Sponsored by
Funds needed to stop HS2 in its tracks
THE Chiltern Countryside Group is aiming to raise £15,000 to help bring about a judicial review against the government’s HS2 decision.
The move is backed by the Stop HS2 national campaign group – and has infuriated supporters of the scheme who have dubbed it a ‘colossal waste of time and money’.
Campaigners must launch a review by April for it to be valid.
Sue Yeomans, the chairman of the Chiltern’s group, said: “People have a choice. Pay for HS2 now and over decades through taxes, property blight and losses in business – or pledge some of their own money to help fund the legal process which could overturn the government’s decision.”
Stop HS2 campaign co-ordinator Joe Rukin said: “We obviously believe that the consultation process was completely flawed and the decision to go ahead was totally irrational. However, to be able to prove either of those facts in a court of law, we need evidence.
“Obviously the campaign and the other organisations have collected a lot of evidence, but we want to make sure no stone is left unturned.”
Lucy James, of the Campaign for High Speed Rail, said: “Going down the route of a judicial review is a colossal waste of time and money. If councils along the route foot some of the bill, then in some instances this money could be coming directly from the taxpayer. Instead of a long drawn-out process through the courts, people from both sides should be working together to ensure that we build the best railway possible.”
Email to a friend
Print this page
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Aylesbury
Saturday 26 May 2012
Today
Sunny
Temperature: 11 C to 23 C
Wind Speed: 18 mph
Wind direction: East
Tomorrow
Sunny
Temperature: 11 C to 24 C
Wind Speed: 15 mph
Wind direction: East
Comments
There are 29 comments to this article
Page 1 of 2
JR
Wednesday, February 1, 2012 at 11:14 AMWhy only 55000 out of the millions who could have taken part? Well, why did just over 60% of the electorate bother to vote at the last election? MAYBE, it was because the three main parties all showed their support for HS2 & people decided that if they couldn't vote for their favourite party (as it would also mean voting for HS2) then they wouldn't vote at all? (if Burger King or McDonalds couldn't serve me a burger sans gherkin then I wouldn't give either my trade). Perhaps also, the British public feel that they have no say in how things are done, once parliament decides on something, they won't change their mind? There is also the fact that many simply were not aware of the consultation.
BarryBob
Wednesday, February 1, 2012 at 08:39 AM@PADAV thank you for your 'politcs' lesson, however I think you are very much deluded if you think that everybody who votes in a election votes for a party because they agree on every single pledge in that party's manifesto. If people only voted beacuse they agree on every single pledge then I think the voting turnout will be even less than it is at the moment. I agree with Dave2, you pick the worst least option and if then they try to go through with something you don't agree with, you can try and fight it later on, like HS2. If you want to talk about the people's views about HS2, I go back to my earlier point, why did only 55,000 people out of the millions living in this country fill in the consulation about HS2. And the majority who did take the time to fill it in was against it so surely a democratic country would go with the majority? If not then as a taxpayer I feel that any consultation in this country is a complete waste of money and simply at the moment we do not have the money to squander like this.
JR
Tuesday, January 31, 2012 at 04:24 PMI love Burgers but I hate gherkins, tomatoes and lettuce. Do I go to McDonalds or Burger King? Both do burgers which, in my opinion are equally nice - however, my vote goes for the golden arches as their milkshakes are nicer. Talk about Hobson's choice, this is hardly democracy is it?
Dave 2
Tuesday, January 31, 2012 at 09:27 AM@PADAV I think I have a very good grasp of how Uk politics works it is you who seems to struggle. A number of parties with a whole load of policies put forward a manifesto and voters have to pick the least worst option. By no means are all of the voters agreeing to all of the policies and we are within are rights to campaign against any particular policy if we so wish. What don't I understand? You are quite within your rights to campaign for it, so don't get upset. I was simply pointing out a fact that people who voted for the parties may not have agreed with the policy and may not have even known about the policy. So you can't claim overwhelming support for the issue on that basis.
JR
Monday, January 30, 2012 at 10:17 PM"Oh! Dr. Beeching, what have you done? There once were lots of trains to catch, but soon there will be none! I'll have to buy a bike, 'cause I can't afford a car. Oh! Dr. Beeching! What a naughty man you are!"
Gary Manchester
Monday, January 30, 2012 at 05:02 PMchuffinelle..........there are over 25000 train services a day as of 2012....10 year ago there were 18000. The latest station to open is Buckshaw Parkway in Lancashire, thus connecting this village to the rail network. There is mega amounts being poured into the netwrok right now.......Thameslink and Crossrail to name but 2 projects. In other words, the network is getting upgraded .....including the Chilterns.
chuffinelle
Monday, January 30, 2012 at 04:38 PM"people from both sides should be working together to ensure that we build the best railway possible". I agree with this statement because - the WHOLE of the railway system should be updated and MORE towns & villages should be connected by rail. It might seem strange to the pro-HS2 group BUT people do live and work in places other than London and Birmingham. How many people who live in London travel to Birmingham DAILY? How many people who live in Birmingham travel to London DAILY? How many years will it take to recoup the cost of the HS2? If they estimate that it will cost £32bn now - it will obviously cost nearer twice that amount - if it's ever built.
Gary Manchester
Monday, January 30, 2012 at 08:55 AMresteasy.......at this point , it is probably a good time to remind people why this project is going ahead in the first place. The WCML currently has 16 paths per hour available to use, 15 of them are in fact used now, and there are applications for the other one. Network Rail have already stated that the currentplanned enhancements will only create one more path, and after that, the line is full. Passenger growth is running at 6%, and the UK population is also growing. No one can argue against the cold hard facts...they are there for all to see. Doing nothing is not an option considering we have other targets such as CO2 emmissions to hit. Big infrastructure projects have a very long lead time, and there will always be some level of uncertainty....however we only have to look at both current rail and motorway routes to show how they have developed the UK.
resteasy
Sunday, January 29, 2012 at 11:22 PMGary Manchester.....Thanks for the reference to Steve Baker. I think the article on his website 'Survival of the unfittest: why the worst infrastructure gets built—and what we can do about it:"....is a salient point as to why the project does need a judicial review. I've no doubt HS2 Ltd will have all its bases covered, and no doubt with adequate funding provided. That demonstrates the inequity. But despite the flak, I don't believe the opposition should give in, just because the going is tough.
Gary Manchester
Sunday, January 29, 2012 at 10:06 PMresteasy.......a judicial review is a complete waste of time effort and money....HS2 Ltd will already have all bases covered. As I stated earlier, they have 3 independent challenge groups established, and they would be totally stupid if there was no legal advisors within those challenge groups. Add in the fact that the vast majority if the UK is either unaware or apathetic to HS2, and it doesnt take an idiot to realise that stopHS2 campaigners are really peeing in the wind with their current tactics. I would direct you direct you to Steve Bakers website ( MP for High Wycombe).....this guy is a known anti, and is very clued in. Have a look at the piece on " Project Management " he has on his site.......the clues for a decent fightback are in that.
Windsorian
Sunday, January 29, 2012 at 09:17 PMPending Moderation
Padav
Sunday, January 29, 2012 at 09:14 PM@resteasy - no public railway infrastructure in the UK is privately funded, financed etc. and the reason why is blindingly obvious - TIMESCALES - private capital in Britain is notoriously fickle and shortermist in its outlook - investors want to see an instant return of their money - no project of this type can really hope to do that, wer're talking decades, so they steer clear - private capital will of course get involved where they can see a quick buck to be made so you'll find that private money is strongly involved in projects around planned stations on the new line - but in the longer term (20 to 30 years from now) once the business model has provided evidence of financial success, private money might just come to the party. This is certainly how it's panned out in France with the French govt taking a big hit to establish the backbone of a high speed network - RFF (French equivalent of Network Rail) is in debt to the tune of 28bn€ - but for new extensions of the LGV (Ligne a Grande Vitesse) private finance is getting involved and possibly doing the job better than the state - however that's for the future - for now we just have to get on with putting the first elements of a comprehensive UK high speed rail network in place.
BarryBob
Sunday, January 29, 2012 at 09:05 PMGaryManchester - 57 - 62 million people live in the UK, HS2 one of the largest consultations in Britain's history by getting nearly 55,000 responses and majority of these were agaisnt HS2. It is irrelevant where these people live, if the majority of the country wanted HS2 why did they not complete the consugo online or contact relevant people to get a form to fill in,(like I did and I live nowhere near the route, so please don't call me a NIMBY)? The politicans will use this massive case of apathy to say that they did not reply because they are on the goverments side. I say it is because the majority of the country could not care less about it or will ever use it. If we truly lived in a democracy, when these expensive consultations are done we would listen to the answers and go with the majority. If you do not take the time to have your say then it is your own fault.
resteasy
Sunday, January 29, 2012 at 09:02 PMGary Manchester.... you make some interesting points re the Freedom of Information Act which may well be worth following up. I think the disquiet is the way HS2 has been conducted. The government has spent millions of taxpayers money on drawing up and promoting the project so this would already tend towards a positive outcome. Imagine if it had decided not to press ahead, the universal public outcry about wasted millions and branded another government 'U' turn. That is why the consultation should have been drawn-up and assessed entirely independently, with no political pressures, rather than being decided in-house behind closed doors. Judge and jury. There will always be objections whatever, but proper independent objectivity would have given a sense of fair play, and be harder to argue about. I believe that is partly why the objectors want a judicial review, and they won't have millions of pounds in taxpayers money at their disposal. Not sure if that's inequity or iniquity. Probably both.
resteasy
Sunday, January 29, 2012 at 08:59 PMGary Manchester.... you make some interesting points re the Freedom of Information Act which may well be worth following up. I think the disquiet is the way HS2 has been conducted. The government has spent millions of taxpayers money on drawing up and promoting the project so this would already tend towards a positive outcome. Imagine if it had decided not to press ahead, the universal public outcry about wasted millions and branded another government 'U' turn. That is why the consultation should have been drawn-up and assessed entirely independently, with no political pressures, rather than being decided in-house behind closed doors. Judge and jury. There will always be objections whatever, but proper independent objectivity would have given a sense of fair play, and be harder to argue about. I believe that is partly why the objectors want a judicial review, and they won't have millions of pounds in taxpayers money at their disposal. Not sure if that's inequity or iniquity. Probably both.
Page 1 of 2
Your view
Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.