Proof of Evidence of Geoff Clarke on 21 February 2017
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Proof of Evidence of Geoff Clarke on 21st February 2017 Daw Mill Colliery, Tamworth Road, Arley For the Appellant, Harworth Estates PINS ref no: APP/R3705/W/16/3149827 Copy 1 of 1 Daw Mill © 2017 AECOM Limited. All Rights Reserved. This document has been prepared by AECOM Limited (“AECOM”) for sole use of our client (the “Client”) in accordance with generally accepted consultancy principles, the budget for fees and the terms of reference agreed between AECOM and the Client. Any information provided by third parties and referred to herein has not been checked or verified by AECOM, unless otherwise expressly stated in the document. No third party may rely upon this document without the prior and express written agreement of AECOM. AECOM Daw Mill 1. Table of Contents SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................ 4 01 - Qualifications and Experience .................................................................................................................... 5 02 – Introduction & Scope of Evidence .............................................................................................................. 7 03 – The Proposed Development ...................................................................................................................... 8 04 – Rail Policy Overview ................................................................................................................................ 23 05 – Rolling Stock Demand ............................................................................................................................. 42 06 – Daw Mill Site Characteristics.................................................................................................................... 52 07 - Alternative Sites ....................................................................................................................................... 58 9. Appendix I: Additional Site Data ............................................................................................................ 85 10. Appendix II: Expanded Network Map .................................................................................................... 92 AECOM Daw Mill 2. SUMMARY TBA AECOM 4/94 5.01 01 - Qualifications and Experience 1.1 I am Geoff Clarke, and I am Regional Director of AECOM’s Freight and Logistics team. I am an Adjunct Professor of Transport Studies at Liverpool John Moores University and hold a BSc Honours degree in Business Management and Transport Planning from Aston University. I am a fellow of the Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport and hold an International Certificate of Professional Competence in International Road Freight and Passenger Transport. 1.2 I have over 35 years in the logistics and transport profession, 22 years in operational distribution at BOCM Pauls and United Biscuits and 13 years in consultancy with AECOM, whom I joined in 2003. During that time I have worked on over 40 rail freight studies. Of particular relevance to the freight and logistics issues raised by this inquiry include the following: 1.3 On international assignments, I have advised the Romanian Government on their Transport Masterplan, considering the need for rail freight terminals across the whole country and made recommendations for 12 schemes. I have also assessed demand for Rail Baltica, an 800km new railway line including passenger and freight projections. Finally I developed the business case for an international logistics hub to serve Riga, the capital of Latvia. 1.4 In the UK, I worked with the Department for Transport to develop their Rail Freight Transport Strategy, in which I led a project to forecast rail freight volumes across 14 key sectors as well as identify constraints to that growth and analyse their impact on meeting DfT targets for carbon reduction. This work thereby gives me a strong background on the current state of the rail freight industry, where the potential growth for rail freight lies and what infrastructure is needed to realise that growth. 1.5 I have advised local authorities in Wales as well as the Welsh National Government on the feasibility of various rail freight opportunities in North Wales including for an Intermodal terminal at Deeside, which involved an analysis of train path availability, signalling implications, and operational requirements on site as well as the potential demand for intermodal services from a variety of large businesses. 1.6 In 2011, I advised the East Midlands Development Agency on potential rail distribution sites in the area. This study comprised collating a long list of potential distribution sites that could be rail served, and establishing a weighted scoring AECOM 5/94 method as a means of choosing the most suitable sites for the needs of the logistics industry. The project concluded with three sites recommended. 1.7 Between 2006 and 2010 I also provided Highways England (then Highways Agency) with planning advice on numerous rail connected terminals including Ince Resource Recovery Park, Cheshire, Howbury Park, Kent International Gateway and Radlett. 1.8 I have been instructed by Harworth Estates (the Appellant) with regard to this site since 21st September 2016). Whilst I was not involved in the outline planning application for the site (reference PAP/2014/0339) I have fully acquainted myself with its contents and process. 1.9 I understand my duty to the inquiry, have complied with and will continue to comply with that duty. I confirm that this evidence identifies all facts which I regard as being relevant to the opinions that I have expressed and that the Inspector’s attention has been drawn to any matter which would affect the validity of those opinions. I believe that the facts stated within this proof are true and that the opinions expressed are correct. AECOM 6/94 3. 02 – Introduction & Scope of Evidence 2.1 AECOM were instructed by Harworth Estates to provide proof of evidence for an appeal against the refusal of planning application ref PAP/2014/0339 on 3rd November 2015 by North Warwickshire Borough Council for the former Daw Mill Colliery site, Tamworth Road, North Warwickshire. 2.2 The Council identified the following reason for refusal that is relevant to my evidence: “The site is in the Green Belt. The proposals represent inappropriate development which causes substantial harm to the openness of the Green belt and the purposes of including land within it. There is additional harm caused by adverse impacts on the landscape character, visual amenity, the natural environment and residential amenity of neighbouring occupiers through noise and lighting impacts. There is also considered to be moderate highway impact as a consequence of whether the mitigation proposed has a reasonable prospect of being implemented. The material considerations put forward by the applicant are not of sufficient weight to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to outweigh the harms caused by the inappropriateness and the other harm caused. This is due to the generic nature of the proposal; that it contains alternatives and that mitigation measures are not fully advanced. The proposal does not therefore accord with Policies NW1, NW2, NW3, NW10, NW12, NW13, and NW15 of the North Warwickshire Core Strategy 2014 and the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.” 2.3 Harworth Estates have appealed against the refusal of planning permission and employed me to address freight and logistics matters. In this proof of evidence I consider the following within the context of the rail transport sector. 2.4 Section 3: Sets out the nature of the development proposed at Daw Mill, and how this would operate. 2.5 Section 4: States how the site proposed sits within the framework of international, national, regional and local policy currently in place regarding the growth of the rail industry. 2.6 Section 5: Considers the need for the types of facilities proposed at the Daw Mill site 2.7 Section 6: Considers the opportunity presented by Daw Mill in terms of its suitability 2.8 Section 7: Looks at alternative sites for the facilities proposed at Daw Mill 2.9 Section 8: I draw my conclusions AECOM 7/94 4. 03 – The Proposed Development 3.1 In this section I will consider whether Daw Mill can provide an appropriate site for three immediate needs of the rail industry. These are: Rail Manufacturing and Construction Site Train Maintenance Facility Train Manufacturing Facility 3.2 These three uses are closely related and similar in nature and are all growth areas serving the rail industry expansion. As such there are some common themes that run through each of their operational and layout requirements. These shall be demonstrated before I go on to assess the uses separately, where I shall note any important differences from these initial statements. I will set out details regarding an indicative layout of the site for the various uses identified, how that layout fits into the parameters plan as described within the appeal description and specifically respond to the issues raised in the Council’s reasons for refusal and how these are mitigated as well as consider the operational and environmental impacts of such uses. Commonalities 3.3 The following section outlines features that are in my view common to and apply equally to each of the potential uses of the site. 3.4 The site covers 30 hectares in size, and is a rectangular shaped plot of vacant land with an