Professor Steven Broomhead Committee Chief Executive

To: Members of the Development Management Professor Steven Broomhead Committee Chief Executive

Councillors: Chair – J Grime Town Hall P Carey, G Friend, B Maher, T McCarthy, L Sankey Street Morgan, K Mundry, R Purnell, S Wright, J Warrington Wheeler, B Barr, S Parish. WA1 1UH

22 September 2020

Development Management Committee

Wednesday, 30 September 2020, 6.00pm

Venue – This meeting will take place remotely in accordance with the Coronavirus Act 2020 - Section 78

Members of the public can view this meeting by visiting www.warrington.gov.uk/committees

Agenda prepared by Jennie Cordwell, Senior Democratic Services Officer – Telephone: (01925) 442139 E-mail: [email protected]

A G E N D A

Part 1

Items during the consideration of which the meeting is expected to be open to members of the public (including the press) subject to any statutory right of exclusion.

Item 1. Apologies for Absence

To record any apologies received.

2. Code of Conduct - Declarations of Interest Relevant Authorities (Disclosable Pecuniary Interests) Regulations 2012

1 Members are reminded of their responsibility to declare any disclosable pecuniary or non-pecuniary interest which they have in any item of business on the agenda no later than when the item is reached.

Item Page No.

3. Minutes 4

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 2nd September 2020 as a correct record.

4. Planning Applications 21

Report of the Director of Growth

2018/32247 - FORMER PARKSIDE COLLIERY TO THE EAST OF THE 23 A49, WINWICK ROAD, NEWTON-LE- WILLOWS, WA12 8DB

2020/36900 - WARRINGTON ROAD, HATTON, WARRINGTON 285

2020/37026 – BRIDGE FARM, DAM LANE, RIXTON WITH 307 GLAZEBROOK, WARRINGTON, WA3 6LE

2020/36842 – ARLEY LANDFILL SITE, FORREST WAY, 330 WARRINGTON, WA4 6YZ

5. Appeal Decisions Summary 351

Report of the Director of Growth Part 2

Items of a “confidential or other special nature” during which it is likely that the meeting will not be open to the public and press as there would be a disclosure of exempt information as defined in Section 100I of the Local Government Act 1972.

Nil

2 Agenda Item 3

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

2 September 2020

Present: Councillor J Grime (Chairman) Councillors P Carey, K Mundry, L, Morgan, G Friend, B Barr, S Parish, and T Jennings (substitute for S Wright)

This meeting was held remotely in accordance with the Coronavirus Act 2020 – Section 78

DM188 Apologies for Absence

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors T McCarthy, S Wright and B Maher.

DM189 Code of Conduct – Declarations of Interest

Councillor Minute Reason Action B Barr DM194 Former Member of Remained in the Helena Housing meeting and took Board who part in discussions previously managed and vote the site

S Parish DM192 & DM193 Ward Member for Stood down from area, also had the committee and previous contact took no part in the with applicant for discussions or votes community use of site and also corresponded with objectors

T Jennings DM194 Member of the Stood down from Torus 62 Board the committee and took no part in the discussions or vote

3 Agenda Item 3

DM190 Minutes

Resolved,

That the minutes of the meeting held on 12 August 2020 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to the following amendment;

DM179 – Code of Conduct – Declaration of Interest

S Parish DM182 & 183 Member Omega Remained in the Partnership Liaison meeting and took Committee part in discussions and vote

DM191 Planning Applications

Resolved,

That Pursuant to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (As Amended) the applications for permission to develop land be considered and dealt with in the manner agreed.

DM192 2020/36670 - GULLIVERS WORLD THEME PARK, SHACKLETON CLOSE, BURTONWOOD AND WESTBROOK, WARRINGTON, WA5 9YZ - Full Planning (Major) - Construction of welcome suite / staff headquarters (300sq.m), pet resort (500sq.m), spa (258sq.m) and facilities building (300sq.m), provision of covered cycle storage (sheffield racks) and change of use to camping/touring caravan site; siting of 5no. double-unit static caravans to form group accommodation; and change of use of existing forestry management building to store/workshop (216sq.m) together with erection of fencing, ground works, provision of hard surfaces and parking areas, drainage infrastructure, hard and soft landscaping and excavation of surface water attenuation pond

The Director of Growth submitted the above report with a recommendation for approval subject to conditions.

Members noted the content of the update report.

Members received a further 5 written representations against the application which are detailed as follows;

(1) The pet centre includes stables. Horses should not be permitted as they may attempt to bolt when scared by noise. They would injure themselves, and this facility should be denied.

4 Agenda Item 3

(2) Kennels are notorious for being very noisy as dogs will naturally bark at levels between 90 and 100dB. This is why they are always placed away from residential areas. With 67 holiday chalets and a “tranquillity” spa only metres away, the kennels will cause unacceptable noise levels to guests in the park, and also to local residents. It is noted that the report from WBC Environmental Health (noise) has been included in the conditions imposed on the site. (3) The layout of the pet centre shows kennels approximately 6ft x 4ft, with no account of different dog sizes. There will be no exercise area other than one outside the kennels. Dogs will be imprisoned and will bark to be let out. (4) The inclusion of 114 car parking spaces and a range of buildings will have a severe effect on the runoff of rainwater, which is presently taken up by the land and it’s trees before it drains into the watercourse. Petrol interceptors will be essential across the various car park locations, but these are not mentioned. (5) Cheshire Wildlife Trust objections have not been taken into account, and Woodland Trust objections have not been fully answered. Those organisations have not been given the opportunity to disagree with the report, and approval should be withheld until they have the opportunity to respond. (6) The report sees no problem with the additional transport needs, when viewed in isolation. However the existing Cromwell Avenue congestion is already aggravated by new housing estates approved by WBC. There has to be a point where non- essential traffic should be restricted to avoid total gridlock. (7) The retention pond is no longer as stated in the drainage report, as size has been changed but no calculations of capacity have been given to show the retention capability. (8) I object in principle to the applications as being unsuited to the area, and unwanted by large numbers of local residents who have taken time to object formally to the plans. The case officer’s report merely lists the objections as one-liners without any attempt to justify whether that are material or not. It is recognised that many of our objections have been addressed by the imposition of conditions, but approval is still recommended rather than rejection pending resubmission. He proposes approval despite the level of local opposition. The Committee should consider the views of their own constituents, rather than approving a dubious plan, with many inconsistencies, which favours the developer whose contribution to rates is a small percentage of rates paid by residents. These applications should be rejected, with instructions to the applicant to review his entire proposal, and submit a plan which is consistent in itself, and complies with all regulations. (9) I would like to object to this development as it will destroy ancient parts of woodland and also put extra strain on the roads in the area which are too busy anyway. (10) Planning Application Form - Form requires the following information to be provided: 7. Materials - Does the proposed development require any materials to be used? Yes - Please provide a description of existing and proposed materials and finishes to be used (including type, colour and name for each material): For Roofs, Walls, Windows and Doors the stock answers is: “See Plans and Planning, Design and Access Statement” - I have examined the Drawings and the Design and Access Statement and cannot find any of the information promised by this submitted form. (11) There is no Planning Condition in regarding this, even house extensions require this information. This provides Gulliver’s World with the ability to do as they please.

5 Agenda Item 3

(12) This Planning Permission cannot be granted based on this Report. Documents Supplied with the Application in March 2020 - Five documents were supplied with the Application which show an intent to deceive in my opinion. Geo-environmental report (Phase I)-Clarke Bond-WB04362 This document was written by a person who has lied about Professional Qualifications. I do not believe that Gulliver’s World were aware of this. Geo-environmental report (Phase II)-Egniol-OS7057. This document does not relate to the Application site and is irrelevant. Himalayan Balsam Management Document was written for different site but has been submitted (verbatim) for this site – It says, “areas of infestation are not directly affected by the development proposals”, which is patently not true – refer Rachel Hacking Report June 2020, which says HB is 80% of ground area = over 20,000 sq metres affected. Document irrelevant – but the Planning Condition requires its use. WBC HB condition is in my objection to 2020/36760 document. Biodiversity Enhancement Scheme- Rachel Hacking Ecology Document written for another site but has been submitted (verbatim) for this site except that the last page which shows the site plan was removed. Document irrelevant. Arboricultural Method Statement while a method is required, a tree survey is required in accordance with L5 of the Warrington Borough Council - Planning Validation Checklist. The required Arboricultural document was issued on July 14, more than 4 months after the Application was submitted. This document is still not fit for purpose in my view as it deceives on how many trees GW intend felling – they say 20 but it is more than 40. The author (is cited in the document properties) but is he a qualified Arboriculturalist? Woodland Management Plan-Liz Sharkey/Forestry Commission This is referred to by the Applicant in many submission documents, including the Planning Design and Access Statement, Arboricultural Assessment and Method Statement, PEA and Bat Scoping Report, and Applicant’s Agent emails. This, “Forestry Commission Approved Woodland Management Plan” as it is referred in most documents was submitted without the 7 Appendices which have many pertinent details. WBC do not have a copy of this full document, nor the felling license that goes with it. (13) As the spokesperson for the Callands and Westbrook Community Association, I am advised of the following : The exercise zone for the pet resort lies completely within the minimum legal buffer zone of 15m (14) The requirement of the zone is ‘No Development’ which includes hard standing to protect root systems, flora and fauna. No due diligence has been applied to this plan. (15) The WBC environmental health department have not been informed that the Pet Resort is a commercial kennelling facility. The applicants own SCP report 3.4 & 3.5 confirms it will be open to the public. This is in addition to use by staying guests. (16) If the kennels are to be open 24/7/365, then fireworks displays will create extreme stress for the occupant animals. (17) Woodland Trust clarify that we did not refer to the development site as containing ancient woodland within our consultation response (8th April 2020), but simply that land in our ownership was designated on the Ancient Woodland Inventory. As such, it should be noted that our objection was focused on the potential indirect impacts of the application and that we are not suggesting there would be direct loss.

6 Agenda Item 3

(18) Ancient woodland is a material planning consideration within the National Planning Policy Framework, and the Standing Advice outlines that the effects of development adjacent to ancient woodland should be taken into consideration. As a woodland conservation charity, we seek to protect ancient woods and trees regardless of whether they are within our ownership. (19) With regards to our recommendations for a 30m buffer zone, this is to account for the nature of the proposals which are to be of considerable scale. Natural England’s Standing Advice is quite clear that a buffer zone should be “at least 15 metres to avoid root damage. Where assessment shows other impacts are likely to extend beyond this distance, you’re likely to need a larger buffer zone.” (20) Whilst there is an area of secondary woodland between the development site and our land boundary, we ask that the buffer zone is applied from the boundary. This is to reduce the likelihood of trees which form the woodland edge from becoming safety risks from close proximity to users of the development site. (21) It is noted from the revised Arboricultural Assessment and Method Statement for Site Works that the proposals are compliant with the BS5837:2012, and therefore we assume that all Root Protection Areas (RPA) will be calculated at 12x the stem diameter as the RPA calculations have not been included within the report. (22) We would like to re-iterate that Natural England’s Standing Advice states that “a buffer zone around an ancient or veteran tree should be at least 15 times larger than the diameter of the tree. The buffer zone should be 5m from the edge of the tree’s canopy if that area is larger than 15 times the tree’s diameter.” The RPA should not be encroached by any form of development, as outlined in Sub- Clause 7.4 (Permanent hard surfacing within the RPA) of the BS 5837:2012. (23) It is noted that local objections have been submitted to the planning portal in relation to drainage issues, and the potential effect on our site, Twig/Bog Wood. We do not have the technical expertise to scrutinise these matters, so we would appreciate if the Council could confirm the Environment Agency’s position, and also confirm that the Council has considered the hydrological impacts of the proposals on the adjacent ancient woodland. (24) To conclude, the Woodland Trust will maintain a holding objection to the proposed development on account of potential impact to our Twig/Bog Wood site and veteran trees.

Members received 3 further written representations supporting the application which are detailed as follows;

7 Agenda Item 3

weighing them in the planning balance (to the extent that the views expressed are relevant to planning matters). (3) The applications are not “EIA development” and where necessary, the cumulative impacts of the developments have been assessed together. However, each site is a separately defined and stand-alone application site area. Each one is capable of implementation individually. (4) To address any residual concerns, the applicant has provided amended plans which have significantly reduced the scale of development when compared to what was initially proposed. We have also provided additional information requested by consultees and accepted the imposition of stringent conditions to ensure the development proceeds in an environmentally sensitive way and the recommended mitigation measures will be implemented appropriately. Several conditions are ‘prior to commencement’ so as to give the council a secondary layer of control. We will liaise with council officers to discharge the conditions in a timely manner. (5) Approving the applications would provide the following local benefits in particular: At least 41 directly employed local, long-term jobs for Warringtonians; Assist with the long-term retention of 220+ existing jobs and help the park survive Covid-19; More than £5.5million in construction contracts which will be awarded locally; £1.4million per year in additional spending in the local area (from consumer and additional staff spending, for example, in supermarkets, petrol stations and local restaurants etc); to Enable the continued subsidy of the Burtonwood Heritage Association (£40,000 per year) as well as subsidised use of the Gulliver’s World facilities by local community groups. (6) There are some specific points which are important to emphasise within the officer’s report: The Principle of the developments is acceptable in this location. Officers recommend that the proposals will have a positive impact upon the Warrington’s visitor and tourism economy and, subject to controls in relation to the environmental impact of the development, they are compliant with policy PV7 of the Local Plan Core Strategy. (7) The proposal includes the eradication of an invasive plant species, Himalayan Balsam. The minimum action presently required of the applicant by law is to stop it escaping from the applicant’s land – but in this case, the application proposals will facilitate and fund its programmed eradication from the woodland. This is combined with significant additional tree planting and bird/bat box installations across the two sites. These actions will markedly improve wildlife habitats when compared to the alternative ‘do nothing’ scenario. (8) There are no unacceptable impacts (on any planning matter) resulting from the proposals. The stipulated conditions will ensure that appropriate prevention, management and mitigation measures are in place to safeguard the wider woodland environment; (9) The applicant has agreed to a bespoke management plan, to provide further detailed construction drawings/information and to pro-actively engage with the Council to ensure the Environmental Health Officer’s satisfaction with the pet resort building and methods to ensure no adverse noise impacts occur from dogs being kennelled within the pet resort.

8 Agenda Item 3

(10) There is a significant and thick band of retained woodland on southern and eastern site boundaries (i.e. the intervening land between the application site and the Woodland Trust land); this means the buildings are unlikely to be noticed from any public vantage points within Sankey Valley Park. There is no public access to the application sites themselves. (11) The application proposals have been rigorously assessed by consultees and iteratively re-designed to achieve an acceptable balance. There are no unresolved objections. I would respectfully encourage you to support the officer’s recommendation to approve the applications. (12) Gulliver’s is a family owned business and has been a proud part of Warrington for over 30 yrs. This proposal is designed to ensure the continued sustainability of the resort and over 220 jobs, particularly in the present and challenging times ahead. Below is a table to detail, the economic & social benefits made possible by the planning proposals.

Construction contracts Gulliver’s operates a buy local scheme to retain the Warrington pound. The proposal has a GDV figure of over £5.5m in locally awarded construction contracts & in-house fabricators. Retention of a primary employer Gulliver’s Warrington employs more than 220 local team members, in both FT and PT roles, 98.8% of which live within 10 miles. This proposal helps to ensure their job security both now and post Covid-19. Direct economic benefit & job growth This provides 41 new directly employed. It is worth £1.4 million per year locally, providing roles within the resort itself and wider local suppliers. Local economic stimulus An estimate of £1.2m per annum will be spent locally by guests staying in the new accommodation. Investment and renewal of existing facilities It will contribute toward funding a planned program of renewal and investment in the existing resort to ensure its long-term effective operation and viability. Business rates contributions Gulliver’s has paid business rates of over £200,000 every year since 1990. Gulliver’s are consistently in the top 100 business rates contributors in the borough. Expansion into new markets Including stay-cation, short-breaks, the Purple Pound and pet friendly. This will assist the long-term viability of the resort overall.

(13) I write in favour of the above planning application and seek to encourage the members to support the planner’s recommendation to approve application

9 Agenda Item 3

reference 2020/36670 for complimentary development at the Gulliver’s World theme park. (14) The proposed development site has been thoroughly assessed for its ecological value and potential to support protected species. No protected species will be adversely affected by the proposals. Additionally, no priority species or locally uncommon species will be affected either. (15) This application site is low ecological value, comprising mainly species-poor grassland, hardstandings with scattered trees and a building. Any trees of high ecological value are to be retained and protected as part of the development; conditions are proposed to ensure this. (16) The proposed landscaping plan (Environmental Associates) shows a species- rich native planting scheme, which will bring biodiversity benefit to the site (i.e. a greater number of quality species will be introduced than are currently present). The planting includes native trees and shrubs, many of which provide food for birds and small mammals. The amenity grasses on the site will be seeded with a species-rich lawn mixture which will attract invertebrates alongside the provision of bat and bird boxes. Again, conditions are proposed to ensure that this will be implemented as part of the proposals. (17) There are no specific objections to the development of this application site from the GMEU consultee. Whilst they have combined comments with the adjacent planning application (2020/36760), GMEU still recognises the proven need for invasive plant species eradication, high quality landscaping and tree protection, all of which are to be secured via condition. (18) Local residents appear to be concerned that the development will cause the loss of wildlife at the site. Yet, it has been proven that no protected species will be affected and the works will be carefully timed and supervised to ensure no impact occurs to other wildlife during the works. (19) Approving this application will enable the creation of a site of higher ecological value, which will enhance and contribute favourably to the adjacent woodland. The development will help finance and enable the adjacent woodland to be brought into favourable condition. Extra benefits include eradication of the non- native invasive ground flora which will benefit nearby habitats as much as the development site itself. I recommend that the proposed development fully accords with policies CS1, QE5 and QE6 of the Core Strategy and with paragraph 170 of the NPPF.

A motion was put to the committee to refuse the application on the grounds of over development, loss of green field site, damage to woodland, inadequate site access and impact on residential amenity. This motion was seconded.

The committee voted on this motion, however the motion was lost.

A motion was put to the committee to approve the application as per the Officer recommendation and conditions as detailed in the report. This motion was seconded.

10 Agenda Item 3

Resolved,

That application 2020/36670 be approved as per the Officer recommendation and conditions detailed in the report.

DM193 2020/36760 - GULLIVERS WORLD THEME PARK, SHACKLETON CLOSE, BURTONWOOD AND WESTBROOK, WARRINGTON, WA5 9YZ - Full Planning (Major) - Proposed change of use of land for the siting of holiday chalets, static caravans and lodges; and use of land as woodland activity zone

The Director of Growth submitted the above report with a recommendation for approval subject to conditions.

Members noted the content of the update report.

Members received a further 5 written representations against the application which are detailed as follows; (1) The Regulatory Reform Act 2005 states any person who has some level of control in premises must take reasonable steps to reduce the risk of fire and make sure people can safely escape if there is a fire. (2) The woodland may be tinder dry in a heatwave, and any discarded cigarette or barbecue, or camp fire, could cause a wildfire. With the fence completely surrounding the site, the escape may be blocked. Also the wildfire could spread to surrounding woodland and residential properties. The chalets will be rented to 67 families with children, with continual changeover, so many hundreds of people could have opportunity to create wildfires. The concept of so many woodland chalets is too dangerous to approve, and Building Regulations will not solve the problem of foolish behaviour. The report does not discuss Access for Fire Appliances. (3) Since there is no restriction on who may rent the chalets, single sex groups may find it ideal as a weekend outing and may disregard any safety precautions. (4) Extract from Government publication on fire safety:- In England, on average 27,000 fires are started on grass, heathland and moorland every year. This is an average of 73 fires every day! On average 360 fires per year occur in caravans. (5) I remind the committee that it took 4 days to extinguish the Saddleworth Moor fire in 2018, and inability to escape from being trapped behind a fence caused 96 deaths at Hillsborough. The application must be rejected if the committee have any concern for the safety of visitors to the site, the vulnerability of surrounding woodland, and the potential for destruction of many homes in the area needs consideration in the event of a wildfire. I implore the committee to consider how climate change is affecting California and Australia, and how wildfires destroyed many hectares of woodland and houses built within it. (6) There are 2 chalet types. The Arboricultural report says the small unit is 13.1m long, but the plan shows them as approx. 11m long. Positioning of the chalets has not considered the existing watercourse crossing the site, and some are too close to the flooding area, and also especially if they are 2m longer than shown on the

11 Agenda Item 3

plan. Longer chalets may intrude over the United Utilities main sewer line which has to be kept clear The 3 larger units are stated as 12m x 6m but are drawn as 16m x 7m in the same Arb. report (7) Much is made of the elimination of Himalayan Balsam. Gulliver’s have allowed this to spread without attempting to clear it. They have been shown to be uncaring of their responsibilities in managing the site, and cannot be trusted to start caring if the plan is approved. (8) The Arboricultural report proposes that roadway access can be added to chalets equipped for disabled. Any attempt to add roadways would impact on the root systems of trees and should be denied. (9) The resident’s objections as discussed under submission 2020/36670 are equally applicable to this application. (10) The woodland activity zone is planned to sit within the minimum legally required 15 metre buffer zone necessary to protect semi-ancient woodland and Gullivers own veteran trees and extensive root systems which form the woodland edge to Bog & Twig Woods. (11) The Woodland Trust(WT) have issued a standing objection that insists any buffer zone must be strictly ‘No Development‘ (includes hard standing) to 30 metres of their owned land. The applicant has not complied. (12) The SCP report produced by the applicant para. 3.4 & 3.5 confirms that plans for this zone will include a substantial stand-alone ancillary attraction. (13) It is a large-scale high rope activity attraction and is set to become a supplementary destination in its own right. High rope activities feature as a top attractions in other Gullivers World Parks. This is planned for use in woodland concurrent to Semi-Ancient Twig and Bog Woods. (14) The ‘High Rope’ Attraction will be located partly within the protected ‘No Development’ buffer zone. (15) An Environmental Impact Assessment has not been done. A new screening opinion must be sought in consideration of said development planned adjacent to veteran trees within Gullivers ownership and respecting the special sensitivity of Bog & Twig Woods which have been expressed as a ‘National Treasure‘ by WT. (16) The applicant has not given any notice of intent or informed and consulted with adjacent owners, WT regarding this proposal. (17) WT hold a standing objection for any development to protect trees regardless of their ownership. The Cheshire Wildlife Trust also object insisting an EIA is conducted. (18) The applicant has not adhered to advice issued by the government for development adjacent to veteran trees and the planning considerations therein. (19) The amenity value of Twig & Bog wood as a public historic ancient site and visitor attraction to Sankey Valley Park will be compromised by a high-rise development which will overshadow the woodland and create noise. (20) WBC statutory bodies have not reported on this planned major attraction. (21) Wildlife, flora and fauna will be destroyed (22) No mitigation measures offered by the applicant can address the damage that will be inflicted in this whole woodland site.

12 Agenda Item 3

(23) An EIA is critical in major planning applications adjacent to sites of historic special and irreplaceable woodland. There are abundant veteran trees within Gullivers ownership. (24) I implore the committee to agree with the hundreds of objectors who valiantly voiced their objections in the pandemic to save this precious resource and species within. The amenity value and protection from noise to our local communities and our homes in this densely populated residential area remains paramount. (25) The Officer’s Report to the Committee states: 4.2 The application site is wooded with a variety of trees species present. The woodland floor has a significant coverage of Himalayan Balsam, which is noted as a non-native invasive species”. The Ecological Survey done by Rachel Hacking Ecology dated June 2020 states: “The floor of the woodland supports extensive Himalayan Balsam Impatiens glandulifera (HB). The HB exists across approximately 80% of the woodland floor”. The area of this site is 4.04 hectares, so if 80% coverage of HB then: 32,320sqm affected by HB. The GW Himalayan Balsam Management Plan submitted in support of this Application says: In this case, the areas of infestation are not directly affected by the development proposals and therefore the ‘dig and dump’ strategy is not required, and it can be treated in situ on site. (26) The important fact here is that this document was written for and submitted in Planning Application 2019/34295, HB no issue - not applicable to this Application. GMEU referenced in the Report to the Committee “If development is considered appropriate, compensation measure should be provided along with other conditions to control non-native species”. This requires a Condition. A condition (used by WBC elsewhere) is: “Prior to the commencement of development, a scheme for the eradication of Himalayan Balsam shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. The scheme shall include a timetable for implementation and clearly identify the extent of the Himalayan Balsam on a scaled plan. The agreed scheme shall be implemented in full”. 16 Conditions are stated – none relate to Himalayan Balsam. (27) Drainage ditch between 2020/36760&2020/36670 Sites - This ditch is highlighted as a non-main river as shown on the downloaded plan from the WBC Interactive planning page - it requires an 8m buffer zone. 5 Caravans encroach on this buffer zone on drawing EA-5410 – 002. This Site Plan must be amended and resubmitted. (28) Edge Zones to Northeast and Southwest boundaries - The Woodland Management Plan submitted is Cited in the Planning and Design and Access Statement - clause 7.9 states: “As per compartment 2, a dense edge will be retained (referred to as compartments 3 & 10) to maintain screening around the site. Compartment 3 is the Northeast of 2020/36670 below: This compartment is 0.41 hectares in area and 133m long – Buffer zone is therefore 30m which accords with the cut below. If the dense edge is to be retained, how is it possible on drawing EA-5410 – 002 to have caravans 6 metres from the boundary to Sankey Canal. Refer page 77 of Officer’s Report for location of caravans to right side. Layout contradicts written submissions. 30m buffer zone is required to NE and SW of site. (29) This application is an inappropriate over development in a green space within the green belt and should be denied. It will have unquantifiable impact on the

13 Agenda Item 3

ecology, wild life habitat and woodland setting of the Sankey Valley Park as it follows the historical route of the Sankey Canal northwards toward St.Helens and beyond and conflicts with WBC carbon reduction and Global Warming targets. (30) The applicant commenced site clearance illegally, long before the planning application was issued, of growing woodland in January 2014 and again in January 2015 and would have completely cleared the site to the Eastern boundary save for the statutory authorised intervention of the Forestry Commission who prevented bulldozing, felling of trees and burning on site. (31) With cooperation of applicants agent, who stated that her intent did not include a caravan and camping site, but to develop a healthy woodland, the Forestry Commission and applicants woodland maintenance team, developed a 10 year maintenance plan, expiring in 2026, and felling licenses were issued. Save for erection of a fence to deny previously open access the applicant has not carried out ANY maintenance and Himalayan Balsam a notifiable invasive weed has spread expansively into adjoining Woodland Trust property. (32) The Cheshire Wildlife Trust is the region’s leading wildlife charity with over 13,000 local members whose views we seek to represent. In this capacity we would like to object to the above planning application. (33) The Cheshire Wildlife Trust believe the proposals should have been subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment. We are particularly concerned because the ecological survey and the EIA screening decision failed to identify that the site lies immediately adjacent to Twig and Bog wood Ancient Woodland and the site itself supports UK Priority Habitat Lowland Mixed Deciduous Woodland that functions as a buffer to the ancient woodland. (34) Ancient woodlands are irreplaceable habitats and afford a high level of protection within the planning system. It is unacceptable that these proposals do not assess the impacts of losses of priority habitat or the possible deterioration of ancient woodland immediately adjacent. The impacts must be properly considered via an Environmental Impact Assessment or in the absence of this through a Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA). It is clear that the correct EIA procedures have not been followed and we set out our reasoning at the foot of this letter. (35) National Planning Policy Framework - Loss of Priority S41 woodland habitat is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (2018), the local Core Strategy policy QE5 and forthcoming Local Plan policies DC3 and DC4. (36) NPPF 2018 paragraph 175a states that ‘if significant harm to biodiversity resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused’. (37) Even if most trees are retained the majority of the woodland will lose its ability to regenerate and to provide feeding/breeding habitat for the fauna present i.e. it will be considered ecologically functionally lost. There is no evidence that the mitigation hierarchy (as set out above) was used to inform the plans. (38) Ancient woodland Guidance in the NPPF is clear that planning permission should be refused if development will result in the loss or deterioration of ancient woodland. Twig and Bog Wood Ancient Woodland lies immediately adjacent to the application site.

14 Agenda Item 3

(39) NPPF 2018 paragraph 175 c states that development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees) should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons or there’s a suitable compensation strategy in place - Neither of the above apply so I strongly suggest that the applicant’s consultant or the LPA consult with Natural England before any decision is taken. A proper assessment of likely impacts is likely to be required. (40) Biodiversity Net Gain - If this development does go ahead the losses and impacts on wildlife are likely to be substantial; in accordance with the NPPF 2018 (paragraphs 170d, 174b) in order to achieve measurable biodiversity net gains significant areas of compensatory offsite habitat are likely to be required. Defra’s Biodiversity Net Gain metric 2.0 should be used to calculate losses and gains. It is highly misleading for the applicant’s agent to claim ‘significant net biodiversity gain’ will be achieved without measuring the impacts using a metric calculator. (41) Without due process being followed (as set out above) the council has a duty under both the NERC Act 2006 and the NPPF 2018 paragraphs 170d, 174b, 175a, 175c to refuse the proposals.

Members received a further 3 written representations supporting the application which are detailed as follows;

(1) Respectfully ask to approach your decision on the applications with an open mind and for you to give significant weight to your professional officer’s well-reasoned, detailed and carefully explained recommendation for a conditional approval of permission. (2) Your planning officers have, over a period of almost five months, given thorough consideration to the applications before you. In reaching their decision to recommend approval, they have given appropriate weight to relevant planning policies and duly considered the opinions of objectors to the applications, weighing them in the planning balance (to the extent that the views expressed are relevant to planning matters). (3) The applications are not “EIA development” and where necessary, the cumulative impacts of the developments have been assessed together. However, each site is a separately defined and stand-alone application site area. Each one is capable of implementation individually. (4) To address any residual concerns, the applicant has provided amended plans which have significantly reduced the scale of development when compared to what was initially proposed. We have also provided additional information requested by consultees and accepted the imposition of stringent conditions to ensure the development proceeds in an environmentally sensitive way and the recommended mitigation measures will be implemented appropriately. Several conditions are ‘prior to commencement’ so as to give the council a secondary layer of control. We will liaise with council officers to discharge the conditions in a timely manner. (5) Approving the applications would provide the following local benefits in particular: At least 41 directly employed local, long-term jobs for Warringtonians; Assist with the long-term retention of 220+ existing jobs and help the park survive

15 Agenda Item 3

Covid-19; More than £5.5million in construction contracts which will be awarded locally; £1.4million per year in additional spending in the local area (from consumer and additional staff spending, for example, in supermarkets, petrol stations and local restaurants etc); to Enable the continued subsidy of the Burtonwood Heritage Association (£40,000 per year) as well as subsidised use of the Gulliver’s World facilities by local community groups. (6) There are some specific points which are important to emphasise within the officer’s report: The Principle of the developments is acceptable in this location. Officers recommend that the proposals will have a positive impact upon the Warrington’s visitor and tourism economy and, subject to controls in relation to the environmental impact of the development, they are compliant with policy PV7 of the Local Plan Core Strategy. (7) The proposal includes the eradication of an invasive plant species, Himalayan Balsam. The minimum action presently required of the applicant by law is to stop it escaping from the applicant’s land – but in this case, the application proposals will facilitate and fund its programmed eradication from the woodland. This is combined with significant additional tree planting and bird/bat box installations across the two sites. These actions will markedly improve wildlife habitats when compared to the alternative ‘do nothing’ scenario. (8) There are no unacceptable impacts (on any planning matter) resulting from the proposals. The stipulated conditions will ensure that appropriate prevention, management and mitigation measures are in place to safeguard the wider woodland environment; (9) The applicant has agreed to a bespoke management plan, to provide further detailed construction drawings/information and to pro-actively engage with the Council to ensure the Environmental Health Officer’s satisfaction with the pet resort building and methods to ensure no adverse noise impacts occur from dogs being kennelled within the pet resort. (10) There is a significant and thick band of retained woodland on southern and eastern site boundaries (i.e. the intervening land between the application site and the Woodland Trust land); this means the buildings are unlikely to be noticed from any public vantage points within Sankey Valley Park. There is no public access to the application sites themselves. (11) The application proposals have been rigorously assessed by consultees and iteratively re-designed to achieve an acceptable balance. There are no unresolved objections. I would respectfully encourage you to support the officer’s recommendation to approve the applications. (12) Gulliver’s is a family owned business and has been a proud part of Warrington for over 30 yrs. This proposal is designed to ensure the continued sustainability of the resort and over 220 jobs, particularly in the present and challenging times ahead. Below is a table to detail, the economic & social benefits made possible by the planning proposals.

16 Agenda Item 3

(13) The proposed development site has been thoroughly assessed for its ecological value and potential to support protected species. No protected species will be adversely affected by the proposals. Additionally, no priority species or locally uncommon species will be affected either. (14) The woodland is currently species-poor with poor structural diversity and notably poor-quality self-set and tightly grouped trees. The Council’s woodland officer has agreed that the woodland is “unremarkable”. All trees of high ecological value are to be retained and protected as part of the proposals. The ambition is to position the lodges into place minimising tree removals where practicable, but in any event ensuring that the only trees of lowest value are to be removed. (15) Woodlands inherently require pro-active management in order to become high value habitats. Closed canopies of dense secondary woodlands allow limited light into the ground and scrub layers, reducing species diversity. The removal of poor-quality trees at this site will increase the amount of daylight to the woodland floor and create woodland features known as ‘rides’ and ‘glades’, which support a higher density of plants and wildlife than completely closed canopy areas. The proposed woodland planting will result an increase in botanical species diversity, in every layer of the woodland, along with an increase in structural diversity, which will attract other wildlife such as invertebrates, birds and small mammals including bats and hedgehogs.

17 Agenda Item 3

(16) Whilst a difference in professional opinion occurs between myself and the GMEU consultee on the degree of harm that will occur, it is acknowledged by GMEU that the development can still be approved with strict planning conditions in place, such as a mitigation strategy and an ecological enhancement strategy such as is proposed here. The planning balance is, as you know, weighted towards the significant benefits that this development will bring, particularly the biodiversity improvement to the site and the adjacent land, mitigation for the loss of the trees and the substantial economic and social benefits, rather than the removal of poor-quality trees. (17) Approving this planning application will allow the woodland lodges site and its improved habitats to become a valuable, high-quality ecological feature, functionally linked to Sankey Valley and beyond, with a greater diversity of plant and animal species than exists currently. Extra benefits include eradication of the non-native invasive ground flora which will benefit the adjacent habitats as much as the development site itself. I recommend that the proposals fully accord with policies CS1, QE5 and QE6 of the Core Strategy and with paragraph 170 of the NPPF.

The committee voted on this motion, however the motion was lost.

A motion was put to the committee to approve the application as per the Officer recommendation and conditions as detailed in the report. This motion was seconded

Resolved,

That application 2020/36760 be approved as per the Officer recommendation and conditions detailed in the report.

DM194 2020/36309 - Land at Mitchell Avenue, Burtonwood, Warrington,WA5 4JF - Proposed demolition of the existing garages on the site and the erection of four two-storey affordable residential dwellings (Use Class C3) together with associated private amenity space, vehicle parking and landscaping

The Director of Growth submitted the above report with a recommendation for approval subject to conditions.

Members noted the content of the update report.

Members received a further written representation supporting the application which is detailed as follows;

18 Agenda Item 3

(1) Planning Officers have recommended our application for approval which is welcomed. This follows a long process of site assessment and rigorous scrutiny by both the Council’s Officers and its consultees. Indeed, it is worthy of stressing that our team has worked closely with your Planning and Highways Officers in reaching the design solution which we are presenting to your Committee; changes include a significant reduction in dwellings, provision of additional car parking and inclusion of new managed public open space at the Site. (2) The background to the project is important to what you are being asked to consider. The Site is a legacy site within Torus’s ownership with garages that are predominantly empty and an ongoing liability for the affordable housing provider. The wider site is of no meaningful value as an area of open space and has suffered misuse from dogwalkers as well as littering and other anti-social behaviour. The current use of the Site and its liability to an affordable housing provider is not a sustainable one. (3) As set out within your officers report, the proposed development therefore seeks to bring the Site forward for a modest amount of affordable dwellings. Not only will the dwellings provide much needed affordable housing to the area, the development of the Site will secure the safe and ongoing provision of managed open space at the Site. The development will not only provide an enhancement to the amenity quality of the area but will avoid risks of anti-social behaviour continuing at the Site and improve security for neighbours of the development. (4) As set out within our Application submission and within the Officer’s report, the application Site is a sustainable location within an existing residential area within Burtonwood. The development of the Site comes with wider benefits and is considered to be ideally located to help the Council meet a current shortfall of housing. (5) As set out within your Officer’s report, and the responses from your technical consultees, the proposed development has been designed with the utmost care and is considered to be acceptable with regard to all technical planning matters including highways and access, landscape and parking, drainage, and ecological matters; where necessary mitigation measures will be implemented to ensure that no significant negative impacts arise. We welcome in particular the very thorough assessment which your planning officer has undertaken to demonstrate that the amenity of surrounding properties has been protected through the design and layout of the scheme. With regard to the above, we support the conclusions of your planning and technical officers in concluding that planning permission should be granted at the Site. The beneficial impacts of the proposed development are significant and we consider they should be afforded substantial weight in the consideration of the proposal. We respectfully request that you support the Officer’s recommendation and grant planning permission for the proposed development.

Resolved,

That application 2020/36309 be approved subject to conditions to as detailed in the Officers report.

Signed………….……………….. Dated...…………………

19 20 DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

Wednesday 30th September 2020

Start 18:00

Item Page App Number App Location/Description Recommendation

1 23 2018/32247 FORMER PARKSIDE COLLIERY TO THE Withdraw EAST OF THE A49, WINWICK ROAD, objection and NEWTON-LE- WILLOWS, WA12 8DB request that St Helens Council Adjoining Authority Consultation: takes all practical Outline application (all matters reserved except steps to ensure for access) for the construction of up to 92,900 that the Parkside m2 of employment floorspace (Use Class B8 Link Road is with ancillary B1(a)) and associated servicing open to traffic and infrastructure including prior to any part car parking; vehicle and pedestrian circulation of the space; alteration of existing access road development on including works to existing A49 junction; noise the Parkside mitigation; earthworks to create development Phase 1 site platforms and bunds; landscaping including being occupied. buffers; works to existing spoil heap; creation of drainage features; substations and ecological works

Known as: Parkside Phase 1

2 285 2020/36900 WARRINGTON ROAD, HATTON, Approve subject WARRINGTON to conditions and unilateral Full Planning (Major) - Proposed erection of undertaking Grain Store, Machinery Store, Agricultural Yard and Access

21 3 307 2020/37026 Bridge Farm, Dam Lane, Rixton-With- Approve, subject Glazebrook, Warrington, WA3 6LE to conditions

Full Planning - Proposed Self Build Rural Workers Dwelling

4 330 2020/36842 Arpley Landfill Site, Forrest Way, Approve Subject Warrington, WA4 6YZ To Conditions And S106 Full planning (major) - Proposed extension of Planning the final date of restoration from 31st October Obligation (Deed 2018 to 30th April 2022, permit the importation Of Variation) of up to 40,000 cubic metres of material (soil) for restoration and to make amendments to the final scheme of restoration

22 WARRINGTON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING DEPARTMENT

DMC 30th September 2020

©Crown Copyright. Warrington BC 100022848 2018/32247

23 DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE DATE 30th SEPTEMBER 2020

ITEM 1 Our reference: 2018/32247

Description of Adjoining Authority Consultation: Development: Outline application (all matters reserved except for access) for the construction of up to 92,900 m2 of employment floorspace (Use Class B8 with ancillary B1(a)) and associated 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

Known as: Parkside Phase 1

Location Address: Former Parkside Colliery to the east of the A49, Winwick Road, Newton-le- Willows, WA12 8DB

Applicant: Parkside Regeneration LLP

Site Allocation: N/A

Local Authority: St Helens

Number of 24 received by Warrington BC prior to the matter being last representations considered by DMC on 6th June 2018 received: Reason for Referral: At the request of the Director of Growth given that the application has been called-in by the Secretary of State for a decision and the passage of time/updated information received since DMC resolved to object to the planning application in June 2018.

Recommendation: Withdraw objection and request that St Helens Council takes all practical steps to ensure that the Parkside Link Road is open to traffic prior to any part of the development on the Parkside Phase 1 site being occupied.

Case Officer: Alison Gough

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND AND KEY REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION

• WBC was consulted on the application for development at Parkside Phase 1, which is on land entirely within St Helens’ borough, as a neighbouring authority. It was recommended that no objections be made but DMC, at its meeting on 6th June 2018, resolved to object on the basis of all of the representations made to WBC by interested parties. Those

24 representations raised a number of issues including matters which were relevant to the Parkside Link Road (PLR) and not Phase 1. • Since that objection was made, the applicants for Phase 1 submitted further information and in addition, both authorities considered planning applications for the PLR, which involves land within both boroughs. • The respective committees of WBC and St Helens’ Council resolved to approve the proposed PLR in December 2019 subject to conditions and the Secretary of State (SoS) not wishing to intervene. St Helens also resolved similar for Phase 1. • The objection to Phase 1 is inconsistent with the resolution to approve the PLR because the matters to which the objection relates have since been comprehensively considered in the light of further information received in relation to Phase 1 and as part of the determination of the PLR application. • All three applications have been called in by the SoS and will be considered at a public inquiry. • Maintaining the objection to Phase 1 in its current form would undermine WBC’s ability to support the PLR application during the inquiry as the inconsistency in the views of the Council in objecting to Phase 1 and resolving to approve the PLR are likely to be highlighted. • It is therefore recommended that the objection to Phase 1 be withdrawn. It is however recognised that concerns may remain about the timescales for the implementation of Phase 1 relative to the opening of the PLR and it is therefore also recommended that a letter be sent to St Helens Council to request that it takes all practical steps to ensure that the Parkside Link Road is open to traffic prior to any part of the development on the Parkside Phase 1 site being occupied.

OFFICER’S REPORT

1. APPLICATION SITE AND SURROUNDINGS

1.1 The application site is located to the south east of Newton le Willows. It is an irregular shape and has an area of approximately 47.9 hectares. It lies within the Green Belt. The site previously formed part of Parkside Colliery, but that use ceased in the early 1990s. It is currently vacant other than the presence of an access road from the A49, hardstanding, an electricity substation and overhead pylons which run to the south and north east.

1.2 The site is a primarily greenfield with areas of previously developed land (PDL). The PDL comprises the access road which runs east/west through the site and part of the hardstanding of the former pit yard which lies to the north east and centre of the site. The remainder of the site comprises a mixture of rough grassland, scrub, woodland and scattered self seeded trees; a spoil heap is also included to the east of the site.

1.3 The A49 Winwick Road runs to the west of the site. It is a busy road which runs between Junction 23 of the M6 to the north and Junction 9 of the M62 to the south, passing through the village of Winwick (located in Warrington Borough). There are a number of dwellings on the A49 which back on to the site and a housing estate which lies opposite the site access.

1.4 St Oswalds Brook runs along the south of the site in a cutting. There is woodland on each side of the brook with an area of the woodland also being a designated Local

25 Wildlife Site to the eastern end. Hermitage Green Lane runs east/west beyond the brook and there are five dwellings that are located on Hermitage Green Lane.

1.5 To the south east of the site there are agricultural fields and the village of Hermitage Green; the M6 motorway lies beyond these (both are located in Warrington Borough). An area of the former Parkside Colliery yard and an area of rough grassland lies to the east/north east of the site with the M6 motorway separating these areas from open agricultural fields.

1.6 Newton Park Farm (a collection of buildings which includes a Grade II listed barn and manor house) and other areas of the former Parkside Colliery which comprise rough grassland lie to the north. The West Coast Mainline railway abuts the western boundary of the former colliery site and the Liverpool – Manchester railway abuts the northern boundary. The south western part of the application site forms part of a Registered Battlefield.

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL

2.1 Outline planning permission is sought for the construction of up to 92,900 m2 of employment floor space (Use Class B8, storage and distribution) with ancillary B1(a) offices and associated 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. All matters other than means of access are reserved for subsequent approval.

2.2 The application proposes that the buildings would have a minimum unit size of 13,935m2 and a parameters plan identifies that the buildings would be constructed on three development cells within the site.

2.3 Access is proposed to be taken from the A49. A new three armed signalled junction is proposed which is broadly in the same location as the existing access to the site. A right turn ghost island would be provided on the northern and southern arms of the A49 to facilitate turning into the site and minor widening of the A49 would be required to facilitate this. An access and circulation parameters plan has been submitted which shows a site road running west/east, including potential accesses into the development cells, and an access road running north/south between the third development cell and electricity substation.

2.4 A green infrastructure parameters plan has been submitted which identifies the location of bunds and shows the landscape and mitigation areas throughout the site. The plan also shows a proposed cycleway which would run along the site access roads and a heritage/trim trail which would run along the bunds to the west and south of the site. A drainage parameters plan has been submitted which shows the location of drainage ponds between the first and second development cells, and between the site access road and the third development cell. Surface water would drain into St Oswalds Brook at the south west of the site and foul water would drain into a combined sewer under the A49. A safeguarded rail parameters plan has been submitted which identifies an area of the site that has been identified for future rail connections associated with a potential future strategic rail freight interchange (SRFI) located to the east of the M6 motorway.

26 2.5 The proposed development is the first phase of a comprehensive development of the former Parkside Colliery site to help meet the current employment need within the Borough of St Helens.

2.6 The application was accompanied by the following information:

• Planning Statement • Design & Access Statement • Alternative Sites Assessment Study • Environmental Statement Non-Technical Summary • Environmental Statement • Environmental Statement Addendum (including amendments and additional information)

2.7 The proposed development is a Schedule 2 development under the Town & Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 and an Environmental Statement (ES) accompanies the application. The ES assesses the following matters: Ground Conditions & Contamination, Traffic & Transport, Drainage & Flood Risk, Landscape & Visual Impact, Ecology & Nature Conservation, Socio-Economic, Noise & Vibration, Air Quality Odour & Dust, Cultural Heritage & Archaeology, Utilities, Waste and Energy.

2.8 Independent of the planning application for Parkside Phase 1, two separate planning applications for the PLR were submitted in March 2018 by St Helens Council; one to St Helens and one to WBC as the development covers land within both boroughs. The applications were identical and were accompanied by an Environmental Statement, which was updated in March 2019.

3.0 REPORT BACKGROUND

3.1 The Parkside Phase 1 site is entirely within the administrative boundary of St Helens and therefore it was their statutory responsibility to publicise the application. They did this by means of press notice, site notice and neighbour notification letter. Direct notification included Warrington residents and it was requested that comments should be directed to St Helens so that they could be taken into account in the decision making process. Notwithstanding this, Warrington BC received 24 representations from neighbouring residents in response to the initial consultation (ie. before the item was reported to DMC on 6th June 2018) raising issues including traffic, impact on green belt, economic benefits, need, noise, air quality, heritage, landscape and visual impact, ecology and procedural matters. It is noted that although these representations were lodged against the Parkside Phase 1 development elements of these also related to the PLR.

3.2 A report was presented to Warrington DMC on 6th June 2018 recommending that no objection be lodged to the Phase 1 application and requesting that St Helens determine the application in accordance with the following:

i) The Development Plan in force in their area; ii) The National Planning Policy Framework and any successor document; iii) All representations made by Members of Parliament; elected members of either Borough Council; any parish council and any other interested persons including residents;

27 iv) The detailed views of Warrington Borough Council’s Highways team, and other representations as set out in this [the original report from 6th June 2018] report; v) The detailed means and mechanisms, including Section 106 Planning Obligations and conditions, to mitigate the potentially negative or adverse environmental and other impacts of the proposed development; vi) To only refuse planning permission where any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrable outweigh the potential benefits; and vii) Any other material considerations.

3.3 At the time that the report was considered by DMC, Warrington’s Highways department objected to the scheme based on insufficient information (although it should be noted that those objections have since been withdrawn following the submission of further information from the applicant). Opposition from Councillor Mitchell was also reported on the basis of transportation issues and impact on the Green Belt and Culcheth and Glazebury and Croft Parish Councils submitted an objection on the basis of multiple issues including insufficient information, transportation, environment/pollution, green belt and heritage issues. Full details of public representations received were not detailed in the report although the objections from Councillor Mitchell and Culcheth and Grazebury and Croft Parish Councils were. The full report is available for information in Appendix 1: DMC Report 6th June 2018.

3.4 DMC resolved to object to Phase 1 based on all matters raised in the objection letters and to forward copies of all letters received to St Helens Borough Council. That objection was noted in the report to St Helens’ Planning Committee, but the Committee resolved to approve the application for Phase 1, along with the application for the PLR, on 17th December 2019 subject to conditions and the SoS not wishing to intervene. Warrington resolved the same in respect of the PLR on 18th December 2019.

3.5 A summary of the comments received from interested parties prior to WBC’s DMC in June 2018 was not included in that report and is therefore provided below, along with details of how the concerns raised were addressed by St Helens in its committee report of December 2019 and/or WBC officer comments where relevant.

Matter raised prior to Comment/conclusion from St Helens’ Comments WBC Committee on 6th committee report comment 17th June 2018 December 2019 (paragraph numbers quoted refer to paragraphs in the St Helens’ committee report attached at Appendix 2)

Highways matters Traffic congestion in The Transport Assessment considered a References congestion surrounding areas number of junctions within St Helens, outside of the borough. including Lowton and Wigan and Warrington (para 3.8). Elements of mitigation Lane Head and within Warrington are Newton The recommended mitigation proposals considered acceptable and associated conditions are sufficient and appropriate to to mitigate against the impacts of this address the impact of development (para 3.117). the development

28 Insufficient Additional information information about was submitted and traffic impacts considered during the course of the application. Highway safety – The recommended mitigation proposals Highways DC consider increase in fatalities, and associated conditions are sufficient that the proposal can be increase in HGVs in to mitigate against the impacts of this delivered without residential areas and development (para 3.117) significant harm using local roads highway safety in the borough Warrington roads The TA considers the impacts of the The conditions would be more development at the following junctions suggested by WBC affected by the in Warrington: Highways DC to St increase in traffic • M62 J9 Helens have been • A49/Delph Lane accepted. Highways • A49 Winwick Island conditions are numbers • A49/Golborne Road 26-35 within the St • A49/Hollins Lane Helens committee • Golborne Road/Myddleton Lane report. • M6 J22 • A579/Barrow Lane

It is acknowledged that the proposed development would increase traffic flows along the surrounding highways in Warrington resulting in some additional queueing and delay at junctions which would be an adverse impact of the development (para 7.167).

The applicant has acknowledged that the proposed development would have material effects at the M62 J9, A49/Delph Lane, A49 Winwick Island, A49 Golborne Road and A49 Hollins Lane and has proposed a mitigation scheme for each of the junctions. The applicant submits that the mitigation proposals would result in an overall benefit to the operation of this area of the road network which would mitigate the impact of the proposed development and assist in protecting the viability of the route for HGV traffic associated with the proposed development (para 7.168).

Warrington Council has reviewed the submitted information and they believe that the mitigation outlined above is appropriate and would offer the means

29 to mitigate the traffic impacts of the development (para 7.169).

Wear and tear on This is not explicitly roads addressed in the report but would not be a reason to refuse the application.

The A49 Newton Road and A49 Winwick Link Road are structurally designed to carry high volumes of traffic Sites at Omega and Florida Farm was taken into account as a The impacts of Omega Florida Farm committed development within the on this stretch of the exacerbate traffic Transport Assessment (para 3.12). highway network are problems considered to be Subject to conditions securing mitigation limited. the proposed development would not have a severe impact on the highway network (para 7.181)

Increase in The recommended mitigation proposals Highways DC consider accidents/fatalities and associated conditions are sufficient that the proposal can be due to HGVs in to mitigate against the impacts of this delivered without residential areas development (para 3.117) significant harm highway and pedestrian safety in the borough

Highways England Mitigation to the local road network No objections from objects would be required in order to offset the Highways England effects of the development on the subject to this strategic road network (para 3.119). mitigation.

Highways England has reviewed the Highways conditions are submitted information and they believe numbers 26-35. that mitigation to the local road network in Warrington will be required to offset the effects of the development on Junction 9 of the M62. They have advised that the mitigation required by Warrington would increase capacity on the local road network sufficiently to negate the need for works to take place at junction 9 (para 7.172). Hermitage Green could Due to the Phase 1 not accommodate the access onto the A49, number of HGVs Hermitage Green would

not be affected by HGVs.

If this comment relates to the PLR rather than phase 1, the PLR would join Parkside Road to the north of Hermitage Green. The PLR would be designed to keep vehicles on the link road rather than on local roads such as Hermitage Green Lane and would include directional signage highlighting the appropriate route. This approach was considered to be acceptable as part of the assessment of the PLR application. Link Road would be Not relevant to the insufficient to cater for determination of the HGVs Phase 1 application.

The PLR would be designed to accommodate HGVs. Concerns regarding the Not relevant to the proposed link road determination of the Phase 1 application. The concerns are not specified but all relevant matters were considered as part of the PLR applications and detailed in the reports. The proposed link road The mitigation required is required for the for the Phase 1 proposed warehouses development is detailed in the recommended conditions for that application and have been subject to discussion with WBC Transport Development Control Team. The conditions do not

31 require the PLR to be provided in advance of construction or occupation of any of the buildings proposed as part of Phase 1.

This is confirmed in the WBC report to DMC relating to the PLR on 18th December 2019 which states that the Council’s Transport Development Control team is satisfied that Parkside Phase 1 development can be fully mitigated via that application (para 11.30 of that report). The PLR will not be Not relevant to the built and if it is it determination of the would not be used Phase 1 application. because the route would be longer There is no reason to doubt that, if the PLR gets planning permission from the SoS following the public inquiry, it would be built. Noise

Limited information on Submission of and subsequent Condition 9 requires a hours of activity compliance with a Construction CEMP Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) would seek to agree the following Construction hours are construction working hours: covered by condition 38 • 08:00-18:00 Monday to Friday • 08:00-13:00 Saturdays • No working on Sundays or Bank Holidays With these measures in place, construction noise could be controlled to be within appropriate noise assessment criteria for the vast majority of the works (para 3.150)

The noise assessment demonstrates that subject to conditions restricting the hours of working and the

32 implementation of a construction management plan, the construction phase could be delivered without having significant effects on residential amenity. However it is likely that some harm would be caused and this must weigh against the proposal (para 7.208). Traffic noise from The assessment of construction traffic Conditions 38-42 relate HGVs noise states that the primary to noise construction traffic route to/from the site will be from the south using the A49. The proportion of new construction traffic is low compared to exiting flows on this route (para 3.152).

It is agreed that noise level changes that would arise as a result of construction traffic would therefore be small and not sufficient to give rise to a significant effect (para 3.153).

Only small noise levels changes would arise in both the short term (ie. immediately upon the opening of the scheme) and in the long term (ie. in the future). The level changes identified to arise are not sufficient to give rise to significant effects (para 3.160).

Road traffic noise generated from the development would only cause small changes in noise levels both in the short term and long term. The level changes would not give rise to significant effects that would harm amenity (para 7.209).

St Helens’ noise consultants have advised that a condition could be used to prevent the use of trailer chillers operating from the site (para 7.211). Noise and disturbance It has been demonstrated that the Conditions 38-42 relate due to operating hours proposed development can be designed to noise and operated within appropriate operational noise levels, but that is dependent upon the final scheme layout and design and the noise mitigation measures that are brought forward at the reserved matters stage (para 3.170).

It is considered that with planning conditions in place to ensure good final

33 layout design and limit the allowable noise emissions from the site, levels can be controlled to below the Significant Observed Adverse Effect Level (SOAEL) (para 3.171).

Air quality

There is an Air Quality Construction phase dust mitigation Condition 9 (CEMP) Management Area and measures will be included in a includes a dust the proposed Construction Environmental management plan. development would Management Plan which would be impact on air quality required by condition

The operation phase of the ES Addendum concluded that there are expected to be no significant air quality effects associated with the proposed development. Given the further sensitivity tests completed, the conclusion of no significant effects is appropriate (para 3.142)

A number of other conditions including a Condition 30 requires Travel Plan and electric vehicle charging electric vehicle charging points are also recommended. points.

Conditions 31 and 32 relate to a travel plan. Economic matters and the need for the development

Limited information on The development is speculative so there job creation is no certainty over the level of jobs that would be created. The figures suggested by the applicant are based on the Increased automation average number of people per sqm would reduce jobs supplied by Homes England and this is considered to be an appropriate means of calculating the number of people that could be employment on the site. This has also been backed up with an exercise comparing the jobs to floorspace ratio at Omega. On the basis of this evidence it is reasonable to believe that a significant number of jobs would be created (para 7.74).

It is considered that the proposed development would result in a significant investment in the local economy and would create/support a number of jobs

during the construction and operational phases. This should be given significant weight in favour of the proposed development (para 7.75).

No need for additional There is clear and compelling evidence The evidence referred warehouses that there is a significant need for new to includes the St employment land in St Helens, including Helens Economic large scale logistics. The evidence is up to Evidence Base Paper date (para 7.44). (2015), the Employment Land Needs Study (2015) and Addendum (2019), the draft Strategic Housing and Employment Land Market Assessment (2017) and the Liverpool City Region Assessment of the Supply of Large B8 Sites (2018) Heritage

There is a lot of Newton Park Farmhouse and Newton The heritage sites historic interest in the Park Barn are Grade II listed buildings referred to are within area and lie around 120/130m to the north of the St Helens the application site. The proposed administrative development would be evident from the boundary. They have listed buildings but it would be over the responsibility to 120m away and visible beyond what ensure that decisions would be read as their immediate are made in accordance setting. The conservation officer’s with current legislation assessment of moderate harm that is less and policy. than substantial is therefore considered appropriate (paras 7.142-7.148). Impact on battlefield Historic England has advised that the Condition 37 relates to proposed development would have no archaeology. direct impact on the core area of the battlefield, at Red Bank, or upon the majority of the battlefield to the south. Further they believe that it would not seriously affect the public’s ability to understand how the battle developed or how the main events of the battle relate to the existing landscape. As a statutory consultee, Historic England’s advice should carry significant weight and accordingly their advice that the proposed development would cause a high degree of harm, albeit less than substantial harm, is accepted. A

35 condition is recommended that would require a scheme of archaeological work to be agreed before work begins and implemented during the construction works (para 7.140). Green Belt

Impact on Green Belt The proposed development constitutes The identified reasons due to this and other sustainable development in terms of the within the report are developments in the NPPF because the ‘very special material and have been area circumstances’ outweigh the substantial taken in to account in harm to the Green Belt and other harm the planning balance. No justification (para 8.20).

Ecology

Reduction in habitat Having considered additional evidence, Conditions 18-24 relate there will be no adverse impacts upon to ecology. Impact on SSSI the Highfield Moss SSSI (para 3.284).

Impact on wildlife Natural England has no objections (para 3.323)

The proposed development would not have an unacceptable impact on protected species or their habitat, subject to conditions securing the implementation of mitigation measures. Although the proposed development would cause a loss of habitat, sufficient mitigation and compensation has been proposed (para 7.291) Landscape and visual

Impact on landscape Harm would be caused to the visual These issues are and views amenity of some residents in the vicinity material and have been of the site. The harm caused should taken in to account in Buildings would be weigh against the proposed the planning balance dominant development. Due to the construction phase being temporary, the harm caused Excessive scale during this phase should only be given moderate weight against the proposed Landscape would be development. The harm caused during removed the operational phase would be a permanent effect and although the establishment of landscaping would mitigate the harm slightly, it should nonetheless be given significant weight against the proposed development (para 7.237).

The proposed development would result in a major change from the site’s current condition/character and the introduction of a large built form would be a dominating feature that could not be mitigated. The harm caused to landscape character would be moderate and adverse, although the landscape character of the site is not designated and the site is not a ‘valued landscape’ for the purposes of paragraphs 170 and 171 in the NPPF. This harm should only be given limited weight (para 7.252).

The application is made in outline form and matters such as appearance, layout and landscaping are reserved for determination at a later date. However the application has been made on the basis of a series of parameters plans that include the location of development cells, heights of buildings, bunds, site roads and green infrastructure (para 7.257).

There would be harm to views ranging from limited to moderate and moderate/significant (para 7.258 – 7.275)

Other matters

Impact on St Oswald’s No objections from the Environment brook due to drainage Agency (para 3.308).

A permit may be required for any The EA permit regime is proposed works or structures in, under, separate to the over or within 8m of the top of the bank planning application of Oswald’s Brook (para 3.322). process

The Lead Local Flood Authority has no objections subject to conditions relating to the provision of an appropriate Condition 25 relates to surface water drainage scheme and drainage. ongoing management and maintenance of the drainage scheme (para 3.324)

Will make it easier for Each planning the other application is

37 developments to come considered on its own forward merits.

Impact due to It is not clear what materials used in impacts this comment construction refers to. Traffic impacts during construction, which would include the transportation of materials, have been considered by St Helens. Impact on the quality Impacts relating to of life of residents in matters including noise, surrounding areas air quality, highways, landscape and visual amenity have been considered by St Helens. Procedural

The proposals are not The proposed within the local plan so development which is are not/have not been the subject of this subject to public planning application scrutiny was publicised by St Helens as Local Planning Authority which meant that members of the public were able to consider the proposals and make representations. A proposed development does not have to be within a local plan for this to occur. Conflict of interest due It is possible for a to St Helens’ Council as Local relationship with Planning Authority to Langtree determine a planning application submitted by another part of the Council (or where the Council is part of the applicant company). This does not automatically result in a conflict of interest but it

is a matter for St Helens and not for WBC. The application is This comment is not incomplete specific. However, further information was submitted to St Helens during the course of the application. St Helens was satisfied that the application was complete at the point it was taken to Committee in order to have made a recommendation for approval. WBC did not consult There was no statutory residents and requirement for WBC to therefore they were notify residents of the denied the opportunity application for Parkside to participate Phase 1 as it was submitted to St Helens and therefore St Helens as LPA was responsible for carrying out all necessary notifications and consultations The application is The application has been made on the The applications for linked to the PLR and basis of access from the A49 and not a Phase 1 and the PLR are they are dependent on future link road running through the site separate. Each has been each other because: towards M6 J22 (para 7.160). accompanied by its own • The application Environmental Impact boundaries cover the Assessment, however same site there has been regard • They share the same to other schemes as surface water part of the assessments drainage land of cumulative effects. • phase 1 can’t This approach is operate without the considered to be link road because it acceptable. runs through the site to the A49 • the EIA for each application covers the same site The Aarhus convention This relates to access to has been breached information and participation decision making. As the Phase 1 planning application was submitted to St

39 Helens, this is a matter for them. There is however a significant amount of information on St Helens’ website relating to this application and St Helens also carried out consultations and publicity in relation to the application. The link road and The application has been made on the Similar matters were phase 1 cannot be basis of access from the A49 and not a also addressed in the separated as the link future link road running through the site PLR report to WBC’s road runs through towards M6 J22 (para 7.160) DMC in December 2019 phase 1. which confirmed that the Council is required There can only be one to determine the EIA for a site and application as various EU directives submitted and it is not have not been within the Council’s gift followed to request planning The whole project applications for specific must be assessed in an developments. It was EIA (ie all of parkside) also considered that as far as possible based on the information currently available the ES [for the PLR] addressed the cumulative effects of the wider infrastructure project drawing on the principles of the wider development (para 11.219 of the WBC PLR report).

St Helens new local The new local plan is currently at plan is irrelevant and submission draft stage has no weight in the and there are a number of objections to consideration of the key policies in it which, in accordance application with paragraph 48 of the NPPF, means that it can only be given very limited weight at this point. However, it is relevant to note that it identifies a need for a minimum of 215.4 hectares of employment land between 2018 and 2035, consistent with the Council’s employment land evidence base (para 7.19).

The WBC committee The application was for report fails to assess phase 1 alone so the the impact on assessment did not Hermitage Green in need to cover any relation to phases 1, 2 impacts of phases 2 and and 3 3, aside from the cumulative assessment. Impacts on Hermitage Green were considered in relation to landscape and visual matters. The application should The recommendation was to grant The application was be referred to the SoS planning permission subject to the referred to the SoS and completion of an agreement under was subsequently called Section 196 of the Town and Country in for determination planning Act 1990, the Secretary of State not wishing to intervene and subject to conditions (para 9.1). Non-planning matters

Impact on property The impact of value development on the value of land and property is not a material planning consideration.

3.6. In addition to the comments received as detailed above, a joint objection was submitted by Culcheth and Glazebury and Croft Parish Councils. The majority of the comments raised in that objection have been covered in the table above, including detailed comments regarding the Transport Assessment and highways impacts which, as mentioned above, have been dealt with through the submission of additional information. Additional matters raised are as follows:

Matter raised Comment/conclusion from St Helens’ Comments committee report comment 17th December 2019 (paragraph numbers quoted refer to paragraphs in the St Helens’ committee report)

The development The proposed development would not would be piecemeal prejudice the delivery of an SRFI to the and prejudice the east of the M6 which the Council’s proper overall evidence base identifies as a viable and consideration of the deliverable option. (para 8.7) future of the site and any potential to provide rail access as part of a future SRFI

41 St Helens cannot take This is a matter for St an objective view Helens. when determining the planning application due to its strong support for development at Parkside Alternatives were not The applicant has also undertaken an adequately assessed assessment of other potential sites which could accommodate the proposed development in whole or in part and reported the results in the Alternative Sites Assessment Study (ASAS) which accompanies this application. The ASAS primarily considers whether there are sites that are deliverable to meet the scale of needs accommodated within the proposed development. However, for robustness it also considers the scope for disaggregation based upon the minimum unit size of 13,935m2 proposed by the applicant. (para 2.46)

The applicant states that a total of twenty seven sites were identified, but that no sites within the urban area made it past stage two of the ASAS assessment. There were nine sites which made it to stage three, but none performed as well as the Parkside site. The applicant therefore concludes that there are no other available, suitable or deliverable sites to meet the scale of need identified in the Council’s Submission Draft Local Plan. They therefore believe that Green Belt change is justified to meet that need and that Parkside forms part of a limited number of sites which are all necessary to meet that need. They submit that this is a significant material planning consideration in favour of the proposals. (para 2.51)

Evidence has been presented which demonstrates that an alternative site for this development that would be attractive to the market does not have planning permission or exist within the urban area. The proposed development

could therefore only be accommodated within the Green Belt. (para 7.67).

The ASAS considers the merits of a number of other Green Belt sites within the Borough. It is not considered that the other sites are sequentially preferable alternatives that could be developed without harm being caused to the Green Belt. Accordingly, this does not detract from the applicant’s central contention that a site in the Green Belt is required to meet the identified need. (para 7.68)

3.7 Mention is made in the above tables of works to junctions within Warrington to mitigate the impacts of the Phase 1 development. These have been accepted by WBC’s Transport Development Control Team and would be required by conditions attached to the permission. The estimated cost of these works is £3.26m and they would be funded by the applicant for Phase 1.

3.8 From the above tables, it can be seen that all of the issues raised were either considered by St Helens as part of its determination of the Phase 1 planning application, were considered as part of the assessment of the PLR applications or have been addressed above. WBC officers see no reason to dispute the findings of St Helens as Local Planning Authority in respect of the consideration of the Phase 1 planning application. It should be noted that in total St Helens undertook three rounds of consultation due to the submission of additional information. DMC’s response on 6th June 2018 was based on the first round of consultation and was not updated based on revised submissions.

4.0 PLANNING INQUIRY

4.1 On the basis of DMC’s resolution the PLR application was referred to the SoS in January 2020 and was called-in in May 2020. The Council will no longer issue a decision on the application and it will be considered by the Planning Inspectorate in a public inquiry alongside:

• St Helens Council application P/2018/0249/FUL for a new link road between A49 (Winwick Road) and M6 junction 22 (duplicate of that considered by Warrington); and • St Helens Council application P/2018/0048/OUP for employment floorspace (Phase 1 of former Parkside Colliery development) at Newton Le Willows.

4.2 All representations received in relation to the PLR application were forwarded to the Planning Inspectorate in June 2020 and the Council’s Statement of Case (SoC) and an initial Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) were submitted in July 2020. There is no date given for the inquiry to be heard as yet.

4.3 Confirmation of the call-in of the PLR application and the fact it is to be considered at the same public inquiry as Parkside Phase 1 has resulted in concerns regarding the objection lodged to the Phase 1 application. As mentioned previously in this report, given the resolution to approve the PLR in December 2019, the Council has accepted that the scheme would provide economic benefits, that there was need for the

43 proposal and that there were very special circumstances to justify development in the green belt. Technical matters including traffic, air quality, noise, heritage, ecology and landscape and visual impact were also considered to be acceptable. The Council has also acknowledged that, as explained in the DMC report for the PLR, the PLR 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. The Council’s decision on the PLR came 18 months after the objection to Phase 1 and in the intervening period additional information was provided in respect of both schemes.

4.4 There are inconsistencies between the Council’s objection to Phase 1 and the resolution to support the PLR. Maintaining the objection to Phase 1 in its current form would undermine WBC’s ability to support the PLR application through the inquiry as the inconsistency in the views of the Council in objecting to Phase 1 and recommending approval for the PLR are likely to be highlighted. It is considered that this is a position that cannot be maintained during inquiry proceedings without compromising the Council’s credibility and case.

4.5 It was evident in the DMC report regarding the PLR that there are no technical objections in relation to the road itself. Notwithstanding the technical comments it is recognised that Members may be concerned about the potential occupation of Phase 1 prior to the opening of the PLR. In order to alleviate these concerns, St Helens Council (as applicant for the PLR and as part of the applicant company for the Phase 1 development) has provided a timeline showing the timescales involved in both schemes. The timeline is based on the schemes obtaining approval at the committees in December 2019 rather than following a call-in inquiry, but the timeframes for each scheme remain unchanged. The timeline illustrates that it is highly likely that the PLR will be operational in advance of phase 1. This is largely due to the fact that the PLR is a full planning application and therefore once planning permission is granted and relevant conditions have been discharged, development can commence straight away, with a construction period of 106 weeks. The Phase 1 application has been made in outline and therefore reserved matters applications would need to be submitted and approved in advance of any development taking place. Based on the timescales provided by St Helens, it is likely that the PLR would be operational nearly a year in advance of the first building being occupied on Phase 1. The timeline is provided at Appendix 3.

4.6 For the reasons set out in this report it is recommended that the objection to Parkside Phase 1 be withdrawn. This would not have the effect of removing the Culcheth and Glazebury and Croft Parish Councils’ objection to the proposal, as this was also made directly to St Helens Council, and all of the public objections that WBC forwarded were recorded in detail in the report to St Helens’ Planning Committee and have been responded to in the report, which has already been sent to the Planning Inspectorate for information. In recognition of the concerns that may exist regarding the timing of the construction of the PLR in relation to Phase 1, it is recommended that alongside the withdrawal of the objection, WBC writes to St Helens Council to request that it takes all practical steps to ensure that the Parkside Link Road is open to traffic prior to any part of the development on the Parkside Phase 1 site being occupied.

44 4.7 The approach recommended in this report will greatly assist officers in supporting the resolution of DMC in relation to the PLR at the forthcoming inquiry by providing clarity in relation to the Council’s approach.

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Since the objection was lodged to Parkside Phase1 in June 2018 additional information was submitted by the applicant which was considered by WBC highways officers and St Helens as the determining planning authority for that scheme. That enabled St Helens Council to resolve to approve that application. Since that time the application for the PLR was also considered by WBC and DMC resolved to approve it, thereby accepting the assessment of the issues as outlined in the report. There is an inconsistency between the Council’s decision to object to Phase 1 and the resolution to approve the application for the PLR.

5.2 The PLR application has been called in by the SoS and will be considered at a public inquiry alongside the St Helens applications for the PLR and Phase 1. In order to ensure that the PLR application can be fully supported by WBC through the call-in process it is recommended that the objection to Phase 1 be withdrawn. In recognition of the concerns that may exist regarding the timing of the construction of the PLR in relation to the potential occupation of Phase 1, it is recommended that alongside the withdrawal of the objection, WBC writes to St Helens Council to request that it takes all practical steps to ensure that the Parkside Link Road is open to traffic prior to any part of the development on the Parkside Phase 1 site being occupied.

6.0 RELEVANT PLANS

45 Extract from applicant’s location plan for Parkside Phase 1 with site shown in red

46 Extract from applicant’s illustrative masterplan for Parkside Phase 1

47 Appendix 1: DMC Report 6th June 2018

48 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE DATE 6th June 2018 ITEM 5

Application Number: 2018/32247

Location: Former Parkside Colliery to the east of the A49, Winwick Road, Newton-le- Willows, WA12 8DB

Ward: Burtonwood and Winwick Development Adjoining Authority Consultation: Outline application (all matters reserved except for access) for the construction of up to 92,900 m2 of employment floorspace (Use Class B8 with ancillary B1(a)) and associated 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

Date Registered: 22-Feb-2018

Applicant: Parkside Regeneration LLP

8/13/16 Week Expiry Date: 14-Mar-2018

Reason for Referral It is considered expedient to refer this matter to DMC as the development to which this application relates is a development of strategic scale Human Rights The relevant provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights have been taken into account in the preparation of this report, particularly the implications arising from the following rights:- Article 8 - The right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence. Article 1 of Protocol 1 - The right of peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property.

Proposal The application site is wholly within the St Helens administrative area – and in wholly a matter for St Helens to determine.

The current proposal with St Helens is for Phase 1 of the wider Parkside proposals. Warrington Borough Council have been consulted as an adjoining authority. The proposals for the Parkside regeneration about the boundary with Warrington Borough in the vicinity of Newton Road; Hermitage Green and the M6 motorway near junction 22:-

An application for full planning permission has been submitted to Warrington Borough Council for our determination, which will be the subject to a separate report to DMC in due course for:- 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. Background Phase 1 of the proposals at the former Parkside Colliery, are intended to be complete during 2020, and Phase 2 by 2024. The later Strategic Rail Freight Interchange is targeted to be operational by 2030. The emerging St Helens Local Plan for the period 2018-2033 allocates the whole site for strategic development:-

50 Based on the emerging St Helens Local Plan, the land for the Parkside strategic site would be removed from Green Belt and allocated for employment. Planning Policies National Planning Policy Framework To be referred to as a whole Local Plan Core Strategy Strategic policies in the Warrington Local Plan Core Strategy are generally supportive of economic development in adjoining Boroughs and beyond. Supplementary Planning Documents Design and Construction Environmental Protection Standards for Parking in New Development Consultation Responses WBC Highways – Object – Appendix 1 below. Notification Responses Ward Councillor (s) – Cllr C Mitchell

- Not opposed to development in the footprint of the old colliery - In light of the historic battlefield status we are opposed to any development of the green belt on the site - We are totally opposed to a strategic rail freight interchange on the site - We are opposed to any development of the site unless the link road is put in first - concern that the link road will simply open up the whole site for development, which will completely change the character of Winwick. Since the site has been designated as a battlefield, I share those concerns

Parish Councils– Objections from Culcheth & Glazebury Parish Council and from Croft Parish Council - Appendix 2 below Neighbours – Neighbours have been directed to submit any comments directly to St Helens, and it is understood that many have done so. The consultation by St Helens has been advertised locally, within Warrington Borough. Observations Principle The wider Parkside site was allocated by the North West Regional Spatial Strategy and in the adopted St Helens Core Strategy, as a location for development of a strategic rail freight interchange. In the emerging St Helens New Local Plan 2018-2033, the site is again identified as a strategic employment site. The Parkside proposal is considered to be generally consistent with the strategy in the Warrington Local Plan Core Strategy to unlock economic development in the wider region. Our Core Strategy sets out that the development strategy for Warrington complements the strategies of neighbouring authorities through the Duty to Cooperate. In a response to the new St Helens Local Plan 2018-2033, made in January 2017, Warrington expressed the view that WBC is supportive of the principle of the Parkside Strategic Employment Development – but that there are potentially significant highways and environmental impacts for Warrington residents, if traffic from Parkside uses Warrington’s local road network to access the motorway network. WBC will therefore seek to ensure that the increase in traffic using Warrington’s local road network is minimised and the Council will require a comprehensive mitigation package to be delivered to offset any negative impacts on Warrington. Warrington welcomes the explicit safeguard in the Plan that the amount of development achievable at Parkside will be determined following a comprehensive transport assessment to be produced in liaison with St Helens and WBC. Recommendation

52 That Warrington Borough Council do not object to the principle of the proposed development and request that St Helens Council determine the application at Parkside in accordance with the following:- i) The Development Plan in force in their area ii) The National Planning Policy Framework and any successor document iii) All representations made by Members of Parliament; elected members of either Borough Council; any parish council and any other interested persons including residents iv) The detailed views of Warrington Borough Council’s Highways team, and other representations as set out in this report v) The detailed means and mechanisms, including Section 106 Planning Obligations and conditions, to mitigate the potentially negative or adverse environmental and other impacts of the proposed development vi) To only refuse planning permission where any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrable outweigh the potential benefits vii) Any other material considerations

Recommendation No Objections

APPENDIX 1 – RESPONSE FROM WBC HIGHWAYS

The following was conveyed to St Helens on 28th February 2018:- A Highways Objection is raised for the following reasons: The application is not supported by sufficient information to demonstrate that the proposed development will not be prejudicial to the satisfactory functioning of the highway network within Warrington. This is contrary to Policies CS1, MP1, MP5 and MP7 of Warrington’s Local Plan Core Strategy and the aims and principles of the National Planning Policy Framework. Comments: The application is outline (with all matters except for access reserved) for the construction of up to 92,900sq.m. of B8 use, including ancillary B1(a) use, on the site of the former Parkside Colliery off Winwick Road in St Helens. The application is contained within St Helens, however, the highway impacts of the development are heavily focussed on the highway network within Warrington. The application is accompanied by a Transport Assessment (TA) but it is considered that the document has a number of deficiencies and omissions that need to be addressed before a satisfactory assessment of the impact of the proposal on the highway network can be provided. Highway Safety It would appear that a number of the study junctions with Warrington have not been assessed in respect of the impact on highway safety; namely the A49 Newton Road/Hollins Lane and Junction 9 A49/M62. No raw data for these locations has been provided whilst the overall commentary within the Highway Safety Section of the TA is very brief. It is considered that additional information is required in this respect. For the avoidance of doubt the accident analysis should include all of the study area within Warrington, junctions and links. Base Data and Assessment The assessment of the proposal is based on base data collated in 2015 and 2017, however, it does not appear that this data has been provided; this should be addressed. Traffic growth has been estimated via TEMPRO, however, confirmation is required that the figures have not been used in isolation but have been used to weight NTM data; full calculations and assumptions should be provided. Committed developments included in the assessment do not include the development at Peel Hall, Warrington (ref: 2016/28492) for a new mixed use neighbourhood comprising 1200 dwellings, a local centre and various uses including A1-A5, B1, C2, D1, restaurant/pub and primary school. This proposal is to be subject of a Public

54 Inquiry in April 2018 and should it progress will have a significant impact on roads within the study area.

Although the TA highlights the number of anticipated movements associated with the development it does not include the specific trip rates; these should be provided for clarity. Although trip distribution based on census data is acceptable in principle, the scale and nature of the development combined with the lack of similar facilities in the area has the potential to create significant new distribution patterns. Further information is required in respect of the information provided and the assumptions made. The principle of heavy goods vehicle distribution being based on proportional observed movements is acceptable in principle but no raw data is evident and further information with associated narrative is required. It is noted that St Helens Council have concerns over potential HGV movements northbound and, given the nature of those routes, it may be that further action could be taken by Council to restrict movements. In view of this it is considered that sensitivity testing/comment should be carried out distributing all HGV traffic via Warrington’s road network. The traffic distribution diagrams within the appendices omit a number of information scenarios, e.g. committed development and proposed development traffic, whilst the diagrams are not independently annotated; additional flow diagrams are required and should be clearly titled. Highway Impact and Mitigation It would appear that not all of the capacity assessment outputs have been provided in the appendices; none of the outputs that include mitigation proposals appear to be available. All junction/network capacity assessment outputs should be made available for review. (Clarification is also required that the outputs relate to the development proposals as the titles appear to reference Parkside Link Road). There are some queries in respect of the assessment outputs summarised in the main body of the TA as they appear to show improvements to the operation of certain arms as a result of the development (without mitigation), e.g. WA1 – A49 northern entry, and any such instances should include an explanation. Any mitigation proposals that involve junction improvements on Warrington’s network require Stage 1 Road Safety Audits; all of the routes affected are strategically important and any alterations need to be fully assessed. Further comment on the acceptability of the mitigation proposals will follow. It should be noted that Policy MP7 of Warrington’s Local Plan Core Strategy requires that any necessary transport infrastructure be in place prior to the related development being used or occupied and clarification is sought from both the Planning Authority and the applicant as to how the implementation of mitigation works will be secured. It is anticipated that Warrington Council should be party to a S106 Agreement securing the works.

55 There is a specific query in respect of the wording of paragraph 8.7.4 in that it indicates that information is being withheld. All data and information available that has been used in the assessment of the scheme should be made available.

Further information is required in respect of the cumulative impacts assessment and the SATURN outputs provided. The outputs are difficult to interpret due to the lack of labelling identifying which links are represented. The results shown in the detailed capacity assessment summaries of the study junctions also raise some significant queries, e.g. why the introduction of the Parkside Link Road has such a significant impact on certain arms of WA1 - M62 J9 and WA2 – Delph Lane and WA6 – Myddleton Lane. It is suggested that the SATURN Model data collection, validation and forecasting reports should be provided for detailed assessment. Until the above issues are addressed there is no Highway Authority support for the proposal and an objection is raised. Notwithstanding the above comments it is understood that Wigan Council have recently implemented an experimental Order restricting heavy goods vehicle movements on routes that may be affected by traffic generated by the Parkside development proposals and clarification is sought as to whether this has been taken into consideration when assessing the proposals.

APPENDIX 2 – OBJECTION FROM CULCHETH & GLAZEBURY AND FROM CROFT PARISH COUNCILS

1 Introduction This objection has been developed and agreed by Culcheth and Glazebury, and Croft Parish Councils as their response to St Helens Planning Application P/2018/0249/FUL. It is based on the application documents available up on the planning website to 1 May 2018 and the extensive knowledge of people who live and work in the area. We expect that further information will be provided by the applicant in due course and would like the opportunity to comment further as the scheme develops. This follows our objection to the application for what is described as ‘Parkside Phase 1’ and many of the same grounds apply. However, this is different as it is a piece of enabling development that is specifically designed to allow development of land to the east and west of the M6 that is currently Green Belt and for which there has been no proper independent consideration in public as to whether it should be removed from the Green Belt or developed at all. Granting consent for piecemeal development such as the proposed link road is premature and will prejudice proper overall future planning for this important Green Belt area including any potential to provide rail access as part of a future Strategic Rail Freight Interchange (SRFI). The scheme may initially provide some relief to some roads, but this will be temporary as induced traffic, traffic generated by new development on land currently Green Belt to the east and west of the M6, and entrenchment of car-dependency will quickly return traffic to former levels and higher. We think that this application should either be refused or be called in for a joint Public Inquiry with the related application at Parkside Phase 1, as cumulatively the related planning applications and other proposals for logistics development in St Helens, Wigan and Warrington are of regional significance and it only through this route that they can be considered together. We feel that the strong support of St Helens Council and involvement in a joint development venture means that as a planning authority they cannot take an objective view when determining this planning application. The link road will generate large volumes of traffic that would cause congestion on the strategic road network, and during the increasingly frequent times of disruption would cause the country lanes and communities to the north of Warrington such as Croft, Culcheth and Glazebury to be overwhelmed by traffic including HGVs with associated dangers of noise, pollution, severance and traffic danger. It would fundamentally change the local communities around the north of Warrington by encouraging and enabling development of large areas of Green Belt that currently support urban regeneration and prevent neighbouring communities from merging. For the avoidance of doubt, the Parish Councils oppose Parkside phase 1 and 2, and the SRFI, but feel that Parkside area needs to be considered as a whole site and its future planned accordingly.

57 We would welcome discussions with the Warrington and St Helens as local planning and highway authorities over traffic issues and their potential resolution, as well as planning a positive way forward for the area. 2 Summary of objection • Green Belt. The land is designated Green Belt. The St Helens Local Plan is at an early stage of preparation and both Government guidance and case law suggests that the potential allocation in this plan and the desire of the local planning authority to remove the land from Green Belt must be given very little weight in the decision-making process. Given the link road is intended to enable construction of distribution warehouses (with a low number of low paid and low-skilled jobs estimated at 100 new jobs for Parkside Phase 1), the scheme cannot possibly meet the very high bar of ‘very special circumstances’ that are needed to justify a development in the Green Belt. • Planning guidance. The link road does not conform to National Planning Policy Guidance, or local planning policies. The development is not ‘plan led’, support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate, contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural environment and reducing pollution or actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling. • Transport Assessment. The Transport Assessment, and the response by St Helens as Local Highway Authority is seriously deficient in several areas. The effects on local communities to the north of Warrington, particularly at the times of frequent disruption to the Strategic Road Network are not assessed but will be negative. It is hard to understand what the assessment email from St Helens is means. The treatment of sustainable travel is inadequate. The proposed cycle and walking facilities are unsatisfactory, and public transport provision non-existent. The 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 neither independent nor objective as required by European Directive and UK legislation. The assessment of the effects of the scheme in the ES is cursory and limited to direct effects There are key deficiencies. It does not consider properly: o Climate change gas emissions, despite this being a key environmental effect of the new link road, and a serious national issue. o Air quality o Any alternative to building a link road – it merely considers different alignments. o Development or Transport Planning Objectives. Other objectives are important, enshrined in Government and local policy and should be considered: o The landscape assessment concentrates on static views and ignores the effect on travellers, environmental noise barriers along the section of the proposed dual carriageway at the A579 and light pollution/intrusion. o Entrenchment of car dependency and unhealthy lifestyles • Battle of Winwick (1648). This is a Registered Historic Battlefield It is essential that a proper, detailed investigation and report on the battlefield and its significance is produced so that a proper scheme of mitigation,

58 conservation, interpretation can be produced, and the scheme designed and modified to take these into account. Currently there is not enough information to determine if there is a significant effect on this important heritage asset. 3 Green Belt The whole application site including the 400m of route through the Warrington Borough Council area is designated Green Belt. Mining and associated activity at Parkside was allowed through a special license and there was a clear understanding when the colliery was approved that the land remained Green Belt through mining activity, and that it should be restored to a land-use compatible with its Green Belt designation when coal-related activity ceased. The preferred use at the time was agriculture, although now other uses could be compatible with Green Belt designation. A new road intended to facilitate development of greenfield and Green Belt land is not compatible with the current Green Belt designation. The St Helens Local Plan is at an early stage of preparation and both Government guidance and case law are clear that the potential allocation in this plan and the desire to remove the land from Green Belt must be given ‘very little weight in the decision-making process’. Re-designation of the land has not been through any kind of examination as to its suitability or soundness, has not been accepted as passing the ‘Duty to Cooperate’ and has not been agreed as sound by Government. The purposes of Green Belt are:

• to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; • 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 recycling of derelict and other urban land. The link road is specifically intended to create additional urbanisation on the edge of Newton-le-Willows, so would contravene first purpose. It would enable the removal of a large part of the open land between Winwick and Newton, so would also contravene the second and third purposes. The fourth purpose is not relevant in St Helens, and by providing an ‘easy site’ for logistics, it would hinder the overall regeneration of nearby urban communities. A development designed to encourage a logistics warehouse ‘Shedscape’ by the edge of a motorway is not ‘urban regeneration’. 4 Planning policy National Planning Policy Guidance NPPF sets out 12 core planning principles. The development contravenes five of these:

• Be genuinely plan-led. The land is currently Green Belt, and while St Helens have taken initial steps to attempt to take the land out of the Green Belt, the emerging plan has not been subject to any kind of examination in public, or public inquiry, and therefore the weight attached to any new planning policies must be very low. For the developer and the Council (as a development partner) to act as if the land has already been taken out of the Green Belt is the complete opposite to being ‘genuinely plan-led’. For instance, in Transport Assessment section 8.1, it is implied that the that the St Helens Local Plan suggests the development is ‘in line with NPPF’. In fact,

59 while St Helens has adopted a Core Strategy, it does not have any other up to date planning documents and therefore does not have an up to date local plan. • Support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate – no assessment has been made of the climate change implications of the development. Given the road-based nature of phase 1, and the current total reliance on fossil-fuelled transport, any objective assessment would show that it fails this principle. • Contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural environment and reducing pollution – the development will directly lead to the destruction of an area (the former Parkside Colliery) that is largely green, and partly greenfield, and will open a currently green and Green Belt area east of the M6 to further development. It is hard to see how this is ‘conserving and enhancing the natural environment’. • Actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling, and focus significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable; The development as currently configured is wholly road-based, and only token efforts have been made to encourage public transport, walking or cycling. This is examined in more detail in a separate section. • Take account of and support strategies to improve health, social and cultural wellbeing; the layout and nature of the development will deter walking and cycling, is in an area with only slow, poor quality bus services and the inevitable increase car-dependency will therefore harm heath. The destruction of Winwick Battlefield will actively harm the cultural well-being in the area by damaging a site that gives meaning and identity to the area. The developer suggests that employment provided will increase social wellbeing. But most of the jobs create will be poor paid and unskilled, potentially relocated from other, equally poor areas, and in any case most other authorities in the Greater Manchester and Merseyside areas are chasing the same logistics jobs. This is a race to the bottom that St Helens may win, but only at the expense of entrenching low skills and low pay in the local economy. Regional Planning Policy The Planning Statement quotes the 2008 North West Regional Spatial Strategy in support of the scheme. For the avoidance of doubt, these were revoked in 2012, and have not been a material planning consideration for six years. In any case, RPP policy (RT8) encouraged a rail-based development which is not part of this application. Local Planning Policy St Helens have completed consultation on a first draft of a new Local Plan 2018, but the plan is at an early stage, and can only be given very little weight in decision making. The whole of the former Parkside Colliery site, and the land covered by this application to the east of the M6 remain Green Belt. The application therefore must be tested against existing Green Belt policies. The Planning Statement suggests that ‘through previous and extant Local Plan allocations, the redundant colliery has been found to be a suitable site for large scale employment use’. This is not actually the case. The site is not allocated for large scale employment, or indeed any other use, and it is currently Green Belt. No

60 planning application to develop the site has been successful, and several previous proposals have been withdrawn as it became clear that they had both fundamental flaws, and no realistic chance of gaining planning consent. The Planning Statement also suggests that large scale employment use has never materialised ’due to a number of factors (including but not limited to; the recession, market uncertainty, revocation of the RSS and draft emerging policy)’. In fact, while these might be reasons why a planning consent does not get implemented, employment proposals have never been given consent, so that the reasons given in the Planning Statement for non-development are irrelevant. It is suggested that without the link road, the SRFI cannot be delivered. The current proposal is only for a road (and road-based development as part of the separate Parkside phase 1 planning application. If there was genuinely a link, then the SRFI would be either part of this application, or presented as a sister application It is no secret that rail investment is in turmoil. Escalating costs have made many previously confirmed schemes (such as TransPennine electrification) unaffordable. It is hard to envisage that investment will be found to connect the site to the national rail network and to provide the essential additional capacity needed on the very busy West Coast and TransPennine rail routes. The only conclusion can be being that a rail connection and the SRFI are not part of the current plan, and rail is merely a greenwash to give a spurious sustainable feel to what is essential just another road- based development in the Green Belt that will encourage additional traffic. Even if the draft local plan policies as envisaged by St Helens are subject to a re- consultation, examination in public, confirmed by the Government and survive any legal challenge, then draft Policy CSS 1 only supports a scheme with a significant rail element. The current link road proposal would fail this test. 5 Transport Assessment The Transport Assessment, and the response by St Helens as Local Highway Authority is seriously deficient in several areas. St Helens ‘response’ to Transport Assessment An email dated 25 April (from Fiona Soutar) appears to be the only response so far from St Helens as local highway authority. It runs to just four pages, which suggests a superficial level of analysis. There is no review by an independent body. The text is hard to follow. It states: ‘Notwithstanding, as previously identified, the application is for a link road only; it is not within the realms of the current application to mitigate against the impact of committed developments, only the impact of its own development. An assessment needs to be included within the Transport Assessment to identify the impact of the proposed link road alone on the surrounding highway network, rather than with Parkside Phases 1, 2 and 3.’ And: ‘Whilst it is accepted that Parkside may be considered as a committed development, it is not within the realms of the link road to mitigate against the impact of these committed developments on the surrounding highway network. The link road is only required to mitigate against the impact of trips generated by the proposed link road on the surrounding highway network.’

61 It is not clear what these paragraphs mean? If they mean that the effects of the development that the new road is specifically intended to enable and encourage, and which would not happen without the link road should not be considered as part of the current application process, then it is wrong. It is important that the view of St Helens as local highway authority is considered, complete and comprehensible, otherwise consideration of the planning application will be defective. It would help if an independent consultant was appointed to examine the Transport Assessment. Pre-application discussions over highways issues Pre-application discussions were not held with Parish Councils to the north of Warrington; therefore, the concerns of these communities are not reflected in the TA. Effects on local communities to the north of Warrington The study area includes major junctions, including some within the Warrington BC area. But there is an assumption that all traffic associated with the development will stay on strategic links. This is incorrect. The area immediately to the east of the M6 is largely covered by Culcheth and Glazebury, and Croft Parish Council areas. Opportunities for sustainable travel (such as buses, walking and cycling) in the area are sparse, so residents of Culcheth and Glazebury, and Croft are reliant on the network of mostly minor roads to the east of the M6 and north of the M62. Disruption to the SRN (A580, M62 and M6) is frequent and occurs at least several times a month. When this happens, the traffic comes off the motorways and tries to get through the villages by every possible route, filling up all the minor roads in the area. The most severe examples are:

• A574 from Risley through Culcheth and Glazebury to the A580. Vehicles cannot get out onto the A580, which is itself completely jammed by the traffic escaping from the M6. • B5207 from Culcheth to Lane Head (Golborne) has cars backed up to Culcheth village centre. • Kenyon Lane, Stone Pit Lane/Sandy Brow Lane, and Heath Lane/Mustard Lane from Lane Head to Winwick/Birchwood via Kenyon and Croft, with static queues in both these communities. The vehicles cutting through include heavy goods vehicles. Given the pressure on drivers, and the increasing trend towards ‘just in time’ logistics deliveries, unless enforcement was very heavy handed, a weight restriction on local roads to prevent HGV traffic would be ineffective. Disruption on SRN is bound to increase if the development is granted planning consent. The effects on the minor roads and communities are severe, and this will get worse.

Sustainable travel Public Transport The consideration of public transport to serve the new development that will be enabled by the new link road seems to be limited to a list of existing bus services in

62 the area. It is not clear if any buses would or are intended to use the new link road to serve development, or other routes. The plans show no bus stops or opportunity for stopping, turning or even laying over. The implication is that everyone will drive, and that public transport at least has not been considered as part of the scheme.

Cycle facilities The developer suggests that ‘a pedestrian / cycle route will be provided adjacent to all new sections of road, except for Winwick Lane North where there is no existing pedestrian or cycling facility. Full details are not available, but the submitted plans suggest that pedestrians and cyclists will need to:

• Share an unsegregated 2.5m path. • give away at all the junctions • Required to navigate complex roundabouts.

None of these are acceptable. The key design criteria for successful and effective cycling infrastructure are safety, coherence, directness, attractiveness and comfort. It is remarkable, that in their design for cycles, the development manages to contravene all these principles as shown in the table below.

Design Criteria How does the development perform? Meets criteria

safety Cycles and pedestrians to share same path. Will No have to cross against heavy goods traffic. Some advanced stop lines for cyclists?

coherence Give way to heavy lorries and general traffic at all No junctions. Not easy to navigate. No obvious links at either end

directness Use of suggested shared cycle/footway far less No direct than road

attractiveness Alongside route with heavy traffic. Lighting No proposed

comfort Frequent stopping and starting No

Given these disadvantages, it is unlikely any cyclist will choose to use the shared footway/cycle lanes. They are just ‘window dressing’. In the Environmental Statement the developer suggests that ‘The provision of new and improved footways and cycleways will also result in beneficial health effects during operation.’ This is almost laughable. These will be discontinuous, indirect, unpleasant and unsafe, and do not conform to good practice.

Grass Verge? The footway/cycleway does not run the length of the southern side of the proposed link road. It is incredible that the developer considers that with the very large increase in traffic, particularly heavy vehicles that ‘a grass verge’ is suitable, it is not

63 obvious if the developer expects people to walk or cycle along a grass verge, but it is clearly not acceptable. Embedded mitigation The list of embedded mitigation features does not include cycle, walking or sustainable travel in any form. The only conclusion is that these are not considered to be embedded mitigation, and therefore may not happen, even in the inadequate way proposed by the developer. 6 Environmental Impact Assessment The Environmental Statement (ES) is neither independent nor objective as required by European Directive and UK legislation. There are key deficiencies Alternatives The ES does not consider any alternative to building a link road – it merely considers different alignments.

The ‘Do nothing’ scenario’ option considered in the ES is not really a do-nothing – really a do-minimum. A true do nothing would be that neither the link road or Parkside development happens (at least in the currently proposed format). This would clearly generate far less traffic. Less pollution and climate change gas emissions and far less overall effect on local communities. The ES states that that ‘Do Nothing’ option as described in the ES was ‘ruled out by the Applicant’. While this may be the case, it is the role of the EIA process to objectively assess options for their environmental effects, not to simply rule out an option because the promoter does not like it. Development and Transport Planning Objectives The four objectives identified and agreed with SHMBC include enhanced highways access between the Parkside Phases 1 and 2 site and the strategic and the local highway network, Improved connectivity for future commuters who will work at the site, improving the efficiency of freight movements to and from the site, more efficient logistics and development, supporting the Liverpool City Region (LCR) Growth Plan objectives; and optimum alignment of the SRF. It is surprising that these do not include any sustainability or environmental objectives. The seven Transport Planning Objectives (TPOs) that were then defined are essentially confined to accommodating increasing amounts car and lorry traffic, with TPO7 – Improve Pedestrian and Cycling Access very much an afterthought. Other objectives are important, enshrined in Government and local policy and should have been considered:

• Air quality: Meeting national and European objectives on to reduce the number of avoidable deaths, which in the St Helens area includes several hundred avoidable deaths every year • Noise: Similar considerations • Climate Change: Meeting international obligations, national statutory targets and local aspirations for reducing climate change emissions • Green Belt: effect on encouraging further encroachment and pressure for building on designated Green Belt east of the M6 • General sustainability

64 Air Quality The air quality assessment only gives cursory attention to vehicle exhaust emissions. Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) are responsible for several hundred early deaths in St Helens every year. ClientEarth has won several court cases against the Government over its failure to tackle illegal air pollution across the UK. The Government has made it clear that it expects the main action to tackle air pollution to be taken at local level. Both St Helens Air Quality Management Areas (M6 Motorway, and High Street, Newton-le-Willows) are affected by the proposed link road and the development it will enable. St Helens as a borough has taken little or no effective action that would make a measurable improvement to air quality. The assessment of the effects of the scheme in the ES is cursory and limited to direct effects. Just four buildings appear to have air quality benefits. It does not consider the effect of the scheme in generating additional traffic (a well-established and understood phenomenon associated with new roads), or the effects on air quality of enabling car-based development and embedding car and heavy goods vehicle dependency into development patterns. Climate Change The ES Chapter 14 reveals that ‘A quantitative assessment of greenhouse gas emissions has not been undertaken for the construction or operational phases of the Proposed Scheme’ as the ‘The traffic model produced for this environmental assessment was based on fixed demand’. The developer also states that ‘… it is not anticipated that the Proposed Scheme will result in substantive emissions of greenhouse gases.’ and that ‘The Proposed Scheme will facilitate the creation of other developments within the surrounding area, Parkside Phase 2 at the former Parkside Colliery site and SRFI. Any GHG emissions associated with these additional developments should be considered within their respective environmental impact assessments.’ These are unsupported and unjustified statements:

• The new link road will not just re-allocate existing traffic1; it is well- established that new roads (both trunk routes and localised improvements) induce considerable amounts of additional traffic. • An average new road, for which traffic growth due to all other factors is forecast correctly, will see an additional (i.e. induced) 10% of base traffic in the short term and 20% long term. • The link road is specifically designed to enable new development. It is a nonsense to pretend that the effects of the additional traffic should be dealt with when the other schemes are considered. Without the link road, the other development could not exist. • The new link road has the potential to increase climate change emissions both by induced demand, release of supressed demand and by facilitating development that is essential based on cars and heavy goods vehicles. The new link road will be dependent on carbon-based transport. In the assessment horizon for the ES there will be no appreciable shift to decarbonised transport in logistics. Diesel will predominate for logistics, and cars will still emit carbon. The lower paid jobs provided by the development will mainly be accessed by people using older and more polluting diesel and petrol cars. Adoption of electric vehicles is largely confined to second and third cars, and in Greater London.

65 The Government has made a strong commitment to achieving the UK’s climate change targets. The UK was one of the first countries to recognise and act on the economic and security threats of climate change. The Climate Change Act, passed in 2008, committed the UK to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80% by 2050 when compared to 1990 levels. St Helens (and surrounding local authorities) have an opportunity to take a lead by encouraging low-carbon development, but this proposal is the exact opposite.

Landscape assessment The landscape assessment concentrates on static view and concludes that there will be some significant effects. It ignores several significant effects:

• It does not fully assess the impact on travellers. The view from the M6 is becoming increasingly urbanised by a ribbon of sheds spreading across the Strategic Road Network, in St Helens and Wigan but also towards Liverpool and around the M60. This threatens an almost continuous ‘Shedscape’ that blights the entire Liverpool and Manchester City regions. • The proposed ‘environmental noise barriers’ along the section of the proposed dual carriageway at the A579 Winwick Lane’ would remove views and create a tunnel-like effect that will reduce the journey quality and increase driver boredom and fatigue. • Light intrusion. The developer states that ‘Street lighting will also be provided across the whole of the Proposed Scheme.’ This will introduce additional light pollution and urbanisation to a relatively peaceful part of the designated Green Belt. This is inappropriate development. Cumulative effects The ES NTS Table 3.10.2: lists 11 schemes should be considered, all existing planning applications and consents (plus Parkside Phases 1 and 2). It doesn’t but should include:

• Land to the east of M6 which the scheme aims to open for development • Warrington New Town to New City aspirations which would generate a large amount of extra traffic that would head north towards the development • Other speculative development plans such as Peel Hall in north Warrington. A Public Inquiry is under way at the time of writing this objection. If the appeal is successful, then significant amounts of extra traffic will head towards the development Heritage Assets – Winwick Battlefield The site of the Battle of Winwick (1648) is a Registered Historic Battlefield. It has high heritage significance in the form of landscape views, topography and potential for archaeological deposits such as weapons. While some parts of the battlefield are disturbed, much of the area is open and undisturbed with high potential for both conservation and interpretation. The ES suggest that ‘The construction of the Proposed Scheme would not cause any further adverse impact to landscape / topography, and the effect is negligible.’ This is not supported by any evidence either historical or from site investigation and no information has been assembled apart

1 First established in 1994 with the SACTRA report 'Trunk Roads and the Generation of Traffic'. The latest and most authoritative studies into induced traffic are the 2017 reports ‘The Impact of Road Projects in England Report’ by independent consultants TfQL for CPRE, and ‘The End of the Road?’ by CPRE.

66 from that in the Historic Battlefield Register. The statement ‘any disturbance to the landscape within the designated boundary of the historic battlefield will be fully reinstated, where possible ‘, is entirely meaningless. The development runs through, and directly facilitates and encourages development that would affect the battlefield in the following ways:

• Direct destruction of archaeological deposits and other physical evidence • Indirect destruction by encouraging development that would destroy evidence • The open parts of the battlefield site will be urbanised, and all meaning lost • Opportunities for interpretation will be lost The register was introduced after the A14 damaged Naseby Battlefield (another civil war battlefield), and prevention of damage by roads to dispersed battlefield landscapes is precisely the sort of issue that the register is intended to stop. Currently there is not enough information to determine if there is a significant effect on this important heritage asset. It is essential that a proper, detailed investigation and report on the battlefield and its significance is produced so that a proper scheme of mitigation, conservation, interpretation can be produced, and the scheme designed and modified to take these into account.

Appendix 2: St Helens Committee Report for Parkside Phase 1

68 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019

APPLICATION NUMBER: P/2018/0048/OUP PROPOSAL: Outline application (all matters reserved except for access) for the construction of up to 92,900 m2 of employment floorspace (Use Class B8 with ancillary B1(a)) and associated 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 LOCATION: Land Site Of Former Parkside Colliery, Winwick Road Newton Le Willows WARD: Newton Ward APPLICANT: Parkside Regeneration LLP CASE OFFICER: Alan Kilroe RECOMMENDATION: Grant Planning Permission subject to the conditions, completion of an agreement under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Secretary of State not wishing to intervene

1. APPLICATION SITE

1.1 The application site is located to the south east of Newton le Willows. It is an irregular shape and has an area of approximately 47.9 hectares. It lies within the Green Belt.

1.2 The site previously formed part of Parkside Colliery, but that use ceased in the early 1990s. It is currently vacant other than the presence of an access road from the A49, hardstanding, an electricity substation and overhead pylons which run to the south and north east.

1.3 The site is a primarily greenfield with areas of previously developed land (PDL). The PDL comprises the access road which runs east/west through the site and part of the hardstanding of the former pit yard which lies to the north east and centre of the site. The remainder of the site comprises a mixture of rough grassland, scrub, woodland and scattered self seeded trees; a spoil heap is also included to the east of the site.

49 P/2018/0048/OUP 69 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 1.4 The A49 Winwick Road runs to the west of the site. It is a busy road which runs between Junction 23 of the M6 to the north and Junction 9 of the M62 to the south, passing through the village of Winwick (located in Warrington Borough). There are a number of dwellings on the A49 which back on to the site and a housing estate which lies opposite the site access.

1.5 St Oswalds Brook runs along the south of the site in a cutting. There is woodland on each side of the brook with an area of the woodland also being a designated Local Wildlife Site to the eastern end. Hermitage Green Lane runs east/west beyond the brook and there are five dwellings that are located on Hermitage Green Lane.

1.6 To the south east of the site there are agricultural fields and the village of Hermitage Green; the M6 motorway lies beyond these (both are located in Warrington Borough). An area of the former Parkside Colliery yard and an area of rough grassland lies to the east/north east of the site with the M6 motorway separating these areas from open agricultural fields.

1.7 Newton Park Farm (a collection of buildings which includes a Grade II listed barn and manor house) and other areas of the former Parkside Colliery which comprise rough grassland lie to the north. The West Coast Mainline railway abuts the western boundary of the former colliery site and the Liverpool – Manchester railway abuts the northern boundary.

1.8 The south western part of the application site forms part of a Registered Battlefield.

2. PROPOSAL

• The first development cell would be located in the south west of the site. The illustrative plans show that it could accommodate 52,029m2 of floor area, and any building in this area would have a maximum height of 22m. A bund would be located to the west and south of the development cell.

• The second development cell would be located in the south east of the site. The illustrative plan shows that it could accommodate 21,544m2 of floor area, and any building in this area would have a maximum height of 23m. A bund would be located to the south and east of the development cell.

50 P/2018/0048/OUP 70 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 • The third development cell would be located in the north of the site. The illustrative plan shows that it could accommodate 19,123m2 of floor area, and any building in this area would have a maximum height of 23m. A bund would be located to the north and east of the development cell.

2.3 Access would be taken from the A49. A new three armed signalled junction is proposed which is broadly in the same location as the existing access to the site. A right turn ghost island would be provided on the northern and southern arms of the A49 to facilitate turning into the site and minor widening of the A49 would be required to facilitate this.

2.4 An access and circulation parameters plan has been submitted which shows a site road running west/east, including potential accesses into the development cells, and an access road running north/south between the third development cell and electricity substation.

2.5 A green infrastructure parameters plan has been submitted which identifies the location of the bunds as set out above and shows the landscape and mitigation areas throughout the site. The plan also shows a proposed cycleway which would run along the site access roads and a heritage/trim trail which would run along the bunds to the west and south of the site.

2.6 A drainage parameters plan has been submitted which shows the location of drainage ponds between the first and second development cells, and between the site access road and the third development cell. Surface water would drain into St Oswalds Brook at the south west of the site and foul water would drain into a combined sewer under the A49.

2.7 A safeguarded rail parameters plan has been submitted which identifies an area of the site that has been identified for future rail connections associated with a potential future strategic rail freight interchange (SRFI) located to the east of the M6 motorway. The plan shows 1.02 hectares of land in a roughly ‘L’ shaped area to the north east of the site.

2.8 Significant groundworks would be necessary to deliver the proposed development and the application identifies that the proposed site levels would form a cut and fill balancing exercise across the site. An indicative plan has been submitted which shows that in order to create a flat site (notwithstanding the proposed bunds) levels at the south of the site would be raised by up to 4m. Levels at the north of the site would be decreased by up to 4m and an area of the spoil heap to the east of the site would be removed.

2.9 The applicant states that the proposed development would have a three year construction period and would have a significant positive economic benefit for St Helens. They submit that it would provide 457 full time equivalent jobs during construction and 1,330 gross (930 net) jobs during operation.

2.10 The applicant identifies that the proposed development is the first phase of a comprehensive development of the former Parkside Colliery site to help meet the current employment need within the Borough of St Helens.

2.11 The applicant states that the scale of the Phase 1 development is dictated in part by the highway capacity of the A49 corridor. The applicant is

51 P/2018/0048/OUP 71 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 clear that the proposed development does not require the implementation of the Parkside Link Road which is currently being considered under application (P/2018/0249/FUL) to be acceptable in highway terms and the application has been made on the basis of the proposed development being served from the A49 alone.

Supporting Information & Documentation 2.12 The application is accompanied by the following information: • Planning Statement • Design & Access Statement • Alternative Sites Assessment Study • Environmental Statement Non-Technical Summary • Environmental Statement

• Environmental Statement Addendum (including amendments and additional information)

This report contains a summary of the submission, but a full copy is available for review either electronically on the Council’s website and paper copies at the Town Hall.

2.13 The proposed development is a Schedule 2 development under the Town & Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 and an Environmental Statement (ES) accompanies the application. The ES assesses the following matters: Ground Conditions & Contamination, Traffic & Transport, Drainage & Flood Risk, Landscape & Visual Impact, Ecology & Nature Conservation, Socio-Economic, Noise & Vibration, Air Quality Odour & Dust, Cultural Heritage & Archaeology, Utilities, Waste and Energy.

2.14 The ES also considers the cumulative effects of a number of developments in the vicinity of the site and for each chapter, an assessment of the relevant cumulative effects is undertaken.

2.15 The applicant’s case for the planning merits of the development is presented in their Planning Statement. This report will set out the applicant’s case for the planning merits of the development based upon the content of these reports and then present a summary of other principal matters.

Planning Statement

Green Belt 2.16 The applicant’s Planning Statement acknowledges that the proposed development represents a form of inappropriate development in the Green Belt causing ‘definitional harm’ by reason of its inappropriateness, which must be given substantial weight. The applicant identifies that inappropriate development should not be allowed unless very special circumstances exist. An assessment of the harm caused to openness, permanence and the purposes of including land within the Green Belt has also been made in the applicant’s planning statement and is summarised below.

2.17 In terms of the development’s impact on openness, the applicant argues that the site’s previous use along with two 60m high winding towers shows that the site was capable of accommodating large structures and maintaining a Green Belt role. The applicant also submits that the site retains an urbanised legacy with the access point, access road, large

52 P/2018/0048/OUP 72 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 substation, electricity pylons, colliery spoil and the concrete slab all still present on the site. Furthermore, they argue that the colliery spoil mound and raised M6 motorway are defining man made features in the local area that make the site relatively enclosed.

2.18 The applicant acknowledges that the introduction of large floorplate buildings into the site along with significant areas of hardstanding, car and lorry parking and roadways would have an adverse impact on the openness of the Green Belt. However, they consider that the site is visually contained by tree cover to the south, by the colliery spoil to the east and by tree cover and housing to the west. The applicant argues that this would limit the impact of new buildings and structures in terms of visual impact on the locality and serve to contain the development’s impact on openness meaning that it would result in moderate harm.

2.19 With regard to permanence, the applicant notes that it lies within the Green Belt but also identifies that policy CAS3.2 in the Core Strategy accepted that the development of the site for a strategic rail freight interchange could be acceptable whilst it remained in the Green Belt. The applicant argues that this means the Core Strategy supports the principle of both development in the Green Belt and change to the Green Belt boundaries (in the right circumstances) for the development. The applicant also identifies that the emerging Local Plan has deemed that the site could become an employment allocation and hence released from the Green Belt with new long term defensible boundaries created.

2.20 In terms of the purposes of including land within the Green Belt, the applicant argues that the development does not conflict with the purpose of checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas. They acknowledge that the proposals would introduce new development of a significant scale that would extend the built form of Newton le Willows eastwards. However, the applicant submits that the strong physical boundaries of the site would limit the effect of any sprawl.

2.21 The applicant believes that the proposed development would not have any impact on the purpose of preventing neighbouring towns merging into one another. They note that the nearest settlements are Winwick village to the south and Lowton to the north east. The boundaries of the application site are a significant distance from those settlements and other towns.

2.22 The applicant argues that the proposed development would not lead to encroachment of built development into the countryside. Rather as previously developed land within a wider swathe of countryside, they consider that the redevelopment of the application site will help to meet identified development needs and hence preclude the need to bring forward other sites that may result in encroachment into the countryside. The applicant therefore argues that the proposed development would contribute positively to this purpose by utilising previously developed land ahead of open countryside.

2.23 There are no historic towns in the vicinity of the application site so the applicant submits that the proposed development would not conflict with the purpose of preserving the setting and special character of historic towns.

2.24 The applicant identifies that the application site is in part previously developed land and that as derelict land it can therefore be recycled for a positive economic use assisting directly in urban regeneration. The applicant therefore argues that the proposed development would positively assist urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

53 P/2018/0048/OUP 73 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 2.25 The applicant notes that substantial weight should be given to any harm caused to the Green Belt and acknowledges that very special circumstances will not exist unless the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

Very special circumstances 2.26 The applicant’s case of very special circumstances is set out in their Planning Statement, it comprises seven strands: • Policy support for the development • Need • Whether the site is suitable/deliverable • The lack of other sites to meet the need • Economic benefits of the proposal • Social benefits of the proposal • Environmental benefits of the proposal

The applicant’s case with respect to each of these matters is set out below.

Policy support for the development 2.27 The applicant submits that both the Unitary Development Plan and the Core Strategy seek to facilitate economic growth to address the significant levels of depravation and joblessness in the Borough of St Helens. In the Core Strategy, the significance of Parkside is evident.

2.28 The applicant notes that since the adoption of the Core Strategy, there has been a key change in the Liverpool City Region (LCR) where the importance of Superport and Liverpool2 have identified a significant economic multiplier that has formed the basis of the LCR Growth Strategy within which Parkside is identified as a key strategic site that in itself will be an economic multiplier. The City Region identifies a need of around 800 hectares (ha) of land, 100ha of which is at Parkside. From this, St Helens Council have identified a need for 174-214ha of land which is not a ceiling figure.

2.29 The applicant argues that the current adopted plans seek to promote economic development, but that the new evidence base provides an impetus to take this further and at a much greater rate. The applicant states that this is consistent with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which in its economic objective seeks to build a strong, responsive and competitive economy. They note that the NPPF requires that significant weight is placed on the need to support economic growth and requires planning decisions to recognise and address the specific locational requirements of different sectors including storage and distribution.

2.30 The applicant argues that in this context it is important to note the problems of deprivation and joblessness that remain in the Borough of St Helens (including the town of Newton-le-Willows and Earlestown). They submit that the opportunities provided by sites such as Parkside are economic multipliers as they are strategically located to be attractive to regional and national employment/logistics operators. They argue that neighbouring authorities such as Warrington have supported logistics buildings along the M62 corridor, but due to the restriction of the Green Belt in the Borough of St Helens these opportunities have not been forthcoming. Whilst other sites in the urban area could provide employment development, unless they are located in the appropriate location they will remain attractive only to local businesses. The

54 P/2018/0048/OUP 74 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 applicant submits that sites that are capable of accommodating larger units close to the motorway are therefore vital to meet exponential growth requirements in accordance with the NPPF.

2.31 The applicant states that St Helens Council now recognises the need to plan positively for economic growth for the benefit of the Borough and to capture the economic benefits of the logistics industry. They argue that there is an established economic policy requirement which has now grown significantly and that the application proposals are submitted in the context of a national, regional and local requirement. They conclude that this policy support for employment development is a significant material planning consideration in favour of the proposals which should be given significant weight.

Need 2.32 The applicant notes that the application is made in the context of a considerable shift in economic evidence that is informing the emerging Local Plan for the Borough of St Helens which identifies that there is a substantially greater need for employment development than the Core Strategy identifies. The applicant states that the Local Plan is at an early stage so may only be afforded limited weight, but argues that the evidence base that informs it is highly material.

2.33 The applicant has submitted a Market Report from October 2018 which they say sets out the economic need and market demand for the proposed development at Parkside. The applicant states that the report identifies:

• Significant take up over the last 3 years and on-going high occupational demand which has meant the steady uptake of readily available development sites and existing buildings. • Large occupiers are now struggling to find ‘oven ready’ sites to accommodate their expansion in the Borough of St Helens. • The growing imbalance between a chronic lack of supply and high demand is also affecting small to medium sized occupiers and hindering their growth plans which stifles potential economic growth. • High quality industrial, advanced manufacturing and logistics uses generate significant long term employment. • The additional benefit would see manufacturing/logistics operators act as a catalyst for urban regeneration being integral to creating a well-balanced community with a mix of complimentary uses (residential, retail, educational and amenity). • The Parkside site has the ability of to create the critical mass required to attract complimentary businesses.

2.34 The applicant argues that the need for economic development is particularly evident in the logistics sector. They say that logistics is a key growth sector which is attractive to the investment market and note that the supply of large footplate units in the North West dropped markedly towards the end of 2016 with vacancy rates less than 4%.

2.35 The applicant identifies that the LCR has produced a Growth Strategy that seeks the creation of over 100,000 additional jobs in the City Region by

55 P/2018/0048/OUP 75 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 2040 with a net increase of 20,000 businesses across the same period. Parkside is identified as a site that is key to the delivery of a logistics hub project. The applicant identifies that the Government’s Northern Powerhouse Strategy explains how the Government will work with local stakeholders to address key barriers to productivity in the region. The applicant submits that the proposed development will make an important contribution to the Northern Powerhouse by bringing about the economic revitalisation of the former Parkside Colliery site for logistics use. They argue that the logistics sector is seen as a key enabler of growth for other sectors in the North, and predicts that the logistics sector’s economic productivity is projected to grow by 83% between 2013 and 2035.

2.36 The Core Strategy was adopted in 2012, but the applicant states that since then the take up of employment land has been slow (2.37ha between 2012 and 2016) and there has been a net loss of 34.96ha to other uses. The applicant submits that this is indicative of a lack of quality sites to meet market demand. The Council previously identified that the Core Strategy requirements had not been met and that even with identified land, the land is clearly not of interest to the market.

2.37 The applicant notes that in the same time period, the North West has seen significant interest in large warehouse space and the supply of this is becoming increasingly limited. In this context, the applicant identifies that the Council commissioned studies to inform the preparation of the new Local Plan. The applicant notes that it became evident that the influence of Superport and Liverpool2 was greater than previously considered. The studies identified that net employment land take up in the Borough of St Helens was low (around 1.29ha per annum between 2008-15) and in this context, the demand for B8 logistics floor space was significant with an ‘acute shortage of available, quality industrial accommodation across all size parameters in the North West’.

2.38 The applicant submits that the evidence highlights a restricted supply of sites with potential for larger floorplates, particularly Grade A space within the Borough of St Helens and identifies the former Parkside Colliery as the single largest potential economic development site in the Borough. The applicant states that the Superport and Parkside projects are considered to have the potential to increase demand for employment land in the region, including the Borough of St Helens particularly for B8 and B2 uses. Accounting for the potential uplift in employment land demand due to these major projects, it is predicted that St Helens would have an employment land requirement of 177-214ha between 2012 and 2037.

2.39 The applicant submits that this demonstrates a need for significant economic growth in the Borough of St Helens to address demand in the city region and also the economic disadvantage in the Borough. The applicant believes that in order to meet this need, given the proportion of the Borough allocated as Green Belt and lack of available and suitable sites in the Borough, there is a need to develop land that lies within the Green Belt.

2.40 The applicant notes that the former Parkside Colliery site has already been identified as a development site for large scale logistics in the Core Strategy and the proposals to bring forward part of the site would provide a catalyst for delivery of the wider colliery site.

56 P/2018/0048/OUP 76 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 2.41 The applicant argues that the need for employment sites in the Borough is a significant material consideration in favour of the proposals and should be given significant weight.

Whether the site is suitable/deliverable 2.42 The applicant states that the Council has been clear in supporting and applying the minimum search criteria for large scale logistics developments. They submit that this has led to the conclusion that there are no suitable or deliverable sites for the large floorplate buildings that are required to transform the Borough of St Helens’ economy that are not in the Green Belt. The applicant identifies that the Council’s evidence base refers to the ‘zero provision’ of suitable land in the urban area.

2.43 The applicant says that the Parkside site scores strongly against the Council’s criteria; it will provide 47.9ha of land so is over 5 hectares and would be capable of accommodating more than one unit of over 50,000m2. The applicant notes that the site is close to both the M6 and M62 and is linked by the A49 which was once the primary route through the area. The site is close to a population centre and allows for regular, large and level plots to be formed.

2.44 The applicant argues that the site is deliverable and being promoted by a Joint Venture company whose sole purpose is to deliver development at Parkside Colliery. They believe that the suitability and deliverability of the site is a significant material consideration in favour of the proposals and should be given significant weight in favour of the proposals.

Lack of other sites to meet the need 2.45 The applicant identifies that the evidence base for the Council’s Submission Draft Local Plan has assessed the availability of other sites to meet the need for employment land and concluded that there are no existing urban sites to meet the need; that Green Belt change is therefore justified; and that Parkside is one of only three strategic opportunities to meet that need.

2.46 The applicant has also undertaken an assessment of other potential sites which could accommodate the proposed development in whole or in part and reported the results in the Alternative Sites Assessment Study (ASAS) which accompanies this application. The ASAS primarily considers whether there are sites that are deliverable to meet the scale of needs accommodated within the proposed development. However, for robustness it also considers the scope for disaggregation based upon the minimum unit size of 13,935m2 proposed by the applicant.

2.47 The ASAS limits the area of search to land within the Borough of St Helens because the proposed development would meet a need which has been identified within the Borough. The ASAS reviewed the following sources of supply to determine what sites are available:

• Sites with planning permission for employment purposes • Allocated employment sites within the adopted development plan • Sites that have been promoted as part of the Local Plan • Sites listed in the Review of Employment Land Study in St Helens to 2027 (2011) (as reported in the EEBP)

57 P/2018/0048/OUP 77 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 2.48 The applicant then undertook a three stage process to determine whether there were any other suitable sites. Firstly the ASAS identifies a number of minimum parameters which would determine whether a site would be attractive to the market. The applicant has used the criteria set out below which they submit are based upon the Council’s Local Plan evidence base:

• Minimum site area of 5ha • Whether there is access to the motorway network within 2.5km • Whether the site has good access to ‘A’ roads with good linkages to the motorway network • Whether the site has good public transport access • Separation from adjacent sensitive uses

Notwithstanding the above, the ASAS considers sites of 3.7ha or more rather than 5ha or more to identify whether there is any deliverable opportunity to accommodate the smallest component of the application site outside of the Green Belt.

2.49 Secondly the ASAS considers the suitability of the remaining sites in terms of the following potential constraints:

• Whether the site is a regular shape able to fit a rectangular logistics building with a minimum footplate of 13,935m2 • The proximity of the site to a settlement to enable access for a local workforce • Whether the site can provide sufficient space for development platforms to accommodate large footplate units • Whether the site lies within a flood zone

2.50 Finally, the ASAS considers the degree to which the remaining sites conflict with the purposes of including land within the Green Belt as set out below:

• To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas • To prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another • To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment • To assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

2.51 The applicant states that a total of twenty seven sites were identified, but that no sites within the urban area made it past stage two of the ASAS assessment. There were nine sites which made it to stage three, but none performed as well as the Parkside site. The applicant therefore concludes that there are no other available, suitable or deliverable sites to meet the scale of need identified in the Council’s Submission Draft Local Plan. They therefore believe that Green Belt change is justified to meet that need and that Parkside forms part of a limited number of sites which are all necessary to meet that need. They submit that this is a significant material planning consideration in favour of the proposals.

Economic benefits of the proposal 2.52 The applicant submits that the proposed development would have a significant positive economic benefit for the Borough of St Helens. In their planning statement, the applicant states that there would be the provision of

58 P/2018/0048/OUP 78 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 457 full time equivalent (FTE) jobs during construction and 1,330 (930 net) additional jobs during operation. The applicant states that the number of jobs quoted are based upon nationally recognised formulae that are fully evidenced. There would also be significant opportunities for skills and training through working with the Council, Chamber and College to target areas of joblessness. The development would create a net additional £80 million to the value of goods and services produced in the area, would bring a site of historic significant economic activity back into economic use and would open up the potential for the wider employment re-development of the Parkside site.

2.53 Further to the job figures presented in the planning statement, the applicant has also provided figures (presented in the table below) relating to employment at Omega which was provided by their consultants JLL. They do not include seasonal increases, which could add 40% more jobs for the period October to early January. The applicant submits that on the basis of the Omega job figures presented, it is likely that the number of jobs presented in the planning statement are conservative. They state that if the same floor space to jobs ratio is applied, the Parkside development would be predicted to generate 1669 jobs.

2.54 The applicant submits that the development would have a beneficial economic effect on the locality in terms of additional expenditure in Newton-le- Willows and the potential ‘multiplier effect’ with opportunities for small-medium sized enterprises (businesses with fewer than 250 employees) and other smaller operations to become part of a supply chain for future occupiers. The applicant believes that the economic benefits of the proposal are a significant material planning consideration in favour of the proposals and that they should be given significant weight.

Social benefits of the proposal 2.55 The applicant submits that the development will create significant jobs and skills opportunities in the town of Newton-le-Willows and Earlestown as

59 P/2018/0048/OUP 79 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 well as the wider authority area, there will also be benefits to the wider City Region and neighbouring authorities. They identify that the Borough of St Helens has a number of areas that are poorly ranked in the national indices of multiple deprivation with some of the most deprived areas in Newton-le-Willows and Earlestown which are in close proximity to the application site.

2.56 The applicant states that they are working to implement a local employment strategy to work with local partners to maximise local recruitment. The applicant says that they intend to work with partners during construction to encourage the provision of suitable training opportunities during construction and future operation through identifying work placement and apprenticeships in conjunction with local training providers.

2.57 The applicant notes that depravation is part of a wider need for regeneration so the need for skills and training provision cannot be fully overcome by the Parkside scheme. However, they say that the development can make a significant contribution to such provision for the benefit of the local area.

2.58 In addition to jobs, the proposed development would bring forward an area of dereliction for positive redevelopment which will catalyse the regeneration of the area, and deliver public access to areas of greenspace and heritage interpretation.

2.59 The applicant believes that the social benefits outlined above are a significant material planning consideration in favour of the proposals.

Environmental benefits of the proposal 2.60 The applicant accepts that part of the site is not previously developed land, however, they submit that the proposed development would bring into use a significant area of land that has been previously developed as part of the former colliery and has been derelict for a number of years.

2.61 The applicant states that the development will deliver new ecological areas which would have long term management benefits for both the site users and the local area. They note that whilst the proposals would result in the loss of some existing vegetation, this is largely replaced and implemented in a more managed and appropriate way, having greater biodiversity benefits in the long term. The applicant states that a trim/heritage trail will provide an environmental benefit to users.

2.62 The applicant submits that these environmental benefits are a significant material planning consideration in favour of the proposed development.

Other harm 2.63 In accordance with the requirements of Green Belt policy, the applicant then goes on to assess whether there is any ‘other harm’ which should weigh against the proposed development. The applicant’s Planning Statement identifies areas where there could be environmental or technical harm and these are set out in turn below.

Traffic & Transport

60 P/2018/0048/OUP 80 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 2.64 The proposed development would utilise the A49 for access in line with the original established access point for the colliery. It would generate Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV), Light Goods Vehicle (LGV), public transport and private car movements as well as pedestrian and cycle movements which have all been assessed in a Transport Assessment (TA) and submitted as part of the application. The TA assesses a number of junctions in St Helens, Warrington and Wigan Boroughs and junctions on the motorway network.

2.65 The TA identifies that the application site is accessible by sustainable modes of transport with good levels of pedestrian and cycling infrastructure, and a good standard of existing public transport opportunities within an acceptable walking distance of the site. A Travel Plan is also provided as part of the planning application which considers how the public transport and non-vehicle measures may be implemented in respect of the site to reduce reliance on the private car.

2.66 The TA concludes that the proposed development would be acceptable from a highways perspective as the development traffic impacts would not be perceptible or would be mitigated sufficiently so as to have no impact on the current users of the road network. There is no reason why the proposals should not be granted. Given this conclusion, the applicant considers that the proposed development would cause limited harm to the highway network.

2.67 During the construction phase of the development, construction traffic would use the A49. The applicant has given consideration to construction traffic travelling through the site, under the M6 to Parkside Road and then along Barrow Lane to junction 22 of the M6, but have ruled this out. The applicant submits that they do not have any permission to use the route which is gated and under third party ownership. They submit that any other route to Junction 22 would be impractical for construction vehicles.

Ground conditions 2.68 The site is a former colliery and so consideration of ground conditions is important. A preliminary Geo-Environmental Assessment and ES Technical Paper sets out the details of the site. A coal mining legacy assessment identifies that there are no insurmountable issues with risks considered to be negligible to low at worst. Contamination is present but subject to appropriate remediation there are not considered to be any unacceptable geo-environmental risks present.

2.69 On this basis, the applicant submits that the proposals will facilitate the remediation of the site and resolution of the contamination issues. This will address existing harm and result in beneficial elements relating to ground conditions. The applicant believes that limited beneficial weight should be given to this matter in the planning balance.

Landscape Character & Visual Amenity 2.70 The applicant identifies that the application includes a Landscape Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) which considers the impacts of the development at 11 viewpoints. Given the scale of the development, the LVIA notes that there will be a substantial effect in terms of magnitude of change.

2.71 The applicant submits that the impact during the construction phase of the development is not considered to be significant. However, during the operational phase the impacts will vary as the site will have trees removed, landscaping and bunding implemented and then tree growth and coverage following. In the longer term the views of the site will be softened, but it is acknowledged that there will be moderate

61 P/2018/0048/OUP 81 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 harm to visual impact before that. The applicant ascribes moderate harm to these impacts.

Ecology 2.72 A number of ecological surveys have been submitted in support of the application and are set out within the Environmental Statement. The proposals will cause habitat loss, habitat fragmentation, pollution and disturbance of important species. However, the proposed development would also deliver extensive areas of new planting as part of the structured landscaping bunds. The overall conclusion is that the proposals would have a negative impact, but that the harm caused is limited.

Residential Amenity 2.73 The applicant submits that careful consideration has been given to matters of residential amenity. A noise assessment and a baseline light spill assessment have been submitted as part of the Environmental Statement and they indicate that through appropriate mitigation and subject to further assessment at detailed design stage, the potential impacts on residential amenity could be sufficiently mitigated during both construction and operation phases. The applicant considers that through appropriate measures, there will be limited harm caused.

Air Quality 2.74 An Air Quality Assessment (AQA) has been undertaken in respect of the proposals and is included as part of the Environmental Statement. The AQA identifies the Air Quality Management Areas at Newton High Street and on the M6 and concludes that the Parkside development does not conflict with national or local policies or with measures set out in the Council’s Air Quality Action Plan. However, as the development generates traffic, the applicant reports that there will be limited harm caused to air quality.

Utilities, Waste & Energy 2.75 These matters are each considered in the Environmental Statement. There would be certain effects but they would not be significant and therefore in terms of harm would be considered neutral or even positive.

Compliance with Core Strategy Policies CSS1, CAS 3.1 and CAS 3.2 2.76 The applicant states that the Core Strategy identifies Parkside and land to the east of the M6 as a strategic location for a strategic rail freight interchange (SRFI) based upon the proximity to the M6/M62 and the Liverpool-Manchester and West Coast Mainline railways. It is noted that Parkside is referenced throughout the Core Strategy, including within Policy CAS 3.2.

2.77 Within the emerging local plan, the applicant notes that Parkside is identified as a new employment allocation outside of the Green Belt. The site is identified as Parkside West with an overall area of 79.57ha of which 5.5ha is safeguarded to facilitate a future potential rail connection to be used in conjunction with an SRFI to be located to the east of the M6. The applicant accepts that the Local Plan is at an early stage so can only be given limited weight, but submits that the evidence base that supports the Local Plan is highly material.

2.78 The applicant identifies that part of the evidence base is the Parkside Logistics & Rail Freight Interchange Study (2016). They note that the study considers the deliverability of an SRFI at the former Parkside Colliery site and adjacent land and sets out minimum requirements for such a facility as found in national guidance including size and access considerations.

62 P/2018/0048/OUP 82 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 2.79 The applicant notes that rail is a key factor of such a facility, but that it needs to be established whether there are sufficient available pathways on the network and sufficient length of rail within the site to accommodate freight trains. The applicant identifies that the study recommended that there is a need for access to the rail network to provide north, south, east and west distribution. They state that the study concludes that a small (sub- standard) rail freight interchange could be provided on the former colliery, but to deliver a medium or large scale facility, land to the east is required and that it is necessary to safeguard land on part of the former colliery to provide a single reversing leg that would allow north/south/east/west distribution.

2.80 The applicant notes that in the light of the evidence base, the Submission Draft of the Local Plan proposes to allocate the former colliery for road based logistics with a small area safeguarded for sidings for a potential SRFI or other rail enabled development on the east of the M6. The applicant believes that this reflects the scale of need for logistics; the suitability of the Parkside site to meet this need; and the unsuitability of the colliery site to meet a rail based requirement.

2.81 In relation to compliance with Policy CAS 3.2, the applicant states that the policy relates to a proposed development form that was relevant when the Core Strategy was adopted. The applicant acknowledges that the location remains a key opportunity for SRFI but the evidence base has developed significantly as set out in the emerging Local Plan with the location of an SRFI moving to the east of the M6 motorway.

2.82 The applicant sets out that the proposed development is clearly not consistent with the overall policy requirements of Policy CAS 3.2 as it does not propose an SRFI and will not have the primary purpose of facilitating the movement of freight by rail. However, they do believe that it meets a number of the policy requirements. They also note that the text at the end of the policy states that planning permission will not be granted for other uses that would prejudice the delivery of an SRFI. The applicant submits that the proposed development leaves sufficient space for a reversing leg and would therefore not prejudice the delivery of an SRFI in this general location.

2.83 Furthermore, the applicant submits that policy CAS 3.2 is ‘out of date’ in any case because the Council’s evidence base shows that the dimensions of the former colliery site are not optimal for the delivery of an SRFI of medium or large scale.

2.84 Given this, the applicant submits that although the proposed development would in part conflict with policy CAS 3.2, it would still enable the delivery of an SRFI in the general area of the former Parkside Colliery. The applicant therefore concludes that any conflict with policy CAS 3.2 should be given limited weight and that it would not cause any harm.

Heritage 2.85 The applicant identifies that there are two Grade II Listed Buildings at Newton Park Farm to the north of the application site, and that part of the site is designated as a part of a Registered Battlefield which recognises the Battle of Red Bank (Winwick Pass).

2.86 The applicant identifies that whilst Historic England has concerns over the impact of the development on heritage, they have concluded that the proposed development would cause less than substantial harm. The applicant submits that the application also proposes mitigation such as a heritage trail with interpretive boards to allow views of the battlefield site as recommended by Historic England.

63 P/2018/0048/OUP 83 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 2.87 In terms of the impact on listed buildings, the applicant concludes that there is no physical impact, but there could be moderate adverse harm to their setting. Given their dilapidated state, this would be reduced.

2.88 In this context, the applicant concludes that the proposed development would constitute less than substantial harm and that although the proposed development would have a negative impact, the harm caused would be limited and would only be given limited weight in the planning balance.

Conclusion 2.89 The applicant concludes that the very special circumstances outlined above clearly outweigh the harm caused to the Green Belt and any other harm, and that the benefits of the proposal would outweigh the less than substantial harm caused by the proposed development. They submit that the proposed development accords with the development plan and that the adverse impacts of granting planning permission would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against policies in the NPPF. Accordingly, they argue that planning permission should be granted.

3. CONSULTATIONS

3.1 Highways:

3.2 The following documents have been submitted to outline the transport and highway implications associated with the application:

• Transport Assessment (ref: B064334_TA rev C) • SHMBC Post Submission Highway Response 1 (ref: TPMA1389-CUR-01- XX-RP-D-001-V01-TN rev V02) • Responses to Highway Authority Meeting Note dated 16th May 2019 • SHMBC Post Submission Highway Response 2 (ref: TPMA1389-CUR-01XX- RP-D-001-V01-HR2 rev V01) • SHMBC Post Submission Highway Response 3 (ref: SHMBC HR3 dated 9th August 2019) • Framework Travel Plan (ref: B064334.000/FTP rev B) • Framework Construction Environmental Management Plan (rev C) • Means of Access Plan Phase 1 (ref: B064334_501 rev C) • Illustrative Masterplan Phase 1 (ref:LYR043_M300 rev I)

Policy Considerations 3.3 The St Helens Core Strategy, October 2012, identifies that;

‘Development which generates significant movement of freight, (should be) located on sites which are served by rail or where rail facilities can be provided as part of the development, or where those options are not available, locating where there is good access to a road designated as a Freight Priority Route’.

3.4 The Transport Assessment makes no reference to any aspirations to provide rail facilities on site and it is also noted that the A49 is not designated as a Freight Priority Route. As such, the proposals are on first inspection, contrary to this Policy.

64 P/2018/0048/OUP 84 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 3.5 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is the current Government policy for planning and development in England. NPPF confirms the important role that transport plays in facilitating sustainable development. In paragraph 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework, it states that;

‘Development should only be prevented or refused on highway grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe’.

3.6 The following information has been extracted from the applicant’s submission ‘St Helens Council Parkside Highway Response 5’, and provides relevant detail to the overarching context that the application and Transport Assessment has been derived in.

‘Sustainable development is promoted within the policy (NPPF), with sustainable development assessed in terms of economic, social and environmental sustainability. The policy goes onto identify that each of these roles are mutually dependant and therefore cannot be considered in isolation. Encouraging sustainable economic growth is the overarching theme of the policy, which will be achieved through seeking positive improvements in the built, natural and historic environment, and making it easier for jobs to be created in cities, towns and villages.’

3.7 The reference to job creation in the context of the built, natural and historic environment is a key aspect of the application and mitigation measures have been derived which pay due cognisance to this aspect.

Assessed junctions 3.8 The Transport Assessment (Curtins Ref: B064334.000_TA Revision: D) undertaken for the application outlines the following junctions which have been assessed and the authority in which they are located.

St Helens Borough • SH 0 – Site Access at A49 Winwick Road. • SH 1 – A599 Penny Lane at B5209 Vista Road in New Boston. • SH 2 – M6 motorway Junction 23 Haydock Island. • SH 3 – A572 Crow Lane East at Victoria Road and Water Street in Newtonle-Willows. • SH 4 – A572 Crow Lane East at Sanderling Road and Queens Drive in Newton-le-Willows. • SH 5 – A49 High Street / Ashton Road at A572 Crow Lane East in Newton-leWillows. • SH 6 – A49 High Street / Church Street at Park Road North in Newton-leWillows. • SH 7 – A49 Church Street / Mill Lane at A572 Southworth Road in Newton-leWillows. • SH 8 – A49 Mill Lane at Alfred Street in Newton-le-Willows. • SH 9 – A572 Southworth Road / Newton Road at A573 Parkside Road / Golborne Dale Road in Newton-le-Willows.

Wigan Borough

65 P/2018/0048/OUP 85 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 • WI 1 – A572 Newton Road at A579 Winwick Lane in Lowton. • WI 2 – A572 Newton Road at B5207 Kenyon Lane and B5207  WI 3 – A580 East Lancashire Road at A572 Newton Road in Lowton. • WI 4 – A580 East Lancashire Road at B5207 Church Lane in Lowton. • WI 5 – A580 East Lancashire Road at Stone Cross Lane. • WI 6 – Golborne Island; A580 East Lancashire Road at A573 Warrington Road / Bridge Street. • WI 7 – A580 East Lancashire Road at A579 Atherleigh Way.

Warrington Borough • WA 1 – M62 Motorway Junction 9. This is a grade separated two bridge four arm signalised roundabout at the A49 in Winwick Quay. • WA 2 – A49 at Delph Lane in Winwick. • WA 3 – A49 Winwick Island in Winwick. • WA 4 – A49 at Golborne Road in Winwick. • WA 5 – A49 at Hollins Lane in Winwick. • WA 6 – Golborne Road at Myddleton Lane in Winwick. • WA 7 – M6 motorway Junction 22 Winwick Interchange at Hermitage Green.

Highways England 3.9 The following junctions (previously identified within the local authority in which they are located) are relevant to the motorway network which is the responsibility of Highways England.

• WA 1 – M62 Motorway Junction 9 Interchange. • WA 7 – M6 motorway Junction 22 Winwick Interchange at Hermitage Green. • SH 2 – M6 motorway Junction 23 Haydock Island.

Summary 3.10 The scope of junctions included in the Transport Assessment are considered sufficient for consideration of potential impacts associated with the proposed development.

Committed Developments 3.11 The Transport Assessment and associated documentation shows that discussions with the local authorities were held to determine what committed developments needed to be considered. The Transport Assessment states that the committed development choices have been agreed with the relevant Local Authorities. Each is discussed below.

St Helens Borough 3.12 The following Committed Developments have been included in the Transport Assessment, as representative of St Helens Borough. • CD02 – Newton Interchange P&R, • CD03 – Vulcan (630 dwellings), • CD04 – Deacon (324 dwellings), • CD05 – Haydock Green (46,265m² warehousing), • CD06 – Fishwicks (12,263m² warehousing), • CD07 – Florida Farm North (135,000m² warehousing),

66 P/2018/0048/OUP 86 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 • CD08 – Common Road (142 dwellings), • CD09 – Haydock Point (167,225m² warehousing), • CD11 – Haydock North Canmoor (27,500m² warehousing), and  CD13 – Red Bank (150 dwellings).

3.13 Previous correspondence from St Helens Council has confirmed the above to be an appropriate list of developments for inclusion, and Mott MacDonald would agree with this statement.

Warrington Borough 3.14 The Peel Hall Development (WBC Application Reference 2016/28492), located in north Warrington was a proposal for a new mixed- use neighbourhood comprising 1,200 dwellings, a local centre and various uses including A1-A5, B1, C2, D1, restaurant/pub and primary school. The scheme has since been refused at

Appeal in December 2018 and was not included within the previous assessment work.

3.15 Whilst Warrington Council has confirmed that the Peel Hall Development no longer needs to be included as a formal scheme given that it has no planning status, there is the potential that the applicant may re- apply. As such, they requested its inclusion within the committed developments relating to Parkside Phase 1 as part of a separate sensitivity test. No further committed developments have been included in the Transport Assessment for Warrington, and post submission highway responses confirm this is acceptable to Warrington Council.

Wigan Borough 3.16 The Transport Assessment notes the following with regards to committed development in Wigan.

‘Discussions with Wigan Council officers have indicated that there are no significant committed developments within the council boundary that would require material consideration by the Parkside Phase 1 applicant’.

3.17 Mott MacDonald would also note the following from the applicant’s ‘Wigan Highways Post Submission Response 2’. With regards to the committed development in St Helens;

‘A number of the above committed development, whilst not located within Wigan, are predicted to generate traffic on the Wigan highway network. Where this occurs these traffic flows have been included within any subsequent modelling work’.

‘If developments have received planning consent or consents have been varied since agreement of TN07 they may not be included in the Parkside assessment as individual committed developments. This is because the TA was finalised shortly after the production of TN07. However, to ensure robustness, full TEMPRO growth factors were applied to the Parkside assessment as well as the committed developments’.

‘This background growth assumed a circa 13% increase in traffic on all links within the study area, including Wigan, between 2017 and 2030. This is very significant and as an example would equate to an additional circa 600 two-way trips through the M6 J23 in

67 P/2018/0048/OUP 87 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 addition to the committed development traffic. This is more than sufficient to provide a robust base and, in all likelihood, represents a degree of double counting’.

3.18 Mott MacDonald would agree that the direct application of TEMPRO growth factors (TEMPRO is the industry standard database developed by the Department for Transport) to surveyed traffic data does represent a robust approach to utilise for junction related impact assessments. Notwithstanding the above, a separate 12.04.19 meeting note states that Wigan requested that committed development in the Lowton/Golborne specifically is included in the Transport Assessment, and that the applicant was awaiting these details being passed to them for review and use. From the records supplied to Mott MacDonald, no such details have been supplied or included.

3.19 Mott MacDonald would suggest that it is the responsibility of the relevant planning authority to provide the requisite committed development information to the applicant.

3.20 On the basis of the above Mott MacDonald would suggest that the lack of specific committed development in Wigan does not change the validity of the assessments undertaken for junctions in Wigan for the Transport Assessment.

Traffic Forecasting 3.21 The traffic forecasting associated with the application is detailed in the following documents, namely part 1 and 2 of the Transport Assessment.  PART_2_TRAFFIC_AND_TRANSPORT_ADDENDUM__APPENDIX_2.1__ 1_-1052448, and  PART_2_TRAFFIC_AND_TRANSPORT_ADDENDUM__APPENDIX_2.1__2_-1051994. Scenarios 3.22 The Transport Assessment confirms that an opening year of 2020 and a ten-year design horizon of 2030 have been used for derivation of the assessment scenarios.

3.23 Mott MacDonald are aware that a 2020 assumed opening year has been considered an ambitious target given the application is not yet approved. However, on the basis that the application was submitted in 2018 it is considered that a 2020 opening year is acceptable in this instance.

3.24 St Helens Council has previously undertaken an exercise to look at the potential local growth difference between a 2020 and 2021 opening year to provide comfort regarding the use of the 2020 figures. Interrogation of the TEMPRO database forecasts traffic growth within MSOA St Helens 015 (which is the census area in which the application site lies ) for 2020 to 2021 as follows:

AM peak – 1.0100 PM peak – 1.0092

3.25 These growth factors illustrate that background growth of 1% or less would be experienced between 2020 and 2021, which is considered

68 P/2018/0048/OUP 88 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 minimal. Mott MacDonald would agree with previous conclusions drawn by St Helens Council that this 1% value would not alter overall conclusions drawn in relation to the transport elements of the planning application itself.

Trip Rates 3.26 The trip rates utilised for assessment of the application were those previously used for the Florida Farm North Transport Assessment (P/2016/0608). These rates were adopted at the behest of St Helens Council.

3.27 Mott MacDonald understand that the Florida Farm trip rates were identified using both TRICS (the industry-standard database) data plus surveys from Omega in Warrington. The average of the TRICS and Omega surveys were used to identify the trip rates. When applying these trip rates to the proposed floor area, the following trip generation is forecast:

Table 3: PPh1 Trip Generation Arrivals Departures Total A49 2020 Baseline Flows (in vicinity of the site) Lights Heavies Lights Heavies Lights Heavies 2-way total AM peak hour 101 17 69 12 170 29 944 PM peak hour 56 14 84 15 140 29 1,160 24 hr total - 2,827 15,522* Source: PART_2_TRAFFIC_AND_TRANSPORT_ADDENDUM_-_APPENDIX_2.1__2_-1051994. 3.28 For the Florida Farm application additional justification on trip rates was provided within Supplementary Information Note 7 (SIN7) – Transport & Highways (dated 14/09/2016). This supplementary note concludes that the Omega trip rates were not suitable for direct application, and the approach identified above was ultimately accepted by St Helens Council and Highway England.

3.29 Notwithstanding the above, the applicant’s consultants have referenced a comparative analysis being undertaken which shows that the Florida Farm trip rates are higher than an equivalent TRICS exercise.

3.30 In summary, the consistent use of the Florida Farm trip rates is considered an appropriate approach in relation to B2/B8 applications within St Helens Borough.

Traffic Growth Factors 3.31 The traffic growth factors for the application are derived from TEMPRO, however the Transport Assessment does not confirm which version and associated dataset are used. The derived and presented growth factors are recreated below in Table 4.

Table 4: PPh1 Traffic Growth Factors Peak Area Year Factor AM St Helens 2017-2020 1.0083 PM St Helens 2017-2020 1.0110 AM St Helens 2017-2030 1.0217 PM St Helens 2017-2030 1.0295 Source: PART_2_TRAFFIC_AND_TRANSPORT_ADDENDUM_-_APPENDIX_2.1__2_-1051994.

69 P/2018/0048/OUP 89 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 3.32 The above factors have seemingly been superseded by additional work presented by the applicant to St Helens Council in a series of technical notes. The revised figures are presented in Figure 2.

Figure 2: PPh1 Traffic Growth Factors - SHMBC Post Submission Highway Response 2

Source: SHMBC Post Submission Highway Response 2

3.33 It is noted that the final row should refer to 2020 and not 2017.

3.34 Mott MacDonald have interrogated the above presented growth factors and can confirm they are representative of the proposed study area.

3.35 No separate factors have been derived for HGV traffic, however the rates derived by the applicant are noted to be unadjusted (no alternative assumptions applied) and on that basis can be considered particularly robust for application to surveyed traffic data. This conclusion is further reinforced by the fact that the committed development traffic has been applied separately to the traffic flow figures.

3.36 In addition to the above, the growth factors have been identified for MSOA St Helens 015. Comparison of the growth factors for St Helens 015 to the entire St Helens borough shows that the growth factors for St Helens 015 are slightly higher.

Distribution and Assignment 3.37 The Distribution and Assignment of Phase 1 traffic is based on a separate approach for light and heavy vehicles.

3.38 The distribution of LGV’s is based on 2011 census “journey to work” data for the Newton-le-Willows employment areas, with manual route choice decisions (assignment) made based upon local knowledge.

3.39 For light vehicle trips it can reasonably be expected that employees at the site would have a similar distribution to that of similar land uses within the St Helens 015 MSOA.

3.40 Mott MacDonald understand therefore that the car / LGV distribution assigns to the network as 63% northbound and 37% southbound at the site access junction and is considered an acceptable approach to adopt.

3.41 The distribution of Parkside Phase 1 HGV traffic was based on the distribution of current pre-development HGV traffic at the extents of the

70 P/2018/0048/OUP 90 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 study area. This means that existing turn, assignment and distribution proportions have been applied.

3.42 Previous correspondence received from St Helens Council provides the following clarity with regards to the HGV distribution methodology.

‘The HGV distribution has previously been agreed as 40% northbound and 60% southbound along A49 Winwick Road. This has been identified based on existing HGV movements along the A49, as identified through traffic surveys held by the Council. Of the northbound traffic, all HGVs travel along A49 towards J23 Haydock Island, which is considered the most appropriate route for HGVs travelling to and from the site given the attraction of the M6. Southbound HGVs travel into Warrington Council’s boundary’.

3.43 It is noted that M62 J9 is used as the primary access point onto the Strategic Road Network for all traffic that leaves the site in a southbound direction. This is also noted from traffic surveys which show that HGVs travelling southbound on A49 Newton Road primarily head toward J9 rather than M6 J22.

3.44 Mott MacDonald are content that use of existing assignment and distribution proportions represents a robust approach to adopt for assessing the Phase 1 potential impacts.

3.45 It is noted that separate sensitivities have been derived for further robust assessment of the highway network in Warrington, however these are not considered in this note as they present only 10% of traffic leaving the site and heading north.

Junction Modelling Results 3.46 In terms of junction capacity, the signalised junctions have been modelled using the current industry-standard software packages for junction modelling.

3.47 In relation to signalised junctions a Degree of Saturation (DoS) of up to 85% illustrates that the junction operates within capacity, whilst a value of between

85% and 100% illustrate that the junction is approaching maximum capacity. Values over 100% illustrate that the junction operates over capacity.

3.48 For priority junctions and roundabouts, results are given in terms of Ratio of Flow to Capacity [RFC] and Queue length. A RFC of up to 0.85 illustrate that the junction operates within capacity, whilst a value of between 0.85 and 1.0 illustrate that junction is approaching maximum capacity. Values over 1.00 illustrate that the junction operates over capacity.

3.49 PCU is a Passenger Car Unit and is the standard unit for measuring highway capacity / flow. It enables all vehicles to be assessed using a standard unit. 1 PCU is equivalent to a single car whilst a single HGV is equivalent to 2.3 PCUs. All queue lengths are reported in PCUs.

71 P/2018/0048/OUP 91 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 3.50 The response identifies the impacts at each of the junctions in St Helens Borough in turn.

Site Access 3.51 The site access junction modelling illustrates that in both the 2020 and 2030 AM and PM peak hour scenarios, the junction operates within capacity with a degree of saturation of less than 75% on all arms of the junction in both periods. There is therefore ample spare capacity on each of the arms of the junction in all scenarios and the operation of the junction is therefore acceptable.

3.52 The closest existing junction to the proposed site access is the Cholmley Drive three-arm priority junction, which is a distance of 49m from the site access. The junction modelling results demonstrate that during the evening peak, the queue length on Winwick Road from the site access could block past the Cholmley Drive junction.

3.53 On the basis of the forecast queue lengths associated with the proposed site access junction it is recommended that ‘Keep Clear’ markings are installed at the Cholmley Drive / Winwick Road junction to enable vehicles to continue to turn into and out of the Cholmley Drive junction without disruption.

3.54 In addition, the road safety audit of the site access junction should also include the Cholmley Drive / Winwick Road junction and any recommendations installed at the junction. It should be noted that both of these issues can be addressed as part of the detailed design approval process and, as such, the current proposed access junction proposals are accepted for the planning application.

3.55 As previously noted, the proposals are not considered to create a severe highways impact at the site access junction nor will they have an unacceptable impact on highway safety.

Penny Lane / Vista Road 3.56 The modelling outputs for the Penny Lane / Vista Road junction demonstrate that there is no change in operational performance between the with and without development scenarios, during both the AM and PM peaks at both 2020 and 2030. The traffic flow diagrams identify that the proposed development adds no additional vehicle trips onto this junction.

3.57 It is therefore concluded that there is no impact at this junction with regards to the Phase 1 development.

M6 J23 3.58 M6 Junction 23 is owned and managed by Highways England. However, the approaches to the junction along A580 and A49 are owned and managed by St Helens Council and form part of the Council’s adopted highway network. As such, the impact of the proposed development on M6 J23 has been considered.

3.59 The results identify that the proposals will generate an additional 73 and 64 twoway vehicle movements at J23 during the AM and PM peak hour.

72 P/2018/0048/OUP 92 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 3.60 Of these additional vehicle movements, the impact on each of the highway approaches is identified in the table below. Approach AM Peak PM Peak M6 North off-slip 22 16 A49 Lodge Lane north 4 2 A580 East Lancashire Road east 2 1 M6 South off-slip 0 0 A49 Lodge Lane south 30 36 A580 East Lancashire Road west 15 8 Total 73 64 3.61 The table above illustrates that the arm which experiences the largest increase in traffic is A49 Lodge Lane south, where an increase of 30 and 36 PCUs is experienced during the AM and PM peak hours respectively. The additional traffic generated along this arm is within daily traffic fluctuations and is therefore not considered to be significant.

3.62 The A49 north and A580 east and west arms experience 15 or fewer additional trips as a result of the proposed development. Again, this is within daily traffic fluctuations and not considered to be significant.

Crow Lane East / Victoria Road 3.63 The modelling illustrates that the junction experiences capacity issues in both the 2020 and 2030 assessments. The junction operates over 85% DoS on the Victoria Road arm in the AM and PM 2020 base and with development scenarios. In 2030, the Crow Lane East (west arm) and Victoria Road arms operate over 85% DoS in the AM and PM peak hours. In 2030 PM peak hour, the junction operates over 100% DoS on both the Victoria Road and Crow Lane East (west arm). During the 2030 AM peak, the Victoria Road arm operates over 100% DoS.

3.64 The flow diagrams identify that the proposed development will add an additional 30 and 25 light vehicles to the junction in the AM and PM peak hours respectively. The increase in traffic flows equates to an average increase of one additional vehicle trip to the junction every 2 minutes. This level of impact is not considered significant and, whilst it is acknowledged that the junction experiences capacity issues, it is noted that these issues are not significantly exacerbated or caused by the proposed development.

Crow Lane East / Queens Drive / Sanderling Road 3.65 The modelling results illustrate that the junction operates within capacity during the AM and PM peak hours, with and without the proposed development, in the 2020 and 2030 scenarios. As such, the impact of the development on this junction is considered acceptable.

A49 High Street / Crow Lane East 3.66 The High Street / Crow Lane East mini roundabout has been modelled, the modelling outputs illustrate that the junction operates over capacity with an RFC of over 1.00 on the Ashton Road and Crow Lane East arms in the 2020 and 2030 AM and PM peak hour both with and without the development in place.

73 P/2018/0048/OUP 93 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 3.67 The traffic flow diagrams illustrate that the proposed development adds an additional 88 and 72 light vehicles in the AM and PM peak hours, and 12 heavy vehicles in both the AM and PM peak hours. This increase in vehicle movements approximately equates to one additional light vehicle movement every 40 seconds and one additional heavy vehicle movement every 5 minutes.

3.68 Given the number of additional vehicles generated at this junction as a result of the development proposals, an improvement scheme has been identified.

3.69 The mitigation scheme is the provision of signalised pedestrian crossing facilities on A49 High Street and A572 Crow Lane East approaches to the junction. The crossing facilities would operate ‘on demand’ and would enhance pedestrian safety at the junction.

3.70 Further, the crossing would result in vehicles being released from the junction in platoons, as well as stopping traffic approaching the junction from one arm and thereby enabling traffic on the other arms to safely negotiate the junction.

3.71 It is noted that the proposed scheme is a network / corridor management technique, providing a way of controlling traffic and providing additional pedestrian safety provision. The crossing proposed also aligns to known desire lines and link well to the existing public realm and townscape.

3.72 This junction has been modelled using the Junctions9 software, which Mott MacDonald would agree is appropriate in this instance. The with mitigation scheme is not supported by junction modelling results, given that it was considered that the industry standard Junctions9 tool does not allow for accurate representation of controlled pedestrian crossings. The following is noted from the Curtins SHMBC Highway Response – HR3.

‘Whilst it is not possible to fully replicate the positive effects described above within the traffic modelling software, it is the shared professional view of SHMBC’s highways officers and of Curtins that the introduction of the new signal-controlled crossing facilities would provide an associated benefit to the operation of this junction for all road users’.

3.73 Mott MacDonald would agree that interventions such as that proposed can enable traffic on adjacent arms of the junction to benefit from additional ‘gaps’ in traffic, whilst better controlling the approach flow on the arms which benefit from the crossing.

3.74 It is noted that within the Junctions9 software, there does exist the ability to reflect either Pelican or Puffin crossing control on the relevant approaches. The following is taken from the associated software manual.

‘Junctions 9 can model Zebra (unsignalled), Pelican (signalled) and Puffin (adaptive signalled) pedestrian crossings. The models are different for each crossing type, but the same approach is used for all roundabout types. Please note that the blocking back effect due to crossing on the exit side of an arm is only modelled for Zebra (unsignalled) crossings at roundabouts’.

74 P/2018/0048/OUP 94 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 3.75 The quote notes that there are obvious limitations within the software particularly in relation to exit blocking, and a true reflection of the benefits to the network that these crossings would bring are unlikely to be shown via this technique.

3.76 It is also agreed that the assumed 40% of traffic assigned in this direction is a robust assumption, noted by Warrington Council who have requested a 90% sensitivity for traffic turning left from the site, thereby leaving only 10% travelling to High St in Newton le Willows.

3.77 On the basis of the above, the improvement scheme is therefore accepted and a condition requiring the provision of these crossings is recommended. With the improvement scheme in place, the proposed development is not considered to create a severe highways impact at the A49 High Street / Crow Lane East junction.

3.78 Mott Macdonald has also considered an alternative scheme of mitigation, replacing the crossing on High Street with one on Ashton Road in close proximity to the footpath leading to Hope Academy. This location is considered to offer the following benefits:

• It would formalise an existing known crossing point, • It would present an improved safety aspect as schoolchildren use this crossing location, • It could potentially achieve better network/corridor management benefits as a mid-block crossing, • The current proposed location on High Street has guard rails preventing crossing at the junction, and side roads which limit the potential of the crossing being set back from the junction.

3.79 On the basis of the above, the principle of such an improvement scheme is accepted and a condition requiring the provision of these crossings is recommended, The condition is proposed as an ‘either/or’ with the location of the High St crossing subject to further post-application discussion. With the improvement scheme in place, the proposed development is not considered to create a severe highways impact at the A49 High Street / Crow Lane East junction.

A49 High Street / Park Road North 3.80 The modelling outputs illustrate that the junction operates over capacity on the Park Road North arm in the 2020 AM peak and 2030 AM and PM peaks, with and without development scenarios. The RFC on this arm is over 1.00.

3.81 The traffic flow diagrams illustrate that the proposed development adds an additional 89 and 73 lights and 12 heavies in both the AM and PM peak hours respectively. This is considered sufficient to warrant a highway improvement scheme.

3.82 Through discussions with St Helens Council’s Highway Engineers, an improvement scheme in the form of a signalised pedestrian crossing facility has been identified along A49 Church Street (south) arm. This

75 P/2018/0048/OUP 95 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 pedestrian crossing will enhance pedestrian safety and will create a platooning effect for traffic along A49, thereby creating additional gaps for vehicles to exit Park Road North.

3.83 In addition to the proposed pedestrian crossing it has also been agreed that sensors should be installed along Park Road North to identify the queue length and, once an agreed queue length is reached, the pedestrian crossing facility called to enable enough gaps to be created for vehicles to exit Park Road North.

3.84 A condition is requested to provide this crossing facility, should the application gain planning approval. With the improvement scheme in place, the proposed development is not considered to create a severe highways impact at the A49 High Street / Park Road North junction.

3.85 As with the Crow Lane East junction, no quantification of the mitigation scheme has taken place, although Mott MacDonald would agree that interventions such as that proposed can enable traffic on adjacent arms of the junction to benefit from additional ‘gaps’ in traffic, whilst better controlling the approach flow on the arms which benefit from the crossing.

3.86 As per the Crow Lane East improvements it is noted that there are obvious limitations within the software particularly in relation to exit blocking, when modelling pedestrian crossings and a true reflection of the benefits to the network that these crossings would bring are unlikely to be shown via this technique. In addition, it is noted that with regards to the queue sensors proposed on Park Road North, these cannot be reflected in any industry standard software and would require a microsimulation exercise to assess, which is considered disproportionate in relation to this outline application.

3.87 On the basis of the above, the improvement scheme is therefore accepted and a condition requiring the provision of these crossings is recommended.

A49 / Southworth Road / Alfred Street 3.88 The A49 / Southworth Road and A49 / Alfred Street junctions have been modelled together due to the traffic signals being linked. However, it should be noted that the junctions operate using MOVA, which cannot be directly reflected in the modelling MOVA improves the operation of the junction by optimising the signal timings in response to real-time queue lengths.

3.89 The modelling identifies that in the 2020 AM and PM base scenarios, the junctions operates close to 100% DoS on the Church Street and Southworth Road arms. With the development in place in 2020, the junction operates over 100% DoS on the Church Street, Southworth Road and Mill Lane arms.

3.90 In the 2030 base, the junction operates at or just over 100% DoS on the Church

76 P/2018/0048/OUP 96 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 Street and Southworth Road arms in the AM peak and on the Church Street, Southworth Road and Mill Lane arms in the PM peak; however, when the development traffic is added, the junction operates further over capacity on these arms.

3.91 The traffic flows identify that the proposed development adds an additional 215 lights and 24 heavies across the two junctions in the AM peak; in the PM peak, the proposed development adds an additional 176 lights and 24 heavies across the two junctions. This equates to between 3 and 4 additional lights per minute and 1 heavies per 2 minutes during the AM and PM peak hours.

3.92 On the basis of the above a mitigation scheme has been developed in the form of an extension to the right-turn lane from A49 northbound into Southworth Road. The extended lane would provide capacity for 4 cars. This scheme involves the provision of some minor carriageway widening works and the provision of formal road markings to define the right turn traffic lane from A49 Mill Lane into Southworth Road.

3.93 The modelling shows that the proposed improvement scheme would mitigate the effects of the proposed development at the junction, such that there would be a nildetriment impact on the junction as a result of the development.

3.94 On the basis of the above, the improvement scheme is therefore accepted and a condition requiring the provision of these crossings is recommended. With the improvement scheme in place, the proposed development is not considered to create a severe highways impact at the A49 / Southworth Road / Alfred Street junction.

Southworth Road / Newton Road / Parkside Road / Golborne Dale Road 3.95 The modelling outputs illustrate that the junction experiences operational issues in both the 2020 and 2030 scenarios. In the 2020 scenario, the junction operates over 0.9 RFC on the Golborne Road arm during the AM and PM 2020 base scenario; with the addition of the development, marginal increases in the recorded RfC and Queue values are noted.

3.96 Notwithstanding the increases in RfC and Queue values, the traffic flow diagrams identify that the proposed development will add an additional 20 and 17 light vehicles during the AM and PM peak hours. No heavy vehicles are forecast to travel through this junction in association with the proposed development.

3.97 The level of this impact is in line with daily traffic fluctuations, representing an average increase in light vehicle movements of 1 every 3 minutes. This level of impact is considered to be minimal and therefore no improvement scheme would be warranted at the junction.

Phasing and Triggers 3.98 Mott MacDonald have noted that in the the applicant’s ‘SHMBC Highway Response - HR3’ that the proposed development will be brought forward in three states, as identified below:

77 P/2018/0048/OUP 97 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 Stage one – up to 22,000m² GFA, Stage two – between 22,000m² GFA and 52,000m² GFA, and Stage three – over 52,000m² GFA.

3.99 It is noted that following correspondence with St Helens Council, an assessment of the overall vehicular trip generation associated with each stage was undertaken to determine the stage at which the mitigation measures should be implemented.

Proposed Triggers 3.100The tables below identify the total trip generation of stages 1 and 2 of the proposed development

Junction AM Trips 2020 AM Base AM % Impact PM Trips 2020 PM Base PM % Impact Flows Flows

Crow Lane 26 2023 1.3% 23 2068 1.1%

Park Rd N 26 1778 1.5% 23 1554 1.5%

Southworth Rd 31 2031 1.5% 26 2103 1.2%

Stage 1 up to 22,000m2 GFA Junction AM Trips 2020 AM Base AM % Impact PM Trips 2020 PM Base PM % Impact Flows Flows

Crow Lane 62 2023 3.1% 54 2068 2.6% Park Rd N 62 1778 3.5% 54 1554 3.5%

Southworth Rd 73 2031 3.6% 62 2103 3.0%

Stage 2 Between 22,000m2 - 52,000m2 GFA

3.101The tables show that the impact of the first stage of development is circa 30 PCUs and less than 2% at all junctions excluding the site access. It is noted by Mott MacDonald that this volume is lower than the threshold identified in the now defunct Department for Transport, Guidance on Transport Assessment document. This document notes that 30 trips or less may not even require assessment let alone mitigation measures.

3.102Stage 2 will generate between 54 to 73 PCUs, in the AM and PM peaks and it is proposed by Curtins that the mitigation works outlined within section 7 of this Technical Note be implemented then.

Recommendations 3.103Based on the analysis provided by the applicant, Mott MacDonald would agree that 31 or fewer two-way trips being made to the junctions, which would equate to one additional vehicle trip every 2 minutes or less, is not considered significant and wouldn’t warrant mitigation measures.

3.104Any greater increase in vehicle movements is considered to warrant the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures. On this basis it is considered appropriate to implement the highway mitigation measures following completion of stage

78 P/2018/0048/OUP 98 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 one, but prior to stage two. The conditions have therefore been developed to reflect this.

3.105It should be noted however that the ‘Keep Clear’ road markings associated with the Cholmley Drive / Winwick Road junction; proposed to enable vehicles to continue to turn into and out of the Cholmley Drive junction without disruption, should be implemented at the same time as the Site Access junction is delivered with stage one.

Sustainable Travel Considerations 3.106It is noted that parking provision will be considered in further detail as part of any reserved matters application, and previous correspondence from St Helens Council has confirmed that the applicant has confirmed that car and cycle parking provision will be aligned with the Council’s standards.

3.107It is also noted from previously supplied St Helens correspondence that provision of a shuttle bus service from Newton-le-Willows interchange has been requested. Initial consultation with Merseytravel and bus operators relating to its viability has also been undertaken.

3.108A final Travel Plan for the development cannot be produced until site occupants and occupation is known and has occurred. It is recommended that the full Travel Plan will need to be produced prior to site occupation, to provide a commitment to sustainable measures and associated targets. Prior to development of a full Travel Plan, a framework Travel Plan has been produced by the applicant.

Framework Travel Plan 3.109The applicant has produced a framework Travel Plan for the site, and a previous review by St Helens Council has concluded the following;

‘The framework travel plan is considered acceptable to support the outline planning application. A condition is requested in relation to the development of a full Travel Plan for the site, and the provision of contact details for the Travel Plan Coordinator’.

3.110The framework Travel Plan includes the following; • Targets for reducing single-occupancy vehicle trips, • Targets to increase travel on foot, by bicycle, by public transport and by car sharing, • Separate consideration of both commuting / staff travel as well as HGV trips (e.g. through back-loading).

3.111It has been previously noted that the full Travel Plan will need to provide a commitment to the provision of a shuttle bus service, details of which will be developed once the final occupant(s) is known including details of the operational requirements of the occupant. Mott MacDonald would agree with the need for this service paying due cognisance to the shift pattern operation of sites such as this. An appropriately worded condition related to Travel Planning would be required in this instance.

3.112The Framework Travel Plan presents a number of sustainable travel initiatives for staff which could be implemented by the future occupants of the building. As the building occupants are not currently known, it is difficult to identify specific travel plan initiatives which could be implemented. However, the approach which has been taken, whereby a range of sustainable travel initiatives have been derived, is acceptable as it enables the future

79 P/2018/0048/OUP 99 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 occupiers to pick the pre identified initiatives which are best suited for their operational requirements.

3.113A range of different travel plan communication modes have been outlined these include; employee induction packs, notice boards and promotional events. Furthermore, it is considered to be acceptable that the Framework Travel Plan provides a commitment to the delivery of an annual travel survey for a five-year period, pursuant to the creation of the first travel plan, approximately 6 months after phase 1 becomes operational.

3.114In the framework travel plan it is outlined that there is a commitment that a travel plan coordinator (TPC) for each element of the proposals is appointed promptly. The TPC will have full responsibilities for ensuring the travel plan is implemented and managed. It is stated that the TPC will undertake roles including promoting initiatives, delivering communications sessions, advising new staff members of the travel plan and what it entails, undertaking annual monitoring of the travel plan, and communicating the monitoring outputs to the Council. Mott MacDonald agree that the contact details of the Travel Plan Coordinator are provided to St Helens Council following their appointment.

Summary and Conclusions 3.115Mott MacDonald have reviewed the Transport Assessment and a series of associated documents with the Phase 1 application.

3.116In summary, Mott MacDonald are content that the information provided in the Transport Assessment and supplementary information provides a satisfactory basis on which to assess and understand the implications of the proposed development.

3.117Based on the information provided Mott MacDonald are of the view that the recommended mitigation proposals and associated conditions are sufficient to mitigate against the impacts of this development proposal and that that the highway network in St Helens Borough is therefore able to accommodate the development, paying due cognisance to the operational assessment results and the NPPF requirements.

3.118Highways England:

3.119We have now completed our review of the transport evidence supplied by the applicant and consider that mitigation to the local road network will be required in order to offset the effects of the development on the strategic road network (SRN). The works conditioned will increase capacity on the local road network sufficiently to negate the need for works to take place on the SRN itself.

3.120Whilst all works to mitigate the effects of the development will be required once more than 22,000m2 of gross floor area (GFA) is operational, we conclude that a phased approach to the mitigation is acceptable, and that only some of the works will be required prior to the whole development becoming operational.

3.121The works can be secured via condition and relate to works at Hollins Lane, Golbourne Road, Winwick Link Road and Delph Lane in Warrington.

3.122Warrington Highways:

3.123These comments relate to the highway implications of the proposed development and I would clarify that the objection raised by the Council’s Development Management Committee following their meeting of 6th June 2018 in respect of other issues still stands.

80 P/2018/0048/OUP 100 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 Highway Safety 3.124Potential highway safety impacts of the proposed development have been assessed traffic using the latest available 5-year data obtained from the Council’s Traffic Management and Road Safety Team. The analysis is accepted and it is not considered that the proposed development would raise additional safety implications on the exiting highway network.

Base Data and Assessment 3.125The traffic growth factors applied to future year traffic flows have been clarified and a full set of diagrams highlighting existing and future traffic movements, including those attributed to committed developments, has been provided.

3.126An assessment of the impact of the proposal on the highway network within Warrington has been carried out using the more acceptable trip rates extracted from a similar development at Omega North together with a 100% HGV distribution south along the A49 corridor and taking into account the potential traffic generated by the potential development at Peel Hall.

3.127Whilst the proposal may create new distribution patterns for employees it is accepted that the use of census data to assess likely traffic distribution is appropriate and that a robust Travel Plan would allow for any key changes to be targeted.

Highway Impact and Mitigation 3.128Road Safety Audits (RSA) have been undertaken on the proposed mitigation schemes although it is disappointing that Warrington’s Road Safety Audit Team were not offered the opportunity to provide the audits or to attend whilst the audits took place. This being the case feedback can only be provided on the problems and recommendations within the RSAs provided. It is worth highlighting that the proposed mitigation works will require an initial commitment to vegetation, tree and hedge cutting to ensure that appropriate visibilities are secured and that the use of contrasting anti-skid surfacing will not be accepted; hot rolled asphalt surfacing with appropriate polished stone values will be required. Both of these issues together with any specific design issues can be addressed at detailed design stage.

3.129The principles of the mitigation proposals are considered appropriate and offer the means to mitigate the residual impacts of the development. There has been discussion with the applicant in respect of the relevant phasing of the mitigation proposals linked to the anticipated gross floor area of the potential units and the following phasing was suggested by the applicant:

• Phase 1 – prior to occupation – works to A49 Newton Road/Hollins Lane junction and A49 Newton Road/A573 Golborne Road junction. • Phase 2 – between 22,000sq.m and 52,000sq.m – works to A49 Newton Road/Delph Lane junction and M62 eastbound offslip. • Phase 3 – over 52,000sq.m – works to A49 Newton Road/Winwick Link Road.

3.130However, due to the close proximity of the junctions affected and particularly given the clear interaction between the A49 Newton Road/Delph Lane and A49 Newton Road/Winwick Link Road junctions; with queuing issues at one junction affecting the operational capacity of the other, it is considered that the Phase 2 and Phase 3 works should be combined into one second phase of mitigation. Discussions in respect of this have taken place with Highways England who support this approach; Highways England have also confirmed that this

81 P/2018/0048/OUP 101 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 approach would offer capacity improvement to movements from the M62 eastbound off-slip and negate the need for mitigation improvements at the off-slip.

3.131The following improvement works and phasing is therefore considered necessary to mitigate the impact of the proposal on Warrington’s highway network:

• Phase 1 – prior to occupation – works to A49 Newton Road/Hollins Lane junction and A49 Newton Road/A573 Golborne Road junction to the principles of Curtins Drawing Nos. TPMA1389-105/B & TPMA1389-104/A. • Phase 2 – over 22,000sq.m – works to A49 Newton Road/Delph Lane junction and to A49 Newton Road/Winwick Link Road junction to the principles of Curtins Drawing Nos. TPMA1389-102/C & TPMA1389-103A.

3.132The implementation of these works will require the developer to enter into an agreement with Warrington Borough Council as Highway Authority. The developer should be made aware that it would be the intention of the Council to secure the execution of the works through the Council’s Infrastructure Delivery Team with all works being funded by the developer at nil cost to the Council.

3.133Air Quality:

3.134WSP has completed a technical review of the 2018 ES Addendum (Air Quality and Dust Technical Paper 8), which was submitted by the applicant in relation to planning application reference P/2018/0048/OUP. Considering the subsequent responses and information submitted by RPS (on behalf of the applicant), WSP has concluded that the air quality assessment is technically sound and the conclusions considered to be appropriate within the context of local and national planning policy.

3.135The air quality assessment has adopted methodologies and utilised available data that aligns with current guidance as published by Defra and the Institute of Air Quality Management (AQMA), in addition to appropriate baseline data and reports published by St Helens Council. The assessment focusses on potential construction and operation phase air quality impacts, predominantly in relation to fugitive dust emissions (construction phase) and vehicle exhaust emissions (NOx, NO2, PM10, PM2.5) from the local road network (operation phase). Furthermore, the assessment accounts for potential cumulative air quality impacts associated with future committed development.

3.136The construction phase dust assessment reported in the 2018 ES Addendum reaches a conclusion that the development site is classified as being ‘high’ risk with respect to generating dust impacts. Sections 7 and 8 of the Air Quality and Dust Technical Paper detail appropriate dust mitigation measures, including suitable monitoring of dust and PM10, commencing at least three months before construction commences. These measures will be included in a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), in addition to a site- specific monitoring programme and Dust Management Plan (DMP). The following planning condition is recommended in relation to the construction phase and air quality:

All proposed construction dust mitigation measures should be detailed within a Dust Management Plan (DMP), which should be contained within the Construction Environmental Management Plan for the site, and submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Authority in advance of any works commencing at the site. The DMP should include details of the proposed dust monitoring programme, both before and during construction, with proposed locations and duration of monitoring agreed with the Local Authority in advance of monitoring being commenced.

82 P/2018/0048/OUP 102 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 3.137In terms of the operation phase local air quality results, the assessment reported in the ES Addendum (Air Quality and Dust Technical Paper) and subsequently updated and clarified through sensitivity testing undertaken by RPS, utilised detailed dispersion modelling (ADMS-Roads) of vehicle emissions to derive pollutant concentrations at a number of identified sensitive receptors. These included receptors within the High Street, Newton-le- Willows AQMA street canyon and the assessment conservatively assumed that background pollutant levels across the study area would remain unchanged between the assessed base year (2017), the proposed opening year of development (2020), and design year (2030).

3.138The ES Addendum reported predicted exceedances of the annual mean NO2 objective (40 μg/m3) at a select number of receptors, with some exceedances attributed to the operation of the development. However, the technical review completed by WSP identified that the dispersion modelling exercise had incorporated potentially erroneous inputs (e.g. incorrect background NO2 concentrations), thus requiring the sensitivity testing, as reported by RPS, to update receptor results and confirm the overall conclusions of the ES Addendum. The predicted annual mean concentrations of NO2 reported in the ES Addendum and subsequently updated in the sensitivity study are presented for comparison in the table below.

3.139It is evident that with the appropriate amendment to the NO2 background concentration and other updates applied to the air quality model verification in the sensitivity testing, the total annual mean NO2 concentrations are predicted to reduce significantly relative to the ES Addendum. However, the percentage impacts attributed to the development relative to the ‘without’ development scenario, as reported in the sensitivity testing, remain consistent with the ES Addendum.

3.140Both the ES Addendum and sensitivity testing did not report any exceedances of the PM10 and PM2.5 objectives in any scenario. Furthermore, there were no predicted exceedances of the annual mean NO2 objective within the Newton-le-Willows AQMA, both ‘without’ and ‘with’ the development in operation.

3.141The operation phase assessment of the ES Addendum concluded that there are expected to be no significant air quality effects associated with the proposed development. Given the further sensitivity tests completed by RPS, as reviewed in this note, the conclusion of no significant effects reported in the ES Addendum is appropriate.

3.142Notwithstanding the conclusion of no significant effects, Table 8.2, Section 8 of the ES Addendum stipulates that a Travel Plan(s) will be developed for the proposed development, which will be secured by planning condition and approved by St Helens Council prior to development occupation. Whilst we have assumed that the Highways

83 P/2018/0048/OUP 103 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 Department of St Helens Council will provide the appropriate planning condition for a Travel Plan, WSP recommends that the Travel Plan(s) should include measures to encourage sustainable means of transport, with the aim of reducing private car use to and from the site, to align with principles of good practice as outlined by IAQM guidance.

3.143Furthermore, to align with the National Planning Policy Framework and good practice principles for developments of this nature, provision of car park spaces for electric vehicle charging and other ultra-low emission vehicles should be accounted for. The IAQM guidance1 recommends that new development should allow for the provision of at least 1 Electric Vehicle (EV) “fast charge” point per 1,000 m2 of commercial floorspace. However, a relatively more practical approach could be adopted for this development whilst the national private car fleet transitions towards a higher proportion of electric vehicles. WSP proposes the following planning condition in relation to air quality and the operation phase of the development:

The development car park provision should allow for 1 electric vehicle charging point and 1 preferential parking space for employees that car share or own hybrid vehicles for every 2,000 m3 of floorspace.

3.144Noise:

3.145WSP has previously undertaken a technical review of the noise and vibration assessment work submitted in support of this planning application. The completed review work has been extensive and has duly considered both the original submitted noise and vibration assessment work as detailed within the Environmental Statement (ES) and Environmental Statement Addendum (ESA) as well as various additional clarifying information provided in response to the findings of that initial review works.

3.146The completed technical review work is reported within the following WSP documents: • WSP Technical Report (13/06/19) Parkside Colliery – Main Site: ES Addendum Technical Review (Acoustics and Air Quality); • WSP Technical Note (12/08/19) Former Parkside Colliery P/2018/0048/OUP): Acoustics Assessment Review, project reference 70047403; • WSP Technical Note (31/10/19) Former Parkside Colliery P/2018/0048/OUP): Acoustics Assessment Review, project reference 70047403; and • WSP Technical Note (22/11/19) Former Parkside Colliery P/2018/0048/OUP): Acoustics Assessment Review, project reference 70047403.

3.147The submitted assessment work has considered the noise and vibration impacts that could arise as a result of the Proposed Development during both its construction and operational phases.

3.148The application is outline in nature, and as such, various details associated with the proposals are yet to be finalised, e.g. the precise plant to be used in the construction of the scheme and the final scheme layout and design (the development of which will be finalised at the reserved maters application stage). It has therefore been necessary for the submitted assessment work to be based upon a number of assumptions and example operational scenarios etc. This is not uncommon for an outline application such as this, but, where planning permission is considered appropriate, it can lead to the need for additional noise

84 P/2018/0048/OUP 104 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 and vibration related planning conditions in order that any effects which have been identified to arise from the development are not exceeded in practice.

Construction Phase 3.149The assessment of potential impacts that could arise during the construction phase has considered construction noise, construction traffic noise and construction vibration. The completed assessment work has been based upon applicable British Standards and guidance and the results of baseline noise survey work. The baseline survey results have been used to establish the prevailing local noise levels and to determine appropriate construction noise criteria for assessment against.

Construction noise 3.150The construction noise assessment details various mitigation measures that are proposed to be employed over the course of the works. These include the adoption of Best Practicable Means (BPM) for the minimisation of noise, the submission of, and subsequent compliance with, a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), and to seek to agree the following construction working hours:

• 08:00 to 18:00 Monday to Friday; • 08:00 to 13:00 Saturdays; and • No Working on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

It is identified that with these measures in place, construction noise could be controlled to be within appropriate noise assessment criteria for the vast majority of the works.

3.151Through a review of additional clarifying information, it has been identified that higher noise levels may arise for limited periods, e.g. where works are necessary in close proximity to adjacent residential properties, but that such works would be occasional and short-term in nature. This could be appropriately managed through the adoption of BPM including adopting good neighbourly relations, e.g. keeping residents informed of progress and when works in proximity to their properties is programmed to arise etc. With these measures in place, and compliance with the suggested construction working hours, the primary conclusion that a significant effect would not arise as a result of construction noise is accepted. In terms of the Noise Policy Statement for

England (NPSE) it is identified that the Significant Observed Adverse Effect Level (SOAEL) would not be exceeded with these measures in place..

Construction traffic noise 3.152The assessment of construction traffic noise states that the primary construction traffic route to/from the site will be from the south using the A49 (which links to the M6). The proportion of new construction traffic is low compared to existing flows on this route.

3.153It is agreed that the noise level changes that would arise as result of construction traffic would therefore be small and not sufficient to give rise to a significant effect In terms of the Noise Policy Statement for England (NPSE) it is identified that the Significant Observed Adverse Effect Level (SOAEL) would not be exceeded..

Construction vibration 3.154Accounting for the provision and review of additional clarifying information, the assessment of construction vibration has considered piling works as well as other possible construction vibration sources such as the use of vibratory rollers. The extent of the assessment is limited to non-impulsive forms of piling (e.g. augered / bored piling, not driven

85 P/2018/0048/OUP 105 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 piling works). It would therefore be appropriate to ensure by means of condition, that driven / impulsive piling or ground works are not undertaken at the site unless otherwise agreed with St Helens Council.

3.155It is identified that construction vibration would be below appropriate criteria for the vast majority of the construction works, but with the potential for higher levels to arise, e.g. during the start-up and run-down of vibratory rollers when operated in closest proximity to adjacent residential properties. However, this would occur only for very short time periods so it is agreed that a significant effect would not arise.

3.156It is recommended that, in order to ensure that significant effects do not occur in practice, Best Practicable Means are employed, and that driven / impulsive piling or ground works are not allowed to be undertaken in the construction of the Proposed Development. This could be ensured through an appropriate CEMP

3.157In terms of the Noise Policy Statement for England (NPSE) it is identified that the Significant Observed Adverse Effect Level (SOAEL) would not be exceeded with the identified measures in place.

Operational Phase 3.158The assessment of potential impacts that could arise during the operational phase has considered both changes in road traffic noise levels that could arise as a result of development generated road traffic, and impact of noise from the site itself once operational.

3.159The completed assessment work has been based upon applicable British Standards and guidance and also draws upon the results of baseline noise survey work. The baseline survey results have been used to establish the prevailing background sound levels in the vicinity of the site during both daytime and night time periods. These measurement results have then been used to facilitate an assessment of noise from the site once operational, in accordance with BS4142, which is the appropriate assessment method to apply.

Development generated road traffic noise 3.160The assessment of development generated traffic noise has identified that only small noise levels changes would arise in both the short term (i.e. immediately upon the opening of the scheme), and in the long-term (i.e. into the future). The level changes identified to arise are not sufficient to give rise to significant effects. No planning

conditions are considered warranted given the low noise levels changes that have been identified.

3.161In terms of the Noise Policy Statement for England (NPSE) it is identified that the Significant Observed Adverse Effect Level (SOAEL) would not be exceeded.

Noise from the site once operational 3.162The levels of noise that will be generated from the site once operational are dependent upon a number of factors. These include the final scheme layout and design that is brought forward (and which would be the subject of a later reserved matters application), the future occupants of the scheme and the nature and intensity of their business / operations. Therefore, to facilitate the assessment of operational noise from the site, the completed assessment has necessarily been based on a number of assumptions including an example scheme layout and an assumed operational scenario.

86 P/2018/0048/OUP 106 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 3.163Drawing reference number 16043_PL116 entitled Phase1 Parameter Plan Acoustic Consideration, details zones within which no external services, plant and equipment shall be located, and within which no loading bays shall be orientated towards noise sensitive receptors. The masterplan that has been adopted for assessment has been developed in line with this parameter plan, and it is recommend that a planning condition is therefore imposed to ensure that the final scheme masterplan that is brought forward as part of any future reserved matters application also complies with that parameter plan.

3.164The assessment has also taken account of proposed site perimeter bunding including a bund rising to 4m above slab level north of Unit D and a bund rising to 4m above the slab level west of Unit A. These bunds have been proposed to provide noise attenuation to existing dwellings at Newton Park Farm to the north and dwellings fronting onto the A49 to the west. It is therefore recommended that a bespoke noise mitigation scheme is developed as part of the reserved matters application, to account for the final scheme layout design that is brought forward at that stage.

3.165As noted, the levels of noise that would be generated once operational are dependent upon the future occupier and the nature and intensity of their business. For example, the storage and distribution of chilled goods will require the arrival, departure and onsite operation of HGVs with trailer chillers, which can generate additional noise to the HGV tractor / cab unit. The resulting noise levels for such operations can therefore be expected to be higher than for an operator whose business is associated with the storage and distribution of ambient temperature goods only. Similarly, higher noise levels could be generated from the use of diesel powered trailer chillers, compared to electric powered trailer chillers, albeit the use of diesel powered chillers is becoming less common.

3.166The completed operational noise level predictions are stated to include for the use of trailer chillers, but it has been identified that the source data used is representative of only a sample of the quietest electric powered trailer chillers on the market. Taking the other findings of the completed review work into account, the predicted operational noise levels that have been assessed are considered to be a reasonable representation of the operational noise levels that can be expected to be generated from the example scheme layout when operated for the storage and distribution of ambient temperature goods.

3.167The completed assessment has appraised the predicted operational noise levels if generated during both daytime and night-time periods. In accordance with the applicable British Standard (BS 4142) the operational noise levels have been assessed by comparison against the prevailing daytime and night-time background sound levels, as determined by measurement. The completed measurement survey included measurements undertaken during the quietest parts of the night-time (e.g. between 2AM and 4AM) thereby ensuring a worst-case assessment for this period, but not the quietest part of the daytime (e.g. late evening between 19:00 and 23:00). However, it is considered that night-time operation will be the limiting scenario given that lower background levels will typically prevail for this period compared to the evening.

3.168The completed assessment has identified that the resulting operational noise levels, after accounting for the attenuation from the proposed site boundary bunds and character of source, would be no more than 3 to 4 dB above the night-time background sound levels at existing dwellings(for context, a 3dB change in noise level is commonly considered to be the smallest change perceptible to humans unless under controlled (e.g. laboratory) conditions, whilst a 10dB change corresponds to a subjective doubling of level). Accounting for context, as required by BS 4142, including the fact that during this period people would generally be

87 P/2018/0048/OUP 107 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 residing internally, and therefore benefit from the noise attenuation afforded by their building fabric, it is agreed that a significant effect would not arise (for ambient goods distribution).

3.169For the daytime period, the measurement survey did not include measurements during the quietest hours (e.g. during the late evening). However, the background noise levels during these periods will typically be higher than those determined for the night-time, so it can again be concluded that a significant effect would also not arise during the daytime (for ambient goods distribution). There is the potential for greater impact to arise in the case of operations associated with chilled goods.

3.170It has therefore been demonstrated that the Proposed Development can be designed and operated within appropriate operational noise levels, but that this is dependent upon the final scheme layout and design and the noise mitigation measures that are brought forward at the reserved matters stage as well as the nature and intensity of future activities that are ultimately undertaken at the site.

3.171In terms of the Noise Policy Statement for England (NPSE) it is considered that with planning conditions in place to ensure good final layout design and limit the allowable noise emissions from the site, levels can be controlled to be below the Significant Observed Adverse Effect Level (SOAEL).

3.172Historic England:

The following comments were originally received from Historic England

3.173The proposed development is located within the northern portion of the registered battlefield of Winwick (also known as the Battle of Red Bank), which is of high significance as the site of the final battle of the Second English Civil War in 1648, and as the only battlefield of that war which remains in a substantial state of preservation. Historic England considers that the proposed development would cause harm to the northern part of the registered battlefield, but in the context of the battlefield as a whole, the level of harm, although high, is less than substantial. Therefore, while Historic England has concerns about the proposals on heritage grounds, we do not wish to object to the application. We do, however, advise that your authority should weigh the harm which would be caused to the significance of the registered battlefield by the proposed development against the public benefits which are claimed for it, as required by paragraph 134 of the NPPF, and should also consider whether additional measures might be put in place which would mitigate its impact to some degree.

3.174The significance of the battlefield, as the site of the action which ended the Second English Civil War in 1648 in victory for the Parliamentarian side, is recognised by its formal registration and inclusion in the National Heritage List for England. From 1957 to 1993 the application site and northern portion of the battlefield was occupied by a major colliery complex and its related infrastructure. Following demolition of the colliery, considerable landscaping has taken place to return the area to something approximating to its original topography. Despite this later development the registered battlefield retains substantial integrity, allowing the course of the battle to be appreciated and understood with views into, out of and within the battlefield being largely uninterrupted. The Winwick battlefield can be considered the only English battlefield of the Second Civil War which remains in a substantial state of preservation, although field evaluation commissioned by the applicants has shown that the archaeological potential of the northern part of the battlefield is significantly lower than that of the remainder of the registered site.

88 P/2018/0048/OUP 108 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 3.175Nearly half of the application site lies within the northern part of the registered battlefield. This includes part of the area where documentary evidence shows that the Parliamentarian army, under the command of Oliver Cromwell, deployed on encountering the retreating Royalist forces, who had decided to make a stand at Red Bank (where the main road from Newton-le-Willows to Warrington - now the A49 - crosses the steep-sided valley occupied by a tributary of Newton Brook, Oswald’s Brook, and cuts through a high sandstone bank on its southern side). Cromwell himself is thought to have set up his headquarters at or close to the site of Newton Park Farm, some distance to the north of the Registered Battlefield site.

3.176The proposed development would have a very harmful impact on the part of the registered battlefield which lies to the north of the valley of Oswald’s Brook, occupying much of the surviving portion of the area in which the Parliamentarian army initially deployed. The introduction of very large modern warehouse buildings would clearly change the appearance of the area radically, as would ancillary works such as the creation of buffers and bunds, and other landscaping. The proposed development would interrupt views southwards from Newton Park Farm, and be clearly visible in views into the battlefield from the east. It would also impinge upon views northwards from the position initially occupied by the Royalist army, although it would to some extent be screened from the south by woodland and scrub, which would be strengthened by additional planting proposed in the application.

3.177The proposed development would therefore cause harm to the northern part of the registered battlefield, but because of the previous recent use of the application site and the impact this has had on the archaeological integrity of the site, Historic England does not consider that the harm amounts to substantial harm, as defined in the NPPF (paragraphs 132 and 133), when considered in the context of the registered battlefield as a whole.

3.178The proposed development would have no direct impact on the core area of the battlefield, at Red Bank, where the fiercest fighting took place as the Royalist troops attempted to prevent the Parliamentarians from crossing the valley of Oswald’s Brook, although it might be visible in views northwards from the Royalist position. It would have no impact upon the majority of the registered battlefield to the south, across which the Royalists attempted to retreat until eventually forced to surrender at Winwick. Nor would it seriously affect the public’s ability to understand how the battle developed, or how the main events of the battle relate to the existing landscape.

3.179Government policy, as set out in the NPPF, is that any harm to designated heritage assets requires justification. Where that harm is less than substantial, as we consider it to be in this case, paragraph 134 of the NPPF advises that “where a development

proposal will 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”. It is therefore for St Helens Council, as the local planning authority, to weigh the harm which the proposed development would cause to the significance of the registered battlefield against the public benefits which are claimed for it.

3.180In weighing the harm which the proposed development would cause to the significance of the registered battlefield against the public benefits which are claimed for it, Historic England is keen to work with the local authority and developer to identify and consider whether some additional measures might be put in place to mitigate its impact. For example, if it were possible to use more recessive colours for the proposed units, modify the landscaping to provide better viewing platforms, or allow public access along the western boundary of the proposed development site to the northern bank of the valley occupied by

89 P/2018/0048/OUP 109 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 Oswald’s Brook, where the installation of interpretation would allow them to appreciate the view which greeted the Parliamentarian forces as they advanced towards the position held by the Royalists, the application would better address the requirements of paragraphs 129 and 131 of the NPPF.

3.181Historic England has concerns regarding the application on heritage grounds. Because we consider that the proposed development would cause less than substantial harm, in the context of the registered battlefield as a whole, we do not wish to object to the application. However, we consider that the issues outlined in our advice, and measures that might potentially help to mitigate them, need to be addressed in order for the application to meet the requirements of paragraphs 129 and 131 of the NPPF.

The following comments were received following the submission of the Addendum to the Environmental Statement

3.182The amendments to the scheme as originally proposed include changes to the access road corridor, reduction in height of the proposed buildings to 22m in Plots A/B, and to 23m in Plots C/D; reconfiguration of the development cell for A/B; changes to planting, and other elements of the landscaping proposals; and incorporation into the scheme of a heritage trail, interpretation boards, and associated visitor parking. The Environmental Statement (ES) has been updated to reflect these changes, and we note that it has also been updated to reflect the registration of the battlefield of the Battle of Winwick, which was not completed until after the submission of the original planning application.

3.183The net result of the proposed amendments would be to reduce or mitigate, to a certain extent, the harmful impact of the proposed development on the registered battlefield of the Battle of Winwick. The changes to the access road corridor and limited reduction in height of the proposed buildings are unlikely to reduce the harmful impact of the proposal. However, the amended landscaping proposals, and particularly the increased planting along the southern boundary of the development site, would help to soften the impact of the development in views of the battlefield from the south. Similarly, the reconfiguration of the development cell for Plots A/B, with the proposed buildings now aligned east-west rather than north-south as previously, would have the effect of moving the development footprint northwards by a few metres, leaving a greater distance to the southern boundary of the development site. However, the beneficial effect of the change is likely to be balanced by the reduction in visibility through the development caused by the realignment of the buildings proposed for Plots A/B; views southwards from Newton Park Farmhouse are likely to be particularly affected. Historic England does not normally comment on the impact of development proposals on the setting of Grade II listed buildings, but we recommend that the views of your conservation team are sought to the extent to which this would impact on the setting of Newton Park Farmhouse.

3.184The proposal for the incorporation into the development of a heritage trail, interpretation boards, and visitor parking is a positive step, which would go some way towards mitigating the otherwise harmful impacts of the proposed development on the registered battlefield. In our response to the original planning consultation, we assessed the proposal as causing a high degree of harm to the battlefield, although we were also clear that it did not constitute substantial harm, and thus did not reach the high benchmark which would lead us to object to the proposal. The effect of the proposed amendments would be to slightly reduce the level of harm, and to provide in addition a certain amount of mitigation. Nevertheless, the effect of the proposed development would still be to cause a high level of harm, and it is for your Council, as local planning authority, to weigh the harm which the

90 P/2018/0048/OUP 110 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 proposed development would cause to the registered battlefield against the public benefits which are claimed for it.

3.185In summary, Historic England has concerns regarding the application on heritage grounds. However, we accept that, although the level of harm to the registered battlefield remains high, positive attempts have been made to reduce the level of harm, and to mitigate to a certain extent the impact of the proposed development on the registered battlefield.

3.186Conservation Officer:

3.187The battle of Winwick Pass 1648 was the last major engagement of the Second Civil War, the outcome of which effectively resulted in the parliamentarians succeeding and the eventual trial and execution of the then king. The Parliamentarians victory is a pinnacle moment in the nation’s history and consequently has national significance.

3.188The high retention of topographical integrity within the designated battlefield (when considered as a whole) also contributes to its significance and this is despite some later developments/alterations within the boundaries. The site of the battle is therefore of high conservation significance as a result of its historical importance and landscape integrity.

3.189It is worthy of note, that where the extent of alteration to the landscape thought to have played a part in this battle was deemed to be too great, these areas were omitted from formal designation as a battlefield. This includes the main section of the former Parkside Colliery (1957-1993) which included the colliery buildings (now demolished) and its associated evacuation areas (now infilled). Newton Park Farm was also excluded, partly because it would have been geographically removed from the rest of the battlefield but also due to lack of primary documentary evidence in support of its use as a base camp by the parliamentarians.

3.190Newton Park Farm lies immediately to the north of the site. It contains 2no.grade II listed buildings: Newton Park Farm (dated 1774 on a metal plate found to the rear) and Newton Park Barn which is thought to date from the 16th to early 17th century. Due to its elevated position, it is speculated that Cornwell used the barn as his headquarters during the battle of Winnick.

3.191The site includes the northern portion of the battlefield within St Helens Borough boundary which currently consists of self-seeded trees and grassland.

3.192This northern portion of the battlefield lies within land associated with the former Parkside Colliery. As a result of associated mining activities, there was extensive surface scarping to the east of the site as evidenced by aerial photographs taken in 1961 and supplied as part of this application. In addition, historic maps suggest that Hermitage Green Lane was widened over time and there are also indications that the

‘red bank’ outcropping was truncated to the west in the 18th century during the creation of the Warrington to Wigan turnpike road.

3.193The culverting of the Oswald Brook also occurred at this time with further alterations to the brook during Parkside Colliery years of operation. The south-western field was disturbed and compromised by the introduction of a methane pipe which is evident from the clear diagonal strip which can be seen during dry weather. These alterations aside, the strategic advantages afforded by some areas of the landscape and located within this site, such as

91 P/2018/0048/OUP 111 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 the ridge found near Hermitage Green is still clearly evident and therefore of high significance.

3.194The current proposals represent an amendment to the originally submitted scheme. There are changes to the access route and aspects of the proposed landscaping including the incorporation of a heritage trail (including interpretation boards) and associated visitor parking. In addition, there are amendments to the submitted Environmental Statement which reflect the registered status of the battlefield.

3.195The National Planning Policy Framework is clear that in determining planning applications, account should be taken of the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation.

3.196While this site includes but a small section of the overall registered battlefield, the proposed ground works and subsequent construction of the 22m high warehouse A/B within its boundaries will have a harmful impact on this part of the significance of the battlefield as it will compromise its open nature as well as potentially disturb below ground archaeology.

3.197The associated proposed creation of bunds and buffers would further alter the existing landscape and interrupts those strategic views which played an important part in the battle of Winwick.

3.198Paragraph 193 of the NPPF is relevant and carries significant weight. It advises that ‘significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting.’ The level of harm in this case would be that of less than substantial. Consequently, any proposed development would need to address the requirements of Paragraph 196 of the NPPF which states that ‘where a development proposal will 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, including securing its optimum viable use.’

3.199If the Local Planning Authority considers that these tests can be met, the following advice will apply:

3.200In respect of the designated battlefield, the area nearest the pass is the most sensitive therefore the increase set back from the pass that these revised access proposals suggest is welcomed. This will not negate the harm to its significance, but it will reduce the extent of harm.

3.201It is accepted that the submitted floorplans and elevations are purely indicative however it is disappointing to see that opportunities have not been taken to reduce the visual impact of the proposed development within the concept design. This is a source of concern as some of these opportunities could require amendments to the proposed access.

3.202For instance, if the warehouses were orientated on an angle similar to the new office building found along St Helens Linkway, this would greatly reduce the visual impact of the proposal whilst also allowing for long views through the site.

3.203If this is not possible, when a full application is submitted, glazed areas to the elevations which marry up with corridors within the warehouse would go some way towards addressing the loss of long views of the battlefield north of Hermitage Green.

92 P/2018/0048/OUP 112 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 3.204In addition, splaying the corners and introducing some verticality to the external cladding would help reduce the perceived length and solidness of proposed warehouse A/B which at present, reads as a large and abrupt visual barrier which interrupts the long views across the battlefield north of Hermitage Green. The effectiveness of such an approach albeit at a more ambitious scale, can be seen at Vitra warehouse in Germany.

3.205If a decision is made in favour of this application, “the aim then is to capture and record the evidence of the asset’s significance which is to be lost, interpret its contribution to the understanding of our past, and make that publicly available.” National Planning Policy Guidance Paragraph: 003 Reference ID: 18a-003-20140306

3.206The aforementioned land scarping certainly reduces the likelihood of any possible archaeological findings within the east section of the site, an assertion which comprehensive archaeological investigative works carried out by West Yorkshire Archaeology Service (WYAS) in November 2017 which included geophysical survey, systematic metal detecting surveys and trial trenching appear to support.

3.207That said, there are still some concerns regarding the proposed lowering of the ground levels. It is understood that the lowering of the finished ground level is proposed in order to reduce the perceived height of the proposed new development.

3.208These concerns are based on the very limited trial trenching possible to the western part of the site which was heavily hindered by the existence of the existing trees. Therefore, it is entirely possible that any subsequent engineering and re-levelling works within this area will disturb any currently unknown archaeology in this area.

3.209There is a minor positive to these works in that any potential finds associated with the excavation works required to fully implement these proposals could contribute to our understanding of this nationally significant battlefield. This would require a watching brief to ensure this occurs.

3.210It is acknowledged however that this positive has limited weight in respect of any planning application as in accordance with Paragraph 199 of the NPPF “the ability to record evidence of our past should not be a factor in deciding whether such loss should be permitted.”

3.211Where a site incorporates or affects the setting of a designated heritage asset such as those found at Newton Park Farm, any development should sustain and enhance the significance of the assets including the contribution made by their setting. It should be noted that the farmhouse is in a dilapidated state and is considered at risk.

3.212The prevailing open, rural and agricultural setting surrounding the grade II listed farm house and barn contribute to their significance; both in respect of their setting and their historic interest with the views across open fields giving an important sense of place.

3.213Currently, the belt of trees to the south of the listed buildings does screen the southern section of the site from view which reduces the contribution that section of the site makes to the setting of the listed buildings.

3.214That said, the proposed height of the warehouse will result in development higher than the current tree canopy therefore the proposals although largely screened by the existing trees and those trees proposed to the new bund will be visible and this could harm the open and rural setting of the listed buildings. In terms of the requirements of the NPPF, the level of

93 P/2018/0048/OUP 113 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 harm albeit moderate to the setting of the listed buildings, would be considered to be that of less than substantial harm.

3.215Battlefields Trust:

The Battlefields Trust made the following comments on the original Environmental Statement:

3.216The Trust notes that this application was made before Historic England registered the nationally important battlefield of Winwick (1648). As this registration covers part of the proposed development site and the application, understandably, makes no mention of this, the Trust expects the application to be withdrawn and either substantially amended to take account of this designation or not resubmitted. In the event that this approach is not taken the Trust objects to the proposed development on the grounds of its impact on a designated heritage asset. The National Planning Policy Framework is clear that significant harm to registered battlefields should be wholly exceptional. It is unclear on what exceptional grounds this development, which would destroy over a fifth of the battlefield, should proceed given the proposed use is for warehousing and business units which could be built elsewhere. The Trust also objects to the proposed development due to its impact on the setting of the registered battlefield. Construction on the site would adversely affect views of the parliamentarian position from the main area of fighting and impose an inappropriate modern view on the whole of the registered area from the south.

The following comments were received on the basis of the Addendum Environmental Statement:

3.217The Battlefields Trust notes the contents of the revised environmental statement, particularly the reduction in building sizes, landscaping proposals and intention to incorporate battlefield interpretation and visitor parking should the development go ahead. It agrees with Historic England that these changes offer some mitigation, but concurs that the overall impact of the development scheme on the registered battlefield is unchanged.

3.218The Trust judges that the area of parliamentarian deployment and the view that Cromwell, who commanded the force, had of the Anglo-Scottish position at Red Bank constitutes a key element of the heritage asset as it is from this perspective that subsequent tactical decisions were made. Whilst the landscape has altered since 1648, it has not changed so much to prevent the main features of the Red Bank position from being considered from the parliamentarian point of view. Indeed the terrain level of the fields immediately to the east of the A49 north of Hermitage Brook appear to be unchanged and they remained in agricultural use whilst mining operations took place. Allowing the development to proceed would destroy this perspective. Given the impact on this key element of the battlefield, and in line with existing guidance, the Trust therefore takes the view that the harm of the proposed development on the heritage asset would be substantial and should therefore, under the terms of the National Planning Policy Framework, be wholly exceptional.

3.219The Trust notes the work undertaken so far has not identified any battle related archaeology, but it does not accept that this means there is none to be found. Ten metre transects were used to investigate the site. Whilst such methodology was used for the Edgehill survey conducted 2004-2006 due to the large area needing to be covered, recent Battlefields Trust practice has used 5m and 2.5m transects to identify the archaeology on smaller areas requiring investigation. Given the relatively limited area involved at Winwick, we would recommend any further archaeological survey work is conducted at this intensity.

94 P/2018/0048/OUP 114 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 3.220Some aspects of Appendix 9.5 – Assessment of the Battlefield of Winwick - in the Cultural Heritage Addendum to the application produced by the applicants consultants are incorrect in the Trust’s view. For example, the map at figure 2 appears to show a lack of understanding of how a seventeenth century army would have advanced to contact once deployed in battle. It also suggests that musket range is limited to 100 metres. On the latter point Foard and Morris (2012) are clear that terminal range for a musket fired point blank in firing experiments is at least 350m. This again raises the question of whether the survey work conducted on the development site has been adequate.

3.221Finally, we are concerned that the proposed drainage solution for the site will involve run off being deliberately channelled into Hermitage Brook. This brook forms another key feature of the battlefield and we are concerned that the drainage will significantly alter the character of this watercourse and affect the overall terrain condition of this part of the battlefield. It would be helpful to understand what modelling has been done on this as reassurance about the overall impact of the drainage measures.

Following the receipt of additional archaeological information the following comments were received:

3.222The Battlefields Trust remains unconvinced that detecting at 10m transects was sufficient for the battlefield area affected by the planning application. It accepts that most of the fighting probably took place in the Hermitage Brook valley and to the west of the A49. But a common seventeenth century tactical response to the position the Scottish army found itself in would have been to have posted a forlorn hope across the Hermitage Brook as a skirmish line both to warn of an advanced by the parliamentarian forces and provide an initial volley of fire to disrupt any advance at range. Such a deployment would not have resulted in many lead bullets being used and as a consequence the 10m transect approach could easily have missed these finds. Most of the accounts of the battle are from parliamentarian sources and they may well have omitted any Scottish forlorn deployment as a minor aspect of the engagement.

3.223The Trust views the 10m transect methodology as valid for large battlefield areas where lead shot is likely to have been deposited in quantity. This is the approach that was used at Edgehill where we know from the royalist ordnance records, that at least two tons of musket shot (or around 54,000 bullets) was used by the King’s army during the battle. If the parliamentarian army, which was of a similar size, used the same number of bullets here then over 100,000 bullets would have potentially been discoverable. The Edgehill survey only recovered around 245 musket bullets using a 10m transect methodology or around 0.25 percent of those fired.

3.224 If a Scottish forlorn hope of 250 men had been deployed at Winwick and they fired once, the recovery rate using a 10m transect approach, based on the Edgehill experience, would have been less than a single bullet. It is for this reason the Trust argues that the 10m transect approach used by the applicant’s archaeological team was inappropriate and as a minimum a 5m (and preferably a 2.5m) approach should

have been used given the relatively small area involved. In the Trust’s experience, the methodological approach to surveying a battlefield needs to be tailored to the specific circumstances of the battle; one size doesn’t fit all.

3.225If the development does go ahead (and the Trust remains opposed to it) it will cause any extant battlefield archaeology to be lost. In these circumstances The Trust takes the view that it is incumbent on the applicant to recover all the archaeological data that is

95 P/2018/0048/OUP 115 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 available and that a further survey (using a 5m transect approach as a minimum) should be imposed as a condition of any agreed planning permission. There may well not be any battle related archaeology to recover, but the methodology used so far, is, in the Trust’s view, inadequate to establish whether this is the case.

3.226 The West Yorkshire Archaeological Service report also refers to more intensive detecting work being undertaken on the southern boundary of the site. It is unclear whether this means narrower transects were used or whether detectorists simple wandered at random in this area. It would be helpful to understand what was done to more intensively detect and how far northward from the southern boundary this ‘intense’ surveying took place.

When responding to the application for the Parkside Link Road, the Trust made the following observations:

3.227We are responding generally to application P/2018/0249/FUL, to the related Heritage Impact Assessment provided at Appendix A6.1 and to comment on the association between that application and P/2018/0048/OUP.

3.228Appendix A6.1 is a better Heritage Impact Assessment than that produced for P/2018/0048/OUP, which in the Battlefields Trust’s opinion is inadequate, partial and does not provide sufficient information for the Council to discharge its responsibilities under paragraphs 190, 193 and 194 of the National Planning Policy Framework. Notwithstanding the improved Heritage Impact Assessment, the Battlefields Trust opposes planning application P/2018/0249/FUL because it is an enabling development for P/2018/0048/OUP which will substantially harm the registered battlefield. If planning permission for P/2018/0249/FUL is issued before a decision is made on P/2018/0048/OUP, the Trust would like to see any decision to grant permission to be made conditional on the outcome of P/2018/0048/OUP. If the latter application is rejected, then the former should not be allowed to proceed. Given this linkage, I would be grateful if you could ensure these comments also form part of the evidence base for planning application P/2018/0048/OUP.

3.229Merseyside Environmental Advisory Service (MEAS)

MEAS made the following comments on the initial submission.

3.230The application is supported by an Environmental Statement (Spawforths 11 January Revision D) which was produced under the EIA Regulations 2011, in line with transition arrangements set out in regulation 76 of the EIA Regulations 2017.

3.231The Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2011 sets out in Schedule 4 the general requirements for the content of Environmental Statements. These comprise information on: the nature of the development; consideration of alternatives; relevant aspects of the environment; likely environmental impacts arising; proposed mitigation measures; and an indication of any difficulties in compiling the information needed. A non- technical summary of the contents of the Environmental Statement is also required.

3.232Having reviewed the submitted Environmental Statement additional information is required by the Council under paragraph 22 of the EIA Regulations including the information requested in this memorandum. The submitted ES does not currently satisfy the requirements of the Regulations and should not be used as a basis for determination of the application. An updated ES should be submitted which includes the information requested, along with any information requirements from other technical specialists.

96 P/2018/0048/OUP 116 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 Archaeology and Cultural Heritage 3.233Since submission of the planning application (16th January 2018) Historic England on the 31st January 2018 designated the proposed development site as part of the Battle of Winwick or Red Bank, fought on the 19th August 1648.

3.234The Cultural Heritage Technical Paper 9 that forms part of the Environmental Statement was compiled in early January 2018, prior to the designation of the Battlefield and will therefore need to be revised to take into account the changed status of the Battlefield, and to include a revised assessment of the impact of the proposals, on a now recognised site of national importance.

3.235In response to a request for advice from St Helens Council, Historic England (09/02/2018) replied that although the proposed development,

“would cause harm to the northern part of the registered battlefield, …in the context of the battlefield as a whole, we consider that the level of harm, although high, is less than substantial. Therefore, while Historic England has concerns about the proposals on heritage grounds, we do not wish to object to the proposals.”

3.236The Battlefields Trust are of a contrary opinion, objecting on the basis that they can see no exceptional circumstances to permit development of, what they consider to be around 1/5th of the Battlefield, as well as on the impact of the proposed development on the setting of the Battlefield, as

“construction on the site would adversely affect views of the parliamentarian position from the main area of fighting and impose an inappropriate modern view on the whole of the registered area from the south.”

3.237Furthermore, the effectiveness of the mitigation measures proposed by Historic England in their letter of 09/02/18 should also be assessed, and in order for the comments made by the Battlefields Trust, to be properly considered, additional photomontages addressing the setting issues they have raised should be incorporated into the Technical Paper.

3.238Consequently a revised Cultural Heritage Technical Paper which assesses the impact of the proposed development on the Registered Battlefield is required prior to determination of the outline planning application. For the avoidance of doubt that assessment will need to include sufficient information to meet the requirements of NPPF paragraphs 133 & 134.

3.239The results of the Cultural Heritage Technical Paper should be used to inform further advice and action to avoid or mitigate, loss or damage to the designated heritage asset. MEAS will be able to provide further advice once the Cultural Heritage technical Paper has been submitted.

Ecology 3.240The Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) (Environmental Statement Part 2 - Ecology and Nature Conservation Technical Paper 5, Parkside Regeneration LLP, 21 July

2017, unreferenced) has been informed by a number of survey reports and assessments. However, further information will be required, as outlined further below, before the survey information and, subsequently, the conclusions and recommendations of the EcIA can be accepted.

97 P/2018/0048/OUP 117 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 3.241At the EIA Scoping Stage, MEAS advised that full and up to date ecological survey information will be required with the planning application in line with BS 42020:2013 which advises that all ecological information should be sufficiently the proposals will need to be informed by up to date and that proposals are based on up to date ecological field data.

3.242An updated Ecological Appraisal report has been submitted and this was informed by an updated extended phase 1 habitat and badger survey, updated bat roost potential survey of trees and structures and partial update of bat transect survey and updated Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) assessment of waterbodies.

3.243As a result of the survey works undertaken as part of the updated Ecological Appraisal, the Environmental Statement concludes that full updated protected species surveys (e.g. for amphibians, reptiles, breeding birds, bats and invertebrates) will not be required.

3.244To assist in determining whether this can be accepted by the Council, an updated desktop study will be required prior to determination and that this updated information is used by the applicant to revise the EcIA. The desktop study information used in the submitted EcIA dates from 2014 and 2016 and is therefore dated.

3.245Also at the EIA Scoping Stage, MEAS advised that details of surveyors (i.e. names, experience and license numbers (where relevant)) will be required for verification purposes and must therefore be included in the ecological survey reports submitted in support of the planning application. However, surveyor details are absent from the updated Ecological Appraisal and from the 2015 badger and breeding bird survey reports. Surveyor information is still therefore required prior to determination to meet BS 42020:2013.

Protected and notable species Bats 3.246The 2015 bat activity surveys were partially updated by a single transect survey and weeklong static bat detector survey in 2017. Section 4.2.3.1 of the updated Ecological Appraisal report refers to a drawing 4.3 which illustrates the results of the transect survey, although this drawing has not been included in the submitted report version and is therefore required prior to determination of the application. The bat transect results drawing is also missing from the 2015 bat survey report and this is also required prior to determination.

3.247As part of the updated Ecological Appraisal, trees were assessed for potential bat roosting features along the southern boundary of the site and trees elsewhere within the site were re-assessed. The roosting potential of trees within the site was not found to have changed since the previous 2015 survey. Trees with moderate and high bat roosting potential were noted close to the southern site boundary, although these are located within the Gallows Croft Local Wildlife Site (LWS) which is to be retained as part of the proposed development. Further survey of these trees for roosting bats will not, therefore, be required as the proposals are currently envisaged.

3.248Trees T62 to T65 along the access round had ivy growth on the main stems which was considered to provide low potential for roosting bats. If these trees are to be removed, soft- felling techniques will therefore be required and details of this can be included in the Construction Environmental Management Plan.

3.249Details of the post-development lighting scheme, designed so as to avoid light spillage onto areas of bat foraging and commuting habitat, should be secured by a suitably worded planning condition. Details of construction lighting are to be provided in the Construction Environmental Management Plan.

98 P/2018/0048/OUP 118 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 3.250Section 8.5 of the ES states that a selection of retained trees within the application site will be enhanced for roosting bats through the installation of bat roosting boxes and this is welcome. Details of a bat roost installation scheme (e.g. specification, location and siting of boxes, along with a timetable for implementation) can be secured by a suitably worded planning condition or included within the habitat creation and management plan.

Badger 3.251No badger field signs were recorded during the badger survey undertaken in 2017 as part of the updated Ecological Appraisal and no evidence of badger was recorded during the previous 2014 survey.

3.252However, suitable habitat for badger is present upon the site and due to this, and the transient nature of badgers, we advise that a pre-commencement badger survey is secured by a suitably worded planning condition or included within the Construction Environmental Management Plan.

Water vole and otter 3.253An updated assessment of Oswalds Brook for riparian mammals was undertaken as part of the updated Ecological Appraisal. No field signs of either water vole or otter were recorded and, as the previous 2015 survey had noted, conditions along the brook were considered to be sub-optimal for them due to low water levels, shading and lack of vegetation.

3.254However, there are records of both otter and water vole in the wider area around the site and they may still use the watercourse for commuting purposes. Drainage proposals submitted in support of the application indicate that a new outfall will need to be created into the banks of Oswalds Brook for storm water drainage. It is therefore recommended that a pre-commencement survey for water vole and otter takes place prior to any works taking place on the brook banks. This can be secured by a suitably worded planning condition or included within the Construction Environmental Management Plan.

Breeding birds 3.255The breeding bird survey undertaken in 2015 recorded 13 Red or Amber listed bird species which were considered to hold at least one breeding territory on the site, some of which (e.g. yellowhammer, reed bunting and bullfinch) are also Priority Species. The 2015 breeding bird survey report only provides details of the breeding territories of the red and amber listed species. Full details of the survey, including, details of the breeding territories of all bird species (e.g. number and location) is required prior to determination in order to assist in determining the adequacy of the proposed mitigation.

Orchids 3.256Both common spotted and northern marsh orchid were recorded amongst semiimproved grassland habitats on the site. The majority of this habitat will be lost as a result of the proposed development.

3.257Mitigation will be required in accordance with Local Plan policy CQL3 and section 8.5 of the ES states that this will involve mapping the orchid spikes prior to construction, followed by translocation to areas of retained and newly created grassland on the site at the eastern mound and grassland in the north west of the site near to Unit D. The principle of this is acceptable, although any orchid translocation onto the eastern mound will need to consider the potential impacts of the Parkside Link Road. A method statement for the orchid translocation can be secured by a suitably worded planning condition or included within the Construction Environmental Management Plan.

99 P/2018/0048/OUP 119 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 Green Infrastructure 3.258The submitted Green Infrastructure Plan (Phase 1 Parameter Plan Green Infrastructure, Fletcher Rae, 26 June 2017 (updated 19 July 2017), 16043_PL114, Rev A) and Illustrative Masterplan (Fletcher Rae, 27 June 2017 (updated 20 July 2017), 16043_PL3000, Rev A) confirms that the Gallows Croft Local Wildlife Site which falls within the southern boundary of the application site will be retained and supplemented with additional tree and shrub planting which is welcome. Tree and shrub planting will also occur in the western, eastern and southern areas of the site. Table 5.25 of the ES states that the proposals (including scrub planting) will result in a net gain of 0.2ha of woodland habitat.

3.259However, the submitted plans confirm that woodland Priority Habitat will also be lost as a result of the proposed development at TN11 and TN12 adjacent to the access road. In accordance with the mitigation hierarchy measures should be taken to avoid habitat losses in the first instance and the applicant should therefore clarify prior to determination why all existing woodland Priority Habitat is to be removed from these areas.

3.260The proposals will result in a net loss of 9.8ha of grassland habitat on the site. Surveys undertaken in support of the ES have found this habitat to support orchids, red and amber listed bird species, foraging barn owl and common toad, a Priority Species. The scheme involves the retention and enhancement of 1.9 ha of grassland habitats upon a mounded area in the eastern part of the site. However, this area will be affected by the construction of the Parkside Link Road immediately adjacent to it to the north.

3.261At the EIA scoping stage, MEAS advised that consideration be given to the creation of brown roofs upon new buildings for ensuring that connectivity is maintained postdevelopment and that habitat loss is adequately mitigated for. MEAS also advised that off-site options for habitat compensation be explored. Consideration of these options is still required prior to determination to ensure that the mitigation proposed is sufficient to offset the loss of habitat. Core Strategy Local Plan policy CQL3 applies.

3.262The proposed development will result in the net loss of two ponds (WB11 and WB12). In order to compensate for this, a waterbody to the south of unit D will be created and the two attenuation areas will be created in the central area of the site. However, attenuation areas cannot be accepted as compensation for the loss of ponds, particularly in this case as they will not permanently hold water. Also, the proposed pond to the south of unit D will be relatively isolated by roads and built development. Additional compensation for the loss of ponds will be required and details provided prior to determination of the planning application. This could potentially involve additional pond creation in the eastern area of the site, which will have better connectivity to retained and newly created habitats.

3.263Further information is therefore required before the Green Infrastructure Plan and Illustrative Masterplan can be accepted by the Council from an ecological perspective. Habitat Creation and Management 3.264Outline details of habitat creation and management are required prior to determination to enable the Council to be satisfied that habitats will be created and managed appropriately. This advice was previously given by MEAS at the EIA scoping stage, although the submitted ES only states that an Ecological / Landscape Management Plan is to be produced. The outline details required should cover the management of the site in perpetuity including financial and management responsibility. If the outline details are acceptable a full and detailed plan can then be secured by a suitably worded planning condition.

3.265Full details of a landscaping scheme will be required at the reserved matters stage, including planting schedules. The ES confirms that tree and shrub planting will be

100 P/2018/0048/OUP 120 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 undertaken with locally native species and this is welcomed. The ES refers to the planting of trees on the site including horse chestnut and beech, although these are not locally native and would need to be replaced with suitable alternatives in any future planting scheme. Full details of a landscaping scheme, including planting schedules for all proposed habitats, can be secured by a suitably worded planning condition.

Invasive Species 3.266Japanese knotweed, Indian balsam, rhododendron and cotoneaster are present within the site boundary. The applicant is required to submit a method statement for approval prepared by a competent person that includes the following:

• A plan showing the extent of the plants; • What methods will be used to prevent the plant spreading further, including demarcation; and • What methods of control will be used, including details of monitoring.

This statement can be secured by a suitably worded planning condition or included within the Construction Environmental Management Plan.

3.267A validation report is then required confirming the remediation treatment carried out and that the site has been free of the invasive species for 12 consecutive months for approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This can be secured by a separate suitably worded planning condition.

Construction Environmental Management Plan 3.268An outline Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) has been submitted as Appendix 12 of the ES (Framework Construction Environmental Management Plan, Ridge and Partners LLP, 5 July 2017, unreferenced). Section 4.9 of the outline CEMP outlines the measures which will be undertaken to protect retained habitats and protected species. The document also refers to control of invasive species and orchid translocation. The outline document is acceptable at this stage.

3.269However, a full CEMP will be required and this can be secured by a suitably worded planning condition. With regard to ecology, the full CEMP should also include, but not be limited to, the following:

• Pre-commencement protected species surveys (as referred to above); • Measures undertaken to protect English bluebell; and • Reasonable avoidance measures (RAMs) for protected species (including common toad, a Priority Species which has been recorded on the site and bats. In addition to lighting the CEMP should include details of soft-felling of trees with low bat roost potential).

Designated sites 3.270The development site is close to the following statutory designated site and Core Strategy Local Plan policy CQL3 applies:

• Highfield Moss Site Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) .

3.271However further information is required prior to determination before impacts to the SSSI can be discounted:

101 P/2018/0048/OUP 121 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 • The drainage section of the ES (e.g. Drainage and Flood Risk Technical Paper, ES Part 2, 21 July 2017, Rev 2) states that hydrological impacts upon the SSSI are unlikely due to the lack of surface water pathway linkages between the site and SSSI and the topography of the site. According to the ES, the northern and southern parts of the site lies approximately 6m and 18m below the level of the SSSI respectively and, due to this, hydrological impacts upon the SSSI are not anticipated. However, information on the topography of the sites provided in the ES is not supported by the Ordnance Survey data (MAGIC, viewed on 22 March 2018). The comments made by Natural England in its consultation response of 15 February regarding the requirement for further information on this to be provided are supported.

3.272The development site is close to the following locally designated site and Core Strategy Local Plan policy CQL3 applies:

• Gallows Croft LWS;  Newton Brook 03 LWS; and  Newton Brook 05 LWS.

3.273On this occasion the development is unlikely to harm the features for which the sites were designated for the following reasons:

• As stated above Gallows Croft LWS will be retained and supplemented with additional tree and shrub planting. Works will follow a CEMP which will include details of an 8m no development buffer along the LWS boundary and pollution prevention measures; and • Oswalds Brook which flows through the Gallows Croft LWS provides hydrological connectivity to the LWSs on Newton Brook. However, as noted above, works are to follow a CEMP which will ensure that the transfer of construction-related pollutants into watercourses is avoided.

3.274From its consultation response of 9 February 2018, it is noted that Historic England has advised upon allowing public access along the western boundary of the application site to the northern bank of the Oswalds Brook valley. If any such proposal is taken forward, ecological input into the alignment of the access route will be required and the ecological impacts of any such access works will also need to be assessed.

Other matters 3.275An integrated approach and liaison between the applicant’s environmental specialists will be required to ensure that any intrusive site investigation works (e.g. contaminated land, geotechnical or archaeological investigations and mitigation proposals) do not have harmful ecological impacts.

Waste 3.276Technical Paper 11 (RPS Revision A 7th July 2017) assesses waste impacts, with waste infrastructure considered as the receptors. Given the shortage of non-

hazardous landfill in the region, impacts on waste facilities is considered to be regionally moderate adverse and locally minor adverse, and potentially impacts on international targets as moderate adverse. This is largely based on landfill capacity rather than treatment facilities, and failure to meet recycling targets.

102 P/2018/0048/OUP 122 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 3.277Proposed mitigation includes waste management plans for both construction and operational phases and an outline Site Waste Management Plan (SWMP) is included as appendix to the technical paper. As this is proposed mitigation an updated and populated SWMP should be secured by a suitably worded planning condition to reduce waste impacts and as required by policy WM8 of the WLP.

3.278An operational waste management strategy has also been submitted which sets our procedures to manage operational waste, duty of care obligations, the waste hierarchy and design recommendations for recycling and waste storage. This is welcomed and the Operational Waste Management Strategy should be secured by a suitably worded planning condition for Reserved Matters applications.

Energy 3.279Technical Paper 12 includes an Energy Statement (Ridge Property and Construction Consultants Revision 3 31st July 2017). This makes reference to relevant national policy and St Helens Core Strategy policy CP1. The paper is based on the energy hierarchy of reducing demand (passive measures); meeting demand efficiently (energy efficiency) and using green technologies.

3.280The proposed mitigation measures to reduce any long term cumulative impacts include the following: • Construction phase (monitor energy consumption, monitor water consumption, adopt metering and monitoring of carbon emissions); • Operational phase (reduce demand (exceed Building Regulations Part L2A), meet demand efficiently, meet demand using efficient technologies. • Potential low carbon/renewable technologies that are suitable for the site include solar photovoltaics, solar thermal and air source heat pumps. District heating may also be suitable and space is allocated on site for in site infrastructure. However, it is proposed that it is left to future tenants to implement these technologies.

3.281The proposed mitigation, including the requirement for low carbon and renewable technologies, should be secured by a suitably worded planning condition to reduce any long term cumulative impact and to demonstrate compliance with Local Plan policy CP1.

MEAS made the following comments on the Addendum ES:

Ecology 3.282With the exception of mitigation for the loss of semi-improved grassland habitats, the ES Addendum adequately addresses the deficiencies in the submitted ecological information that were identified in our previous advice.

3.283MEAS previously advised that consideration be given to the creation of brown roofs upon new buildings for ensuring habitat loss is adequately mitigated for. The ES Addendum now clarifies that brown roofs are not commercially or practically feasible for the project and goes on to conclude that the development will result in a net loss of approximately 8.8ha of semi-improved grassland, resulting in a ‘moderate adverse / significant’ effect. As brown roofs have now been discounted the applicant should confirm prior to determination how the loss of grassland habitat on the site will be compensated. The applicant may need to consider off-site options for this.

3.284Our previous response advised that further information is required regarding the hydrological impact of the proposals on the SSSI. In order to address this, the ES

103 P/2018/0048/OUP 123 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 Addendum has provided some additional evidence regarding the topography of the SSSI in relation to the application site. Having considered this additional evidence, there will be no adverse impacts upon the Highfield Moss SSSI as a result of the proposed development. However, a view from Natural England must be sought on this.

3.285Following previous MEAS advice, the applicant has submitted an Outline Ecological and Landscape Management Plan (ELMP) (Arup, 22 November 2018, 0-15-08, 0-1508) (Appendix 5.12) and, subject to further details of grassland mitigation, this is acceptable at this stage. The provision of the final ELMP can be secured by a suitably worded planning condition.

3.286A revised Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) has also been submitted by the applicant (Framework Construction Environmental Management Plan, Ridge Property & Construction Consultants, 27 November 2018, unreferenced, Rev C). However, there does not appear have been any additions to the ecology section of this. Previous MEAS advice regarding the contents of the final CEMP (see paragraph 44) still therefore applies.

Archaeology

Designated Heritage Assets

3.287Historic England (letter dated 14/01/2019) has re-iterated its opinion that although the proposals will cause harm to the designated battlefield, that harm has been reduced by the mitigation proposed, and that as the harm still amounts to less than substantial harm their position has not changed and they will therefore not be objecting to the proposals.

3.288In light of the comments made by Historic England MEAS has no advice to offer on the impact of the proposed development on the Registered Battlefield.

3.289The creation of the heritage trail, the inclusion of interpretation boards and a visitor car park should be secured by means of a suitably worded planning condition or conditions.

Non-designated Heritage Assets

3.290A copy of the report on the 2017 archaeological evaluation of the site (see Table 9.1, p. 22) has yet to be submitted to the Merseyside Historic Environment Record. It should appear as an appendix to the report, as the Geophysical Survey has. There are a number of clarifications required regarding the report, aerial photos referred to and the scope of the report. Until theses matter have been addressed, we shall remain unable to advise the LPA on whether there is a need for any further archaeological works to be undertaken. This information is required prior to determination.

Following submission of additional archaeological evidence MEAS made the following comments

3.291The Metal Detecting Survey and Archaeological Evaluation (WYAS 2018) did not encounter any artefacts relating to the Battle of Winwick, or any cut features associated with activity from other earlier periods.

3.292Evidence for the topsoil stripping of the site (or large parts of it) carried out in the 1960s was encountered in the form of made ground layers below the topsoil as well as re- deposited sandstone and coal fragments.

104 P/2018/0048/OUP 124 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 3.293The surveys are, when considered in conjunction with the previous intrusive archaeological works undertaken in 2001 (Matrix Archaeology), which also failed to encounter any battlefield-related artefacts, or other significant archaeological features, to be a reliable indicator of the archaeological potential of the site as being low-nil.

3.294Spawforths (letter dated 05/04/2019) have indicated that where works along the southern boundary of the site impact the former Park boundaries that they will mitigated through a combination of earthwork survey and sample excavation.

3.295We advise that the applicant be required to undertake a programme of archaeological work, and that such works be secured by means of the following condition:

No development shall take place until the applicant has submitted a written scheme of investigation for archaeological work for approval in writing by the local planning authority. The work shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved scheme.

3.296The use of such a condition is in line with the guidance set out in Paragraph 199, Section 16 (Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment) of the National Planning Policy Framework (2019 and Managing Significance in Decision Taking in the Historic Environment, Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning: 2 (Historic England 2015).

3.297The use of such a pre-commencement condition is necessary to ensure the implementation of the required scheme of archaeological investigation and its publication.

3.298Mitigation of the impact of the proposed development on the Registered Battlefield is proposed in the Addendum Environmental Statement, Part 2 – Cultural Heritage Technical Paper 9 (21 November 2018):

3.299To improve the understanding of the Registered Battlefield a heritage trail, interpretation boards and a visitor car park will be incorporated into the scheme. This will enable an appreciation and understanding of the heritage asset to be gained by the public which is needed given the changes that occurred to the landscape during colliery operations.

3.300Historic England (letter dated 14/01/2019) has assessed the proposal as causing a high degree of harm to the battlefield, but that it did not constitute the substantial harm that would lead to them to object to the proposal. They consider that mitigation proposed, along with other measures (reduction in building heights and their reconfiguration, landscaping and tree planting) to go some way in mitigating the harmful impacts of the development.

3.301MEAS would therefore advise that the heritage mitigation in section 8.4 of in the Addendum Environmental Statement, Part 2 – Cultural Heritage Technical Paper 9 (21 November 2018), to be formulated in consultation with Historic England, be secured by means of a suitably worded condition.

Following receipt of information relating to offsite grassland mitigation MEAS made the following comments

3.302Following previous MEAS advice, the applicant has provided correspondence which confirms that consideration has been given to providing off-site compensation for the loss of grassland habitat on the application site (Spawforths, 3 June 2019, P0-TPSPA-LT-P3638- 0028-A).

105 P/2018/0048/OUP 125 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 3.303This states that an area of land, of some 4.7ha in size, to the south of brook adjacent to Hermitage Green Lane could be brought into positive conservation management. This is acceptable in principle, although further details will be required prior to determination before it can be accepted by the Council as providing sufficient compensation for the loss of grassland habitats. This should include the following: • A plan showing the location of the proposed area; • Details of its current ecological value (e.g. extended phase 1 habitat survey); • Evidence that landowner permission has been obtained for managing site in the long-term; and • Outline details of how the area will be managed.

3.304The information and drawings which has been provided in relation to the proposed bund and the Gallows Croft LWS do not raise any significant concerns regarding potential impacts to the designated site. The correspondence from the applicant states that measures can be put in place during construction of the bund to prevent any damage occurring to T37 (or other trees within the LWS). I advise that these measures are included within the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP).

Following the submission of further details of the offsite grassland mitigation MEAS made the following comments

3.305Following previous MEAS advice of 5 July 2019, we welcome that the applicant has provided the following further information: • Land off Hermitage Green Lane - Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) (Arup, 17 July 2019, 262882-00); • Revised Outline Ecological and Landscape Management Plan (ELMP) (Arup, 17 July 2019, 0-15-08, Issue 2); and • Redline boundary plan (Location Plan, Plan Ref: 16043_PL100).

3.306With regard to the proposed off-site compensation area on land off Hermitage Green Lane, I advise that the above information is acceptable at this stage. The provision of a full ELMP, which also includes detailed management prescriptions for existing retained habitats, should be secured by a suitably worded planning condition.

3.307However, even with the off-site compensation proposed in the above documents, the development will still result in a net loss of habitat. From discussion with the Council’s Countryside Officer, I understand that further off-site habitat creation is being explored which will be funded through s106 agreement. I support this and advise that MEAS are kept informed as to the progress and proposed contents of any such agreement.

3.308Environment Agency: No objection in principle to the proposed development subject to the following comments;

3.309We have reviewed the submission of a Preliminary Geo-Environmental Assessment by Cundall Ltd dated July 2017 by Cundall (dated July 2017) with regards to controlled waters.

3.310The land has a historic industrial land use and located in a relatively sensitive environmental location where groundwater from beneath the site contributes to nearby public water supply abstractions and surface water runoff, for the most part, enters the Oswalds Brook and Gallows Croft local wildlife site.

106 P/2018/0048/OUP 126 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 3.311NPPF Paragraph 109 states the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels water pollution.

3.312Paragraph 120 states local policies and decisions should ensure new development is appropriate for its location, having regard to the effects of pollution on health or the natural environment, taking account of the potential sensitivity of the area or proposed development to adverse effects from pollution. Government policy also states planning policies and decisions should also ensure adequate site investigation information, prepared by a competent person, is presented (NPPF, paragraph 121).

3.313Planning permission could be granted for the proposed development as submitted subject to conditions regarding remediation of the site and verification of the successful completion of the remediation strategy, the limitation of areas where surface water infiltration is allowed and where piling can take place.

3.314Only clean and uncontaminated drainage may be discharged to the watercourse. During early stages of construction, care should be taken not to pollute Newton Brook from the existing drainage system on site. This system must be identified and any pathway sealed if not part of the overall drainage plan.

3.315Sufficient settlement should be provided during constriction works on site. Vehicle wash facilities should be provided for vehicles exiting the site. Wheel wash water should be replenished regularly and waste water removed from site. Particular attention should be given to temporary ditches and drainage systems during construction and timing of construction of these should be such that minimum time is allowed for surface water to be in contact with bare earth immature drainage systems. Hydro seeding should be considered for these ditches at an early stage.

3.316Sewage and waste waters from office and amenity facilities should be directed to a sealed tank for off-site disposal or connected to foul sewer as soon as practicable. Surface water discharged to the watercourse should be inspected at frequent intervals and recorded and documented.

3.317On a large commercial site such as this, where there may be the handling or storage of materials hazardous to groundwater or surface water, (e.g. the handling, loading, unloading or storage of chemical products, fuel or oil etc.) it is recommended that all drainage from such areas of activity should remain within impermeable paved collection areas or bunds, and within sealed (jointed) pipes or tanks and lined treatment systems or contaminant attenuation areas prior to and during treatment before discharge into the ground or to a watercourse.

3.318Fuel-oil interceptors may be relevant treatment prior to surface water discharges from such areas, but discharge to groundwater by soak-away may require additional tertiary treatment prior to release if discernible hazardous substance concentrations may otherwise be present.

3.319Roof water drainage and drainage from unpaved areas with no ground contamination is normally taken to be clean uncontaminated surface runoff, and is unlikely to require any pollution prevention measures as long as it is kept separate from other drainage waters. NB: Disturbance of an existing colliery spoil heap may cause increased leaching of contaminants

107 P/2018/0048/OUP 127 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 from this material, so particular care should be taken in any proposal to excavate or redistribute such material.

3.320We note the inclusion of the 8m undeveloped buffer zone as requested in earlier consultations in drawing no. 16043_SK100 and the Environmental Statement (July 2017, Arup). Drawing no.16043_SK100 shows no encroachment by amenities into this buffer and we impress the importance of keeping this undeveloped, including the building of fences, parking areas, amenity grassland and pavements, through out any further iterations of this plan.

3.321Because the indicative drainage scheme includes ponds that are intended to be mitigation for the loss 0.04ha of waterbodies on site, we recommend they are designed, located, constructed and managed in such a way as to positively contribute to the nature conservation value of the site.

3.322The watercourse along the southern boundary of the site is Oswald's Brook, which is designated "main river". Under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016, a permit may be required from the Environment Agency for any proposed works or structures, in, under, over or within eight metres of the top of the bank of the brook.

3.323Natural England: No objections

3.324Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA): No objections subject to conditions relating to the provision of an appropriate surface water drainage scheme and ongoing management and maintenance of the drainage scheme. 3.325Trees & Woodlands Officer

3.326Previously commented that:

3.327The Arboriculture Impact Assessment needed to be updated, with information provided that quantifies tree and woodland losses on site. The Outline Ecological and Landscape Management Plan needed to be expanded to include more information on exactly what habitat mitigation and creation was being provided both on and off site (including information on habitat lost). Amendments to the layout were also required so that the bunds constructed were set back further from the Gallows Croft Local Wildlife Site Woodland to ensure there was a buffer zone between the bund and the woodland. Finally the route shown for the Heritage Trail was not considered to be a suitable route and needed amendment to include a route that went closer to the Gallows Croft Local Wildlife Site, ideally in the buffer zone between the base of the bund and the woodland edge.

3.328Further to the submission of additional information and amended plans, the Trees & Woodlands Officer now considers that

• The Arboricultural Impact assessment has been updated and there is greater clarity about woodland loss.

• The parameters plan and green infrastructure plan has been amended to show a buffer zone between the woodland and base of the bunds so reducing the potential impact of the bunds on the adjacent Local Wildlife Site and in doing so provide room for a more practical solution to protecting this woodland throughout the development period.

108 P/2018/0048/OUP 128 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 • The Outline Ecological and Landscape Management Plan has provided more information about the impacts of the proposal on habitats and some mitigation proposals for the site. This includes the provision of 4.7 ha of grassland habitat mitigation, the principle of this is acceptable though the area being provided will not fully mitigate for onsite loss.

• It has been suggested that it is not practical to alter the route of the Heritage Trail as it may harm the woodland flora that is important for the Local Wildlife Site. This is not considered to be the case and a route through the middle of the Local Wildlife Site is not being suggested, rather one in the buffer zone at the top of the embankment between the proposed bund and the woodland. This will improve access for management, give views into the woodland, as well as creating a more diverse and interesting route. This amendment to the route should be secured as part of any reserved matters application along with the path being delivered in line with the principles of Access for All e.g. provision of a clear wide path, clear, safe parking / access, with even gradients free of unnecessary obstacles.

• Habitat mitigation is identified in policy as being required on a 3 for 1 basis in terms of area. As such the grassland provision will fall short by 27.5ha. With regards the woodland there is a loss of 8.5 Ha requiring mitigation of 25ha. With 8.8 ha of new woodland being proposed this leaves a deficit of 16.7 ha. Creating new woodlands off site needs land availability and project development and so may require partnership with organisations such as the Mersey Forest. The mitigation for habitat loss should be addressed through:

- Onsite mitigation, with qualitative elements to ensure the establishment and positive management of the habits provided. This should include positive management and enhancement of the Gallows Croft Local Wildlife Site.

- Off Site mitigation of grassland as proposed in the Outline Ecological and Landscape Management Plan.

- Delivery of species mitigation plans

- Offsite mitigation funded through a Section 106 package that can provide resources for woodland planting, street tree and parkland planting, other habitat improvements and measures to improve conditions for protected species.

3.329The Officer has confirmed that a proposed sum of £163,680.00 as a sum for the value of a Section 106 agreement to be used for offsite mitigation for habitat loss on the Parkside site along with the offsite grassland improvement mitigation proposed will help to provide appropriate off site mitigation for habitat loss.

3.330Contaminated Land Officer:

3.331The Environmental Statement assesses the impact of the development upon human health and environmental receptors associated with it. The report has been prepared with reference to a significant amount of pre-existing historical records and reports that provide a reasonably detailed understanding of the history and operation of the site with respect to potential contamination and the anticipated ground conditions. The assessment has concluded that any negative impacts are likely to be minor and transient being restricted to

109 P/2018/0048/OUP 129 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 the construction phase only and can be controlled to a large extent through appropriate mitigation. An overall minor benefit is predicted once the development reaches its operational phase through a reduction in leachate generation via the presence of buildings, hardstanding and new drainage infrastructure and reduced risks to human health via the provision of a clean cover system in areas of landscaping.

3.332The western and northwestern extents of the site are previously undeveloped. Site investigations in these areas have proven the ground conditions to comprise topsoil underlain by sandstone of the Chester Pebble Beds which is a principal aquifer. The eastern and southern extents comprise large heaps of colliery spoil and are underlain primarily by a Secondary B aquifer. The intention is to partially excavate the colliery spoil mounds and use this material as engineering fill and to construct a series of landscaped bunds throughout the development. The environmental statement does not discuss the effect of placing the colliery spoil in an area of higher sensitivity i.e. above the principal aquifer. Although infiltration and hence leaching will be reduced in areas of hardstanding and buildings, which is discussed in the report, the extent to which infiltration will be managed in areas of soft landscaping/ landscaped bunds is unclear. Technical paper 3 of the Environmental Statement includes details of the proposed site drainage and it is noted that a sustainable urban drainage scheme (SUDS) is proposed which includes swales, detention basins etc. It is requested that some clarification is provided by the consultants on the means of construction of the landscaped bunds and soft landscaped areas, the potential for contaminants (including acid rock draiange) to be leached from colliery spoil used in these areas, whether there is any potential increased risk to the principal aquifer beneath the western part of the site as a result, and how the proposed drainage scheme will influence the conceptual site model in relation to controlled waters.

3.333The Geoenvironmental Assessment charts the history and environmental setting of the site and surrounding area and presents a conceptual site model highlighting all potential pollutant linkages.

• The report doesn’t discuss the proposed earthworks and the effects this may have on the conceptual site model and it is requested that further detail is provided in this regard. Of particular importance is the ability to understand any potential increased risk to controlled waters associated with the excavation and reuse of colliery spoil in the western and central areas. It is understood that the site is at a significantly higher elevation than the brook therefore groundwater beneath the site would perhaps be anticipated to flow into the surface water course. Again, this will require assessment and sampling from the brook both as part of the phase II site investigation and during the course of the earthworks. • With regards ground gas the conceptual site model states that as there is a methane venting system and as the historic workings are present at 600mm below the surface there is no pathway for surface emissions. However one of the historical reports included gas monitoring from boreholes within the vicinity of the ventilation shafts that recorded elevated concentrations of methane. There are a series of geological faults running throughout the site and irrespective of the ventilation provided there is a need to assess via monitoring whether there is any preferential migration pathway. Given the extent of earthworks that are proposed it may be that a post earthworks phase of site investigation and monitoring would be required in order to establish the requirement for protection measures. The report makes reference to groundwater rebound that is occurring as a result

110 P/2018/0048/OUP 130 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 of historical over abstraction and there is a need to consider whether this could influence the ground gas regime in the future. Section 6.4 of the report highlights that a landfill ‘Newton Brook Landfill’ is situated 144m to the northwest of the site. The previous reports state that this was thought to accept putrescible material. There is no discussion of this as a potential off site contamination source within the conceptual site model. • The desk study should be expanded upon to include a more detailed discussion of potential contaminant sources, particularly associated with the colliery works buildings. From a review of the historical reports that have been submitted there was an oil store building and in addition diesel oil/ flotation oil used in coal washing was stored in a 5000 gallon tank, TCE was stored and used on site, calzalene (lamp oil) was stored on site, tetrahydrothiophene was stored in a 100 gallon tank, a gas holder was present on site, sulphuric acid was stored and used on site in addition to biocides and corrosion inhibitors. It is understood that a gas production plant was also present on site. There is no mention of any of this within the desk study and no discussion of these within section 6.8 – ‘Summary of Potential Contaminative Sources Affecting the Site’. A more detailed review of these areas should be undertaken with reference to historical works plans prior to developing the phase 2 investigation proposals. • The former settling lagoons located on the central southern boundary are believed to be buried beneath the colliery spoil heaps. The lagoons were used for coal washing and many of the oils and substances mentioned above will have been used in these areas. Whilst historical records indicate that much of the special waste was removed from the site historically there is likely to be a degree of residual impact on the base and walls of the lagoons. There is therefore a need to ensure that they are targeted via phase 2 investigation although the likelihood is that it will not be possible to properly investigate these areas until the colliery spoil has been excavated and the area becomes more accessible.

3.334The phase 1 report concludes that sufficient ground investigation had been undertaken to date to derive an initial conceptual ground model but that further intrusive ground investigation will be necessary in due course. This is generally agreed, and detailed suitably worded planning conditions would need to be included on any decision to control the requirement for further investigation and assessment.

3.335Network Rail: Provided comments regarding their assets on and adjacent to the site and agreements which the developer must enter into with Network Rail.

3.336Merseytravel:

3.337Firstly, in order to ensure that appropriate levels of bus service would be provided to the development site, Merseytravel would wish to request St Helens Council require the developer to undertake the following actions.

(a) Construct the site access road to a format and design that would allow this internal highway route to be used by two way bus operation. This should include during the first phase of the road’s construction an appropriate temporary ‘turning head’ for any bus journeys seeking to serve the initial commercial and employment sites.

111 P/2018/0048/OUP 131 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 (b) Construct and fund all internal bus infrastructure required within the development to serve major commercial / employment sites as these are opened. This infrastructure should be to Merseytravel standards.

(c) Fund, in full, the upgrade of the two bus stops which serve the site upon Winwick Road / Cholmley Drive. Given the scale of the proposed development, both of these stops should be equipped with access kerbs and shelters, as well as new bus stop information and signage / road markings. Achieving these upgrades is likely to require minor relocation of the two relevant stops given the lack of footway space and restrictions around existing house frontages adjacent to the current stop sites.

(d) Provide an appropriate level of funding towards the introduction of enhanced bus – rail interchange facilities at Newton le Willows Station required to provide good access to the development.

(e) Provide an appropriate sum of revenue support for additional bus service journeys to operate through, or to and from the development, as defined by the employment levels and the timescales for employment creation within the site. This level of additional service is anticipated given the development’s status as a potential major location for local employment.

3.338Secondly, in order to ensure the development would accord with equalities legislation and that all employment and other opportunities within the site would be open to all members of the local community, Merseytravel would wish to request St Helens Council require the developer to construct all internal highway arrangements to a format and standard that would facilitate ease of access for Merseytravel Merseylink dial a ride vehicles, and other demand responsive bus and taxi services, to all appropriate buildings entrance/exits within the development site.

3.339Thirdly, Merseytravel notes and welcomes the inclusion of a Travel Plan within the application materials, and given the scale and location of the development, Merseytravel requests that St Helens Council require the developer to formulate and implement a full travel plan for the development site, which would effectively promote the use of sustainable forms of travel to and from the development site, including public transport, to all subsequent users of the site. It is Merseytravel’s view that any such plan should include reasonable targets for users and employees of the site, to regularly access the development via sustainable travel modes. Furthermore, it is Merseytravel's view that the Travel Plan, and its targets, should be open to regular audit by and to the satisfaction of, St Helens Council, a process which should be fully funded by the developer and subsequent site management.

3.340Fourthly, Merseytravel would wish to request that St Helens Council require the developers to make a contribution towards the upgrade of any appropriate passenger facilities at Newton-le-Willows Station that remain outstanding once the current phase of improvement works have been completed.

3.341Fifthly, Merseytravel notes the extensive Transport Assessment data contained within the application materials. However, notwithstanding this information, the flows of traffic likely to be generated by the development are of some concern to Merseytravel. Consequently Merseytravel would wish to request that St Helens Council require the developer to provide assurance to the Council, or undertake any measures as directed by the Council, that would ensure all traffic likely to be generated by the development, could be accommodated within

112 P/2018/0048/OUP 132 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 the local highway network, without impeding the passage of bus services upon Winwick Road or in the wider Earlestown, Newton-leWillows and Winwick areas.

3.342Sixthly, given the proximity of the development to the local rail network, Merseytravel would wish to request that St Helens Council require the developer to ensure that the development in its construction phase and in its constructed final format, would in no way impact upon the safety, integrity or operation of the rail network to the satisfaction of Network Rail. Furthermore when any subsequent proposals are brought forward for linking the development to the rail network Merseytravel would wish to request that a full and detailed assessment of all of the potential impacts upon the rail network be required, in advance of any works being undertaken.

3.343Coal Authority: On the basis that the Preliminary Geoenvironmental Assessment submitted in support of the planning application confirms the site not to be affected by coal mining legacy, which corresponds with our records, and that the shaft associated with the former Parkside Colliery is outside of the planning boundary and has been stabilised. The Coal Authority has no objections

3.344Wigan:

On 1st October Wigan Council provided the following comments:

3.345Concern that the main route from the site to the A580 East Lancashire Road would be via Wigan’s highway network which would involve the use of Winwick Lane and A572 Newton Road. It should be noted that Winwick Lane forms part of the shortest route to the A580 and from the point of view of a haulage operator, which includes light and heavy goods vehicles, it represents significant savings in terms of time and fuel costs and therefore makes this route both attractive and viable.

3.346In addition, Parkside will attract commuter traffic to Winwick Lane, which is an additional element that needs to be considered when ascertaining the impact of the development. Consequently, the impact of the proposed development on Wigan’s highway network should be considered in terms of:

- HGV Traffic flows - LGV traffic flows - Commuter traffic - Impact on current air quality levels

3.347 Whilst it is accepted that a high proportion of traffic travelling to the development site may be via the motorway, that doesn’t take into account traffic flows on the local network and we have no information over where deliveries to and from the site will be made. This is because, it is anticipated that deliveries would be made to the major conurbations of Liverpool and Manchester. From this point of view, the A580 may act as a gateway into the wider Greater Manchester area. This is because it provides easy access to Golbourne, Lowton, Leigh and Salford both for commercial and staff vehicle movements.

3.348In terms of air quality impacts the latest traffic data still does not address our previous concerns which were that:

- No receptors were modelled in the Land Head area of Wigan, specifically no receptors were modelled around the junction of Winwick Lane and Newton Road which the wider Parkside development will impact and

113 P/2018/0048/OUP 133 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 therefore the assessment is lacking sufficient detail to assess the impact of the development on air quality. - The NO2 diffusion tube on Winwick Lane has exceeded the Government’s annual objective in 2018 following verification of the data and is likely to do so again in 2019. This should not exceed 40 micrograms per cubic metre as an annual average. The mean concentration in 2019 was 57.7 micrograms per cubic metre. Wigan Council are currently proposing to designate Winwick Lane as an AQMA.

3.349The Government has instructed Wigan to take quick action to reduce harmful NO2 levels following the Secretary of State issuing a direction under the Environment Act 1995. Wigan has therefore been mandated by Government to achieve NO2 compliance in the shortest possible time. This area has already been identified as being in exceedance and the proposed development would bring about a worsening of

the current exceedances and impact upon human health unless measures to mitigate the impact can demonstrate their effectiveness and be clearly evidenced. No such evidence has been proposed to date.

3.350The instruction from Government advises that it is the duty of the local authority to comply with a direction given to it. In order to reduce the potential impact on Wigan’s road network and resultant air quality impacts, we suggest the introduction of a northbound weight limit on Winwick Lane as part of any overall mitigation package for traffic associated with the development. This would require cross boundary cooperation with Warrington Council who would have to give permission for the Traffic Regulation Order to be undertaken.

3.351At the present time Wigan Council must maintain its objection in so far as it has not been demonstrated what detrimental impacts there will be on Wigan’s highway network (or mitigation to overcome this put forward), and also the resultant detrimental impact on air quality in the area.

On 6th November 2019, Wigan Council provided the following comments:

3.352The outline application consists of up to 92,900sqm of employment floorspace (B8 with ancillary B1) and associated servicing and infrastructure. The industry standard database TRICS was initially used to forecast trip generation. Subsequently, survey data was collected for the Omega North development in Warrington due to the similarities in terms of proposed land use and quantum of floorspace. In response to this methodology, St Helens suggested an alternative approach, the utilisation of trip rates from the Florida Farm development in St Helens. It is noted that the transport assessment (TA) states that the trip rates observed at Omega North were similar to Florida Farm. Further information is required in this respect, details of the three approaches should be tabulated to determine the most robust approach moving forward. Wigan Council is of the opinion that 85th percentile trip rates derived from the TRICS industry standard database offers a robust assessment of the development proposals.

3.353The TA states that the proposed development will generate 199 vehicle movements in the AM, 29 of which will be heavy goods vehicles (HGVs). In the PM peak, 169 vehicle movements will be generated, 29 of which will be HGVs. Given the scale of development the trip generation appears low. The trip generation resulting from large scale B8 developments has the potential to vary significantly depending on the occupier. As this information is not

114 P/2018/0048/OUP 134 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 yet available, the use of 85th percentile trip rates from the TRICS database must be the preferred methodology to determine trip generation.

3.354Various junctions in the Wigan, St Helens and Warrington areas were identified for further investigation in the TA. The Wigan junctions are listed below;

- A572 Newton Road / A579 Winwick Lane - A572 Newton Road / B5207 Kenyon Lane - A580 East Lancashire Road / A572 Newton Road - A580 East Lancashire Road / B5207 Church Lane - A580 East Lancashire Road / Stone Cross Lane - A580 East Lancashire Road / A573 Warrington Road / Bridge Street - A580 East Lancashire Road / A579 Atherleigh Way

3.355The assessment of the above junctions showed the A572 Newton / B5207 Kenyon Lane to be vastly exceeding capacity during the AM peak period. Furthermore, the A580 East Lancashire Road / A572 Newton Road exceeds capacity during the AM and PM peak periods. There are also capacity issues at the A580 East Lancashire Road / B5207 Church Lane junction during the PM peak. In summary, the junctions in close proximity to ‘Lane Head’ are either at capacity or exceed capacity. It is noted that the Wigan junctions are deemed to require no mitigation as the development is considered to have no material increase in existing traffic levels.

3.356All light goods vehicles (LGVs) have been distributed onto the highway network using 2011 Census ‘journey to work’ data. In principle there is no objection to the traffic distribution methodology. However, it is noted that Wigan is the second most popular area for people to commute from. Areas to the east of the site such as Salford, Trafford, Stockport and Manchester are also referenced as existing commuter origins. It is logicial to assume that commuters from Wigan, Salford, Trafford, Stockport and Manchester may choose to travel to the site via Lane Head through the junctions that are at maximum capacity or exceeding.

3.357HGV traffic distribution is based on the distribution of current pre-development HGV traffic at the extents of the study area. The A579 Winwick Lane between M6 J22 and the A580 East Lancashire Road was removed from this exercise as it is likely to only be a diversion route for HGVs when an incident on the strategic network occurs. Wigan Council do not agree with this statement. The modelling data from the Parkside Link Road live planning application suggests that approximately 10% of the traffic in the Lane Head area is attributed to HGVs during peak periods.

3.358In regard to the Parkside Link Road planning application, the proposal seeks to provide a connection between the A49 /A573 Parkside Road / A579 Winwick Lane /M6 Junction 22. As with the outline application for B8 use, the link road proposal is deemed to have no impact on the Lane Head junctions. This is despite the link road providing direct access to the site from the A579 Winwick Lane. It is accepted that direct access to the M6 Junction 22 will attract a reasonable proportion of the development traffic. However, Winwick Lane forms part of the shortest route to the A580 East Lancashire Road. It must be assumed that logistic operators will be attracted to the site for ease of access to the M6 Junction 22 and the East Lancashire Road. The proportion of HGV traffic at the Land Head junctions demonstrates its popularity with logistic operators.

3.359It is noted that none of the committed development schemes referenced in the TAs are located in Wigan. This is despite 1281 homes being approved in the Lowton & Golborne areas since 2013. It is anticipated that the traffic generated by the consented residential

115 P/2018/0048/OUP 135 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 developments in Wigan would increase traffic at junctions in close proximity to the Parkside development.

3.360Further information is required in respect of the quantum of development required to fund the proposed link road. It must be assumed that the link road is intended to unlock the development land for phases 2 / 3.

3.361In summary, Wigan Council are proposing to designate Winwick Lane an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) under section 83 of the Environment Act. The Government has instructed Wigan to take quick action to reduce the harmful Nitrogen Dioxide levels following the Secretary of State issuing a direction under the Environment Act 1995. This area has been identified as being in exceedance and the proposed development can only exacerbate the situation further. As a minimum Wigan Council require the introduction of a northbound weight limit on Winwick Lane to mitigate the impact the development will have on traffic and human health. This requires cross boundary cooperation with Warrington Borough Council, who would have to grant permission for the Traffic Regulation Order to be undertaken.

3.362The Council must therefore object to both applications on the basis of the observations set out in this letter and our earlier objections dated 1st October 2019.

On 22nd November 2019, Wigan Council provided the following comments:

3.363The outline application consists of up to 92,900sqm of employment floorspace (B8 with ancillary B1) and associated servicing and infrastructure. The industry standard database TRICS was initially used to forecast trip generation. Subsequently, survey data was collected for the Omega North development in Warrington due to the similarities in terms of proposed land use and quantum of floorspace. In response to this methodology, St Helens suggested an alternative approach, the utilisation of trip rates from the Florida Farm development in St Helens. It is noted that the transport assessment (TA) states that the trip rates observed at Omega North were similar to Florida Farm. Further information is required in this respect, details of the three approaches should be tabulated to determine the most robust approach moving forward. Wigan Council is of the opinion that 85th percentile trip rates derived from the TRICS industry standard database offers a robust assessment of the development proposals.

3.364It is stated that Omega trip rates in isolation are not considered to be the correct approach because it would reduce the sample size to one, may not be representative of the proposed development and may lead to overestimation of traffic generation for the site. The subsequent inclusion of the Florida Farm trip rates fails to substantially increase the sample size, may not be representative of the proposed development and may lead to underestimation of traffic generation for the site.

3.365TRICS contains over 7150 directional transport surveys at over 110 types of development. There must be an abundance of available data on B8 developments exceeding 90,000sqm.

3.366Further information is required in respect of the other similar scale employment sites in close proximity to Florida Farm that were used to increase the sample size and provide further validation of the trip generation exercise.

3.367Newton-le-Willows railway station, travel planning and a shuttle bus service to/from the site to the key local residential areas have been cited as reasons why 85th percentile trip rates should not be utilised to estimate the trip generation of the development site. The

116 P/2018/0048/OUP 136 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 proposals do not specify the end occupiers of the site and as such it is impossible to determine if staff can access public transport services to commute to /from the site. Furthermore, the co-ordination of a shuttle bus services depends on end occupiers having similar start / finish times during the various shift changes. 85th percentile trip rates must be used to compensate for the uncertainty surrounding employees access to public transport services.

3.368The TA states that the proposed development will generate 199 vehicle movements in the AM, 29 of which will be heavy goods vehicles (HGVs). In the PM peak, 169 vehicle movements will be generated, 29 of which will be HGVs. Given the scale of development the trip generation appears low. The trip generation resulting from large scale B8 developments has the potential to vary significantly depending on the occupier. As this information is not yet available, the use of 85th percentile trip rates from the TRICS database must be the preferred methodology to determine trip generation.

3.369Various junctions in the Wigan, St Helens and Warrington Boroughs were identified for further investigation in the TA. The Wigan junctions are listed below;

• A572 Newton Road / A579 Winwick Lane • A572 Newton Road / B5207 Kenyon Lane • A580 East Lancashire Road / A572 Newton Road • A580 East Lancashire Road / B5207 Church Lane • A580 East Lancashire Road / Stone Cross Lane • A580 East Lancashire Road / A573 Warrington Road / Bridge Street • A580 East Lancashire Road / A579 Atherleigh Way

3.370The assessment of the above junctions showed the A572 Newton / B5207 Kenyon Lane to be vastly exceeding capacity during the AM peak period. Furthermore, the A580 East Lancashire Road / A572 Newton Road exceeds capacity during the AM and PM peak periods. There are also capacity issues at the A580 East Lancashire Road / B5207 Church Lane junction during the PM peak. In summary, the junctions in close proximity to ‘Lane Head’ are either at capacity or exceed capacity. It is noted that the Wigan junctions are deemed to require no mitigation as the development is considered to have no material increase in existing traffic levels.

3.371All light goods vehicles (LGVs) have been distributed onto the highway network using 2011 Census ‘ journey to work’ data. In principle there is no objection to the traffic distribution methodology. However, it is noted that Wigan is the second most popular area for people to commute from. Areas to the east of the site such as Salford, Trafford, Stockport and Manchester are also referenced as existing commuter origins. It is logical to assume that commuters from Wigan, Salford, Trafford, Stockport and Manchester may choose to travel to the site via Lane Head through the junctions that are at maximum capacity or exceeding.

3.372HGV traffic distribution is based on the distribution of current pre-development HGV traffic at the extents of the study area. The A579 Winwick Lane between M6 J22 and the A580 East Lancashire Road was removed from this exercise as it is likely to only be a diversion route for HGVs when an incident on the strategic network occurs. Wigan Council do not agree with this statement. The modelling data from the Parkside Link Road planning application suggests that approximately 10% of the traffic in the Lane Head area is attributed to HGVs during peak periods.

117 P/2018/0048/OUP 137 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 3.373In regards to the Parkside Link Road planning application, the proposal seeks to provide a connection between the A49 /A573 Parkside Road / A579 Winwick Lane /M6 Junction 22. As with the outline application for B8 use, the link road proposal is deemed to have no impact on the Lane Head junctions. This is despite the link road providing direct access to the site from the A579 Winwick Lane. It is accepted that direct access to the M6 Junction 22 will attract a reasonable proportion of the development traffic. However, Winwick Lane forms part of the shortest route to the A580 East Lancashire Road. It must be assumed that logistic operators will be attracted to the site for ease of access to the M6 Junction 22 and the A580 East Lancashire Road. The existing proportion of HGV traffic at the Land Head junctions demonstrates its popularity with logistic operators.

3.374Furthermore, for the outline planning application HGV traffic has been distributed onto the highway network as 40% northbound and 60% southbound from the site access on the A49 Winwick Road. HGV traffic heading northbound on the A49 Winwick Road must be assumed to be accessing the A580 East Lancashire Road as access to the strategic highway network will occur from M6 J22 and not M6 J23. This methodology has not been applied to the Link Road application. It is assumed that nearly all HGV traffic will move southbound towards the M6 J22. It is essential that the 40% northbound and 60% southbound split of HGV traffic at the A49 Winwick Road site access for the outline application is applied to the A579 Winwick Lane site access for the Link Road application.

3.375It is noted that none of the committed development schemes referenced in the TAs are located in Wigan. This is despite 1281 homes being approved in the Lowton & Golborne areas since 2013. It is anticipated that the traffic generated by the consented residential developments in Wigan would increase traffic at junctions in close proximity to the Parkside development.

3.376Further information is required in respect of the quantum of development required to fund the proposed link road. It must be assumed that the link road is intended to unlock the development land for phases 2 / 3.

3.377In summary, Wigan Council are proposing to designate Winwick Lane an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) under section 83 of the Environment Act. The Government has instructed Wigan to take quick action to reduce the harmful Nitrogen Dioxide levels following the Secretary of State issuing a direction under the Environment Act 1995. This area has been identified as being in exceedance and the proposed development can only exacerbate the situation further. As a minimum Wigan Council require the introduction of a northbound weight limit on Winwick Lane to mitigate the impact the development will have on traffic and human health. This requires cross boundary cooperation with Warrington Borough Council, who would have to grant permission for the Traffic Regulation Order to be undertaken.

3.378The Council must therefore object to both applications on the basis of the observations set out in this letter and our earlier objections dated 1st October 2019 and 6th November 2019 respectively.

3.379Warrington Council

Warrington Council considered the merits of the application at their Planning Committee on the 6th June. They resolved to object to the proposed development based on all of the matters raised in the objection letters received and to forward copies of the objection letters to St Helens Borough Council. The objection letters make the following observations:

118 P/2018/0048/OUP 138 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 3.380Traffic • The proposed development will create extra traffic/pollution/increased inconvenience to local residents all year round in an area that is already suffering from the effects at the current level. This will be made even worse due to Haydock Point and Florida Farm. • There will be impacts on safety, we constantly hear of HGV drivers being out of control of vehicles when using sat nav/mobiles etc when driving. The development would create serious risk of road traffic accidents/fatalities/pedestrian fatalities due to the high levels of HGVs through densely populated areas. • The location of the site and proposed traffic flows mean that the development is more likely to affect residents of Warrington and Wigan than St Helens • What additional congestion will traffic flows from the proposed new road cause as lorries and vans travel on the A49, M6 and M62? • Kenyons Lane is not fit for any HGV traffic not to mention the increasing volume that we currently have to tolerate. This development will exacerbate the problem. • The Transport Assessment is lacking in detail. • There has been very little investigation into how the existing road networks will cope under the stress of increased vehicle movements. The volume of traffic has increased since the introduction of the weight restriction on Winwick Lane and this

has resulted in some ridiculous driving from motorists who are desperate to avoid queues. • According to TfGM some 13,000 vehicles travel through Winwick and over 2,000 of these are HGVs and LGVs which is 94 lorries an hour or 1.6 every minute creating noise, air pollution and vibration. Living in this area is already like living on a motorway and the development will only make this worse. • The area surrounding the site relies on a finite number of roads and a number of them are B roads given the current congestion we fail to see how this scheme can be supported. Whilst models can be submitted with convincing arguments that HGVs will access and egress using the motorway network, in reality they will follow the easiest route. • The scheme has been objected to by all of the highways agencies there are also implications for the new housing proposed at Winwick which will all enter and leave by the same route. • The development will cause the M6/M62 to be more congested. • We are opposed to any development of the site unless the link road is put in first • The development will generate large volumes of traffic which would cause congestion on the strategic road network and the country lanes and communities of Croft, Culceth and Glazenbury to be overwhelmed by traffic including HGVs and the dangers of noise, pollution, severance and traffic danger. • The Transport Assessment is defective because it excludes a number of factors including growth factors for Cheshire/GM/Merseyside, doesn’t consider effects on Croft/Culceth/Glazenbury, doesn’t consider the impacts on minor roads and communities, doesn’t include Saturday traffic, does not satisfactorily address road safety/walking/cycling. • The Traffic Growth Factors used within the TA (6.7) appear to be implausibly low, and it is not clear how they been derived. We are concerned that for the comparable Haydock Point planning application, St Helens as local highway authority apparently agreed that an artificially low growth factor based on recession years could be used. This favours the applicant to the detriment of communities that would

119 P/2018/0048/OUP 139 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 be affected by increased traffic. The applicant should make clear how the factors were derived, and this should be validated by a truly independent body. St Helens as a local authority have made it clear that they favour the development so are not impartial. • The adopted growth factors do not appear to take account of higher growth factors used by neighbouring authorities such as Warrington BC, or the accelerated growth scenarios for Merseyside, Warrington and North Cheshire, and Greater Manchester. Warrington is dynamic, with high growth rates for both housing and employment likely. All major current development proposals in these areas are car- based and likely to lead to greater car use and dependency. • The study area includes some junctions within the Warrington BC area, but these are limited to traffic travelling south to M62 J9 and east to M6 J22. There is an assumption that all traffic associated with the development will stay on these strategic links. This is incorrect. • The area immediately to the east of the M6 is largely covered by Culcheth and Glazebury, and Croft Parish Council areas. Opportunities for sustainable travel (such as buses, walking and cycling) in the area are sparse, so residents of Culcheth and Glazebury, and Croft are reliant on the network of mostly minor roads to the east of the M6 and north of the M62. • The TA doesn’t include any effects within on the communities to the north of Warrington. However, disruption to the SRN (A580, M62 and M6) is frequent and occurs at least several times a month. When this happens, the traffic comes off the motorways and tries to get through the villages by every possible route, filling up all the minor roads in the area. The most severe examples are: - A574 from Risley through Culcheth and Glazebury to the A580. Vehicles cannot get out onto the A580, which is itself completely jammed by the traffic escaping from the M6. - B5207 from Culcheth to Lane Head (Golborne) has cars backed up to Culcheth village centre. - Kenyon Lane, Stone Pit Lane/Sandy Brow Lane, and Heath Lane/Mustard Lane from Lane Head to Winwick/Birchwood via Kenyon and Croft, with static queues in both these communities. • The vehicles cutting through include heavy goods vehicles. Given the pressure on drivers, and the increasing trend towards ‘just in time’ logistics deliveries, unless enforcement was very heavy handed, a weight restriction on local roads to prevent HGV traffic would be ineffective. • Disruption on SRN is bound to increase if the development is granted planning consent. The effects on the minor roads and communities are severe, and this will get worse. • One Croft resident who uses the local roads to get to work in the morning peak suggests that at least two days each week they must double back from the road to Winwick only to find another line of stationary traffic on the motorway slip road. When they reach the A49 and then the M62 the east bound carriageway is at a standstill. • TA section 6.13.8 states that ‘The A579 Winwick Lane between M6 J22 and A580 has been removed from the primary route network as it will likely only be a diversion route for HGVs when an incident on the Strategic Network occurs’. It is important that this route is considered as it is precisely when the SRN suffers disruption that the communities around north Warrington are most affected. • M6 J23 does not appear to be included within the junction capacity assessments? This may be an oversight, but this junction would be severely affected

120 P/2018/0048/OUP 140 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 by the proposed Haydock Point development and over-capacity if Haydock Point is granted (still at application stage when this objection was written). We have submitted comments on this junction in our response to the Haydock Point application. The TA for Haydock Point itself underestimated the effect of traffic generation and it is essential that the two developments are properly considered together. • To be credible, a Transport Assessment must fully include both local committed developments and potential future developments, so that the effect of a scheme can accurately estimate the effect of the scheme on road congestion and local communities into the future. • The TA (9.1.3) specifically excludes several sites which will create additional traffic and gridlock in the area. These include most of the proposed major developments including safeguarded housing and employment land in the emerging Local Plans for both St Helens and Warrington, and, amazingly the proposed Parkside SRFI. To exclude what is intended to be phase 2 of the Parkside development seems extraordinary, and certainly invalidates the analysis. The reason for the applicant seeking to exclude phase 2 of their own development can only be that the effects of traffic would be unacceptable. It is noted that the design year for the TA assessment is 2030. This implies that the applicant is claiming that Parkside Phase 2 will not be built within 12 years from now. This claim seems implausible if the applicant really is committed to developing the whole site. • The cumulative schemes that are included in table 9.1 are mainly small ones. We note that ‘Haydock Point’ is suggested as having ‘Outline planning permission’. At the time of writing this objection this is very definitely not true, unless the applicant has some inside knowledge. • In the ‘summary and conclusions’ section the TA accepts that ‘highway mitigation for the cumulative development scenarios remain to be developed’. This implies that the applicant has presented a scheme that does not provide mitigation for cumulative development and assumes that this will be funded by others. This cannot be an acceptable way to ensure that cumulative traffic effects are dealt with properly. • TA 9.24.2 states that ‘future planning applications for development … will consider the cumulative effects … at the relevant time’. This suggests the applicant is trying to sneak through a planning consent for phase 1 of a proposed development without properly considering the cumulative impact of phase 2. The paragraph takes for granted that the Parkside Link Road will be built. But this is contentious, and the cumulative effects of the scheme should be considered now, so that if the development is granted it can contribute appropriately to the solution to cumulative issues which include not only Parkside phase 2, but also the proposed employment and housing development in both the St Helens and Warrington ‘Preferred Development Options’ documents. • Case Law on Environmental Impact Assessment suggest that while it is possible to assess outline schemes under certain circumstances, it is essential that future phases of development of the same site are considered in the initial Environmental Statement. Otherwise it would be impossible to determine what the cumulative effects of the scheme are. In this case, the cumulative effects of the scheme include the Parkside Link Road, and the potential that this will open up Green Belt land to the east of the M6 to inappropriate development. • Merseyside, Warrington/North Cheshire or Greater Manchester all have stated growth ambitions that are greater than current trends and future forecasts.

121 P/2018/0048/OUP 141 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 These plans are all based on substantial additional development on Green Belt and greenfield sites near Motorway junctions. - The Liverpool City Region Combined Authority produced Building our Future: Liverpool City Region Growth Strategy in 2016. It proposed the creation of over 100,000 additional jobs in the Liverpool City Region by 2040. While the development at Parkside would only provide about 100 net additional jobs, the scale of ambition for 100,000 additional jobs will put significant additional strain on the SRN. - The Cheshire and Warrington Growth Deal aims to drive growth and open development potential in several sites, including expanding logistics operation along the Atlantic Gateway. Warrington has also published a largely car and road-based draft local plan entitled ‘New Town to New City’. Combined, these plans will significantly increase traffic growth in the midMersey area including the St Helens M6 and M62 corridors. - The Greater Manchester Strategic Framework plans industry and warehousing at points on the north, south, east and west of the M60 which will significantly increase car dependence and heavy traffic on the major route network. • Cumulatively these ambitions will create significant additional traffic growth that has not been considered in the TA and other documents submitted with this application. • Traditionally Traffic Assessment uses Monday to Friday peak hours as a way of assessing development effects and the TA submitted by the developer has followed this pattern. However, logistics is a seven-day operation and will generate as much traffic at weekends as weekdays. • Increasingly leisure and shopping opportunities are available and are accessed by the strategic road network at weekends when public transport is less available or reliable. With four major football teams in Liverpool and Manchester, the attraction of city centre shops, the Trafford Centre and other retail parks, plus racing at Haydock2, the M6, M62 and A580 are particularly busy on Saturdays, and vulnerable to congestion and disruption. The Transport Assessment should have included an objective assessment of peak Saturday leisure traffic. • TA3.4 Highway safety details one fatality and 90 other incidents that involved injuries. There will be other unreported incidents that resulted in injury, and many more incidents where vehicle damage was involved, but with no legal need for reporting. The TA suggests ‘There is nothing to suggest an existing safety issue…’. Of course, consultants paid for by the applicant are entitled to make this assertion, but unbiased observers might suggest that 90 injury incidents imply that there is already an existing safety issue that the proposed development would make worse. • The Design and Access Statement says that ‘Pedestrians and cyclists are well catered for within the proposed development, infrastructure includes a new shared footway/cycleway located on the northern side of the east/ west access spine road which will also continue up one side of the secondary north/ south spine road. As noted, these footways will be shared surface areas for both cyclists and pedestrians.’ This statement is inaccurate for several reasons: - TA 5.2.2 uses standard Chartered Institution of Highways & Transportation (CIHT) guidelines for pedestrian access. The CIHT document makes clear that these are guidelines. Given the hostile nature of the road network with high volumes of traffic and large numbers of heavy lorries in and around the site, the potential for walking using CIHT standard distances is grossly overstated. It is suggested that footways could be used to walk

122 P/2018/0048/OUP 142 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 along the A49 to Newton-le-Willows Station. The person who wrote this can never have walked near this site. - Cycle crossing points ‘will be uncontrolled’. This means cyclists will be required to cross major access roads in and among heavy goods vehicles, exposing them to danger. - It is poor design practice to have shared cycle and footways (TA4.3.4) unless the volume of either is very low as conflicts inevitably result. The suggestion of sharing implies either that the developer is expecting very few people to walk or cycle, or that they are trying to cut the amount of money spent on sustainable transport. Either way, it reveals the cycle and pedestrian facilities as cynical greenwash. - TA5.1.2 suggests that ‘accessibility … is considered … bearing in mind that this is a city centre location’. The nearest cities are Liverpool (19 miles) and Manchester (18 miles). It is possible that this statement is a cut and paste from a previous document which would be merely lazy, but if not, it betrays a serious lack of site knowledge. For the record, it would be hard to describe the location as ‘city centre’, and St Helens has none of the attributes of a city. - TA 5.3 suggests that 8 km is a reasonable distance to cycle to the development. Road conditions for cyclists in the area are currently horrendous and it is very hard to understand how anyone would consider cycling to the proposed development. To suggest Warrington as a potential catchment for cyclist when the route is alongside the heavily trafficked and dangerous A49, requiring a crossing of M62 J9 suggests that the report authors are neither familiar with local roads or cycling as a method of transport. • It is the nature of TAs provided by consultants that they aim to present their clients proposals in the best light possible. Their job becomes difficult when the proposed development is a major generator of goods vehicles and car traffic directly onto an already congested road network. It is understandable that consultants working for the developer look for creative ways to downplay the potential increase in traffic, but the local planning authority must be alert to this. • In summary, the EIA is neither independent or objective. It does not provide a plausible assessment of the genuine effects of the development either on the road network, or on real people. • I can certainly attest to increased traffic flow on our local lanes when Motorways are having difficulties. Dam Lane suffers with motorists trying to cut through to find alternative routes. I have seen similar problems on adjacent roads at such times. Croft is a 'pinch point' for traffic issues on nearby motorways and the East Lancs. • When there are accidents or other hold-ups on the M6 or M62 the traffic throughout Culcheth, Glazebury and Croft is severely affected, especially at morning and evening rush hours. The traffic comes off the motorways and tries to get through the villages by every possible route, A or B roads or minor country lanes. We see traffic backed up on every route – for instance the B road from Culcheth to Lane Head has cars backed up to the village. However, the worst affected road in my experience is the A574 from Risley through Culcheth and Glazebury to the A580. This road is always congested in the rush hour but generally it moves, albeit slowly. When there is trouble on the motorway traffic on this road comes to a stop. The cars cannot get out at the end onto the A580, which is itself completely jammed by the traffic escaping from the M6. I have stood by

123 P/2018/0048/OUP 143 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 the side of the road in Glazebury (for which I am Parish Councillor) and talked to drivers in their cars who have told me they have been stuck on the stretch of road for two hours. • An incident that sticks in my mind is an occasion when the Mayor of Warrington (Cllr Graham Settle I think) was coming to Bents to open a Glazebury play area. There was a problem on the Motorway and as a result the Mayor’s official car did not get through at all (although his route was not on the Motorway but A and B roads from Warrington through Croft, Culcheth and Glazebury). After hanging around for over an hour we limped through the ceremony without him. • I attach 2 photographs of traffic congestion on Kenyon Lane taken on 10th January, when the M6 had been closed at Jn. 23. Therefore, traffic was leaving the M6 at Jn.22 and using these lanes as an alternative route. The same thing happened on 26th January when there was a problem on the M62 at Birchwood. Traffic diverted through here trying to get to the East Lancs road as an alternative. Culcheth was also clogged up. On 26th Jan it took me 40 mins to get back from Culcheth to my house on Main Lane. These are just examples of frequent traffic problems in this area which arise because of its proximity to two motorways and to the East Lancs road. The traffic lights at Lane Head Lowton cause long tail backs of traffic down the length of both Winwick Lane and Kenyon Lane during the late afternoon, on a regular basis. Because of this, a great deal of traffic takes evasive action via Sandy Brow Lane, Stone Pit Lane and Kenyon Lane, or along Heath Lane. • As someone who uses the local roads to get to work in the mornings I can assure you that the problem is even more severe most people indicate. At least two days each week I will have to double back going along the road to Winwick only to find myself in another line of stationary traffic on the motorway slip road. When eventually I do reach the A49 and then the M62 I am confronted by the east bound part of the road at a standstill. Today (Friday) I drove along the A574 from the a580 (greyhound) into Culcheth. I continued through the village, past the prison and down into Birchwood. I was amazed to see standing traffic all the way. … it was 4.16 on a Friday afternoon, but traffic was just sitting with engines running. The local councils wanted to create jobs, but at what cost? When they drew up the plans they gave little attention to air pollution. • Hermitage Green Lane is barely capable of allowing modern farm vehicles in one at a time, it would be incapable of handling modern commercial vehicles.

3.381 Green Belt • The development and future phases of Parkside will remove a large area of Green Belt land in an area that can ill afford to suffer such a loss. • This application contains no detail whatsoever to justify the removal of any Green Belt. • There has been so much warehouse development passed recently that there is no logical reason in developing such a large area of rural land. How long will it be before all of these developments begin to join up and take away the precious Green Belt? • Green Belts were introduced to provide an unbuilt area which prevented urban sprawl. They thus also provide areas of fresher air which can counteract urban pollution. Losing such an area doubles the damage. This is the only area of land separating Warrington from Wigan and is the breathing space for all of the inhabitants of the densely packed areas around it. To lose 600 acreas of this land is a serious matter and this is what would happen if the full St Helens Plan (which this is the first phase of) comes to fruition.

124 P/2018/0048/OUP 144 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 • Despite the original Parkside Colliery site, no doubt being regarded as brownfield by St Helens Council, the proposed scheme would consume significant areas of land beyond any brownfield and would contradict the Government’s Green Belt policy. • The proposed Very Special Circumstances do not outweigh the inappropriate and detrimental impact to the Green Belt. • We are not opposed to the development of the footprint of the colliery • We are opposed to any development of the Green Belt on the site • The Local Plan is at an early stage of preparation and the potential allocation of the site for industrial development should be given very little weight in the decision making process. • Given the large amount of available distribution warehouses elsewhere the scheme cannot possibly meet the very high bar of ‘very special circumstances’ that are needed to justify development in the Green Belt. • The application documents are confused about the status of the site, it is Green Belt. Although there are some bits of brownfield there was a clear understanding that the land remained Green Belt throughout the mining activity and should be restored to a use compatible with its Green Belt designation when mining ceased. • An independent view of how much of the site is brownfield is needed, a large part has never been affected by mining activity. • The development does not meet any of the purposes of including land in the Green Belt • It is hard to see that the case of a distribution park could constitute very special circumstances in any planning application anywhere in the UK. There are a number of competing proposals for distribution parks and every promoter will claim that no other site will meet the requirements. Distribution parks are footloose and can locate to anywhere on the strategic road network and other sites are planned in Greater Manchester and Merseyside.

3.382Economic Benefits • There is no economic, strategic or operational benefit to the area which can be derived from this development. No doubt mass automation would be deployed within its operations with little employment required therefore there is no fiscal benefit to our area. • St Helens suggest that these facilities will create new jobs, I do not believe that even if it was fully developed it would produce many jobs, there will be a need for a few people to monitor that automation and manage things. In fact it may reduce the number of available jobs by allowing companies to move to a new site with more automation thus reducing their current staffing requirements. Does Warrington want companies to move to St Helens? • The creation of 1300 jobs must be challenged, there are many existing and planned warehousing facilities in the area all competing for tenants. Any jobs created are more likely to be as a result of relocation than newly created. The jobs on offer will also be low skilled and low paid. Rather than contribute to the financial well being of people in the area, this application will add to the continual economic decline of the North West compared to other parts of the country. • I have experience of large industrial buildings requiring very little human input, buildings requiring 1 person per 1000m2 during any shift are not uncommon. • No alternatives have been considered that would lead to higher skilled, better paid jobs. The development would generate a low number of poor quality jobs on a

125 P/2018/0048/OUP 145 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 Green Belt site, if job displacement is factored in then the number of FTE jobs will be around 100 low skilled and low paid. • Not only sites in St Helens should be considered because logistics clearly crosses local authority boundaries, the proximity of this site top three local authorities means it would serve people in each of those boroughs, there is no evidence that logistics development in other boroughs does not have the same socio-economic benefits to

St Helens, retention of business rates is not a material consideration, the Warrington Local Plan ‘Preferred Development Option’ proposes that further land should be allocated at the north of the Borough for logistics – this is not included in this application and invalidates the study. • There is significant uncertainty about how many jobs will be created – it is widely accepted that automation has had a significant effect on the manufacturing and distribution sector. It is hard to see how employment density will increase in the next decade. • The report states that displacement will be low, but doesn’t give any evidence why. Given the development is not likely to increase the UK logistics sector overall and that logistics doesn’t make or create anything it is probable that displacement will be high. • The Haydock Point application may be closer to the truth stating that just 69 direct additional FTE jobs will be created on their 45.9ha site. • It is a fact that logistics jobs are low skilled, the applicant’s report states that logistics jobs will become higher skilled and cites a report which states that technological change is creating more complex roles and a greater need for specialist skills. However, this is the anecdotal views of employers rather than fact. The organisation that created the report has a political agenda and a financial interest in training as it is promoting a new technical college.

3.383Need for B8 • I do not believe that there is a current or future need for the facilities proposed to justify this application to be granted.

3.384Noise • What additional disturbance will be caused from warehouses operating 24/7? • There are already many existing and planned distribution sites in the local area, quality of life is blighted by the noise and pollution from this traffic .Warehousing at Parkside will make this worse.

3.385Air Quality • What increase in diesel particulates is expected? • The increased traffic will result in a proportional increase in air pollution which endangers the health of residents. Lane Head South is already in an air quality management area which the Council are working to improve, this development would only aggravate it with additional traffic and additional emissions. • Air pollution causes cancer and asthma • NPPF also suggests that development should ‘Contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural environment and reducing pollution’. A currently open and mainly green site will be covered with an urban sprawl, and the main access method will be by diesel heavy goods vehicles that will produce particulates and oxides of Nitrogen that are known to cause hundreds of early deaths each year in the St Helens area, and thousands nationally.

126 P/2018/0048/OUP 146 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 3.386Heritage • The application site includes areas relating to historic battle scenes and therefore the appropriate environmental advisory service should be consulted. We object to any proposed use that would desecrate ground of historic interest and heritage. • The Registered Battlefield will clearly be lost due to the phase 1 and link road developments, further the surface water drainage will impact on Hermitage Brook due to the water flooding the valley as the brook is already at a level that the water bursts the banks of the brook. • The development will affect Woodhead Farmhouse, Woodhead Farm and St Oswalds Well

3.387Visual Impact • The visual dominance of the industrial buildings and related commercial/industrial structures would be harmful to the physical and mental health of the communities it is local to.

3.388SRFI • This proposal will prejudice proper overall consideration of the future of this important Green Belt site and prejudice any potential to provide rail access as a part of a future Strategic Rail Freight Interchange. The piecemeal development of Phase 1 will destory any ambition to achieve a rail connection as a financial contribution will not be available. • The overall Parkside site (which includes this application) is safeguarded within the Core Strategy (Policy CAS3.2) as part of an area identified as a Strategic Rail Freight Interchange (SRFI). The applicant describes their proposals as ‘…a road-based logistics park’. There is no intention or potential to link this development to the rail network. They suggest ‘Whilst the current application proposals are not rail-linked, they are not prejudicial to future delivery of the SRFI in this locality ‘. This statement is not true. Current logistics operations are notorious for not only being completely dependent on diesel lorries which are responsible for thousands of early deaths through particulate and NOx emissions, but also being almost completely roadbased. There are a few existing rail-based logistics flows such as Asda movements between distribution centres in Daventry, Grangemouth and Aberdeen. In our region there is just one container terminal at Trafford Park (the Seaforth terminal at Liverpool does not handle internal domestic movements). • While there have been other tentative rail freight interchange proposals, if there is to be a realistic prospect of logistics movements by rail with all the benefits of less noise, air pollution, severance and land take, then it is essential that the opportunity at Parkside with access to both electrified east-west and north-south rail links is preserved. The current proposal would prejudice provision of any rail-based solution by: Establishing a movement pattern by road to and from the site that will be difficult to break. Ensuring that there is no meaningful contribution from the profits of phase 1 towards the provision of a rail link in the future. The applicant apparently believes that phase 2 will not take place until after 2030 – this phase has been excluded from the TA on this basis – this means a sustainable method of transport will have to wait at least a further 12 years.

3.389Ecology

127 P/2018/0048/OUP 147 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 • The removal of natural fauna/foliage/landscape will reduce scarce natural habitat for regional and endangered wildlife with a resultant massive imbalance to the natural world. • There hasn’t been a real consideration as to the environmental impact across the region, we need to maintain sufficient green space for a great diversity of wildlife in a heavily populated area between Liverpool and Manchester. • An SSSI will be severely impacted along with biodiversity habitat and corridors, this will have a knock on effect in Winwick, Burtonwood and Croft as aggregate habitat is diminished.

3.390Other • Residents have invested heavily in local property to live close by and to enjoy what is left of Green Belt in the area. This unnecessary development would have a seriously detrimental financial impact on these investments, and will also remove the little peace and tranquillity in the area.

• The application appears incomplete so therefore should not be considered • What about the environmental impacts of the building materials that will be used to construct the facilities and supporting infrastructure? • St Helens’ relationship with Langtree means that they have a vested interest in this application. St Helens Council should behave in an ethical manner and refer this application to the Government adjudicator. • This application is the thin end of the wedge. If you go ahead and pass this, then you will open the floodgates and give strong reasons why future phases should be passed. • The development will cause wear and tear on roads which Councils will have to pay for. • The use would be detrimental to geological, environmental conservation and archaeological issues. • The mental health of residents will be affected by noise, pollution and lack of green • If this application goes through it will destroy Lowton and Newton • I personally do not feel that the link road will go ahead, even if it does I doubt drivers will take a longer route and companies will want them to take the quickest one which is the A49. • The scheme as described is not within the adopted St Helens local plan and therefore has not been properly subjected to scrutiny under the NPPF. • The application has been publicised with very minimal and purposefully vague information with statements and claims being made that can not be verified or proven at this stage eg jobs and traffic. • We are totally opposed to an SRFI on the site • The support of St Helens Council for development at Parkside (including the link road) means that the planning authority will not be able to take an objective view when determining this application. • The Environmental Statement is defective because it only considers the first phase of a clearly linked development and presents an unrealistic, optimistically positive assessment of the effects of the scheme. • Para 17 of NPPF suggests that local authorities should ‘actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling, and focus significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable’. The development as proposed would be difficult to access except by

128 P/2018/0048/OUP 148 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 car. Walking and cycling in the area is already inconvenient, indirect, and dangerous due to traffic speed and volumes and poor air quality. NPPF suggests that planning should ‘Support the transition to a low carbon future’. The development is wholly based on road transport that creates more carbon emissions than either rail transport – which in this location would be powered by electricity and increases the likelihood that goods will travel long distances to their destination. It will therefore increase carbon emissions. Carbon is not considered in the Environmental Impact Assessment. • Parkside is just one of several large, entirely road-served distribution parks proposed in the area which would continue current dependence on roads for freight transport and on diesel goods vehicles which create noise and pollution including particulates and NOx. The key cumulative effects are that: - The quantum of road-based development proposed in the wider area is far greater than that examined in the TA or EIA. Overall, these developments need to be assessed together to see if the impact is acceptable. A single TA, or the efforts of Highways England (which has a focus solely on keeping the SRN moving) cannot consider overall transport demands and modes other than road. This is particularly true for communities not directly on the SRN, which will pay a price in a lower quality of life as traffic increases through their areas. - A comparable application has been submitted for road-based distribution at Haydock Point (application P/2018/0254/OUP). We think that Parkside phase 1 cannot be considered in isolation from Haydock Point or Parkside Phase 2. - We think that the cumulative effects mean that the application should be ‘called in’ for decision by the Secretary of State. There may be other applications for distribution parks in other authorities that should be considered at the same time. • The link road and phase one applications are interlinked because the link road is a key component of the phase one application so they should be assessed together for the purposes of EIA • The development is part of a wider scheme for the PLR, Phase 2 and Phase 3. To consider the proposals separately is salami slicing and are contrary to the EIA Directive in accordance with the judgements [Swale}, [Ireland], [Abrahams], [Baker] etc. • Because St Helens Council are the developer and the applicant it is their duty to inform the Secretary of State there is a conflict of interest, to not do so is a transgression of the Article 9a of EIA Directive 2014/52/EU. This is because the PLR development shares the same boundary as the phase 1 and phase 2 applications and has the same surface water solution.

4. REPRESENTATIONS

4.1 The application was publicised by press notices, site notices and individual neighbour letters. There have been three rounds of consultation and 667 independent letters have been received, although 52 of these letters did not raise material considerations or were ‘circle style’. The objections are summarised below.

4.2 Green Belt • Strongly object to the release of Green Belt for this development, it threatens the quality of life to the residents, air pollution, noise pollution, heavy traffic,

129 P/2018/0048/OUP 149 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 reducing the number of pleasant places people can walk and enjoy a healthy lifestyle. • Object to the destruction of Green Belt when we should be protecting our environment. • Loss of Green Belt, woodlands habitats. The Parkside Colliery footprint is only a small area in the middle of what was farmland. • Why destroy acres of green land when there must be acres of brownfield site that could be developed first. • The majority of the proposed development is in Green Belt land. • Legislation is in place to protect the use of Green Belt to prevent urban sprawl. Removal of more Green Belt will greatly increase the risk of residents health placing a higher burden on the health services in the area. • All the land you are proposing to development is in the Green Belt. In the application for the old colliery site it was stated that it should be returned to Green Belt at the end of its life. • I believe there was a commitment the site would remain Green Belt for a fixed period. This commitment will be broken. • There is the important aspect that the development will take place on a listed Green Belt area. • What is the point of the Green Belt if it is ignored and our countryside disappears below more ugly warehousing. • Phase 1 is entirely in the Green Belt and conflicts with Policy CAS3.2 which specifies the use of the site. • This development would see a large part of Green Belt lost for ever. • This area is Green Belt and should be enhanced and protected as stated by the NPPF.

130 P/2018/0048/OUP 150 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019



 The Green Belt provides a distinct separation between Newton-le-Willows and Winwick. • 20 years ago this site underwent a public inquiry at which St Helens Council were unable to demonstrate the exceptional circumstances needed to allow the development on this area of the Green Belt. Duration of time has not altered the facts. • It has been designated Green Belt for a reason and that should be upheld. • Application submitted ahead of it being removed from the Green Belt. • The application demonstrates a disregard for the Green Belt in the area and I don’t feel any land is safe. The land that the Green Belt laws were created for is now up for grabs. St Helens Council has got rid of a massive amount of Green Belt if the Parkside site is allowed to be developed. • Future generations will have no green areas left if these decisions go ahead. • There are very few wild green areas in Lowton, Golborne and Newton and this development would see a massive part of the Green Belt disappear without any plans to create any new Green Belt to compensate for what would be lost. • The application passes none of the recognised tests for justification of removal of Green Belt. • The land is Green Belt and should remain so until a more environmentally friendly idea can be put into place. • I am objecting to Green Belt areas being built on. There are plenty of brown field sites that should be re-used. • I am concerned with the more general issue of loss of Green Belt in the wider area. When a previous iteration of Parkside was rejected after a public inquiry over ten years ago, the planning inspector found that St Helens Council had failed to demonstrate the exceptional circumstances needed in order to remove the site from the green belt. We see no reason why such a similar proposal would be able to meet that threshold now, given there have been no material changes in the intervening years. • The application does not include an assessment of alternative brownfield capacity available in the area as an alternative or of any alternative uses for the site. • I cannot see any ‘special circumstances’ which justify building on this Green Belt land. This area is designated green belt to protect urban sprawl of which there is enough already. • The desire of the local planning authority to remove the land from Green Belt must be given very little weight in the decision making process. Given the large amount of distribution warehouses available the scheme cannot possibly meet the very high bar of ‘very special circumstances’ that are needed to justify a development in the green belt. Approval at this stage in advance of the Local Plan would carry a high risk of a successful judicial review. • Logistics in the area is not exceptional circumstances nor are being close to a motorway. • In May 2018 the government launched a major overhaul to the National Planning Policy Framework wherein it states that there should be a ‘strengthened protections for the Green Belt’ and also ‘Ensuring developments result in a net gain to the environment where possible and increases the protection given to ancient woodland so they are not lost for future generations.’ This development

131 P/2018/0048/OUP 151 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019



 will, when coupled with Florida Farm and the housing developments planned, will result in a dramatic loss to the environment. • The scheme not including a rail freight terminal doesn’t seem wise with the traffic congestion in the area as this was the original reason to justify release of the Green Belt. • Poor use of Green Belt With less and less Green Belt in the area surely there are more suitable brown field sites The site is Green Belt and the adopted plan prescribes only where exceptional circumstances are demonstrated and only for a strategic rail freight terminal. Neither are case for this application and hence fails under plan making within the NPPF and CAS 3.2 of the adopted plan • No exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated. Although close to the M6 motorway this in itself is not justification for exceptional circumstances • Other brownfield sites could be used • Why build on Green Belt when there is no confirmed demand for the end product • Warehousing involves a very large land take for only a small amount of jobs. Any jobs created would be low skilled apart from managers so cannot argue the benefits outweigh the significant harm to the Green Belt • This area forms a breathing space for a large population • There is significant difference of opinion between the applicant and the objectors as to how much of the Parkside site is brownfield, and an independent view on this is needed. A large part of the site has never been affected by mining activity, and much that has is now home to more biodiversity than when it was agricultural land. • Does not meet any of the tests contained within the NPPF • The proposed deallocations for commercial development is almost entirely hinged on the employment land calculations. Green Belt deallocation should only be justified on Special Circumstances and not speculative development opportunities • Hugely misleading and erroneous for the applicant to refer to SHC Local Plan Preferred Options and local plan evidence base to justify the need for development. The outcome of the consultation has yet to be published and may contain a completely different view of actual land requirements and existing take up The desire of St Helens as a local planning authority to remove the land from Green Belt must be given very little weight in the decision making process. • The development meets none of the Green Belt tests nor does a distribution park constitute very special circumstances. • The proposal to take the land out of Green Belt is night on outrageous, particularly in this day and age where we are constantly trying to save the environment. The rail turning track will have a terrible impact on the countryside and wildlife. • The application document seems to refer to the old and outdated 2012 NPPF. The revised NPPF puts a much greater emphasis on Biodiversity. Paragraph 170 d) suggests decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment. • The application proposes a significant loss of biodiversity.

132 P/2018/0048/OUP 152 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019



 • The off site semi-improved grassland is important. If the applicant had any interest in biodiversity, then they would be maintaining this area. • Management of an area deliberately neglected by the applicant should not count towards mitigation. • The estate Management Company is proposed to maintain habitat created on site and off site whereas they will be running a logistics warehouse and have no interest in successful management. There is therefore little chance of long term success. • No public access or public benefit will result. • Damage to wildlife will be immense. • The visual and environmental assessments submitted make the site sound as though it is a worthless place of very little interest. • There are rare and red listed species here in abundance. The negative impact that will result from the destruction of such a wide area of nature to be grossly disproportionate for unsubstantiated benefits of the creation of a handful of jobs (which are waning every year with more and more automation of warehousing and storage) and council revenue through council business tax revenue. • Removing such a large volume of flora and paving over such a large area which will have an impact on the ground water state and the ability of the current drainage facilities to manage the more sever rainfall we’ve seen in local years. • I am concerned about the environmental impact of developing on green land and do not think that mitigation works will offset this. • The proposal will lead to a loss of habitat for wildlife and the destruction of hundreds of trees which contribute to removing greenhouse gases and remove land that helps manage water. • We are concerned by the loss of flora and fauna habitat. • I object to the proposal on the basis of its impact on the biodiversity and habitat of Parkside. It is not a barren industrial site that is implied by the proposal, indeed thes western and north western extents of the site are previously undeveloped. Your authority has a duty to have regard to conserving biodiversity as part of your decision making and preserving green spaces along with green belt land.

4.3 Highways • The potential traffic impact, this will increase the amount of HGV vehicles on Newton High Street, this infrastructure is already grossly inadequate. • The principle reason for my objection is the additional HGV usage within Newton-le-Willows • Haydock Point and Florida Farm have not been included in the traffic assessment for Parkside. • The traffic on High Street and Ashton Road is unbearable most morning and almost daily during the week there are long queues on the A49, so please do not burden the local infrastructure by passing this application. • Problems on Haydock Island when long vehicles block lanes until lights change.

133 P/2018/0048/OUP 153 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019



 • At peak times, long queues always occur on the A49 to the north and south of Haydock Island. The increase in HGV traffic resulting from the proposed development will make this junction unusable at certain times. • The proposals to develop further warehousing at land adjacent to this junction and at Florida Farm will cause further major problems at this junction (Haydock Island). The development cannot be considered in isolation from other proposed major development in the area. • Ashton Road is a very busy road with several bad bends. It is the only road to the local high school and leisure complex. Over the past years there have been several bad accidents – several resulting in fatalities. This road is not suitable for carrying additional HGV traffic. • Before any additional traffic is allowed the current problems should be addressed. If the Council cannot demonstrate its competence on addressing current problems I cannot support any proposals which will make it worse nor can I trust their judgement on future proposals. • Newton High Street is the local shopping area with many pedestrians present during the day and evening. The road is totally unsuitable for carrying the additional HGV traffic travelling in both directions. It is inevitable that there will be many accidents on the High Street if the development is allowed. • Church Street is a very narrow section of road and it is totally unsuitable as a main HGV route to and from Parkside. • The Mill Lane section of the A49 is very narrow with a severe width restriction and bad bend at the railway bridge. This section of road is also close to a petrol

134 P/2018/0048/OUP 154 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019

 filling station which adds to congestion in the area. The road is also the only access to Newton Station Park and Ride. Winwick Road will become the preferred route for access to and from the south. At peak times lengthy traffic congestion already occurs on certain stretches of this road causes by the traffic signals at Winwick Church and at the junction of Mill Lane, Southworth Road and Church Street. • There have been several hundred new houses built in Newton-le- Willows in the last couple of years, adding hundreds of extra vehicles to the highway network which in my ten years of living on Ashton Road has seen little or no maintenance or improvements made to handle the increase traffic just from extra housing. • This development is going to add traffic all around Newton, especially at Haydock Island which now struggles at certain times. • Newton-le-Willows does not have the capacity to accommodate any more traffic in any form, never mind HGV’s. • The developers should not be permitted to have any vehicles using Newton High Street. • On the basis the A49 is currently already overloaded the proposal is misleading in that it doesn’t clearly mention rail connections or proposed rail connections. • The effect on traffic on the already busy A49 and surrounding motorways will be horrendous. • It is going to cause A49 gridlock on an already congested road which is bad now when the M6 is blocked. 1 HGV every 12 seconds on the A49 if this monstrosity, carbuncle goes ahead. • Phase 1 should only be approved subject to the proposed M6 link road being created first. • Phase one does not include the link road. • Newton Park Drive must not be allowed to become a site access route. • No risk assessment for vehicles leaving Cholmley Drive. • Highway improvements fall under the jurisdiction of other authorities. • Regularly have to queue between 10 and 15 minutes to get past the Parkside entrance. • The A49 is a busy single track road and during peak hours it can take up to 20 minutes to cover the 1.7m between the traffic lights at Winwick and the lights at Newton Station. Most days this is the longest part of my journey to and from work which is a 45m round trip. • The Highways Agency have identified issues with the traffic assessments provided that could result in the problem of potential congestion being underestimated. • Newton is already dangerous around the station area particularly with narrow footpaths, uncut hedgerows and cars parked on the footpaths due to insufficient parking spaces. • Have the impacts of accidents on the motorway been taken into account.

135 P/2018/0048/OUP 155 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019

 • HGV’s using the routes at present are predominantly passing through. When vehicle operators are entering and leaving a site his amplifies their effect on the flow of traffic considerably. • Almost every day the motorway network has breakdowns caused by lorries. • Roads will become unusable. 1000 houses being constructed in Leigh, Lowton and Golborne. Wigan Planners assume each house will have 2.3 vehicles which will yield another 2300 vehicles. I presume you will advise that the clients of the new facility at peak times will not be able to transport any good as all the roads will be full. • Are Warrington Council aware of the proposal in increase traffic and the effect on access to Warrington? • The road system will not be able to cope with the 62.5% traffic increase.  The link road should be built first. • There should be a full assessment of the suitability of these roads to deal with the traffic, especially the potential for vibration-damaged to property caused by excessive HGVs. • I find it difficult to conclude that there are no issues with this site from a TA point of view. The model data looks flawed, many of the applied methodologies act to reduce impact, without adequate justification, and dare does not stack up with the current reality. • An 80% increase in traffic for Newton High Street is a real concern but I feel this could be in fact underestimated. • The new station is attracting increased traffic on the A49. • Lane Head is already at saturation point in regard to traffic and current housing developments. • Cyclists have to compete with other road users and have no other recourse but to use the pavement. • Pedestrians will be at risk. • Regardless of the link road the whole area will suffer from this increase in surrounding traffic thus worsening pollution and putting residents health at further risk. • Warehousing at Parkside will only add to congestion in the area. • Turing out of Pennington Drive is already challenging due to the number of vehicles using the A49. • This stage of the proposal cannot possible be acceptable without any inclusion of a suitable means of access. • The traffic assessment seems to be based on 90% of the traffic accessing the site from the south which is nonsense as the traffic from the north will use Junction 23 of the M6. • HGV’s are involved in an increased percentage of fatal accidents on Britain’s roads. • Existing train services are not good enough. • The Thelwall Viaduct is already jammed up most of the day and cannot take extra vehicles.

136 P/2018/0048/OUP 156 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019

 • Object to all proposed alterations under the guise of ‘improvements’ to the road network at Winwick, particularly the junction of the A49 at the Swan and at Hollins Lane. • Residents parking zones should be considered. • The link road is only deemed necessary for the Phase 2 development. • Schools have lost their crossing patrols. The increased traffic will bring added danger to children trying to cross the road. • Workers will need to drive into Newton at lunch for access to shops which will further increase traffic. • There are no restrictions on HGV movements and where they can go. • Where will HGV’s park whilst waiting for access to the site is early. • Stone Cross Lane is already being used as a rat run. This development will make things worse. • The park and ride is already over capacity. • Delivery vehicles block the high street serving Spar and Subway. • The new traffic lights at the park and ride need to be included in the traffic assessment. • The link road cannot be a material consideration in this application. • The link road will not help people on Winwick Lane. • Each morning the A49 and M6 are already overloaded to the extent that traffic delays are and inevitable factor in daily life within the neighbourhood. Without direct links to the motorway network the development will bring misery to a significant number of local residents because of the vastly increased number of HGV movements within the locality. Currently roads around the area, including the A49, are already congested due to increased traffic from housing developments over the last 20 years. The Council have demonstrated that they have been unable to resolve this issue. Before any additional traffic is allowed the current problems should be addressed. If the council cannot demonstrate its competence on addressing current problems I cannot support any proposals which will make it worse nor can I trust their judgement on future proposals. • I am very concerned about the impact that will be caused on local roads. The level of traffic congestion in and around Newton appears to increase week on week. • Whilst driving in the mornings north bound out of Newton traffic has been tailed back every morning from the traffic lights at the junction of Southworth Road, along the High Street and on to Crow Lane and includes many HGVs. • The local road infrastructure is already under pressure from extra traffic coming from recent residential developments, which have been approved by the council without any thought on how to alleviate the impact caused by the extra traffic. • There is no infrastructure in place to support the proposed development.

137 P/2018/0048/OUP 157 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019

 • The area is already congested with over 13,000 vehicles passing through the junction with Lane Head and this proposal will substantially increase if this planning application is approved. • The rush hour has turned into a daily fight between 6.30am to 9.30am and 4pm to 7pm for many people. To add to this chaos seems madness and in a way makes up for the extra jobs that may be created. • This proposed development is unlikely to significantly affect St Helens town centre however it will have a significant and detrimental impact on local communities around Lowton, Golborne and Winwick. • The proposed A49 junction would have a negative effect as additional traffic lights will cause a further build-up of traffic. • Winwick lane is an accident blackspot and the proposal will only worsen this situation. • The A579 is now de-primed and is therefore in my view not anymore a strategic route. The width of Winwick Lane is not to the standard required for a class A road. • Traffic surveys carried out over the past couple of years demonstrates an increase year on year. • Official surveys by Wigan Council have measured more than 13,000 vehicles pre day travelling through the Land Head / Winwick Lane area, 20% of which is HGV traffic running 24 hours a day. Quality of life in this area of blighted by the noise and pollution from this traffic. • The separate application for a ‘Parkside Link Road’ will only exacerbate the situation – any distribution traffic heading north from parkside will use the shortest route; along the A579 (Winwick Lane) to Lane Head and then the A580. • Wagons vibrate my home all day and night long. • Clearly Parkside will increase the amount of traffic on the High Street and therefore push up the already high nitrogen dioxide gases and unless there is effective traffic management in place to stop the Parkside traffic using the High Street cannot support a warehouse development within Newton. • Some 3 times a day on average lorries are so wide that they have to either drive on the pavement or mount the kerb on the central pedestrian island to get past it. Many travel at high speed along the High Street as they cut though to and from the East Lancashire Road or from the motorway to St Helens. • The A49 southbound at the front of the site is not able to cope with the current volume of traffic let alone an increase. In the busiest period of the year (September to December) it is not unusual to see traffic queueing southbound back from the A49/Hollins Lane traffic lights to the Parkside site. This is exacerbated by the fact that is a vehicles is queueing to turn right to go onto Hollins Lane, traffic can often not pass to continue south to the Link Road roundabout. This can often result in just one or two cars being able to move for each cycle of the traffic lights. • There is currently no enforcement as to which direction HGV/LDV traffic will flow this has to be addressed it cannot be a free for all.

138 P/2018/0048/OUP 158 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019

 • There is inadequate parking on the plans for phase one employees. This has to be addressed. Parking is very limited on nearby residential areas and there are already considerable difficulties with parking at the nearby expanded station. • The proposal presents a high risk to personal safety of adult and children residents in the area. We constantly read/hear of HGV drivers being out of control of vehicles while using mobile devices to navigate/communicate etc. while driving. This proposal will create serious risk to road traffic accidents/fatalities and pedestrian fatalities due to the high levels of HGV’s that will utilise the road networks through densely populated zones. • The surrounding minor routes were originally only farm tracks which cannot cope even now with the volumes of vehicles movements. The term log jammed seems to describe it. • We do not accept that a possible link road to the M6 at Junction 22 would avoid an increase in traffic, rather, it would conveniently enable traffic to access Lane Head via Winwick Lane A579. • The link road would provide a convenient way of accessing Lane Head via Winwick Lane/A579 and enable more vehicles to pass through our area. • Lowton would be particularly vulnerable as the natural route Northwards and Eastwards is via A572/A580 Lane Head, Lowton. This is already operating in excess of capacity at times with gridlock at the junctions and queues of a mile long and more on roads leading to the A580. To add to this would endanger road users and residents. • Priority needs to be given to the ‘phase 2’ alternative traffic route. This needs to be considered, committed and developed in phase one to ensure suitable traffic loads. • The A49 has seen increased HGV use in recent months as the new train station is developed as this understandably requires commercial vehicles to access the site whilst construction is happening. Now this is near completion, the new consumer traffic that will utilise the park and ride station needs to be built into forecasts it will be a double whammy of additional cars and additional HGVs. The road noise to ourselves has increased radically because of the increased volume of HGVs but also because the road surface has become potted and deteriorated very quickly given the increased usage by HGVs. • We already experience parking issues with people leaving cars on Pennington Drive to use the local train station. Any additional development would increase the potential parking problems if staff at the new development do not have access to parking on site. Residential parking zones and permits should be considered. • Transport must be a part of the initial proposal. • Winwick Lane is heavily congested at peak times and recently measured air quality samples show that air pollution at the top of Winwick Lane can reach almost twice the legal allowable limit. Routing heavy freight through this junction would only exacerbate both these problems.

139 P/2018/0048/OUP 159 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019

 • Already there is considerable more HGV traffic using Southworth Road as a result of weight restrictions on Winwick Lane, Lowton. A full review of traffic is required and should include additional traffic from the other new logistic parks in the area.

140 P/2018/0048/OUP 160 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 • The link road promoted by the council is a Trojan horse for unwanted and unwarranted warehousing rather than the strategic objective of creating a rail freight depot designed to minimise or eradicate most of the adverse impact and effect that the current application under consideration delivers in spades. • The newly opened train station has actually created more traffic in the area as commuters from outside Newton travel to leave their cars in the new car park and surrounding streets to get trains to Liverpool, Manchester and farther afield. • The A49 is used by thousands of children every school day. The path is as wide as 1m between road and wall, e.g. Oak Tree pub wall on Ashton Road, where groups of children are trying to pass at the same time as lorries. Children have been killed by lorries near this area and this proposal exacerbates this major threat. • The transport assessment remains defective and traffic growth factors are inaccurate. The traffic assessment is not an objective assessment and it should be reviewed by an independent third party. • The nature of the development will unleash a tidal wave of traffic and unsustainable car use that even a competent travel plan could not encounter. • The traffic assessment does not consider any weekend traffic and increasingly leisure and shopping opportunities are available and are accessed by the strategic road network at weekends when public transport is less available or reliable. There are four major football teams in Liverpool and Manchester, city centre shops, the Trafford Centre, retail parks and racing at Haydock making the M6 M62 and A580 particularly busy on Saturdays and vulnerable to congestion and disruption. The transport assessment should have included an objective assessment of peak Saturday leisure traffic. Logistics is a seven day operation and will generate traffic at weekends and weekdays. • The traffic assessment and design and access statement fail to take cycling and walking seriously as required by national and local policy. • The amended travel plan is poor and littered with errors. • There is a weight restriction Winwick Lane when it is accessed from Newton Road, so how could this be used to access the site? This was put in place after consultation with the council to try to help control the amount of heavy goods vehicles in this area. • The developer has remodelled the data now on a 60:40 model (although some parts say 50:50, and others mention 90:10) the revised model not surprisingly shows that all High Street junctions would be over capacity with the development in place. No mitigation is offered other than vague statements indicating that traffic signals would not improve the situation. • When viewed with the number of new houses planned, this will also impact on our local road network. • Some of the critical information on the traffic plan is illegible due to changes, overwriting, gaps in formation and poor presentation. This is unacceptable for a project of this scale. • The traffic surveys take no account of weekend traffic. • Baseline traffic surveys are from three years ago and exclude similar logistics developments that have been developed nearby.

141 P/2018/0048/OUP 161 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019

 • There is inadequate provision for parking on the development site and this is either an admission with automation as the jobs created will be few or because local roads will be used for site parking for workers. With the issues at the station and generally in Newton over parking this is entirely unacceptable. • I have seen no provision made for HGV parking prior to lorries accessing their final location. According to the Road Haulage Association, Amazon charge £500 for a missed slot, Wilkinson £350 and Tesco £250. Are we to expect all lorries to just drive around the local area waiting to tip their loads? To add further traffic, both heavy goods and more commuter traffic is not tenable or sustainable on the current infrastructure. • Traffic will increase considerably already if the proposed developments in the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework are passed. • There is inadequate traffic impact assessment modelling for parts of the A49 that will be directly affected by the development. Further modelling presented in simplified form should be produced for public scrutiny before this application is approved. • All mitigation measures addressed in the Traffic Impact Assessment are for Winwick Junction. No mitigation modelling has been applied to the A49 and the junctions which run off it, that will be affected by this development. This should be addressed before a decision is made on this application. • Further investigation of the ‘ADMS- roads model’ and the methodology applied needs to be undertaken. Namely but not limited to, modelling on incremental increases in traffic on the A49 in a northern direction from Parkside over and above 10% split assumption. Further modelling presented in simplified form should be produced for public scrutiny before this application is approved. • There are stark contradictions in the Council’s rationale for selection of sites detailed in the sustainability appraisal. Planning should be denied on this basis alone. • Defra needs to be made aware in detailed terms about the contradictions and omissions in reporting via the ASR. This needs thorough review by DEFRA before this application is determined. • The traffic assessment fails to provide details or evidence of assumed proposed development site routing. • The previous Prologis application examined the challenges around weaving issues at J22 M6. This concerned primarily traffic joining the M6 North from M62 J21A and northbound traffic leaving the M6 for J22. Essentially there is a very short distance between these junctions, Additional traffic wishing to use the developments at Parkside would make the weaving situation worse and therefore increase the risk of accidents. This was one of the key reasons why Prologis suggested relocating M6 J22. The transport assessment makes no reference to this issue.

142 P/2018/0048/OUP 162 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019

 • The transport assessment fails to mention the HGV restrictions that have recently been imposed on the A579 Winwick Lane. • There are several restrictions that make the use of Parkside Road and Golborne Dale Road poor choices for development traffic, especially HGV vehicles. • The traffic assessment modelling is unsound and cannot be trusted. The assessment demonstrates the Parkside Link Road does not alleviate significant traffic impacts to the local road network. • The modifications to J6 and J8 by the applicant were not part of the SHC PLR business case and it is not clear how these modifications will be funded. • The applicant has not indicated whether Highways England have approved the modifications to J6 (M6 J22) or are prepared to accept the impacts to J5 (M62 J9) with no mitigation. • The applicants’ proposal to signalise J22 risk queues forming on the M6. This may be particularly dangerous on the northbound approach given the weaving issues. • By examining only one junction, the proposed site development access point on the A49, the applicant’s own data shows that the AM northbound traffic flows with the PLR in the Core Plus scenario (Phase 1 year 2021) decrease by 4% in the AM period but increase by 169% in the PM period. For the southbound traffic the inverse is true, for the AM period the flows increase by 128%, but then fail in the PM period by 65% in the PM period. Given that a significant proportion of development traffic is likely to arrive and depart using the same route, the assertion that most of the site traffic will use the southern route in the morning but then switch to the northern route in the afternoon is simply not credible. Would drastically increase the traffic volume through built up areas. Any development cannot be approved that initially only has access and will increase the traffic volume residential areas. Residential areas should remain sacrosanct and even for phase one, bespoke access needs to be incorporated that does not impact existing residential areas • The increased traffic volume based on current plans greatly increases the risks of accident’s and potential road traffic deaths by channelling HGV’s through the High St and surrounding residential areas. This is an unacceptable factor to increase dangers to local residents by channelling significant additional volumes of HGV;s through residential areas. An alternative bespoke and mandatory access to the site needs to be included even as phase one of the development to prevent the council increasing the dangers on our roads to local residents • Turning out of Pennington Drive onto A49 is already a problem, especially when turning right towards Winwick. Consideration should be given to this junction as it will become a bottle neck with HGV’s when heading towards Newton. Consideration needs to be given to this blind corner as potential for accidents if not controlled with lights etc. • Already experience parking issues on Pennington Drive from rail users. Additional development would increase parking problems if staff at

143 P/2018/0048/OUP 163 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019

 the development don’t have an excess of parking at the facility. Residential parking permits/zones should be considered. • The area is gridlocked most days in particular around Lane Head, Newton Road, Church and Winwick Lane. Family has a daily battle to get out of the housing estate and back again • No direct road route from the site to and from the M6 • Constant congestion not only on major roads but also on surrounding minor roads which were originally farm tracks and cannot cope now with the volumes of vehicle movements • Motorway access to the site has been sidelined causing more congestion on the A49, High St, and Winwick. • HGV’s use the A49 like it’s a motorway already • Would create serious risk of road traffic accidents/fatalities and pedestrian fatalities due to the high level of HGV’s that will utilise road networks through densely populated zones • There is a weigh restriction on Winwick Lane when access from Newton Road. This was done to control the amount of HGV’s in the area • M6 cannot deal or cope with the additional freight over and above the other warehouses already built in the local area • Existing infrastructure is already at capacity and additional traffic inc HGVs would create unsafe roads for families • The growth in M6 traffic as predicted by Highways England has not been accounted for in the traffic assessment or the potential impact of the tolled Mersey tunnel which is likely to flow increased volume through the un-tolled Thelwall Viaduct • Although the application has proposals for road improvements on the A49 these are outside of St Helens in Warrington with this council not paying for those improvements • Application states £73m of developments for road infrastructure – who will pay for these? • Parkside not only major logistics development. Within 2 miles using the same road network are Florida Farm and Haydock Point. These schemes are considered in isolation with no consideration given to the accumulative traffic impacts Traffic assessment assumes 90% of traffic will flow south. This is unrealistic and not supported by evidence. HGV’s will take the quickest route depending on distance and traffic conditions • Newton High St has become a vibrant place with new restaurants. Any increase in HGV traffic would put the retail and community asset at risk as it is already within an air quality management area • Warrington council have declared they are not in favour without a link road, which this application does not. Many members of the public might be uncomfortable without a link road but with a link road be in favour.

144 P/2018/0048/OUP 164 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019

 • The Council commissioned report has indicated an increase of 62.5% in traffic for Newton high Street for phase one, and an overall 80% across all 3 phases` • Lack of infrastructure to accommodate the high increase of traffic • The proposed link road would require an approval from Warrington Council and seems to more logical to provide a new over-bridge • Both junction 23 of the M6 and the roundabout at Winwick already struggle with the amount of traffic. Adding more will cause major issues for everybody, especially in light of the other large development at Florida Farm that is going to have a negative impact upon the Haydock junction • Winwick Lane was originally used for horse and carts and not for the size of lorries carrying loads • Do not believe drivers will take the very circuitous proposed yellow route to join the M6 when they can turn south up the A49 to access junction 22. Where will lorries go when the M6 is at a standstill? • A49 has on street parking which means two way traffic is often disrupted resulting in significant delays for commuters and emergency vehicles • The railway arch on Newton Road narrows and curves sharply to the right. If an HGV was to collide with this bridge it could close down the railways for some time causing immense disruption • The housing development at Vulcan Village is for 650 houses with no increase in any services • Proposals suggest that many employees will come by train to the newly renovated Newton Station. I don’t accept that many people will choose to take a 15 minute walk from the station to the site, particularly given our climate. I also don’t accept that these workers would choose to drive to an appropriate station to then make the journey across. Furthermore, the information regarding train frequencies is misleading, the trains departing to Manchester for example, are very close together timewise and then there is a gap or nearly one hour, similar for Liverpool, wording in the proposal would give thought to an equal spread of timed departures. • If lorries arrive to drop off or pick up from a warehouse earlier than their slot where will the lorry park and where will the driver be able to have use of toilet facilities • The road surface on Mill Lane is already in a poor condition which would deteriorate further with the addition of a greater volume of HGV’s • The Transport Assessment is defective as it doesn’t include the stated growth ambitions of either Merseyside, Warrington/North Cheshire or Greater Manchester. Nor does it assess any effects on the communities of Croft, Culcheth, and Glazebury to the north of Warrington • Traffic growth factors used within the Transport Assessment (6.7) appear implausibly low, and it is not clear how they have been derived.

145 P/2018/0048/OUP 165 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019

 Applicant should make clear how these have been derived and should be validated by a truly independent body • The Transport Assessment specifically excludes several sites which will create additional traffic and gridlock in the area

146 P/2018/0048/OUP 166 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019



 The Transport Assessment should have included an objective assessment of peak Saturday leisure traffic Conditions on the roads are currently horrendous so no one would consider cycling to the site as suggested Phase 2 would not take place until after 2030 meaning a sustainable method of transport would have to wait at least another 12 years • The applicant’s TA and Air Quality submissions lack clarity in certain areas and therefore their findings cannot be validated. In particular it is not clear what percentage of development traffic has been assumed to take northern routes. Specific details of employee, LGV and HGV trips over periods for a 23 hour operation are not provided • From local knowledge of the area and a reasonable assumption that most drivers would take the quickest route, assuming 10% of development traffic would take northern routes is simply not credible. This in turn implies the traffic and air quality modelling are unsound • The whole strategy of the application and the associated approach to traffic needs to be considered by SHC Council and Planning Department. For the application to be viable significant modifications would be required to various junctions, mostly at Winwick

4.4 Need • The number of jobs originally proposed has been significantly reduced by way of automated warehousing. • With further industrial units within the East Lancs A580 currently unoccupied/underutilised and a very similar industrial venture already underway in Haydock it has not been proven that there is further demand for such usage within the community. • There are already empty industrial unites i.e Haydock P&H unit empty, Stonecross Carlsberg empty loss of 900 jobs last Friday 2/3/18 plus many more units empty. • How many Industrial Units do St Helens Council want? Haydock, Florida Farm, Haydock Park? A580 corridor of industrial units. • I have not seen any justification for such a development. • 92,000 square feet of office space. A quick search shows 475,000 square foot of space without tenant or being developed. Until these are close to being full why increase this? • The argument that this development is required as to a necessary increase in distribution capacity fails to take into account other development in the area. • How can the Council consider yet another large storage and distribution warehouse development when there are multiple sites locally already. • As the proposed usage is warehousing I believe the employment opportunities are limited and contribution to the economy and society limited. As a manufacturing professional I cannot understand why the usage categories would not be a broad as possible at this stage.

147 P/2018/0048/OUP 167 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019



 • Instead of warehousing think outside the box and bring in high value high paid jobs by the creation of a technology park. • There is already surplus warehousing capacity in Warrington. • There are already a number of large logistics developments in the vicinity either at planning stage or ongoing. Local Authorities should work together to ensure that there is not too much encroachment on the Green Belt and saturation of the warehouse jobs market. • The commercial landscape might change dramatically once we leave the EU. • There is no provision for class B2 use therefore no manufacturing employment.  I have not seen any justification for such a development. The community does not need a logistics hub and there are countless similar logistic hubs in the North West area some of which are empty and trying to attract investors. This suggests there are already enough and building more in our area would mean that the business would not come from here or if it did it would be depriving existing facilities in other areas of business. • There is already one million square foot of industrial and commercial property for sale or rent, so why build more? • There are already proposed new sites at Haydock Point and Florida Farm and existing warehousing sites in the area including Omega which will exacerbate these issues. • There are already a number of large and ugly logistics hubs nearby including along the A580, the M62 and in many areas of Warrington Including Birch Wood. Further afield there are many such centres off the M60 and around Manchester Airport. There is huge oversupply of these hubs. Many of these are advertising vacant space and some have had vacant space for months including huge available floor areas in the region of 12,000 sq ft. There seems to be a huge oversupply and low commercial value of logistics hub sites. • I cannot see logical requirement for a freight terminal at Parkside particularly when Ditton and Trafford Park already have sufficient capacity. Also Liverpool Peel Ports already cover the majority of the freight distribution needs for the North West. • Residents have coexisted happily with the Parkside Colliery for many years with minimal disruption given that the nearby railway efficiently and effectively met the transportation needs of the colliery with minimal impact on the local community. • Previous land used for industry has been successfully regenerated in Earlestown which in time will see an increase in the desire for better local amenities from new home owners. • The Council have not named any companies currently committed to these developments and jobs. It appears to be a wait and see attitude, which is not good enough, as once the green belt is removed it is gone for all future generations.

148 P/2018/0048/OUP 168 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019



 • Already a substantial amount of warehouses in the proximity and St Helens, Warrington and Wigan with additional ones coming there is no justification for adding more that will likely remain unfilled. • No evidence these are even needed • Could expand the current Burtonwood site instead • Instead of this development the site could be used for houses and create a new “village” • There are already many empty warehouses dotted along the East Lancashire Road • Omega only 5 miles away has direct access onto the motorway so with this site only offering access onto an A road it would not be preferable • A more objective assessment suggests that an optimistic expectation is that around 100 jobs would be created by Parkside Phase 1 only

4.5 Flooding • The surface water drainage does not show the link road outlets that are in the link road boundary plans together with the extra outlets in to St Oswald’s Brook (Hermitage Brook). • St Oswald’s Brook will not cope even if swales are used. • It is clear that Phase 1 drainage system is to cater for plots E, F and G. Phase 2 contains plots E, G and H. Therefore it is clear that Phase 2 is an integral part of Phase 1. The maps and description also state that the link road regardless of whether it is a part of or the whole is also an integral part of Phase 1 just on the Drainage and Fowl Water Systems.

Site visits have confirmed that the flow from Oswald Brook is steady but very low and so the risk of flooding from this watercourse is also very low. This is not true. How will the drains for the properties on Winwick Road be affected as this is in the area round the proposed bund. The current landscape has a natural strata subsoil – inevitably major developments lead to the disruption of natural land drainage and the disruption of the water table – there are many examples of this for small housing estate developments – the development would lead to unacceptable impact on these issues. • The area covered by the proposed warehousing forms part of the drainage of the whole area. There could be a serious risk of flooding.

4.6 Economic Benefits • There will not be 1000’s of jobs, do you not watch the news the majority of these large scale industrial units are computerised, robot managed. Only need a few people to operate. Jobs will be truck driver’s delivery and takeaway not from Newton. • I’m sure the Council will hide behind the development of jobs. I would like to know what stipulations are in place to ensure that the local population would benefit from jobs. What percentage of people would be guaranteed work. I would like to be made aware of companies that have expressed an interest in using the site. There must be some.

149 P/2018/0048/OUP 169 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019



 • The potential for additional employment is overestimated as it fails to take into account changes in working practices. • The plans do not cover key issues relating to where the new jobs will come from with no guarantee the will be filled from the local area. Transient jobs will be created from construction and long term jobs will be in the minority due to automation. Companies relocating will bring existing staff. • How will the Council ensure new jobs when there is no guarantees that local people will have the opportunity for any new jobs as they cannot dictate that any new jobs will be for local people and are obliged by law to provide equal opportunities. It will just be as convenient for people outside the area to access the development due to the motorway network. • The Council has stated that the proposed development will increase jobs in the area. If other recent developments are to be examined then the creation of Parkside will in my view not create new jobs. Rather it will simply cause the relocation of already existing jobs. • Warehousing offers only a small number of low paid, low skill, low aspiration jobs as most is now automated. • It is more likely that companies will relocate operations and bring existing employees, thus reducing the potential for new jobs. • The employment created is likely to be self employed delivery drivers who have no employment rights and who drive very badly because of the time pressure they are under. • The claims made about the number of jobs that will be created is an exaggeration as developers use their own workforce to develop and build these facilities which when built will certainly be automated. Ongoing work opportunities are likely to be low skilled and pad with antisocial hours which will not attract the local workforce. Talk of the 1300 local jobs will not be a reality. • There is already a large proportion of advertised commercial warehouse type space available to businesses in the local area. • There is also a large amount of job adverts and 66.6% of these vacancies fall below the national sector average of weekly pay earnings which makes warehousing an unattractive career path.

I do not understand why the only type of employment the council seems to be focusing on is logistics. It seems a very unhealthy obsession with the public paying the price. • I do not believe that the proposal will lead to any significant increase in employment for local people. Many warehousing operations are now largely automated and will increasingly be so. In addition, many of the large logistics employers use zero hours contracts, which I hope the council will oppose. • I question the claims of 1300 jobs being created in this application. There are many existing and planned warehousing facilities in the St Helens and neighbouring areas, all competing for tenants. • There is increasing automation in the industry and the aim of managers is to keep the workforce to a minimum to keep costs low and automate as much as

150 P/2018/0048/OUP 170 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019



 possible. There are many large sites that have just 8 or 9 staff working on some shifts and 1300 jobs is fantasy. • Firms who would use such a facility just move from one area to another seeking reduced rent/rates. Once those go up to the proper price then they will move on to other areas offering a better deal. • From an economical view point the council will be out of pocket as the income from housing on the West side of the M6 will be far higher than the business rates – even if they still existing when any development is complete as the government has recently announced a proposed complete overhaul of the system. It should also be appreciated that Langtree is part of a much larger organisation including reputable residential building companies so the financial outlay is covered for residential development. • The proposed development would not promote aspirational jobs and careers which young people would be able to aspire to. • The area needs investment in wealth production, not the distribution system, and any changes in mode of distribution should involve movement by rail not the expansion of the road network. • Sheds by the edge of a motorway are not ‘urban regeneration’ and distribution parks are footloose and can locate almost anywhere on the strategic road network. • Companies move and bring staff with them, they don’t staff up new locations from zero. Whether or not any jobs created will directly benefit the current residents in the area is also highly questionable as it all depends if they have correct skillset for the positions on offer. • The application has not even got any manufacturing or skills jobs, purely B8 warehousing and associated offices. • Current figures show that St Helens has a figure of 8.6% of the workforce, nearby double the national average, employed in transport and warehousing. This leaves St Helens residents vulnerable to downturns in the market because of the over reliance on this sector. Has the Brexit impact on the economy been taken into consideration? • Much has been made of the unemployment crisis in St Helens, yet over the past few years, unemployment has fallen to the national average. Tech Paper 6 states that the claimant rate in St Helens has steadily fallen in the past 5 years. The application talks of positive job impacts however this will not be the case for the borough of St Helens as is stated by the developer themselves in their socio economic report. They state that the effect on the local labour market will be of a moderate benefit with only 50% of jobs created to be taken up by local residents. Given the average unemployment rate and the moderate effect to the local labour there is no such exceptional circumstance to remove vast areas of land from greenbelt. • The report states that the site would be used for B8 floor space. Potential jobs are based on a formula of between 70-95sqm per FTE which gives a potential

151 P/2018/0048/OUP 171 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019

 gross employment of between 930-1327 jobs. This net number of jobs i.e. the number of new jobs created would be between 683-930 jobs. The developer has deliberately cherry picked a small number of examples to justify using 70sqm in their calculations. Has this been challenged? The developer clearly states that automation of sites that would locate to Parkside is highly likely. The purpose of automation is to make a site more efficient i.e. reduce jobs. The developer goes on to say that the increase in ‘parcels’ processed at such sites would increase providing more transport jobs. There is therefore an admittance that the number of HGVs entering and leaving the site would increase. • The developer has used the HCA formula to calculate likely job numbers. They have deliberately used a lower metre squared to FTE value, with little justification, to substantiate their employment claims. Has there been any independent verification of these figures? • The jobs created, if not automated, would probably be filled by people outside of the area so where is the benefit • Already a significant number of warehousing units across the area not providing much in the way of employment opportunities • There will be very little increase of jobs for St Helens people as warehouses rely on mechanisation and computers for their operation. New companies would bring their existing workforce with them. • Whilst the site would create jobs it is disappointing the strategy of St Helens Council is almost entirely focussed on logistics. This industry is already well represented within the area and is named as the prime industry at risk of the robotics revolution • No contractual obligation for local jobs • Lack of provision for Use Class B2 Manufacturing would rule out any significant increase in jobs • The only benefit would be the council from business Rates as opposed to jobs • Logistic jobs are low paid and low skilled The current application would deliver a low and uncertain number and density of poor quality jobs on a large Green Belt site. • Including job displacement only 100 mainly low paid and low skilled new full time equivalent permanent jobs will be created. • The warehouses being proposed will probably be fully automated as major suppliers require. This will employ few people and agency and zero hours workers. • Talk of 1300 local jobs will not be a reality. • If they are successful in generating warehouse facilities it will take revenue from local councils somewhere else. It will not deliver anything like the number of jobs proposed for local people.

4.7 Noise • Already get woken several times at night through the working week due to HGV’s hitting potholes. • We will have noise and light pollution.

152 P/2018/0048/OUP 172 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 • The type of business that would be attracted will operate 24 hours a day 365 days per year which will increase noise levels around my property constantly.  Traffic will cause significant and continued noise to local residents. • I have not had a personally addressed written request from Parkside Regeneration LLP, or a noise consultant, requiring access to the property Hermitage Green Lodge, with regards to a noise survey to be carried out as prescribed in the Scoping Opinion from Warrington Borough Council. Talking to my neighbours they have had no communication regarding a noise survey and access to their land.

As the application is outline the building heights are fictitious. Therefore the noise survey predicted noise levels and mitigation in regards to bunding heights is flawed. Only precise details of known operators requirements can noise and light with regards to the bunds be considered. • The quality supplied by Cundall, claiming to be a noise professional is beyond belief. The quality of their report for analysis by the public is atrocious, blurred to the point no sense can be seriously made. Figure 7.4 is supposed to show justification of the proposed plans with respect to noise distribution with regards to measured noise dB. The colour scheme and associated ranges in the map are so blurred they are unreadable as to be clear of what each colour is supposed to represent. • Properties along Hermitage Green Lane will be adversely affected by noise at a greater extent to what is indicated in then noise assessment. • Extensive noise monitoring has only been 1 day and this cannot be representative of current noise status. • With increasing traffic comes increasing pollution, noise, light etc. and I’ve not seen any clear evidence on how these will be addressed. • Over the past 40 years the traffic has steadily increased to the point that the noise level has reached the point where it’s not acceptable and walking along pavements is frightening. • The A49 has seen increased HGV use in recent months as the new train station is developed requiring commercial vehicles to access the site during construction. Now near completion the new consumer traffic that will utilise the station needs to be built into forecasts due to additional cars and HGVs. The road noise has increased radically because of increased volumes of HGVs. With initial access via the A49 this would increase the problem continually for residents hence alternative bespoke and mandatory access to the site needs to be included even as phase one of the development that avoids using the A49 as shown in later phases but this needs to be from day 1. • The warehouses will operate every day and every night meaning there will be no respite from the noise, pollution and traffic. • House already literally vibrates with the noise and weight of lorries that drive down Rob Lane • The future rail spur, if ever installed, would generate significant noise during quiet hours as that is the only slack in the rail timetable that would allow them to be marshalled into the site • The bleeping of HGV’s when reversing on site will cause considerable stress to the inhabitants living near • The widening of the A49 would encroach onto green belt, fields, ancient woodlands etc

153 P/2018/0048/OUP 173 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 • If granted Winwick Lane should be weight restricted to stop any HGV’s using the Lane The noise will be horrendous, especially at night. • There will be a totally unacceptable level of noise which will directly affect the local residents at all times of the day and night. • Unacceptable noise levels will be inflicted on local residents and the environment. • Noise mitigation issues have not been included in the schemes for public viewing and consultation. • Levels of increased traffic noise, congestion and pollution via A49 through Newton Le Willows will result. • The submissions to lubricate the lines to mitigate any noise made by screeching wheels are frankly ridiculous. • The existing noise makes it impossible to sleep. • Having a rail turning track directly behind our homes will be intolerable; in essence the amenity of the neighbourhood will be significantly altered. • It is proven that track lubrication decreases noise to a minimal extent but does not eliminate rail squeal. • A high pitch rail squeal will result due to the curve being too tight for the intended carriage lengths which will use the rail spur. • The level of background noise from the M6 and trains through Newton station are already at a point that I cannot open my windows without disturbing sleep. • Having a rail turning track directly behind our home will create intolerable levels of screeching noise. • The noise level will be horrific and intolerable. Lack of sleep will also lead to major health problems. • The only viable times for trains to run will be at night which then impacts on the mitigation point of not running at inappropriate times. Additionally, the proposed spur is a line to nowhere as the rail terminal is not included until phase three and is clearly being used as a vehicle to get the Green Belt land released.

4.8 Air Quality • Any increase in traffic movement will be detrimental to air quality, the Council is already committed to improve this. • The air quality is already bad because of HGV usage and I through St Helens council was a champion of clean air. • There is an Academy on Ashton Road and there are many children who walk to school and additional carbon monoxide would be extremely detrimental to their health. • The Government is opposed to the pollution produced by diesel fumes, so why should the residents of Newton Have to Suffer? Surely the council must take account of this health hazard. • The factors of pollution and local impact around traffic especially have not been properly considered. • More lorries on the already over congested and full of potholes A49 cannot be good for the environment and my quality of life with pollution etc. • The pollution levels on the A49 through Newton-le-Willows are already higher than average and therefore it is extremely concerning that this is likely to increase with the increased traffic through our town. As the parent of a child with asthma this worries me.

154 P/2018/0048/OUP 174 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 • The increase in traffic will result in a substantial increase in air pollution in the centre of Newton. Much of the pollution will be from diesel vehicles which are more dangerous to health than petrol. • Nitrogen dioxide levels will increase. • Air quality in the Lane Head area is already very poor. • The air quality will be badly affected and will not be in the government ‘clean air’ guidelines. • The air quality in Newton is already very poor and has Air Quality Management Areas managed under the 1995 environmental act by St Helens Council. These areas have previously exceeded or are close to national and European air quality limits and the analysis of the consultant’s report predicts an increase in traffic of 62.5% over 2015 for phase 1 and 80% for all three phases. • The Council made a promise to improve air pollution, they are already close to air quality limits. • Traffic pollution is a proven killer, surely the Council must take this threat to life seriously. • It will ruin the air quality/area of Green Belt and it is too near the residential area. • The Council must protect health and wellbeing of its residents by managing poor air quality areas and having plans to improve those areas and prevent them becoming worse.

The local area has been identified for air quality monitoring at the High Street and Southworth Road under the environment act 1995, yet the proposal includes the removal of further Green Belt land that should be protected by the Local Authority. • It would appear you take no notice of Government directions regarding air quality. • This could prove to be detrimental to public health in the long term. • Local schools and parks will be affected by air pollution. • I cannot believe that despite air quality issues being prevalent in the area that you could even entertain this idea of such a huge development which will cut down trees which are the only saving grace in reducing air pollution. • There has been much research into the links from air pollution to Alzheimer’s. The Council need to demonstrate that theu have taken this research into serious consideration. • Do the Council want to pay out millions in compensation claims when their residents start to become ill. • The removal of the colliery spoil heaps will contain hazardous materials. Airborne toxins from this action to the rear of our properties will enter our homes. • Increased HGV movements would have a detrimental effect to the air quality in an already over polluted environment. National government is striving to improve the air quality throughout the country and such development, should it go ahead in its current form, would be completely immoral to both the young people in the area and old alike. • The Council has in the past been a champion of promoting good air quality within the borough which has been advertised on town signage. It is impossible to justify such a development which will clearly go against St Helen’s own principles and those currently being driven by the government and European directive.

155 P/2018/0048/OUP 175 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 • So many stationary and idle vehicles and further traffic will push air quality to new lows. The health of the local population is at risk by degrading poor air quality further. • Warrington and St Helens Council should have a duty of care to improve the local air quality and not push it further towards or above dangerous levels by adding more HGV traffic to our overcrowded local roads. • The resulting traffic will pollute the local environment when steps are supposed to be being made to reduce the amount of pollution for the benefit of people’s health and the good of the planet. The proposal is a major public health risk. • The development will push air pollution in the area beyond the national threshold. • There are eight schools in the local area all of which will be negatively affected by the above legal levels of air pollution levels. • I have serious concerns about the increased pollution levels resulting from the Parkside proposal, particularly on householders living close to the main roads and pedestrians, including children walking to school. • We have many older people who have worked in industry and have related respiratory diseases who will also suffer as a result of increased traffic pollution. • I was of the opinion that the human rights law came into the equation regarding excessive noise and air pollution i.e. diesel etc. • The proposal will be further detrimental to the well being and health of local residents, and its effects of increased poisons and life threatening nitrates in the air will be felt further afield and in the bigger picture is bound to affect the already struggling NHS through people already suffering with asthma, heart disease and similar breathing difficulties. • It is no accident that levels of nitrogen dioxide gases and other toxic gases emitted by vehicles in the vicinity of the A49 and Newton High Street often exceed the national threshold. A typical labour party strategy in St Helens seems to ignore inconvenient data or remove troublesome information from the public record. • St Helens Council, along with every Council, have a legal obligation to lower pollution levels, this development will only increase pollution. • On 05/02/2019 the UN Children’s Agency reported that pollution levels on British roads cause more respiratory difficulties than anywhere else in Europe and actually constitute a public health emergency. • The medical journal, The Lancet, already warns of diesel emissions from standing traffic causing severe health problems. • We are already afflicted by the pollution and smalls emanating from the local compost farm. I cannot see that increased pollution from Parkside and the associated lorries will enhance our environment. • The impact on Warrington MBC’s nearby air quality action plan is unclear although it’s referenced. • If you walk down Mill Lane near the former Leigh Arms on a cold morning, you are walking through a soup of exhaust fumes. • On review of the developers air quality impact assessment it would seem that the model results only reflect 10% of site traffic turning right and heading north onto the A49 through Newton High Street. It would seem that it should in fact model at least 40% of site traffic turning right. The developers traffic assessment states that 40% of the site traffic is presumed to turn right onto the

156 P/2018/0048/OUP 176 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 A49. There is a clear disparity between two assessments and as such the model results surely cannot give a true reflection of air pollution impacts on the air quality management are of Newton High Street. • Warehouses operate 24/7/365 days a year and the pollution would cause dramatic increases in bronchial conditions through particulate pollution. This area is already blighted by pollution caused by vehicle exhausts. • The traffic pollution levels will increase to an extent that will actively promote cancer to all residents. • It is noted that the Council have chosen to ignore central government inspectors advice on the pollution levels in this area. • Levels of pollution in Newton and the surrounding areas are above dangerous levels set by law and by the WHO. • The plans at Parkside dwarf the scale of Florida Farm and will result in thousands of extra vehicles per day polluting our town which already is over the legal limits for air quality. • The air quality assessment is flawed and inadequate in several areas. • Depreciated air quality on routes with high footfall and high populations of children in registered AQMA will have significant impacts to health. This is not acceptable. • Non-compliance with the SHC adopted Local Plan (Core Stretegy) policy CAS 3.2. Of note the current draft of the New Local Plan contains no specific policy for Parkside West, yet the Phase 1 plan still refers to the Preferred Options Draft whch has now been superseded. The Phase 1 plan is now out of date in respect of revised policies, housing & development forecasts in the New Local Plan. • The phase 1 development as shown on the Masterplan January 2019 if in operation will be a net carbon emitter from 2020 to 2054 in contributing to the co2 emissions of 21,271,395 tonnes of eco2 as well as associated air quality pollutants PM2.5, NOX, NMVOCs into the atmosphere. • The phase 1 site as shown in the masterplan does not comply with the current government guidelines as detailed in the ‘Clean Air Strategy 2019’ and so on the grounds of the air quality assessment the development phase 1 as shown in the masterplan is not a sustainable development. The A49 already a busy road, his development would greatly increase the traffic flow. An increase in traffic fumes would be considerable and would have a detriment to local residents, children and wildlife • Plan affects the residents of neighbouring authorities of Warrington and Wigan and the traffic using Winwick Lane and Lane Head where in peak times causes air pollution that is both visible and chokingly evident to the point it is unsafe • Can already taste diesel fumes walking along the streets • Government has already declared that air pollution has to be a priority once Brexit has been finalised • Not only does traffic pollution add to the causes of death but also the misery and disabling effects are only just becoming evident • Air pollution is a proven killer and linked with heart disease, cancer, dementia and a host of respiratory illness • The A49 and A572 have air quality receptors and are in an air quality management area. The air assessment assumes comparative modelling data that may or may not be accurate. The air assessment excludes the impact of

157 P/2018/0048/OUP 177 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 Florida Farm and Haydock Point which are likely to have similar impact on local roads and hence air quality. The true impact upon and risk to health of local people is likely to be very much understated. • An idling engine can produce up to twice as many exhaust emissions as an engine in motion • Transportation noise is the second largest environmental health risk factor in Western Europe • The development is wholly based on road transport that creates more carbon emissions than either rail transport, which in this location is powered by electricity • . Legal air quality limits will be compromised further. • The application does not take account of the climate change emergency which has national endorsement and should be a material planning consideration. • The climate emergency is only recently announced and related planning practice has yet to evolve. • The proposal will entrench a distribution system based on diesel fuel which creates co2 emissions. • The proposal will ensure workers will use cars of which almost 100% currently rely on carbon fuels. • The proposal facilitates imports of goods from climate change gas intensive countries. • The proposal will reduce land available for farming which will mean more food imports. • Higher levels of air pollution including nitrogen dioxide generated in the area are already above EU and Government Air Pollution guidelines. • The public cannot be expected to rely on the robustness of the full model application with repeated fundamental errors being found in model verification. • The results submitted could indicate that subjective bias exists in the application of the model, that traffic and emissions inputs from the development may have been severely understated or a lack of understanding of the process involved in modelling and model verification. Either way, this calls into question the robustness of the model presented. • Higher levels of air pollution including nitrogen dioxides generated in the area where air pollution is already above EU and government guidelines. • The fumes are a disgrace especially at peak times. • As members of the public will be affected by air pollution as a result of this development, given the vast inaccuracies found within this model ‘sensitivity test’ and the original addendum, a completely new predictive air quality model for the development should now be rerun by a completely objective independent body such as SHC EHO who are directly responsible and answerable to the public. With complete transparency of all the date inputs and the application of that data in the model. • It is now up to the council to demonstrate to the public, with full transparency and cohesion, that the air quality objectives within NLW’s and SHC will categorically not be breached as a result of this development. • If the current result of predictive modelling are invalid and inherently inconclusive; and no further independent modelling is undertaken to prove the accurate impacts of this development, then the proposed development must be denied on the material consideration of air quality.

158 P/2018/0048/OUP 178 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 • Given there are already issues with air quality breaches in the area, it seems irresponsible to further reduce the quality. • The addition of further traffic and especially HDV traffic from the Parkside development can only result in further detrimental impact on the already dreadful air quality in this area. I haven’t even had time to discuss its impact on Pm2.5 and Pm10 levels. It is preposterous to suggest, as it does in the addendum planning application, that only 40% of the HDV traffic will ‘turn right’. Where does this number come from? There is no rational to this. The extra traffic travelling through the residential area will obviously seriously impact the already poor air quality especially which a high proportion of HDV travelling through the high street and also Southworth Road to the M6 and A580. I gravely doubt that Newton Le Willows road network will have sufficient capacity to accommodate the traffic generated by the Phase 1 proposals and that air quality will not suffer. The M62/M6 corridor is becoming an unplanned regional distribution hub. • The transport assessment does not include local and regional future development or background traffic growth and underestimates the effect of the scheme on congestion and local communities. The assessment does not fully assess effect on minor roads and communities. • Saturday traffic should be appraised as one of the busiest days. • Walking and cycling are not considered seriously meaning that the development would contravene local and national policy. • The travel plan remains poor and is a box ticking exercise with no intention to implement any actions. The development will unleash a tidal wave of traffic and unsustainable car use that even a competent travel plan could not counter. • The proposal will generate significant traffic that would cause congestion on the strategic road network. • Increasing traffic is already a problem and I have seen traffic noise and congestion increase significantly over the last 30 years as a resident in the area. • The speed at which lorries drive down the A49, in particularly the high street, and subsequently all the small side roads leading down to Earlestown, is ridiculous anyway. • There will be an increased number of commercial vehicle traffic via the A49 through Newton Le Willows. • We understand from both Warrington and St Helens LPAs that trip rates, traffic flows and fleet composition have not yet been agreed (or had not been agreed at the time of RSPs memo report) for the PLR traffic environmental statement. The phase 1 modelled impact predictions report is based on inaccurate traffic input and therefore invalid. • The additional material demonstrates a flawed application of the model verification process, and calls into question the robust application of the entire model. • The A49 is already like a race track with cars and HGC traffic exceeding the speed limits. • A link road will bring more traffic through Newton as a short cut and the High Street cannot cope with the volume as things stand. The current levels of traffic on the Parkside road and Newton/Southworth road junction are woefully underestimated at peak evening rush hour. If the model massively under predicts current levels of traffic what’s the confidence that it can predict the effects of the development accurately.

159 P/2018/0048/OUP 179 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 • The historic conservation area of the High Street is already congested and almost a no go at certain times if trying to join from Park Road. Not sure if it has reached the dizzy heights of St Helens, but the High Street in terms of failing retail is a major success, with a growing café culture, regular events and no boarded up of shuttered shops. • The A49 already attracts high levels of traffic which is backed south out of St Helens. When not backed up vehicles travel far too fast. • Earlier plans talked of traffic having direct access onto the M6 funded by the developer. This latest version does not and any funding for major infrastructure would have to be paid for by increases to our rates. This is not acceptable. If it is such a good idea the plan should be thought out thoroughly with the views of the local community being heard and implemented. • The hubs will be an eyesore to anyone living close to them. • Extra freight will make the area even worse. • The developer should not be allowed to use Church Lane. • The increase in housing stock also in recent years has made congestion worse. • Another traffic survey needs to be done in the area. • Large lorries need to keep to motorways. • Pedestrian safety is at risk. • Lorries in excess of 7.5 tonne are already ignoring signs and turning from Newton road onto Winwick Lane. • We cannot cope with the existing level of traffic at the Lane Head junction at any time of day. • Crossing the road in the Lane Head area is dangerous for those who cannot walk quickly and more so for mobility scooters and mothers with young children and prams. • Due to current lorry restrictions the site should only be accessed from the M6 which will no doubt require the stretch of the M6 to be extended to four lanes with facilities for North bound HGVs to access the site. • The increase in traffic over the last 30 years has already been phenomenal. • Accidents on the M6 bring everything to a standstill at the very point the council proposes to route traffic to and from Parkside and it all comes through Newton Le Willows.

4.9 Heritage • The site includes part of a nationally important Civil War battle. Historic England’s comments have not taken into account that the battle site has been little researched, nor the battle itself. • There will be public benefits to retaining the battlefield. • The archaeological survey undertaken did not take due consideration of the fact that some of the area surveyed was part of a Civil War battlefield and seems to have presumed the majority of survey finds could be accounted for as modern activity. • It will denigrate the historic battlefield. • The site is on the site of the Battle of Winwick 1648. This is unacceptable. • Since 31st January 2018 Historic England has registered part of the site as a battlefield. • The proposal intends to destroy the setting of a part of the designated battlefield and the Grade II listed Newton Park Farmhouse & Barn.  What provision have you in hand to save the Battlefield.

160 P/2018/0048/OUP 180 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 • The application should be withdrawn and amended to take into account the battlefield registration. • Construction on the site would adversely affect views of the parliamentarian position form the main area of fighting and impose an inappropriate modern view on the whole of the registered area from the south. • The application site sits on part of the location of the battle of Winwick Pass (19 August 1648) where circa 1000 people lost their lives and marked the end of the Second Civil War. The event fundamentally changed the history of England and Scotland the government and monarchy. The proposal would result in a loss of culture and local heritage. • The application displays a complete disregard for local heritage. • The proposed area contains the site of the Battle of Winwick Pass, 1648 a turning point in the 2nd English Civil War. This is a listed site which should ensure its protection. • Historic England has stated that ‘the level of harm to the registered battlefield remains high’. • There are heritage trails leading off and around the A49. Who would want to complete these walks with massive wagons and increasing traffic at the side of them? • The submitted environmental assessment , by not being able to show the proposed development, outweighs the Historic England advice report for the designated heritage asset, registered battlefield, battle of Winwick Pass 1648, then the proposed development can never be a sustainable development and fails the NPPF. The development must be refused. • Site formed part of the Battle of Winwick Pass in 1648 • Historic England recognises part of the site for a historic battlefield, and although they don’t object this is contingent on mitigation measures to the design. These are not in the current design and access statement • Why has this information about the historic battle not been made public before? • Does Historic England know the true facts of how the land currently looks • Has any provision been made to protect any historical artefacts on this site • Application makes no comment on the fact that the Phase 1 site falls within a Grade II listed battlefield and should be withdrawn for reconsideration against this important and historical fact • The response by Historic England clearly shows that in their expert opinion the area of the former colliery included is historically significant despite any and all effects of the former colliery. The report also states “Winwick (The Battle Of) is the only battlefield from the Second English Civil War which appears to survive in a good state of preservation” Newton Park Farm House and 16th Century Barn are both Grade II listed buildings which are registered with Historic England. The Barn is the only timber framed barn of this type in existing in the old county of Lancashire and is an extremely rare building and important community heritage asset. • The Heritage and Landscape Combined Commentary (July 2019) adds very little to either knowledge or significance. Paragraph 1.16 suggests that ‘the significant of effects matric therefore assigns a moderate/major assessment to the Registered Battlefield, which is considered to be Adverse and Significant. Quite.

161 P/2018/0048/OUP 181 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 • The proposal will cause significant harm to a designated heritage asset and despite damage in an earlier era when less weight was given to history; any use of the site should respect the battlefield and its setting. Severing the access to the farm would contradict policy to protect heritage assets and historic locations. The NPPF is unequivocal regarding protecting heritage assets and their setting. The development does not comply with the requirements set out in the Local Plan and NPPF to conserve and enhance heritage assets for the benefit of the

162 P/2018/0048/OUP 182 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 local community. The development does the polar opposite and will destroy heritage. • Contrary to submissions commissioned by the developer, Historic England suggests that the site is well preserved, survives undeveloped, retains significant archaeological potential and is clearly legible within the landscape. • Removing access to Newton Park Farmhouse and Barn (Grade II Listed) would stop any further discussion and would sentence these historic buildings to be destroyed. I object to this on the grounds that you are destroying the part of the heritage of this great town. • The heritage ES shows the designated heritage asset registered battlefield, as the current local plan being not up to date with respect to this heritage asset fails to show the proposed development is a sustainable development under NPPF 2018 (decision taking) paragraph 11 d)i. As a result, the decision taking paragraph 11d)ii cannot be tested. Thus the proposed development must be refused. • The heritage ES shows the designated heritage asset two listed building settings afre seriously affected and are not in line with Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and associated court judgements. Thus the proposed development must be refused. • The hole project and Link Road must be called in for the Secretary of State to oversee under a public inquiry for all the project phases assessed as a whole.  4.10 SRFI • The council have previously made undertakings that no development at the site would be considered unless it is specifically associated with a SRFI. The plans have no connection with the proposed SRFI. • There is insufficient capacity on the external rail infrastructure to support an SRFI. • As the proposed use is not a rail freight terminal, I believe the Council has progressed the plans under false pretences. • Previous plans for Parkside were for a SRFI accessed by a dedicated motorway junction (only for the site) keeping site goods traffic away from local roads. The new application does not include the proposed SRFI which was the original reason to justify release of Green Belt. • The time for a rail freight terminal has passed. The activities of Peel Holdings at Liverpool Docks and Port Salford have superseded the need for a development at Parkside. • The placement of the proposed rail terminal is questionable, with rail terminals in Liverpool and Salford and Manchester, to have one in the middle is questionable. • Phase two of the scheme is said to be for rail terminal use only however what degree of protection if there if such a development isn’t forthcoming? • The train line is already very busy. If these enormous freight trains are brought in then there will be both sound and air pollution. The plan is to have a large part of the freight carried by train but if the line is not big enough then very soon I’m sure they will simply increase further the number of HGV going to the site. Having learnt about the Daventry freight terminal it seems that although rail is used as the Trojan horse to get the agreement for the site, which in reality the majority of the site will end up being simply a HGV terminal.



163 P/2018/0048/OUP 183 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 • The proposal does not include a rail freight terminal which was the original reason given to justify release of green belt. • The originally proposed rail freight terminal has subsequently been rejected by the development company on the grounds of costs. This scheme, now not including a rail freight terminal doesn’t seem wise with the traffic congestion in the area and in addition.

• The approval of phase one will prejudice any potential to provide rail access as part of a future Strategic Rail Freight interchange (SRFI). The whole Parkside area needs to be considered together. • Documents suggest that the rail terminal will not happen for at least 8 years. • Will there really be demand form Port Liverpool to load these trains for a 15 mile trip to Parkside? The note provided by Arup (04/07/2019) confirms that the proposed rail track radii will be a minimum and the wheel splays and sound fencing will be required to reduce noise. These will be difficult to maintain and suggests that the noise from wheel squeal and locomotives will be an issue. • A potential rail connection is simply ‘greenwash’ and the developer is not seriously interested in rail access and this is unlikely to be realised in practice. • The curt nature of the Arup note suggests that there has either been insufficient thought about rail access or that Arup are unconvinced themselves that rail access is a serious option. • The applicant has not addressed capacity of surrounding rail lines. Proposals for a Manchester hub will send more freight westwards. There must be doubt if any freight paths will be available even if HS2b is not cancelled after the current review, a serious possibility. • The developer has not included any detailed environmental impact assessments on this rail track infrastructure, nor any in depth detail noise mitigation measures, nor any landscaping bund information. This is completely unacceptable. In order for the public to properly consult on these plans a full and thorough EIA needs to be produced by the developer for the public to consult on.  We are concerned that the SRFI will not be delivered. 4.11 Visual Impact/Landscape Character • The business park dramatically changes the landscape and feel of the area. • If any works go ahead it would be essential to landscape with trees/buffering put in place before any building works. • It will prove an eyesore to both residents of Newton-le-Willows and Winwick. Surely planning guidelines exist to prevent such intrusion into the countryside. • The development has no screening and it is out of keeping with the character of the local area. The proposal demonstrates a lack of compassion for the people who already live here. The hub should not be built right next to residential properties. • The hub would be an eyesore to the local community. • The proposed layout of the hub is ill though out with warehouses placed next to residential properties with no screening. The proposed reversing line adjacent to the houses along Banastre Drive demonstrates a lack of consideration.



164 P/2018/0048/OUP 184 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 • The size of the warehousing proposed will have a significant impact on Newtonle-willows and the town will be virtually circled by such projects when viewed with the Warrington/Burtonwood schemes. • Views will be spoilt by the proposed development. • The proposed height of the buildings will dwarf everything in the vicinity and I am unsure if landscaping and planting would adequately disguise them from view. • Another major problem is the lack of sunlight with the planned bund which will be very high. This with the height of the warehouse behind means we will never see the sun till midday and then it will be going round to the west and our gardens will be starved of sunlight. • Proposed height of the buildings is a concern at 22m and 23m as they will dwarf everything in the vicinity. • The proposed barriers and planting won’t happen and the actual size of the proposed units would blight the area New construction plans do not show adequate screening of the new site from view from A49, Hermitage Green Lane and Parkside Road

The proposed bung would be 33m high and would block an additional 2.5 hours of sunlight per day from adjacent properties • A bund of that height would give a direct view into bedrooom’s and back gardens giving a loss of privacy

4.12 Ecology • The area which is Green Belt is a buffer zone between towns and home to a large amount of wildlife, including deer, bats, owls and birds of conservation concern including skylark, song thrush, house sparrow, tree sparrow, linnet and yellowhammer. The destruction of this area and removal of trees to make way for warehouses up to 50m high would cause irreparable and devastating damage to wildlife and nature in the area. • I have grave fear regarding the impact on sustainability and flora/fauna. • It will destroy the wildlife of the area. • Total disregard for wildlife and wildlife habitat on the site which has developed without disturbance for the last 25 years. • Parkside is providing an essential habitat for a large number of species including many birds, mammals, insects, amphibians, bats and flora which are rare locally and a conservation concern. • As a regular walker in the Lowton/Winwick/Newton-le-Willows area I have seen an increase in wildlife in recent years. This application will take away a significant part of the habitat for this wildlife. • The proposed area has become a Green Belt sanctuary for wildlife, which will have no means of relocation without crossing the motorway and other busy roads. Token environmental and tree planting schemes will not save the wildlife, which has a right to exist. • The site is come to a number of endangered species. To concrete over the site will lead to the loss of yet more rapidly shrinking habitat. • The wildlife does not need relocating or improving upon. It is doing fine already.



165 P/2018/0048/OUP 185 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 • It is not sustainable to take productive farm land for housing and or industrial development. • The site is now a huge wooded area that is habitat to many wild animals. • It is totally inappropriate to have such a large development on what is Green Belt land and this will have a devastating effect on the landscape, environment and wildlife. • The proposal will inevitably have a significant and deleterious effect on the local environment, wildlife and open spaces, which are ever more threatened each year by increased building and an expanding local population. • There’s little open land in this area without further removal of habitat for wildlife. The SSSI at Highfield Moss could be surrounded by buildings. • With phase two on the edge of one of the few surviving wetland habitats in our region and SSSI, the development of this land will only have a detrimental effect on this neighbouring area. • Since mining ceased 25 years ago Parkside has returned to nature and the wildlife has returned. Developing Parkside will destroy this potentially wonderful nature reserve. • The site is the home for a number of endangered species including frogs, toads and hedgehogs as well as lots of varied birdlife. To concrete over the site will lead to the loss of yet more rapidly shrinking habitat and the loss of these endangered species that have made their homes on the site over the last few years. To kill this wildlife is morally indefensible and a loss for everyone in the area. Any development should be limited to the brownfield footprint of the former colliery. It has been noted and is well known locally that the Council have paid lip service to the impact on rare wildlife including newts of the similar development on the



166 P/2018/0048/OUP 186 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019

 east lancs and penny lane for which it is rumoured that the wildlife officer did not even bother to inspect the site. Scientists have warned that we have only 12 years to prevent runaway global warming meaning we must change our way of life. We have no way of knowing whether we will, in the very near future require every piece of arable land we have left. • We have a number of raptors locally, several buzzards, these and other bird life may well also be disturbed. • Potentially all five species of UK owl are to be found here in particular the Barn and Short Eared owl that rely on the grassland habitat. • The application is missing a specific biodiversity action plan. This should be a separate component of the development with professional input which should include local specialists such as wildlife groups. • The government want to plant 22 million trees to help the environment, yet St Helens Council who have submitted plans to destroy hundreds of trees on Greenbelt land around Parkside pit head to replace it with concrete. • There are stark contradictions in the Council’s SA relating to the allocation of sites on the basis of protected species and protected trees that need further scrutiny and engagement from Natural England and DEFRA before this application is determined. • The extra traffic/noise/pollution will have a serious effect on the environment and surrounding areas • Natural fauna/foliage/landscape would be removed thus reducing/removing scarce natural habitat for regional and endangered wildlife with resultant massive imbalance to the natural world • Some of the wildlife in this area has a protection order • The habitat consists of mature grassland, wetland, deciduous woodland and peat and acidic marshland part of which is an SSSI and farmland. Given the specific nature of this habitat its loss cannot be compensated by other green space in the local area. There are no other comparable areas locally of this type • The application has no strategy to protect the species that could be lost. Putting bird boxes up, creating ponds and planting saplings are a box ticking exercise. Barn owl have returned to the area after many years of work by local farmers and the loss of feeding grounds no amount of nest boxes would attract barn owls • In terms of connectivity and wildlife corridors existing proposals are inadequate • Endangered brown hare are found on the Parkside site and land around • Badgers are present on the site • Site has become haven or many red and amber listed birds • Bats, barn owls, little owls, short eared owls, roe deer, hedgehogs and other species will all suffer • Land is classed as Grade 3 land so should be used to support the rural communities in line with the NPPF • No up to date assessment of the soils have been submitted in line with the Council’s own consultant as stated in the Sustainability Appraisal • Protected trees are not restricted to site boundaries as stated in the Sustainability Appraisal

167 P/2018/0048/OUP 187 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019

 4.13 Other • The nature of this type of industry leads it to operate 365 days a year, 24 hours a day, local residents already complain about HGV movements through the nights on local roads. • The environmental statement is defective and does not meet the standard required by the environmental assessment regulations because it only considers the first phase of a clearly linked development.

Case Law on Environmental Impact Assessment suggests that while it is possible to assess outline schemes under certain circumstances, it is essential that future phases of development of the same site are considered in the initial Environmental Statement. Otherwise it would be impossible to determine what the cumulative effects of the scheme are. In this case, the cumulative effects of the scheme include the Parkside Link Road, and the potential that this will open Green Belt land to the east of the M6 to inappropriate development. We think that the cumulative effects mean that the ES is not competent. • The Environmental Statement is defective as it does not meet the standards required by the Environmental Assessment regulations because it only considers the first phase of a clearly linked development. It also represents an unrealistic, optimistically positive assessment of the effects of the scheme and is therefore neither independent or objective • A 24x7 warehouse will be extra noise traffic and pollution for us residents at all times of the day. • Please, for once, think of the wellbeing of the residents in, and around Newtonle-Willows. • The application does not seem to take into proper account the impact on a number of key factors including, the impact on congestion in the area, the impact on pollution, the impact on other local developments that will add to these factors, the value of property in the area. • There is clearly an interest in investment in the area with the developments around the train station but these investments could be significantly outweighed with the significant impact this development will have on the surrounding environment and people. • Loss of light due to the height of the bund. The bund will also cause overshadowing. People standing on the bund will also have direct views resulting in loss of privacy. • I believe it will have an adverse impact on the potential value of my home. • With Omega (Warrington), Haydock Point and Florida Farm, this proposed additional warehousing site would create further congestion and pollution in an already overcrowded and over polluted area. • I would like to remind the Council that Newton High Street and Church Street are part of the Willow Park Conservation Area. • St Helens Council has a vested interest in this joint venture so I am surprised that they would be in a position to make a neutral decision for planning (and



168 P/2018/0048/OUP 188 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019

 would force this through regardless of objections. In this respect I see this to be a totally unethical approach by the Council to this application. • The Council should not be allowed to have any say in a matter where they have invested money that belongs to the residents of Newton-le-Willows in something that would be so detrimental to our quality of life. • How can a proposal of this magnitude that has such a risk of damage to local resident’s health and surrounding environment conditions be considered without an independent review? • The Council will be investing £14 million of public money in partnering with a private company it is unethical that you should be deciding if this proposal is accepted as it is a conflict of interests. • How is contamination going to be handled? • The Council have ready used money, from public funds, to invest in this project, and we are expected to believe that they would be fair and honest in their deliberations. • The Council should not be closed off about exploring other possibilities for the site. They should create a business park on the footprint of the old colliery to get revenue and preserve the Green Belt into a park for everyone to enjoy. This would have less local objections, allowing the Council to get on with getting some return on their ‘investment’ and concentrating on other local issues. Everyone deserves the chance to live in a pleasant area, to have places to walk, relax, breath fresh air. Have a healthy lifestyle. The investment in the new station proves that Newton has the chance to become a suburb to Liverpool/Manchester bringing more people into the area, buying house, creating more community charge. If we continue to destroy our small town the Council will have nobody left to charge. • It is wrong St Helens Council decide applications when so far they have invested £6million of Council Tax payers money without consultation and they want to increase council tax. It should be an independent council. • You are not interested in people the voters of Newton, this is not about employment this is about business rates which is not put back into Newton. Look at Selwyn Jones ancient swimming baths out of date by 60 years at least. • The timetable for comments/objections are short. Because of poor communication on other proposals I can only suspect the reason for this is to reduce the opportunity for proper and thorough consultation and hence continue the poor level of honest and public information. To add to this the information you make available in your letter is very difficult to access, follow and understand. Therefore this application is also starting with poor public communications. • Despite the old Colliery being returned to Green Belt there would be much less resistance to a smaller, sensitive development on that site only. • The area around Parkside is residential and a development of this size can only bring disruption to those that live close by.



169 P/2018/0048/OUP 189 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019

 • Recently moved to Banastre Drive. Chose this location as it was quiet and easy access to commuter links. • People before profit. The Council should be on the side of the people. This development will make our lives a living hell. Stop Parkside now. The Council should be ashamed of ruining people’s lives. • After I sent my initial comments about the development I’m very disappointed to have had no correspondence regarding my concerns and would like a response as to how you have taken my original comments into account when the decisions were made to press forward with this development. • The local water supply is provided by ground water bore holes. This development could result in disruption or contamination of the local water supply. • If these proposals were made by an independent company looking to secure funding to develop new facilities to create new local jobs without any impact to local traffic, local environment, health risks, burden the local infrastructure and remove land from Green Belt to secure planning permission. Would they be able to provide enough evidence to support such claims without question? • Think again and wither leave this land to be reclaimed by mother nature or make it into a local amenity like a country park to satisfy the needs of our already growing population. • You are planning Phase 2 and 3 of this development along with further large developments of similar nature nearby. All these developments should be grouped into one package and referred to a Government Inspector process so that a balanced view can be given. • Given that Warrington is seeing rapid growth and plans for thousands of new houses surly this application is even more poorly thought through and will cause traffic chaos, damage to health and wellbeing and the future warehousing tenants will struggle to function when hemmed in by such inappropriate local infrastructure so this may become a white elephant. St Helens Council treats Newton-le-Willows as a cash cow and always seem to take from us. I feel the Council want to exploit he are and diminish the standard of living for me and my family.



170 P/2018/0048/OUP 190 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019   Local Plan policies are out of date. Phase 1 specifies that £73millon will be required for infrastructure. It is not clear how this will be funded. • The £14m set aside from Council funds would have been better used to meet the social needs for St Helens and local areas. • Have a suggested scheme of a development is meaningless as the scheme can drastically change at the construction stage. • Lack of consultation by St Heles Council with local residents with the aim of trying to agree plans via the back door and without the correct consultation to local residents, business, the schools and church. • Lack of consideration by St Helen’s Council for Warrington Residents, who will feel the negative impact of this plan far more than St Helens residents. • It seems a great place for an new school or educational facility or nature reserve. • As a Council it is a duty (Health & Social Care Act 2012) to consider the threat to health and should be a priority over profit making. • I have made 3 or 4 similar objections over the last months none of which have received even an acknowledgement so I rather doubt this email will even be read…..surprise me! • We depend on our elected representatives and our officials to provide the necessary due diligence on reports. I fear that your office is not adequately resourced to provide the necessary rigour and analysis to critique all the supplied documentation. • Parkside should be developed as an area to be enjoyed by local people perhaps as a sanctuary similar to Ridley Moss in Warrington. • The plan is completely speculative. • Money should have been spent of social care. • This is an unwanted development not in keeping with the area. • There seems to be a case of ‘mission creep’ taking place that will overwhelm the local area and upset the balance of residential and industrial planning. Developing an area ‘piecemeal’ rather than via a long term overall plan will result in a mish mash of uncoordinated and unsympathetic sites that serves nobody fully. • There seems to be a policy of ‘no compromise’ when local objections are raised against planned development. • Wigan are proposing a logistics park at Pocket Nook in Lowton and Warrington have put forward land for housing in the local plan in Croft. • The Design and Access statement shows two consultation events at Hope Academy and Winwick Leisure Centre. I was never sent any invitation to the first event and did not now that the event was being held. The second event, which I was invited two and attended, concerned the road. None of the information shown at the event gave detailed information. The persons representing Parkside Regeneration LLP could not answer my questions and other representatives were ill- informed. The public consultation was a waste of time and meant I had to wait for the application documents to be made public for the specific detail to be revealed.

171 P/2018/0048/OUP 191 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019

   • To physically build the development as shown in the masterplan may not be what a prospective company wants or desires. This makes the screening/scoping opinion flawed. • There does not appear to be any support from Wigan or Warrington Councils. • To only allow six weeks for neighbours to comment is disproportionate. The submission is also 6 months later than the dates during consultation. • Council reserves should not be financing this project. • This is in addition to HS2 destroying the area. • The developer has failed to consult with those directly affected. Only since the application has been published have precise details been available. Cross sections produced are not an accurate representation. No one has contacted me regarding my easement. The proposed application for Phase 1 is in effect part of a larger development means the application must be withdrawn and submitted to the Secretary of State. • Parkside could be allocated as a University. • Can we create a science or business park with high quality and high level jobs. • The site should be used for affordable housing. • The site is far better suited to housing given its connectivity and improvements at Newton-le-Willows Station. Why gamble with warehouses which may or not be needed when housing is a high priority. • Newton-le-Willows has become a commuter town to cities and towns within a 20 mile radius. Therefore the site should be developed for residential and not industrial. • I would like to know why private developers are able to place their profit and business interests above my home, its quality and my quality of life. • I would back the site being used for train manufacturing. • Impacts cannot be offset by any S106 agreement. • Acceptance of the application will see a demolition of our home at works and at best surrounded by warehousing. • An Environmental Impact Assessment is essential. • The application is in part vague and ambiguous with several sections blanked out or not completed. • Impact from vibration has not been taken into account. • Residents have not been adequately informed. • The mental and psychological health of people have not been taken into account.



172 P/2018/0048/OUP 192 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019

   • Lowton has got enough construction going on at the moment in numerous areas bringing with its own problem. • Surely disused building could be converted and surplus supermarket building could be used. • In the application I don’t see your assessment of the available brownfield capacity available in the area as an alternative or for any alternative uses for the site. • A health impact assessment should be undertaken. • Why is the proposed building at roof level when looking at the sections? It appears that my home will be at the bottom of a steep hillside. What provision is there to avoid flooding of my property? • Why can this not be built near junction 7 on the M62. • The timescales for comments and objections is unacceptable short. Because of poor communications on other proposals I can only suspect the reason for this is to reduce the opportunity for property and thorough consultation and hence continue the poor level of honest and public information. • The application location refers to ‘Site of former parkside colliery’ however only a small part of the development site forms part of the former colliery. • The proposal without a road directly linked to the M6 would be unacceptable. A road paid for by an increase to local rates would be unacceptable. • The determination of the application should be a government issue given the complexity of the proposal and the number of people that will be affected. All phases should be reviewed by the Secretary of State as the impact of the proposal is too large for a local council to decide. The characteristics and history of the site mean that other forms of development, such as research and development facilities and tourist attractions, should be considered. The site could be sensitively developed and be a real community asset. We don’t understand how St Helens Council, being in partnership with those who want to develop the site (Langtree), can result in a democratic process, especially when there have been un-minuted meetings behind closed doors. It may also be that the process of objections to this proposal is simply a box ticking exercise. • I wish to propose a moratorium on any development of this area until the concerns of all local residents are considered. There should be suspension to any planning approvals being considered until all local councils can put forward a considered joint plan to address the lubricious situation in respect of the lack of infrastructure within the local communities. • When considered with the proposed HS2 construction, Lowton could face years of disruption with no benefit to residents.



173 P/2018/0048/OUP 193 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019

   • The Council’s relationship with Langtree Property Partners means they have a vested interest in this application. St Helens Council should behave in an ethical manner and refer this application to the Government adjudicator. • Further ruination will be inevitably caused by the later inclusion of green belt land (A1 Arable Land) without which the freight scheme is not viable. The concreting of hundreds of acres of arable land will probably cause the complete closure of several long-standing farm businesses to the detriment of this rural area. • The site would be more suitably developed to attract higher skilled technology, marketing and finance businesses where the increase in traffic would be more likely to be only from cars and where it can be designed for smaller units with plenty of space around them to provide more areas to protect the current wildlife rather than the huge ugly boxes that you see on logistics sites. • The above planning application is located within the Lightshaw Borehole Catchment Area any run off from the development would contaminate the water supply. In addition, it is known that there is radon gas entrapped in the catchment. There are also questions to ask about the reservoir at Winwick Water Treatment Works. Located at Waterworks Lane Winwick. Capacity is limited and there will be a need to secure the water supply in the way of building another reservoir on green belt land. • A more sensible option would be to build houses on Parkside with possibly a Business Park at the north side close to Newton le Willows station. If it were used purely for housing, up to 2000 houses could be built on the site giving St Helens additional rate revenue of approx. £3m per annum. Because of the situation close to Newton le Willows station, this is a prime commuter site. Travel time to both Liverpool and Manchester by train is 18 mins. If, as promised, there were to be West Cost Mainline trains stopping at Newton le Willows, commuting possibilities would be even more extensive. • The GMSF is currently out of public consultation and it contains within it a proposal to release land for employment and homes adjacent to the A580 Manchester to Liverpool corridor. This route is heavily congested at peak times and the Parkside proposal would only further add to both volumes of traffic in the locality and also restrict plans to address transport issues more broadly in the area. • Loss of local amenities, footpaths, nature walks and allotments. Access to nature is important for both mental and physical wellbeing for ourselves and future generations. • The application ignores the adverse effects of wholescale development of a semi-rural area, the catastrophic destruction of Green



174 P/2018/0048/OUP 194 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019

   Belt and the negative impact of the lives of local residents for generations to come. Parkside pit was only a temporary structure and when the coal has been extracted it would return to its previous use. There is no democracy if previous intentions are not kept.



175 P/2018/0048/OUP 195 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019



 Why can’t this site become a country park with a major public are work? Sutton Manor Colliery has been developed in this way – can the council please advise why Parkside should not be dealt with in the same way. In view of the fact that a Parkside development is geographically positioned such that it would affect neighbouring boroughs more than St Helens, it seems desirable that any decision should come from an independent arbiter, i.e. government inspector, rather than St Helens which has a vested interest. • I am reminded of the words of an Indian Warrior of the Cree Nations who eloquently said in the 1880s ‘when all the land is taken, the last buffalo shot, the last tree cut down and there are no fish in the rivers, only then will man realise that money cannot be eaten.’ 140 years later and we have similar battles with the Authorities. • If Parkside has to be renovated, what I and many others would like to see on the Parkside Site is a country park, perhaps jointly funded by the three authorities. • St Helens seems to have made no attempt to consult the people of Lowton on this plan, even though we stand to be heavily affected. We understand that Wigan Council has submitted a number of objections on behalf of the people of Lowton due to the intervention of the councillors of the Lowton East Ward regarding the potential impact this proposed development will have on the people of Lowton. • The significant expansion from the original NCB Parkside development is not acceptable – the consummation of green belt land (272 hectares) within this project is absurd – many local minor building developments (residential) have been rejected on this basis – decisions which I fully endorse – it would be ridiculous to permit this development which takes no account of the local land status. • Local land is currently high grade agricultural land that would be lost. • Access for the phase one part of the scheme will be via the A49 and this will include the removal of hazardous soil material from the site. What controls are being put in place to protect residents? • The Florida Farm development (currently advertising over 500,000 sq ft of space available from June) and the junction 23 scheme demonstrate what an overwhelming impact such a development will have on local roads, environment, air quality and safety of borough residents, let alone the scale of additional traffic that they will generate to further clog up the A580. • The NPPF states that green belt policy is in place to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns. Newton le willows is a historic town and the introduction of giant warehouses and more houses on green belt land will ruin the setting and special character of the town. • Newton high street conservation area will be adversely affected by the proposals.



176 P/2018/0048/OUP 196 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019



 • 140 new documents submitted after validation is an extraordinarily high number which illustrates how poor and defective the original application was. • The piecemeal development of Parkside in advance of the St Helens Local Plan will prejudice proper consideration of the wider area including Haydock Point, the Parkside Link Road and other important green belt sites. • Security is another consideration. At present on the plans in seems that anyone could stand on top of the bund to look into properties. We currently have a relatively secure rear to our property with occasional dog walkers. What security measures do Langtree proposed for residents bordering their property? • There is no mention of compensation being offered to the residents of the 50 houses on Winwick Road that border this Green Belt development. The application shows signs of being developed on a small budget, almost all of which comes from the local authority. The Council are in a position to approve their own application, one of which they have considerable funds sunk into including an apparent loss on land valuation on acquisition of £2.4m. How can you even consider building such a monstrosity on such a beautiful piece of countryside? • There has been a lack of public consultation as the planning application has not been advertised in the St Helens Star Newspaper. This could be seen as a wilful attempt to deprive the residents of Newton from being able to voice their objection to this scheme due to a lack of notice. • I object to the wording ‘Parkside Colliery Site’ as the application is for development of Green Belt land in excess of the colliery site. • There has been a clear refusal of reasonable disclosure of important information that should be made available to concerned members of the public. • The supporting documentation does not adequately detail how the methodology has been applied and the source raw data. • Newton is a historic town being the site of the battle that ended the second English civil war. The High Street is a designated conservation area, yet the application states that Newton is not a historic town. • I object to my council tax being used to contribute to a project that lacks commercial backing and will only lead to deterioration in health, environment and wellbeing. • Application appears incomplete • As St Helens council are jointly involved in this venture they are not neutral in the decision making process and will be biased towards getting approval regardless of valid reasons why such a development is unsuitable for the area

177 P/2018/0048/OUP 197 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019



 • Previous plans were for a rail freight terminal not road. This proposal appears to have inadequate factual data concerning the necessity for such a development and whether the impact upon the local community and infrastructure is proportionate • Residents who live adjacent to the fields would only see monstrous warehouses with no landscaping • St Helens Council is effectively the applicant and have provided 80% of the financing. Part of the funding is a loan for which no interest is paid. The balance sheet of Parkside regeneration LLP has a position of net liabilities which makes it technically insolvent. Therefore the council by this financial position have effectively positioned where it is impossible for them to refuse the application without incurring substantial losses in the several millions. This is a conflict of interest which renders impartial evaluation impossible. • The initial statement of community involvement referred to residents as Nimby’s which is disrespectful of the public and shows an underlying lack of integrity in the community involvement which is a statutory obligation under the NPPF • If allowed would be one 1 of 3 warehouse parks to be positioned within or adjacent to Newton giving over 50% of its land mass being abutted by warehousing. Add the vast new housing estates and what was once a semi-rural town could be transformed into city centre levels of urbanisation and pollution • Massive costs to the Council when basic social needs in the town are not being met • Council should stick to running council services and stop trying to be businessmen • The decision by the Council to fund with taxpayers money and without the taxpayers consent is unethical especially at a time when the council are cutting funding yet raising Council Tax and charging for green recycling Negatively affect the special character of the area, in particular Newton high Street that is a conservation area Public Health England state that there is significant evidence in the physical and mental health benefits to living close to green space. The Council has a legal duty under the Health and Social Care Act 2012 to protect public health The colliery site where Dream is located was given over to Mersey Forest by the council so would like Parkside to be given over also • Tax payer’s money should be spent on improving the quality of life for poorer people within the borough as some parts of Newton and St Helens are bordering on slum areas. • Spend the money on the town centre instead •Would destroy the “Britishness” of the small town of Newton • Site should be used as a technology park similar to Wavertree to provide high skilled jobs

178 P/2018/0048/OUP 198 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019



 • Goes against Council’s own Local plan 2012 and the objectives listed in the Local Plan Core Strategy specifically points 1, 4, 6, 7, 10, and 11 • Government legislation calls for stringent safeguards to be in place, namely that the planning application needs to be determined by a committee or subcommittee of independent persons who are in no way involved with the management of any of the land or buildings proposed to which the plan relates. A legitimate question to be asked here for full disclosure on whether firstly a committee exists • This application has not been considered against the proposed High Speed 3 (HS3) rail link otherwise known the Northern Powerhouse rail as options 17 and 18 have proposed a use for the same land allocated for his application • The site is very close to the Hermitage Green area, which is potentially of significant archaeological interest, in that it was the site of an Anglo-Saxon bishop’s palace and the site of St. Oswald’s well. • If the council has 8 million spare that means they can help the small companies in the area by reducing their rates The Council’s support of this application is undemocratic and a violation of the law. • The need to submit so many additional documents illustrates how poor and defective the original application was and emphasises the difficulties faced by people and organisations who want to comment. • Approval of Phase One will prejudice the potential to provide rail access as part of a future SRFI. • The support of St Helens Council for development at Parkside means that as a planning authority they cannot take an objective decision on this application. • The development is too large at 92,900m2, a much smaller development on the former site of the colliery may be considered appropriate. We have already submitted out support for the application P/2019/0192/FUL which would restore two historic buildings and create much needed housing. • Residents work hard to do our bit for the environment with recycling and upkeep of local areas. This hard work by the people will have been a waste of time. • St Helens are obliged to show an assiduous and sedulous duty of care to residents. Therefore, the challenge for St Helens Council is to out your people, both young and old, before your profit expectations. • Effects of this application should be assessed as a collective whole to ascertain he true scale of impact on our community into the future. • The site of the former colliery, with imagination, could be so much more than survival of jobs, lacking in aspiration or social mobility, offering few opportunities for people to earn sufficient amounts to buy their own homes or climb the professional ladder.

179 P/2018/0048/OUP 199 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019



 • The use of public funding to support a business venture and the obvious conflict of interest between The Council approving the planning application for which it has a significant investment.

180 P/2018/0048/OUP 200 Planning Committee 17/12/2019 4  Plan drawings state that issues have not been addressed which is unacceptable and an indication that local residents are being overlooked and mislead. • Newton Le Willows is a residential area with many schools, young people and an ageing population. • None is the issues relating to noise, environment and bunding issues have been included in the ES for the public to scrutinise and comment on. • We are being boxed in with warehouses, Omega, Florida Farm, Haydock Island, destroying wildlife and countryside. • I have previously supported application P/2019/0192/FUL which I believe is sympathetic and would enhance the area and preserve historic buildings of national importance. Application P/2018/0048/OUP however has no place in the area, and the health and wellbeing issues of residents appear to be completely ignored by the authority. • This third notification does not include the updates intended railway infrastructure in the description, but only notes below that new ES information has been added. Somewhat misleading for a public that only has 3 weeks to consult on and respond to this significant new information. We would also call into question the legality of this third consultation under planning law, as the description which has changed is still being considered under the same planning number, something that we believe the inspectorate needs to be notified about. • Essentially what is now being proposed in the updated ES, if realised, will have a direct and frankly horrific impact on Banastre and Rosemary Drive. In addition, as part of these updated plans, the Newton Park Farm complex is definitively stated as having the access removed. • The AECOM review document has not been included in any of the ES submission for the Phase 1 for the public to review and consult on. This contravenes planning conventions and is publically unacceptable. The SHC LPA has been contacted to request this crucial piece of the planning ES, but as the date of this letter we have yet to receive a response or the document in question. • Given the inaccuracies in reports submitted and data provided the models submitted cannot demonstrate to be robust and cannot be relied upon. • Alternative proposals should be considered. • When the Parkside Colliery opened up in 1953 the Government (National Coal Board) made a statement saying that when the colliery finished its working life the land would be returned to its original state. • St Helens Council must not be the decision taker and the whole project Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 (SRFI) and Parkside Link Road must be called in for the secretary of state to verse under a public inquiry for all the project phases assessed as a whole. Else, it is salami-slicing under the terminology of EIA Directive 2011/92/EU, amended by Directive 2014/52/EU article 2(1). • The further consequence of the inclusion of phase 3 Rail spur in the Parkside Link Road application, is that the environmental impact assessment information for the proposed phase 3 rail spur has not been shown and not been submitted for public consultation. Therefore, is in contravention of the Aarhus Convention for public participation in environmental matters. • The site is used regularly by dog walkers and others which suggest there is a strong need for local parkland. • No developer would build residential properties next to a hub, so why do you feel it is the right thing to do to build a hub next to residential properties?

181 P/2018/0048/OUP 201 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019

 • The application has misconceptions about the affects this will have and the project is far too large for St Helens Council to decide. It needs a Government Review. • The site is set to operate 24/7 365 days per year which means that we will never see the stars or satellites again due to the amount of light pollution that will be generated. Why not build this in one of your councillors neighbourhoods instead? • The proposal won’t only cause congested traffic but also congestion (asthma) on the lungs. • It is obvious that the development will go ahead as land used to access the site has already been bought. • Where will we go for our cereal crops or to raise our livestock? • The scheme is unnecessary. • Our house already shakes from the HGV traffic passing along Winwick Lane. • The noise and dirty air would be too much for the village of Lowton. • The Parkside shite should be used for housing and parking and wildlife and not industrial. • The sheer greed of officials seeking to add to the coffers of St Helens Council via this scheme is a disgrace. The risk of increased deaths are being ignored to secure an economic gain to the council. • St Helens Council has made no attempt to consult the people of Lowton. It would seem to me that St Helens are looking to accumulate any potential economic benefits from the proposed scheme whilst the negative consequences are passed onto to a neighbour. • I see no reason why such a similar proposal would be able to meet the threshold now, given that there have been no material changes in the intervening years. • If the site development is speculative then exceptional circumstances cannot be demonstrated. • St Helens seems to think they can ride roughshod over both Warrington and Wigans wishes. • If the site is removed from the Green Belt and the rail interchange falls through then the land could be used for even more housing in this heavily congested area. • The application for Phase 1 gives a clue that this is part of a more substantial development, to disguise the development as a stand-alone by hinting at the same time it is a part of a large development. To give reserved matters tends to imply the (Brown) ‘foot in the door approach’. Along with (Bowden-West), (Barker) and (Burridge) where the (Ecologistas), (Swale) and (Brown) are referred, together and finally with (Larkfleet) emphasises it very succinctly. That the projects Phase 1, Link Road, Phase 2 are certainly, due to the time scales for projects coming forward in the bear future as one development as a whole. • The plans contradict the fact that unit A/B is or will ever be a reality. This is confirmed by the drainage plan in Appendix 4 January 2019. The link road has a junction with drainage connections waiting to be utilised. The unit A/B does not require this junction so categorically indicates that this is not reality and hence the Heritage Trail as depicted is not reality. So to analyse this second environmental assessment is meaningless as the assessment is 100% flawed.

182 P/2018/0048/OUP 202 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019

 The resultant development if passed will bear no relationship to either Phase 1 ES or the current ES as the project has been split into several phases.

4.14 Three letters of support was received.

5. SITE HISTORY

5.1 P/2006/1296 – Outline planning application (with all matters other than access reserved) for the following

Strategic Rail Freight Interchange to provide up to 715,000 sq m of rail served warehouse and distribution buildings; train assembly area; a container depot; a cargo exchange; waste recycling centre; power generating facilities (including 1,850 sq m of ancillary buildings); relocation of 132kv electricity substation and re-routing of 25,000 volt underground cable; part of the Park Centre and bus interchange; part of the Countryside Park including mounded and planted perimeter landscape framework together with ground remodelling. Construction of part of relocated M6 junction 22, access roads, parking, servicing and infrastructure on-site and off-site highway works together with the dismantling and relocation of Newton Park Farm Manor House and Barn.

The application was withdrawn on 12th August 2010.

5.2 P/2001/0902 – Hybrid planning application for a Rail Freight Distribution Facility comprising the following:

Full application for:

Construction of the M6 Link Road providing a single carriageway direct access to Junction 22; Controlled access for light commercial, employees and public transport from Winwick Road (A49) into Parkside Site; Infrastructure and service works including relocation of the electrical sub-station, pylon towers and associated overhead and underground cabling; Earthworks and re-use of colliery spoil tips, including a minor diversion of St Oswald's Brook; Structural landscape works comprising screening mounds and planting together with the formation of nature conservation areas; Construction of surface water balancing ponds, drainage ditch and wetland habitat; Connecting track work into Rail Terminal; Rail Terminal and hardstanding areas for reception and transfer of inter-modal freight including:

Outline application for: Built development comprising approximately 188,000 m2 including approximately 168,000 m2 of warehousing distribution units together with ancillary office space, canopies, and associated car parking, hardstanding areas, ancillary structures, landscaping and potential related rail sidings; Rail Terminal offices and associated car parking; Estate Distributor Road including lorry waiting area; Controlled emergency only access road from Parkside Road (A573), east of the M6 connecting to the northern end of the Estate Distributor Road.

This was withdrawn on 5th August 2008.

6. POLICY

National Planning Policy Framework

183 P/2018/0048/OUP 203 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019

 6.1 Paragraph 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that planning decisions should play an active role in guiding development towards sustainable solutions, but in doing so should take local circumstances into account to reflect the character, needs and opportunities of each area. Paragraph 11 states that planning decisions should apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development. This means approving development proposals that accord with an up-to-date development plan without delay; or where the development plan is absent, silent or out of date planning permission should be granted unless the application of policies in the NPPF that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed; or any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole.

6.2 Paragraph 12 of the NPPF clarifies that the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making. Where a planning application conflicts with an up-todate development plan, permission should not normally be granted. Local planning

184 P/2018/0048/OUP 204 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 authorities may take decisions that depart from an up-to-date development plan, but only if material considerations in a particular case indicate that the plan should not be followed.

Development Plan 6.3 The adopted development plan for St Helens is the St Helens Local Plan Core Strategy (adopted 2012); saved policies in the St Helens Unitary Development Plan (adopted 1998); and the Joint Merseyside and Halton Waste Local Plan (adopted 2013).

St Helens Local Plan Core Strategy (2012) • CSS 1 - Overall Spatial Strategy • CIN 1 - Meeting St. Helens' Infrastructure Needs • CSD 1 - National Planning Policy Framework - Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development • CAS 3.1 – Newton and Earlestown Strategy • CAS 3.2 – Development of a Strategic Rail Freight Interchange (SRFI) • CP 1 - Ensuring Quality Development in St. Helens • CP 2 -Creating an Accessible St. Helens • CE 1 - A Strong and Sustainable Economy • CQL 2 - Trees and Woodlands • CQL 3 - Biodiversity and Geological Conservation • CQL4 – Heritage and Landscape

Saved Policies of the adopted St Helens Unitary Development Plan (1998) • S 1 - Green Belt • GEN12 – Lighting and Security Apparatus • GB 1 - General Criteria for Development Control in the Green Belt • GB 2 - General Criteria for Development Control in the Green Belt • ECON 1 – Economic Development Land Allocation • ENV 4 - Statutory Site Protection • ENV 5 - Sites of Community Wildlife Interest and Local Nature Reserves • ENV12 – Development Affecting Trees • ENV 13 - New Tree Planting on Development Sites • ENV 23 – Archaeology • ENV 25 – Listed Buildings • ENV 26 - Contaminated Land  ENV 30 - Drainage Waste Local Plan (2013) • WM8 – Waste Prevention and Resource Management • WM9 – Sustainable Waste Management Design and Layout of New Development

Supplementary Planning Documents • Local Economy • Ensuring a Choice of Travel  Biodiversity Local Plan Submission Draft 6.4 The Submission Draft of the St Helens Borough Local Plan 2020-2035 was published on 17th January 2019. The plan proposes to allocate 265 hectares of employment use up to 2035 with an additional 85.88 hectares of land safeguarded for employment use beyond the plan period. The Plan

185 P/2018/0048/OUP 205 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 proposes to remove the application site from the Green Belt and allocate it as Employment Land appropriate for B2/B8 uses.

Other Documents 6.5 The following documents form part of the Council’s evidence base and will be discussed below:

- St Helens Employment Land and Skills Review, Regeneris, April 2009 (ELSR) - St Helens Employment Land and Premises Study, Scott Wilson and CBRE, May 2011 (ELPS) - Review of Employment Land in St Helens to 2027, URS and CBRE, September 2011 (RELSH) - Economic Evidence Base Paper, Aecom, September 2015 (EEBP) - Employment Land Needs Study, BE Group, October 2015 (ELNS) - Draft Strategic Housing and Employment Land Market Assessment, GL Hearn, January 2017 (SHELMA) - Addendum Report to the ELNS, BE Group, October 2017 – Amended January 2019 (ARELNS) - Parkside Logistics and Rail Freight Interchange Study (AECOM August 2016), - Parkside Logistics and Rail Freight Study Addendum – Parkside West Rail Design and Acoustics Study (AECOM 2017)

Other Considerations 6.6 The application has been considered having regard to Article 1 of the First Protocol of the Human Rights Act 1998, which sets out a persons rights to the peaceful enjoyment of property and Article 8 of the Convention of the same Act which sets out his/her rights in respect for private and family life and for the home. Officers consider that the proposed development would not be contrary to the provisions of the above Articles in respect of the human rights of surrounding residents/occupiers.

6.7 This application has been considered in relation to Section 17 of The Crime and Disorder Act. The Police Crime Prevention Officer has been afforded the opportunity to comment on this scheme, but no comments have been received.

6.8 The application has been considered in accordance with the St Helens Council’s Comprehensive Equality Policy, which seeks to prevent unlawful discrimination, promote equality of opportunity and good relations between people in a diverse community. In this case the proposed development is not anticipated to have any potential impact from an equality perspective.

7. ASSESSMENT

7.1 The application site relates to an area of land that is located on the site of the former Parkside Colliery. It is in the Green Belt, but is identified in the Core Strategy as a strategic location which has the potential to facilitate the transfer of freight between road and rail. This application proposes a road based logistics development accessed from the A49 (Mill Lane/Winwick Road),

186 P/2018/0048/OUP 206 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 it does not propose any rail infrastructure. This report will therefore assess the application in that context and the starting point is compliance with Green Belt policy.

Principle of the development 7.2 Saved Policy GB1 in the Unitary Development Plan is relevant. This Policy states that new buildings within the Green Belt will not be permitted, except in very special circumstances, unless it is for one of four identified purposes.

7.3 Paragraph 145 of the NPPF sets out the policy for assessing proposals that involve the erection of new buildings within the Green Belt. It states that a local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt as inappropriate development unless one of eight identified exceptions apply.

7.4 Paragraph 143 of the NPPF states that inappropriate development is by definition harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Paragraph 144 states that when considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt and ‘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.

7.5 Although there are some differences between the policies, they are broadly consistent and therefore significant weight should be given to saved policy GB1 (applying NPPF Paragraph 213).

7.6 This application proposes the erection of up to 92,900m2 of employment floor space. It is therefore inappropriate development because it does not meet any of the exceptions identified in Green Belt policy. Given that the application proposes inappropriate development, it is necessary to consider whether there are very special circumstances to justify granting planning permission for the proposed development (in terms of NPPF Paragraphs 143 and 144).

7.7 This section of the report will assess the applicant’s case of very special circumstances as set out in Section 2; it will then evaluate the harm caused to the Green Belt, and any ‘other harm’, before coming to a conclusion whether the harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

Very Special Circumstances 7.8 The applicant states that there is policy support for significant economic growth and that St Helens Council recognises the need to plan positively for economic growth for the benefit of the Borough. It is argued that the evidence base which supports the new Local Plan identifies a substantially greater need for employment development in the Borough than the Core Strategy does and that employment development is required to deliver economic growth in the City Region and address deprivation and joblessness in the Borough. The applicant believes that the former Parkside Colliery site

187 P/2018/0048/OUP 207 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 would be attractive to the market and is deliverable so it would help meet the need for employment development (identified above).

7.9 Further the applicant submits that (i) there are no urban sites which could accommodate the proposed development and (ii) that in order to meet the need identified by the Council’s evidence base, it is necessary to consider sites in the Green Belt. The applicant also submits that there are significant economic, social and environmental benefits.

7.10 This section of the report will first assess the policy context and need for new employment land in the Borough, it will then evaluate if the application site would be an appropriate location site to meet any identified need for employment land in the Borough, whether there is a lack of suitable employment land in the Borough and finally assess the economic, social and environmental benefits of the proposed development. This analysis will set out a summary of the applicant’s case and assess this within the context of the Council’s evidence.

Whether there is policy support and an overriding need for new employment land in St Helens

The applicant’s case 7.11 The applicant sets out that national policy requires significant weight to be put on the need to support economic growth, and that since the adoption of the Core Strategy there has been a key change in the Liverpool City Region (LCR) with Superport and Liverpool2 identified as economic multipliers resulting in an increased need for employment land in the LCR and in the Borough of St Helens.

7.12 The applicant states that St Helens Council now recognises the need to plan positively for economic growth for the benefit of the Borough and to capture the economic benefits of the logistics industry. They argue that there is an established economic policy requirement which has now grown significantly and that the application proposals are submitted in the context of a national, regional and local requirement. They conclude that this policy support for employment development is a significant material planning consideration in favour of the proposals which should be given significant weight.

The Council’s assessment 7.13 This application falls to be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise (Section 38(6) of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and Section 70 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990).

The Development Plan 7.14 Policy CSS1 in the Core Strategy identifies previously developed land in sustainable locations, including the M62 Link Road corridor and Haydock Industrial Estate as the main focus of economic development. The policy also states that development will be restricted to within existing settlement boundaries, unless it complies with Green Belt policy. The justification for the policy states that the spatial distribution for employment land is likely to broadly follow the distribution of existing employment areas and notes that they are constrained from further development outwards due to being surrounded by Green Belt.

7.15 Policy CSS1 also identifies that an area of land principally based on the former Parkside Colliery is identified as a strategic location for a Strategic Rail Freight Interchange (SRFI) subject to an appropriate scheme being delivered on the site. As this application

188 P/2018/0048/OUP 208 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 does not propose an SRFI. Rather, it promotes 92,000m2 of employment floor space with ancillary offices (see section 2 above).

7.16 Policy CAS 3.1 identifies the strategy for Newton le Willows. It states that the main focus for industrial activity will continue to be the Sankey Valley Industrial Estate.

7.17 Policy CE1 in the Core Strategy states that sufficient land and premises will be provided to strengthen and diversify the Borough’s economic base and support the City Growth Strategy and other economic regeneration initiatives by providing at least 37 hectares of land to meet local needs to 2027. The justification for the policy notes that it is anticipated that 32 hectares of this demand would come from B8 logistics, 5 hectares would come from B1 offices and demand for B2 manufacturing would reduce by 18 hectares. It identifies an employment land supply of 86.12 hectares and an additional 32 hectares of windfall land which could come forward to meet the identified demand.

7.18 Following the adoption of the Core Strategy in 2012, the Council began work on an Allocations Local Plan Development Plan Document ALPDPD) to identify sites for development in the Borough. As part of that process the Council undertook research to update the evidence base which underpinned the Core Strategy which was prepared between 2009 and 2011. The updated evidence base identified that there was a significant material change in the employment land market which meant that there was a need for considerably more employment land than identified in Policy CE1. This was one of the factors which led to the Council preparing a new Local Plan for the Borough (rather than progressing the ALPDPD).

7.19 The St Helens Borough Local Plan 2020 – 2035 is currently at Submission Draft stage and there are a number of objections to key policies in it which, in accordance with paragraph 48 of the NPPF, means that it can only be given very limited weight at this point. However, it is relevant to note that it identifies a need for a minimum of 215.4 hectares of employment land between 2018 and 2035, consistent with the Council’s employment land evidence base.

7.20 This evidence base is a material consideration when determining this planning application. As noted above, it is clear that the need for employment land to 2035 is significantly greater than that identified in Policy CE1 of the Core Strategy. The Council’s evidence on the need for employment land is set out below.

Economic Evidence Base Paper (EEBP) 7.21 In September 2015, the Council published the Economic Evidence Base Paper (EEBP). The EEBP set the context for the demands of the employment land market and it noted that in 2015 there was an acute shortage of available, quality, industrial accommodation across all size parameters in the North West. The paper highlighted that the region had the lowest availability in the country of B8 logistics buildings in excess of 9,000m2 and less than 8 months of theoretical supply in September 2014.

7.22 The EEBP noted that there was significant occupier demand for large scale logistics buildings with over 4,500m2 of floor space in the North West, evidenced by transactions of floor space taking place between 2011-2015. The EEBP noted that the amount of floor space taken up in the region in the first half of 2015 was the largest of all UK regions.

7.23 The EEBP states that the strong demand is set to continue due to the North West Region’s location, the strength of Manchester and Liverpool, infrastructure projects such as

189 P/2018/0048/OUP 209 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 Superport and Airport City, and the continued rise of internet shopping whose retailers are deliberately developing logistics strategies to be near to customers.

7.24 Sub-regionally, the EEBP reflects on political change and investments in infrastructure in the Liverpool City Region (LCR) since 2012. The LCR Growth Deal was signed in 2014 and the creation of a freight and logistics hub is one of the five strategic projects at its heart. The Growth Plan for the LCR has a strong emphasis on logistics and freight as a means of supporting and enhancing the economic output of the region.

7.25 The EEBP notes the growing needs of the Liverpool Superport. It refers to the study ‘Liverpool City Region Superport: An Analysis of the supply of, and demand for, distribution space within the Liverpool City Region (2014)’. The Study defines the Superport area as one hour’s drive time from the Port of Liverpool and includes the Borough of St Helens. The Study examines the factors that will drive demand for port related employment land and premises and states that there is an overall requirement of 783-808 hectares in the Superport area over the next 20 years.

7.26 In this context of regional and sub-regional need, the EEBP identifies that the Council commissioned an Employment Land Needs Study (ELNS) to identify the objectively assessed need (OAN) for employment land within the Borough up to 2037. The ELNS was published in October 2015.

Employment Land Need Study (ELNS) 7.27 The ELNS states that the demand for warehousing space (which includes demands for manufacturing and logistics operations) has changed significantly since the development of the Core Strategy, with the commercial property market in the region being driven by an increasing demand for large scale logistics operations (greater than 10,000m2). Consequently, the demand side factors which influence the calculated number of years’ supply of land in the Core Strategy are now too low for projections of need.

7.28 The ELNS notes that large flat sites with excellent motorway access and proximity to market/supply chains are highly sought after, the Borough of St Helens’ key location on the M6 and M62 motorways mean that it is ideally positioned in the North West to provide a critical role in the logistics sector.

7.29 The ELNS identifies an employment land objectively assessed need or OAN baseline of 147 - 174 hectares up to 2037. This OAN is based upon previous take up of floor space. However, there are additional factors which would increase demand for large scale logistics employment in the Borough, such as the development of a strategic rail freight interchange at Parkside and Superport, which would translate into an additional 30-40 hectares of employment land.

7.30 With these additional factors being taken into account, the ELNS identifies that the actual OAN for the Borough is 177-214 hectares of land with around 100-130 hectares being for B8 storage and logistics.

7.31 As the ELNS was published in October 2015 an Addendum Report to the ELNS (ARELNS) was published in January 2019 to update it and to support the Submission Draft of the Local Plan. The ARELNS reviews the ELNS’s estimate of the OAN for employment to give the most up to date evidence and market conditions.

Addendum Report to the Employment Land Needs Study (ARELNS)

190 P/2018/0048/OUP 210 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 7.32 The ARELNS notes that the logistics market continues to be the most in demand commercial market in the North West, with demand focussed on the motorway corridors. It reports that discussions with commercial agents in the region show a general belief that there is substantial demand for large logistics space in the coming years and that the logistics market is the most likely sector to drive growth in the Borough of St Helens and the broader North West Region for years to come. The Report identifies that the market is constrained by lack of space and that high quality, large (greater than 5 hectares), flat sites with excellent access to the motorway network and planning support are in short supply.

7.33 The ARELNS states that there has recently been strong developer interest in the Borough of St Helens (in particular Haydock) which is consistent with the highlighted demand and the conclusions drawn in the ELNS. It also notes that with Omega in Warrington built out, there is a need for further large scale logistics sites to be provided near the intersection of the M6 and M62 (a key hub).

7.34 The ARELNS identifies that employment land take up has been supressed in the Borough of St Helens for a number of years because of an inadequate supply of market attractive sites. It notes that the Boroughs of Halton, Liverpool, Knowsley, Wirral and Warrington have all experienced a significantly greater take up of employment land than St Helens between 2005 and 2015. Furthermore, it notes that the sustained strength of the market and the growing momentum around sites in the Borough of St Helens (in particular Haydock) suggests that the increased need for employment land may be more than anticipated in 2015.

7.35 As a result of these factors, the ARELNS identifies that the revised OAN for the Borough is between 190 – 239 hectares of employment land between 2012 and 2037. It states that between 110 – 155 hectares of this land would be for B8 logistics.

Strategic Housing and Employment Land Market Assessment (SHELMA) 7.36 Sub-regionally, the Liverpool City Region (LCR) published a draft Strategic Housing and Employment Land Market Assessment (SHELMA) in January 2017. The purpose of the SHELMA is to provide an evidence base to inform the preparation of a City Region Spatial Framework and support the preparation of local plans by local planning authorities in the LCR & West Lancashire.

7.37 The draft SHELMA identifies that across the LCR and West Lancashire there would be a need of between 308 – 397 hectares of land to accommodate large B8 floor space (units of over 9,300m2) between 2012 and 2037. However, it does not break this figure down by local authority area.

Liverpool City Region Assessment of the Supply of Large Scale B8 Sites (LCRB8) 7.38 Following on from the SHELMA, the LCR produced the above study in June 2018. The purposes of the LCRB8 is to review sites in the LCR that are capable of supporting the growth in large scale B8 developments over 10,000m2. The study assessed sites to identify whether they are realistically marketable and likely to come forward for a large scale B8 use by 2037.

7.39 The former Parkside Colliery site was assessed as part of the LCRB8 which found that its location close to both the M62 and M6 motorways makes it well located for regional and national distribution markets. The study states that Parkside is a prime site in the City Region providing the potential for 63.65 hectares of strategic B2 and B8 development at a location which provides excellent access to the strategic road and rail networks.

191 P/2018/0048/OUP 211 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 Recent developments 7.40 The evidence base outlined above covers the period between 2012 and 2037. It is acknowledged that since 2012, planning permission has been granted for employment developments in the Borough including around 30 hectares at Florida Farm, 11 hectares at Haydock Green and 3.5 hectares at Kilbuck Lane. However, even allowing for these developments there is still a significant need for employment land in the Borough

National Planning Policy 7.41 The need for employment development should also be considered in the context of national planning policy. Paragraph 8 of the NPPF sets out that one of the three overarching objectives of the planning system is an economic one. It states that to help build a strong, responsive and competitive economy, planning should ensure that sufficient land of the right type is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth, innovation and improved productivity.

7.42 Paragraph 80 of the NPPF states that planning decisions should help create the conditions in which businesses can invest, expand and adapt. Significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth and productivity, taking into account both local business needs and wider opportunities for development. The approach taken should allow each area to build on its strengths, counter any weaknesses and address the challenges of the future.

7.43 Paragraph 82 of the NPPF states that planning decisions should recognise and address the specific locational requirements of different sectors; including making provision for storage and distribution operations at a variety of scales and in suitably accessible locations.

Summary of the evidence 7.44 There is clear and compelling evidence that there is a significant need for new employment land in the Borough of St Helens, including large scale logistics. It is also clear that the market for employment land has changed significantly since the adoption of the Core Strategy in 2012 and the more modest requirements of 37 hectares of land up until 2027. The extent of change outlined above effectively renders policies CSS1, and CE1 in the Core Strategy out of date (although it is important to note that they are not the most important for making a decision) and means that they should only be given limited weight when considering this application. By contrast the evidence outlined above is up to date and has been prepared in accordance with National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) which means that, particularly in the context of the NPPF, it should be given significant weight when assessing this application.

Whether the application site is attractive to the market and would help meet the need for employment land in the Borough

Applicant’s case 7.45 As outlined in section 2, the applicant identifies that the site is a suitable and deliverable and will form an important part of the Borough of St Helens’ employment land requirements. They argue that the site is close to the motorway network, a labour pool, and that large and level development platforms can be formed which would be capable of accommodating large B8 units.

The Council’s assessment 7.46 If the site can be shown to be deliverable and attractive to the market, it follows that it would help meet the significant need for employment land as set out above and ensure that

192 P/2018/0048/OUP 212 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 there is an appropriate pipeline of industrial buildings to enable the growth of the Borough’s economy.

7.47 The EEBP states that large scale logistics is the most active market in the region and a particular opportunity for the Borough of St Helens. It considers specific criteria to determine where distribution development should be located, and takes into account issues identified in the Core Strategy and criteria of critical importance to occupiers and developers. The criteria established to meet the needs of large scale employment development are summarised as follows:

• Minimum site area of 5 hectares. • 10 minutes or less drive time to motorway junction  Availability of HGV access. • Access from A570/A580/M6/M62 via the strategic and/or primary freight network as identified in the Core Strategy, avoiding roads used to access main urban residential areas • Good public transport access. • Separation from sensitive uses, including identified outdoor recreation and leisure facilities.

7.48 In order to determine whether a site is likely to be deliverable and attractive to the market the EEBP criteria is a relevant consideration. The extent to which the application site meets the criteria is assessed below.

7.49 The application site comprises 47 hectares of land located less than 10 minutes’ drive time from the M6 and M62 motorways. The site is also in close to a labour market and accessible via public transport with Newton-le- Willows railway station around 0.5 miles to the north. There are regular bus services that run to the railway station and along Mill Lane. It is acknowledged that the site does not take access from the primary freight network. However, the A49 provides a direct link to the M6 and M62 motorways and would allow HGVs to access to the site. In broad terms, the site meets the EEBP criteria and is considered to be deliverable and attractive to the market.

7.50 The application proposes a speculative development made in outline form, but the EEBP states that this type of speculative development is not uncommon. Indeed, three out of four logistics buildings at Florida Farm and Haydock Green (originally granted outline permission) have now been constructed. The applicant argues that the site is deliverable and being promoted by a joint venture whose sole purpose is to deliver development at the site. The fact that there are proposals before the Council gives further confidence of this. A report from a real estate practice specialising in industrial land has been submitted which concludes that the site should be considered a key opportunity site for new logistics development.

7.51 In summary, based upon the evidence outlined above, the proposed development can be considered deliverable and attractive to the market. It is considered that it would assist in meeting the significant need for large scale logistics sites in the Borough

Whether other sites could meet the need

193 P/2018/0048/OUP 213 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 Applicant’s case 7.52 As outlined in section 2, the submission includes an Alternative Sites Assessment Study (ASAS) which identifies that there are no existing sites in the urban area or with planning permission that could accommodate the proposed development in full. There are no suitable sites in the urban area which could accommodate a building of the smallest units size upwards. Consequently, the applicant submits that development in the Green Belt is inevitable and justified, in order to meet the identified need.

The Council’s assessment 7.53 The applicant’s ASAS uses criteria based around the EEBP criteria set out in paragraph 7.47 above. The purpose of the ASAS was to identify whether the Council’s current employment supply (i) could accommodate the identified need and/or the proposed development and (ii) is attractive to the market. If it is not, then it would not be able to help meet the demand for employment land (set out above), demonstrating the need to develop land in the Green Belt to meet the need.

7.54 The ASAS identifies that the application site is approximately 47.9 hectares and proposes the delivery of up to 92,900m2 of floor space. However, as noted in the draft SHELMA and other planning applications submitted to the Council, it is generally accepted that the floor space of a B8 logistics building would take up around 40% of the area of a plot.

7.55 It is considered appropriate to apply this ratio when assessing whether other sites could accommodate the proposed development. Based upon a 40% building to site ratio, a 23 hectare site would be sufficient to deliver the proposed development. There are no available sites of this size in the urban area or with planning permission to meet the identified need. Therefore, it is accepted that the proposed development could only be delivered in the Green Belt.

7.56 As noted above, for robustness the applicant has also considered if the development could be disaggregated, i.e. whether the floor space proposed for each of the

development parcels could be provided on other sites within the urban area or on sites in the Green Belt with planning permission. The smallest unit size proposed by this application is 13,935m2 and using the 40% calculation as outlined above it is relevant to assess whether sites of 3.5 hectares or above are available and suitable for large scale logistics buildings.

7.57 The EEBP assesses sites over 5 hectares that are identified in the Council’s employment land supply and considers them against the EEBP criteria to determine whether they would be available and suitable for a large scale logistics development. The EEBP concludes that there are no available and deliverable sites in the urban area greater than 5 hectares that could accommodate a large scale logistics building.

7.58 However, as the EEBP was prepared in 2015 and only assesses sites in excess of 5 hectares, it is necessary to consider whether any sites of between 3.5 hectares and 5 hectares and any sites which have become available or have been granted planning permission since the publication of the EEBP could accommodate a large scale logistics building of the type proposed by this application.

7.59 A review of recent planning permissions and available sites identifies that only five sites/buildings could/do accommodate a large scale logistics building, they are identified below.

194 P/2018/0048/OUP 214 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 • Land at Haydock Cross (a site in the urban area with planning permission for 12,200m2 of B8 logistics floor space) • Unit 1 Haydock Green (a Green Belt site with planning permission for 11,600m2 of B8 logistics floor space) • Eurolink 110 (a site in the urban area containing a logistics building of 10,300m2) • Former Palmer & Harvey site, Millfield Lane (a site in the urban area containing a logistics building of 13,470m2) • Florida Farm Unit 2 (an unoccupied B8 logistics building on a Green Belt site with a floor space of 48,634m2)

7.60 The applicant’s ASAS rules out the Haydock Cross site. It identifies that the site is too small to accommodate the minimum unit size proposed by this application. As noted above, the site has planning permission for a B8 logistics building with a floor space of approximately 12,200m2 and officers understand that the site is now due to be developed on a speculative basis.

7.61 The applicant’s assessment is considered reasonable. Although the minimum unit size is identified as 13,935m2, only 1,735m2 smaller than the building proposed on Haydock Cross, the illustrative masterplan submitted as part of this application shows that buildings in the range of 20,000m2 could be delivered on the development plots. The Haydock Cross site would not be capable of accommodating a building of this size and therefore does not have the same flexibility as the proposed development site.

7.62 The applicant has not assessed the other sites, but their merits are considered below.

7.63 Similar to Haydock Cross, Haydock Green has planning permission for a large scale logistics building of 11,600m2, approximately 2,335m2 smaller than the smallest unit size proposed by this application. The illustrative masterplan submitted as part of this application shows that buildings in the range of 20,000m2 could be delivered on the development plots and the Haydock Cross site would not be capable of accommodating a building of this size and therefore does not have the same flexibility as the proposed development site.

7.64 In terms of the Eurolink 110 building, it is around 4,000m2 smaller than the minimum unit size proposed by this application and constrained due to a low clear internal height of 9.5m. The Council’s recent experience is that occupiers are seeking buildings with a greater internal height and the planning permissions for Haydock Green and Haydock Cross were amended after they were granted to increase the eaves heights of the buildings to 15/16m to ensure that they meet the demands of potential occupiers. Given the lower internal height, Eurolink 110 is unlikely to be attractive to the market and is not comparable to the application site. Similarly the former Palmer and Harvey building has a 5.7m eaves height which means that it is also unlikely to be attractive to the market.

7.65 With regard to Florida Farm Unit 2, there is a vacant building with a floor space of 48,634m2 which is currently being marketed. The illustrative masterplan submitted as part of this application shows that a building of a

195 P/2018/0048/OUP 215 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 similar size to Florida Farm Unit 2 could be delivered on one of the development cells. However, it would also be possible for the applicant to deliver a smaller building or two smaller buildings on the site. So the availability of the Unit 2 building is not directly comparable to the application proposals.

7.66 In summary, there are no sites within the urban area or with planning permission which could accommodate the proposed development in full. There are two sites with planning permission for logistics buildings which are slightly below the minimum unit size proposed and one site with a vacant building which is comparable to the largest unit size which could be accommodated on the site. However, there are no sites in the urban area or with planning permission that could accommodate the range of buildings which could be delivered on the application site.

7.67 Evidence has been presented which demonstrates that an alternative site for this development that would be attractive to the market does not have planning permission or exist within the urban area. The proposed development could therefore only be accommodated within the Green Belt.

7.68 The ASAS considers the merits of a number of other Green Belt sites within the Borough. It is not considered that the other sites are sequentially preferable alternatives that could be developed without harm being caused to the Green Belt. Accordingly, this does not detract from the applicant’s central contention that a site in the Green Belt is required to meet the identified need.

7.69 Paragraph 80 of the NPPF states that planning decisions should help to create the conditions in which businesses can invest, expand and adapt. Significant weigh should be placed on the need to support economic growth taking into account both local business needs and wider opportunities for development.

7.70 The Council’s evidence base, and the evidence submitted by the applicant shows that there is a significant demand for new employment land in the Borough. It also demonstrates that there is a lack of suitable employment land and premises available that could accommodate the large scale logistics buildings proposed by this application which would be attractive to the market.

7.71 It has been demonstrated that the proposed development would be deliverable and attractive to the market. It would make a significant contribution to the need for employment land in the Borough and this should carry significant weight in favour of the proposed development.

Whether there are significant economic benefits

Applicant’s case 7.72 As outlined in section 2, the applicant’s case of very special circumstances identifies that the proposed development would have a significant positive economic benefit for the Borough of St Helens. They submit that the development would result in an investment of around £77.9 million of construction related expenditure and provide 457 full time equivalent (FTE) jobs per year across the Liverpool City Region during the three year construction period. Once the development is operational, the applicant submits that the proposed development could generate up to 1,327 FTE jobs based on national formulae or 1669 jobs based a similar jobs to floorspace as Omega. The applicant also argues that the

196 P/2018/0048/OUP 216 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 development would have a beneficial impact on the locality in terms of expenditure and have a multiplier effect.

The Council’s assessment 7.73 The benefits set out above are reported in the applicant’s economic statement. In terms of investment into the local economy, the applicant reports that they are based on industry standards. It is difficult to assess the precise level of investment that would be brought about by the proposed development, however, it is likely to be significant.

7.74 The development is speculative so there is no certainty over the level of jobs that would be created. The figures suggested by the applicant are based upon the average number of people employed per square metre supplied by Homes England and this is considered to be an appropriate means of calculating the number of people that could be employed on the site, this has also been backed up with an exercise comparing the jobs to floorspace ration at Omega. On the basis of this evidence it is reasonable to believe that a significant number of jobs would be created.

7.75 In summary, it is considered that the proposed development would result in a significant investment into the local economy and would create/support a number of jobs during the construction and operational phases. This should be given significant weight in favour of the proposed development.

Whether there are social benefits

Applicant’s case 7.76 As outlined in Section 2, the applicant states that the Borough of St Helens has a number of areas that are poorly ranked in the national indices of multiple deprivation with some of the most deprived areas in the town of Newton-le-Willows and Earlestown.

7.77 The applicant submits that the proposed development will create significant skills and jobs opportunities in Newton-le-Willows and Earlestown and the wider authority area. They state issues of deprivation are part of a wider need for regeneration and cannot be fully overcome by these proposals, but that the proposed development can make a significant contribution by providing new jobs. The applicant also identifies that the applicants are working to implement a local employment strategy to maximise local recruitment.

The Council’s assessment 7.78 The social benefits outlined above are considered to be a reasonable reflection of the development’s benefits. There is no guarantee that the development would give jobs to those in the highest areas of deprivation but jobs will be created, the site will be accessible and a planning condition will require that recruitment is directed towards local people in deprived areas. There is therefore a reasonable prospect of the development making a small contribution to tackling deprivation in the Borough

(through either direct, indirect or catalytic economic impacts) and this should be given modest weight in favour of the proposals.

Whether there are environmental benefits

Applicant’s case 7.79 As outlined in Section 2, the applicant states that the development will deliver new ecological areas which would benefit from long term management, and these would have

197 P/2018/0048/OUP 217 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 greater biodiversity benefits in the long term. They also submit that a heritage trail will provide an environmental benefit to users.

The Council’s evidence 7.80 The purpose of the new ecological areas and heritage trail is to mitigate for harm caused by the proposed development. It is therefore not appropriate to consider these matters material benefits of the scheme.

Conclusion on Very Special Circumstances 7.81 Paragraph 80 of the NPPF states that planning decisions should help to create the conditions in which businesses can invest, expand and adapt. Significant weigh should be placed on the need to support economic growth, taking into account both local business needs and wider opportunities for development.

7.82 The evidence shows that there is a significant need to deliver employment land in the Borough of St Helens. The proposed development would make a significant contribution to the employment land supply in the Borough of St Helens, in accordance with the increased requirement in the OAN. The site is of a scale and in a location that is attractive to the market. There are no other sites in the urban area or with planning permission that could accommodate this type and scale of development.

7.83 The applicant has shown that the proposed development is immediately deliverable and attractive to the market. Notwithstanding this, the quantitative need is such that if planning permission were to be granted on the application site, it would not necessarily preclude other sites being promoted inside or outside (if available) the Green Belt (if the relevant statutory and planning policy tests could be met). It is also important to state that granting planning permission would not set a precedent either, as each site would have to be judged on its own merits. There is no potential “floodgates” argument and no identifiable precedent site.

7.84 The applicant has also shown that the proposed development would deliver significant economic benefits during the construction and operation phases, in terms of investment into the Borough and direct and indirect jobs created. Some modest social benefits would also be delivered because there is a reasonable prospect of the development making a small contribution to tackling deprivation in the Borough.

7.85 It is considered that the applicant’s case demonstrates that the proposed development will deliver benefits which should be given significant weight in favour of the development. This must (then) be weighed against the substantial harm caused to the Green Belt and any other harm. This is assessed below.

Other Harm to the Green Belt

Harm to openness 7.86 Paragraph 133 in the NPPF states that the Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; their essential characteristics are their openness and permanence.

7.87 Saved Policy GB2 in the Unitary Development Plan states that development in the Green Belt will be judged against: whether it is appropriate in terms of its siting, scale, design, materials and landscaping and does not detract from the openness of the Green Belt.

198 P/2018/0048/OUP 218 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 7.88 The applicant argues that the harm caused to openness would be moderate because of the site’s urban legacy and the fact that the site is visually contained by tree cover to the south, colliery spoil to the east and housing to the west.

7.89 The site is primarily greenfield with an element of brownfield land which includes an access road, an electricity substation, the hardstanding of a former pit yard and overhead pylons. It is accepted that the site is relatively enclosed as described by the applicant. However, the erection of 92,900m2 of logistics buildings which could have heights of up to 23m, would have a significant adverse impact on the openness of the Green Belt contrary to Saved Policy GB2 (applying openness in an open textured context).

Whether there is harm to the purposes of including land within the Green Belt 7.90 Saved Policy GB2 states that development in the Green Belt will be judged against criteria including whether it conflicts with the purposes of including land within the Green Belt.

7.91 Paragraph 134 of the NPPF and Saved Policy S1 in the St Helens UDP identify the purposes of including land in the Green Belt as: • To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas • To prevent neighbouring towns from merging into each other • 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.

7.92 As set out in Section 2, the applicant has assessed the effect of the development on the purposes of including land in the Green Belt and concludes that there would be no conflict with any of the purposes. They submit that the development would also assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment and would assist in urban regeneration by recycling derelict and other urban land. This report will consider the impact of the development on each of the purposes of including land in the Green Belt below.

To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas 7.93 This application proposes development outside of the defined urban area and would therefore lead to the expansion of a built up area. The site forms part of the former Parkside Colliery site and the application identifies the potential for a phase 2 development to the north of the application site on the remainder of the colliery land. Although it is acknowledged that there are definitive boundaries to the south and west of the site, the potential for a further phase of development means that there is the potential for further sprawl in the vicinity of the site and that the infrastructure delivered as part of this application may assist in its delivery. The proposed development is therefore considered to conflict with this purpose.

To prevent neighbouring towns from merging into each other 7.94 The proposed development is located to the south east of the town of Newton-leWillows. Although the development would bring the existing urban area closer to the village of Winwick to the south, there would still be a gap of approximately 1km

199 P/2018/0048/OUP 219 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 between the two urban areas. It is not considered that the development would cause them to merge, and therefore there is no conflict with this purpose.

To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment 7.95 Although the application site in part has an urban legacy, it is open land that lies outside of the urban area and is part of the countryside. The proposed development would therefore result in encroachment into the countryside and the scale of encroachment is considered to be significant. The proposed development would therefore conflict with this purpose.

To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns 7.96 St Helens or Newton-le-Willows are not identified as historic towns and so the proposed development would not affect the setting and special character of historic towns.

To assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land 7.97 The proposal does not assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. It is acknowledged that there is some previously developed land on the site, but this is not in the urban area and a large part of the site is green field. There is therefore conflict with this purpose of including land in the Green Belt.

Summary of Impacts on the Green Belt 7.98 The application proposes inappropriate development in the Green Belt, which would be contrary to three of the five purposes and would have a significant impact on the openness, contrary to saved policy GB2. Accordingly, substantial weight should be given to the harm by way of inappropriateness, together with substantial harm caused to the openness of the Green Belt and conflict with the purposes of including land within the Green Belt.

Other Harm 7.99 As set out in Paragraph 144 of NPPF, when assessing whether very special circumstances exist, it is also necessary to weigh any ‘other’ harm into the planning balance. This report will now consider the ‘other’ impacts of the development and identify whether they cause harm.

Core Strategy Policies CSS1, CAS 3.2 and CE1 7.100Policy CSS1 in the Core Strategy identifies an area of land principally based on the former Parkside Colliery as a strategic location for an SRFI subject to an appropriate scheme being delivered on the site. The Planning Act 2008 defines an SRFI as a rail freight terminal of over 60 hectares that is capable of handling more than 4 freight trains per day including consignments of goods from more than one consignor and to more than one consignee, and include warehouses to which goods can be delivered from the railway network in England either directly or by means of another form of transport.

7.101Policy CAS3.2 in the Core Strategy relates to development of an SRFI at the former Parkside Colliery. The policy identifies that the site is a strategic location which has the potential to facilitate the transfer of freight between road and rail. It states that the Council supports in principle the delivery of an SRFI in this location and that the Council believes that a deliverable and viable SRFI can be delivered on the western side of the M6 with an operational area of approximately 85 hectares. The policy then sets out a series of criteria that any application for an SRFI would be judged against, because this application does not propose an SRFI these criteria do not apply.

200 P/2018/0048/OUP 220 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 7.102The Policy also states that planning permission will not be granted for any other use of land which would prejudice the delivery of an SRFI on the site.

7.103Policy CE1 in the Core Strategy states that the development of an SRFI at Parkside in line with policy CAS 3.2 will be supported to meet a regional or sub-regional need.

7.104The Submission Draft of the St Helens Borough Local Plan proposes the development of an SRFI (or other rail served development) in the Parkside area. However, rather than the SRFI being located on the site of the former Parkside Colliery, it allocates a site on the eastern side of the M6 motorway and an area of land on the west of the M6 for a rail reception siding to allow the SRFI to benefit from ‘all ways’ rail access. The emerging Local Plan can currently only be given very limited weight, however, the alternative location for an SRFI is based upon evidence which is highly material.

7.105The Parkside Logistics and Rail Freight Interchange Study (AECOM August 2016) was prepared to investigate the feasibility of delivery options for a road and rail-linked logistics development on land at the former Parkside Colliery site.

7.106The Study identifies that there is a demand for an SRFI in the North West and that due to its geographic location and specific characteristics, Parkside is uniquely placed to satisfy that demand.

7.107The Study developed four possible configurations for a rail freight interchange varying in scale from one that could handle 3 trains per day to one that could handle 12 trains per day. The study identifies that a rail freight interchange handling 3 trains per day would not be viable, but that the other options could be deliverable and viable. All of the remaining options would require the use of land on the east of the M6 for a road, a road and a siding for the SRFI itself depending on the scale of the SRFI.

7.108The study recommends that consideration is given to the modification of Policy CAS3.2 to provide a more flexible policy position to support a deliverable and viable SRFI scheme, it states that land on both sides of the M6 will be required.

7.109When considering the proposed development against the options identified in the Parkside Logistics and Rail Freight Interchange Study and policy CAS 3.2, it is clear that it would prevent the delivery of an SRFI on the west of the M6 motorway because development cells would conflict with the alignment of the rail freight terminal. However, provided that there is sufficient land on the site of the former colliery for a rail reception siding, an SRFI on the east of the M6 could still be delivered.

7.110The Parkside Logistics and Rail Freight Study Addendum – Parkside West Rail Design and Acoustics Study (AECOM 2017) is a technical review of the optimal alignment for a rail reception siding on the site of the former Parkside Colliery to serve an SRFI on the east of the M6. The Study Addendum identifies an area of land on the former colliery site which it recommends is safeguarded from development to enable the optimal rail reception siding to be developed. The allocation for ‘Parkside East’ in the emerging local plan safeguards the recommended area of land.

7.111This application includes a parameters plan which proposes to safeguard an area of land within the application site for a rail reception siding to serve a potential SRFI on the east of the M6. However, the area of safeguarded land for a rail reception siding as shown on the parameters plan is different to the one recommended in the Parkside Logistics and Rail

201 P/2018/0048/OUP 221 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 Freight Study Addendum. Furthermore development cell D is located within the area of land identified for a rail reception siding in the Study Addendum.

7.112The area of safeguarded land proposed by the applicant has been reviewed by AECOM on behalf of the Council. AECOM has advised that a reception siding of sufficient length could be accommodated within the safeguarded area and that the curvature of the track would comply with the minimum industry standards. They note that the development of a reception siding in the safeguarded land proposed by the applicant would be more costly than one in the area recommended by the Study Addendum. However, the delivery of a reception siding would be feasible.

7.113The Study Addendum considered an alignment similar to what would be able to be delivered in the safeguarded area proposed by the applicant. However, it was ruled out due to potential noise impacts caused by the tight curvature close to residential properties.

7.114AECOM has undertaken a review of the potential noise impacts of a rail reception siding that could be delivered in the safeguarded land proposed by the applicant. They have advised that the noise generated from its use would be very similar to a siding in the safeguarded area recommended in the Study Addendum. However, they note that the noise impacts would have the potential to affect more properties and that the track would need to be lubricated to avoid squeal noise which would add cost to the operation of an SRFI.

7.115The area of safeguarded land which is shown as part of this application would be likely to sit on a higher level than the access road into the site and properties on Whitefield Avenue to the west. It is likely that an acoustic fence would be necessary to mitigate noise between the siding and the properties. This arrangement would have a visual impact additional to the freight movements.

7.116On the basis of the above, the area of safeguarded land identified by the applicant would not prejudice the delivery of an SRFI in the area of the former Parkside Colliery as it would still allow a siding to be delivered that could enable an SRFI to be developed on the east of the M6 motorway. The alignment shown in this application would not be the optimum and would be more costly to deliver. Further, a reception siding that could be delivered on the site of the former Parkside Colliery would have noise and visual impacts. Such matters would need to be assessed as part of any planning application that proposed an SRFI and any harm caused would have to be weighed in the planning balance of that application.

7.117The proposed development does conflict with policy CAS 3.2 because the proposed development would prejudice the use of the former Parkside Colliery site as an SRFI. However, it would not prejudice the delivery of an SRFI to the east of the M6 which would require a reception siding on the former colliery site, which the Council’s evidence base identifies as a viable and deliverable option. Subject to a satisfactory proposal for such an SRFI, it has been demonstrated that the proposed development would not prejudice delivery. On balance, it is considered that there is conflict with policies CSS1, CAS 3.2 and CE1.

Heritage Impacts 7.118Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 states that in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.

202 P/2018/0048/OUP 222 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 7.119Registered Battlefields are not the subject of a separate statutory regime, but along with listed buildings are defined designated heritage assets in the NPPF.

7.120Paragraph 189 of the NPPF states that in determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting. The level of detail should be proportionate to the asset’s importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance. Where a site on which development is proposed includes, or has the potential to include, heritage assets with archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk based assessment, and where necessary a field evaluation.

7.121Paragraph 190 states that local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset) taking account of the available evidence and the necessary expertise. They should take this into account when considering the impact of a proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise any conflict between the heritage assets conservation and any aspect of the proposal. Paragraph 192 of the NPPF states that in determining applications, local planning authorities should take account of the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets.

7.122Paragraph 193 states that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation (and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be). This is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance.

7.123Paragraph 194 states that any harm to or loss of the significance of a designated heritage asset (from its alteration or destruction, or from development within its setting) should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of:

a) grade II listed buildings, or grade II registered parks or gardens should be exceptional; b) assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, registered battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional.

7.124Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to (or total loss of significance of) a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or total loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh harm or loss, or all of the following apply:

a) the nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable use of the site; and b) no viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term through appropriate marketing that will enable its conservation; and c) conservation by grant funding or some form of not for profit, charitable or public ownership is demonstrably not possible; and d) the harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into use.

7.125Paragraph 196 states that where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be

203 P/2018/0048/OUP 223 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use.

7.126Policy CP1 in the Core Strategy requires new developments to safeguard and enhance the built and historic environment, and to take full account of archaeological remains and, where it is demonstrated that preservation is not feasible, that adequate provision is made for their excavation and recording.

7.127Policy CQL4 in the Core Strategy states that the Council will protect, conserve, preserve and enhance the Borough of St Helens’ historic built environment by ensuring all new development respects the significance and distinctive quality of the built and historic environment and landscape character and is of a high standard of design, reinforcing the Borough of St Helens’ local distinctiveness; and ensuring that all development is located and designed in a way that is sensitive to its historic landscape and setting and retains or enhances the character and context.

7.128Saved Policy ENV23 in the Unitary Development Plan states that in considering development proposals affecting archaeological sites or remains the Council will require developers to take full account of known or anticipated archaeological remains in their proposals and normally refuse planning permission if in the opinion of the Council, insufficient information is provided to determine the archaeological impact of development; the development would prejudice the preservation of archaeological features where they are found; in those situations where preservation is not feasible, adequate provision has not been made for the excavation and recording of the site.

7.129Saved Policy ENV25 in the Unitary Development Plan states that the Council will seek to protect Listed Buildings and their settings from harmful development.

7.130The proposed development has the potential to affect a Registered Battlefield and two grade II listed buildings. This report will consider the impacts to each in turn.

Harm to the Registered Battlefield 7.131The south western part of the site which includes an area of the site road and development cell A/B is designated as part of a Registered Battlefield (a designated heritage asset).

7.132The battlefield covers approximately 143 hectares and is primarily located to the south of the application site. It covers a triangular area of land enclosed by the A49, A573 and Hermitage Green Lane, an area of land to the west of the A49, an area of land between Hermitage Green Lane and St Oswalds Brook, and the area of land identified as being within the application site. The area of land within the application site that is designated as part of the battlefield is around 20 hectares.

7.133The battlefield was the site of the Battle of Winwick on 19th August 1648, which ended the Second English Civil War as a military contest. The entry on the National Heritage List for England identifies that the site is included on the Register of Historic Battlefields for the following principal reasons:

• Historic importance: for its national historical significance as the last battle of the Second English Civil War, securing the advantages gained at Preston two days previously and resulting in the complete disbanding of the royalist infantry;

204 P/2018/0048/OUP 224 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 • Topographical integrity: retaining substantial integrity despite some later development, with the defensive and attacking positions of the opposing armies and the majority of the topographical character pertinent to the course of the battle still clearly legible in the landscape;

• Archaeological potential: possessing substantial overall archaeological potential as the only English battlefield of the Second Civil War which remains in a good state of preservation.

7.134Historic England is a statutory consultee on development proposals that affect registered battlefields. They have not objected to the proposed development, but believe that the proposed development would have a very harmful impact on the part of the Registered Battlefield which lies to the north of the valley of Oswald’s Brook due to the introduction of large warehouse buildings and ancillary works that would be clearly visible.

7.135However, they note that the proposed development would have no direct impact on the core area of the Battlefield, at Red Bank, and would have no impact upon the majority of the Registered Battlefield to the south. Nor would it seriously affect the public’s ability to understand how the battle developed, or how the main events of the battle relate to the existing landscape.

7.136Historic England has also advised that field evaluation commissioned by the applicants has shown that the archaeological potential of the northern part of the Battlefield is significantly lower than that of the remainder of the registered site.

7.137The applicant has proposed some mitigation as part of the development including a heritage trail with interpretation boards and visitor parking. Historic England has advised that this goes some way to slightly reducing the level of harm caused by the proposed development. However this harm would still be high, albeit less than substantial, when considered in the context of the battlefield as a whole.

7.138The Battlefield Trust has raised an objection to the proposed development. They believe that the harm caused to the Registered Battlefield is substantial because the proposed development would destroy over a fifth and impact on its setting. Further they have concerns that the archaeological potential of the site has not been fully considered by the applicant and the methods used are not appropriate.

7.139As identified in the NPPF, a registered battlefield is a heritage asset which is of the highest significance. Around half of the proposed development is proposed on an area of the battlefield and would therefore have a harmful impact. Furthermore, the proposed development would be visible from the south and east of the application site and would affect the setting.

7.140However, Historic England has advised that the proposed development would have no direct impact on the core area of the Battlefield, at Red Bank, or upon the majority of the Registered Battlefield to the south. Further, they believe that it would not seriously affect the public’s ability to understand how the battle developed, or how the main events of the battle relate to the existing landscape. As a statutory consultee, Historic England’s advice should carry significant weight and accordingly their advice that the proposed development would cause a high degree of harm, albeit less than substantial harm is accepted. In terms of the Battlefield Trust’s comments on the site’s archaeological potential, a condition is recommended that would require a scheme of archaeological work to be agreed with the Council before any work begins and implemented during the construction works.

205 P/2018/0048/OUP 225 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 7.141The harm that would be caused to the Battlefield would be contrary to Policy CQL4 in the Core Strategy and should carry significant weight against the proposed development in the planning balance.

Harm to the grade II listed buildings 7.142Newton Park Farmhouse and Newton Park Barn are grade II listed buildings and lie to around 120/130m to the north of the application site. Their immediate setting is clearly defined with an open former farm yard terminated by an established band of trees to the south and west.

7.143The proposed development would introduce an earth bund and a warehouse building of up to 23m high, close to the site boundary. The proposed development therefore has the potential to affect the setting of the listed buildings.

7.144The applicant accepts that the proposed development would affect the setting of the listed buildings. However, they submit that the listed buildings are in a poor condition and, given their state of dilapidation and erosion of their agricultural setting, their heritage value is low. The applicant considers that intervening vegetation and planted bunds would help to reduce the level of harm caused to the heritage assets by restricting direct views and assesses the harm caused by the development to be moderate adverse.

7.145The Council’s Conservation Officer notes that the farmhouse is in a dilapidated state and is considered at risk. The officer has advised that the proposed development would affect the setting of the listed buildings because the prevailing open, rural and agricultural setting surrounding the listed grade II farm house and barn contribute to their significance. However, the officer recommends that the belt of trees to the south of the listed buildings screens the southern section of the site from view which reduces the contribution that area makes to the setting of the listed buildings.

7.146The officer notes that the proposed height of the warehouse will result in development higher than the current tree canopy such that the proposed development would be visible and this could harm the open and rural setting of the listed buildings. The Conservation Officer believes that moderate harm would be caused to the setting of the listed buildings and this would be categorised as less than substantial harm for the purposes of NPPF.

7.147It is considered that the Conservation Officer’s advice is reasonable. The proposed development would be evident from the listed buildings, but it would be over 120m away and visible beyond what would be read as their immediate setting. The officer’s assessment of moderate harm that is less than substantial is therefore appropriate.

7.148The harm caused to the setting of the listed buildings would be contrary to policies ENV25 and CQL4. It also means that there is conflict with Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act because the development would fail to preserve the setting of two listed buildings. Consequently, the harm caused to the setting of the listed buildings should be given significant weight against the proposed development.

Conclusion 7.149The proposed development would conflict with Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act because the development would fail to preserve the setting of two listed buildings, and it would cause harm to the setting of a Registered Battlefield conflicting with policies CQL4 and ENV25. The harm caused to both would be ‘less than substantial’ for the purposes of the NPPF, however, significant harm would be

206 P/2018/0048/OUP 226 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 caused to the registered battlefield and moderate harm would be caused to the setting of the listed buildings. This harm should be weighed against the proposed development.

Transport, Traffic and Highway Safety 7.150Paragraph 111 of the NPPF states that all developments that generate significant amounts of movement should be supported by a Transport Statement or Transport Assessment.

7.151Paragraph 109 of the NPPF states that development should only be prevented or refused on highway grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe.

7.152Paragraph 103 of the NPPF states that significant development should be focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable, through limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of transport modes. This can help to reduce congestion and emissions, and improve air quality and public health.

7.153Paragraph 108 states that in assessing applications for development it should be ensured that appropriate opportunities to promote sustainable travel modes can be – or have been – taken up given the type of development and its location, safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users and any significant impacts from the development on the transport network (in terms of capacity and congestion), or on highway safety, can be cost effectively mitigated to an acceptable degree.

7.154Paragraph 106 states that maximum parking standards should only be set where there is a clear and compelling justification that they are necessary for managing the local road network, or optimising the density of development in a location that is well served by public transport.

7.155Policy CP2 states that new developments will be expected to: provide safe and adequate vehicular, cycle and pedestrian access to and from and circulation within a site, provide adequate on-site parking that does not exceed the Council's maximum standards, only take direct access from the primary route network where it does not restrict the capacity of the road or its intended purpose and where a reasonable alternative exists direct access will not be permitted.

7.156It goes on to state that new developments are expected to locate to sites where there is the potential for users to walk or cycle to the site and/or the provision of cycle and walking facilities within the site, and/or the improvement of routes or facilities which serve the site and, locate to sites where there is good access to the public transport network and/or the provision of public transport facilities within the site and/or the improvement of public transport facilities which serve the site.

7.157The Policy further states that significant generators of traffic should be: located within 800m or 400m of safe and convenient walking distance of stations and bus stops serving a high frequency route respectively, located on sites which are served by rail or where rail facilities can be provided as part of the development or where this option is not available locating where there is a good access to a road designated as a Freight Priority Route.

7.158Policy CSS1 in the Core Strategy states that the main focus for economic development will be previously developed land in sustainable locations within the M62 link corridor and Haydock Industrial Estate because of their proximity to the primary and strategic road network. The policy also states that the following regeneration activity will be supported:

207 P/2018/0048/OUP 227 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 better links between areas of deprivation and economic development by promoting activity on sites within or in close proximity to areas of deprivation or those with good public transport access, and measures for improving links between employment and residential areas.

7.159 A Transport Assessment (TA) has been submitted with the application which assesses the impacts of the development on the local highway network. The TA assesses the impact of the proposed development during typical traffic conditions, it cannot be expected to take into consideration traffic flows during exceptional circumstances (e.g. road traffic collisions or road closures).

7.160The scope and inputs into the TA have been reviewed by the Mott Macdonald on behalf of the Council, Highways England, Warrington Council and Wigan Council. It is considered to be acceptable. For the avoidance of doubt, the application has been made on the basis of access from the A49 and not a future link road running through the site towards M6 J22. The effects in each local authority area will be considered in turn below.

Traffic The Borough of St Helens 7.161In the Borough of St Helens, the TA considers the impact of the proposed development at the following junctions:

• Site Access • Penny Lane/Vista Road • A49 / Crow Lane East; • A49 / Park Road North; • Crow Lane East / Queens Drive / Sanderling Road; • Crow Lane East / Victoria Road / Water Street; • A49 / Southworth Road; • A49 / Alfred Street; and • A572 Southworth Road / Parkside Road / Golborne Dale Road. • M6 J23

It is acknowledged that the proposed development would increase traffic flows along the surrounding highways resulting in some additional queueing and delay at junctions which would be an adverse impact of the development.

7.162Mott Macdonald has reviewed the junction modelling on behalf of the Council and note that taking account of the traffic impact of this development, the site access and Crow Lane East/Queens Drive/Sanderling Road junctions would continue to operate within capacity. The traffic impact of the development at these junctions is therefore considered to be acceptable.

7.163The junction modelling identifies that the Crow Lane East/Victoria Road, Southworth Road/Newton Road/Parkside Road/Golbourne Dale Road, Penny Lane/Vista Road and in so far as it affects the Borough’s transport network, M6 J23 would operate over capacity. However, on analysis, the level of traffic generated by the proposed development which would affect these junctions is not considered to be significant enough to warrant a mitigation scheme or cause a severe highways impact.

7.164The junction modelling shows that the A49 High Street/Crow Lane East, A49 High Street/Park Road North and A49 Southworth Road/Alfred Street junctions would operate over capacity and that the proposed development would have a material effect at these

208 P/2018/0048/OUP 228 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 junctions. Mitigation schemes have been identified at each of these junctions which are considered to ensure that the harm caused to the highway network is no more than moderate, which must still weigh in the planning balance against the proposed development.

7.165The location of the site access is acceptable and the proposed access into the site is fit for purpose. The modelling for the site access identifies that queueing could affect the junction of Chomley Drive and the A49 because traffic may queue beyond it. A ‘Keep Clear’ making may be necessary and that a road safety audit should be undertaken for with any recommendations installed during the detailed design stage (which would be under Section 278 of the Highways Act).

7.166It is considered that the proposed development would only have a material effect on these junctions once more than 22,000m2 of floor space has been delivered on the site. The recommended conditions to secure the junction improvements therefore only require the mitigation schemes to be implemented once more than 22,000m2 of floor space has been constructed.

The Borough of Warrington 7.167In the Borough of Warrington, the TA considers the impacts of the development at the following junctions:

• M62 Junction 9 (WA1) • A49/Delph Lane (WA2) • A49 Winwick Island (WA3) • A49/Golborne Road (WA4) • A49/Hollins Lane (WA5) • Golborne Road/Myddleton Lane (WA6) • M6 Junction 22 (WA7) • A579/Barrow Lane (WA8)

7.168The applicant has acknowledged that the proposed development would have material effects at the M62 Junction 9, A49/Delph Lane, A49 Winwick Island, A49 Golborne Road and A49 Hollins Lane; and has proposed a mitigation scheme for each of the junctions. The applicant submits that the mitigation proposals would result in an overall benefit to the operation of this area of the road network which would mitigate the impact of the proposed development and assist in protecting the viability of the route for HGV traffic associated with the proposed development. The applicant seeks to bring forward the mitigation on a phased basis with improvements to Hollins Lane and Golbourne Road before the first use of any buildings, improvements at Delph Lane and M62 J9 before the first use of more than 22,000m2 of floor space and improvements at Winwick Island before the first use of more than 52,000m2 of floorspace.

7.169Warrington Council has reviewed the submitted information and they believe that the mitigation outlined above are appropriate, and that they would offer the means to mitigate the traffic impacts of the development. However, they have asked that the improvements to Hollins Lane and Golbourne Road are undertaken before the first use of any buildings, and that the improvements at Delph Lane and Winwick Island are undertaken before the first use of more than 22,000m2 of floor space.

209 P/2018/0048/OUP 229 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 Highways England 7.170Highways England are responsible for the Strategic Highway Network (SRN) in England. The TA considers that impacts of the development at the following SRN junctions:

• M6 Junction 23 • M6 Junction 22 • M62 Junction 9

7.171The applicant submits that the proposed development would have a negligible impact on J23 M6 and J22 M6, a mitigation scheme has been proposed to address the impacts of the development traffic at Junction 9 of the M62. The applicant submits that with the proposed mitigation at Junction 9, the proposed development would have a negligible impact on the junction.

7.172Highways England has reviewed the submitted information and they believe that mitigation to the local road network in Warrington will be required to offset the effects of the development on Junction 9 of the M62. They have advised that the mitigation required by Warrington would increase capacity on the local road network sufficiently to negate the need for works to take place at Junction 9.

The Borough of Wigan 7.173In the Borough of Wigan the TA considers the impacts of the development at the following junctions:

• A572/A579 • A572/Kenyon Lane/Church Lane • A580/A572 • A580/Church Lane • A580/Stone Cross Lane • A580 Golborne Island • A580/A579

7.174The applicant submits that Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA) guidance states that any increase in traffic flows of less than 10% is generally accepted as having no discernible impact as daily variation in traffic flows can be of equal magnitude. They submit that the proposed development is predicted to generate 22 two-way trips in the AM peak and 20 two-way trips in the PM peak on the Wigan network which would equate to around an additional every 2-3 minutes in Wigan. On the basis of figures contained in the TA, the applicant submits that the proposed development would result in a less than 1% increase in total traffic at any junction. On this basis the applicant considers that the proposed development would not have a perceptible highway impact in Wigan.

7.175The applicant’s assessment of the traffic effects in Wigan is considered to be reasonable, and on the face of it, the proposed development would not cause material harm to any junctions in Wigan.

210 P/2018/0048/OUP 230 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 Compliance with Policy CP2 7.176As noted above, Policy CP2 requires that development which generate significant movement of freight is located on sites which are served by rail or where rail facilities can be provided as part of the development, or where these options are not available, locating where there is good access to a road designated as a Freight Priority Route. The proposed development would not be served by rail or be located on a Freight Priority Route and therefore there is some conflict with Policy CP2.

Accommodating lorry parking facilities 7.177Paragraph 107 of the NPPF states that planning decisions should recognise the importance of providing adequate overnight lorry parking facilities, taking into account any local shortages to reduce the risk of parking in locations that lack proper facilities or could cause a nuisance. It states that proposals for new or expanded distribution centres should make provision for sufficient lorry parking to cater for their anticipated use.

7.178The proposed development does not identify any areas that could be used for overnight lorry parking, However, a condition is recommended that requires reserved matters applications to provide these facilities and demonstrate that the level of provision is adequate. Subject to this condition, it is considered that the proposed development accords with Paragraph 107 of the NPPF.

Parking facilities 7.179As the application is made in outline form only, the level of car parking and cycle parking is not for consideration at this stage. A condition is recommended which requires the levels applied for to be justified as part of any reserved matters applications.

Sustainable transport 7.180The application site is considered to lie in a sustainable location with employees able to access the site on foot, bicycle and public transport with the nearest bus stops on the A49 Winwick Road. Conditions are recommended to secure a travel plan which would require employers to encourage employees to travel to the site using sustainable transport methods, the upgrade of two footway/cycleways and the upgrade of two bus stops in the vicinity of the site which offers the potential for bus services to route closer to the site in the future. However, we are not currently aware of any plans to re-route services or provide new services. The site lies in close proximity to large populations of potential workers such that the proposed development complies with the NPPF and policies CSS1 and CP2.

Summary of transport impacts 7.181There is some conflict with Policy CP2 because the application site does not provide access to a Freight Priority Route. However, it is well located relative to the Strategic Road Network and subject to conditions securing the mitigation outlined above, the proposed development would not have a severe impact on the highway network and complies with the NPPF. Nonetheless the proposed development would cause moderate harm to queueing and delay at some junctions which should weigh against the proposed development in the planning balance. The site lies in close proximity to large populations of potential workers and conditions would ensure that appropriate forms of sustainable transport can be used to access the development site. Such that the proposed development complies with the relevant parts of NPPF and policies CSS1 and CP2.

Air Quality 7.182Paragraph 181 of the NPPF states that planning policies and decisions should sustain compliance with and contribute towards relevant limit values or national objectives for pollutants, taking into account the presence of Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) and

211 P/2018/0048/OUP 231 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 the cumulative impacts of air quality from individual sites in local areas. Opportunities to improve air quality or mitigate impacts should be identified, such as through traffic and travel management and green infrastructure provision and enhancement.

7.183The NPPG advises that the Ambient Air Quality Directive 2008 sets legally binding limits for concentrations in outdoor air of major air pollutants (EU limit values) that impact public health such as particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) and Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2). As well as having direct effects, these pollutants can combine in the atmosphere to form ozone. Dust can also be a planning concern, for example, because of the effect on local amenity.

7.184Poor air quality can have health impacts, and this is reflected in the EU Limit Values referred to above. The Limit Values are annual mean concentrations of 25µg/m3 3 (micrograms per cubic metre) for PM2.5 and 40µg/m for both PM10 and NO2. The annual mean should be applied at locations where members of the public might regularly be exposed to, such as the building facades of residential properties, schools, hospitals etc. If the pollutant level is below the EU Limit Values then it is largely regarded that there is an acceptable impact on health.

7.185The NPPG states that air quality may be relevant to a decision if the development is likely to have an adverse effect on air quality in areas where it is already known to be poor, particularly if it could affect the implementation of air quality strategies and action plans and/or breach legal obligations (including those relating to the conservation of habitats and species).

7.186Policy CP1 states that all proposals will be expected to manage and mitigate against the effects of pollution caused by developments, and that development which would impact on AQMAs will require special consideration with regard to their impacts on air quality.

7.187The application includes an Air Quality Assessment (AQA) which assesses levels of dust during the construction phase of the development and levels of Nitrogen Dioxide and particulate matter which would be generated as a result of this development when it is operating and other committed schemes in 2020 and 2030. The AQA models the air quality impacts at 19 receptors which lie in the Boroughs of St Helens, Warrington and Wigan.

7.188During the construction phase of the development, the AQA reaches a conclusion that the development site is classified as being high risk with respect to generating dust impacts. It recommends that subject to dust mitigation measures, including monitoring of dust and PM10 which could be included in a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), the dust risks could be adequately mitigated so they are not significant. WSP has reviewed the submission on behalf of the Council and recommends that a condition be attached requiring the submission of a dust management plan or as part of a CEMP.

7.189When the development is operating, the AQA identifies that none of the receptors would experience an exceedance of the EU Limit Values in relation to PM2.5 or PM10 in either 2020 or 2030. In 2020, the highest modelled levels would be 12µg/m3 and 20.6µg/m3 respectively at Winwick Road 3(which lies to the south of M62 Junction 9), and in 2030 the highest modelled levels would be 12µg/m3 and 20.8µg/m3 respectively

at Winwick Road 3. The AQA records that the development would have a negligible impact at all receptors in terms of particulate matter generated by the development proposals.

212 P/2018/0048/OUP 232 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 7.190In relation to NO2, the AQA identifies that there would be 2 exceedances of the EU Limit Values in 2020. It predicts levels of 40.5µg/m3 at Rectory Close (which lies to the South of the Swan Inn in Winwick) and 42.6µg/m3 Winwick Road 3, and states that the 3 3 development would make a contribution of 0.7 µg/m and 0.1µg/m of NO2 at each receptor. The AQA identifies that the increase at Rectory Close would be a moderate impact and the increase at Winwick Road 3 would be a negligible impact.

7.191The AQA also identifies that in 2020 the proposed development would have a minor impact at four receptors; Ashton Road 2, High Street, Mill Lane and Newton Road 2 because 3 3 the proposed development would increase the concentration of NO2 by 0.6µg/m , 0.7µg/m , 0.7µg/m3 and 0.8 µg/m3 respectively.

7.192At the other 22 receptors, the AQA identifies that the development proposals would have a negligible impact on the levels of NO2.

7.193In 2030, the AQA identified that there would be no exceedances of the EU Limit Values and that the proposed development would have a negligible impact on air quality at all receptors because of improvements to vehicle emissions.

7.194Overall, the AQA concludes that the air quality impact of the development on the local area is predicted to be negligible and that there would be no significant effects associated with the proposed development.

7.195WSP assessed the NO2 modelling on behalf of the Council. They identified that some of the inputs were erroneous and requested that a sensitivity test (a further assessment with alternative inputs that is used to give comfort that the results of the submitted assessment are robust) be undertaken with amended inputs in order to update receptor results in 2020 and confirm the overall conclusions of the AQA.

7.196The applicant submitted a sensitivity test which shows that NO2 levels in the local area are predicted to reduce significantly relative to the results presented in the AQA. The sensitivity test shows no exceedances of the EU Limit Values with negligible effects at all receptors other than High Street and High Street 2 which would experience levels of 31.1µg/m3 and 33.9µg/m3 with the development contributing 1.2µg/m3 and 1.3µg/m3 respectively. The sensitivity test concludes that the overall impact of the development on its surroundings would be minor adverse, and would not be a significant impact.

7.197WSP has reviewed the sensitivity test and advised that it is acceptable. In considering the ES Addendum (Air Quality and Dust Technical Paper 8), and subsequent clarifications submitted by the applicant (including the sensitivity test), WSP has advised that the conclusion of no significant effects in the ES is appropriate.

7.198Notwithstanding, it is acknowledged that the proposed development would cause harm to air quality and in order to help mitigate the effects of the proposed development, conditions are recommended requiring the submission of a travel plan and the provision of electric vehicle charging points/priority spaces in accordance with Policy CP1 and NPPF paragraph 181.

7.199Wigan Council has objected to the proposed development because they believe that the proposed development would have an impact on air quality at Lane Head which already has poor air quality.

213 P/2018/0048/OUP 233 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 7.200It is acknowledged that receptors at Lane Head have not been modelled as part of the AQA. However, the proposed development is only predicted to generate 22 two-way vehicle trips in the AM peak and 20 two-way vehicle trips in the PM peak on the Wigan network (equating to around an additional vehicle every 2-3 minutes and a less than 1% increase in total traffic at any junction which is within average daily traffic flow variations). This level of traffic would have a negligible impact on air quality.

7.201In summary, the proposed development would cause some harm to air quality in certain locations, which must be weighed against the proposed development. However, the proposed development would not cause any exceedances of EU Limit Values in 2030 or have a significant effect overall. Accordingly, the proposed development would comply with the relevant sections of policy CP1 and the NPPF.

Noise and disturbance 7.202Policy CP1 requires that new developments are sympathetic to surrounding land uses and occupiers, avoiding detrimental impacts on the amenities of the local area, in particular residential amenities. The policy also requires that new developments minimise and mitigate the effects of pollution.

7.203This report will assess the construction and operation phase impacts of the development. The application states that the construction phase of the development would last approximately three years.

7.204Paragraph 180 in the NPPF states that planning decisions should ensure that new development is appropriate for its location taking into account the likely effects (including cumulative effects) of pollution on health, living conditions and the natural environment, as well as the potential sensitivity of the site or the wider area to impacts that could arise from the development. In doing so they should mitigate and reduce to a minimum potential adverse impacts resulting from noise from new development – and avoid noise giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and the quality of life as set out in the Noise Policy Statement for England.

7.205The NPPG states that local planning authorities’ decision taking should take account of the acoustic environment and in doing so consider: whether or not a significant adverse effect is occurring or likely to occur; whether or not an adverse effect is occurring or likely to occur; and whether or not a good standard of amenity can be achieved.

7.206A significant observed adverse effect level is defined as the level of noise exposure above which significant adverse effects on health and quality of life occur. At this level, the NPPG states that the noise causes a material change in behaviour and/or attitude, e.g. avoiding certain activities during periods of intrusion; where there is no alternative ventilation, having to keep windows closed most of the time because of the noise. The NPPG states that there is potential for sleep disturbance resulting in difficulty in getting to sleep, premature awakening and difficulty in getting back to sleep, and that quality of life is diminished due to a change in the acoustic character of the area. The NPPG states that this level of impact should be avoided, and that any impacts below this level should be mitigated and reduced to a minimum.

7.207The ES includes a Noise Assessment (which has been supported by technical notes) that reviews the noise impact of the construction phase and operational phase of the proposed development. It has been reviewed by WSP on behalf of the Council who consider the methodology and conclusions to be acceptable. WSP note that as the development is

214 P/2018/0048/OUP 234 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 applied for in outline, the submitted noise assessment has been undertaken on the basis of a series of assumptions and example operating scenarios.

7.208WSP has advised that the Noise Assessment demonstrates that subject to conditions restricting the hours of working and the implementation of a construction management plan, the construction phase could be delivered without having significant effects on residential amenity. Nonetheless, it is likely that some harm would be caused and this must weigh against the proposal.

7.209During the operational phase, WSP has advised that road traffic noise generated from the development would only cause small changes in noise levels both in the short term and long term. They do not believe that the level changes as a result of traffic movements would give rise to significant effects that would harm amenity.

7.210In terms of noise generated when the development is operating, WSP believe that subject to detailed design and appropriate mitigation, it has been demonstrated that the proposed development could be designed and operated without causing a significant adverse effect on amenity.

7.211However, WSP has raised concerns that the modelling undertaken by the applicant underestimates the noise effects of trailers that transport chilled goods. They have advised that a condition could be used to prevent the use of trailer chillers operating from the site, but note that some operators may use a limited number of trailers with a chiller and it is likely that they could operate without causing harm to amenity.

7.212WSP has recommended that an alternative approach would be to set noise limits at the boundary with the nearest residential properties to ensure that noise emissions from the site do not exceed these levels.

7.213On balance, given the evidence that has been submitted with the application, it is not considered that the applicant has sufficiently demonstrated that operators distributing chilled goods would not cause significant harm to residential amenity due to undue noise and disturbance. Accordingly, a condition restricting the use of HGV trailer chillers on the site, setting operational noise limits at the boundary of the site and requiring a noise mitigation and operational management plan are recommended.

7.214Subject to the recommended conditions, the noise effects of the proposed development would not have a significant effect on the amenity of the residents at the nearest residential properties, in accordance with Policy CP1. However, it is acknowledged that some harm would be caused by additional noise and this should weigh against the proposed development.

Visual Amenity 7.215Policy CP1 requires that new developments are sympathetic to surrounding land uses and occupiers, avoiding detrimental impacts on the amenities of the local area, in particular residential amenities. The policy also requires that new developments minimise and mitigate the effects of pollution.

7.216This report will assess the construction and operation phase impacts of the development. The application states that the construction phase of the development would last approximately three years.

215 P/2018/0048/OUP 235 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 7.217A Landscape Visual Impact Assessment has been submitted as part of the applicant’s ES which analyses the visual impacts of the proposed development. The content of the assessment has been reviewed by the Council and forms the basis of this analysis.

7.218The greatest visual impacts would be experienced by the occupants of dwellings on Winwick Road (A49), Hermitage Green Lane, Whitefield Avenue and Newton Park Farm. Beyond this general area, the development would be too far away to have a significant impact. The impact on each of these areas will be considered in turn. It is important to note that residents are not entitled to a view; it is the impact of the change and whether the visual effects of the development are harmful at the identified properties/receptors that must be considered.

Winwick Road 7.219The rear elevations of numbers 59 to 141 Winwick Road and numbers 1 and 3 Red Bank Avenue are east facing into the application site. The properties are two storey and have rear gardens in excess of 10m. Existing views from the windows on the rear elevations of the properties are of dense vegetation in relatively close proximity. The level of the A49 falls towards the south as do the levels of properties along Winwick Road.

7.220During the construction phase of the development, the vegetation would be cleared and bunds would be formed around 6m away from the rear boundary of these properties. The bunds would be around 50m wide and up to 10/12m higher than the properties along Winwick Road. A large amount of earthworks are proposed on the site and until the bund has been constructed these would be readily visible from the properties.

7.221Beyond the bunds, the parameters plans show that development cell A/B would be formed on a level that is up to 8m higher than some of the properties on Winwick Road. At its closest point, the development cell would be around 60m away from the rear boundaries where the buildings on the development cell could be up to 22m high.

7.222Given the scale of the development proposed relative to the properties on Winwick Road, the construction phase of the development would cause significant harm to the outlook of occupants of these properties. However, the harm would be for a limited duration and should be given moderate weight against the proposed development.

7.223During the operational phase of the development, the relationship described above would affect outlook from the rear windows of these properties and their garden areas. The immediate outlook would be of a large bund but the impact of any building would depend on the precise configuration of the development on the site and it is likely that some properties would be more affected than others. A condition is recommended that requires reserved matters applications on plot A/B to have specific regard to the relationship between any buildings on the site and the residential properties on Winwick Road to minimise the harm caused to residential amenity.

7.224However, in the worst case as could be developed based on the parameters plan, those properties in close proximity to the building would experience approximately the upper 10 metres visible above the bund and against the sky from ground floor windows; and slightly more of the building visible from first floor windows. The harm caused at these properties is likely to be significant, whereas those further away are likely to experience moderate harm. It is proposed that the bund would be landscaped, so that over time, the landscaping would mature and increasingly screen the site. However, the landscaping and building would still be a large part of the outlook which cause significant harm and the effects

216 P/2018/0048/OUP 236 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 would be permanent. This harm should be given significant weight against the proposed development.

Hermitage Green Lane 7.225As discussed earlier in this report, Hermitage Green Lane runs to the south of the site and is on a lower level. There are a number of dwellings on the south side of the road, facing towards the application site. However, there is an area of dense vegetation between the properties and the site which screens much of it.

7.226During the construction phase, vegetation at the south of the site would be retained and a bund would be formed located around 90m from these properties. The bund would be up to 35m wide and up to 8m higher than the land adjacent to it. Beyond the bund, a development cell, 3 to 4m lower than the bund, would be formed. The development cell would be around 130m away from the nearest property and would allow for a building of up to 22m high.

7.227Given the relationship between properties along Hermitage Green Lane and the application site, the dense vegetation and topography would mean that the majority of construction activities on the site would not be visible or would be heavily screened. The buildings on development cells A/B and C might be visible when the perimeter vegetation is not in leaf, but this would not cause significant harm to outlook.

7.228The impacts during the operational phase of the development would be largely the same, however, planting along the landscape bund would have begun to establish further screening views. Consequently, the operational phase of the proposed development would not have a significant impact on outlook from these properties.

Whitefield Avenue 7.229The properties on Whitefield Avenue are two storey and orientated north west/south east with the first floor rear windows overlooking the application site. Views into the application site are a mixture of dense woodland vegetation and scrub.

7.230The application proposes to retain a large amount of the woodland and parts of the scrubland are not in the application site. The woodland is likely to screen views of much of the development on development cells A/B and C. However, there are significant earthworks proposed around development cell D, including the erection of a bund up to 45m wide by 7m high and the balancing of levels to create a development platform of which could accommodate a building of up to 23m high.

7.231Construction activities would be visible on the site, but they would be at least 180m away and viewed against a foreground of woodland/scrub. In this context it is not considered that the construction activities would cause significant harm. The development cell would be around 260m away and although buildings on the plot would be large, at this distance it is unlikely there would be a significant effect on outlook.

7.232During operation, the landscaping on the bund would begin to mature, and it is likely that activities in the yard of the building on development cell D would be obscured by the bunds. Given distance between the site and the properties and the views in the foreground, it is not considered that the proposed development would cause significant harm to outlook.

Newton Park Farm 7.233There is one dwelling within the area of Newton Park Farm, Sycamore Cottage, which is located approximately 80m from the application site. The property is two storey and is

217 P/2018/0048/OUP 237 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 orientated east/west. There are windows in the gable that face the application site. The property has a large garden that lies between the dwelling and the application site where there are a number of mature trees along the southern edge. Between the garden and the application site there is also an area of scrubland.

7.234The application proposes that a bund would be erected on the edge of the application site approximately 90m from the property. A development cell would be formed behind the bund, approximately 110m away from the property, which would allow a building of up to 23m high.

7.235Construction activities in and around development cell D would be visible from this property, comprising earthworks such as the formation of the bund and the erection of the building. The perimeter vegetation and the scrub would offer some screening/softening, and the distance between the sites would reduce harm. However, the construction activities would be visible and would form an intrusive part of outlook, causing moderate harm to the occupants. The construction of the proposed development would be for a limited period and therefore this should be given limited weight against the proposed development.

7.236The building on development cell D would form a large part of outlook from windows on the gable of the property and its garden area. However, given the separation distance between the property and the development cell, because views from the windows on its front and rear elevations would not directly face the site and because planting on the bund would have begun to mature; it is considered that moderate harm would be caused to the outlook of the occupants.

Summary of impact on visual amenity 7.237Harm would be caused to the visual amenity of some residents in the vicinity of the site. There would be significant harm caused at forty four properties and moderate harm caused at one property during the construction phase. During the operational phase of the development, significant harm would be caused to some properties on Winwick Road and moderate harm would be caused to others depending on the precise configuration of buildings on the site. There would also be moderate harm caused to the occupants of Sycamore Cottage. The harm caused to amenity in this way would be contrary to the requirements of policy CP1 and should weigh against the proposed development. Due to the construction phase being temporary, the harm caused during this phase should only be given moderate weight against the proposed development. The harm caused during the operational phase would be a permanent effect and although the establishment of landscaping would mitigate the harm slightly, it should nonetheless be given significant weight against the proposed development.

Impact on Landscape Character 7.238Paragraph 170 in the NPPF states that the planning decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, sites of biodiversity or geological value and soils (in a manner commensurate with their statutory status or identified quality in the development plan).. Paragraph 171 states that distinctions should be made between the hierarchy of internationally, nationally and locally designated sites so that protection is commensurate with their status and gives appropriate weight to their importance.

7.239Policy CQL4 states that landscape character will be protected, preserved and enhanced by ensuring all new development respects the significance and distinctive quality of landscape character and that it is of a high standard of design reinforcing the Borough of St Helens’ local distinctiveness.

218 P/2018/0048/OUP 238 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 7.240The St Helens Landscape Character Assessment 2006 (LCA) identifies that the site falls into the ‘Highfield Moss’ landscape character area which is identified as an area being generally flat and open with an overriding horizontal composition enabling panoramic views across the surrounding landscape to immediate development horizons of the more distant hills. However, the LCA notes that although the area is of rural character large scale infrastructure is present such as the M6. It states that railway lines which border the area to the west and north and a pylon line are also prominent signs of infrastructure in the landscape.

7.241The LCA notes that the area includes the more degraded landscape character associated with the significant landscape disturbance attributed to the former Parkside Colliery. The LCA states that the former colliery site disrupts the field pattern of the surrounding area with large areas of hardstanding. In addition screening bunds to the east of the colliery are unnatural linear features which create a prominent horizon and interrupt views across the landscape.

7.242The applicant’s Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) includes an assessment of the site. It states that the landscape within the site is clearly disturbed land with a substation and areas of hardstanding and roads still remaining. However, it notes that scrub and woodland vegetation occurs across large areas. To the south along Newton Brook, there is a belt of woodland vegetation which forms an attractive and rural setting which hides the former colliery land to the north. The LVIA states that two railway lines form the boundary to the settlement of Newton-le-Willows to the north, although the site itself is more open with grass and low scrub cover in the main. The A49 Winwick Road forms a similarly urban edge reinforced by the residential properties along it. The LVIA notes that the site appears as a relatively disturbed and incongruous area within the wider landscape area in which it lies.

7.243The applicant’s assessment is considered to be reasonable. Areas of the site such as the pylons, access road and colliery spoil mound show that it has been disturbed in the past, but it is well screened from its surroundings by vegetation and dwellings along the A49.

7.244The LVIA then goes on to consider the construction and operational effects of the proposed development and each will be reported in turn below.

7.245In terms of effects during the construction phase, the LVIA identifies that the development would result in considerable change through clearance and major earthworks. It notes that the introduction of large visible buildings and associated construction planting will result in incremental change that will have an impact on the site and its immediate character.

7.246The LVIA assesses the effects of the construction phase within the wider character area, the site and its immediate environs. In terms of the wider impact, the applicant states that the development would have a minor/moderate adverse effect which is not significant. In terms of more localised impacts, the applicant states that the development would have a moderate adverse effect which is significant.

7.247Given the changes to site levels, the scale of buildings proposed and the removal of some of the mature vegetation on site, the construction phase of the development would have an adverse impact on local landscape character. The construction works to deliver the development would be evident in the landscape, from the A49 to the south of the site and around Hermitage Green.

219 P/2018/0048/OUP 239 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 7.248In terms of the operational phase, the LVIA identifies that the development will result in considerable change to local landscape character in the context of the landscape character unit within which the site lies. It states that the proposals would represent a major change from the site’s current condition/character and that the introduction of a large built form would be a dominating feature.

7.249The LVIA assesses the effects of the operational phase within the wider character area, the site and its immediate environs. In terms of the wider impact, the applicant states that the development would have a minor/moderate adverse effect which is not significant. In terms of more localised impacts, the applicant states that the development would have a moderate adverse effect which is significant.

7.250The applicant’s observation that the proposals would represent a major change from the site’s current condition/character and that the introduction of a large built form would be a dominating feature in the local landscape is correct. Accordingly, the operational phase of the proposed development would have an adverse impact on landscape character.

7.251The LVIA identifies that whilst planting proposed along the periphery of the site would mature, the scale of the built development is predicted to still be evident beyond the site and within areas of landscape character. Consequently even after mitigation is assessed, the effects of the development do not change. The applicant’s conclusion is accepted.

7.252The proposed development would result in a major change from the site’s current condition/character and the introduction of a large built form would be a dominating feature that could not be mitigated. The harm caused to landscape character would be moderate and adverse, contrary to policy CQL4 in the Core Strategy. However, although there would be harm to the setting of a Registered Battlefield (which is considered under the heritage section of this report) the landscape character of the site is not designated and the site is not a ‘valued landscape’ for the purposes of paragraphs 170 and 171 in the NPPF. This harm should only be given limited weight. Nonetheless, this an adverse impact to be weighed in the planning balance.

Design and Appearance 7.253Paragraph 124 in the NPPF states that the creation of high quality buildings and places is fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development and creates better places to live and work.

7.254Paragraph 127 in the NPPF states that planning decisions should ensure that developments:

• function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development, • are visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and appropriate landscaping; and • are sympathetic to local character and history including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting.

7.255Paragraph 117 in the NPPF states that planning decision should make an effective use of land, while safeguarding and improving the environment.

7.256Policy CP1 in the Core Strategy requires new developments to maintain or enhance the overall character and appearance of the local environment.

220 P/2018/0048/OUP 240 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 7.257The application is made in outline form and matters such as appearance, layout and landscaping are reserved for determination at a later date. However, the application has been made on the basis of a series of parameters plans that include the location of development cells, heights of buildings, bunds, site roads and green infrastructure.

7.258As discussed above under the landscape character section of this report, with the exception of the spoil heap and perimeter vegetation, the site is not readily visible from public areas surrounding the site. However, the scale of the proposed development means that the proposed buildings would be evident beyond the site. The introduction of large industrial buildings mean that it is likely that some harm would be caused to the character and appearance of the area. The effects of the character and appearance of the development from the following public areas is considered below:

- the A49 adjacent to the site, - the A49 to the south of Hermitage Green Lane, - Hermitage Green and the east of Hermitage Green - Parkside Road on the east of the M6.

7.259The applicant’s LVIA assesses the development from these areas, however, the assessment mainly relates to the effects on views rather than whether the proposed development would have a detrimental effect on the appearance of the area. This report will therefore concentrate on the impact of the development on appearance by in turn, setting out the existing appearance of the area and then discussing the impacts of the development.

A49 adjacent to the site 7.260In the area stretching from the bridge over the West Coast Mainline to the south of the site access, mature vegetation limits visibility into the site. To the south of the site access, there is a ribbon of semi-detached dwellings which limit views other than through the gaps between the properties.

7.261The applicant’s LVIA identifies that the proposed development would result in a significant change in views along the A49. There would be vegetation clearance at the entrance into the site and the bunds and buildings that would be erected on development cells A/B and D would be visible.

7.262The building on development cell D would, however, be at least 280m away from the A49 and the building on development cell A/B would be at least 100m away. Both buildings would also be viewed behind landscaped bunds. They would appear as large industrial buildings, but within the context of a site, appears as a distribution park. As discussed above, the appearance of the buildings is reserved for future determination, but a condition is recommended to ensure that the materials selected minimise the visual bulk of the building. In this context, the proposed development would not appear as an incongruous addition from the A49 in this area, that would cause harm to the character and appearance.

A49 south of Hermitage Green Lane 7.263From the A49 to the south of Hermitage Green Lane, there are long range views of the perimeter vegetation along the south of the application site, properties on Hermitage Green Lane and trees in Gallows Croft Local Wildlife Site. These views are generally glimpsed views across an agricultural field which is enclosed by a tall hedge.

7.264The proposed development would retain the existing vegetation on the south of the site and establish a landscaped bund behind it. Beyond the landscaped bund, the development cells could accommodate buildings of up to 22m high.

221 P/2018/0048/OUP 241 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 7.265The A49 to the south of Hermitage Green Lane is lower than the height of the proposed development cells and therefore it is likely that the proposed buildings would be visible above the landscaping, in long range views, through glimpses in the hedge running alongside the A49. Even with careful consideration given to the design of the buildings to minimise bulk, their scale means that they are likely to appear incongruous from this vantage point, as they would sit well above the dwellings on Hermitage Green Lane and the landscaping/vegetation along the south of the application site. This would cause some moderate harm to the character and appearance of the area.

The western end of Hermitage Green Lane 7.266Hermitage Green Lane is a narrow road which runs to the south of the application site and contains a number of properties. The road rises from the west to the east. The application site is screened by dense vegetation.

7.267The applicant’s LVIA identifies that the proposed development would not have a significant effect in this area of Hermitage Green Lane. It states that when the vegetation between the road and the site is in leaf, the proposed development is not likely to be visible. However, when the vegetation is not in leaf, it is likely that the units on development cells A/B and C would be visible against the skyline.

7.268The visual effects described above are considered to be accurate. In the wintertime when the proposed development would be visible against the skyline, it is considered that it would appear incongruous even though it would still be somewhat screened. The harm caused is considered to be limited given the screening between the sites.

Hermitage Green and the east of Hermitage Green Lane 7.269From Hermitage Green and the eastern end of Hermitage Green Lane, there are relatively open views of the application site across agricultural fields which fall away and then rise up again. The spoil mound on the application site along with perimeter vegetation and electricity pylons are visible.

7.270The applicant’s LVIA identifies that from this receptor, the proposed development would have a significant impact on views. It notes that the buildings on development plots C and to a lesser extent A/B would be visible in the skyline. A photomontage has been submitted with the application which shows that buildings on the above plots would appear higher than the spoil heap and a similar height to pylons.

7.271From the perspective described above, the proposed development would appear as an incongruous feature that is significantly larger and higher than anything else in the surrounding area. Even with careful consideration given to the design of the buildings to minimise their bulk this would result in moderate/significant harm to the character and appearance of the local area.

Parkside Road (east of the M6) 7.272Along this area of Parkside Road, there are views of the application site across the agricultural fields and the M6 motorway. The spoil heap on the west of the site and some perimeter vegetation is visible.

7.273The applicant’s LVIA identifies that the spoil heap would screen the proposed development and the middle ground terrain and vegetation would screen the southern part of the site from views meaning that it is not visible from this location.

222 P/2018/0048/OUP 242 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 7.274The above assessment is considered to be accurate from the point where the LVIA assesses the proposed development from. However, at a point further south on Parkside Road, more of the site is visible and some of the proposed development would be visible. However, the development would not look disproportionate against the spoil heap and landscaping, and only minor harm would be caused.

7.275In terms of the impact of the development on the character and appearance of the local area, harm would be caused from vantage points such as Hermitage Green and when travelling north along the A49 south of Hermitage Green Lane. In these areas, the proposed development would appear as a prominent incongruous feature, contrary to the requirements of Policy CP1 in the Core Strategy. However, the harm would be caused in long range views of the site and a planning condition can require that the appearance of the buildings is designed to minimise their prominence. Accordingly, this harm should be given moderate weight against the proposed development in the planning balance.

Effects of overshadowing/undue dominance/privacy/lighting on amenity 7.276Policy CP1 requires that new developments are sympathetic to surrounding land uses and occupiers, avoiding detrimental impacts on the amenities of the local area, in particular residential amenities. The policy also requires that new developments minimise and mitigate the effects of pollution.

7.277Paragraph 180 in the NPPF states that planning decisions should ensure that new development is appropriate for its location taking into account the likely effects on pollution and health, living conditions and the natural environment as well as the sensitivity of the site or wider area to impacts that could arise from the development. They should limit the impact of light pollution from artificial light on local amenity.

7.278The properties on Hermitage Green Lane and Whitefield Avenue are at a distance, such that overshadowing or a loss of light would not occur. The properties on the A49 to the west of the site could be affected by the development. However, it is not considered that it would have a significant effect on their amenity through overshadowing or loss of light.

7.279The indicative layout shows that offices could be located on the side elevation of the building on development cell A/B. Given that the properties on the A49 would be visible from such an office building, this arrangement is not considered appropriate. A condition is recommended to ensure that any offices in this location are no higher than a single storey.

7.280The proposed development would operate for 24 hours a day and a number of activities would take place outside. External lighting would be required in the service areas and car parks. A lighting strategy does not form part of this application and would be considered at the reserved matters stage, but it is likely that a lighting scheme could be developed that ensures that harm is not caused to residential amenity. The lighting strategy can be secured via planning condition.

7.281Subject to appropriate conditions, a development could be delivered on the site that does not cause harm to residential amenity through overshadowing, undue dominance, privacy or the effects of light pollution. In this respect the proposed development complies with Policy CP1.

Ecology

223 P/2018/0048/OUP 243 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 7.282Paragraph 170 of NPPF states that planning decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity. Paragraph 175 states that when determining applications, local planning authorities should refuse permission if significant harm to biodiversity cannot be avoided or adequately mitigated; and opportunities to incorporate biodiversity improvements in and around developments should be encouraged – especially where this can secure measurable net gains in biodiversity.

7.283Policy CQL3 reflects this, but also requires that all development proposals are based on ecological assessments where appropriate and that developments affecting protected species will only be acceptable if there is clear evidence that the development outweighs the nature conservation interest.

7.284Policy CQL2 states that the multipurpose value of tree, woodlands and hedgerows will be protected and enhanced by:

- requiring developers to plant new trees, woodlands and hedgerows on appropriate sites; - to conserve, enhance and manage existing trees, woodlands and hedgerows; - ensuring that development does not damage or destroy any tree subject to a TPO or any tree of value unless there is a clearly demonstrated public benefit, and where trees are justifiably lost they should be replaced on at least a 2:1 ratio; and - supporting proposals which assist in the positive use of woodlands for green infrastructure purposes including recreation, education, health, biodiversity and economic regeneration.

7.285The proposed development is located around 1.2km away from Highfield Moss SSSI, and Gallows Croft, Newton Brook 03 and 05 Local Wildlife Sites (LWS) are within 400m of the site. Natural England and MEAS consider that subject to a construction environmental management plan that requires works to be more than 8m from the LWS, the proposed development would be unlikely to harm the features for which the sites were designated.

7.286A number of ecological surveys are included in the Environmental Statement, and have been reviewed by MEAS and Natural England. They have advised that the proposed development would not have an unacceptable impact on protected species subject to conditions relating to the provision of bat boxes, an appropriate lighting strategy, pre- commencement checks for badgers and water voles and the translocation of orchids.

7.287The proposed development would result in the loss of approximately 11.7 hectares of semi-improved grassland habitat, 8.5 hectares of semi-natural broadleaved woodland and plantation woodland, and 0.043 hectares of waterbodies. In order to compensate for the loss the development would provide approximately 2.9 hectares, 8.5 hectares and 0.43 hectares of each habitat respectively.

7.288The Biodiversity Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) states that where damage to habitat is likely to occur despite mitigation measures, on or off-site habitat creation on a ratio 3:1 (by area) will be required to compensate for loss or reduced habitat quality for grassland, woodland, wetland and heath-land habitats.

7.289The proposed on site mitigation for grassland and woodland falls short of a 3:1 replacement. The applicant has therefore proposed a compensation package which comprises an ecological management plan for the delivery and enhancement of the Gallows Croft LWS, the enhancement and management of a 4.7 hectare area of semiimproved

224 P/2018/0048/OUP 244 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 grassland to the south of the site (shown in the image below) and a commuted sum of £163,680 to be used to develop a woodland / urban tree planting and habitat improvement project in conjunction with Mersey Forest, to be delivered within the Newton-le-Willows and Sankey Valley. The proposed mitigation/compensation would be sufficient to mitigate/compensate for the loss of habitat caused by the proposed development.

7.290MEAS has identified that there is Japanese knotweed, Indian balsam, rhododendron and cotoneaster present on the site and have recommended a condition that requires a remediation scheme to prevent the plants spreading further and identify the methods of control. Other legislation is in place that makes it an offence to spread invasive species and therefore it is not considered necessary to attach such a condition.

7.291The proposed development would not have an unacceptable impact on protected species or their habitat, subject to conditions securing the implementation of mitigation measures. Further, although the proposed development would cause a loss of habitat, sufficient mitigation and compensation has been proposed. The proposed development would therefore accord with the requirements of Policies CQL2, CQL3 and the NPPF.

Flooding and Drainage 7.292Policy CP1 and paragraph 163 of the NPPF state that when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should ensure that flood risk is not increased elsewhere and only consider development appropriate in areas of flooding where informed by a site specific flood risk assessment.

7.293Saved Policy ENV30 states that planning permission will not be granted for development that: are in areas of liable to flooding, cause loss of access to watercourses for future maintenance, cause loss of natural flood plain except in exceptional circumstances and where compensatory measures are provided as agreed with the Environment Agency, and give rise to substantial changes in the characteristics of surface water run off unless adequate off site works can be provided.

7.294Paragraph 165 of the NPPF states that major developments should incorporate Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) unless there is clear evidence that this would be inappropriate. SUDS should a) take account of advice from the Lead Local Flood Authority, b) have appropriate proposed minimum operational standards, c) have maintenance arrangements in place to ensure an acceptable standard of operation for the lifetime of the development and d) where possible provide multifunctional benefits.

225 P/2018/0048/OUP 245 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 7.295The site falls within Flood Zone 1, which mean that is has a low chance (less than a 1 in 1,000 annual probability) of suffering from river flooding. In accordance with the paragraph 163 of the NPPF and policy CP1, the proposed development is considered to be an appropriate form of development in the flood zone.

7.296The application site is a mixture of greenfield and previously developed land. The application proposes that surface water on the site would discharge to St Oswalds Brook at greenfield runoff rates through a surface water network that includes swales

and detention basins. Storage would be provided on site to accommodate a 1 in 100 years + 40% storm event.

7.297The LLFA has reviewed the drainage information submitted with the application and consider it to be acceptable. This is subject to conditions that agree the parameters and require detailed drainage designs to be submitted.

7.298The Environment Agency has identified that the site lies in a relatively sensitive environmental location, where groundwater from beneath the site contributes to nearby public water supply abstractions. In order to protect the ground water they have requested a condition which ensures that no surface water drainage is allowed in areas of adverse contamination.

7.299The application demonstrates that the proposed development has been designed to be an appropriate use within the flood zones it falls within, and that it would not increase flood risk elsewhere, in accordance with the requirements of the NPPF and Policy CP1.

7.300Conditions are recommended to deliver the drainage strategy and secure the implementation of the management and maintenance plan. Subject to these conditions, the proposed development is considered to comply with the relevant sections of NPPF and Policies CP1 and ENV30.

Contaminated Land and Stability 7.301Paragraph 170 of the NPPF states that planning decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural environment by preventing new development from contributing to, being put at unacceptable risk from or adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil pollution or land instability; and remediating and mitigating despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated and unstable land where appropriate.

7.302Paragraph 178 of the NPPF states that planning decisions should ensure that a site is suitable for its proposed use taking account of ground conditions and any risks arising from land instability and contamination. This includes risks arising from natural hazards or former activities such as mining and any proposals for mitigation including land remediation (as well as potential impacts on the natural environment arising from that remediation). Paragraph 179 states that where a site is affected by contamination or land stability issues, responsibility for securing a safe development rests with the developer and/or landowner.

7.303Policy CP1 states that new developments should ensure that the site of the proposed development is not contaminated and/or unstable or that provision can be made for its remediation to an appropriate standard, taking into account its intended use and making use of sustainable remediation technologies.

7.304The application site forms part of a former colliery and there is a spoil heap included to the east of the site. The application proposes significant earthworks on the site which would

226 P/2018/0048/OUP 246 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 deliver a cut and fill balancing exercise along with the creation of bunds and some development on colliery spoil.

7.305A preliminary Geo-environmental Assessment forms part of the application and it concludes that that sufficient ground investigation had been undertaken to date to derive an initial conceptual ground model but that further intrusive ground investigation will be necessary in due course. The Council’s Contaminated Land Officer has reviewed the information, is in general agreement with the findings of the assessment and recommends that conditions are attached to secure the further works.

7.306As noted earlier in this report, the site lies within an environmentally sensitive area where groundwater from beneath the site contributes to nearby public water abstractions. The Environment Agency has no objections to the proposed development subject to conditions requiring the submission of a remediation strategy, verification report and a condition restricting piling to areas of the site where it has been demonstrated that there is no unacceptable risk to groundwater.

7.307Subject to the conditions recommended by the Contaminated Land Officer and the Environment Agency, the proposed development could be delivered in a safe manner in accordance with the requirements of Policy CP1 and the NPPF.

Utilities, Waste and Energy 7.308The EIA which accompanies the application considers the potential effects of the development on the above matters. It identifies that the proposal would not have a significant impact on utilities. In terms of waste, the EIA identifies that the proposed development has the potential to generate a large amount of waste, but subject to the use of Site Waste Management Plans and Operational Waste Strategies, the overall effect of the development is not significant. The EIA considers the potential effects of the development on increased CO2 and NOx emissions along with an increase in water consumption. It concludes that subject to the strategies being implemented to reduce carbon emissions and promote renewable energy, the proposed development would not have a significant effect.

Submission Draft of the St Helens Borough Local Plan 2020 – 2035 7.309As discussed earlier in this report, the Council is currently preparing a new local plan for the Borough. The Local Plan is currently at Submission Draft stage, it has been published but not yet submitted to the Planning Inspectorate.

7.310Paragraph 48 in the NPPF states that local planning authorities may give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to:

a) the stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced its preparation, the greater weight may be given) b) the extent to which there are unresolved objections (the less significant, the greater the weight that may be given); and c) the degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to the NPPF (the closer the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the NPPF, the greater the weight that may be given)

The Policies in the Plan that are the most relevant to the determination of this application are LPA02, LPA04 and LPA10 each of these policies will be discussed in turn.

227 P/2018/0048/OUP 247 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 7.311Policy LPA02 ‘Spatial Strategy’ states that the plan releases land from the Green Belt to enable the needs for housing and employment development to be met over the plan period in the most sustainable locations. It also identifies land safeguarded for development where planning permission for permanent development should only be granted after the plan period. It states that within the remaining areas of Green Belt, new development shall be regarded as inappropriate unless it falls within one of the exceptions set out in the NPPF. The policy goes on to state that substantial new employment development will take place on large sites that are capable of accommodating large employment buildings (over 9,000m2) and are close to the M6 and M62. In relation to the application site, the policy states that Parkside West and Parkside East form transformational employment opportunity sites that will make an important contribution to the economic development of St Helens Borough, the

Liverpool City Region and beyond. Any development that prejudices their development will not be allowed.

7.312Policy LPA04 ‘A Strong and Stable Economy’ states that the Council will aim to deliver a minimum of 215.4 hectares of land for employment development to meet the needs of St Helens Borough. The policy identifies sites that are allocated for development for employment uses, including the application site which is allocated for B2/B8 development.

7.313Policy LPA10 ‘Parkside East’ identifies that the Parkside East site shall be considered suitable in principle for the development of an SRFI. The policy identifies that an area of land on Parkside West is safeguarded from all forms of development so that it may provide future siding facilities in connection with the development of an SRFI or other rail enabled development on the part of the site that falls to the east of the M6.

7.314The Submission Draft Plan has recently been out to consultation and a number of representations have been received regarding the removal of sites from the Green Belt. In particular, comments questioned whether the need for employment land justifies the ‘exceptional circumstances’ required to remove the land from the Green Belt. These objections are considered to be unresolved and therefore in accordance with paragraph 48 of the NPPF only very limited weight can be given to the policies.

Prematurity 7.315The NPPG sets out the circumstances when it might be justifiable to refuse planning permission on the grounds of prematurity. Paragraphs 48 to 50 of the NPPF explain how weight may be given to policies in emerging plans. However in the context of the Framework and in particular the presumption in favour of sustainable development, arguments that an application is premature are unlikely to justify a refusal of planning permission other than where it is clear that the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, taking the policies in the Framework and any other material considerations into account. Such circumstances are likely, but not exclusively, to be limited to situations 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 Local Plan; and

b) the emerging plan is at an advanced stage but is not yet formally part of the development plan for the area.

228 P/2018/0048/OUP 248 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 Refusal of planning permission on grounds of prematurity will seldom be justified where a draft local plan has yet to be submitted for examination. Where planning permission is refused on grounds of prematurity, the local planning authority will need to indicate clearly how the grant of permission for the development concerned would prejudice the outcome of the plan-making process.

7.316Given the considerable need for employment land in the Borough, it is not considered that the development proposed is so substantial, or its cumulative effects would be so significant, that to grant permission would undermine the plan-making process by pre determining decisions about the scale, location or phasing of new development that are central to an emerging Local Plan.

7.317Further, as outlined earlier in this report, the Submission Draft of the St Helens Borough Local Plan 2020-2035 has not yet been submitted for Examination in Public and given the early stage of the plan, it is not considered that the Plan can be considered to be at an advanced stage. Accordingly, it is not considered that the determination of this application would be premature.

Cumulative Effects of the Parkside Link Road and Phase 2 7.318Each chapter of the Environmental Statement also considers the cumulative effects of other developments. Of these other developments, the Parkside Link Road and phase 2 are considered across all areas in the Environmental Statement with the others considered in the chapters on traffic and transportation, noise, air quality and socioeconomics.

7.319It is important to note that in the chapters on traffic and transportation, noise and air quality, the developments with planning permission (as well as Haydock Point, land at Haydock Lane and land at the former Red Bank Community Home) have all been considered as committed developments in the core assessment.

7.320Accordingly, when impacts are identified in the cumulative effects chapter, they relate to developments that do not have planning permission. When an application comes forward for that development they would be expected to mitigate for their own impact. It is not for the development proposed as part of this application to provide that mitigation, this application should be considered on its own merits.

7.321In terms of the cumulative effects, the EIA identifies that there would not be significant effects in relation to noise and vibration, air quality, ground and contamination, drainage, flood risk, utilities, energy or waste.

7.322The EIA identifies that there would be some significant adverse impacts arising as a result in the change to the landscape and the visual impact for some of the viewpoints closest to the site in both construction and operational phases. There would also be an overall loss of semi-improved grassland, which would be a permanent loss and would be a significant effect.

7.323It is identified that there would be the potential for a direct impact on archaeology, the setting of the Grade II listed Newton Park Farm and Barn, and the Registered Battlefield, which would be significant.

7.324It is identified that there are some adverse impacts arising from traffic generated during the operational phases of the development, although the applicant notes that the traffic

229 P/2018/0048/OUP 249 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 effects would be a worst case scenario and that each future scheme would need to assess the impacts and mitigate accordingly.

7.325The EIA identifies that there will be significant cumulative benefits associated with socio economic effects in terms of GVA and job creation which will significantly boost the local economy.

8. CONCLUSION

8.1 Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states that if regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the Planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. This is also emphasised in Paragraphs 11 to 12 and 47 of the NPPF.

8.2 Saved Policy GB1(a) in the Unitary Development Plan does not permit the erection of new buildings in the Green Belt unless it is for certain purposes (as was previously set out under PPG2). A new industrial development such as this is considered inappropriate development in the Green Belt and does not meet any of the exceptions in the policy. Saved Policy GB1(a) therefore states that such inappropriate development should not be permitted except in very special circumstances.

8.3 Saved Policy GB2 states that subject to the provisions of Saved Policy GB1, development in the Green Belt will be judged against (i) whether it is appropriate in terms of its siting, scale, design, materials and landscaping and does not detract from the appearance and openness of the Green Belt, (ii) it will not generate so much traffic as to cause nuisance or danger nor require any major improvements to rural roads, (iii) it does not conflict with the purposes of including land within the Green Belt and (iv) it will not conflict with other objectives for the use of land in the Green Belt, and wherever appropriate, will make a positive contribution to their achievement.

8.4 Paragraph 144 of the NPPF states that when considering any planning application, the Council should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm caused to the Green Belt and that ‘very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

8.5 Paragraph 144 of the NPPF is considered to be consistent with both Saved Policy GB1(a) and Saved Policy GB2.

8.6 The proposed development would cause harm to the Green Belt by reason of its inappropriateness, it would have a significant impact on the openness of the Green Belt and would be contrary to three of the five purposes of including land within the Green Belt, although the development’s contribution to urban sprawl and any further encroachment into the countryside would be restricted by the existing and proposed boundaries of the site. This makes the proposed development contrary to

230 P/2018/0048/OUP 250 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 certain aspects of saved policy GB2. In accordance with saved policy GB1(a) and paragraph 144 of the NPPF, this harm should (individually and collectively) be given substantial weight against the proposed development.

8.7 The proposed development would be contrary to policy CSS1, CAS 3.2 and CE1 of the Core Strategy because it would prejudice the use of the former Parkside Colliery site as an SRFI. However, it would not prejudice the delivery of an SRFI to the east of the M6 which the Council’s evidence base identifies as a viable and deliverable option. Therefore the conflict with policies CSS1, CAS 3.2 and CE1 should only carry limited weight against the proposed development.

8.8 The proposed development would cause significant harm to a Registered Battlefield and fail to preserve the setting of two listed buildings in conflict with Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act and policies CQL4 and ENV25. The harm caused is considered to amount to less than substantial harm, and should be given significant weight against the public benefits of the proposed development.

8.9 The proposed development would increase traffic flows along surrounding highways, resulting in some additional queuing and delay at junctions. At the junctions modelled in the Borough of St Helens following mitigation, moderate harm would be caused at the A49 High Street/Crow Lane East, A49 High Street/Park Road North and A49 Southworth Road/Alfred Street junctions. At all other junctions in the Borough of St Helens, no more than limited harm would be caused. There would be some conflict with Policy CP2 because the site would not have access to a Freight Priority Route. However, there would be compliance with the NPPF which states that planning permission should only be refused on traffic grounds where the residual cumulative impact is severe. The conflict with Policy CP2 and queueing and delay at junctions which an aspect of ‘other harm’ to be weighed in the balance.

8.10 The proposed development would cause some harm to air quality in certain locations, which must be weighed against the proposed development. However, the proposed development would not cause any exceedances of EU Limit Values in 2030 or have a significant effect overall. It is not considered that this materially conflicts with policy CP1 in the Core Strategy or paragraph 181 of the NPPF because impacts have been minimised and mitigated. However, harm would be caused and this harm should be given very limited weight against the proposed development.

8.11 Harm would be caused to the visual amenity of some residential properties in the vicinity of the site. There would be significant harm caused at up to 44 properties and moderate harm caused at one property during the construction and operational phases of the development. This is contrary to policy CP1 in the Core Strategy and should be given weight against the proposed development.

8.12 The proposed development would have a moderate adverse impact on the landscape character of the site, which would be contrary to policies CP1 and CQL4 in the Core Strategy. However, the site does not have a landscape designation and is not a ‘valued landscape’ for the purposes of

231 P/2018/0048/OUP 251 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 paragraphs 109 and 113 of the NPPF. It is considered that the harm caused to landscape character would be limited.

8.13 The design of the proposed development would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area from vantage points such as Hermitage Green and the A49 south of the site, contrary to policy CP1 in the Core Strategy. However, the harm would be caused in long range views and should be given moderate weight against the proposed development.

8.14 The noise effects of the proposed development would not have a significant effect on the amenity of the residents at the nearest residential properties in accordance with Policy CP1. However, it is acknowledged that some harm would be caused by additional noise and this should weigh against the proposed development.

8.15 These impacts should weigh against the proposed development alongside the harm caused to the Green Belt.

8.16 In favour of the proposed development, there is a significant need to deliver employment land in the Borough of St Helens, in particular for large scale logistics developments such as this. The proposed development is deliverable, attractive to the market, and it would make a significant contribution to the employment land supply in the Borough of St Helens, in accordance with the requirements of policy CE1 and the increased requirement in the OAN contained in the AELNS, considered to be a robust evidence base for decision taking. There are no sites within the urban area that could accommodate the proposed development, the only possible alternatives are also in the Green Belt. This economic land position should be given significant weight in favour of the proposed development.

8.17 The application also proposes a number of economic benefits, of such a scale that they should be given significant weight in favour of the proposals in accordance with Paragraph 80 of the NPPF. There are also some social benefits and very limited environmental benefits which should weigh in favour of the proposed development.

8.18 In terms of the planning balance, the contribution that the development would make to the Council’s employment land position is significant and of particular importance, given that the need is of such a quantum and character that only Green Belt sites are likely to satisfy it. This and the other significant economic benefits would clearly outweigh the substantial harm caused to the Green Belt and the other harm identified in the report above. Consequently it is considered that the proposed development complies with GB1 and the NPPF.

8.19 It is therefore concluded that there is conflict with policies CSS1, CAS 3.2, CE1, CP1, CP2, CQL4, ENV25 and GB2 so the proposed development does not accord with elements of the development plan. However, there are ‘very special circumstances’ such that the proposed development complies with saved policy GB1 (a), taking on board such policy conflicts,

232 P/2018/0048/OUP 252 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 and therefore on balance, it also complies with the development plan as a whole.

8.20 In terms of Green Belt policy, there is no material inconsistency or conflict between the Unitary Development Plan, the Core Strategy and the NPPF. On balance the proposed development constitutes sustainable development in terms of the NPPF because the ‘very special circumstances’ outweigh the substantial harm to the Green Belt and other harm. Furthermore, the public benefits of the proposed development outweigh the heritage harm. The proposed development complies with the development plan, so in accordance with Paragraph 11 of the NPPF, it should be approved without delay. There are no material considerations which would require a determination other than in accordance with the development plan. Rather, the material considerations further support the grant of permission, subject to conditions and a Section 106 agreement.

9. RECOMMENDATION

9.1 Grant Planning Permission subject to the completion of an agreement under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Secretary of State not wishing to intervene and the following conditions.

General Conditions 1. All applications for reserved matters must be made within three years of the date of this decision notice and development must be commenced before the expiration of two years from the final approval of the reserved matters or, in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved.

2. Prior to the submission of any reserved matters application, a phasing plan shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the local planning authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed phasing plan.

3. As part of the first reserved matters application, precise details of proposed site levels shall be agreed with the local planning authority. The levels plan must include specifications for bund construction including cross sections and composition of bunds as well as a methodology for construction. All proposed earthworks must include measures to permit tree planting. The development shall be implemented in accordance with those details

4. No development shall take place on any one phase until details of the following reserved matters relevant to that phase have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council as Local Planning Authority: (i) appearance, (ii) landscaping, (iii) scale and (iv) layout. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the reserved matters as approved.

5. Reserved matters applications for layout, scale and appearance shall include full details of facing materials for that phase.

233 P/2018/0048/OUP 253 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 The proposed facing materials shall be selected to minimise the visual bulk of the buildings and their effectiveness shall be demonstrated through a written justification and a series of photomontages. The development shall be implemented in accordance with these details.

6. The gross external floor area of any building in use class B8 shall not be less than 150,000 sqft.

7. Reserved Matters applications on Plot A/B should demonstrate how the have had specific regard to minimising the harm caused to residential properties along Winwick Road. Buildings on the site should be located as far as practicably possible from the western edge of the development cell and shall use good design techniques to minimise the visual impact of their bulk and massing. Furthermore, there shall be no windows above ground floor level on the western elevation of any building on development cell A/B.

8. Reserved matters applications shall include a lighting strategy for that phase, which includes details of light columns, lighting specifications, a light spillage plan showing the LUX levels in relation to the closest nearby properties/highways and details of baffels. The lighting scheme shall be designed to maintain the amenity of neighbouring residents, ensure highway safety and protect ecology by preventing excessive light spill onto sensitive habitats. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed details.

9. No development shall commence on any phase of the development until a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) for that phase has been submitted to and agreed in writing with the local planning authority. The CEMP shall include but not be limited to: • Details of phasing • A dust management plan which includes details of the proposed dust monitoring programme, both before and during construction, with proposed locations and duration of monitoring • Details of how pre-commencement checks for water voles and badgers will be undertaken • A method statement for Orchid translocation • Reasonable Avoidance Measures for protected species including bats and common toads • Measures that will be taken to protect English Bluebells • A methodology for the soft felling of trees T62 and T65 • Construction traffic routes, which shall include a primary traffic route from the south using the A49 • The location and numbers of parking spaces for contractors; • Temporary roads/areas of hard standing; • A schedule for large vehicles delivering/exporting materials to and from site;

234 P/2018/0048/OUP 254 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 • A scheme of street sweeping/street cleansing; • Details of lighting which is designed to minimise impacts on residential amenity and ecology • A surface water management plan • The identification of an 8m buffer zone from St Oswalds Brook in which no construction activity will be undertaken • Contact details of the principal contractor • Confirmation that the principles of Best Practicable Means for the control of noise and vibration will be employed, as defined within the Control of Pollution Act 1975 • Confirmation that the good practice noise mitigation measures detailed within BS5228-1: 2009+A1:2014 shall be employed

• Confirmation that the noise mitigation measures detailed within Sections 8.1 – 8.3 of the ES Addendum shall be employed

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed CEMP

10. Reserved Matters applications shall be in accordance with the following parameters plans: • Phase 1 Parameter Plans Development Cells ‘16043_PL110 Rev D’ • Phase 1 Parameters ‘16043_SK311 Rev E’ • Phase 1 Parameter Plan Green Infrastructure ‘16043_PL114 Rev I’ • Phase 1 Parameter Plan Access and Circulation ‘16043_PL112 Rev B’ • Phase 1 Parameter Plan Drainage ‘16043_PL113 Rev E’ • Phase 1 Parameter Plan Acoustic Considerations ‘16043_ PL116 Rev C’ • Phase 1 Parameter Plan Utilities Corridors and Easements ‘16043_PL115 Rev A’ • Phase 1 Parameter Plan Safeguared Rail ‘16043_PL111’

11. No development shall take place in the area identified as ‘Future Rail Land Safeguarding’ on ‘Phase 1 Parameter Plan Safeguarded Rail ref 16043_PL111’

Local Employment 12. Prior to the commencement of each phase, a Local Employment Scheme for the construction of that phase shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the local planning authority. The submitted Local Employment Scheme shall demonstrate how the development will use all reasonable endeavours to recruit at least 20% of labour from within the Borough of St Helens focusing on the most deprived Super Output Areas. The Scheme shall include the following:

235 P/2018/0048/OUP 255 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 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 commitment that the construction phase of the development will be undertaken in accordance with the Unite Construction Charter g) A procedure for monitoring the Local Employment Scheme and reporting the results of such monitoring to the Council including details of the origins qualifications numbers and other details of candidates; and, h) A timetable for the implementation of the Local Employment Scheme.

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

13. Prior to the commencement of each phase of the development, a Scheme to promote the use of local suppliers of goods and services during the construction of that phase shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the local planning authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed Scheme.

14. Prior to the first use of any building, a Local Employment Scheme for the operational phase of that building shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The submitted Local Employment Scheme shall demonstrate how the development will use all reasonable endeavours to recruit at least 20% of labour from within the Borough of St Helens focusing on the most deprived Super Output Areas. The Scheme shall include the following:

a) Details of how the initial staff/employment opportunities at the development will be advertised and how liaison with the Council and other local bodies such as St Helens Chamber, Ways to Work, Wargrave Big Local and the DWP Job Centre outreach held at Newton Family and Community Centre 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; 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) A procedure for monitoring the Local Employment Scheme and reporting the results of such monitoring to the District Council including

236 P/2018/0048/OUP 256 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 details of the origins qualifications numbers and other details of candidates; and, f) A timetable for the implementation of the Local Employment Scheme.

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

Ground Conditions 15. Prior to the commencement of development;

a) The Preliminary Geo-Environmental Assessment shall where reasonably possible be updated to address the points raised by the Council’s Contaminated Land Officer in his consultation response of 20th February 2018 referenced 030433. The updated report shall then be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. b) A detailed scope of works for a Phase II intrusive investigation of the site shall then be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scope of works shall include i) a rationale for the type and location of all exploratory holes, ii) the proposed analytical suites and/ or monitoring programme for soil, gas, groundwater and surface water iii) an indicative exploratory hole plan iv) details of the intended risk assessment methodologies. The scope of works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to any site investigations being carried out. c) A phase II intrusive site investigation shall be completed in accordance with the agreed scope of works. This shall determine the extent of soil, groundwater and ground gas contamination throughout the site and any associated potential for contaminant migration. A report on the investigation, including a risk assessment and conceptual site model shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. d) Should the phase II investigation identify any requirements for remediation a remedial options appraisal and subsequently a detailed remediation strategy shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The remedial strategy shall include a verification plan setting out details of the information that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the necessary works have been successfully completed.

All of the above shall be completed by a competent person (as defined within the NPPF) in accordance with current best practice and guidance, namely BS10175:2011+A2:2017 and Land Contamination: Risk Management.

16. Prior to the first use of any building, the agreed remedial strategy (if required), or parts thereof as appropriate to the phasing and development of the scheme will have been implemented, and a site validation/ completion report for that phase shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. For the avoidance of doubt, the site validation/ completion report shall include, but will not necessarily be limited to; i) full details of all remediation works undertaken; ii) verification (in accordance with the verification plan detailed within the agreed remedial strategy) of the adequacy of the remediation; iii) sampling, testing and assessment of the suitability of all imported and site won soils; iv) the fate of any excavated material removed from site; v) verification of the installation of any gas

237 P/2018/0048/OUP 257 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 protection measures, vi) a plan for longer term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action. The site validation/ completion report shall be completed by a competent person (as defined in the NPPF) in accordance with current best practice and guidance, namely BS10175:2011+A2:2017 and Land Contamination: Risk Management.

17. No piling or other penetrative foundation methods shall be undertaken unless, a risk assessment to demonstrate that risks to ground water can be mitigated and a vibration assessment have been submitted to and approved in writing with the local planning authority. Any piling or other penetrative foundation shall be carried out in accordance with any agreed details/mitigation.

Landscape and Ecology 18. All tree work must be to BS3998 (2010) with any tree or hedgerow removal being in accordance with the details submitted within the Arboricultural Impact Assessment JCA Ref 13429C/PH, with no felling taking place between the period 1st March to 1st September unless a report prepared by a suitably qualified ecologist or ornithologist which demonstrates that there are no breeding birds present in any areas of trees, woodland and scrub has been submitted to and agreed in writing with the local planning authority.

19. No development shall take place until details of the temporary measures to provide physical protection of all trees, hedges and shrubs shown to be retained in the Arboricultural Impact Assessment (JCA Ref 13429C/PH) have been submitted to and agreed in writing with the local planning authority. These details must specify tree protection measures which will be put in place to not only protect the existing retained trees, hedges and woodlands but also any new tree planting and landscaping delivered as part of any development on site. All tree protection measures must be to at least BS 5837 (2012) standard. Method statements must also be included; particularly where there are impacts to root protection areas and ground protection or special no dig surfacing is required. All measures must be in place prior to any demolition or development taking place on any phase. The provision of total exclusion zones 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 all site and building works (including works that may be carried out within the any adjacent area of the site).

20. No development shall take place until a scheme of Arboricultural Supervision to ensure that all tree work, and tree protection measures, including supervision of no dig surfacing construction is both delivered and maintained in accordance with the agreed details. The scheme shall include the level of supervision, reporting mechanisms to the Council and frequency of site visits and reporting, and provision for a meeting on site prior to works taking place on site between the, developer, developer’s relevant contractors and arboricultural consultant as well as the local planning authority.

21. Reserved matters applications must include fully specified landscape plans for that phase which must (where appropriate):-

• Be in accordance with the species recommendations, principles and standards detailed in Section 3 Habitat Creation and Management of the

238 P/2018/0048/OUP 258 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 Outline Ecological and Landscape Management Plan V5 170719 (Ref 0105- 08 Issue 17th July 2019) • Show all specimen trees specified as container grown / root balled stock using standard, heavy standard and extra heavy standard stock (with the later used in more prominent areas). Tree pit specifications must be specified where required. With other planting e.g. woodland, bund, shrub areas etc, using tree sizes that are a minimum of 2+2 whips or 3 litre pots for evergreens, planted at 2 metre centres and be protected with tree shelters. Hedgerows must also use a minimum of 2+2 whips also be protected with tree shelters. Planting must be in a double zig-zagged row at a density of at least 6 trees per metre (evergreens would need to be at least 2 litre in pot size). • Include detailed designs and planting specifications, including cross sections, for all water bodies being created on site. • Include the under planting of existing woodlands such as Gallows Croft within the ecological zone / area using a species composition of quercus robur 30%, carpinus betulus10%, tilia cordata 10%, corylus avellana 30% Ilex aquifolium, 10% and taxus baccata 10%. • Include specifications for all other soft and hard landscape details  Include a timescale for the delivery of landscaping.

The development shall be implemented in accordance with the submitted details and 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.

22. No development shall take place until a detailed Ecological and Landscape Management Plan based upon the Outline Ecological and Landscape Management Plan V5 170719 (Ref 01-05-08 Issue 17th July 2019) has been submitted to and agreed in writing with the local planning authority. The Plan must:-

• Provide detailed maintenance and management schedules / programmes (including monitoring) for the areas of green infrastructure on the site, including all new landscaping and retained landscape features. This should include details of the management company / Trust or other organisations who will be responsible for the management of these areas, as well as the financial resources and funding arrangements to maintain and deliver the management proposals in perpetuity.

• Include detailed management prescriptions and an implementation plan detailing how the Gallows Croft Local Wildlife Site will be enhanced and managed in perpetuity, specifying how the woodland structure will be enhanced by tree thinning and under planting, details of how invasive weed species will be controlled, enhancement for woodland / riparian species e.g bird and bat box provision, and the provision of dead wood environments for invertebrates and amphibians. The plan must include initial enhancements as well as ongoing management and monitoring details. This should include details of the management company / Trust or other organisations who will be responsible for the management of these areas, as well as the financial resources and funding arrangements to maintain and deliver the management proposals in perpetuity.

239 P/2018/0048/OUP 259 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 • Provide detailed plans and a management plan for the creation and management of the offsite grassland site identified in Section 3.2. These plans must:-

- Specify how an ecologically diverse grassland site is to be created

- Include the planting of native hedgerows (including native trees) to field boundaries and perimeters, riparian habitat improvement, enhancement for riparian species and enhancement for grassland species including birds such as kestrel and barn owl.

- Include a management plan for ongoing management and enhancement. This should include details of the management company / Trust or other organisations who will be responsible for the management of these areas, as well as the financial resources and funding arrangements to maintain and deliver the management proposals in perpetuity.

- Provide a timetable for implementation, which must specify that the works will be completed before the first use of any building hereby permitted.

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed details

23. No development shall take place until details of ecological supervision that will ensure all ecological mitigation measures are delivered in accordance with the details within the Outline Ecological and Landscape Management Plan (As updated by condition 10) have been submitted to and agreed in writing with the local planning authority. The details shall include the level of supervision, reporting mechanisms to the Council and frequency of site visits and reporting, and provision for a meeting on site prior to works taking place on site between the, developer, developer’s relevant contractors and arboricultural/ecological consultants as well as the local planning authority.

24. A bat roost installation scheme shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the local planning authority before the felling of any trees on site. The scheme shall include the specification, location and siting of boxes along with a timetable for implementation. The agreed scheme shall be implemented.

Drainage 25. No development shall take place in a phase until a surface water drainage scheme that includes a management and maintenance plan for that phase has been submitted to and agreed in writing with the local planning authority. The scheme shall be based upon the principles of the Drainage Strategy (Ref: RPT- CL003 Rev F – Cundall November 2018). For the avoidance of doubt, the drainage scheme shall not include the infiltration of surface water drainage into the ground where contamination has been found and shall be designed to prevent the discharge of water on to the public highway. The agreed scheme shall be implemented before the first use of any building hereby permitted in that phase and managed/maintained as agreed thereafter.

Highways

240 P/2018/0048/OUP 260 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 26. The access to the development shall be implemented in accordance with the access arrangements shown on the approved Means of Access Plan Phase 1 (ref: B064334_501 rev C). It shall be constructed to binder course surfacing level and completed prior to the first use of any building hereby approved. The access shall be kept available for use at all times.

27. No more than 22,000m² of gross floor area shall be used for the purposes hereby approved until the highway improvement works have been implemented. For the avoidance of doubt, the works shall include:

i. The provision of a signalised pedestrian crossing facility on A49 Ashton Road based on the principles of Curtins Drawing 58211-CUR-00-XX-DRTP75002- P01 or on Ashton Road in close proximity to the southern footpath leading to Hope Academy. ii. The provision of a signalised pedestrian crossing facility on A572 Crow Lane East as illustrated on Curtins Drawing 58211-CUR-00-XX-DR- TP75002-P01 iii. The provision of a signalised pedestrian crossing facility on A49 to the immediate south of the Park Road North junction, as illustrated in Curtins Drawing 58211-CUR-00-XX-DR-TP75002-P01. This should include trigger detection equipment on Park Road North to identify the queue length and trigger the pedestrian crossing. iv. The extension of the right-turn lane from A49 northbound onto Southworth Road, to provide capacity for 4 PCUs, as illustrated in Curtins Drawing 58211-CUR-00-XX-DR-TP75001-P01.

28. Except for site clearance and remediation, no development shall commence until the highway improvement works at the junction of A49 Newton Road/Hollins Lane to the principles of Curtins drawing TPMA1389-105/B and at the junction of A49 Newton Road/A573 Golbourne Road to the principles of Curtins drawing TPMA1389-104/A have been constructed.

29. No more than 22,000m2 of B8 floorspace within the development hereby permitted shall be occupied until highway improvement works at the junction of A49 Newton Road/Delph Lane to the principles of Curtins drawing TPMA1389- 102/C and at the junction of A49 Newton Road/Winwick Link Road to the principles of Curtins drawing TPMA1389-103/A have been constructed.

30. Reserved Matters applications shall include precise details of car, motorbike and cycle parking for that phase. The details shall include a justification for the level of spaces proposed, a layout plan, details of surfacing and any facilities such as lockers, showers etc. The parking provision should include 1 electric vehicle charge point and 1 priority parking space for hybrid and electric vehicles for every 2000m3 of floor space. No building proposed in that phase of development shall be brought into use until the agreed details that are associated with it have been provided. The parking and servicing areas, and any facilities shall be retained as such thereafter.

31. No building shall be occupied until the owners and occupiers of that building have appointed a Travel Plan Coordinator. The Travel Plan Coordinator shall be responsible for the implementation, delivery, monitoring and promotion of the Travel Plan, including the day-to-day management of the steps identified to secure the sustainable transport initiatives. The details (name, address, telephone

241 P/2018/0048/OUP 261 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 number and email address) of the Travel Plan Coordinator shall be notified to the Council as Local Planning Authority upon appointment and immediately upon any change.

32. Prior to the first use of any building hereby approved, a travel plan for that building shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council as Local Planning Authority. The plan shall include immediate, continuing and long-term measures to promote and encourage alternative modes of transport to the single- occupancy car. For the avoidance of doubt, the travel plan shall include but not be limited to:

• Operational details of a shuttle bus service which would connect the site to the most deprived Super Output Areas in the Borough; • Involvement of employees; • Information on existing transport policies, services and facilities, travel behaviour and attitudes; • Updated information on access by all modes of transport; • Resource allocation including Travel Plan Coordinator and budget; • A parking management strategy; • A marketing and communications strategy; • An action plan including a timetable for the implementation of each such element of the above; and • Mechanisms for monitoring, reviewing and implementing the travel plan.

The approved travel plan shall be implemented in accordance with the timetable contained therein and shall continue to be implemented as long as the building is occupied and in use.

An annual report shall be submitted to the Council no later than 1 month following the anniversary of the first occupation of the development for a period of 5 years. The annual report shall include a review of the travel plan measures, monitoring data and an updated action plan.

33. An enhancement scheme for the two bus stops on Winwick Road to the south of the site access shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the local planning authority. The enhancement scheme shall include access kerbs, shelters, new bus stop information and signage and road markings. The agreed works shall be implemented prior to the first use of any building on the site.

34. Prior to the commencement of development, an improvement scheme for the following cycleway/footways running north/south along Newton Brook and east/west between the Sankey Canal, through the Bradlegh Road estate and Vulcan Village shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The agreed improvement schemes shall be implemented before the first use of any building for B8 purposes.

35. Reserved matters applications shall include provision for overnight lorry accommodation and shall include evidence to demonstrate that the level of provision is adequate for that phase of the development. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed details and those areas shall be retained as such thereafter.

Heritage

242 P/2018/0048/OUP 262 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 36. Prior to the commencement of development details of a Heritage Trail shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The details shall include the following:

• The design and specification for the construction of the Heritage Trail, which should seek to include a route that incorporates parts of the buffer zone between the base of the bunds constructed and the top of Gallows Croft woodland area. It must also include specifications for the path surfacing which must provide a route that is surfaced and at least 1.5 metres in width, preferably using a bound recycled stone surface e.g Hoppath and incorporate “Access for All” principles e.g. maximum gradients of 1 in 20 (1:12 for short sections) where practicable. • Construction details and specifications for any structures required to create the heritage trail. • Details of signage and interpretation / information boards including their design and installation locations • The location of a public car park to serve the Heritage Trail, including its location, the number of spaces, surfacing and marking • A programme for implementation of the Heritage Trail and its availability for use  A management and maintenance plan for the Heritage Trail and the car park.

The agreed Heritage Trail shall be implemented and maintained in accordance agreed details thereafter.

37. No development shall take place until a written scheme of archaeological work has been submitted to and agreed in writing with the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed scheme.

Noise 38. Construction works audible at or beyond the site boundary shall not occur outside of the following hours: - Monday to Friday 08:00 – 18:00 hrs; - Saturday 08:00 – 13:00 hrs - Not at all on Sundays or Public/Bank Holidays

39. As part of any reserved matters application for the Proposed Development, that scheme masterplan brought forward shall comply with drawing reference Phase 1 Parameter Plan Acoustic Considerations ‘16043_ PL116 Rev C’. For the avoidance of doubt no external services, plant or equipment shall be located within the orange hatched areas, and no loading bays shall be orientated towards noise sensitive receptors within the orange arrowed areas.

40. Reserved matters applications shall include a noise mitigation scheme and operational noise management plan for that phase. The noise mitigation scheme shall demonstrate via an environmental noise assessment, taking into account any cumulative effects, how they will ensure that the noise levels secured under condition 39 will not be exceeded. The details of the mitigation scheme shall be implemented prior to the first use of the relevant phase and retained thereafter in good order for the lifetime of the development. The development shall operate in accordance with the operational noise management plan.

243 P/2018/0048/OUP 263 Planning Committee 4 17/12/2019 41. The rating level (LAr,Tr) of noise emanating from the site, when determined (by measurement or calculation) in accordance with BS 4142:2014+A1: 2019 and including applicable acoustic character corrections in accordance with this Standard shall not exceed the levels detailed within the following Table. Assessment Location Allowable Allowable Allowable Nighttime (23:00 Evening (19:00 Daytime (07:00 to to 23:00) Rating to 19:00) Rating

07:00) Rating Level (LAr,1hour) Level (LAr,1hour) Level

(LAr,15minute) Dwellings at Newton Park 40 40 47 Farm and dwellings east of the east coast mainline railway on Whitefield Avenue, Newton Park Drive and Banastre Drive

Dwellings on A49 Winwick 45 45 55 Road

Dwellings on Hermitage 36 36 43 Green Lane

Dwellings at Hermitage 44 44 48 Green and on Parkside Road The above limits shall be complied with at all upper storey windows of receptors at each assessment location.

42. Within three months of the commencement of operation of each phase of the development, a Verification Assessment Report which demonstrates that sound levels from the development comply with the requirements of condition 39 shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the local planning authority. Should the report reveal sound levels in excess of the requirements of condition 39 it shall include a scheme of additional mitigation, including a timetable for its implementation. Any additional mitigation shall be installed in accordance with the timetable for implementation.

43. No HGV chiller trailers shall operate within the site.

244 P/2018/0048/OUP 264 Planning Committee 17/12/2019

10. IMAGES

The application site

265 P/2018/0048/OUP Planning Committee 17/12/2019

Development Cells Parameters Plan

266 P/2018/0048/OUP Planning Committee 17/12/2019

Parameters Parameter Plan

267 P/2018/0048/OUP Planning Committee 17/12/2019

Green Infrastructure Parameters Plan

268 P/2018/0048/OUP Planning Committee 17/12/2019

Access and Circulation Parameters Plan

269 P/2018/0048/OUP Planning Committee 17/12/2019

Drainage Parameters Plan

270 P/2018/0048/OUP Planning Committee 17/12/2019

Acoustic Considerations Parameters Plan

271 P/2018/0048/OUP Planning Committee 17/12/2019

Safeguarded Rail Parameters Plan

272 P/2018/0048/OUP Planning Committee 17/12/2019

273 P/2018/0048/OUP Planning Committee 17/12/2019

Illustrative Masterplan

274 P/2018/0048/OUP Planning Committee 17/12/2019

Indicative Cross Section with Winwick Road

275 P/2018/0048/OUP Planning Committee 17/12/2019

Indicative Cross Section to the south of the site

Indicative cross section with Newton Park Farm

276 P/2018/0048/OUP 4 Planning Committee 17/12/2019

The site of the Registered Battlefield with the application site in red

277 198 P/2018/0048/OUP

278 Planning Committee 17/12/2019

Photomontage from the site access on the A49

279 P/2018/0048/OUP Planning Committee 17/12/2019

Photomontage from the rear of properties on the A49

280 P/2018/0048/OUP Planning Committee 17/12/2019

Photomontage from Hermitage Green

281 P/2018/0048/OUP Planning Committee 17/12/2019

Photomontage from Hermitage Green Lane

282 P/2018/0048/OUP

Planning Committee 17/12/2019 11. GLOSSARY

A49 – Winwick Road A573 – Parkside Road A579 – Winwick Lane AQA – Air Quality Assessment AQMA – Air Quality Management Area ARELNS – Addendum Report to the ELNS, BE Group, October 2017 – Amended January 2019 CEMP – Construction environmental management plan dB – Decibel EEBP – Economic Evidence Base Paper, Aecom, September 2015 EIA – Environmental Impact Assessment ELNS – Employment Land Needs Study, BE Group, October 2015 ES – Environmental Statement HGV – Heavy Goods Vehicle HIA – Heritage impact assessment LCA – St Helens Landscape Character Assessment (January 2006) LCR – Liverpool City Region LCRGS – Liverpool City Region Growth Strategy LGV – Light Goods Vehicle LVIA – Landscape visual impact assessment LWS – Local wildlife site MEAS – Merseyside environmental advisory service

NO2 – Nitrogen Dioxide NPPF – National Planning Policy Framework NPPG – National Planning Practice Guidance OAN – Objectively Assessed Need PLR – Parkside Link Road PLRFIS – Parkside Logistics and Rail Freight Interchange Study (AECOM August 2016), PMX – Particulate Matter PROW – Public right of way SHELMA – Draft Strategic Housing and Employment Land Market Assessment, GL Hearn, January 2017 SIF – Single investment fund SRFI – Strategic rail freight interchange SSSI – Site of special scientific interest SUDS – Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems TA – Transport Assessment UDP – St Helens Unitary Development Plan (1998)

283 Appendix 3: Parkside Timeline

284 WARRINGTON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING DEPARTMENT

DMC 30th September 2020

©Crown Copyright. Warrington BC 100022848 2020/36900

285 DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE DATE 30 SEPTEMBER 2020

ITEM 2

Application Number: 2020/36900

Description of Development: Full Planning (Major) - Proposed erection of Grain Store, Machinery Store, Agricultural Yard and Access

Location Address: Warrington Road, Hatton, Warrington

Applicant: Stuart Parkin, Parkin Manor, Higher Walton, Warrington, WA4 5LH

Ward: Appleton

Site Allocation: Green Belt

Number of representations 4 received: Reason for Referral: Parish Council objection

Statutory expiry date: 09/10/2020

Recommendation: Approve subject to conditions and unilateral undertaking

Case Officer: Liz Snead

[email protected]

SUMMARY OF KEY REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION

- The principle of development is considered acceptable - The living conditions of adjacent occupiers would be protected from undue harm - The proposal will not have an unacceptable impact upon local highway network - The design of the proposal is in keeping with the existing character of the area - The proposal is not considered to cause any ecological issues

OFFICER’S REPORT TO PLANNING COMMITTEE

1. APPLICATION SITE AND SURROUNDINGS

1.1 This application relates 2 agricultural fields that are located within a larger agricultural holding of 137.59 hectares of farm land. The agricultural fields are surrounded by hedging and have a variety of crops located within them.

286 1.2 There is no existing surfaced vehicular track across the fields, rather elements of the crop are closely mown to allow for access across the fields, however, there are existing gates that provide vehicular access to the fields.

1.3 The 2 agricultural fields are bounded by an existing road (Warrington Road) to the west and agricultural fields surround the remaining boundaries with woodland belts to the north and east of the site. The application site is located in the Green Belt. In the field to the north of the site are wooden stables and there is a public right of way located to the north of the site.

2 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL

2.1 Planning permission is sought for the construction of 2no. buildings (a grain store and machinery store) located within an agricultural yard area together with the formation of a drive to access the site.

Grain Store

2.2 The store is proposed to be 30.5m in length, 12.2m in width and 6.03m to the ridge and would be enclosed on all sides with one steel roller shutter door on the eastern elevation and one steel roller shutter door on the western elevation. The roller shutter doors are proposed to be bottle green in colour (RAL 6007). The proposed materials are a 2.2m brick plinth and the walls are proposed to be bottle green Kingspan profile cladding, as is the roof material. The building is proposed to have an internal floor area of 345 square metres and will be orientated with the side elevation facing towards Warrington Road but set back from the road by over 400 metres.

Machinery Store

2.3 The Machinery store is proposed to be 30.5m in length, 12.2m in width and 6.03m to the ridge and is enclosed on all sides with 4 steel roller shutter doors with two doors located on the proposed west elevation, one on the north elevation and one on the south. The roller shutter doors are proposed to be bottle green in colour (RAL 6007). The proposed materials are a 2.2m brick plinth and then walls and roof of bottle green Kingspan profile cladding. The building is proposed to have an internal floor area of 345 square metres, subdivided into 2 sections with the workshop having a floor area of 86m2 and the machinery store a floor area of 259m2. It is proposed that the building will be set back from Warrington Road by over 400 metres with the west elevation facing towards Warrington Road.

Yard and Access

2.4 The surfacing material of the yard is proposed to be limestone and it is proposed that an existing field gate will be utilised to access the site from Warrington Road. The application also includes the formation of a limestone stone drive to access the site which is proposed to enable vehicle access to the site. The track is proposed to be over 250 metres in length as it follows the field boundary north from the existing access and then heads east to the proposed yard following the existing field boundaries.

287

3 AMENDED PLANS

3.1 During the process of the application, additional information was received. Consideration has been given to the necessity to re-consult on the additional information. In this instance it was considered that the additional information did not constitute a substantial difference to the originally submitted proposal and has therefore not been subject to public re-consultation. The LPA has acted fairly and reasonably taking in to account the duty to fully consider representations from interested parties and while the additional information has been available to view, no re-consultation has been undertaken. All representations received are summarised below and are appraised against planning policy (where they are material in determining the application) within the assessment.

4 LOCAL REPRESENTATIONS

Hatton Parish Council

Hatton Parish Council object to the application for the following reasons:

Principle

• Agricultural justification needs to be reassessed; • inconsistency in figures used on plans and supporting statements used in the submission of the application • Justification for the increase in size and alteration to the access is unclear and inconsistent with the requirements previously indicated in 2019/35472

Highways Safety

• Access is in a different location • Conflicts with the access for residential properties • Requirement for visibility splays • Impact on highway safety as drivers drive in excess of 40mph • Drivers have to drive on opposite side of road to pass horse riders • With the exception of crossing a PROW there seems little justification for the much more intrusive access arrangement now proposed

Impact on the character of the area

• Yard is 25% bigger than previously approved • Footprint of the building is increased • Height of the ridge increased • Altered arrangement of the buildings results in elevations being presented to views of the site from north and west • Site is elevated • Increased prominence of buildings exacerbated by hedge removal • The increase in the size of buildings, yard area and the form of the proposed access have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area

288 in which the application site is located which was upheld by the previous dismissal at appeal

Following receipt of amended information the following additional objection was received from Hatton Parish Council:

Highways Safety

• No reference in any of the planning files to Highways requesting the access be moved • If the previous access was not acceptable then the application should have been refused • Manual for streets is not the appropriate document for the visibility splays and Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) is as manual for streets does not seek to address speeds more than 37 mph and DMRB would require a visibility splay of 120 metres rather than the 90 required by the Highways Authority • No request for a speed survey; • Visibility splays will have the effect of straightening the road and therefore increasing vehicle speeds • Nothing wrong or unsafe with the previous access arrangements

Residents:

The applications was publicised by 6 neighbour notification letters, site notice and a press notice. As a result 4 representations (from 2 properties) have been received from surrounding properties and they are summarised below:

Principle

• Question the need for a machinery and grain store as most of the land is contracted out; • Major development in the Green Belt; • No justification for the increase in the building size;

Impact on Highway Safety

• Impact on Highways Safety; • The existing public footpath could be used for access; • The previous access is preferred; • Why can’t the recently constructed track be used as access from Goose Lane; • There are other existing access points that can be utilised; • The applicant has allowed the use of the land for an equestrian fun ride and the access point utilised was the previously consented location; • If the current internal roads are suitable for large equestrian vehicles – why the need for a new access?

289

Impact on the character of the area

• Grain and machinery store is closer and more visible than the previous application; • Impact on the hedgerow and loss of trees; • Proposal will alter the character and aspect of the approach to Hatton Village;

Other Issues

• No consultation prior to this application; • Not an amendment to the previous one;

5 CONSULTEES

WBC Transport Planning and Development Control – No objection to the proposal subject to the requested conditions being added to any permission

WBC Environmental Protection – No objection

Natural England – No objection

Greater Manchester Ecology Unit – no objection subject to the requested condition and informatives being added to any permission

6 RELEVANT SITE HISTORY – on land in the applicants ownership

Planning Ref: 2019/35472 Description of Full Planning (Major) - Proposed Erection of Grain Store, Development Machinery Store, Agricultural Yard Area and alterations to vehicular access Decision Approved subject to conditions – 31/10/2019

Planning Ref: 2017/31794 Description of Full Planning - Proposed construction of Grain Store, Machinery Development Store and Agricultural Yard Area Decision Refused – Appeal dismissed February 2019

7 PLANNING POLICY

7.1 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 planning considerations support a different decision being taken. Whilst third party representations are regarded as material planning considerations (assuming that 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.

290 National Planning Policy Framework 2019 (NPPF)

7.2 The Revised National Planning Policy Framework (2019) (NPPF) 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.

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

7.4 As stated above, the NPPF re-iterates 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 (2014).

Relevant Policies in the Local Plan Core Strategy (2014):

Policy CS1 Overall Spatial Strategy – Delivering Sustainable Development Policy CS 5 – Green Belt Policy CC1 – Inset and Green Belt Settlements QE5 – Biodiversity and Geodiversity QE6 – Environment and Amenity Protection QE7 – Ensuring a high quality place Policy MP1 General Transport Principles Policy MP7 Transport Assessments and Travel Plans

7.5 The Council has prepared a number of Supplementary Planning Documents to guide development in the Borough, documents relevant to this proposal include:

Planning Obligations Design & Construction Standards for Parking in New Development

8 EQUALITIES ACT (2010)

8.1 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.

9 ASSESSMENT

9.1 The key issues of this particular application relate to:

• The principle of the development • Visual Amenity • Highways matters

291

• Residential Living Conditions

Principle

9.2 The NPPF identifies the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence.

9.3 Paragraph 134 notes that Green Belt serves five purposes:

9.4 Paragraph 145 establishes the principle of inappropriate development stating that “A local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in Green Belt”. It goes on to outline a series of exceptions to this, including “buildings for agriculture and forestry”.

9.5 Policy CS5 of the Warrington Borough Council Core Strategy states that the Council will maintain the general extent of the Green Belt in order to check the unrestricted sprawl of large, built up areas; to prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another; to assist is safeguarding the countryside from encroachment and to assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. In order to achieve this objective policy CS5 states that development proposals within the Green Belt will be approved where they accord with the relevant national policy.

9.6 The application seeks consent for two new buildings to be used primarily as a grain store and machinery store. The planning history of the site demonstrates the applicant’s intentions to seek planning permission to erect agricultural buildings on the site as when purchasing the agricultural land no buildings were purchased alongside the land. The first application was refused and then dismissed at appeal, however, the Appeal Inspector accepted during this case that the proposed buildings and the submitted agricultural justification was acceptable but the proposed location of the buildings was not considered to be acceptable as it was considered that the location of the site adjacent to the road was prominent and would be particularly visible due to the location and caused an introduction of built development on a rural site where there is currently none.

9.7 To ensure that only buildings required for the purpose of agriculture are permitted within the Green Belt, justification for the size and number of agricultural buildings is required to be submitted with any application. The agricultural justification submitted in support of the appeal scheme was for larger buildings than in the appealed application and for the same size building as in the current planning application. The Inspector accepted in the previous appeal that the buildings were required for the purposes of agriculture but the location of them was not accepted.

292 The further subsequent application (2019/35472) was again for smaller buildings as a number of the fields were contracted out and the sale of the crops had reached a higher price and therefore storage and servicing requirements were lower than they were in the 2017 application (subject to appeal). The price of the crop has fallen so there is now the intention to store it on the site and supply the market over a longer period rather than immediately and reduce overheads and the intention is also that the fields are no longer contracted out. The 2019 planning application was approved as the Inspector validated the agricultural need for the buildings. The applicant has now proposed that there are still to be two buildings on the site, however, one of them is proposed to be 13 percent larger (the previously approved floor area was 305 and now proposed at 345) than the one approved in 2019 with the other having the same approved floor area. The applicant has set out their change in the approach within the justification submitting it support of the application and following receipt of additional justification. The Local Planning authority are satisfied with the submitted justification as whilst the Inspector dismissed the appeal, the agricultural justification for the required size of buildings was accepted and the buildings proposed now fulfil that agricultural justification.

9.8 As the buildings are used for agricultural purposes and as such it is, by definition, an appropriate form of development within the Green Belt, with the presence of such buildings not being deemed to be harmful to the openness of the green belt or the purposes of including land within it – see extract from the decision of (Lee Valley Regional Park Authority) v Epping Forest DC [2016] (the references in the extract refer to the previous NPPF however remain consistent with the policy set out in the revised NPPF published in 2019) –

9.9 Implicit in the policy in paragraph 89 of the NPPF is a recognition that agriculture and forestry can only be carried on, and buildings for those activities will have to be constructed, in the countryside, including countryside in the Green Belt. Of course, as a matter of fact, the construction of such buildings in the Green Belt will reduce the amount of Green Belt land without built development upon it. But under NPPF policy, the physical presence of such buildings in the Green Belt is not, in itself, regarded as harmful to the openness of the Green Belt or to the purposes of including land in the Green Belt. This is not a matter of planning judgment. It is simply a matter of policy. Where the development proposed is an agricultural building, neither its status as appropriate development nor the deemed absence of harm to the openness of the Green Belt and to the purposes of including land in the Green Belt depends on the judgment of the decision-maker. Both are inherent in the policy.

9.10 Therefore, as the buildings are for the purpose of agriculture they are classed as agricultural building and therefore the proposal is considered to represent an appropriate form of development within the Green Belt in accordance with policy CS5 of the Warrington Core Strategy and national Green Belt policy as set out in the NPPF. The development is therefore considered to be acceptable in principle, subject to an assessment of the visual effects of the development and the protection of the countryside or character of the landscape.

293 Visual Amenity

9.11 The site comprises several fields located to the east of Warrington Road with woodland to the east and north of the site. The wider site has been the subject of 2 previous planning applications for agricultural buildings as shown within the planning history. The first application was subject to an appeal and when determining this appeal the Inspector stated that whilst the site was not subject to any landscape designation, its undeveloped nature makes an important contribution to the character of this part of the countryside. The Inspector considered that the design and materials of the proposed buildings were appropriate in a rural setting, however, they concluded that the development would result in the introduction of built development on a rural site where there is currently none and would be particular visible due to their location and that this was harmful to the open character of the area.

9.12 The second application sought to address the Inspector’s concerns by locating the buildings in a less visible location with woodland wrapped round the site to the east and north and locating the buildings a considerable distance from the road, this amended layout was considered acceptable and planning permission was granted in 2019. This application proposes an increase in the size of the previously permitted buildings and yard, the reorientation of the machinery store so that it is now located parallel with the road and includes the relocation of the access and track. .

9.13 The proposed buildings are located over 240 metres away from Warrington Road with an area of woodland located to the east and north of the site. The previous application granted consent for the grain store to have a floor area of 345m2 and the machinery store to have a floor area of 305m2. It is acknowledged that this proposal is for a significantly larger machinery store as the proposed floor area is 345m2 in comparison to the previously approved 305m2, however, the size of the grain store is the same as previously consented. It is considered that the design and size of the buildings are of a comparable scale, massing and design to many agricultural buildings. Sufficient agricultural justification has been provided with the application for the size of the proposed buildings and yard.

9.14 The use of a brick built plinth and then green cladding to the walls and roof of the buildings are typical materials for agricultural buildings and it is not unusual to see agricultural buildings in the open countryside as they are sited in proximity to the fields that require them. It is considered that locating the proposed buildings adjacent to the existing field boundaries and adjacent to the existing woodland that is located to the north and east of the site means that the buildings relate satisfactorily to their rural setting and respects the local landscape character and the distinctiveness of the surrounding countryside. The location of the buildings adjacent to the woodland also reduces the appearance of the buildings in long range views across the countryside and landscape as does the undulating landscape as the woods are located at a slightly higher level than the application site. The proposal also includes the translocation of a section of hedge from adjacent to Warrington Road to a maximum of 9 metres into the site (the existing hedge is curved and the new hedge is proposed to be straight, the proposed alteration to the hedgerow with conditions relating to replacement if failures is not

294 considered to have an adverse impact on the character of the area. It is also considered necessary to add a landscape condition so that additional planting occurs to the southern edge of the buildings and the western edge of the farm yard.

9.15 The proposal is therefore considered to be in accordance with policies CS1 and QE7 of the Warrington Borough Council Core Strategy and the design policies in the National Planning Policy Framework

Highway Matters

9.16 Policy CS1 of the Warrington Borough Council Core Strategy identifies the need protect public safety. Policy QE6 of the Warrington Borough Council Core Strategy identifies the need to consider the effect and timing of traffic movements to, from and within the site, and whether adequate car parking is proposed in order to ensure that any new development does not have an adverse impact upon highway safety.

9.17 Policy MP1 of the Warrington Borough Council Core Strategy states that in order to secure sustainable development the Council will support proposals where they adhere to locally determined car and cycle parking standards. Policy MP7 of the Warrington Borough Council Core Strategy states that the Council will require all development to (a) demonstrate that it will not significant harm highway safety and (b) show that all trips generated by development can be adequately served by Warrington’s Transport Network. Where a development will have a significant effect on the transport network policy MP7 advises that appropriate mitigation measures, including any necessary transport infrastructure, will need to be put in place before the development is used or occupied.

9.18 The Highways Team have been consulted on the application and whilst the applicants propose to utilise the existing field access, this currently does not meet the required visibility standard for a 40mph road, however, the applicants have proposed to relocate hedgerow to create a visibility splay of 2.4 by 90m and with this amendment the access is acceptable. The visibility requirements are based on Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) requirements as DMRB quotes a 90 metre visibility splay for 60kph and 120 metres for 70kph and 40 mph converts to around 60 kph, it is not considered necessary to double the visibility splays for an increase in road speed of approximately 3 miles per hour as this would lead to the removal of a significant amount of hedgerow and the existing visibility splay is considered acceptable/sufficient for highway safety. It was not considered necessary to require a speed survey as they are unreasonable unless there is a known speed issue, there are no records for accidents in the locale and there is no recognised problem of excessive speed based on the accident data.

9.19 The proposal is considered to be an improvement on the previous access arrangements as it is no longer proposed for the track to cross the public right of way (PROW). With the track crossing the PROW previously there was a concern that there could be conflict between pedestrians and farm vehicles, however it was considered that the harm could be overcome by ensuring that pedestrian visibility was achieved. It is now proposed to utilise an existing field access to the south of

295

the previously approved track location and for a track to run north inside the existing field boundary (but parallell to it) until it reaches the northern field boundary and then head east towards the yard and location of the buildings (to the south of the PROW) and to the south of the existing field boundary. The field acess is already in existence and farm vehicles can already utilise it to access the fields in this location. The existing field in this location appears to have been left fallow and mown already to allow for existing farm vehicles to travel around the outside of the field. There are no formal laid tracks already located within the fields, rather there are areas of the field where the mud has compacted and that are not planted to allow for vehicles to drive over them.

9.20 With the proposed alterations to the existing access arrangements to improve visibility and the submission of the final details of the construction of the track adjacent to the Highway the proposals are not considered to have a detrimental impact on highway safety.

9.21 Having regard to the comments of the WBC Transport Planning and Development Control it is considered that the proposed access arrangements are acceptable and therefore it is not considered that the proposal would not raise any issues from a highway or pedestrian safety perspective. The proposed development is therefore considered to be in accordance with policies CS1, QE6, MP1 and MP7 of the Warrington Borough Council Core Strategy.

Residential Amenity

9.22 Policy CS1 identifies the need to safeguard residential amenity, while policy QE6 states that consideration should be had to the need to respect the living conditions of existing neighbouring residential occupiers. The NPPF states that planning should always seek to secure a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings.

9.23 The area of the site proposed to accommodate the buildings and yard is bounded to all sides by farmland with a road located to the west of a section of the access track.

9.24 The proposed buildings are located a significant distance from any neighbouring properties with the closest neighbouring property being located over 250m to the east and west of the site from the site of the buildings.

9.25 Having regard to the level of separation that is provided between the barn and the neighbouring properties it is not considered that the introduction of the barns would result in neighbouring residents experiencing a loss of light, privacy and/or any overbearing impact.

9.26 In respect of noise and disturbance the proposal is primarily used as a machine store and for grain with the work being undertaken mainly during the summer months. The buildings are orientated to face onto the limestone yard with one of the doors serving the grain store facing towards the residential properties to the east and the one of the grain store doors facing west and two of the machinery store doors. With a separation distance of over 250 metres existing on site from

296 the nearest residential properties (not associated with the farm), it is not considered that the introduction of the barns would result in neighbouring land users experiencing a loss of amenity by virtue of them being exposed to increased levels of noise and disturbance. The Council’s Environmental Health officer has raised no objections to the proposal.

9.27 In relation to the track, it is separated from the existing residential properties to the southwest of the site by an existing hedge and road. At the closest point to the neighbouring properties, the access to the site is located to the south of the access serving the Hatton Lodge properties with the proposed access track being over 30 metres away. The proposed track would not be illuminated and would only be used by a limited number of vehicles serving the fields and buildings and the number of vehicles using the site will be seasonal. The proposed track is not considered to have a detrimental impact on the residential amenity of the neighbouring properties through noise and disturbance as the farm vehicles could already utilise this access and whilst it may increase movements through it, this is not considered to have a detrimental impact on residential amenity.

9.28 The proposal is therefore considered to be in accordance with policies CS1 and QE6 of the Warrington Borough Council Core Strategy and the amenity policies in the NPPF.

Biodiversity

9.29 The application site is located on existing farm land and involves the loss of a section of hedgerow and areas of arable field. The application was submitted with ecological information which is considered to be valid and ponds within 500 metres of the proposed development were assessed for Great Crested Newt potential. The development has been assessed as posing negligible risk to Great Crested Newts and on this basis, the proposal is considered to be acceptable.

9.30 The application also proposes the translocation of 26 metres of hedgerow on either side of the access to improve the visibility splays and they are proposed to be translocated further into the site creating a straight hedge line rather than the existing curved field boundary and any gaps in the existing hedgerow once relocated are also proposed to be gapped up. Hedgerows have the potential to host nesting birds and it is considered necessary to add a condition to any permission requiring these works to be undertaken outside the bird nesting season.

9.31 The NPPF requires that planning applications should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment, the development will result in the loss in a small element of hedgerow as the translocated hedgerow will have a slightly shorter length than the existing hedgerow and the loss of low value habitat through the creation of the yard and track. To mitigate against this loss, it is considered necessary to add a condition to the permission requiring landscaping to be undertaking on the site around the proposed yard area.

297 9.32 With the proposed conditions relating nesting birds and landscaping the proposal is considered to comply with the provisions on the NPPF and policies CS6, QE3 and QE5 of the Local Plan

Other Issues

9.33 In relation to the use of the land for an equestrian riding event, that is not the subject of this planning application and the matter has been referred to Planning Enforcement for their consideration.

9.34 In relation to the potential alternative use of the other field accesses that are located within the applicant’s site, these accesses have not been put forward by the applicant and the Council is bound to assess the merits of the proposal that has been submitted and the Highways Officer has confirmed that the use of the existing access is acceptable.

9.35 In relation to the applicant not discussing the proposal with the neighbouring residents prior to submission, this is considered best practice for applicants to undertake this however there is no requirement for applicants to undertake this.

9.36 The applicants have submitted this application as an alternative scheme to one granted in 2019 as areas of the application overlap with one another – it is accepted that this is not a variation to this application, rather it would represent a brand new permission so if the application was granted a unilateral undertaking would be required to ensure that only one of the permission could be implemented.

10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

10.1 The proposal is acceptable in principle and is appropriate development in the Green Belt and secures the high quality development sought by the Core Strategy. The proposal would have no harmful impact on the amenities of the adjacent properties and the application demonstrates that the impact on the highway network would be acceptable.

10.2 The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

11 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 documents:

298

(a) The planning application forms, design and access statement and additional information received by Warrington Borough Council on (b) Submitted drawing number 0641-04 revision iv - Proposed Buildings at Land Off Warrington Road, Hatton, Warrington, WA4 5NZ received on 29/08/2020 (c) Submitted drawing number 0641-03 revision i - Proposed Site Plan at Land off Warrington Road, Hatton, Warrington, WA4 5NZ received on 21/04/2020

Reason: for the avoidance of doubt and to enable Warrington Borough Council to adequately control the development and to minimise its impact on the amenities of the local area and to conform with Policy QE7 of the Warrington Core Strategy.

3. Notwithstanding the details provided, precise details of the construction and finish of the access road shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council as Local Planning Authority prior to the laying of the road. The approved works shall subsequently be constructed to those agreed details.

Reason: To ensure that satisfactory access is provided before the development becomes operative in the interests of road safety and for the convenience of users of the highway.

4. All materials to be used in the approved scheme shall be as stated on the application form and approved drawings and shall not be varied without the prior written approval of the Local Planning authority

Reason: To ensure that the development will be of a satisfactory appearance and to comply with Policy QE7 of the Warrington Core Strategy and the Warrington SPD: Design and Construction

5. The translocation of the hedge to create the visibility splay shall be undertaken in accordance with the details set out on approved drawing number 0641-03 Revision i. Any tree, element of hedgerow or shrub planted which dies or is felled, uprooted, wilfully damaged or destroyed in the first five year period commencing with the date of planting shall be replaced by the applicants or their successors in title.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory form of development and to enhance the visual amenities of the locality and to comply with Policy QE7 of the Warrington Core Strategy and the Warrington SPD: Design and Construction.

6. Tree felling, vegetation clearance works, demolition work or other works that may affect nesting birds shall not be undertaken between March and August inclusive, unless the absence of nesting birds has been confirmed by further surveys or inspections approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In order to avoid adverse impacts on nesting birds and to comply with the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended)] and the NPPF.

299 7. No part of the development shall be brought into use until visibility splays of 2.4 x 90 metres, measured as described in Section 7.7 of Manual for Streets (DfT, DCLG, Welsh Assembly, 2007) have been provided at the proposed junction with Warrington Road. The splays shall be provided clear of obstruction to visibility to verge level. Once created, the visibility splays shall be maintained clear of any obstruction above 600mm and shall be retained at all times.

Reason: To ensure adequate visibility at the junction or site access is made and maintained in the interests of road safety.

300 12 PLAN EXTRACTS

Appendix One - Proposed Site Layout Plan

Appendix Two - Proposed Access

301 Appendix Three - Proposed Elevations

Appendix Four - Location plan for current application:

302 Appendix Five – Location plan for current application with neighbouring properties identified

Appendix Six - Location plan for 2019/35472:

303 Appendix Seven - Location plan for 2017/31794

Appendix Eight - Photographs of site View towards application site from adjacent view to the west

304

Existing Field Gate

Existing access to 1 and 2 Hatton Lodge

305 ARTICLE 35 STATEMENT Officers have worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner in order to seek solutions to the issues relevant to the proposed development, consistent with the requirement in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paragraph 38.

306 WARRINGTON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING DEPARTMENT

DMC 30th September 2020

307 DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE DATE 30 SEPTEMBER 2020

ITEM 3

Application Number: 2020/37026

Description of Development: Full Planning - Proposed Self Build Rural Workers Dwelling

Location Address: Bridge Farm, Dam Lane, Rixton-With- Glazebrook, Warrington, WA3 6LE

Applicant: J Atherton

Ward: Rixton and Woolston

Parish: Rixton-With-Glazebrook

Site Allocation: N/A

Number of representations 0 received: Reason for Referral: Parish Council Objection, contrary to recommendation

Statutory expiry date: 16 July 2020

Recommendation: Grant, subject to conditions

Case Officer: Matthew Coyne

[email protected]

SUMMARY OF KEY REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION

• The principle of a dwelling is considered to be acceptable. • Whilst the proposals would be classed as ‘inappropriate development’ within the Green Belt, Very Special Circumstances have been identified and justify the proposed development. • The proposals are considered to be of an acceptable design, scale and position within the site. • The proposed development is not considered to be harmful to residential amenity • The proposed development is served by a suitable access and is provided with an acceptable standard of car parking. • The development is not considered to impact on any protected species and biodiversity enhancement measures can be secured through a condition.

308

OFFICER’S REPORT TO PLANNING COMMITTEE

1. APPLICATION SITE AND SURROUNDINGS

1.1 The application site is located on the eastern periphery of Warrington, north west of the village of Hollins Green, in an area of Green Belt. Bridge Farm is a large farmstead and the sole remaining active agricultural enterprise in the immediate locality. The existing farming enterprise is dominated by two main activities – horticulture (the growing of bedding plants) and arable crop production.

1.2 The site has a number of existing buildings within it, concentrated around the northern part of the site and adjacent to Dam Lane. The buildings are comprised of a mixture of modern style agricultural buildings (of blockwork and profiled sheet construction); greenhouses; and a small porta cabin office.

1.3 The application site does not contain any listed buildings and is not situated within a designated Conservation Area. It is, however, noted, that the development is close to Ivy Cottage, a two storey ‘Locally Listed Building’. The site is also situated within the designated Green Belt.

2. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL

2.1 The application seeks planning permissions for a self-build rural workers dwelling

2.2 The dwelling would be accessed via the existing gates serving the farm complex, which would lead to an access road through the existing service yard. The dwelling would be situated at the end of the access road, at the western part of the site.

2.3 The main part of the dwelling (including the principal elevation) would be 15.3m x 7.85m and the rear projection would be 6.2m x 5.5m. The dwelling would be single storey in height and would have an eaves height of 2.4m and a ridge height of approximately 6m.

2.4 The dwelling would be constructed of brick under a natural slate roof and it would have brick solider course detailing and sandstone window cils.

2.5 Landscaping is indicated around the dwelling, including timber post and rail fences to the front of the site, new hedgerows and a timber panel fence at the rear garden.

3. AMENDED PLANS

3.1 No amended plans or additional information was required or submitted during the course of the application.

309

4. LOCAL REPRESENTATIONS

4.1 Ward Councillors – none received.

4.2 Parish Council

Rixton-with-Glazebrook Parish Council objects to the application on the basis that the site has ‘already seen development for housing on the farm site’ (20.06.2020).

4.3 General Public

The application was publicised by a site notice and neighbour notification letters, sent to those properties immediately adjoining the application site. No responses from third parties were received.

5. CONSULTEES

5.1 WBC Transport Planning and Development Control – ‘No objections’, subject to a condition requiring the provision of an electric vehicle charging point (04.06.2020).

5.2 WBC Environment & Public Protection – ‘No objections’, subject to conditions regarding land contamination and remediation (15.06.2020)

5.3 GMEU – no ecological assessment is required and there are no known survey requirements in order for this application to proceed to determination. Conditions are recommended to secure a native hedgerow and the use of bat bricks on the development (02.06.2020).

5.4 Cadnet Gas Ltd – National Grid Electricity Transmission plc (NGET) – it is noted that there is apparatus in the vicinity of the site which may be affected by the proposed development. No objections were raised but it is recommended that the contractor contact ‘Plant Protection’ before any works are carried out to ensure the apparatus is not affected by any of the proposed works (27.05.2020).

‘From the information provided, it does not appear the proposed works will directly affect the above pipeline’. (04.06.2020).

5.5 United Utilities – no objections were raised, but comments were made in regard to surface and foul water drainage (29.05.2020)

6. RELEVANT SITE HISTORY

6.1 The site has a complex planning history. The entries below are considered to be those relevant to the current application.

310 Planning Ref: 74/0984 Description of Detailed app. For the erection of a bungalow and garage. (outline app. Development 73/1061). Decision Approved With Conditions 28.11.1974 Planning Ref: 96/35761 Description of Prior Approval - Proposed Alteration And Extension To Existing Building Development And New Polytunnel Decision Planning Permission Required 26.11.1996 Planning Ref: A02/45807 Description of Proposed Extension To Existing Greenhouses For Production Of Bedding Development Plants Decision Approved with Conditions 25.09.2002 Planning Ref: 2013/21781 Description of Full Planning - Proposed greenhouse. Development Decision Approved with Conditions 27.06.2013 Planning Ref: 2018/32575 Description of Prior Notification – Proposed Grain Store Development Decision Prior Approval Not Required 15.05.2018

6.2 The applicants sought pre-application advice prior to the submission of this application (PR/2020/04400 refers). Advice was provided in regard to the principle and green belt matters. General advice was also given in regard to visual amenity, residential amenity, highway safety, ecology and drainage matters.

7. PLANNING POLICY

7.2 National Planning Policy Framework 2019 (NPPF)

The National Planning Policy Framework (2019) (NPPF) 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.

311 7.3 Where there are other specific, relevant, material issues raised in the NPPF these will be discussed within the Assessment below.

7.5 Relevant Policies in the Local Plan Core Strategy (2014)

• CS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development • CS2 – Distribution Of Development • CS3 – Maintaining A 10 Year Forward Supply Of Housing Land • CS4 – Transport • CS5 – Green Belt • CS9 – Strategic Location – Inner Warrington • CC1 – Inset and Green Belt Settlements • CC2 – Protecting the Countryside • SN1 – Distribution And Nature Of New Housing • SN2 – Securing Mixed And Inclusive Neighbourhoods • SN6 – Sustaining The Local Economy And Services • QE4 – Flood Risk • QE5 – Biodiversity and Geodiversity • QE6 – Environment And Amenity Protection • QE7 – Ensuring A High Quality Place • MP3 – General Transport Principles

8. EQUALITIES ACT (2010)

9. ASSESSMENT

9.1 The key issues of this particular application relate to:

• Principle of Development; • Design/ Impact on Character & Appearance • Residential Amenity • Highway Safety • Other Matters

9.2 Principle of Development

9.3 The principle of development is to be assessed against Policy CS1 of the adopted Local Plan which seeks to ensure that development proposals that are sustainable will be supported within the borough, in line with the NPPF.

312 9.4 Paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that a presumption of sustainable development should be seen as a golden thread running through decision taking and taken as a whole, constitute the Government’s view of what sustainable development in England means in practice for the planning system. The NPPF goes on to say that, to achieve sustainable development, economic, social and environmental gains should be sought jointly and simultaneously through the planning system.

9.5 Paragraph 12 of the NPPF notes that the development plan is the starting point of decision making. Proposed development that accords with an up-to-date Local Plan should be approved, and proposed development that conflicts should be refused unless other material considerations indicate otherwise. The Local Plan housing targets were quashed by the High Court in February 2015 and in the absence of such a housing target, the Council is not currently able to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply. As such, the tilted balance at Paragraph 11 of The Framework applies. It is considered that this single dwelling will make a small contribution towards the supply of homes across the borough.

9.6 Paragraph 11 of the NPPF goes on to state that where there are no relevant plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, local authorities should grant permission unless the application of policies in the NPPF that protect areas of assets of particular importance provides clear reason for refusing the development proposed. The NPPF goes on to define the Green Belt as a protected area. As such, it is considered that very limited weight should be afforded to the lack of 5 year housing land supply.

9.7 Policy SN1 of the Local Plan Core Strategy states that, in accordance with Policy CS2, 80% of new homes to be delivered within the borough will be focused on previously developed land. In terms of distribution, 60% of new homes will be delivered within Inner Warrington inclusive of the Town Centre, where development will be welcomed as a catalyst to secure physical, environmental, social and economic regeneration in accordance with Local Plan Core Strategy Policy CS9. The remaining 40% of new homes will be achieved primarily through development within the suburban areas of the town of Warrington and development within the Borough’s defined outlying settlements.

9.8 Policy SN1 goes on to state that, within the Green Belt, outside any of the borough's defined settlements, new housing will only be approved where the proposal accords with relevant national policy. The application site is situated within the Green Belt and outside of any defined settlement, albeit in close proximity to a small ribbon of residential development.

Green Belt

9.9 Paragraph 133 of the NPPF advises that the fundamental aim of Green Belt Policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the

313 essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence.

9.10 Paragraph 134 states the five purposes of the Green Belt, while paragraphs 143-144 set out the importance of preventing inappropriate development, except where very special circumstances have been demonstrated that clearly outweigh the harm.

9.11 In addition to the above, Policy CS 5 states that development proposals within the Green Belt will be approved where they accord with relevant national policy. Paras. 143-147 of the NPPF sets out the national policy when determining applications within the Green Belt and sets out (at Para. 145) development which is not considered inappropriate within the Green Belt.

9.12 In relation to those listed exceptions, the building is not proposed for agriculture or forestry; would not be the provision of a facility for outdoor sport or recreation; would not be an extension to an existing building; is not a replacement building for that of the same use; is not limited infilling within a village; is not limited affordable housing for a local community need; and is not considered to be redevelopment of Previously Development Land (PDL excludes land that is or was last occupied by agricultural buildings). Accordingly, the development is considered to be inappropriate development within the Green Belt.

9.13 Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. 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.

9.14 It is established that an agricultural workers dwelling can be classed as a VSC, where the functional need for that dwelling can be demonstrated. The design and access statement submitted in support of the application is comprehensive and puts forward a case for the functional need of a dwelling associated with the farming enterprise. The following paragraphs of this report analyse the case presented.

9.15 The applicants have a large horticulture and arable crop business. Both aspects of the use require a significant amount of input from the applicant. The applicant’s father and uncle previously ran the operations at the site and have either now moved on or have retired from the farming activities. The business is now currently run and operated by the applicant, with only minimal help from a seasonal worker.

9.16 The primary reason for this application relates to the horticultural aspect of the business. The applicant currently germinates and supplies a number of garden centres with bedding plants. This process requires growing seedlings within heated greenhouses (up to 248,000 plants are grown within the greenhouses at time – although it is understood that this could increase by 38% next year due to new contracts). The heating systems rely predominantly on gas powered

314 heaters. During the autumn/winter months, any failures in the heating systems or damage to the greenhouses can result in the loss of crops, which has the potential to cause large financial losses for the business.

9.17 The Design and Access statement suggests that the applicant works approximately 14 – 18 hours a day during the spring and summer months – totalling 4800 hours a year. This equates to 2.5 Annual Work Units (1 AWU being the work performed by one person who is occupied on an agricultural holding on a full-time basis).

9.18 It is understood that the applicant lives approximately 15 minutes’ drive from the site and therefore if he is required to attend during the night it could take up to 25 minutes before he is able to attend. At which point any issues need to be identified and resolved. If the temperature of the greenhouses falls below 2 degrees, it could have a significant impact on the crops. Heaters are set to a minimum of 9 degrees – as if they are set any lower it becomes financially unviable. If the temperature inside drops below 6 degrees an alarm is triggered. The applicants advise that on average, the alarms are triggered 8 times per month. Automated systems are in place, however, many of the issues require the applicant to physically attend the site to resolve the problems.

9.19 Notwithstanding the above, the arable crop production (the other aspect of the applicants farming business) requires a significant amount of input during harvesting. Furthermore, the cereal is stored and dried on site, which requires regular control (over-heating or under-heating can cause crops to spoil). The drying process requires regular checks and any issues need to be resolved quickly. During the harvesting season, this could be at any time of the day.

9.20 It has also been argued that the applicants need to be on site for security reasons – due to the rural nature of the site and the risks of theft of machinery. Implications on insurance premiums are also cited within the design and access statement.

9.21 In addition to the above, a full set of the business accounts have been provided. These indicate that the existing business is financially viable and has consistently made profits in 2018 and 2019.This indicates that the ongoing operation of the use of the business is likely to continue once dwelling has been built.

9.22 It is noted that there are two properties adjacent to the existing farm complex, namely Bridge Farm and Lynmere. It is understood that Bridge Farm was previously owned by the applicant’s uncle. This property has since been sold and is now in different ownership. Lynmere is within the same family ownership, however, this property does not appear to have any agricultural ties and therefore could be sold to a non-agricultural worker without restriction. The family member who currently resides there, however, intends to continue to occupy the property and it would be unreasonable to expect it to be vacated to allow the applicant to occupy it as part of the farm business.

315 9.23 Having regard to the above, it is considered that the existing farm complex does not have an associated farm house which tied to an agricultural worker. It is noted that the Parish Council have objected on the basis that the farm complex has already seen development for housing. However, the only planning application for residential development on this site appears to be from 1974 and this permission did not restrict the dwelling to only be used by agricultural worker or in conjunction with the farming unit.

9.24 The applicants were asked to provide a list of those properties within the local area which are currently on the market (at the time of the submission of the application). These were provided in appendix 6 of the Design and Access Statement. All of these properties are above the applicant’s budget. The proposed dwelling is also intended as a partial self-build project.

9.25 The nature of the proposed development, specifically the applicant’s existing proximity from the site, the financial implications of loss of crops, matters of security, a lack of existing accommodation on the farmstead, a lack of available affordable housing in the local area, the provision of an additional house towards the Council’s figures, and the self-built nature of the development, are considered to amount to Very Special Circumstances which would warrant allowing a dwelling in this location.

9.26 Having regard to the above, it is considered that the development is in accordance with Policies SN1, CS5 and CC2 of the Local Plan Core Strategy and Government guidance contained within the NPPF. A condition is considered reasonable and necessary to restrict the use of the proposed dwelling to only be occupied by a person(s) who is employed as a rural worker.

9.27 Design and Impact on Character & Appearance of the Area

9.28 Section 12 of the NPPF relates to achieving well-designed places. Para.124 states that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people. Further, permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions (Para.130). The emphasis on good design is continued within the Government’s National Design Guide (September 2019).

9.29 Policy QE 7 of the Local Plan states that the Council will look positively upon proposals which are of good design and reinforce local distinctiveness and enhance the character, appearance and function of the street scene, local area and wider townscape.

9.30 Policy CC2 of the Local Plan states that development proposals in the countryside which accord with Green Belt policies set out in national planning policy will be supported provided that the detailed siting and design of the development relates satisfactorily to its rural setting, in terms of its scale, layout and use of materials; and that they respect local landscape character, both in terms of immediate impact or from distance views.

316 9.31 The proposed dwelling would be sited within the western corner of the existing farm complex, on land between an existing farm building and a dwelling known as Ivy Cottage. The existing land is surfaced with compacted aggregate and contains an existing welfare building (in the form of a caravan-type building) and storage unit. These structures would be removed as part of the application and replaced with a single storey dwelling.

9.32 The dwelling has been designed in a sympathetic manner, it is single storey in height and respects the traditional form of buildings in the area. It has a traditional use of brick and slate which is appropriate for its rural setting.

9.33 The proposals have been submitted with a detailed landscaping scheme which would help the development assimilate into the landscape. The development has been designed to have a limited residential curtilage which lessens the impact of the development on the area and restricts sprawl into the countryside. It is recommended that permitted development rights are removed by way of condition to contain the development and limit any potential harm caused by additions to the property.

9.34 Having regard to the above, the proposed development is considered to be of an acceptable, design, layout and scale and would not have an impact on the character of the area. The proposal is therefore considered to be in accordance with Policies QE 7 and CC2 of the Local Plan Core Strategy and Government guidance contained within the NPPF.

9.35 Residential Amenity

9.36 Policy QE 6 of the Local Plan states that the Council will only support development which would not lead to an adverse impact on the environment or amenity of future occupiers or those currently occupying adjoining or nearby properties, or does not have an unacceptable impact on the surrounding area.

9.37 The proposed dwelling is situated to the western part of the existing farm complex and approximately 5.5m south of the boundary with the neighbouring Ivy Cottage. The proposed development is single storey in height and as such, is not considered to have an overbearing impact on the neighbouring occupiers.

9.38 Further to the above, the proposed development is not considered to give rise to a loss of privacy due to the position of the windows and the intervening tall hedgerow (between the application site and the neighbouring property).

9.39 The proposed dwelling would be provided with a garden and patio area, to the south of the dwelling, which would be approximately 160sqm in size. It is considered that is would provide the future occupiers with an acceptable standard of outdoor amenity space.

9.40 The Environmental Health Officer was consulted on the application and they raise no objections to the proposal, subject to conditions relating to land contamination.

317 9.41 Having regard to the above, it is considered that the proposed development would not result in any detrimental harm to the residential amenity of the neighbouring occupiers through an increase in noise or disturbance, loss of privacy or being an overbearing form of development. The proposals therefore accords with Policies QE6 and QE7 of the Local Plan and Government guidance contained within the NPPF.

9.42 Highway Safety

9.43 Policy CS4 of the Local Plan sets out the Council’s strategic objectives in regard to transport within the borough. The Policy states that, in accordance with Policy CS2, development will be located to reduce the need to travel, especially by car (this is also supported by policies MP3 and MP4). Policy QE6 also states that consideration will be made to the effect and timing of traffic movement to, from and within the site and car parking including impacts on highway safety.

9.44 The proposed dwelling is served by an existing access to the farm complex and a new access route would be created through the existing yard to the dwelling. The proposed dwelling would also be provided with 3 car parking spaces.

9.45 The Highways Engineer was consulted on the application and raises no objections to the proposals. They note that the existing site access is robust and fit for purpose and that there is adequate parking and turning provision for the proposed dwelling.

9.46 A condition was recommended regarding electric vehicle charging points. Given the sites rural location and the Government’s commitment to introducing electric vehicles, it is considered prudent to require this (to futureproof the development and to encourage a shift towards more sustainable transport solutions).

9.47 Having regard to the above and in the absence of objections from the Highways Engineer, the development is not considered to cause any harm to the amenity or safety of the highway, in accordance with Policies QE6 and MP7; The Parking Standards SPD; and government guidance contained within the NPPF.

9.48 Ecology

9.49 Particular attention must be paid to the ‘The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010’. Policy QE 5 of the Local Plan states that the Council will work to protect and enhance sites of nature and geological value. Policy QE 6 goes on to state that protection will be afforded to ensure that the development does not have an unacceptable impact on the surrounding area.

9.50 Greater Manchester Ecology Unit advised that no ecological assessment is required and there are no known survey requirements in order for this application to proceed to determination. Conditions are recommended to secure a native hedgerow and the use of bat bricks on the development.

318 9.51 Subject to the aforementioned conditions it is considered that the development would be acceptable in regard to protected species, in accordance with Policy QE5 of the Local Plan Core Strategy and Government guidance contained within the NPPF.

9.52 Other Matters

9.53 The proposals include the provision of a soakaway for surface water. A septic tank with soakaway is also provided for foul water. No objections were provided from united utilities and therefore this is considered to be acceptable.

9.54 Comments were received from Cadent Gas Ltd (National Grid Electricity Transmission plc), due to the position of high pressure pipelines and apparatus within the vicinity of the site. A subsequent correspondence was received which states that the proposals do not appear to directly affect the pipeline. It is, however, recommended that the applicant contact Cadent’s Plant Protection team before works are carried out.

10. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

10.1 The proposals are considered to be ‘inappropriate development’ within the Green Belt, but the applicant has adequately demonstrated Very Special Circumstances, which would warrant approving the development in this instance. The proposal is, therefore, considered to be acceptable in principle, in accordance with Policies CS1, CS5 and CC2 Local Plan Core Strategy and Government guidance contained within the NPPF.

10.2 The proposed development is considered to be of an acceptable design, scale and position within the site. Furthermore, the development would be constructed of appropriate materials and adequately landscape. The proposed development is therefore in accordance with Policy QE 7 of the Local Plan and Government guidance contained in the NPPF.

10.3 Due to the size and position of the dwelling in relation to the nearest residential properties, it is considered that the development would not be an overbearing form of development or a loss of privacy. Furthermore, the development is considered to provide the future occupiers with an acceptable standard of amenity space. The proposals are therefore considered to comply with Policies QE6 and QE7 of the Local Plan and Government guidance contained within the NPPF.

10.4 The proposed development is not considered to be detrimental to highway safety and is provided with an acceptable standard of parking. The proposals are, therefore, in accordance with Policies QE6 and MP7; The Parking Standards SPD; and government guidance contained within the NPPF.

10.5 Planning permission be GRANTED, subject to the conditions contained in Section 11 of this report.

319

11. 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 strict accordance with the following documents:

• Application Form • Design and Access Statement • Location Plan • 2420420 – Existing Site Plan • 2410420 – Existing Site Plan • 2430420 – Proposed Site Plan • 2440420 – Proposed Landscaping Plan • 2450420 – Proposed House Information

3) The occupation of the dwelling, hereby permitted, shall be limited to a person(s) solely or mainly or last working in the locality in agriculture (as defined in Section 336(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990); or in forestry; or a widow or widower of such a person; and to any resident dependents.

Reason: the proposed dwelling is situated within the Countryside and within the designated Green Belt. Very Special Circumstances have been demonstrated on the basis of a functional need for a dwelling associated with the agricultural business. If unrestricted, no VSC would exist and the development would be contrary to Policies CS1 and CS 5 of the Local Plan Core Strategy and Government guidance contained within the NPPF.

4) No development (other than demolition and site clearance works) shall take place until the steps in Sections A and B below are undertaken:

A: CHARACTERISATION: With specific consideration to human health, controlled waters and wider environmental factors, the following documents must be provided (as necessary) to characterise the site in terms of potential risk to sensitive receptors:

• Preliminary Risk Assessment (PRA or Desk Study)

320

• Generic Quantitative Risk Assessment (GQRA) informed by a Intrusive Site Investigation • Detailed Quantitative Risk Assessment (DQRA) • Remedial Options Appraisal

Completing a PRA is the minimum requirement. DQRA should only to be submitted if GQRA findings require it.

B: SUBMISSION OF A REMEDIATION & VERIFICATION STRATEGY: As determined by the findings of Section A above, a remediation strategy (if required) and verification (validation) strategy shall submitted in writing to and agreed with the LPA. This strategy shall ensure the site is suitable for the intended use and mitigate risks to identified receptors. This strategy should be derived from a Remedial Options Appraisal and must detail the proposed remediation measures/objectives and how proposed remedial measures will be verified.

The actions required in Sections A and B shall adhere to the following guidance: CLR11 (Environment Agency/DEFRA, 2004); BS10175 (British Standards Institution, 2011); C665 (CIRIA, 2007).

Reason: To mitigate risks posed by land contamination to human health, controlled water and wider environmental receptors on the site (and in the vicinity) during development works and after completion.

5) The development shall not be taken into use until the following requirements have been met and required information submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority (LPA):

A: REMEDIATION & VERIFICATION: Remediation (if required) and verification shall be carried out in accordance with an approved strategy. Following completion of all remediation and verification measures, a Verification Report must be submitted to the LPA for approval.

B: REPORTING OF UNEXPECTED CONTAMINATION: All unexpected or previously-unidentified contamination encountered during development works must be reported immediately to the LPA and works halted within the affected area(s). Prior to site works recommencing in the affected area(s), the contamination must be characterised by intrusive investigation, risk assessed (with remediation/verification measures proposed as necessary) and a revised remediation and verification strategy submitted in writing and agreed by the LPA.

C: LONG-TERM MONITORING & MAINTENANCE: If required in the agreed remediation or verification strategy, all monitoring and/or

321 maintenance of remedial measures shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

The site shall not be taken into use until remediation and verification are completed. The actions required to be carried out in Sections A to C above shall adhere to the following guidance: CLR11 (Environment Agency/DEFRA, 2004); BS10175 (British Standards Institution, 2011); C665 (CIRIA, 2007).

In accordance with: Policy QE6 of the Adopted Local Plan Core Strategy (July 2014); Paragraphs 170(f) & 178 of the National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019), and Section 4 of the Environmental Protection Supplementary Planning Document (May 2013). . 6) Unless otherwise agreed, prior to any development above slab level, all materials to be used in the approved scheme shall be as stated on the application form and as shown on the approved drawings and within design and access statement.

Reason: To ensure that the development will be of a satisfactory appearance and to comply with Policy QE7 of the Warrington Core Strategy and the Warrington SPD: Design and Construction

7) During the first planting season following the commencement of development hereby approved, the landscaping details as indicated on the approved plans shall be carried out to the satisfaction of the local planning authority. Any trees, plants or shrubs so planted which die or are felled, uprooted, wilfully damaged or destroyed within five years of the date of planting shall be replaced by the applicants or their successors in title.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory form of development and to enhance the visual amenities of the locality, and to comply with Policy QE7 of the Warrington Core Strategy and the Warrington SPD: Design and Construction.

8) Prior to the first occupation of the dwelling hereby approved, the car parking area shown on drawing 2430420 – Proposed Site Plan, shall be hard surfaced and marked out as indicated on the approved plan to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. The car parking shall thereafter be retained in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In order to ensure that there is adequate car parking provision clear of the public highway in the interests of the safety of users of the highway and in order to comply with Policy QE6 of the Warrington Core Strategy and Warrington SPD: Standards for Parking in new Development.

322 9) Prior to the first occupation of the dwelling hereby approved, an electric vehicle charging point shall be provided with a minimum of 32 amp cabling.

Reason: to promote a move towards a low carbon economy and environmental sustainability; and to not stifle the future occupiers ability to utilise an electric vehicle. In accordance with Policies CS1, QE 6 and MP1 of the Local Plan Core Strategy; the Standards for Parking in New Developments SPD; and Government guidance contained within the NPPF.

10) Unless otherwise agreed in writing, prior to any constructions works, the drainage scheme shown on drawing 2430420 – Proposed Site Plan shall be implemented in full. Thereafter, the scheme shall be retained in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In order to comply with the NPPF and Policy QE6 of the Warrington Core Strategy.

11) Prior to any development above slab level, details of the ecological enhancement measures indicated at 5.21 of the Design and Access Statement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Specifically, details shall be provided on the number and position of bat boxes to be installed. Prior to the first occupation, the mitigation measures shall be installed in accordance with approved details and retained as such thereafter.

Reason: to secure a biodiversity enhancement on the site, in accordance with Policy QE5 of the Local Plan Core Strategy and Government guidance contained within the NPPF.

12) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended), (or any Oder revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no development covered by Classes A, AA, B, C or E of Part 1, Schedule 2; or Class A of Part 2, Schedule 2, to that order, shall be carried out without the express grant of planning permission by the Local planning Authority.

Reason: to prevent harm being caused to the amenity of the area, in accordance with the provisions of Policies CS1, QE5, QE7 and CC2 of the Local Plan Core Strategy and Government guidance contained within the NPPF.

13) Notwithstanding the approved plans and prior to the first occupation of the dwelling hereby approved, a revised boundary treatment plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The plan shall include gated access along the southern boundary of the site, between the site and the agricultural complex. Thereafter and prior to the first occupation of the dwelling, the approved boundary treatments shall be installed in accordance with the approved details.

323 Reason: to allow quick and efficient access to the agricultural land and to support the applicant’s case of very special circumstances. In accordance with Policies CS1, CS5 and CC2 of the Local Plan Core Strategy and Government guidance contained within the NPPF.

12. PLAN EXTRACTS

Site Location Plan

324

Aerial View of site – Location of dwelling indicated with red mark.

Proposed Block Plan

325 Proposed Location Plan

Elevation Drawings

326

Proposed Floor Plan

327

View looking towards the site from the east to the west

Position of proposed access to new dwelling.

328

Positon of new dwelling – Existing welfare building on left

ARTICLE 35 STATEMENT Officers have worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner in order to seek solutions to the issues relevant to the proposed development, consistent with the requirement in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paragraph 38.

329 WARRINGTON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING DEPARTMENT

DMC 30th September 2020

330 DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE DATE - 30 SEPTEMBER 2020

ITEM 4

Application Number: 2020/36842

Description of Development: Full planning (major) - Proposed extension of the final date of restoration from 31st October 2018 to 30th April 2022, permit the importation of up to 40,000 cubic metres of material (soil) for restoration and to make amendments to the final scheme of restoration

Location Address: Arpley Landfill Site, Forrest Way, Warrington, WA4 6YZ

Applicant: 3C Waste Limited

Ward: Bewsey and Whitecross, Penketh and Cuerdley

Site Allocations: Green Belt Strategic Green Links Waterfront & Arpley Meadows Strategic Proposal Local Wildlife Sites

Number of representations 1 received: Reason for Referral: At the request of the Director of Growth, in the light of the planning history of the application site

Statutory expiry date: 2nd October 2020

Recommendation: Approve Subject To Conditions And S106 Planning Obligation (Deed Of Variation)

Case Officer: Michael Davies

[email protected]

SUMMARY OF KEY REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION

- Principle of Development - extending the period of time for restoration works; for the importation of uncontaminated material to help achieve the restoration and for a change to the restoration plan for “The Arpley Phase” are considered acceptable as a matter of principle, and to accord with the planning permission granted on appeal (2013/22598)

- The project would not be noticeably different to that approved previously at appeal, in terms of its impact on the visual and spatial openness of Green Belt or its physical

331

attributes, although the period of time needed to complete the project would be longer

- The work on site would be engineering operations; which are appropriate in the Green Belt as they would preserve the openness of Green Belt and would not conflict with the purposes of including land in Green Belt

- The remaining operations involved with the remaining restoration are unlikely to be visible from beyond the site boundary, given the large size of the former landfill site

- The proposal will enable the final restoration of the site, so that its use as a nature conservation and public amenity resource can begin

- As previously, in Highways/ Transportation terms it is considered that the approach routes to the site are appropriate for the likely level of HGV movements and that there would not be a severe impact on the road network

- Uncontaminated material for use in the restoration would be brought to the site by HGV between 1st March and 31st October – and only when ground conditions are not too wet; the off-site impacts would therefore be confined to these periods

- Subject to the re-imposition of previous controls relating to environmental protection and the protection of residential amenity - the potential impact on the living conditions of residents along the approach roads can be adequately safeguarded

- The harm to living conditions would therefore be limited by way of restrictions on total HGV movements, by limits on arrival times and by confinement to between March and October 2021

- Landscape/ Ecology effects have been considered in the light of submitted ecological survey updates with particular regard to great crested newts, invasive species and habitat mitigation which have been addressed sufficiently to proceed, subject to conditions

- If approved, consequential changes will be made to the S106 Planning Obligation attached to the planning permission granted on appeal, by way of a Deed of Variation, insofar as the amendments approved as part of this application are concerned

- It is considered that the overriding priority is to achieve the completion of the high quality restoration scheme as quickly as possible, and that the approval of this application would achieve this

OFFICER’S REPORT TO PLANNING COMMITTEE

1. APPLICATION SITE AND BACKGROUND

1.1 This application relates to two areas of land within the body of the former Arpley landfill site. Arpley was an operational landfill site prior to the end of tipping on 31st December 2016. The total Arpley site is circa 27 hectares in size and is located in Green Belt.

332 1.2 The restoration of the former landfill site to form a network of landscaped, habitat and ecological areas linked by a network of new footpaths, is well underway but remains to be completed in two areas; the “Arpley Phase” and the “Boundary Phase”:-

1.3 The planning permission granted on appeal in 2015 required the restoration to be complete by 31st October 2018. Due to unforeseen site conditions however, and the substantial extent of the previously approved restoration, the restoration remains incomplete - due primarily of the lack of availability of suitable and useable dredged material from the Arpley site itself. This application seeks to agree a strategy to regularise and complete the previously agreed restoration by bringing uncontaminated material to the site by lorry.

1.4 Road access to and from the former landfill site is via Forrest Way, and Old Liverpool Road in Sankey Bridges. The site is bounded to the north by the River Mersey, with areas of adjacent open land adjacent to the other boundaries of the site. The nearest residential properties are located to the North West, on Sunflower Drive, circa 375 metres from the site access.

2. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL

2.1 This application seeks planning permission for:-

a) An extension to the period for the restoration from 31st October 2018 to 30th April 2022; b) The importation of uncontaminated material for use in restoration and; c) To make a minor amendment to the approved restoration scheme for the Material Excavation Area - known as the “Arpley Phase”

Period for Restoration

2.2 The Inspector granted planning permission for the restoration of the site subject to a condition that required the restoration to be completed by 31st October 2018. It has not been possible to complete the restoration by this date due to site conditions and waterlogging, as explained later in this report. This application seeks permission for a new strategy to allow the restoration to be complete by 30 April 2022 and deliver the site as a significant new area of green infrastructure with biodiversity and amenity value with public access.

333 Importation of uncontaminated materials for use in restoration

2.3 The application proposes the importation of 40,000 cubic metres of uncontaminated materials for use in the remaining restoration of the Arpley and Boundary Phases. This volume converts to a weight of circa 80,000 tonnes (using an accepted factor of 2 tonnes per cubic metre).

2.4 Material will be imported March to October (inclusive) – and only when ground conditions are not too wet.

2.5 Initially, as previously approved at appeal, the main source of dredged site restoration material was taken from the Arpley Phase. Instead, it is now proposed to import uncontaminated material to complete the restoration - as the dredged material is unsuitable for use, due to degradation caused by waterlogging.

Alterations to the restoration scheme for the Arpley Phase

2.6 The sole physical amendment proposed to the Arpley Phase is the localised regrading of the embankments (“batters”) to achieve 1 in 3 or 1 in 4 slopes, compared to the approved restoration scheme which would require regrading across a larger area in order to achieve the approved contours. The intention now is to minimise further disturbance in the Arpley Phase whilst delivering a similar scheme of restoration to that approved previously. As previously, there would be no public access to the Arpley Phase by footpaths. Paths are not proposed across the Arpley Phase as the area is prone to waterlogging. Much larger areas of the restored landfill site would however be publicly accessible via permissive paths.

2.7 There are no amendments to the physical works now proposed at the Boundary Phase, which is the other phase still requiring the completion of restoration works.

2.8 The importation of materials will also assist with the restoration of the Boundary Phase, as this area is also close to final completion.

3. AMENDED PLANS

3.1 There have been no amendments to the application since its submission.

4. LOCAL REPRESENTATIONS

4.1 Ward Councillors

No response.

7.1 Parish Councils

No response.

7.2 Residents

334 The applications was publicised by site notices and by press notice. As a result no objections have been received from residents.

5. CONSULTEES

Warrington BC Transport Planning and Development Control - no objection subject to the re-imposition of the previously agreed condition to restrict the times and days when restoration material may be received at the site.

Warrington BC Environmental Protection – no objection subject to the re- imposition of previously agreed conditions to implement dust suppression measures; the days & times when restoration works may take place on site and the implementation of the previously agreed noise control scheme.

Greater Manchester Ecology Unit – no objection subject to conditions relating to reasonable avoidance measures for amphibians; a re-survey for invasive plant species and full details of the landscape restoration scheme.

British Pipeline Agency (BPA) – no objection; BPA wish to ensure that any works in the vicinity of the pipeline are carried out in accordance with our safety requirements.

Halton Borough Council – no objection.

Natural England (NE) – no objection. NE consider the proposal to be low risk and unlikely to have a significant impact.

Mersey Gateway Environment Trust – object as follows:

- lacks detail; no definition of “high quality” biodiversity improvement - the applicant expects 80% of the material to arrive via the M62, “local” may be better categorised as regional and hence the characteristics of the material could be significantly different from the existing material on site; the existing material may be different in composition; changes to this existing balance and a new soil chemistry will influence the reseeding success and lead to a change of character in this area - no attempt to match soil or adjust landscaping to the imported material - no indication of species of grasses and trees and how they might impact the area - aftercare may be conflicted as the condition appears to be discharged already - no plans for how public access via permissive paths would be delivered - the end use is very unclear from the application

6. RELEVANT SITE HISTORY

Planning Ref: 2013/22598 Description of Extension of operational life of Arpley Landfill Facility to no later Development than 31st October 2017; restoration complete by no later than 31st October 2018; revised sequence of landfill phasing and restoration works; revised landform; continued use of the existing leachate treatment facility and landfill gas utilisation plant and ancillary infrastructure including access roads, site

335 compound, weighbridges, wheel washes, fences, surface water management, site offices and transfer pad associated with the operations of the landfill. Decision Appeal allowed (APP/M0655/A/14/2222229) Date of Decision 15th May 2015

Planning Ref: 2011/19244 Description of Extension of operational life of Arpley Landfill facility to 2025 Development including the re-profiling, revised sequence of landfill phasing and restoration works, extension of the operational life of the existing leachate treatment facility and landfill gas utilisation plant, and other ancillary developments including offices, weighbridges, wheel washes, fencing etc. associated with the operations of the landfill Decision Appeal dismissed APP/M0655/A/13/2201665 Date of Decision 23rd October 2014

7. PLANNING POLICY

National Planning Policy Framework 2019 (NPPF)

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

Relevant Policies in the Local Plan Core Strategy (2014)

336 CS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development CS5 – Green Belt CS6 - Strategic Green Links CS10 – Strategic Location - Waterfront & Arpley Meadows SN7 – Enhancing Health and Well-being QE3 – Green Infrastructure QE5 – Biodiversity & Geodiversity QE6 – Environment & Amenity Protection MP1 – General Transport Principles MP5 – Freight Transport MP7 – Transport Assessments and Travel Plans MP8 - Waste

8. EQUALITIES ACT (2010)

9. ASSESSMENT

Principle

9.1 The restoration of the site is required to be completed by the previous planning permission and so is acceptable as a matter of general principle. In granting planning permission on appeal, the inspector, considered that the restoration of the former landfill site as an engineering operation is not inappropriate in the Green Belt as it preserves visual and spatial openness and does not conflict with the purposes of including land in Green Belt.

9.2 Operations involved with the proposed change to the restoration scheme are unlikely to be visible from beyond the site boundary, and would deliver restoration in the way previously envisaged and approved at appeal previously. As such, it is considered that the proposal will preserve the openness of Green Belt; would not conflict with the purposes of including land in Green Belt and would therefore not be inappropriate.

9.3 The restoration project is therefore acceptable as a matter of principle and to be in accordance with policies CS1; CS5; CS10; SN7; MP1; MP5; MP7 and MP8 of the adopted Warrington Local Plan Core Strategy and to be in accordance with the environmental objective of sustainability set out in NPPF.

9.4 More detailed matters such as whether the extension of the time needed to restore the site; the level of importation of soil and other uncontaminated material to help achieve restoration and the changes proposed to the approved scheme of restoration are material considerations now – in addition to any changed impact on the biodiversity and future public amenity value potential of the site.

Whether the Proposed Extension of Time for Restoration is Acceptable

9.5 The appeal Inspector noted the following, in paragraph 30 of his decision:- “..the success of a restoration programme is often heavily reliant on particular

337 features or characteristics of an individual site so that the experience of one site does not necessarily hold good for another..”

9.6 In general terms therefore, it is recognised that the fixing of precise restoration periods is not an “exact science”; will vary from site to site, and will be a product of the particular site conditions and site reactions which may be encountered once restoration works are underway.

9.7 The reason a longer period is needed to complete the restoration of the Arpley Phase stems from its former use as the only permitted source of restoration material for the site. Because of this, it is obviously not possible to restore the Arpley Phase until restoration of other parts of the site have been completed first.

9.8 The slippage in time beyond this however, is due to the discovery of the unexpected waterlogging of the material excavated from the Arpley Phase which renders it unsuitable for use in filling at the Boundary Phase.

9.9 The discovery of the waterlogging held up work on site and resulted in delay whilst an alternative solution was formulated by the applicant. The solution now proposed is to import suitable, uncontaminated material from off-site, in preference to the infeasible alternative of excavating material from the Arpley Phase, drying it out and then placing it in the required areas. On excavation the waterlogged material from the Arpley Phase is sloppy and unsuitable for infill restoration areas.

9.10 It is accepted that the excavation and treatment of material from the Arpley phase for possible re-use as envisaged by the 2013/22598 planning permission would be time-consuming and costly, entailing double handling to move and dry and then to place on the restoration area. Crucially, it would need to be placed in the restoration areas over a longer period of time to enable material to dry before more material is added on top. Following this procedure for restoration would undoubtedly extend beyond even the 2022 date now proposed as part of this amendment application.

9.11 The extension of time for the completion of all restoration, until 30th April 2022, is requested to ensure all grass seeding and final restoration is completed on the areas where imported material has been used. The import of material by lorry is expected to cease by 31st October 2021.

9.12 It is considered that an extension of the time period for the completion of the restoration is acceptable, provided the impact of the alternative proposal to import material to achieve final restoration is also acceptable.

Whether the Importation of Soil and Other Uncontaminated Material to Achieve Final Restoration is Acceptable

9.13 Uncontaminated material for use in the restoration would be brought to the site by HGVs between 1st March and 31st October 2021 – and only when ground conditions are not too wet. The off-site impacts would therefore be confined to these periods.

9.14 In practice, the applicant intends to cease all importation of material by the end

338 of October 2021, and this would be secured by condition. The applicant wishes to be granted time until 30th April 2022 to ensure all grass seeding and final restoration is completed on the areas where imported material has been used. This is considered acceptable, to ensure a high quality seeding and restoration scheme is overseen and delivered.

9.15 In preference to attempting to re-use the waterlogged material, as described above, the applicant seeks instead to import up to a maximum of circa 40,000 cubic metres of material by lorry to complete the final parts of the approved restoration more quickly than the digging, drying and spreading of excavated material.

9.16 It is accepted that the proposed importation would be quicker than the alternative of attempting to re-use waterlogged material, and that importation would better ensure the restoration is completed to a high standard. There is an incentive for the applicant to achieve the final restoration at Arpley as soon as possible, as the delays already incurred are a liability for them, and will continue to be so until the restoration is complete.

9.17 HGV movements would be limited to March – October (inclusive). As part of the previous planning permission allowed at appeal, there was no condition which specifically controlled the number of vehicles visiting Arpley Landfill site.

9.18 Previously, conditions imposed control over the amount of landfill waste brought to the site each year each year (for example, 400,000 tonnes in 2015 and 2016 and 333,333 tonnes in 2017).

9.19 The maximum of 80,000 tonnes now proposed to be brought to the site is therefore acknowledged to be much lower than that permitted previously, as part of landfill waste tipping operations.

9.20 Subject to the mitigation of potential traffic, environmental and residential amenity impacts of importation, assessed below, it is considered that the overriding priority now is to achieve the final restoration of the former landfill site to a high standard so that the future use of the former landfill site as a major public amenity and ecological resource is delivered.

9.21 The alternative approach to restoration through the importation of circa 40,000 cubic metres of material is acceptable subject to the consideration of potential mitigation for the traffic, environmental and residential amenity impacts of the importation, which are considered below.

Whether the Changes Proposed to the Approved Scheme of Restoration Are Acceptable

9.22 There are no proposed amendments to the approved restoration scheme for the Boundary Phase.

9.23 The sole change to the restoration scheme approved by the appeal Inspector at the Arpley Phase is the localised regrading of the backward slopes (“batters”) with steeper gradient in some locations. This results from the intention to minimise further disturbance in the Arpley Phase, whilst delivering a similar form and quality of restoration to that approved previously.

339 9.24 The increased gradients near the former “borrow pit” (to circa 1 in 4 instead of 1 in 8), would provide greater stability; the area would then be sown with a conservation grass seed and scattered scrub. Other than this, there is no change to the restoration required by the planning permission granted at appeal. The approved and proposed Arpley Phase restoration schemes are shown in the submitted Figure 4 and Drawing 2724-01-02 respectively. As previously, there would be no public access to the Arpley Phase itself, as it is designed as part of the overall scheme to provide part of the habitat link with Moore Nature Reserve and the Mersey Estuary.

9.25 The changes proposed to the approved scheme of restoration are acceptable and to accord with policies CS1; CS10; SN7; QE3; QE5; QE6 and MP8 of the Local Plan Core Strategy for Warrington and with the environmental objective of sustainability in the NPPF.

Highways/ Transportation Impacts

9.26 The application is accompanied by a Transport Statement (TS) which is based on the assumption that the volume of the proposed 40,000 cubic metres of imported material converts to a weight of circa 80,000 tonnes. It is considered that the TS provides a robust assessment to consider the impact of likely number of HGV movements associated with the proposal.

9.27 It is proposed that no Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) carrying site restoration material would be received at the site outside the period 1st March to 31st October 2021. Entrance and exit to and from the site would be via the former main access point to the landfill site, via the road bridge to the north over the Mersey onto Forrest Way, formerly used by HGVs when tipping was taking place.

9.28 Between these dates, there would be no more than a maximum of 56 HGV loads per day (i.e. 112 movements) – and then only between the hours of 0800 to 1730 Mondays to Fridays; 0800 to 1300 hours on Saturdays and not at all on Sundays and bank or public holidays.

9.29 These limits on HGV movements are agreed with the applicant and would be controlled by conditions, as set out in detail below. The figure of 112 movements would be a maximum. For comparison, the typical average daily movements during the tipping period at Arpley were, for example 500 in November 2008; 416 in October 2010 and 350 in 2017.

9.30 Although Old Liverpool Road passes a significant number of residential addresses, it is a classified road which links with the Primary Route Network (PRN). Old Liverpool Road already provides direct access to the PRN for many other existing generators of HGV traffic. In Highways terms therefore it is considered that the approach routes to the site and the capacity in the road network are appropriate for the forecast level of HGV movements – especially if these are confined to between 1st March and 31st October, as is proposed.

9.31 The proposal is therefore acceptable in terms of policies CS1; MP1; MP5 and MP7 of the adopted Warrington Local Plan Core Strategy.

340

Amenity/ Impacts on Residential Living Conditions

9.32 HGV movements past dwellings along and near to the approach routes to the site are acknowledged to be the greatest potential impact on the living conditions of residents.

9.33 It is proposed that no Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) carrying site restoration material would be received at the site outside the period 1st March to 31st October 2021. Between these dates, there would be no more than a maximum of 56 HGV loads per day (ie 112 movements) – and then only between the hours of 0800 to 1730 Mondays to Fridays; 0800 to 1300 hours on Saturdays and not at all on Sundays and bank or public holidays.

9.34 The harm to living conditions would therefore be limited by way of restrictions on total HGV movements, by limits on arrival times and by confinement to between March and October 2021. With these limits in place, according to conditions as set out below, the impact on living conditions would be acceptable.

9.35 Following the cessation of HGV movements in October 2021, the impact of the restoration work on site would consist of the unloading and movement of the restoration material from the transport lorries to the restoration areas –between the hours of 0700 to 1800 hours Mondays to Fridays and 0700 to 1300 hours on Saturdays and not at all on Sundays and bank or public holidays.

9.36 As previously approved, after arrival at the site no “double handling” of restoration material would take place. Newly arrived material would be immediately tipped onto the restoration area and moved by bulldozer to achieve the approved land contours.

9.37 It is accepted that the mechanical handling of material on site would have been necessary as part of the previously agreed restoration works, and so no significantly greater noise impact is forecast or expected.

9.38 It is also accepted that following the cessation of importation material at the end of October 2021, the restoration activities on site would be greatly reduced – entailing only low key land forming and planting, to implement the previously approved landscaping scheme.

9.39 The submitted noise report demonstrates that the project is capable of compliance with the previously approved maximal noise levels. The Council’s Environmental Protection team have no objection to the proposal, subject to the re-imposition of previously imposed conditions to implement dust suppression measures; the days & times when restoration works may take place on site and the implementation of the previously agreed noise control scheme.

9.40 Unlike during the period of tipping of landfill waste at Arpley (when HGVs carried a variety of waste to the site), there would now be no smells or other nuisances emanating from the lorries carrying uncontaminated restoration material (the majority of which would be soil and smaller grade material from building sites).

9.41 It is acknowledged also that the amenity benefits that would be delivered by the

341 restoration scheme, in terms of public access to a significant new open, green space in this part of Warrington would be readily accessed from the nearest residential areas and from the routes most affected in the past by traffic to and from the Arpley site. Overall therefore, the proposal is acceptable in terms of policies CS1 and QE6 of the adopted Warrington Local Plan Core Strategy and with the environmental objective of sustainability in the NPPF.

Ecology, Biodiversity and Potential Public Amenity Benefits

9.42 Additional survey work provided by the applicant sufficiently addresses matters with regard to amphibians, invasive species and habitat mitigation.

9.43 There is no objection subject to conditions to ensure protocols and monitoring are put in place for amphibian protection during the site restoration works.

9.44 Additional survey information submitted with the application allows the conclusion from the Council’s ecologist (GMEU) that the proposal will conserve and enhance biodiversity features in the Arpley Phase when compared with the “fall-back position” set by the previously approved scheme.

9.45 Imported material will be uncontaminated excavated soil, suitable for final, above cap restoration. The majority of the imported material will be used for shaping the former site compound area in order to achieve the approved restoration profile. Once the profile has been achieved, the area will be seeded and restored. The area will then be subject to the site’s initial and extended aftercare measures. The imported material will be suitable for that purpose. Restoration material imported for use in the restoration layer will be carried out in accordance with the Restoration Plan approved under the Environmental Permit (EP). The EP is regulated by the Environment Agency (EA) and is the subject of regular inspections and monitoring by the EA.

9.46 No invasive plant species were found by survey of the site. As a precaution however, as invasive species are highly mobile, a condition to require a resurvey for species including giant hogweed and himalayan balsam and for treatment to eradicate these if found is recommended.

9.47 The updated “Phase 1” survey submitted by the applicant gives confidence that the required biodiversity net gain can be achieved, and can be secured by condition requiring a landscape restoration scheme.

9.48 The network of permissive paths across the Arpley site, some of which would link into Moore Nature Reserve, remain part of the proposal with the clear potential to deliver the benefits in terms of public access to a high quality and extensive area of new habitat, biodiversity and green infrastructure envisaged as part of the previous planning permission.

9.49 Overall, in ecological, biodiversity and public amenity terms the proposal would accord with policies CS10; SN7; QE3; QE5 and QE6 of the adopted Local Plan Core Strategy for Warrington and with the environmental and social objectives of sustainability set out in NPPF.

Other Matters

342 Response to Issues Raised by the Mersey Gateway Environment Trust;

9.50 Aftercare conditions - The aftercare conditions on the appeal decision relating to 2015/26395 have not yet been discharged for the two areas still to be restored - which are now the subject of this planning application. The existing planning permission and obligation will be unamended and will remain in force. A new planning permission would be read alongside the existing permission (ref: APP/M0655/A//14/2222229) and a new legal agreement, would tie the previous obligations to the new planning permission. Approval of the application will enable the two phases which are the subject of this application into aftercare, once they are physically restored.

9.51 Permissive Paths - The timescales for opening permissive paths are controlled by the S106 Planning Obligation which will tie the previously approved requirements to the new planning permission.

10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

10.1 The project entails significant change to the previously approved timescale for the completion of all restoration works, a minor change to the detail of restoration on the “Arpley Phase” and a resumption of significant traffic levels to and from the former landfill site. It is accepted however that the increase in the time period for restoration results from a legitimate and unforeseeable problem with the quality of material on site, which necessitates the import of material of the required quality instead.

10.2 It is also acknowledged that delay in completing the approved restoration is due to the cessation of works on site when waterlogged, unusable material was discovered and to allow time for the authorisation of the proposed time extension and other amendments by way of this planning application.

10.3 Potential harm to those residents living along or near to the roads to be used by HGVs visiting the site would be mitigated by control over the hours and days of access to the Arpley site set by conditions 7 and 15 below.

10.4 The capacity of the road network is capable of carrying the additional HGV traffic for the additional period of time requested in the application.

10.5 Unlike during the period of tipping of landfill waste at Arpley, there will be no smells or other nuisances emanating from the HGVs carrying uncontaminated restoration material.

10.6 The high standards of ecological mitigation agreed at appeal are again proposed, and have been confirmed as acceptable by the Council’s ecologist (GMEU).

10.7 Subject to the imposition of conditions discussed in this report, the proposal would accord with policies CS1; CS5; CS10; SN7; QE3; QE5; QE6; MP1; MP5; MP7; and MP8 of the adopted Local Plan Core Strategy for Warrington.

10.8 Together with the subsequent delivery of the fully restored site as a significant new public amenity and ecological new resource for Warrington, the proposal is

343 also considered to accord with the social and environmental objectives of the NPPF.

10.9 It is considered that the overriding priority is to achieve the completion of the high quality restoration scheme as quickly as possible, and that the approval of this application would achieve this.

10.10 It is recommended that planning permission be approved subject to conditions.

10.11 If approved, a Deed of Variation to the S106 Planning Obligation attached to the planning permission granted on appeal, would be made, insofar as the amendments approved as part of this application are concerned.

11 SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS

1. The importation of restoration material shall cease on 31 October 2021 and site restoration shall be completed by 30 April 2022.

Reason: The extension of time for the completion of restoration until 30th April 2022 is justified for the particular reasons set out and assessed in the submitted application. Any proposal to further extend the period for restoration shall be the subject of fresh assessment in the light of the provisions of the Development Plan and any other material considerations.

2. Except as varied by the following conditions, the restoration works hereby approved shall only be carried out in accordance with the following:-

i) Application Form dated 24 March 2020 ii) Drawing 2724-01-01 Statutory Plan iii) Drawing 2724-01-02 Arpley Phase Proposed Restoration

Reason: To define this permission.

3. Save for the contours in the Arpley Phase which are shown on Drawing 2724-01-02, the pre-settlement restoration contours shall be strictly in accordance with the levels shown on Drawing 1439-01-04b ‘Pre- Settlement Restoration Contours’ approved under APP/M0655/A/14/2222229.

Reason: To accord with the previous planning permission granted on appeal (APP/M0655/A/14/2222229).

4. The dust suppression scheme approved under Condition 5 of APP/M0655/A/14/2222229 shall be implemented in full and the measures complied with at all times throughout the lifetime of the development.

Reason: To suppress dust to safeguard the living conditions of occupiers of residential properties in accordance with policies CS1 and QE6 of the adopted Local Plan Core Strategy for Warrington and with the Council’s adopted Environmental Protection SPD.

5. The scheme detailing the facilities and/or methods to prevent deleterious material (including litter, dust and mud) being carried onto the public

344 highway and approved under Condition 7 of APP/M0655/A/14/2222229 shall be implemented in full and the measures complied with at all times throughout the lifetime of the development.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and the visual amenity in accordance with policies CS1 and QE6 of the adopted Local Plan Core Strategy for Warrington and with the Council’s adopted Design & Construction SPD.

6. The site operator shall at their own cost, carry out a detailed topographical survey of the site each year by 1st April each year until site restoration has been completed. Copies of the surveys and electronic survey data shall be made available to the Local Planning Authority within 28 days of a written request to the site operator.

Reason: To ensure the delivery of the site restoration as approved, in accordance with this planning permission.

7. Engineering and restoration materials shall only be received at the site between 0800 to 1730 hours, Mondays to Fridays; and 0800 to 1300 hours on Saturdays and not at all on Sundays and bank or public holidays.

Reason: To safeguard the living conditions of occupiers of residential properties in accordance with policies CS1 and QE6 of the adopted Local Plan Core Strategy for Warrington and with the Council’s adopted Environmental Protection SPD.

8. Site engineering and/or restoration works shall only be carried out between the hours of 0700 to 1800 hours Mondays to Fridays and 0700 to 1300 hours on Saturdays and not at all on Sundays and bank or public holidays.

9. The site operator shall keep a record of all inputs entering the site and make this available to the Local Planning Authority within 14 days of a request being made in writing to the site operator. Inputs to the site shall not exceed 80,000 tonnes.

Reason: To ensure the delivery of the site restoration as approved, in accordance with this planning permission.

10. The noise control scheme approved under Condition 15 of APP/M0655/A/14/2222229 shall be implemented in full and the measures complied with at all times throughout the lifetime of the development.

345 11. Within 3 months of the date of this decision, details of a scheme of landscaping and aftercare for the Materials Excavation Area (Arpley Phase) (as identified on Drawing 2724-01-02) for a minimum period of 5 years from final restoration shall be submitted for approval to the Local Planning Authority. The scheme of landscaping and aftercare shall accord with drawing 2724-01-02 and include long term design and habitat objectives, method statements for site preparation and establishment of key habitats, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules.

The scheme shall also include details and provision for:-

i) Soil preparation; ii) Application of fertiliser; iii) Sowing and establishment of green cover; iv) Tree hedgerow and scrub planting, inclusive of sources, species, sizes, planting density mix and number; v) Grassland planting, inclusive of sources, species, sizes, planting density mix and number; vi) Wetland margin and aquatic planting, inclusive of sources, species, sizes, planting density mix and number; vii) Maintenance/aftercare provisions which shall include a scheme which ensures that if within a period of 5 years from the date of the planting of any tree or shrub, that tree or shrub or any tree or shrub planted in replacement for it, is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies (or becomes, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, seriously damaged or defective), another tree or shrub of the same species, size and maturity as that originally planted shall be planted at the same place, unless the Local Planning Authority gives its written consent to any variation. ix) The restoration specification for other areas of the site are controlled by Condition 17 APP/M0655/A/14/2222229.

Reason: To ensure a high quality landscaping scheme incorporating habitat creation is delivered as part of the completed site in accordance with policies CS1; QE3; QE5 and QE7 of the adopted Local Plan Core Strategy for Warrington and with the Council’s adopted Design & Construction SPD.

12. Prior to any earthworks in the former Material Excavation Area (the Arpley Phase) a reasonable avoidance measures method statement for amphibians shall be supplied to and agreed in writing by the LPA.

Reason: To safeguard protected species in accordance with policies CS1 and QE5 of the adopted Local Plan Core Strategy for Warrington.

13. Prior to any earthworks in the former Material Excavation Area (the Arpley Phase) commenced after February 2021 a resurvey for invasive plant species including giant hogweed and himalayan balsam will occur and the finding supplied to and agreed in writing to the LPA. If any invasive species are present a method statement detailing avoidance, control and eradication measures should also be supplied to and agreed in writing by the LPA, prior to any earthworks.

346 Reason: To protect against the spread of invasive species in accordance with policies CS1 and QE5 of the adopted Local Plan Core Strategy for Warrington.

14. Prior to any earthworks in the former Material Excavation Area (the Arpley Phase) full details of the landscape restoration scheme that shall demonstrate ecological net gain shall be provided to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

15. No Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) carrying site restoration material shall be received at the site outside the period 1st March to 31st October 2021. Between these dates, there shall be no more than a maximum of 56 HGV loads per day (ie 112 movements) subject to the times and days permitted in condition 7, above.

Reason: To safeguard the amenity of those living along or near to the approach roads to the site in accordance with policies CS1 and QE6 of the adopted Local Plan Core Strategy for Warrington.

347 12 PLAN EXTRACTS

The Application Site Edged Red

The Areas of the Former Landfill Site Yet to be Restored Shown in Dark Dashed Line

Arpley Phase – Previously Approved Restoration

348 Arpley Phase – Restoration Now Proposed

349 ARTICLE 35 STATEMENT Officers have worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner in order to seek solutions to the issues relevant to the proposed development, consistent with the requirement in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paragraph 38.

350 Agenda item 5

WARRINGTON BOROUGH COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE DATE OF COMMITTEE: 30th September 2020

Report of the: Director of Growth Report Author: Niki Gallagher Contact email: [email protected] Contact telephone: 01925 442403

TITLE OF REPORT: APPEAL DECISIONS SUMMARY

1. PURPOSE OF THE REPORT 1.1 To inform members of the Development Management of recent appeal decisions.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 On average Development Management deal with over 2,000 applications for planning and associated consents annually. Decisions, including those made by the Development Management Committee (DMC), can be subject to challenge through appeals made to the Planning Inspectorate. Most commonly these relate to applications that have been refused but they can also relate to conditions associated with applications that have been approved.

2.2 At the meeting of the Development Management Committee (DMC) held on 28th May 2020, it was agreed that appeal decisions made by the Planning Inspectorate would be communicated to DMC as they became available.

3. APPEAL DECISIONS The following appeal decisions are attached for Members of the Committee to note. Appeals Decided Appeal Decision Appeal Costs App No Location Proposed Development Decision Level Decision Awarded Date 2019/35352 Cherry Lane Barn, 5 , Full Planning - Proposed Delegated 26/08/2020 Allowed 0 Cherry Lane, Lymm, dwelling, detached with WA13 0UJ garage, landscaping conditions details and access 2019/35594 REEDHAM, BROSELEY Householder. Proposed Delegated 28/08/2020 Dismissed 0 LANE, CULCHETH AND Timber Garage GLAZEBURY, WARRINGTON, WA3 4HP

351 Appeals Decided Appeal Decision Appeal Costs App No Location Proposed Development Decision Level Decision Awarded Date 2019/35808 19B, COMMON LANE, Full Planning - Retention Delegated 28/08/2020 Dismissed 0 CULCHETH AND of existing outdoor GLAZEBURY, wooden pergola WARRINGTON, WA3 4EW 2019/36102 ADVERTISING RIGHT Advertisement - Proposed Delegated 02/09/2020 Allowed 0 ON GABLE WALL, 27, replacement of existing with LONDON ROAD, advertising hoarding with conditions WARRINGTON 1 Portrait LED advertisement display unit 2019/36230 3, LADYWOOD ROAD, Householder. Proposed Delegated 28/08/2020 Dismissed 0 BURTONWOOD AND two storey extension to WESTBROOK, side to replace garage WARRINGTON, WA5 9QR 2020/36699 12, CROSBY AVENUE, Householder - Proposed Delegated 18/09/2020 Dismissed 0 BEWSEY AND Garage WHITECROSS, WARRINGTON, WA5 0DQ

Full details are provided in Appendix 1.

3.1 The Council have been notified that the following appeals have been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate since the DMC meeting of 26/08/2020. Unless otherwise stated we have not received a start date for these applications as yet; the start date will set the timetable for the appeal and we will not commence publicity on an appeal unless directed to by the Planning Inspectorate by means of this additional correspondence.

Appeals Received Proposed Decision Date Appeal Appeal Start Appeal App No Location Development Level Lodged Date Type 2020/36862 1, MARSH END FARM Householder- Delegated 08/09/2020 21/09/2020 Written BARNS, MARSH LANE, Proposed Orangery Evidence CUERDLEY, to Side Elevation (HAS) WARRINGTON, WA5 2UN 2020/37059 7, BOWFELL GROVE, TPO - FELL 3 NO. Delegated 27/08/2020 Written WOOLSTON, TREES Evidence WARRINGTON, WA1 4FT

4. CONFIDENTIAL OR EXEMPT

4.1 All information is already within the public domain.

352 5. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS

5.1 There are no financial considerations associated with these appeal decisions.

6. RISK ASSESSMENT

6.1 There are no risks associated with these appeal decisions.

7. EQUALITY ISSUES

7.1 There are no equality issues associated with these appeals.

8. CONSULTATION

8.1 No consultation was considered necessary for this report.

9. REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION

9.1 To keep DMC Members updated on appeal performance.

10. RECOMMENDATION

10.1 To note the outcome of these appeals.

11. BACKGROUND PAPERS

11.1 N/A

353 APPENDIX 1

APPEAL DECISIONS

354

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 4 August 2020 by Mr W Johnson

BA(Hons) DipTP DipUDR MRTPI

an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 26 August 2020

Appeal Ref: APP/M0655/W/20/3249630 Cherry Lane Barn, 5 Cherry Lane, Lymm, Cheshire WA13 0UJ • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Chris Horn against the decision of Warrington Borough Council. • The application Ref 2019/35352, dated 4 July 2019, was refused by notice dated 1 November 2019. • The development proposed is described as: ‘New dwelling’.

Decision

1. The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for the erection of a dwelling, detached garage, landscaping details and access at Land at Cherry Lane Barn, Cherry Lane, Lymm, Cheshire WA13 0UJ in accordance with application Ref 2019/35352, dated 4 July 2019, subject to the conditions listed in the attached schedule. Procedural Matters

2. The description of the development and the address in the banner heading above is taken from the application form. However, in my decision, I have taken the description of the development from the Council’s decision notice and appeal form, omitting unnecessary text. Additionally, in my decision I have omitted ‘no. 5’ and added ‘Land at’. In both instances, the changes more accurately describe the proposal and its location.

3. Policy CC 1 of the Warrington Borough Council Local Plan Core Strategy 2014 (CS), was not cited on the Council’s decision notice, but was referenced in its Statement. This policy was not provided by the Council in its Questionnaire and was subsequently requested. Both main parties were given the opportunity to comment on any relevant implications for the appeal, but only the appellant has submitted a response. I have had regard to the comments received and I will not prejudice any party in considering CS Policy CC 1 in the determination of this appeal.

Main Issues

4. The main issues of this appeal are:

• whether the proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt; and,

• the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the appeal site and surrounding area.

355 Reasons

Inappropriate development

5. CS Policy CS 5 indicates that development proposals within the Green Belt will be assessed against national policy and any relevant Local Plan policies. Paragraph 145 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) provides that the construction of new buildings should be regarded as inappropriate subject to exceptions. One exception to this is Paragraph 145 e) limited infilling in villages, which the appellants have relied upon in their submission. The terms “limited” and “infilling” are not defined in the Framework. Additionally, in respect of limited infilling in villages as an exception, the definition of village is a matter of judgement as it is not defined within the Framework.

6. It is common ground between the main parties that the site lies outside the settlement boundary line of Lymm, albeit directly adjacent. Therefore, the proposed development is in conflict with CS Policy CC 1. However, in this case I consider the location of the site and its juxtaposition with existing development to be more relevant. The site comprises a parcel of land which lies between modern residential development on Lady Acre Close and at Cherry Lane Barn. These properties face the strip of continuous development along Cherry Lane which lies within the boundary lines of the settlement, along with the properties on Lady Acre Lane. The plot would adjoin open land to the rear but would not extend beyond the residential envelope of development on either side.

7. I note that development on Lady Acre Lane and on the opposite side of Cherry Lane to the site is denser than that to the south of the site. Nonetheless, the proposed development would be commensurate in size with the dwellings either side and would sit comfortably within the gap in the frontage, reflecting the established pattern of development. I consider the site appears to be part of the village. Consequently, I find that the physical circumstances of a site and its relationship to the settlement are more relevant than the designated village boundary in determining whether the site can be considered to be infill development.

8. I consider that having regard to the position and nature of the site, the proposal can be considered to be physically and visually related to the existing settlement and to comprise limited infilling. Therefore, I find no conflict with CS Policy CS 5. The construction of an infill dwelling in this location should not be considered to constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt and the proposal would not conflict with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).

9. As I have not found that Green Belt harm would arise in this case, it is not necessary to consider the effect of the proposed development on Green Belt openness. Additionally, the demonstration of very special circumstances is not required to make the proposed development acceptable.

Character and appearance

10. It is common ground between the main parties that the only element of the proposed development in dispute on this main issue, is surrounding the proposed detached garage (the garage). On the evidence before me and from my findings during the site visit, I have little reason to disagree with the Council on this matter.

11. The garage would be located towards the front of the site towards Cherry lane with the proposed dwelling located behind it. Access to the proposed development would be from the existing shared access off Cherry Lane with a private access located a short distance along the shared access on the left when entering from Cherry Lane. When viewed from Cherry Lane the site is set behind a low brick wall with a tall mature laurel hedge behind. The hedgerow returns and continues along the shared drive, densely screening the site from areas within the public realm.

12. The garage would comprise a garage area/store on the ground floor with a family gym located on a first-floor mezzanine within its roof. Due to this layout, and design, the garage would maintain a 1.5 storey appearance. During my visit, I noted a number of detached garages in the surrounding area on properties located on Cherry Lane and on Lady Acre Close, which are in proximity of the highway. However, I accept that the garage subject of this appeal may be slightly taller when compared against the existing detached garages in

356 the surrounding area. Nonetheless, a positive visual relationship would occur between the proposed development and the contemporary barns on the opposite side of the shared access, which are similar in design to the proposed development.

13. Consequently, whilst glimpses of the garage would be possible when travelling along in either direction of Cherry Lane and when travelling along the shared access, I do not find that the garage would amount to an excessive form of development in its location. Additionally, whilst the garage would be sited closer to Cherry Lane than No 1 Lady Acre Close, which is adjacent to the site, this would not result in harm to the character and appearance of the area, due to the presence and siting of No’s 1 Cherry Lane Barn and 57 Cherry Lane to the south of the site. This is due to their proximity to the highway, which in turn forms a distinctive feature on this section of Cherry Lane, readily visible and contributing positively to the surrounding area. Accordingly, the garage would not form an intrusive or overly prominent feature in the street scene.

14. For all of these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would not significantly harm the character and appearance of the appeal site or surrounding area. Consequently, this would accord with the design, character and appearance aims of CS Policy QE 7 and the requirements of the Framework.

Other Matter

15. The occupiers of No 1 have also expressed a wide range of concerns including, but not limited to the following; living conditions, loss of view and construction works, amongst other things. However, I note that these matters were considered where relevant by the Council at the application stage and did not form part of the reason for refusal, which I have dealt with in the assessment above. Whilst I can understand the concerns raised, there is no compelling evidence before me that would lead me to come to a different conclusion to the Council on these matters. I have considered this appeal proposal on its own merits and concluded that it would not cause harm for the reasons set out above. Conditions

16. The Council has suggested conditions which it considers would be appropriate in its submission. I have reviewed these in accordance with the tests set out in the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) and have amended the wording where necessary in the interests of clarity and simplicity.

17. It is necessary to impose a condition relating to the approved plans in the interests of certainty. A pre- commencement condition securing the submission of external materials to the Council is reasonable and necessary to ensure the facing materials of the proposed development is acceptable to the character and appearance of the appeal site and surrounding area. A pre-commencement condition securing the submission of a Construction Method Statement is reasonable and necessary to ensure that the proposed development does not adversely affect the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers or resultant in highway safety issues.

18. It is reasonable and necessary to attach a planning condition to ensure that any external lighting scheme is submitted for approval and to ensure the proposed parking area is retained for its intended purpose in the interest of character and appearance, and highway safety respectively. Additionally, it is reasonable and necessary to impose a pre-commencement condition relating to contaminated land and measures to ensure the protection of future occupiers.

19. Whilst the Framework is silent on such matters, permitted development is development for which the principle has already been granted by secondary legislation, and there are no restrictions within the GPDO1 for domestic extensions or development within the curtilage of a dwelling located within a Green Belt, whereas such restrictions do exist (for example) on dwellings within National Parks and conservation areas. Therefore, in the light of national policy and guidance regarding imposition of conditions restricting the future use of permitted development rights, I consider there are no exceptional circumstances (as required by PPG 017) to justify the removal of permitted development rights at the appeal site.

1 Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re- enacting that Order with or without modification) (as amended) 2 Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981

357 20. A condition was suggested by the Council regarding works to trees and shrubs. However, nesting birds are protected by different legislation2, so I have not imposed it. Additionally, a condition was suggested in relation to the submission of a landscaping plan, but the scheme is only for a single dwelling and it is therefore a small-scale development, so it would be unreasonable to attach such a condition in this instance.

Planning Balance and Conclusion

21. The Framework does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making. I have found conflict with CS Policy CC 1. However, the proposed development is not inappropriate development in Green Belt and accordingly would not cause harm to the Green Belt. Additionally, I find no harm to the character and appearance of the appeal site and surrounding area. I have not found conflict with the requirements of the Framework. I am also satisfied that subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, there would be no harm with respect to any other matters.

22. The provision of what is likely to be a family home would generate additional social benefits. In addition, there would be economic benefits for the locality, both during construction and occupation of the dwelling. Overall, I consider that there would be no adverse effects resulting from the proposed development that would significantly or demonstrably outweigh my findings on the main issues. Therefore, in this instance there are material considerations which indicate that the proposal should be determined otherwise than in accordance with the development plan and planning permission should be granted.

23. Taking all matters into consideration, I conclude that the appeal should succeed.

W Johnson INSPECTOR Schedule of Conditions

1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans: 16-05- 02B; 16-05-03A; 16-05-04; 16-05-05B; 16-05-06C; 16-05-07B; 16-05-08A; 16-05-09A; 16-05-10A; 16-05- 11F.

3) No development shall take place, until written and photographic details of the external roofing and facing materials (including manufacturer’s details) shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval. Materials samples shall be made available to view on site. The development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details/samples.

4) No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to the Local Planning for approval. The approved Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The Statement shall provide for: i. the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors; ii. loading and unloading of plant and materials; iii. storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development; iv. the erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate; v. wheel washing facilities; vi. measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction; vii. a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works.

5) None of the buildings hereby approved shall be used/occupied until details (if any) of external lighting have been submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The external lighting shall be installed in accordance with the approved details and thereby retained and maintained for the life of the development.

6) The parking provision shown on the approved plans shall be provided prior to first occupation of the development. The parking provision shall not be used for any other purpose other than the parking of vehicles and it shall be maintained and retained for the life of the development.

358 7) No development shall commence until an assessment of the risks posed by any contamination, carried out in accordance with British Standard BS 10175: Investigation of potentially contaminated sites - Code of Practice and the Environment Agency’s Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination (CLR 11) (or equivalent British Standard and Model Procedures if replaced), shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. If any contamination is found, a report specifying the measures to be taken, including the timescale, to remediate the site to render it suitable for the approved development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The site shall be remediated in accordance with the approved measures and timescale and a verification report shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. If, during the course of development, any contamination is found which has not been previously identified, work shall be suspended and additional measures for its remediation shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The remediation of the site shall incorporate the approved additional measures and a verification report for all the remediation works shall be submitted to the local planning authority within 28 days of the report being completed and approved in writing by the local planning authority. End of Schedule

359

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 18 August 2020 by Mr W Johnson

BA(Hons) DipTP DipUDR MRTPI

an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 28 August 2020

Appeal Ref: APP/M0655/D/20/3248145 Reedham, Broseley Lane, Culcheth and Glazebury, Warrington WA3 4HP • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Stuart Chivers against the decision of Warrington Borough Council. • The application Ref 2019/35594, dated 7 August 2019, was refused by notice dated 18 December 2019. • The development is described as: ‘Proposed Timber Garage’.

Decision

1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter

2. At the time of my site visit, I saw that the development was in place at the appeal site and was substantially complete. I have dealt with the appeal on this basis.

Main Issues

3. The main issues of this appeal are: i. whether the development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt; ii. the effect of the development on the openness of the Green Belt;

iii. the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the appeal site or surrounding area; and,

iv. if the development is inappropriate development in the Green Belt, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development.

Reasons

Inappropriate development in the Green Belt

4. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) identifies that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. It goes on to state that inappropriate development is harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

5. The national policy advice in the Framework has to be read together with the relevant development plan, Policies CS 1 and CS 5 of the Warrington Borough

360

Appeal Decision APP/M0655/D/20/3248145

Council Local Plan Core Strategy 2014 (CS), which conforms to the thrust of national Green Belt policy in these respects. 6. In addition, the construction of new buildings should be regarded as inappropriate in the Green Belt subject to a number of exceptions as set out in paragraph 145 of the Framework. The appellant asserts that the development should be considered as an extension to the host dwelling and also refers to development of previously developed land in his submission. However, due to the nature, siting and location of the development in the front garden of the host dwelling, I do not consider the development to comply with the exceptions listed at Paragraph 145 c) or g).

7. Thus, the proposed development does not fall within the scope of the exceptions listed in paragraph 145, and therefore represents inappropriate development within the Green Belt and would therefore be at odds with CS Policies CS 1, CS 5 and the Framework in this regard.

Green Belt openness

8. The Framework indicates that openness is an essential characteristic of the Green Belt with a key objective being to keep land permanently open. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) identifies factors which can be taken into consideration when assessing the impact of a development on Green Belt openness. It states that openness is capable of both spatial and visual aspects.

9. The appeal site is located in the front garden of the host dwelling and is partially screened by mature trees and vegetation, which reduces its visual effect, especially on the front boundary of the host dwelling. Nevertheless, the effect on openness is not just about the degree to which a new building would be visible to the public realm but it is also concerned about the spatial aspect of encroachment on openness which can result from the cumulative effect of even small new buildings.

10. I recognise that the development is of a simple single storey design, relatively small in scale, occupying a small part of the front garden area. Nonetheless, the development introduces additional bulk and massing to the site and therefore, in spatial terms, would have a harmful impact upon the openness of the Green Belt. It follows that whilst the development would not be visually intrusive in terms of openness, it would nonetheless, have a harmful impact on openness due to its spatial characteristics.

11. For all of the above reasons, I conclude that the development results in a moderate loss of openness to the Green Belt. As such, it is contrary to the requirements of the Framework.

Character and appearance

12. The development comprises a detached garage, sited in front of the host dwelling, adjacent to the existing access. The facing elevations of the development is of timber construction with a tiled roof and the development is single storey in scale and appearance. The visual effect of the development is mitigated somewhat by the mature trees and vegetation on the front boundary. Nonetheless, the development is still visible from areas within the public realm.

13. The host dwelling and neighbouring properties are located in generous plots with little or no development to the front of the main buildings. This forms a

2 Appeal Decision APP/M0655/D/20/3248145

strong and positive characteristic in the street scene, meaning I consider that the appeal site is located within an area of similar properties that have maintained a sense of rhythm and balance. The proposal through its detached form and prominent location to the front of the site results in an incongruous addition that has an

361 awkward relationship with the host dwelling and its neighbours. The resulting adverse effect is visible in the street scene to the detriment of character and appearance of the appeal site and surrounding area. 14. For all of the above reasons, I conclude that the development results in significant harm to the character and appearance of the appeal site and surrounding area. Consequently, the development is contrary to the design, character and appearance aims of CS Policy QE 7 and the requirements of the Framework.

Other considerations

15. Paragraph 144 of the Framework requires decision makers to ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. Other considerations in favour of the development must clearly outweigh the harm. The appellant contends there are considerations that would outweigh harm arising from inappropriate development and any other harm to amount to very special circumstances.

16. The appellant’s formal case to demonstrate very special circumstances, surrounds his car collection and the need to protect his high value vehicles, particularly from stray golf balls entering his property from Leigh Golf Club, which the site face from across the road. The appellant asserts that there have been numerous instances where golf balls have caused damage to his vehicles. Additionally, the appellant considers that the design of the development reflects the surrounding area.

Green Belt Balance

17. In summary, the development is inappropriate development in the terms set out in the Framework and leads to a moderate loss of openness to the Green Belt. Additionally, there is harm to the character and appearance of the appeal site and surrounding area.

18. I acknowledge that the development would provide security and shelter to the appellant from parking his vehicles in the development. However, I find the amount of detail submitted in support of the appellant’s case to be limited. In any event, the considerations advanced by the appellant and in the wider evidence do not outweigh the harm identified in respect of the main issues, so as to amount to very special circumstances. Consequently, very special circumstances do not exist, and the proposed development conflicts with CS Policies CS 1, CS 5, QE 7 and the requirements of the Framework.

Conclusion

19. Taking all matters into consideration, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.

W Johnson INSPECTOR

362

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 18 August 2020 by Mr W Johnson

BA(Hons) DipTP DipUDR MRTPI

an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 28 August 2020

Appeal Ref: APP/M0655/W/20/3250840 19B Common Lane, Culcheth, Warrington, Cheshire WA3 4EW • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mrs Susan Wardle of Savannah 19 Ltd against the decision of Warrington Borough Council. • The application Ref 2019/35808, dated 9 September 2019, was refused by notice dated 30 March 2020. • The development proposed is described as: ‘Temporary outdoor wooden pergola’.

Decision

1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matters

2. For clarity, I have added the name of the appellant in the banner heading above as it is listed on the appeal form and is more precise.

3. At the time of my site visit, I saw that the development was in place at the appeal site and was substantially complete. I have dealt with the appeal on this basis.

4. The appellant considers the development ‘temporary’. However, I disagree with this assertion due to the degree of permanence of the development, through its size, construction and method of fixing. Accordingly, it comprises operational development within the meaning of Section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Main Issues

5. The main issues of this appeal are the effect of the development on: i. the character and appearance of the appeal site and the surrounding area; and,

ii. the effective operation of the site in terms of highway safety, with particular regard to servicing, delivery and parking.

Reasons

Character and appearance

6. The development is located to the rear of the host property in a yard area, which is currently used in connection with a range of multiple uses, including,

363

Appeal Decision APP/M0655/W/20/3250840

but not limited to storage, seating, servicing/deliveries and vehicular access to the adjoining property1. 7. The development sits at the edge of the footway on Jackson Avenue and almost extends to the full width of the access. Either side of the development when viewing the site from Jackson Avenue is concrete post/panels with a closed boarded timber infill panel to the left and low-level metal railings, sited on a small brick wall to the right. The host property is located at first floor with access taken from a set of external steps located off the rear elevation of the main building.

8. The appellant has drawn my attention to the detached structure to the front of the Cherry Tree public house (the public house). However, I find this structure to be different in character and appearance to the development before me due to it being more enclosed, with a solid roof and sited on land to the front of the public house, incorporating the mature tree. Nonetheless, whilst the development on the site may be less enclosed, I do not find that it forms an incongruous feature in its current location.

9. Whilst, the development extends across the site, its single storey height and lightweight structure compliments the character and appearance of the main building. Furthermore, I consider that the additions, such as lighting and artificial ‘Ivy’ further enhances the appearance of the structure. Additionally, I consider that the development would be further enhanced during the evening when the illumination from the lighting is more noticeable.

10. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the development does not significantly harm the character and appearance of the site or the surrounding area. Consequently, the development accords with the design, character and appearance aims of Policies QE 6, QE 7 of the Warrington Borough Council Local Plan Core Strategy 2014 (CS), and the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).

Highway safety

11. The entrance to the site is located off Jackson Avenue and opposite a local car park serving the shopping centre. I noted that Jackson Avenue has double yellow lines on both sides of the carriage way that extends from the junction with Common Lane for a notable distance and includes the section of road across the access to the site. Additionally, I noted that Common Lane has single yellow lines restricting parking in the vicinity of the site. Therefore, it is evident to me that the road network surrounding the site has various restrictions in place to prevent on-street parking.

12. At the time of my visit, on a mid-week morning, there were no chairs and tables sited beneath the development. Additionally, I note that the appellant asserts that there is no requirement for large service or delivery vehicles and that the original service management plan was based on estimated requirements prior to the first use and operation of the business. Furthermore, I acknowledge since the business opened it has not been necessary to use vehicles larger than ‘transit’ style vans for the delivery of stock. 13. I accept that at No 21 Common Lane they are likely to have little or no deliveries to the rear area and that the rear area to No 21 is primarily used to

1 No 21 Common Lane.

2 Appeal Decision APP/M0655/W/20/3250840

park cars. Additionally, I note that the occupiers of No 21 have withdrawn their original objection to the planning application. I also acknowledge the comments from the appellants surrounding the deliveries to the ground floor restaurant and the use of a side door. Nonetheless, a series of steps down to this door are located off the site where access is obtained from under a small section of the development, where a beer

364 keg was also stored. Overall, I find that there is very little detail surrounding the types or style of delivery vehicle that visit the site, in the case of both the host property and the ground floor restaurant. 14. Even when excluding the possibility of 7.5 tonne vehicles delivering to the site, I cannot be certain that a delivery van could comfortably park beneath the development, given the different body styles and sizes of vehicles on the market. I have considered whether suitably worded conditions could be imposed to ensure that otherwise unacceptable development could be made acceptable, but this is not possible in this instance. Overall, I am far from persuaded that the height restrictions on the site as a direct consequence of the development does not result in delivery/service vehicles parking on the street.

15. In the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, I therefore conclude on this issue that the development has significant harmful effect on highway safety with particular regard to servicing, delivery and parking. Therefore, the development is contrary to the highway safety aims of CS Policies SN 4, MP 1 and the requirements of the Framework.

Other Matter

16. The appellant has advanced in support of her submission that the illuminated area helps to prevent accidents, but this does not outweigh the harm that I have identified in respect of highway safety. I have considered this appeal proposal on its own merits and concluded that it would cause harm for the reasons set out above.

Planning Balance

17. I have found that there is significant harm caused to highway safety. The development does not have a detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the appeal site or surrounding area. However, this matter is of neutral consequence in the overall planning balance. Whilst the development provides some social and economic benefits to the business and its customers, these are relatively limited in extent, and do not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the harm identified. The development is therefore contrary to the development plan when taken as a whole, and there are no other considerations which outweigh this finding. It is also at odds with the requirements of the Framework. Conclusion

18. Taking all matters into consideration, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.

W Johnson INSPECTOR

365

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 18 August 2020 by Mr W Johnson

BA(Hons) DipTP DipUDR MRTPI

an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 2 September 2020

Appeal Ref: APP/M0655/Z/20/3251305 Advertising right on Gable Wall, 27 London Road, Warrington WA4 6SG • The appeal is made under Regulation 17 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (as amended) (the Regulations) against a refusal to grant express consent. • The appeal is made by Mr Robert Edward Foden of Foden Estates Ltd against the decision of Warrington Borough Council. • The application Ref 2019/36102, dated 12 November 2019, was refused by notice dated 26 February 2020. • The advertisement proposed is described as: ‘Replacement of existing 1 x 48 sheet advertising hoarding with 1 x Portrait LED advertising display unit’.

Decision

1. The appeal is allowed, and express consent is granted for the replacement of existing 1 x 48 sheet advertising hoarding with 1 x Portrait LED advertising display unit. The consent is for five years from the date of this decision and is subject to the five standard conditions set out in the Regulations and the following additional conditions: 1) No single advertisement shall be displayed for less than 10 seconds and successive images shall not be changed more frequently than once every 10 seconds.

2) The transition between successive advertisements shall be 0.1 second or less.

3) During the hours of darkness, the illumination level shall not exceed 300 candelas. At all other times the illumination level shall not exceed 600 candelas.

4) There shall be no additional effects (including, but not limited to: audio, odours, smoke, animation, flashing, scrolling, three dimensional, intermittent or video elements) of any kind, at any time.

5) The display shall at all times maintain a safety feature that will turn the screen off (ie shows a black screen) in the event that the display experiences a malfunction or error.

Procedural Matter

2. The Regulations require that decisions are made only in the interests of amenity and public safety. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) reiterates this approach. However, in its reasons for refusal the Council has cited Policies QE7, QE8,

SW1 of the Warrington Borough Council Local Plan Core Strategy 2014 (CS) and the Framework. I have had regard to these as a material consideration, in so far as they relate to the main issue of amenity.

366 Accordingly, whilst I have taken account of the Council’s policies as a material consideration in the determination of this appeal, they have not, in themselves, been decisive. Main Issue

3. The Council has no objection in relation to public safety. On the details before me, and in the absence of any substantive evidence to the contrary, I have little reason to disagree with the Council’s observations.

4. Therefore, the main issue of this appeal is the effect of the proposal on the visual amenity of the area, including the character and appearance of the Stockton Heath: London Road/Grappenhall Road Conservation Area and the setting of No’s 12 to 20 (even) and The Church of St Thomas, all of which are Grade II Listed.

Reasons

5. The proposal seeks permission for the replacement of existing gable mounted 1 x 48 sheet advertising hoarding with 1 x 16 sheet (Portrait) LED digital advertising display unit, measuring 3 metres high x 2 metres wide, and comprising a pressed metal frame with sealed LED screen on the gable end of No 27 London Road. Due to the gable end facing a southerly direction and the relationship of No 27 with its neighbours, the proposal will only be visible to motorists and pedestrians when travelling in a northerly direction along the road.

6. The site is located within the London Road Conservation Area (the CA), which was designated in 1988. The significance of the CA is defined by its commercial character, including a mixture of shops and services extending along London Road (the road) between Victoria Square and the Manchester Ship Canal. On this section of the road, there is also some residential units and the oldest surviving buildings in the area that date from the early 19th century. At either end of the road are large buildings, which give the road some definition, including the Church of St Thomas. The frontages of the buildings lining the road are prominent, especially the shops, which vary in appearance with modern and traditional frontages. This creates the appearance of a busy high street, which contributes positively to the character of the CA.

7. Although the site is on the gable end of No 27, it is still read in conjunction with the nearby listed buildings, especially No’s 12 to 20 (even), which are on the opposite side of the road to the site. However, the grounds of the Church of St Thomas are adjacent to No 12, separated only by a footpath, modest in width. Therefore, in the case of the listed buildings1, I find that the appeal scheme affects both of their settings. No’s 12 to 20 (even) comprise a row of 5no. terraced cottages dating from the early 19th century and are a simple but well preserved example of its type. The Church of St Thomas was built in 1868 by E G Paley as a successor to one built in 1838. It is constructed out of pinkish-red sandstone with graded Westmorland slates forming its roof.

1 12, 14, 16, 18 and 20 London Road (1139344) 23 December 1983; and, Church of St Thomas (1135939) 23 December 1983 8. In terms of the approach set out in paragraph 193 of the Framework, when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. Paragraph 196 of the Framework states that where a development proposal would lead to less than substantial harm, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

9. In this instance I recognise that the existing display is not illuminated and although it is located within a commercial area with a variety of signage present, both illuminated and non-illuminated, there are no other digital displays in the vicinity of the site or prominent within the CA. In this respect I find that the scheme would cause some harm to the visual appearance of the area due to its modern appearance and illuminated LED display. However, I acknowledge that the appeal scheme would be significantly smaller in size than the existing display, relating much better to the host building and enhancing the appearance of the gable end at No 27.

367 10. Thus, although the scheme would introduce an iluminated digital display to the CA, I find that on balance, the overall reduction in the size of display would provide significant visual benefits to the CA to outweigh the introduction of the digital display. Additionally, I consider that matters surrounding the illumination of the scheme and the method on how it displays its images could be controlled through the imposition of suitably worded planning conditions to ensure that the potential harm is mitigated. Overall, I consider that the scheme would preserve and enhance the CA and the setting of the listed buildings. In any event, even if I found ‘less than substantial harm’ resulting from the scheme through the introduction of the digital display, I consider that the notable reduction in size of the scheme when compared against the existing hoarding would amount to significant public benefits to outweigh such harm.

11. Both main parties have referred to an appeal decision2 for a scheme at No’s 54-56 London Road. Whilst noting the comments from the Inspector, relatively little detail has been provided regarding the particular planning background to this scheme. Without such information a full and detailed comparison between this scheme and the case before me cannot be drawn, except insofar as I was able to observe and assess the site at my visit. In any event, I note that the scheme before this Inspector was for a much larger digital display that was going to be sited in proximity of the adjacent designated heritage asset. Therefore, I conclude that there are significant differences between the scheme at No’s 54-56 and the scheme before me. Accordingly, I find little within this scheme that would lead me to alter my conclusions in this case.

12. On balance, I consider that the proposed scheme would have a neutral effect on the significance of the CA and the setting of the listed buildings. Section 72 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) requires special attention to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a designated conservation area. Section 66 (1) of the Act requires special regard to be paid to the desirability of preserving listed buildings or their setting. I consider the scheme accords with both of these duties.

13. In conclusion, I therefore find that the Portrait LED advertising display unit would not significantly harm amenity to a degree that would justify withholding permission. Additionally, I find that the scheme would not harm the significance of the CA and it would preserve the setting of the listed buildings. Accordingly, it would comply with the design and heritage aims of CS Policies QE7, QE8, SW1 and the scheme would not cause harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets for the purposes of the Framework.

Conditions

14. In addition to the five standard conditions set out in the Regulations, the Council has suggested a number of additional conditions. I have reviewed these in accordance with the tests set out in the PPG, revising where necessary to better reflect its requirements. I have considered the suggested wording as a starting point but have attached conditions more consistent in their necessity and form with the relevant advice.

15. I note the additional conditions specified by the Council relate to the proposed level of illumination, and the nature of the advertisement. Therefore, in the interests of amenity, the CA and the listed buildings, I consider it reasonable and necessary to impose conditions to that effect and broadly along the lines proposed.

Conclusion

16. In summary, the proposed scheme would not have a detrimental effect on the amenity of the appeal site and the surrounding area, and the significance of the heritage asset’s would be conserved.

17. Taking all matters into consideration, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.

W Johnson INSPECTOR

2 APP/M0655/Z/19/3241743

368

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 18 August 2020 by Mr W Johnson BA(Hons) DipTP DipUDR

MRTPI

an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 28 August 2020

Appeal Ref: APP/M0655/D/20/3250552 3 Ladywood Road, Old Hall, Warrington WA5 9QR • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mrs Jessica Williams against the decision of Warrington Borough Council. • The application Ref 2019/36230, dated 29 September 2019, was refused by notice dated 3 April 2020. • The development proposed is described as ‘2-storey extension to side to replace garage’.

Decision

1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue

2. The main issue of the proposed development is the effect on the character and appearance of the appeal site and surrounding area. Reasons

3. Ladywood Road forms a circuit around a central area comprising grass and woodland, which has a number of roads radiating from it. The host dwelling is a detached house in a small row of 3no. properties of similar design, including No 5 Ladywood Road on the opposite side of Willoughby Close to the site.

4. Whilst there is no specific policy objection to the principle of a residential extension, I note that the appeal scheme would provide a significant amount of additional accommodation when compared with the original property. The dwelling types are varied on Ladywood Road, but are mostly in the form of detached houses sited in generous plots. This forms a strong and positive characteristic in the street scene, meaning I consider that the appeal site is located close to other detached properties of similar scale and massing, creating a sense of rhythm and balance throughout Ladywood Road.

5. The host dwelling is located adjacent to the junction of Willoughby Road and has not been significantly extended or altered from its original form. The proposed development would extend the width of the building considerably and thus, increase its scale and massing. The resultant effect would be an overly wide addition to the host dwelling relative to its existing proportions. The adverse effect of the proposal is accentuated through the lack of a lower ridge line or set back from the existing front elevation. These factors would diminish and unbalance the character and appearance of the host dwelling, resulting in a

369 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Appeal Decision APP/M0655/D/20/3250552

cramped appearance, with a loss of spaciousness to the detriment of the wider street scene. 6. The appellant has referred to the gap that would be maintained with No 1 Ladywood Road and that there would be no terracing effect resulting from the proposed development due to No1 and the host dwelling being on different building lines. Nonetheless, the guidance contained in the House Extensions Guidelines 2 2003 (SPG) advises that for extensions to harmonise visually with existing dwellings they should be subordinate in scale to the building, which is to be extended.

7. My attention has been drawn to other properties in the area by the appellant in her statement and through the submission of photographs. Whilst noting these properties, relatively little detail has been provided regarding the particular planning backgrounds to those schemes. Without such information a full and detailed comparison between those developments and the case before me cannot be drawn except insofar as I was able to observe and assess the sites at my visit.

8. For all of these reasons, I therefore conclude that the proposed development would significantly harm the character and appearance of the appeal site and surrounding area. This would be contrary to the design, character and appearance aims of Policy QE7 of the Warrington Borough Council Local Plan Core Strategy 2014 and guidance contained within the SPG. The proposal would also be contrary to the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Other Matter

9. No encroachment or harm to the living conditions of No 1 is a matter of neutral consequence in the determination of this appeal and for the reasons described, do not out-weigh my assessment of the main issue. I have considered this appeal proposal on its own particular merits and concluded that it would cause harm for the reasons set out above. Conclusion

10. Taking all matters into consideration, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.

W Johnson INSPECTOR

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

370

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 15 September 2020 by Robert Hitchcock BSc DipCD MRTPI

an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 18 September 2020

Appeal Ref: APP/M0655/D/20/3253996 12 Crosby Avenue, Bewsey, Warrington, Cheshire WA5 0DQ • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr James Appleton against the decision of Warrington Borough Council. • The application Ref 2020/36699, registered by the Council on 19 March 2020, was refused by notice dated 5 June 2020. • The development proposed is a garage.

Decision

1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter

2. During the course of the Council’s consideration of the planning application amended plans were received altering the proposed size and clarifying the external finish of the building. For the avoidance of doubt, I have considered this appeal on the basis of the amended plans. Main Issues

3. The main issues are the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the locality and highway safety. Reasons

Character and appearance

4. The site is an end terrace dwelling located on a corner plot at the junction of Crosby Avenue and Alpass Avenue. The locality features similar terraces set behind front gardens with private amenity spaces to the rear. The terraces are well spaced at the road junctions and many of the gaps formed by the rear garden areas of the corner terraces contain domestic outbuildings, extensions and garages.

5. The proposal, stated as being about 4.5 x 7.3 x 2.7(h)m by the Council, would replace an existing timber shed with a mono-pitched roofed located close to the rear boundary of the site. The building would be constructed of rendered blockwork with a shallow dual-pitched roof of profiled steel sheeting.

6. The building would extend close to both side boundaries of the plot. On the Alpass Avenue frontage this consists of a brick wall with piers and infill timber panels and gates set immediately at the back of the pavement. Although much of the lower part of the building would be screened, the upper parts of the

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

371 Appeal Decision APP/M0655/D/20/3253996

walls, roof and end gable would be clearly visible above the side boundary. Taken with the significant floor area and proximity to the wall/fence, the scale of the building would give rise to an obtrusive form of development in a prominent location forward of the building line on Alpass Avenue. 7. This would contrast with the majority of other outbuildings in the locality which are generally more modest in scale, benefit from higher levels of screening or are sited in less prominent positions. From the junction of Crosby Avenue with Alpass Avenue the building would be highly conspicuous.

8. Although the upper part of the building would be partly screened by existing high planting in the frontage of 13 Alpass Avenue on approach from the north, this lies outside of the appeal site and therefore beyond the control of the appellant. Any loss of the screening would further highlight the scale of the building from this viewpoint.

9. For the above reasons, I find that the building would contrast with the characteristic domestic scale of outbuildings found in the locality and give rise to an obtrusive form of development that would harm the character of the Alpass Avenue streetscene. It would therefore conflict with Policy QE7 of the Warrington Borough Council Local Plan Core Strategy (July 2014) (CS), the SPG2 House Extension Guidelines and National Planning Policy Framework (the framework) as they seek to secure high standards of design of development that reinforce local distinctiveness and harmonise with the scale and character of existing buildings.

Highway Safety

10. The proposal would rely on access via an existing vehicular crossing and gated opening in the rear side boundary. Due to the siting of the building it would not be possible for the access gates to open inwards into the site. Any outward opening of the gates would have the potential to impede users of the adjacent footway causing them to either cross the road or enter the carriageway when the gates were in use.

11. Although the appellant states that the gates have always opened outwards since before he purchased the property, there is little evidence to confirm when that was. Nevertheless, the replacement of the existing outbuilding with a garage would result in more frequent use of the entrance to provide vehicular access. This would lead to additional instances of obstruction to free movement within the highway and elevate the potential for highway safety concerns.

12. For those reasons, I find that the proposal would prejudice highway safety in the locality and conflict with Policy QE6 of the CS, guidance in the Warrington UDP Supplementary Planning Guidance for House Extensions and the Framework as they seek to safe forms of development.

Conclusion

13. For the above reasons, the appeal should be dismissed.

R Hitchcock INSPECTOR

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

372