EIGHTEEN local councils between London and Staffordshire and Leicestershire opposing plans for HS2 have already spent “over £1 million” of taxpayers’ money campaigning against the new railway — and now face higher bills to repay the government’s claim for costs after losing all their challenges in a High Court judicial review.

The rising costs to the ‘51M’ group, which is co-ordinated by Buckinghamshire County Council, are disclosed in a report to the executive committee of Warwick District Council, one of the consortium’s 18 members which are all facing an overspend because the judicial review went on longer than expected.

When 51M first announced its plans to challenge the government with a judicial review it anticipated only a brief court hearing, saying: “The total cost of the legal action will not be known until after the two-day hearings. Aylesbury Vale District Council has pledged £150,000 of taxpayersʼmoney to fight the plans and Bucks County Council offered £500,000 over three years.”

Warwick council, which joined 51M and budgeted £100,000 of council taxpayers’ support, now says its contribution will be overspent by £19,000 because the court hearing lasted eight days — and it could have to find another £20,000 as its share of paying the government’s costs of defending 51M’s unsuccessful challenges in the High Court. 

Despite the overspend Warwick council is being recommended, along with other councils, to support an appeal against the findings of Mr Justice Ouseley, who led the judicial review. He rejected all their challenges and only upheld that of the HS2 Action Alliance about the way the Department for Transport had conducted consultation on compensation proposals. The government has said it will re-run that consultation.

The report to Warwick council’s executive committee states: “It is the intention of 51M to mount a further legal challenge (appeal) against the findings of the recent judicial review in order (at best) to cause enough delay in the proceedings to improve the chances of the abandonment of HS2, or (at least) to seek improvements to any mitigation or compensation that may come forward as a consequence of its implementation.

“Hillingdon, Buckinghamshire, Camden and Chiltern councils have stated that they are going to proceed with an appeal and if necessary finance this from their own resources. Other councils have, however, pledged financial assistance to a lesser degree in order to share the burden and continue to signal the solidarity of the 51M consortium.”

Warwick council’s officers warn their executive committee: “Cost estimates of an appeal to 51M are between £70,000 and £100,000.

“The Government’s costs are anticipated to be similar, therefore if 51M and co-petitioners (the HS2 Action Alliance) were to lose they would be exposed to adverse costs and a total overall expenditure of up to £200,000 (those of the court and the government).”

Commenting last week on the outcome of the judicial review, law firm Charles Russell LLP said: “The ruling remains subject to appeal by the objectors 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 on appeal.”

•  The councils making up the 51M consortium are:  London Borough of Camden, London Borough of Hillingdon; Three Rivers District Council (Hertfordshire); Buckinghamshire County Council, South Bucks District Council, Aylesbury Vale District Council, Wycombe District Council, Chiltern District Council; Oxfordshire County Council, Cherwell District Council (Oxfordshire); South Northamptonshire Council; Warwickshire County Council, Stratford-on-Avon District Council, Warwick District Council, North Warwickshire Borough Council; Coventry City Council; Lichfield District Council (Staffordshire); Harborough District Council (Leicestershire).

Back to News