Alec Shelbrooke MP

Conservative Member of Parliament for

Elmet & Rothwell

HOUSE OF COMMONS
LONDON SW1A 0AA

HS2 Phase 2b
Consultation Response
March 2017
[Grab your readers attention with a
great quote from the document or
use this space to emphasize a key
point. To place this text box
anywhere on the page, just drag it.]

Proudly representing my home constituency of Elmet & Rothwell

Telephone: 01937 589 002
Email: alec.shelbrooke.mp@parliament.uk Website: www.alecshelbrooke.co.uk
Summary

I am responding to the HS2 phase 2b consultation as the Member of Parliament for

Elmet & Rothwell and in doing so represent many of my constituents in Woodlesford,
Swillington and Garforth.

After the initial proposed route for phase 2 was published in 2013 I submitted a
comprehensive response calling for an alternative route and revised compensatory
arrangements for those affected by it.

I welcome the fact that HS2 Ltd remained open to considering amendments throughout
the previous route consultation period and hope a similar approach will be adopted as
we move into the next stage. This document will again reiterate my support for an
alternative route following existing transport corridors of blight, but also recognises that
HS2 Ltd has had its hands tied by the actions of the ruling administration on Leeds City
Council, in manoeuvring to secure a station configuration that made the alternative route
suggested by myself and others difficult to achieve.

Whilst my support for an alternative route along existing transport corridors remains as
before, I do recognise, as a pragmatist, that recommendations are also needed to
improve what is currently proposed. This report will detail those changes.

I remain concerned that the compensatory package proposed lacks real support for
those impacted by the HS2 project today. This report will include a number of areas
where I seek revised support on behalf of my constituents.

2
Contents

Page

My 5-point plan to secure further mitigation 4

The main line route 6

The alternative 11

Compensation 14

Conclusion 16

3
My 5-point plan to secure further mitigation
In 2013 I put forward an alternative route that would have taken the HS2 route along
existing transport corridors into an integrated city centre station. This alternative route
had the full support of the local community and the action group. Disappointingly, we
later discovered that the ruling administration on the Council had been lobbying against
us and argued for a city centre station configuration that made my alternative route
along the M621 transport corridor unviable. It was made clear to us that Leeds City
Council were a key partner in determining the station location.

The configuration the Labour-run Council successfully lobbied for was a T-junction
configuration which still means the HS2 route must enter Leeds from the south east.

Back in 2013 when the initial proposed route was published I was upfront and honest
with my constituents: I am a pragmatic politician and I recognised from day one that
because the HS2 project itself had the support of all parties in parliament Labour,
Conservative, and Liberal Democrat the project is going to happen regardless of which
party is in government.

Nothing has changed since 2013, we had a General Election in May 2015 in which HS2
was in the manifestos of all parties, and in recent debates in the House of Commons only
about 40 of 650 MPs voted against it. So, it remains my opinion that the project will
happen, but it is my desire to work with it to get the best possible deal for my
constituents.

The current revised route is NOT the best possible deal for my constituents, but I am
aware that the need now is to once again work with agencies to argue for mitigating
changes. Having assessed the revised route maps in detail, I have set out a five-point
action plan to secure further mitigation on the proposed route.

Mitigation & screening

In the House of Commons Chamber on Tuesday 16th November 2016 I said he would be
lobbying for mitigation, screening and compensation for residents directly affected by the
proposed main line and branch line route. I am arguing for early tree line screening to be
planted along proposed cuttings and embankments around Garforth, Swillington and
Oulton to act as a sound and sight barrier before the line is fully functioning in 2033.

Protection for Water Haigh Woodland Park

I believe locating the tunnel mouth at Water Haigh Woodland Park, albeit in a 10m
cutting below ground level, is an unsuitable location, not least due to its former use as a
landfill from mining operations. Ive been meeting with HS2 Ltd officials to ask for
consideration to be given to relocating the tunnel mouth further back behind Fleet Lane,
or better still to the M62 further behind Clumpcliffe, thereby retaining the park for

4
community use and removing the tunnel mouth from the immediate vicinity of homes off
Fleet Lane.

Comprehensive surveys & assessments

I have been meeting with HS2 Ltd officials to acquire a timetable for appropriate survey
works to take place. Engineers will, of course, have to carry out detailed surveys before
any works start in the late 2020s but I believe these surveys should be carried out in the
immediate future and any corrections to the route to be published as early as possible
and without delay.

Better compensation

I believe the suggested banding for compensation should extend to a radius around the
proposed line and not just a certain length either side. This would remove unfair
anomalies that currently exist with the proposed compensation scheme.

A public meeting with HS2 Officials

At the beginning of the year I arranged for HS2 Ltd had public drop-in meetings so
residents will have the opportunity to ask questions about the new proposed route. I
believe it is important that residents should be able to ask direct questions of the
officials who drew up these plans and have access to detailed information regarding
tunnelling, landscaping and compensation. This process of engagement should carry on
throughout the period that HS2 is under consideration or construction,

5
The Main Line Route
Few changes have been made to the main line route in my constituency and this is
extremely disappointing given the suggested alternatives put forward.

At Clumpcliffe the situation is, if anything, made worse by the fact that the junction of the
main line and branch line has been moved back from its original position. This issue
could be negated by moving the branch line tunnel entrance further south and therefore
underneath Clumpcliffe.

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
concrete viaduct heading right through the centre of the farm. Figures 1 and 2
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 3.

Figure 1

Viaduct at height of tree tops. The route

comes through opposite side of lake
where pointing

6
Figure 2

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

Figure 3

Ice store; a heritage site.

Proposed track at side of
tree line

7
However, one of the major problems associated with this route is that of land movement,
subsidence and unknown undermining from the colliery days.

Figure 4 illustrates how not only did the Manor House for Swillington Farm have to be
demolished in the 1950s 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
4:

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.

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 5 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.

8
Figure 5

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 original 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 .

9
On Swillington Lane homes overlook the proposed main line route. At present this land is
a valley used for grazing livestock. If no changes are to be made to the main line route
then amendments should be brought forward to the way in which the track is delivered. I
propose a grass-covered lid as was implemented on sections of HS1. This would involve
a steel frame being installed on top of the track. This then creates a tunnel inside and a
mound on the outside that can then be covered with soil and grass. For residents
overlooking the line at this juncture all they would see would be pasture land as is
currently the case. Such an amendment would also limit noise disturbance.

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

It is opposed by local MP
It is opposed by local 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...

10
The Alternative
In 2013 I submitted an alternative proposed route for the HS2 main line and branch line.
Notwithstanding my earlier comments regarding the current proposal, it does remain my
view that the best possible route for delivery of HS2 in Leeds is an alternative along
existing corridors of blight.

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 HS2s alternatives as much as possible
Note the station selection in chapter 8 of the consultation
Minimise impact on peoples 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 6 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.

11
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 6 Map of HS2 of alternative

Key

Solid Pink HS2 Preferred Route

Solid Blue HS2s Alternative Route

12
 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 17 Annotation of HS2 Maps for alternative (light green shows a more likely route
through a tunnel)

13
Compensation
I remain concerned that the compensatory package proposed lacks real support for
those impacted by the HS2 project today.

Since the publication of HS2 Ltds revised route for phase 2b I have consulted further
with my constituents and note a number of areas where revision is required.

Need to sell

The eligibility threshold for this scheme and the lengthy process of submission needs to
be streamlined and made much more customer orientated. In many cases, homeowners
may not have a need to sell other than the fact they have a want to sell, in which case
they should not be restricted from doing so because they cannot sell their home owing to
blight from HS2. All evidence I have seen to date points towards the conclusion that
homes affected by HS2 are not financially disadvantaged in the long-run, so if this is the
case HS2 Ltd should have no fear in purchasing properties today, letting them out and
thereby generating rental income, and reselling on the open market once it has
recovered from the impact of HS2 speculation.

Buy-to-let

A number of my constituents have raised the issue that they own rental properties in
areas affected by the HS2 phase 2b route and yet are not eligible for the various
compensation schemes because the property is not their main residence but, for want of
a better description, a commercial/investment holding. In this respect many of the
properties in question were purchased to fund retirements and owners are concerned
that they will not be able to a) sell or b) receive a return on their capital as originally
planned and at a time of their choosing. A scheme should therefore be put in place to
accommodate owners of rented properties.

Compensation banding

Put simply: this scheme isnt working. By drawing simple lines on maps in bands of
varying distances from the railway line, a situation has been created in which some
people barely affected by HS2 receive compensation but some people living literally next
to it receive nothing.

Example A:

At Bernard Street the tunnel entrance is within metres of residential properties. Despite
this, current compensation arrangements mean that properties overlooking the tunnel
entrance receive no compensation whatsoever and yet homes up to 300 metres away
and with no direct sight of the route are eligible for access to Homeowner Payment Zone
3 compensation.

Example B:

14
Somebody living on Barwick Road between Garforth and Barwick-in-Elmet is eligible for
compensation in Homeowner Payment Zone 3 with the six lane M1 motorway sitting
between their homes and the HS2 line. Yet, on Higham Way or on Cedar Ridge in
Garforth where the line will be visible from homes, no compensation is payable.

Example C:

On Swillington Common (A63 Selby Road) a property worth 150,000 at the end of a row
of terraces and furthest away from the HS2 line but within the Homeowner Payment
Zone 1 would receive a one-off compensation payment of 22,500. Yet, a property of the
same value but immediately next to the safeguarded area and within the Rural Support
Zone would receive compensation worth 10% of the property value, therefore just
15,000. This therefore creates a situation in which properties further away from the
route receive more compensation than those next to it.

Example D:

At Clumpcliffe, for no apparent reason, the compensation banding sidesteps as if to

purposefully eliminate existing properties for the compensation package. There is no
evident reason for this to occur, whether there are multiple lines or not the current
guidelines for compensation are such that properties are eligible for compensation if
within a certain distance of the line.

In summary, the compensation banding needs to be redrawn and reconsidered. A

recommendation would be to scrap the system of strict banding and assess properties
on an individual blight basis so compensation is made available to those who really do
find themselves blighted by HS2.

Compensation those residing above proposed tunnels

A number of my constituents have raised objection to the fact that no compensation

arrangements have been put in place for properties under which a tunnel is to run.
Greater information needs to be published on the impact of tunnelling, especially where
the tunnel is as deep as 150ft and therefore deeper than most underground station in
central London. There is obviously a difference in impact of tunnelling at different depths
and this should be reflected in a compensation arrangement so properties above areas
where the tunnel is at its shallowest have access to compensation.

HS2 Ltd need to consider the fact that speculation over tunnelling is a reason for
homeowners having difficulty selling properties and arrangements should be put in
place, or relaxed where too stringent, within the Need to Sell scheme to reflect this.

15
Conclusion
The aim of this submission is to reiterate my support for an alternative route along
existing transport corridors of blight, put forward suggested amendments on the revised
route if no further changes are to be made to the route in phase 2b, and outline issues
and recommendations for compensation arrangements.

My 5-point plan to secure further mitigation

If no changes are to be proposed to the revised route for phase 2b then this plan should
be adopted and revisions made as early as possible.

The main line route

Greater focus needs to be given on the area around Clumpcliffe and a less intrusive
suggestion would be to bring the tunnel entrance further south behind Clumpcliffe, near
to the M62.

A grass-covered lid should be installed on the main line at Swillington Lane to negate
visual and noise blight.

The area of Swillington Farm and the impact of undermining here and around Garforth
needs serious consideration.

The alternative

Although pragmatically I acknowledge that the ruling administration on Leeds City

Council has made it more difficult to engineer a route along existing transport corridors of
blight, it remains my opinion that this would be the best way of delivering HS2 to Leeds.

This document has hopefully outlined that this alternative route:

Reduces the journey time into Leeds

Reduces the disruption to the local environment
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

Compensation

Serious consideration needs to be given to assess whether current compensation

arrangements are fit for purpose, namely the Needs to Sell scheme and access for
properties in tunnelled areas. The system of banded compensation needs total revision
and consideration should be given to a scheme for rented properties.

16