WRITTEN EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE CLA

THE CLA

The CLA is a membership organisation for the owners of land, property and businesses in rural England and Wales. We help safeguard the interests of landowners and those with economic, social and environmental interest in rural land and the rural economy. The CLA represents those who own and manage over half of the rural land in England and Wales.

It is important to recognise that it is CLA’s members’ land, buildings and/or houses that will be compulsorily acquired and their businesses and property ownerships severed by the HS2 proposals. Many will have to remain in situ throughout the construction phase and have to live with the permanent impacts of HS2. The CLA and our members are therefore unique, and key stakeholders in the project, not just another community interest group.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

  • HS2’s engagement with landowners, farmers and rural businesses has been poor. Often they spend inadequate time spend on site and give poor feedback to the landowner subsequently. HS2 has only attended one meeting of the Farmers and Landowners Working Group on which the CLA sits.
  • There is no justification for where environmental habitat has been located.
  • The Environmental Statement outlines an environmental mitigation strategy which at almost every stage will over-estimate the mitigation required leading to excessive land take.
  • The CLA was also refused a seat at the HS2 Environmental Forum, where decisions on the Metric were taken and were the degree of environmental mitigation and land take was assessed.
  • The assessments of the impact of agricultural holdings under-plays the true affects of HS2. Some owners and occupiers have not even been contacted by HS2. Assements do not take into account environmental designations e.g. NVZs which may limit the scope of businesses to re-adjust
  • The Environmental Statement should take into account the role use, and reform of the compensation code as this is relevant to the business restructuring that will follow HS2
  • Phase 2 Assessment of Sustainability should be consulted on separately and not as part of this Phase 1 consultation.
  • There is no requirement to limit land take through compulsory acquisition and no desire to reach voluntary agreements on biodiversity offsetting.

IMPACT ON AGRICULTURE

HS2 Ltd landowner engagement has been poor. Whilst HS2 ltd has met with the CLA, HS2 has only attended one meeting of the Farmers and Landowners Working Group.

Whilst the impact on agricultural land is scheduled, the assessments of impacts are often under played. Some owners or occupiers have not even been contacted by HS2. The assessment system was too simplistic and did not take proper account of the impact on individual farm enterprises, employment or mechanisation consequences of HS2 on the holding. NVZ, environmental designations and other schemes limited the landowner’s ability to reduce the impact of scheme and this doesn’t appear to be taken into account.

In addition there have been cases where landowners and businesses have been visited but were not able to take professional advice and therefore would not have appreciated the importance of their submissions.So may not have been given the opportunity to go into the detail necessary to substantiate the true impact of the scheme on their holding.

There needs to be clear understanding of the impact of severed land on the farm business, whilst this land is retained there will be additional management costs and enterprisechange may be required.

Land which is used for the formation of landscaping bunds, or for the depositing of surplus soil can seldom be re-instated to its former quality. The unavoidable mixing of soils, soil moving and storage and compaction all contribute to this but the impacts can be reduced by a good soil handling plans and good aftercare schemes.

The land around railways is often poorly drained. HS2 ltd need to ensure that they provide adequate drainage, even for the most challenging seasons and that they can show how is will be maintained into the future.

The working width needs to be adequately fenced to a standard agreed with the landowner (based on the needs of the business). Until permanent fencing is erected there needs to be access to the working width to retrieve escaped livestock.

HS2 need to provide bridges/underpasses where necessary to severed land. There may also be retirements for permanent easements for electricity, water and irrigation piping. HS2 need to work with landowners to minimise the impact on businesses severed by HS2

COMPENSATION CODE

It should not be assumed that the compensation code will deliver sufficient money to adequately compensate for all the expenses resulting from compulsory acquisition. To start with there will have been substantial management time already taken up in looking at ways of reducing the impact of HS2 through restructuring enterprises or the complete business – most of this is unlikely to be paid for by HS2 ltd. Substantial resource will have been put into bi-lateral meetings with HS2, farm and business surveys as well as making representations to the Draft Environmental Statement, Environmental Statement, all in an attempt to ensure that HS2 have proper information on which to make their decisions – much of this will funded by the landowner.

The CLA for over the last 15 years has been an active campaigner for compulsory purchase reform. Reform is needed so that it resolves

  • the issues of blight (through the CLA Property Bond Scheme)
  • ensures there is a duty of care placed on the acquirer
  • delivers fair compensation,
  • eases the process of getting replacement buildings
  • minimises land take
  • mitigates against tax and poor interest rates

Our proposals are detailed in the appendices

  • Appendix 1 - CLA manifesto for HS2
  • Appendix 2 - CLA Property Bond Scheme

IMPACT ON OTHER BUSINESSES

Whilst the assessment fails to recognise the impacts on agriculture it also fails to deal with the impacts on other rural businesses too. In many cases, especially if they are tourismor leisure businesses they may have already suffered an impact, just because HS2 is planned.

Agricultural businesses have been encouraged to diversify for several decades and decisions have been made to help sustain the existing businesses, provide additional family employment or an investment for retirement or another purpose. HS2 have to understand the business to judge the impact.

Many rural businesses are highly sensitive to location and setting – HS2 will alter this considerably and therefore may reduce the viability. This is a real risk especially as the owners of empty commercial buildings are responsible for payment of business rates.

DELIVERING BIODIVERSITY

The CLA was refused admission onto the HS2 Environmental Forum; a forum that would be setting out the basis on which an excessive area of land will be compulsorily acquired from our members businesses, farms and homes.

The Environmental Statement outlines an environmental mitigation strategy which at almost every stage will over-estimate the mitigation required. This leads to excessive land take and even worse impacts on businesses and individuals already affected by HS2. There is no justification for such land take and the Department for Transport should challenge HS2’s reliance solely on environmental organisations to deliver its environmental mitigation strategy.

The Metric for delivering environmental mitigation is contained deep within the Environmental Statement Volume 5 Scope and Methodology Report Addendum, which makes it difficult for people to find without wading though large amounts of information. Itstarts at page 364 of a poorly indexed 614 page document. It is entitled “Ecology Technical Note: Methodology For Demonstrating No Net Loss In Biodiversity”

The CLA is concerned by the use of the Lawton Report in connection with HS2. The Lawton report was written to address a new way to deliver landscape scale habitat, it was not prepared as a blueprint for biodiversity offsetting on a linear scheme with a defined geographical scope. We consider this to be an inappropriate way of delivering offsetting in a scheme of this kind[1].

HS2 ltd is seeking through the Hybrid Bill to get consent for a railway, which will include the need for some environmental mitigation.There should not be the scope for “bigger and better” habitat creation[2], but just to deliver essential mitigation resultant from the impacts of the scheme.

The CLA was disappointed that HS2 ltdare not going to work with landowners on environmental delivery[3]. At every instance when the CLA has addressed this subject with HS2 ltd they have said that they are prepared to work with landowners to deliver habitat where this is appropriate, but have failed to do so.

The Metric

The Metric that HS2 use is based on Biodiversity Offsetting Metric consulted on in the Biodiversity Offsetting Green Paper. This was designed to offset the negative environmental impacts of commercial development projects in a commercial context rather than a government scheme delivered through compulsory acquisition. The Metric has not been consulted on in this context and in any event has not been tried, tested and evaluated in thisway and was devised to deliver Biodiversity Offsetting as part of a voluntary and commercial approach, which is somewhat different from HS2 .

HS2 plan to use a modified and substantially enhanced version of this Biodiversity Offsetting metric which again has not been tried, tested or evaluated. It has had no input from the private landownership sector on whose land the offset will be delivered.

The majority of additions by HS2 ltd see the offset area greatly increased, e.g. increasing the distinctiveness score for habitats that for part of an area that qualifies as ‘habitat of principle importance’ and adding multiplier to take into account the effect on landscape scale[4]. This coupled with pre and post development indices to take into account the importance of habitats will mean that a far greater area of land will be required.

Multipliers are added to the offset area to take account of spatial and delivery risks. For a project so large it would seem unnecessary to add multipliers where the offset is outside a highlighted area. Where off-sets are provided they can be of a scale and location that allows added value and linkages to the surrounding landscape.

Phase 1 habitat surveys and National Vegetation Classification (NVC)[5] systems are being used, as opposed to the Farm Environment Plan (FEP)methodology from HLS. Whilst NVC is more in depth, the habitat inventories (which HS2’s ecologists will be relying upon), are an amalgamation of historical data from different sources that can only be relied upon if verified on the ground.

2.6.1.All Field Marginshave been allocated a standard width of 10m by HS2 ltd[6], however when mapped agri-environmental margins are in most cases 4 – 6m, It is also proposed to give them a ‘principle importance’ rating (x6). They is also an assumption that all arable fields have a standard 1m margin, which will also not be the case, and these will be classed as moderate distinctiveness (x4 in area). It is unlikely that the margins will be of the extent that HS2 envisage, and they are also highly unlikely (as they are only arable field margins) to have anything like the importance that HS2 ltd attaches to them.

Hedgerows and ditches[7]will be replaced like for like on a linear basis. In this case there will be no assessment of their quality, even where many of the hedgerows would be below the criteria set out in the Hedgerow Regulations due to their poor quality and lack of species diversity. Many mapped ditches are unlikely to carry water anymore. In addition to the condition scores for hedgerows, a multiplier will be attributed for its position within an ecological network

A new “very high” categoryof habitat has been inserted by HS2 ltd. It has not explained why there is any need for this which was not considered necessary within the original Offsetting Metric and appears to be completely unjustified. This category carries an increased score which means that further land will be required to deliver this additional offset[8].

Road verges and species poor improved grassland are deemed by HS2 to be of moderate distinctiveness[9] (x4), however in reality this is of low value and it is questionable whether mitigation of this level can ever be truly justified

Inventory surveys and aerial photography[10]can prove to be difficult without accurate assessment and up to date information. Unless a new inventory survey has been commissioned by HS2 ltd it is likely that they will be out of date. Over reliance on aerial photography can also lead to errors in habitat identification, or assessment of quality.

The precautionary approach[11] adopted by HS2 ltd is unjustified. Where there is no evidence of habitat quality HS2 ltd should not assume that it is of a medium or high quality as there is no evidence for this. A precautionary approach is unnecessary as it will over deliver the compensatory habitat, where there are indications of positive management this should indicate a certain quality of habitat. A score of 1 should be the default, with higher scores being based on evidence. Where an ecologist has not obtained access[12]for a site survey it should not be assumed that the site has a moderate rating as it could be of lesser value.

BALANCING BIODIVERSITY OFFSETTING

The CLA is concerned that there is nothing within the Hybrid Bill that places a duty on the Department of Transport, Defra or HS2 ltd to minimise the land take, whether temporary or permanent under the scheme. Any acquirer given compulsory rights is going to take more land than it might ever need to deliver the scheme just in case, there is no requirement to work smarter and to deliver the scheme on a smaller area asa commercial developer would– thus reducing land take and impacting on businesses less.

There is no requirement on HS2 ltd to consider the impact of the whole scheme on agriculture in England. The Environmental Statement shows a total loss of nearly 5,000 ha of land of which a proportion is temporary. There is no overall assessment of this impact in an England wide context.

There is no requirement for the economic impact (of the loss of land, buildings and severance) to be balanced with environmental requirement. The result is that more land will be taken that will further impact on properties and businesses already suffering as a result of HS2.

FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL OFFSET

HS2 ltd has not addressed the future management of the environmental offset area, as far as the CLA are aware.

The CLA have consistently argued that the best way for this compensatory habitat to be delivered is by the neighbouring landowners where they wish to do so. They are already onsite, they know the land and they are capable land managers. HS2 ltd seem to have been content with this approach but have not entered into discussion with any individual landowners.

It would appear that within the Scope and Methodolgy Requirements that they have also ruled out involvement of 3rd parties – it is unclear as to whether a landowner/occupier at this stage would be a 3rd party.

The CLA maintains that, where there is agreement with the landowner, any land required for mitigation should not be compulsorily acquired but taken on licence (or some other temporary agreement) for the required period of time and returned to the landowner for future management.

There appears to be no mention of the future funding of the created habitat. This should be provided for by HS2 ltd as part of the construction and ongoing costs. Funding from the Rural Development Regulation should be used.

CLA MANIFESTO FOR HS2

The CLA has actively campaigned for reform of the compulsory purchase regime for around 15 years. We have drawn up a manifesto for the proposed high-speed rail link summarising how the CLA is fighting on behalf of its members for compulsory purchase reform to deliver better co-ordination and fairer compensation, against the impacts of the scheme.

The issues and recommendations are below:

BLIGHT

  • Whether statutory or generalised, all properties within close proximity to HS2 will be blighted – how the market values and sales prospects are affected – to some extent. In most cases people will want to stay in their properties for as long as they can, but when they need to move they should not be disadvantaged by HS2.
  • Currently, protection of property value through a Blight Notice is only an option for certain property interests.

Recommendations:

  • The CLA Property Bond Schemeshould be introduced to underpin the market value of residential property reassuring current owners or future purchasers that they will not lose out as a result of HS2. The scheme also guarantees compensation to businesses and agricultural property owners should they wish to relocate or re-invest.
  • Abolition of Rateable Value limits to blight notices would help many rural businesses currently being prevented from submitting blight notices.
  • Enforcement is needed to ensure purchases proceed swiftly after a blight notice is accepted.

DUTY OF CARE

  • HS2 Ltd and its contractors should have a duty of care to the landowner and businesses affected by the scheme.
  • HS2 Ltd should be responsible for the actions of its contractors.

Recommendations:

  • Mitigation of the impact of the scheme on property owners should fall to HS2 Ltd. Owners should not have to rely only on financial compensation but also on mitigation measures..
  • An “Independent Person”or ombudsman should be put in position now to ensure that there is an easy, quick and independent resolution of problems as they occur and to enforce a duty of care.

LIMIT THE SCOPE OF THE HYBRID BILL

  • Development and regeneration clauses included in the HS2 Hybrid Bill should be removed, limiting the opportunity for profiteering by HS2 Ltd as the purpose of the legislation is to construct a railway, not facilitate other development in the rural area.

Recommendations: