DOC REF: XQ_POE_21022
APPLICATION NO: P/2017/0254/OUP
APPEAL REF: APP/H4315/W/20/03256871
LAND AT HAYDOCK POINT, EAST LANCASHIRE ROAD AND LODGE LANE
LANDSCAPE EVIDENCE
By Xanthe Quayle BSc (Hons) DipLA CMLI
For and on behalf of St Helens Council
January 2021
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION 4 1.1 Professional Qualifications and Experience 4 1.2 Xanthe Quayle Landscape Architects (XQLA) 5 1.3 Background & Brief 5 1.4 Methodology 6 1.5 Objectives and Scope of Evidence 7 2. LANDSCAPE PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT 9 2.1 Application History 9 2.2 National Planning Policy Framework 12 2.3 National Planning Practice Guidance 13 2.4 Local Planning Policy 13 2.5 Appeal Decisions 16 3. LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL BASELINE 17 3.1 Introduction 17 3.2 Study Area 17 3.3 Landscape Baseline 18 3.4 Landscape Character 21 3.5 Landscape Receptors 29 3.6 Landscape Value 33 3.7 Visual Baseline 35 3.8 Value of Views 36 3.9 Description of the submitted scheme 37 3.10 Assessing Receptor Susceptibility & Sensitivity of Landscape Receptors 41 3.11 Assessing Receptor Susceptibility & Sensitivity of Visual Receptors 42
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 2 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
4. XQLA LVIA 45 4.2 Landscape Assessment 45 4.3 Visual Assessment 49 5. REVIEW OF SUBMITTED LVIA 60 5.2 Landscape Receptors 61 5.3 Visual Receptors 68 6. REVIEW OF SCHEME TO BE DETERMINED 71 6.2 Review of Landscape Effects 75 6.3 Review of Visual Effects 80 7. SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS 90 7.1 Policy Compliance 90 7.2 Concluding Statement 91
FIGURES & APPENDICES
APPENDIX A (Bound Separately)– Supporting & Background information
A/001: Xanthe Quayle Professional Experience and Qualifications
A/002: Definition of Terms
A/003: Figure 1 – Key Landscape Receptors
A/004: Figure 2 – Key Visual Receptors & Viewpoint Locations
A/005: XQLA Landscape & Visual Assessment Workings & Findings
A/006: Landscape & Visual Summary of Effects Tables
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 3 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
1. INTRODUCTION & SCOPE OF EVIDENCE
1.1 Professional Qualifications and Experience
1.1.1 My name is Xanthe Quayle. I am a Landscape Architect and Founder of Xanthe
Quayle Landscape Architects (formerly Camlin Lonsdale). I hold a Bachelor of Science
degree with Honours and a Post Graduate Diploma in Landscape Architecture from
the University of Sheffield.
1.1.2 I qualified as a landscape architect in 1995 and was elected as a Chartered Member of
the Landscape Institute in 1997. I started my career working for the Environmental
Consultancy, University of Sheffield before relocating to the South East where I worked
within private practice for ten years.
1.1.3 In 2007 I joined Camlin Lonsdale as an Associate and was appointed to a Directorship
in 2008. Recently relaunched as Xanthe Quayle Landscape Architects (XQLA) I am
now Founding Director of the company. I lead the Practice across both Landscape and
Visual Impact Assessment and Landscape Architecture design services for a broad
range of project types and scales in both rural and urban settings. I have significant
experience with regards to landscape characterisation and landscape and visual impact
assessment in the context of major planning applications and appeals. A resume of my
experience is provided in Appendix A/001.
1.1.4 Outside the Practice I maintain contact with educational establishments, primarily
Sheffield University, both undertaking Special Project tutorials and as a member of the
Professional Review Group overseeing course accreditation on behalf of the Landscape
Institute. I regularly sit on a number of RIBA Centres of Excellence; namely the North
East (PlacesMatter) and North West (Integreat Plus) Design Review Panels. I am also
appointed to government led initiatives, namely the HS2 Independent Design Review
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 4 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
Panel and as an Expert, Mentor and Facilitator for the recently convened High Street
Task Force.
1.1.5 I have relevant experience in assessing the effects of large scale logistics and
infrastructure developments through my recent involvement on similar projects and
Inquiries, including the provision of professional advice to Barnsley Council to assist
with the determination of applications at Hoyland North & West LVIAs in 2020, and
Foxdenton Urban Extension for Seddon/Grasscroft Property Consulting in 2015, which
included 700,000 sqft of warehousing, manufacturing and office space as part of the
wider 121 acre mixed use site.
1.2 Xanthe Quayle Landscape Architects (XQLA)
1.2.1 XQLA is an established landscape practice with a pedigree in regeneration,
masterplanning, strategic land planning and design. The studio, based in Slaithwaite,
West Yorkshire, comprises a technical and admin team. Landscape impact assessment,
construction and management of development at all scales form a major part of the
practice’s work.
1.3 Background & Brief
1.3.1 I have been engaged by St Helens Borough Council (SHBC) to provide landscape &
visual evidence in respect of Peel Holding planning application P/2017/0254/OUP for
Land at Haydock Point, East Lancashire Road and Lodge Lane, Haydock, St Helens.
1.3.2 I was formally appointed on 28th October 2020 by St Helens MBC, in order to give
evidence at the Public Inquiry into the Appellant’s appeal against non-determination of
the planning application. At that time, I had not undertaken a full assessment of the
proposal. I was not instructed to input into the Officer’s Report and my analysis did not
inform the content of the Officers Report, although I read it once it had been
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 5 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
published. My initial position was that the Officer Recommendation under-assessed the
landscape and visual impact of the proposal (as then set out) and that landscape
impacts were significant and warranted greater weight in the planning balance. That
initial position has been confirmed by the further detailed assessment work which I
have carried out.
1.4 Methodology
1.4.1 My assessment of the effects of the proposed development on landscape and visual
receptors has been undertaken in accordance with the Guidance for Landscape and
Visual Impact Assessment published in 2013 (GLVIA3) (CD22.49). GLVIA3 sets out a
non-prescriptive methodology. Assessing effects requires the exercise of a subjective
judgment. However, it is a judgment which can be expressed against a set of objective
criteria (in accordance with GLVIA3 guidance). The purpose of the guidance is
(especially) to (i) increase quality of decision-making; (ii) increase consistency in
decision-making and (iii) ensure transparency in assessment. The methodology and
definition of terms forming the basis of my evidence are provided at Appendix A/002.
1.4.2 I have personally undertaken the research and fieldwork underpinning this evidence.
1.4.3 The evidence, which I have prepared for this appeal in this proof of evidence, and its
appendices, is true. It has been prepared and is given in accordance with the guidance
of my professional institution. I confirm that the opinions expressed are my true and
professional opinions.
1.4.4 In terms of alignment with the Appellant’s LVIA methodology, the approach and
definition of terms are largely consistent. For the reasons set out at paragraph 3.2.3
there is a clarification in terms of the identification of the study area, and at paragraph
3.7.2 the definition of receptor value.
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 6 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
1.5 Objectives and Scope of Evidence
1.5.1 My objectives in this proof of evidence are as follows:
• To provide a brief overview of the landscape planning context of the site so as to
provide the key landscape and visual issues and policy objectives that this proof of
evidence must consider. This is addressed in Section 2.
• To set out the landscape and visual baseline context of the planning application
and provide a description of the scheme. This is addressed in Section 3.
• To a consider my findings with regards to the landscape and visual effects of the
submitted scheme in Section 4.
• To consider the findings of the Appellant’s (TEP) landscape and visual assessment,
against my own findings and in the context of the submitted scheme. These
matters are addressed in Section 5.
• To reconsider the effects of the development following receipt of the scheme for
determination. These matters are addressed in Section 6.
• To assess the scheme for determination against planning policy regarding
landscape, character and visual amenity and provide a concluding statement. This
is provided in Section 7.
1.5.2 I shall refer to drawings, supplementary and background information bound separately
in Appendices.
1.5.3 My evidence is concerned with the potential landscape and visual effects, design and
implementation matters relating to the proposed development. My evidence does not
consider broader planning issues, which are dealt with by Alyn Nicholls.
1.5.4 Within my proof I will rely on a written narrative to justify my professional judgments
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 7 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
and conclusions, based on the detail provided in my evidence and within the
supporting appendices. For ease of reference, the ‘XQLA Summary of Effects Tables’ at
Appendix A/006 summarises the findings of this document, indicating the significance of
the potential landscape and visual effects of the proposed development in my view
alongside those of the Appellants (both the scheme as determined by the LPA and the
current scheme).
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 8 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
2. LANDSCAPE PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT
2.1 Application History
2.1.1 The appeal proposal seeks outline planning permission, with all matters reserved other
than access, for the development of the site for up to 167,225 sq m of B8/B2 (up to
20% B2 floorspace) ancillary office and associated site facilities floorspace, car parking,
landscaping, site profiling and transport, drainage, and utilities infrastructure. The
application was submitted on 21 March 2017. Agreements were reached between the
Council and the appellant on a timescale for determination up until 21 June 2020,
where time extensions were requested and agreed. I understand the time taken to deal
with the application to that point arose from a number of issues, but primarily owing to
unresolved highway issues. The appeal against the failure of the Council to determine
the application was made on 27 July 2020.
2.1.2 The proposal falls within the scope of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental
Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011. An Environmental Statement (“ES”) was
submitted for the development. At the time of the appeal, the applicant had recently
submitted a substantial amount of information, revising the Environmental Statement,
the parameters plan, green infrastructure mitigation plan and had provided updates to a
significant number of the documents. The submission was the subject of consultation
and publicity by the Council. Not all of the technical consultee responses were
received at the time of the appeal against non-determination. Responses to the
additional environmental information were delayed for a number of reasons, not least
the lockdown caused by the Coronavirus pandemic.
2.1.3 The appeal was recovered by the Secretary of State in order for the Haydock Point
proposal to be considered in conjunction with employment proposals at Parkside in St
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 9 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
Helens, Symmetry Park in Wigan Borough, and at Wingates Industrial Estate in Bolton
which had also been “called-in” by the Secretary of State. A further application (Omega
West) has also been called-in by the SoS.
2.1.4 The Council considered the Haydock Point application on 24 November
2020(CD20.1). The Planning Officer’s Report to Committee recommended that had
the Council remained as the determining authority, to grant permission subject to
conditions and the applicant entering into a Section 106 Obligation. The Officer
considered the decision to be finely balanced.
2.1.5 The Countryside Development and Woodland Officer’s comments provided in the St
Helens Council Planning Committee Report for 24th November 2020 (CD 21.1)
committee at paragraph 4.10 indicated the following:
“The proposed development is of too large a scale to fit into the landscape. It should
be reduced in scale and set further away from the A580 and Haydock Racecourse. The
scale of the proposed development leaves insufficient space for the landscape design to
mitigate for impacts on landscape character and openness.
Any development on site must include the cross-docking design principle to maintain
greater distance between the landscape perimeter and any buildings constructed on
site.
The proposed development will do lasting damage to the landscape character of the
area. The proposed development will have significant visual impact with particular harm
to Haydock Park Farm and Cottages and the setting of Haydock Park Racecourse. The
impact on the latter could potentially have implications for the racecourse business.
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 10 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
It is not stated in the response, but it is worth noting that the floor space proposed here
is in the region of 20% larger than the development at Florida Farm North and 55%
larger than Parkside).
From a perspective of the Borough’s landscape character, north of the A580,
development should not extend eastwards of the M6. In addition, the development
would fundamentally change approximately. 9% of the Haydock Park Character Area.”
2.1.6 The Council formed a different conclusion on the balance of competing issues and
resolved that it would have refused to grant permission for the following reason:
“There would be landscape and visual harm caused to the character and appearance
of the area that outweighs the economic benefits including jobs and investment in the
planning balance. Very special circumstances do not exist to outweigh the harm to the
Green Belt. The development would be contrary to saved policy GB1 of the St Helens
Unitary Development Plan and paragraphs 143 and 144 of the National Planning
Policy Framework which states that when considering any planning application, local
planning authorities should ensure substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green
Belt. ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green
Belt by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is
clearly outweighed by other considerations.”
2.1.7 The main issues raised by the Council resolution are:
• The landscape and visual harm arising from the proposal;
• The impact of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt;
• The impact of the proposal on the Green Belt;
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 11 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
• The economic benefits arising from the proposal; and
• Whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, together with any other harm
(such as to openness and the purposes of the Green Belt), is clearly outweighed
by “other considerations”, such that very special circumstances exist to justify this
development in the Green Belt.
2.1.8 My evidence deals primarily with the landscape and visual harm arising from the
proposal. This informs my judgements on the effects of the scheme on key landscape
and visual receptors, and in turn on the impacts of the development on the Green Belt
in terms of openness and its stated purposes.
2.1.9 A Landscape Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) is provided in CD25.7.
Planning Policy Context
2.1.10 Policies of most relevance to this evidence are set out in the SoCG (CD25.7), the
Officer’s report to planning committee (CD2.1) and my colleague’s evidence Alyn
Nicholls (CD26.9 ), amongst others. The following list identifies relevant policies and
documents referred to in policy.
2.2 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (CD1.1)
2.2.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (2019) sets out the government’s planning
position. The sub-topics beneath the goal of Delivering Sustainable Development that
are most relevant to this evidence are:
• Section 12: Achieving well-designed places – address NPPF 124 and 127, especially
(a) (b) (c) (d) and (e), so far as relevant to an outline scheme with parameters ;
• Section 13: Protecting Green Belt land;
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 12 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
• Section 14: Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change;
and
• Section 15: Conserving and enhancing the natural environment – address NPPF
170(a) and (b) and 171.
2.3 National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPF) (CD1.1)
• Design;
• Natural Environment; and
• Open Space, Sports and Recreation facilities, Public Rights of Way and Local
Green Space.
2.4 Local Planning Policy
Core Strategy (CD2.2)
2.4.1 The development plan is described in the SoCG (CD25.1) and comprises the St
Helens Core Strategy (2012) (“the Core Strategy”) (CD2.2), and the St Helens Unitary
Development Plan (1998) (“the UDP”) (CD2.1).
2.4.2 The most relevant development plan policies from SHBC core strategy in respect of
landscape and visual matters in this case are as follows:
Policy CP1: Ensuring Quality Development in St Helens (Relevant Extract Only)
2.4.3 All proposals for development within the Borough will be expected, where appropriate, to
meet the following standards as a minimum:
1. Quality of the Built Environment • Maintain or enhance the overall character and appearance of the local environment
(with regard to siting, layout, massing, scale, design, materials, building to plot ratio and
landscaping);
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 13 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
• Safeguard and enhance the built and historic environment;
• Be sympathetic to surrounding land uses and occupiers, avoiding detrimental impact on the amenities of the local area, in particular residential amenities;
• Ensure that the amenities of occupiers of the new development will not be adversely affected by neighbouring uses and vice versa;
• Link in with surrounding movement patterns and not be prejudicial to the development of neighbouring land, including the creation of landlocked sites;
• Minimise opportunity for crime and maximise natural surveillance;
• Provide landscaping as an integral part of the development, protecting existing landscape features, providing open space and enhancing the public realm;
• Include or contribute to the provision of public art in appropriate circumstances;
• Demonstrate, through the Design and Access Statement, the appropriateness of the proposal;
• Make provision for the needs of special groups in the community such as the elderly and those with disabilities; and
• Residential development to achieve Buildings for Life rating of at least "good".
2. Protection of the Natural and Historic Environment
• Safeguard and enhance Green Infrastructure, biodiversity and geodiversity and bring these resources into positive management;
• Avoid unnecessary tree loss and make provision for new and replacement planting;
• Take full account of archaeological remains and, where it is demonstrated preservation is not feasible, that adequate provision is made for their excavation and recording;
• Safeguard or enhance landscape character, including historic landscape and townscape
character; Avoid loss or damage to high quality soils where possible and minimise loss or
damage where this can be shown to be unavoidable; and
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 14 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
• Ensure protection of watercourses from encroachment, modification and degradation and
return modified and degraded water bodies to sustainable, natural environments where
appropriate and feasible.
Policy CQL 4: Heritage and Landscape The Council will protect, conserve, preserve and enhance St.Helens historic built environment and landscape character including designated and undesignated heritage assets such as Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas, Registered Parks and Gardens, Scheduled Ancient Monuments, archaeological sites and buildings and structures of local interest by:
• Protecting landscape character as well as important urban open space from development which would harm these assets;
• Enhancing the value of St.Helens' historic built environment and landscape character by implementing Conservation Area Management Plans, education, interpretation and public access measures;
• Ensuring all new development respects the significance and distinctive quality of the built and historic environment and landscape character and is of a high standard of design, reinforcing St.Helens' local distinctiveness; and
• Ensuring that all development is located and designed in a way that is sensitive to its historic landscape and setting and retains or enhances the character and context.
2.4.4 UDP Policy S1: Green Belt relating to the control of development in the Green Belt are also relevant.
Emerging Policies (CD3.18)
2.4.5 The emerging local plan was submitted to the Secretary of State for examination on 29
October 2020. It is at a stage where limited weight can be attached to the draft
policies and allocations, but the evidence base supporting the plan is material.
2.5 Other documents referred to in local planning policy
2.5.1 Natural England: National Character Area profile 56 (CD4.186)
2.5.2 Landscape Character Assessment for St Helens (January 2006) (CD4.134)
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 15 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
2.5.3 St Helens Council Green Belt Review, December 2018 (CD3.5)
2.6 Appeal Decisions
Land at Barley Castle Lane Appleton Thorn, Warrington
2.6.1 Eddie Stobart appeal decision APP/M0655/W/19/3222603
The ‘Stroud Judgement’
2.6.2 Gladman Development appeal decision APP/C1625/A/13/2207324. Including High
Court decision from Ouseley J.
Bayley Gate Farm, College Road
2.6.3 Cranfield Appeal decision APP
2.6.4 CEG Land promotions 11 Lts v SOS HCLG 2018 EWHC 1799
West Street, Cogeshall
2.6.5 Appeal decision APP/Z1510/W/16/3160474
Watlington Road, Lewknor
2.6.6 Appeal decision APP/3200335
Poplar Hill, Stowmarket
2.6.7 Appeal decision APP/3214324
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 16 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
3. LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL BASELINE
3.1 Introduction
This section reviews the landscape and visual baseline information relevant to this
evidence with reference to published documentation in the first instance,
supplemented with the author’s field observation and assessment where relevant.
3.1.1 I conclude the section with a consideration as to whether aspects of the landscape
contain qualities indicating that it is a valued landscape in the context of paragraph
170(a) of the NPPF (CD1.1).
3.2 Study Area
3.2.1 The study area commonly represents the locality for the proposed development and
the wider landscape within which the development may have an influence upon
landscape character, and within which potentially significant visual effects may be
experienced.
3.2.2 Given the nature of the development form (B2/B8) and broad characteristics of the
receiving landscape (simple, large scale and low lying), in respect of this Application a
2.5km offset for the study area is appropriate to enable the determination of landscape
and visual effects in the context of the development form. This is the ‘wider study area’
as provided in the Appellant’s evidence.
3.2.3 However, given the specific characteristics of the locality and to assist the Inquiry to
focus on key matters of dispute, I consider this standard approach should be reviewed
and more tightly defined as a 1km offset from the site boundary. This is more correctly
the locality within which ‘the development may have an influence’ and ‘be of interest or
concern’ and therefore within which effects should be considered (GLVIA3)
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 17 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
(CD22.49).
3.2.4 I understand that this is consistent with the 1km study area used for Parkside Phase 1.
This is also agreed through the Landscape SoCG (CD25.7) I term this the “core study
area” in my evidence. The extent of the core study area is indicated on Figure 1 – Key
Landscape Receptors (A/003).
3.3 Landscape Baseline
GLVIA3 Good Practice
3.3.1 With regards to landscape baseline, GLVIA3 paragraph 5.33 states that ‘individual
elements and aesthetic and perceptual aspects of the landscape’ should be identified
and described, with a particular emphasis on any key characteristics that contribute to
the distinctive character of the landscape.
3.3.2 Furthermore GLVIA3 paragraph 5.33 states that ‘the condition of the landscape,
including the condition of elements or features such as buildings, hedgerows or
woodland’ should be identified.
Description of Site & Surrounding Area
3.3.3 A description of the site is set out in the Planning SOCG (CD25.1). The site is
commonly referred to as Haydock Point. It is at a nodal point in the highway network
adjacent to Junction 23 of the M6 Motorway, which is the intersection with the A580,
East Lancashire Road (“the East Lancs Road”). The site is accessible by road and highly
visible owing to the flat, open landscape and absence of substantive boundaries on its
southern and western boundaries.
3.3.4 The Site is irregularly shaped and comprises 42.3ha of mainly agricultural land. It is open
and flat but rises towards the north-western corner. A drainage ditch, an electricity line
and water main run east-west through the centre of the Site. The site is within the
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 18 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
Green Belt.
3.3.5 The Site contains a limited number of hedges following field boundaries, and a small
number of trees, towards the site boundaries. The Site is generally flat and open. The
Site is within the private ownership of the Appellant and there are no Public Rights of
Way running through it.
3.3.6 Access to the Site is provided from the A49 (Lodge Lane) via a single width hardcore
track. The Site has a significant frontage to both the A580 (to the south) and A49 (to
the west).
Site Location
3.3.7 The Site is located approximately 7.5km to the north east of the town centre of St
Helens. It lies immediately to the east of the settlement of Haydock/Blackbrook which
extends north east from the main urban area of St Helens. The central point of
Haydock/Blackbrook is approximately 2.5km to the south west. This settlement does
not contain a town or district centre. It contains a Local Centre at Clipsley Lane
approximately 2.3km to the south west of the Site. The A580 runs in an east-west
direction through the northern part of Haydock and Blackbrook.
3.3.8 The St Helens Core Strategy (2012) notes that the settlement of Haydock and
Blackbrook includes Haydock Industrial Estates which, at the time of the Core Strategy,
employed 4,500 people. It reports that Haydock Industrial Estates is the largest
industrial estate in the Borough covering 126 ha and is well related to the M6.
3.3.9 Recently completed developments at Florida Farm North and Penny Lane for B8 uses
have resulted in the extension of Haydock Industrial Estate to the east and west.
3.3.10 The Site is located approximately 830m from the southern boundary of the settlement
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 19 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
of Ashton-in-Makerfield located within Wigan and approximately 500m from the
western boundary of the settlement of Golborne also within Wigan. The Site is
located entirely within the administrative boundary of St Helens Borough Council, but
is immediately adjacent to that of Wigan Council to the north and east.
3.3.11 The Site is in a highly accessible location on the highway network, occupying the north-
eastern quadrant formed by the M6 motorway / A49 (Lodge Lane), both of which run
north-south adjacent to the western site boundary, and the A580 (East Lancashire
Road) which runs east-west along its southern boundary. The A580 provides a
connection to St Helens, Liverpool and the Port of Liverpool to the west and Wigan
and other Local Authorities within Greater Manchester to the east. The remaining site
boundaries are formed by agricultural land to the north-west, Haydock Park
Racecourse to the north and woodland to the east
3.3.12 Junction 23 of the M6 (Haydock Island) is located immediately adjacent to the Site to
the south west. This represents a key gateway to St Helens and provides the Site with
a direct connection to the strategic road network providing access to key settlements
in the north, and the wider UK.
3.3.13 Notable landmarks surrounding the site include the M6 motorway to the west of the
Site which crosses the A580 at Junction 23 at an elevated level. This is visible and
audible within the site and within the wider area. Other land uses include industrial
development, two hotels, one located at the edge of Haydock to the west of the
motorway, the other to the north of the site adjacent to Ashton-in-Makerfield. There
are residential areas within Haydock to the west of the motorway, Golborne to the
east and Ashton-in-Makerfield to the north. The nearest concentration of housing is
located approximately 350m to the north-west of the Site in Ashton-in-Makerfield.
There are no residential uses immediately adjacent to the Site. A specialist care
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 20 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
residential facility lies to the south beyond the A580 in open countryside.
3.3.14 Haydock Park racecourse is located adjacent to the north of the site boundary. About
190m to the north west of the site boundary is the Holiday Inn Hotel which is
accessed off Lodge Lane. Beyond the Holiday Inn is Haydock Park Gardens, a
residential estate of large detached properties located at the southern extent of
Ashton-in-Makerfield. Haydock Park Gardens is the nearest residential area to the site.
3.3.15 To the west and north of the East Lancs Road (A580) is an extensive employment area
comprising the Haydock Lane Industrial Estate and Old Boston Trading Estate. The
Haydock Industrial Estate is bounded by a triangle of Roads (Liverpool Road, A580 and
M6, with Ashton-in-Makerfield Golf Club at the tip of the triangle. It is well contained
by logical physical boundaries of established transportation infrastructure. It does not
spill over to the east side of the M6
3.3.16 Florida Farm is located to the south west of this established employment area and is
where Amazon have developed a distribution centre and where the emerging Local
Plan proposes to allocate further land for employment development.
3.3.17 The Site is located wholly within the designated Merseyside Green Belt between
Haydock, Golborne, Newton-le-Willows and Ashton-in-Makerfield. This means that it
is a significant part of the last remaining area of green land between these settlements
and prevents them from coalescing.
3.3.18 Furthermore the settlements are all of distinct character, Golborne is not Ashton-in-
Makerfield and Haydock is not Golborne.
3.4 Landscape Character
3.4.1 The relevant landscape character descriptions and key characteristics from national to
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 21 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
district level are provided in the following section and indicated in Figure 1 – Key
Landscape Receptors (A/003)
• National Character Area Profile 56: ‘Lancashire Coal Measures’
• St Helens Landscape Character Assessment: Haydock Park (5 WFE 2)
• Wigan Landscape Character Assessment: East Lancashire Road Corridor Lowton
Heath to Lately Common
3.4.2 Rather than including descriptions in their entirety, and in accordance with GLVIA3
paragraph 5.15, the following review seeks to assist the Inquiry by drawing out more
clearly the key elements of the descriptions directly relevant to the core study area,
therefore arriving at a clearer understanding of the pertinent characteristics of the
landscape in question and its aesthetic and perceptual qualities.
3.4.3 This approach also allows for consideration of the extent to which the site and its
immediate surroundings conform to, or differ from, the wider LCAs that exist, and to
pick up other characteristics that may be important in considering the effects of the
proposal. This is in accordance with GLVIA3 paragraph 5.16.
3.4.4 NCA Profile 56: Lancashire Coal Measures. Extracts from the Summary, Description &
key characteristics (CD22.47):
Summary
• The Lancashire Coal Measures National Character Area (NCA) surrounds the towns of
St Helens and Wigan, and extends from the Mersey Valley NCA in the south to the
Lancashire and Amounderness Plain NCA in the north-west.
• The area is dominated by its industrial heritage, long associated with mining activity.
The resulting landscape is a complex mosaic of farmland, scattered urban centres,
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 22 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
industry, active mineral sites and derelict or reclaimed workings, giving this area a strong
and distinctive identity.
• Within the urban fabric there are some large tracts of agricultural land and isolated
pockets of former farmland.
• Across most of the area woodland cover is very limited... Some small, isolated pockets
of semi-natural habitat remain within this NCA, such as relict ancient woodlands and
small areas of lowland raised bog.
Statement of Environmental Opportunity: 3
• Manage and support the agricultural landscape through conserving, enhancing, linking
and expanding the habitat network (including grasslands, woodlands, ponds, hedges
and field margins) – to increase connectivity and resilience to climate change, and
reduce soil erosion and diffuse pollution, while conserving the qualities of the farmed
landscape and improving opportunities for enjoyment of the open countryside.
Description (Physical & Functional Links to Other NCAs)
• The Lancashire Coal Measures NCA extends from the low-lying undulating farmland
and peatland of the Mersey Valley NCA in the south, to the Lancashire and
Amounderness Plain NCA in the north-west. To the east, this NCA merges with the
metropolitan areas of the Manchester Conurbation NCA and Manchester Pennine
Fringe NCA, and to the south-west with the Merseyside Conurbation NCA.
• …In the southern part of the NCA a number of tributaries flow into Sankey Brook,
which in turn drains into the River Mersey near Warrington, in the adjacent Mersey
Valley NCA. Remnant sections of the St Helens Canal run through the centre of St
Helens and follow the course of Sankey Brook. Hey Brook joins the River Glaze, which
flows south into the River Mersey and the Manchester Ship Canal, in the Mersey Valley
NCA.
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 23 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
• The Lancashire Coal Measures NCA forms a busy communications hub, with a number
of strategically important transport routes passing through it. The M6 and M61
motorways, as well as the West Coast Main Line railway, are important arterial routes
running north to south. East to west, the M58, A580 and regional rail network link the
Merseyside and Manchester conurbations (the Chat Moss Line).
Key Characteristics of the NCA
• Fragmented landscape created by a complex pattern of mining and industrial activity
intermixed with housing; this is a densely populated area with a scattered settlement
pattern.
• Gentle hills and valleys run from the north-west to the south-east, creating a soft but
varied topography.
• The area is underlain by Coal Measures, which are buried under a patchy layer of
glacial deposits, subsequently affected by a long history of mineral working.
• Woodland cover is limited across most of the area (covering 9 per cent)…
• Some large tracts and isolated pockets of agricultural land remain within the urban
fabric, principally used for permanent grassland or cereal production, although horse
grazing and stabling are also common.
• Field patterns are predominantly medium to large and rectangular, mostly resulting
from 18th-century and later change, with field boundaries defined by poorly managed
hedges or post-and-wire fencing.
• The area is significantly influenced by transport and utilities infrastructure, with
motorways, major roads and rail lines criss-crossing the landscape.
3.4.5 It is relevant to note that page 19 ‘Key Facts and Data’ confirms the absence of
landscape designations included in this NCA.
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 24 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
3.4.6 St Helens LCA: Type 5: Wooded Former Estate, Haydock Park (5 WFE 2) (Relevant
Extracts only) (CD4.134):
Area Description:
• Generally flat open landscape with ‘strong horizontal composition’;
• Designed park landscape…highly fragmented and divided [by M6 and A580];
• Arable farmland cultivated within a large scale geometric regular field system; and
• Mature woodland blocks, shelterbelts and plantations interrupt the field pattern to
create an interesting spatial sequence and partially enclose several of the fields;
• To the north the character area is defined by layout of the Haydock Race Course, for
which the grassed white-fenced course sits relatively unobtrusively within the large scale
open park landscape. Associated development to the racecourse including the
entrance buildings, entrance road and parking is identifiable with the racecourse and
defined by regular formal ornamental planting of conifers to the entrance area,
although the white stands extend above the tree crown;
• There are remnants of former estate structures such as walls and ornamental gate
features;
• The large grade separated elevated road junction of the M6 and A580 separate and
divide the character area, dominating the experience of the landscape and detracting
from the rural qualities of the area;
• Within the area there is minimal settlement with buildings related to the functions of
Haydock Park or a scatter of farm steading. The proximity and visual prominence of
the surrounding settled edges imposes an urban character on the landscape.
Landscape Analysis (Positive & Negative)
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 25 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
• Flat large scale agricultural landscape…with strong woodland structure creating
interplay of open to enclosed space;
• Encroachment of further urban elements and some unsympathetic buildings and
landscape features associated with racecourse; and
• Physical, visual and audible influence of the M6 and A580 within the area fragmenting
landscape character area.
Developed edge analysis
• The area is fundamentally rural with a complex, predominately developed edge
incorporating sections of settlement edges at Newton le Willows, Haydock, Ashton-in-
Makerfield. To the east of Haydock the alignment of the M6 on embankment poses a
strong robust edge.
3.4.7 Wigan Landscape Character Assessment (2009): East Lancashire Road Corridor Lowton
Heath to Lately Common (CD22.5) has a number of key characteristics in common with
the Landscape Character Area described in the St Helens Landscape Character
assessment, as described in the following:
Description
• These areas form an agricultural landscape buffer to the densely developed residential
areas of Golborne. Views within the area are limited due to the low-lying and relatively
flat nature of the land and due to surrounding development and high hedgerows,
particularly to the East Lancashire Road (A580). The East Lancashire Road is visually
dominant throughout much of the area, particularly where it runs on embankments.
Most of the land is closely associated with the East Lancashire Road and is typified by a
medium to large-scale field pattern consisting of mainly arable land with poorly
maintained remnant hedgerows with few hedgerow trees.
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 26 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
• Small deciduous woodlands form backdrops to views within the landscape, mainly at
Haydock Park and along the course of Newton Brook. The land is relatively flat and
low-lying to the east with more strongly undulating ground to the west. Along the
western boundary the land drops steeply into the discrete valleys of Newton Brook to
the west and its tributary Millingford Brook to the east
Key Characteristics:
• Medium to often large-scale fields, mainly cereal crops
• Lack of hedgerow trees
• Hedgerows between fields often gapped
• Deciduous wooded backdrops to the south and west
• Limited internal views
• The A580 road and its embankments
• Views of residential urban edge to the north
• Undulating ground to the west associated with Newton Brook and Millingford Brook
Findings
3.4.8 Following this review of the landscape character context of the core study area,
together with my own site visits, 1 broadly concur with these assessments, and that the
core study area is generally consistent with them. In accordance with GLVIA3
paragraphs 5.15-5.16, drawing the landscape descriptions together, I would summarise
the following combinations of features that are characteristic of the study area:
• Flat open large scale geometric regular field system;
• Mature woodland blocks, shelterbelts and plantations;
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 27 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
• Hedgerows & field ditches;
• Road infrastructure;
• Minor rural lanes and scattered settlement;
• Leisure related facilities;
• Residential development; and
• Industrial development (to the west of the M6 only).
3.4.9 The descriptions within the character assessments regarding the effects of adjacent
development on the open countryside of the core study area are conflicting to some
degree. However, site observation confirmed that whilst there are detracting features,
these have little influence. This is primarily because the East Lancs Road (A580) sits
‘low’ in the landscape through the core study area and the elevated section of the M6
embankment screens effects from development at Haydock (including the Haydock
Industrial Estate). Remaining effects of residential development are limited owing to
the vegetated character of surrounding residential neighbourhoods, which will have
matured significantly since the SHBC LCA was published.
3.4.10 Therefore, whilst the developed edges of Haydock, Ashton-in-Mayfield and Golborne
are perceived to some degree, the character of the Site and the open countryside
within the core study area is fundamentally a rural landscape. The M6 corridor and
embankment forms a significant and logical constraint to further development
eastwards towards Golborne and Ashton-in-Makerfield..
3.4.11 The evidence also confirms that the character of the site is consistent and forms an
integral part of the wider former estate character landscape within the core study area.
The simple landscape elements of an open, large scale geometric regular field system
with mature woodland blocks, shelterbelts and plantations combine to create a
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 28 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
landscape character with a strong horizontal composition and dynamic interplay. The
perceptual qualities of openness and rural character are dominant. In my view, these are
key attributes of both the Site and the core study area.
3.5 Landscape Receptors
3.5.1 Arising from the review of character evidence, the key landscape receptors relevant to
the Inquiry in my view can therefore be summarised as follows:
• The Site: Flat open large scale geometric regular field system; mature woodland
blocks, shelterbelts and plantations; Hedgerows; and field ditches;
• Landscape character of the core study area;
• Haydock Park (5 WFE 2) (including East Lancashire Road Corridor, Lowton Heath
to Lately Common);
• Lancashire Coal Measures: NCA: 56.
3.5.2 For brevity, and given the alignment of findings, the Wigan Landscape Character
Assessment: East Lancashire Road Corridor Lowton Heath to Lately Common character
area is considered synonymous with the St Helens LCA: Type 5: Wooded Former Estate,
Haydock Park (5 WFE 2).
3.6 Green Belt
3.6.1 Policy matters regarding Green Belt are dealt with in my colleague Alyn Nicholls
evidence (CD26.9). I consider in my evidence the effects of the development on
openness, both spatial and visual aspects, as well as the duration and reversibility of
effects, and the degree of activity likely to be generated.
St Helens Green Belt (CD3.5).
3.6.2 The NPPF (CD1.1) at Part 13 confirm that Green Belt serves five purposes:
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 29 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
a) to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
b) to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;
c) to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
d) to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and
e) to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other
urban land.
3.6.3 Green Belt land therefore delivers societal function and intrinsic value in terms of
openness and permanence.
3.6.4 Advice on the role of the Green Belt published July 2019 (CDXX) clarified which
factors could be taken into account when considering the potential impact of
development on the openness of the Green Belt and confirmed the following factors:
• Openness is capable of having both spatial and visual aspects – in other word, the
visual impact of the proposal may be relevant, as could its volume;
• The duration of the development, and its remediability – taking into account any
provisions to return land to its original state or to an equivalent (or improved)
state of openness; and
• The degree of activity likely to be generated, such as traffic.
3.6.5 Referring to SHBC Green Belt Review (December 2018) (CD3.5) the Site sits within
GDP Parcel 033 ‘Land to the east of M6 Junction 23’. It confirms that the parcel
contributes to three of the five purposes, a), b) and c). The description for this parcel
and the contribution it makes to these purposes is reported at Appendix- b – c Part 2,
pages 256 – 258 as follows:
Description
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 30 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
3.6.6 Very large parcel lying to the east of M6 Junction 23, north of the A580 East Lancashire
Road and south of Haydock Park Racecourse. Apart from a hotel located in the north-west
corner of the parcel, there is limited development within the parcel, with the parcel
consisting of agricultural land and woodland belts.
Purpose 1 To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas: Findings - Medium
3.6.7 The parcel is bounded to the south by the A580 East Lancashire Road, to the north by
woodland, Haydock Park Racecourse and in-part residential development at Haydock Park
Gardens, to the west by the A49 Lodge Lane and M6 motorway and to the east by
protected woodland and agricultural land leading to Golborne. Therefore the parcel as a
whole has strong boundaries to the north, south, east and west is well contained.
3.6.8 In-part the parcel is dislocated from the urban area. The western boundary of the parcel is
separated from the large built-up area of Haydock (specifically Haydock Industrial Estate)
by the A49 and the M6 and agricultural land and grassland north and south of Penny Lane
(11.05ha of land north of Penny Lane has an extant planning permission for employment
development). The north and east of the parcel are separated from the large built-up area
of Golborne by woodland, Haydock Park Racecourse and agricultural land. The north
western boundary of the parcel adjoins residential development at Haydock Park Gardens,
and lies directly south of residential properties at Chetwode Avenue and Newlyn Drive which
form the southern boundary of the large built-up area of Ashton-in-Makerfield. Therefore the
parcel plays an important role in checking the outward expansion of the large built-up areas
of Haydock and Ashton-in-Makerfield into the countryside.
3.6.9 Despite the parcel being well contained as a whole, because the parcel in-part is dislocated
from the urban area, is large and irregular in size and form, and lacks strong boundaries
within it, it is considered that development of the parcel would likely lead to unrestricted
sprawl.
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 31 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
Purpose 2 To prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another: Findings - High
3.6.10 The parcel forms part of a wider strategic gap between Haydock and Golborne and
Haydock and Ashton-in-Makerfield that includes parcels GBP_033, GBP_034 and
GBP_035. Development of the parcel would lead to the physical merging of Haydock and
Ashton-in-Makerfield and would significantly reduce the scale and integrity of the gap
between Haydock and Golborne.
Purpose 3 To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment: Findings – Low
3.6.11 The parcel currently contains very little inappropriate development, and given its size it does
retain some open views to the north. However, openness to the south and east is
compromised by the M6 and A580.
3.6.12 The parcel as a whole has strong boundaries to the north, south, east and west is therefore
well contained.
Overall significance of contribution to Green Belt Purposes: Findings - High
3.6.13 The parcel is well contained. The parcel forms part of a wider strategic gap between
Haydock and Golborne and Haydock and Ashton-in-Makerfield. Development of the parcel
would lead to the physical merging of Haydock and Ashton-in-Makerfield and would
significantly reduce the scale and integrity of the gap between Haydock and Golborne.
Findings
3.6.14 The SHBC Green Belt Review reports that the Green Belt Parcel 033, which the site
presents approximately half of, makes a high contribution to two of the five Green Belt
purposes; to check unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas and to prevent
neighbouring towns merging into one another. It makes a Low contribution to assisting
in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. It does not make a contribution to
preserving the setting and special character of historic towns; or to assist in urban
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 32 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.
3.6.15 The Site is part of a wider strategic gap and therefore within an encapsulated landscape
representing a finite resource. Due to its location and scale it is an important piece of
open countryside preventing the merging of Haydock with Ashton-in-Makerfield and
Golborne. This is therefore also a key attribute.
3.7 Landscape Value
GLVIA3 Good Practice
3.7.1 The consideration of this matter in the context of identified landscape receptors has
been steered by a range of factors that are generally agreed to influence Value as set
out Box 5.1 of GLVIA3 paragraph 5.28 and related paragraphs namely:
• Landscape quality (condition) which is a measure of the physical state of the
landscape, including intactness and condition of elements;
• Scenic quality, how the landscape appeals to the senses;
• Rarity;
• Representativeness;
• Conservation interests the presence of wildlife, cultural or historic features;
• Perceptual aspects such as wildness or tranquility; and
• Associations with writers, artists, historical events etc.
3.7.2 At paragraph 5.44 of GLVIA3 it is confirmed that the baseline study should establish the
value attached to receptors covering:
‘The value of the Landscape Character Types or Areas that may be affected, based on
review of any designations at both national and local levels, and, where there are no
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 33 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
designations, judgements based on criteria that can be used to establish landscape
value, [that is Box 5.1 of GLVIA 3 paragraph 5.28].
The value of individual contributors to landscape character, especially the key
characteristics, which may include individual elements of the landscape, particular
landscape features, notable aesthetic, perceptual or experiential qualities, and
combinations of these contributors.’
3.7.3 As such at 5.28 of GLVIA 3 it is confirmed that:
‘There cannot be a standard approach as circumstances will vary from place to place’
3.7.4 Guidance within GLVIA 3 is not prescriptive with regards to terminology. For purposes
of clarity the same scale is commonly utilised for both value and susceptibility, and
therefore low, medium and high are used.
3.7.5 The findings for the determination of value in the context of each key landscape
receptor is provided in Appendix A/005: XQLA Landscape & Visual Assessment
Workings & Findings. The summary of these findings are provided below:
Landscape Receptors – Summary of Value
• The Site: The landscape value of this landscape receptor is judged to be Low-
Medium.
• Landscape Character of the core study area: The value of this receptor is judged
as Medium.
• Haydock Park (WFE 2): The value of this receptor is judged as Medium - high.
• Lancashire Coal Measures (NCA 56): Medium
Findings
3.7.6 The consideration of landscape value in the context of the above receptors has
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 34 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
identified qualities and attributes signifying that NPPF 170(a) is engaged in this instance.
These stated qualities and attributes should be protected, notwithstanding that it is not
a designated landscape. Furthermore, the site and surrounding area undoubtedly have
an intrinsic character and beauty as a piece of countryside, which needs to be
recognised in any assessment (NPPF 170(b)). These matters are considered further in
Sections 4 and 6.
3.8 Visual Baseline
GLVIA3 Good Practice
3.8.1 As explained at paragraph 6.2-3 of the GLVIA3, the visual baseline establishes the area
within which the views affected by the proposed development are expected to be of
interest or concern.
3.8.2 Visual effects relate to the changes that arise in the composition of available views,
which in turn result from changes to the landscape elements in the view. Therefore the
appraisal of the visual effect will be concerned with the impact of the development on
views of the site, and the sensitivity of viewers who may be affected by these changes.
Viewpoint selection
3.8.3 The appellant’s ES Volume 2: Main Text (CD15.27) at paragraph 10.54 -55 confirms
the viewpoint locations and scope of wireframes/photomontages agreed with the
Council in December 2016. The 14 viewpoint locations are indicated in Figure 10.5 of
ES Volume 3A (CD15.32).
3.8.4 Given the encapsulated, low-lying nature of the landscape contained by the strong
boundary features of the M6 and vegetated residential edges, the visual envelope of
the site is predominately contained within the core study area. It is acknowledged that
this excludes Viewpoints 11 and 14 however effects at these locations are expected to
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 35 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
be insignificant. There are no further viewpoints that I consider to be helpful for the
Inquiry to consider.
3.8.5 For ease of reference I indicate the visual receptors which are pertinent to
consideration of visual matters for this site in Appendix A/004: Figure 2 – Key Visual
Receptors & Viewpoint Locations.
Baseline description of the View
3.8.6 For the purpose of the visual assessment, and with a view to limiting duplication
between the Appellants’ and my evidence, I am comfortable relying upon the baseline
descriptions for viewpoints as provided at ES Addendum Volume 3 Appendix A10.2
of the Appellants information (CD16.18).
3.9 Value of Views
GLVIA3 Good Practice
3.9.1 Value attached to views. Judgements should be made about the value attached to the
views experienced. This should take account of:
• Recognition of the value attached to particular views, for example in relation to
heritage assets, or through planning designations;
• Indicators of the value attached to views by visitors (for example through
appearances in guidebooks / tourist maps), provision of facilities for their
enjoyment and references to them in literature or art’ (GLVIA 3)
3.9.2 Terminology to be utilised for the identification of value is not prescribed in GLVIA3.
Given the nuanced factors involved, and to align with the consideration of susceptibility,
a simple verbal scale of low, medium and high is used.
Visual Receptors – Summary of Value
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 36 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
3.9.3 The consideration of value in terms of each visual receptor type is provided in
Appendix A/005: XQLA Landscape & Visual Assessment Workings & Findings. The
summary of these findings are provided below:
• Users of Footpaths: High to Medium
• Users of Roads: Medium to Low
• Leisure & Visitor receptors: Medium
Private receptors (residential): Medium
3.10 Description of the submitted scheme
3.10.1 The description of the proposal is provided within the Planning Committee Report of
November 2020 (CD20.1) as follows:
3.10.2 This application seeks outline planning permission with all matters other than access
reserved for the development of the site for up to 167,225 square metres of
employment floor space within use classes B8 and B2 (up to 20% B2) with ancillary
office and associated site facilities, car parking, landscaping, site profiling, transport,
drainage and utilities infrastructure.
3.10.3 Access would be taken direct from the A580 by introducing a three-way signalised
junction approximately 550m to the east of Haydock Island. The A580 would be
modified to introduce dedicated left and right turn lanes on the eastbound and
westbound carriageways respectively. Access is also proposed onto the A49 Lodge
Lane approximately 300m north of Haydock Island. Access would be via a three-armed
roundabout. The section of the A49 between the proposed site access roundabout
and Haydock Island would be stopped up in a southbound direction preventing access
to junction 23 helping to facilitate a future improvement scheme.
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 37 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
3.10.4 The parameter plans show details of a newly created road, footway and cycleway
within the site. The proposal is for the site spine road to provide a route for a realigned
northern arm of the A49 through the application site, via the two new junctions, to
provide unhindered access between the A49 and the A580 thus delivering an
operational improvement to J23 for all road users. An area of safeguarded land for the
realignment of the A49 along the site spine road is also shown, to be dedicated to the
Council to enable unhindered delivery of the scheme.
3.10.5 The parameters plan divides the site into two development parcels, north and south,
divided by the central watercourse. Vertical no build zones are shown to be located
adjacent to the development parcels and a landscape buffer zone runs around the
periphery of the site. The parameters plan sets out that the maximum floor space of
the development would be 167,225 square metres with a maximum building height of
21.5 metres to the ridge or 60.15 above ordnance datum (AOD).
3.10.6 The parameters plan shows a landscape zone located around the perimeter of the site.
It would have a minimum depth of 15 metres of woodland planting on the northern,
eastern and western boundaries using at least 95% native species, as well as grassland
meadow, scrub and reed beds elsewhere. An ecology corridor would be located
through the centre of the site around the watercourse. This is reflected in a Green
Infrastructure Mitigation Plan.
3.10.7 The proposals include a new 3 metre footway/cycleway along the northern side of the
A580. This will connect the existing cycle lane at Haydock Island to the A580 site
access junction. Controlled crossing facilities are proposed at the A580 site access and
will provide a link to the southern side of the A580 where there is an existing footway.
3.10.8 The application also proposes site re-profiling works on a balanced cut and fill basis to
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 38 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
form site levels necessary for the development of the buildings and their associated
infrastructure. Around 250,000 cubic metres of material would be re-profiled.
3.10.9 The key aspects of the proposal from a landscape perspective are therefore:
• Outline application (except means of access) 1.8M sq ft (167,625 sqm)
employment floor-space B8 (logistics and distribution)
• Access from A580 and A49
• 42.3 hectares of agricultural land
• Max height of buildings 60.25 AOD
• 15m woodland belt around almost all of the parameter
• Ecology corridor along existing estate road. Dark corridor along existing woodland
• Potential [as indicated on drawing] 5m acoustic fencing to southern boundary
(inside planting)
• Introduction of cycleway on north side of the East Lancashire Road (A580
• 24 hour operation
• 250,000m3 reprofiled landscape
3.10.10 The following drawings of the proposed development are understood to form the basis
of the Appellants ES assessment:
Submission Scheme
Plan 47 - Parameters Plan 0926-FE-008A2
Plan 45 - Green Infrastructure Mitigation Plan 30929-FE-027H
Plan 3 - Proposed A580 highway improvements NMY proposal VN60647/P-08
(CD17.19)
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 39 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
Plan 4 - Proposed development access off A49 Lodge Lane VN60647/PL-001
(CD18.16)
Plan 5 - Proposed A580 Highway Improvements: Development Access VN60647/PL-
002 (CD18.17)
3.10.11 The application is outline only (save access). Therefore the nature of the determination
is (i) the principle of development and (ii) details of access with landscape and design
addressed through Reserved Matters. The appellant must demonstrate that there is
one way in which the proposal can be developed acceptably (in principle) and that the
detail of the access is acceptable. This is proposed through the Illlustrative Masterplans
provided through the progress of the application and the parameter plans.
3.10.12 The key elements of the proposed development which may result in potential
landscape and visual effects are identified below:
• The removal of vegetation and other landscape elements, to accommodate the
proposed development.
• Changes to existing landform
• Introduction of new elements, including built form in this case logistic
development up to 20.5m in height
• Introduction of uncharacteristic elements namely highway embankments, bunds
and infrastructure related to new and updated highway infrastructures
• Views of logistics development and associated elements including boundary
treatments, lighting and associated heavy goods vehicle traffic
• Urbanisation of rural lanes and intercity road links
• Diminution of scenic value and sense of tranquility
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 40 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
• The effect this loss of elements and addition of elements may have on views
from properties and publicly accessible land within the core study area.
• The resultant effect this loss and addition of elements may have on the landscape
character
3.11 Assessing Receptor Susceptibility & Sensitivity of Landscape Receptors
GLVIA3 Good Practice
3.11.1 The susceptibility of the receptor is defined as the ability of the receptor to
accommodate the proposed development without undue consequences for the
maintenance of the baseline situation and/or the achievement of landscape planning
policies and strategies (GLVIA3 paragraph 5.40). Determining susceptibility requires:
• Identifying the key components that are likely to be affected by the scheme (the
landscape receptors); and
• Identifying the various aspects of the proposed development, at all stages, that are
likely to have an effect on those key components
3.11.2 Sensitivity is determined through judgements about the combination of the
susceptibility of the receptor with the value of receptor (as defined in the baseline) in
accordance with GLVIA3 paragraph 5.29.
Landscape Receptors – Summary of Susceptibility
3.11.3 The determination of susceptibility in the context of each landscape receptor is
provided in Appendix A/005: XQLA Landscape & Visual Assessment Workings &
Findings.
3.11.4 The findings of this assessment are
• The Site : Medium - high
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 41 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
• Landscape character of the core study area: Medium - high
• Haydock Park (5 WFE 2): Medium - high
• Lancashire Coal Measures: NCA 56: Medium
Landscape Receptors – Summary of Sensitivity
3.11.5 The determination of sensitivity in the context of each landscape receptor is provided
in Appendix A/005: XQLA Landscape & Visual Assessment Workings & Findings.
3.11.6 The findings of this assessment are
• The Site: Medium
• Landscape character of the core study area: Medium - high
• Haydock Park (5 WFE 2): Medium - high
• Lancashire Coal Measures: NCA 56: Medium
3.12 Assessing Receptor Susceptibility & Sensitivity of Visual Receptors
GLVIA3 Good Practice
3.12.1 The susceptibility of a view is a function of: “the occupation or activity of people
experiencing the view at particular locations; and the extent to which their attention or
interest may therefore be focused on the views and the visual amenity they experience
at particular locations’
3.12.2 Visual receptors are people and their sensitivity ‘should be assessed in terms of both
their susceptibility to change in views and visual amenity and also the value attached to
particular views’
• 'the occupation or activity of people experiencing the view at particular locations;
and
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 42 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
• ‘the extent to which their attention or interest may therefore be focused on the
views and the visual amenity they experience at particular locations’
3.12.3 As noted at paragraph 6.33 of GLVIA3 visual receptors most likely to be more
susceptible to change… include
• Residents at home;
• People…engaged in outdoor recreation whose attention or interest is likely to be
focused on the landscape…;
• Visitors to identified viewing places or heritage assets where the surrounding
landscape makes an important contribution to the experience; and
• Communities where views contribute to the landscape setting enjoyed by
residents in the area.
3.12.4 Travellers on transport routes (car users) and people involved with outdoor recreation
which does not involve an appreciation of the landscape are considered to have less
susceptibility to change.
Visual Receptors – Summary of Susceptibility
3.12.5 The findings for the determination of susceptibility in the context of each visual
receptor is provided in Appendix A/005: XQLA Landscape & Visual Assessment
Workings & Findings. The summary of these findings, in general terms, are provided
below:
• Users of footpaths: High to Medium
• Users of roads: Medium to Medium - Low
• Leisure & Visitor receptors: Medium to Low
• Private receptors (residential): High
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 43 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
Visual Receptors – Summary of Sensitivity
3.12.6 The findings for the determination of sensitivity in the context of each visual receptor is
provided in Appendix A/005: XQLA Landscape & Visual Assessment Workings &
Findings. The summary of these findings are provided below:
• Users of footpaths: High to High - medium
• Users of roads: Medium to Low
• Leisure & visitor receptors: Medium to Low
• Private receptors (residential): Medium
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 44 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
4. XQLA LANDSCAPE & VISUAL ASSESSMENT
GLVIA3 Good Practice & clarifications
4.1.1 The methodology and definition of terms used for my assessment is provided at
Appendix A/002 – Definition of Terms for ease of reference.
4.1.2 This assessment has been undertaken with reference to the submitted plans as detailed
at paragraph 3.10.10 above.
4.1.3 For reasons of brevity evaluation of change is limited to operational effects at
Completion and in Year 15 however this is not to say that construction effects are not
significant or adverse.
4.1.4 It is considered that the following receptors will experience more than Minor adverse
residual effects in Year 15 of the proposed development and are therefore significant
effects in terms of EIA threshold criteria.
4.2 Landscape Assessment
The Site
4.2.1 The scheme would result in the direct and irreversible loss of the large arable fields of
the site. The field drain will be retained and accommodated within the development.
Sections of boundary hedgerows will be lost along Lodge Lane (A49) and the East
Lancs Road (A580). The broader gentle low lying landform itself will be substantially
altered into development platforms and the previous gently falling line of the landscape
with no longer be legible. This will result in the loss of the landscape pattern of large-
scale geometric regular field system across the site area. It would also introduce
uncharacteristic elements to the baseline, namely vast logistic development up to 485m
x 180m in footprint and 21.5m in height including infrastructure features such as
benched earthworks, retaining structures (at the new A49 junction) and associated
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 45 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
urbanising elements as well as opening bays and associated servicing HGV parking and
managed landscape. The strong and distinctive horizontal composition of the former
estate landscape, with a dynamic interplay between woodland and farmland, would be
entirely lost. The identified valued qualities associated with the site, that is as a
prominent open landscape forming a threshold to the settlement of Haydock, it’s
distinct character and the scenic quality it offers, would be lost. The magnitude of
change is therefore assessed as High adverse magnitude of change.
4.2.2 Medium sensitivity of the receptor combined with High adverse magnitude of change
would result in a Major adverse effect at Year 1. It is acknowledged that as the
proposed woodland structure establishes this appropriate landscape elements may
make a stronger contribution to landscape pattern of the context however the loss of
a distinctive composition and interplay between elements remains and as such will
remain Major - moderate adverse in Year 15.
The Core Study Area
4.2.3 The scheme would simply result in the direct and irreversible loss of features and
landscape attributes on the site, and the introduction of incongruous features of a
massive scale to the baseline condition as detailed at 4.2.2.. It would also include the
expansion of urbanising features, in the vicinity of the site (associated with Lodge Lane
(A49) and the East Lancs Road (A580) highway infrastructure works as well as
increased HGVs movements.
4.2.4 Industrial development, a feature within the built up area of Haydock currently
‘contained’ by the defensible boundary of the M6 would advance eastwards to
accommodate open countryside to the north of the East Lancs Road A580). The
former estate character will be replaced by an enclosed ‘urban woodland’ character
with large scale logistic development and streetscenes with increased incidences of lit
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 46 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
junctions and managed landscapes..
4.2.5 The proposal would also fragmented the landscape pattern of the core study area
because of the central location of the Site and the limited extent of remaining areas of
former estate landscape. The distinctive landscape north of the East Lincs Road
(A580) no longer be legible.
4.2.6 The spatial function of the landscape would also be altered. The advancement of
development ‘eastwards’ would reduce the extent of open countryside between the
settlements of Haydock and Golborne. The magnitude of change will essentially result
physical merging of Haydock and Ashton-in- makerfield, and would significantly reduce
the scale and integrity of the gap between Haydock and Golborne.
4.2.7 Finally the very large scale of the development form will not to be entirely be
accommodated in existing landscape structure such that there are indirect effects in the
core study area arising from the introduction of logistic buildings, where it is currently
open. The indirect adverse effects on landscape character are expected to perceptible
to the south and southeast due to the considerable scale of the built form.
4.2.8 The magnitude of change, both in terms of relative constituent elements and
geographical impact across the core study area will therefore be very significant.
4.2.9 The direct impact of these adverse effects will be influence approximately 1/8th of the
core study area. Indirect effects will be greater. The magnitude of change is therefore
assessed as High adverse magnitude of change.
4.2.10 Medium - High sensitivity of the receptor combined with High adverse magnitude of
change would result in a Major adverse effect at Year 1 in this case because of the
significant undermining of the integrity of landscape qualities as well as the extent of
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 47 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
change. It is acknowledged that as the proposed woodland structure establishes, this
appropriate landscape component may make a stronger contribution to landscape
pattern of the context, however the alteration of a significant area of distinctive
landscape and the erosion of its spatial function for the separation of settlements will
be unaddressed,, and as such there is no diminution of effect in Year 15 and effects
remains Major - moderate adverse.
Haydock Park (5 WFE 2)
4.2.11 The scheme would result in direct and irreversible loss of landscape components and
qualities associated with the former estate landscape amounting to almost 9% of the
character area. It will result in the fragmentation of one of the last remaining areas of
Haydock Park (5 WFE 2) largely unaffected by the impacts of the M6, which is
acknowledged to disrupt the condition of the character area to the south.
4.2.12 The magnitude of change is therefore assessed as High - Medium adverse magnitude of
change.
4.2.13 Medium - High sensitivity of the receptor combined with High - Medium magnitude of
change would result in a Major - Moderate adverse effect at Year 1. It is
acknowledged that as the proposed woodland structure establishes this appropriate
landscape elements may make a stronger contribution to landscape pattern of the
context, however the loss of a distinctive composition and interplay at the ‘focus’ of
this regionally distinct LCA remains and as such effects are undiminished in Year 15 and
would remain Major - Moderate adverse.
Lancashire Coal Measures
4.2.14 The proposed development will result in the tangible encroachment of urban
development into an isolated pocket of farmland which forms part of the mosaic of
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 48 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
farmland, scattered urban centres, industry, active mineral sites and derelict/reclaimed
workings that are stated to give a strong and distinctive identity to the NCA. This
resource of farmland, in this context, is finite and the loss is irreversible. The valued
attributes associated with the receptor will be tangibly affected. Namely its spatial and
recreational functions. The magnitude of change is therefore assessed as Medium-Low
adverse magnitude of change.
4.2.15 Medium sensitivity of the receptor combined with Medium - Low magnitude of change
would result in a Moderate - Minor adverse effect at Year 1. The irreversible loss of
open farmland will remain and so the significance of effect is Moderate – Minor
adverse in Year 15.
Landscape Summary & Effects Table
4.2.16 This review finds that the proposed development will have significant and adverse
landscape effects at the site level, in terms of the core study area, and in the context of
the SHBC Haydock Park (5 WFE 2) LCA and the Lancashire Coal Measures NCA.
These effects arise from the impact of the proposal on the identified landscape
qualities. These effects are not expected to diminish in the long term due to the scale
and nature of the development, and the nature of the receiving landscape. Furthermore
the tangible impact of the proposal within a largely encapsulated open landscape in the
NCA is more than of local relevance.
4.2.17 The effects of the proposed development on landscape receptors are summarised at
A/006: Landscape & Visual Summary of Effects Tables tracked against the Appellant’s
findings.
4.3 Visual Assessment
4.3.1 I have considered the visual receptors identified by the Appellant and provide the
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 49 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
following assessment in the proceeding section utilising the Appellant’s references
provided within the original ES Volume 3A Figure 10.6: Visual Receptors (CD15.33). I
rely upon the baseline descriptions provided at the Appellant’s Appendix A.10.2
(CD16.18) along with my field visits to assist with the consideration of these matters.
4.3.2 The operational effects of the development have been agreed at to be considered at
Completion and in Year 15 within the Landscape SoCG (CD25.7). This is not to say
that construction effects are not significant or adverse, rather that the Inquiry is to focus
on the long term residual effects following establishment of mitigation.
4.3.3 Not withstanding this it is clear that the creation of access to the site, and the large
scale engineering works required to form earthworks to accommodate the footprint
of this vast development will demand substantial construction plant and generate traffic
both on the site and in the vicinity for a significant number of years. These effects will
be significant and adverse,
4.3.4 It is considered that the following receptors will experience more than Minor adverse
residual effects in Year 15 of the proposed development and are therefore significant
effects in terms of EIA threshold criteria set out at the appellant’s original ES Volume 2:
Main Text (CD15.27).
Public Receptor 7: M6 Motorway
4.3.5 Refer to the updated Design and Access Statement (CD17.2) page 53.
4.3.6 A high volume of car users travelling both north and south would experience a change
from open landscape to logistics and infrastructure development in the middle stance
albeit in brief, oblique views.
4.3.7 The loss of a distinctive and prominent open site from the view, albeit glimpsed, in the
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 50 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
middle distance (approximately 230m away) and the introduction of logistic
development of a vast scale into a view which ‘signals’ the locality of Haydock Park. The
mass of vast scale of the buildings over 100m in width will be clearly evident
4.3.8 The magnitude of visual change has therefore been assessed as Moderate adverse on
completion. The establishment of approximately 15m woodland belt wrapping around
the site interface with Lodge Lane and the East Lancashire Road (A580) is an
appropriate landscape introduction which will assist to some degree with the
integration of the development in Year 15. However, and with reference to Page 53
of the DAS, as views are elevated from this viewpoint, and due the vast scale of the
building with a limitedlandscape zone in the southwest corner of the site
(approximately 15m), effective integration is prevented. Views of Unit 3 and associated
infrastructure including lighting, HGV activity and service yard environments, will be
evident particularly in winter.
4.3.9 In conclusion the residual effects of the development in Year 15 are expected to
remain Moderate – Minor adverse.
Public Receptor 8: East Lancashire Road A580 (car users & cycles/pedestrians)
4.3.10 Refer to the original ES Volume 3A: Figure 10.7 - Viewpoint 6 (CD15.34) and Figure
10.8.6-7 – Verified Wireframe LVIA Viewpoint 06 (CD15.40-41).
4.3.11 Local and regional car users travelling east and west would experience a change from
open views of a rural landscape to large scale logistics and infrastructure development
in the close – middle distance albeit oblique. At the closest point it would be circa
45m from the highway. The impact would be high both in horizontal and vertical plans
due to the vast mass of Units 2 and 3 which would run for approximately 500m
alongside the roadway. There will be no articulation and or relief of the primary scale
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 51 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
of the building.
4.3.12 A minimum landscape zone of 15m is proposed to interface between the development
and the highway with further landscaped zones and vertical no build zone set back
within the confines of the site.
4.3.13 Clear views of the proposed acoustic barrier (5m in height) are also expected to be
evident in the view along with significant opening bays and associated servicing with
associated HGV movements, noise and activity.
4.3.14 There will also be significant alterations to East Lanc Road (A580) with a new road
junction with the A49 diversion, an additional slip lane, retaining walls as the road cuts
into the site and new lighting on a section of the A580 which currently unlit.
4.3.15 There will be additional traffic activity as evidenced by my colleague Eddie Mellor within
his proof (CD26.11).
4.3.16 Cyclists, and to a lesser degree pedestrian users, travelling along both the existing and
new cycle ways along the routeway in east and west directions would experience
similar changes in views however for a longer period of time and in closer proximity.
4.3.17 In terms of night time effects the currently unlit landscape of the Site and A580 would
be transformed both will lighting associated with service areas and the new junction
lighting on the East Lancs Road (A580).
4.3.18 The magnitude of visual change has therefore been assessed as Major - Moderate
adverse on completion for car users, cyclists and pedestrians.. The establishment of the
woodland belt wrapping at the interface of the site is an appropriate landscape
introduction (in general terms) will assist to some degree with the integration of the
development in Year 15. However this mitigation does little to mitigate views of the
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 52 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
development on the approach from the east or west. The fact remains that the vast
mass of the utilitarian building form will continue to form an almost continuous
frontage which, without articulation, is imposing and absent of human scale. The
openness of the site will be lost and the road corridor will be contained on its north
side. Therefore due to the scale and nature of the development with the stated build
and non-build zones, within a highly constrained site, effective integration is prevented.
4.3.19 In conclusion the residual effects of the development in Year 15 are expected to
remain Major - moderate adverse.
Public Receptor 10: A49, Lodge Lane (car users, cyclists and pedestrian)
4.3.20 Refer to the original ES Volume 3A: Figure 10.7 - Viewpoint 1 (CD15.34) and Figure
10.8.3 – Verified Wireframe LVIA Viewpoint 01 (CD15.36).
4.3.21 Local and regional car users travelling south would experience a change from a rural
open farmland perceived through and above the existing established hedgerow line to
one where the hedgerow has been both removed and relocated as part of the
formation of the new highway (roundabout) junction. The logistics development and
associated infrastructure development in the middle distance (approximately 200m
from Lodge Lane) albeit in oblique views. The west elevation of Unit 3 will be clearly
evident at a length of over 100m.
4.3.22 The reconfigured streetscene and rerouted access arrangement for the A49 includes
the introduction of a new roundabout. A minimum landscape zone of 15m is
proposed to interface between the development and the highway at Lodge Lane
(A49) with further landscaped zones and vertical no build zone within the confines of
the site. These adverse changes are being introduced into an existing ‘edge of
settlement’ road as well as the open landscape of the site, and will include the
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 53 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
expansion of highway infrastructure and the urbanising of the streetscene with
additional signage. Traffic activity, including views of HGVs, staff parking areas and
service yards will be evident from the new roundabout well as parked vehicles. The
key characteristics of a rural routeway with an open aspect to farmland will be
significantly eroded.
4.3.23 Cyclists, and to a lesser degree pedestrian users, travelling along the cycle way on the
east side of the corridor in north and south directions would experience similar
changes in views however for a longer period of time and in closer proximity from
relatively more elevated levels.
4.3.24 In terms of night time effects the currently unlit landscape of the Site would be
transformed both will lighting associated with service areas and the new junction
lighting for the new A49 roundabout.
4.3.25 The magnitude of visual change has therefore been assessed as Moderate adverse on
completion for car users, and following balanced assessment also cyclists and
pedestrians.. The establishment of approximately 15m woodland belt wrapping around
the site interface with Lodge Lane (A49) is an appropriate landscape introduction (in
general terms) which will assist to some degree with the integration of the
development in Year 15. However this mitigation does little to mitigate views of the
development on the approach from the north or south because it is limited to 15m in
width. The fact therefore remains that the mass of the building will be visible in the
landscape which is currently open even in Year 15 when planting establishes.
4.3.26 In conclusion the residual effects of the development in Year 15 are expected to
remain Moderate – Minor adverse for car users, cyclists and pedestrians.
Public Receptor 13b: Newton Lane
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 54 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
4.3.27 Refer to the original ES Volume 3A: Figure 10.7 - Viewpoint 5 (CD15.34) and Figure
10.8.5 – Verified Wireframe LVIA Viewpoint 05 (CD15.39).
4.3.28 This is a rural lane utilised by local traffic, cyclists and pedestrians. Pedestrians, cyclists
and (lesser extent) car users would experience a change in long distance views across
the high quality former estate landscape where these is a perceived sense of intact
openness and rural character. The scale and extent of the built form in the landscape
approximately 1000m to the northwest will result in a continuous roofline being
evident in winter as it protrudes above the mature woodland structure that coalesces
in distant views.
4.3.29 The magnitude of visual change has therefore been assessed as Moderate – Minor
adverse on completion for cyclists and pedestrians. The effects of landscape mitigation
(in the form of the proposed woodland belt,) will not alter this finding because of the
limitations of mature tree heights. The mass of the building will be legible and this will
negatively affect the perception of openness.
4.3.30 The effect of new lighting on the site and within the A49 road corridor is expected to
be distinguishable at night.
4.3.31 In conclusion the residual effects of the development in Year 15 are expected to
remain Moderate – minor adverse for cyclists and pedestrians.
Private receptor A: Haydock Park Farm and Haydock Park cottages
4.3.32 Refer to the original ES Volume 3A: Figure 10.7 - Viewpoint 6 (CD15.34) and Figure
10.8.6-7 – Verified Wireframe LVIA Viewpoint 06 (CD15.40-41).
4.3.33 Direct views from rear first floor views of these two storey vernacular buildings are
expected. The scheme will be clearly evident in the middle distance (approximately
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 55 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
350m) beyond the East Lancashire Road corridor and associated boundary vegetation.
The gently rising open ground of the site contained by woodland structure with
raceground elements in the distance will be replaced by the development across the
field of view in both horizontal and vertical plans, breaking the skyline. Views of cast
scale and mass of Units 2 and 3 will dwarf the domestic scale of the farm building now
utilised as a medical centre. Clear views of the proposed acoustic barrier (5m high) are
also expected to be evident as well as opening bays and associated servicing. Incrased
HGV movements, noise and HGV activity.
4.3.34 The receptor will also obtain oblique views of the new A49 junction traffic generation
and lighting (with signage) introduced within a section of the road corridor which is
currently unlit.
4.3.35 The magnitude of visual change has therefore been assessed as Major adverse on
completion. The establishment of approximately 15m woodland belt along the site
interface with East Lancashire Road (A580) is an appropriate landscape introduction (in
general terms) which will assist to some degree with the integration of the
development in Year 15 however it will not mask the mass, particularly the vertical
scale of the development.. The proposed acoustic barrier, incongruous in itself, will not
screen this effect nor the woodland belt which is considered inadequate to screen
views through in winter.
4.3.36 In conclusion the residual effects of the development in Year 15 are expected to be
Moderate adverse.
Leisure & Visitor Receptor G: Holiday Inn Hotel
4.3.37 No viewpoint or wireframe information is available for this receptor.
4.3.38 View will be experienced from this four storey building. Direct and oblique views will
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 56 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
be obtained from the upper floors and filtered views from lower floors/groundfloor of
the corner of Unit 3 in the middle distance (approximately 320m to the south east).
4.3.39 The scheme will be clearly evident in the middle to far distance occupying the open
ground of the Site. The mass of the development in turn expected to block far
distance views to the broader estate landscape. The development is not just
incongruous due to its mass, which will dwarf the domestic scale and vernacular form
of existing settlement, but due to the introduction of new elements in to the view
including building materials and HGVs (docked and in transit). This is in addition to the
expansion of highway infrastructure on Lodge Lane (A40) and the diverted section
which will be clearly evident from this location.
4.3.40 There will also be direct and open views cross open landscape to the A49 roundabout.
4.3.41 Lighting associated with the A49 roundabout and site activity traffic will be introduced
into open countryside which is currently unlit.
4.3.42 The magnitude of visual change has therefore been assessed as Moderate adverse in
the context of views from upper stores on completion. The establishment of
approximately 15m woodland belt along the eastern site interface is an appropriate
landscape introduction (in general terms) however the absence of this treatment along
the northern boundary of the Unit 3 development parcel will mean these effects will
not be mitigated in Year 15.
4.3.43 In conclusion the residual effects of the development in Year 15 are expected to
remain Moderate adverse.
Leisure & Visitor Receptor: Haydock Park racecourse
4.3.44 Refer to Figures 10.8.1-2 – Verified Photomontage Haydock Racecourse Viewpoints 01
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 57 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
and 02 (CD15.35-36).
4.3.45 Views from this receptor are from the three - five storey buildings and including the
Tommy Whittle Stand, Grandstand and Makefield Stand. Views will also be possible
from ground level, from the enclosures and terraces. There will be direct views from
upper floors and filtered from lower floors/groundfloor and external areas. The scheme
will be clearly evident in views from the upper storeys of the Tommy Whittle Stand
in the middle to far distance (approximately 500m at its nearest point). The mass of
the logistic development will appear to occupying the open ground of the site beyond
the conifer plantation at the interface of the racecourse with the Site The effects will
be across the view however they will not breach the sky meaning that very distant
views to the Wirral in fine weather will be maintained.
4.3.46 That said, the mass of the buildings will block appreciation of the broader landscape
setting to which this site is closely associated, and legibility of the settled edge of
Haydock and the M6, which currently forms a distinct edge between open countryside
and the built up areas from this receptor. The visual openness and distinct sense of
‘here and there’ will lost to development from these views.
4.3.47 In addition to views of the upper extent of the development filtered views from ground
level are also expected to include that of HGV activity and the proposed acoustic
barrier.
4.3.48 In the evening lighting effects will transform what is a currently an unlit landscape from
upper story views, despite the introduction of dark corridors and proposed strategies
for lighting design, because of the requirements for lighting within service areas.
4.3.49 The magnitude of visual change has therefore been assessed as Moderate adverse in
the context of views from upper stores on completion. The establishment of
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 58 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
approximately 15m woodland belt along the eastern site interface is an appropriate
landscape introduction (in general terms) which will assist with screening of the
development in both ground floor and upper storey views from this location.
4.3.50 The management of the existing plantation planting combined with the new woodland
belt proposed will also address many of the effects at ground level but not the oblique
views into and across the development from the upper stories meaning that these
effects will not be mitigated in Year 15.
4.3.51 In conclusion the residual effects of the development in Year 15 are expected to
remain Moderate adverse.
Visual Summary & Effects Table
4.3.52 This review finds that the proposed development will have significant and adverse
residual visual effects at Year 15 in the context of seven visual receptors including
public and private locations both in the immediate context of the site, relating to users
of the A580 and Lodge Lane (A49,) and more widely, from the M6 and Newton Lane
within the Green Belt.
4.3.53 The effects of the proposed development on visual receptors are summarised at my
Appendix A/006: Landscape & Visual Summary of Effects Tables.
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 59 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
5. CONSIDERATION OF THE SUBMITTED SCHEME & LVIA
Introduction
5.1.1 This section reviews the Appellant’s LVIA and only considers matters where there is
divergence in the assessment of significant effects, that is with regards to receptors with
more than Minor adverse effects. The summary findings of my assessment are
provided and tracked against those of the submitted scheme at my Appendix A/006:
Landscape & Visual Summary of Effects Tables where available.
5.1.2 It should be noted that the Appellant’s LVIA does not include a Summary Table for
Effects on Landscape Receptors and in the absence of this clarity some findings have
been assumed or abstracted from the available information. Where this is the case it
has been indicated as such.
The Appellant’s Study Area
5.1.3 During the formulation of the Appellant’s LVIA the study area for the LVIA was
determined with reference to ‘published landscape character areas and designations;
and field assessment ‘paragraph 10.6, Appendix 10.1, Volume3B of the original ES
(CD15.89) and at paragraph 10.8, Appendix 10.1 of Volume 4 it is confirmed that this
area was also guided by the potential visibility of the proposed development.
5.1.4 The study area was determined as a 2.5m offset from the site boundary and is indicated
on Figure 10.1 of the original ES Volume 4A (CD15.89) . I refer to this study area as
the wider study area.
5.1.5 For the reasons set out at my paragraph 3.2.3 I have determined a core study area
within which all landscape and visual receptors expected to experience more than
Minor adverse effects are captured. This was also the agreed study area for landscape
matters at the Parkside Public Inquiry. The site is not visible from locations beyond this
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 60 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
area and the development proposals are not expected to result in significant effects
beyond the core study area.
5.2 Landscape Receptors
The Site
5.2.1 The Appellant identifies the components of the site within Chapter 10 of the original
ES and Figure 10.4 (15.28) and a description of the components of the site (but not
the study area as titled,) is provided at paragraphs 10.100 – 10.103 (CD15.27). The
description fails to identify the value, susceptibility or sensitivity of the individual
landscape components of the site in their own right or the contribution these elements
make to the landscape pattern and character of the site in accordance with paragraph
5.36 of GLVIA3.
5.2.2 Nor does the assessment include consideration of the direct or indirect effects of the
development on these individual elements and therefore consider the impact of the
development on them as a resource in their own right or that of the landscape
character of the site.
5.2.3 This is contrary to Good Practice as set out at GLVIA3. Accordingly, the assessment
lacks transparency and robustness. My assessment of these matters are indicated at my
proof in Section 3.
5.2.4 The appellant acknowledges the following at paragraph 10.145:
‘During the operation the developed parts of the Proposed Development Site would be
an enduring presence in the landscape. They would permanently alter the PDS
landscape character from open farmland, partly bounded by woodland, to a low density
logistics park with associated infrastructure and a landscaped boundary treatment
providing a visual link to surrounding woodlands.’
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 61 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
5.2.5 Whilst I can not concur with the scheme representing a ‘low density logistics park’, the
broader findings are consistent with my own and therefore one must reasonably
assume the significance of effects are also similar.
Core Study Area
5.2.6 The Appellant identifies a wider study area (2.5km) than myself (1km) and does not
identify a study area that allows for the proper consideration of the effects of the
development in the receiving landscape or the value, susceptibility or sensitivity of the
landscape resource, its elements, components and interrelationships, or the
contribution these factors make to landscape pattern and character of it.
5.2.7 Consequently the assessment does not include consideration of the direct or indirect
effects of the development on the landscape components or character of the study
area (be it either wider or core).
5.2.8 This is contrary to Good Practice as set out at GLVIA3. My assessment of these
matters are indicated in Section 3 of my proof.
5.2.9 Putting this aside I consider the matters raised in the Appellants LVIA regardless. At
10.146 it says
‘…man-made influences are currently present in the Study Area to the west of the PDS
including the embankments of the elevated M6 motorway and the Old Boston Trading
Estate beyond. Other urban influences include the A580 corridor to the south and
small business and industrial parks in the wider landscape, including Stone Cross Park,
although these do not share intervisibility with the PDS. There are urban influences
arising from the edge of nearby settlements including Golborne and Ashton -in-
Makerfield, and a group of structures associated with the racecourse to the north.
There will be no effect on the existing woodland plantation in the Study Area and these
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 62 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
would provide a mature setting for the PDS limiting its visibility in the wider landscape.’
5.2.10 It is agreed that man-made influences are present in the wider study area within built
up areas including the Haydock Industrial Estate beyond the elevated section of the M6
motorway, and there are small business and industrial parks in the wider locality,
including Stone Cross Park. But as highlighted by the Appellant themselves (GIVE REF)
there is no intervisibility with the PDS and the M6 itself is a strong boundary feature
between these landuses and the open landscape associated with the site. Logistics
development categorically does not influence the character of the core study area and
would be an incongruous element within in.
5.2.11 It is also accepted that there are urban elements evident from the edge of nearby
settlements including Golborne and Ashton-in-Makerfield, as this is largely an
encapsulated landscape. However they do not substantially influence it. As clearly
stated in the SHBC LCA, Haydock Park (5 WFE2) with regards to the Potential to
Accommodate Development:
‘The developed industrial edge to the east of Haydock reinforced by the elevated line of
the M6 should pose a constraint to further development eastwards.’
5.2.12 It goes on to. confirms within the Developed Edge Analysis (REF):
‘the area is fundamentally rural with a complex, predominately developed edge
incorporating sections of settlement edges at Newton-le-Willows, Haydock, [and]
Ashton-in-Makerfield.’
This is indicated to because of the vegetated nature of these residential boundaries.
Haydock Park (WFE 2)
5.2.13 Within the submitted LVIA the appellant finds the significance of effects on the
Haydock Park (5 WFE 2) character area as Moderate – minor adverse on completion
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 63 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
(an assessment at Year 15 is not indicated.)
5.2.14 In contrast my assessment found this to be a Major – moderate adverse effect based
on the sensitivity of the landscape to be Medium - High and a magnitude of change of
Medium – high adverse.
5.2.15 The effects of the development on the Haydock Park (5 WFE 2) landscape character
are indicated by the Appellant within Chapter 10 of EIA at 10.143 noting
‘The effects on the landscape character of LCA WFE2, as defined by St Helens Council,
are offset by the existing man-made elements that influence the area including the
physical, visual and audible influence of the M6 and A580, fragmenting the landscape
character area. The M6 in particular is elevated which increases its influence. The
intactness of the character area around the PDS has been further fragmented by the
loss of hedgerows and field boundaries resulting in the area around the PDS being the
weakest part of the LCA.’
5.2.16 Put simply the Appellants position is that the area of Haydock Park 5 WFE2 around
(and including?) the site is of ‘weakest’ character [in the context of the wider character
area] and [already] fragmented and influenced by the M6 and A580.
5.2.17 I strongly disagree with this assertion for the reasons provided in my evidence. To the
contrary, as concluded at in my Appendix 005, this valued landscape is of Medium –
high value with a strong character and quality, and therefore critical to the integrity of
the Haydock Park (5 WFE2) landscape character area.
5.2.18 The Appellant goes further within Chapter 10 at 10.144 to say
‘St Helens Council Landscape Character Assessment refers to the encroachment of
urban elements and unsympathetic buildings and landscape features associated with
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 64 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
Haydock Park racecourse. Much of this development is screened from the PDS by tree
belts including a proportion of evergreen species but glimpses of the stands are visible
from the most northerly part of the PDS which adds to the urban influence and results
in a lesser magnitude of effect on the LCA from the Proposed.’
5.2.19 I would disagree that the adjacent racecourse results in an urban influence because it is
in fact a rural landuse and an appropriate recreational use for Green Belt as stipulated
at paragraph 145 of the NPPF. In any case the influence is minor, even in winter
months. It therefore can not be relevant when considering magnitude of change.
5.2.20 And finally extracted from Chapter 10 at paragraph 10.146
…The Proposed Development would result in a Moderate magnitude of effect on the
landscape character of the Study Area [and so Haydock Park WFE 2] as it would
introduce prominent elements onto land formerly used for farmland. There would be a
perceivable scale of change to the character of the PDS for the long term although this
would be largely contained within the Study Area. Given the high level of enclosure by
existing woodland, the presence of other features which detract from the quality of the
landscape and the Low sensitivity of the undesignated landscape, the significance of
effect on landscape character would be Moderate to Minor.’
5.2.21 This review highlights the findings and differences between the parties on this matter.
Whilst it is not always clear to which landscape receptor the author is making reference
to at paragraph 10.146 at this time I have concluded it is with regards to the Haydock
Park WFE2 character area, and therefore must also conclude they temper the
assessment and wrongly consider in my view that the significance of effect on
completion would have Moderate - minor adverse effects on the character area when
in fact they would be Major – moderate adverse. I do not expect the effects to
diminish in Year 15 because of the reasons set out in my Section 4.
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 65 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
Lancashire Coal Measures
5.2.22 Within the submitted LVIA the Appellant finds the significance of effects on the
National Character Area 56: Lancashire Coal Measures to be Minor adverse.
5.2.23 In contrast my assessment found this to be Moderate – minor adverse based on the
sensitivity of the landscape to be Medium and a maginitude of change of Medium –
Low adverse. The reasons for my findings are provided in Section 4.
5.2.24 The effects of the development on the Lancashire Coal Measures landscape receptor
are indicated by the Appellant within Chapter 10 of EIA at 10.142 noting
‘The PDS lies within National Character Area Profile 56: ‘Lancashire Coal Measures’
and the Local St Helens Landscape Character Assesssment: Haydock Park (WFE). The
National Character Profile covers a wide area and broadly identifies the fragmented
character of the wider landscape with specific reference to the motorway corridors and
large tracts and isolated pockets of agricultural land within the urban fabric which are
characteristic of the Study Area. At this scale, the magnitude of effect of the National
Character Area would be Low adverse on the basis that the Proposed Development will
introduce features that are already present in the National Character Area 56. The
significance of effect on the landscape character of National Character Area 56 would
be Minor adverse.’
5.2.25 The appellant does not provide judgement on the value, susceptibility and therefore
sensitivity of this landscape receptor in their view within the LVIA, however based on
the concluded significance of effect this is logically assumed to be no more than Low.
5.2.26 The thrust of the Appellants reasoning would therefore appear to be that the
development would introduce features that are already present within the national
character area, that the [already] fragmented landscape is of low sensitivity and value,
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 66 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
and due to the scale of this character area, the magnitude of effect would be minimal.
5.2.27 Clearly this position and reasoning cannot be accepted. Firstly because the landuse of
logistics development is ‘already present’ within the national character area this can not
mean it is appropriate at any location within in it. Landscape character is not randomly
distributed, rather it a derivation of natural and human factors, and the purpose of
landscape planning and characterisation is to support sound decision making..
5.2.28 Secondarily this statement wrongly indicates that the character profile ‘identifies’ the
fragmented character of the wider area. Put more accurately the character profile is a
description of the landscape aimed at identifying key characteristics, and therefore, it
follows the site is part of a key characteristic of the NCA as it is captured within the
emphasis of the description regarding a mosaic of landuses including the motorway
corridors and… isolated pockets of farmland. My view is that this emphasis in the
description places a particular value to it and therefore rather than being of low value
and sensitivity the site and the tract of landscape within which it is located is in fact of
significance at a regional if not national level.
5.2.29 Thirdly, whilst the extent of change may be minor in terms of the geographic extent of
the character area (as a large majority of planning applications would be,) the change is
long term and irreversible. The effects on this finite landscape resource which provides
distinction with other landuses, including settlement and other industrial landscapes,
would be a tangible loss for SHBC and related boroughs within the NCA, greater than
the local level.
5.2.30 As a consequence the Appellants findings significantly temper the assessment and
concludes wrongly, in my view, that the significance of effect on completion would
have Low adverse. I do not expect the effects to diminish in Year 15 because of the
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 67 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
reasons provided at my Section 4.
Findings
5.2.31 This review of the Appellants LVIA conclusions against my own, with regards to the
effects on the landscape character of the site, core study area, Haydock Park (WFE 2)
and Lancashire Coal Measures, demonstrates that the appellant has substantively
underassessed the effects of the development on the landscape resource related to
these key landscape receptors.
5.3 Visual Receptors
5.3.1 The summary of the Appellants impact assessment findings for visual receptors is
provided at Appendix/006: Landscape & Visual Summary of Effects Tables tracked
alongside those of my own. The full assessment is provided at Chapter 10 of the
Appellants ES, paragraphs 10.177 – 10.183, and related Appendices.
5.3.2 The variance in findings between the Appellant and myself largely stem from a
divergence in the consideration of receptor value, that is the value of the view.
However there is also some dispute around the matter of the magnitude of change at
some receptors. Both matters subsequently alter concluding significance of effects.
Divergence regarding the Value of the View
5.3.3 Put simply the Appellants position is that most views should be valued as of community
(Low) importance although the reasoning for this are not fully justified in the context of
the specifics of this case at paragraph 10.170. The Appellant makes reference to
methodology Tables 8 in their Appendix 10.1 which provides a four level word scale
from Community to National with the following indicated for the Community level
‘Views which are valued by residents and workers within the community, but for which
there is no particular indication of a higher value.’
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 68 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
5.3.4 I have simplified the word scale utilised for the determination of value for the reasons
set out at in my Section 3.
5.3.5 Detailed explanation for my assessment of the value of views of receptors is provided
at Appendix/005: XQLA Landscape & Visual Assessment Workings & Findings. In
summary my position is that because views are being experienced within a landscape
designated as Green Belt the value attached to these views should be attributed a
value reflective of the significance that this planning designation places on the essential
purpose of Green Belt for recreation. The value of these views were therefore
determined as High for Users of footpaths within Green Belt locations.
5.3.6 Due to the volume of users experiencing views of the site from the M6 and A580, and
the regional/national significance of these routeways, these views are also considered to
be of more than Community value and therefore assessed as Medium value. Views
from the local road network within Green Belt are also concluded as Medium following
balanced judgement.
Divergence regarding the Magnitude of Change & Significance of Effects
5.3.7 My assessment considers the magnitude of change experienced at receptors and
resultant significance of effect, on completion and at Year 15 in Section3. My findings
differ from that of the Appellants with regards to:
• Visual Receptor 7: M6 motorway
• Visual Receptor 8/9: A580 East Lancashire Road
• Visual Receptor 10: Lodge Lane (A49)
• Visual Receptor 13b: Newton Lane (A49)
• Visual Receptor A: Haydock Park Farm
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 69 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
• Visual Receptor G: Holiday Inn
• Visual Receptor L: Haydock Park Racecourse
Findings
5.3.8 This review of the Appellants LVIA conclusions against my own, with regards to the
visual effects, identifies seven receptors where there is significant divergence in our
findings. The Appellant substantively underassesses the effects on these key visual
receptors due to both the undervaluing of public views, and determination of
magnitude of change within views.
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 70 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
6. REVIEW OF SCHEME TO BE DETERMINED
Introduction
6.1.1 Amendments to the appeal proposals were submitted in December 2020. The scheme
for determination is now confirmed as:
Plan 1 - Parameters Plan reference 30926-FE-008A6 (CD24.4)
Plan 2 - Green Infrastructure (GI) Mitigation Plan reference 30926-FE-027U (CD24.5)
Plan 3 - Proposed A580 highway improvements NMU proposals ref: VN60647/P-08
Rev A (CD17.19)
Plan 4 - Proposed development access off A49 Lodge Lane ref: VN60647/PL-001
(CD18.16)
Plan 5 - Proposed A580 Highway Improvements: Development Access ref:
VN60647/PL-002 Rev B (CD18.17)
Plan 6 - M6 Junction 23 Proposed Highway Improvements ref: VN60647/P-09 Rev H
(CD18.18)
6.1.2 Plan 8 - Illustrative masterplan reference 30926-FE-042U (CDXX) is provided to
indicate how the site could come forward in the context of the parameters proposed.
6.1.3 A review of the proposed amendments indicates the following in the context of Plans 1
and 2..
6.1.4 Plan 1 - Parameters Plan reference 30926-FE-008A6 (to supersede 30926-FE-008A2):
• Landscape zone increased, particularly to the south by approx. 15m and southwest
by approx. 15m
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 71 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
• Development parcel reduced/ vertical no build zone increased to northern
boundary of Unit 1 by approx. 32m
• Development parcel reduced/ vertical no build zone increased to southern
boundary of Units 2 & 3 by approx. 35m
• Development parcel reduced to north of Unit 3 to enable additional structural
landscape by approx. 22m
• Increased greening alongside A49 route
• Overall internal floor area remains unchanged through greater use of mezzanines
• Access points remain unchanged
6.1.5 Plan 2 - GI Mitigation Plan reference 30926 – FE-027U (to supersede 30926-FE-027H)
• Structural woodland planting increased along each boundary with the addition of
bunding at a maximum height of 5m where appropriate to assist with screening of
the units.
• Additional structural planting alongside the diverted A49 to provide a green
corridor.
• Swale in south-western corner moved to achieve increased structural woodland
planting on the south-west corner of the site.
6.1.6 The appellant’s design and environmental consultants reviewed the proposed
amendments and confirmed that the Environmental Statement submitted as part of the
application remains valid and the judgements contained therein are unaffected by the
amendments. In the context of landscape and visual effects TEP confirmed:
6.1.7 ‘there would be no greater effects on the judgements made in the Environmental
Statement (including Environmental Statement Addendum 1 and Environmental
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 72 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
Statement Addendum 2) in relation to landscape and views as a result of the changes
to the [Plan 1] Parameter Plan… and [Plan 2] GI Mitigation plan (Ref 30926 – FE-
027U). TEP confirm that the proposed changes are beneficial amendments in relation
to landscape and views.’
6.1.8 The revised Parameter Plan increases the landscape buffer zones to the south, south
west and north to accommodate more woodland and structural planting and it also
incorporates smoothly contoured bunding to increase the levels of the areas to be
planted. It also reduces the vertical no-build zones to the southern boundary of
proposed Units 2 and 3 and the northern boundary of the proposed Unit 1. The floor
areas and access points will remain the same. This increase in space available to
implement a landscape scheme and the reduction in the development zone will be
beneficial in landscape and visual terms as it allows for the proposed development to
be set within a more comprehensive landscape scheme.
6.1.9 TEP have reviewed the judgements in the Landscape and Visual Effects Environmental
Statement chapter and in the accompanying visual assessment tables (Appendix 10.2 of
the Environmental Statement) and confirmed that the judgements originally made will
not alter as a result of the proposed changes. The proposed bunding within the
landscape areas will assist in reducing views to the lower elevations of the development
‘at completion’ before the planting establishes, and as the woodland planting matures it
will screen more of the development and will assist in integrating the development into
the surrounding landscape. The proposed changes are beneficial as the broader areas
of woodland planting to the outward edges of the development area combined with
mounding will provide greater screening ability particularly for the closest receptors
where a higher significance of effect was reported. The effects reported in the original
assessments including the residual effects at 15 years would not however reduce from
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 73 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
one category of effect to a lower category albeit there is an acknowledged
improvement in the development proposals.’
6.1.10 The following updated illustrative information was also provided:
Plan 9 - Landscape Strategy Plan ref: 11249_LD_GA_002 (CD26.11)
Plan 11 - Verified Photomontage LVIA Viewpoint 1 Sheet 1 to 4 (CD26.8)
Plan 12 - Verified Photomontage LVIA Viewpoint 4 Sheet 1 – 4 (CD26.8)
Plan 13 - Verified Photomontage LVIA Viewpoint 5 Sheet 1 - 4 (CD26.8)
Plan 14 - Verified Photomontage LVIA Viewpoint 6 Sheet 1 - 8 (CD26.8)
Plan 15 - Verified Photomontage LVIA Viewpoint 10 Sheet 1 of 4 (CD26.8)
Plan 16 - Verified Photomontage LVIA Viewpoint 11 Sheet 1 of 4 (CD26.8)
Plan 17 - Verified photomontage, Haydock Racecourse Viewpoint 1 Sheet 1 – 4
(CD26.9)
Plan 18 - Verified photomontage, Haydock Racecourse Viewpoint 2 Sheet 1 – 4
(CD26.9)
Plan 19 - Blink Image’s CGI 1 – From Motorway
Plan 20 - Blink Image’s CGI 2 – From East Lancashire Road
Plan 21 - Blink Image’s CGI 3 – View from Haydock Island
Plan 22 - Blink Image’s CGI 4 Looking West from East Lancashire Road
Plan 23 - Indicative Landscape Sections Reference Map (CD26.10)
Plan 24 - Indicative Landscape Sections A and B ref (CD26.10)
Plan 25 - Indicative Landscape Sections C and D ref (CD26.10)
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 74 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
6.2 Review of Landscape Effects
The Site
Refer to:
Plan 3 - Proposed A580 highway improvements NMU proposals ref: VN60647/P-08
Rev A (CD17.19)
Plan 4 - Proposed development access off A49 Lodge Lane ref: VN60647/PL-001
(CD18.16)
Plan 5 - Proposed A580 Highway Improvements: Development Access ref:
VN60647/PL-002 Rev B (CD18.17)
Plan 6 - M6 Junction 23 Proposed Highway Improvements ref: VN60647/P-09 Rev H
(CD18.18)
Plan 26 - Tree Removal Plan (CD 26.12)
Plan 23 - Indicative Landscape Sections Reference Map (CD26.10)
Plan 24 - Indicative Landscape Sections A and B ref (CD26.10)
Plan 25 - Indicative Landscape Sections C and D ref (CD26.10)
6.2.1 The direct impact and irreversible loss of arable fields and major remodelling of
landform will result. As will the loss of XXmetres of existing hedgerow along the East
Lancs Road associated with G16 to accommodate the new access lane into the from
the south. The landscape pattern on the site formed by the field drains and hedgerows
will not be legible or the ‘locking in’ of the site to the wider geometric regular field
system at its interfaces. The nature of the site will remain completely altered by the
benching of the site and introduction of vast utilitarian sheds introduced with associated
urbanising features (including retaining elements) associated with the introduced
highway junction on the East Lancashire Road (A580) as well as the very large scale
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 75 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
logistic development itself including HGV parking, and to a lesser degree managed
landscape.
6.2.2 The reintroduction of removed hedgerow boundaries along the East Lancs Road
(A580) and inclusion of existing field ditch system to form an ecological corridor is
welcomed. The expansion of woodland structure at the interfaces of the development
along the southern and western boundaries of Units 2 and 3 is also appropriate to the
landscape context. However this must be balanced against the introduction of artificial
earthworks (5m bund and the retaining structure at the new A580 junction,) which
along with the development platforms created, will be substantial landscape features in
themselves evident in the new scheme which is not a current feature. As such they
will be significant and extensive new landscape components forming incongruous
features both within the site and at key interfaces.
6.2.3 The effects of a development on the landscape qualities of the receptor will remain.
The direct and irreversible loss of a significant portion of good quality and distinctive
landscape that has a prominent and distinctive function at the threshold of Haydock is
not addressed.
6.2.4 Furthermore the identified landscape qualities, namely the good landscape condition
large scale, geometric regular fields with a strong and distinctive horizontal composition
and dynamic interplay between woodland and farmland, and the perceptual qualities of
openness and rural character, remain entirely lost.
6.2.5 Following balanced judgement the magnitude of change therefore remains as High
adverse and consequently the significance of effect, Major – moderate adverse,
residual effect in the context of the site’s confirmed sensitivity.
The core study area
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 76 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
6.2.6 The introduction of uncharacteristic elements to the baseline including very large scale
logistic development, benched earthworks and associated urbanising elements, as well
as new views of HGVs (through traffic generation) remain, which in turn will impact the
stated landscape qualities namely scenic quality, distinctiveness and spatial function.
6.2.7 The scheme will also undermine the function of the receptor because the development
results in urbansing change in the road corridor itself, and because the loss of openness
and perceptible development would fundamentally change the key characteristic of a
rural open landscape between Haydock and Ashton-in-Mayfield, and Haydock and
Golborne. As such the experience of travelling between the settlements of Haydock
and Golborne through the distinctive former estate landscape would remain lost to
development with the broader effect of coalescence of settlements.
6.2.8 Furthermore the proposed strengthening of boundaries may limit effects of incongruous
development in the immediate character context of the site however the introduction
of bunding and extensive woodland planting will result in the severe loss of openness in
themselves.
6.2.9 It is noteworthy that the expansion of woodland planting combined with bunds around
the periphery of the site is expected to enable the very large scale of the proposal to
be better accommodated into existing landscape structure from broader areas of the
core study area such that effects on landscape character in these localities are likely to
be limited. However increased levels of traffic activity and light spill is expected to
remain.
6.2.10 Following a finely balanced assessment, my findings with regards to the assessments of
effects on this landscape receptor therefore are unaltered and expected to remain a
Major – moderate adverse residual effect.
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 77 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
Haydock Park (5 WFE 2)
6.2.11 The scheme for determination would not address the fundamental loss of distinctive
landscape and the encroachment of urban elements into a prominent largely intact
segment of this former estate landscape character area. It may strengthen landscape
pattern, from a woodland structure point of view, however the loss of open farmland
with a distinctive composition and interplay between elements remains.
6.2.12 indicate that the increased woodland structure provides betterment at the site level by
increasing the extent of woodland blocks on a scale consistent with those in the
locality. However all other identified valued qualities are lost to development; a
prominent and memorable gateway with a strong horizontal composition and dynamic
interplay This prominent Site which forms a memorable gateway to Haydock with the
perceptual qualities of openness and rural character will no longer exist. Instead the
vast utilitarian form of logistic development, artificial earthworks will combined to
enclose the landscape of the site.
6.2.13 The irreversible loss of a distinctive, finite landscape resource, by approximately an eight
would remain. It would also most likely lead to degradation of the wider resource with
time, on account of its geography within an already constrained, encapsulated
landscape. My findings with regards to the assessments of effects on this landscape
receptor therefore are unaltered and expected to result in a Major – moderate
adverse residual effect.
Lancashire Coal Measures
6.2.14 Reviewing the scheme to be determined against my findings I note that the scheme
amendments do not address the key matters of the tangible encroachment of urban
development into this isolated pocket of farmland which has been found to form part
of the mosaic of farmland, scattered urban centres, industry, active mineral sites and
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 78 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
derelict/reclaimed workings that are stated to give a strong and distinctive identity to
the NCA. This resource of farmland, which performs a spatial function and in this
context, is finite with the loss being irreversible. My findings with regards to the
assessments of effects on this landscape receptor therefore also remains unchanged.
Findings
6.2.15 My review of the effects of the scheme for determination on key landscape receptors
indicate that significant adverse effects remain. Valued landscape qualities and attributes
will be substantially subsumed by the vast mass of the building and associated servicing,
HGV movements, noise and activity both at the Site and in the core study area.
6.2.16 The expansion of highway infrastructure, on the East Lancs Road (A580) and Lodge
Lane (A49) will urbanise further the character of these road corridors and, in
combination with the development, significantly reduce the physical gap between
Haydock and Golborne (to 1150m from 500m) and Haydock to Ashton-in-Makerfield
(to 400m from 820m). This in turn will lead to the perceived coalescence of
coalescence of Haydock with Ashton-in-Makerfield (they will become indistinguishable)
as well as significantly reduce the scale and integrity of the open landscape between
Haydock and Golborne.
6.2.17 The woodland structure provided by the amended proposal strengthens the landscape
pattern consistent with a former estate landscape but the irreversible loss of other
valued landscape qualities remain such that the scheme is expected to significantly
undermine the maintenance of the baseline condition of the landscape character of the
core study area and the Site.
6.2.18 The direct and indirect effects of the development are therefore expected to result in
the diminution of valued landscape qualities associated with the site and the core study
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 79 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
area as well as significantly eroding the geographic extent of one of the last remaining
vestiges of the Haydock Park former estate landscape.
6.2.19 There will also be tangible encroachment of Lancashire Coal Measures NCA arising
from the encroachment of urban development into this isolated pocket of farmland. As
such significant adverse effects are therefore judged to remain.
6.3 Review of Visual Effects
Visual Receptor 7: M6 motorway
Refer to:
Plan 19 - Blink Image’s CGI 1 – From Motorway
Plan 23 - Indicative Landscape Sections Reference Map (CD26.10)
Plan 24 - Indicative Landscape Sections A and B ref (CD26.10)
6.3.1 The scheme for determination addresses the residual effects identified in Section 5 for
the submitted scheme, from this receptor, to some degree in this view. Plan 24 -
Section A indicates that whilst the vertical no build zone has not been adjusted along
the western boundary, so the building will remain approximately 250m away in the
view, a strengthening of the proposed woodland belt, by 35m, is proposed. This
planting on a 5m bund, will be elevate in views from the M6 southbound carriageway,
and as such the identified view to Unit 3 as well as into the service yard and associated
HGVs, will be substantially filtered in winter at Year 15.
6.3.2 That said the perception of the vast solidity of the logistic buildings will remain even at
maturity. The perception of large scale built form across a landscape previously open
and characterised for its intact condition and rural openness will remain as the roofline
will be distinguishable across the horizontal view from this elevated location. There will
be no articulation to integrate the building or relief of the primary scale of the building
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 80 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
which is seen across its width (approximately 120m) in the view. There will be a loss
of a distinction between the open countryside and the settlement of Haydock at this
important gateway.
6.3.3 The stated nighttime effects in Section 4 will remain.
6.3.4 Following balanced judgement the significance of residual effect is reduced to Moderate
– minor adverse.
Visual Receptor 8/9: A580 East Lancashire Road Cars, pedestrians & cyclists)
Refer to:
Plan 14 - Verified Photomontage LVIA Viewpoint 6 Sheet 1 - 8 (CD26.8)
Plan 23 - Indicative Landscape Sections Reference Map (CD26.10)
Plan 24 - Indicative Landscape Sections A and B ref (CD26.10)
Plan 20 - Blink Image’s CGI 2 – From East Lancashire Road
Plan 21 - Blink Image’s CGI 3 – View from Haydock Island
Plan 22 - Blink Image’s CGI 4 Looking West from East Lancashire Road
6.3.5 The transformative effects of the submitted scheme on views of these receptors are
detailed at my Section 4. The scheme for determination seeks to mitigate these effects
through an increase in the depth of proposed woodland belt by 15m and the vertical
no build zone set back by a further 35m. The amended scheme also seeks to screen
the scale of the development by the introduction of a further 5m high bund, which in
addition to the proposed acoustic barrier (5m in height), is intended to limit views of
the 24 hour lit service yard and HGVs static and in transit.
6.3.6 The stated nighttime effects in Section 4 will substantively remain.
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 81 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
6.3.7 These amendments will be effective as mitigation, through screening, these close,
oblique views in particularly by Year 15, although the perception of built form will
remain. However the fact remains that the open and distinctive character of this
former estate landscape will be transformed. The effects of the new junction on the
East Lancs Road (A580) and views of the new junction and associated highway
infrastructure as well as HGVs where there is currently none, combined with increased
views of HGVs and other traffic associated with the diverted A49 within the locality.
6.3.8 Following balanced judgement the significance of residual effect is Moderate - minor
adverse.
Visual Receptor 10: Lodge Lane (A49) Cars, pedestrians & cyclists)
Refer to:
Plan 11 - Verified Photomontage LVIA Viewpoint 1 Sheet 1 to 4 (CD26.8)
Plan 23 - Indicative Landscape Sections Reference Map (CD26.10)
Plan 24 - Indicative Landscape Sections A and B ref (CD26.10)
6.3.9 The visual effects of the submitted scheme on views from these receptors are detailed
in Section 4. The scheme for determination seeks to mitigate these effects through an
increase in the depth of proposed woodland belt, by 15m, although the vertical no
build zone is not detailed to be adjusted along the western boundary. The amended
scheme also seeks to screen the scale of the development by the introduction of a 5m
high bund which combined with woodland planting is intended to limit views of the 24
hour service yard and HGVs static and in transit as well as expected parking in this
locality by Year 15.
6.3.10 These amendments are expected to be effective as mitigation, through screening, of
these relatively close, oblique views of Unit 3 by Year 15, although the perception of
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 82 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
built form will remain. The fact remains that the open and distinctive character of this
former estate landscape will be transformed. The effects of highway alterations
associated with the A49 diversion are expected to significantly alter this mature
roadway and there will be clear views of the new junction and associated highway
infrastructure as well as HGV movement where there is currently none. Following
balanced judgement the significance of residual effect is Minor adverse.
Visual Receptor 13b: Newton Lane (A49)
Refer to:
Plan 13 - Verified Photomontage LVIA Viewpoint 5 Sheet 1 - 4 (CD26.8)
6.3.11 The visual effects of the submitted scheme on views from this receptor is detailed in
Section 4. The scheme for determination seeks to mitigate these effects through an
increase in the depth of proposed woodland belt, by 15m, and the vertical no build
zone set back by a further 35m. The amended scheme also seeks to screen the scale of
the development by the introduction of a 5m high bund which combined with
strengthened woodland planting is intended to limit views of the roofline.
6.3.12 Whereas the scale and extent of the built form in the landscape was expected to be
readable as a continuous roofline in winter as it protruded above both existing and
proposed woodland structure within the view associated with the submitted scheme,
the mitigation provided, through a combination of strengthened screening and bunding
is now expected to raise the height of vegetation as it matures to effectively address
this matter and therefore not be perceived within the low lying landscape tree
structure as it that coalesces in distant views.
6.3.13 The stated nighttime effects in Section 4 will substantively remain.
6.3.14 The significance of residual effect has therefore been assessed as Minor adverse –
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 83 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
negligible.
Visual Receptor A: Haydock Park Farm
Refer to:
Plan 14 - Verified Photomontage LVIA Viewpoint 6 Sheet 1 - 8 (CD26.8)
Plan 23 - Indicative Landscape Sections Reference Map (CD26.10)
Plan 24 - Indicative Landscape Sections A and B ref (CD26.10)
6.3.15 The visual effects of the submitted scheme on views from this receptor is detailed in
Section 4. The scheme for determination seeks to mitigate these effects through an
increase in the depth of proposed woodland belt, by 15m, and the vertical no build
zone set back by a further 35m. The amended scheme also seeks to screen the scale of
the development by the introduction of a 5m high bund which combined with
strengthened woodland planting is intended to limit views of the scale of the
development.
6.3.16 These amendments will be effective as mitigation to some degree. The strengthening of
the woodland belt, introduction of the bund and set back of the vertical no build zone
will assist with filtering views of Units 2 and 3, and setting them further back in the
view. However this change will remain across the view above the skyline. The rural
and open aspect will remain transformed. Increased traffic activity, including HGVs,
and the impact of the new junction (with associated lighting) will also remain in
relatively close view albeit oblique in the case of views of the junction itself. Following
balanced judgement the significance of residual effect is judged as Moderate - minor
adverse.
Visual Receptor G: Holiday Inn
Refer to:
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 84 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
N/A
6.3.17 The visual effects of the submitted scheme on views from this receptor is detailed in
Section 4. The scheme for determination seeks to mitigate these effects through an
increase in greening along the western extent of the southern estate road and by the
setback of Unit 3 by an increase of 22m along with additional woodland planting. The
amendments also increase the woodland belt along the western interface of the site
with the existing A49 road corridor by 15m. The expansion of the woodland
treatment along the western interface (rather than mixed landscape treatments) of
Unit 1 is also relevant.
6.3.18 These amendments will be effective as mitigation to some degree. The strengthening of
the woodland belts and set back of Unit 3 combined will assist with filtering views of
Units 2 and 3, and setting them further back in the view. However this change will
remain across the view in the middle distance. The rural and open aspect will remain
transformed. Increased traffic activity, including HGVs, and the expansion of highway
infrastructure (with associated lighting) will also remain in relatively close view albeit
oblique in the case of views of Unit 1. Following balanced judgement the significance
of residual effect is judged as Moderate - minor adverse.
Visual Receptor L: Haydock Park racecourse
Refer to:
Plan 17 - Verified photomontage, Haydock Racecourse Viewpoint 1 Sheet 1 – 4
(CD26.9)
Plan 18 - Verified photomontage, Haydock Racecourse Viewpoint 2 Sheet 1 – 4
(CD26.9)
Plan 23 - Indicative Landscape Sections Reference Map (CD26.10)
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 85 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
Plan 25 - Indicative Landscape Sections C and D ref (CD26.10)
6.3.19 The visual effects of the submitted scheme on views from this receptor is detailed in
my Section4. The scheme for determination seeks to mitigate these effects by the
partial setback of Unit 1 (distance not confirmed) as well as strengthening of landscape
structure associated with the A49 diversion. However further strengthening of
woodland planting around southern and western boundaries will not contribute to the
screening of views from here.
6.3.20 Therefore the amended scheme will not materially alter effects on views here. The vast
continuous line of Unit 1will be discernable in Year 15 and therefore the perception of
built form. The change will be apparent in the middle distance of views looking from
the south east to south west. The judgement the significance of residual effect is
therefore judged as Moderate - minor adverse.
Findings
6.3.21 My review of the visual effects has found that six of the seven receptors identified as
having more than Minor adverse effects prior to the receipt of the amended scheme
are expected to continue experiencing significant adverse effects.
6.3.22 The significant effects remain because of the transformative impacts of the mitigation
required to address the vast, unrelenting scale of a utilitarian logistics development.
The proposed set back of the vertical no build development zone at key interfaces of
the development with its context, combined with an increased woodland structure (by
15m) with associated bunding (5m) and acoustic barriers (5m), will substantially screen
views of the building by Year 15. The substantial adverse change in views, both from
the development and from the mitigation, owing to the transformation a prominent
landscape with valued qualities and the loss of openness.
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 86 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
6.3.23 The visual effects are not limited to the site itself. There will be significant HGV
movements, noise and activity, associated with expanded road infrastructure on Lodge
Lane (A49) and the East Lancashire Road (A580) upon which there will be multiple
HGV movements day and night. There will be also be increased effects of lighting at
night.
6.3.24 My adjusted findings of the landscape and visual effects of the development, in the
context of the scheme to be determined, are provided at Appendix A/006 of my
proof. Where my conclusions differ from the submitted scheme, as a consequence of
the amendments offered through the determination scheme, I have lined through and
indicated the adjusted finding.
6.4 Review of effects on the Green Belt
Purpose 1 To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas:
6.4.1 My landscape and visual review has established that the proposals will result in the
development of a prominent and open landscape with valued attributes. The proposal
will be read in the landscape as incongruous in form and vast in scale, clearly breaching
the strong boundary of the M6 which currently delimits the built edge of Haydock. The
sense of dislocation between the site and the urban area would be lost resulting in a
close relationship formed between Haydock and the new logistics centre. The sites
stated role as important in checking the outward expansion of the large built-up areas
of Haydock and Ashton-in-Makerfield into the countryside would be entirely
compromised. Despite the parcel being well contained as a whole, because it is partially
6.4.2 dislocated from the urban area, is large and irregular in size and form, and lacks strong
boundaries within it, it is considered that development of the parcel would lead to
unrestricted sprawl.
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 87 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
6.4.3 The contribution that this parcel makes on the Green Belt purpose would be
significantly undermined.
Purpose 2 To prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another: Findings - High
6.4.4 The development of the site will result in approximately half of the parcel becoming
lost to development. This isl expected to result in the loss of the landscape’s function
as an area of open countryside separating Haydock with Ashton-in-Makerfield and
Haydock and Golborne. The physical gap between the new A49 Junction and Ashton-
in-Makerfield would be reduced to 400m and the gap between the new junction on
the East Lancs Road with Golborne reduced to1150m.
6.4.5 The development of the parcel would therefore lead to the physical merging of
Haydock and Ashton-in-Makerfield and would significantly reduce the scale and
integrity of the gap between Haydock and Golborne.
6.4.6 The character will also be so altered on the site and within the adjacent road corridors
that the settlements, Haydock with Ashton-in-Makerfield, and Haydock with Golborne,
would become indistinguishable in perceptual terms.
6.4.7 The contribution that this parcel makes on the Green Belt purpose would also be
completely undermined.
Purpose 3 To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment: Findings – Low
6.4.8 The proposal will result in significant adverse impact from an inappropriate and
incongruous form of development in a parcel with strong characteristics of the
countryside and a strong sense of openess.. The remodelling of an extensive area of
the parcel and, the introduction of unattractive sheds of a vast scale and an utilitarian
character, is completely incongruous with the character of the parcel area and wider
strategic gap.
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 88 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
6.4.9 The contribution that this parcel makes on the Green Belt purpose would partially
undermined.
Overall significance of effects on Green Belt Purposes:
6.4.10 The effects of the proposal are expected to result in a high impact on three purposes
of the Green Belt, two of which’s contribution are considered to be high. The effects
will be such that the development will result in sprawl into open countryside. It will
also essentially result in the loss of the landscape’s function as a strategic gap between
Haydock and Ashton-in-Makerfield and, to a lesser degree, Haydock and Golborne as
6.4.11 The introduction of the vast scale and volume of this development across an extensive
area of the Green Belt parcel will also result in the permanent loss of open countryside.
There will also be a loss of openness in views in the locality from both the volumetric
scale of utilitarian buildings and the woodland structures and bunds put in place to
obscure them.
Effects on Openness
6.4.12 I have considered the effects on openness, in both spatial (character) and visual terms,
and found that effects are significant and adverse. The development is of such a scale
and form that its residual impact on character is significant and adverse even in Year 15.
Residual visual effects also remain adverse in Year 15.
6.4.13 It is also clear that these effects are permanent with very limited potential for
remediation in the long term.
6.4.14 It has also been found that significant traffic generation and other related activity will be
integral to the development both on site and in the context of the site. This also will
have adverse effects on the openness.
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 89 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS
6.5 Policy Compliance
National Planning Policy Framework & National Planning Practice Guidance
6.5.1 Compliance in the context of these policy areas are dealt with by my colleague Alyn
Nicholls.
SHBC Policy CP1: Ensuring Quality Development in St Helens,
‘All proposals for development within the Borough will be expected, where
appropriate, to meet the following standards as a minimum:
2. Protection of the Natural and Historic Environment
Safeguard or enhance landscape character, including historic landscape and townscape
character; Avoid loss or damage to high quality soils where possible and minimise loss
or damage where this can be shown to be unavoidable’
6.5.2 It is clear from the preceding landscape and visual assessment that the development will
not safeguard or enhance the valued landscape attributes identified in the context of
the site, and the design can not meet the design challenge because of the fundamental
conflict between the valued attribute and development (it relys on the interplay
between open farmland and woodland structure). It is therefore noncompliant with
this policy.
SHBC Policy CQL4: Heritage and Landscape
‘The Council will protect, conserve, preserve and enhance St.Helens historic built
environment and landscape character including designated and undesignated heritage
assets such as Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas, Registered Parks and Gardens,
Scheduled Ancient Monuments, archaeological sites and buildings and structures of local
interest by:
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 90 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
Protecting landscape character as well as important urban open space from
development which would harm these assets;
Ensuring all new development respects the significance and distinctive quality of the
built and historic environment and landscape character and is of a high standard of
design, reinforcing St.Helens' local distinctiveness; and
Ensuring that all development is located and designed in a way that is sensitive to its
historic landscape and setting and retains or enhances the character and context. ‘
6.5.3 It is clear from the preceding landscape and visual assessment that the development
does not successfully protect and conserve valued landscape attributes.
6.5.4 The significant and distinctive landscape attributes of the former estate character,
centred on a strong horizontal composition and dynamic interplay between farmland
and woodland, are fundamentally not respected by the development, as they will be
lost to it. This is one of the last remaining, high quality vestiges of the Haydock Park
LCA. Its loss represents the loss of a finite landscape resource and threats the integrity
of the broader character area. Valued attributes of the perceptual qualities of
openness and rural character will also be completely altered.
6.5.5 Due to its location and scale the Site is also an important piece of open countryside
preventing the merging of Haydock with Ashton-in-Makerfield and Golborne. The
development will have a significant adverse impact on this valued attribute also.
6.5.6 The proposal is therefore noncompliant with this policy.
6.6 Concluding Statement
6.6.1 I have considered the nature of the receiving landscape and visual context specific to
this case, and reviewed the evidence around the potential value and susceptibility of
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 91 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
the landscape to the nature and form of development proposed. I have concluded that
the area has sufficient landscape qualities to elevate it above other more everyday
landscapes and as such is a valued landscape with reference to paragraph 170 (b) of
the NPPF.
6.6.2 I have then interrogated the potential effects of the proposed development to impact
on the landscape and visual character of the resource relevant to this Inquiry with
particular reference to effects on key receptors and valued landscape qualities.
6.6.3 My assessment determines that there remains demonstrable adverse residual impacts
(direct and indirect) on the these receptors including valued landscape attributes of the
site, the core study area, the Haydock Park LCA and consequently the Lancashire Coal
Measures NCA, which are significantly underassessed in the Appellant’s evidence.
6.6.4 My assessment also determines that there are demonstrable residual adverse impacts
on key visual receptors including users of the public highways (the East Lancs Road, M6
and Lodge Lane) and leisure facilities. Recent amendments to the scheme may address
the effects of the development through screening, however this in turn results in the
substantial loss of the visual qualities experienced in the locality and in turn visual
openness.
6.6.5 I have also considered the requisite statutory tests in terms of local plan policy and
found noncompliance.
6.6.6 In the light of these assessments the conclusion must be that the scheme for
determination constitutes demonstrable harm of valued landscape and therefore the
intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. The approval of the scheme to be
determined will mean the loss of a prominent and memorable piece of landscape
which offers an attractive gateway to the settlement of Haydock. It is also expected to
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 92 of 93 Date: 26/1/21
result in the significant degradation of a distinctive former estate landscape, Haydock
Park, which is of notable scenic quality.
6.6.7 This area of open landscape also performs an important spatial function for the
separation of the settlements of Haydock with Ashton-in-Makerfield and Golborne.
The effects of development are expected to result in the physical and perceptual
merging of Haydock with Ashton-in-Makerfield, and (to a lesser extent) Haydock and
Golborne.
6.6.8 Understanding that competing considerations are in play, it is my view that considerable
weight should be given to the adverse effects of the scheme and its noncompliance
with both national and local planning policies with particular regard to landscape
matters.
6.6.9 I therefore respectfully request the appeal to be dismissed.
782_Haydock Point – Proof of Evidence of Xanthe Quayle Page: 93 of 93 Date: 26/1/21