Warrington Motorway Service Area, J11 M62

Home , Beaconsfield services, Burtonwood services, Chester services, Extra (service areas), Knutsford services, Motorway service area

Extra MSA Group

Replacement Planning Statement

Revision 07 20th January 2020

Revision Record

Revision Date of Revision Nature of Author Checked By Reference Revision

03 10/01/2020 Formatting and SC DR updates

04 15/01/2020 Reflect to SC SC Counsel Advice

05 17/01/2020 Reflect to SC SC Counsel Advice

06 17/01/2020 Reflect to SC SC Counsel Advice

07 19/01/2020 - SC SC

Report Author SC

Report Date January 2020

Project No. 4151

Document Ref. P0-TP-SPA-RP-P4151-0020

Revision 07

Contents

1. Introduction ...... 4

2. Background to Motorway Service Areas in the UK and Extra MSA Group ...... 8

3. Warrington MSA Junction 11 M62 – Site Description and Planning History ...... 15

4. Development Proposals Overview ...... 27

5. Stakeholder Engagement Summary ...... 55

6. Statutory Policy Context and Other Relevant Policies ...... 64

7. Planning Assessment and Justification ...... 89

A) Compliance with National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF 19) ...... 90

B) Compliance with the Warrington Local Plan Core Strategy (July 2014) ...... 165

C) Material Considerations ...... 179

D) Non-Compliance with the Development Plan ...... 180

8. Potential Conditions and Section 106 Heads of Terms ...... 181

9. Summary and Conclusions ...... 184

Appendices ...... 187 Appendix 1 ...... Leading Counsel’s Opinion on Highway Need Appendix 2 ...... Email from Highways England confirming spacing

1. Introduction

1.1. This Planning Statement is a replacement of the original Planning Statement prepared by Spawforths (dated August 2019). The revised Planning Statement has been prepared in response to a request from Warrington MBC planning officers to set out the planning justification for the Application Proposals in an alternative form to that set out in the original Planning Statement. To avoid confusion, the revised Planning Statement supersedes the original document, which no longer forms part of the Planning Application.

1.2. On behalf of Extra MSA Group, Spawforths have prepared and submitted an outline planning application for a ‘New Concept’ Motorway Service Area (MSA) on land at Junction 11 of the M62 Motorway. The application was submitted on 30th August 2019 and comprises an outline application with all matters, except for access, reserved for consideration at a later date. The proposal comprises:

Erection of a Motorway Service Area including Facilities Building, up to 100 bedroom Hotel, service yard, Fuel Filling Station, Electric Charging Station, parking facilities for each category of vehicle, access and internal circulation roads, structured and natural landscaping with outside amenity space/picnic space and dog walking zone, pedestrian and cycle links, boundary fencing, surface water drainage areas, ecological mitigation, pumping station(s), substation(s), retaining structures and associated infrastructure and earthworks.

Structure of the Report

1.3. This Planning Statement is structured as follows:

Section 2 Provides background information regarding Motorway Service Areas in the UK, along with information about the applicant Extra MSA Group.

Section 3 Provides an overview of the site and its planning history.

Section 4 Provides an overview of the proposed development.

Section 5 Outlines the approach undertaken in respect to Stakeholder Involvement.

Section 6 Outlines the relevant Statutory Planning Policy Context and Other Material Considerations that are relevant to the assessment of this application.

Section 7 Analysis of the Planning Merits of the Proposed Development including its potential compliance with the Development Plan and National Guidance

Section 8 Sets out the proposed planning obligations that are known as this stage.

Section 9 Summarises the findings of the report and concludes the overall balancing balance

1.4. The applicants have taken professional advice from a development team and supplementary information has been prepared in support of the application by the following consultants. The additional information accords with the validation requirements agreed during the pre- application discussions with the Council.

1.5. This Statement should be read in conjunction with these reports:

• Environmental Statement (Spawforths)

o Part 1 o Non- Technical Summary o Geology, Hydrogeology and Ground Conditions o Traffic and Transportation o Water Resources o Landscape and Visual Impact o Ecology and Nature Conservation o Socio Economic o Noise and Vibration o Air Quality, Dust and Odour o Archaeology and Cultural Heritage o Utilities o Energy o Waste • Alternative Sites Assessment (Spawforths) • Benefits Plan (Spawforths) • Arboricultural Report (Wardell Armstrong) • Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (Wardell Armstrong) • Badger Report (Wardell Armstrong) • Great Crested Newt Reports (Wardell Armstrong) • Invertebrate Report (Wardell Armstrong) • Water Vole Report (Wardell Armstrong) • Reptile Survey (Wardell Armstrong) • Wintering Bird Survey (Wardell Armstrong) • Breeding Bird Survey (Wardell Armstrong) • Bat Survey Report (Wardell Armstrong) • Design and Access Statement (A519) • Economic Impact Assessment (Amion) • Employability and Social Impact Strategy (Amion) • Economic Impact Assessment (Amion) • Employment and Training Charter (Mark Dawe and Extra MSA Group)

• Employment Strategy (Mark Dawe and Extra MSA Group) • Flood Risk and Assessment (Wardell Armstrong) • Drainage Statement (Wardell Armstrong) • Heritage Statement (Wardell Armstrong) • Lighting Impact Assessment (Brentwood) • Phase I Environmental Assessment (Wardell Armstrong) • Phase II Geo-Environmental Assessment (Wardell Armstrong) • Statement of Community Involvement (Social Comms) • Sustainability Statement (Wardell Armstrong) • Energy Statement (Wardell Armstrong) • Transport Assessment (i-Transport) • Framework Travel Plan (i-Transport) • Construction Environmental Management Plan (Extra MSA Group) • Illustrative plans package (Architecture 519) • Package of adoption standard carriageway design drawings (i-Transport) • Addendum to the ES (Jan 2020) comprising:

o Peatland Ecological and Construction Management Plan o Biodiversity Offsetting Report (DEFRA Metric) o Conceptual Site Model Report o Fuel Feasibility Report o Landscape and Visual Impact Summary o Information to inform Habitat Regulation Assessment o Indicative Brook Diversion – Long Section

2. Background to Motorway Service Areas in the UK and Extra MSA Group

Motorway Service Area Provision in the UK

2.1. The Strategic Road Network plays a key role in the safe and efficient movement of goods, supplies and people around the United Kingdom; it is critical to the performance of the economy and is essential in helping to facilitate planned economic growth.

2.2. DfT Circular 02/2013 The Strategic Road Network and the Delivery of Sustainable Development, (paragraph 8) notes that “A well-functioning strategic road network enables growth by providing for safe and reliable journeys”1.

2.3. This is also confirmed by Department for Transport report ‘Action for Roads: A Network for the 21st Century’ (July 2013) which states that “The road network is vital to our nation and a crucial part of the national transport system. It provides real and direct economic benefits: to business, to workers, to consumers. Better connections support individual towns and cities and strengthen the country as a whole. Failures of the road network increase costs, stifle employment opportunities and make it harder to do business in the UK”.2

2.4. The need to keep the Strategic Road Network flowing, supporting economic connectivity and mitigating the cost of delay is fundamental to national economic performance. The resulting impact and costs of delays resulting from accidents on the Strategic Road Network can be significant and widespread. The Government estimates that the economic impact of a three lane carriageway closure on a busy motorway can be more than £500,0003. The social impact of accidents on the Strategic Road Network is also substantial and by 2020, Highways England has a target to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured on the network by 40%4.

1 DfT Circular 02/2013. The Strategic Road Network and the Delivery of Sustainable Development. Annex B: Roadside Facilities for Road Users on Motorways and All Purpose Trunk Roads in England. 2 Paragraph 1, page 5. 3 Paragraph 1.4, Review of Investigation and Closure Procedures for Motorway Incidents – Preliminary Report (May 2011). Department for Transport, Highways Agency, Association of Chief Police Officers and the Home Office. 4 Paragraph 1.4, Review of Investigation and Closure Procedures for Motorway Incidents – Preliminary Report (May 2011). Department for Transport, Highways Agency, Association of Chief Police Officers and the Home Office.

2.5. Driver fatigue is a recognised cause of road accidents and it is estimated that 20% of accidents on the Strategic Road Network are fatigue related. Rule 91 of the Highway Code advises that in order to minimise risks, journeys should be planned to incorporate sufficient breaks. The Rule advises that the most effective ways to counter tiredness are to stop in a safe place, drink caffeinated coffee and take a short nap. Government advice is that motorists should stop and take a break of at least 15 minutes every two hours. Drivers of many commercial and public service vehicles are also subject to a regime of statutory breaks and other vehicle time restrictions.

2.6. Making it easier for road users to do the right thing and going with the grain of human behaviour are central to the Government’s road safety approach as motorists will not generally leave the Strategic Road Network, particularly in an unfamiliar location, in the hope of finding a suitable place to stop and appropriate facilities, instead they will often try to continue with their journey.

2.7. It is notable that 37% of car, van and lorry drivers taking part in the Think Road Safety Annual Survey 2008 admitted that they carried on driving when too tired and as many as 10% of people who use their vehicles for work admitted to falling asleep at the wheel according to Brake and Green Flag (2008). Driving tired and falling asleep at the wheel is the cause of around 20% of accidents on long journeys on trunk roads and motorways5.

2.8. In the year ending June 2018, there were 1,770 reported road fatalities, a 3% increase from 1,718 in the previous year. Furthermore, there were 26,610 killed or seriously injured casualties (KSIs) in reported road traffic accidents reported to the police, for the year ending June 2018. Vehicles stopping on the hard shoulder also pose a highway safety risk with more than 1,500 people killed or injured on the hard shoulder each year (Green Flag Motoring Assistance). However, it is estimated that up to 90% of motorists stopping on the hard shoulder do so for non-emergency reasons including the need for drivers or their passengers to visit the toilet (particularly children). Although breakdowns are an issue for the Rescue Services, it is safer for all concerned if a vehicle can continue its journey to the next MSA.

5 All statistics taken from www.safermotorways.co.uk/statistics/

2.9. The UK’s network of Motorway Service Areas therefore perform an essential road safety function in ensuring the safety and welfare of drivers and their passengers and they underpin the safe and efficient operation of Motorways throughout the country.

2.10. MSAs create opportunities and facilities for motorists, commercial drivers and their passengers to take breaks, refresh and relax in safe and convenient locations on the Strategic Road Network. Highways England’s objective and clear recommendation is that MSAs should be located at a maximum of 30 minutes travelling time. This can typically be a maximum distance of 28 miles, but on busy and congested sections of the Strategic Road Network, is an average of 15 to 20 miles. Where gaps in the network of MSAs continue to exist, the risk of driver fatigue related accidents will remain.

Deregulation of the MSA Market

2.11. Pre-deregulation in 1992, the Government primarily owned MSAs and granted 50-year Ground Leases to operators. Deregulation permitted private sector freehold MSA ownership and has in subsequent years significantly improved the range of MSA facilities. There are currently 109 Motorway Service Areas in operation across the UK, just under 100 of which are controlled by the four major operators (Moto, Welcome Break, RoadChef and Extra) and with 11 MSAs controlled by other operators.

2.12. All MSAs developed since Deregulation in 1992 are privately owned and operated. They exist to meet a public need on the Motorway Network – the need being to provide facilities which support the safety and welfare of the travelling public. The absence of such facilities in areas where there is a need places the safety and welfare of the travelling public at risk and increases the chances of accidents. However, the choice of how that need is met within an identified area will largely be driven by commercial concerns. If a potential location is not commercially viable, it will not be delivered.

Decision to invest in Motorway Service Areas

2.13. The provision of MSAs is dependant entirely upon private sector funding. The decision to invest is a commercial one and represents a major capital investment within a particular area. Once operational, the ongoing management and maintenance costs remain with the MSA operator except for those which may be covered by a commuted lump sum, for example highways maintenance.

2.14. Current policy (Circular 02/2013) recommends the maximum distance between motorway service areas should be no more than 28 miles [or 30 minutes], but leaves it to the commercial operator to determine the minimum spacing between MSAs. In 2018, Transport Minister Jesse Norman stated that the Department for Transport has abandoned the requirement for minimum intervals between Motorway Service Areas altogether. This means that an operator must make a judgement based upon the potential number of travellers on the Motorway Network who might choose to stop at any particular location and make use of the facilities on offer. This decision is a factor of the following:

• Volume of traffic which flows past a particular location. • Traffic speeds and the potential for delays and interrupted flows. • The nature of the traffic on that stretch of the Motorway, i.e. high volumes of local traffic mean that there are lower numbers of potential visitors, whilst higher numbers of longer distance travellers have a greater propensity to stop. • The distance from the nearest existing MSA (this reflects the propensity for road users to make use of a MSA at any given location). • Availability of a suitable site at a ‘natural watering hole’. • The nature and age of facilities offered at the nearest MSAs – although these could potentially be improved subject to the constraints of the respective site. • The convenience factor in respect of ease of ingress and egress – road users will not want to use a MSA which is inconvenient to use at a congested junction or other inappropriate locations.

2.15. Therefore the decision by Extra MSA Group to invest in opening a new MSA on the northern quadrant of Junction 11 of the M62 follows a significant amount of research in terms of establishing the need for the MSA and the suitability of the Site for the MSA in comparison to alternative locations on the Strategy Road Network.

Extra Motorway Service Area Group

2.16. The Extra MSA Group (Extra) is a leading developer, investor and experienced operator of high-quality MSA properties across the Strategic Road Network. Extra’s newest MSA on the Motorway Network is being developed at M1 J45 Leeds Skelton Lake. Since deregulation of MSAs in 1992, Extra has directly or indirectly successfully delivered ten MSAs, significantly more than any other party involved in the MSA sector over this period.

2.17. Extra is the largest freehold investment owner of MSAs in the UK and has 18 MSA ‘quasi- infrastructure’ property assets with an aggregate gross capital value in excess of £1.1 billion inclusive of Leeds Skelton Lake MSA. Rental income amounts to approximately £58million per annum, secured on primarily long-term leases. In terms of geography, Extra has a portfolio of MSAs in strategic locations across the Motorway Network, attracting in excess of 1.2 million vehicles per week (circa 60 million vehicles each year).

2.18. Extra MSA Group is currently promoting three other new MSA developments throughout the UK, these being at M42 J5-J6 Solihull; M1 J35 Sheffield, together with M1 J45 Leeds Skelton Lake which is now under construction for opening in January 2020. This is in addition to the M25 West MSA within Chiltern District Council. In aggregate, and subject to all five of these MSA developments receiving planning permission, this would represent an additional investment by Extra MSA Group in the UK MSA sector of approximately £0.5 billion.

2.19. Extra has developed a ‘new concept’ approach to MSAs that focuses on world-class design, incorporating a good quality and popular range of complementary ancillary food, retail, business, leisure and community facilities, within a bright, spacious and comfortable building, set in an attractive and relaxing environment to meet modern day customer requirements.

2.20. Extra has successfully raised and driven new MSA standards across the Country and has recently developed two of the largest and busiest new MSAs on the Strategic Road Network at Cobham (M25 J9-J10) and Beaconsfield (M40 J2).

2.21. Extra is keen to expand its operations into areas where there is an acknowledged gap on the Strategic Road Network and in doing so, to deliver high quality MSA facilities for the benefit of road users. The supporting Economic Impact Assessment and Employability and Social Impact Strategy reports produced by Amion provide further details regarding Extra MSA Group and the way in which an MSA operates. This provides context for the identification of

the economic, employment and skills benefits which can be expected to result from the construction and operation of a new MSA at Junction 11 of the M62.

2.22. As is outlined in detail later within this Statement, the provision of an MSA on this site will deliver substantial social, economic and environmental benefits. It will provide significant inward investment into Warrington and the North West, with substantial job creation, local employment initiatives and wider economic benefits. It will also deliver infrastructure, services and facilities to support businesses, growth and the potential creation of a sustainable community within this area.

2.23. Extra MSA Group is committed to the early delivery of the development, which would be in the region of a £75m capital investment in Warrington. The Business Rates to be generated from the MSA will be approximately £1.05m per annum and due to its location at Junction 11 of the M62 it will create an attractive 'gateway' to the adjacent Birchwood Business Park and the wider Borough.

The Extra MSA Group Portfolio

M1 Leeds Skelton Lake – Extra’s newest MSA

2.24. Extra’s most recent MSA development at M1 J45 Leeds Skelton Lake is a ‘new concept’ in MSAs, combining world-class design with a new range of popular food & beverage, ancillary retail and leisure ‘brands’. Leeds Skelton Lake Services will form part of a strategic eastern ‘gateway’ for the City and contribute to attracting investors and occupiers to the Leeds City Region Enterprise Zone, the Aire Valley Corridor and the wider East Leeds area. The range of proposed facilities and services are also designed to complement future planned housing (up to 1,800 new homes) forming the Skelton Gate development as to be situated adjacent to the MSA.

2.25. The development of the MSA represents a £60 million investment and it will create more than 300 full-time equivalent (FTE) jobs as well as significant Business Rates Revenue and other significant economic and social benefits. As now under construction, the targeted opening date is early November 2019.

2.26. Extra MSA Group have successfully delivered and continue to operate a number of other “new concept” MSAs in England and have formed long standing contractual relationships with an extensive range of leading national and popular tenant operating companies. Other “new

concept” Extra MSA Group facilities include A1M J17 Peterborough Services, M25 J9-J10 Cobham Services and M40 J2 Beaconsfield Services. In conjunction with the M1 J45 Leeds Skelton Lake Services, the Extra ‘umbrella branded’ MSAs directly support over 1,900 FTE jobs in the UK economy.

2.27. The overall portfolio comprises two sub-portfolios, each distinct for their operating style and Tenant profile.

Abraham Portfolio

2.28. This portfolio includes the ‘new concept’ Extra ‘umbrella branded’ MSAs, together with 2 pairs of MSA Filling Stations leased to Shell/BP. The average estate age is approximately 12.5 years, being one of the most modern portfolios on the UK Motorway Network. The Abraham Portfolio operates under a ‘multi-let’ property rental model unique to the UK MSA sector.

2.29. Extra’s proposed MSA at Warrington, Junction 11 M62 would also be Extra ‘umbrella branded’ and be operated on the same basis as the Abraham Portfolio ‘new concept’ MSAs such as M25 J9-J10 Cobham and M40 J2 Beaconsfield Services

Ulysses Portfolio

2.30. The acquisition of this portfolio represents a long-term strategic decision complimentary to Extra’s ‘umbrella branded’ investment portfolio. It includes high-quality MSA locations, but with mixed asset age and design (1963/68 to 1998/99). It is let on 9 ‘single tenant’ leases to Welcome Break (UK’s second largest MSA operator), with key franchise brands such as Starbucks, KFC, Burger King, Pizza Express, Waitrose and Days Inn/Ramada.

Typical MSA facilities

2.31. MSAs typically comprise a Fuel Filling Station, Facilities Building and usually a ‘budget style’ Hotel, together with parking spaces to location specific requirements for all categories of vehicle (inclusive of cars/vans, caravans/trailers, HVG’s and coaches). Extra’s Facilities Buildings are primarily designed to include a spacious and attractive ‘open plan’ central food court seating area with a carefully selected complimentary range of established national and popular ‘brands’.

3. Warrington MSA Junction 11 M62 – Site Description and Planning History

Site Location and Context

3.1. The Site is located in the North West of England, within the local authority area of Warrington. The national regional context is shown on the plans below:

Figure 3: National Context Plan

Figure 4: Regional Context Plan

3.2. The Site is located to the northeast of the urban area of Warrington, approximately 8.5km (5 miles) from the centre of Warrington. The centre of Manchester is located approximately 17.5km (11 miles) to the east of the Site and the centre of Liverpool, approximately 32 km (20 miles) to the west.

3.3. The M62 Motorway corridor runs in an east/west direction to the north of Warrington. It is the west-east Trans-Pennine Motorway in Northern England, connecting the two major ports of Liverpool and Hull, via intervening conurbations including Manchester, Warrington, St Helens and Leeds, and connects the two City Regions of Liverpool and Manchester.

3.4. The Site is located to the north of the M62 Motorway at Junction 11, within its north east quadrant and has direct access to Junction 11 via a spur to the motorway junction roundabout (Birchwood Way). The M62 Motorway also provides access to the wider Strategic Road Network, with the M6 Motorway running north/south, approximately 4km (2.5 miles) to the west of the Site, and the M60 Motorway, which runs around Manchester, approximately 10km (6.1 miles) to the east of the Site.

3.5. Junction 11 of the M62 Motorway also provides access to the A574 Birchwood Way and the Birchwood area of Warrington, which is located to the south of the M62 Motorway corridor and consists of Birchwood Park (a business park) and beyond this, residential areas of Gorse Covert and Oakwood, which are suburbs to Warrington.

3.6. Immediately to the west of the Site is a former landfill site (Risley Landfill), where landfilling began in 1979, but which has now ceased, and the site restored and planted. There are a series of permissive footpath routes across the restored landfill site. To the east and north is arable farmland. A disused railway line crosses the farmland that is beyond the Site boundary, and arches to the east and north approximately 0.6km (0.4 miles) from the Site boundary.

3.7. To the east and north of the Application Site are agricultural fields. The settlement of Culcheth lies to the north west of the Site, with its centre approximately 2 km (1.2 miles) from the Site.

3.8. The local context is shown in the plans below:

Figure 5: Local Context Plan

Figure 6: Redline Site Boundary Plan

3.9. The planning application redline encompasses the M62 J11 Motorway Roundabout, spur from the roundabout and the main part of the Site. The main part of the Site relates to an area of land of approximately 15.41ha in extent, whilst the total land within the redline boundary and therefore including highway works to M62 J11 Motorway Roundabout is 16.81ha. The Site is greenfield and located within the Green Belt. It comprises agricultural land and rough grassland. The agricultural land within the Site comprises a large arable field (11.58 ha). A small triangular area of rough grassland is present to the west of the Site (approximately 1.0 ha), this land previously formed part of a larger agricultural field, the majority of which was incorporated into the Risley Landfill Site. The remnant field area was removed from agricultural use by the operation of the landfill site and is therefore considered to be non- agricultural. All other land within the Site is also non-agricultural comprising areas of restored

landfill and hardstanding. The agricultural land is partially located over peat deposits, which are located predominantly to the south western section of the Site.

3.10. The M62 J11 Motorway roundabout and the spur from the roundabout junction into the Site is at a higher level to the rest of the Site. The roundabout is vegetated to its edges with grass, shrubs and trees. The M62 Motorway Corridor and Junction 11 is lit in the vicinity of the Site.

3.11. The Site is set at a lower level than the M62 Motorway Junction 11 and its associated slip roads, but is higher than the M62 Motorway itself. From the Motorway Junction and the spur from this, the land falls away sharply into the main part of the Site, which is set at a lower level and is relatively level across the remainder of the Site.

3.12. There are trees to the eastern, and part of the southern and south western boundaries. A post and rail fence marks the southern boundary. The Site is bounded to the east, north and part of the western boundary by a water course, which is a dry ditch and classed as a non- main river. To the western boundary is another water course, known as Silver Lane Brook that extends into part of the Site as a ‘dog leg’. It is identified by the Environment Agency as a main river. The Site is within Flood Risk Zone 1 and as such at low risk of flooding.

3.13. A Public Right of Way (Footpath number 13) runs along the western boundary of the Site and leads north to Silver Lane Pools, and west around the adjacent restored landfill site, before heading north to Culcheth and east to Holcroft Lane. Footpath number 28 continues around the north of the restored landfill site, connecting to Footpath 14a to the western boundary, which connects to Footpath 25 to the southern boundary, before reconnecting with Footpath 13 adjacent to the Application Site. This also links to a footpath at the spur of the Junction 11 roundabout and around the roundabout, before linking to footpath 25 to the south eastern quadrant of the Junction 11 roundabout in Birchwood.

3.14. The HS2 Safeguarded Land corridor arcs around the north eastern corner of the Site and is located outside the Redline Site Boundary.

3.15. A 50m Buffer Motorway Air Quality Management Area (MAQMA) runs along the Motorway corridor.

3.16. There is a high pressure gas main that runs north to south through the eastern extent of the Site and comprises an inner, middle and outer PADHIZone. Consultation has been

undertaken with the HSE (Health and Safety Executive) to discuss the proposals and the extent of development that is acceptable within each of these zones. The exact location of the gas main has been confirmed by National Grid and is highlighted in the Constraints Plan below:

Figure 7: Constraints Plan

3.17. The Site lies within 5km of Manchester Mosses SAC and within 2km of Risley Moss SSSI and LNR and Holcroft Moss SSSI. Beyond the M62 Motorway, to the south of the Site is Pestfurlong Moss, a Local Wildlife Site. To the north west of the Site is Silver Lane Risley, which is also a Local Wildlife Site and incorporates the ponds to the north of the restored landfill site.

3.18. The Glazebrook Timberland Trail (located to the east of the Holcroft Moss SSSI) is a linear signposted recreation route following footpaths close to the Pennington and Glaze Brooks from Pennington Flash Country Par in Leigh, to the Manchester Ship Canal at Cadishead. The route passes the remnant mosslands of Chat Moss, an area of relict and active peat bogs some of which are of notable wildlife value and extends through areas rich in history including Little and Great Woolden Halls, the Liverpool to Manchester railway, Hope Carr Nature Reserve and Pennington Flash Country Park.

Relevant Background and Planning History

Risley Landfill Site, Silver Lane, Warrington

3.19. There have been a number of planning applications in and around the Application Site relating to the neighbouring landfill facility at Risley operated by Biffa Waste Services Limited. The landfilling began in 1979 and tipping ceased in 2008. The site is now restored and planted.

3.20. The original landfill site was accessed via Silver Lane and is known as Risley III. Risley III covered an area of land on the western side of Silver Lane and related to the A574.

3.21. Planning permission was subsequently granted in October and November 1992 (Planning Application Refs: 1/28118 and 1/28119) for the disposal of controlled waste by landfill on a site of 65 ha with direct access from Junction 11 of the M62 (known as Risley IV). Risley IV covers the area directly to the west of the Application Site. The planning permissions required that all tipping ceased by October/November 2008.

3.22. In March 2002, a planning application was submitted for a northern extension to the landfill site. Planning permission was granted in 2003 and covered a large part of Risley IV landfill and released an additional 1.8 million cubic metres of void space.

3.23. Biffa Waste Services applied for planning permission for an eastern extension to Risley Landfill site in August 2006 (planning application reference: 2006/08766). The site in question covered

a total of 34 hectares of which, 20.5 hectares is lying within the existing Risley landfill site. The remaining 13.5 hectares comprised of agricultural land (representing the extension to the landfill site) and covered the area of land that is subject to this planning application. The planning application was refused on 4th April 2007 on five grounds:

• The proposed development is contrary to UDP Policy MWA1(1) in that the applicant has not sufficiently demonstrated that the development constitutes sustainable waste management in terms of moving waste up the waste hierarchy and PPS 10 which states that waste should only be disposed of as a last resort; • The LPA considers that sufficient landfill capacity exists in the sub-regions of Greater Manchester and Mid Mersey up to 2010 as informed by Draft Regional Spatial Strategy and that the proposal is contrary to UDP policy MWA2(1), (2) and (4). • The applicant has not demonstrated an overriding need for the proposed development sufficiently to justify the loss of high grade agricultural land and the development is therefore contrary to UDP policies REP2, MWA3 (3) and MWA8 (1). • The LPA considers that the development does not result in the prudent use of resources and is therefore contrary to UDP policy REP1(2) and PPS7 in terms of the protection of natural resources, including soil quality. • The proposed development represents inappropriate development within the green belt as a consequence of impact on openness and having regard to the objectives for use of land in green belts (PPG2 paragraphs 3.12 and 3.13). Furthermore, the development would be prominent from key viewpoints notably junction 11 of the M62 and would represent additional inclusion into the landscape. The proposal would be harmful to the green belt. Development contrary to the provisions of Policy G8N1 of the Warrington Unitary Development Plan.

3.24. The planning decision was appealed and a public inquiry was held between the 22nd and 30th April 2008 (Appeal Reference: APP/M0655/A/07/2052946). The appeal was subsequently dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate on the 26th August 2008. The most relevant conclusions of the appeal decision to the current proposal are:

• The proposed bulky nature of the extension would have a materially detrimental effect on the Green Belt, both during the development and after the restoration, and would amount to inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

• The siting and design of the proposed development would have an unacceptably harmful impact on the visual amenities of the Green Belt. • The proposal conflicted with UDP Policy REP2 because it is had not been demonstrated that the sequential test had been met, which would justify the loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land. • The operation of the site would not harm the amenity of the nearby residential properties.

3.25. Following the refusal of planning permission (Planning application ref: 2007/11217), the applicants submitted a further application for a similar type of development than the appeal scheme but including a temporary sorting pad. The planning application was refused by the Council. Planning permission was subsequently granted for sorting pad (2007/11483).

3.26. The issues raised in the dismissed appeal are dealt within the subsequent parts of this Statement.

Other Planning Permissions in the Wider Area

3.27. There are several other planning permissions in the wider area which are relevant to the application. . These are set out in detail within the Part One to the Environmental Statement which accompanies this outline planning application submission.

Non Policy Designations

3.28. The relevant non-policy statutory planning considerations connected to the site are provided below:

Non Policy Designation or Site Address / Proximity to the Site Planning Consideration

Heritage Assets The site does not contain any Listed Buildings or Ancient Monuments and is not located within a Conservation Area.

Grade II* listed Holcroft Hall (NHLE: 1159651) is located 1.54km northeast of the Site.

Tree Preservation Orders None

Non Policy Designation or Site Address / Proximity to the Site Planning Consideration

SSIs/SSSIs and other Ecological Holcroft Moss SSSI & SAC is located approximately 1km to the east of Designations the Application Site. Risley Moss SSSI & SAC and Risley Moss Local Nature Reserve are located approximately 1.4km to the south of the site

Flood Risk Zone Flood Zone 1 with a low risk of flooding.

Air Quality Management Area A 50m Buffer Motorway Air Quality Management Area (MAQMA) runs along the Motorway corridor.

Rights of Way A Public Right of Way (Footpath number 13) runs along the western boundary of the Site and leads north to Silver Lane Pools, and west around the adjacent restored landfill site, before heading north to Culcheth and east to Holcroft Lane. Footpath number 28 continues around the north of the restored landfill site, connecting to Footpath 14a to the western boundary, which connects to Footpath 25 to the southern boundary, before reconnecting with Footpath 13 adjacent to the Application Site. This also links to a footpath at the spur of the Junction 11 roundabout and around the roundabout, before linking to footpath 25 to the south eastern quadrant of the Junction 11 roundabout in Birchwood.

AONB or Landscape Designation The site has no formal landscape designation.

Table 4: Non Policy Designations

4. Development Proposals Overview

The Development

4.1. This outline planning application proposes the comprehensive redevelopment of land to the north of Junction 11 of the M62 Motorway to provide a ‘New Concept’ Motorway Service Area (MSA).

4.2. The application will be an outline planning application as described below:

4.3. All matters, except for access to the Site will be reserved for consideration at a later date.

4.4. A detailed description of the proposed development is contained within the Project Description which forms Section 2 of the Environmental Statement Part 1.

Parameters and Scheme Design

4.5. During the evolution of the proposals for the outline element of the scheme, a number of parameters have been fixed. The following table summarises the details of the Site proposals to be accommodated within the parameters:

Site Area ha (acres) Maximum building Maximum Floor Land Use (rounded to the height Area (m2) nearest two (m) decimal place)

Facilities Building (Incorporating public facilities, retail uses, food 15m Max and beverage uses, business lounge and NA Max 5,000m2 GIA 37.15m AOD Max associated staff, storage and management uses within the building thermal envelope)

15m Max Hotel Building NA Max 100 Bedrooms 37.15m AOD Max

Fuel Filling Station (FFS) (Incorporating public 6.5m Max facilities, retail uses, food and beverage uses, NA Max 500sqm GIA 31.15m AOD Max and associated staff and storage uses)

Parking Facilities for all Vehicles incorporating access roads and internal circulation (buildings 8.97ha - - are within this zone)

Soft Landscape Areas (including proposed and existing planting and ecological habitat and 6.44ha - - SUDS basins and children’s play)

Highway works within the redline 1.4ha

Gross Site Area (excluding highway works) 15.41ha - -

Gross site Area 16.81ha - -

Table 5: Proposed Land Use and Areas on Site

4.6. The parameters have been fixed to include the following details:

• Development Cells Parameter – area of built development, distribution of land uses, Site access, maximum building heights6 and spot height levels7.

6 Finished ground floor levels for buildings and building heights are tested with a +2m tolerance to allow for scheme evolution at detailed design stage 7 Spot heights through the Site have a +/-0.5m tolerance

• Green Infrastructure Parameter – existing and proposed landscaping, including ecological habitats, drainage areas, corridor to accommodate the diverted Silver Lane Brook, zone for public right of way and diversion of this and spot height levels7. • Restrictive Zones Parameter – gas pipeline location and associated zone of easement required by HSE guidance and, whilst outside the Site boundary, and the HS2 Safeguarded zone.

4.7. These are all combined into a single plan and shown on the following Parameters Plan below and separately on a series of Parameters Plans within each sub heading below.

4.8. These Parameters are described in turn below: Figure 8: Parameters Plan

showing all Parameters combined

on a single plan

Development Cells

4.9. The Development Cells Parameter Plan below shows the zones for the built development. This includes the Facilities Building, the FFS and the vehicle parking with associated proposed building heights and finished ground levels. These are located within the body of the Site and surrounded by the Green Infrastructure (shown on a separate Parameter Plan).

4.10. The Development Cell Parameters incorporate the following detail:

• Zone of Facilities Building and Hotel, including incidental landscape areas, service yard and external amenity spaces. Max building height 15m with +2m tolerance to allow for scheme evolution (maximum 37.15m AOD). • Zone of Fuel Filling Station and internal vehicular circulation, including incidental landscape areas. Max building height 6.5m with +2m tolerance (maximum AOD 31.15m AOD). • Landscaped vehicle parking and circulation zone, including ecological and drainage features. The vehicle parking includes for parking for all types of vehicles and will be located around the Facilities Building and FFS. The parking areas will be landscaped to soften the expanse of hard surfaced areas. Surface water drainage will be provided and surface water storage will be accommodated within a mix of underground tanks/crates, small discrete basins and swales/filter drains split throughout the development area. • Finished ground levels with +/-0.5m tolerance shown as a series of spot heights across the Site. • The extent of the proposed access to and from the Site. Access is from the roundabout junction for Junction 11 of the M62 Motorway and will replace the existing spur head from the roundabout with two lanes into and out of the Site. The access road will link to the internal circulation routes that will be accommodated within the zone for vehicle parking and internal vehicular circulation as shown on the Development Cells Parameter Plan.

Figure 9: Parameter Plan – Development Cells

Green Infrastructure

4.11. Green Infrastructure refers to the landscaping works outside the Development Cells area, with a purpose to maximize biodiversity enhancement.

4.12. The Green Infrastructure Parameter Plan below shows the zones for the Green Infrastructure within the Site. This includes existing and proposed landscaped areas, ecological habitats, drainage, corridor for the diversion of the brook and zone for the footpath diversion. These areas are located to the perimeters of the Site and are located to enclose the built development shown within the Development Cells Parameter.

4.13. The ecological habitats include the creation of a peatland type habitat area (as described in the section below). Landscape and ecological habitat areas within the area of existing and proposed landscaping zone will include all of the peatland type habitats which will develop within the peatland type habitat area as well as vegetation covering the bunds surrounding this and the habitats to the west along the easement corridor of the high pressure gas main. These habitats will include areas of new species rich grassland and gorse scrub mosaic – islands of gorse being located principally on the bunds rather than within the easement. In addition, the current line of mature birch trees which run along the length of the eastern and northern boundaries of the Site will be strengthened by new planting of silver birch if necessary or by allowing natural regeneration (depending on extent of grazing pressure from rabbits/deer). Older and decaying silver birch will be left in situ to provide nesting habitat for willow tit, a high value species known within the locality, which requires decaying willow/birch stems to excavate nesting chambers.

4.14. A new woodland will be planted at the southern end of this proposed landscaping zone. Tree species will be native, dominated by oak, birch and alder with Scot’s pine. At the margins a gradation in vegetation height will be achieved by planting lower growing woody species such as hazel, rowan and gorse. Alder will be planted where the woodland abuts the proposed Brook diversion. A surrounding fringe of tall species rich grassland will also be seeded around the margins of the new woodland plantings.

4.15. Landscape and ecological habitat areas within the area of the diverted footpath zone will include the creation of new species rich neutral grassland habitat which will complement the habitats which are establishing on the restored landfill to the west. Additionally, new native broadleaved tree plantings and a woodland copse will be created, linking with the copse

described at the southern end of the landscaping zone (above). The species rich grassland will be flower rich and will be allowed to grow tall to set seed following a late summer/autumn cut. Areas of grassland adjacent to the new woodland copse will be left unmown for at least 3 years to allow for the development of a more ‘tussocky’ sward with encroaching scrub. This will enable a natural gradation of vegetation height from woodland, scrub to grassland. Grassland on either side of the footpath will be mown short.

4.16. As part of ecological enhancement, the Silver Lane Brook that currently runs south to north along the western boundary of the Site, is to be diverted within a corridor through the Site. This corridor runs between the existing/proposed landscape areas (including ecological habitat and drainage areas) and landscaped vehicle parking zones (included within the Development Cells Parameters). Whilst illustrative details for the brook diversion are included within the planning application, the exact location of the diverted brook within the corridor is to be determined at detailed design stage. The route of the diverted brook will be designed to maximize ecological gain, achieve a variety of ecological habitats and incorporate landscaping along its length. This will be achieved by designing the channel profile with varied bank treatments and angles to provide a diversity of aquatic habitats including shallow berms of dense marginal planting. There will be varied flow rates along the length of the Brook, in places faster flowing areas with gravel beds will be created as well as areas of sluggish flow with deep peaty sediments. The course of the re-aligned Brook will also take a more ‘sinuous’ route to maximize edge habitats and hence ecological benefit.

4.17. Although the detail of the diverted brook is subject to detail design, the corridor provided has been sized to meet the capacity requirements of the estimated upstream flow for a 1 in 100 year event with a 30% climate change allowance and including a 300mm freeboard.

4.18. The zone in which the Public Right of Way is located allows for diversion of this footpath within the Site, within close proximity to the existing route.

Figure 10: Parameter Plan – Green Infrastructure

Restrictive Zone

4.19. The exact location of the gas pipe has been determined by National Grid, as shown on the Parameter Plan. A 96m easement (The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) Inner Consultation Zone) from the location of the gas pipeline is provided in line with HSE Policy. This restricts buildings and uses with a sensitive end-use within this zone such as the Facilities Building and overnight HGV parking areas.

4.20. Whilst the Safeguarded area for HS2 is outside of the Site area, this is included within the Parameter Plan for completeness and to indicate its relationship to the Proposed Development.

Figure 11: Parameter Plan – Restrictive Zones

Peat Mitigation

4.21. Excluding the peaty (organic-rich clay loam) agricultural topsoils, there are approximately 47,000 m3 of deeper peat resources within the Site. The presence of this peat presents geotechnical constraints to the placement of structures sensitive to settlement, such as buildings, roads and car parks. Therefore, the development layout has been designed to take account of this and has been evolved through discussions with key consultees such as Natural England, the Greater Manchester Ecological Unit (GMEU) and the Environment Agency. Reference has also been made to the Peat Reuse hierarchy (as fully described in Agricultural Land and Soils Technical Paper, ES Part 2, and summarised in Table 2.2 below).

Rank Description

1 Avoidance of (disturbance to) the peat resource. Most Preferred

2 Re-use onsite for beneficial / ecological uses (e.g. peatland type habitat creation, site reinstatement).

3 Re-use off-site for beneficial / ecological uses (habitat creation, restoration of existing peatland, erosion control).

Recycling (also referred to as ‘other reuse off Site’) includes mixing with other materials to form a soil substitute or use in other relevant works 4 (e.g. use as a horticultural medium, agricultural land improvement, blending).

Stabilisation. Mixing with ‘concrete’ to form a solid / stable development 5 platform

Disposal (only to be considered after all other options have been explored Least Preferred 6 and discounted).

Table 6 Peat Reuse Hierarchy (Source: Scottish environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) Guidance document ‘Developments on Peat and Off Site Uses of Waste Peat’ with the addition of Rank 5 Option, stabilization and this is a technique of combining peat with ‘concrete’ to create a stable development platform has been successfully used on a range of developments.)

4.22. As can be seen, the hierarchy prioritises the avoidance of peat resources where possible, and then ranks options for the re-use of disturbed peat in terms of most to least beneficial. Through the iterative design and consultation process the Proposed Development has been designed to maximise the area of undisturbed (avoided) peat, with disturbed Peat to be retained within the Site for beneficial reuse in the creation of peatland type habitat. Therefore, all peat resources within the Site will be addressed through the Rank 1 and Rank 2 options of the hierarchy.

4.23. The area of undisturbed peat equates to approximately 51.1% (22,700 m3) of the peat on Site, including the deepest areas of peat to the south east as illustrated in Drawing SH11739/034: Peat Depth and Site Layout as shown below and included at Appendix 10.5 of the Agricultural Land and Soils Technical Paper, ES Part 2 and the Peatland Ecological and Construction Management Plan.

4.24. The remaining 49.9% m3 (22,600 m3) of peat lies within the development area. It is proposed to remove this resource and directly place it within the retained peat areas (Peat Habitat Zone, as shown in the Indicative Site Layout (Figure 12) (below) to create a peatland type habitat. The agricultural topsoils would be removed prior to the peat removal / placement.

Figure 12: Peat Depth and Indicative Site Layout

4.25. Although the surface topography of the Peat Habitat Zone would be undulating, creating a range of habitat conditions (as described below), it can be thought of as a plateau at a constant height of 22.9 m AOD. Due to the sloping nature of the natural ground this would mean the layer of placed peat would vary in thickness being shallower to the south. The resulting total peat depths within the Peat Habitat Zone are illustrated in Drawing SH11739/006: Peat Depth within the Peat Habitat Area. The maximum and minimum total peat depths would be approximately 3.15m and 1.14m respectively. The average depth across the Peat Habitat Zone would be approximately 1.9 m.

4.26. As the placement of the peat would raise the surface of the Peat Habitat Zone above the height of the surrounding land a bund would be required to retain the upper (placed) layers of Peat within it.

4.27. Prior to the installation of the bund, the eastern and southern edge of the Peat Habitat Zone would be continuous with the wider peat basin to the south and east of Site. However, the retaining bund cannot be placed directly over the peat, as these soft deposits would be unable to support the weight of the structure. Therefore, a suitable foundation for any bund would be constructed by the excavation of a trench to the base of the peat deposits which would then be backfilled with a suitable material to allow the loads from the bund to be transferred to the underlying clay strata. The bund would be constructed from clay at a batter of 1 in 2.5; and would be impermeable to prevent the loss of water from the Peat Habitat Zone.

4.28. The foundation design and the nature of the fill is to be determined at the detailed planning stage subject to consultation with Natural England. The fill may include a single compacted aggregate founded unit (which would be slowly permeable and allow the continued movement of water between the Peat Habitat Zone and the wider peat basin); a single impermeable clay founded unit (which would contain all water within the Peat Habitat Zone); or a combination of aggregate and clay founded units (to create variable hydrological regimes).

4.29. The northern and western edges of the Peat Habitat Zone would be created by sheet piling (required to stabilise the retained peat whilst the peat within the development area is removed). The sheet piling would stand proud of the retained peat to 22.9 m AOD (the top of the placed peat) and would be designed / installed to be as watertight possible to prevent the loss of water from the Peat Habitat Zone during the construction phase.

4.30. Once the southern and eastern sections of the bund and the sheet piling are installed, the peat from the development area would be dug out and placed directly within the Peat Habitat Zone. The direct transfer of the peat from the development area to the specially prepared Peat Habitat Zone would ensure no double handling of the resource and minimise the potential for damage to the peat, peat drying or carbon loss. The incorrect management of Peat during construction could result in damage through the impairment of function, quality and resilience, therefore the handling and placement of the peat would be undertaken in line with a Site specific Management Plan to be produced by a qualified soil scientist prior to construction. This will ensure that the quality of the peat is maintained and it remains in a condition suitable for reuse on Site to create peatland type habitat. All topsoil would be stripped in advance of these works so that peat is placed directly over peat with no mixing of mineral / agricultural soils.

4.31. The void created by the excavation of the development area peat would then be backfilled using suitable materials to create the development platform and the brook diversion. A retaining embankment to the Peat Habitat Zone (bund) would be created to northern and western sides of the sheet piling, this would have a batter of 1 in 2.5 and like the eastern and northern bunds this would be constructed from clay and would be finished with a layer of site-won organic-rich topsoil.

4.32. The recreation of an impermeable / low permeability barrier to the northern and western edges of the Peat Habitat Zone, as naturally occurs at the western edge of the existing peat basin, would ensure that water continues to be contained within the basin and that the Peats within the Peat Habitat Zone were maintained in a wettened state.

4.33. Within the Peat Habitat Zone, a mosaic of habitats such regenerating scrub, dry and wet heathland areas and bog pools, will be created as a peatland type habitat. This will be achieved through the creation of wet surface hollows and drier mounded areas which will become largely dry heath vegetation. By creating a diversity of topography and habitats, the area will be more resistant to seasonal change as well as climate change.

4.34. The Chat Moss Project are in the process of restoring Mosslands nearby and this provides an opportunity to source vegetation locally to aid restoration. Bare peat is vulnerable to wind and solar ablation and erosion and so quick revegetation will be imperative to stabilising the

surface layers of the placed peat. This can be achieved through plug planting, hydroseeding, or pre-planted coir matting and rolls.

4.35. Plant species and choice of planting process would be influenced by the finalised topography of the Peat Habitat Zone. Pre-planted coir matting and rolls establish most effectively when partially submerged whereas hydroseeding and plug planting are likely to be more effective in drier areas. The type of peatland like habitats likely to develop are:

• Scrub woodland (usually birch Betula spp.) • Bare peat • Impoverished vegetation dominated by species including purple moor grass Molinia caerulea, hare’s-tail cottongrass Eriophorum vaginatum and heather Calluna vulgaris, and lacking significant cover of bog-mosses Sphagnum species.

4.36. Other key species that can be targeted for re-introduction as part of the revegetation work include; cross-leaved heath Erica tetralix, round-leaved sundew Drosera rotundifolia, cranberry Vaccinium oxycoccos, bog asphodel Narthecium ossifragum and bog-rosemary Andromeda polifolia.

4.37. During the management phase, parts of the Peat Habitat Zone would be permitted to develop natural tree and scrub regeneration, with species such as birch Betula spp., willow Salix spp., and alder Alnus glutinosa likely to self-seed from surrounding habitat. This would attract species such as willow warbler Phylloscopus trochillus, stonechat Saxicola rubicola and reed bunting Emberiza schoeniculus.

4.38. In other areas, trees and scrub could be prevented from establishing, such as parts of the developing floristically diverse heathland and near to the proposed bog pools. This would benefit species of invertebrate that are reliant on open water.

4.39. The figure below provides an impression of the peatland type habitat which would be created.

Figure 13: Example of Peatland Type Habitat

Scheme Design and Design Philosophy

4.40. At this stage, indicative details are provided to show how the scheme could be developed within the Parameters set. The Site layout has been developed to provide the necessary services in a compact form to maximise soft landscape areas and ecological enhancement, and to assimilate the development into the landscape.

4.41. The location of different elements of the Proposed Development has been determined to minimise their visual impact from key vantage points. The Facilities Building is located at the base of the restored landfill slope so that it does not break the skyline when viewed from the east. The parking is to be located around these buildings in a landscape setting so as to reduce their visual impact.

4.42. Whilst Indicative at this stage, it can be seen that the circulation has been developed to offer a logical and legible arrangement that separates HGV and car users at the earliest opportunity and has been designed to maximise safety for Site users both in their vehicles and as pedestrians.

4.43. The location of the Facilities Building reduces the distance users will need to walk from their vehicles to the building to a minimum.

4.44. The indicative Facilities Building design has been developed in a way that references the local area. A sinuous wall, constructed in a manner reminiscent of peat stacks is a reference to the local peat moss land and the historic peat cutting that took place in the area. This wall guides people to the main entrance and the Hotel entrance and forms a key feature within the central space of the Facilities Building and the Hotel reception. Above this wall sit a series of simple linear pitched roof elements that as a cluster reflect the form and grouping of local farm buildings. Their fragmented form reduces the visual impact of the building at a distance. The selection of materials will also reference the local vernacular. The interaction of these linear forms and the sinuous wall beneath provides an interesting series of internal spaces that provide an efficient and commercial layout alongside a series of interesting views and protective and expansive spaces to provide for the various needs of the travelling public.

4.45. The design is based on the development of the ‘new concept’ Motorway Service Area, which offers travellers a break from their journey in a warm and welcoming environment. The building will be designed to create links with external amenity spaces and the wider area, particularly the adjacent Restored Risley land fill site.

4.46. The development will include a Facilities Building of up to 5,000m2 GIA, with tenant units located around a central space. There will be a Hotel with up to 100 bedrooms, which will integrate with the Facilities Building. Car parking, HGV parking, Electric Charging Station (ECS) and a Fuel Filling Station are also located on-Site, with layouts developed to make the most of the on-Site opportunities. Integrating the building design with the landscaping proposals will be key. Landscaping buffers will be created to the extents of the Site and in key locations on-Site to screen elements where necessary.

4.47. Access to the Site will be taken from the existing Junction 11 of the M62 Motorway, via the existing spur from the roundabout at Junction 11.

4.48. The Facilities Building will be a maximum of 5,000m2 and principally provide:

• A food court and ancillary retail, incorporating facilities for the sale and consumption of hot and cold food and beverages on and off the premises. • Free toilet, hand washing facilities for all drivers and disabled visitors.

• Free showers and washing facilities for all HGV drivers. • Staff areas including kitchen, catering storage, staff rooms, retail storage, refuse areas and office space. Some of these areas will be accommodated at first floor level.

4.49. Other associated uses will include:

• Fuel Filling Station which will include a domestic forecourt and a HGV forecourt and a forecourt shop of a maximum of 500m2. Alternative new technology fuels will be considered (subject to availability and market demand, such as hydrogen to contribute to Low Carbon targets). • Electric Charging Station (ECS)

4.50. Parking facilities for:

• 536 light vehicles • 105 HGV spaces • 1 abnormal load HGV space • 16 coach spaces • 15 car plus caravan / motorhome / vehicle plus trailer spaces • 15 motorcycle spaces

4.51. Hotel:

• Up to 100 bedrooms with supporting ancillary uses.

4.52. Access and circulation roads and footpaths will be provided between the various on-Site facilities. Street lighting will be provided to ensure vehicular and pedestrian safety in-line with Highway Standards. The street lighting within the MSA development will conform to the obtrusive light limitations commensurate with the surrounding environmental zone.

4.53. Due to the presence of local skyglow, existing artificial urban and highway lighting bordering the Proposed Development, as prescribed by the Institutes of Lighting Professionals Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Obtrusive Light 2011, it is professionally judged that this area is typical of an E2 / partial E3 zone. However, due to the rural nature of the location and areas

of natural conditions, on a precautionary approach, the assessment threshold limits are based on E2 Zone classification (Low district brightness).

4.54. Non-vehicular forms of connectivity will be provided within the Site, with links also being provided to the Public Rights of Way network that currently exists within the Site, thereby allowing linkages to the wider non-definitive and definitive footpath network and the permissive footpaths across the adjacent restored landfill site.

4.55. There will be amenity areas within the landscaping areas, providing picnic and a dog walking zone.

4.56. The Indicative Landscape Masterplan shows how the proposals could be developed within the context of the Parameters and how this sits within the wider context of the Site.

Figure 14: Indicative wider Context Masterplan

4.57. Other indicative details include an Indicative Site Plan (shown in the figure below), Floor Plans and Elevations, which are all included with the planning application and show how the proposals could be developed within the context of the Parameters:

Figure 15: Indicative Landscape Masterplan

Figure 16: Indicative Site Plan

Infrastructure Arrangements and Ground Conditions

4.58. This section details service arrangements, drainage and flood risk, access and highways and ground conditions.

Existing Services Arrangements

4.59. Plans have been requested from the relevant incumbent utility companies, to identify existing services in the vicinity of the Site. The results of this search are outlined below.

Electricity – Electricity North West

4.60. 11kV underground cables are located within the south east of the Site, adjacent to the motorway junction. 11kV underground cables are also located adjacent to the Sites southern boundary and to the east of the Site, adjacent to the former landfill.

4.61. An electricity substation is located approximately 60m south west of the Site.

Gas – National Grid Transmission

4.62. A National Gas Transmission pipeline is present within the east of the Site, on a north-south alignment. This pipeline has a total easement of 80ft in width.

4.63. The pipeline is classified by HSE as a “major accident hazard pipeline”, with current consultation zones of 96m for the inner zone, 190m for the middle zone and 335m for the outer zone.

4.64. A medium pressure gas main is located approximately 200m south west of the Site, serving the commercial units in Birchwood Technology Park. Low pressure mains are located approximately 300m south of the Site, serving the existing residential properties. Both the Medium and Low Pressure gas mains are located on the opposite side of the M62 to the proposed development.

Potable Water – United Utilities

4.65. There is no United Utilities potable water apparatus within the Site boundary.

4.66. A 160mm Ductile Iron (DI) potable water main is located approximately 250m south west of the Site, serving the commercial units in Birchwood Technology Park. A water main is also present approximately 300m south of the Site, serving the existing residential properties.

Foul Sewerage – United Utilities

4.67. There are no United Utilities foul or surface water sewers located within the Site boundary.

4.68. Foul and surface water sewers are located approximately 300m south west of the Site, serving the commercial units in Birchwood Technology Park.

Telecoms – BT and Virgin Media

4.69. BT apparatus is located in the south west of the Site, adjacent to Junction 11 of the M62.

4.70. There are no Virgin Media assets located within the Site, or in the vicinity.

Proposed Services Arrangements

4.71. The utility load requirements for the Site have been provided by the client and are understood to be based on similarly sized other motorway service areas operated by the Applicant. These loads are summarised in the table below:

Load Schedule Gas Peak Potable Electricity Peak Foul Building type Hourly Water Peak (kVA) Discharge Rate (l/s) (kWh) (l/s) Motorway Service Area comprising of food outlets, fuel 2,000 2,700 20 20.4 filling station and 100-bed Hotel

N.B.: According to the ‘National Guidance Document on the Provision of Water for Firefighting – 3rd Edition (January 2007)’, developments of this type should have a water supply capable of delivering a minimum of 20 to 35 litres per second through any single hydrant on the development. Further liaison with local statutory portable water suppliers and the local fire authority will be required in order to confirm the specific requirements for this Site.

Electricity – Electricity North West

4.72. Electricity North West Limited have provided an indicative cost for the provision of the new/modified connection, including any diversion/reinforcement works.

4.73. 11kV underground cables are located within the highway of the motorway junction in the South of the Site. Any diversion requirements for this apparatus will be established at the detailed design stage, following highways and access design for the proposed development.

Potable Water – United Utilities

4.74. United Utilities have confirmed the proposed development can connect to the 8inch water main located along Warrington Road approximately 1,800m east of the site boundary.

4.75. No potable water mains are located within the Site boundary, therefore it is not anticipated that there will be any diversion requirements.

Foul Water – United Utilities

4.76. United Utilities has confirmed the foul water flows from the Proposed Development will be allowed to drain freely into the nearest available public foul combined sewerage system located within a public highway, south of the M62.

4.77. Further network analysis by United Utilities will be undertaken at the detailed design stage, when detailed information on discharge calculations is produced.

4.78. No foul sewers are located within the Site boundary, therefore it is not anticipated that there will be any diversion requirements.

Gas – Cadent Gas

4.79. Cadent Gas has confirmed that there is sufficient capacity in the medium pressure (LP) network to the east of the Site boundary. CG has suggested a point of connection from the 180mm medium pressure main located east of the Site in Warrington Road.

4.80. It is recommended to avoid diverting the Cadent High-Pressure gas apparatus that runs through the east of the Site. Further consultation with utilities providers will be required at the detailed design stage to confirm requirements once a masterplan is available.

Telecoms – BT Openreach

4.81. Existing underground BT infrastructure is within the vicinity of the motorway junction / site entrance in the South of the Site. Any diversion requirements for this apparatus will be established at the detailed design stage.

4.82. Further information received from BT Openreach indicates that BT Openreach is “working with government and industry to bring Superfast fibre to as many people as possible but don’t yet have a plan in this area yet”.

5. Stakeholder Engagement Summary

Overview

5.1. This section sets out the statutory and non-statutory consultation undertaken, including consultation with the local community, local stakeholders and pre-application discussions with the local authority. It is important to note that the planning application is accompanied by a Statement of Community Involvement which sets in detail the consultation process and results.

5.2. The National Planning Policy Framework, 2019 (NPPF,19) sets out the Government’s approach to engagement with stakeholders with an increased emphasis on the role of community involvement in the planning process and the importance of quality early engagement with the Local Planning Authority as essential to good planning and improved outcomes for the community.

5.3. Encouragement to engage with the Local Planning Authority and local community before a planning application is submitted is provided at Paragraph 40 of the Framework. Paragraph 41 advises that the more issues that can be resolved at the pre-application stage, the greater the benefit. Therefore for the process to be effective and positive, statutory consultees are advised by the Framework to take an early, pro-active approach and provide advice in a timely manner.

5.4. The Framework states at Paragraph 40 that:

[Local Planning Authorities] should also, where they think this would be beneficial, encourage any applicants who are not already required to do so by law to engage with the local community and, where relevant, with statutory and non-statutory consultees, before submitting their applications

5.5. The NPPF, 19 goes on to explain in paragraph 128 that “applicants should work closely with those affected by their proposals to evolve designs that take account of the views of the community. Applications that can demonstrate early, proactive and effective engagement with the community should be looked on more favourably than those that cannot”.

Warrington District Council Statement of Community Involvement

5.6. The Statement of Community Involvement (SCI), 2014 (amended in 2016) explains how the community and organisations can take part in the planning process. It sets out how the Council will engage with people and organisations involved in the preparation and review of the Local Development Framework documents when preparing the Local Plan and in considering planning applications for the area.

5.7. The public consultation with the surrounding communities and the pre-application engagement with the Council has been cognisant of the recommendations within the SCI.

Engagement Objectives

5.8. The following engagement objectives were identified by Spawforths:

To undertake early engagement with the Local Planning Authority

To provide an opportunity for the Local Planning Authority to feedback on emerging proposals for the site to address any matters prior to submission

To provide an opportunity for members of the local community to feedback on emerging proposals for the site

Engagement with the Local Planning Authority and Statutory Bodies

5.9. A programme of consultation and engagement with Warrington Borough Council and key statutory bodies has been undertaken. The consultant team has continued to liaise with the key consultees during the evolution of the scheme and through the process of environmental assessment and where relevant, have continued to discuss and agree the scope of the planning application and the make-up of the proposals. In particular, this has included ongoing discussions with Natural England, the Environment Agency and GMEU. Reference to all these discussions is included within Section 3 of each of the Technical Papers contained within Part 2 of this ES.

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Scoping Opinion request

5.10. The Proposed Development does not fall within Schedule 1 of The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (hereafter referred to as “the EIA Regulations”) where an Environmental Statement (ES) is mandatory. However, the Proposed Development does fall within part 10(p) of Schedule 2 of the EIA as a “Motorway Service Area” in excess of 0.5 hectares. An Environmental Impact Assessment is not needed for every Schedule 2 project. The EIA Regulations and the PPG (Planning Practice Guidance) are clear that an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is required for Schedule 2 projects only if they are likely to give rise to “significant effects on the environment.”

5.11. Due to the scale, nature and surroundings, it was considered that there was a need to fully assess the environmental impacts of the development. It was therefore considered that the Proposed Development falls within Schedule 2 of the Regulations and accordingly, an ES should be produced following the Scoping Request. A formal scoping opinion was requested on 20 December 2019. An ES has been subsequently prepared in line with the scoping opinions received from the LPA and the statutory consultees and been submitted in conjunction with the planning application.

Pre-application Discussions

5.12. A number of pre-application meetings have been held with Warrington Borough Council over the course of the previous 12 months. A total of four pre-application meetings were held with the Council, which are summarised in the table below:

Date Venue Attendees Purpose of Meeting

20th March Warrington Martha Hughes (WBC Planning The purpose of the meeting was to agree the scope of 2019 Borough Officers) the planning application and to aid the evolution of the Council Paul Bedwell (Planning Consultant) scheme. Mike Ralph (Planning Advisor)

1st May Warrington Alison Gough (WBC Planning The purpose of the meeting was to address the issues of 2019 Borough Officer) the Alternative Sites Assessment, Green Belt ‘very special Council Mike Taylor (Highways Officer) circumstances and update from earlier pre-application Mark Dawe (Employment, Skills and meeting. Training)

Date Venue Attendees Purpose of Meeting

James Howe (Transport The planning officer confirmed there understanding of Consultant) the approach adopted, but requested further information Stephen Courcier (Planning in terms of the need case. Consultant)

6th June Warrington Alison Gough (WBC Planning The purpose of the meeting was to discuss: Officer) 2019 Borough

Council Mike Taylor (Highways Officer) Linkages to existing public transport initiatives

Alyn Jones (Specialist Transport Services Manager) The Council confirmed that they would be happy with

the proposed modal split and proposed transport David Rolinson (Planning Consultant) initiatives i.e. the provision of a shuttle bus and taxi

service for employees. Stephen Courcier (Planning Consultant)

Need / Counsel Opinion Mike Ralph (Project Planning Advisor)

The Council confirmed that they are satisfied that the Mark Dawe (Employment, Skills and Training) Counsel opinion establishes the need case.

Steven Eggleston (Transport Consultant) Need and Alternatives Sites Assessment

Greg Jones (Transport Consultant) The Council confirmed that they were happy with the methodology used for demonstrating that there are no sequentially preferable sites for the MSA.

Very special circumstances

The Council confirmed that they were happy with the approach towards demonstrating very special circumstances

Employment, skills and training

The Council confirmed that they would welcome the socio-economic benefits associated with the proposed development.

20th August Warrington Martha Hughes (WBC Planning To discuss: 2019 Borough Officer) Council

Date Venue Attendees Purpose of Meeting

David Rolinson (Planning The Need for the MSA and approach to dealing with the Consultant) relevant policies within the Development Plan.

Stephen Courcier (Planning The validation requirements of the planning application Consultant) and Planning Performance Agreement.

Dennis Enuson (Extra MSA Group)

Mark Dawe (Employment, Skills and Training)

Table 7 – Pre-application Discussions

Community Engagement

5.13. Extra has sought to engage with the local communities that are closest to the Proposed Development as well as a range of key stakeholders. The following table outlines the consultation programme that was undertaken:

Activity Date

Letters sent to Cllr Russ Bowden (Deputy Leader, WBC) and Cllr w/c 22nd October 2018 Terry O’Neill (Leader, WBC) requesting a meeting

Letters sent to local WBC Ward Members (Culcheth, Glazebury & w/c 29th October 2018 Croft Ward & Birchwood Ward) requesting meetings

Meeting with Cllr Matt Smith (Culcheth, Glazebury & Croft Ward) at 13th December 2018 Warrington Council

Letters sent to Helen Jones MP, Warrington Chamber of Commerce, January 2019 Cheshire & Warrington LEP; and local parish & town councils (Birchwood Town Council, Croft Parish Council, Culcheth & Glazebury Parish Council; and Rixton with Glazebrook Parish Council) requesting meetings

Meeting with Colin Daniels, Chief Executive, Warrington Chamber of 18th February 2019 Commerce

Activity Date

Meeting with Helen Jones, MP for Warrington North 1st March 2019

Meeting with Croft Parish Council 19th March 2019

Project website (WarringtonServices.co.uk) launched and consultation 20th March 2019 period open for feedback

Consultation brochure distributed to c11,000 residential & 23rd – 26th March commercial properties in site proximity via Royal Mail & door to door distributor

Public consultation event at Croft Village Memorial Hall held from 4th April 2019 5pm to 9pm

Public consultation event at Gorse Covert Primary School held from 6th April 2019 11am-3pm

Supplementary consultation leaflet distributed to Gorse 6th - 7th April 2019 Covert/Birchwood area (c5k properties) to publicise additional public consultation event

Public Consultation event at Pentahotel in Warrington, held from 12th April 2019 1pm to 5pm

Meeting with Cllr Russ Bowden (Leader of the Council, WBC), Cllr 15th April 2019 Cathy Mitchell (Deputy Leader, WBC), Prof Steven Broomhead (Chief Exec, WBC), Steve Park (Director of Growth, WBC) and David Boyer (Director of Transport, WBC) at Warrington Council

Meeting with Phillip Cox (Chief Executive of Cheshire and 16th April 2019 Warrington LEP)

Meeting with Cllr David Ellis, Birchwood Town Council and Susan 16th April 2019 Spibey, Birchwood Forum.

Table 8 – Schedule of Stakeholder Engagement

5.14. Over the course of the public consultation period, a total of 374 feedback forms were received via postal forms, the online portal, and the three public consultation events. The feedback forms asked a series of questions which highlighted a broad range of views on the proposed MSA. In total, 35% of respondents said that they supported the proposals, 55% stated that they did not support the MSA, whilst the remaining 10% expressed a neutral view.

5.15. A number of common issues were raised across all the consultation events and feedback forms, which are summarised below:

Proximity to Burtonwood and Lymm Services / Need for the Development

5.16. One of the most common issues raised was need for the development especially given the proximity of the Site to Burtonwood. Many residents argued that the current stretch of the motorway is well served by Burtonwood and Lymm services, and therefore the current proposals for another MSA were deemed unnecessary. Residents also raised the issue of the gap analysis, stating that the routes given as examples are unlikely to be taken as they are not the shortest or most convenient route. And, if other routes were taken, then they would be served by existing MSA’s. However, there were also a number of positive responses which supported the need for a new MSA in this area and citing the poor-quality of some of the existing MSA provision as a further reason to build.

The Principle of Development in the Green Belt

5.17. A number of responses objected to the principle of development in the Green Belt and were worried that the proposed development would lead to its further erosion.

The Impact on the Landscape

5.18. The impact of the proposed development on the local landscape was also raised with a number of feedback forms referencing Pestfurlong Hill and the effect that the new proposed development will have on the landscape views from the top of the hill.

The Proposed Access Arrangements

5.19. The issue of traffic and access arrangements was raised repeatedly across all feedback platforms. Residents raised that traffic in the local area is already congested and regularly at a standstill during peak times and that a new MSA would only exacerbate this problem, both during the construction phase with HGV’s and once in operation. Residents of Gorse Covert especially raised their concerns of traffic, as residents fear that HGV’s will use roads within the village as short cuts, therefore increasing traffic in their area. Specific concerns were also raised regarding traffic on the roundabout on the island at Junction 11. It has been stated by some residents that Extra’s proposals to signal the roundabout for MSA users will not ease the problem. Whereas others welcomed the signalisation given that pedestrians and

dogwalkers currently have difficulty crossing the junction and would be of benefit to encourage sustainable travel to the site by staff.

Noise, Light & Air Quality

5.20. A number of responses raised concerns regarding an increase in noise, light and air quality pollution as a result of the proposed development. Some responses raised just one of these, others mentioned various combinations of all three. Concerns particularly focused around the impact of noise and air quality resulting from the increase in HGV traffic on the local area - residents from Gorse Covert argued that the proposed MSA is far too close to a large residential area.

5.21. In terms of light pollution, comments focused on the potential impacts on wildlife as well as the local population given that the MSA will be operational 24 hours a day.

Footpath and Cycle Links

5.22. A number of responses noted that this application provided an opportunity to improve the local footpath network and cycle links. It was generally noted that this would allow for local access to the MSA, which is especially important for local employees who may not have cars. It was also noted by some respondents that the land is used by dog walkers and others for recreational purposes and that improvements to the footpaths would be a positive benefit as a result of the scheme.

Employment Opportunities

5.23. A number of respondents remarked that the employment opportunities associated with the proposed development would be a benefit for the local area - one resident commented ‘any form of investment’ cannot be ignored. Whilst the majority of comments suggested that there is a local need for lower-paid, more flexible, part-time jobs, some disagreed with this need. There was a general consensus that any employment opportunities should be targeted at local people and that local businesses should be given the opportunity to bid for the construction work.

Community Benefits

5.24. A number of respondents supported the delivery of facilities that would be available for local residents to use, as well as the travelling public. A number of specific requests have also been received in regard to the usage of the facility. For example, a number of feedback forms have stated that they would like the proposed food outlets on site to be considered to be made Halal.

6. Statutory Policy Context and Other Relevant Policies

6.1. This section identifies the planning policies and other relevant policies which are relevant to this proposal.

National Transport Policy

Department for Transport Circular 02/2013: The Strategic Road Network and the Delivery of Sustainable Development, September 2013

6.2. National Transport Policy relating to the Strategic Road Network is contained within Department for Transport (DfT) Circular 02/2013 ‘The Strategic Road Network and the Delivery of Sustainable Development’. The document was published on 10th September 2013 and replaces the previous DfT circulars on the issue (02/2007 and 01/2008).

6.3. Paragraph 8 of this document confirms that a well-functioning strategic road network enables growth by providing for safe and reliable journeys. Paragraph 7 also outlines that the Strategic Road Network plays a key role in enabling and sustaining economic prosperity and productivity, while also helping to support environmental and social aims and contributing to wider sustainability objectives and improved accessibility to key economic and social services.

6.4. Annex B of the Circular specifically relates to roadside facilities for road users on Motorways in England and sets out policy on the provision, standards and signage of roadside facilities on the Strategic Road Network. The Circular confirms that all such proposals will be considered in the context of the National Planning Policy Framework and, in particular, the statement that it includes regarding the primary function of roadside facilities being to support the safety and welfare of the road user.

6.5. In relation to spacing, paragraph B4 outlines that MSAs perform an important road safety function by providing opportunities for the travelling public to stop and take a break in the course of their journey. Paragraph B4 also confirms that motorists should stop and take a break of at least 15 minutes every two hours. Commercial and public service drivers are also

required to take statutory breaks and are subject to working time limits and these MSA facilities assist in compliance with such requirements.

6.6. Paragraphs B5 and B6 set out that MSAs should be located at a maximum of 30 minutes travelling time. This can typically be a maximum distance of 28 miles, but on similarly busy and congested sections of the Strategic Road Network, is an average of 15 to 20 miles. This distance can also be shorter, subject to compliance with the design requirements of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges.

6.7. Paragraph B8 confirms that in determining applications for new MSAs, Local Planning Authorities should not need to consider the merits of spacing of sites beyond conformity with the maximum and minimum spacing criteria established for safety reasons. Nor should they seek to prevent competition between operators; rather they should determine applications on their own specific merits.

6.8. In terms of location, Paragraph B13 sets out that locations between junctions (On-line) should be considered first, followed by sites sharing a common boundary with the highway at a junction with the Strategic Road Network.

6.9. The Circular also contains detailed guidance on signing, parking charges, picnic areas, parking provision, access to the Strategic Road Network, retail activities, hotels, conference centres and business centres, coach interchanges, park and ride and park and share, facilities for low emission vehicles, driver and tourist information and on site power generation and other sustainability measures. Schedule 1 sets out parking requirements.

6.10. Circular 02/2013 is discussed in further detail within the supporting Transport Assessment and Alternative Sites Assessment.

National Policy Statement for the National Networks, December 2014

6.11. Paragraph 1.4 of the National Planning Statement (NPS) confirms that “this NPS may also be a material consideration in decision making on applications that fall under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or any successor legislation. Whether, and to what extent, this NPS is a material consideration, will be judged on a case by case basis.”

6.12. The NPS sets out the Government’s decision making framework for delivering nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs) on the national road, rail and strategic rail freight networks in England. The NPS establishes the need for the development of our national networks at a strategic level to support economic growth and regeneration, and to improve the user experience. It also provides the policy framework by which proposals will be decided. It includes policies on safety, environmental protections and design quality, amongst other things. The NPS sets out a strong and compelling case for development of the national strategic road network to sustain and drive economic growth, improve quality of life and crucially safety, and deliver better environmental performance

6.13. The NPS makes no specific mention of MSAs, which is expected given that they are not generally considered to be national significant infrastructure projects (Footnote 42 of the NPPF (19)). However it does illustrate the importance of the strategic road network to the economy and the need to improve safety and the efficiency of the network.

Planning Policy Context

6.14. Section 38 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, states that applications should be determined with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

6.15. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF (19)) is a material consideration in the determination of applications and this establishes at paragraph 213, that weight should be given to relevant policies in existing Development Plans according to their degree of consistency with The Framework (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in NPPF (19), the greater the weight that may be given).

Statutory Development Plan

6.16. The statutory Development Plan for the consideration of this application comprises:

• Adopted Local Plan Core Strategy (July 2014) (CS)

6.17. The High Court Challenge to the adoption of parts of the Warrington Local Plan Core Strategy was heard on 3 and 4 February 2015 with judgement given on 19 February by Mr Justice Stewart. The Judge ruled in favour of the Council on six of the nine issues that the claimant challenged on. The outcome resulted in the removal of elements of the housing policies from the Local Plan

6.18. The parts of the Plan which have been overturned are:

• The housing target of 10,500 new homes (equating to 500 per year) between 2006 and 2027; and • References to 1,100 new homes at the Omega Strategic Proposal.

6.19. Not all of the Local Plan Core Strategy has been overturned. All other policies within the plan remain unaltered.

Site Specific Allocation

6.20. The adopted Core Strategy (2014) Proposals Map currently identifies the Site as Green Belt land.

Figure 17 – Extract from the Warrington Local Plan: Core Strategy Proposals Map

6.21. The adopted Proposals Map identifies that the Site is located within the Green Belt, which is illustrated by the green wash. It also identifies that there is a public right of way (PROW) running along the western edge of the site, which is shown by the dark green dashed line. Further to the south of the site and on the opposite side of the M62 is Gorse Green Mounds Local Wildlife Site, which is identified by the light green hatching.

The Warrington Local Plan Core Strategy

6.22. The Warrington Local Plan Core Strategy was adopted in July 2014 and provides the spatial context from which more detailed policies and site allocations should follow. Nevertheless, it should be noted that in October 2016 Warrington Council agreed to carry out a comprehensive review of the Local Plan Core Strategy in response to results of the High Court Challenge and the emerging evidence which set out the Borough’s growth ambitions as well as its housing and employment needs to reflect these aspirations. The revised evidence base and the commitment of the Council to review their Core Strategy are material

considerations in the context of this application, but the Core Strategy remains the statutory development plan in the context of Section 38 of the Act until such time as it is replaced.

6.23. The Core Strategy sets out the problems, issues and challenges facing Warrington in particular the high levels of deprivation in some parts of the borough. The Core Strategy highlights that the 2010 Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) identifies that there are 11 Warrington Super Output Areas (SOAs) which fall into the 10% most deprived nationally - a figure which has not changed from 2007.

6.24. The Core Strategy also recognises that Warrington has a strong and resilient economy and it is a highly performing location on a national basis. The Vision states:

“The town continues to be a key economic driver for the surrounding area and its pivotal location within the 'Atlantic Gateway' is an advantage to residents and businesses and gives them unrivalled access to both the Manchester and Liverpool conurbations and national transport infrastructure…

Those who live and work within the borough enjoy access to an extensive network of Green Infrastructure, which is effective in fulfilling a wide range of functions at the heart of which is supporting a diverse range of flora and fauna and protecting against the impacts of climate change…

The borough is home to a highly skilled workforce that serves the local economy well and the town continues to be a focus for employment for a wide area - reinforced by the development of significant sites in and immediately surrounding the borough.”

6.25. The Core Strategy’s Key Diagram identifies that the Site is located on the edge of the urban area and within close proximity to an ‘Existing Employment Location’ (Birchwood) (illustrated by the light purple).

Figure 18 – Extract from the Warrington Local Plan: Core Strategy Key Diagram

6.26. In line with the Strategic Vision, the strategic objectives include supporting growth in the local and sub-regional economy, maintaining the permanence of the Green Belt, securing high quality design and minimizing the impact on the environment.

6.27. Policy CS1: Overall Spatial Strategy – Delivering Sustainable Development sets out that development proposals that are sustainable will be welcomed and approved without delay. It goes on to say that in order to be sustainable, a development must accord with national and local planning policy, taking into account other material considerations, and must have regard to a number of principles. These principles include providing for recognised and identified development needs, the protection of the Green Belt and the character of the countryside, the need to sustain and enhance the borough’s built heritage, biodiversity and geodiversity, the need to safeguard environmental standards, public safety, residential amenity, the delivery of high standards of design and construction, and the need to improve equality of access and opportunity.

6.28. Policy CS2: Overall Spatial Strategy - Quantity and Distribution of Development set outs the principles behind the distribution of development within the borough. The policy is principally concerned with the distribution of housing and employment uses (principally Use Classes B1, B2 & B8). However the policy raises a number of principles that are applicable to the current proposal. This includes the acknowledgment that development within the Green Belt will only be allowed where it is considered to be appropriate in accordance with national policy. The policy goes on to stress that the re-use of previously developed land within defined settlements will be prioritised and the defined centres, primarily Warrington Town Centre, will maintain their role and status by being the focus for further office, retail and leisure development investment, and by strictly controlling inappropriate out of centre retail developments. Nevertheless, it seeks to focus major warehousing and distribution developments away from areas sensitive to heavy vehicle movements, with direct access to the Primary Road Network.

6.29. Policy CS 4: Overall Spatial Strategy – Transport importantly recognises Warrington’s role as a regional transport gateway/interchange. It goes on to state that the Council will support improvements to Warrington’s Transport Network that look to integrate with transport networks both within and outside Warrington to enhance the sustainability of cross boundary travel; strengthen public and sustainable transport links between recognised areas for business, general industrial and storage/distribution uses; reduce the impact of traffic on air quality and reduce carbon emissions to help tackle climate change. It goes on to state that early consultation with the Highways Agency will be necessary for any proposal that may affect the Strategic Road Network and efforts should be concentrated on tackling the most congested parts of the Strategic Road Network, notably the M6, M56, and M62.

6.30. Policy CS 5: Overall Spatial Strategy – Green Belt seeks to maintain the general extent of the Green Belt to at least 2032, in recognition of four of its purposes. Nevertheless, it goes on to state that development proposals within the Green Belt will be approved where they accord with relevant national policy.

6.31. Policy CS 6: Overall Spatial Strategy – Strategic Green Links seeks to maximise the environmental and socio-economic benefits from those Strategic Green Links which connect the borough to the wider sub-region. It goes on to state that the Council is committed to supporting wider initiatives which seek to connect the Borough’s Strategic Green Links with employment areas, residential communities, and Green Infrastructure Assets.

6.32. The Core Strategy also contains various general policies that relate to a range of planning issues, these include:

Policy Summary

Policy PV 1 Development in Existing The policy states that sustainable development within other areas (outside of Employment Areas existing employment areas) will be supported.

Policy PV 3 Strengthening the The policy states that Council will support developments which assist in Borough's Workforce strengthening the boroughs workforce and enhancing training opportunities for its residents by maximising the social benefits from proposals which contribute to the Council's "Closing the Gap" agenda by securing local employment opportunities associated with the construction and subsequent operation of new development (amongst other things).

Policy PV 4 Retail Development The policy confirms that the focus of new retail development in the borough is the within the Town Centre and Primary Primary Shopping Area within Warrington Town Centre as defined on the Policies Shopping Area Map. For retail development outside of the centre, it is necessary to demonstrate that no suitable sites are available in more sequentially preferable locations to that proposed and there would be no adverse impacts on the Primary Shopping Area and wider Town Centre.

Policy PV 5 Enhancing the Town The policy states that proposals for all main town centre uses which are proposed Centre Economy outside the Town Centre will need to provide justification in the form of sequential and impact tests.

Policy SN 4 Hierarchy of Centres The policy states that the provision for retailing within the borough will be based on the need to safeguard and enhance the vitality and viability of the hierarchy of centres.

Policy SN 5 New Retail and Leisure The policy requires that where retail or leisure uses are proposed outside of a Development Within Defined defined centre, it is necessary to demonstrate that there are no suitable sites Centres available within the centre or in edge of centre locations through applying a sequential approach. Where there are no suitable, available or viable sites within a defined centre, the proposal must demonstrate that there are no significant adverse impacts on that centre(s).

Policy Summary

Policy SN 7 Enhancing Health and The policy requires that all proposals in North Warrington address health and Well-being wellbeing inequalities through a number of different initiatives such as employment and training, maximizing opportunities for exercise and active lifestyles and deterring crime and increasing resilience to climate change.

Policy QE 1 Decentralised Energy The policy seeks to encourage proposals that maximise opportunities for the use Networks and Low Carbon of decentralised renewable and low carbon energy. Development

Policy QE 3 Green Infrastructure The policy seeks to develop and adopt an integrated approach to the provision, care and management of the borough's Green Infrastructure. This will involve protecting and enhancing the functionality and quality of existing provision and securing new provision where possible.

Policy QE 4 Flood Risk The policy states that the Council will only support development proposals where the risk of flooding has been fully assessed and justified by an agreed Flood Risk Assessment. The policy goes on to state a preference for the use of Sustainable Drainage Systems.

Policy QE 5 Biodiversity and The policy seeks to protect and where possible enhance sites of recognised nature Geodiversity and geological value. It goes on to say that development proposals affecting protected sites, wildlife corridors, key habitats or priority species (as identified in Local Biodiversity Action Plans) should be accompanied by information proportionate to their nature conservation value.

Policy QE 6 Environment and The policy states that the Council will only support development which would not Amenity Protection lead to an adverse impact on the environment or amenity of future occupiers or those currently occupying adjoining or nearby properties, or does not have an unacceptable impact on the surrounding area. It goes on to state the consideration will be given to a number of matters including quality of water bodies, groundwater resources, land quality, air quality, noise and vibration levels, light pollution, amongst other matters.

Policy Summary

Policy QE 7 Ensuring a High Quality The policy states that the Council will look positively upon proposals that are Place designed to be sustainable, durable, and adaptable and energy efficient; create inclusive, accessible and safe environments; and are visually attractive as a result of good architecture and the inclusion of appropriate public space, amongst other things.

Policy QE 8 Historic Environment The policy seeks to protect the fabric and setting of heritage assets.

Policy MP 1 General Transport The policy states that the Council will support proposals where they mitigate the Principles impact of development or improve the performance of Warrington's Transport Network, including the Strategic Road Network, by delivering site specific infrastructure which will support the proposed level of development.

Policy MP 3 Active Travel The policy requires high priority to be given to the needs and safety of pedestrians and cyclists in new development. It goes on to state that new development should contribute to enhancing and developing integrated networks of continuous, attractive and safe routes for walking and cycling including improvements to roads, Rights of Way and the Greenway Network.

Policy MP 4 Public Transport The policy states that Council will aim to secure improvements to public transport infrastructure and services (including bus, rail and taxi / private hire) in partnership with operators and delivery partners.

Policy MP 5 Freight Transport The policy states that proposals for freight related development will be supported where they achieve a reduction in road traffic kilometres through their location and/or where they reduce the impact of freight traffic on local or inappropriate route. It goes on to state that proposals should demonstrate that they would not have an adverse impact in terms of heavy goods vehicles using local or residential roads or congested central areas as well as unacceptable problems of noise, vibration, lighting, emissions, or other pollution for neighbouring occupiers.

Policy MP 7 Transport Assessments The policy requires that all developments demonstrate they will not harm highway and Travel Plans safety and identify any significant effects on the transport network. It goes onto state that proposals which would prejudice the primary function of the Strategic Road Network will not be allowed unless improvements are designed and carried out. Finally it says that all major developments need to be accompanied by a Transport Assessment and Travel Plan.

Policy Summary

Policy CC 2 Protecting the The policy states that development proposals in the countryside which accord with Countryside Green Belt policies set out in national planning policy subject to a number of considerations.

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF 19), February 2019

6.33. The new National Planning Policy Framework was adopted in February 2019, superseding the previous version published in July 2018. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF 19) is a key material consideration as the statement of national policy and should therefore be taken into account and given appropriate weight when assessing this application.

6.34. Adopted as an expression of national planning policy, The Framework sets out the presumption in favour of sustainable development and the Government’s key objective to help build a strong, responsive and competitive economy.

6.35. For decision-taking the presumption in favour means: approving development proposals that accord with an up-to-date development plan without delay; or where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, granting permission unless; i.. the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed; or ii. any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.

6.36. In summary, the key elements of NPPF (19) relevant to the proposals are:

Section 2: Achieving sustainable development Section 4: Decision-making Section 6: Building a strong, competitive economy Section 9: Promoting sustainable transport

Section 13: Protecting Green Belt land.

6.37. Section 2: Achieving Sustainable Development sets out the three dimensions of sustainable development: economic, social, and environmental:

“an economic objective – to help build a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right types is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth, innovation and improved productivity; and by identifying and coordinating the provision of infrastructure;

an social objective – to support strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by ensuring that a sufficient number and range of homes can be provided to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by fostering a well-designed and safe built environment, with accessible services and open spaces that reflect current and future needs and support communities’ health, social and cultural well-being;

an environmental objective – to contribute to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; including making effective use of land, helping to improve biodiversity, using natural resources prudently, minimising waste and pollution, and mitigating and adapting to climate change, including moving to a low carbon economy.”

6.41. Paragraph 8 explains that the planning system should play an active role in guiding development to sustainable solutions and in doing so should take local circumstances into account, to reflect the character, needs, and opportunities of each area. Paragraph 10 states that “at the heart of the Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development”, while Paragraph 11 sets out what this means in relation to decision taking:

Approving development proposals that accord with an up-to-date development plan without delay; and

Where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, granting permission unless:

the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed; or

any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole

6.46. Footnote 6 sets out specific policies which indicate where development should be restricted, including Green Belt and therefore prevents the operation of the titled balance.

6.47. Section 4: Decision states in paragraph 38 that “Local planning authorities should approach decisions on proposed development in a positive and creative way”, and that “decision makers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible”. This includes working proactively with Applicants to “secure developments that improve the economic, social, and environmental conditions of the area”.

6.48. In determining applications, paragraph 47 requires that “applications for planning permission be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise”. Paragraph 11 confirms that in assessing and determining development proposals, “Plans and decisions should apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development”.

6.49. Section 6: Building a Strong, Competitive Economy stresses that planning decisions should help create the conditions in which businesses can invest, expand and adapt. It also places significant weight at Paragraph 80 on the need to support economic growth and productivity. Paragraph 80 states that “this is particularly the case in areas with high levels of productivity, which should be able to capitalise on their performance and potential”.

6.50. Paragraph 82 also notes that planning decisions should “recognise and address the specific locational requirements of different sectors”.

6.51. Section 9: Promoting Sustainable Transport requires in Paragraph 102 that “transport issues should be considered from the earliest stages of development proposals”, including the environmental impacts of traffic and transport infrastructure, and opportunities to promote walking, cycling and public transport use.

6.52. Paragraph 104 (e) requires planning policies to “provide for any large scale transport facilities that need to be located in the area, and the infrastructure and wider development required to support their operation, expansion, and contribution to the wider economy. In doing so they should take into account whether such development is likely to be a nationally significant infrastructure project and any relevant national policy statements”. Specifically, Paragraph 107 requires that planning decisions “should recognise the importance of providing adequate overnight lorry parking facilities, taking into account any local shortages, to reduce the risk of parking in locations that lack proper facilities or could cause a nuisance”.

6.53. Footnote 108 confirms that the primary function of roadside facilities for motorists should be to support the safety and welfare of the road user and “most such proposals are unlikely to be nationally significant infrastructure projects”.

6.54. In relation to development in general, safe and suitable access should be achieved and opportunities for sustainable modes of transport should be explored. Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe.

6.55. Section 13: Protecting Green Belt Land notes that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is “to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence”.

6.56. Paragraph 134 outlines the five purposes which the Green Belt serves. These are:

• to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; • to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; • to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; • to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and • to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

6.57. Paragraph 143 states that by definition, inappropriate development is harmful to the Green Belt and should “not be approved except in very special circumstances”. Paragraph 144 advises that local planning authorities should give substantial weight to any harm to the Green Belt. It notes that “’very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations”.

6.58. Section 15: Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment seeks to protect and enhance “valued landscapes”; minimise impacts upon biodiversity; prevent new development from contributing to unacceptable levels of pollution; and remediate despoiled, degraded, derelict and contaminated land.

6.59. Paragraph 174 seeks to promote the conservation, restoration, and re-creation of priority habitats and, and identify and pursue measurable net gains for biodiversity. Paragraphs 175- 182 set out the principles that should be applied when determining planning applications, including biodiversity, noise, and land stability.

6.60. Section 16 Conserving and enhancing the historic environment sets out the position with regard to heritage assets. Paragraph 189 outlines that the applicant should sufficiently describe the significance of any heritage asset affected, including any contribution made by their setting as part of a planning application. It notes that the heritage assets should be assessed using heritage expertise where necessary. Paragraphs 190 and 192 relate to the approach local planning authorities should take when identifying and assessing the significance of heritage assets and the contribution of new development to the local character and distinctiveness of the heritage asset. Paragraph 193 attaches great weight to the asset’s conservation when considering the impact of development on the significance of the designated heritage asset. It notes the “more important the asset, the greater the weight should be”. Paragraph 194 indicates that any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of Grade II listed Buildings should be exceptional and to assets of highest significance such as Grade I and II* Listed Buildings, wholly exceptional. Paragraph 195 outlines the approach to take where harm is considered to be substantial. Paragraph 196 states, “Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use.” Finally Paragraph 197 of the NPPF (19) states that “effect

of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that directly or indirectly affect non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.”

6.61. Annex 1: Implementation sets out weight should be attached to Local Authorities’ Local Plans since the publication of the new NPPF (19). Paragraph 213 of the Framework states that “Existing policies should not be considered out-of-date simply because they were adopted or made prior to the publication of this Framework. Due weight should be given to them, according to their degree of consistency with this Framework (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given).”

6.62. Other elements of the NPPF (19) relevant to the proposals are:

Section 7: Ensuring the vitality of town centres

Section 8: Promoting healthy and safe communities

Section 11: Making effective use of land

Section 12: Achieving well-designed places

Section 14: Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change

6.68. The NPPF (19) is a key material consideration as the statement of national policy and should be taken into account and given appropriate weight when assessing this application.

National Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)

6.69. The National Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) provides guidance to support the policies within NPPF (19), and in that sense does not provide additional policy but rather more detailed consideration of how policies within The Framework should be approached and met. The guidance covers all relevant planning policy areas under separate topics and will be updated online as and when required.

Other Relevant Policies

Written Ministerial Statement – Road Haulage Update, May 2018

6.70. The Transport Minister Jesse Norman in the Ministerial Statement states that the government is focused on “improving the situation for business-as-usual lorry parking”. In the Statement he confirmed that he has “written with Planning Minister Dominic Raab to local planning authorities to draw their attention to the survey results, which show a strategic national need for more lorry parking and highlight shortages in specific areas”.

Emerging Local Policy – Preferred Development Option Consultation. September 2017

6.71. Warrington Council consulted on their Local Plan Preferred Development Option Regulation 18 documents in September 2017.

6.72. This preferred development option sets out the Borough’s growth ambitions as well as the housing and employment needs to reflect this aspiration. To achieve the growth ambitions and meet the need over the 20 year plan, the Council recognises that land will need to be released from the Green Belt to deliver at least 9,000 homes and 252 ha of new employment space. This is underpinned by a range of evidence which provides a robust case for housing need and economic growth to be aligned. The Council believes planning for this level of growth provides a unique opportunity for Warrington to make the transition from a New Town into a New City.

6.73. The Preferred Development Options Document confirms that Warrington has significant ambitions for economic growth, as reflected in the Warrington Means Business regeneration programme, updated in December 2016 and in the scale of development proposed as part of the Cheshire and Warrington Devolution bid. The devolution bid figure has now been embedded in the Cheshire and Warrington Local Enterprise Partnership’s (LEP) Strategic Economic Plan (SEP). The LEP has undertaken further work in preparing the SEP, working closely with the Council, to analyse the job growth figures across Cheshire and Warrington as a whole and specifically in respect of Warrington. The LEP and the Council are confident the level of growth proposed is achievable with the interventions set out in the SEP and the scale of public and private sector investment the LEP is seeking to secure. The Council is therefore making the positive decision to plan for this level of growth.

Proposed Submission Version Local Plan, April 2019

6.74. The Council consulted on their next stage of their Local Plan, the Proposed Submission Version Local Plan from April 2019, for a period of 8 weeks. The Council are now reviewing all of the representations made during the consultation prior to submitting the Plan for ‘Examination in Public’ to be carried out by an independent Inspector.

6.75. The Council anticipate the earliest date for the Examination in Public will be mid / late 2020. Following the Examination in Public, the Inspector will issue a report setting out their recommendations, including any required modifications to the Plan. The Council must carry out a final consultation on any Main Modifications before formally adopting the Plan. It is anticipated the Local Plan will be adopted during 2020 /21.

6.76. The Local Plan and its supporting evidence base confirms the following:

• The Council has updated its evidence base relating to housing, employment and retail needs to ensure the Plan is based on up to date evidence, meets the requirements of the NPPF (2019) and associated Planning Policy Guidance; • The Council’s updated Economic Development Needs Assessment (2019) has reconfirmed the scale of employment land that the Council needs to plan for. The Plan makes provision to meet the full requirement of 362ha of employment land between 2017 and 2037. This means there is a requirement for provision of around 213ha of employment land through Green Belt release; • The Proposed Submission Version Local Plan proposes a minimum housing requirement of 945 homes per annum, which equates to 18,900 new homes. Around 7,000 of these homes through release of Green Belt land. • Draft Policy INF1 sets out the Council’s objective of improving the safety and efficiency of the transport network including the Strategic Road Network, by delivering site specific infrastructure which will support the proposed level of development.

6.77. The adopted Core Strategy remains the statutory development plan until such time as the new Local Plan is adopted, however it is clear from the emerging Local Plan evidence base that the urban area is no longer able to accommodate Warrington’s full housing and employment needs.

6.78. The following sections of this report will deal with the material weight to be attached to the emerging Local Plan and its evidence base.

Other Policy Information

Atlantic Gateway – Strategic Plan, January 2018

6.79. The Atlantic Gateway (AG) is seeking to create a growth corridor within the North of England, which would cover the areas of Cheshire and Warrington, Greater Manchester and the Liverpool City Region. It broadly follows the Manchester Ship Canal and the M62/M56 Corridor which serve to connect the three LEP areas within the Atlantic Gateway. As such, Warrington is clearly both geographically and strategically at the heart of the initiative.

6.80. The AG is focused on infrastructure and the two high growth sectors of science and innovation and logistics. The aim is to accelerate growth by investment in infrastructure, especially transport. Fundamentally, Atlantic Gateway can be defined as a series of projects across the North West area that have regional, national and international significance

6.81. The AG identifies that the transport network in Cheshire and Warrington is strategically important to the growth of the North and the Atlantic Gateway.

6.82. One of the key areas that the Atlantic Gateway is focused on is the logistics sector, which it identifies as being world-class and a major driver of success for many of the area’s key sectors. It acknowledges that an increasing number of businesses are choosing to locate in the Atlantic Gateway area due to its global and local connectivity, its skilled workforce and access to consumer markets. It identifies that Liverpool2 is a game-changer for the North’s logistics sector and the surrounding rail and road links will provide UK-wide access.

6.83. It is considered that the proposed MSA would complement these proposals, especially in light of the potential increase in use of M62 for the transportation of freight associated with the Liverpool2 and Superport proposals.

Cheshire and Warrington Local Enterprise Partnership Strategic Economic Plan, July 2017

6.84. The Cheshire and Warrington Local Enterprise Partnership’s (LEP) refreshed Strategic Economic Plan confirms the revised growth ambitions for the Cheshire and Warrington sub-

region, which is to grow the economy’s GVA by £50 billion per annum by 2040 and create 120,000 jobs (net additional). The Strategic Economic Plan sets a target of 31,000 jobs to be created in Warrington between 2015 and 2040.

Northern Powerhouse, November 2016

6.85. The Northern Powerhouse strategy explains how the Government will work with local stakeholders to address key barriers to productivity in the region. The Government will invest in transport infrastructure to improve connections between and within the North’s towns, cities and counties; work with local areas to raise education and skills levels across the North; ensure the North is an excellent place to start and grow a business; and ensure the Northern Powerhouse is recognised worldwide as an excellent opportunity for trade and investment.

The Northern Powerhouse Independent Economic Review, June 2016

6.86. The Independent Economic Review (IER) focused on five clearly defined but interrelated work-streams which sought to understand the scale, nature and causes of the Northern England’s ‘performance gap’, distinctive sectoral strengths and capabilities, and future growth prospects.

6.87. The IER identified that the 5 factors driving the ‘productivity gap’ were the skills gap; technology gap; investment gap, poor connectivity and transport, lack of agglomeration; and low enterprise rates. In contrast, it also identifies Northern England’s four ‘prime capabilities’ are advanced manufacturing, health innovation, energy and digital. Crucially these ‘prime capabilities’ are supported by three ‘enabling’ capabilities which will play a critical role in supporting the growth and development of the ‘Prime’ capabilities. Together, the ‘prime’ and ‘enabling’ capabilities combine to create a complementary and distinctive offer for the North of England. The ‘enabling capabilities’ are:

• Financial and professional services; • Logistics • Education (primary higher education).

6.88. Clearly, Freight and Logistics are a key enabling capability to achieving transformational economic growth within Northern England and therefore the proposed MSA by providing lorry parking has an important role in supporting the objectives of IER.

Warrington Borough Council Green Belt Assessment Final Report (2016) & Additional Site Assessments of Call for Sites Responses and SHLAA Green Belt Sites, May 2017

6.89. The Green Belt Review has been produced to inform the findings of the Local Plan Review. The study was made in the context of the significant employment and housing land need identified within the new local evidence base.

6.90. The Review identified that the Application Site as falling within General Area 2, which encompassed as a much larger piece of land stretching from the northern boundary of the M62 to the southern and eastern edge of Culcheth. The General Area 2 was identified as making a ‘Moderate’ contribution towards the purposes of the Green Belt.

6.91. The Assessment went on to split the General Areas into a number of potential development parcels based on their proximity to built-up areas. The Application Site was identified as falling

within Parcel WR14, which was identified as making a ‘Weak’ contribution to the Green Belt purposes.

Figure 18 – Extract from Warrington Green Belt Review

6.92. The Green Belt Assessment made the following comments in respect to Parcel WR14:

Green Belt Purpose Green Belt Review Commentary in respect to Parcel WR14

“Weak contribution: The M62 forms a durable boundary between the parcel and the built up area. This is a permanent boundary that is durable enough to prevent sprawl into the parcel a) to check the unrestricted in the long term. The parcel is only connected to the urban area along this southern boundary sprawl of large built-up areas and therefore the parcel is poorly connected to the built up area. Overall the parcel makes a weaker contribution to checking unrestricted sprawl.”

“Weak contribution: The parcel forms a less essential gap between the Warrington urban b) to prevent neighbouring towns area and Culcheth. Development of the parcel would result in both the actual and perceived merging into one another gap being reduced although it would not result in the towns merging. Overall, the parcel makes a weak contribution to preventing towns from merging.”

“Moderate contribution: The boundary between the parcel and the settlement is durable. The boundary is the M62 which could prevent encroachment into the parcel in the long term. The boundaries between the parcel and the countryside are less durable. To the west is Birchwood Way which is durable however the northern and eastern boundaries are tree lined c) to assist in safeguarding the which are natural, non-durable boundaries that would not prevent encroachment beyond the countryside from encroachment parcel if the parcel were developed. The existing land use is agricultural. The parcel is well connected to the countryside along three boundaries. The parcel is flat with no built form and no vegetation and there are open long line views thus it supports a strong degree of openness. The parcel has beneficial uses as it provides access to the countryside. Overall, the parcel makes a moderate contribution to safeguarding from encroachment.”

“No contribution: Warrington is a historic town however the parcel is not within 250m of d) to preserve the setting and the Warrington Town Centre Conservation Areas. The parcel does not cross an important special character of historic towns viewpoint of the Parish Church.”

e) to assist in urban regeneration, “Moderate contribution: The Mid Mersey Housing Market Area has 2.08% brownfield by encouraging the recycling of urban capacity for potential development, therefore the parcel makes a moderate contribution derelict and other urban land to this purpose.”

“The parcel makes a moderate contribution to two purposes, a weak contribution to two purposes and no contribution to one purpose. In line with the methodology, the parcel has been judged to make a weak overall contribution. The parcel makes a moderate Overall Conclusions contribution to safeguarding from encroachment as it supports a strong degree of openness and has non-durable boundaries between the parcel and the countryside but has durable boundaries between the parcel and the settlement. The parcel performs weakly in terms of preventing sprawl and preventing neighbouring towns from merging.”

The UK Industrial Strategy, November 2017

6.93. The UK Government has produced an Industrial Strategy that focusses on five foundations of productivity. These five foundations “Ideas, People, Infrastructure, Business Environment and Places”. It promotes Local Industrial Strategies to meet local economic needs and priorities. It identifies the need to build on the strengths of the economy for longer term growth with shorter term benefits. It stresses the importance of logistics in positioning the UK at the forefront in the world economy. It also highlights the north-south divide with educational attainment in the northwest well below that of the south-east.

Relevant Local Supplementary Planning Documents

6.94. Warrington Borough Council has produced a number of Supplementary Planning Documents some of which are considered relevant to this application:

• Standards for Parking in New Development SPD (March 2015) – this SPD sets out the Council’s parking standards policy. • Environmental Protection SPD (May 2013) – this SPD sets out the approach in respect to environmental protection including, amongst other things, contaminated land, air quality, light pollution, noise and vibration. • Design and Construction SPD (October 2010 – amended February 2016) – this SPD sets out the approach to design and construction. • Planning Obligations SPD (January 2017)

Summary

6.95. The following section will consider the key planning policy issues that have arisen out the above assessment of above policy context.

7. Planning Assessment and Justification

7.1. We have structured this section of the Planning Statement to firstly address compliance of the Proposed Development with Green belt guidance as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF 19). This will include consideration of whether:

• Whether or not the Proposed Development would represent inappropriate development within the Green Belt; • The effect of the Proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; • The effect of the Proposal on the purposes of including land within the Green Belt; • Whether there is any other harm resulting from the proposal.

7.2. We will then go on to assess the Proposed Development in respect of policy to address the Proposed Development in respect of policy guidance on the Historic Environment (heritage); Town Centre Uses (retail); and hence its overall compliance with National Policy.

7.3. Having drawn conclusions in respect of the above, we then go on to assess the compliance of the Proposed Development with the Development Plan. The Development Plan for the application comprises of the Warrington Local Plan Core Strategy (July 2014). In line with the High Court Judgement Tiviot Way Investments Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (CO/774/2015 EWHC 2489 (Admin)) dated 21st July 2015, we consider whether conflict with any individual policy in the Development Plan means that the scheme proposals are or are not in accordance with the Development Plan “as a whole”.

7.4. Having reached conclusions in respect of national policy compliance and development plan policy compliance, we then consider whether there are any other material considerations that weigh against the Proposed Development or rather in this case whether these other material considerations actually weigh in favour and hence add support to the Proposed Development.

7.5. Finally we set out our conclusions in the event that the Local Planning Authority do not support our principle conclusion that we comply with the Development Plan as a whole. In this regard we consider the weight to be applied to any non-compliance with policies and whether there are other material considerations that would outweigh this non-compliance.

A) Compliance with National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF 19)

I) National Policy on the Green Belt

Whether or not the proposed development would represent inappropriate development within the Green Belt

7.6. As noted in Section 6 of the Planning Statement, the development plan relevant to the Proposals comprises of the adopted Warrington Local Plan Core Strategy (July 2014). A High Court Challenge to the adoption of parts of the Warrington Local Plan Core Strategy (February 2015) resulted in removal of elements of the housing policies from the Local Plan but all other policies within the plan remain unaltered.

7.7. The application Site is shown as Green Belt within the adopted Core Strategy (2014) Proposals Map which is illustrated by the green wash on the plan below. It is therefore accepted that the application Site lies within the Green Belt.

Figure 1 – Extract from the Warrington Local Plan: Core Strategy Proposals Map

7.8. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF 19) Paragraph 133 indicates that the Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental aim of Green Belt

policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. The NPPF (19) goes on to state that inappropriate development within the Green Belt, is by definition harmful and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Except for a small number of exceptions set out in the NPPF paragraphs 145 and 146, development within the Green Belt should be regarded as inappropriate development. The Proposed Development does not fit within any of the exceptions listed and the Applicant accepts that it would represent inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

7.9. In line with paragraph 143 of the NPPF (19), it is acknowledged that the Application proposals are “by definition, harmful to the Green Belt”, and that they should not be approved “except in very special circumstances”. Paragraph 144 of NPPF (19) states that “substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt”. We accept therefore that there is “definitional harm” to the Green Belt, and we now consider the Proposed Development against the Policy considerations of “openness” and the five “purposes” of including land within the Green Belt as set out by NPPF (19) paragraph 134.

The effect of the Proposal on the openness of the Green Belt

7.10. The NPPF (19) does not specify a precise definition of “openness”. However, The Planning Practice Guidance has recently clarified the factors that can be taken into account when considering the potential impact of development on the openness of the Green Belt. Paragraph 001 Reference ID: 64-001-20190722 of the PPG states:

“Assessing the impact of a proposal on the openness of the Green Belt, where it is relevant to do so, requires a judgment based on the circumstances of the case. By way of example, the courts have identified a number of matters which may need to be taken into account in making this assessment. These include, but are not limited to:

• openness is capable of having both spatial and visual aspects – in other words, the visual impact of the proposal may be relevant, as could its volume; • the duration of the development, and its remediability – taking into account any provisions to return land to its original state or to an equivalent (or improved) state of openness; and • the degree of activity likely to be generated, such as traffic generation.”

7.11. In light of the above guidance and a number of legal judgements, we will evaluate the impact of the Application proposals on the “openness” of the Green Belt as follows:-

• factors relevant to how built up the Green Belt is now; • how built up it would be if redevelopment occurs; and • factors relevant to the visual impact on the aspect of “openness” which the Green Belt presents.

7.12. The application Site is of mixed urban fringe and rural character and consists of a large arable field. The Site is devoid of existing development. Nevertheless, the presence of the adjacent Risley Landfill site (in the form of a mound), neighbouring industrial parks to the south and the M62 and its junction 11, all have a strong visual influence on the character of the Site. In addition, the M62 motorway and the Risley Landfill mound are strongly defining man made features in this area, which also fragment the rural character of the area.

7.13. The application Proposals would introduce two buildings (an Amenity Building (containing the Facilities Building and Hotel) and a Fuel Filling Station) into the Site along with associated infrastructure, and car and lorry parking. These elements are controlled by the Parameters Plans that form an integral part of the application. It is accepted that the introduction of these built elements will inevitably have an adverse impact upon the openness of the Green Belt by the introduction of built development where there was previously none. However, the indicative scheme identifies that the footprint of the buildings on the Site (amenity building and fuel filling station) cover an area of approximately 0.53 hectares and therefore the vast majority of the Site will remain open. Nevertheless, it is acknowledged that approximately 8.97 ha of the Site will accommodate car or lorry parking which equates to approx. 53% of the total Site area, with approximately 6.44 ha of the Site comprising Green Infrastructure which equates to a figure in the region of 38% of the Site.

7.14. We consider therefore that much of the Site will remain free from buildings and hence the Site will retain a feeling of “openness” but that a larger proportion of the Site will be urbanised through the extent of car and lorry parking proposed.

7.15. The Environmental Statement and the ES Addendum that accompanies the application includes an assessment of the visual impact of the development. Of relevance to the openness issue is the topography and nature of views and how they would affect the Green Belt openness rather than whether there is a visual impact upon adjoining properties. To the north, the land slopes

gently towards a disused railway line. Whilst certain locations offer longer distance views towards the north and east, the proposed alignment of HS2 along this northern Site boundary will truncate these views. Views south are urban in nature due to the effect of the M62 but beyond the M62 to the south they are more rural but these are largely screened from extending beyond the M62 motorway, other than from raised land to the south of the M62. Views east are also generally contained by existing vegetation along the eastern boundary of the Site. Views from the west are impeded by the Risley Landfill mound which is a man-made feature within the landscape. The views of the Proposed Development are therefore “contained” from the west and south by the Risley Landfill mound, M62 and industrial parks; whilst views from the north and east are partially contained by existing boundary vegetation but this containment will be enhanced if the HS2 alignment is built as is currently proposed.

7.16. On this basis, we consider that the existing Site features limit the impact of new buildings and structures in terms of visual impact on the locality, and they also serve to “contain” the development in terms of the impact on openness of the Green Belt. These conclusions are supported by the Landscape Technical Paper 4 - Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Summary, which concludes that the openness of the wider Green Belt would be preserved.

7.17. Notwithstanding the existing urbanising influences within close proximity to the application Site and the degree of “containment” of the Site by existing landscape features, we accept that the introduction of the new buildings and structures will have an impact upon the Green Belt openness due to their scale and height as will the introduction of car and lorry parking areas. We equate the nature of this impact to be “limited harm”.

The effect of the Proposal on the purposes of the Green Belt

7.18. We now consider the Proposed Development against the five purposes of including land in Green Belt.

7.19. In terms of Green belt permanence, the emerging Local Plan has identified several areas for allocation for employment and / or housing development which will necessitate Green Belt change in those locations. The application Site however is proposed to be retained within the Green Belt which will ensure its long term permanence as such. The Applicants fully support this approach. The application Proposal is controlled by a series of “parameters” with regard to the extent and disposition of built form. These would be controlled through the grant of planning permission and any reserved matters applications would have to accord with them.

In this way the application Proposals are clear in the extent of built development proposed within the Site and the mechanism to control development in accord with these “parameters” is tried and tested. The application Site would therefore be retained within the Green Belt and the impact of the application Proposals is clear and adequately controlled. The Green Belt role and function on the Site would therefore be maintained and would continue to be permanent.

7.20. A Green Belt Assessment Final Report (October 2016) has been produced on behalf of the Council to inform the Local Plan Review. An ‘Additional Site Assessment of Call for Sites’ Responses and SHLAA Green Belt sites was undertaken in May 2017. The Assessment was made in the context of the significant employment and housing land need identified within the Borough.

7.21. The Council’s Green Belt Assessment carried out an assessment of the Borough’s Green Belt to understand how it performs against the role and function of the Green Belt as set out in national policy. The assessment divided the entire Green Belt within the borough into a number of large parcels of land, defined as General Areas. These General Areas are then subdivided into a number of small parcels of land, which are then individually assessed against the five purposes of the Green Belt set out in paragraph 80 of the NPPF (2012). The application Site is located within General Area GA2.

7.22. The Assessment confirms that GA2 makes a moderate contribution to the Green Belt purposes but the findings related to a much larger area of land than just the Application Site.

7.23. The Assessment went on to split the General Areas into a number of potential development parcels based on their proximity to built-up areas. The application Site was identified as falling within Parcel WR14, which was identified as making an overall ‘Weak’ contribution to the Green Belt purposes.

Figure 2: Extract from Warrington’s Green Belt Review

7.24. The Green Belt Assessment made the following comments in respect to Parcel WR14 (the Application Site):

Green Belt Review Commentary in respect to Parcel WR14 Purpose

“Weak contribution: The M62 forms a durable boundary between the parcel and the built up area. This is a permanent boundary that is durable enough to prevent sprawl a) to check the into the parcel in the long term. The parcel is only connected to the urban area along unrestricted sprawl of this southern boundary and therefore the parcel is poorly connected to the built up large built-up areas area. Overall the parcel makes a weaker contribution to checking unrestricted sprawl.”

Green Belt Review Commentary in respect to Parcel WR14 Purpose

b) to prevent “Weak contribution: The parcel forms a less essential gap between the Warrington neighbouring towns urban area and Culcheth. Development of the parcel would result in both the actual merging into one and perceived gap being reduced although it would not result in the towns merging. another Overall, the parcel makes a weak contribution to preventing towns from merging.”

“Moderate contribution: The boundary between the parcel and the settlement is durable. The boundary is the M62 which could prevent encroachment into the parcel in the long term. The boundaries between the parcel and the countryside are less durable. To the west is Birchwood Way which is durable however the northern and c) to assist in eastern boundaries are tree lined which are natural, non-durable boundaries that safeguarding the would not prevent encroachment beyond the parcel if the parcel were developed. countryside from The existing land use is agricultural. The parcel is well connected to the countryside encroachment along three boundaries. The parcel is flat with no built form and no vegetation and there are open long line views thus it supports a strong degree of openness. The parcel has beneficial uses as it provides access to the countryside. Overall, the parcel makes a moderate contribution to safeguarding from encroachment.”

d) to preserve the “No contribution: Warrington is a historic town however the parcel is not within setting and special 250m of the Warrington Town Centre Conservation Areas. The parcel does not character of historic cross an important viewpoint of the Parish Church.” towns

e) to assist in urban regeneration, by “Moderate contribution: The Mid Mersey Housing Market Area has 2.08% brownfield encouraging the urban capacity for potential development, therefore the parcel makes a moderate recycling of derelict and contribution to this purpose.” other urban land

“The parcel makes a moderate contribution to two purposes, a weak contribution to two purposes and no contribution to one purpose. In line with the methodology, the parcel has been judged to make a weak overall contribution. The parcel makes a moderate contribution to safeguarding from encroachment as it supports a strong Overall Conclusions degree of openness and has non-durable boundaries between the parcel and the countryside but has durable boundaries between the parcel and the settlement. The parcel performs weakly in terms of preventing sprawl and preventing neighbouring towns from merging.”

7.25. We have considered this Green Belt Assessment and broadly support its conclusions. We now go on to assess the Proposed Development within this context.

Check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas

7.26. The application Site is adjacent to the Warrington urban area, albeit the existing boundary is the M62. The application Site would remain within the Green Belt and the M62 would remain the durable Green Belt boundary. The extent of built development within the application proposal is contained by the existing boundary features of the Site which serve to restrict any further outward expansion. The application proposals would not therefore constitute “unrestricted” urban sprawl and would not represent the outward expansion of the Warrington urban area. A significant area of Green Belt would remain undeveloped between Warrington and Culcheth. Therefore the Proposed Development is not in conflict with this Policy requirement and there is no harm to this purpose.

Prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another

7.27. The Council’s Green Belt Assessment confirms that Site forms a “less essential gap” between the Warrington urban area and Culcheth, which is a settlement to the northwest. The boundaries of the application Site are a significant distance from Culcheth. The development of the application proposals within the Green Belt would not result in the towns merging. The application proposal would not therefore have any impact upon the Green Belt “purpose” of preventing neighbouring towns merging into one another. The Proposed Development is not in conflict with this Policy requirement and there is no harm to this purpose.

Assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment

7.28. We accept that the Proposed Development will lead to encroachment into the countryside, however as previously identified, the locality of the application Site already has significant urbanised influences by virtue of the adjacent Risley Landfill mound, industrial estates and M62 motorway. Equally, the land is also enclosed by durable boundaries to the west by the Risley Landfill mound, to the south by the M62 and to the west and north by existing boundary vegetation. Furthermore, the buildings have been designed to be unobtrusive within the landscape utilising an agricultural vernacular whilst sitting within an extensively landscaped setting. As a result, the MSA will not appear as a heavily urbanising feature in this respect.

These features help to mitigate the extent of the encroachment but we accept that there will be limited harm to this purpose.

Preserve the setting and special character of historic towns

7.29. The application Site lies to the north of the historic town of Warrington but is not within 250m of Warrington Town Centre Conservation Area and does not cross any important view points of the Warrington Parish Church and hence has no effect upon the setting and special character of historic towns. The application proposals are not in conflict with this Policy requirement and there is no harm to this purpose.

Assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land

7.30. The Council’s Green Belt Assessment highlights that there is no single correct method for assessing Purpose 5 and some other Local Authority Assessments choose to screen this Purpose from their Assessments. The Council’s Green Belt Assessment has adopted a uniform approach to this issue, given this provides a high-level view of the role of the Green Belt in encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. The Assessment takes this uniform approach to the assessment of this Purpose and confirms all parcels assessed make a “moderate” contribution to this purpose, based on the brownfield urban capacity across the whole Borough as defined in their SHMA. Therefore, it is accepted that the Site makes a moderate contribution to this Purpose and application Proposals will conflict with this Purpose because it will not encourage the recycling of brownfield land, but it is considered that the harm will be limited because as shown there are no alternative sites for locating the MSA which are not within the Green Belt.

Summary

7.31. The assessment of where very special circumstances exist requires an assessment of the harm to the Green Belt; any other harm; any other planning considerations and an overall conclusion on whether the above results in very special circumstances in favour of the development proposals.

7.32. In respect of potential Green Belt harm, the above assessment shows that in line with paragraph 143 of NPPF (19), the application proposals are “by definition, harmful to the Green

Belt” and as set out in paragraph 144 of ‘NPPF (19)’ “substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt”.

7.33. There is also harm to the “openness” of the Green Belt from the Proposals but given both the existing context as well as the proposed mitigation, as set out above, the extent of this harm is “limited” harm.

7.34. We consider that in terms of the “purposes” of including land within the Green Belt, the application Proposals demonstrate only “limited” harm to two of the Green Belt Purposes.

Whether there is any other harm resulting from the proposal

7.35. We now consider whether there is “any other harm” which we take to be non-Green Belt harm. We will consider whether there is any potential environmental or technical (non-Green Belt) harm that could arise from the application Proposals.

Landscape Character and Visual Amenity

7.36. Whilst, we have considered the impact of the proposals against Green Belt purposes and on openness, it also important to consider landscape and visual amenity matters in this application. The ES Technical Paper 4 comprises of a Landscape Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA).

7.37. The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) examined the landscape and visual impacts in relation to Proposals for the development. The potential impacts were assessed though a combination of desk study research and walk over surveys of the Site and the surrounding context.

7.38. LVIA identified that the Study Area (for the purposes of the LVIA) includes protected sites of national environmental significance (Holcroft Moss SAC, SSSI) and sites of local environmental (LWS) and cultural significance (listed buildings) lying within 2km of the Site. However it does not incorporate areas of landscape significance at a national scale i.e. National Park/Areas of Outstanding Natural beauty. It was determined that the susceptibility to change of Landscape Condition and Quality was assessed to be Medium and the Landscape Value Low to Moderate.

7.39. The LVIA recognised that there are residential and recreational receptors (walkers on PRoWs, permitted pathways and bridleways, and within a Local Wildlife Site) having a high

sensitivity in terms of views of the Site, located within 1km of the Site boundary. Equally, the assessment identified the good quality of view is related to views from PRoWs, from elevated permitted paths on the adjacent former landfill site and from adjacent farmland.

7.40. The LVIA acknowledges that the Proposed Development will change the existing arable fields to a Motorway Services Area incorporating retained hedgerows, scrub and new hedgerows, woodland blocks and belts, scrub and species-rich acid grassland. A comprehensive landscape infrastructure strategy indicates establishment of vegetation within public circulation spaces to help soften the proposed built form and assimilate the Development into the wider landscape context. These include hedgerows incorporating trees to car park areas, flower- rich acid grassland and a wide Silver Lane Brook corridor, diverted along the east of the Site. However it acknowledges that there will be a large change to the nature of the proposed application Site.

7.41. The LVIA proposes a number of mitigation measures to reduce the impact on receptors. These measures include retention of existing vegetation, where this is feasible, including trees and hedgerows, and their enhancement through additional planting and appropriate management and maintenance. Equally, applying general design principles through the masterplan will help further assimilate the development into the surrounding landscape, which will include careful siting of the open space, play space, infrastructure planting and orientation of the proposed MSA buildings.

7.42. Nevertheless, there are residual visual effects deemed significant at both the construction and operational stages. These are Cultural Heritage/Historic Designations and Environmental Designations owing to their National and Borough receptor values, and Representative Receptors owing to proximity of receptors to the proposed development. It is predicted that residual impact for these visual receptors will reduce in significance by year 15 if not earlier as internal vegetation establishes and a management regime is implemented by the Applicant.

7.43. As a result of the findings of the LVIA, we ascribe MINOR HARM to this element of the application in the planning balance.

Heritage

7.44. The ES Technical Paper 9 assesses in detail the impact of the Proposed Development on the significance of those heritage assets affected by the proposals. The Technical Paper has been

100

informed by an Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment (DBA) and a Heritage Statement has been undertaken to assess the potential effect of the Proposals on a number of undesignated heritage assets including buried archaeological remains and the setting of designated heritage assets. The only designated heritage asset identified within the ES Technical Paper is the Grade II* Holcroft Hall.

7.45. The Heritage Statement identified no harm to the significance of Grade II* listed Holcroft Hall and that the Proposed Development would not result in changes to elements of its setting which affect its archaeological, historic and architectural interests.

7.46. The potential impact to buried archaeological remains has been assessed to be of no higher than moderate adverse significance only. This has been informed by an Archaeological Desk Based Assessment which has established a potential impact to a number of archaeological receptors, most notably the potential remains of a boundary between the Pestfurlong and Holcroft estates, the potential remains of a post medieval farmstead and deposits of peat which have the potential to hold remains of palaeoenvironmental potential. However it concludes that if present, archaeological remains are likely to be of low (local) to medium (county) importance such that any intrusive archaeological fieldwork could be attached to a condition of permission; there being no evidence to indicate the presence of remains of high (national) importance which would preclude development.

7.47. It is concluded that the Proposals will overall have a Minor Harm on heritage assets. It is acknowledged that the residual impact on archaeological remains would be adverse, but the preservation by record of the archaeology through the carrying out of appropriate fieldwork would contribute to the archaeological understanding of the area. It is therefore considered MINOR HARM in respect to this element of the planning balance.

Residential Amenity

7.48. Careful consideration has been given to matters of residential amenity. The five nearest properties to the Site are approximately between 350m and 1km away from the Site, although the Site is separated from the nearest property, 102 Inglewood Close Warrington, by the M62 motorway. There is a Noise and Vibration assessment submitted as part of this application alongside a Technical Paper 7 on Noise and Vibration within the ES. In addition, a Technical Lighting Impact Assessment has been produced which is contained within the ES. The Noise and Vibration Technical Report highlights that the Proposal is expected to have a minor

101

adverse to negligible impact during the construction phase and negligible impact during the operational stage. The Lighting Impact Assessment identified no negative impact on the residential amenity of the nearby properties. It is considered that there will be NEGLIGIBLE impact on residential amenity and neutral weight may be given to this matter.

Air Quality and Dust

7.49. An Air Quality assessment has been undertaken in respect of the Proposals. ES Technical Paper 8 concludes that:

An operational phase assessment has been undertaken, taking into account the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010 and the EPUK/IAQM guidance, to determine the risk and significance of air quality impacts from operational phase road traffic.

The assessment predicts a negligible impact on concentrations of NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 at all existing sensitive receptors considered, with the development in place. In addition, all predicted pollutant concentrations are well below the relevant health-based air quality objectives/limit values in all scenarios considered.

In accordance with the criteria detailed in Tables 4.4 to 4.6, the overall effect is considered to be negligible and not significant.

7.53. It is considered that there will NEGLIGIBLE impact and neutral weight may be given to this matter.

Ground Conditions

7.54. Land contamination, or the possibility of it, is a material consideration for the purposes of the planning application. A Phase 1 Environmental Assessment and ES Technical Paper 1 sets out the details of the ground conditions on the Site. The Site is considered to present an overall Low to Moderate risk from past and present use and adjacent operations. Equally, the potential for existing contamination at the Site is considered to be limited, but it is possible that some made ground may be present associated with previous demolition on Site. There is also the risk of ground gas from the Peat deposits in the east of the Site and also a risk of leachate and gas migration onto Site from the adjacent landfill.

102

7.55. The Phase 1 Environmental Report identified the presence of peat in the east of the Site will need to be considered within the development Proposals. It also considered that it is likely that a contamination investigation would be required prior to redevelopment of the Site to confirm the presence and extent of any made ground and/or contamination on the Site and also to assess the gas risk both from the peat and the adjacent landfill. Its overall conclusion was that some minor remedial measures may be necessary depending on the nature and extent of the made ground present.

7.56. Following the findings of a Phase 1 report, a further Preliminary Site Investigation was carried out to assess the geotechnical nature of the ground. The site investigation comprised of a series of sixteen trial pits across the Site area, which confirmed the presence of topsoil, peat, sands and clays over the majority of the Site.

7.57. Through the iterative design and consultation process, the Proposed Development has been designed to maximise the area of undisturbed (avoided) peat, with disturbed peat to be retained within the Site for beneficial reuse in the creation of peatland type habitat. The area of undisturbed peat equates to approximately 50.1% of the peat resource on Site, including the deepest peat areas to the south east. The remaining 49.9% of peat within the development area will need to be excavated to allow the construction works for the Proposed Development and directly placed within the Peat Habitat Zone to create a peatland type habitat.

7.58. In the absence of appropriate construction mitigation measures, there is the potential for the damage to the peat to occur during handling. Furthermore, there is the potential for the loss of the peat to occur during the handling of the peat, including loss through unapproved peat export; erosion; mixing; and contamination.

7.59. Nevertheless, through the implementation of standard control and management measures for the handling and storage of soil and peat, soil/peat loss, and the associated impairment of the remaining soils’ and peats’ function, quality and resilience, would be reduced. Consequently, the effect of the Proposed Development in terms of disturbance or damage to soil and peat properties would be not significant, with the residual impact considered negligible.

7.60. The implementation of standard control measures for the handling and storage of soil and peat resources would ensure that soil loss, and the associated impairment of the remaining soils’ function, quality and resilience, would be reduced. The above measures would minimize

103

the loss of soil resources such that over 95% of soil resources would be retained in a state suitable for reuse and the effect of the Proposed Development in terms of loss of soil and peat resources would be not significant, with the residual impact after mitigation considered negligible.

7.61. Therefore these matters are considered to be of NEGLIGIBLE impact and neutral weight in the planning balance.

Loss of Agricultural Land

7.62. The permanent loss of all 11.7 ha of agricultural land within the Site (10.7) of which is BMV quality) as a result of the Proposed Development cannot be mitigated. The NPPF does not define what constitutes a significant loss of BMV agricultural land. However Schedule 4 of the Town and Country (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015 stipulates that Natural England need only be consulted on the loss BMV agricultural land when the loss is greater than 20 ha. Therefore as the loss of BMV is below this threshold, it is considered that the loss is deemed not to be significant. Natural England’s consultation response dated 28th October 2019 confirms that the Proposed Development falls outside of the scope of the Development Management Procedure Order (as amended) consultation arrangements and hence they raise no concerns with regard to agricultural land issues.

7.63. As a result, we ascribe MINOR HARM to this element of the application in the planning balance.

Utilities, Waste & Energy

7.64. Matters of Utilities, Waste and Energy are considered by ES Technical Papers 12 and 13. Whilst the application is submitted in outline, a number of different renewable and decentralised energy sources have been investigated. The Utilities Statement confirms that a connection to the utilities networks is feasible with respect to the Proposed Development. The Waste Technical Paper identifies that the significance of the predicted environmental effects of operational waste generated by the Proposed Development is considered to be negligible. In respect to energy, the size and proposed use of the Site make it a feasible location to install a ground source heat pump system, which has the potential to meet up to 48% of the overall Site energy demand. The carbon savings could also be improved by utilising some of the roof space for solar PV to generate the additional electrical demand from pump

104

operations. In addition, discussions are taking place with the operators of the neighbouring Risley Landfill Site about potentially utilising some of the energy created by the landfill gas. This integrated renewable approach could create a low carbon system on Site. Both papers identifies that there will be negligible effects and harm. These matters are considered to be of NEGLIGIBLE impact and neutral weight in the planning balance.

Social-Economic Considerations

7.65. There is the potential for adverse impacts as a result of the proposed construction works, including disruption to users of the adjacent public right of way, impact on residential amenity related to noise and air quality, the perception of increased crime levels, and potentially a negative image of some of wards in the area by those who come in to close proximity to the Application Site. However, the scale of these adverse impacts is not expected to be significant and in most cases negligible. It is unlikely that the Construction Phase will result in many new people moving into the area, thereby limiting the additional demand placed on services such as Primary and Secondary schools and GP surgeries. A Framework Construction Environmental Management Plan will also be put in place to limit any disturbances caused during the construction phase. These matters are considered to be of NEGLIGIBLE impact and neutral weight in the planning balance.

Very Special Circumstances – Considerations that weigh in favour of the Proposed Development

7.66. We now consider whether there are “very special circumstances” or “other considerations” in favour of the Proposed Development that could outweigh any harm to the Green Belt, and any other harm, in accordance with paragraph 144 of the NPPF (19).

7.67. There is a significant amount of case law on the issue on what constitutes very special circumstances. R (Wildie) v Wakefield Metropolitan BC [2013] provides some guidance on this matter:

“First, the correct approach to the very special circumstances test is to ask the following question (adapting the wording of §70 in [Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [2002] EWHC 808 (Admin)] (as approved by Carnwath LJ in [Wychavon District Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2008] EWCA Civ 692 [2009] PTSR 19] §26)):

105

“Given that inappropriate development is by definition harmful, the proper approach [is] whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness and the further harm, albeit limited, caused to the openness and purpose of the Green Belt was clearly outweighed by the [countervailing benefit arising from the development] so as to amount to very special circumstances justifying an exception to the Green Belt policy”

“Thus, in considering whether to allow development in the Green Belt, the decision maker must consider, first, the “definitional” harm arising from the inappropriate development as well as such further harm to the Green Belt as is identified as being caused by the development in that case, and then secondly consider countervailing benefits said to be served by the development; and then consider whether those benefits clearly outweigh the harm so as to amount to very special circumstances. Secondly, in order to qualify as “very special”, circumstances do not have to be other than “commonplace” i.e. they do not have to be rarely occurring. Thirdly, the test is not one of whether the harm to the Green Belt (definitional or specific) is “significant or unacceptable”, either of itself or following the balancing exercise.S74 and 75.”

7.68. As such, it is evident that a balancing exercise should take place and the benefits of the proposal must clearly outweigh the harm in order to constitute ‘very special circumstances’. Mrs Jean Timmins, A W Lymn (The Family Funeral Service) Limited v Gedling Borough Council v Westerleigh Group Limited [2014] established that “in practice the very special circumstances will invariably be much more affected by issues of ‘need’ and the availability of alternative sites than visual amenity”.

7.69. It also important to note that the different considerations that making up Very Special Circumstances do not, of themselves, need to be ‘very special’. In fact, they can be very ordinary, but when considered in combination they amount to ‘very special circumstances’.

7.70. In respect of this application, the ‘very special circumstances’ is made up of the following:

1) The Policy support for the Proposed Development; 2) The need for the Proposed Development including lorry parking; 3) Whether there are any other sites to meet the need that do not lie within the Green Belt and whether the Proposed Development is suitable / deliverable; 4) The employment created by the development; 5) The training, skills and jobs created by the development; 6) The investment in the local economy;

106

7) The recreational and health benefits; 8) The diversion of Silver Brook; 9) The creation of peatland type habitat; 10) The significant tree planting associated with the Proposed Development; 11) The improvements to surface water drainage; 12) Net-Biodiversity Gain; and 13) The benefits to traffic and transport.

Consideration 1: The policy support for the Proposed Development

7.71. The Alternative Sites Assessment included within the Application Documentation sets out the policy support for MSA development. It confirms that the Strategic Road Network plays a key role in the safe and efficient movement of goods, supplies and people around the United Kingdom; it is critical to the performance of the economy and is essential in helping to facilitate planned economic growth.

7.72. This is confirmed by Department for Transport report ‘Action for Roads: A Network for the 21st Century’ (July 2013) which states that “The road network is vital to our nation and a crucial part of the national transport system. It provides real and direct economic benefits: to business, to workers, to consumers. Better connections support individual towns and cities and strengthen the country as a whole. Failures of the road network increase costs, stifle employment opportunities and make it harder to do business in the UK”8.

7.73. The need to keep the Strategic Road Network flowing, supporting economic connectivity and mitigating the cost of delay is fundamental to national economic performance. The impact and costs of delays resulting from accidents on the Strategic Road Network can be significant and widespread. The Government estimates that the economic impact of a three lane carriageway closure on a busy motorway can be more than £500,0009. The social impact of accidents on the Strategic Road Network is also substantial and by 2020, Highways England has a target to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured on the network by 40%10.

8 Paragraph 1, page 5. 9 Paragraph 1.4, Review of Investigation and Closure Procedures for Motorway Incidents – Preliminary Report (May 2011). Department for Transport, Highways Agency, Association of Chief Police Officers and the Home Office. 10 Page 4 Highways England Delivery Plan 2015 – 2020, (March 2015) Highways England

107

7.74. Driver fatigue is a recognised cause of road accidents and it is estimated that 20% of accidents on the Strategic Road Network are fatigue related. Rule 91 of the Highway Code advises that in order to minimise risks, journeys should be planned to incorporate sufficient breaks. The Rule advises that the most effective ways to counter tiredness are to stop in a safe place, drink caffeinated coffee and take a short nap. Government advice is that motorists should stop and take a break of at least 15 minutes every two hours. Drivers of many commercial and public service vehicles are also subject to a regime of statutory breaks and other vehicle time restrictions.

7.75. The UK’s network of Motorway Service Areas therefore perform an essential road safety function in ensuring the safety and welfare of drivers and their passengers and underpin the safe and efficient operation of the M6, M62 and M60 in the North West of England and other Motorways throughout the country. MSAs create opportunities and facilities for motorists and commercial drivers and their passengers to take breaks, refresh and relax in safe and convenient locations on the Strategic Road Network.

Department for Transport (DfT) Circular 02/2013

7.76. Government Policy relating to the Strategic Road Network is contained within Department for Transport (DfT) Circular 02/2013 ‘The Strategic Road Network and the Delivery of Sustainable Development’.

7.77. Paragraph 8 of this document states that a well-functioning Strategic Road Network enables growth by providing for safe and reliable journeys. Paragraph 7 also reaffirms that the Strategic Road Network plays a key role in enabling and sustaining economic prosperity and productivity, whilst also helping to support environmental and social aims and contributing to wider sustainability objectives and improved accessibility to key economic and social services.

7.78. Annex B specifically relates to roadside facilities for road users on motorways in England and sets out policy on the provision, standards and signage of roadside facilities on the Strategic Road Network. The Circular confirms that all such proposals will be considered in the context of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF 2019) and, in particular, the statement that it includes within paragraph 104 footnote 42 regarding the primary function of roadside facilities being to support the safety and welfare of the road user.

108

7.79. Although MSAs are privately owned and operated, they exist primarily to meet a public safety need on the Strategic Road Network, the need being to provide facilities which support the safety and welfare of the travelling public. The absence of such facilities in areas where there is a need places the safety and welfare of the travelling public at risk and increases the chances of accidents. Some 20% of all major accidents are fatigue related and the provision of properly gapped MSAs does significantly assist in reducing fatigue related accidents.

7.80. In line with paragraph 104 (e) of the NPPF 2019, it is clear that the purpose of an MSA is to ensure the safety of drivers on the strategic road network. This point is reinforced in Annex B of the Circular, which states at paragraph B4:

“Motorway service areas and other roadside facilities perform an important road safety function by providing opportunities for the travelling public to stop and take a break in the course of their journey. Government advice is that motorists should stop and take a break of at least 15 minutes every 2 hours. Drivers of many commercial and public service vehicles are subject to a regime of statutory breaks and other working time restrictions and these facilities assist in compliance with such requirements.”

7.81. Highways England’s objective and clear recommendation set out at paragraphs B5 and B6 is that the maximum distance between motorway services areas should be no more than 28 miles which is typically 30 minutes travelling time. This distance can also be shorter, subject to compliance with the design requirements of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. This requirement or “need”, to ensure driver safety through the provision of an MSA at maximum intervals of 30 mins leads directly to the recommendation of the Highways Agency that there should not be a gap of more than 28 miles between MSAs. Paragraph B6 is set out below in full:

“The Highways Agency therefore recommends that the maximum distance between motorway service areas should be no more than 28 miles. The distance between services can be shorter, but to protect the safety and operation of the network, the access/egress arrangements of facilities must comply with the requirements of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges including its provisions in respect of junction separation” (emphasis added).

7.82. In order to meet the Government’s objective of ensuring the safety and welfare of road users, there is a need to provide an MSA on those stretches of the strategic road network where there is an existing gap between MSAs of more than 28 miles. Paragraph B8 confirms that in

109

determining applications for new MSAs, Local Planning Authorities should not need to consider the merits of spacing of sites beyond conformity with the maximum and minimum spacing criteria established for safety reasons. Nor should they seek to prevent competition between operators; rather they should determine applications on their own specific merits. Paragraph B8 is set out in full below:

“The distances set out above are considered appropriate for to (sic) all parts of the strategic road network and to be in the interests of and for the benefit of all road users regardless of traffic flows or choice. In determining applications for new or improved sites, local planning authorities should not need to consider the merits of the spacing of sites beyond conformity with the maximum and minimum spacing criteria established for safety reasons. Nor should they seek to prevent competition between operators; rather they should determine applications on their specific planning merits.”

The Circular does not include provision for traffic flows to form part of a weighting process to evaluate the importance of a gap. A gap either exists or it does not; flows and route choices are irrelevant.

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF 2019)

7.83. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF 2019) sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these should be applied. The NPPF (2019) is a material consideration in planning decisions (paragraph 2) but it also notes that “other statements of government policy may be material when preparing plans or deciding applications” (paragraph 6). The main purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. Achieving sustainable development means that the planning system has three overarching objectives, economic, social and environmental:

110

open spaces that reflect current and future needs and support communities’ health, social and cultural well-being; and

7.84. Paragraph 82 of the NPPF (2019) relates to “building a strong, competitive economy”. It notes that that planning decisions should “recognise and address the specific locational requirements of different sectors”.

7.85. In relation to “promoting sustainable transport”, Paragraph 102 requires that “transport issues should be considered from the earliest stages of development proposals”, including the environmental impacts of traffic and transport infrastructure, and opportunities to promote walking, cycling and public transport use. Paragraph 103 notes that “significant development should be focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable, through limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of transport modes”.

7.86. The NPPF (2019) states in paragraph 104(e) footnote 42 that “Planning policies should:-

e) Provide for any large-scale transport facilities that need to be located in the area (42), and the infrastructure and wider development required to support their operation, expansion, and contribution to the wider economy. In doing so they should take into account whether such development is likely to be a national significant infrastructure project and any relevant national policy standards”.

7.87. Footnote 42 states that “Policies for large scale facilities should, where necessary, be developed through collaboration between strategic policy-making authorities and other relevant bodies. Examples of such facilities include ports, airports, interchanges for rail freight, public transport projects and roadside services. The primary function of roadside services should be to support the safety and welfare of the road user (and most such proposals are unlikely to be national significant infrastructure projects)”.

7.88. Paragraph 107 requires that planning decisions “should recognise the importance of providing adequate overnight lorry parking facilities, taking into account any local shortages, to reduce the risk of parking in locations that lack proper facilities or could cause a nuisance”.

111

7.89. It is clear that within the NPPF (2019), the starting point for the consideration of an MSA is paragraph 104(e) footnote 42 which provides that “The primary function of roadside services should be to support the safety and welfare of the road user” and that this point is reinforced in Annex B of Circular 02/2013. The Circular guidance is a material consideration in the determination of MSA applications by virtue of paragraph 6 of the NPPF (2019): “other statements of government policy may be material when preparing plans or deciding applications”. In establishing the need for an MSA above, it is also clear that such an MSA should contribute towards sustainable development (paragraph 7) but that planning decisions should recognise the “specific locational requirements” of sectors such as MSA (paragraph 82); and that operational issues such as lorry parking are also important (paragraph 107).

Leading Counsel Opinion

7.90. Extra MSA Group has obtained Leading Counsel’s Opinion on the interpretation of need based on the NPPF (2019) and Circular 02/2013. Counsel advised (14th May 2019 – paragraph 11) that “The 2013 Circular was a deliberate departure from previous policy in that the Government decided to make clear that once a gap of more than 28 miles has been identified, the need for an MSA will be established (i.e. the absence of an MSA in such a situation frustrates the Government’s objective of supporting the safety and welfare of the road user). The local planning authority in such a situation should not concern itself with the merits of spacing beyond asking itself whether (a) the proposed MSA will help ensure that the maximum distance of 28 miles is not breached, and (b) that the new facility will not breach the requirements set out in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. For the purposes of applying the policy on “need” as set out in the Circular, it is not permissible to take a graduated approach to need by reference to the number of drivers using a particular stretch of the strategic road network or any other considerations such as route choice or the nature of the journeys. The existence of the requisite gap is conclusive evidence of need, and in the particular circumstances of this case it removes any necessity to debate how many drivers will choose a particular route (for example M6 South – M62 East, in preference to any other route.” A copy of the full advice is included in the Alternative Sites Assessment.

Highways England: The strategic road network Planning for the future (September 2015)

112

7.91. The Highways England: The strategic road network: Planning for the future (September 2015) document confirms the approach that Highways England takes to engaging in the planning system in relation to the whole Strategic Road Network, comprising of motorways and all- purpose trunk roads in England. It confirms that the Document is written in the context of the NPPF and Circular 02/2013. The Document confirms that “the Strategic Road Network (SRN) is arguably the biggest and single most important piece of infrastructure in the country and is the core of our national transport system”. It also confirms that “operating an effective and efficient SRN makes a significant contribution to the delivery of sustainable economic growth. Efficient and reliable connections enhance the UK’s image and reputation as a good place to invest. By enabling the efficient movement of people and goods the SRN helps create the conditions for growth through enabling businesses to:-

• Access the skills and ideas they need to perform and grow; • Access their suppliers and control their costs; • Serve the customers and reach out to new markets; and • Create effective collaborations and partnerships.

The SRN is therefore essential to the growth, well-being and balance of the county’s economy”.

7.92. The Document has a section relating to “Roadside facilities, including Motorway Service Areas”. It confirms that “new and existing roadside facilities are subject to the provisions of relevant planning legislation and regulation, which together set the framework within which local planning authorities should consider the planning proposals for such developments”. As confirmed earlier, this legislation and regulation relates to the NPPF and Circular 02/2013 (as well as the Town and Country Planning Development Management (Procedure) Order (England) 2015). In light of the above the Highways England 2015 Document supports the importance of public safety considerations and the contribution of the SRN to the national economy and re-affirms the role and relevance of both the NPPF and Circular 02/2013.

Warrington Core Strategy

7.93. Within the above context, the Warrington Core Strategy’s (CS) is silent with regard to MSAs. The CS ‘Vision in 2027’ seeks to ensure that the town continues to be a key economic driver and the focus for employment for the surrounding area. However, based on the low growth

113

expectations, the CS also seeks to limit the outward growth of the town and protect the Green Belt in its current form.

7.94. These ambitions are reflected in the CS Strategic Objectives W1 and W2, which seeks to secure the regeneration of the older areas of the town, strengthen existing neighbourhoods (by tackling issues of derivation and worklessness), safeguard the permanence of the Green Belt, and support the growth in the local and sub-regional economy by the provision of 277 hectares of employment land between 2006 and 2027. Critically the strategy is premised on the following assumptions:

• There is sufficient land outside of the Green Belt to meet the demand for employment land within the borough during the plan period; • Warrington’s economy would continue to grow and prosper without the need for any new strategic employment sites; and • Any employment development that took place outside of the urban area and the existing employment areas would draw investment away from those older areas of the town in need of regeneration.

7.95. The recent evidence produced to support the review of the Local Plan demonstrates that these assumptions are not justified and highlights a significant higher employment land requirement that previous envisaged within the CS. Since the adoption of the CS, as part of their bid for a devolution deal with the Government, the Cheshire and Warrington LEP proposed that through their interventions that employment would grow in Warrington by 31,000 to 2040, alongside an additional 24,000 jobs in its immediate economic hinterland in the Liverpool City Region. This objective has been embedded in to the ‘Warrington New City’ concept which in turn has been incorporated into Cheshire and Warrington LEP’s Refreshed Strategic Economic Plan (July 2017) and ‘Warrington Means Business: Warrington’s Economic Growth and Regeneration Programme’, (December 2016). These documents can be given weight in decision making, to establish the extent of development needs.

7.96. The Proposed Submission Version Local Plan 2017 - 2037 (SVLP) (April 2019) identifies that Warrington’s new ‘objectively assessed employment land need’ is 362ha in order to ensure that supply meets demand. Based on a robust assessment of the capacity of the existing urban area contained within the Urban Capacity Assessment Update (July 2017), the Proposed Submission Version Local Plan identifies a need for 215.14 hectares of Green Belt releases to

114

meet the employment need to 2037. As such, the recent evidence base demonstrates that the employment land requirement is exponentially more than previously calculated and cannot be satisfied by sites within the Urban Area and the Existing Employment Areas and hence justified the need for Green Belt change.

7.97. The Application Proposal is being promoted as development within the Green Belt rather than requiring Green Belt change through a new Local Plan. Neither the Core Strategy nor the emerging Local Plan consider MSA requirements but even in the absence of such an assessment, the emerging Local Plan supports Green Belt release to meet employment (and housing) needs. It is evident therefore that there is policy support through the emerging Local Plan to accommodate new development within the current Core Strategy Green belt, and hence that the current Green Belt boundaries are unduly restrictive.

7.98. It is clear that there is very positive policy support for the provision of new MSAs within DfT Circular 02/2013 and within the NPPF (2019). This conclusion is fully supported by Leading Counsel Opinion. It is also clear that there is further support from Highways England in their Strategic Road Network Planning for the Future (2015) document. The Warrington Core Strategy is silent with regard to MSAs. It is clear that the restrictive policies within the Core Strategy must now be amended to accommodate a significantly expanded need for employment development which justifies Green Belt release. The Application Proposals are however predicated upon development within the Green Belt and do not rely upon such Green Belt release.

7.99. The Application Proposals are submitted in the above positive context which we consider is a significant material consideration in favour of the planning application. As such, we therefore attach SIGNIFICANT weight to the policy support for MSA development.

Consideration 2: The Need for the Proposed Development

7.100. This Section will now consider the need to provide a new MSA on the M6 / M62 / M60 corridors of the Strategic Road Network in the North West of England having regard to the above context.

7.101. The M6 / M62 / M60 Motorways are amongst the busiest and most important in the UK. The M62 has daily traffic flows of circa 115,000 vehicles in the vicinity of Junction 11 (24 hours AADT 2016). It is the west – east trans-Pennine Motorway in Northern England, connecting

115

the two major ports of Liverpool and Hull, via intervening conurbations including Manchester, Warrington, St Helens and Leeds, and it also connects the two City Regions of Liverpool and Manchester. The area around Greater Manchester, Warrington and St Helens accommodates a convergence of other significant Motorway and major road networks (M6 / M58 / M60 / M62) that also make connections from the east to the west; north to south; and to the orbital around Manchester.

7.102. The Highways Agency produced a national report in January 2010 titled: “Spatial Planning Framework Review of Strategic Road Network Service Areas”. The 2010 Study was commissioned to assess the provision of service areas on the Strategic Road Network in England (paragraph 1.1). The purpose of the Study was to “encapsulate the results of the MSA study which provides a gap study of those MSAs located in each region”. Paragraph 1.3 confirmed that this Study comprised the following:--

“Identification of the location of MSAs along the Motorway Network;

Determination of the separation of MSAs;

Identification of any gaps in provision; and

Recommendations to address provision issues along the Motorway Network”.

7.103. It is recognised that this Study pre-dated Circular 02/2013 as it used a requirement of 40 miles or greater to identify a “gap”. This distance has now been superseded by the Circular 02/2013 requirement that “the maximum distance between motorway service areas should be no more than 28 miles”. The conclusions of the 2010 Study can therefore be considered extremely robust as the maximum size of the gap has subsequently been reduced. In the North West, the 2010 Study set out in Table 4.2 a Matrix Displaying MSA Separation in the North West:

116

7.104.

117

118

7.105. Paragraph 5.4 of the Study confirmed that “in the North West, Charnock Richard and the terminus of the M58 to the terminus of the M67 are both routes further than 40 miles long with no MSA provision. There are a further nine routes above the 28 miles threshold”.

7.106. Since the 2010 Study was published no new MSA provision has been delivered to meet any of these gaps in the North West region and hence the public safety need identified in 2010 has not been met. Circular Guidance 02/2013 has been produced since the 2010 Study which has reduced the maximum gap requirement from 40 miles to 28 miles and hence the “further nine routes above the 28 mile threshold” identified within the 2010 Study now also display a public safety need that must be met.

7.107. There are six existing MSAs located on the Strategic Road Network in and around the North West of England. These are listed in Table 1 and illustrated on the plan below.

Motorway MSA Location

M6 Charnock Richard On-line between J27 and J28

M62 Birch Services On-line between J18 and J19

M62 Burtonwood Services Off line at J8

M61 Rivington Services On-line between J6 and J8

M6 Knutsford Services On-line between J18 and J19

M56 Chester Services Off line at J14

Table 1 Existing MSA locations in and around the North West Region

119

120 Figure 19: The Four Strategic Gaps in the Strategic Road Network

Gaps on the Network

7.108. Based upon the gapping parameters contained within Circular 02/2013, FOUR defined policy gaps exist in the provision of MSA facilities on the Strategic Road Network within the North West Region where spacing between existing MSAs is greater than the maximum limit of 28 miles or a maximum travelling time of 30 minutes. These gaps are:

• On the M58/M6/M62/M60/M62 corridor between M58 Terminus (Switch Island) and Birch Services. • On the M6/M62/M60/M62 corridor between Charnock Richard Services and Birch Services. • On the M58/M6/M62/M60/M67 corridor between M58 Terminus (Switch Island) and M67 Terminus (Hattersley Roundabout). • On the M6/M62/M60/M67 corridor between Charnock Richard Services and M67 Terminus (Hattersley Roundabout).

7.109. The current distance spacing between the aforementioned MSA facilities is set out in Table 2 below and illustrated on the above plan.

Current From To Current Route Distance

M58 Terminus Birch Services M58/M6/M62/M60/M62 40 miles (Switch Island)

Charnock Richard Birch Services M6/M62/M60/M62 35 miles Services

M67 Terminus M58 Terminus (Hattersley M58/M6/M62/M60/M67 52 miles (Switch Island) Roundabout)

121

M67 Terminus Charnock Richard (Hattersley M6/M62/M60/M67 47 miles Services Roundabout)

Table 2: Existing gaps of greater than 28 miles between MSAs in the North West Region

7.110. The distances set out above are clearly in excess of the 28 mile maximum distance and importantly the travelling time over these distances is significantly in excess of the 30 minute maximum time set out in Circular 02/2013 ‘The Strategic Road Network and the Delivery of Sustainable Development’.

7.111. Charnock Richard Services are located on line between Junctions 27 and 28 of the M6. The location of this MSA is relevant to traffic heading south on the M6 as traffic heading south east on the M61 can use the facilities at Rivington services. Traffic from Liverpool on the M62 can use Burtonwood Services at Junction 8. Traffic coming from M58 (Switch Island) or any locations south of Charnock Richard and then heading south on the M6 and then on the M60 / M62 has no provision before Birch Services. Similarly traffic emanating from a similar location and then heading south on the M6, east on the M62 and then south east on the M60 (around Manchester) and along the M67 towards the Pennines to reach the urban areas of Sheffield and Doncaster has no provision right through to the M67 terminus.

7.112. The gapping between existing MSA facilities on this section of the Strategic Road Network is significantly greater than the maximum 28 mile distance. It is also greater than the 30 minutes travelling time requirement given the often congested nature of the M6, M62 and M60 Motorways passing through the North West Region, as frequently occurs within this area. The needs of motorists, commercial drivers and their passengers are not being adequately met within this area.

7.113. Therefore in accordance with Circular 02/2013, there is a need fully supported by Policy, for an additional MSA to serve the identified gapping between:-

• M58 Terminus and M62 Birch Services; • M6 Charnock Richard and M62 Birch Services; • M58 Terminus and M67 Terminus; and • M6 Charnock Richard and M67 Terminus.

122

7.114. The nature of the specific need within the North West region has been considered by Leading Counsel, instructed by Extra MSA Group. Counsel advised in paragraph 10 that “It can be seen from the above that the existence of Burtonwood Services and Lymm Services do not address the identified gaps, for the simple reason that some drivers will take a journey whereby despite the existence of these two MSAs they will drive for more than 28 miles (and significantly longer than 30 minutes) before they encounter an MSA. How many such drivers there will be is irrelevant for the purposes of applying the Government policy on need – as paragraph B8 of the Circular makes explicit, once such a gap is shown to exist, it is not necessary to have regard to other considerations in determining whether a need exists (i.e. the existence of the gap is in and of itself conclusive evidence of need for planning purposes.” A copy of the full advice is included in Appendix 1 of this Planning Statement.

7.115. As part of their pre application discussions, Extra MSA Group has consulted with Highways England. Highways England confirmed at this time that based upon current distances between existing MSA facilities, it would have “no objection in principle to the proposed development of a new MSA at M62 J11 (“Warrington Services”) on the grounds of spacing”. A letter dated 11th June 2019 from Julie Prince (Senior Policy Advisor) at Highways England to Warrington Borough Council confirming this gapping conclusion is enclosed at Appendix 2 of the Alternative Sites Assessment and Appendix 2 of this Planning Statement.

7.116. In summary, there is a strategic need fully supported by policy, for a new MSA to serve the identified gapping between M58 Terminus and M62 Birch Services; M6 Charnock Richard and M62 Birch Services; M58 Terminus and M67 Terminus; and M6 Charnock Richard and M67 Terminus. This is based on Government policy in Circular 02/2013 which sets out the maximum acceptable distances between facilities. The need has also been supported as recently as 11th June 2019 by Highways England.

7.117. We consider that the need for an MSA in this locality is a significant material consideration in favour of the proposals. We attached SIGNIFICANT weight to it.

7.118. Since a public safety need has been established in this location, it is relevant to consider whether this need should be met urgently. The Junction 11 M62 Needs and Alternative Sites Assessment sets out how a “need” is established with regard to the advice within DfT Circular 02/2013 and also the National Planning Policy Framework (2019). This approach is supported by leading Counsel Opinion. Both the Circular and Counsel make it clear in paragraph B8 of the Circular that “the distances set out above are considered appropriate for all parts of the

123

strategic road network and to be in the interests and for the benefit of all road users regardless of traffic flows or route choice”. It is clear therefore as Counsel notes in paragraph 11 that “the existence of a requisite gap is conclusive evidence of need, and in the particular circumstances of this case it removes any necessity to debate how many drivers will choose a particular route (for example M6 South – M62 East), in preference to any other route”. This is plainly correct as the need referred to, is a public safety need and if that need is not satisfied then that public safety concern will still exist.

7.119. The Strategic Road Network plays a key role in the safe and efficient movement of goods, supplies and people around the United Kingdom; it is critical to the performance of the economy and is essential in helping to facilitate planned economic growth.

7.120. DfT Circular 02/2013 The Strategic Road Network and the Delivery of Sustainable Development, (paragraph 8) notes that “A well-functioning strategic road network enables growth by providing for safe and reliable journeys”11.

7.121. This is also confirmed by Department for Transport report ‘Action for Roads: A Network for the 21st Century’ (July 2013) which states that “The road network is vital to our nation and a crucial part of the national transport system. It provides real and direct economic benefits: to business, to workers, to consumers. Better connections support individual towns and cities and strengthen the country as a whole. Failures of the road network increase costs, stifle employment opportunities and make it harder to do business in the UK”.12

7.122. The need to keep the Strategic Road Network flowing, supporting economic connectivity and mitigating the cost of delay is fundamental to national economic performance. The resulting impact and costs of delays resulting from accidents on the Strategic Road Network can be significant and widespread. The Government estimates that the economic impact of a three lane carriageway closure on a busy motorway can be more than £500,00013. The social impact of accidents on the Strategic Road Network is also substantial and by 2020, Highways England

11 DfT Circular 02/2013. The Strategic Road Network and the Delivery of Sustainable Development. Annex B: Roadside Facilities for Road Users on Motorways and All Purpose Trunk Roads in England. 12 Paragraph 1, page 5. 13 Paragraph 1.4, Review of Investigation and Closure Procedures for Motorway Incidents – Preliminary Report (May 2011). Department for Transport, Highways Agency, Association of Chief Police Officers and the Home Office.

124

has a target to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured on the network by 40%14.

7.123. Driver fatigue is a recognised cause of road accidents and it is estimated that 20% of accidents on the Strategic Road Network are fatigue related. Rule 91 of the Highway Code advises that in order to minimise risks, journeys should be planned to incorporate sufficient breaks. The Rule advises that the most effective ways to counter tiredness are to stop in a safe place, drink caffeinated coffee and take a short nap. Government advice is that motorists should stop and take a break of at least 15 minutes every two hours. Drivers of many commercial and public service vehicles are also subject to a regime of statutory breaks and other vehicle time restrictions.

7.124. Making it easier for road users to do the right thing and going with the grain of human behaviour are central to the Government’s road safety approach as motorists will not generally leave the Strategic Road Network, particularly in an unfamiliar location, in the hope of finding a suitable place to stop and appropriate facilities, instead they will often try to continue with their journey.

7.125. It is notable that 37% of car, van and lorry drivers taking part in the Think Road Safety Annual Survey 2008 admitted that they carried on driving when too tired and as many as 10% of people who use their vehicles for work admitted to falling asleep at the wheel according to Brake and Green Flag (2008). Driving tired and falling asleep at the wheel is the cause of around 20% of accidents on long journeys on trunk roads and motorways15.

7.126. In the year ending June 2018, there were 1,770 reported road fatalities, a 3% increase from 1,718 in the previous year. Furthermore, there were 26,610 killed or seriously injured casualties (KSIs) in reported road traffic accidents reported to the police, for the year ending June 2018. Vehicles stopping on the hard shoulder also pose a highway safety risk with more than 1,500 people killed or injured on the hard shoulder each year (Green Flag Motoring Assistance). However, it is estimated that up to 90% of motorists stopping on the hard shoulder do so for non-emergency reasons including the need for drivers or their passengers

14 Paragraph 1.4, Review of Investigation and Closure Procedures for Motorway Incidents – Preliminary Report (May 2011). Department for Transport, Highways Agency, Association of Chief Police Officers and the Home Office. 15 All statistics taken from www.safermotorways.co.uk/statistics/

125

to visit the toilet (particularly children). Although breakdowns are an issue for the Rescue Services, it is safer for all concerned if a vehicle can continue its journey to the next MSA.

7.127. The UK’s network of Motorway Service Areas therefore perform an essential road safety function in ensuring the safety and welfare of drivers and their passengers and they underpin the safe and efficient operation of the and other Motorways throughout the country.

7.128. MSAs create opportunities and facilities for motorists, commercial drivers and their passengers to take breaks, refresh and relax in safe and convenient locations on the Strategic Road Network. Highways England’s objective and clear recommendation (as part of the National Planning Policy Framework) is that MSAs should be located at a maximum of 30 minutes travelling time. This can typically be a maximum distance of 28 miles, but on busy and congested sections of the Strategic Road Network, is an average of 15 to 20 miles. Where gaps in the network of MSAs continue to exist, the risk of driver fatigue related accidents will remain.

7.129. The Junction 11 M62 Needs and Alternative Sites Assessment reconfirms the above advice, guidance and statistics that support the justification for MSA on road networks to meet this public safety need and the consequences through accidents and fatigue of not meeting such a need. This need exists and if it is not met then it will perpetuate the potential for driver safety risks on the Strategic Road Network. This part of the Strategic Road Network (M62) is one of the busiest and most important motorways with daily traffic flows of circa 115,000 vehicles in the vicinity of Junction 11 (24 hours AADT 2016). It is the west – east trans-Pennine Motorway in Northern England connecting the two major ports of Liverpool and Hull, via intervening conurbations including Manchester, Warrington, St Helens, and Leeds and connects the two City Regions of Liverpool and Manchester

7.130. The gaps set out within the Junction 11 M62 Needs and Alternative Sites Assessment and confirmed by the Highways England letter of 11th June 2019 comprise 40 miles, 35 miles, 52 miles and 47 miles. These are significant gaps individually and even more so cumulatively on one of the busiest motorways in Northern England. This therefore comprises a significant public safety need that should be met as soon as practicable. As the Circular Guidance notes in paragraph B4, roadside services perform an important road safety function and Government advice is that motorists should stop and take a break of at least 15 minutes every two hours. Paragraph B8 confirms that this is “in the interests and for the benefit of all road users” and that the maximum and minimum spacing criteria are “established for safety reasons”. It is clear

126

therefore that Government advice supports the requirement to meet the public safety need once it has been identified.

7.131. This is a fundamental point, the requirement for appropriately spaced MSA provision is to meet the clear public safety need for users of the motorway network to be afforded suitable provision at appropriate intervals. That an alternative route could be taken does not obviate that need. Furthermore, in the present case, it is clear that the four ‘gaps’ identified are far from insignificant both in terms of number (the Proposal will meet four identified ‘gaps’) but also in terms of distance (none of the four ‘gaps’ identified are marginal). The gaps have been identified by the Highways Agency (now Highways England), not by the applicant. Users of those identified routes are not provided with adequate MSA provision. That other users may use alternative routes does not detract from the point that the users of the identified routes face a deficiency in MSA provision. In consequence the safety of those users is not adequately met. Whether there is one user that is placed in this position or thousands does not detract from the point that this is an issue of public safety – a single users safety is not diminished simply because he or she is part of only a sub-set of users making the same journey but across a number of different routes. Once the public safety need is established (which it has been) it is not appropriate to reduce the weight to be afforded to that provision in public safety terms simply because other motorway users might take an alternative route. That is why it is inappropriate to consider the provision in terms of ‘extent’ of need – once the public safety need has been demonstrated it is inevitably one of substantial weight.

7.132. In the case of the Junction 11 M62 application Site the existence of this need is reconfirmed through the Highways Agency Report (Jan 2010) “Spatial Planning Framework Review of Strategic Road Network Service Areas”. As the Junction 11 M62 Needs and Alternative Sites Assessment notes this Highways Agency Report sets out the four gaps within the North West area. They are set out clearly within the Junction 11 M62 Needs and Alternative Sites Assessment and from this assessment, the “Optimal Search Area” has been devised to meet these four gaps. The need to fill these gaps (established from at least 2010 when the Report was published) has been reconfirmed by Highways England in their letter of 11th June 2019 in which they confirm that they “have no objection in principle to the proposed development of a new MSA at M62 J11 (“Warrington Services”) on the grounds of spacing”. The consequence of not meeting this need bears directly upon public safety and hence the need should be met urgently.

127

7.133. There is therefore no doubt about the existence of a clear and urgent public safety need in this case. We attach SIGNIFICANT weight to it.

7.134. Warrington MSA is proposing to provide 82 HGV parking spaces. This equates to 23 spaces more than the requirement within Circular 02/2003. However the 23 spaces represents only a very small marginal increase in the footprint of the developed area but no actual increase in size of the Application Site.

7.135. Paragraph 107 of the NPPF (19) makes clear that “planning policies and decisions should recognise the importance of providing adequate overnight lorry parking facilities, taking into account any local shortages, to reduce the risk of parking in locations that lack proper facilities or could cause a nuisance.”

7.136. Paragraph B4 of DfT Circular 02/2013 also states that Motorway Service Areas perform an important road safety function by providing opportunities for the travelling public to stop and take a break during the course of their journeys. The Circular states that “drivers of commercial and public service vehicles are subject to a regime of statutory breaks and other working time restrictions and these facilities assist in compliance with such requirements.”

7.137. The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) sets the maximum daily driving limit for HGV drivers which is 9 hours. For a driver to take the maximum daily allowance, they can drive for 4.5 hours, rest for 45 minutes and then drive for a further 4.5 hours before stopping for the day. The HGV’s tachograph records the vehicle and therefore driver’s travel time. Once a driver reaches the daily driving allowance, they must stop and rest. It is normal driver preference to stop as close to the strategic road network as possible to ensure that driving time is maximised. Deviation from the route to find a place to stop causes delay and uses up driving time from the daily allowance. The legal requirement for commercial drivers to take a break reinforces the importance of having sufficient motorway capacity at Service Areas to allow drivers to safely stop and rest. MSAs provide an important highway safety function in this regard.

7.138. Therefore the must be sufficient capacity at the MSA for drivers to be able to take their break. The consequences of not taking a break is to impact on road safety. The purpose of an MSA is to provide a safe and convenient place to stop. The consequences of a lack of HGV parking spaces is parking in inappropriate locations, such as is already happening throughout Birchwood, or using the hard shoulder of the motorway.

128

7.139. The Former under Secretary of State for Transport Minister Jesse Norman in the Ministerial Statement states that the government is focused on “improving the situation for business-as- usual lorry parking”. In the Statement he confirmed that he has “written with Planning Minister Dominic Raab to local planning authorities to draw their attention to the survey results, which show a strategic national need for more lorry parking and highlight shortages in specific areas” (May 2018). Paragraph 107 requires that planning decisions “should recognise the importance of providing adequate overnight lorry parking facilities, taking into account any local shortages, to reduce the risk of parking in locations that lack proper facilities or could cause a nuisance”.

7.140. The DfT Road haulage update of 21 May 2018, identified a strategic national need for more lorry parking. In addition, the National Survey of Lorry Parking (2017) found that a total of 61 additional lorry spaces are required within the North West and highlights that the lorry parking at nearby MSAs are all operating above critical levels (>85%).

7.141. WBC has identified (in its Consultation Draft LTP4, March 2019) that existing lorry parking facilities on the periphery of Warrington are already at ‘critical’ levels of utilisation, which is evident by the existing issues with HGV parking within unauthorised areas around M62J11 and in the neighbouring Birchwood Business Park. Inappropriate overnight roadside parking of HGVs has been a major public concern in in the neighbouring business park for many years and causes obstruction and nuisance to local businesses.

7.142. The lack of ‘authorised’ HGV parking can lead to increased issues of crime because of the vulnerability of vehicles parking in unsecure and authorised locations. The AECOM/DfT Lorry Parking Baseline Report (November 2009) states that within England there is estimated to be 40,000 truck crimes that occur annually with £500 million worth of trucks and goods being stolen. For this reasons, a number of HGVs are often not allowed to park in unauthorised or unsecure locations.

7.143. There is clearly an unmet need for HGV parking within the Borough. Neither in the existing Core Strategy or the emerging Local Plan is there is any provision for additional HGV parking in the locality. The Applicant is not aware of any extant planning permissions that would provide alternative HGV parking to meet the need outlined within the Borough. There are however significant levels of new employment land allocated in the emerging Local Plan. In addition, Warrington has a strong history of attracting logistics based companies as a result of its location on the confluence of a number of motorways, and its proximity to a number of large urban areas and major port and airport facilities. The existing employment areas,

129

emerging employment allocations, and Warrington’s strategic location will continue to fuel an increase in the amount of HGVs in the area for the foreseeable future.

These lorry parks requirements must be met, in order to meet the documented shortfall and hence additional provision within the Proposed Development is fully justified. Therefore the provision of the lorry parking is SIGNIFICANT benefit in favour of the Proposal.

Consideration 3: The lack of alternative sites to accommodate the MSA especially outside of the Green Belt

7.144. The above section demonstrates that a need, fully supported by policy, exists for a new MSA to serve the FOUR identified gaps in the North West of England and that despite those gaps being identified in 2010, no new provision has been made to fill these gaps.

7.145. The Alternative Sites Assessment sets out a detailed approach to site identification and analysis within Sections 4 – 8. It is not proposed to repeat this assessment here. It has been concluded within the Alternative Sites Assessment that:-

• There is an Optimal Search Area either at Junction 11 of the M62 or to the east of the Junction which would meet all of the FOUR established gaps on the corridors of the Strategic Road Network to policy compliant distances. This will have the benefit of meeting all gaps and hence satisfying the full public safety need; delivering a single MSA to meet this full need that has been established since 2010 and which remains unmet; being located within the key M62 stretch of motorway that links the Liverpool and Manchester conurbations; and providing a single MSA to meet all gaps to optimise its viability and deliverability. • Within this Optimal Search Area, both on line and off-line options have been assessed against clear criteria, including in the context of a potential new Junction 11A on the M62. • All potential sites to meet the need lie with the Green Belt, and hence there are no non-Green belt options to meet this established need. All the Sites set out in the Alternative Sites Assessment (Sites 1 – 7) are within the Green Belt in the currently adopted Local Plans (Warrington and Salford). In this regard all the Sites are subject to the same “very special circumstances” test and there are no non-Green Belt alternatives that could meet the identified need. It is therefore clear that to meet the need

130

for an MSA in the Optimum Search Area, a Green Belt site will need to be developed.

7.146. We consider that the lack of alternative (non-Green belt sites) is a significant material planning consideration in favour of the proposals. We attach SIGNIFICANT weight to it.

Whether the proposed Development is suitable / deliverable.

7.147. As a ‘need’ has been established, the most appropriate location for the MSA now needs to be identified. In respect of this, paragraph B8 of Circular 02/2013 states that “In determining applications for new or improved sites, local planning authorities should not need to consider the merits of spacing of sites beyond conformity with the maximum and minimum spacing criteria established for safety reasons.

7.148. This outline planning application is therefore accompanied by a detailed Alternative Sites Assessment Report which sets out the site selection process that has been undertaken to identify a preferred site which best meets the need for a new MSA on this stretch of the Strategic Road Network with the least number of planning, engineering and environmental constraints having regard to both On-line and Junction locations (Off-line) and the policy guidance contained in Circular 02/2013. The Assessment also contains a justification as to why J11 of the M62 is the most sequentially preferable location to address the FOUR unmet gaps on the M6 / M62 / M60, M58 and M67 corridors in the North West Region. ‘Getting it right’ commercially is critical as the travelling public will not make proper use of MSAs which are not easily accessible, attractive or well-located. A location which is not commercially viable will not be delivered, leaving the ‘need’ on safety and welfare grounds unmet.

7.149. In undertaking this Assessment, Stage 1 identified a broad range of locations that would satisfy the identified, policy defined need for a new MSA within the North West Region. This appraisal concluded that there is an Optimal Search Area which is the best performing location to meet all four identified gaps in the network of MSA provision. This Optimal Search Area is situated on the M62 stretch of the Strategic Road Network running from M62 Junction 11 and eastwards for 4 miles.

7.150. At Stage 2, sites that: are already in beneficial use; are committed for alternative development; are predominantly in Flood Zone 3; contain Listed Structures or have other significant

131

environmental designations were then set aside. These sites would only be reconsidered if no other suitable sites could be found.

7.151. At Stage 3, each remaining site was considered on a high level basis against a set range of criteria. At this stage it was not possible to identify any necessary mitigation measures, design features required to address identified constraints, infrastructure requirements or the costs associated with these without detailed site investigations and discussions with landowners and other stakeholders. This would take place at the detailed design stage of development. Known site constraints were however considered where possible and a basic comparison was made between sites.

7.152. Stage 4 considered the findings of Stages 1, 2 and 3 in order to identify a preferred location for a new MSA to meet the identified policy defined need on the M6 / M62 / M60, M58 and M67 corridors. This is the site that best meets the need with the least development constraints.

7.153. The Assessment identified that land within the North East Quadrant of Junction 11 of the M62 Motorway is the most sequentially preferable location to meet the identified need having regard to the locational requirements of the new MSA and a wider range of environmental, planning and engineering constraints. This site lies within the Optimal Search Area of public safety need identified having regard to the policy requirements set out in Circular 02/2013 and will fully address the four unmet gaps on the M6 / M62 / M60, M58 and M67 corridors in the North West Region, reducing distances between MSAs to at or below the 28 mile maximum.

7.154. Whilst the preferred site is in Green Belt so are all the other sites that have been assessed through this Alternative Sites Assessment. Any MSA brought forward to meet the need within the Optimal Search Area would therefore have to be accommodated within the Green Belt.

7.155. Figure 3 below incorporates a new MSA strategically and optimally located at M62 Junction 11 and demonstrates beyond doubt that the four unmet gaps on the M6 / M62 / M60 / M67 / M58 within the North West Region will be fully addressed by a new MSA at M62 J11.

132

Figure 3: Distances between MSAs following the introduction of a new facility at M62 Junction 11

7.156. As is shown in Table 3 below, the 40 mile non-compliant gap between M58 Terminus and Birch Services will be reduced to 24 miles; the 35 mile non-compliant gap from Charnock Richards Services to Birch Services will be reduced to 19 miles; the 52 mile non-compliant gap between M58 Terminus and M67 Terminus will be reduced to 16 miles; the 47 mile non- compliant gap from Charnock Richards Services to M67 Terminus will be reduced to 28 miles. All of these distances are below or comply with the 28 mile maximum.

Current Current Proposed To New Route From Route Distance Distance

M58 Terminus M58/M6/M6 Birch Services 40 miles M58/M6/M62 24 miles (Switch 2/M60/M62 Island)

133

Charnock M6/M62/M6 Richard Birch Services 35 miles M6/M62 19 miles 0/M62 Services

M58 M67 Terminus Terminus M58/M6/M6 (Hattersley 52 miles M62/M60/M62 16 miles (Switch 2/M60/M67 Roundabout) Island)

Charnock M67 Terminus M6/M62/M6 Richard (Hattersley 47 miles M62/M60/M67 28 miles 0/M67 Services Roundabout)

Table 3: Policy compliant MSA Provision in the North West Region

7.157. Following the identification of a ‘preferred site’ Extra MSA has progressed site investigations and detailed design works in order to inform the layout, scale, form and boundaries of the scheme, along with any necessary mitigation measures. This outline planning application submission therefore demonstrates that subject to mitigation where necessary, the provision of an MSA on this Site fully accords with all relevant planning policy and other material considerations.

7.158. In reaching a conclusion on which is the best site to meet the identified need it is also important to ensure that such a site is deliverable as the public safety need exists now and has been identified since at least 2010. Where sites reflect similar characteristics but one site has fewer delivery constraints than another, then preference will be given to that which can come forward in the shortest timescale to meet the need. Such delivery constraints will equate to:-

• Is the site in multiple ownerships or a single ownership? • Does the site require significant infrastructure delivery that will take a significant length of time to deliver and / or may make it unviable? • Is the site backed by a Developer who can deliver an MSA?

7.159. The Table below (contained within the Alternative Sites Assessment) summarises the findings of the assessment of deliverability:

134

Site Location Meeting the Planning Transportation Environmental Delivery Constraints Overall Number Need constraints(including Constraints Constraints Conclusion Impact upon Green Belt)

1 On-line Meets all 4 gaps. Has significant impact upon Requires a new pedestrian Environmental Multiple ownerships and Potentially (M62) Green Belt Openness and bridge over the motorway constraints are not backed by a MSA suitable Purposes. and slip roads. mitigatable. Developer. (medium term)

2 J11 NE Meets all 4 gaps. Site makes a “weak” Requires localised Environmental MSA Developer has Most suitable contribution to the Green improvements to Junction constraints are option on all land (short term) Belt. 11. mitigatable. required to deliver an MSA and is preparing a planning application for an MSA.

3 J11 NW Meets all 4 gaps. Site makes a “moderate” Requires localised Insurmountable Owned by Biffa with long Not suitable contribution to the Green improvements to Junction environmental term management and Belt. 11. constraints. maintenance obligations. Not backed by a MSA Developer.

4 J11 SE Meets all 4 gaps. Site makes a “strong” Requires localised Insurmountable Owned by Woodland Not suitable contribution to the Green improvements to Junction environmental Trust for environmental Belt. 11. constraints. purposes. Not backed by a MSA Developer.

135

Site Location Meeting the Planning Transportation Environmental Delivery Constraints Overall Number Need constraints(including Constraints Constraints Conclusion Impact upon Green Belt)

5 Potential Meets all 4 gaps. Has significant impact upon Requires the delivery of a Environmental Requires the delivery of Potentially J11A N Green Belt Openness and new motorway Junction constraints are a new Junction at suitable Purposes. which is unlikely until the mitigatable. significant cost and (medium medium term. timescale. term)

6 Potential Meets all 4 gaps. Has significant impact upon Requires the delivery of a Environmental Requires the delivery of Potentially J11A SE Green Belt Openness and new motorway Junction constraints are a new Junction at suitable Purposes. which is unlikely until the mitigatable. significant cost and (medium medium term. timescale. term)

7 Potential Meets all 4 gaps. Has significant impact upon Requires the delivery of a Environmental Requires the delivery of Potentially J11A SW Green Belt Openness and new motorway Junction constraints are a new Junction at suitable Purposes. which is unlikely until the mitigatable. significant cost and (medium medium term. timescale. term)

Table 4: Summary of assessment of potential on line and off-line (Junction) locations

136

7.160. Site 1 is the only on-line opportunity for an MSA within the Optimal Search Area. Whilst it has the potential to accommodate an MSA, there is no evidence that it is capable of being brought forward to meet the currently identified need. It is within multiple ownerships and is not backed by a MSA Developer, and hence it is unlikely to be deliverable in the short term.

7.161. All other sites are off-line opportunities. Sites 3 and 4 are ruled out due to environmental constraints and hence cannot accommodate an MSA.

7.162. Sites 5, 6 and 7 have the potential to accommodate an MSA but a new M62 Junction 11A will be required to facilitate their delivery. There is considerable uncertainty associated with the delivery of such a new motorway junction the potential for which has been identified in the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework (GMSF) and within the North West Quadrant Study but which is unlikely to be open for public use until the medium term. There is no evidence that these sites can come forward any earlier to meet the currently identified need. In addition Site 6 is further constrained by also being in the draft Salford Local Plan and GMSF as an employment allocation as a strategic extension to Port Salford.

7.163. In this context, the Alternative Sites Assessment identifies that the Application Site (land within the NE Quadrant of Junction 11 - Site 2) is the most sequentially preferable location upon which to site a new MSA having regard to the specific locational requirements to meet the identified need along with the consideration of planning, engineering, safety, operational and environmental factors. The Assessment also shows that of the Sites identified, it has the least Green Belt impact, being classified as having a “weak” contribution with the emerging Warrington Local Plan evidence base.

7.164. We consider that the lack of alternatives sites for the MSA and the suitability and deliverability of the Application Site is a significant material planning consideration in favour of the proposals. We attach SIGNIFICANT weight to it.

Consideration 4 – The employment created by the Proposed Development

7.165. As set out in the Socio-Economic Technical Report 6 that forms part of the ES Part 2, the Proposed Development will have a significant positive economic benefit to Warrington.

7.166. Through the redevelopment of the Application Site for new concept MSA, the Proposed Development will create 970 person years of construction employment with an estimated 300 construction workers working on the Site. It is estimated that the overall construction phase

137

will result in 97 FTE (Full Time Equivalent) gross jobs. Further jobs will also be created during the Construction Phase due to supply chain expenditure and workers on the development spending money in local shops and facilities.

7.167. After the development has been completed, it is estimated that 228 gross FTE jobs could be created on-site, along with further new employment opportunities in the local economy due to additional economic activity being generated off-site.

7.168. We consider that the employment benefits of the proposal are significant material planning consideration in favour of the proposals, and we attach MODERATE weight to them.

Consideration 5 – The Training, Skills and Jobs opportunities created by the Proposed Development

7.169. Other impacts during the Construction Phase will include the provision of new training and apprenticeship opportunities. It is envisaged that the Construction Phase could provide the opportunity for 4 no. constructed related professional apprenticeships and 8 no. construction related apprenticeships. In addition, the Construction Phase will provide employment opportunities for residents living in nearby deprived communities. Based on the Employment Strategy, Extra will seek to maximise the job opportunities that will be targeted at the unemployed, underemployed and hard to reach residents of the local community.

7.170. There is the potential for adverse impacts as a result of the proposed construction works, including disruption to users of the adjacent public right of way, impact on residential amenity related to noise and air quality, the perception of increased crime levels, and potentially a negative image of some of wards in the area by those who come in to close proximity to the Application Site. However, the scale of these adverse impacts is not expected to be significant and in most cases negligible. It is unlikely that the Construction Phase will result in many new people moving into the area, thereby limiting the additional demand placed on services such as Primary and Secondary schools and GP surgeries. A Framework Construction Environmental Management Plan will also be put in place to limit any disturbances caused during the construction phase.

7.171. A key principle of the scheme is to ensure that the benefits to local people are maximised. This will involve working with local partners to raise the awareness of future opportunities and equip local people with the necessary skills to access the new jobs that will be created by virtue of the Proposed Development. Discussions have been held with Warrington and Co. and Cheshire and Warrington LEP in relation to raising the awareness of future opportunities and the methods

138

through which local people can best be engaged, particularly those in areas suffering from deprivation and higher levels of unemployed.

7.172. Due to the nature of the employment created, the Proposed Development will offer an accessible route into work for those who are currently unemployed. Once operational, it is estimated that around 80% of the job opportunities created by the MSA will be in entry level service roles, comprising sales, customer service, catering, and hospitality and leisure opportunities. A number of these roles especially in the retail sector will support high levels of flexible working. The Employability And Social Impact Strategy report that accompanies the Socio-Economic Technical Paper predicts that the MSA has the potential to bring employment and training opportunities to a range of groups including:

• People looking to advance career in the retail, catering or hospitality sectors; • People skilled or looking for skills in sales and/or customer service type occupations; • People looking for entry level or flexible positions and to gain in-work training; and • People looking to re-enter the workforce following a prolonged period of absence or longer term unemployment.

7.173. We consider that the training, skills and job benefits of the proposal are significant material planning consideration in favour of the proposals, and we attach MODERATE weight to them.

Consideration 6 – The investment in to the local economy

7.174. The new development would provide significant inward investment of approximately £75 million capital investment between 2021 and 2022. In terms of the overall economic impact of the construction phase, it is estimated that the investment could generate a net additional GVA of £24.6 million at the Warrington level and £28.6 million across the wider catchment area. In addition, once the Site has been fully occupied, it is estimated that the economic impact of the scheme will be around £8.47 million per annum (Net additional GVA). In addition, the Proposed Development will lead to an increase in business rates within Warrington, estimated to be approximately £1.05 million per annum

7.175. However, more generally, beyond the direct impacts associated with the Proposed Development, the investment is expected to result in a range of wider benefits. Whilst these impacts have not been quantified, they remain fundamental to the rationale for investment. In particular these relate to supporting the efficient running of the motorway network through providing motorists

139

with opportunities to rest. This contributes to a safer network with significant economic benefits arising from reduced accidents and associated congestion. In addition, the Proposed MSA will acts a ‘Gateway’ to Birchwood and Warrington, which will attract business and investments in to the area.

7.176. We consider that the benefits from the investment resulting from the proposal are significant material planning consideration in favour of the proposals, and we attach MODERATE weight to them.

Consideration 7 - Recreational and Health opportunities created by the Proposed Development

7.177. The Proposed Development will deliver a number of recreation and health benefits by improving pedestrian and cycle access across the motorway junction (Junction 11 of the M62), enhancing the Public Rights of Way through the Site, and delivering a number of improvements to the surrounding Public Right of Way network.

7.178. The proposed scheme will provide controlled pedestrian and cycle crossings through the signalisation of J11 and the extension of the existing footway to provide a footway and cycle connection from the site to the existing walking and cycling network to the north and south of the M62.

7.179. The footpath running through the site would be improved through an on-site diversion thus creating a more direct link from Silver Lane to the footpaths to the north of the Site with a high quality path removing the current steps at the south west corner of the Site.

7.180. In addition, the scheme will provide improvements to the PROW network to the north of the M62 connecting the site to Culcheth and to existing pedestrian links along Silver Lane south of M62 and/or links that run adjacent to Birchwood Way to the south of the M62 (subject to meeting the tests set out at Paragraph 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations (2010).

7.181. These improvements in combination will strengthen the strategic green link, which connect Culcheth, Birchwood and Pestfurlong Hill.

7.182. We consider that the recreation and health benefits of the proposal are significant material planning consideration in favour of the proposals, and we attach MODERATE weight to them.

140

Consideration 8: The diversion of Silver Lane Brook

The Proposed Development involves the diversion of the existing Silver Lane Brook that currently flows through the eastern side of the Site. The diversion will allow for the creation of varying habitat areas and an enhanced ecological habitat along its new corridor, which will potentially link up with Local Wildlife Site to the north and west.

7.183. The new brook diversion will flow around the edge of the Site of the Proposed MSA and has been designed to follow a more natural sinuous form. The brook has also been designed to include varied bank treatments and angles to provide greater diversity of aquatic habitats, to include shallow berms, areas of dense marginal planting, alder and willow tree plantings. In addition, the design of the realigned section with range of features of conservation benefit including in channel features and diverse marginal habitats, which will include riffles, areas of slow/static flow, deep peaty sediment. The brook diversion will include specific mitigation features for aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates (including dragonflies and damselflies), as well as enhancements for fish, kingfisher and other ‘Priority’ species such as water vole.

7.184. We consider that the environmental and ecological benefits from the brook diversion are significant material planning consideration in favour of the proposals, and we attach MODERATE weight to it.

Consideration 9 – The creation of the Peatland Type Habitat

7.185. The design of the Proposed Development has allowed the avoidance of deeper peat deposits and the reuse of all disturbed peat resources for the creation of peatland type habitats within the Site. The peatland type habitat will provide a range of micro-habitats from dry to permanently wet, creating varied habitats for a range of flora and fauna. The Site at present does not provide any peatland type habitats because the peat is currently overlaid by topsoil.

7.186. The area of unsealed land (for example the Peat Habitat Zone and landscaping areas) within the Proposed Development has the potential to provide a range of high value ecosystems. In addition, the Proposed Development will lead to the cessation of arable cropping activities which is currently causing a progressive degradation of the peat resource.

141

7.187. We consider that the environmental and ecological benefits from the Peatland Type Habitat is a significant material planning consideration in favour of the proposals, and we attach MODERATE weight to it.

Consideration 10 – The significant level of tree planting

7.188. A full arboriculture assessment has been undertaken of existing trees within the Site area. None of the trees within the Site are covered by a Tree Preservation Order nor are there any Veteran Trees or Ancient Woodland within the Site. Whilst the MSA scheme will result in the removal of some trees within the Site, the majority of these have been classified as low quality category “C” trees. The better quality trees to the northern and eastern boundaries (category “B” trees) are to be retained and protected within the scheme. Extensive new tree planting forms part of the MSA proposals which will comprise a significant net gain in tree cover compared with those lower quality trees that will be removed to facilitate the effective configuration of the MSA.

7.189. We consider that this environmental and environment benefit of the proposal is a significant material planning consideration in favour of the proposals and we attach MODERATE weight to it.

Consideration 11 – The drainage benefits from the Proposed Development

7.190. The MSA development will create surface water runoff from its buildings and hard surfaced areas. The surface water runoff from the hard surfaced areas will be captured in oil interceptors to ensure that it does not pose a threat to the environment. The rate of discharge of the surface water into the diverted Silver Lane Brook will be controlled to ensure that greenfield run off rates are maintained and hence that there will be no downstream flooding concerns. This surface water management strategy results in a reduction in the surface water runoff from the existing land thereby reducing flood impacts to the surrounding area.

7.191. We consider that this environment benefit of the proposal is a material planning consideration in favour of the proposals and we attach MINOR weight to it.

Consideration 12 – The Net-Biodiversity Gain

7.192. The Proposed Development will deliver a number of environmental benefits including delivering a Net Biodiversity Gain. The Site has been considered in detail in terms of ecology and

142

biodiversity. This is set out within Technical Paper 5 of the ES. Multiple habitat and species surveys were undertaken to inform the ecological assessment of the Proposed Development.

7.193. The Ecology Survey recognized that the Proposed Development would result in the permanent loss of existing arable fields albeit which have limited ecological value, areas of woodland, trees, neutral and marshy grassland and scrub. The survey recorded no habitats on the Site which are considered to be of intrinsic ecological value.

7.194. A number of specialist surveys were carried out to ascertain whether there are any protected species on the Site. These surveys included River Corridor Survey, Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) assessment for Great Crested Newt, eDNA sampling for Great Crested Newt,· Breeding Bird Surveys, Wintering Bird Surveys, Water Vole Surveys, Badger Surveys, Climbed inspection of trees for roosting bats, Bat Activity Survey, Aquatic and Terrestrial Invertebrate Surveys, Reptile Surveys, and Tree Surveys.

7.195. The surveys identified the presence of breeding and wintering birds present on the arable field and therefore the Site is considered to be of local level importance in this respect. The surveys also identified the presence of a single adult Great Crested Newt (GCR), but no eDNA was recorded within the nearby waterbodies. Therefore as there are no ponds within the Site itself and very limited potential terrestrial habitat for GCRs it was concluded that there would be no adverse effects to this species. There was no evidence of bat roosts on the Site and in terms of foraging and commuting habitats, the habitats within the Site are considered to be of ‘Low’ habitat quality. There was no evidence of badgers, water voles or reptiles recorded on the Site.

7.196. The Ecological Assessments recommended a number of mitigation measures including habitat retention via site design, habitat enhancement and creation including woodlands, trees, meadow grasslands, and more detailed measures to protected species. These recommendations have been fully integrated within the scheme.

7.197. The new brook diversion will flow around the edge of the Site of the Proposed MSA and beyond it (to the east) is a new peatland type habitat that has the benefit of retaining the carbon store provided by the existing peat within the Site, but also allowing the existing peat resource to be restored and enhanced such that it can become a biodiverse peatland type habitat. This will be complemented by new woodland planting around the northern, eastern and southern Site boundaries along with further landscaping within the Site. A detailed Biodiversity Assessment has shown that this will result in a 17-22% improvement in the overall biodiversity value of the

143

Site. The habitats that are created and retained will be the subject of ongoing management and maintenance regimes to ensure that this biodiversity enhancement is maintained.

7.198. We consider that these ecological benefits of the proposal are a significant material planning consideration in favour of the proposals and we attach MODERATE weight to them.

Consideration 13: Traffic and Transport Benefits

7.199. The Site is located to the north of the existing roundabout of Junction 11 of the M62 – a five arm roundabout which forms a junction between the M62 Motorway (off-slip roads) running east- west and the A574 Birchwood Way to the south. The northern arm of the roundabout is currently restricted to providing access to the former landfill site only. Silver Lane, a minor unadopted road, forms the fifth arm of the junction.

7.200. Access to the Site will be taken from a new connection to this northern arm of the roundabout. Vehicular access to the Site is proposed via a direct signal-controlled connection to the M62 Motorway Junction 11. It is proposed to signalise the motorway junction as part of the scheme.

7.201. The proposed access arrangements have been designed taking account of the committed improvements at M62J11 and Birchwood Way which are being implemented by WBC and are due to be completed by January 2020 as part of its Warrington East Phase 3 scheme. They also take account of the changes resulting from the Smart Motorway Scheme which is due to be completed by spring 2020.

7.202. It is noted that the HE Smart Motorway Scheme includes abnormal load bays within M62J11. The Proposed Development will provide an abnormal load bay within the MSA site (in the vicinity of the FFS) alongside welfare facilities for drivers. It is overall considered that these schemes will provide greater capacity and safety at M62J11 and therefore will enhance access to the Site.

7.203. The Site access arm will consist of two lanes in each direction. As the access road continues into the Site, the traffic will be carefully managed to allow safe and efficient circulation and ease of access to the relevant parking areas and FFS, whilst also considering non-vehicular access and circulation. A central reserve is proposed between the inbound and outbound carriageways.

7.204. At present no public transport services pass the Site. A number of public transport routes serve the Birchwood area to the south-west, with frequent peak and day-time bus services passing through the local area and around Birchwood Park, although there are limited evening and

144

weekend services. Currently the nearest bus stops to the Site are c.1.5km away, located on Gorse Covert Road in the residential area to the south, with further stops located on Faraday Street, off Birchwood Way. Birchwood rail station is located c.3.5km to the south-west of the Site and provides direct services to Warrington town centre and Liverpool to the west, and Manchester to the east (serving a number of intermediate stops).

7.205. Existing cycle and pedestrian routes to the south of the motorway are largely segregated off-road routes, in keeping with the character of Birchwood. From the Site to the south, pedestrian and cycle connectivity are via a segregated path which runs parallel to Birchwood Way, which branches off through the wider area.

7.206. To the north-west and west of the Site, a number of Public Rights of Way (PRoWs) are present, including footpath routes that run through the restored landfill site towards Culcheth. A Public Right of Way runs through the Site. This would be diverted as part of the Proposals and will run southward along the western side of the access road. The access junction will include signal- controlled pedestrian crossings over the access road, to link with the proposed pedestrian improvements at M62J11. The signalization of the pedestrian crossing will significant improve the environment for pedestrian and cyclists passing through the junction, including staff travelling to/from the Proposed Development. In addition, the Proposed Development involves a number of improvements to the surrounding footpath network will also deliver significant benefits to the wider community.

7.207. The Proposed scheme is proposing to provide parking for Cars, HGVs, Abnormal Load Vehicles Coaches, Caravans/Motorhomes/Vehicles and Trailers, Motorcycles and visitors associated with the hotel. A number of spaces will be provided for disabled users. The parking provision on the site will be provided in line with Circular 02/2013 with the exception of additional HGV/lorry parking.

7.208. The Transport Assessment (TA) that accompanies this application advises that the main function and purpose of the MSA is to provide for the travelling public on the motorway network. As such, the vast majority of the visits to the MSA will be made by private vehicle. However the TA acknowledges that staff will access the MSA by a range of travel modes. As a result, a number of potential improvements to non-private car travel modes are set out in the Travel Plan that accompanies the planning application.

145

7.209. The TA goes on to conclude that the Extra MSA proposals at M62J11 will not have a severe impact on the safety and operation of the local and strategic road networks and satisfactory and safe access can be provided.

7.210. The Framework Travel Plan has been prepared with reference to best practice advice including Warrington’s Design Guidance 2: Travel Plans (August 2016). The Travel Plan includes measures such as encouraging car sharing and the promotion of journeys to work by alternative modes of transport to the private car. Other potential measures to encourage travel by non- private car include the improvement of pedestrian and cycle routes to the Site from Culcheth to the north and Gorse Covert to the south, staff mini bus service during train operational hours, and potentially a preferential rates for taxi services for employees outside of train operating hours. . In addition, the provision of showers and changing facilities and secure cycle parking with be provided for employees.

7.211. Given the significant highway and transport benefits from the provision of the MSA and the proposed mitigation measures and that the conclusion is that the Proposals can be accommodated on the highway network, we consider that SIGNIFICANT weight should be given to the benefits to the highway network.

Conclusions on whether very special circumstances exist in favour of the proposed development.

7.212. It is accepted that the proposed development is “inappropriate” development within the Green Belt and hence there is substantial “definitional” harm to the Green Belt. It is also accepted that there is harm to the “openness” of the Green Belt but that this harm is limited. It is also accepted that there is harm to two of the purposes of including land within the Green Belt but that this harm is also limited harm. In accordance with national policy, this Green Belt harm overall carries substantial weight against the proposal.

7.213. We have identified some environmental issues that need to be addressed and mitigated at detailed design stage, some of which are minor adverse effects which need to be balanced against the significant benefits that the scheme will deliver. There is minor harm to landscape, heritage and loss of agricultural land (BMV), but this harm can be largely mitigated through appropriately worded conditions and if required through a Section 106 Agreement.

7.214. In terms of weighing matters in favour of the application proposals (“other material considerations”) we conclude:-

146

• There is very positive policy support for the provision of new MSAs within DfT Circular 02/2013 and within the NPPF (2019). This conclusion is fully supported by Leading Counsel Opinion. It is also clear that there is further support from Highways England in their Strategic Road Network Planning for the Future (2015) document. The Warrington Core Strategy is silent with regard to MSAs however it is clear that the restrictive policies within the Core Strategy are now superseded by a significantly expanded need for employment development which justifies development within the Warrington Green Belt. We consider that this policy support is a significant material consideration in favour of the planning application. As such, we therefore attach SIGNIFICANT weight to the policy support for the application proposals.

• The need for an MSA is a significant material planning consideration in favour of the Proposals. There is a strategic need fully supported by policy, for a new MSA to serve the identified gapping between M58 Terminus and M62 Birch Services; M6 Charnock Richard and M62 Birch Services; M58 Terminus and M67 Terminus; and M6 Charnock Richard and M67 Terminus. This is based on Government policy in Circular 02/2013 which sets out the maximum acceptable distances between facilities. The need has also been supported as recently as 11th June 2019 by Highways England. We also consider that as this need exists on some of the busiest motorways in the north of England and the consequence of not meeting the need has a direct bearing on public safety, that this need should be met urgently. We consider that the compelling and urgent need for an MSA is a significant material planning consideration in favour of the proposals. In addition, there is a critical need for additional lorry/HGV parking within region, borough and Birchwood. We attach SIGNIFICANT weight to it.

• All the potential sites identified to meet the need lie with the Green Belt, and hence there are no non-Green belt options to meet this established need. All the Sites considered within the Alternative Sites Assessment (Sites 1 – 7) are within the Green Belt in the currently adopted Local Plans (Warrington and Salford). In this regard all the sites are subject to the same “very special circumstances” test and there are no non- Green Belt alternatives that could meet the identified need. It is therefore clear that to meet the need for an MSA in the Optimum Search Area, a Green Belt site will need to be developed. We consider that the lack of alternative (non-Green belt sites) is a significant material planning consideration in favour of the Proposals. We attach SIGNIFICANT weight to it.

147

• The Application Site (land within the NE Quadrant of Junction 11 - Site 2) is the most sequentially preferable location upon which to site a new MSA having regard to the specific locational requirements to meet the identified need along with the consideration of planning, engineering, safety, operational and environmental factors. The Assessment also shows that of the sites identified, it has the least Green Belt impact, being classified as having a “weak” contribution within the emerging Warrington Local Plan evidence base. We consider that the suitability and deliverability of the Site is a significant material planning consideration in favour of the Proposals. We attach SIGNIFICANT weight to it.

• The proposal will have benefits to employment. We attach MODERATE weight to it.

• The proposal will have benefits to training, skills and jobs. We attach MODERATE weight to it.

• The proposal will deliver benefits from investment. We attach MODERATE weight to it.

• The proposal will deliver recreational and health benefits. We attach MODERATE weight to it.

• The proposal will deliver benefits from the diversion of Silver Brook. We attach MODERATE weight to it.

• The proposal will deliver benefits from the creation of peatland type habitat. We attach MODERATE weight to it.

• The proposal will deliver benefits from the significant level of tree planting. We attach MODERATE weight to it.

• The proposal will deliver drainage benefits. We attach MINOR weight to it.

• The proposal will deliver benefits to Net-Biodiversity Gain. We attach MODERATE weight to it.

• The proposal will deliver benefits to traffic and transport. We attach SIGNIFICANT weight to it.

148

7.215. In light of the above, we conclude that the substantial harm to Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and the limited harm to openness and two purposes of the Green Belt, along with the other harm identified arising from the Proposed Development would be clearly outweighed by the above identified benefits of the proposal which when taken together constitute ‘very special circumstances’. In line with paragraph 144 of the NPPF (19), “very special circumstances” have been shown to support the application proposals.

Other MSA decisions.

7.216. Our conclusion in respect of this proposed MSA development accords with the conclusions of the Secretary of State in respect of two recently developed new MSAs at Beaconsfield and Cobham, both of which were developed by Extra MSA.

7.217. The Beaconsfield MSA (previously known as Burtley Wood) is located at Junction 2 of the M40 and opened in 2009. The second MSA is located at Cobham on the M25 between Junctions 9 and 10 and it opened in 2012. Both of these schemes are located within the Green Belt and were granted planning permission by the Secretary of State following planning appeal (inquiries).

7.218. In respect to the Beaconsfield MSA appeal (APP/N0410/A/00/1039103) Secretary of State, in reaching his decision considered that:

“The Secretary of State (SOS) has had regard to the fact that motorists do not have an opportunity anywhere on this stretch of the M25 or the on the linked routes which include the radial M4 and M40 motorways. He agrees with the Inspector that excessive gaps constitute a significant need, and he attaches substantial weight to this”.

“The excessive gaps and the reasonable spacing of the NBF amount to clear and compelling safety case for an MSA in this western part of the M25. The SOS has had regard to the Inspectors conclusions on this matter. However he considers that “the clear and compelling safety case” is better expressed as a being a clear and compelling need as he considers the concept of need for an MSA embraces the road safety benefits of allowing drivers frequent access to services… The SOS attaches substantial weight to the clear and compelling need for the MSA.”

“The SOS agrees with the Inspector that there is a clear and compelling need for an MSA in the vicinity of BW. The SOS has carefully balanced the harm to the Green Belt, any other arm, against the compelling unmet need for the MSA. He agrees with the Inspector that this need amounts to very special circumstances which are sufficient to clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and other harm. He

149

also agrees with the Inspector that the compelling need for an MSA amounts to a material consideration which is sufficient to outweigh conflicts with other national planning policies and the development plan. “

7.219. In respect to Cobham MSA, the Secretary of State’s Decision (APP/K3605/A/95/260796) states that:

“The SOS agrees with the Inspector that the proposed NBF MSA would harm the Green Belt, the countryside and landscape. The SOS attaches substantial weight to his harm. He has gone on to consider whether there are any very special circumstances that would clearly outweigh the harm caused to the Green Belt, and any other harm.”

7.220. However the report goes onto state that:

“the harm that would be caused to the Green Belt, countryside and landscape by the proposed NBF MSA, has applied to almost every MSA site proposed for the western sector of the M25, and is inevitable for any MSA serving this part of the M25.”

7.221. The decision goes on to conclude that:

“The Secretary of State concludes that in the circumstances of this case very special circumstances exist that are sufficient to clearly outweigh any harm to the Green Belt and other interests caused by the development.”

7.222. The Secretary of State has also issued a decision on 8th July 2019 (APP/F4410/W/18/3197290) in respect of a site in Doncaster. We have already written to your Office (dated 19th July 2019) to set out the relevance (or not) of this decision to the Junction 11 M62 application proposals. A copy of that letter is attached as Appendix 3. As we demonstrated in our letter, the Inspector evaluated the Appellant’s Alternative Sites Assessment and was persuaded that “a requirement for a Green Belt location could be demonstrated” if the need could be established. In the Doncaster case, the Applicant relied upon stretches of “all purpose” Trunk Roads rather than Motorway to justify the “need” which the Inspector did not support, as existing roadside facilities were located along this Trunk Road stretch and these could be accessed from the Trunk Road. It is of critical importance to bear in mind that the provision of MSAs serve to meet the need for regular provision of break and resting opportunities to ensure the safety of the travelling public. In the Doncaster decision the Secretary of State accepted his Inspector’s finding that the ‘gap’ identified by the appellant was served by non-MSA service areas on Trunk Roads included in the Appellant’s identified network which “…do make a positive contribution to the safety and well-

150

being of the travelling public” [paragraph 17 of the SoS Decision Letter]. This is in complete contrast to the Junction 11 M62 application proposals for the reasons set out above and hence the needs justification advanced in the Doncaster case is of no relevance to the Junction 11 M62 application proposals. Not only is the Doncaster case plainly distinguishable from the present proposal but that decision itself only serves to highlight the important safety function that MSAs meet. Once that ‘gap’, and in consequence a risk to public safety in the use of the motorway network, is identified it is a matter of significant weight regardless of the number of drivers placed at risk. The Doncaster proposal was one where the 28 mile ‘gap’ was exceeded marginally by 1- 3 miles (not the case here), partly included a non-motorway network (not the case here) and made (some, though not full MSA) provision on that non-motorway network (not the case here).

7.223. The above decisions therefore serve to reinforce our conclusions within the Planning Statement.

151

II) National Policy on the Historic Environment

7.224. As previously set out, the accompanying Heritage Statement (submitted as an addendum to ES Technical Paper 5) states that there are no designated heritage assets within 1km radius of the Application Site. However, the nearest heritage asset is the Grade II* Holcroft Hall which is located approximately 1.54 km north-east of the Site. This is the only designated heritage asset that would be potentially be impacted upon by Proposed development.

7.225. Due to the location and nature of the proposed development which is an MSA adjacent to Junction 11 of the M62 Motorway and the nature of the restricted vehicular movement within the MSA, it is not considered that activities associated with the construction and operation of the Proposed Development would result in direct impacts to the significance of Holcroft Hall. However, it was recognised that the Proposed Development has the potential to impact upon the setting of Holcroft Hall. Therefore, the Heritage Assessment was commissioned to provide a detailed assessment of the significance and setting of Holcroft Hall and the impact of the proposed development would have upon these matters.

7.226. The Heritage Assessment concludes that no harm has been identified to the significance of Holcroft Hall and that the Proposed development would not result in changes to elements of its setting which affect its archaeological, historic and architectural interests, which it has been established are best appreciated from the interior of the asset and its immediate vicinity. As no harm is identified to any designated heritage assets, the statutory test would be passed and the paragraph 196 of the NPPF (19) is not engaged.

7.227. Nevertheless, the Archaeological Desk Based Assessment identifies that the Proposed Development within the boundary of the Application Site has the potential to cause direct impacts to a number of undesignated heritage assets mainly in the form of archaeological remains.

7.228. The Archaeological Desk Based Assessment states the historically, the Application Site was located within moss land, which was subject to draining/reclamation from the mid-18th century onwards. The HER record and cartographic material indicate a general paucity of evidence for activity within the vicinity of the Application Site, prior to the post medieval period when it was subject to drainage. However the Assessment recognizes that it is possible that the peat present within the Application Site has the potential to hold remains of palaeo-environmental potential as do any buried remains of historic boundaries, if present. However if present, archaeological

152

remains are likely to be of low to medium significance; there is no evidence for archaeological remains of high (national) significance within the Application Site.

7.229. As such, the Archaeological Assessment states that the potential impact to buried archaeological remains would be of no higher than moderate adverse significance only. The Archaeological Desk Based Assessment also established a potential impact to a number of archaeological receptors, most notably the potential remains of a boundary between the Pestfurlong and Holcroft estates, the potential remains of a post medieval farmstead and deposits of peat which have the potential to hold remains of palaeo-environmental potential. Nevertheless, the assessment states that if present, archaeological remains are likely to be of low (local) to medium (county) importance such that any intrusive archaeological fieldwork could be delayed to a condition of permission and that there is no evidence to indicate the presence of remains of high (national) importance which would preclude development.

7.230. In reference to the NPPF (2019) the identified harm to non-designated assets is “less than substantial”. However it is recognised that this level of harm still triggers paragraph 197 of the NPPF (19) and therefore the effect of the application on the significance of the non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. Paragraph 197 goes onto say that in weighing applications that directly or indirectly affect non-designated heritage assets, the LPA is required to make a balanced judgement having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.

7.231. As identified the impact on the undesignated heritage assets is considered to be of no greater than minor adverse and the archaeological remains are likely to be of low (local) to medium (county) importance. It also evident that the impact on these undesignated heritage assets can be largely mitigated through appropriate fieldwork secured through planning condition. Therefore, it is considered that the minor adverse harm caused to the undesignated heritage assets is clearly outweigh by the public safety need for an MSA in this location and the other social, economic and environmental benefits that flow from the provision of the Proposed Development.

153

III) National Policy on Town Centre Uses

7.233. Warrington Council has requested that the applicant addresses paragraphs 85 to 90 in the NPPF (19). Paragraph 86 of the NPPF (19) confirms that the Sequential Test only applies to main town centre uses, whilst Paragraph 89 confirms that the Impact Assessment only applies to retail and leisure developments. The definition of a main town centre use is contained at Annexe 2 of The Framework and is as follows:

‘Main town centre uses: Retail development (including warehouse clubs and factory outlet centres); leisure, entertainment and more intensive sport and recreation uses (including cinemas, restaurants, drive-through restaurants, bars and pubs, nightclubs, casinos, health and fitness centres, indoor bowling centres and bingo halls); offices; and arts, culture and tourism development (including theatres, museums, galleries and concert halls, hotels and conference facilities).

7.234. A Motorway Service Area (MSA) is not a retail, leisure, office or main town centre use. This is confirmed by the Land Use Gazetteer which states that an MSA is a sui generis use. Each element within the MSA does not operate as separate entities in terms of the Use Class Order and hence do not form separate planning units with Classes A1-A5 or any other uses.

7.235. Within the Warrington MSA, based on comparison with other MSAs currently operated by Extra, it is envisaged that approximately 85% of the ground floor lettable floorspace would be used for the sale of food and beverage with remaining 15% for retail activities. At first floor level, it is envisaged that approximately 50% of the lettable floorspace would be used for the sale of food and beverage with the remainder used for customer’s business use.

7.236. Motorway Service Areas (MSAs) by their very nature need to be located directly adjacent to the Strategic Road Network. They are not town centre uses and Extra MSA Group is not able to identify a single example throughout the entire Country of an MSA that is situated in a town centre location remote from the Strategic Road Network. The sequential test has no meaning in the context of an MSA because it is only serving the motorway. The MSA must by definition be located on the motorway and its services are for those travelling on the motorway network. This is a specific market segment that can only be served by MSAs. Town Centres are clearly not appropriate to serve motorway users.

7.237. It is important to note that it is a mandatory requirement that any MSA must provide hot food and drinks 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for consumption on the premises. In short, MSAs must

154

provide café and restaurants, but remain a sui-generis use. MSAs are there to serve people travelling on the motorway network, and they need to be sufficiently attractive to provide motorists with facilities they expect and want. Therefore, it is expected that customers are provided with a choice and range of different food outlets and retail opportunities as well as high quality complimentary facilities.

7.238. Circular 02/2013 recognises that MSAs will need to provide retail facilities for motorists, stating (paragraph B29) that their scope and scale is a matter for consideration by local planning authorities in line with the NPPF and local policies. With regard to hotels, paragraph B30 of Circular 02/2013 states that their provision as part of an MSA will be a matter for consideration by the relevant local planning authority in line with the NPPF and local policies.

7.239. It is entirely appropriate for the Warrington MSA to offer the range of facilities normally to be expected at such an establishment. There is nothing about the scale or range of facilities proposed that would set it apart from other MSAs or that would suggest that it would become attractive as a destination in its own right.

7.240. Ninety six of the 116 MSAs in England have lodges or hotels and all Green Belt MSAs with sufficient space on their sites have some form of overnight accommodation. The proposed hotel at Warrington MSA would offer nothing but basic bedroom accommodation – there would be no communal lounge or bar and no conference room facilities. It is clearly aimed at catering for motorway drivers on long journeys in need of a break for the night rather than attempting to attract visitors to the area who would be likely to look for hotels situated in a more inviting environment and offering a better range of facilities.

7.241. Interestingly, it is worth noting that whilst superseded, the former CLG Planning Practice Guidance (PPG): “Planning for Town Centres - Planning Guidance on need, impact and the sequential approach” (December 2009) clearly acknowledged that MSA hotels catered for a very different market to a traditional hotel. The former PPG stated that “for example, a hotel associated with a motorway service area is likely to cater for a distinct market compared to a traditional city centre hotel” (paragraph 6.9).

7.242. Additionally, Extra MSA Group has never been required to provide formal Retail Impact or Sequential Assessments in relation to any of their previous MSA development proposals. These tests simply do not apply to this use and should not form part of the LPA’s assessment of this outline planning application.

155

7.243. There is no evidence that either the hotel or retail facilities would have any detrimental impact on town centres, or investment in urban areas or derelict land. Highways England have expressed support for the proposal, so it is clearly satisfied that the facilities provided would not be a destination in their own right leading to an overall increase in trips.

7.244. Notwithstanding the above, at the request of the LPA, Retail Impact and the Sequential Approach are addressed briefly below. Given that the Proposed Development serves a niche market and is location specific, in line with the requirements of NPPF (19) and associated Planning Practice Guidance, these tests are assessed in a proportionate and appropriate level of detail.

The Sequential Approach

Disaggregation, Flexibility and the Applicant’s Business Model

7.245. NPPF(19) has removed the specific need to address disaggregation and it is widely accepted by the Courts, the Secretary of State and various Inspectors that it is not the purpose of national policy to require development to be split onto separate sites where this does not form part of the developer’s business model and where flexibility on issues such as format and scale has been demonstrated. This means that LPAs should be realistic when considering whether sites are suitable, viable and available.

7.246. Government policy is for MSAs to be less than 30 minutes’ drive time and no more than 28 miles apart on the Strategic Road Network. An assessment of the North West has shown that a significant part of the Network in this area is ‘road safety’ deficient.

7.247. The purpose of the outline planning application proposals is therefore to meet a ‘need’ fully supported by policy, for a new MSA to serve an identified gap along the M62, M6, M58, M60, and M61 corridors within the North West Region. The outline planning application proposals will perform a critical highway safety function by meeting the safety and welfare needs of users of the Strategic Road Network in this area, reducing fatigue risk on the roads.

7.248. Extra MSA Group is a leading developer, investment owner and experienced operator of high- quality Motorway Service Areas. It is the largest freehold investment owner of MSAs in the UK and has 18 MSA ‘quasi-infrastructure’ property assets with an aggregate gross capital value in excess of £1.1 billion. In terms of geography, Extra has a network of MSAs spread across the Strategic Road Network, attracting in excess of 1.2 million vehicles per week (circa 60 million

156

vehicles each year). Since the deregulation of MSAs in 1992, Extra has successfully delivered nine new MSAs; this is significantly more than any other party involved in the MSA sector over this period. Extra has recently developed two of the largest and busiest new MSAs on the Strategic Road Network at Cobham (M25 J9-J10) and Beaconsfield (M40 J2). Extra MSA Group is therefore extremely well placed to confirm the commercial requirements of a MSA and has extensive knowledge and experience of the market that it seeks to serve.

7.249. Extra has successfully raised and driven new MSA standards across the Country and has developed a ‘new concept’ approach to MSAs that focuses on world-class design, incorporating a good quality and popular range of complementary ancillary food, retail, business, leisure, and hotel facilities, within a bright, spacious and comfortable building, set in an attractive and relaxing environment to meet modern day customer requirements. This forms Extra MSA Group’s business model.

7.250. Customers have also now come to expect that a certain level and range of facilities will be provided within an MSA. In line with these customer expectations and Extra MSA Group's business model, the proposals for Warrington include:

• A Facilities Building comprising: - Approximately 3,000sqm of food court and ancillary retail space, incorporating facilities for the sale and consumption of hot and cold food and beverages on and off the premises. - Free toilet, hand washing facilities for all drivers and disabled visitors along with showers and washing facilities for all HGV drivers. - Staff areas including kitchen, catering storage, staff rooms, retail storage, refuse areas and office space. • A Budget Hotel providing up to 100 bedrooms with supporting ancillary uses. The hotel will provide hotel beds for predominately road users on long journeys. • Fuel Filling Station. • Parking facilities for all types of vehicle. • Outdoor play areas, landscaping and outdoor seating areas.

157

7.251. These facilities form part of Extra MSA Group’s MSA facilities across the country. These elements are intrinsically linked to their MSA offer and very much form part of its overall sui generis use rather than being individual attractors in their own right. Again this forms part of Extra MSA Group's business model.

7.252. The reality is that Extra MSA Group is an MSA operator. It does not operate standalone cafés, restaurants, convenience stores, hotels or fuel filling stations, and this is simply not part of its business model. Together these areas form a key element of the overall offer and success of the MSA and it is not possible to disaggregate them into a series of smaller separate units that could potentially be accommodated in a nearby centre. This is simply not an option in a real world situation. Therefore, even if flexibility is shown in either the proposed format or scale of development, splitting the development onto several smaller and remote sites would not achieve the objectives of Extra MSA Group’s business model.

7.253. This outline planning application has resulted from Extra MSA Group’s commercial judgment and its purpose is to meet a need that is specific to the Strategic Road Network. Disaggregating the individual elements into a unit within or on the edge of any designated centres within the surrounding area would not result in the outcome intended by the submission of this application and would prevent the development applied for from coming forward. All ancillary elements of the proposed MSA therefore need to remain together.

7.254. This stance is supported by legal judgements from the Supreme and High Courts and also decisions made by the Secretary of State. The following decisions are widely accepted as being the leading case law and are taken into account in all retail planning proposals at the current time. Indeed, these court decisions are matters of law and not just material considerations.

7.255. The Supreme Court Judgment - Tesco Stores Ltd v. Dundee City Council (21st March 2012) UKSC13 provides clarity on the policy interpretation and application of the sequential approach. The Judgement ruled that the sequential test and its limb concerning ‘suitable’ sites closer to the town centre is about explaining why alternative sites for the developer’s scheme are not more suitable. Therefore, if a site is not suitable for the commercial requirements of the developer in question then it is not a suitable site for the purposes of the sequential approach. In relation to the size of alternative sites, the Judgement also establishes that, as long as the Applicant has demonstrated flexibility with regards to format and scale, the question to be asked is whether such sites are suitable for the proposed development, not whether the proposed development could be altered or reduced so that it can be made to fit the alternative site. The Judgement

158

confirms that the LPA should not take inappropriate business decisions on behalf of the developer and that they should bear in mind the need for realism and acknowledge that such developments are generated by the developer’s assessment of the market that they seek to serve. ‘Criteria are designed for use in the real world in which developers wish to operate, not some artificial world in which they have no interest in doing so’. In this instance, individual, smaller sites and sites positioned in locations that are remote from the Strategic Road Network are not suitable to accommodate the commercial requirements of Extra MSA Group's scheme for the reasons discussed in detail above, and there is no requirement for the proposal to be split onto separate sites. As is set out above, Extra MSA Group’s business model dictates that the MSA needs to incorporate all of the elements proposed and needs to be located adjacent to the Strategic Road Network.

7.256. The application of Dundee in England has been confirmed by the High Court R (on the application of Zurich Assurance Ltd (t/a Threadneedle Property Investments)) v North Lincolnshire Council [2012] EWHC 3708 (Admin). Therefore the Dundee decision is a matter of law and not just a material consideration.

7.257. This stance is also reflected in the Secretary of State’s decision of 11th June 2014 in relation to the application by LXB RP (RUSHDEN) Limited on Land adjacent to Skew Bridge ski slope, Northampton Road, Rushden (APP/G2815/V/12/2190175). This application proposed a mixture of commercial and retail uses. This decision follows Dundee, stating that it is no longer necessary for disaggregation to be considered and confirming that if the Government had intended to retain disaggregation as a requirement it would have explicitly stated this within the Framework. This decision provides clear policy interpretation of the application of the sequential approach directly from the Secretary of State.

7.258. Notwithstanding that disaggregation is not a feasible option in this case, there is also no policy requirement to undertake the Sequential Assessment on this basis. The developer’s business model has been discussed in detail, along with the purpose of the planning application and it has been demonstrated (accounting for scope for flexibility in terms of format and scale of the proposal) that it is simply not feasible or realistic to split the individual elements of the scheme across several sites. In order to achieve the results intended by the outline planning application, Extra MSA Group would need to consider sites that could accommodate the MSA proposal in its entirety (15.41ha). The Sequential Assessment below therefore proceeds on this basis.

159

Sequential Assessment

7.259. Taking a common sense approach, it is simply not appropriate to locate an Motorway Service Area within a town centre location which is why it is not defined as such a use.

7.260. As the purpose of an MSA is to serve the Strategic Road Network, only ‘Online’ sites (i.e. sites located directly adjacent to the Motorway itself between junctions) and sites sharing a common boundary with the highway at an existing junction with the Strategic Road Network (Off-line / Junction sites) can be considered. This approach is consistent with Government guidance on the provision of MSA facilities contained within Circular 02/2013, this is discussed in further detail in the Planning Statement.

7.261. Therefore, the overriding factor in determining the most appropriate site location for the proposed development is its physical ability to meet this need. This is discussed in further detail within the Alternative Sites Assessment where an optimum area of search of On-line and Off- line locations roughly extending along the M62 motorway between Junction 10 to Junction 12 of the M62 were identified. This therefore forms the catchment area of search for the Sequential Assessment.

7.262. The nearest defined centres to the site are set out in the following table. The Motorway does not run through or adjacent to any of these defined centres:

Centre Distance from the Distance from the application site via Driving application site as Crow Route (miles) Flies (miles) Birchwood 2.5 1.9 Cinnamon Brow 3.8 2.8 Fernhead Cross 3.4 2.9 Winwick Village 4.7 4.0 Locking Stumps 2.3 1.7 Croft Village 3.1 2.3 Goose Covert 1.3 0.6 Glazebrook 8.4 1.9

Cadishead 4.2 3.0 Lower Irlam 9.8 3.0

160

Centre Distance from the Distance from the application site via Driving application site as Crow Route (miles) Flies (miles) Higher Irlam 10.4 3.6 Peel Green 8.0 6.1 Monton 10.0 7.0 Table 6: Allocated Centres around Junctions 10 to 12 of the M62

7.263. No sequentially preferable sites have been identified for an MSA within or on the edge of any of these defined centres. This is because these locations are not suitable for the proposed development as they are not located within the catchment area of search and are not located on a Motorway Junction or directly adjacent to the Strategic Road Network. These locations would not therefore meet the purpose of the proposed MSA or the outline planning application which is to meet a strategic ‘need’ fully supported by policy, for a new MSA to serve an identified gapping along the M62, M6, M58, M60, and M61 corridor within the North West Region having regard to Dundee and Extra MSA Group’s business model.

7.264. On this basis sites within and on the edge of the allocated centres identified in Table 6 are not suitable locations to meet the identified need and can be discounted from the sequential assessment.

7.265. The Framework establishes that out-of-centre sites can be considered in such circumstances, with preference given to accessible and well connected sites. Extra MSA Group has undertaken a detailed Alternative Sites Assessment in order to identify a preferred site which best meets the need for a new MSA on this stretch of the Strategic Road Network with the least number of planning, engineering and environmental constraints having regard to both On-line and Junction locations and the policy guidance contained in Circular 02/2013. This report accompanies this outline planning application. This demonstrates that the application site is the most sequentially preferable location to meet the identified need having regard to the locational requirements of the new MSA and a wider range of environmental, planning and engineering constraints.

7.266. In respect of the Sequential Assessment, it has been demonstrated that there are no more sequentially preferable locations upon which the proposed development could be accommodated. The proposal is in full accordance paragraphs 85 to 90 in the NPPF (19) and Policies PV4 and PV5 of the adopted Local Plan Core Strategy with the sequential approach

161

outlined in paragraphs and the application site is the most appropriate site for the proposed development.

Retail Impact

7.267. In terms of impact, an MSA serves a niche market and almost all of its customers will be motorists travelling across the country on the Strategic Road Network.

7.268. The turnover of the proposed MSA will therefore be derived from expenditure generated in thousands of different locations throughout the country. It is also entirely feasible that expenditure from almost every customer will originate from a different geographical location. It is therefore not possible to estimate or quantify these locations as they are spread across such a large area and will change on a daily and hourly basis.

7.269. The vast majority of purchases at the MSA will be made to address needs that are generated by a specific motorway journey. A proportion of any spend at the MSA will therefore be newly generated rather than diverted from other locations. Any trade diversion that does occur to the MSA will also originate from thousands of different locations spread throughout the country where these motorists would normally purchase goods. These will not be daily or weekly shopping trips being diverted from town centre locations nearby. It is again entirely feasible to suggest that trade diversion will occur from a different geographical location in relation to almost every single purchase. It is again not possible to estimate or quantify these locations as they are spread across such a large area and they will again change on a daily and hourly basis. This in itself demonstrates that there will be no significant adverse retail impact upon any single centre as impact will constantly change and will be spread across many different locations.

7.270. It can therefore be concluded that an MSA will have no impact at all upon Warrington and its associated district, neighbourhood and local centres as motorway travellers do not currently drive substantial distances off the M62 Motorway, particularly in unfamiliar locations, to use the facilities within these centres (Goose Covert and Birchwood are the closest centres to a Motorway Junction and are located 1.3 and 2.5 miles respectively from Junctions 11 of the M62). Trade diversion would therefore not occur from these locations.

7.271. Given that the MSA will not provide facilities to undertake a weekly shop and there is no residential community within immediate vicinity of the site, no trade diversion will occur as a result of local residents changing their shopping patterns from other local centres.

162

7.272. Some diversion will inevitably occur from other MSAs on the Strategic Road Network, however these are not located within allocated centres and are not afforded any protection by the planning system in retail planning terms.

7.273. Furthermore, there is an identified and unmet need for an additional MSA on this stretch of the Strategic Road Network (as established by Department for Transport Circular 02/2013) and although ‘need’ is no longer a retail planning policy test, this demonstrates that there is capacity on the network for another MSA facility to address unmet needs and that expenditure from these motorists will support the MSA (i.e. new MSA customers).

7.274. The proposal would not impact upon any existing committed and planned investment in any of the identified centres for the reasons outlined above.

7.275. On this basis, trade diversion will be spread across numerous locations, most of which will be outside of the Warrington area and there will be no significant adverse impact upon any allocated centre. The impact test is therefore passed and the proposal is in full accordance with paragraphs 85 to 90 in the NPPF (19) and Policies PV4 and PV5 of the adopted Local Plan Core Strategy.

Summary

7.276. The Retail Impact and Sequential Assessments have been addressed above at the request of the LPA despite there being no local or national planning policy requirement to do so.

7.277. It has been demonstrated that there are no more sequentially preferable locations upon which the proposed development could be accommodated and that the proposed development would not result in any significant adverse retail impact upon any town centre or existing committed and planned investment in any centre. The proposal is in therefore in full accordance with paragraphs 85 to 90 in the NPPF (19) and Policies PV4 and PV5 of the adopted Local Plan Core Strategy.

IV) Overall Compliance with National Planning Policy

7.278. As demonstrated in the above sections, the Proposed Development is consistent with the NPPF (19).

7.279. At the heart of the NPPF is the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Paragraph 8 of the NPPF (19) explains that there are three dimensions to sustainable development, which are

163

economic, social and environmental. The paragraph goes onto state that these three objectives are interdependent and need to be supported in mutually supportive ways.

7.280. As outlined earlier in this section, the Proposed Development will deliver significant benefits across all three aspects of sustainability. Therefore, the application proposals accord with the requirements in the NPPF (19) and constitutes sustainable development.

164

B) Compliance with the Warrington Local Plan Core Strategy (July 2014)

7.281. The Local Plan Core Strategy (CS) replaced the previously adopted Unitary Development Plan. The CS sets out a planning framework for guiding the distribution and scale of development in the borough up to 2027. Both the CS and its predecessor (the UDP) sought to halt the outward growth of the town and instead focus on regenerating and restructuring the older core of Warrington town. The CS states that this approach was partly due to recognition that the town was nearing its natural limits of expansion and that the new town development had limited effect on the older urban areas of Inner Warrington.

7.282. The CS recognises that Warrington has a strong and resilient economy. It also claims that the current land take-up is good, and the borough has a strong and diverse land and premises offer. Nevertheless, it acknowledges that there are areas in Warrington which suffer from high levels of deprivation and worklessness that have not benefited equally from the prosperity within the borough.

7.283. The Key diagram on Page 21 of the CS identifies the Application Site as being within the Green Belt to the north of the “Existing Employment Location” at Birchwood.

7.284. The CS sets out the 2027 Vision for the borough. It states that the “town continues to be a key economic driver for the surrounding area and it’s pivotal location within the ‘Atlantic Gateway’ is an advantage to residents and businesses and gives them unrivalled access to both the Manchester and Liverpool conurbations and national transport infrastructure”; that “the town has grown by strengthening its existing neighbourhoods especially in areas around the Town Centre”; and that “the focus on regeneration has limited outward growth of the town and has enabled the continued protection of the Green Belt.” The Proposed Development would support this Vision by contributing to the economic growth of the borough as well as tackling issues of deprivation and worklessness. As set out in the Framework Travel Plan a number of interventions are proposed to improve accessibility to the Proposed Development for potential workers such as an employee shuttle bus service as well as enhanced pedestrian and cycle links. Nevertheless, it is acknowledged that the Proposed Development would conflict with a blanket protection of Green Belt but that Green Belt policies allow for development where very special circumstances have been demonstrated.

165

7.285. The 2027 Vision goes on to state that “the borough is home to a highly skilled workforce that serves the global economy well and the town continues to be a focus for employment for wide area – reinforced by the development of significant sites in and immediately surrounding the borough.” The Proposed Development would support 970-person years of construction employment (the equivalent of 97 FTE jobs). Once operational, the Proposed Development will create in the region of 228 FTE jobs. The Vision also recognises the “pivotal location” of Warrington within the national transport infrastructure and the need to bring forward further employment opportunities within the borough during the Plan period. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal fully complies with this element of the Vision.

7.286. Policy CS1 sets out some general principles to which new development must have regard. Not unsurprisingly given the date of the adoption of the Core Strategy, Policy CS1 is based on approach set out in the previous draft of the National Planning Policy Framework published in 2012, in particular paragraph 14. However there are now elements of Policy CS1 which are no longer consistent with the new approach set on in paragraph 11 of the NPPF (19) in particular the reference to “relevant policies are out of date”, which has now been replaced by a new test of “most important [policies] for determining the application are out of date”. Therefore there is now a requirement to consider whether [any of] of the policies which are most important for the determining the application are out of date. The NPPF (19) paragraph 212 makes clear that due weight should be given to policies that are made or adopted prior to the publication of the latest NPPF (19) according to the degree of consistency with this Framework.

7.287. Nevertheless, the fundamental premise of Policy CS1 that proposals that accord with the development plan should be approved without delay is consistent with NPPF (19). It will be shown later within this Section of this Planning Statement that the Proposed Development accords with the development plan and therefore constitutes ‘sustainable development’ and as a result planning permission should be granted without delay.

7.288. Policy CS2 stipulates that the main focus for other business, general industrial and storage/distribution development (B1/B2/B8) will continue to be the existing employment areas of the town principally Birchwood Park, Gemini and Winwick Quay, together with further sites at Woolston Grange and the strategic location of Omega and Lingley Mere. The policy also states that the defined centres, primarily Warrington Town Centre, will maintain

166

their role and status by being the focus for further retail and leisure development investment and by strictly controlling inappropriate out of centre retail developments.

7.289. Policy CS2 goes onto state that within the Green Belt area, development will only be allowed where it is considered to be appropriate in accordance with National Policy. The Policy makes no reference to MSAs and hence is silent in this regard, however national Green Belt policy allows for “very special circumstances” to be shown to exist to support “inappropriate” development within the Green Belt. Whilst the proposal would not constitute ‘appropriate development’ in accordance with the NPPF (paragraph 145), this Planning Statement has shown “very special circumstances” for allowing the Proposed Development in accordance with Paragraph 143 of the NPPF.

7.290. Equally this Planning Statement has shown that the MSA is not a ‘retail or business development’ and therefore does not conflict with this element of the Policy. Therefore, it is considered that Proposed Development complies Policy CS2.

7.291. The Proposed Development conforms with Policy CS4 which seeks to support improvements to Warrington’s Transport Network through enhancing the sustainability of cross boundary travel and strengthening sustainable transport links between recognised areas of business. There has also been comprehensive early engagement with Highways England (formerly the Highways Agency). The Proposed Development includes improvements to Junction 11 of the M62 as set out within the Transport Statement which complement the current Birchwood Way corridor improvements. The Alternative Sites Assessment and Section 6 of this Planning Statement sets out in detail the nature of the “public safety need” for an MSA at the Proposed Development site and hence the “cross boundary travel” benefits of such a proposal. The Alternative Sites Assessment also includes correspondence from the Highways Agency who confirm the need for an MSA within the locality. It is also important to note that the MSA is not a significant generator of traffic in itself, but its principal function is to serve existing traffic on the Strategic Road Network. This is recognised in footnote 42 of the NPPF (19), which states that the “primary function of roadside services should be to support the safety and welfare of the road user”.

7.292. The supporting text to Policy CS5 states that the integrity of the Green Belt is to be preserved across the entirety of the Plan period and beyond. It also states that the “Council will maintain the general extent of the Green Belt”. The policy considers that there are sufficient contingencies in place within the Local Plan Core Strategy to ensure that the

167

protection of Green Belt is sustainable in the long-term and therefore there is no need to review the Green Belt during the plan period. It stresses that this approach does not compromise growth aspirations during or beyond the Plan period. However, it does go on to say that development proposals within the Green Belt will be approved where they accord with relevant national policy. The evidence underpinning Policy CS5 has clearly been superseded by more recent evidence that demonstrates that land is required to be released from the Green Belt to meet the housing and employment needs of the borough. The Proposed Development, however, proposes an MSA within the Green Belt and does not require Green Belt change / deletion, therefore the proposal preserves the integrity and general extent of the Green Belt. As a result, the proposal complies with Policy CS5 as we demonstrate in this Planning Statement that there are “very special circumstances” to justify the Proposed Development within the Green Belt and hence it is in line with national Green Belt policy.

7.293. Policy CS 6 states that the Council is committed to supporting wider programmes and initiatives which seek to connect the borough’s Strategic Green Links with employment areas, residential communities, and Green Infrastructure Assets. The proposed development is proposing to improve the facilities for pedestrians and cyclists to cross Junction 11 of the M62, which will improve the access for local residents and workers in Birchwood to the footpaths and greenspaces to the north of the M62. In addition, the Proposed Development proposes to significantly improve the network of public rights of way in the immediate vicinity of the Application Site. Therefore the Proposal is considered to comply with Policy CS 6.

7.294. Policy PV 1 is principally concerned with development in Existing Employment Areas. The proposed development is not located within an Existing Employment Area and therefore the majority of the policy is irrelevant to the proposal. However the policy goes onto state that sustainable development creating employment in other areas of the borough will also be supported. As outlined below, the Proposed Development will create a significant level employment both in the construction and operational stages. Therefore the proposal is considered to comply with Policy PV 1.

7.295. The Socio-Economic Technical Paper 6 of the Environmental Statement clearly sets out how the Proposed Development would strengthen the borough’s workforce and enhance training opportunities for its residents. In summary it is envisaged that 97 gross FTE jobs will be created during the construction stage and a further 228 gross FTE jobs during the operation

168

stage. Extra MSA Group is also proposing to work in partnership with the Warrington and Co and local training providers such as Warrington Vale Royal College and Priestly College to deliver a significant number of Apprenticeship opportunities. Furthermore, through its bespoke Employment Strategy and Charters, Extra MSA Group has also outlined its commitment to working with and fostering links with local employment and training organisations (attached to ES Technical Paper 6). Therefore, the proposal complies with the requirements of Policy PV3.

7.296. Policy PV 4 seeks to focus retail development within the Town Centre and Primary Shopping Area. The policy goes onto state that where retail development is proposed outside of the Primary Shopping Area and is not in accordance with any allocation made within the Local Plan, the applicant will be required to demonstrate that no suitable sites are available in more sequentially preferable locations to that proposed. The Proposed MSA is not a ‘retail development’ and it is not appropriate to seek to disaggregate the different elements of the scheme. As a result, it is considered that the policy does not apply to the proposal. Nevertheless, this Planning Statement demonstrates that there are no sequentially preferable sites that could accommodate the MSA. Therefore the proposal complies with the requirements of Policy PV4.

7.297. Policy PV 5 is concerned with enhancing the Town Centre Economy. The Policy states that where retail, leisure and office development over 500 square metres gross is proposed outside of the Town Centre, the applicant will be required to undertake an impact test and demonstrate that there will be no significant adverse impacts on the vitality and viability of the Town Centre. The Proposed MSA is not a ‘retail, leisure or office development’ and it is not appropriate to seek to disaggregate the different elements of the scheme. As a result, it is considered that the policy does not apply to the proposal. Nevertheless, this Planning Statement demonstrates that there are no sequentially preferable sites that could accommodate the MSA and that the proposal would not impact on the vitality and viability of the Town Centre. However the Policy is not consistent with the NPPF (19) in respect to requiring office development outside of the town centre to be subject to the impact assessment. Therefore the proposal complies with the requirements of Policy PV5.

7.298. Policies SN4 and SN5 states that the provision for retailing within the borough will be based on the need to safeguard and enhance the vitality and viability of the centres within the borough. The policies go on to state that retail and leisure uses will be directed towards

169

District, Neighbourhood and Local Centres where the development is of a scale and nature appropriate to the area served by the centre and where these uses are proposed outside of a defined centre, the applicant will be required to demonstrate that no suitable sites are available within the centre or in edge of centre locations through applying a sequential approach as well as demonstrate no significant adverse impacts on these centres. The Proposed MSA is not a ‘retail or leisure development’ and it is not appropriate to seek to disaggregate the different elements of the scheme. As a result, it is considered that the policy does not apply to the proposal. Nevertheless, this Planning Statement demonstrates that there are no sequentially preferable sites that could accommodate the MSA and that the proposal would not impact on the vitality and viability of the Town Centre. However the Policy is not consistent with the NPPF (19) in respect to requiring office development outside of the town centre to be subject to the impact assessment. Therefore the proposal complies with the requirements of Policies SN4 and SN5.

7.299. Policy SN7 seeks to reduce health inequalities within the borough by supporting proposals that promote healthy lifestyles. The Proposal involves the provision of enhanced pedestrian and cycle crossings through Junction 11 of the M62 to enhance linkage to the Proposed Development which could also be of benefit to existing residents within the area who may have experienced Junction 11 as a barrier to connectivity. Therefore, the Proposed Development does not conflict with the requirements of Policy SN7.

7.300. Climate Change Technical Paper 13 of the ES Part 2 sets out how the Proposed Development complies with the requirements of Policy QE1 in regard to maximising renewable and low carbon energy. However, these detailed matters will be dealt with at the reserved matters stages in the consideration of the detailed design of the MSA. Therefore, the Proposed Development does not conflict with the requirements of Policy QE1.

7.301. Policy QE3 seeks to support the provision of well managed Green Infrastructure. The Proposed Development has been carefully designed to incorporate areas of soft and hard landscaping as well as the peatland habitat mitigation area. Strategic landscaping will be provided around the boundaries of the Site including the retention and enhancement of the existing woodland, trees and vegetation on the outer Site boundaries. In addition, new tree planting will be introduced within the Site. As such, the Proposed Development includes a significant amount of Green Infrastructure and therefore the Proposal does not conflict with the requirements of Policy QE3.

170

7.302. Policy QE 4 seeks to ensure that issues of flood risk are fully assessed. The planning application includes a Flood Risk Assessment that identifies that the Site lies within Flood Zone 1. The Proposed Development has been designed to ensure there is no risk of surface water flooding. These issues are dealt within in detail within the accompanying Flood Risk & Drainage Technical Paper 9 in the ES Part 2. Therefore, the Proposed Development does not conflict with the requirements of Policy QE4.

7.303. Policies QE5 and QE6 seek to protect Sites of Biodiversity and Geodiversity value and state that “the Council will only support development which will not lead to an adverse impact on the environment or amenity of future occupiers or those currently occupying adjoining or nearby properties or does not have an unacceptable impact on the surrounding area.”

7.304. The Ecology and Nature Conservation ES Technical Paper 5 of the ES Part 2 includes an Ecological Impact Assessment which assesses the potential impact of the proposed development on the ecology and nature conservation interests on the Site and in the surrounding area. It concludes that there is likely to be a number of impacts and effects of the Proposed Development during the construction and operational stages. However following the application of mitigation measures it is considered that the impacts are not significant. It goes on to conclude that the Proposed Development will deliver a net biodiversity gain, which will be principally achieved by the enhancement of the currently arable habitats along the southern, eastern and northern boundaries of the Site, the realignment of Silver Lane Brook and the provision of a new peatland type habitat.

7.305. Careful consideration has been given to the potential impact on residential amenity and the environment. Noise and Air Quality Assessments have been submitted as part of this application alongside Technical Papers 7 and 8 on these subjects within the ES as well as a Light Impact Assessment. These assessments indicated that through appropriate mitigation, the potential impacts on the environment and the amenity of any residential properties can be sufficiently mitigated both during the construction and operation stages of the Proposed Development. Therefore, the Proposal does not conflict with the requirements of Policies QE5 and QE6.

7.306. Policy QE7 states that the Council will look positively upon proposals that are sustainable, durable, adaptable and energy efficient; create inclusive, accessible and safe environments; function well in relation to existing patterns of movement and activity; and, amongst other things, are visually attractive as a result of good architecture and the inclusion of appropriate

171

public space. The details of the proposed materials and building design will ultimately be controlled via planning conditions and future Reserved Matters applications. However, the Indicative Masterplan and associated Parameter Plans identify that the Proposal will result in a high-quality scheme that will be deliver a significant habitat benefit. Therefore, the Proposal does not conflict with the requirements of Policies QE7.

7.307. Policy QE8 seeks to ensure that the fabric and setting of heritage assets are appropriately protected and enhanced in accordance with the principles set out in National Planning Policy. A listed building known as Holcroft Hall (Grade II* Listed) has been identified within the Study Area which is recorded on the Cheshire Historic Environment Record. The impact of the Proposed Development on this heritage asset is considered in the Cultural Heritage ES Technical Paper and the Heritage Impact Assessment accompanying the planning application, which considers that there will be no harm or impact on any designated heritage assets. Nevertheless, it is acknowledged that it is possible that the peat has the potential to hold remains of palaeo-environmental potential remains, but these are likely be of low to medium significance and there is no evidence of any high (national) significance. Nevertheless a range of mitigation measures have been set out to mitigate any impact on any archaeological remains, which have been agreed with Cheshire Archaeology Planning Advisory Service. Therefore, the Proposed Development does not conflict with the requirements of Policies QE8.

7.308. Policies MP1, MP3, and MP4 and MP7 seek to reduce the need for the use of private vehicles and to encourage walking and cycling and the use of public transport, especially providing linkages between residential and employment areas. They also require all developments to demonstrate that they will not significantly harm highway safety and efficiency and mitigate their impact on Warrington’s transport Network (including the Strategic Road Network). In the case of major development, the planning application should be accompanied by Transport Assessment and Travel Plan.

7.309. The nature of an MSA means that its operation is related to private vehicle activities that cannot be replaced by public transport activities. Indeed the MSA is predicated upon meeting a “public safety need” for such private vehicles. In this regard the suite of policies are not relevant to the Proposed Development, however in respect to accessibility, enhanced footway and cycleway crossings are proposed at Junction 11 of the M62 which will be of benefit to both prospective workers at the Proposed Development and also to existing residents / workers who see Junction 11 as a current barrier to their walking and cycling activities. The

172

TA and Travel Plan also demonstrate that the Proposed Development will provide a bespoke employee transport initiative to connect the Proposed Development with the existing parts of the urban area including to Birchwood Train Station. The Proposed Development includes highway improvement works to Junction 11 of the M62 that will mitigate the impacts of the development on the local and strategic highway network. The Planning Application is accompanied by a Full Transport Assessment and Travel Plan Framework, which provides further details in respect to the proposed accessibility and highway measures. Therefore, the Proposed Development does not conflict with the requirements of Policies MP1, MP3, and MP4 and MP7.

7.310. Policy MP5 states that proposals for freight related development will be supported where they achieve a reduction in road traffic kilometres through their location and/or where they reduce the impact of freight traffic on local or inappropriate routes. The policy goes on to state that proposals should demonstrate that they would not have an adverse impact in terms of; heavy goods vehicles using local or residential roads or congested central areas; unacceptable problems of noise, vibration, lighting, emissions, or other pollution for neighbouring occupiers. The Proposed MSA would provide a level of HGV parking above the level specified within the Circular in order to help address the significant under provision of lorry parking within this part of the region, which amongst other things, has caused issue of inappropriate and unauthorised HGV parking within the borough. The MSA has direct access from the motorway and the suite of accompanying technical documents within the ES demonstrate the HGV parking would not cause any amenity issues for nearby properties.

7.311. Policy CC2 seeks control of development in the countryside and states that proposals in the countryside which accord with Green Belt policies set out in national planning policy will be supported provided that; the detailed siting and design of the development relates satisfactorily to its rural setting, in terms of its scale, layout and use of materials; they respect local landscape character, both in terms of immediate impact, or from distant views; unobtrusive provision can be made for any associated servicing and parking facilities or plant, equipment and storage; they relate to local enterprise and farm diversification; and it can be demonstrated that there would be no detrimental impact on agricultural interests. The Landscape and Visual Impact Technical Paper 4 of the ES Part 2 identifies an appropriate suite of landscape and visual mitigation proposals and concludes that with these in place minor and moderate adverse landscape and visual effects will occur. Whilst this is an outline planning application, it is envisaged that the design of the facilities building and hotel as a freestanding

173

element, with agricultural barn-style forms and materials provides for a more rural character (large-isolated farmstead), with the parking areas set down and within a strong framework of tree planting. Therefore, it is considered that the scheme relates ‘satisfactorily’ to its ‘rural setting’ and its servicing and parking facilities would be relatively unobtrusive by virtue of them being set down and the comprehensive landscaping scheme that forms part of the Proposed Development.

7.312. ES Part 2 – Agricultural Land & Soils Technical Paper 10 of the ES identifies that there will be some loss of some ‘best and most versatile’ (BMV) agricultural land (11.7 ha is agricultural). The NPPF does not define what constitutes a significant loss of BMV agricultural land. However Schedule 4 of the Town and Country (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015 stipulates that Natural England need only be consulted on the loss BMV agricultural land when the loss is greater than 20 ha. Therefore as the loss of BMV is below this threshold, it is considered that the loss is deemed not to be significant. Natural England’s consultation response dated 28th October 2019 confirms that the Proposed Development falls outside of the scope of the Development Management Procedure Order (as amended) consultation arrangements and hence they raise no concerns with regard to agricultural land issues.

7.313. The Proposed Development been located on an area of agricultural land currently tenanted by one tenant; in which the tenancy agreement is short-term (one year), with no rights of renewal or security of tenure. As the landlord has the right to terminate the tenancy at any time, with a two-month notice period, it is considered the potential impact of the Proposed Development will be no different than is currently expected in a short-term agreement. However as outlined above it is recognized that there will be some loss of agricultural land. Therefore, in accordance with Policy CC2 “Protecting the Countryside”, it is deemed that there would be only limited detrimental to agricultural interests. It is also important to note that the development of the application site would not sever an agricultural unit.

7.314. Nevertheless, Policy CC2 does not wholly reflect the approach within section 6 (Supporting a prosperous rural economy) of the NPPF (19) in particularly paragraphs 83 and 84. The NPPF (19) does not seek to limit development to those that solely relate to ‘local enterprise and farm diversification’, but instead also allows the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business, sustainable rural tourism and leisure developments, and accessible local services and community facilities. It is also not consistent with paragraph 104 (e) of the NPPF (19), which makes clear that planning policies should provide for any large scale transport

174

facilities that need to be located in the area. These large scale transport facilities, such as road side services will in the majority of cases inevitably have to be located within the countryside. Therefore, it is considered that bullet point 4 of Policy CC 2 is not consistent with the NPPF (19) and therefore limited weight can be attached to this part of the policy.

7.315. Clearly therefore the key components of the acceptability of such a development will be the protection of local landscape character and that the detailed siting and design of the development relates satisfactorily to its rural setting. In the case of the Warrington MSA proposal, it has been shown that there is a necessity for it to be located in the countryside; and supporting assessments demonstrate that the scheme would not result in any significant impacts on local landscape character.

7.316. The Proposed Development is generally consistent with the requirements of Policy CC2, though it is recognised that there will be some limited non-compliance in respect of detrimental impact on agricultural interests and that the proposal does not relate to a local enterprise and farm diversification. However it considered that only limited weight can be attached to these part of the policy because they are not consistent with the NPPF (19).

Conclusions on compliance with the Development Plan

7.317. With regards to compliance with the Development Plan, it is considered that whilst there is a need to assess compliance with individual policies, as set out at the start of this section, case law identifies that the test of compliance should be in the context of whether the application proposals are in accordance with the development plan “as a whole”. The Judgement (CO/774/2015 EWHC 2489 (Admin) (2015)) sets out in paragraph 30, the basis on which a decision maker may consider the issue, stating “that is not just in relation to one policy but against the development plan as a whole”. This is reconfirmed in paragraph 31 “to determine whether a proposal is in accordance with the plan the decision maker needs to have regard to all of the relevant policies and not just one”. Furthermore given the age of the Core Strategy, paragraphs 212 and 213 of the NPPF (19) apply and the weight that should be afforded to the policies in each of these components of the Statutory Development Plan is dependent on their degree of consistency with the Framework.

175

7.318. We have considered the compliance of the Proposed Development with the Policy requirements of the Core Strategy and conclude that the proposal is compliant with the Core Strategy as a whole. The table below summaries the Proposed Development compliance with the most relevant Local Plan policies:

Most Relevant Policies Proposed Development Compliance with Policy

Policy CS1 - Overall Spatial Strategy - Delivering Fully Comply Sustainable Development

Policy CS 2 - Overall Spatial Strategy - Quantity and Fully Comply Distribution of Development

Policy CS 4 - Overall Spatial Strategy – Transport Fully Comply

Policy CS 5 Overall Spatial Strategy - Green Belt Fully Comply

Policy CS6 Overall Spatial Strategy – Strategic Green Fully Comply Links

Policy PV 1 Development in Existing Employment Fully Comply Areas

Policy PV 3 Strengthening the Borough's Workforce Fully Comply

Policy PV 4 Retail Development within the Town Fully Comply Centre and Primary Shopping Area

Policy PV 5 Enhancing the Town Centre Economy Fully Comply.

Policy SN 4 Hierarchy of Centres Fully Comply

Policy SN 5 New Retail and Leisure Development Fully comply Within Defined Centres

Policy SN 7 Enhancing Health and Well-being Fully comply

Policy QE 1 Decentralised Energy Networks and Low Fully comply. Carbon Development

Policy QE 3 Green Infrastructure Fully comply

Policy QE 4 Flood Risk Fully comply

Policy QE 5 Biodiversity and Geodiversity Fully comply

Policy QE 6 Environment and Amenity Protection Fully comply

176

Most Relevant Policies Proposed Development Compliance with Policy

Policy QE 7 Ensuring a High Quality Place Fully comply.

Policy QE 8 Historic Environment Fully comply.

Policy MP 1 General Transport Principles Fully comply

Policy MP 3 Active Travel Fully comply

Policy MP 4 Public Transport Fully comply

Policy MP 5 Freight Transport Fully comply.

Policy MP 7 Transport Assessments and Travel Plans Fully comply

Policy CC 2 Protecting the Countryside Partial compliance. However the part of the policy that the proposal conflicts with does not accord with the NPPF (19). Therefore it is considered limited weight can be given to this conflict with this part of the policy.

7.319. Whilst the site is in Green Belt, the policies state that development proposals within the Green Belt will be approved / supported where they accord with national policy i.e. for ‘appropriate development’ or where ‘very special circumstances’ are demonstrated for ‘inappropriate’ development. We have set out the case for ‘very special circumstances’ in the Planning Statement and concluded that the Proposed Development does indeed meet this test. As indicated above, when taken as a whole, the Proposals will deliver economic development in a sustainable location which is the principle tenet that underpins the Core Strategy. The Application proposals therefore comply with the Development Plan “as a whole” and hence there is a Section 38(6) presumption in their favour and also, they benefit from support from NPPF (19) paragraph 11(c) relating to approving development proposals that accord with the Development Plan without delay.

7.320. Section 38 provides that development that accords with the Development Plan should go ahead unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Applicant considers that the application proposals comply with the Development Plan for the reasons set out above. We

177

now go on to consider whether there are any “material considerations” that would weigh against our conclusions above.

178

C) Material Considerations

7.321. The previous section demonstrates that the Proposed Development complies with the Development Plan and therefore in accordance with Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and paragraph 11 (c) there is a presumption (both statutory and policy) that the proposal should be granted permission. As a consequence, it is necessary to assess whether there are any material considerations which indicate the permission should not be granted.

7.322. As identified in the earlier sections of the Planning Statement, the key material considerations relevant to this proposal are:

• The policy on Need, • National Green Belt policy and whether very special circumstances exist to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm; • Impact on Landscape Character and Visual Amenity; • Ground; • Heritage; • Traffic and Transport; • Ecology; • Air Quality; and • Utilities, Waste and Water.

7.323. It is clear from our assessment in Sections 6 of this Planning Statement that none of these material considerations indicate that permission should be withheld, as any residual harm arising, if any, from these elements can be mitigated by suitably worded planning conditions and/or a Section 106 Agreement.

179

D) Non-Compliance with the Development Plan

7.324. For the reasons set out above, it is evident that the proposal fully accords with the Development Plan. However, if contrary to this position, the Local Planning Authority decides that breaches of certain policies in the Development Plan mean that overall the Proposed Development is not in compliance with the Development Plan, then we consider that planning permission should be granted because material considerations indicate that permission should be granted despite such a breach of the Development Plan.

7.325. We have identified within Section 6 that several policies within the Core Strategy do not fully accord with the guidance in NPPF (19) and hence that the weight to be attached to them should be reduced.

7.326. We consider that in this context, the “planning balance” weights significant in favour of the Proposed Development as the planning benefits set out in the “very special circumstances” section of the Planning Statement clearly outweigh any perceived policy and non-policy harm. In this situation we consider that in line with Paragraph 12 of the NPPF (19) there are very clear “material considerations” which would support the Local Planning Authority in departing from the Development Plan.

180

8. Potential Conditions and Section 106 Heads of Te r m s

8.1. The proposed development, given the scale and nature of the scheme, and the relevant planning policies set out below, is required to consider necessary planning contributions in order to render the proposals acceptable. As part of this process the applicant has considered the relevant policies and requirements in various areas of developer contributions, as well as the implications on the viability of scheme of making such contributions, as set out within The Framework. At this stage, the following areas have been considered and could potentially form part of the contents of a Section 106 Agreement.

Potential Conditions

8.2. The Proposed Development will be subject to a range of conditions. These may include:

• Approved Plans

• Phasing

• Planning Condition controlling the maximum gross floorspace of the facilities building up to 5,000sqm GIA (excluding the floor area of link to the hotel) and;

Maximum size of retail units of which no individual retail unit contained within the Facilities Building shall exceed 929sqm GIA;

Up to a 100 bed hotel;

Maximum gross internal floor space of fuel filling station and ancillary forecourt shop up to 500sqm GIA.

• The timing of the commencement of development.

• The requirements for and timing of reserved matters submissions.

• The requirement for reserved matters submissions to accord with the approved “parameters” relating to the Development Cells, Green Infrastructure and Restrictive Zones.

• A maximum floor area.

• A requirement for a Local Employment Agreement.

• Requirements for appearance/ materials.

181

• Highways, access and Travel Plan including timing and phasing (with triggers) for off- site highway improvements.

• HGV and car parking provision.

• Landscaping, boundary treatment and its management.

• Landscape and Habitat Management Plan.

• Requirements for any further archaeological investigation or watching briefs.

• Details of the PROW diversion.

• Ground investigations and remediation.

• Foul and surface water drainage schemes.

• Details of a full Construction Environmental Management Plan.

• Dust Management Plan.

• Details of a Lighting Scheme to control light spillage.

• Details of site and finished floor levels.

• Details of energy efficiency and renewable energy measures.

• Requirements for waste management (construction and operational).

• Soil and Peat Management Plan.

Section 106 Issues

8.3. Given the scale and nature of the Application Proposals and the relevant planning policies, there are several issues that the Applicant considers should form part of the provisions of a Section 106 Agreement.

Travel Plan

8.4. Mechanisms to ensure the delivery of the initiatives within the Travel Plan in respect of modal shift.

8.5. Improvements to the off-site footpath network.

182

Public Art

8.6. Mechanisms to ensure the provision of public art.

Enhancement of surrounding pedestrian and cycle links

8.7. Improvements to the surrounding pedestrian and cycling links to enhance accessibility of the Proposed Development

183

9. Summary and Conclusions

9.1. This Planning Statement has considered the Proposed Development for the Site. The application proposals have been formulated in the context of an understanding of the constraints and opportunities of the Site which have resulted in the parameters plans that accompany this application. The application is supported by a range of technical and non- technical reports and information that identifies potential impacts and appropriate mitigation.

9.2. The Planning Statement concludes that the application proposals comply with the provisions of the Development Plan when considered as a whole and hence they should be approved “without delay”.

9.3. The Planning Statement shows that there is substantial “definitional” harm to the Green Belt, but the harm to the “openness” of the Green Belt is “limited” and there is “limited” harm to two of the purposes of the Green Belt. Nevertheless it is accepted that this harm to the Green Belt has substantial weight.

9.4. It also shows that there is “Minor Harm” to landscape character and visual amenity, “Minor Harm” to heritage, and “Minor Harm” from the loss of agricultural land (BMV).

9.5. The Planning Statement then assesses any “other material considerations”. The Planning Statement shows that there are significant benefits arising from the application proposals:

• There is very positive policy support for the provision of new MSAs within DfT Circular 02/2013 and within the NPPF (2019). This conclusion is fully supported by Leading Counsel Opinion. It is also clear that there is further support from Highways England in their Strategic Road Network Planning for the Future (2015) document It is also evident that the proposal is compliant with the Development Plan. We consider that this policy support is a significant material consideration in favour of the planning application. As such, we therefore attach SIGNIFICANT weight to the policy support for the application proposals.

184

policy in Circular 02/2013 which sets out the maximum acceptable distances between facilities. The need has also been supported as recently as 11th June 2019 by Highways England. We also consider that as this need exists on some of the busiest motorways in the north of England and the consequence of not meeting the need has a direct bearing on public safety, that this need should be met urgently. We consider that the compelling and urgent need for an MSA is a significant material planning consideration in favour of the proposals. We attach SIGNIFICANT weight to it.

• All the potential sites identified to meet the need lie with the Green Belt, and hence there are no non-Green belt options to meet this established need. All the Sites (Sites 1 – 7) are within the Green Belt in the currently adopted Local Plans (Warrington and Salford). In this regard all the sites are subject to the same “very special circumstances” test and there are no non-Green Belt alternatives that could meet the identified need. It is therefore clear that to meet the need for an MSA in the Optimum Search Area, a Green Belt site will need to be developed. We consider that the lack of alternative (non-Green belt sites) is a significant material planning consideration in favour of the Proposals. We attach SIGNIFICANT weight to it.

• The Application Site (land within the NE Quadrant of Junction 11 - Site 2) is the most sequentially preferable location upon which to site a new MSA having regard to the specific locational requirements to meet the identified need along with the consideration of planning, engineering, safety, operational and environmental factors. The Assessment also shows that of the Sites identified, it has the least Green Belt impact, being classified as having a “weak” contribution within the emerging Warrington Local Plan evidence base. We consider that the suitability and deliverability of the site is a significant material planning consideration in favour of the proposals. We attach SIGNIFICANT weight to it.

• The proposal will have benefits to employment. We attach MODERATE weight to it.

• The proposal will have benefits to training, skills and jobs. We attach MODERATE weight to it.

185