The following organisations have signed up to the Charter. These organisations are individually bound by their specific charitable and constitutional objectives and will want separately to emphasise their own particular priorities through the HS2 consultation process. There is, however, sufficient common ground between them to create a powerful joint approach on a range of fundamental issues.
“High speed rail needs to be part of a broader policy to reduce road and air traffic, with extra rail capacity to improve people’s travel choices and to get freight off the roads. Only if there is this broader policy can the full impacts of high speed rail be assessed properly.”
Campaign to Protect Rural England
“It is understandable that those who would benefit or lose from the proposals want to be cheerleaders or gravediggers for High Speed Rail. The Government needs to be listening rather than shouting encouragement at one side. A new high speed line can help provide the extra rail capacity the country needs, but the current HS2 route would cause unacceptable damage to the beauty and tranquillity of much-loved countryside. The Government must consult properly and show that it is prepared to listen to legitimate concerns.”
“The current HS2 proposals stem from a badly conceived and highly constrained remit, resulting in little regard being given to options that would avoid harming some of England’s finest landscapes. A wholly objective balancing between the wider economic benefits claimed for High Speed Rail and the impact of specific proposals on the environment can not be achieved in the absence of a comprehensive framework of national transportation strategies that address broader future sustainability issues.”
“Major development projects like High Speed Rail can be intimidating for local communities and need to demonstrate a real sensitivity to the people and places they affect. People should have meaningful influence over key decisions – such as the design speed of the line – if we are to avoid unnecessary damage to intimate townscapes and landscapes and reap the benefits of investment in rail.”
“There is always a tipping point when major projects like High Speed 2 (HS2) become controversial and that is when people see that there is a lack of fairness in the decision making process. The Aarhus Convention requires the public to be consulted when all options are open and effective participation can take place. The public should be given the opportunity to participate on all aspects of the HS2 project and to have a real say on all the issues, both environmental and strategic. “
“Carbon emissions from UK transport must be urgently cut – but the current High Speed Rail proposals will do little, if anything, to help. The majority of journeys are relatively short, so the Government’s top priority should be to cut emissions from these trips. This means action to encourage greener travel and measures to reduce the need to travel for work or essential services.”
“Tackling transport emissions means an increase in rail capacity. High speed rail can only help if it’s in a proper policy framework which ensures people move from car and plane onto the train.”
.
Ramblers“We call on the government to demonstrate, clearly and overwhelmingly, that this is the best future transport strategy for the UK. We generally support improvements to public transport, but as well as the adverse impacts to the surrounding landscape, as Britain’s walking charity we are concerned that these plans overlook the protection of footpaths. Unless the public is involved in the decision-making process and provision is made for access and rights of way, HS2 will sever more than a hundred and fifty public paths – something the Ramblers will campaign vigorously to prevent.”
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
“A switch to rail is critical if our future transport system is going to be green and clean. But the environmental benefits won’t materialise on their own. Government must demonstrate how High Speed 2 plans will respect nature, minimise damage to important wildlife sites, and help us in the fight against climate change.”
Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings
“There are clear lessons from the Channel Tunnel rail link. With proper planning, and a genuine willingness to spend extra money, it is possible to reduce though not avoid damage to historic sites by high speed rail schemes. But the destruction of irreplaceable heritage under any high speed proposal requires the very strongest long term justification.”
“As it stands, HS2 is on track to deliver a damaged natural environment. We need efficient and sustainable transport systems but they must not be achieved at the expense of the environment. The proposed HS2 route will have a detrimental impact by dissecting and fragmenting the landscape and threatening important wildlife sites and undermining action to support nature’s recovery.”
“Although we support moves towards green transport, the proposed route would destroy or irrevocably damage ancient woodland, the UK’s richest wildlife habitat that is literally irreplaceable. Government plans to compensate by planting 2 million trees will not recompense this loss of our rarest habitats. Environmental impact should be valued equally with journey times and costs when assessing new transport options.”