High Speed Rail 2 (Phase Two)
Response to the Phase Two
Route Consultation
Jeremy Lefroy MP
Member of Parliament for the
Stafford Constituency
INTRODUCTION
The announcement of the proposed route for HS2, Phase 2, on 28th January 2013, sent a shockwave across a considerable part of my constituency. A map appeared and suddenly we learned that it was proposed to build an ultra high speed railway straight through ancient and peaceful villages, farms, homes and businesses. The impact on the lives of several thousand of my constituents would be very great and would last at least twenty years.
I emphasise from the outset that I am opposed to the HS2 project. I am not opposed to the need to improve our national infrastructure. I have been an advocate for the need to consider our nation’s needs for the future and both to develop new and improve existing transport infrastructure. I supported the proposal to build a ‘Stafford bypass’ on the West Coast Mainline through my constituency when it was put forward by the previous government. It is from that position that I can categorically state that HS2 is notthe way to do that.
It is clear at present, however, that there is a parliamentary majority currently in favour of the HS2 project. It is therefore vital, as the local Member of Parliament, that I do everything I can to ensure that our community is properly served through mitigation of and compensation for the effects of HS2. It is in that spirit, therefore, that I am responding to the consultation and not in any way to show support for the project in its current form.
In my response, I will both put forward proposals for mitigation of the preferred route and alternative routes which have been suggested by constituents and the City of Stoke-on-Trent.
I will also reiterate the point which I made to both the previous and current Secretary of State for Transport, that I believe that it is essential that any proposal contains a stop in North Staffordshire. The most practical option available is at Stoke-on-Trent and I understand that the City of Stoke-on-Trent is putting forward a proposal along these lines.
It makes a sense for a project of this scale to serve a conurbation of 350,000 people which lies directly on the route between Birmingham and Manchester/Manchester Airport. The preferred route goes well to the West of Stoke-on-Trent and then returns East, adding considerable distance and hence cost.
However, if based on the response consultation, the Government and HS2 alter the Initial Preferred Route (referred to as the IPR from now on), it is essential that another public consultation is carried out so that all those affected have the chance to respond. The aim of any change in route should be to improve it and reduce its impact for all concerned, and not to transfer that impact from some communities to others.
Regarding the current proposals, I will be asking for significant changes in the height of the line through my constituency and will be highlighting some serious concerns about environmental issues, including local salt marshes. I will also be proposing significant mitigation measures – including significant stretches of tunnel - toensure that any rail line would fit into the local environment in as sympathetic a way as possible. The Stafford constituency has beautiful countryside and villages which will be seriously affected by these proposals. If this project does go ahead, every possible step must be taken to ensure that the line has the least possible negative impact of local communities and the environment.
QUESTION ONE
Do you agree or disagree with the Government’s proposed route between
the West Midlands and Manchester? 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?
Disagree.
General considerations
I would emphasise again that I agree that, as a nation, we must look at ways to improve our national transport infrastructure.
However, having looked at our own local transport challenges and discussed with parliamentary colleagues about those experienced in their own constituencies, it is clear that transport problems and bottlenecks are often local problems which require a local solution.
Those of us challenging the premise of HS2 are well aware of the charge that we sound “just like those who opposed the first railways and motorways”. I would strongly reject this.
Firstly, there was nothing which remotely matched the speed or capacity of railways or motorways at the time. In the case of HS2, there is.
Secondly, the manner in which the HS2 project has been taken forward is deeply flawed. Instead of assessing the problem and then coming up with a range of solutions on which to consult, we have been given a solution (the Y shaped route) without considering a) all the problems which it is supposed to solve and b) alternative proposals for solving them. In contrast, the Davies report into runway capacity in the South East has adopted that approach.
Thirdly, the UK is a relatively small country. It makes sense to use existing transport corridors for new infrastructure rather than create new ones. That was the approach of HS1 which runs alongside motorway or through tunnels for a considerable percentage of its route.
However there has been little attempt to do that for HS2 through my constituency and Staffordshire as a whole. Two new transport corridors have been pushed through Staffordshire in the past twenty years (M6 Toll and A50) to add to the existing M6 and both branches of the West Coast Mainline. To add yet another one, as opposed to using any of the existing corridors, is counter-intuitive.
Line Speed
HS2 and the Secretary of State have stated that HS2 is now based on the need for capacity, rather than the need for speed.
Since the announcement of the proposed route, the point has been made that the line needed to be straight (and hence being unable to avoid going through villages) and level (cutting deep through and then rising high above homes and countryside) because High Speed trains need it to be so.
The change of approach should therefore bring with it a complete change of thinking on the proposed route. If capacity is now the key reason for the line, then there is no need for it to be ultra high speed (250mph) and therefore no need for the line to be unrelentingly straight and level.
There is now the opportunity to rethink the details of the route, designed for a somewhat lower speed and hence able to accommodate greater curves. This would permit more consideration to be given to the effect on local communities, countryside and economy.
Line Height
Proposals were presented to HS2 as part of the Phase One route consultation to lower the route though Lichfield, which would in turn cause a reduction in the height of the route through the Stafford constituency. I support these proposals.
Future Impact on Economic Development
I support the response made by Staffordshire County Council:
Consideration also needs to be given as to how HS2 will restrict future growth
within areas that it will pass through, obviously a particular concern for
Staffordshire given the length of the line that is expected to run through the
county. It appears that the initial preferred route minimises the impact on the
larger urban areas in Staffordshire. However, by doing so it should be
recognised that by directing the line through rural areas, Staffordshire is
potentially losing a significant amount of land that is used for farming and could
be used for future employment and housing developments. The line is also
likely to prove to be a significant barrier to the future expansion of settlements,
employment sites and infrastructure projects, something which will not be fully
considered within local plans as this problem may not be fully realised for many
decades to come.
A mechanism therefore needs to be put in place to mitigate HS2 restricting
future growth by acting as a barrier to the development of land for employment
and housing, constraining the expansion of urban settlements and dissuading
investment in infrastructure projects. Essentially, we believe that we should not
be disadvantaged in promoting future growth within the county due to there
being a need to cross the HS2 line. In the future, if a need arises to provide a
road crossing over the line, HS2 Ltd should work proactively with the promoter
of any scheme and in the interests of economic growth nationally relinquish any
claim they may have for an uplift in the value of any land that is opened up for
development as a result of the creation of the road link/access road.
Design
Serious consideration should be given to the design of the line. Reference has been made throughout the process to the builders of the first railways. Many of them put great store by excellent design and HS2 must be no different. Viaducts, tunnel entries and other structures should all be built with extensive use of local design and construction materials (e.g. Staffordshire blue bricks). Local design competitions or consultations should take place, so that those communities affected by the line will at least have the opportunity to choose what it will look like. Along the full length of the line, landscaping should be extensive and again in keeping with the local area.
Detailed consideration of route
A)Initial Preferred Route (IPR)
i)Colwich & Great Haywood
I support the points made by Staffordshire County Council:
The depth of cutting (at its maximum 19m below ground surface) increases the
potential for the proposed works to encounter Palaeolithic remains within
particularly gravel deposits. The proposed route also crosses the River Trent to
the north of Shugborough estate where there is the potential for significant
archaeological remains that relate to late prehistoric activity within this area of
the river valley.
As the proposed route travels north towards the A51 Stone to Lichfield road, it
changes from cutting to embankment followed by viaduct as it crosses both the
River Trent and the Trent and Mersey canal.
For a distance of some 4km theline is elevated at a height of between 9 and 13 metres. This elevation is amajor concern as this is likely to have a significant impact on increased noise
levels at Great Haywood and Ingestre.
In addition to the potential noise impacts,there are very strong concerns regarding the potentially limited options availableto provide effective mitigation to the local communities.
In passing close to Shugborough and Great Haywood, a Conservation Area and
Grade I Registered parkland which contains a range of Listed Buildings, it is
expected that HS2 Ltd will fully consider approaches to mitigating the
constructional and operational impacts of the route on these groups of
nationally important buildings and structures.
It is expected that theseapproaches will be developed in consultation with the Local Planning Authority,English Heritage, the National Trust, the County Council and the Staffordshire
Parks and Gardens Trust regarding potential impacts to this nationally
significant heritage asset.
The proposed route passes through further small woodlands, hedgerows and
ponds through this Parish. Passing to the north of Great Haywood, the
proposed route affects a site at Great Haywood Marina which has been
landscaped for biodiversity and amenity through the development planning
process. This will impact on restoration wildflower grasslands, wetlands and
water vole habitat.
A minor extension of the proposed viaduct over the Trent
floodplain could reduce impacts on this site. However, it is expected that
through detailed design, the length and height of viaduct over the River Trent
floodplain can be developed to provide the optimal environmental and social
balance of the proposed route on the surrounding communities and Great
Haywood Marina.
The proposed viaduct over the Trent floodplain will dominate the landscape. It is essential that its design is fully in conformity with its surrounding – for instance, it could be clad in suitable local brick.
ii)Tixall with Ingestre
I support most of the points made by Staffordshire County Council although I make an additional significant proposal.
Moving west, the route passes close to a cluster of Listed Buildings at Ingestre,
grouped around a Grade II* Listed Hall. It is expected that HS2 Ltd will carefully
consider approaches to mitigating the constructional and operational impacts of
the proposed route on these groups of nationally important buildings and
structures.
In moving west the line also passes through undesignated woodlands and
Ingestre Park Golf Course whose habitat quality is unknown. The line then
enters a landscape of small fields and hedgerows with many scattered ponds
where great crested newt populations may be affected.
An area around Ingestre is identified in Planning for Landscape Change1 as
being of high quality and highest sensitivity. It is expected that HS2 Ltd in
developing their detailed design will assess the impacts on Ingestre
Conservation Area which will inform the development of meaningful mitigation.
HS2 will have a significant impact on Ingestre both during construction and
operation of the proposed route.
The height of the embankment (12.9m) willhave a permanent change on the landscape and will impact on the smallcommunities of Little Ingestre as well as Ingestre. We are concerned about the
potential noise impacts HS2 could have on the hamlet. Ingestre is a small
hamlet and HS2 poses significant impacts on the tranquillity of the area as well
as loss in amenity value as the route cuts through some of Ingestre Park Golf
Club.
We expect HS2 Ltd to support the club in remaining functional both
during construction and operation of HS2 so that this important recreational and
employment venue can continue to function upon completion of HS2.
HS2 cuts through Upper Hanyards farmhouse and associated buildings. In
addition to dissecting high quality farmland, the loss of this farm will have an
impact on our rural economy.
At this point, I strongly propose that the line enters a bored tunnel which would take the line below the Hanyards, the Staffordshire County Showground and Hopton Village.
This would mitigate the effect of the line on the Hanyards, the showground and Hopton Village.
The showground is of vital economic importance to the area and a bored tunnel would avoid the huge disturbance to it which would result from the current plans. The current plans dissect Hopton village and will greatly damage it. A bored tunnel would prevent this.
A bored tunnel would also preserve the lovely landscape of the area. HS2 has decided to increase the amount of tunnelling in the Chilterns and there is no reason why the same solution could not be applied here.
iii)Marston
I agree with the points made below by Staffordshire County Council. If the proposal which I have made above is adopted, the level of the line would be lowered and as much as possible enclosed within bored or green tunnel.
The proposed route will have a significant effect on the small rural community of
Marston as well as affecting its landscape character and setting resulting in
visual impacts. On the approach to Marston the line is on an 8 metre
embankment for around 700m which is then followed by a shallow 4 metre
cutting for around 900m. At this location the line is broadly parallel to Yarlet
Lane and we are concerned that there are a number of dwellings which would
experience a significant impact in increased levels of noise that will impact on
their tranquillity.
We expect HS2 Ltd to consider lowering the route and remove the vertical curve
from CH24725.4 to CH26720. By doing this, and subject to detailed design and
consultation, we believe the proposal could reduce the proposed 8m
embankment by 5m. Through detailed discussion with the highway authority
and the local community, Marston Lane could be realigned to pass over HS2 as
a result of lowering the proposed route.
The further loss of high quality farmland will have an impact on our rural
economy in this area and HS2 in its current form has the potential to see the
loss of two farms. The proposed route also cuts through the County Council’s
farmland at Yarlet Bank that will affect the operation of the farms both during
construction and operation of the proposed route.
We expect that HS2 Ltd will give full consideration to mitigating the
constructional and operational impacts of the route on this small community and
agricultural businesses through detailed dialogue.
iv)Yarlet
The preferred route runs through the grounds of Yarlet School and very close to the school buildings themselves. I understand that this is the only school which is so profoundly affected by the second stage of HS2.
During the construction of HS1, very significant mitigation was undertaken to protect Mersham School in Kent from the effects of the railway. Iexpect the same degree of mitigation to be taken to protect Yarlet School.
The effect of the route on Yarlet School is described by the Governing Board of The Yarlet Trust, the educational charity which operates the school, as follows:
If the current IPR were to be implemented, whereby a 16m deep cutting were to be constructed to the East of the A34, the North boundary of the cutting could fall within as little as 100m of the South boundary of the Yarlet school campus. This area of the campus includes:
a)An open air study and play area;
b)An open air swimming pool;
c)An indoor art school.
This gives rise to a number of very major problems.
- During construction:
i)Noise levels, which are likely to exceed Government guidelines for acceptable noise standards for schools;
ii)Dust levels, which would need to be very carefully monitored to avoid any health risk for children;
iii)Environmental damage, notably loss of woodland.
- During operation:
As A i) above unless a tunnel is constructed.