Agenda item

 

To consider the presentation regarding the Rotherham Gateway (Mainline & Tram Train) Station.

 

 

Consideration was given to a presentation on Rotherham’s Gateway (Mainline and Tram Train) Station.

 

The Chair issued a welcome to Councillor Taylor, Cabinet Member, Andrew Bramidge, Strategic Director for Regeneration and Environment, Simon Moss, Assistant Director, Planning, Regeneration and Transport, Lucy Mitchell, Regeneration Manager - Investment Zone and Leisure Economy and Nat Porter, Interim Head of Transportation Infrastructure Service.

 

The Cabinet Member introduced the presentation pointing out that in the last forty years the rail connection to Rotherham had been poor.  This needed to be addressed if there were to be any serious aspirations for growth and prosperity within the borough.

 

This Gateway Project would not only provide a new mainline station, but a host of other transport and economic growth solutions.  This was a serious undertaking and there were many hurdles to overcome before the plans became a reality.  However, there was determination to make this happen and most importantly with the support of the Regional Mayor and the Government.

 

Simon Moss was invited to give his presentation which highlighted:-

 

·            What Rotherham’s Gateway Station was.

·            Key Outcomes for the Station.

·            Local Context for the Station.

·            Project Background.

·            Five Current Workstreams:-

 

v   Land Acquisition.

v   Mainline Station and Tram Train Stop Outline Business Case.

v   Masterplan.

v   Business Centre Feasibility Study.

v   Effingham Street Active Travel Feasibility Study completed.

 

·            Station Design.

·            Phase 1: Station Opening 2030/31.

·            Indicative Timeline & Next Steps to Delivery.

·            Waverley Station.

 

The Chair thanked officers for their informative presentation and invited any questions.

 

A discussion and answer session ensued and information was shared on:-

 

The station was an exciting and innovative economic growth project for Rotherham and the support provided by officers was applauded.  It was confirmed that approaches had been made to a number of rail operators and there was interest in various considerations with invitations onto the Steering Group.  One operator also sat on the Board and involved in plans for the station’s development.

 

Questions were also raised around the project if funding was secured, when construction would start, the timeframe and what kind of disruption would local residents face. 

 

Representatives confirmed that indicative timeframes were available, but with any major construction there would be some disruption for those that lived in and around the area.  The extent of what this would involve still remained uncertain.

 

Selection of the location between the two train lines and the anticipated delivery of Bassingthorpe Farm was acknowledged, but further information was sought on whether any realistic consideration had been given as to how people would get into the centre of Rotherham from the station with the constraints of bridges, the canal and river in between.  Was it an expectation that in arriving at the station passengers would continue on the tram into Rotherham Central or catch public transport.

 

Representatives pointed out the importance of the Bassingthorpe Farm development on the station business case, but all considerations formed part of the masterplan work which was ongoing.  However, Effingham Street was to be the main corridor and improvements and challenges were currently being looked at.  The Tram train was only one stop from Rotherham Central giving  a quick and easy access link to the town centre. 

 

Whilst consideration would need to be given to abnormal loads  it was far too early to consider a more complete level of detail.  Officers were aware of bridges and this would be incorporated into the construction phase plan with detail reflective within the business case.

 

In questioning officers it was pointed out that access was only available where the two bridges were.  No abnormal loads could be accessed via Parkgate.  The plans were welcomed, but some attention needed to be given to the detail fairly quickly.

 

Representatives confirmed access was available from Greasbrough via a non-bridge route.  This would be considered in due course. 

 

Further questioning continued with reference made to Effingham Street into the town centre and whether this formed part of the full business case or was separate.

 

Representatives confirmed the Effingham Street Corridor was a separate consideration and would form part of wider programme of measures.  Funding was focused around the station itself and the land immediately surrounding.  All other considerations would be subject to other funding arrangements.

 

The plans were welcomed, but clarification as sought on the map that had been provided and the rail network.  Would anyone travelling to London be able to travel direct from Rotherham or would the connection remain as via Doncaster.

 

Representatives confirmed the route to London would remain the best via Doncaster.  However, journey times from the new Rotherham Station would improve journey times to Leeds, York and Birmingham.

 

Representatives confirmed that discussions on routes were ongoing, but there were more opportunities that would need to be procured with operators.

 

During the course of further questioning it was pointed out that historically Rotherham was served by Masbrough Station which was a much more capable of receiving high speed rail with four platform links.  Due to the distance from the town centre rail services moved to Rotherham Central.  Had consideration been given to utilising again the prime facilities at Masbrough rather than the site earmarked at Parkgate.  Masbrough Station would help regenerate the town centre and had Bassingthorpe Farm on its southern end making it closer than Parkgate.  What proof was available to confirm the site at Parkgate would improve regeneration in the town centre and be more commercially viable in terms of land purchase.

 

Representatives confirmed a significant piece of work had been undertaken as part of the strategic outline business case to look at various options for siting of the station.  Masbrough had been one of the options and discussions had taken place about future locations, how they could accommodate live and overhead wires without changing structures. 

 

Discussion ensued on overhead structures on Coronation Bridge, the hub station, old goods line and the length of the train platforms.  Constraints did exist in this area in achieving a vertical line under the bridges.

 

Whilst this was a positive move there remained some concern about the Parkgate location and how its location served communities in the southern part of the borough, like Maltby who were missing out.   It would appear Maltby had been discounted at an early stage due to the junction at Hellaby being heavily burdened.  There were no public bus service connecting to Parkgate.  It was disappointing that no consideration had been given to economic growth, population.  A rail transport network would have been excellent.

 

Representatives again pointed out that this was due to the competitive nature of funding for the station.  Business cases were difficult to generate and identify benefits which was why consideration had been given to the central area of Rotherham and how this linked with the existing infrastructure shown on the map on the Sheffield/Rotherham corridor.  Connectivity further away from the large urban area was more difficult, but it remained the aim to improve the functionality of the Tram train in the borough. 

 

Maltby did benefit from the X1 bus services and the wider choices for onward connections within the town centre.  It was pointed out that this project looked at opportunities for stations on existing mainline and all constraints/options were taken into consideration.

 

In terms of location choice careful consideration had also been given to accessibility and catchment, areas connected and the communities that would be served.

 

Further questions were asked about funding for the outline business case and how likely would funding be secured for the station, land acquisition and if there was a financial impact or risk to the Council.  It was noted the Effingham Street Corridor would form part of a separate business case, but would this be funded by the Council and how would this link in with the Forge Island Masterplan.

 

Representatives confirmed funding would be in three stages.   Funding for the outline had been secured and spent.  The second stage was for the business case.  A separate bid had been made to Government in conversation with regional partners.  Dialogue was ongoing with the DfT with regards to funding in the fullness of time and they were well versed with the rail and growth benefits.

 

Acquisitions would be funded by the Towns Programme and  officers were confident there would be no exposure of the Council to undue risk.

 

Other funding streams would need to be identified for the Effingham Street Corridor.  Forge Island had now established strong links with the town centre and the Tram train was key along with Rotherham Central outside Forge Island.

 

It was highlighted that this project had been identified as one of the top two for the projects in South Yorkshire - the other being airport  on the Sheffield to Rotherham economic corridor.  SYMCA had submitted a bid to Government and Rotherham’s mainline station had been identified as number one project in that submission and be of value to the region.

 

Further information was sought on indicative costs and it was pointed out the outline business case reflected network rail cost plans and risk factors  with contingencies built in.  This was around £100 million for the station and the Tram train on top.  The full business case delved into the design and costs should be significantly pulled back at construction stage.

 

A full assessment of benefits to costs ratio was a fundamental part of the business case and the benefits did outweigh the costs.  It was suggested the Benefit to Cost Ratio be confirmed following the meeting.

 

Further question ensued about what transport improvements were there to connect the AMP at Waverley.

 

It was pointed out that Waverley had been successful.  The AMP was a challenge connecting to the wider public transport network  so the aspiration for a new station was an early addition and officers were keen to address and achieve the connectivity that Waverley could provide.  Ward Members would be kept informed of any progress and work was ongoing with SYMCA to get an outline business case submitted.

 

It was noted that dialogue was ongoing with the  Rotherham Town Board for potential freight traffic.  Freight was not one of the main drivers for the project and would need to be considered by operators for freight delivery.

 

Further questions were asked about the land purchases and if this was at cost to the taxpayer.  It was pointed out that there would be no cost to the taxpayer.  Currently the land was occupied by a number of units which the business property team were reviewing.  Potentially these properties could become a potential income stream. 

 

On there being no further questions the Chair thanked officers for their very informative presentation and responses.

 

Resolved:-  (1)  That the contents of the presentation be received and the contents noted.

 

(2)  That the Benefit to Cost Ratio be confirmed.

 

(3)  That the Full business case include consideration of the likely impacts of construction and be presented to IPSC when available.