Camden vow to try and take fight against HS2 to Supreme Court

Cllrs Sarah Hayward and Valerie Leach outside the Royal Courts of Justice in December 2012 for a jud

Cllrs Sarah Hayward and Valerie Leach outside the Royal Courts of Justice in December 2012 for a judicial review of HS2. Picture: Polly Hancock - Credit: Archant

Camden Council has vowed to take their battle against government plans for the High Speed 2 rail link to the Supreme Court.

They want to overturn a decision to dismiss the council’s appeal against the controversial route.

The council joined 14 other local authorities in appealing against a previous High Court ruling to allow plans for HS2 – which will link London Euston with Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds – to go ahead.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the case yesterday but the council pledged to keep fighting the proposals, which will see large parts of Camden blighted by construction works.

The rail line will affect 477 homes and cause havoc in Camden Town – including the demolition and reconstruction of the famous Camden Lock and Camden Road bridges.

The council has been granted leave to appeal the decision again, which would take the case all the way to the Supreme Court, the highest court of appeal.

It may also lobby for more compensation for residents and businesses who will lose out as a result of the railway’s construction, or try to get the best mitigation possible.

Most Read

Cllr Sarah Hayward, leader of Camden Council, said: “We are extremely disappointed with today’s decision and remain committed to use all means necessary to oppose this fundamentally flawed scheme.

“We believe that there are serious defects in the government’s proposals for HS2 and urge them yet again to reconsider their plans, which have ignored the evidence of the damage it will cause to our residents, visitors and businesses.”

The first appeal was partially based on the transport secretary’s decision to go ahead with HS2 without producing an Equality Impact Assessment, which the council claims was “unlawful”.