Oral evidence: HS2 and the environment, HC 1076Tuesday 18 March 2014
Oral evidence, 18 March 2014.
Witnesses
Ralph Smyth, Senior Transport Campaigner, Campaign to Protect Rural England, Richard Barnes, Conservation Adviser, Woodland Trust, and Henry Robinson, President, Country Land and Business Association, gave evidence.
Chair
I would like to welcome all three of you. I think you are aware that I have lost my voice and we will manage accordingly. Mr Spencer wishes to come in very briefly and also Mr Aldous.
Mr Spencer
Could I declare that I am a member of the CLA, Chair, just for the Committee.
Peter Aldous
I think I should do the same. The Government have come out with the objective that their aim is that, “There should be no net loss in biodiversity at the route-wide level”. Could we dissect and have a look at that objective for a minute? Are you happy with the objective of there being no net loss in biodiversity terms? Is that ambitious enough?
Henry Robinson
Do you want me to start? I am very happy to. The Government has said that it wants to be the first Government that sees an improvement in the environment, so it is not consistent with that. We would say that no net loss is a laudable aim but it could do better. The questions, of course, are how you get there, who delivers it, where the land is and who pays for the maintenance of it? Those are the much larger questions that will lead into your getting to no or even minor net loss.
Peter Aldous
So you think it could have been achievable with a little bit of ambition and foresight?
Henry Robinson
There is not much ambition in it. That is certainly true.
Richard Barnes
I would add to that that the idea could be that the Government could have gone for net gain. A couple of issues we have with the environmental statement is that there is no adequate baseline. There is a lot of missing information, omissions and inaccuracies in their information, so it would be very difficult to assess that in the first place to say what the baseline is.
Ralph Smyth
We would say it is concerning the lack of integration between HS2 and wider policy. The National Planning Policy Framework talks about seeking environmental goals simultaneously and jointly with economic and social ones. 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 that hopefully the Government can correct on Second Reading.
Peter Aldous
What do you think are those opportunities they should be seeking and striving for?
Ralph Smyth
You have heard quite a lot about carbon in the previous session and we certainly agree that there is a need to seek carbon benefits from HS2, but many of those benefits would be secured by complementary changes to road and air policy. What we have not heard much about is land take. In the news this week there has been the garden city at Ebbsfleet by HS1 and proposals for a new station on a greenfield site with associated housing at Crewe. We say that 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.
Richard Barnes
I would also add that in terms of the no net loss suggestion, if there are irreplaceable habitats such as ancient woodland that are being lost already, you can’t have a no net loss or net gain if you are taking out ancient woodland and other irreplaceable habitats such as that.
Henry Robinson
The real problem, and I don’t want to be a stuck record on this throughout the proceedings, is that if you are then taking the land for an environmental gain by compulsory purchase there is a natural and severe injustice in that.
Peter Aldous
If we move on to the second part of the statement, it says no net loss in biodiversity at the route-wide level. Should one be judging the objective at a route-wide level or should one be looking at smaller local sections of a line in making that assessment?
Henry Robinson
If you do it at a route-wide level, what you get is a series of large and largely arbitrary compulsory purchases where you are going to put your compensatory habitat. The problem with not engaging at local level is you do not engage the local landowners to provide what they can provide better than anybody else for you in terms of the environmental gains that you want.
Ralph Smyth
I think one should seek benefits, net gain, both at the route-wide level and at the local level. The question is, what do you use as a unit? The offsetting metric talks about biodiversity units. What exactly are they? There is a detailed discussion in appendix 5 in the ES but that is still very arbitrary. I think you need to look at the national scale and also at the local landscape scale or the local habitat. You have to check all these different levels rather than think you can do it at one or the other.
Richard Barnes
In terms of the balance between the route-wide and the local, I would agree that there needs to be a bit of both. You need to be able to take into account the whole route-wide losses and gains to assess that, but also 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. I am not sure if there are further questions about biodiversity offsetting—
Peter Aldous
There may well be.
Richard Barnes
I will leave that then.
Peter Aldous
When it comes to monitoring and auditing whether there has been no net loss, who should be doing that work? Any views?
Richard Barnes
Perhaps this is a situation where some of the statutory agencies come in, such as Natural England who you will be hearing evidence from later. One of the issues we have found is that in the drawing up of the environmental statement there has been selective use of information, for instance from the local record centres that could have provided data. I know Warwickshire County Council have had to do their own assessment because they found their data was better than HS2’s. Even though all the information went into the environmental statement, it did not come out. It could be a combination of Natural England working with local record centres and local wildlife groups.
Ralph Smyth
I think it is very important we look at the recommendations of this month’s second report of the Natural Capital Committee. That emphasises, as one of its four principles, the importance of collaboration. To agree with Richard, for collaboration you need to be sharing data and one opportunity of HS2 is that it could be getting a huge amount of data of a cross-section across the countryside, but unfortunately we have not always been able to get that data in a timely fashion. It has taken two and a half months to get GIS data from the environmental statement, for example, which was too late for us to be able to use it in our response. One recommendation the Committee could call for is much better, timely release of data from HS2 so that there is in equality of arms, a bit more fairness.
Henry Robinson
I would echo that. Farmers and landowners are perfectly used to having environmental concerns monitored and it has been done by Natural England so far.
Peter Aldous
Finally, a question I think you did touch upon. Do you think there is sufficient evidence or sufficient information to establish that baseline against which any monitoring will be done?
Richard Barnes
Our analysis of the environmental statement does not show that. We found that more than half of the woodlands have not been surveyed and the information provided through the Ecology Technical Group is that that is as bad, if not worse, for other habitats. For a start the baseline information is not there. There are lots of inaccuracies in terms of some of the woodland sizes, for instance. Even in the same community forum area report, they have been given different labels for woodlands and different sizes of woodlands that are going to be lost. We have found it is not up to scratch at the moment.
Peter Aldous
Why is that, do you think? Surely setting on a map the size of a woodland is a fairly straightforward exercise, or not.
Richard Barnes
We are at a loss to explain that. That is one of the issues we have taken up. When we have gone through the environmental statement we have found that there are more woodlands directly affected than indicated by HS2. We found 27. We have also found 21 indirectly affected and another 22 woodlands that may be ancient and we are getting that clarified by Natural England. I am not sure why those inaccuracies are there.
Ralph Smyth
One concern we have is the lack of noise data about maximum noise. At the moment it is averaged out and that is not very realistic when you have a period of silence then a train rushing past, particularly in open areas of countryside where you can hopefully hear birdsong and little also. Having an averaged-out sound is not really very helpful to people to understand what the impact of HS2 would be and how much it should be reduced.
Henry Robinson
It is hard for me to explain why HS2’s data are not accurate. The baseline evidence is partly because they have not approached and have not been engaged with the landowner regularly enough or frequently enough or in enough detail from a very early stage.
Peter Aldous
Do you think we are still at a stage now that this could be rectified?
Henry Robinson
I would like to think so.
Ralph Smyth
Given the Secretary of State has accepted there will not be time to pass this Bill until 2016, that gives us two years. So I would say there is plenty of time for it to be rectified.
Chair
Can I ask on that, if my voice will allow me, how you think that can be rectified through the mechanism of the Hybrid Bill in terms of the advice and expertise and resources that will be available to advise Parliament about those issues?
Richard Barnes
We learned yesterday, after a meeting with one of the Transport Ministers, that HS2 will be doing further survey work for some species during the next field season.
Chair
Which species?
Richard Barnes
I think you would have to ask HS2 that in a couple of weeks, unless they can say from the floor. We think they need to go further than that, including some of the woodlands and other habitats that have not yet been surveyed. One of our recommendations is that the environmental statement should be modified to reflect any updated information and to correct the omissions and inaccuracies that we and other groups have highlighted. One of the ways to do that could be to produce an addendum that rectifies those issues and contains the missing information and the clarified information if that is easier to achieve in the Bill process. I would agree with Ralph that there should be the time to do that if the projected parliamentary time is in two years.
Chair
Would you agree with the Wildlife Trust in Staffordshire that that should extend to other than legally protected mammals? At the moment it seems that only legally protected mammals are part of the assessment that has been done.
Richard Barnes
Yes. We found that more than half of the habitats have not been surveyed, so it should extend to more habitat surveys. I agree with Henry that there needs to be more work with the landowners to gain access to the land and collaboration in order to get those surveys done.
Ralph Smyth
I think my one concern is that, given the size and difficulty of navigating the environmental statement as it is, if there are addendums—and there surely will be—you will have to have two separate volumes and try to pick between the two. That will be difficult for specialists let alone the public.
Dr Whitehead
Mr Barnes, the moment of talking about biodiversity offsetting is upon us. What I particularly wanted to find out a little more about is the fact that the principles of the metrics they are setting out in the environmental statement are somewhat different from those that DEFRA have set out in their biodiversity and environment Green Paper. The environmental statement on HS2 states, “The metric has the potential to produce an iterative mechanism to review changes in the balance of ecological loss versus compensation associated with the proposed scheme”. It appears to suggest that you learn as you go along and then you replace as you go along, whereas the Green Paper talks about the question of complexity of habitats and linking of habitats and looking at the whole ecosystem network as you go. It is clear that one is an adapted version of the other. Do you think the difference in approach is potentially better or potentially worse than the Green Paper approach?
Richard Barnes
I think it is a little premature for HS2 to come out with modifying the biodiversity offsetting metrics before the Government have had time to respond to either your Committee’s recommendations or the completion of the six pilot projects that are due at the end of this month. I have heard today that DEFRA are now saying their response will be in the summer. They have announced it at the biodiversity offsetting conference by the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management today, so I have just learned that this morning. It seems to be getting further and further away. For HS2 to come up with a metric in advance of all the detailed consultation, including yours, is a little premature. One of the issues the Woodland Trust has is that in the Government metrics ancient woodland is clearly outside biodiversity offsetting. You can’t offset for the loss of an irreplaceable habitat. The way HS2 is dealing with it is quite unique.
Henry Robinson
We would say that HS2’s version of biodiversity offsetting is substantially worse than the DEFRA one. There are a series of hypothetical multipliers and I can give you one example. The balance between land taken for environmental against land left in farming is that if you take a stretch of 200 metres in length by 4 metres wide of field margin, under the HS2 multiplier for their offsetting that 0.08 of hectare of land will come out at 1.3 hectares. It is a remarkable increase but that is the level of extra land take. If that land take was being taken and paid for then that would be one thing but to have it then compulsorily purchased off valuable agricultural land is quite another.
Dr Whitehead
Are there any areas of the HS2 metric that you would like particularly to see changed? A line is taking new land over a lengthy period. Would it be possible to amend it to be in line with what the Green Paper says?
Henry Robinson
I think one thing that could be changed is a recognition that the creation of a new habitat could in fact be better than what you have already. The example for that would be if you have taken a piece of permanent pasture and replaced it with a flower-enhanced meadow that might be a better habitat than you had before.
Ralph Smyth
Could I come in there a moment? Two particular concerns for CPRE are hedgerows and verges of lanes, two very much iconic parts of the English countryside. The way the DEFRA and HS2 metrics seem to assess those is simply in terms of their total area. Verges and hedges are key for connectivity of wildlife. Imagine if you assessed the connectivity between the north and London of HS2 by simply how big an area the railway took. That would be clearly ridiculous, but similarly the same principle is being used to look at the biodiversity value of hedges and countryside verges. That cannot be right.
Mrs Spelman
Surely the natural ecosystem assessment tool should be used to establish a true natural capital of those wildlife corridors in keeping with what the White Paper said about the value of such land. It is over and above the metric that is proposed here. Surely it should be applied to such sensitive green space.
Ralph Smyth
It should, but unfortunately the technical appendix seems to give transport corridors the same value whatever they are, whether it is a motorway or a country lane. Of course there are some fantastic schemes planting wildflowers along motorway verges but that does not necessarily mean they are as great for all different species as a country lane.
Dr Whitehead
I take it from what you are saying that as it stands at the moment you would consider the supposed iterative process would not be capable of delivering that qualitative offsetting without other mechanisms being added that would enable that to happen. Do you think that is an impossible way of proceeding in terms of what has been put forward?
Ralph Smyth
I think there is scope to change it. The problem with the timetable is that we have not had the results from the pilots yet. In trying to rush ahead with the Bill—even 2016 is quite a tight timetable given the scale of this—is it going to be possible to learn from the pilots, discuss them and then feed that into the Bill or will things have proceeded too far by then?
Dr Whitehead
We already have the note on the environmental statement that 89 local wildlife sites will be affected and in 61 of those the result will have a significant adverse impact on the very integrity of the site. Bearing that in mind, what would your view be of how any mitigation hierarchy then might be properly applied, particularly as two thirds of those sites will have their fundamental integrity compromised?
Richard Barnes
One of the issues is that HS2 have not fully published their methodology or calculations yet. They promised us, the ES states, they would make this available to relevant parties but this has not yet happened. On some of those circumstances of these sites they have not gone in and assessed the actual sites so they cannot state what the damage will be and what the mitigation or compensation for any residual damage will be. One of the constraints also is that it is being put in the construction boundary and the laudable aims of the White Paper in terms of the connectivity and the wider landscape scale resilience cannot be done if you are looking just at the red line construction boundary. That also then squeezes the compensation land on to sites of high grade value that again we would not want to be seeing. It is about looking at the wider landscape connectivity and I think that opportunity has been missed.
Henry Robinson
The whole point about that part of the consultation is it has not been consulted on, it is untried, untested and, frankly, it is not at all clear.
Chair
It is quite damning.
Henry Robinson
Yes. It was meant to be, Madam Chairman.
Ralph Smyth
One problem with the mitigation hierarchy is it is very difficult to see whether HS2 has reasonably been unable to avoid or mitigate damage, because they have often said, “That is too expensive to make the change”, a point made in the previous session. CPRE has requested that they disclose the cost of all the amendments they have refused on cost grounds but we were told disclosing that would be manifestly unreasonable and not in the public interest. The cost of them having to go through their files would have been about £4,000. Perhaps the Committee could make a request of HS2 Ltd that it discloses the cost, because I would submit that is in the public interest to know where they have said, “We can’t protect the environment because of cost reasons”.
Richard Barnes
Similarly, with option appraisals for some of the more major impacts where there have been suggestions for alternatives, such as the Chilterns Tunnel, that would save one third of the ancient woodland threatened along the route, all we have been told is there are engineering reasons why it cannot happen, but there is not the detail. We have been told we will get that detail but that should have been in the environmental statement where there was an option appraisal of the different scenarios and the relative pros and cons of those scenarios evaluated and the reason for the decision they have come up with stated.
Mrs Spelman
The environmental statement appears to make a distinction between mitigation and compensation for residual biodiversity loss and offsetting enhancements. Do you think the environmental statement is sufficiently clear about the differences between these and how each of them should be used?
Richard Barnes
Unfortunately we do not think it is particularly clear and it is also differing between different CFA reports, the individual reports on the areas. Sometimes they blur the lines between mitigation and compensation and we found when going through each of the area reports that they differ. It is clear there are different authors for each of those so there is not consistency across the report. Yes, the idea is that you mitigate. You avoid or reduce harm and then you try to compensate. One of the tools for compensation is offsetting. It is not the only one. From our perspective at the Woodland Trust you cannot offset ancient woodland, so we would want to avoid damage. That is the only option we can see for those, and that is why for things such as the Chilterns Tunnel that has not been considered and we have not seen the evaluation of why that has not been considered.
Mrs Spelman
You made a very good illustration there that the differentiation between like-for-like compensation is simply not possible in some of the lost green space and the alternative of dissimilar compensation. What measures should be put in place for like-for-like replacement where it is possible?
Richard Barnes
I think that should be incorporated in there and, again, using the Natural Environment White Paper’s principles of looking for maximising the use of the surrounding landscape and certainly not just in the narrow corridor. One of the principles of biodiversity offsetting is that you do like-for-like and you do not destroy an area of wetland and create a grassland as a result. You should try to compensate in a like manner.
Mrs Spelman
Absolutely. I am sure that we would have a view—
Henry Robinson
The CLA has been very supportive of the concept and the principle behind biodiversity offsetting for a very long time. Two of the other extremely influential groups, Dieter Helm at the Natural Capital Committee, Ian Cheshire at the Ecosystem Market Task Force, have also had it very high on their list of good things to look at, but neither of them were looking at it being paid for by compulsory purchase of land. That is the bit that is frankly iniquitous in the whole process. If there was a long-term income for the landowner for providing the environmental goods that are required, then that would be understandable. But to take a parcel of land and compulsory purchase it from him and then not even be in the state where you have to then pass it back to him if it is taken under temporary work is—I can’t find a better word than iniquitous.
Ralph Smyth
I think there are problems such as that the Law Commission has produced a report on environmental covenants but they are not likely to come in to be able to be used until, I would say, 2016 if things move quickly. There is a legal tool missing and that means some delivery problems.
Richard Barnes
Just two further points. One of the issues is that the environmental statement often does not consider the timeframe between the destruction of a habitat and the compensation maturing, for want of a better word. For instance, the bat report that has been commissioned and the evidence from the Bat Conservation Trust just shows that in the case of woodland-dependent species such as Bechstein’s bat you will lose them. The damage will be irreparable and they will have nowhere to go for 15 to 20 years. That is an example of where the temporal aspects are not taken into account. I would also agree with Ralph about the conservation covenants. There is no mechanism identified in the environmental statement. I think it was covered in the previous session as well about the management, monitoring and what to do if things do not go exactly to plan. What intervention would be necessary and therefore what funding would there be for that in terms of a mitigation fund beyond the construction phase of HS2?
Mrs Spelman
You have anticipated almost one of our later questions there, but you have made clear who you think should be made responsible. Would you like to say who you think should be responsible for managing these new offset sites and to make sure the delivery is genuinely of the environmental value we would expect through the process?
Richard Barnes
I think the sites would need management plans and a commitment to funding of that management, including any intervention and the monitoring. Other mechanisms where we have seen this happen is with a large endowment fund that allows the interest from that to be used to do the maintenance and monitoring and any intervention, but obviously there is a cost allied to that. In terms of an organisation, we are not suggesting any particular organisation but there need to be criteria that whichever organisation does undertake that has a legal and financially binding commitment to do the work that has been laid out.
Ralph Smyth
Going back to High Speed 1 and the Channel Tunnel rail link, having looked at CPRE’s archives we complained, alongside the Kent Wildlife Trust, that there is money provided for only about 10 or 12 years after opening to maintain environmental features. We would say the time should be funding for 120 years, the lifetime of the infrastructure. Who knows what will happen during that time. Perhaps another form of disease will wipe out certain tree species. There needs to be enough money to keep those environmental features working for the life of the project.
Dr Offord
Do you think that ancient woodlands should be included within the compensation metric?
Richard Barnes
The difficulty is whether ancient woodland is in or out of biodiversity offsetting. We are clear that you can’t offset, so if you take that principle that the DEFRA paper has said, and your own report concluded the same thing, in the event of there being residual damage to ancient woodland, what do you do about that? The paper suggests a bespoke scheme. We are suggesting any bespoke scheme should use the highest possible metrics as a starting point for any compensation and that, again, it uses—I am sorry to keep talking about it—what we call the Lawton principles of connectivity at the landscape scale. That is the only way if there is any residual damage. Again, we would hope there was as little damage as possible by other measures such as the Chiltern Tunnel changes to a route that avoids the ancient woodland.
Henry Robinson
You cannot replace ancient woodland but if you are going to plant what you hope one day will become ancient woodland, the important thing is to talk to the landowner first so that you can put it in the right place and not just put it down the corridor where you happen to have compulsory purchased the land. There may be much better and more sensible places to put it to make better environmental connections, to improve the whole process and also, if the landowner is bought into this stage it may well be he is the person who does the maintenance on it. The environmental statement is worryingly silent on who does the maintenance of any woodland planted, and you do not need me to tell you that trees unmaintained will not end up with the wood you desire.
Dr Offord
You mentioned, Mr Barnes, starting at the highest environmental level. How do you feel about the metric of awarding woodland a metric of eight?
Richard Barnes
One of the proposals I have seen that has been put into a calculation by Warwickshire in one of the pilots is giving a figure of 10 for that, to try to do that. Again, it is such a difficult one for us because we always want to avoid the loss of ancient woodland in the first place as it is irreplaceable, despite what you are saying in terms of tree planting. It is all about the residual damage. We would expect, to use the words of the report, a bespoke scheme, using the highest metrics and the bespoke scheme to follow the Lawton principles.
Ralph Smyth
I agree with that. Ancient woodland and historic hedges are almost cultural heritage and biodiversity combined. That is why, were you to demolish a listed building and simply produce a replica, it would not be the same. Similarly, if you demolish an ancient woodland or a historic hedge and plant some new trees, it is not the same. I think that is the important point.
Dr Offord
During the process of HS1 there was the loss of some ancient woodland. The soil was relocated elsewhere. That is an example of something that happened and could possibly happen in the example of HS2. Are there any other conditions that existed then that you think should be replicated through the HS2 scheme?
Richard Barnes
Unfortunately, we have been trying to find out information about the HS1 scheme. Probably the example you have been using is Biggins Wood and there is five years of monitoring data on that and then there is nothing more. We have tried four Freedom of Information requests. The first one was lost. The second one we were told was too expensive and another one said to go and speak to HS1 but they are not Freedom of Information-able so we have not yet been able to find that information. We are still trying to get that information from them because there is no monitoring.
Chair
When would you expect to have that information?
Richard Barnes
Apparently HS1 should have it, or the body that has taken on the responsibility after that, but we have not been able to find that data. In all the research reports we have seen, and we produced a report about translocation of soil—it was a research report on all the scientific papers that we had seen; that came out last January and again I can make it available to the Committee—we did not find any successful examples of translocation. What you are doing usually is translocating the soil and some of the flora associated, typically the bulbs such as bluebells. The very best you get is the bluebells will come up and some of the flora associated with it but you lose all of the assemblage of bacteria and fungi in the soil that is one of the things that make ancient woodland what it is, an incredibly diverse soil micro-ecosystem.
Chair
We would welcome that information.
Richard Barnes
Thank you. I will make a note of it.
Mrs Spelman
Do you not think this is an opportunity to establish something in statute about a hierarchy of dealing with woodland? The environmental statement is reacting to what is in the way of a set of railway tracks. Do you not think this is an opportunity, rather like a waste hierarchy, to establish that, if at all possible, you do not destroy ancient woodland? If you absolutely have to destroy ancient woodland there are clear and challenging metrics in place to make sure as much of the natural capital is retained and that if you cannot do that you fall back to planting new woodland but in line with very clear Lawton principles and so on. We are lacking a hierarchical system to plan infrastructure against in this country in relation to woodland.
Richard Barnes
I think I would agree with that. Even ancient woodland unfortunately is seen as a relatively easy option. People get building conservation so if it was to go through, say, St Paul’s, if you were to take it all apart and then pile the bricks, the windows, the copper in a field somewhere, that would not be St Paul’s. That is what you are doing with soil translocation or woodland translocation. You are losing it. People get building conservation. I do not think they quite get things like habitat such as ancient woodland. Yes, it would be useful to say that. The Government’s policy is no net loss. It is in Keepers of time: a statement of policy for England’s Ancient and Native Woodland and unfortunately we keep seeing that is not happening. We were hoping for HS2 to be a world class project, because the Woodland Trust is not against sustainable or high speed transport. It is just that on this occasion we are finding it is destroying a lot of ancient woodland. As you say, there is not the hierarchy and commitment to that no net loss.
Ralph Smyth
About statute, the problem here is the NPPF. Surprise, surprise CPRE saying that. Also more recently the National Network’s national policy statement talks about and mentions the hierarchy but then has a test of, “Does the need for a project clearly outweigh the harm to the national environment?” Unfortunately, because of the emphasis given on jobs and economic growth, the reality in most cases is that the need for transport infrastructure is deemed to outweigh the benefits of woodland and other natural features. What I would say needs changing are the test in the NPPF and also more recently the National Network’s NPS.
Mrs Spelman
Finally, taking up one of the points that Henry Robinson made about not so much woodland but just the natural capital of the land that has to be taken, do you think that the ambition could be raised from no net loss to net gain if the offsetting could be done in a place presently of very poor natural capital, let us say a contaminated river valley like the River Tame, rather than a cosmetic option of planting trees close to the line, near the railway line but is in essence land of good agricultural value? Do you think that needs to be looked at?
Henry Robinson
I would like to think that was achievable. It would only be achievable if you approached the landowner and worked with him at the start and it would avoid the need to compulsory purchase his land in the first place. Yes, it is achievable. That would be one of the great gains of engaging with the landowners.
Ralph Smyth
We would support a landscape scale conservation, particularly in some locations such as Twyford in Buckinghamshire where the combination of the infrastructure depot, the east-west rail and HS2 means that a landscape scale solution is going to be needed.
Dr Whitehead
I am afraid we have run out of time for our discussion, but thank you very much to the panel for attending and for your evidence this afternoon. We now have to call our third panel, please, for their evidence this afternoon. Examination of Witnesses
Witnesses
Rob Cooke, Land Use Director, Natural England and Roy Stokes, HS2 Project Manager, Environment Agency, gave evidence.
Chair
I am going to hand straight over to Peter Aldous.
Peter Aldous
Thank you very much. As High Speed2 has been developed, and obviously you have had a role on the environmental protections, are you happy that your representations and recommendations have been taken on board?
Rob Cooke
We have been closely involved in the dialogue so far. We have certainly input considerably. I believe they have, yes.
Peter Aldous
You see a continuing role for Natural England as the Hybrid Bill moves forward. Is that right?
Rob Cooke
Indeed, both in terms of working with HS2 and also in terms of statutory adviser to Government.
Peter Aldous
Mr Stokes, your own experience?
Roy Stokes
Yes, very much so. We have been involved with HS2 since 2009, so we have been very close to the project throughout its development and still remain so.
Peter Aldous
What have been both your experiences as to the balance between environmental considerations and concerns and the economic rationale? Has the economic case taken priority or not?
Roy Stokes
Not in my experience, no. In my experience the environmental side has always been foremost to us and we have been able to instigate many changes in the last four years to the development of the scheme. There has never been a question round cost or what that might do and might not do. I think it is important to note that environment enhancement does not necessarily mean greater cost in many instances. It is either cheaper or at least the same as.
Peter Aldous
Have there been instances where you have made changes to get that environmental enhancement?
Roy Stokes
Yes, and there has been some difficult conversations in bringing some of those ideas around but we are very clear—
Peter Aldous
You won through in the end, I take it?
Roy Stokes
I would like to think so but I guess the evidence of that will be as and when the scheme is built. It has certainly been our remit from our board to make sure this is a project that hits all the environmental buttons in terms of what our remit is as an organisation.
Peter Aldous
Mr Cooke?
Rob Cooke
Very similar. We have given our advice on the basis of environmental impact and we have been in discussion with HS2 around options that might mitigate that environmental impact or avoid it.
Peter Aldous
Do you feel the environmental statement adequately applies the mitigation hierarchy?
Roy Stokes
I will ask Rob to answer that first.
Rob Cooke
From the previous witnesses we heard quite a lot about some of the challenges around ancient woodland. The environmental statement sets out the laudable aim of no net loss. It talks through avoidance mitigation and—
Peter Aldous
Do you think it could have gone further than no net loss? Is no net loss lacking ambition, perhaps?
Rob Cooke
No net loss is a laudable ambition. Environmental gain would have been an even more laudable ambition.
Roy Stokes
My view is that what we have in front of us is the worst possible case, so I think that is probably quite a good starting point so things can only get better from here on in. In terms of the Environment Agency and our responsibility around the Water Framework Directive, we are very comfortable that what has been done and what has been proposed so far is all that can be done. Also I am pleased to say that process will stay live as well right throughout the project, so throughout the detailed design we will have the opportunity to continue to influence and to make sure the Water Framework Directive is not compromised.
Peter Aldous
Taking that point on, Mr Stokes, both your organisations are going to have ongoing work in monitoring and enforcing environmental aspects of HS2. Have you begun to work out how much that is going to cost?
Roy Stokes
We have not done any detailed work in terms of cost. The good thing about a project such as this is the fact that it is a national infrastructure project. We know what is coming. We have been talking with HS2 all the way through this process so we understand what the programme of work is. We are able now to build that into our own plans and because of the nature of the project we will be able to streamline some of the processes and obviously learn from other projects. We are already starting to work out how we will build that into our day job, if you like.
Peter Aldous
You are happy that there will not be any financial restrictions in your doing the job as you want to do it?
Roy Stokes
There will be some financial costs as are associated with the permitting and consenting part of our business, but that to us is the day job.
Rob Cooke
If there are additional work areas that we are required to undertake as a result of this proposal we would expect to operate that on a full cost recovery basis.
Peter Aldous
Are you both happy in being able to do this job right through to completion and that there will not be any financial constraints? For instance, will the funding be ring-fenced at all?
Rob Cooke
You ask, “Am I happy?” I cannot give that assurance now because we do not have that assurance.
Peter Aldous
You are seeking that assurance?
Rob Cooke
Yes. We would be, certainly.
Peter Aldous
You have not yet sought it but you will be?
Rob Cooke
We would be, yes.
Chair
How would you expect to get that assurance?
Rob Cooke
Through discussions with HS2 Ltd or the delivery body.
Chair
You do not have it yet?
Rob Cooke
We do not know what the costs are yet.
Peter Aldous
When is that particular bit of work, working out and setting those costs, going to be carried out?
Rob Cooke
We have given our comments on the environmental statement. There is some further work to be done in terms of taking account of those comments. There is then the parliamentary process. We do not yet know exactly what the compensation requirements are going to be, how they are going to be laid out. Until we see that we will not be able to advise on what the monitoring requirements and enforcement requirements might be. I should say it might not necessarily fall to Natural England. We heard earlier from the local authority who thinks they may well have a role and I think that is right.
Peter Aldous
Do you think this is a role best carried out by Natural England?
Rob Cooke
There are many bodies who could carry out the roles. The monitoring you obviously need appropriate specialists and experts to do, some of whom may be in Natural England but certainly not exclusively within Natural England. By definition, only Natural England can undertake statutory roles, as we have. Other bodies may be able to help us do that, provide advice and so forth.
Peter Aldous
Do you think the process would be better if you were working with those other bodies or carrying on building on the work you have already done?
Rob Cooke
No, I think it would be better because other parties will have a stake in the outcome.
Peter Aldous
You think there is a partnership that they might work for?
Rob Cooke
Yes.
Chair
Can I ask if you see Natural England providing that expertise to Parliament?
Rob Cooke
Yes. If Parliament requests it then Natural England, as a statutory adviser, will give that advice.
Chair
Parliament would have to request it?
Rob Cooke
I do not know exactly how it would work. Presumably Parliament would request it of DEFRA who would turn to their statutory advisers.
Chair
Are you aware of the procedure for that?
Rob Cooke
No, but I can find out and come back to you.
Chair
That would be very helpful.
Dr Offord
How well do you believe that the environmental statement sets out the impacts of HS2?
Rob Cooke
We think it goes a long way in setting them out. We have heard earlier this afternoon of some of the areas that still need to be looked at and we think there are some areas that do need further work.
Dr Offord
Which areas are you thinking of?
Rob Cooke
Ancient woodland in particular. Part of that has been because HS2 has not had access to all the land so neither they, and as a consequence we, know what is there. Certainly there seems to be some discrepancy in the figures around ancient woodlands. We have heard the evidence from the Woodland Trust that is not consistent with what is published in HS2. There needs to be a further look at some of those woods to clarify whether or not they are ancient woodlands and so forth.
Dr Offord
I asked some questions of the first panel about regulations being enforced. How do you see your role, from the perspective of your two organisations, in enforcing those?
Rob Cooke
We have a statutory role that we are required to enforce irrespective of the circumstances, so we would take any necessary enforcement action as we would anywhere else. We would be reliant on data provision evidence before assessing whether or not the enforcement action was necessary. We might have a role in assessing the success or otherwise of compensatory habitat provision, has it worked or not, but in terms of pure enforcement we would deliver our role there in the same way as we would deliver it elsewhere.
Roy Stokes
The same with us. It is business as usual, so pollution, flooding and waste management. It is all day job really.
Dr Offord
We have certainly seen this afternoon that the views of some, I believe, will probably not be satisfied with that and they would like to go further, an organisation, be it a local authority or yourselves. What recourse will they have in a situation where they feel that something has occurred that is not part of the scheme or should not have occurred as part of the scheme?
Roy Stokes
Do you want to give a specific example of—
Dr Offord
Not as such, no. As I said, one of our speakers from the first panel this afternoon felt very aggrieved about certain parts of the environmental statement and he felt that issues around noise had not been taken into account. So what recourse would someone like that have?
Roy Stokes
The same rules apply with this project as would with any other. I am guessing now you are taking the point that when the scheme is complete and it is operational and then something did not quite turn out how it was proposed to. Then the same form of recourse would be open as is now. To use an example, if there was pollution of a watercourse or whatever as a result of the operation of the rail system, we would investigate that in the same way that we would investigate any water pollution across the country for whatever reason it might be.
Dr Offord
Would you like to see any safeguards within the Hybrid Bill to ensure that you were not put in a situation where you could not act in the event of a complaint or indeed of a situation?
Roy Stokes
I do not think in the way that the Bill has been produced that we would be in that position anyway.
Dr Offord
That is great. Finally, to you, Mr Stokes, you made a written submission and you noted that some UK environmental legislation would be disapplied for the purposes of the Hybrid Bill and then replaced with protective provisions within the Bill itself. Can you elaborate on the reasoning behind this procedure and how does this arrangement affect environmental monitoring and enforcement of High Speed 2?
Roy Stokes
It is a procedure that is brought in simply to streamline the whole process. What it does not do is take away any of the legislation that is already in force but, as I say, it is a way of lining up those applications and the consents, so it is a clear line of sight and gives some certainty to the project that will be dealt with within certain timelines. So you will not get a consent application, for example, getting lost in the long grass and delaying the project, but it does not take away any of the powers that we have or any of the legislation that we have. From our point of view, it is not a problem so if a structure is to be built across a watercourse then the same rules apply as they do today.
Dr Offord
So you purely sought to supply some and not some, simply on the basis of making this work?
Roy Stokes
Yes. It should be noted as well that this is not new. This has been used on Crossrail and on HS1. It was used on the Olympic project as well, so it is just a way of gathering together all of the information and feeding it through in a job lot, rather than it being dribs and drabs and people not being able to then necessarily manage that very well. So it is about securing efficiencies throughout the whole process.
Dr Offord
Thank you. That is very useful.
Mrs Spelman
DEFRA has developed a scoring system for its offsetting pilots but HS2 has chosen a different metric for assessing its biodiversity offsetting. What is your view of the adequacy of the proposed HS2 approach and is it going to be fit for purpose?
Rob Cooke
It is a good question clearly.
Mrs Spelman
It is a start.
Rob Cooke
I was looking through the metrics this morning and I was thinking to myself, “I need to go into a darkened room with a pencil and work some of it out”. Earlier this afternoon we heard that the pilots have not yet reported and there have been some changes to metrics. We have certainly been sighted on the changes to metrics. We have asked for further dialogue, particularly around the metric for ancient woodland. I think I would not want to say any more just at this stage.
Mrs Spelman
Even though the pilots have not yet reported, do you think that the preparation of those pilots and the development of the system to assessment, has in any way informed HS2’s approach to measuring their own offsetting or have the two things evolved completely separately?
Rob Cooke
I do not think they have evolved completely separately. I do not know absolutely but I would be very surprised if there had not been dialogue between HS2 and the pilots.
Mrs Spelman
I think we have to hope that there was. Do you want to come in on it at all, Mr Stokes?
Roy Stokes
That is Natural England’s areas of expertise. What I will say as a comparison around the Water Framework Directive, which is under our jurisdiction, is we have developed a process on this project, which is a first. When HS1 was built the Water Framework Directive was not in force. For this project we have had to develop a process and a way of monitoring and checking against those ecological changes in those watercourses that will be affected by that. At this moment in time we are very comfortable with that approach. We are very confident that we have a baseline of information. For those who do not know, the Water Framework Directive is on a six-year cycle, the last one being 2009, the next one being 2015, which will be the baseline for this project. So by 2021 we will have a reference point back to how things are working out. So that process might help in monitoring of other biodiversity and ecological situations as well.
Mrs Spelman
Thank you.
Caroline Lucas
I want to come in on the issue of the time delay between habitat being destroyed and then being either recreated or offset. Do you feel that the metric sufficiently deals with that time delay?
Roy Stokes
Yes, it does and I think this is the question that has come up a number of times today. It is like how long is a piece of string? Some of the mitigation that will be required for certainly some of the works around watercourses will be very evident in a very short space of time because it may be, for example, grass growing back on a riverbank. Other parts will be linked to the hydromorphology of the river itself: how does it find its natural channel back? That could take some years. Others will be around tree planting and all the rest of it. We are still working with HS2 to understand and agree what that monitoring timeline might look like and, indeed—as has been discussed earlier on—who might be best placed to do that.
Caroline Lucas
Do you want to add anything?
Rob Cooke
Yes, thank you. The length of time a habitat will take to establish is dependent both on the habitat type and also where it is put and then how it is managed. The offset metrics are intended to enable a rapid assessment of that by a ratio, which I would imagine is something of an average. So a metric will take account of or is designed to take account of the amount of habitat you need to compensate within the compensation for the time delay, but that will be an average. In some instances habitats will establish very quickly, especially some of the aquatic habitats if they are adjacent to existing habitats. In others it will take a very long period of time. If you plant trees next to an existing ancient woodland, they are likely to reflect the character and range of woodland more quickly than if you plant trees in an isolated situation afield.
Caroline Lucas
It is precisely on trees that I want to come back, because the environmental statement sets out indicative times to assume for these offsetting calculations. One that it had, which seemed quite shocking to me, was woodland for landscaping achieving equivalent biodiversity value to an established woodland in just 10 years. How realistic does that seem to you?
Rob Cooke
If I am right, the 10-year woodland one was where woodland was established for amenity value, and then the ancient woodland one I think had a 50-year time scale. Clearly, if you are planting trees, you are not going to have woodland within 10 years.
Caroline Lucas
No, quite, which is why I am worried because it is not just about whether or not it is for amenity. It is talking about there being equivalent biodiversity, so that is the comparison that is being made between woodland for landscaping and—
Rob Cooke
Again, it does depend on what sort of woodland it is replacing. If it is replacing low quality from a biodiversity perspective plantation woodland, then there might be some degree of equivalence after 10 years. If it is replacing long-term established woodland, even if it is not ancient woodland, then I think 10 years is ambitious.
Caroline Lucas
Are you confident that the environmental statement makes sufficient distinction between those different kinds of woodland and does not inadvertently hide things through looking through averages and so forth?
Rob Cooke
As others have said this afternoon, there is a lot of detail underlying some of the calculations and the assessment of no net loss, which we have yet to see.
Dr Whitehead
Mr Stokes, could we turn just briefly to the question of flood risks relating to HS2? What consultation have you had with local councils on that particular aspect?
Roy Stokes
Very little, and I would not have expected to have done so far. That will be something that develops as the project develops. What I will say about the risk is that for each of the 26 community forum areas, HS2 have undertaken a flood risk assessment of each of those geographic patches. They have used the Environment Agency’s flood maps, all the hydraulic models that we have. They have used lead local authority flooding information, so they have surface water information. They have used Environment Agency surface water maps. They have also covered off ground water, surface water and risk from things like reservoirs and man-made watercourses. From that they have been able to assess what the potential worst case flood risk is for each of those areas and, as part of their planning process, have listed out—and it is in volume 5 of the Bill if you care to refer back to that afterwards—for each of the areas a breakdown of what the flood risk is and what the mitigation would be proposed to manage that flood risk. Again, it is worst possible case scenario at the moment. From what we can see—and bearing in mind this is a route-wide discussion that we are having today—there may be some specific locations where there may be a slight increase, but on a route-wide situation there is nothing to suggest that the problem of flooding will be any worse for any properties or people.
Dr Whitehead
How are those mitigation measures that are listed going to be enforced and monitored?
Roy Stokes
Through the consenting legislation as currently exists. For main river water that will come through the Environment Agency. For non-main river watercourses that will be through either internal drainage boards or lead local flood authorities. As I have mentioned before, we have been working very closely with HS2 and looking at both the design of the culverts and the various other bridges and viaducts crossing water channels, and making sure that we are all happy with the flows that are going through there. It is worth noting as well that they are also taking into account climate change. With all of their draft designs, of both culverts and bridges and viaducts, they have already built in climate change as well within that.
Dr Whitehead
Some have criticised the environmental impact assessment itself for a lack of survey work and detailed work on watercourses, flood risk and precisely the sort of things that you have mentioned in terms of the detail of how these various processes would work. Is that a fair criticism do you think or do you think that—
Roy Stokes
It is a criticism that I would have aimed myself, I think, if I had not been so close to the project. It is very difficult in that this whole project is rather chicken and egg in that until the Bill is passed, they cannot gain access to the land. I guess the amount of information and data that we have had to hand has been really useful, along with the local authorities as well. We have everything that we know about flooding on the table at the moment, and that is the way that the designs have been going around. That is not to say that they might encounter other information that we do not currently have, but that would be very much about not knowing what you don’t know. If you take on board that we have supplied everything that we know about flooding, the local authorities through which the track goes have also done the same. So we have the current picture.
Dr Whitehead
All this is going to be a major new burden for the Environment Agency, I guess, in terms of all the sort of issues you have mentioned as far as flooding is concerned.
Roy Stokes
Yes, of course it is additional work but, because of our close involvement with it, we have probably gone through a number of iterations that rather than this being a private developer who is doing some big scheme in the country and just bowls up on day one and says, “I want to do this” and then we start the to-ing and fro-ing around, saying, “We’ll change that and change that.” We have been able to make those changes on the way, so hopefully when the detailed design comes out, it should be there or thereabouts, certainly in terms of the flood risk.
Dr Whitehead
Is anyone paying the agency for this?
Roy Stokes
There are two project managers—myself and another guy—whose salaries are being paid for at the moment. We have set up virtual teams within our organisation but they are not specifically working on HS2. This is very much business as usual for us. Whatever development was going on anywhere across the country, these are the sorts of questions that we would be asking. This is the sort of work that we would have to turn over. As I said before, the good news about this is that we can see this one coming. So we are able to make space for this and with our strategic view, hopefully, we will be able to speed up the whole process. We will be looking at opportunities whereby we can streamline the design and development of some of the assets and get some common agreements going right along the route.
Dr Whitehead
In view of the substantial cuts to the staffing levels of the organisation, is that space that you are likely to be in at the expense of the other things in the agency. You mentioned business as usual. Are you confident that you would be able to make that space within the arrangements that you will have in future as far as the Environment Agency staff are concerned?
Roy Stokes
We see it very much as being on the front foot, so from our perspective this is a huge investment. If this thing goes ahead, this is a huge investment. We see this very much as being an opportunity to find some environmental gains out of this. If you think about flood risk, for example, partnership funding now is the way that flood risk projects are paid for. If you look at the route of the track, if you look at the material that could be coming out of this development, we think there may be some opportunities along the way either to use some of that material for flood defences or to influence the way in which the landscaping or the construction of the track itself is done to provide some flood mitigation. It is no different from how we would work with other partners.
Mrs Spelman
Could I ask one small extra question? Could you reassure the Select Committee that your flood risk maps, which are informing High Speed 2’s provision for construction of the line over flood plains, are sufficiently robust to have coped with the recent extreme flooding conditions that we have faced? The line goes through the Blyth Valley flood plain in my constituency, which was completely under water. It is contraindicated obviously for housing, but it is difficult for the layperson to know whether what happened this winter is the new normal and whether your maps are still robust to inform these kinds of infrastructure decisions.
Roy Stokes
The maps are robust, but I should point out that they were not the only tool that is being used. They have also used our hydraulic models. They have been using typography, so we have LiDAR data as well and, as I say, they have been using local information as well. During the floods during the winter HS2 have been taking data and readings of the flood plain along the route—so we have the latest information as well—and looking at how that might have affected it. But in answer to your question, for the amount of work that has been done so far and what has been produced, the information that they have had has been the very best that is available at the moment.
Chair
I thank both of you for coming along. Oral evidence: HS2 and the environment, HC 1076 14