Conservationist fears high-speed line will scar Chiltern landscape

Colin White
Colin White: 'We have enough trains already; we just need to make them more efficient, cheaper and better.' Photograph: David Levene

Even on a damp and grey August afternoon, Park Wood oozes a soothing bucolic ease. Kestrels and red kites soar through the drizzle over the low Chiltern hills, rain glistens on the sloe berries and the occasional rabbit skims across the fields among the thistles and cow parsley. If the noise from the nearby A4010 or the panting of a passenger diesel bothers the polo ponies grazing at the bottom of the valley, they do not lift their heads to acknowledge it.

The only uncomfortable presence in the landscape is Colin White, who stands on the hillside and worries about how much longer such scenes will last.

White and his colleagues at the Chilterns Conservation Board, the public body responsible for protecting the Chilterns area of outstanding natural beauty, fear this bit of south Buckinghamshire could be "trashed" if the government goes ahead with its plan to drive a high-speed London-Birmingham line through the Chilterns.

"We have a cracking landscape here, and if people are out walking, their enjoyment is going to be spoilt by the constant noise of a building site," he said. "In the countryside, you want to hear birdsong, babbling brooks, the cackle of a pheasant or the bark of a fox – not noise from trains or roads."

White, the board's planning officer, said construction of the rail link would churn up the Chilterns for years, and leave the valleys disfigured with overheard powerlines and disrupted by fast and loud trains constantly buzzing through. He believes some in Westminster are using high-speed rail proposals to try to solve a problem that does not exist.

"Where are the hundreds of thousands of people who want to travel between London and Birmingham and Birmingham and London? We don't see them. There's no huge capacity issue."

He adds: "There's a huge push to stop the environmental disaster of air travel and towards trains ‑ which are undoubtedly good ‑ but we have enough of them already; we just need to make them more efficient, cheaper and better."

White's scepticism was echoed around the nearby village of Bradenham. "It's going to destroy the area," said Andrew Stubbings, a farmer who grazes the tranquil polo ponies in the valley. "The thought of a bloody big train coming through here is horrendous. It would be a blot on the landscape with the overhead cables and everything. Then there's the noise."

While he conceded that nimbyism was a powerful factor in his response, Stubbings said his arable and grazing land could be hugely affected. "I'd be very anti it, that's for sure."

Patience Dizon, an Alexander Technique health teacher who has lived in the village for 30 years, was equally nonplussed by the proposals. "Why would people be whizzing up the line from London to Birmingham? If it's for the common good, then fair enough, but if it's not, then it's not worth the disruption," she said.

Others, however, were more fatalistic. "If they've pencilled it in, that means it will happen," said Joe Kelly, a builder who lives on a nearby hill. "If it's on the other side of the hill, it wouldn't affect me. It could bring work to the pubs and restaurants." White, though, is bracing himself for a fight, as soon as the government shows its hand: "We're facing an information black hole."

The Chilterns Conservation Board is talking to county and district councils as well as the National Trust, which owns much of the land in the area. If its worst fears are realised, the board will lobby Huw Irranca-Davies, minister responsible for the natural environment. White said that a fight through the courts remained a possibility, although "we're publicly-funded, so we'd have to consider legal action very carefully".

Despite the board's small size, he was adamant that it will not be bullied into accepting a decision that will bring no benefit to the Chilterns. "We're passionate about protecting this area and we'd be failing in our duty if we weren't." And, he added, "we're independent. We can put a boot on and stick it in."

Today's best video

Today in pictures