Posted 18th March 2013 | 10 Comments
HS2 objectors to appeal against High Court verdicts
HS2 objectors who had their arguments rejected by the High Court on Friday say they'll appeal against some aspects of the judgement. Of ten claims opposing the Government's plans for High Speed rail, nine were rejected, although parts of the compensation arrangements were found to be unfair and must be redrafted.
Transport minister Simon Burns said the Department for Transport would re-run the public consultation on its compensation plans – the one part of the project that Mr Justice Ouseley ruled to be unlawful.
Objectors had argued when their cases were heard in December that the Government’s consultation on discretionary compensation options was flawed.
The judge upheld them on this point, finding that the consultation process was unfair because not enough information was provided to consultees and the criteria by which compensation options were considered were not adequately explained. He also found that the Government had not fully considered HS2 Action Alliance’s consultation response on compensation.
John Davies, who is an associate director at BNP Paribas Real Estate, said: “We have felt that the compensation measures proposed by HS2 to relieve the blight this scheme will cause were inadequate.
"With the exception of homeowners within a prescribed distance of the new line, who can force the Government to acquire their homes, the majority of property owners have been left high and dry by the current proposals. Many of the large businesses we represent are facing years of blight with, as things stand, no means of redress until HS2 takes their land.
"The Government will now no doubt plough on with the scheme, but we would urge them to look again at the compensation package, not just for homeowners, but also for the medium and large businesses up and down the line who are currently left in limbo.”
But the otherwise defeated objectors are now considering their wider options, and some have said they will appeal.
One of these is Heathrow Hub, which is continuing to maintain that the Government was wrong to take final decisions on HS2 at this stage, 'when a short pause would allow high speed rail and airport policy to be properly coordinated'. It is also challenging the ruling in respect of the Strategic Environmental Assessment Regulations, which the judge ruled did not apply to HS2. Instead, assessment will be left to Parliament when the full Hybrid Bill is being debated.
Heathrow Hub director Steven Costello said: “Whilst disappointed in the judgment, we are pleased that the Court proceedings have highlighted many of the fundamental flaws with the HS2 decision. The Labour party, who originally proposed and developed the HS2 plans when in Government, recognised these flaws some time ago and switched their support to an alternative route via Heathrow. In recent weeks, groups as diverse as the Institute of Directors, Unite the Union and Conserve the Chilterns and Countryside Ltd. have added their voices to support for our proposal and its integrated, lower cost and lower impact approach to the UK’s transport needs.”
Meanwhile, some legal experts have been casting doubt on the chances of appeals by the objectors.
Malcolm Dowden of law firm Charles Russell said: "The element they succeeded on relates to the arrangements for compensation on compulsory purchase of land along the route. That issue has very limited effect because the government has undertaken three consultation exercises on compensation so far, the most recent of which ended on 31 January and proposed arrangements for HS2 that go beyond the basic entitlements under general compulsory purchase law.
"The government has confirmed that it will not appeal this issue, but will re-run the relevant consultation exercise. This will not affect the project timetable, so we can expect to see the legislation starting its Parliamentary stages within the next few months.
“The ruling remains subject to appeal on the nine grounds out of 10 where challenges were dismissed. However, a judicial review ruling based on extensive argument heard between 3 and 17 December 2012 would be very difficult to overturn."
Reader Comments:
Views expressed in submitted comments are that of the author, and not necessarily shared by Railnews.
Chris Neville-Smith, Durham
The Bristol area is a good example. £1bn for a tram system is quite a safe estimate - that's how much the Edinburgh trams roughly costs. Okay, Edinburgh utterly buggered that project up on just one line, so let's assume for that amount you could get a reasonably comprehensive network of the whole city.
And now the problem: tram networks deliver very little benefit outside of the city they're based in. Other towns and cities will want their fair share. If you allocate Bristol a share of £33bn based on population, you get ... £226 million. Or £14m per year for 16 years starting in 2017. It's not actually that much money. (And it works out as even less if you have to commit £8bn or so finding an alternative solution to the horrendous LM problems.)
A better bet might be the Greater Bristol Metro, which is roughly estimated at £63 million, broadly makes us of existing lines but four-tracks one key section, and restores the line to Portishead, as well as benefiting a larger section of the UK population. But that is on the cards anyway. You heard Mr O's announcement yesterday, spending on infrastructure is going up, and I'd say it's a good bet that this scheme will go going in the next Control Period.
Claiming that it's a choice between that or HS2 is very shaky. Especially when the most prominent antis want most or all of the money diverted from the railways completely.
Tony Pearce, Reading
You ask what projects you could spend the HS2 money on ? Plenty - re-open the Brighton Bypass line through Lewes and the Portishead to Bristol line for a start. In particular the Bristol Supertram project which was given the go-ahead by John Prescott in 2001 at a cost of £194 million and cancelled in 2004. Bristol was one of 25 towns and cities that had been selected for light rail development by the New Labour government, and was part of a 10-year plan to improve public transport in the UK. (What on earth happened to all that ?) It will probably cost £1 billion in todays money. Reading was another place due to have a Tram system but that was quietly forgotten as well. There is a huge well of such schemes, all just wanting a little money.
Tony Pearce, Reading
Its a pity the electorate couldn't challenge the Government through the Courts when they started building 2 completely unneccessary Aircraft Carriers (£7 billion and counting) or the Iraq war (at least another £7 billion). Governments have these sudden dreams and never cost them properly, - (eg Millenium Dome or the Olympic Village). HS2 may well fall into this category. Borrowing £33 billion or so and only planning to repay the interest out of the increased business seems liable to go wrong even if every penny paid will be backed by the Taxpayer. What will the interest rate be in a few years time, - probably a lot higher than todays very low rate. After the Court of Appeal is the Supreme Court and after that is the European Court. This could go on for ages yet.
Melvyn Windebank, Canvey Island, Essex
Perhaps it's time those who bring these Judicial Reviews paid for them in full!
Adam, Birmingham
And the anti brigade are doing their bit to ensure the project goes over budget with more frivolous objections and appeals, just as they predicted except they are the cause of any extra costings and that is even before the extra costs of removing Swampy and his friends from the construction site
Jon Porter, Chippenham
The Heathrow link is all accounted for and I understand there are four designs of terminal and connecting rail formation on standby for when it is decided what, if any, Heathrow terminal and runway development takes place. It is perfectly possible to decide on HS2 construction timetable without that element of the project. We know what cities and regions HS2 connects into and Heathrow is not an essential part of that planning. By including a firm plan now it not only restricts options for HS2 but for Heathrow as well.
Melvyn Windebank, Canvey Island, Essex
Just goes to show how these people think they have some god given right to get their way!
As the Judge decided most of their claimswere premerture given that HS2 is still at concept stage with final details to come when the main HS2 bill and the recently announced paving bill are published.
Why these objectors can't wait until these bills are published only they know given that until these bills are published nothing will change from when the judgement was made!
What this does prove is that if we are to get infrustructure fit for the 21st Century then we need an infrustructure act similar to other countries that lays out procedures to follow when a project arises!
Chris Neville-Smith, Durham, England
This is a complex query which needs a complex answer.
"The learned Judge dismissed the most important matters because they were premature in the process"
And quite rightly so. The process is an Act of Parliament, and it is politicians, not judges, who make those.
"and that a decision or plan for HS2 (despite 0.25Bn spent) was not yet legally tabled."
That came out of the DfT's budget, which was approved by Parliament through successive Finance Bills that arose from Budgets. Parliament could easily block spending if they were dead set on voting the Hybrid Bill down and therefore consider £250m a waste of money. So far, they haven't.
(£250m over three years, incidentally, is peanuts to the government.)
"This paradox is also why a Paving Bill is being sought because this thing that is not a thing has already spent it alloted formation funds before it can
be a legal entity."
If by "thing that is not a thing" you mean HS2 ltd, that is a Limited Company the same as any other company. The government is just as entitled as anyone else to create a company if it wants to. HS2 Ltd is no more a "thing that is not a thing" than Barclays Bank.
The Paving Bill, if passed, will increase the powers and finance available to HS2 Ltd. Again, Parliament is free to vote it down if they feel there is not enough oversight.
"I am sure that there is legal wisdom in his ruling and practical folly in the system that can spend so much on a concept before environmental assessment which becomes mandatory is undertaken and considered."
One simple reason: Parliament is sovereign. It is one thing Parliament giving ministers hoops to jump through such as consultations and environmental assessments when exercising their powers. It would be quite another to allow an old Parliament, voted out by the people, to tie the hands of a future Parliament with red tape. It would also be quite wrong for unelected judges to prevent an elected House of Commons from proceeding with legislation, especially legislation that was clearly stated in the governing parties' manifestos.
Parliament will almost certainly vote down a Hybrid Bill for an infrastructure project of this scale if there is no environmental assessment. They can also vote it down if they think the environmental assessment is unsatisfactory.
"What happens to the Chilterns AONB is an important matter. It is a strategic AONB in terms of its preservation but also one under great pressure, It achieved AONB status in 1984 with its own Board."
Well, I don't remember the good people of Aylesbury being up in arms when the A41 was carved through the Chilterns in the 1990s, after the Chilterns was a designated AONB, at considerably higher land take than HS2, and not one cutting or tunnel in mitigation. I do therefore wonder how bothered HS2 antis really are about legal protection of AONBs.
Legally, however, it doesn't matter what special privileges have been given to AONBs by Parliament. Parliament giveth, and Parliament taketh away.
"It could set a development in the National Interest precedent for all AONBs and National Parks."
There is no precedent. When Parliament legislated to build the M25, they were free to justify it however they liked. They could have argued national interest, regional interest, or any other reason. Same goes for almost all the existing railways when they were first made.
The safeguard is the same safeguard as any other Parliamentary decision: if the public don't like it, they can punish the MPs at the ballot box. Most people have been happy with this system up to now, so what's changed?
"National Interest Nuclear Waste Dump Cumbria anyone?"
Oh dear, geography of northern England isn't your strong point, is it?
If, however, you meant the Lake District National Park as opposed to Cumbria, do you seriously think any party would be stupid enough to do that? The punishment at the next election would be massive, whether or not they used the "national interest" excuse.
Unless you have a very good argument why the existing rules are wrong and an extremely good explanation for why this has never bothered you before, there are no short cuts, no by-passing of proper procedures. HS2 is proceeding fair and square.
paul harlow, London
The learned Judge dismissed the most important matters because they were premature in the process and that a decision or plan for HS2 (despite 0.25Bn spent) was not yet legally tabled.
This paradox is also why a Paving Bill is being sought because this thing that is not a thing has already spent it alloted formation funds before it can
be a legal entity.
I am sure that there is legal wisdom in his ruling and practical folly in the system that can spend so much on a concept before environmental assessment which becomes mandatory is undertaken and considered.
What happens to the Chilterns AONB is an important matter. It is a strategic AONB in terms of its preservation but also one under great pressure, It achieved AONB status in 1984 with its own Board.
It could set a development in the National Interest precedent for all AONBs and National Parks.
National Interest Nuclear Waste Dump Cumbria anyone?
Bob Grundy, Lancing
Further proof that the legal framework of our railways was designed by lawyers as a cash cow for their profession. Judicial reviews, appeals, compensation... ££££££