HS2 ‘backtracks’ on protection pledges
Rewritten document drops commitments on noise, health, habitat and restoration of land
THE government-owned firm building HS2 has quietly withdrawn from a set of pledges to protect residents, landscapes and habitats along the route,
The Sunday Telegraph can disclose. HS2 Ltd has drawn up a new environmental policy, ditching explicit commitments to “avoid significant adverse impacts on health and quality and life” and to minimise the effect of the scheme on the environment. It also drops a pledge to restore agricultural land after construction.
Last night, the National Trust said there were “worrying signs” the firm planned to renege on commitments to allay concerns over the levels of noise and the impact on the environment.
MPs and observers claim contractors have already begun causing irreversible damage to ancient woodlands as they prepare to make way for the line.
Ingrid Samuel, of the National Trust, said this was evidence that HS2 was “backtracking from its own commitment to deliver ‘an exemplar project’.”
It comes days after Boris Johnson confirmed the decision to go ahead with the £106billion Y-shaped line from London to the West Midlands and the North, in the face of opposition from dozens of Conservative MPs.
In today’s Telegraph, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, Theresa May’s former environment adviser, reveals he seriously considered quitting the Conservative Party over the decision. He writes: “The human misery and environmental disaster caused by the intransigence of a route prepared for speeds nowhere else achieved in the world, combined with the arrogance and incompetence of those responsible for the project was so obvious.” He describes the “destruction of valuable habitats and ancient woodland” as “simply unacceptable”.
HS2 Ltd’s environmental policy dated Oct 21 2019, was slipped out on the gov.uk website on Dec 13, the day after the general election. The document published in 2017 has been removed.
The National Trust noted the new document appeared to backtrack on pledges over noise levels. Last year this newspaper disclosed the noise would breach limits recommended by the World Health Organisation.
The 2017 policy pledged to “effectively manage and control noise and vibration to avoid significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life”. The new document states it will: “Manage the impact of HS2 construction and operation on people and the environment including effects from air pollution, flooding and noise and vibration.”
The 2017 version pledged to “minimise the combined effect of the project and climate change on the environment”. The new document commits to build “a network which is climate resilient for the long term, minimise the carbon footprint of HS2 and deliver low carbon, long distance journeys that are supported by low carbon energy.”
Ms Samuel said: “We fear the plans for the rail link are cutting corners at the expense of heritage, the environment and communities along the line. They appear to have lowered the bar rather than enable positive action.”
An HS2 spokesman said: “We updated the environment policy to more clearly communicate our objectives. We haven’t changed any commitments on environmental protection.”
On Friday Building magazine reported that China’s state-owned Railway Construction Corporation had told HS2 it could build the line within five years at a much reduced price. The Telegraph reported that Tory MPs feared this would be a “repeat of Huawei”.
‘We fear the plans for the rail link are cutting corners… they appear to have lowered the bar rather than enable positive action’
Ishould have known better. Having been in government and worked in No10 as an adviser, I should not have expected a different decision on HS2. But I did. And I can’t hide my disappointment.
I know how these things happen. I vividly recall David Cameron’s “No ifs, no buts: no third runway” in opposition, which promptly disappeared when he became prime minister. So why was I expecting a U-turn on HS2?
Simply because the economic argument for it was unravelling faster than any bullet train. The human misery and environmental disaster caused by the intransigence of a route prepared for speeds nowhere else achieved in the world, combined with the arrogance and incompetence of those responsible for the project was so obvious. Above all, I felt that more people were waking up – albeit belatedly – to the fact this was indeed a vanity project too far; that they realised the destruction of valuable habitats and ancient woodland was simply unacceptable.
It seemed everyone had worked out that the eye-watering and everincreasing billions of pounds could be spent in so many better ways to relieve capacity issues and regional transport inequalities. I, like many others who have opposed the project since it was first unveiled by the Labour government, dared to dream. Perhaps like Corbyn supporters who, in their own social media bubble, thought election victory was imminent, I believed things were about to change.
Had we not realised that we were obsessed, but the rest of the country wasn’t? Actually, most people do cringe at the cost, but the figures are so out of this world they are virtually meaningless. The public can’t see any direct benefit, but some have been taken in by the supposed green credentials of a rail scheme.
These credentials are, sadly, myths. It’s bizarre that the Government is planning mind-boggling tree planting schemes while HS2 is destroying swathes of mature trees. And the project’s attitude to planting trees is outlandish in the extreme: rather than watering the saplings, it lets them die as it is more “cost effective” to just replace them.
My experience as a constituency MP should have set off alarm bells. Most constituents only raise objections when the building starts, long after the time to speak up, and inevitably too late to achieve anything meaningful. So it has been with HS2. People looked at the route and thought: “It’s not near enough to cause me any problems.”
In my former constituency, now represented by the Prime Minister, the majority – with some notable exceptions, including the admirable local authority – thought because the trains were going to speed through a tunnel, there would be minimal disruption to their lives. Wrong, of course, as the road closures, the polluting traffic jams and destruction associated with construction are already affecting those who thought they would remain untouched. The disturbing implications for our drinking water are only now being talked about: HS2 construction has an unquenchable thirst of almost unimaginable proportions, yet no one knows where the supply will come from, and its pile-driving threatens to contaminate the aquifers.
The list goes on – the brutal new viaduct over the Colne Valley will bear no resemblance to the artist’s enthusiastic impression of what it could look like. This has all been mis-selling on a massive scale.
So is this a battle lost, or is the war over? In my disappointment last week I even seriously contemplated stamping my little foot and leaving the Conservatives – that would surely put the wind up my successor in Uxbridge.
But although I might even get a few more followers on Twitter, that’s not the answer, however much it appeals to the drama queen in me.
The way forward is to continue to monitor the actions of the company, whose huge failings have been recognised by government. Let’s hope the minister for HS2 can control the monster that has been created.
It’s no exaggeration to say lives have been ruined, livelihoods shattered, and irreplaceable natural habitats erased. No compensation will be enough, but it must be forthcoming. Concerns can no longer be brushed aside; the law must be observed.
It’s unlikely that I will be alive to use my senior rail card for HS2’s opening journey. I’d like to be proven wrong – that it will be a glorious engineering feat that would make Brunel green with envy. Sadly I doubt it.