Midland Metro (Birmingham City Centre Extension, Etc.)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Report to the Secretary of State for Transport by J P Watson BSc FCIHT MICE MCMI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Transport Date : 19 May 2015 TRANSPORT AND WORKS ACT 1992 TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 ACQUISITION OF LAND ACT 1981 THE MIDLAND METRO (BIRMINGHAM CITY CENTRE EXTENSION LAND ACQUISITION AND VARIATION) ORDER 201[X] REQUEST FOR A DIRECTION UNDER SECTION 90(2A) OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 Dates of Inquiry: 19 November 2014 to 16 January 2015 Ref: TWA/13/APP/06 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Case Details 1 1 Preamble 1 2 Description Of The Site And Its Surroundings 4 3 Procedural Matters 5 3.1 Costs Applications 5 3.2 Applications for Adjournment 5 4 The Case For Centro 5 4.1 The Midland Metro 5 4.2 The Transport Business Case and Economic 13 Benefits 4.3 The Order Proposals 22 4.4 Environmental Impacts 27 4.5 Planning 59 4.6 The Draft Order 65 5 The Case For The Supporter 66 5.1 Birmingham City Council 66 6 The Case For The Objectors 67 6.1 Introduction 67 6.2 Impact of the Scheme on Victoria Square House 69 6.3 Public Interest Matters 71 6.3.12 Consideration of Alternative Routes 74 ` 6.4 Heritage Implications 86 6.5 Scheme Context and an Alternative Route 94 6.6 Strategic Environmental Assessment and 99 Environmental Impact Assessment 6.7 Additional Matters Raised In Objections Made 101 Wholly By Written Representations 7 The Response Of Centro 7.1 Impact of the Scheme on Victoria Square House 101 7.2 Highways and Transport 103 7.2.18 Alternative Routes 106 7.3 Heritage and Townscape 120 7.4 Scheme Context 7.5 Strategic Environmental Assessment and 125 Environmental Impact Assessment 7.6 The Objection Of Now Leisure Ltd 130 8 Inspector’s Conclusions 8.1 General Matters 131 8.2 Objectives 132 8.3 Policy Consistency Of The Order’s Objectives 134 8.4 Environmental Statement 136 8.5 Changes To The Order 140 8.6 Alignment in Paradise Circus 140 8.7 Environmental Impacts Of The Revised Tramway 140 Alignment 8.8 Mitigation Of Adverse Impacts 145 8.9 Property Interests 146 8.10 Planning Conditions 149 8.11 Funding 149 8.12 The Modified CSQ – Pedestrians, Heritage, 150 Townscape etc 8.13 CSQ Alternative Route Options 157 8.14 Need and Justification 163 8.15 Crown Land 167 8.16 Compulsory Purchase Of Land 168 8.17 Overall Conclusion 169 9 Recommendations 169 Appendices 1 Recommended Planning Conditions 170 2 Appearances Error! Bookmar k not defined. 3 Inquiry Documents Error! Bookmar k not defined. 4 Abbreviations used in this report 191 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT FILE REF: TWA/13/APP/06 CASE DETAILS 1 Purpose • On 1 July 2005 the Secretary of State made The Midland Metro (Birmingham City Centre Extension, etc.) Order 2005 (“the 2005 Order”), which authorised an extension to the Midland Metro Line 1 tramway from near St Paul’s Metro Stop to Hagley Road, Edgbaston, Birmingham. The purpose of the Midland Metro (Birmingham City Centre Extension Land Acquisition and Variation) Order 201[X] (“the Order”) is to confer further powers of compulsory acquisition on the West Midlands Passenger Transport Executive (“Centro”) for the purpose of the works authorised by the 2005 Order (the compulsory acquisition powers of which expired in 2010), to authorise a variation (beyond the limits of deviation) in the alignment of the tramway authorised in Paradise Circus Queensway by the 2005 Order and to authorise the compulsory acquisition of land associated with that variation. 2 The Midland Metro (Birmingham City Centre Extension Land Acquisition and Variation) Order 201[X] • The Order is drafted under section 1 of the Transport and Works Act 1992. The application for the Order was made to the Secretary of State for Transport on 4 December 2013. If made it would authorise Centro to construct and operate works and to compulsorily acquire land and rights in land for the purpose stated at 1 above. Summary of Recommendation: That the Order should not be made. 3 Request For Deemed Planning Permission • Application was made on 4 December 2013 for a direction granting deemed planning permission, subject to conditions, for the works that are the subject of the Order. Summary of Recommendation: That a Direction in respect of Deemed Planning Permission should not be given. 1 PREAMBLE 1.1 On 19 November 2014 I opened a local public inquiry (“the Inquiry”) at the MWB Business Exchange, 43 Temple Row, Birmingham B2 5LS to hear representations and objections regarding an application by the West Midlands Passenger Transport Executive (“Centro”) to the Secretary of State for Transport to make an Order and grant deemed planning permission, all as described in the Case Details. The Inquiry sat on 7 days (November 19, 20, 21, 25, 26 and December 17 and 18 2014) and closed on 16 January 2015 (document X15). 1.2 No pre-Inquiry meeting was held. A pre-Inquiry note (document X3) was 1 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT FILE REF: TWA/13/APP/06 issued to the parties on 30 September 2014 and was made generally available through the Inquiry website. Before and during the Inquiry I made unaccompanied visits to various locations which were the subject of representations to the Inquiry. On 4 December 2014 I made an accompanied site visit to all locations identified to me by parties at the Inquiry as being of particular relevance to specific parts of the evidence given at the Inquiry. During the period before Christmas a “German Market” was held in the area that included some of those locations and so on 27 January 2015 I made a subsequent unaccompanied visit to view the area after the market stalls had been removed. Purpose and Scale of the Proposal 1.3 The applicant’s Statement of Aims under Rule 10(2)(c) is set out in document CD08. It reports that the key objectives and aims of the proposal authorised by the 2005 Order (“the 2005 Scheme”) are: • To improve access to markets, enabling businesses to better access their customers; • To reduce journey times for businesses by lowering journey times and increasing reliability; • To support business growth by delivering sustainable multi-modal access to new development sites; • To deepen labour pools by improving physical access to jobs; • To increase competitiveness by reducing journey time uncertainty; and, • To support growth by addressing constraints on network performance. 1.4 Document CD15, the Non-Technical Summary of the Environmental Statement, includes at its Appendix A a drawing titled Site Location And Context. At the time of the Inquiry I saw that construction of the 2005 Scheme between Snow Hill Station and Stephenson Street (immediately to the north of New Street Station) was under way, track having been laid on part of that route. The Order is promoted to enable the construction of what is known as the Centenary Square Extension (“CSQ”, shown on the Site Location And Context drawing). The Statement of Aims indicates that the Order would: • Revive powers of compulsory acquisition for the purpose of works authorised by the 2005 Order; • Authorise a variation of the alignment of the tramway over a section, 100 metres in length, of the route authorised by the 2005 Order at Paradise Circus, Queensway (“the Variation”), and establish associated compulsory acquisition power; and, • Authorise works and land acquisition associated with a small alteration to the 2005 Scheme (explained at the Inquiry to be at the Broad Street/Bridge Street junction). 1.5 The applicant’s Statement of Case (Document CD01) summarises the advantages that the Variation is expected by the applicant to bring to the 2005 Scheme, as follows: • Better integration with major changes to the highway proposed in 2 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT FILE REF: TWA/13/APP/06 association with nearby development (Paradise Circus Redevelopment (“PCR”), shown on the Site Location And Context Drawing) than would be possible under the 2005 Order; • Utilisation of land made available by the PCR, thereby bringing the tramway closer to the redeveloped site and its various facilities; • Avoiding the need for construction of a bridge over Suffolk Street Queensway and avoiding the associated cost and disruption; and, • Avoiding the need for a new retaining wall at Alpha Tower, at the junction of Suffolk Street Queensway and Broad Street. Number of Objectors 1.6 One objection remained at the start of the Inquiry and it was not withdrawn. The objection was made by VSH Nominees 1 Limited and VSH Nominees 2 Limited, to whom I refer as VSH. Main Grounds for Objection 1.7 The main grounds for objection to the draft Order were that, in the view of the objectors: a) Construction and use of the Order Scheme would significantly increase the harm caused to Victoria Square House, the public realm, the Conservation Areas, pedestrian accessibility and flow and the vitality and viability of the area. b) The benefits of the proposed Order would not be as claimed and would not outweigh the harm it would cause. c) There has been insufficient consideration of alternatives with a view to reducing and minimising the harm which would be caused. d) There is no current power for Centro to construct the works proposed by the Order and in relation to the Order now proposed, little weight should be given to the previous decision of the Secretary of State to make the 2005 Order. Statutory Formalities 1.8 Centro confirmed that it had complied with all necessary statutory formalities.