‘HS2 can manage with only six platforms, which could be accommodated within Euston’s existing station footprint, without the need for the wholesale land-grab and destruction that we’ve witnessed in West Euston’

• ASIDE from the effective protests at Euston Square Gardens (which I support), there’s been a flood of new revelations about HS2.

First, a report from the National Infrastructure Commission (NIC). Then the minutes of a Transport for London board meeting, followed swiftly by a further damning summary on HS2 by the Oakervee Review’s deputy chair, Lord Berkeley.

And most recently the suspicious announcement of the sudden departure of yet another HS2 Ltd chairman, Allan Cook.

It all stinks to high heaven, and that includes Camden Council and its appointed Euston “masterplanners” bedfellows Lendlease.

Despite the fact the HS2 Ltd were announced a year ago as having to be stripped of responsibility for Euston ­– that role to be spearheaded by Network Rail’s Sir Peter Hendy – the trade journal of record New Civil Engineer has reported an astonishing revelation from TfL board minutes; “The DfT [Department for Transport] has recently instructed HS2 Ltd to proceed with further design development for one of the options, which provides a solution based around 10 HS2 platforms, a single stage build and increased oversite development.”

As Lord Berkeley opined, if the eastern limb of HS2 to Leeds is to be canned, HS2 can manage with only six platforms, which could be accommodated within Euston’s existing station footprint, without the need for the wholesale land-grab and destruction that we’ve witnessed in West Euston.

Indeed, he rightly points out that Old Oak Common can handle the six platforms, thus saving the country an estimated £8billion construction cost of the five miles from Old Oak Common to Euston.

Most influential of all is the January NIC report’s conclusion that what’s needed is for rail development in the north to focus on upgrading regional links.

The NIC’s chairman, Sir John Armitt, told the transport select committee on January 21, in no uncertain terms, that he believes only extensive regional upgrades or HS2 can be afforded, but not both.

This influential body’s recommendation will surely be being weighed very heavily at the Treasury before the March 3 Budget.

And the killer blow for limp-wristed and ineffective Camden Council, in cahoots with their “masterplanner” commercial partners Lendlease, is the risible instruction for more over-station development.

Can we believe that in a post-Covid London there will be any need for extra multi-million square metres of office space?

The only likely underwriters for such a long-term gamble would seem to be the Chinese, but they are now out of favour for good reasons.

So my prediction for Camden’s grand plan for redevelopment is that it will shortly fall like a pack of cards.

Which begs the question as to what’s to become of the massive scorched-earth “level playing field” that has been cleared on the west side of Euston station and its throat.

Could we have St James Gardens and all our trees back, please? Sorry, I must be dreaming. Thus far Camden has not distinguished itself.

PAUL BRAITHWAITE
Bartholomew Villas, NW5