PROOF OF EVIDENCE Peel L&P Developments Ltd

Planning Appeal Relating to Development at Haydock Point, St Helens

January 2021

LPA Ref P/2017/2054/OUP PINS Ref APP/H4315/W/20/3256871

VN201731 Transport Proof of Evidence

Christopher Robert Hargreaves (Director of Vectos (North) Ltd)

vectos.co.uk i

Report control

Document: Transport Proof of Evidence

Project: Haydock Point Public Inquiry

Client: Peel L&P Developments Ltd

Job number: VN201731

File origin: N:\Vectos Job Data\2020\VN201731 Haydock Public Inquiry\Docs\Reports\Proof of Evidence\VN201731 Haydock Point - Transport Proof of Evidence v6.docx Document checking

Primary Author: Chris Hargreaves Initialled: CH

Contributor: Oliver McLaughlin Initialled: OM

Review by: Chris Hargreaves Initialled: CH

Issue Date Status Checked for issue

1 04/11/20 First Draft CH 2 27/11/20 Second Draft CH 3 13/12/20 Third Draft CH 4 06/01/21 Fourth Draft CH 5 15/01/21 Fifth Draft CH 6 26/01/21 Final CH

Haydock Point Public Inquiry vectos.co.uk

ii

Contents

1 Qualifications and Experience ...... 1

2 Introduction ...... 2

Scope of Evidence ...... 2

3 Background ...... 4

Planning Application ...... 4

Statement of Common Ground ...... 7

4 Policy Context ...... 8

Introduction ...... 8

National Planning Policy Framework ...... 8

Planning Practice Guidance: Travel Plans, Transport Assessments and Statements in Decision- Taking ...... 9

Local Transport Plan 3 (“LTP3”) for Merseyside (2011 - 2026) ...... 9

St Helens Core Strategy (October 2012) ...... 10

St. Helens Supplementary Planning Documents ...... 11

St Helens Borough Local Plan Submission Draft January 2019 ...... 11

Highways England Guidance ...... 13

5 Site Location and Transport Characteristics ...... 15

Introduction ...... 15

Site Location and Surrounding Area...... 15

Access to the Strategic Highway Network ...... 17

Accessibility by Sustainable Modes of Transport ...... 21

Accessibility by Walking and Cycling ...... 21

Accessibility by Cycling...... 23

Haydock Point Public Inquiry vectos.co.uk

iii

Proposed Improvements to Cycling and Walking Infrastructure ...... 23

Accessibility by Bus ...... 24

Accessibility by Rail ...... 26

Public Transport Accessibility Assessment ...... 28

6 Proposed Development ...... 29

Development Proposals ...... 29

Vehicle Access ...... 29

Safeguarded Land ...... 30

Car Parking ...... 31

Sustainable Transport ...... 31

Travel Plan...... 33

7 Highway Impact Assessment ...... 35

Agreed Study Area ...... 35

Methodology ...... 35

Access Junctions ...... 36

M6 Junction 23 ...... 36

Package of Highway Mitigation Works Benefits ...... 38

Haydock Racecourse ...... 39

Local Highway Network in St Helens ...... 40

Local Highway Network in Wigan ...... 40

8 M6 Junction 23 Improvement Scheme ...... 43

9 Summary and Conclusions ...... 49

Haydock Point Public Inquiry vectos.co.uk

iv

Figures

Figure 5.1 – Aerial Photograph of Existing Site Figure 5.2 – Site Location North West Motorway Context Figure 5.3 – Site Location and Strategic Freight Network Figure 5.4 – Walking and Cycling Infrastructure Figure 5.5 – LCWIP Prioritised Routes Figure 6.1 – Proposed Link Road Alignment Figure 8.1 – Northern A49 Arm – Alternative Diversion

Appendices

Appendix A – Letter from St Helens to Peel (5th March 2020) Appendix B – Highways England Consultation Response (14th July 2020) Appendix C – Wigan Council Response (21st January 2021) Appendix D – Technical Note Response to WBC Submission Appendix E – WSP Junction 23 Capacity Study Conclusions

Haydock Point Public Inquiry vectos.co.uk

1

1 Qualifications and Experience

1.1 My name is Christopher Robert Hargreaves. I hold the position of Managing Director of Vectos (North) Limited a firm of transport planning specialists and I am also a Director of Vectos Infrastructure Limited, based at Oxford Place, 61 Oxford Street, Manchester M1 6EQ. I hold a First Class Bachelor of Engineering Honours Degree in Civil Engineering from the University of Bradford and a Master of Science (Eng) Degree in Transport from Imperial College, London. I have practised in the field of Transport Planning and Traffic Engineering for twenty nine years and have specialised in the field of development traffic and transport planning for the past twenty seven years.

1.2 Prior to being involved in the launch of Vectos I was a Director of the transport consultancy Savell Bird & Axon, establishing a Manchester office for this practice in 2001. Before that I was employed by The Denis Wilson Partnership from 1994 to 2001, becoming a board Executive Director in 1999. I have held a Director position in transport planning consultancies specialising in development projects for the past 20 years. In that time, I have provided transportation advice on a wide range of development projects and given evidence at numerous public inquiries for a range of uses. This includes major employment proposals for example a call-in inquiry for a 1 million sqft business park in Tameside and a successful appeal against the refusal of two large B8 warehousing units at the XL Business Park, Skelmersdale, acting for Prologis. I was for a time an in-house transport consultant for Sainsburys Supermarkets Limited, which enabled a level of understanding of the logistics development side of the business.

1.3 I have a longstanding history of delivering warehousing and logistics projects. For example, whilst at The Denis Wilson Partnership I was the project manager leading on transport matters to achieve planning consent for the Sainsbury distribution centre located within the Haydock Industrial Estate. As a Director at SavelI Bird & Axon I advised Ocado on the potential locations for a new major distribution centre within the northwest, assessing the transport characteristics of a range of opportunity sites. Since 2010 I have advised Praxis on transport matters in respect of the Northern Gateway site mixed use development in Flintshire, consisting of circa 3 million sqft of mainly B8 employment development plus 750 residential dwellings. This involved developing a highway access and sustainable transport strategy to facilitate outline planning, and subsequently supporting infrastructure and development reserved matters applications. I am also currently advising Quorum Estates in respect of their planning application for an extension to Bredbury Industrial Estate consisting of 1 million sqft of B2/B8 development.

1.4 I am instructed by Peel L&P Developments Ltd (Peel) to advise on transport and highway matters associated with the planning application for employment development on the site known as Haydock Point, and to provide transport evidence for this Appeal. I have had a longstanding involvement in the site having been advising Peel on transport matters associated with their landholdings surrounding Junction 23 of the M6 Motorway (M6 J23) since 2015, and subsequently preparing the transport strategy to support the Haydock Point planning application, which is the subject of this Appeal.

1.5 Over the course of my involvement in the project, I have undertaken numerous visits to the Appeal Site and observed the local highway network, including during morning and evening peak periods. I am therefore well placed to present highways evidence to this Inquiry and declare that this evidence represents a true and professional opinion of highway and transport matters relevant to the Inquiry irrespective of by whom I am instructed.

Haydock Point Public Inquiry vectos.co.uk January 2021 2

2 Introduction

2.1 My evidence deals with transportation and highway matters associated with the planning application for employment development on the Haydock Point site (LPA Ref. P/2017/0254/OUT), which has been appealed against non-determination. The proposed development is described as follows:

“Outline planning application with all matters other than access reserved for the development of the site for up to 167,225m2 of B8/ B2 (up to 20% B2 floor space), ancillary office and associated site facilities floor space, car parking, landscaping, site profiling, transport, drainage and utilities infrastructure”.

Scope of Evidence

2.2 Following this introduction, Section 3 of my evidence provides a summary of the considerable technical work undertaken to support the planning application and the extensive discussions that have taken place with St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (SHBC), Highways England (HE) and their respective consultants, to get to a positive resolution of highway and transport matters. Section 4 deals with national and local policy context from a transport and highways perspective. Section 5 provides a description of the site and existing transport characteristics. Section 6 provides a description of the proposed development, proposed access arrangements, and improvements to sustainable transport. Section 7 considers the highway impacts of the proposed development, followed by Section 8 which considers the development proposals and package of highway improvements in the context of wider improvement proposals under consideration for M6 J23. Section 9 sets out the summary and conclusions of my evidence.

2.3 In summary, my evidence demonstrates the following:

i) The site is readily accessible by sustainable modes of transport, including proposed improvements to the accessibility to the proposed development by public transport.

ii) A series of highway improvements are proposed, consisting of a new roundabout on the A49 and link road through the development site (to become adopted highway) to a new high capacity traffic signal junction on the A580 East Lancashire Road. The new link road would provide means of access to the site development plots. The link road would also allow the removal of the A49 (north) connection to M6 J23 through the diversion of traffic to the new link road. This would provide considerable safety and capacity benefits to M6 J23 through the removal of a conflict node with short internal stacking on the M6 J23 signalised roundabout. In addition, it is proposed to improve capacity at M6 J23 by increasing the number of lanes on the A580 eastbound and westbound approaches and increase lane lengths for the right turn movements internal to the junction between the bridge piers. Overall, the proposed improvements, with the development, would provide for a much improved operation of M6 J23 in safety and capacity terms compared to baseline conditions. Furthermore, based on preliminary costings prepared by consultant WSP acting on behalf of SHBC, the Appellants monetary contribution to wider improvements at M6 J23 would be in the region of £11.8million. This represents a substantial level of funding by the Appellant and would deliver significant cost savings to the public purse.

Haydock Point Public Inquiry vectos.co.uk January 2021 3

iii) The proposed development will unlock future capacity improvements at M6 J23 by diverting the northern A49 arm through the site, seen as a critical element of potential future wider improvements at M6 J23 as reported in the M6 Junction 23 Haydock Island Capacity Feasibility Study prepared by WSP on behalf of SHBC.

iv) The proposed development complies with national and local policies relating to highways and transport matters.

Haydock Point Public Inquiry vectos.co.uk January 2021 4

3 Background

Planning Application

3.1 Vectos were instructed to support the planning application submission for the site preparing and submitting a Transport Assessment (TA) and Travel Plan (TP) to SHBC in March 2017 (CD15.74). Pre-application discussions were held with SHBC in their capacity as Local Highway Authority, and HE and their consultants WSP, to define the requirements for the TA. Vectos also prepared the Transport Chapter for the Environmental Statement (ES) that was submitted as part of the planning application. At this point in time, the proposals involved the provision of access via a new traffic signal controlled junction with the A580, with an emergency access onto the A49 Lodge Lane (North).

3.2 Following the submission of planning application P/2017/0254/OUP in March 2017 further discussions were held with representatives from SHBC, Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (WBC) and HE, culminating in a meeting on 29th June 2017, where transport matters, including the issue of committed developments and background traffic growth were discussed in detail. There then followed a series of technical responses, through which the methodology for calculating ‘without’ and ‘with development’ traffic flows were agreed with the relevant authorities. This culminated in the submission of an Addendum Transport Assessment (ATA) (CD 16.11) document in December 2017 which provided an updated highway impact assessment to reflect these discussions.

3.3 The TA and ATA were then followed by the provision of supplementary information in the form of a series of technical notes and letters in response to continued dialogue with the highway authorities in terms of highway impacts and site access design.

3.4 A meeting was held with HE on the 26th October 2018, focusing on the proposed mitigation improvements at M6 J23. Following this meeting, an enhanced package of mitigation improvements was put forward for M6 J23 in November 2018 to SHBC and HE. The technical information supporting the enhanced mitigation works demonstrated that the proposed improvements would mitigate the impact of the proposed development.

3.5 The position on highway impact and access matters was set out in our letter to St Helens dated 21st December 2018 (CD 18.7). This concluded that, with the enhanced package of mitigation improvements at M6 J23, there were predicted to be improvements to the operation of the junction, with materially reduced Degrees of Saturation and Queues. It was therefore concluded that with the enhanced mitigation, the proposed development would not result in detrimental impacts at M6 J23, meeting the requirement of DfT Circular 02/2013. It was also concluded that the proposed A580 site access arrangements would accommodate the proposed development and have no operational impact on M6 J23.

3.6 In January 2019 it was explained by the highway authorities that a study into long term improvements at M6 J23 was being progressed by consultant WSP on behalf of SHBC in consultation with HE and WBC. It was also revealed that a key aspect of the emerging options for wider improvements to M6 J23 involved the removal of the A49 approach arms. In the context of the Appeal site, SHBC and HE requested that consideration be given to inclusion of this approach as part of the overall design,

Haydock Point Public Inquiry vectos.co.uk January 2021 5

which as a matter of course would involve the creation of a new link road between the A49 (N) and the A580 through the Appeal Site.

3.7 The Council’s position in respect of the Junction 23 study and approach to partners and developers was set out in a letter from the then Interim Chief Executive to Peel dated 5th March 2020, included in my Appendix A. The letter indicated the intention to publish the final study in Spring, following which the Council would be in a position “to promote the preferred solution for funding with a view to delivering the scheme in conjunction with its partners.” The letter goes on to state that the preferred solution has been shared in order to influence the approach of developers, noting Peel had taken this on board in the context of advancing Peel’s proposals at Haydock Point.

3.8 In consideration of the advised study findings, the Peel team explored the opportunity to provide a link between the A49 Lodge Lane and the A580 East Lancashire Road to allow the removal of the A49 connection to the M6 J23 roundabout. The development scheme was substantially amended so that instead of the main access being solely from the A580 traffic signal junction, the proposals incorporated a link road from this junction through the development site to the A49. The junction with the A49 was proposed to be a roundabout, with the A49 connection to the M6 J23 signalised gyratory able to be removed in accordance with the emerging Junction 23 Study recommendations as advised by SHBC and HE.

3.9 Our Addendum Technical Note 3 (ATN 3) dated March 2019 (CD 18.8) was produced to consider traffic impacts associated with the provision of the link road in terms of the operation of M6 J23 and the site access junctions on the A580 and A49 (N). Highway mitigation measures were retained for improving capacity at M6 J23 itself.

3.10 A meeting was held on 4th April 2019 including representatives from SHBC, HE and their respective consultants Mott MacDonald (MM) and WSP, and Peel represented by Turley and Vectos. Prior to the meeting comments were received from WSP on behalf of HE on ATN 3.

3.11 At this meeting the emerging wider study at M6 J23 was presented in more detail by SHBC. The study identified the removal of the A49 arms of M6 J23 as being essential to enabling the delivery of the desired wider improvements to capacity and safety at the junction. These would be combined with options for additional capacity improvements at M6 J23, including the provision of additional lanes on the approaches and for increased capacity on the straight ahead and right turn movements through the junction, or a more radical diverging diamond option.

3.12 Following the meeting our Addendum Technical Note 4 (ATN 4) (April 2019) (CD 18.9) was prepared to provide an updated technical assessment of the operation of M6 J23 and site access junctions. ATN 4 addressed comments raises during the 4th April 2019 meeting, together with comments from WSP for HE, in their March 2019 ‘Review of Addendum Technical Note 3 & LinSig Model Audit’, and comments provided by SHBC, via consultant MM, dated 17th April 2019.

3.13 Further correspondence took place with SHBC and MM to deal with additional technical queries and design matters. Of note in July 2019, SHBC requested that Peel make provision for a 10m wide offset to be safeguarded for a distance of 50m from all approaches to the access junctions to future proof the emerging M6 J23 improvement proposals, including the full length of the southern and western flanks of the development site. Peel has accorded with this requirement. In addition, as requested by

Haydock Point Public Inquiry vectos.co.uk January 2021 6

SHBC, Peel also agreed to safeguard additional land to create a horizontal alignment design to provide a direct link between the A49 and the new link road in place of the roundabout junction. The combined safeguarded areas of land have been agreed by Peel at the request of SHBC for the sole purpose delivery of the future M6 J23 scheme.

3.14 Through consultation with the highway authorities, the proposed package of highway works was updated to include the following taking into account the emerging proposals for improvements to M6 J23:

i) The detail of the points of access into the site off the A580 (traffic signals) and A49 (roundabout) with the creation of the link road between the A49 and the A580.

ii) Highway works outside the site boundary, including the closure of the southbound carriageway of the A49 between the site access and the M6 J23 roundabout and highway improvements to M6 J23 itself.

iii) The inclusion of additional detail for approval regarding the design of the new A49 providing a greater level of certainty in respect of this aspect of the amended proposed development.

3.15 In May 2020, a Transport Assessment Update (TAU) (CD 17.29) was prepared and submitted which summarised the agreed positions with SHBC and HE through the submission of the extensive body of technical work undertaken on the project, and to reflect the latest position in respect of the proposals according with the M6 J23 improvement scheme.

3.16 Highways England issued a formal consultation response to the planning application dated 14th July 2020 (CD 20.8), recommending that conditions be attached to the application relating to the design and delivery of an improvement schemes at M6 J23, as shown in Vectos Drawing No. VN60647/P-09. The consultation response in provided at my Appendix B.

3.17 In September 2020, we were provided with WSP’s report “M6 Junction 23 Haydock Island Capacity Feasibility Study (June 2019)” (CD 22.2), which I refer to in more detail in Section 8 of my evidence. The report confirmed the preferred options for progressing a wider improvement scheme at M6 J23, including the provision of a link road through the Peel site.

3.18 MM acting for St Helens Council reviewed and commented on the TAU in their Technical Note dated 22nd October 2020 (CD 20.12). The response provided no substantive concerns, which were dealt with in a further letter from Vectos to SHBC dated 11th November 2020 (CD 24.8).

3.19 Further discussions have taken place with MM to progress an agreed Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) between SHBC and Peel on highway and transport matters.

Haydock Point Public Inquiry vectos.co.uk January 2021 7

Statement of Common Ground

3.20 The SoCG with SHBC is Core Document 25.8.

3.21 Key points of agreement are summarised below:

i) The development site is accessible by sustainable modes of transport including the provision of a new bus link between St Helens, Newton-le-Willows (including the rail station) and the proposed development.

ii) The proposed access arrangements in the form of a new traffic signal controlled junction on the A580, a new roundabout junction on the A49 Lodge Lane, and a new link road connecting these junctions can accommodate the proposed development.

iii) Proposed improvements to M6 J23 mitigate the impact of the proposed development and provide for superior operation of J23 in highway safety and capacity terms, including removing the southbound A49 connection on to the J23 Roundabout.

iv) The proposed improvements to M6 J23 including removing the southbound Lodge Lane link, plus the provision of the new link road between the A49 Lodge Lane and the A580, provides an essential element of wider improvement proposals under consideration for M6 J23, with the improvements included in the Liverpool City Region Combined Authorities pipeline of future improvement schemes. The improvements therefore also represent a substantial contribution to the wider improvements under consideration at M6 J23.

Haydock Point Public Inquiry vectos.co.uk January 2021 8

4 Policy Context

Introduction

4.1 This Section of my evidence outlines the relevant national and local transport policies on the integration of land use planning and transport.

National Planning Policy Framework

4.2 The latest iteration of the National Planning Policy Framework was published by the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) in February 2019 and provides guidance for English Council’s in producing local plans and making decisions on planning applications.

4.3 The key message of the NPPF, is that sustainable development should go ahead without delay and the planning system should facilitate such development.

4.4 Paragraph 2 of the NPPF confirms that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

4.5 Paragraph 8 of the NPPF sets out three dimensions to achieving sustainable development:

i) An economic objective – ensuring that sufficient land of the right type is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth and innovation; and by identifying and coordinating development requirements, including infrastructure.

ii) A social objective – provision of accessible services that reflect the community’s needs and support its health, social and cultural well-being.

iii) An environmental objective – using natural reserves prudently, minimising waste and pollution, and mitigate and adapt the climate change including moving to a low carbon economy.

4.6 The NPPF advocates that to achieve sustainable development, economic, social and environmental gains should be sought in a coordinated manner and the planning systems should play an active role in guiding development to sustainable locations, with plans and decisions taking local circumstances into account.

4.7 As outlined in Paragraph 11, at the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which is to be seen as a golden thread for plan making and decision taking. This presumption in favour of sustainable development relates to both plan making and decision taking. It requires that planning authorities should positively seek opportunities to meet the development needs of their area and that Local Plans should meet objectively assessed needs unless the adverse impacts of doing so would ‘significantly and demonstrably’ outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies of the NPPF, or where the Framework indicates development should be restricted.

Haydock Point Public Inquiry vectos.co.uk January 2021 9

4.8 In respect of promoting sustainable transport, Paragraph 102 of the NPPF outlines that transport issues should be considered from the earliest stages of development proposals, so that:

i) The potential impacts of development on transport networks can be addressed;

ii) Opportunities from existing or proposed transport infrastructure, and changing transport technology and usage, are realised – for example in relation to the scale, location or density of development that can be accommodated;

iii) Opportunities to promote walking, cycling and public transport use are identified and pursued;

iv) The environmental impacts of traffic and transport infrastructure can be identified, assessed and taken into account – including appropriate opportunities for avoiding and mitigating any adverse effects, and for net environmental gains; and

v) Patterns of movement, streets, parking and other transport considerations are integral to the design of schemes and contribute to making high quality places.

4.9 Annex 2 of the NPPF defines sustainable transport modes as “any efficient, safe and accessible means of transport with overall low impact on the environment, including walking and cycling, low and ultra-low emission vehicles, car sharing and public transport”.

4.10 The NPPF states that “development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe.” (Paragraph 109)

Planning Practice Guidance: Travel Plans, Transport Assessments and Statements in Decision-Taking

4.11 In March 2014, the MHCLG in conjunction with the Department for Transport (DfT), released advice on when transport assessments and transport statements are required, what they should contain (which is intended to assist stakeholders in determining whether an assessment may be required) and, if so, what the level and scope of that assessment should be.

4.12 The advice reflects current Government policy promoting a shift from the ‘predict and provide’ approach to transport planning to one more focused on sustainability. The document focuses on encouraging environmental sustainability, managing the existing network and mitigating the residual impacts of traffic from the development proposals.

Local Transport Plan 3 (“LTP3”) for Merseyside (2011 - 2026)

4.13 The LTP3 was adopted in April 2011 and sets out the implementation plans in the short term to 2015 and looks to the longer term strategy for 2024 on how to improve transport in Merseyside.

Haydock Point Public Inquiry vectos.co.uk January 2021 10

4.14 The plan has 6 equal status goals which seek to:

i) Help create the right conditions for sustainable economic growth by supporting the priorities of the Liverpool City Region, the Local Enterprise Partnership and the Local Strategic Partnerships;

ii) Provide and promote a clean, low emission transport system which is resilient to changes to climate and oil availability;

iii) Ensure the transport system promotes and enables improved health and wellbeing and road safety;

iv) Ensure equality of travel opportunity for all, through a transport system that allows people to connect easily with employment, education, healthcare, other essential services and leisure and recreational opportunities;

v) Ensure the transport network supports the economic success of the city region by the efficient movement of people and goods; and

vi) Maintain our assets to a high standard.

St Helens Core Strategy (October 2012)

4.15 The Development Plan for St Helens comprises the St Helens Core Strategy (adopted 2012), the St Helens Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies (adopted 1998 and saved policies post 2012) and the Merseyside Joint Waste Local Plan (2013). Alongside those core documents are a number of supporting Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs) which expand on or provide further details on policy in the development plan document, including the “Ensuring a Choice of Travel SPD” (2010).

4.16 Within the policy context, the land is within the Green Belt and lies adjacent to the Strategic Highway Network.

4.17 Policies of the development plan relevant to Transport seek to promote development in locations that are accessible by a choice of means and take advantage of the strategic and freight road network and existing infrastructure (policies CP 2/ CIN 1/CAS 4).

4.18 The relevant policies from the Core Strategy are set out below.

4.19 Policy CIN1 sets out that developers provide the necessary infrastructure that their development will require through the provision of on or off site provision of infrastructure, or making payments through a tariff based system, or the Community Infrastructure, or other developer contribution regime.

4.20 Policy CAS 4 ‐ Haydock and Blackbrook Strategy, states at bullet point five that:

“Support will be maintained for the following accessibility objectives and development will be prevented from prejudicing the outcome wherever possible:

Haydock Point Public Inquiry vectos.co.uk January 2021 11

Maintaining the effectiveness of the Freight Route Network including Junction 23 of the M6 motorway; and

Initiatives to improve access to employment opportunities, such as those at the Haydock Industrial Estate.”

4.21 Policy CP 2 ‐ Creating an Accessible St Helens, seeks to improve access for all through:

i) Ensuring a choice in mode of travel;

ii) Ensuring access to local facilities by protecting and enhancing routes and links and public transport facilities;

iii) Safe and adequate access to and from the public highway through the provision of safe and adequate vehicular, cycle and pedestrian access to and from, and circulation within, a site;

iv) The sustainable location of significant generators of journeys by, amongst others, locating development where it is a convenient and safe walking distance from public transport amenities.

v) Reduce the adverse impacts of traffic on the community; and

vi) Support Local Transport Plan Priorities by ensuring development will not prejudice planned infrastructure improvements.

4.22 Paragraph 13.17 and 13.18 of the Core Strategy state that development proposals that are likely to generate a significant number of trips should be accompanied by a Transport Assessment and Travel Plan.

St. Helens Supplementary Planning Documents

4.23 In transport planning terms the relevant SPD is the Council’s ‘Ensuring a Choice of Travel’ (June 2010) document.

4.24 This document has been developed to provide developers with transport related advice in respect to new development. It is a material consideration in the determination of planning applications. The SPD seeks to achieve a number of key transport related objectives and the accompanying TA has been prepared in accordance with the guidance set out in Chapter 5 of the SPD, which covers the preparation of Transport Assessments.

4.25 The SPD includes an Accessibility Standard Assessment which developers are required to complete to demonstrate that sites are suitably accessible.

St Helens Borough Local Plan Submission Draft January 2019

4.26 In accordance with Regulation 22 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 (as amended), St Helens Borough Council submitted the St Helens Borough Local

Haydock Point Public Inquiry vectos.co.uk January 2021 12

Plan 2020 – 2035 Submission Draft (2019) to the Secretary of State on 29 October 2020 for examination by the Planning Inspectorate. It is understood that Inspectors have been appointed for the Examination in Public, which is due to take place in 2021.

4.27 The Plan’s ‘Policy LPA06: Safeguarded Land’ also outlines two sites that will be safeguarded for employment development – one of these being the application site. This is referenced as site ‘2ES: Land North East of Junction 23 of M6, (South of Haydock racecourse), Haydock’ and is stated as comprising 55.9 ha area of land. It is highlighted that the form and extent of any development at 2ES is likely to be influenced by its interrelationship with Junction 23 of the M6, where there is likely to be need for improvements such as enlargement of the junction to enhance capacity.

4.28 There are a number of transport related documents that make up the evidence base to support the Local Plan Submission Draft, including St Helens Local Plan Transport Impact Assessment: Forecasting Report (June 2018) and St Helens Local Plan Transport Impact Assessment (January 2019).

4.29 Policy LPA07: Transport and Travel of the Submission Draft states:

“The Council’s strategic priorities for the transport network are to facilitate economic growth, enable good levels of accessibility between homes, jobs and services, improve air quality and minimise carbon emissions. To achieve these priorities, it will seek to:

a) Secure the delivery of new or improved road, walking, cycling, and / or bus infrastructure where required;

b) Ensure that new development is sufficiently accessible by road transport, walking, cycling and public transport;

c) Secure improvements to existing motorway capacity and infrastructure with particular priority being given to the M6 Junction 23 and M62 Junction 7;

d) Improve the accessibility to jobs, homes and services by all modes of transport and protect opportunities to achieve such improvements.”

4.30 As noted above, a key policy aspect of transport and travel which underpins the emerging Local Plan is to secure highway capacity improvements to Junction 23 of the M6 as identified in the Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) evidence base. This evidence base has informed the St Helens Local Plan Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) (December 2018) which states that based on the analysis presented in the TIA, a clear need has been identified to address a number of pressure points within the highway system, including at Junction 23 of the M6. The Infrastructure Delivery Schedule describes the project as of region-wide strategic significance.

4.31 Specifically, in relation to Junction 23 M6, the IDP states:

“M6 Junction 23 connects the M6, A580 East Lancashire Road and A49 and suffers congestion, delay and safety issues, particularly during the evening peak hours and when events take place at Haydock Racecourse. These result in queuing on all of these sections of highway, with queuing on the M6 mainline managed via a MOVA system at the junction.

Haydock Point Public Inquiry vectos.co.uk January 2021 13

Each of the highways served by Junction 23 plays an important role in the strategic and/or local road networks. Furthermore, a number of the sites identified for allocation or safeguarding in the LPPO would result in development that increases traffic flow at this junction. The Council has commissioned a study into improvement options at the junction, which is being undertaken in partnership with Wigan Council and Highways England. Opportunities to secure funding as part of this joint working arrangement are also being investigated, to secure delivery of an identified optimum solution.”

4.32 In conclusion it is evident that SHBC consider improvements to be required at M6 J23 in order to accommodate anticipated future including that associated with Local Plan development, with specific priority given to the securing of such improvements in the Submission Draft Local Plan, including the supporting Infrastructure Delivery Plan.

Highways England Guidance

The Strategic Road Network: Planning for the Future (2015)

4.33 Highways England note that operating an effective and efficient strategic road network makes a significant contribution to the delivery of sustainable economic growth. To assist with this, Highways England’s ‘The Strategic Road Network: Planning for the Future’ (2015) provides guidance and clarity on the key elements to be considered when assessing planning applications and Local Plan allocations. Key to all of this is early engagement and ensuring that any issues that take time to analyse and resolve are identified as soon as possible.

4.34 It acknowledges that Transport Assessments should be carried out in line with prevailing Government guidance. Where there are physical changes proposed to the network, schemes must also be subject to road safety, environmental and non-motorised user audits with all works conforming to requirements outlined in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB).

The Strategic Road Network and the Delivery of Sustainable Development (2013)

4.35 The Department for Transport’s Circular 02/2013 ‘The Strategic Road Network and the Delivery of Sustainable Development’ provides more detailed information relating to how Highways England engage with communities and the development industry to deliver sustainable development.

4.36 It highlights that development proposals are likely to be wholly acceptable if they can be accommodated within the existing capacity of a section of the strategic road network, or if they do not increase demand for use of the section that is already at full capacity.

4.37 It is noted that where these tests are not satisfied, additional assessment will be required to understand the scope and scale of the impact on the strategic road network. This includes the following:

i) Demonstrate how the proposals will reduce the need to travel, especially by car;

ii) Demonstrate how the proposals will improve accessibility by all modes of travel and influence travel behaviours;

Haydock Point Public Inquiry vectos.co.uk January 2021 14

iii) Assess the likely impact of residual trips (ie after measures above have been considered); and

iv) Identify appropriate and proportionate mitigation measures and ensure that what is proposed promotes sustainable transport outcomes and avoids unnecessary works to the strategic road network.

4.38 In terms of infrastructure, it is noted that any capacity enhancements or new infrastructure required to deliver strategic growth should be identified at the Local Plan stage. In addition, where development proposals are consistent with an adopted Local Plan, Highways England would normally look to inspect the detail of the proposed transport solutions rather than the principle of the development itself.

Haydock Point Public Inquiry vectos.co.uk January 2021 15

5 Site Location and Transport Characteristics

Introduction

5.1 This Section of my evidence provides a description of the development site, including existing transport characteristics.

Site Location and Surrounding Area

5.2 Plan CH01 shows the location of the site in the context of the strategic road network, with Plan CH02 showing the site in a more local context.

5.3 The appeal site is located approximately 7.5km to the east of St Helens and lies close to the settlements of Haydock (2.5km to the west), Ashton and Makerfield (1.5km to the north) and Golborne (1.7km to the east). The site is located entirely within the administrative boundary of SHBC but is adjacent to that of WBC. It is irregularly shaped and comprises 42.3ha of agricultural land.

5.4 The site occupies the north-eastern quadrant of land surrounding M6 J23. The A49 Lodge Lane, which runs north-south, forms the site’s western boundary, with the A580 forming the boundary to the south. The remaining site boundaries are formed by agricultural land to the north-west, Haydock Park Racecourse to the north and established woodland to the east.

5.5 There are currently no formal vehicle access points to the site provided from either the A49 Lodge Lane or the A580, although there is an untarmacked access onto the land from the A49 which connects to a dirt track running along the site’s northern boundary.

5.6 The wider area includes some residential (to the north-west and north-east), and industrial uses (Haydock Industrial Park lies to the west, beyond the M6) together with agricultural land. A specialist care residential facility lies approximately 500 metres to the south of the A580.

Haydock Point Public Inquiry vectos.co.uk January 2021 16

5.7 An aerial photograph showing the extent of the appeal site is shown in Figure 5.1.

Figure 5.1 – Aerial Photograph of Existing Site

5.8 Figure 5.1 shows the site boundary fronting onto the A580 East Lancashire Road, which forms part of the Primary Route Network and its adjacency to J23 of the M6 and the M6 corridor. Further description of the site’s advantageous location in respect of access to the strategic road network is presented below.

Haydock Point Public Inquiry vectos.co.uk January 2021 17

Access to the Strategic Highway Network

5.9 Figure 5.2 shows the site location in the context of the North West motorway network.

Figure 5.2 – Site Location North West Motorway Context

Haydock Point Public Inquiry vectos.co.uk January 2021 18

5.10 Figure 5.3 shows the site location in the context of the Merseyside Strategic Road Network, as contained in the Merseyside Local Transport Plan 3, including the Strategic Freight Network (SFN). The SFN is defined as a limited network containing the routes onto which the major through movement of freight traffic is directed.

Haydock Point

Figure 5.3 – Site Location and Strategic Freight Network

5.11 These figures can also be cross-referenced to my Plan CH01, which shows the site in the context of other strategic routes. This includes the A580 East Lancashire Road, which as with the motorway network is part of the SFN, see Figure 5.3. The A580 also form part of the Key Route Network (KRN).

Haydock Point Public Inquiry vectos.co.uk January 2021 19

5.12 The establishment of a Key Route Network (KRN) of strategically important local roads, and the creation of a single asset management plan, with greater management and influence by the LCR Combined Authority formed a core element of the 2015 Devolution Deal with Government. In line with the new mobility culture articulated in the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority’s Transport Plan, the better management and maintenance of the KRN brings opportunities to improve conditions for cyclists, pedestrians, bus users, freight and motorists alike, and alleviates pressure on less suitable routes for strategic movements on the network.

5.13 The M6 provides immediate access to the main north/south strategic link between Birmingham and Cumbria, with links then to the wider UK strategic road network. The A580 provides a strategic east west link between Manchester and Liverpool, and in Merseyside connects to the M57 Motorway which distributes traffic around the conurbation.

5.14 To the south the M6 connects with the M62, which in turn provides access into Warrington and Liverpool to the west and to Greater Manchester to the east, including a connection to the M60 orbital motorway.

5.15 Beyond Greater Manchester, the M62 connects to West and East Yorkshire, linking to the M1 and A1(M) providing strategic linkages to destinations north and south to the east of England. The A580 also provides a strategic connection to the M60 and to the M62 accessing the east, in addition to the M62. The A580 and M62 strategic links to the M60 orbital motorway allow access to all areas of the Greater Manchester conurbation, and beyond with links to the M66 north to East Lancashire.

5.16 Further south the M6 links to the M56 providing access west to south Warrington, Runcorn/Widnes, and on to Chester and North Wales via the M53, which also provides access north to the southern areas of Wirral peninsula. To the east the M56 provides convenient access to the M60 and the areas of south Manchester and beyond.

5.17 To the north the M6 connects with the M58 Motorway which links into north Merseyside. Further north the M6 links with the M65 providing connections to Blackburn and Burnley, and the M55 to Blackpool.

5.18 In summary, the site provides an optimal location for logistics/warehousing development, with access directly on to the UK strategic road network, and strategically located between Merseyside and Greater Manchester, in the heart of the North West’s motorway network. Such a location provides a high level of accessibility to key transport hubs including the Port of Liverpool, Liverpool Airport, and Manchester Airport.

5.19 As a result, the site’s advantageous level of accessibility will be highly attractive for potential occupiers. Direct access onto the SFN also means there would be negligible traffic impacts on roads considered less suitable for strategic freight movements, such as impacts on noise, air quality, pedestrian amenity, fear and intimidation, and severance. Logistics operations tend to be over a 24 hour period and operators, in considering potential sites for location, will consider the prospect of their HGV movements in particular causing a negative environmental impact. This will be particularly the case for 24 hour operations with a significant level of HGV movements.

Haydock Point Public Inquiry vectos.co.uk January 2021 20

5.20 Mr Brooke’s evidence refers to other sites on the M6 corridor which are the subject of planning applications, including Parkside, St Helens, and Symmetry Park, Wigan, which have been the subject of the public inquiry process. All are less well related to the SRN.

5.21 The planning application for Parkside West (Phase 1) proposes up to 92,900m² of B8 warehousing development with ancillary B1(a) offices, to be capable of delivery without the proposed Parkside Link Road being in place. The access to Phase 1 Parkside would therefore be from the A49 Winwick Road, which as can be seen from my Figure 5.3 is not on the Liverpool City Region SFN.

5.22 By far the closest access to this network would be at Junction 23 of the M6 for access to the A580 and the M6. M6 J23 is a distance of 3.4km from the proposed site access on the A49. The route to M6 J23 involves travelling along the Mill Lane, High Street, and Ashton Road sections of the A49 which is a single carriageway, involving routing via the High Street/Ashton Lane mini-roundabout. The route is characterised by numerous frontage residential properties. Access to the M6 can also be gained from Parkside at Junction 22, which is a distance of 4.3km from the proposed A49 site access. This route also involves the need to pass frontage residential properties and through the village of Winwick. In my opinion, the characteristics of the access routes to the SFN from Phase 1 of Parkside and the distances from M6 Junctions 22 and 23 are not conducive to being attractive to potential B8 occupiers. The proper planning for Parkside is therefore considered to be reliant on delivery of the Parkside Link Road.

5.23 The Symmetry Park, Wigan site, located adjacent to Junction 24 of the M6 proposes some 134,000m² of predominantly B8 warehousing development. Accessibility to the development would however be heavily constrained as J24 M6 only has south facing slip roads. Whilst the junction provides good access to the M6 south and to the A580, the lack of northbound slips means that accessibility to the SFN is restricted. Trips seeking to travel north would need to travel south along the M6 to J24 M6 and undertake a U-turn at this junction, a situation which is less than ideal.

5.24 In conclusion, the Appeal proposals present an ideal location for the proposed use, to enable access to the Strategic Freight Network compared to the other sites on the M6 corridor.

Haydock Point Public Inquiry vectos.co.uk January 2021 21

Accessibility by Sustainable Modes of Transport

5.25 This section of my evidence considers the accessibility of the site by walking, cycling, and public transport.

Accessibility by Walking and Cycling

5.26 Existing walking and cycling infrastructure providing access to the site is shown in Figure 5.4 below which has been obtained from SHBC’s SPG Ensuring a Choice of Travel.

Figure 5.4 – Walking and Cycling Infrastructure

5.27 In the direct vicinity of the site the A580 provides an off-carriageway shared footway/cycleway along its southern side, including street lighting in the vicinity of M6 J23. This shared footway/cycleway connects with existing provision at M6 J23 and includes controlled crossing provision on all signalised arms of the junction, which is supported by tactile paving and dropped kerb provision. To the east the off-road footway/cycle route continues into Greater Manchester along the southern side of the A580 forming part of the GM strategic cycle network.

5.28 Fronting the site, the A49 provides a shared footway/cycleway link to the crossing facilities at Junction 23, which would afford direct pedestrian and cycle access to the site.

Haydock Point Public Inquiry vectos.co.uk January 2021 22

5.29 The pedestrian/ cycle route passes through M6 J23, continuing on the southern side of the A580 towards Haydock and St Helens. As indicated in Figure 5.4, the pedestrian/cycle route connects to a series of on road advisory cycle routes, off road routes and routes with on-road cycle facilities.

5.30 To the west of the site, a street lit footway is provided along the eastern side of the A49 Lodge Lane. This footway connects the site to the A49 Lodge Lane/ A599 Penny Lane junction which has been upgraded to signal control as part of the Haydock Green employment development. The junction upgrade includes pedestrian crossing provision that will safely serve east/ west movements across the A49. From this location pedestrians then have the option to travel along Penny Lane towards Haydock via an underpass which allows them to avoid crossing the A580 at street level.

5.31 Continuing north along the A49, the existing pedestrian footway provides connections to bus stops served by the No. 320 service, and thereafter continues into Ashton-in-Makerfield. This route also connects with a footpath to the north of Haydock Racecourse which runs along a discontinued railway line and offers an alternative route towards Golborne.

5.32 To the south of M6 J23 the A49 provides a street lit footway along the western side which serves pedestrian connections towards Newton-le-Willows.

5.33 In conclusion, there is a good level of pedestrian and cycle infrastructure already in place to provide accessibility to the site by these most sustainable modes of travel.

5.34 The Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation document entitled ‘Providing for Journeys on Foot’ states that the acceptable maximum walking distance for commuting trips is 2 kilometres. SHBC guidance provided in their Ensuring a Choice of Travel SPD states that walking isochrones should be provided for 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 minutes walking distance. Based upon a walking speed of 1.4 m/s this equates to 400, 800, 1,200, 1,600 and 2,000 metre isochrones, measured from the relevant access points to the development in accordance with SHBC guidance.

5.35 Plan CH03 provides these various walking distances up to the maximum of 2,000m as advised by the IHT and SMBC Guidance.

5.36 Plan CH03 illustrates that residential areas of New Boston, Haydock, Ashton-in-Makerfield, Golborne and Newton-le-Willows are all within the maximum 2,000m walking distance of the site. As such these areas, which include a population of over 10,000, are considered to be within walking distance of the site and demonstrate the opportunity for employment based trips to be undertaken on foot.

5.37 The plan also shows that the closest bus stops on the A49 Lodge Lane are within 400m walk of the site, providing scope for access onto the public transport network. Accessibility by public transport is considered in more detail later in my evidence.

5.38 In addition to the existing pedestrian infrastructure the proposed development will provide measures designed to further encourage journeys on foot which I deal with in Section 6 of my evidence.

Haydock Point Public Inquiry vectos.co.uk January 2021 23

Accessibility by Cycling

5.39 Cycling is becoming an increasingly popular mode of transport and as demonstrated earlier, there is already a good level of cycle infrastructure serving the site. The DfT’s Local Transport Note (LTN) 2/08 ‘Cycle Infrastructure Design’ (2008) states that many utility cycle journeys are under 3 miles (5 kilometres) although for commuters a trip distance of over 5 miles (8 kilometres) is not uncommon. LTN 2/08 has recently been superseded by LTN 1/20 ‘Cycle Infrastructure Design’ (2020) however these distances remain relevant.

5.40 SHBC guidance states that cycling isochrones should be based upon a speed of 4 m/s and should be provided for 10, 20 and 30 minute journey times. This equates to 2.4, 4.8 and 7.2 kilometre catchments for an average speed of 4 m/s. 4 m/s equates to 9 miles per hour (14 kph), which is considered to be a relatively slow cycle speed particularly for commuters. Average cycling speeds associated with commuting are quoted from various cycling website sources as being 11-18 mph (18-29 km/h). The variation is due to differences in routes, traffic levels, traffic signals, road conditions, distances, and weather. An 8 kilometre catchment has also been considered to reflect the Local Transport Note advice.

5.41 Plan CH04 provides a range of cycle distances and isochrones, up to the 8 km catchment as advised by LTN 2/08. Whilst this guidance is superseded by LTN 1/20 Cycle Infrastructure Design as indicated the catchment advice is still considered relevant.

5.42 Plan CH04 demonstrates that areas of Ashton-in-Makerfield, Golborne, Haydock and Newton-le- Willows are within a 10 minute cycle ride (2.4 km), while the entirety of these areas are within the 20 minutes journey time (4.8 km). The 7.2 and 8 kilometre cycle catchments from the site extend to include a large area of St Helens to the west, areas of Wigan to the north, and the outskirts of Leigh and Warrington to the east and south respectively. Within these catchment areas lie extensive residential areas, together with a range of amenities. As indicated in Plan CH04 there is a population of 177,000 people within the 8 km catchment including a deprived population of 54,000. The assessment of cycle catchments has therefore demonstrated that this mode has the ability to provide access to a significant workforce in St Helens and Wigan boroughs.

5.43 The cycling catchment analysis demonstrates that Newton-le-Willows, Earlestown and Bryn railway stations are located within the 20 minute/ 5 kilometre cycle catchment of the site, thereby providing the opportunity for journeys to be carried out by combining multi-modal rail and cycle journeys.

5.44 In conclusion the site is considered to be well located to encourage access by cycling, linked to the existing cycle infrastructure described earlier.

Proposed Improvements to Cycling and Walking Infrastructure

5.45 The Liverpool City Region Combined Authority (LCRCA) Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP) provides a strategic approach to developing a cohesive network of high standard active travel routes across the region. Figure 5.5 reproduced from the LCRCA’s LCWIP shows the proposed routes to be prioritised for improvement.

5.46 Of particular relevance to the Appeal proposals are the Phase 2 proposals linking the routes along the A580 from the strategic cycle network in Manchester via the development site and west via

Haydock Point Public Inquiry vectos.co.uk January 2021 24

Haydock and through to St Helens. This would delivery high quality cycle links for access to the development site within the cycle catchment shown in my Plan CH04.

5.47 As I set out in Section 6 of my evidence, the active travel improvements proposed will complement the LCWIP corridor proposals providing wider public benefit.

Haydock Point

Figure 5.5 – LCWIP Prioritised Routes

Accessibility by Bus

5.48 Northbound and southbound bus stops are located on the A49 Lodge Lane to the north of the site, as can be seen by reference to Plan CH03. These stops are located within 400 metres walk of the site and proposed site access junction with Lodge Lane.

5.49 The north and southbound bus stops provide a flag and pole arrangement with timetable information, together with on-carriageway bus box markings. The stops are safe and conveniently accessible from the site via the existing footway which runs along the eastern side of Lodge Lane. Access to the northbound bus stop has been enhanced by the signalisation of the A49 Lodge Ln/ A599 Penny Ln junction, which will include red/green man signalised pedestrian crossing facilities.

5.50 The bus stops on Lodge Lane are served by the No. 320 bus service which is operated by Arriva NorthWest. Table 4.1 provides a summary of the service frequency.

Haydock Point Public Inquiry vectos.co.uk January 2021 25

Mon – Fri Service Route Frequency per hour Sat Sun No AM Peak Midday PM Peak Evening

Wigan – Ince-in- Makerfield – Platt Bridge 320 6 6 6 2 5 2 - Ashton in Makerfield – Haydock – St Helens

Table 4.1: Bus Services Operating from A49 Lodge Lane

5.51 During the week the No 320 service operates a total of 82 daily services in a northbound direction, of which half terminate in Ashton-in-Makerfield and half continue to Wigan. This highly frequent service operates from the A49 bus stops between 05:55 and 23:19.

5.52 On Saturday a total of 66 services are operated in a northbound direction between 05:55 and 23:18, with a total of 31 services operated on Sunday between 07:56 and 23:19.

5.53 In a southbound direction a total of 79 services are operated from the A49 bus stops, with the service operating between 06:03 and 23:17. Of these services half commence in Wigan and half in Ashton- in-Makerfield, with all services terminating in St Helens.

5.54 On Saturday a total of 69 services are operated in a southbound direction between 06:03 and 23:17, with a total of 35 services operated on Sunday between 07:03 and 23:17.

5.55 Given the number of local towns accessible from the site via this service it is considered that the bus will represent an attractive travel option for prospective staff. This is particularly the case because the high service frequency means that passengers would only be required to wait for a short time for the next bus if they have just missed the preceding service.

5.56 In addition, the lengthened operating hours mean that it is also ideal to meet the travel needs of those employed on the site who may be working shift patterns.

5.57 In summary, the high frequency nature of the 320 service providing a direct journey between St Helens and Wigan/Ashton-in-Makerfield provides a coherent and attractive option for bus access to the proposed development.

5.58 Whilst the bus stops for the 320 service are within 400m walk distance of the site, it is recognised that the scale of the site and development will mean access to some buildings being a greater walk distance than 400m.

5.59 The 400m walk distance to bus stops comes from advice from IHT Guidelines on Planning for Public Transport in New Development (IHT 1999). Paragraph 5.21 of the document advises that: “New developments should be located so that public transport trips involve a walking distance of less than 400m from the nearest bus stop or 800m from the nearest railway station”. It also advises that: “These standards should be treated as guidance, to be achieved where possible by services that operate at regular frequencies and along direct routes. It is more important to provide services that

Haydock Point Public Inquiry vectos.co.uk January 2021 26

are easy for passengers to understand and attractive to use than to achieve slavish adherence to some arbitrary criteria for walking distance”.

5.60 Whilst this advice has been widely adopted by Local Authorities and transport planning professionals there is no substantive evidence produced by the IHT to justify these distance figures. In their report ‘How far do people walk?’ presented at the PTRC Transport Practitioners’ Meeting London, July 2015, White Young Green (WYG) presented evidence on walking and cycling distances based on the National Travel Survey (NTS) (CD 22.29).

5.61 The NTS is a large-scale travel diary survey which provides data on a wide range of transport matters, including walking and cycling distances with the data having been consistently collected across the UK since 1988. WYG used the NTS to obtain average and 85th percentile distances for journeys where walking is the main mode of travel, and also where walking is the first stage of a public transport trip, i.e., walking distance to a bus stop or railway station. When assessing the accessibility of a new development on foot it was suggested that the 85th percentile distance should be used to estimate the distance up to which people are prepared to walk, using the NTS as an evidence base.

5.62 I would concur with WYG that this would provide a more reasonable approach compared to the IHT Guidelines figures as the distances come from evidence based research. I also note that the IHT Guidelines point out that their arbitrary figures for walk distances to bus stops and railway station are only guides and it is more important to provide access to services which are easy for passengers to understand and attractive to use. This is the position here as we have a high frequency bus service which as such would be attractive to use and so even based on the IHT Guidelines greater walking distance to the bus stops would be acceptable.

5.63 For all trip purposes, the WYG research indicated the average walk to a bus stop was 580m, with the 85th percentile being 800m. For commuting journey purpose the average walk was 610m and 85th percentile 840m. Based on this approach one can conclude that a walk distance of up to 840m to the bus stops on Lodge Lane would be reasonable. Adopting this approach, an 840m walk would provide access to the centre of the site from the existing bus stops. On this basis, it can be concluded that the site is accessible to the existing 10 minute frequency 320 bus service on Lodge Lane.

5.64 In summary it can be concluded that the high frequency 320 bus service would provide adequate access to the development onto the bus network. Improvements to bus accessibility are considered in Section 6 of my evidence.

Accessibility by Rail

5.65 The nearest railway stations to the site are Bryn station to the north of the site and Newton-le-Willows station to the south. Both of these stations are located within the 20 minute/ 5 kilometre cycle catchment of the site. As such rail services are considered to represent a feasible option for prospective employees, although it is acknowledged that the distance from the site may deter some from using this mode of transport.

Haydock Point Public Inquiry vectos.co.uk January 2021 27

5.66 Northern Rail operate services from both Bryn and Newton-le-Willows stations. Bryn station is on the Liverpool Lime Street to Wigan North Western line, while Newton-le-Willows station is on the Liverpool Lime Street to Manchester Victoria and Llandudno Junction to Manchester Airport lines.

5.67 A summary of the services operated from these stations, together with the peak period frequencies, is provided in Table 4.2.

Max Frequency (peak periods)

Route Monday-Friday

Frequency Time

Services from Bryn Station

Liverpool Lime Street 2 per hour 30 mins

Wigan North Western 2 per hour 11 mins

Services from Newton-le-Willows Station

Liverpool Lime Street 3 per hour 24-42 mins

Llandudno Junction 1 per hour 1hr 45 mins

Manchester Piccadilly 2 per hour 27 mins

Manchester Victoria 2 per hour 26 mins

Manchester Airport 1 per hour 43 mins

Chester 3 per hour 24-42 mins

Table 4.2: Rail Services and Frequencies

5.68 Table 4.2 illustrates that two services per hour are operated from Bryn station to Liverpool Lime Street and Wigan North Western station.

5.69 More frequent services are operated from Newton-le-Willows station, which serves a range of destinations, including three services per hour to Liverpool Lime Street and Chester, two services per hour to Manchester’s Piccadilly and Victoria Stations, and hourly peak hour services to Manchester Airport and Llandudno.

5.70 In addition, the services operated from Bryn station offer links to more local destinations including Garswood, St Helens Central and Prescot. Similarly, Newton-le-Willows station offer links to local destinations including St Helens, Warrington Bank Quay, Earlestown, Patricroft and Eccles. Eccles Station also provides an interchange for the Manchester Metrolink network.

5.71 Northern Rail state that they are strongly committed to promoting cycling as a sustainable and healthy means of transport that complements train services. As such bicycles are carried free of

Haydock Point Public Inquiry vectos.co.uk January 2021 28

charge at any time with no reservations required, with the cycle space on trains clearly marked, both internally and externally.

5.72 Section 6 of my evidence describes proposed improvements to bus services that would directly link the development to Newton-le-Willows, Earlestown and St Helens railway station.

Public Transport Accessibility Assessment

5.73 The accessibility of the proposed development has been assessed using TRACC software. Inherent within TRACC is an up to date database of public transport services which amongst other things allows public transport travel times to be plotted. The travel times include access walk times on to the public transport network from origin and where appropriate an allowance for interchange times, plus access walk times to get to a destination. The assessment includes all modes of public transport in this case mainly bus and rail.

5.74 Plan CH05 and Plan CH06 provide the public transport travel time isochrones for the AM and PM peak hours respectively.

5.75 The 60 minute travel time includes the outskirts of Liverpool and all of St Helens to the west, Warrington to the south, Leigh to the east, Westhoughton and Hindley to the northeast, and Wigan to the north. Parts of Wigan, Ince-in-Makerfield, Golborne, and Newton-le-Willows are within the 45min catchment, with Ashton-in-Makerfield and Haydock within 30 minutes.

5.76 The isochrones demonstrate that there would be a population of between 340,00 and 380,000 within a 60 total journey time, with a deprived population of between 183,000 and 213,000.

5.77 Based on this analysis, the site can be considered accessible by public transport. This does not include the proposed improvements to access to the development by public transport considered in Section 6 of my evidence.

Haydock Point Public Inquiry vectos.co.uk January 2021 29

6 Proposed Development

Development Proposals

6.1 The development proposals consist of the following:

“Outline planning application with all matters other than access reserved for the development of the site for up to 167,225m2 of B8/ B2 (up to 20% B2 floor space), ancillary office and associated site facilities floor space, car parking, landscaping, site profiling, transport, drainage and utilities infrastructure”.

6.2 A parameters plan has been prepared to support the planning application which identifies the envelope within which development can be constructed. This is supported by an indicative masterplan which illustrates how the site could potentially be developed within these parameters. Plan CH07 provided the Parameters Plan and Plan CH08 provides an illustrative layout plan.

6.3 As I explained in the Background section of my proof, the development proposals have been progressed at the request of both highway authorities to take into account emerging wider improvement proposals at M6 J23. A key aspect of the wider proposals, which I deal with in more detail in Section 8 of my evidence, is the removal of the A49 connections to the M6 J23 roundabout. The proposed development achieves this for the A49 (N) approach arm by the creation of a new link road, to be adopted highway, which would link the A49 (N) via a new roundabout to the A580 by the creation of a new high capacity traffic signal controlled junction. The proposed link road is shown on both the Parameters Plan (CH07) and the Illustrative Masterplan (CH08).

Vehicle Access

6.4 A general arrangement drawing of the proposed traffic signal controlled junction on the A580 is provided in Vectos Drawing No. VN60647/PL-002 Rev A, my Plan CH09. The proposed roundabout junction on the A49 Lodge Lane general arrangement design is provided in Vectos Drawing No. VN60647/PL-001, my Plan CH10.

6.5 Both access junctions have been designed in accordance with Design Manual for Roads and Bridges guidelines. The principle of vehicular access at these locations and the design of the junctions is agreed as confirmed in the SoCG with SHBC. The junctions have been subject to Stage One Road Safety Audits which have been agreed with both SHBC and HE which is also confirmed in the respective SoCGs.

6.6 Access to the various development plots would be taken off the proposed new link road with Plan CH08 Illustrative Layout showing how this might be achieved. However, flexibility is required moving forward so that the plot access arrangements can be designed to accommodate operator requirements. The design of the link road will be the subject of a Reserved Matters application with the planning approval conditions such that the accesses and link road will need to be delivered prior to first occupation of the development.

Haydock Point Public Inquiry vectos.co.uk January 2021 30

6.7 The creation of the new link road through the site allows the A49 (N) approach arm of M6 J23 to be removed, which provides highway safety and capacity benefits, and improvements to the design of active travel measures at the junction.

Safeguarded Land

6.8 In order to accommodate future improvements to M6 J23, the Council has requested that Peel safeguard two areas of the land.

6.9 The first relates to the potential to create a horizontal alignment design to provides a direct link between the A49 and the new link road, which would bypass the proposed access roundabout. Figure 6.1 indicates a design for this horizontal alignment obtained from the WSP “M6 Junction 23 Haydock Island Capacity Feasibility Study (June 2019)”.

Figure 6.1 – Proposed Link Road Alignment

6.10 The horizontal alignment option involves land not under the control of the Council or Peel. However, Peel have agreed to safeguard the area of land within their ownership to facilitate the alignment should this be brought forward in the future. The safeguarded area within the Peel site is shown as the brown shading on the Parameters Plan my CH07. Provision for the safeguarding of this land is included for in the (Draft) S.106 Agreement.

6.11 The second area of safeguarded land involves the provision of a 10 metre off-set strip along the length of the site’s southern and western boundaries as well as 50m back from the proposed A580 and A49 site access junctions. The area to be safeguarded is also shown on the Parameters Plan, CH07, by the black broken line. This area was requested to be safeguarded by SHBC to provide for any additional land be required to deliver future improvements at the M6 J23.

Haydock Point Public Inquiry vectos.co.uk January 2021 31

6.12 The approach to safeguarding the above land is agreed with the SHBC as confirmed in the SoCG. Peel’s agreement to the safeguarding of the two areas of land has the potential to provide considerable benefit in delivering wider improvements to M6 J23 as these are developed in more detail.

Car Parking

6.13 The development will provide parking, including for mobility impaired users and motorcycles, which reflects SHBC’s adopted car parking standards as well as the parking demand requirements of potential operators.

6.14 Approval for the layout of car parking, as well as the quantum of spaces provided will, however, be sought at Reserved Matters stage. This is also confirmed in the SoCG.

Sustainable Transport

Walking and Cycling

6.15 In conjunction with the development a new 3 metre off-carriageway shared footway/cycleway along the northern side of the A580 will be provided. This will connect the existing provisions at M6 J23 with the proposed site access junction on the A580. The proposed improvement is indicated on the Parameters Plan (CH07). An improved and extended footway/cycleway would be provided on the A49 site frontage between the access roundabout and the A580, linking into the proposed footway/cycleway on the north side of the A580, and the existing footway/cycleway facilities around M6 J23.

6.16 The new pedestrian/ cycleway on the northside of the A580 will connect to the A580 traffic signal controlled junction access to the site. This junction has been designed to accommodate pedestrian and cyclist movements under controlled traffic conditions. This will provide a link between the development and the existing footway/cycleway that runs along the southern side of the A580.

6.17 Whilst approval for the detail of the internal site layout would be sought at Reserved Matter stage, the link road though the proposed development site is proposed to provide 4.5 metre segregated footway/cycleway, which will connect the proposed A49 and A580 site accesses. The segregated footway/cycleway will extend to M6 J23 along the A49 Lodge Lane site frontage, providing improved connections to the existing wider footway and cycle infrastructure.

6.18 The internal layout will be designed to ensure the safe movements of vulnerable users through the site, including ensuring the key desire lines to building access points, areas of cycle parking, and public transport infrastructure, suitably connect with the infrastructure provided at the site access junctions.

6.19 The proposed improvements to pedestrian and cycle infrastructure surrounding and through the site will improve active linkages for wider road users over and above those accessing the development, including links between the A49 (N) and the A580 strategic east/west routes. These improvements will link to the LCRCA’s LCWIP priority scheme for the A580 corridor as shown in Figure 5.5 LCWIP Prioritised Routes, and thus provide wider strategic benefit complementary to the LCWIP proposals.

Haydock Point Public Inquiry vectos.co.uk January 2021 32

6.20 As indicated, the new link road would allow the A49 (N) approach to the J23 gyratory to be removed thus improving conditions for active travel users, linking to the proposed improvements on the A580 and A49 described to be delivered by the development and to the wider LCWIP proposals.

6.21 Cycle parking provision will be agreed with SHBC officers at the Reserved Matters stage, mindful of the SHBC’s adopted standards and BREEAM requirements.

6.22 Further details of the active travel measures to serve the development are set out in Section 5.7 of the TAU. It is agreed that these measures will improve the accessibility of the development by walking and cycling modes, as set out in the SoCG.

Public Transport Enhancements

6.23 A range of options for improving bus accessibility have been explored, including consultation with Merseytravel. MM advising St Helens Council on transport matters have suggested the introduction of a shuttle bus between the site and Newton-le Willows rail station as an appropriate means of improving linkages between the proposed development and existing public transport provision. This has been taken into account in progressing the bus improvement proposals.

6.24 The bus access improvements consist of providing a bespoke new bus service to directly link the development with Newton-le-Willows including the rail station. Further to future detailed consideration of the routing of the new service linkages to areas such as Earlestown including the rail station and bus station, and to St Helens, including bus station and rail station, via Haydock may also be included. A potential routing of the service is shown in my Plan CH11. The proposed routing would provide for a connection to the frequent 320 service which runs close to site, providing an option for people accessing the development by bus rather than walking.

6.25 In developing the routing of the proposed bespoke service, a rationale has been to seek to provide direct access to more deprived areas. Using GIS software tools, it has been confirmed that there is a population of some 46,000 people within a 400m distance of the route, and some 19,000 identified as deprived population.

6.26 The bespoke bus service will run to cover shift pattern times and office opening times, which would be the subject of more detailed discussions with development occupiers. This would be dealt with through the Travel Plan process.

6.27 Preliminary estimates for the cost of running the proposed service have been undertaken, which are circa £120,000 per annum. This is an estimated gross cost and does not take into account potential revenue generation.

6.28 Peel have allocated a sum of £1million for inclusion within the S.106 Agreement to establish and maintain a site-specific bus service for the site. This would cover the estimated gross cost of the service for a period of over 8 years, however, with revenue generation it is clear that the level of financial commitment made by Peel in the S.106 Agreement the service would operate well beyond a 10 year period.

6.29 It would be proposed to run the service from day one of development occupation to ensure sustainable travel behaviours are established from the outset and so there will be a level of pump

Haydock Point Public Inquiry vectos.co.uk January 2021 33

priming required. However, as indicated it is anticipated that the service would become self-sufficient into the future. Given the identified increase in accessibility to the workforce occupiers will be keen to ensure the service continues to operate into the future.

6.30 Details of the bus service would be dealt as part of the Full Travel Plan for the site. The service would be subject to regular monitoring and review as part of the ongoing Travel Plan support for the development to ensure that the operation of the service is optimised, and the financial contribution is being used as effectively as possible. This approach, coupled with the significant £1million contribution, will ensure that the service responds dynamically to changing circumstances and will support its continued operation into the future.

6.31 Improvements are also proposed to upgrade the closest bus stops to provide shelters and facilities for low floor buses.

Travel Plan

6.32 The extensive improvements to sustainable transport provision in and around the appeal site will be complemented by a comprehensive travel planning strategy. To establish the principles and approach to this strategy, Vectos prepared a Framework Travel Plan (FTP) which was submitted to SHBC. The FTP is intended to form an ‘umbrella’ document that can be applied to the whole site. In the event that the development is separated into multiple units, individual occupiers would then use this umbrella to develop a bespoke Travel Plan reflecting their specific operator requirements. The FTP umbrella document will encourage a consistent and collective approach between occupiers towards matters relating to sustainable transport.

6.33 This joined up approach will be particularly beneficial in the delivery of the new bus service for the site and will maximise the effectiveness of this provision.

6.34 As future occupiers at the site are not confirmed at this stage, the FTP provides suggested sustainable transport initiatives which can be adopted in future site-specific Travel Plans as occupiers come forward. The FTP intentionally provides a broad range of potential measures to maximise a shift towards sustainable travel across a range of modes including walking, cycling, public transport and car sharing. These proposed measures will provide future occupiers with a strong basis for developing a tailored Travel Plan strategy.

6.35 As the development is not yet constructed or occupied, the baseline mode share figures have been estimated using 2011 Census Journey to Work data. These figures represent existing travel patterns for the area in close proximity to the site and provide a useful indication of the likely travel behaviour of future site users. In considering the baseline mode share information calculated in the site, a 10% reduction in single-occupancy car travel is targeted over a period of five years. Given the extensive package of infrastructure and sustainable travel initiatives already confirmed for the site, it is my view that this mode shift target is achievable through the structure and support provided by the FTP and future Travel Plans.

6.36 Should this mode shift target be achieved, the development site could generate lower levels of traffic than is forecast in the supporting transport impact assessment. However, the mode shift potential of

Haydock Point Public Inquiry vectos.co.uk January 2021 34

the site has not been considered in the assessment work to date to ensure that a robust appraisal of the site’s traffic impact has been presented.

6.37 I have extensive experience of preparing and implementing Travel Plans for a wide range of development sites and they provided a robust platform for directing and encouraging a mode shift away from single-occupancy car travel. The submitted FTP, and the future Travel Plans for the site will provide structure and focus for sustainable travel initiatives. It is my professional opinion that the strategy established in the FTP will provide a considerable contribution to the sustainable accessibility credentials of the appeal site.

Haydock Point Public Inquiry vectos.co.uk January 2021 35

7 Highway Impact Assessment

Agreed Study Area

7.1 With respect to the local highway network, the following study area has been agreed with SHBC, WBC and HE:

St Helens/ Highways England

i) M6 J23

ii) A580/ Proposed Site Access

iii) A49/ Proposed Site Access

iv) A49 Lodge Ln/ A599 Penny Ln

v) A580/ Haydock Ln

Wigan

vi) A580/ Bridge St/ A573 Warrington Rd

vii) A580/ Stone Cross Ln

viii) A580/ Church Ln

ix) A580/ A572 Newton Rd

x) A49 Warrington Rd/ A58 Liverpool Rd

Methodology

7.2 The methodology for assessing the traffic impact of the appeal site is set out in Sections 6 and 7 of the TAU. The methodology was developed through extensive consultation with SHBC, HE and WBC.

7.3 As confirmed in the SoCG with SHBC the methodology adopted has been agreed between the parties and encompasses the following principle aspects:

i) Baseline Traffic Flows;

ii) Assessment Years;

iii) Committed Developments;

iv) Future Year Growth Factors;

v) Treatment of Traffic from Haydock Point Racecourse;

vi) Proposed Development Trip Rates and Traffic Generation;

Haydock Point Public Inquiry vectos.co.uk January 2021 36

vii) Proposed Development Trip Distribution and Assignment;

viii) Capacity Assessments using industry standard software, LinSig and JUNCTIONS.

Access Junctions

7.4 The proposed junction on the A580 is provided in Vectos Drawing No. VN60647/PL-002 Rev A, my Plan CH09, with the A49 proposed roundabout junction provided in Vectos Drawing No. VN60647/PL-001, my Plan CH10.

7.5 The capacity assessments undertaken in respect of the A580/ Proposed Site Access junction demonstrate that the junction would operate within capacity in both the AM and PM peaks, with degrees of saturation less than 90%. This includes traffic diverted from the A49 Lodge Lane via the link road. The capacity assessments demonstrate that queueing on the eastbound A580 arm of the junction would not extend back to M6 J23 and would therefore have no impact on the safety or operation of this junction.

7.6 Similarly, the detailed capacity assessments of the A49/ Proposed Site Access roundabout junction demonstrate that the proposed design will deliver sufficient capacity and operate efficiently under forecast future traffic demand, with RFCs below 0.85.

7.7 SHBC concur with my summary of operational performance of both proposed site access junctions above as set out in the SoCG.

M6 Junction 23

7.8 The original transport assessment work produced a package of mitigation improvements at M6 J23 without the need to make provision of a new highway link between the A49 (N) and the A580. However as set out earlier in my evidence, as requested by SMBC and HE, the development proposals have been progressed in conjunction with SHBC and HE to take into account emerging wider improvement proposals, including the new link road to allow the removal of the A49 (N) approach to the M6 J23 gyratory.

7.9 This principle elements of the highway improvements agreed with SHBC and HE to mitigate the impact of traffic of the proposed development at M6 J23 are set out below:

i) Widening of A580 eastbound and westbound approaches to provide additional ahead lanes for traffic entering the junction;

ii) A significant increase in the length of the left turn lanes provided for the A580 westbound approach;

iii) Additional road space and stacking capacity for right turning traffic for the area beneath the M6 bridge piers with the additional ahead lanes on the A580 approaches feeding traffic directly into these reservoirs; and

Haydock Point Public Inquiry vectos.co.uk January 2021 37

iv) Partial closure of the northern A49 arm of the junction to restrict southbound traffic from entering the junction but continuing to permit northbound traffic exiting the junction.

7.10 The proposed improvements to M6 J23 are shown in my Plan CH12.

7.11 The operational performance of M6 J23 has been assessed using the industry standard LinSig junction modelling software. Both the model of the existing junction layout and the junction layout with the addition of the proposed package of mitigation works were subject to extensive consultation and review with both SHBC and HE, and their consultants MM for SHBC and WSP for HE.

7.12 As detailed in Section 8.2 of the TAU, the proposed package of works at the junction not only fully mitigates the impact of traffic from the appeal site but provides betterment when compared to the Baseline scenario. The proposed highway works at M6 J23 therefore have a wider positive impact as they are predicted to improve the operation of the junction to the benefit of other road users.

7.13 Whilst the detailed capacity assessments are provided in the TAU, I have prepared a series of plans which are indicative of the operation of M6 J23 without and with the proposed improvements, in the form of average queue length diagrams, with these outputs generated from the LinSig modelling exercise. Plans CH13 and CH14 indicate average queue lengths for 2027 AM and PM peak Baseline traffic conditions with the existing M6 J23 layout. Plans CH15 and CH16 show average queue lengths for the 2027 with development with the J23 highway improvements scenario. This includes the diversion of the A49 (N) arm away from the gyratory at J23 via the new link road to the A580, plus the improvements to capacity on the approaches and through the central section of M6 J23 itself.

7.14 Comparing CH13 and CH15, it can be seen that the proposed With Development highway improvements result is significant reductions in queueing on the A580 west and eastbound approaches (173 pcus to 136 pcus eastbound and 171 to 90 pcus westbound). Reduced queueing is also demonstrated on the internal straight ahead and right turn lanes within the junction, reducing the risks of blocking back through the increase queuing space provided.

7.15 The queue length diagrams demonstrate the significant benefits of the removal of the A49 (N) approach to M6 J23. This can be seen by the removal of the southbound queue which on average is 48 pcus (over 270 metres in a single lane).

7.16 As can be seen in Plan CH13, the A49 node with the M6 J23 gyratory experiences blocking back from the A580 node with the circulatory carriageway, affecting the operation of the A49 node with the gyratory and the M6 southbound off-slip. Plan CH15 demonstrates that the removal of the A49 (N) approach effectively removes this problem, and as can be seen the queues on the circulatory carriageway are all now comfortably within the available stacking space. The increased capacity on the westbound internal straight ahead and right turn to the M6 north also benefits the operation of the A49 (S) and M6 northbound off-slip.

7.17 In conclusion, the diversion of the A49 away from M6 J23 combined with the proposed improvements at the junction itself provide sustantial benefits to the operation of the M6 J23 network for the AM peak period.

Haydock Point Public Inquiry vectos.co.uk January 2021 38

7.18 For the PM peak period, comparison of Plan CH14 Baseline and Plan CH16 With Development indicates that with the proposed improvements, there would be a significant reduction in queue lengths for westbound and eastbound traffic on the A580 approaches to M6 J23. As with the AM peak, the removal of the A49 (N) approach reduces vehicular conflicts with the M6 J23 circulatory carriageway. Plan CH14 for the existing design shows blocking back at the A580 and A49 nodes within the gyratory, which also affects the operation of the M6 southbound off-slip. Removal of the A49 (N) approach removes the long queue of 66 pcus (380 metres) from the A49 (N) approach and leads to queues on the circulatory carriageway being able to be accommodated within the queueing space available, reducing the risks of blocking back. This leads to an overall improved operation of the M6 J23 network.

7.19 In conclusion, the scale and design of the proposed package of mitigation works at M6 J23 is such that it provides significantly improved operation in both the AM and PM peaks when compared with the Baseline position. This is achieved even with the addition of traffic associated with the appeal site and meets the requirements of SHBC’s Transport Assessment Guidance Notes (March 2016) which states that, if a Degree of Saturation value exceeds 90% or a Practical Reserve Capacity value is already negative, a position of “nil-detriment or better must be achieved”. The detailed modelling work clearly demonstrates compliance with these prescribed guidelines. The modelling work also demonstrates that the proposed mitigation exceeds the requirements of HE’s Circular 02/2013.

7.20 Mott McDonanld’s Technical Note (October 2020) (CD 20.12) reviews the LinSig modelling of the M6 J23 and concludes that the operation of the junction with mitigation and the proposed Haydock Point development is improved compared to the existing junction without the proposed development. The conclusions to the MM Technical Note state that the “the mitigation scheme is forecast to result in superior operation with reduced queues” and confirm that the “preliminary design of the proposed mitigation scheme is suitable.” This confirms an agreed position, as included in the SoCG, that the proposed highway improvement scheme not only mitigates the impact of the proposed development but also would lead to a superior level of operation. The proposed improvements would therefore result in wider benefits to users at the junction in addition to access to the proposed development.

Package of Highway Mitigation Works Benefits

7.21 As outlined previously in my evidence, the site access arrangements have been designed to align with future improvements at M6 J23 currently being promoted by St Helens in consultation with both HE and WBC. I discuss the manner in which the Appeal site provides an essential contribution to these future works later in my evidence. However, notwithstanding the potential wider improvement scheme, the combination of the proposed new link road through the Peel site, removal of the A49 southbound approach to the M6 J23 roundabout, made possible by the new link road, and proposed improvements to M6 J23 itself provides substantive safety and capacity benefits. There would also be benefits to pedestrian and cycle movements from the removal of the A49 (N) approach arm of the junction.

7.22 A key constraint at the M6 J23 signalised roundabout section are the A49 north and south connections to the junction. The location of these A49 connections, with only a short distance between the M6 southbound exit slip and the A49 (N), and similarly the short distance between the M6 northbound off-slip junction and the A49 (south) arm, means the available queuing sections on the gyratory at the A49 connections are extremely short. This tends to lead to blocking back from the

Haydock Point Public Inquiry vectos.co.uk January 2021 39

A49 circulatory signal stop lines past the M60 off-slip junctions, which in turn interferes with the operation of the junction. The blocking back effects can be seen by reference to the LinSig modelling work undertaken for the Baseline traffic scenarios. The Baseline traffic LinSig modelling shows that blocking back is more prevalent at A49 (N) approach however as indicated this also occurs on the A49 (S) connection circulatory arm. The existing situation can be seen by reference to my Plans CH13 and CH14 which show modelled queuing at existing junction layout for the AM and PM Peak respectively.

7.23 A key element of the highway improvements associated with the proposed employment development is the removal of the A49 (N) connection to the M6 J23 roundabout. This removes the signal intersection of the A49 (N) with the circulatory carriageway and thus the existing short stagging space from the circulatory signal stop line. The LinSig modelling for the scenario with the proposed development and the highway improvement works, including removing the A49 (N) connection, shows that no blocking back is predicted to occur around the northern side of the roundabout, which can be seen by reference to my Plan CH15 for the AM Peak and CH16 for the PM Peak.

7.24 With the overall package of highway improvements, the operation of M6 J23, including full development traffic, is predicted to operate with improved capacity on all links approaching and within the junction. The overall improvement proposals will therefore result in reduced queues and delay for all traffic using the junction, which is clearly demonstrated by the LinSig modelling, for which the detail can be found in our TAU (May 2020). The position is agreed in the SoCG. The proposed improvements would therefore produce wider benefits to the trunk road (motorway) and St Helens road networks to the benefit of road users from St Helens and Wigan and beyond given the strategic nature of M6 J23.

7.25 The removal of the connection with constrained stacking space would also improve highway safety by reducing conflicts and blocking back queuing. The removal of the A49 (N) arm would also provide benefit for active travel movements through the northern part of M6 J23. Combined with the proposed new footway/ cycleway on the north side of the A580 and an improved footway/cycle way on the A49 fronting the site, the overall improvements would provide wider benefits for travel by non- motorised modes. This includes providing improved active travel links to the LCWIP proposals described earlier in my evidence.

Haydock Racecourse

7.26 As I detailed earlier in my evidence, the construction of the link road through the appeal site and the associated package of mitigation at M6 J23 will have a material benefit to highway operation when compared with a “do nothing” scenario. This would not only be the case for the modelled AM and PM peak periods but also for off-peak weekday and weekend periods. Therefore, logic follows that traffic associated with Haydock Racecourse would also find benefit to journey times and driver experience once the appeal site is delivered and the highway improvements constructed. To illustrate this point and to quantify the benefit to the Racecourse, I have referred to the agreed LinSig modelling outputs for both M6 J23 and the A580/ Proposed Site Access. I have referenced the results for the PM peak only as this is the period where Racecourse traffic is most likely to overlap with the assessment periods used to assess the traffic impact of the appeal site.

Haydock Point Public Inquiry vectos.co.uk January 2021 40

7.27 As already outlined, the future baseline Without Development scenario assumes that the layout of M6 J23 remains the same as existing with traffic able to access the circulatory from the A49 northern arm. The traffic modelling demonstrates the clear operational issues associated with this arm of the junction with a Degree of Saturation of 116% forecast for this approach. An associated queue of 66 PCUs is forecast which equates to a queue length of around 380m back from the A49 stopline.

7.28 Drivers associated with the Racecourse would experience delay and inconvenience when accessing M6 J23 via this arm in the near future. My own experience of M6 J23’s operation from numerous site visits, and the evidence presented in the detailed modelling work, confirms that there is no flexibility to provide additional green time for vehicles on the A49 northern approach. The key constraint is stacking capacity downstream on the circulatory which would require a corresponding increase in green time which in turn would have an unacceptable impact on the overall operation the junction and is therefore not feasible.

7.29 The diversion of the A49 through the site and its connection with the A580 via the proposed signal junction provides a far improved level of capacity. In stark comparison to the A49 approach of the existing M6 J23 configuration, the link road approach to the A580 is forecast to have a Degree of Saturation value of 86.7% (-29.5%) and corresponding queue of 15 PCUs (-49 PCUs). This clearly demonstrates that traffic associated with the Racecourse would experience far lower levels of congestion and delay once the A49 is diverted through the appeal site. The A580/ Proposed Site Access junction is forecast to operate with reserve capacity during the PM Peak meaning that adjustments to the signal timings could be made during high periods of demand from the Racecourse. The highway access arrangements proposed as a result of the development would therefore provide with greater flexibility to better cater for racecourse traffic coming from the A49 (N) compared to the constrained existing A49 access node with the J23 gyratory. This would be across the highway network peaks but also other peaks for the racecourse such as for Saturday meetings and events.

Local Highway Network in St Helens

7.30 As outlined previously in my evidence, two further off-site junctions have been subject to detailed capacity assessments in addition to the proposed site accesses and M6 J23. These are the A49 Lodge Lane/ A599 Penny Lane and A580/ Haydock Lane signalised junction. These junctions have been assessed using the agreed methodology outlined briefly earlier in this Section of my evidence and using the industry-standard modelling software package LinSig.

7.31 As outlined and in the TAU and confirmed by SHBC in the SoCG, the detailed capacity assessments undertaken in respect of these junctions clearly demonstrate that traffic from the appeal site would have no material impact on the operation of either junction. Furthermore, the Degree of Saturation (DoS) values calculated for the junctions remain below 90% threshold prescribed in SHBC’s guidance.

Local Highway Network in Wigan

7.32 With the agreement of WBC, a range of off-site junctions have been assessed using the appropriate proprietary modelling software. Signalised junctions have been assessed using software package LinSig and priority junctions assessed using software package JUNCTIONS 8. Both LinSig and

Haydock Point Public Inquiry vectos.co.uk January 2021 41

JUNCTIONS are considered industry standard tools for undertaking detailed capacity assessments of junctions on UK highways.

7.33 The junctions considered within WBC’s jurisdiction are outlined earlier in my evidence but for ease of reference they are summarised again below:

i) A580/ Bridge St/ A573 Warrington Rd;

ii) A580/ Stone Cross Ln;

iii) A580/ Church Ln;

iv) A580/ A572 Newton Rd;

v) A49 Warrington Rd/ A58 Liverpool Rd.

7.34 Wigan Council responded to the planning application citing amongst other reasons that they object to the application on highway grounds in a letter to SHBC Development and Building Control dated 4th November 2020. Vectos responded to the various highway matters raised in a letter to SHBC dated 17th November 2020. Most recently further correspondence was received from WBC dated 21st January 2021 in connection with the forthcoming Public Inquiry in response to amendments proposed by the Appellant. Highways matters set out in the 21st January 2021 letter are the same as those presented in the 4th November 2020 consultation response letter. My Appendix C contains the 21st January 2021 correspondence.

7.35 I have responded to the substance of the matters raised by WBC as summarised below. A more detailed response is provided in Appendix D in the form of a short technical note.

A580 Golborne Roundabout

7.36 Traffic impacts at this junction were addressed in our Addendum Technical Note (March 2018) (CD 18.3) and letter to WBC (19th August 2019) (CD 18.11). Based on agreed scoping with WBC in terms of trip generation and trip forecasting, the Haydock Point development is predicted to increase traffic at the Golborne roundabout by only 1.8% in the AM peak and 1.5% in the PM peak. Such increases in traffic flow would not give rise to a perceptible change in traffic conditions at the junction. The proposed development would not therefore result in a material impact at the junction.

7.37 At the request of WBC, a sensitivity test was undertaken increasing the proportion of development trips using the A580 to the east of the site. This indicated increases in traffic flows of 2.7% and 2.4% for AM and PM peaks respectively. Such small increases in traffic would not result in any material impacts at the roundabout.

7.38 A more detailed assessment of the increases in traffic at Golborne Roundabout is provided in the technical note in response to WBC provided in Appendix D.

7.39 Junctions further east of the A580 would experiences even less increases in traffic as a result of the proposed development so the same conclusion can be drawn that there would be no material impacts on the A580 corridor west of Golborne Roundabout.

Haydock Point Public Inquiry vectos.co.uk January 2021 42

7.40 In conclusion, the proposed development would not result in a material or severe impact on the Wigan road network and thus should not be prevented or refused on highways grounds (paragraph 109 NPPF) based on the insignificant forecast increases in traffic flow.

Assessment Periods

7.41 The assessment periods were scoped and agreed with WBC to include the AM and PM network peak periods as also agreed with SHMC and Highways England. The intimation that an interpeak assessment should be undertaken is unfounded and unreasonable as background traffic flows are some 25% to 35% lower in the interpeak compared to the AM and PM peak periods. Adoption of the agreed network peak periods, which we had understood had been agreed by WBC, presents the most robust approach to the assessment of potential traffic impacts.

M6 Junction 23 Improvements

7.42 Comments relating to the M6 J23 improvements are confused. WBC quote the J23 study that diverting the A49 north and south and reducing the amount of conflict points at the junction is fundamental to successfully improving capacity at the junction. WBC were a partner in the study and provided representatives on the J23 Steering Group. The proposed development diverts the A49 north via the new link road to a new junction on the A580 so achieves reduced conflict and improvements to capacity.

7.43 Contrary to WBC’s statement, it is entirely clear that access to the M6 J23 will be retained and enhanced as part of the package of infrastructure improvements. An objection on the basis that the proposals have the potential to restrict potential capacity improvements is therefore spurious and at odds with the position of SMBC and Highways England.

7.44 From a highways perspective, it is difficult to understand WBC’s position. M6 J23 is a key strategic gateway into Wigan from the M6 and the areas to the west of the Borough. The highway infrastructure improvements to be delivered as part of the development will provide substantial benefits for access to/from Wigan Borough. This includes reductions in queues and delays on the approaches to J23 including the A49(N) approach which links to Ashton-in-Makerfield. The development’s contribution to the delivery of the wider J23 improvements, for which WBC are a key partner of SMBC and HE, should be view as a significant benefit.

7.45 In conclusion, Wigan Council’s objection on highway matters is unfounded and not in my opinion any way defendable.

Haydock Point Public Inquiry vectos.co.uk January 2021 43

8 M6 Junction 23 Improvement Scheme

8.1 SHBC in partnership with HE and Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council commissioned WSP to undertake a study of options for improvements at M6 J23, which involved the setting up of a Junction 23 Steering Group. This work has culminated in WSP producing a report entitled M6 Junction 23 Haydock Island Capacity Feasibility Study (June 2019) which from the outset states that due to existing and forecast congestion issues at the junction “it is considered essential that the junction’s capacity is improved to manage the existing traffic flows and to facilitate the projected development growth anticipated in the area”.

8.2 The study commission was to undertake a junction improvement study of M6 J23. An objective of the study was also to advise on the preparation of the St Helens Local Plan 2018-2033 (including the Infrastructure Delivery Plan), stating this may ultimately lead to the development of a future major transport scheme with the partner organisations. For ease of reference, I have included the Conclusions and Next Steps chapter of the report at my Appendix E.

8.3 I was also recently made aware of the A580 / M6 J23 IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT Junction Assessment Results - Vista Road Link Option (September 2019), which deals with an additional option to divert the A49 (S) away from the J23 gyratory. The introduction to this supplementary report further sets the context:

“The M6 Junction 23 currently operates at capacity, with drivers experiencing considerable delay to their journeys when travelling through the junction, particularly during weekday morning and evening peaks. Without appropriate intervention, these issues therefore reduce the junction’s ability to accommodate future levels of traffic growth forecast for the region. St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (SHMBC) is currently in the process of drafting its Local Plan Core Strategy which sets out the Local Planning Authority’s growth aspirations for the period 2018 to 2033. Within the local plan, a number of housing and employment sites have been allocated within the borough that are cumulatively expected to lead to a notable increase in traffic demand at M6 Junction 23. In immediate vicinity of the junction, on land to the north-east of M6 Junction 23, the logistics development known as Haydock Point North is currently subject to a live planning application. To support the delivery of the planned growth, whilst ensuring that the junction can continue to provide an important strategic and local road connection, a study into potential capacity improvements at M6 Junction 23 has been commissioned by SHMBC.”

8.4 As detailed previously in my evidence, both the proposed vehicular access arrangements and the link road between the A580 and A49 access junctions have been designed with cognisance to an emerging future scheme at M6 J23. Indeed, Peel has worked with both SHBC and HE to develop a scheme that would fit with and form part of a wider package of improvements for M6 J23.

8.5 The Study considered a range of options with four options being taken forward for more detailed assessment. The four options tested as part of the study into improving the capacity and operational performance of M6 J23 are described below.

i) Option A – diversion of A49 arms of J23 to provide two signal junctions with the A580 to the east and west of the junction;

Haydock Point Public Inquiry vectos.co.uk January 2021 44

ii) Option B – reallocation of straight ahead lanes and realignment of right turn lanes;

iii) Option C – combination of Options A&B;

iv) Option D – diverging diamond interchange (includes Option A).

8.6 There is an error in the Conclusions section of the report where Option A is listed as Option B and vice versa. The above summarised options reflect the option labelling in the main sections of the report which deal with the modelling of each of the options individually.

8.7 The modelling conclusions for Option A identify the diversion of the A49 arms as a permanent solution with clear benefits for the junction. In respect of Option A, the report concludes: “In isolation, or in conjunction with other schemes, it is considered fundamental (my underlining) to improving the junction in the medium to long-term. It could enable “Free-Flow Links” to be constructed at relatively low cost, to take traffic from i) M6 southbound off-slips to A580 eastbound and ii) M6 northbound off- slip road to A580 westbound. By removing these high-volume traffic movements from the junction, further space would be available to accommodate traffic on the gyratory and the performance of the junction could considerably improve.”

8.8 The report states however that in isolation the scheme would not prevent arms of M6 J23 being saturated if forecast demands are realised. In summary, Option A in isolation would only provide part, although an extremely important and critical part of the solution.

8.9 With respect to Option B, reallocation of straight ahead lanes and realignment of right turn lanes, the report concludes that: “In isolation, this option does not represent a significant long-term betterment for the junction”.

8.10 It is useful to quote the Conclusions section of the Study which states:

“Initial modelling work identified that Option B (corrected) would not give any significant improvements in performance as a stand-alone scheme. The conflicting movements and limited stacking space for vehicles where M6 slip roads, A49 Lodge Lane, the circulatory section of the roundabout and the straight-ahead lanes on A580 coverage, would always constrain any attempt to improve the operational performance of the junction. Moreover, these conflicting vehicle movements would continue to present a safety hazard at the junction for both vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists, which would be difficult to resolve.”

“The Steering Group resolved that to achieve any significant level of improvement, and which ever additional option for improvement was taken forward, A49 Lodge Lane should be diverted on both sides of the junction, removing the connections with the existing roundabout. New junctions would have to be constructed with A580 at a likely distance of 400m to 600m from M6 J23.”

8.11 The report further concludes that: “This study has revealed that any significant improvements at the junction hinge on the diversion of Lodge Lane away from the gyratory carriageway, either in isolation or in conjunction with another junction improvement scheme.” The report goes on to state that whilst diversion of the A49 Lodge Lane is considered essential for the improvement of the junction, there are options to keeping the outbound traffic lanes away from the junction as this would not affect

Haydock Point Public Inquiry vectos.co.uk January 2021 45

traffic signal operation, would reduce the detour from the A49 and could simplify new junctions with the A580.

8.12 The conclusions of the Junction 23 Study are categoric that the diversions of the A49 arms of the junction are essential to the delivery of wider improvements at M6 J23 for the reasons clearly stated in the study findings. I would concur with this conclusion based on my knowledge of the junction layout and operation.

8.13 In this regard, the package of highway improvements being advanced as part of the planning application, which include the A49 (N) diversion with associated access junctions and link road represent a fundamental benefit to delivery of the wider M6 J23 improvement proposals.

8.14 The report describes two options for the diversion of the A49 northern arm, one through Haydock Point site and one that skirts its perimeter. The first option is via the Peel planning application site which has already been provided in Figure 6.1 of my proof. The second option is shown in Figure 8.1 which clearly shows a significant diversion and convoluted alignment when compared with the diversion offered by the Haydock Point site.

Figure 8.1: Northern A49 Arm – Alternative Diversion

Haydock Point Public Inquiry vectos.co.uk January 2021 46

8.15 WSP provide costs for the diversion of the northern A49 arm to account for the two options:

i) A49 N through Haydock Point - £11.8 million

ii) A49 N around Haydock Point perimeter - £19.3 million

8.16 This represents a significant difference of £7.5 million.

8.17 The proposed development at Haydock Point would effectively deliver the access arrangements and link road associated with Option 1 (Figure 6.1) which based on WSP’s cost estimate would be an £11.8 million contribution to the delivery of wider M6 J23 improvement opportunities.

8.18 The report indicates that Options C and D allow for an incremental approach whereby the A49 arms could be diverted first and then the junction reassessed to confirm the viability of either option.

8.19 The diverging diamond (Option D) provides the greatest capacity benefits and does not cost a great deal more than Option C, the second best scheme (£34.8m vs £37.8m).

8.20 As indicated in Section 6 of my evidence, the planning application proposals include a new link road between the A49 and the A580, which effectively forms part of the wider emerging Junction 23 improvement scheme. The new link road allows the removal of the A49 southbound approach so effectively removes a node from Junction 23. This provides significant overall highway safety and operational capacity benefits, which I have set out in Section 7 of my evidence. As indicated, based on the WSP Junction 23 Capacity Study, the new link would form an essential element of potential wider improvements at M6 J23.

8.21 The cost of the access junctions and new link road as provided by WSP is estimated at £11.8 million which would ultimately represent a substantial contribution by Peel to the delivery of a wider improvement scheme for M6 J23. This would be the case whichever option for improvement of the gyratory element of M6 J23 was ultimately decided upon. In effect, the delivery by Peel of the A49 (N) diversion would represent in the region of a third of the cost of the total improvement scheme, whichever of Options C and D were taken forward.

8.22 It is understood that the improvement scheme is in the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority’s pipeline of schemes but at this point there is presently no final approved scheme or funding. However, it is worth pointing out, that if the scheme does not progress in a timely manner then the proposed new link road and the Junction 23 improvements, to be delivered as part of the development, would provide significant benefits in their own right, as dealt with in Section 7 of my evidence. The proposed new link road to facilitate the diversion of the A49 (N) approach away from the gyratory would remain into the future providing shorter term benefits but also allowing the potential wider improvements to be delivered at Junction 23 sometime into the future. The proposed highway improvements to J23 itself in terms of widening of approaches and improvements to the straight ahead and right turn lanes would also potentially provide additional road space to the benefit of the wider scheme proposals at the junction. The proposed improvements to be delivered by the Haydock Point development would provide a major contribution to the wider scheme whichever of the options were to be brought forward, whether this was a diverging diamond or other improvements to J23.

Haydock Point Public Inquiry vectos.co.uk January 2021 47

8.23 With respect to the status of the Junction 23 improvement scheme in the CA’s pipeline, funding for the scheme could be brought forward through a number of sources. Based on my experience of numerous funding bids through the CA a key element of the business case can be the ability to secure match funding. In this case, a value of match funding up to a third of the total cost of the works is likely to prove attractive and would improve the prospects of securing funding for the wider scheme.

8.24 As set out in the Policy section of my proof of evidence, the Submission Draft of the St Helens Local Plan 2020 – 2035 sets out a policy (part LPA07) to secure improvements to existing motorway capacity and infrastructure with particular priority being given to the M6 J23 and M62 Junction 7. The St Helens Local Plan Infrastructure Delivery Plan (December 2018) states that a need has been identified to address a number of pressure points within the highway system, including at Junction 23 of the M6, to accommodate future growth associated with Local Plan development. The IDP explains the Council’s commission of the Junction 23 study in partnership with Wigan Council and Highways England as described above, and states that opportunities to secure funding as part of this joint working arrangement are also being investigated. It is therefore evident that St Helens Council places considerable weight on the priority for delivery of improvements to M6 J23 in order to accommodate Local Plan development, including taking measures to secure funding as a priority scheme.

8.25 In conclusion, the highway infrastructure scheme being advanced by the Appellant would provide a substantial contribution to wider highway improvements at M6 J23, irrespective of which option eventually comes forward. These improvements are considered a priority by St Helens Council for delivery of the emerging Local Plan.

8.26 The Appellant’s infrastructure proposals as a contribution to the wider M6 J23 improvements would therefore support the following benefits as discussed in the J23 Study:

i) Reduction in peak period congestion, overall delays and journey times;

ii) Reduction in queues on the approaches to Junction 23 and reduced risk of queues on the M6 northbound and southbound slip road extending back to block running lanes on the motorway;

iii) Improvements to road safety;

iv) Improvements to facilities for pedestrians and cyclists;

v) Scope for increased economic growth and housing delivery in St Helens and Wigan.

8.27 In summary, the highway improvements proposed by Peel, in respect of the Appeal proposals would provide very significant wider public benefits as follows:

i) The A49 (N) Lodge Lane diversion would provide improvements to the operation of Junction 23, and when combined with the Vectos designed proposed improvements to Junction 23 itself not only mitigate the impact of the development but would deliver a superior operation to the Baseline position, improved highway safety and improved facilities for non-motorised road users.

Haydock Point Public Inquiry vectos.co.uk January 2021 48

ii) The proposed highway infrastructure improvements go beyond what is required to mitigate the impact of the proposed development. Early development of the Appeal site would therefore provide a significant benefit in bringing forward the proposed infrastructure improvements early in the Plan period, generating early win benefits in terms of superior operation in capacity and safety terms, and improvements to active travel.

iii) The A49 (N) Lodge Lane diversion forms a fundamental element of the ability to improve and enhance the operation of M6 J23 as set out in the WSP J23 Capacity Study. The improvements would therefore provide an essential initial phase of the proposed wider J23 Improvement scheme as the diversion forms a critical element of all capacity enhancement options considered viable in the study, whether diverging diamond or others.

iv) The proposed improvements would represent a substantial contribution to the proposed J23 scheme at £11.8 million (WSP figures) which is approximately a third of the total cost of the preferred scheme options currently under consideration, either Option C £34.8m and Option D (Diverging Diamond) £37.8m. Improvements to J23 proposed by the Appellant would also provide a contribution to the wider scheme through increased road space on the A580 approaches and through the junction, and also by dedicating the required land, including the safeguarded land requested by the Council.

v) The requirements to improve M6 J23 are set out in the IDP’s Transport Infrastructure Delivery Schedule, based on evidence from the Transport Impact Assessment (January 2019). This leads to Policy LPA07: Transport and Travel of the St Helens Submission Draft Local Plan 2020 – 2035 which states there is a priority need to secure improvements to the M6 Junction 23. The sizable highway infrastructure improvements being advanced by the Appellant would therefore provide a significant contribution to the delivery of wider improvements at M6 J23, and thus provide a significant contribution to delivery of the emerging Local Plan.

vi) There is an intrinsic linkage between the Haydock Point development scheme and delivery of the link road as an essential element to the wider Junction 23 Improvements. On this basis, there is a high level of benefit in facilitating development of the Appeal site early, which would pave the way for the wider improvements, but would also reduce the risk of the wider J23 improvements not coming forward within a reasonable timescale or at all. This has the potential to undermining Local Plan objectives and policies.

vii) The IDP indicates that opportunities to secure funding in partnership with HE and WBC are being investigated. The improvement scheme is included in the Combined Authority’s pipeline of projects for future funding with the potential for a range of funding opportunities, involving the Council’s partners. The substantial contribution from the private sector would improve the opportunities for securing funding for the wider J23 improvements, as a result of the high level of match funding secured from the Appellant. The level of funding secured from the private sector would also make a more compelling case for securing funding earlier than might otherwise occur.

Haydock Point Public Inquiry vectos.co.uk January 2021 49

9 Summary and Conclusions

9.1 A summary of the conclusions to my evidence is set out below.

9.2 The site provides an optimum location for warehousing and logistics development, with direct all movements access onto the Strategic Freight Network, namely the A580 and M6 Motorway. As such the site will be highly attractive for occupiers and will ensure development traffic does not use unsuitable routes. This is compared to Parkside Phase 1, which involves access via routes to Junctions 22 and 23 unsuitable for strategic freight movements, and to Symmetry Park, Wigan, which is compromised by the lack of north facing slips.

9.3 The proposed development would be accessible by sustainable modes of transport. Infrastructure improvements are proposed for walking and cycling, including a new footway/cycleway route on the northside of the A580 and an extended footway/cycleway on the A49 fronting the site. Removal of the A49 (N) connection to the J23 gyratory provides the opportunity to improve active travel around the north side of the junction. Segregated footway/cycle facilities would be provided on the new link road and at the A49 access junction, with the signalised access on the A580 designed to accommodate pedestrian and cycle movements. The proposed improvements to pedestrian and cycle infrastructure surrounding and through the site will improve linkages for active travel access to the proposed development, with benefits for wider non-motorised road users. These improvements will link to the LCRCA’s LCWIP priority scheme for the A580 corridor, and thus provide wider strategic benefit complementary to the LCWIP proposals.

9.4 Residential areas of New Boston, Haydock, Ashton-in-Makerfield, Golborne and Newton-le-Willows are all within the considered maximum 2,000m walking distance of the site for commuter journeys. These areas, which include a population of over 10,000, are considered to be within walking distance of the site and demonstrate the opportunity for employment based trips to be undertaken on foot.

9.5 Areas of Ashton-in-Makerfield, Golborne, Haydock and Newton-le-Willows are within a 10 minute cycle ride (2.4 km), while the entirety of these areas are within the 20 minutes journey time (4.8 km). The 8 kilometre cycle catchment from the site extends to include a large area of St Helens to the west, areas of Wigan to the north, and the outskirts of Leigh and Warrington to the east and south respectively. There is a population of 177,000 people within the 8 km catchment including a deprived population of 54,000. The assessment of cycle catchments has therefore demonstrated that this mode has the ability to provide access to a significant workforce in St Helens and Wigan boroughs. Newton-le-Willows, Earlestown and Bryn railway stations are located within the 20 minute/ 5 kilometre cycle catchment of the site, thereby providing the opportunity for journeys to be carried out by combining rail and cycle journeys. In conclusion the site is considered to be well located to encourage access by cycling, linked to existing cycle infrastructure in the area and beyond.

9.6 The nearest bus stops to the site are on Lodge Lane which are less than 400m from the site, these stops providing access to the high frequency 320 bus service which connects St Helens and Wigan. It is proposed to upgrade the nearest stops to provide bus shelters and facilities for low floor buses, which would benefit access to the development and the wider public. Evidence suggests that for commuter journeys it would be reasonable to expect people to walk over 800m to bus stops, which on this basis would provide access to the centre of the proposed development site. Given the ease of

Haydock Point Public Inquiry vectos.co.uk January 2021 50

use and frequency of the service it can be concluded that the development would be accessible by bus.

9.7 Bus access to the proposed development is however proposed to be improved by the creation of a bespoke service for the development to directly link with Newton-le-Willows including the rail station and other potential destinations such as to Earlestown including the rail station and bus station, and to St Helens, including bus station and rail station, via Haydock. The proposed service would provide direct access into the development and would enhance the overall accessibility of the development by public transport. The bus service would be secured through the Travel Plan.

9.8 In conclusion, the proposed development would be accessible by sustainable modes of transport; this conclusion is agreed in the SoCG. The proposed development would accord with the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document ‘Ensuring a Choice of Travel’ (June 2010).

9.9 Access to the proposed development is proposed by the creation of a new link road between the A49 Lodge Lane and the A580. The A580 junction would be traffic signal controlled. Capacity assessments have demonstrated that this would accommodate the proposed development and diversion of A49 traffic via the new link road. The A49 junction is proposed as a roundabout with capacity assessments also showing at this would accommodate the proposed development and diversion of A49 traffic via the new link road. This conclusion is agreed in the SoCG.

9.10 Highway improvements are proposed at Junction 23 of the M6 Motorway to mitigate the impact of the proposed development, which consist of widening the A580 approaches, increasing stacking capacity for the A580 right turns in the centre of the junction, plus removing the A49 (N) southbound link into the junction. Removing this connection is facilitated by the link road between the A49 and A580 to be created as part of the development. Capacity modelling has demonstrated that the proposed improvements mitigate the impact of the proposed development and provide for significantly improved operation over the baseline scenario. Removing the A49 approach provides significant safety benefits by removing the conflicts at the existing node and improving conditions for active travel movements. This conclusion is agreed in the SoCG.

9.11 The development does not require any other junctions to be improved in St Helens or Wigan as these either operate within capacity or do not experience significant increases in traffic.

9.12 St Helens Council in partnership with Highways England and Wigan Council commissioned WSP to undertake a study of options for improvements at Junction 23 of the M6. A number of potential options have emerged and reported in WSP’s Junction 23 Capacity Study (June 2019). This study concludes that in order to provide meaningful improvements to the junction with long term benefits, there is a requirement to divert the A49 Lodge Lane away from the gyratory carriageway of the junction. The development proposals provide for such a diversion by the creation of the new link road between the A49 and the A580 in line with an option set out in the WSP study.

9.13 In summary, the highway improvements proposed by the Appellant would provide significant wider public benefits as follows:

i) The A49 (N) Lodge Lane diversion would provide improvements to the operation of Junction 23, and when combined with Vectos designed proposed improvements to

Haydock Point Public Inquiry vectos.co.uk January 2021 51

Junction 23 not only mitigate the impact of the development but would deliver a superior operation to the Baseline position.

ii) The A49 (N) Lodge Lane diversion forms a fundamental element of the ability to improve and enhance the operation of M6 J23 as set of in the WSP J23 Capacity Study. The improvements would therefore provide an essential initial phase of the potential wider improvements, which are included in the pipeline of schemes under consideration by the CA, and for which SHBC with partners WBC and HE are considering funding opportunities.

iii) The proposed improvements would represent a sizable contribution to the wider emerging J23 scheme at £11.8 million (WSP figures) which is approximately a third of the total cost of the preferred scheme options currently under consideration, either Option C £34.8m and Option D (Diverging Diamond) £37.8m.

iv) Such a substantial contribution from the private sector would improve the opportunities for securing funding for the wider J23 improvements, as a result of the high level of match funding secured from the Appellant. The level of funding secured from the private sector would also make a more compelling case for securing funding earlier than might otherwise occur.

v) There is an intrinsic linkage between the Haydock Point development scheme and delivery of the link road as an essential element to the wider Junction 23 Improvements. On this basis, there is a high level of benefit in facilitating development of the Appeal site early, which would pave the way for the wider improvements, but would also reduce the risk of the wider J23 improvements not coming forward within a reasonable timescale or at all. This has the potential to undermining Local Plan objectives and policies.

vi) Improvements at Junction 23 M6 are considered a priority in the St Helens Submission Draft Local Plan 2020 – 2035, as evidenced by the Local Plan Transport Impact Assessments, and the Infrastructure Delivery Plan. The significant highway infrastructure improvements being advanced by the Appellant and contribution the wider J23 Improvements would therefore provide a significant contribution to the delivery of the emerging Local Plan.

9.14 The proposed development would accord with national and local policies on transport. In accordance with Policy CP 2 of the St Helens Core Strategy, the development would ensure a choice in mode of travel, including enhancements to pedestrian/cycle facilities and public transport, and provide safe and adequate access to and from the public highway through the provision of safe and adequate vehicular, cycle and pedestrian access to and from, and circulation within the development. The development site is located with ease of access to the Key Route Network which will prevent any adverse impacts of traffic on the community. In addition, the proposed development would support Local Transport Plan priorities, by not prejudicing planned infrastructure improvements. On the contrary, the proposed development would make a substantial contribution to improvements to Junction 23 M6, which are a key priority for SHBC.

9.15 Policy CAS 4 Haydock and Blackbrook Strategy supports development that maintains the effectiveness of the Freight Route Network including Junction 23 of the M6 motorway, and provides

Haydock Point Public Inquiry vectos.co.uk January 2021 52

initiatives to improve access to employment opportunities. The proposed development accords with this policy by improving the effectiveness of the Freight Route Network as a result of the highly beneficial improvements to J23 M6, and by improving access to employment opportunities. The proposed development would also accord with Policy CIN1 by the provision of the necessary infrastructure to support the development.

9.16 The proposed development accords with Policy LPA07: Transport and Travel of the St Helens Borough Local Plan 2020 – 2035 Submission Draft (2019), through securing the delivery of new and improved road, walking, cycling, and bus infrastructure, and by ensuring that the proposed development would be sufficiently accessible by road transport, walking, cycling and public transport. The proposed development would secure improvements to existing motorway capacity and infrastructure for which the policy sets out a specific priority to being given to the M6 Junction 23. The proposed development would therefore be highly policy compliant in directly addressing this specific requirement of the policy, and in benefiting strategic priorities for the transport network to facilitate economic growth, enable good levels of accessibility between homes, jobs and services, improve air quality and minimise carbon emissions.

9.17 There are no highway or transport reasons why this appeal should not be allowed. Further, the proposed development would provide beneficial improvements to Junction 23 of the M6 Motorway, including the substantial contribution to wider junction improvements proposed at the junction, considered as a priority to deliver the emerging St Helens Local Plan. These considerable highway benefits should be given considerable weight in the consideration of the overall planning balance.

Haydock Point Public Inquiry vectos.co.uk January 2021

Contact

London Manchester Network Building, Oxford Place, 61 Oxford Street, 97 Tottenham Court Road, Manchester M1 6EQ. London W1T 4TP. Tel: 0161 228 1008 Tel: 020 7580 7373 Leeds Bristol 7 Park Row, Leeds LS1 5HD 5th Floor, 4 Colston Avenue, Tel: 0113 512 0293 Bristol BS1 4ST Tel: 0117 203 5240 Bonn Stockenstrasse 5, 53113, Cardiff Bonn, Germany Helmont House, Churchill Way, Tel: +49 176 8609 1360 Cardiff CF10 2HE www.vectos.eu Tel: 029 2072 0860

Exeter Registered Office 6 Victory House, Vectos (North) Limited Dean Clarke Gardens, Oxford Place Exeter EX2 4AA 61 Oxford Street Tel: 01392 422 315 Manchester M1 6EQ. Company no. 07794057 Birmingham Great Charles Street, Birmingham B3 3JY Tel: 0121 2895 624

vectos.co.uk