• THE review of the case for HS2 announced recently by Boris Johnson is long overdue.

It is absurd that a project so late, so controversial, so wasteful and so extraordinarily expensive, with £6billion spent before a single foot of track has been laid, should only now be the subject of a rigorous enquiry charged with finding the real figures.

Astonishingly no even minimally persuasive case for building HS2 has ever been made. None of the reasons advanced for it holds water: speed; capacity; or rebalancing the economy by boosting the “Northern Powerhouse”. All three cases are based on demonstrably false assumptions.

While many other people have made the obvious points above, I want to draw attention to an additional, but highly significant, failure at the heart of HS2.

It is morally bankrupt. It has treated the lives of those its plans have affected with at best disdain and at worst contempt.

It has forcibly purchased the houses and businesses of many people along its route at below the fair price and then been excruciatingly slow at paying them anything. This, and the way HS2 has awarded contracts, is now being investigated by the Serious Fraud Office.

It is making the lives of all those living near Euston misery without any compensation at all. Its promises of acting as a good neighbour are worthless.

It is environmentally disastrous and, to show that it has gone too far to be stopped, it has accelerated its programme of demolition and tree clearance over recent months.

HS2’s attitude to consultation, and indeed to the truth, is indexed by its hatred of being recorded. It refuses to read or agree minutes of the meetings it holds with those affected by its plans.

It refuses to give reasons for this or even to say whether or not HS2 accepts standard business practice. It consistently fails to answer legitimate questions other than cosmetically. These are the attitudes of an organisation charged with defending the indefensible.

HS2 is an object lesson in how not to plan, consult on or implement a mega-project. It has made a mockery of the rights of those affected by it and it has been pushed through by power not by reason. On these grounds alone it should be cancelled.

MARTIN SHEPPARD
Gloucester Avenue, NW1