as Mrs Bloggs from Worthing Avenue. Theirs is a comprehensive response that needs analysis and a response."

The response from Hughenden Parish Council - incorrectly referred to as Hughenden Valley Parish Council in the DfT report - was also missed out on the initial analysis.

In a ministerial statement Ms Greening said supplementary analysis concluded the missing responses "do not provide any information that was not already included in the previous Consultation Summary Report or would have made a difference to the substantive content or balance of that report".

She added: "Inclusion in the original analysis would not have changed the substance of [the] findings, nor affected the considerations which informed me in taking my decisions following the consultation."