Report to the Secretary of State for Transport and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government by Alan Boyland BEng(Hons) DipTP CEng MICE MCIHT MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Transport and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government assisted by Jeremy Sargent BA(Hons) MA MRTPI
Date: 16 May 2013
TRANSPORT AND WORKS ACT 1992
ACQUISITION OF LAND ACT 1981
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990
PLANNING (LISTED BUILDINGS AND CONSERVATION AREAS) ACT 1990
THE TRANSPORT FOR GREATER MANCHESTER (LIGHT RAPID TRANSPORT SYSTEM) (SECOND CITY CROSSING) ORDER 201[ ]
APPLICATION FOR DEEMED PLANNING PERMISSION
APPLICATIONS FOR LISTED BUILDING AND CONSERVATION AREA CONSENTS
Dates of Inquiry: 22-30 January 2013
Ref: TWA/12/APP/05
REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abbreviations & Glossary ...... ii
Case Details...... 1 Transport & Works Act Order and Application for Deemed Planning Permission...... 1 Applications for Listed Building Consent ...... 1 Application for Conservation Area Consent ...... 8
1. Preamble ...... 8
2. Description of the Order Land/Site and its Surroundings...... 11
3. Other Relevant Consents...... 12
4. The Case for the Promoter - Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) ...... 13
5. The Case for Supporters of the Proposed Transport & Works Act Order and the Applications for Listed Buildings and Conservation Area Consents.. 44
6. The Cases for the Objectors to the Proposed Transport & Works Act Order ...... 45
7. Other Representation on the Proposed Transport & Works Act Order ...... 52
8. The Cases for the Objectors to the Applications for Listed Building Consent 53
9. Other Representations Regarding the Applications for Listed Building Consent...... 54
10. Conclusions...... 55
11. Recommendations ...... 73
Appendix A – Appearances...... 76
Appendix B – Inquiry Documents ...... 77
Appendix C - Suggested Conditions for Deemed Planning Permission ...... 83
Appendix D – Suggested Conditions for Listed Building Consents ...... 86
Appendix E – Suggested Conditions for Conservation Area Consent...... 87
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page i REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
ABBREVIATIONS & GLOSSARY
2CC Second City Crossing (Scheme) BCR Benefit/Cost Ratio CA Conservation Area CAC Conservation Area Consent CoCP Code of Construction Practice CPO Compulsory Purchase Order DCLG Department for Communities and Local Government DfT Department for Transport DoE (Former) Department of the Environment ECHR European Convention on Human Rights EH English Heritage EMP Environmental Management Plan ES Environmental Statement GVA Gross Value Added HRA Human Rights Act 1998 LB Listed Building LB&CA Act The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 LBC Listed Building Consent Line 1 The existing tram route between St Peter’s Square and Victoria Station LRT Light Rapid Transit LTP3 Greater Manchester’s third statutory Local Transport Plan, 2011/12 to 2015/16 MCC Manchester City Council NPS National Passenger Survey OLE / OHLE Overhead Line Equipment TA Transport Assessment TfGM Transport for Greater Manchester tph Trams per hour TRO Traffic Regulation Order TWA Transport & Works Act 1992 TWAO Transport & Works Act Order
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page ii
CASE DETAILS
THE TRANSPORT FOR GREATER MANCHESTER (LIGHT RAPID TRANSPORT SYSTEM) (SECOND CITY CROSSING) ORDER 201[ ] and APPLICATION FOR DEEMED PLANNING PERMISSION The Order would be made under sections 1 & 5 of, and paragraphs 1-5, 7-11, 13 & 15-17 of Schedule 1 to the Transport and Works Act 1992. The deemed planning permission would be granted by a Direction under section 90(2A) of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990. The application for the Order and deemed planning permission was made on 17 May 2012, and there were 13 objections outstanding to it at the commencement of the local Inquiry. The Order and deemed planning permission would authorise the construction and operation of a further tram route in the city of Manchester as an extension of the existing Manchester Metrolink system. The new route would run between a point near the Manchester Central Convention Centre on Lower Mosley Street and a point near Victoria Station on Corporation Street. The Order would include provision for the acquisition, compulsorily and by agreement, of land and rights in and to use land, and provision for the construction, operation and maintenance of the tramway system. Summary of Recommendations: That the Order be made, subject to modifications, and that deemed planning permission be granted subject to conditions.
APPLICATIONS FOR LISTED BUILDING CONSENT
Application Ref: 099372/LO/2012/C1 The Midland Hotel, Peter Street, Manchester M60 2DS The application for listed building consent is made under section 20 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The application is made by Transport for Greater Manchester to Manchester City Council. The application is dated 17 May 2012. The works proposed are the attachment of fixing bolt(s) to support overhead line equipment associated with the proposed Manchester Metrolink Second City Crossing Light Rapid Transport System. Summary of Recommendation: That consent be granted subject to conditions.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 1 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
Application Ref: 099373/LO/2012/C1 14-16 Princess Street, Manchester M2 3LQ The application for listed building consent is made under section 20 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The application is made by Transport for Greater Manchester to Manchester City Council. The application is dated 17 May 2012. The works proposed are the attachment of fixing bolt(s) to support overhead line equipment associated with the proposed Manchester Metrolink Second City Crossing Light Rapid Transport System. Summary of Recommendation: That consent be granted subject to conditions.
Application Ref: 099374/LO/2012/C1 73-75 Princess Street, Manchester M2 4EG The application for listed building consent is made under section 20 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The application is made by Transport for Greater Manchester to Manchester City Council. The application is dated 17 May 2012. The works proposed are the attachment of fixing bolt(s) to support overhead line equipment associated with the proposed Manchester Metrolink Second City Crossing Light Rapid Transport System. Summary of Recommendation: That consent be granted subject to conditions.
Application Ref: 099375/LO/2012/C1 Waterhouse Public House, 65-71 Princess Street, Manchester M2 4EG The application for listed building consent is made under section 20 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The application is made by Transport for Greater Manchester to Manchester City Council. The application is dated 17 May 2012. The works proposed are the attachment of fixing bolt(s) to support overhead line equipment associated with the proposed Manchester Metrolink Second City Crossing Light Rapid Transport System. Summary of Recommendation: That consent be granted subject to conditions.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 2 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
Application Ref: 099376/LO/2012/C1 Manchester Town Hall, Albert Square, Manchester M2 5DB The application for listed building consent is made under section 20 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The application is made by Transport for Greater Manchester to Manchester City Council. The application is dated 17 May 2012. The works proposed are the attachment of fixing bolt(s) to support overhead line equipment associated with the proposed Manchester Metrolink Second City Crossing Light Rapid Transport System. Summary of Recommendation: That consent be granted subject to conditions.
Application Ref: 099377/LO/2012/C1 31 Princess Street, Manchester M2 4BF The application for listed building consent is made under section 20 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The application is made by Transport for Greater Manchester to Manchester City Council. The application is dated 17 May 2012. The works proposed are the attachment of fixing bolt(s) to support overhead line equipment associated with the proposed Manchester Metrolink Second City Crossing Light Rapid Transport System. Summary of Recommendation: That consent be granted subject to conditions.
Application Ref: 099378/LO/2012/C1 Northern Assurance Buildings, 9-21 Princess Street, Manchester M2 4DN The application for listed building consent is made under section 20 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The application is made by Transport for Greater Manchester to Manchester City Council. The application is dated 17 May 2012. The works proposed are the attachment of fixing bolt(s) to support overhead line equipment associated with the proposed Manchester Metrolink Second City Crossing Light Rapid Transport System. Summary of Recommendation: That consent be granted subject to conditions.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 3 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
Application Ref: 099379/LO/2012/C1 1-7 Princess Street, Manchester M2 4DF The application for listed building consent is made under section 20 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The application is made by Transport for Greater Manchester to Manchester City Council. The application is dated 17 May 2012. The works proposed are the attachment of fixing bolt(s) to support overhead line equipment associated with the proposed Manchester Metrolink Second City Crossing Light Rapid Transport System. Summary of Recommendation: That consent be granted subject to conditions.
Application Ref: 099380/LO/2012/C1 Abbey National Buildings, 1 Albert Street, Manchester M2 3FU The application for listed building consent is made under section 20 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The application is made by Transport for Greater Manchester to Manchester City Council. The application is dated 17 May 2012. The works proposed are the attachment of fixing bolt(s) to support overhead line equipment associated with the proposed Manchester Metrolink Second City Crossing Light Rapid Transport System. Summary of Recommendation: That consent be granted subject to conditions.
Application Ref: 099381/LO/2012/C1 Anglia House, 86 Cross Street, Manchester M4 2LA The application for listed building consent is made under section 20 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The application is made by Transport for Greater Manchester to Manchester City Council. The application is dated 17 May 2012. The works proposed are the attachment of fixing bolt(s) to support overhead line equipment associated with the proposed Manchester Metrolink Second City Crossing Light Rapid Transport System. Summary of Recommendation: That consent be granted subject to conditions.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 4 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
Application Ref: 099382/LO/2012/C1 Eagle House, 62-68 Cross Street, Manchester M2 4JQ The application for listed building consent is made under section 20 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The application is made by Transport for Greater Manchester to Manchester City Council. The application is dated 17 May 2012. The works proposed are the attachment of fixing bolt(s) to support overhead line equipment associated with the proposed Manchester Metrolink Second City Crossing Light Rapid Transport System. Summary of Recommendation: That consent be granted subject to conditions.
Application Ref: 099383/LO/2012/C1 74 King Street, Manchester M2 4NJ The application for listed building consent is made under section 20 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The application is made by Transport for Greater Manchester to Manchester City Council. The application is dated 17 May 2012. The works proposed are the attachment of fixing bolt(s) to support overhead line equipment associated with the proposed Manchester Metrolink Second City Crossing Light Rapid Transport System. Summary of Recommendation: That consent be granted subject to conditions.
Application Ref: 099384/LO/2012/C1 Lloyds Bank, 53 King Street, Manchester M2 4LQ The application for listed building consent is made under section 20 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The application is made by Transport for Greater Manchester to Manchester City Council. The application Ref is dated 17 May 2012. The works proposed are the attachment of fixing bolt(s) to support overhead line equipment associated with the proposed Manchester Metrolink Second City Crossing Light Rapid Transport System. Summary of Recommendation: That consent be granted subject to conditions.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 5 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
Application Ref: 099385/LO/2012/C1 National House, St Ann Street, Manchester M2 7LE The application for listed building consent is made under section 20 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The application is made by Transport for Greater Manchester to Manchester City Council. The application is dated 17 May 2012. The works proposed are the attachment of fixing bolt(s) to support overhead line equipment associated with the proposed Manchester Metrolink Second City Crossing Light Rapid Transport System. Summary of Recommendation: That consent be granted subject to conditions.
Application Ref: 099386/LO/2012/C1 Alliance House, 28-34 Cross Street, Manchester M2 7AQ The application for listed building consent is made under section 20 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The application is made by Transport for Greater Manchester to Manchester City Council. The application is dated 17 May 2012. The works proposed are the attachment of fixing bolt(s) to support overhead line equipment associated with the proposed Manchester Metrolink Second City Crossing Light Rapid Transport System. Summary of Recommendation: That consent be granted subject to conditions.
Application Ref: 099387/LO/2012/C1 The Royal Exchange, Manchester M2 7AE The application for listed building consent is made under section 20 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The application is made by Transport for Greater Manchester to Manchester City Council. The application is dated 17 May 2012. The works proposed are the attachment of fixing bolt(s) to support overhead line equipment associated with the proposed Manchester Metrolink Second City Crossing Light Rapid Transport System. Summary of Recommendation: That consent be granted subject to conditions.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 6 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
Application Ref: 099388/LO/2012/C1 The Former Corn and Produce Exchange, Hanging Ditch, Manchester M4 3TR The application for listed building consent is made under section 20 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The application is made by Transport for Greater Manchester to Manchester City Council. The application is dated 17 May 2012. The works proposed are the attachment of fixing bolt(s) to support overhead line equipment associated with the proposed Manchester Metrolink Second City Crossing Light Rapid Transport System. Summary of Recommendation: That consent be granted subject to conditions.
Application Ref: 099389/LO/2012/C1 City Building, Todd Street, Manchester M3 1WU The application for listed building consent is made under section 20 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The application is made by Transport for Greater Manchester to Manchester City Council. The application is dated 17 May 2012. The works proposed are the attachment of fixing bolt(s) to support overhead line equipment associated with the proposed Manchester Metrolink Second City Crossing Light Rapid Transport System. Summary of Recommendation: That consent be granted subject to conditions.
Application Ref: 099390/LO/2012/C1 Co-operative Wholesale Society, Corporation Street, Manchester M4 4DU The application for listed building consent is made under section 20 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The application is made by Transport for Greater Manchester to Manchester City Council. The application is dated 17 May 2012. The works proposed are the attachment of fixing bolt(s) to support overhead line equipment (OLE) associated with the proposed Manchester Metrolink Second City Crossing Light Rapid Transport System. Summary of Recommendation: That consent be granted subject to conditions.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 7 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
APPLICATION FOR CONSERVATION AREA CONSENT
Application Ref: 099393/CC/2012/C1 St Peter’s Square Metrolink Stop, St Peter’s Square, Manchester M2 5PD The application for conservation area consent is made under section 74 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The application is made by Transport for Greater Manchester to Manchester City Council. The application is dated 17 May 2012. The works proposed are the demolition of St Peter’s Square Metrolink Stop as part of the proposed Manchester Metrolink Second City Crossing Light Rapid Transport System. Summary of Recommendation: That consent be granted subject to conditions.
1. PREAMBLE
The applications and objections to them
Transport and Works Act Order (‘TWAO’) & Deemed Planning Permission
1.1 There were 14 objections to the proposed Order1 of which one, by Co-operative Group plc (OBJ/5) was withdrawn prior to the Inquiry. Of the remaining objections the following 4 were withdrawn in writing during the Inquiry: Manchester Nominee (1) Ltd & Manchester Nominee (2) Ltd (OBJ/2)2 Royal Mail Group plc & Post Office Ltd (OBJ/4)3 Waterstones Booksellers Ltd (OBJ/8)4 Marks & Spencer plc (OBJ/13)5
1.2 Thus there were 9 objections remaining at the close of the Inquiry. These include that of English Heritage (OBJ/12) which, being withdrawn subject to conditions, strictly still stands at this stage6. I report below on the positions on these as at that stage. Some appeared to be close to resolution following negotiations between the parties, but it will be for the Secretary of State for
1 Refs OBJ/1–14 respectively 2 Letter dated 21 January 2013 – Inquiry doc. INQ/2 3 Letter dated 21 January 2013 – doc. INQ/3 4 Letter dated 30 January 2013 – doc. INQ/10 5 Letter dated 28 January 2013 – doc. INQ/5 6 INQ/04
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 8 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
Transport to consider the implications of any subsequent developments in these respects.
1.3 There were in addition one essentially neutral representation (by Passenger Focus7) and one representation in support (by Manchester City Council8). Moreover, a number of objectors also expressed support for the scheme in some respects. I report on their positions below.
Listed Building Consent (‘LBC’) Applications and Conservation Area Consent (‘CAC’) Application
1.4 The 19 LBC applications were called-in by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government by a letter dated 31 July 2012 under section 12 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The Secretary of State also called-in the application for CAC by a letter of that same date under section 74 of that same Act. This was to allow the LBC applications and the CAC application to be determined concurrently with the proposed TWAO and the application for deemed planning permission.
1.5 Four letters of objection were received on behalf of 3 different parties concerning 5 of the 19 LBC applications, and none of these objections has been withdrawn. One party objected to the LBC application concerning 31-33 Princess Street and the Town Hall9. Another objected to the LBC applications for 65-71 Princess Street and 73-75 Princess Street10, while 2 letters were submitted on behalf of a further party objecting to the LBC application for the Midland Hotel11.
1.6 One neutral representation was forthcoming concerning The Former Corn and Product Exchange12. Manchester City Council (MCC) supported all the LBC applications13 while English Heritage (EH) supported the LBC applications for the Town Hall and the Midland Hotel14 but made no specific comments in relation to the other 17 applications.
1.7 No objections were received concerning the CAC application. MCC15 and EH16 both supported that application.
1.8 I report on all these representations below.
Statement of Matters
1.9 On 16 October 2012 the Department for Transport (DfT) and Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) issued a ‘statement of matters’
7 REP/1 8 SUPP/1 9 INQ/14 B17 & B60, & LBC.OBJ.01/1 10 INQ/14 B22, B27 & OBJ.09/1 11 INQ/14 B79 & B80. 12 INQ/14 B66 13 INQ/14 para 6.1 14 INQ/14 B61 & B81 15 INQ/14 B89 16 INQ/14 B90
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 9 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
pursuant to rule 7(6) of the Transport and Works (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 2004. This sets out the matters about which the respective Secretaries of State particularly wish to be informed for the purposes of their respective considerations of the Order and the applications for deemed planning permission, CAC and LBC.
Pre-Inquiry Meeting
1.10 I held a pre-Inquiry meeting on 12 November 2012 to discuss procedural matters relating to the Inquiry. There was no discussion of the merits of any cases for or against the proposals. A note following the meeting was circulated to all parties who had submitted objections or other representations17.
The Inquiry
1.11 The Inquiry sat on 4 days (22, 23, 29 & 30 January 2013), sitting on other programmed days being unnecessary because of late withdrawals of objections.
1.12 At the Inquiry and in the drafting of this Report I have been ably assisted by fellow Inspector Jeremy Sargent BA(Hons) MA MRTPI. However, the conclusions and recommendations in this Report are mine alone.
1.13 Mr Graham Groom was appointed as independent Programme Officer for the Inquiry. His role was to assist with the procedural and administrative aspects of the Inquiry, including the programme, under my direction. He helped greatly to ensure that the proceedings ran efficiently and effectively, but has played no part in this Report.
1.14 On various occasions before and during the Inquiry Mr Sargent and I inspected the Order lands and their surroundings and the Listed Buildings and Conservation Area which are the subjects of the applications for LBC and the CAC application. These inspections were all undertaken on an unaccompanied basis except for a visit to the premises of one objector18 when we were accompanied by representatives of the objector business, Transport for Greater Manchester (‘TfGM’) and MCC.
Compliance with statutory requirements
1.15 At the Inquiry the Promoter (TfGM) confirmed19 that it had complied with its obligations under the Transport and Works (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 2004, with one exception. This was that site notices were not posted until 11, rather than the requisite 14, days before the start of the Inquiry20. However, a notice was published in a local newspaper 19 days before the Inquiry opened and, as I saw, the site notices were maintained throughout the Inquiry, which closed 19 days after they were first posted.
17 INQ/1 18 F Mazloomian & Co (OBJ/9) 19 TfGM/INQ 4 20 Ibid para 2.6(c)
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 10 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
1.16 In the absence of any indication to the contrary, I am satisfied that no-one’s interests were prejudiced by this minor procedural error.
This Report
1.17 This report sets out a brief description of the land covered by the proposed Order, permission and consents and their surroundings, the gist of the cases for the promoter, supporters and objectors, my conclusions and my recommendations regarding each of the elements. Lists of abbreviations used in this report, of those appearing at the Inquiry and of Inquiry documents are appended, as are suggested conditions in the event of the relevant Secretaries of State directing that deemed permission be granted and granting the LBC and CAC applications.
1.18 The applications for TWAO and deemed planning permission are matters for the Secretary of State for Transport, while the LBC and CAC applications fall to be determined by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. However this report covers all of the applications as there are such close interrelationships between them that many of the considerations are common to them all. Also matters that are not common still have a bearing on the consideration of all elements and, I respectfully suggest, are material considerations in the determination of all applications.
1.19 Nevertheless, I make separate recommendations to each Secretary of State.
2. DESCRIPTION OF THE ORDER LAND/SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS
2.1 The existing public transport network in Greater Manchester is as described in the Environmental Statement (‘ES’)21.
2.2 The ES also describes the Order land/site and its surroundings22. It further describes and illustrates the proposed route of the 2CC scheme and associated works, together with the proposed permanent and temporary land take and trees affected23.
2.3 Details of the historic importance of buildings and structures along the route, and of the conservation areas through which it passes, are further described and illustrated in the ES, and listed in gazetteers24.
2.4 For reference a simple plan of the route may be found in the Non-Technical Summary to the ES25. In brief, from south to north the proposed route runs from Lower Mosley Street near Manchester Central, past the Midland Hotel and Central Library and into St Peter’s Square, thence along Princess Street
21 TfGM/A019 section 2.1; TfGM/A021 fig.2.1 22 TfGM/A019 section 2.3; TfGM/A021 fig.2.2 23 TfGM/A019 section 2.4; TfGM/A021 figs.2.2, 2.3A, 2.3B, 2.4A, 2.4B, 2.5A & 2.5B (figs 2.4A & 2.4B being subject to proposed amendments – see TfGM/INQ 6 and para 4.22 of this Report); TfGM/A020 appx 2A. 24 TfGM/A019 chapter 4; TfGM/A021 figs 4.1A, 4.1B, 4.2A & 4.2B; TfGM/A020 appx 4A 25 TfGM/A019 page NTS-V
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 11 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
past the Town Hall and skirting the northern edge of Albert Square. It then turns northwards along Cross Street and Corporation Street past the Royal Exchange building, Arndale shopping centre and other major shopping and leisure complexes and along the east side of Exchange Square. It rejoins the existing line at the junction of Balloon Street near Victoria Station.
3. OTHER RELEVANT CONSENTS
3.1 In August 2012, applications for LBC were submitted on behalf of MCC for works described as the dismantling of the (Grade II*) Cenotaph War Memorial and the reinstatement of the Cenotaph, new memorial wall and seating and public realm works on land adjacent to the Town Hall26; and the dismantling and temporary storage of the (Grade II) St Peter’s Cross and reinstatement within the footprint of St Peter’s Church27.
3.2 They were accompanied by an associated application for CAC for dismantling and removal of unlisted walls/ benches around the Cenotaph Memorial and removal pending relocation of memorial plaques28.
3.3 These were referred to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. With regard to the LBC applications this referral was under Regulation 13 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Regulations 1990; the CAC application was referred under section 74 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.
3.4 The Secretary of State duly granted consent for each of the 3 applications in December 201229. The planning applications for the works described in paragraph 3.1 above were then approved by MCC, again in December 2012.
3.5 Two further applications relevant to this Report were submitted by MCC in August 2012 for planning permission to support the on-going redevelopment of the Town Hall Complex and to allow the future redevelopment of St Peter’s Square to include the creation of a new site access, the removal of trees, relocation of memorial plaques and the infilling of the Peace Gardens, and to reconfigure and redesign St Peter’s Square public realm and surrounding area comprising resurfacing works, provision of street furniture, trees and other planting and alterations to the highway.
3.6 MCC granted planning permission for these in December 201230 and January 201331 respectively.
26 TfGM/A028 & TfGM/A029 27 TfGM/A030 & TfGM/A031 28 TfGM/A032 29 MCC.07, MCC.08 & MCC.09 30 MCC.09
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 12 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
3.7 I address below the implications of these consents for matters that are the subject of this Report.
4. THE CASE FOR THE PROMOTER - TRANSPORT FOR GREATER MANCHESTER (TfGM)
The material points32 were:
Summary
4.1 In brief, the Promoter urges the following findings on the evidence: (a) 2CC is needed; (b) There is no better alternative route than that before the Inquiry; (c) 2CC represents good value for money and its funding is assured; (d) 2CC accords with the statutory development plan, and with a raft of other planning policies; (e) There would be extremely few negative impacts post-construction and many positives; (f) There would be some negative impacts during construction, but none is of major significance and all are capable of being mitigated; (g) The 2CC Order, the Planning Direction, the Conservation Area Consent, and the 19 listed building consents are necessary for the Scheme’s implementation; (h) The terms of the 2CC Order (as proposed to be modified) are appropriate and the land and rights in land sought by TfGM are needed for 2CC; and (i) The planning, CAC and LBC conditions are appropriate.
4.2 On that basis it follows that the 2CC Order as modified should be confirmed and the ancillary Direction and Consents should be given.
The matters before the Inquiry
4.3 The Inquiry is concerned with: The 2CC Order33; The request for a Planning Direction34; The Conservation Area Consent application for demolition of the existing St Peter’s Square stop35; and
31 MCC.11 32 Drawn principally from the opening and closing submissions (TfGM/INQ 10 & 19 and given orally) and other documents as indicated. 33 TfGM/AO2 34 TfGM/AO9 35 TfGM/AO26
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 13 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
19 Listed Building Consent applications for attachment of fixing bolts36.
4.4 A number of permissions/consents applied for by MCC (‘the MCC works’/’the MCC consents’) have already been granted37. They form the context within which the scheme proposals within St Peter’s Square fall to be considered.
4.5 2CC could not proceed as planned without the MCC consents, so that the issuing of these removes impediments to its implementation. However, no conditions have been imposed delaying the MCC works until the 2CC Order is approved or the start of construction. It is likely that the MCC works will start shortly, independently and in advance of the 2CC works, though those in respect of the Cenotaph need to be timed to ensure its availability on and around Remembrance Day.
4.6 The most important point is that (as a result of these MCC consents) St Peter’s Square is going to be transformed, regardless of 2CC. The MCC works have been devised in anticipation that the 2CC works will go ahead and have therefore taken account of the 2CC Order proposals for the new lines and stop. The criticism that ‘Manchester Council have jumped the gun’38 is misconceived.
The 2CC Scheme
Need
4.7 The 2CC scheme would provide a second Metrolink route across the city centre, from Lower Mosley Street, through St Peter's Square, and along Princess Street, Cross Street and Corporation Street to Victoria Station. It has been devised as a key element in ensuring the continuing and sustainable growth of the Greater Manchester area, much of which is connected (or shortly to be connected) to the Metrolink LRT system.
4.8 The focus of the Inquiry, inevitably, was on Manchester city centre and 2CC’s impact on the parts of Manchester City Centre through which it passes, and particularly on the scheme’s local impacts during construction and (to a lesser extent) thereafter. But the broader context has always to be borne in mind, since Metrolink does not exist solely to promote the well-being of the city centre; nor will users of the 2CC be confined to persons starting or ending their journeys there.
4.9 The 2CC scheme has the support of all the local authorities in the Greater Manchester area and widespread support amongst stakeholders, other consultees and the public39. If it were not built there would be negative implications throughout that area because of the bottleneck and associated delays and instability of flow that would be caused as the Metrolink system extends its reach to outlying areas. These include Oldham/Rochdale to the
36 TfGM/A027 37 As indicated in section 3 above, and detailed in docs. TfGM/A028 – A033 & MCC.07 - 10 38 Objection by Mr Culshaw [OBJ/1], 8 June 2012 39 TfGM/P2b section 6.4
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 14 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
north (already partly open), Ashton under Lyne to the east, and Wythenshawe Town Centre/the Airport to the south (the Airport extension is due to open in 2016), supplementing the previous destinations of Bury, Altrincham and Salford Quays/Eccles. As MCC’s evidence indicates40, a further line to Trafford is likely to be advanced in the short term. That and other extensions would not merely increase the benefits of 2CC, but would also be frustrated in the absence of 2CC.
4.10 The consequence of not providing 2CC would be (a) longer journey times through the City centre; (b) greater variability between journey times; and (c) greater vulnerability to disruption of services. These would reduce the overall attractiveness of the Metrolink network, prevent realisation of the full benefits predicted from the extensions, and cause inconvenience to passengers (in particular on those services which would need to stop short of the City Centre – for example to and from MediaCity and the Airport).
4.11 In comparison with many of the previous lines the subject of Private Acts of Parliament or Transport and Works Orders, 2CC is a minnow. Its length is a mere 1.3km, and there would be only two new tram stops, St Peter’s Square and Royal Exchange, the former replacing the existing St Peter’s Square stop in a different location. In essence it consists of new lines along Lower Mosley Street, through St Peter’s Square and thence via a short stretch of Princess Street past the Town Hall and Albert Square, and then along Cross Street and Corporation Street, terminating just beyond Long Millgate and to the south of Victoria Station41.
4.12 Because 2CC has been configured to run along existing streets, it is unusual amongst TWOs for its minimal land take. A number of rights over third-party land are required (including most obviously for high-level fixtures to adjoining buildings and for statutory undertakers’ apparatus), but there will be virtually no permanent acquisition of land (as opposed to rights) and none from objectors. In considering the continuing objections of a few adjoining landowners, this needs to be borne in mind. A more minimalist scheme in terms of land take is unimaginable.
4.13 Unchallenged modelling shows that the practical capacity of Mosley Street is approximately 25 trams per hour (‘tph’) in each direction; unchallenged planning shows that there will be a demand for approximately 40 tph in each direction, so that 2CC is needed to make up the shortfall. With trams split between the existing and 2CC routes the initial frequency of trams along 2CC would be likely to be of the order of 20 per hour in each direction, which is slightly less than that currently experienced in, say, Mosley and Lower Mosley Street.
4.14 Although one objector refers to 24/7 operation, this is not presently anticipated, and even though the service to the Airport is likely to start earlier
40 Sir Howard Bernstein in oral evidence 41 TfGM/P3c fig.2
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 15 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
in the day than current services, this is unlikely to affect any part of 2CC (or indeed of the city centre more broadly).
Alternatives
4.15 At least seven options have been assessed (five involving Deansgate, including access via Peter Street; one involving Mount Street/Albert Square; and the chosen option)42. Whether judged by cost/benefit or environmental grounds, none has advantages over the preferred option.
4.16 No positive case for an alternative route was presented to the Inquiry. The representative of one objector43 clarified that he was opposed in principle to any second crossing but that, if there had to be one, he favoured a route via Deansgate because it would then not go past his property in Princess Street.
4.17 He appeared to be unaware that the original Deansgate route has been costed at 50% more than the Cross Street/Corporation Street route and that the latter would give a quicker journey time, require fewer tram stops and provide greater interchange opportunities for users44. The evidence is that any Deansgate route would be damaging in conservation terms, because it would need to pass the Grade 1 Listed Manchester Cathedral on two sides, and pass through the one of the oldest parts of Manchester with potential to do archaeological damage. This remains the case whether the route at its southern end is as originally planned, or whether it starts from Peter Street, but if the latter it would pass the Grade 2* Midland Hotel on two (rather than one) side as well as numerous other listed buildings (quite apart from the engineering difficulties).45
4.18 There is a need for a 2CC and the route chosen is clearly the best one. The above objector claimed that property owners along the chosen route would be unfairly prejudiced. However, it is noticeable how many of the property- owning objectors have supported the principle of 2CC and how many have either withdrawn their objections or made it plain that they seek additional safeguards whilst not suggesting that 2CC should follow a different route.
4.19 The same objector also suggested greater encouragement of active modes (such as walking and cycling) and greater investment in electric buses as alternatives to 2CC. But none of these have any relevance whatever to meeting the need to be performed by 2CC, though 2CC will encourage the use of these modes to access Metrolink. Nor is the need case undermined by the fact that the predicted delays are measured in several minutes per journey, rather than in longer delays. It is precisely the achievement of an aggregation of relatively small individual time savings per journey which justifies transport projects, and failure to achieve that which undermines the value of already committed investment.
42 TfGM/P2b section 6.5; TfGM/P3b section 3 43 F Mazloomian & Co [OBJ/9] 44 TfGM/B010; TfGM.P2b paras 6.5.4-6 45 TfGM/P3b sub-sections 3.2 & 3.5; TfGM/P5b paras 4.4.16-17
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 16 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
4.20 Another objector46, who did not object to the 2CC Order or the Planning Direction, suggested at the Inquiry that an alternative design in Princess Street, incorporating centrally positioned poles to support overhead line equipment (‘OLE’) should have been worked up. However he accepted that this would mean revisiting provision for buses and servicing whereas no one else, at any stage, has suggested that such poles would be appropriate in Princess Street.
The TWA Order
The appropriateness of the terms of the 2CC Order (as proposed to be modified), and the necessity for the land and rights in land sought by TfGM for 2CC
4.21 A Schedule of proposed modifications to the 2CC Order has been prepared47. Minor amendments are also proposed to the Book of Reference48.
4.22 Most of the proposed modifications are of a purely technical nature. Two substantive modifications are proposed: (i) A modification to Sheet 1 of the Works and Land Plans49 and the Book of Reference50 in respect of parcel 1001 (land outside Manchester Central), which has been reduced in size51. (ii) A modification to Schedule 6 of the 2CC Order, to Sheet 2 of the Works and Land Plans and to the Book of Reference in respect of parcel 2036 (land outside Arndale Centre) 52. This parcel has been subdivided into parcel 2036A, a strip alongside the street, and the remainder of the original parcel which is required for temporary use only with no permanent rights being sought.
4.23 None of these changes should give rise to any concern. Indeed the modifications in respect of parcels 1001 & 2036/2036A are sought to accommodate property owners by further minimising the use of compulsory purchase powers.
4.24 F Mazloomian & Co asked that, were the Order to be confirmed, it be modified in two respects; firstly, to remove the role of MCC as local planning authority and environmental health authority, because he suspected their independence; secondly, to include conditions, unspecified but presumably for the protection of his property53. There is no basis for the suggestion that MCC will not independently perform its statutory functions, and assurances were given in this respect54. There is no reason why this objector should be
46 Namulas Pension Trustees Ltd, objector to LBC applications only 47 TfGM/INQ 5 48 TfGM/P3b paras 2.12.7-9; TfGM/INQ 7 & 8 49 TfGM/A022 50 TfGM/A016 51 TfGM/P3b para 2.12.2; TfGM/INQ 6 sheet 1 52 TfGM/INQ 6 sheet 2 53 Mr Mazloomian in closing submissions 54 Mr Roscoe in oral evidence
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 17 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
given special protections not available to others along the line of 2CC (or other Metrolink lines) or available in other cities in the UK where trams have been constructed in recent years.
4.25 Subject to the modifications indicated above, the terms of the Order are appropriate and the land and rights in land sought are needed for 2CC.
Other key documents
4.26 A number of further documents are of particular significance: (i) The two sheets constituting the Technical Development Plans55. Though these are ‘illustrative only’ and do not form part of the proposed Order, they are the simplest way to understand the nature of the proposals. (ii) The Transport Assessment (‘TA’)56. This is critical to an understanding of the provision for other traffic, including buses, cyclists and pedestrians. (iii) The Environmental Statement (‘ES’)57, which goes into much greater detail on environmental matters than is appropriate for the proofs of evidence. (iv) The proposed planning conditions and listed building and conservation area consent conditions58. These have now been agreed with MCC, the local planning authority. The proposed planning conditions replace those in Appx B of the request for a Planning Direction59. The listed building consent conditions replace those previously proposed. The CAC conditions are entirely new. (v) The draft Code of Construction Practice (‘CoCP’)60. This is an evolving document which would, in its final form following approval by the local planning authority pursuant to condition 7 of the proposed planning conditions, be part of the contract documents and therefore legally enforceable against the successful tenderer for the design and construction contract. This builds on practical experience of the construction of tramways both in Greater Manchester and elsewhere.
Legal considerations regarding the 2CC Order
4.27 Section 1 of the Transport and Works Act 1992 provides that the Secretary of State may make an order relating to the construction or operation of a tramway. Numerous similar orders have been made, particularly within the Greater Manchester area, though the original Metrolink scheme proceeded under specific Parliamentary powers.
55 TfGM/A025 56 TfGM/A017 57 TfGM/A018-A025 58 TfGM/INQ 1C, 2, 3 & 20 59 TfGM/A009 60 TfGM/A013
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 18 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
4.28 The key provisions of this draft Order are: Art. 6 – the power to construct and maintain the works in Sch. 1; Arts. 10 and 13 – the power to alter the layout of streets and temporarily to stop them up. There are very important qualifications to the latter power, contained in Arts. 13(3) and (5); Art. 19 – the power to attach brackets etc to buildings. There are important qualifications under Art. 19(2), (5) and (7); Arts. 26 and 29 – the powers to acquire land and new rights over land; Art. 32 – the power to use the land in Sch.6 temporarily for construction; Art. 39 – power to operate and to lease the system (including construction) to a private operator; and Art. 41 – power to make both specific Traffic Regulation Orders (‘TROs’) (Sch. 7) and, with the consent of the traffic authority, other TROs.
4.29 The equivalents of the Schedule and Plan to a CPO are the Book of Reference61 and the Works and Land Plans62. The Traffic Regulation Plans63 are specifically referred to at the start of Sch. 7 to the 2CC Order.
4.30 The general law relating to compulsory purchase is applied with minor and precedented modifications by Art. 27.
4.31 The provisions of the 2CC Order are intricate and complex, and contain some provisions specific to this particular scheme. For example, Art. 7 reflects the fact that until the early C20 the Church of St Peter, Mosley Street occupied a prominent position in what is now St Peter’s Square. There has been no criticism of this special provision. The Order is generally based on the DfT Model Clauses64. There is, with one exception, nothing material in the 2CC Order that has not been included in virtually identical form in other TWAOs.
4.32 The one exception is Article 3(3), which is a special provision that disapplies the procedure which may otherwise be applicable under the Railways Act 2005 in relation to the replacement of St Peter’s Square Metrolink stop. Insofar as that replacement is considered to be a discontinuance of a railway station, the Railways Act 2005 prescribes an additional consultation and consenting procedure prior to the discontinuance. Having regard to the application of the separate procedures applicable to the making of a TWAO, the application of the Railways Act procedure in addition is considered to be unnecessary. This was the subject of prior consultation with the DfT who indicated that it was content in principle with the proposed disapplication.
61 TfGM/A016 62 TfGM/A022 63 TfGM/A024 64 TfGM/C006
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 19 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
4.33 No objections were raised in this respect by any other body or person, and uncontested evidence for TfGM65 indicated that steps would be taken to maintain a tram service (including those stopping in St Peter’s Square) so far as practicable during the construction period.
Legal tests
4.34 The legal tests may be summarised thus:
(i) The Secretary of State’s power is discretionary (‘may’ in s.1(1) of the TWA 1992).
(ii) As with a conventional CPO, ‘the Secretary of State … must be satisfied that the [TWAO] is justified on its merits before he can properly confirm it … sufficient justification on the merits’ (R v SOS ex p. de Rothschild, [1989] 1 All ER 933 at 983j-939a66 - concerning a road scheme rather than a tram scheme).
(iii) This involves a balancing of public benefits against public or private disbenefits: ‘At the end…the minister has to ultimately perform a balancing exercise. At the end he has to balance things against each other which are not compatible…and cannot be the subject of direct comparison’: at 943h in the above Judgement.
(iv) Since the Promoters and the Secretary of State are both public authorities, they must not ‘act in a way which is incompatible with Convention rights’67. Therefore in the case of all property take (which engages Art 1 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘ECHR’)) any taking must be (a) in the public interest; (b) lawful; and (c) proportionate, with the onus lying on the public authority to show that the measure is needed and that the effect on the right and the individual property owner is not excessive. In practice the Human Rights Act 1998 does not alter the way domestic compulsory purchase legislation has always worked. As Circular 06/2004 states (para 19), ‘Parliament has always taken the view that land [which includes rights] should only be taken compulsorily where there is clear evidence that the public benefit will outweigh the private loss’68.
(v) The same Circular further states (para 17) that, ‘A CPO should only be made where there is a compelling case in the public interest’.
(vi) The Secretary of State will be concerned to understand the ‘resource implications of the proposed scheme, including its timing’ (para 20 of the Circular), and also that there are ‘no impediments to implementation’, so that there is ‘a reasonable prospect of the
65 Mr Lax in oral evidence 66 TfGM/INQ 10 appx A 67 s.6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 68 TfGM/C003 para 19; TfGM/P2b section 8.6; TfGM/P2c appx C
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 20 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
scheme going ahead’ (para 22). Here there is no reason or concern on either count. The funding is available and an immediate start is anticipated.
(vii) Unusually for a tram scheme no extinguishment of public rights is proposed, so that s.5(6) of the TWA 1992 (provision of alternative rights of way) is not engaged.
(viii) In any notice relating to any decision to make the 2CC Order the Secretary of State must comply with section 14(3A) and (3AA) of the TWA concerning consideration of the ES and representations made by any person within the advertised period, and description of the main mitigating measures. Most of the latter are identified in the ES69, in the Promoter’s evidence and in an updated Schedule of these measures that was presented at the close of the Inquiry70.
Objectives of 2CC
4.35 The prime function of TfGM is set out in the Transport Act 1968: ‘to secure the provision of such public passenger services as they consider appropriate to secure for meeting any public transport requirements within their area…’
4.36 2CC has a vital part to play in facilitating economic growth by supporting the Transport Strategy for Manchester City Centre71,72.
4.37 The key functional objectives of 2CC are: (i) to increase the operational capacity of the Metrolink system through the city centre to enable the full potential benefits of Metrolink and its existing expansion programme to be realised; (ii) to increase flexibility and provide sufficient capacity to operate additional services in response to changes in future demand (including facilitating the operation of future potential extensions), and to serve special events; and. (iii) to improve the reliability and resilience of services on the extended Metrolink network, and reduce disruption caused by future maintenance and renewals by providing a diversionary route should one of the two routes be obstructed for any reason.
4.38 Plainly there is some overlap between these three objectives. Objective (i) is primarily concerned with the existing expansion programme, and objective (ii) with various other demand triggers. Objective (iii) would apply even in the absence of the existing expansion programme, but the need for operational resilience and flexibility becomes more acute as demand grows.
69 TfGM/A019 especially at Table 12.1 70 TfGM/INQ 19 71 TfGM/B001 72 TfGM/P2b para 2.3.2
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 21 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
4.39 In Greater Manchester’s third Local Transport Plan these objectives appear in slightly different form as: Increased operational capacity; Improved reliability for all Metrolink services; Capacity to accommodate additional services beyond those currently committed and to extend services from MediacityUK into the city centre without having to change trams; Flexibility to serve special events; and Reduced disruption caused by future maintenance and renewals (by providing a diversionary route). 73
4.40 In strict capacity terms, the operational capacity of the Do Minimum (Without 2CC) is about 25 tph in each direction through the city centre. Modelling has shown that instability occurs at the point 25tph is exceeded, with marked deterioration in terms of journey time and journey time variability at a frequency of 30tph. By contrast, with 2CC, the two lines can readily between them carry 40tph (assuming a 20/20 split).74
4.41 The Airport extension, currently under construction, is planned to open in 2016. Without 2CC, the Airport line would need to terminate short of the city centre at Deansfield-Castlefield, whereas provision of 2CC would enable the Airport line services to run through the city centre. In that sense, as explained in the 2CC Value for Money Report, ‘it is the timing of the Airport Extension that is driving the need to progress [2CC] scheme development …’75.
Policy compliance
4.42 In the Statement of Matters the Secretaries of State inquire as to ‘the extent to which the scheme would be consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework, and regional and local transport, environmental and planning policies’.
4.43 TfGM has not itself called specific evidence from a town planner, though such supportive evidence is provided by MCC76. Further evidence for MCC looks in turn at national, regional, sub-regional and local policies, before concluding that ‘the 2CC scheme proposal is therefore entirely consistent with relevant national, regional, sub-regional and local policies’77.
4.44 In relation to townscape policies TfGM’s evidence78 inevitably overlaps with that of MCC79, and also with its own evidence on compliance with heritage policies80.
73 TfGM/B002 p.84 74 TfGM/P2c appx A. 75 TfGM/P2C appx B, para 2.6 76 Mr Roscoe - MCC.01 77 Sir Howard Bernstein - MCC.05 section 4 78 Mr Gibson - TfGM/P6b 79 Mr Roscoe
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 22 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
National Policies
4.45 The key document is the National Planning Policy Framework (‘the Framework’). In relation to sustainable transport infrastructure, the most relevant chapters are 1 (Building a strong, competitive economy), 2 (Ensuring the vitality of town centres), 4 (Promoting sustainable transport) and 12 (Conserving and enhancing the historic environment).
4.46 MCC also refers to the 2011 White Paper ‘Creating Growth, Cutting Carbon’81, which expressly recognises in para 6.35 that light rail ‘can play a significant part in improving the attractiveness and quality of public transport in major conurbations’ – something which is already exemplified by what has happened in Greater Manchester82.
Regional Policies
4.47 The North-West Regional Spatial Strategy to 202183 is still a statutory document. Relevant provisions include: Policy DP5 (Manage travel demand) seeks to secure ‘A shift to more sustainable modes of transport’, together with ‘Safe and sustainable access for all, particularly by public transport, between homes and employment and a range of services and facilities’; Policy RDF1 (Spatial priorities) states that ‘the first priority for growth and development should be the regional centres of Manchester and Liverpool’; Appendix.RT(a) ‘Links to and from Manchester Airport’ are defined as a ‘National Public Transport Corridor’; Policy RT3 (‘Public transport framework’) states that ‘Local authorities should introduce measures to enhance the accessibility by public transport…of the regional centres and towns/cities identified in RDF1’; and Priorities set by policy MCR1 (Manchester City Region priorities) include ‘secure improvements, including the enhancement of public transport links, which will enable the inner areas and the northern part of the City Region to capture growing levels of investment…’ and ‘maintain the role of Manchester Airport as the North of England’s key international gateway…’.
Sub-Regional Policies
4.48 Here the most important plan is Greater Manchester’s third statutory Local Transport Plan, 2011/12 to 2015/16 (LTP3)84. The need for 2CC is clearly
80 Mr Harris- TfGM/P5b 81 TfGM/B005 82 MCC.05 paras 4.2.1 & 2 83 TfGM/B006 84 TfGM/B002
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 23 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
identified at p.84, in order to support the ‘significant increase in the number of trams passing through the city centre’. ‘The new route will start at Manchester Central Convention Complex (Deansgate-Castlefield stop), run along Cross Street and Corporation Street to re-join the existing Metrolink line just outside Victoria Station’85.
Local Policies
4.49 MCC’s evidence86 refers to a folio of local policies (some statutory, but mostly non-statutory). Of these the most authoritative is the statutory Core Strategy of Manchester’s Local Development Framework87. This is absolutely up to date, having been adopted July 2012.
4.50 Amongst many other relevant Core Strategy policies to which MCC refers, the following are particularly pertinent: Policy TI (‘Sustainable transport’) supports proposals which ‘improve choice by developing alternatives to the car’, as part of the delivery of ‘a sustainable, high quality, integrated transport system to encourage modal shift away from car travel to [amongst other modes] public transport’. Policy T2 (‘Accessible areas of opportunity and need’) encourages improved access to strategic employment sites, including the city centre and the Airport. Then there is the all-encompassing policy T3 (‘Strategic integration’), which states that: ‘the Council will support proposals that contribute to an economically and environmentally sustainable transport network including the following strategic transport initiatives:- - Metrolink extensions to Rochdale, Oldham, Ashton, South Manchester and the Airport. The Council also support future aspirations to extend the network to Trafford Park and Stockport. - A second Metrolink crossing in the City centre - ….. Any proposals which would prejudice the implementation of the strategic integration of projects would be refused’.
4.51 The above recital alone is sufficient to justify TfGM’s conclusions, firstly that the 2CC scheme sits securely within a framework of national, regional and local policies, which share a principal objective in the promotion of sustainable economic growth and productivity’ and, secondly that the 2CC scheme proposal is entirely consistent with relevant national, regional and local policies.88
85 Ibid p.84 86 MCC.01 paras 6.10-16; MCC.05 section 4.5 87 TfGM/B007 88 TfGM/P2b paras 7.1.1 and 7.1.5
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 24 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
4.52 At the Inquiry the only objector opposing 2CC in principle89 clarified that he was not relying upon or pointing to any policies in any document which supported his opposition to 2CC or to which 2CC was contrary.
4.53 The total accordance with the statutory development plan gives rise not merely to a statutory presumption in favour of the Planning Direction being made (and supports also the making of the 2CC Order itself), but also strongly supports the granting of the CAC application. It also provides the framework for considering the 19 LBC applications (although these depend on the separate issue of whether there should be reliance solely on poles).
Integration
4.54 As set out above, policy T1 of the Core Strategy refers to the delivery of ‘a sustainable, high quality, integrated transport system’. There are various aspects of integration: integration within and between different types of transport; integration with the environment; and integration with land use planning.
4.55 LTP390 offers a holistic approach, by no means confined or dominated by Metrolink extensions including 2CC. Within the Public Transport chapter (chapter 6), the sections comprise 6.1 (Better Buses for Greater Manchester) - including the Cross City Bus Package - and 6.2 (Door-to Door Transport) – including taxis and community transport - before 6.3 (Delivering the Metrolink Vision) is reached, followed by 6.4 (Rail System…) and 6.5 (Fares, Ticketing and Information).
4.56 In other words there is no sense that TfGM’s transport planning is a ‘one club/tram only’, approach. On the other hand there are no non-tram alternatives that can meet the objectives set for 2CC.
4.57 Regarding integration with the environment, TfGM’s evidence91 demonstrates the care that has been taken to integrate, so far as practicable, 2CC with its existing and sensitive environment.
4.58 So far as concerns integration with land use planning, not only does 2CC hold a secure place in the up to date planning framework, but there is no suggestion that it conflicts with or holds back any other land uses which are planned for the future. In any event, the decision has been taken in the Core Strategy to give priority to Metrolink proposals over any other land uses.
Value for money
4.59 Inquiries into tram schemes are sometimes dominated by investigation of value for money issues, whether because the scheme is regarded as spend thrift by objectors, or more particularly because the scheme is competing for scarce central government transport funding and the Secretary of State seeks reassurance that the scheme meets his funding criteria.
89 Mr Mazloomian [OBJ/9] 90 TfGM/B002 91 TfGM/P5b & P6b
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 25 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
4.60 In the present instance, value for money forms no part of the Statement of Matters – and rightly so, since the scheme is not dependent on further central government funding, but will be funded from the Greater Manchester Transport Fund which, evidence for MCC indicates, ‘will provide the Greater Manchester authorities with the resources they require to deliver the key priorities, including the Second City Crossing without the need for further recourse to central Government’92.
4.61 Because of the suggestion by a few93 that 2CC represents an inefficient use of tax payers’ money, TfGM produces a Value for Money Report94, ‘to allow direct comparison with alternative schemes, for example the DfT funded Metrolink extensions’ (para 4.28). This shows a Benefit to Cost Ratio (‘BCR’; the ratio of net private sector impacts to net public sector impacts) of 2.11:1 (fig.4.3), on which basis ‘the Second City Crossing is a justified use of public sector funding’ (para 4.29).
4.62 This is largely unchallenged, but one objector95 makes two points. He rightly says, firstly, that the high BCR does not take into account delays (presumably mainly to road traffic and buses) during the construction period and, secondly, that if a number of the adverse sensitivities which have been modelled were to coincide, then the BCR would reduce considerably. The first is not a factor taken into account in applying the DfT’s usual approach to calculation of the BCR which has been followed in this instance (for comparative purposes only, since 2CC has been judged good value for money on wider criteria than those used in the DfT’s standard approach)96. The second is a feature of all project analysis, since if one combines adverse sensitivities (whatever the unlikelihood of them happening, whether individually or cumulatively) no project would have a positive BCR. The important thing is that adverse sensitivities have been appraised and taken into account.
4.63 A BCR of 2.11:1 is markedly higher than that of the approved Manchester Airport extension which was examined critically, with transport economists on both sides, at a Public Inquiry in 1995. With a ratio in excess of 2, the monetised appraisal of 2CC would be categorised as ‘High’ value for money if it were being assessed for new central government funding (para 8.2)97. Various sensitivity tests have also been carried out (table 7.2), which confirm the robustness of the economic appraisal.
4.64 As the Value for Money Report goes on to show (pp.21-2), there are also significant ‘Non-monetised Impacts’ which constitute wider benefits. The social and distributional impact assessment (section 6) did not identify any
92 TfGM/P1b para 3.1.1 93 Such as Mr Mazloomian 94 TfGM/P2c appx B 95 Mr Mazloomian for OBJ/7 96 Mr Lax in oral evidence 97 TfGM/P2c appx B
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 26 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
areas or impact-sensitive user groups on which 2CC would have a disproportionate impact.
Funding
4.65 Reference has already been made to the Greater Manchester Transport Fund. As evidence for MCC indicates, 2CC is ‘fully funded and is capable of being implemented as soon as the relevant powers are in place’98. Neither this, nor the support of all the Greater Manchester authorities was challenged at the Inquiry. That it can start as soon as the consents are issued and the contract let is in happy contrast to the delays that occurred between the making of the TWAOs for other Metrolink extensions and the long-delayed start on construction because of the unavailability of central funding.
4.66 Moreover, there is also funding committed to fund further extensions to Metrolink which will place additional demands on the capacity of the lines through the city centre, and ‘contribute to making 2CC an operational requirement’99.
Timetable
4.67 The key points are: Appointment of Contractor – end of 2013; Commence construction – Winter 2013/2014; and Completion of Works – Winter 2016/2017.100
4.68 This timetable is itself dependent on the associated timetable for MCC’s proposals for St Peter’s Square, including the relocation of the Cenotaph.
Liaison during construction
4.69 Stakeholder engagement and public liaison will be a continuing theme throughout the lifetime of the scheme, and particularly this will be the case during construction101. There will be a continuing role for MCC, both in its capacity as Street Authority under the 2CC Order and in its planning capacity under the terms of the proposed planning and listed building conditions.
Impacts during construction
4.70 There is no particular complexity in the works, though advance planning and design and strict monitoring would be essential. There would be some negative impacts during construction, but none is of major significance and all are capable of being mitigated.
4.71 It is no part of the Promoter’s case that 2CC can be inserted into the City centre without a variety of disbenefits during construction – a total period of
98 MCC.05 para 3.1.3 99 Ibid para 3.1.2 100 TfGM/P2b p.36 101 TfGM/P2b para 8.2.4
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 27 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
about 3 years, though most areas would experience significant disturbance for much shorter periods than that and only intermittently.
4.72 Vibration is unlikely to be a significant issue, but construction noise would be, though controls would be in place to ensure the use of best practicable means, so that noise would be no more than necessary with a major engineering project. Other control mechanisms such as the Control of Pollution Act 1974 would do the same for other forms of disturbance, the role of the CoCP and the Street Authority being critical. The phasing condition on the Planning Direction, on which MCC has insisted, will ensure that each phase is carefully thought through before it is approved and can commence. Even in the Alexandra Suite of the Midland Hotel, internal noise levels would only be 3dB above existing noise levels102.
4.73 Reasonable pedestrian access will have to be maintained at all times. If it were not so maintained, this would be both a breach of the TWAO and CoCP, but would also give rise to compensation under s.10 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965.
Impacts after construction
4.74 Post-construction, there would be many positives in terms of growth, regeneration and improved local transport. There would be only four slight negative impacts, which are considered in more detail in the response to the Statement of Matters.
4.75 The first is slightly increased noise (vibration not giving rise to concern or even likelihood of complaint). The building owned by F Mazloomian & Co 103 at 73-75 Princess Street is probably a ‘worst case’ in that the property does not currently have secondary glazing and the closest part would be only some 30 metres from the nearest platform-end of the St Peter’s Square platform. Yet even in this case the noise increase from trams and traffic in Princess Street would only be 2dB(A) and hence imperceptible.
4.76 The situation is rather similar at the Midland Hotel, whose own noise expert did not report that there would be a significant noise impact post- construction. Of course if the owners of either building were to install secondary glazing to minimise construction noise, this would thereafter mean that operational tram noise, as well as other city centre noise intrusions, will be considerably lower than hitherto. There is no reason to suppose that passenger-use of the St Peter’s Square Station would be a cause of noise disturbance, but it is accepted that there may be occasions when platform announcements may be heard.
4.77 The second is the less than substantial harm to the Albert Square Conservation Area from the new tram stop, coupled with the less than substantial harm to the other conservation areas and to listed buildings along the route, caused by the OLE (including poles and fixings). This has to be
102 TfGM/INQ 16 para 2.6.5 103 OBJ/9
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 28 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
weighed against the public benefits of the scheme (which include the benefit to the St Peter’s Square Conservation Area, and to the Midland Hotel and Central Library from the removal of the existing tram stop). Overall the detriment in terms of conservation would be slight.
4.78 The third is the townscape loss from the OLE and removal of 36 trees. This has to be balanced against the huge townscape gain from the MCC proposals for a holistic refurbishment of St Peter’s Square, which will incorporate a ‘bespoke’ new St Peter’s Square tram stop (subject to scrutiny of design and materials by English Heritage and MCC), and replacement tree planting within a relatively short distance of the tram corridor. The overall conclusion was that there would be townscape benefits, save in Exchange Square104.
4.79 The fourth is the slight inconvenience to properties adjoining the route, for whom servicing and maintenance may be slightly more difficult than at present. Considerable care has been taken to ensure that there would be adequate servicing provision, as exemplified by the new loading bay in Cooper Street from which the objector F Mazloomian & Co105 would benefit and retention of the existing servicing facilities outside Tesco in Princess Street. No evidence has been given to demonstrate that the OHLE fixings on Line 1106 have in fact caused problems in terms of building maintenance; indeed, buildings have even been reconstructed alongside the tramline. Nevertheless it is conceded that more planning around this issue than hitherto on the part of owners/occupiers would be required, and this is generally to be regarded as a slight disbenefit.
The request for a Planning Direction
4.80 Effectively the 2CC Order and Planning Direction stand together, since the Direction merely grants a form of hybrid planning permission for the works and ancillary development the subject of the 2CC Order. The elements of development for which permission is sought are listed in Appendix 1 to the request107.
4.81 It has not been determined by the Courts whether s.38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004108 (presumption in favour of the development plan) and s.66(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (special regard to listed buildings and their setting) apply to a Planning Direction. S.72(1) of the latter Act (special attention to desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas) certainly applies. In respect of this request, the Promoter concedes that both the other provisions apply.
104 Mr Gibson in oral evidence. 105 OBJ/9 106 The existing line through the City Centre 107 TfGM/A009 108 Erroneously referred to by the Promoter as the Planning and Compensation Act 2004.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 29 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
4.82 Accordingly, s.38(6) provides the starting point for consideration of the Planning Direction, since the determination ‘must be made in accordance with the [development] plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise’.
4.83 The relevant legal authorities are conveniently summarised in the very recent decision in South Northamptonshire Council v SCLG [2013] EWHC 11 Admin109 paras 16-19, leading to the conclusion at para 20: ‘I conclude from all this that the section requires not a simple weighing up of the requirement of the plan against the material considerations but an exercise that recognises that while material considerations may outweigh the requirements of a development plan, the starting point is the plan which receives priority. The scales do not start off in even balance’.
4.84 There is ‘accordance’ if the proposal complies with the plan taken as a whole: R v Rochdale MBC ex p.Milne No 2, 31st July 2000 paras 46-50 (reported at (2001) 81 P. & C.R. 27)110.
4.85 As set out above the development plan background is highly supportive.
4.86 The proposal does not involve any major engineering structures, and (as evidenced in Manchester, Sheffield and Nottingham city centres, to mention but three) the concept of inserting tram lines into historic city centres is now well-precedented. The transport implications have been addressed in the Transport Assessment111.
4.87 The ‘other material considerations’ include not merely the disbenefits of the proposal, but also the benefits, so far as material in planning terms. Both are not confined to the period post-construction, and include those experienced during construction (save that the construction period is relatively short, and thus construction disbenefits are unlikely to be determinative).
4.88 Three particular issues appear to arise: (i) Noise and vibration (ii) Townscape (iii) Effect on heritage assets
Noise and vibration
4.89 As indicated above, there would not be any significant impacts in terms of noise and vibration once the scheme is operational. There would be high levels of noise, for relatively short but concentrated periods, during construction, but construction vibration would be unlikely to give rise to complaints.112
109 TfGM/INQ 10 appx B 110 TfGM/INQ 10 appx C 111 TfGM/A015 112 TfGM/P4b
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 30 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
Townscape
4.90 The Promoters do not argue that 2CC would improve the townscape. That would be unrealistic, save that in St Peter’s Square there are strong arguments that the new stop (though larger than the old) would be a visual improvement on the existing position (particularly in the context of the MCC overall enhancement package). Views can legitimately vary in relation to the loss of the Peace Gardens and the relocation of the Cenotaph. However, these changes will occur in any event as a result of MCC’s approved proposals for St Peter’s Square. There would be some tree loss along the route, but a generous tree replacement policy would be followed, though replacement could not always be in the immediate vicinity of the trees lost.113
Heritage assets
4.91 There would be effects on listed buildings (the preservation of which, and their setting, is a matter for special regard under s.66(1) of the LB&CA Act), and on the 7 contiguous conservation areas affected by the 2CC route (s.72(1) of the LB&CA Act requires special attention to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing their character). The affected conservation areas are fully described in evidence for MCC114.
4.92 There would also be some effect on two non-designated heritage assets. The first of these is the tram tracks associated with the previous tram system through this part of the City. Although that system was discontinued in the late 1940s, the tracks may still be found in places under the current road surfacing along the route of 2CC. It is proposed to record these and then remove them. Although there would be an adverse effect on the remaining historic tramlines, the valuable information gained through the recording would reduce the overall effect115.
4.93 The second is the vaults that were beneath St Peter’s Church. This church, which used to stand in the centre of what is now St Peter’s Square, was demolished in 1907 under an Act of Parliament. The Act required that there be no interference with the graves and vaults. The vaults remain, partially infilled, beneath the present positions of the Cenotaph and St Peter’s Cross. Their depth and precise details are unknown, but an archaeological evaluation is proposed and it is proposed to use technical measures to bridge them and safeguard their integrity. Any adverse effect on this heritage asset would be minimised by the opportunity to undertake archaeological investigation of the vaults and of the layout and form of the demolished church 116.
4.94 Heritage issues overall are considered in detail in TfGM’s evidence117, leading to the conclusion that ‘the 2CC scheme will not cause substantial harm to any
113 TfGM/P6b 114 MCC.02 appx DR01 115 TfGM/A019 Ch 4, particularly paras 4.4.65 & 4.8.5; TfGM/P5b para 4.3.7 116 TfGM/A019 Ch 4, particularly paras 4.4.102-103 & 4.8.3-4; TfGM/P3b paras 2.4.3-5 & 5.1.20; TfGM/P5b paras 4.4.4 & 6.1.4 117 TfGM/P5b
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 31 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
heritage asset’ and that the scheme is ‘in accordance with Chapter 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework in relation to matters of cultural heritage’118. The local planning authority has not objected to the making of the Planning Direction, and supports the grant of what MCC describes as ‘the Linked Heritage Applications’119. English Heritage is ‘generally supportive of the project’120, and has withdrawn its objections121.
Conditions
4.95 The Promoter has agreed with MCC a revised list of suggested planning conditions122.
The Listed Building and Conservation Area Consent applications
4.96 2CC would be in a historic section of Manchester. It would pass numerous diverse listed buildings and it would run through or past 7 conservation areas of differing characters123.
4.97 Virtually all tram projects do not merely affect the setting of listed buildings and conservation areas, but also require alterations (and sometimes demolitions) which require separate consents. Happily in this case there are no listed buildings which need to be demolished, and the only structure to be demolished is the rather undistinguished existing St Peter’s Square tram stop. This is very unlike the position in, say, Nottingham, where major alterations were needed to the Grade 2* Listed Railway Station to which EH strongly (and ultimately unsuccessfully) objected at the Public Inquiry in 2007.
4.98 There are no objections to the application for Conservation Area Consent (CAC 001) for demolition of the existing St Peter’s Square tram stop.124 This was recommended for approval by EH, as it ‘does not make a positive contribution to the special interest of the Conservation Area’ 125 and ‘represents an enhancement of the Conservation Area …’126 (referring to different conservation areas).
4.99 The 19 LBC applications127 all concern attaching between 1 and 7 steel eye fixings or similar to listed buildings adjoining the route to support the OLE. Each bolt would require a single hole being created in the structure of the building to which it would be fixed, and while this hole might be in the mortar it could also be in the brick or stone. This is well-precedented as the appropriate solution for trams in city centres (for example in Nottingham and
118 Ibid paras 8.1.5-6] 119 MCC.01 para 7.1 120 INQ/14 tab B90 121 INQ/4 122 TfGM/INQ 1C, 3 & 20 123 TfGM/A019 Chapter 4, TfGM/P5b, OBJ.12/1 Appendices 1, 2, 4 & 5, MCC.03A Tabs A1-A7 124 TfGM/A026 125 INQ/14 tab B90 126 INQ/14 tab B90 127 TfGM/A027
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 32 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
Sheffield, and elsewhere in the Manchester City Centre, for example on the Midland Hotel, and previously on the Town Hall). While the precise location of these has not yet been established, attention is particularly drawn to the terms of proposed listed building condition 3128.
4.100 EH accepts that the harm that will result from OLE fixings ‘is less than substantial harm’129.
4.101 The draft Code of Construction Practice (CoCP)130 contains a section on Archaeology and Cultural Heritage, and includes a requirement for the production of an Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Management Plan, as well as various other protections.
4.102 Both MCC and EH accept that the listed building consents should be granted131. This acceptance accords with the Framework, which states (para 134) that, ‘Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage-asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use’.
4.103 The Promoters strongly disagreed with the condition formerly proposed by EH132 but now withdrawn, that drilling of holes should be done into mortar joints rather than the face of the building where possible. Such a condition is not sought by MCC, which is understood to accept that this is not an essential or appropriate approach133.
The necessity for the Order, Planning Direction, Conservation Area Consents and Listed Building Consents
4.104 It is undoubtedly the case that the first three items are necessary for implementation of the 2CC scheme.
4.105 It might be possible to construct the scheme without OHLE building fixings, by reliance solely on poles, and hence without the 19 LBCs sought. There are, however, three separate considerations: (a) The expert evidence134, contradicted only by one objector, Namulas135, that building fixings are less obtrusive than poles and thus generally to be preferred, even where the fixings are to listed buildings. (b) That poles interfere with pavement capacity and therefore with pedestrian movement; cannot readily be placed where vaults underlie the pavement; and can only at great expense be placed in circumstances that statutory undertakers’ apparatus lies beneath the
128 TfGM/INQ/2 129 OBJ.12/1 para 8.21 130 TfGM/A013 131 MCC.01 & INQ/14 tab B61 & B81 132 INQ/14 tab B61 & B81 133 TfGM/P3b paras 6.3.18-20; TfGM/P5b paras 5.1.5-6 134 Mr Gibson & Mr Harris for TfGM and Mr Roscoe for MCC 135 Mr Fuller for Namulas Pension Trustees Ltd, objector to LBC applications
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 33 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
chosen pole position. Evidence was given by MCC136 of the visual harm caused by a proliferation of poles (termed ‘columnitis’) when Line 1 was initially constructed; and the preliminary designs for 2CC have assumed a mix of poles and overhead equipment. (c) Use of centrally positioned, cantilevered poles (as suggested for Princess Street by Namulas137) gives rise to its own problems. These consist of conflict with necessary and reasonable constraints such as those identified on a submitted plan138 as well as the visual and conservation effects identified orally139.
4.106 Even leaving aside aesthetic considerations, it is not possible at this stage to conclude otherwise than that building fixings, and hence the LBCs providing for them, are essential.
The appropriateness of the planning, CAC and LBC conditions
4.107 The final versions of the suggested conditions140 has been agreed with EH and MCC. The former is given an important consultative role; the latter, the local planning authority, is given considerable powers to insist that great detail is given at the approval stage and that conservation considerations are afforded a central position in evolving design, including now the positioning of poles.
4.108 It is unusual that LBC has to be given for what are in fact outline proposals, but that is always the case with TWA LBC applications. It has not prevented a satisfactory outcome elsewhere. The controls that MCC would have are far greater than those afforded to it by the Parliamentary powers under which Line 1 was built.
The Statement of Matters
4.109 The matters identified by the Secretaries of State are addressed individually below (using the numbering in the statement of Matters).141
1. The aims and objectives of, and the need for, a new tram route in Manchester city centre (‘the scheme’).
4.110 The objectives are listed and analysed in paras 4.35-4.39 above. The need case is summarised in paras 4.7-4.14, 4.40 & 4.41 above. A detailed City Centre Operational Assessment (‘the Aecom Report’) has been submitted142. These matters were addressed further in evidence for TfGM and MCC143 in the evidence of Mr Lax and Sir Howard Bernstein.
136 Mr Roscoe in oral evidence. 137 Mr Fuller for Namulas Pension Trustees Ltd, objector to LBC applications 138 A3 plan attached to TfGM/INQ 17 139 By Mr Harris 140 TfGM/INQ 1C & 20 with plan TfGM/INQ 3; TfGM/INQ 2 141 Mr Lax explains in his evidence (TfGM/P2B paras 3.1.2-3) where each of the matters is addressed by the Promoters’ witnesses. 142 TfGM/P2c appx A 143 Mr Lax (TfGM/P2a and oral evidence) & Sir Howard Bernstein (MCC/05 and oral evidence) respectively.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 34 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
2. The justification for the particular proposals in the draft TWA Order, including the anticipated transportation, regeneration and environmental benefits of the scheme.
4.111 The key provisions of the 2CC Order are listed in para 4.28 above, and the special provisions were described in paras 4.31-4.33.
4.112 The transportation benefits include144: • a material public transport passenger net journey time saving; • improved city penetration; • at times of service interruption from incidents or maintenance, the existence of an alternative city centre alignment; • allowing the benefit of the investment in the Metrolink network as a whole to be maximised; and • enabling future enhancement of the expanded network.
4.113 The regeneration benefits include145: • improved linkages across the city centre; • linking areas of deprivation and transport need with areas of opportunity146; • increased employment and gross value added (GVA); • improved access to retail and leisure attractions in the City centre147.
4.114 The Value for Money report148 also addresses the above matters. Future increases in service frequencies and additional extensions to new parts of Greater Manchester will increase the regeneration benefits of 2CC beyond those currently considered in the economic case.
4.115 The environmental benefits include149: • An enhanced sustainable transport system • Two new ‘bespoke’ tram stops • Widening of footways on the east side of Cross Street and Corporation Street • The holistic redesign and redevelopment of St Peter’s Square, as part of MCC’s own proposals for the square, now permitted (see paras 4.4-4.6 above150), including significant beneficial effect for the Central Library townscape.
144 TfGM/P2b section 6.2; TfGM/P2c appx A 145 TfGM/P2b section 6.3 146 TfGM/P2c figs 6.1 & 6.2 147 TfGM/P6b para 3.3.1 148 TfGM/P2c appx B 149 TfGM/P6b, particularly section 3 150 Inspector’s note: the proposals referred to are also detailed in paras 3.1-3.6 above.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 35 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
4.116 Expert opinion for TfGM is that ‘once the scheme is operational there will be an adverse effect only on Exchange Square due to the space occupied by the new tram stop’151. Even that effect is relatively minor.
3. The main alternative options considered by the promoter or proposed by objectors and the reasons for choosing the proposals comprised in the scheme.
4.117 This matter has been addressed above at paras 4.15-4.20 and in more detail in evidence152. None of the alternatives considered has advantages over the preferred option.
4. The extent to which the scheme would be consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework, and regional and local transport, environmental and planning policies.
4.118 There would be total compliance as indicated above (paras 4.42 - 4.53) and in evidence for TfGM and MCC153.
5. The likely impact on the public, businesses and the environment of the scheme, during construction and operation, including: (a) noise, dust and disturbance, including the impacts of construction traffic.
4.119 Evidence for TfGM concludes on noise and vibration that154: • The noise levels due to construction activities are predicted to be high and result in significant effects. However, these effects are temporary and will be present for the period of construction only. Construction noise will be controlled by the local authority through the use of consents under section 61 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and the contractors will be required by the CoCP to obtain such consents. • There will be ‘minor adverse’ effects from construction vibration if piling is used, for example for overhead line poles. • The greatest increase in noise levels from trams will be 2dB, ‘a minor adverse effect’. • The vibration dose from trams will be so small as to produce ‘a neutral operational vibration effect’. • Road traffic will result in only one increase of more than 3dB, and 15 roads will have a decrease of more than 3dB. Therefore there will be ‘a net beneficial effect over the study area’ in terms of road traffic noise.
4.120 In the rebuttals to the evidence of objectors it was shown that there would be minimal additional noise and vibration in respect of the two properties in Princess Street that were the subjects of objections155.
151 TfGM/P6b para 3.6.10 152 TfGM/P2b section 6.5; TfGM/P3b section 3 153 TfGM/P2b section 7; TfGM/P5b section 3.4 & para 8.1.6; TfGM/P6b section 4 & para 6.1.4; MCC.05 section 4 154 TfGM/P4b paras 8.1.2-6
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 36 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
4.121 TfGM’s engineering witness156 supports the conclusion of the Traffic Assessment157 that 2CC can be introduced with limited and manageable impacts on the overall highway network both during construction and thereafter158. This is exemplified by the approach taken in Princess Street159.
4.122 The real challenge would be during construction when temporary road closures and diversions will require careful traffic management. In developing the construction methodology, consideration will be given to aligning the sequencing of the works to the permanent traffic management measures to minimise the number of changes to the traffic management160. A possible construction sequence and methodology for the five zones is outlined in evidence for TfGM161.
4.123 Key to an effective methodology will be the role of the Street Authority and observance of the CoCP162 and the associated Environmental Management Plan.
(b) impacts on air quality
4.124 This is assessed in the ES163 and addressed in evidence164, with reference to the role of the Dust and Air Pollution Management Plan which the contractor will be required to produce and the measures in the CoCP which will have to be agreed with the local planning authority165. It is concluded that ‘no significant adverse air quality or dust effects are predicted to occur during the construction, opening or operation of the proposed scheme’166.
(c) impacts on townscape, including the character and appearance of the conservation area, and effects on listed buildings
4.125 The views of TfGM’s Townscape and Urban Design and Cultural Heritage witnesses167 are in line with those of EH and MCC168.
4.126 There would be a beneficial effect on the St Peter’s Square Conservation Area (from the removal of the tram stop), but a less than substantial negative effect of the new tram stop on the Albert Square Conservation Area (albeit that its focus is in Albert Square itself, which 2CC would not significantly affect). On other conservation areas, the only effect would be that of the
155 TfGM/INQ 12; TfGM/INQ 17 156 Mr Parke 157 TfGM/A017 158 TfGM/P3b para 4.1.4 159 TfGM/INQ 17 160 TfGM/P3b para 5.2.5 161 TfGM/P3b paras 5.2.6ff 162 TfGM/A013 163 TfGM/A019 164 TfGM/P2b section 8.1 165 TfGM/A013 166 TfGM/P2b para 8.1.5 167 Messrs Gibson (TfGM/P6b) and Harris (TfGM/P5b) respectively 168 Mr Roscoe (MCC.01)
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 37 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
OLE, save that the Exchange Square Stop (and the removal of trees) would have some detrimental effect on the northern part of the route.
4.127 The harm of building fixings on 19 listed buildings would be less than substantial. There would be some less than substantial harm on the setting of the Town Hall (though not on its most important façade) and on the Fraser Statue in Albert Square as a result of the poles supporting the OLE169, but these would be countered by beneficial effects on the Midland Hotel and the Central Library from the removal of the old tram stop. Engineering considerations apart, there was a straight conflict of views between the objector Namulas and TfGM170 in relation to whether a scheme with central cantilevered poles would be preferable in visual and conservation terms in Princess Street.
4.128 There seems to be general agreement (with the exception of one objector171) that the new tram stop in St Peter’s Square would play an important role in its transformational enhancement as part of the MCC proposals, and there is no suggestion that the Cenotaph (in its relocated position) would be substantially harmed by proximity to the new stop or by the placing of OLE poles in the vicinity (the siting, materials and design of both stop and poles would be carefully controlled, given the sensitive location).
(d) impacts on light and visual amenity
4.129 As described above, the only long-term detriment would be to Exchange Square from the insertion of a new stop. Elsewhere, despite the OLE, there would be perceptible benefits overall and particularly in St Peter’s Square. Overall the effects of the scheme on visual amenity would not be significant and for the most part experienced only during construction. 172
4.130 The combination of mostly lightweight structures and low level street infrastructure means that there would be no adverse impacts on light173.
(e) impacts on pedestrian and vehicular access to premises (including customer, delivery, emergency services access and access to maintain buildings)
4.131 TfGM’s engineering witness has addressed access during construction for vehicles and for pedestrians174. He stresses the need for the contractor to work with the local highway authority and Greater Manchester Police to minimise impacts, and for liaison with property owners. Access for emergency services would be maintained at all times175.
169 TfGM/P5b 170 Represented by Messrs Fuller & Harris respectively 171 F Mazloomian & Co 172 TfGM/P6b paras 3.6.10, 6.1.7 & 6.1.9 173 TfGM/P6b para 6.1.9 174 Mr Parke (TfGM/P3b paras 5.1.10-5.1.14) 175 TfGM/P3b para 5.1.11
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 38 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
4.132 Following opening of 2CC, service provision would be provided for all properties along the route, albeit in some cases involving changes (for example to the F Mazloomian & Co property in Princess Street)176. Premier Hotels in their objection expressed concern on this score, but their servicing would be unaffected. While there would be temporary effects on pedestrians, measures would be put in place to minimise these, ensuring good signage of diversions (including provision for people with disabilities), crossing facilities and access to frontages in liaison with property owners/tenants177. In the longer term there would be significant benefits for pedestrians through the reduction of vehicular traffic along the scheme corridor and improved footway widths178.
4.133 Some objectors have been concerned that there will be difficulties in maintaining their building in the future, a problem not confined to the situation where there are building fixings. The appearance for F Mazloomian & Co at the Inquiry was beneficial in that what were clearly real concerns were readily met. The objector was troubled that he would be unable to park a cherry-picker in Princess Street outside his property to repair the roof, because of the division of Princess Street into two separate elements, for trams and for buses. TfGM’s witness was able to reassure him that there would be no problem in diverting the buses onto the tram track should it be necessary from time to time to park equipment in the manner referred to by the objector. This would not be the case if there were central poles. It is notable that the objector Namulas did not argue against building fixings on maintenance grounds.
(f) impacts on water resources, including the potential for contamination
4.134 Evidence for TfGM assesses this and concludes that no material impacts on water resources are envisaged as a result of implementing this scheme179.
(g) impacts of attaching overhead line equipment to buildings
4.135 The impacts fall under three heads - structural, aesthetic and maintenance implications.
4.136 There is no evidence of structural damage to buildings caused by the many building fixings arising from the existing Line 1. Nor need there be any concern with 2CC, especially given the rigorous requirements of the proposed listed building conditions180.
4.137 Aesthetically, it is impossible to avoid a comparison with the use of poles, and there is general agreement (apart from Namulas181) that wherever possible
176 TfGM/P3b para 4.3.1 177 TfGM/P3b paras 5.1.13-5.1.15 178 TfGM/P3b sub-section 4.5 179 TfGM/P3b section 6.2 180 TfGM/INQ 2 181 Represented by Mr Fuller
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 39 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
building fixings are less intrusive. When Line 1 came forward there was a rash of poles, which is now regretted (for example outside the Art Gallery in Mosley Street)182. There has been no suggestion that any of the 19 buildings in respect of which LBC is sought have specific features rendering them unsuitable to accept building fixings. The number and precise position would be controlled by the proposed LBC condition.
4.138 In some cases (mainly, but not exclusively) at the turn from the new St Peter’s Square tram stop into Princess Street, and at the turn thence into Cross Street, there would be a need for 2 fixings at the same location, including a lower cross-span at about 6.5 m height. If the local planning authority were to decide that the interest of conservation required poles in any particular instance, then it could discuss this with TfGM.
4.139 Maintenance (and indeed major rebuilding works) could take place despite the presence of building fixings (as evidenced by the submitted photograph of the Primark Building at the northern end of Mosley Street183), with the erection of a temporary pole if essential. Such works would need to be notified and agreed with Metrolink, and thus may be less convenient for property owners. However, there is no evidence that this has posed any considerable problem for property owners over the two decades that Line 1 has been operating (with building fixings) in Manchester City centre (as well as in other cities).
6. The effects of the scheme on statutory undertakers and other utility providers, and their ability to carry out their undertakings effectively, safely and in compliance with any statutory and contractual obligations.
4.140 Article 44 of the 2CC Order provides detailed protection for highway authorities. There were no objections from any Statutory Undertaker, with the exception of Royal Mail Group who withdrew their objection shortly before the Inquiry.184
182 Mr Roscoe in oral evidence 183 TfGM/INQ 12 184 TfGM/P3b section 6.1
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 40 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
7. The measures proposed by the Promoter for mitigating any adverse impacts of the scheme, including: (a) Transport for Greater Manchester's proposed Code of Construction Practice; (b) any measures to avoid, reduce or remedy any major or significant adverse environmental impacts of the scheme; and (c) whether, and if so, to what extent, any adverse environmental impacts would still remain after the proposed mitigation.
4.141 The importance of the evolving CoCP185 is stressed (see para 4.26(v) above). Its approval by the local planning authority would be required by proposed planning condition 7, and it would then become a term of the construction contract. The role of the CoCP is explained fully in evidence 186, with reference also to the Environmental Management Plan and the Dust and Air Pollution Management Plan. There would be numerous measures to reduce and mitigate environmental impacts. These have been summarised in a Schedule187, which may be of assistance in assessing compliance with section 14(3AA) of the TWA 1992 (see para 4.34(viii) above).
4.142 Inevitably there would be some residual effects after mitigation. Whilst the lost trees could be replaced, they could not all be replaced in the same streets, though in the case of the Peace Gardens (where the loss of trees is regretted by F Mazloomian & Co) this will occur under the MCC Cenotaph replacement permission in any event. There would remain the visual impact of the OLE and of the Exchange Square stop and a slight increase in noise levels. But none of these would be significant adverse effects. During construction there would be noise and inconvenience which could be controlled and mitigated but not entirely abated. Some of this would be significant, but only intermittently and only during particular phases of construction.
8. The adequacy of the Environmental Statement submitted with the application for the TWA Order having regard to the requirements of the Transport and Works (Applications and Objections Procedure) (England and Wales) Rules 2006 and whether the statutory procedural requirements have been complied with.
4.143 No objector has suggested that the ES188 has been prepared and submitted otherwise than in accordance with best practice and the statutory requirements of the relevant procedures. The main text of the ES189 sets out the legislative context in which it was prepared and describes the process adopted to achieve this compliance.
185 TfGM.A013 186 TfGM/P3b section 5.5 187 TfGM/INQ 19, chapter 1 188 TfGM/A018-A025 189 TfGM/A019
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 41 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
9. The conditions proposed to be attached to deemed planning permission for the scheme, and in particular whether those conditions meet the tests of DoE Circular 11/95 of being necessary, relevant, enforceable, precise and reasonable.
4.144 The Promoter’s view that the proposed planning conditions included in the application for deemed planning permission190 meet the tests in the Circular still stands in respect of the amended conditions191, which have been agreed with EH and MCC192. The suggested conditions are rigorous and demanding, but not unnecessarily so.
4.145 Whilst the 5 year commencement condition is longer than the standard 3 years to which ordinary planning permissions are subject, this accords with the standard practice on TWAOs. It also equates with the period sought and considered necessary for the LBC consents, some of which may not be implemented until the later stages of the construction period.
10. The Promoter’s proposals for funding the scheme.
4.146 As already noted (para 4.65), the scheme is to be funded by the Greater Manchester Transport Fund193.
11. Whether there is a compelling case in the public interest for conferring on the Promoter powers to compulsorily acquire and use land for the purposes of the scheme, having regard to the guidance on the making of compulsory purchase orders in ODPM Circular 06/2004, paragraph 16 to 23; and whether the land and rights in land for which compulsory acquisition powers are sought are required by the Promoter in order to secure satisfactory implementation of the scheme.
4.147 There is a compelling case, which has not been challenged at the Inquiry, for TfGM to be granted powers to acquire and use land for the purposes of constructing and operating the Metrolink extension. The powers sought accord with the guidance in the Circular.194
12. The purpose and effect of any substantive changes proposed by the Promoter to the draft TWA Order and whether anyone whose interests are likely to be affected by such changes has been notified.
4.148 Two substantive changes have been sought by property owners and agreed by TfGM in response (see paras 4.22 and 4.23 above). No-one’s interests are likely to be adversely affected by the proposed modifications.
190 TfGM/A009 appx 2 191 TfGM/INQ 1C & TfGM/INQ 20 192 TfGM/P6B section 6.2; Messrs Lax and Harris (TfGM) and Roscoe (MCC) in oral evidence 193 TfGM/P2b para 3.1.2 item 10; MCC/05; oral evidence by Mr Lax (TfGM) and Sir Howard Bernstein (MCC) 194 TfGM/P2b section 8.6; TfGM/P3b; TfGM/P7b section 3
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 42 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
13. The extent to which the proposed demolition of the existing Metrolink tram stop in St Peter’s Square and proposed works affecting the Listed Buildings (‘the works’) are in accordance with the development plan for the area including any ‘saved policies’. The weight that should be attached to the development plan, and any emerging plans.
4.149 TfGM and MCC have addressed in evidence the matter of the works in so far as they affect Listed Buildings and St Peter’s Square with regard to cultural heritage and the development plan which is wholly up to date. There is no discordance and weight should attach to the development plan policies as accepted by MCC and EH.195
14. The extent to which the works would accord with the National Planning Policy Framework and in particular the desirability of sustaining or enhancing the character or appearance of the heritage assets.
4.150 The scheme would not cause substantial harm to heritage assets and should be weighed against the public benefits it would bring, leading to the grant of the LBC applications. The 2CC scheme is therefore in accordance with Chapter 12 of the Framework in relation to matters of cultural heritage.196
15. If consent for the works is granted, the need for any conditions to ensure they are carried out in a satisfactory manner.
4.151 Both TfGM and MCC recommend the proposed agreed LBC conditions which also have the support of EH and led to the withdrawal of the EH objection.197
16. Any other relevant matters which may be raised at the inquiry.
4.152 The only other matter of significance which has been raised is the suggestion by F Mazloomian & Co ([OBJ/9] that because MCC supports the 2CC scheme and has had long involvement with it, MCC will not responsibly execute its various duties to secure that proper controls are in place during construction of 2CC198. This is an unfounded suggestion.
Specific matters relating to individual objectors
4.153 A summary of the state of play with regard to objections as at 23 January 2013 was submitted at the beginning of the Inquiry199, and a further summary, setting out the final position at 30 January 2013, was submitted at the close of proceedings200. For the reasons set out therein and orally201, it is considered that the outstanding objections are misconceived.
195 TfGM/P5b, particularly section 6; MCC.01, particularly sections 6 & 8 196 TfGM/P5b section 6.3 & para 8.1.6 197 TfGM/INQ 2; MCC.01 sections 9 & 10; INQ/4 198 Mr Mazloomian in oral evidence 199 TfGM/INQ 9 200 TfGM/INQ 21 201 By Mr Ogborn
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 43 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
4.154 In respect of the only two objectors who appeared at the Inquiry to give evidence and make oral submissions202, a few further observations need to be made.
4.155 For F Mazloomian & Co it was made plain that there is an objection in principle to what the objector regards as an expensive and unnecessary scheme, as well as one which fails to support active transport (walking and cycling). The objector declined to agree that no amount of walking or cycling or provision of electric buses would meet the aims of 2CC, and seemed unaware of the raft of planning policies supporting 2CC.
4.156 The objector’s attribution of bad motives to the Promoter and MCC was graceless, but the questioning of the Promoter’s (and MCC’s) witnesses had the benefit of making it clear how thorough had been the preparation for the construction of 2CC and how the difficulties and problems the objector foresaw were exaggerated.
4.157 For Namulas it was agreed that the objector had been supplied in December 2012 with all the Promoter’s proofs of evidence and it remains a mystery why he did not seek information about the date of the Public Inquiry until the Monday of its second week.
4.158 The objector did not claim that centrally positioned poles were necessarily the right solution for Princess Street, merely that they warranted further consideration. He did not suggest that anyone else shared his views or had expressed them during the public consultation on the scheme.
4.159 His concern in relation to the Town Hall is understandable but does not appear to be shared by its owners MCC or its planning department. Any potential gain to the Town Hall has to be balanced against the visual impacts of centrally positioned poles even if a workable engineering scheme could be devised.
Overall conclusion
4.160 The Secretaries of State are requested to approve the various matters the subject of this Inquiry, the objections being misconceived and the scheme being one which will bring considerable benefits to Manchester and the wider Greater Manchester area.
202 F Mazloomian & Co [OBJ/9] (Mr Mazloomian) and Namulas Pension Trustees Ltd, objector to LBC applications (Mr Fuller)
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 44 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
5. THE CASE FOR SUPPORTERS OF THE PROPOSED TRANSPORT & WORKS ACT ORDER AND THE APPLICATIONS FOR LISTED BUILDINGS AND CONSERVATION AREA CONSENTS
The material points were:
Manchester City Council [SUPP/1]
5.1 MCC aligns itself with the case for 2CC made by TfGM. This facility is essential to grow the economy of the conurbation203, and is also part of the strategy to improve public transport across Greater Manchester and to ensure the benefits of the Metrolink investment are maximised204. Funding for 2CC is to be sourced at the local level and is now available205.
5.2 Turning to the LBC applications, although fixings to support the OLE would cause some harm to the buildings the harm would be less than substantial and such fixings are preferable to the clutter that would result from supporting this equipment with poles instead. Moreover, the harm that would occur because of the fixings would be outweighed by the public benefits resulting from the provision of 2CC206.
5.3 Finally, the CAC application to remove the tram stop would be beneficial and there is no basis to resist it on heritage or other grounds207.
5.4 All the works accord with national, regional and local policy and guidance208, and had MCC been able it would have granted consent and planning permission for them subject to the conditions it offered209.
English Heritage
5.5 In relation to the route as a whole, it was initially considered that robust justification had not been made concerning the running of the line through St Peter’s Square and the consequent need to demolish and relocate the Cenotaph and St Peter’s Cross, both of which are listed. However, in the light of additional information it is now accepted that the route selected for 2CC is the only viable one, and a new tram stop of a design that integrates satisfactorily into the public realm is achievable in St Peter’s Square. Therefore, subject to the imposition of suitable conditions and the consultation with English Heritage when further details are submitted, the earlier objection is withdrawn.
5.6 The OLE fixings would have a harmful effect on the fabric of The Midland Hotel (Grade II* listed) and the Grade I listed Town Hall. Despite this, it would be preferable for the OLE to be accommodated in this way, as the
203 MCC.05 para 2.1.1 -2.1.10 204 MCC.05 para 2.3.1-2.3.2, 4.5.3-4.5.7, 5.1.1-5.1.4 & 6.2.1 205 MCC.05 para 3.1.1-3.1.3 & Sir Howard Bernstein in oral evidence 206 MCC/INQ.4 207 MCC/INQ.4 208 MCC.01 para 6.1-6.19 & 8.2-8.3, & MCC.05 para 4.1.1-4.5.8 209 MCC.01 para 8.2-8.3
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 45 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
alternative of poles would introduce an unacceptable visual clutter to the detriment of the conservation areas and the settings of listed buildings.
5.7 Therefore the general principle of fixings to buildings is supported and it is recommended these 2 applications be approved. It was initially considered that this should be subject to the imposition of a condition requiring the fixings to be applied to the mortar where possible210. However, other conditions that did not specifically include that requirement have been accepted subsequently211.
5.8 In relation to the CAC application, the existing tram stop with its associated paraphernalia adds an element of unwelcome clutter to what should be one of the city’s finest civic spaces. Therefore it has a negative impact on the St Peter’s Square Conservation Area and on the settings of the Cenotaph, St Peter’s Cross, The Midland Hotel, the Town Hall Extension and especially the Central Library, all of which are listed. While the demolition of the tram stop would have a temporary adverse effect, it is recommended that the application for its demolition be approved212.
6. THE CASES FOR THE OBJECTORS TO THE PROPOSED TRANSPORT & WORKS ACT ORDER
The material points were:
David J Culshaw [OBJ/1] 213
6.1 This is a flagship/prestige scheme rather than a practical one and would be unnecessarily expensive. The Council has ‘jumped the gun’ by appointing designers before permission has been granted, and has not adequately consulted the travelling public on it.
6.2 The Council will no doubt seek to justify relocation of St Peter’s tram stop on the basis of reduced footfall, but this is only temporary due to the closure of the adjacent Central Library for refurbishment and will return to previous levels when it re-opens.
TAEL S.a.r.l [OBJ/3] 214
6.3 The objector (which is now owned by Land Securities) is the freehold owner of the Printworks, Corporation Street (plot 2052)215. This is a major leisure venue comprising some 33,000 m2 of restaurants, bars, nightclubs and a 19
210 INQ/14 tab B61 & B81 211 INQ/4 212 INQ/14 tab B90 213 This objector, a resident of Wigan, did not appear at the Inquiry. He submitted only his original letter of objection with a newspaper cutting. (He also refers to the proposed relocation of the Cenotaph, which is not before the Secretaries of State having already been granted consent by the City Council as noted above). 214 This objector did not appear at the Inquiry but submitted written evidence and representations as summarised here (drawn from the original objection and further documents as indicated). 215 OBJ.03/1 paras 3.1 &3.2
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 46 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
screen cinema. It has a capacity of some 18,500 people and attracts footfalls of up to 36,000 people on peak days and 7½ million annually.216
6.4 The objectives of the 2CC scheme are fully supported217. However, there are concerns regarding the impact of the Order as proposed on the operation of the Printworks, in 3 respects.
6.5 Firstly, plot 2058 is a private road providing a main entrance to the Printworks from Corporation Street. This is a primary pedestrian access, used for servicing of some units and an emergency exit. Moreover, it is of particular significance as the only entrance of sufficient height to allow emergency vehicles including fire engines to enter the premises. This is important as the firefighting strategy requires such operations to take place internally rather than from external access. It is essential that free access here be maintained. If it were not, the premises would have to close with loss of trade running into millions of pounds per annum.218
6.6 Secondly, while there is no objection to the attachment of OLE to the building there are practical concerns that this should not prejudice cathodic protection installed to control corrosion in the steel frame of the building. Also, there is insufficient information to assure the owner that the fixings would not prejudice to proposals for the installation of a large digital screen on the frontage and relocation of occupier signage, for which planning permission has been granted, and ongoing maintenance of the façade.219
6.7 The third concern relates to access to the roof via crane for removal or replacement of essential plant there220.
Selfridges Retail Ltd [OBJ/6] 221
6.8 The position at 29 January 2013 was that the company supports the principle of the 2CC scheme but is concerned that there would be an unacceptable impact on its store in Exchange Square. This makes an important contribution to the vitality and viability of the City Centre as well as being crucial to the business.
6.9 Particular concerns are that: TfGM has not demonstrated that there is a compelling case in the public interest for seeking the compulsory land acquisition powers, or that the land parcels identified are required for the scheme. There is other land in the vicinity that could meet the scheme requirements.
216 OBJ.03/1 section 5 (however the original objection puts the number of visits on an average Saturday night at over 38,000). 217 Objection letter (preamble) 218 Objection letter (section 1); OBJ.03/1 section 6 219 Objection letter (section 3); OBJ.03/1 section 7 220 Objection letter (section 2); no further representations on this point. 221 The objector did not appear at the Inquiry but submitted written representations (doc. INQ/8), which are summarised here.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 47 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
The power to attach equipment to specified parcels (buildings) would have an unacceptable impact on Selfridges’ ability to maintain or alter the shop front and fascia. Temporary use of parcels 2039-2042 inclusive would have an unacceptable impact on the principal access/egress to the property during the works. Use of parcels 2038-2040 inclusive could have an unacceptable impact on security for the property as the existing street furniture has been designed to act as ram raid deterrents.
6.10 The Secretary of State is therefore requested to refuse to confirm the Order, or to amend it so that it avoids the land parcels in which Selfridges has an interest.
6.11 Without prejudice to Selfridges’ rights in relation to the objection, if the Secretary of State is minded to confirm the Order, the following amendments or legally binding commitments from TfGM are required: Ensure adequate vehicular and pedestrian access to the property during construction and when the scheme is operational. Negotiate and engage with Selfridges during the design process so far as its property is affected, and have due regard to the company’s proper representations. The construction programme and protocol to be agreed between the parties, and reasonable notice of construction to be given. There should be no powers to affix equipment to the company’s buildings, with alternative methods being used; or, alternatively, powers to affix should be limited to the Corporation Street façade and Selfridges’ prior approval should be required for details of the fixings. The ongoing maintenance/repair obligations of TfGM in relation to the fixings should be agreed between the parties. A working protocol for maintenance of the building to enable repair, maintenance and non-structural alterations to the façade and shop front should be agreed between the parties. TfGM will not disrupt or interrupt continuous connections to supply of gas, electricity, water and telecommunications to the property. TfGM to provide appropriate insurance against liabilities incurred by Selfridges as a result of the actions or omissions of TfGM or its contractors, and indemnity in respect of losses, liabilities, damages etc suffered by Selfridges as a result of breaches or non-observance by TfGM of its obligations under the Order or agreement.222
222 The objector also refers to payment of compensation, but that is not a matter for this Report.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 48 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
6.12 Selfridges is in discussions with TfGM on a possible agreement to deal with the objection, but there are still outstanding issues and the company is not yet in a position to withdraw its objection.
LNC Developments Manchester Ltd [OBJ/7] 223
6.13 The objector owns no.55 Princess Street, a 7-storey building with basement parking and a listed façade at the rear. Parcel nos. 1057-1059 inclusive are variously indicated as to be acquired or used at ground level, for the attachment of equipment at first floor level and above and/or for temporary use.
6.14 The company does not object to the purpose of the scheme, but considers that it has not been demonstrated that the taking of the above parcels is necessary or that there is a ‘compelling case in the public interest’ to do so. It is requested that they be excluded from the Limits of Deviation.
6.15 Concerns include the lack of clarity of the powers sought; that the proper statutory notices have not been served; potential loss of control over building maintenance and use; the practicality of attaching apparatus to the building; the length of the proposed construction period (3 years); and access to the building and car park.
F Mazloomian & Co [OBJ/9]
6.16 The business owns, and occupies one floor of, the building at 73-75 Princess Street. 3 floors (including the basement) are let to other businesses. Two floors are vacant, having been difficult to let due to building works at the Town Hall extension opposite.224
6.17 2CC scheme is totally opposed. The objector did not ask for it and does not require it. TfGM has not indicated how many of the 1200 expressions of support came from owners of buildings along the route.225
6.18 There are already a number of trains, trams and bus services within a short walking distance of Princess Street. A short walk helps keep the population healthy and reduces pressures on Government budgets for health and the environment.226
6.19 The proposals include the complete destruction and removal of the gardens and trees in St Peter’s Square, transforming it from a Conservation Area used by thousands of people for relaxation and enjoyment of the green surroundings into a dull train station with no character. It is recognised that consents have now been granted for relocation of the Cenotaph and St Peter’s Cross and other works in the Square. The consents were rushed through to prejudice the Inquiry.227
223 The objector did not appear at the Inquiry and submitted no further evidence or representations. 224 OBJ.09/1 para 1 & oral evidence 225 OBJ.09/1 para 3 & oral evidence 226 OBJ.09/1 para 4 227 OBJ.09/1 paras 5 & 6 and oral submissions
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 49 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
6.20 TfGM is seeking to exclude permanently vehicles from Princess Street and Cross Street. This would have a major impact on vehicular access to the objector’s building.228
6.21 The business would have to suffer noise and other effects for many years during construction. The objector has no faith in the CoCP in practice. The Code has not been followed in works on the Town Hall site, and the objector has no confidence in the ability and/or willingness of MCC to enforce it.229
6.22 With the trams in operation the building occupants would have to suffer noise and vibration. There is also the risk of derailment, as happened in Mosley Street where a tram missed a building by inches.230
6.23 The fixings to 73-75 Princess Street would make the property ugly and get in the way of routine maintenance, refurbishment and repairs. Maintenance costs would therefore increase as a result, tenants would not renew their leases and the building would become empty231. After originally claiming that poles to support OLE cannot be used, it now accepts that it would be possible to use poles instead of fixings in certain places232.
6.24 Overall the scheme should not proceed. There are other transport projects that would use taxpayers’ money in a far more efficient and less destructive manner. The scheme would create major ongoing financial losses and reduce building values.233
6.25 If, nevertheless, the scheme were to proceed, it should be subject to stringent conditions and it should not be monitored by MCC234.
Q Hotels & Midland Hotel (Manchester) Ltd [OBJ/10] 235
6.26 The 2CC scheme is supported. It would have a positive impact on the city and the wider area.236
6.27 The Midland Hotel is the flagship hotel of the Q Hotels group. It has 312 bedrooms and other facilities including conference and banqueting suites situated on the Lower Mosley Street side of the building. The proposed 2CC works would cause significant financial loss to the business during construction and in the long term due to noise, vibration and possible traffic/access restrictions.237
228 OBJ.09/1 para 7 & oral evidence 229 OBJ.09/1 paras 8 & 9 and oral evidence 230 OBJ.09/1 paras 10 & 11 231 OBJ.09/1 paras 12-14 232 Mr Mazloomian in oral evidence 233 OBJ.09/1 paras 15 & 16 234 Mr Mazloomian in oral submissions 235 The objector submitted 3 proofs of evidence, but did not appear at the Inquiry. I have taken the proofs, together with an emailed update, as written representations. Reference is also made in the proofs to the effect on 2CC on the market value of the hotel, but that is not a matter for this Report. 236 OBJ.10/1 paras 4.1 & 4.5 237 OBJ.10/1 sections 2-4
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 50 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
6.28 The ES predicts no significant impacts from operational noise and vibration, but the hotel already fields complaints arising from tram operations and the assessment shows that noise and vibration would increase, which would exacerbate this situation238. The ES predicts ‘major’ impacts from construction noise, with the ‘acceptable’ level of noise being significantly exceeded. Mitigation measures applied to the building could mitigate the effects of noise during construction, though not to current noise levels in all rooms, and in the longer term. Further on-site measures would be required to shield particular noisy activities during construction.239
6.29 TfGM has not provided details of the timing of works in the vicinity of the hotel. It has been advised that road closures would be necessary, affecting access to the main entrance to the rear of the hotel. The number of trams passing the hotel will increase substantially, and it is understood that they would run for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.240
6.30 The position at 28 January 2013 was that there had been discussions between the objector and TfGM, and the objector had received a draft agreement. Amendments to this draft were due to be discussed at a further meeting, and it was hoped that the issues between the parties could be resolved.241
Whitbread Group Plc & Premier Inn Hotels Ltd [OBJ/11] 242
6.31 The company objects on the basis that insufficient detail has been provided on the equipment proposed to be attached to its property.
English Heritage [OBJ/12]243
6.32 Following discussions with TfGM and MCC, English Heritage (‘EH’) is now satisfied that there are sound reasons to justify relocation of the Grade II* listed Cenotaph and Grade II listed Memorial Cross. MCC has decided that the public benefits of so doing outweigh the less than substantial harm to the heritage value of the area and, after referral to the Secretary of State, has granted Listed Building Consents.
6.33 EH is also satisfied, in the light of the discussions and further information provided and subject to conditions, that designs for the proposed new tram stations in St Peter’s Square and Exchange Square that integrate effectively with the new public realm and which are appropriate to the historic character and distinctiveness of the former square and the existing design of the latter are achievable.
6.34 Other concerns relating to fixings to listed buildings to support overhead wires can be governed effectively by the proposed conditions.
238 TfGM/A019 chapter 6 section 6.6 239 OBJ.10/2 240 OBJ.10/3 section 3 241 INQ/7 242 This objector did not appear at the Inquiry and submitted no further evidence or representations. 243 The position as at the time of the Inquiry is set out in a letter dated 21 January 2013 (doc.INQ/4)
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 51 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
6.35 Accordingly EH is able conditionally to withdraw its objection.
Whittington Investments (Properties) Ltd [OBJ/14] 244
6.36 The company objects to the Order as the proposed compulsory purchase would have a detrimental impact on the use of the building at 1 Balloon Street. The boundary of the land to be acquired would need to be adjusted. No attempt has been made to acquire the interests required, and their exact nature remains unclear.
7. OTHER REPRESENTATION ON THE PROPOSED TRANSPORT & WORKS ACT ORDER
The material points were:
Passenger Focus [REP/1]245
7.1 Passenger Focus is the statutory watchdog for rail passengers in Great Britain and for bus, tram and coach passengers in England outside London.
7.2 Passenger patronage on the Manchester Metrolink is on an upward trend, with the system carrying over 21 million passengers in 2011/12. It is crucial that account be taken of passengers’ views and priorities.
7.3 National Passenger Survey (‘NPS’) data shows greater passenger satisfaction at Victoria Station, where Metrolink services have good visible integration with rail services, has higher satisfaction than at Piccadilly, where Metrolink services are less obvious. This emphasises the importance of good connection opportunities with high standards of passenger information, signage and guidance. The proposed additional route through the city centre would make the available connections more complex, and clarity and guidance for passengers should be a priority.
7.4 Key issues, particularly at St Peter’s Square but also along the route, will be passenger information and integration of the tram system with bus services.
7.5 The potential for 2CC to provide an alternative route to maintain services in the event of disruption is important to passengers.
244 This objector did not appear at the Inquiry and submitted no further evidence or representations. 245 This body did not appear at the Inquiry and submitted no further evidence or representations.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 52 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
8. THE CASES FOR THE OBJECTORS TO THE APPLICATIONS FOR LISTED BUILDING CONSENT
The material points were:
F Mazloomian & Co 246
8.1 The fixings to 73-75 Princess Street would make the property ugly and get in the way of routine maintenance, refurbishment and repairs. Maintenance costs would therefore increase as a result, tenants would not renew their leases and the building would become empty247. It would be possible to use poles instead of fixings in certain places248.
8.2 The works in St Peter’s Square would devastate the square and surrounding buildings, destroy the gardens, and turn the square into a dull tram station249.
8.3 Overall the scheme should not proceed but if it did there should be substantial conditions and it should not be monitored by MCC250.
Namulas Pension Trustees Limited 251
8.4 Fixings to the listed fabric of 31 Princess Street and the Town Hall opposite would be harmful, and a more appropriate form of cable suspension should be considered252. In particular there should be a further assessment of the suitability of alternatives such as central poles along this section of the route, with an accompanying rationalisation of bus stops and loading bays. This would allow any new equipment to be as far as possible from the listed Town Hall and also from the listed Fraser Statue in Albert Square253
Q Hotels Limited
8.5 Additional fixings to The Midland Hotel would not assist in preserving either the building or its setting254. They would also impede access to the property by window cleaners, by the fire service and by those undertaking maintenance. Therefore the cables should be attached to poles that stand away from the building a sufficient distance to allow vehicular access255.
246 This objector also gave the reference for the LBC application for 65-71 Princess Street in its objection but there was no specific mention of that property in the submissions. 247 Obj.09/1 & INQ/14 tab B27 248 Mr Mazloomian in oral evidence 249 Obj.09/1 & INQ/14 tab B27 250 Mr Mazloomian in oral evidence 251 Owner of 31 Princess Street 252 INQ/14 tab B17 253 Mr Fuller in oral evidence 254 INQ/14 tab B80 255 INQ/14 tab B79 & OBJ.10/3 para 6.1
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 53 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
9. OTHER REPRESENTATIONS REGARDING THE APPLICATIONS FOR LISTED BUILDING CONSENT
The material points were:
Aviva Investors Property Trust 256
9.1 While the scheme is supported, assurances are sought that the Trust‘s works to improve the centre and the heritage significance of the Former Corn and Produce Exchange would be fully considered when confirming the position of the OLE fixings. Therefore the owner of the building wishes to be consulted again when detailed plans are submitted257.
(The Report continues on the next page)
256 Owner of the Corn Exchange Building, which is also known as Former Corn and Produce Exchange 257 INQ/14 tab B66
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 54 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
10. CONCLUSIONS258
10.1 The considerations arising from the proposed Transport and Works Act (TWA) Order, and the applications for deemed planning permission, Listed Building Consents (LBCs) and Conservation Area Consent (CAC) overlap to a considerable degree. I structure these conclusions around the matters about which the Secretaries of State have indicated that they particularly wish to be informed before setting out my overall conclusions.
The proposed Order and application for deemed planning permission
Aims, objectives and need (Matter 1)
10.2 The Second City Crossing (2CC) scheme would, as the name suggests, provide an additional route for trams through Manchester City Centre as part of the Metrolink Light Rapid Transit (LRT) System, where lines currently converge on a single link. The system already reaches out to a number of areas and towns in the wider Greater Manchester conurbation, and
substantial further expansion of the network is ongoing or planned [2.1, 4.7-4.9, 4.110]. 10.3 By providing increased capacity through the city centre, 2CC would enable implementation of the full network expansion programme, which would otherwise have to be curtailed due to capacity limitations on the existing route (Line 1). It would increase flexibility in the operation of the network, both in the longer term and to accommodate short-term demands arising from special events. Finally, the increased capacity and availability of an alternative route in the event of disruption due to maintenance, renewals or other obstructions, would improve network resilience and service reliability irrespective of network expansion. Thus the 2CC scheme would meet its key functional objectives and those set for it by the Greater Manchester Combined Authority through its current Local Transport Plan (LTP) under the Local Transport Act 2008 [4.7-4.14, 4.35-4.41, 4.110]. 10.4 There is widespread support for the principle of the scheme, from parties including all the local authorities in Greater Manchester, particularly Manchester City Council (MCC), within whose area it is situated, stakeholders, consultees and the public. Significantly a number of objectors to detailed aspects of the scheme nevertheless express support for it in principle or indicate that they do not object on this ground [1.3, 4.9, 4.18, 4.65, 4.91, 5.1-5.8, 6.4, 6.8, 6.14, 6.26]. 10.5 Two objectors question the scheme in principle. Mr Culshaw (OBJ/1) makes broad assertions in this respect without any evidence to support them [6.1 6.2]. F Mazloomian & Co (OBJ/9) objects on similar grounds in this respect, again without supporting evidence. It also questioned the need for the
258 In these conclusions, references thus [9.1] are to previous paragraphs in this report.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 55 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
scheme despite owning, and occupying part of a building in the city centre that benefits from the accessibility of its location and would accrue additional benefits from expansion of the Metrolink network. While the suggested alternatives of walking, cycling and electric buses in the city centre might have roles to play, I share the view of Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) that they would not meet the aims of 2CC [4.155, 6.17-6.18, 6.24]. Justification (Matter 2)
10.6 Evidence for TfGM, which has not been challenged, points to significant transportation and regeneration benefits from 2CC directly and from the further expansion of the network it would enable, both within the city centre and across the wider conurbation. These would also enhance the economic benefits already identified in the Value for Money report. There would in addition be environmental benefits within the city centre, including those supplementing benefits of the scheme already permitted for the redesign and redevelopment of St Peter’s Square. I consider that the minor adverse effects in Exchange Square would be more than offset by these benefits [4.54 4.64, 4.78, 4.111-4.116]. Main alternative options considered (Matter 3)
10.7 The choice of route is constrained by the relatively short distance between the ends of the scheme and the intervening street and development patterns. The proposed scheme is one of 7 assessed by the promoter, all being variations on two main options involving use of Cross Street/ Corporation Street and Deansgate respectively [4.15]. 10.8 The only alternative route specifically suggested by objectors is via Deansgate. Undisputed evidence for TfGM indicates that such a route would be significantly more costly than one via Cross Street/Corporation Street, and would offer longer journey times and fewer interchange opportunities. Also the Deansgate routes at their northern end would pass close to the Grade I Listed Manchester Cathedral, adversely affecting its setting, one of the oldest parts of the city and sites of potential archaeological significance. At the southern end alternatives running via Peter Street would affect the Grade II* Midland Hotel on two sides rather than one as in the chosen option. I concur with the view of TfGM that no other route is preferable to the one proposed [4.16-4.18, 4.117]. 10.9 As indicated above, I also agree that walking, cycling and electric buses would not obviate the need for the 2CC scheme [4.19]. I address below alternative arrangements for supporting overhead line equipment (OLE) in Princess Street, suggested by an objector, which I do not consider to
constitute a main alternative option [4.20]. Consistency with policies (Matter 4)
10.10 Evidence for TfGM and MCC that the scheme would be consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework, the White Paper ‘Creating Growth,
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 56 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
Cutting Carbon’ (2011), the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) for the North West259, the LTP, and the Manchester Core Strategy is undisputed, and I concur with it. Neither of the objectors opposing the scheme in principle
has cited conflict with any policy in support of their view [4.42-4.53, 5.4]. 10.11 Regarding the weight that should be attached to policies, the National Planning Policy Framework sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and is a material consideration in planning decisions, as is the While Paper. The Core Strategy and, until revoked (see next para), the RSS are parts of the statutory development plan, in accordance with which applications for planning permission must be determined unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
10.12 However, prior to the Inquiry the Government had announced its intention to abolish the RSS. This would in itself be a material consideration, but since the Inquiry an Order to revoke the RSS, coming into effect on 20 May 2013, has been laid before Parliament260. The implications of this for the TWAO and applications that are the subject of this Report are matters for the Secretaries of State, but I respectfully suggest that the policy case for this scheme would not be diminished materially without the RSS policies.
10.13 While the 12-month period in which provisions of paragraph 214 of the Framework applied has expired, paragraph 215 is still extant. This indicates that due weight should be accorded to relevant policies in existing plans, in this case in the Core Strategy (and the RSS as long as it remains). I have seen nothing to indicate that the policies relevant to the 2CC scheme are inconsistent with the Framework and so I consider that they should be afforded full weight.
10.14 The LTP has been prepared under the Local Transport Act 2008 in consultation with all the District/Borough Councils in Greater Manchester and relevant stakeholders. It sets out TfGM’s policies for transport to, from and within Greater Manchester. In my view it should be accorded significant weight in consideration of the 2CC scheme given its particular relevance to this proposal [4.48]. Likely impact on the public, businesses and the environment during construction and operation (Matter 5)
10.15 On a general point, as the promoter accepts, the process of constructing 2CC through the city centre would inevitably cause disruption. However, while the overall construction period would be some 3 years, based on my own experience of construction projects I accept its point that individual locations would be likely to experience significant disturbance intermittently for much shorter periods rather than over the full 3 years as some objectors seem to assume [4.71 ].
259 Subject to the matters indicated in para 10.12. 260 The Regional Strategy for the North West (Revocation) Order 2013 (SI 2013 No.934)
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 57 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
(a) Noise, dust and disturbance, including impacts of construction traffic
10.16 Two objectors, F Mazloomian & Co (OBJ/9) and Q Hotels & Midland Hotel (Manchester) Ltd (OBJ/10), raise specific concerns in this respect, relating mainly to noise and vibration in the construction period and in the longer
term [6.21-6.22, 6.27-6.28]. 10.17 Regarding vibration, neither objector has put forward any evidence to counter that of TfGM that during construction there would be minor adverse effects from piling if used, for example for OLE poles, but effectively no
additional vibration from operational trams [4.72, 4.75, 4.89, 4.119, 6.28]. The former, if anything, supports the case for attaching OLE to buildings in preference to the use of poles. In any event, I note that the Environmental Statement (ES), which Q Hotels & Midland Hotel (Manchester) Ltd cites in this respect, indicates that at the Hotel the construction vibration levels would be ‘just perceptible’ while vibration from operation of trams would be ‘classed as neutral’ and that no sensitive receptor would be affected to a greater degree [6.28]. 10.18 Turning to noise, TfGM acknowledges that construction noise is likely to be a significant issue, but indicates that controls and phasing would mitigate the
impact as far as practicable [4.72, 4.89, 4.119]. The promoter’s evidence that internal noise levels in the conference rooms of the Midland Hotel would increase by only 3dB is unchallenged. As TfGM points out the noise levels in these rooms already exceed the level indicated by the objector as the maximum acceptable rather than being made so by construction noise [4.72, 6.28]. Such an increase is classified as a ‘moderate adverse effect’ and, as I understand it, 3dB is the minimum change normally perceptible to the human ear. In considering such a change it is, I suggest, material that as indicated above it would occur only intermittently and for limited periods.
10.19 The evidence for TfGM that the increases in noise levels from operational trams and traffic would be less than perceptible at the buildings owned by the above objectors and ‘less than substantial’ or ‘minor adverse’ at other key locations along the proposed route is again uncontested [4.75-4.76, 4.89, 4.119, 6.22]. 10.20 TfGM acknowledges that platform announcements from the new tram stop at St Peter’s Square might be audible within the premises of F Mazloomian &
Co [4.76], and on my site visit to those premises I listened to the sound of horns from trams crossing Princess Street into Mosley Street on Line 1 [1.14]. I found these to be barely audible in the very quiet office in which I stood, and while the point at which trams on the 2CC route might sound their horns would be a little closer I would not expect the noise to be significantly more intrusive. In any event, such sounds are part of the background bustle that, in my view, is to be expected in a busy city centre.
10.21 In considering the impacts of operational noise from 2CC it is necessary to have regard also to the widespread beneficial reduction in road traffic noise that would also result from the 2CC scheme [4.119].
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 58 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
10.22 Objectors have not raised significant concern regarding dust, but I note that suggested conditions261 to be attached to a deemed planning permission for the works would secure approval and compliance with a Code of Construction Practice (CoCP) and environmental mitigation measures. Amongst these is an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) which in turn requires and embodies further provisions such as a Dust and Air Pollution Management Plan. I address mitigation measures further under Matter 7 below, and am aware that there are further controls on dust under legislation including the Control of Pollution Act 1974, the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Clean Air Act 1993. No evidence contrary to that of TfGM, to the effect that there would be no significant adverse effects from dust, has been put forward [4.124]. (b) Air quality
10.23 Similarly the evidence of TfGM that, subject to such controls, there would be no significant adverse air quality effects is uncontested [4.124]. (c) Impacts on townscape, including the character and appearance of the conservation area, and effects on listed buildings (d) Impacts on light and visual amenity (g) Impacts of attaching OLE to buildings
10.24 I consider these matters together to minimise duplication.
10.25 Over its total length 2CC would require fixings to be attached to 19 listed buildings in order to support the OLE. As discussed below in connection
with the listed building applications [10.81, 10.83] these would each be single bolts in the external walls [4.99] that, because of their size, would not be obtrusive. Therefore, while they would cause harm to the fabric and appearance of each of these heritage assets, this harm would be less than substantial.
10.26 While concerns about structural damage to buildings are understandable, no evidence of such problems actually arising from existing building fixings has
been submitted [6.6]. As TfGM points out, Line 1 has been in operation for over 20 years. It uses building fixings, as do other existing tram networks. It is reasonable to assume that, had there been a general problem in this respect, specific instances would have been cited. In the cases of the Listed Buildings along the route, which might be considered to be amongst the more sensitive in this respect, a suggested condition262 to be attached to each of the LBCs if granted would bring the details of the fixings and their precise positions under the control of the local planning authority and
require the proposals to be discussed with building owners [4.136, 4.139].
261 Conditions 7 & 8 in Appendix C to this Report 262 Condition 3 in Appendix D to this Report
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 59 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
10.27 2CC would run through or along the boundaries of 7 conservation areas. Indeed, with the exception of a section in the vicinity of the Arndale Centre, it would be in one conservation area or another for its entire length.
10.28 The St Peter’s Square Conservation Area (CA) and the Albert Square CA are the two on which it would have the greatest effect. The St Peter’s Square CA is, as the name suggests, focussed on St Peter’s Square but it also includes a number of large and significant listed buildings. Amongst these are the Cenotaph, the Central Library and The Midland Hotel (all Grade II* listed). Similarly, at the heart of the Albert Square CA is Albert Square itself, with its various listed statues, and the adjacent Town Hall (Grade I listed) and extension (Grade II* listed). The Albert Square CA also includes the Peace Gardens behind the Town Hall, which appear as an extension of St Peter’s Square263 and are a small area of green space and trees. The significance of these two conservation areas lies, to a great extent, in their civic roles which are displayed in the grand public buildings they contain and
the importance of their various squares and open spaces [4.91, 4.96]. 10.29 Of the remaining conservation areas, the George Street CA is on the east side of Mosley Street. Upper King Street CA is bounded on 2 sides by Princess Street and Cross Street and abuts St Ann’s CA which is on the opposite side of Cross Street, while the Cathedral CA and Shudehill CA are to the north of the Arndale Centre on either side of Corporation Street. Each of these 5 conservation areas has its own distinct character, but they nonetheless reflect the historic evolution of the city and the status it enjoyed at different periods up to and including the early C20 [4.91 4.96]. 10.30 The route is also lined by numerous listed buildings, which are mainly Grade II listed although there are some that are Grade II* and two that are Grade I. These tend to date from the early 19th Century to the early C20, and are of a variety of sizes, styles and forms, having been built as civic buildings, hotels, offices, commercial premises and statues. They now sit very much in the context of a 21st Century city centre but, despite this, their significance lies in the way their design, detail and scale still reflect Manchester’s prosperity and status over the period in which they were built
[4.91 4.96]. 10.31 Irrespective of 2CC, the Square will be subject to appreciable change and improvement in the near future because of the works authorised by the
other relevant consents and permissions [3.1-3.7, 4.4-4.6]. These involve relocating the Cenotaph and St Peter’s Cross, felling the trees in the Peace Gardens, removing road traffic from all but the extreme southern and northern ends and introducing comprehensive resurfacing and new areas of landscaping. The effect of these works will be to tackle the current visual fragmentation of the Square that has been created by its various disparate elements and the piecemeal changes that have occurred over time, giving it a unified appearance and making it appear more spacious. It is therefore
263 Hereafter references to St Peter’s Square (or the Square) shall refer to the open space that straddles these 2 conservation areas and extends from Peter Street to Princess Street
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 60 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
not accurate to say 2CC would precipitate these works; they are already authorised and will be going ahead irrespective of the 2CC proposal [4.90, 6.19]. 10.32 The new tram stop would be longer than the existing stop it would replace (and indeed it would extend into the Albert Square CA), while the additional tram tracks would need more poles to support the OLE. However, unlike the current tram line that curves around the Cenotaph and St Peter’s Cross through the limited space between those monuments and the Central Library, the new infrastructure would not be cramped or discordant, and the new tram stop would be in a more spacious setting. Furthermore, although the details are still to be agreed, the tram stop would be of a bespoke design [4.115] that would relate well to the surroundings, and there would be opportunity through the conditions to secure materials that better relate to the Square264. When taken together these factors would ensure the Square
would not become a dull train station as contended by one objector [6.19]. Rather it would be a vibrant and dynamic civic space with a cohesive appearance, and so the new tram stop would not significantly harm the Albert Square CA nor the St Peter’s Square CA. Accordingly the characters and appearances of both CAs would therefore be preserved.
10.33 By improving the relationship between the tram network and the Square, the scheme would also create a more suitable and spacious setting for The Midland Hotel, the Central Library and the Town Hall Extension, all of which are Grade II* listed [4.127], as well as the other listed buildings and structures around the Square. While the new tram stop would be closer to the Grade I listed City Art Gallery, this building does not directly address the Square. Rather, it fronts onto the more confined Mosley Street, along which already runs the Line 1 tram route, with its side elevation facing Princess Street, and so its relationship with the Square is limited. As a result, the scheme would not harm the setting of the Art Gallery, which would therefore be preserved.
10.34 The proposal would require additional poles to take the OLE from the Square round the corner into Princess Street, but there is scope for these to be sited sufficiently far from the new location of the Cenotaph to avoid any harm to the setting of that listed building, which would thus be preserved [4.127]. 10.35 To enable the OLE to turn from Princess Street into Cross Street a number of poles would also need to be introduced at the north end of Albert Square, which is another important civic space in the city. When seen in the context of this large open area as a whole, they would be relatively close to the buildings on Princess Street that form the northern side of Albert Square, and so would not create any undue sense of enclosure. Moreover, while Princess Street is part of the overall open area of Albert Square at this point, it is nonetheless clear and distinct from the paved pedestrian portion in front of the Town Hall. Therefore any visual separation the poles may create between Princess Street and the rest of Albert Square would not be harmful.
264 Condition 5 in Appendix C to this Report
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 61 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
10.36 However, although their precise locations have not been agreed it was accepted that some poles would be within a few metres of the Grade II listed Fraser Statue that stands in Albert Square next to Princess Street
[4.127]. Although there would be no attachments to this statue, I share the view of TfGM that its setting would nonetheless not be preserved by the
works, though the harm would be less than substantial [4.127]. 10.37 Along the route the OLE would be visible as it would be suspended above the road. The wires though would be slender and, having noted the visual impact of similar existing equipment connected with Line 1, I do not consider that they would be unduly dominant or intrusive in this city centre location. Therefore the overhead cabling would not harm the conservation areas involved or the settings of the listed buildings it passed.
10.38 It is acknowledged that physical and aesthetic harm would result from attaching the OLE to the listed buildings [4.99, 4.100]. However, I concur with the view of English Heritage [5.6] that supporting the OLE on poles instead where 2CC passes along confined streets (as opposed to where it passes through the more open squares) would be more intrusive and cause more harm to the streetscapes, the settings of the listed buildings along the route and the conservation areas than the use of building fixings.
10.39 The trams themselves would also be apparent but on busy city centre streets, many of which already serve as bus routes, they would not be discordant.
10.40 A number of street trees that would be too close to the tram lines or OLE would need to be felled [4.90]. These are generally not mature specimens, and while they contribute to the character and appearance of the conservation areas they are not a fundamental part of their significance as heritage assets. It is indicated that the trees thus lost are to be replaced 265 nearby [4.78, 4.90, 4.142], and a suggested condition would secure this in respect of those of stem diameters 75mm or greater, so their removal would not be harmful.
10.41 There would be some harm to each of the conservation areas and to the settings of the adjacent listed buildings along the route during the
construction period [4.70, 4.71]. This would be due to the extensive nature of the works and the associated equipment and apparatus involved, but would be a short-term harm only.
10.42 Finally, two non-designated heritage assets have been identified by TfGM. The first of these is the tram tracks associated with the previous tram system through this part of the City. Although it would be necessary to remove any of these remaining along the line of 2CC, the works would provide the opportunity to record them. Consequently, while there would be an adverse effect on them as a heritage asset, having regard to their significance this would not be unacceptable [4.92].
265 Condition 6 in Appendix C to this Report
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 62 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
10.43 The second asset identified is the vaults that were beneath St Peter’s Church. This used to stand in the centre of what is now St Peter’s Square, and the vaults were retained when the building was demolished. I am satisfied that their integrity could be secured, but there might still be some adverse impact on the asset. However, this would be mitigated by the opportunity to undertake archaeological investigations of the vaults and of the site. I consider that, taking these factors together, this non-designated heritage asset would be conserved in a manner proportionate to its significance [4.93]. 10.44 I conclude that the 2CC scheme once completed would cause less than substantial harm to the setting of the Grade II Fraser Statue as a result of the OLE poles, and the OLE fixings would cause less than substantial harm to the 19 listed buildings to which they would be attached. Accordingly, their special architectural or historic interest would not be preserved. There would also be less than substantial harm to the non-designated heritage assets. I also conclude that during the construction period the nature and scale of the works involved would cause temporary and less than substantial harm to the settings of the listed buildings along its route and to the characters and appearances of the conservation areas through which and along the boundaries of which the 2CC route would pass. The Framework indicates (para 134) that, where there would be less than substantial harm to heritage assets, the harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposed development. I return to this in the overall conclusions (para 10.98).
10.45 Otherwise I conclude that the proposal would preserve or enhance the character and appearance of each of the 7 conservation areas through which or along the boundary of which the line would pass, and it would preserve the settings of all the other Grade I, Grade II* and Grade II listed buildings along its route.
10.46 The only section of the route outside a conservation area is where it would pass the Arndale Centre and Exchange Square. This is a part of the city centre that has already shown itself to be capable of accommodating significant change following its redevelopment after the bombing in 1996. It is now proposed to site a new tram stop here. It would be on the east side of Exchange Square immediately next to the modern bright façade of the Arndale Centre and, as at St Peter’s Square, it would be of a bespoke design [4.115]. In these circumstances, the introduction of this new feature would not be unduly discordant. Some trees are also to be removed, but again they are not a fundamental part of the character of this part of the city centre and replacement specimens would be planted nearby. This area would experience adverse effects during the construction phase, but these would only be for a temporary period and so would not be unduly harmful. The impact on this section of the townscape would therefore not be unacceptable.
10.47 Given the nature of the scheme, I have seen nothing to lead me to disagree with TfGM’s evidence that there would be no adverse impacts on light [4.130 ].
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 63 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
(e) Impacts on pedestrian and vehicular access to premises
10.48 Insertion of a new tram route along city centre streets would inevitably necessitate some changes in provision for vehicular traffic sharing the same streets, both temporarily during construction and in the longer term. Practical and safety considerations would also require restrictions affecting pedestrians, though for the most part these would cease once 2CC became operational. A number of objectors have raised concerns in these respects, mainly relating to access to their individual premises including specific issues regarding access for emergency vehicles and for maintenance/alterations to buildings [6.5-6.7, 6.9, 6.11, 6.15, 6.20, 6.23, 6.27, 6.29, 6.31, 8.1, 8.5]. 10.49 In some cases the concerns are unfounded. Access to all properties adjoining the route would be maintained, though not necessarily in the current form, and in some cases there would be temporary arrangements during construction including for emergency vehicles and evacuation routes
[4.79, 4.131-4.132]. In particular the Order would not, as alleged, preclude use of a ‘cherry picker’ to access the roof of the premises of F Mazloomian & Co [4.132-4.133, 6.23]. No evidence of insurmountable problems with building maintenance along the existing Line 1 has been put forward. Evidence for TfGM indicates that, if necessary and with appropriate notice, Metrolink would take steps such as the erection of temporary poles to accommodate works to buildings to which OLE is fixed [4.79, 4.139]. 10.50 Most other concerns would be addressed directly by provisions of the Order and/or through liaison with the local highway authority and emergency services as required by the CoCP. Approval of the CoCP by the local planning authority, and compliance with it, could be secured through a 266 planning condition [4.79, 4.131]. 10.51 While there would be some disruption for pedestrians during the construction phase, this would generally be short-term and would be minimised through good practice and liaison. I share the view of TfGM that there would be significant benefits for pedestrians once the 2CC scheme
became operational [4.132]. (f) Impacts on water resources
10.52 I have seen no suggestion that there would be any adverse effects in this respect. I concur with the evidence for TfGM that, subject to safeguards secured under the CoCP and environmental mitigation measures specified in the ES, both of which could be secured through planning conditions267, there would be no adverse impacts in this respect [4.134 ].
266 Condition 7 in Appendix C to this Report 267 Conditions 7 & 8 in Appendix C to this Report
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 64 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
Effects on the operations of statutory undertakers and other utility providers (Matter 6)
10.53 Apart from Royal Mail Group plc & Post Office Ltd (OBJ/4), which withdrew its objection prior to the Inquiry, no statutory undertaker or other utility provider has raised any objections regarding its ability to carry out its undertakings effectively, safely and in compliance with any statutory and
contractual obligations [1.1, 4.140]. As TfGM points out, Article 44 of the Order would provide detailed protection for the highway authority [4.140]. The measures proposed for mitigating any adverse impacts of the scheme (Matter 7)
10.54 TfGM has submitted a detailed schedule summary of the mitigation measures proposed, with specific references to relevant documents. Key amongst these are the Code of Construction Practice (CoCP) and the ES.
[4.26(v), 4.34(viii), 4.141]. Approval and implementation of the measures in these could be secured through planning conditions268.
10.55 As well as setting out direct requirements to which the contractor would be required contractually to adhere, the CoCP links to and effectively embodies many other documents and schemes. These are variously specific to the 2CC scheme and generic, and include the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) which in turn requires and embodies numerous further provisions to mitigate specific impacts. The Code also highlights relevant statutory requirements and provisions in relevant British Standards [4.26(v), 4.34(viii), 4.141]. 10.56 F Mazloomian & Co (OBJ/9) questions the effectiveness of the CoCP in mitigating adverse impacts, citing experience with the current work on the Town Hall extension site. However, no details have been given of the alleged breaches there. Nor have the terms of any CoCP in respect of that scheme been submitted, so I am unable to assess how it compares with the code proposed for 2CC. As each such code is specific to the works to which it relates and the natures of the two schemes are very different, it is likely that the CoCPs would also be different. In the circumstances I consider that little weight should be attached to the doubts expressed regarding the willingness and ability of MCC to enforce the terms of the code in respect of the 2CC scheme [4.152, 4.156, 6.21]. 10.57 As the promoter acknowledges, there would be some impacts that could not be mitigated fully. These are addressed elsewhere in these conclusions, but I have seen or heard nothing to lead me to a view other than that during the construction phase some of these would be significant but they would be intermittent and temporary, while there would be no significant adverse impacts in the subsequent operational phase [4.142].
268 Conditions 7 & 8 respectively in Appendix C to this Report
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 65 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
The Environmental Information (Matter 8)
10.58 In considering the proposed Order and application for deemed planning permission, and as appropriate the applications for LBCs and CAC, I have had regard to the Environmental Statement submitted with the application
for the Order [2.1-2.4, 4.34(viii), 4.26(iii)], 4.143] together with the relevant evidence submitted or given at the Inquiry as reported above. In combination these comprise the environmental information that I have taken into account in arriving at my recommendations.
10.59 I have nothing to suggest that the ES is flawed or inadequate in any way. The objector Q Hotels & Midland Hotel (Manchester) Ltd (OBJ/10) disagrees with some of the qualitative assessments with regard to noise, but has not submitted evidence to challenge materially the quantitative evidence in the ES and for TfGM at the Inquiry [4.72, 4.76, 4.143, 6.28]. I have addressed that matter above (paras 10.18 & 10.19).
Conditions to be attached to deemed planning permission (Matter 9)
10.60 The planning conditions suggested by TfGM have been agreed with EH and MCC [4.107, 4.144, 5.4, 6.33-6.34]. In some instances these would meet, at least in part, concerns raised by objectors [6.11, 6.25]. 10.61 I agree that further conditions would be necessary as follows: To ensure and control the phasing of development to protect the amenity of users and occupiers of the city centre, to protect the functioning of the highway network and to safeguard the Cenotaph and St Peter’s Cross; To safeguard further St Peter’s Cross by ensuring that it is relocated prior to operation of the tram system as modified by the 2CC scheme; To control the design and appearance of all structures and the positing of any poles to support OLE, to secure satisfactory external appearance in the interests of visual amenity; To control the external materials and appearance of the two new tram stops to ensure satisfactory external appearance in the interests of visual amenity; To secure timely provision of an appropriate landscaping scheme, including appropriate provision for trees and landscaping mitigation, to ensure satisfactory external appearance in the interests of visual amenity; To secure and control the contents of a CoCP, and its implementation, to mitigate expected construction impacts arising from the development; To secure and control measures to mitigate expected environmental impacts arising from the development, as set out in the ES, and their implementation; and
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 66 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
To require that the 2CC transit system is not brought into public use until the replacement tram stop in St Peter’s Square is brought into public use, to ensure the replacement of the existing tram stop there.
10.62 Regarding the statutory time limit for the commencement of development, I do not share the view of TfGM that a 5-year period from the granting of planning permission would be appropriate in this instance. While this is a complex project, it was stressed at the Inquiry that it is capable of being – and indeed is likely to be – implemented as soon as the relevant powers are in place, and I have seen nothing to lead me to doubt this [4.34(vi), 4.65]. While I accept that some of the LBC consents might not be implemented until later phases in the construction, beyond 3 years, the planning condition would
relate to the commencement of the scheme as a whole [4.145 ]. I consider that there is no justification in this case for departing from the standard 3 year period.
10.63 The suggested conditions relating to design and external appearance and to materials each include requirements that the submission of details be accompanied by confirmation that they have been discussed with EH. I do not consider this element to be necessary. It would be for MCC as local planning authority to consult such bodies as necessary before approving the details.
10.64 I have considered whether a condition to secure archaeological investigation and recording of the non-designated heritage assets affected by the 2CC scheme (the historic tram tracks and the vaults under the former St Peter’s Church – see paras 10.42 & 10.43 above) would be required. However, in my view such a condition would be unnecessary as such measures would be secured through two of the conditions referred to above.
10.65 One would secure compliance with the mitigation measures specified in the ES, which include those referred to here. The other would secure approval of, and compliance with, the CoCP (see para 10.50 above). This would include a requirement to produce an Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Management Plan incorporating a Cultural Heritage Protection Plan, and require compliance with archaeological mitigation measures including recording and archaeological evaluation. The CoCP itself also includes requirements for archaeological works to be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the local planning authority and EH.
10.66 I have seen or heard nothing to lead me to doubt that, subject to minor amendments to the wordings of some of the suggested conditions to accord with the guidance in DoE Circular 11/95: The use of conditions in planning permissions, the above conditions would meet the remaining tests set out in the Circular.
10.67 The conditions as thus amended are set out in Appendix C to this report.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 67 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
The promoter’s proposals for funding the scheme (Matter 10)
10.68 Evidence that the 2CC is to be funded locally by the Greater Manchester Transport Fund is undisputed [4.60, 4.65, 4.146]. It is not dependent on central government funding [4.59 ]. Funding for further extensions to the network that will contribute to the requirement for 2CC is also committed [4.66]. 10.69 As the promoter notes, value for money is not a matter on which the Secretaries of State have asked to be informed. Nevertheless, as two objectors who oppose the scheme in principle have suggested that 2CC
would not represent an efficient use of public money [6.1, 6.24], it is notable that a Value for Money report shows the project to have a Benefit to Cost Ratio in excess of 2, which would be regarded as ‘high’ were the scheme being assessed for central government funding. TfGM acknowledges that, in accordance with DfT’s standard approach, some costs (such as traffic delays during construction) have not been taken into account in this exercise. However, nor have some significant non-monetarised benefits [4.61-4.64]. Whether there is a compelling case in the public interest for conferring on the promoters powers to compulsorily acquire and use land for the purposes of the scheme; and whether the land and rights in land for which compulsory acquisition powers are sought are required by the promoters in order to secure satisfactory implementation of the scheme (Matter 11).
10.70 Save for the two objectors who object to the scheme in principle, it is undisputed that there is a compelling case in the public interest for the powers sought through the proposed Order and that they accord with ODPM Circular 06/2004 [4.25, 4.27-4.41, 4.104, 4.107-4.147, 6.1, 6.17, 6.24]. 10.71 Save for specific detailed concerns, which are addressed elsewhere in these conclusions, it is also undisputed that the land and rights sought are required for the satisfactory implementation of the scheme. It is notable in this respect that relatively few of the parcels included in the Order are proposed to be acquired or used permanently; most are required only for temporary use or for attachment of OLE.
10.72 No objections have been raised to the proposed provision of the Order that would disapply the normal procedure under the Railways Act 2005 in relation to the replacement of the St Peter’s Square tram stop. I share the view of TfGM, which I understand to have been endorsed by DfT, that this procedure would unnecessarily duplicate those already followed in the process of applying for the TWA Order [4.32]. Substantive changes proposed to the draft TWA Order (Matter 12)
10.73 Two substantive modifications to the Order are proposed. One would reduce the size of a parcel to be used temporarily. The other would subdivide into two parts a parcel, the whole of which was originally proposed to be acquired or used. The smaller part would still be acquired or used (permanently), while the larger part would be used only temporarily. In
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 68 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
both cases these modifications were proposed in response to requests by the owners, who are therefore fully aware of them and whose interests would be affected beneficially. I concur with TfGM’s view that no-one’s
interests would be affected adversely by these modifications [4.22-4.23]. 10.74 TfGM has proposed a number of further modifications to the Order, which are minor and technical in nature, together with the reasons for them [4.21 4.22]. 10.75 F Mazloomian & Co (OBJ/9) implies that MCC should play no part in enforcing measures to mitigate the impacts of the 2CC works [6.21, 6.25]. Leaving aside the question of whether there is a lawful basis on which the Council’s statutory roles as local planning authority and environmental health authority could be withdrawn in this way, I agree with TfGM that it has not been demonstrated that there are valid grounds for doing so [4.24, 4.152, 4.156]. 10.76 I also concur with TfGM’s view that there is no need or justification for the suggestion by the same objector that it be afforded protections over and above those already proposed to be provided for generally through the Order, planning conditions, conditions attached to listed building consents
and statutory provisions [4.24, 6.25].
Listed Building and Conservation Area Consents
The extent to which the proposed demolition of the existing Metrolink tram stop in St Peters Square and proposed works affecting the Listed Buildings (‘the works’) are in accordance with the development plan. The weight that should be attached to the development plan, and any emerging plans (Matter 13). The extent to which the works would accord with the National Planning Policy Framework and in particular the desirability of sustaining or enhancing the character or appearance of the heritage assets (Matter 14).
10.77 I consider these matters together to minimise duplication.
Listed Building Consents
10.78 The 19 buildings subject of the LBC applications were generally built for commercial or civic purposes. Their strong detailing, their high quality craftsmanship, bold relief, scale and materials mean they are significant and striking buildings that reflect the opulence, prosperity and optimism of Manchester. Of particular note are the Town Hall and the Midland Hotel. These are the only ones that are not Grade II listed, being Grade I and Grade II* respectively. Both have detailed and dramatic elevations that dominate the public squares they overlook [4.91, 4.96]. 10.79 The only older property subject of an LBC application is 65-71 Princess Street [4.96]. That Grade II listed building was probably constructed in the
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 69 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
late 18th Century as a row of town houses, and so has a far simpler external treatment. It is a pleasing example of Georgian architecture and is one of the few remaining cases of housing from this period in the city centre.
10.80 These factors therefore contribute to the significance of each of these listed buildings as a heritage asset.
10.81 The LBC applications seeks consent to fix between 1 and 7 stainless steel eyes or similar, to which the OLE would be attached, onto each of these properties [4.99]. These would cause harm to the physical fabric as they would be drilled into the external elevations [4.99, 5.6]. They would also have some adverse effect on the appearance of each building, as they would be modern elements that were not part of the historic structure. However, suggested listed building condition 3 requires the precise location of each fixing to be agreed with the local planning authority [4.99] following appropriate survey work and discussions with EH and the property owners.
10.82 No evidence was adduced to show that similar fixings associated with Line 1 had caused any wider physical harm to the buildings involved. Therefore, given their size and number and taking into account the requirements of listed building condition 3, I consider that the effect of these fixings on the fabrics of the buildings affected would be minimal. Moreover, having noted the existing fixings along Line 1 in general and on the Midland Hotel in particular, I am satisfied that the visual impact of these further fixings would not be great. Contrary to the contentions of F Mazloomian & Co [6.23, 8.1], Namulas Pension Trustees Limited [8.4] and Q Hotels Limited [8.5], they would not make the buildings appear ugly or otherwise detract from their appearance. Rather, they would be small discreet elements that would not
cause significant harm to the buildings. Therefore I agree with EH [4.100, 5.7] and MCC [5.2] that harm caused by the works to these Grade I, Grade II* and Grade II listed buildings would be less than substantial.
10.83 The requirement to discuss the siting of the fixings with the owners in listed building condition 3 should address a concern expressed by Aviva Investors
Property Trust [9.1] and others. I also have no firm basis to consider that the fixings would result in increased maintenance costs such that the properties
could not be let and would remain vacant [6.23]. 10.84 In considering this harm I have had regard to the contention that the proposed tram system does not need fixings to properties, and that the OLE could be supported entirely by free-standing poles on the edge of or in the centre of the carriageway [8.1, 8.4, 8.5]. Such an approach would clearly avoid any risk of damage to the fabrics of the historic buildings. However, I share the views of MCC and EH [5.2, 5.6] that the adverse effect of the resultant clutter of poles on the settings of the listed properties to which the LBC applications relate would be more harmful than the impact of the fixings on their fabric and appearance.
10.85 The Framework states that ‘great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 70 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
be’ (para 132) and that ‘Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal’ (para 134).
10.86 These fixings are necessary to deliver the 2CC scheme, which would be a key factor in bringing public transport improvements and economic
development [4.7-4.14, 4.111-4.112, 5.1]. To my mind these constitute clear and substantial public benefits resulting from the work, which would be of significant value to the city and would be sufficient to outweigh the less than substantial harm identified.
10.87 Accordingly I conclude in respect of each of the LBC applications that the proposed fixings would cause less than substantial harm to the significance of the 17 Grade II listed buildings, the Grade II* listed building and the Grade I listed building subject of the applications. In these respects, the special architectural and historic interest of the buildings would not be preserved. However, I further conclude that the public benefits resulting from the provision of 2CC outweigh this and that the 19 LBC applications therefore accord with the Framework and the relevant policies in the Manchester Core Strategy. It is notable that MCC indicates that it would have granted the LBCs had it been able to do so [5.4]. 10.88 I have already addressed above (paras 10.11-10.13) the weight to be attached to the development plan. No emerging plans have been cited in this instance.
Conservation Area Consent
10.89 The area in front of the Central Library has been a public square for only just over 100 years since the demolition of St Peter’s Church, but it is now an important civic space in the city, surrounded by notable listed buildings and forming part of the focus of the St Peter’s Square CA.
10.90 The existing tram stop in St Peter’s Square was built some 20 years ago when the tram system was first introduced into the city. However, its design and materials are utilitarian, and its siting appears to have been based on functional requirements rather than sympathy with the surrounding historic environment. Consequently, taking into account the proposed refurbishment of the Square [3.1-3.7, 4.6] including the relocation of the Cenotaph and St Peter’s Cross for which the necessary consents have already been granted, it is a striking and discordant element that relates poorly to the character and appearance of adjacent listed buildings, to this civic space and to the St Peter’s Square CA.
10.91 I conclude that demolition of the tram stop would be beneficial to the St Peter’s Square CA, enhancing its character and appearance [4.126]. Therefore its significance as a heritage asset would be sustained in accordance with
the Framework and the development plan [5.4]. It is notable that MCC indicates again that it would have granted the CAC had it been able to do so.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 71 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
If consent for the works is granted, the need for any conditions (Matter 15)
10.92 As TfGM reports, suggested conditions to be attached to the CAC and LBC, if granted, have been agreed between it and MCC, and the LB conditions are
also supported by EH [4.107-4.108, 4.151]. 10.93 I accept that the LBCs should be required to commence no later than 5 years after the date of consent. I note that s.18(1) of the LB&CA 1990 as amended sets the default period at 3 years, but enables the authority granting consent to specify a different period. In this instance the longer period would reflect the fact that some or all of them may necessarily be implemented late in the construction phase for the 2CC scheme as a whole [4.145]. For similar reasons I accept that the CAC should be subject to a 5 year commencement period.
10.94 The LBCs sought are, as TfGM acknowledges, effectively in outline with the precise positions of OLE fixings to listed buildings having yet to be established. This is unusual, but I accept that it is inevitable in this instance
[4.108 ]. However I agree that a LBC condition to control these details would be necessary in the interest of preserving these heritage interests as far as possible. The provision within the suggested condition to secure prior discussions with building owners would address concerns expressed by some objectors, as indicated above, without prejudicing the role of the local planning authority in approving the scheme setting the details of the fixings.
10.95 While not directly pertinent to the CAC or LBC conditions, I note in this context that suggested planning condition 4 would control the positioning, design and appearance of any poles to support OLE, which would have a bearing on their impacts on conservation areas and the settings of listed buildings.
10.96 Noting that there have been no contrary submissions, I consider that the CAC conditions suggested would be necessary to ensure that the demolition of the existing St Peter’s Square Metrolink stop would be carried out in such a way as to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the St Peter’s Square Conservation Area, within which it is situated. For the reasons indicated above I consider that a 5-year period for commencement of the works would also be appropriate in this case. I further consider that the LBC conditions suggested would be necessary to minimise as far as possible the harm to the buildings concerned, their settings or any features of architectural interest they possess. To the extent that the tests in DoE Circular 11/95 are pertinent, I am satisfied that they would be met.
Other matters
Any other relevant matters raised at the Inquiry (Matter 16)
10.97 No relevant matters beyond those addressed above were raised.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 72 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
Overall conclusions
10.98 In the light of all of the above I conclude that the Order is justified on its merits and that there is a compelling case in the public interest for making it, with clear evidence that the substantial public benefit from public transport improvements and economic development would outweigh the less than substantial harm to the significance of heritage assets and private losses. It would accord with relevant national, regional and local policies. Funding is available for the proposed scheme, no impediments to its implementation have been identified and there is a reasonable prospect of it going ahead without delay. I therefore conclude that the Order should be made, subject to modifications as indicated.
10.99 For similar reasons I conclude that deemed planning permission should be granted for the works that would be authorised by the Order, subject to conditions.
10.100 Having particular regard to paragraphs 132 and 134 in the National Planning Policy Framework, I have weighed the identified harm to the various heritage assets against the public benefits. In this case the works resulting in this harm are necessary to deliver the 2CC scheme, which would be a key factor in bringing the benefits identified above. To my mind these constitute clear and substantial public benefits resulting from the work, which would be of significant value to the city and would be sufficient to outweigh the less than substantial harm identified. Accordingly I conclude that the 19 Listed Building Consents and one Conservation Area Consent sought should be granted, subject to conditions.
11. RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendations to the Secretary of State for Transport
11.1 I RECOMMEND that: (a) The Transport for Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transport System) (Second City Crossing) Order 201[ ] be made, subject to the following modifications: In the draft Order itself (i) In Article 2(1), page 2, in the definition of "the traffic regulation and rights of way plans", leave out "and rights of way" in both places. (ii) In Article 4(7), page 7, leave out "new". (iii) In Article 6(10), page 9, for "article 6(3)(e)" substitute "paragraph (3)(e)". (iv) In Article 18(3), page 13, for "pursuant to" substitute "under". (v) In Article 20(7), page 15 leave out paragraph (7) and substitute:
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 73 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
"(7) Nothing in this article overrides the requirement for an environmental permit under regulation 12(1)(b) of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010(b)." "(b) S.I. 2010/675." (vi) In Article 22, pages 16 and 17, leave out paragraphs (2) and (3). (vii) In Schedule 6, page 45, after the entry respecting parcel 2017, insert the following row: "Corporation Street (entrance steps to Arndale Centre)" — "2036" — "Highway and landscaping works" — "Work No.3". (viii) In Schedule 7, page 47, after the heading "Interpretation" insert: "In this Schedule a reference to a TRO means a Traffic Regulation Order made under the 1984 Act." In the Works and Land Plans Delete Sheets nos. 1 & 2 submitted with the Order and substitute the amended Sheets 1 & 2 submitted at the Inquiry (Inquiry document TfGM/INQ 6). (b) A Direction be made granting deemed planning permission for the works authorised by the Order, subject to the conditions set out in Appendix C to this Report.
Recommendations to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
11.2 I RECOMMEND that: (a) Listed Building Consent be granted in accordance with each of the 19 applications for such consent, references 099372/LO/2012/C1 to 099390/LO/2012/C1 inclusive and all dated 17 May 2012, full details of which are set out at the beginning of this Report, subject in each case to the conditions set out in Appendix D to this Report. (b) Conservation Area Consent be granted for the demolition of St Peter’s Square Metrolink Stop as part of the proposed Manchester Metrolink Second City Crossing Light Rapid Transport System in accordance with the application, reference 099393/CC/2012/C1 and dated 17 May 2012, subject to the conditions set out in Appendix E to this Report. Alan Boyland Inspector
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 74 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 75 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
APPENDIX A – APPEARANCES
FOR THE PROMOTER – TRANSPORT FOR GREATER MANCHESTER:
Charles George Queen’s Counsel, Saira Kabir Sheikh Of Counsel, instructed by Mr Paul Thompson of Bircham Dyson Bell They called:
Martin Lax MSc DipUP Strategic Development Manager, Metrolink BPS Directorate, TfGM Andrew Parke MEng Principal Engineer, Mott MacDonald MCIHT Stephen Cawser MEng Senior Noise and Vibration Consultant at URS MIA Andrew Harris BA(Hons) Associate at URS MPhil AIA Jim Gibson BLD Partner at Gillespies LLP BSc(Hons) MLI James Ogborn BA(Hons) Director, Lambert Smith Hampton DipLE MRICS
FOR MANCHESTER CITY COUNCIL:
Christopher Katkowski Queen’s Counsel, instructed by Ms Celia Tierney of Manchester City Council He called:
Sir Howard Bernsten Head of Paid Service, Greater Manchester Combined Authority David Roscoe Planning Development Manager, Manchester City Council
FOR OBJECTORS:
F Mazloomian & Co [OBJ/9] Farid Mazloomian BSc ACA Principal
Namulas Pension Trustees Ltd [LBC.OBJ/01] Michael Fuller Of Michael Fuller Consultant Services
TAEL S.a.r.l [PBJ/3] (Procedural matters only) Roger Lancaster Of Counsel, instructed by Eversheds
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 76 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
APPENDIX B – INQUIRY DOCUMENTS
CORE DOCUMENTS
TWA Order and Application Documents
TfGM/A001 Letter of Application TfGM/A002 Draft Order TfGM/A003 Explanatory Memorandum TfGM/A004 Statement of the aims of the proposal TfGM/A005 Consultation Report TfGM/A006 Declaration as to Status TfGM/A007 List of Consents TfGM/A008 Scoping Opinion TfGM/A009 Request for a S.90(2A) Planning Direction, proposed elements of development and proposed Planning Conditions, including: TfGM/A010 Design and Access Statement TfGM/A011 Flood Risk Assessment TfGM/A012 Sustainability Review TfGM/A013 Draft Code of Construction Practice TfGM/A014 Funding Statement TfGM/A015 Estimate of Costs TfGM/A016 Book of Reference TfGM/A017 Transport Assessment
Environmental Statement
TfGM/A018 Non-Technical Summary TfGM/A019 Volume 1 – Main Text TfGM/A020 Volume 2 – Technical Appendices TfGM/A021 Volume 3 – Figures TfGM/A022 Works and Land Plans and Sections TfGM/A023 Planning Direction Drawings TfGM/A024 Traffic Regulation Plans TfGM/A025 Technical Development Plans (Illustrative Only)
Related Applications
TfGM/A026 Conservation Area Consent Application TfGM/A027 Listed Building Consent Applications 1-19
Other Applications
TfGM/A028 MCC Planning Application for the dismantling of the Grade II* Listed Cenotaph War Memorial and reinstatement of the Cenotaph, new memorial wall and seating and public realm works on land adjacent to the east of the Town Hall, including the relocation of the memorial plaques – Ref No: 100118/VO/2012/C1 TfGM/A029 MCC Listed Building Consent application for the dismantling of the Grade II* Listed Cenotaph War Memorial and the reinstatement of the Cenotaph, new memorial wall and seating and public realm works on land adjacent to the east of the Town hall – Ref No: 100119/LO/2012/C1
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 77 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
TfGM/A030 MCC Planning Application for the dismantling and temporary storage of the Grade II Listed St Peter’s Cross and reinstatement within footprint of St Peter’s Church and associated works – Ref No: 100120/VO/2012/C1 TfGM/A031 MCC Listed Building Consent application for the dismantling and temporary storage of the Grade II Listed St Peter’s Cross and reinstatement within footprint of St Peter’s Church and associated works – Ref No: 100121/LO/2012/C1 TfGM/A032 MCC Conservation Area Consent application for the dismantling and removal of unlisted walls/benches around the Cenotaph Memorial and removal pending relocation of memorial plaques – Ref No: 100123/CC/2012/C1 TfGM/A033 MCC Planning Application for Works to support the ongoing redevelopment of the Town Hall Complex and to allow the future redevelopment of St Peter’s Square to include the creation of a new site access, the removal of trees, relocation of memorial plaques and infilling of the Peace Gardens – Ref No: 099491/VO/2012/C1
Other Documents
TfGM/B001 Transport Strategy for Manchester City Centre, Manchester City Council/GMPTE, November 2010 TfGM/B002 Greater Manchester’s Third Local Transport Plan, 2011/12 – 2015,16, GMCA/TfGM (LTP3) TfGM/B003 Letter announcing the Secretary of State for Transport’s intention to hold an inquiry into the TWA application TfGM/B004 Letter announcing the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government’s intention to hold an inquiry into the conservation and listed building consent applications to run concurrently with the TWA inquiry TfGM/B005 Creating Growth, Cutting Carbon – Making Sustainable Local Transport Happen, DfT, January 2011 TfGM/B006 North West of England Plan, Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021, Government Office for the North West, September 2008 TfGM/B007 Manchester’s Local Development Framework – Core Strategy Development Plan Document, Manchester Core Strategy 2012 to 2027,MCC, Adopted 11 July 2012 TfGM/B008 Major Scheme Prioritisation and Funding Strategy, AGMA Executive Committee Report, May 2009 TfGM/B009 Greater Manchester Transport Fund – Metrolink Phase 3b Delivery Programme and Financial Strategy Update, GMITA Report, July 2010 TfGM/B010 Metrolink Second City Crossing Alignment, GMITA Capital Projects Committee Report, September 2009 TfGM/B011 St Peter’s Square, MCC Executive Report, March 2011 TfGM/B012 Second City Crossing Route Proposal, GMITA Policy and Resources Committee Report (Item 9) 18 March 2011 TfGM/B013 Metrolink, A Second City Crossing, TfGM/MCC, 2011, “Prospectus document” TfGM/B014 Greater Manchester bus priority package – putting you in the picture, TfGM, July 2012 TfGM/B015 Healthy transport = Healthy lives, BMA, July 2012 TfGM/B016 TfGM Wildlife, Habitat and Tree Replacement Policy, TfGM,2011
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 78 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
TfGM/B017 Guide to Development in Manchester, Supplementary Planning Document and Planning Guidance, Adopted April 2007, MCC TfGM/B018 A Strategic Plan for Manchester City Centre 2009-2012 – MCC/City, 2009 TfGM/B019 Green Infrastructure to Combat Climate Change, A Framework for Action in Cheshire, Cumbria, Greater Manchester, Lancashire and Merseyside – Community Forests Northwest for the North West Climate Change Partnership, March 2011 TfGM/B020 The Manchester Independent Economic Review; Reviewers’ Report, AGMA, 2008 TfGM/B021 Prosperity for All: Greater Manchester Strategy, AGMA, August 2009 TfGM/B022 Working Safely near Metrolink, TfGM TfGM/B023 Design for Access 2, MCC, December 2003 TfGM/B024 Inclusive Mobility, DfT, December 2005 TfGM/B025 Local Transport Note 2/08, Cycle Infrastructure Design, Dft, October 2008 TfGM/B026 Manual for Streets, Thomas Telford Publishing, 2007 TfGM/B027 Manual for Streets 2 – Wider Application of the Principles, CIHT, 2010
Legislation and (Governmental) Guidance
TfGM/C001 The Greater Manchester Combined Authority Order 2011, No 908 TfGM/C002 Transport and Works Act 1992 TfGM/C003 The Transport and Works (Applications and Objections Procedure) (England and Wales) Rules 2006 No 1466 TfGM/C004 The Transport and Works (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 2004 No 2018 TfGM/C005 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 TfGM/C006 The Transport and Works (Model Clauses for Railways and Tramways) Order 2006 No 1954 TfGM/C007 Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 TfGM/C008 The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Regulations 1990 No 1519 TfGM/C009 The Town and Country Planning (Inquiries Procedure) (England) Rules 2000 No 1624 TfGM/C010 The Transport and Works Applications (Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas and Ancient Monuments Procedure) Regulations 1992 No 3138 TfGM/C011 BS 5228-1: 2009 Code of Practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites – Part 1: Noise, BSI TfGM/C012 BS 5228-2:2009 Code of Practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites – Part 2: Vibration, BSI TfGM/C013 BS 7385-2:1993 Evaluation and measurement for vibration in buildings. Guide to damage levels from groundbourne vibration TfGM/C014 Calculation of Railway Noise 1995, DoT, 1995, HMSO TfGM/C015 The Noise Insulation (Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems) (Amendment) Regulations 1998 No 1701 TfGM/C016 BS 6472-1:2008 Guide to evaluation of human exposure to vibration in buildings. Vibration sources other than blasting TfGM/C017 Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 11, Section 3, part 7, Noise and Vibration, Highways Agency, Nov 2011 TfGM/C018 Calculation of Road Traffic Noise, DoT 1988 TfGM/C019 National Planning Policy Framework, DCLG, March 2012 TfGM/C020 Planning Policy Statement 1 (PPS1) Delivering Sustainable Development,
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 79 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
DCLG, 2005 TfGM/C021 Planning Policy Guidance 13: Transport, DCLG, 2001, updated January 2011 TfGM/C022 Railway Safety Publication 2: Guidance on Tramways, Office of Rail Regulation, November 2006 TfGM/C023 Compulsory Purchase and the Crichel Down Rules, ODPM Circular 06/2004 TfGM/C024 Compulsory Purchase and Compensation Booklet 1: Compulsory Purchase Procedure, DCLG TfGM/C025 Compulsory Purchase and Compensation Booklet 2: Compensation to Business Owners and Occupiers, DCLG TfGM/C026 Compulsory Purchase and Compensation Booklet 4: Compensation to Residential Owners and Occupiers, DCLG TfGM/C027 Compulsory Purchase and Compensation Booklet 5: Reducing the Adverse Effects of Public Development Mitigation Works, DCLG
Documents submitted by Transport for Greater Manchester
TfGM/P2a Policy and Justification – Volume 1, Summary – Martin Lax TfGM/P2b Policy and Justification – Volume 2, Main Proof – Martin Lax TfGM/P2c Policy and Justification – Volume 3, Appendices – Martin Lax
TfGM/P3a Engineering – Volume 1, Summary – Andrew Parke TfGM/P3b Engineering – Volume 2, Main Proof – Andrew Parke TfGM/P3c Engineering – Volume 3, Appendices – Andrew Parke
TfGM/P4a Noise and Vibration – Volume 1, Summary – Stephen Cawser TfGM/P4b Noise and Vibration – Volume 2, Main Proof – Stephen Cawser TfGM/P4c Noise and Vibration – Volume 3, Appendices – Stephen Cawser
TfGM/P5a Cultural Heritage – Volume 1, Summary – Andrew Harris TfGM/P5b Cultural Heritage – Volume 2, Main Proof – Andrew Harris
TfGM/P6a Townscape and Urban Design – Volume 1, Summary – Jim Gibson TfGM/P6b Townscape and Urban Design – Volume 2, Main Proof – Jim Gibson TfGM/P6c Townscape and Urban Design – Volume 3, Appendices – Jim Gibson
TfGM/P7a Land and Property – Volume 1 – Summary – James Ogborn TfGM/P7b Land and Property – Volume 2 – Main Proof – James Ogborn TfGM/P7c Land and Property – Volume 3 – Appendices – James Ogborn
Documents submitted at Inquiry by Transport for Greater Manchester
TfGM/INQ 1A 2CC Planning Conditions with proposed modifications (superseded) TfGM/INQ 1B Amended and Updated 2CC Planning Conditions and proposed modifications (superseded) TfGM/INQ 1C Further amended and Updated 2CC Planning Conditions and proposed modifications. TfGM/INQ 2 Revised LBC and CAC Conditions TfGM/INQ 3 Drawing 252636-D-DR-100-051 Rev P2
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 80 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
TfGM/INQ 4 Note on Compliance with Statutory Procedures TfGM/INQ 5 Amendments to Order TfGM/INQ 6 Amended Sheets to Order Plans TfGM/INQ 7 List of Amendments to Book of Reference TfGM/INQ 8 Updated copy of Book of Reference TfGM/INQ 9 Updated Summary and Status of Objections TfGM/INQ 10 Opening Submission on behalf of TfGM TfGM/INQ 11 Note entitled Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits TfGM/INQ 12 Rebuttal Evidence to Mr Farid Mazloomian TfGM/INQ 13 Bundle of Correspondence between TfGM and Mr Mazloomian TfGM/INQ 14 Rebuttal Evidence to TAEL TfGM/INQ 15 Extracts from Control of Pollution Act 1974 TfGM/INQ 16 Rebuttal Evidence to Midland Hotel TfGM/INQ 17 Rebuttal Evidence to Namulas Pension Trustees Ltd TfGM/INQ 18 Rebuttal Evidence to Selfridges TfGM/INQ 19 Mitigation Measures Summary TfGM/INQ 20 Planning Conditions – Amendment to Page 2 of TfGM/INQ 1b TfGM/INQ 21 Updated Summary of Objections 30 January 2013 TfGM/INQ 22 Closing Submission on behalf of TfGM
Documents submitted by Manchester City Council
MCC.01 David Roscoe – Proof of Evidence MCC.02 David Roscoe – Proof of Evidence Summary MCC.03 David Roscoe – Appendix MCC.03A Erratum to David Roscoe Proof of Evidence
MCC.04 Strategic Policy Context – Volume 1, Summary – Sir Howard Bernstein MCC.05 Strategic Policy Context – Volume 2, Main Proof – Sir Howard Bernstein MCC.06 Strategic Policy Context – Volume 3, Appendices – Sir Howard Bernstein
MCC.07 Planning permission and Listed Building Consent for the dismantling and relocation of the Cenotaph in St Peter’s Square MCC.08 Planning permission and Listed Building Consent for the dismantling, storage and reinstatement of St Peter’s Cross in St Peter’s Square MCC.09 Planning permission for works in St Peter’s Square, and related Conservation Area and Consent for the dismantling of unlisted walls etc. MCC.10 Committee Report relating to an application for the reconfiguration and redesign of St Peter’s Square (due to be presented to Committee on 17 January 2013) MCC.11 Copy of Decision Notice 100589/VO/2012/C2
Documents submitted at Inquiry by Manchester City Council
MCC/INQ.1 Bundle of Plans showing development of No1 St Peter’s Square MCC/INQ.2 Opening submission on behalf of Manchester City Council MCC/INQ.3 Letter and Email regarding issue of Mr Roscoe’s Proof of Evidence MCC/INQ.4 Closing submission on behalf of Manchester City Council
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 81 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
Documents submitted by TAEL S.a.r.l [OBJ/3] 269
OBJ.03/1 Evidence from Katrina Mackay (Director, Savills)
Documents submitted by F Mazloomian & Co [OBJ/09]
OBJ.09/1 Mr Farid Mazloomian - Proof of Evidence
Documents submitted by Midland Hotel [OBJ/10]270
OBJ.10/1 Evidence of Michael Magrane (General Manager, Midland Hotel) OBJ.10/2 Evidence of Dr Max De Salis (Principal Consultant, Philip Dunbavin Acoustics Limited) OBJ.10/3 Evidence of Ian Coulson (Chartered Surveyor, Coulson Property Services Limited)
Documents submitted by English Heritage [OBJ/12]
OBJ.12/1 Written statement (undated) and appendices (bound separately)
Documents submitted by Namulas Pension Trustees Limited [LBC.OBJ/01]
LBC.OBJ.01/1 Email dated 29 January 2013 from Michael Fuller to TfGM
General Inquiry Documents
INQ/1 PIM Notes INQ/2 Letter of withdrawal dated 21 January on behalf of Manchester Nominee (1) and (2) INQ/3 Letter of withdrawal dated 21 January on behalf of Royal Mail Group plc and Post Office Limited INQ/4 Letter dated 21 January on behalf of English Heritage INQ/5 Letter of withdrawal dated 28 January on behalf of Marks & Spencer plc INQ/6 Letter dated 22 January on behalf of Selfridges Retail Limited INQ/7 Email dated 28 January regarding Midland Hotels INQ/8 Letter dated 29 January on behalf of Selfridges Retail Limited INQ/9 Email dated 30 January regarding Midland Hotels INQ/10 Letter of withdrawal dated 30 January on behalf of Waterstones INQ/11 Folder of Objection Letters to TWA Order INQ/12 Folder of Objections to Listed Building Consent Applications INQ/13 Folder of Statement of Cases re TWA Order INQ/14 Folder of Statement of Cases re Listed Building Applications
269 As written representations 270As written representations
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 82 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
APPENDIX C - SUGGESTED CONDITIONS : DEEMED PLANNING PERMISSION
Definitions
In these conditions, unless the context otherwise requires:
"the local planning authority" means Manchester City Council;
"the development" means the development authorised by the Order;
"the Environmental Statement" means the documents of that description submitted with the application for the Order on 17 May 2012;
"the Order" means the Transport for Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System)(Second City Crossing) Order 201[...];
"phase" means a part, section or stage of the development identified as a phase in the scheme approved under Condition 2;
"present site" in relation to the Cenotaph and St Peter's Cross means the site of each as shown outlined and cross-hatched in blue and red respectively on the plan ref 252636-D-DR-00-100-051 Rev P2271 a copy of which is attached to these conditions;
"structure" means any structure excluding tram lines; and
"the transit system" has the meaning given in article 2(1) of the Order.
Time limit for commencement of development
1) The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the date that the Order comes into force.
Phasing of development
2) The development shall not commence until details of a phasing scheme of construction works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The phasing scheme shall include the following details: (a) That no phase including development on the present site of the Cenotaph in St Peter's Square shall commence until the Cenotaph has been relocated pursuant to planning permission and listed building consent issued for that purpose; (b) That no phase including development on the present site of St Peter's Cross in St Peter's Square shall commence until St Peter's Cross has been removed and stored pursuant to planning permission and listed building consent issued for that purpose. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved phasing scheme.
271 Inquiry document TfGM/INQ 3
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 83 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
Relocation of St Peter's Cross
3) The transit system comprised in the development must not be brought into public use in Cross Street until St Peter's Cross has been relocated in St Peter's Square pursuant to planning permission and listed building consent issued for that purpose.
Design and external appearance
4) No phase of the development shall be commenced until details of the design and external appearance of all structures, including the positions of any poles to support overhead line equipment, within that phase have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The erection and/or creation of the structures shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details for that phase.
Materials
5) No phase of the development shall be commenced until details of materials to be used in any external surfaces of the tram stops hereby permitted in St Peter’s Square and Exchange Square hereby permitted and their external appearance have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority The submitted details shall include samples of the materials to be used. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Landscaping scheme
6) No phase of the development shall be commenced until a landscaping scheme specifying details of both hard and soft landscaping in relation to that phase has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
Any such landscaping scheme shall: (a) identify any trees having a stem diameter of 75mm or greater intended to be lopped, pruned or felled in connection with the carrying out of development in relation to that phase; (b) provide for the works to such trees to be carried out are in conformity with BS5837:2012272; (c) where trees having a stem diameter of 75mm or greater are to be felled, include provision for their replacement within the next appropriate planting period; (d) include provision for the protection, during the period of construction, of all retained mature trees in the vicinity of the development, identifying their location and species and conforming with BS5837:2005, and a method statement including particulars relating to working methods, temporary
272 BS5837:2012 has replaced the 2005 version referred to in the suggested condition.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 84 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
protective fencing, location of hoardings and areas prohibited for use by contractors; (e) include provision for the replanting of any trees which require replacement in consequence of accidental damage during the construction period, or die or become seriously diseased within 36 months of planting. The approved landscaping scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details not later than 12 months beginning with the date when the transit system is brought into public use.
Code of Construction Practice
7) No development shall be commenced until a code of construction practice in relation to the development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved code of construction practice.
Environmental mitigation measures
8) No phase of the development shall be commenced until a scheme for implementation of mitigation measures specified in the Environmental Statement in relation to that phase has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The mitigation measures shall be implemented in accordance with the approved scheme.
St Peter's Square stop
9) The transit system comprised in the development shall not be brought into public use until the replacement stop in St Peter's Square (which forms part of the development) has been brought into use for the purposes of tram services then running through St Peter's Square.
(END)
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 85 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
APPENDIX D – SUGGESTED CONDITIONS FOR LISTED BUILDING CONSENTS
Time limit for commencement of works
1) The works to which this consent relates shall be begun before the expiration of 5 years from the date of this consent.
Nature of the works consented
2) The works to which this consent relates shall be carried out in accordance with the Supporting Statement (reference 252636-LBC-OLE-***-Supporting Statement) submitted with the application and stamped as received by the local planning authority on 16 May 2012. [Inspector’s note: *** in the condition above represents the numerical part of the relevant site reference (001-019 respectively – see Inquiry document TfGM/A026).]
3) Before the works hereby consented commence, a scheme to minimise damage and the risk of damage to the fabric of the building, setting out the precise location of any fixing and including a statement providing details of the method to be used in attaching the overhead line equipment fixings, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall be accompanied by the following: (a) A plan identifying the precise fixing position or positions of the overhead line equipment fixings; (b) Survey drawings and photographs of all external parts of the listed building to be affected by the overhead line equipment fixings; (c) Details of the overhead line equipment fixings; (d) A report detailing the results of a structural assessment and investigations into the condition of the listed building to confirm the suitability of the proposed overhead line equipment fixing positions; (e) A method statement for the works; and (f) Confirmation that the proposals have been discussed with the building owner prior to submission of the scheme. The consented works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme. (END)
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 86 REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT File Ref: TWA/12/APP/05 and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ______
APPENDIX E – SUGGESTED CONDITIONS FOR CONSERVATION AREA CONSENT
Time limit for commencement of works
1) The works to which this consent relates shall be begun before the expiration of 5 years from the date of this consent.
Method statement
2) Before the works hereby consented are commenced, a method statement for the works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The works consented shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme.
(END)
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 87