Court outlaws HS2 rail scheme - but government vows to press on

But the Government immediately announced that “a re-run property compensation consultation will not affect the HS2 construction timetable in any way”.

The decision on compensation at London’s High Court by Mr Justice Ouseley was a victory for the High Speed 2 Action Alliance (HS2AA), consisting of more than 70 affiliated action groups and residents’ associations.

The HS2AA case on consultation was one of five separate cases brought to block the controversial scheme in its current form. It was the only one to succeed.

The Government greeted the overall outcome of the crucial legal battle as a victory and said: “Work on a new high-speed railway from London to the midlands and north can continue.”

The first phase of HS2 would see a high-speed line running through Tory heartlands from London to Birmingham. A second phase extends the line to Leeds and Manchester to create what will become known as “the Y network”.

The project is designed to cut journey times, ease overcrowding and boost regional business.

The Government hailed the court’s dismissal of four of the five cases against it as a “landmark victory”.

Rail Minister Simon Burns said: “This is a major landmark victory for HS2 and the future of Britain. The judge has categorically given the green light for the Government to press ahead without delay in building a high-speed railway from London to Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds.

“”HS2 is the most significant infrastructure investment the UK has seen in modern times and a project the country cannot afford to do without. The judgment ensures that nothing now stands in the way of taking our plans to Parliament.

“We will now move forward as planned with the crucial business of getting the scheme ready for construction in 2017 and delivering enormous benefits for the country.

“We have listened to the judge’s comments about the property compensation consultation and, to save time and public money, we will re-consult on this aspect - but this will not delay HS2. We remain fully committed to fairly compensating the public who are impacted by the scheme.”

The then transport secretary Justine Greening gave HS2 the go-ahead in January 2012.

The judge said the £33 million scheme might in future be extended to Glasgow and Edinburgh, while the first phase would include a direct link with the existing high-speed Channel Tunnel rail link (HS1).

The judge stressed that it was not his task to review the merits of HS2 itself, but to consider whether the decisions setting it up were legally flawed.

He identified 10 grounds raised in the five cases brought by various opponents, including 18 local councils, scores of residents’ associations and action groups, plus farmers and a golf club.

He rejected nine out of 10 of the grounds, which included attacks on the manner in which the project had been steered through Parliament and alleged breaches of EU environmental and habitat directives.

He also dismissed allegations that the Government failed to take account of relevant issues and was guilty of indirect discrimination because of the impact of redevelopment of London’s Euston station on the local ethnic minority community.

The 10th - and only successful - challenge was HS2AA’s claim that the consultation and decision-making process on compensation was “fundamentally unfair”.

Some 172,000 properties within 0.6 miles (1km) of the first phase are alleged to be affected by “HS2 blight”.

David Wolfe QC, appearing for HS2AA, said tens of thousands of people who “just happen to live and own properties” along the high-speed route faced loss of value on their homes and being unable to move or remortgage for 15 years or more.

Mr Wolfe told the judge that 172,000 affected households had been contacted. Householders faced inadequate compensation and the prospect of unfairly being made to suffer because of the claimed public interest in HS2 going ahead.

He said the consultation process was flawed because of “lack of detail” and insufficient information from Ms Greening on the options for a discretionary compensation scheme.

Allowing the HS2AA challenge, Mr Justice Ouseley ruled: “Although the overall decision is not irrational, the carefully reasoned and substantial HS2AA consultation response addressing the consultation issues as framed by the Secretary of State cannot have been conscientiously considered.

“All in all, the consultation on compensation was so unfair as to be unlawful.”