Links Between Planning and Economic Performance: Evidence ...
John Brooks - Planning Policy - Proof of Evidence€¦ · 1.8 My evidence focuses on the planning...
Transcript of John Brooks - Planning Policy - Proof of Evidence€¦ · 1.8 My evidence focuses on the planning...
HBC/3/1P
THE MERSEY GATEWAY PROJECT
(MERSEY GATEWAY BRIDGE)
PLANNING POLICY
PROOF OF EVIDENCE OF
John Brooks
www.gvagrimley.co.uk
Skeleton Proof of Evidence Contents
January 2009
This proof of evidence relates to the implications of the following applications and
proposed orders:
1. Planning Application for
full planning permission
for works lying within
Runcorn comprising
improvements to the
Central Expressway,
Weston Link, the Weston
Point Expressway and
Junction 12 of the M56
motorway, dated 31
March 2008
2. Planning Application for
full planning permission
for works lying within
Widnes comprising
modifications of the
northern approaches to
the Silver Jubilee Bridge,
dated 31 March 2008
3. Listed Building Consent
Application for
modifications to the
carriageway of the Silver
Jubilee Bridge, dated 31
March 2008
4. The River Mersey (Mersey
Gateway Bridge) Order
(application under section
6 of the Transport and
Appeal reference:
APP/D0650/V/08/1203385/2095113
APP/D0650/V/1203384/2095069
APP/D0650/V/08/1203386/2095114
TWA/08/APP/05
Appeal
ref:
Skeleton Proof of Evidence Contents
January 2009
Works Act 1992 to the
Secretary of State for
Transport for an order
under section 3(1)(b) of
that Act)
5. The A533 (Silver Jubilee
Bridge) Road User
Charging Scheme Order
2008
6. The Halton Borough
Council (Mersey Gateway
- Queensway) Compulsory
Purchase Order 2008
7. The Halton Borough
Council (Mersey Gateway
- Central Expressway)
Compulsory Purchase
Order 2008
8. The Halton Borough
Council (A533 Central
Expressway) Side Roads
Order 2008
9. The Halton Borough
Council (A533
Queensway) Side Roads
Order 2008
Skeleton Proof of Evidence Contents
January 2009
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................1
2. BACKGROUND DETAIL.......................................................................5
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION...................................................................23
4. PLANNING POLICY ..........................................................................29
5. PLANNING APPRAISAL EXERCISE ...................................................60
6. DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUPPORT FOR THE MERSEY GATEWAY
PROJECT..........................................................................................62
7. PLANNING BENEFITS ......................................................................80
8. OTHER DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES............................................90
9. ASSESSMENT AGAINST SECRETARY OF STATE ISSUES RAISED .....116
10. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................... 137
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 1
1. INTRODUCTION
Qualifications and Experience
1.1 My name is John Michael Brooks. I am a chartered Town Planner with a
Bachelor of Arts with Honours in Town and Country Planning and I am a
member of the Royal Town Planning Institute.
1.2 I am a Director in the Planning, Development and Regeneration (PDR)
team of GVA Grimley Limited, based in the firms Manchester office. GVA
is a national leading multi disciplinary property consultancy, with UK
offices in Birmingham, London, Leeds, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dublin,
Newcastle and Cardiff, as well as an extensive network of international
affiliated offices.
1.3 The national GVA Grimley PDR team has over 150 chartered professionals
with a presence in London and each of the regions. The Manchester team
numbers over 30 professionals and is one of the largest in the north west.
As a team we act on behalf of a wide variety of clients ranging from public
sector organisations through to large private developers and major public
limited companies. We are experienced in the field of planning and
regeneration consultancy, undertaking a wide range of tasks including
development appraisals, development plan representations, development
planning, applications, appeals, involvement with RSS and LDF’s,
masterplanning, environmental assessments, economic strategies, urban
regeneration and compulsory purchase.
1.4 I have over 19 years post qualification experience, initially within the
public sector but primarily within private consultancy. Over the course of
my career I have acted on behalf of a wide range of clients in relation to
retail, residential, commercial, leisure and infrastructure projects.
Alongside a general practice role my particular expertise has been in
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 2
respect of promoting major development proposals through the statutory
planning and policy process. I have acted on behalf of clients within
planning inquiries, in respect of CPO proceedings, and have appeared at
RSS Examination in Public and at LDF/AAP proceedings. I have also given
evidence in respect of land compensation matters.
Involvement in the Mersey Gateway Project
1.5 My involvement with the Mersey Gateway Project (the Project) dates from
November 2007 when GVA Grimley were retained by Halton Council to
provide planning, regeneration, development and CPO advice to the
project team. My particular role within this wider GVA instruction was in
respect of the planning elements of the brief, in particular the preparation
of the planning related documentation which supported the planning and
listed building applications and which informed the submission under the
Transport and Works Act. This specifically included:
1. Preparation of the Planning Policy chapter and input into the Land
Use chapter of the Environmental Statement, setting out the full
planning policy framework, assessing the proposal again that
framework and concluding on impact both pre and post mitigation.
2. Preparation of the Planning Statement which, alongside setting out
the background detail to the Project, undertook an appraisal of the
Project against the development plan policy framework, conducted a
planning balance exercise and concluded on the appropriateness of a
grant of planning permission.
3. Preparation of the Statement of Community Involvement, which
drew together the detail of consultation undertaken with landowners,
stakeholders, statutory undertakers, third parties and the general
public over the period 2002- 2008.
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 3
4. Fulfilling the planning agent role for the two planning applications and
the listed building submission, co-ordinating the overall submission and
liaising between the wider project team and Halton Council.
1.6 The Planning Statement and the Environmental Statement formed part of
the planning and listed building application submissions for both the
remote highway works and the submission under the Transport and Works
Act (i.e. the overall Project).
1.7 Given this background I am familiar with both the detail of the Project
proposals and the overall planning and wider legislative approach that has
been adopted.
Scope of Evidence
1.8 My evidence focuses on the planning related elements of the Project under
consideration, namely an appraisal of the scheme against the policy
framework and a conclusion on planning balance.
1.9 To inform this exercise my evidence undertakes the following:
1. It sets out the development plan policy framework and examines the
extent to which the proposal is supported by the provisions of the
development plan.
2. It examines whether the proposal is in conflict with any part of the
development plan and makes an assessment of harm arising from any
such conflict, cross referring to the wider body of technical evidence
submitted in support of the Project as appropriate.
3. It sets out the material benefits arising from the proposal and which
are to be weighed in any assessment process.
1.10 On this basis my evidence sets out my conclusions on the planning
balance, within which I assess compliance against harm before going on to
assess benefits. This assessment framework allows for my evidence to
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 4
reach a conclusion in respect of planning suitability and the
appropriateness of a grant of planning permission. I also draw from my
evidence and that of others to conclude firstly on each of the issues raised
by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government in the
correspondence from GONW of 30th September 2008 and secondly on
those particular matters identified by the Secretary of State for Transport
(in correspondence from the Department of Transport dated 20 February
20098) which relate to issues of planning policy.
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 5
2. BACKGROUND DETAIL
2.1 Halton Council is promoting a new road crossing of the River Mersey
between Runcorn and Widnes along with associated works which will allow
for the new crossing to be incorporated into the existing principal road
network. The primary aim of the Project works, as set out within policy
S14 of the UDP, is to relieve capacity constraints on the existing Silver
Jubilee Bridge (SJB) as part of an integrated transport system for Halton
and the wider regional transport network. Halton Council have
subsequently defined seven objectives for the Project as follows:
1. To relieve the congested SJB, thereby removing the constraint on local
and regional development and better provide for local transport needs;
2. To apply minimum toll and road user charges to both the Mersey
Gateway Bridge and the Silver Jubilee Bridge consistent with the level
required to satisfy the affordability constraints;
3. To improve accessibility in order to maximise local development and
regional economic growth opportunities;
4. To improve local air quality and enhance the general urban
environment;
5. To improve public transport links across the River Mersey;
6. To encourage the increased use of cycling and walking; and
7. To restore effective network resilience for transport across the River
Mersey.
Each would build on the primary UDP aim and ensure the delivery of wide
ranging benefit to both the town and sub-region.
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 6
2.2 The following section of my evidence sets out the background detail and
context to the Project and its evolution from inception through to the
current position.
1. Halton Borough context
2.3 The Project works lie wholly within the Borough of Halton within north
west England. The Borough is broadly split in two by the Mersey Estuary,
with the main towns of Widnes lying to north of the river and Runcorn to
the south. As a whole the Borough has a population in the order of
134,000, with 55,000 in Widnes, 59,000 in Runcorn and the balance in the
rural parishes.
2.4 Runcorn is the older of the two settlements; its modern growth can be
traced to the opening of the Bridgewater Canal in 1776, when improved
transportation provided the economic stimulus for industrial development
and maritime trade. Its subsequent growth was assisted by its location at
the terminus of five canals (St Helens Canal, Sankey Navigation, the
Bridgewater Canal, the Weaver Navigation, the Runcorn to Latchford Canal
and the Manchester Ship Canal), and the development of the chemical
industry based on the ready supply of water and transport. Other
industries developed, including soap manufacture and shipbuilding. Over
the course of the 20th century this growth continued, boosted by its
designation as a new town in 1964 and its subsequent accelerated growth
to its current population.
2.5 The new town designation defines much of Runcorn’s present day
character. It resulted in significant development on the land to the south
and east of the old town, mainly taking the form of patterned clusters of
higher density residential districts. These are set within a network of
expressways and bus lanes, which segregate the main traffic flows and
provide links between the individual neighbourhoods. The commercial
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 7
centre takes the form of Halton Lea, a purpose built shopping and
municipal centre.
2.6 Widnes is a more recent settlement with its growth linked directly to the
rapid industrial development associated with the chemical industry over
the course of the 19th century. The most notable negative effect of the
rapid industrialisation of the area was the large amount of waste
produced, particularly by the chemical industry. The town expanded from
its core of high density terraced housing surrounding a compact town
centre, absorbing the surrounding villages and growing to a current
population of 55,000.
2.7 Both settlements betray this industrial legacy and support a significant
chemical, manufacturing and heavy industry sector. The majority of this
is located close to the Mersey Estuary on both the northern and southern
sides.
2.8 The Social Impact Assessment undertaken as part of the Environmental
Assessment and the subsequent work undertaken as part of the Health
Impact Assessment and in the evidence of particularly Dr Twigger-Ross
and Mr Russell together summarise the current social and economic
context of Halton Borough and the wider sub region, and the detailed
performance of the Borough against key social and deprivation indices.
2.9 In overall terms the evidence demonstrates that Halton suffers significant
levels of deprivation, with an overall ranking of 39th out of 354 Boroughs
in England in 2007 on the Indices of Multiple Deprivation, where 1st is the
most deprived. This average IMD ranking represents an improvement
from the 2004 ranking of 21st most deprived and reflects some local
regeneration derived benefits. The improvement is modest however and
as the evidence of Mr Graham Russell HBC/9/1P and Dr Clare Twigger-
Ross HBC/10/1P shows the indices identify areas of real concern in both
economic and social terms with regards to economic matters. The key
economic based findings show:
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 8
1. Employment rates and job densities (ratio of total jobs to working
age population) in Halton are lower than both the north west and the
UK as a whole;
2. A lower proportion of employment in higher order occupations, with a
rate of 33.0% of all employees, compared to 40% for the region and
42.9% nationally;
3. Higher levels of persons obtaining no educational or vocational
qualifications;
4. Claimant count rates above both regional and national averages.
2.10 With regards to social and health criteria the evidence of Dr Twigger-Ross
and particularly the findings of the Community Profile exercise included at
Annex B of the Health Impact Assessment identify a generally poor
performance against key indicators, showing:
1. Higher levels of long term health problems ahead of national and
regional averages;
2. Higher mortality rates with significantly reduced life expectancy for
both males and females alike compared to national and regional
averages;
3. Lower levels of car ownership, lower rates of house ownership,
poorer housing standards all when compared regionally and
nationally.
2.11 The majority of the worst performing wards in terms of both economic and
social and health criteria are located close the SJB and the general
alignment of the Project works.
2. Physical Character
2.12 The landscape character of the two settlements within Halton is markedly
different; Widnes is a low lying town occupying a broad tract of land which
slopes gently from the north towards the Mersey. Runcorn however
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 9
occupies higher ground with the north facing slopes of the margins of the
Mersey rising steeply to form a ridge which runs parallel with the Estuary
culminating in a series of natural sandstone outcrops, the most prominent
of which is occupied by Halton Castle.
2.13 The two towns lie either side of a natural narrowing of the Mersey Estuary
known as The Runcorn Gap. This feature forms the historical focus of both
towns with Widnes West Bank on the north shore and Runcorn Old Town
on the south side of the River . The Runcorn Gap is a long standing
strategic crossing point of the Mersey with records suggesting that it has
fulfilled such a role since Roman times when crossing by boat and on foot
at low tide would have been undertaken. There is clear documentary
evidence of use from the Medieval period onwards, when the scale of
movement of goods and people necessitated the establishment of a ferry,
with earliest records dating from 1190. The Runcorn Gap was first
permanently bridged in 1868 by the Aethelfleda Railway Bridge, a Grade
2* listed structure that remains in use today, carrying mainline railway
services between Chester and Liverpool and the wider railway network. In
1905 the first road crossing, a structure known as the Transporter Bridge,
was opened which in turn was replaced in 1961 by the current Silver
Jubilee road bridge, itself now a Grade 2 listed building.
2.14 The Runcorn Gap marks the broad division between the Middle and Upper
Estuary. Although ecological designations under European Directives have
been made downstream, the Upper Estuary enjoys no designation. The
New Bridge will span the Upper Estuary some 1.8 km east of the Silver
Jubilee Bridge.
3. Silver Jubilee Bridge
2.15 The SJB today represents a key vehicular crossing point over the Mersey.
It is one of only four main opportunities for road traffic to cross the
Mersey between Liverpool and Manchester. From west to east these
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 10
comprise the two Mersey tunnels, the SJB, the crossings within Warrington
town centre and the Thelwall Viaduct on the M6. As such the SJB forms a
key link in the regional transport network as well as representing the only
vehicular and pedestrian link between the Borough towns of Runcorn and
Widnes.
2.16 The SJB was originally opened in 1961 with one lane in each direction and
an opening year traffic flow of 10,000 vehicles per day. The bridge was
modified in 1977 to provide for two lanes in each direction. However,
these are considered as sub standard (having a total width of just 12.2 m)
and lack any central divide or compliance with current day spacing. As is
set out in the evidence of Mr Pauling HBC/8/1P, traffic volume on the
bridge has since grown but there is no physical scope to provide for
additional capacity. The traffic and flow information provided by Alan
Pauling suggests that the SJB today typically carries in excess of 80,000
vehicles per day and at peak times flows are greater. A figure of 91,000
vehicles per day was recorded in 2007. Practical capacity is exceeded for
4 hours each day and spreading of the morning and evening peak
regularly occurs. The bridge has poor facilities for pedestrians, which are
rarely used, and no discrete provision for cyclists. Prolonged periods of
congestion regularly occur, which affect both regional and local traffic
crossing the river as well as causing knock on network effects for local
traffic in both Widnes and Runcorn. In addition the public transport routes
that do use the bridge for inter town journeys cannot rely on either
providing consistent journey times or maintaining timetable targets.
2.17 Silver Jubilee Bridge fulfils a pivotal role within the regional highway
network. The main elements of the regional highway network comprise
the M62 (linking Merseyside to Manchester and beyond) which runs along
the north of the Borough and the M56 (linking North Wales with
Manchester) which skirts along the southern Borough boundary. The only
link between the two is the route provided by SJB, which provides for the
north south regional movement in and out of Liverpool from Runcorn, Vale
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 11
Royal, Chester and North Wales. The wider highway network has sought
to recognise this key function, with the expressway network in Runcorn
providing fast links from junctions 11 and 12 of the M56 via SJB to
junction 7 of the M62 via the Widnes Eastern bypass. The transport
assessment undertaken as part of the Project however has found that the
main limit to capacity within this network is the constraint provided by SJB
rather than by aims of the remote the accompanying junction links and
highway network.
2.18 Whilst the wider regional network is reasonably robust therefore, the
bottleneck provided by SJB undermines network resilience; whilst the
regular congestion associated with normal use presents a daily constraint,
the effects of any incident (accident, breakdown, weather related
maintenance, etc) on either SJB or its approaches directly undermines the
role of the bridge as a key link in the wider network.
4. Mersey Gateway Project
2.19 The detailed history of the Project and the key stages of its evolution is set
out primarily within the evidence of Mr Steven Nicholson HBC/2/1P. A
summary for the purposes of providing a context to my evidence is set out
below.
2.20 The provision of a second road crossing of the river Mersey has been a
long held aspiration of both Halton Council and its predecessor highway
authority, Cheshire County Council who identified the traffic bottleneck
caused by SJB as a long acknowledged social and economic constraint.
The Department of Transport undertook the Mersey Crossing Study in
1991 to review the need and preferred location for a second crossing.
This led to the establishment of the Mersey Crossing Group which in 1997
considered a series of options leading through to further assessment in
1999. It was at this time that the initial draft of the UDP identified that
the case for a new crossing had been acknowledged by the then Minister
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 12
for Transport, making clear the need to develop a scheme for inclusion in
the Local Transport Plan.
2.21 Halton Council subsequently began to advance the proposals. The work
undertaken by and on behalf of the Council between 2000 and 2003
focused on comparing potential alternatives to address problems
associated with congestion in Halton. This work was submitted first to the
DfT in 2003 and then resubmitted, accompanied by additional data in
early in 2004. Through this process, certain regional and local objectives
were identified as follows:
1. To relieve the SJB, thereby removing the constraint on local and
regional development and better provide for local traffic;
2. To maximise development opportunities;
3. To improve public transport links across the River; and
4. To encourage the increased use of cycling and walking.
2.22 Halton Council required any scheme proposal to fulfil as many of the
above objectives as possible, to fit its environment and to be economically
viable. Throughout the process a range of alternatives were considered.
Those alternatives which satisfied the above objectives, fitted their
environment and were economically viable were then considered further
until a preferred solution was identified.
2.23 A number of crossing alternatives with the potential to solve congestion
problems in Halton and potentially achieve the Councils objectives as set
out above were considered through this stage of the Project. These
included making better use of existing infrastructure and options for
increasing transport capacity. The main areas of investigation were as
follows:
1. Halton Travel Plans and similar demand management initiatives;
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 13
2. Road user charging for using the existing Silver Jubilee Bridge or
Other Roads;
3. Dynamic Lane Management to get the best out of the existing road
capacity;
4. Selective Access to SJB by Vehicle Tagging;
5. Road Space Reallocation;
6. Park and Ride Facilities
7. Rail Service Improvement
8. New road bridge crossing to the West of the Railway Bridge
9. New road bridge crossing between the SJB and the railway bridge
10. New road tunnels to the west and east of the SJB
11. New road bridge crossing (adjacent to and to the east of the SJB)
2.24 As the evidence provided by Mr Nicholson explains, a full assessment of
each strategic alternative was undertaken as part of the Project process.
The assessment process concluded that a fixed crossing to the east of the
SJB represented the only realistic option of delivering improvements in
congestion and achieving the identified scheme objectives.
2.25 A series of alternative fixed routes were then considered to the east of the
SJB all of which avoided the more environmentally sensitive lower reaches
of the Estuary. This concluded that an option known as ‘route 3A’
corresponded with the desire line for through traffic and was capable of
connecting effectively with the expressway network to the north and south
of the river. As a result, it achieved the highest proportion of trip
reassignment from the SJB when compared with other routes and
therefore best delivered the strategic and local traffic diversion required,
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 14
removing traffic from the SJB and permitting its return to local use. The
route 3A alignment also had relatively straightforward junction solutions in
comparison to other variations of the route and minimises impact upon
industrial areas and the existing highway network. In addition, as far as it
is able, it avoids the more sensitive environmental areas.
2.26 The discussions with the Department of Transport, leading up to
Programme Entry confirmation being granted in March 2006, covered
options to fund the project. It was confirmed that Mersey Gateway Project
should be delivered as a tolled road, where the road user charging regime
would also extend to the existing SJB in order to deliver the project
benefits within the grant and PFI funding limits agreed with Government.
The background to the tolling and funding arrangements is set out within
the evidence of Mr Nicholson HBC/2/1P and Mr David Parr HBC/1/1P.
2.27 In developing the project, and as an expression of their ongoing corporate
support for the project, Halton Council has identified strategic objectives
for the Mersey Gateway Project as follows.
1. To relieve the congested Silver Jubilee Bridge, thereby removing the
constraint on local and regional development and better provide for
local transport needs.
2. To apply minimum toll and road user charges to both the Mersey
Gateway Bridge and the Silver Jubilee Bridge consistent with the
level required to satisfy these constraints;
3. To improve accessibility in order to maximise local development and
regional economic growth opportunities;
4. To improve local air quality and enhance the general urban
environment;
5. To improve public transport links across the River Mersey;
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 15
6. To encourage the increased use of cycling and walking; and
7. To restore effective network resilience for transport across the River
Mersey.
2.28 The adopted vision for the Project is that it will be ‘more than just
a Bridge,’ reference in that as well as providing much needed relief
for the existing Silver Jubilee Bridge, it will deliver a transport
solution which also provides a catalyst for economic change at a
local and sub-regional level through both the accessibility benefits
that it delivers and the actual physical townscape improvements
that it facilitates. There is every expectation that the Project will
come to be regarded as an iconic structure, closely associated with
the towns of Widnes and Runcorn and capable of fulfilling a role as
an object of civic and regional pride.
5. Consultation
2.29 The Project has been the subject of extensive consultation stretching over
a six-year period involving statutory consultees, business stakeholders,
landowners, and resident focus groups. The consultation splits into two
main stages:
1. Consultation carried out prior to the Department for Transport
confirmation of programme entry for the Project in March 2006
(advised on and managed by MVA Consultancy); and
2. Consultation after approval by the Mersey Gateway Executive Board
on 18th June 2007 for 14 weeks between June and September 2007
(advised on and managed by DTW Consultancy) in line with a
Consultation Strategy developed specifically for the Project.
2.30 The key stages of each included the following:
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 16
1. September-October 2002 - first consultation took place on crossing
options in the form of focus group discussions with residents;
2. February 2003 – assessment of route options with Resident Focus
Groups and Business and Stakeholder workshops;
3. July 2004 – following the selection of a preferred route, further
consultation was undertaken with residents, major businesses, and
25 local authorities;
4. October 2006 – following the initial design of the Project in March
2006, all affected landowners were contacted, advising of the
possible impacts of the Project on their landholdings; and
5. June-September 2007 – extensive public consultation was
undertaken including 15 exhibitions throughout the Borough,
editorial in Council publications, a new website, information
campaign in local media, monthly e-newsletter, briefing events for
local/regional businesses and groups, gateway newsletter,
postal/phone/text feedback system and letters to general
stakeholders, statutory consultees and regional MP’s and MEP’s.
2.31 The programme of stakeholder and public consultation undertaken as part
of the Project drew out a number of consultee responses both in support
of and opposition to the scheme. Generally, the Project was well received
by stakeholders and the local community alike, in recognition of the
benefits that the Mersey Gateway could deliver. The main concerns
expressed by respondents centred around the tolling of the New Bridge,
the use of the Silver Jubilee Bridge after the opening of the Project, the
traffic impacts upon the Central Expressway, the impact on existing
commercial operators; and environmental impacts.
2.32 The design development of the Project has been influenced by consultee
responses following each phase of consultation. As far as possible, the
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 17
design of the New Bridge and the wider works has had regard to the broad
comments raised by stakeholders and consultees. This has focused largely
on three key areas, as set out below:
a. Design of the new bridge
2.33 The aesthetic appeal of the new bridge was an important consideration
during the design development process. The Project is designed having
regard to its local context and its inter-relationship with neighbouring
uses. The use of materials, colour and lighting aim to ensure that the new
bridge is considered as a modern iconic structure of architectural merit,
set alongside the SJB and Aethelfleda railway bridge.
b. Preferred Route
2.34 The alignment of the Project has sought to minimise likely visual impacts
upon the Grade II listed SJB, and the Grade II* listed Aethelfleda Railway
Bridge crossing the Mersey Estuary at the Runcorn Gap, and upon existing
residential settlements. Its location will allow for the New Bridge to itself
be considered as an ‘iconic’ structure within the setting of the Mersey
Estuary, maximising links to the existing strategic road network including
M56 J12 and the A562 Speke Road.
c. Environmental Impacts
2.35 The setting of the Project has raised concern amongst some consultees
regarding potential impacts arising on existing biodiversity and wildlife
habitats. Other sources of environmental concern include possible noise
and air pollution from the movement of vehicles across the New Bridge
and approach roads.
2.36 Measures to minimise environmental impacts have been incorporated
within the Project, and these are set out in detail in the ES. Indeed the
alignment of the New Bridge so as to avoid the Middle Mersey Estuary,
(designated as a European Site, SPA, SSSI and Ramsar site) is in
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 18
recognition of its conservation value. The ES has demonstrated that the
Project will not affect the integrity and biodiversity of the Middle Mersey
Estuary SPA.
6. Planning Application Submissions
2.37 Following agreement of the fixed crossing and route alignment, and
achievement of programme entry and funding confirmation in 2006, the
process of securing planning permission for the proposals unfolded over
the course of 2007, culminating in a suite of planning submissions as
follows:
1. A planning application seeking full planning permission for works lying
within Runcorn, comprising improvements to the Central Expressway,
Weston Link, Weston Point Expressway and M56 junction 12. (CD2)
2. A planning application seeking full planning permission for works lying
within Widnes comprising modifications to the northern approaches to
the New Bridge and the SJB. (CD1)
3. An application for Listed Building Consent in respect of the proposed
works to SJB. (CD4)
2.38 Each of these submissions was lodged with Halton Council on 31st March
2008 and were described as comprising the ‘remote works’.
2.39 Planning permission for the new bridge span across the Mersey and the
balance of the road and junction works within Widnes (known as the TWA
works) was sought via a submission under the Transport and Works Act
within which there was a request for a direction that deemed planning
permission be granted by the Secretary of State. This submission was
made to the TWA Unit in May 2008.
2.40 After submission Halton Council appointed third party consultants to both
administer the application and to independently assess the technical
submissions made as part of the Environmental Statement. This process
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 19
of assessment ran from April through to July, allowing for the applications
to be presented to a special meeting of the Halton Development Control
Committee on 28th July 2008. In each instance the officer
recommendation was one of approval as attached at Appendix 1, and the
Committee resolved as follows:
a) That the application for Listed Building Consent:
“should be referred to the Secretary of State with a
recommendation that the Secretary of State approves the
application subject to conditions (as stated)”.
b) That in respect of the two planning applications:
“that both planning applications be referred to the Secretary of
State with a recommendation that they be called in and approved
subject to the following conditions (listed)”
c) That in respect of the submission under the TWA (for which Halton
were only a consultee rather than decision maker)
“Halton Borough Council having regard to all the observations made
and all the issues raised has no objection to the application subject
to the conditions accompanying the submission and the suggested
changes or additions detailed below (listed)”
2.41 The appropriate referrals were made by Halton Council shortly after the
resolution was taken.
2.42 The Government Office for the North West responded by letter of 30th
September 2008 confirming that the Secretary of State for Communities
and Local Government intended to call in the two planning applications on
the basis that they are considered to be of more than local importance,
and to ensure that they are properly considered alongside the other
applications relating to the Project. The letter confirms that the matters
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 20
on which the Secretary of State particularly wishes to be informed about
for the purposes of her consideration of the applications are as follows:
1. Whether the proposed development accords with the development
plan for the area (in this instance the emerging replacement RSS for
the North West and Halton Unitary Development plan), having regard
to the provisions of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory
Purchase Act 2004;
2. Whether the applications accord with the provisions of Planning Policy
Statement 1: delivering Sustainable Development and whether it
would accord with the Key Planning Objectives set out in PPS1
Supplement: Planning and Climate Change;
3. The extent to which the proposed development is consistent with
Government policies in PPG2: Green Belts, especially whether the
development is considered appropriate under the provisions of PPG2;
4. The extent to which the proposed development is consistent with
Government policies in PPG17: Open Space, with particular regard to
the loss of greenspace;
5. Whether the applications have fully taken into consideration the
requirements of PPS9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation,
especially given the nature and extent of land identified and
protected under local designations, and whether the applications
accord with PPS10: Waste;
6. Whether the applications accord with PPG13: Transport. In
particular, whether they promote more sustainable transport choices
and reduce the need to travel by private transport;
7. Whether the applications will have a significant impact on features or
archaeological and heritage importance, listed buildings and
conservation areas in relation to the provisions of PPG15: Planning
and the historic Environment and PPG16: Archaeology and Planning;
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 21
8. Whether the applications have fully taken into consideration the
requirements of PPS23: Pollution and PPG24: Noise, with particular
regard to the reduction in air quality and the impact of noise and
vibration;
9. Whether any permission or consent which may be granted should be
subject to any conditions and, if so, the form they should take;
2.43 My evidence at Section 9 considers and concludes on each of these
specific matters.
2.44 In addition to the matters raised by the Secretary of State for
Communities and Local Government, a further Statement of Matters was
issued by the Secretary of State for Transport in correspondence dated
20th February 2009 CD 320. The matters raised cover a range of topics
but those which refer to matters of planning and planning policy comprise
the following:
2(a) the extent of which they are consistent with national, regional and
local planning, transport and environmental policies.
3(g) the extent to which the proposed development is consistent with
Government policies in PPG2; Green Belts, especially whether the
development is considered appropriate under the provision of PPG2 and, if
not, whether there are any very special circumstances sufficient to
overcome the presumption against such development.
3(h) the extent to which the proposed development is consistent with
Government policies in PPG17, Open Space, in particular reference to the
loss of greenspace and the Councils proposals for replacing any open
space to be compulsorily required for the purposes of the project.
8 the conditions proposed to be attached to the deemed planning
permission for the development provided for in the draft TWA Order, if
given, and in particular whether those conditions meet the tests of DOE
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 22
Circular 11/95 of being necessary, relevant, enforceable, precise and
reasonable.
2.45 My evidence considers and concludes on each of these matters. The
balance of the matters raised are addressed in the evidence of others as
appropriate to their individual disciplines.
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 23
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 The Project as a whole runs from Speke Road in Widnes, passing
eastwards through Ditton Junction before spanning the Garston-Timperley
freight line, the St Helens Canal, the Mersey Estuary, and Astmoor in
Runcorn; it then links with Central Expressway and runs through to
junction 12 of the M56. The Project also includes the de-linking of Silver
Jubilee Bridge in Widnes through the removal by excavation of the
embankment and viaduct link to the Widnes eastern bypass. In addition,
the reduction in the level of use of SJB after the opening of the New
Bridge allows for a rearrangement of the carriageway configuration over
SJB to provide new pedestrian and cycling facilities. Tolling arrangements
are currently proposed utilising barrier tolling methodology (toll plazas and
toll booths) for both SJB and the proposed New Bridge and are
incorporated in the design of the Project.
3.2 Full technical details of the proposed works at each section of the Project
are described in the original application papers and are shown on the
accompanying plans. The works are also described in full detail in the
evidence of Mr Mike Jones HBC/5/1P. For the purposes of my evidence
therefore I set out below only a brief description of the Project, adopting
for consistency the project sub division headings utilised elsewhere but
focusing in particular on the planning policy status and land use context of
the land take of the Project works.
Area A: Main Toll Plaza
3.3 The western extent of the main alignment of the Project is the Ditton
roundabout. From there it follows the line of Speke Road before widening
out along the southern edge of the highway to provide the area required
for the tolling infrastructure. In doing so it incorporates land currently
occupied by the disused St Michael Jubilee Golf Course which is shown
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 24
within the Halton UDP Proposals Map as washed over by a Greenspace
allocation (Policy GE6).
Area B: Ditton Junction to Freight Line
3.4 The alignment runs eastwards from the tolling plaza to connect with an
upgraded Ditton junction arrangement (signal controlled and grade
separated) which largely occupies existing highway land. At this point the
route begins to rise, supported by an embankment rising to a maximum
height of 9m as it runs through to the existing Garston-Timperley freight
line. The construction of the carriageway and associated embankment
would take up land occupied by old industrial buildings and a scrap metal
yard. This whole section is identified within the UDP as a Regeneration
Action Area (Policy RG1 and RG2).
Area C: Freight Line to St. Helens Canal
3.5 From the freight line the carriageway extends south eastwards to the St
Helens Canal, initially on embankment but spanning the freight line,
Victoria Road and the new Widnes loops junction arrangement by means
of single and multi-span bridge arrangements. The works will result in the
loss of some existing premises, the land taken is mainly in existing
industrial use. In policy terms Area C sits wholly within the Southern
Widnes Regeneration Area designation (Policy RG1) and encapsulates a
small area of greenspace designation (GE6).
3.6 The alignment would be carried over the St Helens Canal on a three span
structure, running into the North Abutment of the main Mersey Gateway
Bridge. The Canal is identified within the UDP as an Environmental Priority
Area (Policy BE3) whilst the abutment rests within the Widnes Warth
estuary edge which at this point is identified within the UDP as an Area of
Special Landscape Value (Policy GE23), as a Coastal Zone Undeveloped
(Policy GE30) and as Greenspace (GE6).
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 25
Area D: Mersey Gateway Bridge
3.7 From the North Abutment the alignment runs southwards over Widnes
Warth Saltmarsh, crosses the Mersey Estuary via four spans supported by
three towers and then on the south side of the estuary crosses Astmoor
Saltmarsh, Wigg Island and the Manchester Ship Canal before meeting the
South Abutment at Astmoor Industrial Estate.
3.8 The route between the two abutments passes over diverse land parcels
which are identified within the Halton UDP and associated policy
framework as benefiting from several land-use designations. These are as
follows:
1. Widnes Warth
a) Area of Special Landscape Value (Policy GE23)
b) Coastal Zone Undeveloped (Policy GE30)
c) Greenspace (Policy GE6)
d) Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (Policy GE19)
2. Mersey Estuary
a) Area of Special Landscape Value ((Policy GE23)
b) Coastal Zone Undeveloped (Policy GE30)
c) Greenspace (Policy GE6)
d) Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (Policy GE19)
3. Astmoor Saltmarsh and Wigg Island
a) Area of Special Landscape Value (Part) (Policy GE23)
b) Green Belt (Policy GE29)
c) Coastal Zone Undeveloped (Part) (Policy GE30)
d) Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (Policy GE19)
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 26
e) Proposed Greenspace (Policy GE7)
f) Important Landscape Feature (Policy GE24)
g) Environmental Priority Area (Policy BE3)
h) Potential Greenways (Policies TP9, GE10)
i) Local Nature Reserve (Post Proposal Map Allocation) (Policy GE20)
3.9 The area underneath and around the proposed route of the Bridge would
need to be cleared of existing structures, which are mainly in industrial
use at present.
Area E: Astmoor Viaduct
3.10 From the southern Abutment the alignment heads south via a high level
multi-span viaduct, crossing Astmoor industrial park, the existing
Bridgewater Junction and the Bridgewater Canal. The carriageway would
then join the existing Central Expressway at Halton Brow. From south of
Astmoor Industrial Estate the land-use allocations oversailed by the
carriageway comprise:
1. Astmoor Industrial
a) Primary Employment Area (Policy E3)
2. Bridgewater Junction
b) Proposed Greenway (Policy TP9 GE6)
c) Greenspace (Policy GE6)
d) Edge of the Castlefields and Norton Regeneration Action Area
(Policy RG6)
3. Bridgewater Canal
a) Important Landscape Feature (Policy GE24)
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 27
Area F: Bridgewater Junction
3.11 The Bridgewater junction is a complex of structures and slip roads to
provide grade separation and access to and from the Central Expressway
and Daresbury/Bridgewater Expressways Works will include the closure of
links to the Daresbury/Bridgewater Expressways and brought into the new
roundabout. A two-level interchange will be created. The majority of this
work is proposed to take place within the unallocated highway boundary,
although there is a small area of allocated greenspace (GE6) located
within the route alignment.
Area G: Central Expressway, Lodge Lane Junction
and Weston Link Junction
3.12 From Halton Brow the Project adopts the existing line of the Central
Expressway, through to Lodge Lane Junction. Improvements to the
existing highway alignment would take place along the whole route. All of
this work is proposed to take place within the highway boundary which is
unallocated within the Halton UDP.
Area H: M56 Junction 12
3.13 The existing roundabout to the north of the M56 junction 12 will be
modified to include a signal controlled link directly across the centre of the
existing roundabout for the main line of the highway. Works will include
highway realignment and the installation of new traffic signals. The
roundabout is shown as unallocated within the Halton UDP, surrounded by
grass verges allocated as greenspace under policy GE6.
Area I: Silver Jubilee Bridge to Ditton Junction
3.14 A second element of the Project is the works to SJB and its connection
northwards into the re-modelled Ditton Junction. This includes
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 28
downgrading the carriageway to a single lane in each direction and the
introduction of footpath and cycle options on the deck of the SJB.
3.15 A key policy consideration is that the SJB is a grade 2 listed structure
whilst the adjacent Aethelfleda railway bridge is Grade 2* listed.
3.16 Moving north from the SJB to Ditton junction, the Project involves the
introduction of toll booths (wholly within the new carriageway tolls plazas)
and the physical demolition of the Widnes by-pass link road and related
structures. This involves land lying within the South Widnes Regeneration
Action Area (Policy RG1).
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 29
4. PLANNING POLICY
4.1 The policy framework against which the Project should be assessed has
been set out twice previously as part of the planning application
submissions as follows:
- At Chapter 6 of the Environmental Statement, where the review was
undertaken on a document basis, working from European policy
through national and regional policy and concluding with the Halton
UDP and emerging Local Development Framework;
- At Chapter 4 of the Planning Statement, where the review was
undertaken on a topic basis
4.2 The range of European and national planning policy guidance to the
Project remains largely as set out within the supporting documentation.
The development plan has however changed in that the revision to the
Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) has now been approved. The
development plan now comprises the North West of England Plan Regional
Spatial Strategy to 2021 (CD109) and the adopted Halton Unitary
Development Plan (2005) (CD115). Similarly since the time of the
application submissions progress has been made on the LDF and DPD
documents.
4.3 By way of context to my evidence therefore, the following section sets out
the key headline policies relevant to the Project, adopting the topic-based
approach; this then allows for an appraisal of the Project against these
policy provisions in subsequent sections of my evidence.
Topic 1 - Mersey Gateway Bridge
4.4 The Development Plan expresses unequivocal support for the development
of a new Mersey Crossing not only in principle but also specifically in the
broad location as proposed within the Project works. Support for the
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 30
Mersey Gateway Project is established within the RSS and the Halton UDP,
as follows:
a) Policy RT10 of RSS establishes the framework through which the
principles for major transport investment and management schemes
of regional significance will be established. Whilst the policy adopts a
criteria based approach to transport priorities, the policy suggests
that those for which funding has been secured (such as the Mersey
Gateway Project) will be identified in an Implementation Plan which
will be supplementary to RSS policy, but which is not yet published.
b) Policy S14 of the Halton UDP promotes a new crossing of the River
Mersey, east of SJB, to relieve congestion on the existing Bridge. The
policy identifies that the existing SJB is severely congested and
recognised to represent an economic constraint to the region, and to
the development of an integrated transport strategy for Halton. The
supporting text confirms that it is a strategic aim of both the Councils'
Local Transport Plan and Part 1 of the UDP to pursue the provision of
a new, sustainable crossing of the Mersey. This requirement is set
out in policy S14, which states:
“A scheme for a new crossing of the River Mersey, east of the
existing Silver Jubilee Bridge will be promoted to relieve
congestion on the existing bridge as part of an integrated
transport system for Halton and the wider regional transport
network. Any proposed route of the new crossing will be the
subject of an environmental assessment.”
4.5 The supporting text at paragraph 2 cross refers to a plan which was
included within the Councils LTP. The plan (identified as Map 2 in the
UDP) is copied below.
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 31
Copy of Map 2 as included within the supporting text of policy S14
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 32
4.6 It is worth noting at this stage that both the route options on the south
side of the river involve an alignment which crosses the Green Belt at
Wigg Island. Out of the options the Project proposals have adopted the
easternmost alignment off Central Expressway and the West of Thermphos
landfall location within Widnes.
4.7 Outside the Development Plan, Halton Council has prepared two full non-
statutory Local Transport Plans (CD 103 and 105) which support the
Project. The development of a New Mersey Crossing is recognised as
Priority 1, delivering significant journey time savings for cross-river traffic,
and facilitating the sustainable movement of local traffic across SJB.
4.8 Equally, the North West Regional Economic Strategy (2006) (CD 104)
recognises the delivery of a second Mersey crossing as an important
means of relieving congestion, facilitating reliable access to Liverpool
Airport and the wider City Region. This expressly recognises economic
benefits associated with the Project.
Topic 2 - Sustainable Development
4.9 A key Government objective is to encourage the development of land of a
suitable quality, in appropriate locations, which can support new forms of
development and in turn contribute towards less reliance on the private
car.
4.10 Whilst sustainable development is at the forefront of the Government’s
agenda, PPS1 recognises the importance of integrating new development
within the existing natural and historic environment, both rural and urban,
in order not to diminish the importance and contribution of valued
townspaces, landscapes, wildlife habitats and natural resources. To this
end, PPS1 supports new development compatible with its surroundings
and context.
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 33
4.11 At a national level, PPS1 promotes development which delivers economic,
social and environmental benefits. An important element of this includes
accessibility to jobs and local services by public transport, walking and
cycling, alongside the private car.
4.12 The Government’s recent focus on climate change has resulted in
the publication of PPS1 ‘Planning and Climate Change -
Supplement to PPS1’ (2007). This recognises the role of spatial
planning in contributing to a reduction in emissions and stabilising
climate change in the design of new development and
infrastructure to serve communities, and is a further ingredient of
sustainability. Overall, it recognises the contribution that planning
makes towards the Government’s climate change programme,
adopting energy efficient measures within new developments.
4.13 The Development Plan builds on the Government’s sustainability principles
expressed in PPS1 by way of the following:
1. Policy DP1 establishes the Strategy’s core spatial principles to which
all individual proposals, schemes and investment decisions should
adhere. These principles are amplified through policies DP2-9, as
follows:
• There is support for the delivery of sustainable communities,
enhancing the quality of the built, natural and living environments;
• There is recognition of the need to enhance economic performance
between the North West and other parts of the UK;
• A sequential approach to development is encouraged, focusing upon
the re-use of disused land and buildings to establish well designed,
mixed-use neighbourhoods;
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 34
• Development is promoted which reduces the need for and reliance
on the private car, encouraging a shift to sustainable transport for
the movement of people and freight;
• The protection and enhancement of environmental quality, including
the natural and historic environment, and maximising opportunities
for regeneration of derelict or dilapidated areas are supported;
• In line with the themes of the PPS1 Climate Change Supplement,
there is a drive towards a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions,
including transport, possibly through a reduction in traffic growth,
and the promotion of alternatives including walking, cycling and
public transport.
2. A broad range of general requirements are set out in policy BE1 of
the Halton UDP for new development; this recognises the importance
of the natural and historic environment, drawing upon their
protection, conservation and enhancement as key contributory factors
towards economic prosperity and urban regeneration.
3. Policy BE2 supports the need for high-quality design as a key
component of sustainable development. A series of key design
factors, including layout, density, scale and massing, are established
which proposals should perform positively against. Integration of
development proposals with positive characteristics of the existing
urban form, including the historic fabric and nature conservation of
the area, is vital. The delivery of landmark features is encouraged
where these will create an attractive reference point.
4.14 The Project constitutes road-based development, but one which facilitates
public transport, walking and cycling in a way which would not possible
without the works. The project works also use tolling to encourage modal
change and limit traffic growth and consideration is therefore to be given
to the extent to which this accords with the Government’s sustainability
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 35
objectives and the desire to reduce the use of the private car.
Nevertheless this issue was assessed in application submission papers
(primarily the ES and Planning Statement) and is considered later within
my evidence. As a general point of principle however it should be noted
that policy support for the Project (as set out in the UDP as approved in
April 2005 and in particular the RSS as approved in October 2008) was
formulated and endorsed in the wider context of the Governments
Sustainability policy framework as principally set out within PPG13 (2001),
PPS1 (2006) and its supplement (2008). The principle of the scheme has
therefore developed within and been tested against this policy background
and an assumption of general consistency must arise.
Topic 3 - Transportation
4.15 The Government has recognised the importance of an integrated transport
system as a key component in achieving its objectives for a sustainable
future. To deliver these aims, a series of framework objectives have been
identified over the past ten years within a number of non-statutory policy
documents outlining the long-term vision for integrated transport
development across the UK:
1. Transport White Paper “A New Deal for Transport: Better for
Everyone” (1998)
2. Transport Ten Year Plan (2000)
3. Transport White Paper “The Future of Transport: A network for
2030” (July 2004)
4. Towards a Sustainable Transport System (October 2007)
5. Delivering a Sustainable Transport System: Main report (November
2008)
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 36
6. These documents share common strands and framework objectives
to realise the Government’s vision for an integrated transport
system, capable of tackling the problems of congestion and
pollution. Across the range of documents, the key aspirations can
be summarised as follows:
a) Reduce pollution from transport; (pg 17, Transport Paper “A New
Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone”)
b) Improve air quality; (pg 17, Transport Paper “A New Deal for
Transport: Better for Everyone”)
c) Making walking and cycling a real alternative for local trips; (Pg 12,
para 6 Transport White Paper “The Future of Transport”)
d) Reduce noise and vibration from transport; (pg 17, Transport Paper
“A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone”)
e) The provision of modern, high-quality, public transport services
both locally and nationally (Transport Ten Year Plan para 1.4,
2000);
f) Improve transport safety for users, those who work in the industry
and the general public; ; (pg 17, Transport Paper “A New Deal for
Transport: Better for Everyone”)
g) Provide reliable and efficient transport networks to support national
economic competitiveness (para 1.5 delivering a Sustainable
transport System: Main Report;
h) Reduce social exclusion promoting greater equality of opportunity
for all citizens with the desired outcome of achieving a fairer society
(para 1.5, Delivering a Sustainable Transport System: Main Report)
i) Deliver a well maintained and coherent road network with real-time
driver information for strategic routes and reduced congestion,
(para 6.27 (Transport Ten Year Plan 2000)
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 37
j) Adding capacity to the most congested corridors, largely by
widening existing trunk roads (para 1.5, Delivering a Sustainable
Transport System: Main Report).
k) Protect people’s safety, security and health (para 14, page 10,
Towards a Sustainable Transport System).
4.16 These framework objectives are considered to represent key opportunities
to enhance environmental, economic and social conditions. The
Government advocates a transport network that can meet the challenges
of a growing economy and the increased demand for travel; where
necessary, this includes the enhancement of existing road networks
through additional capacity, assuming any environmental and social costs
can be justified.
4.17 Within this framework, there is support for proposals which minimise
potential environmental impacts upon the natural, historic and built form,
including disturbance to wildlife, the marine environment and humans
alike, and which adopts a sequential approach to development. Where new
road-building is the only option, complementary design solutions are
encouraged which protect the existing character and appearance of its
setting.
4.18 In the White Paper of May 2007, entitled Planning for a Sustainable
Future, the Government established five transport objectives, building
upon the findings of the Eddington Study, as follows:
1) Maximise the competitiveness and productivity of the economy;
2) Address climate change, by cutting emissions of carbon dioxide and
other greenhouse gases;
3) Protect people’s safety, security and health;
4) Improve the quality of life; and
5) Promote greater equality of opportunity.
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 38
4.19 These aims demonstrate the importance of the transport network to
economic references performance, and the serious threat which
congestion poses to future economic growth. A series of measures to work
alongside investment in new transport infrastructure are encouraged,
including road pricing and regulation, traffic management, travel planning,
and the development of new technologies.
4.20 Although the Government’s drive towards sustainable development
involves the provision and availability of alternative transport modes, the
White Paper accepts that in situations of sustained congestion during peak
periods, increased network capacity may represent the only solution. One
of the measures discussed includes road pricing, delivering environmental
benefits through a reduction in carbon emissions and pollutants.
4.21 The Government’s objectives for an integrated transport and planning
system are firmly expressed as policy in PPG13. The key messages of
support are:
1. Achieve more effective integration of planning and transport at the
national, regional strategic and local level to promote sustainable
transport choices for both people and moving freight; (para 4(1)).
2. Promote accessibility to jobs, shops, leisure facilities and services by
public transport, walking and cycling; (para 4(2))
3. Promote walking and cycling through the provision of wider
pavements, including the re-allocation of road space to cyclists and
pedestrians, and environmental improvements including improved
lighting (para 77(1));
4. Promote pedestrian-friendly road crossings which afford pedestrians
greater priority at traffic signals and avoid long detours and waiting
times, indirect footbridges or underpasses; and (para 77(2))
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 39
5. Improvement of facilities off the carriageway, such as cycle tracks or
paths (para 80(5)).
4.22 Whilst supporting a move towards less reliance on the private car, tying in
with the Government’s wider sustainability agenda, PPG13 accepts that
the car will continue to have an important role to play in some journeys.
To this end, PPG13 supports the protection of sites and routes which could
be critical in developing infrastructure to widen transport choices for future
passenger and freight movements. Schemes are encouraged to avoid or
mitigate environmental impacts where possible, both at construction and
operation.
4.23 Alongside the provisions of PPG13, the Development Plan comprises a
series of generic transport based policies, as follows:
1. Policy RT1 of RSS encourages the development of sustainable,
integrated and accessible transport solutions for all users, alongside
the importance of improved journey time reliability. Whilst road-
building is not viewed as environmentally nor economically
sustainable, in the context of the Project this will facilitate
improvements to the local public transport network through the
effective use of the SJB, an overriding objective of the Government’s
sustainability agenda.
2. Policy RT2 encourages improvements to public transport as part of a
comprehensive approach to discourage car use, alongside effective
provision for pedestrians and cyclists. This includes support for the
reallocation of road space in favour of public transport, a key
component of the Project.
3. Policy RT4 focuses on the management, maintenance and
improvements of the Regional Highway Network and existing
infrastructure. This promotes improvements to road safety, a
reduction in traffic growth, and maintained environmental standards
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 40
thus mitigating impacts of road traffic. The need for major highway
improvements is recognised in some cases, although policy advises
this should only be considered following an examination of all
practical alternative solutions to a particular problem.
4.24 Building on the principles of RSS, the RES recognises the importance of an
efficient transport network to support the economic growth of the heart of
the Liverpool City-Region. This includes proposals which facilitate
improved road access to Liverpool City Centre, efficient public transport
services, and reductions in road congestion.
Topic 4 - Green Belt
4.25 The proposed alignment of the Project crosses an area of land designated
as Green Belt at Wigg Island, north of Astmoor Industrial Estate. As well
as oversailing this land, the Project requires that bridge piers are sited
within the Green Belt.
4.26 Government policy on Green Belt is contained within PPG2 (CD68). The
guidance explains the history and extent of Green Belts, their purpose and
objectives and sets a presumption against inappropriate development.
Paragraph 1.5 of PPG2 sets out the five specific purposes of Green Belt, as
follows:
a) Checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas;
b) Preventing neighbouring towns from merging into one another;
c) Assisting in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
d) Preserving the setting and special character of historic towns; and
e) Assisting in urban regeneration, by recycling of derelict land.
4.27 There is no suggestion or expectation that all Green Belt can meet each of
the five purposes. The guidance advises that following designation as
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 41
Green Belt, land within them has a positive role to play in achieving the
following six objectives:
1) To provide opportunities for access to the open countryside for the
urban population;
2) To provide opportunities for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation
near urban areas;
3) To retain attractive landscapes, and enhance landscapes, near to
where people live;
4) To improve damaged and derelict land around towns;
5) To secure nature conservation interest; and
6) To retain land in agricultural, forestry and related uses.
The policy confirms that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to
prevent urban sprawl; the most important attribute of Green Belts is
identified as their openness and that inappropriate development is, by
definition, harmful to the Green Belt. The construction of new buildings in
the Green Belt is stated to constitute inappropriate development unless for
one of the five stated purposes as set out at paragraph 3.4, none of which
apply to the Projects proposals.
4.28 The Development Plan largely reflects the provisions of PPG2, confirming
within the RSS and particularly at UDP policies S21 and GE1 that planning
permission will not be given for inappropriate development in the Green
Belt except in very special circumstances:
4.29 Whilst the UDP Green Belt policies reflect the restrictive provisions of
PPG2, the UDP at policy S14 also promotes the construction of a new
crossing of the Mersey which, as indicated in the two alternative alignment
routes shown on Map 2 (UDP page 38), inevitably needs to cross Green
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 42
Belt land at Astmoor Saltmarsh and Wigg Island. This matter is taken up
further within my evidence.
4.30 I make the point later in my evidence as to the requirement for a proposal
to be considered against the Plan as a whole, acknowledging the
possibility that different policies may pull in different directions,
particularly with regard to major development proposals. It is worth
noting at this stage however that whilst PPG2 states that inappropriate
development should not be approved in Green Belts except in very special
circumstances, the clear development plan support for the Project and the
acknowledgement within the UDP that any alignment must by necessity
must utilise Green Belt land, comprises a key element (alongside other
matters identified later in my evidence) capable of comprising the
necessary very special circumstances identified within PPG2.
Topic 5 - Air Quality
4.31 Government policy set out in PPS23 (CD66) requires the careful siting and
planning of polluting activities, necessary for wider social and economic
reasons, subject to planning conditions to ensure that adverse effects are
minimised and contained within acceptable limits.
4.32 The Development Plan encourages a reduction in carbon emissions
through a series of measures outlined under policy DP9. These include an
increased focus upon energy efficient development, and a reduction in
traffic growth alongside the promotion of walking, cycling and public
transport.
4.33 Alongside RSS, the UDP has regard to air quality through two separate
policies:
a) Policy PR1, whereby development likely to have an unacceptable effect
on air quality, assessed having regard to local environmental amenity,
public health and economic confidence, is not generally supported;
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 43
b) Policy TP19, relating specifically to transport matters, applies restrictive
provisions to new traffic generating development likely to create
additional pollution, or which will intensify the pollution in areas where
air quality is already shown to be poor.
4.34 The latter policy has regard to the guidance note on Air Quality and Land
Use Planning issued under section 88 of the Environment Act 1995.
Topic 6 - Noise
4.35 PPG24 (CD73) establishes Government guidance which seeks to minimise
adverse impacts of noise without placing unreasonable restrictions on new
development. To enhance noise quality there is support for the location of
noise generating uses within areas where noise is not an important
consideration. In particular it is concluded that, development should not
cause an unacceptable degree of disturbance.
4.36 However, there is an acceptance of cases where the segregation of land-
uses will not be possible. In such circumstances, including the Project,
mitigation measures to control the source of, or limit exposure to, noise
generating uses are deemed appropriate.
4.37 The Development Plan contains restrictive policy provisions through policy
PR2 of the UDP, which seeks to control new development which may cause
a significant increase in noise levels, and where it is likely to affect land
allocated for residential or any other existing noise sensitive land uses.
The use of planning conditions will be sought to ensure noise nuisance is
not a problem.
Topic 7 - Water Quality
4.38 The Development Plan supports the protection and enhancement of water
quality within new development. To manage this process, the
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 44
Development Plan establishes specific objectives which new development
should seek to satisfy:
1. RSS policy EM5 encourages new developments, including transport
proposals, to incorporate sustainable drainage systems and water
conservation and efficiency measures. These are viewed as
important factors in helping to protect the quality and quantity of
surface, ground and coastal waters.
2. Policy PR5 of the UDP supports proposals unlikely to have an
unacceptable effect on the water quality of water bodies including
rivers, lakes and canals, and which does not pose an unacceptable
risk to the quality of groundwater. Where necessary, adequate
pollution measures should be incorporated into new developments
to minimise risks of water pollution.
Topic 8 – Landscape and Visual Amenity
4.39 National policy guidance in respect of landscape and visual amenity
matters is set out at a number of locations, primarily:
a) Planning Policy Statement (PPS1) No.1 Delivering Sustainable
Development, 2005 (Ref. CD62);
b) Planning Policy Guidance (PPG2) Green Belt (Ref. CD68);
c) Planning Policy Statement (PPS7) Sustainable Development in Rural
Areas, 2004; (CD305) and
d) Planning Policy Guidance (PPG15) Planning and The Historic
Environment (Ref. CD70);
4.40 PPS1 states that a key government objective is ‘protecting and enhancing
the natural and historic environment......the quality and character of the
countryside and existing communities’. (Paragraph 17)
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 45
4.41 PPG2 states that “Green belt should not be injured by proposals for
development within or conspicuous from the Green belt which, although
they would not prejudice purposes of including land in green belt, might
be visually detrimental by reasons of their siting, materials or design.”
(Paragraph 3.15).
4.42 PPS7 states that planning authorities should continue to ensure that the
quality and character of the wider countryside is protected and, where
possible, enhanced. It also states that particular regard should be had to
any areas that have been statutorily designated for their landscape,
wildlife or historic qualities where greater priority should be given to the
restraint of potentially damaging development. (Paragraph 1)
4.43 PPS7 goes on to state that nationally designated areas such as National
Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) have been
confirmed by the Government as having the highest status of protection in
relation to landscape and scenic beauty. (Paragraph 21)
4.44 PPG15 states that planning authorities should have “regard to certain
matters, including the desirability of preserving the setting of the
building”. (Paragraph 2.16)
4.45 PPG15 also sets out requirements in respect to the preservation and
enhancement of conservation areas, and holds that it may be legitimate in
appropriate circumstances to consider the setting of buildings that form
the heart of that area.
4.46 Development plan guidance is provided at policy DP7 of the RSS which
promotes reclamation of ‘derelict land and remediating contaminated land
for end-uses to improve the image of the region’.
4.47 The UDP contains a range of policies which seek to monitor Ancient
Woodlands where designated (Policy GE22), the protection of Areas of
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 46
Special Landscape Value (GE23) and the protection of Important
Landscape Features (GE24).
Topic 9 – Built and Historic Environment
4.48 A key element of the Government’s sustainability agenda is to integrate
new development with the existing fabric of an area, whilst protecting and
enhancing the existing built and historic environment.
4.49 At national level, PPG15 (CD70) and PPG16 (CD71) express Government
guidance on achieving these objectives. Each document outlines key
themes, as follows:
PPG15 ‘Planning and the Historic Environment’ (1994)
a) Areas of special architectural or historic interest should be preserved
and enhanced;
b) Development is encouraged which avoids or minimises impacts on the
various elements of the historic environment and its setting;
c) Work to listed structures, including historic bridges such as the SJB,
should meet new national or European requirements. Sympathetic
remedial measures, which restore the carrying capacity and extend
the life of these structures whilst retaining their character, are
considered appropriate, as are their future use by pedestrians and
cyclists.
d) Policy supports the reuse of structures as part of new transport
schemes, and which are environmentally advantageous.
PPG16 ‘Archaeology and Planning’ (1990)
a) Archaeological remains are seen as a finite and non-renewable
resource;
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 47
b) Appropriate management is considered essential to ensure the
survival of remains in good condition.
c) The preservation of important remains in situ is supported. Where
this is not possible, an archaeological excavation for the purposes of
“preservation by record” is required.
d) It should be presumed that nationally important archaeological
remains will be preserved in situ;
4.50 Alongside these objectives, the Development Plan, in particular within the
UDP, sets out a range of policies which seeks to control development
within the historic and built environment as follows:
1. RSS policy EM1 encourages the protection of the historic
environment, with support for proposals which avoid loss or
damage to environmental assets and features;
2. UDP policy BE1 sets out the general requirement for built
development, with specific regards to the requirement to conserve
the natural and historic environment.
3. UDP policy BE2 address itself to the need to deliver design quality.
4. UDP policy BE3 sets out the particular emphasis on design matters
within Environmental Priority Areas (such as at Astmoor
Saltmarsh/Wigg Island).
5. UDP policy BE4 refers to the need to protect Scheduled Ancient
Monuments.
6. UDP policies BE5 and BE6 refer to the need to protect sites of
archaeological importance.
7. UDP policies BE7 to B10 refer to matters relating to the impact of
development on listed buildings within Halton.
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 48
8. UDP policies BE11 to BE114 refers to matters relating to the impact
of development within Conservation Areas within Halton.
Topic 10 - Natural Environment
4.51 Four strands of wider legislative policy seek to protect and enhance
existing key features of the natural environment; European, National,
Regional and Local.
4.52 European Law, set out within the Habitats Regulations Directive
92/43/EEC, requires a Habitats Regulation Assessment (“HRA”) to be
undertaken to assess plans and development projects that impact on
European (Natura 2000) Sites. The HRA should establish the impacts of a
land-use plan against any conservation objectives of the site, and whether
development would adversely affect the site’s integrity. Where significant
negative effects are identified, the regulations require that alternative
options be examined.
4.53 As a matter of national Government policy, Appropriate Assessment
should also be undertaken to assess development proposals which could
affect potential SPAs, candidate SACs and listed Ramsar Sites.
4.54 Also at a national level, PPS9 establishes the Government’s vision for the
conservation and enhancement of biological diversity across England.
Policy seeks to avoid development likely to have an adverse effect on land
within or outside a SSSI. However, support is offered in exceptional
circumstances; where it has been demonstrated that the benefits of the
development clearly outweigh both the impacts that it is likely to have on
the features of the site that make it if special scientific interest, and any
broader impacts on the national network of SSSIs.
4.55 At a regional level, within the Development Plan, RSS policy RDF3
encourages proposals to safeguard, restore and enhance the natural
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 49
heritage assets of the region’s coast, encompassing Ramsar sites, SPA’s,
and SAC’s, National Nature Reserves, and SSSI’s.
4.56 A number of generic policies within the UDP lend themselves to support
the protection, retention and enhancement of important natural
environmental features, as follows:
1. Policy GE17 protects sites from inappropriate development, other
than in exceptional circumstances; this includes a lack of
alternatives, over-riding public interest for the development or land-
use change, and beneficial consequences on human health or public
safety.
2. Policy GE18 restricts development likely to have a significant effect,
directly or indirectly, on a SSSI unless the reasons for development
clearly outweigh the nature conservation of the site itself.
3. The provisions of policy GE23 regulate development within Areas of
Special Landscape Value where it is demonstrated that these will
have an unacceptable effect on the visual and physical
characteristics for which an area was originally designated.
4. Policy GE24 does not lend support for proposals where an
unacceptable effect on the visual or physical characteristics for
which a site was designated as having ‘Important Landscape
Features’ will result.
Topic 11 - Biodiversity and Nature Conservation
4.57 PPS9 sets out the Government’s focus on the conservation and
enhancement of biological diversity across England. A series of key
principles are established, against which potential impacts of planning
decisions on biodiversity and geological conservation are assessed. This is
accompanied by ODPM Circular 06/2005 which provides administrative
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 50
guidance on the application of the law relating to planning and nature
conservation.
4.58 Key themes arising from PPS9 are as follows:
a) There is support for planning decisions which maintain and enhance,
restore or add to biodiversity and geological conservation interests;
b) The conservation, enhancement and restoration of biodiversity and
geology is encouraged, both individually and cumulatively;
c) Policy advocates rural renewal and urban renaissance through the
enhancement of biodiversity in green spaces and amongst
development to encourage use by wildlife and valued by people;
d) Compensatory measures are supported where development impacts
upon biodiversity and geological interests cannot be prevented or
adequately mitigated against.
4.59 Within the Development Plan, RSS policy EM1 recognises the importance
of protecting and conserving the natural environment and its assets,
including trees, woodlands and forests, where possible avoiding loss or
damage of these and mitigating against any unavoidable damage. An
integrated approach to the management of the landscape and the natural
environment is encouraged, within both rural and urban areas. The UDP
contains a range of policies which seek to protect sites of International,
national and local importance (policies GE17, GE18, GE19 and GE20)
alongside a particular concern with species protection at policy GE21.
Topic 12 - Waste
4.60 PPS10 establishes Government policy on waste. The document serves two
purposes; firstly, it establishes the broad principles for the management of
waste with respect to the development of strategies, regeneration and the
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 51
prudent use of resources; secondly, it sets out the Government’s policy on
the planning of new waste management facilities.
4.61 The guidance encourages planning authorities to take into account waste
management needs for all waste streams in their area at a strategic level.
This includes commercial, industrial, and construction waste arisings.
Topic 13 - Open Space and Greenspace
4.62 Open space is defined in the 1990 Act as land laid out as a public garden,
or used for the purposes of public recreation. Government guidance as
set out PPG17 confirms open space should be taken to mean all open
space of public value which offer opportunities for sport or recreation and
can act as a visual amenity.
4.63 Government policy supports the retention and protection of a sufficient
supply of recreational open space provision from development. To this
end, PPG17 contains several policy tests designed to prevent the loss of
open space. In summary:
a) The loss of open space, sports and recreational buildings and land is
restricted, unless demonstrated that the open space or buildings and
land are surplus to requirements;
b) Local Authorities are encouraged to weigh the benefits being offered
to the community against the loss of open space that will occur;
c) Open spaces should not suffer from increased overlooking, traffic
flows, or other encroachment as a consequence of development;
d) Compensatory provision of equivalent or superior quantity or quality,
and in a suitably accessible location, is supported in instances where
open space will be lost;
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 52
e) There is support for their retention and extension of Public Rights of
Way, and their role as an important recreational facility;
4.64 Alongside Government policy, the Development Plan expresses policy
support in favour of the protection of existing greenspace. In particular,
RSS policy EM3 recognises the need to conserve and enhance existing
green infrastructure. There is emphasis on proposals to incorporate new
green infrastructure, particularly through area based regeneration
initiatives and major schemes.
4.65 The UDP goes on to define specific areas of Greenspace (which does not
necessarily include all areas of open space and should not be equated with
open space) Policy GE6 restricts development within such designated and
proposed Greenspace, unless any of the following criteria are met:
a) Development on part of the site would fund improvements that raise
the overall amenity value of the greenspace;
b) The developer provides a suitable replacement greenspace of at least
equal size and amenity value, or significantly enhances the amenity
value of nearby greenspace;
c) Compensatory provision is provided within a convenient location; and
d) There are clear and convincing reasons why development is required;
and
e) The loss of amenity value will be adequately compensated.
4.66 As is set out within the evidence of Mr Beswick HBC/7/1P, some
compensatory open space provision is proposed as part of the Project
works. As a result of the legislative procedure associated with the
Compulsory Purchase powers conveyed by the TWA Order, particular
regard has to be had to circumstances where land that is being acquired
constitutes open space within a particular definition of the phrase.
Through the submission of an application for a Certificate under section 19
of the Acquisitions of Land Act 1981, which also provides the relevant
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 53
definition, an area of exchange land is being offered in respect of the loss
of one of the incidental areas of open space that is being lost in Widnes,
close to the Widnes Loops element of the Project works.
Topic 14 - Flood Risk
4.67 Government policy on development and flood risk is set out in PPS25.
This requires flood-risk to be taken into account at all stages of the
planning process to avoid inappropriate development, and direct
development away from areas at highest risk. Where new development is,
exceptionally, necessary in such areas proposals should not exacerbate
flood-risk elsewhere and, where possible, reduce overall flood-risk.
4.68 PPS25 identifies road and rail embankments and other existing transport
infrastructure as potentially affecting water flows during floods. Policy
encourages the inclusion of flood management measures in proposals at
the initial design stage.
4.69 Building on these principles, RSS policy EM5 supports the quantitative and
qualitative protection of surface, ground and coastal waters and effective
flood management, including the provision of mitigation measures, within
new developments.
4.70 In accordance with the provisions of PPS25 and EM5, a Flood Risk
Assessment of the Project has been undertaken, the findings of which are
incorporated in the ES and are set out within the evidence of Mr Paul
Norton, HBC/13/1P.
Topic 15 - Economic Development
4.71 The Regional Spatial Strategy contains wide-ranging policy support for the
economic development of land and buildings in Runcorn and Widnes up to
2026, as follows:
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 54
4.72 Policy RDF1 supports the economic growth and urban regeneration of
regional towns and cities across the North West. Runcorn and Widnes are
identified as Regional Towns within the settlement hierarchy;
4.73 Policy W1 encourages economic development which will strengthen the
economy of the North West. Whilst the policy in the main is not relevant to
the Project, one of the key objectives of this is to ensure the safe, reliable
and effective operation of the region’s transport networks and
infrastructure in accordance with the policies and priorities of the Regional
Transport Strategy, building on the region’s strengths, in particular the
three City Regions of Manchester, Liverpool and Central Lancashire;
4.74 Policy LCR3 supports a focus on economic development and resources in,
among other places, Runcorn and Widnes, maintaining and enhancing the
role of Runcorn and Widnes, and providing community facilities, services
and employment;
4.75 In addition, the UDP comprises policies RG1, RG2, RG3 and RG6 which
expressly promote the economic regeneration of Southern Widnes, Central
Widnes, Widnes Waterfront, and Castlefields and Norton Priory
respectively for mixed-use development.
4.76 There is a clear aspiration that the Project will become a catalyst for
communities, regeneration and investment within Halton and across the
region. As a result of the Project certain land will be released, connectivity
improved, the performance and roles of highways changed, public realm
opportunities will arise. In short, physical regeneration will be facilitated.
4.77 In seeking to capture these benefits, Halton Borough Council undertook a
review exercise which generated a Regeneration Strategy. As well as
informing the Council’s priorities for physical investment and urban
renewal, the Strategy seeks to inform the next iteration of Council policy,
including the Community Strategy, the Corporate Plan, and the Local
Development Framework. The latter is of particular relevance as the
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 55
Regeneration Strategy will directly inform the preparation of the Southern
Widnes SPD.
4.78 The Regeneration Strategy seeks to capture as far as possible the wide
ranging economic, social, physical and environmental regeneration
opportunities that the Mersey Gateway Project would present.
4.79 The Strategy addresses itself to an area of approximately 20 square
kilometres within the Borough of Halton. Within Widnes, this comprises
the area south of the town centre, to the east of the Mersey Multimodal
Gateway and to the west of the Widnes Waterfront Economic Development
Zone. It also covers a larger expanse of Runcorn, including the Old Town,
Halton Lea, Rocksavage and Clifton, and the Astmoor Industrial Estate.
The Strategy seeks to identify new physical opportunities for change as
part of the vision to create high-quality, desirable and sustainable places,
building upon and adding value to the considerable levels of investment
delivered and planned. The Strategy area also includes the existing Silver
Jubilee Bridge and linking highway.
4.80 The Regeneration Strategy was underpinned by a number of community
consultation events held during late 2007 / early 2008 in Widnes and
Runcorn. In addition, in October 2007 a telephone survey of 200 local
businesses located within the Mersey Gateway Impact Area was
undertaken. The level of support emerging out of this consultation stage
was generally found to be strong; the business survey alone identified a
strong level of support for the Project, equating to 49% of businesses in
Widnes, and 44% in Runcorn. Only an 4% of respondents, a small
minority cited some opposition to the Project. Three key regeneration
objectives emerged out of this consultation exercise. These in turn
informed the Regeneration Strategy and can be summarised as follows:
Priority Regeneration Objective 1 – Image and Place-Making
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 56
4.81 This objective seeks to enhance the perception of both Widnes and
Runcorn to achieve the visionary aspirations held by Halton Borough
Council, and build upon the strong local sense of community and place to
deliver the considerable regeneration opportunities presented by the
Mersey Gateway Project.
Priority Regeneration Objective 2 – Accessibility and Movement
4.82 Increasing the catchment for labour, goods and markets represents a key
element of the Regeneration Strategy. The Project will facilitate more
reliable movements by pedestrians, cyclists and public transport, and
maximise opportunities for additional local connectivity and accessibility
for existing communities by promoting the ease of movement throughout
the area.
Priority Regeneration Objective 3 – Development and Economic
Prosperity
4.83 This objective expresses a clear steer towards the significant improvement
of commercial and residential accommodation within the local area to
meet market requirements and aspirations. This is coupled with a focus on
bringing back into use land for new development that is currently occupied
by highways infrastructure to be released through the completion of the
Mersey Gateway, with a particular focus on the re-use of contaminated
land within the West Bank area of Southern Widnes.
4.84 These priority objectives were identified so as to provide a visionary,
imaginative and deliverable set of solutions to the wide-ranging economic,
social and environmental problems identified within Halton, building
significantly upon the opportunities presented by the Mersey Gateway
Project.
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 57
4.85 The Regeneration Strategy then went on to apply the identified objectives
to five impact areas, all of which are situated in close physical proximity to
the Mersey Gateway route corridor. These impact areas are:
1. West Bank, South Widnes;
2. Runcorn Old Town;
3. Astmoor Industrial Estate and Wigg Island;
4. Halton Lea; and
5. Rocksavage and Clifton.
4.86 A number of physical options prepared for each of these impact areas,
which were subject to two stages of consultation with members of the
public during February and March 2008. The options were also the subject
of a detailed Sustainability Appraisal.
4.87 The Regeneration Strategy was approved by Halton Borough Council
Executive Board in June 2008.
4.88 The Regeneration Strategy builds upon the principles set out in PPG4
‘Industrial, Commercial Development and Small Firms.’ This recognises
the close relationship between economic growth and a high-quality
environment, and encourages that these should be pursued together. It
recognises that industrial and commercial have always sought locational
advantages in response to various external factors; high priority is often
given by businesses to good access to transport infrastructure, including
the highway network.
Topic 16 - Local Development Framework and
Emerging Policies
4.89 Halton Borough Council is currently preparing a series of Local
Development Documents (LDDs) as part of its emerging Local
Development Framework (LDF). On adoption, these will replace the
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 58
Council’s existing strategic and generic UDP policies. At present, all
existing UDP policies are saved for three years until April 2011.
4.90 The Council’s Local Development Scheme (LDS) 2007 establishes dates for
the preparation and adoption of Development Plan Documents (DPDs) and
Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs). Two key documents within
the Council’s emerging policy framework are the Southern Widnes SPD
(now renamed West Bank SPD) which sets out policies and proposals for
the comprehensive regeneration of the Southern Widnes Area (Policy RG1
in the UDP) and the Runcorn Town Centre SPD. The detail of both are set
out below:
1. West Bank SPD
4.91 The West bank SPD (formerly referred to as the Southern Widnes SPD)
refers for the main part to the area defined under UDP policy RG1.
4.92 The SPD has regard to both the requirements of the existing
neighbourhood and the new opportunities presented by the de-linking
element of the Project works (ie the physical process of removing
unnecessary pieces of highway infrastructure and thus the physical
creation of new land and development opportunities).
4.93 The document undertakes a spatial analysis of 5 separate “character
areas” within the overall SPD area, comprising Ashley Way, Hutchinson
Street, Waterloo Road, Catalyst and West Bank. Each enjoys a physical
proximity to the route of the Mersey Gateway as it passes through Widnes
and the SPD seeks to both capture and maximise the regeneration
benefits that may arise. It sets out the potential broad locations for new
housing, commercial, leisure and retail development and establishes a
policy framework and key design principles through which the new land
uses should be delivered.
2. Runcorn Town Centre SPD
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 59
4.94 The Runcorn Town Centre SPD focuses on the area immediately to the
south of SJB and its accompanying highway infrastructure. As a result of
the overall Project proposals it will be possible to remove infrastructure
that is excess to requirements, namely the ‘Runcorn Loops’ system and
the A556 flyover. This provides an opportunity to deliver key
redevelopment opportunities and reduce or remove physical constraints.
The SPD envisages the direct benefit of those physical works as being:
1. The creation of a new Station Gateway sub area, linking the station
with the town centre;
2. The rejoining of the canal system in the area, which is currently
restricted by the height of the A553 approach to SJB
4.95 The SPD divides the study area in nine sub areas and goes on to consider
the existing character and set out the opportunity for change.
4.96 Both SPD’s were subject to consultation in late 2008 and will proceed
towards adoption over the course of 2009. Both will be a material
consideration in the determination of planning and development proposals.
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 60
5. PLANNING APPRAISAL EXERCISE
5.1 The approach that needs to be followed in any planning appraisal of the
Project is provided by Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory
Purchase Act 2004. This states that if regard is to be had to the
development plan for the purpose of determination, then that
determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material
considerations indicate otherwise.
5.2 The courts have provided clarification as to how this requirement is to be
applied in practice, noting that it is not unusual for development plan
policies, particularly with regard to larger schemes, to ‘pull’ in different
directions; it goes on to conclude that a balance has to be made having
regard to factors such as the importance of the policies which are
complied with or are infringed, and the extent of compliance or breach.
The conclusion reached within case law is that a proposal has to be judged
against the development plan when considered as a whole; a proposal
does not have to accord with each and every policy therein to be
considered as being in ‘accordance’.
5.3 Adopting this approach therefore requires an assessment which
undertakes the following:
1. An examination of the extent to which the proposal is supported by
the provisions of the development plan. This is undertaken at
Section 6 of my evidence.
2. An appraisal of the benefits arising from the proposal which are
material and are thus to be weighed in any decision making
process. This is undertaken at Section 7.
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 61
3. An examination of whether the proposal is in conflict with elements
of the development plan, and if so make an assessment of harm
arising from that conflict; this is undertaken at Section 8.
4. An overall assessment of the planning balance, weighing compliance
against harm.
This enables me to conclude on the planning balance and compliance with
the development plan, along with the other matters raised by the
Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and those
matters relating to planning as raised by the Secretary of State for
Transport. This is set out at Section 9 before I provide an overall
summary at Section 10.
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 62
6. DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUPPORT FOR THE
MERSEY GATEWAY PROJECT
6.1 The development plan comprises the Regional Spatial Strategy as adopted
in September 2008 and the Halton UDP as adopted in April 2005. Direct
support for the new Mersey Crossing is included within both documents as
set out below:
North West of England Plan Regional Spatial Strategy 2021
6.2 The 2008 version of the RSS has taken a different approach to the
previous regional strategy documents in respect of major infrastructure
policy. The previous RSS (March 2003) at Policy T10 sought to both
establish the general policy approach to transport and traffic management
in the region and to then go on to individually identify within the policy
text those schemes which were considered to be of regional significance.
The Mersey Gateway Project was identified within that list, identifying it as
both in accord with the general policy and acknowledging it as an
individual scheme. The planning applications, submitted in May 2008,
were assessed against the provisions of this now superseded version of
RSS.
6.3 The current RSS however at Policy RT10 adopts a criteria based approach
which states that the general priorities for transport investment and
management will be determined in accord with:
1. The Regional Economic Strategy (2006);
2. The seven RSS transport objectives (RSS Chapter 8);
3. The RSS Spatial Principles as set out at policies DP1 to DP9
4. The regional spatial framework as set out at RDF1
5. The aims of the sub regional RSS chapter.
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 63
6.4 The policy then goes on to confirm that the policy will be accompanied by
an Implementation Plan which will set out those schemes for which
funding has been provisionally allocated and those which are under
development. The Implementation Plan is not yet public but RSS at
paragraph 8.37 states that the schemes which will be cited in the
Implementation Plan will be based on published research work undertaken
by JMP and by Atkins.
6.5 If the Implementation Plan was publicly available, and included reference
to the Mersey Gateway, then it would be possible to show direct RSS
support for the Project works. In the current absence of an
Implementation Plan however I have considered the terms of policy RT10,
and whether it supports the provision of the Project works, from first
principles, undertaking assessment as follows:
1. an appraisal of the proposal against the widest RSS policy context
as set out at 6.3 above.
2. a review of the two research documents (JMP and Atkins) which are
to inform the Implementation Plan.
6.6 The findings of both strands of assessment are set out below:
1. Assessment against the principles of RSS policy RT10
6.7 An assessment of the Mersey Gateway Project against the specific
references with RT10 (i.e. the provisions of RES, RSS, the Spatial
Principles, and the sub regional framework) shows that the Project enjoys
wide ranging support across each of the policy criteria. A summary of the
findings of the assessment against the policy framework is set out tabular
form below:
Appraisal of MGP against Policy RT10
Document/Policy Test
as specified within
Policy Position Project Compliance or
otherwise
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 64
RT10
1. RES 1. RES identifies MGP as a
regional benefit.
The MGP is directly supported by
the RES.
2. RSS transport
objectives (RSS
Chapter 8
introduction)
1. Maintain existing transport
infrastructure in good
order.
MGP improves existing network
connections and enhances
resilience.
MGP allows for long term future
of SJB.
2. Improve journey time
reliability, tackle
congestion and
overcrowding within and
between City Regions
MGP and SJB would together
provide for better movement
both within the Liverpool City
Region and in terms of its wider
regional connections.
3. Secure a shift towards the
use of more sustainable
modes of transport.
The proposals for SJB will allow
for and encourage greater use
of public transport, cycling and
walking within and between
Halton and Widnes.
4. Secure safe and efficient
access between residential
areas and key destinations
(employment, schools,
shops and services).
The MGP, and in particular the
return of SJB to its local role
incorporating public transport,
walking and cycling, will better
link the two towns of Widnes
and Runcorn, allow for safer and
more efficient and reliable
access between the two. Key
destinations on either side of the
river in Halton will be better
accessible to all.
5. Improve surface access
and interchange
arrangements at
international, national and
regional gateways (e.g.
Liverpool Airport,
Manchester Airport,
mainline railway stations).
MGP would provide a robust
connection in the sub-regional
highway network, guaranteeing
journey time and route
resilience; it would materially
improve access arrangements to
the international, national and
regional gateways identified.
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 65
6. Reduce the adverse
impacts of transport in
terms of safety hazards,
climate charge,
environmental
degradation, residential
amenity and social
exclusion.
MGP would directly address each
of these concerns:
- the existing use of SJB
represents a safety hazard;
MGP will directly address
the concerns.
- whilst there are some local
changes, the overall effect
of MGP is to deliver
improvements in local air
quality and noise standards,
delivering environmental
improvement and a net
overall improvement to
residential amenity.
- the return of SJB to a local
function materially improves
connectivity between
Widnes and Runcorn,
addressing concerns as to
social exclusion.
7. Integrate the management
and planning of transport
systems.
MGP, through its tolling regime,
allows for demand management
alongside the effective planning
of the system.
3. RSS Spatial
Principles DP1 –
DP9
DP1 – Key Principles which
underpin PSS and RTS
- promote sustainable
communities;
- promote sustainable
economic development;
- make the best use of
existing infrastructure;
- manage travel demand,
reduce the need to travel,
increase accessibility;
- marry opportunity and
need;
MGP and the associated works
to SJB will directly meet each of
these key principles, with the
exception of the reference to
rural issues which is not
relevant.
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 66
- promote environmental
quality;
- mainstreaming rural
issues;
- reduce emissions and
adapt to climate change.
DP2 – promote sustainable
communities particularly by,
amongst others, fostering
sustainable relationships
between homes, workplaces
and other concentrations of
regularly used services and
facilities and reviving local
economies.
MGP and the associated works
to SJB will effectively promote a
more sustainable community
within Halton. The Sustainable
Transport Strategy will directly
promote more sustainable
relationships between all
elements of the community.
The regeneration benefits of the
proposals will serve as a boost
to the local economy and have a
beneficial effect on the local
community.
DP3 – promote sustainable
economic development and
close the gap in regional
economic performance.
MGP will serve as a boost to the
local economy, directly
delivering a number of new jobs
whilst having a catalytic effect
on the wider sub region. The
Sustainable Transport Strategy
will directly contribute to this
principle.
DP4 – with regard to
development, to make the
best use of existing resources
and infrastructure.
Not directly relevant to the MGP
in that it relates more to built
development rather than
infrastructure, identifying a
sequential approach to
development.
DP5 – Manage travel demand
reduce the need to travel and
increase accessibility,
encouraging a shift to more
sustainable modes of
transport and the provision of
safe and sustainable access
for all, particularly by public
transport, between homes and
MGP will manage travel demand
through tolling, it will increase
accessibility and through the
amendments to SJB will
encourage a shift to non-car
modes of transport, enhancing
access between Widnes and
Runcorn.
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 67
employment, services and
facilities.
DP6 – Marry opportunity and
need – focus of investment
decisions on the linking of
areas of economic opportunity
with areas in need of
economic social and physical
restructuring and
regeneration.
Halton is a relatively poor
performer when assessed
against a range of social /
economic indices. The MGP
represents an opportunity to
deliver local economic
improvement alongside physical
regeneration to the direct
benefit of the wider community
DP7 – Promotion of
environmental quality and the
protection of air, coastal and
inland waters through,
amongst others:
- promoting good quality
design;
- reclamation of derelict
land;
- maximising regeneration
opportunities;
- managing traffic growth
and mitigating the effects
of road traffic on air
quality/noise/ health.
MGP has the potential to directly
meet a number of the criteria
identified in that it will:
- promote an iconic design for
the bridge which respects
and enhances its estuary
setting;
- allow for the reclamation of
surplus/derelict land;
- provide a catalyst for
regeneration through he
parallel planning strategies;
- manage the existing traffic
flows so as to achieve
overall net improvements in
noise/air quality and health.
The MGP in part however fails to
maintain the tranquillity of open
countryside in respect of its
effect on land at Wigg Island.
DP8 – Rural issues Not relevant to MGP.
DP9 – Reduce emissions and
adapt to climate change, in
particular having regard to the
need to achieve carbon and
emission reduction targets.
One area identified is the
need to take reduce traffic
MGP and the works to SJB will
directly promote walking, cycling
and public transport.
Effect on carbon emissions - tbc
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 68
growth, promote walking,
cycling and public transport.
4. RSS RDF1 Spatial
priorities
Identification of the spatial
priorities for development;
Widnes and Runcorn identified
as towns within the Liverpool
City Region, prioritised 3rd out
of 4 as locations for
development.
MGP will generate a need and
demand for development within
and around the centres of both
Widnes and Runcorn. In this
respect the effects of MGP would
be in accord with RDF1.
5. Sub regional chapter
11 – Liverpool City
Region
Policy LCR1 sets out the broad
criteria which should underpin
plans and strategies in the
Liverpool City Region. Those
relevant to the MGP comprise:
- support for interventions
which achieve an
improvement in the sub-
regional performance.
- promote economic
development, urban
renaissance and social
inclusion in the outer
parts of the City Region.
- improve the City Regions
internal and external
transport links in line with
the priorities set out in
RT10.
- support and develop the
role of Liverpool airport
and the Merseyside Ports.
MGP would positively meet each
of the relevant priority themes.
MGP is expected to assist in
delivering an improvement in
local economic performance,
which in turn will contribute to
the wider sub-region.
MGP will promote development,
act as a catalyst for urban
renaissance and assist in
delivering social inclusion within
Halton.
The MGP and the works to SJB
will directly improve the sub-
regional transport links.
The MGP will directly support
the development of the airport
and ports.
6.8 The assessment shows that the Project enjoys wide ranging support
across each of the policy criteria.
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 69
2. Assessment against the Implementation Plan research
reports
6.9 In the absence of the Implementation Plan, I have undertaken an
assessment of the two research reports which the RSS confirms will inform
the Implementation Plan so as to understand how they assess the Project
works and thus the likelihood of the Project being included within the Plan.
The summary findings are set out below:
a) JMP Report
6.10 JMP Consulting was commissioned by the North West Regional Assembly
in February 2005 to develop a methodology for determining regional
priorities for transport investment in the North West (CD 117). The
objective was to develop a ranked set of project interventions to be
included in the Regional Transport Strategy. The methodology was to
have regard to the range of national, regional and sub regional policy
documents and strategies.
6.11 The published report sets out the methodology and goes on to apply the
methodology to the list of 73 regionally significant transport proposals.
6.12 The JMP report identifies the Mersey Gateway Project within its top
quartile of priority schemes both when all factors are equally weighted,
and when a weighting is applied to the assessment criteria;
b) Atkins Report
6.13 In September 2005 Atkins was commissioned by GONW to appraise and
prioritise c. 60 Local Authority and Highways Agency Major Schemes (CD
185). The study brief was to build on the JMP work detailed above and to
develop an appraisal framework which focussed on deliverability and value
for money.
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 70
6.14 The exercise was the subject of widespread stakeholder consultation and
the report confirms at paragraph 5.1 that the results of the prioritisation
process have broad consensus amongst regional stakeholders. The
prioritisation placed the Mersey Gateway Project and Silver Jubilee Bridge
in the top quartile prioritisation category. The report concluded at
paragraph 5.2 that all such Q1 schemes are strongly consistent with policy
priorities.
3. Conclusion
6.15 It is my view therefore that the Project is supported by the provisions of
RSS policy RT10 as a priority transport investment project and that, on
the basis of the findings of the JMP and Atkins reports, that this will be
explicitly confirmed once the Implementation Plan is published.
Halton Unitary Development Plan
6.16 UDP Policy S14 (CD115) states that a new crossing of the River Mersey to
the east of Silver Jubilee Bridge will be promoted to relieve congestion on
the existing bridge as part of an integrated transport system for Halton
and the wider regional transport network. The accompanying plan (Map
2) shows an extract from the 2001 LTP which defined the two alternative
alignments, either west of Thermphos off Astmoor Junction or further east
off Central Expressway. Both alignments cross the Green Belt at Wigg
Island.
6.17 The works proposed by the Mersey Gateway Project incorporate the
provision of a new crossing located to the east of SJB, adopting the
Central Expressway extension and west of Thermphos options as shown
on UDP Map 2. This will relieve existing congestion on the SJB and
increase the opportunity for public transport, walking and cycling across
the River, thus contributing significantly to the delivery of an integrated
transport system for Halton. In addition the proposal will contribute to
wider regional transport network, delivering network resilience and
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 71
facilitating access within and beyond the sub region. The Project is thus
fully in accord with and therefore directly supported by the provisions of
UDP policy S.14.
6.18 On this basis it is concluded that the Mersey Gateway Project, in its
proposed form and location, is expressly supported by the development
plan.
6.19 The Project also enjoys support within non statutory and emerging
planning policy documentation as follows:
1. The Regional Economic Strategy (2006) (CD109) recognises the
benefits arising from the delivery of major transport infrastructure
investments within the region. The RES identifies the second
Mersey crossing as one such investment, with the benefits cited
including the relieving of congestion, support for two strategic
regional sites, improving reliability of access to Liverpool Airport and
improved linkages within the Liverpool City Region. The RES
identifies the second crossing amongst a number of regional
transport priorities, assisting in enhancing cross border economic
linkages.
2. Halton’s Local Transport Plan (CD117) identifies the Mersey
Gateway Project as a Priority 1 scheme, noting that it has the
benefit of achieving significant journey time savings for cross river
traffic and enabling the Silver Jubilee Bridge to cater for locally
sustainable travel.
6.20 Each of these policy documents which sit alongside and feed into the
development plan, further demonstrate the depth of policy support for the
Mersey Gateway Project.
6.21 It is also evident from the policy appraisal undertaken at section 4 that
aside from specific policies which support the Mersey Gateway Project,
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 72
there is a range of policies which are of general relevance and with which
the Project is also in accord. An assessment against these policies was
undertaken as part of the ES exercise which supported the application
submissions; for the purposes of the Inquiry the findings are summarised
on a topic basis below.
i) Surface water quality
6.22 The technical appraisal exercise undertaken as part of the application
exercise and explained within the evidence of Dr Keith Hendry concludes
that the Mersey Gateway Project will have no major effects upon surface
water quality of any watercourse. Whilst there is a level of impact arising
during construction, mitigation measures have been identified which
address the potential impacts which may arise and no significant residual
impacts have been identified. Monitoring of watercourses as secured via
planning conditions will take place before, during and after construction to
ensure that there will be no deterioration in water quality.
6.23 On this basis the proposal is in accord with the policy initiatives set out
within national policy and the development plan, in particular the specific
provisions of UDP Policy PR5.
ii) Contamination
6.24 The technical appraisal exercise undertaken as part of the application
exercise and within the evidence of Mr Nigel Cossons HBC/17/1P
acknowledges that the Project has the potential to cause contamination
effects during construction and operation, including water and ground
contamination. The evidence identifies that the project works may also
have an impact upon human health, in particular site visitors, workers and
local residents. It is recognised that remediation will be required as part of
the works to mitigate risks, and identifies appropriate measures; soils and
sediment will be managed through the Site Waste Management Plan. On
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 73
this basis the proposal is in accord with the provisions of national policy
and the development plan, in particular UDP Policy PR14.
iii) Groundwater
6.25 The technical assessment identifies that the Mersey Gateway Project will
potentially have a negative impact upon areas of groundwater within
Widnes and Runcorn during construction and operation, principally due to
the possibility of shallow groundwater being at risk of contamination by
migration and on-site contaminants. This is identified as representing a
temporary high-risk to groundwater sources within Runcorn and Widnes
but is capable of mitigation. The need for remedial measures is different
on either side of the River Mersey. Depending on the approach that is
adopted to mitigation of the existing issues associated with the ground
water some significant residual effects would remain. These will be
addressed by the wider Remediation Strategy developed and implemented
by Halton Borough Council.
iv) Hydrodynamics
6.26 The technical assessment undertaken as part of the application exercise
and explained within the evidence of Mr Paul Norton HBC/13/1P
demonstrates that a variety of different methods have been used to
identify predicted changes for the construction and operation of the New
Bridge. The temporary works associated with construction of the bridge
towers are expected to result in some localised changes with the study
area. Post construction, hydrodynamic conditions are expected to return
to present day conditions. In the case of both operation construction
phases, no detectable changes in hydrodynamic conditions were found
within the SPA downstream of Runcorn Gap. At operation, evidence
gathered as a result of the range of modelling and investigations carried
out confirms that there is no impact on the dynamics of the Estuary.
v) Navigation
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 74
6.27 The impact of the Mersey Gateway on the normal workings the Mersey
Estuary is minimal. The technical assessment undertaken as part of the
application exercise and described within the evidence of Mr Hunt
HBC/6/1P shows that there will be no significant impacts upon users of the
Mersey Estuary and other navigation corridors both during construction
and operation, with the required headroom and beams for the vessels
using then monitored.
vi) Terrestrial Ecology
6.28 The technical assessment undertaken as part of the application exercise
and considered within the evidence of Dr Gemmell HBC/15/1P shows that
construction use of the Mersey Gateway Bridge will have no significant
adverse effect on the three key habitats in the Mersey Estuary SPA; the
salt marshes, inter-tidal sands and mudflats and the rocky shires. There
will be no effects on the ecological integrity of the Mersey Estuary in terms
of bird habits and vegetation. Effects on the Upper SPA Mersey Estuary
will be minor and can be effectively mitigated. The effect on the St Helens
Canal Bank CWS can be reduced or mitigated satisfactorily and the
ecological integrities of the sites will not be significantly affected.
vii) Avian Ecology
6.29 The technical assessment undertaken as part of the application exercise
and explained within the evidence of Mr Paul Oldfield HBC/14/1P
concludes that there will be no effects on the important bird population of
the Mersey Estuary SPA as these do not use the upper Mersey Estuary
where the New Bridge will cross. The conclusion is drawn that
construction and use of the Project, given appropriate mitigation which is
feasible, will cause no significant harm to the biodiversity or integrity of
the Mersey Estuary SPA.
viii) Aquatic Ecology
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 75
6.30 The technical appraisal exercise which accompanied the application
submissions and which is carried forward within the evidence of Dr
Williams HBC/18/1P concludes that during construction the main factor
which would be likely to have an adverse impact on aquatic organisms was
underwater noise generated by pile driving. A number of fish species could
be affected by the generation of noise and for those in the immediate
vicinity of the piling, mortality is a possibility. Effective mitigation
measures proposed would be to constantly monitor noise levels during
construction, to select appropriate building materials/techniques to
minimise noise levels and to provide 'noise free' windows for fish
migration.
6.31 The disturbance of sediments, the potential release of contaminants and
the resulting potential impact on the aquatic flora an fauna within the
Estuary also has the potential to act negatively upon the aquatic ecology.
However, appropriate mitigation measures should minimise such impacts.
6.32 As the overall impact on macroinvertebrate populations of the Upper
Mersey Estuary is likely to be negligible, there is expected to be a
negligible reduction in prey availability for internationally important bird
populations within the SPA, Ramsar and SSSI downstream of the New
Bridge site.
6.33 Further monitoring is recommended pre, during and post construction to
ensure that the aquatic ecology of the Upper Mersey Estuary can be
assessed at all stages of the development. If there are any impacts due to
the development, this will increase the likelihood that they will be detected
rapidly and further mitigation measures can then be considered in a timely
manner.
6.34 In conclusion after mitigation the assessment concludes that the project
after mitigation will have:
1. no environmental effect with a significance above Low Significance.
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 76
2. no adverse impact on the integrity of the Mersey Estuary SSSI, SPA
or Ramsar Site
6.35 On this basis it is possible to conclude that the proposal is in accordance
with the provisions of both national guidance and the development plan as
it relates to such matters.
viii) Transportation
6.36 The project provides additional capacity in the highway networks. Whilst
it is clearly a project which supports the provision of public transport and
encourages modal shift by the application of tolls, the potential exists for
this additional capacity to encourage a greater number of car based
journeys with drivers choosing to use the route where previously they
would not have done so. Had there been an open ended potential
encouragement of private car journeys this might have been contrary to
one of the main thrusts of transportation policy as expressed in national
and development plan policy.
6.37 The modelling of the regional highway network and an assessment of the
effects of the Project works was undertaken within the Transportation
Assessment undertaken as part of the application submission and
subsequently carried forward within the Inquiry evidence presented by Mr
Alan Pauling HBC/8/1P. In summary the assessment finds as follows:
1. That in terms of area wide impacts, the effects of the Project is
not significant across the modelled area, ie it does not cause
widespread trip re-assignment nor does it induce large numbers of
additional trips across the wider sub regional study area;
2. That in terms of the traffic using the Mersey crossings at the
opening year of 2015 the effect of the Project will be to cause some
traffic to direct to other crossings and a greater proportion to either
change its travel destination or change its mode or trip frequency;
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 77
3. Produce a small increase in cross Mersey trips when compared to a
no bridge or ‘do minimum’ situation. If there were no tolls however
this increase above a ‘do minimum’ situation would be much larger;
4. That in respect of vehicle types making a crossing at 2015 car
based trips are likely to be affected to a significantly greater extent
by the tolled facilities than either light or heavy goods vehicle trips.
By 2030 the deterrent effect of the toll on car journeys is likely to
have reduced significantly.
5. That in respect of journey purpose, analysis has been undertaken
on the basis of commuting trips and employers business trips. The
exercise finds that in 2015 the effect of the crossing being made
subject to tolls is that whilst some trips decrease, employers
business trips increase. At 2030, a similar pattern of results arise
whilst employers benefits again show a significant increase over
2015 levels.
6. That in respect of the time of day that crossings are made in 2015,
the impact is greater in the inter peak period with all except
employers business trips showing a reduction in crossing frequency.
Non work related trips are affected the most. In 2030 the impact
remains greater in the inter peak period, though much reduced from
2015.
6.38 The modelling exercise goes on to find that the benefits flowing out of the
scheme proposals are higher average speeds, generally shorter distances
between key destinations (e.g. M56/M62 junctions) and time savings
across a large number of key journeys. In terms of meeting the concerns
in respect of congestion presented by SJB, the assessment finds that there
are no significant disbenefits.
6.39 As well as providing for no encouragement to material additional car use,
the project will also meet the policy objectives (as set out in Policy T3) in
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 78
respect of investment in the regionally significant highway network and
the prioritisation of effective transport management.
6.40 The modelling exercise shows that up to 80% of traffic currently using
Silver Jubilee Bridge will transfer to the new bridge on opening. This
enables the reconfiguration of the SJB carriageway to provide for a
reduced highway capacity so as to cater for local traffic and public
transport whilst also making dedicated provision for pedestrians and
cyclists. In line with a key policy theme as contained with national policy
guidance and the development plan. In particular, it will directly assist in
delivering the integrated transport solution to travel within and between
the towns of Halton Borough which is cited within policy S14 as a key aim
of the second crossing proposals.
6.41 In addition a Sustainable Transport Strategy (STS) has been developed by
Halton Council in parallel with the Project. It was approved by Halton
Council in March 2009.
6.42 The STS provides the overarching integrated transport strategy within the
established Local Transport Plan process that is the setting for the Project.
The document establishes a key vision for sustainable travel choices within
Halton:
“To identify and promote a network of high quality, safe, affordable,
accessible and environmentally friendly travel measures for local residents,
businesses and visitors to Halton on which support the key objectives of
the LTP and the Project’.
6.43 This will be delivered as part of the Project, and both are inextricably
linked. The STS seeks to capture the opportunity that the Project will
present to deliver a sustainable transport network. In turn the tolls that
will be generated by the Project will support a direct financial contribution
of £0.5m per annum to deliver the requirements of the STS. The basis of
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 79
this and the mechanism for delivery is set out in the evidence of Mr
Nicholson HBC/2/1P and Mr Pauling HBC/8/1P.
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 80
7. PLANNING BENEFITS
7.1 A key consideration in the planning judgement is an understanding of the
material benefits that will be delivered by the Mersey Gateway Project and
which need to be assessed in the overall balance. Having regard to the
Project as a whole the main benefits can be grouped and summarised as
follows:
1. Transportation related benefits, including the primary benefit of
addressing the congestion constraint presented by SJB, achieving
network resilience and the development of a more sustainable and
integrated transport network for Halton.
2. Regeneration related benefits, including the direct and indirect
employment benefits, the benefits to local and wider regional
economic performance, and the physical regeneration benefits.
3. Social related benefits, including the benefits to the local economy,
the direct benefit to the more disadvantaged wards within the
Borough and the general benefits of better integration between the
towns of Widnes and Runcorn.
4. The achievement of the project objectives set by Halton Council
for the project works.
7.2 Each of these matters is considered in full within the evidence of Mr
Pauling HBC/8/1P, Mr Russell HBC/9/1P, Dr Twigger Ross HBC/10/1P and
Mr Nicholson HBC/2/1P. For the purposes of my evidence I summarise
the key findings below.
Transportation benefits
7.3 The primary aim of the Project works, as set out within UDP policy, is to
relieve severe congestion on the Silver Jubilee Bridge which is considered
to be a constraint on the economic development of the region and which
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 81
severely restricts the development of an integrated transport strategy for
Halton. The Silver Jubilee Bridge represents the only opportunity for
traffic to cross the Mersey between Liverpool and Warrington and it
represents a key link in the local and regional transport network.
7.4 In the absence of any intervention, it is accepted that the constraints
presented by SJB can only get worse. There is no scope to increase
capacity on the SJB given the constraints presented by the structure and
its listed status. The physical fabric of the bridge is deteriorating with age
and the maintenance requirements are increasing year on year. Given the
lack of alternative routing and spare carriageway capacity, any
maintenance requirement or closure has an immediate effect in terms of
traffic congestion. The bridge represents the weakest link in the highway
network and significantly undermines the resilience of the network and its
ability to meet transportation requirements.
7.5 In addition there is no opportunity within the constraints presented by SJB
to make any improved provision for pedestrians, cyclists or public
transport. There is therefore no opportunity to advance the policy
aspiration of an integrated local transport system.
7.6 Against this background therefore I consider the transportation based
benefits of providing a second river crossing in the form of the Mersey
Gateway project to be wide ranging for the following reasons:
1. The proposal will deliver a high capacity dual carriageway river
crossing, compliant with current standards and linking directly into
the primary highway network. As set out in the evidence of Mr
Pauling the proposal will deliver direct and measurable benefits in
terms of journey times and journey time reliability for all journeys
which is considered to be a key Government target.
2. The proposal will remove a congestion bottleneck on a key regional
transport link; it will deliver network resilience and allow for more
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 82
efficient network performance both for Widnes, Runcorn and the
wider region. The benefits of the Project works will be felt region
wide.
3. In terms of the effect on traffic however the modelling assessment
finds that the Project has a primarily local impact in that it does not
induce significant re-assignment of traffic movements across a wide
area. The Transport economic benefits are however more
widespread. It does not cause significant change to traffic
movements across a wide area. The modelling finds that in the year
of opening (2015) some 20,000 daily trips are removed from SJB
and the Mersey Gateway. Whilst some do divert to other crossings,
some 12,000 do not cross the Mersey, choosing either to change
mode, destination or trip frequency. Network congestion and the
declining real cost of tolls reduce this effect by 2030 but the effect
demonstrates that the proposal is in line with transport policy
aspirations.
4. The modelling finds that the main reduction is on car trips rather
than either light or heavy goods trips. Given that the impact of the
Project is determined to a significant extent by the ability to pay
tolls and the perceived value of time, car trips engaged on
employers business show a positive response to the Project, whilst
commuter trips and inter-peak lower value trips reduce. This is
again an effect which is in line with transport policy aspirations.
5. The proposal will allow for the delinking of SJB and its
reconfiguration to fulfil a role focussed on providing for local cross
river traffic, pedestrians, cyclists and public transport. Facilities will
be improved with dedicated provision for cyclists and pedestrians
along with the opportunity for enhanced level of public transport
service, with greater certainty on journey times and opportunity for
greater service frequency. This will make a significant contribution
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 83
to the development of a more integrated transport solution for
Halton.
6. The approved Sustainable Transport Strategy (STS) will ensure that
the specific benefits generated by the Project and particularly by the
changes to SJB will be captured and incorporated into the Borough
wide transport improvements. The Project directly supports the
delivery of the STS in three ways:
a. Through the provision of space on the relieved SJB for public
transport and alternative modes.
b. Through the journey time reliability that this relief will provide
to public transport operators.
c. Through providing a source of funding separate to the Councils
existing budget lines.
7.7 Each represents a direct transport benefit arising out of the Project, and
which for the most part are in direct accord with the provisions of national,
regional and local policy initiatives.
Regeneration Benefits
7.8 The development of the Mersey Gateway Project has the ability to deliver
a range of direct this and indirect regeneration benefits both within Halton
and across the region. The range of this regeneration benefit is economic
(in terms of regeneration and performance) and social as set out below.
1. Economic Regeneration Benefits
7.9 The economic benefits arising from the Project are set out in detail within
the evidence of Mr Russell but can be summarised as follows:
7.10 Mr Russell confirms that the project is expected to result in an economic
benefit in terms of GDP in the order of £311m (202 prices) in present
value terms (through a positive effect on business efficiency, investment,
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 84
innovation agglomeration benefits, labour market and competition
enhancement and wider domestic and international trade opportunities.
7.11 The Project is expected to have a positive effect within the identified
regional Regeneration Areas. In total some 4640 new local additional jobs
are expected to arise as a result of direct employment, inward investment
and regeneration effects. Once account is taken of the effects of induced
competition and displacement it is possible to conclude that a total of
1235 new jobs will be created by 2030.
7.12 The Project is expected to result in a range of positive impacts on
economic performance as a result of:
a) improvements in business efficiency through better transport
connections;
b) generation of higher rates f business investment and innovation,
building on project such as the 3MG Mersey Multimodal Gateway
which would potentially flourish with the provision of the Project
works;
c) the benefits of clusters and agglomerations;
d) enhancements to the operation of the labour market;
e) enhancements to the opportunity for trade, both domestic and
international.
Each represents an individual benefit but cumulatively the benefits would
represent a significant positive impact on employment and regional
productivity.
7.13 Each of the above would represent a materially significant and directly
attributable benefit of the Project works.
2. Physical Regeneration Benefits
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 85
The Project works will deliver physical regeneration benefits at two levels
as follows:
i) in terms of the new public realm planting and landscape provision
which will be delivered as part of the Project works. Whilst this is
primarily generated to mitigate the effects of the Project works, the
effect will be to the wider local environmental benefit.
ii) as a catalyst to the physical and land use changes identified within the
Regeneration Strategy and the emerging West bank SPD. The project
works will deliver the following:
a) In respect of West Bank (Southern Widnes), the creation of a
more sustainable pattern of movement based on a new hierarchy
with a range of new mixed tenure housing providing new family
and waterside housing, alongside a neighbourhood centre,
improved quality of employment provision and sustainable
transport links from Widnes Town Centre and Widnes waterfront.
b) In respect of the Old Town area of Runcorn the delivery of
physical change and regeneration arising from the downgrading of
SJB and the associated removal of redundant infrastructure.
c) The demolition of the A557 elevated highway and the part
demolition of the Queensway viaduct south of Ditton Junction
creating 9.6 ha of new land available for development. This will be
of direct benefit to the Southern Widnes Action Area.
d) The demolition of the A568 and the elevated southern link to the
Ditton Junction and the subsequent formation of potential
development land. This would begin to deliver the aspirations as
set out within the Regeneration Strategy and the emerging West
Bank SPD which seeks to re-brand West Bank as a high quality
gateway location, supporting high quality business, service and
retail space and providing improved access and public realm.
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 86
e) The potential for delinking and the removal of the highway loops
within Runcorn Old Town as set out within the draft SPD, thus
allowing for a new gateway into the town centre and opening up
the Bridgewater Canal.
7.14 Each will deliver focussed enhancements to areas identified as being in
particular need of physical enhancement; a key aim of the Southern
Widnes Action Area identified at Policy RG1 is for the regeneration
initiative to deliver an improvement to the overall living and working
environment.
Social and Employment Benefits
7.15 The Mersey Gateway Project has the ability to deliver direct social benefits
to the people of Halton, ranging from increased employment opportunities
through to better access to community facilities and health benefits. The
detail of these social, community and employment benefits is set out in
detail in the evidence of Dr Twigger-Ross HBC//10/1P; the key findings
are summarised below:
1. During the construction phase the project will deliver the equivalent of
470 net additional ten year equivalent jobs; of these a significant
percentage are expected to be drawn from the local Halton area given
the match between skills, qualifications and training. Once a multiplier
is added for the indirect benefits (i.e. expenditure on food and drink,
leisure etc) then the number of expected jobs in the local area rises.
Given the high levels of unemployment within the areas closest to the
job opportunities, the benefit derived from the new jobs is considered
to be of high importance.
2. It is anticipated that local training initiatives and opportunities will be
provided for residents to address the skills gap and to provide
adequate and targeted training. This would potentially increase the
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 87
proportion of local jobs secured and reduce levels of worklessness the
associated benefits of better health, higher incomes and reduced levels
of crime.
3. During the operation of the Project it is anticipated that there will be
both economic and social/health related benefits as follows:
a. created 98 direct job opportunities, with approximately 66% of
these, equating to 65 jobs) likely to be filled by local residents. A
large proportion of these will be associated with the toll collection
part of the operation which are located within the Riverside ward,
one of the most deprived in terms of unemployment. Whilst
geographical proximity does not guarantee that the opportunity
will be taken up, it does maximise the prospect.
b. the additional job benefits generated out of the inward
investment employment opportunities and those employment
benefits arising out of the regeneration initiatives.
c. overall improvements in air quality and noise levels brought
forward as part of the Project will deliver health related benefits.
d. The increase opportunities (through the improvements to SJB) to
make journeys on either foot or by bike as opposed to by car.
The local nature of journeys within Halton suggest that a
significant number of such journeys could be made, assuming a
realistic travel distance of up to 5km. Again the wards closest to
the SJB are within the worst 42% nationally when assessed
against health deprivation indices; consequently the potential
health benefits to residents within these wards will be of high
importance.
e. The assistance of the Project in the delivery of the aims and
objectives of the Sustainable Transport Strategy will be of further
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 88
direct benefit with particular relevance to areas of existing
deprivation.
f. The enhancement of public transport across SJB and the delivery
of robust and predictable journey timings will be of direct benefit
to access to education, retail and health facilities. Given the
nature of the borough and the split between Runcorn and Widnes
certain key community facilities (hospital, education
establishments, employment clusters, leisure facilities etc) lie
either north or south of the river.
7.16 The benefits are likely to be particularly valuable to deprived groups (such
as low income car drivers, disabled drivers, groups with no car access etc)
in tandem with the toll discount framework outlined by Mr Nicholson.
Project Objectives
7.17 As I explained above the Council has set seven primary objectives aims for
the Project. Mr Parr sets out in his evidence as to why those objectives
have been set and where they have been drawn from, Mr Nicholson
HBC/2/1P in his evidence demonstrates how the objectives will be
delivered. From this it can be seen that each has been addressed in that:
1. The Project works will directly address the congestion on the SJB,
remaining constraints presented by SJB and providing for
enhancements to local transport needs;
2. The Project will incorporate appropriate toll and user charges;
3. The Project will improve accessibility to the direct benefit of local and
regional economic growth;
4. The Project will have an overall net benefit on air quality;
5. The Project, as part of the improvements to SJB, will encourage the
increased use of cycling and walking;
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 89
6. The Project works as a whole will improve network resilence for
transport across the River Mersey.
7.18 Each of the objectives have clearly been met, which is in itself a robust
planning benefit.
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 90
8. OTHER DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES
8.1 Whilst the Mersey Gateway Project clearly enjoys direct development plan
policy support, there are elements of the Project works which may be
supported by other development plan policies which are of more general
application. This is inevitable given the scale of the Project and its wide
ranging effect and impact. Indeed case law has established that a
proposal does not need to comply with every element of the development
plan so as to be judged to be in accordance with it. A judgement is to be
made against the Plan as a whole, having full regard to those policies
which may pull in different directions.
8.2 It is necessary, therefore, to consider the degree of potential inconsistency
and understand the harm arising from any conflict. In this regard I have
undertaken a detailed appraisal of the proposal against the policy
framework and concluded that those areas where it may be consider on
first review that the development plan does not directly support the
Project works, or where policy conflict could be considered to arise,
comprise the following:
1) Conflict with Green Belt policy, in relation to the UDP Green Belt
designation at Astmoor Saltmarsh/Wigg Island.
2) Loss of ‘Greenspace’ as identified on the Proposals Map and Policy
GE6 at various locations along the route alignment, albeit with some
partial compensatory provision.
3) Loss of ‘Potential Greenspace’ as identified on the Proposals Map
and Policy GE7 at one location (Wigg Island) along the route
alignment.
4) Conflict with Action Area designations, as identified on the Proposals
Map and within Policies RG1, RG2, RG3 and RG4, primarily with
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 91
regard to the omission of ‘road infrastructure’ within the range of
uses identified as desirable within those Areas.
5) Partial but not overall conflict with air quality requirements as
expressed within RSS and the UDP.
6) Partial but not overall conflict with noise policy requirements as
expressed within RSS and the UDP.
7) Visual and landscape impact concerns arising in respect of land
benefiting from landscape designations, including Wigg Island and
Spike Island (policies GE6, GE23 and GE24) and the Mersey and
Canal corridors (GE29).
8) Potential conflict with matters of cultural heritage, listed buildings
and Conservation Areas.
8.3 The extent of conflict varies and in some instances is only in part rather
than as an overall effect of the scheme. However, to get a full
understanding of the scale of potential harm consideration of each area of
concern is undertaken below.
1. Green Belt
8.4 The proposed alignment crosses land at Astmoor Saltmarsh/Wigg Island
which is designated on the Halton UDP Proposals Map as Green Belt. An
extract from the UDP proposals map is set out below, with the Green Belt
boundary highlighted.
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 92
8.5 The land forms a self contained and limited parcel of Green Belt, having an
area of 161 ha bounded by the Mersey Estuary to the north and the Ship
Canal to the south. The impact of the Project on the land is that the
highway decking would cross the land at a height of 24m, supported on
concrete piers which would be sited within the land designated as Green
Belt.
8.6 Having regard to the terms of Green Belt policy it is accepted that the
Project works would represent ‘inappropriate development’ within the
meaning of PPG2. It is acknowledged that this inappropriateness is by
definition harmful to the Green Belt. In addition, again having regard to
the provision of PPG2 and the development plan, the development can be
considered to be harmful to the Green Belt for the following reasons:
1) By the effect on Green Belt purposes.
2) By the effect on Green Belt openness.
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 93
3) By the effect of the built development and the bridge deck on the
visual amenity of the Green Belt and particularly views both into and
from the Green Belt.
An assessment of the extent of the harm of each of these areas is
undertaken below:
Harm to Green Belt purposes
8.7 Having regard to the provisions of PPG2, and in particular the purposes of
Green Belt set out at paragraph 1.5, it can be concluded that the Project
causes encroachment of built development into the Green Belt (the bridge
piers) as well as indirectly causing urban sprawl (by introducing an urban
element into the Estuary gap) and arguably, causing the merging of towns
(by linking the towns physically). My assessment of the extent of the
harm for each is set out below.
a) The physical encroachment in the Green Belt caused by the Project,
namely the land taken up by the bridge piers, would constitute the
permanent loss of a ground area of approximately 0.12 ha within an
overall Green Belt parcel which has an area of 161 ha. This
proportional land take is in itself insignificant, and the ‘harm’ is
accordingly limited. As well as being limited, the encroachment is
finite. It would not lead to any further loss of Green Belt land and it
would not undermine the future function of the land as Green Belt.
As such, whilst I acknowledge that encroachment would occur, I
consider the extent of the harm associated with the encroachment
to be limited.
In addition the road deck oversails the Green Belt, which in turn
represents a form of suspended physical encroachment. This matter
is more of a visual impact consideration and is reviewed under the
assessment of visual Green Belt impact set out in paragraph 8.8
below.
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 94
b) The second concern relates to urban sprawl. Whilst the proposal
could be said to introduce an urban element into the Estuary setting
and the open Green Belt at Wigg Island, any potential sprawl is
limited only to the linear form of the bridge structure as it passes
over the Green Belt. The Project works will not cause urban sprawl
in the traditional sense of overspill i.e. development beyond the
existing built up area and urban boundaries. Furthermore, any
secondary urban growth and economic development generated by
the catalytic effects of the Project can be readily accommodated
within the towns of Widnes and Runcorn; the regeneration effects of
the Project will not therefore cause urban sprawl to the detriment of
Green Belt land.
Any harm caused to that Green Belt purpose which seeks to limit
urban sprawl is therefore minimal and wholly contained to the
effects of the new bridge.
c) With regard to the merging of towns it could be said that the
establishment of a physical crossing between Widnes and Runcorn,
which will cause an additional linking of the two towns, could in turn
could be described as promoting merging. However in reality this
linkage or merging is already in existence in the form of SJB and the
Aethelfleda a railway bridge, and it is inevitable if the policy
requirement for a second road crossing of the river is to be
achieved. As with the concern with urban sprawl, any merging will
be limited to the linear form of the bridge structure and will not lead
to any additional impact. The presence of the River Mersey ensures
that there can in reality be no material merging of the two towns,
the Green Belt at Wigg Island (which performs a separating function
but one which is ancillary to the role of the River Mersey in this
respect) will remain intact and capable of performing its existing
function.
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 95
On this basis it is considered that any harm caused to that purpose
which seeks to avoid the merging of towns is minimal and wholly
contained to the effects of the new bridge structure.
Harm to Green Belt Openness
8.8 The Green Belt at Astmoor Saltmarsh/Wigg Island comprises a discrete
parcel of land which is open within itself but borders onto areas of built
development. It is accepted that there will be some impact on the
perception of the openness of the Green Belt parcel. Mr Beswick in his
evidence acknowledges that the bridge structures would compromise the
‘openness’ of the linear estuary margins. In reality, level of impact is
limited in extent and ground cover. In addition, the bridge deck is
elevated at height of between 20, and 23m, ensuring that the perception
of openness to those at ground level would be largely unaffected.
8.9 Therefore whilst there will be the addition of some physical structures
within the green Belt, and thus on accompanying loss of ‘openess’, this
loss is limited. From outside on the impressionof openness, whilst from
inside the Greent belt the land will remain open in terms of look and feel.
Effect on Green Belt visual amenity
8.10 A full assessment of the impact of the Project works on the visual amenity
of the Green Belt was undertaken as part of the Environmental
Assessment and is set out within the evidence presented by Mr Beswick.
The assessment process as described within the evidence shows that an
appraisal of impact was undertaken at three levels of visual influence
(local, intermediate and wider), it assessed both landscape and visual
effects and it had with regard to both day and night-time impacts. The
assessment is therefore comprehensive and robust.
8.11 The evidence of Mr Beswick concludes with particular regard to the
landscape and visual impacts on the Green Belt as follows:
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 96
a. in landscape terms the New bridge could be regarded as either an
impressive structure or as an intrusive feature. The physical impacts are
confirmed to those locations where the piers are sited, whereas the deck,
is due to its height, is removed as an impact. The magnitude of effect is
therefore assessed as low adverse, the sensitivity of the landscape as
moderate given its physical scale, and the resulting significance is judged
to be low negative.
b. In visual terms the evidence finds that the potential visual effects of
the structure are reduced by the quality of design and the lightness of
structure. The sensitivity of design reduces the potential for the New
Bridge to be an imposition, leading to the magnitude of the effect to be
low adverse and the significance of effect being moderate negative, new
structure reduces the potential impact, resulting in a view that even if
viewed negatively, that the significance effect of harm is one of low
negative.
8.12 The assessment concludes in respect of the effect on Green Belt therefore
that the proposals would result in some adverse landscape and visual
impacts on the Green Belt.
8.13 It is acknowledged by Mr Beswick therefore that the general views of the
bridge structure cannot be wholly mitigated and it is accepted that the
project would have some impact on the visual amenity of the Green Belt.
In seeking to understand the harm associated with this impact, an
assessment against those factors which are identified at paragraph 3.15
within PPG2 (and at Policy GE1(2) of the UDP) as being relevant to any
assessment of visual detriment (i.e. siting, materials and design) shows
the following:
a) The siting of the bridge deck as it passes over Wigg Island is at a
level of between 20m and c 24m above ground rising to a height of
24m at Astmoor junction; as such the open views at ground level
will not be interrupted by the road decking. The siting of the
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 97
support pillars within the Green Belt cannot be avoided, but visual
harm caused by those piers can be mitigated through appropriate
structure planting.
b) The materials of the bridge will, when finalised, respect the wider
Estuary setting; the Design and Access Statement CD 6
accompanying the planning applications sets out how this wider
philosophy has been captured within reference Design scheme,
explaining the approach that will be adopted in respect of pattern,
texture, colour, lighting and shadow; and
c) The Design and Access Statement also explains how the design of
the bridge structure has been guided by a need to achieve lightness
and elegance, marrying art and science, form and function so as to
provide a simple and legible design. That Statement sets out how
bridges are a unique component of the built environment which,
when designed with a simplicity and efficiency, are able to generate
broad popular appeal and readily function as landmark and
emblematic structures. The intention with the Project, and in
particular the main span crossing the River Mersey is to achieve
both refinement and drama, delivering a design which comes to
represent a civic and regional landmark and an icon for Halton and
the north west.
8.14 The validity of this conclusion in respect of the bridge design was
reinforced by the comments of CABE in their response to the application
submission. In expressing their support for the lightness and care applied
to the detailed bridge design, the CABE response concludes that:
“the slender cross section, the dynamic cable stayed construction and the
fine design of the two decks produces an elegant bridge design”.
8.15 When assessed against each of the PPG2 points therefore it can be seen
that every regard has been had to minimising the potential impact on
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 98
visual amenity. Nevertheless for the purposes of assessment against
Green Belt policy it is accepted that the current visual amenity of the
Green Belt at Wigg Island would certainly change and could be considered
to be harmed. In my view however the extent of that harm is mitigated
by the factors set out above.
Very special circumstances and development plan support
8.16 PPG2 and development plan Green Belt policy contains no general
prohibition of development in the Green Belt, providing instead that
planning permission for inappropriate development may be granted but
only when very special circumstances can be shown to exist. Those very
special circumstances will not exist unless the harm by reason of
inappropriateness and any other harm, is clearly outweighted by other
considerations. Taking this test forward therefore I have assessed the
impact of the proposal on the Green Belt on Wigg Island and in respect of
harm it is my conclusion as follows:
8.17 With respect to harm:
1. there is by definition harm by reason of the inappropriateness of the
proposed use;
2. there is harm to the purposes of Green Belt although this harm is in
reality limited to a concern with encroachment
3. there is harm to the attribute of openness, although the extent of
this harm is limited; and
4. there is harm to visual amenity, although the harm is to an extent
mitigated by matters of siting, materials and design.
8.18 With regard whether there are other considerations present which
outweigh these concerns, and are thus capable of constituting the
necessary very special circumstances my conclusions are twofold.
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 99
1. It is evident that the development plan actively requires the
provision of a new crossing in the plan period. The two route options
set out within the development plan both entail utilising land within
and passing over the Green Belt at Wigg Island; the proposal adopts
one of the two development plan options. The decision to include
the bridge and the identified alignments within the development
plan was taken in the context of Green Belt policy. The underlying
development plan assumption therefore is one that Green Belt harm
will arise if the bridge is to be developed.
Section 38(6) provides statutory weight to this development plan
position. It is my view that the development plan requirement for
the provision of the crossing in the location as proposed is a
consideration capable of amounting to the necessary very special
circumstances.
2. The scheme delivers a range of transportation, regeneration, social
and strategic benefits as set out at section 7 of my evidence, all of
which are material considerations and can be ascribed significant
weight. It is my view that these considerations alone are of
sufficient weight to amount to the necessary very special
circumstances.
8.19 On this basis therefore it is my conclusion that the identified harm is
outweighed by matters of development plan compliance and the delivery
of material benefit and that individually and cumulatively these
considerations amount to very special circumstances which clearly
outweigh the harm to openness and any other harm sufficient to allow for
inappropriate development in the green belt. As such planning permission
can be granted consistent with PPG2.
2. Conflict with greenspace designation (Policy GE6)
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 100
8.20 The Mersey Gateway Project results in the loss of designated greenspace
at St Michael’s Golf Course (to accommodate the main toll plaza
infrastructure), and at Widnes Warth salt marsh (to accommodate bridge
piers and construction areas). In addition there are a number of smaller
areas within Area C (the Freight Line to St Helens Canal section), Area F
(and Bridgewater Junction) and Area G (along Central Expressway) to
accommodate road infrastructure. UDP policy GE6 states that
development of greenspace will not be permitted unless it is ancillary to
the enjoyment of the greenspace; exceptions are allowed where the
development would fund improvements to the overall value of the
greenspace, or make compensatory provision. The Project involves the
loss of greenspace to a use which is not ancillary to enjoyment of
greenspace, and for the main part makes no compensatory provision (with
the exception of the exchange land which is the subject of the S.19
certificate application detailed above). On this basis a conflict arises with
policy GE6 and it is necessary therefore to review the scale of that conflict
and the harm arising from it. An assessment of the Greenspace loss is
undertaken below.
i) St. Michaels Golf Course
8.21 St Michaels Golf Course, a municipal 18 hole facility, is currently closed to
any public access due to chronic ground contamination. The scope of this
contamination is set out in the relevant chapter of the Environmental
Statement. The course has been closed since 2004 and whilst there is an
expressed desire to reinstate the use, there are no specific proposals nor
funding sources identified for its remediation and reopening.
8.22 The Mersey Gateway Project would affect the greenspace in two ways:
1. It would have a temporary effect in that 7.72 ha would be utilised
for construction compound/storage use for the construction period
of approximately 40 months, with reinstatement thereafter.
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 101
2. It would have a permanent effect in that 2.4 ha would be lost to the
development of the highway infrastructure and main toll plaza.
8.23 The temporary loss is of limited relevance in that the Project would restore
much of the land to its open state after the close of construction. The
whole golf course greenspace is currently closed to all public access with
no timetable for its restoration; there is no suggestion that it is to be
restored and open to the public before the end of the construction period.
Limited harm would therefore arise.
8.24 The permanent loss of 2.4 ha would impact on the overall quantum of
greenspace that is currently designated (albeit not capable of being used).
However, this loss is minor in the scale of this part of greenspace as a
whole. More importantly, the loss would not prejudice the ability of the
land to support a replacement, reconfigured 18 hole golf course at some
future date.
8.25 On this basis the conflict with policy GE6 caused by the loss of land at St
Michaels Golf Course is acknowledged but the harm is considered to be
limited.
ii) Widnes Warth Salt Marsh
8.26 Widnes Warth lies on the northern edge of the estuary. The project
causes the physical loss of 0.14ha of land through the development of the
supporting piers; as with St. Michaels Golf Course above, it is
acknowledged that the development is inappropriate within the
greenspace, that no compensatory provision is proposed, and that as such
a conflict with Policy GE6 arises. A secondary impact is a temporary loss
of 6.23ha to provide a compound for construction works.
8.27 The loss of land to the construction area is significant in size. However, it
is temporary and as such the effect will be time limited and the land will
be restored post construction. Therefore whilst some conflict with policy
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 102
GE6 arises, the impact is temporary and restoration will occur post
construction.
8.28 The land that would be lost permanently is clearly limited (0.14 ha) and
would not constitute any form of precedent nor lead to any further loss of
greenspace. The siting of the piers within the greenspace will not render
the greenspace incapable of use, nor undermine its ongoing status as
greenspace. In addition the planting and landscape proposals that will be
brought forward will seek both to mitigate the effects of the physical
works as well as providing enhancement to the greenspace as a whole.
Whilst it is acknowledged therefore that a conflict with policy GE6 arises,
the harm arising is considered to be limited.
iii) Miscellaneous Greenspace Parcels
8.29 Three small greenspaces within Area C (Freight Line to St Helens Canal),
Area F (Bridgewater Junction) and Area G (Central Expressway) will be
permanently lost to the Project. Whilst the areas are designated as
greenspaces, they are small fragments of land mainly comprising highway
embankment or verge (all less than 0.1 ha) and their importance in the
wider context is adjudged to be low within the ES appraisal. One of the
areas would be the subject of compensatory provision under the
procedures. This notwithstanding the loss of the space represents a
conflict with greenspace policy and harm, albeit minimal, is acknowledged
to arise.
3) Conflict with ‘Proposed Greenspace’ designation (Policy GE7)
8.30 The Project works cross an area of land at Wigg Island which is identified
as a Proposed Greenspace allocation. Whilst Policy GE7 of the UDP
identifies the land, it does not go on to specify any development restraint.
However, for the purposes of my evidence, I have adopted the policy
approach and tests as set out within Policy GE6. My conclusions on this
basis are as follows:
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 103
1. The development within the proposed greenspace solely comprises
the support pier structures. The loss of land is minimal, amounting
to approximately 0.12 ha.
2. The landscape proposals which will be brought forward to screen the
built infrastructure will have a beneficial effect on the visual amenity
of this space; and
3. The proposed development will not prejudice the ability of the space
to function as greenspace if the potential designation is to be carried
forward.
8.31 On this basis therefore whilst a conflict with the broad greenspace policies
may be concluded I consider the extent of this harm to be limited.
4) Conflict with ‘Action Area’ designation
8.32 The Project alignment passes through four areas identified within UDP as
Action Areas and designated on the Proposals Map. These comprise:
1. Southern Widnes Action Areas (Policy RG1)
2. Central Widnes Action Areas (Policy RG2)
3. Widnes Waterfront – Action Area (Policy RG3)
4. Castlefields and Norton Priory Action Area (Policy RG6)
8.33 Each policy cites a list of those land uses which would be considered to be
appropriate within the Action Areas. Whilst in each instance the list does
not include major infrastructure works such as the those proposed as part
of the Project, the areas were designated in full knowledge that the Plan
also sought the delivery of the Mersey Gateway Project and that the
routing would inevitably affect those areas ‘designations’. However, whilst
there is no suggestion that the list of appropriate land uses in exhaustive,
the Project proposals are not explicitly identified and it could be concluded
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 104
that a potential policy conflict arises, to a greater or lesser extent, across
each of the areas. On a precautionary or worst case basis is therefore the
extent of this potential conflict is set out below.
Action Area 1 – Southern Widnes Action Area
8.34 UDP policy RG1 relates to the South Widnes Action Area which focuses on
land around the old Victorian heart of Widnes and has a designated area
of 59.8 ha. The text describes the area as being in need of investment in
its social and physical environments, with particular need for investment in
the housing stock, redevelopment of derelict and contaminated sites and
improvement to the overall living and working environment. The Mersey
Gateway Project would cut across the northern boundary of the Area,
resulting in the demolition of some existing industrial units, the removal of
a scrap metal business and the subsequent take up of a total of c. 31.5 ha
of ‘Action Area’ land.
8.35 The UDP identifies a range of land uses which are considered to be
acceptable within the Action Area. The list does not include major
transport infrastructure as an acceptable use, although there is no
suggestion that other uses will not be acceptable. In assessing the
acceptability of any use which is not included in the policy list therefore it
would seem appropriate to undertake an assessment of that use against
the wider Action Area policy aims, thus informing an assessment of
acceptability. Having undertaken this exercise, there are a number of
material considerations which I set out below:
1. The direct land take caused by the Project is in the order of 31.5ha;
however, the demolition of existing highway associated with the
Widnes de-linking works will create 9.6ha of new land within the
Action Area which would be capable of being put to viable use. This
reduces the land take to a net figure of 21.9 ha, out of a total land
area within the Action Area of 59.8 ha.
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 105
2. The route alignment (and thus the land take) runs along the
northern boundary of the Action Area designation. As such the bulk
of the Action Area is left intact as a single discrete area capable of
achieving the Action Area aspirations as set out within Policy RG1.
3. The land which is to be taken by the line of Mersey Gateway Project
will specifically remove amongst other uses, a large scrap metal
dealership business. The use is a long-standing but wholly
inappropriate bad neighbour type use which has a significant
detrimental effect on the environment of the immediate
neighbourhood. Its removal as a result of the Project will be of
direct environmental and social benefit to the Southern Widnes
Action Area.
4. The Regeneration Strategy as approved in June 2008 and the
ensuing West bank SPD, as due to be adopted in late 2008, focuses
attention on the Southern Widnes area. The Strategy and emerging
SPD has full regard to the presence of the Mersey Gateway Project
seeks to capture and maximise the catalytic effect of the bridge.
5. The landscape and public realm works which accompanying the
application will deliver significant environmental improvements, and
will seek to establish the area as an appropriate gateway to Widnes.
This is key aspiration of the Action Area policy.
8.36 It is my view that each element will assist in the delivery of the wider
policy aspirations and each has the effect of mitigating the loss of land
from the Action Area designation. The harm to the policy designation is
therefore considered to be limited.
Action Area 2 – Central Widnes
8.37 As with Area 1, UDP policy RG2 identifies the Central Widnes Action Area
alongside a series of land uses which are considered to be acceptable
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 106
within the Area Action. Whilst no provision is made for transport
infrastructure, the list is not exhaustive and there is no suggestion that
other uses should no be allowed.
8.38 The land take caused by the Project however is only in the order of 0.55ha
on the very southern boundary of the Action Area designation. The land
take is minimal and there would be no effect at all on the ability of the
wider Action Area to meet the policy aspirations. On this basis, it is my
view that the extent of policy conflict is minimal.
Action Area 3 – Widnes Waterfront
8.39 UPD policy Policy RG3 identifies that extent of the Widnes Waterfront
Action Area and, as in RG1 and RG2, confirms the range of land uses that
are considered to be appropriate within the Action Area. Transport
infrastructure is not included within the list. However, unlike others,
policy RG3 does acknowledge the Mersey Gateway Project, stating that
development within the Action Area should not prejudice the objective of
securing a second Mersey crossing.
8.40 The land take caused by the Project is minor, amounting to less than 1ha
at the very western end of the Action Area designation and there would be
no effect at all on the ability of the Action Area to meet policy aspirations.
Given this, and the acknowledgment within the policy prioritising the
Project, it is my view that the extent of any policy conflict is not
significant.
Action Area 6 – Castlefield and Northern Priory
8.41 UDP policy RG6 identifies a limited range of uses which are to be
promoted within this Action Area. As with RG2 and 3 however, the land
take caused by the Project is minimal, amounting to 0.7 ha at its western
boundary. As with the Central Widnes Action Area. As with the Central
Widnes Action Area there could be no effect on the ability to the Action
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 107
Area to meet policy aspirations, and it is my view that the extent of any
policy conflict is insignificant.
Summary of respect of Regeneration Action Area
8.42 Overall therefore the primary impact is in respect of the Action Area
designations is in respect of Policy RG1 and Southern Widnes; the impact
on the other Action Areas is material but not significant. In respect of
Southern Widnes, it is acknowledged that the land take is significant;
however the loss is inevitable if the Project is to be delivered. The design
of the works has sought to minimise impact and the benefits delivered by
the Project, in terms of environmental improvement and public realm
upgrading would deliver key policy aspirations for the area. In addition
the Regeneration Strategy and the emerging West Bank SPD has had full
regard to the requirements of the Project and seeks to capture the
catalytic economic social and public realm benefit of the works. In overall
terms therefore the Project delivers key elements of the policy which
serves to mitigate the extent of policy conflict.
5. Conflict with air quality policy requirements (Policy PR1 and
TP19)
8.43 Policy EQ2 within RSS sets out a general aspiration to improve air quality
in the region. Policy PR1 within the UDP develops this further, stating that
development will not be permitted where it is likely to have an
“unacceptable effect” on air quality, having regard to
i) the effect on the amenity of the local environment;
ii) on public health;
iii) on air quality standards;
iv) on investment confidence.
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 108
8.44 The policy requires that an air quality assessment is undertaken in respect
of those developments which have the potential to pollute. The
supporting text to the policy identifies unacceptable levels of emissions are
those in excess of levels set by regulations authorities.
8.45 In accordance with the policy a full assessment of the effect of the Project
works on air quality was undertaken as part of the ES exercise and the
subsequent addendum which accompanied the application. The
assessment undertakes an assessment of the overall effect of the scheme
and goes on to assess in detail where there are positive and negative
effects arising. The work undertake in support of the application has been
updated where appropriate as set out in the evidence as presented by Ms
Brown.
8.46 The evidence considers a number of separate locations along the Project
route in respect of levels of Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Particulate Matter
(PM10), carbon and carbon dioxide emissions. The first assessment year
is at 2015 and the assessment is undertaken on a ‘do minimum’ scenario
(i.e. no Project) and a ‘do something’ scenario (i.e. with the Project in
place).
8.47 The evidence concludes as follows:
1. That in respect of the construction stage, the residual effects of all
construction activities including construction vehicle movements are
considered to be low at most sensitive receptors.
2. That in respect of local air quality during operations, an assessment
of the Project against the Air Quality Strategy objectives for the key
pollutants NO2 and PM10 concludes that all concentrations within the air
quality study area will be met at the 2015 year of opening. The one
exception is Warrington town centre, where an excess of annual mean
NO2 concentrations (when assessed against AQS standards) are predicted
to occur either with or without the Project in place. The predictions do
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 109
however indicate small improvements in air quality concentrations within
the Warrington Air Quality Management Zone as a result of the Project.
There is clear evidence of positive local change, in particular around
the SJB where significant positive reductions in NO2 and PM10 occur
due to the reductions in traffic numbers. Where there is a
theoretical decrease in air quality, such as at Central Expressway
where low significant negative increases in concentrations of NO2
and PM10 are predicted, the likely concentrations are well below the
Air Quality Strategy objectives.
The evidence finds that overall, the predicted reductions in air
quality concentrations close to SJB are greater that the increase
concentrations at receptors close to Central Expressway. Overall
therefore the Project works deliver a net benefit in local air quality.
3. That in respect of regional air quality the evidence shows both at the
year of opening in 2015 and at the design year of 2030 that there
will be a reduction in NO2 and PM10 and CO2 emissions.
8.48 On this basis therefore it can be concluded that the proposal is in accord
with the provisions of PPS23. Similarly it is evident that the proposals
raise no conflict with the provisions of UDP Policy PR1, which restricts
development where it is likely to have an acceptable effect on ait quality,
nor with UDP policy TP19, which relates only to areas where air quality is
shown to be poor.
6. Conflict with noise policy requirements (Policy PR2)
8.49 Policy PR2 within the UDP states that development will not be permitted
for any new noise source which is likely to cause a significant increase
ambient noise levels, for either day or night time conditions, particularly in
respect of residential or other noise sensitive uses.
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 110
8.50 A full noise assessment of the Project works was undertaken as part of the
applicant on the same basis as the air quality exercise above, namely an
examination of both baseline and future conditions in a ‘do minimum’ and
‘do something’ scenario and having regard to both construction and
operational conditions. The assessment shows that there are positives
and negatives, with a reduction in noise levels in certain locations
(primarily around SJB) alongside increases elsewhere (mainly adjacent to
Central Expressway). The work undertaken in support of the application
has subsequently been taken forward and expanded within the evidence of
Mr Freeborn.
8.51 The evidence concludes as follows::
1. That during the construction phase there will be some low to
moderate negative effects on residential areas at Central
Expressway, Halton Brow and Western Link, and high negative
impact on open space at Wigg Island. The effect is temporary for
the duration of the construction period.
2. Once operational, the Project works will cause an increase in noise
for 65% of affected dwellings; 35% will experience a reduction in
noise. This contrasts with the do nothing situation (i.e. where none
of the project works are brought forward) where 100% of affected
dwellings will experience an increase in noise due to growth in traffic
volumes.
3. The reductions in noise are shown to be significant in a number of
locations (i.e. a change of over 3dB(A) which is identified on the
minimum perceptible change).
4. The expected increases in exposure to noise are for the most part
under the 3dB(A) figure, with the exception of one location at
Astmoor.
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 111
5. Along the Central Expressway the majority of residential areas will
have similar noise levels with the Project in 2030 when compared to
those without the Project in 2030, due in part to the mitigating
effects of the proposed noise barriers.
8.52 The assessment has also had regard to the Noise Insulation Regulations
(1975) in respect of dwellings which could be potentially eligible for noise
insulation. The evidence of Mr Freeborn concludes that just 22 out of a
total of 25,000 dwellings could be eligible for an offer of sound insulation
due to the operation of the road. Those properties are situated near to
Halton Brow, Logde Lane and the southern part of Central Expressway.
8.53 The UDP policy test as set out at Policy PR2 seeks to resist ‘significant
increases’ in noise levels; having regard to the evidence brought forward
by Mr Freeborn it is considered that the minor and limited negative effects
are not considered to represent ‘significant increases’ in noise levels and
as such no direct conflict with the policy test would arise.
8.54 The main area of concern in respect of the provisions of development plan
policy in respect of noise is mainly limited to the effect of operational
traffic noise on Wigg Island. This harm is significant, but limited in scope;
when set against the overall reduction in terms of the total number of
people likely to be affected by road traffic noise from the road operation,
then it is possible to conclude that the overall conflict with policy is
limited.
7. Effect on Landscape and Visual Amenity
8.55 The Project works pass across, or propose built development, within areas
that are considered to be of landscape value, namely Widnes North, the
Mersey Estuary, Wigg Island and individual elements including the canal
infrastructure.
8.56 The potential impacts of the Project works have been assessed in full as
part of the application process and have been considered further in the
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 112
evidence of Mr Beswick. As a baseline to the assessment full regard has
been had to the following:
a) the quality of the design of the Project works as set out in the
Reference Design, the slenderness of the structure and the lightness
and openness of the design solution which all contribute to a
reduction in impact.
b) the height that the New bridge deck passes over the sensitive areas,
ensuring that the openness, landscape value and integrity of the
space is maintained.
c) the ability of the scale of the landscape in the vicinity of the Estuary
to absorb the New Bridge structure, and the appropriateness of the
structure within its setting.
d) the beneficial effect of appropriate structural planting in those areas
where the Project works take up groundspace, primarily in the form
of the support piers.
8.57 Taking these matters into account the evidence concludes that whilst the
Project works may generate an element of landscape and visual impacts,
those impacts would be limited and localised and the principle aims of the
landscape designation policies would not be materially prejudiced.
8. Conflict with Heritage Policies
8.58 The alignment of the Mersey Gateway Project has the potential to affect a
broad range of heritage receptors. RSS policy provides an overarching
policy requirement protection the character and setting of such receptors
whilst the UDP at policy BE4 to BE15 articulates the need to protect
schedule monuments, sites archaeological importance, and the character
and setting of listed buildings, Conservation Areas and structures of local
architectural and historic interest.
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 113
8.59 An appraisal exercise was undertaken as part of both the Environmental
Statement which accompanied the planning submission. In response to
the application proposals English Heritage commented as follows:
“I can confirm that the bridge itself and the majority of the associated
road improvements which will be subject to related Planning and Listed
Building applications do not in our opinion affect the setting of listed
buildings that come within our remit as a statutory consultee (Grade 1 or
Grade II*).
8.60 The evidence of Mr BeswickHBC/7/1P has carried forward the work
undertaken for the ES. The evidence assesses the importance of the
receptor and the magnitude of any effect, allowing a professional
judgement to be made as to significant of impact. The exercise was done
along the length of the Project, adopting the Construction Area sub
division for ease of reference and in respect of both construction and
operational stages. Finally regard is had to the effects of landscape
mitigation.
8.61 The assessment process is summarised within section 11 of Mr Beswick's
evidence. It finds that whilst the majority of the potential receptors can
be considered to be of moderate or high importance, the magnitude of the
effect is considered to be mainly low, resulting in an assessment of the
effect being mainly not significant. For impacts that were identified as
‘low significance’, however the assessment concludes that once regard is
had to the particular circumstances of the proposal the effects are not
materially significant and the Project works are in accordance with the
Provision of the development plan.
Summary
8.62 Having regard to the above it is my view is that in respect of the overall
Project works, harm to development plan policy may be said to arise as
follows:
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 114
1. Green Belt policy i. Harm by definition by way of
inappropriateness.
ii. Limited harm to Green Belt
purposes.
iii. Limited harm to Green Belt
openness.
iv. Limited harm to visual
amenity.
v. Significant other
considerations which outweigh
harm and which constitute
necessary very special
circumstances leading to
overall compliance with PPG2
2. Designated Greenspace
policy
i. Limited harm to greenspace at
St Michaels Golf Course
ii. Limited harm to greenspace at
Widnes Warth
iii. Limited harm to the
miscellaneous areas through
the scheme, with some
compensatory provision.
3. Proposed Greenspace i. Minimal harm to proposed
greenspace at Wigg Island.
4. Action Area designation i. Technical conflict but limited
harm to South Widnes Action
Area.
ii. Minimal harm to Central
Widnes, Widnes Waterfront
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 115
and Castlefield and Norton
Priory.
5. Conflict with air quality
policy requirements
i. Limited specific negative
impacts identified but
improvement in overall air
quality demonstrated and thus
no harm when assessed
against the specific UDP policy
provisions.
6. Conflict with noise policy i. Overall reduction in noise
impact therefore general
compliance with policy.
Specific harm arises in respect
of Wigg Island but overall
effect is limited.
7. Conflict with landscape and
visual amenity
i. Some landscape and visual
impact arises.
ii. the principle aims of the
landscape designation policies
would not be materially
prejudiced.
8. Conflict with heritage
policies
i. Limited harm of no material
significance.
8.63 This limited identified conflict and associated assessment of harm in
respect of the Project is taken forward and informed the response to the
Secretary of State concerns conducted at Section 9 of my evidence.
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 116
9. ASSESSMENT AGAINST SECRETARY OF
STATE ISSUES RAISED
9.1 The correspondence from GONW of 30th September 2008 sets out the
matters about which the Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government wishes to be informed for the purposes of her consideration
of the planning and listed building applications. In addition
correspondence of 20th February 2009 identifies those matters that the
Secretary of State for Transport wishes to be informed about for the
purposes of his consideration of the whole suite of application
submissions.
9.2 In this light therefore I address below each of the matters raised by the
Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and on those
matters raised by the Secretary of State for Transport as far as they refer
to planning related matters. In doing so I draw upon both my evidence
and that presented by other professional witnesses appearing on behalf of
the applicant in support of the proposals.
Matters raised by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government.
1. Whether the proposed development accords with the
development plan for the area (in this instance the RSS for
the North West and Halton UDP), having regard to the
provisions of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory
Purchase Act 2004.
9.3 Section 38(6) of the 2004 Act states that if regard is to be had to the
development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under
the Planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the
plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 117
9.4 As I set out at Section 5 of my evidence case law has accepted that it is
not unusual for development plan policies (in particular respect of larger
schemes) to pull in different directions, requiring a balance or judgement
to be taken as to the extent of compliance or breach. The accepted
approach is that a proposal has to be judged against the development plan
when considered as a whole; a proposal does not have to accord with each
and every policy to be considered as being in accordance.
9.5 On this basis therefore my evidence has had regard to the extent of
development plan support for the project, the extent of any conflict and an
understanding of the planning benefit which would arise out of the project
and which would be material to any assessment. The outcome of this
exercise is set out below:
9.6 The Project draws direct support from both elements of the development
plan:
1. RSS Policy RT10 cross refers to a range of policy criteria against
which transport priority and investment decisions will be adjudged.
It has been shown that the Mersey Gateway Project would be in
accord with the criteria set out. In addition it is evident that the
MGP is likely to be specifically identified as a priority within the
emerging RT10 Implementation Plan, which will confirm explicit RSS
support for the project.
2. UDP Policy S14 directly promotes a second crossing of the Mersey
east of SJB.
9.7 The Project as a whole conflicts with some of the more general elements
of the development plan. Whilst this is inevitable given the scale of the
project, an assessment of conflict and harm has been undertaken which
concludes as follows:
1) that in respect of Green Belt policy
a) there is harm by reason of inappropriateness
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 118
b) there is limited harm to the objectives of Green Belt
c) there is harm to the visual amenity of the Green Belt
d) that very special circumstances exist having regard to policy
support, the extent of Green Belt impact and the balancing
effects of the ensuing benefits,
2) that in respect of designated greenspace there is primary conflict in
relation to the loss of land at St Michaels Golf Course. This is
however mitigated given the contaminated nature of the land, its
current closure to the general public and the ability to resume its
role as a golf course should the remediation take place. On this
basis the harm to the aims of the policy is considered to be limited.
Conflict with greenspace designations at Widnes Warth and at
miscellaneous locations along the route is considered to be limited.
3) That a conflict with the proposed designation of greenspace at Wigg
Island arises. The harm to the policy aspirations however is
minimal.
4) That a conflict with the appropriate local uses within the Southern
Widnes Action Area (RG1) arises. The Project would however
significantly advance a number of key Action Area policy aspirations
and the extent of the harm is considered to be limited. In respect
of the other Action Areas affected (RG2, RG3 and RG6) the harm is
minimal
5) That whilst the Project delivers regional improvements in air quality,
alongside some local area improvements, there are certain specific
areas that would suffer a minimal negative impact. An assessment
against the development plan policy framework however shows that
there is no material conflict arising.
6) That a conflict with noise policy requirements arise particularly in
respect of the effect at Wigg Island. The impact at Wigg island is
harmful but the overall effect on policy is limited.
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 119
7) That a conflict with cultural heritage policy arises, limited however
to a change in the urban setting of a number of listed buildings and
three Conservation Areas. The extent of the harm is in my view
minimal.
9.8 The Project as a whole delivers significant transportation, regeneration
and social benefits. These will be of direct relevance to Halton and the
wider region.
9.9 Having undertaken the exercise it is my conclusion that the Project is in
accordance with the development plan when taken as a whole. An
assessment has been made of the policy conflicts arising, particularly in
respect of Green Belt policy given that the proposal is inappropriate
development for which very special circumstances must be demonstrated.
However, having balanced the benefits arising out of the Project against
the harm to Green Belt and the other policy conflict identified above, it is
my conclusion that the benefits do clearly outweigh the harm to Green
Belt and other harm and that they do constitute very special
circumstances.
9.10 On this basis my evidence concludes that there are no material
considerations of sufficient weight to determine other than in accordance
with the primary policies as set out within the development plan which
supports the provision of the Mersey Gateway Project.
2. Whether the applications accord with the provisions of PPS1
and whether it would accord with the Key Planning
Objectives set out in PPS1 Supplement: Planning and Climate
Change
9.11 PPS 1 is concerned with the delivery of sustainable development; it is wide
ranging in its scope and is relevant to a number of different elements of
the Mersey Gateway Project. Appraisal of the Project against the guidance
shows the following:
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 120
1. The Project is supported by the development plan and the delivery of
the Project is embedded within regional and local planning policies.
The delivery of the Project would therefore be in accord with the plan
led system advocated within PPS1.
2. The Project has been subject to extensive and effective public
consultation at key stages in the development timetable. The
approach adopted has been in full accord with the principles of
consultation and community/stakeholder engagement as set out
within PPS1.
3. The Project will assist in the development of stronger more vibrant
communities within both Widnes and Runcorn, whilst increasing
accessibility for members of both communities to jobs, health,
housing, shops, leisure and community facilities.
4. The Project has sought to have full regard to the natural and historic
environment through both the route selection exercise and within the
Reference Design process.
5. The Project will contribute to delivering sustainable economic
development through the direct delivery of new employment
opportunities alongside supporting forward growth within the wider
regional economics.
6. The project will deliver direct and indirect regeneration opportunities
utilising brownfield and in sustainable urban locations.
7. The Reference Design demonstrates that the Project will deliver good
design, appropriate to its function and context and capable of
contributing to the identity of its location.
8. The Sustainable Transport Strategy which is in part facilitated by the
Project works (particularly in relation to SJB) will significantly
enhance the use of public transport within both Widnes and Runcorn.
In each respect therefore it is considered that the Project is in accord with
the key principles of PPS1.
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 121
9.12 The Supplement to PPS1 considers how development through planning
regulations can contribute to the appropriate response to climate change.
Whilst it mainly addresses itself to the development of policy through
regional bodies and development plans, it is relevant the Project in that it
seeks the delivery of spatial strategies which seek to secure the fullest
possible use of sustainable transport for moving freight, public transport,
cycling and walking and which, overall, reduce the need to travel,
especially by car.
9.13 As is set out within the evidence of Mr Pauling, it is possible to conclude
that the project responds positively to these particular aims as follows:
1. The effects of the Project are essentially local; it does not induce
large numbers of additional trips across the wider study area and it does
not cause widespread trip reassignment.
2. At the year of opening in 2015, some 8000 trips choose to use a
different crossing point to SJB or the Mersey Gateway; 12000 trips
however chose not to cross the Mersey at all, either not making the trip or
choosing an alternative mode.
3. The modelling shows the following key findings:
That car trips are likely to be affected to a significantly greater extent than
either light or heavy goods vehicle trips.
Given the tolling regime and the effect of the ability to pay, car trips on
employers business show a positive response to the project.
The Project result in an increase in higher value employer business and
commute trips in the peak periods whilst discouraging lower value trips
from both the peak and non peak times. This allows for a more efficient
use of the highway network.
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 122
Longer distance trips are removed from the SJB, leaving it free to
accommodate public transport, walking and cycling improvements
proposed as part of the Project.
The additional overall capacity provided by the Project delivers enhanced
network robustness and reliability.
On this basis it is my view that the Project is in accord with the provisions
of the Supplement so far as it is relevant.
3. The extent to which the development is consistent with
PPG2: Green Belts, especially whether the development is
considered appropriate under the provisions of PPG2.
9.14 My evidence summarises at Section 8 in respect of Green Belt policy,
concluding as follows:
1. That there is no practical alternative other than for a route alignment
which crosses the Green Belt at Wigg Island. The UDP in the text and
plan supporting policy S14 shows the two possible alignments, both of
which cross the Green Belt at Wigg Island.
2. That the impact on the Green belt caused by the Project is confined to:
a) harm by reason of inappropriateness
b) harm to two of the purposes of Green Belt (urban sprawl and
encroachment), although the material harm in both instances is
limited
c) harm to general attribute of openness, although the extent of the
material harm is again limited.
d) harm to be visual amenity of the Green Belt in this location, with
harm to some extent mitigated by siting, materials and
particularly design.
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 123
9.15 PPG2 provides that a grant of permission for inappropriate development
may be made only when justified by very special circumstances which
clearly outweigh harm. The Guidance states that very special
circumstances to justify inappropriate development will not exist unless
the harm by reason of appropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly
outweighed by other considerations.
9.16 I have undertaken this appraisal and my conclusion is as follows:
1. The proposed represents an inappropriate form of Green Belt
development.
2. There is harm but that harm is limited, with the main concern being
in respect of impact on visual amenity.
3. There is a development plan presumption that the crossing of the
Mersey will be delivered within the Plan period (UDP policy S14) and an
acknowledgement within the development plan that the routing cannot
avoid crossing the Green Belt at Wigg island. The proposal has
development plan weight in accordance with section 38(6) of the 2004 Act
and this in itself is capable of representing the very special circumstances
necessary to justify inappropriate development.
4. In addition there are very significant economic regeneration,
transport, physical regeneration and social benefits which flow from the
Project which are material considerations and which add to the necessary
very special circumstances.
My conclusion therefore in response to the matter raised by the Secretary
of State is that whilst the Project works represent an inappropriate form of
development in the Green Belt, very special circumstances exist so as to
enable a grant of permission consistent with the provisions of PPG2.
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 124
4. The extent to which the proposed development is consistent
with PPG17: Open Space particularly with regard to the loss
of greenspace.
9.17 PPG17 concerns itself with matters of open space sport and recreation
within development and their potential contribution to quality of life.
9.18 In considering the potential loss of open space, local authorities are urged
to weigh any benefits that are being offered to the local community
against the loss of space that will occur. The Project will result in the loss
of a quantum of open space and as such PPS17 requires an assessment of
harm against benefit. In term of harm the Project will result in:
- The temporary loss of 7.72 ha of land at St Michaels Golf Course to
allow for construction purposes;
- The permanent loss of 2.4 ha of land at the Golf Course
- Other incidental areas of loss through the Project
9.19 The Golf Course however has been closed to the public since 2004 due to
chronic ground contamination. There is no immediate prospect of it being
reinstated and therefore whilst it currently provides a ‘visual’ open space
benefit it cannot be used and it is of no practical open space benefit to the
community.
9.20 The temporary loss will be reinstated post construction and no long term
harm arises; the permanent loss of land (2.4 ha) is significant in itself but
would not prejudice the ability of the land to support a replacement,
reconfigured 18 hole facility at some future date.
9.21 The use of the Golf Course land is critical to the Project and its effective
alignment and construction. I consider therefore that it is possible to
conclude that significant community benefit will flow out of the Project
against minimal material harm arising from the acknowledged loss of open
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 125
space. On this basis I am of the view that no material conflict arises with
the provisions of PPG17.
9.22 The other harm to open space is minor elements of permanent land taken
at Widnes Worth (0.14 ha) and at three other locations within construction
areas C, F and G of each c. 0.1 ha). One of these areas is the subject of a
replacement provision which will be confirmed under the application for a
certificate made under Section 19 (i)(a) of the acquisition of Land Act
1981. The exchange land is no less in area and is equally advantageous
to users of the land that is being lost. This will ensure that in this
particular location no detriment arises. My view on the other areas of
incidental loss is that the harm to wider open space objectives are minimal
and are outweighed by the benefits arising out of the Project. It is my
view that no material conflict arises with the provisions of PPG17.
5. Whether the applications have fully taken into account the
requirements of PPS9: Biodiversity and Geological
Conservation especially given the nature and extent of land
identified and protected under local designations, and
whether the applications accord with PPS10: Waste.
9.23 PPS9 at para. 1(vi) confirms that planning decisions should prevent harm
to biodiversity and geological conservation interests. Where necessary,
adequate mitigation measures should be put in place.
9.24 PPS9 recognises the most important sites for biodiversity as those
identified through international conventions and European Directives;
these include SPAs and SACs. SSSIs not covered by international
designations should nonetheless be given a high degree of protection.
9.25 A full review of potential impacts of the Project on important nature
conservation designations within the Mersey Estuary has been undertaken
to accompany the planning application. This is taken forward through the
evidence of Mr Oldfield and Mr Gemmell, which assesses the importance of
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 126
the receptor and the magnitude of any effect, through which a judgement
is made on the significance of the impact.
9.26 In accordance with PPS9, key sites assessed through the process comprise
the following within the internationally and nationally important Middle
Mersey Estuary:
a. SPAb. European Marine Sitec. Ramsar sited. SSSI
9.27 The construction of the New Bridge will be situated upstream and entirely
outside the main designations, namely the Mersey Estuary SPA. This
reflects a key principle of PPS9 to minimise impacts upon important
biodiversity and geological conservation interests. Notwithstanding this,
given the relative proximity of the New Bridge, the assessment has had
regard to the provisions of this guidance.
9.28 The evidence of Mr Oldfield HBC/14/1P and Mr Gemmell HBC/15/1P
assesses the impact of the Project on the SPA and the wider Mersey
Estuary. This concludes of no harm to SPA habitats. Further, no material
impact on the habitats of important bird populations within the Mersey
Estuary SPA is identified. The New Bridge will have no effect on the
integrity of the SPA in terms of bird habitats and vegetation.
9.29 The assessment concludes that the Project will generate only minor
impacts on biodiversity within the wider Upper Mersey Estuary during
construction. To minimise these effects, mitigation measures are
proposed.
9.30 It is my conclusion therefore that the Project has had full regard to the
requirements of PPS9, and will have no significant material impact upon
the integrity of the Mersey Estuary.
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 127
9.31 PPS10 establishes the broad principles for the management of waste at all
levels, including construction waste arisings.
9.32 In common with all major development projects, the Project has the
potential to generate significant quantities of waste material, which will
require appropriate handling, storage, treatment, transportation and
disposal.
9.33 A review of potential sources of waste arisings has been assessed as part
of the planning application process. This has been taken forward within
the evidence of Mr Michael Jones, who confirms potential sources of waste
arisings during the construction phase to comprise:
a. Construction works;b. Drainage;c. Demolition;d. General site activities;e. Pavement construction;f. Construction phase maintenance;g. Earthworks.
9.34 Waste management measures to be employed as part of mitigation from
waste management activities will form part of the Construction
Environmental Management Plan (CEMP). This is a requirement of the
planning conditions attached to the approved planning permissions. As
part of the CEMP, the Concessionaire will prepare a Site Waste
Management Plan, submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval
prior to the commencement of development.
9.35 The proposed regime of waste management will contribute to the
sustainability of the Project to ensure the safe removal and transportation
of waste materials, and to minimise any environmental impacts which may
arise as a result subject to mitigation. It is my view therefore that the
Project is in accordance with the principles of PPS10.
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 128
6. Whether the applications accord with PPG13: Transport in
particular whether they promote sustainable transport
choices and reduce the need to travel by private transport.
9.36 The transport related benefits of the Project are set out primarily within
the evidence of Mr Pauling and are summarised within my evidence. With
regards to the two particular matters raised by the Secretary of State my
conclusions are set out below:
9.37 The proposals directly promote sustainable transport choices and reduce
the need or requirement to travel by private transport for the following
reasons:
9.38 The Project works will on the day of opening remove approximately 80%
of the traffic which currently uses SJB, allowing for the bridge to serve an
essentially local function.
9.39 Of the traffic that is removed, a proportion will choose not to travel,
primarily due to the impact of the tolling regime. This will have a direct
benefit on the overall quality of private transport trips.
9.40 The reduction in traffic on SJB will allow for a reconfiguration of the bridge
decking (as set out in the listed building application submissions) reducing
vehicle space to a single lane in each direction and thus allowing space for
the provision of dedicated pedestrian and cycling facilities. This will
directly promote more sustainable travel options.
9.41 The capacity will ensure that journey times for all transport modes, but
particularly so far public transport between Widnes and Runcorn across
the SJB are much more reliable, promoting increased customer confidence
and use.
9.42 The delivery of the provisions of the Sustainable Transport Strategy as
approved by Halton Council relies on a reliable and robust local link across
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 129
the river between Widnes and Runcorn. The reconfiguration of the SJB as
proposed within the Project works will provide that degree of reliability.
9.43 The Project works will, through a financial contribution, contribute directly
to the delivery of the Sustainable Transport Strategy.
9.44 It is my firm conclusion therefore that the proposal, primarily through the
improvements to SJB and the delivery of the Sustainable Transport
Strategy, will promote sustainable transport choices for the residents of
Widnes and Runcorn..
7. Whether the applications will have a significant impact on
features of archaeological and heritage importance, listed
buildings and conservation areas in relation to the provisions
of PPG15: Planning and the Historic Environment and PPG16:
Archaeology and Planning.
9.45 PPG15 at paragraph 1.1 confirms that it is fundamental to the
Governments policies for environmental stewardship that there should be
effective protection for all aspects of the historic environment.
9.46 A full review of the cultural heritage designations has been undertaken to
accompany the planning application process. This has been carried
forward within the evidence of Mr Beswick, who confirms that the study
area defined as part of the EA exercise comprises the following cultural
heritage resources.
1 scheduled ancient monument (Halton Castle)
47 listed buildings
4 designated Conservation Areas
125 sites of heritage interest
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 130
9.47 In respect of the provision of PPG15 therefore it is possible to conclude
that the project works raise no matter of material significance
9.48 PPG16 sets out guidance for the preservation of archaeological remains;
the preferred approach for the preservation of important remains is to
ensure that remain in situ. Special regard is had to nationally important
archaeological remains, with a presumption in favour of retention.
9.49 A full review of the potential archaeological impacts of the Project has
been undertaken to determine potential impacts of the proposed
development upon existing archaeological and historic sites, buildings and
areas. The key findings were as follows:
a. Possible loss of ground remains related to the history and development of historic sites;
b. Potential for buried features to be uncovered during construction;c. Impact upon external views and visual setting of receptors along the
proposed route alignment.
9.50 Mitigation measures to minimise impact on archaeological remains have
been identified as part of the assessment, and are considered to represent
the appropriate response given the low potential for the construction
groundworks to uncover archaeological remains.
9.51 The long-term residual effects of the Project, assuming that all the
recommended mitigation measures are applied and that the Project
advances in accordance with historic environment and archaeological
policies, are considered to be low negative to neutral. It is my conclusion
therefore that the Project is in accordance with the provisions of PPS9.
8. Whether the applications have fully taken into consideration
the requirements of PPS23: Pollution and PPS24 Noise within
particular regard to the reduction in air quality and the
impact of noise and vibration.
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 131
9.52 A full assessment of both noise and air quality was undertaken within the
Environmental Assessment exercise which supported the planning
application process. The findings have been taken forward and developed
in the evidence of Ms Brown in respect of air quality and Mr Freeborn
HBC/12/1P in respect of noise. I set out the key findings of both below:
1. Air Quality
9.53 The effects of the proposal in terms of air quality were assessed as part of
the Environmental Assessment process which supported the planning
submissions; this has been carried forward and updated in the evidence of
Ms Brown.
9.54 The evidence assesses the effect of the Project on air quality as follows:
1. It appraises the potential impact of the construction process, having
regard to the effects of the mitigation measures and conditional
procedures.
2. It appraises the operation of the Project on local air quality values.
3. It reviews how the operator of the Project works would affect
regional air quality.
2. Noise
9.55 The evidence of Mr Freeborn summarises matters in relation to both
construction and operational stages. In respect of the construction period,
it is found that there would be some localised negative effects within six of
the nine construction areas. The majority of the impacts are considered to
be moderate or low, with the exception of the potential piling works at
Wigg Island, which is considered to be high negative impact due to the
sensitive nature of the area.
9.56 The construction period is however finite and the work regimes will be
regulated by the conditional arrangements.
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 132
9.57 The evidence goes on to conclude in respect of the operation of the Project
works, both at the year of opening at 2015 and at the design year of
2030. With particular regard to the assessment against PPG17, the
evidence finds that:
a) Without the Project works (i.e. a do nothing situation) 100% of the
dwellings in the study area will experience an increase in noise due to
national growth in traffic flows with the Project works, only 65% will
experience an increase whilst 35% will experience a reduction.
b) The sample of 12 survey points along the route shows that at the
year of opening, 5 experience major reductions in noise and 4 experience
negligible benefit or no change. Only 3 points experience an increase in
noise, of which only 1 is described as major (i.e. within the bounds of
perception). The findings are broadly the same for 2030, with 5 sample
points showing major benefit, 3 showing negligible or no change, and 4
showing an increase again only one of which is considered as major.
c) The evidence confirm that the mitigation effects of the proposed
noise barriers will serve to reduce the impact of road noise.
9.58 On this basis it is my conclusion that the Project works will when taken as
a whole represent a net benefit in terms of noise quality. The proposals
are thus in accord with the provisions of PPG17.
9. The detail of any conditions which should be attached to any
permission or consent.
9.59 A schedule of conditions has been agreed with the Planning authority and
is before Inquiry for consideration. The working of the conditions has
been with the Local planning Authority and has had full regard to Circular
guidance as appropriate.
Matters raised by the Secretary of State for Transport
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 133
9.60 The matters raised by the Secretary of State for Transport are much more
wide ranging and cover a number of disciplines. Some of the matters
raised however are related specifically to matters of planning and planning
policy. Whilst there is some overlap with and duplication of the matters
raised by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, I
set out the full response below for ease of reference.
2. The justification for the Councils proposals, including the
extent to which they are consistent with national, regional
and local planning policies.
9.61 My evidence has shown that there is an overwhelming consistency with
planning policy as is summarised below:
9.62 There is direct support at Policy S14 of the Halton Unitary Development
Plan for both the principle of the Projects works (a second crossing east of
the existing SJB) and the proposed alignment off Central Expressway.
9.63 There is support within the Regional Spatial Strategy for the Project.
9.64 There is other, non development plan support for the Project (Regional
Economic Strategy and others)
9.65 The Project is in broad accord with the suite of national policy statements,
in particular PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development and the PSS1
supplement, PPS2: Green belts, PPG9: Biodiversity and Geological
Conservation, PPS10: Waste; PPG13: Transport, PPG15: Planning and the
historic Environment, PPG16: Archaeology and Planning, PPG17: Open
Space, PPS23: Pollution and PPG24: Noise.
9.66 My conclusion therefore is that the proposal is consistent with planning,
transport and environmental policies.
3(g) The extent to which the proposed development is consistent
with PPG2: Green Belts
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 134
9.67 This matter was raised by the Secretary of State for Communities and
Local Government and I have responded at paragraph 9.60 above. In
summary however the position is summarised as follows:
1. The development is inappropriate when considered against the
provisions of PPG2.
2. Harm is acknowledged to arise by virtue of this inappropriateness
but also having regard to the Green Belt purposes of encroachment,
merging the overall concern with openness and visual amenity. In
each instance however the degree of harm is limited.
3. There are other material considerations which are sufficient to
overcome both the presumption against inappropriate development
and the harm that arises. These comprise:
a) the development plan support for a crossing of the Mersey in
this location and an assumption that it will be brought
forward within the UDP timeframe.
b) the range of transport, environmental, social and
regeneration benefits that flow from the Project works which
are set out in detail with my evidence and that of others.
9.68 These matters comprise the very special circumstances sufficient to
overcome Green Belt concerns and thus allow for a grant of permission in
accordance with the provisions of PPG2.
The extent to which the proposed development is consistent with
Government policies in PPG17: Open Space
9.69 PPG17 defines open space as meaning all open space of public value;
including not just land but also other features (rivers, canals etc) which
offer opportunities for sport and recreation as well as acting as a visual
amenity.
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 135
9.70 The UDP via its Greenspace designation (policies GE6 and GE7) seeks to
identify the majority of functional open space with Widnes and Runcorn.
The policy approach seeks to resist development in such areas unless one
or more of four criteria are met. The supporting text at policy GE6
(paragraph 10) state that the policy is not intended to act as a block on all
development but rather to provide a framework for assessment.
9.71 The effect upon Greenspace by the Project works has been assessed at
various stages within the application process and shows one significant
area of permanent loss (at St Michaels Golf Course), a number of
examples of minor residential less through the scheme (road verges, open
land etc) and a loss within Widnes Warth and Astmoor Saltmarsh Wigg
Island caused by the siting of the New bridge support piers. In assessing
this loss of such space my conclusions are as follows:
1) That in respect of St Michaels Golf Course the effect is significant but is
mitigated by the fact that:
a) the Golf Course is closed to the public due to contamination
concerns and there is no funding programme for its restoration.
b) the works do not prejudice the ability of the Golf Course to be
reinstated to a 18 hole facility if remediation was to come
forward.
c) the effect does not materially diminish the overall visual amenity
function fulfilled by the Greenspace designation.
d) the works on the land would enable a key element of the Project
works to be brought forward (tolling plaza).
As such, it is considered that the effect on this land would meet two of
the exception criteria set out within policy GE6, namely:
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 136
a) the works would not cause local residents to travel to a less
convenient location (GE6c).
b) there are clear and convincing reasons why development should
be permitted (GE6d).
The effect upon the land is therefore considered to be acceptable when
assessed against the principles of the policy.
2) The incidental loss of such land through the scheme is minor in nature
and does not materially prejudice any amenity considerations. This is
justified by the same GE6 criteria as set out above, namely that no
material impact on residential benefit will arise and there are clear and
compelling reasons why the loss should be justified.
3) The loss of Greenspace within Widnes Warth and Astmoor
Saltmarsh/Wigg island is limited to the land taken up by the New
Bridge piers. The loss of land is limited to the ground area taken up by
the individual piers and the potential impact is mitigated in that:
a) the visual impact of the development at a very local land can be
limited by appropriate structural planting.
b) the overall function and integrity of the Greenspace will not be
prejudiced, and its ongoing amenity function will not be materially
prejudiced.
9.72 The effect upon the land therefore again considered to be justified by the
exception criteria set out within Policy GE6 and as such its development
would not be contrary to the provisions of either PPG17 or the development
plan.
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 137
10. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
10.1 My evidence has undertaken an appraisal of the Project works against the
planning policy framework. I have considered the extent to which the
proposals are supported by national, regional and local planning policy, I
have examined the extent of any conflict and have identified benefits that
arise out of the Project works. This in turn enables me to conclude on
planning balance, planning suitability and the appropriateness of a grant
of planning permission. By way of summary therefore I conclude on each
element below.
Planning Policy Support
10.2 The Project works are directly supported by the development plan (which
in this instance comprises the Regional Spatial Strategy (2008) and the
Halton UDP (2005)) as follows:
a) The Project works are in full accord with and strongly supported by
the range of policy criteria set out at RSS policy RT10 against which
transport proposals are to be judged.
b) The Project works deliver a second crossing of the River Mersey in full
accord with the requirements of UDP policy S14 (namely a second
crossing, east of the existing SJB and forming part of an integrated
transport system for Halton and the wider network). The position
and alignment of the New Bridge reflects that shown on UDP Map 2.
10.3 On this basis it is concluded that the Project, in its proposed form and
location, is expressly supported by the development plan. As such, in
accordance with section 38(6) of the 2004 Act, a presumption in favour of
a determination in accordance with the plan arises unless other material
considerations indicate otherwise.
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 138
10.4 In addition, the proposals are supported by other non-development plan
policy, in particular the Regional Economic Strategy
(2006) which recognises the benefits of the Project, and Haltons Local
Transport Plan which identifies the significant transport benefits which will
arise from the Project.
10.5 The effects of the Project works have also been shown to be largely in
accord with the regulatory provisions of the development plan. The
evidence in respect of surface water; ground contamination;
hydrodynamics; navigation; terrestrial, avian and acquatic ecology; and
transportation has shown that no material policy conflict arises.
Planning Policy Harm
10.6 Inevitably, given the scale of the Project, there are elements of the works
which raise potential conflicts with individual parts of the development
plan, in particular the detailed provisions of the UDP. The courts have
concluded that this is not unusual and that an informed balance has to be
made allowing for a proposal to be judged against the development plan
as a whole.
10.7 This approach therefore requires an understanding of the extent of any
conflict. My evidence has undertaken this exercise, identifying where
conflict may exist and making a judgement as to the harm arising. My
conclusions on this are that:
a) There is some harm to green belt policy, arising out of limited harm
to Green Belt purposes, openness and visual amenity. There are
however a range of other significant considerations (including
development plan compliance and the range of economic, social and
transportation benefits) which clearly outweigh the harm arising,
and which are capable of constituting the necessary very special
circumstance to justify inappropriate development.
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 139
b) There is some limited loss of land existing and potential Greenspace
as designated within the UDP; the largest loss is at the currently
disused St Michael’s Golf Course, although this is not material given
that the loss would not prejudice the potential future use of the land
as golf course. The other Greenspace loss is minor and does not
materially prejudice the aims and objectives of the UDP policy.
c) There is limited technical conflict with the various Action Area
designations; the policy does not be identify transport infrastructure
as an appropriate use (thus giving rise to the potential policy
conflict) but in reality the extent of land take is limited, no material
prejudice is caused to the policy objectives and the Project works
will actively deliver some of the policy aspirations. As such the
potential development plan conflict is minimal.
d) Part of the Project works cause a limited and localised negative
effect on air quality, which could in turn be considered to represent
a policy concern. In reality however the evidence shows that when
assessed overall the Project delivers a net improvement in both local
and regional air quality and that potential localised impact does not
generate any material concern when considered against the
development plan policy tests.
e) Part of the Project works cause a limited and localised negative
effect on the noise climate, which could in turn be considered to
represent a policy concern. However the evidence has shown that
overall there will be a reduction in annoyance due to road traffic
noise with the project in place. The Project delivers major
reductions in noise levels across wide areas. The areas which will
experience an increase in noise levels are limited, with only the
commercial area adjacent to Wigg Island experiencing an uplift
which is considered to be major.
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 140
10.8 On the basis of this review and analysis I conclude that the extent of
conflict with the development plan is limited.
Planning Benefits
10.9 As part of the planning balance exercise I have undertaken a review of the
benefits that may arise out of the proposals. This exercise concludes that
there are a wide range of benefits which flow out of an are a direct
function of the Project works; these fall into four broad areas, namely:
a) Transportation-related benefits, including the primary benefits of
addressing the congestion constraint presented by SJB, achieving
network resilience and the development of a more sustainable and
integrated transport network for Halton;
b) Economic and Physical Regeneration related benefits, including the
direct and indirect employment benefits, the benefits to local and
wider regional economic performance, and the physical regeneration
benefits delivered by the opportunity for infrastructure demolition;
c) Social related benefits, including the benefits to the local economy,
the direct benefit to the more disadvantaged wards within the
Borough and the general benefits of better integration between the
towns of Widnes and Runcorn and
d) The achievement of the project objectives set by Halton Council for
the project works.
Each of these is a significant material consideration in any consideration of
the Project works.
10.10 My assessment of the Project in terms of policy compliance, conflict and
planning benefit informs an assessment of planning balance and a
planning judgement. An appraisal has been made in respect of the
potential policy conflicts arising, particularly in respect of Green Belt policy
Proof of Evidence
January 2009 141
given that the proposals constitutes inappropriate development for which
very special circumstances must be demonstrated. However, having
identified significant other material considerations, included amongst
which is development plan support and the range of planning benefits, it is
my conclusion that these do clearly outweigh harm and they do constitute
the necessary very special circumstances.
10.11 On this basis my conclusion is that the Project is in accordance with the
development plan when taken as a whole and that there are no material
considerations of sufficient weight to determine the proposals other than
in accordance with the primary policies of the development plan which
supports the delivery of the Mersey Gateway Project.