Richard Ward PINS Reference 3253194; 3253230; and 3253232
Former Parkside Colliery Inquiries
1. First Inquiry 24 January 1996 Government Office for Merseyside Ref: TF/MTF/669, Date 24/01/1996 SHC Ref P.1294/068/RJM/DAR, UDP POLICY AP1.2 PARKSIDE COLLIERY, date 24/01/1996
2. Second UDP Inquiry 10 November 1997 UDP POLICY AP1.2 PARKSIDE COLLIERY MODIFICATION MOD/96/AP1.2
3. Third UPD Inquiry, date 25 July 2002 Report PNW/5150/219/25 and 26, Swayfields Motorway M6 Service Station and Deputy Prime Minister Decision, date 25 July 2002, Reference: APPM0655N00000199-200
Compiled by Richard Ward, October 2020 1. First Inquiry 24 January 1996 Government Office for Merseyside Ref: TF/MTF/669, Date 24/01/1996 SHC Ref P.1294/068/RJM/DAR, UDP POLICY AP1.2 PARKSIDE COLLIERY, date 24/01/1996 MspeclO"S Reponon' the objections to 51.Helens UDP page 208 Pan II; Area Policlej' --_._-_._--,,--~.-----'----_._------, ~-- .
'..- .:-.~.-:..:.:.._:..-..... ". '" ". -::'>.:": ;~!~:i:,~~.'g~;:::i·~~E~~::,
OBiEGtlON'NO~.. .5143 GO-Mi' 5330:Bnt1$h traIPro~rtyBOWd" .
Summary of objections'
12.f ...,'.i ._T,hepoHcy relates-to a sitewitttin theGreen~~lt andqontljcts with thenatiooal plafining guidanCe given in P'PG2.The policy should be deleted \51~3J . .
. . ii. .The 4fea allocated ,under..this .policy.sh6uldbe,extendedto. include the.open landtietiVeen. Winwick Road and the colliery buildings to.create ..a.developmentsite,o~jOha, in or~er for the site to exploit itS strategiC position \5330). .
Inspector' s consider~tions and conclusions
12.2 .. . The o~jection madebyG,O~Mhas been overtaken by lhe.publicatio,n ofther,evi~ PPG2GreenBelts(CD103B). Section 3 andAi1ne~ C of the PpqgivetheoPJNfWllityfor _devet-opment.pla~sto include poli(:ies for limited infilling otredev~lopmentof maj~~e~is.ting.;; dev,cloped-siieS;"subjci;TtOce~ijrcfiteria. Consequently ,-1l;:onsider'1hctpott9Y i~.1'\O'W·m:-::-,,-· - . accon:lance with current national planning·guidance.
12.3 . TUrningto the oQ.iection~adeby British Coal, the.!iite lies within the GreenBelt, as established in 1983inthe.GBLP. J;he colliery has since closed and the plant and buildings demolished and associated hardstandings, circulation areas and railway sidings largely cleared. Pri9r to the' publicatipn of the.revised PPG2"(GDI 03B),th,ere.was little;gtJidance~olocal planning authorities as to hOw to.deal with large areas Qfpreviously developed land in the Gr~en Belt, both ina policy. document or in responsewanapplicati()n;:
12.4 Guidance in the'revisedPPG2is a pragmaticreswn~etol!problembeing faced by some ·..loca1 planning .authQritieswnere there are large, redundant.installations ~here.aneW usejsregarded- as necessary and acceptable. A .redun<1antcolliery,fanS.~ithinJbeprovisions of this .new guidance. The.Council might have'decide 12;5 Annex C gives advice on how such sites should he defined. It is very clear that the boundary should show only the present extent of development and, where new building .' is proposed, this should not extend heyond the 'footprint' of the original buildings excluding areas of hardstanding or open spaces betweenf.juildings: •.The site as defined on the Proposals Map is extensive, it includes the operational areas of the colliery, th~ tipped areas and the hardstandings, stocking areas. parkingar&dsandacces~:ro~ds. It is my view that, hearing in mind the guidance contained in Anne~ Citmay;got be appropriate to permit new development. over all of this area, in view of the fact that a relatively small proportion of the site was covered hy built development. I consider that a proper interpretation of Annex C ~?~Idp~~rnit only a relatively small proportion of the site to be occupied by ne\\,\6.Ujldi:~gsc' Jy'eIlJU~~ingf?~theiIlterpretation of the clause which would allow more building 'where'the OV~ral~Vlsu"dimRa~lmaybe less (ie allowing for the demolition of the pit~headt?\Versand LeI~v~t.i~g·conveyors). The. remaind~r. should be used for landscaping orrerurned to agri.culture or used to{f6restry; rises which are cofTipatiblewith the Greeo""Belt. 12.6 The objector's view is that this is an opportunity for a m~jor r~velo}Jmem scheme, alinost regardless of the amount of built development which existed previously ':Jh~ schemes outlined i,l the supporting written statement'i show development over ml.lchofthJ! old operational area, including hardstandings, stocking areas. car parks and cir~ulation areas, le~vinglinle aro,und the~riphery for the necessary landscaping to ameliorate the visual impacr.of the new scheme .•...The rationale for the enlarged area would therefore seem to be to allow for this landscape planting around and in addition to the redevelopment of the actual collid)"sJ teo . 12.7 The objector says that a scheme as large as this is necessary to justify the expenditure needed to clear away the old colliery and to bring the site into a viable new use . .This may be so, but Paragraph C4(a) ofPPG2 indicates that the redevelopment should. if . possible; have less (my emphasis) impact on the openness of the Green BeJt than the original sc~el1le.. \Vith.out a,detail~ application before me it is nOt possible to asses the full impact of thescbeme:{)utJiOed .tly-me~()~ect(lF'~·~mis51ons,bLJ~.it •.wolJlg:ClearJYLOelIlore ••-. extensive than the erstwhile colliery. The commercial or eCOrlomic calculations cannot be taken as justification.forthe.UDP tQ incorporate a POliq;wbich" g()~s.beyondnatiog~1 \plannillgPQlicie~, as expressed in "'nnex C of PPGi ··.There:IS not theseope toulke "the "liberal interpretation!! sought by the objector. 12.8 .. Ftlmherw()r~,tq~,~~~ agJoi(lingthe Old(;dlli~~compns~.s;gO()tlqJ~li~:~gricUi~r(ll; land .VJhiCrflOli<:.ies~9 ..andENYI4seek to .••.proteclJ:r'9I1l~e'(eloPl1leit.t: .•.lr~~~)gIlise tll(l.tin' th~·.Mer~eyside ar~atlle~7 is ~ye~"y:h~ghpr?pQJ11pn'gt:g?odq~ality. ~gr-tf~ltUF(ltland,.9uilap.d ofthisqll~lityisa ..nat.iol1al.res9.~fce(lCl RE(X)M\~ENPATION 12.9 No modifications be made to the UDP in response to these o~iection~. ______~ ~, ._. L ._ 2. Second UDP Inquiry 10 November 1997 UDP POLICY AP1.2 PARKSIDE COLLIERY MODIFICATION MOD/96/AP1.2 t I ! I I i i l·· PART II: AREA POLICIES I POLICY AP1.2 PARKSIDE COLLIERY MODIFICATION MOD/96/AP1.2 Objectors: 204/1011 F Whittaker; 205/1012 Mrs G M Stott: 207/1014 Mr & Mrs Fletcher; 208/1015 Mr & Mrs Lodge; 209/1016 Mr & Mrs J G Tully; 210/1017 S Lawrenson; 211/1018 Mr & Mrs B Molyneux; 210/1019 D M & A R Critchley; 213/1020 M N D Coleman; 214/1021 WB Steele; 215/1022 J C Hodkinson; 216/1023 Mr & Mrs Boulton; 217/1024 Mr & Mrs Orchard; 218/1025Mr & Mrs Morley; 219/1026 R F Nelson; 220/1027 Mrs M Bridge; 221/1028 Mr & Mrs C Thompson; 222/1029 Frank K Bryce; 223/1030 Mr & Mrs A H Davis; 224/1031 Mrs A M 0'- Carswell; 225/1032 Mrs Enid Ryan; 226/1033 C Harwood & M Barlow; 227/103~Mr F J Winnard; 228/1035 Mrs F Craven; 229/1036 Alan W Gaudern; 230/1037 Emma M GauQern; 231/1038 Angela M Gaudern; 232/1039 P Boyce; 233/1040 Mrs Lilian de Looze; 234/1041 Mr & Mrs C Sharpe; 235/1042 J H Robinson; 236/1043 Mr J A Jones; 237/1044 Miss H L Jones; 238/1045 Mrs H T Jones; 239/1046 Ken Horn; 240/1047 Linda Horn; 241/1048 M J Kirkham; 242/1049 Mrs B Scholes; 243/1050 Mrs H E Skinner; 244/1051 J S & E Talbot; 245/1052 Miss R M Littler; 246/1053 Mr & Mrs R A Fairhurst; 247/1054 Mr & Mrs Lawton; 248/1055 Mr P Dickinson & Ms A Saunders; 249/1056 J & S Russell; 250/1057 D & L A Harrison; 252/1059 Mrs GRimmer; 253/1060 R & J Rimmer; 254/1061 Mr M J Lowe: 255/1062 Mr & Mrs Lowe; 256/1063 Mr & Mrs J G Knowles; 257/1064 S & K Jones; 258/1065 Mr & Mrs S 0 Cross; 260/1067 Mr & .Mrs Boulton: 261/1068 John & Mary Raven; 262/1069 Mr & Mrs Kirk; 263/1070 M F Talbot; 265/1073 Mr J Park; 266/1074 E M Williams; 267/1075 R & S Stamp; 269/1076 Winwick Parish Council; 269/1077 R J J Lowe; 271/1087 J M Hayes; 272/1088 Mr E Pownall; 273/1089 C L & J A Senior; 274/1090 Mrs R Garside; 275/1091 B H Rhodes; 278/1094 Warrington Borough Council; 279/1095 P K & H L Cunliffe; 280/1096 Mrs J M . Hewitson;281/1097 Or A W Osbourne; 282/1098 J. J & 0 Prescott; 283/1099 Mrs K A Lester; 284/1100 Mr Mrs Stevenson; 285/1101 & \ Mrs E M Boyce; 286/1102 0 & J Mottershead; 287/1103 Mr & Mrs G Collier; 288/1104 Mrs M Duckworth; 289/1105 R & E Wilson; l. 290/1106 Mr & Mrs J Roberts; 291/1107 David Pill; 292/1108 R '! • Harrison; 293/1109 B Emmett; 294/1110 Mr & Mrs Astles; 295/1111 G & D Maloney; 296/1112 A Malpass & L Biscomb; 298/1117 Highways Agency; 300/1119 J K & M P Mahon; 308/1131 Mr G Vowles; 309/1132 SNAW Campaign; 310/1133 Mrs S M Harrison; 311/1134 Mr & Mrs J E Browning; 312/1135 Janet & S K Connah; 313/1136 Mrs F Fenney: 314/1137 Mr & MrS K Sargent; 315/1138 Ii Brian & Joan Ward; 316/1139 Christine Lim: 317/1140 N-1e-W Residents & Friends Assoc; 318/1141 Alan Marlow; 319/1142 Madelaine Marlow; 320/1143 C·& J Birkenhead; 321/1144 P G & M Boulton; 323/1149 Sefton MBC; 325/1151 Lancashire County Council; 328/1154 Mrs M Kirkham; 329/1173 Government Office ~ Merseyside; 330/1174 Mrs R Smith; 331/1175 Mrs B 0 Grady; • 332/1176 Mr T L Thelshaw; 335/1179 Cheshire County Council 20 The Deposit Plan 3.1 Parkside Colliery is located in the Green Belt south-east of Newton-Ie-Willows adjacent to the A49. M6 motorway and West Coast main railway line. The impending closure of the colliery, which was completed in January 1995, was known prior to publication of the Deposit Plan and Policy AP1.2 set out criteria to guide proposals for the redevelopment of the site. These envisaged redevelopment restricted to the footprint of the existing built areas and accompanied by environmental enhancement measures, including tree planting as a contribution to the Mersey Forest project. The reasoned justification explained that redevelopment of this existing industrial site in the Green Belt was justified because it could'take pressure off undeveloped Green Belt land, could contribute to the enhancement of the Green Belt and because of its strategic location close to the national motorway and rail network. 3.2 .~ An objection from British Coal sought release of the whole 97ha colliery site, creating a development area of some 70ha. in order to exploit its strategic position. Two parallel planning applications by British Coal and Morrisons, which included a 44ha distribution depot for Morrisons, were supported by the Council although it regarded the applications as coming too late to alter the policy in the UDP. Calling-in of the applications by the Secretary of State resulted in their subsequent withdrawal and 'development by Morrisons of an alternative site in Cheshire. First Inquiry Inspector's Conclusions and Recommendation 3.3 The Inspector note~ that, had the Council decided to remove the site from the Green Belt and treat it as an Inset. it could have weakened the strategic aim of the Green Belt in a vulnerable area. He acknowledged the opportunity under the guidance in Annex C of the re~ised PPG2 for local planning authorities to promote new development on existing redundant sites such as former collieries where this would result in environmental improvement, provided this could be achieved without prejudicing the "overall character and aims of the Green Belt. 3.4 The Inspector concluded that a proper interpretation of'Annex C would limit redevelopment of the extensive Parkside site with new buildings to the footprint of the original buildings, excluding much of the site occupied by tipped areas. hardstandings, stocking areas, parking areas and access roads. He concluded that the remainder of the site should be used for landscaping or forestry. or returned to agriculture, uses which were • compatible with the Green Belt. In the light of the guidance in paragraph C4(a) of PPG2 that redevelopment should, if possible, have less impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the original use, scope did not exist to interpret the policy in the liberal way British Coal sought to do. 3.5 The Inspector concluded that the Deposit, Plan policy was in accordance with national planning guidance and he recommended that no modification be made to the UDP in response to the objections. Issues 3.6 The main issues raised by the objections to the Proposed • Modifications are whether the allocation of the enlarged site as a major development site: 21 I f· t (i) would conflict with national and regional policy to protect the Green Belt. or whether the circumstances are sufficiently special to justify the development: (ii) is desirable because of the unique suitability of the site to attract investment to the area; (iii) would be harmful to the visual amenity of the area; (iv) would generate vehicular movements that would adversely affect traffic flow and residential amenity; (v) would detract from areas of ecological value. Inspector's Reasoning and Conclusions 3.7 Modification MOD/96/API.2 has been proposed because the Council considers that the development potential of the site exceeds that which would be permitted by PPG2 and was endorsed by the previous Inspector. It repres~.lltsa considerable change from the Deposit Plan policy. proposing redevelopment for Bl, B2 and B8 use of an area of some 34ha of former colliery and hardstandings together with its deletion from the Green Belt. This compares with the estimated 7.5ha footprint area for development under the Depo~it Plan proposal. although in both cases a comprehensive development scheme is required. The modification introduces a new requirement relating to the capacity of the surrounding highway network to accommodate the traffic generated but, somewhat surprisingly, omits the reference in the Deposit Plan policy to the opportunities derived from the location close to the West Coast main rail line. Associated environmental enhancem~nt would, as previously, include major tree planting on the former tipped area. with this area of over 21ha to be retained within the Green Belt. 3.8 Parks ide Colliery was included in the Merseyside Green Belt when this was approved by the Mersey Green Belt Local Plan 1983. PPG2 ~ states that the essential characteristic of Green Belts is .their permanence and that once the general extent of a Green Belt has been approved, it should be altered only in exceptional circumstances. Paragraph 2.6 also makes clearj that detailed boundaries should not be altered or development allowed merely because land has become derelict. 3.9 Further guidance is provided in the Regional Planning Guidance for the North West (RPG13), which was issued after the Deposit Plan inquiry. The RPG states that urban regeneration should continue to be central to land use policy and that the extent of the Region's Green Belts should be maintained for the foreseeable future if that objective is to be , achieved. It advises that there is no evidence of an overall shortage of land for development in the urban areas such as to require changes to Green Belts. Paragraph 3.10 of the RPG makes clear that any future review of the Green Belt should be undertaken through a strategic review of regional planning guidance in the context of urban regeneration and sustainable development priorities. RPG13 also advises (para 5.18) that in respect of any potential Major Inward Investment site, a Green Belt location should be considered only as a last resort and that such a proposal would need exceptional justification on a basis broader than that of individual development plans. • 3.10 The thrust of national and regional policy is echoed by the Council's own overall UDP strategy (CDM15) , which emphasises the adequacy of land supply and the absence of any requirement for Green Belt release. 22 , . Maintenance of tight Green Belt boundaries has been seen as complementing and underpinning the urban regeneration strategy of the UDP. 3.11 I recognise therefore that there is a clear policy framework against which the proposed modification must be viewed. Although Parkside • is a maj~r existing site in the Green Belt. it is not disputed that the extent and scale of redevelopment which the Council is proposing is far in excess of anything which could be viewed as appropriate under the Guidelines in Annex C of PPG2. The proposed allocation of Parkside as a major industrial site in the UDP is accordingly incompatible with Green Belt policy for the region. The acceptability of the modification is dependent therefore on demonstrating that there are very special circumstances, or a very strong justification (RPG13), which apply to the site. The Council does not argue otherwise. As no regional assessment of -sites. or general review of Green Belt boundaries, has yet been completed, , there appear to me grounds for also viewing the proposed allocation of II II Parkside as premature in terms of the guidance in RPG13. although I. • acknowledge that there would be a delay involved in awaiting the outcome of II the regional review process. I I III' 3.12 Before examining what special circumstances may exist, it is II II necessary to consider the impact which allocation of the 34ha site for industrial development would be likely to have on the Green Belt. bearing II in mind its purposes. This part of the Mersey Valley is heavily urbanised. with settlements of varying sizes grouped around the main towns of Wigan, I St.Helens and Warrington, separated by often quite narrow breaks in the I built~up area. Between Newton-Ie-Willows and Winwick, an outlying village I of Warrington. the contiguous MerseysideGreen Belt and proposed North I Cheshire Green Belt have a combined width of about 1.7km, albeit I intersp~rsed with scattered development including the former colliery and a ribbon of residential development fronting part of Winwick Road in front of i the colliery. Bearing in mind the very considerable growth associated with i the development of Warrington as a new town, this stretch of Green Belt plays a very important role in checking unrestricted urban sprawl and 1 preventing the neighbouring settlements from merging into one another . . i \ ! 3.13 In my view the Parkside site occupies a crucial position in 'this narrow gap. Development of ·the modification site would be likely to result in fragmentation of this part of the Green Belt, leaving the set aside agricultural land to the north and west of the site as a narrow strip I of land some 200-400m wide which would be vulnerable to future development ,I pressure. With barely 1km of open land remaining between the development-·· i site and Winwick, I consider that the effectiveness of the Green Belt in I performing its role of preventing urban sprawl and preserving the separate I ,I identity of settlements would be considerably reduced. I am also concerned I that the deletion from the Green Belt of so large a site quite close to the I urban boundary of Newton along the West Coast railway line could lead to it being regarded by many as a no more than temporarily detached extension to I the built-up area rather than as a quite separate and contained inset to the Green Belt. The fact that the Council has been able to resist the release of land in other narrow sections of Green Belt in the Borough does not justify the further narrowing of the Green Belt in this location. 3.14 It is also in my view quite invalid to treat a 34ha industrial development site as comparable in Green Belt terms to the former colliery. as PPG2 recognises that minerals have to be worked where they occur and 23 that ,their exploitation is a temporary activity. The extent of built development in the Green Belt that would be facilitated by the modification proposal would in any event considerably exceed that associated with the former colliery use or permisible as a footprint redevelopment. 3.15 PPG2 also advises that Green Belt boundaries should be clearly defined, where possible using readily recognised features. The north- i eastern edge of the modification site would be clearly defined by the M6 motorway embankment, that to the south by the brook and woodland edge while I along much of the western boundary an established hedgerow separates the colliery area from the agricultural land. However, the eastern boundary along the top of the slope of the spoil heap would in my view be less clearly defined on the ground. Overall, I do not consider that the proposed Green Belt boundary would match the clarity and simplicity of the i existing boundary where the West Coast railway cutting provides a very ,! strong.- demarcation between the built-up area of Newton and the Green Belt. 3.16 In view of the importance attached at both national and local I level to protection of the Green Belt and bearing in..mind the large stock of development land in the Borough, albeit with constraints attached to some of it, the argument that allocation of the modification site would I take pressure off other, undeveloped sites in the Green Belt is not one to which I attach great weight. Indeed, the increased vulnerability to I development pressure of the agricultural land north and west of the site, currently in set-aside, to which I have alluded above, appears to me a I strong argument to the contrary. 3.17 The Council advances a number of factors in support of the I contention that exceptional circumstances exist, including that it is a "brownfield" site in need of improvement and that its development would assist rather than constrain urban regeneration; that the site has locational advantages and a proven ability to attract 'investment; that _ St.Helens has high unemployment. with skills available in the labour market to match the site's potential for warehousing; and that there are no alternative sites in the Merseyside sub-region to meet the needs of this niche market. 3.18 Parkside must necessarily be considered as a "brownfield" site and I recognise that improving its appearance would also be of benefit to the appearance of the Green Belt. However, short and long term enhancement of the site, including major tree planting, is already an integral part of Deposit Plan Policy AP1.2 in accordance with Annex C of PPG2, whose • guidance is directed precisely towards circumstances such as exist at the former Parkside colliery. The potential benefit of increased resources for .reclamation deriving from redevelopment of a much larger area than the .footprint does not in my view balance the.harm to the purposes of the Green I Belt identified above, particularly in the light of the explicit guidance in paragraph 2.6 of PPG2 that Green Belt boundaries should not be altered I or development allowed merely because land has become derelict. I 3.19 Paragraph 1.2 of the Deposit Plan states that the principal I underlying strategy of the UDP is urban regeneration. It makes clear that new development will be concentrated in the built-up areas of the Bopough, I particularly on vacant and derelict land, and that strict adherence to • Green Belt boundaries is complementary to that focus. I consider that strategy to be fully in accord with strategic guidance in RPG13 and with . , 24 the purposes of Green Belts stated in paragraph 1.5 of PPG2. The basis on which Green Belts assist in urban regeneration lies in the redirection of investment away from peripheral sites towards land in urban areas. ,I including sites which may have development problems but which with i appropriate investment can be brought forward. I 3.20 Allocation of a major Green Belt site such as Parkside • .notwithstanding that it is a previously developed site. cannot but divert investment away from the urban areas whose regeneration is to my mind a fundamental requirement for the economic wellbeing of the Borough and of the region. I therefore wholly disagree with the notion that development. of the modification site would assist urban regeneration. It would on the contrary. by delaying improvement and investment in the urban areas. and in the priority economic development area in the Southern Corridor which has already been in receipt of substantial investment. help to perpetuate an unattractive image of the area which acts as a deterrent to inward investment. My conclusions in this respect are wholly consistent with the views expressed by the previous Inspector in respect of an objection which sought allocation of Green Belt land at Haydock Park &arm. 3.21 Economic circumstances in St.Helens are a key factor in determining whether special circumstances exist to justify the release of the modification site. St.Helens has experienced both the decline of traditional industries and rationalisation in others. which resulted in a loss of some 20.000 jobs over the period 1978-93. In April 1997 its unemployment rate of 8.5% was some 23% higher than the UK average and in 1991 the DoE Index of Local Conditions had ranked it as the 16th worst district in the country for long term unemployment. The problem is. of course. wider than St.Helens with the European Union having granted Objective 1 status to the Merseyside sub-region in recognition of its low GDP. high unemployment and population decline. 3.22 A number of studies have pointed.to the need to increase the competitiveness of the regional economy. to attract investment and to ensure that suitable sites are available to accommodate new development. The Deposit Draft UDP under Policy S2 allocated some 244ha of land for economic development up to the end of the plan period in 2001. which the Council in its Core Strategy Document (CDM15) viewed as providing a wide choice of sites. Even after the increased rate of take-up in the last 2-3 years. land supply at April 1997 amounted to 194ha. It is quite apparent therefore that there is no overall shortage of land to meet a variety of • development needs. 3.23 The Council. however, maintains that there are constraints affecting many sites and that there is a shortage of quality sites. a point supported by the findings of the 1992 Coopers & Lybrand report that Merseyside's lack of high quality. immediately available sites capable of attracting mobile investment was a fundamental barrier to the area's prospects. Parkside Colliery was identified as a site with strategic potential in the 1994 update of the Coopers & Lybrand Study (CDM 8) and as a Category A site in the 1995 study by Business Environments and Richard Ellis (CDM 9). I note that Liverpool City Council and Halton Borough Council consider that if the site helped to attract inward investment~ it would be of benefit to Merseyside. • , 25 ! 'I i 3.24 I "recognise that the site is large, is strategically located . " close to the junction of the M6/M62 motorways, thereby bringing much of the UK within 9 hours drive time, and that it has the advantage of an easily reinstated connection to the West Coast main rail line. It also appears to be free of any significant constraint in respect of ground conditions. No • named occupier has been identified but, bearing in mind its location and the eaolier interest from Morrisons and from Royal Mail, I have no reason to doubt that the site would be developed if allocated and that it would be of particular interest to B8 uses. The attractiveness of a site for development, however, does not of itself constitute special circumstances to justify overriding the constraint of Green Belt policy. 3.25 The Council points to the site's rail connection to the West Coast main line as a unique asset. I recognise that national policy is moving towards a more integrated transport policy with greater emphasis on use of rail freight. The hope has been expressed that the proportion of freight traffic carried by rail can be raised from the present 6% to about 20%. I also recognise the potential of the Parkside site to provide direct • connections via the Channel Tunnel to European destinations. However, the Council's modification policy would in my view provide no certainty that the site would be developed for rail related uses so as to utilise this advantage. The proposed rewording of the modification policy suggested by Warrington Borough Council which would reserve the bulk of the site for such uses is not acceptable to St.Helens Council. The Council's own further modification to require completion of a rail head connection into the site prior to its occupation would facilitate rail use, but it could not ensure such an outcome. Given the attractive location for many distribution uses, the likely modest cost of installing the rail head would in my view be unlikely to deter a non-rail occupier of the site. I am also sceptical that the site owners would wish to restrict the range of potential users of the site in this way. 3.26 Nor am I convinced that rail access is, or'would remain, unique to the modification site. The proximity of a number of other identified major sites such as Stone Cross Park to rail routes and the availability of access grants under the 1993 Railways Act suggests that development of a rail freight. capability cannot be ruled out on either physical or economic grounds. I note that Royal Mail, which would have used the rail link at Parks ide , was able to find an appropriate site nearby at Warrington. 3.27 There is little doubt that location close to the M6 motorway and in particular close to its junction with the east-west M62 would be attractive to a variety of economic activities, especially in the -' distribution field. Parks ide adjoins the M6, but the SNAW Campaign points out that access is via the single carriageway A49 and would entail travel through residential areas of Newton, whose centre is also a Conservation Area, or Winwick in order to reach either Junction 23 of the M6 to the no,th or Junction 9 on the M62 to the south. The former is some 3km away, the latter is 5km distant and suffers from existing congestion. Although capacity problems can be addressed (see below), it does indicate that Parkside is not entirely or uniquely free of constraints amongst potential I development sites. -"I 3.28 Of some 48 employment sites totalling 194ha within St.Helens I Borough, many are small, suffer from suffer from access or ground constraints and are unattractive to developers. However, a substantial I 26 I'---- ~ .. '"'.' :.;:j:;.'.:-~:~> ".. ;'., - proportion of the employment land is located within the Council's priority Southern Corridor which is not within the Green Belt and enjoys good accessibility following construction of the new link road to Junction 7 of the M62. Seven of the employment sites are above the 8ha criteria for • strategic sites in the AGMA Study and adopted for Regional Employment Sites in RP~13, including sites of 12ha and 25ha at Lea Green Farm adjoining the M62 link road. Although allocated for B1 and B2 use, the Lea Green Farm sites would equally be capable of accommodating a B8 use if the Council so chose. Other sites such as the former Sherdley Colliery have received derelict land grant towards site preparation costs i.e. action is being taken to overcome constraints and enable the land to be brought forward for development in accordance with the urban regeneration strategy. i 3.29 I note also that inquiries made in respect of sites for I , warehousing and distribution uses in St.Helens are mostly for modest sizes I' of sites and premises and do not point to a frustrated demand for large I' si tes .and premises. In the light of RPG13 guidance that no more than 3 or i 4 regional warehouse sites are likely to be required in the region at any one time and that these should be identified through a prioritised regional I: list, it seems clear that a proposal to allocate the 34ha Parkside site i should take account of a wider context than St.Helens or even Merseyside. 'I 3.30 This point is underlined by the location of the Parks ide site at the south-eastern edge of the Borough and of the Merseyside sub-region, such that it must be expected that employment created on the site would be as likely to be taken up by residents of neighbouring authorities as by the Borough's unemployed" notwithstanding the availability of warehouse/distribution skills amongst them. Equally, unemployed residents of St.Helens and Newton-Ie-Willows would have access to new job opportunities in Warrington or Wigan. I note that the linkages with adjoining authorities are specifically recognised in the Council's Core Strategy document and the relationship in particular between residential i development in Newton-Ie-Willows and job growth in Warrington was singled I out for mention by the Secretary of State when approving the Cheshire . ,1 Structure Plan . ! 3.31 The Parkside proposal should be viewed in this context. Within convenient range of Newton-Ie-Willows there is in the neighbouring Wigan I district a 36ha site.at Stone Cross Park on the AS80 some 3.2km from J23 of the M6, which already has planning permission and where work was due to ! start in September 1997. To the south in Warrington outline permission j i also exists for development of the 190ha Omega site on the former I Burtonwood airfield adjoining the M62, development for which provision is I made under Policy EMP3 of the Cheshire Structure Plan and Policy ID6 of the j j emerging Warrington Local Plan. The existence of these major sites of . • regional Significance, neither within the Green Belt, in relative proximity to the Parks ide site in my view casts considerable doubt on the need to develop the latter as an additional major site for predominantly B8 use in the Green Belt. I recognise that full development of the Omega site is dependent upon construction of a new junction on to the M62, for which a public inquiry will be held early in 1998, but funding is available from the Commission for New Towns and the need for the new junction arises because of congestion at Junction 9, the same junction that would be used by development at the modification site . • i 27 I I ~~:,t,:->:U-~~.0,£t~I"-----':;r::~'-\" ~ ~;;~1~:'14:t i [. i I • if 3·32 I find therefore that the contention that the Parks ide site is unique in its ability to attract inward investment which would otherwise be 1 lost and that this amoUnts to a very strong justification for release of "-1 the site and its deletion from the Green Belt in accordance with the • modification to be unfounded. I • I 3.33 I turn now to the likely impact of the development of the ! modification site. Development of a 34ha site would clearly generate substantial volumes of additional traffic on to a road network already subject to congestion at a number of points at peak periods, notably at A49 ·Newton Road/Hollins Lane, the A49 Winwick roundabout and Junction 9 of the M62. The concern of many objectors is both of additional congestion and of environmental disturbance to residents caused by increased traffic. a concern which reflected the estimated 4.500 vehicles per day and 24hr • operation associated with the earlier Morrisons/British Coal proposals . , 3.34 The Highways Agency objection has been conditionally withdrawn in the light of the Council's proposed further Amendment 97/13/APL2 which I would add to the modification policy a fourth criterion requiring a Traffic I Impact Assessment (TIA) to demonstrate that generated traffic could be accommodated on the surrounding higbway network. Although there are no specific· proposals at this stage. a TIA carried out based on an indicative 21.ooom2 of E2 floors pace and 49.ooom2 of B8 floorspace has indicated that additional traffic from the development, together with other committed retail, housing and hospital development in Winwick. could be accommodated subject to relatively modest improvements to Winwick roundabout and to the Hollins Lane and A49.Newton Road/Southworth Road junctions. Improvements to Junction 9 of the M62 are being undertaken in any event to cater for traffic from the Winwick Quay retail development. 3.35 It therefore appears likely that, notwithstanding that a new predominantly B8 use of the site could generate more traffic than the former colliery which made heavy use of rail transport, the proposed re-use of the modification site need not add unacceptably to congestion on surrounding roads. However, I share the view of the SNAW Campaign that the access on to a busy single carriageway road with frontage development and parked vehicles compares unfavourably with other sites served by the.M62 southern link road or the A580 trunk road. As to the environmental impact in terms of noise an~ pollution, I note that no detailed work has been undertaken, although for the Morrisons/British Coal proposals, which involved very heavy traffic generation and 24hr working. it was estim~ted that 2 dwellings only would have suffered significant increased nighttime noise. While I acknowledge that the additional traffic would be perceived by residents as environmentally intrusive, in the absence of any specific information on the future use. I consider that it would be inappropriate for me to draw any firm conclusions at this stage as to the potential noise or pollution impact of vehicular movements associated with the use. 3.36 Warrington Borough Council and other objectors seek to amend the modified policy to incorporate a requirement for a direct connection from the site to Junction 22 of the M6. avoiding the need for travel through either Winwick or Newton village. Whether involving an upgrading of the existing haul road under the motorway to the A573 or construction of new sections of road across agricultural land, the cost would probably exceed £2m. In the light of the relatively limited impact on traffic flow shown by the initial TIA and the reduced site size compared to the 28 ~\.~';,;~f;i;'~~;~~"Ill.-o------· ''"~~';:/,:-;r#~\';i~>;;~:~~~~-----= .. Morrisons/British Coal proposals, it seems to me that a requirement for a dedicated access may be difficult to justify, even without taking into account the potentially harmful and intrusive impact on open agricultural • land in the Green Belt . • 3.37 The visual impact on the surrounding area of developing the 34ha site for industry and warehousing is a quite separate issue from its impact on the Green Belt, The former colliery clearly constituted a major urban industrial element in the landscape, with the twin colliery towers rising to more than 60m in height, although topography, in particular the tip aiong its eastern side, woodland belts and boundary hedgerows helped to limit its wider visibility. Clearance of the colliery buildings has left a site that is open but remains despoiled, with extensive hard surfaced areas, pylons and an electricity substation. The Council's argument is 'that the proposed new employment uses would be much less intrusive in the ~ landscape than the previous colliery use because of their siting and height and that they would also provide the opportunity for substantial additional landscaping, including tree planting. 3.38 I acknowledge that the landscape in which the site is set is for the most·part of no great quality, other than to the south where the steep sided wooded valley of Gallows Croft is an attractive feature and the landscape between here and Winwick is more clearly rural in character. There are also urbanising elements such as the M6 motorway. Views of the ,present cleared site are limited to a few vantage points, chiefly a short stretch of the M6, the eastern end of Hermitage Green Lane and from residential properties on Winwick Road. .Nevertheless, if the modification site were allocated for development. new buildings would quite clearly cover a far larger area than either the former colliery buildings Or a new development confined to the "footprint" of those buildings in accordance with the Deposit Plan policy. It appears to me that the new buildings would be visible from the majority of photographic viewpoints covered in the Council's evidence and could have the effect of extending the intrusive impact of urban development on the landscape, even if the appearance of the new development was in itself superior to that of the former colliery. It ·is not in my view sufficient to argUe that the impact could be mitigated by extensive landscaping when provision for landscaping and environmental improvement, including t~ee planting as a contribution to the Mersey Forest, already forms part of the Deposit Plah policy. I consider. therefore that the negative visual impact on the landscape' of the scale of new development embodied in the modification proposal would substantially_. erode the undoubted benefit of clearing up a derelict site. 3.39 The Council and objectors are in broad agreement on the results of the ecological survey of the site, as a result of which the Council accepts that the Parkside Colliery site is of local ecological value and worthy of designation as a Site of Community Wildlife Interest (SCWI). Zones 8a and 12 (309/96/AP1.2, Doc 9, Map 1) at the northern and southern extremities of the site, where most natural regeneration has occurred, are of particular interest. The core area of Zone 8, which broadly corresponds with the proposed development area, is the least significant ecologically. While I accept that, with minimal intervention, natural regeneration of this area could occur over the long term, this does not appear to me a sufficient reason to prevent development when areas of far greater biodiversity and ecological value would be preserved. I agree that it would be appropriate for the Council to consider designating the most 29 valuable areas, Zones 8a and 12, as SCWIs at the first review of the UDP. Although Zone 8a would be affected by the rail head connection, I see no reason to doubt the Council's evidence that this could be designed so as to minimise its impact on the ecology of this area. 3.40 In sum, I acknowledge that the modification site would be an attractive site for development, capable of accommodating major developm~nt, but I do not accept that it is the only site in this part of the region capable of attracting inward investment, particularly when it and other sites have not yet been tested through the regional planning process. There is no basis for believing that it would make a unique contribution to overcoming the employment problems of St.Helens, ' particularly in view of its peripheral location within the Borough. I also consider that its allocation for development would serve only to undermine the underlying urban regeneration aim of the UDP. The benefits of developing the site on the scale envisaged in the modification do not in my view amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the allocation in .direct conflict with national, regional and UDP policy to protect the Green Belt. Allocation of the site for development and its exclusion from the Green Belt would cause serious harm to a narrow and vulnerable section of Green Belt, in conflict with its main aims of preventing urban sprawl and the merging of neighbouring towns into one another. I do not therefore endorse the proposed modification. Reconunendation I reconunend that modification MOD/96/AP1.2 be not made. POLICY AP5.1 RAINHILL HOSPITAL (SHERDLEY DIVISION) MODIFICATION MOD/120/AP5.1 Objector: 329/1160 Government Office - Merseyside Issue Whether the policy is out of date and should be deleted. Inspector's Reasoning and Conclusions 3.43 The modification proposes the deletion of the policy. which the Council considers to have been overtaken by events with the demolition of the vacant hospital buildings and the granting of planning permisSion for redevelopment. The GO-M objects to the deletion of the policy for the reasons already considered in relation to MOD/3.9/S1, namely, that the granting of planning permission is not sufficient justification for the exclusion of the development area from the Green Belt. In the light of the particular circumstances and location of the site, and the nature of the approved development, both I and the First Inquiry Inspector have taken a different view and recommended modification of the Green Belt boundary. 3.44 Policy AP5.1 was essentially a holding policy included in the Deposit Plan at a time when the future of the Sherdley Division of Rainhill • Hospital was still unclear. It is now clearly out of date and has been superseded by the allocation of employment site 5Eci0 and housing site 30 3. Third UPD Inquiry, date 25 July 2002 Report PNW/5150/219/25 and 26, Swayfields Motorway M6 Service Station and Deputy Prime Minister Decision, date 25 July 2002, Reference: APPM0655N00000199-200 11 Report PNW/5150/219/25 and 26 I I CONTENTS SECTION PAGE I. Procedural and Administrative Matters 3 2. The Proposals 6 3. The Sites and their Surroundings 10 4. Planning History 13 5. Planning Policy 15 6. Matter (a) Provisions of the development plan and Section 54A 18 7. Matter (b) Appropriateness in the Green Belt 20 8. Matter (c) Physical appearance, Proposed landscaping and impact upon ~ Green Belt and residential amenity. 22 9. Matter (d) Respect for character of countryside and conservation of its natural resources. 50 10. Matter (e) Potential implications for Sites of Special Scientific Interest 63 II. Matter (f) Accordance with Planning Policy Guidance 13, Circular l/94 and Policy Statement HA269. 65 12. Matter (g) Need and alternative sites 69 13. Matter (h) Physical suitability and likely implication for traffic movement and highway safety. 107 14. Matter (i) hnplications for the potential development of the Parkside Colliery site. 125 15. Other Matters Listed Buildings and Scheduled Ancient Monument (St Oswald's Well) 148 Archaeology and local history 151 Employment 154 16. Matter G) Conditions and Section 106 Agreements 155 17. Inspector's Overall Conclusions 156 18. Recommendation 158 19. Inquiry Documents (as checked on 5 July 2001) 159 1 Inspector's Conclusions 6.2 In these, and subsequent conclusions, the numbers in brackets indicate preceding paragraphs where the relevant infonnation can be found. 6.3 The advice in PPG I is pertinent. The Government is committed to a plan-led system of development control, which is given statutory force by Section 54A of the 1990 Act. The designation of the lands as Green Belt is a relevant policy, and the legislation requires that an application for planning pennission shall be determined in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. (6.1) 6.4 A Key Diagram is not an Ordnance Silrvey based map, and so it is appropriate in this part of my Report to have regard to other documents. 6.5 According to "Warrington's Way Ahead: Unitary Development Plan Strategic Issues and Strategy Options Consultation - Spring 2000" one of the purposes of the UDP is to continue and complete the process oj defining the Green Belt boundary in the Borough commenced in the Local Plan and ...resolve issues lefi undetermined since the Local Plan InspectOJ's Report (Document CD/69). .- 6.6 !tis not my task to define Green Belt boundaries at Woolston or anywhere else, and I do not want to prejudice the Council's review of them. But it is difficult to imagine a more dramatic, obvious and suitable boundary to the Green Belt than the Thelwall Viaduct which on its western side so clearly marks and restricts the built up area of Warrington. 6.7 The inner edge of the Green Belt around Warrington has yet to be finnly established in an adopted Plan. Even so, it seems most unlikely to me that this boundary will be moved away so much from the edges of the main built up areas so as to exclude the application sites and the Rough Farm land from the Green Belt in the vicinity of Junctions 21 and 22. 6.8 These proposals are not in accordance with the current development plan nor, in my judgement, with those comparable parts of the plan which is expected to replace it. But that is not the end of the matter. Other material considerations, including the degree of need for a MSA and the benefits advanced for the schemes, must be taken into account. Page 19 Inspector's Conclusions 7.6 The G.ovenunent attaches great imp.ortance t.o Green Belts which have been an essential element .ofplanning p.olicy f.ornearly 5 decades. As PPG 2 instructs, the purposes .ofGreen Belt p.olicy and the related devel.opment contr.ol p.olicies set .out in 1955 remain valid t.oday with remarkably little alterati.on. It is .obviDUSfrDm the BDrough CDuncil's representati.ons that it, tDD, accords very cDnsiderable impDrtance tD the protectiDn .of the Green Belt in its area. It is right tD d.oSQ,and 1 regard this natiDnal p.olicy as a fundamental consideratiDn in the examinatiDn .ofthese propDsals fDrdevelDpment within it. 7.7 Nati.onal p.olicy in PPG 2 is that the constructi.on .of new buildings inside a Green Belt is inappropriate unless it is fDr certain defined purposes. These include agriculture and fDrestry but nDt MSAs. The proposals wDuld constitute inappropriate develDpment in the Green Belt. They are by definiti.on hannful and it is fDrthe Applicants tD shDWwhy permissi.on ShDUldbe granted. The p.olicies in the devel.opment plan and .other IDeal policies generally fDllDW nati.onal advice, and they t.o.osh.ould be accorded substantial weight. And, in view .of the presumptiDn against inapprDpriate devel.opment, the Secretary .of State will attach substantial weight tD the hann tD the Green Belt when considering any planning applicati.on concerni!lg such devel.opment. (7.1) 7.8 The m.ost imp.ortant attribute .of Green Belts is their .openness. And SDeven ifany .of these proposed develDpments were t.o be completely hidden frDm view, which WDuldnDt be the case, that wDuld nDt reduce the imp.ortance .of the land concerned in the preservatiDn .of the .openness .ofthe Green Belt. A screened Dr.otherwise .obscured view .ofany .ofthese schemes WDuidbe n.ojustificatiDn .ofitself fDrinappropriate develDpment. 7.9 T.o summarise, the prDposals are fDr inappropriate develDpment. Very special circumstances t.o justify inappropriate develDpment will nDt exist unless the hann by reas.on .of inappr.opriateness, and any .other hann, is clearly .outweighed by .other consideratiDns. But I accept that dem.onstrable need f.or a MSA is capable .of constituting thDse .other considerati.ons. 7.10 As I conclude abDve, it is unlikely that the Green Belt b.oundary as indicated .on the Key Diagram will be amended t.o exclude any .ofthe sites at JunctiDns 21 and 22. The additi.onal .opp.ortunityto which the Manchester Ship Canal C.ompany refers f.ordefining the Green Belt is n.otrequired. (7.2) 7.11 Other p.oints that the parties raise are considered in mDre detail later, including the matter .of need. Page 21 Inspector's Conclusions The physical appearance of the proposed developments 8.103 There is little to add to the descriptions of the physical appearance of the proposed developments at the 2 Motorway junctions. In all cases there would be a lodge and an amenity building of similar sizes with other considerable areas of hard surfaces, mainly for vehicle parking and for circulation. In all cases there would, in my judgement, be sufficient planting generally around the buildings and within these areas to relieve the monotony of large expanses of those surfaces. A good deal of skill, care and experience has been invested in the proposals to ensure that the internal arrangements, including the proposed illumination, are as attractive as they can be for schemes of an urban nature and of this size and type. (8.3, 8.4, 8.5, 8.6, 8.7& 8.45 - 8.52) 8.104 Not allruraI landscapes are dark at night, but I think it significant that the Junction 21 site is described in Document MSCC/I2 as currently not lit and has therefore been regarded as an area of low district brightness - E, a rural area (or small village locations) as defined in tHe above mentioned ILE Guidelines (Do(;ument MSCCf34). 1 entirelyigree. Despite t1J.e .lights on the nearby roads and of those of the vehicles upon thern, the site is dark at night and this is an important element of its character as part of the countryside. Even with the full horizontal cut-off luminaires, I consider that there would be some upward reflected light from hard surfaces. Lights from, for example, the lodge which would be close to the main access, and on those of moving vehicles at and near the entrance, would be especially noticeable. But I am more concerned about the views into the site from high vantage points like the Thelwall Viaduct and the AS7 road. In my opinion, darkness in the rural scene has an attraction of its own, and the intrusion into the countryside resulting from this proposal would be especially striking and damaging at night. (8.7& 8.8) 8.105 The Motorway and nearby roads at Junction 22 are illuminated, and so to some extent the lighting scheme for the alternative Options would be seen in that context. I think it likely, however, that some illumination would be seen from the surroundings as a result of 15 m columns and/or from those of les.s height. The entrance to either Option, in what are now rural .surroundings, would beparlicUlarly noticeable especially at night.I would expect there to be some upwards reflected light from the hard Surfaces and this would add to the Intmsionin this part of the countryside. Even though more modest illumination might be introduced into either Option at the detailed stage with columns of less height, I .consider tI1atthe effect would be much the same. (8.51& 8.52) . The extent and quality of the proposed landscaping 8;106 The mounding around the Junction 21 proposal would.provide a considerable amount of screening, especially when supplemented with the proposed planting along its top and sides. It would thus, with the replaced and reinforced hedgerows along ·the A57 road, reduce ground level views of such urban elements as the buildings and the large expanses of vehicle parking areas and circulation space. But again, views into the entrance of the MSA would inevitably remain, if only to announce its presence. And so the mounds would have a limited effect in screening the development, and they would do little to screen it from nearby higher vantage points. (8.12 & 8.13) 8.107 The application site and its immediate surroundings on the north side of the River Mersey are generally flat. Flat land near a river with few if any trees can have a subtle, although perhaps not a dramatic, appeal and not only in my native East Anglia. In my opinion this is especially so when there is potential for its return to agriculture. This land is no exception. Page 38 Despite the temporary buildings on the contractors' yard, the existing hardstanding and the unfortunate amount of debris, this site and its immediate vicinity is generally flat and open. The walker savours a dramatic change when proceeding eastwards along the Mersey Way from the urban parts of Woolston, under the Thelwall Viaduct and then into this open land. (3.1 & 8.70) 8.108 The proposed MSA would be largely contained by, and viewed against, a background of large, man made features. These are mainly the Thelwall Viaduct and its approach roads, the A57 road with its roundabouts and junctions, the Butchersfield landfill site and the dredging grounds. But this is no justification for yet another intrusion into the generally natural landscape, especially as that intrusion would include a substantial amount of earth mounding in those areas where the land is still part of the flat river valley. (3.2, 3.5 & 3.6). 8.109 There are pleasant and attractive. views of the application site and nearby land, surprisingly " so in the light of the unflattering descriptions on offer. These views are part of the enjoyable experience of walking .alongside the River Mersey. The construction of the restaurant/diner wonld reduce this openness, but owing to the relatively small size of.this proposed buildil1g when eomparedwith the size of the MSA application site and its intended use, it would not do so to such an extent as to provide any justification for the scheme before the Secretary of State..(8.1) 8.110 The construction of a mound, up to about 4 m high, to the north of the river and alongside the Mersey Way would be highly damagingin3 respects. Despite the former dredging grounds to the south and the Butchersfield waste disposal site, it would be an unexpected and alien feature in this flat valley floor. It would give the impression that the river was in some sort of corridor, with high banks and/or other features on each side of it. This would greatly detract from the pleasantness of the river valley and the existing delightful walk through it that the Mersey Way affords. And it would obscure the already attractive views of the open landscape to the north that should be enhanced as a result of a good scheme to restore much of the application site to agriculture. The cross-sections at Documents MSCC/56A and 56B illustrate these points. (8.12) 8.1 H Some of these considerations apply to the rest of the earth mounding which the proposals " . include. As a screen; these mounds would be of.some advantage. To some eXtent their-size "and shape would be caI!1ouflaged by the planting of.trees and shIubs .on and .near thcln, especially in the smnmermonlhSwhen there would be,:more leaf cover .. But they would be,:. amixed blessing. As 1say, they. would be alien features in this already attractive, and potentially more so, flat valley floor. The Mersey Way, the valley floor and the wider "landscape woulqbe better without both them and the development of which they form Part. (8.13) 8.112 The height of the,:Thelwall Viaduct and the Motorway upon it is such that however many trees and shrubs were introduced. into and around the development, including on.the,: Viaduct embankment, clear vie,:ws of the,:MSA would remain. It would be prominent. Sometimes MSAsare regarded as intrinsic parts of a Motorway in that they are,:physically connected to it and primarily serve those who travel upon it, the inference presumably .being that perhaps a more relaxed approach can be taken to proposals for them in the Gre,:en Belt or other parts of the countryside. 1do not subscribe to that view, and I draw comfort from Lord Whitty's statement which supplements Roads Circular 1/94 that, safety considerations aside, there is also a need on wider policy grounds to limit development alongside motorways and motorway junctions. This applies particularly, though not exclusively, to areas of planning restraint such as the Green Belt. (3.2) Page 39 8.113 These developments are urban in character and appearance and the closeness of this proposed MSA at Junction 21 to the Motorway would not reduce the damaging effects that I have described. Indeed, as I have mentioned, this damage would be especially noticeable at night with clear views of the illuminated development from such elevated vantage points as the Thelwall Viaduct and the A57 road bridge over the M6 Motorway. The result would be intrusion into the open, Green Belt countryside on a large scale. 8.1 14 The lodge would be close to the entrance to the MSA. It would be screened to some extent by the extent of planting which the developers would be able to accommodate in the limited space available, and would be seen against a background of other planting within the site. Having noted one of the Secretary of State's conclusions in the Lea End Farm Hopwood decision (Junction 2, M42), I consider that the lodge at Junction 21 would increase the harm the overall development would cause to the Green Belt in this area to a marked degree (Document SW/4). (8.4) 8.115 Let me return to the Mersey Way. I very much enjoyed .the accompanied walk along it from Woolston to Swithen Hill Wood. Despite the noise from the Motorwayand other roads, I formed the clear impression immediately upon emerging from under the Thelwtl1l Viaduct of being in open countryside and agood way from any large urban·area. The route of the Way was generally obvious and this indicates some use by the public .. Birdsong was much in evidence, and I noted moorhens and a swan. The River Mersey, with its gradual bends and often attractive trees and other vegetation on both sides is a most captivating feature in the landscape. That landscape includes the flat site that is the subject of the application. An Inspector noted in his Report to the Secretary of State in 1996 that the essential character of this area as part of the flat lower course of a river valley remains. That is still the case 6 years later. (8.70) 8.116 The proposals include much planting within the application site and beyond it Swithen Hill Wood would be extended. The MSA site is part of the Mersey Forest Plan area where a 20-30% woodland cover is envisaged. But my reading of this non-statutory Plan convinces me that these percentages are for general guidance and that when applied to small parts of wide swathes of countryside, adherence to particular .percentages can diminish in importance. The general area to the east of the ThelwallViaduct would undoubtedly benefit from the reinforcement of hedgerows, perhaps in some. places with . some larger scale planting of trees in neW or expanded copses in line·withthe,Plan's "'- intentions for disturbed land and within the agricultural landscape. Although. allthe Wl7 area in the Plan is valley bottom, I am not convinced that there-should be much; if any, new planting in that part of the flat valley floor which comprises the application site .. And certainly not of the scale and· elevated artangement which forms part of, and provides screening for, the MSA proposal. The retention of the open views to and from the River Mersey is more important (8.13 & 8.14) . 8.117 Woodland cover in the Mersey Forest area extends to only 4%, which is low for England, but that does not mean that a substantial amount of planting is acceptable in all circumstances. The cautionary comment in the Mersey Forest Plan of the need to keep open the valley floor from planting, and which I take to mean a substantial amount of planting, is well made. In some parts of the Plan area it may be better to plant few, if any, trees. And so I endorse this comment I consider that the proposed landscaping, which would be seen as an integral part of an urban type of seriously harmful development in this flat valley landscape would not much advance the objectives of this Plan. This conclusion accords with the advice in the Landscape Assessment of Cheshire: Cheshire County Council 1994 that this area is an important break in the urban conurbation between Page 40 Warrington and Irlam and which stresses the need for a carefUl balance between conservation of the open valley floor landscape and enhancement where these features are being lost. And that consideration could be given to larger scale planting provided the open valley bottom does not become lost. (Document MSCC/P/IA Appendix 3 page A3.22). I agree. . 8.118 In conclusion on this matter, I entirely reject the proposition that the Junction 21 application site should be regarded as a piece of degraded urban fringe land which should be developed as a way of improving it. Whilst I accept that the roadside restaurant/diner may well be constructed on a small part of it, the compliance with planning conditions and the meeting of presumed contractual obligations would be the best way forward to ensure that this inherently attractive part of the open Green Belt countryside fulfils its proper potential. I do not shareMr Freeman's view about the development removing an eye-sore because I consider that, apart from the site for the restaurant/diner, the land should be restored to open, agricultural countryside. This is a matter which I examine in more detail later. (4.2 & 8.94) 8.119 I turn now to the Junction 22 application proposals. I think that the description of the landscape hereabouts as severely degraded by agricultural practices and rather bleak and unprepossessing is unfortunate, to put it mildly. The landscape is to some degree degraded, but this appears to have resulted mainly from the removal of hedgerows and the amalgamation of fields. It is interesting to compare present field boundaries with those shown on the OS maps of 1849, 1894 and 1908 which Mr Sargeant provides in Document PWS/I, and to see the extent of the change. (8.53 & 8.88) 8.120 The landscape hereabouts comprises an attractive patchwork of fields, each field being clearly marked by hedgerows. As the previous Inspector noted, the application site is arable land within a gently undulating landscape offields and hedgerows. There are some trees in these hedgerows and several copses in the vicinity. As the Motorway is in cutting here its carriageway can clearly be seen ouly from the top of the embankment and from nearby bridges across it. The view from the tower of Winwick Parish Church confirms the impression on the ground that trees, woodlands and the patchwork of field boundaries make an important contribution to. the attractiveness of the landscape. It is inevitable that a scheme of the sizelUld type promoted.would have a substantial effect on the landscape, and those the subject of the planning applications are no exceptions. 8.121 Beauty is m..the eye. of me beholder, and it is obvious that the many local people from. Winwick who attended the evening session of the Inqniry and who addressed me value .the. q>untryside Qfw)Jich the application sites form part. They are right to do.'!lo. They are not impressed by the amount of planting proposed for the appeal site, about 37% for the Direct Option and about 47% for the Indirect Option. And, because it would appear as part of an alien development to include buildings, other hard surfaces and extensive 'earth mounds; I agree with them. (8.84 - 8.86) 8.122 The landform is generally undulating with shallow gradients, generally 1:40 to I: 100. The MSA would be constructed in a natural hollow, deepened by excavation. The excavated material would be formed into profiled earth mounds on the east, north east, north west, west and south site edges. These engineering works would create more of a basin in the landscape within which to accommodate the rest of the development. Slope transect information for the Indirect and Direct Options, and for internal and external slopes, agreed by the main parties, is at Document SW/20. Internal slopes are usually the steeper, but both vary considerably. The external slopes vary from I :26 to I :4, but I am especially Page 41 concerned about those that would be of about 1:6 and steeper. They would be particularly incongruous in this generally gently undulating countryside. (8.47 & 8.56) 8.123 The gradients of the mounds in the previous proposal were in the order of 1:2.5 - 1:3 and would no doubt have appeared even more artificial and alien in the landscape than those of the current proposals (Document SW/6). But that does not make this aspect of the current proposals in harmony with the character of the local landscape and hence acceptable. There are comparatively steep embankments at the Motorway nearby, but they are part of the national motorway system and again this does not make the proposed mounds satisfactory. Neither that which was once proposed nor that which exists justifies the proposals to which these applications relate. 8.124 Bearing in mind its width and likely intensity, the planting on the mounds would soften their outline and height, especially during the summer months. when there is more leaf cover on deciduous trees. More camouflage of the mounds could be expected as the vegetation matured, at both ground level and higher, and with the suitable management which I have no doubt would take place. But in my judgement, the actuaIpresence of the mounds would be out of place is these more gently roIling surroundings, The fact that t1le planting would to some degree obscure the mounds which in turn would shield much of the buildings and other hard surfaces would not make the actual presence of the development as a whole acceptable in this countryside. Indeed, I believe that its alien nature would be emphasised by the earth mounds. Their gradients would be steeper than much else in the landscape and this would make them unexpected and unfamiliar features within it. 8.125 The steepest gradient in the present landscape is about I:12. That is gradual when compared with the slopes proposed. But it is not only gradient which concerns me. The arrangement of the mounds, generally curving around and containing the buildings and other hard surfaces, would draw further attention to their artificiality and intrusion. Rather than appearing as a part of the natural.landscape, they would stand out as an integral part of an urban type of development. And, indeed, that is what they would be. The fact that a previous Inspector examining a MSA proposal at Stone did not consider that the mounding. in that particular case would appear unduly alien does not mean that it would be acceptable at Junction 22 or anywhere else. His other conclusions do not prevent the proposals before me from being intrusive or unduly detracting from the appearance and character .ofthe surroundings. (8.46 & 8.54) . . 8.126 There would be a substantial amount of planting, trees and other vegetation, on the mounds and to some extent this would obscure their phySical shape and. purpose. But the .shape of .' the woodland produced, generally following the curve of the mounds, would be entirely different from the prevailing pattern of trees and woodland in the locality. It would also be seen as part of an urban type of development that had been forced into the landscape. Mr Sargeant says that the construction of barriers deliberately devised to prevent through . vision would be inimical to the amenities of the immediate locality, as well as offensive to openness which is the most important attribute of Green Belts. I cannot improve on his words. (8.88) 8.127 Mr Gordon of behalf of the Winwick Parish Council says that earth mounds and trees would look out of place and even artificial in the local landscape. He, too, makes a good point. Although there would be some planting near the Motorway, the approach adopted would for the most part be contrary to an aim of the Mersey Forest landscape strategy of maintaining landscape character. It would be obvious that they had been constructed to screen the development and that they formed part of it. (8.87) Page 42 8.128 The Manchester Ship Canal Company raises concerns about the drying out of the mounds, the erosion of their slopes and the implications for the landscaping. But I am sure that the developers and/or operators would be keen to protect and encourage the trees and other vegetation, in the context of the good aftercare and management scheme to which Swayfields Limited refers. This point does not unduly concern me, but it does not outweigh the serious harm resulting from the principle of the development and its actual presence in the rural surroundings. (8.33 & 8.57) 8.129 The Mersey Forest Plan seeks the establishment of more woodland in this part of Warrington. As I note above, however, this is a non-statutory plan and so I do not accord it as much weight as I do the development plan. North of the hedge that crosses the land, the objective is to achieve 20-30% woodland cover. Between this hedge and Winwick a 10- 20% cover is sought. Woodland would comprise as much as 37% of the Option A site and 43% of the Option B site. But my conclusion above about adherence to particular percentages for individual sites applies equally here. Even though there is a considerable cover of trees and woodland in these essentially agricultural surroundings, this already pieasanttract oflandscape could be improved with the reinforcement ofhedgemws and ~e planiiilg of copses of generally the same size and shape as eXisting ones. But that is no justification for the scale, arrangement and elevated position on· extensive mounds of trees and woodland as part of the development proposed. . ,8.130 . Policy ENV 21 in.the St Helens VOl' requires new development to be suitably screened or landscaped, and it applies to major transport routes like the M6 Motorway which carries the majority of the Borough's visitors and those passing through the area (DocUments SW/48A and SW/48B). One of the central themes of the Mersey Forest plan is the greening of key transport routes. These are worthwhile aims, but they give no justification for the wholesale and damaging change to the landscape by way of intrusive mounding and planting on it in the adjoining Borough. It would be better to promote some hedgerow planting along roads, tracks, paths and farm boundaries to link up existing woodlands, generally as envisaged for the Burtonwood area in the Landscape Assessment of Cheshire: Cheshire County Council 1994. The landscaping proposals for the MSA, including the mounding, would result in severe harm tp the traditional pattern of fields and hedges that is such an important and valued component or'this part of the countryside. (5.19) .... 8.131 Commui:lity forests like the Mersey Forest will cover largearelis, spreading'around the ... edges of towns and cities. They will not be continuous plantings of trees. Instead they will .0 bea. rich mosaic of wooded· landscapes and 'land uses including farmland;viiIliges and . leisuti:enterpnses;nature areas and public'openspaces. But theprimarypUl'}>Ose;as I see it, ofilie landscapiIig proposed on these artificialbanks and moiinds of these:IvtSA schemes at both Motorway junctions would be to shield the view of the buildings and other hard .surfaces from the surrounding countryside. As I have said, the planting would appear more as part of an urban type of development, and in my judgement its contribution to the objectives of the Mersey Forest Plan would, at best, be minimal. ·8:132 Swayfields Limited considers that the Direct Option would be better than the Indirect Option and would prefer it. From the landscape and Green Belt points of view, I agree. There would, for example, be more modest highway works and so less land would be taken for hard surfaces. This comparison does not, however, render the Direct Option acceptable. It means that, in terms of impact upon the surroundings, the Indirect would be even more damaging than the Direct Option. Most MSAs in the country were constructed in the countryside, and some on Green Belt land. But again, that does not make these proposals acceptable. (2.7, 8,52 & 8.58) Page 43 The impact of the proposed development on the openness of the Green Belt 8.133 National policy in PPG 2 is relevant. The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts, which have been an essential element of national and local planning policies for more than 4 decades. The first official proposal to establish a Green Belt was made as long ago as 1935. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the most important attribute of Green Belts is their openness. There are 5 purposes of including land in Green Belts, and I now consider the effect of each of these MSA proposals on each one. 8.134 The first purpose is to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas. There was some debate at the Inquiry about the teim "unrestricted". A definition of ''restrict'' in my Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1983) is to confine (some person or thing) to or within certain limits; to limit or bound. The .Thelwall Viaduct is an impressive engineering work of massive construction, taking theM6Motorway across the River Mersey. I agree with a conclusion of the Inspector who recommended on objections to the Warrington Local Plan that the M6 is a formidable physicalIeature which would establish a firm defensible boundary. The fact that the proposed Junction 21 development would not be confin"&! within the existing built up area ofWarriJigton as restricted by the Thelwall Viaduct and the M6 Motorway would make the scheme an unrestricted. sprawl of that built up area. A MSA on the proposed site would be a clear breach of this aspect of national policy, for all to see during both day. and night .That the eastern extent of the MSA would be clearly defined does not alter that conclusion. 8.135 The Mascrat Manor public house on the redeveloped land to the north of the application site will probably be excluded from the Green Belt in the UDP when adopted, in accordance with the recommendation of the Local Plan Inspector. Given the modest size of that redevelopment, the former use of the land concerned as a haulage depot and the clearly marked extent of the built up area, there is no justification for the scale and type of proposal which the Applicant seeks on the Green Belt land immediately to the east of the Thelwall Viaduct. (3.3 & 8.75) 8.136 Somewhat different circumstances apply to the application sitl::sat Junction.22. This land is not .contigiJous with'any large'built up area, being about one kilometre from the edge of . Winwick, and so neither ofthe.2 Options, nor lhl::land at RoughFarm, could be confined to .. ' or withiIl any such area. In my opinio~ a development does not have to adjoin a built up '. area to constitute sprawl. The distance ,of a fewfieldaor so between itimdthe.edgeofa .,.built up area does not,take it outofthlitcategoryorddinition. Alld so, bearing in mind the . proximity ufthe edge of the buiifuP\treaofWinwick and the close physical relationship of": . that village to Warrington, I consider that any of the Junction 22 proposals would be a similar breach of policy. In effect, it would be the unrestricted sprawl of a built up area If it would not be sprawl according to astrict and technical definition of the term it would be very much like it. 8.137 The second purpose is to prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another. The Junction 21 scheme would not physically link Warrington with Itlam, Lymm or anywhere else. The OS map (Document CD/68) clearly shows the extent and distribution of built up areas as the traveller proceeds from Warrington in a generally north easterly direction. Besides farmsteads and small hamlets there are the larger settlements of Rixton, Warburton, Hollins Green, Glazebrook, Partington, Cadishead and then Irlam. A MSA as proposed at Junction 21 would materially reduce the extent of the gaps between Warrington and these other places, making the locality significantly less open. Therefore, although there is no breach in the strict application of the letter of this part of national policy, there most Page 44 certainly is in terms of the spirit of this advice. In effect, the policy would be breached. (3.7) 8.138 Similar considerations apply at Junction 22. A MSA here would not physically join Warrington or Winwick with, say, Leigh or Newton-Ie- Willows. Nevertheless, there is a number of settlements of various sizes in this general locality to the north and east of Warrington. They include Newton-Ie-Willows, Hennitage Green, Town of Lowton, Lane Head, Croft, Cu1cheth and, going towards Leigh, Glazebury. A development of the size proposed would reduce the extent of the gaps between Warrington, Winwick and these other settlements, again reducing the openness of the locality. Again, in effect, the policy would be breached. (3.14) 8.139 The third purpose is to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. There ..can be no doubt that developments of the type and scale proposed would not safeguard .the countryside from encroachment. Assuredly they would substantially encroach into it. In this respect, the quality of the landscape is not relevant. But openness is. During the course of the Inquiry, and since closing it, I have walked around· much of the Woolston and ··;~·····Winwick areas and have driven through the wider surroundings,' They contain a large. number of settlements, some like cU1cheth and Cadishead being quite extensive. Significant development has taken place at Winwick, including the redevelopment Df Winwick Hospital and the residential estate at The.8pires on Golbome Road. It is plain to see. 8.140 These schemes were undertaken in accordance with the guidance laid down in PPG 2 Annex C and with more local policies respectively. The Goibome Road land is included . within an inset area (Document SW/42). On this basis, I do not regard them as unjustified encroachments into the Green Belt countryside. Nevertheless, and bearing in mind the closeness of large urban areas like Merseyside, Greater Manchester and Warrington, the .impression gained is that this Green Belt countryside is under intense threat as opportunities for development within the built up areas become exhausted, especially near Junction 22.' This makes this aspect of national policy especially apt. (8.63) 8.141 Several witnesses illustrate'. the extent of the Green Belt and some corrections and clarifications are sought and provided, forexampliin Documents SW/39 and.'SWIM. I .. rely mainly on the Key Diagram in the approved Structure Plan (DocumenLGD/lS) and the "·.PropoSals Maps in the Warrington Borough Council's Consolidated Policy.Schedule __"(DocumenLCD/69),the Warrington Draft UDP (Document CD/75) and the StOHclen's .. .·M~politan, Borough Council's adopted UDP (Do.cumentCD!JS).,;Existing.sett1eme$ " .. and buildings already limit the·openness of the GreenBelt, and'my tI'llvels andinspectirins . convince me that there is now a delicate balance between the urban areas and the tranquil rural surroundings in this part of Cheshire. Although the Junction 22 sites might both be described as small when compared to the overall scale of the Green Belt and its substantial . swathe, that does not make the proposals any less harmful to the lands concerned. And an assault upon one part of the Green Belt is an assault upon the whole. 8.142 Any large scale scheme as either Applicant proposes would serve to tip that balance in a most unfortunate way, unduly emphasising the urban characteristics of the.wider area The promotion of more development in these circumstances and the merging of developments towards each other would make the Green Belt decidedly less open. This is a matter of fact, and I am in no doubt that any impressions or perceptions would coincide with that fact. These local circumstances make it a Green Belt where national and local policies for the safeguarding of the countryside from encroachment should be applied with especial rigour. Page 45 8.143 I deal now in more detail with the extant permission for the roadside restaurant/diner. Its proposed layout and elevations are shown at Document MSCC/P/3/A Appendix IA and its extent is compared with that of the application site as a whole at Document SW-P5 Appendix 7. It is reasonable to presume that it would be built if the MSA does not proceed, and the Company confirms its intention to develop it in those circumstances (Document MSCC/37). It would have to be clearly visible from the road by day and night, if only to attract passing trade. It would, of course, reduce the openness of the Green Belt in this locality. But it would be considerably smaller in size and impact on the Green Belt countryside than would the MSA, as the Facts and Figures in Documents MSCC/36 & 36A demonstrate. This extant planning permission is not a strong argument for a MSA at Junction 21, and it makes no difference to my conclusions about the breaches of national and local Green Belt policies. (4.2 & 8.26) 8.144 The fourth purpose is to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns. Many towns and villages in this country are of great age. Winwick, which because of its modest size I regard more asa village than a town, is no exception. Mr Sargeant provides useful informatidn about itS history. I was interested in the various exhibits in the impressive lWd historic Parish Church which the Reverend Bob Lewis showed me during my accompanied site inspection. But in the context of PPG 2, I think more in terms of such cities as Cambridge, Chester and Oxford. I make no comment on his suggested designation Of a Conservation Area at Winwick, because that is more a matter for the Borough Council. None of the application proposals is contrary to this aspect of national Green Belt policy. (8.90) 8.145 The fifth purpose is to assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict land. Owing to matters that include the requirement to restore it, I do not regard the land at Junction 21 as derelict. In so far as the Junction 22 sites are concerned, I deal with this aspect of the policy in my consideration of the former Parkside Colliery site. I conclude that, although a MSA at Junction 22 need not in principle prejudice its redevelopment, there . is a serious risk that that could be one of the consequences of these particular proposals for the application sites. 8.146 It is important to consider the above' 5 purposes of including land in Green Belts, but it must not-be forgotten that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt lti'my opinion, the intrinsic harm to the Green Belt and the additional harm to it which I outline above that would result from a scheme at either Junction 21 or 22 would be severe. Circumstances are different at each of these locations, but in terms of overall harm to the Green Belt there isJittie to choose between the Juhction 21 proposal and.any of the pro]losals at Junction 22. The proposed extents of the application sites and the 'buildings and other hard surfaces within them are not the same, but the general scale of the schemes is comparable. It is a case of equivalent harm. ' 8.147 The Manchester Ship Canal Company seeks to show that its site at Junction 21 is preferable to a site at Junction 22, for reasons which include Policy LUT 23 Roadside Services in the Warrington UDP First Deposit Draft. The Policy includes the provision of MSAs and the Reason and Explanation advises that it seeks to restrict the provision of such facilities in Warrington to sites within or on the edge of the town and villages in the Borough. But the Policy cautions that roadside services are inappropriate development in the Green Belt, and so it does not take the examination of the proposal outside that land use context It gives little or no support or preference to the Junction 21 scheme, and is easily outweighed by the many other considerations which lead to my recommendation that no planning permission should be granted for a MSA between Knutsford and Charnock Richard MSAs. (8.1) Page 46 8.148 Particular considerations apply in the case of any need for one MSA between Knutsford and Charnock Richard and every planning application must be determined on its merits in the context of the development plan. For those reasons, 1 do not accept the views of many local residents that permission for one of these schemes would set a precedent for more development of whatever type in the Green Belt, although 1am sure that a MSA would not go unnoticed by the prospective developer of any nearby land. . But there being no precedent would be poor recompense for the harm that any of these schemes would cause to the Green Belt countryside, and it provides no justification (8.92). 8.149 The use ofland in the Green Belt has a positive role to play in fulfilling certain objectives. Besides the retention of land in agricultural, forestry or related uses, it is envisaged that a Green Belt will provide opportunities for, for example, access to the open countryside, outdoor recreation and enhancing the landscape. The extent to which the MSA proposals would fulfil those objectives is a material consideration, but PPG 2 explains that the purposes of including land in Green Belts are of paramount importance and should take precedence over the land use objectives. Nevertheless, I examine the proposals in the context of these objectives. .• 8.150 I am not greatly impressed by the items offered by the Manchester Ship Canal Company at Junction 21. Whilst the substantial woodland planting might benefit. the countryside generally to the east of the application site, I am doubtful whether it can be classed as necessary off-site works or be much related to any planning permission granted. I also wonder whether the proposed surfacing of the Mersey Way in this locality would be of much benefit. Unmade footpaths, wet and muddy at times, are not unusual in the countryside and in my opinion its present state contributes to the pleasant rural atmosphere of the locality which should be protected and enhanced more as part of the agricultural countryside than as something akin to an urban park. (8.14 & 8.72) 8.151 And I have reservations about the items that Swayfields Limited offers at Junction22. As I discovered, existing footpaths near Junction 22 already allow good access to the countryside from which its attractive openness can be appreciated. The blocking of views of sweeps of countryside which would result from the proposed diversion of Footpath No 1 and the substantial mounding and planting within the northern parts of the schemes would be a hindrance to that appreciation. Mr Sargeant is right about the loss of what he calls through vision. (8.62 & 8.89) 8.152 There is considerable local opposition to these proposals .. This.is obvious from the large . number of written representations and from the many people who came to the 2 evening. sessions of the Inquiry and signed the Attendance List (Document AP/8) .. ' LU<:ethem, I place very substantial weight on long established policies for the protection of the Green Belt and on the Warrington Borough Council's valiant determination to protect it. Local people, and the Winwick Parish Council in particular, are in no doubt that anyone of these proposals would substantially damage the Green Belt contrary to the national and local policies to which I refer in Section 5 of this Report. I wholeheartedly agree with them. The impact on neighbouring residential development 8.153 The advice in PPG 1 is that the planning system does not exist to protect the private interests of one person against the activities of another, although private interests may coincide with the public interest in some cases. In assessing the effect of these proposals on neighbouring residential development, I have considered whether each of them would unacceptably affect amenities and the existing use of land which ought to be protected in the public interest. I rely mainly on the Warrington Borough Council's estimates of the Page 47 distances between the sites and the nearest residential and other developments. These include that of 160 m or so and 400 m or so between the Junction 21 site and Rosebank Farm and the various properties on Riversdale and Manchester Road respectively, and the 135 m or so and 160 m or so between the Junction 22 sites and Rose Mount and Wood Head (Document WBC/P/2). I note also that The Cottage is about 50 m from the Junction 22 sites. (8.38) 8.154 Even with the proposed landscaping of the Junction 21 development, it would still be possible for the buildings and other hard surfaces to be seen from those dwellings nearest the application site. Any views, however, would be mainly from upper floors that are for the most part presumably used as bedrooms. The views would be oblique, rather than direct, but more importantly they would be from an appreciable distance. No doubt the people concerned would prefer to look out over mainly open land and enjoy the views of the countryside, especially when restored, but this assumed preference does not amount to serious harm to living conditions. The MSA would generate noise, especially from traffic, but even if it could be distinguished at these residential properties I would expect it to be .against the background of the considerable and continuous amount of traffic noise from the.• . . M6 Motorway and the A57 road. The Manchester Ship Canal Company makes fair points. (8.3 0-8.3 2) 8.155 I use the same approach with the Junction 22 proposals, taking intoaccountthat the nearest dwellings are at some distance from the application sites. Some views might be gained from nearby dwellings of the lighting columns and, mainly during the early years, of the completed development. Again, I expect that present and future occupiers wonld prefer to look towards open countryside, but bearing in mind the same advice in PPG I about private interests, this does not amount to serious harm to living conditions. (8.38) 8.156 There is dispute amongst the experts about the effect of noise. Hermitage Green, where the dweIlings nearest the sites are to be found, is a neighbourhood where .anyadditional noise could be intrusive above the almost continuous hum of Motorway traffic. Having listened to the sound ofHGV engines being started up at Knutsford and Charnock Richard MSAs, I am not convinced that such noise would always be muffled by noise emanating from the , Motorway. But I am more concerned about the noise from the klaxons.ofHGVs reversing in their parking area. Probably most HGV drivers would arrive during the evening and either park in forward gear in such a way that they could move off in the morning in that gear, or reverse into a space so that they· could leave in the morning in forward gear. Even· so, there remains a significant risk of disturbance from the noise of these vehicles. _ ".,. ~. J • .,_ 8.157 .. It is ilnporlanLto note the extent and height of the mounds between· the nearest dwellings . and the proposed HGV parking spaces, up to 6 m or so when measured on its eastern side (Document SW/P/D/2 Plans IMR 9 and IMRIIA). And, significantly, these parking spaces are towards the southern end of the application sites and, in my view, as far ·away as is practicable from residential areas. I accept that, as a responsible company, SwaYfields Limited or another member of the Swayfields Group of Companies would genuinely seek to do everything possible to meet the reasonable wishes of local people. Nevertheless, should permission be granted, it should come with a planning condition for the submission of a HGV management strategy for approval by the local planning authority before the MSA became operational. (8.38. 8.39. 8.40, 8.66 & 8.87) 8.158 Notwithstanding the attachment of such a condition, I remain concerned about this matter. Parking areas for HGVs, even with the measures and sense of responsibility outlined above, can be noisy. Any reversing ofHGVs during the night might not be frequent, but on those occasions when it did occur it would be noticeable at nearby dwellings. This would be Page 48 especially the case during wann summer evenings, nights and early mornings when bedroom windows may be open. There is thus some risk that this noise, as well perhaps as that of HGVs being "wanned up" for up to 10 minutes, could cause considerable disturbance during the early hours. Mr Gordon speaks from experience, and so his views are especially telling. The MSA would be close to dwellings and I am not convinced that all the various measures, relying as they would on the actions of individuals, would always be effective. There would be a serious risk of disturbance for the people living close to a MSA at Junction 22. (8.87) 8.159 There are 2 dwellings on Winwick Lane opposite Rough Fann. The Illustrative Site Layout shows that traffic to and from a MSAon.this land would not use this Lane and this could be of benefit to the occupants of these dwellings. Access to them, however, would be less convenient as it would be to Rough Cottage. The increased amount of traffic being brought close to the rear garden of Rough Cottage would be likely to cause disturbance, especially to the occupants of the proposed dwelling to which Mr Mills refers: These are not points in. favour of the MSA scheme. (8.97, 8.101 & 8.102). Comparative analysis 8.160 The impact of the various application proposals, and that for RoughFann, would constitute equivalent hann on the openness of the Green Belt. . .. 8.161 I am in no doubt about the intense damage that the Junction 21 proposal would do to the visual amenity of the Green Belt. But owing to limited amount of existing enclosure afforded by the embankments of the M6 Motorway and the realigned AS7, I accept the Warrington Borough Council's view and the advice given to Swayfields Limited in 1995 that the Junction 21 proposal would be least hannful in landscape terms. (3.6,8.9 & 8.79) 8.162 There is no significant risk to living conditions of those people occupying dwellings near Junction 21. But that is not the case at Junction 22, and in this respect the Junction 22 proposals would be the more damaging. 8.163 On the evidence available,' I consider that the proposal for Rough 'Fann would not provide a . better 'alternativein respect.of the considerations explored in this Section· of my Report .. . Indeed, the rnoreexposed" position of the land would make its development .evenmore . conspicuous in the surroundings. "-. . .' . . 8.164.. I appn:ciatethat, apart from access,theseo,proposals.are in outlindorm, Nevertheless, . Other matters 8.165 I deal with the points concei-riing Listed Buildings and Scheduled Ancient Monuments in Section 15 of my Report. Page 49 Inspector's Conclusions The Character of the Countryside 9.50 These applicatio.n sites, and the land at Ro.ugh Fann, are all in tho.se parts o.fthe countryside which is designated Green Belt. I have already co.ncluded an the serio.us damage which all these schemes wo.uld cause to. the o.penness and visual amenity o.f the Green Belt, and much the same applies to. their impact upon the character o.f the countryside. I therefo.re bear in mind the paints made in the previo.us Sectio.n o.fthis Repo.rt. 9.51 I reject the no.tio.n that the proPo.sed. mo.unding at the Junctio.n 21 site wo.uld so.meho.w complement and conserve existing features and enhance the surro.undings. It wo.uld damage, nat impro.ve the countryside. It wo.uld change its character fro.m o.ne o.f potential attractive o.penness to. an urban style environment. This site could be considerably mare attractive than it is at present, and even a mo.dest amo.unt o.ftidying up wo.uld be of same benefit. There is no.reason to.think that it wo.uld still appear to.be degraded after suitable aftercare treatment. (9.1 & 9.25) 9.52 Far that reaso.n, any reliance upo.n the site· as degraded and contaminated urban fringe land misses a vital paint. Structure Plan Po.licyENVlthat directs new develo.pment to.wards, far example, vacant and underused land, gives little o.rno. suppo.rt to.the Junctio.n 21 proPo.sal. It is regrettable that resto.ratio.n has nat taken place, but no. do.ubt the Warringto.n ao.ro.ugh Co.uncil has a point abo.utprio.rities. (9.42) 9.53 The Junctio.n 22 sites are in existing attractive countryside, and I accept the Bo.rough Co.uncil's descriptio.n given. Its quality derives mainly fro.m its patchwo.rk o.ffields, copses, hedges and individual trees. It is rightly valued by the many people who. displayed Po.sters in their fro.nt gardens to. abject to. the MSA proPo.sals and came to. the evening sessio.n o.f the Inquiry held at the Winwick Leisure Centre to. speak so. enthusiastically abo.ut the need to. pro.tect it. It is clear fro.m the representatio.ns no.ted in the previo.us Inspecto.r's Repo.rt that this is nat the first time that they have felt the need to.do. so.. A MSA here wo.uld be highly damaging to.the character o.fthe countryside. (9.4{f) 9.54 The Rough Fann land is in a generally mare exposed po.sition an the eastern side o.fJunctio.n 22. There wo.uld thus be less o.pportunity to. sci:een it, apart fro.m theimpo.sitio.non the landscape o.fa. considerable amo.unt o.fmo.unding as shawn an the Illustrative Site Layo.ut and Illustrative Site Sectio.ns. Same less than attractive buildings would be demo.lished as part o.f the develo.pment, but that would be little consolatio.n. In terms o.feffect o.n.the countryside, I consider tluitthis proposal: wo.uld be even mare damaging than the applicatio.n schemes (Do.cument RF). (8.97-8.100) 9.55 The Mersey Forest Plan refers to. the image o.f an area, and this results partly ·fro.mwhat is seen by visito.rs with their awn eyes. As a visito.r, I have been very conscio.us o.fthe amo.unt o.fbuilt develo.pment in this part o.f the country. Nat o.nly are there the o.utskirts o.f 2 large conurbatio.ns, but ather big to.wns and villages o.f substantial size. What is left o.f the countryside contains hamlets and iso.lated develo.pments o.f vario.us type and size. As the Mersey Fo.rest Plan says, the agricultural land surro.unding Warringto.n is do.minated by urban influences and the transport netwo.rks. The impressio.n gained is that o.ne is never far fro.m a built up area, and in my o.pinio.nthat places an additio.nal o.bligatio.n an the decisio.n-maker to. safeguard if at all po.ssible that which do.es remain o.fthe co.untryside. 9.56 Indeed, this remainder sho.uld be enhanced, as the Mersey Fo.rest Plan proposes. As it says, the approach adapted will allo.w the Mersey regio.n to.promo.te itself as an area o.nce blighted Page 58 by 2 centuries of pollution, yet poised at the point of environmental recovery. Substantial developments which break through obvious restrictions to the built up area like the Thelwall Viaduct or which intrude into an attractive swathe of open countryside as at Junction 22 strike me as being the very opposite of what is intended. Enhancement of the countryside, not its destruction, would better promote that image. 9.57 An important aspect of national policy is that the countryside should be safeguarded for its own sake and that non-renewable and natural resources should be afforded protection. The countryside of which the application sites and Rough Farm form part carries no special designation, but that does not reduce the force of the policy. Local policies amplifY the national ones. Of special note is Structure Plan Policy RI which protects the open countryside from development, apart from certain purposes which include agriculture. All these proposal conflict with these national and development plan policies. (9.40 & 9.41) Agricultural Considerations 9.58 An important consideration here is the need to safeguard the best and most versatile agricultural land. This is the land within. Grades 1, 2 and3A. It is national policy that previously developed land or land of a lower quality shoUld be developed in preference to land of these higher Grades. In view of the provision made for restoration, however, I do not regard the land as being previously developed in the terms set out in PPG 3 Annex C. National advice for the safeguarding of this' iand is reflected in Structure Plan Policies ENV2 and R.5, whilst Draft UDP Policy REPZ seeks to protect this vaiuable resource (Documents CD/15 and CD/75). 9.59 Matters of fact are substantially agreed between the 2 Applicants. The aforementioned statement contains the results of all surveys of land quality on the Junction 21 and 22 sites. Also of relevance is the geological survey at Document SW/34. There is an exchange of documents concerning landfill at the Junction 21 site and the requirements arising from the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (Documents SW/37 and MSCC/59A & B). In essence, the Environment Agency has to be satisfied before accepting the surrender of the Waste Management Licence that the condition of the land is unlikely to cause pollution to the environment or harm to human health. I see that it is a matter for the Agency as to which information is needed to warrant surrender; and it may include the monitoring.of gas. The main point here is that these requirements would have to bernet before and/or in parallel with the st:eking of planning permission. (9.4 & 9,10) .' '. . 9.60 The only remaining matter not agreed concerns the potential for restoration ontheJunction .• 21 land~ . The relativeiy small amountoflarid upon which·tberestaurantldinermight be bUilt - would not unduly prejudice the properrestoratiou cif the larger area. I tbinktbat it is impossible to be sure how much potentially best and most versatile land would belost should the Junction 21 site be developed as proposed. There isscant.information on the nature of the land prior to the temporary uses, the Minerals Planning Authority does not appear. to have monitored and enforced the conditions attached to those permissions as rigorously as might have been expected and there have been problems arising from the low lying nature of the land and from its less than satisfactory drainage. Lumps of concrete, if not removed or buried at sufficient depth, could detract from the agricultural value of the land. I suspect that the proper restoration of this land will be no easy matter. (9.5 - 9.7) 9.61 On a more positive note, I note the extent and position of the Grade 3A land according to the survey undertaken by the former MAFF in 1995 (Document SW-P-4 Annex 3). It is unlikely that its quality is curtailed as abruptly as the plan implies, and I accept that it probably extended into the area which was not surveyed at that time. A Report was prepared in 1995 Page 59 on the agricultural land quality of an area of about 4.3 ha to the east of the application site (Document MSCC/49). This confirms the incidence of Grade 2 land, and it is reasonable to presume thatit extended some way to the west. So the application site probably did at one time include some Grade 2 and 3A land. (9.26) 9.62 I agree that the raising oflevels at the landfill site should provide a better basis for a drainage system. The use of topsoil and subsoil of sufficient depth and quality should result in further improvement, as Conditions 45 and 46 require (Document SW-P-4 Annex 4). Much might need to be imported on to the site, but presumably its quality and appropriateness for the land could and should be checked before delivery. (9.28 & 9.29) 9.63 This is a case where well qualified and acknowledged experts in their field differ in their opinion on the potential of the land. But having taken the comprehensive evidence before me into account, I consider that the Junction 21 site should be generally capable of achieving a grade a good deal higher than Grade 4. In view of its chequered history, I am doubtful whether the majority of it could attain or regain Grade 2 or 3A quality .. Despite all the uncertainty, lihink that a general acliievement of Grade 3B at the Junction 21 site 'with perhaps limiterl:mnounts of Grade 3A or even of Grade 2 quality is a realistic prospect. . .- 9.64 The Junction 22 site already contains some Grade 3A land, probably about 'h5 ha. This isa relatively small amount of best and most versatile land in itself and as a proportion of the application sites. A small part at the north is detached from the main part at the south of the site, and so this somewhat reduces its total contribution. In terms of Comparison, taking into account the larger extent of the Junction 22 sites and bearing in mind the actual presence of at least J.5 ha of Grade 3A land, I consider that in agricultural terms there is little if anything to choose between the competing Junction 21 and 22 application sites. 9.65 If the Secretary of State disagrees with this conclusion, and accords some advantage to one or other of these sites, I consider that very little weight should be attached to that advantage. The sites are of relatively modest size and marginal and in terms of the extent of agricultural use in the Cheshire countryside. Furthermore, the overall value of land in the countryside must be assessed in the determination of applications, and agricultural land quality is but one of the relevant considerations. It is significant that neither the former MAFF.northe present Department of the- Environment,. Food and Rural Affairs has raised ail_objection to the development of any.ofthese sites..!,.;' . 9.66 The loss of existing or potential agricultural land is always unfortunate, butthe incidence of best and most versatile land does not bring an automaticrej~on of a devclopment proposal. IiI none of these cases promoted by either Company does it amount to ajustifiedfeasonfor refusal. In his Report following the previous Inquiry, the Inspector 'concluded at his paragraph 7.1.73 that the loss of any best and most versatile agricultural land must be regretted, but 3A land is not of the highest quality and only a relativelysmall area. (at the Junction 22 site) would be lost. I do not therefore consider this to be a major issue in this case. The same applies now. 9.67 I regard the greater loss of 5.2 ha of Grade 2 and 6.0 ha of Grade 3A land at Rough Farm as accepted in Document Rough Farm Environmental Statement (Non-Technical Summary) Section 8 as a significant loss. In comparative terms, it is a consideration that tells against its proposed development. (9.13 & 9.31) Nature Conservation and Ecology 9.68 I tum now to matters of nature conservation. As the Junction 21 site is within the Mersey Wildlife Corridor, it is subject to Policy GRN24 in the Draft UDP, previously Policy ENV5 Page 60 in the Consolidated Policy Schedule. This provides that development within or adjacent to major wildlife corridors will not be allowed if it is likely to destroy or harm their integrity, and will be allowed if it preserves or enhances their value through appropriate natural landscaping. There is no evidence to suggest that the Junction 21 land is important in nature conservation terms, and the landscaping proposals especially the off-site ones could provide better habitats for some birds. The proposal for the conservation, of water voles is an attractive part of the overall MSA scheme and this should enhance the nature conservation interests of the land and its surroundings. (9.14 - 9.16) , 9.69 The generally few and declining number and species of birds on the application sites at Junction 22 should be seen in the context of current farming practices which I understand are thought to have brought about an extensive loss of the best breeding habitats in many parts of the country. The use of winter-sown crops in arable farming and early silage cutting in grasslands have also affected the breeding success of many lowland farming species. I understand that the use of pesticides, which mayor may not have taken place on these fields, has resulted in further reductions. Similar considerations have no doubt applied at the Junction 21 site, and would prestunably colltlnueto do so should it be returned to agriculture " -." . - -, '. - -'," " .• as the relevant planning conditions require. (9.'34 & 9.35) , 9.70 Swayfields Limited accepts that the existing arable fields at their sites at Junction 22 have the potential to support breeding birds of conservation concern, such as the grey partridge, lapwing and skylark, which could not be accommodated within the MSA landscape. This loss would be especially unfortunate. But the more woody habitats and greater assortment of scrub and grassland would provide a better environment for other species including finches and tits. I like the idea of placing nest boxes in the landscaped surroundings to encourage the breeding of various species. And I applaud the planting of berry-producing trees to provide food for certain birds and to assist in the migration of others, like fieldfares. I have no doubt that the Manchester Ship Canal Company would take a similar positive approach on its site. (9.35 - 9.38) 9.71 On the face of it, the loss of a relatively small amount of intensively managed arable farmland 'would represent a small impact on the breeding populations of these birds and other creatures which may be present in the locality. Although the land on the eastem· side of the M6 Motorway is generally more exposed with less hedge and tree cover, there is a good deal of countryside in· the. general' locality of Junction 22 which is broadly similar to the application sites. The evidence concerning birds and fauna is not materially challenged but I requested and was given additional information about birds of prey (owls and kestrels), .. flnchesand tits {Document SWfI9) .. I much doubt whether arty.particular species of bird or. animal relies entirely or substantially on the application sites for breeding, foraging or hunting, and in that respect the 'development of anyone of these sites would not cause serious harm. (9.35)·· , 9.72 At both the Junction 21 and 22 sItes, the landscaping proposals could be of benefit to wildlife, generally in accordance with the advantages claimed. But these advantages should be seen in context. A MSA would be open 7 days a week and on a 24 hour basis. Owing to the inevitable noise and illumination, those parts of the landscaping schemes closest to the buildings, lights and parking and circulation areas would not provide the most suitable habitats for probably the majority of the wildlife mentioned. Despite the great care in each scheme to promote nature conservation, a MSA would result in both advantages and disadvantages for this important interest. On balance, there would probably be some advantage, but I do not rate it a pronounced one. Page 61 9.73 Planning Policy Guidance 9 states that local planning authorities should not refuse permission if development can be subject to conditions that will prevent damaging impacts on wildlife habitats or important physical features or if other material factors override nature conservation considerations. The combination of Legal Agreements and planning conditions would prevent those impacts and ensure that there was no material conflict with the quoted local policies. I do not consider that any of these schemes .should be rejected for reasons of nature conservation or ecology. Hedgerows 9.74 I share Mr Sargeant's concern about hedgerows. They can make an important contribution to the character and beauty of the countryside and I agree that they should be treated as a natural resource. This Common Inheritance (Document CD/59) refers to the need to protect those of importance and refers to the then anticipated Hedgerow Regulations. The Mersey Forest Plan states that existing hedgerows are part of the framework for the wide range of economic, social and environmental improvements that will take place. Existing ones in and around the Junction 22 application sites are generally attractive in themselves and contribute much towards the pleasing patchwork of relatively small fields which contrast with the m6re extensive, prairie-like aspect of the countryside generally to the east of the Motorway. (9.45) 9.75 More hedgerows and other vegetation would be planted, but tIlls would be as part of an alien imposition of urban style development upon the countryside. Admittedly the existing hedgerows are not always as dense and attractive as they could be, but I see that as a cause for their strengthening, along with other appropriate planting in the vicinity, rather than as part of any justification for a MSA. Grant aid might be available for such more modest and appropriate planting. (9.41) 9.76 The marking ofa historic boundary is an interesting point. Nevertheless, I wouldnot imagine that the role of this particular hedgerow in doing so is unique or even uncommon in the countryside, and I do not attach much importance to it. (9.46) Footpaths 9.77 The countryside is a valuable national asset, and footpaths enable people to appreciate and enjoy its variety and beauty. I have already referred to the loss of open views in the case of the Junction 2 I proposal, and similar harm would be caused by the proposals forJunction 22. There was scant evidence at my Inquiry of Footpath No .1 being well .used, and my accompanied inspection in July 2001 appeared to confirm the point. But I note from the previous Inspector's Report that the Residents Against Motorway Services (RAMS) stated that the various footpaths were well used for recreational purposes. Whatever the truth is now, I understand that rambling in the countryside is a popular activity and so this footpath should be considered not only for its present use but also in terms of its potential, bearing in mind the attractive openness of this part of the countryside and its closeness to well populated areas. 9.78 The fact remains that people walking Footpath No I can enjoy fine panoramic views, especially southwards towards the Mersey Valley. This is a quality well worth protection and enhancement. The diversion of the path along the Motorway boundary for as much as 300 m, together with the earth mounding, woodland and other planting which is part of the MSA proposals, would obstruct those views. Views of the open countryside from other nearby footpaths, Nos 3, 3A and 30, would also be obstructed to varying degrees. This is yet another aspect of the serious harm that these proposals would have on the countryside and its assets. (9.47) Page 62 Inspector's Conclusions 10.5 These cases are not materially challenged. English Nature has no objections' to the Junction 21 proposal, and the Wanington Borough Council does not contend that the proposal would have any measurable adverse effect on the Woolston Eyes SSS!. (10.4) 10.6 The SsSSI nearest the lands proposed for MSAs at Junctions 21 and 22 are an appreciable distance from them. Woolston Eyes SSSI is located as is described. It is within the Woolston Dredging Grounds which are shown in Document MSCCIP/IA Plan RT6. In view of such considerations as the River Mersey's lying between the application site and the SSSI and the absence of any evidence to the.contrary, I am not persuaded that any material damage would be caused to it as a result of either' the construction or the use of the proposed MSA. (10.2) 10.7 The Highfield Moss SSSI is located as described. Siinilar considerations apply. The distance between the SSSI and the Junction 22 lands, the in.tervening M6 Motorway and the lack of any evidence. to the contrary persuade me in this case also that neither the construction nor . ...theuse of either the Indirect Access or the DirectAecess MSA. would Cllusematerial damage to it. Nor is there any evidence to suggest that a MSA at 'Rough Farm would have a material~y adverse effect on the SSS!. (10.4) . Hi.s Structure Plan Policies ENV2, ENVIO, ENVll and ENVI2 include criteria and provide protection for such considerations as areas of particular nature conservation' value and internationally, nationally and regionally important nature conservation areas including SsSS!. The MSA proposals do not contravene these policies in so far as the SsSSI are concerned and planning permission should not be withheld on these grounds. ,;---,";-. Page 64 Inspector's Conclnsions 11.12 The parties raise a nwnber of issues arising from these national policies. I examine them briefly here, but deal with them in more detail elsewhere in my Report, especially in the next Section. 11.13 The PPG 13 extant at the time of the Secretary of State's call-in letters includes Annex A on Motorway and Road Side Service Areas. It has been superseded by PPG 13 dated March 2001. This has no equivalent Annex, but includes and carries forward aspects of policy which I consider to be particularly relevant in these cases and to which I refer elsewhere in this Report. Two objectives worthy of note here are the promotion of more sustainable transport choices for both people and for moving freight and the reduction in the need to travel, especially by car. 11.14 Roads Circular 1/94 advises on the spacing between MSAs. It refers to a minimwn spacing of 15 miles between services, but points out that this should not be taken to mean that the Departments see a need for MSAs every fifteen miles regardless of local circumstanc&s. Their only prescriptive view is that, for safety and traffic management reasons, drivers should not have to travel for long distances without finding services on the motorway. And it states intervals between existing services have not been much more than 30 miles. That remains the desirable general aim from the transport point of view. It cannot be a hard and fast rule, particularly in areas of planning restraint. It is clear from this policy that the transport point of view includes matters of safety. 11.15 The Minister for Roads, the Lord Whitty, announced on July 31 1998 tests for new MSAs. What is described as a new approach is designed to ensure that motorway users get the services they need while protecting the countrYside from unnecessary development. Priority is to be given to ensuring that MSAs are available roughly every 30 miles throughout the motorway network. Additional services at 15 mile intervals will still be allowed, but only exceptionally and where there is a clear need for them on safety grounds. This announcement supplements Roads Circular 1/94. 11.16 His Lordship stated in a written reply to a Parliamentary Question that we therefore intend to return to a policy based on the provision ofMSAs approximately every 30 miles in order to provide drivers with adequate opportunities to stop and. rest. Services at closer intervals will not be ruled out completely but we will in future expect to approve them only where . there are exceptional nel:ds and safety grounds for doing So. Mr Ainsworth, the Head of the Highways Agency's Motorway Service Unit, states in his letter ofl6 October 1998 that this Policy 'Statement mentions competition and choice hardly at all and it is clear that these issues will figure much less prominently in the determination of future cases. He adds they are no longer primary considerations (Docwnent CD/36 Appendix 2 Extract 2.4). I respectfully associate myself with these comments, and give this matter a good deal less weight than I do to the transport considerations. (11.6 & 11.7) 11.17 The tone of this advice, and especially Lord Whitty's reference to a return to a policy based on the provision of MSAs at approximately every 30 J;niles, persuades me that national policy about the frequency of MSAs is more stringent and exacting now as a result of the Policy Statement. This is an important change since the· 1995 Inquiry, and implies that any case being put forward on the basis of need must be yet more compelling. 11.18 In assessing proposals for an infill MSA, local planning authorities will be expected to have considered at least the 5 factors set out in the above Policy Statement, all of which I examine in due course. The Government's preference is that infill sites should be located ------_.~_._.__.------_._--_._- Page 67 roughly halfway between existing services. But it will not insist on this ifit can be shown that an off-centre location is superior to a more central one in either general planning terms or in its ability to meet a particular and significant need. 11.19 This approach accords with Mr Ainsworth's advice at MSCCfP/2/A Appendix 4 where he states that a MSA at Junction 22 would more closely accord with spacing policy than one at Junction 21. It is, in fact, almost precisely mid way between Knutsford and Charnock Richard MSAs. A MSA at Junction 21 should not be ruled out solely in terms of its location, but for planning permission to be granted it would need to be shown that its off- centre location was superior to a more central one in either general planning terms or in its ability to meet a particular and significant need, as is claimed. Its proximity to the Poplar 2000 Truck Stop raises other considerations, which I examine later. (11.1 & 11.6) 11.20 I do not doubt that anyone of the proposed MSAs would be provided with all required facilities. I think it unreasonable that drivers on the Motorway should be expected to leave it to look for services elsewhere, perhaps on local roads ill-suited for additional demands. And it would serve to undermine the essential purpose of a motorway which in my view is to cater for drivers engaged mainly on long distance rather,than more local journeys. (1171, 11.2 & 11.15) 11.21 The prospect of the provision of complementary services at Knutsford. MSA and Poplar 2000 would be unusual, perhaps unique. But provided that all reasonable safety measures were put in place, suitable signing introduced and any other relevant standards or requirements met, I see nothing wrong in principle with such an arrangement. Nor, in principle, should it prevent the granting of planning permission for a MSA at Junction 21. (11.6 & 11.9 -11.11) 11.22 In summary, national policies emphasise the exceptional nature of infill MSAs, and that is especially the case here where the Junction 21 and 22 sites are in the Green Belt. Provided that a sufficiently compelling road safety need could be established, taking into account the 5 factors as well as any other relevant considerations, I regard each proposal as-being capable in principle of according with the national policies which I outline in this Section of my Report., Page 68 Inspector's Conclusions Introduction 12.145 I understand that there was a substantial amount of evidence at the 1995 Inquiry on the matter of need. Although the Secretary of State's decision was quashed, I have given a good deal of attention to the Inspector's conclusions. Need is an important matter, but it is only one of the material considerations that have to be taken into account. The Inspector, taking account of this evidence, referred to the considerable and substantial need for a MSA between Knutsford and Charnock Richard MSA, but perhaps significantly did not use the word "compelling". (12. I & I2. 79) 12.146 Since the last Inquiry, other matters have become material. These include the July 1998 Policy Statement.HA 269 and the publicationofa revised PPG 13, the 5-6 years of traffic gr?wth, the completion of the widening to 4ianes in el!ch .dir~tion of the M6 between The distance to adjoining MSAs 12.147 There is little comment that I can make on the evidence submitted, owing to its factual nature. The distance of 28.5 miles between Knutsford and Charnock Richard MSAs falls comfortably within the guidance of30 mile intervals. Generally, the spaces between MSAs in this part of the country accord with this guidance, with the notable exceptions of the 37 and 38 miles spaces between Chester and Charnock Richard and Chester and Birch MSAs respeCtively~ The 30 mile guidance is, however, an approximation, and I do not regard these distances as being substantially out of step with Government policy. J.unction 22 is approximately half way b.etween Knutsford and Charnock Richard MSAs, being about 13 ,,,:.,... .. miles from the former alld 15.5 miles from theJatter. To all intents and purposes, iUs half .way between them. Thus, to provide serviceS to drivers keeping to the M6,a MSA at ... ]unctiQIl22would aCCl)rdwell with Government policy conceIl)i.ngthe location of infill . .. :. ...:...... MSAs l!tl5.IJ.tileintervals,shouldcircumstan~justif)'it. UP&: I2·n· . . . 12.148 A mid-way point between 2 existing MSAsd~es have an initia.1 and obvious attraction, generally for the reasons examined at the Inquiry. It can normaIlybe expectedto.be the best place for meeting need within the gap, rather than if it were just after the availability of services. Hence it would be the best place in principle from the point of view of safety. Conversely, the further away a MSA is from the centre point, the less well it would be likely to provide drivers with adequate opportunities to stop and rest. That disadvantage can be more so as traffic volumes increase, bringing with it longer journey times. 12.149 It is, of course, the motorway network rather than one particular motorway that should be taken into account. That is why it is so important to have regard to, for example, the M56, the M62, the composition of traffic which uses them and particularly that section of the M6 between Junctions 20 and 21A which accommodates cross Motorway traffic flows and the composition of this traffic. Junction 21 is only 9 miles from Knutsford MSA and so about Page 95 19.5 from Charnock Richard MSA. Poplar 2000 is even closer to Knutsford MSA, being about 6 miles away, and its intended greater role for services for the drivers ofHGVs would emphasise the off-centre location of a Junction 21 site. I do not regard Junction 21 as roughly half way between existing services, as HA 269 puts it, but it should not be ruled out if it can be shown that such an off-centre location would be superior to a more central one in either general planning terms or in its ability to meet a particular ~d significant need. 12.150 Poplar 2000 is not a full MSA and, on the evidence, it seems unlikely to become one. But it offers a wide range of services including parking spaces for cars and HGVs, a shop, refreshments, cash dispensers and overnight accommodation. It is not surprising that it is regarded as a MSA in all but name .. The Inspector who considered the appeal by Pavilion Services Group Limited in 1994 noted that Poplar 2000 would not meet the then Department of Transport's criteria for signing as a MSA and that it would be intended primarily for goods vehicle drivers (Document MSCC/22A paragraph 8.11). The same . applies now, and I agree that this "truck stop" cannot properly be described as a MSA. But in view of its closeness to the M6 Motorway and the prospect of signing to it, it would be .. wrong to disregard the contribution that it already makes, and is expected to. make in ~e future, to the provision of a major component of a motorway service area. Although difficult to quantifY, there might be especial patronage from drivers with local knowledge irrespective of the eventual signing for Poplar 2000 on the M6 Motorway. I therefore respectfully associate myself with the comments of the Secretary of State in his grant of planning permission for the development of this Truck Stop on 19 February 1991. (12.115) Evidence (such as queuing on the MSA approach roads or lack of parking spaces at times of peak demand) that nearby existing MSAs are unable to cope with the need for services 12.151 There is evidence ofHGVs being parked on slip roads at Knutsford MSA and there have been occasions when the Police have closed them. I have not witnessed these occurrences, and none of the local people at the evening sessions of the Inquiry referred to them. Although I do not dispute it I am not persuaded that they occur on a frequent basis. Main roads are often congested, but that is not necessarily a reason for building new ones and much. the same principle applies here. Compass Roadside also refers to queuing and stacking problems on the M6 Motorway, but again I have not seen them and there is no evidence that it occurs on a regular and frequent basis. (12.86 & 12.133) 12.152 Existing parking provision at Knutsford and Charnock Richard MSAs as estimated by the main and other. parties is summarised at Document MSCC/S/2 Appendix I Table SI. . Estimates vary, although not greatly. But the c8Jculation of parking spaces is not an exact science, if only for the fact that in large areas they are not always clearly marked. I noted at my inspections of both Knutsford and Charnock Richard MSAs that HGVs were occasionally parked in spaces for coaches, and vice versa. But these estimates give a good indication of the number of spaces available and I accept their generality. (12.5) 12.153 The surveys undertaken by the main parties and the evidence of the Highways Agency show that, on some occasions, demand in January 1999 was close to, or more than, capacity. This shows that there can be parking deficiencies at both Knutsford and Charnock Richard MSAs, and there is general agreement that they are more pronounced at the former. Compass Roadside says that the Knutsford MSA site is too small to provide adequate parking capacity, and my overall impression of it is that it is somewhat cramped. The survey evidence is detailed and comprehensive, but I have my doubts about the general message adduced by the Applicants of a substantial lack of capacity and the implications Page 96 thereof. On every occasion that I have visited these MSAs, and that includes at peak periods, I have to say that I have found no problem whatsoever in finding a space. The evidence of the Winwick Parish Council and oflocal people is that it is never impossible to find a space and that accords with my own experience. (12.6,12.46,12.86 & 12.92) 12.154 I give some examples. I made an accompanied inspection of Charnock Richard MSA on Friday 05 July 2001 from about 1000 hrs. The car park on the northbound side was about two-thirds full and there were usually 4-6 vacant HGV spaces. On the southbound side, I estimated that the car park was a little less than half full. I noticed 14 or so HGV s in the 30 or so spaces for them. Later that day I inspected Knutsford MSA. I estimated that the car parking and HGV spaces were generli1ly about 75% full. 12.155 I was asked to inspect both MSAs on what was described as the busiest period of the year, the August Bank Holiday. I did. I inspected Charnock Richard MSA from about 1015 hrs on Friday 24 August 2001. The M6 Motorway was busy and the weather was dull with occasional spells of light rain. On.the northbound side the car park was about two thirds full, the coach park was full and there were about 14 free spaces in the HGV park. On !be southbound side from about I030hrs the CM park was a little less than two thirds fuil. There were 9 vacantHGV spaces and 9 vacant coach spaces. On the same morning, from about 1130 hrs, I inspected Knutsford MSA. During a 30 minute or so observation of the southbound side, the car park was 66% - 75% full with a steady turnover of spaces. I quote from my notebook: simply no difficulty at all infinding a space. There were 6 or so vacant HGV/coach spaces. 12.156 I repeated the exercise on the Bank Holiday Monday, 27 August 2001. It was a warm, sunny afternoon and the Motorway was busy in both directions. At Knutsford MSA on the northbound side from about 1430 hrs the car park was less than half full. There were 2 vacant coach spaces and 5 vacant HGV spaces. The southbound side was busier, and at 1445 hrs I counted 45 vacant car parking spaces and 9 vacant HGV spaces. There were no coaches. At 1530 hrs I arrived at Charnock Richard MSA on the northbound side. The car park was about two thirds full with 8, 12 and 7 vacant spaces for coaches, HGVs and car/caravans respectively. On the southbound side at about 1545hrs the car park was about 75% full; there were 3 vacant spaces for coaches and 14 for HGVs. On Wednesday 13 March 2002 I made a further inspection of Knutsford MSA. . At 1130 -1200 hrs, the car parks on both north and southbound sides were about two thirds full with. 7 and 4 vacant spaces respectively for HGVs. 12.157 There may be particular circumstances, includingthe.period covered, on all the days of my inspections that account for the generally ample number of spaces available. I therefore place very little weight on the evidence of individual days. Nevertheless, the general . picture that emerges is that parking space at these MSAs is seldom full, and a clear distinction can be made between theoretical and actual demand for spaces. On my experience, and taking into account the views oflocal people, I am not convinced that much of the difference can always be explained by a substantial number of drivers deciding not to stop at Knutsford MSA because they anticipate a lack of space. There seems to me to be little reason for such anticipation. Compass Roadside says that Knutsford MSA is nearing fUll capacity rather than that it has already reached it. This generally accords with my own observations and with those of others. (12.92,12.103 & 12.131) 12.158 I accept that there are theoretical deficiencies when calculations are based upon Circular 1/94 guidance, adjusted or otherwise, when account is taken of predicted traffic flows and Page 97 when surveys undertaken in less busy times of the year are factored to August figures. It may be that occasionally there is some latent demand represented by drivers passing either MSA in the belief that there would be no available space. The tum-in rate at Knutsford MSA is lower than might be expected of a 30 mile MSA, but that may be explained more by the presence of Sandbach MSA about 15 miles to the south than by an assumed lack of parking space. This assertion relies more on conjecture than convincing evidence. Whatever the reasons, it seems to me that the actual demand as illUstrated in the surveys and as I and others have noted, seldom equates with theory. This inunediately raises my doubts about the projections of future demand for parking spaces and the substantial deficiencies that they suggest. (12.6 -12.10 & 12.51-12.53) 12.159 I note the difference of opinion concerning actual tum in rates at Charnock Richard MSA. It is significant that Swayfields Limited commissioned. the surveys for Friday 28 and Saturday 29 April 2000 that covered the May Bank Holiday weekend and so represent a peak time. The higher rates of 10-11.6% are probably the more accurate because they represent a peak time and are therefore probably more representative o/the.HA 269- . ~-.-'~., . related. usage a/Charnock Richard MSA (Document SW/64) .•. But in estimating lik~y future demand and capacity it is more relevant to have regard to current usage as opposed to theoretical demand and the possibility of more spaces for cars ..and other vehicles being provided during the next 5 or so years at existing MSAs between Knutsford and Charnock Richard. (12.52 & 12.106) 12.160 I accept that ideally some spaces should always be available at peak periods. But I think it also true that when people choose, or are obliged, to drive when the Motorways and other roads are busy, they should expect to find busy MSAs. In my opinion, MSAs should have to be short of available parking space at peak periods consistently rather than very occasionally, and with little or no prospect of their expansion, to justifY approval being given for yet another MSA in the teeth of Green Belt and other restrictive poiicies for the protection of the countryside. In my judgement, that should be the basis of the approach towards striking the balance between the needs of motorists and the protection of the countryside from unnecessary development. 12.161 It is suggested, although disputed by others, that need should be.considered.up to no more than 5 years ahead and that changed circumstances during the last 6 years demonstrate the point. Some of these circumstances are, however, oflittle consequence. knew MSAhas been built on theM56 at Junction 14, but the Inspector at the previous Inqnirytook the planning pennission forit into account.' The Burtonwood MSA hasbi:en reduced:insizeas :,:< a result of the grant of planning permission. But bearing in mind that any need:fora MSA derives for the most part from traffic on the M6 Motorway, I doubt whether these circumstances have a material effect upon the present or likely future need. for services at existing or proposed MSAs. But I attach more importance to other considerations in dealing with this point. (12.77,12.109 & 12.110) 12.162 Circular 1/94 expects a MSA developer to demonstrate that parking for 3 types of vehicles could be provided on the basis of AADT flow 15 years after opening. In these cases that would be 2016, as the main parties accept. This is to qualifY for signing from the Motorway. It is useful to adopt this approach, adjusted or otherwise, in assessing possible theoretical future parking capacity and deficiencies at existing MSAs, as for example the Manchester Ship Canal Company has done and as it explains in Document MSCC/S/2 Appendix I. The forecasting of traffic flows is undertaken with the best intentions and with the best existing information, but it comes with no guarantee. And the further into the Page 98 future the forecast peers, the more likely it is that it will depart from reality, as Dr Ward rightly observes. In present circumstances, and in the light of the Government's transport objectives and policies, that is especially true. (12.23,12.24,12.94 & 12.118) 12.163 And so I think it wrong to presume that traffic on the nation's roads will increase inexorably during such a long period as up to 2016. Indeed, on some occasions it is difficult to imagine the M6 in this part of the country in its present state carrying much more traffic. It is the Government's clear intention to reduce reliance on the private car, although I consider that commuter routes generally offer more scope for doing so. It is also intended to shift more freight from road to rail. Those are some of the intentions of the New Deal for Transport, issued since the previous Inquiry. It is impossible to predict the extent to which these objectives will be met, but the greater the success in meeting them the greater will be the reduction in the estimated long term parking deficiencies at existing MSAs. (12.13) 12;164Jt may be thatthe approach adopted,bythe Inspector in the north east M25multiple MSA '.'.;\, .:~ Inquiry is not the usual. one; 'and InGte,that at the Hopwood Inquiry there was reference tll.a ,..~, 15 year parking demand. As Swayfields Limited points -out, in at least 7 recent cases the examination .of .existing. MSA parking :provision covered. a ..15. year period (Document SW/17). But it is generally for the reasons which the Welcome Break Group Limited gives, especially the possibility of more parking spaces becoming available at Knutsford MSA, Charnock Richard MSAand Poplar 2000, that I accept the Group's point about the wisdom of looking ahead for a period of no more than 5 years or so. I tum now, therefore, to the possibility of more spaces being provided at existing MSAs. (12.77 & 12.118) 12.165 There is no national or local policy to which I am referred which accords preference to the redevelopment or expansion of an existing MSA rather than the development of a new one. Every proposal should be considered on its merits, bearing in mind the provisions of the. development plan. There is, however, an obvious initial attraction in principle for redevelopment or expansion where, as here, that might avoid a large-scale intrusion into the Green Belt. It is not for me to say whether any of these actual proposals or suggestions .should be granted planning permission, but I think it right to take account'ofthem:(12. 78) 12.166In August 2000 Granada Hospitality Limited submitted 2 applications to the Maeelesfield'; . Borough Council for the reconfiguration of thelayoutof the 2 sites and expansioll of the arrtenitybuilding.on the southbOlmdside of Knutsford MSA with'a similarproposalfor the.' .'northbound site together-with the.erection:ofa69;bedmom.3~storey'Travelodge,(Dobument MSCC/28). On:theoSOllthbound':sidethere would eventually be about 50 additional car;, '.~': parking spaces but the HOV andcoach'spaces would be reduced from 21 and 9 to 9 and 6 spacesTespectively. On the north boumhidethere would eventually be about 45 additional car parking spaces, the HGV spaces would be reduced from 19 to 10 spaces and. the to coach spaces would be retained. One advantage is that the development would not physically encroach into the Green Belt. Another is that the additional car parking provision should provide considerable relief for the foreseeable future in respect of any occasional present shortage of parking spaces. These may not be the precise figures when the proposals are implemented, but they give a good idea of the scale of additional provision, and it is substantial. (12.22, 12.47 & 12.133) 12;167 The intention as regards signing is essentially to direct cars to Knutsford MSA and HGVs to Poplar 2000. In the meeting of 30 May 2001, Mr Stones of the Highways Agency explained that the signing for Knutsford MSA should be pro car and anti HOV, with the Page 99 obverse applying for the signs for Poplar 2000 (Document MSCC/65). Consid~able thought must be given to the contents of the signs. On the initial drafts, I wonder how relevant tourist information is for HGV drivers. Possibly Poplar 2000 should be identified as "Lymm Truck Stop" rather than "Lymm Services" and a red line drawn through the symbol for cars. But this is more a matter for the Highways Agency in their discussions with the parties involved. No precise agreement had been reached by the end of the Inquiry, but I have no doubt that the Agency will ensure the best possible arrangement. (12.49,12.87 -12.89 & 12.133) 12.168 I am not sure how a complete physical ban could be secured to prevent car drivers using services at Poplar 2000. The availability of diesel with no petrol sales might be a significant step, and I see no reason why the Agency's general intention for this Truck Stop should not be achieved for the most part. Another relevant point is the possible overloading effect of additional traffic on Junction 20 should Poplar 2000 be permitted to offer services to the drivers of all types of vehicles (Document MSCC/72). But it has to be accepted that , '"'.:; .someear drivers, perhaps especially those with local knowledge, .will continue to use .",,:c,.L',::'Poplar 2000. Such 'capacity; whatever the actual ,number of spaces; should be taken iijto , . ", account in estimating future requirements along this stretch of the M6 and associated truDk roads; (12.87 &12.88) 12.169 There is some doubt about the precise number ofHGV spaces at Poplar 2000. In the appeal decision of February 1991 (Document WEUll), paragraphs 71 and 72 of the Inspector's Report suggest 165 existing at that time together with an additional 215, making a total of 380 spaces. Compass Roadside was not represented at the Inquiry and so its estimates could not be queried during the proceedings, but it now says 350. The Highways Agency refers in Document HA/14 to 201, 305 and 13 spaces for cars, HGVs and coaches respectively, noting that the requirement for parking spaces for relevant categories of vehicle for Poplar 2000 following its proposed signing as a truck stop has not yet been assessed. The site is large and the spaces are not always clearly marked, but my inspections at various times of the day and evening convince me that even after the the split, site . arrangement there should still be enough space for HGVs for the foreseeable future. (12.25) 12.170A possible larger scale expansion of Knutsford MSA much depends upon whether the' ':::,~,A556(M)scheme proceeds' and, if'so, in which form.' 'The 1995 permissions' both have a,:. condition.thatpreventsdevelopment until this scheme's slipreads have· been constructed ., ,'.0'.:"·"''"'1II1dopen to:traffic. In the northbound direction, Condition 6 ,states that· no ,development :.?' '",:"-.,,,'West'O[1heM6 Motorway shaIl·commence until therelevant.A556(Mr HighwayDrderS .' " ,."lIave been made; The condition was subsequentlyamended:sueh: that Phase lo£: the. , application can be commenced, but that is only -oflimited extent. Theremaining expansion -" cannotproceed wrtil the appropriate Orders have been made. Condition 6 southbound and ,7 northbound remain unaltered. And there are other problems ,as explained in Documents MSCC/76 and 78. (12.12 -12.15) 12.171 There would be an effect upon the local environment, and I am asked to take this into account in comparing this proposal with the Junction 21 scheme. I have no doubt that the environmental effects were taken into account by the local planning authority when the original planning permissions were granted, and the fact that there are extant planning permissions is an important consideration. It has not been possible for the prospective developers to acquire the necessary land during the last 6 or so years, but neither I nor, as I understand the circumstances, anybody else at the Inquiry was involved in the negotiations between the University of Manchester and other parties. Even if offers were rejected in Page 100 obverse applying for the signs for Poplar 2000 (Document MSCC/65). Considel"able thought must be given to the contents of the signs. On the initial drafts, 1 wonder how relevant tourist information is for HGV drivers. Possibly Poplar 2000 should be identified as "Lymm Truck Stop" rather than "Lymm Services" and a red line drawn through the symbol for cars. But this is more a matter for the Highways Agency in their discussions with the parties involved. No precise agreement had been reached by the end of the Inquiry, but I have no doubt that the Agency will ensure the best possible arrangement. (12.49.12.87 -12.89 & 12.133) 12.168 I am not sure how a complete physical ban could be secured to prevent car drivers using services at Poplar 2000. The availability of diesel with no petrol sales might be a significant step, and I see no reason why the Agency's general intention for this Truck Stop should not be achieved for the most part. Another relevant point is the possible overloading effect of additional traffic on Junction 20 should Poplar 2000 be permitted to offer services to the drivers of all types of vehicles (Document MSCC/72). But it has to be accepted that ,>or ,some.car drivers, perhaps especially those with local knowledge, ,will continue to use -,:c"L,:.-Poplar 2000. Such capacity; whatever the actual.number of spaces; should be takeniUto .. ','. account in estimating future requirements along this stretch of the M6 and associated truiJk .roads, (12.87 &.12.88) 12.169 There is some doubt about the precise number ofHGV spaces at Poplar 2000. In the appeal decision of February 1991 (Document WEUll), paragraphs 71 and 72 of the Inspector's Report suggest 165 existing at that time together, with an additional 215, making a total of 380 spaces. Compass Roadside was not represented at the Inquiry and so its estimates could not be queried during the proceedings, but it now says 350. The Highways Agency refers in Document HA/I4 to 201, 305 and 13 spaces for cars, HGVs and coaches respectively, noting that the requirement for parking spaces for relevant categories of vehicle for Poplar 2000 following its proposed signing as a truck stop has not yet been assessed. The site is large and the spaces are not always clearly marked, but my inspections . at various times of the day and evening convince me that even after the the split. site arrangement there should still be enough space for HGVs for the foreseeable future. (12.25) 12.170 A possible larger scale expansion of Knutsford MSA much depends upon whether the , :~"A556(M}scheme .proceeds and, if-so, in which form:' The 1995 pemnssiollS'both have a" 'condition,thatprevents development until this scheme's sliprtlads have, been constructed , . \'-·'·;'·"1Illd·open to' traffic. In the northbound direction, Condition 6 ;states that 'no ,development , ..,,'/'.'-'"'JWest,'OftheM6 Motorway shall-Commence until the ·relevant.A556(M)·Highway,QrderS, '",' "i ..,have been made; The condition was subsequently. amended 'suCh. that Phase lof the . .' application can be commenced, but that is only 'Oflimited extent. The-remaining, expansion -'. cannot proceed until the appropriate· Orders have been made. Condition 6 southbound and .7 northbound remain unaltered. And there are other problems as explained.in Documents MSCC/76 and 78. (12.12-12.15) 12.171 There would be an effect upon the local environment, and I am asked to take this into account in comparing this proposal with the Junction 21 scheme. I have no doubt that the environmental effects were taken into account by the local planning authority when the original planning permissions were granted, and the fact that there are extant planning permissions is an important consideration. It has not been possible for the prospective developers to acquire the necessary land during the last 6 or so years, but neither I nor, as I understand the circumstances, anybody else at the Inquiry was involved in the negotiations between the University of Manchester and other parties. Even if offers were rejected in Page 100 principle, it would be rash to say that no agreement will be reached during the next 5, let alone 15, years. I cannot be precise about probability, but I consider that there is some chance that Knutsford MSA could be expanded considerably during either of those periods, with a substantial addition to parking spaces for various types of vehicles. It would also be an opportunity to rectify all or most of any remaining deficiencies concerning design and layout of the MSA. (12.16,12.17 & 12.110-12.112) 12.172 Towards the end of the Inquiry, Compass Roadside applied to the Warrington Borough Council for planning permission for another 93 car parking spaces at Poplar 2000. Again, it is not for me to determine the application, but it is difficult to see how this proposal accords with the Highways Agency's intentions that this Truck Stop should be primarily for HGVs (Document WBC/4). On the evidence of my Inquiry, I do not consider that these spaces should count towards likely overall future provision. (12.27 & 12.136) 12.173 The Welcome Break Group Limited set out the possibilities for Charnock Richard MSA. On the northbound side there is ,physical scope for more development within the present extent of the MSA thatJtake to include the Lodge and its surroundings. I accepLthat tWs provides scope for more parking spaces for all types of vehicles and a re-arrangement of the .existing access and general layout to resolve most or all of the shortcomings which are identified. There is also scope for more spaces and redesign on the southbound site, although this would mean a limited' expansion beyond the present extent of the site. I simply note the possibility and say that it appears to me that this approach with whatever the additional number of spaces which might'be provided, possibly combined with some expansion at Knutsford MSA, could provide further relief to any longer term increased demand for spaces. Such more modest schemes would seem to me to result in less darnage to the Green Belt and the countryside than the construction of an entirely new MSA between the 2 existing ones. (2.113 & 12.114) 12.174 There is no guarantee that there will be a new MSA at Preston. The fact that there is a proposal for one in the City Council's Local Plan suggests to me that the site is likely to be physically suitable for it. Whilst it might not have a dramatic effect, I would expect it to reduce to some extent the pressure on services at Charnock Richard MSA and that this could have a consequent effect on Knutsford MSA. This should apply whether or not either existingMSA is expanded;'" The MSA 'at Blackburn, owing to its, location on the M65 Motorway, would havelittle or no effect in this regard. (12.83 & 12.116) 12.175Jt is ,suggested that drivtils,shouldleave. the Motorw-ay for·services.'l:do not agree.· It is reasonable for them to expect the required level of services to be provided on them on. a 24 hour basis, rather than having to look for services on roads leading from the motorways and --.with which they may well beunfarniliar. The roads themselves and their surroundings may beill"suited for the additional traffic. Apart from Poplar 2000, these garages and other facilities should not be taken into account in the consideration of need. (12.95& 12.96) 12.176 In summary, there is much uncertainty about the scale of future provision, especially at Knutsford and Charnock Richard MSAs, although it seems that some expansion will take place in the near future at the former in conjunction with Poplar 2000. There must also be some doubt about the future volume of traffic, congestion, journey times and hence the demand for services. For those reasons, it is better in this case to look ahead only 5 or so years, not 15. That consideration, as well as my conclusion that neither Knutsford nor Charnock Richard MSA is frequently at capacity even on busy days, tells against the applications and the Rough Farm proposal. I realise that this uncertainty is not ideal, but it Page 101 must be weighed in the balance with the considerable amount of long term damage that any of these large scale proposals would do to the Green Belt countryside. A higher than normal incidence of accidents attributable to driver fatigue 12.177 I accept as a general proposition that a MSA can reduce the number of accidents that are due to driver fatigue. As Dr Wilkinson says, fatigue is different from sleepiness and occurs as a result of doing the same thing for too long (Document SW/46D). Driving for long distances along a motorway is an obvious example. There is no doubt in my mind that the regular and frequent incidence of MSAs can make a crucial contribution to safety on the motorways and that such measureS as· better engineering design on the motorways and driver education do not eliminate the need to stop for a rest. The hard shoulder can be used in an emergency, but the Highway Code warns against doing so and this course of action should take place only in the most dire straits. I see from Document SWIP/I/2/A Appendix 9 that on average 250 people are killed every year on motorway hard shoulders, and it is obvious that this part of any Motorway should not be regarded as a substitute for a MSA, either existing or proposed. (12.54 - 12.57) ~ 12.178 I am told that neither fatigue nor sleepiness can be measured in a physiological fashion and that there is no equivalent of the breathalyser. This makes it difficult to ascertain precisely the degree of fatigue and the precise extent to which it might have contributed to an accident. I would expect any contribution which a MSA made to safety to register on fewer accidents downstream after its opening, although there could be some effect upstream as a' .. result of a driver knowing that he or she is about to find rest and refreshment as the .next MSA comes ever closer. I understand that this reasonable assumption is given the term "goal gradient". As far as I am aware, and as I was told at the Inquiry, there is no evidence to show that a particular MSA has, by itself, resulted in fewer accidents either upstream or downstream. This illustrates the elusive nature of compelling evidence. (12.29 & 12.54) 12.179 Where MSAs are already spaced at 30 mile or so intervals, as is generally the case here, I am not convinced that an infill MSA would make any substantial additional contribution to safety on the M6 Motorway. This accords with the July 1998 Policy Statement and the Government's intention to return to .a policy based upon the provision of MSAs approximately every thirty miles in order to provide drivers with adequate opportunities to . stop and rest. In these circumstances, and in view of my conclusions about the possibilities ofreducing envisaged deficiencies of parking spaces at Knutsford and Charnock Richard .MSAs, I attach more weight to the initiatives of the Highways Agency in promoting safety on the M6 Motorway. (12.85) 12.180 The Government's determination to reduce drink driving and speeding, and in my opinion the increasing disapproval of such anti-social behaviour, may also lead to safer roads. Evidence of a genuine need for the proposed services rather than simply demand - evidence of a genuine safety-related need 12.181 There is little to add. I have kept in mind the needs ofHGV drivers and the relatively high proportion of them on the M6 Motorway. I accept that they are often engaged on long distance journeys, but the type of vehicle is usually the result of the load to be carried. A large and heavy load will require a large vehicle, irrespective of the distance over which it is transported. Nevertheless, as I say, I accept the special needs of these drivers and the Page 102 regulations under which they undertake their tasks. Poplar 2000 should make an important contribution to their needs. (12.32) 12.182 I accept that, in principle, congestion and slower traffic speeds can increase the need for services. Much will depend upon any future increase in the volume of traffic on the M6 Motorway, and I have already referred to the uncertainties of predictions. Whether the MSA isjustified by the type and nature of the traffic using the road 12.183 The section of the M6 Motorway between Knutsford and Charnock Richard MSAs is part of a complex network of motorways in North West England. The position in February '.1999 is well illustrated at Document CD/36 Figure 3.1 and the AA Road Atlas pages 30 and 31 is of further assistance (Document .CD/67). The Motorway Network Plan shows how the M56 and M62 Motorways cross the M6 Motorways at Junctions 9/20 and 10/2IA respectively (Document SW/P/I/2/A Appendix 4). At M6 Junction 26 the M58 heads west towards Sk-eImersdaie.and BootIe. The M56 has a junction at Wervin with the M53;.which ":extends northwards to Birkenhead; and with the M60 Manchester OrbitaLRoad. '.~' 12.184 TheM62,.which.extends from LiverpooLtowards Humberside, has,junctions with the M51 that meets the M58 near Aintree and with the M60 that has junctions with a number of Motorways including the M61 and M66. Thus a host of routes, many carrying large volumes of-traffic, pass across the M6 and along it, especially between its Junctions 20 and 21A.There are other trunk roads in this part of the country, including the A580, A556 and A57, as Document CD/67 shows. They, too, are no doubt used by drivers undertaking both long and short joumeys. Some stretches of the Motorways, like the M62 between Liverpool and Manchester and the M56 between Chester and Manchester, link large urban areas and no doubt provide convenient routes for commuting and other mainly short distance journeys. Indeed, the Inspector considering the proposal for a MSA at Hapsford (Chester) noted that it would appear that the M56 is primarily a commuter route (Document WEL/PGBD/2 Appendix I I paragraph 5.10). (12.126) 12.I85 .P.oIicy HA 269 states that the need for services may, for example. be less on motorways .used.by high percentages of short distance or commuter-traffic than on those carrying large ,,'volumes riflong:distimce movements:.Itistherefore important to try to distinguish·between"'· .''ShortandiOl1g distance trips,. although! do ·regard sheer volume of traffic as a consideration' . in theassessment'ofnee 12.I86 Swayfields Limited takes a different approach and defines a local trip as one if at least one end of the trip is within 30 miles of the proposed MSA. and so all other trips are treated as being of long distance. The Company says that this is the most commonly accepted definition of a local trip. Mr Townsley introduced it at the M25 MSA inquiries and he affirms that it has been accepted by the Secretary of State and his Inspectors. In the Warren Farm case, long distance traffic passing each MSA was defined as traffic having both origins and destinations over 50 km (30 miles) away (Document SW/26). On this ~ Page 103 definition, it is estimated that 40-45% of all trips passing through Junction 22 are of long distance. I have no reason to doubt this estimate, and I accept that it is broadly realistic. (12.60) 12.187 In my view, whether a trip is oflong or short distance is a matter of judgement and I have discovered no national or local policy that defines either type of journey. From my own experience, I have doubts about treating trips of just over 45 miles as long distance journeys and I would expect few drivers on a journey of up to 60-70 miles or so to need to avail themselves much of services at a MSA. With Swayfields Limited's definition, the needs of a driver at the beginning or end of a long trip should not be forgotten. But I regard both definitions as a useful start, and I suspect that the different approaches explain much of the difference in the estimates. In view of my reservations about the Manchester Ship Canal Company's definition, I doubt whether as much as 22-25% more long distance traffic passes Junction 21 than Junction 22. Taking account ofSwayfields Limited's definition of a short distance trip and my own views that are based upon about 30 years of driving, I suspect that the Warrington Borough CounciFsestimate of 17%.isprobably about right. '(12.39'& 12:79)., ~ 12.188 There is considerable. factual evidence about traffic models .foLthe Motorway routes in . much of North West England. Whilst I cOnsider that this evidence is as accurate as far as it can be, it has serious disadvantages. The Manchester Ship Canal Company's evidence is based upon the Greater Manchester Traffic Model but it is somewhat limited in reliability because this model does not extend as far west as the M6. Swayfields Limited has used the modelling which was undertaken for the widening of the Thelwall Viaduct. It has the advantage of dealing with the M6 corridor, but the model is based upon 1989 information. This is no criticism of the approaches adopted because I consider that both Applicants have made good use of the information which is available and the results are as convincing as they can be. But I note its inevitable shortcomings. (12.61,12.62 & 12.73) 12;189 Swayfields Limited accepts that there is no recent survey information to establish the volume of longer distance trips at Junction 22 and their pattern on the motorway network. But with a reasonable awar.eness of the motorways in this part of the country, the geographical distribution of the main areas of population and employment which they serve . and the distances involved, the relatively old 'ootashouldgive a broad indication of longer. '/' journeys and the main routes on whichtbeyare·.made.'And,soT think it reasonable to .. presume that the. pattern of movementsshowndnthe' origin 'and destination informatiOIJ. '" '" ..•,included withinthe,Traffic Reportfor Orded~lJhlicationin'1989'fortiJewideiting'oftheM6;;,;; between Junctions 20 and 21A is·broadly.comparable with that which occurred prior to. recent changes which include the completion of the M60 and the extension to the M65. (12.61) 12.190 I now assess the likely effect on traffic movements as a result of the completion of these works. The last section of the M60 Motorway between Junctions 19 and 24 was opened to traffic on 30 October 2000, and the WSP Report contains data only for the first month of operation. Its paragraph 3.5 states that readers should be cautious in drawing conclusions from this early data and observes that it may be some months before traffic flows settle down. In addition, in paragraph 3.1 comment is made that at the time of the report the UK was suffering from major disruption to travel patterns due to weather conditions and delays and cancellations on the rail network (Document WBCIP/5). I have heeded the advice, and proceeded with caution. (12.67) __ ~_~,.w_. ··~~, ,__ ~__ w~ n ' W·_= __ .,_'""__~_. Page 104 12.191 A further Report provides details of its effect on traffic flows 3 months afterwards (Document HA/5). Of special note is the reduction in flows by up to 10,000 vehicles per day, or -7.9%, -10.6% and -9.0% respectively between Junctions 8-9, 9-10 and 11-12 clockwise. But the Report warns that some of the data contained in this report is from MIDAS sites and these are still being examined for their reliability. Further, data is being . used from a time of the year when traffic flows are at their lowest due to holidays and poor weather. The flows may not be representative of usual traffic patterns and it will be necessary to monitor the sites over the coming year before firm conclusions can be made. Too much emphasis, therefore, should not be placed upon these initial indications. 12.192 It is suggested that the M60 Motorway will take M6 traffic away from Junction 21 and .hence reduce the advantages claimed for the proposed MSA at that location •."It is probably too early to be clear about any substantial re-routing of long distance traffic, The WSP Table 2 (Document SWIP/1/2/A Appendix 5) shows some changes in the distribution of traffic, including an increase on the southern side of the M60 ring including the M56 link to •.,'..'" '. ibTheWSP'report cautions .that many of the measured changes are fairJy,,mudJand could. ,,'~, '.', be "due.in part to 'normalvariation in 'traffic flows. It is alSG.likely thatmany'driverslllil/' take some time to discover the usefUlness of the new section of Motorway and it may , therefore be. se:verat months,.hefore traffic flows settle dawn. To me, this is' the more convincing evidence, and having taken into account the conclusions in the M6 Junction 20 to Junction 21A Select Link Analysis (Document MSCC/2), lam not persuaded that the completed M60 wiIlresuIt in materially more long distance-traffic avoiding Junction 21. (12:68) 12.193 The extension to the M65 Motorway may persuade some drivers heading, for example, to or from North Lancashire, North Yorkshire and the Al to/from Newcastle to use the M6 Motorway further northwards instead of perhaps using the M62 west of the M6. This would bring more traffic through Junction 22. It is a fair point, but when considered in the context of the existing volumes of traffic and the number of alternative routes between many origins and destinations, I do not attach a great deal of importance to it. Signs. will no ' doubt continue to invite drivers to take the best routes and there will probably be little, if any"alteration to them for the foreseeable future. (12.64 &12.&1) ".' '1'2;194 Irr·temis,ofsheer,volume:of,traffic,: andmore,particularly,_the amount and::pereentage-{lf ,-,,·long'distance'traffic;,a,MSA at Junction'21 would be at adistinctadvantage-overone:at:,,·· " . .':"'i.lUDction2-2;~'But: I do not .think:.that it makes 'a' great deal of difference whether a high' or'·', , ,'"p," {" ", 'i>"dowJPereentageofiong:diStance trilfficis accepted. This is'mainly becalllle"of>the-,.closenesS-·Y,~", .-bf' " ,oc.'-existing.MSAs on cross routes which are. generally Tegardcd, and ''as;;Lsaw aLmy inspections, ,as having ample capacity at all or most times. For example, Inoted at midday on28 August 2001 that the car parks at BUTtonwood were about 85% and 90"10 vacant on the west and eastbound sides respectively. Probably most drivers on long journeys passing Junction 21 from the west will have had an opportunity to stop either at,Chester MSA (M56)or at BUTtonwood MSA (M62). They are respectively only 17.5 and 6 miles away from Junction 2 I. (12.70) 12.195 For drivers heading to or from the M62 east, there will, or will have been, an opportunity to stop at Birch MSA. The location of these particular MSAs with their ample capacities, and the spacing of MSAs in general much in accordance with the 30 mile policy guideline, substantially reduces the effect of the advantage described. The relatively small number of vehicles involved in these cross flows further reduces the advantage. (12.70 - J2.72) Page 105 12.196 There is, however, some remaining advantage. But it has to be compared to the advantage of Junction 22 in terms of its location almost exactly mid way between Knutsford and Charnock Richard MSAs. This is far from being an exact science, but in my judgement the greater number of drivers engaged on long and short distance trips as they pass Junction 21 does give that location a small advantage over the Junction 22 application and Rough Farm sites, despite the latter's equi-distance between existing MSAs. 12.197 That last conclusion must be seen in context. The overwhelming evidence is that Knutsford and Charnock Richard MSAs are seldom at capacity, and there is a realistic prospect of further car parking spaces being provided in the near future at the former. Further provision at both may follow. There is ample capacity at Chester, Burtonwood and Birch. In these circumstances, I. do not consider that the type and nature of traffic on the M6 and other Motorways in this part of the country justifies the provision at present of a MSA at either Junction 21 or 22. Other Matters ~.'., 12.198 I agree that such need as there is, or is likely to be, arises primarily from traffic travellmg north and south along the M6 Motorway. For that reasonJ do not regard a site at Barton as a credible alternative to any of the sites put forward at my Inquiry for a MSA alongside the M6. Whether there is a need for another MSA at Barton sufficient to outweigh any demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance, I am not able to say. That may be a matter in the first instance for the Salford City Council. (12.13 7 - 12.143) Page 106 Inspector's Conclusions Introduction 13.73 I have no reason to disagree with the assumptions that the Highways Agency has accepted for the purpose of testing the proposals. But as I have said, I do have serious doubts about the predictions of traffic volumes especially when made for as far ahead as 2016. (13.5 & 13.48) The Junction 21 Proposal 13.74 My inspections of the roads and traffic at various times of the day in this locality as a driver, a passenger and a pedestrian, confirm the descriptions. At peak periods I have seen queues of stationary/slow moving traffic approaching the western roundabout of Junction 21, with this traffic sometimes stationary on the M6 Motorway. There are oftert queues of vehicles approaching this roundabout from the .west along Manchester Road. Orr.occasions. these queues extend back to Dam Lane near the Woolston Leisure Cen!J;e;~orthbOlpd .. traffic along Woolston Grange Avenue.is often stationary or slow moving between the western roundabout and the poiilt where. the dual carriageway becomes ..siilgle lane, and sometimes beyond it. (13.1-I3.4 & 13.39) 13.75 Traffic conditions vary a great deal, especially during the morniilg peak period, possibly depending upon such factors as the weather and the school term. Whilst during much of the . day traffic is usually in free flow iii this locality, there is no doubt that there is iilsufficient road capacity to accommodate the present demands being made upon it. Apart from the volume of traffic, the main source of this problem appears to me to be the mixing of traffic leaving the Motorway with more local traffic. There is seldom, if any, queuing at and towards the eastem roundabout ofJunction 21. (13.4) 13.76 The Manchester Ship Canal Company has tested the traffic flows at their proposed eastern and western junctions as described iii Document MSCC/S/2. The peak hour on the Motorway is different .from that on local roads, but the 2 peaks have been combiiled. For traffic flows from local roads to the Motorway, a high growth rate is used: For the Motorway; a central growth rate is assumed. There is an obvious discrepancy where the 2' flows meet but, torefleet local .and.Highways Agency policies and more particularly to achieve robust testing,-:! 'regard it ashelpful'and justified. A 10% turn-iii rate to the . .",," proposedMSA is assumed. which; owiilgto its type as' aniilfill and becauseofthcdessthan ". , "' straightforward approach to it, is probably on the high side. Greaterprecision.ili.achieved with the use of passenger car units rather than crude numbers of vehicles. For. all these .' reasons, I consider that1here is every reason to believe that the junctions would operate satisfactorily with probably lower volumes of traffic than is assumed for the testing exercise; (13.5,13.6, I3.12, 13.25) 13.77 There is a debate iii Documents SW/45 and MSCC/S/2 about whether the proposed eastern and western junctions should be linked in order for flows from one to pass through the other unhindered, whether signals should be co-ordiilated and the prospect of traffic "platooniilg" as a result of control at upstream junctions. But these considerations, as well as the number of vehicles and periods of time which are identified in the testings, should be seen iii the much wider context of the variation in traffic flows at Junction 21 which occur at peak and other periods, the rate of any growth in traffic during the next 15 or so years and the robustness of the testing to which I have referred. In my judgement, this broader -----_._------_.~ Page 120 picture and the uncertainties that apply to it give many of these tests and their results a somewhat spurious accuracy. They do not alter my conclusions, and I agree with the Highways Agency that the proposed highway improvement works at Junction 21 are physically acceptable in terms of geometric design. Depending upon the uncertainty o( the rate of traffic growth, a point to which Dr Ward refers, they should bring welcome relief to local roads for some period up to 15 years. (12.94.13.6. 13.12 -13.14.13.16 & 13.25) 13.78 Other points are raised, but I note that nothing contained in the Safety Audits has prevented the Highways Agency or the officers of the Warrington Borough Council from accepting the Applicant's proposals for road and junction improvements. I agree. Reference is made to 3 DsFS on the northbound off-slip. The Highways Agency approves each one in their letter of 20 April 2001, subject to certain measures of mitigation (Document MSCC/S/2 Appendix 34). I see no reason to disagree with their judgement. In the audit and design check that has been undertaken, JMP Consultants is satisfied that the improvements offered are reasonable for the development under consideration. Again, in terms of geometric design, I have no reason to disagree. (13.12) ~ 13.79 An amendment is made to increase stacking space at the MSA exit and to relocate the HGV exit (Document MSCC/S/2 Appendix 29). It would extend the dual carriageway length between the A57 roundabout and theintemal roundabout and thereby give more stacking space for vehicles queuing at the exit. On their assessment of the internal layout of the MSA, JMP Consultants draw attention to 8 issues that should be rectified (Document MSCC/40). I see no reason why any outstanding problems should not be resolved in any , approval ofreserved matters, thereby ensuring that internal vehicle accesses and the means of circulation would be safe, clear to motorists and minimise vehicle congestion. The present proposal should not fail on any of these matters. (13.12,13.27 & 13.28) 13.80 So far so good in terms of geometric design and physical capacity. But Goveriunent policy set out in the 1998 statement is that MSA schemes should incorporate vehicle access and means of circulation which are safe, clear to motorists ,and minimise vehicle congestion. In my judgement the proposed access to the Junction 21 site would be thoroughly inconvenient. Northbound traffic approaching it on the M6 Motorway would have to pass ,through 2 complex junctions. Between the western junction and the entrance to the MSA.it would meeta considerable amount of local traffic at peak times. (13.30 & 13.44) ;"'.' ",i 13.81· Whilst there might not usually be any serious 'congestion or intense risk of danger, I ',,', "'considerthat the inconV'ecienceexpected would, often persuade drivers ·not ,to use the services. The potential of the MSAto contribute towards safer Motorways could thus be somewhat thwarted, and this is a strong argument against the use of this land for the proposed purpose. But with no better, 8lternative site, I accept that the MSA would provide an opportunity for the tired driver to stop and rest. 13.82 I am far from satisfied about the proposed arrangements for the residents of the 7 dwellings on the cul-de-sac that is part of the Old Manchester Road. I accept that present arrangements for emerging from this road to tum right along Woolston Grange Avenue are far from ideal, but I think it an imposition to expect these people to circumnavigate 2 junctions, mixing with local and MSA traffic, to head north along Woolston Grange Avenue. This is another aspect of substantial inconvenience. (13.17 & 13.26) 13.83 Additional development is proposed at Birchwood Park and the Consultants estimate an additional am peak flow of 254 vehicles. The Council says 519. Whatever the eventual Page 121 figure is, the Highways Agency has issued a holding objection to the proposal. On the limited infonnation available to the Inquiry I take the view that the developer(s) must ensure adequate capacity for the scheme(s), taking into account all other proposals in the locality including the MSA at Junction 21. (13.40, 13.41 & 13.52) 13.84 I rely a good deal on the advice of the Highways Agency. Essentially, I accept that the highway improvements are suitable in principle and that sufficient pbysical capacity for the additional traffic should be available for some time up to 2016. Much, of course, will depend upon any general increase in traffic both nationally and locally. But the inconvenience of access to the MSA, especially for northbound traffic, is a very serious disadvantage and tells against the proposal. (J 3.51) The Junction 22 Proposals 13.85 There is little to add to the points which Swayfields Limited and the Highways Agency say about these proposals. (J3.45 & 13.59) 13.86 The present weaving length between Junctions 21A and 22 is 420 m, but the propos1:d improvements. would increase it to 760 m with manoeuvres taking place with the benefit of an extra lane (Document SW/I6B). These dimensions are different from those mentioned in the previous Inspector's Report, but it is suggested in my Inquiry that there could have been an error at his Inquiry. The Road Safety Audits and Design Team Responses for the Mainline Improvements states that the proposed M6 mainline improvements will give rise to an overall benefit on this section of the M6 where dual 4 lane standards are needed even without the MSA. The scheme is designed in accordance with Highways Agency guidance and follows the principles of a scheme previously approved by the Agency in 1995. The principle of the current scheme is acceptable to the highways authority (Document SW/46C). This is a strong endorsement of the proposals, and I note the comments of the previous Inspector who identified a net benefit arising from the additional lanes and other highway aspects of the proposal. (J 3.36, 13.37 & 13.55) 13.87 Local people who addressed me at the evening session of the Inquiry at the Winwick Leisure Centre are much concerned about present dangers of weaving traffic between Junctions 21A and 22, and more so about the prospect of more drivers changing lanes as they sought to leave the Motorway to enter the MSA. I rely also on the guidance in PPG 13 . . Annex. B paragraph 2 that whatever the type of access, safety considerations will.be .. paramount. I have been so concerned about this aspect of the proposals that I have spent a considerable amount of time watching the traffic on this part of the Motorway and driving and being driven along it, both through Junction 22 and turning off at its northbound off- • slip road. In view of the speed and volume of traffic here, I fully understand the concerns. I also appreciate the fear that conditions will worsen as more traffic, equivalent perhaps to 7.5%,10% or even 12% of the flows, turns off the Motorway to gain access to the MSA. (13.48 & 13.65) 13.88 Three main points should be borne in mind. Although the proposed northbound weaving length of 760 m is well below the recommended minima, it is appreciably more than the present 420 m. Admittedly this increase is to some extent off-set by the larger number of weaving traffic leaving the Motorway for the MSA and/or perhaps Parkside. But, secondly, suitably placed signs on the Motorway should, and I have no doubt would, give drivers adequate warning that they were approaching the MSA at Junction 22. This should avoid their need to change lanes just before they turned off the Motorway. I therefore regard this Page 122 aspect of the off-site proposals as a net benefit. Perhaps not all drivers would immediately take notice of the advance signs and manoeuvre accordingly, so I do not rate it a pronounced one. And thirdly, there is no convincing evidence to show that present conditions have resulted in an above average accident rate. The additional width. for weaving may assist, but I attach less importance to this consideration that I do to the greater length of the weaving distance. (13.55 & 13.61) 13.89 I have carefully considered Mr Sargeant's criticisms of the proposed highway works on the M6 mainline. With respect to him, I prefer the Highways Agency's and Swayfields Limited's agreed measurements on weaving lengths. The proposals are approved by the . Highways Agency and include DsFS. Mr Townsley on behalf of Swayfields Limited says that the drawings are the most detailed which he has ever seen at a MSA inquiry (Document SW/40), and I have to congratulate the authors on their comprehensive approach and attention to detail. This, too, assists me in coming to the view that the highway works would be inherently safe. (13.37 & 13.66 -13.71) 13.90 I accept the points that Swayfields Limited makes by way of rebuttal in Document SW/40. 4 For example, the hard shoulder would be discontinuous, but as it would be so for a very short length I do not think that this is a substantial drawback. The hard shoulder would elsewhere be 3.3 m wide, apart from the bridge discontinuities, and I am not convinced that on those limited lengths where it would be less there would be any material danger. (13.38. 13.56 & 13.57) 13.91 To meet the Borough Council's concerns, Swayfields Limited has amended the proposals for the Highfield Lane junction. I do not consider that the previous drawings should have failed the entire MSA scheme, but the latest drawing is preferable. Any planning permission should relate to it. (13.35) 13.92 The MSA might attract some additional traffic through Winwick, but I see no reason why it should be significant. Presumably local people will continue. to rely on their present shops and services, and visit the MSA on trips to and from the Motorway which they would be undertaking in any event. This is another matter that should not. fail the Junction 22 proposals. (13.64) Rough Farm 13.93 With regard to Rough Farm, I would, :expect the Highways Agency to insist on simillit, relevant highway improvements as have been agreed with Swayfields Limited. Presumably it would be possible. It appears, however, that much more work needs to be undertaken to ensure safe and convenient arrangements. This tells against the proposal. (13.58 & 13J2) Comparative Analysis 13.94 On the matter of congestion, I think it difficult to be sure which Junction when improved would experience the more congestion, and at which year. Again, much would depend upon any increase in local and/or regional and national traffic. I suspect that any congestion would be sooner experienced at Junction 21, generally for the reasons that Swayfields Limited gives. But in view of the uncertainties about traffic growth, there is no clearly defined advantage for either location in this respect. (13.29) Page 123 13.95 I am in no doubt that, despite the sub-standard weaving length, the access at Junction 22 would be better than the tortuous and inconvenient arrangements at Junction 21. Even so,. bearing in mind other considerations including the greater amount of long distance and other traffic which passes through Junction 21, I am not persuaded that this better access or less chance of congestion corning sooner makes Junction 22 the better location for a MSA. .' ...~. ,,~. Page 124 Inspector's Conclusions The land 14.80 My accompanied site inspection confirms the accuracy of the St Helens MBC's description of the former Parkside Colliery land, although I cannot vouchsafe the comment about contamination. It would be wrong to treat the entire site as previously-developed land. The Inspector who reported on objections to the UDP noted that only a relatively small proportion of the site was covered by built development, and the Inspector dealing with objections to the Proposed Modifications to the UDP referred to an estimated 7.5 ha footprint area for development. This seems to be the likely extent of the land which might be considered suitable in principle for development on the basis of advice in PPG 2 Annex C on the future of major developed sites in the Green Belt and the definition of previously- developed land in PPG 3. Otherwise, the openness of this former colliery site makes a valuable contribution to the limited extent of the Green Belt land generally between Newton-Ie-Willows and Winwick. (14.6 & 14.23) Tfl.eplanning application 14.81 It is true that Railtrack PLC has assembled a team of experts to promote their proposals for Parkside. But actual progress' on the scheme bears little resemblance to the master programme. "In their letter to the Planning Inspectorate dated 25 May 2000 Railtrack PLC stated that it was their intention to submit a planning application within the next few months. Mr Goodrum assured me that the planning appliCation would be submitted by the end of May 2001, but even on the last day of the Inquiry there was no indication that the local planning authorities had received it. (14.16 & 14.46) 14.82 The delays in the preparation the planning application, the fruitless guarantee given to me about the date of its submission to the local planning authorities and the somewhat limited degree of consultation which has taken place do not inspire confidence in the way in which the project has been organised. The, Warrington Borough Council comments in its Closing Submissions that as the Parkside proposals have not been discussed with them in any detail, they are unable to assist the Inquiry on that issue. Nevertheless, the number and scope of documents before the Inquiry lind the oral evidence persuades me that those who represent Railtrack PLC ,are entirely committed to producing a scheme which eventually, they hope, will' be gTanted plaUningpenlli~sion. The proposal is' appreciably 'more than speCulation. (14.16 & 14.48)'- ",. . '";---'. " Planning policy background .' ..;;, 14.8"3 The parties refer in their written evidence to the releVant international, European, national, regional and local transport and planning policies which generally seek to reduce harmful . emissions and to secure more sustainable patterns of development. For example,Parkside is identified, in England's North West - A Strategy Towards 2020 asa potential international rail freight terminal. Document RIP/I is especially helpful in setting out these references and there is little that I can add to them. There can be no doubt of the Government's commitment to reduce the need to travel, especially by car and to reduce the amount of traffic on the country's roads. These are worthy objectives in their own right and as an important means to a wider end, that of reducing omissions in the context of climate change and global wanning. There may be more scope for them in the case of commuters' routes, but they should be encouraged elsewhere. An important element in the Government's overall strategy is to encourage a shift of the carriage of freight by road to rail. (14.49 - 14.56) Page 141 14.84 The SRA's Freight Strategy refers to work undertaken by Europe Economics entitled The Public Interest: Benefits of Freight by Rail (Document CD/76). This shows that the public interest benefits to be gained from transferring freight from road to rail include reduced fatalities and injuries from road accidents. The extent of this reduction is difficult to predict, as are the safety aspects of a MSA in any reduction in the number of accidents. I do not, therefore, accept the accuracy of Railtrack PLC's estimate of the reduction in accidents. Nevertheless, it is a consideration which should be taken into account in assessing the implications of the Junction 22 proposals on the viability of the Parkside proposals. (14.62) 14.85 I agree that the former Parkside Colliery is weIllocated with regard to both the railway and motorway networks, and it is about half way between the conurbations of Merseyside and Greater Manchester. It is unique in the sense that every site is, by definition, unique. There may be other places in the North West with similar advantages which are perhaps better located closer to areas where there is higher unemployment and so there would be a greater benefit in the creation of jobs and more general regeneration. Some may be found to be better able to accommodate trains of the length to which Swayfields Limited refers. Railtrack PLC is aware of other possibilijies and comments upon them (Document swttO). (14.10.14.17.14.18 & 14.45) . 14.86 Whatever the circumstances, I consider that the need to secure a significant shift from road to rail transport in line with international and Govermnent policies implies that neither Parkside nor any other location should be the only one where an intermodal freight terminal should be contemplated. In this context, Parkside, Carrington, Barton and possibly others should be seen not as competitors but as the possible providers of complementary facilities. The Merseyside Local Transport Plan makes a similar point. It notes on page 179 that Parkside lies at a key motorway and railways "crossroads" and that it can offer additional train sectioning capability to link Merseyside. WCML and Trans-Pennine freight train sen-ices. Its combination with the Liverpool North Docks area, the Birkenhead Docks area and the extension and restructuring of the Ditton area will meet foreseeable demand, removing the need for large scale developments which are not rail or water connected. Its potential is clearly acknowledged. The potential to which PPG 13 paragraph 45 refers is not qualified by considerations of Green Belt or whether .or not the land is allocated, and so its forced is not thereby reduced (14.14.14.62 & 14.63) 14.87 National advice on RPG is contained in PPG II. To provide effective regional guidance it is important that, whilst being locationally but not site specific, it does not descend into the level of detail more appropriate to a development plan. Its paragraph 3.11 states thatRPG should avoid identifying specific sites as .suitable for development. But the broad location, defined as the area of search suitable for the development in question, consistent with criteria set out in the RPG and which may include town or city centres, may be identified. Criteria may also assist development plan authorities to identify more precise locations for major land uses or to allocate suitable sites. Site specific proposals should be avoided in RPG. Although criteria are. not set out, it is in my view the broad location that is being identified. (14.9 & 14.57) 14.88 Draft Regional Planning Guidance for the North West (2000) includes several references to Parkside, including its Policy EC3 on Regional Investment Sites. As is described, this document is in no more than draft form and its contents may be different in its approved edition. This means that limited weight should be attached to it. At first reading, it does seems surprising that a particular site is identified. In this case, however, the advice in the PPG that the degree of locational specificity may need to vary depending upon the topic Page 142 under consideration is particularly relevant. The point at which the WCML crosses the Trans-Pennine Line coupled with the closeness of the M6 Motorway serves to determine both the location and, to all intents and purposes, the site for consideration as a freight terminal. Even so, precise boundaries are not identified. In these circumstances and on the evidence before me, I think that the reference to the Parkside site as a suitable location for a major intermodal freight terminal is justified. Again, attention is drawn to its potential. (14.60) 14.89 The advantages of location, the considerable extent of the former colliery land and Government policies to promote the movement of freight by rail convince me that there is potential for Parkside to accommodate the type of development which Railtrack PLC propose. As, indeed, the Draft RPG acknowledges. The current (2001) PPG I3 was issued during the later stages of the Inquiry. Its paragraph 6 notes that in order to deliver the objectives of its guidance, local authorities when preparing development plans and when considering planning applications should take account of a number of criteria. These include the need to protect sites and routes which could be critical in developing infrastructure to widen transport choices for both passenger and freight movement. 1Pe potential of Parkside to realise sustainable freight movements in conjunction with loCal facilities in the region is described as unique. But in view of the consideration being given to other possibilities, competing or complementary, I do not regard Parkside as having sole potential. (14.34) - 14.90 The Guidance then states at paragraph 45 that in preparing development plans and in determining planning applications, local authorities should identifY and, where appropriate, protect sites and routes, both existing and potential, which could be critiCal in developing infrastructure for the movement of freight (such as major freight interchanges including facilities allowing road to rail transfer). In relation to rail use, the Guidance notes that the SRA is best placed to advise on the sites and routes that are important to delivering wider transport objectives. Here I note the support which the SRA offers for Parkside which accords with the principle mentioned on page 28 of Document CD/76 that it will intervene in the planning process in support of specific schemes where this is justified on strategic grounds. The potential of Parkside, .especially if and when the stage of a planning application is reached, gives the land sufficient status for it to be protected in line with this _national policy. In these circumstances, I attach a good deal of weight to the advice in PPG 13. -(14.56 & 14.58) - - 14.91 This protection falls well short of saying thatplanning permission should be granted for RalitrackPLC's proposals when atsome:: time-in the future::they are suffieiently advanced to - be the subject of a planning application. But a distinction might be drawn between previous proposals and schemes for this former colliery land and one for an intermodal freight terminal, especially in view ofthe-Government's more recent policies to encourage the carriage of freight by rail. But the land is in the Green Belt which long established national and loCal policies seek to protect. The extant RPG 13 states the extent of the Region's current Green Belts should be maintained for the foreseeable fUture if the objective of urban regeneration is to be achieved, and that to date no_evidence has been supplied which clearly indicates that the Green Belts need to be changed prior to plan reviews that look to 2011 (Document CD/IO paragraph 3.10). The Draft RPG at paragraph 6.45 refers to information supplied by local authorities on various matters and suggests that an early strategic review of the Green Belt will be necessary. But, it says, this does not presuppose any need to change its boundaries. This guidance is far from encouraging from the point of view of Railtrack PLC. (14.4. 14.5 & 14.24) Page 143 14.92 Owing to the size of the former colliery land, its development as envisaged would be a substantial incursion into the Green Belt in this locality. And, as the Inspector who reported on the Modifications Inquiry noted, Parkside occupies a crucial position in the narrow gap of Green Belt between Newton-Ie- WiIIows and Winwick. This is a point with which I enthusiastically agree. The incidence of good quality agricultural land was an additional factor and presumably stiIl is. And so my conclusions ~hould not be taken as implying any support for the planning application, whatever it might propose. (14.23) 14.93 Rather than being part of a comprehensive review of the Green Belt boundary throughout St Helens Metropolitan Borough, the grant of planning permission for a freight terminal at Parkside would be tantamount to a somewhat arbitrary alteration of it. A comparison can be made with the Junction 21 proposal. In the absence of an adopted UDP policy that provided for the proposed development, it is possible that it would be justifiable to refuse planning permission on the grounds of prematurity. This might be on the basis that the proposal was so substantial that to grant permission would prejudice the outcome of the plan process by predetermining decisions about the scale, location or phasing of new development and the extent and definition of the Green Belt which ought properly to.J>e taken in the development plan context. (14.11,14.12 & 14.13) .' 14.94 Recent recommendations and decisions concerning Parkside and the reasons' for them do not augur well. for the proposals. Two Inspectors at different stages of the UDP process have recommended against large-scale development proposals. At the UDP inquiry, British Coal sought the allocation of the whole of the 97 ha site with a development area of 70 ha. At the Modifications Inquiry, a site area of 78 ha was identified of which 21 ha was to be retained in the Green Belt and 57 ha of coIlierylhardstanding was to be withdrawn from the Green Belt and made available for industrial development. In both cases,. the Inspector noted the strategic position of the land near the WCML, and in the second he recognised that national guidance was moving towards a more integrated transport policy with greater emphasis on use of rail freight. Nevertheless, in both cases the Inspector recommended that Green Belt policies should prevail. (14.4 & 14.5) 14.95 Since the adoption of the UDP in July 1998, the Govemment has issued more policies copc.erning transport. These include Transport 2010 The 10 Year plan which envisages greatly increased public and private funding totalling £180 biIIion across the decade from 2001/02 to 2010/11 (DocumentCD/65). Investment in infrastructure wiII encourage, it is estimated, an increase of 80% in goods carried by rail. ,The Plan offers for the first time the' long-term framework required for -developing and delivering big· projects .. It points out at pariigraphs 6.16-and 6.17 that recent growth-has taken rail freight's shate'of domestic freight traffic to 7%, that extra support wiIl be provided to maintain this momentum lind that support wiIl be made available for new and improved freight terminals. In their Freight Strategy the SRA look to regional and local planning authorities to facilitate the provision of a substantial increase in rail-connected warehousing. These are some of the matters that neither the local planning authority nor the Inspectors could have taken into account, but in my judgement are now of considerable importance. (14.55 & 14.56) Planning procedures 14.96 I agree with Swayfields Limited that it would be better for the planning application for the Parkside proposals to be considered against the context of an adopted review of the UDP whose policies and proposals had been prepared in the light of updated and approved RPG. And in view of the consultations which have yet to be undertakc;m,it may be a year or more before the Secretary of State can approve RPG and some time after then before the various Councils can adopt the reviews of their UDPs. National advice in PPG I advocates the Page 144 plan-led system and sets .out its .objectives. But it d.oes nat prevent the l.odging and determinati.on .ofa planning applicati.on where the prop.osed devel.opment is contrary t.othe thrust .ofthe p.olicies in the devel.opment plan .or when RPG is at a draft stage and a UDP has yet t.obe reviewed in the light of the approved RPG. That als.o is part .ofthe planning process. (14.2. 14.11. 14.12. 14.13. 14.37 & 14.78) 14.97 Railtrack PLC has a right t.o make the planning applicati.on, aild a right to have it determined either by the l.ocal planning auth.ority(ies) .orby the Secretary .of State or .one .of his Inspect.ors. It w.ould have t.obe determined .on its merits, with the extant development plan and all .other material considerati.ons being weighed in the balance. These might well include prop.osals for .other interm.odal freight terminals and the physical ability .ofthe site t.o accomm.odate trains .ofthe right length. I w.ould expect an.other t.obe the G.overnment's determination and its p.olicies t.oachieve a significant shift fr.om road t.o rail transp.ort in general, and the 10 Year Transport Plan and its .objectives in particular. No d.oubt a wide range .ofparties w.ould make representati.ons. The SRA nate in their Freight Strategy that the target .of 80% gr.owth in rail freight .over the 10 year peri.od is n.ow a harder. task as a result of concessi.ons .on HGV VED and fuel tax and the .netw.ork disrupti.on since,!he. Hatfield accident (D.ocument CD176 page 3):' Freight traffic has recovered steadily during 200 I, but these circumstances seem t.o me t.o increase the importance .of pr.otecting the p.otential .ofsites like Parkside. .. , 14.98 I accept that Parkside and other p.ossible sites for similar facilities c.ould be brought f.orward thr.oUgh the regi.onal planning and devel.opment plan pr.ocess and be granted planning permissi.on at same time in the future. This w.ould generally f.oll.owthe .order .of events which Swayfields Limited adv.ocates. But if the G.overnment's .objectives which are set .out in the 10 Year Plan are t.o be achieved, a greater degree .ofurgency is required. This is a paint made with same enthusiasm by Mr Shields .onbehalf.of the NWDA, and I agree with him. Freight terminals .of the type envisaged at Parkside sh.ould be prom.oted as s.o.onas possible, sa they can make their contributi.on t.owards an early shift .of freight from road to rail. Mr Shields makes the further paint that the planning system sh.ould be able t.orespond quickly t.o changing circumstances like the G.overnment's general support far interm.odal facilities, and it is a g.o.od.one. But again, I give n.o support to the planning applicati.on. (14.11. 14.12.l4.13 &14.37) , , Access to Parkside """ 14.99 j;~freight ierrinal ist.o proceed (it Parkside,~d ifit isJ.o beaSU!lc~ina~tingfreight '. '~.,'~,f,,~.."',!jam JQlldl.o,rail, it Il;\ii$~have ;(i,~.o.odl\c~~)~ee theJPtj!:'jQ!l.·h(i~.an:.~.fr.om Winwick Road, but this sh.ould nat be used l!y,such v.o1umesand type .oftraffic and at such times as w.ould cause undue disturbance in this mainly built up residential area. In .other wards, there sh.ould be an.other .access fr.omthe M6 M.ot.orway far the greater part .of the traffic, especially the HGVs. This approach reflects the advice in PPG 13 that policies need t.o strike a balance between the interests .of l.ocal residents and th.ose .of the wider c.ommunity. Ideally the access fr.om the M.ot.orway sh.ould be clearly signed, direct rather than tortu.ous, .of adequate width far passing traffic and as least envir.onmentally damaging as p.ossible. (14.63) 14.100 And sa I turn n.ow t.o p.ossible routes between Parkside and the M6 M.ot.orway, ackn.owledging that I have t.ow.ork .onsuch inf.ormati.onas was bef.ore the Inquiry. There is, far example, scant evidence ab.out the comparative costs .of these routes bath in terms .of c.onstructi.on and the acquisiti.on .of land. On that s.omewhat slender basis, h.owever, I generally accept Railtrack PLC's conclusi.ons ab.out the advantages and disadvantages .of the vari.ous opti.ons that they have investigated. (14.19 & 14.63 - 14.73) Page 145 14.101 A below-grade southern route would not be without its advantages. At 1.3 Ian it would be the shortest route. But it would swing around and to the south of Hermitage Green and in my opinion the earthworks needed to accommodate it would be disruptive in this Green Belt countryside even if they resulted in some obscuring of the traffic upon it. It would almost complete the enclosing of Hermitage Green with roads, making this attractive hamlet appreciably less rural in its character and appearance. A central route would again be intrusive, not only in this open countryside but with regard to its closeness to dwellings and in the way in which it would divorce one part of the hamlet from another. Its proximity to St Oswald's Well which is a Scheduled Ancient Monument would be unfortunate at best, and more likely unacceptably damaging to its setting. 14.102 A northern route would be somewhat longer than either the central or southern route. It would not be without its harm to the Green Belt and the countryside. But there would appear to be considerable merit in placing as much of it as possible as close as possible to the Motorway, although its very presence would be an incursion into the open area. Both the road and its traffic would to some degree be perceived by eye and .ear against the background of the Motorway. 1think thatthe choice between an at-grade and below-~de aliiiDment is finely balanced. The former would minimise land-take, buUraffic using if . would be more intrusive in the rural scene. An at-grade junction with Parkside Road might draw traffic from the Motorway and through the locality as a short cut to Golborne. I doubt that this would be acceptable. 14.103 I am far from enthusiastic about an additional junction on the Motorway. TheHighways Agency has not rejected it out of hand, but its policy reflects that in PPG I3 Annex B about access being severely restricted in the case of motorways. I can discover no exceptional circumstances along this part of the M6 Motorway or any other considerations to outweigh that advice. (14.39 & 14.40) 14.104 On the evidence available it seems to me that the Option 4 northern route.as a private road at belowcgrade level would probably cause the least environmental damage and is the most worthy of further consideration. It.could thus be an important, even crucial, component of the entire Parkside project. Traffic genet-ation and its effect on the M6 Motorway 14.105 There are some estimates concerning traffic generation and its distributi~n. But the Highways Agency takes a cautious approach and I agree with its staff that there is not enl1'Ughinfonnatibn:'ifistheri:fore difficult tojudge the precise effect of both Parks ide and .. ' MSXtriifflc olrhigJiWliyca'pacitY at Jtinciibn 22. If the modest estimates ot'traffic likely 10: ....• be"generatedand its distribution at the Junction prove to be correct, theimprovernents proposed should ensure enough capacity.at the junction to accommodate the demands of both developments. But I say that on the basis of the limited amount of information before me and the Highways Agency's stance. (14.21 & 14.74) . Conclusion 14.106 I agree that it should be possible for an access to both Parkside and an MSA to coexist. But the design of the current MSA proposals unfortunately does not allow for an Option 4 access road to Parkside to traverse it. The proposals would have to be changed as outlined, and I am not convinced that the attachment of a condition to any planning permission would put matters right. It would be ill considered to permit either the Indirect or the Direct MSA scheme in these circumstances. (14.20) .~._~~~,~~----<~,~---~-"---~-_.~----_._._------_.-".".~-_.~-- Page 146 14.107 Either of these particular MSA schemes could undermine the potential of Parkside as a successful intermodal freight terminal, contrary to national advice in PPG 13 (March 200 I) which urges local planning authorities to protect potential sites which could be critical in developing infrastructure for the movement of freight. This constitutes a valid reason for refusal. 14.108 Should the Secretary of State decide that, despite my recommendation, the need for a MSA on this stretch of the M6 Motorway outweighs Green Belt considerations, the refusal of planning permission for the current Junction 22 proposals for the reasons given in this Section would not automatically make the Junction 21 site acceptable. Nor, indeed, any other land. Should the Secretary of State decide that a Junction 22 site would be preferable in principle, I consider that it would be valid to refuse planning permission for the current Junction 22 proposals and invite Swayfields Limited to submit revised proposals that included a suitable access to Parkside. _"'~_'~'~~_'_~"~'_~~_~__'~__ '~;",w,.,~_.,,~~~."_~_~_._"~~.~_.__ ~_."~_ ..,~,._~_W'~~'_"'"~_~_'_'~~' __ Page 147 Inspector's Conclusions 15.11 Wood Head is a fine, imposing farmhouse dating probably from the late 18th century. It does not surprise me that it is a Grade II Listed Building. Its siting in relation to the application sites can be appreciated from Document MSCC/15. "Setting" is an imprecise term and very much a matter of subjective judgement. The farmhouse faces south south west rather than south east towards the MSA site and in my opinion its setting extends no further south eastwards than the boundary which is clearly marked by the hedge and trees along Parkside Road. 15.12 The fact that the Listed Buildings and the MSA might be seen from each other does not necessarily mean that the setting of the former would be adversely affected by the latter. I do not accept that any view irrespective of context, distance or significance would be critical to the setting of the Wood Head buildings. In my opinion, that setting would not be adversely affected. The damage caused by the MSA to the countryside, intensive and drastic though it would be and emphasised at night by the illumination with its 15 m or so high columns, would not be the same as an adverse 'effect upon the Listed farmhouse or its setting. (15.2 & 15.6) ~ 15.13 No doubt future occupants of the farmhouse would prefer not to look out across the fields and hedges from their upstairs windows and be able to see the mounds and other parts of the MSA as well as the activities taking place there; But again, this does not amount to material injury to the Listed Building or its setting. 15.14 The Listed bam lies to the north west of the farmhouse and is much shielded from public view. Similar considerations apply to its setting. 15.15 St Oswald's Well is difficult to identifY from the public highway, appearing from the public highway to be little more than a small water hole in a field. It is about 110m from the edge of the application sites. Its setting comprises a small part of the open field that surrounds it, and by no means any land on the opposite eastern side of Parks ide Road. 15.16 The MSA would have no material adverse effect upon this Well, either asa Listed Building, Scheduled AncientMonument or setting .. I note the comment in. the letter ofl6 .• December 1998 from English Heritage that, although there would be somedetrimentaI impactpn the Scheduled Ancient Monument, they would not oppose the proposal on these gr~uni:is.V5.3) .. ...,. .. , is;,f7 There aie' other Listed Buirdingsin "the Parish6f Winwick,incliroingllie Grade 1St' Oswald's Church, bringing the totaI to 14. They are all further away from the Junction 22 sites and the effect on them and their settings would be even less than on those at Wood Head and on St Oswald's Well. There is no evidence to convince me that iIIlyheavy traffic coming through Winwick to or from the MSA would seriously damage the structure of the Church. (15.9) 15.18 A distinction must be made between the particular effect of the proposals on these Listed Buildings, the Scheduled Ancient Monument and their settings and on the wider Green Belt countryside surroundings. Whilst there is some overlap, in that the settings are part of the larger whole, I judge that the effect of the MSA proposals on the former would be acceptable whilst the serious damage to the latter would be unacceptable. Page 150 Inspector's Conclusions 15.31 There is evidence of archaeological remains at and near the application sites at Junction 22. In a landscape as historic as Britain's, I do not find that swprising. As PPG 16 advises, archaeological remains are irreplaceable, but with the many demands of modem society it is not always feasible to save them all. A balance must be struck. On the evidence, I am not persuaded that anything on land affected by these proposals is of 'Such significance that it should prevent, in principle, planning permission being granted for one or the other of these schemes. But should either of these Options be permitted, contrary to my recommendation, a condition should be attached to the planning permission(s) to ensure their protection. In my judgement, Condition No 17 in the Suggested Planning Conditions for both the Indirect and the Direct Options suitably serves that pwpose (Document CD/78). (15.26 & 15.30) 15.32 Hedgerow H2b is important, including for its historical associations. For this reason, as well as for its contribution to the character of the countryside, it should remain and perhaps be reinforced. But its protection is not of such consequence that, in isolation, this consideration warrants the refusal of planning permission. I attach a good deal more weight to such matters as the protection of the Green Belt and to the safeguarding of the countryside for its own sake and the totality of those features which comprise its pleasant character. (15.24) 15.33 Whether the Battle of Maserfelth took place at or near St Oswald's Well or much further away at Oswestry is a matter of debate. I am told that Mr F M Stenton who wrote "Anglo- Saxon England" is a recognised authority on this period of our history, and from this book I see that on 5 August 641 Oswald was defeated and killed by Pemia at a place which Bede calls Maserfelth, probably, though not certainly, to be identified with Oswestry in Shropshire (Document SW/41). Owing to this uncertainty, I think it doubtful that land at Winwick will be included in the Register of Historic Battlefields to which PPO IS refers. There is scant evidence to show that the main encounter took place entirely or partly on the application sites, and I do not consider that either Option should be turned away on these grounds.(l5.19, 15.25 & 15.26) 15.34 Winwick has a strong and no doubt valued association with the Lord Protector, Oliver Cromwell. As discussed at the Inquiry and as I saw on a plaque on Cromwell's Restaurant near St Eiphin's Church, he wrote from Winwick to tell Parliament of his victories at Winwick and Preston. There is no evidence to suggest that either of the battles at Winwick took place lit or near the Junction 22 sites. One blittlefie1d is shown 011 the OS mllp, but it is - lit some distance to the west. It is often difficult to identifY precisely those plliceS where blittles of hundreds of years ligOtook pllice, but on the evidence before me I am not persulided thlit these considerations should preclude the proposals. (15.27) 15.35 In summary, although these mlitters are of understand libIe concern to local people, I do not consider that they should thwart the proposed schemes. Page 153 Employment Case for Swayfields Limited 15.36 A MSA would create about 200 jobs. Inspector's Conclusions 15.37 Maybe it would, as would many other large developments in the Green Belt. As a general rule, employment generating schemes should be located in the built up areas, a strategy which the Warrington Borough Council appears to me to be pursuing on the various industrial estates at Birchwood. TIlls is not a good reason for granting planning pennission for a MSA at either location. .• :;~'.. ~... Page 154 16. Matter (j): Whether any planning permission which may be granted should be subject to conditions and, if so, the form they should take; and Section 106 Agreements. Inspector's Conclusions 16.1 The proposed MSA at Junction 21 and the Options at Junction 22 are complex schemes and it is not surprising that a large number of often lengthy conditions would be required to enhance the quality of development. Without prejudice, the Warrington Borough Council has agreed these conditions with the relevant parties. I accept that in the event of planning permission being granted, they would be necessary, fair, reasonable and practicable (Document CDI78). They thus accord with the advice in Circular 11/95. 16.2 The main parties will take note of the letter of 16 January 2001 from the Environment Agency in which concern is expressed about various matters incIuding the possible contamination of groundwater (Document EAlI). The Warrington Borough Council would' no doubt consult the Environment Agency if need be. Be that as it may, I would suggest an additional condition in all cases along the following lines: ' , ,", The development shall include dual containment systems for fUel and oil storage with provision for leak detection, alarm and removal on all tanks and associated, pipework. 16.3 Planning obligations are the agreements that, under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Section 106, may be agreed between a local planning authority and any person interested in land in their area for the purpose of restricting or regulating the development or use of the land, either permanently or during such time as may be prescribed by the agreement. Draft Agreements have been made by the 2 applicants with the Warrington Borough Council for their respective schemes. I consider that they accord with the advice in Circular 1/97. Should the Secretary of State decide to grant planning permission for one of these proposals, the relevant parties should be invited to execute the deed. _. .~~~~,~~__ .~~.~_M_'.__~ __~~_".~_~ .~~ __._,----~."-~~,-,,~~.."~"~~=.--- Page 155 17. Inspector's Overall Conclusions 17.1 I now draw together and compare certain mam points arIsmg from my previous Conclusions. 17.2 The application sites all lie within the Green Belt. The various proposals represent inappropriate development and are, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. All schemes would seriously damage the openness of the Green Belt and its visual amenities. They would cause different, but equivalent, intense harm to the Green Belt and to the countryside which should be safeguarded for its own sake. This is particularly the case when the potential attractiveness of the Junction 21 land is envisaged. Whilst I do not entirely agree that the Junction 21 proposal would appear to be suitable in landscape terms, the fact that it is enclosed on two sides by the embankments of the M6 and realigned A57 does give it a slight advantage in this respect over the Junction 22 application sites. 17.3 There are no very special circumstances that would justifY the grant of any planning permission. In particular, there is no exceptional need on safety grounds. In this respect: J • the spacing of existing MSAs already generally meets the desirable aim of services at approximately 30 mile intervals; the services at Knutsford and Charnock Richard MSAs are seldom at capacity; • • • there is complementary provision at Poplar 2000; • upon the re-organisation of Knutsford MSA and Poplar 2000, there would be substantial additional provision for cars at Knutsford MSA; • there is the chance of further substantial provision at Knutsford and Charnock Richard MSAs in the longer term; and, • there are no overriding considerations in terms of the nature of the traffic using the motorways or conditions on the motorways. 17.4 The effect on living conditions would be insignificant at Junction 21. There is some risk of the effect of noise, especially from klaxons, on dwellings near Junction 22. 17.5 There is little to choose between the Junction 21 and 22 sites in terms of the effect upon the natural resources of the countryside. They would both cause a similar amount of harm. More particularly, there is little if anything to choose between the 2 application proposals in terms of actual and potential loss of good quality agricultural land. But in view of the amounts of land in each case, I place very .little weight on any advantage that might be established. 17.6 There are no significant implications in terms of Sites of Special Scientific Interest. 17.7 In that no compelling road safety need has been established, the various proposals would not accord with Roads Circular 1/94 or the Government's Policy Statement HA 269 on MSAs. 17.8 In terms of physical suitability and traffic movement, the Junction 21 proposal leaves much to be desired. There would be a considerable amount of inconvenience but not necessarily danger. At Junction 22, the sub-standard weaving distance is a concern but there would be an overall benefit. Page 156 -, J 17.9 There is a small advantage at Junction 21 in terms of the potential to serve the needs of both long and short distance traffic. The former is of greater importance. Junction 22 is far better located in that it is mid way between Knutsford and Charnock Richard MSAs but overall the greater advantage lies with Junction 21. 17.10 Parkside has many advantages as a location for an integrated freight terminal. If the Junction 22 application sites were considered to be a suitable location in principle for a MSA, it would be valid to refuse planning permission for the current proposals without prejudice to the submission of a revised proposal safeguarding access to the freight terminal. 17,11 Matters concerning Listed Buildings, the Scheduled Ancient Monument and local historical and archaeological associations are not of sufficient consequence to render the Junction 22 proposals unacceptable. 17.12 Neither the degree of existing or likely future need, nor any other considerations, are of sufficient force at present to constitute very special circumstances. The proposals are contrary to the provisions of the development plan, especially its policies for the protection of the Green Belt and the countryside, and should not be permitted. The development plan should prevail. 17.13 Should the Secretary of State reject this view and consider that a new MSA should be provided on the M6 Motorway between Knutsford and Charnock Richard MSAs, I consider that notwithstanding the better access at Junction 22 and my preference for the Direct Option, the very slight net advantage of the Junction 21 site points to a MSA on that land. 17.14 Alternative sites may be relevant as a material consideration which could justify refusal if the 4 tests in GLC v Secretary of State for the Environment (1985) which were followed in Secretary of State for the Environment v Edwards (1994) apply. I was referred to these cases and tests during the course of the Inquiry, and Document CS/9 considers them. I have kept them in mind throughout the preparation of this Report. 17.15 Although the Junction 21 and 22 application proposals are in competition that does not mean that they are the only potential schemes. But the Rough Farm proposal would have an even greater impact upon the openness of the Green Belt and the countryside, and a MSA at Barton would do little to serve drivers on the M6 Motorway. Neither are viable alternatives to the application sites. 17.16 I have read the reports and extracts concerning other MSA proposals and the Secretary of State's decisions on them. I have also visited various MSAs, as requested. Some, of the observations are especially pertinent, and this evidence has assisted me in coming to my conclusions and recommendations. Each case is, of course, different, if only because of the uniqueness of each site concerned, its surroundings, the design and appearance of the development and the local policies that apply. , 17.17 This evidence does not outweigh the other considerations that I have taken into account, nor does it oblige me to adopt the same approach, conclusions or recommendation. Page 157 r 18 Recommendation I 18.1 I recommend that: a) planning permission be refused for the proposed MSA at M6 Motorway Junction 21; b) the appeal against the failure to determine an application for a MSA at M6 Motorway Junction 22 be dismissed and planning permission refused; and, b) planning permission be refused for the proposed MSA at M6 Motorway Junction 22. INSPECTOR Page 158 Alison Moore Decisions Officer Planning Central Casework Division Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Eland House OFFICE OF THE Zone 3/J2 Eland House DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER Bressenden Place LONDON, SW1 E 5DU Direct Line: 020 7944 8729 Robert Turley Associates Ltd for GTIiI No: 3533 8729 Swayfields Spectrum House Web Site: www.dtlr.gov.uk Towers Business Park, Wilmslow Road Our Ref: APP/M0655N/00/000199 & 200 Your Ref: MANCHESTER,M202RD 25 July 2002 Eversheds for Manchester Ship Canal Company Senator House 85 Queen Victoria Street LONDON, EC4V 4JL Dear Sir TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 APPLICATIONS BY MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL COMPANY PROPOSED MOTORWAY SERVICE AREA AT JUNCTION 21, M6 MOTORWAY APPLICATION AND APPEAL BY SWAYFIELDS LTD PROPOSED MOTORWAY SERVICE AREA AT JUNCTION 22, M6 MOTORWAY 1. I am directed by the First Secretary of State to say that consideration has been given to the report of the Inspector, Mr Richard E Hollox BA(Hons), BSc(Econ), MPhil, FRTPI, FRICS, who held a public local inquiry into two called-in applications (one subsequently withdrawn) by the Manchester Ship Canal Company for planning permission for a Motorway Service Area at Junction 21 of the M6 motorway; and an appeal against the failure to determine en application by Warrington Borough Council and a called-in application, both made by Swayfields Ltd for" planning permission for a Motorway Service Area at Junction 22 of the M6 motorway. Inspector's Recommendation and Summary of the Decision 2. The Inspector, whose conclusions are reproduced in the annex to this letter, recommended that planning permission be refused. For the reasons given below, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector's conclusions and accepts his recommendation that planning permission for the above applications be refused. A copy of the Inspector's report is enclosed. All references to paragraph numbers, unless otherwise stated, are to that report. Policy Considerations 3. Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requires that proposals shall be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material INVESTOR IN PEOPLE M6 MSAs decision letter.doc considerations indicate otherwise. In this case the development plan is the Cheshire Replacement Structure Plan Cheshire 2001. 4. Material considerations are Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 "Green Belts", Planning Policy Guidance Note 7 "The Countrysidl~ - Environmental Quality and Economic and Social Development", Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 "Transport" and Lord Whitty's Policy Statement on Motorway Service Areas. 5. The Secretary of State notes that Environmental Statements and Addenda were . submitted in support of the planning applications. These have been taken into consideration by the Inspector and taken into account by the Secretary of State in reaching the decision on the applications. Main Issues 6. At the time of making the call-in direction the Secretary of State identified 10 issues on which he particularly wanted to be informed. All ten were discussed in detail at the inquiry and no further issues were identified. a) The Development Plan • 7. The Secretary of State agrees with the inspector that the proposals are not in accordance with the development plan r1R6.8). b) & c) Green Belt Issues & ResidentiaiAmenity 8. The Secretary of State accepts the Inspector's conclusions, in particular that the proposals at both Junctions 21 & 22 represent inappropriate development in the Green Belt [IR7.9) and that all the schemes would seriously damage the openness of the Green Belt and its visual amenity (IR17.2). The Secretary of State also agrees with the Inspector's conclusion that there would be some risk of noise affecting the occupants of dwellings near to the Junction 22 MSA [IR17.4]. d) Character ofthe Countryside, Agricultural and Conservation issues. 9. Planning Policy Guidance Note 7 "The Countryside - Environmental Quality and Economic and Social Development" st,ates that the Government's policy is that the countryside should be safeguarded for its own sake and non-renewable and natural resources should be afforded protection. The Secretary of State therefore accepts the Inspector's conclusions that the MSA proposals at both sites would conflict with national and development plan policie~ aimed at protecting the countryside [IR9.57). 10. The Secretary of State also agrees that there is little to choose between the proposals in terms of the loss of agricultural land [IR9.64). The Secretary of State considers that on the basis of the evidence, the harm caused to the best and most versatile land is limited and that little weight should be given to agricultural considerations. 11. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector's conclusions on nature conservation [IR9.73], hedgerows, [IR9.74-9.76) and footpaths [IR9.78]. M6 MSAs decision leUer.doc e) Implications for Sites of Special Scientific Interest. 12. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector's conclusion that there are no significant implications in terms of SSSls [IR10.5]. f) National Policy on the Siting of MSAs 13. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that national policy is to concentrate on completion of the "thirty mile" MSA network on those stretches of motorwaywhere this has not already been achieved. This does not however amount to a presumption in favour of the "thirty mile" network; they will continue to be subject to the normal operation of the land-use planning system. Furthermore, "Planning permission for infill MSAs between "thirty mile" sites should be granted only exceptionally and where a clear and compelling need and safety case for the MSA has been established". [IR 11.15]. g) Need and Alternative Sites Current and Future Capacity 14.The Secretary of State considers that the main issues are: i. firstly whether the existing MSAs are already at capacity; ii. whether there is likely to be an identified deficiency in the future; and iii. whether the existing MSAs could be expanded to meet any identified deficiency. 15. The Secretary of State is cautious about accepting observational evidence from individual days, but nevertheless would agree for the same reasons as the Inspector that at the moment the general picture is that parking spaces at the existing MSAs at Charnock Richards and Knutsford are seldom full [IR12.157]. 16. Also, for the same reasons as the Inspector, the Secretary of State considers that there is some doubt about projections offuture demand for parking and the substantial deficiencies they suggest [IR12.158], especially because, a~ the Inspector notes, it is the Government's clear intention to reduce reliance on the private car [IR12.163]. 17. The Secretary of State can give little weight to the prospects of an expansion of either the Knutsford or Charnock Richards MSAs due to the uncertainty surrounding the current proposals [IR12.171 & 12.173], but greater weight to the possibility of expansion at Knutsford MSA in conjunction with Poplar 2000. 18.ln conclusion, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that even if the possibility of expansion at the existing MSAs is discounted, as they are not currently at full capacity and there is considerable uncertainty about future projections, even 5 years ahead, this tells against the applications [IR12.176]. Safety related need 19. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector's conclusions that none of the proposed MSAs would be likely to make a substantial additional contribution to safety M6 MSAs dedsion letter.doc on the M6 Motorway [IR12.179). Type of traffic 20. The Secretary of State agrees that it is knportant to differentiate between long and short distance traffic, and the difficulty of,doing so. The Secretary of State would further agree that insofar as the evidenc~ ,is capable of demonstrating it, the proposed MSA at Junction 21 has a'slighta,dvqntageoYl'lr that at Junction 22 in this respect [IR12.196). ' , ' Conclusion on (g) 21. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector's view that given the harm identified elsewhere, the arguments for need and safety would have to be compelling. Given that currently the existing MSAs at Knutsford and Charnock Richards are not at full capacity; that there is doubt about future demand forecasts; that there is a possibility of further spaces being provided at both the existing MSAs, but more likely at Knutsford, and given that no safety argument has been substantiated, the Secretary of State does not consider a compelling case for need and safety has been demonstrated. In the face of this conclusion, the fact that more long distance traffic may pass Junction 21 than Junction 22 is of little weight. h) Traffic movement and highway safety. 22. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector's conclusions that the proposed junctions to provide access to the MSA at Junction 21 would operate satisfactorily [IR13.76), and that internal circulation would be safe [IR13.79). He also agrees that the access would be inconvenient for northbound traffic and for the occupants of dwellings on the cul-de-sac that is part of Old Manchester Road and this tells against the Junction 21 proposal [IR13.84). 23. The Secretary of State also agrees with the Inspector that the improvements associated with the provision of the MSA at Junction 22 would provide a net benefit to users of the M6, albeit a small one [IR13.88). Therefore, on the basis of these traffic and highway safety considerations alone the Secretary of Sfate considers that the Junction 22 proposal would be marginally better than at Junction 21. i) Implications for the development of Pa.kside Colliery. 24. The Secretary of State agrees with the irlspector that the potential of Parkside as a freight terminal is such that it is just the ~ort of facility that the guidance in paragraph 45 of PPG13 envisages should be protected [IR14.90), and, like the Inspector, attaches a good deal of weight to this. The Secretary of State notes the Inspector's view that to effectively contribute to the growth in freight moved by rail the proposals for Parkside may well be brought forward in advance of the likely timetable for reviewing the development plan. But, the Secretary of State considers that regardless of exact timing, the advice in PPG13 should be followed. 25. Since the close of the Inquiry, the Secretary of State has received correspondence from the parties relating to Parkside. Two letters from Turley Associates dated 11th M6 MSAs decision letter. doc June and 1st July and a letter from RPS,Planning Transport & Environment dated 20th June. Copies of this correspondence are not attached to this letter but will be made available on request to the above addniss. The Secretary of State is aware that specific reference to the Parkside site has been removed from the Draft North West Regional Planning Guidance, it is only now listed along with two others as sites that could be considered for a rail freight terminal. The Secretary of State is also aware that Railtrack have lodged a formal application with the relevant councils for the rail freight terminal. Taking these matters into account the Secretary of State considers while there is some doubt about the future of Parks ide', there .is a possibility that it could be developed as a rail freight terminal. Consequently, the main consideration is whether development of the proposed MSA at Junction 22 would seriously harm the prospects for successfully developing the Parkside site as a rail freight terminal in the future. 26. The Secretary of State has considered whether development of the MSA would prevent the provision of a suitable access to the Parkside site. Seven options were considered at the inquiry. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that a separate access for the greater part of the traffic, especially the HGVs should be provided [IR14.99] and anything other tQan a good, straightforward, sustainable and environmentally acceptable access to Parkside from the M6 should be elvo/ded [IR14.73]. 27. The Secretary of State notes that the Inspector accepted the Railtrack analysis of the various options, and the conclusion that those options that went through the proposed MSA site were the best. The MSA could co-exist with the proposed access routes, but not as currently envisaged, and to redesign the MSA proposal sufficiently could not be achieved by conditions but would require a fresh application. The Inspector concludes that this represents a valid reason for refusal for the Junction 22 proposal, on its own, regardless of the other harm identified [IR14.1 07-8]. 28. Given the limited nature of the evidence presented at the inquiry, which the Inspector recognised [IR14.1 00], the Secretary of.State is reluctant to conclude that the only way to provide an acceptable access to Parkside would be by refusing permission for the MSA at Junction 22. The Secretary of State also recoglJises that it is not yet certain that the freight terminal proposal will go ahead. Nevertheless, the Secretary of State considers that the importance of p~"omotingsuch facilities is such that the further uncertainty that would be created by the development of the Junction 22 MSA, should be given some weight and tells against this proposal. Other Matters 29.The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector's conclusions on these matters [IR15.11-18, 15.31-15.37 and 15.37]. Overall Conclusions 30. The Secretary of State has concluded that the proposals at Junctions 21 and 22 are contrary to the development plan. Furthermore, the Secretary of State considers that the proposals at Junctions 21 and 22 would be inappropriate development which would seriously damage the openness of the Green Belt. The proposals at Junction 22 M6 MSAs decision letter. doc would also materially reduce the likelihood of the development of Parkside colliery as a freight terminal. The Secretary of State has considered whether any very special circumstances exist to outweigh the harm these developments would cause to the Green Belt. He has in particular considered whether there is a clear and compelling need and safety case for the development. The Secretary of State concludes, in agreement with the Inspector, that a case has not been demonstrated which is sufficient to overcome the harm the developments would cause to the Green Belt. Formal Decision 31. For the reasons given above, the Secre:ary of State accepts the Inspector's recommendation. He hereby refuses planning permission for the development of a Motorway Service Area at Junction 21 of the M6 Motorway in accordance with application No 95/34089, dated 26th September 1995 (The Manchester Ship Canal Company application). He dismisses the appeal and refuses planning permission for the development of a Motorway Service Area at Junction 22 of the M6 Motorway in accordance with application No 98/37712, dated 3rd March 1998 (Swayfields Ltd Option A). He refuses planning permission for the development of a Motorway Service Area at Junction 22 of the M6 Motorway in accordance with application No 99/39592 dated 24th April 1999 (Swayfields Ltd, Option B). Yours faithfully Alison Moore Authorised by the First Secretary of State to sign in that behalf M6 MSAs decision lelter.doc