High Speed Rail: Investing in Britain’s Future … › content › images › fromassets › ...SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION station at Victoria could be worth £530 million to the sub-regional

Contents Header

Sheffield High Speed Rail: Investing in Britain’s Future Response from Sheffield City Council

S

Contents Header

Contents

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 4

Response to Questions................................................................................................................................. 8

References ................................................................................................................................................... 35

Appendices .................................................................................................................................................. 38

Page 2 of 41

Contents Header

Section 1

Section 1: Introduction

Page 3 of 41

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION

Introduction

Sheffield City Council HS2 Position Sheffield City Council supports HS2 because we believe it can help rebalance the UK economy and bring much needed regeneration to the North. This support is conditional on Government, HS2 Ltd and local partners being able to work together to secure the maximum economic gains from HS2 and not see a wasted opportunity for our city region. Our support for HS2 is conditional on four principles:

o That HS2’s growth potential is maximised through the selection and design of route and station locations, using an appropriate and up to date economic appraisal approach that effectively captures the wider economic benefits of transport investment;

o That HS2’s growth potential is realised by harnessing the project to

drive skills development and stimulate innovation and capacity in the UK through procurement and the supply chain;

o That the potential negative impacts of the route and station are managed in the most effective way by avoiding key industrial land altogether and with appropriate scheduling, good communication and engagement with local partners and a proactive approach to assessment and payment of compensation to affected parties; and

o That appropriate local connectivity is in place to ensure that the benefits of HS2 are fully realised as widely as possible by business and communities.

We do not agree that the existing proposed route satisfies these principles

Page 4 of 41


and therefore strongly disagree with the current proposal.

We believe the decision regarding the final station location will make a significant difference to the economic impact of HS2 for our city region and is therefore of critical importance. The final station location must be selected on its ability to deliver the greatest jobs and economic development opportunities for the city region and the UK.

We believe the current preferred station location chosen by Government is a mistake. All of the economic evidence demonstrates that a station at the city centre site will deliver far more benefit to Sheffield City Region (SCR) than an out of town parkway location at Meadowhall. The majority of the local private sector as well as many of the Government’s own advisors support this. We want to work with HS2 Ltd and Government to find a solution that works for the UK and works for Sheffield City Region: the current proposals do not. Genecon estimate that a station at Victoria would deliver 6,400 higher net jobs growth than a station at Meadowhall. This would be worth £6bn to the city region economy, and all districts would benefit from more residents in employment as a result.

We support and have commissioned technical work to develop a single route that runs through Sheffield city centre with the station at Victoria instead of a route via Meadowhall. This route will maximise the positive economic and regeneration benefits of locating the station in the city centre, whilst at the same time also remove the substantial negative impact that the current proposed route has on key national manufacturing sites, Enterprise Zones and a major planned residential community at Waverley in the Lower Don Valley. We consider this to be the optimal route.

We would like to work with HS2 Ltd to explore both how the costs of this through route can

be lowered, as we believe this is technically possible, and furthermore how enhanced economic uplift of a city centre, rather than a parkway station development might be generated and captured to allow the part-funding of additional costs (for example via Special Purpose Vehicles and Tax Increment Financing)

We understand the importance journey time has on Government’s business case but believe an additional 3 minute journey time1 going from Leeds to London is a price worth paying for the transformative additional economic benefits a city centre route brings and avoiding severely damaging some of the UK’s most important manufacturing heartlands.

We believe excellent intra-region connectivity from HS2 to all parts of our city region is vital and we are able to demonstrate how to maximise a city centre station’s economic impact and connect people from across the whole city region to new jobs at less cost than the proposed connectivity packages required at Meadowhall.

For HS2 to truly be an engine for growth, connected into the economy of the UK, it is increasingly recognised that local partners such as local authorities will need to bring forward integrated investment plans to help provide the additional infrastructure required to support station development. It is absolutely fundamental that we therefore locate the stations in the places that best create the economic value that can be captured to help fund this vital infrastructure. Locating a station at a parkway location significantly erodes our ability to play a full part in contributing as the regeneration opportunity and economic uplift will be considerably less than in Sheffield city centre. Evidence from CBRE estimates that the net uplift in business rates associated with a

1 Parson Brinckerhoff (2014), HS2 – Sheffield City Centre Route Option

Assessment

Page 5 of 41


station at Victoria could be worth £530 million to the sub-regional economy.2

We support the view that work on HS2 should be accelerated and started in the North as early in the programme as possible. Not only would this bring early economic benefits to northern area, it would provide certainty to investors and send out an important signal to business that Government are supportive of HS2.

2 CBRE (2013), Property and Financing Solutions for HS2 Station.

We strongly believe HS2 must be connected into the international high speed rail network. HS2 is about city to city connectivity, including mainland Europe – not just shorter journey times to London. Northern economies should be able to access the benefits of direct connections to mainland Europe that London already enjoys. This appreciation of the importance of city to city connectivity must be embedded within HS2.

Page 6 of 41

SECTION 2: RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS

Section 2

Section 2: Response to Questions

Page 7 of 41


Response to Questions

i) 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 Sheffield City Council regards HS2 as vital to unlock growth across city regions. We believe the project is a fundamental part of rebalancing our national economy and encouraging more sustainable, long-term growth as well as

providing jobs, GVA growth and regeneration opportunities at a city region level.

We believe that the benefits of HS2 are just as much about connectivity to other core cities - city centre to city centre - as they are about improved journey times to London. By bringing together large concentrations of population and jobs in the Midlands and North this will create a more coherent non-London economic zone that is vital to providing an alternative centre of gravity to an over-heating economy in the south–east.

Sheffield is an integral part of Manchester-Leeds-Sheffield economic triangle that collectively has the same sized economy as London. It is vital for the UK that these Northern cities are able to punch their weight to drive national growth that is balanced and not over-reliant on London and the South East. City centre to city centre connectivity within this zone is vital to maximise the integration of the three city region economies, to the benefit of the whole UK economy.

Consequently, Sheffield City Council support the full development of the ‘Y’ shaped network as part of comprehensive measures to improve city

Page 8 of 41


to city connectivity and address UK rail capacity challenges. As part of this, we strongly believe HS2 must be connected into the international high speed rail network to also enable city to city connectivity across mainland Europe.

We do not have detailed, specific comments on the route alignment or infrastructure associated with the western leg but it is essential that, as a minimum, the eastern leg is delivered at the same time as the western leg so that economic benefits are maximised and so that Sheffield City Region and other city regions served by the eastern leg are not disadvantaged when compared to regions to the west of the country.

We are firmly of the opinion that every effort should be made to build the entire Y network at the same time rather than in two phases. We support the view that work on HS2 should be accelerated and started in the North as early in the programme as possible. This will accelerate the transformational impact of the project, reduce blight and limit the impact of inflation on programme costs. It will also help to increase certainty amongst investors.

ii) Do you agree or disagree with the Government’s proposals for: a) A Manchester station at

Manchester Piccadilly? b) A Manchester station at

Manchester Airport? Government has increasingly recognised the role of the Core Cities and their potential to support sustainable long-term growth. Independent forecasts demonstrate that our Core Cities have the potential to deliver an additional 1.16 million jobs and £222 billion into the national

economy by 2030.3 In order for this to happen, Core Cities’ transport systems need a step change in connectivity, and HS2 is crucial to this.

Therefore, we fully support a HS2 station at Manchester Piccadilly. We believe this location will maximise the economic benefits of HS2 in Manchester due to its city centre location and will enhance the Manchester-Leeds-Sheffield northern economic hub.

It would be inconceivable that Government would propose a parkway station for Manchester simply because it reduced journey times due to the enormous economic impact that an HS2 Manchester Piccadilly station will have and the importance of connecting city centres. It is therefore utterly incongruous that the same decision has not been made in Sheffield, one of the other UK Core Cities on the HS2 route.

Manchester Airport is the North of England’s global gateway and a key driver of traffic between our city regions, due to its runway capacity and the volume of destinations it provides to northern business customers. The HS2 station will provide an important interchange, improving journey times enhanced by the Northern Hub.

Beyond HS2, we have aspirations to enhance connections between our city regions and this is something we are actively pursuing. The ‘Northern Hub’ project is vital to providing these links, by reducing rail journey times between the economic drivers in the north, and we look forward to the outcomes of the Trans-Pennine Routes Feasibility Study being undertaken by the Government which will be examining potential investments to improve trans-Pennine activity.

iii) Do you think that there should be any additional stations on the western leg

3 Core Cities(2013), Competitive Cities, Prosperous People: A Core Cities

Prospectus for Growth.

Page 9 of 41


between the West Midlands and Manchester? We have no specific comments for this question.

iv) Do you agree or disagree with the Government’s proposed route between West Midlands and Leeds? 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. We strongly support the inclusion of Sheffield in the HS2 network because the improved capacity, connectivity and regeneration opportunities it could bring will help to transform Sheffield City Region’s economy by accessing the areas with the most significant centres of population and employment.

We strongly agree with the Government that HS2 offers a once in a generation opportunity to transform the way we travel in Britain, and also that it offers a similar opportunity to transform the economy of Sheffield City Region. However there are serious risks that these opportunities could be wasted and that serious negative impacts on important existing businesses could be caused if the route through Sheffield is not in the right place.

The links between well planned strategic transport investment and growth are well proven. The recent KPMG report on the regional benefits of HS2 demonstrates how HS2 is an opportunity to rebalance the economy by providing a step

change in connectivity for areas that historically have seen underinvestment in their transport infrastructure. Recently released Treasury public spending figures reveal that public spending on transport in London is £545 per head compared with £236 per head (2.3 times higher) for the West Midlands and the North of England combined.4

We believe investment in HS2 will have a considerable positive impact on Sheffield City Region’s economy and connectivity if harnessed correctly. In the recently published KPMG Regional Impacts Study, South Yorkshire was shown to be one of the biggest beneficiaries of HS25 – with estimated productivity gains of between £0.5bn and £0.9bn per year and the change in labour connectivity and business to business connectivity estimated to be the highest of the city regions. We know that our potential is even higher if the HS2 station is at Victoria.

As such, our support for HS2 is conditional on four principles:

• That HS2’s growth potential is maximised through the selection and design of route and station locations, using an appropriate and up to date economic appraisal approach that effectively captures the wider economic benefits of transport investment ;

• That HS2’s growth potential is realised by harnessing the project to drive skills development and stimulate innovation and capacity in the UK through procurement and the supply chain. The role of the Leader of Sheffield City Council on the HS2 Growth Task Force has led to us developing proposals to help ensure the procurement and skills potential of HS2 is maximised: this consultation does not provide an appropriate opportunity to highlight these ideas in the main body of the response and therefore they can be found in Appendix 1;

• That the potential negative impacts of the route and station are managed in the most effective way by avoiding key industrial land

4 PTEG (2013), Funding Gap Report 5 KPMG (2013), HS2 Regional Economic Impacts

Page 10 of 41


altogether and with appropriate scheduling, good communication and engagement with local partners and a proactive approach to assessment and payment of compensation to affected parties; and

• That appropriate local connectivity is in place to ensure that the benefits of HS2 are fully realised as widely as possible by business and communities

We do not agree that the existing proposed route satisfies these principles and therefore strongly disagree with the proposal.

We believe that the proposed route to the east of Sheffield should be replaced by a route that passes through the city centre with a station at Victoria. The reasons for this are explained in detail in section (Vb) below.

v) a. Do you agree or disagree with the Government’s proposals for a Leeds station at Leeds New Lane? We support Leeds New Lane as the location for a station within Leeds City Region as it enhances Leeds city centre as the economic heart of Leeds city region and maximises the growth potential of HS2 across the whole of the North.

This is particularly important in order to maximise agglomeration effects in Business Professional and Financial Services between Sheffield and Leeds.

As with Manchester, we believe it would be inconceivable that Government would propose a parkway station for Leeds simply because it reduced journey times due to the enormous economic impact that an HS2 station at New Lane will have and the importance of connecting city centres. It is therefore utterly incongruous that the same decision has not been made in Sheffield, one of the other UK Core Cities on the HS2 route.

It should be noted that the station location decision in Sheffield City Region has significant implications for passenger demand to and from Leeds on HS2 and consequently on the overall business case for HS2. Forecast passenger demand from Sheffield Victoria to Leeds is considerably higher compared to Sheffield Meadowhall. HS2 Ltd’s weekday rail trips forecast from Meadowhall to Leeds was 1,700 passengers. From Victoria to Leeds it is 3,000.6 This is partly because the highest levels of demand for HS2 travel are in Sheffield city centre and the south west of Sheffield (far closer to Victoria) but also due to the high level of business travel between the two city centres. This is proof of the importance of city centre to city centre connectivity and that a parkway station in Sheffield will reduce the potential role the Manchester-Leeds-Sheffield economic triangle can play for the UK economy.

Even with excellent connectivity between Sheffield City Centre (the higher value business centre of the city region economy) and an out of town parkway station at Meadowhall, the additional journey time of travelling to Leeds via Meadowhall makes HS2’s journey time saving almost negligible. This demonstrates the demand for city centre to city centre connectivity and will represent a significant opportunity lost in terms of North of England connectivity and economic growth if the Sheffield station is sited out of town.

6 MVA (July 2013), Options for phase two of the high speed rail network –

demand and appraisal report.

Page 11 of 41


v) b. Do you agree or disagree with the Government’s proposals for a South Yorkshire station to be located at Sheffield Meadowhall? We strongly disagree. Sheffield City Council supports a city centre HS2 station at Victoria rather than a parkway station at Meadowhall. The fundamental principles of the case for a city centre station are as follows:

1. A city centre HS2 station at Victoria better delivers Government and HS2’s stated objectives;

2. The economic case for a city centre station is overwhelming and is supported by international evidence;

3. A parkway station will deliver less economic impact and is an opportunity lost;

4. A city centre station can help enhance the national business case for HS2.

1. A city centre HS2 station at Victoria better delivers Government and HS2’s stated objectives

“HS2 is about far more than just a new railway, it provides a once in a generation opportunity to drive growth, generate jobs, and secure our country’s future prosperity… Building on the success of HS1 and its role in the transformation of Kings Cross, HS2 will act as catalyst to city centre regeneration and major development schemes. HS2 is a huge project and I am determined to get maximum payback from the investment.”

Secretary of State for Transport, Press Release, July 2013 7

HS2 is more than just a transport scheme; it has the potential to be an engine for growth and

7 Department for Transport and High Speed Two Ltd (2013)

help rebalance the UK economy and drive city centre regeneration. This is because, as the strategic case for HS2 makes clear, ‘transport is not an end in itself. It is an enabler which can unlock potential and help the economy to grow.’8

The strategic case for HS2 sets out the key objectives for the scheme:

“The overarching objective is to support a robust, balanced economy that delivers growth. To do this, we must provide the capacity to meet rising demand and improve the connectivity between our cities.” 9

Evidence strongly supports this link Government makes between infrastructure and growth. In the UK, HS1, Crossrail and the regeneration of Kings Cross and St Pancras demonstrate the economic value of investing in improved connections between places, as well as the regeneration opportunities this investment can unlock. Furthermore, as previously highlighted, Government has increasingly recognised the role of cities and city regions in the national economy, with the establishment of a Cities Minister, City Deals and Growth Plans. In connecting up eight of the ten largest cities in the UK, HS2 sits alongside these policies as a catalyst for generating growth outside of London.

City centres have a fundamental role to play in driving growth and rebalancing the UK economy. The trend of city centres attracting high performing sectors is supported by vast amounts of research. In their recent report, ‘Beyond the High Street; Why our city centres matter’ Centre for Cities outlined how in large cities, city centres are playing an ever increasing role in city-wide economic performance and that many of the highest skilled and best paid industries, which have been critical sources of jobs growth in recent years, prefer to locate in city centres. Knowledge intensive business services (KIBS) jobs are almost twice as likely to be concentrated in the central areas of cities, compared to private sector employment in

8 HS2 Ltd, The strategic case for HS2

9 HS2 Ltd, The strategic case for HS2

Page 12 of 41


general. KIBS jobs tend to cluster in city centres because they benefit from agglomeration; public transport infrastructure; a concentration of skilled workers; access to good quality retail, leisure and cultural facilities and the vibrancy and sense of place that only exists in city centres.10 This is well known within Government and is evident in policy like City Deals. HS2 must enable and support the realisations of our collective ambition for cities to drive economic growth, not work against it.

Centre for Cities have written separately to the Secretary of State to highlight this point, highlighting that improving the connectivity of our city centres is an important element of making them better locations to do business. They recommend that the building of any new rail stations to serve a city should ideally be located within, or as close as is practicably possible to, city centres. A copy of Centre for Cities’ letter can be found in Appendix 8.

Like many Northern cities, Sheffield’s economy currently underperforms relative to the size of the city and city region. Our ambition is for Sheffield to play more of a role in driving UK growth. Its potential for growth and the expansion of high performing sectors is significant. If the Government’s overarching objective of HS2 is to ‘support a robust, balanced economy that delivers growth’ then it is vital that the station is in the most appropriate location to drive and support this growth or this opportunity will not be realised.

The relocation of activities from London and the South East to cheaper locations in the north is an important aspect of the overall objectives of HS2, the so-called ‘north-shoring’ of businesses. Sheffield has already seen some relocation of businesses in key service sectors such as legal, financial and media services and has the potential to attract far more given its highly skilled workers and lower wage costs, office rents and housing costs compared with other core cities.

The importance of universities now goes far beyond education provision and they are increasingly extending their research and innovation activities as well as attracting foreign

10 Centre for Cities (2013), Beyond the High Street: Why our city centres matter

investment. Universities generally locate within or on the fringe of city centres, as is the case in Sheffield, and are a key element of our economy. Across the whole country the recentralisation of cities is driving UK wide economic growth, as is the case globally. The repopulation of city centres in the North is also driving a significant amount of the new homes that the country needs in order to relieve the housing crisis. We believe a real economic opportunity will be lost if the station in the city region is not located in Sheffield City Centre.

2. The economic case for a city centre station is overwhelming and is supported by international evidence

Cities drive economic growth; a city centre station will generate more GVA and jobs for the UK

Whilst HS2 has long been presented as connecting cities across the country, the importance of connecting city centres has not been sufficiently recognised in the current plans. Independent analysis commissioned by Sheffield City Council and undertaken by economic consultants Genecon demonstrates the additional value a city centre station in Sheffield has over a parkway station. Net additional employment projections over 25 years for each location (allowing for displacement and multiplier effects) suggest that Victoria could generate approximately 9,500 net additional jobs, whilst Meadowhall is projected to generate approximately 3,000 jobs as a result of HS2 station investment. Overall, this assessment indicates a potential to generate between £2 - £5 billion net additional economic value over 25 years if the Victoria station option is selected. 11

Separate analysis by leading consultants Volterra has suggested that over a 60 year period, the additional economic value is between £3.7 billion and £6.7 billion.12 The Genecon analysis can be

11 Genecon (2012), Maximising the economic impact of Hs2 investment in

Sheffield.

12 Volterra (2013), An assessment of the case for a city centre high speed rail

station in the Sheffield City Region.

Page 13 of 41


found in Appendix 2 and the Volterra analysis in Appendix 3.

This considerable difference in growth potential at the two station sites is because Victoria has greater propensity to attract more added value economic activity given its greater proximity to other city centre assets important to service sector business location such as innovation (universities), culture and leisure, high quality office space and inter-city connectivity. Sheffield city centre already has an existing concentration of service sector businesses with the potential to grow: it has 12 times as many service sector employees compared to the 1km zone around Meadowhall. At the parkway location at Meadowhall, on the other hand, the business sectors most influenced by HSR services have no similar presence or prospect.

Furthermore, the influence over the type, scale and quality of business investment would be greater at Victoria given the more extensive range of development sites meaning that Victoria has the potential to attract inward investment from outside the City Region whereas Meadowhall is a lower value office location with a higher propensity to displace existing economic activity from elsewhere in the City Region.

A city centre station delivers greater economic impact for Sheffield City Region.

A station at Victoria would fully align with SCR’s growth ambitions articulated in the City Region’s Strategic Economic Plan. Recent analysis on behalf of SCR Local Enterprise Partnership by Oxford Economics identified the lack of a quality central business district as a barrier to developing its Business Professional and Financial Services (BPFS) and Creative and Digital Industries (CDI) sectors which are both forecast to deliver high levels of employment growth in the region. Sheffield city centre is the only location in the city region that has the potential to play this economic role; by acting as a catalyst for the development of a new Central Business District, a station at Victoria could form a cornerstone of SCR’s ambition to

create 70,000 net additional jobs over the next ten years.

Using commuting data, Figure A shows that a station in Victoria will create benefits across the SCR: Barnsley, North East Derbyshire and Doncaster all benefit significantly from the additional job creation.13 Further additional analysis by Volterra can be found in Appendix 4. Figure A: Net additional jobs created by a Victoria station by area of residence (Volterra) Figure B illustrates the additional jobs created for residents in each region by a station at Meadowhall. The lower number of additional jobs in each region reflects the total number of jobs created by a station at Meadowhall. The additional jobs created by a station at Meadowhall will be less beneficial for the SCR as a whole: there will be less than 400 additional jobs in the SCR excluding Sheffield, Rotherham and Barnsley.

13 Volterra (2014), High Speed 2 – station location analysis: Technical Note.

Page 14 of 41


Figure B: Net additional jobs created by a Meadowhall station by area of residence (Volterra)

In order for the SCR economy to transform, rather than just grow, there needs to be a step change in skills levels, with an ambition that 30,000 of the 70,000 additional jobs are in highly skilled occupations. Taking into account Victoria’s ability to attract high level sector businesses, data from the 2011 census shows that the people who would be employed at Victoria would have a higher level of education than those employed at Meadowhall, or indeed in Sheffield, Rotherham or the SCR. 32% of the workday population of Victoria have a qualification level of four or higher, compared to 17% in Meadowhall, 25% in Sheffield, 18% in Rotherham and 21% in the SCR. The higher qualification levels in Victoria fits with there being a higher concentration of office based activities with significant potential for agglomeration impacts, and supports SCR’s aspirations for boosting skills and productivity in the region.14

Whilst Sheffield city centre, as the economic engine of Sheffield City Region, has had success in attracting high level service sector businesses and has ambitious plans for its future, we need to

14 Volterra (2014), High Speed 2 – station location analysis: Technical Note.

acknowledge that the city centre currently underperforms compared to other core city centres and Sheffield City Region risks being put at a permanent disadvantage if the core city at is heart is unable to compete with other cities able to offer both city centre assets and high speed rail connectivity.

International evidence underlines the importance of city centre locations

International research specific to the impact of High Speed Rail illustrates the propensity for high level service sector jobs to be attracted to areas around HSR stations because of the connectivity they bring, but crucially, the evidence reasserts that this is more likely to happen in city centres because of the full range of assets required to attract and grow business activity for the high level service sector.15

In Spain, Zaragoza (which lies in the middle of the Madrid-Barcelona HSR route) saw a significant transformation in its economic fortunes. The city’s cost competitiveness encouraged business services occupiers and investment in high-quality meeting space in the vicinity of the station made it a centre for business meetings. There was also a boost to urban tourism. Also in Spain, Cordoba (which lies in the route between Madrid-Seville and Madrid-Malaga) saw urban regeneration around the HSR station, which was built in the city centre. This started first with residential developments but hospitality and office developments started to develop afterwards.

In France, the development of Lille’s HSR station, linked directly by EuraLille to the classic rail station, transformed the city’s economic fortunes. EuraLille emerged to become the third biggest business centre in France over the last decade. The French national state owned train company, SNCF, originally proposed that Lille’s station would be on the outskirts of the city but Lille authorities lobbied against this and identified suitable alternative land 500m metres away from

15 Greengauge 21 (2006), High Speed Trains and the Development and

Regeneration of Cities

Page 15 of 41


the old Lille station. This new urban district of around 70 hectares now boasts commercial offices, residential apartments, hotels and a shopping mall. 16

On the other hand, there is also strong evidence from other countries that ‘interchange’ stations, such as the one proposed at Meadowhall, are unlikely to lead to significant economic activities and in many cases virtually none. Examples include some of the interchange stations along France’s high speed rail network, such as Valence, Avignon and Aux de Provence.

The types of economic activity that benefit most from the improved linkages offered by HSR are concentrated in city centres. It is therefore thought that the greatest economic benefits come from serving them directly, with centrally located stations. Greengauge 21 stated that: “The overwhelming weight of both theory and experience points to the need for HSR stations to be located in city centre locations to generate the connectivity into regional economies that is the necessary starting point for regional economic benefit.”17

The examples of underperforming stations are often those located outside urban areas (lacking an efficient multimodal supply and a dynamic economic area surrounding the station). In Montchanin, the High Speed Train (‘HST’) link attracted only four firms, creating only 150 new jobs. As Albalate and Bel (2010) stated: “It is perhaps worth pointing out that only those cities with a significant weight of services in their economic structure appear to benefit from HSTs. In other words agricultural and industrial activities are indifferent to HST stops.”18

Indeed, the benefits of locating stations in city centres were seen by some to outweigh the additional cost associated with providing the service in these locations. For instance, Vickermann (2007) cites the example of the costs associated with tunnelling required to provide a

16 Greengauge 21 (2006), High Speed Trains and the Development and

Regeneration of Cities

17 Cited in Volterra (2013), An assessment of the case for a city centre high

speed rail station in the Sheffield City Region.

18 Cited in Volterra (2013), An assessment of the case for a city centre high

speed rail station in the Sheffield City Region.

high speed service into Antwerp being viewed as offset by the benefits that this would generate. The decision was made to place the route through the main railway station of Antwerp, involving a very expensive tunnelling operation, but ensuring that rail penetrated the heart of the city.

The key point here is that there is a significant opportunity for the Sheffield City Region to boost its economy through the position of its main urban centre as an intermediate city in the HS2 route.

After all, it shares some of the competitive characteristics that are associated with some of the successful intermediate cities in other countries (namely highly skilled workers and comparatively lower wage costs.) However, if Sheffield City Region offers a parkway station, while neighbouring city regions can offer high speed connectivity in a city centre location, this opportunity will be lost.

The St Pancras of the North: on a par with, if not greater, than the most regeneration-friendly of other HS2 stations

The economic potential of the Victoria site is not just down to its city centre location. It fully aligns with the Council’s ambitions outlined in its City Centre Masterplan and long term regeneration strategies. Its positioning in the city centre, the amount of developable land around it and the high levels of Council land ownership in the area potentially makes it one of the most exciting development prospects on the HS2 line. We see Victoria as having the potential to be the ‘St Pancras of the North’ and a destination in its own right, building on the superb Victorian railway architecture including the existing listed Victoria Station Hotel. The station has huge potential for retail, leisure and service opportunities within the impressive arches and adjoining canal side. This offers considerable scope to partially fund the construction and long term maintenance of the station itself.

Page 16 of 41


By acting as a centrepiece of a wider development plan across the Riverside Business District it will reposition the profile and image of

this part of the city centre and help to unlock the latent economic potential in Sheffield city

centre.

Figure C: View of Victoria from Heart of City (Sheffield City Council)

Key points relating to the regeneration opportunities around Victoria include:

• The availability of sites, density of development and hence density of economic activity is at far in excess of what is available at Meadowhall. CBRE estimate that commercial floorspace of approximately 560,000 sq metres could be developed around Victoria as compared with 164,000sq metres around Meadowhall, i.e. over three times the quantum. The Executive Summary of the CBRE report can be found in Appendix 5.

• Its greater potential for housing – HS2 estimated 250-300 housing units will be supported at Meadowhall compared to 900 for Victoria.19 We believe that both of these estimates are incorrect with a lower capacity at Meadowhall and at least 1,500 around Victoria

19 HS2 Ltd (2012), Options for phase 2 of the high speed rail network

• The CBRE analysis suggests there is a net benefit of over £530 million in business rates uplift at Victoria compared to Meadowhall, thereby enhancing the site’s ability to contribute towards related infrastructure currently not budgeted by HS2 Ltd.

• Sheffield City Council owns a significant amount of property in the immediate vicinity of Victoria which provides opportunities to assemble sites and drive development at an early stage. This also gives scope for special purpose vehicles to be established with the potential to generate finance to assist in reducing the costs of building the route through the city centre

These opportunities are outlined in more detail in the Sheffield Victoria Station Development Prospectus in Appendix 6.

Page 17 of 41


Figure D: View of Victoria Station towards Heart of the City (Sheffield City Council)

These opportunities have been reaffirmed by a report on the Victoria site by London and Continental Railways. London & Continental Railways (LCR) is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Department for Transport and was responsible for the successful delivery of High Speed 1 on time and on budget. The LCR team was also involved as commercial client for the HS1 stations and promoted synergies and opportunities between the stations and surrounding development sites.

SCC has requested LCR to carry out a

Development review (separate from the development Review that LCR is undertaking for HS2 in relation to the Meadowhall location) to consider the development and regeneration potential that could be unlocked or stimulated as a result of siting an HS2 station at Sheffield Victoria. LCR has not reviewed the overall case for and against an HS2 station at Victoria, as opposed to Meadowhall, and any relative cost/benefit analysis of the two locations has not been the subject of this review. The full LCR report can be found in Appendix 7.

Key findings from LCR include the following:-

“The Victoria location offers major opportunities for urban regeneration (on a par with, if not greater, than the most regeneration-friendly of other HS2 stations)’

Given:

a) the central urban location of Sheffield Victoria,

b) the availability of derelict/under-utilised land,

c) the underlying strong economic drivers and associated recent regeneration successes in the city, and

d) the potential to build upon the successes of Sheffield City Council and previous regeneration bodies, Sheffield Victoria would be likely to represent one of the higher priority locations for any activity by a HS2 Regeneration body.” LCR (2014), HS2 Phase 2 Stations: LCR Development Reviews – Sheffield Victoria Station

Page 18 of 41


If HS2 is to be about economic growth, as Government has said, then it is clear that the Sheffield City Region station must be at Victoria, not Meadowhall.

Excellent City Region Connectivity

The economic benefits of HS2 are not simply to be gained from faster journey times to and from London - the importance of faster inter-city connectivity between Sheffield, Leeds and Birmingham along the Eastern leg cannot be underestimated. This is not only important to the economy but also in terms of passenger numbers and ticket sales to support the HS2 business plan.

HS2’s own passenger demand forecasts, outlined in Figure E, indicate that passenger demand to cities other than London would be 44%-217% higher with a Victoria station than

Meadowhall. An objective of HS2 is to better connect the northern cities, and it is clear that a station at Victoria would better deliver against this objective than a station at Meadowhall, which would lead to significantly lower intercity demand. A more detailed review of the passenger demand figures from Sheffield to London shows that whilst similar levels of demand would transfer onto HS2 from existing Sheffield or Doncaster services, the main difference between the 3,700 and 4,700 passengers travelling from Sheffield to London is due to ‘new’ generated passenger demand, which would be around three times higher from Victoria than Meadowhall – this can be thought of as an indication of the relative new activity that each station might support, and is consistent with the job creation estimates by Genecon. Further analysis of passenger numbers can be found in the Technical Note by Volterra in Appendix 4.

Figure E: 2043 Passenger weekday trips forecast for each station location (MVA) 20

Destination Passengers from Meadowhall Passengers from Victoria

London 3,700 4,700

East Midlands 300 700

Birmingham 900 1,300

Leeds 1,700 3,000

North East 600 1,900

20 MVA (July 2013), Options for phase two of the high speed rail network – demand and appraisal report.

Page 19 of 41


It has already been well evidenced that the business sectors most likely to be influenced by the introduction of HS2 will be the higher value service sector activities, which already have a higher concentration in Sheffield city centre in comparison to Meadowhall. Equally, mapping of projected HS2 patronage by HS2 Ltd clearly demonstrates that the greatest concentration of users will come from the areas to the South West of the Sheffield District, closer to Victoria, as demonstrated in Figure F.

The concentration of demand in Sheffield City Region in relation to the parkway station affects not only passenger numbers but also journey time savings on HS2: accessing a city centre station from the city centre or south west of the city is significantly faster than accessing the parkway proposal. A city centre station maximises user convenience and thus propensity for use, which again has implications for the national HS2 business case.

Figure F: South Yorkshire Demand for Long Distance Travel (HS2 Ltd)21

21 HS2 Ltd (2012), Options for phase 2 of the high speed rail network, p.225.

Page 20 of 41


SCC believes that the HS2 station is an engine for growth for the entire Sheffield City Region; connectivity studies to date have concentrated solely on connectivity to parts of South Yorkshire. When a full city region analysis is carried out it reveals that other parts of the city region are better served by a city centre station, and those areas have a greater propensity to use HS2. This is a critical flaw in HS2’s logic to date and further evidence that by working together through a genuine consultation process, we can achieve a better all-round outcome.

We have developed feasible and practical connectivity packages to link Victoria to the rest of the city region that have significant advantages over the parkway option, in terms of connectivity to the existing rail network, to the other urban centres and major development sites within the City Region and, we believe, can come at a lower cost whilst at the same time creating far greater value that can be captured and reinvested via TIF (or similar) mechanisms. The first part of our proposal is to construct a new platform and stop on the Midland Mainline. This is illustrated in Figure G at B, and importantly would be incorporated within the Victoria Station itself (Figure G at A) to allow a seamless transfer of passengers on to the existing classic rail service. This will provide comparable connectivity to the existing rail network as the parkway proposal. Any train operating issues with this additional Midland Mainline stop (Figure G at B) can be resolved through a variety of scheduling patterns.

Not all services would need to stop at both the new station and Sheffield Midland station.

The city centre station in addition has the potential to connect, via the existing rail line, to the major Sheffield City Region regeneration sites within the Upper Don Valley and Stocksbridge.

The second part of our proposal is to provide additional platforms and stop on the Sheffield - Worksop line, again incorporated within the Victoria High Speed Rail development (Figure G at C). This also offers a major advantage over the parkway station, because there would be direct connections to the hugely significant regeneration areas of the Advanced Manufacturing Park and Waverley. Moreover, we would be able to provide an important connection between HS2, Sheffield city centre, and the wider Sheffield City Region on the Worksop to Lincoln Line.

The third part of our proposal has national significance. Because of the closeness of Victoria Station to Sheffield city centre we are investigating Victoria as the terminus station for the Lincoln-Worksop-Sheffield line. This would have an immediate impact to reduce the number of trains using the ‘bottleneck’ approach to Sheffield Midland Station. Network Rail have identified this precise stretch as a "red stress level" - one of the highest capacity restraints anywhere on the existing national rail network.

All these connections are illustrated on Figure G.

Page 21 of 41


Figure G: Position of Victoria station and links to the classic line and the Supertram network

Victoria Station will also be connected to the extensive Supertram network, which was already included within HS2 Ltd’s draft plans for the station. We believe there are a number of alternative options for this connection which we would like to explore further, including:

• HS2 Ltd’s own suggested plans for a tram link from Sheffield Midland to Victoria across Park Square (Figure G at E) outlined in the ‘Options for phase 2 of the high speed rail network’ paper

• A tram extension that connects Sheffield Victoria to the existing Castle Square Supertram stop, providing a quick connection to the wider network (Figure G at F).

• Utilise the existing tram stop at Hyde Park and provide strong new pedestrian links to integrate it into the wider station masterplan (Figure G at D)

All three options would provide essential connections to the extensive Supertram network

and link Victoria to the existing Midland Station (see Figure H). Therefore, Victoria has major advantages over a parkway station at Meadowhall. It:

• provides the same, and additional connectivity to the existing rail network;

• provides additional direct access to major SCR development and regeneration sites; and

• provides a solution to a national rail network capacity problem.

Page 22 of 41


Figure H: Proposed Connectivity from Victoria Station

Evidence demonstrates that this will be at a lower cost than the parkway station location for the following reasons:

• In recognising the economic importance of Sheffield city centre, HS2 Ltd themselves and South Yorkshire Integrated Transport Authority’s parkway connectivity proposals highlight the necessity for an express service between Meadowhall and the city centre: this would not be required if the station was in the city centre itself.

• To address the issue of connecting key passenger markets in the south west to Meadowhall, a tram extension is also included in the parkway connectivity package. This would not be required for a city centre station.

Connectivity improvements at the Victoria site would also not involve the same level of disruption compared to the parkway station at Meadowhall, particularly in relation to Junction 34 of the M1. On a practical level, preparatory work on the new platforms within the Victoria Station could be undertaken as part of the Midland Mainline electrification programme in order to minimise future disruption.

Work on behalf of SYPTE has indicated that comprehensive connectivity for Meadowhall would have significant costs of up to £1.5 billion which is currently outside the envelope of HS2 and local funds. SCC’s ongoing technical work demonstrates that connectivity at Victoria can be achieved at a fraction of the cost and critically its funding could be assisted by the greater

Page 23 of 41


economic uplift it generates, which CBRE analysis estimates could be up to £530 million in business rates uplift compared to Meadowhall. We would welcome the opportunity to work with Government and HS2 Ltd to develop these proposals further.

3. A parkway station will deliver less economic impact and is an opportunity lost

Constraints around the proposed parkway station at Meadowhall limits the opportunities for development around the proposed parkway

station site. Figure I was generated by consultants working to the South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive. It clearly demonstrates a lack of available sites, constraints of existing infrastructure, and the nature of the environment, which will not attract high value service sector investment. By simply comparing Figure I with the city centre images in Figures C and D, the difference in terms of the regeneration potential of each site is clear to see, and powerfully highlights the contradiction between the proposals for a parkway station at Meadowhall and the stated objectives of the Secretary of State and HS2 strategic case.

Figure I: Proposed alternative HS2 station alignment at Meadowhall (ARUP: SYPTE Meadowhall Connectivity Package)

In earlier Government documents reference was made to the ‘considerable scope for regeneration and new development on and around the Meadowhall site.’22 We believe Government has

22 DfT (January 2013), High Speed Rail: Investing in Britain’s Future – Phase

Two: The route to Leeds, Manchester and beyond.

overestimated the potential for development in the area.

The area surrounding the proposed station is very constrained by existing major infrastructure such as the M1 motorway viaduct, Sheffield’s main sewage works and a new biomass power station. The ground conditions in the area

Page 24 of 41


present engineering risks which can affect the complexity and capital costs of infrastructure development the size and scale of HS2 and although HS2 is unlikely to be directly affected by the threat of flooding, the transport that offer access to the station site facilities and any associated development in the surrounding area will be at flood risk.

In addition to these physical constraints the scope for development is limited by the existing well established regional shopping centre at Meadowhall. Further significant retail

development has planning permission and is about to commence near to the shopping centre and a planning application for an IKEA superstore is currently being assessed.

The area already suffers considerable traffic congestion issues with associated problems of air quality and pollution. This was evidenced by the recent Highways Agency proposal to set up a 60mph speed limit between junction 28 and junction 35a to try and address pollution issues in the area.

Figure J: Meadowhall wider development site areas 23 Key 1 – Embankment – not suitable for development 2 – Existing Blackburn Meadows water treatment works – not available for development 3 – Site of current development of Eon biomass power station – not available for development 4 – Site of Blackburn Valley Nature Reserve – retained and protected as green space 5 – Former Templeborough Steelworks - available for development with outline Masterplan in place. Partially impacted upon by proposals for new link road (Halfpenny Link) 6 – Meadowhall Overspill Car Park – under British Land ownership and forms part of the wider Meadowhall Masterplan 7 – Meadowhall Coach Park – under British Land ownership and forms part of the wider Meadowhall Masterplan 8 – Meadowhall Interchange (Bus Station) – Under British Land ownership and leased to SYPTE to operate 9 – Meadowhall Park and Ride site – Land owned by Network Rail and leased to SYPTE 10 – Meadowhall Rail Station – Land owned by Network Rail and operated by Northern and SYPTE

23 WSP (2013), The Economic Case for High Speed 2: Leeds and Sheffield City Regions

Page 25 of 41


Figure J from the WSP Technical, report on the economic case for HS2 at Leeds and Sheffield City Regions (June 2013) commissioned by SYPTE and Metro shows the limits of available development opportunities in the vicinity of the proposed station.

This is not to say that the area around Meadowhall is not economically valuable, as the area is a fundamental part of the Sheffield and Sheffield City Region economy as an important retail and leisure employment hub and in close proximity to GVA driving advanced manufacturing businesses. However, these are not the sectors where proximity to High Speed Rail is proven to have a catalytic effect.

The Lower Don Valley is the industrial heartland of Sheffield City Region where large scale advanced manufacturing businesses are taking an ever more important role in driving both the local and national economy through exports, expertise and productivity. Such businesses make an important contribution to the Government’s stated aims to rebalance the economy both structurally and geographically.

These businesses will not particularly make use of high speed rail and in fact the Government’s proposals for the HS2 route are, if anything, currently causing severe dis-benefits. A report commissioned by Sheffield City Region stated that the impact of the route past Meadowhall on major development sites was unlikely to be mitigated by the proximity to a high speed rail station at Meadowhall.24

Several large sites in the area are within the SCR Enterprise Zone with enhanced capital allowances designation. The proposed HS2 route impacts on 3 of these sites in Sheffield and whilst Government has provided some flexibility in terms of allowing additional sites within the city region to be allocated as alternative EZ sites that does not remove the potential blight from these particular sites and it is extremely unlikely

24 Fore (2013) Sheffield City Region: High Speed Rail Station Options Summary

Assessment Matrix

that investors will consider these sites whilst ever the HS2 route is proposed to run through them.

As well as the Enterprise Zone sites, the area near the proposed route and station has also been identified for future growth for the Advanced Manufacturing Park (AMP). Recent discussions with the University have focused on how, from a planning authority perspective, we can accommodate and nurture the expansion of the AMP. Future growth of this development is likely to run along the M1 corridor between junctions 33 and 34 in an arc-like procession of suitable sites utilising the area’s industrial heritage. The impact of the proposed HS2 route on these plans is illustrated in Figure K and Figure L and is further evidence of the detrimental impact the station and route could have on high value manufacturing in the area.

The route also has a direct impact on a number of very significant existing manufacturing and service businesses. The uncertainty over delivery of the whole HS2 project is already effecting investment decisions and in the long term, if appropriate compensation and relocation costs are not provided this could have considerable implications for the Sheffield City Region economy.

The financial costs of compensation and relocation would be very high due to the scale and specialist nature of the businesses and we believe that the full extent of those costs have not been properly assessed or incorporated into the current appraisal of the proposed route.

Furthermore, the proposed route dissects a major regeneration site at Waverley New Community. This site forms an important part of the housing pipeline of Sheffield City Region with planning permission for approximately 4,000 new homes of which 250 have already been built. The HS2 line could remove 1,000 of these homes.

Page 26 of 41


Figure K: Advanced Manufacturing Park North without HS2

Figure L: Advanced Manufacturing Park North with HS2

Page 27 of 41


The Sheffield City Region LEP draft Growth Plan strategy aims to grow the Business Professional and Financial Services sector (BPFS) and Creative and Digital Industries (CDI) sectors that are vital to creating new private sector jobs and increasing GVA in the City Region

As has already been demonstrated and supported by international evidence, businesses in these sectors will be positively impacted by HS2 but are also very specific in respect of their locational needs. They tend to gravitate into clusters, generally in city centres due to agglomeration benefits and the facilities and environment that can be only found in city centres rather than out of town business parks.

The area around Meadowhall currently has few such businesses and the lack of available sites and the quality of the immediate environment means that there is little scope to attract them, even with a HS2 station.

This is not just a massive opportunity lost but also presents a serious risk that new businesses will locate, or existing ones move outside SCR to cities that do have a city centre HS2 station and place SCR at a permanent disadvantage.

It has already been demonstrated, using HS2 Ltd’s own forecasts, that the concentration of HS2 passenger demand is based in Sheffield city centre and the south west of Sheffield district. A station at Meadowhall is not conveniently located for these markets, creating a disincentive to travel that is reflected in the lower passenger forecast figures for the parkway station. This not only impacts on the national business case for HS2 but also creates additional costs, as investment is required to improve connectivity between the station and these markets.

Meadowhall’s apparent superior connectivity was cited as a reason behind Government’s decision to locate a station there as opposed to Sheffield city centre. However, the parkway connectivity package proposed by SYPTE is evidence that Meadowhall is not panacea in terms of connectivity: essential prerequisites for connectivity have been identified and without

them HS2 infrastructure is considered ‘unfit for purpose’.25 This includes improving connectivity to Sheffield city centre. Overall, comprehensive connectivity for Meadowhall would have significant costs of up to £1.5 billion which is currently outside the envelope of HS2 and local funds.

The area still requires significant connectivity improvements, including addressing capacity issues on the M1 junctions, and HS2 Ltd’s provision of a 1350 space car park as part of station plans indicates they see the station generating significant additional traffic movements. Detailed traffic modelling of the impact the parkway station will have on congestion has not yet been undertaken. We believe there is a risk that a station could be unworkable without extensive and substantial improvements to the highways network with implications for the overall HS2 budget.

Evidence demonstrates that the connectivity package at Victoria will be at a lower cost compared to the parkway station location because the key passenger markets for HS2 are already well connected to the city centre. The impact of connectivity work on the Meadowhall area, particularly Junction 34 of the M1, would also make the parkway connectivity package more expensive.

Investment in connectivity around a station is to be expected; in fact it creates wider benefits for the City Region. However, a parkway station at Meadowhall is unlikely to become a destination in its own right due to the limited development potential around the area, and the surrounding environment. This in turn means that the area is unlikely to generate significant uplift that could otherwise be used to invest in wider connectivity.

25 South Yorkshire Integrated Transport Executive (2014) High Speed Rail:

Investing in Britain’s Future – Consultation Response

Page 28 of 41


4. A city centre station can help enhance the national business case for HS2

A Victoria Through Route: Maximising the benefits and minimising the negative impacts

In order to be an engine for growth, our approach is to maximise the economic benefits and reduce the negative impact. We therefore support a single route that runs through Sheffield city centre with the station at Victoria instead of a route via Meadowhall.

Our proposal is for an HS2 station at Victoria, for both stopping and through traffic, with no line through Meadowhall. We believe there is potential for a through route to have considerably less impact on the Waverley development site compared to the current proposed route. We recognise that this will have an impact on the journey times of passengers travelling from Leeds to London. Work with our consultants Parsons Brinckerhoff has confirmed that this additional journey time is under 3 minutes. This journey time needs to be viewed in the context of city to city connectivity and regeneration: an HS2 route that runs from Leeds through Sheffield city centre will still provide transformational journey time benefits but also provide the significant economic benefits of a city centre location. We believe this position is supported by many of the other local authorities on the HS2 route.

HS2 have told us that a single route that runs through Sheffield city centre with the station at Victoria instead of a route via Meadowhall will cost an additional £900m - £1bn over the preferred route. We would like to work with HS2 Ltd to explore both how it can be lowered as we believe this is technically possible and furthermore how enhanced uplift might be generated and captured to allow part-funding additional costs (for example via SPVs and TIF).

Impact on the Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR)

Analysis of HS2’s figures can only be done in the context of the Victoria Loop option in comparison

to the Meadowhall Through, as this is all that is available to us from HS2. For the purposes of assessing the case for a Victoria station and the associated economic benefits, advice from leading consultants Volterra was that the Victoria Loop is comparable with a Victoria Through aside from journey time savings which would need to be considered in more detail.

HS2’s own analysis of the costs and benefits of a Victoria Loop suggests that the BCR of a Victoria Loop option when compared to a Meadowhall Through route is 0.64. Firstly, the impact of this on the national BCR would be negligible. The national BCR would only change by 0.03.

HS2’s own sensitivities suggest that the national business case could range from a BCR of 1.25 to 3.25. In this context of uncertainty, the Victoria Loop altering the BCR by 0.03 is clearly very small, and in our opinion this is far outweighed by the potential to capture the increased economic benefits that we believe a Victoria station would generate.

We believe HS2’s estimate of a BCR of 0.64 for the Victoria Loop could be underestimated for several reasons.

The benefits could be higher for two reasons. Work by Parsons Brinkerhoff suggests that the time penalty to ongoing passengers could have been overstated thus reducing the disbenefits that they would experience, and wider economic impacts are currently excluded which Volterra estimate could add £150m-£300m to the benefits.

The costs could also have been overstated, due to the cost of connecting either station to the wider city region (as previously discussed), and the potential for the city to part-fund either connectivity measures or a station through uplifts in business rates. A high level assessment suggests that these factors could impact significantly upon the BCR (ranging from 1.5-5.0). We would welcome the opportunity to work with HS2 Ltd to test whether a Victoria station can in fact deliver a better business case than a Meadowhall one.

Within HS2 Ltd’ s existing appraisal framework and using a series of illustrative assumptions

Page 29 of 41


relating to time penalties, additional Wider Economic Impacts (WEIs), connectivity costs and funding towards station costs, the BCR of the Victoria option could rise to 2.65. Further details of this can be found in Volterra’s technical note in Appendix 4. The calculations are based on a series of high level illustrative assumptions because we are not able to undertake the detailed assessments required. However these illustrative calculations demonstrate that only a few relatively uncertain factors have to change by relatively feasible amounts for the BCR to be in line with the national one.

As well as showing that Victoria does not undermine the benefit cost ratio for HS2, these calculations also demonstrate the limitations of the current approach to transport appraisals when assessing the full business case for a project the size and scale of HS2. The current appraisal methods assume that the levels of economic activity across the UK are fixed and the only impact transport can have is in increasing productivity, along with a marginal movement in where activity occurs. In reality transport can have transformational impacts in attracting more activity to places than would otherwise be the case. This is completely missed by existing appraisal methods. In the example of HS1 it was estimated that if only 5% of the regeneration around stations was actually ‘new’ activity to the UK, then this would be worth £10bn in benefits, which would have fundamentally changed the BCR. We believe, supported by the job creation estimates, that the potential scope for these sorts of transformational impacts would be significantly higher with a Victoria station than one at Meadowhall. If these impacts were captured in alternative appraisal methods for HS2 then we believe this would further support the case for the station to be located at Victoria rather than Meadowhall.

Furthermore, our case for a rethink on the Sheffield HS2 station is supported by a wide variety of local and national stakeholders, including Core Cities Leaders, urban policy think tanks and academics, the two Sheffield universities and local business leaders. Letters of support can be seen in Appendix 8.

The Jubilee Line failed its BCR assessment at the time but with strong political support has gone on to become an essential part of London’s competitiveness; Crossrail has taken 20 years but is now becoming a reality because people understood it was quite simply the right thing to do. We have seen constant evolution of transport appraisals over time and we believe the next advance will be to truly understand the role of wider economic benefits and how transport decisions can help stimulate additional economic growth. We are confident that when an economic view is taken, the merits of Victoria become overwhelmingly clear. We urge the Government to review its preferred station location in Sheffield City Region and make the decision based upon the economic evidence. We would welcome the opportunity to work with the Department for Transport and HS2 Ltd to further understand any of the issues we have raised in this response. HS2 is a once in a lifetime opportunity but with one chance to get it right.

v) Do you agree or disagree with the Government’s proposals for an East Midlands station at Toton? We have already demonstrated the more limited economic potential of parkway stations and that the real economic value of HS2 comes from connecting up city centres rather than faster journey times. We have demonstrated that this can be achieved in Sheffield, however, we do not know whether there is such a viable alternative in the East Midlands.

Vi) Do you think that there should be any additional stations on the eastern leg

Page 30 of 41


between the West Midlands and Leeds? In terms of the number and location of stations, the current ‘Y’ network proposals are supported, with the exception of the South Yorkshire station that we believe should be located in Sheffield city centre.

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. As previously outlined, we believe the route and station currently being proposed for Sheffield undermines the aspiration for HS2 to be a genuine engine for growth. We want to work with HS2 Ltd on a full appraisal of sustainability on our preferred route through Sheffield city centre which would generate significantly more growth, jobs and regeneration opportunities.

However, there are some general principles which would apply to either route in terms of managing the negative impacts of the route and station:

Communities

Steps must be taken to keep disruption associated with HS2 to a minimum for those communities affected by the route, both during construction and operation.

In the case of those whose homes have to be demolished, a number of issues need to be

considered. Firstly, HS2 Ltd needs to take account of the low value of some residential properties in the Sheffield area. The compensation scheme for HS2 reflects the un-blighted market value of the properties, but where the value is exceptionally low, the provision of this value may be insufficient to allow the residents to move into a comparable property elsewhere. Furthermore, some of the residents privately rent their house and whilst the compensation package will recompense the house owner, there is no provision to support or help people find alternative, affordable rental accommodation. Therefore, affected residents as well as their landlords should be communicated with at every stage of the process.

Further work is necessary to address these issues and ensure that the support made available goes beyond the pure value of the property and ensure that where people have to relocate, there is sufficient support to ensure they are able to move to an equivalent property. HS2 Ltd must also be mindful of the requirements of some communities in the area who may require additional support in terms of communication and cultural needs.

Access to residential properties both pedestrian and highway, adjacent to the construction site of HS2, will also need to be maintained to minimise disruption and ensure dwellings do not feel isolated from their surrounding communities.

For those dwellings that are not entitled to compensation but within the noise affected area along the corridor of the route, there still needs to be consideration of ways of mitigating the impact once the line is in operation through the use of noise barriers and visual screening to integrate HS2 into the natural environment. These impacts need to be fully assessed and appraised as part of HS2 Ltd’s Environmental Impact Assessment

The Council has already facilitated HS2 Ltd engagement with communities affected by the route and will continue to do so, as well as advise HS2 of our local knowledge of the community including profiles and engagement best practice.

Page 31 of 41


Community assets

HS2 Ltd must be mindful of the impact the route can have on community resources, whether that is green space, footpaths, community buildings and leisure facilities. It is essential that HS2 carry out all practicable efforts to provide alternative arrangements to replace the facilities, to an equivalent standard.

The construction of HS2 may provide strategic opportunities to enhance key green infrastructure and pedestrian and cycle route. These opportunities should be explored as part of any route proposals and we would be ready to engage with discussions on this.

Sensitive landscapes

The full impact HS2 can have on sensitive landscapes such as ancient woodland, flood plains, former mine workings and heritage sites needs to be considered by HS2 Ltd, and alternative options should be reviewed to mitigate the impact.

There must be no worsening of visual intrusion on sensitive sites, and wherever possible the opportunity should be taken to make the landscaping and mitigation of the new works make up for the previous damage.

Whilst HS2 publications suggest HS2 Ltd are aware of these issues, it is important that HS2 identify any risks associated with these sites as these could cause a delay during the construction phase as well as lead to problems elsewhere.

In addition to these general principles, there are three areas of concern regarding the current proposed route that we would like to highlight:

Flood Risk

The preferred parkway station location is located on a flood plain. The station will be constructed on viaduct therefore decreasing the chances of the rail infrastructure being flooded. In 2007 Meadowhall Interchange had to close for a

number of days due to extensive flooding, when the river Don broke through its flood defences. This had a major impact on the local economy because of the need to reconstruct facilities and provide interim alternative transport services. Although HS2 is unlikely to be directly affected by the threat of flooding the transport facilities that offer access to the station site will be at flood risk. It will therefore be important to mitigate this problem when designing the access transport arrangements, as well as ensuring that any construction work does not create flooding issues elsewhere.

Traffic

Currently, the strategic network around the Meadowhall station site is not only congested, it is at capacity at peak periods.

Whilst the economic regeneration impacts at the parkway station will not be anywhere near the same scale as a city centre station, we would anticipate some additional growth from the parkway station development. These impacts, on top of additional traffic generated directly by the station means the area would see an increase in traffic movements which will require new road construction and potentially a new junction onto the motorway to resolve. These are clearly very expensive works which will require funding in advance of HS2 being opened.

There is currently a planning application for IKEA to be built in the area. This application is still under consideration and it is too early to say if it will be approved but if it is approved, successful major highway improvements will be required to the network remodelling both junction 34 south and north and the local highway network adjacent to the station. If IKEA is approved it will have the impact of stopping all future development in the Lower Don Valley until such time these improvements take place.

We are aware that HS2 Ltd will undertake detailed transport/traffic modelling of the road network around the proposed HS2 station at Meadowhall and the M1 Junction 34 (north and south) to test the impact of the necessary rearrangements of links and junctions. We are

Page 32 of 41


disappointed that this modelling did not taken place ahead of this consultation, considering the issues the area already faces with congestion on both the M1 and local highways. We believe there is a risk that a station could be unworkable without extensive and substantial improvements to the highways network with implications for the overall HS2 budget. We will be accepting the invite that HS2 Ltd has already offered to the local highway authorities and SYPTE to be involved in the discussion on and development of the modelling and suggested proposals.

Air Quality

The entire urban area of Sheffield is covered by an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) designation. A particular focus of the AQMA is to tackle air quality in the vicinity of the M1 Motorway at Tinsley. Additional congestion associated with the forecast increase in traffic due to rail trips and associated development would have an adverse effect on air quality in the area. In 2013 this part of the motorway was already exceeding the safe emission levels set by the EU. With increased traffic levels we would expect the length of the daily period when standards are exceeded to gradually increase. If the station does result in increased traffic on this part of the network we would expect that funds will be made available for mitigation works in this area to decease the impact of this problem.

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? The additional capacity that will be created by HS2 is one of the most significant benefits of

HS2. However, we believe that any plans for freed up capacity should not include a significant downgrading of the Midland Mainline. This is an economically important service for Sheffield City Region in terms of both inter and intra City Region connectivity, linking Sheffield to Chesterfield, Derby, Nottingham and Leicester, amongst other destinations. In a recent study, Network Rail suggested that the Midland Mainline service could justify the maintenance of similar levels of activity post HS2 compared to the present because of continued demand and we ask Government to consider this finding as part of its released capacity planning. 26

We understand that South Yorkshire Integrated Transport Authority has covered the wider opportunities associated with released capacity in its submission.

ix) Please let us know your comments on the introduction of other utilities along the proposed Phase Two line of route? We have no specific comments for this question however we would want to work with you on all aspects of the impact of an alternative route through the city centre.

26 Network Rail (2013, Better Connections: Options for the Integration of High

Speed 2

Page 33 of 41


Section 3

Section 3: References

Page 34 of 41

SECTION 3: REFERENCES

Sheffield City Council has worked constructively with HS2 Ltd and their advisors throughout 2013/14 and many of the documents generated have already been shared. Any new information referenced in this response are detailed below and included as appendices. The only exception is Parsons Brinckerhoff (2014), HS2 – Sheffield City Centre Route Option Assessment due to elements of a confidential nature.

References

CBRE (2013), Property and Financing Solutions for HS2 Station. Executive Summary attached in Appendix 5.

Core Cities (2013), Competitive Cities, Prosperous People: A Core Cities Prospectus for Growth

DfT (January 2013), High Speed Rail: Investing in Britain’s Future – Phase Two: The route to Leeds, Manchester and beyond

Department for Transport and High Speed Two Ltd (2013) ‘Growth boost for HS2 as taskforce membership confirmed’ [Press Release]. Accessed from https://www.gov.uk/government/news/growth-boost-for-hs2-as-taskforce-membership-confirmed

Fore (2013), Sheffield City Region: High Speed Rail Station Options Summary Assessment Matrix

Genecon (2012), Maximising the economic impact of HS2 investment in Sheffield. Attached in Appendix 2.

Greengauge 21 (2006), High Speed Trains and the Development and Regeneration of Cities

HS2 Ltd (2012), Options for phase 2 of the high speed rail network

LCR (2014), HS2 Phase 2 Stations: LCR Development Reviews – Sheffield Victoria Station. Attached in Appendix 7.

MVA (July 2013), Options for phase two of the high speed rail network – demand and appraisal report

Network Rail (2013, Better Connections: Options for the Integration of High Speed 2

Parsons Brinckerhoff (2014), HS2 – Sheffield City Centre Route Option Assessment

Page 35 of 41

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/growth-boost-for-hs2-as-taskforce-membership-confirmed

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/growth-boost-for-hs2-as-taskforce-membership-confirmed

SECTION 3: REFERENCES

PTEG (2013), Funding Gap Report

South Yorkshire Integrated Transport Executive (2014) High Speed Rail: Investing in Britain’s Future –

Consultation Response

Volterra (2013), An assessment of the case for a city centre high speed rail station in the Sheffield City

Region. Attached in Appendix 3

Volterra (2014), High Speed 2 – station location analysis: Technical Note. Attached in Appendix 4.

WSP (2013), The Economic Case for High Speed 2: Leeds and Sheffield City Regions

Page 36 of 41

SECTION 4: APPENDICES

Section 4

Section 4: Appendices

Page 37 of 41


Appendices Appendix 1 – Maximising HS2’S Growth Porential Realising HS2’s Growth Potential Whilst infrastructure investment often brings with it growth opportunities for UK supply chains and skills development, the size and scale of HS2 presents an unique opportunity in the same league as the Olympics or civil nuclear industry in terms of its huge potential for job creation, skills enhancement and engineering expertise, for business large and small. Driven by university and major industry collaboration, HS2 would act as a catalyst for export-led growth.

Skills The UK already has a shortage of rail engineers and HS2 presents an opportunity to inspire a new generation of UK engineers with high level skills, enthused by a project of HS2’s scale, that can then benefit our wider engineering and manufacturing sectors and support export growth. HS2 can both upskill and create a new pipeline of skilled workers to deliver the scheme over the course of its construction and beyond, sharing the legacy of HS2 throughout the UK sectors. In order to maximise the wider economic and social benefits of HS2, what is needed is an approach that recognises the unique opportunity that is HS2, on a similar magnitude to the London Olympics, including clarity of objectives, benefits and outcomes, better, evidence-based planning and focused leadership.

However, the change goes further than this: what is required is a fundamental change in the interaction between training providers and employers that shifts the power to purchase training into the hands of the latter. This is what we are tackling through the Sheffield City Region City Deal, with a new model for employer-led apprenticeships and adult upskilling for the SCR. The Skills Made Easy model designs-in a local

market dynamic into the local skills system enabling employers to direct provision to meet their business needs. In support of HS2, the local LEPs or Combined Authorities should, at the very least, co-produce local training provision with BIS and SFA and could hold the associated training funds and seek to broker, on the part of businesses, the best possible training solutions.

We believe that in preparing the business sector and workforce for the HS2 opportunity, we should learn from successful models of training delivery for the specific needs of an industrial sector. For example some of the most successful of DWP’s Sector Based Academies to date have been in construction, including those developed in support of the London Olympics, and we are already working up a similar approach with Construction Industry Training Board in SCR that will be led by Sheffield City Council.

We believe Sheffield City Region is the ideal location for the recently announced ‘HS2 College’ allowing people across the country to access training opportunities in the transport construction industry as part of a network of expertise across the UK. Sheffield City Region is in a strong position to make the most of this opportunity with its central location on the HS2 network and its unique assets and heritage:

• Sheffield already has the Made in Sheffield Curriculum which links the local engineering sector into school curriculum and the recently opened University Technical College

• Sheffield has the highest number of young people in apprenticeships out of all the Core Cities.

• In five years’ time, the University of Sheffield will be the biggest engineering school in the country and by 2014 Sheffield City Region will be home to the most advanced factory in the world

• Sheffield City Region businesses are already supplying Crossrail contracts

Page 38 of 41

http://www.sheffieldcityregion.org.uk/skills-made-easy/

http://www.sheffieldcityregion.org.uk/skills-made-easy/


As a city region with a clear focus on manufacturing, there is a strong rationale for SCR establishing a centre of excellence for the provision of the skills needed by HS2. We are keen to work with Government and industry to build on this success and deliver a world class HS2 Skills Academy.

In short we have well developed means of preparing young people and adults for work in target sectors and we know how to build effective pathways to employment. Moreover, we don’t do this alone but do it through coordinating a broad provider network of support and training organisations. We can scale up this approach in response to opportunities presented through HS2 and look forward to a close working relationship with Government as part of this, utilising local knowledge and connections to ensure skills supply and demand is managed effectively.

Procurement Sheffield and the UK as a whole have the chance of harnessing the economic potential of HS2 through research, development and skilling up the labour force in preparation – but this relies on Government doing what they can to make sure that the jobs, growth and innovation that directly comes from HS2 are, to the greatest degree, located in the UK.

We do not advocate protectionism and we are aware of EU procurement laws but UK industry must realise the once in a lifetime opportunity HS2 represents. Below are some thoughts on how this could be achieved.

‘Fit for HS2’

There is the potential to embed innovation into HS2’s procurement processes rather than replicating other countries’ approaches. By linking UK businesses into these processes early, not only will jobs be created in local economies, but demand-led innovation will stimulate a repositioning of industry in the UK and an economic legacy for the long-term. For this to happen procurement processes need to be aligned with skills provision: one cannot work without the other.

Reclaiming the maximum UK economic benefit from HS2 investment will require creating a new manufacturing supply chain based largely in the UK. In Sheffield, we have a world leading example of how ‘smart procurement’ can support domestic businesses to ready their capacity for a major opportunity like HS2. The ‘Fit for Nuclear’ programme delivered nationally by Sheffield City Region’s NAMRC (Nuclear Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre) demonstrates how through research, development and intensive support to UK businesses, the domestic industrial base has the capacity to deliver significant parts of the HS2 infrastructure but also develop transferable expertise to enhance their business potential. The NAMRC has already established a comprehensive supply chain for the civil nuclear industry, supporting manufacturing businesses across the UK to upskill and enhance their quality and capacity for the major growth opportunity nuclear energy represents. With funding from RGF, ‘Fit for Nuclear’ aligns UK companies to be ready to address future supply chain requirements by:

1. Identifying potential companies that could supply the nuclear market

2. Supporting companies to close capability gaps

3. Matching company capabilities to client needs

This model was highlighted in SCR’s City Deal as part of our proposal to develop a national centre for procurement based around SCR’s Advanced Manufacturing and Nuclear Research Centres. This concept could similarly be applied to the technological requirements of HS2.

We envisage a virtual ‘Fit for HS2’’ model where universities or sector-based centres of excellence could engage and support businesses across the country to develop a ‘sourcing roadmap’ for current and prospective sourcing patterns in the UK manufacturing industry. This would help our understanding of potential capacity in the UK supply chain and the steps required to address any capacity shortages and

Page 39 of 41

http://namrc.co.uk/work-with-us/f4n/

http://namrc.co.uk/


ensure UK industry is ready for HS2. As well as driving innovation, this would have a knock on effect on skills capacity, thus creating wider capability in the UK and driving exports.

For this model to work effectively, it needs to be established as soon as possible because of the time it takes to engage with businesses, upskill existing staff and buy new equipment. HS2 must provide clarity, in advance, of the materials, techniques and services that will be procured, and the standards and terms that suppliers must deliver to – ensuring that the SME base can ready itself to take advantage of HS2 opportunities. Engaging with SMEs Underpinning this model, there are a number of other key elements that must be considered if local supply chains and SMEs are able to access HS2 contracts:

• The design of HS2 procurement processes – ensuring they do not preclude the SME base in local areas. This means considering procurement strategies such as; breaking contracts into smaller deliverable projects, encouraging subcontracting and consortia to enable SMEs to work together and instating contract obligations with major suppliers to use local companies and SMEs in their subcontracting arrangements. HS2 Ltd could also ensure that quicker, simplified and less costly processes are in place for smaller procurements below EU thresholds. Details like ensuring acceptable cash flow terms are passed through major contracts into the supply chain are important to ensure better engagement from local SMEs.

• Assurance and confidence through communication in local areas – Government needs to provide assurance that HS2 is going ahead and there needs to be a clear plan which demonstrates how SMEs can get themselves in a position to be part of HS2. Good examples (which we use in Sheffield) include, online procurement hubs - to give suppliers one place to go to find out about tender opportunities, clear contacts and information and ‘Meet the Buyer’ events. Working with business networks, like the

Chamber of Commerce to disseminate information and to provide bidder briefings and even training for Governmental procurement processes, are all effective ways to improve the number of SMEs and local firms accessing HS2 contract opportunities.

• Access to finance for businesses –This has three elements where Government could help:

o Business access to finance – an RGF dedicated to HS2 supply chain development would be a worthy investment in terms of building capacity within businesses even if not all businesses get HS2 contracts.

o Research funding - for example from TSB to facilitate the expansion of innovation in High Speed Rail or a UK model of HSR. This would put us ahead of the field and future proof investment for HS3 and beyond.

o Incentivisation –are there opportunities for tax incentives for businesses accessing HS2 related development; funding incentives for UK universities / centres of excellence to engage local SME supply chains?

The benefits of this approach will not only deliver for local economies but improve competition, efficiency and help to remove supply bottlenecks – providing agile supply chains that reduce the risk of supply chain failure.

Appendix 2 - Genecon (2012), Maximising the economic impact of HS2 investment in Sheffield See separate attachment

Page 40 of 41


Appendix 3 - Volterra (2013), An assessment of the case for a city centre high speed rail station in the Sheffield City Region. See separate attachment

Appendix 4 - Volterra (2014), High Speed 2 – station location analysis: Technical Note See separate attachment

Appendix 5 - CBRE (2013), Property and Financing Solutions for HS2 Station: Executive Summary See separate attachment

Appendix 6 – Sheffield City Council (2014) Sheffield Victoria Station Development Prospectus See separate attachment

Appendix 7- LCR (2014), HS2 Phase 2 Stations: LCR Development Reviews – Sheffield Victoria Station. See separate attachment

Appendix 8 – Letters of support See separate attachment

Page 41 of 41

High Speed Rail: Investing in Britain’s Future … › content › images › fromassets › ...SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION station at Victoria could be worth £530 million to the sub-regional

Documents