Written Evidence submitted by Aylesbury Vale District Council

Aylesbury Vale District Council in Buckinghamshire is one of the Districts most affected by the proposed HS2 Scheme. The route enters the District in the Chilterns AONB in the south-east, before passing to the south of Aylesbury, through the ancient landscape of the Bernwood Forest and leaving the District to the south-east of Brackley.

AVDC is strongly opposed to the scheme. This is because, based upon the information and evidence currently available, there is no business case for it, as well as the impact it would have on residents, businesses and the environment of the Vale.

Executive Summary

This report highlights the principal ecological concerns of Aylesbury Vale District Council with respect to the proposed HS2 rail link between London and Birmingham.

AVDC consider that the HS2 Environmental Statement fails to adequately reflect existing ecological conditions along the route, with subsequent inadequacies in assessment of impacts and proposed mitigation. The Proposed Scheme fails to provide any confidence that net ecological enhancement can or will be delivered. The key issues are:

• Failure to adopt a policy of net ecological gain;
• Inappropriate application of the biodiversity offsetting metric;
• Inadequate measures to offset the loss of habitat connectivity; and
• Inadequate assessment and mitigation proposals to maintain the favourable conservation status of bat species route-wide with particular focus on the Bechstein’s Bat.

Ecology

1. The route-wide environmental impacts are not adequately reflected and addressed in the Environmental Statement (ES) because HS2 have failed to adopt a target to deliver the Government’s ambition for net gain, as stated in the Natural Environment White Paper[1] (NEWP) and the National Planning Policy Framework[2]. (NPPF). The HS2 Environmental Statement (ES) states, “Overall, in line with Government policy, the project is seeking to achieve no net loss in biodiversity at the route-wide level’. This target is contrary to NEWP and NPPF.

In addition, the route-wide environmental impacts are not adequately reflected and addressed in the ES as illustrated by (but not limited to) the following:

1. The failure of HS2 to address the Lawton principles[3] of ‘more, bigger, better and joined; referred to, but misquoted throughout the ES. The omission of the opening word ‘more [habitat]’ from the ES, in reference to Lawton Principles, is misleading. Maintenance of habitat connectivity across the line appears inadequate route-wide and proposed connective features e.g. green tunnels and green bridges are too few in number, too small in scale and are not yet subject to detailed design. Consequently, there is no confidence in the ability of such structures to deliver appropriately ‘joined’ habitats, or for species where scientific support for the success of such limited structures is lacking.
2. The Proposed Scheme repeatedly refers to delivering no-net loss to biodiversity 'where practicable' or 'where reasonable to do so'. This implies that no net loss may not be deliverable, and is not consistent with the principles of the NPPF with respect to protecting and enhancing the environment and improving biodiversity.
3. The ES fails to take sufficient account of the time lag between the loss of habitats and the provision of compensatory measures. This is particularly true where compensation provision may not be delivered until the end of the construction phase. A clear example of this occurs in relation to the Bechstein’s bat mitigation proposals. The ES describes the adverse effects as being “temporary”, and claims that “following establishment and maturation of planting (in 10-15 years) it is expected that any adverse impacts on hedgerows and the wildlife corridors they create will be reduced to a level which will not result in any significant effect on the conservation status of the habitat”[4] As is made clear in the independent review of the approach to Bechstein’s bats commissioned by BBOWT[5], because of the nature of the Bechstein’s bat population in this area such a temporary impact could be irreversible, and to consider this a ‘temporary’ effect is highly misleading.
4. There are unacceptable impacts on irreplaceable habitats such as Ancient Woodland. Whilst acknowledging such habitats cannot be adequately compensated within the Proposed Scheme, it seems misleading to go on to state that HS2 can and will adequately compensate such losses within the scheme[6]. In addition, it is not possible from the information provided within the ES to make any estimation of whether or not, using DEFRA’s own ‘yardstick’ of offsetting metrics[7], HS2 comes close to achieving ‘no net loss’. The ES promises that “The proposed methodology to be used for the offsetting calculation is included as part of the SMR Addendum. Relevant parties will be provided with additional documentation to show the conclusions of the calculation.”[8] There is insufficient information included in the ES to allow an estimation of how far short the mitigation and compensation proposals fall from achieving ‘no net loss’ and no additional documentation has been provided at this time.
5. Ancient Woodland - AVDC are concerned about the depiction of translocation of ancient woodland as a possible compensation technique. We feel that reference to translocation in the non-technical summary as providing compensation is highly misleading.
1. The non-technical summary states, “Ancient woodland is an irreplaceable national resource and its loss is a significant adverse effect. It will be compensated through a range of measures, including translocation of soils to appropriate receptor sites and creating linkage between ancient woodland fragments to increase connectivity.”[9] This sentence manages to acknowledge that Ancient woodland is irreplaceable whilst suggesting that its loss can be compensated for. The reference to translocation as a mean of compensation compounds our concern, given the unproven nature of the technique.
2. The Ecology Technical Note[10] states ‘[Mitigation] measures which are unlikely to be successful (probability estimated at below 50%) should not be included. Rather, certain/near-certain (probability estimated at 95% chance or higher) or probable (probability estimated above 50% but below 95%) measures should be recommended.’ There is no clear scientific evidence that suggests that translocation of ancient woodland soils can be successful. It is therefore hard to justify that this mitigation technique has a greater than 50% success rate. The inference of the document is that ancient woodland habitats can be recreated – this is misleading.
6. Bats - AVDC are significantly concerned Route-wide issues relating to bats are not adequately reflected and addressed in the Environmental Statement states the following:
1. Key impacts on bats will be those associated with the loss and disturbance of roost sites and the severance of existing habitat. The loss of hedgerows and other habitats that provide connectivity in the landscape, will affect the ability of some bat species to move between roost sites and foraging areas[11]. .

We are concerned that HS2 will provide a significant barrier to bat movements across the landscape that will compromise the ability of bat populations along the route to maintain ‘favourable conservation status’ as required by the Habitats Directive[12].

2. There is also a risk of bat mortality due to collision with passing trains and associated turbulence from trains[13].

We are concerned the issue of bat mortality has not been adequately addressed. We disagree with the assertion that bat exposure to collision and turbulence effects will be intermittent and of short duration (4s). For bats commuting along or immediately adjacent to the route, exposure will be much greater and even short duration effects are likely to result in high rates of mortality. Literature[14] suggests that high speed, solitary vehicles (such as high speed trains), are likely to have a more detrimental impact, than high volumes of traffic as bats are less likely to avoid areas as a result of high levels of disturbance.

3. Site specific measures to address the effects of habitat severance, such as the provision of green bridges and underpasses, have been provided where they are required to address significant effects on the local populations concerned[15].

The proposed measures to mitigate habitat fragmentation effects are inadequate and are not supported by scientific study. Where such measures have previously been implemented, success has been very low. This is not acceptable, especially where rare species such as Bechstein’s Bat are concerned. Inadequate mitigation is likely to compromise the favourable conservation status of this species and potentially lead to local extinction.

4. Proposed planting will not be sufficiently mature to provide habitat linkages immediately, and therefore, there is the potential for temporary adverse effects on bat populations until these habitats establish.[16]

We are concerned with the implications of HS2’s use of the term ‘temporary’. The duration of such ‘temporary’ effects (in the light of high uncertainty of proposed mitigation measure success) are likely to have adverse effects on bat populations from which they are unlikely to recover.

5. Following the implementation of the measures proposed, bat mortality as a consequence of the Proposed Scheme, will be reduced but not avoided. Through providing safe crossing points and accompanying planting to mitigate potential impacts at high risk locations (taking into consideration the rarity and the conservation status of the species in question), it is expected that mortality will be reduced to a level at which, for each species, it is incidental.[17]

Where levels of bat mortality are beyond what is considered ‘incidental’, then the cause of that mortality is potentially unlawful. HS2 has failed to describe what levels of mortality would be regarded as ‘incidental’ for each of the bat species concerned, and how it would adequately monitor and mitigate such effects in the operational phase of HS2. Given the unproven nature of the proposed mitigation measures and high sensitivity of the bat populations potentially affected, the assertion that bat mortality will be reduced to incidental levels is unfounded and disputed.

6. HS2 have provided GIS layers of bat data to AVDC (which have been received with insufficient time to enable input to the Buckinghamshire Councils formal response to the ES). However, the data provided does not identify bat roost structures and flight lines to species level, making it hard to assess. We are significantly concerned that the data shows Bechstein’s bats fly across open ground in habitats close to the Proposed Scheme (as roost and flight line data appear to coincide with known Bechstein’s Bat tree roosts in Finemere Wood), and that the proposed mitigation strategy for this species is reliant on this species avoiding open ground. We would seek clarification from HS2 on this matter as we believe the potential impacts of the scheme are inadequately reflected or addressed. If the data relates to Bechstein’s Bat, this shows lack of interpretation of data, poor assessment of potential impacts, an inappropriate mitigation strategy based on local behaviour of this little studied species, and the mis-presentation of critical data which undermines the reliability of the entire ecological data set.
6. Barn Owl - HS2 have acknowledged there will be route-wide adverse effects of Barn Owl populations that cannot be mitigated within the Proposed Scheme. Provision of nest boxes is not an appropriate mitigation strategy to compensate for the loss of both foraging and nesting habitat and the increased collision mortality risk. HS2 must commit to the creation (and in perpetuity maintenance) of suitable habitats more widely dispersed in the landscape to offset population losses as a consequence of HS2.

Recommendations:

• that HS2 commit to delivering a net gain to biodiversity (and not just ‘where reasonably practical to do so’ or ‘where provided that this does not add unreasonable cost or delay’, as stated in the ES);
• that the mitigation principles make a clearer commitment to addressing those of the Lawton review;
• that mitigation measures are based on sound scientific evidence and apply a precautionary approach; and
• for HS2 to improve their use of data and identify clearly where survey has (and has not) been undertaken and where the precautionary approach has been applied.

Buckinghamshire Councils have seen an independent opinion[18] (as sought by BBOWT) produced by two eminent researchers and practitioners at the University of Leeds, in regard to Bechstein’s bats in Buckinghamshire. This work provides unequivocal foundations to the central submission that the research base and mitigation proposed by HS2 is inadequate. This work, based on the most comprehensive review to date, of empirical work in peer reviewed journals and other literature searches, is critical of the survey design, effort and assessment in relation to Bechstein’s Bat, and is clear in dismissing the design and proposals currently being proposed. We find this work to be of overwhelming importance and the most significant body of evidence as produced, to date, to produce a conclusion that the existing mitigation proposals in CFA 12 and 13 represents the wrong approach. Many of the findings of this report can be extrapolated to other route-wide bat-related issues. We support the findings of this report and encourage that:

• survey be continued and expanded to improve understanding of Bechstein’s Bat and other bat populations at risk from HS2;
• improved mitigation be proposed to increase certainty of success and minimise impacts on bats (in line with the findings of the above report); and
• long-term monitoring be secured (with associated funds) and implemented to assess the success of the proposed mitigation and inform appropriate remedial measures if necessary.

2. Ecological considerations relating to the maintenance of habitat connectivity for flora and fauna have not been adequately taken into account in the detailed routing of the track and the use of local environmental protection measures because there is a clear lack of measures that will enable wildlife to cross the Proposed Scheme without being at significant risk of mortality (see points 1a and 1f i-v above) to a) enable the delivery of net ecological gain; and to b) ensure compliance with European legislation protecting bat species.

3. The arrangements for funding measures to protect biodiversity or to limit environmental impacts are inadequate because there are no clear mechanisms that have been put in place ensure delivery of in perpetuity management of habitats and monitoring of ecological impacts of the Proposed Scheme.

1. There is a lack of a detailed monitoring plan or long term security for mitigation and compensation of impacted habitats. At present the draft EMR has no specific detail regarding the scope of proposed monitoring. Sufficient funding must be secured to ensure long-term ecological monitoring is delivered (through construction and operational phases) to either a) demonstrate net ecological gain, or b) inform appropriate actions to remedy where net gain is not being delivered.
2. A Natural England review[19] of the effectiveness of ecological mitigation with respect to linear transport infrastructure identifies lack of monitoring (and enforcement of monitoring) as major issues and recommends ‘that resources should be channelled into the assessment of mitigation to ensure that there is greater confidence in the predictions of mitigation success’.

4. The arrangements for how biodiversity offsetting will operate are inadequate because we believe the application of the HS2 offsetting metric will not deliver net ecological enhancement as required by NPPF. The proposed methodology has been modified from that currently employed in the DEFRA pilot study areas.

1. Assessments of the biodiversity impacts have been undertaken by Warwickshire[20] and Buckinghamshire[21] County Councils using the current DEFRA biodiversity offsetting metric (WCC are one of the DEFRA pilot areas). They highlight that, even using the government’s own yardstick, the mitigation proposals within these counties are inadequate. They fail to provide between 1700 and 3500 hectares of habitat an offsetting scheme should require in Warwickshire alone, and with further losses to linear habitats, such as hedgerows, which are also not being replaced. The ecological impact in areas of high existing biodiversity value, such as Bernwood Forest and the Chilterns AONB in Aylesbury Vale, appears from the information presented in the ES to be greater than that in Warwickshire, and it is therefore likely that far more compensation would have to be provided to achieve ‘net ecological enhancement’ in these areas. We are concerned that the application of the two offsetting metrics (DEFRA pilot and HS2) can come up with such significantly different results, and with HS2 claiming the Proposed Scheme will deliver ‘no net loss’.

Recommendations:

• That ‘irreplaceable habitats’ are considered separately.
• That the offsetting metric is used in a consistent manner based on sound scientific evidence in order to formulate an appropriate baseline of current existing habitats.
• That offsetting is used as an auditable account of habitat value impact during the construction phase as well as targeted habitat creation and condition during the operational phase.

5 March 2014