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."