2 The environmental aim of HS2: no
net biodiversity loss
The aim
9. HS2 Ltd's Environmental Statement declares
that "Overall, … the project is seeking to achieve no
net loss in biodiversity at the route-wide level".[10]
This reflects the National Planning Policy Framework, which states
that
If significant harm to biodiversity resulting
from a development proposal cannot be avoided, adequately mitigated,
or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission
should be refused.[11]
Defra told us that such a 'no net loss' objective
would be challenging:
There is no other international infrastructure
project this large that … [goes] further, so to achieve 'no
net loss' is in itself challenging. Whether they can go beyond,
and achieve net gain, is something we will have to wait and see,
but that would be above any other international standard.[12]
10. However, that is the aim set out in the Government's
2011 Natural Environment White Paper, which stated:
The Government wants this to be the first generation
to leave the natural environment of England in a better state
than it inherited. ... It requires us all to put the value of
nature at the heart of our decision-making—in Government,
local communities and businesses. In this way we will improve
the quality and increase the value of the natural environment
across England.[13]
Our witnesses also believed the goal should be higher.
The Country Land and Business Association (CLA) thought that "there
is not much ambition in [no net loss]".[14]
Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) told the Committee:
The Environmental Statement seems to be
about trying to minimise environmental harm rather than seek any
environmental opportunities. There is a massive lost opportunity
there ... HS2 should be part of a bigger strategy to try to maximise
use of brownfield land and reduce land-take by car parking and
roads, but unfortunately it is not being planned in a joined-up
fashion.[15]
11. Whether an aim of 'no net loss' or 'net gain',
we were told that it should not be calculated only at route-level.
The Woodland Trust believed that:
… there is a natural justice in that if
something is lost to a local community they should have the benefit
provided, or a compensation provided, at that stage as well.[16]
The CPRE shared that view.[17]
Camden Council wanted any compensation measures to be tailored
to local conditions and to ensure that residents' enjoyment of
green spaces was not diminished.[18]
12. On HS2 the Government should aim higher than
simply striving for no net biodiversity loss. As it further develops
its processes and metrics for biodiversity offsetting (paragraph
23), it should seek to weight these to be more likely to produce
biodiversity gains and take explicit account of local communities'
well-being (paragraph 44).
Applying the mitigation hierarchy
13. The HS2 Environmental Statement reflects
the 'mitigation hierarchy' previously set out in Defra's Natural
Environment White Paper: environmental impacts should be avoided
in the first instance, mitigated if impossible to avoid, and compensated
for as a last resort.[19]
At each successive step down the hierarchy, the degree of environmental
protection is diminished. The Environmental Statement states
that HS2 Ltd had attempted to minimise identified adverse environmental
impacts through route design. Where, despite mitigation, adverse
effects were predicted to occur, it "proposed repair and
compensation measures".[20]
In a similar vein, the Department of Transport told us that "the
approach taken to mitigation was to address the likely significant
effects of the scheme wherever reasonably practicable."[21]
Specifically, they said:
HS2 has sought to avoid impacts on sites designated
under the Habitats Regulations. No internationally important sites
will be significantly affected by Phase One. Only two nationally
important Sites of Special Scientific Interest will be directly
affected by the railway. Where Local Wildlife Sites are affected,
compensatory habitat creation will be provided to ensure no permanent
significant effects remain on the ecological network at a regional
or route-wide level. The exception to this is for irreplaceable
ancient woodland, where compensation measures have been included
to substantially reduce the effects.[22]
Some of our witnesses were not convinced. CPRE complained
that HS2 Ltd had not provided information on where costs had been
the determining factor in not adhering to the principles of the
hierarchy.[23] The Minister
told us that there would be "no Natura 2000 sites affected,
… two SSSIs affected, … 41 habitats of principal importance
directly affected, and 19 ancient woodlands [covering] 32 hectares".[24]
The Woodland Trust told us that the destruction of ancient woodlands
raised questions about the application of the mitigation hierarchy,
illustrated it argued by a lack of explanation about why a Chilterns
Tunnel ("that would save one third of the ancient woodland
threatened along the route") would not be taken forward.[25]
Environment Bank, similarly, said it was necessary to use tunnels
rather than cuttings to minimise damage to ancient woodlands.[26]
14. HS2's commitment to a high train operating speed
provides a wider-scale test of the application of the mitigation
hierarchy. Some of our witnesses considered that a slower speed
scheme would allow the route to curve more and miss particular
environmentally sensitive features.[27]
Greengauge 21 noted, though, that "a wiggly line is basically
longer", needing more construction and consequently producing
environmental disruption over a longer distance.[28]
HS2 Ltd told us that lower speed would allow greater "lateral
curvature" of the route, "but you would not change it
to any great extent or to the extent where you could perhaps skirt
around an individual woodland".[29]
They told us, furthermore, that reducing maximum train speed from
360kph to 300kph would result in a 25% reduction in the benefit:cost
ratio.[30] But this,
it appears to us, simply reflects the fact that the economic case
for HS2—which is largely based on calculations of journey
time savings—does not take most environmental impacts into
consideration (the exception being costs attributable to landscape
effects).[31]
15. The task of presenting a credible case that the
mitigation hierarchy has been followed has been made unnecessarily
more difficult by HS2 Ltd's apparent confusion and inconsistency
over terminology. Witnesses told us that throughout the Environmental
Statement, 'mitigation' and 'compensation' measures had been
used interchangeably. The Woodland Trust told us that individual
Community Forum reports had blurred the lines between these, and
that what was classified as a mitigation or a compensation measure
had differed between Forums.[32]
The Wildlife Trusts, similarly, highlighted such terms being "used
interchangeably, … combined and overlapped, … [and]
double-counted".[33]
RSPB told us that "the Environmental Statement wrongly
extends the definition of mitigation to include compensation",
so that "habitats to be created to compensate for unavoidable
damage to protected [SSSIs] are wrongly identified as mitigation
and on that basis … [the Environmental Statement]
suggests that there are no residual adverse effects".[34]
16. Some witnesses saw such imprecision as an attempt
to reduce the pressure to avoid or mitigate environmental damage.
RSPB believed that "the mitigation hierarchy has been misapplied
in the Environmental Statement to gloss over residual impacts
on SSSIs and protected species, notably bats".[35]
The Woodland Trust also had similar concerns about the treatment
of ancient woodland in the Environmental Statement, which
did not reflect the fact that such woodland is "irreplaceable,
and as such any loss cannot be mitigated, only compensated for."[36]
17. Buckinghamshire County Council questioned the
scientific evidence behind mitigation measures aimed at protecting
Bechstein's bats.[37]
HS2 Ecology Technical Group (an independent expert advisory group)
and RSPB told us that the success of proposed measures was uncertain.[38]
And the Woodland Trust were concerned about the "relatively
new and unproven" proposal of relocating soils from affected
ancient woodland, noting that the use of this approach on HS1
had apparently not been monitored. [39]
18. The 'mitigation hierarchy' lies at the heart
of the Government's approach to environmental sustainability.
At each successive step down the hierarchy, the degree of environmental
protection is diminished. The hierarchy should be followed in
developing HS2, but the Government has significant work to do
to demonstrate that this approach is being applied, given the
environmental damage current plans envisage to ancient woodlands,
SSSIs and local wildlife sites, and the possible significant harm
for particular species affected.
19. The HS2 Environmental Statement must be revised
to distinguish clearly between 'mitigation' and 'compensation'
measures in respect of biodiversity, and to explain the factors
determining in which cases these should be applied. If biodiversity
loss is genuinely unavoidable and also cannot be mitigated, compensation
measures should be applied to the fullest extent possible.
Assessment baselines
20. Any assessment of whether HS2 will be able to
meet its objective of no net biodiversity loss depends on establishing
a clear baseline of the state of habitats and biodiversity before
the project commences. At the very least the Government must catalogue
the biodiversity present. As the work envisaged by the Natural
Capital Committee unfolds such assessments might in time also
be able to take account of what it called 'unsustainable use'
of aspects of natural capital.[40]
HS2 Ltd told us that because there is no obligation for landlords
to grant access to their land, they have surveyed only 60% of
the land covered by the Hybrid Bill.[41]
They have augmented their own surveys with widely available existing
data and aerial photography.[42]
Unsurprisingly, this has led to criticisms that HS2 Ltd's baseline
data is inadequate. The Woodland Trust told us that it had found
that "more than half of the woodlands have not been surveyed".[43]
The HS2 Ecology Technical Group had found that "a true representation
of known and potential biodiversity has not been illustrated on
the Environmental Statement maps [which] leads to a serious
misrepresentation of the potential impacts of the Proposed Scheme".[44]
As a result, the Environmental Statement had not considered
some European protected species,[45]
nor local wildlife sites which also often "support habitats
of principal importance".[46]
21. HS2 Ltd told us that further surveys would be
carried out, particularly on protected species.[47]
The Department of Transport explained that any significant changes
arising from such survey work would require further consultation:
If the survey data identified a new significant
environmental effect that is not in the Environmental Statement
we would have to deposit what is called Supplementary Environmental
Information. That would be subject to the minimum of 42 days'
public consultation. The consultation responses would then be
summarised by a technical assessor appointed by Parliament, so
the whole process would ensure that that information is fully
aware to Parliament when it is making its decision about this
project.[48]
If the Bill is given Royal Assent and it becomes
an Act, the way that the Bill is constructed and the way that
the Environmental Minimum Requirements and commitments
that the Secretary of State gives to the House effectively means
that the railway needs to be built within the scope of the Environmental
Statement, or it does not have planning permission, or further
consent has to be sought. If there is an additional environmental
effect that is not identified until after Royal Assent, the nominated
undertaker—the organisation building the railway—would
be required to get planning permission via the local authority,
so there is always a check and a balance.[49]
22. The Government has not been able to establish
a full environmental baseline against which the aim of 'no net
biodiversity loss' can be assessed. HS2 Ltd must carry out
outstanding environmental surveys as soon as possible. It should
focus particularly on cataloguing all ancient woodland and protected
animal species, and as much as possible of the 40% of the route
yet to be examined by involving local wildlife groups where possible.
We discuss below how, as the surveying continues, it should take
on board the work of the Natural Capital Committee (paragraphs
39, 43) and well-being considerations (paragraph 44).
10 HS2 Ltd, Environmental Statement, Volume 1: Introduction to the Environmental Statement,
Para 9.8.6 Back
11
Defra, Biodiversity Offsetting in England Green Paper (September
2013), p24; Defra, Making Space for Nature (September 2010),
p87 Back
12
Q142 Back
13
Defra, The Natural Choice: securing the value of nature, Cm 8082
(June 2011), para 2 Back
14
Q29 (Mr Robinson] Back
15
Q29 [Mr Smyth] Back
16
Q31 [Mr Barnes] Back
17
Q31 [Mr Smyth] Back
18
London Borough of Camden (HS2 035), para 6 Back
19
Defra, Biodiversity Offsetting in England Green Paper (September
2013), p24; Defra, Making Space for Nature (September 2010),
p87 Back
20
Department for Transport/HS2 Ltd, Non-Technical Summary of the HS2 Phase 1Environmental Statement,
November 2013, p4 Back
21
Department for Transport (HS2 028), para 4.3 Back
22
Department for Transport (HS2 028), para 2.18 Back
23
Q43 Back
24
Q122 Back
25
Q43 Back
26
The Environment Bank (HS2 023), para 17 Back
27
Q1 Back
28
Q12 Back
29
Q120 Back
30
Q121 Back
31
Department for Transport, The Economic Case for HS2: Value for Money Statement
(January 2012), paras 6.12, 6.16 Back
32
Q44 Back
33
Wildlife Trusts (HS2 049), para 25 Back
34
RSPB (HS2 025), para 6 Back
35
ibid, para 17 Back
36
The Woodland Trust (HS2 021), para 2.4. Back
37
Buckinghamshire County Council (HS2 024), para 5.5.1. Back
38
HS2 Ecology Technical Group (HS2 027), para 10.4; RSPB (HS2 025),para
7 Back
39
The Woodland Trust (HS2 021), para 1.6; Q49 Back
40
Natural Capital Committee , The state of natural capital: Restoring our natural assets
(March 2014), para 2.12 Back
41
Q147 Back
42
Qq147,148 and 151 Back
43
Q33 Back
44
HS2 Ecology Technical Group (HS2 037), para 11.3 Back
45
ibid, para 11.6 Back
46
ibid, para 11.8 Back
47
Q148 Back
48
Q149 (see also Q114) Back
49
Qq150-151 Back
|
