Better safeguards needed to minimise harm to countryside from HS2
7 Apr 2014 12:40 PM
Better safeguards need to be implemented if
harmful environmental impacts of HS2 are to be minimised, the Environmental
Audit Committee has warned in its report, HS2 and the environment, published 7
April. Parliament, in its capacity as the planning authority for HS2, should
ensure that everything possible is done to minimise damage to ancient woodlands
and SSSIs and that where loss is genuinely unavoidable, that compensation is
applied to the fullest extent possible.
Committee Chair
Chair of the Committee, Joan Walley MP,
said:
"The Government needs to show real commitment to
dealing with the impact that HS2 will have on our countryside and wildlife.
Ancient woodlands and other hard to replace sites of natural value should not
be subordinated to crude economic calculations of cost and
benefit.
It
is imperative that an infrastructure project on such a large scale implements
proper environmental safeguards and ensures that impacts are minimised. This
means adopting stringent, enforceable standards and setting aside adequate
funding. That won’t happen if HS2 Ltd can avoid implementing safeguards
if they consider them to be ‘impracticable’ or
‘unreasonable’. There needs to be a separate ring-fenced budget for
these safeguards and for compensation, separate from the rest of the HS2
budget, to prevent the environment being squeezed if HS2 costs
grow."
The
principle of ‘no net biodiversity loss’
- Given the scale of the HS2 scheme, the aim of ‘no
net biodiversity loss’ is a challenging one. However, the Government
should seek out opportunities to do more: as it refines the processes guiding
biodiversity offsetting, it should identify possibilities to produce
biodiversity gains and add to local communities’ well-being. This would
be consistent with the Government’s goal of improving England’s
natural environment, set out in its Natural Environment White
Paper.
- For
any biodiversity assessment, a sound data baseline is indispensable. HS2 Ltd
stated that 60% of the proposed route had so far been surveyed. Further data
gathering, particularly on protected species not included in the current
Environmental Statement, should be carried out as soon as
possible.
Joan Walley MP added:
"The Government’s aim of ‘no net
biodiversity loss’ on HS2 is not good enough — it should aim for
environmental gains that the Government promised in its white paper on the
Natural Environment. In any case, the Government can’t demonstrate it
will cause no net harm because it has still not surveyed 40% of the land to be
used.
“Ancient woodland should be treated with particular care. HS2 will damage
some woodlands, and where that happens, compensation measures should be much
higher than the level indicated in the calculation that HS2 Ltd will use. That
metric needs to be looked at again."
Parliamentary scrutiny
- The
HS2 Hybrid Bill will be given its second reading on 28 April, after which it
will be referred to a dedicated select committee to examine
‘petitions’ against it. The Committee criticise the
procedure’s failure to fully address the requirements of EU and national
directives on environmental assessments, which it wants to be at least partly
rectified in the forthcoming Parliamentary proceedings.
Joan Walley MP said:
"So far the consultation process on HS2 has not
fully addressed the many environmental concerns we have. It is imperative that
Parliament itself now takes on that role. Our report will inform the second
reading debate on 28th April. But looking beyond that, we will make sure that
the remit of the committee examining petitions against HS2’s
environmental damage will allow such damage to be properly
scrutinised."
Ancient woodland
- Because of its biodiversity value, loss of ancient
woodland has permanent adverse effect on the natural environment. While
compensation measures are necessary, and should be increased further than is
currently planned, compensatory measures for ancient woodland should not count
in the calculation of overall ‘no net biodiversity
loss’.
- Damage to ancient woodland, an irreplaceable resource,
also raises the questions of proper application of the environmental
‘mitigation hierarchy’: compensation measures should only be
implemented as a last resort, if adverse effects cannot be avoided or
mitigated. The Committee calls upon Parliament to ensure that the mitigation
hierarchy will be followed fully.
‘Reasonable’ and ‘practicable’
measures
- The
HS2 Environmental Statement, and its associated documents and plans, do provide
a degree of environmental protection by adopting minimum requirements and
standards. But these commitments are weakened by clauses stating that any
adjustments made by HS2 have to be ‘reasonable’ and
‘practicable’. Lack of a ring-fenced budget for environmental
protection fuels fears of cutting corners if the overall budget needs to be
brought down.
Background information
- HS2
is a £50 billion project to build a Y-shaped high speed railway link from
London to Manchester and Leeds via Birmingham. Phase One of the scheme (to open
in 2026) comprises the link from London to Birmingham; Phase Two (scheduled for
opening in 2032/3) completes the lines to Manchester and Leeds. HS2 Ltd., a
company wholly owned by the Department of Transport, is responsible for
developing and promoting the line.
- The
HS2 scheme is being implemented through a parliamentary procedure. The second
reading of the HS2 Hybrid Bill, which grants the powers to build and maintain
Phase One, is expected after the Easter recess. The Hybrid Bill contains within
it the Environmental Statement, which lays out the likely environmental effects
of the projects and puts forward measures to avoid, mitigate, or compensate for
them. The Environmental Audit Committee examined the environmental aspects of
the project, but did not address the overall case for or against the
scheme.