Richard Ward PINS Reference 3253194; 3253230; and 3253232 Parkside Development New Link Road Access to the M6 Motorway Proposal Page 1 of 20 June 2020 Current Link Road proposal as shown in the Drainage Plan Page 2 of 20 The Current Proposal for the Parkside Link Road by not being a dedicated direct link to the M6 motorway, the Commercial Vehicle Traffic that will be generated by the proposed development(s) in total will impact on the local roads from all directions as measures to prevent are impossible to manage. The following plan of road access to the proposed Parkside development show the Commercial Vehicle Traffic impact on the Local Roads. Where the utilisation of the Motorway M6 junction 22 will be little used with respect to the access to the proposed development from the local roads. The Access was not solved by the previous Parkside Proposals by the developers: 1996 British Coal/Morrisons; 2000+ RailTrack; 2004-2009 Astral Developments; and 2009-2012 Prologis. To whom all had withdrawn due to not being able to solve the Traffic situation, over and above the reason for the development for the need for jobs which has become secondary and not a main issue considering the Parkside proposals having been an issue since 1993 to 2018, (ie 25 years). So the need for jobs is still not the issue the traffic impact still is the issue purely due to the urban location surrounded by a major road infrastructure. It is this that is the problem, due to heavily industrialising an area that the surrounding locality can not cope with the proposed situation – traffic wise. The Parkside site true is prime for development as the main restoration criteria of return to Agriculture has been denied by the new owners since 1993. Several schemes could be situated that would provide employment and more on the same scale of the former Parkside Colliery site, where the traffic problem would not exist. One solution is to develop the site into a University Campus, instead of the pursuit of a rail terminal and warehousing complex. Where in the area Warehousing is in abundance. It is stated that there is an expected growth in population currently (2010) in the Northwest of 6.9M (Carlisle to Chester, to Manchester to Liverpool), expected to grow to 7.4M by 3030-2035 ie 500,000. This equates to a growth in population of approximately 20,000 per Council area. So The Warehousing development is required to serve only 20,000 expected growth by 2030-2035. So what is the need for Parkside as a warehousing development for an estimated job creation of 7,500 to 9,000 jobs to cater for just 20,000 predicted growth in population to 2035? Note I do not see the 6.9M current population banging on doors demanding the Warehouse goods transported by containers (ie White Goods, Food and Cloths). This is because the current infrastructure already copes, so the future expansion in warehousing is only for future population growth, as said 20,000 per council area. This means Parkside Colliery site needs to be seriously rethought and step away from the over saturated warehousing containers schemes as proposed since 1994. For if warehousing had been correct for Parkside the site would have been developed in 1994, and not been an ongoing blinkered approach by the council. The Coal extraction was in 1956 only a temporary phase expected to last for 100 years, but due to the placing of the colliery in the wrong area the expected production could never be realised and economics closed the colliery. Not a fault of those who worked the colliery but those who made the decision to place the colliery in the wrong area in the first place. The situation is identical with the scheme proposed after the colliery closed, with warehousing, but this time due to the proposal looking to rely on the local road network. The Problem that the current proposed development in 2018 by the developer St Helens Council and Langtree in trying to solve the M6 access causes the local road network to grid lock over and above the current situation. This is shown in the following plan. Page 3 of 20 Page 4 of 20 The previous Traffic flow problem places a direct impact upon the local road network that consequently impacts on all the surrounding areas, as shown. This is all due to the proposed development connection to the Motorway M6 at junction 22 by an indirect road network that uses the local roads to achieve the site to work, rather that creating a direct dedicated connection to the M6. This incidently was an aspect that the public inquiries in St Helens Council UDP 1996-1997 and the Swayfields M6 service station circa 2000-2001 was discussed and recommended. The proposed development in effect when looked at seriously is in effect the same development as proposed by British Coal/Morrisons application and St Helens Council UDP circa 1994-1998 where the Public Inquiry Inspector refused the proposals. The currect link road does not achieve isolation as claimed as shown in the previous plan on traffic flow and local road separation, all due to being an indirect route to the motorway system. This is in-effect a very cheap solution solves the problem on paper but not in reality. Though if Parkside is really required in the current logistics on container movements to provide savings for the logistics companies. With the growth in container movements relatively static. The logistic efficiency of Container movements is prime. A container full moved from A to B sounds fine on paper, but the cost of returning the empty container from B to A is the main concern these days. To transport an empty container is an expensive logistic company (shipping or otherwise) are finding ways to reduce. A Ship could have circa 20% of the containers being empty a very expensive cost. No modelling of any development considers this hidden environmental cost, as empty containers to be require stored, somewhere. This will be an environmental cost that even the proposed development at Parkside will have to bear, it can not be brush under the carpet so to say. For example: To move 20,000 TEU containers by sea use to be by several ships, transporting 3000, or 5000 or even 10,000 containers. Now the logistics companies are looking to save fuel with new ships that carry 20,000 containers plus. The cost of a container depends upon time required from A to B, the value of the goods, whether perishable or not, with most goods originating from China new routes are being developed the China Silk Road by train to Europe is booming but the cost has to be paid “Firms would likely need to charge $10,000 per container to make a profit but subsidies allowed many to charge about $3,000 to $6,000 per container. Some were offering rates as low as $1,000 per container, about the same as shipping by sea” (Reuters, 27 June 2018). Could Parkside warrant this cost per container? The same logistics savings are also currently taking place on land. Warehouses with robots, minimal exchange of containers to the destination. All to save costs and create more profit, Employment is at the bottom of the list and the first to go when savings are the prime mover. So if Parkside does warrant being created as a warehouse white elephant (incidently the name the miners called Parkside colliery), then a direct link to the motorway M6 is imperative and not an indirect link. As St Helens Council the developers of the link road and finance is their main concern a pure new junction is feasible that solves the access and traffic problems. But there is a cost though. But not insurmountable that is the A573 will have to be closed but this has been commented upon as not being an important road. In 1695 Dr. Richard Kuerden stated in his post road description of Winwick that the road to the east of Winwick Church is the lesser used road to Wigan. (Today known as the A573 - Golborne Road/Parkside Road). (Dr Richard Kuerden’s 1695 manuscript Chetham’s Library, Manchester translated and published in “Local Gleanings” edited by J.P. Earwaker.) Page 5 of 20 A573 Parkside Road/Golborne Road at Hermitage Green One flaw in the design of the Whole multi-part Project is the entrance and exit route from the A49 Winwick Road to the A573 Parkside Road. When Commercial vehicles turn right on to the A573 Parkside Road and continue towards Winwick via A573 Golborne Road; the hamlet/village of Hermitage Green is situated on the A573 where, due to a designated historical location of where King Oswald was slain (St Oswald's Well), the ancient road layout diverts around this very important historical site, via a “S” bend of the A573 Golborne Road. This “S” bend is a sharp and narrow road that has two 90degree diversion to the road direction. The road having two sharp bends is a point of contention with regards to the proposed whole multi-part project, for commercial vehicles travelling to and from the Parkside east/Parkside west developments of the project. With a new traffic light system expected to be utilised of the Project entry/exit on the A573. Several commercial vehicles will exit the site heading to the Hermitage Green “S” bend. Several scenarios can be assumed: ● If the traffic from Winwick on the A573 to the new traffic lights is stationary to well past the “S” bend the junction is in gridlock.