A recent revelation uncovers the staggering cost of a structure designed to protect bats along the HS2 railway route.
- HS2’s ‘bat shed’ between ancient woodlands in Buckinghamshire exceeds £100 million, according to Chair Jon Thompson.
- Initial reports suggested the cost was £40 million, but this was for a sub-contract, not the full project.
- Freedom of Information requests to disclose the full cost were denied due to commercial sensitivities.
- Natural England did not mandate the bat shed, only commenting on its efficacy as an environmental measure.
The HS2 project has taken a controversial turn with the revelation of a structure aimed at safeguarding bats costing over £100 million. Jon Thompson, Chair of HS2, shared this eye-opening figure during the Rail Industry Alliance conference, explaining the unexpected expenditure for what is colloquially termed a ‘bat shed’. This infrastructure is intended to prevent bats from flying near high-speed railway tracks between ancient woodlands in Buckinghamshire.
Though some accounts initially reported the cost as £40 million, this figure was tied to a groundworks sub-contract managed by the EKFB joint venture, which includes Eiffage, Kier, Ferrovial Construction, and Bam Nuttall. The realisation that these numbers do not reflect the total expenditure adds a layer of complexity to the project’s financial transparency.
Efforts to confirm the total cost through Freedom of Information requests were thwarted when HS2 Ltd refused to release the information, citing commercial sensitivity. According to HS2 Ltd, the Sheephouse Wood Bat Protection Structure is in a live procurement phase, and revealing the costs could jeopardize negotiations and procurement processes, thus impacting taxpayer value.
The protective structure, which is about 1 kilometre long, is a steel mesh design with a porous roof. It aims to allow safe passage of 13 bat species, including the highly protected Bechstein’s bats. These bats are safeguarded under the Habitats Regulations in England due to their rarity and the environmental significance of their conservation.
Natural England’s involvement was limited to evaluating whether the proposed mitigations would effectively protect the bat populations. Their statement underscores that while they did not require the bat shed specifically, the solution needed a rigorous assessment to align with the Habitats Regulations.
With the structure’s arches scheduled to be erected next year, questions about the cost efficiency and necessity of this untested concept in the UK remain. The decision to build the ‘bat shed’ stemmed from the need to secure planning and environmental consent despite the high costs associated with such compliance. A spokesperson for HS2 emphasized the project’s commitment to environmental sustainability, albeit acknowledging the substantial financial implications inherent in adhering to regulatory standards.
The high cost of the HS2 ‘bat shed’ highlights the significant challenges of balancing infrastructure development and environmental protection.
