Written evidence submitted by Natural England

Executive Summary
 

• Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.
• Natural England has worked closely with HS2 Ltd and its consultants to help identify the environmental impacts of the Proposed Scheme as well as opportunities for environmental enhancement and to advise on measures for mitigating impacts where these are unavoidable.
• In providing our advice Natural England has worked closely with other statutory environmental bodies, in particular the Environment Agency and the Forestry Commission to ensure that our advice is joined-up.
• Natural England has submitted its response to the HS2 Phase 1 Environmental Statement (ES) consultation providing its formal advice on the likely impacts of the Proposed Scheme for those aspects of the natural environment relevant to its statutory purpose. This advice supplements Natural England’s responses to previous consultations on the draft scope and methodology for the EIA and on the draft ES for HS2 Phase 1.
• Natural England recognises that some aspects of the Proposed Scheme will be subject to further investigation and consideration as the hybrid Bill progresses through Parliament. This will provide greater detail as to the likely impacts of the Proposed Scheme and also will inform more specific mitigation proposals.
• The development of the Environmental Minimum Requirements (EMRs) and, in particular, the Environmental Memorandum (EM) is the process by which any outstanding issues relating to Natural England’s remit should be addressed and appropriate mitigation and compensation measures identified.
• Natural England will continue to provide advice on proposed mitigation and compensation strategies, and will be pleased to work with the nominated undertaker and HS2 Ltd to ensure the Proposed Scheme, if approved, is implemented with due regard to environmental considerations.
• We recognise that a project of this scale will inevitably have a wide range of impacts on the natural environment, and that the ES does a good job in identifying those impacts. Our comments submitted below on where this could be improved, should be seen in this light.

1.              Introduction

1.1              Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.
 

1.2              Natural England has responded to the Environmental Statement (ES) providing our formal advice on the likely impacts of the Proposed Scheme for those aspects of the natural environment relevant to our statutory purpose. (Natural England’s response dated 27 February 2014 is appended).
 

1.3              That response supplemented Natural England’s responses to previous consultations on the environmental impacts of the Proposed Scheme, specifically:

• July 2011. Natural England’s response to the Department of Transport’s (DfT) consultation (Feb 2011) on the proposed High Speed Rail between London to the West Midlands;
• May 2012. Natural England’s response to HS2 Ltd’s consultation on the Draft Scope and Methodology for the HS2 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA);
• July 2013. Natural England’s response to HS2 Ltd’s consultation on the Draft Environmental Statement.

2.              Inquiry items

Item 1:The extent to which specific route-wide environmental impacts are adequately reflected and addressed in the Environmental Statement — specifically including: agriculture, forestry and soils; air quality; climate; ecology; and water resources and flood risk; and excluding Chilterns-specific matters; community and cultural heritage; landscape and visual aspect; noise/vibration; traffic and transport; and waste and material resources.

2.1              In its assessment of the ES and submission of its advice Natural England confirmed that there are a number of impacts on the natural environment resulting from the construction and operation of the Proposed Scheme which are site specific and or localised and these are dealt with within the relevant Community Forum Area reports as part of Volume 2 of the ES. There are also a range of environmental impacts which are considered to be route-wide and these have been covered in Volume 3 of the ES, Route-wide effects, such as for impacts on watercourses and hedgerows.  Natural England has advised that because of the wide ranging impacts of the Proposed Scheme on some habitats, in particular ancient woodlands, it would have been helpful for the ES to have included a route-wide assessment of impacts for these habitats in addition to the specific site assessments.

              Agriculture and Soils

2.2              Natural England, in its response to the EIA consultation May 2012, made specific and detailed comments about Chapter 5 Agriculture and soils. Natural England advice included a recommendation for the EIA to reflect the Natural Environment White Paper, The Natural Choice: securing the value of nature (June 2011) and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). 

2.3              We advised that the soils chapter should consider the impact of the development not only on ‘best and most versatile’ agricultural land (land in grades 1, 2 and 3a of the Agricultural Land Classification (ALC)), as is proposed, but also on the impact on soil resources per se.  Our advice is that this assessment should also reflect the Natural Environment White Paper emphasis given to the importance of natural resource protection, including the conservation and sustainable management of soils.

2.4              We advised that a soil resources survey is carried out in which Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) is a key component of the impact assessment, as proposed, but is also wider than just agricultural soils to include a separate general impact assessment of all soils affected by the proposed development.

2.5              Natural England has previously drawn attention to the potential impacts of loss of agricultural land for existing agri-environment schemes.  In most cases where an existing agreement has to be amended or terminated to take account of land lost to a development scheme, we will have to reduce payments to the agreement holder and there is likely to be recovery of previous payments already made.

2.6              Compensation for such loss of and/or reduction in payments is a matter for negotiation between agreement holders and the organisation carrying out the development. Where land is lost to development, it will not be as simple as removing any land directly affected by the development from an agri-environment scheme agreement.  The remaining land will need to be assessed to make sure it is viable as an agreement and satisfies all eligibility requirements.  In some cases, land management options and capital works will need to be moved or added to allow the agreement to continue.

Nationally Designated Sites - Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs)

2.7              The 26 Community Forum Area (CFA) reports provide details of a number of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) which are directly affected by the works or which are present within 500m of works required for the Proposed Scheme and may potentially be impacted by it.  The Proposed Scheme will result in direct habitat loss within two SSSIs: Mid Colne Valley SSSI (permanent loss of 1ha [0.8% of SSSI area]) and Helmdon Disused Railway Cutting SSSI (permanent loss of 0.8 ha [4.8% of SSSI area]).  Natural England has advised that this impact will result in the destruction of the features for which these sites have been designated and that the impacts cannot be mitigated. 

2.8              In addition, the Proposed Scheme is likely to result in indirect impacts, such as the interruption of ground water flowing below the site, upon a number of other SSSIs, where these sites lie adjacent, or in close proximity to the area required for construction.  These sites may be subject to disturbance effects as a result of construction and/or operation of the Proposed Scheme.  Additionally, some sites which lie outside the proposed working area may still experience impacts as a result of off-site works such as construction associated with power line realignment works.

2.9              Natural England has provided specific detailed comments in its response to the Environmental Statement (ES) in terms of the likely impacts of the Proposed Scheme on each individual SSSI, the mitigation proposed, and where necessary the need for further assessment. This includes:

• Berkswell Marsh SSSI; we advise that additional information is required to determine the nature of the hydrological connectivity between a proposed cutting and the SSSI.
• Ellesborough and Kimble Warrens SSSI; although not located within the area required for construction the site lies adjacent to the A4010 which it is proposed will be used by construction traffic.  Natural England has asked for more information about the construction traffic’s impacts on the SSSI.  This site is also part of the Chilterns Beechwoods Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and as such the impacts of air quality changes upon this European site need to be considered. This is being addressed via a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) screening report, which Natural England will comment on separately.
• Long Itchington and Ufton Woods SSSI; this site is located above a proposed bored tunnel.  Natural England understands that HS2 Ltd proposes to carry out appropriate investigations to determine the likely impacts on the SSSI from construction in order to inform mitigation proposals.

2.10              In addition to these site specific comments, Natural England has advised that any works associated with the construction of the Proposed Scheme which take place within the boundary of a SSSI, or are likely to affect a SSSI, must be fully assessed as part of the development of the proposals, and measures for avoiding impacts should be included in the Environmental Memorandum (EM).  Natural England should be consulted on these measures as part of this process. Any proposed construction works adjacent to the boundary of a SSSI will need to ensure no storage of materials or encroachment within the SSSI before, during or after construction.

Ancient Woodland

2.11              The ecology chapters of the 26 Community Forum Area (CFA) reports provide details of the quantity of ancient woodland that will be lost within each area, and the means by which this will be addressed.  Natural England has previously provided advice to HS2 Ltd (Phase 1 draft ES consultation 2013) on the route-wide effects of the Proposed Scheme on ancient woodland and how these can be addressed.

2.12              Natural England, (reiterating its response to the AoS July 2011 section 10), emphasised the importance of ancient woodland as an irreplaceable habitat. We advised that neither the importance of ancient woodland nor the assessment of impacts or required mitigation was addressed adequately by the draft ES in Report 27 (Route Wide Effects). We advised that these omissions should be addressed in full within the formal ES and should reflect the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 118 (also raised by the Forestry Commission in their response).  Natural England also advised that the ES should identify the number and extent of small ancient woods (<2ha) that have been considered assessment.

2.13              The ES identifies that the Proposed Scheme will result in a direct loss of 32ha of ancient woodland from 19 sites. In our view there will be wider indirect effects upon a greater number of woodlands due to disturbance, fragmentation and reduced connectivity to other similar habitats.  Our advice is that the ES does not provide adequate consideration of the direct and indirect impacts on ancient woodland as a result of the Proposed Scheme nor how this will be addressed.  These impacts could have been assessed in more detail in Volume 3 Route-wide effects.

2.14              We recommend that the issues outlined below (paras 2.14 to 2.18) should be addressed within the Environmental Memorandum (EM), and Natural England would expect to be consulted on this.  The EM should also provide details of survey work which has been undertaken so far, and that proposed, in order to inform specific mitigation measures.

2.15              Natural England has previously advised that the assessment of impacts upon ancient woodland should include smaller woodlands between 0.25ha and 2ha in size.  These sites are not currently included on the Ancient Woodland Inventory (AWI) because they are below the current size threshold for inclusion in this part of the country.  However the AWI is being revised on a rolling programme and new updates are including smaller sites down to 0.25 hectares.  It is not clear from the ES whether these smaller sites have been considered. Natural England has requested clarification of this. 2.15             

2.16              In addition, we have advised that consideration should be given to impacts of the Proposed Scheme upon veteran trees. A veteran tree is ‘a tree that is of interest biologically, culturally or aesthetically because of its age, size or condition’. They are of particular value for the unique and high quality habitat they offer to a range of animal and plant species, but also for the historic and cultural heritage which they represent within the landscape.  It appears that the impacts upon veteran trees have not been addressed in the ecology chapters within the ES or within Volume 3 Route Wide Effects.  We understand that baseline information relating to veteran trees is included within the Volume 5 appendices listed under the heading ‘designated sites, habitat surveys and flora’ at local/parish level.

2.17              Ancient woodland is an irreplaceable resource.  Nevertheless, Natural England welcomes the commitment to provide compensatory habitat for that which will be lost. In order for compensatory woodland habitats to be successful in addressing the losses of ancient woodland, the long-term management of these habitats must be secured.  Natural England has advised that long-term management in the context of woodlands should be a minimum of 50 years. Therefore this is the minimum amount of time for which the project should commit to management of new and existing woodlands affected by the proposals. We have recommended that a Countryside Management Fund should be established to ensure that funding for this long-term management is secured.

2.18              Natural England has advised that any assessment of impacts should also consider the indirect effects of fragmentation which can result from the loss of ancient woodlands. Where woodlands are fragmented, reduced in size or lost completely this can have significant ecological impacts, affecting the ability of species to move between sites and to maintain their current population. We have advised that mitigation/compensation planting should be designed to ensure connectivity between woodlands is maintained and improved, and also to create connections between existing ancient woodlands and new woodlands. Woodland creation and planting should be designed in a way which will facilitate colonisation of new sites by woodland species, and enable buffering of existing ancient woodland. It would have been helpful, we suggest, for these principles for mitigation to be expressed in Volume 3 Route-wide effects.

Protected species

2.19              The ES provides details of surveys carried out to date in respect of European and UK protected species, and the CFA reports highlight where further survey effort is required. Natural England has noted that further assessment of impacts will be required as the results of additional surveys are received, and that mitigation proposals will need to be determined based on these results. The principles for mitigation already set out in the ES, and any subsequent measures, will be secured within the EM. Natural England will continue to provide further comments and advice on the details of measures relating to European and UK protected species as the EM progresses. 

Route-wide effects - Ecology

2.20              Volume 3 of the ES (Route-wide effects) makes little reference to impacts on ancient woodlands; these impacts being treated as site-specific within the ES and are dealt with within the individual CFA reports. Our comments above (paras 2.11 to 2.18) with regard to the limited assessment of effects on ancient woodland and the need to consider both direct and indirect effects as well as appropriate mitigation as part of the route-wide effects, apply. 

2.21              Natural England welcomes the proposals in the ES for restoration/creation of a network of hedgerows and other linear planting either side of the Proposed Scheme in order to maintain habitat linkages and compensate for loss of hedgerows. However we have advised that such planting has the potential to attract species such as bats and birds and therefore should be sufficiently distant from the route itself to ensure these vulnerable species are not put at further risk.

2.22              Measures that are proposed in the ES to enhance the ecological quality of new and realigned watercourses are welcomed, and will improve the value of these habitats. Natural England has advised that these measures should be implemented within all sections of watercourses where engineering or other works are proposed, not just in newly created watercourses.

2.23              Natural England has welcomed the proposals for a mitigation structure adjacent to Sheephouse Wood which will reduce the risk to bat populations crossing the Proposed Scheme at this location. We look forward to being consulted further on the details of this and other proposed mitigation measures.

2.24              The Proposed Scheme has the potential to result in significant adverse effects upon barn owl through losses of up to 52 pairs route-wide. Proposals outlined in ES to provide alternative barn owl nesting sites at a greater distance from the Proposed Scheme are welcomed, however this measure relies on agreement from landowners, and there is therefore no guarantee that it will be deliverable. Natural England has advised that alternative means of providing replacement nests will need to be considered, if the proposed mitigation measures cannot be delivered.

2.25              Natural England is pleased to note that a monitoring programme will be developed to assess the effectiveness of mitigation measures, and that we will be consulted on this. 

Ecological Principles of Mitigation

2.26              Natural England welcomes the production of the Ecological Principles of Mitigation and the commitment in the ES to deliver mitigation for impacts upon protected species and habitats in line with a defined set of principles. As part of our ongoing engagement with HS2 Ltd and its consultants, Natural England will provide detailed comments and advice on this document, and on further survey data which will confirm any impacts upon protected species and enable the development of detailed mitigation/compensation strategies. 

Item 2: The overarching systems and processes which will guide how environmental considerations are taken into account in the detailed routing of the track and the use of local environmental protection measures (but not examining the route itself). 

2.27              Natural England acknowledges that some aspects of the Proposed Scheme will be subject to further investigation and consideration as the hybrid Bill progresses through Parliament. This will provide greater detail as to the likely impacts of the Proposed Scheme and also will inform more specific mitigation proposals. 

2.28              Natural England understands that the development of the Environmental Minimum Requirements (EMRs) and, in particular, the Environmental Memorandum (EM) is the process by which any outstanding issues  should be addressed and appropriate mitigation and compensation measures identified. Through this process Natural England will continue to provide advice on proposed mitigation and compensation strategies, and will be pleased to work with the nominated undertaker and HS2 Ltd to ensure the Proposed Scheme, if approved, is implemented with due regard to environmental considerations.

Item 3:              The arrangements for funding measures to protect biodiversity or to limit environmental impacts, and any constraints on such funding.

2.29              In our comments above on ancient woodland, Natural England has advised that long-term management in the context of woodlands should be a minimum of 50 years. Therefore this is the minimum amount of time for which the project should commit to management of new and existing woodlands affected by the proposals.

2.30              We have recommended that a Countryside Management Fund should be established to ensure that funding for this long-term management is secured. Similarly, we have advised that a Countryside Management Fund or equivalent could help the long-term conservation and enhancement of landscape character, such as enhancing local hedgerows and ancient woodland.

Item 4:              How and where biodiversity offsetting will operate, and any limits that will be put on such offsetting.

2.31              Natural England welcomes the commitment to provide compensatory habitat for that which will be lost. Natural England notes that the technical note relating to the biodiversity offsetting metric (used for the ‘no net loss’ calculation) is published as part of the ES.  This is included as an annex to the Scope and Methodology (SMR) Addendum within the Volume 5 appendices as Annex D ecology technical note with the no net loss technical note commencing at page 364. 

2.32              Natural England is not aware that biodiversity offsetting is proposed to address any of the impacts of the Proposed Scheme. In Natural England’s response to the ES we have advised that biodiversity offsetting should be given further consideration in the context of providing compensation for unavoidable loss of ancient woodland. The compensation ratio should reflect the distinctiveness of this habitat type and recognise that for ancient woodland this is an irreplaceable habitat. We would welcome discussion about the offsetting metric that would be appropriate for this type of habitat.

3.              Conclusion

3.1              Natural England acknowledges that some aspects of the Proposed Scheme will be subject to further investigation and consideration as the hybrid Bill progresses through Parliament. We expect this process will address the issues raised in our submission above and thereby provide greater detail as to the likely impacts of the Proposed Scheme and also inform more specific mitigation proposals.

3.2              The development of the Environmental Minimum Requirements (EMRs) and, in particular, the Environmental Memorandum (EM) is the process by which any outstanding issues that Natural England has raised above should be addressed and appropriate mitigation and compensation measures identified.

3.3              Natural England will continue to provide advice on proposed mitigation and compensation strategies, and will be pleased to work with the nominated undertaker and HS2 Ltd to ensure the Proposed Scheme, if approved, is implemented with due regard to environmental considerations.

11 March 2014

Annex 1.              Natural England response to the Environmental Statement Consultation

Dear Sir or Madam

High Speed 2 Phase 1 Environmental Statement Consultation

Natural England welcomes the opportunity to provide comments on the High Speed 2 (HS2) Phase 1 Environmental Statement (ES) consultation.

Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.

This letter, the accompanying overview and detailed Annexes provides Natural England’s response to the above consultation and includes our formal advice and comments on the likely impacts of the Proposed Scheme for those aspects of the natural environment relevant to our statutory purpose.

This response supplements Natural England’s responses to previous consultations on the environmental impacts of the Proposed Scheme, specifically:

• July 2011. Natural England’s response to the Department of Transport’s (DfT) consultation (Feb 2011) on the proposed High Speed Rail between London to the West Midlands;
• May 2012. Natural England’s response to HS2 Ltd’s consultation on the Draft Scope and Methodology for the HS2 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA);
• July 2013. Natural England’s response to HS2 Ltd’s consultation on the Draft Environmental Statement.

Our advice and supporting comments are presented in the attached overview and where necessary are supported by detailed technical assessments in the accompanying Annexes 1 to 6 which explain and amplify our comments.

Natural England acknowledges that some aspects of the Proposed Scheme will be subject to further investigation and consideration as the Hybrid Bill progresses through Parliament. This will provide greater detail as to the likely impacts of the Proposed Scheme and also will inform more specific mitigation proposals.

The development of the Environmental Minimum Requirements (EMRs) and, in particular, the Environmental Memorandum (EM) is the process by which any outstanding issues relating to Natural England’s remit should be addressed and appropriate mitigation and compensation measures identified. Through this process Natural England will continue to provide advice on proposed mitigation and compensation strategies, and will be pleased to work with the nominated undertaker and HS2 Ltd to ensure the Proposed Scheme, if approved, is implemented with due regard to environmental considerations.

Natural England, the Environment Agency and the Forestry Commission have shared and discussed our respective responses to the Phase 1 Environmental Statement. We acknowledge and support the responses made by the Environment Agency and Forestry Commission.

Yours faithfully

Greg Smith

Acting Director - Land Use

Natural England

Contents

Overview of Natural England’s comments and advice on HS2 Phase 1 Environmental Statement Consultation

Annex 1: Landscape and Visual Assessment and Effects on the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Annex 2: Technical Review of the HS2 Phase 1 Environmental Statement – Landscape and Visual Assessment and Effects on the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Annex 3: Nationally Designated Sites (Sites of Special Scientific Interest)

Annex 4: Ancient Woodland

Annex 5: Ecological Principles of Mitigation (Scope and Methodology Report Addendum: Annex D)

Annex 6: Volume 3: Route-wide effects

Overview of Natural England’s comments and advice on HS2 Phase 1 Environmental Statement Consultation

1. Landscape and Visual Assessment and Effects on The Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Natural England is the Government’s statutory adviser on landscape and the designating authority for Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). Our comments and advice on the landscape and visual impacts of the Proposed Scheme, as presented in the Environmental Statement (ES) for HS2 Phase 1, focus on the Proposed Scheme’s potential effects on the Chilterns AONB. These are based on our review of the Landscape and Visual Assessments (LVA) for Community Forum Areas (CFA) 8 - 10 and the assessment of effects on the AONB set out in Volume 3: Route-wide effects[1].

The character and visual amenity of the non-designated landscapes along the rest of the route are also important, especially to local communities. The European Landscape Convention[2], to which the UK is a signatory, recognises that ‘all landscapes matter’. We therefore advise that the comments of local authorities along the entire route of HS2 Phase 1 are carefully considered.

The Chilterns AONB is the only nationally designated landscape that the route of HS2 Phase 1 would run through. All public bodies have a duty under Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act (CRoW) 2000 to have regard to the statutory purpose of AONBs, which is defined as ‘to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the area’.

Natural England’s comments are given in light of Government policy in paragraphs 115 and 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) regarding conservation of landscape and scenic beauty in nationally designated landscapes. It is assumed that if deemed planning permission is to be granted for HS2 Phase 1 as an exceptional major development, consideration will be given (amongst other things) to the detrimental effects on the landscape of the Chilterns AONB and the extent to which they could, and have been proposed to be, moderated.

Although the construction and operation of HS2 will obviously not contribute to ‘conserving landscape and scenic beauty’ in the AONB in accordance with paragraph 115 of the NPPF, Natural England has approached the provision of our advice on the basis of paragraph 116, whereby we seek the fullest possible mitigation of the significant adverse effects of the Proposed Scheme on the outstanding natural beauty[3] of the Chilterns AONB.

Natural England provides detailed comments in Annexes 1 and 2, however our advice can be summarised as follows:

Natural England considers that the significance of landscape effects[4] associated with the Proposed Scheme on the Chilterns AONB is greater than that which is described in Volume 3 of the ES. We advise that further mitigation would be required to moderate these effects in order to satisfy the Government’s policy set out in paragraph 116 of the NPPF. Our advice is based on two principal factors:

1. Natural England considers that the significance of the effects on the AONB is understated. Natural England does not agree that it is appropriate to conclude that the major adverse effects on the AONB only occur ‘locally’.

2. Natural England considers that the Proposed Scheme, as currently proposed, would have a long term major adverse effect on natural beauty and the landscape and scenic beauty of the nationally important Chilterns AONB. Our reasons are outlined in Annex 1, and these are supported by our review of the LVAs and assessment on the AONB in the Environmental Statement in Annex 2.

We advise that further mitigation is required elsewhere along the route through the Chilterns AONB, based on our assessment of the Proposed Scheme’s significant adverse effects upon natural beauty. We would welcome greater clarity and discussion regarding the environmental benefits and disbenefits of the various extended tunnel options set out in the ES, as well as further discussion with HS2 and partners on other potential mitigation measures. We discuss this in paragraphs 2.37 - 2.40 of Annex 2.

2. Nationally Designated Sites - Sites of Special Scientific Interest

The 26 Community Forum Area (CFA) reports provide details of a number of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) which are directly affected by the works or which are present within 500m of works required for the Proposed Scheme and may potentially be impacted by it.

The Proposed Scheme will result in direct habitat loss within two SSSIs: Mid Colne Valley SSSI and Helmdon Disused Railway Cutting SSSI. Natural England advises that this impact will result in the destruction of the features for which these sites have been designated and that the impacts cannot be mitigated.

The Proposed Scheme is also likely to result in indirect impacts upon a number of other SSSIs, where these sites lie adjacent, or in close proximity to the area required for construction. These sites may be subject to disturbance effects as a result of construction and/or operation of the Proposed Scheme. Additionally, some sites which lie outside the proposed working area may still experience impacts as a result of off-site works.

Natural England provides specific detailed comments in Annex 3 in terms of the likely impacts of the Proposed Scheme on each individual SSSI, the mitigation proposed, and where necessary the need for further assessment.

In addition to these site specific comments, Natural England advises that any works associated with the construction of the Proposed Scheme which take place within the boundary of a SSSI, or are likely to affect a SSSI, must be fully assessed as part of the development of the proposals, and measures for avoiding impacts should be included in the Environmental Memorandum (EM). Natural England should be consulted on these measures as part of this process. Any proposed construction works adjacent to the boundary of a SSSI will need to ensure no storage of materials or encroachment within the SSSI either before, during or after construction.

3. Ancient Woodland

Natural England advises that in addition to the direct loss of 32ha of ancient woodland from 19 sites identified within the ES, there will be wider indirect effects upon a greater number of woodlands due to disturbance, fragmentation and reduced connectivity to other similar habitats. We advise that the ES does not provide adequate consideration of the direct and indirect impacts on ancient woodland as a result of the Proposed Scheme nor how this will be addressed. Our detailed advice is provided in Annex 4.

The issues outlined in Annex 4 will need to be addressed within the EM, and Natural England would expect to be consulted on this. The EM should also provide details of survey work which has been undertaken so far, and that proposed, in order to inform specific mitigation measures.

4. Ecological Principles of Mitigation

Natural England welcomes the production of the Ecological Principles of Mitigation and the commitment to deliver mitigation for impacts upon protected species and habitats in line with a defined set of principles. As part of our ongoing engagement with HS2 Ltd and its consultants, Natural England will provide detailed comments and advice on this document, and on further survey data which will confirm any impacts upon protected species and enable the development of detailed mitigation/compensation strategies. We provide general comments on this document in Annex 5.

5. Route-wide effects – ES Volume 3

Natural England provides comments in Annex 6 on the Route-wide effects chapter of the ES. This covers impacts on ecology, including hedgerows, watercourses and general comments on mitigation proposals as well as geological conservation and route wide landscape and visual assessment. Impacts upon ancient woodlands are dealt with in detail in Annex 4, and comments on landscape including impacts upon the Chilterns AONB are addressed in Annexes 1 and 2.

6. Protected species

The ES provides details of surveys carried out to date in respect of European and UK protected species, and the CFA reports highlight where further survey effort is required. Natural England notes that further assessment of impacts will be required as the results of additional surveys are received, and that mitigation proposals will need to be determined based on these results. The principles for mitigation already set out in the ES, and any subsequent measures, will be secured within the EM. Natural England will continue to provide further comments and advice on the details of measures relating to European and UK protected species as the EM progresses.

7. The Ridgeway National Trail and access to the wider countryside

The Ridgeway National Trail crosses the route of the Proposed Scheme on the footway of the public highway called Ellesborough Road at Wendover. Ellesborough Road is proposed to be diverted as part of the Proposed Scheme. There is no reference to changes to the route of The Ridgeway National Trail in the ES. Natural England advises that the EM should include a reference to realigning the approved route of The Ridgeway to coincide with the public highway diversion, and how this will be managed to minimise impacts on users of this National Trail.

Natural England is disappointed that there are no proposals to improve the connectivity of those public rights of way (PRoWs), including the National Trail and other “named routes” affected by the Proposed Scheme with the surrounding network.  We suggest that consideration be given to include this within the EM and stress the need for discussions by the nominated undertaker with the appropriate highway authorities and the Chilterns Conservation Board.

8. Cumulative effects

It is Natural England’s understanding that a route-wide assessment of cumulative effects has not been undertaken as part of the ES. The ‘Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (Third Edition)’ states: ‘The EIA [Environmental Impact Assessment] Regulations require that in describing the aspects likely to be significantly affected by a development, consideration should be given to the interrelationships between the different environmental factors’, and that these interrelationships ‘are increasingly being examined as part of the assessment of cumulative effects’[5]. We therefore advise that an assessment of cumulative effects should be carried out for the route as a whole. We further advise that this assessment should pay particular consideration to cumulative effects felt within the Chilterns AONB.

Annex 1: Landscape and Visual Assessment and Effects on the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Natural beauty

1.1.            As explained in section 1 of the overview (page 4), the statutory purpose of an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) is to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the area. Section 92(2) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act (CRoW) 2000 states that reference to the conservation of natural beauty includes ‘conservation of its flora, fauna and geological and physiographical features’.

1.2.            Section 99 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (Natural Beauty in the Countryside) helps to clarify what ‘natural beauty’ embraces. It states that:

‘The fact that an area in England or Wales consists of or includes –

(a)              land used for agriculture or woodlands,

(b)               land used as a park, or

(c)               any other area whose flora, fauna or physiographical features are partly the product of human intervention in the landscape................does not prevent it from being treated, for the purposes of any enactment (whenever passed), as being an area of natural beauty (or of outstanding natural beauty)’.

1.3.            Natural England considers that any proposed development has the potential to significantly and adversely affect natural beauty, and the landscape and scenic beauty, of a nationally designated landscape by affecting its ‘attributes’ (ie qualities or features regarded as characteristic of its natural beauty. These attributes or characteristics of natural beauty may also be the same as, or similar to, the ‘special qualities’ which an AONB Conservation Board has a statutory obligation to increase public understanding and enjoyment of.

1.4.            We note that the Environmental Statement (ES), in Volume 3, adopts the approach of assessing effects on all of these aspects of the AONB by examining the effects on the ‘natural beauty and special landscape qualities’ of the AONB (the latter being the special qualities described in the Chilterns AONB Management Plan 2008 – 2013), and also mentions impacts on landscape character. Whilst this systematic approach is appropriate, Natural England (in line with its statutory remit) focuses on the effects of the Proposed Scheme on natural beauty and the landscape and scenic beauty of the AONB.

The Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

1.5.            The Chilterns were designated as an AONB in 1965. The characteristics that contribute to the natural beauty of the Chilterns AONB have been described in a number of publications[6].  

1.6.            The statutory Management Plan for Chilterns AONB 2008-2013 explains that ‘the term “natural beauty” refers not only to the scenic qualities of the landscape but to all those other elements which together produce the special character of the AONB’ (p13). It sets out the key characteristics or ‘special qualities’ of the area (referred to in 1.3 above). Of particular concern in relation to the Proposed Scheme are its potential impacts upon the following key characteristics and qualities, which help to make the natural beauty of the Chilterns outstanding:

• Fine long views from the steep chalk escarpment, across the lower lying vales to the north
• Extensive woodland, much of which is ancient
• Tranquil valleys
• A network of ancient routes (eg the Ridgeway) and sunken lanes
• A long-settled environment with relics of many different eras
• Farmland creating a mosaic of fields bordered by ancient hedgerows and trees

Summary of Natural England’s Technical Review of the Landscape and Visual Assessments and assessment of the effects on the AONB (Full review presented in Annex 2)

1.7.            Natural England’s review of the Landscape and Visual Assessments (LVAs) and Chapter 2 of Volume 3 of the ES concludes that HS2 would have significant adverse effects on the natural beauty of the Chilterns AONB during construction and operational stages.

1.8.            Using information provided by the ES itself, but taking a different view as to the magnitude of the changes, our analysis is that the construction works associated with the Proposed Scheme in the Misbourne Valley would have a major adverse effect on the AONB’s natural beauty. In addition, our analysis is that the Proposed Scheme would continue to have a major adverse effect on the AONB’s natural beauty during the operational phase of HS2; for example, in relation to the proposed Wendover Dean viaduct. These impacts would not only be on the physical fabric of the landscape but also on its character and visual amenity, and therefore its natural beauty and the enjoyment of the AONB, unless moderated by further mitigation.

1.9.            The ES (Chapter 2 of Volume 3) does acknowledge that the Proposed Scheme will impact upon the AONB’s natural beauty[7]. However, it considers its major impacts to be on a local basis and that the overall effect on the AONB as a whole would only be of ‘moderate adverse’ significance during construction, moderate adverse in year 1 and year 15 of operation, and ‘not significant’ by year 60. Natural England’s view is that the impact of the Proposed Scheme on natural beauty, and landscape and scenic beauty, of the AONB is greater than stated. Our detailed reasons for this are set out in our review of the LVAs and Chapter 2, Volume 3 of the ES (see Annex 2), which includes reference to the ES’s own criteria for what constitutes a ‘major adverse’, and therefore ‘significant’, effect.  We also advise that it does not necessarily require a high proportion of an AONB (in terms of geographical extent) to be affected before a major significant effect can occur. The Chilterns AONB has been designated for its outstanding natural beauty and great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in the AONB. National policy is to protect the landscape and scenic beauty of the whole of the AONB.

1.10.        Given our assessment of a potential major adverse effect upon the natural beauty of the AONB, Natural England recommends that further mitigation is required and that this should be to a level appropriate to this nationally important landscape. We would welcome further discussion on this, including with the Chilterns Conservation Board (CCB) and local authorities.

Annex 2: Technical Review of the HS2 Phase 1 Environmental Statement – Landscape and Visual Assessment and Effects on the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

General

2.1.            Natural England’s review of the Environmental Statement (ES) Landscape and Visual Assessments (LVAs) and Volume 3 assessment of the effects on the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) focuses on the likely impacts of HS2 Phase 1 on the natural beauty of the AONB. It refers principally to Volume 3, but also draws upon additional information provided in the LVA chapters of the Volume 2 Community Forum Area (CFA) Reports 8 -11. It has also been informed by additional information from the ES[8] and site visits.

2.2.            Our review considers the methodology, the assessment scope and landscape and visual baseline, and the assessment of landscape and visual effects. We recommend that advice be taken from the Chilterns Conservation Board (CCB) and relevant local authorities on the detail of the assessment.

Methodology – ES LVAs and Volume 3 assessment of effects on the AONB

2.3.            The draft ES did not fully apply the methodology of the 2012 Scoping and Methodology Report (SMR). Natural England notes and welcomes that the final ES applies it more comprehensively.

2.4.            Natural England welcomes the new ‘Technical note – Approach to tranquillity assessment’ (SMR Addendum, Annex G) within the ES, explaining how the criteria set out in the SMR have been applied to determine high, medium and low levels of tranquillity to character areas. We note that the criteria for determining tranquillity in rural areas have been informed by the 2006 Tranquil Area Maps and the 2007 Intrusion Map. We also welcome the distinction which has been made between rural and urban areas. The methodology used to develop the 2006 Tranquil Area Maps is based upon a repeatable mathematical model generating the relative tranquillity ‘value’ for a given locality. These localities are spatially defined by a theoretical grid of 500m x 500m squares. It is therefore possible to map the probable impact of the HS2 route, thereby generating a quantifiable figure for this impact. We believe such an analysis would help to better define the impact of the route on tranquillity, allowing for a more nuanced consideration of the likely effects. We suggest that this may be a way to resolve our different view of the potential impact on tranquillity discussed in paragraph 2.31 below.

2.5.            We welcome the new technical note on the ‘Approach to verifiable photomontages’ (SMR Addendum, Annex G), particularly its clarification of how the images should be viewed in the field. We suggest that paragraph 2.1.1 requires rephrasing[9]. We are not clear why the focal length marked on the photomontages varies between 51.913 mm and 57.296mm, but we acknowledge that they have clearer information on the direction of view than those in the draft ES. Wireframe images may have helped to provide greater definition of the proposed development, as suggested in our comments on the draft ES.

2.6.            We welcome the publication of the Zones of Theoretical Visibility (ZTVs) and the technical note clarifying how they have been produced. We have reservations over the ZTVs not building in the visual impacts of the tall construction plant and overhead line equipment[10]. However, we note that the impacts are considered in the CFA LVAs’ assessment of effects on Landscape Character Areas (LCAs) and visual receptors, and are ‘taken into account’ in the Volume 3 AONB assessment (para 2.2.3). We also suggest that lighting columns should have been included in the operational phase ZTV[11].

2.7.            We welcome reference to the ‘duty of regard’ to the purposes of AONBs, and to national planning policy regarding AONBs (paragraphs 115 & 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)) being set out in the Introduction to Chapter 2 of Volume 3 (paragraphs 2.1.1 and 2.1.3 respectively).

Assessment scope and landscape and visual baseline

2.8.            The following comments focus primarily on Volume 3, chapter 2 of the ES, although as mentioned previously information provided within the relevant CFA reports (8-11) has also been considered. Paragraphs referenced in this section refer to Volume 3.

2.9.            Natural England welcomes the submission of an assessment of the Proposed Scheme on the Chilterns AONB in Volume 3 Route-wide effects. Its assessment of effects ‘addresses the natural beauty and special landscape qualities of the Chilterns AONB...as referenced in the Chilterns AONB Management Plan 2008-2013’ (para 2.1.4)

2.10.        We also acknowledge that the relevant CFA Reports now include a fuller assessment of the character and sensitivity to change of each LCA, and that they also refer to additional Landscape Character Assessments which were missing in the earlier draft.

2.11.        The assessment of the effects on the Chilterns AONB in Volume 3 is to be read in combination with CFA Reports 8 to 10 (paragraph 2.1.4), which describe the baseline and assessment of effects on individual LCAs within the AONB. CFA 9 states that LCAs and visual receptors within approximately 500m of the Proposed Scheme have been assessed. This is too narrow a corridor given the extent of the ZTV in CFA9. However, we note that CFA9 does describe a wider area and we acknowledge its consideration of long distance views.

2.12.        The study area is defined in paragraph 2.2.3 as the boundaries of the AONB. Whilst it therefore does not explicitly encompass its setting, we acknowledge the recognition given in paragraphs 2.5.11 and 2.6.25 that construction and operation will impact upon parts of the setting of the AONB.

2.13.        Paragraph 2.3.5 states that ‘The majority of the Proposed Scheme will be located within the Misbourne Valley, the valley floor of which features an existing road and rail corridor.’ We note that whilst the Proposed Route follows the valley floor as it enters the AONB, it then follows the valley sides notably from Mantles Wood to Wendover Dean, thus separating it from existing transport routes within the valley floor, such as the Chilterns Line. This would create a new and, in places, intrusive railway route higher on the valley’s slopes, carrying more frequent, faster and conspicuous trains than those on the existing line, which run about 2-3 times per hour, slowing on the approach to Great Missenden station.

2.14.        Paragraph 2.3.16 highlights that the Chilterns AONB is important for the relative tranquillity that it offers. Areas that are highly tranquil, such as those mentioned in paragraphs 2.3.16 and 2.3.19, are likely to be highly valued by society, and some of them will be adversely affected by the construction and operation of the Proposed Scheme.

2.15.        We agree with the statement in paragraph 2.3.22 that the Chilterns AONB has a high sensitivity to change.

Assessment of landscape and visual effects and their significance

2.16.        Our comments below follow the structure of Volume 3.

Effects arising during construction

2.17.        Section 2.5 is described as outlining ‘the likely temporary effects which will arise as a result of the Proposed Scheme during construction’ (paragraph 2.5.1). Whilst some construction activities will be temporary, many of the effects described in paragraphs 2.5.10 to 2.5.29 will be long-term or permanent, such as the loss of ancient woodland, removal of part of Grim’s Ditch scheduled monument and demolition of vernacular buildings as outlined elsewhere in the ES.

2.18.        We note that the assessment explains that impacts on special landscape qualities during construction will include effects on views from the chalk escarpment, woodland, historic environment, ancient routes, tranquil valleys, and farmland including hedgerows. These impacts are upon some of the key characteristics that contribute to the natural beauty of the Chilterns AONB, as set out in paragraph 1.6 of Annex 1. We recommend that advice is obtained from the CCB and relevant local authorities on the detail of the assessment during both the construction and operation stage, but offer our comments below on a number of specific aspects of concern.

2.19.        We note it is acknowledged that construction in the Aylesbury Vale will impact on the setting of the AONB to the north-west (paragraph 2.5.11). This will include the construction of a new A4010 Stoke Mandeville bypass, a maintenance loop (as reported in CFA11 LVA), and a new overbridge carrying the realigned B4009 Nash Lee Road.

2.20.        We agree that construction activity will ‘affect the setting of parts of the steep chalk escarpment, particularly within the characteristic long distance views from Coombe Hill, Bacombe Hill and Boddington Hill’ (paragraph 2.5.12). CFA 10 clarifies that the views from the Coombe Hill and Bacombe Hill will be significantly adversely affected by construction such as building the Wendover Green Tunnel and realigning the Nash Lee Road. We suggest that paragraph 2.5.12 should specifically mention that views from the Coombe Hill monument on the Ridgeway National Trail will be adversely affected.

2.21.        We agree that losses such as 15ha of woodland, 10.2ha of which is ancient, will ‘noticeably alter the character of the Misbourne Valley’ (paragraph 2.5.14). However, we suggest that stating that ‘these losses will not be perceived beyond the confines of the valley’ is an example of Volume 3, Chapter 2 underestimating the effect on the AONB, as discussed in para 1.9 of Annex 1. Paragraph 2.5.19 makes a similar statement in relation to the historic environment, stating that ‘the loss of these historic features and properties...will be limited to the Misbourne Valley and will not be perceived over the wider AONB; therefore the impact on the historic settlement and environment will be limited.’

2.22.        We welcome the recognition in paragraph 2.5.22 that construction activity will affect some tranquil valleys, including that north-west of Chalfont St Giles (around Upper Bottom Farm) and in the vicinity of Wendover Dean - and that the activity at the latter ‘will be perceived over a wider area’.

2.23.        We disagree with the statement in paragraph 2.5.24 that ‘the construction activity will substantially but temporarily alter the character and appearance of the landscape in the immediate vicinity of the Proposed Scheme to the north of the Chilterns tunnel’. It is clear from both Volume 3 and the LVAs CFAs 8-10 that there will be a long-term change to the character of the Misbourne Valley in this area.

2.24.        Although paragraph 2.5.26 states that the only highly tranquil area to be ‘noticeably affected’ by construction will be around Wendover Dean, we note that CFA10’s LVA indicates that it also will impact noticeably on parts of some highly tranquil LCAs (Chiltern Scarp Wendover West, Chiltern Scarp Coombe Hill and Lee Undulating Valley Slopes). We also advise that construction will substantially lessen existing levels of tranquillity, contrary to the conclusion made in paragraph 2.5.26.

2.25.        We welcome the acknowledgement in paragraph 2.5.27 that ‘The changes in the immediate vicinity of the Proposed Scheme will be at considerable variance with the landscape character and special landscape qualities of the Chilterns AONB, resulting in substantial local impacts and a major adverse effect locally during the peak construction stage’. Natural England, however, considers that these changes will impact substantially on the characteristics that underpin the AONB’s natural beauty in a wider context. The word ‘local’ implies that the effects are relatively limited. The ZTV indicates the likely geographic extent of the visual effects (excluding tall construction plant) which extends up to 2km either side of the Proposed Scheme. The construction stage will also cause direct impacts to the fabric of the landscape along the length of the Wendover Gap LCA due, for example, to the construction of viaducts, cuttings, 10m high embankments and road realignments. Hyde Heath North LCA is another that will also experience major adverse effects arising from construction activities across its area, including the construction of a ‘cut and cover’ green tunnel, a 23m deep cutting, a new roundabout and demolition of properties.

2.26.        As discussed in paragraphs 1.8 – 1.9 of Annex 1, Natural England disagrees that the Chilterns AONB will only experience a moderate adverse effect during construction as stated in paragraph 2.5.28. It is clear from CFA9 and 10 that several LCAs and visual receptors will experience ‘major adverse’ effects during construction, and that many of the key characteristics that contribute to the natural beauty of the AONB will be impacted severely by construction works in the Misbourne Valley. This in turn will impact on the area’s natural beauty and landscape and scenic beauty.

Effects arising during operation
 

2.27.        Natural England recognises that HS2 Ltd has incorporated various mitigation measures to try to reduce adverse effects during the operation of the Proposed Scheme. In particular, we note the assessment’s conclusion that the bored tunnel in the southern part of the AONB will not be visible apart from its vent shafts and associated infrastructure (paragraph 2.6.2). We feel that this is an appropriate level of mitigation in this area, if the AONB cannot be avoided.

2.28.        We advise that further mitigation is required elsewhere along the route through the Chilterns AONB, based on our assessment of the Proposed Scheme’s significant adverse effects upon natural beauty and landscape and scenic beauty. We would welcome greater clarity and discussion regarding the environmental benefits and disbenefits of the various extended tunnel options set out in the ES. We would also value the opportunity to work with HS2 and partners to fully explore and consider other mitigation measures and initiatives. (Please see paragraphs 2.37 – 2.40 below).

2.29.        The ES states that ‘Approximately 3 km² (300ha) of the landscape of the AONB (less than 0.5%) will be altered as a result of the surface changes associated with the Proposed Scheme during operation’ (paragraph 2.6.3). We refer again to our comments above in paragraph 1.9 of Annex 1. We also advise that the visual effects and impacts on character will be wider than the direct impacts to the landscape fabric.

2.30.        Paragraph 2.6.3 summarises the ‘most apparent changes to the character of the AONB’ that the Proposed Scheme will have, and paragraphs 2.6.5 – 2.6.24 set out the impacts it will have on the Chilterns’ ‘special landscape qualities and natural beauty’ during operation (summarised in 2.6.25 - 2.33). This complements the CFA landscape and visual assessments of the effects upon LCAs.

2.31.        The ES states that the Proposed Scheme’s impacts will cause a ‘major adverse effect locally during year 1 of operation’ (2026), as they will be ‘at variance with the existing character and will discernibly alter the special landscape qualities, natural beauty, pockets of tranquillity, landscape character and setting of the AONB’ (paragraph 2.6.25). Natural England advises that the major effects will be wider than ‘local’:

• The influence of the 18m high, 500m Wendover Dean viaduct will extend across much of the northern part of the Misbourne Valley, as is acknowledged in paragraph 2.6.21. The photomontage in Figure LV-01-046 clearly shows the visual impact of the structure from near Kingsash.
• We consider that CFA10 has underestimated the magnitude[12] and significance of effects in the Wendover Gap LCA by classing them as ‘medium’ and ‘moderate’ respectively. We advise that the magnitude of change in year 1 and 15 will be high, based on our consideration of the Proposal’s likely effects in relation to the SMR’s criteria (see Table 1, page 15). This is based on permanent alterations to key characteristics (eg changes to its natural landform); the addition of new permanent features such as the Wendover Dean and Small Heath viaducts (the former in particular would substantially affect the surrounding rural character); and marked changes to its tranquillity from frequent high speed trains especially in the Wendover Dean/Bowood Lane/Kingsash area. We advise that these impacts on the landscape in an AONB can be judged adverse at a national level; meeting one of the SMR’s own criteria for being a ‘major adverse’ effect. We consider that the Proposed Scheme also meets other criteria for potentially having a ‘major adverse’ effect on the Wendover Gap LCA (see Table 2, page 16).

Table 1: Amended version of the table presented in paragraph 12.4.1 of the SMR Addendum (itself an amendment to Table 20 from the full SMR), with additional Natural England comments included.

Table 2: Extract from Table 21 of the SMR which lists the ‘broad criteria that influence the level of significance of landscape effects... Both the major and moderate categories are considered to comprise a significant effect. Any one aspect described may result in the categorisation within that significance level’ (paragraph 12.6.3)

2.32.        CFAs 9-10 make clear that LCAs along the Misbourne Valley, and north of the Chilterns north portal, will also experience significant adverse effects, at least during year 1 of operation; we consider that the effects will continue beyond year one and, in many cases, be long-term or permanent. These impacts will, in turn, impact on the characteristics that contribute to the natural beauty of the AONB. Paragraphs 2.6.27 and 2.6.31 of Volume 3 acknowledge that these impacts will include:

• Adverse impacts on the setting of the chalk escarpment arising from the presence of new infrastructure, such as the B4009 overbridge and two further PRoW overbridges. CFA 10 also states there will be significant adverse impacts on views from the summit of Coombe Hill and Bacombe Hill during the first winter of operation. Clarification is needed on whether or not the maintenance loop will be visible from the former location.
• The loss of woodland, including 10.2ha of ancient woodland. We agree this will ‘substantially alter the character of parts of the Misbourne Valley’, the photomontage in Figure LV-01-038 showing the major adverse changes in winter and summer of year 1. Whilst new planting may help to integrate aspects of the Proposed Scheme over time, this cannot truly mitigate for the loss of ancient woodland, which cannot be recreated. We also recommend that advice is taken from CCB and local authorities on whether there may be more appropriate areas for some of the new woodland planting to ensure that it is in keeping with the character of the landscape.
• Adverse impacts on tranquil valleys, arising from the introduction of high speed trains and related infrastructure. These long-term impacts will not only be in terms of noise, but also movement where the line is on viaduct or embankment. The introduction of overhead line equipment and bridges will also reduce the valleys’ sense of seclusion.
• Permanent direct impacts on the network of ancient routes, such as Bowood Lane and Leather Lane which will be partially realigned and carried over the route via new ‘overbridges’. One of these is shown in the Figure LV-01-041 photomontage; we hope that this is simply an indicative illustration and that the final detailed design will reflect their rural location more sympathetically. Please see our comments in the Overview section 7  about the need for good connections between National Trails and the surrounding network of PRoWs and considering how these routes will be experienced.
• Paragraph 2.6.16 states, the Proposed Scheme will be also visible from many ancient routes in year 1 of operation, including the Ridgeway National Trail and the Icknield Way Path. The ZTV during operation shows that the Proposed Scheme is likely to remain visible in year 15 (2041) from up to c 1.7km either side of the route in the northern part of the Misbourne Valley, encompassing parts of the Icknield Way, views from the Ridgeway at Combe Hill and a number of PRoWs. The effects of sequential views are not mentioned.
• Severance of farmland, which we advise will impact on the historic field pattern and characteristic field boundaries. Whilst replanted hedgerows will help to reinstate the pattern as they mature, it will remain severed in places and its integrity will be lost.
• Permanent losses to other aspects of the Chilterns’ historic environment, such as the removal of part of Grim’s Ditch scheduled monument[14]. We consider that these changes, in combination with the loss of ancient woodland, disruption to the field pattern and ancient routes, will diminish the landscape’s direct connection with its past.

2.33.        We also agree with the statement in paragraph 2.6.27 that the introduction of high speed trains and related infrastructure will ‘affect the character of the landscape in the vicinity of the Misbourne Valley’, but advise that this change will be substantial and effectively permanent. The route’s straight line, across the valley sides, will be a discordant feature and will introduce engineered features into a rural environment. Whilst we recognise that attempts have been made to reduce the impacts of the Proposed Scheme, such as placing it in cuttings and using earthworks, these will have lasting impacts themselves through severing land and changing the landform. The ‘sustainable placement area’ at Hunts Farm (approximately 1.3km long, up to 5m high and 450m wide) will also permanently change the topography. We would wish to see further information to support the statement in paragraph 2.6.3 that the earthworks will be indiscernible from the existing landscape. In addition, Volume 3 does not mention the effects on character arising from the permanent presence of balancing ponds for railway drainage and land drainage areas. We note that they will be ‘dry most of the time except following intense rainfall’[15]; however, they appear very visible in Figures LV-01-050 and LV-01-046 and uncharacteristic of the Chilterns landscape. We would welcome further discussions on measures to integrate them into the landscape[16] over time if no alternative solutions can be found.

2.34.        The above changes highlight that there are likely to be several significant adverse effects on the key characteristics that contribute to the natural beauty of the AONB in the Misbourne Valley, many of which will be substantial and long-term or permanent. Natural England advises that these changes represent a major adverse effect upon natural beauty and the landscape and scenic beauty (not ‘moderate’ as stated in paragraph 2.6.30). We welcome the acknowledgment in paragraph 2.6.30 that even a moderate effect is ‘considered to be significant’. Indeed, we consider that applying the SMR’s Table 21 ‘Landscape significance of effects’ (an extract from which is reproduced in Table 2, page 16 above) to the assessment of effects on the AONB helps to inform our conclusion that there will be a major adverse effect on the natural beauty of the AONB. We consider that, on any reasonable application of the criteria, the Proposed Scheme should be assigned a ‘major adverse’, rather than ‘moderate’ effect on the AONB.

2.35.        We agree with the statement in paragraph 2.6.31 that the significance of effect will remain in year 15 of operation, but argue that they will remain major (not moderate) adverse effects. Planting such as that proposed adjacent to Mantles Wood and the reinstatement of hedgerows may help to integrate aspects of the Proposed Scheme by then, but many of the impacts on the characteristics that contribute to the AONB’s natural beauty will be permanent.

2.36.        Natural England disagrees that the ‘effects of the Proposed Scheme on the special landscape qualities, natural beauty and landscape character and setting of the wider AONB during year 60 of operation will reduce such that it is not considered to be significant’ (paragraph 2.6.33). There may be a change in people’s perceptions two generations ahead, but the effects upon natural beauty for which the AONB was designated will remain. Natural England therefore advises that further mitigation is required, and to a level appropriate to this nationally important landscape.

Mitigation

2.37.                      The ES indicates that the extended bored tunnel Options B-D ‘all performed well on environmental grounds compared with Option A [the Proposed Scheme] as they avoided a range of impacts upon environmental receptors. This included the reduction of landscape and visual, ecological, cultural heritage, noise, community and agricultural impacts within the AONB’[17]. It would seem, therefore, that an extended bored tunnel could provide the most effective means of mitigating the landscape and visual effects on the AONB. The CFA 9 report goes on to consider a range of additional extended tunnel options; we advise there is a need for greater clarity regarding the environmental benefits and disbenefits of all the extended tunnel options, to aid understanding and comparison between them. We note that paragraphs 2.6.12 and 2.6.13 in the CFA 9 report introduce other important considerations, namely ‘new local impacts’ and ‘an intervention gap’ respectively.

2.38.        If an extended bored tunnel option is discounted, we advise that dialogue should continue with partners and stakeholders to ensure that all other mitigation strategies are fully explored to avoid and/or minimise harm in the immediate vicinity of the Proposed Scheme and to the Chilterns AONB.

              In addition, various practical measures could be considered to secure the best local expert knowledge and outcomes. These could include:

• Establishing a Countryside Management Fund or equivalent to help the long-term conservation and enhancement of landscape character, such as enhancing local hedgerows and ancient woodland
• Setting up a ‘Landscape Working Group’, including landscape managers, to advise on the long-term management of land.

These initiatives could potentially make the landscape beyond the rail corridor more robust.

2.39.        Also, it is unclear whether certain routes will be used by construction traffic, such as the tree-lined Hyde Lane (marked on map CT-05-032 as ‘land potentially required during construction’).  In such cases, it may be beneficial to consider whether any additional land needs to be purchased at this stage, so that a temporary adjacent access road can be constructed to avoid direct and indirect impacts on the lane’s characteristic features.

2.40.        It will be important to ensure that the design of viaducts, other structures (e.g. the vent shaft headhouses and tunnel portals) and diverted routes respond to the local landscape character and exhibit the highest possible design standards. Advice on this should be taken from CCB and local authorities.

Annex 3: Nationally Designated Sites (Sites of Special Scientific Interest)

3.0.            Natural England has reviewed the ecology chapters of the 26 Community Forum Area (CFA) reports included within Volume 2 of the Environmental Statement (ES). These reports provide details of a number of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) located within 500m of works required for the Proposed Scheme. The below site specific comments are based upon the information presented in the CFA reports, and are informed by Natural England’s knowledge of the sites in question.

3.0.1.     For clarity, within this response the term compensation is used to describe measures to provide new habitat to address habitats lost as a result of the Proposed Scheme. The use of this term should not be taken to refer to its application as part of any specific legislative procedure.

3.1.            Mid Colne Valley SSSI

3.1.1.     The route of the Proposed Scheme crosses the Mid Colne Valley SSSI, with approximately 19ha of the SSSI within the land required for construction. The impacts upon this SSSI are discussed in CFA 7 report.
 

3.1.2.     The Proposed Scheme will result in the loss of habitats used by the breeding and wintering bird assemblage for which the site is designated, which will lead to an adverse impact on these species through reduction in suitable nesting/wintering sites. The report states in paragraph 7.4.6 that the combination of habitat loss and subsequent reduction in breeding bird numbers ‘will result in a permanent adverse impact on the integrity of the Mid Colne Valley SSSI’. Natural England advises that the Proposed Scheme will result in damage or destruction of the features for which this site is designated.
 

3.1.3.     In addition to direct habitat loss within the SSSI, there is the potential for reduced use of the area under the viaduct by breeding and wintering birds, as a result of these areas being less attractive due to overshadowing. Natural England advises that this additional effect should be assessed and if further areas of the SSSI are found to be affected indirectly then additional compensatory habitat will be required.
 

3.1.4.     The report also details in paragraph 7.4.23 the proposed modifications to the River Colne adjacent to Long Pond which will involve removal of vegetation and permanent changes to river morphology over a distance of 170m. It is Natural England’s advice that, as presented in the ES in CFA Report 7 Ecology, these changes will result in a permanent adverse impact on this section of the river and on the SSSI, due to the loss of natural river morphology and processes, and the impacts on bank side vegetation and use of the river by wildlife.
 

3.1.5.     Natural England notes the mitigation and compensation measures outlined in the report, which will help to address the above impacts. We understand that HS2 Ltd are arranging further discussions to clarify the details of additional effects, mitigation and compensation, as outlined elsewhere in the ES, for March 2014.  Amendments to the viaduct design will reduce habitat loss and disturbance, and habitat creation is designed to provide compensation for habitats lost. Noise fence barriers along the route of the Proposed Scheme will help to reduce noise and visual disturbance during operation. We advise that additional measures will be required in order to ensure impacts from the proposed works to the River Colne channel are avoided or mitigated for.
 

3.1.6.     Subject to agreement on the mitigation and compensation details outlined below, Natural England advises that the measures proposed are sufficient to mitigate and compensate for the adverse impacts upon the Mid Colne Valley SSSI, subject to the following:

• loss of habitats within the SSSI must be compensated for by the habitat creation measures outlined in the report. The quantum of new habitat will need to be sufficient to compensate both for direct habitat loss and for that which will no longer be used as a result of the Proposed Scheme (ie any overshadowed areas).
• Adverse impacts from river channel modifications adjacent to Long Pond must be avoided where possible, and if it is not possible to avoid impacts, then appropriate mitigation/compensation for these impacts will be required.
   

3.2.            Helmdon Disused Railway Cutting SSSI

3.2.1.     The Proposed Scheme crosses the Helmdon Disused Railway Cutting SSSI, resulting in the loss of approximately 0.8ha of grassland from the SSSI. The impacts upon this SSSI are discussed in CFA 14 report.
 

3.2.2.     The Proposed Scheme will result in the loss of 0.8ha of grassland from within the SSSI, of which 0.1ha is lowland calcareous grassland, a feature for which the site is designated. In addition to this loss of habitat, the Proposed Scheme will also permanently sever the SSSI, separating a small southern section from the remainder of the site. The fragmentation of the site will restrict movements of the butterflies which are notified features of the site, as highlighted in paragraph 7.5.1 of the report. This paragraph states that the combination of habitat loss and fragmentation of the site ‘will result in a permanent adverse effect on the integrity of the SSSI’. Natural England advises that the Proposed Scheme will result in damage or destruction of the features for which this site is designated.
 

3.2.3.     Natural England welcomes the mitigation and compensation measures outlined in the report, which will help to address the adverse impacts on Helmdon Disused Railway Cutting SSSI. Narrowing of the area required for construction within the SSSI will reduce the extent of habitat loss and disturbance, and the creation of 7ha of calcareous grassland and other habitats adjacent to the northern section of the SSSI will compensate for the loss of habitat within the site and provide connectivity between new and existing habitats.
 

3.2.4.     Natural England advises that the measures proposed are sufficient to mitigate and compensate for the adverse impacts on the Helmdon Disused Railway Cutting SSSI. However, this is dependent upon the creation of new calcareous grassland to compensate for the loss of this habitat within the SSSI, and we therefore advise that a number of key issues will need to be considered in formulating the methodology for grassland creation.
 

3.2.5.     Natural England advise that, in order to ensure impacts upon the SSSI are adequately compensated for:

• Soil characteristics within habitat creation areas will need to be assessed to ensure suitable conditions for calcareous grassland are present. Soil chemistry will be an important factor in the success of calcareous grassland creation.
• On-going management of the habitat creation areas will be vital in enabling the desired habitat to develop. A management plan should be drawn up to set out how this will be achieved. We also recommend that a Countryside Management Fund should be established to ensure that funding for long-term management of habitat creation areas and other measures is secured.
   

3.2.6.     In addition, we recommend that scrub creation should be implemented with care, and designed in a way which replicates the distribution of this habitat type within the SSSI itself, so that it will be of benefit to the invertebrate species present within the SSSI.
 

3.3.            Berkswell Marsh SSSI
 

3.3.1.     The Proposed Scheme runs in close proximity to Berkswell Marsh SSSI, although no works are proposed within the SSSI boundary. Paragraph 7.4.6 of the CFA 23 report confirms this, and states that diversion of gas mains adjacent to the SSSI will not result in an adverse impact on the site. Natural England agrees with this assessment in relation to the information set out in the report.
 

3.3.2.     Berkswell Marsh SSSI is a wetland site which is sensitive to changes in hydrology. The Proposed Scheme has the potential to impact upon this SSSI as a result of construction of a cutting in the vicinity of the site which could affect local ground water and surface water drainage. An assessment of these impacts has been carried out, and is presented in WR-002-023, Water resources assessment for CFA 23. Natural England has previously provided advice on this assessment, which states in paragraph 4.4.10 that ‘there is likely to be hydraulic connectivity between the superficial deposits and Bayley’s Brook’ (which feeds into the SSSI) and that ‘the cutting is likely to partially cut off groundwater flow’ in this location.
 

3.3.3.     Natural England understands that the assessment has been based upon a model of the hydrological regime of the area, and that no borehole records for the area between the cutting and the SSSI are available, and no monitoring of groundwater or surface water has been undertaken in this area. The water resources assessment confirms that ‘given the paucity of water level and flow data, mitigation measures have been chosen to take into account the uncertainty in the assessment’ (para 4.4.10). Given this assessment, Natural England advises that further geotechnical investigations need to be carried out to determine the nature of the hydrological connectivity between the cutting location and the SSSI, in order to inform a full mitigation strategy. We advise that mitigation should not be implemented as a precautionary approach without full knowledge of the likely impacts.
 

3.3.4.     Natural England is concerned that the above potential hydrological impacts upon Berkswell Marsh SSSI have not been considered in the ecology section of the CFA report.
 

3.3.5.     Natural England advises that the CFA report and the water resources assessment currently contain insufficient information to determine the likely impacts of the Proposed Scheme upon Berkswell Marsh SSSI. We advise that:

• an assessment of the likely impacts upon this site should be undertaken.
• the results of such an assessment should then inform a mitigation/compensation strategy for this site, which we understand will be considered in discussions with HS2 Ltd in March 2014, and secured through the Environmental Memorandum (EM).
   

3.4.            Ellesborough and Kimble Warrens SSSI

3.4.1.     This SSSI is not located within the area required for construction; no works are proposed within the SSSI boundary and it is discussed in CFA 11. The site lies adjacent to the A4010 which it is proposed will be used by construction traffic.
 

3.4.2.     Ellesborough and Kimble Warrens SSSI is designated for its populations of a rare lichen, amongst other features. Lichens are known to be sensitive to changes in air quality, and therefore the Proposed Scheme has the potential to have a negative impact upon this lichen if air quality is affected by construction traffic. Should the lichen be present within an area in which air quality is predicted to be affected, then the Proposed Scheme would be likely to result in damage to the SSSI.
 

3.4.3.     Natural England advises that the ES currently contains insufficient information to determine the likely impacts of the Proposed Scheme upon Ellesborough and Kimble Warrens SSSI.  However, we understand that a study and report have been commissioned for completion and discussion during March 2014.  Currently, we advise that:

• a full assessment of the likely impacts upon the site should be undertaken, including vegetation surveys of the area of the SSSI within which air quality impacts may occur.
• The results of such an assessment should then inform proposals for suitable measures to avoid, mitigate or compensate for these impacts. These measures should be considered and secured through the EM. Natural England will provide advice on proposed measures through this process.
   

3.4.4.     This site is also part of the Chilterns Beechwoods Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and as such the impacts of air quality changes upon this European site need to be considered. This is being addressed via a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) screening report, which Natural England will comment on separately.
 

3.5.            Long Itchington and Ufton Woods SSSI

3.5.1.     The route of the Proposed Scheme runs directly across Long Itchington and Ufton Woods SSSI. However due to the use of a bored tunnel in this area, the Proposed Scheme will not result in the direct loss of habitats within the SSSI. The impacts upon this SSSI are discussed in CFA 16 report.
 

3.5.2.     It is possible that the construction of the tunnel beneath Long Itchington and Ufton Woods SSSI could result in ground settlement within the SSSI and interruption of ground water flows beneath the site, as identified in paragraph 7.4.3 of the report. The report states that no geotechnical investigations have been undertaken, and therefore the extent of these impacts is uncertain. Based on an estimated ‘worst case’ scenario the report concludes in paragraph 7.4.9 that the Proposed Scheme is not expected to have an adverse impact on the SSSI. To date, Natural England has not seen any evidence to support this assertion and therefore, at present,  cannot agree with this assessment without further information to support these conclusions.
 

3.5.3.     It is Natural England’s understanding that HS2 Ltd proposes to carry out appropriate investigations to determine the likely impacts on the SSSI from construction, in order to inform mitigation proposals. We would welcome discussions with HS2 Ltd about the investigation in March 2014.

3.5.4.     Currently, Natural England advises that the CFA 16 report contains insufficient information to determine the likely impacts of the Proposed Scheme upon Long Itchington and Ufton Woods SSSI. We advise that:

• A full assessment of the likely impacts upon this site should be undertaken.
• The results of such an assessment should then inform a mitigation/compensation strategy for this site, to be considered and secured through the EM. Natural England will provide advice on mitigation/compensation measures through this process.
   

3.6.            Sheephouse Wood SSSI

3.6.1.     The route of the Proposed Scheme runs directly adjacent to Sheephouse Wood SSSI, however no works are proposed within the boundary of the SSSI. The impacts upon this SSSI are discussed in CFA 12 report.
 

3.6.2.     The Proposed Scheme has the potential to result in disturbance to the SSSI during construction, through damage, destruction or loss of habitats, and disturbance of bird and invertebrate species which are notified features of the SSSI.
 

3.6.3.     Natural England welcomes the avoidance and mitigation measures outlined in the report, which will help to address any impacts on Sheephouse Wood SSSI. The alignment of the Proposed Scheme avoids incursion into the SSSI, and also allows for the East West Rail scheme to be constructed in the existing rail corridor. Planting of blackthorn within the area will provide additional habitat for black hairstreak butterflies, a notified feature of the SSSI, and will help to address fragmentation effects. Natural England advises that any additional planting should comprise stock of local provenance. Natural England is pleased to note the proposed ‘Sheephouse wood mitigation structure’ outlined in paragraph 7.5.13 of the report, which will be designed to safeguard local wildlife populations, in particular bats, from passing trains. This structure has the potential to reduce disturbance of species and habitats within Sheephouse Wood SSSI during operation of the Proposed Scheme.
 

3.6.4.     Natural England advises that the avoidance and mitigation measures proposed are sufficient to address any adverse impacts on Sheephouse Wood SSSI. In addition, we advise that, due to proximity to the SSSI, the designs for the mitigation structure should consider the sensitive nature of the designated site and its connection to the wider landscape, and ensure that the construction of the structure will avoid impacts on the functionality of the SSSI.
 

3.6.5.     The CFA report highlights that significant populations of some rarer bat species, in particular Bechstein’s bat, have been identified within Sheephouse Wood SSSI and in the surrounding area. While these bat species are not a designated feature of the SSSI, the potential impacts of the Proposed Scheme on populations of bats and other protected species in this area need to be assessed and detailed mitigation proposals agreed. This is being addressed separately as part of wider assessments of protected species impacts along the route, and Natural England will provide comments on this by the Second Reading of the Hybrid Bill.

3.7.            River Blythe SSSI

3.7.1.     The River Blythe SSSI lies within land required for the Proposed Scheme and is crossed by the route of the Proposed Scheme in one location. In addition the land required for the Proposed Scheme includes a number of tributaries of the River Blythe, some of which are crossed by the route. The impacts upon the River Blythe SSSI are considered in CFA reports 23 and 24.
 

3.7.2.     The report covering CFA 23 states in paragraph 7.3.7 that no works will be carried out within the river channel, and confirms in paragraph 7.4.7 that no works will take place within the SSSI. The CFA 24 report also confirms in paragraph 7.4.6 that no works will occur within the SSSI boundary and therefore there will be no loss or damage of habitats within the designated site. Natural England understands that no works are proposed that will impact upon the river banks.  If this is the situation, then Natural England agrees with this assessment. 
 

3.7.3.     Natural England welcomes the avoidance and mitigation measures set out in the CFA reports, which will help to address impacts upon the River Blythe SSSI. The proposals to construct a viaduct over the River Blythe and its floodplain, and to avoid the need for construction within the river channel at Stonebridge Island, will reduce direct impacts upon the SSSI. We also welcome the commitment that the Code of Construction Practice (CoCP) will ensure no adverse impacts on the SSSI as a result of pollution during construction.
 

3.7.4.     Natural England advises that the avoidance and mitigation measures proposed are sufficient to address adverse effects on the River Blythe SSSI. We advise that:

• any works to the channel of the River Blythe or its tributaries, including realignment and culverts, should ensure that flow rates within the River Blythe SSSI are maintained, in order to avoid adverse impacts upon the SSSI.
   

3.8.            Coleshill and Bannerley Pools SSSI

3.8.1.     This site lies within 500m of land required for the Proposed Scheme, and is in close proximity to highway works which will be carried out as part of the proposals. The impacts upon Coleshill and Bannerley Pools SSSI are discussed in CFA 24 report.
 

3.8.2.     Paragraph 7.3.8 of the report states that no works are proposed that would result in loss or damage to SSSI habitats. In paragraph 7.4.7 the report states that there will be no impacts on the SSSI. Natural England agrees with this assessment, subject to confirmation that no works will take place within the boundary of the SSSI, rather than simply stating that no works will affect the designated site.
 

3.8.3.     From the construction maps it appears that a satellite compound will be located immediately adjacent to Coleshill and Bannerley Pools SSSI, which has the potential to result in damage to the SSSI through contamination with pollutants during construction. Natural England advises that the potential for an indirect impact upon the SSSI during construction should be considered.
 

3.8.4.     Natural England welcomes the avoidance measures included within the report, which help to address impacts upon Coleshill and Bannerley Pools SSSI; namely that highway works near to the site have been designed to avoid adverse impacts on the SSSI.
 

3.8.5.     Natural England advises that the avoidance and mitigation measures proposed are sufficient to address adverse impacts on Coleshill and Bannerley Pools SSSI. We advise that:

• proposals for the creation of ecological compensation areas adjacent to the SSSI will need to ensure that new planting does not adversely impact the SSSI, in particular in relation to the hydrology of the site.
   

3.8.6.     We note that in respect of the River Blythe SSSI the report states that the CoCP will control construction operations to avoid adverse impacts. We would advise that the same commitment is required in respect of Coleshill and Bannerley Pools SSSI.
 

3.9.            Fray’s Farm Meadows SSSI

3.9.1.     This site is not located within the area required for construction of the Proposed Scheme, and no works are proposed within the SSSI boundary. However, the site lies adjacent to National Grid power line realignment works, which will result in construction adjacent to the site.
 

3.9.2.     Natural England advises that no adverse impacts on this SSSI are likely as a result of works associated with the Proposed Scheme.
 

3.10.        Denham Lock Wood SSSI

3.10.1. This site is not located within the area required for construction of the Proposed Scheme, and no works are proposed within the SSSI boundary. However, the site lies adjacent to National Grid power line realignment works, which will result in construction adjacent to the site.
 

3.10.2. Natural England advises that no adverse impacts on this SSSI are likely as a result of works associated with the Proposed Scheme.
 

3.11.        Natural England advises that there are unlikely to be any adverse impacts upon any of the other SSSIs referred to in the CFA reports and not discussed above.

Annex 4: Ancient Woodland

4.1.            The Environmental Statement (ES) discusses the impacts of the Proposed Scheme upon ancient woodland and the extent of this irreplaceable habitat which will be lost as a result of the proposals. The ecology chapters of the 26 Community Forum Area (CFA) reports provide details of the quantity of ancient woodland that will be lost within each area, and the means by which this will be addressed. The impacts upon ancient woodland across the whole route are discussed in Volume 3: Route-wide effects. Natural England have previously provided advice to HS2 Ltd on ancient woodland impacts and how these can be addressed. Our comments below are informed by the above documents, and reflect our previous advice on this subject.

4.2.            Natural England advises that in addition to the direct loss of 32ha of ancient woodland from 19 sites, there will be wider indirect effects upon a greater number of woodlands due to disturbance, fragmentation and reduced connectivity to other similar habitats. We advise that the ES does not provide adequate consideration of the direct and indirect impacts on ancient woodland as a result of the Proposed Scheme nor how this will be addressed. The issues outlined below will need to be addressed within the Environmental Memorandum (EM), and Natural England would expect to be consulted on this. The EM should also provide details of survey work which has been undertaken so far, and that proposed, in order to inform specific mitigation measures.

4.3.            Natural England has previously advised that the assessment of impacts upon ancient woodland should include smaller woodlands between 0.25ha and 2ha in size. These sites are not currently included on the Ancient Woodland Inventory (AWI) because they are below the current size threshold for inclusion in this part of the country. However the AWI is being revised on a rolling programme and new updates are including smaller sites down to 0.25 hectares. It is not clear from the ES whether these smaller sites have been considered. Natural England requests clarification of this. Until this is provided we assume they have not been considered.

4.4.            The revised inventory for the Chilterns AONB section of the route (2012) includes these smaller woodlands. We recommend that the methodology used for this revised inventory should be used to assess all smaller woodlands affected by the route to identify any further ancient woodland which will need to be accounted for in designing mitigation/compensation.

4.5.            In addition, we have advised that consideration should be given to impacts of the Proposed Scheme upon veteran trees. A veteran tree is ‘a tree that is of interest biologically, culturally or aesthetically because of its age, size or condition’[18]. They are of particular value for the unique and high quality habitat they offer to a range of animal and plant species, but also for the historic and cultural heritage which they represent within the landscape.  It appears that the impacts upon veteran trees have not been addressed in the ecology chapters within the ES. We understand that baseline information relating to veteran trees is included within the Volume 5 appendices listed under the heading ‘designated sites, habitat surveys and flora’ at local/parish level.

4.6.            While ancient woodland is an irreplaceable resource, Natural England welcomes the commitment to provide compensatory habitat for that which will be lost. We are pleased to note that the ‘Methodology for demonstrating no net loss of biodiversity’ report (Scope and Methodology Report Addendum: Annex D) classifies all ancient woodland as being of ‘very high’ distinctiveness, the highest category. Natural England notes that the technical note relating to the biodiversity offsetting metric (used for the ‘no net loss’ calculation) is published as part of the ES.  It is in an annex to the Scope and Methodology (SMR) Addendum within the Vol 5 appendices as Annex D ecology technical note with the no net loss technical note commencing at page 364.  Natural England advises that the ratio of compensatory habitat to that which will be lost needs to be discussed. The compensation ratio should reflect the distinctiveness of this habitat type and recognise that ancient woodland is an irreplaceable habitat.

4.7.            In order for compensatory woodland habitats to be successful in addressing the losses of ancient woodland, the long-term management of these habitats must be secured. Natural England advises that long-term management in the context of woodlands should be a minimum of 50 years. Therefore this is the minimum amount of time for which the project should commit to management of new and existing woodlands affected by the proposals. We recommend that a Countryside Management Fund should be established to ensure that funding for this long-term management is secured.

4.8.            Natural England advises that any assessment of impacts should also consider the indirect effects of fragmentation which can result from the loss of ancient woodlands. Where woodlands are fragmented, reduced in size or lost completely this can have significant ecological impacts, affecting the ability of species to move between sites and to maintain their current population. We advise that mitigation/compensation planting should be designed to ensure connectivity between woodlands is maintained and improved, and also to create connections between existing ancient woodlands and new woodlands. Woodland creation and planting should be designed in a way which will facilitate colonisation of new sites by ancient woodland species, and enable buffering of existing ancient woodland.

Annex 5: Ecological Principles of Mitigation (Scope and Methodology Report Addendum: Annex D)

5.1.            Natural England welcomes the production of this document, and the commitment to deliver mitigation for impacts upon protected species and habitats in line with a defined set of principles. We note that in the absence of a full set of survey data for the area affected by the Proposed Scheme, it has not been possible to fully quantify impacts and outline detailed mitigation and compensation strategies. The document will therefore provide a guide for the development of mitigation/compensation for impacts upon protected species and habitats as a result of the Proposed Scheme.

5.2.            Given the above, Natural England will provide detailed comments and advice on the principles contained within this document as part of our ongoing engagement with HS2 Ltd and its consultants, in order to ensure impacts upon protected species are identified and addressed. We commit to working with HS2 Ltd on the development of mitigation/compensation strategies based upon further data gathered throughout the consultation period and beyond.

5.3.            We have the following general comments to make on the document at this stage:

5.3.1.     The document contains regular references to the caveat ‘wherever it is reasonably practicable to do so’ (or similar). Natural England is concerned that this statement allows for circumstances where necessary mitigation/compensation measures may not be carried out. We advise that this statement weakens the commitment in the document to deliver whatever is required to ensure no significant impacts upon protected species and habitats. If this caveat is to be relied upon, then it will be necessary to demonstrate that required mitigation/compensation measures are not ‘reasonably practicable’ and that any proposed alternatives will still meet the relevant legal tests.

5.3.2.     Natural England is open the use of novel mitigation and compensation techniques as part of this project so long as it can be demonstrated that these can deliver the intended outcome and that they satisfy legal requirements.

5.3.3.     Where compensatory habitat is to be provided these areas will need to be created as early as possible in the development of the Proposed Scheme. We note that new habitats will be provided in advance of the loss of existing habitats; however the timing of habitat creation will also need to consider the maturation time of new habitats, which can be more than 12 months, and in many cases much longer.

5.3.4.     It should be noted that designated sites should not be used as part of compensatory habitats or as receptor sites for relocated protected species.

5.3.5.     Where it is proposed to translocate individuals or whole populations then it is important that the principles set down in the JNCC’s guidance on translocations are adhered to[19].

5.3.6.     When considering impacts on communities of species special consideration should be given to those species that are listed under section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 as the conservation of these species is a government priority.

5.3.7.     The document states, at the end of each chapter, a commitment to ‘appropriate’ management, maintenance and monitoring of compensatory habitats. This will need to be clarified to set out the means for determining what level of management or monitoring is ‘appropriate’, so that this reflects the requirements of the habitat in question.

5.3.8.     Strategies for management, maintenance and monitoring will need to include provision for long-term maintenance of habitat and populations, as well as a means of preventing damage or destruction of compensatory habitats during the operational phase.

5.4.            We have the following additional taxon-specific comments:

5.4.1.     European Protected Species (EPS): Off-site locations may be considered as compensation for impacts on EPS that require a licence under the Conservation of Species and Habitats Regulations 2010 (as amended) where:

(a)   the off-site location is judged to lie within the spatial area occupied by the impacted population or meta-population, or is immediately adjacent the occupied area and would allow the population to expand into the new area; and

(b)   it can be demonstrated that the compensation (and any mitigation measures) are sufficient to avoid a detrimental impact on the impacted population or meta-population

5.4.2.     Great crested newts: Compensation breeding ponds should not exceed a distance of about 1.5km from the nearest breeding pond of a population or meta-population impacted by the project.

5.4.3.     Hazel dormouse: Translocation of dormice populations to enhanced habitats should be a last resort while translocating to newly created habitats would only exceptionally be considered a suitable solution.

5.4.4.     Common amphibians: Compensation of aquatic habitat needs to exceed a 1:1 basis to avoid a net loss of breeding habitat as it is anticipated that some new ponds will not to establish properly.

5.4.5.     Birds: There is no licensing purpose that can be used to permit harmful impacts on nesting birds for a project of this type, so timing works to avoid the bird breeding season will be imperative to avoid delays.

5.4.6.     Fish:

• The objective of remedial works should not be to increase habitat complexity but rather to replicate conditions characteristic of the river under natural processes (i.e. as should have been present prior to the project)
• There are opportunities for using compensation to improve longitudinal connectivity along the whole length of the river that is affected by the project (e.g. a stretch of river may be culverted, which would be mitigated as far as possible but the residual impact may be compensated for by removing a weir further upstream or downstream).
• The impact of vibration on fish should be considered as well as artificial light, chemicals etc.

5.4.7.     Habitats: There is no reference to fresh-water habitats (except in relation to fish) and thus no holistic explanation of the principles that will be applied.

Annex 6: Volume 3: Route-wide effects

6.1.            This document outlines the effects of the Proposed Scheme which have been identified on a route-wide basis. Natural England has reviewed the chapters within this document which detail impacts on the elements of the natural environment relevant to our statutory purpose. We provide comments below on Chapter 8: Ecology, including brief comments on ancient woodland which are covered in greater detail in Annex 4; and on Chapter 10: Landscape and visual assessment.

6.2.            Comments on Chapter 2 (Chilterns AONB) are outlined as part of our detailed landscape comments set out in Annexes 1 and 2.

6.3.            Chapter 9 (Land quality, encompassing geological conservation resources).   A strategic linear route on this scale is unprecedented and cuts across the geological fabric of England.  We advise that this very significant opportunity for geological conservation should be recognised and opportunities for sampling, recording of temporary sections and potentially the retention of permanent sections should be taken.

6.4.            Chapter 8: Ecology

6.4.1.     Paragraph 8.1.19 discusses the impacts of the Proposed Scheme upon ancient woodland, stating that the proposals will result in the loss of 32ha of ancient woodland, with 19 woodlands directly affected. Natural England has a number of concerns with this brief assessment of the impacts upon ancient woodland, as we do not feel it adequately reflects the importance of this habitat. We amplify these concerns in Annex 4.

6.4.2.     Natural England welcomes the proposals in paragraph 8.1.22 for restoration/creation of a network of hedgerows and other linear planting either side of the Proposed Scheme in order to maintain habitat linkages and compensate for loss of hedgerows. However we advise that such planting has the potential to attract species such as bats and birds and therefore should be sufficiently distant from the route itself to ensure these vulnerable species are not put at further risk.

6.4.3.     Measures outlined in paragraph 8.1.25 to enhance the ecological quality of new and realigned watercourses are welcomed, and will improve the value of these habitats. Natural England advises that these measures should be implemented within all sections of watercourses where engineering or other works are proposed, not just in newly created watercourses.

6.4.4.     Natural England welcomes the proposals for a mitigation structure adjacent to Sheephouse Wood (paragraph 8.1.42) which will reduce the risk to bat populations crossing the Proposed Scheme at this location. We look forward to being consulted further on the details of this and other proposed mitigation measures.

6.4.5.     Natural England is pleased to note that a monitoring programme will be developed to assess the effectiveness of mitigation measures (paragraph 8.1.43), and that we will be consulted on this.

6.4.6.     The Proposed Scheme has the potential to result in significant adverse effects upon barn owl through losses of up to 52 pairs route-wide (paragraph 8.1.57). Proposals outlined in paragraph 8.1.58 to provide alternative barn owl nesting sites at a greater distance from the Proposed Scheme are welcomed, however this measure relies on agreement from landowners, and there is therefore no guarantee that it will be deliverable. Natural England advises that alternative means of providing replacement nests will need to be considered, if the proposed mitigation measures cannot be delivered.

6.5.            Chapter 10: Landscape and visual assessment

6.5.1.     We agree that the Community Forum Areas (CFAs) are an appropriate level at which to identify the detailed landscape and visual effects. As mentioned in paragraph 2.9 of Annex 2, we also welcome Volume 3’s assessment of the Chilterns AONB. However, we would welcome clarification on the statement: ‘It is not considered that there are any significant route-wide effects on landscape and visual receptors arising from the construction or operation of the Proposed Scheme’ (paragraph 10.1.1). We advise that there will be landscape and visual effects along, and adjacent to, the entire route, and that a summary of these would be helpful. Please also refer to our comments on cumulative effects in the Overview p 7, section 8.

Page 9 of 38