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 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 : 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,

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 , 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 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 , 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 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