The £100m bat shed

[fat_boy_pete]

This article in the Guardian reports that the HS2 Chairman at the Rail Industry Association conference has today used this example as why HS2 phase 1 is so costly.

Cost of ‘shed’ to protect bat colony near HS2 has topped £100m, chair says

Jon Thompson tells industry conference there was ‘no evidence’ that bats were at risk from the trains

www.theguardian.com

"The cost of a “bat shed” to protect a species in woodland along the new HS2 high-speed line has risen to more than £100m, HS2’s chair has revealed.

The 1km-long mesh structure will be built where the London-Birmingham high-speed line emerges from a tunnel in Buckinghamshire, to protect a colony of Bechstein’s bats."

I am sure that there are other examples. Question is, without needlessly trashing the environment, how do we built things in a balanced approach? Surely there is a way.

 

[DarloRich]

there is no way that cost £100m

 

[paul1609]

The bat tunnels look a lot nicer than the bat bridges

 

[The exile]

there is no way that cost £100m

It and the processes that had to be gone through to get it built, maybe.

 

[fat_boy_pete]

It and the processes that had to be gone through to get it built, maybe.

And I am sure that he wouldn't have said it so publicly if he couldn't prove it. He's making a deliberate point.

 

[SynthD]

how do we built things in a balanced approach?

Define an acceptable loss, acceptable error of margin. The cost is from a need to have no negative affect on wildlife, so permit a little. If a project only had to say it is unlikely to reduce local populations by more than 10%, then it would have a shorter ecological submission. If a species is unique, fund sending some to zoos and conservation/breeding organisations.

 

[Tetchytyke]

And I am sure that he wouldn't have said it so publicly if he couldn't prove it. He's making a deliberate point.

The point he's making isn't the one he thinks he is.

There's no way the construction and the legal processes to build that structure cost £100m. Not unless you're getting absolutely ripped off by your consultants and lawyers.

Oh...hang on, isn't the biggest criticism of HS2 that they've been completely incapable of keeping lawyers' and consulants' fees under control?

 

[fat_boy_pete]

The point he's making isn't the one he thinks he is.

There's no way the construction and the legal processes to build that structure cost £100m. Not unless you're getting absolutely ripped off by your consultants and lawyers.

Oh...hang on, isn't the biggest criticism of HS2 that they've been completely incapable of keeping lawyers' and consulants' fees under control?

I think you are making the same point. It's the government procedures and conflicting requirements that require the expensive lawyers and consultants to navigate them. He pointing at the root cause. It's the same reason the Lower Dartford Crossing has cost £0.5bn already without one sod of earth being moved.

 

[Tetchytyke]

It's the government procedures and conflicting requirements that require the expensive lawyers and consultants to navigate them.

No, I'm making the exact opposite point: there is no way mitigation for a known bat colony, protected under legislation that is now 40 years old, should cost that much. Unless you're being absolutely rinsed by your lawyers and consultants.

 

[ABB125]

I think you are making the same point. It's the government procedures and conflicting requirements that require the expensive lawyers and consultants to navigate them. He pointing at the root cause. It's the same reason the Lower Dartford Crossing has cost £0.5bn already without one sod of earth being moved.

No, I'm making the exact opposite point: there is no way mitigation for a known bat colony, protected under legislation that is now 40 years old, should cost that much. Unless you're being absolutely rinsed by your lawyers and consultants.

I would suggest that perhaps both these statements can be true...

 

[HSTEd]

Well routes through open countryside are very likely to encounter such things.....

I don't think it is reasonable to demand to be excused from requirements stemming from a route that HS2 itself selected.

If the routing had been properly surveyed in advance, why was this mitigation structure not included in the Act of Parliament that authorised the railway, bypassing the need for planning permission?

 

[tspaul26]

There's no way the construction and the legal processes to build that structure cost £100m. Not unless you're getting absolutely ripped off by your consultants and lawyers.

The local planning authority caused over a year’s delay in getting consent for the design of this structure, on top of six years of largely fruitless engagement with them beforehand, which required a full appeal to be lodged at extra cost (legal and consultant fees in the region of £2.7million in total).

To say nothing of their attempts to frustrate the site clearance activities on the woodland edge.

And the delay has lead to inflationary cost increases as a result.

If the routing had been properly surveyed in advance, why was this mitigation structure not included in the Act of Parliament that authorised the railway, bypassing the need for planning permission?

It was, but the planning authority still tried to prevent it being built.

 

[fat_boy_pete]

I think the wider point that the HS2 Chairman was making, is that all of the conflicting legislation and authorities and consultation drives disproportionate cost. The £100m bat shed is a direct outcome of a flawed process for major infrastructure projects. It's that wider point that I think is worth considering rather than 'we've been ripped off by lawyers/consultants'.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I think the wider point that the HS2 Chairman was making, is that all of the conflicting legislation and authorities and consultation drives disproportionate cost.

That's certainly the point he was intending to make.

The point he actually made is that HS2 don't know what they're doing to such an extent that they failed to foresee that a bat colony on a route that they themselves selected, protected by legislation that is older than I am, might require mitigation.

full appeal to be lodged at extra cost (legal and consultant fees in the region of £2.7million in total

So where did the other £97.3m go then?

the planning authority still tried to prevent it being built.

A democratically-elected local planning authority in an area where the bulk of the residents are vehemently anti-HS2 turns out to be obstructive towards changes demanded by HS2. Who could possibly have foreseen such an eventuality.

 

[DarloRich]

It and the processes that had to be gone through to get it built, maybe.

correct - that was my point.

 

[Hophead]

..........
So where did the other £97.3m go then?
.........

Indeed - a breakdown of that £100m would help to clarify matters if anyone is even capable of working it out now (and without charging us all another £5m for doing so).

Having said that, the picture on the Guardian's page does suggest that HS2 have selected the deluxe model from the bat shed catalogue.

 

[eldomtom2]

If a project only had to say it is unlikely to reduce local populations by more than 10%, then it would have a shorter ecological submission.

But then ten projects can lead to extinction!

 

[InOban]

In France these major projects do not require local planning permission, just as in Scotland windfarms above 50Mw are approved centrally.

 

[John R]

The bat shed is 1km long, so for those saying the structure shouldn’t cost anything like that, bear in mind its length.

 

[themiller]

It’s a nonsense of our planning system that, once approved by the apex authority, subordinate bodies can frustrate progress. They should have to submit their issues with the primary legislator rather than the DfTs contractor.

 

[HSTEd]

It’s a nonsense of our planning system that, once approved by the apex authority, subordinate bodies can frustrate progress. They should have to submit their issues with the primary legislator rather than the DfTs contractor.

As far as I can tell, this structure was not explicitly authorised by the enabling act. I can't find it in the Scheduled Work.

Therefore permission for this structure was not granted, although that begs the question as to why HS2 would not have included it in an act sponsored by them, for a route they chose themselves.

 

[tspaul26]

As far as I can tell, this structure was not explicitly authorised by the enabling act. I can't find it in the Scheduled Work.

Works do not have to be Scheduled Works in order to be authorised by the Act.

However, this particular structure forms part of scheduled work number 2/49.

A democratically-elected local planning authority in an area where the bulk of the residents are vehemently anti-HS2 turns out to be obstructive towards changes demanded by HS2. Who could possibly have foreseen such an eventuality.

The relevant planning authority has a quasi-judicial role. It is not for a local authority to seek to overturn the will of Parliament which, it should go without saying, has its own democratic mandate and decided that the project should proceed in the national (rather than merely parochial) interest.

In this case, Buckinghamshire Council’s obstructive approach was fundamentally unlawful and has caused significant delays and cost increases as a result. This was part of a deliberate wider strategy of attempting to frustrate its entire construction.

Having said that, the picture on the Guardian's page does suggest that HS2 have selected the deluxe model from the bat shed catalogue.

This particular design was actually cheaper and easier to construct and maintain than other potential approaches, as well as being more elegant in appearance.

 

[HSTEd]

Works do not have to be Scheduled Works in order to be authorised by the Act.

They do if they are large enough to have a significant environmental impact, as laid out by the relevant section of the Act
Which a kilometre long bat shed almost certainly does.

However, this particular structure forms part of scheduled work number 2/49.

Which does not reference the construction of environmental mitigations, which are typically listed as separate works in the Schedule, as far as I can tell
Additionally, as far as I can tell, no reference to this bat structure appears in the deposited plans.

In this case, Buckinghamshire Council’s obstructive approach was fundamentally unlawful and has caused significant delays and cost increases as a result. This was part of a deliberate wider strategy of attempting to frustrate its entire construction.

If this was as cut as dried as you suggest, it seems likely that he would have stated this in his interview, but he did not state this.

 

[Tetchytyke]

In this case, Buckinghamshire Council’s obstructive approach was fundamentally unlawful

Was it? Source please.

His comment was:

I win the planning commission by going over [the county council’s] head

No mention of lawfulness. One must presume that, had their opposition been “fundamentally unlawful”, he would have said so.

 

[telstarbox]

This isn't unique to HS2. If you look at planning applications from the 80s / 90s and compare them today the matters to be considered are much more extensive now (such as Biodiversity Net Gain which came in recently). All with good intentions but it adds time and ultimately cost to the end product.

 

[tspaul26]

They do if they are large enough to have a significant environmental impact, as laid out by the relevant section of the Act
Which a kilometre long bat shed almost certainly does.

That is not quite how section 20 works.

In particular, the assessment as to whether a given work would be likely to have significant environmental effects is undertaken against a baseline position of “HS2 is happening”.

In that context, this structure was assessed as not being likely to have any significant environmental effects.

Which does not reference the construction of environmental mitigations, which are typically listed as separate works in the Schedule, as far as I can tell
Additionally, as far as I can tell, no reference to this bat structure appears in the deposited plans.

The structure comprises a tunnel for the purposes of section 20, schedule 1 and schedule 17.

The structure is referred to in the environmental statement. It is not something that would need to be shown on deposited plans for this type of Bill/Act.

If this was as cut as dried as you suggest, it seems likely that he would have stated this in his interview, but he did not state this.

The HS2 chairman is not a lawyer so I would not necessarily expect him to be on top of the legal nuances of this particular case.

Was it? Source please.

You would need to go through about seven years worth of documents and correspondence, but the gist of the matter is that the planning authority was seeking to control lineside vegetation management by with-holding consent for the structure (and other works) under Schedule 17, but this is not a matter which it is empowered to decide under the statute. It was accordingly a misuse of its statutory powers for an improper purpose.

No mention of lawfulness. One must presume that, had their opposition been “fundamentally unlawful”, he would have said so.

As above, not necessarily.

 

[swt_passenger]

It’s on the 2016 plan of the Calvert route section. Labelled as “Sheephouse Wood Mitigation Structure” without the word ‘bat’, if anyone wants to check the location. Also presumably covers the future Aylesbury single line, so will be quite wide?

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7f5724e5274a2e8ab4b960/C222-ATK-CV-DPP-020-000009-FPD.pdf

But there’s something odd about the description in the linked article, it’s quite a long way from the nearest tunnel.

 

[themiller]

That’s part of the problem. As part of the permission, all aspects of the project should have been taken into account rather than sub-contracting it to subordinate authorities. If due diligence had been done at this stage, there wouldn’t have been as many big issues after starting construction. After all, the permission to start construction should have implied permission for a ‘bat cave’ which could have been constructed far cheaper than this £100m palace!

 

[The exile]

But then ten projects can lead to extinction!

That's not how the maths works. If you start with (say) 1000 and reduce by 10% 10 times you end up with 348 and a bit- not 0. Of course, a fraction of a living bat is not viable, and with a living species the "tipping point" is well above 0.

 

[Taunton]

HS2 had to obtain a licence from Natural England, which approved the bat mitigation structure, before asking planning permission from Buckinghamshire county council, he said.

I came to the conclusion long ago that there are "professionals" who get into various organisations whose principal motivation is not really anything to do with the body's aims (although dressed up as such), so much as giving them a sense of power and achievement from being obstructive and causing difficulty and delay. Not just here but elsewhere. The additional runway at Heathrow airport has to be an extreme example, where no matter how many government decisions, court cases, formal reviews, and whatever take place, there's always the next one that some group emerges from the woodwork to hold it up further - and at least here something has been built, where at that airport way beyond £100m has been spent to date and not a brick has been laid.

I think the same organisation manages to somehow find apparently extremely rare newts along just about every one of the many motorway widening projects of recent years, which leads to extensive preliminary work (and project delay) to capture and transport any such, and erect the black plastic sheeting alongside the fence line to separate them further - you may have noticed this when passing such works.