HS2 Associated Assessment Reports

HS2 London to the West Midlands
Appraisal of Sustainability
Appendix 4 – Associated Assessment Reports

A Report for HS2 Ltd
February 2011
HS2 London to the West Midlands: Appraisal of Sustainability
HS2 London to the West Midlands

Appraisal of Sustainability
A Report for HS2 Ltd

55 Victoria Street
London SW1H 0EU
T 0207 944 4908
[email protected]
Principal author Nick Giesler

Key contributors Andrew Bryant, Andrew Mayes, Stuart McCully, Sheenagh Mann, Vicky Ward
Technical contributors Biodiversity Ecology Consultancy Ltd; Nick Giesler
Equality Vicky Ward; Future Inclusion
Reviewers Mark Southwood, Roger Cooper, Andrew Bryant
This report was commissioned by, and prepared for HS2 Ltd and the Department for Transport („DfT‟) by Booz & Co (UK)
Ltd (www.booz.com) and Temple Group Ltd (www.templegroup.co.uk), ('The Consultant'). The findings and conclusions
set forth in this report represent the best professional judgment of the Consultant based on information made available to
it. The Consultant has relied on, and not independently verified, data provided to it by such sources and on secondary
sources of information cited in the report.
Third parties to whom DfT or HS2 Ltd may make this report available should not rely on the findings or conclusions set
forth in this report without obtaining independent professional advice and undertaking their own due diligence reviews.
Any reliance on this report by a third party or any decisions made by any such third party based on this report, are the
sole responsibility of such third party. The Consultant has not had and does not acknowledge any duty of care to any
such third party with respect to the report, and shall have no financial or other liability to any such party with respect to
any matter related to any decisions made by any such party, in whole or in part, on this report.
Contents
APPENDIX 4.1 HABITATS REGULATION ASSESSMENT: SCREENING FOR LIKELY
SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS .................................................................................................................. 1
APPENDIX 4.2 EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT: SCREENING REPORT.............................. 48
APPENDIX 4.3 WEBTAG COMPLIANCE AND ASTS ................................................................... 74
Structure of the AoS report and appendices

Non Technical Summary
Main Report Volume 1
Main Report Volume 2 – Plans and Appraisal Framework
Appendix 1 – The Appraisal Process
Appendix 2 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Appendix 3 – Socio-economic Report
Appendix 5 – AoS Technical Reports
Appendix 6 – March 2010 Preferred Scheme and Main Alternatives: AoS information
APPENDIX 4.1
Habitats Regulation Assessment: Screening for likely significant effects
1 Introduction
1.1 Context for the study and report
1.1.1 The Ecology Consultancy was commissioned by Temple Group to produce a screening
report that could be used to inform the need for an Appropriate Assessment (AA) under
regulation 61 of the Conservation of Natural Habitats and Species Regulations 2010
("Appropriate Assessment") on route options currently proposed for HS2 from London to
the West Midlands. The need for a similar assessment of impacts upon Ramsar sites is
also required as a matter of policy through PPS9 and Ramsar Sites in England – A policy
Statement (2006). The routes considered in this assessment are those proposed for review
at Gate 3 of the route selection process. These comprise route sections that link together to
form four principal alignments between London and the West Midlands, as well as several
variants and connectors. Six route options in and around Birmingham were also
considered.
1.1.2 As well as being required as a stand-alone document, this report was drafted in support of
the wider AoS report. The Government‟s proposed route recommended initially by HS2 Ltd
has since been refined on the basis of requests made by Government following further
appraisal. This refined scheme is now adopted as the Government‟s recommended
scheme and is the subject of public consultation. Any changes in the content of the draft
report issued in March 2010 that have resulted from these refinements are highlighted
herein, where appropriate. No changes in the report‟s overall conclusions have resulted,
however.
1.2 Natura 2000 Sites and HRA

1.2.1 There are a number of different mechanisms by which impacts can affect the populations or
habitats for which European Sites have been designated. These include mechanisms that
act indirectly, possibly at some distance from the site boundary, but that still affect its
conservation objectives, sometimes affecting a population of a mobile qualifying species
beyond the physical boundary of the site. This approach is stated in the European
Commission guidance document Managing Natura 2000 Sites (EC 2000 p341).
„The procedure of Article 6(3) and (4) is triggered not by a certainty but by a
likelihood of significant effects, arising not only from plans or projects located
within but also outside a protected site.
1.2.2 Sites of European importance for nature conservation (referred to collectively as Natura
2000 Sites and taken to include Special Areas of Conservation (SACs including candidate
SACs), Special Protection Areas (SPAs including potential SPAs) and Ramsar sites) within
10 kilometres of any route segment were identified using Proximity Analysis in ArcGIS. A
total of 11 sites were therefore identified of which nine were SACs and two were SPAs, also
designated as Ramsar sites. No candidate SACs or potential SPAs were identified.
1.2.3 Natura 2000 Sites are afforded protection under the following directives, which are
implemented domestically by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010
(hereafter referred to as the Habitats Regulations):
 SPAs are protected in accordance with Article 4 of the EC Directive on the conservation
of wild birds (79/409/EEC and 09/147/EC)). They are classified for rare and vulnerable
birds (as listed on Annex I of the Directive), and for regularly occurring migratory
species.
 SACs are protected sites designated under the EC Directive on the Conservation of
natural habitats and wild fauna and flora (92/43/EC). Article 3 of the Habitats Directive
requires the establishment of a European network of important high-quality
1
Managing Natura 2000 Sites, The provisions of Article 6 of the „Habitats‟ Directive 92/43/EEC. European Communities
2000.
1
conservation sites that would make a significant contribution to conserving the 189
habitat types and 788 species identified in Annexes I and II of the Directive (as
amended). The listed habitat types and species are those considered to be most in
need of conservation at a European level (excluding birds).
1.2.4 Under Article 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive, assessments are required where a
project or plan is likely to give rise to significant effects upon a Natura 2000 site. Article 6,
paragraphs (3) and (4) states:
 Any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the
site but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination
with other plans or projects, shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its
implications for the site in view of the site‟s conservation objectives. In the light of the
conclusions of the assessment of the implications for the site and subject to the
provisions of paragraph 4, the competent national authorities shall agree to the plan or
project only after having ascertained that it would not adversely affect the integrity of the
site concerned and, if appropriate, after having obtained the opinion of the general
public.
 If, in spite of a negative assessment of the implications for the site and in the absence
of alternative solutions, a plan or project must nevertheless be carried out for imperative
reasons of overriding public interest, including those of social or economic nature, the
Member State shall take all compensatory measures necessary to ensure that the
overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected. It shall inform the Commission of the
compensatory measures.
1.2.5 The requirements in respect of Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest (IROPI)
are transposed by regulation 62 of the Habitats Regulations. The so called IROPI test
provides that the plan or project may be agreed to if there are no alternative solutions and if
there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest. Such reasons can generally be
of a social or economic nature, but where the site concerned includes a priority habitat (of
which there are 22 in the UK) or hosts a priority species (of which there is one in the UK),
the imperative reasons must either relate to human health, public safety or beneficial
consequences of primary importance to the environment, or any other reasons which the
competent authority, having regard to the opinion of the European Commission, considers
to be imperative reasons of overriding public interest. Where it can be confirmed that there
are imperative reasons of overriding public interest, and there are no feasible alternative
options, compensation measures are required to maintain the overall coherence of the
Natura 2000 network.
1.2.6 The HRA screening exercise was undertaken initially to inform the option sifting process.
Since this time the proposed route and some main alternatives have emerged. The report
distinguishes those route elements that form part of the proposed route and alternatives
from those that are no longer considered.
2
2 Methodology
2.1 Main Effects
2.1.1 The screening assessment follows current good practice guidance, especially that included
in Assessment of Plans and Projects Significantly Affecting Natura 2000 Sites2. In
particular, it draws on the first section of the guidance that defines the screening process as
follows:
 Determining whether the project or plan is directly connected with or necessary to the
management of the site;
 Describing the project or plan and the description and characterisation of other projects
or plans that in combination have the potential for having significant effects on the
Natura 2000 site; and
 Identifying the potential effects on the Natura 2000 site.
 Assessing the significance of any effects on the Natura 2000 site.
2.1.2 In respect of the first point it is clear that HS2 does not relate to the necessary management
of the Natura 2000 sites it may potentially affect.
2.1.3 With regard to the second point, in the absence of detailed construction methodology,
reasonable assumptions have been made about likely construction activities at relevant
locations. These are based on experience of other rail projects of a similar scale.
2.2 In-combination Effects

2.2.1 Information on projects or plans that in combination have the potential for having significant
effects on the Natura 2000 site have been taken into account even where it is considered
that HS2 would have no significant effect on its own.
2.2.2 The main sources of information reviewed were the Appropriate Assessments for the
Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS)3 for the regions through which the routes pass4. These
are:
 Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Phase 2 Revision of the Regional Spatial
Strategy for the West Midlands - October 2007;
 Appropriate Assessment of the Draft South East Plan October 2006;
 East Midlands RSS Partial Review Habitats Regulations Assessment Pre-screening
Report October 2008; and
 Draft Replacement London Plan Habitats Regulations Assessments – Screening Report
October 2009.
2
European Commission Environment DG (2001) Assessment of plans and projects significantly affecting Natura 2000
sites. Methodological guidance on the provisions of Article 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC
3
Since the initial drafting of this report, the Coalition Government has announced that RSSs are to be abolished. In the
absence of any replacement proposals at the time of writing, however, it is assumed that proposals therein remain
current.
4
The screening of draft RSS for the East of England has not been produced. Recommendations are included in „likely
significant effect‟ on a Natura 2000 site: advice to the Panel prepared jointly by English Nature and Government Office
for the East of England (February 2006), but does not contain detailed information.
3
2.2.3 The RSSs provide sufficient plan-level detail on the likely impacts of projects associated
with the implementation of the Strategy for in-combination effects with HS2 to be assessed.
They also refer to known projects that are likely to act in combination with the
implementation of the Strategy and potentially with HS2. Information from RSSs and LDFs
identifying specific growth areas have also been considered in determining any other in-
combination effects with other proposals.
2.2.4 In addition proposed transport projects have been considered. Reasonable effort has been
applied to the assessment, in particular in regard to in-combination effects, given the nature
and stage of the HS2 proposals.
2.3 Identifying Potential Impacts

2.3.1 The following resources were reviewed to identify the potential impacts generated by
transport schemes:
 IEEM Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom5.
 The Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (Vol 11, 2009)6.
 Department of Transport, Transport Analysis Guidance7.
 Accounts for SACs, SPAs and Ramsar sites in the vicinity of proposed routes.
 Common Standards Monitoring reports for SACs.
2.3.2 Impacts have been described in terms of their likely construction and operational phase
characteristics, and whether resulting effects would be restricted to the footprint of the
works or would include off-site ecological receptors. These include effects caused by both
direct impacts such as habitat loss and fragmentation, and potential indirect and off-site
impacts such as noise and light disturbance and air and water pollution.
2.3.3 The receptors upon which the proposal may exert an effect were identified through
reviewing the accounts for Natura 2000 sites and noting the qualifying species for the
designation of SPAs and Ramsars or Annex I or Annex II habitats or species present that
lead to the designation of SACs. All features of European importance (both primary and
non-primary) were considered, as well as the Conservation Objectives of the site in
question. The sensitivity and mobility of the identified features were also considered.
2.3.4 The presence of these features, and the potential for the proposal to impact on them in the
various ways identified, were then analysed. Some sites were screened out due to
distance, or because the site did not contain any mobile species and no pathways existed
potentially to allow off-site impacts to exert an effect on site. For sites which were closer, or
where mobile species or effect pathways were present, a further level of analysis was
undertaken.
2.3.5 The potential sources of impact from the scheme and the sensitivity and vulnerability of
designated features present at nearby Natura 2000 sites were tabulated and the matrix
used to identify the possible pathways by which an impact may occur. The potential
significance of any effect was reported.
2.3.6 The proximity of proposed routes was considered in order to determine whether the effects
were likely to operate on the conservation objectives of the Natura 2000 sites in the ways
identified.
2.4 Determining the Potential for Distant Effects

2.4.1 All sites within 10km of the proposed routes were included as a matter of course. The 10km
buffer was chosen on the basis of DMRB (2009) advice which recommends a 2km buffer
5
http://www.ieem.net/ecia/index.html
6
http://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/dmrb/vol11/index.htm
7
http://www.dft.gov.uk/webtag/documents/expert/unit3.3.10.php
4
for all sites, but indicates that a precautionary approach should be used for routes in the
vicinity of designated watercourses. In compliance with this, it is considered that sites
dependent on surface and groundwater flows could also be adversely affected at distances
greater than 2km. This is based on previous experience on other rail projects, particularly
CTRL where inputs to rivers were found to extend to at least 5km downstream from the
point of input into a watercourse.
2.4.2 Table 1 below summarises the buffer distances for various species groups, reproduced
from the National Transport Plan Habitats Regulations Assessment Statement to Inform an
Appropriate Assessment8.
Table 1 Summary of Buffer Distances for Various Species Groups
Species Name HRA Source of distance
Group screening distance
Bats.9 30km DMRB HD44/0915
10
Otter 20km DMRB otter advice note HA81/9914 (Range of breeding female)
Great Crested 2km 2km chosen to take a precautionary approach. Great Crested
Newt11 Newt Handbook (Froglife 2001) states that newt during
dispersal can move 1,000m or more.
2.4.3 The route options were drawn on plans along with the location and boundaries of those
Natura 2000 sites identified as being potentially vulnerable to the HS2 project. 10 km buffer
zones were then plotted around each of the Natura 2000 sites using Arc GIS software in
order to identify the potential for effects. Where no direct effects were obvious, features
such as watercourses, transport infrastructure and urban development were taken into
account in order to assess whether any indirect impact pathways may occur.
2.4.4 There is no information recommending a buffer distance between SPAs and projects
potentially having an adverse effect on qualifying species. This reflects the wide ranging
and unpredictable nature of bird movements even within related species such as wildfowl.
Thus where SPAs are present just beyond the10km buffer of the routes considered, they
have also been included in the assessment.
8
Welsh Assembly Government, Department for the Economy and Transport, Transport & Strategic Regeneration Group
(Consultation Version November 2009). National Transport Plan Habitats Regulations Assessment Statement to Inform
an Appropriate Assessment.
9
The DMRB guidance recommends a buffer of 30km for sites designated for bats. The assessment of the Welsh
Transport Plan adopted 30km for bats. Effects have been considered at this distance for HS2 where appropriate. The
Mole Gap to Reigate Escarpment designated for Bechstein`s bat Myotis bechsteinii, has been identified but there are
numerous barriers to the dispersal of bats from this SAC and any of the proposed routes and as a consequence it has
been judged that no effects would arise.
10
Sites within a 20km buffer were checked to see if otters were a reason for designation, a single site, the River Mease is
present in the search are, but was also included within the 10km buffer.
11
Not a reason for designation of any site within a 10km buffer.
5
3 Potential Effects
3.1 Sources of Impact
3.1.1 Table 2 below summarises the potential impacts arising from the construction and
operational phases of the scheme and the geographic range over which impacts are likely
to occur.
Table 2 Potential Ecological Impacts of the Scheme
Phase of impact Possible extent of impact
Local Distant
Impact Construction Operation Onsite
<2km 2-10km
Habitat removal Site clearance for the works, Maintenance operations, Yes Yes
temporary offices and works emergency access
compounds, storage areas for
construction materials,
demolition operations.
Habitat Site clearance for the works, Land take from the presence of Yes
fragmentation temporary offices and works the completed route option
compounds, storage areas for
construction materials,
demolition operations.
Population Land take and disturbance Disruption of territories, flyways, Yes Yes Yes
fragmentation arising from construction river corridors - otters etc,
commuting habitat for bats.
Pollution of waterbodies, light
and noise pollution.
Killing and injury Habitat clearance, (not including Train strike – bats, birds, etc. Yes
indirect effects through pollution, Electrified track killing otters
hydrological changes etc.)
Soil compaction Works sites, storage compounds NA Yes
Soil erosion/ Runoff Runoff Yes Yes Yes
siltation
Water pollution Incursion into contaminated Runoff from railways or Yes Yes Yes
land, construction site run-off maintenance operations.
Air pollution Generation of dusts at None significant: trains are Yes Yes No
construction sites and haul electrically powered and result in
roads; emissions from no emissions to air at point of
construction vehicle exhausts use. Air pollutants would occur
(CO, VOC, NOX, PM, at point of power generation, but
unregulated pollutants) such emissions are considered
to be part of the existing
baseline.
Groundwater Dewatering, creation of barriers Changes to soil and subsurface Yes Yes Yes
hydrological (bentonite walls) etc profiles, sub surface permanent
change barriers, alteration of surface
water flows
Surface water Diversion/impoundment of Permanent bridges, culverts Yes Yes Yes
change watercourses, bridges, culverts diversions
Noise Blasting, piling, vehicle Operation of trains, maintenance Yes Yes
movements etc crews
Light Night time working Night time maintenance, Yes Yes
trackside lighting, train lighting
Vehicle Works crews, machinery etc Operation of trains, maintenance Yes Yes
movement, crews
changes in
human activity
Shade Temporary structures over Embankments, permanent Yes Yes
6
Phase of impact Possible extent of impact

Local Distant
Impact Construction Operation Onsite
<2km 2-10km
watercourses bridges
3.2 Key Features

3.2.1 Within the corridor in which the various route options sit and within 10 km of these options
11 Natura 2000 sites were identified. Of these six are known to comprise features that are
particularly sensitive to water pollution or groundwater changes or comprise important
populations of mobile species.
3.2.2 The information on Natura 2000 sites within 10km of proposed routes is summarised in
Table 3 below:
Table 3 Summary Information on SACs, SPAs and Ramsar sites in Proximity to HS2 Series Routes
SAC/SPA Desig- Annex I habitat Annex I habitat Annex II Annex II
Name nation designated designated species that species
primarily for: secondarily for: are a primary present as a
reason for qualifying
designation feature
Aston Rowant SAC Juniper Juniperus Beech Fagus NA NA
communis scrub on sylvatica woodland
heaths or calcareous
grasslands
Burnham SAC Beech woodland on NA NA NA
Beeches acid soils (associated
invertebrates and
epiphytes)
Cannock SAC European dry heaths Northern Atlantic wet NA NA
Chase (invertebrates, nightjar, heaths with cross
five species of bats are leaved heath Erica
also mentioned) tetralix
Cannock SAC NA NA Floating water- NA
Extension plantain Luronium
Canal natans
Chilterns SAC Very extensive tract of Semi-natural dry Stag beetle NA
Beech –woods beech forests in the grasslands and Lucanus cervus
centre of the habitat‟s scrubland (Bisham wood)
UK range
Richmond SAC NA NA Stag beetle NA
Park Lucanus cervus
River Mease SAC NA Watercourses of plain Spined loach Otter Lutra lutra
to montane levels Cobitis taenia and and white-clawed
bullhead Cottus crayfish
gobio
Wimbledon SAC NA Northern Atlantic wet Stag beetle NA
Common heaths with cross
leaved heath and
European dry heaths
Pasturefields SAC Inland salt meadows12 NA NA NA
Salt Marsh
Lee Valley SPA/ NA NA Internationally NA
Ramsar important
populations of
shoveler Anas
clypeata and
gadwall Anas
12
Priority habitat
7
SAC/SPA Desig- Annex I habitat Annex I habitat Annex II Annex II

Name nation designated designated species that species
primarily for: secondarily for: are a primary present as a
reason for qualifying
designation feature
strepera, bittern
Botaurus stellaris
South West SPA/ NA NA Internationally NA

London Water- Ramsar important
bodies populations of
shoveler and
gadwall
4 Assessment of Effects
4.1 Overview
4.1.1 The potential impacts listed in Table 2 are discussed below for each Natura 2000 site with
respect to Annex I and II habitats and species and the conservation objectives for the site.
The distance of the nearest route options to the Natura 2000 site is also considered in order
to provide an assessment of whether any options could result in a likely significant effect on
the conservation objectives and therefore prompt an AA.
4.1.2 In all cases direct removal or fragmentation of the Annex I and II habitats for which a SAC
is designated would represent a significant adverse effect on conservation objectives and
would therefore necessitate an AA.
4.2 Aston Rowant
Qualifying Features
4.2.1 Aston Rowant SAC is designated for its beech woodland, juniper scrub and calcareous
grassland habitats.
Conservation Objectives
4.2.2 Subject to natural change, to maintain in favourable condition the beech forest habitat
(Asperulo-Fagetum) and lowland juniper scrub.
Assessment of Effects
 Distance of nearest routes: Route section 824 (LoR 1) [no longer considered] is within,
but beneath the site, although portals are situated close to the site‟s boundary. Route
sections 816, 823 and 825 are all within 10km of the site but more than 7km away and
not likely to result in adverse effects. Route section 829 (LoR 2.5) is 8.6km from the
site. The proposed route option is over 10km from the site.
 Habitat removal or fragmentation: Route section 824 [no longer considered] is in tunnel
to avoid direct removal or fragmentation of the Annex I and II habitats for which the
SAC is designated, although portal construction could affect fringe habitat. Other
options are at some distance away.
 Population fragmentation: Not applicable in terms of designated habitats.
 Killing and injury: No qualifying mobile species that would potentially be affected.
 Soil erosion, siltation compaction: Works for Route 824 [no longer considered] could
result in soil compaction or erosion, which could have adverse effects on tree roots.
 Air pollution: most works that would potentially generate air pollution are at too great a
distance to affect the site, its habitats and species. Tunnelling activity for route section
8
824 would potentially generate dust impacts, although best practicable means13 would
be employed to control dust and other air quality impacts.
 Water pollution: The potential for water pollution is highest during construction, although
best practice measures would be employed to minimise this risk. However, with works
all taking place at some distance from the site and at a lower elevation to the habitat,
there is no risk of any pollution incident off site affecting the SAC.
 Groundwater hydrological change: The high permeability of the chalk geology would
allow groundwater flows and water column pressure to adjust rapidly to the presence of
the tunnel, therefore there is negligible potential for changes to groundwater or
associated surface waters that might affect the SAC.
 Surface water change: Due to the proximity of the Route 824 portal [no longer
considered] to the site it is possible that dewatering operations could have an adverse
effect on qualifying habitats. However, the proposed scheme is some 10km away and
no effects are predicted.
 Noise, light, vehicle movement and changes in human activity: Not applicable on
designated habitats, since there are no qualifying species.
 Shading: Due to the proximity of the route section 824 [no longer considered] to shade
sensitive habitats i.e. juniper scrub and calcareous grassland adverse effects could
occur. No impacts from the proposed scheme would occur.
Likelihood of HS2 Effects

 Route section 824 [no longer considered] could involve direct removal or fragmentation
of small portions of Annex I and II habitats and it is, therefore, likely that the proposal
would have a significant effect on the site and would require AA.
 Route section 892 (LoR2.5) is 8.6km from the site. Due to the distance of the route from
the SAC, the absence of impacts on the continuity of ground or surface water flows in
the vicinity of the SAC, and the absence of mobile qualifying species, it is considered
that adoption of route section 892 would not result in any likely significant effects
triggering an AA or requiring mitigation or consideration of in-combination effects. All
elements of the proposed route are situated further from the site.
Potential In-combination Effects

4.2.3 None identified.
4.3 Burnham Beeches SAC
Qualifying Features
4.3.1 Burnham Beeches SAC is designated for the beech woodland on acid soils and is noted for
its nationally important associated invertebrate and epiphyte interest.
4.3.2 Subject to natural change, to maintain in favourable condition, beech forests with Ilex and
Taxus rich in epiphytes.
 Distance of nearest routes: Route sections 817, 824 [LoR1 - no longer considered] are
respectively 360m and 295m from the SAC where the routes are on a mixture of
embankment and viaduct. Route section 813 [LoR1 - no longer considered] is also
360m away. Remaining routes within 10km are all more than 3.5km away from the
13
Best practicable means is defined in section 72 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974. However, more definitive
measures are set out in Annex 1 to this document.
9
SAC. Route section 893 (LoR 2.5) is about 3.8km from the site and all elements of the
proposed route are situated still further from the site.
 Habitat removal and fragmentation: Not applicable. None of the routes are sufficiently
close to the SAC to result in habitat removal or fragmentation.
 Population fragmentation: It is likely that the site is of some value for bats and
fragmentation of roosts from foraging areas could occur as there are extensive
woodlands to the north of the SAC. However, all elements of the proposed route and
alternatives in the vicinity of the site are to the north and on the opposite side of the
M40 to the SAC and avoid nearby woodlands, and as such are unlikely to result in
adverse effects on bat foraging and commuting. Moreover, since bats are not a
qualifying species for the SAC, there is no risk of impact to the site‟s integrity.
 Killing and injury: Not applicable due to lack of on-site impacts and because the site is
not designated for mobile species. Off-site effects on commuting bats are unlikely to
arise from the proposed route and alternative routes due to the intervening barrier
formed by the M40.
 Soil compaction: Not applicable due to lack of onsite impacts.
 Soil erosion/siltation: Not applicable due to distance from the nearest route.
 Air pollution: Lichens, bryophytes and invertebrates are potentially sensitive to airborne
pollution. However, nearest works associated with route section 824 [no longer
considered] are at some distance and best practicable means would be employed to
control dust and other air quality impacts. There is no risk of impact associated with
any option still under consideration, given that route section 893 is 3.8km north of the
SAC boundary. There would not be any operational effects. Therefore it is not likely
that the scheme would result in significant adverse effects arising from pollution.
 Water pollution: Trees are potentially sensitive to waterborne pollution, but the SAC is
at a higher elevation than any existing or discarded route options, so the risk of pollution
impacts is low.
 Groundwater hydrological change: Ancient trees on freely draining soils may be
sensitive to changes in the water table. Route sections 817, 824 [LoR1 - no longer
considered] is sufficiently close to the site for any changes in groundwater levels to
have a likely significant adverse effect on qualifying habitats and on the site as a whole.
LoR 2.5 is at grade at its closest point to the site and is therefore not likely to affect
groundwater flows. All elements of the proposed route are situated still further from the
site. No adverse effects on the SAC are predicted due to the distance of the tunnelled
section (over 7km away), its valley bottom location, chalk geology and intervening
towns and infrastructure that indicate that groundwater connections between the route
and the site would not be present.
 Surface water change: Not applicable. It is unlikely that the SAC qualifying habitats are
dependent on off-site surface waters other than in terms of any effects on groundwater
change.
 Noise, light, vehicle movement and changes in human activity: No impact on
designated habitats, but potential for adverse effects on associated species (bats and
birds).
 Shading: Not applicable, although old trees are shade-sensitive, the nearest routes are
too distant to result in shading effects.

4.3.3 Route section 893 (LoR 2.5) is almost 4km from the site and is at-grade at this point. Due to
the distance of the route from the site and the absence of mobile qualifying species, it is
considered that adoption of route section 893 would not result in any likely significant
effects on the SAC and so would not trigger an AA.
10
4.3.4 All elements of the proposed route are situated still further from the site. For the reason
given above they are not likely to have significant adverse effects due to changes in
hydrology or airborne emissions during construction and operation.

4.3.5 An Appropriate Assessment of the Draft South East Plan October 2006 concluded that
Burnham Beeches was vulnerable to increased traffic with localised air quality implications,
with potential consequences for epiphytes and heathland vegetation. The site was also
considered vulnerable to the effects of recreation including disturbance, erosion and
eutrophication, and to urbanisation.
4.3.6 HS2 would not have any impacts likely to exacerbate these named risks. The proposed
route is too distant to cause adverse effects on hydrology. Therefore, no in-combination
effects would arise.
4.4 Cannock Chase
Qualifying Features
4.4.1 Cannock Chase SAC is designated for its wet and dry heaths. It supports associated
invertebrate and bat assemblages, and a strong population of nightjar.
4.4.2 Maintain, in favourable condition, European dry heaths with particular reference to the H8
Calluna vulgaris-Ulex gallii and H9 Calluna vulgaris – Deschampsia flexuosa communities.
4.4.3 Maintain, in favourable condition, North Atlantic wet heaths with Erica tetralix, with
particular reference to the M10 Carex dioica - Pinguicula vulgaris mire and M16 Erica
tetralix - Sphagnum compactum wet heath communities.
 Distance of nearest routes: The closest route sections to the site are 868, 886 and 878
[all no longer considered] all at a distance of 4.35km, others within 10km are all more
than 8.5km away. Route section 848 of the proposed route is about 8.7km from the site.
 Habitat removal and fragmentation: Not applicable. None of the routes are sufficiently
close to the SAC to result in habitat removal or fragmentation.
 Population fragmentation: The site is noted for its importance for bats although they are
not a primary reason for site selection. It is possible that fragmentation of roosts from
foraging areas could occur as a result of some route options. However, the proposed
route is situated to the south-east of the site and does not form a barrier between any
constituents of the SAC or adjoining areas of habitat potentially of importance for bats.
Therefore, adverse effects on bat populations are not likely to arise.
 Killing and injury: Not applicable due to lack of on-site impacts. For reasons noted
above for population fragmentation, off site effects on bats are unlikely to arise.
 Soil erosion/siltation: Not applicable due to distance of nearest route.
 Air pollution: all construction works that would potentially generate air pollution are at
too great a distance to affect the site, its habitats and species. Moreover, best
practicable means would be employed to control dust and other air quality impacts.
 Water pollution: Wet heath is sensitive to waterborne pollution. It is considered that the
nearest route is too distant for effects to arise as it is situated over 4km to the east of
the site and is at a considerably lower elevation. Adverse effects from surface or
groundwater flows would not therefore arise. The proposed route is situated still further
from the site, and is in a valley bottom location with no likely hydrological connection
between the site and the route. Adverse effects from surface or groundwater flows
11
would not therefore arise. The construction or operation of the proposed route would
not result in an increase of diffuse air pollution that could potentially result in nutrient
enrichment or acidification at the site.
 Groundwater hydrological change: Wet heath is highly sensitive to changes in
hydrology. As noted above it is considered unlikely that there is a hydrological
connection between the route and the site. In addition the citation for Cannock Chase
SSSI indicates that the wet heath within the SSSI/SAC comprises valley mires fed by
springs within the site itself and therefore not vulnerable to any groundwater changes
generated some distance from the site.
 Surface water change: Not applicable, there is not likely to be any effects on surface
water flows due to distance and topography as noted in relation to pollution above.
 Noise, light, vehicle movement and changes in human activity: Not applicable due to
distance from the route and the lack of sensitive qualifying features.
 Shading: Not applicable. Although heathland vegetation is intolerant of shading, no
effects would arise due to distance from the route.

4.4.4 It is considered that the closest routes are too distant for them to result in a significant
adverse effect on the SAC through changes in hydrology or other means. There is no
potential for adverse effects on bats and nightjar through habitat fragmentation and/or
killing and injury, and these species are not, in any case, a primary reason or qualifying
feature in site selection. Any adverse effects would be considered in a later stage of
assessment if the routes were adopted as a preferred option.
4.4.5 Route section 848 of the proposed route is about 8.7km from the site and, for the reasons
stated above, it is considered to be at too great a distance to have an adverse effect on
hydrology, which would be the only potential means of impact on qualifying species likely to
be generated by the proposal. Route section 848 would not result in any effects on integrity
triggering an AA or requiring mitigation or consideration of in-combination effects. All main
alternatives are further still from the site.

4.4.6 The Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Phase 2 Revision of the Regional Spatial
Strategy for the West Midlands - October 2007 in regard to Cannock Chase focussed
largely on air quality issues to which HS2 would not be a contributory effect. Potentially
adverse effects from water abstraction were also noted but it is not considered that HS2
would have any additional effect due to distance, topography and the lack of any significant
tunnelled sections in the northern part of the route.
4.5 Cannock Extension Canal SAC
Qualifying Features
4.5.1 The Cannock Extension Canal is designated for its population of floating water plantain.
4.5.2 Maintain in favourable condition the habitat for the internationally important population of
floating water-plantain, with particular reference to the standing open water.
 Distance of nearest routes: The nearest route section is 868 [no longer considered] and
is approximately 6.8km from the SAC. The proposed route is approximately 12.2km
from the site at its closest point.
 Habitat removal and fragmentation: Not applicable. The routes are not sufficiently close
to the SAC to result in habitat removal or fragmentation.
12
 Killing and injury: Not applicable due to lack of onsite impacts and absence of qualifying
mobile species.
 Soil compaction: Not applicable due to distance from the SAC.
 Soil erosion/siltation: Not applicable. Floating water plantain is susceptible to
smothering from siltation. Effects could arise if inputs occurred on any nearby parts of
the canal system. However, adverse effects are considered very unlikely due to the
distance of the nearest route and the limited flow in canal systems.
 Air pollution: all construction works that would potentially generate air pollution are at
too great a distance to affect the site, its habitats and species.
 Water pollution: Floating water plantain is susceptible to deterioration in water quality
through pollution or eutrophication and effects could arise if inputs occurred on any
nearby parts of the canal system. However, adverse effects are considered not likely
due to the distance of the nearest route and the limited flow in canal systems.
 Groundwater hydrological change: Not applicable, due to the distance of the route and
absence of hydrological connection between the canal and groundwater.
 Surface water change: Not applicable. Due to the distance of the route it is highly
unlikely construction affecting any surface water features would affect the SAC.
 Noise, light, vehicle movement and changes in human activity: Not applicable. Floating
water plantain is either not sensitive to these effects or it is considered that HS2 would
not contribute to any such adverse effects.
 Shading: This species is highly sensitive to shading but nearest HS2 routes are too
distant for effects to occur.
4.5.3 Due to the distance of the nearest route from the SAC, the isolated hydrology of the canal
and the lack of sensitivity of the qualifying species to distant sources of disturbance, an AA
is not likely to be required for nearby route options.

4.5.4 No elements of the proposed route are within 10km of the SAC and adverse impacts on the
site are not likely to arise. No works on watercourses linked to the canal are envisaged.

Strategy for the West Midlands - October 2007 notes that recreational use of the Cannock
Extension Canal is expected to increase as a result of the RSS, the Regional Housing
Strategy and Visitor Economic Strategy. Significant effects are predicted if this results in
increased boat traffic and physical disturbance. Run-off from the A5 may also increase if
traffic levels increase, exacerbating an existing problem. Increased levels of atmospheric
pollutants are also likely, but this is not likely to translate into significant changes in water
chemistry.
4.5.6 Proposals that may affect the Chasewater Reservoir, which feeds the canal have also been
investigated. The Lichfield Core strategies issues and options (which sits with the DPD and
LDF) refers to general intentions of improving accessibility and tourism, but does not
identify specific proposals. Equally the local water company has identified no specific
proposals for the reservoir.
4.5.7 There is no potential for HS2 to exacerbate these potential impacts and no in-combination
effects would occur.
13
4.6 Chilterns Beechwoods SAC
Qualifying Features
4.6.1 The Chilterns Beechwoods are designated as a SAC for the presence of dry calcareous
grassland and extensive calcareous beech woodlands.
4.6.2 The Chilterns Beechwoods SAC comprises a composite of nine sites distributed throughout
the Chilterns. The conservation objectives for the European interest of various elements of
the SAC are as follows:
 Ashridge Commons and Woods, Naphill Common, Tring Woodlands, Hollowhill and
Pullingshill Woods and Aston Rowant Woods14: subject to natural change, to maintain in
favourable condition the beech forest habitat.
 Bisham Woods: subject to natural change, to maintain in favourable condition the beech
forest habitat and habitat for the stag beetle, Lucanus cervus.
 Bradenham Woods, Park Wood and The Coppice; Ellesborough and Kimble Warrens;
and Windsor Hill: subject to natural change, to maintain in favourable condition the
beech forest habitat and the lowland calcareous grassland.
 Distance of nearest routes: Route section 824 [LoR1 - no longer considered] is 89m
from the SAC in tunnel, portal and viaduct, and route section 816 [LoR 2 - no longer
considered] is 231m away on embankment. Route section 823 [no longer considered] is
within the SAC, route section 818 [no longer considered] is 313m away, and route
section 822 [no longer considered] is 600m away. Route section 819 [LoR 4] is located
at surface about 1.13km due west of the SAC (Ashridge Commons and Woods) at its
closest point. The nearest part of LoR 2.5 is 1.1km away, but in deep tunnel between
Bradenham Woods, Park Wood and The Coppice; and Naphill Common to its south
and Windsor Hill to its north. The proposed route is 2.9km from Kimble Warrens at its
closest point and in a mixture of cutting and embankment.
 Habitat removal or fragmentation: Route sections 824 and 816 [no longer considered]
could involve direct removal or fragmentation of the Annex I and II habitats for which a
SAC is designated at Windsor Hill which would therefore represent a likely significant
adverse effect on the site and would therefore require an AA. Neither the proposed
route, LoR 2.5 nor LoR 4 would result in habitat removal.
 Population fragmentation: The proposed route, LoR 2.5 and LoR 4 are all more than
10km away from Bisham Wood. This is beyond the likely dispersal range of male stag
beetle (the maximum distance of a single flight is about 2km15) and significant effects on
the site from population fragmentation of this species is, therefore, not likely to occur.
 Killing and injury: Routes very close to or within the SAC [but no longer considered]
could (depending on the exact habitat distribution) require the loss of key constituent
species of the designated habitats. No such effects would arise from the proposed
route, LoR 2.5 or LoR 4 which are in deep tunnel or too distant for effects to arise. For
the reasons noted above, killing of sufficient numbers stag beetle associated with
Bisham Wood to affect the site‟s conservation objectives is not likely to arise from the
operation of the proposed route.
 Soil erosion, siltation and compaction: Works associated with LoR 1 and LoR 2 [no
longer considered], could have resulted in soil compaction or erosion, which
14
Aston Rowant Woods is part of the Chiltern Beechwoods SAC and not part of the adjacent Aston Rowant SAC
15
M. Rink & U. Sinsch Radio-telemetric monitoring of dispersing stag beetles: implications for conservation Journal of
Zoology Volume 272 Issue 3, Pages 235 – 243 Published Online: 19 Jun 2007
14
consequently could have had adverse effects on vegetation. The proposed route, LoR 4
and LoR 2.5 are either in deep tunnel or too distant for such effects to arise.
 Air pollution: There are risks of impacts from dust and other air pollutants associated
with construction of route section 823, but this option is no longer considered.
Construction works associated with the proposed route, LoR 2.5 and LoR 4 that would
potentially generate air pollution are at too great a distance to affect the site, its habitats
and species. Interrogation of the APIS16 air quality database indicates that, for nitrogen
oxides, recorded levels in this area are generally around half the level considered to be
critical for beech woods. Moreover, best practicable means would be employed to
control dust and other air quality impacts.
 Water pollution: Waterborne pollution could have adverse effects on soils and
vegetation and could have been associated with LoR 1 [no longer considered]. LoR 2.5
is in deep tunnel and no effects would arise. LoR 4 follows a river valley alignment at a
lower elevation than the woodland compartments to its east and west, so there is no
potential for effects.
 Groundwater hydrological change: The high permeability of underlying chalk geology
means that any changes to groundwater (or associated surface waters) that might arise
from any of the scheme options would be negligible. In addition to the above, at its
nearest point LoR 2.5 is in tunnel 100m deep, therefore no adverse effect on the SAC
arising from changes to groundwater is predicted. The proposed route comprises a
mixture of cut, fill and viaduct at its closest point to the SAC, but it is sufficiently distant
and at lower elevation than the SAC, therefore no adverse effects are predicted.
Equally, LoR 4, although a little over 1km from the SAC at its nearest point, would be at
a lower elevation, therefore no adverse effects are predicted.
 Surface water change: The designated habitats are not dependent on surface water
features. Moreover, the proposed route, LoR 2.5 and LoR 4 are in deep tunnel and/or
downstream and/or too distant for changes to surface water conditions to arise,
therefore no adverse effects are predicted.
 Noise, light, vehicle movement and changes in human activity: The proposed route or
LoR 2.5 are either in deep tunnel or too distant for adverse effects of lighting on stag
beetle to arise.
 Shading: Chalk grassland and scrub are sensitive to shading and could have been
adversely affected by works associated with LoR 1 [no longer considered]. No effects
would arise from implementing the proposed route or LoR 2.5.

4.6.3 Route sections 824 (LoR 1) and 816 (LoR 2), neither of which were progressed could
involve direct removal or fragmentation of the Annex I and II habitats and would therefore
be likely to cause significant effects on the site and so require AA.
4.6.4 The nearest part of the proposed route to the site is 2.9km from the SAC ensuring that
adverse effects from habitat removal, fragmentation, killing and injury, and air and light
pollution are avoided. Offsite effects (such as pollution and groundwater changes) equally
would not occur given the distance and the route‟s alignment at a lower elevation to the
SAC habitat. LoR 2.5 is in tunnel, which would be sufficiently deep to avoid changes in
hydrology which could have adverse effects on beech woodland, juniper scrub and chalk
grassland present at the nearby component of the SAC. LoR 4 is the closest surface route
option still under consideration. Its distance from the SAC would avoid direct impacts;
indirect impacts are also very unlikely given its distance away and lower elevation to the
SAC habitats.
16
http://www.apis.ac.uk/index.html
15

4.6.5 The Appropriate Assessment of the Draft South East Plan October 2006 notes the need to
enhance woodland in the Aylesbury Vale – Milton Keynes sub-region to reduce the effects
of increased recreation on the Chilterns Beechwoods. The strategic development area
closest to the part of the SAC near the route is the Aylesbury Growth Area, which is
approximately 5km to the north-east. The growth area may result in additional recreational
pressure on open space in addition to localised land-take for development. It is not
considered that the growth area would involve any impacts that act in combination with the
proposed route to result in a significant effect on the SAC in combination. There are no
predicted adverse effects on the site and no potential for HS2 to have an additional effect
with those listed above. Therefore no significant in-combination effects on the site would
arise.
4.7 Richmond Park SAC
Qualifying Features
4.7.1 Richmond Park SAC has a large number of ancient trees with decaying timber. It is at the
heart of the south London centre of distribution for stag beetle, and is a site of national
importance for the conservation of invertebrates associated with the decaying timber of
ancient trees.
4.7.2 To maintain in favourable condition the habitats for the population of stag beetle, for which
this is one of only four known outstanding localities in the UK.
 Distance of nearest routes: Route section 814 (LoR 4) is 7.4km away from the SAC.
Route section 807 (LoRs 1, 2 and the HS2 Preferred Scheme) is also 7.4km away.
Route section 802 (LoRs 1-4) is 8.1km away. Route section 808 [not part of current
option] is 6.6km from the SAC. The proposed route and LoR 4 are both approximately
7.4km from the site at their closest point and respectively in cut and tunnel.
 Habitat removal or fragmentation: Not applicable. The routes are not sufficiently close to
the SAC to result in habitat removal or fragmentation.
 Population fragmentation: Not applicable. Stag beetle is a relatively mobile saproxylic
species. However, the nearest route is too distant to represent a barrier to dispersal.
Habitat to the north of the SAC and the route options beyond, is predominantly urban
and therefore not likely to contain significant supporting habitat for stag beetle. Other
less mobile invertebrate species would not be affected as the route does not bisect
suitable habitat.
 Killing and injury: Not applicable. Stag beetles may be susceptible through flying into
moving trains, but the route is too distant for this to be a significant effect.
 Soil compaction: Not applicable due lack of on-site effects.
 Soil erosion/siltation: Not applicable due to distance from the nearest routes.
 Air pollution: All construction works that would potentially generate air pollution are at
 Water pollution: Not applicable. The routes are too distant for effects to occur.
 Groundwater hydrological change: Not applicable. Ancient trees on freely draining soils
may be sensitive to changes in water table but it is considered that the routes are too
distant for effects to arise. The Thames is situated between the SAC and the nearest
route precluding the possibility of any hydrological connection.
16
 Surface water change: Not applicable. The habitats present are not dependent on
surface water flows.
 Noise, light, vehicle movement and changes in human activity: Not applicable. The
Annex II species present is potentially susceptible to night time lighting, but the SAC is
too distant from the route for any adverse effects to arise.
 Shading: Not applicable. The route is too distant for effects to occur.

4.7.3 Due to the distance of the nearest route, the lack of groundwater or surface water
connections between the SAC and the route, and the lack of sensitivity of the qualifying
species to distant sources of disturbance, it is not likely that the proposals would have a
significant effect on the site.
4.7.4 The elements of the proposed route and LoR 4 are both in excess of 7.5km of the SAC and
all are situated to the north of the Thames. Due to distance and the location of the route
and the SAC in relation to the Thames, no effects on the site from changes in hydrology
would occur. The distance of the route and nature of intervening habitat make it unlikely
that habitat fragmentation would be a significant adverse effect on stag beetle.

4.7.5 The Draft Replacement London Plan Habitats Regulations Assessments – Screening
Report October 2009 notes that Richmond Park could potentially be affected by changes in
groundwater levels and water quality, invasive species and scrub encroachment,
development pressure, disturbance and vandalism, and deposition of atmospheric pollution.
It also notes the potential for in-combination effects with transport schemes that may result
in visitor pressure on habitats and species combined with visitor pressure from Opportunity
Areas for all Natura 2000 sites. As described above there is no potential for HS2 to
exacerbate these impacts.
4.8 River Mease SAC
Qualifying Features
4.8.1 The habitat type illustrated by the River Mease is widespread in the UK, especially on softer
and more mineral-rich substrates. However, it is a habitat that has been adversely affected
by nutrient enrichment, mainly from sewage inputs and agriculture, and where agriculture
has caused serious siltation. It is also vulnerable to reductions in river flows and to
unsympathetic channel engineering works. Consequently, the habitat has been reduced or
has disappeared from parts of its range in Britain. The River Mease supports two species of
fish (spined loach and bullhead) with particular habitat requirements and which have
declined for the reasons mentioned above. White-clawed crayfish and otter are also
qualifying features.
4.8.2 Maintain the river as a favourable habitat for floating formations of water crowfoot
(Ranunculus), populations of bullhead, spined loach and whiteclawed crayfish, and the river
and adjoining land as habitat for populations of otter.
 Distance of nearest routes: Route section 848 [no longer considered] is 5.8km from the
site. Route sections 876, 877 and 886 [no longer considered] are respectively 4.7km,
5.6km and 8.25km from the site. Route section 878 forms the northwards continuation
of the proposed route and is 8.25km from the site. Route section 848 of the proposed
route is situated 6.7km from the site at its closest point and is on viaduct.
17
 Habitat removal: Not applicable. The route is not sufficiently close to the SAC to result
in habitat removal or fragmentation.
 Habitat fragmentation: The River Mease SAC flows into the River Trent approximately
350m downstream of the confluence of the River Tame with Trent. The Tame is
between the route and the SAC. Thus, the routes would not affect any tributaries
flowing directly into the SAC and habitat fragmentation would be avoided. However, the
routes may cross tributaries that flow towards the Tame and which may form part of the
home ranges of otter associated with the River Mease; this is discussed below.
 Population fragmentation: Investigation of the HS2 crossings of tributaries of the Tame,
which may be used by otters whose home range includes the Mease, has identified 17
such crossings within 20km of the Mease, although 11 of these appear to be drains
(see Figure 1). HS2 Ltd would ensure that crossings over all watercourses potentially
forming part of home ranges of otter associated with the Mease, are designed to avoid
impacts on otters. Such design measures are contained in relevant DMRB guidance17,
and this forms the basis for the measures proposed by HS2 Ltd to mitigate potential
impacts on otters from the design and construction of HS2; see Annex 2. With these
measures in place, habitat fragmentation would be avoided.
 Killing and injury: Otter associated with the River Mease SAC could be susceptible to
killing and injury if access along tributaries was impaired by poorly designed crossings.
For reasons noted above it is highly unlikely that otter depend heavily on any
watercourses crossed by the route in the vicinity of the SAC. In order to comply with
national legislation, adverse effects would be avoided by ensuring that crossings are
designed to allow otters to have continued access along the entire length of tributaries
in accordance with best practice referenced above. On this basis, potential impacts
would be avoided.
 Soil erosion/siltation: Qualifying species and habitats are vulnerable to the effects of
siltation. There is no potential for silt to reach the SAC as tributaries crossed by the
routes do not enter into it. It is possible that crayfish or qualifying fish species occur in
the tributaries crossed by the route. Although outside the SAC, measures to avoid
adverse effects on these species would be implemented to ensure compliance with
other aspects of EU and national legislation and the objectives of the UK BAP.
 Water pollution: Qualifying species and habitats and species are vulnerable to the
effects of pollution. There is no potential for pollutants to reach the SAC as tributaries
crossed by the routes do not enter into it.
 Groundwater hydrological change: Reduction in flow is listed as one of the causes for
decline of the Annex I habitat present. However, it is considered that there is no
potential for adverse effects due to changes in groundwater flow from HS2 due to the
location of the routes in relation to the Tame and the SAC.
 Surface water change: Due to the location of the routes in relation to the Tame and the
SAC, there is no potential for off-site impacts on the Mease or its tributaries through
impoundment, bridges, culverts and diversions.
 Noise, light, vehicle movement and changes in human activity: Otters are potentially
susceptible to unfamiliar disturbance and could be affected during construction. Given
the location of the routes in relation to the SAC significant adverse effects are predicted
to be unlikely. However, measure to avoid such impacts, including if necessary,
17
Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 10 Environmental Design, Section 1 The Good Roads Guide - New
Roads. Part 9, HA 81/99, Nature Conservation Advice in Relation to Otters.
18
limitations on night time working, would be used to provide an additional assurance that
the Annex II species would not be adversely affected.
 Shading: Not applicable. No shading effects of the SAC itself would occur.

4.8.3 The River Mease SAC is potentially vulnerable to impacts generated by works some
distance from the site, principally changes in surface and groundwater flows, siltation and
pollution. However, due to the location of the proposed route in relation to the site, there are
no pathways that could result in significant effects on the integrity of the SAC. The
proposed route would be situated 6.7km from the site and would be on viaduct. No direct
effects on the site would arise and significant adverse effects on the otter interest of the
SAC are unlikely to occur.
4.8.4 Otters have large home ranges and it is possible that they use watercourses in the vicinity
of the route. Due to the location of the route it is very unlikely that significant adverse
effects on otters associated with the SAC would arise, but appropriate survey, scheme
design and construction practices would be needed to ensure that any small risk is
mitigated and that adverse effects on otter do not occur in the vicinity of the routes.
19
Figure 1 Watercourse crossing locations potentially affecting otter habitat associated with the Mease SAC
20
In-combination Effects
Strategy for the West Midlands - October 2007 notes that changes in water quality, and
land-use change and fragmentation arising from the RSS could have an adverse effect on
Natura 2000 sites
4.8.6 There is no potential for adverse effects on the SAC from changes to water quality or
groundwater flows. As noted above, there is the potential for adverse effects on otter, but,
due to the distance of the route from the SAC, the limited size and small number of
watercourses crossed by the route in the Lichfield area, and the best practice mitigation to
be used, no significant effects on the species‟ conservation status are likely.
4.8.7 Proposed housing in Lichfield is likely to involve additional crossings and alterations to
watercourses that would be far more extensive than those generated by HS2, although
even in combination it is considered that effects would not be significant.
4.9 Wimbledon Common SAC
Qualifying Features
4.9.1 Wimbledon Common is designated for its examples of Northern Atlantic wet heaths with
Erica tetralix and European dry heaths. It has a large number of old trees and much fallen
decaying timber. It is at the heart of the south London centre of distribution for stag beetle.
The site supports a number of other scarce invertebrate species associated with decaying
timber.
4.9.2 To maintain in favourable condition:
 The European dry heath, for which the area is considered to support a significant
presence.
 Northern Atlantic wet heath with Erica tetralix, for which the area is considered to
support a significant presence.
 Habitats for the population of stag beetle, for which this is one of only four known
outstanding localities in the UK.
 Distance of nearest routes: Route section 814 (LoR 4) and route section 807 (LoRs 1, 2
and the proposed route) are all 8.7km away from the SAC. Route section 802 (LoRs 1-
4) is 8.8km away. The proposed route and LoR 4 are both approximately 8.7km from
the site at their closest point and, respectively, in cut and tunnel.
 Habitat removal or fragmentation: Not applicable. The routes are not sufficiently close to
the SAC to result in habitat removal or fragmentation.
 Population fragmentation: Not applicable. Stag beetle is a relatively mobile saproxylic
species. However, the nearest route is too distant (8.7km) to represent a barrier to
dispersal. Habitat to the north of the SAC, to the routes and beyond, is predominantly
urban and therefore not likely to contain significant supporting habitat for stag beetle.
 Killing and injury: Not applicable. Stag beetles may be susceptible though flying into
moving trains, but the route is too distant for this to be a significant effect.
 Soil compaction: Not applicable due lack of onsite effects.
 Soil erosion/siltation: Not applicable due to distance and location of the nearest routes.
21
 Water pollution: Not applicable. The route is too distant for any surface or groundwater
connections between the site and the nearest routes (see below), therefore no effect is
predicted.
 Groundwater hydrological change: Wet heath requires specific hydrological conditions
to form and is vulnerable to changes in hydrology. The citation for Wimbledon Common
SSSI states that the wet heath within the SSSI/SAC is fed by springs arising from the
interface of clays and gravels within the site itself. Ancient trees on freely draining soils
may also be sensitive to changes in the water table. However, the Thames flows
between the SAC and the nearest routes, acting as a barrier for any hydrological
connection, and all routes are distant, therefore no adverse effects are predicted.
 Surface water change: Not applicable. The habitats present are not dependent on
surface water flows and there is no surface drainage connectivity between the SAC and
the nearest routes.
Annex II species present is potentially susceptible to night time lighting, but the SAC is
too distant from the route for any adverse effects to arise.
 Shading: Not applicable. The route is too distant for effects to occur.

4.9.3 The elements of the proposed route and LoR 4 are both in excess of 8.7km from the SAC,
and all are situated to the north and thus on the opposite side of the Thames. Due to
distance and the location of the route and the SAC in relation to the Thames, no effects on
the site would arise from changes in hydrology would occur. The distance of the route from
the SAC and nature of intervening habitat make it unlikely that habitat fragmentation would
be a significant adverse effect on stag beetle.

Report October 2009 notes that the site sensitivities associated with Wimbledon Common
are changes in groundwater levels and water quality, invasive species and scrub
encroachment, development pressure, disturbance caused by increased recreational use
and vandalism, and deposition of atmospheric pollution. As explained above there is no
potential HS2 to exacerbate these impacts.
4.10 Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC
Qualifying Features
4.10.1 Pasturefields Salt Marsh is the only known remaining spring fed inland salt meadow in the
UK, the remainder having been destroyed by salt extraction. Inland salt meadows are a
priority habitat to which restrictions in the application of the IROPI test apply, as described
in Section 1.
4.10.2 Ensure the salt marsh is maintained to a favourable condition.
 Distance of nearest routes: The nearest route sections are 886, 878 and 868, [all no
longer considered] are over 9.2km away. The SAC is situated approximately 16km
north of the West Midlands terminus of the proposed route.
 Habitat removal and fragmentation: Not applicable. None of the route sections are
sufficiently close to the SAC to result in habitat removal or fragmentation.
 Population fragmentation: Not applicable, the site is designated for its habitats only.
22
 Killing and injury: Not applicable due to lack of onsite impacts

 Soil compaction: Not applicable due to the lack of onsite impacts.
 Soil erosion/siltation: Not applicable due to the distance of the nearest routes.
 Water pollution: Due to the site‟s dependence on sub-surface water there is some
potential for pollution from inputs to groundwater. However adverse effects would not
occur as the SAC is associated with the River Trent and is upstream of HS2‟s
connection at Litchfield. As such indirect inputs to SAC via the Trent or its tributaries
would not occur during construction or operation. Furthermore, no inputs would arise
due to measures to protect surface waters.
 Groundwater hydrological change: The SAC is vulnerable to hydrological change as it
depends on a saline spring that is believed to rely on an ancient groundwater source.
There is potential for construction works and particularly tunnelling to result in alteration
of groundwater flows. However, the routes are too distant for effects to arise,
particularly as the northern end of the nearest significant tunnelled section is part of
route section 868 [no longer considered] at Junction 7 of the M6, approximately 29km
from the site, with a further very short section close to the A5 at Tamworth
approximately 28km away. The SAC is situated approximately 16km north of the West
Midlands terminus of the proposed route and is situated on the opposite side of the
River Trent. No adverse effects on the integrity of the site would arise from changes to
hydrology.
 Surface water change: Not applicable. The SAC is affected by flooding from the Trent
adjacent to the site, but the proposed route is sufficiently distant from site and the Trent
to have any affects on surface water flows in the vicinity of the SAC.
 Noise, light, vehicle movement and changes in human activity: Not applicable as the
site is designated only for its habitats.
 Shading: Not applicable, the nearest route sections are too distant to result in shading
effects.
23

4.10.3 The SAC is situated approximately 16km north of the West Midlands terminus site of the
proposed route and is situated on the opposite side of the River Trent. No likely significant
adverse effects on the site would arise from changes to hydrology or from other impacts.

Strategy for the West Midlands - October 2007 notes that the SAC is periodically affected
by floodwaters from the River Trent which have high sewage loadings, and additional
loadings from surface water runoff. This problem could be exacerbated by water abstraction
further upstream. The site is underlain by a minor aquifer not likely to be used for
abstraction. Due to the distance and location of the proposed route and main alternatives
there is no potential for in-combination effects with the RSS.
4.11 Lee Valley SPA and Ramsar site
Qualifying Features
4.11.1 The Lee Valley SPA and Ramsar site is designated for important numbers of wintering
gadwall, shoveler as well as significant numbers of bittern. The Ramsar site is also
designated for populations of water milfoil Myriophyllum verticillatum and a water boatman
Micronecta minutissima.
4.11.2 To maintain, in favourable condition, the habitats for the populations of migratory bird
species of European importance, with particular reference to:
 Open water and surrounding marginal habitats
 Bittern
 Gadwall
 Shoveler
 Distance of nearest routes: Route section 802 (LoRs 1-4) is 7.2km away and in tunnel.
The proposed route and alternatives are also 7.2km distant and in tunnel.
 Habitat removal: Not applicable. No designated habitat is affected, the route is to the
west of the Lee Valley in a heavily urbanised and it is unlikely that supporting habitat
would be affected during construction.
 Habitat fragmentation: See population fragmentation below.
 Population fragmentation: The routes are to the west of the Lee Valley and it is unlikely
that the use of supporting habitat would be affected. The route is in a highly urbanised
area and would not result in significant additional fragmentation or disturbance during
operation or construction to that generated by existing activities in the area.
 Killing and injury: Not applicable. The route is over 7km from the SPA/Ramsar and in
tunnel.
 Soil compaction: Not applicable due to lack of onsite impacts and the nature of
intervening habitat and designated habitat.
 Soil erosion/siltation: Not applicable due to distance from the route and nature of
intervening habitat.
 Water pollution: Not applicable due to distance from the route and nature of intervening
habitat.
24
 Groundwater hydrological change: Not applicable due to distance from the route and
nature of intervening habitat.
 Surface water change: Not applicable due to distance from the route and nature of
intervening habitat.
routes are too distant for any construction phase effects to arise.
 Shading: Not applicable due to distance from the route and nature of intervening
habitat.

4.11.3 Due to the distance of routes from the SPA/Ramsar and the highly urbanised nature of
intervening habitat it is not considered that significant adverse effects are likely as a result
of the proposed route or other LoRs.

Report October 2009 identified various impacts that may affect the Lee valley SPA:
changes in water level and quality of water inputs, siltation, tree and scrub encroachment,
spread of invasive species, noise and visual disturbance including that caused by increased
recreational pressure, development pressure and diffuse deposition of atmospheric
pollution. There is no potential for HS2 to have an in-combination effect with these impacts.
The RSS also notes the potential for in-combination effects with transport schemes, in
terms of the increased visitor pressure as a result of increased public access to the site.
Again, HS2 would not interact with the RSS in this respect.
4.12 South West London Waterbodies SPA and Ramsar site
Qualifying Features
4.12.1 The South West London Waterbodies SPA and Ramsar site is designated for important
numbers of wintering gadwall and shoveler.
4.12.2 To maintain, in favourable condition, the habitats for the populations of migratory bird
species of European importance, with particular reference to gadwall and shoveler.
 Distance of nearest routes: Route sections 808 and 813 [no longer considered] are both
within 10km of the SPA18 both at a distance of approximately 6.1km. They do not form
part of any currently proposed corridors. The proposed route and LoR 2.5 are both
approximately 12km from the site, the former on viaduct and the latter at grade. Options
for loop or spur connections to possible stations at Iver, T5 or T6 extend to within
4.5km, 0.8km and 2.8km respectively, although routes would be below ground, as
would the stations at T6 and T5 other than a few surface buildings. Iver station would
be a predominantly surface station some 4.5km north of the SPA.
 Habitat removal: The proposed route would not involve habitat removal from the SPA,
but it is possible that supporting waterbodies may be affected. The proposed route
crosses the Mid Colne Valley SSSI on viaduct. This is some 12km from the SPA but
may support wildfowl that also uses the SPA. This would involve placing footings in
Korda and Harefield Lakes, and the viaduct would continue to the west of Broadwater
Lake. Broadwater Lake has supported internationally important numbers of gadwall,
18
Taken to include the Ramsar site as well
25
while Korda Lake is noted as providing supplementary habitat to Broadwater Lake19. It

cannot be stated with certainty that the SSSI provides supporting habitat to the SPA
(although it is not part of the SPA) but, due to the presence of intervening waterbodies
there is a possibility that it does so. However, because the route avoids Broadwater
Lake, which provides the main habitat for wintering gadwall, a significant adverse effect
is not considered likely to arise. LoR 2.5 is on existing line over the Colne Valley and
does not involve any habitat loss from the SSSI.
 Habitat fragmentation: See population fragmentation below.
 Population fragmentation: All the routes considered are to the north of the designated
waterbodies of the SPA and therefore would not result in disruption to bird movements
between the constituent waterbodies. Should flight paths northwards to the Colne
Valley SSSI exist, they would involve crossing a number of existing transport corridors
including (from south to north) the M4 and the M25, the GWML to Wales and
southwest, the A40/M40, and the existing railway to the Chilterns, which is on
embankment a short distance to the south of the proposed route. The proposed route
would represent potentially an additional feature affecting the movement of birds and
would be to the north of all of those mentioned above. However, its impacts are likely to
be limited by the height of the structure (15.5m at its greatest) and its distance from
Broadwater Lake (approximately 400m at the highest point), and proximity to the
existing Chilterns rail embankment to the south. Construction phase effects would
result in greater fragmentation than operational effects. Due to the ability of birds to
habituate to a predictable event such as that caused by passing trains, the long term
effect of fragmentation of any flight-lines is considered unlikely to result in significant
adverse effects on the conservation objectives of the SPA.
 Killing and injury: Due to the distance of the route from the SPA, there is no potential for
killing and injury through bird strike within the SPA complex itself. There is potential for
bird strike to birds flying onto Broadwater Lake from the south, though this would be
limited by the presence of other structures to the south, which result in birds being at
height over the viaduct. There is a residual risk of bird strike although this is unlikely to
significantly affect the conservation status of the populations using the SPA. The use of
bird deflectors along the viaduct would provide a greater degree of confidence that
significant adverse effects could be avoided.
 Soil erosion/siltation: Not applicable due to distance from the nearest route.
too great a distance to affect the site. Moreover, best practicable means would be
employed to control dust and other air quality impacts.
 Water pollution: Due to the distance of the proposed route from SPA waterbodies,
effects on the SPA are not likely. Pollution of supporting SSSI water-bodies could arise
during construction of the viaduct, but could be readily avoided through the
implementation of best practicable means. Thus there is no potential for significant
adverse effects on the SPA, even if the SSSI provides supporting habitat. Risks of
water pollution from the Heathrow options are higher, although best practicable means
used during construction would greatly limit this risk.
 Groundwater hydrological change: There is no potential for groundwater changes due
to the distance of the proposed route from SPA waterbodies and the limited potential for
hydrological connection between gravels in the vicinity of the SPA waterbodies and the
chalk geology in the vicinity of the route. It is unlikely that the construction of the viaduct
in the vicinity of the Colne Valley SSSI would involve anything other than very small,
localised and temporary changes to groundwater level and no effects on possible
supporting habitat would arise. Tunnelling in connection with the Heathrow options
19
http://www.wildlifetrust.org.uk/herts/reserves/broadwater.html accessed 14/12/09
26
would potentially affect groundwater flows that are potentially of significance to SPA
related habitat.
 Surface water change: There is no potential for changes to surface water levels on the
SPA due to the distance of the proposed route from SPA waterbodies. It is unlikely that
the construction of the viaduct would involve changes to surface water levels and no
effects on possible supporting habitat would arise. There is the potential for impacts
from flood risk for the Iver station option, which would potentially affect habitat
associated with the SPA, but not the SPA itself. There is, however, a greater potential
for the Heathrow options to interfere with surface water movements within the Colne
Valley that could affect SPA supporting habitat.
 Noise, light, vehicle movement and changes in human activity: Due to the distance of
the proposed route from the SPA there is no potential for disturbance at the site.
Disturbance may be an issue in relation to supporting habitat. Construction works for
the viaduct at the Colne Valley SSSI may result in some noise disturbance which could
result in a small and temporary reduction in the numbers of birds at the site during the
construction phase. Equally, the construction of Heathrow options could each result in
various degrees of disturbance to nearby waterbodies but disturbance to SPA
waterbodies is not likely due to distance and the presence of intervening barriers. The
operational phase effects would include emissions of noise and light, as well as the
movement of trains but these would be less disturbing than the construction phase
effects due to their regular occurrence, which would enable birds to habituate to them.
Operational effects would also be limited by existing screening along the eastern side of
Broadwater Lake and the opportunities to increase screening to the south. It is unlikely
that that disturbance at the Colne Valley SSSI would have a significant adverse effect
on the conservation objectives of the SPA.
 Shading: Not applicable due to the distance of the nearest route. The viaduct would
have a shading effect on Korda Lake in the SSSI, but would not affect Broadwater
Lake. It would not therefore result in significant shading of any potential SPA supporting
habitat.

4.12.3 No elements of the proposed route are within 10km of the SPA. Due to distance and
location it is considered unlikely to result in killing and injury, disturbance or population
fragmentation within the SPA complex. A number of potential effects on bird numbers at
the Colne Valley SSSI have been described above. It is not considered that any of these
would have a significant effect on bird numbers at the SSSI in the medium and long-term.
While the SSSI is recorded as having supported significant numbers of gadwall, as well as
shoveler, it is not known if these birds are part of the same population associated with the
SPA. It is considered that effects on the SSSI are unlikely to result in a significant adverse
effect on the conservation objectives of the SPA but this is not certain due to lack of
available information on the numbers and movements of gadwall in the Thames Valley
area, and therefore the relative importance of the population at the SSSI. On this basis,
although AA may not be required, some further work would be required to provide a robust
assessment of the value of Broadwater Lake for gadwall and shoveler.
4.12.4 A data search including both Natural England and the British Trust for Ornithology has
yielded no information on whether the Mid Colne Valley SSSI supports significant numbers
of gadwall. If further work should find that the Mid Colne Valley SSSI provides significant
supporting habitat, then it is likely that AA would be required.
4.12.5 The various Heathrow options previously considered are not now part of the proposed
route. They are almost wholly underground structures so that permanent impacts on the
SPA are considered unlikely and related largely to station use, although possible flood risk
associated with Iver station could have implications for habitat associated with the SPA, but
not the SPA directly. Construction impacts might, result in temporary disturbance to any
27
supporting habitat and the birds that use it. Were the option to develop the Heathrow link to
be progressed, it would require AA.

Report October 2009 identified various impacts that may affect the South West London
Water-bodies: changes in water level and quality of water inputs, siltation, tree and scrub
encroachment, spread of invasive species, noise and visual disturbance including that
caused by increased recreational pressure and development pressure, and diffuse
deposition of atmospheric pollution. Those effects that could potentially be associated with
HS2 have been considered above and it therefore can be reasonably concluded that there
is no potential for HS2 to have an in-combination effect with those identified in the HRA of
the Draft London Plan. This document also notes the potential for in-combination effects
with transport schemes, in terms of increased visitor pressure as a result of increased
public access to the site. Again, HS2 would not have an in-combination effect with the
London Plan in this respect.
4.12.7 Airtrack is a proposed rail scheme outwith the remit of the London Plan, although its main
works lie partly within Surrey (Spelthorne) and partly within London (Hillingdon). However,
it has been the subject of an AA owing to the passage of a new surface railway between
two of the designated waterbodies and through the Bedfont Court area, although not
directly affecting the SPA. It concludes that there would not be any significant adverse
effects on the SPA as a result of the scheme. Habitat at Bedfont Court has not been found
to support significant numbers of qualifying species. In-combination effects of Airtrack and
the proposed route are not therefore likely to have a significant effect on the SPA.
However, any AA of Heathrow options would need to accommodate potential in-
combination effects with Airtrack.
5 In-combination Assessment
5.1 Introduction
5.1.1 The preceding section of this assessment addressed the potential for adverse effects on
the integrity of Natura 2000 sites from the impacts of HS2 in isolation, and determined that
an AA is not necessary for any of the Natura 2000 considered potentially vulnerable to the
proposed route, other than the South West London waterbodies SPA and Ramsar site (see
section 4.12.3). This conclusion has been reached having considered a range of effects
likely to be associated with the implementation of HS2. For the majority of sites these have
included indirect effects arising from the implementation of the scheme such as changes in
water quality and quantity, and habitat and population fragmentation. In other cases the
conclusion of no adverse effects was made on the basis of distance from the route, the
absence of effect pathways that could lead to on-site impacts, and the absence of mobile
qualifying species that could be adversely affected beyond the Natura 2000 site boundary.
It is therefore considered that the conclusion of no significant effect on the site has been
established beyond reasonable doubt.
5.1.2 For a small number of sites it has been necessary to propose mitigation to avoid the risk of
adverse effects, but in some cases the potential for residual non-significant adverse effects
remains. This part of the assessment addresses the potential for significant effects to arise
at these sites in combination with proposals contained within the relevant RSS.
5.1.3 An assessment of possible in-combination effects has been made through a review of RSS
within the HS2 project area in order to assess whether RSS policies and HS2 could result
in a combined adverse effect on integrity.
5.1.4 The following RSSs and related documents were reviewed in order to assess the potential
for significant adverse effects in combination with HS2:
 Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Phase 2 Revision of the Regional Spatial
Strategy for the West Midlands - October 2007;
28
 Appropriate Assessment of the draft South East Plan October 2006;

 East Midlands RSS Partial Review Habitats Regulations Assessment Pre-screening
Report October 2008; and
 Draft Replacement London Plan Habitats Regulations Assessments – Screening Report
October 2009.
5.1.5 The information in each of the strategies was arranged differently, but in each case the
information on the following was considered.
 The potentially adverse effects on the site considered in the RSS;
 Natura 2000 sites potentially affected;
 The nature and likelihood of adverse effects; and
 In-combination effects with other plans and projects mentioned with reference to a
specific site.
5.1.6 The predicted possible effects of the RSS were then considered in terms of the possible in
combination effects with HS2.
5.2 Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Phase 2 Revision of the Regional Spatial
Strategy for the West Midlands - October 2007
5.2.1 Potential effects considered in the RSS:
 Changes in Air Quality
 Changes in Water Quality
 Changes in Water Demand and Supply
 Disturbance Caused by Recreation/ Amenity and Tourism
 Land use change and fragmentation
 Spread of Invasive Species
5.2.2 Natura 2000 sites identified at the screening stage that could be affected by alone or in
combination.
Cannock Chase SAC

5.2.3 Increased road traffic would result in increased deposition of atmospheric pollution,
particularly those parts of the site within 200m of local A roads and more local roads within
the site that are likely to be used more heavily as a result of increased visitor pressure.
Additional recreational use could result in localised reduction in water quality and
eutrophication as well as land-take in areas adjoining the site for tourist infrastructure and
facilities. These effects could be exacerbated by proposals in the South Staffordshire
Economic Regeneration Strategy and Visitor Economic Strategy. Water abstraction is an
existing issue that could be potentially exacerbated by housing development but future
adverse effects to be managed by abstraction from alternative sources.
5.2.4 In combination with HS2: The effects on Cannock Chase identified in the RSS focus on
largely on air quality issues to which HS2 would not have a contributory impact. Potentially
adverse effects from water abstraction are also noted but it is not considered that HS2
would have any additional effect due to distance, topography and the lack of tunnel
sections in the northern part of the route.
Cannock Extension Canal SAC

5.2.5 Recreational use of the Cannock Extension Canal is expected to go up as a result of the
RSS, the Regional Housing Strategy and Visitor Economic Strategy. Significant effects are
predicted if this results in increased boat traffic and physical disturbance. Run-off from the
A5 may also increase if traffic levels go up, exacerbating an existing problem. Increased
29
levels of atmospheric pollutants are also likely, but this is not likely to translate into
significant changes in water chemistry.
5.2.6 In combination with HS2: Due to the nature of the HS2 proposal and distance from the
site there is no potential for in-combination effects with the RSS.
Pasturefields Saltmarsh SAC

5.2.7 The site is periodically affected by floodwaters from the River Trent which has high sewage
loadings, and additional loadings from surface water runoff. This problem could be
exacerbated by water abstraction further upstream. There could be possible effects from
water abstraction if further water is taken from the River Trent as the site is dependent on
occasional inundation from the Trent. The site is underlain by a minor aquifer not likely to
be used for abstraction.
5.2.8 In combination with HS2: Due to the distance and location of the proposed route and
alternatives there is no potential for in-combination effects with the RSS.
River Mease SAC

5.2.9 Water quantity and quality are vital to maintaining the site‟s qualifying features. As
competition for water resources are high in the region, high predicted growth in demand
could result in a likely significant effect. The site currently suffers from diffuse pollution and
sedimentation from agricultural land and from current developments. There is potential for
additional adverse effects from changes in water quality and runoff, and possible increase
in otter mortality from increased road traffic. The proposed expansion of Lichfield with 8000
additional homes may have adverse effects on otter habitat outside of the SAC.
5.2.10 In combination with HS2: Due to the location of the route in relation to the SAC, which
flows into the River Trent there is no potential for adverse effects on the SAC from changes
to water quality or groundwater flows. There is the potential for adverse effects on otter,
through impacts on supporting habitat outside the SAC, but, due to the distance of the route
from the SAC, the limited size and number of watercourses crossed by the route in the
Lichfield area and the measures described above and in Annex 2 that would be
implemented to ensure protection of otters, would not result in a significant effect. Proposed
housing in Lichfield is likely to involve crossings and alterations to watercourses that would
potentially be far more extensive than those generated by HS2. The contribution by HS2 to
any cumulative effect would be negligible.
5.3 Appropriate Assessment of the Draft South East Plan October 2006
 Water resources - South West London Water-bodies
 Water quality - no sites considered by HS2 are listed
 Air quality - Burnham Beeches
 Recreation - Burnham Beeches, South West London Water-bodies
 Other urban issues (land-take, light pollution, increased background noise, increased
predation, increased fire risk, disruption to conservation management) - Burnham
Beeches
 Coastal squeeze - NA
 Protecting species outside Natura 2000 site boundaries - no sites considered by HS2
are listed
 Mineral extraction - no sites considered by HS2 are listed
30
5.3.2 Natura 2000 sites for which it was not possible to conclude no adverse effects from policies
of the Southeast Plan either alone or in combination with other projects or plans.
South-West London Water-Bodies SPA/Ramsar

5.3.3 The site was considered potentially vulnerable to changes in water abstraction. This could
arise from additional abstraction from gravels within which a number of former gravel pits
are designated as part of the SPA or from important non-designated supporting habitat.
The SPA was also considered vulnerable to the additional recreational pressure. A number
of constituent waterbodies are accessible by the public and an increase in population could
result in an increase in water based activities such as sailing and jet skiing, as well as an
increase in disturbance from people and dogs walking along the banks. Despite the mobility
of the SPA qualifying species, the site is not listed among those considered vulnerable to
effects occurring outside the Natura 2000 site boundaries.
5.3.4 In combination with HS2: the proposed route would not exacerbate any of the impacts
considered likely to result in significant effects. No adverse effects on the SPA are
anticipated from the proposed route and no in-combination effects would arise. However,
the potential for works associated with the Heathrow connections to exacerbate other
impacts on the SPA cannot be discounted at this stage, and would need to be considered
within the scope of an AA.
Burnham Beeches SAC

5.3.5 The site was considered vulnerable to increased traffic with localised air quality
implications. This could have an adverse effect on epiphytes (lichen and bryophytes
associated with ancient trees) and also potentially on heathland vegetation. It was also
considered vulnerable to the effects of recreation including disturbance, erosion and
eutrophication. The site was also noted as being vulnerable to the effects of urbanisation as
defined in the RSS but it is not clear how these would operate in ways that differ from
impacts associated with recreation.
5.3.6 In combination with HS2: HS2 would not have an additional effect to those listed above
and the proposed route is too distant to cause adverse effects on hydrology. Therefore no
significant effects on the site would arise.
Chilterns Beechwoods SAC

5.3.7 The RSS notes the need to enhance woodland in the Aylesbury Vale – Milton Keynes sub-
region to reduce the effects of increased recreation on the Chilterns Beechwoods. The
strategic development area closest to the part of the SAC near the route is the South East
Aylesbury Growth Area, which is approximately 5km to the northeast. The growth area may
result in additional recreational pressure on open space in addition to localised land-take for
development.
5.3.8 In combination with HS2: It is not considered that the growth area would involve any
impacts that act in combination with the proposed route to result in a significant effect on
the SAC in combination. There are no predicted adverse effects on the site and no
potential for HS2 to have an additional effect with those listed above. Therefore no
significant effects on the site would arise.
5.4 East Midlands RSS Partial Review Habitats Regulations Assessment Pre-screening
Report October 2008
 Water abstraction
 Water quality
 Coastal flood protection
 Recreation and tourism
31
 Air pollution
River Mease SAC

5.4.2 River Mease CAMS (Catchment Abstraction Management Strategy) assessment status is
„No Water Available‟ and groundwater in the area is „Over-licensed‟. Abstractions to meet
water demand for further development in the catchment would increase this pressure on
the SAC. Additional housing and economic development in the catchment of the River
Mease pose a risk to the high water quality required for the SAC‟s designated features.
Potential mechanisms include increased sewage discharges, increased urban run-off and
increased abstraction (reduced dilution effect). Hard flood defence work may be required to
protect future development in this area. This would constrain natural river processes and
may impact on river bed morphology, which is important for spined loach, bullhead and
white-clawed crayfish. There was insufficient data on air pollution to assess the potential for
effects but the site was considered susceptible.
5.4.3 Development planned in the Lichfield district of the West Midlands risks in-combination
effects in respect of water quality and quantity.
5.4.4 In combination with HS2: HS2 would not have any direct effects on the River Mease, nor
would it result in the type of impacts on the Mease that would exacerbate any impacts
predicted from regional planning in the East Midlands.
5.5 Draft Replacement London Plan Habitats Regulations Assessments – Screening

Report October 2009
 Drainage and Water Pollution;
 Waste Facilities: air pollution, disturbance. In-combination effects associated with waste
focus on air quality issues;
 Aggregates: air pollution from vehicle emissions and dust. In-combination effects
associated with aggregates focus on air quality issues;
 Renewable Energy: bird disturbance and habitat fragmentation;
 Visitor Pressure: increased access resulting in disturbance, erosion and trampling; and
 Air Pollution: localised or diffuse, originating from waste facilities and increased traffic
on nearby roads.
5.5.2 There may also be in-combination effects with other proposals for transport. Transport
proposals include a number (e.g. Crossrail and proposed extensions to it, the Olympics
development and Thameslink extensions) which are being progressed and may interact
with proposals being bought forward by the London Plan. The in-combination effects
associated with transport proposals are mainly visitor pressure on habitats and species
combined with visitor pressure from Opportunity Areas for all Natura 2000 sites. Increased
visitor pressure from the Thameslink extensions is considered a particular issue for the Lee
Valley SPA and Ramsar, Epping Forest SAC and Southwest London Waterbodies
SPA/Ramsar.
Richmond Park SAC

5.5.3 The site sensitivities associated with Richmond Park are changes in groundwater levels
and water quality, invasive species and scrub encroachment, development pressure,
disturbance and vandalism, and deposition of atmospheric pollution.
5.5.4 In combination with HS2: There is no potential for HS2 to exacerbate these impacts.
Wimbledon Common SAC

5.5.5 The site sensitivities associated with Wimbledon Common are changes in groundwater
levels and water quality, invasive species and scrub encroachment, development pressure,
32
disturbance caused by increased recreational use and vandalism, and deposition of

atmospheric pollution.
5.5.6 In combination with HS2: There is no potential for HS2 to exacerbate these impacts.
Lee Valley SPA/Ramsar

5.5.7 The site sensitivities associated with the Lee Valley are changes in water level and quality
of water inputs, siltation, tree and scrub encroachment, spread of invasive species, noise
and visual disturbance including that caused by increased recreational pressure,
development pressure and diffuse deposition of atmospheric pollution.
5.5.8 In combination with HS2: There is no potential for HS2 to exacerbate most of these
impacts. No significant noise or visual impacts are predicted at this site. No significant in-
combination effects are therefore predicted with the London Plan.
South-west London Water-bodies SPA/Ramsar

5.5.9 The site sensitivities associated with the South-west London Water-bodies are changes in
water level and quality of water inputs, siltation, tree and scrub encroachment, spread of
invasive species, noise and visual disturbance including that caused by increased
recreational pressure, development pressure and diffuse deposition of atmospheric
pollution.
5.5.10 In combination with HS2: There is no potential for the proposed route to exacerbate most
of these impacts. No significant noise or visual impacts are predicted at this site. No
significant in-combination effects are therefore predicted between the proposed route and
the London Plan. The potential for such effects in respect of the Heathrow options cannot,
however, be discounted at this stage.
Burnham Beeches SAC

5.5.11 The site sensitivities associated with Burnham Beeches are changes in groundwater levels
and water quality, invasive species and scrub encroachment, development pressure,
disturbance caused by increased recreational use and vandalism, and deposition of
atmospheric pollution.
5.5.12 In combination with HS2: It is not considered that the proposed route would result in
adverse effects on hydrology or water quality due to the distance and location of the route.
HS2 would not therefore exacerbate any potential impacts noted in the RSS and no
adverse effects would arise.
5.6 Cumulative Effects with Growth Areas

5.6.1 Table 4 summarises information on the key sites potentially vulnerable to the proposed
route. It also identifies further potential cumulative effects generated from designated
proposals named within relevant planning documents for which information is available.
One SPA within about 12km distance has also been considered, which is the South West
London Waterbodies SPA.
5.6.2 Information on potential cumulative effects has been drawn from mapped data on Key
Growth Area Locations, Growth Points, Additional Growth Points, Locally Identified Areas
for Growth, Growth Areas and Eco Towns. It is concluded that the proposed route does not
require an AA for any Natura 2000 site either in isolation or in combination with any known
plans and projects.
33
Table 4 Potential for In-combination Effects on Natura 2000 sites within 10km of the HS2 Preferred
Scheme.
Natura 2000 Distance Key risks Potential cumulative effects Conclusion
site to
proposed
route
Cannock 7,600m The site is potentially vulnerable to No strategic development areas No effects
Chase SAC groundwater change and water borne have been identified that are
pollution but due to the distance of the sufficiently close to the SAC to
route from the site no adverse effects result in the proposed route
are considered likely from the having a significant in-combination
proposed route. effect on the SAC.
River Mease 5,900m Fragmentation of non SAC otter No strategic development areas No effects
SAC habitat could occur, but due to have been identified that are
distance and the use of appropriately sufficiently close to the SAC to
designed crossings over water- result in the proposed route
courses no adverse effects are having a significant in-combination
considered likely from the proposed effect on the SAC.
route.
Burnham 7,715m Potential effects on wet heath No strategic development areas No effects
Beeches SAC community from disruption of have been identified that are
groundwater flows but due to the sufficiently close to the SAC to
distance of the route from the site no result in the proposed route
adverse effects are considered likely having a significant in-combination
from the proposed route. effect on the SAC.
Chilterns 3,000m Due to distance and geology the site The strategic development area No effects
Beechwoods is not considered vulnerable to closest to the part of the SAC near
SAC changes in groundwater flows, the route is the South East
dewatering or pollution potentially Aylesbury Growth Area, which is
generated by the route. No adverse approximately 5km to the
effects are considered likely from the northeast. The growth area may
proposed route. result in additional recreational
pressure on open space in
addition to localised landtake for
development. However, it is not
considered that the growth area
would involve any impacts that act
in combination with the proposed
route to result in a significant
effect on the SAC.
Richmond 7,434m There is some potential for adverse No strategic development areas No effects
Park SAC effects of groundwater change on have been identified that are
ancient trees but due to distance and sufficiently close to the SAC to
the lack of hydrological connection result in the proposed route
between the route and the SAC no having a significant in-combination
adverse effects are considered likely effect on the SAC.
from the proposed route.
Wimbledon 8,695m There is some potential for adverse No strategic development areas No effects
Common SAC effects of groundwater change on wet have been identified that are
heath but due to distance and the lack sufficiently close to the SAC to
of hydrological connection between result in the proposed route
the route and the SAC no adverse having a significant in-combination
effects are considered likely from the effect on the SAC.
proposed route.
South West 12,274m The qualifying species are vulnerable No strategic development areas No effects
London to disturbance when utilising SPA and have been identified that are
Waterbodies non-SPA supporting waterbodies, but sufficiently close to the SPA to
SPA due to distance from the site and the result in the proposed route
nature of intervening land use no having a significant in-combination
adverse effects are considered likely effect on the SPA. This may not
from the proposed route. be the case for the HS2 Heathrow
options however.
The AA for Airtrack, a proposed
new rail link to Heathrow, finds no
likelihood of impact on the SPA
34
Natura 2000 Distance Key risks Potential cumulative effects Conclusion

site to
proposed
route
and no potential for in-
combination effects.
Lee Valley 7,280m The qualifying species are vulnerable The route is in tunnel from its start No effects
SPA to disturbance when utilising SPA and at Euston west to Old Oak
non-SPA supporting waterbodies, but Common, a distance of
due to distance from the site and the approximately 10km. Due to
nature of intervening land use no distance and the nature of
adverse effects are considered likely intervening habitat, there is no
from the proposed route. potential for the proposed route to
have a significant in-combination
effect on the SPA.
35
6 Summary and Conclusions

6.1.1 This HRA screening report was produced following published guidance. An analysis of
possible in-combination effects has been carried out focusing in particular on the relevant
RSS which provide an overview of the likely impacts on Natura 2000 sites arising within the
regions through which the proposed route passes. In addition, current or proposed projects
noted in RSSs have also been considered.
6.1.2 An AA is not considered necessary for any of the Natura 2000 sites considered potentially
vulnerable to (i.e. within 10km of) the proposed route or the main alternatives. The potential
for impacts on wintering gadwall (and possibly shoveler) using lakes within the Mid Colne
Valley SSSI is considered to be low, since the scheme is some 200m from the main water
body of interest, Broadwater Lake. This population may be part of a meta population using
the South West London Waterbodies SPA/Ramsar, some 12km to the south, which is
designated for internationally significant numbers of both gadwall and shoveller. Further
work would therefore be necessary to provide a robust assessment of the value of
Broadwater Lake for the relevant wildfowl species.
6.1.3 It is considered unlikely that the proposed route or main alternatives would significantly
exacerbate any potential impacts from proposals identified within regional planning
documents. However, should future decisions result in a reconsideration of options not
pursued at Gate 3, they must also be subject to a further screening process.
6.1.4 Route options considered at an earlier stage that were considered likely to require an AA
are listed below. However, apart from the Heathrow options, none of these is now proposed
as a preferred scheme or main alternative. The options for a direct Heathrow connection
are also considered unlikely to result in permanent impacts on the South West London
Waterbodies SPA/Ramsar, although flood risk associated with the Iver station option may
impinge associated habitat. There is a risk that construction activity may lead to
disturbance of associated habitat and the birds that use it. This would need to be the
subject of consultation with Natural England in order for the need for AA to be confirmed or
dismissed.
6.1.5 Information on route sections for which an AA would be expected to be provided is
summarised in Table 5.
Table 5 - Route Sections which would require an Appropriate Assessment
3 x Heathrow 1 -Heathrow
Option number 1/2 1 2a 2 NA 2/3
spurs option
Not pursued for
Not pursued after
Current status the proposed Not pursued after Gate 3
Gate 2
scheme
Route reference
T5 T6 Iver 808 813 817 824 816 823 818 822
number
SAC/SPA Name
Chilterns Beech-
87 231 0 313 600
woods
Aston Rowant 0
Burnham Beeches 359 359 295
SW London Water-
750 2,802 4,410 6,133 6,104
bodies
Note: the numbers represent distances in metres from the route
Routes for which AA would be required
36
6.1.6 Mitigation was considered necessary to avoid the risk of significant adverse effects at the
River Mease SAC, for which there is also a risk of in-combination effects. A further site
(SW London Waterbodies SPA/Ramsar) was considered unlikely to require an AA but
further research would be required to confirm this. The sites in question are as follows:
6.1.7 The River Mease SAC: Otters are among the Annex II species present and are potentially
vulnerable to habitat fragmentation, disturbance, and death from train strike. Adverse
effects are not likely to be significant, but mitigation to avoid the risk of impacts mentioned
above, (achieved through appropriate design of crossings over watercourses, as well as
specific controls during construction) would be required to reduce this risk to a negligible
one. It is possible that housing developments at Lichfield would result in habitat
fragmentation through modifying watercourses.
6.1.8 The South-West London Water-bodies SPA: Neither the proposed route or LoR 2.5
would have any direct effects on the SPA or cause habitat fragmentation within the group of
waterbodies that form the SPA. The proposed route is on viaduct over the Mid Colne Valley
SSSI and may result in disturbance to wildfowl on component waterbodies, including
gadwall. This species may be part of a population that uses the SPA some 12km to the
south; internationally significant populations of gadwall and shoveler give rise to the SPA‟s
designation. If the SSSI provides supporting habitat for this population, disturbance of the
SSSI could affect the integrity of the SPA. However, due to the distance and alignment of
the route in relation to the main SSSI water body, it is considered that wildfowl are unlikely
to be significantly disturbed by the construction or operation of HS2 and therefore
significant adverse effects on the SPA are equally unlikely. However, further research
would be required to establish the current size and importance of the population of gadwall
at Colne Valley SSSI and likely adverse effects on the SPA arising from impacts on the
SSSI. The options for new HS2 stations at Heathrow are considered unlikely to result in
any permanent indirect impacts as they are almost wholly below ground and at some
distance from the SPA. There is the potential for flood risk, particularly associated with the
Iver station option, to affect habitat associated with the SPA and supporting qualifying
species of wildfowl, but not the SPA directly. There is also a risk of possible disturbance to
associated habitat due to construction of the various options, especially at T5 which is
closest to the SPA. On this basis, were the Heathrow options to be pursued, it is likely that
an AA would be required. Further discussion would be required with Natural England as to
the need for AA were any of these options to be progressed.
6.1.9 Seven of the sites within 10km of the proposed route and alternatives are not considered to
be subject to any adverse effects, significant or otherwise, from the proposed route or
previous options. These sites do not support mobile species that may be affected by routes
some distance from the site boundary, and the Annex II habitats present are either not
likely to be damaged by effects generated some distance from the site boundary, or effect
pathways between the route and the site were not identified.
6.1.10 The following information summarises those aspects of the considered Natura 2000 sites
which are not vulnerable to impact from HS2. These findings would form the basis for
further discussion with Natural England to confirm the conclusion that there would be no
adverse effects on the Natura 2000 network as a result of HS2.
6.1.11 Aston Rowant SAC: The site is designated for its beech woodland, juniper scrub and
calcareous grassland habitats. The conservation objectives for the site are to maintain in
favourable condition the beech forest habitat and lowland juniper scrub. No adverse effects
on the site are predicted due to the distance of nearest element of the proposed route and
LoR 2.5 which would be 8.6km from the site, with all elements of the proposed route
situated further from the site. Due to the distance of the routes it is not considered that any
adverse effects on the designated vegetation types, such as air or water borne pollution or
changes in hydrology would arise. The site is not designated for any mobile Annex II
species that could be adversely affected some distance from the site.
6.1.12 No impacts on the site are predicted in the draft South East Plan and overall no adverse
effects on the site would arise.
37
6.1.13 Burnham Beeches SAC: The site is designated for its beech woodland on acid soils and is
noted for its nationally important associated invertebrate and epiphyte interest. The
conservation objectives for the SAC are to maintain in favourable condition beech forests
with holly and yew rich in epiphytes. LoR 2.5 would be about 3.8km from the site and all
elements of the proposed route are situated further from the site. The site is considered
sensitive to groundwater change. However, adverse effects are unlikely to occur as LoR 2.5
is at grade and would not affect groundwater flows, and the nearest tunnelled section of the
proposed route is 7km away with intervening geology and urban development making it
unlikely to affect groundwater movements. The site is not designated for any mobile Annex
II species that could be adversely affected some distance from the site.
6.1.14 The AA for the draft South East Plan defines potential impacts on the site as being
increased deposition of airborne pollution and increased recreational pressure. No in-
combination effects are predicted with the Plan and overall no adverse effects on the site
would arise.
6.1.15 Cannock Chase SAC: The SAC is designated for its wet and dry heaths. The conservation
objectives for the site are to maintain the heathland communities in favourable conservation
status. The proposed route would be about 8.7km from the site at its closest point. The site
is considered sensitive to groundwater change and water borne pollution. However,
adverse effects are unlikely to occur as the valley mires are fed by springs within the site
itself and therefore not vulnerable to any groundwater changes generated some distance
from the site. In addition the proposed route would be in a valley bottom location with no
likely hydrological connection between the site and the route. The site is not designated for
any mobile Annex II species that could be adversely affected some distance from the site.
6.1.16 The HRA for the Regional Spatial Strategy for the West Midlands identified potential
impacts from increased recreation, deposition of airborne pollution and potentially water
abstraction No in-combination effects are predicted with the RSS and overall no adverse
effects on the site would arise from HS2.
6.1.17 Cannock Extension Canal SAC: The Cannock Extension Canal is designated for its
population of floating water plantain. The site‟s conservation objectives are to maintain in
favourable condition the habitat for the internationally important population of this species.
The proposed route would be approximately 11km from the site at its closest point; Gate 3
route sections [no longer considered] would be within the 10km buffer. Due to distance from
the site and the lack of hydrological connection of canal to groundwater flow, there is no
potential for impacts from HS2 to affect this site directly. The site is not designated for any
mobile Annex II species that could be adversely affected some distance from the site.
6.1.18 The possible impacts noted in the HRA for the Regional Spatial Strategy for the West
Midlands were from increased recreational pressure and possible increased pollution from
road runoff with HS2 and overall no adverse effects on the site would arise.
6.1.19 Chilterns Beech Woods SAC: The Chilterns Beech Woods are designated for the
presence of dry calcareous grassland and extensive calcareous beech woodlands. The
conservation objectives for the site are to maintain beech forest, scrub and grassland
habitats, and at one site, to maintain stag beetle habitat in favourable conservation status.
The nearest part of LoR 2.5 to the site would be 250m away, but in deep tunnel. The
proposed route would be 2.7km at its closest point and in a mixture of cutting and
embankment. Neither route would involve habitat removal or fragmentation, or other on-site
effects such as shading or soil compaction. Due to the distance of the routes from
component sites supporting stag beetle (more than 10km), it is not considered that
population fragmentation or killing and injury would occur. Due to the depth of the bored
tunnel of LoR 2.5 below the site there is no potential for changes in groundwater flows or
groundwater pollution to affect the site. Stag beetles are susceptible to light pollution but
the routes are too distant for adverse effects to arise.
6.1.20 The South East Aylesbury growth area may result in additional recreational pressure on
open space in addition to localised land-take for development, but this would not result in
in-combination effects with HS2. Overall no adverse effects on the site would arise.
38
6.1.21 Richmond Park: Richmond Park SAC is designated for its population of stag beetle and
the conservation objective for the site is to maintain its outstanding population of this
species. The proposed route and alternative LoR 4 would both be approximately 7.4km
from the site at their closest point and respectively in cut and tunnel, and on the opposite
side of the River Thames. Due to distance, no on-site effects such as habitat removal,
changes in soil structure or shading would arise. In addition, due to distance and the
presence of the River Thames between the routes and the site, no changes in groundwater
flows, which are potentially damaging to old trees on freely drained soils, would arise.
Because of the distance of the route from the site, the urbanised nature of habitat in the
vicinity of the route, and the route‟s location on existing track, no affects from population
fragmentation or increased mortality on stag beetle are predicted. Stag beetles are
susceptible to light pollution, but the routes are too distant for adverse effects in this regard
to arise.
6.1.22 The HRA for the Draft Replacement London Plan notes the potential for impacts from
changes in groundwater levels and water quality, development pressure, disturbance and
vandalism, and deposition of atmospheric pollution. It also notes the potential for in-
combination effects with transport schemes that may result in visitor pressure on habitats
and species. There is no potential for HS2 to exacerbate these impacts. No in-combination
effects are predicted, and no adverse effects on integrity would arise.
6.1.23 River Mease SAC: The SAC is designated for its riparian habitats and plant assemblages
and the presence of two Annex II species of fish, white-clawed crayfish and otter.
Conservation objectives are to maintain designated habitats and species in favourable
conservation status. The proposed route would be situated 6.6km from the site. Due to the
distance of route there would be no direct impacts such as habitat removal or shading.
Riparian habitats are vulnerable to inputs of pollutants and silt, but, the River Tame is
situated between the route and the River Mease and both the Mease and the Tame are
tributaries of the River Trent. Because watercourses crossed by the route drain into the
Tame rather than the Mease there is also no potential for changes in surface water or
groundwater flows to affect the SAC. The SAC is designated partly for the presence of
otter, which is a wide-ranging species vulnerable to habitat fragmentation and mortality if
habitat is affected by transport routes. It is possible that crossings of the Tame tributaries
could affect otters that also use the Mease. Measures to ensure that this would not arise
are set out in Annex 2.
6.1.24 The HRA of the Regional Spatial Strategy for the West Midlands notes that proposed
housing in Lichfield is likely to involve additional crossings and alterations to watercourses.
These would be more extensive than those generated by HS2, although even in-
combination it is considered that effects would not be significant. However, potential
impacts from this are described above Overall no significant adverse effects are considered
likely.
6.1.25 Wimbledon Common SAC: The site is designated for its wet and dry heath and for its
population of stag beetle. The conservation objectives for the site are to maintain all
designated features in favourable conservation status. The proposed route and alternative
LoR 4 would both be approximately 8.7km from the site at their closest point and
respectively in cutting and tunnel, and are on the opposite side of the Thames from the site.
The distance of the routes means there is no potential for on-site effects such as habitat
removal, shading or changes to soils structure. There is no potential for adverse changes to
hydrology because of the lack of groundwater connection between the routes and the site,
due to the presence of Thames. This would also preclude any possible effects from
groundwater pollution. Because of the distance of the route from the site, the urbanised
nature of habitat in the vicinity of the route, and the route‟s location on existing track, no
affects from population fragmentation or increased mortality on stag beetle are predicted.
Stag beetles are susceptible to light pollution but the routes are too distant for adverse
effects to arise.
39
6.1.26 The HRA for the draft Replacement London Plan notes the potential for impacts from
changes in groundwater levels and water quality, development pressure, disturbance and
vandalism, and deposition of atmospheric pollution. It also notes the potential for in-
combination effects with transport schemes that may result in visitor pressure on habitats
and species. There is no potential for HS2 to exacerbate these impacts. No in-combination
effects are predicted, and overall no adverse effects on the site would arise.
6.1.27 Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC: The site is designated as the only known remaining spring
fed inland salt meadow in the UK, the conservation objective is to maintain the site in
favourable conservation status. It would be situated approximately 16km north of the West
Midlands terminus of the proposed route. Due to distance the only potential effect
considered is alteration of groundwater flows leading to a decline in the saline water source
at the site. No effects are predicted because the route ends on the opposite side of the
River Trent to the SAC. As no non-significant effects were identified, there is no potential
for combined effects with those identified in HRA for the West Midlands RSS and no
adverse effects would arise.
6.1.28 The Lee Valley SPA/Ramsar: The SPA is designated for important numbers of wintering
gadwall and shoveler, as well as significant numbers of bittern. The conservation objective
is to maintain, in favourable condition, the habitats for the populations of migratory bird
species of European importance. The proposed route and alternatives would be 7.2km from
the site and in tunnel. All sites within the SPA are to the east of the routes. Due to the
distance of the route from the site and nature of intervening urban areas it is considered
that there is no potential for adverse effects in terms of bird strike, disturbance or population
fragmentation. As no non-significant effects were identified, there is no potential for
combined effects with those identified in HRA for the draft Replacement London Plan, and
no adverse effects would arise.
6.1.29 The South West London Waterbodies SPA/Ramsar: The site is designated for
internationally important numbers of wintering gadwall and shoveler. The proposed route
and LoR 2.5 would both be approximately 12km from the site, the former on viaduct and the
latter at grade. Due to the distance of the routes there would be no direct impacts on the
constituent water-bodies of the SPA, and, as the route is to the north of the SPA, population
fragmentation within the SPA would not occur. Neither route is likely to result in changes to
surface or groundwater flows in the SPA, due to distance and the lack of direct impacts on
the River Colne. Potential risks to this site from the proposed route and from the Heathrow
options are discussed above.
6.1.30 The HRA for the draft replacement London Plan does not identify any effects likely to have
a combined effect on the SPA.
6.1.31 Airtrack is a proposed scheme outwith the remit of the London Plan, although its main
works lie partly within Surrey (Spelthorne) and partly within London (Hillingdon). However,
it has been the subject of an AA owing to the passage of a new surface railway between
two of the designated waterbodies and through the Bedfont Court area, although not
directly affecting the SPA. Conclusions state that Airtrack would give rise to no impacts on
the SPA or supporting habitat, either on its own or in combination with other proposals.
40
Figure 2 SAC and SPA within 10km of the route (southern sections of route)
41
Figure 3 SAC and SPA within 10km of the route (northern sections of route)
42
Figure 4 Southwest London waterbodies SPA and Heathrow options
43
Annex 1: Minimum Standards for Maintenance of Air

Quality during Construction
Risk of dust impacts
One of the key issues regarding the effect of construction activities on air quality would be the
generation of fugitive dust emissions from activities such as the digging of foundations, excavation,
construction of embankments, tipping and vehicle movements on un-surfaced haul roads. As
construction activities are temporary in nature, it is likely that the potential impacts would be in
relation to dust deposition and potential nuisance in the immediate vicinity of the site rather than
long term air quality (PM10) concerns.
There is no standard methodology for assessing this impact; however, Minerals Planning
Statement 2, Annex 1 contains a semi-quantitative assessment of the potential impact of dust
impacts from mineral sites. An assessment can be made based on the spatial scope detailed in the
MPS 2:
“Dust particles are dispersed by their suspension and entrainment in airflow.
Dispersal is affected by the size of the particles emitted and wind speed as well as
their shape and density. Smaller dust particles remain airborne for longer, dispersing
widely and depositing more slowly over a wider area. Large dust particles (greater
than 30 micrometers (µm))… would largely deposit within 100 metres of sources.
Intermediate-sized particles (10-30µm) are likely to travel up to 200-500 metres.
Smaller particles (less than 10 µm)…are only deposited slowly but may travel 1000
metres or more. Concentrations decrease rapidly on moving away from the source
due to dispersion and dilution. Large and intermediate-sized particles are often
referred to as nuisance dust, while small particles (PM10) are associated with effects
on human health.”
In practice, dust from construction activities within the environment generally does not give rise to
nuisance at distances beyond approximately 200m from the works (in the absence of mitigation).
The majority of any deposition that could give rise to significant soiling tends to occur within 50 to
100m.
The construction activities with the highest potential for dust entrainment due to magnitude and
duration have been identified as those relating to sites subject to significant earthwork activities.
Liaison with local councils prior to the start of construction would be undertaken to agree proposed
working practices and environmental controls.
In the absence of a detailed construction schedule and knowledge of individual construction
activities and timings, the proposed approach is to identify the main potential sources of emissions,
to undertake a qualitative assessment of these impacts and identify potential mitigation measures.
A range of environmental management controls would be developed with reference to the Building
Research Establishment (BRE) guidance Controlling Particles, Vapour and Noise Pollution from
Construction Sites‟ and the Mayor of London Best Practice Guidance – The Control of Dust and
Emissions from Construction Sites to prevent the release of dust entering the atmosphere and/or
being deposited on nearby receptors.
Based on these discussions, a site contractor would be required to work to a code of practice or
similar, which would include measures to minimise fugitive dust emissions, especially in the vicinity
of potential receptors. As appropriate, the code of practice would include the measures detailed
below.
Minimisation of fugitive dust emissions from construction activities:

 Adhere to relevant legislation and guidance;
 The use of plant or machinery that would create dust could be avoided wherever reasonably
possible;
 Areas at risk of creating dust to be dampened down as appropriate;
44
 Construction activities to be appropriately controlled to minimise dust release;

 Material cutting, such as the use of abrasive disc cutters, to utilise water suppression where
appropriate;
 Significant material stockpiles to be enclosed as far as is practicable;
 The mixing of large quantities of concrete to be carried out only in enclosed or shielded areas
where possible;
 All material handling areas to be maintained in a dust free state as far as is practicable i.e.
appropriate handling and storage of materials, restricting materials drop heights onto lorries
etc;
 No fires to be permitted on the site; and
 Procedures to be established to ensure that the site is regularly inspected for spillage of dusty
or potentially dusty materials and any such spillage to be dealt with promptly.
Minimisation of dust from vehicle movements:

 Attention to be given to maintaining medium and heavily used routes in as dust free state as is
reasonably possible;
 Any unsurfaced routes to be regularly damped down using water bowsers during periods of dry
weather where they have the potential to cause nuisance;
 Appropriate speed limits to be established and enforced, as necessary; and
 Wheel washing facilities to be installed if appropriate and heavy vehicles leaving the site would
be required to use the installation as necessary.
Monitor compliance:
 The contractor to be required to set up their own monitoring programme to evaluate
compliance with this code; and
 All policies, practices and procedures to be periodically reviewed to ensure their
appropriateness
Such measures are routinely and successfully applied to construction projects throughout the UK,
and are anticipated to reduce significantly the potential for adverse nuisance dust effects
associated with the various stages of demolition and construction work.
Plant operating on the site, and construction vehicles entering and leaving the site, would have the
potential to contribute to local levels of air pollution, particularly NO2 and PM10. However, any such
effect would be small.
45
Annex 2: Mitigation of Impacts on Otters

Overview
The proposed measures for mitigation of impacts on otters is based on the: DESIGN MANUAL
FOR ROADS AND BRIDGES Volume 10 Environmental Design and Management Section 4
Nature Conservation PART 4 NATURE CONSERVATION ADVICE IN RELATION TO OTTERS.
(http://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/dmrb/vol10/section4/ha8199.pdf accessed 200510). The
information below provided to inform design and does not account for the legal implications of
destroying or disturbing otter habitat.
Construction effects
Otters are potentially susceptible to noise, night time lighting, use of machinery, presence of large
numbers of people, and blocking of paths/obstruction of holts.
The main potential adverse effects on otters from rail projects are: killing and injury, habitat
severance, habitat destruction, pollution and disturbance.
Key recommendations to avoid construction effects are as follows:
 Survey to identify the presence of otter and suitable habitat for laying up, commuting etc in
addition to breeding and foraging. Pre site-clearance surveys shall be carried out but if use of
otter is detected during clearance carried out with a watching brief exclusion zones or a
significant delay to works (depending on the type of otter activity) are likely to arise).
 Avoiding site compounds on or near potential otter habitat to avoid pollution of habitat and
disturbance and disruption of movements, and fencing any suitable adjacent habitat.
 Suspending night working where otters are thought to be active.
 Communication within construction team to ensure that all are briefed on the presence of otters
and measures to mitigate construction effects.
 Suitable fencing of construction sites to exclude animals and providing safe alternative routes
to guide them around the site and direct them away from nearby hazards (roads etc).
 Retaining habitat to maintain favoured routes e.g. keeping at least one bank of river in suitable
condition for otter, to avoid animals making potentially hazardous detours.
 Avoiding otter paths to limit potentially hazardous changes in preferred routes.
 Ensuring site maintenance works do not compromise otter mitigation measures.
 Monitoring condition of mitigation measures.
Key requirements for mitigation at the project planning stage are as follows:
 Pre-design stage surveys to identify all areas used or potentially used by otter and avoiding.
these area in design process.
 Avoiding river corridors or allowing at least a 50m buffer of suitable habitat.
 Avoiding multiple crossings of rivers.
 Avoiding river realignment and reduction of riparian habitat.
 Avoiding culverting.
 Providing bridges with a sufficiently wide span to allow otters a dry passage beneath the
bridge.
Crossing watercourses
Bridge and viaduct design: Viaducts are the preferred form of crossing and shall use piers rather
than embankment to minimise habitat loss. Abutments shall be set as far as possible from banks
and a single span of over nearby parallel watercourses is preferable to multiple crossings
Sluice gates and weirs: If such features are associated with a crossing then ledges or steps shall
be provided to allow otters to pass around the obstruction.
46
Culverts
Otters would use any watercourse no matter how small, especially when moving to new areas.
Cylindrical culverts pose a risk of drowning to otters, especially in times of flood and otters would
avoid a hazardous watercourse, exposing them to other risks, principally though making extra
track/road crossings. The use of cylindrical culverts is significant cause of otter mortality and
alternative solutions should always be sought. If culverts must be used they must provide a large
amount of air space during high flows and shall include a ledge above water level to provide a dry
route. If culverts of suitable design cannot be used then alternative routes for otter must be
provided (e.g. a nearby underpass above flood level). Generally culverts are ecologically damaging
(loss of habitat, adverse effects on upstream and downstream flows etc) and shall be avoided
where otters are present; bridges are preferable.
Ledges
Where it is not possible to retain natural bank beneath a crossing then ledges shall be provided
along the inside of the abutment on side of the watercourse showing most evidence of use by
otters. Ledges can be of solid concrete or bolted on metal structures at least 500mm wide,
accessible from the bank via ramps, at least 150mm above water level and with 600mm headroom.
Underpasses
Underpasses shall be used where ledges are not feasible to provide a safe route through an
embankment rather than forcing an otter to cross tracks. They shall be positioned within 50m of the
watercourse, above flood level and close to the track (so animals associate the crossing with
avoiding the track). The track in the vicinity of the crossing shall be fenced. Underpasses shall be
600-900mm diameter depending on length and ideally straight.
Fencing
Fencing shall not be used in isolation to exclude otters but to guide otters to other forms of
mitigation. 50mm mesh used and installed with sufficient depth buried (500mm with 300mm return
away from the track) to avoid it being undermined by badger and rabbits. It shall be 1500m high
with an additional 300mm angled at 45o away from the track. Gates, stiles and bridge guard rails
shall also be fenced and all fencing must be adequately maintained. Fencing shall be continuous
on both sides of the track to avoid otters becoming trapped in the rail corridor. It is difficult to define
length although most deaths occur within 100m of a crossing point.
Protection and restoration of habitat

Focuses on restoring river corridors, tree planting, excluding livestock, creating fenced and
inaccessible areas etc.
Artificial holts
Not recommended near rail schemes.
Drainage systems
Shall be of a design that does not risk trapping otter.
Maintenance
At least six monthly checks of ledges underpasses and fencing.
47
APPENDIX 4.2
Equality Impact Assessment: Screening Report
48
1 Context
1.1 Purpose
1.1.1 The purpose of this screening report is to provide an initial appraisal of the extent to which
groups vulnerable to discrimination and social exclusion may be differentially affected by
the HS2 proposals between London and West Midlands. It identifies the priority equality
groups to be considered and indicates the potential for significant adverse impacts, based
on the sustainability appraisal work carried out to date.
1.1.2 The report was devised to help HS2 Ltd determine whether, and at what stage, a full
Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) is likely to be required for the Government‟s proposed
route, either as a whole or at any specific locations affected by a particular scheme
element.
1.1.3 There would be some aspects of the scheme that are likely to result in a positive impact on
priority equality groups, which has been highlighted in the screening report where relevant.
It should be noted, however, that the requirement for full EqIA is triggered by the presence
of potentially significant differential impacts with potentially adverse effects.
1.1.4 The EqIA screening report also provides supporting material to the AoS Main report
(Volume 1), which describes the implications for sustainable development objectives of
HS2: London to West Midlands. At the time of the submission of the draft information to
Government in March 2010, HS2 comprised a proposed route together with a number of
main alternatives. Subsequently, the Government requested that some refinements to the
HS2 design were developed and appraised; these have since been adopted where
appropriate resulting in the Government‟s proposed route which is the subject of public
consultation. However, for the purposes of EqIA screening, the scheme remains largely the
same as at March 2010 and the conclusions of this report remain valid. No further
equalities assessment work has therefore been undertaken at this stage.
1.2 What is Equality Impact Assessment?

1.2.1 EqIA is a way of assessing the effects that a proposed policy or strategy (and in this case,
project) is likely to have on people, depending on their gender, ethnicity, disability, age,
faith or sexual orientation, and promoting positive outcomes for these „priority equality
groups‟.
1.2.2 EqIAs also fulfil the statutory duties of public bodies to carry out race, disability and gender
impact assessments as required under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, the
Disability Discrimination Act 2005 and the Equality Act 2006 respectively.
1.2.3 In addition to the six equalities groups most commonly included, EqIAs can be expanded to
cover social inclusion issues such as impact on family poverty.
1.2.4 Some equality issues are already addressed as part of other statutory assessments, such
as Sustainability Appraisal (SA) and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIAs). However,
EqIAs offer a more detailed look at the implications of development plans and policies on
diversity and equality for particular groups.
1.3 Legal & Policy Framework

1.3.1 Equality impact assessments of new policies have been required since 2002 in the case of
ethnicity, since 2006 in the case of disability, and since 2007 in the case of gender. This
Equality screening report was prepared before the advent of the Equality Act 2010, which
received Royal Assent on 8th April 2010 and came into force (in the main) on 1st October
2010. The Equality and Human Rights Commission has recently issued guidance on the
public sector equality duty20. It suggests that the current approach to EqIA may be of use
20
Equality and Human Rights Commission (January 2011) The essential guide to the public sector equality duty
49
to authorities in fulfilling the requirements of the new duty to analyse the effects on equality
of its policies and practices. It is hoped that there would be clear guidance available when
work on the full EqIA for the project begins at a later date should the project be progressed
further.
1.3.2 The previous legislative requirements are contained within frameworks which distinguish
between a) „the general duty‟, which apply to all public bodies, and b) „specific duties‟,
which fall on named public bodies involved in preparing and publishing equality schemes
setting out how the duty would be met. The core statutory duties are set out in the following
legislation:
 The Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000;
 Disability Discrimination Act (2005); and
 Equality Act 2006.
1.4 Equality Strands & Priority Groups

1.4.1 At present there are no statutory duties in place to promote equal treatment and anti-
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, age or religion and belief. However, the
Equality Act, once the relevant element is enacted (not before April 2011), contains a
number of provisions that would extend public sector equality duties to include the following
„protected characteristics‟:
 age;
 sexual orientation;
 faith (religion or belief);
 pregnancy and maternity; and
 gender reassignment.
1.4.2 Marriage and civil partnership is also a protected characteristic in the Act, but is not
included in the public sector duty.
1.4.3 Echoing these forthcoming duties, the Department for Transport (DfT) has recognised the
following equality strands in its Diversity Strategy and Delivery Plan for 2009 – 2012:
 gender;
 race;
 age;
 disability;
 sexual orientation;
 transgender; and
 faith (religion and belief).
50
1.4.4 In addition to legislation, the Department for Communities and Local Government has
published guidance21 on the role that planning can play in supporting the Government‟s
commitment to tackling disadvantage. In response, the GLA has published Supplementary
Planning Guidance22, which identifies the priority equality groups for London and explains
how planning policies and proposals can be used to address them.
1.4.5 The equality strands identified for this screening report drew upon legislation that was
current at the time of option development as well as certain changes that were anticipated.
On this basis the priority groups in the table below were identified for further consideration.
Changes to equality legislation are likely to affect the identification of equality groups going
forward.
Table 1 Priority Equality Groups
Equality Strand Priority Equality Group
Gender Women
Race Black, Asian & Minority Ethnic (BAME), Gypsies and Traveller communities23
Disability All disabled people, but especially those with a physical or mental impairment that
affects their ability to make use of public transport
Age Children and young people up to the age of 25 and older people (over 60).
Faith Minority faith groups, including Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim & Sikh
Sexual Orientation Lesbians, gay men, bisexual and transgender people.
Socio-economic People living in the top 20% most deprived wards based on Index of Multiple
deprivation Deprivation24.
2 Methodology
2.1 Overview of EqIA Process
2.1.1 The (DfT) is yet to publish formal guidance for carrying out EqIAs of transport policies,
plans and major projects, although a consensus is starting to emerge over the key areas
that such assessments should consider.
2.1.2 The overall approach to the EqIA of HS2 draws upon the guidance published by a number
of organisations, including: the former Commission for Racial Equality, Equality and Human
Rights Commission, Greater London Authority, Transport for London and Birmingham City
Council. It also takes account of the approaches that have been adopted for other major
transport infrastructure projects notably Crossrail and, more recently, the EqIA for adding
capacity at Heathrow.
2.1.3 The common elements to each of these approaches can be grouped into four key tasks.
These are:
 Defining overall aims – a clear definition of the overall aims and objectives of the policy
or proposal and the extent to which they are designed to promote equality or tackle
discrimination;
 Collecting information – establishing the particular needs or sensitivities of any equality
target group that are particular to that group and that are likely to be affected by the
policy or proposal including, where appropriate, consultation with priority equality
groups;
21
CLG (2005) Diversity and Equality in Planning – A Good Practice Guide
22
GLA (2007) Supplementary Planning Guidance: Planning for Equality & Diversity in London
23
For the purposes of this report, „race‟ includes Gypsies (including Romany people) and the British Isles „Travelling
community‟.
24
The Index of Multiple Deprivation 2007 combines a number of indicators, chosen to cover a range of economic, social
and housing issues, into a single deprivation score for each small area in England. This allows each area to be ranked
relative to one another according to their level of deprivation. IMD 2007 has been produced at Lower Super Output Area
level, of which there are 32,482 in the country
51
 Differential Impact – reaching an informed decision on whether or not there is a

differential impact on priority equality groups, at what level and what would be done to
address or mitigate any adverse impact; and
 Measuring outcomes – stating how the policy or proposal would be monitored at
successive stages to ensure that the expected outcomes are being met.
2.1.4 Reflecting these tasks, EqIA is generally carried out in two stages, starting with initial
screening. If this shows there could be a differential impact with potentially adverse effects,
or that further information is required to draw robust conclusions, there must be a full
assessment. An overview of this process is summarised in the flow chart in Figure 125, in
this case using race equality as the salient issue, although it is applicable to any equality
issue or priority equality group.
2.2 EqIA Screening Process

2.2.1 In the case of HS2, the outcome of the screening exercise needed to do more than provide
an objective statement on whether the proposals are relevant to equality. It also needed to
provide a means of appraising the equality implications of the route options under
consideration, albeit at a strategic level.
2.2.2 Accordingly, a five step screening process was defined, which allowed an initial appraisal of
impacts to be carried out as a means of informing the selection and refinement of options.
This process is summarised as follows:
Step 1: Establish the overall aims and objectives of HS2 and their potential
relevance to the DfT‟s statutory duties to promote equality and tackle
discrimination.
Step 2: Establish „priority equality groups‟ by gathering known information on
the diverse needs of each group and whether these needs are likely to
be significantly affected by the construction and operation of a high
speed railway.
Step 3 Identify the potential impacts of HS2 as compared with the Reference
Case, within the area over which significant adverse or beneficial
impacts are anticipated to occur.
Step 4: Identify any disproportionate adverse impacts that could arise both due
to increased representation in a particular area of a priority equality
group and an accepted predisposition or sensitivity to the type of impact
predicted.
Step 5: Document findings and confirm whether further information is required
to make an informed decision about differential impacts for a particular
group or at a specific location, or whether full EqIA is required.
2.2.3 It should be stressed that the presence of a particular equality group in any given location
does not necessarily constitute a differential impact in its own right. For a differential
impact to occur, there also has to be a higher degree of sensitivity or vulnerability to the
identified impact as compared with the general population.
2.2.4 The approach taken for HS2 involved undertaking steps 2 and 3 in tandem. Given the
length of the HS2 route options and, indeed, of the proposed scheme, which extends for
some 225km in total, it was not practical for the EqIA screening to identify each priority
equality group‟s representation along the whole route. The locations of areas of relatively
higher deprivation were identified, however; the rationale for this is explained below.
25
Source: Former Commission for Racial Equality
52
2.2.5 At the same time, potential impacts along the route were identified in order to define
locations where priority equality groups would be disproportionately represented and
potentially be differentially affected. At these impact areas, ward data was examined to
determine whether priority equality groups were present.
Figure 1 Flowchart: The Impact Assessment Process
53
2.3 Priority Equality Groups

2.3.1 An initial screening of priority equality groups was carried out, looking at readily available
information on the diverse needs of each group and considering these in the context of the
potential adverse impacts identified during the appraisal of options. This included
information from the department of Communities and Local Government, former
Commission for Racial Equality, GLA, Birmingham City Council and local authority planning
guidance (See also Annex 2 for a full list of references).
2.3.2 The key priority groups identified for the proposed HS2: London to West Midlands are set
out in Table 226, together with the main generic issues to which these groups are deemed
potentially susceptible. An analysis of the potential relevance of these concerns in the
context of the potential impacts of the HS2 proposals is then set out in Section 2.5.
Table 2 Priority Groups and Key Equality Concerns
Equality Priority Key Equality Concern
Strand Group
Gender Women Balancing work and family responsibilities
Access to affordable housing
Access to affordable childcare
Access to reliable public transport
Personal safety on public transport (lone travelling and travelling at night).
Access to safe walking and cycling routes
Race Black, Asian and Unemployment (notably for BAME males)
Minority Ethnic Access to employment opportunities
Access to essential social facilities (cultural sensitivity, overt racism and
language barriers)
Access to reliable and affordable public transport
Poor housing conditions and overcrowding
Isolation and marginalisation (older populations)
Hate crime and harassment
Refugees and Access to appropriate accommodation
Asylum seekers Overcrowded and insecure housing
Access to basic social and health care
Access to affordable transport
Access to employment
Gypsies and Chronic shortage of appropriate accommodation sites
Travelling Access to basic social and health care
Communities Access to affordable transport
Disability People with Unemployment
physical or Shortage of accessible housing
mental well- Access to social services & facilities
being problems,
deaf people High levels of discrimination
Access to public transport
Age Children and Child poverty and social exclusion
young people Lone parent households
Poor housing conditions and overcrowding
Access to key services
Outdoor playspace provision
26
Information has been drawn from a number of sources including: GLA (2007) Planning for Equality and Diversity in
London – Supplementary Planning Guidance for the London Plan, Birmingham City Council Population Census Topic
Reports and case information cited in Appendix 2.
54
Equality Priority Key Equality Concern

Strand Group
Discrimination by adults
Crime, safety and vulnerability
Safe routes to school
Access to reliable, cheap or free public transport
Older people Poverty
(60+) Fuel poverty
Poor housing conditions
Shortage of sheltered and specialist accommodation
Access to health and social care facilities
Crime, safety and vulnerability
Isolation
Access to public realm spaces
Access to reliable and affordable public transport
Faith Minority faith Access to appropriate housing especially for larger families
(Religion groups Access to specialised service provision such as appropriate retail food
and belief) outlets
Access to places of worship
Burial space (Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Roman Catholic, Hindu and
Zoroastrian religions)
Sexual Lesbians, gays, Hate crime and harassment
Orientation bisexual people Access to area-based facilities and services
and trans people
Socio- People living in Shortage of affordable and appropriate housing
economic the 20% most Overcrowding and poor public heath
Deprivation deprived wards Higher environmental risk exposures
according to
IMD 2008 Increased risk to children of being killed or seriously injured on the roads
High levels of unemployment
Access to open space and recreation facilities
Access to key social and health services
Crime and fear of crime
Social exclusion
2.4 Potential Impacts on Priority Equality Groups

2.4.1 Differential impacts are those that affect a particular priority equality group more than others
in the community as opposed to an impact that affects everyone equally. This may be due
to a particular sensitivity or vulnerability to a particular type of environmental exposure, or
due to the loss, demolition or impairment of a facility upon which a priority group relies.
Impacts can be direct, indirect, combined or secondary. However, given the high level of
appraisal undertaken for the AoS, the potential impacts of the proposed scheme, and the
receptors potentially affected by them, are provisional only at this stage. More detailed
assessment work would be required during EIA (and EqIA) to establish more precisely the
level of impact and the identity of properties affected by them.
2.4.2 In total, nine areas of potential impact have been defined as having particular implications
for equality. These are summarised in Table 3 below. For ease of reference, the
information is presented in the same order as it appears in the AoS Framework, namely, by
„sustainability issue‟.
55
Table 3 Potential Range of Impacts

Type of Sustainability Potential environmental impact Potential for equality
impact issue effect where known
Direct Air Quality Significant adverse air quality impacts during Not determined at property
construction or operation, although these are deemed level.
unlikely for HS2.
Noise Significant adverse noise impacts during construction Determined at preliminary
or operation where they affect a sensitive community level for route sections and
facility, such as a school or mental well-being unit27. groups of properties, but not
for specific properties at this
stage.
Community Demolition, landtake or impaired access to a Demolitions and isolation
Integrity community facility or place of worship used by a impacts have been
priority equality group. determined by property type
Demolition, landtake or impaired access to some 10 drawing on map data. These
residential dwellings in any one location in the 20% are reported in context of
most deprived wards. 20% most deprived wards.
High risk of isolation due to the route alignment likely Access impacts have not
to affect people living in the 20% most deprived been determined for specific
wards. facilities.
Accessibility to Loss, landtake or impairment to a public open space General public transport
key services etc. or recreational facility used by people living in one of improvements (described in
the 20% most deprived wards. the AoS, with reference to
Improved access to public transport and public HS2, released capacity on
transport interchange for people living in the 20% WCML and at key
most deprived wards. interchange points) would be
Improved access to public transport and public beneficial for priority equality
transport interchange for those without access to a groups.
private vehicle, particularly, young people.
Reduced crime and fear of crime through careful
design of pedestrian walkways, lighting and
appropriate surveillance.
Physical Pedestrian diversions over 100 metres affecting Diversions have not been
accessibility people with restricted mobility. determined.
Improved access to public transport and public HS2 facilities to be compliant
transport interchange for mobility impaired users. with relevant disability
legislation; therefore no
adverse effects envisaged.
Socio-economic Loss, landtake or impairment to an existing Potential employment
impacts regeneration area. opportunities would be
Demolition, loss or impairment to business premises significant, especially around
likely to affect people living in the 20% most deprived stations, where HS2 is
wards. expected to catalyse
Improved affordability of public transport services for regeneration.
people living in the 20% most deprived wards. Clusters of demolition
Jobs created that are likely to benefit people living in impacts on commercial
the 20% most deprived wards. properties are identified, in
context of 20% most
deprived wards.
Indirect Traffic impacts Significant adverse air quality impacts resulting from Not determined at property
increased road traffic in the vicinity of stations and level.
terminals affecting people living in the 20% most
deprived wards. However, these are deemed unlikely
given good public transport links.
Wider socio- Improved accessibility to existing regeneration areas Substantial benefits are
economic resulting in agglomeration and wider economic predicted ) which would be
benefits benefits. beneficial for priority equality
groups.
27
Noise impacts on residential properties would only be considered by exception, or as part of an appraisal of combined
impacts that could have implications for health and well-being
56
Type of Sustainability Potential environmental impact Potential for equality

impact issue effect where known
Combined Health & well- Other impacts affecting the 20% most deprived Determined for route
being wards, when combined (e.g. noise, loss of facilities sections and groups of
and a high risk of isolation). properties, but not for
specific properties.
Secondary Some impacts may not yet have been identified or Not determined at this stage.
may exist as secondary impacts. The ongoing nature
of the appraisal process allows for these to be
considered.
2.5 Identifying Priority Equality Groups

2.5.1 The location of priority equality groups was undertaken in two ways: 1) reviewing ward data
to determine the level of presence of such groups where potential impacts had been
identified; and 2) reviewing the proposed route as a whole to identify areas of relatively
higher deprivation.
2.5.2 Any location potentially subject to the types of impact identified in Table 3 above, where
known with sufficient detail, prompted an examination of ward data to establish whether any
priority equality groups were present in the area, that could be affected. The potential
environmental impacts are not, at this stage, known at a property level (other than
demolitions and islanding, although these may change in detail). Assessing impacts at a
property level would be one of the objectives of full environmental impact assessment.
Moreover, ward data is relevant to an area and does not differentiate any variations by
property. It was therefore neither possible nor pertinent to obtain information on the
equality characteristics of the people who might be living, working or making use of
potentially affected properties along the route as a whole.
2.5.3 This approach was not taken for the whole route since much of it would either not be
susceptible to impact generally (for example, along tunnelled section) or would be subject
to impact that would not affect priority groups, or at least not affect them differentially.
Instead, multiple deprivation data was used as an indicator of areas most likely to be
represented by particular priority equality groups.
2.5.4 In each case where an option crossed an area defined as being one of the 20% most
deprived wards, ward profile data28 helped to build a more detailed picture of the areas that
are strongly represented29 by particular priority equality groups, including in particular:
 Black, Asian and minority ethnic groups;
 elderly people;
 children and young people; and
 economically disadvantaged people.
2.5.5 The rationale for focusing on impact assessment criteria that make use of Indices of
Multiple Deprivation (IMD) data is that extreme income inequalities are often good
indicators of cycles of poverty, reduced opportunities and entrenched area-based social
inequalities30.
2.5.6 Areas inhabited by communities experiencing social exclusion and disadvantage are also
more likely to be of poor environmental quality or in areas facing greater environmental
threats, such as flooding or pollution. This, combined with poor quality and inappropriate
housing, lack of access to social and community facilities, inaccessible and inadequate
public transport, crime, lack of open space or lack of employment and recreation
opportunities generates key quality of life concerns for these communities.
28
Obtained from available 2001 Census information.
29
For the purposes of appraisal, a variation of 10% or more as compared with the Borough average was used to define wards with a
strong representation by a particular priority equality group.
30
GLA (2007) Planning for equality and diversity in London – Supplementary Planning Guidance to the London Plan.
57
2.5.7 Additionally, there is both an ethnic and a disability dimension to the distribution of
„deprived‟ communities. Most minority groups experience high levels of child poverty and
unemployment, whilst three out of every ten disabled people live in poverty31.
2.5.8 The rationale for including criteria that highlight sensitive community facilities, such as
schools, is based on a strong body of evidence for differential impacts on children. Some of
these effects are summarised by Stansfield and Matheson in research carried out in 2003
(see end references) as follows: Deficits have been found in sustained attention and visual
attention and noise-exposed children have difficulties in concentrating in comparison with
children from quieter schools. Children exposed to chronic environmental noise have also
been found to have poorer auditory discrimination and speech perception as well as poorer
memory requiring high processing demands. Finally, chronically exposed children tend to
have poorer reading ability and school performance on national standardized tests.
2.5.9 Conversely, there is very limited research or evidence pointing towards a correlation
between environmental exposures and other equality dimensions.
2.6 Relationship with HS2 Gate Process

2.6.1 The definition of route and station options for HS2 has been carried out in three principal
phases, followed by some further route refinement undertaken in 2010. This has
culminated in the identification of a proposed scheme.
2.6.2 A test of „reasonableness‟ has been carried out to ensure that equality dimensions are
considered at an appropriate scale of enquiry at each stage of the option selection process.
At the initial stages of option definition, for example, the large study area and absence of
engineered lines on maps meant that the potential impacts on people could only be
appraised in absolute terms. The type of information appraised at each stage is
summarised below.
Gate 1: At the early stages of option definition, an initial long list of options was
identified through a variety of means, including review of existing proposals
by others, internal review of possible locations and routes, and discussions
with a number of industry and other stakeholders. These were initially tested
in terms of their conformance with the scheme‟s stated objectives. An
appraisal was then undertaken which considered demand, operational
feasibility and cost, together with any additional factors, such as major
environmental impact, location of major centres of population and strategic fit
with future expansion plans.
Gate 2: An intermediate list was then developed on OS mapping in order to produce
indicative centre-line routes. These were appraised using simplified
appraisal frameworks and information on the sustainability impacts for each
option, both positive and negative, was recorded on template forms. At this
stage the optioneering process focused on avoiding direct impacts in the
form of demolitions, landtake and matching potential station options to
potential growth areas and regeneration areas. It also identified route
alignment likely to affect the 50% and 20% most deprived wards on the basis
that people living in these areas are potentially more susceptible to impact
due, inter alia, to potential level of presence of priority equality groups.
Gate 3: A short-list was then taken forward and more detailed engineering made
available on vertical and horizontal route alignments and projected land take.
These were appraised using a full AoS Framework with information on
sustainability impacts for each option recorded on template forms. This
considered the numbers and types of demolitions, general areas at high risk
of isolation, impacts on public open spaces, impacts on planned growth
31
JRF (2005) Monitoring poverty and social inclusion in the UK.
58
areas and regeneration areas and combined impacts on the 20% most
deprived wards, again recognising the potential greater vulnerability of
people in deprived areas to impact.
2.6.3 During option development, equality matters were therefore considered implicitly through
consideration of areas of relatively higher deprivation, within which people were deemed to
be more vulnerable to impact.
2.6.4 In those instances where particularly significant adverse impacts were identified in terms of
demolitions, landtake or absolute numbers of people affected, further engineering work was
conducted to refine the profile or alignment of the option concerned to avoid or reduce the
identified impacts. Where residual impacts were still identified, these locations were
flagged for further work.
2.7 Consultation
2.7.1 An initial programme of consultation with local planning authorities was conducted by HS2
Ltd to enable location-specific issues, impacts and potential benefits to be identified.
2.7.2 A Reference Group comprising representatives from across Government, as well as certain
statutory bodies, was established to comment and advise on the approach to be taken to
the AoS. This included consideration of health and equality issues. Moving forward,
equality issues would form a part of the next phase of consultation. Particular attention
would be given to any locations where potentially significant adverse impacts are predicted,
to ensure that the type of mitigation proposed is appropriate and has a high likelihood of
success.
2.7.3 The type of mitigation proposed would change as the scheme progresses. At the early
stages of option selection, the priority was to avoid and reduce impacts on major
settlements in absolute terms. As more detailed engineering information became available,
adjustments were made to the horizontal and vertical alignment to provide further
mitigation.
2.8 EqIA as an Ongoing Process

2.8.1 As stated in section 2.2, the HS2 EqIA screening exercise needed to do more than provide
a statement on whether the proposals are relevant to equality. It also needed to provide a
means of appraising the equality implications of the proposed route under consideration.
Although this has been at a strategic level, where particular locations were identified where
equality issues were considered pertinent, these have been described. Accordingly, the
screening exercise also included the collection of evidence, where available, and an initial
appraisal of impacts.
2.8.2 EqIA is an iterative process that should allow potential equality impacts to be identified and
addressed through successive project phases. Where this report has identified further
assessment work is required, the ongoing equality assessment programme would include
the following elements:
 Policy review: A gap analysis to identify current policy, further review of best practice
guidance and local documentation where required.
 Impact mitigation: Identification of potential mitigation measures that HS2 Ltd could
implement in order to tackle the adverse or unintended impacts of its proposals.
 Equality consultation: Consultation programme for HS2 Ltd to include equality issues on
their agendas. Consideration to be given to the formation of an Equality Forum 32 to
assist with the identification of impacts and to comment on the appropriateness of
proposed mitigation.
32
An „Equality Forum‟ can be defined as: “A setting where people who experience and understand project-relevant
issues faced by diverse communities can provide insights into those issues that enable the project to address risks and
opportunities effectively“ (personal communication with A Maynard, 2009).
59
 Equality design specifications: Refinement of proposed design specifications to take

account of the particular needs of priority equality groups at the location concerned.
 Area-specific case studies: At locations where specific impacts are anticipated, e.g.
demolition of social housing or community infrastructure, there might be a case for more
detailed impact assessment at that location.
3 Outcomes of screening process
3.1 Step 1 – Establish the Overall Aims and Objectives
3.1.1 The objectives of HS2 are to increase passenger capacity; provide a high speed service;
integrate transport and land use and to examine the potential to bring about a modal shift
from car and air to rail. The introduction of new high speed services combined with
released capacity on existing lines could also provide a catalyst for wider socio-economic
growth and regeneration.
3.1.2 Drawing on the conclusions of the main AoS Report, the principal potential benefits for
people could include:
 Improved journey times for business users and commuters making use of HS2, with
associated economic benefits;
 Agglomeration benefits around any stations or termini associated with HS2, with
associated employment benefits;
 Improved accessibility for recreational and other users and for people who live or work
in close proximity to an HS2 intermediate station or terminal;
 Indirectly, providing a catalyst for regeneration and growth in the areas around the
intermediate stations and terminals; and
 Improved travel conditions for people using classic lines that have benefited from
released capacity due to HS2.
3.1.3 While none of these objectives have an explicit equality motive, decisions on where to
locate the terminals and the intermediate stations can have implications for the scale of
impact or benefit for priority equality groups. Conversely, decisions on the proposed route
alignment could have unintended adverse impacts on a priority equality group or groups.
3.2 Step 2 – Identify Relevant Priority Equality Groups

3.2.1 At the option definition and selection stages, the level of engineering detail was not
sufficiently refined to allow a detailed analysis of the extent to which priority equality groups
could be affected. Instead, multiple deprivation data was used as an indicator of areas most
likely to be represented by particular priority equality groups. In each case where an option
crossed an area defined as being one of the 20% most deprived wards, ward profile data
was obtained to help build a more detailed picture of the areas that are strongly
represented33 by particular priority equality groups, including in particular:
 black, Asian and minority ethnic groups;
 elderly people;
 children and young people; and
 economically disadvantaged people.
33
For the purposes of appraisal, a variation of 10% or more as compared with the borough average was used to define
wards with a strong representation by a particular priority equality group
60
3.2.2 Disabled people were not included among the groups considered. Although it is possible to
find out whether there is a disproportionate number of people with long-term limiting health
conditions, their access needs would be so different that it would be difficult to identify
specific impacts at this point in the process.
3.2.3 IMD 2007 data was also used to determine at these locations where there may be the risk
of a disproportionate impact by identifying the types and numbers of community facilities in
deprived areas (where these were identifiable from address point data) that were potentially
at risk of demolition or land take. However, although indicative of potential impacts on
particular priority equality groups, the precise nature of the impact would require further
research into the characteristics of the populations making use of the facility concerned,
which would be undertaken as part of a full EqIA. Moreover, a detailed land use survey has
not been undertaken at this stage.
3.2.4 Predicting impacts on people within priority equality groups would often rely on detailed
design; for example determining the design elements that would be required to maintain
access for mobility impaired or elderly people.
3.2.5 Full EqIA would be required during the later design stage (when the potential scale of
impacts is better understood) to inform development of the detailed design.
3.3 Step 3 – Identify the Potential Impacts of HS2

3.3.1 The findings of the appraisal for each of the nine impact areas of most direct relevance to
equality is set out in section 10 of the AoS Framework (Volume 2).
3.3.2 Where identified impacts were known (see Table 3) the location concerned was appraised
in more detail to establish whether any priority equality groups could potentially be affected.
This information was also cross-referenced against the IMD data showing the 20% and
10% most deprived areas (See also Annex 3).
3.3.3 A summary of the potential significance of these impacts is then presented below in Table
4.
Table 4 Potential Significance of Equality Concerns for Elements of the Proposed Route
Proposed Commentary and Equality Concerns Potential
Route significance
Element for Equality
Euston station Description: Westward expansion of existing station complex. Potentially
(including Demolitions: Around 240 likely demolitions, including some dwellings significant due
throat) on the Regents Park Estate, and landtake from locally important public to potential
open spaces. impacts on
Profile: Station is located in an area that is classified as one of the 20% properties
most deprived and Regents Park Estate lies in an area that is classified
as one of the 10% most deprived according to IMD 2007.
The station and throat result in potential impacts on an area with
potential equality concerns in respect of socio-economic status, and an
Asian population that is higher than the Borough average (see s.3.3.4).
Isolation and Accessibility: The station and throat do not increase the
risk of isolation for existing communities, although the need to relocate
large numbers of people could have secondary impacts on the local
businesses and services that currently rely on those communities.
There are no permanent access impacts on footpaths, cycle routes or
areas of common land.
Tunnel from Description: All in tunnel, apart from intermittent vent shafts. Potential
Euston to Old Demolitions: The Alexandra Road West vent shaft site would result in impacts
Oak Common the demolition of one block comprising of 7 residential dwellings, 1 relatively low;
community facility and 13 commercial properties. unlikely to be
Profile: Tunnel section is largely beneath areas of the 20% most significant for
deprived. equality
Isolation and Accessibility: The vent shaft site would not create areas
of isolation or create permanent access impacts on footpaths, cycle
61

Route significance
routes or areas of common land.
Connection to Description: Predominantly in tunnel or at grade along existing track. Potential
HS1 Demolitions: No demolitions envisaged. impacts
Profile: The at grade section does pass through areas of the 20% most relatively low;
deprived in the London Borough of Camden. unlikely to be
significant for
Isolation and Accessibility: No areas of isolation generated and no equality
permanent access impacts on footpaths, cycle routes or areas of
common land.
Old Oak Description: Expansion and redevelopment of existing rail station. Potential
Common Demolitions: No likely demolitions of residential dwellings although impacts
(OOC) station approximately 25 are at risk of land take, the risk of which may be relatively low;
(including box reduced once more detailed design is undertaken. unlikely to be
and throats) Profile: These residential properties at risk of demolition are all located significant for
in a 20% most deprived area, which also records a higher black equality
population (13.4% in the ward compared to the borough average of although would
8.8%). However, extent to which demolitions involve residents from this require further
community is not known. consideration on
basis of detailed
Isolation and Accessibility: Alignment does not increase the risk of design
isolation for existing communities, and no permanent access impacts on
footpaths, cycle routes or areas of common land.
OOC to West Description: Widening of the existing rail track in a highly built up area. Potential
Ruislip Demolitions: There are 15 residential dwellings and about 51 other impacts
commercial or community dwellings likely to be demolished. relatively low
Profile: Small incursion into a 20% most deprived area in the vicinity of (demolitions are
Northolt. No residential dwellings demolished in this area. Runs scattered);
alongside, but does not intersect, two further areas of the 20% most unlikely to be
deprived. significant for
equality
This area is characterised by a slightly higher black population at 10.1%
compared with the Borough average of 8.8%.
Isolation and Accessibility: No areas of isolation identified and no
permanent access impacts on footpaths, cycle routes or areas of
common land.
West Ruislip to Description: Scheme crosses predominantly rural area predominantly Potential
Aylesbury at grade. impacts
Demolitions: 12 scattered residential dwellings likely to be relatively low;
demolishedalong this route section. unlikely to be
Profile: No deprived areas are directly affected. No priority equality significant for
target groups known to be affected. equality
Isolation and Accessibility: No areas at risk of isolation. There may
be temporary impacts to access routes during construction.
Aylesbury to Description: Scheme crosses rural area at grade. Potential
Brackley Demolitions: Up to 6 scattered residential dwellings likely to be impacts
(A421 demolished. relatively low;
crossing) Profile: No deprived areas are directly affected. No priority equality unlikely to be
target groups known to be affected. significant for
equality
Isolation and Accessibility: Impacts to access routes mainly limited to
the construction period, although 2 paths may be disrupted. Two small
areas land at risk of isolation (one dwelling affected).
Infrastructure No demolitions likely, no deprived areas are directly affected and no Potential
maintenance priority equality target groups are known to be affected. impacts
depot (Steeple relatively low;
Claydon) unlikely to be
significant for
equality
Brackley Description: Scheme crosses rural area mainly at grade. Potential
(A421 Demolitions: 13 scattered residential dwellings likely to be demolished. impacts
crossing) to Profile: No deprived areas are directly affected. No priority equality relatively low;
Kenilworth/ target groups identified. unlikely to be
Coventry gap significant for
Isolation and Accessibility: No areas of isolation identified. There
62

Route significance
may be temporary impacts to access routes during construction. equality
Kenilworth/ Description: Scheme crosses rural area mainly at grade. Potential
Coventry gap Demolitions: Resulting in some scattered likely demolitions (about 4 impacts
to Berkswell residential dwellings). relatively low;
Rail Station Profile: No areas of multiple deprivation are directly affected, although unlikely to be
parts of Castle and Burton Green ward are defined as deprived in terms significant for
of access to housing and services. equality
Burton Green Ward area characterised by a slightly higher population
over 60 at 26.6% compared with the borough average of 21.2% [this
was identified due to previous severance at this location, now mitigated
through introduction of a „green bridge‟].
Isolation and Accessibility: Impacts to access routes limited to the
construction period.
Berkswell Rail Description: Scheme crosses area at grade. Potential
Station to Demolitions: Scattered demolitions (1 community facility, 4 residential impacts
Middleton dwelling and 7 commercial/industrial premises). relatively low;
Profile: No deprived areas are directly affected along this section with unlikely to be
the exception of a 250m section where the scheme intersects the M6. significant for
This also coincides with an area of land that is at high risk of isolation equality
as a result of the scheme. However, no residential dwellings or
community facilities are affected in this area.
No priority equality groups identified.
Isolation and Accessibility: 8 areas of isolation although this area is
already fragmented from existing transport infrastructure. Impacts to
cycle routes or footpaths limited to the construction period.
Birmingham Description: Construction of a new station on undeveloped land. Potential
Interchange Demolitions: No demolitions. impacts
station Profile: This is not in an area of the 20% most deprived. No priority relatively low;
(including equality target groups identified unlikely to be
throats) significant for
Isolation and Accessibility: No areas of isolation identified and no equality
impacts on access routes or common land.
Birmingham Description: Widening of the existing rail corridor. Potentially
spur Demolitions: 28 residential dwellings, and 27 commercial premises significant due
Profile: Predominantly within an area of the 20% most deprived to impacts on
(including Washwood Heath ward, see below). Four main wards along property (related
the spur within the 20% most deprived areas. Wards to the east of the to impact below)
depot (Kingsbury and Hodge Hill) not found to contain significant
numbers of priority equality groups. To the west, (Washwood Heath
and Nechells) contain higher than the Borough average of BAME
communities including (48% and 46.4% Asian population respectively).
Isolation and Accessibility: There are 3 areas of isolation identified in
the Birmingham spur section; however these are not in the vicinity of
priority equality groups or areas of multiple deprivation. Impacts on
access routes and common land limited to construction.
Rolling stock Description: Proposed 65ha site Potentially
depot Demolitions: Landtake for the depot footprint would require the significant due
(Washwood demolition of 32 residential dwellings and up to 19 to impacts on
Heath) commercial/industrial/community buildings in total. property (related
Profile: In an area of the 20% (and 10%) most deprived to impact above)
The depot is situated in the Washwood Heath ward, containing higher
than average proportions of BAME communities in relation to the
borough average. These have been considered above and in section
3.3.4.
There is the potential for equality impacts from the immediate depot
site, however for potential effects to the ward, please refer to the
section on Birmingham Spur above.
Isolation and Accessibility: No areas of isolation. No access routes
or common land impacted.
Birmingham Description: This mainly follows an existing rail track. Unlikely to be
63

Route significance
Curzon Street Demolitions: 1 residential dwelling and 2 commercial premises, one of significant
station and which is a complex of student units.
approach Profile: Slight encroachment into an area of 20% most deprived. Area
is characterised by a higher than average Black population at 23.7% in
the SOA for Birmingham Curzon Street as compared with 9.7% for the
ward and 6.12% for the borough.
The station itself is not in a 20% most deprived area, and there are
limited demolitions, however there is a higher than average proportion
of the Chinese population (6.5% in the SOA compared to 1.2% borough
average). This is unlikely to be significant
Isolation and Accessibility: One small area of isolation in this route
section. Effects on access routes limited to during the construction
period.
Middleton to Description: Scheme crosses area at grade. Unlikely to be
West Coast Demolitions: 4 residential dwelling demolitions (0 community significant
Main line demolition and 3 commercial demolitions).
(Lichfield) Profile: No areas of multiple deprivation are directly affected. No
priority equality groups identified.
Isolation and Accessibility: One area of isolation identified although
no dwellings affected. Impacts to cycle routes or footpaths limited to
the construction period.
3.3.4 There is potential for significant adverse impacts to priority equality groups at two locations,
namely Euston and Washwood Heath. HS2 Ltd would work closely with the London
Borough of Camden and the GLA, with the intention of agreeing jointly an ambition for
development of the Euston area. This would include working closely with community
groups, residents‟ associations and affected residents generally. At Washwood Heath in
Birmingham, a similar approach would be undertaken, involving close working with
Birmingham City council and the local residential and business community.
3.3.5 Potential impacts at Old Oak Common are most likely to be positive, given the extensive
regeneration that is likely here; however, further assessment during the EqIA would be
required at this location, on the basis of the more detailed design.
3.3.6 Birmingham Curzon Street station is likely to involve the demolition of one dwelling as well
as a complex of student units. Further work may be required to establish the equality
implications of the loss in affordable accommodation for students. However, it is assumed
that replacement accommodation would be provided.
3.4 Step 4 – Identify Differential Impacts on Priority Equality Groups

3.4.1 With the exception of Euston and Washwood Heath, the proposed route is considered
unlikely to significantly and adversely affect priority equality groups. Where potential
demolitions would affect known community facilities (predominantly places of worship or
culturally sensitive social facilities), initial checks have been made to establish whether they
are located in areas with a higher than average representation by a relevant priority equality
group. However to establish the scale of impact, further research is likely to be required
when conducting the EqIA.
Euston
3.4.2 The key potential impacts in the Euston area are summarised below:
 Loss of social housing: The station footprint is likely to require the demolition of high-
rise council blocks within the Regents Park Estate, which comprises approximately 190
residential dwellings. The confirmed demolitions could require the relocation of
approximately 500 people (as calculated using the 2.36 national average occupancy).
Some dwellings within the low-rise terraces along Cobourg St, Euston St and Melton
64
Street would also require demolition. A further three high-rise Council blocks (up to 170
dwellings) in the same area would be newly exposed to impacts from the railway.
 Loss of community facilities: No places of worship or culturally sensitive social facilities
are likely to require demolition, although Euston Square Gardens, St James‟s Gardens,
a hall at Regents Park Estate and the sports court adjacent to Maria Fidelis School are
likely to be required during construction.
 Loss of commercial premises: The station footprint would require the relocation of
several businesses, including a Post Office distribution centre, and a small business
space site through the potential demolition of 20 commercial premises. The Post Office
facility is likely to employ a high proportion of local people. The extent to which other
employment losses would affect local job opportunities is yet to be established.
 Socio-economic characteristics: The area around Euston (the station and surrounding
buildings) is classified as one of the 10% most deprived in terms of barriers to housing
and services; crime and disorder; living environment; health deprivation and disability.
Unemployment rates for the Regents Park Estate stood at 10% in 2001, which is higher
than the 8% average for Camden.
 Population characteristics: An analysis using super output area data has identified a
higher than average proportion of people of black, Chinese and, particularly, Asian
population (34.4% compared with the borough average of 10.38%). There is also a
slightly above average proportion of children aged between 0 and 4 (7.2% compared
with the borough average of 6.0%). The proportion of 0-15 year olds within Regents
Park ward is 19.8%, compared to a Borough average of 16.6%.
3.4.3 Given these indicators, it is considered highly likely that the residential and commercial
demolitions and loss of public open space could disproportionately affect the Asian
population as well as those with low socio-economic status. Preparation of a full EqIA
could help to determine the scale of impact on the surrounding population and is therefore
recommended. HS2 Ltd would be committed to working closely and at an early stage with
the London Borough of Camden and the GLA and with community groups, residents‟
associations and affected residents generally to ensure that effective arrangements are in
place to meet the housing needs of those affected by demolition of these dwellings, and to
help to address wider impacts on the local community.
Washwood Heath
3.4.4 The key potential impacts in the Washwood Heath area are summarised below:
 Loss of dwellings: The depot footprint would require the demolition of 32 residential
properties, all of which lie along Common Lane, although some of these may be able to
be avoided during later design phases. There are also up to 28 residential dwelling
demolitions along the length of the Birmingham spur.
 Loss of community facilities: No places of worship or known culturally sensitive social
facilities are likely to require demolition.
 Loss of commercial premises: The proposed route would require the relocation of
several businesses, including some at Saltley Park (a 19.5ha development production
and warehousing units) and Castle Bromwich Business Park. The extent to which
employment losses would affect local job opportunities is yet to be established.
 Socio-economic characteristics: The area around Washwood Heath is classified as one
of the 10% most deprived in terms of barriers to housing and services; crime and
disorder; living environment; health deprivation and disability. The percentage of
unemployed men and women in the Washwood Heath ward stood at 50% in 2001 and
49.2% in the Nechells ward which is higher than the borough average.
 Population characteristics: An analysis using super output area data has identified a
higher than average proportion of people of BAME communities, most notably, the
Asian population in Washwood Heath at 65% of the ward population and 33.8% in
65
Nechells (compared with a borough average of 19%). The area is also characterised
by a younger age profile compared to that of Birmingham city.
3.4.5 Given these indicators, it is considered possible that the residential and commercial
demolitions could disproportionately affect the Asian population as well as those with low
socio-economic status. Preparation of a full EqIA could help to determine the scale of
impact on the surrounding population and is therefore recommended. A similar approach
to Euston would be undertaken here, involving close working between HS2 Ltd and
Birmingham City council, as well as with local residents and businesses, to help to minimise
disruption to this community.
3.5 Step 5 – Document Findings

3.5.1 The key recommendations of this EqIA screening exercise are set out in Section 4 of the
report. Its findings have also have informed the ongoing AoS process, and the key
outcomes have been documented in the Main Report (Volume 1).
4 Recommendations and Next Steps
4.1.1 A key recommendation of this screening report is that a more detailed analysis should be
carried out across the whole scheme to identify potential for impacts on priority equality
groups. To date, however, it has been possible to establish areas within which impacts on
priority equality groups are potentially more likely. This should help to focus the scope for
any further assessment to ensure that resources are allocated appropriately and the
approach defined correctly.
4.1.2 Work to develop the full EqIA would take into account impacts across the route as a whole,
but particular attention would need to be focused on the two geographical locations that the
screening process has identified namely:
 Euston; and
 Washwood Heath and surrounds.
4.1.3 Further consideration of impacts at Old Oak Common should also be a focus for attention.
The scope of the full EqIA would consider amongst other things the ongoing equality
programme as identified in section 2.8.2.
66
ANNEX A: Key Definitions
Equality
Equality relates to the fair and/or equal treatment of people who can be defined to one or more
common group characteristic based on for example their age, gender, ethnicity, disability, sexual
orientation, religion or belief in relation to other people who share one or more common group
characteristics.
Equality (of opportunity) is often related to and supported by a legal framework, which makes it
illegal to discriminate against people because they belong to one or more defined or self-defined
identity groups.
Diversity
Diversity refers to the individual differences that people have and how these are understood and
valued. Understanding and valuing the difference that exists in all of us as individuals and the
groups we belong to is important.
Human Rights
Human rights and equality are inextricably linked. Equality is treated as a fundamental human right
in the core international human rights treaties; and conceptually, human rights and equality derive
from the same fundamental principle – fairness and respect for the inherent dignity of all. The
Human Rights Act was adopted in 1998.
Age
It is unlawful to discriminate against someone or treat them unfairly without justification because of
their age, or harass or victimise someone because of their age.
Age discrimination law currently applies only in employment and vocational training where
somebody is treated less favourably on the basis of age, without justification.
Gender
It is unlawful to discriminate against someone or treat them unfairly because they are a woman, a
man or transsexual. Women, men, transsexual, transgender and transvestite people can all
experience sex discrimination.
Sex discrimination also includes treating someone less favourably because they are married or in a
civil partnership: for example, by not hiring married women.
Race
It is unlawful for a person to discriminate on racial grounds against another person. The law
defines racial grounds as including race, colour, nationality or ethnic or national origins. Some
religious groups such as Sikhs and Jewish people are protected under race laws.
Disability
The Disability Discrimination Act says a disabled person is someone with a physical or mental
impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal
day-to-day activities. It also highlights certain specifically included conditions that may fall outside
this definition. Examples include cancer, diabetes, multiple sclerosis and heart conditions; hearing
or sight impairments, or a significant mobility difficulty; and mental well-being conditions or learning
difficulties.
Sexual Orientation
Sexual orientation refers to the general attraction a person feels towards one sex or another (or
both).
67
It is unlawful to discriminate against someone or treat them less favourably due to their sexual
orientation, their perceived sexual orientation, or the sexual orientation of those they associate
with.
Faith
In order to be protected under the Equality Act 2006, a religion or belief must be recognised as
being cogent, serious, cohesive and compatible with human dignity. The concept includes religions
that are widely recognised in Britain (although it isn‟t limited only to these), such as:
 Baha‟i faith;
 Buddhism;
 Christianity;
 Hinduism;
 Islam;
 Jainism;
 Judaism;
 Rastafarianism;
 Sikhism; and
 Zoroastrianism.
Denominations or sects within a religion would also be considered as religions, or religious beliefs,
such as Catholicism and Protestantism, which are divisions of Christianity.
For the purposes of the Equality Act 2006, belief is defined as including philosophical beliefs, such
as humanism, which are considered to be similar to a religion. Other categories of beliefs, such as
support for a political party, are not protected by the Equality Act.
Trans People
The term Trans people refers to people who are defined as transgender, transsexual or
transvestite. The Sex Discrimination Act (Sex Discrimination Act) was amended in May 1999 to
protect transsexual people against discrimination in employment and vocational training.
68
ANNEX B: References
EqIA Policy Framework and Guidance

AW (2009): Advantage West Equality and Diversity Policy
AW (2008): Advantage West Equality Impact Assessment Guidance (Draft)
BCC (2009) Birmingham City Council Equality Impact Needs Assessment Form
BCC (2009) Birmingham City Council Corporate Equality Impact Needs Assessment Manual
BCC (2009): Birmingham Big City Plan

BCC (2007) Washwood Heath Ward Profile
BCC (2003) Birmingham 2001 Census – Topic report Cultural Background: Ethnic and Religious
Groups, Country of Birth
BCC (2003) Profile for Birmingham – Census 2001
CLG (2008): Indices of Deprivation 2007. CLG, London
CLG (2005): Diversity and Equality in Planning – A Good Practice Guide (reproduced from
ODPM: 2004)
COMEAP (2007): Long-Term Exposure to Air Pollution: Effect on Mortality. A report by the Committee
on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants (COMEAP). Draft Report for Comment.
Department of Health, London
CRE (2007): The Race Equality Duty, Race equality impact assessment: a step-by-step guide,
Commission for Racial Equality
Defra (2006): Air Quality and Social Deprivation in the UK: An Environmental Inequalities Analysis.
DfT (2009) TAG Unit 3.17: Social and Distributional Impacts of Transport Interventions –
Consultation Draft.
DfT (2006): Evidence base review on mobility: Choices and barriers for different social groups.
London.
DfT (1999): Older people: Their transport needs and requirement. London.
GLA (2002) Without Prejudice? Exploring ethnic differences in London
GLA (2002): Equalities Framework. GLA, London
GLA (2005): Accessible London: achieving an inclusive environment - Supplementary Planning
Guidance to the London Plan
GLA (2007): Planning for Equality and Diversity in London – Supplementary Planning Guidance to
the London Plan
GLA (2008): London Plan, Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London, Consolidated with
Alterations since 2004
LB Camden (2009) Euston: A Framework for Change – Supplementary Planning Document – Approved.
LB Camden (2008) Euston: A Framework for Change – Supplementary Planning Document,
Consultation Draft
LB Camden (2007) Camden Profile Plus: Census and Non Census Data for Regents Park Ward
LB Camden (2006) Camden Planning Guidance
LB Ealing (2007) Northolt Mandeville Ward Profile
LB Ealing (2007) Northolt West End Ward Profile
North Warwickshire North Warwickshire Local Plan
BC (1996)
ODPM (2004): Diversity and equality in Planning – A Good Practice Guide
ONS (2001): UK Statistics Authority Neighbourhood Statistics, 2001 Census data
ONS (2005): Annual population survey Jan - Dec 2005.
TfL (2004): Equality Impact Assessments – How to do them
69
EqIA Case reports

DfT (2005): Crossrail Equality Impact Assessment – Project and Policy Assessment Report
DfT (2008): Adding Capacity at Heathrow Equalities Impact Assessment Report
Other Literature:
Area Based Analysis Unit (2009) Understanding Patterns of Deprivation, Regional Trends, No 41,
pp93-114.
Barregard, L., Bonde, E., and Öhrström, E (2009) Risk of hypertension from exposure to road
traffic noise in a population-based sample, Occupational and Environmental Medicine
2009;66:410-415.
Bluhm G, Nordling E (2005). Health effects of noise from railway traffic – the HEAT study. Paper
1753 presented at Inter Noise 2005, Rio de Janeiro 6–10 August 2005.
Evans, GW., and Maxwell, L (1997) Chronic noise exposure and reading deficits: The mediating
effects of language acquisition. Environ Behav 1997; 29: 638–56
King, K., and Stedman, J. (2000) Analysis of Air Pollution and Social Deprivation. A report
produced for Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, The Scottish Executive,
The National Assembly for Wales and Department of Environment for Northern Ireland.
Haines, M.M., Stansfeld, S.A., Job, RFS., Berglund, B., and Head J (2001). Chronic aircraft noise
exposure, stress responses, mental health and cognitive performance in school children. Psychol
Med 2001; 31: 265–77
Stansfield, S.E., and Matheson, M.P (2003) Noise pollution: Non-auditory Effects on Health, British
Medical Bulletin 68:243-257
70
Annex C: Index of Multiple Deprivation Maps

Maps showing the 10% and 20% Most Deprived Areas in relation to the proposed route and
Alternatives.
 Map 1 - London
 Map 2 - Birmingham
71
London Deprivation Map
72
Birmingham Deprivation Map
73
APPENDIX 4.3
WebTAG Compliance and ASTs
74
1 WebTAG Compliance
1.1 Introduction
1.1.1 The remit of this engagement requires that, where possible, the AoS uses methodologies
that are consistent with DfT appraisal guidance material, as defined by WebTAG. As such,
the relevant NATA Objectives and Sub-objectives have been mapped onto the AoS
Framework, and the methodologies for each assessment have been used in the design of
the relevant evaluation criteria. This approach enabled us to rely on the metrics and
appraisal methodologies developed and tested by DfT, but for the results to be presented in
a way that is compatible with the wider AoS.
1.1.2 In many instances, WebTAG presents separate methodologies for the appraisal of
transport strategies and transport plans, with the latter representing the stage of scheme
development that requires a greater level of detail for scheme design definition, impact
modelling and evaluation. Given the current stage in the development process for HS2,
WebTAG has been applied at the “strategic” level. In some cases, the evaluation criteria
and subsequent appraisals have been adapted to match the level of data availability.
1.1.3 This appendix presents how each of the NATA objectives as defined by WebTAG (Table 1)
has been addressed within the AoS framework. The remainder of the appendix presents
the results of the AoS for the proposed route and the classic line alternative in the form of
the Appraisal Summary Table (AST), as per the DfT approach.
1.2 Summary of Findings

1.2.1 Table 2 summarises the findings of the AoS Framework Appraisal of the HS2 proposed
route, expressed in terms of the WebTAG criteria.
75
Table 1 Summary of WebTAG Objectives

Objective Sub-objective AoS Framework criteria Comments
Environment Noise 9a, 9b AoS framework criteria measures:
Population numbers likely to be annoyed by operational noise.
Local Air Quality 8a AoS framework criteria measures:
Changes in total vehicle emissions from modal shift at a local level (dependant on information availability)
Greenhouse Gases 2a, 2b AoS framework criteria measures:
Embedded carbon emissions (by proxy) from construction of the scheme
Ongoing carbon emission from operation of the scheme
Landscape 3a AoS framework criteria measures:
Impacts to landscape resources of national and regional importance
Impacts on strategically important views
Townscape 3b AoS framework criteria measures:
Impact on the cohesiveness of townscapes
Heritage of Historic 4a, 4b, 4c AoS framework criteria measures:
Resources Impacts on heritage resources of national and regional importance
Impacts on historic landscapes
Biodiversity 5a, AoS framework criteria measures:
Impacts on ecological sites of international, national and regional importance
Potential for new habitat creation and re-creation
Water Environment 6a, 6b AoS framework criteria measures:
Impacts on river catchments
Impacts on surface waterbodies
Impacts on groundwater source protection zones
Physical Fitness 12b AoS framework criteria measures:
Potential to encourage more healthy lifestyles
Impacts on key determinants of health
Impacts on people during construction
Journey Ambience 12a AoS framework criteria measures:
Impacts on key determinants of mental well being
Safety Accidents 13a AoS framework criteria measures:
Contribution to the reduction of traffic accidents
Security 13b AoS framework criteria measures:
76
Objective Sub-objective AoS Framework criteria Comments

Features that might increase crime, or the fear of crime
Economy Public Accounts N/A TBC
Transport Economic 14a AoS framework criteria measures:
Efficiency: Business Net business impact for transport users
Users & Transport
Providers
Transport Economic 15a AoS framework criteria measures:
Efficiency: Net benefits for consumers and commuters
Consumers
Reliability 14a, 15a AoS framework criteria measures:
Net business impact for transport users
Net benefits for consumers and commuters
Wider Economic 14b, 15c AoS framework criteria measures:
Impacts Market conditions/ market changes
Labour market impact
Accessibility Option values 11b AoS framework criteria measures:
Potential to improve option values
Severance 10a, 11a AoS framework criteria measures:
Properties at risk of isolation and/or severance
Severance to footpaths, cycleways and other Rights of way
Access to the 11b AoS framework criteria measures:
Transport System Potential to improve access to public transport
Integration Transport 11c AoS framework criteria measures:
Interchange Potential to improve public transport interchanges
Ability to accommodate mobility impaired access within the scheme
Land-Use Policy 15b, 15c AoS framework criteria measures:
Impacts on planned growth areas
Impacts on major planned housing and commercial developments
Impacts on defined regeneration areas
Other Government N/A N/A
Policies
77
2 Appraisal Summary Tables

Table 2 Summary of the Proposed Route Appraisal
Option Proposed Route
Description A proposed high speed railway between London and the West Midlands. The proposed route would run from an expanded London Euston station to
a connection with the WCML near Lichfield with a spur into a new terminus station in central Birmingham.
Problems Significant number of people potentially annoyed by daytime noise from scheme operation in year 15.
Direct and indirect impacts on landscape areas of national importance, including the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
Adverse physical impacts on two Scheduled Monuments, 14Grade II listed buildings and 3 Grade II* Registered parks and gardens within the
physical impact corridor.
Indirect impact on a number of areas of regional importance, including multiple areas designated as country parks
A number of river crossings are required, with a small number possibly requiring major river diversions and a few possibly requiring minor river
diversions.
Present Value of Net Costs £10,400 million.
to Government
Objective Sub- Qualitative assessment Quantitative assessment Assessment

objective Result34
Environment Noise ~ 10 dwellings experience high noise levels ≥73 dB LAeq,18hr. Additional persons potentially annoyed by noise in year 15:
~ 150 dwellings may qualify for noise insulation. Scheme with additional mitigation = ~850
~ 4700 noticeable noise impacts. Scheme without addition mitigation= ~4300
~ 800 non residential receptors (community; education; NPV= ~ £41M
healthcare; and recreational/social facilities) within 300m of the
proposed route have the potential at risk of vibration and
reradiated noise.
Local Air Some stations are currently located in areas subject to elevated
Quality air pollutant concentrations (having been declared AQMAs).
There is the potential, that in future, these areas would not
experience air quality pollutant concentrations at levels causing Concentrations
concern. However access/egress trips to stations served by the weighted for
proposed route would increase. The air quality effects, arising exposure: N/A
from the additionally generated traffic movements, may lead to
air quality impacts at certain locations. These effects may be
mitigated at certain stations (e.g. in detailed design work for the
34
As per Volume 2 – AoS Framework
78

objective Result34
stations and redesigned of access/egress arrangements due the
proposed route). Two stations are likely to see a reduction in
accessing/egressing road traffic and thus would experience
beneficial effects due to the proposed route.
Greenhouse Total embedded carbon emissions for the proposed route are
Gases reported 992,200 tonnes CO2, of which an estimated 229,100
tonnes CO2 (approximately 20%) arises from the construction of
tunnel sections. Score:
Operational Carbon (60 year lifetime): -13.7 to +15.7 MtCO2e. Unknown
The range of uncertainty associated with these estimates is
significant and may result in the net carbon emissions over the
60 year lifetime being positive or negative.
Landscape The route has direct and indirect impacts on landscape areas of 4.4km of track would lie within 3km zone of visual influence
national importance, including travelling directly through the defined as the theoretical area from which HS2 would be visible
Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. and 14km with direct physical impact traversing the area.
The route has an indirect impact on a number of areas of ~9km of route runs at surface, outside of existing transport Score: - -
regional importance, including the following country parks: corridor defined as a 150m buffer from the centreline of the route
Denham, Bayhurst Wood, Sheldon, Kingfisher and Kingsbury alignment.
Water Park.
Townscape Views associated with Conservation Areas may be affected by
the route at Euston Station and around the villages of Lower
Hartwell, Stoneleigh
The route has a direct visual impact on modern and historic
buildings and important public open spaces near Euston Station. Score: -
The route has a direct townscape impact on London Boroughs.
In the West Midlands it impacts upon the residential edge of
Kenilworth, Coleshill and employment areas within Birmingham.
At Birmingham Curzon Street Station, it affects established
industrial areas, some of local historical importance.
Heritage of Two Scheduled Monuments, Buckinghamshire Grim's Ditch, and
Historic a Roman Villa site near Edgcote would be physically impacted by
Resources the route.
14 Grade II listed buildings may be physically impacted by the
route. This includes six (6) in the Euston station and throat area, Score: -
and three (3) in the Birmingham Curzon Street station and throat
area. There would be direct impacts to the Hartwell Conservation
Area and Warwick Bar Conservation Area. There may also be
direct adverse physical impacts on the Bloomsbury Conservation
79

objective Result34
Area. . Two undesignated historic landscapes of potentially
regional importance would be physically impacted upon.
5 (Five) scheduled monuments within 350m of route. Three (3)
Grade II* Registered parks and gardens within the physical
impact corridor. Two Grade I Registered parks within the 350m
buffer area.
Biodiversity Impacts on BAP habitats are less severe than other route options A single SSSI (Long Itchington and Ufton Woods) would
in much of the route. Overall it is considered that effects on BAP experience partial land-take by the scheme. Moderate habitat
habitats are likely to be minor adverse. loss would occur at one other site (Colne Valley SSSI) and minor
Much of the route passes through low lying open country side loss at two others (Sheephouse Wood south of Steeple Claydon
and the River Blythe). Significant bird disturbance is likely to Score: -
where there would be the opportunity to reinstate hedges and
ponds and improve watercourses in the vicinity of the route. occur at one site.
Effects at the local level may be minor beneficial if sufficient to
offset fragmentation.
Water Diversion of any main river would have significant effects on river The total catchment upstream of this route amounts to 5,580km2,
Environment morphology and riparian habitat, and hence the quality of the with 24 Major River crossings and 88 Minor River crossings.
river as specified in the WFD. There are 102 river crossings in this route with a median
It is impractical to mitigate the effects on river catchment catchment size of 5.7km2. There are also 12 crossings of
hydrology completely and it is inevitable that overland flow would navigable canals and 11 instances where the line passes directly
be collected adjacent to the track by filter drain and piped to over a lakes or reservoir. 5 of the river crossings may require
convenient crossing points such as culverts and bridges. major river diversions (catchments greater than 50km2) and 8
A significant proportion of the UK drinking water is obtained which may require a minor river diversion (river catchment less Score: - -
through the abstraction of groundwater and this process is than 50km2).
licensed by the Environment Agency. Each abstraction licence is The route requires cut or tunnel through 4,900m of SPZ1, and
associated with a corresponding Source Protection Zone to 14,700m of cut or tunnel through SPZ2.
prevent pollution of the groundswater subject to abstraction.
Cutting or tunnelling through source protection zones is likely to
have significant detrimental effects on the quality of the water
and on the flow within the aquifer.
Physical Birmingham Curzon Street would tie in with existing public
Fitness transport options and the stations at London (Euston and Old
Oak Common) are existing stations which would be modified so
do not create new travel options. The scope to further
encourage a healthier lifestyle is limited. Score: o
Health benefits through the use of active travel options may be
realised.
The main implications in terms of physical health are likely to be
in terms of potentially increasing/ exacerbating cardiovascular
80

objective Result34
and respiratory disease and causing sleep disturbance.
Overall, it is likely that there would be no or negligible effects on
rates of cardiovascular and respiratory disease due to the
scheme and hence this is not likely to be detectable through
routine statistics.
Operational hours are predominantly during daytime hours with
minimal operations during night-time periods and therefore the
effects of sleep disturbance would be low.
Future air quality assessment findings are likely to show that
there would be negligible direct effects on air quality during
operation, given the scheme would run on electricity.
During construction, best practicable means are recommended
with dust levels being carefully controlled. Therefore during both
the construction and operation phases the potential adverse
physical health impacts are likely to be minor e.g.
increases/exacerbations of cardiovascular and respiratory
disease.
Journey Significant betterment due to new services, new trains and new
Ambience stations/ improvements. No intermittent stops coupled with a
Score: ++
high frequency of service provide limited potential for delays. The
vast majority of route is above ground allowing open views.
Safety Accidents The proposed route may potentially reduce a small number of
road traffic accidents from some existing motorways (depending
on the level of modal shift) but is unlikely to have any measurable Score:
effect on road traffic incident rates in the two cities as the Unknown
percentage modal shift compared to the number of motor
vehicles in the city would be extremely small.
Security The impacts associated with these criteria are not known at this
early stage in the design. The stations, footbridges and other
pedestrian access areas would be assumed to be designed in
accordance with the 'Secured by Design' guideline. Score:
It is assumed that safe waiting rooms would be incorporated into Unknown
the design specification accreditation sought under the
Government, British Transport Police and Crime Concern Secure
Stations Scheme.
Economy Public Central Govt PVC, Local Govt PVC PVC £m (refer
Accounts to HS2
business case)
81

objective Result34
Transport Total business user benefits are expected to be large, equivalent Users PVB, Transport Providers PVB, Other PVB
Economic to a double positive assessment. This reflects the large journey PVB £m (refer
Efficiency: time savings that HS2 affords and the high levels of underlying to HS2
Business demand for business journeys on the WCML. business case)
Users &
Transport Score: ++
Providers
Transport Total consumer benefits are expected to be large. This Users PVB PVB £m (refer
Economic represents a very large benefit, reflecting the large journey time to HS2
Efficiency: savings that HS2 affords and the high levels of underlying leisure business case)
Consumers demand on services between the major centres of London,
Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool and Glasgow. Score: ++
Reliability Reliability benefits are expected for intercity services due to Score: (refer to
improved high speed signalling, as well as through crowding HS2 business
reductions on the WCML. case)
Score: +
Wider The potential for HS2 services to generate wider economic
Economic benefits due to agglomeration is limited. It can be expected that
Impacts further refinements of the released capacity strategy would
deliver agglomeration benefits by enhancing labour catchments
for firms in both London and Birmingham. Output gains in
imperfectly competitive markets are modelled as a proportion of
business user benefits and these are expected to be significant
Score: +
(adding 7% to total benefits). Labour market impacts are
expected to be smaller but positive, however, land use changes
over time may magnify benefits along the WCML. Labour market
impacts may be enhanced by any agglomeration impacts, The
attraction of globally mobile activity due to enhanced
international connections reinforces the likelihood that HS2
would generate wider economic benefits.
Accessibility Option The gains from the option across a large proportion of the
values population would be offset to some degree by the incremental
Score: +
nature of HS2 as an option for accessing major cities along the
WCML, where very good road and rail links are already in place.
Severance Access would be maintained for all isolated dwellings, however 164 dwellings identified as being at risk of isolation
Score: -
they would be bounded by transport infrastructure.
Access to The fact that London, Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester and Score: o
the Glasgow are places with higher than average proportions of
82

objective Result34
Transport households without cars, and are connected to HS2 high speed
System services, demonstrates a positive for the Accessibility appraisal.
These areas represent a significant proportion of the UK
population. For released capacity services in the West Midlands
to the south of Birmingham, affected places such as
Warwickshire, Solihull and Coventry all have relatively high levels
of car ownership. In places to the immediate north of London, all
places exhibit very high levels of car ownership. Therefore, any
improvements in released capacity services in these areas are
not likely to benefit many households with low levels of car
ownership. Of the other major towns along the WCML that would
be affected by released capacity changes, both Crewe and
Stoke-on-Trent exhibit lower than average levels of car
ownership, although the impacts of changes in service levels for
these areas are not yet fully understood. While it is difficult to
make a comprehensive assessment at this stage of scheme
design, on balance, the evidence suggests a neutral score for
this assessment.
In considering the gains in accessibility for people without cars, it
is important to consider issues relating to personal affordability.
While many areas would gain from high speed rail connections,
many people in these areas would not be able to afford these
services.
Integration Transport HS2 presents an opportunity to enhance public transport
Interchange interchange through the provision of modern station facilities and
excellent service operations. This could be offset due to potential Score: +
issues relating to linkages with other services, particularly at the
Birmingham terminal.
Land-Use Current land use planning policy, from government advice and European Spatial Development Perspective – HS2 compliant
Policy guidance to the new system of spatial planning, is based upon National policy – HS2 has been developed and refined having
the principle of sustainable development. In principle therefore, regard to all national Planning Policy Statements, in particular the
high speed rail and its potential to promote more sustainable Sustainable Development elements of PPS 1 (and its
communities through both modal shift to cleaner public transport Supplement) and PPS 4. The concept and proposed route
and the consequent environmental benefits aligns with current accords with the transport emphasis of modal shift towards and Score: o
policy. In terms of HS2‟s impact, the route has been developed to enhancement of public transport in relevant Regional Spatial
avoid as far as possible existing communities and proposed Strategies (RSS) and Local Development Frameworks along the
areas for expansion, so that its impact on land use and proposed line of route and has been refined to avoid major
development is neutral in most cases. development and growth areas as far as possible.
RSS for London, SE, W Midlands, E Midlands, East of England –
83

objective Result34
HS2 compliant: proposed route avoids strategic developments
and reflects land use and transport policies
Other The general policy review includes policy on Climate Change, Quantifiable measures are not readily available to measure
Government Emissions Policy, Energy, Biodiversity, Flood Risk, Health, compliance with each of the policy instruments but HS2 as a
Policies Equality, Sustainable Consumption, Sustainable Economic concept complies with overall sustainability and related policy.
Development, Sustainable Transport which are the responsibility
of a number of different government departments.
All of the above policy areas have been reviewed as part of this
Appraisal of Sustainability and incorporated into the overall
objectives for HS2. Evaluation of route options and alignment
plus any associated mitigation measures are designed to comply
with this overall strategic policy context as far as practicable.
A selection of the most relevant statutes and their associated
subsidiary documents are listed below.
EU Renewed Sustainable Development Strategy 2006.
Kyoto Protocol and the Cancun Agreement.EU Climate Change
and Energy Package 2008.
UK Sustainable Development Strategy and „One Future Different Score: o
Paths‟.
EU Biodiversity Strategy and action plans plus directives on
conservation of habitats, birds etc.
Conserving Biodiversity – the UK Approach 2007.
EU Air Quality and Noise Directives
UK Air Quality Strategy 2007
Health Inequalities Progress & Next Steps' D.o.H 2008 plus
associated PSA Delivery agreements
Sustainable Consumption & Production EU Action Plan 2008
Sustainable Communities Building for Future 2003 (ODPM) and
associated directives/PPGs on waste, Green Belts, etc
EU Rural Development Policy 2007-13
Planning for Economic Development ODPM 2004
UK Rural Strategy Defra 2004
84

HS2 Associated Assessment Reports

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HS2 Associated Assessment Reports

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

HS2 Associated Assessment Reports

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HS2 London to the West Midlands

Appendix 4 – Associated Assessment Reports

HS2 London to the West Midlands

Appendix 4 – Associated Assessment Reports

A Report for HS2 Ltd

Principal author Nick Giesler

Structure of the AoS report and appendices

1.2 Natura 2000 Sites and HRA

2.2 In-combination Effects

2.3 Identifying Potential Impacts

2.4 Determining the Potential for Distant Effects

Phase of impact Possible extent of impact

3.2 Key Features

SAC/SPA Desig- Annex I habitat Annex I habitat Annex II Annex II

South West SPA/ NA NA Internationally NA

4.2 Aston Rowant

Likelihood of HS2 Effects

Potential In-combination Effects

4.3 Burnham Beeches SAC

Likelihood of HS2 Effects

Potential In-combination Effects

4.4 Cannock Chase

Likelihood of HS2 Effects

Potential In-combination Effects

4.5 Cannock Extension Canal SAC

Likelihood of HS2 Effects

Potential In-combination Effects

4.6 Chilterns Beechwoods SAC

Likelihood of HS2 Effects

Potential In-combination Effects

4.7 Richmond Park SAC

Likelihood of HS2 Effects

Potential In-combination Effects

4.8 River Mease SAC

Likelihood of HS2 Effects

4.9 Wimbledon Common SAC

Likelihood of HS2 Effects

Potential In-combination Effects

4.10 Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC

 Killing and injury: Not applicable due to lack of onsite impacts

Likelihood of HS2 Effects

Potential In-combination Effects

4.11 Lee Valley SPA and Ramsar site

Likelihood of HS2 Effects

Potential In-combination Effects

4.12 South West London Waterbodies SPA and Ramsar site

while Korda Lake is noted as providing supplementary habitat to Broadwater Lake19. It

Likelihood of HS2 Effects

Potential In-combination Effects

 Appropriate Assessment of the draft South East Plan October 2006;

Cannock Chase SAC

Cannock Extension Canal SAC

Pasturefields Saltmarsh SAC

River Mease SAC

South-West London Water-Bodies SPA/Ramsar

Burnham Beeches SAC

Chilterns Beechwoods SAC

River Mease SAC

5.5 Draft Replacement London Plan Habitats Regulations Assessments – Screening