High Court rules in favour of campaigners on one ground but decision "should not delay the process"
The compensation scheme for those affected by the high-speed rail link HS2 “was so unfair as to be unlawful”, the High Court has ruled.
Campaign group High Speed 2 Action Alliance (HS2AA) successfully argued that the consultation and decision-making process on compensation lacked sufficient detail and was unfair for the 172,000 households affected by the first phase of the project, in R (on the application of Buckingham County Council & Ors v Secretary of State for Transport [2013] EWHC 481 (Admin).
The project would link London to Birmingham and then on to Manchester and Leeds. It could later be extended to Glasgow and Edinburgh.
However, Mr Justice Ouseley rejected nine out of the 10 grounds raised in five cases brought by opponents to the scheme. These included alleged breaches of EU environmental and habitat directives, indirect discrimination on an ethnic minority community due to the impact of redevelopment of London’s Euston station, and a challenge to the way the project was steered through Parliament.
Malcolm Dowden, property law specialist and director of Gwentian Consulting Ltd, said the decision “should not delay the process”.
“The element the objectors succeeded on related 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.
“Crucially, there seems to be no requirement for a full re-run of the environmental impact process. The judge ruled that the environmental impact, habitats and protected species assessments had been carried out ‘fairly and lawfully’.
“The ruling remains subject to appeal by the objectors on the nine grounds 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.”
