Public Session

PUBLIC SESSION

MINUTES OF ORAL EVIDENCE

taken before

HIGH SPEED RAIL COMMITTEE

On the

HIGH SPEED RAIL (LONDON – WEST MIDLANDS) BILL

Monday, 23 November 2015 (Evening)

In Committee Room 5

PRESENT:

Mr Robert Syms (Chair) Sir Peter Bottomley Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Mr David Crausby Mr Mark Hendrick ______

IN ATTENDANCE

Mr James Strachan QC, Counsel, Department for Transport Mr Joe Rukin, Stop HS2

WITNESSES

Mr Matt Jackson Professor John Altringham Mr Colin Sully Mr Barnaby Osborne ______

IN PUBLIC SESSION

INDEX

Subject Page

Kirk Jones (Cont’d) Submissions by Mr Rukin 3 Response by Mr Strachan 6 Closing submissions by Mr Rukin 7

The Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire Wildlife Trust Submissions by Mr Jackson 8 Evidence of Professor Altringham 18 Further submissions by Mr Jackson 29 Professor Altringham, cross-examined by Mr Strachan 34 Further submissions by Mr Jackson 37 Response from Mr Strachan 42 Closing submissions by Mr Jackson 46

Chiltern Ridges HS2 Action Group Submissions by Mr Sully 48

(At 18.36)

1. CHAIR: Order, order. Quiet, please.

Kirk Jones (Cont’d)

2. MR RUKIN: Okay. Well, I’m sure the Committee is covered from the sheer excitement that there will be an additional provision 5, and can we slowly scroll through the rest of the slides until 27, please? That was outside of the library on the main road – keep going, that’s fine – and these are a selection of slides showing the area in and around the phone exchange, for some reason that one’s in there twice, and the commercial pumps that we use to drain it out and, again, the car park as Councillor Phillips previously mentioned, and that’s Mill Lane. Finally, we’ll stop on 27, which basically, this shows the level and the extent of the flooding, and the fact that three months later, a lot of the water was still there.

3. This is the property belonging to the neighbour of the Petitioner. The one who is directly next to the river. It took months and months for the water level to drop, and if you go onto the 28th, there’s actually a slide – this was taken about a month afterwards when the bridge in the garden was still quite high. Now, Chalfont St Giles is reasonably close to Gerrards Cross, where you may remember a tunnel collapsed shortly after a passenger train had gone though, and there was a similar case with tunnelling with HS1 in Kent, where a 60 by 25 metre crater was left behind. Now, both of these accidents happened in the presence of arguably very similar but, again, arguably, more stable geological conditions than those present under Chalfont St Giles, and without the addition weight of flood water.

4. Now, in this respect, we’d like to reiterate the evidence that was presented by Dr Hayden Bailey who is concerned that the tunnel crown by Chalfont St Giles has only six metres of competent chalk above it, which he feels represents a significant chance of ground failure. This is of course coupled with the fact that there is also a risk of polluting an aquifer which supplies 22 per cent of London’s water supply. It seems bizarre that HS2 Ltd have the position not necessarily to propose active mitigation, but to monitor and see what happens, see if it causes a problem and then somehow resolve it. I’m not really sure if they understand, if things go wrong here, exactly what making it good will entail. Right in the middle of a village, right next to the bridge that

connects both sides of the village, and how much effort and expenditure it will be if something did go wrong, to then rectify afterwards.

5. The proposed attitude towards the Misbourne River – i.e. will look at it and will see, will be monitoring it – has been described by Misbourne River Action as completely inappropriate. A letter from them makes up slide 27. Now, I’m just going to ask everyone – sorry, slide 29. The next one. Obviously, I don’t need to read it if everyone is able to read that resolution as either it appears on the screen or in the paper documents. It was just because it got inverted on its side for the purpose of going in the PowerPoint. I wasn’t sure if it would be good enough, but it does seem that is. The underlying point with this is that the water flow of the Misbourne is not just represented by the water you can see in the river.

6. It’s represented by the water that flows underneath the river, because the chalk surface is heavily fissured, cracked with clay pipes and swallow holes and any movement here in terms of the tunnelling could significantly increase the porosity and cause the bed to leak. People have commented on the letter from the Environment Agency, and I would like to take things in context. I for the life of me cannot understand the context in terms of what this letter is replying to, because it seems to at least basically be explaining to HS2 Ltd what HS2 Ltd have proposed. In response to the bullet points, Mr Older from Misbourne River Action has come onto that as well on these.

7. But the minimum cover of two tunnel depths being employed effectively makes no allowance whatsoever for the unique chalk nature of the Misbourne, which is not a unique thing within Britain. It’s a reasonably unique thing within the world, in terms of the way that aquifer operates, and the way that water flows throughout it. In terms of the second bullet point, operating the tunnel boring machine in a closed space seems to be far more in the contractor’s interest than in the environmentalists’. In terms of closely monitoring the river flows during construction, well, if it’s reasonably dry, if there’s a problem, you’re not necessarily going to detect it straightaway anyway, and if it’s very wet, it’s going to be too late by the time you detect it.

8. For the rest of what the Environment Agency seems to be saying, the second last paragraph, ultimately, ‘before we could approve applications in line with the protective

provisions within the Hybrid Bill, we would need to be satisfied that all potential risks to the river and the surrounding environment have been mitigated’. Which suggests to me that they’re not satisfied that the current proposals mitigate the risks to the river and the surrounding environment, and that this minimisation of risk will need to be supported by evidence from the Groundwater Investigation Programme, which again suggests that it hasn’t as yet been supported by evidence from the Groundwater Investigation Program.

9. I just find the whole context of this letter very confusing. It seems to be being used to suggest that the Environment Agency are very happy and quite content with what’s happening, when it seems to simply reiterate what HS2 Ltd have said back to HS2 Ltd, which just I simply can’t fathom and neither can Mr Jones. Anyway, to summarise, the chalk below the river surface is a maze. It’s a rabbit warren. Where the water will go, we don’t know, if the tunnelling makes a significance difference and causes the bed to leak. Now, to prevent this, if the tunnel is go at the depth that’s promoted, then the only option is in environmentally friendly bed reinforcement which would have to be done before construction works.

10. Which isn’t necessarily a massively expensive option, but I would say, given that there is a massive unpredictably with not just the river bed, the unseen river bed, but the entire chalk aquifer and the risk – United Nations have pointed out that the risk to global water supplies and specifically when you look at how much London relies on the Chiltern chalk aquifer, it seems a very blasé attitude to be taking, to say, ‘well, we’ll just if we mess it up, and if we mess it up, we’ll fix it’. So to summarise, there’s obviously significant concerns and my petitioner has very significant concerns about the effect on the Misbourne Valley and effect on the chalk aquifer, and the fact that it doesn’t seem to have been properly assessed, which is par for the course in many parts of HS2 Ltd, and really wants to ask the question, why?

11. In terms of why, not only was the tunnel rerouted to the middle of village when it very much seems that there was a third option between the two proposals, which could have had the best of both words, potentially, but also, why has it has been raised so high when the potential for environmental damage and the potential for vibration with a lot of listed buildings in the area has been potentially significantly increased by increasing the height of the tunnel? Mr Jones did ask me to say, of course, to remind the

Committee that Paradise Lost was written in Chalfont St Giles and to ask that this paradise is not lost.

12. CHAIR: All right. Mr Strachan.

13. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): P10837, please. I showed you this very briefly at the outset, but you’ll see that the Petitioner’s property, which you’ve seen the context of, I think the property itself is in this location, broadly speaking where the arrow is. The proposal for the bored tunnel takes the tunnel below the River Misbourne at at least two tunnel diameters depth, as I explained before. We don’t anticipate any material adverse effects on the Petitioner’s property. The area of land I’ve indicated that is shown in pink is precisely there as out of precaution to deal with the monitoring of the River Misbourne and any works, if they were to be necessary.

14. The approach that’s been adopted is a precautionary one on the basis of what we have currently anticipated with the depth of the tunnel, the type of tunnel-boring machine which you’ve heard about from Mr Smart, and we don’t anticipate any effect on the River Misbourne, but of course, we have the ability to monitor the flows of the River Misbourne during construction, so that if anything were to be necessary, those works could be undertaken. As I think has already been noted, this is the subject of schedule 31 of the Bill. We will have to seek approval from the Environment Agency in this case before we can carry out this work, and therefore the appropriate strategies will have to be approved to enable the work to go ahead, and of course, any protective measures for the River Misbourne.

15. So it’s not clear to me in what respect at the moment it’s currently being said there’s any inadequacy in what is proposed, based on what we know now or in the mechanism which exists in the Bill itself for the relevant authorities to keep control over the construction work that’s proposed in this area. Just on a couple of miscellaneous points, of course, the Gerrards Cross example was not a case of a tunnel being constructed with a tunnel-boring machine at this sort of depth, as the Committee will know. I’m not sure why the comparison is being made. That was in fact a very different tunnel structure where I think an arch was formed and backfilling over the top, and there was clearly some fault in the construction mechanism. Nothing akin to what’s being proposed in this location with the use of tunnel-boring machines at the level of

depth that we are talking about in this location.

16. The other aspect was about the alternative route. If the Committee are interested, there is a slide which explains how the route was selected, which we included in our pack P1083(91), and it’s the January 2012 document which compares what was the consultation route with refinements and P1083(92) deals with the Chiltern tunnels, and you can see one of the reasons why there was a move of the tunnels is explained in 4.3.7. It was actually to avoid going through an aquifer in the vicinity of Amersham and to move to the current route which avoids going through the particular aquifer of concern.

17. Finally, in relation to flooding generally, I think the Petitioner has referred to a number of slides of flooding occurring in Chalfont St Giles. As set out in the environment statement, nothing we’re doing in terms of the tunnel bores of that level of depth, is anticipated to have any effect on existing flooding in the area. To the contrary, it appears the main concern is about the effect on the River Misbourne water levels, which I’ve already addressed. So unless I can help you further on any of those aspects, that’s what we propose in this area and that’s why the Bill itself provides the appropriate mechanisms to control it.

18. CHAIR: Okay. Final comments?

19. MR RUKIN: Yes. I must admit, obviously the last time I was here talking about tunnels, I was here with Ruislip, so you can possibly understand my confusion. So if the tunnel is going to be at least two tunnel diameters depth, then it could be less than 20 metres deep.

20. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): That’s two tunnel diameters depth. 9.8 metres, I think, the tunnel, the crown, so two of them would be approximately...

21. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: 19.6.

22. MR RUKIN: For some reason I thought it was 8, but the Ruislip thing might have confused me. Mr Strachan is absolutely right in that there is no official statement that there is any inadequacy in what is proposed, but in the same respect, as I’ve tried to demonstrate, I don’t believe that there’s any adequacy in what is being proposed, or any

demonstration of this at all. A potential lack of strategy to deal with the specific issues of hydrology in the Misbourne, if you’re saying that the Environment Agency will have to sign this off, your lack of strategy has the potential to stall the entire project, because this is a thing that some people have talked about, the Misbourne drying up.

23. Some people have talked about the idea of there being increased flooding because it is such a sensitive and unpredictable area that no one really knows what sticking a massive tunnel in there is actually to go. I would say, it is potentially going to be very hard to satisfy the Environment Agency, especially at those depths. Finally, with the Gerrards Cross example, I wasn’t saying that there was a comparison necessarily between the boring equipment. I was saying that there’s a comparison between the geology of the areas.

24. CHAIR: Thank you very much. Okay. We’ll now move onto 1294, Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire Wildlife Trust. Matt Jackson. You have a fair few slides and I feel like Bechstein’s bats and the variety of other things, we’ve been living with for a while, so I hope we can move through fairly rapidly.

The Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire Wildlife Trust

25. MR JACKSON: I’m certainly hoping we can move through some of the other aspects very rapidly. My apologies for the number of the slides we have put together. The particular issue is that there are some outstanding issues which really should have been solved by now around access and parking and bits and pieces that we can’t quite understand why it’s dragged on so long. We’ve had a discussion outside about some of those issues and have been given some indication of direction of movement, which is very helpful. So I will rattle through them as quickly as I possibly can, just to cover them off, but we do need to add that we’ve been given no written assurances in relation to them, so we’ll have to cover them very quickly.

26. As you know, I’m from Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire Wildlife Trust. I did appear before you once before on behalf of the Royal Society of Wildlife Trust, those of you who were on the Committee then, some new faces. In relation to some overarching issues, on the whole I won’t touch on those either. We’ve covered that ground. There are one or two little bits to pick up from that. As a wildlife trust, we obviously cover those three counties. We have about 90 nature reserves within that

area. We have 50,000 plus members who expect us to stand up for wildlife where it’s affected. On HS2, we don’t have any stance opposed to transport initiatives, particularly not train initiatives, which often can be very good in terms of their ability to affect wildlife. They take traffic off the roads, they help in terms of pollution etcetera.

27. So we’re not as an organisation intrinsically opposed to something like High Speed 2. Our issue is always about the wildlife and the wildlife impact and making sure that’s addressed properly as these things go forward. If we could move through the slides. This is just to set the scene for where we have nature reserves in or around the high Speed 2 route. Of those there, there are three which are directly or very closely affected. Backham Hill is right next to the line, but we don’t have any points in relation to that. That’s a site we’ve recently taken on for the County Council. It’s dry chalk. Although there’s tunnelling quite close to it, green covered tunnel, it won’t have any major effect.

28. Weston Turville is an abstract issue or a disparate issue that I’ll come to right at the end. The other two nature reserves are really the focus of our area, of our nature reserve focussed issues, and they lie around an area we refer to as the Bernwood Forest, the ancient Bernwood Hunting Forest. You can see the conglomeration of woodlands there in and around that area. The patch of red off to the left are wet grassland sites lying in the River Rea, which flows down through the Bernwood Forest to the area. They’re largely unaffected. So if we can roll on to the next slide, and that’s just a close in focus there. It shows the sustainable placement which is no longer, I’m told, to be required.

29. You’ve got the IMD there, and you’ll notice that our Calvert Jubilee Nature Reserve, which I’ll come back to, is pretty much at the junction between East West Rail, High Speed 2 and where the IMD is to lie. If we can move onto the next slide, please. This is a very simple, straightforward issue. In fact, if we go to the picture, it’s probably easiest to illustrate with the next slide, if I may. We have an access to our nature reserve, Finemere Woods, where you can see the access on the right-hand side there. It goes under the existing railway line. This is the line that’s currently used to take waste up to the incinerator site, the FCC and the incinerator site, and which will become part of the East West Rail line, probably.

30. We’ll have to wait and see what happens with that, because it has a spur that runs down to Aylesbury. Either way, that structure is expected to remain there. On this side of that structure will lie HS2, and obviously there will need to be an underpass that goes under that, that then leads through to our nature reserve. We’ve been given verbal assurance and to some degree written assurance that that access will be retained. There’s been a debate. Various figures have been given to us about the size of that access. We require it to get heavy machinery and tractors onto our nature reserve for the standard management processes we have to undertake there, and at one stage we gave an indication it may be reduced to as much as 2.8 metres high. It’s roughly four and a half metres at the moment.

31. We can pass underneath it with agricultural equipment without any trouble at all. HS2 have provided us on Friday with a diagram that shows something which is perfectly acceptable in terms of dimension of that underpass, but as part of the interim design information they gave us, they indicated that they may need to put a weight restriction on the ability to go under there. Now, that could seriously impinge on our ability to manage the site. We’ve had no indication of that previously. I’ve been told outside that it looks likely that they’ll be able to give us that assurance, but we haven’t had it in writing yet. So our ask is quite a simple one, please could we be assured that the dimensions are to be those provided on Friday and that there’ll be no weight restriction on our ability to pass under there.

32. If we could rattle on. A similar issue here in relation to access from Edgcott Road to our site. If I could have the next slide, please. Apologises for the slightly odd looking arrangement of slides, but it’s to put them so they are all in the same orientation. On the top left-hand side there you can see our nature reserve is outlined in red, and there’s an access route which runs from the bottom corner of that onto Edgcott Road. We use at the moment for getting machinery and off site, and particularly for getting stock on and off site, often sheep, occasionally cattle, depending on the requirements of the site.

33. Now, we were assured that there would be no impact on our access, which is perfectly true, but as you can see from the slide in the top right, the proposal is to redirect Edgcott Road over High Speed 2 and to embank obviously to get up and over the railway. So although our access wouldn’t be affected, you’d have to get to it down

an embankment, which would make life quite interesting. Now, the original proposal to deal with that, if you look in the bottom left-hand corner, was to put a new access road in from Edgcott Road that would run alongside the electricity substation, that’s the square item in the bottom left-hand corner picture.

34. So you’ll see there’s a new road coming in there. That was to be extended to meet our nature reserve, but obviously with AP2, the location of the substation was moved further up near our nature reserve, and the road, the one in dark blue in the bottom right- hand corner, to be constructed, although obviously, the Bill still provides for the land required for the original road to be taken. So our request, again, is quite simple: that provision is made for access with vehicles to bring stock on along the line of the road that was proposed for the original electricity substation. That would replace our access. Again, we’ve been given an indication that that ought to be possible, and we don’t quite understand why it hasn’t come forward yet in writing.

35. Next slide, please. Okay. This is a slightly complicated issue that overlaps with the metrics issue which I’ll come back to a little bit later on. It’s probably, again, easier explained with the picture. So if you could move on to the next slide. As you’re aware, HS2 proposed to demonstrate that their approach to biodiversity impact, which is one of no net loss over the whole route, is to produce, using the metrics, a calculation of what the impacts are to be, what mitigation is put in place, and their commitment is that there will be no net loss overall. That will be a zero-sum or better outcome, in terms of biodiversity impacts. You’ll hear more from other petitioners, particularly around ancient woodlands impacts and how they relate to those issues.

36. Our issue here is really just to say that, because we’ve not been given the metrics – and I’ll come to that in a little bit – we’re a bit confused about how some issues are to be accounted for. One issue is, we acquired finally meadows, which is the area in white between High Speed 2 and the woodlands there, to replace some the ecological declines that had taken place in the Bernwood Forest area. We tend to think of forests as being woodland, but in fact forest really is a term that relates to old hunting requirements, land that was taken by the Crown for the ability for hunting. Forest is really often a mosaic of woodland and open grassland, and it’s largely the grasslands that have disappeared in this area.

37. I should say, within this forested area, in the last 10 years we’ve lost marsh fritillary butterflies on the edge, on the upper Rea areas; we’ve lost pearl-bordered fritillary butterflies; we’ve lost small pearl-bordered fritillary butterflies. These are all species which have gone extinct in our area because of loss of habitat, fragmentation of habitat and lack of appropriate management for them. The classic picture we’ve seen with wildlife is just exacerbated in this area, because it’s particularly fragile and particularly fragmented, which again, we’ll come back to in a little bit. We bought the meadows to try and replace some of that lost grassland component of the forest. We then discovered that HS2 was proposed to run through this area, so although we’ve done a little bit of restoration on the site, we put our plans on hold.

38. Now, we think the appropriate ecological baseline for that area ought to be the site as it would have been restored. That’s what would have happened in the absence of the project, and we’re unclear on whether that’s how it’s been accounted for. HS2 have told us that is how it’s accounted for, but in the documentation, they appear to rank it in different ways. We’ve asked the question and been given no assurance about that. So, again, our request is that that’s how it’s accounted for. Equally, you’ll see on that area some of the mitigation proposals for the loss of hedgerow for the bats – which we will, I’m afraid, come back to in a little bit to some degree – are being placed on top of the nature reserve.

39. That’s because the hedgerow largely along the railway line is to go to make room for the railway, and to provide a corridor for the bats to move around. There is provision for mitigation or compensatory habitat, some of which has been placed on area that should be hay meadow, basically. That’s what we acquired it for, that’s what it was going to be, and again, we can’t see how that’s been accounted for in this no net loss calculation, largely because we’ve not been given the matrix. If we could move on, please. This is quite a simple issue. I talked about our Calvert Jubilee Nature Reserve earlier.

40. You can see it there on the bottom left-hand corner, and it lies right on top of the crossover between East Way Rail, High Speed 2 and the IMD, the Infrastructure Maintenance Depot lies just to the north of it, so within the axis of this two railway lines. The nature reserve is actually largely owned by FCC, who operate the incinerator sight to the south. We own part of it. Unfortunately, we own the bit where the two

railways will cross and a small area around that. Those of you who came out on the site visit very briefly visited the site. We managed to quickly nip up onto the sight, show you what it looks like, show you what it’s like at the moment.

41. Of course, there will be wildlife on that site. There are specific issues around turtle doves which have nested in some of the scrub, which will go. There are black hairstreaks, brown hairstreaks on site. We’ve had purple emperor butterflies on site, again, in the area where the railway will come through. Those issues, largely dealt with to some degree through the ES process, some mitigation and compensation has been highlighted for that. What’s not been highlighted and what’s not been compensated for is quite simply the loss of the area where people can go and have a tranquil experience to enjoy nature. Now, High Speed 2 very kindly, although rather lately on Friday, I didn’t get them until about 5.30, provided some maps showing the noise barriers, which I don’t know if you have those. They came through very late on Friday, but they...

42. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Noise contours.

43. MR JACKSON: Noise contours that covered the area.

44. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): P11086 and 11087. That’s probably what you want.

45. MR JACKSON: Yeah. One of those. There is one that shows it graded and one – that will do perfectly. So again you can see, as with all the other noise contours, it shows the area of significant effect. Clearly, that will be when the trains come through, although there’s the issue about the IMD in the top corner being potentially more permanent, long term or sustained. Obviously, the whole nature reserve won’t be affected all of the time, but there will be an increase in noise and disturbance across the nature reserve. At the moment, and I know you’ve heard it from petitioners, that site is enjoyed by a vast number of people.

46. It’s open to the public and it is enjoyed as an amenity site. Obviously, we are very keen on the site because of its nature conservation value. Some of the visitors enjoy it for that. All of them enjoy it because of its tranquillity and because of the opportunity to quietly enjoy nature. That’s not been recognised in the process for mitigation and compensation. The direct wildlife impacts are mitigated to some degree. Obviously, we

would prefer to see more, but in terms of the loss of amenity value of a nature reserve facility, it’s just not there at all. So there should be provision for people to have somewhere set aside for quiet enjoyment.

47. Now, when we raised this, HS2 point at things like the community environment fund, which does have a nature conservation aspect built into it, which provides for the community. Our issue with that fund is that, of course, it’s not ring-fenced for that sort of provision. There is no guarantee that that sort of provision will be replaced. So we are potentially looking at the loss of amenity that simply won’t be replaced. Okay, sorry, if we could go back to our slides, and the next one. I’ve lost track of the numbers.

48. CHAIR: 10, I think.

49. MR JACKSON: Thank you. We will get through them. Ecology Review Group and Metrics: now, I’ve made the point briefly already about the metrics and I don’t want to labour it too much, but you’ll remember that HS2 committed to producing a calculation and bringing it before the Committee, and we understand that that’s still their intention to do that, so there will be a calculation brought forward. What we’re not clear on is how we can interact with that.

50. It’s very important for the transparency of the process that the public-interest groups like ourselves and landowners can look at those calculations and work out why land is being taken for mitigation and compensation and why that provision is required. At the moment, there’s not transparency on either side. We can look at it and say, ‘Well, we can see the losses’, but we can’t see how that’s properly compensated for. Landowners see it and they see they get the double-whammy: they see the loss of their land for the railway, but also the loss of land for compensation and mitigation, and it’s not clear to them how it knits together. Properly presented, those calculations should enable people to be able to engage with those, see, on a parcel-by-parcel basis, what’s being lost, what’s being compensated for, and you should be able to see, in the round, how HS2 is meeting its no-net-loss requirement.

51. At the moment, you don’t have that and it’s looking frighteningly like you won’t have that until just before the end of the process, and we don’t know how we engage with that, so our ask, really, is a) that the data is presented in a way that’s transparent and clear, so, on a parcel-by-parcel basis you can see what’s lost, what’s being gained,

and so that that’s brought forward in a way that people can interact with it.

52. An associated point is the HS2 have committed to establishing an Ecology Review Group to look at the monitoring of the impact of the railway post construction. They’ve said that they will set up that group post Royal Assent. Our concern is that that group should be established as soon as possible because, if you don’t get the monitoring proposals right – and we’ll come back to this in a little bit in relation to, specifically, the bat issue – then you can’t know whether you’re actually dealing with the impact in the long term. That needs to be set up. It needs to be set up in a transparent way and, at the moment, it looks like it may happen after the Bill has gone through, at a time when it’s not possible to get things necessarily tweaked or put in place to make sure that things are done in the right way.

53. I’ll deal with this very briefly, because I’ll come back to this later on – it overlaps with a point about balancing ponds – but this is a broader point about the impact of the proposals on local wildlife sites. Local wildlife sites, you’ve heard from other petitioners, are sites of significance for wildlife, which are not protected nationally. That doesn’t mean they’re not as important; it’s because the national protection system is based on a sample subset of important sites. Very often, these are highly important species: wet grasslands of the type we were talking about in the Upper Ray. In this case, we’re up on the Northamptonshire/Buckinghamshire border, where, in the parish of Turweston, there’s a small stretch of neutral grassland and the railway cuts through it.

54. Now, Mr Miller, who we may hear from later, may remember that, about four years ago, we came and talked to him about this site and looked at what, practically, might be done to reduce the impact. Unfortunately, in the four years, that seems to have fallen by the wayside a little bit and there’s still direct land-take and there’s still the problem of balancing ponds being put in the wet grassland area. We would still like to see an approach taken which seeks to minimise the hydrological impact and, again, that proper monitoring is put in place so that the impacts can be properly compensated for.

55. Could I have the next slide, please? This is just about the question of, again, it’s the requirement for you how you can be assured that the impacts are going to be properly compensated for. At the moment, the scheme sets out a range of options for how things can be secured to be carried forwards. We, again, don’t see how that’s going

to be tied together, so making sure that that no net loss for biodiversity actually is the outcome of the proposals requires knowledge of the mechanism that’s going to be put in place to secure it.

56. So, we don’t know how, if we take the hedgerow planting for bats, for instance, that we’ll come and talk about in a minute, for the landowners, in those cases, that mitigation divides up their land, potentially, so it slices through their land. They certainly don’t want to see a third party coming along and taking on the management of that. You’ve had them petition in relation to that and, broadly, we agree with them. We think it will be a nonsense for somebody to take on control of small strips of other people’s land. So, really, that ought to lie with the landowners. In the Bernwood Forest area, the landowners there are very sympathetic land managers; in fact, broadly, the wildlife is there largely because of their stewardship of the land. But we need to know that it’s being secured for the bats, we would say, for the lifetime of the project and certainly in perpetuity for the foreseeable future, and it’s unclear to us what mechanisms are going to be put in place. That ought to be clarified and it ought to be clear to you, before you make your recommendations to Parliament, what those mechanisms are going to be and how that is to be secured into the future.

57. If I could have the next slide, please, this has moved on a little since we petitioned. When we petitioned, we raised a lot of queries about the Environmental Statement and the process that was being put in place. Some of that’s been clarified for us and some of it still remains a mystery, so an awful lot more material understanding of the impacts has come forwards through the additional Environmental Statements. As the additional provisions have come forwards, you’ll be aware that a host of extra information has been put forwards. You’ll also, I’m sure, be aware that the requirements of Environmental Impact Assessment are, essentially, that the decision- maker must be aware of what the environmental impacts of their project are, so that, when they actually approve a project to go forward, they do it in the full knowledge of what the impacts are, and that, to some degree, is what you are here to deal with as a Committee: to make sure that the issues are aired and that Parliament are made aware, when they make the decision to go forwards, that those impacts are understood.

58. To date, the way the process has gone forwards has involved producing summaries of the information which have gone to Parliament when the Bill went

through second reading, for example, and if we can go on to the next slide, please, I’ll just show you a couple of examples of how that information has been presented. So, in relation to Bechstein’s bats, for instance, you’ll be aware there’s a significant issue and we’d like to talk about that. In our response to the Environmental Statement, we submitted those paragraphs there – I don’t expect anybody to have read them – and, in fact, we also commissioned from the University of Leeds, a report on what the likely impact was going to be on Bechstein’s bats, from the information that was submitted in the Environmental Statement.

59. So, accompanying these paragraphs we submitted a 59-page report, which set out in detail what the likely impacts were and what approach ought to be taken to mitigation. As you can see at the bottom, what went into the summary that went to the decision-makers was a note that, as many respondents point out, this is a location known for the rare Bechstein’s bat, and then a line that says ‘Respondents frequently refer to the bats.’ That’s it. That was the summary that went to the decision-maker. It didn’t set out the significance of the impact. It didn’t set out what the likely level of impact was. It didn’t set out how that was to be approached, what the likely outcome was, etc.

60. And if we go on to the next slide, you’ll see, in relation to Turweston Manor Grassland – the site I was just talking about – in fact we raised a number of concerns there setting what we felt were the impacts, approaches to mitigate that. They didn’t even make it into the summary report. There was no mention at all. So, our concern is that, to make a proper decision, the information needs to be there and available for the decision-maker. That means a level of detail which enables them to understand what the overall level of impacts is and what’s being put in place to mitigate for it.

61. If we could have the next slide, please, I’m now going to, if I may, call on my witness, who is Professor John Altringham of the University of Leeds. When we were looking at the impact at Bernwood Forest, we should set out very slightly the background to the issue. Bernwood Forest has long since been known to be important for bats: a large number of species in a relatively small area. It’s a network of woodland sites, and bats move through that area, as Professor Altringham will come to tell you about in a minute.

62. Back in 2010 – and it’s a mistake, I think, in the promoters’ materials that they

refer to the bats having been known about in 2011; they were actually discovered in the Bernwood Forest in 2010. The report wasn’t written about them until 2011, and that’s an issue for us because they were known about when the routes were being looked at and chosen but, because of the decision not to undertake a Strategic Environmental Assessment, a lot of information wasn’t brought together; for example, the nature reserves that are affected by HS2, they simply weren’t known about by the promoters because they hadn’t asked for that information. It’s the same with the Bechstein’s bats: they were known about, there was a lot of excitement in the nature-conservation community about what was a new colony. At that time, it was the most northern colony of Bechstein’s bats. It was known about but it wasn’t taken into consideration when the route options were looked at, because that information wasn’t collated.

63. So, when we became aware of the proposals and we looked at the issue, we had no experience of dealing with Bechstein’s bats. They were new to our area; we had a couple of visiting Bechstein’s bats in our area but it wasn’t something we were used to dealing with. It went beyond our area of expertise and, particularly, we don’t have the expertise to deal with transport impacts and bats, and so we looked for experts who were able to give us some advice and, essentially, everybody pointed us in the same direction, which was to the University of Leeds, where Professor Altringham, whose background is, originally, I think, in biomechanics, but moved from there into particularly looking at bats but also specialising, to some extent, on the impact on bats of transport systems.

64. And together with his postgraduate student, Dr Anna Berthinussen, they are really the best appointed experts with a unique background in looking at impacts of transport projects on bats, so we turned to them and asked them to advise us on the level of impacts, the mitigation that was being proposed, and what the outcomes of that were likely to be. So, at that point, if I may, I’m going to hand over to Professor Altringham and ask us to take us through his slides.

65. PROFESSOR ALTRINGHAM: Thank you. Because there’s so much fuss around these bats, I thought it might be nice to give you a very brief – and I promise it will be brief – biology lesson on bats, to give some context. If I could have the next slide, please, lots of people do say, ‘Why bats? What’s the significance of bats?’ so I just thought it was worth spending a slide or two on that. Bats are a very large and diverse group. They’re one third of all of our native mammal species, so they’re a

major part of our vertebrate biodiversity. For this reason, they’re a nationally important group because they’re so large and diverse. There’s good evidence of historical decline and, because of that evidence of historical decline, there’s been very good, strong legal protection for bats now for some decades.

66. Defra have also recognised bats as being important bio-indicators; they’re, effectively, the canary in the mine. They’re very sensitive, for reasons I’ll come on to. And if you look after the bats, what you’re essentially saying is you’re looking at biodiversity in general to a first approximation. Because they’re so sensitive, if they’re doing well, it’s likely that the habitat in which they’re in is also doing well.

67. If I could have the next slide, please, this covers why they’re particularly sensitive. Bats are, basically, small mammals with big-mammal lifestyles. They’re bats with delusions of grandeur, really. They’re very small: 5-25 g. They ought to live for a year but, in fact, bats live for 20, 25, 30 years or more. They reason they have to do that is because they’ve got very low fecundity. Bats produce a single pup per year, so they reproduce very slowly, so they have to live a long time. It’s an evolutionary necessity. So, in that sense, they’re big animals, not small ones.

68. They’ve also got very large home ranges. We’ve heard a lot about Bechstein’s occupying this wood and this nursery colony. Most bats use large areas of landscape. They use one woodland and another woodland, and interconnecting habitats in between, so they occupy a very large landscape, even in the summer. When you look across the whole year, they can occupy really enormous landscapes, using a wide range of different habitats. So, what this means is they’re very vulnerable to environmental change, because they’re slow to reproduce; they’re very vulnerable to environmental change because they need a large landscape and they need to move around it; and because they reproduce slowly, they’re very slow to recover from population pressures. And so, this makes bats particularly vulnerable and this is one of the reasons they’re good bio- indicators.

69. Next slide, please. Bechstein’s bat in particular is one of the rarest of UK bats. The current population estimate is about 1,500 individuals. This historical decline is due to the loss and fragmentation of native woodland. This is very much a woodland specialist, although it moves between woodlands through the rest of the habitat. The

Bernwood colony, as Matt has just said, is on the edge of their range and is, therefore, very important. If we lose this one, it’s a range contraction.

70. One of the things we’re being constantly advised to do is to build in some climate- change resilience for our biodiversity. That means improving the network between woodlands and between other habitats. One of the issues with HS2 is it has the potential not to improve climate-change resilience by increasing these networks; it has the potential to fragment and destroy habitat, therefore breaking down these networks. So, that’s an important issue.

71. Next slide, please.

72. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: What is their range?

73. PROFESSOR ALTRINGHAM: Their range is, basically, the south of England and the south-west, up to that point in Berkshire. There’s one colony found in Worcestershire, just a little bit further to the north-west. They’re not known north of that line.

74. So, historically bat declines: I’ve already said this is habitat loss, but it’s more than habitat loss. It’s the loss of habitat but it’s also the fragmentation, because they need interconnected habitat, and it’s habitat degradation. You don’t need to take away a piece of habitat; you simply need to degrade it in some way to make it unsuitable for the species. So, a transport increasingly can contribute to all of these: to loss, to fragmentation and to degradation. And many people have said to me, ‘Well, bats and birds can fly, so how could it be an issue? They can fly over the line. It’s not a problem.’ Well, I’m going to demonstrate – and you don’t need to rely on my evidence as well; there’s very strong literature on birds in particular showing that flight does not confer immunity to railways and roads. They still have an impact on biodiversity.

75. Next slide, please. So, I just wanted to give this slide just to summarise the potential effects that road and rail can have on animals, because they are quite complex. We start on the left-hand side. It’s a plot of population size – the number of animals we’ve got – against time. We start with a fluctuating population of bats. There’s always natural fluctuations in populations but, basically, there’s always a good, healthy population, until we build the road or the railway. What are the potential effects?

76. The first one is habitat loss: just the land take itself takes away habitat from the bats and can, therefore, reduce the population. Then we get reduced habitat quality: things like noise pollution, light pollution, chemical pollution can all reduce the quality of the habitat around the railway. Then we have collision mortality. Some animals will attempt to cross that railway or that road and, in the process, they will die. That’s very important to bats because they’re very long-lived, because they reproduce slowly. Adult mortality is a very important part of balancing the population equation.

77. Then we come on to the barrier effect, and the barrier effect, effectively, says that many animals don’t like to cross open spaces, and bats certainly don’t like to cross open spaces. And so, the line would act as a barrier. If you divide their habitat in two, they may simply fail to cross the railway line and use half of their habitat. Some of them will attempt to cross, and some of those may be killed in the process.

78. And all of these are additive. So, you start with a healthy population. You build this barrier and then you’ve got habitat loss, reduction in habitat quality, collision mortality, barrier effect, all adding together. What you end up with is potentially a much lower population, still fluctuating, and all it needs is for that jagged line to hit the bottom axis and the population is extinct. When I first put this plot together, it was largely hypothetical, but in recent years lots of evidence has been gathered around the world which provides good evidence for all of these effects, and so this is a plot which shows what the real effects can be.

79. Next slide, please. So, what are the consequences? Our work has shown, basically, that, if we measure bat activity close to a motorway, and we work away from that motorway and continue to measure bat activity and the number of species we find, we find that, for one kilometre on either side of the motorway and on some A roads and on some railways, there’s greatly reduced bat activity close to the line and there’s greatly reduced species diversity close to the line. So, we’ve got a very dramatic, clear effect that, adjacent to roads and railways, you can reduce bat activity and you can reduce species diversity because of the presence of those structures. This reduced activity and diversity is almost certainly a reflection of population declines due to a loss of habitat quality and due to this barrier effect. And I’ve just put, for anybody who’s interested in going further, the references which provide the scientific evidence for those effects.

80. Next slide, please. So, what will HS2 do? The plot on the left simply shows there’s an orange area which shows the known range of Bechstein’s bats in this area. I just want to stress this is the known range; it could well be rather bigger, because it’s never possible to look at all the bats and look at their entire range, but it gives a reasonable representation of the home range of these colonies of Bechstein’s bats. If we look on the right, what we see is lots of little pink lines, which show the flight lines of these bats, lots of little purple dots, which show the roost sites of these dots, and we have HS2 going right through the middle of it. I want to stress this is incomplete data. It wasn’t possible to produce one plot which showed all the information, but it highlights the fact that HS2 is going right through the middle of this bat’s range. And the width, the structure and the amount of traffic on the HS2 corridor does mean that it will probably be a major barrier, it will fragment the habitat, it’s cutting across flight lines, it’s isolating roosts and, therefore, we can expect it to have some impact.

81. Next slide, please. So, what do we need to do? We need to mitigate against this impact.

82. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: I thought bats mainly flew at night.

83. PROFESSOR ALTRINGHAM: They do, but HS2 will be running at night as well.

84. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: Not all night.

85. PROFESSOR ALTRINGHAM: A good way through the night, I believe. And to be honest, the trains on the line will be an exacerbating feature. Simply the fact that there is open ground across the line will be enough to dissuade bats, and there’s work been done, certainly in the United States, on similar bats, which shows that bats will be reluctant to cross those open spaces. We’ve got similar results in the UK and, once you put traffic on roads, or trains on railway lines, this simply makes it worse.

86. So, what do we need to do? We need to mitigate against the impact: so, we need to make the line more permeable, we need to make it safe to cross and, because of the loss of habitat, or the degradation of some of the habitat, we need to improve the habitat quality and extent in some cases as well. So, there are some planned structures here – I’ll come back to them here – but I just wanted to start this process off by showing that

there are a series of over-bridges and under-bridges and, in particular, a mitigation structure alongside one of the woodlands, which is designed to mitigate for bats. I’ll come back to those later; I just wanted to highlight that some features are being built, which may be a help to bats, but I’ll come back to them a little bit later.

87. If we could move on to the next slide, please, first of all I just wanted to stress that mitigation is important. We have shown very clearly that transport-infrastructural projects do affect the bats, so we do need to undertake some mitigation. Mitigation should maintain bat populations. It should do it, first, by increasing road and rail permeability. One of the things I want to stress here is that, even though we’ve done some work, as yet this is untested. We had limited resources and limited time to do this; as yet, we don’t know what any of these things can do in terms of increasing permeability and making the roads easier to cross for the animals. What we have done is looked to see whether the bats that do cross, cross more safely, and whether they use the structures that have been put up for them.

88. And to summarise the work we’ve done over the last few years, we looked at these structures called bat gantries, on the right, which effectively look like telegraph lines with plastic discs or nets across them, which are designed to act as guidelines for the bats. We’ve looked at two different designs: we’ve looked at designs that have been present for up to nine years, and the bottom line is that bats don’t use them at all. They’re completely and totally ineffective. We also looked at some underpasses. Underpasses can work and, in some circumstances, work very well, but many of them appear to be failing, through bad design or being put in the wrong place.

89. I just put those in really to make the general point that almost all the mitigation that we’ve looked at in relation to bats on roads and on railways – well, I should say, at this stage only on roads, because that’s the only place it’s been done – all suffers, basically, from poor implementation. In many cases, what’s been done appears to be inadequate. Sometimes what’s done is actually not what was prescribed and is not implemented fully. And then, to compound that problem, there’s usually very poor monitoring. So, these structures are being built – underpasses, bat gantries, green bridges, which I’ll come on to – structures are being built, often badly, often not at all and, when they are built, they’re monitored very poorly, so what that means is we’re not learning any lessons. We’re building things with taxpayers’ money and we’re not

testing them to find out whether they work. So, we’re not protecting biodiversity but we’re also wasting that money.

90. Next slide, please. So, where do we need to go in the future? What our study shows is that we really need is better-designed structures and better-tested structures to find out what works, what doesn’t work, and use our money wisely and protect wildlife more effectively. We suspect that underpasses are a good option. We also believe that green bridges would be a good option. I show one green bridge here – this is Scotney Castle on the A21 in Kent. This is the only green bridge that we know of in the UK. I’ve flagged this up and pointed out that, in some documents, you may see a reference to other green bridges. I don’t think they’re green bridges. I don’t think they meet even the basic criteria for green bridges, and I’ll return to that in the next slide or two. I think this is the only true green bridge in the UK. We did test it; it works extremely well. It gets bats across there very effectively indeed. It’s large, it’s well-planted and it’s well- connected to the landscape, which I think are all very important features. This structure is about 30m wide.

91. Next slide, please. This is what’s actually planned through the Bernwood Forest. There’s a series of structures – some of them are over-bridges with planting, and I do want to differentiate between an over-bridge with planting and a green bridge. A green bridge is what we saw on the previous slide: a wide structure with mature trees. It looks like a continuation of the countryside. I think, in some cases, designs are not specified, but I’ve seen some of these things elsewhere. Over-bridges with planting are often little more than pot plants along the line of the track or the road which runs across the bridge. So, the designs aren’t specified but they’re also untested as well.

92. There are other over-bridges which are unlikely to work because they have no planting at all on them, and there’s enough evidence now in the literature to suggest that bats really like those even less than they like some underpasses. Under-bridges may work if the design is right. There’s a mitigation structure, which is, effectively, a long, open tunnel adjacent to the wood but, again, we don’t know enough of the design to know whether that’s likely to work. So, there are lots of structures proposed here. Two of them have been designed for bats. Two or three more – three or four more – may have some value for bats, but we don’t know yet because we don’t have the design features. Some of these structures are unlikely to be helpful for bats, because of their

design or because they’re in the wrong place – they don’t actually go to places where we know the bats go, although further work may show that there are bats there. We don’t know at this stage.

93. Next slide please. So, with respect, I think HS2 are repeating past mistakes in all of the cases I’ve been involved in the past. We’re dealing with often vague and often novel – that means untested – designs to an unspecified timetable, so it’s very difficult for us to say, ‘Yes, we think that’s a good idea’ or ‘No, we think that’s a bad idea’, because we’re being presented with too little information, and too much of that is vague or it’s offering novel solutions which haven’t been tested. One thing which I think is very important is we need a coherent monitoring programme. We need to know whether these things are working and we need to have contingencies in the event of failure, and those things are lacking. And I think there’s unjustified confidence in the mitigation solutions. I regularly read that this mitigation will be done and everything will be just fine, and certainly the work we’ve done over the last few years suggests that that’s unfounded. We need to be much more cautious than that.

94. There are a number of things which are proposed, which we haven’t yet seen details of, like using acoustic or light deterrents to keep bats from certain locations. Again, without more information, those things, we feel, could do, actually, more harm than good. So, successful mitigation is not guaranteed. If we’re going to maximise the chances of success and improve the mitigation practice, we need more information.

95. We need design specifications of the structures. We need to have details of how these structures will connect to the wider landscape, because it’s almost as important to get the connections right as to build the structure correctly. We need to know the planting schedules. It’s not enough to build the mitigation structure and then leave it for two or three years and then plant because, by that time, the bats may be gone.

96. We need a construction-management plan that will protect bats during construction, and that’s probably, in some respects, as critical as any other stage. If, during construction, with lots of disruption to the environment – lots of light, lots of noise – we may drive away the bats before the line is even operational. There may be no bats left by the time the line comes into operation, so the construction phase is very important.

97. We need pre-, during- and post-construction monitoring. We keep hearing about a monitoring programme running for various numbers of years after the line is built; how do we know whether things have been successful if we don’t have good pre-construction baseline data? And I believe, at this stage, we simply don’t have that. I also think we need contingency plans, so that, if things are not working, we need some idea of what might be done to make them work. And fortuitously, Anna and I have just completed a Defra research contract, details of which are at the bottom, which were specifically given to us to come up with best-practice guidelines for how this kind of work should be done. So, we think there’s a template out there, published by Defra, which gives good best-practice guidelines for how this should be done, and we think it would be appropriate if those methods were adopted.

98. And I think, maybe, the final slide of mine, please, just to conclude and to summarise: key information, I think we don’t have, which is important. We need designs of structures, we need dimensions, we need to know about connectivity, and we need to know about timing. We think underpasses are most likely to work if they’re tall – more than 3m – wide – greater than 3m – unlit, and they also need to be well- connected.

99. Over-bridges, we think, are unlikely to work, unless they’re effectively greened. But a narrow bridge which is greened, I don’t think will work, so they do need to be wide, so we need to know what designs people are thinking about. We think green bridges have a strong chance of working on the basis of, sadly, just the one that we’ve tested, but we think effectiveness will diminish with decreasing width. The one we’ve looked at, at Scotney Castle, is 30m wide; it seems to work extremely well. I would imagine that, as we make them narrower, they become less and less likely to work, and I would suggest that 15m is probably a minimum width; less than that and we probably reduce the likelihood of effectiveness.

100. We would like, certainly, details of the mitigation structure. This mitigation structure is a mesh tunnel, effectively, which sits alongside a wood to stop bats coming out of the wood and going straight on the line. The one picture we’ve seen of this thing shows a vertical wall directly out of the woodland, and my fear is that the bats would see this as a barrier and simply go to either end of this structure rather than going over the top, so it would be nice to see more details of that structure.

101. Finally – and I’d say this in the light of other cases I’ve been working – all this mitigation must be permanent, and provision must be made for it to permanent and maintained. I’ve seen mitigation done for roads works in various places and, just three or four years after the end of the project, the mitigation is falling apart and probably wasn’t effective in the first place, certainly can’t be effective three or four years down the line, because it’s falling down, so there need to be reassurances that it’s permanent.

102. You’re all thinking costs: what’s all this going to cost? It’s very difficult to say what this is. There’s the recent report on green bridges by Natural England. They were unable to find much information about costs. I found one example that’s on the A556 Knutsford-Bowdon improvement in Cheshire. They proposed an 11m-wide green bridge, which is maybe less than I’d like it. This includes a 7m shrubby verge to one side. They estimated that it was going to cost £366,000 for greening that bridge within the £1.4 million budget for the bridge itself. So, the costs are not small, but surely it’s better to build something that’s likely to work than build something that we’ve already shown will not work. So, these are things that we think need to be addressed. Thank you.

103. CHAIR: At that point, because we’ve been sitting since 2, I’m going to adjourn for one hour, until 8.30, as we need to go and get refuelled. I’m sorry to interrupt you. Thank you very much for that.

104. PROFESSOR ALTRINGHAM: Bang goes my train home.

105. CHAIR: Order, order.

Sitting suspended On resuming—

106. CHAIR: Order, order. Welcome back to the HS2 Select Committee, I hope everybody got the chance to get at least a sandwich. Sorry if we interrupted you, if you would like to continue.

107. MR JACKSON: We were about to end I think, on this point I hasten to add. So, I was just going to ask – oh, I should explain that there’s one further issue that we are going to ask Professor Altringham to stay here fore, which is to talk about the sidings

which I know FCC aired with you. We have some issues around that which we want to explain to you. And because they relate to the bats, I would like to do that with Professor Altringham here, so Mr Strachan has very kindly agreed to hold off his questions just for a minute and to –

108. CHAIR: Okay.

109. MR JACKSON: – cover that issue and then we will deal with questions for Professor Altringham, and then cover off the final few issues we need to address. So, I was just going to ask Professor Altringham, I explained to you that we came to the bat issue with a lot of unanswered questions, we didn’t know whether there was enough survey work done to assess the population enough to know where the impacts were going to be, looking at the mitigation, whether it was likely to work. So, we commissioned a report from Professor Altringham and his colleague Dr Burton and ask A. when the proposals were first drawn up, and then we asked them to – we’ve asked the twice to revisit the issue, once with the AP4 proposals and once in relation to the potential for moving the sidings. So, first of all, in relation to the proposals as they were drawn up and subsequently the business with AP4, I wonder if you could just summarise for us whether you think enough is being done to ensure that bats are going to be protected.

110. PROFESSOR ALTRINGHAM: I think enough is being done to show that they’re vulnerable and enough is being done to identify where the important – what the important issues are. I think we still lack a good deal of information to convince us that the mitigation will be affected. So I think there is still considerable uncertainty around the mitigation points.

111. MR JACKSON: And the subsequent question is what do you think needs to happen from here to achieve that.

112. PROFESSOR ALTRINGHAM: I think what we need is to address these questions on the last slide. I think we need more information, we need to be given the designs dimensions, we need to know about connectivity, timing. The devil’s in the detail with this kind of thing, and it’s important it’s established as early as possible and it’s followed to the letter. And at the moment we don’t have a plan, so I just think we can have no confidence in its success.

113. MR JACKSON: Okay so that really is to give you a picture of the Bechstein’s issue in its broadest sense. I just want to turn briefly to the sidings, as I say, while Professor Altringham is here. And you will recall I’m sure that FCC, who were the operators of the incinerator that lies to the west of the railway line between Sheep House and Fine Mill Wood, so it’s in the middle of that orange area Professor Altringham showed us is the centre of activity for the bat foraging area. And FCC are concerned that the current proposals include a site, and we have this issue that the waste will come up the existing railway line, and High Speed 2 will lie between their plant and the waste line. So somehow they have to get waste from the opposite side of the line, across High Speed 2 and into the incinerator.

114. At the moment it is proposed for the north side of Sheep House Wood and AP4 I fact brings forward a couple of amendments to that, to divide up the bridges because they weren’t willing to restrict the timings of use of that bridge so that the lorries could cross without disturbing the bats. So there is a proposal to split out the bat flight path effectively, from the bridge. Now FCC are quite rightly pointing to the concern of the local people, that siding is quite close to Calvert Green, so the locals are very worried about disturbance from that, and they would like to bring the mitigation structure down to the south of Sheep House Wood, into the area between Sheep House Wood and Fine Mill Wood. That’s right in the middle of that foraging area so we weren’t sure whether that was going to be feasible, and we asked Professor Altringham and his colleagues to review that, to carry out a review, and I think a summary of that review has been entered into your submissions?

115. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): It’s on the system, I think you had it mentioned at the last thing, it’s on P10013(1). That’s the report you –

116. MR JACKSON: Thank you very much, and I think parts of this were read to you but there’s a little bit of debate around quite what the authors meant in the conclusions of the report. So we thought, since one of the authors was here we might take this opportunity to ask him was meant. So, if we can flick on to page 2, which I think has the –

117. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Page 3 actually.

118. MR JACKSON: Oh, 3, is it? 3 has got the summary, brilliant. So, you can see,

we asked Professor Altringham and Dr Berthinussen a number of questions and they point that was read to you last time, I think it was the fourth bullet point there, which if you don’t mind me giving you all the words as it were. ‘We recommend that the southern location is avoided, given that alternatives are available. The proposed mitigation or any practical alternatives that are compatible with operation of the sidings are unlikely to be sufficient, given the proximity of the site to important bat groups, foraging habitats and flight lines. There is likely to be a considerable negative impact, which combined with the potential disturbance created by HS2 itself, could have severe consequences for local Bechstein’s bat colonies.’ And the obvious question is whether you think that still stands from the information we’ve been given to date.

119. PROFESSOR ALTRINGHAM: Yes I think it does.

120. MR JACKSON: And just to explain, we passed on to Professor Altringham and his colleagues a host of information that FCC were very willing to provide us in relation to proposed operations, lighting and potential screening operations. So, this was based on information provided by FCC, and the question really that was being asked, when FCC were here, was what you meant by alternatives.

121. PROFESSOR ALTRINGHAM: Because there is already a plan for the northern location, and while we have issues with those, we think probably the issues with this one, this southern location, are even greater.

122. MR JACKSON: Ok thank you. So I think our concern is that moving the sidings from the north to the south could make things worse, is likely to make things worse and in considering the alternatives, you need to look very carefully at what you’re asking the promoters to do there. And I want to give just a little bit of background, I didn’t want to labour this too much, but a little bit of background about the tests that have to be passed when issuing a licence for a project that affects a protected species like Bechstein’s bats. So, if we could go back to what it think is slide 31 of our exhibits.

123. In fact so while we are there, you can see that what we’re asking is we understand there are concerns about the northern location, entirely understand that. It was put to you, I think by the barrister representing FCC, that you could rule out the northern alternative if you felt it was unsuitable and that in doing so you should consider the social and economic impacts of having the northern route. They are quite right that in

considering alternatives it’s perfectly acceptable to consider social and economic factors.

124. What they didn’t explain to you is there are other tests that sit within the legal framework for looking at protected species, I am just very briefly going to go on to go through those, so if you could just flip onto the next slide. In fact the next slide the way the protection works is we have strict protection for protected species, which are listed in the annexes of the European directive. Basically we can’t kill or disturb them unless there’s a reason to do so and one of the reasons for those is in the interests of public health or safety, or for other imperative reasons overriding public interest. And normally, for this sort of project, it would be perfectly accepted that that’s the situation we find ourselves in; Parliament’s decided we need HS2, it’s therefore a public interest project. You’ve decided it needs to happen so it would pass that test. And it says, ‘including those of a social or economic nature, to be built into that’. If we can go onto the next slide.

125. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: Sir, before you leave that.

126. MR JACKSON: Yes.

127. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: If it is a question of mitigating the effects of the railway line on the people of Calvert, or mitigating the effects on the bats, how is HS2, and indeed this Committee, supposed to judge that?

128. MR JACKSON: Right, with all due respect that’s the wrong test in this set of circumstances. Just going to go onto that; I will come back to your question, if I may, in just a moment because I think it was portrayed to you as an issue about balance between people’s interest and the bats’ interest. I would remind you that this project wasn’t designed with the bats in mind, because nobody knew they were there when the locations were chosen. It’s not the bats getting in the way of the railway is what I’m trying to say, it’s unfortunate the set of circumstances we find ourselves in that the route chosen had a protected species, which wasn’t built into the options that were considered about going forwards. But I’ll come back to your question in a moment if I may.

129. If I could go onto the next slide. Sorry I think 33, with a bit of luck. We may have to do it without. There are basically three tests that we apply when you look to

derogate from that article of protection. And the three tests, the first test-

130. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): It’s just up.

131. MR JACKSON: Yes thank you is that there should be a most suitable alternative, but when considerable suitable, perfectly acceptable to think about people and economics and other factors involved in there; it’s not just about what’s best for the bats, it’s about what are actually acceptable solutions. So perfectly acceptable to put that in. The second test is that there should be no impact on what is called the ‘favourable conservation status’ of the bats. That test, I don’t think, was explained to you when you were considering the option. And if we just look at this slide 33, what it says there, this is set out in the first article of the habitats directive, and it says, ‘The conservation status will be taken as favourable when population dynamics of the species concerned indicates it is maintaining itself on a long term basis’ that seems perfectly reasonable. The second point is that when the natural range of the species is neither being reduced nor is likely to be reduced for the foreseeable future.

132. Now, a problem we have in this set of circumstances is that taking the concern that moving the sidings to the south could lead to the point where the population could become extinct in that area, we fail this test. And it’s an absolute test, it’s not a balance test, it’s not about balancing people’s interests with the bats, we can only go forwards with our project if we pass that test. That is set out in law; it’s carried through in our legislation through the conservation of species and habitats regulations. It’s a straightforward requirement and without passing that test it’s not possible to issue a licence for a project to go ahead.

133. And the concern here is that with struggling to meet the test, even with the northern option, moving it to the south makes it likely that we’ll fail that test. Now it is potentially possible to come up with some off the wall solution like burying the sidings and carrying out the whole operation underground. Under those circumstances we couldn’t rule out the southern test, but we asked Professor Altringham to look at the evidence that was brought to him by the proposers of moving the sidings south and he wasn’t able to, as you have heard, to suggest that that was an acceptable solution, going forwards, in the light of the tests in the directive.

134. So that’s the issue, it’s not like a normal planning decision about balancing the

concerns of biodiversity against the concerns of people. Unfortunately those circumstances the promoters have chosen to put the route in a place where it turns out, because they didn’t know it beforehand, that there is a problem that makes it very difficult to put in place a solution that involves moving the sidings to the south. So I think that that covers the ground, and that wasn’t explained to you.

135. Our ask in relation to this issue, is not necessarily that the sidings stay where they are, to the north, and understand that people’s issues, but I think you ask the promotors to go away and look specifically at the possibility of moving the sidings to the south. We think that may be, not to put too fine a point on it, on a hiding to nothing. I think there’s a difficulty there in terms of satisfying the directive. What we think you need to do is ask them to look at much broader solutions, possibilities might include moving the sidings further north for instance, away from people. Now, I appreciate that might have an economic impact and that could be balanced with the social impact of leaving it where it is, but you may be able to move the sidings away from population, up near the IMD for instance, where there’s already going to be noise and disturbance, which might satisfy those issues. Our concern is that by proposing, by constraining the options to a north versus south option, you may be setting up a circumstance, which can’t be solved.

136. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: Something has puzzled me about all of this, how did the IMD ever get planning permission with all these bats flying around?

137. MR JACKSON: The IMD doesn’t exist.

138. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): FEW, the Energy from Waste.

139. MR JACKSON: yes the Energy from Waste?

140. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: Yes.

141. MR JACKSON: The Energy from Waste plant, there are – the biggest concern with the plant actually was the lighting, and the lighting that would be in place for the operation in the longer term. Because of where it is, it is very sensitive. There’s a planning requirement for lighting to be very constrained under the operation of the plan, going forwards. The other significant issue with the Energy For Waste plant was the route that brings the waste in by road. There’s a disused railway line that you may

remember, comes up to join the railway line that was used as a route for that. Now the operators agreed to a set of conditions there, which involve largely maintaining the head flows, reducing the speed of vehicles, limiting the use of lighting etc. etc. And so that has brought the risk down to a level, which was deemed to be acceptable. The concern is then adding on top of that the sidings and extra lighting and the sound of disturbance gets us beyond that level again.

142. CHAIR: I think we’re sort of getting into too much detail in one particular site. If we can just keep shooting through these slides please?

143. MR JACKSON: Yes. That was it really in relation to the bats, I’m sure you’ll be pleased to know that. But I think Mr Strachan may have some questions of our witness before we let him go.

144. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes, if I could just ask Professor Altringham about slide A1626(30). And Professor, this is based upon your works and further work you’ve done recently in 2015, you published a report which you referred to earlier, and what you’ve set out here, based on that research, some details of what a successful mitigation bridge or green bridge would comprise.

145. PROFESSOR ALTRINGHAM: We’ve detailed it’s what we think is most likely to succeed, there is still sub-sited legalities.

146. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes, just on that the Scotney Castle, A21 in Kent, that you identified as a green bridge, which is 30 metres wide, and in the underlying report, the 2015 document, you identified I think, that some 97% of bat species were using the bridge of that size with the vegetation on it, which is why you are identifying it as a successful structure.

147. PROFESSOR ALTRINGHAM: Yes.

148. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): And you’ve identified a minimum width of 15 is recommended, but 30 metres was the one you looked at.

149. PROFESSOR ALTRINGHAM: 30 metres, you know, 30 metres is what we would like to see, we accept that certain concessions need to be made, which is why I said that success is likely to diminish with decreasing width. But we feel that 15 metres

is worth looking at. We had a proviso in case things are monitored, so success and that informs future preference.

150. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I understand the point about monitoring so the Committee had understood what was successful, from your study, which was the 30 metres wide structure. When you then tied in to what’s being proposed in this area, and there’s quite a considerable package of measures for mitigation, both in terms of additional planting, which you haven’t commented on, but the crossings that you have commented upon, you said you didn’t have sufficient detail. I just wondered whether you had actually seen the CFA document, which gives some details about the mitigation structures for this area. If you haven’t don’t worry, I will tell you what it says, ‘CFA 12 community forum area report sets out some of the dimensions, or proposed dimensions for this area.’ Did you see that in your –

151. PROFESSOR ALTRINGHAM: To be honest I struggle to remember it, whether it’s in this particular document.

152. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): But for example, the various bridges, green over bridges, that you identify, where you say not sufficient detail, it actually identifies that they are all up to 30 metres in size, 25 to 30 metres. 25 to 30 metres is what is specified.

153. PROFESSOR ALTRINGHAM: How long has this information been there? I have to say it was extremely difficult to track down a lot of information.

154. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): This is November 2013, this is part of the environmental statement for this area.

155. PROFESSOR ALTRINGHAM: You know I think we did comment in our report that we found it very difficult to – some documents were not even listed in the environmental statement, and web links were broken, and it was very difficult to find.

156. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Well this is actually in the environmental statement itself, so there is no paper chase, this is just stated here. I’m not criticising you, it’s not meant to be a memory test or anything. I just wanted to understand whether, when, with the benefit of that information, which you may not have had the opportunity to look at. These are planted habitat corridors of between 25 and 30 metres in width and they are

all listed, the ones in the Bernwood Forest area, bridleway 36, Gun 28, the green overbridge, Calvert overbridge and School Hill green overbridge. And then it is identified that the planting on the green bridges were comprised of a double row of tall scrub that provides a sheltered habitat corridor suitable for commuting bats.

157. Now, all I want to see if we can agree Professor Altringham, is that if the structures are of this sort of dimension, with this sort of planting, subject to the detailed design that will come forward, then they will meet the requirements that you, yourself were suggesting, based on your current research, are necessary.

158. PROFESSOR ALTRINGHAM: Yes I would agree, if those dimensions are accurate then, yes.

159. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes, that’s very helpful and these are locations, which have been identified from the survey work and some other analysis as being appropriate locations for crossing points, amongst other things, aren’t they.

160. PROFESSOR ALTRINGHAM: Yes, I think again, I think there is some detail and some of them seem to be on good crossing points, some of them not to be.

161. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes, well some of them, which aren’t proposed as green overbridges, which we’re not proposing and you’re saying they’re not suitable locations so I think we are at one on that. And then on the underpasses, Adams underpass, which I am going to come back to in a moment, but Adams underpass, subject to the reassurance it’s going to be of the same dimensions as currently exist. That would similarly satisfy you because that is a location currently being used by bats to cross the railway, and if it’s of a similar dimension, i.e. more than three metres, then you are simply going to be satisfied with that as an appropriate mitigation measure.

162. PROFESSOR ALTRINGHAM: Yes.

163. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): That is very helpful Professor, thank you very much.

164. CHAIR: Okay, alright, carry on.

165. PROFESSOR ALTRINGHAM: Excuse me; I might just catch a train back to

Yorkshire.

166. CHAIR: Good luck. Wish we were with you.

167. MR JACKSON: I haven’t got a lot to go through, a few slides, but we will rattle through them fairly quickly if I may. If we can go on to slide 34; this is the issue of barn owls, which I know other people have addressed with you, and I know Mr Wolf particularly gave a very moving account of the barn owls in his area. The issue for us though is that the promotors have given an assurance to work with people to look at a solution for barn owls. What their assurance doesn’t do is actually tie them down into doing anything specifically.

168. Now, the picture there shows the sort of behaviour we’re worried about with barn owls, they swoop low we’re talking about an animal that forages on open grass and habitat, so exactly the type that will be created by the railway line. You will be aware, I am sure other people have mentioned to you that the ES itself reckons that on a precautionary basis, you are looking at the loss of up to 52 pairs, 1% of Britain’s population of barn owls being effectively hit or wiped out by the train on a yearly basis. That’s the level of impact.

169. What we would like to see is an assurance that actually ties the promotors into ensuring that that impact is properly mitigated, brought down to a level where it’s acceptable. Now, the promoters have talked about providing nest sites, and there may be locations where nest sites are appropriate. However, very often for barn owls, it’s not the nest sites that are the constraining factor, it’s actually the habitat availability for foraging that’s what’s required.

170. Rather than go into it in detail, what we’re asking simply is that the promotors agree, give an assurance that they will get an independent study undertaken, which will look at suitable areas where nest sites and habitat provision could be provided, basically to compensate for those losses, so there’s adequate provision. As I say, at the moment, the assurance they have given really is only an assurance to talk about it rather than to actually do anything about it.

171. If I could go onto the next slide, again, don’t intend to dwell on this, this is about ancient woodland and I know that that Woodland Trust are still expecting to come and

talk to you in January in some detail, about the ancient woodland impacts. Our particular concern here goes back to the metrics we were talking about earlier, is that we’ve seen the amount of ancient woodland impacted or that the promotors accept is impacted by the scheme increased, partly because more information has become available that confirms that some of the woodlands that were effected were ancient woodlands. Occasionally there are increased impacts on ancient woodlands because of adjustments to the scheme.

172. Now, we’ve been seeing those losses increase, what we’ve not been seeing is the compensation that goes alongside them increase. Now the promotors tell us that they feel that they can still meet their no net loss aim, by balancing up those losses. We can’t see how that’s being achieved so again our request is really that that is brought to the fore, proper impacts, proper account is made of the impact on ancient woodland, and it’s put out there in a transparent fashion so we can see where the loss is increased, where is the compensation for that accepted increase loss.

173. If I can go on to slide 36, this is another point that I know has been raised with you a number of times by other petitioners. This is the issue of ecological connectivity and the fact that the railway line, by its very nature splits the countryside effectively. It runs through areas where it will be very difficult for some species to cross from one side to another. We’ve talked about the green bridges in the Bernwood area, but there are other in the countryside where you will be aware that other petitioners, the county councils, Warwickshire County Council, and Buckinghamshire County Council in particular, have undertaken work to look at where that severance of ecological connectivity will be worst placed. These are obvious places to consider putting additional green bridges to address that impact.

174. If we can go to the next slide, Warwickshire County Council were very helpful in providing us with their latest assessment of what effectively the national flows of connectivity throughout the countryside, so this is rather like the model that Buckinghamshire County Council presented to you. But that was a Buckinghamshire focussed study. This is about looking at the national background, and rather like the Buckinghamshire example, the dark green there are the key areas where existing ecological connectivity is being severed. A classic example, if you look at the bottom line there, where there’s that dark green swathe coming across; that is effectively the

edge of the Chilterns, where sites like Leather Lane, or where the Jones Hill Wood is being impacted, where that connectivity is being severed. They are obviously prime locations to consider putting in place additional green bridges to address that impact that’s not being addressed over the whole scheme. I know other people have brought this to your attention; we just wanted to add our support and bring the extra evidence to your attention.

175. If I can go on to slide 38, and we are very nearly there, I promise; just a couple of issues just to finish off, a specific issue of concern for us is the approach that’s been taken to locating balancing ponds. You will be aware, balancing ponds are effectively a desirable solution generally for drainage problems, relatively sustainable solution if put in the right location, a way of gently seeping water into the ground, effectively replacing natural conditions.

176. Unfortunately the prime location generally, for a balancing pond is in a low-lying wet area. That happens to be where a lot of our important wildlife sites are, because generally they provide difficult locations for farming, so that’s often where habitats have survived in areas where it’s marginal land, so rather than being ploughed up and drained, it’s been left. And unfortunately we find that some of the balancing ponds coincide with particularly prime areas.

177. And if we can flip onto the next slide there are a couple of exampled in our patch that we wanted to draw to your attention. Grendon and Doddershall meadows, a local wildlife site, you have Christopher Prideaux came and talked to you about the impact on his land, this is part of his land, whereas I say, he is hit with a double whammy, he gets the impact of the – a triple whammy in his case, he gets the impact of the train, but also on his ecologically important meadows. Which again are only there because he is a landowner who has sought to preserve and maintain them. They happen to be in the low-lying damp areas, as I say, marginal land and that’s exactly where the engineers have proposed to put the balancing ponds. So he then gets the impact of the train, the impact of the balancing ponds and the impact of the ecological compensation habitat to provide for those losses. So a triple whammy for a landowner there. The best way to avoid that is to minimise the impact in the first place and the obvious solution for that is to put the balancing ponds in less sensitive locations.

178. And if balancing ponds aren’t feasible in sensitive locations then to look at alternative solutions. This area is constrained, there are historic issues in the area, which you will be well aware, Mr Prideaux brought to your attention. This is about finding a practical solution that reduces the ecological impact and therefore the impact on the landowners.

179. And if we flip onto the next slide, a similar issue in the site we talked to you about earlier, which is to the west of Manor Grass and the local wildlife site, that site up on the Buckinghamshire/Northamptonshire border. Where again, you can reduce the impact on the site by sensitive consideration of the drainage solutions.

180. Next slide please? And I’ll deal with the last two issues together I think is probably the easiest way to do it. This is the consideration of hydrological impacts on sensitive sites. Two sites I want to talk about, one is the Misbourne, which you have been talked to again by a number of other petitioners. We share their concerns about the impacts. We understand what the promotors are saying about their intended approach to those sites. We have a particular plea about how the impacts are considered and that’s probably best covered if we go onto the next slide, which is to talk about Weston Turville reservoir, SSSI and if we go onto the slide after that I will deal with it altogether, so that is slide 43 if we may.

181. So, Weston Turville SSSI in the map, on the top left hand side there, is the area in red. It’s a nature reserve we manage, it’s owned by the Canal and Rivers Trust. It’s a site of special scientific interest. Amongst the interest for which it is designated are calcareous fen meadow. So that is meadow land fed by calcareous water, the water I this case comes from the aquafer in the Chilterns chalk. It seeps out into a spring in Wendover and then finds its way down to the fen meadows, where it creates the perfect habitats for species, which only exist in that sort of grassland, the picture there is of marsh orchids growing in the fen meadow, in the SSSI.

182. Those sites require particular water regimes to maintain them. And if you look in the bottom left hand corner, this is a sort of indicative graph of the sort of water levels that are required to maintain these sensitive habitats. So, along the bottom access you’ve got the months of the year, you’ve got the vertical access you’ve got the water table, and it shows that obviously water levels tend to drop in the summer months, tend

to be higher in the winter months, and there are acceptable ranges within which those habitats can survive. Within the green zone the habitat is perfectly happy, within the yellow zone they can survive there as long as those conditions aren’t maintained for long conditions. Within the red zone the habitats are likely to decline relatively rapidly. So there is an acceptable hydrological regime, which preserves these habitat.

183. Now, at Weston Turville reservoir, where the ecological impacts weren’t really picked up in the ES, but were highlighted by the work that Wendover and Haughton Parish Council have talked to you about, so their hydrologist looked at the impact, I think in a nutshell it’s fair to say that the promotors accept that there’s a risk of an impact, there is a disagreement about how likely that risk is, or what the level of that risk will be. Our concern, both for this site and the Misbourne, where there is a similar issue, where it’s accepted that there is a risk, about the level of risk; is that in considering the risk we ask for specific assurances about providing the right ecological outcomes at the end of the process. So, if there are impacts on the hydrological flows, what’s required by those habitats is both a particular quality of water, generally in our case that’s calcareous water, so its water that’s fed through the chalk aquafer, picks up an alkaline nature while it’s doing that, that provides the right fenland habitats when it seeps out. And the right water regime throughout the year.

184. Now in relation to the Misbourne, we would be suggesting that exactly the same sort of consideration is to be put in place, that the same sort of regime needs to be considered; that needs to be built into the thinking and we would be seeking the same sort of assurances there. In relation to our nature reserve, what the promotors have said to us when we’ve raised this issue with them, is that because the issue wasn’t picked up in the ES, it’s an additional problem that the EMR says that if there are going to be any additional problems they will be dealt with. So that effectively we shouldn’t highlight it because the state of the EMR requires that this will be picked up further through the licensing regime with the EA etc. Our particular concern is to seek an assurance that the water quality and quantity throughout the year is provided that mimics the habitat that’s there. Now, the promotors may say to you we don’t need that for Weston Turville because of the EMR.

185. Our issue is really about getting that form of words recognised, because where we’ve seen these sorts of impacts on other sites, and I could take you to a number of

nature reserves where we’ve had road infrastructure put in place, there’s a site in the Iffley Meadows, on the Oxford ring road, where we’ve had the same sorts of consideration ‘We will provide you with the water’ but what’s not happened is the right type of water and the right hydrological regime throughout the year. So to give us the certainty that that’s what will be brought in place we ask for specific assurances in relation to both the Weston Turville SSSI and the Misbourne, where there are risks of impacts, which I believe the promotors accept that there are those risks. And that was our final point sir. My thanks for your patience, my apologies that there was so much to address but that brings me to an end.

186. CHAIR: Okay thank you very much. Mr Strachan?

187. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I will go through each of the answers as quickly as I can; first of all the Adam underpass, P10889(2). We have written to the Wildlife Trust to confirm that the Adam underpass, where we put in an extension to that underpass you can see from this paragraph, we propose to – we intend to extend the existing structure, and in so doing, would maintain the existing cross-sectional dimensions to that underpass. So that will deal with the original concern expressed at the outset of the section, but also Professor Altringham’s point about the underpass being suitable for bats. But we are very happy to put that in writing to the Wildlife Trust.

188. The same point applies to Edgcott Road, from which they have an existing access to Finemere wildlife site. We are proposing to retain access for the Wildlife Trust to that site. And again, I suggest we can put that in writing to them to explain the position We then move next to the metrics, sorry the biodiversity metric, and we have already previously told the Committee we will publish that data before Christmas and that is our – remains our intention to publish that date before Christmas. And then, of course, the Wildlife Trust and others can look at what the metric shows.

189. The next point, I think, was the Calvert Jubilee nature reserve, can I just show you what is going on there. You looked at the noise P11086, if you can get that back on screen just briefly, 11087, sorry, it’s my fault. And the nature reserve is the area marked in red, which you have heard about. You will see that the LOAEL contour is shown in grey. And we managed to achieve the LOAEL contour as for the residents of Calvert on a similar line across the nature reserve, if you just look up to the top right you will

see there’s a five metre noise barrier, which is how we achieve it for the residents of Calvert. It’s not necessary to extend that for the nature reserve, because was it happening to the line is it’s going into a cutting at this point and I can just show you that on plan form, at P9196, I don’t think if you can get hold of P9196.

190. MR JACKSON: If you can’t let me know.

191. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Whilst that is – can I come back to that whilst the slide is being looked for I will come back to it and show you it in a moment. The next point was about the ecology review group, the Committee has already heard about that. The ecology review group, we have a commitment to establish with various memberships, including Natural England, the purpose of that group, review group, is to review the monitoring processes that we are proposing. And that is a body we are intending to set up after Royal Assent because that is when the final details of the plan are known and monitoring will have to take into account, for example, the licence requirements, which will have to be submitted to Natural England. So it makes sense for that group to be established then, they will then have an input into looking at the monitoring arrangements.

192. I’ll move onto the next topic before I come back to this. Western Manor grassland the Committee has already seen I think the details of that, to Western Manor grassland. You will recall that for that particular site the loss of 4.3 hectares is addressed by a re- provision of 4.5 hectares of species rich grassland in that area, and another 5.7 hectares of mitigation area to the south and that’s why, in the environmental statement that with that compensation, the effect on that particular area we have considered not to be significant once you take into account that compensation measures that we are proposing.

193. On the next item was the security of ecological mitigation and compensation, and as the Committee has already heard, our mitigation and compensation measures, which are showing on the Bill, for each area that we effect, are part of the project costs, they are built into the project costs of providing that mitigation and an assessment is made of the scheme on that basis.

194. The adequacy of the environmental statement is a matter for Parliament when it comes to look at the Bill on the Act. With the benefit if the environmental statement we

don’t accept the deficiencies which are being suggested. There is a wealth of information there, some of which may not have been fully understood. Again, I don’t criticise them for that, that brings me on to point nine of the list that’s been gone through, and that relates to the effect on bats in the Bernwood Forest area.

195. As Professor Altringham has identified, for our proposal there are mitigation measures in place which provided they meet certain minimum requirements of the type I have just been through with him, he would be satisfied would be satisfactory structures. And as the environmental statement itself confirms, those dimensions, and some of the details already provided, which should address Professor Altringham’s concerns, to address the effect on the bats of our scheme, coupled with, of course the larger mitigation structure that you’ve heard about. So I don’t think it’s necessary for me to go into that in any more detail, but the example that he’s used of the green bridge that has been shown to be successful is of a dimension equivalent to the ones we are putting in place in each of those appropriate locations.

196. That really brings me on to the last few topics, the barn owl, the effects on barn owls; that is something the Committee has asked us to report back to the Committee on. I can confirm that we’ve already had discussions with the Barn Owl Action Group, and the British Ornithological Society, I am going to get their formal title wrong. The Barn Owl Trust, sorry, the Barn Owl Trust and the – sorry I think we are establishing a Barn Owl Action Group; we have spoken to the Barn Owl Trust and we are providing a note back to the Committee, on the results of those discussions as to what mitigation further mitigation measures, can be put in place for barn owls.

197. Ancient woodland, just taking these things as quickly as I can at speed, but ancient woodlands, the petitioner has referred to the increasing loss of ancient woodlands as a result of additional provisions, that simply not right. We’ve actually reduced the effect on ancient woodland through the additional provisions, based on the scheme generally and more specifically, for Buckinghamshire, the original environmental statement I think identifies 13.8 hectares of affected ancient woodland. Under the current position, with all the additional provisions we’ve introduced, it’s down to 5.5 hectares, which actually shows a considerable achievement through the additional provisions of reducing the impact on ancient woodlands. And you have already heard about where a number of those reductions occur, including around South Heath area.

198. The connectivity analysis that’s been suggested, I think we’ve already dealt with that issue when Dr Thornhill came to the Committee. That’s based upon a particular approach, a scientific programme which we’ve commented upon and we said we’d discuss matters with Dr Thornhill. But our connectivity assessments, and our approach, is to assess the impact on species in any particular location and provide mitigation for them. The bats at Bernwood Forest is a classic example, but we’ve done it at each section of the line and that’s why we consider that we’ve got green bridges, or the viaducts in the right place, to ensure connectivity where it’s required.

199. Balancing ponds particularly Grendon and Doddershall meadows, the answer to that is we have looked at relocating balancing ponds wherever possible, but where we have put them is to balance, provide balancing ponds for the railway to ensure we don’t have issues with flooding. In particular at Doddershall Meadows, we have looked at moving them, we can’t move them from that location because of where the railway is going through. But as you may already know, that in relation to Mr Prideaux’s land we have already looked at reducing the ecological mitigation areas on his land and relocating them elsewhere, which is a slightly different issue.

200. The chalk streams and indeed the Weston Turville reservoir are the last two elements that were covered, can I just simply repeat what I said earlier today, this is fully covered by the protected provisions in the Bill, under which we will have to have – submit for approval, our effects on the River Misbourne and indeed any ground water which might flow into, for example, the SSSIs. We will have to deal with both the quality and the measures if any risk were to arise. And that’s why there isn’t any need for any additional measures or assurances because we also have the environmental minimum requirements, our environmental minimum requirements are showing a negligible impact on Weston Turville SSSI and we will be required to achieve that in the scheme that we are putting forward.

201. Yes, the – we still haven’t got the cross-section of the Calvert Jubilee nature reserve. If it comes up on the screen but I will just show you, what I was going to show you is that there is a cross-section across here. And the line and this location is going into a cutting so that the trains are below the lie of the land, which is why we are able to achieve the noise environment we are in this location. There will be some noise, but it’s not right to say it’s not going to be a non-tranquil area, indeed, for the bulk of the

reserve is outside the LOAEL contour which you can see from the grey marks on the plan.

202. I think I just need to clarify, in cast it wasn’t clear, the 13.8 figure of ancient woodland down to 5.5 is for Buckinghamshire, which was the area of concern. There is another figure, I think, for the ancient woodland as a whole, which I think has come down from 32 hectares to 30 hectares, if that can be right? Ah 44.5 hectares down to 30.1 hectares, just to be clear, so the general picture remains the same, both scheme wide and particularly for Buckinghamshire, which is the area that this petitioner is concerned, we’ve actually reduced considerably the amount of ancient woodland effected by the scheme through refinements that you’ve been listening to through these petitions.

203. I am sorry we can’t get the cross—section you have seen the cross-section before.

204. MR JACKSON: Yes, when we looked at Calvert.

205. CHAIR: Okay thank you. Brief final comments?

206. MR JACKSON: Very briefly, if I may, in terms I am very grateful for the promises we’ve heard in relation to access etc. You mentioned the dimensions of Adams underpass, of course the weight restriction is the other point there and we are hoping that you would address that as well, thank you. In relation to metrics and the publication. Our issue is not about them being published, it’s about what opportunities there was for the Committee to understand the concerns that people have about the metrics. So, since the Committee is required to report on the environmental impact of the project, how are you going to know if petitioners have concerns about them, I don’t that’s been made clear.

207. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Well, I think we’ve made our position clear we mitigate the effects of our proposals as we go through. We’ve looked at each individual areas, and we show what mitigation we’re proposing. The metric is a scheme wide thing, which is to show the overall effects of whether there is no net loss and that information will be available but specific petitions, about specific areas have been already and are the subject of individual petitions. And we have responded accordingly to identify what mitigation conversation we are proposing to address specific issues.

208. MR JACKSON: Nobody has been able to point out whether they accept or otherwise, the way that this has been calculated in terms of managing that calculation. So our request, again, is still open and out there as to ask whether it’s potentially part of an ES for instance, to allow to bring that forwards in a way that then enables public scrutiny of it. I suspect we will continue to differ on that but that would be my –

209. In relation to Jubilee, Mr Strachan suggested that the bulk of the nature reserve is outside the grey area. We don’t accept that. Not only is it more than half that’s within the grey area, but actually in terms of the walk round the site it’s a good two thirds of the circular walk around the site that’s effected by the grey area there. So, there will be an impact in terms of the reason people go there, as we say, is quiet tranquillity and again we will agree to differ on that.

210. I have probably let Professor Altringham go too early, my take on what he said was that he was very pleased to accept what you were suggesting about the dimensions of the bridges. But you rather implied that that meant he was happy with the overall mitigation and compensation proposals, I don’t think he said that, particularly the issue about the structure, the Sheep House Wood structure, which he had concerns would divert the bats. That if you were then relying on sound and light to disburse the bats at the end of the tunnel, that that could actually add to the impact of the proposals in that area. So, although he was very pleased with what you were saying about the bridges, I don’t think it was fair to suggest that that meant he was happy with the overall proposals.

211. And on ancient woodlands, I would just very briefly, what I should have said of course is a big thank to the Committee for what they proposed in terms of extending the tunnel in the Chilterns, which indeed does reduce the impact significantly on ancient woodland. Our point there is that of course, the compensation and mitigation for that impact also goes with AP4, because there is no need to bring it forwards. There are then other losses of ancient woodlands which have been identified because new sites have been identified as ancient woodlands, or tweaks have been put in place, I suspect I didn’t make myself clear when we were talking about it. And I certainly didn’t take the opportunity to thank the Committee for reducing significantly the impact on the three ancient woodlands that the tunnel extension in the Chilterns achieved for which we are very grateful. So I am hoping we can end on a positive note.

212. CHAIR: Okay, thank you very much indeed.

213. MR JACKSON: Thank you.

214. CHAIR: Right, we now move on to petition 1285, Chiltern Ridges Action Group, Mr Colin Sully.

Chiltern Ridges HS2 Action Group (CRAG)

215. MR SULLY: Would you like give it or is Mr John –

216. CHAIR: No, you may as well kick off sir.

217. MR SULLY: Thank you Mr Chairman.

218. CHAIR: Are you going to be the quick Colin Sully tonight?

219. MR SULLY: Yes, yes, Mr Corfield has already marked my cards today.

220. CHAIR: First.

221. MR SULLY: if we could have our first slide then please a reminder that we are the Chiltern Ridges HS2 Action Group. I am Colin Sully, one of the directors, and also with me is Barnaby Osborne, leader of our engineering group. The Chiltern Ridges Action Group of course, is concerned with the area of the Chilterns between the bits where the tunnel ends and the end of the area of outstanding natural beauty.

222. The Chiltern Ridges themselves sit up on the hills on either side of the railway. Our membership mainly comprises, when we get there, people from the villages on the north-east side, that is the Leigh, Potter Row, Kings Ash, South Heath, that area. But was also have members on the other side, in Dunsmore, Great Missenden and indeed, in Wendover Dean. We have over 900 people altogether who have become members or supporters of the Chiltern Ridges Action Group, and a great many of those, of course, have appeared here before you to present individual petitions and group petitions, and what we don’t intend to do tonight is to try and go through all the detail of that, or we will try and summarise that issue.

223. The other thing that the Chiltern Ridges Action Group of course have done is appeared before you in July when we presented the T3i tunnel on 20 July, and again we

don’t propose to go through the detail of that. If we go to the next slide, have we lost it, do you want a moment? Right I’ll carry on because you’ve got paper copies of the presentations anyway, yes.

224. CHAIR: Yes.

225. MR SULLY: On the third slide then it shows that in July we made a presentation led by Martin Kingston QC, in which he presented the T3i tunnel to you. Mr Osborne, Mr Richard Hindle, from an economics consultancy group and our chairman, Mr Morris gave you a presentation on that day, and as I say, we don’t intend to go through that today.

226. Slide four tells you what we do intend to do today, quite a lot has I’m sure we don’t need to tell you gentlemen, has happened since we made that presentation on 20 July in terms of presentations and debate in front of you about the necessity for a long tunnel. So we thought it was impossible for us to present our non-tunneling ideas without at least making some reference to what has happened since 20 July.

227. So we will be making references to what’s happened since July. We will then summarise as best we can why it is that people in this area of the Chilterns are still, even after AP4, and even with the prospect that AP5 coming along, people are still do not feel that HS2 has been properly mitigated in this area. So we will say something about that and then finally, we will summarise by saying something about where this leaves the case for the T3i tunnel, has the case disappeared or is there still some residual case to it.

228. I will dwell on some of the slides as we go through and you will be pleased to know I will skim very quickly through other slides. If we go to the next one please, which is slide five, the purpose of showing you this slide was it shows where, at the bottom end, the current proposed end of the tunnel is, just outside South Heath. And it shows where the red cross is, up at the top right hand corner, where the T3i tunnel would end itself.

229. I want to draw attention to the fact that this area covers four different parishes, three different district councils, two different community forum areas, and three different MP constituencies. The reason I draw attention to that is you will hear later today from REPA, who are concerned about impacts for South Heath. You will hear

tomorrow, from a whole range of land owners between Wendover and South Heath, telling you about the impact it has on their areas. On Wednesday you will hear from Wendover Action Group again, and you will also hear from the Potter Row residents association. They will all come to you with mitigation requests to deal with the impact that HS2 has on their local community. The thing to remember about the T3i tunnel is it deals with all of those issues. It actually deals with the issues for every petitioner from the current extension at South Heath, through to the Wendover borders. And that, I think, is something that we would hope you would bear in mind as you go forward.

230. I don’t know whether it’s possible to quickly go through the next two slides, yes we can. The next one reminds the Committee, if you need reminding gentlemen, I apologise if you don’t, of where we got to with agreement with HS2 Ltd in July, and the slide after that illustrates where there was no agreement, and I will come back to this issue of where there’s no agreement later in the presentation.

231. If we can move to slide eight, slide eight shows you where we are at the moment, what is it that the residents of the Chiltern Ridges area have to face as of today, in terms of the HS2 plan. And if we start at the south the train emerges now just north of South Heath. It initially goes through some very deep cuttings, the train is still climbing the one before that one. It is still climbing as it comes out of the tunnel, it goes through some very deep cuttings, it eventually goes over its higher point and starts its decent towards Durham Farm. But it can’t go all the way down to the bottom of the valley because it has to stay elevated in order to stay high, to eventually cross the 413 and the Chiltern Line. So it goes up and the viaduct over the farm area, and then it’s on embankments and false cuttings to take it over a second viaduct, to get it over the 413.

232. So the point here is that the railway is not sitting in the landscape it’s having to be propped up or carved into the landscape in order to get it from where it emerges just north of South Heath, to the other side of Wendover. And this is the impact that people are still faced with today in this area, and we will dwell on some of the points in a moment.

233. The next slide shows hopefully the mitigation triangle, which you will be familiar with. It’s simply the point that what petitioners are asking for in the area, is a full tunnel and if they can’t get the full tunnel then there are second best alternatives. And we have

even yet got a second best alternatives put before us.

234. The next two slides, if we can go to 10 thank you, this one summarises what I think, and my colleagues think, is the position of Chiltern petitioners on the operational impact of the railway on their lives. On noise they are simply not convinced, you’ve heard the presentation, I’m not a technical expert on noise, so I won’t be keen to try and explain it to you, but you’ve heard petitioner after petitioner say that they are simply not convinced by the noise. And there’s a number of reasons for this – first of all, that the noise estimates come from a modelling process which itself is based on a set of assumptions. And other experts come along and take different sets of assumptions and produce different figures. Secondly, those estimates don’t take proper account of the metrics of sound, so a petitioner argued. Thirdly, they don’t take account of the proper effect of evening and night time effects on their lives, and finally they don’t take any special effect of the tranquil area in which we sit in.

235. So what petitioners are asking for on noise, is given that these are simply predictions, why can’t we have assurances, or undertakings, such that if they don’t prove to be true, then some action will be taken to resolve them; and there’s nothing being forthcoming on that issue.

236. On visual intrusions we are, as Mr Hendricks said several months ago no I think, in the land of process and no solutions. We have heard about the design processes, we’ve heard about the panels that will be set up but none of that gives us any comfort that viaducts, embankments, cuttings and pylons can actually be designed to fit in with the landscape in which they are carving their way through. We know we’re going to get footpath diversions; we know we’re going to get loss of agricultural land, property blight and fractured communities. And what we’re offered for that is what, an inadequate need to sell scheme and a derisory community fund. So on the operational impacts side, you can see why petitioners in this area believe that the scheme, as of today, is not fully mitigated, and that there is a very long list of things that they believe still need doing.

237. If we go to the next slide it shows the same type of information, but this time on construction impacts. Again, I am not going to go into the detail on the traffic congestion, you’ve heard about those issues on the 413, you’ve heard about the knock-

on effects. We know we’re going to get those effects. We know we’re going to get temporary spoil heap at Hunts Green, we know we’re going to get footpath closures, more blight, more agricultural land loss, more fractured communities, and you’ve heard from a number of doctors and health professionals in the area, telling you this is already effecting people’s lives.

238. That we know, we know we’re all going to get that. What’s the solution? Again, there is nothing. A413 is an unsolved problem. It is true they are in discussion with Bucks County Council, we know that, we’ve seen some of the correspondence that takes place. There is a real danger that that problem will not be solved, if there is a solution to be found, until after this Select Committee completes its hearings. And that’s just not good enough. This railway has five years now in the planning and we have no solutions for dealing with the problems on the A413 in the area.

239. A great many matters have been delegated to the Buckingham County Council highways authority, issues to do with traffic management and there are some big budget implications for them, I don’t know gentlemen, if you know but Buckingham County Council, about 10 days ago, put all their services on an emergency basis. In other words they have cut out all non-essential expenditure as a county council. That is the state of the finance of Buckinghamshire County Council.

240. MR HENDRICK: I think you’ll find that is the case with every county council.

241. MR SULLY: Every county council, I don’t think it is actually, there are a large number I agree, but not every county council in the country, and we’ve still got five months of this financial year to go. So that is the state of financial health of the county council, the highways authority. And they are being told to go away and sort out the traffic plans and come back into negotiations. Now, Buckinghamshire County Council have made their own presentation to you, I know, and are in dialogue with HS2.

242. In the same way local petitioners are simply not convinced, and you’ve heard it from others today that the code of construction practice will deal with the issues which are going to affect their lives. They don’t have confidence as Mr Strachan does, that it works elsewhere. And many examples have been given to you over the past three months of where it hasn’t worked, whether it’s cyclists in London or construction sites elsewhere in the country.

243. Where we end up then, as residents of the area, in effect in terms of construction, it’s just the price that we’ve got to pay for living where we do. And that’s why petitioners again don’t think this scheme has yet been properly developed. I am not going to go through all of these areas as I said, but there are just a few I would like to highlight because they perhaps won’t come up when you hear from South Heath, from REPA and Wendover.

244. So, if we go to slide 12 next, please. In the area, if you like, between South Heath and Wendover, we feel there is a number of opportunities that have been missed in terms of mitigating in that area, and I want to say a little bit about the Hunts Green spoil heap again, about some footpath diversions, about green foot bridges very briefly, about pylons, about the transformer, about construction compounds and about the Need to Sell scheme. In all of these areas, opportunities to mitigate the impact in our area have been missed.

245. Now, I’ll whizz through these, if the technology will allow. If we can go to the next slide, this is the original proposed scheme and I just want to draw attention to the size of the green area, which at that time was going to be sustainable placement. If we go to the next slide, the next slide shows the amount of construction site which was needed in order to sustain that amount of sustainable placement. Here, I just want to draw attention to the brown area. The brown area here is the stockpiling area. I think that’s what it says. It is actually – the number has blotted out the code on the bottom. I think I can blow it up. It says, ‘Temporary stockpile’. It has been blotted out under the number.

246. If we go to the next slide then, you can see in the current scheme that temporary stockpile has increased threefold in the area. That’s – we don’t understand that. There’s no rational reason why the amount of land needed for stockpiling is increased threefold with the introduction of AP4. It just doesn’t make any sense. To us, it’s just somebody saying, ‘Well, we have this piece of land’ – and I remember last time I was here, Chairman, representing The Lee Parish Council, the argument was put that the contractor would like as much space as possible in order to carry his spoil down. That’s just not good enough. There’s a large area of land there that could’ve been given back.

247. If we go to the next slide, this is where it ends up. You can see it’s a relatively

small area near the line that actually has to be re-profiled when the railway is built. Now, if I can just draw a line across, just above where the green bit is here, there’s a hedge that runs all the way across here – continues across all the way to Leather Lane. Now, our specific request on this one is why cannot HS2 simply work with the land below that hedge? There’s no reason to take the land now above that hedge. It’s a very large area; it could be left in agricultural use and it could provide a natural buffer between the railway and the residents of Potter Row, of Hunts Green and The Lee during the construction period. To us, that’s just one example of where the full mitigation in this area has just not been thought through.

248. Very briefly while we’re on this slide, you will notice there are one, two, three and there were four crossing points on the railway. Again, opportunities here with these crossings to do something suitable for the area in which they’re being situated. You’ve heard already today about some of the ideas. These are all utility steel and concrete structures crossing the railway line. And if we go to the next slide again you see a footpath here which has been severed by the northern portal, and that footpath is now being diverted around the perimeter, but if we go to the next slide that footpath is severed completely during the construction period. The point I want to make here is that these are all examples of where mitigation could have been introduced into the area and they’ve not. The aim here is simply to get the railway out of the tunnel, down the hill and out through the area of the other side of Wendover as cheaply as possible.

249. In this slide also I can draw attention to the fact that there are pylons which have to be moved. They have to be heightened. Now, in other parts of the country budgets have been set aside to bury pylons in sensitive areas. We would have thought there was an ideal opportunity here. Given there’s got to be some changes in the pylon system, why not go to the next step and bury those lines rather than simply moving them or increasing the height. So again more examples of non-mitigation.

250. The next slide shows a slightly different concern, and we may need to zoom in a bit here if we can to, sort of, this area here. This slide shows the construction routes that are now proposed to be used in the area. The haulage road comes up from the Missenden Link Road roundabout to the construction site at the northern portal and then continues along towards Leather Lane and towards Bowood Lane, but the construction compound for Leather Lane is to the left hand of Leather Lane. Now, we’ve received

assurances that no construction traffic will use Leather Lane, Potter Row and King’s Lane. Now, we simply don’t understand how you can build a new overbridge at Leather Lane by bringing haulage traffic in and out of the Link Road when you’ve got a construction compound sitting on the other side of the road. It just doesn’t make any sense to us how that can be done.

251. The next few slides I won’t dwell on. If we go to the next one it’s – I’ve already mentioned it’s about landscape design, and we’re totally unconvinced that you can design landscape around these issues. And then slides 22(2) – sorry, 21, 22 and 23 about green footbridges. I won’t say any more but if we could just dwell on slide 23 – there’s too much colour in the slides. Is that the problem? The point about 23 I wanted to make is that green bridges, ecological bridges, is not just something that residents of our area are asking for. You’ve heard today from the Bucks, Berkshire, Oxford Wildlife Trust. Chiltern Conservation Board have asked for green bridges in the area. Buckinghamshire County Council have asked for green bridges in the area. Natural England say there’s a need for more green bridges in the area. So this is another example of where the full mitigation that people deserve in this area is just not being offered.

252. If we go to the next one, 24, this is a slightly different point the petitioners make, and I note, chairman, you’re currently in the review of the need to sell scheme, so we’ve included this slide in the pack, which sets out what we believe are three remedies to the current problems of the need to sell scheme. The first one relates to the process by which applicants for the need to sell scheme are judged as to whether they should be offered, I think, the compensation. The second is about the panel members who sit on that panel, and the third one is about the scope of the scheme, simply suggesting that this criteria 5 which still requires people to produce a compelling reason to sell is an anathema and should be removed. Now, I note, chairman, that the Committee is reviewing this, and I hope you’re able to take account of these issues before you complete that review.

253. If I can go then to the next slide, this takes us somewhere slightly different. This is actually a slide that we presented almost in the same form in July. It was all blue at that stage, and it was intended to be a list of additional mitigation points that people would come to you with in the coming months. And all I’ve done is since then is we’ve

highlighted in green the requests which have been fully met. The rest remain outstanding. The rest – some of them have been partially met, but none of the rest have been totally met. And again, this is to try and help the Committee to understand why it is that people in this area do not yet feel, even with AP4, even with AP5, that this scheme is fully mitigated. It’s because, what they’ve been saying all along, that it simply needs more consideration of the impact that is has on their lives. If you go to the next slide, this is not just individuals’ views; this is county councils, district councils, parish councils, schools, churches, businesses and so on.

254. That then leads to the question of why hasn’t it happened?

255. MR HENDRICK: Mr Sully, could you answer this question? Would you say that most of the petitions supporting you today would only consider it fully mitigated if – as if there was a long tunnel full stop?

256. MR SULLY: Yes. But for the reasons I’m explaining. It has impact on people’s lives, and they’re not been considered and they’re not being met.

257. MR HENDRICK: Well, they may be considered, but whether or not they’re met is another matter.

258. MR SULLY: Okay.

259. CHAIR: I am not sure we want to get bogged down on tunnels.

260. MR SULLY: Forgive me, Chairman, but that is what the people want.

261. CHAIR: Okay, but you had an opportunity to present to the Committee in the summer and consider the options.

262. MR SULLY: The Committee has taken a view in the meantime, on guidance from the promoter, to offer something by way of a compromise, which is not what people are asking for. Surely therefore people have the right to come back and say, ‘We think you’ve got the balance wrong’. I mean, that’s what this process is about surely.

263. MR HENDRICK: What you’re saying is they’re saying that until there’s a fully bored tunnel all the way through.

264. MR SULLY: No, they’re going to say it until the petitioning process is over and then you – the Committee can then make the decision.

265. CHAIR: Basically, we have to make a judgment and we make judgments, and clearly people can argue for what they want, but it’s not a case of lots of people are saying they want something that they’re getting it.

266. MR SULLY: I take that.

267. CHAIR: We have to weigh things up. Anyway, please continue.

268. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: It’s also not a case if you keep repeating it often enough we’ll give in.

269. MR SULLY: Well, I accept that as well, chairman, but I do –

270. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: And you’ve already given evidence on this.

271. MR SULLY: Okay. Not on this issue I haven’t.

272. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: Why repeat all the evidence you’ve already given in July?

273. MR SULLY: Well, the situation has changed since July, sir. That’s the reason.

274. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: For the better.

275. CHAIR: Yes.

276. MR HENDRICK: Are you giving credit –

277. MR SULLY: The case for the tunnel though has not reached the point when it’s not worth discussing. The case for this tunnel is still there. It hasn’t gone away.

278. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: Unless you give us new evidence –

279. MR SULLY: Well, if I get to the end I’ll have summarised.

280. MR HENDRICK: What you’re saying is you haven’t got as much as you want at the moment, and therefore you’re not going to stop until you’ve got the long tunnel.

281. MR SULLY: No, what I’m saying is I believe what we asked for in July was justified on the information that was available in July. Since July –

282. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: We’re not going to give you the tunnel unless you give us additional new information. If you just keep repeating the information you gave us in July the situation will not change.

283. MR SULLY: Can I give you new analysis?

284. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: Well, let’s –

285. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: If you can get to page 36, at your convenience.

286. MR SULLY: I’m on page –

287. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: You’re showing us 26 at the moment. You have a number still to get through. Can we encourage you to perhaps make progress, please?

288. MR SULLY: Let me go, in that case, right to slide 32. What I want to do is try and explain why the case for the tunnel is still here, still on the table. These are the figures that were presented in July. HS2 claimed at that time that the full tunnel would cost £350 million and we, as CRAG, argued that it would be nearer to £250 million.

289. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: This is what Hilary Wharf told us some time ago is it?

290. MR SULLY: No, this is what CRAG told you.

291. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: It’s what CRAG told us.

292. MR SULLY: This was what CRAG presented on 20 July when we came before you and made that presentation.

293. MR HENDRICK: You’ve said it before.

294. MR SULLY: Indeed. This is the introduction, Mr Hendrick. If we go to the next slide, the day after we made that presentation Mr Smart appeared in response to another witness, another petitioner, and he was asked whether it was true that HS2 Limited thought at some stage they might raise their rate of tunnelling from what he was telling

us was a prudent rate of 80 metres per week to 90 metres per week. Now, Mr Smart said at that time ‘Clearly we would like to achieve a higher rate, and we will be able to assess that when we get our geotechnical information and get better…’ Now, the question today therefore is has Mr Smart got that better geotechnical information? If he has, can we hear about it? Can we reassess the tunnelling rate? If it’s going to be 90 metres that’s a 12.5% improvement in tunnelling rate. It would be wrong to ask this Committee to dismiss any tunnelling option until it was clear what Mr Smart’s expected tunnelling rate was going to be.

295. CHAIR: We had quite extensive debate on the question of tunnelling, and clearly there’s a difference of agreement between some people who’ve appeared as petitioners and the promoter, but this is a matter that we’ve considered pretty fully.

296. MR SULLY: Well, yes, but Mr Smart says he may get some better information. If he does have it then this Committee should hear it.

297. MR HENDRICK: The truth will be, I mean, unless Mr Smart’s got a crystal ball all he can do is give you his best estimates on the information that he’s got.

298. MR SULLY: But that wasn’t his best estimate in July. It was a prudent estimate in July. It was –

299. MR HENDRICK: Well, prudent estimate.

300. CHAIR: Anyway, let’s keep going.

301. MR SULLY: Okay. Could we go to the next slide then please? Also on 20 July CRAG suggested that were avoidable additional costs. In other words, if the Committee decided not to tunnel that wasn’t a free option. There would be a number of other mitigation requests which would come to the Committee and that would require additional expenditure. And at that time we estimated that additional expenditure might be of the order of £100 million, and you asked our chairman on 20 July to go away and produce some detail of how that sum might be made up. And, as Mr Hendrick said, it was simply estimates at the time. We produced a schedule of estimates.

302. If we review the situation today, we already know that the tunnel extension South Heath, AP4, is estimated to cost £46 million. We’ve yet to see the detail of what AP5

will contain, but our rough estimate is that that will be worth another £40 million. We’ve yet to see the detailed outcome of traffic management, road improvements and design mitigation plans. So as of today our belief is still that there’s £100 million worth of avoidable costs if the tunnel option is taken up. If we go to the next slide, Mr Mould questioned Mr Miller on this, again the day after CRAG made its presentation in July, so we weren’t there to challenge him at that time. And he either misrepresented what we had said or he misunderstood what we said, because he asked Mr Miller – he said, ‘Is it true that this expenditure has been included in the budget for the mitigated Bill railway?’ And Mr Miller said, ‘Well, yes, of course it is.’ Well, yes, we know that. We know there’s a large contingency fund. The point that we’re making is that this is £100 million which cannot possible be in the comparison which was done at that time, because they didn’t know about it. It was just – so therefore it’s avoidable additional costs.

303. And if we then go to – we’ll skip the next slide and go on to slide 31.

304. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I’ve got 34/35. We’re going backwards are we?

305. MR SULLY: Sorry. Yes, you’re quite right, Sir Peter. Yes, 37. I do apologise. Go to 37 next. So the reappraisal that Mr Clifton-Brown said was needed, it’s a new analysis. It’s not new data. It’s simply what has happened since July to change the case for the T3i tunnel. Now, at that time CRAG was saying £250 million was our best estimate. HS2 though the figure was nearer to £350 million. That figure has to be revised down because of the avoidable additional mitigation cost. This Committee is already asking HS2 to spend nearly £100 million to do other things which could be avoided if the T3i tunnel option is taken up. So that means the real additional cost of T3i as where we stand today is perhaps between 150 and 250 million.

306. And then all we’ve done in the rest of this analysis is to convert that to net present value in 2011 prices and compare it with the value that was given in July on the economic benefits that would derive from that. We’ve relaxed those, because obviously with the extension to Mantles Wood some of the benefits have already been taken, so we’ve made some assumptions, which I’ve included in an annex to the presentation that I’ve sent to you, about how we’ve relaxed those figures. And the net present value of the revised benefits after AP4, we believe, are still of the order of £300 million, made up

essentially partly of landscape but also of property blight, effects of tourism and transport. Now, the point of getting to here is it is another analysis of the T3i option after AP4, and it’s our belief that the case is still there for a tunnel through the Chilterns.

307. So if we can just go then to the last few slides. The next slide is our conclusion, where we are today. We believe that AP4 and AP5 do not provide adequate mitigation to protect the residents, businesses and communities in Wendover, Dunsmore, the Lee, South Heath and Great Missenden. In other words, the proposed scheme is not yet fully mitigated. And if there’s no longer tunnel then we still are asking this Select Committee to get specific undertakings from the promoter about the items listed there: operational noise, visual impact, spoil heaps, construction traffic and so on. Next slide please.

308. We’re convinced that the T3i is still a viable option and that it is value for money overall. And then if we could go to the last – well, no, the next slide, and I apologise for quoting your own words back to you, chairman, but in November you said, questioning Mr Mould first of all, he said, ‘Well, of course this decision about whether to tunnel the AONB is really a decision that the Secretary of State has to make.’ And then later, Chairman, you said that ‘We may end up at some point disagreeing with the Secretary of State, but at the moment we’re proceeding to hear the petitioners and try and complete the job.’ And then next slide, and you’ve said again, chairman, what you reminded me just now, that just because lots of people appear to say the same thing doesn’t necessarily make it the right decision. We understand that. You know, we’re all democrats, but CRAG’s proposition and all the petitioners who appear before you is that not just that they’re themselves, their councils, their businesses, their statutory bodies, not just that they think this is the right decision, but we also believe there’s an overwhelming economic argument. Thank you for bearing with me, chairman.

309. CHAIR: Thank you very much. Mr Strachan?

310. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Well, I’m to a degree in the Committee’s hands as to how many of these issues you want me to respond to. We have provided a lot of responses to these things already. Can I just deal with the things which I categorise as potentially new points? I think there was a discussion raised about Hunts Green, and I can just say to the Committee we are obviously in discussions with the land owners at Hunts Green. I think you may hear from them possibly tomorrow, but the idea would be

to try and minimise the effects on Hunts Green, but you will no doubt hear more about that.

311. The second point was a question raised about access to the Leather Lane compound, and avoiding traffic on Leather Lane. And the answer is we take access to that from our new access road from the A413 and then along the site trace up alongside Leather Lane to the site compound, which is how we avoid the construction traffic impacts on that site and Potter Row, which is one of the virtues of AP4.

312. On the question of the CRAG’s T3i tunnel, the – just to be clear and for the record, there was a cost of in excess of £350 million on our calculations of the CRAG T3i tunnel, and you can look back at the transcripts of that. That was on a certain assumed basis of a shorter intervention gap than is actually required, 700 versus the 900 metres. It was on an assumed basis as to the alignment, the vertical alignment, which are – on our current understandings would actually have to be lower if it were ever to be constructed, and it was excluding the costs for the electricity supplies for the northern portal drive.

313. All of those things would add considerably to the costs so far as we’re concerned, and I know this may be contentious, of CRAG T3i tunnel if it were to be developed beyond – in excess of 350 million, because the longer intervention gap, the need for it to be approximately 10 metres lower and indeed the power supply for the northern portal will all be significant price tag items. I’m not taking the Committee into the detail of that, because it rather demonstrates that in these overall cost figures the Committee has sufficient information to see, broadly speaking, the differences, but if we were to go into them our view is that the costs of the CRAG T3i were higher than the 350 million, significantly higher than the 350 million that the Committee’s already heard about.

314. On the other side of the coin, the petitioners referred to additional measures that have come forward through the petitioning process which have a price tag, such as the extension of the tunnel which – to west of South Heath portal. We gave that a figure of 46 or 47 million, I forget precisely which it was, 47 million additional costs. We don’t recognise the other figures that are now coming forward as to the additional measures. There’s, I think, a 10 million figure that’s been put on the Wendover mitigation. The pumping station solution in the Wendover area is not a cost. That’s a risk figure if it

were necessary of up to £20 million, but the important point to note about that, it arises out of the hydrology situation in that location where CRAG T3i tunnel would be at a lower depth in terms of a cutting as it came out in that area. And the pumping solutions for that would be either of the same order or more because it’s even lower in the ground. Again, I’m not taking the Committee into the details of the costs, but there’s considerable balancing of those two sorts of items in terms of risk factors for the tunnel, which is why I come back to the figure. Our figure of in excess of 350 million remains a robust one. It could be considerably more than that.

315. So those are the only, as far as I could tell, the differences that the petitioner was trying to – was putting forward from the position the Committee’s already considered. All of the other things we have already given evidence on. I’m very happy to revisit them if they would be of assistance.

316. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: Mr Strachan, to be fair to the petitioner, as I am a fair man, he did ask about tunnelling speeds and geotechnical information.

317. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Oh yes. Yes.

318. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: I did ask Mr Smart about this when he appeared before us in July on it, and he gave us the rather weak answer that he hadn’t got land owners’ permission, and I asked him whether he’d asked them and he said no. So do we have any progress on that whole issue?

319. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): We don’t have the further geotechnical information to change our tunnelling rates, and indeed a lot of the evidence you’ve been hearing about of the need to be cautious in this area and the River Misbourne and the chalk indicates, I would suggest, the reasons why a prudent rate is essential, but the geotechnical investigations are dependent upon a wider geotechnical survey. You can’t get the full geotechnical information from going onto one piece of land. You have to have a full geotechnical survey of the area to give you the proper information for the full tunnel bore. So there –

320. MR HENDRICK: When will that information be forthcoming?

321. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Well, I understand that the geotechnical – I don’t

know the precise timescale. The relevant surveys are carried out in 2016 and 2017 to build up the full picture of the geological information. I have to say it’s a fairly major task.

322. MR HENDRICK: Okay, but the important point, and I think Mr Clifton-Brown’s making it, is that when Mr Smart was interviewed his defence was basically that it was land that they didn’t have access to that we couldn’t do survey work on in order to determine whether or not we could bore at a quicker rate. What you’re saying now is that that information won’t be available until if and when the Bill gets royal assent.

323. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Well, my recollection of his answer, and if I’m wrong he will no doubt –

324. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: It did appear to me at the time, Mr Strachan, that he could start those geotechnical surveys if he could get land owner permission, and what – my question to you is what progress has he made in asking the landowners whether he can have voluntary access now, because if you don’t start that geotechnical survey it’s going to take longer to do.

325. CHAIR: Let’s leave it, Mr Strachan. Talk to Mr Smart, report back when you have more information. Have you finished your points, Mr Strachan?

326. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I have. I will come back to the Committee on that.

327. CHAIR: Okay, alright.

328. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I had a slightly different understanding to what he said, but I’ll check with –

329. CHAIR: Even if it’s only coming back with a timescale of when we’ll know that would be helpful. Mr Sully, any brief final points?

330. MR SULLY: A couple of quick things. Grateful that Hunts Green is being discussed with the land owner. I think that would provide significant benefits to the people that live round there if the size of that site can be reduced. Disappointed that Mr Strachan is querying the – in fact the figure that was produced in July was £349 million, a very precise figure. I’m disappointed that he’s now suggesting that somehow

that figure could be significantly in excess of that. I mean, that’s worrying for a costing of that sort, that he now has no confidence in the figures that were produced for this Committee specifically to compare it with a tunnelling option in July, so I’m disappointed in that.

331. There are two slides on the intervention gap which I didn’t go through, but if the Committee or Mr Strachan would like to look at them slides 30 and 31 in the pack do deal with this issue about spoil from the intervention gap. And if we go straight to perhaps 31, it sets out there the reasons why we believe that the design of that intervention gap was not optimised in July, and there are some suggestions there that HS2 might like to look at those.

332. And the final point on this tunnelling issue, I mean, it seems to me wrong that this Committee should be asked to make as an important a decision about how long a tunnel should be in the Chilterns without having the proper information to make that decision. It’s no good saying, ‘We’ve taken a cautious assumption’ because cautious assumptions can lead you into making the wrong decision, and that will be a travesty of this Committee’s time, and certainly my time, if that ended up the case that that information was not available until sometime after this Committee completed its –

333. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: How does a porous portal do its job if it’s buried?

334. MR SULLY: It can be buried, yes.

335. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: How does a porous portal do its job if it’s buried?

336. MR SULLY: It has tubes running up through it to ventilate the noise – ventilate the noise? Distribute the noise.

337. MR OSBOURNE: The air pressure can come out through tubes.

338. CHAIR: Okay. You were going to finish your brief final points.

339. MR SULLY: I have finished those, yes. Thank you very much, chairman.

340. CHAIR: I would just make the final point is that we have received a lot of information but there’s no perfect point when you get all the exact information, and we do our best to make our decisions on that basis. And I’m confident that we have had

good discussions and have had a lot of evidence before us, and we will continue to review the evidence that comes before us, but thank you very much for coming. Nice to see you again, Mr Sully.

341. MR SULLY: And you too. Thank you, gentlemen.

342. CHAIR: I wish you both a safe journey back.

343. MR SULLY: Thank you.

344. CHAIR: The last petitioner for tonight we have decided to put on at 9.30 tomorrow, so we are now finishing. So with that I say order, order, and I’d be grateful if you could withdraw from the room.