HS2 Review Submission Doncaster Council and Rotherham Council

Home , Morthen, Rotherham, Sheffield Supertram, Thurnscoe

Appendix 1: HS2 Review Submission Doncaster Council and Rotherham Council

Introduction and Summary

Doncaster Council and Rotherham Council support the Government’s objective to deliver improvements to the national railway network. We understand the economic and connectivity benefits that HS2 could provide across a wider geography, including the opportunity to increase capacity on the network for all users of the railway (logistics and passenger operations). However, we are very strongly opposed to the current plans for the eastern leg of Phase 2B from the West Midlands to Leeds. We believe that fundamental changes to Phase 2B are required.

Rotherham Council has passed a cross-party motion calling on the Government to immediately abandon the eastern leg of HS2 between Birmingham and Leeds, if the route is not changed, and allocate the funding released to deliver essential local improvements in accordance with the Northern Powerhouse ambition. Doncaster Council has also passed a cross-party motion objecting to the current Phase 2B route.

Both Rotherham Council and Doncaster Council remain of the opinion that a Meadowhall route alignment would be more economically, strategically and operationally advantageous than the current proposal.

HS2 Phase 2B: West Midlands to Leeds

The original Phase 2B route included a South Yorkshire hub station on the main line at Sheffield Meadowhall. The Local Authorities and Chambers of Commerce in Barnsley, Doncaster and Rotherham all supported the Meadowhall route. Sheffield Chamber also initially supported the Meadowhall announcement. Sheffield Council opposed the route in favour of a main line city centre station at Victoria (the other final shortlisted option).1

In 2016, Sir David Higgins announced a change to the route of HS2 through South Yorkshire. The HS2 line will move east with major impacts on communities in Rotherham and Doncaster. There will be no main line station in South Yorkshire. A spur onto the Midland Mainline in Derbyshire will allow ‘classic compatible’ trains to terminate at Sheffield Midland station. This route is not the preferred option of any Council or Chamber of Commerce in South Yorkshire.

The 2016 route change has wide-ranging consequences for South Yorkshire and HS2 when compared to the original Meadowhall route. They include:

 Higher total costs  Fewer trains and fewer seats  Inferior connectivity and longer journey times  Increased operational issues both on HS2 and the conventional network  Fewer jobs created and lower GVA benefits  Major residential demolitions and environmental impacts

Trains may continue north and re-join the main HS2 line on the border of West Yorkshire. These services are in the HS2 Indicative Train Service Specification (ITSS). However, the cost of delivering this connectivity and providing HS2 services from Sheffield to Leeds and the North East is not included in the HS2 budget (the Northern Loop).

These issues are explained in the following sections of this report.

Increased Cost of the M18/Eastern Route

When announcing the M18/Eastern route, Sir David Higgins claimed a cost saving of £1bn. However, the estimate did not include the following essential works required by HS2 to deliver its core ITSS2:

 Electrification of the Midland Main Line south of Sheffield to enable services from London  Remodelling of Sheffield Midland Station  Signalling upgrades  Delivery of the Northern Loop to provide HS2 services from Sheffield to Leeds/Newcastle  The provision of new capacity and rolling stock (Tram Train) to maintain essential existing local services3

HS2 assumes that a number of these interventions will be delivered through other rail investment programmes. We believe the total cost of these engineering works is likely to approach or exceed £1bn. The HS2 estimate also failed to include “any further rolling stock costs that may be required – which may lead to an underestimation of the rolling stock needed”. The updated economic case expects that “a further two units of rolling stock are required over the Spending Review assumption for Birmingham to Leeds services to be routed via Sheffield”. 4

Furthermore, the operation of spur services will incur additional revenue costs of £1.7bn over the appraisal period.5 The option of a northern loop connection will incur operating costs estimated at approximately £0.2 billion.6 There is also a question raised around the potential franchising of these services and the impact that this may have on existing commitments.

Because the Sheffield spur option fails to segregate high-speed services from existing services, HS2 contributes to capacity problems on the network in South Yorkshire. Without intervention, this could result in the loss of essential local services between Sheffield, Rotherham and Doncaster to make way for inter-city services. To maintain local stopping services, extension of the Tram-Train to Doncaster and Swinton is proposed.7

Delivery of the Northern Loop and extension of Tram-Train services require separate approval by Government. A business case for renewal of the Sheffield Supertram is also in development. This is an essential pre-requisite to extending Tram-Train services and is expected to require significant Government contributions.8 Again this is yet to be approved. The extension of Tram Train services in lieu of existing heavy rail services has unknown additional operational and maintenance cost implications for the Sheffield City Region.

The 2017 economic case for HS2 states that the Preferred Route on the M18/Eastern corridor provides only “slightly higher BCRs, with a similar BCR spread”.9 However, as identified above these

2 findings are based on an incorrect cost model. A reassessment of the full cost of the spur option is required, including environmental mitigation on the northern loop.

Demand

HS2 Limited’s forecasts of demand for HS2 services in South Yorkshire estimate that the majority of demand will arise from the centre and south-west of Sheffield.10 This is based on existing demand patterns for long distance travel. However, demand is dependent upon the level of service. The current level of service in much of South Yorkshire is poor and demand is suppressed as a result.

The flaw in the demand logic used by HS2 Ltd is illustrated by the current demand from Doncaster, where the level of service is very good. Doncaster satisfies a demand for four trains per hour to London. Using existing demand patterns, HS2 Ltd can only justify one train per hour from Sheffield Midland station, or a maximum of two. There is no logic to this given the difference in the population of the two areas.

The Sheffield City Region Priority Growth Areas are predominantly located to the north and east of Sheffield City Centre (Figure 1). Most of these locations are better supported by the South Yorkshire hub option, with Meadowhall station located Figure 1: Sheffield City Region Priority Growth Areas within the nationally important Advanced Manufacturing Innovation District straddling Sheffield and Rotherham. Sir David Higgins recognised the flaws in the current route when he rejected it in 2014.11

“The third alternative we examined was a route which included a spur to Sheffield. This option considered a direct route via a spur terminating at Sheffield Midland station. While this provided limited benefits for the city centre market, it did not provide the connections and journey times necessary to serve the wider Sheffield city region effectively, particularly Rotherham and Barnsley.”

To address this, Sir David Higgins recommended exploring the development of a mainline South Yorkshire Parkway Station. However, based on subsequent analysis, HS2 Ltd has not been able to identify a clear economic case for the inclusion of an additional parkway station on the HS2 mainline. The cost of a parkway station is expected to be well in excess of £300m.12

These flaws in connectivity cannot be resolved unless the Northern Powerhouse Rail project through South Yorkshire is fully funded by Government, including the proposed development of new mainline stations in Rotherham and the Dearne Valley, and improvements in services to Barnsley town centre.13

Journey Times, Frequency, Connectivity and Seating Capacity

The Sheffield Midland spur means it will be faster to travel by HS2 from London to Leeds (81 mins) and York (84 mins) than Sheffield (87 mins) despite their respective locations. Journey times to Sheffield on HS2 will be no quicker than the current fastest East Coast Main Line journey time to Doncaster. It would be faster to get to Sheffield city centre via Meadowhall than on the current spur route, with a choice of city centre destinations via the tram network. A comparison of the fastest estimated HS2 journey times to South Yorkshire is detailed in Table 1.14

Fastest Journey Time from London Service Sheffield Midland 87 min HS2 Spur Sheffield Meadowhall 68 mins HS2 Main Line Sheffield Midland via Meadowhall 78 mins HS2 Main Line Doncaster 87 mins Current via ECML Table 1: Comparison of Journey Times from London to South Yorkshire.

HS2 Ltd claimed that the route change would benefit passengers north of Sheffield, however, journey times have since been revised. Estimated journey times from London to Leeds are now 81 minutes for both the Meadowhall and Midland Spur options.15 HS2 also claims a journey time from Birmingham City Centre to Leeds of 49 minutes. Although this could potentially be achieved using the main HS2 line, no such services are included in the core ITSS (Figure 2). Under the ITSS, journey times from Curzon Street to Leeds are likely to take around 79 minutes, due to use of the Sheffield loop.16 In reality, Leeds City Centre to Birmingham City Centre services would be faster on HS2 via a Manchester route (c. 67 mins).17 Given the Prime Minister’s commitment to fund a new Leeds to Manchester line, this raises questions about the current strategic and economic case for Phase 2B.

Sheffield and South Yorkshire will have Figure 2: Indicative Train Service Specification (ITSS) fewer HS2 train services and inferior connectivity as a result of the route change. Overall, one less train per hour would serve Sheffield Midland (or 3tph fewer if the northern loop is not delivered). A comparison of the core ITSS for Sheffield Midland and Sheffield Meadowhall is detailed in Table 2.

Destination HS2 Trains per hour Midland ITSS Meadowhall ITSS London 2 2 Birmingham Curzon Street 2 3 Birmingham Interchange 0 1 East Midlands 4 5 Leeds* 2 4 York 0 2 Darlington 0 1 Durham 0 1 Newcastle 0 1 Table 2: Comparison of Indicative Train Service Specifications for Sheffield Midland and Sheffield Meadowhall. *It is assumed that a further 2tph will need continue north on the northern loop through Northern Powerhouse Rail.

A key rationale for the Sheffield Midland spur route was integration with Northern Powerhouse Rail (NPR), particularly for city centre services from Sheffield to Leeds. However, these NPR services could be delivered via a chord at Meadowhall18 or a main line HS2 station in Sheffield City Centre.

Classic compatible trains serving Sheffield Midland will also be shorter with 400m trains not accommodated (unlike at Meadowhall). Along with fewer services, this means there will be a significant reduction in HS2 seats available for passengers from the Sheffield City Region.

The development of HS2 must not have negative consequences for towns and cities currently on the main line. However, there is a risk that HS2 will have a negative impact on East Coast Main Line (ECML) services in Doncaster.

To maintain ECML services and achieve three HS2 services per hour north of York, either existing services will need to be cut or expensive additional capacity upgrades are required north of Northallerton (Leamside line). If additional capacity is not delivered on this section of the ECML, Doncaster is likely to be impacted by reduced service provision. Journey times from Doncaster to London may increase following the opening of HS2 if released capacity on the East Coast Main Line is used to provide more stopping services and freight routes. This risk is reflected in one of the released capacity scenarios published in 2017.19 These scenarios also show a potential reduction in the number of fast services between Doncaster and Leeds. This would negatively impact Doncaster’s economic plans and is contrary to the ambitions for increased services set out in the Sheffield City Region Integrated Rail Plan.

Sir David Higgins claimed that Doncaster would benefit from released capacity on the East Coast Main Line, however, it is clear there is no evidence to support this statement at the current time. Clarification is urgently required.

Operational Impacts and Network Capacity

The interaction of HS2 with existing services in South Yorkshire creates notable reliability challenges, particularly as the trains going onto the HS2 route will need to present on time from the classic-

5 compatible loop.20 Trains will also need to split at Toton adding unnecessary operational costs, inefficiencies and risks (Figure 2).

The rail network in South Yorkshire is already under significant pressure. Reliability and punctuality are poor. Delays and overcrowding are a regular feature for passengers on local and regional services. Rather than creating capacity on the existing network in South Yorkshire, HS2 will add to capacity issues and constraints, risking constraining future growth. A maximum of four trains per hour can be supported by the spur option. 21

It must also be stressed that through the Hybrid Bill process for Phase 2B, the Environmental Impact Assessment procedure for the Northern Loop is not included, meaning that not only is this not funded, but the investigation to support its deliverability is not progressing in tandem.

Economic Benefits

In October 2018, the emerging findings of the SCR HS2 Growth Strategy identified an Overall Economic Impact of £1.26bn in GVA over 30 years with the creation of around 12,000 jobs.22 This has the potential to increase but the best-case scenario requires full implementation of Northern Powerhouse Rail including new stations at Rotherham and in the Dearne Valley. In reality, this is a modest annual financial benefit when compared to the costs and impacts of HS2 in our region. For context, Doncaster and Rotherham have added £1.34bn to the South Yorkshire economy over the last 3 years (compared to £1bn in Sheffield).23

An assessment by Mott MacDonald in 2017 identified that a Meadowhall station would add more jobs and greater GVA benefits than the Sheffield Midland spur option (Figure 3 and Appendix 2).

These economic benefits could be further enhanced by the provision of Northern Powerhouse Rail services in to Sheffield City Centre via a chord at Meadowhall.

Economic benefits similar to those delivered by the Sheffield Midland spur could also be achieved at a fraction of the cost through other regional priority rail schemes. For example, a new rail link to Doncaster Sheffield Airport would support 8,600 new homes, 16,500 new jobs, 5.5million sq ft of employment space and add £1.83bn GVA over a similar time period. The SOBC for the scheme has identified £22.58 in economic returns to the UK for every £1 spent for a total cost of £330m-£380m, including a 64% contingency budget.24

Community and Environmental Impact25

The new M18/Eastern Route has a major impact on communities and the environment in Doncaster, most notably the brand new Shimmer housing estate, which has planning permission for 220 dwellings and remains partially constructed. HS2 initially claimed 16 properties would require demolition despite plans to build a viaduct directly above the site. After the new route was approved, this figure increased to 52 properties on the estate and 8 properties on Doncaster Road and Don View. In reality, more than 165 homes that have already constructed on the Shimmer Estate will be fundamentally affected. The estate remains incomplete, roads are unfinished and a play area is still to be built. Despite a pledge that the estate would be completed, HS2 Ltd and the DfT have still not reached agreement with the developer.

HS2 blights a major alternative housing site at Pastures Road, in a deprived area of Doncaster within the Greenbelt. It also has significant additional impacts on footpaths and watercourses. The route through Doncaster requires a continuous development of vast embankments, cuttings and viaducts directly through communities and across the Dearne Valley, including, for example:

 River Don viaduct, 803m in length and up to 19m in height, which will be constructed directly above the Shimmer Estate in Mexborough  Mexborough cutting, 538m in length and 60m in width, including excavation of a landfill site adjacent to residential properties.  River Dearne viaduct, 933m in length and up to 14m in height crossing over the River Dearne and Trans Pennine Trail.  Barnburgh embankment, 2km in length and up to 24m in height through the Dearne Valley.  Hickleton cutting, 3.7km in length, up to 32m in depth and 190m in width.  A635 Barnsley Road overbridge, and realignment of A635 Barnsley Road (A1 link).  Thurnscoe embankment, 746m in length and up to 25m in height  Frickley viaduct, 660m in length and up to 27m in height  Clayton South embankment, 455m in length and up to 21m in height  Frickley embankment, 648m in length and up to 25m in height  Clayton viaduct, 948m in length and up 20m in height above existing ground level  Sheffield Northern spur (northbound) on Clayton North embankment, up to 498m in length and up to 21m in height  Church Field Road cutting, 3.2km in length, and up to 19m depth and 140m width

In Rotherham, there a number of issues including:

 Air Quality – Rotherham have a Clean Air Zone mandate for NO2 emissions. HS2 is likely to place more pressure on the quality of the air in a number of our local communities

 Community – HS2 is planned to go through some of the most deprived areas in the borough. Disruption during construction will make it more difficult to commute to other areas. lLoss of community and environmental amenity within deprived communities may have a greater impact on the health and wellbeing of residents due to the lack of opportunities to access similar provision elsewhere.  Ecology and Diversity -. HS2 will create a major barrier to movement effectively severing habitats, land, territories. This is particularly relevant to the route within Rotherham as there are large areas of delicate ecosystems  Historic Environment - It is expected that there will be a major archaeological impact arising from the proposed scheme, because of the nature of the route, which runs through predominantly rural areas where there is recorded evidence for an earlier landscape of settlement and enclosure thought to be of Iron Age/Romano British date. At Aston, the line of rotate and supporting highway network requires land around the Grade II Aston Hall and its surrounding conservation area, which is wholly unacceptable.  Landscape and Visual – There are a number of viaducts, structures, compounds and power stations that will impose significant impact on the visual amenity and result in additional car trips.  Highways - The Council has concerns regarding proposed temporary and permanent changes to the highway network, both from operational and severance perspective: o Wales – Full or partial closure of School Road during construction to build a new bridge to allow HS2 to run alongside the motorway. o Wales – Railway construction at the side of the M1 but backing onto the properties on Cherry Tree Drive will require land from existing properties. o Aston – Truncating of Worksop Road and construction of new highway behind the cricket club to allow continued access. Also potential to dual the A57 between M1 and A618 due to new highway access. o Thurcroft Triangle – Locations of HS2 electrical supply equipment will be located in the M18/M1 triangle and on the adjacent land o Morthen Road – Permanent closure of the current Morthen Road and a new Morthen Road access constructed to the South to allow HS2 to follow the M18 corridor. o Bramley – Construction traffic will be routed between Sandy Lane, Broadlands and M18 Junction 1. o Various Locations – a number of site compounds during construction will be needed at various locations as well as changed to the land topography to screen noise and visual intrusion of HS2. In addition, there will be come impacts on local bus service operations to which SYPTE are investigating the implications.

The scale of these community and environmental impacts are wholly unacceptable. They have been consistently underestimated and played down by HS2 Ltd. If the scheme is to go ahead on the existing route, we would expect major improvements to mitigate these impacts, including the use of tunnelling. However, there is clearly a high risk that escalating costs will result in the minimum mitigations being implemented.

Finally, there are major implications for residents and businesses of the expected delay in delivering Phase 2B, which may now not be complete until 2040.

Future Scenarios

We recognise that this review of HS2 raises significant questions about its future and a number of potential scenarios exist, including the delivery of Phase 1, Phase 1 & 2A, the existing ‘Y- configuration’ or reviewing Phase 2B.

If the eastern leg of HS2 Phase 2B is to go ahead with a high-speed line delivered over a longer timescale on a Y-configuration, then a full review of route options must be undertaken. This should specifically include reconsidering main line options at Meadowhall and in Sheffield City Centre. The current spur route is incompatible with the Government’s economic and strategic ambition to rebalance the national economy and ensure that no place is ‘left behind’. It could have a significant detrimental impact in Rotherham and Doncaster, including substantial economic damage, unless a major programme of associated interventions is also approved.

We also recognise that the recent Government commitment to deliver a new line between Manchester and Leeds is a significant development. Along with the escalating costs of HS2 it raises questions about the current strategic case and opens the prospect of delivering HS2 services to Leeds and the North East via Manchester (a variation of the former ‘Reverse-S’ configuration). It would be unacceptable for the East Midlands and South Yorkshire to be wholly excluded from improved north-south rail upgrades. If a variation of the ‘Reverse-S’ configuration is considered, we would expect the Government to explore alternative options to integrate HS2 services on the Midland Mainline via Phase 1. This option was identified early in the project26, enabling Sheffield, South Yorkshire, Nottingham and Derby to benefit from HS2 services. A similar proposal has recently been developed by independent engineering company Expedition Engineering. In this scenario, capacity upgrades at key bottlenecks on the East Coast Main Line should also be addressed.

Conclusion

The eastern leg of HS2 Phase 2B is deeply flawed and based on a number of claims and assumptions that can no longer be justified. The Sheffield Midland spur cannot be delivered without the approval of vital Northern Powerhouse Rail and Network Rail engineering works. Even then, the network in South Yorkshire will be put under significant pressure and future growth is constrained.

There is a risk that the costs of HS2 will increase further, particularly in relation to Phase 2B. This would place other investment programmes at risk. The Prime Minister has already been clear that “we will be generous on capital spending, but we won’t be able to afford everything that everyone wants. So choices will have to be made”. 27

We are sceptical that sufficient funding will be available to deliver HS2, Northern Powerhouse Rail, Crossrail 2 and other necessary investment in the rail network, including dealing with existing major bottlenecks on the East Coast Main Line in the North East and around Doncaster. Failure to deliver a number of these interventions in conjunction with HS2 would result in significant economic harm to both Rotherham and Doncaster. Furthermore, we believe that the HS2 budget is already insufficient to properly mitigate the major damage that will otherwise be caused to communities and the environment in South Yorkshire. We therefore believe that fundamental changes are required to Phase 2B. All alternatives should be considered, along with measures to reduce the cost of Phase 1 and Phase 2A.

References

1 Local Chamber responds to latest HS2 announcement (www.brchamber.co.uk/local-chamber- responds-latest-hs2-announcement/). BBC News, 28 January 2013 (www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk- 21229602). Options for phase two of the high speed rail network. A report to Government by HS2 Ltd. 29 March 2012. Figure 5.29 – South Yorkshire station long list to final options.

2 HS2 Phase Two Sheffield and South Yorkshire Options Report. July 2016. Paragraphs 3.2.3 and Paragraph 3.2.9.

3 Required to accommodate HS2 and NPR aspirations. Sheffield City Region Integrated Rail Plan.

4 High Speed Two Phase Two Economic Case. July 2017. Footnote 16. Page 28.

5 High Speed Two Phase 2b Crewe to Manchester, West Midlands to Leeds Economic Case. November 2016. Paragraph 5.5.4

6 High Speed Two Phase 2b Crewe to Manchester, West Midlands to Leeds Economic Case. November 2016. Paragraph 5.5.5

7 Sheffield City Region Integrated Rail Plan.

8 Sheffield City Region Mass Transit Programme Progress Update. SCR Transport Board. August 2019.

9 High Speed Two Phase 2b Crewe to Manchester, West Midlands to Leeds Economic Case. November 2016. Paragraph 5.6.1

10 HS2 Phase Two Sheffield and South Yorkshire Options Report. July 2016. Figure 2, Page 10.

11 HS2 Chairman Report: 'Rebalancing Britain' towards a national transport strategy. October 2014. Page 20.

12 HS2 Phase 2b South Yorkshire Parkway and Connectivity Study (July 2017) and HS2 Phase 2b: South Yorkshire Parkway & Connectivity Study Additional Work (July 2019)

13 Sheffield City Region Integrated Rail Plan

14 HS2 Phase Two Sheffield and South Yorkshire Options Report (July 2016); HS2 (www.hs2.org.uk); National Rail (www.nationalrail.co.uk)

15 HS2 Phase Two Sheffield and South Yorkshire Options Report (July 2016); HS2 (www.hs2.org.uk)

16 HS2 Birmingham to Sheffield in 49 mins (www.hs2.org.uk); Sheffield to Leeds best potential time 28 mins (Northern Powerhouse Rail). Assumes circa 2 minutes dwell time.

17 High Speed Rail London to the West Midlands and Beyond. A Report to Government by High Speed Two Limited. Page 227

18 HS2 Phase Two Sheffield and South Yorkshire Options Report. July 2016. Page 18.

19 HS2 Released Capacity Study: Summary Report. Department of Transport. July 2017.

20 HS2 Phase Two Sheffield and South Yorkshire Options Report. July 2016. Paragraph 3.2.10.

21 HS2 Phase Two Sheffield and South Yorkshire Options Report. July 2016. Paragraph 3.2.5.

22 Shaping the Growth Strategy for SCR – Emerging Findings and Proposals from the Technical Evidence Base. October 2018

23 Regional gross value added (balanced) local authorities by NUTS1 region. 1998-2017.

24 Sheffield City Region International Gateway. Doncaster Sheffield Airport - New Main Line Rail Station. Strategic Outline Business Case.

25 HS2 Phase 2b working draft Environmental Statement volume 2: community area reports. October 2018.

26 HS2 Chairman Report: 'Rebalancing Britain' towards a national transport strategy. October 2014. Page 19.

27 Prime Minister speech at Convention of the North in Rotherham. 13 September 2019.