Broadcaster Chris Packham launches judicial review challenge over decision to proceed with HS2

Broadcaster and naturalist Chris Packham is to challenge the decision of the Prime Minister to give the go-ahead to HS2, claiming that the review central to the mandate to proceed was “seriously flawed in its methods”.

Packham’s lawyers, Leigh Day, have sent a pre-action protocol letter on his behalf, arguing that the decision was unlawful because it relied on the "flawed" ‘Oakervee review’ process and did not take into account the full environmental costs of the project.

The broadcaster claims that HS2 will damage or destroy almost 700 wildlife sites, including over 100 ancient woodlands.

He is also arguing that the climate impact of HS2 is expected to be incompatible with any net zero emissions target, “not least because the line will facilitate the large-scale expansion of airports across the UK”.

Packham said: “Every important policy decision should now have the future of our environment at the forefront of its considerations. But in regard to the HS2 rail project I believe our government has failed.

“I believe the review central to the mandate to proceed was seriously flawed in its methods. I believe that essential submissions regarding environmental concerns were ignored by the review panel.

“As a consequence, the Oakervee review is compromised, incomplete and flawed and thus the decision to proceed based upon it is unlawful.”

According to Mr Packham, the report of the Oakervee review failed to adequately provide a thorough assessment of the issues, including the environmental costs of construction and of climate change.

Packham also claims that the review was biased towards accepting HS2 evidence and important information, including in relation to environmental impacts, was difficult to access or not considered at all.

He is represented by Carol Day and Tom Short of Leigh Day solicitors. Short said: “The Government committed to base its decision of whether and how to proceed with HS2 on the output of a review that the public was assured would be rigorous and independent and would consider all the existing evidence and the full range of the costs of the project.

"Our client considers that the review has failed to meet those promised standards. He argues that the flawed process of the review means that environmental impacts relevant to the decision whether to proceed have not been properly assessed. In a time of unprecedent ecological catastrophe, he is clear that the law, and moral logic, require the Government to think again.”
 
So far Packham has received pledges of £59,180 towards a stretch target of £80,000 via CrowdJustice.