ࡱ> ]^\ܥhc ett(((((((<<<<<<L"<pCnnnnnnnnnppppppX {p(nSUnnnnpn((nnnnnn(n(nn@|<<((((nnnn HEATHROW TERMINAL 5 DECISION BIODIVERSITY ISSUES Introduction This briefing is one of a series that attempts to summarise the key points in the T5 Public Inquiry and decision. The briefing is not intended as a review of the data and technical issues these should be sought in the inspectors report and in the inquiry documents. A particular aim is to highlight the policy and strategy issues that appear most important not just in the context of the T5 decision, but in the context of biodiversity and planning generally. This briefing is taken mainly from the inspectors report. Reference is made to the positions and arguments of various parties, but this is not in any way a summary or review of their case. The references are made simply as a means of describing the issue or case. Quotes are used where possible in order to minimise paraphrasing by the author. The quotes are all from the report. (That is, they are what the inspector has reported the parties as arguing, not original quotes from the parties themselves). Comment enclosed in [ ] are either explanatory notes to add context or are additional material that seems relevant and was available to the inquiry and but which is not (to the authors knowledge) given in the report. Items in { } relate to information that appeared after the public inquiry ended. Although this briefing is entitled biodiversity, that word was hardly used at the inquiry. The relevant sections of the report were called ecology and the expressions conservation or nature conservation were the norm. Biodiversity was not a single topic at the inquiry, but was dealt with under the various component parts of the overall T5 scheme. This briefing deals with the issues in the same categories, namely : Perry Oaks; SPA to west of Heathrow; meadows west of T5; land near M4; other habitats near T5; Twin Rivers; Iver South. These came in 3, 4 and 10 of the Topic Reports and in Sections 12, 13, 19.2, 19.3 and 33. The main objectors giving evidence were Hillingdon Council, FoE (Friends of the Earth) and the London, Surrey and Hertfordshire and Middlesex Wildlife Trusts. Other conservation organisations gave evidence on certain areas. Perry Oaks ecological value This is the area that will lost in its entirely to T5. It is a sludge de-watering works, currently owned by Thames Water, where partially treated sewage from Mogden is deposited and allowed to settle out. Thames Water had announced that it wanted to move its operations to another site (Iver South, also Green Belt) and the Iver South application was part of the T5 inquiry. Perry Oaks is a Site of Metropolitan Importance (SMI). [Designated by London Ecology Unit, or LEU, now part of Greater London Authority.] Its main ecological importance is for wildfowl and waders. From Hillingdon/LEU : Perry Oaks was one of Londons prime bird watching areas; birds were attracted by the abundant food in shallow water as well as the herbaceous vegetation . It was important for passage and wintering birds and for breeding. Compared with other sites within the London administrative area, Perry Oaks ranked within the top 5 sites for certain species. 121 species of breeding birds had been seen at Perry Oaks since 1980, some of international and many of national importance. In terms of its importance to London, Perry Oaks is therefore one of the top breeding sites and one of the best in west London for several species. This was not disputed and was not commented upon by the inspector. While all parties agreed that the site was of regional importance, BAA emphasised that it was not of international or national importance. The Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust [WWT] thad stated that there was no national issue in the loss of Perry Oaks and neither English Nature nor the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds had objected while the London Wildlife Trust had objected on regional rather than national grounds. [WWT did not object to the loss of Perry Oaks at all they received 300, 000 from BAA for works at their Barn Elms reserve. English Nature indicated that they would not normally intervene expect where sites of SSSI or higher status were involved.] There was much dispute over the bird numbers and whether they had been under-stated because the level of surveying was too low. The inspector rejected Hillingdons view : Hillingdons criticisms of the interpretation of the survey data made by BAA are not justified. While I readily accept that the survey data may not be ideal, it does represent a substantial body of information .. I accept that the maximum error of 12% calculated by BAA is a reasonably accurate assessment of the margins of error which apply to all survey data. Furthermore, I consider that this is a relatively small margin of error which does not change my conclusions. Hillingdon said The species and populations attracted were close to or surpassed the criteria for designation as an SSSI. Although English Nature had not designated it this did not mean that the site did not qualify for consideration as an SSSI . Other parties such as FoE and the Wildlife Trusts did not argue this case and the inspector did not accept it. Neither he or any other party disputed that Perry Oaks was worthy was worthy of SMI status. [But BA called it a blight on the environment.] There was debate about what would happen to Perry Oaks if T5 did not go ahead. Thames Water had stated that it wished to move its sludge de-watering operations anyway. Being in Green Belt, it was agreed by all parties that Perry Oaks would not be built upon if T5 were not to go ahead but the sludge de-watering plant were to move anyway. This begged the question of what would happen to the site and whether its interest for wildfowl and waders would be maintained. The inspector concluded In the absence of clear evidence on its likely value after decommissioning, I intend to work on the basis that there will not be a decline in the ecological value of Perry Oaks as a result of the decommissioning of the sludge works. Taking the merits of Perry Oaks in isolation and specifically ignoring any issue of compensatory works, the inspector concluded There can be no doubt that the loss of Perry Oaks would be damaging in terms of ecology and would be contrary to the statutory development plans. This must be a material factor against the proposed development. Mitigation and compensation for loss of Perry Oaks BAA had attempted to find a site to compensate for the loss of Perry Oaks. The inspector said : I also accept that they [BAA] have made genuine attempts to find a suitable location for a replacement site. This search was made in conjunction with English Nature and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and others and I see no reason to question the conclusion that no such site could be provided. Having failed to find a new site in compensation, the inspector noted They [BAA] had then been advised that their objectives could best be achieved by means of a financial contribution to Barn Elms . This was an SSSI on a former reservoir site which was being developed by the Wildlife and Wetlands Trust (in collaboration with Thames Water) as a nature conservation site of at least regional significance. BAA had provided funds for additional works and to support monitoring and management aimed at increasing the ability of the site to accommodate species displaced from Perry Oaks . The Barn Elms project was very costly and the funds provided by BAA would allow significant improvements to be made to the carrying capacity of the site as had been confirmed by the Director General of the Wildlife and Wetlands Trust.. BAA had funded improvements to about 5 ha for grazing marsh and 2.5 ha of wader scrape as well as enhancements to the edges of some of the lagoons. The management funding would enable higher breeding densities to be achieved. Unlike Perry Oaks, Barn Elms would be open to the public. Friends of the Earth and others argued that works at an existing conservation site would in no way compensate for the complete loss of a different substantial site. Also West London Friends of the Earth pointed out that Barn Elms had been provided as mitigation for one development and suggested that it was not right to offer it again in relation to Terminal 5. In any event, the value of restored or new sites was invariably less than that of the semi-natural or long established habitats they were intended to replace. Similar points were made by the London, Surrey and Hertfordshire and Middlesex Wildlife Trusts and the Selborne Society. [Friends of the Earth also noted that the works at Barn Elms were, by WWTs own admission, low priority. They also argued that the wildlife benefits of the works would be very limited because all the scrapes and enhancements would do was replace one habitat with a slightly different one. While there could be some increase in conservation value, altering a few hectares in an existing nature conservation site would not give nearly the same benefit as creating new wildfowl and wader habitat of the extent of Perry Oaks. The inspector ignored this argument.] BAA acknowledged that their contribution to Barn Elms could not be seen as a complete replacement for Perry Oaks but argued ..the detailed monitoring system to be put in place [to which part of their contribution of 300k was to be used] would not only benefit Barn Elms but also provide data which could be used for the benefit of other sites. .. These other proposals included the introduction of nature conservation objectives into the landscaping associated with Terminal 5, the provision of nesting boxes for tree sparrows and the biological ponds proposed by the Highways Agency. .. Given the other mitigation proposals the total package was good compensation for the loss of Perry Oaks. There was a dispute about whether birds flying over the Perry Oaks area would be able to find Barn Elms and therefore be able to take advantage of any extra carrying capacity. The inspector concluded that they would. The inspector concluded on the issue of compensation for the loss of Perry Oaks BAA have already funded improvements to the physical form of the Barn Elms site and to its management and monitoring systems. I consider that these contributions should be treated as compensation for the loss of Perry Oaks. When taken with the other ecological projects identified by BAA, I conclude that adequate compensation would be provided for the loss of the ornithological interest of Perry Oaks. Adjoining areas and Special Protection Area for birds Hillingdon had argued that it [Perry Oaks] .. was a stepping stone, as referred to in the Habitats Directive, which facilitated the migration, dispersal and genetic exchange of wild species. The inspector said ..as BAA pointed out the use of Perry Oaks appears to be opportunistic to some extent. .. do not consider that it is a major factor in the importance of the site. At the time of the inquiry a Special Protection Area (SPA) for birds was under consideration. The area under discussion was immediately west of Heathrow but excluded Perry Oaks. .. the site had not been included in the proposed South West London Reservoirs and Gravel Pits Special Protection Area to be designated under the Birds Directive; English Nature did not include the site within the proposed Special Protection Area (SPA); and the site had not been proposed as a Special Area of Conservation within the Habitats Directive. [A small group had been set up to look into the designation of the SPA. This consisted of : English Nature; WWT, who received 300,000 from BAA for Barn Elms and did not object to the loss of Perry Oaks; Thames Water, who were expecting to sell Perry Oaks to BAA for 10s of millions of pounds.] [There was also a bite out of the proposed SPA area at Iver South, corresponding to area where Thames Water wanted to re-locate the sludge de-watering.] Meadows west of Heathrow ecological value The T5 scheme included a plan to build a spur road directly from the (widened) M25 to T5. It would be carried from the M25 on an embankment over the river Colne, across a couple of meadows and down to T5. Evidence on ecology was presented by the Highways Agency (HA) as they, not BAA, were the promoters of the M25 spur. [Their evidence was however written and presented by BAAs ecology consultant and witness, Penny Anderson]. FoE disagreed in principle with the Department, a supposedly neutral party in relation to Terminal 5, using the same consultants as BAA. [FoE disagreed not just on principle, but because it considered that the consultant had failed to find (or report) important rare plants and animals such as water avens and had failed to recognise basic concepts of ecology in her evidence. This sort of performance might be expected from an applicants consultant, but was not acceptable for a supposedly neutral government.] The main objectors on ecology were Hillingdon/LEU, FoE, the Wildlife Trusts and the London Natural History Society. Plantlife submitted evidence on water avens. The HA ..argued that the M25 Spur Road should be considered as appropriate development in the Green Belt. Hillingdon and other boroughs argued it was not appropriate, although they concentrated more on landscape and other aspects more than ecology. The inspector judged .. should, therefore, be regarded as part of an inappropriate development in the Green Belt. .. This means that the road should proceed only if there are very special circumstances justifying it. The inspector continued I am, therefore, satisfied that the M25 Spur Road would cause harm to the Green Belt. This would have to be outweighed by clear benefits if very special circumstances were to justify its construction. In this respect, the evidence is clear. I have already concluded that there is a convincing need for Terminal 5 in the national interest ... As far as the Spur Road itself is concerned there was general agreement that Terminal 5 should be linked directly to the motorway network. I agree with this view. Since the new terminal would be separated from the M25 by Green Belt land this inevitably involves the construction of a road link across the Green Belt. The real issue is therefore, whether there is a less damaging route across the Green Belt than that proposed by the Agency. Extensive evidence was collected and presented on the ecology of the meadows and the other smaller areas of woodland, rivers and miscellaneous habitat. The HA argued that the majority of the meadows were of limited merit. [They also used terms such as low ecological value and no ecological value.] FoE argued that some meadows were of lower value, they could not be dismissed : All species were important for biodiversity, not just the rare, beautiful or popular ones, as even quite common species might be declining or vulnerable. .. Protecting only specially designated high-value areas could not protect diversity as the much larger areas of undesignated land were a vital wildlife and ecological resource. [It also argued that fragmentation of habitat (such as caused by the road) leads to loss of species diversity, quite apart from any loss due to loss of total area. These points were not disputed but the inspector made no reference to them in his analysis.] Two seasonally wet meadows were identified by the objectors as being of special importance, G28 and G29. G28 was argued to be of outstanding importance with a selection of plants unusual for the area. The HA had originally considered that the fields were of low value but It was now accepted that the value of the two meadows was higher than shown in the 1996 Environmental Statement. At that time the Departments consultants, basing their views on 1993-1995 data, had felt that the SMI designation was not fully justified. They .. believed that the changed evaluation of the site had been the result of improvements in its quality but the important fact was that the species concerned were now sufficiently conspicuous to be detected by different surveyors on a number of different occasions. The view that the fields had changed was not accepted by Hillingdon or other objectors, but the inspector did not form a view. The most important plant in field G28 was water avens (Geum Rivale). [This was found by a volunteer assisting FoE and subsequently confirmed by HA and other groups.] Although this plant is widespread in the north and west, it is very rare in the southeast and was of historical importance. The London Natural History Society (LNHS) commented The water avens were the most south-easterly natural occurrence of the plant in Britain, and the only surviving one in London. John Lightfoot had first recorded it in the area around 1780. [It had not been recorded in the 20th century until the examination of the field by FoE, but there was no evidence of a search being made until then. Thus, there was no reason to assume it had no been present all that time.] It was noted that water avens is not rare nationally and this is one reason why English Nature did not take an interest. FoE and LNHS took the view that its extreme rarity in the SE made its presence in G28 significant. These points were not disputed. The M25 spur would cross the south of field G28 and thus wipe out much of the population. FoE argued that a massive embankment across a seasonally wet field in a flood plain would very likely alter the hydrology of the field, which is critical for water avens,. Thus the population in the rest of the field would be threatened. The HA argued that the embankment would not alter the hydrology. The inspector did not express a view. {FoE has monitored the water avens in years subsequent to the inquiry and confirmed it is there. However, in 2001 found no sign in 2001 of the always much smaller population in the north of the field. Thus the M25 spur would apparently now wipe out the entire population. FoE has submitted this update to Government Office for London. This additional evidence was not mentioned in the Decision Letter.} The LNHS also noted The good G28 population of cowslip [also first recorded by FoE] was now very rare in Greater London, and the meadow contained a further 9 species not recorded by Penny Anderson Associates or the London Ecology Unit. .. G28 was a flower-rich meadow of great visual attraction, with 12 native plants that were rare or uncommon in Greater London. All were probably present but overlooked through inadequate recording during the surveys in the late 1980s, so the route for the Spur Road had been chosen in ignorance of them. .. Five particular species of insect had been found in G28 by the Society, the Small Heath Butterfly [second largest colony in Middlesex] and the Small Yellow Underwing Moth that had only one other known site in Middlesex, a solitary red tailed bee called Chrysas Gracillima and two beetles. These points were not disputed. FoE agued that [Fields] G24 and G27 also had substantial ecological value, and even G8 was valuable to species such as the skylark and the lapwing. The area of G8 would be reduced and it would be severely fragmented, but although skylarks might continue to breed on the remainder, that would not make good the loss. This was not disputed and the inspector did not comment. A couple of hedges would be largely destroyed by the M25 spur. FoE argued There was also an insufficient overall evaluation of the meadows and their hedges, some of which were part of a parish boundary perhaps 900 years old, and of their trees in relation to birds. More recently the hedges had been used to form enclosures, and as the Enclosure Act had never been repealed, it was possible that they were protected in law. It was unlikely that if hedges were removed, the whole of the displaced bird population would just crowd closer together in what was left [as HA had claimed].. {Subsequently to the inquiry FoE has taken legal advice. Their advice is that removal of the hedges would be illegal. Despite this, the Attorney General has refused FoE leave to bring a legal action.} The inspector conclusions was clear : The ecological damage would .. be significant. [19.2.71] The HA ..argued that the M25 Spur Road should be considered as appropriate development in the Green Belt. Hillingdon and other boroughs argued it was not appropriate, although they concentrated more on landscape and other aspects more than ecology. The inspector judged .. should, therefore, be regarded as part of an inappropriate development in the Green Belt. .. This means that the road should proceed only if there are very special circumstances justifying it. The inspector continued I am, therefore, satisfied that the M25 Spur Road would cause harm to the Green Belt. This would have to be outweighed by clear benefits if very special circumstances were to justify its construction. In this respect, the evidence is clear. I have already concluded that there is a convincing need for Terminal 5 in the national interest ... As far as the Spur Road itself is concerned there was general agreement that Terminal 5 should be linked directly to the motorway network. I agree with this view. Since the new terminal would be separated from the M25 by Green Belt land this inevitably involves the construction of a road link across the Green Belt. The real issue is therefore, whether there is a less damaging route across the Green Belt than that proposed by the Agency. Mitigation for damage to meadows Recognising that the loss of part of G28 would be significant, HA/BAA proposed a translocation : Mitigation for the loss of nearly half of G28 would be provided by its translocation to a position close to the River Colne. While this was unlikely to be totally successful experience suggested that it would probably preserve more than was lost. Success would mean salvaging 50-60% of its value. Hillingdon, FoE and others argued that it was the rarer and more specialised species exactly the ones that made G28 special - that would be most likely to be lost on translocation. The inspector concluded The evidence suggests, however, that success is far from assured and I have some sympathy with Hillingdons argument that the proposed translocation would be so difficult that it should not be accepted as any kind of replacement. I do not, however, go that far. The Agency have demonstrated a willingness to seek to save some of the interest of meadow G28 and should be given credit for this although the extent to which they will succeed remains doubtful. FoE argued that the M25 spur should not be built at all as it went against stated government policy which was not to build more roads in order to try and meet ever-increasing forecast traffic and in addition would cause ecological damage. The councils did not take this view, but they and the HA agreed that an alternative route would cause less ecological damage. Several alternatives were proposed but the HA rejected them on the grounds that they were more expensive or had some disadvantage in road layout terms. The inspector said In spite of the very real benefits of the more southerly route in terms of its reduced impact on the Green Belt, the Colne Valley Park and ecology, its reliance on a less direct route using non-motorway roads makes this proposal fundamentally unsuitable as the main access to Terminal 5. [FoE argued that if the route could not be altered, the M25 spur should be carried on a bridge over the meadows instead of being embanked. This would avoid damaging the water avens and other plants, both directly and by interference with the hydrology of the field. This proposal was not considered by the inspector.] The inspectors overall conclusion is I conclude that the M25 Spur Road as proposed by the Highways Agency represents the best available means of providing appropriate access to Terminal 5 if it proceeds. Furthermore, I do not believe that the harm the Spur Road would cause is sufficient to be a potential reason for refusal of permission for Terminal 5. If the new terminal is approved it would be on the basis that it is justified in the national interest. In those circumstances I am satisfied that there would be very special circumstances to justify the construction of the Spur Road across the Green Belt. If, on the other hand, Terminal 5 is not approved there would be no need for the Spur Road and no special circumstances would apply. Land near M4 BAA/HA proposed widening the M4 to dual 4 between Junctions 3 and 4 and to dual 5 between Junctions 4 and 4B. The motorway goes through Green Belt and near a site of Borough Importance for Nature Conservation. The scheme would take 6.4 hectares of although under 1 hectare was to be used for hard surfaces. The rest ..was required for verges and essential landscaping. [This could be misleading - does not mean that only 1 hectare of green land would be lost. There are already verges and landscaping along the M4, much of which would be lost. The net loss of green land could therefore be a high as the total landtake, 6.4 hectares.] BAAs argued Since the M4 Improvements would be carried out either within or close to the existing highway boundary, the ecological impact of the scheme would be low. The areas of land affected included wasteland, grassland, rivers and small copses, but did not include any SSSIs. .. There would be some adverse impacts .. where Frogs Ditch would be moved southwards, and .. a 5-6m wide strip of woodland beside the M4 would be lost. .. Elsewhere along the M4 loss of planting and grassland areas would be insignificant ecologically, as they were in the disturbed zone immediately beside the highway. .. Overall the M4 Improvements would have no significant impact on nature conservation. The proposed planting and establishment of wildflower grassland would more than compensate for any lost habitats. Hillingdon did not object on ecological grounds (although they objected to scheme on transport policy grounds). FoE did not comment in detail [due entirely to lack of resources], but their general comment .. Protecting only specially designated high-value areas could not protect diversity as the much larger areas of undesignated land were a vital wildlife and ecological resource. applied to all areas affected by T5 and roads. The inspector concluded Hillingdon did not object to the proposed works on agricultural, ecological or nature conservation grounds and no other evidence was presented to suggest that they would cause material harm to these interests. The inspector recommended that M4 widening should not go ahead. The reason for this was not ecological, but that widening did not conform to the governments stated policy, namely not to build/widen roads simply to meet forecast demand. In the case of the M4 the effect of T5 on overall traffic would be small. {This recommendation was accepted by the government.} In the case of the M25, the effect of T5 would be larger and the policy about not meeting demand does not seem to apply Twin Rivers There are two rivers, the Duke of Northumberland and Longford Rivers, crossing the Perry Oaks site. These became named Twin Rivers. The original proposal by BAA was to culvert them under T5. The Environment Agency (EA) objected strongly to the culverting proposal. They undertook a lot of work and after extensive discussions with BAA, an alternative was proposed. This involved combining the two rivers and diverting them into a single channel around the western edge of the T5 site. [FoE had strongly already objected to culverting for the same reasons as the EA and suggested a diverstion. However, BAA had completely ignored FoEs argument or suggestion.] Due to the work needed by the EA, it submitted an application for costs. [The cost was estimated by FoE at about 300,000. We have not ascertained if payment of costs has been agreed.] All objectors agreed that the new scheme was a great improvement and the inspector concurred. A number of downstream enhancements were also proposed and supported by the objectors. The inspector concluded It was not suggested by either of the responsible Agencies [EA and Royal Parks] that the downstream enhancements should be the subject of conditions and I agree that they are not necessary to mitigate the diversion of the Twin Rivers as now proposed. On the other hand they welcomed the proposed schemes. [FoE did not suggest that the downstream enhancements were necessary to mitigate for the Twin Rivers. However it argued that in view of the overall ecological deficit, including the loss of Perry Oaks, the downstream enhancements should be required as general mitigation. The inspector did not agree : The proposed downstream enhancements are not necessary as mitigation but should be welcomed. The inspector agreed the diversion [but see below] and he proposed a condition that work on T5 should not commence until the Twin Rivers Scheme has planning permission. {In spring 2001, BAA suddenly advised the government that the Twin Rivers proposals had been discovered to be unworkable and that in conjunction with the EA, a revised scheme was being developed. This delayed announcement of the T5 decision. The scheme is now to divert the two rivers separately. This went out to a two-stage consultation and the final details are now being worked on. Calls from some of the objectors to re-open the inquiry were ignored (not just rejected) by the Secretary of State, Stephen Byers. The Decision Letter however sets a condition that work on T5 should not commence until the detail of Twin Rivers has been agreed.} {All parties agreed that the new twin-channel diversion was ecologically equivalent or better than the previous single channel one. FoE however noted that equivalence only applied to the aquatic habitat (the EA is not responsible for terrestrial habitat). As there were some changes to terrestrial habitat proposed, eg loss of a small area of trees, the overall ecological equivalence should assessed before the scheme was agreed. This was not addressed in the decision letter.} {Since the end of the inquiry a colony of water voles has been found on Perry Oaks. This was mentioned in the consultation documents, but no plan for their protection was mentioned. The EA advises that they had been in discussion with the London Wildlife Trust. FoE argued that as the water vole is one of our most endangered species and the subject of Biodiversity Action Plans at national, London and borough level, the issue was a material issue. FoE considers that a proper plan for their protection should be produced and consulted upon before works. This issue was not mentioned in the Decision Letter.} Other habitats near T5 There are a range of other habitats around the edges of the T5 site which would be affected or destroyed by the associated roads and other ancillary development. These included small patches of wood and scrub, small areas of grass and the rivers Colne and Wraysbury. More specifically they included : NW & SW airport balancing ponds; Burrows Hill Close Estate; Spout Lane Triangle; Clockhouse Lane Pit; Edges of Northern Perimeter Road; SW Entrance area; Properties near Perry Oaks. Relatively less evidence was presented on these habitats. All parties agreed that the other terrestrial habitats were of less importance then Perry Oaks and the meadows. FoE however noted .. Protecting only specially designated high-value areas could not protect diversity as the much larger areas of undesignated land were a vital wildlife and ecological resource. This was not disputed. In order to mitigate the losses due to the M25 spur and other construction, a number of habitat improvements were proposed in the areas not destroyed. The scope and nature of these enhancements was not the subject of significant debate. FoE argued that such enhancements would not normally compensate for the loss that they were intended to mitigate. This was because enhancement only took an already existing habitat and altered it, eg an area of grassland could be planted up with trees. It did not replace the lost habitat. This specific point was not commented upon, but the inspector did say I am less concerned about other ecological impacts. Inevitably the loss of hedgerows and other vegetation particularly around Mad Bridge would cause harm but the planting proposed by the Agency would offset this. [Friends of the Earth also argued that the T5, the roads, associated works and gravel digging could have a significant effect on the hydrology of the whole lower Colne. The area is a flood plain and the water table is near the surface. Changes could affect habitats and increase the risk of flooding. The EA did not consider there was a significantly increased risk of flooding and the inspector did not comment on the issue.] {There was massive flooding in autumn 2000 and FoE argued that as the historical evidence used by BAA and the EA had been proved to be inadequate and as T5 could exacerbate the problem, the issue needed to looked at in more detail. The Decision Letter made no reference to the recent flooding.} Iver South As part of the overall plan for T5, Thames Water wished to re-locate the sludge de-watering plant from Perry Oaks to a site some 10 km away at Iver South. The site was also in Green Belt. The 14 hectare site is already occupied by an existing sewage works but there is a good deal of rough grazing and disused filter beds. At Perry Oaks there was an extensive low-intensity process of natural settling in lagoons. The replacement at Iver South would use a low-area high-intensity mechanical processing involving centrifuging. This would create some noise and visual intrusion [and also energy use]. The inspector noted that All parties accepted that the proposal represented inappropriate development in the Green Belt so that very special circumstances would be required to justify granting planning permission for it. Thames Water argued that the very special circumstances were derived from the need for Terminal 5 and the need for the whole of the Perry Oaks site to be occupied by Terminal 5 and its associated facilities. BAA .. emphasised that no statutory body had objected on ecological grounds. Surveys had shown that the present sewage works contained no habitats or features of more than minor ecological value. [FoE pointed out that English Nature are very short of resources and would not normally object unless a SSSI or higher designation was involved.] There was considerable ecological evidence from FoE , the Berkshire Bird Bulletin, the Wildlife Trusts and the LNHS. They said .. the area around and including the application site was of high nature conservation value. The proposed development would cause both immediate and long-term damage ... The area included a range of habitats and should be regarded as an indivisible complex particularly in respect of birds for which these habitats were complementary. .. Given the recent losses of farmland in the Colne Valley, the pasture rough grassland and scrub at Iver South were of crucial value. The main concern was birds, especially on the lagoons which would be destroyed The biggest threat from this proposal would be to waders which were entirely dependent on the lagoons . Four species on the Red List of species in danger (tree sparrow, linnet, skylark and reed bunting) were found on existing works. No development which threatened any of these should be permitted. .. Areas of reed also provided a breeding habitat for reed warbler, sedge warbler and reed bunting. Thames Water were wrong to suggest that the transfer of an area of reed mace would provide a replacement habitat for the 2 warblers and, in any event, the proposed area was too small. Thames Water argued .. In any event reed mace was common in the area and there were other colonies of reed and sedge warblers. This meant that the reduction in the area of reed mace on the site as a result of the development should not be regarded as significantly harmful . On balance, the loss of the existing lagoons would not be harmful . Other areas were also a concern for birds The Orlitts Lakes together with Old Slade Lake were particularly secure for breeding birds including tufted duck, great crested grebe, kingfisher and reed bunting. These would suffer from the construction and subsequent use of the proposed access across Orlitts Lake. .. grazing land to the east of the existing sewage works was of great value to the area being widely used by finch flocks such as the linnet. This would be entirely lost to the proposed development .. The grazing land to the west was one of the largest such areas in the Valley and supported a range of bird species in national decline including lapwing and skylarks. .. This part of the Colne Brook supported reed bunting, sedge warbler, kingfishers (which had bred in the vicinity in 1994), and dragonfly. The kingfishers were badly affected by disturbance and the use of the proposed bridge would result in their departure. The Berkshire Bird Bulletin suggested specific works as mitigation. The inspector said I was .. impressed by the positive suggestions made by the Berkshire Bird Bulletin on this point. While Thames Water said that they might be able to take some of these forward at the detailed design stage I consider that some additional measures would be necessary if the proposal were permitted. On ecological impact, the inspector concluded I consider that the proposed plant would cause significant ecological harm. This would include not only the loss of the existing lagoons and reedbed on the site of the sewage works and the grassland to the east but also the impact of the widened bund across Orlitts Lake. . I consider that the use of the road across the lake would inevitably cause long-term disturbance and reduce the value of the lake.. In the absence of more effective mitigation I conclude that the proposed development would cause material harm to the nature conservation interests of the area. FoE and the LAs argued that if the new sludge de-watering process were to be changed to the new mechanical process, this could be carried out on a small part of the Perry Oaks site. Given the large area and the fact that T5 was intended to only carry 30m passengers pa, there would be room for both. The inspector rejected the idea : Government policy still supports the principle of developing the Perry Oaks site for airport related uses. .. Certainly if Perry Oaks were not developed to provide a new terminal a modern sludge works operating on a small part of the site might not be incongruous. .. I also concluded that I believe that Terminal 5 is needed if the objective of that policy is to be met. It must, therefore, follow that anything which reduces the capacity of Terminal 5 would be undesirable from a national policy perspective even if the actual capacity still exceeded the 80 mppa [million passengers pa] assumed by BAA. The inspectors overall conclusions were : I accept that the proposed sludge dewatering plant at Iver South would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would harm both the Green Belt the Colne Valley Park. It would also damage the nature conservation value of the area. On the other hand I am satisfied that the plant should be moved from Perry Oaks and that this need would outweigh the harm particularly if permission were granted for Terminal 5. Consequently there would be very special circumstances justifying this inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Conditions There were no significant conditions imposed whose primary purpose was to protect biodiversity. General ecological issues [FoE in particular presented evidence on ecological concepts and issues which it considered should be taken into account in considering impacts. These included : Biodiversity (specifically, as opposed to nature conservation and ecology in general); the governments and NGOs response to Rio and the Biodiversity Convention; carrying capacity of habitats in relation to their area; species/area relationships; fragmentation effects; preservation of populations of species; need to preserve all native species and not just the most attractive or the rarest. These issues were not or barely mentioned by BAA or the HA in their extensive evidence and they were not mentioned by the inspector.] Briefing Note 21 Issue 3 (Dec 01) .@A8<IW RsJbF*G@'P"R#/%%%|''3*6*e+,-8-f--..p/0222245B77O8909><==B=V=]=r==?/A*B8B=CEEEE.KZNNOIPDRAS|SSSTVUuUXXchVVcc^Uc(UU]c\XXY:Z[\^`avd|ddeeef#g8j kk llnnnr s:touuv}}}tu>SVfqrΉ|DjA<mIoۚ1ӠؠHac,.tu]cc^cVccP!9:;<IJWX? @ p q OPNOu+, &)')()))/ *ST""2%3%{'|'6*7*++,,-8-9-..222222233668797799h99@<A<@@CC,CGGpIqIKKNN/OOOOSS}S~SSZU[UUUXXXXXY Z>Z?Z\\``aazd{d|ddd]e^egg-g>j?jllnnnnnrruuzvv%y&y{ {}}}}}XYdefqrΉЉϋ!D,DE@Atuޚߚ֠נؠFGHbc,./0opqst K@Normala @ Heading 1U @ Heading 2c"@" Heading 3^c"A@"Default Paragraph FontO Hyperlink^bB@ Body Textc O Body Text 2cttXSTCgDtUVWXY@CTimes New Roman Symbol "Arial"Arial Black"h qf qfw\&Z D{?C:\WINDOWS\Application Data\Microsoft\Templates\WLFoE Brief.dotPRESS RELEASE Mr N Ferriday Mr N Ferriday  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[`hRoot Entry F@|_WordDocumentCompObjjSummaryInformation(  FMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.69q Oh+'0 , T ` l xPRESS RELEASEtMr N Ferriday WLFoE BriefMr N Ferridayjp2Microsoft Word for Windows 9DocumentSummaryInformation8   FMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89qWL Friends of the EarthD PRESS RELEASE5@F#@2"{@}@}Z  ՜.+,0@Hhp x WL Friends of the EarthD PRESS RELEASE