Warrington Council Statement of Case

Statement of Case

Proposed single carriageway link road between A49 Winwick Road (WA12 8EF) and A573 Parkside Road; at each location a signalised junction will be formed. The road then utilises the existing A573 Parkside Road to cross the M6 (via existing overbridge) before realigning Parkside Road to a new roundabout before heading east to A579 Winwick Lane to a newly formed roundabout. The section of carriageway from the new Winwick Lane roundabout and the M6 Junction 22 will be a dual carriageway. The A573 and A579 will be realigned to the new roundabouts

Land between A49 Winwick Road to A573 Parkside Road, including a proportion of the former Parkside Colliery with land, from A573 Parkside Road to A579 Winwick Lane connecting to M6 Junction 22, WA2 8ST

Warrington Borough Council Reference: 2018/32514

Appeal Reference: APP/M0655/V/20/3253232

July 2020

Contents Page 1.0 Introduction 1 2.0 The site and the surrounding area 3 3.0 The proposed development 4 4.0 Planning history 5 5.0 Planning policy framework 6 6.0 The case for the Local Planning Authority 7 7.0 Conditions and Section 106 obligation 12 8.0 Conclusions 13

Appendix 1: Draft suggested conditions should permission be granted Appendix 2: List of documents Appendix 3: Committee report

Anyone wishing to inspect the application documents can do so on the Council’s website (www.warrington.gov.uk)

APP/M0655/V/20/3253232 Parkside Link Road Warrington Borough Council Statement of Case

1.0 Introduction

1.1 This Statement of Case (SoC) is prepared on behalf of Warrington Borough Council (“the Council”) in respect of the application for planning permission for the creation of the Parkside Link Road (“PLR”) on land between A49 Winwick Road to A573 Parkside Road, including a proportion of the former Parkside Colliery with land from A573 Parkside Road to A579 Winwick Lane connecting to M6 Junction 22, WA2 8ST (“the site”).

1.2 The planning application is for the following development:

1.3 The proposed development covers land within the administrative boundaries of Warrington Borough and St Helen councils. Separate planning applications were submitted to each authority for the parts of the development within their boundaries. The planning applications for the PLR were submitted by St Helens Council (“the applicant”).

1.4 In addition to the PLR, there are three further elements of relevance relating to the Parkside area (referred to as Parkside phases 1, 2 and 3), all of which are within St Helens’ administrative boundary. Information on these is provided in the initial Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) between the Council, the applicant and St Helens Local Planning Authority which has been submitted by the applicant.

1.5 The key dates associated with the application are as follows:

 The application was validated by the Council in March 2018  The applicant submitted amended plans and an addendum to the Environmental Statement in March 2019  The application was recommended for approval to the Council’s Development Management Committee on 18th December 2019, subject conditions and a S106 obligation and subject to the Secretary of State (SoS) not wishing to intervene  The application was referred to the SoS in January 2020 due to the site’s location within the Green Belt and scale of the proposed development  The SoS called the application in on 21st May 2020 and confirmed that it is to

1 APP/M0655/V/20/3253232 Parkside Link Road Warrington Borough Council Statement of Case

be considered at a local inquiry alongside the following other planning applications: o St Helens Council application P/2018/0249/FUL for the formation of a new link road between A49 Winwick Road and M6 Junction 22 including the re-alignment of Parkside Road. o St Helens Council application P/2018/0048/OUP for employment floorspace (Phase 1 of former Parkside Colliery development) at Newton Le Willows. o Wigan Council application A/18/85947 for a proposed employment development on land at Junction 25 of the M6 Motorway. o Bolton Council application 04766/18 for an employment development on land west of Wingates Industrial Estate off Chorley Road, Westhoughton, Bolton.

1.6 This statement sets out the Council’s case in support of the application. It describes the site and its surroundings and the proposed development. It identifies the relevant planning history, relevant planning policy and guidance and then sets out the Council’s case by discussing the matters set out in the SoS’s call-in letter. Finally this statement lists the conditions that are suggested should planning permission be granted and the list of documents that the Council intends to refer to or use in evidence.

2 APP/M0655/V/20/3253232 Parkside Link Road Warrington Borough Council Statement of Case

2.0 The site and the surrounding area

2.1 The entire application site lies within the Green Belt. On the west side of the M6, the application site includes a section of Winwick Road (A49) at the entrance to the former Parkside Colliery site, part of the former colliery, two parcels of land which run southwards to the brook (all within St Helens), fields to the south and west of the M6 and part of Parkside Road, close to Wood Head Farm on the west side of Parkside Road and Monk House on the east side (all within Warrington).

2.2 The farmhouse and barn at Wood Head Farm are both Grade II listed and Monk House is included on the Council’s local list. To the south of this part of the application site is St Oswald’s Well, which is Grade II listed and a scheduled ancient monument, and the hamlet of Hermitage Green which includes a number of locally listed buildings, all of which are within Warrington.

2.3 The application site crosses the M6 on the existing overbridge and continues northwards to Parkside Farm on Parkside Road (within St Helens). It also continues southwards, through existing fields (within St Helens), until it meets Winwick Lane, which is within Warrington. A small section of the application site extends north-eastwards along Winwick Lane in the direction of Oven Back Cottage with the remainder of the application site extending south-westwards the roundabout at junction 22 of the M6. On the south-eastern side of Winwick Lane, outside of the application site and within Warrington, are a number of residential properties, including Oven Back Farm which is on the Council’s local list, fields and a quarry. The application site also includes part of the Battle of Winwick Registered Battlefield, a designated heritage asset. The majority of the battlefield within the application site falls within St Helens’ boundary. There are also a number of other heritage assets within St Helens.

3 APP/M0655/V/20/3253232 Parkside Link Road Warrington Borough Council Statement of Case

3.0 The Proposed Development

3.1 The application site comprises 37.7ha of which 12.7 falls within the Council’s administrative boundary. The road development (excluding the temporary area identified for construction compounds and other services) would be 0.37ha in Warrington and 2.73ha in St Helens.

3.2 The proposed development comprises the following:

 1.45km of new single carriageway extending eastwards from the A49 Winwick Road to the A573 Parkside Road including a new three arm signalised junction in broadly the same location as the existing access that served the former colliery. To cater for the signals and for right turning vehicles there would be a new dedicated left turn on the northern approach to the junction and a right turn ghost island to the south. There would also be new pedestrian refuge islands and crossing facilities to the north of the junction with the A49 (known as Parkside Link Road West; partly within St Helens, partly within Warrington);  1.3km of new single carriageway road east of the M6 linking the A573 Parkside Road to a new roundabout on the A579 Winwick Lane (comprising 800m Parkside Link Road East, 250m Parkside Road West and 250m Parkside Road South; within St Helens);  300m of new dual carriageway road extending westwards from the new roundabout mentioned above to the M6 at junction 22 (known as Winwick Lane South; within St Helens with the exception of Winwick Lane and part of junction 22), including the demolition of Rough Farm, on the north side of Winwick Lane (in St Helens);  295m of new single carriageway road extending eastwards from the new roundabout to tie in with the existing A579 Winwick Lane (known as Winwick Lane North; within St Helens);  Reconfiguration of access to the properties on the south side of the A579 Winwick Lane (within Warrington);  A grass verge and shared cycle and pedestrian route along the entirety of the proposed road. There would be a foot and cycle way on the northern side of the road with sections on the southern side;  Lighting along the whole of the carriageway;  Drainage to Hermitage Green Brook/Oswalds Brook (to the west of the M6) and drainage to either Cockshot Brook or soakaways (to the east of the M6); and  An ecological mitigation area (within Warrington).

4 APP/M0655/V/20/3253232 Parkside Link Road Warrington Borough Council Statement of Case

4.0 Planning History

4.1 There are no previous planning applications submitted to the Council which relate to this site and which are directly relevant to this application. There are however two applications submitted to St Helens Council which are of relevance and which are to be considered at the same inquiry as noted in section 1 of this statement:

 Application P/2018/0249/FUL for the formation of a new link road between A49 Winwick Road and M6 Junction 22 including the re-alignment of Parkside Road.  Application P/2018/0048/OUP for employment floorspace (Phase 1 of former Parkside Colliery development) at Newton Le Willows.

5 APP/M0655/V/20/3253232 Parkside Link Road Warrington Borough Council Statement of Case

5.0 Planning Policy Framework

5.1 The Local Plan Core Strategy (Local Plan) for Warrington is the Development Plan in force in the area and was adopted in July 2014. There was a High Court Challenge to the adoption of parts of the Local Plan with judgement given in February 2015 February by Mr Justice Stewart. This resulted in the removal of elements of the housing policies from the Local Plan but all other policies within the Local Plan remain unaltered.

5.2 The Proposed Submission Version Local Plan (PSVLP) Regulation 19 consultation closed in June 19. The current published timetable for the Local Plan Review process expected submission to the SoS in autumn 2019 and an examination in public in early 2020. The Council accepts that this timetable has slipped. The Council received around 3,500 representations to the PSVLP consultation. All of the responses have been carefully reviewed, and the Council is now carrying out additional work to respond to these. The main focus of this work is to ensure the Council is able to deliver the necessary social, health, transport and green infrastructure to support Warrington’s projected growth. Due the importance of this work, submission of the Local Plan for examination has been delayed until later in 2020. As a result of this the Council is of the opinion that only minimal weight can be attached to the PSVLP. The Council does not consider that the proposed development has implications for its emerging Plan.

5.3 The Council’s case will reference planning policies and guidance including:

 Policies of the adopted Local Plan  Relevant Supplementary Planning Documents and any other relevant local planning-related guidance  The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)  Planning Practice Guidance

6 APP/M0655/V/20/3253232 Parkside Link Road Warrington Borough Council Statement of Case

6.0 The role of and case for the Council

6.1 The Council and St Helens as Local Planning Authority (LPA) dealt with the applications for the parts of the proposed development within their boroughs and both recommended that the applications be approved. It is anticipated that significant common ground will be found between both parties, and with the applicant, on key matters.

The focus of the Council’s case

6.2 In his letter of 21st May 2020, the SoS outlined the matters which he particularly wishes to be informed about for the purposes of his consideration of the application. These are listed as a) to d) below alongside an outline of the Council’s case.

a) The extent to which the proposed development is consistent with Government policies for protecting Green Belt land (NPPF Chapter 13) 6.3 The Council’s evidence will outline that the proposal represents inappropriate development within the Green Belt. It will consider the proposed development in respect of openness, permanence and the five purposes of including land within the Green Belt. It will consider the harm to the Green Belt and assess the level of such harm. It will conclude that there would be definitional harm, harm to openness and that the proposal would result in encroachment to the countryside. The Council’s evidence will acknowledge that, although the latter is considered to be limited, substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt. The Council’s evidence will also consider other harm caused by the scheme which includes:  air quality  residential amenity due to noise increases  cultural heritage  ecology, although this would be short term  local landscape character and views  loss of agricultural land  farm business  amenity value for users of a Public Right of Way  some cumulative effects  health and wellbeing

6.4 The Council will make an assessment of the following benefits of the scheme, as set out within the applicant’s case, specifically within the Planning Statement, and the weight it believes should be attached to each: i. Background information and policy support for the proposed link road This includes policy support in the St Helens Core Strategy for a Strategic Rail Freight Interchange (SRFI) in the Parkside area and in the emerging Local Plan for development at Parkside to the east and west of the M6. It will also reference the St Helens Economic Evidence Base Paper (2015) which cites the importance of an SRFI in meeting St Helens’ economic

7 APP/M0655/V/20/3253232 Parkside Link Road Warrington Borough Council Statement of Case

growth aspirations and the St Helens Employment Land Needs Study (2015) which recognises Parkside as being a key site to secure future logistics development. There will also be reference to the Parkside Logistics and Rail Freight Interchange Study (2016), which shows that the ‘Parkside Strategic Site’ lends itself to larger scale logistics and distribution uses, and the Liverpool City Region Growth Strategy which identifies Parkside as a key piece of logistics infrastructure. Warrington Means Business (2017) also identifies Parkside as a key business location.

ii. The need for the Parkside Link Road The Council will acknowledge that there is some overlap between the need for the proposed development and policy support (point i. above) and that its need is tied to the delivery of Parkside phases 2 and 3 and how likely it is that these strategic developments will come forward. The Council will point to the granting of funding from the Liverpool City Region as recognition of the need for the road and its importance.

iii. The absence of alternatives The Council will refer to the applicant’s alternative assessment within the Environmental Statement and will acknowledge that all of the alternative routes would involve land within the Green Belt.

iv. Socio-economic benefits The Council will point to direct economic benefits resulting from the creation of jobs associated with the construction of the proposed development as well as indirect benefits including employment opportunities at Parkside phases 2 and 3 for residents of Warrington and beyond.

v. Traffic and transport benefits The Council will take into account benefits to the highway network, including in Winwick.

vi. Environmental benefits Environmental benefits, including ecology and nature conservation and landscape, will be considered by the Council.

6.5 The Council will conclude that the benefits of the scheme would be sufficient to clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm which would be caused by the proposal and are therefore considered to constitute very special circumstances which justify the approval of the application. In so doing, the Council will acknowledge that the applicant attached slightly more weight to two of the benefits (need and the absence of alternatives) than the Council. However both the Council and St Helens as LPA concluded that the whole scheme should be approved.

8 APP/M0655/V/20/3253232 Parkside Link Road Warrington Borough Council Statement of Case

b) The extent to which the proposed development is consistent with policies for building a strong, competitive economy (NPPF Chapter 6) 6.6 The Council intends to work with St Helens LPA on this matter in order to provide evidence to demonstrate that the proposed development is consistent with the NPPF in this regard and that the proposed development would assist in building a strong, competitive economy. This will reference the evidence and information submitted by the applicant, including the Planning Statement and Environmental Statement and Addendum, relating to direct and indirect economic benefits such as job creation which would be positive for Warrington, St Helens and the wider area. It is the intention that a Statement of Common Ground will be produced to cover these matters in detail.

c) The extent to which the proposed development is consistent with the development plan for the area 6.7 The Council assessed the application against the relevant Warrington Local Plan Core Strategy, which constitutes the development plan for the area insofar as is relevant to the application site. The Council’s evidence will conclude that the proposal is acceptable and in compliance with the development plan and that there are no material considerations which outweigh this finding, subject to conditions and a S106 obligation. The policies which the Council believes to be relevant to the proposed development are listed at Appendix 2.

d) Any other matters the Inspector considers relevant. 6.8 Although not listed by the SoS, given the nature of the scheme, the Council intends to provide evidence in relation to the highways impacts of the proposal. This will outline how initial highways objections to the proposal were addressed and how the strategic and localised impacts of the scheme were assessed by the use of appropriate traffic modelling tools. The Council will highlight the benefit within Warrington’s highway network as a result of the proposal and conclude that potential impact can be addressed by appropriate mitigation measures.

6.9 Heritage has not been listed by the SoS but there are a number of heritage assets within Warrington as follows:  Woodhead Farm, Parkside Road (Grade II listed)  Woodhead Barn, Parkside Road (Grade II listed)  St Oswald’s Well, Parkside Road (Grade II listed and Scheduled Ancient Monument)  Battle of Winwick Registered Battlefield  Monk House, Parkside Road (locally listed)  Oven Back Farm, Winwick Lane (locally listed)

6.10 The applicant provided information on heritage assets as part of the application within the cultural heritage chapter of the Environmental Statement and Addendum and associated appendices. In considering the planning application, the Council sought advice from Historic England, the Council’s Conservation

9 APP/M0655/V/20/3253232 Parkside Link Road Warrington Borough Council Statement of Case

Officer and the Cheshire Archaeology Planning Advisory Service. The Council will reference the applicant’s information as an assessment of significance as well as referring to the advice received from the above consultees within its planning evidence. It will seek further common ground with the applicant and St Helens LPA. The Council does not intend to call any further evidence on this issue.

6.11 The Council’s planning evidence will assess the harm to designated heritage assets having regard to the statutory presumption in S66 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and paragraph 196 of the NPPF. The Council is aware of the duty to give considerable weight to any harm to such assets in the planning balance, but considers that the significant public benefits outweigh the harm in this case. Non-designated assets have been assessed having regard to paragraph 197 of the NPPF. The Council will conclude that the impact on heritage assets is less than substantial and does not justify refusal of the scheme. St Helens carried out a full appraisal of the impact of the proposed development on the registered battlefield in its committee report and the Council concurs with that assessment. St Helens also considered the impact of the proposed development on the other heritage assets within its boundary and will deal those impacts in its evidence.

6.12 The Council will await further information from the Inspector and if there are any additional matters which the Inspector considers relevant the Council will assist and provide evidence and/or information as necessary.

6.13 The following other matters will be considered in the planning balance section of the Council’s evidence:  Air quality  Landscape and visual impact  Ecology and nature conservation  Geology and soils  Noise and vibration  Drainage and the water environment  Climate change

6.14 The Council’s position on these is set out in the Committee report and they were taken into account the assessment of the application. The Council does not believe them to be significant issues and does not anticipate producing specific evidence on them unless requested to do so by the Inspector.

6.15 An initial SoCG between the applicant, St Helens LPA and the Council, which indicates the scope of agreement between the parties, has been prepared and has been submitted by the applicant on behalf of all three parties. It is these parties’ intention that this initial SoCG will be supplemented by a number of other SoCGs dealing with technical matters/specific topics as agreed between the parties and/or as requested by the Inspector, which may include all or some

10 APP/M0655/V/20/3253232 Parkside Link Road Warrington Borough Council Statement of Case

of the topics listed above.

6.16 The Council acknowledges the representations received as part of the planning application process, which were taken into account as part of the assessment of the planning application. The Council will consider planning-related concerns raised in representations and by Rule 6 parties in the planning balance section of its evidence.

11 APP/M0655/V/20/3253232 Parkside Link Road Warrington Borough Council Statement of Case

7.0 Conditions and Section 106 obligations

7.1 The Council agreed a list of conditions as part of the consideration of the planning application. These conditions are set out in Appendix 1 of this statement. The application was also recommended for approval subject to a S106 obligation relating to newt mitigation, a copy of which (or heads of terms) will be supplied by the applicant in due course. The Council’s evidence will explain why the conditions and the obligation are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms.

12 APP/M0655/V/20/3253232 Parkside Link Road Warrington Borough Council Statement of Case

8.0 Conclusions

8.1 This Statement has set out the Council’s case in support of the application. It has referred to the matters raised in the call-in letter and set out the key points the Council will raise in its evidence. The Council will assert that the proposal is acceptable in planning terms having regard to the development plan and that there are no material considerations which outweigh this finding and that as a result, planning permission should be granted.

APPENDIX 1 Suggested conditions

Please note that the numbering of conditions differs from the Committee report due to the erroneous numbering of the reason to condition 18 as condition 19 in that report. The suggested conditions remain unchanged from the Committee report but have been correctly numbered which results in 23 conditions rather than 24.

Suggested conditions

1. The development hereby approved shall be commenced before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To ensure that the Local Planning Authority retains the right to review unimplemented permissions and to comply with Section 91 (as amended) of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990.

2. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans:  Scheme location plan sheet 1 of 2 ‘PD-RAM-00-DR-Z-0100 P03’  Scheme location plan sheet 2 of 2 ‘PD-RAM-00-DR-Z-0100 P04’  General Arrangement Sheet 1 of 2 ‘PD-RAM-01-DR-C-004 P09’  General Arrangement Sheet 2 of 2 ‘PD-RAM-01-DR-C-005 P09’  Parkside Link Road Parkside Road Footway/Cycleway ‘PD-RAM-01-00-DR-C-0012 P05’  Parkside Link Road West A49 Junction Layout ‘PD-RAM-01-00-DR-C-0013 P04’  Parkside Link Road West A573 Junction Layout ‘PD-RAM-01-00-DR-C-0014 P04’  Highway Alignment Layout ‘PD-RAM-01-00-DR-C-0050 P03’  Highway Alignment Long Sections ‘PD-RAM-01-00-DR-C-0051 P03’

Reason: To define the permission, to ensure that the proposals deliver appropriate and satisfactory development.

3. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a hydrogeological risk assessment and management plan demonstrating that the risks posed to groundwater from the development can be satisfactorily managed and including an assessment of the discernibility of hazardous substances shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved assessment and management plan.

Reason: To prevent the pollution of groundwater. This information is required prior to commencement due to the nature of the potential risks and to ensure that these can be managed as necessary at an appropriate stage in the development.

4. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, and notwithstanding the details submitted as part of the application, a surface water drainage scheme, based on the hierarchy of drainage options in the National Planning Practice Guidance with evidence of an assessment of the site conditions, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The surface water drainage scheme shall be in accordance with the Non-Statutory Technical Standards for Sustainable Drainage Systems (March

2015) or any subsequent replacement national standards and unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, no surface water shall discharge to the public sewerage system either directly or indirectly. The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To promote sustainable development, secure proper drainage and to manage the risk of flooding and pollution. The drainage details will need to be installed and understood at an early stage in the development process and therefore it is appropriate to require this detail prior to commencement of development.

5. Prior to the development hereby approved being first brought into use a sustainable drainage management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such plan shall include as a minimum: a. Arrangements for adoption by an appropriate public body or statutory undertaker, or, management and maintenance by a management company; and b. Arrangements for inspection and ongoing maintenance of all elements of the sustainable drainage system to secure the operation of the surface water drainage scheme throughout its lifetime. The development shall subsequently be completed, maintained and managed in accordance with the approved plan.

Reason: To ensure that management arrangements are in place for the sustainable drainage system in order to manage the risk of flooding and pollution during the lifetime of the development.

6. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a remediation strategy that includes the following components to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site shall each be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority: 1. A site investigation scheme, based on the desk study already submitted, to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site. 2. The results of the site investigation and the detailed risk assessment referred to in (1) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken. 3. A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in the remediation strategy in (2) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action.

Any changes to these components require the express written consent of the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.

Reason: For the ongoing protection of the water environment from risks arising from land contamination. These details are required prior to the commencement of the development because there is the potential for harm to the water environment and from land contamination if development were to commence prior to these details being considered

by the LPA.

7. Prior to the development hereby approved being first brought into use a verification report demonstrating completion of works set out in the approved remediation strategy and the effectiveness of the remediation shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The report shall include results of sampling and monitoring carried out in accordance with the approved verification plan to demonstrate that the site remediation criteria have been met. It shall also include any plan (a “long-term monitoring and maintenance plan”) for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action, as identified in the verification plan. The long-term monitoring and maintenance plan shall be implemented as approved.

Reason: For the future protection of the water environment from risks arising from land contamination.

8. All tree work shall be to BS3998 (2010) with any tree or hedgerow removal being in accordance with the details submitted within the "Arboricultural Impact Assessment (Ref 6354.06.001 Version 2 Vol 2, Part 4, Appendix 8.10 of the Environmental Statement” submitted with this application. All tree work shall also be supervised by the arboricultural supervisor for the site.

Reason: To protect trees on the site.

9. Temporary measures to provide physical protection of all trees, hedges and shrubs shown to be retained shall be in accordance with the "Arboricultural Impact Assessment (Ref 6354.06.001 Version 2 Vol 2, Part 4, Appendix 8.10 of the ES Statement and Tree Protection Plans detailed in ES Addendum Technical Appendix A7.3:  Tree Protection Plan Sheet 1 of 12 ‘PD-RAM-01-00-DR-EN-3041 rev P02’  Tree Protection Plan Sheet 2 of 12 ‘PD-RAM-01-00-DR-EN-3042 rev P02’  Tree Protection Plan Sheet 3 of 12 ‘PD-RAM-01-00-DR-EN-3043 rev P02’  Tree Protection Plan Sheet 4 of 12 ‘PD-RAM-01-00-DR-EN-3044 rev P02’  Tree Protection Plan Sheet 5 of 12 ‘PD-RAM-01-00-DR-EN-3045 rev P02’  Tree Protection Plan Sheet 6 of 12 ‘PD-RAM-01-00-DR-EN-3046 rev P02’  Tree Protection Plan Sheet 7 of 12 ‘PD-RAM-01-00-DR-EN-3047 rev P02’  Tree Protection Plan Sheet 8 of 12 ‘PD-RAM-01-00-DR-EN-3048 rev P02’  Tree Protection Plan Sheet 9 of 12 ‘PD-RAM-01-00-DR-EN-3049 rev P02’  Tree Protection Plan Sheet 10 of 12 ‘PD-RAM-01-00-DR-EN-3050 rev P02’  Tree Protection Plan Sheet 11 of 12 ‘PD-RAM-01-00-DR-EN-3051 rev P02’  Tree Protection Plan Sheet 12 of 12 ‘PD-RAM-01-00-DR-EN-3042 rev P02’  Temporary Tree Protection Fencing Specification ‘PD-RAM-01-00-DR-EN-3053 Rev P02’ submitted with this application. The provision of total exclusion zones shall be achieved by the erection of protective fencing as specified in the submitted plans which shall not be to a standard less than that specified in BS5837 (2012). The areas so defined shall be kept free of machinery, stored materials of all kinds and any form of ground disturbance not specifically catered for in the agreed measures, for the duration of site, demolition and

building works. Reason: To protect trees on the site.

10. Arboricultural Supervision shall be provided by a qualified Arboricultural Consultant of all tree work, and tree protection measures, including supervision of no dig surfacing construction shall be both delivered and maintained in accordance with the "Arboricultural Impact Assessment (Ref 6354.06.001 Version 2 Vol 2, Part 4, Appendix 8.10 of the ES” submitted with this application and Tree Protection Plans detailed in ES Addendum Technical Appendix A7.3, submitted with this application. Details of the level of supervision, reporting mechanisms to the Council and frequency of site visits and reporting, shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to any work commencing on site.

Reason: To protect trees on the site. The information is required prior to commencement due to the need to install tree protection measures and protect trees from the outset of the construction process.

11. Notwithstanding the details shown on the landscape masterplan, full landscaping details including but not limited to locations of new tree, shrub and hedge planting, species, planting densities and sizes of trees shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to any landscaping works being undertaken on the site.

Any trees, shrubs and plants and meadow areas planted / sown, which within a period of 5 years from the date of planting / sowing die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size, species and quality unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to the variation. The landscaping and ecological features shown on the landscaping plans shall be managed in accordance with the Landscape and Habitat Creation Management Plan (PD-RAM-01-00- SP-EN-3007 Rev 3) following their implementation.

Reason: To secure the satisfactory landscaping of the site in the interests of visual amenity.

12. Piling or any other foundation designs using penetrative methods shall not be permitted other than with the express written consent of the local planning authority, which may be given for those parts of the site where it has been demonstrated that there is no resultant unacceptable risk to groundwater. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: For the future protection of the Water Environment from risks arising from land contamination.

13. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the details contained within the Ecological Management Plan prepared by TEP (report ref: 7066.001

January 2019), or any subsequent amendment/update to the Plan as may be made in relation to condition 14 of this permission.

Reason: In the interests of protected species.

14. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, further precautionary surveys relating to bats, badgers and water voles shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Should these species be found during the resurveys, the Ecological Management Plan referred to in condition 13 of this permission shall be updated accordingly. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the updated Plan.

Reason: In the interests of protected species. This information is required prior to commencement because species are mobile in their habits and there is the potential for harm to such species if development were to commence prior to this information being considered by the LPA.

15. No works shall commence at the junction of M6 Junction 22/Winwick Lane until a scheme for the design and construction of highway improvement works at M6 Junction 22 including timetable for implementation has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. For avoidance of doubt, the works shall include: i. The full signalisation of the M6 Junction 22 roundabout to the principles of Balfour Beatty Drawing No. PD-RAM-01-1200-SK-C-001/P02. ii. Installation of CCTV monitoring system. iii. Resurfacing of footway and carriageways of the approach roads contiguous with the improvement scheme to provide a continuous palette of material and surface treatment appropriate to the detailed design. iv. Replacement/upgrade of street lighting necessary as part of the detailed design. v. Drainage works necessary to facilitate the highway works. The approved scheme shall include Road Safety Audit and subsequently be implemented prior to the opening to general traffic of the development hereby approved.

Reason: To ensure that the sufficient measures are taken such that the highway network can accommodate the development and that the traffic generated does not exacerbate unsatisfactory highway or transportation conditions.

16. No works shall commence at the junction of M6 Junction 22/A579 Winwick Lane until a scheme for the design and implementation of freight traffic signage including timetable for implementation has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. For avoidance of doubt, the freight traffic signage shall highlight that the recommended route for goods vehicles to and from the motorway network is M62 J9 along A49 Newton Road to A49 Winwick Link Road to A579 Winwick Lane. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the opening to general traffic of the development hereby approved.

17. No works shall commence at the junction of M6 Junction 22/A579 Winwick Lane until a traffic management scheme to limit the use of Highfield Lane by general traffic including timetable for implementation has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall include a Road Safety Audit and subsequently be implemented prior to the opening to general traffic of the development hereby approved.

18. Prior to the commencement of any works on site, the developer shall provide in writing a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) to the Local Planning Authority for written approval. The CEMP shall review all demolition and construction operations proposed on site including logistics. It shall cover as a minimum the following areas of work on a phase by phase basis, identifying appropriate mitigation measures as necessary:

A. Highway and Traffic Access to the site. Entrance/exit from the site for visitors/contractors/deliveries. Temporary roads/areas of hard standing. Schedule for large vehicles delivering/exporting materials to and from site and details of manoeuvring arrangements. For the avoidance of doubt all construction vehicles shall load/unload within the confines of the site and not on the highway. Details of street sweeping/street cleansing/wheel wash facilities.

B Site layout and Storage Proposed locations of Site Compound Areas. Siting of temporary containers. Location of directional signage within the site. Parking for contractors, site operatives and visitors. Identification of working space and extent of areas to be temporarily enclosed and secured during each phase of demolition/construction. Storage of materials and large/heavy vehicles/machinery on site.

C Environmental Controls Proposed construction hours, proposed delivery hours to site, phasing of works including start/finish dates. Acoustic mitigation measures, including vibration, dust and air quality measures. Details for the recycling/storage/disposal of waste resulting from the site. Consideration for joining a Considerate Contractors Scheme. Contact details of the principal contractor

Once approved in writing, all identified measures within the CEMP shall be implemented in accordance with the requirements therein and shall be reviewed on a regular basis and in case of receipt of any justified complaint. Any changes to the identified CEMP mitigation measures from either the regular review process or following receipt of a complaint shall be forwarded to the Local Planning Authority within 24hrs of a change being agreed or implemented. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved CEMP, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that adequate on-site provision is made for construction traffic, including allowance for the safe circulation, manoeuvring, loading and unloading of vehicles, as well as parking, and to reduce impact on residential amenity and the general amenity of surrounding occupiers. These details are required prior to the commencement of the development because there is the potential for material harm to be brought about to highway and pedestrian safety if development were to commence prior to these details being considered by the LPA and/or implemented

19. Except for site clearance and remediation no development shall commence until a Road Phasing and Completion Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Road Phasing and Completion Plan shall set out the development phases and the standards to which roads serving each phase of the development will be completed. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plan.

Reason: To ensure that roads serving the development are completed and thereafter maintained to an acceptable standard in the interests of safety; to ensure a satisfactory appearance to the highway infrastructure serving the development; and to safeguard the visual amenities of the locality and users of the highway. These details are required prior to the commencement of the development because there is the potential for material harm to be brought about to highway and pedestrian safety if development were to commence prior to these details being considered by the LPA and/or implemented

20. Except for site clearance and remediation no development shall commence until full engineering, drainage, street lighting and construction details of the roads proposed for adoption have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. For the avoidance of doubt this shall include the thin surface road, for the purpose of noise mitigation, as set out in the approved documents. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety; to ensure a satisfactory appearance to the highway infrastructure serving the approved development; and to safeguard the visual amenities of the locality and users of the highway. These details are required prior to the commencement of the development because there is the potential for material harm to be brought about to highway and pedestrian safety if development were to commence prior to these details being considered by the LPA and/or implemented

21. Prior to the commencement of the development, a Local Employment Scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The submitted Scheme shall include but not be limited to: a) Details of how the initial staff/employment opportunities at the development will be advertised and how liaison with the Council and other bodies will take place in relation to maximising the access of the local workforce to information about employment opportunities; b) Details of how sustainable training opportunities will be provided for those recruited to fulfil staff/employment requirements including the provision of apprenticeships or an agreed alternative; c) A procedure setting out criteria for employment, and for matching of candidates to the vacancies;

d) Measures to be taken to offer and provide college and/or work placement opportunities at the development to students within the locality; e) Details of the promotion of the Local Employment Scheme and liaison with contractors engaged in the construction of the development to ensure that they also apply the Local Employment Scheme so far as practicable having due regard to the need and availability for specialist skills and trades and the programme for constructing the development; f) A procedure for monitoring the Local Employment Scheme and reporting the results of such monitoring to the Local Planning Authority including details of the origins qualifications numbers and other details of candidates; and, g) A timetable for the implementation of the Local Employment Scheme.

The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved Scheme.

Reason: To facilitate the socio-economic benefits to the local workforce. This condition is required to be pre-commencement as it relates to the construction phase of development.

22. Works proposed at Junction 22 of the M6 shall not commence unless and until full design and construction details of the required improvements to Junction 22 of the M6, as shown in outline in Drawing PD-RAM-01-1200-SK-C-001 prepared Ramboll), have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority,. The details to be submitted shall include:

 How the scheme interfaces with the existing highways alignment, details of the carriageway marking and lane destinations.  Full signing and lighting requirements.  Confirmation of full compliance with current Departmental Standards (DMRB) and Policies (or approved relaxations/departures from standards).  An independent Stage 2 Road Safety Audit (taking account of any Stage 1 Road Safety Audit recommendations) carried out in accordance with current Departmental Standards (DMRB) and Advice Notes.

The approved improvements shall be implemented in full prior to the opening to general traffic of the development hereby approved.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

23. Prior to the development hereby approved being first open for use by general traffic, an acoustic barrier along Winwick Lane shall be installed as shown drawing PD-RAM-01-00- DR-C- 0308, or any amendment to such drawing as may have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The barrier shall remain in place and maintained as such thereafter at all times the road is in use. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity.

Suggested informatives

3. The applicant’s attention is drawn to the advice from the Cheshire Constabulary Designing out Crime officers dated 28th March 2019. 4. The applicant is advised that if any protected species are found or suspected at any time during works then works must cease and advice sought from a suitably qualified person about how best to proceed. 5. The applicant’s attention is drawn to the Coal Authority’s standing advice. 6. It is an offence to carry out any works within the public highway without permission of the Highway Authority. The grant of planning permission will require the applicant to enter into Agreement with the Council as Highway Authority. The applicant is advised to contact the Council’s Traffic Management, Road Safety & Adoptions Team on 01925 443248 to ascertain the details of such an agreement and the information to be provided. For the avoidance of doubt all works shall be carried out at nil cost to the Council. 7. The applicant is reminded that it is an offence to allow material to be carried from the site and deposited on or cause damage to the highway from uncleaned wheels or badly loaded vehicles. The Highway Authority will seek to recover any expenses incurred in clearing, cleaning or repairing highway surfaces and will prosecute persistent offenders under Sections 131, 148 & 149 of the Highways Act 1980. 8. The applicant is advised that tree and scrub vegetation removal should only take place outside of bird nesting season. If this is not possible, removal should only take place on confirmation from an ecologist that no nesting birds are present.

APPENDIX 2 List of Documents

It is anticipated that the inquiry parties will reference documents from an agreed core list. The following list of documents provides a guide to references the Council may rely upon at the inquiry. The Council reserves the right to refer to other documents not specifically identified below, those identified by other inquiry parties and/or those which are released prior to or during the inquiry itself.

A. LEGISLATION

 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)  The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004  The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended)  The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017  The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017  The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990

B. DEVELOPMENT PLAN

 Warrington Local Plan Core Strategy adopted 2014. Key policies are as follows: o CS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development o CS2 – Quantity and Distribution of Development o CS4 – Transport o CS5 – Green Belt o PV3 – Strengthening the Borough’s Workforce o QE3 – Green Infrastructure o QE4 – Flood Risk o QE5 – Biodiversity and Geodiversity o QE6 – Environmental and Amenity Protection o QE7 – Ensuring High Quality Place o QE8 – Historic Environment o MP1 – General Transport Principles o MP3 – Active Travel o MP5 – Freight Transport o MP7 – Transport Assessment and Travel Plans o MP8 – Waste o CC2 – Protecting the Countryside  Warrington Policies Map

C. OTHER LOCAL DOCUMENTS

 Warrington emerging Local Plan (the status of the emerging Local Plan will be confirmed within the proofs of evidence)  Warrington Design and Construction Supplementary Planning Document  Warrington Environmental Protection Supplementary Planning Document  Warrington Means Business  Warrington Green Belt Assessment (2016)  St Helens Core Strategy Local Plan (adopted 2012)  St Helens emerging Local Plan  St Helens Economic Evidence Base Paper (2015)

 St Helens Employment Land Needs Study (2015)  Parkside Logistics and Rail Freight Interchange Study (2016)

D. NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY AND GUIDANCE

 The National Planning Policy Framework  National Planning Policy for Waste  Planning Practice Guidance

E. PLANNING APPLICATION AND RELATED DOCUMENTS

 All documents pertaining to the planning application. Key documents will include: o Planning Statement o Environmental Statement and Addendum, including appendices and figures, in particular Appendices 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 and A6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 relating to cultural heritage o Transport Assessment  Report to Warrington Borough Council Development Management Committee with respect to the planning application (December 2019) including update reports and minutes  Reports to St Helens Borough Council Planning Committee with respect to the planning applications for the Parkside Link Road and Parkside Phase 1 employment development (December 2019) including any update reports and minutes

APPENDIX 3 Committee report

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE 18th December 2019

ITEM 1

Application Number: 2018/32514

Description of Development: Environmental Assessment Application, Full Planning (Major) - Proposed single carriageway link road between A49 Winwick Road (WA12 8EF) and A573 Parkside Road; at each location a signalised junction will be formed. The road then utilises the existing A573 Parkside Road to cross the M6 (via existing overbridge) before realigning Parkside Road to a new roundabout before heading east to A579 Winwick Lane to a newly formed roundabout. The section of carriageway from the new Winwick Lane roundabout and the M6 Junction 22 will be a dual carriageway. The A573 and A579 will be realigned to the new roundabouts.

Location Address: Land between A49 Winwick Road to A573 Parkside Road, including a proportion of the former Parkside Colliery with land, from A573 Parkside Road to A579 Winwick Lane connecting to M6 Junction 22, WA2 8ST

Ward: Burtonwood and Winwick Culcheth, Glazebury and Croft

Site Allocation: Green Belt

Number of representations received: First publicity period: Objections from the residents of 14 properties and two residents’/action groups

Second publicity period: Objections from the residents of 118 properties and two residents’/action groups

Reason for Referral: Major application with more than ten objections

Statutory expiry date: 31st January 2020

Recommendation: Approve subject to a planning obligation to secure Great Crested Newt habitat creation and maintenance and subject to the Secretary of State not wishing to intervene

Case Officer: Alison Gough

[email protected]

SUMMARY OF KEY REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION • There is policy support and a demonstrable need for the proposed development. • The significance of the environmental impacts of the proposed development have been assessed and it is considered that the residual impacts of the scheme would be acceptable. • The development would have socio-economic and environmental benefits • The impact on the highway network is considered acceptable • The benefits of the scheme, in combination, are considered to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt, and other harm, and are therefore considered to constitute very special circumstances which justify the approval of the proposed development.

OFFICER’S REPORT TO PLANNING COMMITTEE

1. APPLICATION SITE AND SURROUNDINGS

1.1 The application site covers land within the administrative boundaries of Warrington and St Helens. Each authority is responsible for dealing with the planning application for the parts of the proposed development that are on land within its respective boundary. A plan of the application site including the boundaries of the authorities is provided at the end of this report.

1.2 On the west side of the M6, the application site includes a section of Winwick Road (A49) at the entrance to the former Parkside Colliery site, part of the former colliery, two parcels of land which run southwards to the brook (all within St Helens), fields to the south and west of the M6 and part of Parkside Road, close to Wood Head Farm on the west side of Parkside Road and Monk House on the east side (all within Warrington).

1.3 The farmhouse and barn at Wood Head Farm are both Grade II listed and Monk House is included on the Council’s local list. To the south of this part of the application site is St Oswald’s Well, which is Grade II listed and a scheduled ancient monument, and the hamlet of Hermitage Green which includes a number of locally listed buildings, all of which are within Warrington.

1.4 The application site crosses the M6 on the existing overbridge and continues northwards to Parkside Farm on Parkside Road (within St Helens). It also continues southwards, through existing fields (within St Helens), until it meets Winwick Lane, which is within Warrington. A small section of the application site extends north-eastwards along Winwick Lane in the direction of Oven Back Cottage with the remainder of the application site extending south-westwards the roundabout at junction 22 of the M6. On the southeastern side of Winwick Lane, outside of the application site and within Warrington,

are a number of residential properties, including Oven Back Farm which is on the Council’s local list, fields and a quarry.

1.5 All of the land within the application site is within the Green Belt within both authorities.

2. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL

2.1 The proposed development comprises the following:

• 1.45km of new single carriageway extending eastwards from the A49 Winwick Road to the A573 Parkside Road including a new three arm signalised junction in broadly the same location as the existing access that served the former colliery. To cater for the signals and for right turning vehicles there would be a new dedicated left turn on the northern approach to the junction and a right turn ghost island to the south. There would also be new pedestrian refuge islands and crossing facilities to the north of the junction with the A49 (known as Parkside Link Road West; partly within St Helens, partly within Warrington); • 1.3km of new single carriageway road east of the M6 linking the A573 Parkside Road to a new roundabout on the A579 Winwick Lane (comprising 800m Parkside Link Road East, 250m Parkside Road West and 250m Parkside Road South; within St Helens); • 300m of new dual carriageway road extending westwards from the new roundabout mentioned above to the M6 at junction 22 (known as Winwick Lane South; within St Helens with the exception of Winwick Lane and part of junction 22), including the demolition of Rough Farm, on the north side of Winwick Lane (in St Helens); • 295m of new single carriageway road extending eastwards from the new roundabout to tie in with the existing A579 Winwick Lane (known as Winwick Lane North; within St Helens); • Reconfiguration of access to the properties on the south side of the A579 Winwick Lane (within Warrington); • A grass verge and shared cycle and pedestrian route along the entirety of the proposed road. There would be a foot and cycle way on the northern side of the road with sections on the southern side; • Lighting along the whole of the carriageway; • Drainage to Hermitage Green Brook/Oswalds Brook (to the west of the M6) and drainage to either Cockshot Brook or soakaways (to the east of the M6); and • An ecological mitigation area (within Warrington).

2.2 The application constitutes Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) development as defined by the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (the Regulations) and has therefore been accompanied by an Environmental Statement (ES). This follows the Council’s adoption of a scoping opinion in 2017.

2.3 The application site comprises 37.7ha of which 12.7 falls within Warrington’s administrative boundary. The road development (excluding the temporary area identified for construction compounds and other services) would be 0.37ha in Warrington and 2.73ha in St Helens.

3. BACKGROUND

3.1 Within this report there are references to the St Helens Local Plan. The St Helens development plan includes the Core Strategy Local Plan (adopted October 2012) and saved policies of the 1998 Unitary Development Plan. St Helens is in the processes of preparing a new Local Plan 2020-2035. The submission draft was the subject of consultation between January and May 2019 and the next stage is for it to be submitted for examination. The application has been submitted to both authorities on the basis of very special circumstances and therefore the future statutory plans have very little weight.

3.2 In addition to the proposed link road, there are three further elements of relevance relating to the Parkside area, all of which are within St Helens’ administrative boundary. These are as follows: • Parkside Phase 1 – up to 92,900sqm employment floorspace with associated infrastructure on land west of the M6 (planning application under consideration by St Helens and due to be reported to its Planning Committee meeting in December 2019); • Parkside West (sometimes referred to as phase 2) – 79.57ha of land allocated for employment use in the St Helens Draft Local Plan. This excludes 5.58ha of land required to facilitate rail access to the site (see below); and • Parkside East (sometimes referred to as phase 3) – approximately 124.55ha of which at least 60ha is reserved or development of a Strategic Rail Freight Interchange (SRFI) or other rail enabled use in the St Helens Draft Local Plan. The Draft Plan indicates that the remainder of the site may be developed for a wider range of employment uses. Parkside East also includes the 5.58ha of land referred to above for rail access to the west of the M6.

3.3 The applicant has secured funding for the proposed road through the Liverpool City Region (LCR) Combined Authority Single Investment Fund (SIF). The SIF was established to unlock economic potential and accelerate growth within the Liverpool City Region. The outline business case for the proposed road explains that it would assist in supporting the LCR Growth Strategy mission to attract and develop more businesses in the region and to create more sustainable employment and high value jobs due to the creation of a strategic link to the local highway network thereby delivering improved accessibility to the surrounding region. The outline business case also highlights that the proposed road would facilitate the potential development of the Parkside SRFI, which is cited as a unique opportunity to improve transport links across a number of modes. The SIF award was made on this basis and the funding equates to nearly £24m and the funding agreement requires financial completion by March 2022. A further £6m would be provided by the public sector and £9.8m from the private sector.

4. PROCEDURAL MATTERS

4.1 As mentioned in section 1 above, the application site covers land within the administrative boundaries of Warrington and St Helens, with the majority falling within St Helens. In such circumstances it is possible for one authority to devolve its decision making powers to the other authority, which would then make the decision on the entire proposal. This can help to avoid different decisions and different conditions. In this instance, due to the amount of development in Warrington and the potential impacts on the borough and its residents, it was considered appropriate to determine the application made to this authority separately and not devolve power to St Helens to make the decision on the

entire development. This Council therefore needs to determine the elements of the application that fall within the borough and St Helens will do the same. Efforts have however been made to ensure conditions are as consistent as possible. The impacts of the whole scheme can be considered where they have a trans-boundary effect.

5. AMENDED PLANS

5.1 In May 2019 amended plans and an ES addendum were submitted. The ES addendum included revised/additional information and reflected changes to the scheme that were made following submission of the application in May 2018. The changes include: • an increase in the size of the site eastwards along Winwick Lane following an increase in the size of the proposed roundabout.; • removal of works in Cockshot Brook. The proposed drainage would connect into existing drainage to the west of the existing road and utilise the drainage beneath the road to outfall into the brook, thereby negating the need to do any works in the brook itself or in the vicinity; • amendments to the junction with Parkside Road (A573) – moved slightly north, with the proposed road realigned to tie in. This would result in an increase in the junction area from 5,135sqm to 6,041sqm and a consequential decrease in the ecological mitigation by 906sqm; • removal of a swale from Parkside Road northwest tie-in; • the relocation of the noise barrier along Winwick Lane; • removal of the site office and compound area and entry point from Parkside Road; and • relocation of the material management area which would free up part of the site for the proposed ecological mitigation enabling the creation of great crested newt ponds from the start of the construction period rather than at the end.

5.2 Consideration has been given to the necessity to re-consult on the amended plans and addendum ES. In this instance it was considered that the proposed revised/additional information contained within the ES addendum and the amended plans constitute substantial differences or fundamental changes to the originally submitted proposal and they have therefore been subject to public re-consultation. The LPA has acted fairly and reasonably taking into account the duty to fully consider representations from interested parties and has re-consulted in order to make sure that nobody has been deprived of the opportunity to make any representations that they may have wanted to make on the application as amended due to the nature of the changes. All representations received are summarised below and are appraised against planning policy (where they are material in determining the application) within the assessment.

6. LOCAL REPRESENTATIONS

Ward Councillors

Councillor Mitchell (on behalf of Burtonwood and Winwick councillors): • in favour of the link road to the M6 and consider that it should be delivered in full before any of the proposed development of the Parkside site comes forward. • Councillor Mitchell also draws attention flooding of the brook in Hermitage Green Lane and the possible consequences of development on the drainage system.

Parish Councils

Culcheth and Glazebury Parish Council and Croft Parish Council – Object for the following reasons: • Prematurity - Piecemeal development that is premature and would prejudice proper overall future planning for this important Green Belt area, including any potential to provide rail access as part of a future SRFI. The grounds for objection include: • Green Belt – the scheme cannot meet ‘very special circumstances’ • Planning guidance – the proposed development does not comply with national planning guidance or local planning policies, it is not plan led. • Transport Assessment (TA) – it is deficient and does not assess the effects of communities to the north of Warrington. The treatment of sustainable travel is inadequate, the proposed cycle and walking facilities are unsatisfactory and public transport provision is non-existent. The revised TA does not consider induced traffic or traffic generated by the development the new road would serve • Environmental Impact Assessment – the Environmental Statement (ES) is not independent or objective. It does not properly consider climate change gas emissions, air quality, alternatives (just different alignments), development or transport planning objectives or the significant effects on landscape and views and the revised scheme does not offer a proper scheme of mitigation and conservation in respect of the registered battlefield. • Battle of Winwick – the information submitted by the applicant falls short of a proper scheme of mitigation and conservation. They also consider that whilst the scheme may initially provide some relief to some roads, this would be temporary as traffic from new development would quickly return traffic to former levels and higher. The application should either be refused or called in for a joint public inquiry with the related Parkside Phase 1 development.

General Public

The application was publicised by neighbour notification letters and site and press notices both upon submission (March 2018) and following receipt of the Environmental Statement addendum. In response to the first publicity period, objections from the residents of 14 properties were received as well as objections from the Lane Head South Residents’ Group and the Parkside Action Group. Following the second publicity period, objections from the residents of 118 properties along with additional objections from the Lane Head South Residents’ Group and the Parkside Action Group. The comments received are summarised as follows:

Principle of Development in Green Belt • The Green Belt would be further eroded by the proposed development and this narrow stretch should be maintained as once it is gone it cannot be recreated • There are no exceptional/special circumstances to justify development in the Green Belt and the impact on the Green Belt has been assessed incorrectly • The area is crucial to maintaining a green space between the neighbouring urban areas and separation between villages. It provides valuable breathing space for the mental and physical wellbeing of residents in the surrounding areas. • The proposed development would enable sprawl to occur to the detriment of Winwick, Newton le Willows and Lowton

Traffic and highways

• The road network in the area is already congested and any increases would be unacceptable • There are no guarantees that HGVs would use the link road • Much of the traffic would access/exit Parkside using Lane Head/Winwick Lane which is already over capacity • Traffic and congestion have increased through Lowton and this would continue • There should be a weight restriction on the northbound side of Winwick Lane • All vehicles under 7.5 tonnes would be able to access the proposed link road via Winwick Lane Highways England has concerns about the proposal and has insufficient information to make a recommendation • Traffic would continue to use Warrington roads and not the M6 which would create issues for Winwick, Croft, Culcheth, Burtonwood and Birchwood • Previous designs for the development included a new junction onto the M6 which would be a much better solution in terms of local traffic issues and the health impacts on local residents • The junction between Winwick Lane and Newton Road is already the second busiest junction in Greater Manchester and at rush hour there is congestion in this area • The proposed link road would create a rat run on roads with no weight limit that are already at saturation point • Further traffic will cause queues on the M6 and there are concerns about the risk of accidents on the M62 and capacity of J23 • The proposal would make it more difficult to access Warrington town centre • The traffic lights at Winwick Lane/Newton Road are hazardous near a blind bend and additional traffic would make this worse • The proposed road would facilitate the movement of huge levels of HGV traffic onto the local road network impacting residents in Lowton, Winwick and Newton-leWillows. The population of St Helens would be unaffected. • It would provide easy access to the East Lancs Road • Assumptions about traffic routing are not provided • It is not possible to assess the impacts of the proposed development on night operation. • There are concerns about routing assumptions and traffic flows in the TA • Parkside Road and Golborne Dale Road are not suitable for HGV and high volumes of traffic and the proposed development would increase traffic on Parkside Road • There are concerns about the consistency of the traffic information for this application with the Parkside Phase 1 application, including recommendations for mitigation, and the AM/PM flows • There would be a significant increase in traffic on the A49 • The ES addendum does not address the commercial vehicles intended to use the proposed link road • Commercial vehicles will use Golborne Road/Parkside Road causing gridlock and this is not taken into account in the applicant’s traffic modelling • The access through Warrington must not be supported as the Council has already objected to the entrance into the Parkside phase 1 site from the A49 • Winwick Lane cannot cope with existing volumes of traffic • Crossing Winwick Lane is dangerous and the proposal would make this worse • Parkside Road is not suitable for HGVs and high volumes of traffic • The existing roads are unsafe for pedestrians and cyclists and the scheme would make this worse • There would only be a single pavement for cyclists and pedestrians • There should be a direct loop from the M6 to avoid the use of local roads

Air quality, noise, vibration and pollution • People will be killed because of the pollution • How would levels of NO2 be reduced • The proposed development would further add to air pollution in areas that already have high levels of pollution including an Air Quality Management Area The proposed development (and ‘associated developments’) would impact on air quality The proposed development would create unacceptable noise which would impact on residents • There are links between air pollution and Alzheimer’s disease • The applicant’s air quality assessment and the scenarios it includes lacks clarity, contains discrepancies and errors, fails to provide evidence of how updated traffic flows have been mapped, fails to comment on impacts on children and contains errors. Planning permission should not be granted until a valid report is produced • The air quality methodology does not follow guidance • The robustness of the air quality model must be called into question and the validity of the air quality results cannot be relied upon • Vibrations would cause damage to structures, including listed buildings

Heritage • The impact on the heritage assets needs to be assessed for all of the Parkside development (the link road and phases 1, 2 and 3 of the Parkside scheme) • As the Council has already objected to the designation of the battlefield the Council should refuse the application or it should be called in for determination • The battlefield is a heritage asset of the highest significance and such significance would be totally destroyed. The application is contrary to the NPPF and should be refused

Landscape and visual Impact • Mitigation planting would not address the views and long term impact caused by the proposed development • How can there be no significant change on the landscape character and visual impact when the extent, size and nature of the development is considered? • Light pollution

Ecology and biodiversity • Environments and habitats would be destroyed and wildlife harmed • There are a number of designated sites within 2k of the development including a SSSI and 14 local wildlife sites. The EIA plays down the impact on such sites • The proposal would impact on the SSSI and its associated plants and animals

People and Communities • St Helens’ employment land needs have been inflated to justify development • The development at Parkside would create far fewer employment opportunities than suggested by St Helens

Flooding and drainage • The brook in Hermitage Green Lane has been flooding a lot recently and there are concerns about the consequences of the proposed development on the drainage system, which cannot cope with the water generated now • The cumulative effects of flooding have not been assessed

Residential Amenity • The proposal would have a devastating effect on residents’ quality of life • The proposal would make Lowton an unsafe and unpleasant environment • The proposal would affect asthma sufferers • The proposal would be inappropriate in respect of adjacent residential areas • There would be a detrimental effect on general wellbeing The proposal would impact on residents’ sleep and quality of life

Procedural issues • St Helens is submitting separate planning applications for the link road and the 2 phases which means they are publishing smaller pieces of data which if seen in totality would be far more harmful to residents • The application should be refused due to there being three separate applications (the two in relation to the link road (one submitted to Warrington and one to St Helens) and one in relation to Parkside phase 1 submitted to St Helens) and more than one Environmental Impact Assessment and because the Council objected to the Parkside phase 1 application • There is missing information on the website and from the application which means there is a breach of the Aarhus Convention • The development (the link road, and phases 1, 2 and 3 of the Parkside scheme) should be considered as a whole project and separate applications have been submitted to subvert the proper operation of planning controls • A health risk assessment should be carried out • The SRFI is unlikely to go ahead

Other issues • There would be no benefits to Warrington as a result of the proposed development. Only St Helens Council would benefit • There would be impacts the on wellbeing of children and everyone in the area • Farmland would be lost and this would impact on food security • The proposed development would affect Winwick Village Green if the A49/A543 is signalised • The proposals are unsound due to the strong public objection

7. CONSULTEES

WBC Transport Development Control – no objections subject to conditions relating to the design and construction of highway improvement works, freight traffic signage, a traffic management scheme for Highfield Lane, a Construction Environmental Management Plan, a road phasing and completion plan and full engineering, drainage, street lighting and construction details. In summary: • The application is for a link road only. • Future development would be subject to separate applications and subsequent assessment. • The strategic impact of the proposal has been assessed using a SATURN model which is appropriate. • The assessment highlights that the link road alone would provide benefit to the existing network through Warrington subject to additional mitigation. • The assessment highlights that the Warrington network would be impacted by further development proposals at Parkside.

• The impact of Parkside Phase 1 (separate planning application) can be adequately mitigated. • The design of the link road and associated junctions would be appropriate for anticipated development. The design and operational issues associated with the link road would be addressed through the detailed design process. • Mitigation required to address issues at M6 J22, Highfield Lane and in the form of HGV directional signage.

WBC Environmental Protection – No objections subject to conditions relating to a Construction Environment Management Plan, the erection of an acoustic barrier and contamination.

WBC Street lighting – a lighting scheme is required. This would be controlled by condition.

WBC Flood Risk – no objections subject to a condition requiring the submission of a final detailed design for the surface water drainage layout and attenuation.

WBC Public Health – a fair proportion of employment benefits should be available to Warrington residents, which can be secured by condition.

WBC Conservation Officer – Subject to the implementation and retention of proposed planting, the proposal would have less than substantial harm on the setting of Wood Head Farm and its barn and the Scheduled Ancient Monument St Oswald’s Well.

Highways England – the proposed road would not cause a severe impact on the strategic road network with the proposed mitigation in place, which can be secured by condition.

Cheshire Archaeology Planning Advisory Service – no objections. All archaeological mitigation as it affects land in Warrington has already been completed and no further mitigation is required.

Historic England – no objections. The relative harm to designated heritage assets and their settings should be relatively low. Any further mitigation measures advised by the Cheshire Archaeology Planning Service should be secured by condition.

Natural England – no objections.

Greater Manchester Ecology Unit – no objections subject to conditions requiring further precautionary surveys relating to bats, badgers and water voles, the implementation of an ecological management plan and the creation, management and monitoring of new/improved newt habitat.

Environment Agency – no objections subject to conditions relating to a hydrogeological risk assessment, surface water drainage, a remediation strategy and verification report.

United Utilities – no objections subject to conditions relating to surface water drainage and a hydrogeological risk assessment.

Cheshire Constabulary Designing Out Crime Officer – no objections. Recommendations made to enhance the securing of the site during construction and once the road is in use

which can be included as an informative.

Wigan Council – objection due to concerns about traffic and air quality. Some of the points raised relate to the planning application for the Phase 1 development (in St Helens) and are not therefore relevant to the determination of this application. Points that specifically relate to this application include committed developments in Lowton and Golborne not taken into account, a request for further information regarding the quantum of development needed to fund the proposed road and a request for a northbound weight restriction on Winwick Lane in order to reduce the potential impact on Wigan’s road network and the resultant air quality impact.

Coal Authority – standing advice should be included as an informative.

Cheshire and Lancashire branches of the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) has objected to the application, making the following comments: • The proposal is unjustified and would prevent the strategic rail freight opportunity from being realised in the future • Green Belt sites should not be opened up for development at the risk of preventing brownfield sites from coming forward • The proposed road would harm Green Belt purpose • There would be adverse impacts in terms of HGVs using residential roads and creating noise, vibration, lighting, emissions and other pollution • The harm outweighs the benefits. There would be harm to the Green Belt, landscape impacts, environmental harms and loss of agricultural land • Very special circumstances do not exist • Less jobs are needed than predicted • Current transport infrastructure for roads must be improved rather than expanded with investment in public transport services • Local people are opposed to the proposed development and the CPRE champions rural places and local people who strive for sustainable development ought to be listened to.

8. RELEVANT SITE HISTORY

8.1 There are a number of planning applications relating to this site and adjacent land which are of relevance. Some of these are applications submitted to St Helens Council on which Warrington has been invited to provide comments. Others are applications submitted to Warrington for determination. Details are provided below.

Planning Description of Development Decision Date of Reference Decision

2019/34719 Consultation from St Helens on the Pending N/A formation of a new link road between A49 (Winwick Road) and M6 Junction 22 including the re-alignment of Parkside Road and other associated works. This relates to the part of the current scheme that is within St Helen’s boundary and on which this Council has been consulted as a neighbouring authority (St Helens planning application reference P/2018/0249/FUL). 2018/32247 Adjoining Authority Consultation: Development June 2018 Outline application (all matters Management reserved except for access) for the Committee construction of up to 92,900 m2 of resolved to employment floorspace (Use Class B8 object to the with ancillary B1(a)) and associated application servicing and infrastructure including

car parking; vehicle and pedestrian circulation space; alteration of existing access road including works to existing A49 junction; noise mitigation; earthworks to create development platforms and bunds; landscaping including buffers; works to existing spoil heap; creation of drainage features; substations and ecological works.

This application is being considered by St Helen’s Planning Committee on 17th December 2019

2017/31717 Request for an Environmental Impact Scoping January Assessment Scoping Opinion for the opinion 2018 Parkside Link Road adopted 2017/30726 Request for an Environmental Impact Scoping August 2017 Assessment Scoping Opinion for the opinion Parkside Link Road adopted 2017/30170 Request for EIA Scoping Opinion - Withdrawn May 2017 Employment Development & Associated Servicing Infrastructure Location for Land at Former Parkside Colliery, Newton-Le-Willows

2006/09364 Outline planning application for the use Withdrawn August 2010 and development of land in Warrington Borough Council comprising elements of: A rail freight interchange providing up to 715,000 square metres of rail served warehouse and distribution buildings (to include train assembly area, container depot, cargo exchange, multi-modal secure access terminal with waste recycling centre); up to 18,600 square metres of offices (use class B1); a "Park Centre" of up to 9,300 square metres of floorspace (to include up to 4,300 square metres recreation and leisure floorspace; up to 2,500 square metres retail (use class A1) floorspace; up to 2,500 square metres floorspace for eating and drinking (use class A3,A4 and A5)); a creche (use class D1); power generating facilities (including 1850 square metres of ancillary buildings); a "countryside park"; highway and engineering works (including a relocated M6 junction 22 with public transport interchange, access, parking, servicing, infrastructure and landscaping); re-modelling and the relocation of Newton Park Farm Manor House & Barn. A01/43838 Rail freight distribution facility, including Finally September formation of intermodal terminal and disposed of 2006 associated facilities and built development comprising 180,000sqm, including warehousing distribution units (168,000sqm approximately) together with ancillary offices and canopies. Link road to M6 junction 22, revised access to A49 and emergency access to Parkside Road, together with earthworks, landscaping and estate distributor road.

9. PLANNING POLICY

9.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires the Committee to make its determination in accordance with the Development Plan, unless material considerations support a different decision being taken. Whilst third party representations are regarded as material planning considerations (assuming they raise

town planning matters) the primary consideration, irrespective of the source or number of third party representations received, remains the extent to which planning proposals comply with the Development Plan. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) supports this legislative position and its contents are a material consideration in determining the application.

National Planning Policy Framework 9.2 The Revised NPPF (2019) confirms that decisions should apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Paragraph 7 of the document states that the objective of sustainable development can be summarised as meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. This is balanced by Paragraph 9 which states that plans and decisions need to take local circumstances into account, so that they reflect the character, needs and opportunities of each area.

9.3 Where there are other specific, relevant, material issues raised in the NPPF these will be discussed within the Assessment below.

9.4 As stated above, the NPPF reiterates that planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Development Plan, in the case of Warrington, refers to the Local Plan Core Strategy.

Relevant Policies in the Local Plan Core Strategy • CS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development • CS2 – Quantity and Distribution of Development • CS4 – Transport • CS5 – Green Belt • PV3 – Strengthening the Borough’s Workforce • QE3 – Green Infrastructure • QE4 – Flood Risk • QE5 – Biodiversity and Geodiversity • QE6 – Environmental and Amenity Protection • QE7 – Ensuring High Quality Place • QE8 – Historic Environment • MP1 – General Transport Principles • MP3 – Active Travel • MP5 – Freight Transport • MP7 – Transport Assessment and Travel Plans • MP8 – Waste • CC2 – Protecting the Countryside

Other Documents National Planning Policy for Waste Design and Construction Supplementary Planning Document Environmental Protection Supplementary Planning Document

10. EQUALITIES ACT (2010)

10.1 In determining this application, the Local Planning Authority has considered the requirements under S149 of the Equalities Act 2010. It is considered that the

application has no differential impacts.

11. ASSESSMENT

11.1 The key issues in this particular application relate to:

• The principle of the proposed development – Green Belt • Impact on the highway network/ Safety • Assessment of ES Chapters: o Impact on air quality o Impact on cultural heritage o Landscape and visual impact, including impact on residential amenity o Impact on ecology and nature conservation o Impact on geology and soils o Impact on noise and vibration, including impact on residential amenity o Impact on people and communities o Impact on road drainage and the water environment o How the impacts of the proposed development would be affected by climate change o Cumulative effects • The Planning Balance (relate to Green Belt Policy) • Alternative Schemes • Benefits of the Proposal • Procedural Matters (relates to issues raised in consultation)

Structure of the Report 11.2 Following consideration of the principle of the proposed development and the impact on the highway network, the assessment follows the structure of the applicant’s Environmental Statement (ES) and considers the content of the chapters contained within it. Each section of this part of the assessment begins with a summary of the relevant policies and an outline of the applicant’s assessment of the impacts both pre and post proposed mitigation. This is followed by the Council’s assessment and conclusions on each matter. Principle of Development – Impact on the Green Belt 11.3 Policy CS5 states that development proposals within the Green Belt will be approved where they accord with relevant national policy.

11.4 The NPPF lists forms of development that are not inappropriate in the Green Belt. It states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. It further states that when considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. Policy CS5 is considered to be consistent with the NPPF.

11.5 The proposed development does not fall into any of the types of development that are listed as not inappropriate in the Green Belt and must therefore be considered to be inappropriate. It is therefore, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and consideration

must therefore be given as to whether ‘very special circumstances’ (VSC) exist and whether such VSC would be sufficient to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt, and any other harm.

11.6 The potential harm to the Green Belt is considered in respect of openness, permanence and the five purposes of including land within the Green Belt which are: • To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up area; • To prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; • To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; • To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and • To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

Harm to Openness 11.7 The NPPF gives examples of matters which may need to be taken into account in assessing effects on openness which include a spatial dimension, a visual dimension, duration and remediability and the degree of activity including traffic generation. In relation to the spatial dimension, the part of the application site that is in Warrington comprises mainly of agricultural land and existing roads (Parkside Road, Winwick Lane and part of the M6 junction 22 roundabout). This is fairly typical of the Green Belt in the surrounding area (including within St Helens). The proposed development would result in the introduction of additional hardstanding to form the new carriageway for the proposed road and associated infrastructure including lighting columns. Such development/features are not uncommon in the Green Belt in this location and the applicant asserts that the majority of the development’s impact would be at or near ground level due to the nature of the proposed development and that the effect on openness would therefore be limited when compared to the introduction of built form.

11.8 It may be the case that the proposed development would have less of an impact on openness than the construction of buildings within the Green Belt but it is considered that this does not negate its impact as the proposal would still result in development on over 3ha (0.37ha in Warrington) of Green Belt (the area for the proposed road development excluding construction compounds and other services).

11.9 Consideration of the visual dimension includes impact on views and the impact on visual amenity. There is obvious overlap in this regard with landscape and visual amenity issues which are considered in the landscape and visual impact and people and communities sections of this report (as part of the assessment of the Environmental Statement). The conclusion on this matter and the associated impact will therefore be provided at the end of this report (paragraphs 11.189.11.192).

11.10 In relation to duration and remediability, the proposed road is intended to be permanent and although it would be possible to remove the road and remediate the land at some point in the future this would not be the intention given the permanent nature of the road and its purpose to facilitate future development, which is explained in more detail in subsequent sections of this report. In relation to the last component of openness, there would be traffic activity on the proposed road, although it would not generate traffic in and of itself.

11.11 In view of the above, the proposed development is considered to result in harm to the openness of the Green Belt.

Harm to Permanence 11.12 The application site would remain part of the Green Belt following the proposed development and therefore although the road would itself be permanent, it would not cause harm to the permanence of the Green Belt.

Purposes of the Green Belt 11.13 The five purposes of including land within the Green Belt are set out at paragraph 134 of the NPPF and will be discussed in turn below having regard to the findings of the Council’s 2016 Green Belt Assessment (GBA). Within the GBA, the majority of the application site is within General Area (GA) 20, with a very small part (on the southeast side of Winwick Lane) in GA 1. An extract from the GBA showing the relevant areas is included at the end of this report.

a) To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas 11.14 The GBA identifies GA 20 as making no contribution to this purpose given that it is not adjacent to the urban area. GA 1 is identified as making a moderate contribution although it should be noted that the application site is located at the very northern boundary of this parcel and the comments in the GBA which led to this conclusion relate to the middle and southern parts of this GA. It is therefore considered that the proposed development would not impact on this purpose.

b) To prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another 11.15 GA 20 is identified as making a weak contribution to this purpose, forming a ‘less essential gap’ between the Warrington urban area and Newton-le-Willows and highlighting that although a reduction in the gap would reduce the actual distance between towns merging would not occur. Although the GBA identifies GA 1 as making a strong contribution to this purpose, it states that the northern section of the area (which covers the application site) could be developed without resulting in the merging of towns. Given the nature of the proposed scheme and in light of the above it is considered that it would not result in the merging of settlements.

c) To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment 11.16 GA 20 is identified as making a strong contribution to this purpose with the M6 forming a durable boundary between the area and the countryside on the area’s eastern side. The GA is cited as supporting a strong degree of openness given that it has less than 5% built form and low levels of vegetation. In considering the extent of any encroachment, it should be noted that within GA 20, the majority of the application site would be landscaped or remain as grassland and this aspect of the proposal would not therefore cause encroachment. GA 1 is identified as making a moderate contribution to this purpose and the GBA highlights that Winwick Lane forms a durable boundary which could prevent encroachment. Winwick Lane would remain, albeit the proposal would result in the creation of a dual carriageway to the north of Winwick. Overall it is considered that there would be encroachment into the countryside as a result of the hardstanding forming the proposed carriageway and there would therefore be harm to this purpose of including land within the Green Belt, albeit such harm is considered to be minimal given the nature of the scheme.

d) To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns 11.17 Both parcels are identified as making no contribution to this purpose in the GBA. There would therefore be no adverse impacts in this regard.

e) To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land

11.18 Both parcels are identified as making a moderate contribution to this purpose. The applicant claims that the proposed development would directly assist urban regeneration due to it unlocking the development potential of the Parkside Colliery site leading to the recycling of this previously developed land. The applicant therefore asserts that urban regeneration would be directly assisted by the proposed development. It is understood that the proposed link road is not required for Parkside phase 1, which includes part of the former colliery site and whilst the proposal could help to facilitate the reuse of other parts of the former colliery (within Parkside West), other areas which could be served by the proposed link road are currently undeveloped and in the Green Belt within St Helens, albeit they are proposed to be removed from the Green Belt and allocated for employment purposes in the St Helens draft local plan. On balance however it is considered that the proposed development would assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the reuse of part of the former colliery site.

11.19 In accordance with the NPPF, on balance the proposal represents inappropriate development in the Green Belt and is therefore, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. It would also cause harm to the openness of the Green Belt and would conflict with one of the purposes of including land within the Green Belt by encroaching into the countryside, albeit such harm is considered to be minimal. Notwithstanding this, the NPPF is clear that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt. Any other harm resulting from the proposal will be identified and considered in subsequent sections of this report and the conclusions made in the planning balance section of this report.

Impact on the highway network 11.20 Policy CS4 states that the Council will support improvements to the transport network that integrate with transport networks both within and outside Warrington to enhance the sustainability of cross boundary travel.

11.21 Policy MP1 states that the Council will support proposals where they consider demand management measures including the effective reallocation of road space in favour of public transport, pedestrians and cyclists. Policy MP3 outlines the high priority given to the needs and safety of cyclists and pedestrians in new development which should include appropriate segregation of users and appropriate priority given to users at junctions.

11.22 Policy MP7 states that the Council will require all developments to demonstrate that they will not significantly harm highway safety, identify where there are any significant effects on Warrington’s transport network and ensure appropriate mitigation measures are in place before the development is used.

11.23 The NPPF states that in assessing sites that may be allocated for development in plans, or specific applications for development, it should be ensured that appropriate opportunities to promote sustainable transport modes can be or have been taken up and that any significant impacts on the transport network or highway safety can be cost-effectively mitigated to an acceptable degree. It further 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 and that within this context priority should be given to pedestrian and cycle movements. The relevant Local Plan policies are considered to be consistent with the NPPF.

11.24 Following comments made on the original Transport Assessment (TA) and Traffic Model, the model and accompanying reports were revised at the beginning of 2019. The applicants assert that the assessment of the proposed new junctions demonstrates that they will operate within capacity in 2021 (the assumed opening year for the purposes of the TA) and 2031 (ten years after opening), including the predicted development traffic that the new Link Road may facilitate. The assessment of the A49 Newton Road/Delph Lane, A49 Newton Road/A49 Winwick Link road and A49 Newton Road/Hollins Lane indicate an improvement in capacity as a result of the proposed scheme which would provide benefits to the local distributor network. Capacity of the A49 Newton Road/Hollins Road would improve with the proposed road compared to without it, but exceeds capacity in both scenarios. The TA concludes that overall the proposed scheme would not result in significant transport related issues or impact on the operation, safety or amenity of local transport networks (subject to M6 J22 improvements being implemented by Highways England). There would be transport benefits through congestion relief at Winwick.

Highway safety (traffic movements) 11.25 The Council’s Transport Development Control team has considered the application, including the TA and update, Technical Notes and a number of supporting documents addressing the transport impacts. The models used to assess the impacts of the proposed development are considered to be suitable. The Forecasting Report indicates that the link road would offer some benefit within Warrington, as described in subsequent paragraphs and that future development on Parkside would impact on Warrington’s highway network but such impact would be assessed and addressed through any subsequent planning applications; this is discussed further below.

11.26 Notwithstanding any development that may be subsequently facilitated by the proposed link road, given that the application is for a link road only it was considered that a direct comparison of existing transport conditions both with and without the link road should be provided to inform changes to travel patterns as a direct result of the link road alone. This is considered the clearest way to view the proposal itself as it allows the use of real traffic data to compare the effects of the link road without any other assumptions or influencing factors which would otherwise impact on the overall situation.

11.27 This analysis has been undertaken and is presented within the TA. Overall the results indicate that the link road alone would provide a benefit over the existing traffic situation on the existing network through Warrington with a reduction in movements along the A49 corridor from M62 J9, through Winwick Island up Newton Road to Parkside. It does however highlight a significant increase in movement along the A579 Winwick Lane north of M6 J22 (an increase of 1384 traffic movements in the am peak and 662 in the pm peak) as well as a minor increase in movement along A49 Winwick Link Road south of M6 J22 (120 in the am peak and 263 in the pm peak).

11.28 The increase along the A49 Winwick Link Road south of M6 J22 is not reflected in other figures and further analysis highlights the use of Highfield Lane (southbound) and Waterworks Lane (northbound) to connect to the wider network; this in turn leads to an increase along Myddleton Lane (32 in the am peak and 48 in the pm peak). The increase along Highfield Lane in particular indicates the need for the implementation of traffic management measures to address potential impact. This can be addressed by condition.

11.29 The significant increase in movement along the A579 Winwick Lane highlights a particular issue and although the link road would offer some relief to junctions in Warrington which may be impacted by development at Parkside, further mitigation

would be required on the Warrington network should such development proposals come forward. In particular the increase in movement along the A579 Winwick Lane, highlighted above, manifests itself into capacity issues at the M6 J22/A49 Winwick Link Road/A579 Winwick Lane junction, leading to the junction exceeding capacity and highlighting the need for mitigation works. A mitigation scheme is proposed by the applicant that involves the signalisation of the junction. This scheme addresses the capacity issues and is required before the link road opens; this can be controlled by condition.

11.30 It is considered that the modelling undertaken by the applicant fails to fully account for the interaction between the A49 junctions at M62 J9, Delph Lane, Winwick Island and Hollins Lane; queuing at adjoining junctions affects the operation of the adjacent junction. However, it is considered that the link road alone would not cause issues at these junctions; rather it is the loading of development traffic through these junctions that affects operational capacity. Furthermore, in any case, the Council’s Transport Development Control team is satisfied that Parkside Phase 1 development can be fully mitigated via that application (Warrington reference: 2018/32247 in respect of the adjoining authority consultation, with the planning application currently under consideration by St Helens, reference: P/2018/0048/OUP) with appropriate mitigation secured via condition attached to any permission granted for that development.

11.31 The design of the proposed link road and the design and type of associated junctions are considered appropriate to cater for anticipated development at Parkside. It is acknowledged that the full build out of Parkside East and West would have an additional impact on the highway network within Warrington, albeit lessened by the construction of the proposed link road, but such impact would be subject to further assessment at the time that proposals for those developments come forward. As mentioned previously in this report, an application for development at Parkside phase 1 is currently under consideration by St Helens and the highways impacts of that scheme, including mitigation, are being fully assessed as part of that process.

11.32 The layout of the proposed traffic signal junction at Parkside Link Road/A573 Parkside Road has been designed to accommodate prevailing movements and discourage use of the A573 Parkside Road through Hermitage Green. The proposed link road and associated junctions have been subject to a Road Safety Audit using the latest available data and it is considered that, subject to detailed design and continued Audit, the layouts are appropriate.

Pedestrian and cycle provision 11.33 The detailed design issues of the link road and its interface with the existing road network will be addressed through the detailed design process under the necessary agreement with the Council as Highway Authority and will include Road Safety Audit process; work has been undertaken in tandem with the planning process but no technical approval to the design has been issued.

11.34 The link road includes for a shared footway/cycleway on both sides from the A49 Winwick Road through and past the proposed access points to development plots; the shared footway/cycleway then continues on the northern side only to tie into the existing pedestrian infrastructure on the western side of the A573 Parkside Road. The shared footway/cycleway then proceeds north on the western side of A573 Parkside Road to the new roundabout junction before continuing on the southern side of the link to the new roundabout junction at the A579 Winwick Lane and tying into existing infrastructure. The proposed pedestrian/cycle facilities are considered appropriate. The key linkage to the nearest public transport hub i.e. Newton-le-Willows station allows

provision on both sides of the carriageway. Any further improvements required would be identified through future development proposals.

General comments 11.35 The Council’s Transport Development Control team advises that design and operational issues associated with the proposed development would be addressed through the detailed design and construction process (for example any improvements required to street lighting). Speed limits along the proposed road and adjacent roads would be subject to review; it is anticipated that the A579 Winwick Lane may be subject to a 30mph speed limit rather than the present 40mph, although it should be noted that this falls outside of the planning process.

11.36 A comprehensive adjustment to directional signage throughout the area would also be addressed through the detailed design process with the intention of influencing movement along the link road and appropriate main routes. However, given that the Parkside development area would be served by the proposed link road it is considered that this signage should be reinforced by freight traffic signage highlighting the recommended route for goods vehicles to and from the motorway network ie. M62 J9 and A49 Newton Road to A49 Winwick Link Road and A579 Winwick Lane which can be controlled by condition.

11.37 Highways England has also considered the applicant’s transport evidence and is content that the development would not lead to a severe impact on the strategic road network if improvements to the M6 J22 are implemented. This can be secured by condition.

11.38 The comments of Wigan Council, insofar as they are relevant to the consideration of this planning application, are noted. In relation to concern regarding committed development in Wigan not being taken into account, the applicant has considered this matter insofar as possible based on the information available to them.

11.39 Transport Development Control agree with the data, assessment and conclusions that have been submitted with the planning application after having reviewed this in detail. They consider that the impact of the proposed development on the highway network, including safety for vehicles and pedestrians, would be acceptable and the scheme complies with the relevant provisions of the above policies subject to conditions.

Environmental Impact Assessment 11.40 The planning application is accompanied by an Environmental Statement (ES) which outlines the likely effects of the proposed development on different aspects of the environment, both in terms of the construction phase and the operational phase of the completed development, the methods used to assess the effects and the mitigation measures proposed to address these environmental effects. Having regard to the complex nature of the proposed development in environmental terms and the scale of development, the ES includes the following assessments:

• Air Quality • Cultural Heritage • Landscape and Visual Impact • Ecology and Nature Conservation • Geology and Soils • Noise and Vibration • People and Communities

• Road Drainage and the Water Environment • Climate Change • Cumulative Effects • Project Alternatives

11.41 The addendum ES, submitted in March 2019 is read alongside the original ES (March 2018).

Air Quality 11.42 Policy CS4 states that the Council will support improvements to Warrington’s Transport Network that reduce the impact of traffic on air quality.

11.43 Policy QE6 states that the Council will only support development which would not lead to an adverse impact on the environment or amenity of those currently occupying adjoining or nearby properties or does not have an unacceptable impact on the surrounding area taking into account matters including air quality.

11.44 The NPPF states that decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural environment by preventing new development from contributing to unacceptable levels of air pollution. Decisions should also sustain and contribute towards compliance with relevant limit values or national objectives for pollutants taking into account the presence of Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs). Policies CS4 and QE6 are considered to be consistent with the NPPF.

11.45 The proposed development would introduce two new road connections to the existing A573 Parkside Road and upgrades a section of Winwick Lane to a dual carriageway. This section of the ES considers air quality impacts in relation to construction dust and vehicle emissions during both the construction and operational phases. The ES addendum confirms that the changes to the construction programme do not affect the construction dust assessment in the original ES. The Parkside Link Road Transport Model was updated to account for more recent traffic data, which was made available by the Council following the submission of the planning application in March 2018. The previous model was based on 2015 modelling data using data originally collected in 2007. The updated model is based on data from 2017. There were therefore a number of changes in the methodology for assessing the air quality effects of the proposed development including changing the baseline year to 2016 and changing the assessment years from 2020 and 2030 to 2021 and 2031 to account for the updated programme.

i. Construction Phase 11.46 The ES states that a number of construction activities would have the potential to generate dust including construction of the site access, enabling works and site preparation, demolition, earthworks, construction of carriageways, modifications to the Parkside Road bridge and landscaping. It concludes that overall, without mitigation, the risk of dust soiling impacts is likely to be medium and the risk of health effects is likely to be low.

ii. Operational Phase 11.47 The ES addendum states that for NO2 (nitrogen dioxide), within 200m of affected roads, 1,401 properties are expected to experience a deterioration of air quality and 1,726 are expected to experience an improvement. In respect of PM10, within 200m of affected roads, 1,397 properties are expected to experience a deterioration of air quality and

1,726 are expected to experience an improvement with 4 properties experiencing no change. It states that the data reveals that overall, the amended proposed scheme would cause a deterioration of air quality to properties within the study area. This deterioration would not be expected to be at a level that would cause exceedance in national objective levels that would be of concern.

11.48 In 2021 (assumed to be the opening year for the purposes of the ES) the ES shows that of the 47 modelled receptor locations, 11 are predicted to experience a beneficial impact and 10 an adverse impact with the remainder predicted to experience imperceptible /negligible/no change in NO2 concentrations. It concludes that in all respects, the significance of the proposed development in respect of air quality would be not significant.

iii. Mitigation and Enhancement Measures 11.49 The proposed dust mitigation measures include no bonfires or unauthorised burning of material on the site, locating dusty activities and stockpiles away from sensitive receptors, maintaining construction traffic and plant in good working order and not left running when not in use, covering loads entering and leaving the site, no runoff of water or mud, cleaning and watering haul roads, imposition of a site speed limit, regular inspection and where necessary cleaning of highways, the use of appropriately designed vehicles and equipment, using water as a dust suppressant, bagging and removing or damping down biological debris before demolition, minimising dust generating activities, keeping stockpiles for the shortest possible time and minimising their surface area and covering earthworks as soon as practicable. As the scheme would not cause a significant impact during operation, no mitigation measures are proposed for that phase of the development.

iv. Residual Significant Effects 11.50 The ES states that with the construction phase mitigation measures, the impact from dust would be negligible. During operation, some sensitive receptors (not in Warrington) are predicted to have substantial and moderate beneficial residual effects.

Assessment and Conclusion on Air Quality 11.51 The Council’s Environmental Protection team has considered the air quality assessment and impacts, health and construction. The air quality assessment considers the impacts from construction and from the traffic-associated air quality impacts with the scheme. The air quality assessment has been reviewed and is considered acceptable as meeting the relevant guidance contained within LAQM.TG16, the Council’s Environmental Protection SPD and the EPUK Guidance on Planning. Models use a number of predictions and assumptions including future traffic levels which increase the level of uncertainty. It should also be noted that the traffic data has been accepted by the Council’s Transport Development Control team and by Highways England. Model performance has been considered within the verification process and is considered acceptable. To further take into account uncertainty, worse case assumptions are made for the model input criteria.

11.52 For impacts from nitrogen dioxide, the majority of receptors have been assessed as having a negligible impact. No areas within current AQMAs, with existing air quality problems, within Warrington have been assessed as having significant adverse impacts. For some AQMAs in St Helens, the proposal is predicted as having a beneficial impact where air quality sees an improvement, although not to a level that reduces concentrations to below the objective level. For the locations that will see an

adverse impact, these are in areas below the current objective limits and the impacts would not worsen air quality to such a degree that would cause new exceedances therefore is not considered to be significant. The largest adverse effect is considered to be “slight adverse” at one location (within St Helens) with a 1.5% increase in nitrogen dioxide, but this is within an area below the national objectives, therefore the impact is not considered to be significant. For fine particulates PM2.5, the impacts are assessed as being “no change” or “imperceptible”.

11.53 Poor air quality has an impact on health and adversely affects more sensitive individuals such as children and older people. It can exacerbate existing conditions such as asthma and COPD, and has been linked with a variety of health issues for example increased risk of Alzheimer’s, stroke and heart attacks. These health risks are dependent on the type of pollutant and the level of concentration and exposure. The pollutants of concern are nitrogen dioxide and fine particulates PM2.5, with national standards, known as objectives, set based on health grounds. In addition, the Council takes into consideration the World Health Organisation Guideline value, which is lower than the national objective limit. The national objective limits have been set based on exposure at sensitive receptors or locations, which includes children and applies at locations including schools, nurseries and residential homes. It is acknowledged that objectors have raised concerns about the lack of reference to the impacts on children within the air quality assessment but there are no specific or separate objective limits set for children against which to compare the impacts of the scheme. The air quality assessment does however compare levels against the national objectives in accordance with local and national guidance. When considering the impacts of any planning application, the current air quality is considered along with the impact from the scheme. Any areas that are close to, or exceed the national standards which have been designated as Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) are given a greater significance.

11.54 When considering the air quality impacts from the scheme, there would be no significant impact in current AQMAs in Warrington. Outside of current AQMAs, the air quality impacts would not be to an extent that would cause any existing areas to exceed the national objectives. Therefore there is no evidence that air quality impacts from the scheme would have adverse health impacts.

11.55 Construction impacts relating to dust soiling have been assessed as being medium risk without mitigation in place. With appropriate mitigation in place the impact is then considered to be negligible. It is therefore recommended that a condition requiring a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) to control dust is put in place

11.56 On the above basis, and subject to a condition requiring a CEMP it is considered that the proposal complies with Policy QE6 and the NPPF.

Cultural Heritage 11.57 Policy CS1 requires development to have regard to the need to sustain and enhance the borough’s built heritage.

11.58 Policy QE8 states that the Council will ensure that the fabric and setting of heritage assets are appropriate protected and enhanced and that development proposals which affect the character and setting of all heritage assets will be required to provide supporting information proportionate to the designation of the asset.

11.59 The NPPF requires local planning authorities to take account of a number of factors when determining planning applications including the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and the positive contribution that their conservation can make to sustainable communities. In considering potential impacts of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, the NPPF states that great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation and any harm to the significance of a heritage asset should require clear and convincing justification. The NPPF also states that where a development proposal would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, the harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

11.60 There are a number of designated and non-designated heritage assets within Warrington which have the potential to be affected by the proposed development and the impact of the proposed development on these assets was assessed in the original ES: • Battle of Winwick Registered Battlefield • Wood Head Farm (Grade II listed) • Wood Head Barn (Grade II listed) • Monk House, Parkside Road (local list) • Oven Back Farm, Winwick Lane (local list)

11.61 Following a review of the original ES, additional information was requested by St Helens Council and its archaeological advisors and this additional information is contained within the ES addendum. The methodology remained unchanged. In addition to the baseline data contained within the original ES, further baseline data collection was undertaken as part of the preparation of the assessment for the Battle of Winwick Registered Battlefield and two non-designated heritage assets (in St Helens borough).

i. Construction Phase 11.62 In the original ES it was noted that during construction, there is potential for destruction and/or damage to archaeological deposits associated with a number of heritage assets including the designated battlefield site, two non-designated heritage assets in Warrington (Monk House, Parkside Road and Oven Back Farm, Winwick Lane) and as yet unknown heritage assets with archaeological interest. The original ES highlights that the construction of the proposed scheme could result in direct impacts in archaeology where required below ground works interact with known or potential archaeological deposits. Such effects would be direct, adverse and permanent.

11.63 Potential for destruction of and/or damage to archaeological deposits associated with the designated heritage asset, the Battle of Winwick battlefield was identified in the original ES but although the asset is of very high heritage significance, the significance of the effect has been assessed as negligible due to the previous disturbance (around the Parkside Colliery site in St Helens borough). The further assessment in relation to the battlefield as part of the ES addendum has not indicated that there would be any further potentially significant effects than originally identified. It should be noted that only a very small part of the application site within Warrington (at St Oswald’s brook which at this point forms the boundary between St Helens and Warrington) covers the designated battlefield site. The ES states that no other designated heritage asset would be directly affected by the construction phase of the proposed development. The ES addendum identifies the wooded valley and remaining hedgerows that line Hermitage Green Lane on the north and south sides as retaining historical interest associated with

the historic battle as the place where the main body of fighting took place. Although the tree and hedge line is identified as being of high heritage significance, the amended scheme would not affect it and no mitigation is recommended.

11.64 The two non-designated heritage assets within Warrington are identified within the ES as being of low heritage significance and the overall significance of the effect is predicted to be low adverse and therefore not a significant effect. The overall significance of effect if as yet unknown heritage assets with archaeological interest are encountered, is predicted to be low adverse before mitigation and this is not considered to be a significant effect.

ii. Operational Phase 11.65 The original ES highlights that during operation, the proposed development has the potential to affect the settings of heritage assets which would be a direct effect and long-term. The proposed scheme is within the setting of the two listed buildings in Warrington, both located approximately 170m south of the site. The ES explains that the setting of both buildings includes farm buildings and the immediate surrounding countryside which make a positive contribution to the heritage significance of the assets. The ES states that the proposed scheme would only affect views to the north of these two assets. The principal elevation of the farmhouse faces onto open countryside to the south and would not be affected by the proposal in this regard. Both assets are identified as being of high heritage significance with the magnitude of impact on the significance and the overall significant effect identified as low adverse.

iii. Mitigation and Enhancement Measures 11.66 The applicant advises that a programme of archaeological recording would be undertaken. There would also be recording of Rough Farm barn and cottage (in St Helens) in advance of demolition. The ES states that during the operational phase a low adverse effect is predicted in relation to the presence of the scheme within the setting of Wood Head Farm and barn (both Grade II listed) and that with the embedded mitigation (landscape strategy) no further mitigation is proposed as the predicted effect would equate to less than substantial harm on the designated heritage assets. The ES addendum advises that a programme of archaeological recording was proposed along with landscape reinstatement within the historic battlefield site but that due to the removal of the western drain (in St Helens) from the proposal it is unlikely that this measure will actually be required.

iv. Residual Significant Effects 11.67 During construction, the significance of effect is predicted to be negligible adverse. As no further mitigation is proposed during the operational phase, the significance of effect would remain low adverse. The applicant states that these are not significant effects and are equivalent to less than substantial harm.

Assessment and Conclusion on Cultural Heritage 11.68 The Cheshire Archaeology Planning Advisory Service (APAS) has advised that no further archaeological mitigation is required relating to the land in Warrington and therefore there are no conditions proposed relating to this matter. Historic England has also raised no objections to the proposed development. The concerns of third parties regarding the impact of the proposed development on the battlefield are acknowledged but on the basis of the above advice from APAS it is considered that there would be less than substantial harm to this heritage asset. It is understood that archaeological mitigation relating to the parts of the scheme within St Helens would be required by condition. The provision of landscaping will be required by condition which would assist

in the preservation and enhancement of the setting of listed buildings. It is noted that third parties have raised concerns regarding the need for the impact on heritage assets to be considered for the whole of the Parkside area. It is however the case that any impacts resulting from other developments in the area, such as at Parkside East and West, would be considered and assessed (by St Helens) at such time as planning applications for those developments are submitted. The absence of any such assessment at this stage does not warrant refusal of this application.

11.69 Following the advice from Historic England, the Cheshire APAS and the Council’s Conservation Officer as summarised above and in the consultation responses section of this report, It is considered that there would be less than substantial harm to the significance of designated heritage assets, namely St Oswald’s Well, the battlefield and Wood Head farm and barn. The NPPF states that where a proposal would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. This is considered in the ‘planning balance’ section of this report.

Landscape and Visual Assessment 11.70 Policy CC2 states that development proposals in the countryside which accord with Green Belt policies will be supported subject to a number of factors including that they respect local landscape character.

11.71 Policy QE7 states that the Council will look positively upon proposals that are designed to maintain and respect the landscape character and, where appropriate, distinctiveness of the surrounding countryside.

11.72 The NPPF states that decisions should ensure that developments are sympathetic to local character including landscape setting and contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes. Decisions should also ensure that new development is appropriate for its location taking into account the likely effects of pollution on the natural environment by measures such as limiting the impact of light pollution on dark landscapes. The Local Plan policies are considered to be consistent with the NPPF.

11.73 This chapter of the ES assesses the anticipated effects on landscape character and views as a result of the proposed development. The applicant has adopted a 2km study area around the application site.

11.74 The Council’s Landscape Character Assessment was prepared in 2007 and formed part of the evidence base for the Local Plan. Despite its age, this document is still considered relevant as baseline information for the assessment of the proposed development. The application site is located within the undulating farmland landscape character area (Winwick, Culcheth, Glazebrook and Rixton, LCA 1C – plan provided at the end of this report) (within the undulating enclosed farmland landscape character type). Undulating enclosed farmland is the largest area of landscape type within Warrington and includes a large tract of land between Burtonwood and Glazebrook. Key characteristics include sweeping views from higher ground towards the Pennines to the east and the red sandstone escarpment to the south, mainly medium to often large-scale mainly arable fields and sparsity of hedgerow trees. The description of LCA 1C notes that small deciduous woodlands form the backdrops to views in this landscape. The assessment states that in general the largely open countryside is visually sensitive to development and there are sweeping views to the north and east

from Culcheth and Glazebrook and south from Winwick. It is however noted that views to the north from Winwick are not a key characteristic. The assessment also states that the area contains three significant knolls (one on which Winwick Church stands, another defined by Cop Halt Farm and a third at Wood Head Farm which is just to the south of the application site on Parkside Road). Key cultural elements of this area include the 1648 battle. The former Parkside Colliery spoil heap is noted as being outside of the LCA but having a visual impact on it.

11.75 In terms of the landscape character of the proposed scheme and the surrounding area, the application site, insofar as it lies within Warrington Borough, includes arable farmland rising southwards towards Wood Head Farm, part of the A573 Parkside Road, the A579 Winwick Lane and junction 22 of the M6. Settlements within the context of the proposed development include the village of Winwick to the south and Croft to the south east. The landscape within the 2km study area is stated to be bisected by the M6 motorway corridor. The Winwick Link Road and Winwick Lane are stated to dissect the landscape within the study area. Land within the application site is described as rising southwards from the M6, which is in a cutting at this point, to localised high ground at and surrounding Wood Head Farm. The land falls southwards towards St Oswald’s Brook. From Hermitage Green Lane the land rises southwards towards an area of high ground between Hermitage Green and Winwick. Within the south-eastern part of the proposed scheme the land is lower lying and extends to the east of Winwick Lane along Cockshot Brook.

11.76 The applicant has divided the landscape within the 2km study area into local landscape characters (LLCA) and the land within Warrington’s boundary falls within LLCA 3: undulating and generally enclosed arable farmland. The proposed scheme runs across rising ground within a gently undulating arable landscape. Wood Head Farm is situated on a localised knoll at approximately 35 AOD (to the south of the application site) and is identified as being a characteristic feature of this landscape. There are belts of mature woodland along St Oswald’s Brook.

11.77 The applicant’s night-time site survey identifies a number of main lighting sources within the 2km study area including the M6 corridor and the associated overbridges roundabout, Parkside Road and Winwick Lane. There is some light spillage from lighting columns and traffic along the M6 corridor, in particular around junction 22, and along Parkside Road where the lights are bright and white and which are identified as a notable element in the landscape at night-time. Some isolated farmsteads and individual properties within the study area have exterior domestic lighting which contributes to the night-time baseline.

11.78 The ES notes that there are no designations relating to landscape quality within the application site or the wider study area. In identifying valued landscapes, a number of factors have been considered including: landscape quality (condition); scenic quality; rarity; representativeness; conservation interests; recreational value; perpetual aspects; and associations. The landscape quality of LLCA 3 is identified as being influenced by the motorway and other roads but is considered to be good overall. The ES describes the views from Hermitage Green across undulating farmland and towards the former Parkside Colliery site as pleasant, although it is noted that the manmade spoil heaps form a backdrop to these views. Lighting columns along Winwick Lane are cited as having an urbanising influence which affects the scenic quality of the local landscape. Any rare landscape elements are located outside of Warrington around Highfield Moss and a number of wooded moss pits. The ES states that the application

site and the surrounding landscape is representative of the published landscape characters within which they are located.

11.79 In terms of conservation interest, Gallows Croft LWS (designated for its natural rock and woodland plants) extends along St Oswald’s Brook. Highfield Moss, to the north east, is designated as a SSSI as it is a good example of a raised peat bog. Listed buildings within 0.5km of the site include Wood Head Farm and its barn and St Oswald’s Well (Grade II listed). The Battle of Winwick Registered Battlefield is within the study area. Despite its importance in historic terms, as it is not evident on the ground, it does not contribute strongly to the character of the landscape. The site area is cited as offering little recreational value as there is no public access, although there are public rights of way in the vicinity. The landscape is described as ‘not tranquil’ due to the motorway, A roads and railways lines within the applications site and surrounding area which result in frequent disturbance. The landscape is said to be influenced by human activity, including intensive farming and traffic infrastructure. Lastly, in terms of associations, there are no renowned works of art or writing which took inspiration from the landscape.

11.80 The ES considers what the landscape may be like in the future in the absence of the proposed scheme (the future baseline) and what the environment (i.e. the base case) is anticipated to be when the impacts of the proposed development would arise. The nature of the future baseline is stated to be influenced by a combination of natural and man-made processes such: as trends in landscape management or farming practice (it is expected that the landscape would continually change but would continue to comprise undulating enclosed farmland in parts predominantly rural in character with strong urban influences such as roads); ash dieback disease (the ash tree population in the area is limited and no instances of disease were found resulting in the conclusion that there would not be a material reduction in tree cover); and the future growth of existing vegetation and the potential effects of climate change (the ES states that there is uncertainty about whether and how climate change would affect the landscape in this area however the landscape strategy which sets out the proposals for the embedded mitigation planting has taken account of the need to ensure resilience to climate change).

11.81 The applicant identified a number of visual receptors including on Public Rights Of Way (PROWs), persons on roads, persons living in properties and workers at businesses; and also considered views of the application site from the north, south, east and west as well as night-time views.

i. Potential significant landscape effects during construction 11.82 In assessing the potential significant landscape effects, the susceptibility of the landscape to the proposed change is discussed in the ES. The susceptibility of LLCA 3 to change is assessed as being medium. In terms of landscape sensitivity, the ES states that overall, the landscape potentially affected by the proposed scheme would have a low to moderate sensitivity to the proposed development. The magnitude of impact on the landscape character of LLCA 3 would be moderate adverse. The significance of effect on the landscape character as a result of construction would be moderate to slight adverse. The ES states that overall, the proposed construction works would not quite fit the character of the landscape and would have an adverse impact on characteristic features including open arable farmland and roadside trees and hedgerow.

ii. Potential landscape effects during operation

11.83 Within LLCA 3, the proposed link road would dissect a field and would result in the loss of existing trees along the west side of Parkside Road. The ES states that new planting would contribute to replacing the trees lost and would provide some softening and, over time, screening of the new road. Environmental mitigation on land to the north of the proposed road and west of the M6 would restore field boundary hedgerows within the proposed ecological area and provide greater habitat diversity including new ponds and grassland. On Parkside Road south of the M6, the ES states that the magnitude of the effect on landscape character as a result of reduced traffic would be beneficial with a perceptible beneficial magnitude of impact on landscape character within this area local to the Winwick Link Road. The ES states that given the low to moderate sensitivity of the landscape in this area and the moderate adverse magnitude of impact anticipated as a result of the new link road, the significance of effect on landscape character is described as slight to moderate adverse. The proposed ecological area to the immediate north of the western element of the proposed road within this landscape area would result in a minor beneficial magnitude of impact and a slight beneficial significance of effect on local landscape character.

11.84 In terms of the night-time effects during operation, the ES confirms that Parkside Road north of Hermitage Green and the majority of Winwick Road are not lit at night at present. The proposed development would include 10m high lighting columns which would form a more noticeable feature in the night-time landscape. The ES states that the night-time landscape around Hermitage Green and Parkside Road is influenced, to varying degrees, by existing lighting along the M6. The proposed lighting columns along the proposed road would appear taller and closer than those on the M6 within LLCA 3 and illumination from moving traffic would also be perceptible within the landscape. Overall the proposed development would become a more noticeable feature in the night-time landscape and the magnitude of impact on landscape would be greater than in the daytime.

iii. Mitigation and Enhancement Measures 11.85 The ES states that the potential adverse landscape or visual effects have been avoided or reduced through careful planning, siting and design of the proposed development, planting and embedded mitigation. The anticipated height of planting after 15 years is identified as 8m for native woodland, 10m for scattered tree planting in grassland and 9m for hedgerow tree planting.

iii. Residual Effects on Landscape Character 11.86 This part of the ES considers the residual effects on landscape character as a result of the proposed scheme only and following 15 years’ establishment of the embedded mitigation planting. As no additional mitigation measures are proposed during construction, the residual effects of this phase of the proposed development would be the same as those previously identified. 15 years after operation, it is anticipated that the landscape structure proposed as part of the embedded mitigation would provide a ‘green edge’ to the scheme incorporating it into its surroundings. Within LLCA 3, the significance of the effect is predicted to be slight adverse and slight beneficial across the proposed ecological area. The ES states that after 15 years the planting would be sufficiently established to offer additional filtering and screening to the illuminated link road, although the character of the landscape closest to the proposed development would continue to be influenced by road lighting at night.

iv. Potential Effects on Views During Construction 11.87 The ES predicts the following range of significance of effects:

• Public receptors within 0.5km – persons on PROWs – large adverse to slight adverse to neutral (although it should be noted that the greatest predicted effect would relate to Barrow Lane which is outside of Warrington); road users – slight adverse to neutral • Private receptors within 0.5km – residents – very large adverse to slight adverse. The greatest effects in Warrington would be in relation to some of the properties on the south side of Winwick Lane; workers and visitors to local businesses – slight adverse • Representative viewpoints between 0.5km and 2km – moderate adverse to slight adverse to neutral with the greatest effect being on PROW users and nearby visitors to Highfield Moss SSSI.

v. Potential effects on views during operation 11.88 During the first year of operation, the ES predicts the following range of significance of effects: • Public receptors within 0.5km – persons on PROWs – large adverse to slight adverse to neutral (although as above the greatest predicted effect would relate to Barrow Lane which is outside of Warrington); road users – slight adverse to neutral • Private receptors within 0.5km – residents – large adverse to slight adverse; workers and visitors to local businesses – slight adverse to slight adverse to neutral • Representative viewpoints between 0.5km and 2km – moderate adverse to slight adverse to neutral.

11.89 The ES states that in relation to night-time visual effects, the greatest change in representative views would be to the north of the proposed scheme around Highfield Moss SSSI (impacts on the SSSI are considered in the ecology section of this report). The proposed lighting columns would appear taller and closer in a number of views that those associated with the M6 and although vegetation may screen or obscure some views, sky glow may be apparent.

vi. Mitigation and enhancement measures 11.90 The ES states that potential adverse effects would be avoided or reduced through the siting and design of the proposed scheme which includes proposed planting and therefore no additional mitigation is proposed.

vii. Residual effects on views 11.91 The range of significance of effect following 15 years’ establishment is summarised as follows: • Public receptors within 0.5km – persons on PROWs – moderate adverse to slight adverse to neutral (as above the greatest predicted effect would relate to Barrow Lane which is outside of Warrington); road users – slight adverse to neutral to neutral • Private receptors within 0.5km – residents – large adverse to slight adverse to neutral (as above, the greatest effects in Warrington would be in relation to some of the properties on the south side of Winwick Lane); workers and visitors to local businesses – slight adverse to slight adverse to neutral • Representative viewpoints between 0.5km and 2km – slight adverse to slight adverse to neutral.

Assessment and Conclusion on landscape and visual impact 11.92 The proposed development would result in the loss of a number of trees/groups of trees and hedgerows across the application site. Within Warrington, this is limited to the area

around the new junction of the proposed link road with Parkside Road and around the M6 junction 22 roundabout. To facilitate the new junction at Parkside Road, one tree (T29, a sycamore), part of G44 (a hedge comprising hawthorn and a number of small trees of varying species) and part of G46 (a group of trees behind G44) would be removed. All of these are on the west side of Parkside Road and are categorised as C.3, B.2 and C.2 respectively (with category B trees being those of moderate value and category C those of low value). At junction 22, two trees which are currently on the north side of Winwick Lane close to the roundabout (T43 and 44, both hawthorns and both category C.3) would be removed as they would be within the carriageway of the proposed new road, alongside part of G57, a group of hawthorn and elderberry trees which are associated with the roundabout banking on the south side of Winwick Lane, categorised as C.2.

11.93 None of the trees which would need to be removed to facilitate the proposed development are covered by a Tree Preservation Order. Given the relatively limited removal, the categorisation of the trees (moderate and low value) and the replacement planting proposed (discussed below, but which includes large areas of new tree, hedge and woodland planting) it is considered that the proposed tree removal is acceptable in this instance. Conditions would be attached to ensure that work to trees is carried out in accordance with the arboricultural impact assessment and that retained trees and hedges are protected during construction works.

11.94 The Council commissioned consultants (Aecom) to consider the applicant’s submission in relation to landscape and visual impacts. Aecom has confirmed that the landscape and visual impact assessment was carried out with an approved method of assessment, appropriate level of consultation and reference and due regard to current planning policy. The baseline landscape was assessed as being of community value with a well-considered and comprehensive visual baseline described, including identification of some high sensitivity residential and recreational receptors, including near the scheme.

11.95 Aecom agrees with the assessments and conclusions made. The landscape strategy and environmental masterplans are considered to show a comprehensive consideration of the landscape scheme that could be achieved. The proposed landscape masterplan indicates that there would be significant areas of new woodland planting (circa 2.2ha in Warrington), including along both sides of the carriageway leading to the new junction with Parkside Road, with amenity grassland to the north. The amenity grassland and ornamental gravel on the east side of Parkside Road (within Warrington) and behind which existing trees would be retained, new woodland planting is proposed within the amenity grassland area in the northernmost part of the site along the boundary with the M6; in addition to new native tree and hedgerow planting within this area. Along Winwick Lane there would be areas of new woodland planting around Oven Back Farm and between Sherbrooke and Hollow Dene (on the south side and within Warrington) and around junction 22. The proposed level and type of landscaping would more than compensate for the small number of trees lost and would also soften the impact of the proposed road within the landscape, although it is acknowledged that the new planting would take time to grow and therefore it is inevitable that the softening of the impact may not be fully realised for a number of years. The implementation of the landscaping scheme can be controlled by condition.

11.96 It is acknowledged that the proposed development would be a more noticeable feature in the night-time landscape due to the proposed lighting but this should be considered

in the context of the existing features in the surrounding area which include the M6 which is lit. Road lighting is not therefore an unusual feature in the local landscape and although there would be an impact this is not considered to be so significant to warrant refusal of the application.

11.97 There would be some residual beneficial landscape effects of the proposed scheme in Warrington due mainly to the proposed new ecological area within the northern portion of the site, adjacent to the M6, and subject to the condition discussed above, the scheme would be acceptable in relation to landscaping. There would, however, be residual (post-mitigation) adverse effects on views and these therefore need to be considered as part of the planning balance in respect of the visual aspect of Green Belt openness.

Ecology and Nature Conservation 11.98 Policy CS1 requires development to have regard to a number of factors including the need to sustain and enhance the borough’s biodiversity.

11.99 Policy QE5 states that proposals for development which may adversely affect the integrity or continuity of protected or priority species or other species of importance or key habitats or other habitats of local importance will only be permitted if it can be shown that the reasons for the development clearly outweigh the need to retain the habitats or species affected and that mitigating measures can be provided which would reinstate the habitats or provide equally viable alternative refuge for the species affected.

11.100 The NPPF states that decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural environment by protecting and enhancing sites of biodiversity and minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity. It also states that when determining planning applications, a number of principles should be applied including mitigation if significant harm to biodiversity cannot be avoided. It is considered that the Local Plan policies are consistent with the NPPF.

11.101 The ES addendum responds to comments received from the Merseyside Environmental Advisory Service (MEAS; advisors to St Helens Council) and Natural England. Additional information was requested in respect of potential hydrological impacts on Highfield Moss SSSI (outside of Warrington, to the east of Parkside Road, to the west of Winwick Lane and on both sides of the railway line and approximately 610m to the north of the application site as it extends into St Helens) as well as on various protected, priority and other species. No changes were made to the method of ecological impact assessment and the methodology used for the hydrological assessment is set out in a technical appendix to the addendum ES. The addendum ES also explains that the amended design would result in the loss of 90sqm of mitigation area for amphibians but that there would be no loss of the proposed ponds or amphibian hibernacula that would be provided as part of the ecological mitigation.

11.102 An extended phase 1 habitat survey of the land within the application site and its immediate surrounds was undertaken along with a Great Crested Newt (GCN) habitat suitability assessment survey, GCN eDNA survey, torch, bottle trap and egg surveys, reptile habitat suitability assessment and reptile survey, bat roost surveys, bat emergence/re-entry surveys, bat activity survey, badger survey, water vole and otter survey, breeding bird survey and invertebrate surveys.

11.103 Populations or presence of GCN were found at three ponds outside the application site but within Warrington (one at Wood Head Farm and two to the south east of Gaskell Bros on Winwick Lane). Potential bat roost locations were found outside the site around Wood Head Farm and Parkside Road. Evidence of water vole was found on St Oswald’s Brook. A variety of breeding birds were found at various locations within 100m of the application site boundary in Warrington, particularly around Wood Head Farm and south of Winwick Lane. In terms of other species, the ES states that areas of bramble within the application site has the potential to support hedgehog and a brown hare was recorded in desktop records.

i. Construction phase 11.104 The ES states that the key activities that will have a potential effect on the ecological resource of the area within the application site and vicinity include site clearance, bulk earthworks, site levelling, construction of the road and relevant infrastructure, lighting and landscaping works. The ES sets out the assessment of construction effects in the absence of mitigation and their significance, including: • No adverse effect on Manchester Meres and Mosses SAC, Highfield Moss SSSI and SBI and loss of invertebrate habitat; • Significant at a local level in relation to the permanent loss of woodland and tree habitat, the potential killing of or injury to amphibians and loss of foraging and hibernation habitat and the fragmentation of habitat, the disturbance/displacement of water vole in St Oswald’s brook; • Not significant effect on bats in terms of disturbance due to construction lighting and potential killing and injury of bats in roosts and significant at the local level in relation to loss of foraging, commuting and potential roosting habitat; • Not significant in terms of disturbance/displacement of breeding birds due to loss of nesting habitats but significant at the local level in relation to potential killing of or injury to breeding birds as a result of vegetation clearance; • Not significant effect on barn owls and hedgehog due to disturbance from construction lighting and loss of foraging and commuting habitat but significant at the local level on hedgehog due to potential killing or injury during construction.

11.105 The ES addendum assesses the hydrological effects of the construction phase of the proposed development on the Highfield Moss SSSI and concludes that there would be no impact.

ii. Operational phase 11.106 During the operational phase of the proposed development, potential effects likely to arise may include increased traffic emissions, traffic noise, visual effects of traffic and headlights, surface water run-off, road lighting and the maintenance of landscaped areas. The ES sets out the potential effects of the proposed scheme during the operational phase and prior to mitigation, including:

• Not significant effects from vehicle emissions on any of the receptors; • Not significant effects on tree and woodland habitats due to lack of management of new planting but significant at a local level on hedgerow habitats • Significant at the local level in relation to surface water run off affecting running water at Cockshot Brook, water vole, the potential killing and injury of amphibians and barn owl; • Not significant in relation to disturbance of bats and barn owl due to operational lighting and the potential killing/injury/disturbance of breeding birds and hedgehog.

11.107 The ES addendum assesses the hydrological effects of the proposed development on the Highfield Moss SSSI and concludes it would be not significant.

iii. Mitigation and Enhancement Measures 11.108 A number of mitigation and enhancement measures are proposed during both the construction and operational phases including: • Tree protection measures to minimise incidental damage and disturbance to the habitats and species they support • Tree, shrub, woodland and hedgerow planting along the proposed route of the road to mitigate for the loss of areas of woodland and scattered trees which will take ten years or more to become effective. The planting mix would include a mix of native species to enhance the current habitat • Three ponds and four amphibian hibernacula would be created in the proposed mitigation area in the west of the site by Wood Head farm. Three amphibian tunnels would be installed under the proposed road and under proposed amphibian fencing to connect to the mitigation area. • Pre-construction checks for bats, badgers, water vole and otter would be carried out to determine any changes in habitat and/or presence of species. • The planting of trees and hedgerows would ensure that foraging and commuting habitat for bats is maintained. A sensitive lighting strategy would be developed setting out lighting proposals for both construction and operation of the road to mitigate harm to bats and barn owl. • Tree and scrub vegetation removal would take place outside of bird nesting season. If this is not possible, removal will only take place on confirmation from an ecologist that no nesting birds are present. • Reasonable Avoidance Mitigation Measures (RAMMS) would be implemented as hedgehog are likely to be present within dense scrub. These would include appropriate timing of works, avoidance of disturbance during hibernation and removal to an alternative suitable habitat. • The implementation of an invasive non-native species strategy to eradicate such species prior to site clearance commencing. This would be monitored and managed for at least five years post construction • Swales and catchpits to prevent runoff and silt entering St Oswald’s Brook and Cockshot Brook • The implementation of a landscape and habitat management plan to ensure that new planting and habitats establish and are successfully maintained • Bird boxes on retained trees on land by Wood Head farm • Soil mounds for invertebrates would be created in the mitigation area by Wood Head farm

iv. Residual Significant Effects 11.109 The ES concludes that the significance of all of the identified effects would be not significant apart from: • Permanent habitat loss during construction due to felling of woodland and hedgerows (significant adverse at the local level in the short term changing to beneficial significant at the local level in the long term due to the time it would take for the habitat to develop). • Loss of bat foraging, commuting and potential roosting habitat (significant adverse at the local level in the short term changing to beneficial significant at the local level in the long term due to the time it would take for the habitat to develop).

• Potential harm to barn owl due to road traffic accidents (significant adverse at the local level in the short term changing to beneficial significant at the local level in the long term due to the time it would take for the habitat to develop).

Assessment and Conclusion Ecology and Nature Conservation 11.110 Natural England has confirmed that it has no objections to the proposed development and has advised that the SSSI does not represent a constraint to determining the application subject to it being carried out in accordance with the submitted details, which will be controlled by condition. GMEU has reviewed the applicant’s submission and advised that the applicant’s Ecological Management Plan should be implemented and this can be controlled by condition. It is also advised that further surveys relating to bats, badgers and water voles be carried out prior to construction commencing as species are mobile in their habits. Should these species be found during the resurveys, the ecological management plan may need to be updated. These requirements can also be secured by condition. In relation to amphibians, the applicant has agreed to make a financial contribution towards the creation/improvement of habitat and the management and monitoring of such habitat at the Rixton Clay Pits local nature reserve. This will be secured through a S106 obligation. The mitigation measures proposed by the applicant are either covered as part of the aforementioned conditions, by other conditions (such as landscaping, drainage and tree protection) or are the subject of separate legislation meaning that conditions would be unnecessary. An informative is recommended regarding the removal of tree and shrub vegetation outside of bird nesting season.

11.111 Subject to compliance with the above conditions and the completion of a satisfactory S106 obligation, it is considered that the scheme is acceptable in relation to ecology and accords with the relevant provisions of the above policies.

Geology, Soils and Contamination 11.112 Policy QE6 requires development proposals on land that is (or is suspected to be) affected by contamination to include an assessment of the extent of the issues and any possible risks.

11.113 The NPPF states that planning decisions should ensure that a site is suitable for its proposed use taking account of ground conditions arising from contamination.

11.114 This chapter of the ES considers the effects associated with the proposed development in relation to the environmental impacts on and from geology, soils and contaminated land. The ES addendum takes into account comments made by Environmental Protection officers and the Environment Agency and provides additional information. However the potentially significant effects, mitigation and enhancement measures and the residual significant effects remain as outlined in the original ES.

i. Construction Phase 11.115 The ES identifies a number of activities which could involve dealing with the ground or could affect the ground including vehicles moving across soils within the site, the demolition of structures, wheel washing, movement of plant and machinery, the establishment of construction compounds, the storage and use of fuels and chemicals, cut and fill works, soil stripping, excavations and the storage and processing of materials. Of these, the ES identifies the following as having potentially significant effects:

• Impacts on soil or groundwater from construction/establishment activities such as use of fuels/oils • Impacts from activities such as material storage, processing and stockpiling to construction workers or local residents • Exposure of construction workers to contaminated land during excavations • Exposure of ground workers to ground gas in confined spaces • Risk of encountering ground instability during construction • On site movement of soils

viii. Operational Phase 11.116 The ES identifies a number of activities or factors during the operational phase of the proposed development which could affect or be affected by the ground: periodic maintenance which could involve small scale excavations; areas of soft landscaping and planting; and infiltration into the ground from the infiltration pond. Of the potential impacts identified, only damage to buried structures and services from aggressive ground conditions has been identified as having a potentially significant effect.

ix. Mitigation and Enhancement Measures 11.117 During construction, a number of mitigation measures would be implemented including dewatering (storing water removed from excavations in a controlled way before disposal) which would reduce the significance of the effect to negligible, the implementation of a CEMP particularly in respect of material management, preventing off-site migration of contaminants as dust/vapour and dealing with unexpected contamination which would reduce the significance of the effect to negligible or low, installing foundations in line with relevant guidance, which would reduce the significance of the effect to negligible, managing potential risks to workers and the general public from contamination through safe working procedures and material management which would reduce the significance of the effect to low or negligible.

11.118 The ES states that following the implementation of the mitigation measures there are considered to be no residual significant effects during the operational phase, reducing the significance of the effects to negligible.

iv. Residual Significant Effects 11.119 The ES concludes that there are considered to be no residual significant effects during the construction or operational phases of the proposed development.

Assessment and Conclusion on geology, soils and contamination 11.120 The Council’s Environment Protection team has advised that the applicant’s Preliminary Risk Assessment, Generic Quantitative Risk Assessment and ground gas risk assessment (appendices to the ES) are satisfactory. It is noted that a remediation strategy has not been submitted and this would therefore need to be required by condition along with validation/verification, although it is noted that only limited evidence of contamination has been found within the application site and this is generally associated with the former colliery site (in St Helens). Subject to conditions, the scheme is acceptable in this regard and complies with the relevant provisions of the above policies.

Noise and Vibration 11.121 Policy QE6 states that the Council will only support development which would not lead to an adverse impact on the amenity of those occupying adjoining or nearby properties taking noise and vibration levels into account and the times when such disturbances are likely to occur.

11.122 The NPPF states that planning decisions should ensure that new development is appropriate for its location taking into account the likely effects of pollution on living conditions and in doing so they should mitigate and reduce to a minimum potential adverse impacts resulting from noise from new development and avoid giving rise to significant impacts on health and the quality of life. Policy QE6 is considered to be consistent with the NPPF in this regard.

11.123 This chapter of the ES considers the likely significant effects of noise and vibration associated with construction and operation of the proposed development. The proposal introduces two new road connections to the existing A573 Parkside Road (one in Warrington) and upgrades a section of the A579 Winwick Lane to a dual carriageway (in St Helens, albeit the properties on the south side of Winwick Lane as is are in Warrington). The ES highlights that during construction, potential noise impacts may originate from the roadworks and construction traffic and that vibration may be caused by rolling and compaction machinery. During operation, potential noise impacts may originate from the changes in road traffic on existing roads and from traffic on the proposed road. The ES does not identify any significant changes in vibration from the operational phase of the proposed development. The ES defines sensitive receptors as the nearest residential properties within 100m of construction work areas. The ES addendum considers the updated traffic data but does not propose any further mitigation measures or identify any further residual significant impacts to those set out in the original ES.

i. Construction phase 11.124 The ES sets out that it is expected that the dominant sources of construction noise would be breaking of road surfaces and the operation of construction plant. The ES assumes that construction activities will be limited to daytime hours only, during weekdays between 7:30 and 18:30 and on Saturdays between 9:00 and 14:00. The ES states that predicted construction noise levels would exceed the threshold values during certain construction periods at Parkside Farm and residential properties along Winwick Lane approximately 30m from the nearest work area and that therefore construction noise is assessed to result in temporary significant noise effects. Some night-time work (between 03:00 and 07:00) would be required for a period of up to two weeks to reconfigure lanes and construct the footways and cycleways at the existing overbridge crossing of the M6. The ES states that only one receptor (Wood Head Farm) would be affected by this noise and no detailed night-time assessment has therefore been undertaken. In terms of vibration, the ES explains that the properties on Winwick Lane approximately 30m from the nearest work area are likely to experience temporary significant effects from the vibratory roller.

ii. Operational phase 11.125 The ES considers the daytime changes in road traffic noise in the short and long term. It explains that two receptors (dwellings located to the south of Winwick Lane between J22 of the M6 and the new junction with the east section of the proposed road) are predicted to experience a moderate noise level increase of more than 3dB in the short term which is considered to represent a significant effect. Three additional receptors (on Winwick Lane and Parkside Road) are predicted to experience a minor noise level increase of more than 1dB in the short term. No receptors are predicted to experience a moderate or greater noise level increase in the long term as it is not predicted that any receptor would experience an increase of more than 5dB. Receptors on Parkside Road south of the proposed junction with the proposed road are predicted to experience a decrease in road traffic noise levels between 1dB and 3dB both in the

short and long term. The ES states that overall, there would be significant negative noise effects in the short term.

iii. Mitigation and enhancement measures 11.126 The ES proposes the use of localised screening in the form of portable barriers (typically between 1.5m and 2m in height) which would provide a screening effect of 6dB to mitigate the noise impact caused by the breaking up of the road surface. The ES states that such mitigation is not however considered effective to mitigate impacts in respect of the properties on Winwick Lane due to the nature of the work (demolition and general road construction) and the large areas/lengths over which such works would take place. Any such work would be during the daytime. No mitigation is therefore proposed here in relation to demolition work and road construction as the effects would be short term and the predicted noise levels due to demolition works exceed the adopted criterion marginally. The ES advises that the contractor would employ best practicable means in order to minimise noise effects, including quiet working techniques and machinery and communication with the local residents.

11.127 In terms of the operational phase, the ES sets out a number of measures through which a reduction in road traffic noise can be achieved including the introduction of roadside barriers and the use of thin surfaces which generate less rolling noise relative to hot rolled asphalt. It is proposed to provide a noise barrier in the region of 230m long and 2.5m high along the westbound carriageway of Winwick Lane between the M6 and the junction with the east section of the proposed road to reduce noise impact to residents of properties along Winwick Lane. A typical noise barrier/acoustic fence is constructed from timber with no gaps between boards, at post mounting positions or at the floor junction. A noise barrier is not however considered to be practical at Parkside Road due to limitations with available land and therefore a thin road surface is proposed which is predicted to reduce the noise effect below the threshold of perceptible changes in noise levels.

iv. Residual significant effects 11.128 The ES states that following the implementation of mitigation measures, only demolition of existing buildings and road construction is assessed to marginally exceed the significance criteria for construction noise at the assessment location on Winwick Lane (approximately 30m from the nearest work area). There are no available practicable mitigation measures for the control of vibration impacts and the ES therefore states that compaction may result in temporary significant effects at some receptors. With the incorporation of noise barriers along Winwick Lane and the use of thin road surfacing on Parkside Road, the ES states that the operational phase of the proposed scheme would have no residual effects.

Assessment and Conclusion on noise and vibration 11.129 The Council’s Environmental Protection team has considered the applicant’s submission and assessed the potential noise impacts of the proposed scheme. The applicant’s use of a 100m buffer for identification of sensitive receptors is considered acceptable. The proposed construction hours are considered to be acceptable and any night-time works are noted as being for up to two weeks in total, located in areas fairly remote from residential properties and only likely to affect a limited number of receptors, in an area where the ambient background noise level would be at its highest due to the proximity of the motorway. Environmental Protection’s assessment of the noise impacts is based on ‘links’ (stretches of existing road) as identified by the

applicant in its submission. A plan showing the links is included at the end of this report and Environmental Protection’s assessment is as follows: • Link 21 (Winwick Link Road South) – 0.4dB reduction in noise levels which would be an improvement albeit unlikely to be perceived by residents in the area • Link 23 (Winwick Lane south) – an increase in noise of circa 4.5dB is predicted in this location and mitigation is proposed in the form of acoustic fencing along a 230m stretch of this road. The applicant’s information suggests that this barrier would provide at least 4dB noise reduction to the north western facades facing Winwick Lane which would result in a difference of 0.5dB which is considered to be negligible and beyond the ability of the human ear to detect. Changes to the original placing of the barrier would result in negligible changes to ‘Hilbre’ which is the last property before the M6 junction. This means that this property would be likely to experience a 0.5dB increase in noise exposure, which as stated above is considered to be negligible • Link 24 (Winwick Lane north) – there would be a very slight increase in noise levels which is considered to be negligible. No physical mitigation is proposed but the new roundabout and realignment of the A579 further away from properties would contribute to a negligible overall effect. • Link 26 (Parkside Road north of the new junction with the proposed link road and north of Wood Head Farm) – there would be no overall change in noise level along this link. However, the continuation of the road into link 33 past residential properties to the south of the junction should secure a significant reduction in noise of up to 5dB which is considered to be significant betterment. • Link 27 (from A49 to Parkside Road) – overall, properties at Hermitage Green and along Hermitage Green Lane would not be impacted by traffic along this section of proposed road. Changes to traffic noise levels would not be greater than 1dB. The distance of circa 500m from this portion of the road places all of Hermitage Green and Hermitage Green Lane outside of the influence zone of the proposed road and due to the ambient contribution of the M6, there should not be any changes to noise levels arising from the proposed new road.

11.130 In relation to vibration, Environmental Protection advises that vibration is not generally associated with road traffic unless the road surface is defective or if the carriageway is located immediately adjacent to the front façade of a property, which is not the case here. As the separation distance from the source of vibration increases, the level of vibration drops off significantly and very quickly. Environmental Protection advises that there would be some vibration associated with the construction phase of the proposed development, in particular the road laying process where vibratory rollers would be used to prepare the ground. Such activities would be short term and mobile along stretches of the proposed new road. The CEMP (the submission of which would be controlled by condition) would help to consider vibration impacts in more detail.

11.131 On the basis of the above and subject to conditions requiring the erection of the noise barrier referred to above and a CEMP, the noise and vibration impacts of the proposed development on the amenity of neighbouring residents are considered acceptable and in compliance with the above policies.

People and Communities 11.132 Policy PV3 states that the Council will support developments which assist in strengthening the Borough’s workforce and enhancing training opportunities for its residents.

11.133 The NPPF states that planning policies and decisions should help create environments which support business expansion, investment and adaptation and that policies and decisions should recognise and address the specific locational requirements of different sectors which includes making provision for clusters or networks of knowledge and data-driven, creative or high technology industries; and for storage and distribution operations at a variety of scales and in suitably accessible locations. The economic objective of the planning system as set out in the NPPF is to help build a strong, responsive and competitive economy to support growth, innovation and improved productivity. In this regard Policy PV3 is considered to be consistent with the NPPF.

11.134 The focus of this chapter of the ES is on the loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land, land take from private agricultural holdings, socio-economic effects including community severance, the disruption and change in amenity value for users of public rights of way (PROWs) and non-designated public routes and direct, indirect and induced employment opportunities during both the construction and operational phases of the proposed development. The chapter also provides a summary of the effects on vehicular and non-motorised uses (NMUs) and the potential health effects of the proposed scheme. The ES addendum takes into account the updated traffic data and the increase in land take which would result in an increase in the permanent loss of the best and most versatile land (BMV).

i. Construction phase 11.135 The ES states that the proposed development would result in the permanent loss of 22.3ha of agricultural land and buildings, plus 2.6ha temporarily affected, which would subsequently be returned to agriculture (in St Helens). Of the 24.9ha affected, 22.2ha is defined as the best and most versatile agricultural land (BMV), leaving 19.6ha of BMV land permanently affected. The ES addendum updates these figures to reflect the additional land take at the proposed roundabout at the junction of the proposed road with Winwick Lane (in St Helens). This would result in the permanent loss of an additional 0.75ha meaning that the total permanent loss of BMV agricultural land across the amended proposal would increase to 20.35ha.

11.136 Of this, 9.62ha would be within Warrington, the majority of which would be used for environmental enhancement and mitigation. The ES addendum therefore updates the significance of the loss of agricultural land to moderate adverse. In terms of the effects on farm businesses, only one of the three farms considered in the ES is within Warrington (Wood Head Farm, Parkside Road). The ES states that this business would lose approximately 11.8ha of land which would be used as ecological mitigation and enhancement. Agriculture could continue on the remnant area but the overall scale of the enterprise would be significantly reduced and crop rotations would be more difficult to undertake as a result. The sensitivity of this receptor is considered to be low, resulting in an overall effect of slight adverse significance.

11.137 In terms of effects on all travellers (which includes both vehicular and non-motorised users including pedestrian and cyclist delay, accidents and road safety, severance and changes in pedestrian and cyclist amenity) the ES identifies that there would be a need for short term closures on the Parkside Road bridge to reconfigure lanes and construct footways, likely a night time over a period of two weeks in order to minimise the effects on traffic and that overall, the effect on local residents and vehicle travellers would be of slight adverse significance. None of the community facilities identified in the ES (including health facilities, schools and children’s centres, recreational areas and

leisure facilities and places of worship) would be directly affected by construction of the proposed development resulting in an effect of slight adverse significance.

11.138 There is only one PROW in Warrington within 500m of the proposed development (PROW1n, linking the M6 J22, which continues as PROW3c to the south of the M6). The ES advises that this would not be directly disrupted by the proposed scheme and users would not experience any change to amenity value of the PROW during the construction phase. The overall effect on users of the PROWs within 500m of the site is described as being slight adverse, short term and indirect.

11.139 In relation to construction related employment, the ES states that construction of the proposed scheme would cost in the region of £31.5 million, excluding land costs. It is estimated that total direct construction employment could amount to 400 person years within the ‘wider impact area’ (Warrington, St Helens and Wigan) (equivalent to 40 full time equivalent jobs), which would be spread over a number of years and be temporary in nature. The ES also identifies indirect benefits to the wider area, including Warrington, such as the purchase of construction equipment and supplies and employee spend on goods and services. This would increase the amount of employment to 540 person years within the wider impact area, although taking into account leakage and displacement this reduces to 340 person years within the wider impact area (34 full time equivalent jobs). The overall effect is expected to be of moderate beneficial significance. The ES estimates that the proposed development would generate total net additional GVA (gross value added) of around £18.2 million over the full construction period within the wider impact area and is considered to be of moderate beneficial significance.

11.140 The proposed scheme would be delivered in line with Balfour Beatty’s Employment and Skills Plan, which sets out guidance for the provision of training courses, apprenticeships, internships and work experience. The ES states that the minimum number of the above would be approximately 14, with an average of 40 weeks on site per new apprentice (most apprenticeships lead to a national, recognised qualification such as a national vocational qualification (NVQ), higher national certificate (HNC), higher national diploma (HND) or a technical certificate such as a BTEC or City & Guilds progression award). The proposed scheme is expected to be of slight beneficial significance in this regard. The scheme is also expected to have positive catalytic effects such as the supply chain opportunities for local businesses and the spending of construction workers in local shops, cafes and restaurants. This is identified as being of slight beneficial significance.

ii. Operational phase 11.141 The operational phase of the proposed development is not expected to have any additional effects to those outlined above in relation to agricultural land, the farm business or community facilities. In relation to effects on all travellers, the ES states that with the exception of the effect on pedestrian and cyclist delay, the effect of the proposed scheme would be the same for 2020 (when the scheme is predicted to be completed for the purposes of the ES) and 2030, when the effects of the proposed scheme would be fully established. For the pedestrian and cyclist delay, the difference is stated to be minimal, with the overall effect assessed as neutral adverse in 2020 and slight adverse in 2030. The main socio-economic effects would be associated with improving access to local employment opportunities and in particular the facilitation of the phase 2 Parkside development and the SRFI.

iii. Mitigation and Enhancement Measures 11.142 The ES states that it is not possible to mitigate the loss of agricultural land. The preparation of a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) would seek to mitigate the effects on all travellers during the construction period to a satisfactory level including measures such as wheel washing, a storage yard and worker and HGV trips outside of peak hours.

iv. Residual Significant Effects 11.143 During the construction phase, the residual effect of the loss of agricultural land is considered to be of moderate adverse significance, on the farm business it is slight adverse, on all travellers and community severance neutral significance. During the operational phase, the residual effect on agricultural land and the farm business would be slight adverse and on the amenity value for users of the PROW and non-designated public routes it would be direct, permanent, long-term neutral or slight adverse. Regarding health, the ES states that beneficial effects on the wellbeing of the local population are anticipated as a result of new employment opportunities and positive economic output both during construction and operation. It further states that temporary health effects on residential properties along Winwick Lane may arise as a result of increased noise levels during construction and that during operation, adverse effects on the wellbeing and quality of life of residents in a small number of properties on Winwick Lane may arise as a result of the adverse effect on views from these properties. No other adverse health effects are anticipated.

Assessment and Conclusion on People and Communities 11.144 The most significant adverse effect relating to people and communities relates to the loss of agricultural land during construction, although it is acknowledged that this would reduce following the restoration of some of the land. It is recognised that the loss of the agricultural land cannot be mitigated and this effect is considered in the planning balance section of this report.

11.145 The short term impact on the wellbeing of residents due to noise is recognised. However this would be limited only to the construction period and impacts of this type are not unusual for any residents living in proximity to a development site. Consideration has been given to the limited timeframe associated with these impacts and the working hours, which will be limited by the CEMP (conditioned). On balance, the development is therefore considered to be acceptable in this regard. Consideration has also been given to the potential impact on wellbeing as a result of the reduction in open views due to the erection of noise barriers. These are not in such proximity that they would result in significant overbearing impacts. On balance, therefore, it is considered that effects identified in relation to people and communities are considered to be acceptable.

11.146 The main direct socio-economic effects relate to job creation during the construction phase and the benefits associated with this and the indirect job creation resulting from the proposed scheme’s facilitation of Parkside phases 2 and 3 are also discussed in the planning balance section of this report. It is recommended that a condition be attached to secure the submission of a local employment scheme to, amongst other things, promote access to employment opportunities by the local workforce and provide work placement and training opportunities. It is noted that comments from local residents raise concern about employment needs and job creation. No evidence has however been provided to counter the information provided by the applicant as part of its submission. Furthermore the information presented as part of the LCR SIF bid and

the subsequent grant of public funding for the proposed scheme which would facilitate employment development is an important indicator of the LCR’s views that such development is needed. Subject to aforementioned condition, it is considered that the socio-economic impacts would be acceptable and that the scheme accords with the relevant provisions of the above policies.

Road Drainage and the Water Environment 11.147 Policy QE4 states that the Council will only support development proposals where the risk of flooding has been fully assessed and justified by an agreed Flood Risk Assessment. In relation to surface water, it should also be demonstrated that development: not at risk from existing drainage systems or overland flows; will make a positive contribution to managing or mitigating flood risk; and will not adversely affect existing flooding conditions.

11.148 Policy QE6 states that development will only be supported where it would not lead to an adverse impact on the environment or the surrounding area taking into account the quality of water bodies and groundwater resources.

11.149 The NPPF states that decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by preventing new development from contributing to unacceptable levels of water pollution and that development should, wherever possible, help to improve local environmental conditions such as water quality. The above Local Plan policies are considered to be consistent with the NPPF.

11.150 This chapter of the ES summarises existing conditions in terms of drainage and the water environment and assesses potential effects of the proposed development on these receptors. The ES considers the catchments of the Cockshot Brook (approximately 520m downstream of the proposed scheme) and St Oswald’s Brook and their tributaries, including Newton Brook (approximately 30m downstream of the nearest part of the proposed scheme). The effects of pollutants, river catchment changes and surface water runoff and construction damage to watercourses have been considered.

11.151 The proposed scheme contains embedded mitigation, including an outline drainage strategy. The drainage strategy includes discharge directly into St Oswald’s Brook and a ditch immediately to the east of the colliery spoil heap and to the west of Wood Head Farm, Parkside Road which forms the boundary between Warrington and St Helens in this location, with one further outfall to be confirmed as well as to Cockshot Brook catchment and an infiltration basis adjacent to Parkside Road.

i. Construction Phase 11.152 The ES advises that there is a risk of pollutants, in particular silts from runoff, entering Cockshot Brook via its tributaries through overland flow, following the stripping of vegetation and the exposure of underlying soils. There would also be an elevated risk from the use of concrete and other construction materials, which may, without appropriate measures, reach watercourses. The significance of the effect on Cockshot Brook is assessed as neutral. The effect on one of its tributaries (B1, which runs under Winwick Lane in a pipe culvert, between the rears of Sherbrooke and Glendale and then south east to Cockshot Brook) is considered to be slight adverse. The ES states that there is the potential for increases in surface water flows to the Cockshot Brook

catchment due to surface water runoff generated during the construction process, prior to the completion of surface water drainage infrastructure. The proposed scheme would discharge into an ordinary watercourse (B1) for which there are associated risks of surface water flooding to the west of Winwick Lane. The ES states that during a short period whilst the permanent drainage infrastructure is being constructed there would be an elevated risk of surface water flooding in this area, but this is stated to be broadly comparable with the risks caused seasonally be agriculture (cultivation and exposure of bare earth) and is likely to affect farmland only. The ES confirms that the permanent drainage infrastructure would be constructed before significant areas of impermeable surfaces are developed on site. The ES identifies a minor adverse effect in relation to Cockshot Brook at surface water flood risk and an effect of neutral significance in relation to the tributary (B1). The ES states that there is the potential for construction processes to detrimentally impact the channel of watercourse B1 due to direct physical disturbance during construction of the new outfall adjacent to Winwick Lane but that such effect would be temporary and short term in nature. The resulting significance is considered to be slight adverse.

11.153 The ES highlights similar risks in relation to St Oswald’s Brook in relation to pollutants but adds that these risks would be elevated by disturbance to the colliery spoil heap which may mobilise contaminants and increase the rate at which substances reach the brook. The ES states that these effects would be localised and primarily affect watercourses on-site and immediately downstream, including St Oswald’s Brook and watercourse A1. Pollutants are predicted to have an effect of neutral significance on watercourse A1 and slight adverse on St Oswald’s Brook and Newton Brook. In relation to river catchment changes and surface water runoff and construction damage to watercourse, the ES identifies similar risks as those for Cockshot Brook and assesses their significance to be slight adverse. In relation to downstream receptors – risks to people and property – the ES states that there is potential for increases in surface water flows to both Cockshot and St Oswald’s brooks and as site occupants are considered to have a high importance of attribute, the resulting significance of effect is considered to be slight adverse. Lastly, in relation to construction workers and pollutants, in the absence of appropriate construction mitigation measures, the ES states there is the risk of construction workers coming into contact with pollutants on site through construction processes and that the significance of effect is considered to be slight adverse.

ii. Operational Phase 11.154 There is a risk of pollutants entering the brooks through overland flow (and runoff in the case of St Oswald’s) during the operational phase resulting from diffuse pollution associated with road traffic and the low risk of spillages. A spillage risk assessment has been undertaken, the results of which have been used to inform the proposed drainage strategy. A Sustainable Drainage System (SuDS) and features (such as catch pits and oil interceptors) will be included as part of the proposed scheme. The significance of the effect on both Cockshot Brook and St Oswald’s Brook is considered to be neutral. The ES states that there is the potential for increases in peak surface water flows into the brooks during the operational phase due to increases in impermeable area within the site and the predicted effects of climate change. It is proposed to restrict flows into the catchment of both brooks and provide attenuation of surface water runoff on site within the drainage infrastructure, including allowances for the predicted effects of climate change. The ES states that the proposed development would not exacerbate surface water flood risk adjacent to the A579 Winwick Lane. There may be a modest increase in base flows to watercourse A1 and St Oswald’s Brook but it is not anticipated that this would be of a level that would fundamentally

change the characteristics of either watercourse. The significance of the effect on Cockshot Brook, tributary B1 and St Oswald’s Brook and tributary A1 is considered to be neutral. In relation to downstream receptors, the ES states that there is potential for increases in peak surface water flows to both brooks’ catchments during the operational phase. The restriction of flows and attenuation of surface water runoff would ensure that there would be no increase in peak flows to St Oswald’s Brook and therefore no increase in downstream receptors following the development. On this basis the significance of the effect is considered to be neutral.

iii. Mitigation and Enhancement Measures 11.155 The ES identifies the site to be at low risk of flooding from rivers and the sea and states that the proposal would not increase flood risk either within the site or to downstream receptors. No flood risk mitigation measures are therefore proposed. To manage the identified significant effects during the construction phase, the ES states that the implementation of the CEMP would ensure that good site practice is followed at all times, including oil interceptors and silt traps along with a temporary drainage system to manage overland flows and temporary drainage infrastructure to control surface water runoff. The ES states that the proposed scheme would not increase runoff to the watercourse running under Winwick Lane and that the outline drainage strategy includes adequate storage for surface water runoff, including allowances for the predicted effects of climate change and therefore no further mitigation measures are proposed.

iv. Residual Significant Effects 11.156 The ES concludes that there are no significant effects in the context of the EIA Regulations identified during either the construction or operational phase of the proposed development.

Assessment and Conclusion on Road Drainage and the Water Environment 11.157 The Environment Agency and United Utilities advise that the site is within a groundwater safeguard zone. And that given the sensitivity of groundwater in this area a hydrogeological risk assessment is required to demonstrate that there would be no unacceptable risks to groundwater quality from the proposed development and in particular the discharge of contaminated drainage to ground via the proposed infiltration pond.

11.158 Neither the Environment Agency, United Utilities nor the Council’s flood risk team has objected to the proposed development subject to conditions relating to surface water drainage and a hydrogeological risk assessment. It is noted that a third party has raised concerns about the cumulative impact of flooding; this is assessed in the cumulative impact section below. Subject to the aforementioned conditions, the application is considered to be acceptable an in compliance with the above policies.

Climate Change 11.159 This part of the assessment differs from the other matters considered as it considers how all of the potential impacts of the scheme would be affected by climate change, and is not an assessment of the impact of the scheme on climate change.

11.160 Policy CS1 outlines support for sustainable development and that to be sustainable, development must have regard to a number of considerations including the need to address the causes of and be resilient to the effects of climate change.

11.161 The NPPF states that new development should be planned for in ways that avoid increased vulnerability to the range of impacts arising from climate change. Policy CS1 is considered to be compliant with the NPPF in this regard.

11.162 This chapter of the ES assesses the potential effects associated with climate change in relation to the proposed scheme; in respect of three elements: whether the effects may change as a result of the changing climate in future years; the vulnerability of the scheme to future climate trends; and an assessment of the lifecycle of the scheme and the greenhouse gases associated with its construction, operation and decommissioning. There is no update to this chapter as part of the ES addendum. The applicants have carried out an in-combination climate change impact assessment as part of the EIA. Such impacts may have an additive effect on impacts already identified within other assessments, where residual effects identified may now become significant because of the impacts of climate change. The ES therefore states that effects that were originally identified by the assessment but considered not significant may have to be reconsidered and could require additional design and/or mitigation measures should there be an additive effect. The topics of air quality, noise and vibration and people and communities were scoped out of the in-combination climate change assessment as the potential interactions of climate change with the respective effects were considered to be negligible. Materials was scoped out due to the shortterm nature of this effect. It is also considered that the construction phase is too short to experience significant adverse effects as a result of climate change.

11.163 In-combination climate change (the potential impact of climate change on other environmental aspects assessed within the EIA) residual effects are assessed to be as follows: • Road drainage and the water environment – neutral • Cultural heritage – low adverse • Landscape and visual – slight beneficial to moderate adverse depending on the location at year 15 of operation in respect of effects on landscape character areas and neutral to large adverse depending on location at year 1 of operation in respect of effects on visual receptors • Geology, soils and contaminated land – neutral in respect of effects on ground conditions and groundwater during operational activities, exposure of ground maintenance workers or local residents to contaminated land during excavations, exposure of ground maintenance workers to ground gas in confined spaces and direct contact with unexploded ordnance and slight adverse in relation to damage to buried structures and services from aggressive ground conditions and potential risk of contaminants entering the infiltration pond • Ecology and nature conservation – not significant or negligible with the exception of the effect of the unsuccessful establishment of new hedgerows, the residual effect taking account of climate change is predicted to be significant at the local level

11.164 The ES concludes that, taking into account the design and mitigation measures already identified for the proposed scheme, climate change is not anticipated to change the significance of any effects for the environmental topics assessed.

11.165 The ES also includes a climate change risk assessment as climate change and extreme weather can have a significant effect on the UK’s road network. This can be in relation to meteorological events which may cause disruption and will be exacerbated by climate change due to the increasing frequency and severity of

extreme weather events and in relation to the vulnerability of the road network as an asset to climate change as current road designs may not sufficiently consider the effects of extreme weather events. Potential vulnerabilities have been identified but no additional mitigation is considered necessary aside from the incorporation of a 40% climate change allowance within the proposed development’s drainage scheme.

11.166 A quantitative assessment of greenhouse gas emissions has not been undertaken for the construction or operational phases of the proposed scheme. The ES states that the design decisions would minimise such emissions likely to arise during construction and it is not anticipated that the proposed development would result in substantive emissions of greenhouse gases.

Assessment and Conclusion on Climate Change 11.167 In view of the above, it is considered that climate change would not have an additive adverse effect on effects identified within the ES, that the implementation of design standards and specifications would be sufficient to address any potential risks that might arise as a result of future vulnerabilities to climate change and that the proposed development is not anticipated to result in substantive greenhouse gas emissions. The proposal complies with the relevant provisions of the above policies.

Cumulative Effects 11.168 In accordance with the EIA Regulations, the ES also contains a chapter that considered the cumulative effects of the proposed development, including intra effects or impact interactions (the combined effects of different types of impact within the proposed scheme) and inter effects (combined effects generated from the proposed scheme together with other planned developments in the vicinity). None of the other schemes considered as part of the latter are located within Warrington within the original ES but Omega South has been included in the ES addendum and the assessment updated to take this and changes in significance of effects into account.

i. Intra-Project effects – construction 11.169 The ES predicts minor adverse combined intra-project effects on commercial uses in respect of construction noise and vibration, loss of agricultural land and farm business and economic effects from construction workers spending money on goods and services in the local area and negligible to minor adverse effects on existing residential occupants in respect of noise and vibration, employment creation and training and apprenticeship opportunities and change landscape in views.

ii. Intra-Project effects – operation 11.170 ES identifies negligible combined intra-project effects on existing commercial uses in respect of loss of agricultural land and farm business, reduced pedestrian, cyclist and driver delay and a reduction in traffic accidents and improved safety; minor beneficial effects on existing residential occupants in respect of reduced pedestrian, cyclist and driver delay, a reduction in traffic accidents and improved safety, operational road and traffic noise and change in views; and minor adverse effects on existing and future pedestrians in respect of uses of PROWs, reduced pedestrian and cyclist delay and change in views.

iii. Inter-project effects 11.171 The ES highlights that the assessment approach differs for each topic as a result in different methodologies and sensitivities. Landscape and socio-economic effects are cited as being particularly affected by cumulative schemes and therefore a more

detailed assessment has been undertaken for those topics.

a) Air quality 11.172 In relation to the construction phase, the ES states that the only development which may have a cumulative impact in terms of construction dust is Parkside Phase 1 in the event that it is constructed at the same time as the proposed development. The impact is assessed as not significant. In relation to operation, the ES states that committed development schemes within the study area that could have a cumulative effect during operation have been assessed through the approach adopted for the air quality assessment and that no significant adverse impacts were identified.

b) Cultural heritage 11.173 The ES states that only the Parkside phases 1 and 2 and the SRFI have potential for cumulative effects on cultural heritage in respect of heritage assets and their settings. The significance of the proposed scheme on the Registered Battlefield is negligible, or neutral following mitigation and it is predicted that Parkside phases 1 and 2 would have a moderate adverse effect before mitigation. Parkside Phase 1 is predicted to have a moderate adverse effect on St Oswald’s Well but as the proposed scheme is not within the setting of this heritage asset there would be no further predicted significant effects in this regard.

c) Landscape and visual 11.174 The ES identifies potential significant cumulative effects on landscape character as a result of Parkside phase 1 but these are outside Warrington. Cumulative visual effects are anticipated in some receptor views, some of which are in Warrington such as Hermitage Green Lane, during construction and operation as a result of the Parkside phase 1 but the significance is not considered to be any greater than the significance of effects reported for the phase 1 scheme in isolation. Potential significant cumulative effects are also anticipated in some visual receptor views as a result of Parkside phases 1, 2 and 3 in combination with the proposed development.

d) Ecology and Nature Conservation 11.175 A significant cumulative effect is predicted in relation to the proposed scheme when considered in conjunction with Parkside Phase 1 due to a potential overlap during construction and the resulting loss of habitats for breeding birds. Although the ES states that limited information is available for the SRFI and Parkside Phase 2, there is an anticipated cumulative effect at construction stage in terms of loss of bird nesting and foraging habitat and bat roosting and foraging habitat which is anticipated to be significant at local level.

e) Geology and Soils 11.176 The ES states that the scope for cumulative effects from two or more schemes, even when side by side, are often limited with regards to impacts from geology, soils and contaminated land. Given the distance between the site and the majority of the schemes considered as part of the cumulative assessment, potential cumulative effects are considered unlikely during both construction and operation. Limited cumulative effects are predicted during construction between the proposed scheme and Parkside Phase 1 and no cumulative effects are predicted between the proposed development and Parkside Phase 2 and the SRFI.

f) Noise and Vibration 11.177 The ES states that there are no identified developments within the proximity of the proposed scheme that could result in cumulative noise and vibration effects during

construction. Parkside Phase 1 has been identified as the future development with a potential to result in cumulative noise effects but because the future road traffic on the proposed scheme is not predicted to result in a noise level increase at receptors along Hermitage Green Lane (the only receptor predicted to experience a moderate impact or greater as a result of Parkside Phase 1), it is not expected that the two schemes would result in cumulative effects. The operation of Parkside Phase 2 has the potential to result in cumulative noise effects with the sensitive receptors that may experience such effects located on the A49, north of the proposed development. However as the proposed development is predicted to result in a reduction of noise emissions at these receptors, no negative cumulative effects would arise.

11.178 The ES states that the operation of the SRFI may result in cumulative noise effects for receptors including those along Winwick Lane, which, following the implementation of mitigation measures, are predicted to be minor adverse. It is therefore unlikely that significant cumulative effects would result.

g) Land Use 11.179 The ES states that although Parkside Phase 1 is expected to be constructed at the same time as the proposed development, the former would not affect any agricultural land and as such not cumulative effects during construction are anticipated to occur. There are not expected to be any cumulative effects on farm business (specifically Wood Head Farm), with a cumulative effect of slight adverse significance on the former Parkside Colliery land.

11.180 During operation, an overall cumulative effects of major adverse significance is predicted on agricultural land due to the amount of best and most versatile agricultural land lost as a result the proposed scheme and other developments considered as part of the cumulative assessment, including the SRFI (in excess of 50ha). An increased impact on farm businesses is predicted when considering the different schemes cumulatively although the ES states that there is no evidence to indicate that any business would be rendered unviable. The magnitude of impact therefore remains minor adverse significance. The cumulative effect in relation to the former Parkside Colliery during the operational phase is considered to be beneficial due to the re-use of land for business purposes.

h) Effects on all Travellers, Community Severance and Effects on Users of PROWs and Non-Designated Public Routes 11.181 During construction, the cumulative construction effects on all travellers is identified as slight adverse prior to mitigation reducing to neutral following mitigation. No cumulative adverse effects in relation to community severance or users of PROWs are anticipated with the implementation of mitigation measures. In relation to operation, there would be no cumulative effects on community severance. The ES states that the Parkside Phase 1 proposals would result in increased traffic movements using the proposed link road, which would adversely affect the ‘relative pleasantness’ for users of the PROW608 (immediately to the north of the Parkside Road West section of the proposed scheme following the route of Barrow Lane). There is therefore likely to be a direct, long-term residual effect on users of the PROW and non-designated public routes of slight adverse significance.

i) Socio-economic 11.182 In terms of construction, the cumulative impact of the schemes considered as part of this assessment would represent a significant boost to the local economy through

training and apprenticeship opportunities. In terms of operation, this section of the ES provides detail of the anticipated cumulative effects of the proposed scheme with Parkside Phase 1 and the SRFI in particular, which, it is stated, would generate a range of operational impacts in the local and wider economy. These can be summarised as: • Large beneficial significance in relation to the level of construction employment expected to be generated; • Very large beneficial significance in relation to the operational employment impact; • Large beneficial significance in relation to business rates (to St Helens); • Slight beneficial significance in terms of training and apprenticeship opportunities; • Large beneficial significance in relation to the effect on the local labour market; • Moderate beneficial significance in relation to improvements of local workforce skills; • Slight adverse significance in relation to the effect on local services and facilities; and • Large beneficial significance in relation to qualitative socio-economic impacts (such as overcoming barriers to labour market participation, improvement of perceptions of the area for working and investing.

11.183 The ES addendum states that the other cumulative schemes would, if implemented, also bring forward a large amount of new commercial floorspace which could cumulatively support approximately 17,100 gross jobs. There cumulative schemes that involve residential development are cited as having the potential to generate up to 921 new units (in St Helens) with a resulting increase in population and associated increasing demand for community facilities such as primary/secondary schools and GP surgeries, although it is noted that it is unlikely that all of the proposed housing would be developed at the same time.

j. Road Drainage and the Water Environment 11.184 The ES states that on the basis of the implementation of CEMPs for the developments throughout construction the potential cumulative effect on the water environment is considered to be negligible. The operational effects are assessed to be neutral. Each of the developments considered would be subject to necessary controls at the time planning applications are considered.

k. Materials 11.185 The ES states that there could be a cumulative impact if construction projects take place at the same time and that this could, in the short term, put pressure on existing waste infrastructure. The construction phase with Parkside Phase 1 could overlap with this development but the ES concludes that cumulative effects are considered to be unlikely if materials are re-used within the proposed development and if there is potential to export excess fill material to Parkside Phase 1.

l. Climate Change 11.186 The ES states that the proposed scheme would facilitate the creation of other developments within the surrounding area, in particular Parkside Phase 2 and the SRFI, and that any greenhouse gas emissions associated with those developments should be considered within their respective environmental impact assessments and appropriate mitigation measures provided.

Assessment and Conclusion on Cumulative Effects 11.187 The significance of the intra-project cumulative effects are predicted to be negligible to minor adverse during construction and negligible to minor beneficial during operation. There would be the potential for adverse inter-project cumulative effects, ranging from

slight to major adverse during both construction and operation in respect of land use, landscape, ecology and effects on travellers. The applicant does however state that the majority of these cumulative effects can be attributed to Parkside phases 1, 2 and 3 as opposed to a cumulative effect in combination with the proposed scheme. In addition, consideration of impacts associated with the schemes included in the cumulative effects assessment would be carried out at the time that each phase is submitted for planning permission. This Council would be consulted on schemes within St Helens and could make representations on such proposals as a neighbouring authority and would respond with appropriate comments and recommendations.

The Planning Balance 11.188 The proposed development is inappropriate in the Green Belt and is therefore, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. Such development should not be approved except in very special circumstances. VSC will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

11.189 As outlined in previous paragraphs, there would be harm to the openness (in relation to the spatial dimension, duration and remediability and the degree of activity) of the Green Belt as a result of the proposed development and it would result in encroachment into the Green Belt. In terms of the visual dimension of openness, following an assessment of the visual impact of the proposal, there would be some residual effects on views. In accordance with the NPPF, substantial weight should be given to the harm to the Green Belt.

11.190 In terms of the assessment of other harm, in accordance with the NPPF, following the results and analysis of the Environmental Impact Assessment, that are detailed and assessed above, the proposed development would have adverse impacts in relation to: • the long term highway network in relation to congestion • air quality • residential amenity due to noise increases • cultural heritage, although this is considered to be less than substantial • ecology, although this would be short term • local landscape character and views • views • loss of agricultural land • farm business • amenity value for users of a PROW • some cumulative effects • health and wellbeing

11.191 However these are not considered to be significant, being minor in terms of their residual effects post mitigation and would result in very limited harm.

11.192 Having considered the harm as a result of the proposed development, it is necessary to consider the benefits of the proposal and whether these are sufficient to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and thereby constitute very special circumstances. The applicant sets out its case in relation to very special circumstances with reference to six matters and these are considered below, along with consideration as to the weight that can be attached to each consideration.

1. Background information and Policy Support for the proposed link road 11.193 The applicant cites policy support in the St Helens Core Strategy for the delivery of a SRFI on the site of the former Parkside colliery subject to a number of factors including the provision of direct access to the M6 for HGVs. Within the emerging Local Plan, the Parkside area is split into Parkside East and West as explained in a previous section of this report. The emerging Local Plan also proposes the removal of Parkside East from the Green Belt. Given its relatively early stage in production, the emerging Local Plan can only be afforded minimal weight but the applicant points to the evidence base which is capable of being a material consideration in the assessment of the application, along with a number of other documents. As outlined in an earlier section of this report, the application has been submitted to both authorities on the basis of very special circumstances and therefore the future statutory plans have very minimal weight.

11.194 The St Helens Economic Evidence Base Paper 2015 (EEBP) highlights the importance of economic growth and the importance of the SRFI in meeting St Helens’ aspirations. It identifies the long term developer interest in bringing forward the former colliery site and surroundings for an SRFI and states that ‘the site remains the single largest potential economic development site in the [St Helens] borough providing the greatest opportunity to meet the economic development aspirations of the borough, being on a prime location for an SRFI. The site continues to offer unique opportunities to attract new inward investment and business growth and continues to provide a substantial opportunity for the wider North West region through increasing freight capacity and capability in a growing economic sector.’ The EEBP also highlights that St Helens would have to consider the Green Belt in order to provide suitable large scale sites.

11.195 The applicant also points to the St Helens Employment Land Needs Study 2015 (ELNS) which identifies that the ability to deliver a rail freight interchange at Parkside would be ‘a real game changer’ because the site has connections to two rail lines: north-south via the West Coast Main Line and east-west via the Chat Moss line. The ELNS concludes by recognising Parkside as a key site to secure future logistics purposes. It states how the site can come forward in phases, to ensure the appropriate infrastructure is funded:

'Parkside’s particular intended role as the Strategic Rail Freight Interchange would enhance its attractiveness as a logistics node. However, it is recognised that there will be considerable costs in order for Parkside’s rail infrastructure to be delivered to the market and as such the rail component of this site is likely to be achieved in the longer term. A staged approach to the development of Parkside, where some land is available to the market prior to the construction of the rail infrastructure may be a way of funding the rail component of the project.' (Para.9.8)

The ELNS addendum analyses the potential employment capacities at emerging Local Plan employment sites and identifies Parkside East as having potential capacity for 2,737 jobs with Parkside West 2,351 jobs. The rail terminal has potential to create 40 rail use jobs’.

11.196 The Parkside Logistics and Rail Freight Interchange Study 2016 showed that the ‘Parkside Strategic Site’ lends itself to larger scale logistics and distribution uses, due to its proximity to the M6. It is stated that the site is considered by the market to have the ability to deliver up to 1.5 million sq. ft. of industrial and/or logistics space. There is considered to be good demand for 'big box' logistics from other distribution users and possibly manufacturers. The study also acknowledges the historic interest in bringing

the site forward. The study presents a market assessment which concludes that the Parkside site ‘is of national importance as well as regional significance in relation to the market demand and need for the delivery of new and improved SRFIs, and in supporting the economic and employment growth objective in St Helens and the Liverpool City Region.’ The Study recommends that St Helens, Wigan and Warrington Councils discuss their ideas for meeting the range of sustainable freight policy requirements. There is currently no rail freight terminal in any of the three areas capable of serving the needs of the local population and industry. The Study concludes that there is more than enough demand to support and SRFI in the Northwest and that Parkside is regarded as the best place to meet this need. It also points to the importance of road access to the M6 and east-west connectivity.

11.197 Parkside is identified as a key piece of port and logistics infrastructure in the Liverpool City Region Growth Strategy. The applicant has secured funding from the Liverpool City Region (LCR) Combined Authority and explains that public sector funding is required due to the nature of the costs associated with the new road and rail infrastructure which are considered to be too high to be borne by the private sector alone. The report concludes that ‘the Parkside Link Road project represents a rare opportunity to enable development and open up a strategic development site in an attractive market location with the (indirect) potential to create significant new floorspace, jobs, economic growth, attract investment, generate value and enhance movement on a regeneration site that has long been recognised as a strategic priority at the regional level.’

11.198 Warrington Means Business (2017) outlines the growth programme for Warrington setting the strategic vision. The document specifically mentions Parkside as a key business location. The wider Parkside project is referenced along with the important “supporting infrastructure” that is required to deliver it. Parkside is included in the Warrington North development area, alongside the Winwick Road Corridor proposals.

Assessment and conclusion of applicants’ case on policy support 11.199 It is the case that Parkside East and West are identified as ‘transformational employment opportunity sites that will make a major contribution to the economic development of St Helens Borough, the Liverpool City Region and beyond’ in the St Helens emerging Local Plan (draft Policy LPA02) and that there is an opportunity to develop land at Parkside for rail-enabled and other employment development. Draft Policy LPA10 also states that the Parkside East site shall be considered suitable in principle for development of a SRFI with the primary purpose of facilitating the movement of freight by rail and its on-site storage and transfer between rail and other transport modes. It further states that the site is also considered suitable for other forms of B2 and B8 employment uses subject to a number of criteria and that proposals for development within Parkside East will be required to, inter alia, ‘create safe and convenient access from junction 22 of the M6 for Heavy Goods Vehicles and other vehicles’. The reasoned justification to the policy mentions the Parkside Link Road, stating that it will provide access to the Parkside East and West sites from the M6 J22 and the local road network using the existing A573 Parkside Road bridge over the M6.

11.200 The support for development at Parkside in the evidence base and studies cited above, which, in accordance with S38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act, are capable of constituting material considerations and significant weight can be afforded to such in the consideration of this application. The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act states that decisions should be made in accordance with the

development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this instance the evidence in support of the application, considered as material, is compelling in terms of supporting economic development, provision of sub-regional infrastructure and job creation. Policies within the local plan do not preclude such development (subject to other plan policies) and largely promote the economic development of the Borough, although there are no specific policies relating to major, unallocated development projects.

11.201 In this regard, a further material consideration of significant weight is considered to be the funding awarded by the Liverpool City Region (SIF). This is an important indicator of the importance of the scheme for economic development in the area and region. The need for the scheme, its timing in advance of Parkside East and West and the relationship of the link road to the delivery of the wider scheme (and the economic benefits that this can bring, including job creation) was considered as part of the funding decision and the granting of public sector funding to facilitate this development is also therefore given significant weight.

2. The need for the Parkside Link Road 11.202 The applicant explains that the proposed road is needed to facilitate Parkside Phase 2 and the SRFI as it would provide direct access to the M6. In addition, the applicant highlights that the Parkside Strategic Site is close to the M6 and M62 motorways however the local network is consistently congested during AM and PM peak periods at present around Winwick and junction 9 of the M62 resulting in delays to journey times. There is additional congestion on the highway network in Lowton at the series of signalised junction on the A580, and the A49 through Newton-le-Willows which is also congested during peak periods. The applicants claim that the PLR would enable some localised improvements to traffic in these areas and would also support the development of Parkside Employment Phase 2 and facilitate the SRFI.

Assessment of need 11.203 There is some overlap between the need for the proposed road and policy support outlined above as well as traffic and transport matters considered below. It is noted that some routes are predicted to experience a reduction in traffic (including the A49 corridor from M62 J9 through Winwick Island up Newton Road to Parkside), but by the applicant’s own admission it is not the purpose of the proposed road to provide congestion relief to existing roads; rather it is to facilitate future development (which would be subject to its own transport assessment notwithstanding the information taken in to account at this stage).

11.204 The need for the proposed road is therefore tied to the delivery of Parkside phases 2 and 3 and how likely it is that these strategic developments would come forward. It is noted that St Helens draft Policy LPA10 only mentions the proposed road in relation to Parkside East and not Parkside West. However, the granting of funding from the Liverpool City Region is an important indicator of recognition for the need for the road, its importance in facilitating the delivery of strategic employment development and the fact that public sector funding is required as the costs associated with this infrastructure have been considered to be too high to be borne by the private sector alone. The granting of funding can be seen as an expression of confidence in the development of this area. As a result it is considered that moderate weight can be afforded to the need for the link road.

3. The absence of alternatives

11.205 In accordance with the Regulations, the applicant has outlined how it has considered a number of alternatives to the proposed scheme. The ES states that the main alternatives are to do nothing and use alternative routes. The ‘do nothing’ scenario assumes that the proposed link road is not constructed. The ES states that it is anticipated that this alternative would preclude the development of Parkside Phase 2 and the SRFI due to a lack of capacity and connectivity from the existing surrounding road networks. The applicant therefore ruled out this alternative in favour of the proposed scheme due to the importance of Parkside Phases 1 and 2 and the SRFI in terms of employment opportunities and facilitating the vision for the development of a global logistics hub.

11.206 In relation to alternative routes, six options were identified by the applicant. These are described below and shown on the drawing at the end of this report:

• The yellow route is the proposed scheme. • The dark blue route lies entirely to the west of the M6 and consists of an all movement signalised junction from Winwick Link Road connecting to Parkside Road via a roundabout to the south of the M6 overbridge. The road then continues to the west through the Parkside phases 1 and 2 sites connecting to the A49 via a signalised junction. • The green route also lies entirely to the west of the M6 and is similar to the dark blue route but connects to Parkside Road further to the south. • The light blue route would link to the M6 junction 22/Winwick Lane, connecting to Parkside Road via a roundabout to the north. A new bridge would provide access to a further roundabout connecting back onto Parkside Road and to the Parkside phases 1 and 2 sites and then to the A49 via a signalised junction. • The purple route would provide an offline highway from the M6 at junction 22 connection to the new link road and Winwick Lane via a new roundabout. A second roundabout to the north would provide access to Parkside Road. The route would cross the existing M6 overbridge on Parkside Road and connect to the new link road via another roundabout before continuing west through the Parkside phases 1 and 2 sites to the A49. • The brown route would link to the M6 at junction 22/Winwick Lane, connecting to Parkside Road via a roundabout. The route would provide access from Parkside Road to the land to the east of the M6, connecting to the Parkside phases 1 and 2 sites and the A49 via a tunnel under the M6.

11.207 The ES presents a comparison of each of the options considering potential impacts on noise, air quality, landscape, historic environment, biodiversity and the water environment. It states that the only material difference between the respective routes was for landscape, for which the brown route benefits from not passing through Green Belt within Warrington. Outside of the former colliery site (within St Helens) the dark blue and green routes would be entirely within Warrington Green Belt. The yellow, light blue, purple and brown routes would pass through approximately 400m of Green Belt in Warrington and then into Green Belt in St Helens. The green and dark blue routes were considered less favourably as they did not meet what is cited as a strategic objective of enabling the development of the SRFI east of the M6. The brown route required a tunnel under the M6 and was therefore considered to provide a less strategic highway link and not considered to offer best value for money. The purple route was considered to reduce the land available for future development and the light blue route required a new overbridge which was considered unnecessary if the existing bridge is used, which meant it did not offer best value for money.

11.208 The ES concludes that the yellow route was selected as it best met the transport planning objectives and provided the greatest financial return. The environmental differences between the routes were not considered to outweigh these factors.

11.209 The applicant asserts that the Parkside Strategic Site (phases 1, 2 and 3) is a unique location for the SRFI due to its link to two railway lines accessing both north-south and east-west. The Parkside Logistics Study outlines the existing and planned capacity of rail freight in the Parkside catchment area, wider catchment and nationally and provides a comparison of the alternative sites within the catchment including Ditton, Knowsley, Seaforth, Port Warrington, Port Cheshire, Four Ashes, Port Salford, Garston and Trafford Park. The report concludes that in comparison to other current and potential sites, the Parkside site scores highly on all the attractiveness metrics and that no other sites in the catchment area have the potential to receive trains from all directions. Additionally, the report concludes that the Parkside site’s access to both the M6 and M62 is highly advantageous meaning that it has the potential to be an ‘all points’ operation, in that it would as much in terms of intermodal activities as it might in terms of being a destination and general logistical base in its own right.

Assessment and Conclusion on alternatives 11.210 The applicant has given consideration to a number of different routes, in terms of Green Belt, environmental considerations and value for money. It is accepted that all of the options would require land within the Green Belt (albeit the brown route would not include Green Belt land in Warrington). The applicant’s assessment of alternatives is considered reasonable and the preferred option would provide a road link between Parkside East and West and the existing, surrounding infrastructure. Whilst alternative options to the road subject to this application are identified, based on the information provided, their impacts are no less substantial than the application that is the subject of this report. It is therefore considered that moderate weight should be attached to the absence of a significantly more attractive scheme in planning policy terms.

4. Socio-economic benefits 11.211 The applicant asserts that the proposed development would result in a number of socio-economic benefits. These include direct benefits from the proposed development alone and indirect benefits resulting from the development of the wider Parkside area:

Direct benefits • Total construction investment of £31.5m. It is estimated that the proposed development would bring direct construction jobs equivalent to 400 years of employment with a further 140 years of employment supported by the supply chain and employee spend. These are direct socio-economic benefits from the PLR.

Indirect benefits • Indirect employment benefits down the supply chain and beyond estimated at 6,952 indirect jobs and 3,543 indirect construction jobs (Liverpool City Region SIF review) for the whole Parkside Strategic Site. • Indirect employment opportunities at Parkside Phase 2 and SRFI. The applicant estimates that this would result in 3,295 jobs for St Helens and 790 for Warrington. • Benefits to City Region economic development strategy through attraction of investors, businesses and employment, together with new strategic highway linkages will contribute to the LCR Growth Strategy target outcomes of an additional 20,000 businesses; 100,000 new jobs; and £22bn GVA by 2040.

• Estimated net direct GVA of £7.6 million (Liverpool City Region SIF review estimate) through delivery of the Proposed Scheme. • Estimated indirect GVA of £850 million (Liverpool City Region SIF review estimate).

Assessment and Conclusion on socio-economic benefits 11.212 The direct socio-economic benefits as a result of the proposed scheme are acknowledged. These would however, by their nature, be temporary as they are related to the construction of the proposed road. The majority of the socio-economic benefits cited by the applicant would be indirect and as a result of the development facilitated by the proposed link road in the form of jobs created both during construction and operation of those developments. Although much of the applicant’s documentation refers to socio-economic benefits for the Liverpool City Region, it is likely that Warrington would also gain from such benefits for example through Warrington residents having access to jobs (and a local employment scheme would be required by condition which would cover jobs relating to the construction of the proposed road), the purchase of construction equipment and supplies and employee spend on goods and services which would be realised through phases 2 and 3, which would only come forward as a result of the link road.

11.213 Whilst the link road is not intrinsically linked to phase 2 and 3 through a planning mechanism, as highlighted above, the granting of public sector funding is an important indication of the recognition that the proposed link road would play in unlocking land for employment development which would allow the economic potential of those sites to be realised. It is important to note that although phases 2 and 3 are currently in the Green Belt, and they are only identified for employment development in the draft St Helens Local Plan to which only limited weight can be attached, this in itself would not necessarily preclude the development within the relatively near future. An assessment of the very special circumstances pertaining to those developments would need to be made on the submission of each of those applications. The current application does not seek to pre-determine any future developments on phases 2 and 3 but simply recognises that in the absence of the link road, the aspirations for the wider area would not be delivered. Due to the extent of the socio-economic benefits provided by the link road, and the potential that this generates for future development, it is considered that this should be given significant weight in the decision making process.

5. Traffic and transport benefits 11.214 The applicant states that in Warrington, the scheme would provide an attractive additional route through the local highway network and attract high levels of additional traffic that accesses the development sites and re-routes from more congested links. South of the new Link Road, there would be reductions in traffic flow along the A49 towards Winwick and on Golborne Road between Hermitage Green and Winwick. Reductions in traffic also occur in Winwick village and the proposal would help to alleviate capacity issues at the A49 Newton Road/Hollins Lane signalised junction, A49 Newton Road/Delph Lane signalised junction, existing A49 Newton Road/A49 Winwick Link Road signalised roundabout as the link road reroutes traffic away from the A49 corridor which will improve the operation and capacity of the junctions. The assessment of A49 Newton Road/Golborne Road shows an improvement in the operation and capacity of the junction as a result of traffic rerouting to the PLR.

11.215 It is acknowledged that the proposed development would offer some highway benefits within Warrington when comparing development with and without the link road. It is however also acknowledged that future development at Parkside phases 2 and 3,

which the proposed development would facilitate, would impact on Warrington’s highway network, albeit the proposed link road would lessen that impact. It is however the case that that impact would be assessed as part of any future planning applications for development at Parkside.

Assessment and Conclusion on traffic and transport benefits 11.216 There would be benefits to the highway network in Warrington as a result of the proposed development. However these may only be temporary until such time that development at Parkside phases 2 and 3 takes place. The details of this will be fully assessed and mitigation secured as appropriate on submission of each application. On this basis it is considered that only moderate weight should be attached to traffic and transport benefits.

6. Environmental benefits 11.217 The applicant points to environmental benefits, including beneficial change in air quality for many receptors, the provision of new and improved footways and cycleways, new tree, shrub, woodland and hedgerow planting and the creation of ponds and associated habitats, particularly in the proposed mitigation and enhancement area close to Wood Head Farm (in Warrington).

Assessment and Conclusion on environmental benefits 11.218 The impacts on air quality, arboriculture and ecology are assessed in detail elsewhere within this report with a suitably detailed analysis. On balance it is considered that the environmental benefits that would arise are considered to be of moderate weight.

Procedural Matters 11.219 The following matters raised in representations received from the general public are procedural matters and, although not material, are included to provide clarity to members: • Concern has been raised regarding the determination of this application being premature in the context of the emerging Local Plans being prepared (separately) by St Helens and Warrington Councils. Paragraph 49 of the NPPF sets out that “arguments that an application is premature are unlikely to justify a refusal of planning permission other than in the limited circumstances where both: a) the development proposed is so substantial, or its cumulative effect would be so significant, that to grant permission would undermine the plan-making process by predetermining decisions about the scale, location or phasing of new development that are central to an emerging plan; and b) the emerging plan is at an advanced stage but is not yet formally part of the development plan for the area.” It is considered that taking into account the two tests set out in Paragraph 49 prematurity is not a justifiable ground for refusing this proposal for the following reasons: o It is recognised that the proposed link road would play an important role in unlocking land for employment development. Whilst the overall development in isolation is not considered to be substantial, the cumulative effect of this along with phases 1-3 is recognised. However it is considered that the grant of this consent would not undermine the plan making process and that the emerging plan is not at such an advanced stage. The St Helens or Warrington Draft Local Plans have not been submitted for examination in public and therefore neither plan can be considered to be at an advanced stage. • A number of representations raises the need for the application to be called in. For clarity, the application requires referral to the National Planning Casework Unit for consideration as to whether the Secretary of State wishes to issue a direction under

section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for referral of the application to him for determination instead of the Local Planning Authority. Should Members agree with the recommendation set out in Section 12, this process will be commenced. • The application seeks planning permission for the Parkside Link Road and is a standalone application separate to the application currently under consideration by St Helens Council relating to Parkside Phase 1. Representations considered that a single application for Phase 1 (and Phases 2 and 3) and the Link Road should have been submitted. The Council is required to determine the application as submitted and it is not within the Council’s gift to request planning applications for specific developments. In any event Phases 1, 2 and 3 are not within the administrative boundaries of Warrington Borough Council and therefore the Council would not be the determining authority for any such application. • It has been raised that a single ES should have been drafted for multiple applications, which would include this one. In response to this it is considered that insofar as possible based on the information currently available the ES has addressed the cumulative effects of the wider infrastructure project drawing on the principles of the wider development. • Warrington Borough Council at Development Management Committee in June 2018 took the decision to object to the Parkside Phase 1 application when considering an adjacent authority consultation request from St Helens Council. St Helens as the determining authority for the Phase 1 application will need to consider the material points raised in the WBC’s objection in determining the application for Phase 1. For the avoidance of doubt, whilst the Council has taken this position regarding Phase 1 it has no relevance to the consideration of this application for the Link Road. • Concern has been raised by a local resident regarding an alleged breach of the Aarhus Convention, as it is suggested that information regarding the Phase 1 planning application is missing from St Helens Council Website. Given this relates to Parkside Phase 1 and not the Parkside Link Road, it is not relevant to the determination of this application.

Other Issues 11.220 A number of other issues have been raised and, as with the above, are considered below for clarity where they have not already been considered elsewhere in this report: • There would be benefits to Warrington including economic, ecological and highways benefits as already mentioned in the previous section of this report • Food security is not a material planning consideration • The number and content of objections are noted. A significant number of objections does not make an application unsound.

12. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

12.1 Weight is given to the inappropriateness of the development in the Green Belt which is, by definition harmful. The most significant impact is considered to be that of the openness of the Green Belt albeit that whilst its scale is significant in terms of area, the massing of any development is relatively limited save for lighting, signage and enclosures. Consideration is also given to safeguarding the countryside from encroachment and, due to the scale and siting of the development, encroachment certainly does not place. Notwithstanding this, the development does meet with one of the principle aims of the Green Belt and that is to assist in urban regeneration as part of the land utilised (and released for economic purposes) was a former colliery

site. However it is considered that this would be insufficient to outweigh the harm. In such instances it is necessary to examine any very special circumstances associated with the development. These are detailed, assessed and concluded within the planning balance section of the report above. Most notably, however, are the significant benefits that socio-economic benefits that the development could deliver, which would be significantly enhanced through phases 2 and 3 (subject to further consents). Material considerations indicate that the wider development, and the advantages that this would bring to the sub-regional economy will not be realised in the absence of the link road and to this is attributed significant weight.

12.2 The report has detailed that in the short term there will be benefits to the existing highway network within Warrington until such a time when phases 2/ 3 are operational. Consideration has been given to these future developments within the transport assessment, although additional, more detailed analysis would be submitted with any applications for these phases taking into account the specifics of the applications, which at this stage are estimates. Any further mitigation could be applied to these subsequent schemes and the applications determined accordingly. This current application would not pre-determine any future applications on the wider Parkside site. On the basis of the information submitted, and subject to suitable conditions, it is considered that there would be no significantly adverse impact on highway safety as a result of the proposal.

12.3 Consideration has been given to the concerns raised by numerous residents regarding air pollution and, specifically, the impact on human health as a result. The assessment of the information contained within the ES demonstrates that there would only be marginal impacts and air quality would continue to be acceptable in accordance with policy. On this basis there would be no detrimental impact on health as a direct result of the proposal.

12.4 Consideration has been given to residential amenity in terms of noise, visual impact and wellbeing. Again, impacts are marginal and should be assessed cumulatively taking into account the benefits of the scheme. On balance, the proposal is therefore considered acceptable.

12.5 It is anticipated that long term the development has the potential to generate benefits for ecology, arboriculture and nature conservation, to be balanced against the impacts of the introduction of a road in to open countryside, and that these would take some time to be established. Consideration has been given to this position within the application and it is considered to be acceptable.

12.6 The development is unlikely to result in harm to the historical environment and this contention is fully supported by the Council’s Heritage Officer and Historic England.

12.7 It is considered that other harm resulting from the proposal would be limited. There would be a number of benefits resulting from the proposed development, which are considered to range from limited to moderate weight. In combination, it is considered that these benefits outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and other harm which would be caused by the proposal and are therefore considered to constitute very special circumstances which justify the approval of the proposed development.

12.8 It is therefore recommended that the application be approved subject to conditions and following completion of Section 106 obligation to secure a financial contribution towards great crested newt habitat creation and maintenance subject to the Secretary of State not wishing to intervene.

12.9 In accordance with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009, the application requires referral to the National Planning Casework Unit for consideration as to whether the Secretary of State wishes to issue a direction under section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for referral of the application to him for determination instead of the Local Planning Authority.

13. SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS

1. The development hereby approved shall be commenced before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To ensure that the Local Planning Authority retains the right to review unimplemented permissions and to comply with Section 91 (as amended) of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990.

2. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans: • Scheme location plan sheet 1 of 2 ‘PD-RAM-00-DR-Z-0100 P03’ • Scheme location plan sheet 2 of 2 ‘PD-RAM-00-DR-Z-0100 P04’ • General Arrangement Sheet 1 of 2 ‘PD-RAM-01-DR-C-004 P09’ • General Arrangement Sheet 2 of 2 ‘PD-RAM-01-DR-C-005 P09’ • Parkside Link Road Parkside Road Footway/Cycleway ‘PD-RAM-01-00-DR- C0012 P05’ • Parkside Link Road West A49 Junction Layout ‘PD-RAM-01-00-DR-C-0013 P04’ • Parkside Link Road West A573 Junction Layout ‘PD-RAM-01-00-DR-C-0014 P04’ • Highway Alignment Layout ‘PD-RAM-01-00-DR-C-0050 P03’ • Highway Alignment Long Sections ‘PD-RAM-01-00-DR-C-0051 P03’

Reason: To define the permission, to ensure that the proposals deliver appropriate and satisfactory development.

surface water drainage scheme shall be in accordance with the Non-Statutory Technical Standards for Sustainable Drainage Systems (March 2015) or any subsequent replacement national standards and unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, no surface water shall discharge to the public sewerage system either directly or indirectly. The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that management arrangements are in place for the sustainable drainage system in order to manage the risk of flooding and pollution during the lifetime of the development.

Any changes to these components require the express written consent of the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.

Reason: For the future protection of the water environment from risks arising from land contamination.

Reason: To protect trees on the site.

9. Temporary measures to provide physical protection of all trees, hedges and shrubs shown to be retained shall be in accordance with the "Arboricultural Impact Assessment (Ref 6354.06.001 Version 2 Vol 2, Part 4, Appendix 8.10 of the ES Statement and Tree Protection Plans detailed in ES Addendum Technical Appendix A7.3: • Tree Protection Plan Sheet 1 of 12 ‘PD-RAM-01-00-DR-EN-3041 rev P02’ • Tree Protection Plan Sheet 2 of 12 ‘PD-RAM-01-00-DR-EN-3042 rev P02’ • Tree Protection Plan Sheet 3 of 12 ‘PD-RAM-01-00-DR-EN-3043 rev P02’ • Tree Protection Plan Sheet 4 of 12 ‘PD-RAM-01-00-DR-EN-3044 rev P02’ • Tree Protection Plan Sheet 5 of 12 ‘PD-RAM-01-00-DR-EN-3045 rev P02’ • Tree Protection Plan Sheet 6 of 12 ‘PD-RAM-01-00-DR-EN-3046 rev P02’ • Tree Protection Plan Sheet 7 of 12 ‘PD-RAM-01-00-DR-EN-3047 rev P02’ • Tree Protection Plan Sheet 8 of 12 ‘PD-RAM-01-00-DR-EN-3048 rev P02’ • Tree Protection Plan Sheet 9 of 12 ‘PD-RAM-01-00-DR-EN-3049 rev P02’ • Tree Protection Plan Sheet 10 of 12 ‘PD-RAM-01-00-DR-EN-3050 rev P02’ • Tree Protection Plan Sheet 11 of 12 ‘PD-RAM-01-00-DR-EN-3051 rev P02’ • Tree Protection Plan Sheet 12 of 12 ‘PD-RAM-01-00-DR-EN-3042 rev P02’ • Temporary Tree Protection Fencing Specification ‘PD-RAM-01-00-DR-EN- 3053 Rev P02’ submitted with this application. The provision of total exclusion zones shall be achieved by the erection of protective fencing as specified in the submitted plans which shall not be to a standard less than that specified in BS5837 (2012). The areas so defined shall be kept free of machinery, stored materials of all kinds and any form of ground disturbance not specifically catered for in the agreed measures, for the duration of site, demolition and building works. Reason: To protect trees on the site.

10. Arboricultural Supervision shall be provided by a qualified Arboricultural Consultant of all tree work, and tree protection measures, including supervision of no dig

surfacing construction shall be both delivered and maintained in accordance with the "Arboricultural Impact Assessment (Ref 6354.06.001 Version 2 Vol 2, Part 4, Appendix 8.10 of the ES” submitted with this application and Tree Protection Plans detailed in ES Addendum Technical Appendix A7.3, submitted with this application. Details of the level of supervision, reporting mechanisms to the Council and frequency of site visits and reporting, shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to any work commencing on site.

Reason: To secure the satisfactory landscaping of the site in the interests of visual amenity.

Reason: For the future protection of the Water Environment from risks arising from land contamination.

13. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the details contained within the Ecological Management Plan prepared by TEP (report ref: 7066.001 January 2019), or any subsequent amendment/update to the Plan as may be made in relation to condition 14 of this permission.

Reason: In the interests of protected species.

14. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, further precautionary surveys relating to bats, badgers and water voles shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Should these species be found during the re-surveys, the Ecological Management Plan referred to in condition 13 of this permission shall be updated accordingly. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the updated Plan.

18. Prior to the commencement of any works on site, the developer shall provide in writing a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) to the Local

Planning Authority for written approval. The CEMP shall review all demolition and construction operations proposed on site including logistics. It shall cover as a minimum the following areas of work on a phase by phase basis, identifying appropriate mitigation measures as necessary:

B. Site layout and Storage Proposed locations of Site Compound Areas. Siting of temporary containers. Location of directional signage within the site. Parking for contractors, site operatives and visitors. Identification of working space and extent of areas to be temporarily enclosed and secured during each phase of demolition/construction. Storage of materials and large/heavy vehicles/machinery on site.

C. Environmental Controls Proposed construction hours, proposed delivery hours to site, phasing of works including start/finish dates. Acoustic mitigation measures, including vibration, dust and air quality measures. Details for the recycling/storage/disposal of waste resulting from the site. Consideration for joining a Considerate Contractors Scheme. Contact details of the principal contractor

19. Reason: To ensure that adequate on-site provision is made for construction traffic, including allowance for the safe circulation, manoeuvring, loading and unloading of vehicles, as well as parking, and to reduce impact on residential amenity and the general amenity of surrounding occupiers. These details are required prior to the commencement of the development because there is the potential for material harm to be brought about to highway and pedestrian safety if development were to commence prior to these details being considered by the LPA and/or implemented

20. Except for site clearance and remediation no development shall commence until a Road Phasing and Completion Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Road Phasing and Completion Plan shall set out the development phases and the standards to which roads serving each phase

of the development will be completed. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plan.

21. Except for site clearance and remediation no development shall commence until full engineering, drainage, street lighting and construction details of the roads proposed for adoption have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. For the avoidance of doubt this shall include the thin surface road, for the purpose of noise mitigation, as set out in the approved documents. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

22. Prior to the commencement of the development, a Local Employment Scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The submitted Scheme shall include but not be limited to: a) Details of how the initial staff/employment opportunities at the development will be advertised and how liaison with the Council and other bodies will take place in relation to maximising the access of the local workforce to information about employment opportunities; b) Details of how sustainable training opportunities will be provided for those recruited to fulfil staff/employment requirements including the provision of apprenticeships or an agreed alternative; c) A procedure setting out criteria for employment, and for matching of candidates to the vacancies; d) Measures to be taken to offer and provide college and/or work placement opportunities at the development to students within the locality; e) Details of the promotion of the Local Employment Scheme and liaison with contractors engaged in the construction of the development to ensure that they also apply the Local Employment Scheme so far as practicable having due regard to the need and availability for specialist skills and trades and the programme for constructing the development; f) A procedure for monitoring the Local Employment Scheme and reporting the results of such monitoring to the Local Planning Authority including details of the origins qualifications numbers and other details of candidates; and, g) A timetable for the implementation of the Local Employment Scheme.

The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved Scheme.

Reason: To facilitate the socio-economic benefits to the local workforce. This condition is required to be pre-commencement as it relates to the construction phase of development.

23. Works proposed at Junction 22 of the M6 shall not commence unless and until full design and construction details of the required improvements to Junction 22 of the M6, as shown in outline in Drawing PD-RAM-01-1200-SK-C-001 prepared Ramboll), have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority,. The details to be submitted shall include: • How the scheme interfaces with the existing highways alignment, details of the carriageway marking and lane destinations. • Full signing and lighting requirements. • Confirmation of full compliance with current Departmental Standards (DMRB) and Policies (or approved relaxations/departures from standards). • An independent Stage 2 Road Safety Audit (taking account of any Stage 1 Road Safety Audit recommendations) carried out in accordance with current Departmental Standards (DMRB) and Advice Notes. The approved improvements shall be implemented in full prior to the opening to general traffic of the development hereby approved.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

24. Prior to the development hereby approved being first open for use by general traffic, an acoustic barrier along Winwick Lane shall be installed as shown drawing PDRAM-01-00-DR-C- 0308, or any amendment to such drawing as may have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The barrier shall remain in place and maintained as such thereafter at all times the road is in use. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity.

Informatives

1. The applicant’s attention is drawn to the advice contained within correspondence from United Utilities dated 1st July 2019 2. The applicant’s attention is drawn to the advice contained within correspondence from the Environment Agency dated 25th April 2019. 3. The applicant’s attention is drawn to the advice from the Cheshire Constabulary Designing out Crime officers dated 28th March 2019. 4. The applicant is advised that if any protected species are found or suspected at any time during works then works must cease and advice sought from a suitably qualified person about how best to proceed. 5. The applicant’s attention is drawn to the Coal Authority’s standing advice. 6. It is an offence to carry out any works within the public highway without permission of the Highway Authority. The grant of planning permission will require the applicant to enter into Agreement with the Council as Highway Authority. The applicant is advised to contact the Council’s Traffic Management, Road Safety & Adoptions Team on 01925 443248 to ascertain the details of such an agreement and the information to be provided. For the avoidance of doubt all works shall be carried out at nil cost to the Council. 7. The applicant is reminded that it is an offence to allow material to be carried from the site and deposited on or cause damage to the highway from uncleaned wheels

or badly loaded vehicles. The Highway Authority will seek to recover any expenses incurred in clearing, cleaning or repairing highway surfaces and will prosecute persistent offenders under Sections 131, 148 & 149 of the Highways Act 1980. 8. The applicant is advised that tree and scrub vegetation removal should only take place outside of bird nesting season. If this is not possible, removal should only take place on confirmation from an ecologist that no nesting birds are present.

14. PLAN EXTRACTS

Application site outlined in red with local authority boundaries shown

Extract from the 2016 Green Belt Assessment showing General Areas 20 and 1

Extract from the Landscape Character Assessment showing Landscape Character Area 1C

Plans showing the proposed landscaping masterplan

Drawing showing proposed road ‘links’ as referred to in the noise and vibration section of the report

Plan showing the alternative routes considered by the applicant