Agenda item

HS2 Project

19.1

It was formally moved by Councillor Robert Murphy, and formally seconded by Councillor Magid Magid, that this Council:-

(a)       notes the HS2 Route Change announced on 7^th July 2016 would result in the loss of hundreds of homes in the city region and a likely reduction in services stopping in Sheffield City Region compared to the original proposal;

(b)       is concerned that the proposal will not provide the benefits of 'substantially reduced journey times' or 'release space on the conventional rail network for new commuter, regional and freight services,' the statements used as justification for Sheffield City Council supporting the concept of High Speed Rail;

(c)        believes that the proposed HS2 spur to Sheffield Midland Station will not provide the economic benefits, capacity and connectivity improvements that a Sheffield Victoria option claimed;

(d)       believes that the huge amount of infrastructure investment tied up in HS2 is not good value for money for Sheffield City Region and the money would be better spent on improvements to the local and regional train network, in particular the overcrowded cross-Pennine routes;

(e)       believes that, for the North to be more successful, it is more important to improve connections between northern cities than those between these cities and London; and

(f)        calls on the Administration, for the reasons above, to withdraw this Council’s support for the HS2 project, and resolves to send a copy of this motion to the Department of Transport and HS2 Ltd.

19.2

Whereupon, it was formally moved by Councillor Leigh Bramall, and formally seconded by Councillor Peter Rippon, as an amendment, that the Motion now submitted be amended by the deletion of all the words after the words “That this Council” and the addition of the following words:-

(a)       notes that the campaign for a Sheffield city centre HS2 station has been supported in the city by the Council, the local business community, the universities and the Sheffield Star newspaper, due to the overwhelming economic evidence of thousands of additional jobs and billions of additional economic growth created from a city centre, as opposed to a Meadowhall, option;

(b)       believes that changing Sheffield’s HS2 station location to Midland provides a better option for the city than the previous Meadowhall option which would have failed to deliver thousands of much needed additional jobs whilst potentially weakening Sheffield city centre;

(c)        however, recognises that the Government and HS2 Ltd. still need to make commitments for the onward connection from Sheffield to Leeds;

(d)       believes HS2 Ltd. must work with the areas that are most affected by the route change to address the concerns they are raising about the impact that the new route will have on their communities;

(e)       fully agrees that improving connections between northern cities is imperative and welcomes the leadership of the present Administration in working with other northern cities to establish Transport for the North to realise the vision of strongly connected cities across the north of England;

(f)        believes that fundamental to this is securing 30 minute city centre to city centre connectivity between both Sheffield and Leeds, and Sheffield and Manchester, and believes that these key conditional outputs must be met and the Government should provide the resources to achieve this as a top priority;

(g)       notes the evidence detailing the disparity in transport spending between the north of England and London and the south east, and believes these transport infrastructure projects are a crucial element in transforming connectivity, productivity and the economy of the north, and further believes that investment in local and regional services alongside national projects such as HS2 are not mutually exclusive; and

(h)       therefore believes that investment in both Transport for the North and HS2 are important in providing the transport infrastructure needed, and will continue to support them.

19.3

On being put to the vote, the amendment was carried.

19.4

It was then formally moved by Councillor Ian Auckland, and formally seconded by Councillor Shaffaq Mohammed, as an amendment, that the Motion now submitted be amended by the deletion of all the words after the words “That this Council” and the addition of the following words:-

(a)       welcomes the recent announcement by the Government to provide a spur line to the HS2 route directly into Sheffield Midland Station;

(b)       believes that HS2 and improving connectivity for Northern cities need not be a case of either/or, and both can and should be welcomed;

(c)        believes that improving connections between northern cities is vitally important to improving prosperity in the North, and HS2 coming to Sheffield city centre, rather than an out-of-town parkway station, is a step in the right direction;

(d)       believes that Sheffield Victoria should still be re-opened and redeveloped to improve capacity and connectivity, particularly to Stockbridge and the North of Sheffield; and

(e)       resolves to send a copy of this motion to Sheffield City Region and the Department of Transport.

19.5

On being put to the vote, the amendment was negatived.

19.6

The original Motion, as amended, was then put as a Substantive Motion in the following form and carried:-

RESOLVED: That this Council:-

(a)       notes that the campaign for a Sheffield city centre HS2 station has been supported in the city by the Council, the local business community, the universities and the Sheffield Star newspaper, due to the overwhelming economic evidence of thousands of additional jobs and billions of additional economic growth created from a city centre, as opposed to a Meadowhall, option;

(b)       believes that changing Sheffield’s HS2 station location to Midland provides a better option for the city than the previous Meadowhall option which would have failed to deliver thousands of much needed additional jobs whilst potentially weakening Sheffield city centre;

(c)        however, recognises that the Government and HS2 Ltd. still need to make commitments for the onward connection from Sheffield to Leeds;

(d)       believes HS2 Ltd. must work with the areas that are most affected by the route change to address the concerns they are raising about the impact that the new route will have on their communities;

(e)       fully agrees that improving connections between northern cities is imperative and welcomes the leadership of the present Administration in working with other northern cities to establish Transport for the North to realise the vision of strongly connected cities across the north of England;

(f)        believes that fundamental to this is securing 30 minute city centre to city centre connectivity between both Sheffield and Leeds, and Sheffield and Manchester, and believes that these key conditional outputs must be met and the Government should provide the resources to achieve this as a top priority;

(g)       notes the evidence detailing the disparity in transport spending between the north of England and London and the south east, and believes these transport infrastructure projects are a crucial element in transforming connectivity, productivity and the economy of the north, and further believes that investment in local and regional services alongside national projects such as HS2 are not mutually exclusive; and

(h)       therefore believes that investment in both Transport for the North and HS2 are important in providing the transport infrastructure needed, and will continue to support them.

19.6.1

(NOTE: Councillors Magid Magid, Douglas Johnson, Robert Murphy and Alison Teal voted for paragraphs (e) and (f), and abstained from voting on paragraphs (a) to (d), (g) and (h) of the Substantive Motion, and asked for this to be recorded.)