December 2014
London Borough of Hillingdon HS2 Impacts Study
A Final Report by Regeneris Consulting and Eftec
Contents
Executive Summary i
1. Introduction 1
2. Study Context 3
3. HS2 in Hillingdon 13
4. Assessment Framework 17
5. HS2 in Hillingdon: Assessment of Impacts 20
6. Compensation and Mitigation 38
7. Conclusions 46
Appendix A Study Methodology - 48 -
Hillingdon HS2 Impact Study – December 2014 i
Executive Summary
Regeneris Consulting and Eftec were instructed by LB Hillingdon in 2014
to examine the socio-economic and environmental impacts of HS2
proposals in the Borough.
Study Context
In 2011 the Government announced the proposed High Speed Two line (HS2) route; this was subsequently appraised in the HS2 Environmental Statement (2013).
The proposed route of HS2 from London Euston to Birmingham will intersect the London Borough of Hillingdon on an east-west axis:
The HS2 route will consist of a tunnel in the east of the Borough
(with a vent and access shaft at South Ruislip);
The route will emerge from the tunnel through a portal at West
Ruislip before travelling over the surface westwards through the
Borough;
The route would exit the Borough in the west via a new viaduct
across the Colne Valley.
LB Hillingdon has significant concerns about the adverse impacts of HS2 in the Borough and in early 2014 submitted a formal response to the HS2 Environmental Statement, outlining these concerns in full. Based on the contents of its response to the HS2 Environmental Statement, LB Hillingdon submitted a petition to Parliament in spring 2014, to seek improvements to the scheme that better reflect the social, economic and environmental effects.
Study Objectives
HS2 Ltd has not undertaken detailed assessment of the social, economic and environmental impacts of the scheme on Hillingdon. The initial HS2 Ltd conclusions were not supported by a robust evidence base nor have they been accepted by residents, communities or the Council.
In this context, LB Hillingdon wanted to develop an independent evidence base to better understand the impacts of HS2 in the Borough and in particular, where possible, quantify specific impacts in economic terms.
The brief for the study has been to focus on the adverse impacts of HS2, and also to focus on the impacts to the London Borough of Hillingdon itself (rather than considering impacts across the wider sub-region).
Study Approach
Overview of Approach
Our technical impact assessment draws on a detailed review of HS2 related literature and of relevant local and regional evidence bases. It applies standard impact assessment methodologies to quantify local impacts. Where relevant, our impact assessment follows guidance set out within the HM Treasury Green Book. Full details of the methodology we have used to undertake the technical elements of our assessment are included within Appendix A.
It is important to note that our assessment has been undertaken in the context of imperfect information on precisely how HS2 will be delivered in Hillingdon (and elsewhere). Where information is not available, we have made assumptions based on evidence from elsewhere; all such assumptions are set out clearly within the narrative and supporting technical appendix.
Hillingdon HS2 Impact Study – December 2014 ii
Assessment Framework
Our assessment framework identifies all likely impacts of HS2 in Hillingdon, and sets out the broad parameters for capturing and quantifying these. Our impact assessment framework has been developed based on consultations with local officers and stakeholders; detailed review of HS2 documentation; case study evidence of impacts from other relevant major infrastructure projects; and best practise guidance in assessing economic impact (most notably the HM Treasury Green Book).
Our assessment framework distinguishes between a number of different geographies in looking to assess impact:
Direct Impact Area – the direct impact area is the area of land
safeguarded by HS2 Ltd for construction and operation activities;
Wider Impact Areas – the wider impact area refers to the area
adjacent to the direct impact area which will be indirectly
affected by HS2 activities. The wider impact area varies from one
type of impact to the next, depending on the location and
sensitivity of the receptors.
Given the variety of impacts being considered, it is not possible to aggregate all the identified impacts under a single number or quantification. With this in mind, our analysis focuses upon the following impact categories:
Economic Impacts – this category includes impacts to the LB
Hillingdon economy, such as changes in local employment levels
and changes in the overall size of the LB Hillingdon economy, in
terms of local Gross Value Added1(GVA);
Financial Impacts – this category covers those financial impacts
1 GVA is the official measure of the contribution to the economy of each individual producer, industry or sector in the United Kingdom. GVA is used throughout the report
likely to be borne by the LB Hillingdon (i.e. the local authority
itself);
Societal and environmental Impacts – this category covers non-
monetary impacts on local communities and users of the areas
impacted (e.g. health and wellbeing impacts; ecology impacts).
For purposes of narrative, the assessment framework identifies four main themes under which specific impacts are grouped. Under each of these, the framework identifies specific impacts. A number of impacts are identified for which it has not been possible to quantify within the scope of this work due to either a lack of baseline information on which to underpin our assessment or a lack of an approved methodology which can be applied within the scope of this work.
The final impact assessment frameworks for the direct impact area and wider impact area are summarised in the diagrams below.
as a measure of the level of impact on the LB Hillingdon economy resulting from the HS2 proposals
Hillingdon HS2 Impact Study – December 2014 iii
Framework for Assessing Impacts of HS2 in Hillingdon
Hillingdon HS2 Impact Study – December 2014 iv
Summary of Impacts
Our quantification of impacts is summarised below. Again it is important
to note that in many instances it is not possible to aggregate impacts
given the different types of impacts assessed and the variety of valuation
methodologies deployed.
Economic Impacts
Our analysis has identified a number of direct economic impacts of HS2
in Hillingdon. These include:
The closure of Hillingdon Outdoor Activity Centre (HOAC) –
HOAC will need to close as a result of HS2 and there is no
potential for relocation to another part of the Borough. While
there is some potential that HOAC could be relocated to a
neighbouring location outside the Borough (at Denham Quarry),
this would still represent an overall cost to the LB Hillingdon
economy;
Closure of West London Composting – consultation has
suggested that this business will no longer be able to operate
should HS2 persist with its current landtake proposals;
Temporary or permanent closure of West Ruislip and Uxbridge
Golf Courses – as a minimum, both golf courses will need to close
temporarily to allow for course remodelling works as a result of
HS2 (1 year for Uxbridge, 2 years for West Ruislip). In the longer
term, there is a risk that the golf courses close permanently as a
result of reductions in user numbers in the context of the loss of
2 There is no standard guidance in the HM Treasury Green Book on the period over which
such permanent impact should be costed. In this case, 60 years has been adopted for illustrative purposes to reflect the lengthy construction period and to ensure persisting impacts thereafter are captured. However, it should be noted that there is
their 18 hole status;
Agricultural land – around 200 hectares of agricultural land
across 12 holdings will be lost, with around 75% of this (around
150 hectares) lost permanently.
We have quantified these impacts in terms of jobs and GVA and have
taken into account the various scenarios identified above. This suggests
that:
The worst case scenario (closure of West London Composting,
closure or relocation of HOAC, temporary and permanent loss of
agricultural land as described above, permanent closure of golf
courses) would directly result in around 40 FTE jobs permanently
lost, with a GVA impact of around £35m costed over 60 years2;
The lower impact scenario (closure of West London Composting,
closure or relocation of HOAC, temporary and permanent loss of
agricultural land as described above, temporary closure of golf
courses) would directly result in around 40 FTE jobs lost in the
short term (i.e. while the golf courses are reconfigured) and
around 30 FTE jobs in the longer run once the golf courses are
re-opened. GVA impacts would be around £28m costed over 60
years.
considerable uncertainty costing impacts over such a lengthy period, reflecting a complex range of future economic unknowns and variables. Full detail is provided in Appendix A.
Hillingdon HS2 Impact Study – December 2014 v
Summary of Core Economic Impacts
Job Losses During
Construction
(varying period)
Longer
Term Job
Losses
GVA over
Lifetime (60
years)
Scenario 1: Closure of West London Composting,
closure or relocation of HOAC, temporary and
permanent loss of agricultural land, permanent
closure of golf courses
40 FTE 40 FTE £35.0m
Scenario 2: Closure of West London Composting,
closure or relocation of HOAC, temporary and
permanent loss of agricultural land, temporary
closure of golf courses
40 FTE 30 FTE £28.3m
We have also identified a number of wider or indirect economic impacts,
including those relating to reduced town centre footfall, delays to
planned development activity in the local area as a result of HS2, reduced
business investment into the area and reductions in local property prices
as a result of blight. However, it has not been deemed appropriate to
aggregate these impacts due to differences in the types of impacts
measured and uncertainty in the information upon which the valuation
has been based. As such, while adverse impacts have been identified
against these categories, our costings should be viewed as illustrative
only.
Financial Impacts
There are a number of direct financial impacts for LB Hillingdon relating
to the above. These largely relate to projected loss of income from the
councils land holdings across the areas of the Borough impacted by HS2.
Again our analysis considers a number of scenarios (largely relating to
uncertainty regarding future income from West Ruislip and Uxbridge
Golf Courses):
The worst case scenario (closure or relocation of HOAC,
temporary and permanent loss of agricultural land as described
previously, permanent closure of golf courses) would result in a
lifetime cost for the council of £9.3m;
The lower impact scenario (closure or relocation of HOAC,
temporary and permanent loss of agricultural land as described
previously, temporary closure of golf courses) would result in a
lifetime cost for the council of £1.4m, assuming the golf courses
are able to maintain current income levels once reopened. If
future income levels decline as a result of a reduced number of
users (we have assumed a 25% reduction), the lifetime impact
for the council would increase to £3.4m.
Summary of Financial Impacts
Loss of Income over lifetime (60 years)
Scenario 1: Closure or relocation of HOAC, temporary
and permanent loss of agricultural land, permanent
closure of golf courses
£9.3m
Scenario 2a: Closure or relocation of HOAC, temporary
and permanent loss of agricultural land, temporary
closure of golf courses (current income maintained)
£1.4m
Scenario 2b: Closure or relocation of HOAC, temporary
and permanent loss of agricultural land, temporary
closure of golf courses (25% reduction in income)
£3.4m
Societal Impacts
Our assessment has identified a range of societal impacts which have
been quantified in terms of welfare (or non-monetary) impacts. These
include the impacts of reduced recreation opportunities across the local
area, and adverse impacts relating to noise and air quality:
Recreation impacts: impact of around £4.0m for lost angling
opportunities and up to £3.6m for lost watersports
Hillingdon HS2 Impact Study – December 2014 vi
opportunities at HOAC over 60 years. It must be noted this is only
a partial assessment: it has not been possible to quantify wider
recreation impacts such as reduced access to public rights of
way. These welfare costs would not be applicable should an
alternative location for HOAC be found (given the proposed
location at Denham Quarry is in close proximity to the existing
location);
Air Quality impacts: impact of £3.3m - £6.8m over the peak years
of construction activity;
Noise impacts: estimated at between £1.5 and £4.4m over 60
years from 2017.
Based on the above, societal impacts are valued at up to £18.8m in
current prices. However this figure excludes notable impacts (e.g. loss of
wildlife, landscape impacts), and therefore is only a partial valuation of
the total societal impacts. These values have a moderate level of
uncertainty due to imperfect information from HS2.
Summary of Core Societal Impacts
Cost over Lifetime (£m)
Recreational Impacts Up to £7.6m
Air Quality Up to £6.8m
Noise Impacts Up to £4.4m
Aggregated Impacts Up to £18.8m
Impacts Identified but not Quantified
As identified within the Impact Assessment Framework, there are also a
number of additional impacts which have been identified, but which it
has not been possible to quantify due to either a lack of baseline
information or a lack of an approved methodology which can be applied
in the scope of this study. These include landscape impacts, habitat
impacts and wider recreation impacts (such as usage of public rights of
way across the area).
Compensation and Mitigation
As highlighted by the above findings, it is expected that the construction
and operation of HS2 will result in a significant and diverse set of adverse
impacts for LB Hillingdon and its residents.
LB Hillingdon’s primary mitigation option would be for HS2 to pass
underground through the Borough, with a tunnel linking the west
London HS2 tunnel to the Chiltern HS2 tunnel. This option would result
in a significant reduction in surface level works and disruption in the
Borough and as such significantly reduce adverse impacts for local
residents and businesses. This feasibility of this option is currently being
examined in separate LB Hillingdon and HS2 Ltd studies.
If this primary mitigation option is not progressed, significant
compensation and mitigation will be required to reduce the costs to LB
Hillingdon, its residents and its businesses to zero. This requirement is
summarised in the diagram below.
Hillingdon HS2 Impact Study – December 2014 vii
Established Compensation
Land and property compensation will be covered under the established compensation packages being proposed by HS2 Ltd and HM Government: it is assumed that impacted properties and land will be acquired using compulsory purchase powers. This would include agricultural land, land on Uxbridge and West Ruislip Golf Courses, HOAC, the buildings at the Research Farm, outbuildings at Gatemead Farm and Dews Farm. It is known that a number of the affected land / properties owners are already working with HS2 Ltd to settle these claims.
Wider Mitigation Measures
Our research highlights that the compensation that will be payable
through the established compensation provisions will not be sufficient
to mitigate the impacts of HS2 in Hillingdon. The compensation payable
by HS2 must therefore be sufficient to cover the actual costs of
mitigating the impacts and associated costs to Hillingdon and its
residents / communities.
A number of types of mitigation are likely to be required:
Environmental Mitigation
Environmental impacts are one of the most significant areas for
mitigation. Environmental compensation focuses on the reinstatement
of the environmental resources damaged. However, there are limits to
what can be compensated in this manner: some impacts (such as on
landscape) are very hard to measure and are arguably largely
irreplaceable, so design of compensation options may not be feasible;
other impacts (e.g. impacts on recreation through rights of way, angling
and water sports facilities) relate to amenity values to certain groups of
people, and therefore meaningful compensation needs to be in close
enough proximity to those groups to enable them to use the alternative.
A specific method exists for compensating impacts on biodiversity:
biodiversity offsets. Unfortunately the impacts of HS2 on wildlife
habitats in LB Hillingdon is unclear from the environmental statement
and as such it is difficult to estimate with any certainty the level of offsets
required. However, initial research has suggested that the overall costs
to offset the biodiversity impacts on HS2 in LB Hillingdon would be
expected to be at least £10 million. It should be noted that this is an
approximate estimate, and a more accurate calculation would be
dependent on many assumptions (e.g. compensation ratios, proximity to
damage, like for like /or better requirements) that are beyond the remit
of this study.
Hillingdon HS2 Impact Study – December 2014 viii
Wider Mitigation Measures
In addition to the environmental compensation set out above, a range of
wider socio-economic mitigation measures will be required to help
respond to the impacts of HS2 works in Hillingdon and to ensure that
local businesses and residents are able to access potential opportunities
relating to construction activity. These are likely to include:
Measures to address transport impacts – these might include a
thorough HS2 Traffic Management Plan developed in
coordination with local officers and TfL; and junction /
infrastructure enhancements where necessary at local
congestion hotspots / pinchpoints;
Measures to address local community / resident impacts –
these might include local property interventions to mitigate
against HS2 blighting impacts; and working closely with LB
Hillingdon, local partners such as HOAC and impacted businesses
to find mutually satisfactory solutions to identified impacts;
Measures to support local businesses and town centres – these
might include interventions to maintain the appearance of the
physical environment during construction; interventions to
maintain town centre footfall (e.g. temporary wayfinding);
provision of information and advice to impacted businesses; and
engagement with businesses to make them aware of potential
supply chain opportunities;
Measures to help maximise opportunities for local residents –
this might include employment brokerage support (linking local
residents to emerging HS2 employment opportunities);
identifying skills gaps and needs (eg mapping of HS2 skills needs
versus local skills supply to identify areas for training provision);
and training provision (eg a project to help residents to gain the
necessary skills to access employment opportunities; including
creating linkages between local schools and HS2).
Conclusions
The adverse impacts of HS2 in Hillingdon have already been documented
in full by LB Hillingdon in its response to the HS2 Environmental
Statement. This report explores these impacts in socio-economic terms,
providing a quantification of costs where possible.
The findings of the research are summarised in the table overleaf.
However, it should be noted that our findings provide only a partial
valuation. Within the scope of this study it has not been possible to
quantify a number of the impacts identified, most noticeably those
around landscapes and habitats. There is also considerable uncertainty
around a number of the quantifications, reflecting imperfect baseline
information, the lack evidence upon which to base assumptions, and / or
the lack of an appropriate assessment methodology.
A key objective of LB Hillingdon is to ensure that HS2 is delivered at zero
cost to the Borough, its residents and its businesses. Direct land and
property impacts will be covered under the established compensation
packages being proposed by HS2 Ltd and HM Government. However,
many of the wider impacts identified within this report will not be
covered under such compensation and, as such, additional mitigation
measures will need to be put in place. These will need to be designed
and delivered in partnership between HS2 Ltd, LB Hillingdon and other
impacted parties and will need to cover a range of impact areas,
including transport impacts, business impacts, place specific and
environmental impacts and employment impacts.
Hillingdon HS2 Impact Study – December 2014 i
Summary of All Impacts Theme Impact Description of Impacts Economic Impacts Financial Impacts Societal Impacts
Theme 1: Business and Economy Impacts
Impact 1.1: Businesses Displaced or Disrupted
Loss of around 200 hectares (75% permanently) of agricultural land, across 12 holdings; loss of a number of commercial premises
Loss of around 20 FTE jobs.
Cost to the LB Hillingdon economy of around £1.0m GVA per annum (£22.8m over a 60 year period)
Loss of LB Hillingdon rental income of around £18,000 per annum (equating to a loss of around £0.3 million over a 60 year period)
Impact 1.2 Disruption to Town Centres
HS2 traffic, resulting in additional congestion, has the potential to disrupt town centre footfall and performance
Information does not exist to make a robust judgement on this, but we estimate that a moderate (around 5%) reduction in footfall could result in the temporary loss of around 110 jobs, with the loss of GVA of £5.2m per annum (£39.1m over 10 years)
Negative financial implications are likely, due to loss of business rates and other license income
Theme 2: Development / Growth Impacts
Impact 2.1: Development Lost / Delayed
Delivery of local development sites may be delayed by HS2 related disruption (traffic and blight)
Information does not exist to make a robust judgement on this; however, in a worst case scenario (all development delayed until end of HS2 construction), we estimate an impact of around 250 jobs being delayed and a loss of around £90m GVA over 10 years)
Negative financial implications are likely, due to loss of CIL, NHB and council tax income
Impact 2.2: Reduced Business Investment
Reduced investment into existing vacant business premises as a result of weakened perceptions and reduced investor confidence in the area
Not possible to quantify due to lack of baseline information
Not possible to quantify due to lack of baseline information
Theme 3: Local Resident and Community Impacts
Impact 3.1 Community /Recreation Facilities Impacts
Loss of a number of assets including HOAC, the Rifle Club and land at Uxbridge and West Ruislip Golf Courses. Reduced access to local rights of way and other local recreational assets
We estimate that between 10 and 20 jobs could be lost (depending on nature of Golf Course Impacts).
Overall cost to the size of the LB Hillingdon economy of between £5.5m and £12.2m over 60 years
Loss of income for LB Hillingdon between £0.9m and £8.8m depending on nature of the Golf Course Impacts
Lost welfare as a result of lost recreational visits valued at up to £7.6m in 2014 prices, over a 60 year period.
Impact 3.2/3: Residential Properties Impacted
A small number of residential buildings will be lost and others will be subject to HS2 related blight (visual impacts, noise impacts and traffic impacts)
Estimated costs of lost rental value of around £25.5m per annum for local property owners (as a result of HS2 blight impacting on property values)
Reduced expenditure in economy as a result of reduced property income may result in some minor adverse financial implications
Impact 3.4: Disruption to Local Journeys
Residents living in and around the direct impact area will be impacted by increased congestion, resulting in loss of time.
Impacts uncertain, but estimated at
between £12m and £30m over 10 years for illustrative purposes
Theme 4: Environ-mental Impacts
Impact 4.1: Landscape Impacts
HS2 line visible at considerable distance across landscape; use of 145 ha of agricultural land, 18 ha of woodland
Adverse economic impacts covered elsewhere, including under Impact 3.1
Not possible to quantify due to lack
of baseline information
Impact 4.2: Habitat Impacts
Loss of over 50 ha of a variety of non-agricultural habitats, including impacts on woodlands and River Colne SSSI
Adverse economic impacts covered elsewhere, including under Impact 3.1
Not possible to quantify due to lack
of baseline information
Impact 4.3: Air Quality Impacts
Adverse air quality impacts relating to significant increases in HGV traffic along specific routes.
Adverse economic impacts covered elsewhere, including under Impact 3.1
Estimated at £3.3m to £6.8m over
construction period for illustrative purposes
Impact 4.4: Noise Impacts
Significant noise impacts as a result of increases in HGV traffic along specific routes; increase in noise pollution as a result of HS2 operation.
Adverse economic impacts covered elsewhere, including under Impact 3.1
Estimated at £1.5m to £4.4m over
construction period for illustrative purposes
Aggregated Impacts
Aggregated total of up to 40 FTE jobs lost; loss of up to £35m GVA (over 60 years). Note: this is only a partial valuation, excluding town centre impacts; development impacts and residential property price impacts
Aggregated total of up to £9.3 million lost income for LB Hillingdon. Note: this figure is a partial valuation, excluding town centre and development impacts
Valued impacts up to £19m. Note: this is a partial valuation, excluding several impacts (such as lost time, landscape and habitat impacts).
KEY: Impact Quantified Impact Quantified for Illustrative Purposes - but Non-Aggregable Adverse Impact Expected -but Not Quantified
Hillingdon HS2 Impact Study – December 2014 1
1. Introduction
Regeneris Consulting and Eftec were instructed by LB Hillingdon in 2014
to examine the socio-economic and environmental impacts of HS2
proposals in the Borough.
Study Context
HS2 is a proposed future rail project linking London and the Midlands
(Phase 1) and the North of England (Phase 2). Phase 1 is still at planning
stage: the Hybrid Bill was submitted to government in 2013 and is
currently being considered by Select Committee.
As proposed within the HS2 Environmental Statement (2013), the route of HS2 from London Euston to Birmingham will intersect the London Borough of Hillingdon on an east-west axis:
The HS2 route will be in a tunnel in the east of the Borough,
although a vent and access shaft will be required at South
Ruislip;
The route will emerge from tunnel via a portal at West Ruislip
before travelling over the surface westwards through the
Borough;
The route will exit the Borough in the west via a new viaduct
across the Colne Valley.
LB Hillingdon has significant concerns about the adverse impacts of HS2
in the Borough and in early 2014 the council submitted a formal response
to the HS2 Environmental Statement, outlining its concerns (and those
of its partners) in full. However, while comprehensive, this response
provided a largely qualitative assessment of the impacts of HS2, with
many of the impacts not quantified in economic terms.
Based on the contents of its response to the HS2 Environmental
Statement, LB Hillingdon submitted a petition to Parliament in spring
2014, to seek improvements to the scheme that better reflect the social,
economic and environmental effects.
Study Objectives
HS2 Ltd has not undertaken detailed assessment of the social, economic and environmental impacts of the scheme on Hillingdon. The initial HS2 Ltd conclusions were not supported by a robust evidence base nor have they been accepted by residents, communities or the Council.
In this context, LB Hillingdon wanted to develop an independent evidence base to better understand the impacts of HS2 in the Borough and in particular, where possible, quantify specific impacts in economic terms.
It is important to note that our brief has been to focus on the adverse
impacts of HS2, and also to focus on the impacts to the London Borough
of Hillingdon itself (rather than considering impacts across the wider sub-
region).
This report sets out the findings of our research and provides:
a summary of the baseline characteristics of the parts of
Hillingdon affected by HS2;
a full assessment of the socio-economic and environmental
implications of HS2 for Hillingdon and its residents;
an assessment of the compensation and mitigation required to
ensure that HS2 is delivered at zero cost to LB Hillingdon and its
residents.
Hillingdon HS2 Impact Study – December 2014 2
Study Approach
Our research is underpinned by:
A detailed review of the existing socio-economic and
environmental context of the parts of Hillingdon affected by
HS2, drawing upon a range of local, regional and national
evidence and policy documents;
A detailed review of the HS2 Environmental Statement, and in
particular those chapters focusing on Hillingdon and the wider
sub-region;
A detailed review of LB Hillingdon’s response to the HS2
Environmental Statement;
Consultations with relevant local partners and stakeholders
including LB Hillingdon officers, local businesses and local
interest groups / organisations;
Examination of case study evidence concerning the impacts of
infrastructure projects elsewhere, including HS1 and Crossrail.
Our technical impact assessment draws upon this review of the local and
regional evidence base and applies standard impact assessment
methodologies to quantify local impacts. Where relevant, our impact
assessment follows guidance set out within the HM Treasury Green
Book3. Full details of the methodology we have used to undertake the
technical elements of our assessment are included within Appendix A.
It is important to note that our assessment has been undertaken in the
context of imperfect information on precisely how HS2 will be delivered
3 • HM Treasury Green Book (2011), accessed at http://www.hm-
treasury.gov.uk/d/green_book_complete.pdf
in Hillingdon (and elsewhere). Where information is not available, we
have made assumptions based on evidence from elsewhere. All such
assumptions are set out clearly within the narrative and supporting
technical appendix (Appendix A).
Study Contents
Our findings are set out within the following chapters:
Chapter 2: Current Context and Aspirations for Growth – a
review of the current performance and growth aspirations of
Hillingdon. This provides the baseline position against which HS2
impacts can be measured;
Chapter 3: HS2 in Hillingdon – a review of the HS2 proposals as
set out within the Environmental Statement, focusing on those
proposals specifically affecting LB Hillingdon;
Chapter 4: Framework for Assessing Impacts – based on the
information provided in the previous chapters and consultation,
our framework for assessing the impact of HS2 in Hillingdon;
Chapter 5: Assessment of Impacts – consideration of each of the
impacts set out within the Assessment Framework, including
quantification of the impacts where possible;
Chapter 6: Mitigation and Compensation – a summary of the
compensation and mitigation measures which could be put in
place to ensure that HS2 is delivered at zero cost to Hillingdon
and its residents.
Hillingdon HS2 Impact Study – December 2014 3
2. Study Context
The chapter sets out the existing North Hillingdon socio-economic and
environmental context and examines growth aspirations for future
years.
The evidence effectively sets out the reference case:
How north Hillingdon is currently characterised and how it
currently performs;
How the Borough would likely evolve in future years if HS2 was
not delivered.
The evidence in this chapter is used in a number of ways later in the
report:
To help design the impact framework (i.e. helping to establish
which receptors are important locally);
To help contextualise findings on impact;
To help develop mitigation measures which reflect local
characteristics and sensitivities.
Overview of the London Borough of Hillingdon
Located just within the M25, LB Hillingdon is London’s most westerly
Borough. Reflecting its suburban nature, Hillingdon is one of London’s
least densely populated Boroughs, with a population of 273,900 spread
over 15,500 hectares, including 4,970 hectares of green belt. LB
Hillingdon can be broken into two relatively distinct parts:
North Hillingdon – the semi-rural area north of the A40, with
Ruislip as its main district centre;
South Hillingdon – the more densely populated and urban south,
which contains Uxbridge (a metropolitan centre) and Heathrow
airport.
Five local geographies (referred to throughout as local character areas)
have been identified for the purposes of establishing the current socio-
economic and environmental context for the study. These are based
upon those used by HS2 within the ES and cover a buffer areas of around
1 mile from the proposed HS2 route:
South Ruislip – characterised by suburban housing with an area
of industrial activity and a local town centre;
Ruislip – containing a district town centre (Ruislip) and suburban
housing;
West Ruislip – predominantly low density suburban housing,
with Ruislip Golf Course to the west;
Ickenham – characterised by suburban housing and containing a
local town centre. Open countryside to the west;
South Harefield (Colne Valley) – semi-rural area primarily
comprising open countryside and green belt land. Contains a
number of dispersed waste management and recycling facilities
Harefield village is the main centre in the area.
Hillingdon HS2 Impact Study – December 2014 4
Figure 2.1: North Hillingdon Context Map
Source: Regeneris Consulting, 2014
Overview of the Local Economy
LB Hillingdon contains around 11,750 businesses and around 190,000
jobs. The economy is centred to the south of the Hiillingdon, where 90%
of the Borough’s jobs are located. This partly reflects the presence of
Heathrow airport – a major employment hub in the regional context – in
the south of the Borough.
The economy in the north of the Borough is comparatively small and
more geared towards serving the needs of the local population. This part
of the Borough contains around 31,000 jobs around 4,900 businesses.
Across the 5 character areas in north Hillingdon, there are around 16,000
jobs. Performance has been relatively healthy in recent years, with
employment growth of around 7% since 2008.
Table 2.1: Local Economy Key Figures
5 Character Areas
North Hillingdon
LB Hillingdon London
Jobs 15,850 30,750 193,800 4,593,350
% change 2008-12 +7% +5% -1% +3%
Businesses - 4,850 11,750 432,100
Source: BRES (2014)
Reflecting the presence of Heathrow in the south of the Borough,
transport and storage is one of the most dominant sectors in LB
Hillingdon, representing 27.9% of employment. That said, in the north of
the Borough, the economy is much more driven towards servicing the
needs of the local population, with key sectors including health (16%),
education (12%) and retail. North Hillingdon also has a locally important
accommodation and food services sector (9.4%) and construction sector
(7.4%).
Hillingdon HS2 Impact Study – December 2014 5
Figure 2.2 North Hillingdon Sectoral Breakdown
Source: BRES (2014)
As would be expected given its location, the Hillingdon economy is
strongly linked to the economies of wider areas across London and the
south east. While around 52,000 residents commute out of the Borough
every day for work, around 111,000 people commute into the Borough,
resulting in a net inflow of around 59,000 people.
Again, however, it is the south of the Borough (and Heathrow) which
drives much of this inflow. The north of the Borough actually experiences
a net outflow of commuters, with over 31,000 residents working outside
the area compared to only 15,500 people commuting into the area for
work. Of the residents who commute out of north Hillingdon for work,
6,600 (21%) work in the south of the Borough.
North Hillingdon’s Town Centres
Table 2.1 gives a brief overview of LB Hillingdon’s town centres. The table
highlights that Hillingdon contains a network of town centres, the largest
of which is Uxbridge in the south of the Borough. The population of the
local character areas (and the wider north Hillingdon area) is serviced by
a number of smaller town centres. Ruislip is the largest centre in north
Hillingdon, with around 26,000m2 floorspace and around 1,500 jobs.
Table 2.2: LB Hillingdon Town Centres
Character Area
Town Centre Designation Growth
South Ruislip
South Ruislip Local Centre Range of shops and services for local walking catchment
Ruislip Ruislip Manor Minor Centre Specialist/independent retail
West Ruislip
Ruislip District Centre Specialist/independent retail. Improved public transport interchange
Ickenham Ickenham Local Centre Strengthen core shopping area
Rest of North Hillingdon
Northwood District Centre Larger range of shops and services for wider catchment
Eastcote District Centre Specialist/independent retail and small offices. Improve pedestrian realm
Northwood Hills Minor Centre Specialist/independent retail
Harefield Local Centre Strengthen core shopping area and specialist/independent retail
South Hillingdon
Uxbridge Metropolitan Centre
Improve leisure offer and transport interchange of Borough’s main urban centre
Hayes District Centre Regeneration area. Small offices and improved transport interchange
Yiewsley/West Drayton
District Centre Regeneration area. Small offices and leisure. Improved transport interchange and pedestrian realm
Uxbridge Road Minor Centre Improve pedestrian realm
North Hillingdon Local Centre Specialist/independent retail
Hillingdon Heath Local Centre Specialist/independent retail
Willow Tree Lane Local Centre Range of shops and services for local catchment
1%
3%
7%
2%
5%
9%
3%
9%
3%
1% 2
%
12
%
7%
2%
12
%
5%
0%
4%
8%
12%
16%
Agr
i, fo
rest
ry &
qu
arry
ing
Man
ufa
ctu
rin
g
Co
nst
ruct
ion
Mo
tor
trad
es
Wh
ole
sale
Ret
ail
Tran
spo
rt &
sto
rage
Acc
om
& f
oo
d
Info
& c
om
m
Fin
anci
al &
insu
ran
ce
Pro
per
ty
Pro
f, s
cie
nce
& t
ech
Bu
sin
ess
ad
min
& s
up
po
rt
Pu
blic
ad
min
& d
efe
nce
Edu
cati
on
Hea
lth
Art
s &
re
crea
tio
n
North Hillingdon London
Hillingdon HS2 Impact Study – December 2014 6
Harlington Local Centre Strengthen core shopping area
Source: LB Hillingdon Council (2012) Local Plan: Part 1
District centres are identified in local policy as drivers of the local
economy and playing an important role in fostering social inclusion. It is
a strategic objective4 of the council to manage appropriate growth,
viability and regeneration of town centres such as Ruislip. To this end,
the local plan targets the creation of 2,503m2 net additional comparison
goods floorspace in Ruislip by 2026, a higher quantity than all other town
centres in the Borough except Hayes.
Local Population and Labour Market Context
Hillingdon has a population of around 274,000, with 98,000 (36%)
residents living in the north of the Borough. The five character areas have
a combined population of around 48,500, with Ruislip and South Ruislip
representing around 60% of this. Of the five areas, Colne Valley has the
smallest population (3,100).
The area performs relatively well across a number of labour market
indicators:
Economic activity and employment – north Hillingdon performs
above the London and Borough averages both in terms of
economic activity (73.8%) and unemployment (3.2%). That said,
there are a number of localities where unemployment rates are
above average. It is the council’s objective to ‘link deprived areas
with employment benefits arising from the development of
major sites and existing key locations’ (Local Plan SO17);
Skills – north Hillingdon also performs comparatively strongly in
4 Local Plan : Part 1 – Strategic Policies (Adopted 2012), accessed at
http://www.hillingdon.gov.uk/media.jsp?mediaid=27633
terms of skills, with the proportion of residents without any
qualifications (16.5%) and with a level 4+ qualification (34.0%)
outperforming the Borough wide figures and largely in line with
London wide averages. At a local level, Colne Valley has the
lowest skills levels; it is the only character area where there are
more residents with no qualifications (23.7%) than level 4+
qualifications (22.7%). West Ruislip has the highest skills levels
of the five character areas, with only 13.9% of residents having
no qualification and 37.4% having a level 4+ qualification;
Household Income – reflecting the above findings, north
Hillingdon is a relatively prosperous area with household income
typically higher than the Borough average. That said, it is worth
noting that LB Hillingdon as a whole has lower than average
annual household incomes (£42,150) compared to London-wide
figures (£46,550).
Table 2.3: Local Economic Summary
5 Character Areas
North Hillingdon LB Hillingdon London
Population 48,500 98,100 273,900 8,173,900
% change 2001-11 +11.0% +5.4% +12.7% +14.0%
% working age 65% 64% 66% 69%
Population density 17.9 28.6 23.7 52.0
Economic activity rate 75.5% 73.8% 70.8% 71.7%
Unemployment rate 3.2% 3.2% 4.3% 5.2%
WAP with NVQ4+ 30.6% 34.0% 28.0% 37.7%
WAP with no qualification 16.9% 16.5% 19.1% 17.6%
Source: Census of Population, ONS, (2001 & 2011)
These labour market trends are visualised in the maps overleaf. The
maps highlight that in general north Hillingdon and the 5 character areas
Hillingdon HS2 Impact Study – December 2014 7
are relatively prosperous areas, with strong employment and income
levels. However local levels disparities do exist, particularly to the west
of the area, in and around Harefield.
Transport and Housing
The Borough is well served by numerous east-west (cross-Borough)
public transport routes, including the A40, the Chiltern Mainline and
tube access via the Piccadilly, Metropolitan and Central Lines.
Despite this, north-south connectivity in the Borough is seen as a major
barrier to social and economic prosperity. Existing north-south road
routes are characterised by high levels of congestion. Particular
congestion hotspots across the 5 character areas include:
The A40 Western Avenue (particularly junctions Swakeleys Road
and Long Lane);
Swakeleys Road and Breakspear Road South;
Swakeleys Road and High Road Ickenham;
Various junctions around Ruislip, Ruislip Manor, South Ruislip
and Eastcote town centres.
Housing affordability is also identified in local policy documents as a key
issue facing the Borough, particularly North Hillingdon. LB Hillingdon’s
Local Plan outlines a number of policy actions designed to tackle local
housing need, including: resisting the loss of housing; promoting mixed-
use developments; and the efficient redevelopment of brownfield sites.
Hillingdon HS2 Impact Study – December 2014 8
Figure 2.3 Unemployment Rate Figure 2.4 Level 4+ Qualifications Figure 2.5 Mean Annual Household Income 2012
Source: Census of Population, ONS, (2011) Source: Census of Population, ONS, (2011) Source: GLA (2014) Modelled Household Income Estimates
Hillingdon HS2 Impact Study – December 2014 9
Community, Leisure & Recreation
There are numerous important community, leisure and recreation assets
within the character areas and across the wider north Hillingdon area.
Leisure and recreation facilities
Key leisure and recreation facilities in the north of the Borough include:
Hillingdon Outdoor Activity Centre (HOAC): an outdoor and
environmental educational charity which serves the whole of
west London, focusing on disadvantaged and disabled young
people. Over 22,000 young people use the centre per annum. It
is located in the west of the Borough, utilising Lake 2 (for
watersports) & surrounding land;
Uxbridge Golf Course: A 45 hectare golf course, owned and
managed by LB Hillingdon. The golf course has around 60
members and 20 season ticket holders. It is located to the west
of Ickenham and to the south of the gravel pits;
West Ruislip Golf Course: A 38 hectare competition golf course,
owned and managed by LB Hillingdon. The course has around
110 Club Members and 160 season ticket holders. It is located in
West Ruislip;
Ruislip Rifle Club: A rifle club located within West Ruislip Golf
Course and in private ownership. The club has around 100
members and is also used by clubs at Brunel University.
Wider Leisure Assets
Wider leisure assets in the North of the Borough include:
Rights of Way and cycle route: there are numerous rights of way
and cycle routes across the 5 character areas, serving local
communities and visitors to the area. These include (among
others) the Hillingdon Trail, Celandine Route, the Grand Union
Canal walk, and London Loop;
Gravel Pits 2, 3 , 4 and 5: located to the west of Ickenham. A
former quarry site containing wooded areas and a series of lakes
(former gravel pits). The lakes are used by numerous groups,
including HOAC (Lake 2), and a number of angling groups and
sports clubs. The land is owned by LB Hillingdon;
Colne Valley: the Colne Valley covers around 40 square miles to
the west of London, across Bucks, Herts and Hillingdon. A
regional park which comprises parks, green spaces and
reservoirs alongside the River Colne and the Grand Union Canal.
The park is managed by a Community Interest Company, the
Colne Valley Partnership.
Environment
The part of the Borough affected by the proposed HS2 route has a semi-
rural landscape, featuring the attractive landscape of woodland, lakes
and farmland in the Colne Valley. This is a significant area of accessible
semi-natural green space on the edge of London.
The Borough has a mixture of habitats, some of which are of high
biodiversity interest (with many lakes and woodland designated as
SSSIs), others with moderate (e.g. golf courses) or low (e.g. intensively
farmed agricultural land) biodiversity interest.
These landscape features enhance the quality of recreational users of
the area.
Hillingdon HS2 Impact Study – December 2014 10
Policy Aspirations
Borough Wide Policy Context
Hillingdon’s Local Plan Strategic Policies document (2012) sets out the
long-term vision and objectives for the Borough. With a focus on
fostering economic growth and sustainable communities, the plan
“encourages sustainable use of land, resources and the natural
environment, methods of travel and the design of development that
helps to create sustainable communities, and minimises harmful impacts
on climate, biodiversity, landscape and neighbourhoods”. As part of the
plan’s vision, social and economic inequality gaps between parts of the
Borough are highlighted as a significant issue.
The considerable influence of Heathrow Airport on the local economy is
highlighted throughout numerous policy documents, with the Local
Economic Assessment identifying the dominance of the transport and
communications, and tourism sectors as evidence of the ‘Heathrow
Impact’. Hillingdon’s economic strategy (Sustain, Renew and Prosper
2011-16) highlights the contrast between the semi-rural areas around
Ruislip in the north of the Borough and the internationally important hub
airport of Heathrow with associated high tech multinational companies
concentrated in the south. Harnessing the full economic potential of
Heathrow while lessening social and economic disparities across the
Borough is a key part of the local plan vision.
The local plan projects that the majority of new jobs will be generated by
office based employment growth, but also puts particular emphasis on
the importance of the tourism and retail sectors to the local economy.
Hillingdon’s Local Economic Assessment (2011) identifies a number of
issues that the Borough must overcome to foster sustainable economic
growth, including:
The Borough experiences very high levels of both in-commuting
and out-commuting for jobs, in part pointing to difficulties
among residents securing employment locally;
There are stubborn pockets of deprivation, particularly in
relation to child poverty, across the Borough;
The need to improve the skills of local residents to ensure they
can take advantage of new jobs being created, particularly in the
knowledge economy.
The local plan notes that there is currently more employment land than
needed, with policies for the managed release of surplus industrial land
where there are opportunities for regeneration and ‘much needed
housing’. The London Plan requires Hillingdon to adopt a ‘Limited
Transfer’ approach to the allocation of industrial sites to other uses.
Hillingdon’s regeneration strategy (Sustain, Renew and Prosper) sets out
three strategic priority areas for the Borough:
Sustain – preserving Hillingdon’s green spaces, heritage &
culture;
Renew – town centre development and economic potential;
Prosper – reducing inequality through increased employability
and business growth.
Local Growth Aspirations
Current national and London level growth projections estimate that:
Employment is expected to increase by 15% over the next two
decades, with LB Hillingdon supporting an estimated 226,000
jobs by 2031 (GLA Employment Projections);
LB Hillingdon’s population is projected to grow by 28% to around
361,000 by 2032 (ONS Population Projections).
Hillingdon HS2 Impact Study – December 2014 11
The Draft Hillingdon Site Specific Allocation DPD identifies the main focal
points for development activity over the plan period and identifies sites
which have the potential to generate up to 11,000 new jobs and 6,400
new homes in the Borough.
Reflecting Hillingdon strategic growth objectives, these sites are focused
in the south of the Borough. Despite comprising around half of the
Borough’s area, there is very little employment or residential growth
targeted for the area north of the A40 in either Hillingdon’s local plan or
regeneration strategy (Sustain, Renew and Prosper). This reflects the
importance placed on maintaining and enhancing the semi-rural nature
and environmental amenities in the north of the Borough to mitigate the
highly developed areas around Uxbridge and Heathrow to the south.
Objectives set out in the Local Plan for the area north of the A40, include:
A desire to improve access to public open space and enhance the
green and open character of this area;
The natural environment north of the A40 represents a central
part of Hillingdon’s fight against climate change. Consequently,
Fray’s Farm Meadows, Harefield Pit and the Gravel Pits are to be
protected and enhanced, with the natural environment
protected and enhanced and further opportunities for nature
conservation identified;
An ambition to improve public transport links between the north
and south of the Borough to increase the accessibility of
employment areas, shops and services for residents;
A need to ensure that local centres, particularly the district
centres of Northwood, Ruislip and Eastcote respond to changes
in shopping patterns;
An estimated 863 dwellings (27.9% of 3,097 in total) will be
delivered to the north of the A40 from large sites (0.25 ha+)
between 2011 and 2021.
Hillingdon’s Draft Proposed Site Allocations and Designations document
(2014) identifies a number of development sites and proposals for the
area around and to the north of the A40, as outlined in the table below.
Table 2.4: Local Allocated Sites
Name Size (ha)
Overview Housing Capacity
Ruislip Manor Royal Mail Sorting Office
0.3 ha Small-scale redevelopment of Royal Mail sorting office.
22
West End Road, South Ruislip
1.0 ha Redevelopment of builders’ merchant adjoining RAF Northolt.
30-44
Braintree Road, South Ruislip
7.1 ha Opportunity to deliver mixed-use redevelopment of old industrial units as part
of regeneration in South Ruislip, including residential, leisure and retail uses.
97-104
Odyssey Business Park (south), South Ruislip
1.3 ha Residential redevelopment of vacant industrial units
50
West Ruislip Station 1.2 ha Station enhancements to maximise its potential, particularly to facilitate more
feeder trips by public transport, walking and cycling.
n/a
Stonefield Way Industrial Estate, South Ruislip
- Redesignation from Preferred Industrial Location to an Industrial Business Park and a
locally significant employment site.
n/a
Braintree Road Industrial Area, South Ruislip
3.2 ha Relatively successful industrial area with a diverse range of small businesses, to be
retained as a Locally Significant Industrial Site.
n/a
Source: Hillingdon Borough Council (2014) Local Plan Part 2: Draft Proposed Site Allocations and Designations – 2014 Consultation Document.
Hillingdon HS2 Impact Study – December 2014 12
The Borough’s wider infrastructure projects are detailed within the
Strategic Infrastructure Plan (2013). These include: expansion of primary
school provision, with a requirement for an additional 18 primary forms
of entry across the Borough; redevelopment of two fire stations in
Hillingdon, potentially including Ruislip Fire Station; Thames Water
improvements to Colne Valley, Crane Valley and Bath Road trunks;
relocation of Harlington Road Depot to New Year’s Green Lane;
extension of the Central Line to Uxbridge; increasing capacity, improving
reliability and reducing journey times along Chiltern Railways lines,
including upgrading track and signalling at Northolt Junction;
maintenance of highway network and tackling congestion hotspots
Borough-wide; and improving the quality of open space provision by
increasing the number of high quality open spaces in the Borough.
Figure 2.6 North Hillingdon Site Allocations (as at 2014)
Source: LB Hillingdon Site Allocations, based on Site Specific Allocations Consultation DPD, 2014
Hillingdon HS2 Impact Study – December 2014 13
3. HS2 in Hillingdon
The section provides an overview of the HS2 proposals and their
implications for the London Borough of Hillingdon.
HS2: Current Proposals
High Speed 2 (HS2) is a new high speed rail line proposed by the
government to connect major cities in Britain. Stations in London,
Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester, South Yorkshire and the East Midlands
are to be served by high
speed trains running at
speeds of up to 360kph
(225mph).
HS2 is proposed to be
built in two phases. Phase
One will involve the
construction of a new
railway line of
approximately 230km
(143 miles) between
London and Birmingham.
Construction is expected
to begin in 2017 and the
line will become
operational by 2026.
HS2 Phase 1 is still at
planning stage: the Hybrid
Bill was submitted to
government in 2013 and
is currently being considered by Select Committee. Anticipated future
milestones include:
2014 / 2015 – consideration of petitions by Select Committee
2015 – target date for Royal Assent to hybrid bill containing
necessary legal powers for construction
2017 – construction commences
2026 – HS2 Phase One becomes operational
HS2: The Proposed Route through Hillingdon
As a key step in the planning and development process, the HS2 Phase
One Environmental Statement was published in 2013. This sets out full
details of the route, necessary works, impacts and mitigation measures.
The Environmental Statement identifies significant HS2 works across the London Borough of Hillingdon. As currently proposed, the route of HS2 from London Euston to Birmingham will intersect the London Borough of Hillingdon on an east-west axis:
The HS2 route will be in a tunnel in the east of the Borough;
While much of the safeguarding in the east of the Borough will
be at subsurface level only, this part of the route would require
the provision of a vent and access shaft at South Ruislip, with
surface level safeguarding implications;
The route will emerge from tunnel via a portal at West Ruislip,
travelling westwards through the Borough over the surface;
The route will exit the Borough in the west via a new viaduct
across the Colne Valley.
Figure 3.1: Proposed High Speed Network
Source: Department for Transport
Hillingdon HS2 Impact Study – December 2014 14
Figure 3.2: HS2 Route Through Hillingdon
Source: Regeneris Consulting based on HS2 Limited
HS2: Construction Activity in Hillingdon
Reflecting the proposed route of HS2 through Hillingdon, significant
construction activity is proposed within the Borough, across 6 major
worksites. These are summarised in the table below:
Table 3.1: Hillingdon HS2 Construction Worksites
Worksites Description Duration
South Ruislip Vent
Shaft
Construction of the Headhouse Structure at South
Ruislip
Six years from 2018
West Ruislip Portal Construction of the tunnel portal & ramp at West
Ruislip
Seven years from
2017
Northolt Tunnel Main
Compound
Main worksite for the construction of the Northolt
Tunnel
Ten years from 2017
Breakspear Road
South Satellite
Compound
Worksite for works to Breakspear Road bridge, local
access routes and embankment and cutting works
18 months from
2017
Harvil Road
Realignment Satellite
Worksite for works to Harvil Road bridge, and
embankment and cutting works
Five years from
2017
Colne Valley Viaduct
Satellite Compound
Worksite for the construction of the Colne Valley
viaduct
Six and a half years
from 2018
Other Sustainable placement of excavated materials
throughout the area, particularly to north and south of
the Northolt Tunnel Main Compound
Source: HS2 Environmental Statement
The servicing of these construction worksites will necessitate significant
construction transports movements on routes throughout the Borough.
Only initial and projected information on this is available at this stage;
however, projected movements as set out within the HS2 Environmental
Statement are summarised below.
Table 3.2: Hillingdon HS2 Construction Transport Movements
Worksites Estimated Period with ‘busy’ vehicle movements
Typical No. of Combined 2 Way Trips Per Day
Cars / LGVs HGVs
South Ruislip Vent Shaft 2 years 10-20 90-100
West Ruislip Portal 7 years 22-30 225-300
Northolt Tunnel Main Compound 10 years 102-136 1,020-1,360
Breakspear Road South Satellite
Compound
18 months 15-20 150-200
Harvil Road Realignment Satellite 5 years 8-10 75-100
Colne Valley Viaduct Satellite
Compound
3.5 years 10-20 10-20
Source: HS2 Environmental Statement
The main transport routes to be used by HS2 construction traffic are set
Hillingdon HS2 Impact Study – December 2014 15
out in the HS2 Environmental Statement. However, again, it is important
to note that the information provided is not complete and there remain
numerous uncertainties about the routes to be used. Initial indications
suggest that HS2 traffic routes cross numerous existing congestion
hotspots throughout the area, including A40 junctions, Breakspear Rd
South, Ickenham Rd and High Street (Ruislip). The map below has been
prepared by LB Hillingdon officers to demonstrate potential congestion
hotspots.
Figure 3.3: HS2 Route Through Hillingdon
Source: Regeneris Consulting based on HS2 Limited
HS2: Implications for Hillingdon
Reflecting the scale of construction activity in Hillingdon, HS2
construction and operation will result in significant land take across the
Borough. As a result of this, significant adverse socio-economic and
environmental implications have been identified by LB Hillingdon and
local partners / groups. These implications are summarised in the table
overleaf. The quantification of these is the overall objective for this
study.
Hillingdon HS2 Impact Study – December 2014 16
Table 3.3: Overview of Expected Implications of HS2 in Hillingdon
Worksites Demolitions Other Implications
Expected Impacts
Economic Community Leisure / recreation
Environment
South Ruislip Vent Shaft No demolitions Land take at former Arla Site
West Ruislip Portal Rusilip Rifle Club, a number of outbuildings and garages
Land take at West Ruislip Golf Club and Rights of Way Diversions
Northolt Tunnel Main Compound
No demolitions Land take across agricultural holdings and Rights of Way Diversions
Breakspear Road South Satellite Compound
12 buildings in a pharma facility; Gatemead Farmhouse; a stable and outbuilding
Land take across agricultural holdings and Rights of Way Diversions
Harvil Road Realignment Satellite
Bridge structure Land take and road realignment
Colne Valley Viaduct Satellite Compound
Dews Farm and associated buildings, HOAC buildings
Significant transport movements; land take across Gravel Pits 2,3 4 and 5 and Rights of Way Diversions
Transport Routes across N. Hillingdon
n/a n/a
Hillingdon HS2 Impact Study – December 2014 17
4. Assessment Framework
This chapter sets out our framework for assessing the socio-economic
impacts of the HS2 proposals in Hillingdon.
Introduction to Assessment Framework
The first step in our assessment of the impact of HS2 in Hillingdon has
been to develop an assessment framework: this identifies all likely
impacts of HS2 in Hillingdon, and sets out the broad parameters for
capturing and quantifying these.
We have developed our assessment framework based on:
Consultation with LB Hillingdon officers and wider partners to
understand the local context and perspectives on the likely
impact of HS2;
A detailed review of HS2 documentation to understand the
details of the footprint of HS2 in the Borough;
Case study evidence of impacts from other (relevant) major
infrastructure projects such as HS1 and Crossrail, to understand
what has happened elsewhere;
Best practice guidance in assessing economic impact, including
the HM Treasury Green Book.
Components of Assessment Framework
The assessment framework groups impacts according to impact theme
(1), the geography of impact (2) and the nature / type of impacts (3).
These groupings are outlined in more detail below.
Impact Themes
The assessment framework identifies four main themes under which
specific impacts are grouped. Given the complex and diverse set of
impacts, these themes have been included to help tell the narrative of
the impact of HS2 in Hillingdon:
Impacts on local businesses;
Impacts on local growth / development aspiration;
Impacts on local residents / communities;
Impacts on the environment.
Certain impacts cut across these four categories – most notably
transport impacts. To avoid double counting, these cross cutting impacts
have not been assessed separately, but have been split up according to
the receptor. For example, transport impacts are assessed under local
businesses impacts (impacts on town centres and business productivity),
growth / development Impacts (impacts of congestion on developer
confidence), and local residents / community impacts (house prices, and
resident quality of life).
Main geographies of impact:
Our assessment framework distinguishes between a number of different
geographies:
Direct Impact Area – the direct impact area is the area of land
safeguarded by HS2 Ltd for construction and operation activities
Wider Impact Areas – the wider impact area refers to the area
adjacent to the direct impact area which will be indirectly
affected by HS2 activities. The wider impact area will vary from
Hillingdon HS2 Impact Study – December 2014 18
one type of impact to the next, depending on the location and
sensitivity of the receptors.
Types of impacts assessed:
Given the variety of impacts being considered, it is not possible to
aggregate all the identified impacts under a single quantification. With
this in mind, our analysis focuses upon the following impact categories:
Economic Impacts – this category includes impacts to the LB
Hillingdon economy, such as changes in local employment levels
and changes in the overall size of the LB Hillingdon economy, in
terms of local Gross Value Added (GVA). GVA is the official
measure of the contribution to the economy of each individual
producer, industry or sector in the United Kingdom. GVA is used
throughout the report as a measure of the level of impact on the
LB Hillingdon economy resulting from the HS2 proposals;
Financial Impacts – this category covers those financial impacts
likely to be borne by the LB Hillingdon (i.e. the local authority
itself);
Societal and environmental Impacts – this category covers non-
monetary impacts on local communities and visitors to the area
(e.g. health and wellbeing impacts; ecology impacts).
Final Hillingdon HS2 Impact Assessment Framework
The final assessment frameworks for the direct impact area and wider
impact area are summarised in the diagrams overleaf.
The framework identifies the most significant impacts of HS2 in
Hillingdon. A number of impacts are identified which it has not been
possible to quantify within the scope of this work due to either a lack of
baseline information on which to underpin our assessment or a lack of
an approved methodology which can be applied within the scope of this
work. More information on this is provided where relevant in the next
chapter.
Hillingdon HS2 Impact Study – December 2014 19
Figure 4.1: Framework for Assessing Impacts of HS2 in Hillingdon
Hillingdon HS2 Impact Study – December 2014 20
5. HS2 in Hillingdon: Assessment of Impacts
This chapter presents the results of the assessment of impacts. Again, it
is worth highlighting that our assessment focuses on adverse impacts to
Hillingdon and its residents resulting from HS2.
Methodological Overview and Caveats to Analysis
Our assessment is based upon standard guidance from central
government (such as the HM Treasury’s Green Book) on appraising the
economic impacts of a range of interventions / projects. Detailed
information on the methodology and sources which underpin our
assessment is included in Appendix A. However it is worth highlighting a
number of overarching methodological considerations and caveats:
An assumption heavy assessment – our assessment draws
heavily on the information set out within the HS2 Environmental
Statement. However, in many instances, information which
would be required to provide a full assessment of impacts is
either not available or incomplete. As such, in certain instances
we have had to make our own assumptions to underpin the
assessment; these assumptions have been based upon case
study evidence from elsewhere and consultation with local
partners. They are referenced clearly within the narrative;
A partial valuation of impacts – each theme and impact category
identified within the Assessment Framework is examined in turn
within this chapter. However, in certain instances, it has not
been possible to provide a quantification of impacts, resulting in
only a partial valuation of the impact of HS2. The reason for this
is noted in the narrative, but largely reflects lack of baseline
information on which to base the assessment, or the absence of
an approved methodology which can be utilised in this context;
Challenges in aggregating impacts – our assessment covers a
wide range of impacts, which vary from core economic impacts
(e.g jobs and GVA) to non-market impacts (such as willingness to
pay or welfare impacts). In many instances it is not appropriate
to aggregate impacts as they are not like for like. However, a
summary of impacts (including aggregation where possible) is
provided at the end of this chapter.
A Note on Assessing Persisting Impacts
Many of the impacts we have assessed are valid across long (and varying)
timeframes. This can be split into two categories:
Temporary Impacts – impacts which will persist for part of or all
of the HS2 construction period. Our assumptions regarding the
length of temporary impacts is set out in the narrative and has
been based on consultation with officers and stakeholders, or on
the HS2 Environmental Statement in the case of the overall HS2
construction time period (assumed to be 10 years from 2017 to
2026);
Permanent Impacts – impacts which are longer term in nature
and which are likely to persist during the operational phases of
HS2. It is important to note that there is no standard guidance in
the HM Treasury Green Book regarding the time period over
which the loss of land and assets and wider economic values
should be costed. In this instance, we have costed permanent
impacts over a 60 year period. It should be noted that this is a
relatively long time period in terms of appraising impacts, and
subject to considerable uncertainty reflecting a complex range
of future economic unknowns and variables. However, the 60
year period has been adopted for illustrative purposes to reflect
the lengthy construction period and to ensure that persisting
Hillingdon HS2 Impact Study – December 2014 21
impacts thereafter are captured. This approach has been
adopted for all permanent impacts for the sake of consistency.
To place these longer term figures in context (given the high level
of discounting over such a long time period), we have also
presented figures for annual costs (in 2014 prices).
For all future impacts, we provide the Present Value of costs. Future
impacts have been discounted using standard HM Treasury guidance
regarding discounting (full detail is set out in Appendix A). This is a
recognised approach for comparing costs which occur in different time
periods and is based on the principle that, generally, people prefer to
receive goods and services now rather than later.
Theme 1. Local Business and Economy Impacts
We have identified a number of impacts under the local economy and
business theme. These are:
Impact 1.1: Businesses Displaced or Disrupted
Impact 1.2: Disruption to Local Town Centre Footfall
Impact 1.1: Businesses Displaced or Disrupted
HS2 proposals will result in the temporary and permanent loss of a
significant quantum of commercial land and premises within LB
Hillingdon. This includes:
Loss of Commercial Land – loss of around 200 hectares of
agricultural land, across 12 holdings. Over three quarters of this
(around 150 hectares) will be lost permanently, with only around
50 hectares due to be restored to agricultural use once HS2 is
operational;
One of the holdings impacted contains a high-tech composting
facility, owned and operated by West London Composting. West
London Composting has stated that the proposed loss of part of
their site (which is used for maturation activities) could make
continued operations on the site unviable;
The other holdings impacted are largely used for agricultural
activity. Loss of land is likely to impact upon farm productivity,
with economic implications which are considered below;
Loss of Commercial Premises – loss of a number of commercial
premises, most notably 12 buildings which form part of the
Research Farm on Breakspear Road South. However, it is
believed that an agreement has been reached between HS2 Ltd
and the Research Farm which will include the replacement of any
assets lost and which will ultimately mean that the business is
able to continue to operate from that site unaffected. As such,
the Research Farm has not been included in our assessment of
impact below.
Economic Impacts
The loss of commercial land and premises could directly result in a
number of economic costs for LB Hillingdon, quantified in terms of
employment and GVA impacts:
Loss of jobs –assuming a worst case scenario (with the closure of
West London Composting), we estimate that around 20 FTE
positions could be lost. This relates to loss of employment at
West London Composting (around 15 FTE jobs), and a small
number of agricultural jobs lost (estimated at around 5 FTE jobs
based on the proportion of land lost at each impacted farm
holding). The vast majority of these jobs will be lost
permanently, with only a small proportion of agricultural land
being returned after construction;
Hillingdon HS2 Impact Study – December 2014 22
Impact on the overall size of the LB Hillingdon economy – these
employment impacts will result in an overall cost to the size of
the LB Hillingdon economy which we estimate to be around
£1.2m GVA per annum during construction and £1.1m per
annum after construction (reflecting the return of around 50
hectares of agricultural land). Costed over a 60 year period5, we
estimate total costs to the LB Hillingdon economy to be in the
region of £22.8m GVA in 2014 prices.
Table 5.1: Businesses Displaced or Disrupted: Summary of Direct Economic Impacts
Impact Measure Time Period Estimated Impact
Employment During Construction 20 FTE Jobs
After Construction 20 FTE jobs
GVA (£ m, 2014 prices)
Per Annum – During Construction £1.0m
Per Annum – After Construction £1.0m
Total Impact (costed over 60 years) £22.8m
Note: All numbers rounded which masks small differentials between construction and post construction impacts
There will also be minor knock on (multiplier) effects throughout the LB
Hillingdon economy, with the above direct adverse impacts impacting in
turn on supply chain activity and employee spending. We estimate this
to equate to around 5 FTE jobs across Hillingdon and £0.3m GVA per
annum.
Financial Impacts
The economic impacts described previously will result in financial
impacts for the London Borough of Hillingdon, reflecting its significant
5 See note in introduction to Chapter 5 regarding the rationale for costing impacts over a
60 year period.
land holdings across the direct impact area.
LB Hillingdon is the freeholder of Priors Farm and Park Lodge Farm and
currently receives leasehold income of around £54,000 per annum. The
loss of land on these two holdings could reduce annual income by around
£18,000 per annum (assuming loss of income on a pro-rata basis with
loss of land). When costed over a 60 year period, this equates to a loss
of around £0.3 million in 2014 prices. It is assumed that this loss of
income will be covered through established compensation procedures
(in this case compulsory purchase of the land).
Strategic / Wider Considerations
There are also wider strategic impacts to consider.
Most notably, West London Composting is an important facility in the
sub-regional context: the business currently has contracts with
numerous local authorities including Hillingdon, Brent, Harrow, Three
Rivers, Watford and Spelthorne. If the facility was forced to close by HS2
land take, there would be significant strategic waste management
implications (and costs) for these London authorities (given the lack of
alternative premises in the west London area).
Impact 1.2: Disruption to Local Town Centre Footfall
A number of Hillingdon's local retail centres are located in proximity to
areas impacted by HS2 (both in terms of HS2 construction worksites and
anticipated construction traffic routes). There is concern locally that the
performance of these town centres will be adversely impacted, with local
footfall levels (and hence overall town centre performance) sensitive to
the blight and congestion impacts of HS2.
Hillingdon HS2 Impact Study – December 2014 23
An overview of the 8 town centres in the north of Hillingdon is provided
in the table below. Ruislip, classified as a district centre, is the largest
town centre in the north of the Borough, providing around 1,500 jobs.
Table 5.2: Summary of Current Town Centre Size and Significance
Character Area Town Centre Designation Floorspace Estimated Jobs
South Ruislip South Ruislip Local Centre 8,700 500
Ruislip Ruislip Manor Minor Centre 15,500 800
West Ruislip Ruislip District Centre 26,100 1,500
Ickenham Ickenham Local Centre 6,500 400
Rest of North
Hillingdon
Northwood District Centre 11,600 700
Eastcote District Centre 17,400 900
Northwood Hills Minor Centre 11,300 600
Harefield Local Centre 3,900 200
South Hillingdon Uxbridge (metropolitan centre), Hayes, Yiewsley / West Drayton, Uxbridge
Road, North Hillingdon, Hillingdon Heath, Willow Tree Lane, Harlington
We have used information on the footprint of HS2 construction works,
information on HS2 construction movements, information on existing
town centre catchment areas and consultation with stakeholders to
examine which town centres are likely to be most susceptible to adverse
impacts relating to HS2 construction activity.
Our assessment of this is summarised in the table below: this suggests
that Ruislip and Ickenham town centres might be particularly susceptible
to adverse footfall impacts given their existing catchments and their
proximity to major HS2 construction worksites and traffic routes.
Adverse impacts are also possible for South Ruislip, Ruislip Manor, and
Harefield but to a lesser extent (reflecting the smaller catchments of
these town centres and lower levels of HS2 construction disruption).
Table 5.3: Town Centres: Likelihood of HS2 Impact
Distance from Safeguarded Area
Distance from Congestion
Hotspot
Catchment Likelihood of HS2 Impact of Footfall
South Ruislip 0.2 km 0 km – Victoria Rd
and approaches
Neighbourhood Moderate
Ruislip Manor 1.6 km 0 km – Victoria Rd Neighbourhood Moderate
Ruislip 1.0 km 0 km – Ickenham
Rd, High St
Local catchment High – larger
catchment, large HS2
movements
Ickenham 0.7 km 0 km – High Road Neighbourhood High – large HS2
movements
Northwood 3.4 km 3.1 km Local catchment Low
Eastcote 1.9 km 0 km – Field End
Road
Local catchment Low
Northwood Hills 3.2 km 2.7 km Neighbourhood Low
Harefield 1.5 km 0 km (Moorhall Rd
at S Harefield)
Neighbourhood Moderate
Economic Impacts
If HS2 does result in adverse footfall impacts in north Hillingdon’s local
centres, there are likely to adverse impacts on business turnover and
hence employment and the overall GVA contribution that each town
centre makes to the local economy.
There is no research which quantifies the link between major
construction sites, congestion and town centre footfall. In the absence
of such research, it is not possible to quantify conclusively the likely
impact of HS2 blight and congestion on local town centre performance.
Despite this, it is worth highlighting the sensitivity of Hillingdon’s town
centre’s to changes in footfall:
To model sensitivity to changes in footfall, we have examined
two scenarios, modelling different levels of impact. Under our
Hillingdon HS2 Impact Study – December 2014 24
lower impact scenario, we have modelling the possible economic
impact of a 1% decline in footfall in the high impact town centres
(Ruislip and Ickenham) and a 0.5% decline in footfall in the lower
impact town centres. Under our higher impact scenario, we have
modelled the impacts of 5% and 2.5% declines in footfall in the
respective town centres. These are considered conservative
figures and are put into context by the fact that there was a
reported 10% decline in high street footfall in Outer London
during the recent downturn (2008-2011);
Assuming a pro-rata relationship between footfall decline and
town centre turnover, under the lower impact scenario, this
level of footfall decline could result in a loss of 34 FTE jobs across
the town centres impacted and a reduction in GVA of around
£2.6 million per annum. This would increase to a loss of 110 FTE
jobs and GVA of £5.2m per annum under the higher impact
scenario.
Table 5.4: Town Centre Economic Impacts: Sensitivity to Change in Footfall
Impact Measure
Time Period Estimated Impact – Low Impact
Estimated Impact – Moderate Impact
Employment During Construction 60 FTE Jobs 110 FTE Jobs
GVA (£ m, 2014 prices)
Per Annum – During Construction
£2.6m £5.2m
Total Impact (Costed over 10 years)
£19.5m £39.1m
Note: This table models local economic sensitivity rather than a robust assessment of impact. For
the purpose of sensitivity testing we have assumed 1% footfall decline in high impact centres;
0.5% decline in low impact centres
Caveats to Analysis
It must be noted that due to the lack of information on the relationship between footfall and congestion, this valuation cannot be included within our core assessment of impact. The figures are intended to illustrate the sensitivity of the town centres to adverse impacts, and hence the requirement for appropriate mitigation measures to be put in place.
Financial Impacts
If any of the north Hillingdon town centres do experience adverse
impacts as a result of HS2, there will be adverse financial impacts for LB
Hillingdon as a result of reductions in business rate and license
payments. However, given the uncertainty over the nature and quantum
of impacts described in the previous section, it has not been possible to
quantify these within the scope of this study.
Theme 2: Development / Investment Impacts
We have identified one impact category for assessment under the local
development / investment theme:
Impact 2.1: Development Lost or Delayed
As set out within Chapter 2, LB Hillingdon has strong aspirations for
residential and economic growth over the coming decade; these
aspirations are set out within the LB Hillingdon Core Strategy, with
specific development sites identified within the Site Allocations DPD.
While much of the growth is focused in the south of the Borough, a
number of future development sites are also identified in the north of
the Borough which might be susceptible to adverse impacts relating to
HS2.
Hillingdon HS2 Impact Study – December 2014 25
The map below highlights development sites in the north of the Borough
as set out within the Site Allocations DPD. We identify 9 development
sites in the north of the Borough which are located in proximity to areas
impacted by HS2 works / traffic: Initial House; 269-285 Field End Road;
Royal Quay; Master Brewer & Hillingdon Circus; Ruislip Manor Sorting
Office; West End Road; Braintree Road; 297-299 Long Lane; and Odyssey
Business Park.
Figure 5.1: North Hillingdon Site Allocations Map
If delivered according to current (high level allocations), these 9 sites
identified have the potential to deliver a significant quantum of growth
6 It should be noted that these represent gross impacts: with a proportion of employment
and GVA growth supported within the LB Hillingdon economy, and the rest distributed
for the Borough over the coming decade, including up to 530 residential
units and 17,000 sqm of commercial floorspace. We estimate that if
delivered according to current plans and timeframes, this quantum of
residential development alone could deliver economic benefits of up to
250 jobs and GVA per annum of £14.9m6 via increased resident
expenditure impacts. In addition, commercial development is projected
to deliver 400 FTE jobs and GVA per annum of £16.1m.
Table 5.5: Development Sites: Estimate of Impact
Type of Development Scale of development Jobs Supported GVA per Annum
Residential Development Around 530 residential units 250 £14.9m
Commercial Development Around 17,00sqm of commercial floorspace
400 £16.3m
However, it is possible that the delivery timescales of these sites could
ultimately be impacted by HS2, as a result of impacts on developer
confidence and the ability of the local road network to absorb additional
construction traffic. Sites which might be affected are identified below.
Our assessment of the likelihood of impact takes into account a range of
factors, including currently proposed development timeframes and
distance from HS2 worksites and construction traffic hotspots. Our
analysis identifies 6 proposed developments where there is some
possibility that HS2 might have an adverse impact on the delivery
timescales currently proposed.
across wider geographies (reflect patterns of resident expenditure).
Hillingdon HS2 Impact Study – December 2014 26
Table 5.6: Development Sites: Likelihood of HS2 Impact
Distance from
Safeguarded
Area
Distance Congestion
Hotspot
Anticipated
Timescales
Likelihood of
HS2 Impact
Initial House 2.1 km 0 km – Field End Rd 2011-2016 Low
269-285 Field End Road 1.9 km 0 km – Field End Rd 2016-2021 Moderate
Royal Quay 0.9 km 2.7 km 2016-2021 Moderate
Master Brewer & Hillingdon Circus 1.4 km 0 km – A40 2016-2021 Moderate
Ruislip Manor Sorting Office 1.7 km 0 km – Park Way 2016-2021 Low
West End Road 0.5 km 0 km – West End Rd 2016-2021 Moderate
Braintree Road 0.2 km 0 km – Victoria Rd 2016-2021 Moderate
297-299 Long Lane 1.7 km 0.3 km 2016-2021 Low
Odyssey Business Park 0.3 km 0.3 km 2021-2026 Moderate
Economic Impacts
If HS2 does result in adverse impacts on the delivery timescales of some
of north Hillingdon’ development sites, there are likely to be adverse
economic impacts in terms of the creation of new jobs and GVA for the
Borough.
Within the context of this study it has not been possible to state with any
certainty the actual implications of HS2 for the delivery of these sites –
ultimately this will be a function of a complex range of factors, not least
developer confidence. However, as with the town centre impacts
(Impact 1.2), we have undertaken sensitivity testing to highlight the
potential economic impact which could result should delays in
development activity be experienced:
If the impacted development sites were delayed until after HS2
construction has commenced and is half complete (a delay for
most sites of around 5 years), we estimate that around £47.2m
GVA relating to resident expenditure and around £64.1m GVA
relating to commercial activity would be lost;
If the impacted development sites were delayed until after the
end of HS2 construction (a delay for most sites of around 10
years), we estimate that around £162.8m GVA relating to
resident expenditure and around £118.0m GVA relating to
commercial activity would be lost.
In both instances the creation of new jobs would be delayed, with
adverse impacts for local residents and for local policy aspirations
regarding supporting local employment growth.
Again it should be noted that these represent gross impacts: while a
proportion of the impacts would be felt by the LB Hillingdon economy,
some of the impacts would also be felt by wider geographies, reflecting
patterns of resident expenditure.
Table 5.7: Development Sites: Estimate of Impact
Type of Development Jobs Delayed GVA Lost
Moderate Delay (5 years) Residential Development 250 £47.2m
Commercial Development 400 £64.1
Long Delay (10 years) Residential Development 250 £89.6m
Commercial Development 400 £118.0m
Caveats to Analysis
It must be noted that due to the lack of information on likely impact on development timescales, this valuation cannot be included within our core assessment of impact. The figures are intended to illustrate the potential loss to the economy should growth ambitions be constrained, and hence the requirement for appropriate mitigation measures to be put in place to ensure development can proceed as planned.
Financial Impacts
If any of the developments sites do experience delays as a result of HS2,
Hillingdon HS2 Impact Study – December 2014 27
there will be financial impacts for LB Hillingdon as a result in delays in
anticipated CIL payments.
However, given the uncertainty over the nature and quantum of impacts
described on the previous page, it has not been possible to quantify
these financial impacts within the scope of this study.
Impact 2.2: Reduced Business Investment in Existing Employment Sites
It is possible that HS2 construction activity will have an adverse impact
on business investment into existing (vacant) business premises /
accommodation in the north of the Borough. As is the case under Impact
2.1, these adverse impacts would be the result of reduced investor
confidence, with the significant flows of HS2 traffic (and related
congestion) and wider HS2 construction related blight (such as noise and
visual impacts), significantly weakening perceptions of the area as a
place to do business. Adverse impacts would result in missed
opportunities to grow the local employment base and hence impact
negatively upon LB Hillingdon’s aspirations to secure growth across its
economy.
It has not been possible to quantify this impact area within the scope of
this work given lack of information about current vacancy levels within
the existing stock of commercial floorspace premises in the area (i.e the
amount of available space which could theoretically be occupied by new
businesses) and uncertainty about how HS2 traffic movements and
blight might affect investor behaviour (as is the case under Impact 2.1).
That said, it is likely that any impact will be relatively minor given the fact
that the economy of the north of the Borough is comparatively small
(especially compared to the south of the Borough), with a large
proportion of economic activity focused around town centre retailing
activities (impacts on these activities are considered separately under
Impact 1.2). Any impacts which do occur are likely to be largely
temporary in nature, persisting for the duration of HS2 construction
activity.
Theme 3: Community, Leisure and Recreation
We have identified a number of impacts for assessment under the local
community, leisure and recreation theme. These are:
Impact 3.1: Community, Leisure, Recreation Facilities Lost or
Disrupted Development Lost
Impact 3.2: Residential Properties Lost
Impact 3.3: Residential Properties Blighted
Impact 3.4: Local Resident Congestion Impacts.
Impact 3.1: Community, Leisure / Recreational Facilities Lost or Disrupted
The proposed land take of HS2 will have significant impacts on
community, leisure and recreational facilities throughout the north of
the Borough.
In several instances, facilities will no longer be able to operate (such as
HOAC and the Ruislip Rifle Club), while in other instances, facilities will
be disrupted or experience reductions in access (e.g. Uxbridge and West
Ruislip Golf Courses and local rights of way). Expected leisure and
recreation impacts are summarised in the table below.
Hillingdon HS2 Impact Study – December 2014 28
Table 5.8: Summary of Leisure and Recreation Impacts
Name HS2 Land Take Potential Impact
Leisure / recreation facilities
HOAC Loss of buildings
and surrounding
land (inc. Lake 2)
HOAC will be unable to operate on current site. No
other suitable sites within Borough although there is
potential for relocation to Denham Quarry in the
neighbouring the local authority area
Uxbridge
Golf
Course
Around 3 holes of
existing course
impacted
Loss of land will affect ability to upgrade the course as
per current planning permission; in any case course
likely to need to close for at least a year to allow for
reconfiguration / remodelling; in a worst case
scenario consultation with LB Hillingdon officers has
suggested that loss of members as a result of further
disruptions could result in closure of course
West
Ruislip
Golf
Course
Loss of around 3
holes of the
existing course
Course likely to need to close for at least a year to
allow for reconfiguration / remodelling; loss of 3 holes
(or more) will result in loss of competition course
status; possible loss of members could result in
closure of course as a worst case scenario
Ruislip
Rifle Club
Loss of premises Club will be unable to operate on current site
Wider Leisure Assets
Rights of
Way
Diversions and
closures
throughout the
area
Community impacts for estimated 3,500 local
residents with access to the paths; reduction in
number of visitors to the area
Gravel Pits
2,3 4 and
5
Lake 2 and 3 used
for construction,
access impacted to
Lake 4
HOAC and numerous angling clubs will no longer be
use the Lakes
Economic Impacts
The impacts on local leisure and recreation facilities described above
could result in the loss of jobs and GVA for the Hillingdon economy.
The scale of impacts would vary according to different scenarios:
Permanent closure of HOAC and Golf Courses – assuming a worst
case scenario with the closure of the two golf courses and HOAC,
we estimate that around 20 FTE positions could be lost, across
HOAC, and Uxbridge and West Ruislip Golf Courses. This would
result in an overall cost to the LB Hillingdon economy of around
£0.5m GVA per annum. Over a 60 year period this would equate
to a loss of £12.2m GVA (in 2014 prices);
Temporary closure of Golf Courses – permanent employment
impacts would be reduced to around 10 FTE jobs lost if it was
possible to keep the golf courses open: while there would be
short term adverse employment impacts whilst the courses
closed temporarily for remodelling (1 year in the case of
Uxbridge, 2 years in the case of West Ruislip), it is likely that once
operational again there would be no jobs lost at the golf courses
(compared to current levels). In this instance, once the golf
courses have reopened GVA costs would be around £0.2m per
annum (relating solely to HOAC ); or around £5.5m over a 60 year
period (including the permanent closure of HOAC and the
temporary closure of the golf courses);
Relocation of HOAC – while there is potential that HOAC could
be relocated to another location at neighbouring Denham
Quarry, this location would be outside the London Borough of
Hillingdon. Aas such at the London Borough of Hillingdon level,
the scenario would result in the same employment and GVA
impacts as the permanent closure option. That said,
employment would be retained in a nearby location and as such
Hillingdon HS2 Impact Study – December 2014 29
disruption for existing employees and users would be minimised.
Table 5.9: Community / Leisure Assets Impacted: Summary of Direct Economic Impacts
Impact Measure Time Period Estimated Impact
Employment Closure (or relocation of HOAC); permanent closure of Golf Courses
20 FTE Jobs
Closure (or relocation of HOAC); temporary closure of Golf Courses
10 FTE jobs
GVA cost per annum (£ m, 2014 prices)
Closure (or relocation of HOAC); permanent closure of Golf Courses
£0.5m
Closure (or relocation of HOAC); temporary closure of Golf Courses
£0.2m
Lifetime GVA cost (over 60 years) (£ m, 2014 prices)
Closure (or relocation of HOAC); permanent closure of Golf Courses
£12.2m
Closure (or relocation of HOAC); temporary closure of Golf Courses
£5.5m
The above direct economic impacts could also result in minor knock on
(multiplier) effects throughout the LB Hillingdon economy as a result of
adverse impacts on supply chain activity and employee spending. We
estimate this could equate to around 2 FTE jobs across Hillingdon and
£0.1m GVA per annum under the worst case scenario. If the golf courses
were to remain open, multiplier impacts would be negligible.
Financial Impacts
The above economic impacts will result in significant financial impacts
for the London Borough of Hillingdon, reflecting its significant land
7 London Borough of Hillingdon (2014), HS2 Environmental Statement Consultation:
Response by the London Borough of Hillingdon. Part 2: Significant environmental effects within Hillingdon
<http://www.hillingdon.gov.uk/media.jsp?mediaid=30750&filetype=pdf>
holdings across the direct impact area. This includes:
Income from golf course – as the landowner and operator, LB
Hillingdon currently receives significant income of nearly
£400,000 per annum from West Ruislip and Uxbridge golf
courses. Were the golf courses to close, this would represent a
significant loss, totalling £8.8m over a 60 year period. If the
closure was only temporary, we estimate the loss at around
£0.9m assuming that current income levels are maintained.
However, given the reduction in number of holes at each course,
a reduction in number of visitors and hence income is thought
likely. If user figures were adversely impacted by 25%, total costs
over the 60 year period would increase to £2.8m (in 2014 prices);
LB Hillingdon owns much of the land in and around the gravel
pits and currently receives leasehold income of around £16,000
per annum for a variety of licenses and uses. Assuming a worst
case scenario, the loss of this income would equate to a loss of
around £0.2 million over a 60 year period. Again, it is assumed
that this loss of income will be covered through statutory
compensation.
Societal Impacts
HS2 will result in a reduction in leisure opportunities. This will result in
increased pressure on other outdoor recreation facilities in LB Hillingdon:
Value of HOAC Recreational activities – The value of lost water
sports recreation facilities at HOAC is estimated for the 22,000
visitors to this facility each year7. Their recreation visits are
Hillingdon HS2 Impact Study – December 2014 30
valued between £1.85 and £5.46 per visit, based on values for
‘freshwater’ (e.g. lakes, ponds, canals, rivers and streams) and
‘greenbelt’ (a protected area of urban-edge green space)
recreation opportunities identified in Sen (2013)8. Lost welfare
as a result of lost recreational watersports opportunities are
valued at up to £3.6 in 2014 prices over 60 years. These welfare
costs would not be applicable should an alternative location for
HOAC be found given the proposed location is in close proximity
to the existing location;
Value of Angling Impacts – lost welfare as a result of lost angling
opportunities are valued at £4.0m in 2014 prices over 60 years.
This takes into account 5,000 individuals affected by loss of
angling visits to fishing lakes permanently affected by HS2 (Colne
Valley Anglers’ Consultative, 2014).
Table 5.10: Value of Recreational Visits – Anglers and HOAC Users
Anglers HOAC Users
Number trips affected 38,000 22,000
Value of Trips Average £2.80 -
Low - £1.85
High - £5.46
£/year (2010 GBP) Average £0.1m
Low - £0.04m
High - £0.1m
Total discounted value
over 60 years (present
value - 2014 GBP)
Average £4.0m
Low - £1.2m
High - £3.6m
8 Sen, A. et al. (2013). “Economic Assessment of the Recreational Value of Ecosystems: Methodological Development and National and Local Application”, Environmental Resource Economics, vol. 57: 233-249.
Caveats to Analysis
It must be noted that this is only a partial assessment of impact: due to lack of baseline data it has not been possible to value the loss of recreation opportunities for wider users of the Colne Valley. It is also noted that there is uncertainty involved in assessing values in this manner (e.g. for HOAC, this may be an underestimate of the specialist facilities at this site), but the results are considered to give an acceptable order of magnitude valuation of the impacts.
Impact 3.2: Residential Properties Lost
A small a number of residential buildings are located within the direct
impact area and will be demolished:
Residential dwellings – Gatemead Farmhouse and Dews
Farmhouse;
Associated structures – around 8 outbuildings and garages
across the direct impact area.
These residential buildings and their owners / tenants will be covered by
established compensation which will cover the unblighted value of the
premises and associated disruption / upheaval costs.
Impact 3.3: Property Values
A significant number of residential properties in Hillingdon are likely to
be subject to HS2 related blight, as a result of visual impacts, noise
Hillingdon HS2 Impact Study – December 2014 31
impacts and traffic impacts.
The map and table below highlights that there are a large number of
properties located within 1.5km of the HS2 Safeguarded area which
might be subject to disruption.
Table 5.11: Summary of Residential Properties in Proximity to HS2 Activity
Buffer from Safeguarded Zone Number of Properties
50m 300
250m 2,800
500m 7,700
100m 16,900
1500m 25,500
Figure 5.2: Residential Properties in Proximity to HS2 Activity
Source: Regeneris Consulting based on HS2 Limited
Economic Impacts
This blighting is likely to result in adverse impacts on property prices, an
economic cost for local residents.
Research by Hamptons suggests that property prices in areas in close
proximity to the HS2 route have experienced adverse impacts in recent
years. Prices of properties within 0.5km and 1.5km of the route have
performed at -6% and -5% respectively compared to the national
average in recent years. This is thought to be a conservative figure given
the level of blight will increase significantly once construction has
commenced.
Properties within 1.5km of the safeguarded area in Hillingdon currently
generate rental value (the standard approach to valuing property price
impacts) of around £473m per annum. Based upon the above research,
this could result in a (theoretical) loss of rental income to residents of
around £25.5m per annum across that area, or £264.2m until the end of
the HS2 construction period (from 2014 given blighting has already
commenced).
Table 5.12: Impact on Residential Property Prices
Buffer Zone
Number of Properties
Estimated Rental Value per Annum
Estimated Reduction in
Value
Estimated Loss of Value per Annum
Total 25,500 £473m 5% £25.5m
Impact 3.4: Residents – Lost Time
Residents living in and around the direct impact area will be impacted by
increased congestion resulting from HS2 traffic. The result will be
increased journey times, with adverse implications for quality of life
measures.
Hillingdon HS2 Impact Study – December 2014 32
Assessing exactly who will be impacted is difficult: there are ongoing
uncertainties around HS2 construction routes and existing local traffic
surveys provide little information on who is using the roads (these only
provide an estimate of road usage rather than information on the users).
As such, our assessment of impact is based on information about the size
of the local population, and DfT survey evidence around the average
number of residents making non-business road trips (this includes all
commuting, leisure and recreation trips), the average length of these
trips and the purpose of these trips. We have then made assumptions
on the proportion of trips which will be impacted by construction traffic
(either directly or by spillover / displacement effects). There is no
established way of doing this so we have made assumptions based on
the proportion of the local road network likely to be impacted by
construction traffic (highest for residents in the local impact areas,
lowest for residents in the south of the Borough). These assumptions are
set out in the table below.
Table 5.13: Local Resident Congestion Impacts
Area Number of Residents
Estimated Number Trips
per Annum Using Personal
Transport
Estimated Proportion
of Trips Impacted
Estimated Number of
Trips Impacted
5 Character Areas 48,500 17.3m 20% 8.2m
Rest of North Hillingdon
49,600 17.7m 10% 4.2m
South Hillingdon 175,800 62.8m 5% 3.0m
Total 273,900 97.8m n/a 15.4m
Source: Census DfT Transport Survey
Estimate based on proportion of road
network impacted locally
Societal Impacts
Impacts can be quantified using DfT TAG methodology, and more
specifically guidance on the ‘value of time’. This gives a value for
different types of time including commuting trips, business trips, leisure
trips, education trips, and other personal business trips.
No information currently exists on the likely length of delays on routes
to be affected by HS2 construction traffic. As such, it is not possible to
model with any precision the value of time lost for Hillingdon residents.
Reflecting this uncertainty, again we have undertaken sensitivity testing
to highlight the potential impact which could result should delays be
experienced:
To inform our sensitivity testing, we have assumed delays of 2%
(a delay of less than one per journey impacted) and 5% (a delay
of between 1 and 2 minutes per journey impacted) to model
impacts for those journeys impacted. These are deemed to be
conservative estimates in the context of overall average journey
times (around 32 minutes);
Our sensitivity testing suggests that average delays of 2% would
result in a welfare costs of £1.7m per annum to Hillingdon
residents (£12.0m over a 10 year period); with average delays of
5%, this would increase to around £4.1m per annum (£30.1m
over a ten year period).
Hillingdon HS2 Impact Study – December 2014 33
Table 5.14: Local Resident Traffic Congestion Impacts
All Hillingdon Residents
Number of Trips Impacted per annum 19.0m
Estimated Time Lost
1% average delay 0.2m hours
5% average delay 0.5m hours
Value of Lost Time per annum
(£m, 2014 prices)
1% average delay £1.7m
5% average delay £4.2m
Value of Lost Time over lifetime
(10 years) (£m 2014 prices)
1% average delay £12.0m
5% average delay £30.1m
Caveats to Analysis
It must be noted that due to the information gaps regarding HS2 construction movements and lack of information on likely quantum of journeys impacted and length of delays, our assessment is based on a number of high level assumptions and should be treated as being for illustrative purposes only.
Theme 4: Environmental Impacts
We have identified a number of impacts for assessment under the local
environmental impacts theme. These are:
Impact 4.1: Landscape Impacts
Impact 4.2: Habitat Impacts
Impact 4.3: Air Quality Impacts
Impact 4.4: Noise Impacts.
Impact 4.1: Landscapes
The HS2 line, and in particularly the proposed Colne Valley will be visible
at considerable distance across landscape. It is estimated that the HS2
construction footprint will permanently utilise around 150 ha of
agricultural land and 18 ha of woodland.
Economic Impacts
It is anticipated that the above impacts will result in blighted landscape
for the businesses and residential properties in direct impact and
surrounding area. However, economic impacts relating to the loss of
these businesses and properties are considered elsewhere (primarily
under Impact 3.3).
Societal Impacts
It is also anticipated that the HS2 footprint will result in a reduced quality
of experience for recreational users of direct impact area in the Colne
Valley. Welfare impacts relating to lost recreational visits are costed
under the Resident and Community theme (Impact 3.1)
Impact 4.2: Habitats
We estimate that the footprint of HS2 activities will result in the loss of
25 ha of a variety of non-agricultural habitats, including significant
impacts on River Colne SSSI. The HS2 construction footprint will also
result in significant fragmentation, reducing ecological value of adjacent
habitats.
Societal Impacts
It is anticipated that HS2 construction activities will result in a slight
reduction in value of the SSSI network (particularly for migratory wetland
species). However, in the context of this study we have not been able to
value impacts relating to loss of habitats: this is a particularly complex
area which requires significant survey work / information, which is not
currently available.
Hillingdon HS2 Impact Study – December 2014 34
Impact 4.3: Air Quality Impacts
Significant air quality impacts are anticipated related to large-scale
increases in HGV traffic along specific routes including Harvil Road,
Swakeleys Road, and Breakspear Road.
Societal Impacts
It is anticipated that increased exposure to air pollution due to
construction traffic will result in societal impacts for local residents and
users of the area. Our analysis has focused on the road junctions most
affected by the traffic increase (Harvil and Swakeleys Roads). Increase in
emissions is estimated per heavy vehicle for a 1km length. Traffic is
assumed to be moving at an average of 20 mph (roads have a 30 mph
speed limit). Our estimates based on the Defra Emissions Factor Toolkit
(2014) model.
Impacts of increased emissions due to increased construction traffic are
estimated at £3.3m - £6.8m over the peak construction time period
(taken as 5 years from 2017 in this instance) in 2014 prices.
Table 5.15: PM 10 and 2.5 damage costs
Change in PM 25 and 10 (tonnes/ year, all vehicles) (a) 9.00
£/tonne PM (2010 GBP) Low (b) £73,261
High (c ) £148,949
£/year (2010 GBP) Low (a x b) £659,636
High (a x c) £1,341,125
Total discounted value over peak construction period
(present value - 2014 GBP)
Low £3,347,179
High £6,805,244
Impact 4.4 Noise Impacts
Significant noise impacts are expected as a result of HS2 construction and
operation activities. The likely impact is increased noise of at least 5 dB
across the areas impacted.
Societal Impacts
Impacts of increased noise are likely to relate to around 350 properties
and are valued at £0.31 - £0.88 million per dB. This valuation is over 60
years from 2017, in 2014 prices. It is assumed that the likely impact is
increased noise of at least 5 dB, giving impacts of approximately £1.5m
to £4.4m over this period.
However, it should be noted that this is a high level assessment based
upon available secondary data; noise impacts typically require more
detailed modelling based upon detailed survey evidence.
Summary of Impacts
Impacts assessed above are summarised below. Again it is important to
note that in many instance it is not possible to aggregate impacts given
the different types of impacts assessed and the variety of valuation
methodologies deployed.
Economic Impacts
Our analysis has identified a number of direct economic impacts of HS2
in Hillingdon. These include:
The closure of HOAC – HOAC will need to close as a result of HS2
and there is no potential for relocation to another part of the
Borough. While there is some potential that HOAC could be
relocated to a neighbouring location outside the Borough this
would still represent an overall cost to the LB Hillingdon
economy;
Closure of West London Composting – consultation has
Hillingdon HS2 Impact Study – December 2014 35
suggested that this business will no longer be able to operate
should HS2 persist with its current landtake proposals;
Temporary or permanent closure of West Ruislip and Uxbridge
Golf Courses – as a minimum, both golf courses will need to close
temporarily to allow for course remodelling works as a result of
HS2 (1 year for Uxbridge, 2 years for West Ruislip). In the longer
term, there is a risk that the golf courses close permanently as a
result of reductions in user numbers in the context of the loss of
their 18 hole status;
Agricultural land – around 200 hectares of agricultural land
across 12 holdings will be lost, with around 75% of this (around
150ha) lost permanently.
We have quantified these impacts in terms of jobs and GVA and have
taken into account the various scenarios identified above. This suggests
that:
The worst case scenario (closure of West London Composting,
closure or relocation of HOAC, temporary and permanent loss of
agricultural land as described above, permanent closure of golf
courses) would directly result in around 40 FTE jobs permanently
lost, with a GVA impact of around £35m costed over 60 years;
The lower impact scenario (closure of West London Composting,
closure or relocation of HOAC, temporary and permanent loss of
agricultural land as described above, temporary closure of golf
courses) would directly result in around 40 FTE jobs lost in the
short term (i.e. while the golf courses are reconfigured) and
around 30 FTE jobs in the longer run once the golf courses are
re-opened. GVA impacts would be around £28m costed over 60
years.
Table 5.16: Summary of Core Economic Impacts
Job Losses During
Construction
(varying period)
Longer
Term Job
Losses
GVA over
Lifetime (60
years)
Scenario 1: Closure of West London Composting,
closure or relocation of HOAC, temporary and
permanent loss of agricultural land, permanent
closure of golf courses
40 FTE 40 FTE £35.0m
Scenario 2: Closure of West London Composting,
closure or relocation of HOAC, temporary and
permanent loss of agricultural, temporary
closure of golf courses
40 FTE 30 FTE £28.3m
We have also identified a number of wider or indirect economic impacts,
including those relating to reduced town centre footfall, delays to
planned development activity in the local area as a result of HS2, reduced
business investment into the area, and reductions in local property
prices as a result of blight. However, it has not been deemed appropriate
to aggregate these impacts due to differences in the types of impacts
measured and uncertainty in the information upon which the valuation
has been based. As such, while adverse impacts have been identified
against these categories, our costings should be viewed as illustrative
only.
Financial Impacts: Summary
There are a number of direct financial impacts for LB Hillingdon relating
to the above. These largely relate to projected loss of income from the
councils land holdings across the areas of the Borough impacted by HS2.
Again our analysis considers a number of scenarios (largely relating to
uncertainty regarding future income from West Ruislip and Uxbridge
Golf Course):
The worst case scenario (closure or relocation of HOAC,
Hillingdon HS2 Impact Study – December 2014 36
temporary and permanent loss of agricultural land as described
previously, permanent closure of golf courses) would result in a
lifetime cost for the council of £9.3m;
The lower impact scenario (closure or relocation of HOAC,
temporary and permanent loss of agricultural land as described
previously, temporary closure of golf courses) would result in a
lifetime cost for the council of £1.4m, assuming the golf courses
are able to maintain current income levels once reopened. If
future income levels decline as a result of a reduced number of
users (we have assumed a 25% reduction), the impact for the
council would increase to £3.4m.
Table 5.17: Summary of Financial Impacts
Loss of Income over lifetime (60 years)
Scenario 1: Closure or relocation of HOAC, temporary
and permanent loss of agricultural land, permanent
closure of golf courses
£9.3m
Scenario 2a: Closure or relocation of HOAC, temporary
and permanent loss of agricultural land, temporary
closure of golf courses (current income maintained)
£1.4m
Scenario 2b: Closure or relocation of HOAC, temporary
and permanent loss of agricultural land, temporary
closure of golf courses (25% reduction in income)
£3.4m
Our assessment does not include the financial impacts relating to
possible indirect economic impacts such as town centre footfall impacts
or development site impacts, reflecting the uncertainty regarding the
nature of these impacts described above.
Societal Impacts: Summary
Our assessment has identified a range of societal impacts which have
been quantified in terms of welfare (or non-monetary) impacts. These
include the impacts of reduced recreation opportunities across the local
area, and adverse impacts relating to noise and air quality:
Recreation impacts: impact of around £4.0m for lost angling
opportunities and up to £3.6m for lost watersports
opportunities at HOAC over 60 years. It must be noted this is only
a partial assessment: it has not been possible to quantify wider
recreation impacts such as reduced access to public rights of
way. These welfare costs would not be applicable should an
alternative location for HOAC be found (given the proposed
location is in close proximity to the existing location);
Air Quality impacts: impact of £3.3m - £6.8m over the peak years
of construction activity;
Noise impacts: estimated at between £1.5 and £4.4m over 60
years from 2017.
Based on the above, societal impacts are valued at up to £18.8m in
current prices. However this figure excludes notable impacts (e.g. loss of
wildlife, landscape impacts), and therefore is only a partial valuation of
the total societal impacts. These values have a moderate level of
uncertainty due to imperfect information from HS2.
Table 5.18: Summary of Core Societal Impacts
Cost over Lifetime (£m)
Recreational Impacts Up to £7.6m
Air Quality Up to £6.8m
Noise Impacts Up to £4.4m
Aggregated Impacts Up to £18.8m
Hillingdon HS2 Impact Study – December 2014 37
Impacts Identified but not Quantified
As identified within the Impact Assessment Framework in Chapter 4,
there are also a number of additional impacts which have been
identified, but which it has not been possible to quantify due to either
lack of baseline information or lack of an approved methodology which
can be applied in the scope of this study. These include landscape
impacts, habitat impacts and wider recreation impacts (such as usage of
public rights of way across the area).
Hillingdon HS2 Impact Study – December 2014 38
6. Compensation and Mitigation
As set out in the previous chapters, it is expected that the construction
and operation of HS2 will result in a significant and diverse set of adverse
impacts for LB Hillingdon and its residents.
Primary Mitigation: A Tunnelled Option
LB Hillingdon’s preferred or primary mitigation option would be for HS2 to pass underground through the Borough, with a tunnel linking the west London HS2 tunnel to the Chiltern HS2 tunnel. This option would result in a significant reduction in surface level works and disruption in the Borough and as such significantly reduce adverse impacts for local residents and businesses.
The feasibility of this option is currently being examined in separate LB Hillingdon and HS2 Ltd studies.
If this primary mitigation option is not progressed, significant
compensation and mitigation will be required to reduce the costs to LB
Hillingdon, its residents and its businesses to zero.
Established Compensation
Financial compensation from HS2 Ltd would be required to respond to
many of the land and property impacts described in the previous
chapter.
Land and property compensation will be covered under the established
compensation packages being proposed by HS2 Ltd and HM Government
and it is known that a number of the affected land / properties owners
are already working with HS2 Ltd to settle these claims. While we have
not sought to quantify the level of compensation to the various parties,
an overview of the types of compensation payable is provided below.
Hillingdon HS2 Impact Study – December 2014 39
Land and properties within the safeguarded zone
It is assumed that properties within the safeguarded zone will be
acquired using compulsory purchase powers. This would include
agricultural land, land on Uxbridge and West Ruislip Golf Courses, HOAC,
the buildings at the Research Farm, outbuildings at Gatemead Farm and
Dews Farm.
Section 5 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 specifies that the
requirement for compensation should be based upon open market value
of the land / asset. However, this does not prevent the owner from
claiming compensation for other ‘disturbance’ losses: the ability to
receive compensation is based upon the overriding principle that the
owner shall be paid neither less nor more than his loss.
Disturbance can only be claimed for losses which occur after the
acquiring authority exercises its compulsory powers and a claim for
disturbance only occurs after an owner is forced to vacate land.
Disturbance losses can be very varied and can include (for example)
removal expenses, crop loss, loss on forced sale of stock, loss of goodwill,
damage caused to retained land by the contractors.
Compensation for properties outside safeguarded zone
Under Part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 a claimant with an
owner’s interest in property that has been reduced in value can claim for
depreciation due to specified physical factors, mainly noise, vibration
and artificial lighting emanating from the public works. In this instance
this would cover some of those properties identified under Impact 3.2 as
being at risk from blight impacts relating to construction and operation
of HS2.
Environmental Mitigation
In Hillingdon, the compensation that will be payable through the
established compensation provisions will not be sufficient to mitigate
the impacts of HS2. The compensation payable by HS2 must therefore
be sufficient to cover the actual costs of mitigating the impacts and
associated costs to Hillingdon and its residents / communities.
Environmental impacts are one of the most significant areas for
mitigation. From the list of environmental impacts considered in this
study, it is possible to consider compensatory actions for several of them.
Environmental compensation can take the form of a monetary payment
to those affected, but this can be controversial, because it is hard to
make payments to compensate future generations for a loss.
Therefore, this discussion considers compensation that aims to reinstate
the environmental resources damaged. There are also limits to what can
be compensated in this manner. Some impacts, such as on landscape,
are very hard to measure and arguably largely irreplaceable, so design of
compensation options may not be feasible. Other impacts (e.g. impacts
on recreation through rights of way, angling and water sports facilities)
relate to amenity values to certain groups of people, and therefore
meaningful compensation needs to be in close enough proximity to
those groups to enable them to use the alternative. However, options to
undertake potential compensation actions may be constrained by
geographical factors. For example, there is a loss of recreational amenity
in the Colne Valley lakes impacted by HS2 (e.g. for angling and
watersports). There appear to be few, if any, locations where such
recreational facilities can be recreated within a reasonable proximity of
the current users. Impacts on properties (e.g. noise) may be addressed
as part of property compensation packages, and/or through mitigation
measures such as sound-proofing.
A specific method exists for compensation for impacts on biodiversity –
biodiversity offsets. These are defined as measurable conservation
outcomes resulting from actions designed to compensate for significant
residual adverse biodiversity impacts arising from project development
after appropriate prevention and mitigation measures have been taken
Hillingdon HS2 Impact Study – December 2014 40
(Tucker et al, 2013). They depend on accurate measurement of the
biodiversity impacts of a project. Unfortunately the impacts of HS2 on
wildlife habitats in LBH is unclear from the environmental statement.
The following table has been drawn from the HS2 Environmental
Statement and LBH response to it. The quantified impacts include
overlapping categories such as ‘diverse habitat’, and ‘terrestrial habitat’,
with the degree of overlap not being clear. It should be noted that not
all impacts on biodiversity can be offset (BBOP, 2013)9. In particular the
impacts on ancient woodland are likely to be defined as not offsettable.
Therefore alternative compensation options could be sought, although
there it is possible that no adequate compensation could be found.
Table 6.1: Summary of Land Impacts
Land type Amount lost
Farmland Around 200 ha temporarily, 150 ha permanently
Diverse habitat (including woodland)
20 ha
Open grassland 60 ha
Hedgerows 3 km
Ponds 10
Complex and diverse habitat along the River Pinn
1 ha
Open watercourse of the Ikenham Stream
Unknown
Mid Colne Valley SSSi 19ha (including 1ha of ancient woodland)
Open water 5.4ha (6% within the SSSi)
Running water 2.9ha (50% of the River Colne in the SSSi)
Woodland 10 ha (33% of total woodland area of the SSSi)
9 Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP). 2012. Resource Paper: Limits to What Can Be Offset. BBOP, Washington, D.C. Available from http://bbop.forest-trends.org/guidelines/Resource_Paper_Limits.pdf
Terrestrial habitat 25 ha (including 18ha of broadleaved woodland in the Mid Colne valley nature conservation. This includes 10ha of supporting habitat including woodland, and 170m of River Colne will be 'modified')
Interpreting this data requires some assumptions:
At a minimum, it could be assumed that the grassland and
hedgerows are part of the farmland, and that the SSSI and
Woodland habitats are part of the ‘Terrestrial Habitat’ category,
giving an impact of: around 200 ha of agricultural land affected,
of which around 150 ha is permanently lost; 25 ha of higher
biodiversity-value habitats; wetland features (10 ponds, 8.3 ha
of open & running water); and indirect impacts due to
fragmentation of woodland, open water and running water
habitats in the SSSI.
The maximum impact could be much higher; assuming the
grassland is additional to the farmland, and the SSSI and
Woodland habitats are distinct from the ‘Terrestrial Habitat’
category, gives impact of: around 200 ha of agricultural land
affected, of which around 150 permanently lost; 60ha of open
grassland (assumed to be intensively farmed and therefore of
relatively low biodiversity value); 3km of hedgerows; 39 ha of
woodland (1 ha ancient woodland in the SSSI, 10 further ha in
the SSSI, and 18 ha outside the SSSI); 16 ha of other habitats (8ha
in the SSSI, 8 ha outside the SSSI); Wetland features (10 ponds,
8.3 ha of open & running water); and indirect impacts due to
fragmentation of woodland, open water and running water
habitats in the SSSI. This may still be an underestimate as it is
Hillingdon HS2 Impact Study – December 2014 41
unclear whether the ‘diverse habitat’ category involves an
additional area.
The costs of compensation for any of these impacts that remained after
the preceding steps in the mitigation hierarchy would presumably be
borne by HS2. If this was done in accordance with good practice for
biodiversity offsets, it would adopt a like for like approach for the higher
value biodiversity habitats (e.g. wetland features) and a like for like or
better approach for lower value habitats. It is also likely, especially for
higher value habitats, to require the area of any offset to be greater than
the area damaged. The ratio of offset to damage should reflect, inter alia,
the lower quality of compensatory habitat compared to that damaged,
and the risks of biodiversity compensation actions not achieving their
objectives.
Therefore it is possible that several 100’s of ha of compensatory habitats
would be required to offset the biodiversity impacts of HS2 in LBH. The
price of biodiversity offsets in England is poorly understood, due to their
limited use as a compensation approach, and lack of information on the
few instances where they have been done. The costs of the habitat
enhancement and management measures required are broadly
understood from comparable conservation actions, these can range
from several £100’s to several £1,000’s per ha, or more for very complex
habitats.
However, the price of biodiversity offsets can be much higher than this.
This can be due to:
The time periods for compensation, which ideally being in
perpetuity or very long term, are akin to sale of the property
rights for the and involved. This increases the costs as it brings in
opportunity costs of forgoing other commercial options on the
land;
The availability of suitable land. Overall the amount of land
required in England to offset the area of built development each
year is a small fraction of the undeveloped land area. However,
land availability in locations suitable for offsets may be
constrained, depending on local ecology, geography and
economic circumstances. The ‘suitable location’ will also vary
depending on requirements for proximity between the offset
site and the location of the damage. Such requirements depend
on the approach to the offset; for example whether the
compensation is judged in the context of national or regional
biodiversity (in which case a greater distance may be
acceptable), or in the context of local biodiversity and/or its
amenity to local people (leading to a shorter acceptable
distance).
These factors mean that offset costs are more likely to be of the order of
several £10,000’s or even over £100,000 per ha. For the habitats
impacted by HS2 in LB Hillingdon, considering the development pressure
on land in the Borough given its proximity to London, offset costs
towards the upper end of this range are expected. Therefore, the overall
costs to offset the biodiversity impacts on HS2 in LB Hillingdon would be
expected to be at least £10 million (based on compensation of 200 ha of
habitat, with average costs of £50,000 per ha or more).
It should be noted that this is an approximate estimate, and a more
accurate calculation would be dependent on many assumptions (e.g.
compensation ratios, proximity to damage, like for like /or better
requirements) that are beyond the remit of this study.
Wider Mitigation Measures
This section provides an overview of the remaining impacts which are
not covered by established compensation and the wider mitigation
measures which could help to respond to these. Our approach has built
upon consultation with relevant officers to understand expectations and
Hillingdon HS2 Impact Study – December 2014 42
gather ideas and also examination of mitigation case studies from
elsewhere (e.g. HS1 and Crossrail).
Wider mitigation measures can be grouped into four categories:
Transport mitigation
Local resident and community mitigation
Business support and development
Skills and employment support and brokerage
Transport Mitigation
Given the significant HS2 worksites in Hillingdon, construction traffic is a
major influence in many of the impacts described and quantified in
chapter 5.
Local Context Considerations
As described in chapter 2, LB Hillingdon already suffers from a number
of transport constraints. These include:
North-south connectivity in the Borough, seen as a major barrier
to social and economic prosperity;
Numerous congestion hotspots including the A40 Western
Avenue (particularly junctions Swakeleys Rd and Long Lane);
Swakeleleys Rd and Breakspear Rd South; Swakeleys Road and
High Road Ickenham; and various junctions around Ruislip,
Ruislip Manor, South Ruislip and Eastcote town centres.
Impacts to be Mitigated
There is considerable uncertainty about the precise nature of HS2
congestion transport flows. That said, based on information available,
HS2 construction traffic will add a considerable burden to the local
transport road, with the potential for over 1,000 additional lorry
movements per day through the north of the Borough. Many of these
movements will affect existing pinchpoints / congestion hotspots on the
local road network. It is anticipated that increased congestion will result
in:
Delays / lost time for local businesses and residents resulting in
reductions in productivity and also welfare impacts;
Adverse impacts on local town centre performance, with
increased congestion reducing town centre visits / footfall;
Potential for reductions or delays in investment into the local
area due to disruption.
Possible Mitigation Measures
Possible mitigation measures could include:
HS2 Traffic Management Plan – analysis of transport impacts has
taken into account evidence generated from Crossrail 1. This
incorporated a significant Traffic Management Plan (TMP),
which included the majority of spoil and material being transport
by rail (and water). A similarly comprehensive TMP would be
required for HS2 focusing both on the mode of movements (e.g.
maximising rail movements and bulking any road freight
movements) and the timings of movements (i.e avoiding existing
peak times on the local network). Ultimately the aim must be to
minimise vehicular movements to and from the various
worksites. As well as material, this should also include provision
for access by construction workers, with strong restrictions on
any private car use;
Lorry Route Plans – further to the above, in order to minimise
the impact of lorry movements to the site, much more detailed
Hillingdon HS2 Impact Study – December 2014 43
designated lorry routes should be developed that avoid the most
congested parts of the network. This should be developed in
close collaboration with LB Hillingdon and TfL;
Junction Enhancements – our research analysis has indicated
that numerous parts of the local road network are already
operating close to capacity at peak time. As well as ensuring that
HS2 traffic avoids these junctions (particularly at peak hours)
wherever possible, further research should be undertaken to
identify any local road / junction enhancements which could be
delivered to minimise adverse impacts for local residents / local
businesses.
Local Resident and Community Mitigation
There is a need for significant place and property mitigation measures to
respond to the impacts identified in Chapter 5.
Local Context Considerations
The north of Hillingdon is a densely populated area. The area contains
numerous local leisure and recreation facilities including Uxbridge and
West Ruislip Golf Courses and HOAC. Local residents and visitors also
benefit from significant wider recreational assets including the local
rights of way network and the Colne Valley Regional Park. Local policy is
to improve access to public open space and enhance the green and open
character of this area.
Impacts to be Mitigated
HS2 will impact upon local residents and communities in a number of
ways, largely relating to the detrimental impacts of construction:
Disruptive impacts of HS2 construction activity for local
residents (e.g. traffic, noise, vibration and visual blight);
Disruption for other users of the local area, including travel /
way-finding disruption and blight (noise and visual);
Congestion related blight impacting on perceptions of and
confidence in the area, with implications on local property
values and investment;
Loss of recreational facilities such as HOAC and Rights of Way
affecting local residents and visitors to the area.
It is anticipated that these impacts will be temporary in nature – largely
persisting for the duration of the construction works (2017-2026).
Possible Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures for consideration could include:
Working with HS2 Ltd to find an suitable alternative location for
HOAC and to ensure appropriate solutions are found and
delivered to enabling the continued operation of Uxbridge and
West Ruislip Golf Courses;
Property interventions where necessary to mitigate noise and
vibration impacts (e.g triple glazing for affected properties).
Business and Economic Mitigation
A number of business and economic impacts for mitigation were
identified in chapter 5, including loss of agricultural land and the
potential for reduced trade in town centres.
Local Context Considerations
While Hillingdon’s economy is focused towards the south of the
Borough, the north contains a number of locally important town centres
Hillingdon HS2 Impact Study – December 2014 44
which serve the needs of local residents.
There are local policy aspirations to support business and enterprise, to
support the Borough’s district town centres, and to help retain and
create jobs for local residents.
Impacts to be Mitigated
HS2 will impact on the local business base in a number of ways, largely
relating to the detrimental impacts of construction:
The potential for significant disruption to a number of
agricultural holdings across the north of the Borough, including
activities at West London Composting;
Local retail businesses susceptible to changes in footfall / traffic
flows associated with HS2 construction activity;
Local businesses impacted by wider construction impacts
including noise, traffic and visual blight.
It is anticipated that these impacts will be largely temporary in nature –
largely persisting for the duration of the construction works (2017-2026).
However, loss of some agricultural land will be permanent.
Possible Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures for consideration could include:
Interventions to maintain appearance of the physical
environment such as hoardings and artwork, public realm
enhancements, meanwhile uses for empty space and security
and protection of construction sites when unused;
Interventions to maintain / improve footfall – visitor information
materials, temporary wayfinding and signage;
Information and advice - HS2 specific business advice on
compensation / timescales / implications of HS2 on local firms;
tailored advice for businesses undertaking self-mitigation
measures (e.g. triple glazing); enterprise support to help to
sustain vulnerable businesses;
Procurement support - engagement with businesses to make
them aware of potential supply chain opportunities (feeding into
the local HS2 worksites) and brokerage support to help access
them;
Local Business Groups / Forums – establishment or
enhancement of local groups to represent the interests of local
traders.
Note – other measure to support local town centres and businesses are
also included under the place / property mitigation and transport
mitigation sections.
Skills and Employment Mitigation
Reflecting the adverse employment impacts identified in chapter 5 and
the fact that Hillingdon residents are unlikely to benefit directly from HS2
operation, mitigation should be put in place to help local residents access
possible opportunities relating to HS2 construction.
Local Context Considerations
The north of Hillingdon is a densely populated area. While the north of
the Borough performs comparatively well in terms of skills and
employment levels, pockets of socio-economic deprivation persist in
certain locations.
There are strategic aspirations to build upon the existing employment
and skills base and to tackle socio-economic disparity in the Borough,
Hillingdon HS2 Impact Study – December 2014 45
including improving training and employment opportunities for local
residents.
Impacts to be Mitigated
HS2 will impact upon the local area in a number of ways, largely relating
to the detrimental impacts of construction:
Potential for direct loss of employment at a number of local
businesses including West London Composting and HOAC;
Potential for adverse impacts on local town centre businesses
with potential impacts on supply of jobs and wealth generation
locally;
Potential for adverse impacts on local development activity
hence reducing the potential for employment generation /
growth locally.
Possible Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures for consideration could include:
Employment and Brokerage Support – project to link north
Hillingdon residents to emerging employment opportunities
relating to HS2 construction (either locally or at the London
level);
Identifying Skills Gaps and Needs – mapping of HS2 skills needs
versus local skills supply to identify areas for training provision;
Training provision – project to help residents to gain the
necessary skills to access employment opportunities, including
creating linkages between local schools and major employers.
Hillingdon HS2 Impact Study – December 2014 46
7. Conclusions
The adverse impacts of HS2 in Hillingdon have already been documented
in full by LB Hillingdon in its response to the HS2 Environmental
Statement. This report explores these impacts in socio-economic terms,
providing a quantification of costs where possible.
The findings of the research are summarised in the table overleaf. The
table highlights a number of different types of impact:
Economic impacts – our study has highlighted a number of direct
economic impacts, primarily relating to the loss of jobs at
impacted agricultural holdings and at HOAC. The study also
identifies a number of wider (indirect economic impacts) such as
adverse impacts on town centre performance and local
development and investment activity.
Financial impacts – the above economic impacts will result in a
number of financial impacts for LB Hillingdon, primarily relating
to the loss of rental income from local land holdings, and loss of
income from business rates and other business license
payments.
Societal impacts – HS2 activities will result in a range of adverse
societal impacts for local residents, including loss of recreation
opportunities, loss of time due to increased congestion and
adverse noise and air quality impacts.
However, it should be noted that our findings provide only a partial
valuation. Within the scope of this study it has not been possible to
quantify a number of the impacts identified, most noticeably those
around landscapes and habitats.
There is also considerable uncertainty around a number of the
quantifications, reflecting imperfect baseline information, the lack of
evidence upon which to base assumptions and / or the lack of an
appropriate assessment methodology.
A key objective of LB Hillingdon is to ensure that HS2 is delivered at zero
cost to the Borough, its residents and its businesses. Direct land and
property impacts will be covered under the established compensation
packages being proposed by HS2 Ltd and HM Government. However,
many of the wider impacts identified within this report will not be
covered under such compensation and, as such, additional mitigation
measures will need to be put in place. These will need to be designed
and delivered in partnership between HS2 Ltd, LB Hillingdon and other
impacted parties and will need to cover a range of impact areas,
including transport impacts, business impacts, place specific and
environmental impacts and employment impacts.
Hillingdon HS2 Impact Study – December 2014 47
Table 7.1: Summary of All Impacts Theme Impact Description of Impacts Economic Impacts Financial Impacts Societal Impacts
Theme 1: Business and Economy Impacts
Impact 1.1: Businesses Displaced or Disrupted
Loss of around 200 hectares (75% permanently) of agricultural land, across 12 holdings; loss of a number of commercial premises
Loss of around 20 FTE jobs.
Cost to the LB Hillingdon economy of around £1.0m GVA per annum (£22.8m over a 60 year period)
Loss of LB Hillingdon rental income of around £18,000 per annum (equating to a loss of around £0.3 million over a 60 year period)
Impact 1.2 Disruption to Town Centres
HS2 traffic, resulting in additional congestion, has the potential to disrupt town centre footfall and performance
Information does not exist to make a robust judgement on this, but we estimate that a moderate (around 5%) reduction in footfall could result in the temporary loss of around 110 jobs, with the loss of GVA of £5.2m per annum (£39.1m over 10 years)
Negative financial implications are likely, due to loss of business rates and other license income
Theme 2: Development / Growth Impacts
Impact 2.1: Development Lost / Delayed
Delivery of local development sites may be delayed by HS2 related disruption (traffic and blight)
Information does not exist to make a robust judgement on this; however, in a worst case scenario (all development delayed until end of HS2 construction), we estimate an impact of around 250 jobs being delayed and a loss of around £90m GVA over 10 years
Negative financial implications are likely, due to loss of CIL, NHB and council tax income
Impact 2.2: Reduced Business Investment
Reduced investment into existing vacant business premises as a result of weakened perceptions and reduced investor confidence in the area
Not possible to quantify due to lack of baseline information
Not possible to quantify due to lack of baseline information
Theme 3: Local Resident and Community Impacts
Impact 3.1 Community /Recreation Facilities Impacts
Loss of a number of assets including HOAC, the Rifle Club and land at Uxbridge and West Ruislip Golf Courses. Reduced access to local rights of way and other local recreational assets
We estimate that between 10 and 20 jobs could be lost (depending on nature of Golf Course Impacts).
Overall cost to the size of the LB Hillingdon economy of between £5.5m and £12.2m over 60 years
Loss of income for LB Hillingdon between £0.9m and £8.8m depending on nature of the Golf Course Impacts
Lost welfare as a result of lost recreational visits valued at up to £7.6m in 2014 prices, over a 60 year period.
Impact 3.2/3: Residential Properties Impacted
A small number of residential buildings will be lost and others will be subject to HS2 related blight (visual impacts, noise impacts and traffic impacts)
Estimated costs of lost rental value of around £25.5m per annum for local property owners (as a result of HS2 blight impacting on property values)
Reduced expenditure in economy as a result of reduced property income may result in some minor adverse financial implications
Impact 3.4: Disruption to Local Journeys
Residents living in and around the direct impact area will be impacted by increased congestion, resulting in loss of time.
Impacts uncertain, but estimated at
between £12m and £30m over 10 years for illustrative purposes
Theme 4: Environ-mental Impacts
Impact 4.1: Landscape Impacts
HS2 line visible at considerable distance across landscape; use of 145 ha of agricultural land, 18 ha of woodland
Adverse economic impacts covered elsewhere, including under Impact 3.1
Not possible to quantify due to lack
of baseline information
Impact 4.2: Habitat Impacts
Loss of over 50 ha of a variety of non-agricultural habitats, including impacts on woodlands and River Colne SSSI
Adverse economic impacts covered elsewhere, including under Impact 3.1
Not possible to quantify due to lack
of baseline information
Impact 4.3: Air Quality Impacts
Adverse air quality impacts relating to significant increases in HGV traffic along specific routes.
Adverse economic impacts covered elsewhere, including under Impact 3.1
Impacts estimated at £3.3m to
£6.8m over construction period for illustrative purposes
Impact 4.4: Noise Impacts
Significant noise impacts as a result of increases in HGV traffic along specific routes; increase in noise pollution as a result of HS2 operation.
Adverse economic impacts covered elsewhere, including under Impact 3.1
Impacts estimated at £1.5m to
£4.4m over construction period for illustrative purposes
Aggregated Impacts
Aggregated total of up to 40 FTE jobs lost; loss of up to £35m GVA (over 60 years). Note: this is only a partial valuation, excluding town centre impacts; development impacts and residential property price impacts
Aggregated total of up to £9.3 million lost income for LB Hillingdon. Note: this figure is a partial valuation, excluding town centre and development impacts
Valued impacts up to £19m. Note: this is a partial valuation, excluding several impacts (such as lost time, landscape, and habitat impacts)
KEY: Impact Quantified Impact Quantified for Illustrative Purposes - but Non-Aggregable Adverse Impact Expected -but Not Quantified
Hillingdon HS2 Impact Study – December 2014 - 48 -
Appendix A Study Methodology
This section provides a detailed overview of our methodology and the
key assumptions we have made in our analysis.
Overarching Methodology and Assumptions
The following details our high level approach to the types of impacts
assessed throughout this report.
Overall Approach
Where possible we have ensured that our assumptions have been
informed by Government guidance, including the HM Treasury Green
Book10. This provides clear guidance on valuing the costs and benefits of
intervention through, for example, major infrastructure schemes to
government and society. The key principles which have been followed
include:
Costs should normally be extended to cover the period of the
useful lifetime of the assets;
Costs should normally be based on market prices as they usually
reflect best alternative uses that a good or service could be put
to (the opportunity cost);
Wider social and environmental costs and benefits for which
there is no market price need to be considered. Typically, these
are assessed using approaches which take into account
10 • HM Treasury Green Book (2011), accessed at http://www.hm-
treasury.gov.uk/d/green_book_complete.pdf
‘willingness to pay or accept’ determined by inferring a price
from observing consumer behaviour (revealed preference) or by
asking individuals what they would be willing to pay or receive
by way of compensation (stated preference). Within the scope
of this study, we have drawn upon literature which is available
to quantify these wider costs and these are discussed in more
detail in the relevant sections below.
A Note on our Brief: Quantifying Costs Not Benefits
There are two fundamental points to note regarding our brief:
1. Our brief has been focused upon quantifying the costs resulting
from HS2 in LB Hillingdon, and not any potential benefits.
2. Another important thing to note is that this work focuses on the cost
to LB Hillingdon and as such we do not attempt to quantify the cost to
the wider west London sub-region or London as a whole.
Types of Impacts
In monetising the impacts of HS2 for Hillingdon, our estimates of costs are split into three categories:
Economic Costs– this category includes costs to the LB Hillingdon
economy, such as changes in levels of business turnover and
associated Gross Value Added (GVA)11, changes in property
prices / value and costs relating to transport impacts;
Financial Costs– this category covers those financial costs likely
11GVA is an official measure of the contribution to the economy of each individual producer, industry or sector in the United Kingdom. GVA is used throughout the report as a measure of the level of impact on the Hillingdon economy resulting from HS2.
Hillingdon HS2 Impact Study – December 2014 - 49 -
to be borne by the London Borough of Hillingdon (i.e. the local
authority themselves), including direct costs relating council
assets such as the Golf Courses, and also more indirect costs to
the Council relating to business impacts, such as loss of business
rates. This will exclude economic costs such as compensation;
Societal / Environmental Costs– this category covers wider non-
monetary costs, such as those relating to loss of recreational
facilities, and those relating to open space and the environment.
The values generally represent loss of welfare to those affected.
It is important to understand that welfare values are different to
prices. Simplistically, loss of welfare reflects the total value of the
impacts of people’s wellbeing whereas price reflects the amount
actually paid by people, which is also influenced by available
supply (e.g. whether there is a market at all, and if so how much
is available). Loss of welfare is the maximum price someone
might be willing to pay for an improvement in something, or the
minimum price they would accept in compensation for a
deterioration in something.
Assessing Employment and GVA
While our approach for assessing impacts varies on an impact by impact basis according to information availability (see section below), a number of core principles have underpinned our approach to assessing employment and GVA impacts:
Employment – wherever possible we have based our estimates
of both current employment and potential HS2 employment
impacts on information from consultees and relevant
documentation (e.g. the HS2 Environmental Statement and LB
Hillingdon approach). Where this has not been possible we have
made assumptions based on standard government guidance on
12 Accessed at http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/abs/annual-business-survey/index.html
estimating employment levels based on HCA employment
density guidance. This is a standard and approved methodology
for assessing employment for impact appraisal purposes.
Throughout we refer to full time equivalent (FTE) employees;
GVA – GVA comprises the sum of employee salaries and
corporate profits and is a measure of the value of goods and
services produced in an area, industry or sector and is the
approved unit through which to measure local economic impact
or value. Our methodology for assessing GVA impacts
throughout our assessment is underpinned by evidence on
employment impacts. The ONS Annual Business Survey (ABS)12
provides data on GVA for the London economy by each sector.
Using information from the ONS Business Register and
Employment Survey (BRES)13 on the number of employees
within each sector we have estimated average GVA per FTE for
each sector in London. We have applied these benchmarks to
the employment figures to estimate total GVA impacts. This
gives a figure of GVA per annum associated with that quantum
of employment which can then be used to estimate impact over
longer time periods (see below).
Assessing Impacts Over Time
Many of the impacts we have assessed are valid across long (and varying) timeframes. Largely this can be split into two categories:
Temporary Impacts – impacts which will persist for part of (e.g
the golf courses) or all of (e.g town centre impacts) the HS2
construction period. Our assumptions regarding the length of
temporary impacts is set out in the narrative and has been based
on consultation with officers and stakeholders, or on the HS2
Environmental Statement in the case of the overall HS2
13 Accessed at https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/
Hillingdon HS2 Impact Study – December 2014 - 50 -
construction time period (assumed to be 10 years from 2017 to
2026);
Permanent Impacts – impacts which are longer term in nature
and which are likely to persist during the operational phases of
HS2. It is important to note that there is no standard guidance in
the HM Treasury Green Book regarding the time period over
which the loss of land and assets and wider economic values
should be costed. In this instance, we have costed permanent
impacts over a 60 year period. It should be noted that this is a
relatively long time period in terms of appraising impacts, and
subject to considerable uncertainty reflecting a complex range
of future economic unknowns and variables. However, the 60
year period has been adopted to reflect the lengthy construction
period and to ensure that persisting impacts thereafter are
captured. This approach has been adopted for all permanent
impacts for the sake of consistency. To place these longer term
figures in context (given the high level of discounting over such
a long time period), we have also presented figure for annual
costs (in 2014 prices).
For all future impacts, we present the Present Value of costs. Future
impacts have been discounted using standard HM Treasury Guidance
(with annual discounting of 3.5% assumed, reducing to 3.0% after 30
years). This is a recognised approach for comparing costs which occur in
different time periods and are based on the principle that, generally,
people prefer to receive goods and services now rather than later.
Aggregating Impacts
In many instances, it is not possible or appropriate to aggregate the
14 https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/hs2-phase-one-environmental-
statement-documents
impacts that we have assessed to provide an overall quantification of
impact. There are a number of reasons for this:
The different nature of the impact being assessed – as
highlighted above, we have assessed a relatively diverse range
of impacts, using a range of quantification techniques and
methods. It is not appropriate to aggregate economic and
societal impacts, for example, as the type of quantification is not
like for like;
Uncertainty in quantification – in a number of instances, we have
provided a high level quantification of impact, but have not had
the information available to make a fully robust assessment of
impact. Where the scale of impact is particularly uncertain (e.g.
town centre impacts or development impacts), we have noted
these alongside the more ‘core’ impacts
Methodology: Impact by Impact
Below we provide an overview of the methods and assumptions we have
made in assessing each specific impact area.
Theme 1: Business and Economy
Impact 1.1: Businesses Displaced or Disrupted
Nature of Impacts – all information on the nature of the impacts,
including quantum of agricultural land lost, number of
businesses displaced or disrupted and commercial premises lost
is taken from the HS2 Environmental Statement14;
Economic impacts – our assessment of employment impacts has
Hillingdon HS2 Impact Study – December 2014 - 51 -
taken into account consultation with LB Hillingdon officers, local
business impacted, and our own research. For West London
Composting, our assessment of impacts is based upon the
findings of consultation with that business and the likely impact
of HS2 on their business. For agricultural employment, in the
absence of other evidence, we have assumed employment
impacts on a pro-rata basis, taking into account current
employment levels and the proportion of current land lost
(either temporarily or permanently) as a result of HS2;
Financial Impacts – our assessment of financial impacts is based
upon information provided by the council on the current income
generated by its agricultural holdings in the impacted area. We
have assumed the financial cost on a pro rata basis according to
the proportion of land lost either temporarily (during
construction) or permanently.
Impact 1.2: Town Centre Impacts
Economic Impacts – A number of Hillingdon's local retail centres
are located in proximity to areas impacted by HS2 (both in terms
of HS2 construction worksites and anticipated construction
traffic routes). There is concern locally that the performance of
these town centres will be adversely impacted, with local footfall
levels (and hence overall town centre performance) sensitive to
the blight and congestion impacts of HS2.
Information on the current hierarchy of Hillingdon’s town
centres is based upon information in the LB Hillingdon Local Plan.
We have also used information from the GLA’s Town Centre
Health Check15 to estimate the scale of economic activity
15 Accessed at https://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/planning/publications/2013-
london-town-centre-check
currently located within the various town centres. Where
employment information is not available, we have applied HCA
standard employment density guidance16 to baseline
information on local floorspace (from the GLA town centre
health check) for different commercial uses in the town centres.
We have then used information on the footprint of HS2
construction works, information on HS2 construction
movements, information on existing town centre catchment
areas and consultation with stakeholders to examine which
town centres are likely to be most susceptible to adverse
impacts relating to HS2 construction activity.
If HS2 does result in adverse footfall impacts in North
Hillingdon’s local centres, there are likely to adverse impacts on
business turnover and hence employment and the overall GVA
contribution that each town centre makes to the local economy.
There is no research which quantifies the link between major
construction sites, congestion and town centre footfall. In the
absence of such research, it is not possible to quantify
conclusively the likely impact of HS2 blight and congestion on
local town centre performance.
As such, we have undertaken modelling to test the sensitivity
of Hillingdon’s town centre’s to changes in footfall. To model
sensitivity to changes in footfall, we have examined two
scenarios modelling different levels of impact. Under our lower
impact scenario, we have modelling the possible economic
impact of a 1% decline in footfall in the high impact town centres
(Ruislip and Ickenham) and a 0.5% decline in footfall in the lower
impact town centres. Under our higher impact scenario, we have
16 Accessed at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications?departments%5B%5D=homes-and-communities-agency
Hillingdon HS2 Impact Study – December 2014 - 52 -
modelling the impacts of 5% and 2.5% decline in footfall in town
centres respectively. These are considered conservative figures
and are put into context by the fact that there was a reported
10% decline in high street footfall in Outer London during the
recent downturn (2008-2011).
To estimate economic impacts, we have assuming a pro-rata
relationship between footfall decline and town centre turnover
to estimate the amount of town centre turnover which might be
under threat. We have then applied standard turnover per FTE
benchmarks for the retail sector in London (using the same
sources and approach as used to calculate GVA per FTE
described above) to estimate the potential employment impact.
Theme 2: Development Impacts
Theme 2.1 Development Impacts
Economic Impacts – LB Hillingdon has strong aspirations for
residential and economic growth over the coming decade; these
aspirations are set out within the LB Hillingdon Core Strategy,
with specific development sites identified within the Site
Allocations DPD.
We have estimated the economic impact which might be
generated by the development of these sites based on standard
guidance for assessing the impact of residential and commercial
developments. To assess the economic value which might be
generated by residential units, we have first taken the projected
residential unit numbers of each development as set out in the
Site Allocations DPD. We have then applied headship rates based
on national averages to assess the level of new population which
might be supported in each development. We have then applied
GLA guidance on the average number of jobs supported per new
resident in new housing developments – an average of 230 jobs
supported per 1,000 additional residents. We have then applied
standard GVA per FTE figures to estimate GVA impacts. It must
be noted that these represent gross impacts: with a proportion
of employment and GVA growth supported within the LB
Hillingdon economy, and the rest distributed across wider
geographies (reflect patterns of resident expenditure). There is
only one commercial development proposed for the local area
within the Site Allocations DPD (Odyssey Business Park).
Planning permission has been sought for this development and
the plans submitted include information on the number of jobs
which will be created (around 400 FTE). We have used these
figures within our assessment.
Our approach to assessing potential impact of HS2 across these
sites includes the use GIS mapping to identify which of these
sites are in areas which might be subject to HS2 impacts. We
have then made an assessment of likelihood of impact taking
into account a range of factors, including currently proposed
development timeframes and distance from HS2 worksites and
construction traffic hotspots. However, it is important to note
that there is no certainty over whether a site is likely to be
impacted or not by HS2: this will ultimately come down to the
investment decisions of each individual site owner / developer.
If HS2 does impact on the delivery of these sites, the impact is
likely to relate to delays to development coming forward
compared to currently projected development timeframes
(rather than lost or scaled back development). Again, given the
uncertainty in the nature of the impacts we have undertaken
sensitivity testing to highlight the potential economic impact
which could result should delays in development activity be
experienced. We have modelled: 1). the impacts of
developments being delayed until the end of HS2 construction
(a delay of around 10 years for most developments) and 2). the
Hillingdon HS2 Impact Study – December 2014 - 53 -
impact of developments being delayed until HS2 construction
has commenced and is well into delivery (a delay of around 5
years for most developments).
As our modelling is based upon an assumption of delays to
development rather than loss of development, employment
impacts identified relate to jobs delayed rather than lost. GVA
impacts relate to the lost GVA which would have been generated
by the operational development, but which has been lost as a
result of the development being delayed.
Theme 3: Local Resident and Community Impacts
Theme 3.1 Community / Recreation facilities Lost
Economic Impacts – our assessment of employment impacts has
taken into account consultation with LB Hillingdon officers, local
business impacted, and our own research. For HOAC,
employment figures and projected impact is based upon
consultation with the organisation itself. If HS2 is delivered
according to current plans, it is assumed that all HOAC
employment will be lost to Hillingdon: even if the facility is able
to relocate, this will be to a location outside of the Borough.
Information on employment and income relating to the two Golf
Courses is based upon consultation with LB Hillingdon officers
who are responsible for the management of the golf courses.
Assumptions regarding the temporary closure of the golf courses
(1 year in the instance of Uxbridge, 2 years in the instance of
West Ruislip) are based on guidance from LB Hillingdon officers,
based in turn on discussions with the HS2 Ltd Golf Course
consultant;
Financial Impacts – our assessment of financial impacts is based
upon information provided by the council on the current income
generated by the golf courses and its other land holdings in the
impacted area;
Societal Impacts – our methodology for our assessment of
welfare impacts relating to the loss of recreation opportunities
is set out under theme 4 below.
Theme 3.3 Residential Properties Blighted
Economic impacts – it is anticipated that the value of private
market housing in the wider impact areas will be affected during
the construction of HS2 as a result of a range of factors, including
noise, vibration, visual blight and transport disruption. Our
assessment of these costs over the duration of HS2 construction
is based upon the assumed annual rental value of private market
properties (rather than overall capital value). This is a standard
approach to appraising changes in property value, and is based
upon guidance from HM Treasury. The approach provides a time
sensitive methodology to the modelling of costs which would
not be possible if using capital values.
Our starting point has been to estimate the number of
residential properties in a number of buffer zones up to a
maximum of 1.5km in distance from the edge of the HS2
construction worksites. This has been estimated using LB
Hillingdon datasets on local residential properties and our own
GIS mapping systems. We have then estimated the current
annual rental values generated by properties in the local
character areas using information from the GLA on the
Hillingdon HS2 Impact Study – December 2014 - 54 -
performance of London’s private sector rental market17.
We have then applied research by Hamptons which suggests
that property prices in areas in close proximity to the HS2 route
have experienced adverse impacts in recent years. Prices of
properties within 0.5km and 1.5km of the route have performed
at -6% and -5% compared to the national average in recent years.
Note: we see this to be a conservative figure given the level of
blight will increase significantly once construction has
commenced.
We have applied these price impact assumptions to the rental
values calculated above to give an annual cost in terms of lost
property value. We have assumed that impacts will persist from
now (2014) to the end of the construction period (2026).
Theme 3.4 Residents Impacted by Congestion
Societal Costs – It is assumed that HS2 construction will result in
costs for Hillingdon residents relating to increased journey
times. We have assumed that these costs will apply to all
Hillingdon residents, although clearly the costs are likely to be
greater for those living in closer proximity to the construction
corridor.
Costs will also relate to a range of different journey types,
including commuting (which is classified by DfT as time
belonging to an individual rather than a business), business time
education related journeys, and leisure journeys. We have also
17 Accessed at https://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/housing-land/renting-home/rents-
map
18 DFT National Transport Survey (2014) accessed at https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-transport/series/national-travel-survey-statistics
considered a range of different modes of transport including
private transport (i.e. car, van etc), pedestrians, and public
transport. We have used data from the 2011 Census to quantify
the population affected – categorised as Impact Area Residents
(those residing in close proximity to the construction corridor);
other North Hillingdon residents; and South Hillingdon residents.
We have then used data from the DfT National Transport Survey
(2014)18 to quantify the number and average length (in minutes)
of trips made per annum by residents in these areas, by type of
trip and by mode of transport. We have then made assumptions
regarding the proportion of trips affected by delays. Detailed
information about likely road closures / local transport impacts
is not currently available or clear; as such, we have made the
high level assumption that 20% of trips made by local residents
will be affected; 10% of trips made by other North Hillingdon
residents will be affected; and 5% of trips by South Hillingdon
residents will be affected.
Information on the likely length of delays is not currently
available so we have assumed an average journey delay of either
2% (low impact scenario) or 5% (higher impact scenario). These
figures are relatively conservative: in the lower impact scenario
this equates to less than a 1 minute delay on the average trip,
rising to a 1-2 minute delay under the higher impact scenario.
We have then used DfT data on the value of time19 to estimate
the costs for different user groups (e.g. £6.46 for commuters;
£5.71 for other users). We have assumed that impacts will
19 DFT Webtag Tool accessed at http://www.dft.gov.uk/webtag/documents/expert/unit3.5.6.php
Hillingdon HS2 Impact Study – December 2014 - 55 -
persist over the duration of the construction period (2017-2026).
Theme 4: Environmental Impacts
From the list of environmental impacts considered in this study, three
have been examined in more detail to identify monetary values for the
impacts of the HS2 proposals. These three impacts have been selected
based on their significance, and the feasibility of obtaining informative
monetary values for them given available impact and economic valuation
data:
Recreation (ultimately placed under Impact 3.1 in the
Community and Resident Impact Theme within our assessment)
Air quality
Noise
In each calculation, the present value of the impacts is estimated using
GDP deflators to covert to 2014 prices and the HM Treasury
recommended 3.5% discount rate applied to impacts over 60 years. The
valuation data used have been selected from eftec’s knowledge of the
UK environmental economics literature, and applied in line with best
practice guidance for value transfer (eftec 2010).
Value transfer is the process of selecting the appropriate evidence from
what is available and adjusting it to estimate the benefits of changes
resulting from a site being studied. The adjustments are necessary to
account for the differences in the factors that affect the value estimates
between the previous studies and this policy context, such as the
different magnitude or timing of environmental change.
20 Colne Valley Angers’ consultative (CVAC) Response to HS2 Environmental Statement
(2014)
The values generally represent loss of welfare to those affected. It is
important to understand that welfare values are different to prices.
Simplistically, loss of welfare reflects the total value of the impacts of
people’s wellbeing. Price reflects the amount actually paid by people,
which is also influenced by available supply (e.g. whether there is a
market at all, and if so how much is available). Loss of welfare is the
maximum price someone might be willing to pay for an improvement in
something, or the minimum price they would accept in compensation for
a deterioration in something.
Recreation Welfare Impacts
Our assessment considers impacts relating to lost recreational
opportunities at HOAC and lost angling opportunities:
The value of lost angling visits to the fishing lakes permanently
affected by HS2 is calculated based on an estimated 5,000
individuals (source: Colne Valley Anglers’ Consultative, 201420).
Assumptions are made that: each angler makes 7.6 angling trips
per year (estimated by dividing the total angling trips per year in
the UK by the number of Rod License holders); and each trip is
valued at £2.80 in 2000 prices (from EA, 2001). Our valuation
represents the total value of angling for anglers over a 60 year
period. Therefore, without having access to angling in the
Hillingdon area, the PV represents the value of the loss of
welfare to these anglers;
The value of lost water sports recreation facilities at HOAC is
Hillingdon HS2 Impact Study – December 2014 - 56 -
estimated for the 22,000 visitors to this facility each year21. Their
recreation visits are valued between £1.85 and £5.46 per visit,
based on values for ‘freshwater’ (e.g. lakes, ponds, canals, rivers
and streams) and ‘greenbelt’ (a protected area of urban-edge
green space) recreation opportunities identified in Sen (2013)22.
It is assumed that these types of habitats are representative of
those that would be found in the Hillingdon area23. It is possible
that these values are a significant underestimate of the
recreational value of HOAC, which may have higher value due to
the more specialist watersports recreation opportunities it
provides.
Our estimate of impacts on anglers and at HOAC remains an
underestimate of the impacts on HS2 on recreation in LBH, as it does not
capture all the expected impacts on recreation. For example, it does not
reflect reduced access to the public rights of way network for an
estimated 3,500 local residents and visitors to the area who make use of
the paths.
We have not been able to quantify such impacts due to lack of baseline
information on the number of local users. PRoW surveys were conducted
by HS2 Ltd in the Colne Valley area only, as they stated that they
21 London Borough of Hillingdon (2014), HS2 Environmental Statement Consultation:
Response by the London Borough of Hillingdon. Part 2: Significant environmental effects within Hillingdon:
http://www.hillingdon.gov.uk/media.jsp?mediaid=30750&filetype=pdf
22 Sen, A. et al. (2013). “Economic Assessment of the Recreational Value of Ecosystems: Methodological Development and National and Local Application”, Environmental Resource Economics, vol. 57: 233-249. 23 The following habitat types were assed in Sen (2013): greenbelt and urban fringe
farmlands; mountains, moors and heathlands; marine and coastal; woodlands and forests; freshwater and floodplains; and grasslands.
determined the effects in the South Ruislip to Ickenham area to not be
significant. That being said, the surveys in Colne Valley took place in two
sites on one day only (the penultimate day of the London Olympics) and
HS2 Ltd. therefore stated that the figures may be lower than average.
LBH’s response to HS2 Ltd.’s Environmental statement lists 19 PRoWs
that will be diverted due to the construction and/or operation of HS2; at
least 7 of those listed will be permanent diversions24. It is clear that
PRoW users will be affected, but due to a lack of data, estimates to
determine the monetary value of this impact could not be made.
Air Quality Impacts
The impact of reduced air quality can be estimated based on the
transport modelling in the HS2 environmental statement and knowledge
of the road junctions most affected by the traffic increase (those at Harvil
and Swakeleys Roads). The increase in PM10 and PM25 emissions per
heavy vehicle were estimated for a 1km length of the roads involved,
with traffic moving at an assumed average of 20 mph (the roads have a
30 mph limit) based on the Defra Emissions Factor Toolkit (2014)
model25. These emissions were then valued based on the damage cost
values per tonne of emissions from Defra’s 2009 air quality valuation
guidance (Defra, 2009)26. Central values for ‘outer conurbation’ and
24 London Borough of Hillingdon (2014), HS2 Environmental Statement Consultation: Response by the London Borough of Hillingdon. Part 2: Significant environmental effects within Hillingdon
<http://www.hillingdon.gov.uk/media.jsp?mediaid=30750&filetype=pdf>
25 Defra Emissions Factor Toolkit v6.0.1 (2014) < http://laqm.defra.gov.uk/review-and-assessment/tools/emissions-factors-toolkit.html>
26 Defra IGCB: Air quality damage costs per tonne (2009) http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/air/airquality/panels/igcb/guidance/damagecosts.htm>
Hillingdon HS2 Impact Study – December 2014 - 57 -
‘outer London’ were used to give low and high values, respectively, as
theses area types best represent the Hillingdon area. The impacts were
calculated over 5 years of construction activity (2017 – 2021).
Noise Impacts
The HS2 environmental statement allows only a rough estimate of the
number of households experiencing a significant increase in noise as a
result of the operation of HS2. This identifies at least 305 dwellings that
will be affected. In addition a hotel will be affected which has 100
bedrooms; and can take a similar number again as day-visitors (e.g. to a
conference)27, so could be assumed to be equivalent to 25-50
properties.
The value is based on Day (2010)28 which valued noise impacts from air,
road and rail traffic in Birmingham, UK; it found the value of a 1 dB
decrease in road and rail noise per property range from £31.49 and
£83.61 (from a base of 56dB) to £88.76 and £137.41 (from a base of
80dB).
The base level of noise for the dwelling varies, but is assumed to be
similar to the lower base level identified by Day (2010)29. Based on this,
an increase in noise from HS2 for the equivalent of 330 – 355 properties
has a present value of £0.3 - £0.9 million per dB over 60 years. The noise
increase in the HS2 environmental statement is described as a ‘minor to
moderate adverse effect’. If the impacts of HS2 were to produce a 5 dB
increase in noise for these properties, this would give a PV of the impacts
of £1.5 – £4.4 million over 60 years.
27 http://www.deverevenues.co.uk/en/venues/denham-grove/ accessed 19/9/14.
28 Day, B. et al. (2010) “Estimating the Demand for Peace and Quiet Using Property Market Data”, Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia.
Overarching Caveats to Environmental Analysis
The figures calculated in this section should be regarded as broad
estimates of the values involved. They have a moderate level of
uncertainty, stemming from the uncertainties relating to the expected
impacts of HS2, and the use of stated preference values in a value
transfer of this nature. The value transfer uncertainty could be reduced
slightly with more in-depth analysis of the impacts involved, and testing
of the sensitivity of results to different assumptions. However, this would
not be expected to reduce uncertainty significantly, or change the order
of magnitude of the results.
This moderate uncertainty is regarded as acceptable for values identified
in a study of this nature. This is because the valuation evidence used is
from relevant UK studies that are in general a good fit for the impacts
valued. The fishing trip unit value has some uncertainty due to the
original study being from 2000, and the noise valuation transfers a
willingness to pay (WTP) for a reduction in noise to a willingness to
accept (WTA) for an increase in noise. Although in theory WTP and WTA
should be similar, this is not always the case.
29 Ibid.
Regeneris Consulting Ltd
Manchester Office Faulkner House Faulkner Street Manchester M1 4DY Email: [email protected]
London Office 70 Cowcross Street London, EC1M 6EJ Tel: 0207 608 7200 Email: [email protected]
Web: www.regeneris.co.uk