Campaign to Protect Rural England Springfield House Lancashire 41-45 Chapel Brow, Leyland Lancashire PR25 3NH including

& Greater Manchester Telephone: 01772-378831 [email protected]

www.cprelancashire.org.uk

Working locally and nationally for a beautiful and living countryside

th 4 April 2018

To Cllr. Ian Maher by e-mail (at [email protected])

Dear Cllr Maher

CPRE Lancashire comments on the Governments proposals for Rimrose Valley (second version)

This open letter is the response of CPRE Lancashire to the invitation you extended to my CPRE colleague, Dr Des Brennan, to brief you on how the Council could best oppose Highways England’s intention to seek approval for a high-speed dual carriageway through Rimrose Valley Country Park and on through the Green Belt corridor to Brooms Cross Road, which would be dualled from its junction with the new road to its junction with Switch Island.

Your invitation was made at the public meeting on 16 December 2017 at Waterloo Community Centre chaired by Cllr. Paulette Lappin. The situation is complex; in this letter (approved by CPRE Lancashire’s Executive Committee) we comment briefly on the situation’s significant elements in so far as we are aware of them.

The current position

1. CPRE Lancashire would not have recommended that the Council sought judicial review at this stage. Given the Council did apply for and has been given leave to seek judicial review, we urge the Council to broaden the grounds for objection to Highways England’s preferred Option B, so as to maximise its chances of success in the High Court. To that end, in addition to the present sole ground (viz. a tunnel was not considered), we recommend the Council includes the following further grounds:

 Highways England failed to make public the documents on which it claims its decisions are based;  the broad range of environmental factors has been not given Patron adequate consideration; Her Majesty The Queen

 amenity factors are not adequately assessed; and President  Green Belt policy as specified in the National Planning Policy Sir Andrew Motion Branch Chairman Framework and the associated Planning Practice Nick Thompson Guidance has not been given due weight. A company limited by guarantee Registered in England number 05291461 Registered charity number 1107376

In relation to the first bullet point see Appendix 1, in relation to the remaining bullet points see Appendix 2. 2. Highways England’s choice of options to put before the public and its decision to make Option B the preferred option are based on the following Atkins’ reports:

 EA Report Vol. 1 (Main Text) HE549387-ATK-EGN-ZZ-RP-EN-0003 (rev 2.0 clean)  EA report Vol. 2 (Figures) HE549387-ATK-EGN-ZZ-RP-EN-0004 (rev 2.0)  traffic forecasts HE549387-ATK-HGN-ZZ-RP-TR-0003

As a result of an Environmental Information Regulations enquiry by CPRE Lancashire, these documents have been disclosed to us but still have not been made available to the public by being published on Highways England’s website, so it is possible they may not have been seen by the Council.

3. Also relevant are the post-consultation documents:  Atkins Scheme Assessment Report, May 2017 (HE549387-ATK-GEN-ZZ-RP-Z-0027 SAR P03.pd.pdf)  Highways England Report on the Public Consultation, September 2017 4. CPRE Lancashire believes (based on sound evidence) that the failure of Highways England to disclose the documents essential to its consultation process constitutes a breach of its duties of transparency and openness. It is also a major obstacle to the success of its wish to make its preferred option a reality. Both Highways England’s project manager and the Minister responsible for Highways England concede that the delay in disclosing the essential documents is not acceptable and should not be repeated in future consultations ( see Appendix 1). Their insistence, and that of Mr. Tim Gamon, Highways England’s Regional Delivery Director, that nonetheless sufficient information was made available for the purposes of the consultation is undermined by the Minister’s acknowledgement that all the relevant information will be available on the Planning Inspectorate’s Examination website (should Highways England seek the approval of the Secretary of State for Transport to its draft Development Consent Order). Implicit in this statement is an acknowledgement that all the relevant information is necessary for a proper assessment of the issues.

5. On the issue of a tunnel, par. 2.1.4. of the Atkins document already referred to, (viz. EA Report Vol. 1 Main Text HE549387-ATK-EGN-ZZ-RP-EN-0003 (rev 2.0 clean)) states

“As part of [the Atkins 2014] Feasibility Study, an option for the provision of a tunnel was reviewed and an initial cost estimate produced. This option has not been progressed as it was deemed as economically unviable.”

and Highways England’s Report on the public consultation elaborated that

“The possibility of providing a tunnel as an alternative option has been considered during the feasibility study undertaken in 2014 and dismissed as the costs to provide a tunnel made this option uneconomical to deliver. We have reviewed the costs following a request from Sefton Borough Council and the indicative costs for providing a 5km ‘cut and cover’ tunnel were between £620m to £1.2bn. The costs of such an intervention would significantly outweigh the benefits and would therefore represent poor value for money when compared to the options currently being consulted upon.”

The costs of the preferred online and off-line options cited in Highways England’s letter (ref. Z1726499/JHF/B5) rebutting the Council’s letter before claim are £258 million and £155 million respectively; the costs of a bored tunnel and a cut and cover tunnel were also considered. These costs are completely different from those relevant to the current proposals. However, we anticipate that Highways England, in subsequent rebuttal statements using relevant costs, will still claim that, contrary to the Council’s sole ground for appeal, it has given due consideration to the option of a tunnel and rejected it on the grounds that it is uneconomic.

CPRE Lancashire strongly advises the Council to explore the vulnerabilities of Highways England’s methodology in estimating the costs of tunnelling by requiring it to answer relevant questions such as:

 What potential routes were considered?  How were the benefits estimated?  Was due account taken of the costs of creating a high quality Country Park from a landfill site?  Was any attempt made to monetarise the amenity value of Rimrose Valley Country Park?

6. Recently, the Supreme Court (ref. [2017] UKSC 79) has ruled on the responsibility of decision-takers to give adequate explanations for their decisions. Par. 56 of the judgment states that, even in a non-statutory framework, Common Law requires in the name of transparency the disclosure of an adequate explanation for a decision. Further, Highways England in their rebuttal letter to the Council dated 2 November 2017 state that, because this was not a case where public consultation was required or prescribed by statute, there was no legal obligation for Highways England to consult at all. This statement is factually incorrect, as is made clear on the National Infrastructure Planning website where it is stated with reference to the interests of local authorities, statutory consultees and members of the public “Before submitting an application [for a nationally significant infrastructure project], potential applicants have a statutory duty to carry out consultation on

their proposals. The length of time taken to prepare and consult on a project will vary depending upon its scale and complexity. Future possibilities 7. If the Council is resolved to press its case in the High Court, then CPRE Lancashire strongly urges as indicated in par. 1 that it broadens its grounds for judicial review to include all those issues which Highways England has not dealt with adequately and/or satisfactorily so as to maximise the Council’s chances of obtaining a ruling in its favour. If Highways England were to prevail in the High Court, then it is virtually certain it would eventually apply to the Planning Inspectorate for approval of its preferred Option. It would be very difficult therefore for the Council to seek judicial review of the Secretary of State’s decision should he decide in favour of Highways England’s application. 8. For this reason, CPRE Lancashire respectfully asks the Council to reflect on whether it would be tactically preferable not to continue with judicial review at this early stage, provided it would not prejudice the Council’s case in subsequent proceedings (we do not have the legal experience to know whether withdrawal now from judicial review would be harmful to the Council’s subsequent arguments). 9. Highways England needs to carry out further investigations into the route of its preferred Option and, when it has done so, it has indicated that it will consult on its proposals for mitigation of the harm it has conceded would be caused by the construction of its preferred Option. The Council could make representations in response to that consultation if it saw fit to do so, even if it were to withdraw from the current judicial review proceedings. 10. In what follows, it is assumed that the Council persists with its current judicial review but the High Court ruling is in favour of Highways England, or the Council withdraws from the current judicial review. In either case, Highways England will make application to the National Infrastructure Planning unit of the Planning Inspectorate by submitting a draft Development Consent Order (DCO) which will be examined by an Examining Authority (ExA) comprising one or more specialist Inspectors appointed by the Inspectorate. The ExA will preside over a Public Examination of all matters relating to the draft DCO and will consider written and in person representations from all interested parties in the light of which the ExA will make recommendations to the Secretary of State for Transport, including a recommendation to issue a DCO or refuse approval of a DCO; the Secretary of State will make the final decision. This is the forum in which the Council will have the opportunity to deploy all its arguments in connection with the current judicial review proceedings and probably additional arguments given the wider scope of the proceedings of the Examination. Should the Secretary of State approve a DCO, the option would be open to the Council to then seek judicial review, not only on the grounds that would have been deployed in relation to Highways England but now in relation to the entire scope of the final proceedings. 11. Whichever course the Council takes, CPRE Lancashire urges the Council to forcefully criticise the failure of Highways England to disclose the information necessary for a meaningful consultation (see par. 2).

12. Should Highways England’s preferred Option be considered by the Planning Inspectorate, the first action of the ExA even before the Public Examination hearings are commenced, would be to invite the Council to comment on Highways England’s consultation. Given that the consultation is a statutory requirement, an adverse report by the Council, based on its own experience and incorporating information supplied by CPRE Lancashire (see Appendix 1), would be very damaging to Highways England’s application. To sum up, in January 2017 Highways England declared “we have completed our economic and environmental assessments”. They then said a few weeks later they had not yet been “finalised” but expected sign off in March 2017. Highways England then claimed (May 2017) they could not publish because of the General Election purdah rule but once that rule did not apply they would publish. The Cabinet Office confirmed in any event that the rule did not apply to such documents. In June 2017, Highways England again refused to publish, this time claiming the documents were still drafts but stating they would be finalised and published in mid-June. To date the documents are still not available to the public or any interested party except CPRE following our Environmental Information Regulations enquiry. One is inevitably drawn to a conclusion that Highways England are, at best, paying lip service to their legal duty to inform and to consult or at worst were being deliberately obstructive and did not want the Reports to be public at the time of the consultation. With this lamentable performance by Highways England, there is even a possibility that the ExA would find that the manner in which the consultation had been conducted was unlawful, a finding which would be fatal to Highways England’s application to the Secretary of State. In making these comments to you, we are very aware of the difficulties the Council faces in such a complex situation and their political sensitivity (in the non-party sense!). We suspect the Council is unaware of the full extent of the relevant documents, and even if it is, we do not believe it has been able to properly assess them given their great scope and complexity (we make that remark with some feeling because we too are struggling). We hope this letter will help bring the issues into focus more sharply and convince you of the need to obtain comprehensive technical and legal advice. With best wishes and kind regards Yours sincerely,

Nick Thompson Chair CPRE Lancashire

Appendix 1 - CPRE Lancashire’s criticism of the Highways England consultation process

Complaint to Mr. Jesse Norman, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Roads, Local Transport and Devolution (Minister responsible for Highways England). Mr Nick Thompson, chair of CPRE Lancashire, submitted the following complaint to the Minister through the agency of his constituency MP, Mr Peter Dowd (MP for ); it relates only to the manner of the consultation, not to the merits or otherwise of the two options presented by Highways England to the public:

1. Highways England’s Newsletter Issue 4 (January 2017), announcing the A5036 Port of Liverpool Access Scheme, stated

“We have completed our economic and environmental assessments and we’ve used our findings to develop the options that we’d now like to share with you and hear your views.”

On failing to find the assessments on the Highways England consultation website, one of my CPRE colleagues asked Highways England by e-mail how he could access the relevant documents; that e-mail was never answered.

2. When the same colleague met the two representatives from Atkins, together with Khalid El-Rayes and Carl Stockton from Highways England, in January at the public exhibition at St. Faith’s Church Hall, Waterloo, it was explained to him that the Atkins Environmental Assessment was currently being examined by Highways England experts for conformity to Highways England’s policies and for the lawfulness of its recommendations, and that the document could not be published until it had been signed off by Highways England. It was also explained to him that the Highways England team was currently devoting all its resources to staffing the public exhibitions, but his e-mail would shortly receive an acknowledgement in which it would be specified, amongst other matters, the confirmed timetable for the publication of the requested documents. However, as stated in the previous paragraph, no such e-mail was ever received and the documents remain undisclosed to members of the public . 3. In paragraph 4 of its response to the Highways England consultation, submitted by Jackie Copley MRTPI., MA., BA(hons)., PgCert , CPRE’s Planning Manager, on 27 February 2017, CPRE argued that the consultation should have been delayed until the essential documents were in the public domain. We argued then, and it continues to be our belief, that a meaningful consultation could not take place in

the absence of fundamental information relating to the two options on offer. At the time, we were encouraged by the following statement by Mr. Carl Stockton, Project Manager for Highways England, in his e-mail of 14 March 2017 acknowledging the CPRE response to the consultation:

“As confirmed with your representative who attended the event at St Faith’s Church Hall, Waterloo on 27 January 2017, we will ensure that the key documents that were requested will be provided once they have been finalised. We anticipate this to be around the end of March 2017. We will accordingly, given the very great relevance of the reports, accept any further comments you may wish to make at such a time after the information has been assessed.”

Unfortunately, this promise that the key documents would be published in time for us to assess them and make further representations was never fulfilled.

4. On 10 May 2017, a generous 2 months later, Ms. Copley e-mailed Mr. Stockton asking if those key documents had now been finalised and reminding him that CPRE wished to make further comments so as to influence the choice of route. Mr. Stockton in his reply of 11th May now stated that, as we were in the lead up to the general election, he was not in a position to release any documents about the scheme, but that he would be able to do so once the election purdah had ended, which hopefully should be once the result had been declared. CPRE interpreted this message to mean that the key documents had been finalised and so the only impediment to their release to the public was the purdah rule. What other explanation could there be for reference to the purdah rule? 5. In response, Ms. Copley explained in her e-mail/letter of 15 May 2017 that the guidance from the Cabinet Office indicated that the purdah rule did not apply to the kind of information at issue. She therefore again requested disclosure of the documents, this time as a formal EIR enquiry which was acknowledged by Highways England’s Mr. Sam Whitfield in an e-mail of 16 May 2017, stating our enquiry was being progressed. 6. Given that background, I and my CPRE colleagues were very surprised to receive yet a further refusal to disclose the requested documents by Mr. Stockton in his letter of 31 May 2017 in the following terms:

“As for your request for copies of the traffic assessment and the Environmental Assessment Report I have to advise you that we do hold information that is relevant to your request but regret to

inform you of my decision not to disclose this information at this point in time. The information you requested is being withheld in reliance on the exemption in section 12(4) (d) [the request is for information that is incomplete] of the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR) because the information you have requested is currently in draft format. I anticipate that both reports will be signed off by the relevant officials within highways England by the middle of June 2017 at which point I will be able to release the reports”

7. In response, Ms. Copley wrote to Mr Stockton on 26 June 2017 to make a formal complaint to Highways England concerning the treatment of our EIR enquiry and the management of the consultation. 8. In his reply of the 17 July 2017, Mr Stockton accepted shortcomings in the way our several requests for essential information had been dealt with in the following terms:

“We do not dispute any of the stages that you have kindly outlined in your complaint but up to this point it has not been possible to release the documents requested because they were subject to our internal review process and each time a request was received they had still not been approved hence the response provided to the official EIR request that the reports could not be released as they were still in draft format. Clearly as you point out this is not acceptable due to the original request being made for the reports nearly 6 months ago and this is something that we as an organisation will have to review to ensure that documents and reports requested are completed and made available in a more timely manner.”

At the same time, Mr Stockton made available to each of my two colleagues engaged in this matter CDs containing the Traffic Forecasting Report and the Environmental Assessment Report. However, despite this welcome progress, we believe it is unacceptable that notwithstanding Highways England’s failure to make these Reports available to the public in breach of their legal duty to do so Mr. Stockton continues to claim that the public had not been denied access to essential information. We also do not accept the claim that “ because of their large size” , it is not technically possible to put the Traffic Forecasting Report and the Environmental Assessment Report on the Highways England consultation website. It is manifestly unsatisfactory that CPRE should be the only respondent to the consultation to have sight of these documents. It should be noted that, when

eventually permission is sought for the construction of the preferred route, these documents will be available on the Inquiry website.

9. In assessing the CPRE response to this situation, it should be remembered that Highways England had not yet announced its preferred route and CPRE believed that there was still time for a further submission to be made to influence the choice of route. We also sought to persuade Highways England of the need to take measures to ensure that its senior staff understood the importance of transparency in dealing with the public and the requirements for a genuine consultation. Accordingly, we asked Mr Stockton to refer the CPRE complaint to a senior member of Highways England staff so new procedural guidance could be issued. We also again urged that the public should have online access to the Traffic Forecasting Report and the Environmental Assessment Report and that all those who responded to the January consultation should be notified that the additional information was available on the consultation website and be invited to make a further response to the consultation. 10. The response to these requests was very disappointing. It came from Tim Gamon, the Regional Delivery Director, Regional Investment Programme, who in his letter of the 24 August 2017 asserted his belief that the consultation process to identify a preferred option to take through the subsequent stages of the planning process had been conducted fairly and in good faith. How can a consultation be fair when two reports crucial for the assessment of the relative merits of the two options under consideration are withheld from the public? Mr. Gammon did not even acknowledge that reports should be signed off in a timely manner (please see paragraph 8 above). 11. I am forced to the conclusion that only the intervention of the Minister responsible for Highways England will cause the organisation to reform its consultative process, hence my request to you to forward this letter to Mr. Norman for his consideration.

Mr Norman’s reply

22 January 2018 Dear Peter, Thank you for your letter of 20 November 2017, enclosing correspondence from your constituent, Mr Nick Thompson of 10 Marine Terrace, Waterloo, Liverpool L22 5PR, about Rimrose Valley, Liverpool Port Access. As confirmed in Andrew Jones' letter in February 2017, through the Road Investment Strategy, the Government has committed to deliver "A comprehensive upgrade to improve traffic conditions on the main link between the Port of Liverpool and the motorway network." The Lancashire branch of CPRE, which Mr Thompson chairs, has been in regular contact with Highways England, both during and after the preferred route consultation. I am sorry for the delay by Highways England in issuing the reports requested by CPRE. As stated at the time, Highways England cannot release any documents that have not

been signed off and approved as complete, into the public domain. I am assured that they have taken steps to address the cause of this and similar delays. Although the actual reports were not available at the time of the public consultation, Highways England presented the key findings of both the economic and environmental assessment in the consultation brochure and on the exhibition panels displayed at the six public events. Over 3000 brochures were distributed and additionally, the subject matter experts who had undertaken the work on behalf of Highways England, attended events to deal with enquiries of a specialist nature, such as on air quality, noise and predicted traffic flows. Highways England maintain that the consultation process to identify a preferred option was conducted fairly and in good faith. This has been highlighted by the responses that were received during and after the consultation with over 3000 people responding to the proposals. The approach to the consultation on this scheme was consistent with good practice for consulting on major schemes as set out by the Cabinet Office's "Consultation Principles" published in July 2012 (which replaced the earlier Code of Practice on Consultation — July 2008). Although a preferred route option for the scheme has been announced, planning approval still needs to be obtained before Highways England can proceed to build according to the preferred scheme. A further consultation will be held as part of this process with the local community and key stakeholders. This will be a statutory consultation, for which a large amount of documentation should be made available on a dedicated webpage provided by the Planning Inspectorate for this particular scheme. Only when the Planning Inspectorate are content that the consultation has been extensive and robust, will they accept the application for examination and appoint an Examining Inspector. Members of the public and other interested parties including the CPRE will be able to register as an Interested Party and submit representations.

JESSE NORMAN

Appendix 2 – CPRE Lancashire’s response to the Highways England consultation

27 February 2017

Dear Carl Stockton,

Response of the Lancashire Branch of the Campaign to Protect Rural England and its Sefton District Group to the Highways England public consultation on the A5036 Port of Liverpool Access Scheme

The Lancashire Branch of the Campaign to Protect Rural England and its Sefton District Group (jointly hereafter referred to as CPRE) welcomes the opportunity of commenting on Highways England’s public consultation on its A5036 Port of Liverpool Access Scheme.

In parallel with its primary campaigning to prevent inappropriate development in the countryside, CPRE strongly advocates high quality sustainable urban development, an important component of which is the provision of green space. Towns and cities must be made attractive places for all classes of the community to live so they choose to reside there rather than in the countryside. This requires a sufficient residential density to sustain high-quality infrastructure on which to base good public transport, good shopping, good schools and good medical services; it also requires the redevelopment of derelict brownfield sites which degrade the residential amenity of neighbouring areas. A further essential requirement is that people living in urban areas have the assurance of a surrounding Green Belt to secure residential amenity according to the five purposes of the Green Belt, as specified in paragraph 80 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), and have easy life enhancing recreational access to the countryside. It is against the background of this remit that CPRE makes the following comments on the consultation:

Comments relating to both Option A and Option B

1) Peel Ports have publicised their intention to transport a substantial tonnage through the Manchester Ship Canal for onward distribution into the national road and rail networks at Salford Port. There is also the intention to improve the capacity of the rail connection from Liverpool Superport to the rail network. However, it is clear from this consultation that there will be a very substantial increase in the tonnage leaving the Superport by road. As far as CPRE is aware, there has been no holistic attempt to model this tri-modal system; consequently, it appears that there are no realistic projections of the road capacity necessary to service the Superport. CPRE urges that the data and their source relating to the traffic assessment on which this consultation is based should be made public so it is possible for consultees to assess their significance and reliability. Also in the public domain should be the modelling report of the impact of the increased traffic flows on local roads in addition to that on Switch Island itself.

2) It is obvious even from qualitative assessment that the capacity of Option B is very considerably greater than that of Option A. However, the CPRE representative, who attended the Highways England public exhibition at St. Faith’s Church Hall, Waterloo on 27 January 2017, was assured by the attending representatives of Atkins, the multi-national engineering and planning project management and consulting services company engaged by Highways England, that the projected capacity of Option A was sufficient for the entire projection period. Therefore, in the absence of any explanation by Highways England to the contrary, it is difficult to understand why, given its very considerable disadvantages compared to those of Option A, that Option B should be considered a viable alternative (please see below).

3) CPRE believes that it is not possible to make a reasoned response to this consultation without the benefit of a full Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The Highways England representative informed the CPRE representative that the Atkins EIA was currently being examined by their experts for conformity to Highways England’s policies and for the lawfulness of its recommendations, and that the EIA would probably be published in March 2017. Atkins is a highly reputable independent consultancy and CPRE has confidence that is its findings are objective; therefore, it is of concern to CPRE that the Atkins EIA document might be redacted by Highways England and important information thereby be denied to the public.

4) CPRE believes that this public consultation should have been delayed until the EIA could be published; accordingly, given the very great relevance of the EIA, CPRE reserves the right to comment further when the document is eventually published.

5) Although it is anticipated that the issue of air quality will be dealt in quantitative detail within the EIA, CPRE singles out this particular issue here for special comment because air pollution is potentially the single factor most harmful to health associated with these proposals. Air quality on the roads servicing Liverpool docks already fails to meet the EU Air Quality Directive 208/15/EC and on 6 April 2015 the Supreme Court (reference [2015] UKSC 28) rejected the government’s Air Quality Plan (AQP) and on 2 November 2016 the High Court (reference [2016] EWHC 2740 (Admin)) similarly rejected the government’s AQP amended in response to the Supreme Court ruling. In its report of the 27 April 2016, the House of Comments Select Committee for DEFRA detailed the extent of mortality and morbidity resulting from traffic generated air pollution, and in its letter of the 14 December 2016 to the Secretary of State for DEFRA, the Committee expressed dissatisfaction with the evidence that ministers had given to it. More specifically, Sefton Council’s 2015 Air Quality Action

Plan Progress Report (the latest available) states that for Air Quality Management Area 2, Princess Way (at the Western end of the A5036) “the NO2 annual mean continues to be significantly above the Objective at this location and is unlikely to be met in the short term, with the current measures that are in place and with port expansion likely to exacerbate the situation.” Against this background and paragraphs 109 (4th bullet point) and 124 of the NPPF and Policy EQ5 Air Quality of the emerging SPL, CPRE seeks evidence that Highways England will achieve with these proposals a much higher standard of air quality than is currently commonplace on the busiest roads of Great Britain (please see below).

Objections to Option B

6) In Sefton’s Unitary Development Plan, the whole of Rimrose Valley Country Park and its extension to the open countryside are designated as Green Belt. In Sefton’s emerging Local Plan (SLP), all of the Country Park, apart from site MN2.37, remains Green Belt and the remainder of the Option B route, apart from sites MN2.25 and MN2.26, is still designated as Green Belt. The examination of the SLP is at an advanced stage; the Examining Inspector has indicated that he aims to send his Full Report to the Council in March. Since the land through which the route of Option B would pass is not subject to a Major Modification, it is reasonable to assume that in the adopted Local Plan, this land will have the designation Green Belt and for the purposes of this consultation should be regarded as such.

7) Paragraph 90 of the NPPF specifies that, for engineering operations not to be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, they must preserve the openness of the Green Belt. CPRE believes that the scale of the proposed engineering operations, involving the erection of noise barriers, extensive landscaping (very probably involving embankments) and the erection of bridges over the road, collectively would seriously diminish the openness of the Green Belt and so would constitute inappropriate development, which by definition is harmful to the Green Belt.

8) Before 1993, much of Rimrose Valley was a landfill site. Since then considerable effort, imagination and expenditure has been has been devoted to the reclamation of the site, so today it is a greatly valued recreational and educational resource for local people, many of whom live in the large adjacent residential areas of Crosby, Waterloo, and Netherton. The area now has two Sites of Special Local Biological Interest (SLBI), namely the Brookvale Local Nature Reserve and the extensive reed beds at Fulwood Way, and it also provides opportunities for walking, cycling and sport (there are several playing fields). Local residents are very passionate about Rimrose Valley being protected and enhanced in the future for the benefit of everyone

Photograph: Some of the hundred local people who demonstrated their concern for the future of Rimrose Valley Country Park by participating in the protest walk organised jointly by CPRE and Rimrose Valley Friends in September 2016

9) The Option B route would pass through the Brookvale SLBI, destroying the habitat of many interesting species (some protected) and the enjoyment and tranquillity of naturalists wishing to observe them. CPRE believes this would be a major loss to people living in an area deficient in such assets. Given that Option B would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, in order to make it acceptable it would be necessary to demonstrate the existence of very special circumstances such that the harm to the Green Belt would be outweighed by the

10) Given that Option B would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, in order to make it acceptable it would be necessary to demonstrate the existence of very special circumstances such that the harm to the Green Belt would be outweighed by the benefit resulting from the development (reference paragraph 88 of the NPPF) and that there was no alternative area suitable for development. The planning judgment of the balance between harm and benefit has not been made and there is a suitable alternative in Option A. Accordingly, CPRE urges that Option B should be rejected.

11) Comments on Option A

12) CPRE believes that much more could, and should, be done to alleviate air pollution, noise disturbance and traffic congestion on Dunnings Bridge Road by arranging for dock traffic travelling to or from Switch Island to be able to make unimpeded progress at all junctions by means of slip roads leading into or out of appropriately configured roundabouts connecting with side roads, i.e. Dunnings Bridge Road would be brought up to near motorway standard (cf. the Mancunian Way). This would not only shorten journey times due to increased average speed, it would also greatly reduce waiting times and thereby air pollution, which is significantly increased by standing traffic. It would also increase safety.

13) The expenditure for making the necessary improvements would come from the budget currently allocated to Option B. The increased cost of Option A would be justified given the imperative to improve air quality as argued in paragraph 5 above.

14) Summary

15) CPRE believes that Option B would be contrary to Green Belt policy and would result in unjustifiable harm to a treasured green asset. Although an upgraded Dunnings Bridge Road would still have many undesirable features, it is possible to obtain significant relief from the current congestion on this road and improve air quality at the same time as increasing its capacity to carry the traffic necessary to adequately service Liverpool Superport.

If you would like further information, please contact me without delay.

Yours sincerely,

Jackie Copley MRTPI MA BA(Hons) PgCert

Planning Manager