PS/1/A

United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

22 May 2018

Peel Land and Property

Mott MacDonald Spring Bank House 33 Stamford Street Altrincham WA14 1ES United Kingdom

T +44 (0)161 926 4000 F +44 (0)161 929 8915 mottmac.com

Peel Land and Property Peel Dome Intu Trafford Centre United Utilities Water Limited Trafford City PS/1/A Manchester (Eccles Waste Water M17 8Pl Mott MacDonald Treatment Works) CPO 2016 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

22 May 2018

Mott MacDonald Limited. Registered in England and Wales no. 1243967. Registered office: Mott MacDonald House, 8-10 Sydenham Road, Croydon CR0 2EE, Peel Land and Property United Kingdom

Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

This document is issued for the party which commissioned it and for specific purposes connected with the above-captioned project only. It should not be relied upon by any other party or used for any other purpose.

We accept no responsibility for the consequences of this document being relied upon by any other party, or being used for any other purpose, or containing any error or omission which is due to an error or omission in data supplied to us by other parties.

This document contains confidential information and proprietary intellectual property. It should not be shown to other parties without consent from us and from the party which commissioned it.

This Re por t has be en p rep are d solely for use by t he p arty w hich c om mission ed it (the 'Client') i n co nnecti on wit h the cap tione d p roject . It s hould not be used for any oth er p urp ose. N o p erso n ot her tha n th e Client or any party who has expr essly a gre ed t er ms of relia nce wit h us (the 'Recipie nt(s )') m ay r ely on the cont ent, info rma tion or any view s exp ress ed in the R epo rt. This R epo rt is co nfide ntial and c ont ains p rop riet ary in tellect ual p rop erty and we ac cept no duty of ca re, resp onsibility or li ability t o any oth er recipi ent o f this R epo rt. N o re pre sent ation , wa rran ty o r un dert aking , exp ress or i mplie d, is made an d no res ponsi bility or liability is acce pted by us to any p arty oth er t han the Cli ent or a ny Reci pient (s), as t o the accu racy or c om plete ness of th e info rm ation cont aine d in t his Rep ort. Fo r t he av oida nce o f do ubt t his Re port do es no t in any way pu rpo rt to includ e a ny leg al, ins ura nce or fin ancial advic e or opini on.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

Contents

1 Introduction 1 1.1 Personal details 1 1.2 Witness declaration 2 1.3 My involvement in the scheme 2 1.4 Scope of evidence 3 1.5 Structure of evidence 3

2 CPO scheme engineering description 5 2.1 Tunnel route and geometry 5 2.2 The CPO Scheme 6 2.3 Ground conditions 8 2.4 Tunnelling operations 11 2.5 Further information on the CPO scheme 17

3 Engineering overview of the land area affected by the CPO scheme 18 3.1 Overview 18 3.2 Access routes into Port Salford and the Stadium Land 19 3.3 Water courses 21 3.4 Eccles WwTW existing outfall 21 3.5 Built structures 22

4 Land use and future development 23 4.1 Overview 23 4.2 Port Salford 24 4.3 Rail line – consented infrastructure 27 4.4 Port Salford masterplan 30 4.5 Port Salford master plan engineering development 32 4.6 Rail connection and rail line development 36 4.7 Salteye Brook diversion masterplan scheme 43 4.8 Topography and ground works for Salteye Brook diversion 44 4.9 CoSCoS Stadium site 48 4.10 CoSCoS retail site 50

5 Schedule and use of land plots 53 5.1 Introduction to land plots in the CPO 53

6 Plots 3, 3E, 3I, 3S and 3T 56

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

6.1 Location and ownership of plots 3, 3E, 3I, 3S and 3T 56 6.2 Description of plots and their current and proposed use 56 6.3 Rights sought by the order for plot 3E 61 6.4 Rights sought by the order for plot 3 63 6.5 Rights sought for plots 3I, 3S and 3T 65 6.6 Justification of the rights claimed 66 6.7 Conflicts with existing and proposed use 70 6.8 Rights offered by CoSCoS and PSL 72 6.9 Conclusion on plots 72

7 Plots 3B, 3C and 3D 73 7.1 Location and ownership of plots 3B, 3C and 3D 73 7.2 Description and current use 73 7.3 Rights sought for plots 3B, 3C and 3D 75 7.4 Implications of the rights for the landowner 77 7.5 Justification of the rights claimed 81 7.6 Conflicts with existing and proposed use 87 7.7 Rights offered by CoSCoS 87 7.8 Conclusions on the plots 88

8 Plots 3P, 3Q and 3R 89 8.1 Location and ownership of plots 3P, 3Q and 3R 89 8.2 Description and current use 89 8.3 Rights sought by UU 90 8.4 Justification of the rights claimed 92 8.5 Conflicts with existing and proposed use 95 8.6 Rights offered by CoSCoS 96 8.7 Conclusions on the plots 96

9 Plots 3J, 3L, 3M, and 3N 98 9.1 Location and ownership of plots 3J, 3L, 3M and 3N 98 9.2 Description and current use 98 9.3 Rights sought by UU 100 9.4 Justification of rights claimed 102 9.5 Conflicts with existing and proposed use 104 9.6 Rights offered by CoSCoS and PSL 105 9.7 Conclusions on the plots 105

10 Plots 3F, 3G ,3H, and 3K 106 10.1 Location and ownership of plots 3F, 3G, 3H and 3K 106 10.2 Description and current use 106 10.3 Rights sought by UU for plot 3F 108 10.4 Rights sought by UU for Plot 3G 109

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

10.5 Plots 3H and 3K 109 10.6 Justification of the rights claimed 111 10.7 Rights offered by CoSCoS 114 10.8 Conclusions on the plots 114

11 Plots 4B, 4F, 4P, 4W, 4Z, 4AA, 4AF, 4AG, 4AM, 4AN, 4AP, 5G, 5H, 5J, and 5P 115 11.1 Location and ownership of plots 4B, 4F, 4P, 4W, 4Z, 4AA, 4AF, 4AG, 4AM, 4AN, 4AP, 5G, 5H, 5J, and 5P 115 11.2 Description and current use 116 11.3 Rights sought for plot 5G 117 11.4 Rights sought for plots 5P, 5H and 4W 118 11.5 Rights sought for 4F, 4B, 4AP, 5J, 4AA, 4AG and 4AM 119 11.6 Justification of the rights 120 11.7 Conflicts with existing and proposed use 123 11.8 Rights offered by PSL 124 11.9 Conclusions on the plots 124

12 Plots 4I, 4Q, 4R, 4S, 4V, 4AB, 4AC, 5, 5D and 5M 125 12.1 Location and ownership of plots 4I, 4Q, 4R, 4S, 4V, 4AB, 4AC, 5, 5D and 5M 125 12.2 Description and current use 126 12.3 Rights sought by UU for plots 4I, 4Q, 4S, and 4AC 127 12.4 Rights sought by UU for plots 4R and 5M 129 12.5 Rights sought by UU for plots 4V, 4AB and 5 130 12.6 Justification of the rights claimed 132 12.7 Conflicts with existing and proposed use 134 12.8 Rights offered by PSL 134 12.9 Conclusion on plots 135

13 Plots 4G, 4H, 4J, 4K, 4M, 4N, 4P, 4T, 4AD, 4AE, 4AF, 4AH, 4AJ, 4AK, 4AL, 5C, 5E, 5F, 5L, 5R, 5Q and 5T 136 13.1 Location and ownership of Plots 4G, 4H, 4J, 4K, 4M, 4N, 4P, 4T, 4AD, 4AE, 4AF, 4AH, 4AJ, 4AK, 4AL, 5C, 5E, 5F, 5L, 5R, 5Q and 5T 136 13.2 Description and current use 137 13.3 Rights sought 138 13.4 Justification of the rights claimed 139 13.5 Conflicts with existing and proposed use 145 13.6 Rights offered by PSL 149 13.7 Conclusion on plots 150

14 Open offer to UU 151 14.1 Introduction 151 14.2 The offer 152 14.3 Access 153 14.4 Build Over Agreement 154

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

14.5 Site compound 156 14.6 Enabling Works for Salteye Diversion 158 14.7 Summary 159

15 Conclusions and Summary 160 15.1 Rights sought in the order 160 15.2 Tunnelling 161 15.3 Proposed rights 163

16 Appendices list 165

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 1 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

1 Introduction

1.1 Personal details

My name is Robert Longworth. I am a consultant for Mott MacDonald.

I hold an honours degree in Mining Engineering from Newcastle University. I am a Chartered Engineer and Member of the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining. I have over 40 years’ experience in engineering management, infrastructure planning and multi partner infrastructure development with British Coal, Manchester Airport and Mott MacDonald. I am therefore very familiar with the engineering matters considered by this inquiry, and the delivery of infrastructure projects that require the approval of rights and consents between several stakeholders and each with differing aims and objectives.

Relevant experience

I have worked on a number of different infrastructure projects where I was responsible for the landowner’s interests and on others representing the developer’s interests. Whilst these are not tunnelling projects, the experience is relevant in that they concerned a developer that needs to acquire rights and land on both temporary and permanent basis for access and use from a landowner with conflicting current and proposed uses for land in the same area.

My personal experience relevant to this inquiry concerns the development and construction of new platforms at Manchester Airport rail station, and preparing professional evidence for Network Rail at the inquiry into new platforms at Piccadilly and Oxford Road stations. At Manchester Airport I represented Manchester Airport’s interests in during negotiation of an agreement for the planning and construction of a third rail platform. Network Rail required rights of access and use of airport land for compounds and access during construction and a long-term lease for the land required for the construction and use of the platform and rail infrastructure.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 2 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

1.2 Witness declaration

I hereby declare as follows:

i. This proof of evidence includes all facts which I regard as being relevant to opinions that I have expressed and that the inquiry’s attention has been drawn to any matter which would affect the validity of that opinion. ii. I believe the facts I have stated in this proof of evidence are true and that the opinions expressed are correct: and iii. I understand my duty to the inquiry to help it with matters within my expertise and I have complied with that duty.

Whilst I am not a lawyer, I have had the benefit of legal advice in the preparation of this proof, and any matters of contention will be addressed in submissions at the end of the inquiry.

1.3 My involvement in the scheme

Since November 2017 I have been engaged by Port Salford Land Limited (PSL) and City of Salford Community Stadium Limited (CoSCoS) through Mott MacDonald to coordinate the studies to investigate the engineering impacts of the United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) Compulsory Purchase Order 2016 (the Order). Mott MacDonald has however, been involved with aspects of the Port Salford scheme prior to my involvement.

CoSCoS is a joint venture between Salford City Council (SCC) and Peel Land (Red City) Limited. Both Peel Land (Red City) Limited and PSL are wholly-owned subsidiaries within the 'Peel Group' of companies.

PSL is the Peel Group entity instituted to bring forward the establishment of a major logistics base, known as 'Port Salford', through which the Peel Group aims to attract further private investment and new jobs in line with long-term support in both local and regional planning policies.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 3 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

PSL and CoSCoS are respective owners of various interests in land proposed to be compulsory acquired by United Utilities Water Limited (UU) pursuant to the Order.

1.4 Scope of evidence

PSL and CoSCoS have instructed me to act as an expert witness on engineering matters addressing engineering matters in relation to the Order. They have instructed me to examine the rights sought through the Order from an engineering perspective. In particular to set out what rights have been sought and what is UU’s engineering justification for the rights. My clients wish to understand whether UU’s justification is compelling or not, and if its justifiable on engineering grounds or not. And, at the end to set out whether there are lesser means through which the CPO scheme could be delivered.

My evidence is to be read in conjunction with other proofs of evidence written by:

● Michael Francis of Mott MacDonald on Tunnelling; ● Andrew Hall of Cushman and Wakefield on the Retail Masterplan; ● Doug Hann of Indigo on Planning; ● Garry Rowlands of AFL Architects on Stadium Design and Operation.

1.5 Structure of evidence

My evidence is set out as follows:

● Chapter 2 describes the CPO scheme from an engineering perspective. It describes the route of the tunnel, its dimensions and geometry and the dimensions and location of the associated shafts. ● Chapter 3 describes the land impacted by the scope of the CPO from an engineering perspective, including existing and proposed built structures and ground conditions. ● Chapter 4 describes the existing land use and proposals for future development. This section should be read in conjunction with the proof of

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 4 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

evidence on Planning by Indigo, and the proof of evidence on Commercial Development by Cushman and Wakefield. ● Chapter 5 introduces the consideration in this proof of UU’s proposed use the plots of land contained in the CPO. ● Chapters 6 to 13 describes the plots as clusters, based on location and the related uses of the plots. Each chapter sets out the rights sought and the implications of the rights for the landowner, assessment of the justification and the conflicts that follow for the landowner’s existing, consented and proposed uses of its land. Each chapter concludes with what rights could be offered in mitigation by the landowner that would meet UU’s reasonable engineering requirements. ● Chapter 14 summarises the offer of land rights made to UU to replace those in the order, and that will allow UU to construct the SAL0018 sewer and outfall shaft 04 on CoSCoS and PSL land. ● Chapter 15 sets out my conclusions and Summary.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 5 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

2 CPO scheme engineering description

This chapter describes the CPO scheme from an engineering perspective. The CPO scheme works are on land owned by the City of Salford Community Stadium Limited (CoSCoS), Port Salford Land Limited (PSL) and others. The plan in appendix C shows the respective land ownerships highlighted in solid colours. The areas hatched in blue on the plan is the land that UU seeks permanent rights for, and the areas hatched in red is the land that UU seeks to acquire the freehold.

2.1 Tunnel route and geometry

United Utilities Water Limited’s (UU) CPO scheme forms part of its ‘full scheme’ (and also referred to as the SAL0018 Manchester Trunk Main Scheme by UU) to construct a new waste water sewer tunnel of 2.85m internal diameter, beginning at a location on the west side of junction 11 of the M60 Greater Manchester orbital motorway and leading to a new discharge point into the Manchester Ship Canal to the west of the Barton Locks. The internal diameter (2.85m) is typical of other waste water sewers, and is not considered to be a large diameter or cross section in comparison to road and rail tunnels; for example, the Heathrow Express rail tunnels are circa 5.7m diameter for one train track. The first two sections of tunnels of the full scheme have been completed (shown in blue on Figure 1 and the plan in appendix A). The key infrastructure components (CD/RFI/BDB/2.1 section 1) completed comprise three new shafts and two new sections of tunnel listed below:

● Shaft 01 – 11.3m outer diameter and 25.3m deep located in land on the west side of Junction 11 on the M60. ● Shaft 02 – 10.0m outer diameter and 22.8m deep located in land on the east side of Junction 11 on the M60. ● Shaft 03 – 11.3m outer diameter and 16.2m deep on land inside the Eccles WwTW east of the M60 Barton High Level Bridge.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 6 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

● A 95m (approximate length) tunnel running west to east under junction 11 of the M60 between new shaft 01 and new shaft 02; and ● A 509m (approximate length) tunnel running north to south on the east side of the M60 between new shaft 02 and new shaft 03. New shaft 03 is located in UU’s land on the Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works (Eccles WwTW).

Figure 1:Full scheme plan

2.2 The CPO Scheme

The CPO scheme (CD/CPO/3 section 3) is to construct a circular tunnel (2.85m internal diameter) (shown in red on Figure 1) from new shaft 03 in the south westerly direction of internal flow and terminating at new shaft 04 adjacent to the outfall of Salteye Brook into the Manchester Ship Canal (MSC) and on the west side of the Barton Locks. The tunnel distance between shaft 03 and shaft 04 is 1.22km in length (CD/RFI/BDB/2.1, section 1). For most of its length it is approximately 10m below ground level.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 7 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

The purpose of the tunnel is to carry treated ‘water or effluent’ from the Eccles WwTW to discharge into the MSC via an outfall pipe from shaft 04. UU has indicated in its Statement of Reasons (SoR) CD/CPO/3 paragraph 3.7 that the water/effluent flow in the tunnel from shaft 03 will be by gravity and there will not be any flow assistance from pumps inside the pipe.

Starting from shaft 03, the tunnel crosses underneath the M60 Barton High Level Bridge (BHLB). The M60 and the BHLB is part of the national motorway network and is managed by Highways England (HE). UU had previously consulted Highways Agency (HE as was) and the alignment under the BHLB was set out in the Atkins BHLB Outline Approval in Principle report CD/RFI/BDB/2.1 as:

● Following a line equidistant between bridge supporting piers M and N. ● The tunnel centre line is 13.2m from either pile cap. ● Internal diameter 2.85m with an excavated diameter of 3.6m. ● The invert level of the tunnel beneath the bridge ranges between 8.66m and 8.88m AOD.

After crossing under the BHLB, the tunnel curves (approximate radius 400m) towards the south to avoid the City of Salford Community Stadium and again to run parallel along the northern bank of MSC to new shaft 04. The OAIP (CD/RFI/BDB/2.1) specified that the start of the curve will be 10m after the M60 BHLB.

The tunnel ends at shaft 04. UU has stated that the external diameter of the shaft will be 15m and 12.5m deep measured to the invert. The outfall from the shaft is through a twin pipe structure running south into the MSC. The outfall structure measures (as stated in paragraph 3.14 of UU’s SoR CD/CPO/3) 10.5 wide, 10m high and 17m long. The outfall pipes do not protrude beyond the MSC bank.

UU requires a construction compound (section 3.26 in CD/CPO/3) close to the outfall area to carry out construction works for shaft 04 and the outfall. The compound may also be required to support tunnelling works if UU decides to drive the tunnel from west to east. In the CPO, UU identifies a significant amount of

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 8 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

freehold land (as a number of individual plots) that it requires for compound use. The SoR (CD/CPO/3) and schedule of rights (CD/CPO/8.3) offers no justification for the quantum of land UU requires for compound use. However, in paragraph 3.32 of CD/CPO/3, UU states it has provided for a larger (than if it tunnelled from east to west) construction compound to provide for tunnelling works from shaft 04.

Figure 2 and the plan in appendix A shows the route of the tunnel from shaft 03 in the Eccles WwTW under the M60 BHLB and into the CoSCoS site.

Figure 2: Tunnel route from Shaft 3 through CoSCoS land

2.3 Ground conditions

The Barton Strategic Regional Site south of the A57 is situated more or less entirely on raised ground within the River Irwell floodplain, and has been subject to complex historical development.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 9 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

Figure 3 below is an extract from Drawing MMD-293621-G-DR-00-XX-14020, and summarises the site history.

Appendix B contains a technical note describing the ground conditions for the PSL and CoSCoS sites. The sources of the data are listed in Table 1 of the technical note, and include data from surveys undertaken by UU relating to its Full Scheme (also referred to as SAL0018), and by Peel Group for Port Salford development.

Figure 3: Barton site historic ground conditions

Source: MML Drawing: MMD-293621-G-DR-00-XX-14020 and MML Report: Port Salford GIR (2012)

Key to plan

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 10 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

The ground investigation data indicates varying depths of Made Ground, Alluvium and Glacial Deposits to be present. These deposits are variable in nature, comprising loose to very dense sands and gravels and soft to stiff clay.

The bedrock comprises Sherwood Sandstone. The ground investigation data indicates that this is likely to lie approximately 25m below finished floor level (FFL) of the retail unit on the eastern boundary of the proposed development site (closest to the M60) and approximately around 16m below ground level (BGL) on the western boundary of the proposed development site.

Ground conditions at the tunnel horizon comprise partly Alluvial Silty Clays with some Glacial Sands and Gravels. The sands and gravels are likely to be water bearing with head of approximately 1 Bar.

UU will therefore be familiar with the ground conditions along the tunnel corridor from the available survey data. They will also have experience from the tunnel works between shaft 02 and shaft 03 on the east side of the M60. That experience will be relevant to understanding the ground conditions for tunnelling from shaft 03 under the M60 BHLB and into CoSCoS land.

UU confirmed its understanding of the ground conditions and proposed tunnelling methodology in a response to RFI Tranche 2 item 26.15 (CD/RFI/WM/20).

Tunnelling considerations

UU summarises the ground conditions at the tunnel face at the Eccles end as mixed face of Alluvial (soft sandy clay) and Glaciofluvial Sand and Gravels comprising mainly medium dense to dense sand and gravels with localised clay. As the tunnel approaches shaft 04 Chester Formation sandstone may locally encountered in the invert (base) of the tunnel.

The soft nature of the ground and the design requirement for a circular finished tunnel, means a Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM) would be the appropriate choice of tunnelling machine (see Michael Francis Tunnelling Proof of Evidence description of TBMs).

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 11 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

UU proposes to use a Lovat MP123SE operating in earth pressure balance mode. This has previously been used from new in 2009 for a 3.3 km tunnel for Thames Water in London. After completing that tunnel, the TBM was refurbished and used to drive the tunnel between shaft 02 and shaft 03.

The conclusions to draw from UU’s response are that:

● The ground conditions are of soft to medium hardness and will not prove challenging for the chosen TBM; ● The proposed TBM is not a bespoke machine and there are no particular concerns over its use in this tunnel; ● This is a relatively short tunnel drive in soft to medium ground, and as the TBM will either be new or refurbished before use, it is not expected that there will be any concerns with its reliability and operation. There is no elevated risk of requiring the TBM to be “rescued” due to the ground condition.

2.4 Tunnelling operations

The tunnel is 1.22km long and will be driven from one of the shafts (03 or 04). The shaft where tunnelling starts is referred to as the drive site, and the shaft where the tunnelling works end is known as the reception site. Such terms are explained further in the tunnelling proof of evidence.

The size of the compound required for a drive site is larger than that for a reception site. This is because more infrastructure and ancillary equipment is needed at the drive site. The drive site needs space to store the tunnel linings, mixing plant and cement silos for grouting the tunnel lining, stockpiling of ‘muck’ excavated from the tunnel drive, ventilation plant and crane(s) for hoisting materials into the shaft, and offices, workshops and welfare accommodation. Whereas the size of a reception site is governed by the equipment needed to sink the shaft. Sinking rates are lower than tunnelling rates. Therefore, less material needs stockpiling on site and it does not have to support the TBM power supply and ‘muck’ disposal.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 12 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

TBM’s also have a high demand for electrical power, typically 2MVA for TBM of the type proposed for this tunnel by UU. If there is no suitable local supply, then the drive site will need space for temporary power generator to supply the TBM.

Drivage rates (average daily number of metres of completed tunnel) for a tunnel are much higher than for shaft sinking, and therefore tunnelling produces higher volumes of ‘muck’ on a daily basis which will need stockpiling on site before removing from the site by lorries. Good highway access is a key factor when considering the drive site location.

Michael Francis Tunnelling Proof of Evidence lists details of tunnel drive sites from historical data, and the largest quoted is 6215m2 for a 2.85m diameter 4km long Thames Water tunnel. Reception sites are typically between 1500m2 and 2000m2.

Direction of tunnelling

In paragraph 3.28 of the SoR (CD/CPO/3), UU states that if it were able to continue tunnelling of the outfall pipe immediately after completing the tunnel between shaft 03 and shaft 02, it would do so from east to west (i.e. from shaft 03 to shaft 04). However, (in paragraph 3.31 of the SoR CD/CPO/3) it then states that if there is any delay between (i) the completion of tunnelling between shafts 02 and 03 and (ii) commencement of tunnelling under the CPO scheme (i.e. from shaft 03 to shaft 04), then UU and its contractors would not have continuity of the TBM nor the technical tunnelling team. In that circumstance, Highways England may require UU to tunnel from west to east.

It then states (in paragraph 3.32 of the SoR) that: “in that case new shaft 04 would be the launch shaft, and the necessary larger construction compound would have to be located close to there. UU has therefore provided for this larger construction compound within the order…”. It is in effect using a claimed position from Highways England to support a larger than needed claim for land from PSL.

Tunnelling works between shaft 03 and shaft 02 are complete, and the contractor has been stood down and no further tunnelling will take place pending the

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 13 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

outcome of the CPO. Consequently, there is uncertainty about the direction of tunnelling across CoSCoS and PSL land. The direction of tunnelling has a material bearing on the land required for the compound that UU proposes to locate at the outfall into the MSC.

The following paragraphs will explore Highways England’s (HE) position, and whether or not UU’s position in the SoR (CD/CPO/3) is correct.

Highways England and the M60 Barton High Level Bridge

Mott MacDonald sought clarification from HE and UU on their understanding of the tunnelling methodology and risks to the M60 BHLB. A meeting took place between HE and Mott MacDonald’s engineers on 22 February 2018 (in appendix F) to discuss the M60 BHLB and UU’s proposed tunnelling works.

HE’s principal objective is that the tunnel should have zero impact on the bridge. The M60 BHLB was originally constructed as a dual twin carriageway in the early 1960’s and subsequently widened to a dual three carriageway road in 1988. The widened bridge has two additional columns on the outside (making four in total). The new columns are supported on piled foundations circa 20m deep, whereas the original columns are supported on piles that are only circa 10m deep. Consequently, there is a risk that construction works in the vicinity of the BHLB (regardless of tunnel direction) could lead to differential movement across the bridge width (because the older columns and piles will respond differently to induced ground pressure changes than the newer outer columns).

Accordingly, HE has requested that UU install monitoring to detect any movement across the bridge between bridge piers M and N (the tunnel crossing location see Figure 2). Additional monitoring was also provided as part of the WGIS road works (see paragraph 3.2.2 and Figure 5). HE, however, noted that there had not been any discernible impacts to the BHLB from the works so far.

On the direction of tunnelling: HE confirmed at the meeting that it would not specify which direction UU should drive the tunnel. It would only issue a consent

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 14 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

based on tunnelling methodology that has zero impact on the M60 BHLB, irrespective of the direction of works.

Accordingly, HE does not specify the direction of the tunnel drive. On the contrary, they are indifferent to the direction. Their issue is impact to the M60, an issue on which the direction has no impact.

The UU CPO Response to Item 25.4 (CD/RFI/WM/4) contains details of its meeting on 24th January 2018 with HE to discuss works under the M60 BHLB. HE confirmed to UU at that meeting that it would not prescribe the direction of travel and that the contractor would have to demonstrate (to HE) that it could construct the tunnel safely and securely with zero impact on the BHLB.

UU’s preference at that time was to drive the tunnel from shaft 03 towards shaft 04. UU’s preference (as in item 25.4, CD/RFI/WM/4) to drive from shaft 03 was because:

● The site is already set up for tunnelling operations. ● A fixed power supply for TBM operations is in place (shaft 04 would require a new supply or temporary generator). ● Less disruption for vehicle movements as the Eccles WwTW is now accessible off the A57 WGIS road and shaft 04 would require a temporary access route through the stadium land. ● Driving from shaft 03 would reduce programme constraints, as the works to complete the scheme would not be concentrated at shaft 04. ● There would be potentially less disruption at the Port Salford site as a smaller compound at shaft 04 would be required and the duration of works would be shorter.

However, UU maintained its position that (i) it could not prescribe the direction of tunnelling at this time and (ii) had to allow for the scenario where its contractor could not obtain the approvals (from HE) to construct the tunnel from shaft 03 and has to construct the tunnel from shaft 04. Consequently, UU considers it had to allow for sufficient compound space to construct the tunnel from shaft 04.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 15 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

Assessment of UU’s position on tunnelling direction

The inference from the statements in paragraphs 3.28 and 3.31 of the SoR (CD/CPO/3) is that UU believes that a tunnelling team needs time and tunnelling distance to practice or learn how to use the TBM and that there will be no knowledge transfer from the previous tunnelling work between shaft 02 and shaft 03.

The TBM (as noted in paragraph 2.3.12) is not a bespoke machine and therefore there should be no issues with its familiarity to tunnellers. It is reasonable to expect that the contractor will resource tunnelling teams that are familiar with this type of TBM, quite likely to have worked together on previous tunnelling jobs, and are trained in and qualified for the work.

The ground conditions are not unusual or unique and a competent contractor will have experience from tunnels in similar geological environments elsewhere. Ground condition monitoring data from the previous tunnel will be available to UU and there should be no reasons why this information will not inform the next phase of tunnelling work.

In any event, HE is agnostic about the direction of tunnelling (see appendix F, meeting note with Mott MacDonald and CD/RFI/WM/4 meeting. Its key objective is that there should be zero differential settlement across the M60 BHLB where the tunnel crosses underneath it. It will only grant its consent for the work if UU and its contractor demonstrate that it is capable of meeting the zero-settlement requirement.

The duration of works at the shaft 04 site would be significantly shorter as tunnelling and shaft sinking could take place concurrently. Whereas, if shaft 04 was also the drive site, then tunnelling would not start until sinking was completed. UU confirmed this in the RFI response 25.1 (CD/RFI/WM/1) where it set out the outline programme for sinking shaft 04 and driving the tunnel from shaft 03. It stated that allowing for overlap between activities, it is anticipated that that the working area around shaft 04 would be occupied for circa 28 months.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 16 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

However, if the tunnel is constructed from shaft 04 then it is estimated that the duration would extend by a further 9 to 12 months. This additional time is because tunnelling works cannot start until the shaft is completed.

The land around shaft 04 is undeveloped and UU would (if it decided to tunnel from there) have to either lay a new permanent supply (the nearest mains supply is in the A57 area) or install a temporary mobile generator on site.

There will be more vehicle movements across PSL and CoSCoS land to dispose of ‘muck’ from the tunnel, and bring in materials. UU is seeking rights for access through the CoSCoS stadium land (described in chapter 6) and this will be more disruptive than if UU drives the tunnel from shaft 03, which has good highway access and has already been used to drive the tunnel to shaft 02.

As noted above in paragraph 2.4.2, and in detail in Michael Francis’s Tunnelling Proof of Evidence, the working area required for shaft 04 development would be significantly less if it was developed as a reception site and not a drive site for the TBM.

The consequence of UU’s position is that significant additional freehold land is being sought unnecessarily from Port Salford, which would harm the delivery of Port Salford if the CPO is approved. Michael Francis’s Tunnelling Proof of Evidence sets out the compound requirements for tunnels and shafts, and why there are no reasons to prevent the tunnel starting at shaft 03.

There are no reasons why tunnelling from east to west cannot be undertaken, and the CPO does not provide any evidence to contradict this. The consequences on an individual plot basis are set out further below.

M60 ancillary works

UU seeks to carry out ancillary works north of the tunnel where it crosses under the M60 BHLB. This is concerned with the removal of existing (abandoned) assets once the CPO scheme has been constructed (see section 3.20 of the SoR CD/CPO/3). UU proposes to access the works from the stadium’s access road

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 17 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

from the A57 Liverpool Road as it may not be able to access them directly from its Eccles site shaft 03 compound because of the new WGIS road that runs between the M60 east side and the Eccles WwTW plant (see paragraph 3.2.2). However, the WGIS road is now open for public use. Subject to the necessary consents, it would be possible to form a connection from WGIS into the M60 BHLB land.

In the order, UU proposes to form a new access road across the north side of the stadium and its car park from Stadium Way to the M60 and it is not apparent that it has considered alternatives. The plots and rights sought in connection with the M60 ancillary works are described later in chapter 6 of this proof.

24-inch water main diversion

There is a 24-inch water main owned by UU running parallel to the north bank of the MSC (REF IN PLAN). The water main carries treated (potable) water from the Thirlmere Aqueduct to supply parts of Irlam. The line of the 24-inch water main passes through the location of shaft 04, and UU proposes to divert the water main as part of its CPO scheme. UU refers to these works as Work Package 4 in paragraph 3.35 of the SoR (CD/CPO/3).

2.5 Further information on the CPO scheme

There is insufficient information in the SoR and schedule of rights sought for each plot to properly analyse UU’s proposed uses for the land and thus whether the rights sought can be justified.

Therefore, in light of questions asked by the MSC Company, and UU’s responses we asked a series of detailed questions and which have been responded to by UU. Furthermore, Mott MacDonald engineers have had meetings with UU’s engineers to understand in more detail what UU’s actual requirements are. This has added to our understanding of the scheme justification, so far as our client’s land is concerned.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 18 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

3 Engineering overview of the land area affected by the CPO scheme

This chapter describes the land affected by the CPO scheme from an engineering perspective.

3.1 Overview

The CPO scheme tunnel runs under land owned by the City of Salford Community Stadium Limited (CoSCoS), Port Salford Land Limited (PSL) and others. The route of the tunnel is shown on plan in appendix C and the respective land ownerships are highlighted in colour on the plan.

The combined area of land forms part of a strategic regeneration site referred to as the Barton Strategic Regional Site in the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan 2006-2016. The plan identifies it as a key location for employment opportunities with a multi-modal freight interchange (known as Port Salford), and sports stadium and retail units on CoSCoS land.

The PSL and CoSCoS land area affected by the CPO scheme can be considered as bounded by the A57 Liverpool Road and Western Gateway Improvement Scheme (WGIS) road to the north, the M60 motorway to the east, and the Manchester Ship Canal (MSC) to the south. Figure 4 and the plan in appendix C shows the land ownership, significant infrastructure and the land requested in the CPO.

The areas hatched in blue and red denote the land required in the CPO:

● Blue hatching where permanent rights are sought; and ● Red hatching where land is permanently acquired.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 19 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

Figure 4: Land ownership plan

3.2 Access routes into Port Salford and the Stadium Land

All highway access into Port Salford and the Stadium site is from the A57 Liverpool Road that runs along the north of both sites. Improvements to the A57 have been made to support the Port Salford and the CoSCoS developments, and the package of works is known as the Western Gateway Improvement Scheme (WGIS). Figure 5 and the plan in appendix D shows the WGIS road scheme improvements highlighted in orange.

The latest phase of the WGIS road scheme opened in December 2017 and comprises a package of new road improvements to the A57 to improve access to the stadium and future retail developments on the CoSCoS site. It provides a new lift bridge crossing (2 on Figure 5) over the MSC on the east side of the M60 Barton High Level Bridge and into the Trafford Centre local road network. Further

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 20 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

phases of WGIS are planned to support the full development of Port Salford and the CoSCoS sites.

Figure 5: A57 road improvements

Port Salford access

Access to the Port Salford land is via a track leading off the A57 west of the City Airport. The track runs in a south easterly direction towards the MSC and its junction with the Salteye Brook. There is a bridge over the Salteye Brook and the track continues along the MSC’s north bank and into the CoSCoS land. This track is the only road access to the Barton Lock and is also used by the MSC.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 21 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

Stadium access

Access to the Stadium site is from the A57 WGIS road along a 250m dedicated single carriageway (in each direction) that leads into the Stadium’s car park. This road is known as Stadium Way and is numbered 1 on Figure 5.

3.3 Water courses

Salteye Brook

The Salteye Brook is a local water course that forms part of the natural land drainage infrastructure in the Port Salford area and discharges into the MSC. Its meandering route bisects the land along a north east to south west alignment. Stadium Way is bridged over the Salteye Brook 60m after its junction with the A57 WGIS road.

Boyles Brook

Boyles Brook is a small water course that runs in culvert through the Port Salford site from where it crosses under the A57 Liverpool Road at the junction with the access road to the Barton Lock and Salteye Brook outfall. The route of the culvert follows the line of the access track from the A57, and Boyles Brook joins Salteye Brook near to its outfall into the MSC.

3.4 Eccles WwTW existing outfall

The existing outfall pipe is a 2300mm diameter brick culvert from the Eccles WwTW which runs along the north side of the CoSCoS site and discharges into the Salteye Brook, south of the point where the brook crosses under the A57 WGIS road. UU proposes to retain this pipe as a back-up outfall to deal with storm water flows in excess of one in five-year return period. It does not propose to make any changes to the pipe and is not included in the package of works specified in the CPO scheme. However, there is an agreement with UU that allows the pipe to be moved for future developments on CoSCoS land post completion of the Sal 0018 scheme.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 22 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

3.5 Built structures

Currently one warehouse unit has been constructed on the Port Salford site operated by Culina. A sports stadium (known as the AJ Bell Stadium) has been opened on the CoSCoS site. Highway access to both is from the A57. These sites are described in more detail in chapter 4.

There are extant panning consents for a further three warehouses on Port Salford land, and a retail unit on CoSCoS land adjacent to the stadium. These are described chapter 4 of this proof. These issues are dealt with in greater detail in the proof of evidence of Doug Hann.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 23 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

4 Land use and future development

4.1 Overview

The planning history and planning status of the Port Salford site and CoSCoS site are described in the Planning Proof of Evidence by Doug Hann. The development of the Port Salford and CoSCoS land can be considered as three discrete development sites and are shown in Figure 6:

The Port Salford site The stadium site The retail site

Figure 6: Barton Strategic Regional Site

The three sites are collectively referred to as the Barton Strategic Regional Site in the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan 2006-2016 (City of Salford UDP).

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 24 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

The plan identifies it as a key location for employment opportunities with a multi- modal freight interchange and sports stadium.

4.2 Port Salford

Current position

The land known as Port Salford is the location of a proposed multi-modal freight interchange comprising road and rail served distribution warehouses, and berths for ships using the MSC. The Port Salford land is bounded by the A57 Liverpool Road on its north side, the MSC and Barton Locks to the south and its eastern boundary adjoins the Stadium and retail development land.

The Salteye Brook (see paragraph 3.3.1) crosses the land from its north-east corner to its outfall into the MSC to the west of the Barton Locks.

Currently only one warehouse has been constructed on the land. A 26,013 m2 Gross Internal Area (GIA) food logistics warehouse operated by Culina that opened in 2016. The warehouse is only accessible by road from the A57. The remainder of the land has not been developed and is rough grass land.

Consented position

A hybrid planning application was originally submitted (for Port Salford) to Salford City Council (SCC) in 2003 for:

‘Multi-modal freight interchange comprising rail served distribution warehousing, rail link and sidings, inter-modal and ancillary facilities including a canal quay and berths, vehicle parking, hardstanding, landscaping, re-routing of Salteye Brook, a new signal controlled access to the A57 and related highway works including realignment of the A57 and improvements to the M60 (Port Salford). Canal crossing and associated roads and other highway improvements as part of the Western Gateway Infrastructure Scheme (WGIS)’.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 25 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

SCC subsequently granted hybrid planning approval in 2009, and there have been further applications to vary the detail and phasing of the key infrastructure set out in the original application. In particular these concern:

● Changes to the WGIS element of the scheme including realignment of the A57, and to vary the alignment of the originally consented rail line north of the A57; and ● Changes to the phasing requirements for the site and its associated rail and road infrastructure works, and to enable the delivery of the first of the warehousing units to be constructed and operated.

SCC has also approved three reserved matters applications that specifically relate to the warehousing developments on the Port Salford site. The first reserved matters approval (March 2015) granted permission for the first warehouse unit operated by Culina.

The second and third reserved matters (approved December 2017) relate to the delivery of a further 116,684m2 GIA of warehousing through three warehouse units. The latest planning permission has a number of conditions which relate to the further delivery of Port Salford infrastructure and, inter alia, prevent the development of any further warehousing units until the proposed rail link has been implemented and fully operational.

The plan in appendix E shows the consented and existing built infrastructure overlain with the land plots listed in the CPO schedule.

There are four main overarching engineering components required to complete the delivery of Port Salford:

i. Diverting the Salteye Brook; ii. Diverting Boyles Brook; iii. Constructing the rail main line connection and sidings in Port Salford; iv. Construct the remaining warehouse units.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 26 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

Salteye Brook and Boyles Brook conflicts with the consented warehouses

The four warehouse units (shown on the plan in appendix G) are configured to maximise the usable floor space for each unit and to meet the current market requirements. However, the alignment of the Salteye Brook in its existing location runs through the footprint of the consented warehouse units 3 and 4. Boyles Brook runs through the north-east corner of warehouse unit 2. Consequently, both Boyles Brook and Salteye Brook need realigning to maximise the available space for the three consented but undeveloped warehouses.

The proposal for Boyles Brook is to realign it to run in culvert in the land between warehouse unit 2 and warehouse unit 3.

Salteye Brook diversion

The proposal (shown on the plan in appendix E) for the Salteye Brook is divert the water course towards the eastern boundary of the site, running parallel to and clear of warehouse unit 4. It then turns towards the west and runs parallel to the MSC up to the location of the existing outfall into the MSC.

There are level differences between the water course and the surrounding land, and between watercourse level and the ground level in the MSC Barton Locks area. The variances in levels will require enabling ground works to divert the Salteye Brook.

The upstream section of the diverted Salteye Brook runs along the bottom of a wide valley which has gently graded slopes up to the level of the surrounding land. However, the lower section of the valley where it runs between the MSC to the south and the warehousing land the north is much narrower. The valley sides of the lower section are too steep to manage the level change with a graded slope. The lower section requires sheet piled walls on both sides of the Salteye Brook to secure the ground.

The diverted Boyles Brook will join the diverted Salteye Brook close to the outfall.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 27 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

Conflicts between the consented Salteye Brook diversion and the CPO

The lower section of the Salteye Brook diversion runs parallel to the MSC until it reaches the outfall. The plan in appendix Q shows the location of the Salteye Brook diversion and the plots in the CPO. There are conflicts with plots 5G and 5T that overlap the water course where it is in cutting. Plot 5T is one of the plots where UU will acquire the freehold if the order is granted. The final section of the water course is shown in culvert where the consented rail sidings pass over the outfall. There are further conflicts with CPO plots in this area and these are described in paragraph 4.10.

4.3 Rail line – consented infrastructure

The planning consent for Port Salford requires a rail connection the main line leading to sidings within Port Salford (see paragraph 4.2.4 and the Planning Proof of Evidence by Doug Hann)

The proposed new rail line into Port Salford will connect to the Manchester to Liverpool via Newton le Willows line at a point approximately 400m to the east of the rail overbridge across the M62 motorway. The Chat Moss line connects to the West Coast Main Line at Newton le Willows and this will enable freight trains to access Port Salford to the national main line network.

Rail line from the Chat Moss line to Port Salford

The rail connection (in both the consented and proposed schemes) starts with a single-track west facing turn out from the Chat Moss line leading to an 800m single line track that runs south towards Port Salford. The rail line runs to the east of the City Airport and Heliport situated on the north side of the A57 and north west of the Port Salford site. The rail line crosses the A57 Liverpool Road to access the Port Salford site. The abutments for the rail bridge over the A57 have already been constructed as part of the WGIS highway improvement works.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 28 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

Rail lines and sidings within Port Salford – consented plan layout

In the consented scheme (Figure 7 and plan in appendix E), the rail line approaches Port Salford from the north, passing under the A57 and then over the (diverted) Salteye Brook alongside its eastern bank. It continues south towards the MSC and into a group of marshalling sidings laid out between the north bank of the Barton Locks basin and the southern side of the Stadium. This group of sidings is 850m long, extends under the east side of the M60 BHLB and continues alongside the Eccles WwTW. There is a connection to sidings on the west side (warehouse side) and adjacent to the proposed berth to facilitate ship to rail transfer.

Figure 7: Port Salford consented rail layout

There is provision in the consented rail proposals for a third group of sidings leading into the warehouses, and would require a further crossing over the Salteye Brook.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 29 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

Conflicts between the consented rail infrastructure and warehousing

The original planning consent for Port Salford envisaged a different warehousing layout than is now consented in the reserved matters approvals (see paragraph 4.2.6). The original warehouse layout enabled a group of sidings to run between the warehouses. In the consented warehouse layout, this group of sidings conflicts with the position of the warehouses, as they would (if constructed) pass through the middle of the warehouses.

The sidings running east from Port Salford and under the M60 BHLB conflict with the WGIS highway works and the lift bridge over the MSC. If the consented rail scheme is fully implemented, the WGIS road and lift bridge would have to be removed. This conflict is shown on the plan in appendix D.

The planning background to the warehouse layout changes is set out in the Indigo Planning Proof of Evidence by Doug Hann, and the engineering implications for the rail infrastructure are summarised in the next section.

Conflicts between consented rail infrastructure and the CPO scheme

In the consented rail scheme (plan in appendix D) two sets of sidings are located along the north bank of the MSC. The rail line into Port Salford leads into the marshalling sidings located on the east side (stadium and M60). The sidings on the west side (Port Salford) are accessed by reversing from the eastern marshalling sidings. The eastern and western sidings collectively form a contiguous section of rail track along the MSC and Barton Locks northern bank from the M60 in the east to the western boundary of Port Salford land.

There are significant conflicts between the consented rail infrastructure and the CPO plots. The rail line as it approaches the MSC and Barton Locks bank crosses directly over the tunnel corridor plots 5G, 5P, 3N, 4AN and 4Y (shown on the plan in appendix O). On the Port Salford side sidings, it crosses plots 5G, 5H, 5P, 5J, 5R, 5Q and 5L (shown on the plan in appendix Q). All of which would involve safeguarding measures to protect the tunnel and which would need to be negotiated through a Build Over Agreement (BOA), as for the retail unit. The line

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 30 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

also crosses the line of the 24-inch water main in plots 4B, 5J and 5P, and again in plots 5Q and 5L. Finally, the rail lines pass close to shaft 04 in plot 5L. On the western side of the Salteye outfall, the rail infrastructure conflicts with the 24-inch water main in plots 5C, 5E and 5F.

Figure 8: Consented rail line alignment into Port Salford

4.4 Port Salford masterplan

Following the initial 2009 planning consent for Port Salford (paragraph 4.4.1), Peel was able to engage with (i) potential operators for the warehousing and the MSC port facilities, (ii) Network Rail for the rail connection, and (iii) the development of the WGIS highway infrastructure.

Marketing Port Salford by Peel Logistics, Peel Land and Property and Peel Ports established that there was market interest in warehouses with multi modal access. But:

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 31 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

i. The configuration of the warehouse floorplates need to be flexible to suit the specific requirements of the operators when known. Culina’s requirements for its warehouse led to a change in the warehousing configuration, and which was subsequently consented through the reserved matters applications described in the Planning Proof of Evidence by Doug Hann. ii. The operation of the rail sidings along the MSC required multiple shunt moves using locomotives to move trains from the eastern sidings, to the dock sidings and the sidings in the warehouses. The rail line from the Chat Moss line runs directly into the marshalling sidings, and the sidings alongside the MSC and into the warehouse yards are only accessible from the marshalling sidings. This is because there are no turn outs from the rail line from Chat Moss into the MSC sidings and the warehouse sidings. Shunt moves will have to be made by a shunting locomotive, and the number of moves that could result from moving freight trains inside Port Salford adds to time taken, reducing the operational efficiency of the rail connection (see plan in appendix E). iii. The eastern rail sidings conflicted with the WGIS works, as the marshalling sidings cross over the road on the north side of the lift bridge over the MSC. If the eastern sidings were constructed, then the WGIS roads would have to bridge over the sidings. iv. The design and operation of the rail infrastructure and sidings within Port Salford needed rationalising to improve the efficiency and remove the conflicts with WGIS that are necessary to comply with planning consents for Port Salford.

The masterplan layout for Port Salford (that underpinned the 2009 planning consent) was revisited. The outcome was a new layout that maintained the warehousing, rail link and port connections that were specified in the original planning consent. The new masterplan layout is shown in in Figure 9 and the plan appendix G. It shows four warehouse units that are laid out to maximise the available space and provide flexibility to meet the market requirements for road

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 32 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

and rail access. However, to maximise the available warehouse space, changes to both the alignment of the diverted Salteye Brook and the rail line and sidings in Port Salford are also required.

The engineering solution to the masterplan requirements is described in the next section.

Figure 9: Port Salford development plan 2018

4.5 Port Salford master plan engineering development

The Port Salford site is physically constrained by the A57 Liverpool Road to the north, the MSC to the south, and the land boundary with CoSCoS on its east side. The Salteye Brook cuts across the site to its outfall in the MSC. The Salteye Brook is a natural water course and although it must be retained, it can be diverted to maximise the space available for the warehouses and rail line as shown in Figure 9. The next paragraph expresses the key components of Port Salford as a series

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 33 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

of engineering schemes that must be developed to provide the optimal arrangement for Port Salford.

There are four key engineering design development components to Port Salford:

● Design and construction of four warehouse units totalling 142,699 m2. Unit 1 is the Culina warehouse (26,013 m2) which is now operating. ● Design and construction of a connection to the Chat Moss rail line (Manchester – Newton-le-Willows - Liverpool) for a new rail line to enable access to sidings on the MSC side of the warehouses. ● Diversion of the Salteye Brook through the site. ● A new single berth for ships on the MSC.

As the site boundaries are fixed (there is no elasticity in the boundaries), changes to any one component will force changes to the other three components.

The commercial viability of Port Salford is driven by the gross area of the warehousing and its accessibility by road, rail and by boat from the MSC. The reserved matters planning consent dictates that the rail line and sidings must be available before the next warehouse can be developed. The number, size and location of the four warehouses are as specified in the Reserved Matters consents (see Planning Proof of Evidence by Doug Hann). The first warehouse (the Culina unit) is complete and in use. The warehouse locations and footprints are fixed in the reserved matters consents. Whilst, market requirements may require some flexibility, changes would require a further planning consent. Consequently, the only variables are the design of the Salteye Brook diversion and the rail line and sidings.

The Salteye Brook diversion cannot move any further east than the PSL boundary with CoSCoS. Its end point and outfall into the MSC is fixed by the location of the Barton Locks to the east, and the space needed to accommodate a berth for ships docking at Port Salford.

The design detail for the alignment of the diverted Salteye Brook will be influenced by the requirements of the Environment Agency (EA). The EA has

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 34 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

been consulted throughout the planning of the diversion works, and these discussions have not indicated that there will be any substantive issues that cannot be reconciled.

The point at which the rail line connection from the Chat Moss line enters Port Salford is defined by the line it needs to take around the City Airport and Heliport to the North of the A57. In practice, this point can now also be considered fixed because the (completed) A57 WGIS highway works made provision for rail overbridge. The bridge abutments to support the bridge deck on for the rail on either side of the road have been constructed, and road level (of the A57) lowered during construction to avoid the track gradient having to change as it crosses the road.

The rail line within Port Salford (south of the A57) leads into a single group of sidings. The sidings are laid out parallel to the MSC bank. The offset from the bank is governed by the space needed for the cranes to offload and stack shipping containers and retain clearance with the warehouses. The length of the sidings must accommodate a freight train up to 775m long, which is the UK rail freight industry standard maximum train length. The sidings run along an east – west axis. The rail line runs on a north - south axis after crossing the A57. It will therefore require a short curve in the track to link the line with the sidings. The radius of the curve is governed by rail standards, which consider the gradient, the type of train and locomotives that will use the line, and the maximum line speed.

Figure 10 is a detail view of the Port Salford master plan showing the existing alignment of the Salteye Brook, its proposed diversion alignment, rail line and sidings. This shows that the rail line must cross the un-diverted Salteye Brook in two locations: once just after it crosses over the A57, and a second time where the rail sidings start and where the Salteye Brook outfalls into the MSC. If the conflict between the Salteye Brook and warehouse locations could be ignored, then the proposed rail alignment would need two additional bridge crossings over the Salteye Brook. However, the Salteye Brook needs to be diverted away from

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 35 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

the warehouses, and far enough east to avoid any conflict with the rail line which otherwise will require two additional rail bridges.

The engineering consequence is that the alignment of the Salteye Brook where it enters Port Salford needs to turn south to provide sufficient space between it and the rail line, and then where it turns to run long side the MSC to the outfall, it must also avoid the rail line. Thus:

i. The design of the rail line and sidings is constrained by the location of the warehouses, the crossing point over the A57 and location of the sidings. ii. The final arrangement of the Salteye Brook diversion has to fit with the rail infrastructure.

The consequence for the construction sequence is that the Salteye Brook must be diverted before the rail line can be constructed in Port Salford because:

● If the rail line was constructed first it would have to cross the Salteye Brook twice and this would require two bridges that, would no longer be required after the Salteye Brook is diverted.

As the planning consents require the rail line to be in place before the next warehouse can be built, the construction sequence for Port Salford is:

i. Divert Salteye Brook; ii. Construct the rail line and sidings; iii. Construct the warehouse(s).

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 36 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

Figure 10: Salteye Brook existing and diverted

4.6 Rail connection and rail line development

The rail connection, line and sidings into Port Salford will be funded, developed and constructed privately. This represents a significant private investment into a very substantial regeneration and development project. However, the line requires a new connection to the national rail network managed by Network Rail. Consequently, the design development of the rail connection and line has been undertaken in conjunction with Network Rail.

Rail line from the Chat Moss line to Port Salford

The rail line into Port Salford will connect to the Manchester to Liverpool via Newton le Willows line at a point approximately 400m to the east of the rail overbridge across the M62 motorway. The Chat Moss line connects to the West Coast Main Line at Newton le Willows and will provide Port Salford with freight train access to the national main line network.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 37 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

The rail connection is single-track west facing turn out from the Chat Moss line leading to an 800m single line track that runs south towards Port Salford. It then runs to the east of the City Airport and Heliport situated on the north side of the A57 and north west of the Port Salford site. The rail line crosses the A57 Liverpool Road to access the Port Salford site. Bridge abutments for the rail line crossing over the A57 have been constructed as part of the WGIS highway improvement works, and the road level under the bridge is lowered to avoid unnecessary level changes to the track on either side of the bridge. This section of rail line works for both the consented and masterplan rail layouts inside Port Salford (south of the A57).

Rail lines and sidings within Port Salford – masterplan layout

Figure 11: Rail layout inside Port Salford - masterplan

The line approaches Port Salford from the north, passing over the A57. It then continues into Port Salford on the west side of the diverted Salteye Brook. It then

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 38 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

turns west and into a group of sidings that are located between the north bank of the MSC and the south side of the proposed warehouses.

Rail line design development

Feasibility work on the rail line has been carried out by consultants Jacobs. The findings are contained in their GRIP 3 Option Selection Report dated October 2012 (appendix J).

It identifies the significant constraints identified during the feasibility studies that influence the design of the rail line. These are:

● Horizontal clearance between the runways and the Peel Green residential area to the east of the City Airport and Heliport. ● Vertical clearance between the Take Off and Climb Surface for an aircraft on approach to the City Airport and Heliport, and highest point of trains on the rail line (or, the top of overhead electrification equipment if the line is eventually electrified). ● The location of the A57 underbridge crossing. ● Space to accommodate a 775m maximum train length (rail industry standard for maximum freight train length). ● Minimum radius of the curve between the rail line and the sidings.

The horizontal alignment of the rail line as it passes the airport is a function of the Civil Aviation Authority regulatory safety requirements that define the minimum clearance between ground obstructions and the glide path of aircraft on approach to the airport runways, and the cemetery and housing in Peel Green to the east of the airport. These matters are discussed in more detail in the Jacobs’ GRIP 3 report in appendix J).

The A57 Liverpool Road is located immediately to the south of the airport, and therefore the alignment of the rail line as it passes the airport effectively defines the crossing point over the road as there is insufficient space to change the direction of the rail line before it meets the road. The outputs from the Jacobs

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 39 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

GRIP 3 study set the point where the line crosses the A57 and the new A57 WGIS road. The WGIS road has been constructed with bridge abutments in place ready for construction of the bridge deck for the rail bridge over the road. Consequently, the rail line’s point of entry into Port Salford is fixed and the alignment north of the A57 is not considered further.

A maximum 775m train length is the industry standard for rail freight operations. This influences the spacing of signals (800m to include some overlap), which in turn influences the point at which a train approaching Port Salford can be handed over to the port operator. In practice, this means that there would be a minimum of 800m between the Chat Moss line connection and the entry point into Port Salford to enable a 775m train to fully clear the main line before stopping at the port entry (‘stop and await instruction point’). A run around facility would be provided to uncouple the main line locomotive and couple the train to shunting locomotive for movements to and from the sidings which must also be capable of handling a 775m train. Figure 12 is a schematic from the Jacobs report of the Port Salford rail connection to the Chat Moss line

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 40 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

Figure 12: Rail connection schematic (consented rail scheme)

Source: Jacobs GRIP 3 Port Salford Freight Terminal report

Conflicts between the rail infrastructure in the masterplan and the CPO

Paragraph 4.3.10 described the significant conflicts between the plots in the CPO and the consented rail infrastructure. The rail infrastructure in the masterplan is significantly less than that in the consent scheme. This has reduced but not eliminated the conflicts between the Port Salford development and the CPO scheme.

Figure 13 and the plan in appendix K shows the CPO plots and the masterplan rail line and sidings. There is only one plot, plot 5T that overlaps the rail line where it curves around warehouse unit 4 to approach the rail sidings. This is one of the plots for which UU seeks to acquire the freehold. The plot is only required for use as a construction compound. UU has not outlined or provided any further

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 41 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

evidence of need or justification for its location. Assuming that UU requires all this land for a compound (Michael Francis Tunnelling Proof demonstrates that the tunnelling works can be delivered with a compound of 6500m2), then there is sufficient available land elsewhere in the area that it could use without conflicting PSL’s schemes.

Figure 13: Masterplan rail scheme and CPO plots

Review of the rail line alignment

Mott MacDonald has reviewed the Jacobs GRIP 3 report and its conclusions on the alignment and geometry within Port Salford to ascertain if there is any room to move the rail line to avoid plot 5T.

Our conclusion is that its currently proposed position is the best it can be, to both deliver the Port Salford development and avoid conflicts with the UU scheme; however, the remaining conflict with plot 5T cannot be avoided. It is to be remembered that the permitted scheme has much more significant conflicts with the UU scheme.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 42 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

Conclusions on rail conflicts with the CPO order

There are significant conflicts between the consented rail infrastructure and the CPO plots. The rail line as it approaches the MSC and Barton Locks bank crosses directly over the tunnel corridor plots 5G, 5P, 3N, 4AN and 4Y.

● Plot 5P is on the tunnel corridor inner section ● Plots 3N, 4Y, 4AN and 5G are on the tunnel corridor outer section

On Port Salford side sidings, it crosses plots 5G, 5H, 5P, 5J, 5R, 5Q and 5L.

● Plot 5P is on the tunnel corridor inner section ● Plots 5G and 5L are on the tunnel corridor outer section

UU is seeking rights through the order to construct the tunnel through these plots and it will have extensive rights (for it contractors and others) including to access to enter on and remain on the land, and to remove, repair and reinstate.

● plots 4B, 5C, 5E, 5F, 5J, 5P, 5Q and 5L are on the land where UU wants to divert its 24-inch water main. ● Plots 4P, 4T 5C, 5E,5L, and 5Q are plots where UU is seeking to acquire the freehold.

Where UU acquires the freehold, PSL will have no rights whatsoever to use the land as it will no longer own it. Therefore, it will have no rights or powers to build any of the rail lines on this land. And, on land where UU has permanent rights for access, and to remain on the land, PSL’s plans for the rail lines will conflict with UU’s rights for access and to carry out its own works in the CPO scheme.

Given that the conflicts involve permanent acquisition of rights and freehold, PSL will not be able to construct the consented rail line.

Whilst the rail infrastructure in the masterplan has been designed to benefit the delivery and operation of Port Salford, it also has benefits for UU and the delivery of its CPO infrastructure because it reduces the number of conflicts between the two schemes. There is only one touch point between the rail infrastructure and the plots that UU is seeking rights for and the freehold of. This is plot 5T. UU has

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 43 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

only identified this plot for use as a compound, and it has not identified that it needs to construct or use any infrastructure on this land.

However, it is emphasised that the currently proposed position is the best it can be to be out of the way of the UU scheme and conflicts cannot be avoided further.

Therefore, the ownership, location and use of plot 5T is identified as a critical conflict between the delivery of Port Salford and the CPO order. Consequently, if PSL no longer owns the land it will not be able to construct the rail line, and (as planning consent is dependent on the rail line’s availability), it cannot develop Port Salford as described in the masterplan.

4.7 Salteye Brook diversion masterplan scheme

The Salteye Brook diversion moves the watercourse towards the eastern boundary of the Port Salford site, diverting it along a north – south axis towards the MSC. It then turns towards the west and runs parallel to the MSC up to the location of the existing outfall into the MSC. The diversion is necessary to maximise the developable are of land for the warehouses, and to avoid making the rail line cross the Salteye Brook in two locations as in the consented scheme.

Whilst the diversion in the masterplan follows a similar approach to that in the consented scheme, there are detail differences in the design. The upstream section is designed to allow avoid the rail line having to cross the watercourse, and the lower section where it meets the outfall is in open cut and not culverted as the rail sidings along the MSC bank in the masterplan scheme require less space than the consented scheme, and there is no requirement for the line to cross the watercourse.

The Environment Agency (EA) has been consulted on the design of the diversion as there are significant river design constraints that affect the hydrology of the watercourse. The EA had previously given approval in principal for an earlier design proposal for the diversion on the same alignment as currently proposed. This design has been superseded by the plan described in the next section that is based on the locations of the consented warehouses. The opportunity to

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 44 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

significantly change the alignment is limited because of the need to accommodate the rail line and the warehouses and stay within the PSL land boundary. Meetings with the EA to review current design have not raised any significant issues with the current proposals. However, it has not yet granted an outline approval in principal.

The EA requires an access track along the eastern side of the diverted water course so that it can get access to the brook and outfall for water quality monitoring. The track will connect with Stadium Way at the east and run alongside the upper level of the Salteye Brook’s east bank up to the western end of the sheet piled wall described above.

There are level differences between the water course and the surrounding land, and between watercourse level and the ground level in the MSC Barton Locks area. The variances in levels will require enabling ground works both to divert the Salteye Brook, and to prepare the site for the construction of the rail line and sidings, and the three new warehouse units.

The Port Salford topography and the scope of the ground works are described in the next section.

4.8 Topography and ground works for Salteye Brook diversion

The topography of Port Salford land exhibits a gentle slope from the northern boundary with the A57 towards the MSC bank. The existing Salteye Brook flows in a shallow valley through Port Salford to its outfall into the MSC.

Figure 14 and the plan in appendix H shows the ground level falling away from 20m AOD above the Salteye Brook valley to circa 13m AOD at the water’s edge. The area of sloping ground is over a wider area on the east side of the outfall, and in the location of shaft 04.

The upstream section of the diverted Salteye Brook runs along the bottom of a wide valley which has gently graded slopes up to the level of the surrounding land. However, the lower section of the valley where it runs between the MSC to

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 45 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

the south and the rail line to the north is much narrower. The valley sides of the lower section are too steep to manage the level change with a graded slope. The lower section uses sheet pile walls on both sides of the Salteye Brook to secure the ground. A 190m length of sheet pile walling is provided on the MSC side, and a 246m length of sheet pile walling on the Port Salford side.

Figure 14: Salteye Brook outfall topography

The sheet piled wall (as in paragraph 4.8.3) on the Port Salford side is an integral component to the preparatory ground works prior to constructing the section of the rail line leading into the rail sidings. It is necessary to provide support for the track bed because of its proximity to the bank side of the brook. The piled retaining wall on the MSC side is necessary to support the area of level ground between the diverted Salteye Brook and the MSC Barton Locks infrastructure.

The diverted Salteye Brook must turn through 90-degrees to join the line of the existing watercourse for the final 75m into the MSC. The outside bank of the final

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 46 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

bend will have a 55m length of erosion matting installed to prevent the water flow from undermining the bank on the Port Salford side of Salteye Brook. A new outfall connection from Boyles Brook (section 3.3) will be constructed in this area.

The western end of piled retaining wall on the MSC side finishes 85m from the MSC outfall. The ground between the end of the piled retaining wall and the MSC is graded to slope down to the Salteye Brook bank. Shaft 04 is in this area. UU proposes to construct an additional 60m piled wall on the Salteye Brook side of the shaft to retain the ground, and provide a level surface around the shaft at surface level shown as the red line on Figure 15 below.

Figure 15: Salteye outfall and shaft 04

Once the diversion is made, the old valley will be filled in to level the site prior to constructing the rail line and warehouse units 2, 3 and 4.

Figure 16 below is a 3D view of the Salteye Brook outfall and shows the retaining walls and graded slopes.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 47 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

Figure 16: Salteye Brook outfall - 3D view

Boyles Brook outfall

Boyles Brook joins the Salteye Brook near to the outfall into MSC. The connection will be relocated during the diversion works to intersect the Salteye Brook on the final bend (where erosion matting is to be provided) before it joins the MSC.

Port Salford access track and Boyles Brook culvert diversion

The existing route of the access track from the A57 Liverpool Road and the Boyles Brook culvert runs through the floor plan of the proposed warehouse unit 2. Consequently, both the track and culvert are planned to be diverted along an alignment that runs between warehouse unit 2 and warehouse unit 3. The CPO does not affect the alignment between the warehouses, but the location of the outfall conflicts with plot 5M that UU requires rights for access in perpetuity to the Salteye Brook.

Conflicts with the CPO scheme

The plan in appendix K shows the masterplan rail and Salteye Brook diversion and the plots in the CPO. There are conflicts with CPO plots 5G and 5T as in the consented scheme. Whilst the conflict with 5G is in the graded slope area on the north of the MSC is reduced, the conflict with plot 5T remains a significant issue for the development. As with the rail conflicts, UU will have the freehold for the

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 48 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

land and PSL will not be able to undertake the diversion works for the watercourse.

The Salteye Brook must be diverted first to enable the rail line to be diverted (see paragraph 4.5.11), but as PSL no longer will own the land they will not be able to undertake the works.

If the Salteye Diversion was re-planned to avoid Plot 5T, it would impact on the rail line and sidings, which in turn would will affect the size and location of the warehouses. The design of the masterplan diversion has been undertaken in consultation with the EA about the hydrology of the watercourse. Changing the alignment again would effectively lead to a restart of the diversion plan as the hydrology of the diverted watercourse would have to be considered afresh.

Our conclusion is that its currently proposed position is the best it can be, to both deliver the Port Salford development and avoid conflicts with the UU scheme; however, the remaining conflict with plot 5T cannot be avoided. It is to be remembered that the permitted scheme has much more significant conflicts with the UU scheme.

4.9 CoSCoS Stadium site

The CoSCoS site is a joint venture between Peel Holdings and Salford City Council (SCC) to develop a community stadium (for the Salford City Reds Rugby Football League team) with associated facilities on land owned by both parties between the A57 Liverpool Road and the MSC. The Stadium site including its associated car parking occupies 23.06 acres. CoSCoS owns a further 39.3 acres of land adjacent to the stadium which is intended for retail development (see Figure 17). Retail development is described in section 4.10.

Stadium development

The stadium’s planning history is described in the Planning Proof of Evidence by Doug Hann. The key aspects that are relevant to the engineering development of the Stadium site are set out below.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 49 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

Planning consent for the stadium was granted in September 2010 for the development of:

● A 20,000-spectator capacity community stadium with associated facilities (offices, players facilities, hospitality, concessions and community, executive and media rooms) constructed in three phases; ● two outdoor sports (practice) pitches, community changing facilities; and ● a new access off the A57 Liverpool Road with associated car parking.

The three spectator capacity phases are:

● Phase 1 – 12,000 spectators ● Phase 2 – 15,000 spectators ● Phase 3 – 20,000 spectators

Phase 1 of stadium was completed in December 2011. The west grandstand, which includes administration and hospitality facilities, is fully complete. There are smaller stands on the east, south and west sides of the ground. The corners of ground between each stand have not been filled in. Further phases of development will increase the ground capacity by infilling the corners between each stand and expanding the three smaller stands to the height of the main west stand.

Stadium access

Road access to the stadium is from the A57 Liverpool Road. A dedicated access road (known as Stadium Way) runs from its junction on the completed WGIS section of A57 Liverpool Road into the Stadium site. Stadium Way is the only direct vehicle and pedestrian access to the stadium, car park and external concourse that runs around the outside of the stadium.

There are two outdoor sports practice pitches, one grass and one all-weather. These are located on the west side of the stadium and car access is from Stadium Way. There is provision for a dedicated circa 31 spaces shale and not marked

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 50 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

car park adjacent to the pitches, but this has not yet been constructed. Changing and locker rooms for the practice pitches are in the adjacent South Stand across Stadium Way.

Surface car parking for 428 cars (280 hard surface marked spaces and 148 spaces on shale) for match day spectators and others using the stadium’s conference and hospitality facilities is provided on the land opposite the stadium’s West Stand, it is accessible from Stadium Way. Refer to PLAN.

Stadium use

The stadium is now known as the AJ Bell Stadium. It is the home to Salford Reds Rugby Football League team, and Sale Sharks Rugby Union team. The Rugby Football League and Rugby Union fixture schedules are not concurrent, and the stadium pitch is used throughout the year for matchday events.

The West Stand contains a range of conference and hospitality facilities. These include 13 private boxes available for matchday use, and as meeting rooms outside of matchdays. There is a large conference and dining room on the second floor of the West Stand that can accommodate up to 750 guests. The conference facilities are available both during the day and evening on non-match days.

The stadium can also be used as a concert venue. Two concerts are planned in 2018 with anticipated 15,000 crowds.

4.10 CoSCoS retail site

The CoSCoS site retail development and masterplan is described in the Retail Masterplan Proof of Evidence by Andrew Hall. The key aspects that are relevant to the engineering development of the CoSCoS site are set out below.

Retail masterplan

The CoSCoS land is divided between that required for (i) the stadium; (ii) the stadium’s future development and (iii) land to be used for strategic retail development. The CoSCoS commercial strategy is to sell the freehold of plots of

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 51 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

land located around the stadium and use the proceeds from the sales towards repayment of the loan taken out with SCC to develop the stadium.

Figure 17: CoSCoS site

The CoSCoS retail masterplan identifies discrete parcels of land for marketing as retail development sites. Figure 17 (plan in appendix L) shows the locations of the parcels within the CoSCoS site. Parcels of land are located around the stadium and commercial discussions are progressing on the sale of a number of the parcels subject to planning consents.

Anchor retail site

The interest of an anchor retailer was identified at an early stage in the masterplan development. Parcel 5 on the eastern side of the site located between the stadium and the M60 is capable of meeting the needs of the anchor retailer.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 52 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

Negotiations have identified the specific requirements of the anchor retailer for internal floor space, car parking spaces and access. SCC subsequently granted (April 2016) a reserved matters planning approval for a free standing 21,367m2 non-food bulk retail development with car parking. The approval allows for road connection with the A57 WGIS road to the north (shown on the plan in appendix D).

Planning matters for the anchor retail unit are described in detail in the Planning Proof of Evidence by Doug Hann. The commercial implications of the CPO on the anchor retail unit are described in the Retail Masterplan Proof of Evidence by Andrew Hall.

The proposed route of the tunnel runs under the floor plan of the anchor retail unit and therefore conflicts with the development as shown in the plan in appendix T. If the CPO is granted, the anchor retail unit cannot be constructed:

i. The retail unit cannot be built before the CPO scheme as the rights prevent it. ii. The retail unit cannot be built after the CPO scheme as the rights persist in perpetuity. iii. A BOA would be required but there is no requirement in the CPO which requires UU to enter into such a BOA.

Therefore, there is a clear ransom situation and CoSCoS has lost the ability to develop its own retail site.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 53 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

5 Schedule and use of land plots

This chapter introduces the engineering description of the plots of land specified in the CPO (CD/CPO/1) and the schedule of plots (CD/CPO/8.3) contained in the following chapters of this proof.

5.1 Introduction to land plots in the CPO

The land plots are described in a schedule to the CPO (CD/CPO/8.3). The schedule identifies each plot by a number (e.g. 3) or number and letter (e.g. 3B). It lists the rights sought for each plot, the size (in square metres) and the owners of the land.

This proof is only considering the impact of the CPO on the current and proposed use of the land plots owned by PSL and CoSCoS. However, chapter 14 describes the rights that could be granted to UU in lieu of the CPO and these include rights to a number of plots of land owned by Peel Investments North (PIN).

The rights sought for the plots are either:

● where UU acquires the freehold of the land; or ● where UU acquires rights to the use of the land.

The rights will be granted to UU in perpetuity. The CPO order contains no obligation for UU to return the freehold, or relinquish rights to land that it would no longer need after construction is completed, even where such rights are not required in perpetuity. However, there is no statutory provision for the granting of temporary rights through a CPO and UU has therefore only been able to apply for permanent rights.

The schedule does not precisely set out the detail of the construction and the engineering works that are proposed to take place in an individual plot. Consequently, it is simply not possible (from the schedule) to ascertain what

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 54 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

rights would be reasonably required from a landowner to construct the CPO scheme.

The schedule does not list or describe any proposed uses for the freehold plots. However, in section 3.3 of the SoR (CD/CPO/3), UU lists the work packages included within the order, and Work Package Plans appended to the SoR identify the plots related to individual work packages. These are:

Sewer, shaft, outfall, permanent access and intermittent discharge pipe; M60 ancillary works; Construction compound; Water main diversion.

Work package 5 in the CPO concerns access to the Canal from MSC land and is not considered further in this proof.

In light of questions asked by the MSC Company, and UU’s responses we asked a series of detailed questions and which have been responded to by UU. Furthermore, Mott MacDonald engineers have had meetings with UU’s engineers to understand in more detail what UU’s actual requirements are. This has added to our understanding of the scheme justification, so far as our client’s land is concerned.

The land plots are shown on plans in the following appendices to this proof.

● Appendix M – CPO plots, overall plan with sheet number references to the following plans; ● Appendix N – CPO plots, sheet 1 east side of the stadium; ● Appendix O – CPO plots, sheet 2 stadium; ● Appendix P – CPO plots, sheet 3 Port Salford and MSC; ● Appendix Q – CPO plots, sheet 4 Port Salford western side and MSC; ● Appendix R – CPO freehold land plots on Port Salford land.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 55 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

The CPO plots are hatched:

● Blue for areas where UU acquires new permanent right in perpetuity; ● Red for land where UU acquires the freehold in perpetuity.

The plots are described in this proof in clusters based on location and the related uses of the plots. The clusters start with the plots that are located on the north and west of the stadium, and then follow the line of the tunnel from east to west (i.e. in the direction of flow from the Eccles WwTW to the outfall in the MSC).

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 56 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

6 Plots 3, 3E, 3I, 3S and 3T

This chapter covers plots 3, 3E, 3I, 3S and 3T beginning with:

i. Ownership, location and current use of the plots. ii. Rights sought by UU. iii. Implications for the land owner. iv. Assessment of whether the rights sought through the order can be considered justified or excessive. v. Conflicts and practical consequences with their current use. vi. What reasonable rights the landowner would offer UU to meet its reasonable engineering requirements.

6.1 Location and ownership of plots 3, 3E, 3I, 3S and 3T

These plots are on CoSCoS land to the north and west of the stadium and are shown on the plans in appendices N and P.

These plots are grouped together as the rights sought concern access into and across CoSCoS stadium land.

6.2 Description of plots and their current and proposed use

Plot 3E

Plot 3E is the entire length of Stadium Way (highlighted in blue in Figure 18) from its junction with the A57 Liverpool Road (WGIS section) through to a terminus roundabout between the practice pitches and the stadium.

Stadium Way is the only access road into the stadium for pedestrians and vehicles (of all classes) whenever the stadium is in use. It is a private road and not controlled by the local highway authority. The operation and use of Stadium Way is controlled by the stadium’s management, who are therefore responsible for the health and safety of persons and vehicles using the road. As the road’s

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 57 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

owner, the stadium has the right to determine when the road may open and close, who may use it and for what purpose is used. The exact use of the road depends on the stadium’s activities at any given time or day.

Figure 18: plot 3E

Garry Rowlands’ Stadium Design and Operation proof of evidence describes the stadium’s operation in detail. Whilst the Stadium’s core purpose is to be the home ground for Salford Reds Rugby Football League Club and Sale Sharks Rugby Union club, it also hosts other sporting events throughout the year and its hospitality suites are used on a daily basis outside of matchdays. The stadium is considered as being in use daily throughout the year, during the day and in the evenings. The salient issues that affect and influence the engineering works are described in the following paragraphs.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 58 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

Stadium operations - matchdays

Sporting events have defined start and finishing times. The consequence is that large numbers spectators and others (e.g. stadium match day employees and players) will arrive and leave the stadium area in relatively short time periods. This clustering of movements can cause congestion in the stadium area and local road network that needs to be managed by the stadium operator to ensure that the movement of people and vehicles is handled safely and efficiently.

On matchdays, Stadium Way is predominantly used by pedestrians with vehicles (such as cars, coaches and service vehicles) restricted to those that are essential to the stadium’s operation, and others that have been pre-authorised to access the stadium’s car park; for example, guests of the hospitality suites whose invitations include car parking at the ground. In those circumstances the stadium will close the main access off the A57 to vehicles other than those it has allowed access. It will do this using barriers and staff to check the credentials of drivers entering Stadium Way and thus prioritising the road’s use for pedestrians.

On non-matchdays, when the stadium is being used for hospitality events and sports training activities, Stadium Way is open for all users and most will use the car park in front the West Stand, and which can hold up to 428 cars.

Plot 3

The western edge of Plot 3 (highlighted in blue on Figure 19) abuts plot 3E (Stadium Way) as a (79m x 30m) rectangle of land to the north of the stadium’s West Stand. It then continues as a 5m wide strip running north eastwards through the stadium car park and south of the A57 WGIS road towards the M60 where it turns through 90-degrees to run alongside the M60 and join with plot 3B. At its eastern end, plot 3 cuts across the line of the access road into the anchor retail unit site.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 59 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

Figure 19: Plot 3

The section of Plot 3 (including the rectangular section) to the north of the stadium is on land used for the stadium’s main car park holding 428 cars. This is fully used on matchdays by guests of the hospitality suites, and extensively on non-match days by people attending meetings and hospitality events in the stadiums suites. The (plot 3) land to the east of the stadium is currently undeveloped but used for overspill car parking or other temporary public entertainment events (for example circuses have been held there). There is an extant planning consent for a non- food bulk retail unit with associated access road and car parking (described in section 4.10).

Plots 3I, 3S and 3T

Plot 3I (highlighted in blue on Figure 20) connects to the southern edge of plot 3E (at the terminus roundabout of Stadium Way) and continues south to connect

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 60 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

with plot 3R on the tunnel corridor. There are no built structures on this land as this land contains a swale or depression in the land used to collect surface water drainage from the stadium land.

Plots 3S and 3T are triangular filets either side of plot 3I where it meets the tunnel corridor plots.

Figure 20: Plots 3I, 3S and 3T

Plot 3I is partly on undeveloped land (which includes a swale forms part of the stadium land drainage infrastructure) and partly across land adjacent to the practice pitches that is use for car parking by its users and for hospitality marquees on matchdays.

Plots 3S and 3T are on currently undeveloped land.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 61 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

6.3 Rights sought by the order for plot 3E

The rights sought by the order for plot 3E are:

“The right with or without vehicles, plant, machinery, materials, contractors and others to enter on, remain, construct, improve and maintain an access road, the right to remove and protect animals reptiles and other fauna species, and the right to carry out works to support, protect, repair, remove, reinstate and rebuild the ground, buildings, vegetation and structures, and to pass and re-pass over … of private road and public footpaths …south of Liverpool Road”. (Emphasis added)

The rights are in perpetuity, and are not exclusive to UU. They extend to contractors and others. There are no limitations that relate to the purpose of UU’s use, in the exercise of such rights.

The full scope of the rights for plot 3E mean that UU, its contractors and anyone else it chooses, have full rights to use Stadium Way at will for ever without requiring any permissions or consents from the stadium. This means that UU and it contractors can travel the road at will for as often as they want, and park their vehicles, plant and equipment anywhere on the road and for as long as they want to (see “remain” in the rights).

Furthermore more, the rights enable UU (contractors and others) to improve and maintain. These are not defined and CoSCoS will have no sight of what UU’s intentions are and so have no control. Self-evidently, the action of undertaking the works may conflict with the stadium’s operation. In practice there would be nothing to stop UU from removing the road and any structures or buildings that the stadium may have built, and UU will be under no obligation to repair or make good any damage to the road. These follow from the rights to “construct a road” and to “remove ground, buildings, structures”.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 62 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

Implications of plot 3E rights for CoSCoS

The rights are not exclusive to UU. CoSCoS will have to continue to use Stadium Way as an access road to the stadium as it has no alternative road access.

However, CoSCoS cannot impede or prevent UU from undertaking any of the (very wide) activities listed in the rights. If the stadium were to try and prevent UU from exercising its rights, then UU’s remedy would be to seek an injunction. Thus, the stadium would not be able to close the road or restrict access to it on matchdays as is currently the case, nor would it be possible for vehicles other than those belonging to UU and its contractors to stop or park on the road.

There is no requirement for UU to fence or segregate its own traffic from the stadium’s. Indeed, no such right is sought. Thus, there is the inevitable risk of conflict between vehicles undertaking tasks for UU and its contractor (for example delivery of plant and equipment or road cleaning and/or removal of the ground and/or construction of a road) and the stadiums own users and visitors trying to access the car park safely. Whilst UU’s own operations on the road would be governed by Health and Safety legislation, the order provides no rights or remedy to the Stadium to ensure that UU and its contractors comply with all relevant legislation when using CoSCoS’s land. Thus, the responsibility to make the area safe will fall on the stadium and CoSCoS as the operator and land owner. However, segregating visitors to the stadium from the area over which UU (etc) will exercise rights would involve precluding use of the sole access point to such visitors. This is simply not acceptable to an operating stadium and its ancillary activities.

The rights enable UU to ‘improve and maintain’. UU’s plans to improve the road may or may not fit with CoSCoS and the stadium’s aspirations for its future use, and lead to it owning a piece of critical infrastructure that is no longer is fit for purpose and its intended use.

The right to maintain will enable UU to repair damage to the road (brought about by its use), but there is no obligation for it to do so. Thus, CoSCoS cannot enforce

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 63 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

UU to make good any damage from its use. UU may be content to let the road deteriorate to a level that CoSCoS and the stadium find unacceptable, forcing CoSCoS to repair the road at its own cost. However, CoSCoS cannot repair, if this would interrupt the rights sought (which endure in perpetuity).

Effectively, the rights take away CoSCoS and the stadium’s power to manage and use its own highway and stadium access infrastructure as UU’s activities will take precedence.

6.4 Rights sought by the order for plot 3

The rights sought by the order for plot 3 are:

“The right with or without vehicles, plant, machinery, materials, contractors and others to enter on, remain, construct, improve, maintain and remove an access road, the right to remove and protect animals reptiles and other fauna species, the right to carry out works to support, protect, repair, remove, reinstate and rebuild the ground, buildings, vegetation and structures, and to pass and re-pass, all such rights for purposes related to the laying and construction of foul and surface water sewers and associated structures and accessories thereto, and associated works and activity, over..”. (Emphasis added)

The rights are in perpetuity and are not exclusive to UU. They extend to contractors and others and there are no limitations that relate to the purpose of UU’s use.

The full scope of the rights for plot 3 mean that UU, its contractors and anyone else it chooses, have full rights to remove ground and construct and use a new access road from Stadium Way across CoSCoS’s land irrespective of its existing use, consented (but not developed) use or proposed use. UU will not have to consult the Stadium and CoSCoS about the design and construction of the road. It will be able to remove any structures, surfaces and infrastructure that the Stadium and CoSCoS may have already built there before the order was granted.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 64 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

Such rights are very broad and far broader than is justified by the evidence in support of the Order.

Implications of plot 3 rights for CoSCoS

CoSCoS cannot impede or prevent UU from undertaking any of the activities listed in the rights. If it does, the rights enable UU to adapt and develop and use CoSCoS’s land and infrastructure for its own purposes irrespective of CoSCoS’s current and future plans.

There is a 79m x 30m section of land in Plot 3 adjacent to Stadium Way (Figure 19). This land is used for stadium’s main and only car park and the access point to from Stadium Way. The implication is that UU’s use of this section of plot 3 will prevent the normal and regular use of the stadium’s main car park as the stadium will not have prior knowledge of UU and its contractor’s work plans. UU has rights to remain on the land with or without vehicles, plant machinery and materials.

Under the CPO, UU (and others) can therefore use this critical piece of land in such a way that the stadium cannot get access to its car park. Again, this is unacceptable to the stadium and its various uses.

The rights sought for plot 3E take away the stadium’s ability to manage and use its access road. The rights sought for plot 3 prevent the stadium and its users and visitors from accessing the car park.

Beyond the rectangle of land, plot 3 extends as a 5m strip towards the M60, and this will enable UU to develop an access road across land that has an extant planning consent for a non-food bulk retail development (see paragraph 4.10.4). CoSCoS intends to sell the freehold of the retail site to a developer (The Retail Proof of Evidence by Andrew Hall expands on this).

The implication of the rights is that CoSCoS will not be able transfer freehold ownership as another party (i.e. UU) has rights to the land. The CPO therefore prevents the proposed anchor retail development from going ahead.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 65 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

6.5 Rights sought for plots 3I, 3S and 3T

The order prescribes plot 3I rights as:

“The right with or without vehicles, plant, machinery, materials, contractors and others to enter on, remain, construct, improve and maintain an access road, the right to remove and protect animals reptiles and other fauna species, and the right to carry out works to support, protect, repair, remove, reinstate and rebuild the ground, buildings, vegetation and structures, and to pass and re-pass over..”,

and in addition, for plots 3S and 3T:

“and the right to oversail cranes, all such rights for purposes related to the laying and construction of foul and surface water sewers, water pipelines and associated structures and accessories thereto, and associated works and activity” (Emphasis added)

The rights are granted in perpetuity, which will enable continual use of the land after construction has finished, and CoSCoS will have no control of that use.

The full scope of the rights for plot 3I, 3S and 3T mean that UU, its contractors and anyone else it chooses, have full rights to construct and use a new access road from Stadium Way across CoSCoS’s land irrespective of its existing use, consented (but not developed) use or proposed use. Any existing ground can be removed. Any buildings can be removed.

Implications of the rights (for landowner)

However, CoSCoS cannot impede or prevent UU from undertaking any of the activities listed in the rights. If CoSCoS were to try and prevent UU from exercising its rights, then UU’s remedy would be to seek an injunction. The rights enable UU to adapt and develop and use CoSCoS’s land and infrastructure for its own purposes irrespective of CoSCoS’s current and future plans.

Whilst most the land identified by plot 3I is undeveloped, a part of it crosses over land outside the practice pitch (nearest the MSC) that is used for car parking by

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 66 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

the pitch users, and as a location for a hospitality tent or marquee on match days. Therefore, as with the rights for plot 3, CoSCoS would not be able to allow cars to park there as it would impede UU’s use of plot 3I as shown on Figure 20.

The line of plot 3I then crosses over the swale that forms part of the land drainage infrastructure for the stadium. The swale acts as a receptor for surface water draining off land around the stadium, and intercepts it before it would run off towards the MSC Barton Locks. Water in the swale links to the water drainage network that eventually discharges into the Salteye Brook. The plan in appendix S shows the site drainage for the land around the stadium.

Constructing a road across this area of land will disturb the land drainage, and the consequence will be flooding on the stadium and CoSCoS land.

CoSCoS has extant planning consent to extend the stadium to accommodate up to 20,000 spectators by expanding the north, east and south stands (see paragraph 4.9.4. Whilst the footprint of the expanded south stand (which is closest to plot 3I) does not overlap plot 3I, the construction works planning will have to consider the proximity of UU’s road on plot 3I. The implication for CoSCoS and its stadium designer is that it will have to consider the location of the plot 3I road in its construction methodology and planning. These issues are described further in the Stadium Proof of Evidence.

6.6 Justification of the rights claimed

At the beginning of this chapter it is noted that the common theme for the rights sought for these plots is that they relate to access into and across CoSCoS land. In section 5 of the SoR (CD/CPO/3), paragraph 5.4.11 states the Order seeks rights to construct maintain and use a permanent access road to the outfall point. Paragraph 5.4.12 states the Order seeks similar rights for routes to the construction compounds (at shaft 04 and the M60 ancillary works area).

However, the rights sought by the order are wider than needed just for access. UU can do whatever it chooses to do within the terms of the rights which includes rights to remove, construct and maintain structures on CoSCoS’s land. There are

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 67 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

no restrictions on the numbers, types and use of the vehicles, plant and equipment that can use the land, and there are no limits for times and duration that relate to the duration of construction works.

The implication of paragraph 5.4.12 is that whilst the rights sought in the schedule by UU are in perpetuity, in reality, UU only needs rights for access in relation to the construction scheme, which is a time bound activity.

UU has clarified its intended uses for the plots following requests for information in CD/RFI/BDB/1 and in meetings with its engineers and Mott MacDonald. UU’s intentions are to use plots 3E, 3I, 3S and 3T to enable it to access the CoSCoS land from the A57 and the access track along the MSC to the outfall and shaft 04 site during construction works, and after construction for access to shaft 04 for maintenance and inspections.

Plot 3E, 3I, 3S and 3T will form UU’s main haul road between the A57 and the track that runs alongside the MSC’s north bank towards shaft 04. It will use this route for all construction traffic to move plant and equipment into the site, materials and supplies for construction at shaft 04, and the tunnel should it be driven from shaft 04. It will be the route used by lorries removing spoil from shaft sinking and tunnelling operations at shaft 04. UU will continue to use this road in perpetuity after construction has been completed to access shaft 04 for maintenance. UU has not provided any information on the numbers and types of vehicles using the access road and how it would segregate its operations from the stadium’s, and on what times and days of the week it will want to use the road. The Tunnelling Proof of Evidence by Michael Francis estimates that this will be circa 100 HGV movements per day during tunnelling works (assuming UU decides to drive the tunnel from shaft 04), and this would be an all day, 7-days a week operation.

Plot 3 is identified in the CPO for work package 2 the M60 ancillary works, the removal of existing (abandoned) assets. UU states (in CD/RFI/BDB/1) it will need rights to use an access route to the M60/WGIS area for ground investigation activities around the M60 and WGIS road for 11 months during construction.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 68 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

However, the CPO is not limited in this way at all. Rather, it will enable UU to continue to use the road for as long as it chooses, and for whatever purpose.

The RFI response (CD/RFI/BDB/1) did not expand on the use for the rectangular area of plot 3 adjacent to plot 3E (Stadium Way). However, following discussions with UU’s engineers about this plot’s use, Mott MacDonald understands that it is intended for use to turn vehicles round. However, the CPO is not limited in this way, the rights are considerably more extensive and will allow UU and its contractors to park vehicles, plant and machinery on the land and prevent the stadium using and accessing it etc (see above). There is no reasonable justification for the extent of the rights sought in the Order.

Assuming the works set out in the CPO scheme are granted planning consent, there is an engineering requirement for access. It needs to access to the construction sites during construction and the outfall site after construction from somewhere on the A57 by the least intrusive route. The rights sought have not properly considered the land’s existing and proposed uses and effectively annex land from CoSCoS to UU.

Assessment of justification

Considering the evidence from the CPO, responses to RFIs and discussions with UU’s engineers on the scope of their engineering works, UU’s access requirements can simply be considered as:

● Road access from somewhere on the A57 into CoSCoS and PSL land; ● A road connection to the track along the MSC bank leading to the outfall; ● A road connection to access the location of the M60 ancillary works;

UU needs access if the CPO is confirmed because:

● It is sinking shaft 04 and forming an outfall into the MSC. Therefore, it will need to supply the site with plant and equipment, remove spoil from the shaft works and provide access for its contractor and employees.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 69 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

● It will need to access the outfall site after construction, when the CPO scheme is operational, to inspect and maintain its infrastructure at the outfall. ● It needs to remove previously abandoned assets under or adjacent to the M60.

The length of time that UU requires these rights is:

● For CPO scheme construction works it is likely to be between 20 and 30 months (in paragraph 5.3.2 of the SoR CD/CPO/3) ● For the M60 works it is likely to be 11 months ● Access to the outfall after construction for as long as the infrastructure remains in use.

Plot 3 rights are in perpetuity whereas UU only require access for 11 months. The location, size and shape of plot conflict with CoSCoS’s own current and future uses, and it is not apparent that UU has considered any alternatives.

The alignment and design of plot 3 is arbitrary and has paid no attention to the current and consented uses of the land. UU (in paragraph 3.24 of the SoR CD/CPO/3) states it has been unable to identify a specific strategy to deal with accessibility to affected routes during its construction works, and (in paragraph 3.23 of the CD/CPO/3) that it cannot rely on access from its Eccles plant because of construction of a major new road (the WGIS scheme). However, WGIS is (now) complete and open to traffic. A connection from WGIS is therefore one option. Alternatively, UU could have designed the route around the stadium to avoid conflicts with the consented anchor retail site, its access road and car park.

Plot 3E, 3I, 3 S and 3T rights are in perpetuity whereas the construction works are expected to take between 20 and 30 months. The use of plot 3E (Stadium Way) has not considered that this road is critical to the Stadium operation. Plot 3I rights have not considered the existing uses and consented uses and UU has not attempted to specify plot 3I to avoid existing uses, in particular the critical role of the swale in the stadium land drainage plan.

The engineering requirements for a construction site are different to those for maintenance and should be expressed separately.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 70 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

Conclusion on justification

The conclusions on the rights sought are that they:

– Are too vague; – Are too wide and for too long a duration; – Have no reasonable engineering justification; – Effectively deprive the stadium of access from the A57 if exercised; – Block access to the car park; – Disrupt the land drainage; – Are totally unacceptable when there are reasonable practical alternatives; – Are disproportionate and cause maximum disruption to the operation of a community and commercial facility.

The rights if granted will prevent CoSCoS from delivering its existing, consented and proposed uses for the land (which are described in the next section).

The maximum rights that the engineering justification would support will be:

i. Access to the construction sites (outfall and M60) from somewhere on the A57 for a limited duration (construction period) and using land and existing assets that will not conflict with CoSCoS’s own operation and consented or proposed future uses. ii. Access the outfall site for the duration of its working life. The access route should to avoid conflict with existing operation and uses, and include a ‘lift and shift’ clause to enable CoSCoS and PSL to modify the route to facilitate consented (but not developed) future uses.

6.7 Conflicts with existing and proposed use

The rights sought provide no obligation for UU to plan or coordinate their works in advance with CoSCoS. Further, CoSCoS’s concerns cannot be overcome by any such co-ordination. In practice, UU’s proposed uses for plot 3 and plot 3E will have significant impact on the stadium’s operations, particularly on matchdays

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 71 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

when large numbers of spectators are expected but at other times as well. Plot 3E includes all of Stadium Way, the only dedicated highway access from the A57 WGIS road (including pedestrian and cyclists) into the stadium for public use. As such, plot 3E will be used by a variety of vehicles from small site vehicles to larger commercial LGV or HGV types at any time, in perpetuity. CoSCoS will not be able to impede such a right in perpetuity. It will lose its access into and out of Stadium Way from the A57, and from Stadium Way into its car park.

The rectangular area of plot 3 on the car park is understood (from discussions with UU’s engineers) to be required to either hold vehicles or provide turning space for larger HGV’s. The Stadium Proof of Evidence describes the impact on matchday and main stadium operations in detail. However, the scale and location of the plot 3 will prevent free and unrestricted access to the car park from Stadium Way. There will be a significant reduction (approximately 141) in the number of car parking spaces available for public use if UU take full and permanent occupation of the rectangular area of plot 3.

The loss of the car parking amenity and its replacement with a large area of land that UU and its contractors can use for construction vehicles, plant and equipment in an area used by spectators on match days will increase congestion and most likely increase on street car parking on local roads in the area. The reduction in car available car parking will be detrimental to the matchday operation, and at all times when the stadium is being used for hospitality events, corporate and business meetings. The availability of convenient and secure onsite parking is essential to the success and viability of the stadium’s hospitality offer. The consequence of these restrictions to access and car parking will be a catastrophic impact on stadium income, undermining its sustainability and role as a community facility.

Plot 3 extends as a 5m wide linear strip of land running east from Stadium Way towards the M60 (plan in appendix T). Plot 3 crosses the alignment of the proposed access road from WGIS into the anchor retail unit site and then turns through 90-degrees to run alongside the M60 towards plots 3B, C and D. UU will

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 72 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

use its rights for this plot to create an access road from Stadium way to reach the tunnel alignment with no restriction on the size, type and number of vehicles, or times when it can be used.

The UU road will cross the line of the proposed access road from the A57 into the retail site and its car park. This will restrict or prevent pedestrian and vehicle access to the unit and consequently prevent its future development as CoSCoS will not be able to provide unrestricted access to from the A57.

The location of plots 3I, 3S and 3T conflict with the location of surface land drains for the stadium and CoSCoS land. If the plots remain in the position as sought, and UU exercises its rights to construct and use an access track, then this will disrupt the land drains and lead to flooding on the site. UU has not considered this essential infrastructure and CoSCoS will be forced into additional work to maintain the site’s land drainage to prevent flooding because of UU’s construction activities.

6.8 Rights offered by CoSCoS and PSL

After considerable work understanding and considering UU’s reasonable engineering requirements for the CPO scheme, CoSCoS is prepared to grant rights to access CoSCoS and PSL land. These new rights will replace rights sought for plots 3, 3E, 3I, 3S and 3T.

The proposed rights are set out in an open offer to UU and are described in Chapter 14. Such rights meet the reasonable requirements of UU, to complete the proposed project. There is, therefore, no need for the CPO in respect of these plots. There is not, and never has been, a compelling case for the rights which have been sought in respect of these plots.

6.9 Conclusion on plots

The access routes made in the open offer will satisfy UU’s engineering requirements and thus there is no justification for the CPO (as drafted) for plots 3, 3E, 3I, 3S and 3T. These plots should therefore be removed from the order.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 73 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

7 Plots 3B, 3C and 3D

This chapter covers plots 3B, 3C, and 3D beginning with:

i. Ownership, location and current use of the plots. ii. Rights sought by UU. iii. Implications for the land owner. iv. Assessment of whether the rights sought through the order can be considered justified or excessive. v. Conflicts and practical consequences with their current use. vi. What reasonable rights the landowner would offer UU to meet its reasonable engineering requirements.

7.1 Location and ownership of plots 3B, 3C and 3D

These plots are on CoSCoS land to the east and west of the stadium and are shown on the plans in appendices N and O.

These plots are grouped together as the rights sought concern the physical act of driving a tunnel underground, monitoring for ground movement caused by the tunnel and use of the tunnel under CoSCoS land from the M60 Barton High Level Bridge (BHLB) to the west side of the stadium.

7.2 Description and current use

These three plots (highlighted in blue in Figure 21) describe the tunnel corridor from the point where it enters CoSCoS land at its eastern boundary (west of the M60 BHLB) through to the west of the stadium. The SoR in paragraph 5.4.3 states that UU has split the corridor into inner and outer sections in the order through the use of different plots:

● Plot 3B is the outer corridor on the north (stadium) side of the tunnel. ● Plot 3C is the inner corridor containing the tunnel.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 74 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

● Plot 3D is the outer corridor on the south (MSC) side of the tunnel.

The eastern edge of plots 3B, 3C and 3D abuts plots 2B, 2D, 2F, 2L and 2 on land owned by Peel Investments North under the M60 Barton High Level Bridge and not considered in this proof. The western edge abuts plots 3P, 3Q and 3R.

Plot 3C is 16m throughout its length. Plots 3B and 3D are 12m wide for most of their length. Plot 3B narrows as it passes around the footprint of the stadium East and South stands in their consented or full capacity configuration. Plot 3D narrows at its western end where the tunnel outer corridor is included in plot 4A. This plot is on land owned by Peel Investments North and consequently not considered further in this proof.

Figure 21: Plots 3B, 3C and 3D

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 75 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

The overall width of the tunnel corridor is circa 40m along most of the length of these plots. The tunnel has an inside diameter of 2.85m and outside diameter of 3.5m including tunnel lining and overcut. It should be noted that when considering the rights and the engineering justification of those rights in the following sections, that the tunnel corridor is significantly wider than the tunnel by a factor of eleven. There is no compelling engineering justification for the width of the corridor in relation to the pure development of the tunnel underground. Michael Francis in the Tunnelling Proof of evidence considers that a 3m zone on either side of the tunnel is a reasonable safety zone for tunnel protection and an overall corridor width of 16m maximum. However, there will be (as described later) a reasonable need for surface monitoring of any ground movements from tunnelling over a wider area, but only for a short period of time during tunnelling works.

The land identified by these plots is currently undeveloped. However, there is extant planning consent to extend the stadium in two further phases, and for a bulk non-food retail unit to the east of the stadium and the tunnel corridor passes through the plots 3B, 3C and 3D. The retail unit (referred to as the ‘anchor retail unit’) is described in section 4.10 of this proof, and in detail in the Retail Proof of Evidence by Andrew Hall.

7.3 Rights sought for plots 3B, 3C and 3D

The rights sought for plot 3B and 3D are identical. The order prescribes them as:

“The right to enter on, remain and to pass and re-pass over with or without vehicles, plant, machinery, materials, contractors and others, and to carry out works for purposes related to the laying and construction of foul and surface water sewers and accessories thereto, with the right to remove or divert services and apparatus, the right to carry out works to support, protect, repair, remove, reinstate and rebuild the ground, buildings, vegetation and structures, the right to remove and protect animals reptiles and other fauna species, and the right to carry out surveys, inspections, monitoring and ground investigations and to attach, use and leave monitoring and

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 76 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

investigation equipment and apparatus on or in the land and any structures, and the right to oversail cranes, all such rights for purposes related to the laying and construction of foul and surface water sewers and associated structures and accessories thereto, and associated works and activity, over…”. (Emphasis added)

The order seeks plot 3C rights as:

“The right to enter on, remain and to pass and re-pass over with or without vehicles, plant, machinery, materials, contractors and others, and to lay, construct, retain, use, inspect, reconstruct, replace, relay, remove, alter, maintain, clean and repair of and a right of support for foul and surface water sewers, and to enjoy the free flow of water, soil and effluent with or without other matter through the sewers, and accessories thereto including works for the purpose of telegraphic, telephonic or other electrical communication and including markers of the position of apparatus, with the right to remove or divert services and apparatus and the right to carry out works to support, protect, repair, remove, reinstate and rebuild the ground, buildings, vegetation and structures, the right to remove and protect animals reptiles and other fauna species, and the right to carry out surveys, inspections, monitoring and ground investigations and to attach, use and leave monitoring and investigation equipment and apparatus on or in the land and any structures and the right to oversail cranes over …”. (Emphasis added)

The rights sought are in perpetuity and are not exclusive to UU. They extend to contractors and others and apply all day and every day with no exceptions.

In addition to the rights listed in the order schedule, UU (see paragraph 3.10 of the Statement of Reasons) states that:

“in the event of on an issue with the tunnel boring machine (TBM) along the route of the pipe (for instance if it becomes ‘stuck’) it may be necessary to dig down from the surface to the machine/pipe route”.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 77 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

7.4 Implications of the rights for the landowner

There are no obligations on CoSCoS to undertake any actions for UU. However, CoSCoS cannot impede or prevent UU from undertaking any of the activities listed in the rights. If CoSCoS were to try and prevent UU from exercising its rights, then UU’s remedy would be to seek an injunction. The rights enable UU to adapt and develop and use CoSCoS’s land and infrastructure for its own purposes irrespective of CoSCoS’s current and future plans. As the rights are in perpetuity, UU will be entitled to return at any time to the land in plots 3B, 3C and 3D and CoSCoS will have no idea of what UU may want to do or when or for how long.

The rights in respect of the tunnel works in plot 3C are described as: “lay, construct, retain, use, inspect, reconstruct, replace, relay, and remove, reinstate and rebuild”. They do not prescribe that the works have to take place underground. The wording in the order is so broad that the tunnel could be constructed from the surface by digging a trench instead of tunnelling. In this respect, the rights are more appropriate to the laying of smaller diameter pipes at shallow depth, and not a larger diameter tunnel that is constructed (or driven) entirely underground.

Whilst most of the land around the stadium is undeveloped, there is extant planning consent (see section 4.10 and in Andrew Hall’s Retail Proof of Evidence) for a new non-food bulk retail unit (the anchor retail unit) to the east of the stadium. The full width of the tunnel corridor passes through the retail unit, about which UU were aware of the extent and location.

The implication for CoSCoS is that it cannot sell the freehold land for the construction and design of the retail where the rights allow a tunnel to be constructed either before the unit can be built, or once the unit has been built.

In paragraph 4.1.4 of the SoR (CD/CPO/3), UU refers to previous discussions with the landowner on the interaction of the CPO scheme with the proposed retail unit, and UU’s willingness to enter into a build over agreement (BOA) that would

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 78 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

allow the retail unit to be built over the tunnel. However, the BOA is not secured by the CPO. Rather, CoSCoS would have to try and negotiate a BOA in respect of its own land. In any such negotiation, UU would be in a very strong position and would not be under any compulsion to agree reasonable terms (absent a commercial imperative).

Further, the SoR goes on to say that the owner should grant a wider easement (for the tunnel) than sought in the order for the land on either side of the retail building. This would provide UU with sufficient working area should access be required to the tunnel under the building for maintenance or repair. The land on either side of the retail unit is planned for car parking (customer) and building servicing. UU’s proposals to have rights in these areas will be no less disruptive in practice as its proposed works would make the building inaccessible. The BOA (as drafted in the UU proposal) was not fit for purpose to enable the retail unit to be developed either before or after the tunnel. This is explained further below.

The implications of the build over agreement for CoSCoS are further complicated as their strategy for the development is to sell the freehold of the land to a retail developer. Therefore this 3rd party will be bound by the rights if granted through the CPO. CoSCoS cannot itself be certain of what views another developer will form on the rights, and this may compromise whether the developer considers the site to be viable, as well as the land value (which is a valuation matter).

Build over agreements

UU has (prior to making this application for CPO powers) previously entered in to discussions about a build over agreement (BOA) for a future retail development over the tunnel. The commercial implications of the draft BOA are also described in the Retail Proof of Evidence by Andrew Hall. BOA’s are used to set out the measures that a developer will take to ensure that its construction activities do not affect or damage the tunnel. The discussions on the BOA were in the context of a wider discussion on an umbrella agreement between Peel and UU on a wide range of matters concerned with the impacts of the proposed tunnel on Peel’s interests in the CoSCoS and Port Salford development sites.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 79 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

The draft BOA set out the parameters for a tunnel protection zone (i.e. the area surrounding the tunnel that the BOA would apply), method statements and asset condition surveys, and the technical requirements of the tunnel lining. The BOA made no mention of who would pay for the works, or the sequencing and timescales (tunnel or retail first) or liabilities in the event of damage to either the tunnel or retail unit (indemnities), which are a fundamental component of such agreements. Nor did it include any technical design of the structure to safeguard the tunnel.

Mott MacDonald understands that the draft BOA was never concluded after negotiations with UU on the wider range of matters associated with the tunnel development stalled. Essentially, the draft BOA was an agreement to agree and was not at that time developed to the level sufficient to understand the detail of the engineering works that would enable a developer and its contractor to proceed with designing and building the retail unit. It was not, therefore, an agreement into which a landowner could reasonably expect to enter.

In its RFI response Tranche 2, Item 26.6 (CD/RFI/WM/11), UU stated that the draft BOA could form a framework to guide the design of the retail unit in order to provide a clear corridor for the proposed tunnel, should the building be constructed before the tunnel. The shortcomings of the previous BOA are significant (noted above in paragraph 7.4.9). It is more appropriate to consider it as a starting point listing some of the issues that need agreement rather than a framework document.

However, UU also wants rights to access the tunnel from the surface (see paragraph 7.3.4). This right is incompatible with a BOA to enable a building or structure to be developed directly over the tunnel. Once a building has been constructed over a tunnel it will be impossible to access the tunnel from the surface. This is a perfectly usual circumstance in tunnel construction. RFI response Tranche 2, Item 26.6 (CD/RFI/WM/11) makes no reference to the fact that it is necessary to include in the BOA the requirement to access the tunnel if

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 80 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

the TBM becomes stuck or after construction if it needs to repair the tunnel lining or structure from outside.

UU’s insistence on rights to dig down to the tunnel has major implications for CoSCoS when considering future development in the tunnel corridor. Simply, if there are built structures over the tunnel corridor and UU wishes to exercise its right, then it is highly likely that the built structures would have to be fully or partially removed first. There is no compelling justification for this.

Stadium future development

The stadium has extant planning consent for development in three phases up to a maximum capacity of 20,000 spectators. The stadium development is currently at phase 1, a 12,000-spectator capacity stadium. Future development will be by rebuilding the existing South, East and North stands to increase the space for spectators inside the stadium. The footprint of the stadium in its final phase 3 development is shown on Figure 21. Plots 3B, 3C and 3D do not overlap the stadium footprint, and it is noted that UU has reduced the width of the plot 3B outer corridor to avoid the stadium.

However, the footprint of the stadium does not illustrate how much land will be reasonably needed outside the stadium by a contractor to rebuild the stands. Furthermore, there is an external concourse that runs around the outside of the stadium. This is necessary to enable spectators and others to move around the outside (for entry and egress at the appropriate entrances), and also to provide safe space outside the stadium in the event that it needs to be evacuated because of an incident or emergency. And, the emergency services will also make use of this space when responding to an incident.

The implication for CoSCoS and the stadium designer (link to AFL proof) is that it will have to consider the tunnel inner and outer corridor position when developing designs and construction methodology for phase 2 and phase 3 expansion. Therefore, it is necessary that the scope of a BOA discussed in the previous sub-section must cover the future stadium development.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 81 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

7.5 Justification of the rights claimed

The rights sought for these three plots all relate to driving the tunnel and its subsequent use and operation to convey treated effluent from the Eccles WwTW to the MSC. The rights for subsequent use of the tunnel are only for plot 3C. The rights sought for all three plots are in perpetuity. Construction is a time limited activity and UU has estimated this to take between 20 and 30 months. Tunnels of this type are typically in use for very long period of time. There are numerous examples of sewer tunnels in towns and cities that date back to the 19th century.

UU seeks rights to: “…carry out surveys, inspections, monitoring and ground investigations and to attach, use and leave monitoring and investigation equipment and apparatus on or in the land and any structures…”

Essentially this enables UU and its contractor to assess if, and by how much, there has been any ground movement associated with the tunnelling. The land in this area has had previous ground investigation works (as described in the Ground Conditions technical note in appendix E). Michael Francis in the Tunnelling Proof of Evidence explains that monitoring for ground movements is a reasonable need. The approach is typically to locate pegs in the ground or reflectors in building structures and use conventional surveying tools (levels, theodolites) to measure the amount of movement. It is an activity that is undertaken on foot. However, any ground settlement would normally be expected to take place in a relatively short period of time (weeks to months rather than years) after the tunnel drive face has passed and thus would not be considered as a long-term requirement. UU clarified this time as 11 months in its RFI response in Tranche 1 item 1 (CD/RFI/BDB/1).

UU seeks rights to: “… enter on, remain and to pass and re-pass over with or without vehicles, plant, machinery, materials, contractors and others...”. Other than the requirement for access to monitor ground movement, which is undertaken on foot, described in the previous paragraph, there are no other apparent engineering reasons for these rights for vehicles, plant and machinery and for access in perpetuity. There is no need for them.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 82 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

UU seeks rights to: “…works for the purpose of telegraphic, telephonic or other electrical communication..”. It has not provided any additional information to describe why it needs the rights and for what purpose. Therefore, it is impossible to see the justification for these plots and others plots described in subsequent chapters where these rights are also claimed.

UU also seeks rights to “..oversail cranes...”. Again, it has not specified why it needs these rights for a tunnel drive underground.

Excavation down to the tunnel from the surface

UU seeks rights to excavate down the tunnel (see paragraph 7.3.4) to recover the TBM or repair the tunnel from the surface at any point along the tunnel.

UU expanded on its reasons for rights to excavate down to the tunnel in response from Pinsent Masons (CD/RFI/WM/25) to a RFI from Walker Morris on the methodology and scope of works required.

The RFI response CD/RFI/WM/25 sets out the circumstances that UU considers that an intervention from the surface is likely to be required in the following circumstances where this cannot be safely undertaken by operatives underground:

● Remove an unexpected obstruction; ● Replacement of the cutting teeth; ● Repair damage to the cutting head.

These are works that would normally be undertaken underground and in front of the cutting head that has been withdrawn and the exposed ground supported (see evidence of Michael Francis).

UU itself considers (in CD/RFI/WM/25) that it is highly unlikely that a full recovery of the TBM would be required.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 83 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

The RFI CD/RFI/WM/25 sets out the land it requires for a recovery operation within the minimum 35m width of the tunnel corridor (the minimum combined width of plots 3B, 3C and 3D).

UU states it has no advance plans or proposals for any temporary works associated with a recovery operation but has consulted a specialist tunnelling contractor that advises that a piled excavation with a surface area circa 6m x 4m would be required. However, these dimensions relate to the size of the opening and do not include any provision for equipment and fencing off the working area. Therefore, the actual working area for such an operation will be considerably larger. UU has not specified how much additional land may be required, and if this can be contained within the land specified in the order. However, it is noted in paragraph 7.5.19 that the tunnel corridor is up to 40m wide and in its RFI response CD/RFI/BDB/110 inferred that the work would be undertaken within the tunnel corridor.

A further RFI was made to clarify the details of the advice from the specialist tunnelling contractor. The response (CD/RFI/BDB/110) stated that: “Planning for the un-planned removal of the TBM is not something that has been considered as part of this project ….as the risk of the un-planned removal of the TBM from the surface is extremely unlikely.” (Emphasis added).

It then provided a copy of an email (appended in CD/RFI/BDB/110) from a contractor that tendered for the full scheme works that outlines how it would form the intervention pit. It concluded by noting that this contractor was not engaged to construct the full scheme and that no other tenders propose a surface intervention for this purpose.

UU’s response (CD/RFI/WM/11) additionally provides further information on measures that it considers necessary to safeguard existing and consented development on PSL and CoSCoS land. However, these essentially deal with the stadium and offer no comment on developments covered by extant planning consents, such as the anchor retail unit development described in paragraph 4.10.4.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 84 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

Recovery and rescue of the tunnel boring machine

Therefore, UU claims it will need to use its rights sought to dig down to the tunnel to:

● Dig down to recover the TBM should it become stuck; or ● Dig down to repair the tunnel after it has been constructed.

Michael Francis in the Tunnelling Proof of Evidence explains that:

● That there is no reasonable risk that, with a properly configured TBM such as that envisaged for the UU scheme, it would become stuck on a relatively short drive and the ground conditions do not suggest an elevated risk. ● Segmental linings such as that proposed for the UU tunnel are known for their durability and reliability once installed and a structural failure would be unlikely for this type of lining once installed. ● This type of lining relies on the existing ground loads to provide the compression forces to hold the lining together. Excavation from the surface would not be advised as the lining may lose compression leading to deformation and failure.

As noted in paragraph 7.5.12, UU’s response to RFI (CD/RFI/BDB/110) is that planning for the un-planned removal of the TBM has not been considered for this project. The quoted contractor advice was provided from a contractor during the tendering for the full scheme works and was not engaged for the full scheme works. There is not, therefore, any evidential justification for the rights sought.

Assessment of the justification

Considering the evidence from the CPO, responses to RFIs and discussions on the scope of their engineering works, UU’s activities can simply be considered as:

● Driving a tunnel under CoSCoS land, with no intermediate shafts or access points on the land.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 85 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

● Monitoring any ground movements along the tunnel drive and for which it will need access on foot to the land to inspect the monitoring points. ● When the tunnel is complete, it will need to be able to use the tunnel for its intended purpose i.e. conveying waste water etc.

The length of time that UU requires these rights is:

● For tunnel construction works - it is likely to be between 20 and 30 months (in paragraph 5.3.2) of the SoR (CD/CPO/3). ● For ground monitoring works it is likely to be up to 11 months. ● For the tunnel use, a long period of time after completion of construction.

It is noted that whilst UU has avoided the stadium in its current phase of development, there are potential conflicts with future consented works to expand the stadium, and the retail unit on land to the east of the stadium.

The surface rights relating to construction for all three plots are in perpetuity whereas UU estimate that construction works may only last 30 months.

The combined width of the inner and outer tunnel corridors is 40m, whereas the overall external width of the completed tunnel is 3.5m. Michael Francis in the Tunnelling Proof of Evidence describes the scope of protection zones around tunnels as being typically between 3m and 6m to the side and 6m above. This would imply that the maximum width of the protection zone for the completed tunnel would be 16m (6m + 6m + tunnel width of 4m).

Conclusion on justification

The conclusions on the rights sought are that they:

– Are too wide, and not all are needed; – Are too long in duration; – Have no reasonable engineering justification; – Are disproportionate and cause maximum disruption to the landowner.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 86 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

The rights mix the engineering requirements to drive a tunnel with those required to use it after construction. These are different and should be expressed separately. Construction time for a tunnel of this type and length is a short-term project and rights for that should not be in perpetuity. The completed tunnel will be a piece of infrastructure that has a long-term value and use. The duration of the operating rights should reflect that.

It is good practice to be able to monitor any ground movement caused by the tunnel from the surface. However, this is only needed during and for a short period after construction. Therefore, rights in perpetuity are not appropriate or justified.

The 40m width of the tunnel corridor post construction is much wider than is necessary to safeguard the tunnel from construction works above ground before or after construction. A 16m tunnel corridor is the maximum that would be required as described in the Tunnelling Proof of Evidence by Michael Francis.

There is no justification for any rights to facilitate or enable UU or its contractor to dig down to the surface to access the tunnel and recover the TBM, or repair the tunnel from outside. UU’s motives for such rights are confusing and have no clear purpose. The SoR infers that they need the rights throughout the tunnel corridor but, in discussion on the BOA, they make no reference to its need. Then, in response the RFI (CD/RFI/BDB/110), Tranche 4 item 152 states it has not been considered for this project. Therefore, there is plainly no need for them. There is certainly no compelling need.

The maximum rights that the engineering justification could support would be:

i. To construct a tunnel underground on CoSCoS land following the alignment as in plot 3C for a specific time period. ii. Access to CoSCoS land above the tunnel to undertake monitoring activity during the construction period (and possibly for a short period thereafter). iii. To use the tunnel underground for a long duration with rights to extend rather than in perpetuity.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 87 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

7.6 Conflicts with existing and proposed use

The land above the tunnel is undeveloped at present. Tunnelling works take place under the ground, so from a practical engineering position the tunnel drive itself should have minimal impact on the current use of the land. UU also requires access to the tunnel route on the surface to monitor ground movement. Monitoring activity is unlikely to have a significant impact on the land and its use in the developed state.

However, UU’s rights to access (which are not exclusive to it and include contractors and others) are in perpetuity. They allow UU (contractors and others) to pass and repass and remain on the land in perpetuity. Therefore, there are significant (unnecessary and unjustified) conflicts for future developments on CoSCoS land along or close to the tunnel corridor.

The alignment of the tunnel crosses underneath the anchor retail unit site to the east of the stadium, and close to the south west corner of the stadium. Whilst CoSCoS has extant planning consent for the anchor retail unit and to expand the stadium, it cannot proceed with development without ensuring that its own works do not impede or prevent the CPO scheme. Thus, the rights if granted will, in effect, create a ransom strip along route of the tunnel. And, the width of this strip is not confined the width of the tunnel, it includes the inner and outer sections of the tunnel corridor which is up to 40m wide. Such a situation is simply not justified and is commercially unacceptable.

7.7 Rights offered by CoSCoS

After considering UU’s reasonable engineering requirements for the CPO scheme, CoSCoS is prepared to grant rights to UU to construct the tunnel under their land, and rights to use the tunnel after construction.

The duration of the rights will reflect the reasonable time needed to construct the tunnel and, once complete, that the tunnel will be in situ and used for a long period of time.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 88 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

The rights include a BOA that addresses the weaknesses of the earlier and uncompleted draft BOA. The BOA will be flexible to allow for whether UU’s tunnel or CoSCoS’s developments goes first. In either situation, there will be the reasonable requirement one party indemnifies the other. The BOA is developed initially for the consented anchor retail unit, but its principles can and will apply to other developments along the tunnel corridor.

The proposed rights are set out in an open offer to UU and are described in Chapter 14.

7.8 Conclusions on the plots

The rights for tunnelling works and its subsequent use, and the rights to create and use access routes described in the ‘offer’ will satisfy UU’s engineering requirements and thus there is no justification for the CPO (as drafted) for plots 3B, 3C and 3D. These plots should therefore be removed from the order.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 89 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

8 Plots 3P, 3Q and 3R

This chapter covers plots 3P, 3Q, and 3R beginning with:

i. Ownership, location and current use of the plots. ii. Rights sought by UU. iii. Implications for the landowner. iv. Assessment of whether the rights sought through the order can be considered justified or excessive. v. Conflicts and practical consequences with their current use. vi. What reasonable rights the landowner would offer UU to meet its reasonable engineering requirements.

8.1 Location and ownership of plots 3P, 3Q and 3R

These plots are on CoSCoS land to the south west of the stadium and are shown on the plan in appendix O.

These plots are grouped together as they relate to land required by UU to continue the formation of an access track from Stadium Way to the outfall, and mark the point where the new access track running past the stadium (plot 3I see section 6.5) crosses over the tunnel corridor and also where it meets the existing track running alongside the MSC.

8.2 Description and current use

Plots 3P and 3Q are on undeveloped land. Plot 3R is a short section of the access track that runs along the north bank of the MSC towards the Barton Locks. The plots are highlighted in blue on Figure 22.

Plot 3P links to plot 3I on its north edge, and to plot 3B on its east edge. The plot sits on top of the tunnel’s northern outer corridor.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 90 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

Plot 3Q links to plot 3C on its east edge. Plot 3Q sits on top of the tunnel inner corridor.

Plot 3R sits on the tunnel’s southern outer corridor, and the MSC access track to Barton Locks.

Figure 22: Plots 3P, 3Q and 3R

8.3 Rights sought by UU

Plot 3P

The rights sought by the order for plot 3P rights as:

“The right to enter on, remain and to pass and re-pass over with or without vehicles, plant, machinery, materials, contractors and others, and to carry out works for purposes related to the laying and construction of foul and surface

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 91 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

water sewers and accessories thereto, with the right to remove or divert services and apparatus, the right to carry out works to support, protect, repair, remove, reinstate and rebuild the ground, buildings, vegetation and structures, the right to remove and protect animals reptiles and other fauna species, and the right to carry out surveys, inspections, monitoring and ground investigations and to attach, use and leave monitoring and investigation equipment and apparatus on or in the land and any structures, and the right to oversail cranes, all such rights for purposes related to the laying and construction of foul and surface water sewers and associated structures and accessories thereto, and associated works and activity … and …. the right with or without vehicles, plant, machinery, materials, contractors and others to enter on, remain, construct, improve and maintain an access road, the right to remove and protect animals reptiles and other fauna species, and the right to carry out works to support, protect, repair, remove, reinstate and rebuild the ground, buildings, vegetation and structures, and to pass and re-pass…”. (Emphasis added)

The rights are in perpetuity and not exclusive to UU. They extend to contractors and others and there are no limitations that relate to the purpose of UU’s use.

Plot 3Q

The rights sought by the order for plot 3Q are as those for plot 3P. These are essentially concerned with the rights for creating and using an access track and rights to drive the tunnel and its subsequent use after construction:

● “remove, alter, maintain, clean and repair of and a right of support for foul and surface water sewers, and to enjoy the free flow of water, soil and effluent with or without other matter through the sewers …..and……. ● to undertake monitoring on the land “and the right to carry out surveys, inspections, monitoring and ground investigations and to attach, use and leave monitoring and investigation equipment and apparatus on or in the land and any structures”

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 92 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

The rights are in perpetuity and not exclusive to UU. They extend to contractors and others and there are no limitations that relate to the purpose of UU’s use.

Plot 3R

The order provides the plot 3R rights as those for plot 3P, which are for the continuation of the tunnel outer corridor (plots 3D) and continuation of the access track rights described in plot 3I.

The rights are in perpetuity and not exclusive to UU. They extend to contractors and others and there are no limitations that relate to the purpose of UU’s use.

Implications of rights for CoSCoS

The rights are not exclusive to UU, so CoSCoS can continue to land and the section of track on the MSC bank (plot 3R). However, CoSCoS cannot impede or prevent UU from undertaking any of the activities listed in the rights, otherwise UU’s remedy would be to seek an injunction. Thus, if CoSCoS wishes to make use of the land in the future to develop facilities around the stadium on a temporary or permanent basis, UU’s rights, in particular those for access will prevent it.

The rights enable UU to ‘improve and maintain’. UU’s plans to improve the road may or may not fit with CoSCoS and the stadium’s aspirations for the land’s future use, and lead to a piece of infrastructure on its land that it cannot remove or change in any way.

All these plots are on the tunnel corridor, and subject to UU’s right (if granted) to dig down to the tunnel (see paragraph 7.3.4). The implications are as those listed in section 7.4 for the tunnel corridor plots 3B, 3C and 3D.

8.4 Justification of the rights claimed

At the beginning of this chapter it is noted that the common themes for the rights sought is that they relate to UU’s (claimed) rights of access to CoSCoS and PSL land from a point somewhere on the A57 and to construct, maintain and use a

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 93 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

track through the land to the outfall site and compound, and the rights to drive and use the tunnel.

UU has clarified its intended uses for these plots following and RFI in CD/RFI/BDB/1, and in meetings between its engineers and Mott MacDonald.

Plot 3P

It requires this plot for monitoring prior and during construction for an estimated 11 months, and as part of the access route from the A57 to the compound for 28 months.

It would require the plot for a longer duration if it were to exercise its rights to dig down to the tunnel.

Plot 3Q

It requires this plot for ground movement monitoring on the surface prior and during construction for an estimated 11 months, and as part of the access route from the A57 to the compound for 28 months.

It requires rights on this plot for its underground tunnelling works, and if required to dig down to the tunnel.

Plot 3R

It requires this plot for monitoring prior and during construction for an estimated 11 months, and as part of the access route from the A57 to the compound for 28 months.

It would require the plot for a longer duration if it were to exercise its rights to dig down to the tunnel.

These three plots will form a section UU’s main haul road between the A57 and the track that runs alongside the MSC’s north bank towards shaft 04. It will use this route for all construction traffic to move plant and equipment into the site, materials and supplies for construction at shaft 04, and the tunnel should it be driven from shaft 04. It will be the route used by lorries removing spoil from shaft

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 94 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

sinking and tunnelling operations at shaft 04. UU will continue to use this road in perpetuity after construction has been completed to access shaft 04 for maintenance.

Assessment of the justification

Considering the evidence from the CPO, responses to RFIs and discussions with UU’s engineers on the scope of their engineering works, UU’s requirements for these three plots can simply be considered as:

● Construct, maintain and use an access track to the outfall and compound site for use during construction. ● Use of an access track to the outfall site after construction. ● To drive a tunnel underground. ● Access on foot to Monitor the ground above the tunnel for any movement associated with the tunnelling work.

It needs the access because:

● It is sinking shaft 04 and forming an outfall into the MSC. Therefore, it will need to supply the site with plant and equipment, remove spoil from the shaft works and provide access for its contractor and employees. ● It will need to access the outfall site after construction, when the CPO scheme is operational, to inspect and maintain its infrastructure at the outfall.

UU needs rights to tunnel under the land in plot 3Q as it does not own the land, and it needs rights after construction to use the tunnel.

All the rights are in perpetuity, whereas the construction works are expected to take between 20 and 30 months. Therefore, the rights for driving the tunnel, monitoring and access to the construction compound should be consistent with the timescale for construction. Rights for the operation and use of the tunnel, and access to the outfall should be for a longer period of time.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 95 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

Conclusion on justification

The conclusions on the rights sought are that they:

– Are too wide, and not all are needed; – Are too long in duration; – Have no reasonable engineering justification; – Are disproportionate and cause maximum disruption to the landowner.

The rights if granted will prevent CoSCoS’s ability to develop the land for its use in the future.

The maximum rights that the engineering justification would support will be:

i. Access to the construction sites (outfall and M60) for a limited duration (construction period), using land and existing assets that will not conflict with CoSCoS’s own operation and consented or proposed future uses. ii. Access to the outfall site for the duration of its working life. The access route should seek to avoid conflict with existing operation and uses, and include a ‘lift and shift’ clause to enable CoSCoS and PSL to modify the route to facilitate consented (but not developed) future uses. iii. To construct a tunnel on CoSCoS land following the alignment as in plot 3Q for a specific time period. iv. To access CoSCoS land above the tunnel to undertake monitoring activity during the construction period. v. To use the tunnel for a long duration with rights to extend rather than in perpetuity.

8.5 Conflicts with existing and proposed use

CoSCoS’s principle existing use for the land is concerned with maintaining the availability and use of the access track along the MSC north bank. UU proposed uses for the land include developing this as track to the compound and outfall site. This would be used by heavy goods vehicles transporting materials to the

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 96 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

compound (e.g. tunnel linings), and spoil (or muck) from the shaft sinking works, and the tunnel should it be driven from shaft 04 and not shaft 03. Thus, there are risks and conflicts between UU’s construction traffic and other users, which may be pedestrians or drivers of smaller vehicles that use the track to access the Barton Locks and its infrastructure.

There are no consented future uses for this land. However, it forms part of a triangle of land bounded by the MSC, stadium and practice pitches. This is part of the developable land around the stadium. UU would have rights (if granted) in perpetuity for part of this land and as CoSCoS cannot inhibit or prevent UU’s use of its rights, it would prevent the future development of the land by CoSCoS.

8.6 Rights offered by CoSCoS

After considering UU’s engineering requirements for the CPO scheme, CoSCoS is prepared to grant rights to:

● Drive a tunnel under the land, and with access to the land above the tunnel on foot for ground monitoring only. ● Access the land on a specified route during construction. ● Access to the outfall after construction, and with ‘lift and shift’ provisions should future developments require it to move.

The duration of the rights will reflect the reasonable time needed to construct the tunnel, and once complete that the tunnel will be in situ and used for a long period of time.

The proposed rights are set out in an open offer to UU and are described in Chapter 14.

8.7 Conclusions on the plots

The rights for tunnelling works and its subsequent use, and the rights to create and use access routes described in the open offer will satisfy UU’s engineering

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 97 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

requirements and thus there is no justification for the CPO (as drafted) for plots 3P, 3Q and 3R. These plots should therefore be removed from the order.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 98 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

9 Plots 3J, 3L, 3M, and 3N

This chapter covers plots 3J, 3L, 3M and 3N beginning with:

i. Ownership, location and current use of the plots. ii. Rights sought by UU. iii. Implications for the land owner. iv. Assessment of whether the rights sought through the order can be considered justified or excessive. v. Conflicts and practical consequences with their current use. vi. What reasonable rights the landowner would offer UU to meet its reasonable engineering requirements.

9.1 Location and ownership of plots 3J, 3L, 3M and 3N

These plots are on CoSCoS land to the south of the stadium’s practice pitches and are shown on the plan in appendix O, and highlighted in blue on Figure 23.

These plots are grouped together as they concern the rights sought to drive the tunnel up to the western boundary of CoSCoS land with PSL land.

9.2 Description and current use

Plots 3L and 3J

These plots are part of the outer section (north side) of the tunnel corridor that began in plot 3B. They are separated by plot 3H which is on the practice pitch and described later in chapter 10.

This land is currently undeveloped and there are no proposed future uses.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 99 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

Plot 3M

This land forms part of the inner section of the tunnel corridor that began in plot 3C. It is shaped to fit around plot 3K which is inside the practice pitch and described in the next chapter 10.

This land is currently undeveloped and there are no proposed future uses.

Figure 23: Plots 3J, 3L, 3M and 3N

Plot 3N

This land forms part of the outer section (south side) of the tunnel corridor that began in plot 3D. It does not include the full width of the outer section in this location as its southern edge adjoins plot 4Y which is on land owned by Peel Investments North and not considered further in this proof.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 100 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

This land is currently undeveloped and there are no proposed future uses.

9.3 Rights sought by UU

Plots 3J, 3L and 3N

The rights sought by the order for plots 3J, 3L and 3N rights relate identically to those for plot 3B, the outer section of the tunnel corridor:

“The right to enter on, remain and to pass and re-pass over with or without vehicles, plant, machinery, materials, contractors and others, and to carry out works for purposes related to the laying and construction of foul and surface water sewers and accessories thereto, with the right to remove or divert services and apparatus, the right to carry out works to support, protect, repair, remove, reinstate and rebuild the ground, buildings, vegetation and structures, the right to remove and protect animals reptiles and other fauna species, and the right to carry out surveys, inspections, monitoring and ground investigations and to attach, use and leave monitoring and investigation equipment and apparatus on or in the land and any structures, and the right to oversail cranes, all such rights for purposes related to the laying and construction of foul and surface water sewers and associated structures and accessories thereto, and associated works and activity…..” (Emphasis added)

The rights sought are in perpetuity and not exclusive to UU. They extend to contractors and others and there are no limitations that relate to the purpose of UU’s use.

Plot 3M

The order prescribes plot 3M rights identically to those for plot 3C, the outer section of the tunnel corridor:

“The right to enter on, remain and to pass and re-pass over with or without vehicles, plant, machinery, materials, contractors and others, and to lay, construct, retain, use, inspect, reconstruct, replace, relay, remove, alter, maintain, clean and repair of and a right of support for foul and surface water

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 101 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

sewers, and to enjoy the free flow of water, soil and effluent with or without other matter through the sewers, and accessories thereto including works for the purpose of telegraphic, telephonic or other electrical communication and including markers of the position of apparatus, with the right to remove or divert services and apparatus and the right to carry out works to support, protect, repair, remove, reinstate and rebuild the ground, buildings, vegetation and structures, the right to remove and protect animals reptiles and other fauna species, and the right to carry out surveys, inspections, monitoring and ground investigations and to attach, use and leave monitoring and investigation equipment and apparatus on or in the land and any structures and the right to oversail cranes..”. (Emphasis added)

Implication of the rights for the landowner

There are no obligations on CoSCoS to undertake any actions for UU. However, CoSCoS cannot impede or prevent UU from undertaking any of the activities listed in the rights. The rights enable UU to adapt and develop and use CoSCoS’s land and infrastructure for its own purposes irrespective of CoSCoS’s current and future plans. As the rights are in perpetuity, UU will be entitled to return at any time to the land in plots 3J, 3L, 3M and 3N and CoSCoS will have no idea of what UU may want to do or when.

Whilst most of the land described by these plots is undeveloped and there are no extant planning consents, any future developments will have to consider UU’s rights. Any future built structures must consider the tunnel location, and thus CoSCoS will have to enter a BOA with UU if the structure is over or close to the tunnel. These plots are on the tunnel corridor and they are subject to UU’s right (if granted) to dig down to the tunnel (see paragraph 7.3.4).

The rights enable UU to ‘improve and maintain’. UU’s plans to improve the road may or may not fit with CoSCoS and the stadium’s aspirations for the land’s future use, and lead to a piece of infrastructure on its land that it cannot remove or change in any way.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 102 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

9.4 Justification of rights claimed

The rights sought for these plots all relate to driving the tunnel and its subsequent use and operation to convey treated effluent from the Eccles WwTW to the MSC. The rights to subsequent use of the tunnel are only for plot 3M. The rights sought for all four plots are in perpetuity. Construction is a timebound activity and UU has estimated this to take between 20 and 30 months. Tunnels of this type are typically in use for very long period of time. There are numerous examples of sewer tunnels in towns and cities that date back to the 19th century.

UU seeks rights to: “…carry out surveys, inspections, monitoring and ground investigations and to attach, use and leave monitoring and investigation equipment and apparatus on or in the land and any structures…” Essentially this to enable UU and its contractor to assess if, and by how much, there has been any ground movement associated with the tunnelling. The land in this area has had previous ground investigation works as described in the Ground Conditions technical note in appendix E. Michael Francis in the Tunnelling Proof of Evidence explains that monitoring for ground movements is a reasonable need. The approach is typically to locate pegs in the ground or reflectors in building structures and use conventional surveying tools (levels, theodolites) to measure the amount of movement. It is an activity that is undertaken on foot. However, any ground settlement would normally be expected to take place in a relatively short period of time (weeks to months rather than years) after the tunnel drive face has passed and thus would not be considered as a long-term requirement. UU clarified this time as 11 months in its response to RFI Tranche 1 item 1 (CD/RFI/BDB/1)

UU seeks rights to “… enter on, remain and to pass and re-pass over with or without vehicles, plant, machinery, materials, contractors and others...”. Other than the requirement for access to monitor ground movement, described in the previous paragraph, there are no other apparent engineering reasons for these rights in perpetuity. This does not require vehicles, plant, machinery or materials.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 103 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

Assessment of justification

Considering the evidence from CPO, responses to RFIs and discussions on the scope of their engineering works, UU’s activities can simply be considered as:

● Driving a tunnel under CoSCoS land, with no intermediate shafts or access points on the land. ● Monitoring any ground movements along the tunnel drive and for which it will need to access the land to inspect the monitoring points. ● When the tunnel is complete, it will need to be able to use the tunnel for its intended purpose.

The length of time that UU requires these rights is:

● For tunnel construction works it is likely to be between 20 and 30 months (in paragraph 5.3.2) of the SoR (CD/CPO/3). ● For ground monitoring works it is likely to be up to 11 months. ● For the tunnel use, a long period of time after completion of construction.

The alignment of the tunnel across CoSCoS land appears from the information in the CPO and subsequent material from UU. The alignment is assumed to be the best fit for its intended use. Whilst it is noted that it has avoided the stadium in its current phase of development, there are potential conflicts with future consented works to expand the stadium, and the retail unit on land to the east of the stadium.

The rights relating to construction for all three plots are in perpetuity whereas UU estimate that construction works may only last 30 months.

The combined width of the inner and outer tunnel corridors is 40m, whereas the overall external width of the completed tunnel is 3.5m. Michael Francis in the Tunnelling Proof of Evidence describes the scope of protection zones around tunnels as being typically between 3m and 6m to the side and 6m above. This would imply that the maximum width of the protection zone for the completed tunnel would be 16m (6m + 6m + tunnel width of 4m).

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 104 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

Conclusions on justification

The conclusions on the rights sought are that they:

– Are too wide, and not all are needed; – Are too long in duration; – Have no reasonable engineering justification; – Are disproportionate and cause maximum disruption to the landowner.

Further, the rights if granted will conflict with CoSCoS’s ability to develop the land use in the future.

The maximum rights that the engineering justification could support would be:

i. Access the construction sites (outfall and M60) for a limited duration (construction period) and using land and existing assets that will not conflict with CoSCoS’s own operation and consented or proposed future uses. ii. Access to the outfall site for the duration of its working life. The access route should avoid conflict with existing operation and uses, and include a ‘lift and shift’ clause to enable CoSCoS and PSL to modify the route to facilitate consented (but not developed) future uses. iii. To construct a tunnel on CoSCoS land following the alignment as in plot 3Q for a specific time period. iv. To access CoSCoS land above the tunnel to undertake monitoring activity during the construction period. v. To use the tunnel for a long duration with rights to extend rather than in perpetuity.

9.5 Conflicts with existing and proposed use

There are no consented future uses for this land. However, it forms part of the land bounded by the MSC, stadium and practice pitches which forms part of the developable land around the stadium. UU would have rights (if granted) in

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 105 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

perpetuity for part of this land and as CoSCoS cannot inhibit or prevent UU’s use of its rights, it would limit and inhibit the future development of the land (when this is not reasonably justified or justifiable).

9.6 Rights offered by CoSCoS and PSL

After considering UU’s engineering requirements for the CPO scheme, CoSCoS is prepared to grant rights to:

i. Drive a tunnel under the land, and with access to the land above the tunnel for ground monitoring only; ii. Access the land on a specified route during construction; iii. Access to the outfall after construction; iv. With ‘lift and shift’ provisions should future developments require it to move.

The duration of the rights will reflect the reasonable time needed to construct the tunnel, and once complete that the tunnel will be in situ and used for a long period of time.

The proposed rights are set out in an open offer to UU and are described in Chapter 14.

9.7 Conclusions on the plots

The rights for tunnelling works and its subsequent use, and the rights to create and use access routes described in the open offer will satisfy UU’s engineering requirements and thus there is no justification for the CPO (as drafted) for plots 3J, 3L 3M and 3N. These plots should therefore be removed from the order.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 106 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

10 Plots 3F, 3G ,3H, and 3K

This chapter covers plots 3F, 3G, 3H and 3K beginning with:

i. Ownership, location and current use of the plots. ii. Rights sought by UU. iii. Implications for the landowner. iv. Assessment of whether the rights sought through the order can be considered justified or excessive. v. Conflicts and practical consequences with their current use. vi. What reasonable rights the landowner would offer UU to meet its reasonable engineering requirements.

10.1 Location and ownership of plots 3F, 3G, 3H and 3K

These plots are located on CoSCoS land to the west of the stadium.

These plots are grouped together as they concern rights sought by UU to access the practice pitches. The plots are shown on the plan in appendix N and are also highlighted in blue in Figure 23.

10.2 Description and current use

Plot 3F

Plot 3F is a strip of land running from the roundabout at the end of Stadium Way and leading to the entrance gate of the pitch closest to the MSC.

Plot 3 is a car park providing circa 31 car spaces for the users of the practice pitches. Users enter the pitch though a gate at the pitch’s north-east corner. The land provides the only access into the pitch from the changing rooms in the stadium and the car parking areas around the stadium.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 107 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

The car park is also a used to locate a temporary hospitality marquee on matchdays.

Figure 24:Plots 3F, 3G, 3H and 3K

Plot 3G

Plot 3G is a narrow strip of land that runs inside the all-weather practice (nearest the MSC) along its northern and eastern edge. It links to plot 3F at the north side of the pitch, and to plots 3H and 3K located at the southern corner of the practice pitch.

The practice pitches are a community resource and are regularly used for 5-a side football games. The pitches and associated changing facilities became available for use in parallel to the official opening of the Stadium, which was a prerequisite of the planning permission and their future use as sports pitches is

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 108 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

protected in perpetuity (The Indigo Planning Proof of Evidence sets out the planning background).

Plot 3H and 3K

Plots 3H and 3K form a triangular piece of land at the southern corner of the all- weather practice pitch (nearest the MSC). Plot 3H is a continuation of the outer section (north side) of the tunnel corridor that began with plot 3B. Plot 3K is a continuation of the inner section (tunnel) of the tunnel corridor that began in plot 3C.

The practice pitches are a community resource and are regularly used for 5-a side football games. The pitches and associated changing facilities became available for use in parallel to the official opening of the Stadium, which was a prerequisite of the planning permission and their future use as sports pitches is protected in perpetuity (The Indigo Planning Proof of Evidence sets out the planning background).

10.3 Rights sought by UU for plot 3F

The rights sought by the order for plot 3 F are:

“..right to enter on, remain and to pass and re-pass over on foot only with or without plant, machinery, materials, contractors and others, all such rights for purposes related to the laying and construction of foul and surface water sewers and associated structures and accessories thereto, and associated works and activity..” (Emphasis added)

The rights are granted in perpetuity, apply all day and every day, and are not exclusive to UU. They extend to contractors and others and there are no limitations that relate to UU’s intended purpose and use.

Implications of rights for the landowner

There are no obligations on CoSCoS to undertake any actions for UU. However, CoSCoS cannot impede or prevent UU from undertaking any of the activities

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 109 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

listed in the rights. Thus, the stadium cannot use the land for matchday events such as the location for hospitality marquees used by spectators before and after the matches, if that interferes with UU’s rights to access the gate into the practice pitch on foot.

Furthermore, UU and its contractors can leave their plant and machinery and materials on the pitches.

10.4 Rights sought by UU for Plot 3G

The rights sought by the order plot 3G are “..the right to enter on, remain and to pass and re-pass over on foot only with or without plant, machinery, materials, contractors and others, all such rights for purposes related to the laying and construction of foul and surface water sewers and associated structures and accessories thereto..”

The rights are granted in perpetuity, and are not exclusive to UU. They extend to contractors and others and there are no limitations that relate to UU’s intended purpose and use.

Implications of the rights for the landowner

There are no obligations on CoSCoS to undertake any actions for UU. However, CoSCoS cannot impede or prevent UU from undertaking any of the activities listed in the rights. The rights give UU access to the practice pitch at all times, and perpetuity. Thus, UU and or its contractors can enter the pitch on foot at any time. UU’s actions can frustrate, interfere and prevent the use of the practice pitches as it would be able to enter the pitch vehicles and plant and materials, without warning or advance notice, irrespective of whether a game was in progress or not, and to leave them there.

10.5 Plots 3H and 3K

The rights sought by the order for plot 3H are:

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 110 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

“..the right to enter on, remain and to pass and re-pass over with or without vehicles, plant, machinery, materials, contractors and others, and to carry out works for purposes related to the laying and construction of foul and surface water sewers and accessories thereto, with the right to remove or divert services and apparatus, the right to carry out works to support, protect, repair, remove, reinstate and rebuild the ground, buildings, vegetation and structures, the right to remove and protect animals reptiles and other fauna species, and the right to carry out surveys, inspections, monitoring and ground investigations and to attach, use and leave monitoring and investigation equipment and apparatus on or in the land and any structures, the right to oversail cranes, all such rights for purposes related to the laying and construction of foul and surface water sewers and associated structures and accessories thereto.

The rights sought by the order for plot 3K are as for plot 3H and in addition: “..The right …to lay, construct, retain, use, inspect, reconstruct, replace, relay, remove, alter, maintain, clean and repair of and a right of support for foul and surface water sewers, and to enjoy the free flow of water, soil and effluent with or without other matter through the sewers, and accessories thereto including works for the purpose of telegraphic, telephonic or other electrical communication and including markers of the position of apparatus…...”. (Emphasis added)

And, as in paragraph 7.4.2, the rights do not specify that the tunnel has to be constructed underground.

The rights for both plots are granted in perpetuity, and are not exclusive to UU. They extend to contractors and others and there are no limitations that relate to UU’s intended purpose and use.

Implication of the rights for the landowner

The implications of the rights for CoSCoS include those described for plots 3B and 3C, the tunnel corridor outer and inner sections. The order, if granted, will

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 111 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

give UU rights to monitor ground movements from tunnelling works on the practice pitches (irrespective of whether or no they are in use), and rights to dig down to the tunnel to repair it or recover the TBM if it is stuck. However, the rights sought are actually far broader than that. They can keep vehicles, plant and materials on land in the practice pitches, and remove the ground if they chose to lay the tunnel from the surface instead of tunnelling it underground.

Consequently, UU if it decided to dig down to the tunnel in this area would effectively close the practice pitch for a long period of time. Further, this section of the pitch would need to be fenced off from such operations, thereby rendering it inoperable.

10.6 Justification of the rights claimed

The tunnel passes underneath the south-west corner of the all-weather practice pitch (nearest the MSC). Plot 3H is the outer section (north side) and plot 3K the inner section of the tunnel corridor. UU is seeking rights to drive, construct and use the tunnel through these plots. It also seeks rights to monitor ground movements from the tunnel in these plots.

However, the plots are inside the stadium’s all-weather practice pitch, which is fenced and only accessible from a gate on the stadium side. Therefore, UU is seeking rights to create a pedestrian route from Stadium Way roundabout (plot 3E) to the gate into the pitch (plot 3F) and around the inside of the pitch (plot 3G) to reach the tunnel corridor.

UU clarified its intended uses for these plots following an RFI in CD/RFI/BDB/1. For plots 3F and 3G it seeks access on foot to the pitch for 11 months during tunnelling works for monitoring activity, and would consider ‘lift and shift’ alternative routes. For plot 3H the intended use is to monitor ground movements and potential access down to the tunnel for 11 months or longer if access is required to the tunnel, and for plot 3K for the rights to drive and use the tunnel, and access the tunnel from above ground for 28 months only. That is the apparent

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 112 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

totality of the rights sought. However, the CPO is considerably (and unnecessarily) wider than that.

Assessment of the justification

Considering the evidence from CPO, responses to RFIs and discussions on the scope of their engineering works, UU’s activities can simply be considered as:

● Driving a tunnel under CoSCoS land, with no intermediate shafts or surface access points on the land. ● Monitoring any ground movements along the tunnel drive and for which it will need to access the land on foot to inspect the monitoring points. ● When the tunnel is complete, it will need to be able to use the tunnel for its intended purpose.

The length of time that UU requires these rights is:

● For tunnel construction works it is likely to be between 20 and 30 months (in paragraph 5.3.2) of the SoR (CD/CPO/3). ● For ground monitoring works it is likely to be up to 11 months. ● For the tunnel use, a long period of time after completion of construction.

The alignment of the tunnel across CoSCoS land appears from the information in the CPO and subsequent material from UU is assumed to be best fit for its intended use. However, it does pass under the corner of the practice pitch and therefore UU will need a right to construct the tunnel and use it after construction.

It will need to monitor any ground movements from tunnelling where it passes under the pitch. However, UU’s access to this area should not disrupt the pitch’s uses.

The rights relating to construction for all three plots are in perpetuity and apply all day and every day whereas UU estimate that construction works may only last 30 months.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 113 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

There is no justification for rights to dig down to the tunnel as previously discussed for plots 3B, 3C and 3D.

Conclusion on justification

The conclusions on the rights sought are that they:

– Have no reasonable engineering justification; – Deprive the stadium of a community asset; – Block access to pitches; – Disrupt the consented use of the pitches; – Are totally unacceptable when there are reasonable practical alternatives such as creating a new gate into the pitch adjacent to where the monitoring needs to take place; and – Are disproportionate and cause maximum disruption to the landowner.

The scope of the rights sought by the CPO are not supported by any reasonable engineering justification. The maximum rights that the engineering justification would support will be:

i. Access the practice pitch for a limited duration (construction period), and by a route that is connected to the main access route from the A57 to the outfall and shaft 04 compound. ii. Access land by foot above the tunnel on the pitch to undertake monitoring activity during the construction period, and without disrupting the pitches users. iii. To construct a tunnel underground on CoSCoS land following the alignment as in plots 3B, 3C and 3D for a specific time period. iv. To use the tunnel for a long duration with rights to extend rather than in perpetuity.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 114 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

10.7 Rights offered by CoSCoS

After considering UU’s engineering requirements for the CPO scheme, CoSCoS is prepared to grant rights to:

i. Drive a tunnel under the land, and with access to the land above the tunnel for ground monitoring only by foot; ii. Access to the practice pitch land on a specified route during construction and at times that will not disrupt its normal and regular use. iii. The duration of the rights will reflect the reasonable time needed to construct the tunnel, and once complete that the tunnel will be in situ and used for a long period of time.

The proposed rights are set out in an open offer to UU and are described in Chapter 14.

10.8 Conclusions on the plots

The rights for tunnelling works and its subsequent use, and the rights to create and use access routes described in the open offer will satisfy UU’s engineering requirements and thus there is no justification for the CPO (as drafted) for plots 3F, 3G 3H and 3K. These plots should therefore be removed from the order.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 115 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

11 Plots 4B, 4F, 4P, 4W, 4Z, 4AA, 4AF, 4AG, 4AM, 4AN, 4AP, 5G, 5H, 5J, and 5P

This chapter covers plots 4B, 4F, 4P, 4W, 4Z, 4AA, 4AF, 4AG, 4AM, 4AN, 4AP, 5G, 5H, 5J, and 5P beginning with:

i. Ownership, location and current use of the plots. ii. Rights sought by UU. iii. Implications for the landowner. iv. Assessment of whether the rights sought through the order can be considered justified or excessive. v. Conflicts and practical consequences with their current use. vi. What reasonable rights the landowner would offer UU to meet its reasonable engineering requirements.

11.1 Location and ownership of plots 4B, 4F, 4P, 4W, 4Z, 4AA, 4AF, 4AG, 4AM, 4AN, 4AP, 5G, 5H, 5J, and 5P

These plots are on PSL land beginning at its eastern boundary with CoSCoS land. The plots are show on the plan in appendices O and Q, and highlighted in blue on Figure 25 .

They are located to the north of the MSC Barton Locks.

These plots are grouped together as they all concern the route of the tunnel corridor across PSL land from its border with CoSCoS land up to the eastern edge of the land UU has identified for the location of the site compound for shaft 04.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 116 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

Figure 25: Plots 4B, 4P, 4W, 4Z, 4AA, 4AF, 4AG, 4AM,4AP, 5G, 5H, 5J and 5P highlighted in blue and showing the consented infrastructure

11.2 Description and current use

Other than a section of the access track along the north side of the MSC that passes through plot 4F, these plots are currently undeveloped grassland. However, PSL have extant planning consent to divert the Salteye Brook, and new rail lines for Port Salford.

The plots have been divided up according UU’s intended uses:

● Plot 5G is land on the outer section (north) of the tunnel corridor. ● Plots 4W, 5H and 5P are on the inner section of the tunnel corridor. ● Plots 4W and 5H are on the 24” water main corridor, ● Plots 4F, 4B, 4AP, 5J, 4AA, 4AG and 4AM is land on the tunnel outer corridor (south). ● Plot 4F is in the outer section (nearest the MSC) and is a continuation of the access track leading to the shaft 04 construction area. ● Plots 4AA, 4AG and 4AM are in the outer section of the tunnel corridor and 24- inch water main corridor.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 117 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

11.3 Rights sought for plot 5G

The order prescribes the rights for plot 5G as:

“The right to enter on, remain and to pass and re-pass over with or without vehicles, plant, machinery, materials, contractors and others, and to carry out works for purposes related to the laying and construction of foul and surface water sewers and accessories thereto, with the right to remove or divert services and apparatus, the right to carry out works to support, protect, repair, remove, reinstate and rebuild the ground, buildings, vegetation and structures, the right to remove and protect animals reptiles and other fauna species, and the right to carry out surveys, inspections, monitoring and ground investigations and to attach, use and leave monitoring and investigation equipment and apparatus on or in the land and any structures, and the right to oversail cranes, all such rights for purposes related to the laying and construction of foul and surface water sewers and associated structures and accessories thereto, and associated works and activity…..”

The rights are granted in perpetuity, and are not exclusive to UU. They extend to contractors and others and there are no limitations that relate to UU’s intended purpose and use.

Implications of the rights for PSL

The rights sought are consistent with rights for plot 3B, the first section of the tunnel outer corridor. The same analysis therefore applies. There are no obligations within the rights for PSL to undertake any actions for UU. However, PSL cannot impede or prevent UU from undertaking any of the activities listed in the rights. PSL has plans to develop this land for Port Salford, which includes the diversion of the Salteye Brook. But it cannot undertake any of this planned work before or during the tunnelling works without the risk of impeding or preventing UU.

UU has rights in perpetuity, and PSL cannot be certain that UU will not return to the land after tunnelling works are complete.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 118 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

11.4 Rights sought for plots 5P, 5H and 4W

The rights sought for these plots are for the tunnel inner corridor (5P only) and additional rights for the 24-inch water main works (5H and 4W)

The order prescribes the rights for tunnelling as:

“The right to enter on, remain and to pass and re-pass over with or without vehicles, plant, machinery, materials, contractors and others, and to lay, construct, retain, use, inspect, reconstruct, replace, relay, remove, alter, maintain, clean and repair of and a right of support for foul and surface water sewers, and to enjoy the free flow of water, soil and effluent with or without other matter through the sewers, and accessories thereto including works for the purpose of telegraphic, telephonic or other electrical communication and including markers of the position of apparatus, with the right to remove or divert services and apparatus and the right to carry out works to support, protect, repair, remove, reinstate and rebuild the ground, buildings, vegetation and structures, the right to remove and protect animals reptiles and other fauna species, and the right to carry out surveys, inspections, monitoring and ground investigations and to attach, use and leave monitoring and investigation equipment and apparatus on or in the land and any structures, and the right to oversail cranes over..”

The order extends the rights for plots 5H and 5W to the 24-inch water main “..surface water sewers and water pipelines, and to enjoy the free flow of water, soil and effluent with or without other matter through the sewers and pipelines …”

The rights are granted in perpetuity and for all day and every day, and are not exclusive to UU. They extend to contractors and others and there are no limitations that relate to UU’s intended purpose and use.

Implications of the rights for PSL

The rights sought for the tunnelling works are consistent with the rights for plot 3C the tunnel inner corridor. There are no obligations within the rights for PSL to

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 119 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

undertake any actions for UU. However, PSL cannot impede or prevent UU from undertaking any of the activities listed in the rights. PSL has plans to develop this land for Port Salford, which includes the diversion of the Salteye Brook. But it cannot undertake any of this planned work before or during the tunnelling works without the risk of impeding or preventing UU, and after completion without UU’s consent because of risks to the tunnel location.

11.5 Rights sought for 4F, 4B, 4AP, 5J, 4AA, 4AG and 4AM

The rights sought for these plots are related to the tunnel corridor outer section (as for plot 3D), with additional rights for the 24-inch water main diversion and the access track to the compound and outfall.

The order prescribes the rights tunnel corridor outer section as:

“The right to enter on, remain and to pass and re-pass over with or without vehicles, plant, machinery, materials, contractors and others, and to carry out works for purposes related to the laying and construction of foul and surface water sewers and accessories thereto, with the right to remove or divert services and apparatus, the right to carry out works to support, protect, repair, remove, reinstate and rebuild the ground, buildings, vegetation and structures, the right to remove and protect animals reptiles and other fauna species, and the right to carry out surveys, inspections, monitoring and ground investigations and to attach, use and leave monitoring and investigation equipment and apparatus on or in the land and any structures, and the right to oversail cranes, all such rights for purposes related to the laying and construction of foul and surface water sewers and associated structures and accessories thereto, and associated works and activity…..”

The order extends the rights for plots 4AG, 4 AA and 4AM to include the 24-inch water main: “..surface water sewers and water pipelines, and to enjoy the free flow of water, soil and effluent with or without other matter through the sewers and pipelines …”

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 120 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

The order extends the rights for plot 4F to include the use of the access track: “…the right with or without vehicles, plant, machinery, materials, contractors and others to enter on, remain, construct, improve and maintain an access road.. “

The rights are granted in perpetuity, and are not exclusive to UU. They extend to contractors and others and there are no limitations that relate to UU’s intended purpose and use.

Implications of the rights for PSL

The rights sought for the tunnelling works are consistent with the rights for plot 3D the tunnel outer corridor. The same points therefore apply (as above). There are no obligations within the rights for PSL to undertake any actions for UU. However, PSL cannot impede or prevent UU from undertaking any of the activities listed in the rights. PSL has plans to develop this land for Port Salford, which includes the diversion of the Salteye Brook. But it cannot undertake any of this planned work before or during the tunnelling works without the risk of impeding or preventing UU.

11.6 Justification of the rights

The rights sought for these plots all relate to driving the tunnel and its subsequent use and operation to convey treated effluent from the Eccles WwTW to the MSC. The rights to subsequent use of the tunnel are only for plots 5P, 5H and 4W. The rights sought for all plots are in perpetuity. Construction is a timebound activity and UU has estimated this to take between 20 and 30 months. Tunnels of this type are typically in use for very long period of time. There are numerous examples of sewer tunnels in towns and cities that date back to the 19th century.

UU seeks rights to: “..carry out surveys, inspections, monitoring and ground investigations and to attach, use and leave monitoring and investigation equipment and apparatus on or in the land and any structures…” Essentially this is to enable UU and its contractor to assess if, and by how much, there has been any ground movement associated with the tunnelling. The land in this area has

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 121 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

had previous ground investigation works as described in the Ground Conditions technical note in appendix B Michael Francis in the Tunnelling Proof of Evidence explains that monitoring for ground movements is a reasonable need. The approach is typically to locate pegs in the ground or reflectors in building structures and use conventional surveying tools (levels, theodolites) to measure the amount of movement. It is an activity that is undertaken on foot. However, any ground settlement would normally be expected to take place in a relatively short period of time (weeks to months rather than years) after the tunnel drive face has passed and thus would not be considered as a long-term requirement. UU clarified this time as 11 months in its response to an RFI (CD/RFI/BDB/1)

UU seeks rights to: “… enter on, remain and to pass and re-pass over with or without vehicles, plant, machinery, materials, contractors and others..”. Other than the requirement for access to monitor ground movement, described in the previous paragraph, there are no other apparent engineering reasons for these rights in perpetuity.

Additional rights are sought (for plots 4AA, 4AG and 4AM) for the diversion of the 24-inch water main, which is described in section 3.34 of the SoR CD/CPO/3 as Work Package 4. UU needs to divert the water main through Port Salford land as its existing route passes through shaft 04.

Additional rights are sought (for plot 4F only) to use, maintain and improve the access track that UU requires to access the shaft 04 compound during construction and outfall after construction.

Assessment of the justification

Considering the evidence from the CPO, responses to RFIs and discussions on the scope of their engineering works, UU’s activities can simply be considered as:

● Driving a tunnel under CoSCoS land, with no intermediate shafts or surface access points on the land.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 122 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

● Monitoring any ground movements along the tunnel drive and for which it will need to access the land to inspect the monitoring points. ● Diverting the 24-inch water main to avoid the location of shaft 04. ● Use of a section of the access track to provide a contiguous route from the A57 to the construction compound and outfall site. ● When the tunnel is complete, it will need to be able to use the tunnel for its intended purpose.

The length of time that UU requires these rights is:

● For tunnel construction works it is likely to be between 20 and 30 months (in paragraph 5.3.2) of the SoR (CD/CPO/3) and which would also include the diversion of the water main. ● For ground monitoring works it is likely to be up to 11 months. ● For the tunnel use, a long period of time after completion of construction.

The alignment of the tunnel across CoSCoS land appears from the information in the CPO and subsequent material from UU is assumed to be best fit for its intended use.

Conclusions on justification

The conclusions on the rights sought are that they:

– Are too wide, and not all are needed; – Are too long in duration; – Have no reasonable engineering justification; – Are disproportionate and cause maximum disruption to the landowner.

The scope of the rights sought by the CPO are unjustifiable in principle and in scope. The maximum rights that the engineering justification would support will be:

i. To construct a tunnel under PSL land following the alignment as in plot 5P for a specific time period.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 123 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

ii. To access PSL land above the tunnel to undertake monitoring activity during the construction period. iii. To use the tunnel for a long duration with rights to extend rather than in perpetuity. iv. To access the construction compound for a limited duration (construction period) and using land and existing assets that will not conflict with PSL’s own consented or proposed future uses. v. To access the outfall site for the duration of its working life. The access route should to avoid conflict with existing operation and uses, and include a ‘lift and shift’ clause to enable CoSCoS and PSL to modify the route to facilitate consented (but not developed) future uses.

11.7 Conflicts with existing and proposed use

The land identified by these plots is undeveloped grass land other than plot 4F which is a section of the access track along the MSC north bank. Thus, other than UU’s use of the track, there are no conflicts with current use of the land.

There are conflicts with the proposed use of the land. PSL plans to develop this area of land to enable the further development of warehousing at Port Salford. PSL’s next phase of works will be to divert the Salteye Brook from its current alignment to enable the construction of a new rail line into Port Salford (section4.6). Plots 5G, 5H and 5P overlap the footprint of the diverted Salteye Brook (plan in appendix Q)

UU’s rights for these plots will be in perpetuity, and PSL will not be able to use the land for works to divert the Salteye Brook as UU will have its own rights to remain on the land and undertake its own works. The impact will be to prevent PSL forever from undertaking the diversion of the Salteye Brook and constructing the rail line, works that are essential for Port Salford.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 124 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

11.8 Rights offered by PSL

After considering UU’s engineering requirements for the CPO scheme, PSL is prepared to grant rights to:

i. Drive a tunnel under the land, and with access to the land above the tunnel for ground monitoring only. ii. Divert the 24-inch water main. iii. Access the land on a specified route during construction. iv. Access to the outfall after construction, and with ‘lift and shift’ provisions should future developments require it to move. v. The duration of the rights will reflect the reasonable time needed to construct the tunnel, and once complete that the tunnel will be in situ and used for a long period of time.

The proposed rights are set out in an open offer to UU and are described in Chapter 14. Such rights will address the reasonable requirements of UU.

11.9 Conclusions on the plots

The rights for tunnelling works, 24-inch water main diversion and their subsequent use, and the rights to create and use access routes described in the open offer will satisfy UU’s engineering requirements and thus there is no justification for the CPO (as drafted) for plots 4B, 4F, 4P, 4W, 4Z, 4AA, 4AF, 4AG, 4AM, 4AN, 4AP, 5G, 5H, 5J, and 5P. These plots should therefore be removed from the order.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 125 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

12 Plots 4I, 4Q, 4R, 4S, 4V, 4AB, 4AC, 5, 5D and 5M

This chapter covers plots 4I, 4Q, 4R, 4S, 4V, 4AB, 4AC, 5, 5D and 5M beginning with:

i. Ownership, location and current use of the plots. ii. Rights sought by UU. iii. Implications for the landowner. iv. Assessment of whether the rights sought through the order can be considered justified or excessive. v. Conflicts and practical consequences with their current use. vi. What reasonable rights the landowner would offer UU to meet its reasonable engineering requirements.

12.1 Location and ownership of plots 4I, 4Q, 4R, 4S, 4V, 4AB, 4AC, 5, 5D and 5M

These plots are on PSL land, and include the banks and watercourse of the Salteye Brook outfall. The plots are shown on the plans in appendices Q and R and highlighted in blue on Figure 26.

These plots are grouped together as the rights sought concern land on the banks of the Salteye Brook and its watercourse where it meets the MSC. The proposed uses for these plots are inter alia mainly concerned with rights to access into and across the Salteye Brook outfall area including the use of the access track and bridge over the outfall.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 126 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

12.2 Description and current use

Plots 4I, 4S, 4Q and 4AC

This group of plots covers the location of the bridge over the Salteye Brook outfall into the MSC. The access track from the A57 (see paragraph 3.2.3) runs over the bridge to the access track running alongside the north bank of the MSC Barton Locks and towards CoSCoS.

Plots 4S and 4Q

Plots 4S and 4Q include both the bridge over the Salteye Brook and the watercourse. In addition to rights to use the crossing, rights are sought to access and use the Salteye Brook for monitoring and maintenance:

Figure 26: 4I, 4Q, 4R, 4S, 4V, 4AB, 4AC, 5, 5D and 5M

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 127 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

Plots 4R and 5M

These plots cover the area of the Salteye Brook outfall on the north side of the access bridge.

Plot 4R includes the land where the 24-inch water main crosses the Salteye Brook. Rights are sought for plot 4R for diversion of the 24-inch water main:

“..for purposes related to the construction and laying of sewers, water pipelines, shafts, outfalls and retaining walls and associated structures and accessories thereto, and associated works and activity..”.

Plots 4V, 4AB and 5

These plots are located on the west bank of the Salteye Brook, and include a section of the access track through Port Salford Land from the A57 to the MSC.

12.3 Rights sought by UU for plots 4I, 4Q, 4S, and 4AC

The access track that runs along the MSC bank crosses the Salteye Brook outfall and then continues through PSL land to the A57. UU is seeking rights to use the track through these plots to access its construction compounds for shaft 04 construction and use of the bridge across the outfall towards the A57 track. The 24-inch water main crosses the access track in plot 4AC and UU is seeking rights for 24-inch water main diversion works in this plot. The outfall from shaft 04 into the MSC passes under plot 4I and rights are sought to construct and use the outfall pipe in this plot. Plot 4Q includes the watercourse and UU seeks rights to access the water for monitoring. Extracts from the relevant rights are set out in the following paragraphs.

Plot 4I

“The right to enter on, remain, construct, improve and maintain an access road, and to pass and re-pass over with or without vehicles, plant, machinery, materials, contractors and others, and to lay, construct, retain, use, inspect, reconstruct, replace, relay, remove, alter, maintain, clean and

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 128 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

repair of and a right of support for foul and surface water sewers and water pipelines, and to enjoy the free flow of water, soil and effluent with or without other matter through the pipelines and sewers, ….”

Plot 4Q

“In respect of the part of the land being the bridge structure and land over Salteye Brook, the right to enter on, remain, construct improve maintain and remove an access road, and to pass and re-pass over with or without vehicles, plant, machinery, materials, contractors and others, and to lay, construct, retain, use, inspect, reconstruct, replace, relay, alter, maintain, clean and repair of and a right of support for water pipelines, and to enjoy the free flow of water with or without other matter through the pipelines…. “

In respect of the part of the land being Salteye Brook and the culverts underneath the bridge structure, the right to enter on and pass and re-pass with boats, pontoons, plant, machinery, materials, contractors and others

Plot 4S

The rights sought are:

“….. in respect of the part of the land being the bridge structure and land over Salteye Brook, the right with or without vehicles, plant, machinery, materials, contractors and others to enter on, remain, construct, improve, maintain and remove an access road and to pass and re-pass over; and in respect of the part of the land being Salteye Brook and the culverts underneath the bridge structure, the right to enter on and pass and re-pass with boats, pontoons, plant, machinery, materials, contractors and others..”

Further:

“ and to lay, construct, retain, use, inspect, reconstruct, replace, relay, remove, alter, maintain, clean and repair of and a right of support for water pipelines, and to enjoy the free flow of water with or without other matter through the pipelines, and accessories thereto..”

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 129 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

Plot 4AC

The rights sought are:

“The right to enter on, remain, construct improve and maintain an access road, and to pass and re-pass over with or without vehicles, plant, machinery, materials, contractors and others, and to lay, construct, retain, use, inspect, reconstruct, replace, relay, remove, alter, maintain, clean and repair of and a right of support for water pipelines, and to enjoy the free flow of water with or without other matter through the pipelines…”

The rights are granted in perpetuity all day and every day, and are not exclusive to UU. They extend to contractors and others and there are no limitations that relate to UU’s intended purpose and use.

Implication of plot 4I, 4Q, 4S, and 4AC rights for PSL

There are no obligations on PSL to undertake any actions for UU. However, PSL cannot impede or prevent UU from undertaking any of the activities listed in the rights. The rights enable UU to adapt and develop and use the access track and Salteye Brook infrastructure for its own purposes irrespective of PSL’s current and future plans.

The rights are not exclusive to UU, and PSL and others can continue to use the access track, but they cannot prevent or hinder UU. Thus. PSL cannot block access by parking vehicles or undertaking any works which may prevent UU exercising its rights.

PSL has plans to develop this land for Port Salford, which includes the diversion of the Salteye Brook. But it cannot undertake any of this planned work before or during the tunnelling works as the rights are in perpetuity they will prevent PSL from further development works.

12.4 Rights sought by UU for plots 4R and 5M

Plots 4R and 5M are part of the watercourse and UU is seeking rights to access the Salteye Brook. The scope of the rights is identical for both plots.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 130 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

“The right to enter on, remain and to pass and re-pass over with or without vehicles, boats, plant, machinery, materials, contractors and others, and to divert, alter, manage the flow of and carry out works within and to Salteye Brook,…”

The rights are granted in perpetuity, and are not exclusive to UU. They extend to contractors and others and there are no limitations that relate to UU’s intended purpose and use.

Implications of plot 4R and 5M rights for PSL

There are no obligations on PSL to undertake any actions for UU. However, PSL cannot impede or prevent UU from undertaking any of the activities listed in the rights. The rights enable UU to adapt and develop and use the access track and Salteye Brook infrastructure for its own purposes irrespective of PSL’s current and future plans. Furthermore the rights enable UU (divert, alter, manage the flow) to divert or change the alignment of the Salteye Brook, and to use it (enter on, remain and to pass and re-pass) for whatever wants in perpetuity.

The rights relate to accessing the Salteye Brook and UU will need to do this from the bank side, and the access track. PSL has plans to develop this land for Port Salford, which includes the diversion of the Salteye Brook. But it cannot undertake any of this planned work before or during the tunnelling works as the rights are in perpetuity they will prevent PSL from further development works.

12.5 Rights sought by UU for plots 4V, 4AB and 5

Rights are sought for these plots that relate to use the access track on the west side of the Salteye Brook outfall.

The order prescribes the access rights for each plot as:

“The right to enter on, remain, construct improve maintain and remove an access road, and to pass and re-pass over with or without vehicles, plant, machinery, materials, contractors and others, and to carry out works for purposes related to the laying and construction of water pipelines and accessories thereto…”

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 131 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

The rights are granted in perpetuity, and are not exclusive to UU. They extend to contractors and others and there are no limitations that relate to UU’s intended purpose and use.

There are no obligations on PSL to undertake any actions for UU. However, PSL cannot impede or prevent UU from undertaking any of the activities listed in the rights. The rights enable UU to adapt and develop and use the access track and Salteye Brook infrastructure for its own purposes irrespective of PSL’s current and future plans.

The rights are not exclusive to UU, and PSL and others can continue to use the access track, but they cannot prevent or hinder UU. Thus. PSL cannot block access by parking vehicles or undertaking any works which may prevent U exercising its rights.

PSL has plans to develop this land for Port Salford, which includes the diversion of the Salteye Brook. But it cannot undertake any of this planned work before or during the tunnelling works as the rights are in perpetuity they will prevent PSL from further development works.

Implications of plot 4V, 4AB and 5 rights for PSL

There are no obligations on PSL to undertake any actions for UU. However, PSL cannot impede or prevent UU from undertaking any of the activities listed in the rights. The rights enable UU to adapt and develop and use the access track and Salteye Brook infrastructure for its own purposes irrespective of PSL’s current and future plans.

The rights are not exclusive to UU, and PSL and others can continue to use the access track, but they cannot prevent or hinder UU. Thus. PSL cannot block access by parking vehicles or undertaking any works which may prevent UU exercising its rights.

PSL has plans to develop this land for Port Salford, which includes the diversion of the Salteye Brook. But it cannot undertake any of this planned work before or

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 132 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

during the tunnelling works as the rights are in perpetuity they will prevent PSL from further development works.

12.6 Justification of the rights claimed

The majority of rights claimed relate to access in and around the Salteye Brook outfall. Shaft 04 and the outfall is in this area and UU proposes to locate its site compound on land located on either side of the outfall. They are claiming the freehold of that land, which is described in the next chapter. Additional rights are claimed for work in connection with diverting the 24-inch water main.

UU requires access to the compound and outfall area, and thus the claim to rights to use the access track follows that for plots described earlier that relate to UU’s access to CoSCoS and PSL land. Rights to use the bridge over the Salteye Brook are claimed. This will enable UU to access land on the west side of the outfall where it is claiming the freehold of land for compound use and for works to divert the 24-inch water main.

UU requires access to the Salteye Brook watercourse for monitoring and inspection of the water quality and its outfall infrastructure. It will need to use a boat or other floatation device and propose to launch the boat from the access track on the west side of the Salteye Brook in plot 5.

Assessment of the justification

Considering the evidence from CPO, responses to RFIs and discussions on the scope of their engineering works, UU’s activities can simply be considered as:

● Use of a section of the access track to provide a contiguous route from the A57 via Stadium Way to the construction compound and outfall site. ● Use the bridge over the Salteye Brook outfall to access the track from the A57 through Port Salford to the MSC and Barton Locks. ● Access to the Salteye Brook for monitoring and inspection. ● Diverting the 24-inch water main to avoid the location of shaft 04.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 133 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

The length of time that UU requires these rights is (for construction work activity) between 20 and 30 months (in paragraph 5.3.2) of the SoR (CD/CPO/3) and which would also include the diversion of the water main.

For inspection and monitoring when the CPO scheme is operational, a long period of time after completion of construction.

Conclusions on justification

The conclusions on the rights sought are that they:

– Are too wide, and not all are needed; – Are too long in duration; – Have no reasonable engineering justification; – Are disproportionate and cause maximum disruption to the landowner.

The rights sought are excessive and cannot in their entirety be justified on the basis of their engineering requirements. The rights if granted will conflict with CoSCoS’s ability to develop the land use in the future.

The rights are in perpetuity. However, construction works will take between 20 and 30 months (paragraph 5.3.2 of the SoR CD/CPO/3) . Only the rights for access to the outfall area for maintenance and monitoring when the CPO scheme is operational justify longer term rights.

The maximum rights that the engineering justification would support will be rights to access PSL land above the tunnel to undertake monitoring activity during the construction period:

i. To access the construction compound for a limited duration (construction period) and using land and existing assets that will not conflict with PSL’s own consented or proposed future uses. ii. To access the outfall site for the duration of its working life. The access route should to avoid conflict with existing operation and uses, and

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 134 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

include a ‘lift and shift’ clause to enable CoSCoS and PSL to modify the route to facilitate consented (but not developed) future uses. iii. To access the Salteye Brook for monitoring and inspection during construction and thereafter for the duration of the working life of the scheme. iv. To divert the 24-inch water main on PSL land.

12.7 Conflicts with existing and proposed use

There are conflicts with the proposed use of the land. PSL plans to develop this area of land to enable the further development of warehousing at Port Salford. PSL’s next phase of works will be to divert the Salteye Brook from its current alignment to enable the construction of a new rail line into Port Salford (section 4.7).

UU’s rights for these plots will be in perpetuity, and the impact will be to prevent PSL from undertaking its proposed works for Port Salford in the area.

Plot 5M is the area of land in PSL’s development proposals where the diverted Salteye Brook meets the MSC outfall. Erosion protection works are planned in this area (see paragraph 4.6.10) and also the new outfall connection from Boyles Brook.

12.8 Rights offered by PSL

After considering UU’s engineering requirements for the CPO scheme, PSL is prepared to grant rights to:

i. Divert the 24-inch water main. ii. Access the land on a specified route during construction. iii. Access to the Salteye Brook outfall during construction and for the working life of the CPO scheme iv. Access to the outfall after construction, and with ‘lift and shift’ provisions should future developments require it to move.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 135 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

The duration of the rights will reflect the reasonable time needed to construct the tunnel, and once complete that the tunnel will be in situ and used for a long period of time.

The proposed rights are set out in an open offer to UU and are described in Chapter 14.

12.9 Conclusion on plots

The rights 24-inch water main diversion and their subsequent use, and the rights to create and use access routes described in the open offer will satisfy UU’s engineering requirements and thus there is no justification for the CPO (as drafted) for plots 4I, 4Q, 4R, 4S, 4V, 4AB, 4AC, 5, 5D and 5M. These plots should therefore be removed from the order.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 136 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

13 Plots 4G, 4H, 4J, 4K, 4M, 4N, 4P, 4T, 4AD, 4AE, 4AF, 4AH, 4AJ, 4AK, 4AL, 5C, 5E, 5F, 5L, 5R, 5Q and 5T

This chapter covers plots 4G, 4H, 4J, 4K, 4M, 4N, 4P, 4T, 4AD, 4AE, 4AF, 4AH, 4AJ, 4AK, 4AL, 5C, 5E, 5F, 5L, 5R, 5Q and 5T beginning with:

i. Ownership, location and current use of the plots. ii. Rights sought by UU. iii. Implications for the landowner. iv. Assessment of whether the rights sought through the order can be considered justified or excessive. v. Conflicts and practical consequences with their current use. vi. What reasonable rights the landowner would offer UU to meet its reasonable engineering requirements.

13.1 Location and ownership of Plots 4G, 4H, 4J, 4K, 4M, 4N, 4P, 4T, 4AD, 4AE, 4AF, 4AH, 4AJ, 4AK, 4AL, 5C, 5E, 5F, 5L, 5R, 5Q and 5T

These plots are located on PSL land on the north side of the MSC and to the west of the Barton Locks. The plots are split into two main groups. One group is located on the east side of the Salteye Brook outfall, and the other on the west side.

The plots have been grouped together as they cover the land that UU is claiming the freehold for.

Plots 4G, 4J, 4K, 4AE, 4AF, 4AH, 4AJ, 4AK, 4AL, 5L, 5Q, 5R and 5T are located on the east side of Salteye Brook outfall.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 137 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

Plots 4H, 4M, 4N, 4P, 4T, 4AD, 5C, 5E and 5F are located on the west side of the Salteye Brook outfall.

The plots are shown on plans in appendices Q and R, and highlighted in red on Figure 27 and Figure 28.

13.2 Description and current use

Plots 4G, 4J, 4K, 4AE, 4AF, 4AH, 4AJ, 4AK, 4AL, 5L, 5Q, 5R and 5T

These plots are on the east of the Salteye Brook outfall and are mainly undeveloped grass land. Their gross area is 16,186m2.

The 24-inch water main runs through plots 5L, 5Q and 5R.

Figure 27: Freehold land plots east of the Salteye Brook

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 138 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

Plots 4H, 4M, 4N, 4P, 4T, 4AD, 5C, 5E and 5F

These plots are on the west side of the Salteye Brook outfall, and are mainly undeveloped grass land. Their gross area is 3460m2.

The 24-inch water main runs through plots 5E, 5C, 5F and 4H.

Figure 28: Freehold plots west of Salteye Brook

13.3 Rights sought

Unlike the plots where UU is claiming permanent rights, the CPO schedule of plots (CD/CPO/8.3) does not specify any rights claimed for the plot’s uses as UU seeks to acquire the freehold in perpetuity (and therefore the future use is unrestricted). The schedule only specifies the freehold area of land for each plot in square metres.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 139 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

However, in the SoR UU’s work package Plan 3 (see paragraph 2.2.6) describes the requirements for the construction compound, and plan 3 shows all the freehold land for this purpose.

Implications of the freehold plots for PSL

If UU obtains the freehold for these plots, it will be in perpetuity. UU will have no obligation to return any land back to PSL after construction of the CPO scheme even if it no longer has a need for the land.

Once UU has the freehold of the land, PSL will have no rights whatsoever for the land. It will therefore be unable to undertake any of the development works it plans for Port Salford in this area. Specifically, these are the diversion of the Salteye Brook and the construction of a new rail line into Port Salford. This is because individual plots of land encroach on the land required to divert Salteye Brook, which is necessary to enable the construction of the rail line into Port Salford (section 4.6).

Constructing the rail link into Port Salford must take place before any further warehouse development can take place (described in the Indigo Planning Proof of Evidence by Doug Hann). PSL has identified a funder for the Port Salford project (including the rail line and Salteye Brook diversion), and an operator for the port sidings and berths on the MSC. If PSL no longer owns the freehold for all the land it requires for the project, it would not be able to secure the investment required for the Port Salford project, which will thereby fail.

13.4 Justification of the rights claimed

As noted in paragraph 5.1.7, in light of questions asked by the MSC Company, and UU’s responses we asked a series of detailed questions and which have been responded to by UU. Furthermore, Mott MacDonald engineers have had meetings with UU’s engineers to understand in more detail what UU’s actual requirements are for the freehold plots. This has added to our understanding of the scheme justification, so far as our client’s land is concerned.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 140 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

UU’s Tranche 1 response, item 1 (CD/RFI/BDB/1) sets out UU’s additional information about its uses for the land on a plot by plot basis.

Justification of rights for plots east of the Salteye Brook outfall

UU’s intended uses for the plots can be summarised as:

● Plots for the site compound. ● Plots required for the tunnel corridor inner section containing the tunnel. ● Plots required for the tunnel outer corridor, where monitoring will take place. ● Plots for the construction of shaft 04, retaining wall and the outfall into the MSC. ● Plots to divert the 24-inch water main.

All the plots are required for the compound. Plot 5T is only required for the compound and no other purpose.

● Plots 4J, 5L and 5R are required for the tunnel drive works underground. ● Plots 4K, 4AH, 4AJ, 4AK, 4AL, 5L and 5Q are required for tunnel monitoring, and for potential access down to the TBM if it becomes stuck. ● Plots 4J, 4AE, 5L, and 5Q are required for the shaft 04 works and construction of the retaining wall. ● Plots 4K, 4AK, and 4AL are required for the diversion and use of the new 24- inch water main. ● Plot 5T is the largest plot (7671m2) and is only required for the construction compound.

The duration of works is specified as 28 months for the construction activity, and 11 months for monitoring during tunnel drive works. But the order will grant the freehold to UU forever.

Justification of rights for plots west of the Salteye Brook outfall

Plots 4H, 4M, 4N, 4P, 4T, 4AD, 5C, 5E and 5F west of the Salteye outfall are all required for use as a compound and for works to divert the 24-inch water main.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 141 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

UU specifies the duration for these works as 28 months.

Assessment of justification

Considering the evidence from CPO, responses to RFIs and discussions on the scope of their engineering works, UU’s activities can simply be considered as:

● Driving a tunnel under PSL land. ● Sinking shaft 04 to connect to the tunnel and an outfall into the MSC ● Diverting the 24-inch water main to avoid the location of shaft 04. ● Creating a compound and working area to support the development of and construction works.

The length of time that UU requires these rights is:

● For construction work activity: it is likely to be between 20 and 30 months (in paragraph 5.3.2) of the SoR (CD/CPO/3)) and which would also include the diversion of the water main. UU states this as 28 months in CD/RFI/WM/1.

The gross area of freehold land required is 19,646m2. UU claims it needs all of this for a site compound. Of this, 16,186m2 is on the land to the east of the Salteye Brook, and where UU intends to construct shaft 04, and may choose to drive the tunnel from.

Compound sizes and design

Michael Francis’s Tunnelling Proof of Evidence describes the spatial requirements for the establishment and operation of compounds for shaft and tunnel construction, and the implications on the size depending up the direction of tunnelling.

The size and operation of the compound will be influenced by if the tunnel will be driven from (‘drive site’) the shaft 04 to shaft 03, or from shaft 03 to shaft 04 (‘reception site’). This is an issue addressed above. UU has not specified which direction it will drive the tunnel. It has a preference to drive from shaft 03, but in the SoR (CD/CPO/3) paragraph 3.31 it states that because of perceived risks to

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 142 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

the M60 BHLB, it may not get approvals from Highways England to drive the tunnel from shaft 03. Mott MacDonald disagrees with this and believes the tunnel can be safely driven from shaft 03. Michael Francis describes the reasons why this should be so, and the background is set out in chapter 3 of this proof.

The spatial requirements for a drive site compound are greater than for a reception site. An acceptable compound area for shaft 04 would be circa 6500m2 for a drive site and circa 1500-2000m2 for a reception site (as justified in the Tunnelling Proof of Evidence) The area of land that UU requires for its main construction compound is larger than would be the industry norm. The site compound area is a function on the spatial requirements for the plant and equipment, welfare and site offices that are necessary for a typical site. For the purpose of establishing what would be a maximum amount of land required for the compound, and thus what could be offered to UU by PSL in lieu of the CPO, a construction compound for both shaft 04 and the tunnel drive has been developed by Michael Francis in his Tunnelling Proof of Evidence.

This demonstrated how a compound occupying an area of 6,500m2 could be located between the MSC and the land footprint of the proposed Salteye Brook diversion (see Figure 28). It has been based on an indicative schedule of surface plant provided by UU in its response to RFI (CD/RFI/BDB/58) item 94 and listed below:

● Offices (2 NO. 10m x 3m cabins) ● Welfare facilities (7 no. 10m x 3m cabins) ● Medical Room (1 no. 10m x 3m cabin) ● Temporary power generation (circa 2MVA) ● Bunded fuel storage ● Fitters’ and electricians’ workshops ● Cement silos (3 no.) ● Grout mixing plant ● Muck Bay (including concrete hardstanding)

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 143 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

● Hardstandings for tunnel segment storage ● Hardstandings for tunnel equipment storage ● General stores ● 2 no. crawler cranes ● Water treatment plant ● Ventilation plant ● Tally hut

Figure 29: Shaft 04 construction compound - concept layout

Compound land west of the outfall

UU requires the freehold land west of the Salteye Brook outfall for additional compound space and is land where it will need to divert the 24-inch water main. The total land take is 3460m2, and thus less than that on the east side. It is however, much more than the area occupied by the 24-inch water main.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 144 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

Tunnel and shaft

The alignment of the tunnel across CoSCoS land appears from the information in the CPO and subsequent material from UU is assumed to be best fit for its intended use. Its alignment through these plots is determined by the location of shaft 04 and the outfall into the MSC.

UU will require access to the land around and above the tunnel corridor and around the shaft to monitor for any ground movement associated with the tunnelling and shaft sinking. This is both necessary and good practice. However, monitoring is only normally required during construction and for short period after completion for a tunnel and shaft of these types (see above).

UU is claiming that it may need to access the tunnel from the surface should the TBM become stuck (as it has for all the plots where the tunnel is located). The reasons why this is not considered necessary are described in section 7.5 and by Michael Francis in the Tunnelling Proof of Evidence. It is not justified.

Conclusion on justification

The rights sought are excessive, and cannot be justified on the basis of their engineering requirements. The granting of the freehold of an extensive area of land to UU will mean that there will be significant and serious conflicts between UU’s proposed works, and PSL’s proposed and consented works for Port Salford. These are described in the next section.

The maximum rights that the engineering justification would support are:

i. A defined area of land (including gross area and boundaries) in the vicinity of the Salteye Brook outfall and shaft 04 for a construction compound. ii. Access to the construction sites (outfall and M60) for a limited duration (construction period) and using land and existing assets that will not conflict with PSL’s consented or proposed future uses.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 145 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

iii. Access to the outfall site for the duration of its working life. The access route should avoid conflict with existing operation and uses, and include a ‘lift and shift’ clause to enable PSL to modify the route to facilitate consented (but not developed) future uses. iv. A right to construct a tunnel on PSL land following the alignment as in plots 4J, 5L and 5R for a specific time period. v. Rights to access CoSCoS land above the tunnel to undertake monitoring activity during the construction period. vi. Rights to use the tunnel for a long duration with rights to extend rather than in perpetuity. vii. Rights to construct and use shaft 04 (and outfall) on PSL land, and use it thereafter. viii. Rights to divert the 24-inch water main on PSL land.

13.5 Conflicts with existing and proposed use

The land is currently undeveloped grass land and therefore UU’s proposed uses will have minimal conflict with the current use. There are substantive and significant conflicts with PSL’s plans to develop Port Salford which have been described in section 4.2 of this proof.

Port Salford development

The land use and engineering development plans for Port Salford have been described in section 4.2. The CPO will enable UU to permanently acquire land from PSL on the west and east banks of the Salteye Brook where it joins the MSC and its permanent acquisition conflicts with the development, construction and eventual use of:

● The Salteye Brook diversion; ● Rail line and sidings into Port Salford; ● Warehouse units 3 and 4.

The Port Salford engineering development sequence described in section 4.5 is:

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 146 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

i. Divert Salteye Brook; ii. Construct the rail line into Port Salford; iii. Construct the warehouse units.

Impact on Salteye Brook diversion work

The purpose of diverting the Salteye Brook is to create sufficient space to enable the rail line south of the A57 to enter Port Salford. Figure 30 shows the location of the Salteye Brook in its existing alignment and the alignment after diversion with the plots required in the CPO. This illustrates that although the CPO plots only overlay the existing Salteye Brook outfall, when the diverted Salteye Brook is considered the plots required conflict with the working area required to divert the Brook. The permanent acquisition of Plot 5T (which UU only require as a compound, and therefore could be reasonably conveniently re-located close to the site but without conflicting PSL works) land is especially critical to the Port Salford development is it includes land required for the realigned Salteye Brook (before it reaches the outfall) and the rail line at its junction with the rail sidings.

The size and location of plot 5T is of particular concern. This plot is only required for use as a compound, and its location overlaps the area of land required for the Salteye Brook diversion and the rail line (as proposed in the masterplan layout) into the Port Salford sidings. There are no justifiable reasons for its location, and it could in practice located elsewhere.

Consequently, if PSL no longer holds the freehold of the land, it will not be able to divert the Salteye Brook. The Salteye Brook must be diverted before the rail line in Port Salford can be constructed, which the reserved matters planning consent requires before development can start on warehouse unit 2.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 147 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

Figure 30: Proposed diverted Salteye Brook and masterplan rail line

Salteye Brook outfall area

UU is seeking rights and the freehold for land on the west bank of the Salteye Brook outfall into the MSC. Whilst the land in this area is not required for the construction and use of Port Salford warehouses or the rail line, it does include the banks of the diverted Salteye Brook where it joins the MSC, and the proposed location of the new Boyles Brook outfall.

The diverted Salteye Brook is in a deep cutting as it approaches the outfall into MSC. The engineering works required to support the level change between the Port Salford ground level and the bed of the Salteye Brook are described in section 4.6. These include sheet piling on both sides of the Brook as it approaches the outfall (246m on the Port Salford side, and 190m on the MSC side), and a 55m length of erosion protection matting on the final bend before the outfall.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 148 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

In addition, UU’s proposals for shaft 04 include a section of piled wall on the Salteye Brook side to provide lateral ground support for the shaft adjacent to the outfall.

If UU acquire the freehold for the land, then PSL will not be able to access it to build the retaining walls for the diverted Salteye Brook, and UU’s own piling works may conflict with the proposed piling for PSL’s diversion works.

Impact on rail line development

There are two proposed rail schemes described in section 4.7:

● The consented alignment; and ● The masterplan alignment.

Each rail scheme has a different variation of the Salteye Brook diversion. The masterplan proposal has fewer conflicts with the CPO scheme.

Consented rail scheme

In the consented rail scheme (plan in appendix H), two sets of sidings are located along the north bank of the MSC. The rail line into Port Salford leads into the sidings located on the east side (stadium and M60). The sidings on the west side (Port Salford) are accessed by reversing from the eastern sidings. The eastern and western sidings collectively form a contiguous section of rail track along the MSC and Barton Locks northern bank from the M60 in the east to the western boundary of Port Salford land.

There are significant conflicts between the consented rail infrastructure and the CPO plots. The rail line as it approaches the MSC and Barton Locks bank crosses directly over the tunnel corridor (plots 5G, 5P, 3N, 4AN and 4Y). And, on the Port Salford side sidings, it crosses plots 5G, 5H, 5P, 5J, 5R, 5Q and 5L. All of which would involving safeguarding measures to protect the tunnel and negotiated through a BOA as for the retail unit. The line also crosses the line of the 24-nch water main in plots 4B, 5J and 5P, and again in plots 5Q and 5L. Finally, the rail

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 149 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

lines pass close to shaft 04 in plot 5L. On the western side of the Salteye outfall, the rail infrastructure conflicts with the 24-inch water main in plots 5C, 5E and 5F.

In the masterplan rail layout, the conflict between the CPO plots and the proposed rail infrastructure is considerably reduced. Figure 30 shows that in this version it is only plot 5T that overlaps the rail line where it curves around warehouse unit 4 to approach the rail sidings.

Rail conflict summary

The size and shape of the CPO land conflicts with the land required to construct a section of the rail line into Port Salford. Planning consent for Port Salford is conditional on the construction of the rail line into the site. If PSL does not own the land, then the rail line cannot be built as currently designed.

Of the two schemes, the masterplan version has considerably reduced conflicts compared to the consented version. It is, therefore, to be preferred to the consented version.

Plot 5T in particular cuts across both the diverted Salteye Brook and the rail line. Plot 5T’s purpose is for construction compound activities, and if these could be provided elsewhere would remove some but not all the conflicts between the CPO plots and the core Port Salford works.

13.6 Rights offered by PSL

After considering UU’s engineering requirements for the CPO scheme, PSL is prepared to grant UU rights to:

i. Use of an area of land sufficient for UU to use as a compound for works at shaft 04, the 24-inch water main, and if required to drive the tunnel from west to east. ii. Construct and use shaft 04 and an agreement that allows for both parties to undertake works in the Salteye area. It identifies what works will be undertaken by each party depending on who goes first. iii. Divert the 24-inch water main.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 150 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

iv. Access the land on a specified route during construction. v. Access to the Salteye Brook outfall during construction and for the working life of the CPO scheme vi. Access to the outfall after construction, and with ‘lift and shift’ provisions should future developments require it to move. vii. The duration of the rights will reflect the reasonable time needed to construct the tunnel, and once complete that the tunnel will be in situ and used for a long period of time.

The proposed rights are set out in an open offer to UU and are described in Chapter 14.

13.7 Conclusion on plots

Provisions for construction and use of the tunnel and shaft and access to the sites set out in the open offer will satisfy UU’s engineering and operating requirements and thus there is no justification for the CPO (as drafted) and the freehold plots should be removed from the order.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 151 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

14 Open offer to UU

This chapter describes the open offer made to UU by PSL, CoSCoS and PIN (the landowners) that will enable UU to develop, construct and use the infrastructure in on PSL and CoSCoS land described in the CPO scheme.

14.1 Introduction

If the UU, PS and COSCOS schemes were to be delivered by a single contractor then there is no significant engineering interface that would be difficult to overcome. The conflicts and impacts to PSL and CoSCoS described in chapter 6 to 13 have arisen as UU is only considers its CPO scheme.

PSL and CoSCoS initiated a series of meetings with United Utilities in order to gain a better understanding of the underlying requirements of the SAL18 project. Also, to share the requirements of the Peel developments including the Port Salford Salteye Diversion and the proposed retail developments to understand how all the individual (PSL, CoSCoS and UU) projects could best proceed with minimal conflict. A schedule of the meetings is contained in appendix U.

The outputs from the meetings enabled Peel to develop a mutually acceptable alternative (to the CPO) set of rights that would allow UU’s SAL0018 project to continue without disruption to the proposed developments by PSL and CoSCoS (“The Offer”).

The Offer, issued on 4th May 2018, has been broken down into several elements for ease of description but is intended as a consolidated offer. Although this proof has only considered the impact of the order on PSL and CoSCoS land, the offer includes rights to a small number (and area) of land plots owned by Peel Investments North (PIN) in the M60 Barton Bridge area.

PSLL and COSCOS consider the rights to be granted meet all of the reasonable engineering requirements of UU would allow UU the ability to:

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 152 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

● Access the construction sites and ground monitoring. ● Use an area of PSL land for a construction compound. ● Construct the CPO scheme tunnel and shaft, and to retain, maintain and inspect it. ● Allow building over the proposed sewer tunnel for retail development, stadium expansion, and practice pitch retention. ● Allow PSL to construct the rail link, Salteye Brook diversion, and Boyles Brook diversion. ● For all areas of the sewer outfall works there would be a right of support for the land above and an indemnity against all losses caused by the construction and uses of the outfall pipe.

14.2 The offer

The full offer made to UU is found in appendix V. The suite of documents comprises:

● A document describing the plots and the proposed rights (Port Salford Land Limited and City of Salford Community Stadium Limited - United Utilities CPO Mitigation Proposals); ● Plans showing the plots offered: – 293621-MMD-XX-00-SK-Z-10001 (construction rights retail site Development); – 293621-MMD-XX-00-SK-Z-10001A (construction rights Stadium Development); – 293621-MMD-XX-00-SK-Z-10002 (construction rights Salteye Diversion and SAL18 Construction compound); – 293621-MMD-XX-00-SK-Z-10060 (operational and maintenance rights Retail Site Development); – 293621-MMD-XX-00-SK-Z-10061 (operational and maintenance rights Stadium Development);

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 153 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

– 293621-MMD-XX-00-SK-Z-10062 (operational and maintenance rights Salteye Diversion and construction compound). ● Head of Terms document and plot schedule. ● Technical notes and engineering drawings for: – Build over agreement and retail developments; – Salteye Brook diversion; – Enabling works for the Salteye Brook diversion.

The key components of the offer are summarised in the following sections.

14.3 Access

UU requires access to PSL and CoSCoS land to access the shaft 04 construction site and compound at the Salteye Brook outfall, undertake monitoring to determine the extent of any surface ground movement associated with tunnelling along the tunnel corridor, and the ancillary works under the M60.

The order sought rights to plots of land that would prevent the stadium’s safe operation, access to the car park, use of the practice pitches, provision for hospitality marquees and access to the proposed anchor retail unit. These are matters are described in chapter 6.

The offer recognises UU’s need for access (for vehicles and plant) to the construction site at the Salteye Brook outfall, the ancillary works under the M60 BHLB and for (on foot) ground monitoring along the tunnel route, which includes a small section on the practice pitches.

The plan in appendix V shows the proposed access route. It defines a new access route along Stadium Way from its junction with the A57 to the roundabout and from there to intersect with the track running along the north side of the Barton Lock towards the M60. It avoids the need to cross the Stadium car park land and the access road to the anchor retail unit to the M60 BHLB and the ancillary works area. Its alignment has been chosen to avoid interfering with the land drain

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 154 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

(swale) and car park next to the practice pitch that is also used for a hospitality marquee on match days.

The plan in appendix V shows the access route from the A57 through Port Salford to the Salteye Brook outfall and the compound area around shaft 04. The plan shows how access will be provided for UU during construction works for shaft 04 (and the tunnel if it is not driven from shaft 03 at UU’s Eccles WwTW site), and that this route may be used as an alternative to Stadium Way on match days and other occasions when there are large numbers of visitors or spectators.

14.4 Build Over Agreement

Chapter 7 described the conflicts between UU’s tunnelling works and CoSCoS’s consented future plans to sell land over the tunnel to the east of the stadium for a large non-food bulk retail unit, and consented expansion of the stadium that could encroach on the tunnel corridor.

The offer proposes a detailed Build Over Agreement (BOA) to enable the construction of the retail unit, car park, as well as stadium car parking, associated areas and any other proposed development on COSCOS land for construction, operation and access over the line of the outfall tunnel. It covers the adjacent areas where there may be a need to change the surface level to get to the correct development levels, install drainage pipes, foundations for lights/CCTV mast etc, install concrete or asphalt pavements, signage etc.

A specification detailing the proposed works that would be permitted under the agreement has been prepared and discussed with United Utilities. This includes the potential for Peel to carry out development works in advance of SAL18 and for Peel to carry out development works after SAL18 has been completed. The technical details of the Build Over agreement are contained in the Mott Macdonald technical note in offer documents in appendix V.

The proposal for the BOA is:

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 155 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

● To permit a retail store (or any other future development) to be built over the tunnel route- actual or prospective. ● To permit the option of either the retail unit (or any other future development) and associated foundations and associated elements (car parking areas, lighting masts, foundations etc) being constructed prior to or after installation of the UU outfall pipe. ● To permit construction of the retail unit (or any other development) and associated elements unencumbered within all parts of the development site. ● To construct foundation/tunnel protection measures for the retail development (or for any other future development) to industry accepted standards (refer to Retail Build over pack and the terms in relation to the protection zone width). ● To include specified requirements for vibration monitoring in the event the retail development/tunnel protection measures (or any other future development) are installed after the UU works. The vibration parameters to be applied are included in the MMD retail build over pack in the offer documents in appendix V. ● To include detailed provision for vibration monitoring within the retail unit (or for any other future development) in the event the UU works are subsequent to the retail unit. ● In the event of "concurrent" installation of the retail development's tunnel protection measures (or for any other future development) i.e. both retail and UU on site at same time, the tunnel protection measures for the retail development may be commenced at any time until the UU tunnel boring has reached a point no closer than 100m away from the limit of the proposed tunnel protection measures for the retail development. In the event the protection measures commence first, the UU TBM may not come within 100m of the nearest point of the piling until 48 days after the piling has been completed to enable it to cure. ● In the event that the UU tunnel has commenced and is within the distance defined in the bullet above, the tunnel protection measures for the retail

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 156 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

development may not commence or recommence until a period of 100 days has expired after the UU tunnel boring face has passed the tunnel protection measures. Any costs/liabilities or losses associated with having to halt development on the COSCOS land shall be the responsibility of UU and will be assessed. ● To permit car parking & service road / service yard areas to be constructed at any time. ● To permit foundation zones for associated structures including but not limited to CCTV & lighting masts / dock leveller areas to be constructed at any time. ● To permit surface water and foul water installations and connections. ● To permit changes in ground level (either cut or filling activities) as long as it doesn’t enter 6m annulus of the crown of the pipe. ● To provide a right of support and indemnities in relation to any harm caused by the tunnel during construction or thereafter to the land and any development that is built over it.

The BOA will cover any other such future development not currently indicated or within the planning process.

14.5 Site compound

Chapter 13 described the freehold land requirements sought by the order to be used as a site compound.

The offer proposes a revised area of construction compound provided on a temporary basis, and not as a freehold.

The proposed replacement to the CPO land is shown in yellow on Figure 31. The new compound is shown yellow on the plans below. The proposal is designed to minimise conflicts between the UU scheme and the proposed PSL development in this area. Figure 32 shows the land west of the Salteye that UU requires for the 24-inch water main diversion.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 157 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

The overall compound area offered is comparable to the gross area of land sought in the order (notwithstanding that such an area is deemed to be unreasonably large). The order sought to acquire the freehold for 19,646m2 of land, and the offer proposes 19,500m2.

Figure 31: Proposed compound

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 158 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

Figure 32: Compound land west of the Salteye outfall

14.6 Enabling Works for Salteye Diversion

A proposal for some early works has been discussed with United Utilities. The proposal is to carry out works in advance of SAL0018 in order to deconflict the SAL0018 project from the proposals to divert the Salteye. The full scope of these works is outlined within a series of drawings and technical notes in the offer documents in appendix V.

The arrangements will, subject to PSL gaining planning permission and any other necessary consents, carry out a minor "enabling works" exercise to install a length of retaining wall to the rear of the proposed shaft 04 adjacent the existing Salteye Brook and the line of the new proposed diverted Salteye Brook route.

A period of 24 months will be allowed to obtain permissions/consents and complete these works. These works are then to be left in place in perpetuity. In the event PSLL do not complete the works within the period allowed, UU will

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 159 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

retain the ability to utilise any rights acquired under the CPO in relation to these areas.

The area created behind the new retaining wall structure (between the wall and the proposed UU shaft 04) will be filled as part of these enabling works, to make up levels equivalent to the UU proposed levels in the area adjacent Shaft 04. This will create a working platform area for UU to carry out the Shaft 04 works.

Installation of the permanent retaining walls and back filling should enable UU to omit their proposed retaining structure adjacent to Shaft 04 as this will no longer be required to retain earth around Shaft 04 adjacent to the existing and as proposed to be diverted Salteye Brook. Figure 33 illustrates the works.

Figure 33: Salteye Brook enabling works

14.7 Summary

The measures and rights set out in the offer will enable UU to undertake all its reasonable engineering requirements that are contained in the CPO scheme. It avoids the harms that the order will, if granted, cause to PSL and CoSCoS’s own current operations and future proposed developments. It is, therefore, a solution which meets the reasonable requirements of all parties. It means that there is no justification (and no compelling need) for the CPO, in respect of the PSL and/or CoSCoS land.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 160 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

15 Conclusions and Summary

15.1 Rights sought in the order

Scope of rights

The rights sought inter alia will allow UU, its contractors and others to

● pass and re-pass over … private road … public footpaths ● remain, construct, improve and maintain ..with or without vehicles, plant, machinery, materials ● support, protect, repair, remove, reinstate and rebuild the ground, buildings, vegetation and structures ● lay, construct, retain, use, inspect, reconstruct, replace, relay, remove, alter, maintain, clean and repair ● support for foul and surface water sewers ● monitoring and ground investigations and to attach, use and leave monitoring and investigation equipment and apparatus on or in the land and any structures

The rights are not exclusive to UU, they extend to contractors and others and apply all day and every day. There is no requirement for UU to consult or agree the scope and timing of its works, therefore UU’s activities will conflict with CoSCoS and PSL’s current, consented and proposed future uses of their land.

CoSCoS and PSL may still use the land but as they cannot obstruct UU making use of its right, they will no longer be in control of their own land.

Freehold land

15.1.4 The order will grant UU the freehold for 19,646m2 of PSL’s land. UU will own the land and can use it for whatever purpose. PSL will no longer be able to access or use the land.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 161 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

Duration of rights

15.1.5 The order grants rights in perpetuity. There is no obligation for UU to return the freehold, or relinquish rights to land no longer needed after construction.

15.1.6 UU estimates its construction works could be completed in 28 months if the tunnel is driven from shaft 03 at its Eccles plant.

15.2 Tunnelling

The soft nature of the ground and circular tunnel is suitable for a Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM). The proposed TBM is not a bespoke machine and there should be no concerns about its performance and reliability for this tunnel.

UU wants rights to dig down to the tunnel:

● To recover the TBM should it become stuck; or ● Dig down to repair the tunnel after it has been constructed

There is no reasonable risk with a properly configured TBM it would become stuck on a relatively short drive and the ground conditions do not suggest an elevated risk.

The direction of tunnelling is not specified. UU is concerned that Highways England (HE) may not approve tunnelling from east to west under the M60 Barton High Level Bridge (BHLB).

HE will not prescribe the direction of tunnelling. Its approval criteria (inter alia) is that the tunnelling methodology must demonstrate that there will be zero differential settlement across the BHLB.

The direction of tunnelling affects the size of the shaft 04 construction compound and the area of freehold land sought. i.e, whether the tunnel will be driven from (‘drive site’) the shaft 04 to shaft 03, or from shaft 03 to shaft 04 (‘reception site’). Drive sites are larger than reception site as the latter will not need to accommodate the equipment and materials for tunnelling works. An acceptable

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 162 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

drive site area would be circa 6500m2 site and circa 1500-2000m2 for a reception site. UU is 15,690m2 of freehold land from PSL around shaft 04.

Conflicts with existing and proposed developments

15.2.7 The rights sought through the order conflict with CoSCoS and PSL’s current, consented and proposed future uses of the land.

The daily and regular access to and use of the stadium, its hospitality suites and practice pitches on foot and by car are prevented. UU’s intended use for plots of land (3, 3E and 3I) to form a haul road from the A57 to the shaft 04 compound means that UU can occupy the road and car park land with its own vehicles and plant and prevent the stadium from using its own access road safely and for its visitors and users from accessing the car park.

Access to and use of the practice pitches will be restricted or prevented as UU will have rights to enter and use land on the pitches, and to dig up the pitches (plots 3H and 3K).

The use of plot 3I to create part of the haul road will damage the stadium land drainage leading to flooding as it runs through a drainage swale.

The development of an anchor retail unit east of the Stadium will be prevented as the tunnel corridor plots 3B, 3C and 3D runs through the retail site. The permanent rights are incompatible with building structures over the top of the tunnel. The rights make no provision or requirement for UU to enter into a Build Over Agreement to enable development of the land before or after the tunnel is constructed.

UU’s acquisition of freehold land will prevent the development of Port Salford. PSL needs to construct of a rail line before it can develop the next warehouse. There are significant conflicts between the plots in the CPO and the alignment of the consented rail infrastructure.

PSL’s masterplan now proposes a simpler package of rail infrastructure following market and operator consultation. The line conflicts with freehold plot 5T, and

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 163 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

thus if PSL do not own this land, they will be unable to construct the rail line and the rest of Port Salford.

Plot 5T is only required for compound land. There is no justification for its location. It could be relocated to land elsewhere.

Engineering justification

The engineering requirements can be expressed as to:

● Construct a tunnel underground. ● Sink a shaft from the surface.

During construction UU will need:

● An access track or haul road from the nearest main road (the A57) to bring in construction materials and remove spoil from the tunnelling and shaft sinking. ● Access on foot to the land over the tunnel to monitor the ground for signs of settlement.

And after construction UU will need:

● Access to shaft 04 for maintenance and inspections.

Conclusion on justification

The conclusions on the rights sought are that they:

– Are too wide, and not all are needed; – Are too long in duration; – Have no reasonable engineering justification; – Are disproportionate and cause maximum disruption to the landowner.

15.3 Proposed rights

The plots of land owned by CoSCoS and PSL should be removed from the order and replaced by a new set of rights offered to UU to meet its engineering requirements.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 164 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

CoSCoS and PSL is prepared to grant rights to in an open offer to UU to:

i. Access the construction sites and ground monitoring. ii. Use an area of PSL land for a construction compound. iii. Construct the CPO scheme tunnel and shaft, and to retain, maintain and inspect it. iv. Allow building over the proposed sewer tunnel for retail development, stadium expansion, and practice pitch retention. v. Allow PSL to construct the rail link, Salteye Brook diversion, and Boyles Brook diversion. vi. For all areas of the sewer outfall works there would be a right of support for the land above and an indemnity against all losses caused by the construction and uses of the outfall pipe.

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 165 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

16 Appendices list

A. Tunnel route from shaft 03 through CoSCoS land B. Ground conditions technical note C. Land ownership plan D. WGIS highway enhancements E. Consented rail layout plan F. Highways England meeting note G. Port Salford development plan H. Port Salford topography plan I. Port Salford masterplan rail layout J. Jacobs GRIP 3 report – Port Salford rail K. Port Salford masterplan rail and land plots L. CoSCoS land development plan M. CPO plots – overall plan N. Plan 1 - CPO plots – East siderro O. Plan 2 - CPO plots – Stadium P. Plan 3 – CPO plots Stadium north Q. Plan 4 – CPO – Port Salford R. Plan 4a – CPO – freehold plots S. Stadium land drainage plan T. Anchor retail site and land plots U. Schedule of meetings between Peel and UU V. Open offer to United Utilities

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018 Mott MacDonald | United Utilities Water Limited (Eccles Waste Water Treatment Works) CPO 2016 166 Engineering proof of evidence Robert Longworth BSc(Hons) CEng MIMMM

mottmac.com

PS/1/A | 22 May 2018