Written evidence submitted by the South Yorkshire, West Yorkshire and North East Derbyshire Joint Campaign Group (IRP0027)
I am writing to you on behalf of the South Yorkshire, West Yorkshire & N.E. Derbyshire Joint Campaign group. This group was formed back in 2016 when the HS2 eastern route was changed and individual campaign groups merged to form one larger group. We represent thousands of residents along the recently scrapped M18 eastern route of Phase 2b and our aim has been to draw attention to the poor connectivity and lack of access this provides.
We are supported by our respective councils - being Wakefield, Rotherham, Doncaster and Bolsover - and also by many of our MPs - Ed Miliband, Alex Stafford, John Healey, Sarah Champion, Jon Trickett … the list goes on. We also have the support of our parish councils.
We have always been of the opinion that if HS2 is to be built it should be the best it can be. It could be argued that the original Sheffield Meadowhall option ticked all the boxes, but everything changed when the Meadowhall station was dropped back in 2016 to save money and the route was changed. That’s when the eastern leg lost its integrity - and that's what we have been trying to prove for the past five and a half years.
THE INTEGRATED RAIL PLAN CONFIRMS OUR FINDINGS.
Introductions over, I will now go on to provide evidence of the poor connectivity the M18 eastern route offers and the criticism it has received, which is supported by annexed documentation:
● Annex 1 contains some very important evidence which should be read thoroughly. It explains why statements made by TfN, Tracy Brabin (the West Yorkshire Mayor), NPP, and leaders in Leeds and Bradford are misleading when they say that cancelling the eastern leg represents a “betrayal” and that we need HS2/NPR “built in full”. Annex 7 gives detailed justification as to why we believe the opposite to be true.
● Annex 2 attached gives extracts from emails received from each of the 4 South Yorkshire councils in relation to the 2016 change of route. You will see that each and every one of them agreed that the current eastern leg was not their preferred option. Rotherham and Doncaster councils still oppose the eastern leg and although Sheffield and Barnsley went on to accept it, you will clearly see that it is not what they believed to be the best option.
● Annex 3 is a letter sent to the South Yorkshire Mayor, Dan Jarvis, last January. Please take time to read it as again, it contains a wealth of information. The fact that he acknowledged receipt of the letter but has, so far, not been able to answer the questions it raised, makes you wonder why he continues to sing the praises of a route which he apparently cannot justify.
● Annex 4 is a list of councils and parish councils that we have approached to get their views on the current eastern leg and who have confirmed their dissatisfaction. Clearly, it is not a list of each and every council, since we do not have the time nor the resources to do a complete study. However, this does offer a reflection of the general feeling amongst local stakeholders.
● Annex 5 is a chart showing the 100m property comparisons between the Meadowhall route and the M18 eastern route. This shows that despite HS2 Ltd.’s initial claim that there were fewer demolitions on the current m18 eastern route, there were, in fact, more. HS2 Ltd. later went on to acknowledge this fact.
● Annex 6 shows the results of the 2016 consultation which you will note was overwhelmingly in favour of the Meadowhall route. Why did HS2 Ltd. decide NOT to listen to the stakeholders and those whose lives would be affected by the decision as to where the Sheffield station was situated? In trying to cut costs, HS2 Ltd. also cut the benefits.
● Annex 7 shows Rother Valley MP, Alex Stafford, accepting a petition of over 8,500 signatures of people opposed to the current phase 2b eastern leg. This is not a popular choice.
Although government continues to be bombarded by the same few northern HS2 protagonists (you know who they are) who purport to speak for the whole of the North, the eastern leg, in reality, has very little support, and we whole-heartedly agree that the high speed line between the East Midlands hub and Leeds should be scrapped. The benefits are minimal to say the least, whereas the costs - not only in monetary terms but also in terms of residential and commercial impact and environmental damage - are significant.
In respect of HS2 services between Sheffield and London - the region already has two good connections from both Sheffield and Doncaster. Some of the Doncaster to London services would actually be made more inconvenient if, as planned, they were taken off the ECML and moved onto the Sheffield Midland Mainline. This is because Sheffield is at the opposite side of the county to Doncaster and commuters would not be happy at this change.
We also believe that upgrading the northern loop to allow HS2 trains to travel between Sheffield and Leeds will be a waste of money. This is a short journey anyway and it is currently well served by local commuter services. These would be adversely impacted if HS2 trains were to be introduced. We feel this option was just a vain attempt by HS2 Ltd. to ‘make the pieces fit’. It was very clever of them to pass the costs of this northern loop upgrade to TfN. They clearly realise the difficulties involved and have managed to rid themselves of the responsibility should this connection never become viable.
We agree that the IRP best addresses rail links by improving current access and connectivity and increasing services across the region and between regions. One point we would also like to add is that we feel the IRP would be even more beneficial if it delivered a rail link to the growing Doncaster Sheffield airport.
So, how do you get HS2 trains to Leeds?
We note that the distance to Leeds from Birmingham via the current eastern leg, and the distance to Leeds from Birmingham via the current western leg and the trans-Pennine link, is very similar. We suggest, therefore, that HS2 trains could access Leeds via phase 2a (Manchester) and the trans-Pennine route. The trans-Pennine route is due to be upgraded to accommodate high speed trains anyway, so this would appear to be the perfect solution. It would save the cost of the whole eastern leg and everything that would entail whilst still providing the access and connectivity. It would also save many homes and businesses from demolition.
Another alternative would be for HS2 services to reach Leeds by connecting to the ECML via an upgraded existing Nottingham/Newark line.
So you see, there are various better, cheaper, less damaging and more beneficial options than the current M18 Eastern leg.
With regard to hs2 trains travelling between Leeds and London, and assuming the high speed eastern leg was scrapped, journey times are again very similar when comparing Leeds-trans-Pennine-Manchester-London and Leeds-Sheffield-London. In fact the latter may be the slower option due to the junctions and spurs involved. This is just one more reason why the northern loop between Sheffield and Leeds would not really be worth doing.
We hope this information will go some way towards helping the Committee come to a conclusion. We, the people who live up here, are much more likely to understand what would actually benefit us and what would be more of a hindrance. We were asked to give our opinion back in 2016 and we were ignored. The IRP has finally acknowledged what we have always known to be the case - the M18 eastern leg is not fit for purpose.
Attachments follow below.
Annex 1
THE IRP AND WEST YORKSHIRE
Integration of the IRP, the West Yorkshire Metro, and HS2 Services at Leeds
Claims by Transport for the North, NPP, and leaders in Leeds and Bradford that the Integrated Rail represents a 'rail betrayal' are disingenuous.
From Leeds, the eastern leg of HS2 could only provide faster services to the south, with limited stops, at the expense of significant assumed cuts to existing rail services (intercity and commuter) that would, if the HS2 eastern leg were to proceed, result in greatly reduced service frequency and travel options at all points along the East Coast Mainline including its extension to Leeds.
HS2 would effectively create ZERO capacity at Leeds station to create new commuter services to / from anywhere in West Yorkshire or the surrounding counties (see HS2 PFM v7.1 and v9).
The message from Tracy Brabin, the West Yorkshire Mayor is that her priority is to have HS2 and NPR 'built in full', yet most people who live and work in West Yorkshire would gain little, if anything, from these schemes and HS2 is a deeply unpopular scheme with most of the public in the north.
The development of a long-overdue, all-points West Yorkshire Metro scheme would significantly benefit a high number of people in West Yorkshire. The scheme would provide a clean, green alternative to car dependency, and the Integrated Rail Plan foresees the need for integration of the Metro scheme with rail services at Leeds station.
It's disappointing that Tracy Brabin's response to further development of a West Yorkshire Metro scheme with integration at Leeds has been lukewarm at best.
In comparison to the eastern leg of HS2, the Integrated Rail Plan would not create an adverse impact on rail services at Wakefield and many other locations throughout the north of England and beyond.
The IRP (along with the WY Metro) would be delivered at far lower cost and much sooner than HS2, therefore, the benefits for ‘levelling up’ would be achieved sooner, with an emphasis on improved transport provision THROUGHOUT the north, rather than high-speed services being prioritised for the benefit of inter-city commuters in a few select, well-connected cities.
For reasons explained elsewhere in this submission, HS2 and / or NPR services should not operate between Leeds and Sheffield via the HS2 Sheffield ‘northern loop’ and a new costly high-speed line between Clayton junction and Leeds. The adverse impact of this HS2 proposal on existing rail services would be severe, and it requires billions to be spent on ill-conceived diversionary plans to retain a degree of commuter service provision in West and South Yorkshire.
If Leeds is considered to need HS2 services as a priority over (or alongside) the West Yorkshire Metro, the most cost-effective way to provide such services would be via HS2 services to Manchester, extended to Leeds via the Leeds / Manchester NPR route.
Alternatively, HS2 services could operate via Nottingham station to the East Coast Mainline via an upgraded existing Nottingham / Newark line, serving Leeds via the existing ECML and routes into Leeds station.
Annex 2 - email extracts
Doncaster Council voted to reject the route back in 2016 stating that:
"This proposal is bad for local residents, communities, Doncaster and the Sheffield City Region. Doncaster Council therefore calls on the Secretary of State to reject the recommendation."
(Council meeting Thursday, 15th September, 2016)
They continue to oppose the route.
Rotherham Council has voted to reject the route altogether:
“This Council resolves
To call on the Government to abandon the Leeds leg of the HS2 project immediately thus saving Rotherham and South Yorkshire from the significant environmental impact which will result.
To call on the Government to allocate the funding released from the abandonment of the Leeds leg to boost essential improvements to local transport improvements and to the Northern Powerhouse.
To call on local MPs and the Mayor of Sheffield City Region to support the Council and our Community by lobbying for the abandonment of the Leeds leg of the HS2 Project
To continue to raise concerns of local residents that are affected by the amended route and the disruption that will be caused during its construction."
(Rotherham Council Meeting 5th December 2018)
All 3 Rotherham MPs oppose the current route.
Barnsley Council said:
"As you know Barnsley has been committed to HS2 from the outset and had a preference for the Meadowhall route. Unfortunately, this is no longer to take place and we’ve been given a less than optimum solution."
(email from Steve Houghton council leader 19.2.2019)
The Leader of Sheffield City Council said:
“I have been clear from the start, that the location of the HS2 station should have been at Victoria and my views haven’t changed.”
(email from Julie Dore council leader 11.12.2018)
Ros Jones, Mayor of Doncaster says:
“I believe that if HS2 Phase 2b is to go ahead, the original route should be used, which included a station at Sheffield Meadowhall, as this is the only option that would provide any benefit to the people of Doncaster. I have previously written to the Minister for Transport regarding this.”
(email from Ros Jones council leader 8.5.2019)
Ed Miliband MP for Doncaster opposes the current route.
Doncaster Chamber of Commerce said:
“HS2 offers very limited connectivity benefits to S.Y.”
(email from Daniel Fell 19.2.2019)
Barnsley & Rotherham Chamber of Commerce
Just to confirm the Chamber of Commerce current position on this topic:
● You are absolutely correct , we did support the original ‘Meadowhall option’ as we believed at the time, that should the project go ahead it would provide maximum economic benefit to the wider region
● The current proposal, part of which involves utilisation of the Midland Station in Sheffield, we believe to be a second-rate alternative, that despite the best endeavours of Sheffield to “spin” this as a success, will not only bring years of inconvenience but will also be at a great cost to the people and businesses in Sheffield. Furthermore, it also provides very little benefit to the wider city region.
● Sheffield, under the proposal on the table will not be part of the HS2 network, merely an appendage to a North-South route which in essence does not stop in South Yorkshire. It is hardly surprising that Leeds is fully behind the revised plan.
● Put simply, our stance at the moment is that we do not support the current proposal as we believe it brings little of value to the South Yorkshire region.
(email from Andrew Denniff 20.3.2019)
Annex 3 - page 1 (letter providing information and asking questions which remain unanswered).
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS MOST IMPORTANT. PLEASE READ.
Mr. D. Jarvis
Mayor
Sheffield City Region
11 Broad Street West
Sheffield
S1 2BQ
Dear Mr. Jarvis
It has been a while since we last corresponded and I trust you are keeping well during these difficult times.
Of course, HS2 ploughs on regardless, and there has been no respite for those of us who are striving to prove that the eastern leg is not fit for purpose. On the contrary, we note that safeguarding plans have recently been updated for the Leeds area, despite a Government leaflet having been circulated in October 2020 stating that they had asked HS2 Ltd. to pause work on the eastern leg pending the outcome of the IRP. We have asked our MPs to find out why work has, therefore, been allowed to continue. I’m sure we’ll get an interesting response!
You are, by now, aware that your recent collaboration with Judith Blake and Kay Cutts in pushing for the eastern leg to proceed in full has not gone unnoticed, and this has caused a great deal of anger amongst many South Yorkshire residents, including some of our members who I know have contacted you recently.
We have been given sight of your template response, and having read it carefully, would respectfully suggest that many of the comments you make are highly questionable, indicating that you either do not fully understand the full implications of the PFM volume 9 updates, or you are just being compliant.
I will begin with your claim that HS2 and NPR would provide a 20 minute journey time between Sheffield and Leeds, please would you provide evidence in support of this statement.
● The Dearne Valley line between Sheffield Midland station and Clayton junction is 24.5km (15.2 miles) long.
● The proposed route between Clayton junction and the proposed new HS2 Leeds station is (approx) 33.7km (20.95 miles) long.
● The route between Sheffield Midland and the proposed new HS2 station is (approx) 58.2km (36.15 miles).
Correspondence (HS2 FOI 19-3207) that we've received from HS2 Ltd. confirms that the journey time between Sheffield and the new HS2 station in Leeds via the route defined in the current HS2 documents would be 25 minutes. They state:
The timings we hold for the journeys are as follows:
● Sheffield Midland station and Clayton junction 14 minutes
● Sheffield Midland station and Meadowhall station 05 minutes
● Meadowhall station and Clayton junction 10 minutes
● Clayton junction and the new Leeds station 11 minutes
● Sheffield Midland station and the new Leeds station 25 minutes
Furthermore, if Northern Powerhouse Rail Sheffield-Leeds services are to access the existing Leeds station via a junction in the newly safeguarded area near Garforth, a journey time of 20 - 25 minutes, or even 30 minutes, is highly questionable, and the only way that such timings might be achieved would be via an increase in the operating speed of the services, over and above what has previously been defined.
Please could you confirm the route or routes, and the Leeds stations that Sheffield-Leeds NPR services would use and please state the journey times for each section as HS2 did in their FOI response.
Please confirm if the proposed NPR services operating on the existing Dearne Valley route would operate at higher speeds than the current fastest services that operate on the existing Dearne Valley route, and also, please state the maximum proposed operating speed of the NPR services over this route, highlighting the maximum proposed speeds through each residential area.
An increase in operating speed would naturally result in higher noise emissions and greater energy requirements. This would require greater environmental protection for people residing along the high-speed route through the Dearne Valley and West Yorkshire. If operating speeds need to be increased to obtain the claimed 20 minute journey time, what additional mitigation have you secured for those who would be adversely affected in South and West Yorkshire?
Next we come to the capacity issue. You state that your support is based on the promise that HS2 would 'free up much needed capacity on our existing rail network for improved local and regional passenger services which I know is much more important to many people'.
This is something that HS2 Ltd. and its proponents would like stakeholders and the general public to believe, but HS2's own documents suggest that it is entirely without foundation for the services in the North of England. HS2 Ltd. has produced PFM 'Planet Framework Model' reports that detail the assumptions made by HS2 Ltd. in respect of the impact of the HS2 scheme on the existing 'classic' rail network.
Please familiarise yourself with the PFM v7.1 and v9 assumptions reports and study the content in detail. It is essential that you compare the assumed scenarios for when HS2 Phase 2b becomes operational with those at the base date ('do minimum'). The reports assume that HS2 will not 'free up much needed capacity on our existing rail network' in the north. In fact, these reports contain the following assumptions:
● PFM v9 assumes that Sheffield would have only 2 HS2 services per hour to and from London.
● PFM v9 assumes that Sheffield would lose an existing one hourly East Midlands Trains stopping service to and from London St. Pancras.
● PFM version 7.1 assumed that Sheffield would gain a direct hourly HS2 service to and from Birmingham but this has been dropped in the updated PFM version 9. In fact the Sheffield-Birmingham connection on HS2 would now be via an indirect service and take just 2 minutes less but at the expense of having to change trains.
● PFM v9 assumes that Sheffield would lose an existing Cross Country service to and from the North East to the South Coast via Birmingham and all stopping points on the route.
● PFM v7.1 assumed that Sheffield would gain an hourly commuter service to and from Leeds, Wakefield Kirkgate and Barnsley, and all stopping points on the route, but this 'capacity released' service has been dropped in PFM v9.
● PFM v7.1 assumed that Sheffield would gain an hourly commuter service to and from Leeds, Wakefield Westgate and Rotherham, and all stopping points on the route, but this 'capacity released' service has been dropped in PFM v9.
We are aware that you have proposed that some, or all, classic heavy rail services to and from Sheffield, Rotherham and Doncaster, and all stopping points on the route would be transferred to an inferior tram-train service.
We are aware that existing Adwick / Sheffield stopping service via Doncaster is under threat from high-speed rail.
● PFM v9 assumes that effectively ZERO additional capacity would be created on the classic network at Leeds.
● PFM v9 and 7.1 assume that Doncaster would lose a significant number of existing East Coast Mainline services, as would Wakefield, with both Huddersfield and Dewsbury losing their direct ECML services to and from London.
● PFM v9 and 7.1 assume that the capacity that would be created at Manchester Piccadilly is just 2 services per hour at the expense of dropping current service stops at certain stations.
Please confirm that you are aware of all the above implications in the PFM vol. 9 and that you are happy with them.
The current plans prevent Transport for the North from achieving their 2015 'One North' journey time and service frequency aspirations, with Sheffield (South Yorkshire) being the biggest loser in terms of failing to meet the specified targets.
This is not the step change in capacity release that HS2 and its proponents continue to promote. It is quite the opposite, a dreadful outcome for many communities and commuters in South Yorkshire, West Yorkshire and across the north. We would not be surprised to see further assumed reductions to our current local stopping commuter services if high-speed rail continues to be promoted via the current HS2 Phase 2b Eastern route. The vast improvement to local and regional connectivity that you mention is not assumed in these reports.
Moving on to Doncaster and the East Coast Mainline, you mention that HS2 would create an improvement to rail services between Doncaster and Leeds. The opposite is assumed. Doncaster would lose a number of ECML services including some services to and from Wakefield and Leeds. A backfilling stopping service is assumed to compensate, to a degree, for the cuts in long distance services, but HS2 mislead readers of PFM v7.1 by failing to state that the backfilling service already operates at peak hours in the peak direction. The assumption Is that there would be no step-change on this route and, as stated above, it is assumed that Huddersfield and Dewsbury would lose their current direct EMCL services to and from London via the ECML. Furthermore, the indication is that the Adwick-Le-Street / Doncaster / Sheffield all stations commuter service (which also uses the ECML between Doncaster and Leeds) would cease to operate if current high-speed rail plans proceed.
For Northern Powerhouse Rail, Transport for the North were 'remitted to work with' the HS2 Phase 2b route and this is where the problem lies. TfN have adopted (were remitted - instructed to adopt) a short section of the HS2 route between Clayton and Church Fenton, but this HS2 route is far from ideal and is not fit for purpose, an example being the many technical challenges and compromises presented by the Sheffield Northern loop. Newly announced safeguarding measures in West Yorkshire suggest that Leeds will have its very own 'northern loop' with similar challenges if the current plans proceed. Are you aware of this? These challenges add cost upon cost as ever more, hastily proposed bolt-on schemes are tabled in order to somehow try and make HS2 work.
Contrary to your desire to prioritise high-speed rail schemes, the NIC considers that the eastern leg of HS2 is not a priority. The ever increasing cost of high-speed rail has resulted in the need for them to step-in and table proposals for better, cheaper, and more readily achievable alternatives. This is the area on which we believe you should be concentrating. The priority for South Yorkshire is for better commuter transport options WITHIN our region and our neighbouring regions, and not a London-centric, city to city, faster train service to the south.
Importance - Why do you consider that prioritising HS2, (a destructive scheme that will lead to the loss of our local commuter services), in order to permit your preferred high speed, non-stop, city-to-city services to operate, is 'much more important to many people'? Has the public been given the full facts and an opportunity to vote on the issue? Of course not. Therefore, why do you believe that this is the case? What evidence can you provide in support of that claim? Why are the rail needs of commuters in towns and villages in South Yorkshire, who would suffer as a result of your preference, of lesser importance than your preferred inter-city commuters?
The best way to get people from towns and villages out of their cars for the daily commute into nearby cities is to retain and increase local commuter services that provide a multitude of stops. HS2 assumes that their scheme does not facilitate a step change in this respect and, in fact, the assumption is that these services would be sacrificed as part of an unnecessary and environmentally destructive need for speed.
It is extremely disappointing that you intend to fight for only 'short term improvements' to our local transport systems, and that despite the contents of the PFM reports, you have chosen to support HS2, a deeply unpopular London-centric scheme.
You state, 'I have consistently called for the best possible mitigation measures for those communities affected'. With respect, we have not seen any evidence of your support or promotion of alternative routes, such as the original Meadowhall route, the Combined Yorkshire HS2 Action Group 'High Speed North' route via Sheffield Victoria, the 'Andy Fisher' alternative route that was published by HS2, or perhaps a route that avoids the severe impact at Mexborough, or any other alternatives. We have not seen evidence of any proposal of yours to build HS2 through South Yorkshire entirely in a tunnel, to reduce the height of the structures at Barnburgh and Clayton, to provide a tunnel at Bramley, or a cut and cover tunnel at Bramley, to provide a tunnel at Mexborough, or to enhance any proposed environmental mitigation. If you have taken such action, we have not seen evidence of it, let alone evidence of your efforts being 'consistent'.
Please would you kindly provide evidence of your 'consistent ' actions in this respect, highlighting the additional mitigations that you have proposed, over and above the basic mitigation included in the HS2 Working Draft Environmental Statements. Please would you also provide the relevant dates on which you took action.
We note that back in 2017, as MP for Barnsley, you wrote a joint letter with Michael Dugher supporting the current M18 Eastern route because:
“The ‘Meadowhall route’ cut through a large part of the Borough and many residents and businesses within Barnsley have endured four years of unwelcome uncertainty.
“It is time to take away the blight of uncertainty on our communities by formally withdrawing the Meadowhall option and focus on the opportunities and challenges of the new route, including promoting a meaningful and sensitive package of mitigation measures for those communities affected by the new route.”
* The Newsroom Wednesday, 15th March 2017, 3.30 pm. Updated Friday, 24th March 2017, 11.09 am.
It is clear that, as MP for Barnsley, you were happy to ‘push’ (for want of a better word) the current eastern route on to someone else in order to protect your own constituents from the impact of the Meadowhall route. Unfortunately, this has now come back to bite you.
As Regional Mayor, it is now your duty to consider what is best for the whole of your region - not just Barnsley, and you must have the strength of character to do the right thing. If it means eating humble pie and changing your mind then so be it. The Government and HS2 Ltd. do this all the time. If you firmly believe in the benefits of HS2, then the implications of the PFM vol. 9 must now surely lead you to determine that the current eastern route is not fit for purpose, and you must fight for a better option.
The Joint Campaign Group represents thousands of residents opposed to HS2 for various reasons. The Bramley group alone has almost 2,000 members. They will be interested to receive feedback on all of these points, and clearly, this will have an effect on next year’s election result. Residents, parish councils and town councils need to feel that their Mayor is not only listening to them but also representing them.
Finally, with regard to carbon emissions, you must know that the HS2 adverts are highly misleading. HS2 Ltd. themselves state that construction is ‘carbon intensive’. Considering that construction, if it goes ahead, will be ongoing well into the 2040’s - this is not conducive to the 2050 zero carbon target. In addition, the HS2 carbon paper states that it will not be carbon neutral at any point in its designed 120 year lifetime. It is not a low-carbon railway as HS2 themselves have confirmed. If HS2 has confirmed to you that their scheme will be carbon neutral at any point in its designed lifetime, please could you provide a copy of the relevant HS2 carbon paper in substantiation of your statement.
I realise there is a lot of information here. Information that members of the joint campaign have painstakingly gone through in order to reach a full understanding of the M18 Eastern Annex 4route. It is vital that you do the same. I hope that you will offer us the courtesy of taking the time to carefully read and digest the contents of this letter before coming back to us with your answers.
Kind regards.
Yorkshire & NE Derbyshire Joint Campaign Group.
Annex 4 - A selection of Councils and Parish Councils opposed to the M18 Eastern Route
Rotherham Borough Council
Doncaster Council
Bolsover District Council
Wakefield Council
Mexborough First
Maltby Town Council
Dinnington St. John’s Town Council
Joint Rural Parishes of Doncaster
Wales Parish Council
Aston-cum-Aughton Parish Council Thurcroft Parish Council
Wickersley Parish Council
Hellaby Parish Council
Bramley Parish Council
Braithwell with Micklebring PC
Ravenfield Parish Council
Hooton Roberts Parish Council
Dalton Parish Council
Whiston Parish Council
Thrybergh Parish Council
Clayton & Frickley Parish Council Hooton Pagnell Parish Council
Todwick Parish Council
South Normanton Parish Council Blackwell Parish Council
Tibshelf Parish Council
Glapwell Parish Council
Annex 5
Property Comparison between Meadowhall Route and M18 eastern route
Annex 6
Route Refinement Consultation responses - Page 83 of the Dialogue by Design July 2017 Report to HS2 Ltd. and the Department for Transport
“11.3 M18/Eastern alignment: support and opposition 11.3.1 A total of 271 respondents express support for the proposal to amend the route to the M18/Eastern alignment, while another 57 express caveated support. In contrast, 4,157 respondents express opposition to the proposals. Many more respondents also comment on this route without expressing clear support or opposition. A total of 151 respondents state that they have no opinion on the matter.”
Overwhelmingly in favour of the Meadowhall route yet ignored
Annex 7
Presenting an 8.5k petition opposing the M18 eastern route to the Rother Valley MP, Alex Stafford.
January 2022