Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

HS2 Judicial Review: No logic in ruling, says Bostock

Former Arup rail director Mark Bostock has said that the High Court ruling dismissing all but one of the objections to the High Speed 2 rail project had no logic.

Speaking outside court Bostock, who helped engineer the first high speed rail link in the UK, said, “I am surprised. There is a complete illogicality to the decision.”

“There has been no proper assessment of alternatives,” he said adding today’s decision was “not in the interests of the country”.

Bostock, acting as a consultant to Heathrow Hub, has proposed an alternative route that would situate a station close to Heathrow Airport and run alongside the M40 motorway for 100 miles to Birmingham.

He also went on to say that the rejection of Heathrow Hub’s claims put a lot of pressure on the Davies Commission, which is due to report in 2015.

Cheryl Gillan, MP for Chesham and Amersham, told NCE that there would be an appeal, and that the “fight would go on”.

“If this project is going to be done, then I think they should do it right,” she said, saying they had lost a battle but not lost the war.

Mr Justice Ouseley rejected as “untenable” nine of the ten claims brought by Heathrow Hub, the HS2 Action Alliance (HS2AA), Aylesbury Golf Club and numerous affiliated councils and protest groups.

He upheld just one,  for HS2AA, which pertained to the unlawfulness of the consultation into compensation for those who would be affected by the route. This consultation process on this aspect will now be reopened.

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Please note comments made online may also be published in the print edition of New Civil Engineer. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.