london borough of hillingdon hs2 impacts study...2014/12/15 · hillingdon hs2 impact study –...

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,


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



permanent loss of agricultural land, temporary


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,


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


£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


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


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


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




Impact 4.3: Air Quality Impacts

Adverse air quality impacts relating to significant increases in HGV traffic along specific routes.


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.


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


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.


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.

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/green_book_complete.pdf



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.


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%).


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


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

http://www.hillingdon.gov.uk/media.jsp?mediaid=27633


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.


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


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.


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).


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.


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


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


Figure 3.1: Proposed High Speed Network

Source: Department for Transport


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


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


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.


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


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


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.


Figure 4.1: Framework for Assessing Impacts of HS2 in Hillingdon


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


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 1.2: Disruption to Local Town Centre Footfall


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;


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.


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


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.


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).


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,


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.


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


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


£0.2m

Lifetime GVA cost (over 60 years) (£ m, 2014 prices)

Closure (or relocation of HOAC); permanent closure of Golf Courses

£12.2m


£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

http://www.hillingdon.gov.uk/media.jsp?mediaid=30750&filetype=pdf


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


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


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.


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).


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


Value of Lost Time over lifetime

(10 years) (£m 2014 prices)



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 4.4: 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.



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


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,


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,


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)



permanent loss of agricultural land, permanent


40 FTE 40 FTE £35.0m



permanent loss of agricultural, temporary


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,



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,


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


£9.3m

Scenario 2a: Closure or relocation of HOAC, temporary


closure of golf courses (current income maintained)

£1.4m

Scenario 2b: Closure or relocation of HOAC, 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


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).


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.


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


(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

http://bbop.forest-trends.org/guidelines/Resource_Paper_Limits.pdf

http://bbop.forest-trends.org/guidelines/Resource_Paper_Limits.pdf


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.


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


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


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.


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.


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).


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.


While Hillingdon’s economy is focused towards the south of the

Borough, the north contains a number of locally important town centres


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.


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.



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.


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,


including improving training and employment opportunities for local

residents.


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.



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.


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.


Table 7.1: Summary of All Impacts Theme Impact Description of Impacts Economic Impacts Financial Impacts Societal Impacts

Theme 1: Business and Economy Impacts


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




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


HS2 line visible at considerable distance across landscape; use of 145 ha of agricultural land, 18 ha of woodland





Loss of over 50 ha of a variety of non-agricultural habitats, including impacts on woodlands and River Colne SSSI





Adverse air quality impacts relating to significant increases in HGV traffic along specific routes.


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.


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.




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/

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/abs/annual-business-survey/index.html

https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/


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


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

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/hs2-phase-one-environmental-statement-documents

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/hs2-phase-one-environmental-statement-documents


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

https://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/planning/publications/2013-london-town-centre-check

https://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/planning/publications/2013-london-town-centre-check

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications?departments%5B%5D=homes-and-communities-agency

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications?departments%5B%5D=homes-and-communities-agency


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


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 3.1 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


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

https://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/housing-land/renting-home/rents-map

https://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/housing-land/renting-home/rents-map

http://www.dft.gov.uk/webtag/documents/expert/unit3.5.6.php


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


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:


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>




‘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.

http://www.deverevenues.co.uk/en/venues/denham-grove/

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

london borough of hillingdon hs2 impacts study...2014/12/15 · hillingdon hs2 impact study –...

Documents