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 Midlands
and Manchester as described in Chapter 7? This includes the proposed route
alignment, the
location of tunnels, ventilation shafts, cuttings, viaducts and depots as well
as how the high
speed 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 the
West 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 and
Leeds as described in Chapter 8? This includes the proposed route alignment,
the location of
tunnels, ventilation shafts, cuttings, viaducts and depots as well as how the
high speed line
will 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
6
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.
7
Figure 4
8
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
9
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
Figure 8
River Aire
Proposed route
on land in
between the
canal and the
River Aire
10
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
Residential housing
less than 5 years old
Proposed track on
land between
canal and River
Existing site of line
looking south
Figure 10
11
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
Viaduct at height of tree tops. The route
comes through opposite side of lake
where pointing
Figure 12
Viaduct will start at the top of the hill where the person is stood
12
Figure 13
Ice store; a heritage site.
Proposed track at side of
tree line
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:
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.
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
14
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
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.
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.
19
(vi) Do you think that there should be any additional stations on the eastern
leg between the
West 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 the
Sustainability Statement) of the Government’s proposed Phase Two route,
including the
alternatives 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.
20
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.
21
(viii) Please let us know your comments on how the capacity that would be
freed up on the
existing 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 proposed
Phase 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.
22
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.
23