Written evidence submitted by the Woodland Trust
The Woodland Trust welcomes the Environmental Audit Committee’s decision to examine the environmental impact of the first phase of High Speed Two. This is an important inquiry because although HS2 has been subject to three inquiries by the Transport Select Committee and a further inquiry by the Public Accounts Committee, none of these factored in the extensive environmental impact of the scheme into their cost-benefit analysis assessments. This inquiry will critically address this knowledge gap in advance of the Hybrid Bill Second Reading.
The Woodland Trust is the UK's leading woodland conservation charity. We manage over 1,000 sites and have over 500,000 members and supporters across the four countries of the UK. Our broad position on HS2 is that we are supportive of the concept of High Speed Rail but concentrated that construction of phase one of HS2 alone will lead to the loss or damage to 48 ancient woods, as well as a further 22 woods we believe to be ancient which are not yet on the Ancient Woodland Inventory[1].
Given our focus is on ancient woodland along the entire route of HS2 we are one of the few organisations to have undertaken an in-depth analysis of the entirety of the Environmental Statement and its associated documents and this has informed our response.
1.1. Similar to the Draft ES, the full Environmental Statement contains multiple inaccuracies and discrepancies and therefore gives only a partial picture of the true environmental impact of High Speed Two. Sadly, this gives us very little confidence in the accuracy of its analysis and we dispute its finding that 32ha of ancient woodland from 19 woods will be lost as a result of the scheme.
1.2. Our comprehensive analysis demonstrates that 27 ancient woods are directly affected by the scheme, with a further 21 ancient woods likely to suffer damage from noise, vibration, changes to lighting and dust. In addition, we have found a further 22 woods which we believe to be ancient which will be impacted. We are in dialogue with Natural England to see if these can be included on the Ancient Woodland Inventory.
1.3. The ES indicates in multiple places that the proposed works are following the Lawton principles on habitat networks and landscape scale impact[2]. Whilst we welcome the intent, we question the feasibility of this. The scheme will destroy far too many high quality irreplaceable habitats to facilitate the development of coherent and resilient ecological networks. Furthermore, those high quality habitats that remain are further fragmented and not being adequately buffered from the proposed works.
1.4. The terms mitigation and compensation are consistently used incorrectly within the ES with regard to ancient woodland. Ancient woodland is irreplaceable and as such any loss cannot be mitigated, only compensated for. Furthermore, the vagary of details of compensation planting for loss of ancient woodland (and other habitats) makes it impossible to either support or refute the proposals for compensation.
1.5. The ES does not adequately acknowledge the potentially extensive time frame between a habitat being destroyed and compensation planting being mature enough to benefit those species reliant on the habitat that has been removed.
1.6. The ES makes it clear that translocation of ancient soils will be undertaken in as many cases of ancient woodland removal as possible. This is of deep concern to the Woodland Trust because translocation is relatively new and unproven. Indeed, when we have sought to obtain evidence of the viability of translocation, from both HS2 Ltd and the Department for Transport, this has not been forthcoming.
1.7. To justify the extensive public investment in the scheme, we would like a clear commitment from Government for a comprehensive response to compensate for any ancient woodland lost or damaged as a result of the project. However, we are concerned that the current drive to cut the overall budget for HS2 will have a disproportional impact on environmental outcomes, as these will be seen as non essential.
1.8. The ES uses a modified version of the DEFRA draft biodiversity offsetting method. No justification is given as to why the proposed HS2 project merits a different approach and no worked examples of calculations are provided. We believe that it is completely inappropriate to depart from Defra’s position and we are concerned that this will not take account of the advice embedded within Defra’s pilots provided by Natural England.
1.9. We have outlined a small number of recommendations that we would like Government to consider in advance of the Second Reading debate.
2.1. The Environmental Statement states that 32ha of ancient woodland from 19 woods will be lost as a result of the proposed scheme to construct Phase 1 of HS2. The Woodland Trust believes that that number of ancient woodlands to be directly affected is actually 27. There is no definitive list within the ES and The Trust had to write to HS2 Ltd directly to obtain one. There is information within the ES clearly stating loss from ancient woods that are not on the list of 19 provided by HS2 Ltd.
2.2. The Trust considers that the discrepancies between the list provided and the information within the ES is very misleading. The way in which the area of woodland to be lost is reported within the ES is very varied. There are many examples of multiple figures being quoted for individual ancient woodlands or losses not being given for individual woodlands, just for the CFA as a whole. This has made it impossible to determine exactly how much woodland is actually going to be lost. Furthermore, the ES does not address the number of ancient woodlands to be indirectly affected by the proposed works at all.
2.3. Ancient woodland is an irreplaceable habitat of national value and The Woodland Trust is pleased to see that Volume 3 (Route Wide Effects) recognises this. However, with the exception of Sheephouse Wood (CFA 12) and Long Itchington ancient woodland (CFA16), no other ancient woodlands are referred to as being of national value within the individual CFA reports in Volume 2. We consider that this discrepancy is deliberately misleading consultees who, due to the short consultancy time and length of the ES, may not read all of the information available, and may be left with an incorrect understanding of the significance of the removal of ancient woodland. The Trust raised the issue of the national significance of ancient woodland in our submission on the draft ES and we are disappointed that the detailed sections of the final ES still fail to recognise that all ancient woodland represents an irreplaceable national resource and as such any loss of any ancient woodland (no matter how small) is of national significance.
2.4. The terms mitigation and compensation are consistently used incorrectly within the draft ES with regard to ancient woodland. Ancient woodland is irreplaceable and as such any loss cannot be mitigated, only compensated for. The Trust submitted on this issue during the consultation on the draft ES. However, we are very disappointed to see that the conflation of the terms mitigation and compensation is still being perpetuated in Volume 3. Furthermore, many sections of the ES imply that planting new woodland will replace ancient woodland lost. This is particularly true in the Non-Technical Summary (NTS) where discussion of ancient woodland loss is frequently accompanied by discussion of woodland to be planted, without any explanation as to the significance of ancient woodland.
2.5. The linearity of the proposed scheme will result in the fragmentation of many habitats and so it is important that the proposed mitigation and compensation measures ensure that new habitats are created and that the remaining habitats are increased in size, improved in quality and joined together to create a landscape resilient to change. The Trust considers that too many high quality irreplaceable habitats are being destroyed as a result of route options being chosen for economic reasons rather than environmental ones. Even though the ES states the proposed works are following the Lawton principles The Trust considers that it has failed because what already exists has not been protected. Compensatory habitat will not be of the same quality of that which has been removed and high quality habitats that remain are not being buffered from the proposed works. In addition the use of the phrase “where reasonably practicable” in relation to the application of the Lawton principles causes additional concern, as it is not clear who would decide what was reasonable, and on what basis this decision would be made.
2.6. Details of compensation planting for loss of ancient woodland (and other habitats) are vague within Volume 3 and the rest of the ES. Section 8 of Volume 3 states that further details will be contained within a report that will be submitted separately to the Hybrid Bill process. The lack of this information means that it is difficult for The Trust to either support or refute the proposals for compensation as there is not enough information contained within the ES in its current form. Furthermore, this implies that the proposed ecological planting areas within the ES are potentially subject to change in both location and area.
2.7. The ES does not adequately acknowledge the potentially extensive time frame between a habitat being destroyed and compensation planting being mature enough to benefit species reliant on the habitat that has been removed. This is particularly important with reference to ancient woodland and species that are dependent on it (e.g. certain species of bats). The ES often make reference to these impacts being temporary without acknowledging that the impacts may take decades to reduce to a level where they are no longer significant. If there is insufficient habitat remaining to support woodland specialist species whilst the new planting matures, they will die out. In addition, the ES makes it clear that translocation of ancient soils will be undertaken in as many cases of ancient woodland removal as possible. This is of deep concern to The Trust because this technique is relatively new and unproven. However, as with all proposed mitigation/compensation measures in the ES the assumption is that this technique is an appropriate one and that it will work.
2.8. The ES does not adequately address the impacts of noise on the natural environment. The route wide overview states that impacts of noise on ecological receptors are covered in the CFA reports in Volume 2. However, this is not strictly correct. The CFA reports in Volume 2 do cover noise in Section 11 of each individual report, but this refers only to the impact of noise on the built environment. Section 11 then directs readers to Section 7 for impacts of noise on the natural environment. Section 7 of the CFA reports state that adoption of measures within the draft CoCP will provide controls on noise and vibration. However, the draft CoCP only covers impacts of noise on humans and the built environment. The Trust considers this constant referencing to other parts of the ES to locate information that ultimately is not there is very misleading.
2.9. Changes to noise levels along the edge of woodland, or through the middle of it, are not discussed in any of the CFA reports. Furthermore, we cannot find a single example in the text of specific mitigation measures to reduce this impact. Given that the ES does not contain a specific section on the impact of noise on the natural environment, The Trust considers that a table listing the ecological receptors identified as being potentially affected would have made reviewing the report much easier. The technical supporting information (relating to noise) in Volume 5 detailing baseline, construction and operational impacts of noise do not appear to contain this information either.
3.1. There are no specific details given within the ES for the systems that will be employed to guide environmental considerations. The draft Code of Construction practice (dCoCP) states that an environmental management system (EMS) will be published at a later date and that site specific controls will be contained within Local Environment Management Plans (LEMPs). However, because there is no detail given in the ES it is not possible for consultees or the decision maker to be confident that environmental protection will be adequately addressed.
3.2. Where there are more specific details in the draft Code of Construction practice (dCoCP) of activities the nominated undertaker/contractor will be obliged to undertake to protect the environment there are multiple examples within the ES where the opposite appears to be true. For example, the dCoCP states that spoil will be stored away from sensitive areas, but other sections of the ES clearly show stockpiles directly adjacent to or even within ancient woodland. The dCoCP states that vegetated buffer strips will be used to protect sensitive environments, however, this is the only place in the whole ES that they are mentioned as a mitigation measure.
3.3. The lack of comprehensive information plus the discrepancies between the limited information available in the draft Code of Construction practice and the rest of the ES means it is not possible to be confident that the ERMs and LEMPs proposed will actually achieve the levels of environmental protection that the ES claims that they will.
4.1. To justify the extensive public investment in the scheme, we would like a clear commitment from Government for a comprehensive response to compensate for any ancient woodland lost or damaged as a result of the project. However, we are concerned that the current drive to cut the overall budget for HS2 will have a disproportional impact on environmental outcomes, as these will be seen as non essential.
4.2. We were very concerned by the language used within the Strategic Case for HS2 which gives us little comfort that the environment will be given the focus it deserves, when the scheme is being re-evaluated. This noted, "A new high speed line would cost 9% more than a conventional railway and, in certain respects, would have higher environmental costs, but the difference in price and the relatively higher environmental impact is more than outweighed by the economic benefits to be gained from radically reducing journey times and improving connectivity between our main cities.”
4.3. There is no financial commitment to even the little management and monitoring detailed within the ES and no detail on how it is to be secured. The Trust considers that much more detailed information on the management, maintenance and monitoring of compensation planting within the ES is required. The ES should acknowledge that the time frames involved in creating new woodland are significant and will run into decades, and set out how the funding will be guaranteed. The methodology will apparently be included in the EMRs (which are as yet unpublished) and it is not clear how the content of them will be consulted upon, if at all.
4.4. As noted earlier, it is not clear from the ES what will happen if the translocation of ancient woodland soil fails or indeed how success or failure would be determined. These issues of monitoring and triggers for intervention need to be clearly addressed in any translocation methodology, and the resources would need to be guaranteed.
5.1. The Environmental Statement contains a modified version of the DEFRA draft biodiversity offsetting method[3], but states that this method will not be used for biodiversity offsetting of HS2. Instead the methodology will be used to demonstrate that the scheme will result in no net loss of biodiversity along the route of Phase 1. However, the removal of at least 32ha of irreplaceable ancient woodland means that this target cannot be achieved.
5.2. As the EAC will be fully aware, Defra’s response to the Biodiversity Offsetting consultation had not been published. The modification of the metrics and the particular approach proposed to the application of offsetting in the ES is a major departure from Defra’s position and does not take account of the advice embedded within Defra’s pilots provided by Natural England. Consequently, The Trust considers that the inclusion in the ES of a modified offsetting methodology, which is a major departure from the published draft methodology, is completely inappropriate.
5.3. The ES states that this modified metric has been used to guide the approach to offsetting across the project as a whole, yet no worked examples of calculations are provided and no justification given as to why the proposed HS2 project merits a different approach.
6.1. We have outlined a small number of recommendations that we would like Government to seriously consider in advance of the Second Reading debate. These draw from the concerns highlighted above.
6.2. In light of our concerns about the ES being not fit for purpose, due to incomplete surveying and discrepancies between the limited information available in the ES and draft Code of Construction practice, we urge Government to withdraw the existing ES, complete this to a reasonable standard and then re-consult on a finished version.
6.3. To ensure that HS2 is a world class project in all aspects, we are keen to obtain assurances from Government that any further cuts to the overall budget for the scheme will not have a disproportional impact on environmental outcomes.
6.4. We urge the Department for Transport to urgently revisit the proposals for undertaking Biodiversity Offsetting until after the Government has made a full response to the Environmental Audit Committee’s very welcomed report and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs themselves have established a settled policy position.
7 March 2014
[1] The Ancient Woodland Inventory (AWI) lists all woodlands thought to have existed prior to 1600. The inventory for England is held and updated by Natural England. Similar inventories are held by appropriate statutory bodies in Scotland (Scottish Natural Heritage) and Wales (Natural Resource Wales).
[2] Making Space for Nature, Sir John Lawton, September 2010.
[3] Volume 5, Scope and Methodology, Scope and Methodology Addendum, Annex D, Technical Note for Demonstrating No Net loss in Biodiversity