Consultation Response to Phase 2 of HS2, Birmingham to Leeds

Alec Shelbrooke MP

Elmet and Rothwell, Leeds

Foreward

As the Member of Parliament for Elmet and Rothwell in Leeds, I am responding on behalf of my constituents in Woodlesford, Swillington and Garforth.

Working with the Leeds Chamber of Commerce, I lead on transport issues in Parliament on behalf of all Leeds MPs and Leeds City Council, as such my comments and objections in this consultation response are not cast around opposing the project, but rather highlighting why the current preferred route for HS2 is so devastating and inappropriate for my constituents. A carefully considered alternative, as already proposed in HS2 Ltd’s initial publication and which still goes though my constituency, would release such pressure and better benefit Leeds with a quicker service.

This report will answer the questions posed in the consultation by HS2 Ltd and will fundamentally outline at the appropriate questions the reasons behind our objections, the foreseen geological problems with the proposed route and offer a carefully considered alternative that will shorten the journey time into Leeds.

My comments look to the future of high speed rail and note considerations that should be taken into account at this time in relation to a HS3 project.

However, in answering the questions my submission also suggests how HS2 can be exploited by the City of Leeds and therefore hopefully outlines to the consultation that despite needing the line to be re-routed for the reasons that will be outlined in this report, the overall aims, ambitions and opportunities that HS2 will bring to Leeds and the surrounding area are also acknowledged.

This document is intended as a positive submission to the consultation that will show that if a suitable re-route is adopted, the major concerns for the Leeds section of the project can be overcome for a better overall outcome for the project and for Leeds.

As vital a project such as HS2 is for the economic future of the City and its region of influence, it would be unacceptable to build it on the back of hardworking people who would see their life’s assets devalued by a government lead project.

Contents

Page

Consultation Questions:

Questions i, ii, iii 3

Question iv 4

Reasons for opposition to Leeds Route 4

Alternative Suggestion 15

Question v 18

Question vi 19

Question vii 19

Question viii, ix 21

Conclusion 22

2

Questions from HS2 Consultation document

(i) Do you agree or disagree with the Government’s proposed route between the West Midlandsand Manchester as described in Chapter 7? This includes the proposed route alignment, thelocation of tunnels, ventilation shafts, cuttings, viaducts and depots as well as how the highspeed line will connect to the West Coast Main Line.

(ii) Do you agree or disagree with the Government’s proposals for:a. A Manchester station at Manchester Piccadilly as described in Chapter 7(sections 7.8.1 – 7.8.7)?b. An additional station near Manchester Airport as described in Chapter 7(sections 7.6.1 – 7.6.6)?

(iii) Do you think that there should be any additional stations on the western leg between theWest Midlands and Manchester?

As a Leeds MP, I am not going to give detailed answers to these questions, except to say that the decisions to build a “Y” network is vitally important for the City of Leeds and its surrounding region. If a route only went to Manchester, or stop at Manchester first in and “S” shape route, would have a devastating impact on the economy of Leeds.

With this in mind it is vital that the two routes and corresponding stations in Leeds and Manchester both open at the same time.

3

(iv) Do you agree or disagree with the Government’s proposed route between West Midlands andLeeds as described in Chapter 8? This includes the proposed route alignment, the location oftunnels, ventilation shafts, cuttings, viaducts and depots as well as how the high speed linewill connect to the East Coast Main Line.

Introduction

This submission is an objection to the current preferred route proposal. It explains why the route through Woodlesford, Swillington and Garforth is inappropriate and that alternative routes have already been considered by HS2 Ltd which should be revisited with the option for amendments considered.

Reasons for rejection of current proposed route into and through Leeds

The current proposal into Leeds is opposed by MPs, the City Council, local Councillors and residents. Indeed, the Leeds Chamber of Commerce have previously supported the alternative route proposals that I will describe further down.

Such a lack of support among decision makers in Leeds could prove an unexpected stumbling block for HS2 in Leeds, however, I believe that an alternative route will be seen in a positive light by a great many of those who currently object.

The reasons that we all deem the above current proposals to be inappropriate are as follows:

Devastation to people’s homes and lives

The most important thing to note about the route going into Leeds through Woodlesford is that although it looks reasonable on an OS Map, on the ground the story is completely different.

Figure 1 shows a photograph taken from ‘Clumpcliffe’. This is where the mile long viaduct, reaching up to twenty five meters high, starts and splits into three viaducts for the branch line into Leeds.

Figure 2 is a section of the OS Map that shows the location of Clumpcliffe marked with an ‘X’. From the map perspective the route appears to be surrounded by motorways and so it could be argued that the route is being planned through an urbanised area. However, the photograph in figure 1 reveals that from this position the area that the mile long viaduct runs through is essentially rural, indeed none of the motorways can be seen.

4

Figure 1

Figure 2

5

The biggest issue with the current proposal is the devastating impact it will have on ‘The Maltings’ and ‘The Locks’ estates in Woodlesford.

The junction for the branch line from the main line will take place at 42 feet in the air on 3 viaducts. As figure 3 shows these will destroy the vista from the back of the properties at the end of ‘The Maltings’.

Figure 3

The branch line itself, however, creates even more devastating impact, to in effect, completely destroy the estates of ‘The Maltings’ and ‘The Locks’.

Figure 4 shows the proximity to the back gardens on the other side of the canals for those who back onto the canal at ‘The Maltings’. It should be noted that when these houses were built and sold at the end of the 1990’s, there was a £15,000 premium on these properties for the rural view.

6

Figure 4

7

Figures 5 and 6 illustrate quite clearly the scale and impact that the viaduct will have for those living beside the canal.

Figure 5

Figure 6

8

Moving onto ‘The Locks’ estate, this is so named due to the canal lock system behind the new estate that was only completed in 2010.

Figures 7 and 8 show the area of land the viaduct is proposed to be built along,

Figure 7

9

Proposed route on land in between the canal and the River Aire

River Aire

Figure 8

10

Existing site of line looking south

Proposed track on land between canal and River

Residential housing less than 5 years old

But it is figures 9 and 10 that show just how close this proposal is to the newly built houses in these idyllic rural setting.

Figure 9

Figure 10

11

Viaduct at height of tree tops. The route comes through opposite side of lake where pointing

Viaduct will start at the top of the hill where the person is stood

The Main line route through Swillington and up to Garforth has its own unique problems. First of all is the impact that the project will have on Swillington Organic Farm, with a 60 foot viaduct heading right through the centre of the farm. Figures 11and 12 demonstrate Scale of impact. This viaduct also will mean the destruction of a heritage site that is used for educational purposes as shown in Figure 13.

Figure 11

Figure 12

12

Ice store; a heritage site. Proposed track at side of tree line

Arrow is where the manor house used to be. It was pulled down in 1952 due to collapse from subsidence. Geology of area uncertain due to extensive under mining. All the land used to slope down to the river. It is now flat due to the under mining; thus a constant movement of land.

Figure 13

However, one of the major problems associated with this route is that of land movement, subsidence and unknown undermining from the colliery days.

Figure 14 illustrates how not only did the Manor House for Swillington Farm have to be demolished in the 1950’s but also how the land that previously sloped down to the river is now flat and has some seven ponds on it as part of the organic farm business. Figure 14:

13

These issues of geology are continued right the way up to and around Garforth and at the section of the A642 and A656 it is proposed to have the line in a cutting and tunnel under these roads. However as can be observed in Figure 15 the motorway is on an embankment. This was supposed to be in a cutting, but the geological issues did not allow this when constructed over a decade ago. Coupled with the fact the field in the foreground is constantly moving and opening up new craters, makes this an unsuitable location for a high speed train track.

Figure 15

Note the M1, in the foreground, is NOT in a cutting as originally planned and as HS2 suggest for route, due to local geological issues

14

Fundamentally, there is nothing that cannot be engineered to solve these problems, but that means extra cost. When the comment in 8.6.3 of the consultation is taken into account that: “....it selected the Garforth route principally because it would be £280 million cheaper than the alternative Castleford route....”, then the alternatives should be looked at again .

So the current proposal following “The Garforth Route” has the following fundamental problems:

It is opposed by local MP It is opposed by Leeds City Council It is opposed by local Councillors and residents It cannot have its effects mitigated as it is so high on a viaduct It is in a rural area, not a suburban area as was assumed by the mapping It has huge geological issues to contend with It directly effects over 400 houses It requires massive engineering of the waterways It will destroy thriving local businesses for no return in the immediate area It will cost far more to construct than estimated due to unknown geology and

evident land shifting on a constant basis It could be more expensive or at least cost neutral to the alternative. There is a better alternative...

15

The Alternative Suggestion

When we were considering an alternative we worked from the following principles:

Priority to follow existing transport corridors and areas of current transport blight

Look for shorter routes into Leeds Consider the impact for HS3 Try to use HS2’s alternatives as much as possible Note the station selection in chapter 8 of the consultation Minimise impact on people’s homes and livelihoods.

Figure 18 shows a sketch of the initial proposal presented to HS2 during the field work visit with Director Ian Jordon on 19th July 2013. The following areas should be noted:

Working on the assumption that transport corridors and areas of existing blight should be followed, that the route into the city follows the M1

The proposal uses the preferred alternative from HS2 into the City from Stourton, but follows the alternative route until the M1/M62 junction, where a link then brings the two routes together

The route along the M1would have to be tunnelled due to topography. This presents the opportunity to make a significant time saving into the city as the tunnel could be done diagonally from the Stourton point to the curve to the West on the mainline to Leeds junction.

So fundamentally, the proposed alternative into Leeds would be quicker and out of sight in residential areas until it arrived into the industrial zone, thereby removing the need to build three 60 foot high viaducts across unstable land.

On top of this considerations to HS3 must also be given. Due to the M1, landfill sites and the height of the HS2 line, the only possible route out of Leeds onto the main line heading North on the current preferred route proposal would be to cut through Temple Newsom Park. This country park and historic house is a key attraction in Leeds with many events held in its grounds throughout the year. The problems in taking this route are obvious and probably insurmountable.

The alternative route, as illustrated in Figure 16 shows that the link to the North could take place by passing through a new industrial estate next to the M62 that Wakefield Council has given planning permission for. Again this reduces blight as it travels through industrial areas and not countryside.

16

It should also be noted that this alternative route still passes through my constituency but is of a significant enough distances so as not to cause the level of blight and destruction that it currently does at Woodlesford.

Finally it also has the advantage of passing though two freight terminals with already engineered rail access.

Figure 18 Map of HS2 of alternative

Key

Solid Pink – HS2 Preferred Route

Solid Blue – HS2’s Alternative Route

17

Solid Green – Initial proposal to use alternative route at same station location without going through residential areas

Dotted Blue lines – Potential HS3 north from Leeds route

Figure 18: Annotation of HS2 Maps for alternative (light green shows a more likely route through a tunnel)

18

(v) Do you agree or disagree with the Government’s proposals for:

a. A Leeds station at Leeds New Lane as described in Chapter 8 (sections 8.8.1 – 8.8.5)?b. A South Yorkshire station to be located at Sheffield Meadowhall as described in Chapter 8(sections 8.5.1 – 8.5.8)?c. An East Midlands station to be located at Toton as described in Chapter 8(sections 8.3.1 – 8.3.6)?

The site of the station was outlined and justified in Chapter 8 and I have no comments to add to those. However, it is imperative that the two stations are seamlessly linked. The distance between the two concourses is still quite large despite the comments in Chapter 8 and it will therefore be of the utmost importance that there are conveyer belts in the thoroughfare as is common at airports.

Although not pertinent to HS2 or the question above, I feel it is important to state at this time the need to integrate the capital infrastructure of the station with the economic opportunities for Leeds.

It will be the responsibility of Leeds City Council but the vision for the area around the station should be to expand the developments such as the Bridgewater Place. Perhaps locating a landmark skyscraper directly above the station for commercial, business and residential use would take planning between the local authority and HS2. This would be similar to the way the Docklands Light Railway arrives directly at the Canary Wharf.

Obviously it would be of massive economic savings to construct the station and skyscrapers at the same time and would involve the planning authority, HS2 and developers to see this vision become a reality, but in order to stop heavy disruption as the site becomes more economically valuable and active, this is a good opportunity to explore these possibilities at this current time.

The final advantage of the station at this location is that it does allow a seamless link with a future tram train system around the City of Leeds and Bradford but primarily allowing that link to open up the Aire Valley Industrial Area which currently is a designated LEP zone.

19

I have no specific comments on sections B and C other than to say that the connectivity of our northern cities is of the utmost importance in bringing sustainable growth and closing the north/south divide.

20

(vi) Do you think that there should be any additional stations on the eastern leg between theWest Midlands and Leeds?

I do not think there is a demand that would allow the concept to be achieved; however, what is vital is that there is key connectivity between neighbouring areas and the stations described.

(vii) Please let us know your comments on the Appraisal of Sustainability (as reported in theSustainability Statement) of the Government’s proposed Phase Two route, including thealternatives to the proposed route as described in Chapter 9.

Perhaps the most pertinent comment in the consultation document is paragraph 9.2.1:

“New planting and local contouring will be adopted within designs to help blend the railway into the landscape.....”

As we saw in figure 1 the area of where the mainline viaduct and branch line viaducts will sit is in a natural bowl that ensures the rural nature of the areas of Woodlesford and Swillington.

HS2 acknowledge the blight caused by the railway through paragraph 9.2.1, but these mitigation factors are hopeless when the line is at least 40 feet in the air. Couple that to the proximity of people’s houses and there can be no mitigation of the line at this point.

The viaducts which are described by HS2 as a “prominent structure which will affect the landscape, character of the valley and give rise to visual and noise impact on residents in Woodlesford, as well as to recreational users of the valley (including Rothwell Country Park), can be avoided if the alternative route is adopted.

Primarily the alternative route is on the whole in open countryside or along existing rail beds. The open countryside would allow mitigation factors to be included. It was noticed by myself and a great number of my constituents that there was not one noise demonstration for the sections at Woodlesford compared to so many other locations along the route as clearly the noise levels at this close proximity will be hugely significant. The alternative route provides distance and readily available mitigation oppotunities that simply are physically impossibility at Woodlesford.

21

The Aire Valley has been painstakingly revitalised from its status as a centre for mining to an area of natural beauty. During this time a great number of new housing developments have been built, not least ‘The Maltings’ and ‘The Locks’ at Woodlesford. It has been described as a “green lung”, with an array of flora and fauna breathing life into this once (but no longer) industrialised corridor into Leeds. This has lead to regeneration of the economy for businesses effected after the end of mining and has happened by the rural offering of the area. The proposed route would undermine this irreversibly and once again blight communities that have rejuvenated over the last thirty years.

Taking into account the open landscape of the Aire Valley at this point, the visual impact will be significant and unreasonable. This will be experienced not just by residents of Woodlesford but by the recreational users of the navigation, users of the Trans-Pennine Trail, Rothwell Country Park and all those living within the ‘natural bowl’ of this particular section of the valley at Woodlesford and Swillington.

22

(viii) Please let us know your comments on how the capacity that would be freed up on theexisting rail network by the introduction of the proposed Phase Two route could be used as described in Chapter 10?

I support the sentiments in paragraph 10.1.2. Opportunities do exist for intercity services and connectivity to different cities and towns to different London locations with a reduction in the burden on the existing ECML.

The examples of how the Javlin trains are used on HS1 must be learnt and applied to HS2, especially in Yorkshire, to completely link up and connect the Leeds City Region moving onto the influences of Sheffield and then Nottingham and Derby.

This will bring huge advantages to the North of England that are currently only enjoyed in the South East, but must be ready to exploit this from the opening of the HS2 line so as to be able to compete with the cities of Birmingham and especially Manchester on the East side of the Pennines.

(ix) Please let us know your comments on the introduction of other utilities along the proposedPhase Two line of route as described in Chapter 11?

This can be summarised from the above answers:

Connectivity beyond the actual line are vital to ensure the growth for the Leeds City Region, using HS1 and Javlin trains as an example

Local authority planners need to work closely with HS2 to ensure that the greatest opportunities for the cities, such as ensuring a commercial skyscraper is built above the Leeds station need to be working now to reduce massively construction costs and disruption over the long term and to ensure maximum exploitation in the shortest time possible

Local transport infrastructures such as tram train systems should be planned and ready to open as the HS2 station opens.

Cities such as Wakefield and Bradford need to understand the offerings on the existing Intercity ECML that will occur with the construction of HS2 so that they can plan their commercial futures in a meaningful way for 2033 onwards.

23

Conclusion

The aim of this submission is to demonstrate that HS2 is a vital project for the City of Leeds and the Leeds City Region, not to mention the overall effect of closing the North South divide.

However, The Current proposal is unacceptable.

The current route into Leeds does not have the support of the local authority or myself as the local MP, despite all of the benefits that the project will clearly bring the City. That is an introduction of how bad this current proposal is.

This document has hopefully outlined a far more superior route that:

Reduces the journey time into Leeds Reduces the disruption to the local environment Does not devastate over 400 families homes Looks to the future of HS3 and potential project stopping problems Assesses the best way to overcome the geological issues that historic mining

will cause and inexorable rise in costs And most importantly of all, has the support of the public, the MP, the Local

Authority and the Chamber of Commerce.

HS2 is a vital project for the future and long term sustainability of Leeds and the North of England, but it cannot and should not be built by destroying the assets and livelihoods of those who have worked hard all their life, merely to see a government backed project destroy their lives.

24