PARKSIDE LINK ROAD
PROOF OF EVIDENCE OF IAN GRIMSHAW BA(Hons) MA(LM) MSc MRTPI
TOWN PLANNING
CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 THE PROPOSED SCHEME 2 3.0 RELEVANT PLANNING POLICY 7 4.0 PLR AND GREEN BELT POLICY 20 5.0 HARM TO GREEN BELT 25 6.0 COMPLIANCE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT PLANS 38 7.0 MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS SUPPORTING THE PLR 74 8.0 OVERALL CONCLUSION 92 9.0 SUMMARY 95
APPENDICES (PRESENTED SEPARATELY)
Appendix 1: Warrington Green Belt Drawings A6354.12.001 and A6354.12.002
Appendix 2: Desk-Based Analysis of Agricultural Land Quality
Appendix 3: UK Government Carbon Reduction Announcement 4th December 2020
PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 My name is Ian Jeffrey Grimshaw. I am a Chartered Member of the Royal Town Planning Institute and a Chartered Member of the Landscape Institute. I am a Director of The Environment Partnership (TEP) Limited which I co-founded over twenty years ago.
1.2 I have worked on a large number of infrastructure and development projects taking the lead on securing planning permission and related consents. TEP has provided a range of services to St Helens Council as applicant in connection with the Parkside Link Road including town planning advice. I have overseen these services on the project since early 2017.
1.3 My evidence addresses the town planning case for the scheme and is structured as follows: In Chapter 2.0 I set out a summary description of the proposed PLR development I set out the planning policy context in Chapter 3.0 I focus on the Green Belt policy context in Chapter 4.0 I consider the harm to Green Belt from the PLR and secondary effects in Chapter 5.0 In Chapter 6.0 I consider other compliance with the development plans I set out material considerations in support of the PLR in Chapter 7.0 Chapter 8.0 presents my overall conclusion Chapter 9.0 comprises my Summary
1.4 The evidence which I have prepared and provide for this public inquiry (References APP/H4315/V/20/3253230 and APP/H4315/V/20/3253232) in this proof of evidence is true and has been prepared and is given in accordance with guidance of my professional institutions and I confirm the opinions expressed are my true and professional opinions.
6354.12.018 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 2
2.0 THE PROPOSED SCHEME
2.1 The Parkside Link Road (PLR) would comprise a single carriageway road which would link the A49 Winwick Road to the A579 Winwick Lane enabling access to Junction 22 of the M6. Mr Bayliss sets out a full description of the scheme in his evidence.
Summary Site Context
2.2 The summary site context is set out in the Statement of Common Ground on planning matters (CD 5.156). The application site is south east of the town of Newton le Willows and part of the scheme is proposed on the site of the former Parkside Colliery. The application site is an irregular shape with a site area of approximately 38 hectares (3.3km in length) and includes areas of land that lie in both the St Helens and Warrington administrative boundaries. The whole of the application site is in the Green Belt.
Relevant Planning History
2.3 Mr Littler sets out in his evidence relevant planning history of the former Parkside Colliery. In summary, there have been planning applications for development for B8 uses based on rail freight but these have failed due to economic circumstances.
The PLR Applications
2.4 The PLR is subject of two planning applications: one to St Helens Council and one to Warrington Borough Council. The applications were made under The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 and the applicant determined that the proposals fell within the remit of these Regulations without seeking a screening opinion from the local planning authorities.
2.5 A scoping opinion was requested in accordance with Regulation 15 from the two planning authorities accompanied by a scoping report issued in June 2017. A scoping opinion was received on 25th July 2017 from St Helens Council and on 14th August 2017 from Warrington. Following changes to the red line boundary, the scoping report was re-submitted in November 2017 to consider whether the changes affected the scope of the EIA and confirm that the Scoping Opinion remained valid. Confirmation was received from each planning authority.
6354.12.018 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 3
2.6 In March 2018 a full planning application was submitted to each planning authority. The 2018 applications were accompanied by an Environmental Statement (ES) (‘the 2018 ES’).
2.7 Requests for additional information were received and in addressing some of these the scheme was amended in respect of construction compounds, drainage, minor realignments, removal of works in Cockshot Brook and relocation of the noise barrier on the A579 Winwick Lane. To accommodate these changes, the red line boundary was amended, extending further eastwards along A579 Winwick Lane. The predicted traffic flow data was updated and taken into account.
2.8 Updated planning application drawings and an updated Transport Assessment were prepared and submitted to support the planning application. An Addendum Environmental Statement (‘the 2019 Addendum ES’) was prepared to support these amendments. The updated information was submitted in March 2019.
2.9 The applications comprise the documents listed as Core Documents 5.1 – 5.44.
2.10 The planning authorities have advertised and consulted on the applications in accordance with the 2011 EIA Regulations. The applications were considered at planning committee meetings held on 17th December 2019 (St Helens Council) and 18th December 2019 (Warrington Borough Council). In each case the decision was taken to approve the applications subject to the Secretary of State not wishing to intervene (and, in the case of the application to Warrington Borough Council, subject to completion of an agreement under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990).
2.11 The Secretary of State informed the Councils and applicant by a letter dated 21st May 2020 that he had decided to ‘call-in’ the applications along with others in northwest England.
2.12 It has been decided that the two applications relating to the PLR will be heard at a single public inquiry along with the called-in application by Parkside Regeneration for development of ‘Parkside Phase 1’. This application is for outline planning permission with all matters reserved other than means of access for ‘the construction of up to 92,900 m2 of employment floorspace (Use Class B8 with ancillary B1(a)) and
6354.12.018 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 4
associated servicing and infrastructure including car parking; vehicle and pedestrian circulation space; alteration of existing access road including works to existing A49 junction; noise mitigation; earthworks to create development platforms and bunds; landscaping including buffers; works to existing spoil heap; creation of drainage features; substations and ecological works’.
2.13 The application was made to St Helens Council (P/2018/0048/OUP) and the Council made a decision to approve the application, subject to the Secretary of State not wishing to intervene and completion of a s106 agreement, at the same meeting at which the PLR decision was taken.
2.14 Although being heard at the same public inquiry, the application for the PLR and for Parkside Phase 1 are independent and have been pursued separately throughout. It is clearly acknowledged that development of Parkside Phase 1 does not require the PLR.
Further Information
2.15 Following the decision to call-in the PLR applications, Wigan Council confirmed an Order imposing a weight limit on part of the A579 Winwick Lane as explained in the Transport Assessment October 2020 (CD 5.48). It was acknowledged that this would affect the results of traffic modelling used in the PLR applications, as Mr Roberts explains in his evidence. The call-in of the applications means that the anticipated opening date of the PLR will be later than that used in the traffic modelling for the applications. To address these changes, the model was re-run and consideration given to whether any of the environmental impact assessment would be affected by changes that resulted.
2.16 The Applicant identified possible changes to the results of assessments of air quality, noise and effects on climate change. Since the applications were made, the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) guidance on environmental assessment has been updated. The majority of these updates have been consolidation and re- presentation of guidance that has evolved over time. Considering the output of the revised traffic model meant that there also was an opportunity to consider if any of the updated DMRB guidance needed to be taken into account in assessments.
6354.12.018 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 5
2.17 Notice of these assessments was given at the first Case Management Conference regarding the PLR applications on 1st October 2020. The updated information, titled ‘Further Environmental Information’ was circulated to PINS, the two planning authorities and the Rule 6 party Parkside Action Group on 16th October 2020.
2.18 PINS has subsequently advised on 6th November 2020 that although there is not a requirement to publicise the production of the Further Environmental Information under the 2011 EIA Regulations, that publicity should be undertaken. St Helens Council and Warrington Borough Council have publicised the production of the Further Environmental Information and made it available on their websites.
2.19 In my evidence, I use the following references to the environmental information which has been produced:
Documents Reference in Proof Environmental Statement Statement (March 2018) 2018 ES Environmental Statement Addendum (March 2019) 2019 Addendum ES PLR Further Environmental Information (October 2020 Further Environmental 2020) Information
2.20 Following the second Case Management Conference held on 13th November 2020, it was confirmed that the likely main issues to be addressed at the inquiry into the PLR comprise the matters in Box 1 below.
2.21 I address these matters in my evidence, referring to the evidence of others as appropriate.
6354.12.018 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 6
Box 1: Main Issues
a. the acceptability of the PLR in principle, having regard to the development plan, national policy and any emerging policy according to the weight accorded them and in particular policies governing the provision of an SRFI and development in the Green Belt wherein the application site is situated and the extent to which the proposed development is consistent with Government policies for protecting Green Belt land (NPPF Chapter 13 - questions of inappropriate/not inappropriate/openness/purposes),
b. the extent to which the PLR would be consistent with Government policies for building a strong, competitive economy (NPPF Chapter 6),
c. the effects of the PLR on the local and strategic road network,
d. the effects of the PLR on air quality, in particular within AQMAs,
e. the effects of the PLR on ecology/biodiversity, taking account of mitigation measures and potential net gain,
f. any other environmental and amenity effects of the PLR including:
i. noise and disturbance ii. design, visual appearance and landscape iii. best and most versatile agricultural land iv. climate change v. flood risk and drainage vi. heritage assets
g. whether the PLR would give rise to socio-economic and/or environmental benefits to be weighed in the planning balance,
h. if inappropriate whether any factors in favour of the PLR amount to the requisite very special circumstances to outweigh policy harm and any other harm to justify allowing the development in the Green Belt.
6354.12.018 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 7
3.0 RELEVANT PLANNING POLICY
The Development Plan: St Helens
3.1 The adopted development plan for St Helens comprises the St Helens Local Plan Core Strategy (adopted 2012); saved policies in the St Helens Unitary Development Plan (adopted 1998); and the Joint Merseyside and Halton Waste Local Plan (adopted 2013).
St Helens Core Strategy 2012
3.2 The following policies from the St Helens Local Plan Core Strategy are relevant to the application:
CSS 1 - Overall Spatial Strategy CIN 1 - Meeting St. Helens' Infrastructure Needs CSD 1 - National Planning Policy Framework - Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development CAS 3.1 – Newton and Earlestown Strategy CAS 3.2 – Development of a Strategic Rail Freight Interchange (SRFI) CP 1 - Ensuring Quality Development in St. Helens CP 2 -Creating an Accessible St. Helens CE 1 - A Strong and Sustainable Economy CQL 2 - Trees and Woodlands CQL 3 - Biodiversity and Geological Conservation CQL4 – Heritage and Landscape
St Helens UDP 1998
3.3 The following saved policies from the St Helens UDP adopted in 1998 are relevant to the PLR:
S 1 - Green Belt GEN12 – Lighting and Security Apparatus GB 1 - General Criteria for Development Control in the Green Belt GB 2 - General Criteria for Development Control in the Green Belt
6354.12.018 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 8
ENV 4 - Statutory Site Protection ENV 5 - Sites of Community Wildlife Interest and Local Nature Reserves ENV11 – Tree Surveys ENV12 – Development Affecting Trees ENV 13 - New Tree Planting on Development Sites ENV 23 – Archaeology ENV 25 – Listed Buildings ENV 26 - Contaminated Land ENV 30 - Drainage
Joint Merseyside and Halton Waste Plan 2016
3.4 The following policies from the Merseyside and Halton Waste Plan are relevant to the PLR: WM8 – Waste Prevention and Resource Management WM9 – Sustainable Waste Management Design and Layout of New Development
St Helens Supplementary Planning Documents
3.5 The following supplementary planning documents (SPD) are relevant to the PLR: Local Economy (November 2013) Ensuring a Choice of Travel (June 2010) Biodiversity (June 2011)
Local Economy SPD 3.6 This SPD sets out support that St Helens Council provides for businesses. It sets out in its Section 2 the wider economic development context including that of the Liverpool City Region and its priority to increase employment and empower businesses to create jobs.
3.7 The SPD provides guidance to developers on how St Helens Council can support businesses in increasing employment and creating jobs.
6354.12.018 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 9
Ensuring a Choice of Travel SPD 3.8 This SPD addresses the need for developments to be accessible by a wide range of transport types including walking, cycling, public transport, powered two wheeled, private car and service vehicles. The SPD provides advice and sets out that a Major application needs to consider appropriate guidance on minimum accessibility standards; parking standards; transport assessment; travel plans; air quality and design and access statements.
Biodiversity SPD 3.9 This guidance relates to a number of UDP Policies including relevant saved policies ENV4 Statutory Site Protection; ENV5 Sites of Wildlife Interest and Local Nature Reserves; and ENV30 Drainage. It also relates to relevant Core Strategy policies CP1 Ensuring Quality Development in St Helens; CQL2 Trees and Woodland; and CQL3 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation. The SPD includes specific guidance on compliance with those policies.
3.10 All of the above policies are from adopted plans and guidance and carry full weight as part of the development plan for St Helens.
Emerging St Helens Local Plan
3.11 The Submission Draft of the St Helens Borough Local Plan 2020-2035 was published on 17th January 2019. It has been subject to consultation during 2019 and was submitted for examination on 29th October 2020.
3.12 The plan proposes to allocate 265 hectares of land for employment use up to 2035 with an additional 85.88 hectares of land safeguarded for employment use beyond the plan period. The Plan proposes to remove the area comprising the application site and the land around it which lies in St Helens from the Green Belt and allocate the land on the west of the M6 as employment land appropriate for general industrial (B2) and storage or distribution (B8) uses; and land on the east of the M6 for an SRFI and B2/B8 employment uses that are rail served or would not prejudice the delivery of an SRFI. The Plan proposes to remove the part of the application site which lies within the Borough of St Helens from the Green Belt. I consider the relevant policies below.
6354.12.018 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 10
Policy LPA02 Spatial Strategy
3.13 This policy sets out at paragraph 4 that land will be released from the Green Belt to meet needs for housing and employment development over the Plan period from 1 April 2020 until 31 March 2035, in the most sustainable locations. Other land will be removed from the Green Belt and safeguarded to allow for longer term housing or employment or both needs to be met after 31 March 2035.
3.14 Paragraph 5 of Policy LPA02 explains that: ‘substantial new employment development (set out in Policy LPA04 and excluding town centre uses) will take place on large sites that are capable of accommodating large employment buildings (over 9,000m2) and are close to the M6 and M62. High quality road, public transport and active travel links will be required between existing and proposed residential areas, particularly those with high deprivation levels, and areas of employment growth’.
3.15 LPA02 paragraph 6 states that ‘Parkside West and Parkside East form transformational employment opportunity sites that will make a major contribution to the economic development of St Helens Borough, the Liverpool City Region and beyond. Development that prejudices their development in accordance with Policies LPA04 and LPA10 will not be allowed.’
Policy LPA04 A Strong and Stable Economy
3.16 This policy sets out at paragraph 1 that ‘the Council will work with partner organisations to: a) help meet the Liverpool City Region’s needs for economic growth, job creation and skills development; b) maximise the economic opportunities presented by St Helens Borough’s location in relation to strategic road and rail routes; c) ensure the necessary infrastructure is provided to support business needs (see LPA 08); and d) support the creation of and expansion of small businesses.’
3.17 Paragraph 2 explains that the Council will ’aim to deliver a minimum of 215.4 hectares of land for employment development between 1 April 2018 and 31 March 2035 to meet the needs of St Helens Borough.’
6354.12.018 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 11
3.18 Paragraph 3 refers to sites shown on the Policies Map and in Table 4.1 of the Plan comprising the allocations. Table 4.1 shows the employment sites and their total area comprising 265.3 hectares, greater than the minimum of 215.4 hectares identified in paragraph 2 of the policy above.
Policy LPA04.1: Strategic Employment Sites
3.19 This policy confirms the Strategic Employment Sites allocated under Policy LPA04 and identifies Site 7EA Parkside East and site 8EA Parkside West, along with three other sites. One of the other sites is the Site 1EA Omega South Western Extension which, is identified to help support Warrington Council meet needs. Another is 2EA Florida Farm North which has planning permission granted in 2016. The third is 6EA: Land west of Millfield Lane, south of Liverpool Road and north of Clipsley Brook, Haydock.
3.20 The policy requires that development of Strategic Sites meet obligations including a comprehensive masterplan, training schemes to enable local residents (including unemployed and disadvantaged people) to access and benefit fully from the employment opportunities provided and other measures to achieve this result (or both training and other measures). Development in Strategic Employment Sites will be required to provide or make contributions to the provision, expansion and/or enhancement of transport infrastructure, subject to compliance with Policy PLA08 which addresses infrastructure. The masterplans for each site must address site- specific requirements set out in Appendix 5 of the Plan which is relevant to Site 8EA, Parkside East. The site-specific issues for Site 7EA Parkside West are set out in Policy LPA10.
LPA10 Parkside East
3.21 This policy identifies Site 7EA Parkside East in Policy LPA04 as: ‘suitable in principle for development of a Strategic Rail Freight Interchange (SRFI) with the primary purpose of facilitating the movement of freight by rail and its on-site storage and transfer between rail and other transport modes.’
3.22 Paragraph 2 of the policy notes that the site also is ‘considered suitable in principle for other forms of B2 and B8 employment use provided that they would: a) bring significant inward investment, local employment and training benefits for the local community; and
6354.12.018 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 12
b) (i) be rail served (i.e., requiring on-site access to a railway); or (ii) be of a layout and scale that would not prejudice the ability to develop an effectively laid out SRFI or other rail served employment development (including any necessary rail and road infrastructure, buildings and landscaping), on at least 60 hectares of the site, at any time in the future.’
3.23 Paragraph 3 of Policy LPA10 sets out specific criteria that development on Site 7EA would be required to meet. These include the need to create safe and convenient access from Junction 22 of the M6 for Heavy Goods Vehicles and other vehicles (clause b) and the need to mitigate any adverse impacts on the surrounding strategic and local road network (clause c).
3.24 Paragraph 4 of Policy LPA10 notes the requirement that land is reserved on part of Parkside West for a rail siding as part of the proposed allocation.
3.25 Representations have been received during consultation regarding the proposed removal of sites from the Green Belt in St Helens, including the Parkside site. In particular, comments question whether the need for employment land justifies the ‘exceptional circumstances’ required to remove the land from the Green Belt. These objections are considered to be unresolved and therefore in accordance with Paragraph 48 of the NPPF only limited weight can be given to the policies. However, the evidence sources referenced in the Reasoned Justification of policies and other related and some more contemporary assessments are material considerations of importance which I consider in Chapter 7 of my evidence.
Warrington Development Plan
Warrington Local Plan Core Strategy (July 2014)
3.26 It is agreed between the parties that the following policies of the Warrington Local Plan Core Strategy are relevant to the PLR proposal:
CS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development CS2 – Quantity and Distribution of Development CS4 – Transport
6354.12.018 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 13
CS5 – Green Belt PV3 – Strengthening the Borough’s Workforce QE3 – Green Infrastructure QE4 – Flood Risk QE5 – Biodiversity and Geodiversity QE6 – Environmental and Amenity Protection QE7 – Ensuring High Quality Place QE8 – Historic Environment MP1 – General Transport Principles MP3 – Active Travel MP5 – Freight Transport MP7 – Transport Assessment and Travel Plans MP8 – Waste CC2 – Protecting the Countryside
Warrington Supplementary Planning Documents
Design and Construction (October 2010)
3.27 This SPD addresses a wide range of aspects of design and construction, including a section on Transport Design Guidance. This includes advice on adoptable standards in highways design.
Environmental Protection (May 2013)
3.28 This SPD explains that it relates to Core Strategy Policy QE6 Environment and Amenity Protection. The SPD gives specific guidance on aspects of environmental protection including air quality, light pollution and noise pollution.
Warrington Borough Council’s Proposed Submission Version Local Plan
3.29 As set out in the Statement of Common Ground on planning matters, Warrington Borough Council’s Proposed Submission Version Local Plan (PSVLP) Regulation 19 consultation closed in June 19. There is no proposal for the PLR in the Plan and no proposal for release of Green Belt land in Warrington through which the PLR would run.
6354.12.018 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 14
3.30 Around 3,500 representations were made and submission of the Local Plan for examination had been programmed for late 2020. On 2nd October 2020 Warrington Borough Council confirmed that work on the Local Plan has been delayed until summer 2021. It is agreed that very limited weight can be attached to the Warrington PSVLP.
National Planning Policy
NPPF Chapter 2: Sustainable Development
3.31 Paragraph 8 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) explains the three overarching objectives which are economic, social and environmental. The economic objective is to help build a strong, responsive and competitive economy. This involves ensuring sufficient land of the right types is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth. It also includes identifying and coordinating the provision of infrastructure.
3.32 The social objective includes supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities.
3.33 The environmental objective is to contribute to protecting and enhancing the natural, built and historic environment. It includes mitigating and adapting to climate change, including moving to a low carbon economy.
3.34 Paragraph 9 of the (NPPF) states that planning decisions should play an active role in guiding development towards sustainable solutions, but in doing so should take local circumstances into account to reflect the character, needs and opportunities of each area. Paragraph 11 states that planning decisions should apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development. This means approving development proposals that accord with an up-to-date development plan without delay; or where the development plan is absent, silent or out of date planning permission should be granted unless the application of policies in the NPPF that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed; or any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole.
3.35 Paragraph 12 of the NPPF clarifies that the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making. Where a planning application conflicts with an up-
6354.12.018 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 15
to-date development plan, permission should not normally be granted. Local planning authorities may take decisions that depart from an up-to-date development plan, but only if material considerations in a particular case indicate that the plan should not be followed.
3.36 I consider other particularly relevant aspects of NPPF below.
NPPF Chapter 4 Decision-making
3.37 Paragraph 48 explains that local planning authorities can give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans considering three aspects. One is the stage of preparation of the emerging plan with the more advanced the plan’s preparation, the greater weight to be given. A further aspect is the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies, with the less significant the unresolved objections, the greater weight can be given. The third aspect is the degree of consistency of relevant policies to the Framework: the closer the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given.
3.38 Paragraph 49 explains that arguments that an application is premature are unlikely to justify a refusal of planning permission other an in the limited circumstances where both:
a) the development proposed is so substantial, or its cumulative effect would be so significant that to grant permission would undermine the plan-making process by predetermining decisions about the scale, location or phasing of new development that are central to an emerging plan; and b) the emerging plan is at an advanced stage but is not yet formally part of the development plan for the area.
NPPF Chapter 6: Building a strong, competitive economy
3.39 The Inspector has set out that a main issue to be identified is the extent to which the proposed development would be consistent with Government policies for building a strong, competitive economy as set out in NPPF Chapter 6.
6354.12.018 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 16
3.40 Paragraph 80 of NPPF states that planning policies and decisions should help create conditions in which businesses can invest, expand and adapt with significant weight placed on the need to support economic growth and productivity.
3.41 Paragraph 81 sets out at sub-paragraph c) that planning policies should seek to address potential barriers to investment such as inadequate infrastructure.
3.42 Paragraph 82 of the NPPF highlights that "planning policies and decisions should help create conditions which support business expansion, investment and adaptation." It requires that planning policies and decisions should recognise and address specific location requirements of different sectors, including making provision for storage and distribution operations at a variety of scales and in suitably accessible locations.
NPPF Chapter 9: Promoting sustainable transport
3.43 Paragraph 102 sets out that transport issues should be considered from the earliest stages of plan-making and development proposals to achieve a number of objectives. These include that the potential impacts of development on transport networks can be addressed and so that opportunities from existing or proposed transport infrastructure and changing transport technology and usage are realised. Opportunities to promote walking, cycling and public transport use should be identified and pursued and the appropriate opportunities for avoiding ad mitigating any adverse effects, and for net environmental gains, should be identified, assessed and takin into account.
3.44 NPPF Paragraph 104 clause c) requires that planning policies should: ‘identify and protect, where there is robust evidence, sites and routes which could be critical in developing infrastructure to widen transport choice and realise opportunities for large scale development’. Clause e) states that planning policies: ‘should provide for any large scale transport facilities that need to be located in the area and the infrastructure and wider development required to support their operation, expansion and contribution to the wider economy. In doing so they should take in to account whether such development is likely to be a nationally significant infrastructure project and any relevant national policy statements.’
6354.12.018 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 17
NPPF Chapter 13 Protecting Green Belt Land
3.45 The Inspector has identified that a main issue is the acceptability of the PLR in principle, having regard to the extent to which the proposed development is consistent with Government policies for protecting Green Belt land, referring to NPPF Chapter 13 and questions of inappropriate and not inappropriate development; openness and purposes of the Green Belt.
3.46 Paragraph 133 of NPPF confirms the great importance attached to Green Belt, the fundamental aim of preventing urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open and that the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and permanence.
3.47 The five purposes of Green Belt are set out at NPPF paragraph 134 and I address each of those when considering the effects of the PLR against them in Chapter 5.0 of my evidence.
3.48 Paragraph 145 sets out that the construction of new buildings comprises inappropriate development in the Green Belt with exceptions. The PLR is not a building and the forms of building that it would facilitate in Parkside Phase 2 and the SRFI would not be exceptions.
3.49 Paragraph 146 explains that other forms of development are not inappropriate in the Green Belt and these include: b) engineering operations and c) local transport infrastructure which can demonstrate a requirement for a Green Belt location, provided that they preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it. I consider that the PLR will not preserve openness and I later identify some harm to purposes of Green Belt. Accordingly, I consider that the PLR is not an exception and it comprises inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
3.50 NPPF paragraph 143 sets out that in appropriate development by definition is harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Paragraph 144 sets out that planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt and that ‘very special circumstances’ referenced in paragraph 143 will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.
6354.12.018 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 18
NPPF Chapter 15: Conserving and enhancing the natural environment
3.51 Paragraph 170 seeks to protect and enhance ‘valued landscapes’; to minimise impacts on biodiversity; and to prevent new development from contributing to unacceptable levels of pollution.
3.52 Paragraph 174 seeks to promote the conservation, restoration, and re-creation of priority habitats and identify and pursue measurable net gains for biodiversity. Paragraphs 175-177 explain the principles local planning authorities should apply when determining planning applications where there would be significant harm to biodiversity; adverse effect on a Site of Special Scientific Interest, loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats; in the case of development whose primary objective is to conserve or enhance biodiversity; and for development on European designated sites.
3.53 Paragraphs 178-183 address ground conditions and pollution. Paragraph 181 requires that decisions sustain and contribute toward compliance with relevant values or national objections for pollutants, taking into account Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) and Clean Air Zones.
NPPF: Chapter 16: Conserving and enhancing the historic environment
3.54 Chapter 16 of the Framework addresses conserving and enhancing the historic environment and much of that chapter considers designated heritage assets. However, the importance of non-designated heritage assets is acknowledged and paragraph 184 of the Framework explains that assets include sites and buildings of local historic value. Paragraph 189 outlines that the applicant of a proposal should sufficiently describe the significance of any heritage asset affected, including any contribution made by their setting as part of a planning application. It notes that the heritage assets should be assessed using heritage expertise where necessary. Paragraph 190 and paragraph 192 relate to the approach local planning authorities should take when identifying and assessing the significance of heritage assets and the contribution of new development to the local character and distinctiveness of the heritage asset. Paragraph 193 explains that great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation when considering the impact of development on the significance of a designated heritage asset and ‘the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be’. Paragraph 194 states that any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset should require clear and convincing justification. Paragraph 196 explains that where a development proposal will lead to ‘less than substantial harm
6354.12.018 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 19
to the significance of a designated heritage asset’, that harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal (including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use).
3.55 Paragraph 197 requires that where weighing applications that directly or indirectly affect non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.
6354.12.018 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 20
4.0 PLR AND GREEN BELT POLICY
4.1 The PLR proposal is to construct a new road within the Green Belt. Chapter 13 of NPPF addresses protection of Green Belt land. Paragraph 143 of NPPF states that inappropriate development is by definition harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Paragraph 146 sets out some forms of development which are not inappropriate in the Green Belt and these include the category of engineering operations and the category of local transport infrastructure which can demonstrate a requirement for a Green Belt location.
4.2 Construction of the PLR comprises an engineering operation although its enduring presence and use by traffic would not comprise an engineering operation.
4.3 The PLR is local transport infrastructure and Mr Roberts explains in his evidence that all of the options identified and evaluated passed through Green Belt. To this extent, the PLR may comprise development which is not inappropriate in the Green Belt. However, paragraph 146 sets out that the categories identified are not inappropriate development provided that they preserve the Green Belt’s openness and do not conflict with the purpose of including land within the Green Belt.
4.4 I consider that there will be harm to openness of the Green Belt from the PLR and from secondary effects and explain this in Section 5.0 of my evidence. I consider that there will be some limited harm openness and to a purpose of Green Belt. This leads me to conclude that if the PLR is considered as local transport infrastructure, it would be inappropriate development because it would not preserve the Green Belt’s openness and there would be some harm to the purposes of Green Belt.
4.5 NPPF Paragraph 144 requires that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. It explains that ‘very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.
4.6 There will be harm to the Green Belt from the PLR. Further, it is intended to support employment development on land presently in the Green Belt. In its Statement of Case, St Helens Council notes that the secondary effects of this employment development, comprising harm to the Green Belt and ‘other harm’, need to be taken into account in the planning balance.
6354.12.018 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 21
4.7 In the Planning Statement which accompanied the applications, the economic benefits that are forecast to arise from the development facilitated by the PLR were set out as considerations of substantial weight in its favour. It seems to me appropriate that these should be balanced against the harm that would occur to Green Belt and other harm that may arise if those developments proceed, insofar as these can be forecast from information presently available.
4.8 This harm to the Green Belt from secondary effects would arise on land in St Helens Borough and not within Warrington.
Green Belt Policy in St Helens Development Plan
St Helens Core Strategy 2012
Policy CSS1 4.9 Policy CSS1 sets out the overall spatial strategy and notes at clause vii) that ‘The general extent of the Green Belt as indicated on the Core Strategy Key Diagram will be maintained in the short to medium term. The detailed Green Belt boundary is shown on the Proposals Map. Any strategic review of the Green Belt will be dependent on work carried out at the subregional level’. Clause viii states that ‘An area of land in the Green Belt, principally based on the former Parkside Colliery, is identified as a strategic location for a Strategic Rail Freight Interchange. Subject to an appropriate scheme being fully developed on site, which meets policy CAS 3.2, the land will then be considered favourably for removal from the Green Belt through the Allocations DPD’.
4.10 The St Helens Core Strategy Key Diagram on (CD-2.2 p 36 Figure 5.1) is in my Appendix 1 and shows the Parkside site on the lower right of the drawing set within the Green Belt.
4.11 This policy anticipates that development will proceed on the Parkside site prior to its removal from Green Belt. The Inspector’s Report into the Examination of the Core Strategy (CD 2.10) acknowledged the representations made against the identification of the Parkside site. However, considering the soundness of policy relating to Parkside, the Inspector notes at paragraph 44 of the Report that: ‘it is to my mind a reasonable planning assumption that, notwithstanding the level of local opposition to an SRFI, the benefits of such a scheme could potentially outweigh the harm it would cause to the
6354.12.018 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 22
Green Belt and any other harm and could potentially represent the sustainable development advocated by national policy. Thus, it is sound for the CS to identify the Parkside site as a strategic location with the potential for development as an SRFI, subject to the demonstration of the ‘very special circumstances’ necessary to permit inappropriate development in the Green Belt, whilst otherwise protecting the land as Green Belt’. (emphasis added)
Policy CAS 3.2 4.12 Policy CAS 3.2. (Development of a Strategic Rail Freight Interchange (SRFI) at the Former Parkside Colliery) identifies the former colliery site west of the M6 as a strategic location for an SRFI and acknowledges that land to the east of the M6 may also be required. The policy was formulated based on the evidence base available at the time it was prepared and was linked to a planning application for SRFI. That application was withdrawn prior to the adoption of the Core Strategy as a result of economic circumstances as Mr Littler sets out in his evidence.
4.13 The justification for policy CAS 3.2 on pages 69 – 75 of the Core Strategy (CD 2.2) explains reasoning, noting high demand at that time, absence of alternative sites and the very specific locational advantages of the Parkside site. These are described by Mr Littler in his evidence and comprise the proximity of the M6 and M62 along with the north-south West Coast Main Line (WCML) railway and the east-west Chat Moss Line railway.
4.14 Policy CAS 3.2 sets out the aspirations for the SRFI and was driven by an identified development need, based on national policy aspirations catering for Strategic Rail Freight development (2012 Framework, CD 5.158, paragraph 31). The policy details a number of criteria to be met and tested by a planning application. Criterion 1 requires that development meets national Green Belt planning policy tests, including the demonstration of very special circumstances. Criterion 2 sets out that a future application would need to demonstrate that ‘Direct access to the site from the M6 for HGVs can be obtained avoiding use of Traffic Sensitive Routes identified in the Network Management Plan’ and that ‘Adverse impacts on the Strategic Road Network will be mitigated.’
6354.12.018 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 23
St Helens UDP 1998
Saved Policy S1
4.15 Policy S1 sets out the Green Belt, including the application site in St Helens and that it will be maintained to address four purposes. These are consistent with those at NPPF paragraph 134 although the purpose to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns does not appear.
Saved Policy GB1 4.16 Policies GB1 and GB2 set out General Criteria for Development Control in the Green Belt. GB1 refers at clause (a) to new buildings and refers to types of development permitted and the need for very special circumstances to be demonstrated for other buildings. Clause (b) refers to planning permission for mineral extraction, engineering and other operations and material changes in the use of land. This clause sets out that planning permission will not be granted unless the proposal meets the following criteria: (i) does not conflict with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt; (ii) maintains openness; (iii) so far as possible contributes to the achievement of objectives for the use of land in the Green Belt; (sub-clause (iv) is applicable to mining operations and so is not relevant).
4.17 Policy GB 1 clause b) does not refer to very special circumstances allowing an exception to the criteria set out and so is not consistent with NPPF paragraph 149.
Saved Policy GB2 4.18 Policy GB2 sets out criteria against which development will be judged requires a balanced judgement against specified criteria. Criteria (i) requires that a new building must be “appropriate in terms of its siting, design, materials and landscaping and does not detract from the appearance and openness of the Green Belt”. There is no reference to ‘very special circumstances’ test set out in NPPF 2019. The policy relates back to GB1 but, as noted above, that does not reference a ‘very special circumstances’ test for development other than buildings. I consider Policy GB2 is not consistent with NPPF.
Green Belt Policy in Warrington’s Development Plan
6354.12.018 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 24
Warrington Core Strategy
Policy CS5 4.19 Policy CS5 sets out that the Green Belt in Warrington will be maintained as shown on the Policies Map (CD 2.8) for as far as can be seen ahead and at least until 2032, recognising its purposes. The purpose to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns which is set out in NPPF does not appear in the policy. The policy requires that development proposals in the Green Belt will be approved where they accord with relevant national policy and so is consistent with NPPF
Summary of Green Belt Policy
4.20 In summary, accepting that the PLR will cause harm to the Green Belt, national planning policy and local policy consistent with the NPPF requires that it should not be approved except in very special circumstances (NPPF paragraph 143). Very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.
4.21 To consider if very special circumstances exist, it is necessary to consider the harm caused by the PLR, and the secondary effects from the development it is intended to facilitate; it is necessary to consider other harm resulting from the proposal; and to set out other considerations to be weighed in the planning balance.
6354.12.018 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 25
5.0 HARM TO GREEN BELT
5.1 In this part of my evidence I consider the harm to Green Belt that will arise from the PLR. As I noted at the end of Section 4.0 of my evidence, I consider it appropriate to consider the direct harm to the Green Belt from the PLR and also secondary harm that would arise from development of large scale development on Parkside Phase 2 and the SRFI.
5.2 NPPF paragraph 133 states that ‘The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence.’
5.3 Paragraph 134 of the Framework confirms the five purposes that Green Belt serves: To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; To prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.
5.4 I consider the matter of openness is a professional judgement. Relevant aspects include: How built up the Green Belt is now; How built up it will be if the development occurs; and The visual impact on the aspect of openness which the Green Belt presents.
5.5 Planning Practice Guidance on Green Belt (Paragraph: 001 Reference ID: 64-001- 20190722 Revision date: 22 07 2019) (CD 3.20) gives examples of matters which may need to be taken into account in assessing effects on openness. These include: Spatial dimension Visual dimension Duration and remediability Degree of activity including traffic generation
6354.12.018 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 26
Harm to St Helens Green Belt
5.6 The St Helens Green Belt has not substantially altered since its designation in 1983. The 'Land at Former Parkside Colliery' was referenced in the St Helens Green Belt Review (CD 3.5) as GBP_039 and GBP_041 stated as comprising 223.69ha. St Helens Green Belt Assessment assesses the entire St Helens Green Belt by splitting this into parcels and sub-parcels. The review proposes to remove this land from the Green Belt through the emerging Local Plan process as I have explained in Chapter 4.0 of my evidence with reference to St Helens Core Strategy policies.
Harm to Openness of the St Helens Green Belt
Harm to Openness of the St Helens Green Belt from the PLR 5.7 The western part of the Proposed Scheme’s development area in Green Belt comprises the former Parkside Colliery site with its road access off the A49. The former colliery site contains large areas of hardstanding and areas of bare colliery spoil. There is an electricity substation and high voltage overhead lines supported by pylons which cross the former colliery site. The former colliery site demonstrates that part of the land to which this application relates accommodated a large development in the past, whilst maintaining a Green Belt role. There has been and there remain some aspects of built development on this part of the Green Belt.
5.8 The remaining parts of the Proposed Scheme area comprise agricultural land, interspersed by farmsteads, minor roads, A roads and the M6 motorway. It is primarily open land and land to the east of the M6 motorway is the most open land.
5.9 When considering how built up the land will be if the PLR is constructed, it is relevant that the road is a development that will take place at the ground surface. It does not have walls or roofs that will enclose volumes of space which formerly were open. This relates to the spatial aspect of openness identified in PPG. Existing major roads and associated lighting columns, signage and other elements interrupt open farmland outside of the former colliery. The Green Belt designation washes over these as is commonly the case.
5.10 The Proposed Scheme will have an adverse effect on the openness of the Green Belt in St Helens. The PLR will introduce hardstanding forming new carriageway, roundabout and road junctions, and the associated 10m high lighting columns and
6354.12.018 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 27
moving traffic. However, roads frequently are washed over by Green Belt and are a common occurrence in the Green Belt. The PLR will have a low level of effect on openness, particularly as compared to a new building or group of buildings in the Green Belt, when considering the spatial aspect.
5.11 The design of the PLR has sought to minimise effects on openness by introducing new structures through using existing infrastructure of the junction off the A49 and the section of the A573 Parkside Road including the M6 overbridge. Mr Bayliss sets this out in his evidence. The PLR application’s Landscape Strategy (CD 5.7) demonstrates the extensive planting to reduce the landscape and visual impact of the Proposed Scheme.
5.12 The perceived effects of the link road on openness in St Helens are limited by its route being partially through the former colliery site. Views toward this part of the new link road from public viewpoints beyond largely would be screened or filtered by a combination of intervening built form at the eastern extent of Newton-le-Willows and lining the A49, existing tree cover within and at the boundaries of the colliery site, and the colliery spoil mound which the link road would pass through within a cutting.
5.13 The effect of the new link road on the openness of the Green Belt further to the east would be more readily perceived from some public viewpoints where the localised screening effects of hedgerow and other vegetation do not restrict views. These public viewpoints include a short section of the M6 motorway, the section of the A573 Parkside Road close to and within the application site, the Public Right of Way (Barrow Lane) between the A573 Parkside Road and A579 Winwick Lane, and the section of the A579 Winwick Lane close to and within the application site.
5.14 Transport infrastructure already is apparent in these views, including the lighting columns along the M6 motorway and at junction 22, and these have a very limited effect on a perception of openness.
5.15 The PLR as a stand-alone development will take traffic from the existing road network and development sites. Traffic will be visible and its movement will attract attention. However, the activity will be confined to the road and will be traffic displaced from elsewhere because the PLR does not generate traffic movements of itself. Mr Roberts’ evidence explains that much of the traffic activity on the PLR on opening will be
6354.12.018 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 28
displaced from other roads which pass through or close to the Green Belt and already have visual effects.
5.16 The overall effect from a visual aspect, taking into account activity of traffic, will be low. Considered as a stand-alone development, the openness of Green Belt on each side of the PLR will clearly remain visible and apparent as is the case for existing roads in the Green Belt.
5.17 The PLR will be a long-term presence. It is feasible to remediate harm by break out and remove a road carriageway and restore land to a completely open state. However, this generally occurs on redundant stretches of road when new roads are built. The PLR will be a presence in the Green Belt for a long duration.
5.18 Taking account of the spatial and visual aspects, the duration and remediability and the activity from traffic, as advised in PPG, there will be an adverse effect on openness. This will be limited for the reasons set out above.
Harm to Openness of St Helens Green Belt from Secondary Effects
5.19 There are no planning applications presently submitted for developments at Parkside 2 and Parkside SRFI which would be facilitated by the PLR. However, the Parkside Phase 1 application includes an illustrative layout of how Parkside Phase 2 may be developed (CD 4.15). As Mr Littler and Mr Sandwell explain in their evidence, rail freight developer iSec is developing proposals for SRFI and rail-related development and has submitted a representation to the inquiry which includes an indicative layout. These layouts are consistent with the Site Profiles for the Parkside Site at Appendix 5 of the St Helens Local Plan Submission Draft (CD 3.18 pages 224-225).
5.20 The two developments would involve relatively tall buildings of large footprints and Mr Sandwell explains in his evidence that market demand is for these large buildings. The buildings will accommodate distribution uses by road and rail and so are likely to be around 20m high or taller. Although there will be open areas including hard standing, sidings and possibly open storage, the buildings will have a large adverse effect on openness of the Green Belt.
6354.12.018 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 29
Harm to Permanence of the St Helens Green Belt
Harm to Permanence of the St Helens Green Belt from the PLR 5.21 Development in Green Belt harms its permanence because introducing development diminishes it.
5.22 If the PLR is introduced as a stand-alone development, I do not envisage it would lead to removal of the Green Belt designation from the land. As I have noted, Green Belt designation frequently washes over many roads including the M6 and M62 motorways and it would wash over the PLR. The designation would remain unless and until changes to one or both development plans take place in accordance with the Framework.
5.23 There would be very limited harm to permanence of the Green Belt caused by the PLR as a stand-alone development.
Harm to Permanence of St Helens Green Belt from Secondary Effects 5.24 Development of Parkside 2 and the SRFI along the lines of the indicative layouts available would lead to large adverse harm to the permanence of Green Belt. It is clear from adopted and emerging policy that the development would lead to the removal of land from the Green Belt.
Harm to Purposes of the St Helens Green Belt
Harm to Purposes of the St Helens Green Belt from the PLR
5.25 The Framework at paragraph 134 explains the five purposes of including land in the Green Belt are of principal importance to its protection.
Purpose 1: To Check the Unrestricted Sprawl of Large Built Up Areas
5.26 The St Helens Green Belt Review identifies that GBP_039 lies 420m west of the built- up area of Newton-le-Willows and is dislocated from the urban area. The parcel boundaries consist of dense woodland and the Chat Moss railway line to the north, agricultural land to the east, the A579 Winwick Lane to the south and the M6 to the west. The parcel is well-contained along three boundaries, but open to the east. The assessment states that due to the size of the parcel and its lack of connection to the
6354.12.018 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 30
built-up area, development of the parcel could lead to unrestricted sprawl and therefore the parcel makes a high contribution to this purpose.
5.27 The Green Belt Review identifies that GBP_41 is adjacent to the built-up area of Newton-le-Willows. The parcel is well contained, as the boundaries consist of the West Coast Main Line and Chat Moss railway line to the north, the M6 and agricultural land to the east, dense woodland and Hermitage Green Lane to the south and the West Coast Main Line and the A49 to the west. The parcel is assessed as making a medium contribution to this purpose due to the brownfield nature of the site and strong boundaries, as it is considered development of the parcel would not lead to unrestricted sprawl.
5.28 The PLR as a stand-alone development will not lead to sprawl and will not set a precedent for further encroachment as it is of a singularly unique type and use.
5.29 There would be adverse effects from the Phase 2 and SRFI development as these would introduce large scale development as I describe earlier. On Parkside West, the existing physical features of the M6, former colliery spoil heap, A49 and A579 act as natural boundaries that would limit the effects of potential sprawl.
5.30 The development facilitated by the PLR on the more open land east of the M6 would clearly appear as built form but would stand alone in an identified location and would not appear as unrestricted sprawl. It would not harm this purpose of land in the Green Belt.
Purpose 2: To Prevent Neighbouring Towns from Merging into One Another
5.31 The St Helens Green Belt Review identifies that GBP_039 and GBP_41 do not fall within a strategic gap between two towns and therefore make a low contribution to this purpose. A strategic gap could be maintained between Winwick and Newton-le- Willows if GBP_41 was developed.
5.32 The settlement of Hermitage Green is washed over by Green Belt and the M6 provides a defensible boundary to prevent merging. The PLR as a stand-alone development would not lead to any perception of lack of separation between towns.
6354.12.018 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 31
5.33 The secondary effects from Parkside Phase 2 and the SRFI development would not result in the merging of any settlements due to the size of the gap. The PLR would not have any impact upon this Green Belt purpose in St Helens.
Purpose 3: To Assist in Safeguarding the Countryside from Encroachment
5.34 St Helens Green Belt Assessment CD 3.5 states GBP_039 contains very little inappropriate development, and has a strong sense of countryside character and openness. This is particularly evident when looking eastwards and southwards however the M6 to the west, A579 to the south and A573 do impact on the countryside character. This parcel is identified as making a high contribution to this purpose of the Green Belt.
5.35 The assessment of GBP_41 states that the development of the parcel would extend the built-up area of Newton-le-Willows into the countryside. The strong boundaries around the parcel would however ensure this is contained, and along with the brownfield nature of approximately 30% of the parcel, it is considered there is not a strong sense of openness or character. The parcel makes a medium contribution to this purpose, however the proposed PLR would not result in the extension and joining of Newton-le-Willows and the Green Belt in this area.
5.36 The site combines a mixture of land uses. Land to the east of the M6 is characterised by agricultural farmland with land to the west comprising a combination of previously developed land, a large mound and self-seeded trees and grassland. The previous land use as a colliery covers part of the site, with the remainder of the site greenfield. The previously developed site has not functioned as ‘countryside’ historically and the previous land use as a colliery and the close proximity of the M6 is evident in the landscape.
5.37 Development on the east of the M6 would be seen as encroaching on countryside and would cause harm to this purpose.
5.38 Overall, the application site does not make a strong contribution to this Green Belt purpose in St Helens. The PLR would cause limited harm to this purpose but the secondary effects of development, particularly to the east of the M6 would cause harm.
6354.12.018 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 32
Purpose 4: To Preserve the Setting and Special Character of Historic Towns
5.39 The land in St Helens affected by the PLR and by other development which it would facilitate does not comprise or contribute to the setting and special character of any historic town; this is acknowledged in the St Helens Green Belt Assessment (CD 3.5).
5.40 There would not be harm caused to this Green Belt purpose directly from the PLR or as a secondary effect from development of Parkside 2 and the SRFI.
Purpose 5: To Assist in Urban Regeneration, by Encouraging the Recycling of Derelict and other Urban Land
5.41 The site of the proposed PLR is in part previously developed land. The road will unlock the development potential of the site leading to the recycling of this previously developed land, with Phase 2 of the Parkside Regeneration unable to come forward without the development of the Parkside Link Road. The application for Phase 1 has been submitted, and whilst the PLR is not required to deliver Phase 1, it will benefit the scheme as traffic utilises the PLR and not the existing road network.
5.42 Parkside East is not derelict or other urban land.
5.43 The PLR will assist directly in encouraging recycling derelict land comprising the former colliery site of Parkside Phase 2.
Harm to Warrington’s Green Belt
5.44 WBC Core Strategy Policy CS5 states that the general extent of the Green Belt will be maintained for as far as can be seen ahead and at least until 2032. Land within WBC will remain in the Green Belt and the same policy restrictions will apply with respect to any future proposed development. There would be direct effects on Warrington’s Green Belt from the PLR and none of the development facilitated by the road is in Warrington’s Green Belt.
5.45 Warrington Borough Council (WBC) undertook a Green Belt Assessment in 2016 (CD 3.14). It assesses the Green Belt at two levels. The first is the General Area (GA)
6354.12.018 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 33
assessment, which covers large areas of Green Belt, and the second are smaller parcel assessments.
5.46 The part of Warrington’s Green Belt in which the PLR would be built is shown at Drawings A6354.12.001 and A6354.12.002 in my Appendix 1. General Area 20 shown on Drawing A6354.12.001 is a large area of land north of Winwick and with the settlement of Hermitage Green washed over in the Green Belt. The PLR would run across part of this parcel west from Parkside Road, with the red line boundary also slightly to the east of Parkside Road.
5.47 General Area 1 comprises a large area of land northeast of the M6 and east of the A570 road beyond junction 22 of the M6. The PLR would involve small incursions into the most northwestern part of Area 1 immediately off the A579.
5.48 Part of General Area 20 was identified in Warrington’s Green Belt Assessment as Parcel WI7 to the east of the A573 as shown on Drawing A6354.12.001.
Harm to Openness of the Warrington Green Belt
5.49 As described in reference to St Helens earlier in my evidence, the PLR will be a development at the ground surface and not enclosing volumes of space. It is similar to existing major roads and associated lighting columns, signage and other elements. The Green Belt designation washes over these as is commonly the case.
5.50 The PLR will introduce hardstanding forming new carriageway, roundabout and road junctions, and the associated 10m high lighting columns and moving traffic. The PLR will have a low level of effect on openness, particularly as compared to a new building or group of buildings in the Green Belt, when considering the spatial aspect.
5.51 The PLR’s Landscape Strategy (CD 5.7) demonstrates the extensive planting to reduce the landscape and visual impact of the Proposed Scheme.
5.52 Transport infrastructure already is apparent in views which will be affected by the PLR. The PLR as a stand-alone development will take traffic from the existing road network and development sites. Traffic will be visible and its movement will attract attention. However, the activity will be confined to the road and as Mr Roberts sets out it will be
6354.12.018 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 34
traffic displaced from other roads which pass through or close to the Green Belt and already have visual effects.
5.53 The overall effect from a visual aspect, taking into account activity of traffic, will be low. The openness of Green Belt on each side of the PLR in Warrington will clearly remain visible and apparent as is the case for existing roads in the Green Belt.
5.54 As described in relation to St Helens Green Belt the PLR will be a presence in the Green Belt for a long duration and effectively permanent.
5.55 Taking account of the spatial and visual aspects, the duration and remediability and the activity from traffic, as advised in PPG, there will be a limited adverse effect on openness on the Warrington Green Belt.
Harm to Permanence of Warrington’s Green Belt
5.56 I have noted that a Green Belt designation frequently washes over many roads including the M6 and M62 motorways and it would wash over the PLR in Warrington’s Green Belt which would remain on each side. It would not cause harm to the permanence of the Green Belt.
Harm to Purposes of Warrington’s Green Belt
Purpose 1: To Check the Unrestricted Sprawl of Large Built Up Areas
5.57 The Warrington Green Belt Assessment (CD 3.14) identifies that GA20 and WI7 make no contribution to this purpose of Green Belt as they are not adjacent to the Warrington urban area. However, GA1 is assessed as making a moderate contribution to this purpose. The assessment states that the M62 forms a durable boundary to the south of the general area which could prevent sprawl, and this is the only connection the general area has to the built up area. The PLR would be to the northern boundary of GA1 and would not be considered to impact on this purpose.
Purpose 2: To Prevent Neighbouring Towns from Merging into One Another
5.58 Warrington Green Belt Assessment states that GA20 makes a weak contribution to this Green Belt purpose as this general area forms a less-essential gap between the
6354.12.018 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 35
Warrington urban area and Newton-le-Willows. The assessment states that although reduction in the gap would reduce the actual distances between the towns, it would not result in them merging due to the presence of the M62 and the Green Belt separation between Newton-le-Willows and the administrative boundary.
5.59 GA1 was assessed as making a strong contribution to this purpose, as it forms an essential gap between the Warrington urban area and Culcheth. However, the assessment stated that the northern section of the general area, within which the PLR would run, could be developed without the merging of the towns.
5.60 WI7 was assessed as making a moderate contribution to this Green Belt purpose and forming a largely essential gap between the Warrington urban area and Newton-le- Willows. Development of this parcel would reduce the actual and perceived gap, although would not result in them merging. Given the location of the PLR on the extreme edge of this parcel and its characteristics as a road it would not result in the merging of the settlements.
5.61 A purpose of the Green Belt is to maintain separation between towns. The PLR as a stand-alone development would not lead to any perception of lack of separation between towns.
Purpose 3: To Assist in Safeguarding the Countryside from Encroachment
5.62 The Warrington Green Belt assessment identified GA20 as making a strong contribution to this purpose. The M6 and A49 form a durable boundary between GA20 and the countryside and the northern boundary of the parcel is the administrative boundary of the Borough. The existing land use is identified as being predominately farm buildings. GA20 is assessed as supporting a strong degree of openness with less than 5% built form and low levels of vegetation.
5.63 GA1 is assessed as making a moderate contribution to this purpose, with durable boundaries between the general area and the urban area. Winwick Lane forms a durable boundary between the general area and the countryside which could prevent encroachment beyond the general area. The existing land use is predominantly open countryside, although the general area includes washed over villages (New Lane End and Fowley Common). GA1 supports only a weak-moderate degree of openness due to the presence of the washed over villages.
6354.12.018 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 36
5.64 WI7 is identified as making a strong contribution to this purpose as the boundaries to the settlement are not durable, whilst the boundaries to the countryside are durable, consisting of Parkside Road to the west, Waterworks Lane and the A49 to the east and the M6 to the north. These boundaries would prevent any encroachment beyond the parcel. The existing land use is open countryside in agricultural use, with residential properties in Hermitage Green to the North West as well as some farms. The parcel supports a strong degree of openness due to its flat topography, dense vegetation around the boundaries and long line views.
5.65 Overall, the application site does not make a strong contribution to this Green Belt purpose in Warrington and the PLR would cause little harm to this purpose.
Purpose 4: To Preserve the Setting and Special Character of Historic Towns
5.66 Warrington Green Belt Assessment (CD 3.14) identifies that GA20, GA1 and parcel WI7 make no contribution to this purpose of Green Belt. The assessment considers that Warrington is an historic town, however the General Areas are not with 250m of the Conservation Area and none of the areas cross important viewpoints of the Parish Church.
5.67 The PLR would cause no harm to this Green Belt purpose.
Purpose 5: To Assist in Urban Regeneration, by Encouraging the Recycling of Derelict and other Urban Land
5.68 The short section of the PLR proposed in Warrington’s Green Belt provides support to the recycling of derelict land of part of the former Parkside Colliery. The PLR will contribute to this Green Belt purpose.
Summary of Green Belt Harm
5.69 I conclude that there would harm to the Green Belt from the PLR including from the secondary effects of development facilitated. There would be limited harm from the PLR to openness of the Green Belt in Warrington and St Helens because of the nature of the development comprising a road. There would be more profound harm to
6354.12.018 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 37
openness in St Helens Green Belt from the secondary effects of building out Parkside Phase 2 and the SRFI with large buildings.
5.70 The PLR would not cause direct harm to the permanence of the Green Belt because it comprises a form of development generally washed over by the designation and land on either side of it would continue to function as Green Belt. However, the secondary effects of development of Parkside Phase 2 and the SRFI would cause harm to the permanence of the St Helens Green Belt.
5.71 There would be harm caused to Purpose 3 To Safeguard the Countryside from Encroachment. The PLR would cause relatively low harm to the Green Belt of St Helens and Warrington but there would be harm caused to the Green Belt of St Helens by the large encroachment on the countryside from the SRFI.
5.72 This harm to the Green Belt must be afforded substantial weight in the planning balance.
6354.12.018 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 38
6.0 ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
6.1 This section considers the compliance of the PLR with the development plan. In considering compliance, I have had regard to the High Court Judgement Tiviot Way Investments Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (CO/774/2015 EWHC 2489 (Admin)) 21st July 2015 (CD 6.1). I consider that the appropriate test is one of whether conflict with any individual policy in the Development Plan means that the scheme proposals are or are not in accordance with the Development Plan ‘as a whole’.
6.2 I consider this approach is especially relevant in St Helens as I identify that the PLR is supported by some aspects of policy but causes harm in regard to others.
6.3 I acknowledge that an important purpose of the PLR is to facilitate the development of Parkside Phase 2 and the SRFI. Effects will arise from those developments which I consider below as ‘Secondary Effects’.
6.4 In considering compliance with the development plan, I consider whether there are matters which are neutral; matters which comprise ‘other harm’ that will arise from the development; and other matters which are positive and support the development. I summarise my consideration in Tables 6.1 and 6.2 which follow my analysis.
6.5 I consider matters grouped by relevant aspects related to policy and consider the St Helens Development Plan and the Warrington Development Plan in turn.
St Helens Development Plan
6.6 As detailed in Section 3.0 the St Helens development plan comprises relevant policies from the following: Core Strategy Local Plan (adopted October 2012); and
Saved Policies of the 1998 Unitary Development Plan.
Joint Waste Local Plan (2013)
6354.12.018 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 39
Economic Development
6.7 The St Helens spatial vision is to make St Helens a modern, distinctive and economically prosperous Borough. The vision seeks to move St Helens forward from its industrial legacy creating new employment opportunities to deliver economic growth and in turn increase the attractiveness of the Borough as a place to work, live and visit.
6.8 St Helens Core Strategy seeks to direct the majority of development to the main urban settlements (St Helens, Haydock and Newton-le-Willows) which benefit from having a greater concentration of previously developed land. These settlements also contain the most deprived areas of the Borough where regeneration is most needed.
6.9 Parkside is a key component of the development strategy as identified in Policies CSS 1 (Overall Spatial Strategy), CE 1 (A Strong and Sustainable Economy) and CAS 3.2 (Development of a Strategic Rail Freight Interchange (SRFI) at the Former Parkside Colliery) specifically for the development of SRFI.
6.10 Policy CE 1 (A Strong and Sustainable Economy) states that the Borough's economic base will be strengthened and diversified through "Supporting the development of a SRFI at Parkside, in line with policy CAS 3.2, to meet a regional or subregional need". The PLR supports this policy by providing infrastructure that will support development to meet the sub-regional need. As explained in Mr Littler’s evidence, this is emphatically acknowledged in the grant of the Liverpool City Region SIF approval.
6.11 Policy CAS 3.1 (Newton-le-Willows and Earlestown Strategy) states that: ’the main focus for industrial activities will continue to be the Sankey Valley Industrial Estate and the Parkside SRFI will have the potential to provide economic benefits however the detail of this is dealt within Policy CAS 3.2.’
6.12 Policy CAS 3.2 (Development of a Strategic Rail Freight Interchange (SRFI) at the Former Parkside Colliery) identifies the overall site as a strategic location for a Strategic Rail Freight Interchange to be delivered at the Former Parkside Colliery. The policy was formulated based on the evidence base available at that time and linked to a planning application (P/2006/1296) for SRFI which was withdrawn prior to the adoption of the Core Strategy.
6354.12.018 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 40
6.13 Policy CAS 3.2 sets out the aspirations for the Strategic Rail Freight and was driven by an identified development need, based on national policy aspirations catering for strategic rail freight development (NPPF 2012, CD 5.158 paragraph 31). The policy details a number of criteria to be met and tested by any ensuing planning application. Criterion 2 requires that "Direct access to the site from the M6 for HGVs can be obtained avoiding use of Traffic Sensitive Routes identified in the Network Management Plan. Adverse impacts on the Strategic Road Network will be mitigated."
6.14 Mr Bayliss sets out in his evidence how the options for the PLR were considered and the matters that led to the selection of the option comprised in the applications. The PLR provides direct access to the Parkside site from the M6 for HGVs and comprises a scheme to mitigate the adverse impacts on the Strategic Road Network. It is consistent with this policy and directly accords with criterion 2 of the policy.
6.15 Policy CIN1 relates to ensuring development occurs in areas where there is infrastructure. The PLR will provide the infrastructure identified as required to deliver development in a location identified for development in the Core Strategy, connecting to existing infrastructure. It complies with this policy.
6.16 Mr Russell sets out in his evidence how the PLR will bring substantial economic benefit from employment during its construction. He explains that there will be work equal to 40 full-time equivalent (FTE) jobs. There will be wider benefits from indirect and induced jobs from construction of the PLR as Mr Russell presents in Table 3 of his evidence. Mr Russell explains that there will be apprenticeship and training opportunities delivered during construction of the PLR. These are positive benefits in support of the scheme.
6.17 The PLR would be consistent with Policy CSS1, CE1, CAS 3.1, CAS 3.2 and CIN1 by facilitating delivery of economic development at the Parkside site. It is consistent with NPPF Paragraph 80 as it will create conditions in which businesses can invest, expand and adapt with significant weight placed on the need to support economic growth and productivity.
6.18 It is consistent with paragraph 81 clause c) of NPPF by its consistency with planning policies that ‘address potential barriers to investment such as inadequate infrastructure’.
6354.12.018 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 41
6.19 The PLR is consistent with NPPF paragraph 104 e) as it provides for large scale transport facilities that need to be located in the area and comprises infrastructure required to support their operation and contribution to the wider economy. It provides for the Parkside SRFI which is a proposed interchange for rail freight supported by the Liverpool City Region which is a strategic policy-making authority (NPPF p32 footnote 42).
Secondary Effects 6.20 Mr Russell explains the anticipated secondary effects of Parkside Phase 2 and the SRFI facilitated by the PLR. He sets out that there would be over 300 FTE jobs from construction of future development, phased over a number of years (Mr Russell, paragraph 3.21). Taking account of net additional impact, the level of construction employment expected to be generated would be of a large beneficial significance (Mr Russell, paragraph 3.26).
6.21 The operation of Parkside Phase 2 and the SRFI will lead to many employment opportunities. Mr Russell estimates that the provision of new employment floorspace through the Parkside Phase 2 and SRFI developments could support the creation of 6,590 gross FTE jobs (PLR/9/A, paragraph 3.31). Mr Russell estimates that Gross Added Value (GVA) from the operation of Parkside Phase 2 and the SRFI will be £391m in St Helens; £417.4m in the Wider Impact Area; and £425.9m in the Liverpool City Region (Mr Russell, Table 9, page 17). This would be an effect of large beneficial significance.
6.22 These beneficial economic effects are material considerations to take forward to the planning balance.
Design
6.23 The Framework sets out policy for achieving well-designed places in Chapter 12, noting at paragraph 124 that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development. St Helens Core Strategy Policy CP1 identifies the minimum design standard for built development in the Borough.
6.24 Mr Bayliss sets out the detail of the PLR’s design in his evidence and how appropriate standards have been followed in its design. The design of the road has been subject
6354.12.018 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 42
of scrutiny and it is common ground between the Applicant and the two highway and planning authorities that the design is appropriate.
6.25 The PLR is to follow natural contours to minimise the effects on the landscape and measures have been taken to include landscaping to reduce the visual intrusion. As is explained below in relation to relevant policy, the PLR includes an ecological mitigation strategy to conserve and enhance habitats, as well as a landscaping strategy to ensure the character and appearance of the local area is maintained and the impacts of the Proposed Scheme are minimised as far as possible and to an acceptable level. The PLR meets relevant design standards and has been considered carefully from options identified. The PLR meets relevant design standards and is compliant with CP1. There is no harm caused by way of its general design, subject to compliance with other relevant policies below.
Secondary Effects 6.26 The design of Parkside Phase 2 and the SRFI will be determined by applicants as these developments come forward. There is no reason why appropriate designs for these developments could not be achieved.
Traffic and Transport
6.27 Policy CP2 (Creating an Accessible St Helens) sets out principles which all proposals should meet in order to provide a realistic choice of travel for all, including access for people with mobility issues. One requirement is that all new proposals should ’reduce the adverse impacts of traffic on the community’ and should do so by ’improving safety and protecting the efficiency of routes by paying regard to the route and road user hierarchies adopted within the LTP [Local Transport Plan] and providing off-site improvements where necessary’ and also by ‘supporting initiatives to reduce congestion, air pollution and noise on key routes.’
6.28 Mr Bayliss explains the design of the PLR and that it includes a footway and cycle path and provides for public transport.
6.29 Mr Roberts sets out in his evidence the way in which the PLR will provide benefit to the road network.
6354.12.018 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 43
6.30 Implementation of the PLR will result in the re-assignment of some existing journeys across the network to use PLR, which reflects a beneficial impact of the proposal. This benefit will extend to some additional trips generated by the Phase 1 of Parkside, which would otherwise add adversely to the network.
6.31 There will be an operational benefit with the PLR at the A49/Hollins Lane junction, the A49/Golborne Road junction and the A49/Winwick Lane Road Roundabout.
6.32 Once mitigation is in place, there will be signalisation of A572/A579 junction and capacity improvements at A49 / Southworth Road junction
6.33 The application is supported by a Transport Assessment which has been updated to be contemporary, taking account of the weight limit restriction recently imposed on the network and the presently anticipated opening date of the PLR. Mr Roberts’ evidence has set out the performance of the PLR and its effects on the highway network. The assessment has concluded overall the Proposed Scheme is not expected to result in significant traffic or transport issues, beyond the existing situation.
6.34 Mitigation has been proposed at the A572 (Southworth Road and Newton Road)/A573 (Parkside Road and Golborne Dale Road) staggered priority junction and the M6 junction 22. The proposed mitigation demonstrates that the junctions would operate within capacity with the Proposed Scheme and future associated development.
6.35 The TA findings for St Helens with regard to effects on traffic flows show that south of the PLR there will be reductions in traffic flows, with an increase in traffic flows to the north of the PLR. Overall construction traffic effects on local residents and vehicle travellers will be neutral.
6.36 For A573 Parkside Road, south of the new PLR there will be a neutral or slight beneficial effect in 2021 and a slight beneficial effect in 2031. There will be a slight beneficial effect for A573 Parkside Road, south of the new PLR in terms of pedestrian and cyclist amenity and for A573 Parkside Road, north of the new PLR there will be a neutral or slight beneficial effect. There will be a slight beneficial effect on PRoW 608 during operation resulting from improvements including a new alternative route to the PRoW and new crossings.
6354.12.018 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 44
6.37 A moderate adverse effect with changes in traffic flows during operation in 2021 and 2031 on A579 Winwick Lane, south of the new PLR (border between St Helens and Warrington) and a slight adverse effect in 2021 and 2021 for A573 Parkside Road, north of the new PLR. A neutral or slight adverse effect in 2021 and 2031 will be experienced on the A573 Parkside Road, north of the new PLR.
6.38 The TA demonstrates that the PLR would not result in an ‘unacceptable impact on highway safety’ nor have a ‘severe’ impact on the operation of the highway network terms of capacity. The TA does not identify any significant adverse effects on the highway network.
Secondary Effects 6.39 Mr Roberts explains that the future scenarios modelled for the PLR include anticipated traffic generated by future development at Parkside 2 and the SRFI and there are no relevant secondary effects from these developments.
Air Quality 6.40 Paragraph 181 of the Framework addresses air quality and notes that decisions should sustain and contribute towards compliance with relevant limit values or national objectives for pollutants, taking into account the presence of Air Quality Management Areas.
6.41 The 2020 Further Environmental Information (CD 5.47) includes an air quality assessment based on the updated Transport Assessment. Mr Harker explains the assessment in his evidence. He concludes:
‘The construction and operational air quality impacts of the PLR have been considered and no significant effects have been identified. The operational air quality impacts and effects have taken account of changes the PLR development timetable and updates to monitoring data, background information and vehicle emission factors. The latest and most up to date modelling assessment has shown no predicted exceedances of AQOs in 2024 or 2034.’
Secondary Effects 6.42 Mr Harker explains that the air quality assessments take full account of future traffic from Parkside Phase 2 and the SRFI. There are no applications for Parkside Phase 2 or the SRFI and so no details about potential emissions to air. However, there are
6354.12.018 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 45
no indications that there would be any emissions during construction or operation that could not be limited to acceptable levels by enforceable planning conditions.
Noise and Vibration 6.43 The need for planning decisions to prevent noise pollution is set out in paragraph 170 e) of the Framework and paragraph 180 a) refers to avoiding noise giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and the quality of life. As in the case of the air quality assessment referenced above, the assessment of noise and vibration in the 2020 Further Environmental Information took account of the updated Transport Assessment.
6.44 Mr Barson addresses this assessment in his evidence. He notes that there will be short term temporary construction noise and vibration impacts and that mitigation where practical has been proposed along with use of Best Practicable Means (PLR/6/A, paragraph 7.4).
6.45 Mr Barson explains that operational noise has been assessed and reported in the 2020 FEI Section 5 in accordance with DMRB LA 111 (CD 5.153). Minor, but not significant impacts were predicted at 2 properties along the A579 Winwick Lane. A roadside noise barrier is proposed to reduce the noise levels from traffic to below the levels currently experienced.
6.46 Mr Barson confirms that a minor but not significant increase in noise level at properties on Parkside Road was predicted. This is mitigated through use of low noise thin surfacing at that location.
6.47 The 2020 FEI captures changes in the predicted road traffic noise levels between the 2016 baseline, 2024 opening year and 2034 future year scenarios. The outcome of this assessment reduces the significance of impact from moderate to minor, but the suggested mitigation measures from the 2018 ES are still proposed and offer reductions in road traffic noise levels, and in the case of the A579 Winwick Lane, to levels less than currently experienced.
6.48 No significant adverse noise effects are identified and the adverse effects comprise a low level of harm.
6354.12.018 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 46
6.49 The Proposed Scheme is consistent with the Framework and is in general accordance with Policy CP2.
Secondary Effects 6.50 Mr Barson explains in his evidence that the noise and vibration assessment includes the predicted traffic from Parkside Phase 2 and the SRFI. He notes that residential amenity at sensitive receptors can be secured through suitable planning conditions covering construction and operation of future developments.
6.51 I conclude that the PLR is compliant with Policy CP2 when considered a stand-alone development and when considered with the secondary effects that would arise from a future Parkside Phase 2 and SRFI.
Cultural Heritage
6.52 Policy CQL4 sets out that the Council will protect, conserve, preserve and enhance St Helens’ historic built environment and landscape character including designated and undesignated heritage assets. All new development should respect the significance and distinctive quality of the built and historic environment be located and designed in a way that is sensitive to its historic landscape and setting and retains or enhances the character and context. St Helens UDP Policy ENV 23 requires that developers take full account of known or anticipated archaeological remains in their proposals and states that permission normally will be refused where the development would prejudice the preservation of archaeological features where they are found or where preservation is not feasible, adequate provision has not been made for the excavation and recording of the site. UDP Policy ENV25 protects listed buildings and their settings from harmful development.
6.53 Mr Clarke sets out in his evidence the main points from the assessment of effects on the historic environment. He explains that the Registered Battlefield of the Battle of Winwick is of very high heritage significance, primarily derived from its historic importance and topographical association with events from the battle. The predicted impact arising from the Proposed Scheme would not affect the landscape views associated with the battle, and having little effect on the topography due to it being primarily within already disturbed ground where any contemporary or associated features are likely to have been lost. Appropriate mitigation was set out in a Written Scheme of Investigation and agreed with Merseyside Environmental Advisory Service
6354.12.018 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 47
(MEAS) on behalf of St Helens Council. Mr Clarke concludes that where the construction phase activities cross slightly into the registered boundary of the north side, the residual impact on any below ground remains would be minor adverse after mitigation.
6.54 The October 2018 Battle of Winwick Registered Battlefield Heritage Impact Assessment (CD 5.41) assessed the setting of the battlefield, where in the north, the surrounding land has seen much change in the 19th and 20th centuries. The area of the battlefield where the PLR would be built is in the site of the modern former colliery road which is surrounded by vegetation and trees which have grown since the colliery was closed. Mr Clarke explains that this part of its setting was not assessed to make an important contribution to the overall significance of the battlefield, due to its current state as part of a modern road and change since the time of the battle. He confirms that the PLR represents a minor visual change to the setting of the Registered Battlefield with the post-development conditions of a similar character to the existing former colliery road, and so the significance of effect would be at most minor adverse. In terms of the NPPF 2019, this equivalent to less than substantial harm.
6.55 Mr Clarke identifies that Rough Farm Barn and Rough Cottage are non-designated heritage assets which would be entirely removed during the construction phase. Footnote 63 of the Framework appears at paragraph 95 and states ‘Non-designated heritage assets of archaeological interest, which are demonstrably of equivalent significance to scheduled monuments, should be considered subject to the policies for designated heritage assets.’ Mr Clarke explains that these are not non-designated heritage assets of equivalent significance to scheduled monuments.
6.56 He explains that these assets were subject to further assessment in the Rough Farm Barn and Rough Cottage Heritage Impact Assessment November 2018 (CD 5.40) which accompanied the 2019 Addendum ES. Mr Clarke explains that mitigation was agreed with MEAS with the residual effect of proposed development was assessed be minor adverse. In terms of the NPPF 2019, this equivalent to less than substantial harm
6.57 The PLR has been designed to be sensitive to the historic environment as demonstrated by the low levels of residual harm that will arise. As a ‘stand-alone’ development, the proposal is compliant with the requirement to have regard to historic environment set out in Policy CQL4 and compliant with UDP Policy ENV 23. There would not be any harm caused to Policy ENV25. However, notwithstanding the regard
6354.12.018 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 48
had to the historic environment, harm would be caused contrary to CQL4. I consider compliance with the Framework with regard to adverse effects on the Registered Battlefield later in my evidence.
6.58 The harm identified to the historic environment weighs against the PLR when considered as a stand-alone development.
Secondary Effects
6.59 The PLR will facilitate Parkside Phase 2 and the SRFI. Mr Clarke explains in his evidence that there would be cumulative effects arising from these developments.
6.60 Mr Clarke considered for his assessment a scheme similar to Option 4 in the Parkside Logistics Rail Freight Interchange Study (CD 5.54) may be taken forward.
6.61 The potential effects on the Registered Battlefield: Battle of Winwick would be to its setting. To the east of the M6, with a single reception siding to the north of PLR, the SRFI largely would be removed from the battlefield and separated from it by the M6 motorway. The siding would be within the immediate setting of the north-west of the battlefield, however SEEN in the context of the existing railway, the A49, and built form associated with Phase 1 and 2. Mr Clarke concludes that there would be an effect of minor adverse significance, equivalent to less than substantial harm.
6.62 Similar impacts on are predicted on the setting of the Grade II Listed Buildings of Barn to the east of Newton Park Farmhouse and Newton Park Farmhouse. The effect would be of minor adverse significance equivalent to less than substantial harm.
6.63 The 2019 ES Addendum identifies that there would be high levels of harm to 13 non- designated heritage assets from cumulative effects of future development. This amounts to less than substantial harm.
6.64 The judgement in Barnwell Manor Wind Energy Ltd v East Northants District Council, English Heritage, National Trust & SSCLG [2014], EWCA Civ 137 (CD 6.8) sets out that ‘less than substantial harm is not to be equated with less than substantial objection’ and that that in enacting section 66(1) of the Listed Buildings Act 1990 Parliament intended that the desirability of preserving the settings of listed buildings should not simply be given careful consideration by the decision-maker for the purpose
6354.12.018 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 49
of deciding whether there would be some harm, but should be given ‘considerable importance and weight.’
Landscape Character
6.65 Paragraph 127 of the Framework requires that development is sympathetic to landscape setting. Paragraph 170 of the Framework requires that valued landscapes are protected and enhanced. Paragraph 171 explains that there is a hierarchy of landscape value and paragraph 172 sets out the protection afforded to designations of the highest value.
6.66 Policy CQL4 seeks the protection of landscape character as well as important urban open space from development which would harm these assets. UDP Policy GEN12 addresses Lighting and Security Apparatus and although stated as applying to ‘to the illumination and oversight of sports facilities, car parks, service areas and security compounds’, its aims to limit the visual impact, glare, light spillage and actual or perceived intrusion on the privacy and general amenities of nearby occupiers from lighting have been considered in the PLR’s lighting design as explained by Mr Bayliss.
6.67 Mr Lanchbury addresses the PLR’s effects on landscape and views in his evidence. He explains the method applied in the assessments undertaken and the baseline of landscape character. He sets out the sources of effects and the approach that has been taken through the Landscape Strategy (CD 5.7) and the Environmental Masterplan (CD 5.8). He explains that there would not be any adverse effects on landscape character of greater than moderate to slight adverse significance.
6.68 Mr Lanchbury explains that the assessment presented in the application was subject to a review by St Helens Council’s Countryside and Woodland’s Officer who found it ‘acceptable and reliable’.
Secondary Effects 6.69 Mr Lanchbury considers the effects that would arise from the Phase 2 development and the SRFI which would be facilitated by the PLR. There would be greater effect on landscape character from these developments than would arise from the PLR as a ‘stand-alone’ development.
6354.12.018 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 50
Visual Effects 6.70 Mr Lanchbury’s evidence refers to the assessment of views undertaken for the PLR application, again referring to the PLR’s Landscape Strategy (CD 5.7) and Environmental Masterplan (CD 5.8). As would be anticipated, receptors closest to the PLR would experience the greatest change in views and greatest significance of effects. Mr Lanchbury explains that significant residual effects, comprising those of moderate adverse significance or greater, would arise during construction for the following receptors in St Helens: users of the Public Rights of Way (PRoW) Barrow Lane (ES Reference F1); residents at properties on the west side of the A49 Winwick Road at Newton- le-Willows (ES Reference H3); and Parkside Farm, Barrowcliffe Cottage and The Stables (ES Reference H12).
6.71 These would be effects of temporary duration during the PLR’s construction.
6.72 Mr Lanchbury explains that residual effects on views during operation have been considered at year 15, following establishment of mitigation comprising the planting proposed in the PLR scheme. Significant residual effects on views in St Helens were identified for users of the PRoW Barrow Lane (Reference F1). Mr Lanchbury confirms that these are not visual effects which would be deemed unacceptable effects on amenity.
6.73 I consider that the PLR is in general compliance with Policy CQL4 and Policy GEN12 as a ‘stand-alone’ development. There would be limited harm to landscape character, few significant effects on views and no effects which would be unacceptable.
Secondary Effects 6.74 The development of Parkside Phase 2 facilitated by the PLR would give rise to adverse effects on landscape character although the area of the former colliery has some enclosure. The SRFI to the east of the M6 would introduce substantial built form into an area with little development present however the secondary effects of Parkside Phase 2 and the SRFI would not increase the significance of effect on Local Landscape Character Area (LLCA) 1 and LLCA3 to landscape character in the short to long term. The greater source of effect on landscape character during operation within LLCA 2
6354.12.018 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 51
and LLCA 4 would result from the cumulative developments with Parkside Phase 1 and the SRFI.
6.75 Mr Lanchbury explains in his evidence that he anticipates there would be potentially significant visual effects for some visual receptors as a result of Parkside Phase 2 and the SRFI considered together with the PLR (and Parkside Phase 1). A very large to large adverse cumulative visual effect is anticipated for users of the Public Rights of Way (PRoW) Barrow Lane (Reference F1) in St Helens. These adverse effects on landscape and views would be contrary to Policy CP1 and weigh in the planning balance against the proposed development.
Ecology and Nature Conservation
6.76 Chapter 11 of the Framework identifies that planning policies and decisions should promote the effective use of land in meeting needs of the population. Framework paragraph 117 states that: "Strategic policies should set out a clear strategy for accommodating objectively assessed needs, in a way that makes as much use as possible of previously- developed or ‘brownfield’ land." This applies to the Proposed Scheme in the former Parkside colliery site although the Framework’s footnote 44 highlights an exception where this would conflict with other policies in the Framework including causing harm to designated sites of importance for biodiversity.
6.77 The Framework Chapter 15 sets out Government Policies for conserving and enhancing the natural environment. Paragraph 175 of the Framework identifies the principles that should be applied in determining planning applications: a) ‘if significant harm to biodiversity resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused; b) development on land within or outside a Site of Special Scientific Interest, and which is likely to have an adverse effect on it (either individually or in combination with other developments), should not normally be permitted. The only exception is where the benefits of the development in the location proposed clearly outweigh both its likely impact on the features of the site that make it of special scientific interest, and any broader impacts on the national network of Sites of Special Scientific Interest
6354.12.018 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 52
c) development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees) should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists; and d) development whose primary objective is to conserve or enhance biodiversity should be supported; while opportunities to incorporate biodiversity improvements in and around developments should be encouraged, especially where this can secure measurable net gains for biodiversity.’’
6.78 Policy CQL3 considers protection and enhancement of Biodiversity. It requires that developers, where appropriate, incorporate habitat features, which will contribute to the Borough's ecological resource and that mitigation measures are implemented where harm to protected species or habitats is unavoidable. All development proposals should be based on ecological assessments. Any development affecting nationally and locally important sites and protected species will only be acceptable if there is clear evidence that the development outweighs the nature conservation interest.
6.79 Saved St Helens UDP Policy ENV4 sets out that Sites of Special Scientific Interest will be protected from destruction or from direct or indirect significant harm. UDP Policy ENV5 protects the nature conservation interest of Sites of Community Wildlife Interest and Local Nature Reserves from development.
6.80 The assessment of effects on biodiversity is presented in Chapters 8 of the 2018 ES (CD 5.1) and Chapter A8 of the 2019 ES Addendum (CD 5.9) and Mr Hesketh’s evidence addresses this matter. There will be a loss of habitat as a result of the development. Temporary construction effects and potential for ongoing operational effects were identified, the majority of which will be avoided through a combination of scheme design which avoids or reduces ecological effects and additional mitigation which will ensure long term ecological enhancement.
6.81 There will not be any significant adverse effect on designated sites. Overall, the PLR will result in a total loss of canopy cover of 4.1 ha. However, an additional 0.5 ha of new planting and 152m of hedgerow is proposed resulting in a small net gain of long- term canopy cover.
6.82 There would be temporary adverse effects comprising harm although through the implementation of the mitigation measures comprised in the PLR scheme there will be
6354.12.018 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 53
long term net gains for biodiversity. Mr Hesketh explains that there would be large biodiversity net gains for the PLR as a stand-alone proposal. The proposals comply with Policy CQL3.
6.83 Trees, woodlands and hedgerows are subject to protection under Policy CQL2. It recognises the multi-purpose value of trees, woodlands and hedgerows, seeking their protection and enhancement. Developers are required to plant or support planting of trees and conserve and manage existing trees, woods and hedges. Trees protected by a Tree Protection Order (TPO) should not be damaged and where trees are justifiably lost the replacement of trees will be required on at least a 2 for 1 ratio. UDP Policy ENV11 requires that tree surveys accompany an application. Policy ENV 12 sets out requirements for protection of trees and for replacement planting where appropriate. Policy ENV 13 specifically requires new planting within developments including adjacent roads. Policy ENV 21 seeks a favourable impression to be presented by major transport corridors, by new development being screened or landscaped wherever necessary.
6.84 An arboricultural impact assessment and tree survey has been submitted in support of the planning applications (CD 5.2 Appendix 8.10). This shows that several trees in the vicinity of the application site are covered by Tree Preservation Orders. These trees will remain and are not affected by the Proposed Scheme. Hedgerows and trees would be lost as a result of the development however, these will be replaced and enhanced by the package of landscape improvements proposed as part of the Application and detailed as part of the Landscape Strategy submitted as part of this supplementary planning submission. The Proposed Scheme is compliant with CQL2. The tree survey and the PLR proposals comply with Policies ENV 11, ENV 12, ENV 13 and ENV 21.
6.85 The Framework states the value of Green Infrastructure in regard to conservation of the environment (Chapters 3 and 15); promoting healthy and safe communities (Chapter 8) and planning for climate change (Chapter 14). Policy CQL1 seeks to promote, enhance and expand Green Infrastructure. The landscaping strategy submitted in support of the applications details the contribution to the provision of Green Infrastructure. The landscape masterplans detailing this strategy are in the Design and Access Statement and demonstrate compliance with CQL1.
6354.12.018 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 54
6.86 There would be low levels of harm in the short term from habitat loss but overall there would be biodiversity net gain which is a positive benefit.
Secondary Effects 6.87 Mr Hesketh considers the likely secondary effects on Ecology and Nature Conservation from the building out and operation of Parkside Phase 2 and the SRFI.
6.88 Mr Hesketh notes that much will depend on detail but that potential adverse effects can be addressed through design, possible off-site works if required and that biodiversity net gain is likely to be achieved. He notes that part of the SRFI will be relatively close to the Highfield Moss Site of Special Scientific Interest although the SRFI will be on arable land of relatively low nature conservation value. Mr Hesketh concludes that there is likely to be overall low level of harm to nature conservation from Phase 2 and SRFI.
Geology and Soils
6.89 Framework paragraph 170 a), referenced above regarding protected landscapes, also sets out the need to protect geological value and soils (in a manner commensurate with their statutory status or identified quality in the development plan). Policy CQL3 sets out protection of sites of geological interest. UDP Policy ENV26 requires developers to carry out investigations to assess the nature and extent of contamination and to prepare programmes or schemes of works to treat or minimise the problems.
6.90 Geology and soils are considered in Chapter 9 of the 2018 ES (CD 5.1, pages 9-1 – 9-66). There are no areas of geological statutory status or areas of soils identified for quality in the development plan. The assessment demonstrates that there will be no significant adverse effects on geology or soils.
6.91 The assessment was informed by desk-based research and ground investigation including monitoring of groundwater and ground gas.
6.92 Overall, only limited evidence of contamination has been found in the area of the PLR. This is generally associated with former land uses associated with the former Parkside Colliery. Based on the concentrations encountered no specific remediation measures would be required for existing contaminants.
6354.12.018 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 55
6.93 There will be no long-term significant impact on the groundwater beneath the Proposed Scheme and it is considered that the risks associated with the contamination found on site can be adequately managed.
6.94 With the implementation of the mitigation measures outlined in the 2018 ES (CD 5.1), (mainly implementation of the CEMP and a Materials Management Plan) there will be no residual significant environmental effects resulting from the Proposed Scheme compliant with paragraphs 170 and 178 of the Framework and with Policy CQL3 with regard to geology and UDP Policy 26 regarding contaminated land.
6.95 The Halton and St Helens Joint Waste Local Plan Policies WM8 and WM9 have relevance to the proposal. Policy WM8 requires any development involving demolition and/or construction must implement measures to achieve the efficient use of resources, taking particular account of re-use and recycling materials, as far as practicable on-site; designing out waste by using design principles and construction methods that prevent and minimise the use of resources and provide for high-quality building materials made from recycled and secondary sources. Use of waste audits or site waste management plans (SWMP) is encouraged to monitor waste minimisation, recycling, management and disposal. Policy WM9 relates primarily to new buildings but requires that new developments facilitate collection and storage of waste.
6.96 CD 5.1, page 13-23, paragraph 13.6.17 explains that maximising the re-use of materials won on site will avoid a need to import materials onto the site and so avoid haulage journeys that would be required otherwise. Where possible, additional fill materials that are required will be sourced locally. Avoidance of waste leaving the site for landfill also has significant cost savings and long term environmental benefits. Waste would be segregated for re-use and recycling.
6.97 The PLR is compliant with Policies WM8 and WM9.
Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land
6.98 NPPF paragraph 170 b) states that planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by recognising ‘… the wider benefits from natural capital… including the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land…’.
6354.12.018 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 56
6.99 The NPPF’s Annex 2 Glossary defines best and most versatile agricultural land as Land in grades 1, 2 and 3a of the Agricultural Land Classification. The 2019 ES Addendum (CD 5.9 Page 11-5, paragraphs 11.7.2 – 11.7.4 confirms that the PLR will result in the loss of 20.35 hectares of best and most versatile agricultural land.
6.100 This is assessed as a loss of medium magnitude of a resource of high sensitivity,
leading to an overall effect of moderate adverse significance.
Secondary Effects 6.101 The SRFI is identified primarily on land to the east of the M6 which presently is in agricultural use. I attach at Appendix 2 a desk-based report of the likely Agricultural Land Classification of the area identified for the SRFI which indicates that it is likely to comprise grade 2 with pockets of grade 3a and 3b. That means it comprises best and most versatile agricultural land. I set out measurements of these areas in Table 6.1 below.
Table 6.1: Best and Most Versatile Land Lost to SRFI Area Best and Most Land (hectares) Versatile Land
Assessed Grade 2 15.6 51.9 Predicted Grade 2 36.3 Assessed Grade 3a 12.20 42.2 Predicted Grade 3a 30.0 Assessed Grade 3b 6.1 Predicted Grade 3b 13.7 Non-agricultural (roads, tracks, 10.1 buildings)
Totals 124.5 94.1
6.102 This indicates that development of the SRFI on that land will remove an area of approximately 94.1 hectares of the best and most versatile land taken from agricultural use. This is a significant adverse effect that weighs against the proposal.
6354.12.018 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 57
Road Drainage and Water Environment
6.103 Chapter 14 of the Framework sets out guidance on meeting the challenges of climate change, flooding and coastal change. The application site and its surrounding area is wholly within Flood Zone 1 which is where the majority of development should be directed as detailed in paragraph 155 of the Framework.
6.104 UDP Policy ENV 30 sets out requirements for drainage and with regard to flood risk. It sets out that permission will not be granted for developments that give rise to flood risk because of their characteristics.
6.105 The 2018 ES (CD 5.1) sets out that the method of assessment and reporting of significant effects has been based on the DMRB HD 45/09 guidance. Details of criteria specific to the assessment are defined in Chapter 12 of the 2018 ES (CD 5.1). The assessment concludes that, with the inclusion of the proposed design and mitigation measures, there would be no significant effects in relation to road drainage and water quality as a result of the construction and operation of the PLR. The proposed PLR is in Flood Zone 1 and no flood risk has been identified resulting from the development.
6.106 The CEMP will be implemented throughout construction and the potential cumulative effect on the water environment is considered to be negligible. New drainage infrastructure will be incorporated to restrict surface water runoff and control water quality in line with legislative and policy requirements. The potential effects on the water environment for construction and for operation are assessed to be neutral.
6.107 Mr Bayliss explains in his evidence that new drainage infrastructure will be incorporated into the PLR Scheme to restrict surface water runoff and control water quality in line with paragraph 165 of the Framework and other legislative requirements.
6.108 The proposed drainage strategy is divided into two sections: that serving Parkside Link Road West and that serving Parkside Link Road East. Parkside Link Road West will have four drainage networks discharging to a ditch forming a tributary to St Oswald’s Brook, and St Oswald’s Brook itself. Parkside Link Road East is divided into two drainage networks which will discharge into the Cockshot Brook catchment and an infiltration basin adjacent to Parkside Road.
6354.12.018 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 58
6.109 Surface water runoff will be reduced to safe levels, including allowances for increase in rainfall intensity of 40% over the lifetime of the Proposed Scheme, in line with the latest Environment Agency guidance. This attenuation of runoff is proposed to be provided via a combination of attenuation ponds, infiltration basins and swales.
6.110 The drainage system for all networks will be designed to ensure that there is no flooding within the Proposed Scheme area for up to the 1-in-30-year storm return period. Exceedance flow routes will be designed to ensure there is no flooding to downstream receptors for in excess of the 1-in-100-year storm return period.
6.111 The assessment has concluded that, with the inclusion of the proposed design and mitigation measures, there would be no significant effects in relation to road drainage and water quality as a result of the construction and operation of the Proposed Scheme. It is compliant with UDP Policy ENV 30.
Climate Change
6.112 The assessment of drainage has taken account of advice on effects of climate change. The 2020 Further Environmental Information (CD 5.47) pages 53 - 66 address climate change and take account of the updated guidance in the DMRB. It is anticipated that the PLR will not result in substantive emissions of greenhouse gases. The assessment confirms that with the implementation of relevant design standards and specifications, climate change will not have additive adverse effects on the topics considered in the 2018 ES and that future vulnerabilities of the PLR to climate change will be addressed.
Secondary Effects 6.113 The assessments in the application have taken account of road traffic effects from the forecasts of use of Parkside Phase 2 and the SRFI. The primary forecast land use of B8 distribution is not anticipated to give rise to substantive emissions of greenhouse gas though operations of buildings or from processes.
6.114 The introduction of rail freight is acknowledged in the National Policy Statement on National Networks (NPSNN) 2014 (CD 3.10) as contributing to supporting climate change. CD 3.10 paragraph 2.53 on page 22 states that: ‘The transfer of freight from road to rail has an important part to play in a low carbon economy and in helping to address climate change.’ This contribution to carbon reduction is a positive secondary effect to be taken forward to the planning balance.
6354.12.018 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 59
6.115 I have summarised my assessment of compliance with the St Helens Development Plan, other than Green Belt policies, in Table 6.1 overleaf.
6354.12.018 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 60
Table 6.1: Summary of Compliance with St Helens Development Plan Policies other than Green Belt Policy Compliance Summary Commentary Core Strategy CSS 1 - Overall Spatial Strategy Compliant Supports Parkside delivery CIN 1 - Meeting St. Helens' Infrastructure Needs Compliant Supports Parkside delivery CSD 1 - National Planning Policy Framework - Dependent on planning Considered in planning balance Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development balance CAS 3.1 – Newton and Earlestown Strategy Compliant Supports Parkside delivery CAS 3.2 – Development of a Strategic Rail Freight Compliant Supports Parkside delivery Interchange (SRFI) CP 1 - Ensuring Quality Development in St. Helens Compliant Appropriate design and enables delivery of future development without design constraint CP 2 -Creating an Accessible St. Helens Compliant CE 1 - A Strong and Sustainable Economy Compliant Enables development with substantial economic benefit CQL 2 - Trees and Woodlands Compliant CQL 3 - Biodiversity and Geological Conservation Compliant Biodiversity net gain CQL4 – Heritage and Landscape Partly compliant Residual harm to some heritage assets Harm to landscape character GEN12 – Lighting and Security Apparatus Compliant Saved UDP Policies ENV 4 - Statutory Site Protection Compliant ENV 5 - Sites of Community Wildlife Interest and Local Compliant Nature Reserves
6354.12.018 60 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 61
ENV11 – Tree Surveys Compliant ENV12 – Development Affecting Trees Compliant ENV 13 - New Tree Planting on Development Sites Compliant ENV 23 – Archaeology Compliant ENV 25 – Listed Buildings Partly compliant Harm to setting of listed buildings ENV 26 - Contaminated Land Compliant ENV 30 - Drainage Compliant Joint Merseyside and Halton Waste Plan 2016 WM8 – Waste Prevention and Resource Management Compliant WM9 – Sustainable Waste Management Design and Compliant Layout of New Development
6354.12.018 61 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 62
Warrington Development Plan
6.116 The development plan in Warrington comprises the Core Strategy Local Plan adopted in July 2014.
Spatial Strategy
6.117 The Parkside site is in St Helens and there is no allocation or reference to a Parkside Link Road in the Warrington Development Plan. Core Strategy Policy CS1 (CD 2.7 page 24) sets out the overall spatial strategy – Delivering Sustainable Development. It has a wide range of aspects addressing economic, social and environmental aspects of development. These include the priority afforded to the Green Belt and countryside; the need to ensure additional provision where needed to support development; the need to sustain and enhance the borough’s heritage, biodiversity and geodiversity; the need to safeguard environmental standards, public safety and residential amenity; and the need to improve equality of access and opportunity. The policy notes that where there are no policies relevant to the application, the Council will grant permission unless material considerations indicate otherwise, taking account of whether any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole, or specific policies in the Framework indicate that development should be restricted.
6.118 Policy CS2 sets out, amongst other matters, that the Green Belt will be maintained for as long as can be seen ahead and at least until 2032, with development allowed only in accordance with national policy. It notes that major warehousing and distribution developments should be located away from areas sensitive to heavy vehicle movements, with direct access to the Primary Road Network and where possible with access to rail and/or the Manchester Ship Canal.
6.119 I consider that if the PLR is otherwise compliant with the Warrington Development Plan, including with Green Belt policies, it will be consistent with Policies CS1 and CS2.
Economic Development
6.120 Policy PV3 states that through joint working, the Council and its partners will support developments which assist in strengthening the boroughs workforce and enhancing
6354.12.018 62 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 63
training opportunities for its residents by a range of measures which include maximising social benefits from proposals which contribute to the Council's "Closing the Gap" agenda by securing local employment opportunities associated with the construction and subsequent operation of new development. As Mr Russell explains, the construction of the PLR, indirect jobs related to that construction and also the construction and operation of Parkside Phase 2 and the SRFI will include employment and training opportunities.
6.121 As I describe in relation to the St Helens Development Plan, Mr Russell’s evidence addresses economic effects anticipated from the PLR and the future employment opportunities it would facilitate. The PLR would provide direct employment opportunities from its construction. As set out in relation to St Helens, there will be very substantial employment from the construction and subsequent operation of Phase 2 and SRFI. Mr Russell explains that there is ‘leakage’ in employment created from the location of works to the Wider Impact Area which includes Warrington. He explains that there will be substantial benefits to the Wider Impact Area from the operation of Parkside Phase 2 and the SRFI, consistent with the aims of Policy PV3.
Traffic and Transport
6.122 Policy CS4 (Overall Spatial Strategy - Transport) states that the Council will support improvements to the Transport Network that look to integrate with existing transport networks and enhance sustainability. The PLR will connect to the M6 and A49 and integrates with existing transport networks, compliant with this policy.
6.123 Policy MP1 (General Transport Principles) aims to improve the Warrington Strategic Road Network. The PLR would deliver infrastructure to improve links between Warrington and the surrounding region (St Helens, Wigan, Liverpool and Widnes). The PLR would provide benefits in Warrington due to the provision of an additional route through the local highway network that allows the re-routing of traffic from congested routes. The benefits include reductions in traffic flow on A49 between Winwick and PLR and benefits on the A573 through Hermitage Green and Winwick.
6.124 Future development at Parkside phases 2 and 3 would have further impacts on the highway network in Warrington, and it is agreed the PLR would reduce this impact.
6354.12.018 63 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 64
6.125 The PLR would provide benefits to road users by providing additional route options and connections to the strategic road network. The new carriageway would create appropriate access to future Parkside development for cars, cyclists and pedestrians. The PLR provides a new Link Road providing direct access to the Strategic Highway Network and complies with this policy.
6.126 Policy MP3 (Active Travel) highlights that the Council will expect that a high priority will be given to any needs and the safety of pedestrians and cyclists in any new developments. The policy also states that "priority will be given to routes linking residential areas (especially those in recognised areas of deprivation) with employment areas, transport interchanges, schools, Warrington hospital and other local services and facilities." The improvements to the local highway network will help increase accessibility and provide better access to areas of employment and the M6 motorway. The Proposed Scheme includes the provision of walking and cycling facilities adjacent to the new highway. There will be crossing points at the proposed junctions. Redundant sections of Parkside Road and Winwick Lane will be used as pedestrian and cycle routes, providing opportunities for residents to access the new employment areas by sustainable transport methods. The Proposed Scheme is consistent with Policy MP3.
6.127 Policy MP5 (Freight Transport) states that any proposals for freight development will be supported, where they achieve a reduction in road traffic kilometres through their location and/or where they reduce the impact of the freight traffic on local or inappropriate routes. As Mr Roberts explains with reference to the contemporary Transport Assessment, the benefits identified include displacement of traffic from existing routes to the more appropriate PLR. The PLR will facilitate the development of the SRFI. The development of the PLR to facilitate the future development of an SRFI and logistics hub has significant potential to meet national transportation objectives and, as noted in NPSNN (CD 3.10) will be important in meeting carbon reduction targets.
6.128 Policy MP7 (Transport Assessment and Travel Plans) is focused on the requirements of Warrington Borough Council for any new developments. It requires that developments demonstrate that they will not significantly harm highway safety and that trips generated by the development can be served adequately. The PLR will give access to future new development at Parkside which will present employment opportunities for people in the Wider Impact Area including Warrington. Mr Roberts
6354.12.018 64 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 65
explains in his evidence that the PLR will accommodate the forecast traffic from the Parkside site, including Phase 1, Phase 2 and the SRFI. The PLR will offer good integration with the existing local transport networks for walking, cycling and bus services. The Proposed Scheme is compliant with transport policy MP7.
Air Quality
6.129 Policy QE6 addresses Environment and Amenity Protection. It states that the Council will only support development which would not lead to an adverse impact on the environment or amenity of current or future occupiers of adjoining or nearby properties, or does not have an unacceptable impact on the surrounding area. Air quality is an environmental aspect addressed by this policy.
6.130 Mr Harker addresses air quality in his evidence, referring to the assessment presented in the 2020 Further Environmental Information (CD 5.47). As noted for St Helens, Mr Harker confirms that there will not be any significant air quality effects and no exceedances of Air Quality Objectives at any of the modelled receptor locations, including those within the Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs), taking into account forecast traffic levels with Parkside Phases 1 and 2 and the SRFI.
Noise and Vibration
6.131 Noise and vibration is another environmental aspect identified in Policy QE6. Mr Barson sets out the assessment of noise and vibration in his evidence, referring to the assessment based on the contemporary Transport Assessment and presented in the 2020 Further Environmental Information (CD 5.47). Mr Barson explains the mitigation proposed in Warrington comprising the noise barrier on Winwick Lane and the thin surface treatment on Parkside Road.
6.132 Mr Barson considers noise and vibration that will arise from construction and from traffic including future traffic from Parkside Phases 1 and 2 and the SRFI. He concludes that there will not be significant effects on noise and vibration. The PLR complies with this aspect of Policy QE6.
6354.12.018 65 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 66
Cultural Heritage
6.133 Policy QE8 (Historic Environment) outlines that the Council will ensure that the fabric and setting of heritage assets are appropriately protected and enhanced, in accordance with national planning policy. The policy states that any proposals that will affect the character and setting of heritage assets will be required to provide supporting information. Mr Clarke’s evidence addresses effects on the historic environment.
6.134 Mr Clarke addresses the effects on the Registered Battlefield of Winwick which is partly in St Helens and partly in Warrington and I explain in regard to the St Helens Development Plan that his conclusion is that there would be at most an effect of minor adverse significance from the PLR and a similar secondary effect, these comprising equivalent of less than substantial harm.
6.135 Mr Clarke explains that there would be slight adverse indirect effects on the historic rural setting of two Grade II listed buildings in Warrington: Woodhead Farmhouse; and Barn to north of Woodhead Farmhouse on Parkside Road. The PLR would pass north of the listed buildings. The effect would be mitigated as a result of the embedded measures within the PLR’s Landscape Strategy (CD 5.7) including appropriate screening of the proposed route. Mr Clarke confirms that the residual slight adverse effect would be less than substantial harm at the lower end of that scale.
6.136 Mr Clarke also addresses the Grade II listed barn to the east of Newton Park Farmhouse and Newton Park Farmhouse, noting that the wider setting of these assets has seen change in the 19th and 20th centuries, with the introduction of the railway line, residential development at Newton-le-Willows and the former Parkside Colliery. He explains that the introduction of the PLR would represent a minor visual change to the setting of these listed buildings, and this part of their setting was not assessed to make an important contribution to their overall significance.
6.137 Mr Clarke concludes that the post-development conditions after constructing the PLR will be of a similar character to the existing former colliery road and the significance of effect on the two listed buildings would be at most minor adverse. He notes that in terms of the NPPF 2019, this equivalent to less than substantial harm.
6354.12.018 66 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 67
6.138 The direct harm to heritage assets from the PLR would be low. Subject to an assessment of that effect in the context of paragraph 196 of the Framework the Proposed Scheme is compliant with QE8.
Secondary Effects 6.139 Mr Clarke considers the potential effects of Parkside Phase 2 and the SRFI on historic environment assets. There would be an adverse effect on the setting of the Registered Battlefield as set out above for the battlefield in St Helens.
6.140 Mr Clarke concludes that there would be an adverse effect on the settings of the Grade II Listed Buildings of Woodhead Farmhouse and Barn to the north of Woodhead Farmhouse. The SRFI scheme would be within the wider setting of Phase 1 and 2 and the M6 motorway. The heritage significance of the two listed buildings would not be affected by this development, as their immediate setting, comprising agricultural land, would be preserved. It is this component of their setting which provides the key element in enabling their significance, as historic farm buildings, to be appreciated and understood. Mr Clarke concludes that the significance of effect would be negligible and equivalent to less than substantial harm.
6.141 Mr Clarke explains that cumulative effects of future development on the non- designated assets of Rough Farm Barn and Rough Cottage would be the same as those for the PLR alone as these assets would have been subject to mitigation before removal. The significance of effect would remain as minor adverse equivalent to less than substantial harm.
6.142 In taking forward these adverse effects to the planning balance, I am mindful of the need to give appropriate weight to them as I discuss in relation to effects of less than substantial harm in St Helens.
Landscape
6.143 Policy QE7 (Ensuring a High Quality Place) sets out that the Council will look positively upon proposals that are designed, inter alia, to maintain and respect the landscape character and, where appropriate, distinctiveness of the surrounding countryside.
6354.12.018 67 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 68
6.144 Policy CC2 (Protecting the Countryside) states that development proposals in the countryside should accord with Green Belt policies set out in national policy and that proposals should ‘respect local landscape character’.
6.145 Mr Lanchbury’s evidence refers to the assessment of landscape and visual effects presented in the 2018 ES (CD 5.1). He notes in his evidence that Warrington Borough Council employed consultants to review the landscape and visual assessment in the application and that they reported that it is appropriate in its method, approach and findings.
6.146 Mr Lanchbury explains the identification of local landscape character areas. The PLR crosses land in the character area LLCA4 in Warrington and Mr Lanchbury notes that the residual significance of effects for local landscape character areas during construction and operation would be no greater than moderate to slight adverse. A slight beneficial significance of effect on landscape character is anticipated within the northern most part of the character area in Warrington as a result of new landscape features within the proposed Ecological Mitigation Area, in the context of the new road.
6.147 The PLR respects local landscape character consistently with Policy QE7 and Policy CC2.
Secondary Effects 6.148 Mr Lanchbury explains with regard to cumulative effects that when considering Parkside Phases 1 and 2, the SRFI, and the PLR in combination, the greater source of effect on landscape character during operation within LLCA 2 and LLCA 4, would arise from the secondary developments. He explains that the cumulative landscape effect on LLCA 1 and LLCA 3 would not increase the significance of effect as compared to operation of the PLR.
6.149 This represents moderate harm to be carried forward to the planning balance.
Visual Effects
6.150 Policy QE6 includes ‘outlook’ as one of the criteria which will be considered as part of protecting amenity. The visual assessment of the PLR in is summarised in Mr Lanchbury’s proof.
6354.12.018 68 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 69
6.151 Mr Lanchbury’s evidence refers to the assessment of views undertaken for the PLR application, again referring to the Landscape Strategy (CD 5.7) and Environmental Masterplan (CD 5.8). He notes that receptors closest to the PLR would experience the greatest change in views and greatest significance of effects. Mr Lanchbury explains that significant effects, comprising those of moderate adverse significance or greater, would arise during construction for the following receptors in Warrington: Sycamore Lodge and Monk House (ES Reference H11) and properties along Winwick Lane (References ES H14 to H17). These would be effects of temporary duration during the PLR’s construction.
6.152 Mr Lanchbury explains that residual effects on views during operation have been considered at year 15, following establishment of mitigation comprising the planting proposed in the PLR scheme. Significant residual effects on views in Warrington have been identified for residents at properties along Winwick Lane (ES References H14 to H17).
6.153 Mr Lanchbury explains that there are no visual effects which would be deemed unacceptable effects on amenity. I consider that there would be compliance with the aspect of Policy QE6 which relates to outlook.
Secondary Effects 6.154 Mr Lanchbury explains in his evidence that he anticipates there would be potentially significant visual effects for some visual receptors as a result of Parkside Phase 2 and the SRFI considered together with the PLR (and Parkside Phase 1). A very large to large adverse cumulative visual effect is anticipated for users of the Public Rights of Way (PRoW) Barrow Lane (Reference F1) and at properties along Winwick Lane (References H14, H15, H16 and H17); a large to moderate adverse effect for Sycamore Lodge and Monk House (Reference H11). These comprise harm from secondary effects to weigh in the planning balance against the proposed development.
Ecology and Nature Conservation
6.155 Policy QE5 (Biodiversity and Geodiversity), states that the Council will work with partners to protect and, where possible, enhance, sites of nature and geological value, guided by national policy. Mr Hesketh explains the assessment of effects on ecology in his evidence nothing that there will be a loss of habitat as a result of the development.
6354.12.018 69 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 70
Temporary construction effects and potential for ongoing operational effects were identified, the majority of which will be avoided through a combination of scheme design which avoids or reduces ecological effects and additional mitigation which will ensure long term ecological enhancement.
6.156 There will not be any significant adverse effect on designated sites. As stated for St Helens, overall, the PLR will result in a total loss of canopy cover of 4.1 ha. However, an additional 0.5 ha of new planting and 152m of hedgerow is proposed resulting in a small net gain of long-term canopy cover.
6.157 There would be temporary adverse effects comprising harm although through the implementation of the mitigation measures comprised in the PLR scheme there will be long term net gains for biodiversity. Mr Hesketh explains that there would be large biodiversity net gains for the PLR as a stand-alone proposal.
6.158 Mr Hesketh explains that there will be loss of habitat with great crested newt potential in part of the proposed PLR in Warrington. He explains that there is no great crested newt population. An agreement has been prepared under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) to undertake habitat creation, enhancement and long-term management at the Rixton Clay Pits site in Warrington to offset the loss of this habitat.
6.159 Mr Hesketh explains that through the implementation of the mitigation measures proposed and the provisions of the S106 agreement it has been identified that there will be substantial long-term net gains for biodiversity. The PLR is compliant with Policy QE5.
6.160 Policy QE3 (Green Infrastructure) outlines that the Council will work with partners to develop and adopt an integrated approach in the provision, care and management of green infrastructure. The ecological mitigation described by Mr Hesketh and the Landscape Strategy (CD 5.7) which will be implemented contribute to the provision of Green Infrastructure in conformity with policy QE3.
Geology and Soils
6.161 Policy QE5 (Biodiversity and Geodiversity) sets out that the Council will protect and where possible enhance sites of recognised geological value.
6354.12.018 70 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 71
6.162 There are no sites of recognised geological value that would be affected by the PLR and it is compliant with this aspect of Policy QE5.
People and Communities
6.163 As noted above, Policy QE6 states that the Council will only support development which would not lead to an adverse impact on the environment or amenity of existing or future of adjoining or nearby properties, or does not have an unacceptable impact on the surrounding area. Many of the aspects of environment to be considered are addressed in other aspects discussed in this section, such as traffic and transport, noise and air quality.
6.164 No significant residual effects and no unacceptable impact on the surrounding area have been identified. The PLR complies with Policy QE6.
Road Drainage and Water Environment
6.165 Policy QE4 (Flood Risk) states that the Council will only support development proposals where the risk of flooding has been fully assessed and justified. The assessment summarised in paragraphs 4.131 - 4.134 identifies the entire area of the Proposed Scheme to be situated in Flood Zone 1, at very low risk of tidal and fluvial flooding. The assessment concludes that, with the inclusion of the proposed design and mitigation measures, there would be no significant effects in relation to road drainage and water quality, including flood risk, as a result of the construction and operation of the scheme. The drainage strategy will control runoff and flooding, taking account of climate change, and ensure surface and groundwater quality and flooding are not adversely affected. The PLR is compliant with Policy QE4.
6.166 I have summarised my assessment of compliance with the Warrington Development Plan, other than Green Belt policies, in Table 6.2 overleaf.
6354.12.018 71 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 72
Table 6.2: Summary of Compliance with Warrington Development Plan Policies other than Green Belt
Policy Compliance Commentary CS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development Considered in planning balance CS2 – Quantity and Distribution of Development Compliant CS4 – Transport Compliant PV3 – Strengthening the Borough’s Workforce Compliant QE3 – Green Infrastructure Compliant QE4 – Flood Risk Compliant QE5 – Biodiversity and Geodiversity Compliant QE6 – Environmental and Amenity Protection Partly compliant Harm to landscape and views QE7 – Ensuring High Quality Place Compliant QE8 – Historic Environment Partly compliant Harm to heritage assets MP1 – General Transport Principles Compliant MP3 – Active Travel Compliant MP5 – Freight Transport Compliant MP7 – Transport Assessment and Travel Plans Compliant MP8 – Waste Compliant CC2 – Protecting the Countryside Partly compliant Harm to landscape
6354.12.018 72 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 73
6.167 I conclude from my consideration of the proposals against each development plan that, subject to meeting policy requirements on Green Belt and on sustainable development, the PLR is compliant with each development plan.
6.168 There is some harm that will arise from the PLR directly or from secondary effects or both. This includes harm to landscape character, harm to views and harm to heritage assets. There will be loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land. These aspects of harm need to be carried forward when considering if other material considerations outweigh this ‘other harm’ and the harm to Green Belt identified earlier.
6.169 There are some beneficial effects including biodiversity net gain from the PLR and, as secondary effects, substantial economic benefits and carbon reduction from rail- related development. I consider these positive aspects in the material considerations I identify in favour of the proposals.
6.170 I consider in Section 8.0 of my evidence whether the development accords with the development plans as a whole in accordance with section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
6354.12.018 73 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 74
7.0 MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS SUPPORTING THE PLR
7.1 I set out below the material considerations that combine to comprise the very special circumstances case for the appellant. These are Policy support for the PLR Need for Parkside development and its phasing Absence of alternatives Deliverability of the PLR Deliverability of the SRFI Economic Benefits Sustainability Benefits
7.2 Many matters fall from the policy support I identify for the PLR but I deal with each of the above matters in turn below.
Policy Support
7.3 A comprehensive development of Parkside for a regionally significant employment, logistics and SRFI hub has long been promoted and remains supported in national, regional and local policy. Much of this is summarised in the Parkside Strategic Rail Freight Interchange Background Paper 2020 (CD 5.90)
National Policy
National Policy Statement for National Networks (NPSNN) (CD 3.10) 7.4 The National Policy Statement for National Networks forms the primary basis for making decisions on Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs) related to national networks. It also sets out Government policies for nationally significant rail and road infrastructure projects for England.
7.5 Paragraph 2.54 of NPSNN (CD 3.10, page 22) states that ‘a network of SRFIs is needed across the regions, to serve regional, sub-regional and cross-regional markets. In all cases it is essential that these have good connectivity with both the road and rail networks, in particular the strategic rail freight network’.
6354.12.018 74 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 75
7.6 Paragraph 2.56 of the NPSNN (CD 3.10, p23) states that Government has concluded that there is ‘a compelling need for an expanded network of SRFIs’ and that it is ‘important that SRFIs are located near to the business markets they will serve - major urban centres or groups of centres - and are linked to key supply chain routes.’ It notes that due to the locational and operational requirements of SRFIs, there will be a limited number of locations suitable for this form of development.
NPPF 2019 (CD 1.1) 7.7 Paragraph 8 of the NPPF sets out the economic objective to ‘help build a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right types is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth, innovation and improved productivity; and by identifying and coordinating the provision of infrastructure’.
7.8 National planning policy strongly supports the delivery of infrastructure to support sustainable economic growth. NPPF paragraph 9 states that decisions should play an active role in guiding development towards sustainable solutions and should take local circumstances into account to reflect the character, needs and opportunities of each area. The PLR is critical infrastructure to meet needs and realise opportunities at Parkside.
7.9 NPPF paragraph 80 confirms that this economic objective is supported by the need to create the conditions in which businesses can invest, expand and adapt. It states that significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth and productivity and that each area should build on its strengths, counter any weaknesses and address the challenges of the future. With specific regard to the land uses proposed at the Parkside site, paragraph 82 of the NPPF confirms that the specific locational requirements of different sectors should be recognised and addressed by both planning policies and decisions. This includes making provision for ’storage and distribution operations at a variety of scales and in suitably accessible locations’.
7.10 NPPF paragraph 104e) notes that planning policies should provide for any large scale transport facilities that need to be located and the infrastructure required to support their contribution to the wider economy. The PLR is such key infrastructure and its provision is consistent with national policy.
6354.12.018 75 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 76
Planning Practice Guidance
7.11 Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) on Housing and Economic Needs Assessment gives specific recognition to the logistics sector. It states: ‘The logistics industry plays a critical role in enabling an efficient, sustainable and effective supply of goods for consumers and businesses, as well as contributing to local employment opportunities, and has distinct locational requirements that need to be considered in formulating planning policies (separately from those relating to general industrial land)’ (CD 5.135.4, Reference ID: 2a-031-20190722 Revision date: 22 07 2019).
7.12 PPG states that ‘strategic facilities serving national or regional markets are likely to require significant amounts of land, good access to strategic transport networks, sufficient power capacity and access to appropriately skilled local labour.’ (CD 5.135.4, as above).
Regional Policy
Transport for the North – Northern Freight and Logistics Strategy Report (2016) 7.13 The Transport for the North – Northern Freight and Logistics Strategy Report 2016 (CD 9.3) has a strong focus on the increased use of rail freight through measures including development of rail freight interchanges. The Strategy specifically recognises Parkside as a potential rail freight interchange site.
Liverpool City Region Freight and Logistics Strategy (2017) 7.14 The LCR Freight and Logistics Strategy 2017 (CD 5.94) aims to: ensure the freight and logistics sector maximises its contribution towards achieving the economic development aspirations for the LCR, including creating additional GVA and employment opportunities; and minimise, as far as possible, the environmental and social impacts of freight and logistics activities on local communities and business in the LCR and enhance the quality of life for residents.
7.15 The Strategy identifies that ‘there is a clear need to secure modal shift from road distribution to rail and waterways.’
6354.12.018 76 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 77
7.16 Parkside is a potential location identified in the Strategy with potential for access onto the Chat Moss Line eastbound, west of the M6; access onto the Chat Moss Line westbound, west of the M6 and access onto the Chat Moss Line westbound, east of the M6. Amongst the interventions sought for new facilities are ‘provision of new or enhanced link roads to facilitate suitable HGV access to the MDP [Multimodal Distribution Park]. This could include the construction of new link roads, combined with capacity upgrades in the local area to accommodate the effects of increased HGV traffic ’.
Draft Liverpool City Region Local Industrial Strategy (March 2020) (CD 5.91) 7.17 NPPF Paragraph 81a identifies that planning policies should set out a clear economic vison and strategy to encourage sustainable economic growth having regard to Local Industrial Strategies and other local policies. The LCR Draft Local Industrial Strategy (LIS), identifies five foundations of productivity including: the opportunity to turn potential into prosperity (people); a dynamic business base creating opportunity (business environment); and connecting all communities to opportunity (infrastructure).
7.18 The LIS states that delivering the infrastructure foundation includes supporting the clean growth of freight and logistics. The LIS indicates that the LCR will continue to be a hub for freight and logistics given identified assets including the potential for a major intermodal freight interchange at Parkside.
7.19 Mr Littler refers in his evidence to the submission of a Full Business Case for the PLR‘s funding and he explains funding has been secured for delivery of the road. The LCR Combined Authority SIF Appraisal Report – Full Business Case (CD 5.96) published at the time of the funding approval announcement in November 2018 succinctly concluded that: ‘the Parkside Link Road project represents a rare opportunity to enable development and open up a strategic development site in an attractive market location with the (indirect) potential to create significant new floorspace, jobs, economic growth, attract investment, generate value and enhance movement on a regeneration site that has long been recognised as a strategic priority at the regional level’
7.20 This confirms the very high level of policy support for the Parkside site from the Liverpool City Region.
6354.12.018 77 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 78
Local Policy
7.21 Mr Littler outlines in his evidence the long-standing identification of the Parkside site by St Helens Council. I summarise below how policy on the site has evolved.
Core Strategy Background Paper Parkside RFI February 2010 (CD 5.92) 7.22 As part of the evidence base to inform the Local Plan Core Strategy (2012) St Helens Council commissioned this study into the potential SRFI at the former Parkside colliery.
7.23 The Study concluded that significant, much needed, employment opportunities would be likely to be generated. It also concluded that an SRFI at Parkside would be of significant importance at a regional, sub-regional and national level. It would help deliver an essential component of central Government’s strategy for the transfer of freight from road to rail and was thus compliant with national policy. The Study identified likely significant beneficial impacts in respect of the transport network, with a
reduction in CO2 emissions arising from the transfer of freight from road to rail.
7.24 The Study highlighted economic viability issues and risks in delivering a SRFI at Parkside, including the cost of providing up-front infrastructure including a new motorway junction and M6 hard shoulder running.
7.25 The site has been carried forward in the development plan for St Helens. I have referred to Policies CAS 3.1 and CAS 3.2 which identify Parkside for rail-related development and the compliance of the PLR with these aspects of policy.
St Helens Economic Evidence Base Paper (2015) (CD 5.78) 7.26 This paper provides an expert view of market demand for employment land in St Helens and demonstrates strong recent demand for modern large scale logistics development in the North West, particularly over 100,000 square feet. Mr Sandwell explains that this trend has continued and demand for large scale logistics, as identified in the paper, is the most active market in the region and a particular opportunity for St Helens given its location straddling the M6.
7.27 The Paper identifies a minimum site size of 5ha and a drive time to motorway junctions of 10 minutes or less as two of a number of important locational criteria for large scale distribution uses. The Paper concludes none of the sites identified in the evidence base that supported the St Helens Core Strategy (2012) as suitable for large scale
6354.12.018 78 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 79
distribution and manufacturing uses, satisfy the criteria, meaning that there is zero provision of suitable land for large scale distribution uses within the Borough’s identified employment land supply. This shortage of available land to build large distribution facilities has meant that businesses seeking these opportunities have gone elsewhere.
St Helens Employment Land Needs Study (ELNS) 2015 (CD 5.79) 7.28 Mr Sandwell explains in his evidence that his business was involved in this study and he describes that the 2015 study forecast an Objectively Assessed Need (OAN) of between 177 and 214 ha of employment land for the period 2012-2037. The main conclusions are that: • warehousing and the logistics market are performing strongly with further demand for growth in the regional market, focusing particularly on the motorway corridors. The logistics sector, particularly large-scale major projects, will be a key driver of growth but with some growth also expected in manufacturing; • large-scale warehousing market has substantial land requirements across the Liverpool City Region, and especially given its proximity to the motorway network and the employment development around the former Parkside colliery (including land identified as SRFI), St Helens could play a significant role in the provision of such land; and • notwithstanding the high-level of demand, the development of large logistics space has been constrained over recent years by a shortage of supply in high quality, large sites with excellent access to the motorway network and with planning support. Removal of these land supply constraints will generate renewed interest from occupiers for strategic locations in St Helens.
7.29 The ELNS identifies that the ability to deliver a rail freight interchange at Parkside would be 'a real game changer' because the site is better than most competing sites given connections to two rail lines: north-south via the West Coast Main Line and east- west via the Chat Moss Line between Liverpool and Manchester.
7.30 The ELNS confirms the area's key location, in terms of its proximity to the M6 (north- south) and M62 (east-west) motorways, to provide a critical role in the large-scale logistics sector.
6354.12.018 79 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 80
St Helens Employment Land Needs Study Addendum Report 2019 (CD 5.81) 7.31 This Report was prepared by BE Group as an addendum to the main ELNS (2015) and to an update in 2017 as Mr Sandwell explains. The Addendum was commissioned to verify whether the OAN identified in 2015 was still valid. It also provided further information on the likely ultimate job levels on the proposed employment allocations and potential job growth trajectories and where the additional labour to fill these jobs might emerge from.
7.32 The OAN was revised upwards, recognising the continued strength of the logistics sector and interest in and around St Helens, particularly for regionally significant, strategic sites. The OAN range for the period from 2012 to 2037is identified as 190- 239 ha.
St Helens Submission Draft Local Plan (CD 3.18) 7.33 The Submission Draft Local Plan allocates both Parkside West and Parkside East. The Plan includes site specific masterplans and the Plan’s Appendix 5 comprises the Masterplan for Parkside East including the SRFI.
7.34 This is consistent with the 2019 Framework paragraph 82 confirms that the specific locational requirements of different sectors should be recognised and addressed by both planning policies and decisions which includes making provision for ‘storage and distribution operations at a variety of scales and in suitably accessible locations’.
7.35 The reasoned justification of Policy LPA04 notes the inextricable link of St Helens’ economy to that of the wider Liverpool City Region. It references at paragraph 4.12.3 the Liverpool City Region Growth Strategy (2016) (CD 5.56). It references at paragraph 4.12.5 the Council’s Employment Land Needs Study (ELNS) (2015) (CD 5.79) and its Addendum Report (2017) (CD 5.80) confirming Parkside is ideally positioned to provide a critical role in the North West large-scale logistics and distribution sector.
7.36 Paragraphs 4.12.10 – 4.12.12 of the St Helens Emerging Local Plan discuss the Liverpool City Region Strategic Housing and Employment Land Assessment (SHELMA) 2018 (CD 4.159) and note that St Helens is one of seven local authority areas in the City Region’s Functional Economic Market Area (FEMA). It is noted that there is an identified need between 2012 and 2037 for at least 397 ha of land for large
6354.12.018 80 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 81
scale B8 development which is capable of accommodating units of over 9,000m2. The draft SHELMA states that apportionment of these large scale sites between local authority areas should be guided by the distribution of suitable sites, rather than on any other basis. Paragraph 4.12.12 notes that the residual employment land needs in St Helens will be sufficient to meet the Borough’s needs for B1, B2 and small scale B8 uses and also a substantial proportion of the sub-regional need for large scale B8 uses.
7.37 The discussion of Policy LPA04 at paragraph 4.12.13 notes that to strengthen the local economy, St Helens Borough needs to build on sectors where it enjoys a competitive advantage. It confirms that one such sector is logistics and distribution, where the Borough’s location in relation to the M6 and M62 motorways and the rail network makes it particularly attractive for development. It explains that the size of sites selected for release from the Green Belt and allocation for employment use reflect market needs for the large scale distribution sector (for units of above 9,000m2) which generally are on sites of 5ha or greater.
7.38 Paragraph 4.12.14 references the total supply of sites identified exceeding the residual employment land OAN of 215.4 hectares. This is explained because: a) Site 1EA comprising the Omega South site of 31.22 hectares is allocated to help Warrington Council meet its employment need (paragraph 4.12.15); b) there is a need to reverse the suppression of employment land take-up the Borough has experienced since 2005, caused by an inadequate supply of market attractive sites; and c) the Council identifies a need to provide flexibility to respond to any requirement to meet B8 strategic land needs resulting from the SHELMA, over and above that identified in the ELNS Addendum Report and factored into the employment land requirement.
7.39 Table 4.1 of the Plan includes two designations at Parkside, comprising site 7EA Parkside East and site 8EA Parkside West. Parkside East is 64.55 hectares and is allocated for uses set out in Policy LPA10 which I consider below. Parkside West is 79.57 hectares and is allocated for B2 and B8 uses, with part of the site reserved for rail access.
7.40 Footnote 17 to Table 4.1 explains that the ‘Parkside East site has a gross area of approximately 124.55ha, of which at least 60 ha is reserved for development of a
6354.12.018 81 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 82
Strategic Rail Freight Interchange or other rail enabled use (see Policy LPA10). The indicative site area of 64.55 ha represents the remainder of the site which may be developed for a wider range of employment uses subject to compliance with Policy LPA10. A further 5.58ha of land is included (to the west of the M6) to facilitate the provision of rail access to the site from the north.’
7.41 Footnote 18 to Table 4.1 sets out that ‘1879.57ha of land is allocated for employment use at the Parkside West site. This area excludes the 5.58ha of land which is required to facilitate rail access to site 7EA and a further 12.1 ha that is occupied by a spoil heap which is not considered developable’.
7.42 Table 4.1 of the Submission Draft Local Plan shows the area of each allocation. Parkside East comprises 24.3% of the employment sites allocated and Parkside West comprises 29.99%. This demonstrates the importance of the overall Parkside site to the anticipated employment needs in the Borough, comprising 54.29% of the Borough’s allocated employment land sites in the St Helens Submission Draft Local Plan.
7.43 The Reasoned Justification of Policy LPA04.01 explains that the Strategic Sites will play a significant role in the delivery of the overall strategy of the Plan and are anticipated to deliver most of the new employment land to meet need.
7.44 The Reasoned Justification of Policy LPA10 explains at paragraph 4.36.1 that there has been history of interest in the site for SRFI, planning applications have been made and that the site was identified as a potential location in the 2008 Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West. Mr Littler refers to aspects of this history in his evidence.
7.45 Paragraphs 4.36.2 and 4.36.3 reference The National Policy Statement for National Networks 2015 (CD 3.10) and quote from the final bullet of paragraph 2.29 on page 19 that the railway must ‘provide for the transport of freight across the country, and to and from ports, in order to help meet environmental goals and improve quality of life’.
7.46 The discussion in the paragraph 4.36.3 of the Reasoned Justification of Policy LPA10 notes that the NPS strongly supports the development of an expanded network of SRFIs to help promote economic development (by responding to the changing needs of the logistics sector and addressing growth in movement of freight by rail) and addressing climate change. It notes that the NPS also stresses that SRFIs should be
6354.12.018 82 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 83
near to business markets such as major urban centres or groups of centres and linked to key supply chain routes. It suggests that SRFI capacity needs to be provided at a wide range of locations to provide the flexibility needed to match the changing demands of the market (NPS NN CD 3.10, page 23 paragraphs 2.56 and 2.58).
7.47 Paragraph 4.36.4 of the Reasoned Justification references The Transport for the North (TfN) Freight and Logistics Report (2016) (CD 9.3) which advocated that 50 hectares of land should be developed each year for rail and/or water connected Multimodal Distribution Parks (MDPs). Paragraph 4.36.6 states forecast from the TfN Freight and Logistics Enhanced Analysis Report (January 2018) that the amount of freight moved in the North of England will grow significantly between 2016 and 2050 (by 33% based on tonnes lifted or 60% based on tonne kilometres) (CD 9.3, page 4). It notes that the Report identifies four main principles for investing in and enhancing rail freight interchange infrastructure, including north-south and east-west connectivity and intermodal connectivity.
7.48 Paragraph 4.36.9 of the Plan’s Reasoned Justification of Policy LPA10 references the Parkside Logistics and Rail Freight Interchange Study 2016 (CD 5.54) which Mr Sandwell explains considered delivery options for road and rail-linked logistics development on land at Parkside East and West. The study involved consultation with industry stakeholders and concluded that there is a clear demand for a new SRFI in the North West. It also identified that, due to its geographical location and specific characteristics that Parkside is uniquely placed to satisfy this demand. These characteristics include those widely acknowledged and presented in Mr Littler’s evidence of access being readily available to both the West Coast Main Line and to the Chat Moss Line (Liverpool to Manchester) railways and close to the M6 and M62 motorways.
7.49 The Policy LPA10 provision for other uses than SRFI is discussed in the Reasoned Justification at paragraphs 4.36.12 and 4.36.13. These note that the site’s strategic location makes it attractive to a range of other rail-enabled uses. The Parkside East site will be considered suitable in principle for these uses, subject to the benefits brought outweighing harm they would have on the scope to develop an SRFI at this location. Other Class B2 and B8 employment development may be accommodated provided that it is demonstrated that the layout of the site as a whole would enable the effective development of a nationally significant SRFI or other form(s) of major rail- enabled employment use(s) on at least 60ha of the site. The discussion explains that
6354.12.018 83 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 84
the 60ha equates to the threshold above which an SRFI use is identified as being ‘nationally significant’ under the Planning Act 2008.
7.50 Paragraphs 4.36.14 – 4.36.16 set out the Plan’s justification for removing Parkside East from the Green Belt. This notes that the Parkside site comprising Parkside West and Parkside East comprises the single largest economic development opportunity in the Borough.
7.51 I have noted that the Submission Draft St Helens Local Plan has only limited weight as it has recently been submitted for Examination and there are unresolved objections to the proposals to remove land at Parkside from the Green Belt. However, I consider that the evidence base used for the emerging Local Plan, along with further contemporary evidence, derived from existing national, regional and local policy, comprises a very strong material consideration supporting the PLR.
Need for the Parkside Development and its Phasing
7.52 Mr Sandwell’s evidence addresses the need for the Parkside development based on the extensive evidence base of studies considering the requirements for employment land in St Helens, the wider area and particularly the Liverpool City Region.
7.53 Mr Sandwell explains that his knowledge of the market indicates the continuing and growing demand for the opportunities offered by the Parkside site, which other than the Phase 1 development require the PLR. This is clearly demonstrated in the evidence base for the emerging Local Plan set out in evidence.
7.54 The clear intention is that there will be a phased approach to the development of Parkside and the PLR comprises critical infrastructure to allow that phased development to occur. Mr Sandwell notes the importance of clustering and ‘momentum’ of development on strategic sites such as Parkside. This requires that critical infrastructure such as the PLR is delivered in advance.
7.55 Parkside Phase 1 has been designed to develop as much road-based logistics as possible based on existing (and enhanced) highway capacity. The PLR is required infrastructure to enable future development of Parkside beyond Phase 1, including the SRFI. The PLR is needed to deliver the access solution required for the comprehensive development long supported in regional and local policy.
6354.12.018 84 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 85
7.56 The ELNS 2015 (CD 5.79) concludes by recognising Parkside as a key site to secure future logistics purposes. Paragraph 9.8 of the study states how the site can come forward in phases, to ensure the appropriate infrastructure is funded: ‘Parkside’s particular intended role as the Strategic Rail Freight Interchange would enhance its attractiveness as a logistics node. However, it is recognised that there will be considerable costs in order for Parkside’s rail infrastructure to be delivered to the market and as such the rail component of this site is likely to be achieved in the longer term. A staged approach to the development of Parkside, where some land is available to the market prior to the construction of the rail infrastructure may be a way of funding the rail component of the project.'
7.57 This recognition of phasing as a way to bring forward the whole scheme is the fundamental justification for bringing forward the road now, whilst there are funding opportunities, and as a precursor to Phases 2 and 3 being delivered. It comprises a strong material consideration in favour of the PLR.
Absence of Alternatives
7.58 The material consideration of the comprehensive evidence base for the emerging Local Plan, and the evidence base for other policy supporting development at Parkside set out that Parkside presents a number of unique locational characteristics. Parkside West is the site of a former colliery. The Parkside site is adjacent to the M6 and very close to the M62 and lies at the connection of the West Coast Main Line and the Chat Moss line (Liverpool to the Manchester) railways. CD 9.1 comprises a report prepared by Intermodality for iSec Ltd which considers need for SRFI generally, in northwest England and with reference to the Parkside site. It considers at Table 2 on page 13 how Parkside East performs against criteria for SRFI. I reproduce this in my Table 7.1 below.
6354.12.018 85 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 86
Table 7.1: SRFI Criteria and Parkside East Performance
SRFI Criteria Parkside East At least 60 Hectares situated in England Some 124 Ha of land is available, twice the minimum specified by the NPSNN / Planning Act
Appropriately located relative to the markets Estimated 940,000 people within 15km they will serve, which will focus largely on of site major urban centres, or groups of centres Part of the railway network in England Part of the Strategic Freight Network (SFN)
Located alongside the major rail routes, in Located alongside SFN Core Trunk particular the Strategic Rail Freight Network Route Located on a rail route with a gauge Principal connecting routes W10-W12 capability of W8 or more, or capable of gauge enhancement to a suitable gauge Capable of handling 775 metre trains with Southern plot able to accept 775m appropriately configured on-site length trains from main line in either infrastructure and layout, minimising the direction and stable within the site need for on-site rail shunting and provide for without splitting a configuration which, ideally, will allow main line access for trains from either direction Close to major trunk roads Adjacent to M6 Junction 22 and M6 Junction 21a / M62 Junction 10 Capable of accommodating rail-served Site can accommodate over 300,000 sq warehousing, container handling facilities, m of buildings or various sizes and uses manufacturing and processing activities Capable of handling consignments of goods Site can accommodate multiple from more than one consignor and to more occupiers, along with open-access multi- than one consignee user rail freight interchange facilities
Capable of handling four trains per day and, Masterplan options provide capacity on where possible, be capable of increasing the site for between 8 and 16 full-length number of trains handled trains simultaneously Capable of providing a number of rail Site is proposed to be developed in connected or rail accessible buildings for phases, the initial phases offering rail initial take up, plus rail infrastructure to allow access and facilities capable of being more extensive rail connection within the site scaled up in later phases in the longer term The initial stages of the development must See above provide an operational rail network connection and areas for intermodal handling and container storage It is not essential for all buildings on the site Any buildings constructed on site would to be rail connected from the outset, but a be connected to the rail facilities via on- significant element should be site road and rail infrastructure Availability of workforce St Helens Council area alone offers an employment pool of over 90,000 people with 3.7% unemployed 20.
6354.12.018 86 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 87
7.59 It is these characteristics which give the site its clear distinction and value and set it apart from other opportunities. There is no other alternative location, whether in the Green Belt or outside of it, which presents these opportunities which make it available for the rail-related development and the SRFI.
7.60 Mr Bayliss describes the selection of the route for the PLR and notes that there are no options that are not in Green Belt. The selection of the PLR route from options available has been subject to consultation and to high scrutiny as part of the SIF funding evaluation. There is no access solution for the land which does not require Green Belt land.
7.61 This absence of alternatives for the employment land required, SRFI and the access required is a strong material consideration in favour of the PLR.
Deliverability of the PLR
7.62 The PLR is technically deliverable. Mr Bayliss’ evidence explains its technical design is appropriate for its purpose and Mr Roberts confirms that it will perform appropriately for the traffic anticipated from the Parkside development as a whole.
7.63 Mr Littler has set out in his evidence the funding position, explaining that St Helens Council as promoter of the scheme has met the requirements of the Liverpool City Region Strategic Infrastructure Fund. This funding exists specifically to deliver strategic infrastructure to enable significant economic growth. A Full Business Case and economic argument has been subject to scrutiny and compliance with the objectives of the SIF Fund has been confirmed. Liverpool City Region has confirmed that the funds are available for the now revised timing for delivery of the PLR. Mr Littler has explained the breakdown of funding and that the private sector funds required also are available.
7.64 Mr Littler has confirmed the status of land acquisitions required and that a contractual agreement is in place for the delivery of the road by Balfour Beatty. Mr Littler describes the scheme as ‘shovel ready’ and able to be implemented promptly to realise the benefits it will bring.
7.65 Mr Littler explains that the secured funding represents around 16% of the committed SIF monies. Although the Liverpool City Region has confirmed that the funds remain
6354.12.018 87 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 88
available for a revised programme of its implementation if granted permission now, it is possible that if permission is not granted, funding for future delivery could be at risk. This presents this application as possibly a ‘once in a generation’ opportunity to realise the delivery of the Parkside site.
7.66 The current deliverability of the PLR is a material consideration that weighs strongly in its favour.
Deliverability of the SRFI
7.67 Mr Sandwell references The Parkside Logistics and Rail Freight Interchange Study 2016 (CD 5.54), an independent report commissioned on behalf of St Helens Council to investigate the feasibility of delivery options for a road and rail linked logistics development at the application site as part of the emerging Local Plan. This report showed that the ‘Parkside Strategic Site’ clearly lends itself to larger scale logistics and distribution uses, due to its proximity to the M6. The estimated 74 acres8 (31.6ha) of developable industrial land at the Parkside Strategic site is considered by the market to have the ability to deliver up to 1.5 million sq. ft. of industrial and/or logistics space. There is considered to be good demand for 'big box' logistics with demand will likely be from other distribution users and possibly manufacturers. Mr Sandwell’s evidence confirms that the most active market is for larger size facilities.
7.68 The Parkside Logistics and Rail Freight Interchange Study 2016 (CD 5.54) acknowledges the historic interest in bringing the application site forward for SRFI, particularly the previous application in 2006 to develop SRFI with over 700,000 square metres of rail served warehousing. The application was withdrawn in July 2010 with the applicant citing the economic climate and market conditions.
7.69 The Parkside Logistics and Rail Freight Interchange Study 2016 (CD 5.54) confirms that an SRFI is feasible and technically deliverable at Parkside. Network Rail produced the Parkside Strategic Rail Freight Interchange Report in 2018 which considers the train paths available to an SRFI at Parkside and again confirms technical feasibility.
7.70 Mr Littler refers in his evidence to previous proposals for an SRFI at Parkside which have failed due to economic difficulties. The Parkside East site is now in the control of iSec Ltd which is an experienced developer of SRFI and has made a representation in support of the PLR.
6354.12.018 88 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 89
7.71 Mr Littler confirms in his evidence that iSec Ltd is preparing its proposals on the basis of an assumption that the PLR will be delivered consistent with the Liverpool City Region SIF programme. Mr Littler explains that iSec has confirmed that it considers bringing forward the SRFI will be much more challenging and may render the project undeliverable without the PLR.
7.72 The Parkside Strategic Rail Freight Interchange Background Paper 2020 (CD 5.90) includes iSec’s Delivery Statement as its Annex 2. CD 5.90 at paragraph 6.5 on page 22 summarises this as follows: iSec control land at Parkside East; In accordance with the proposed Local Plan policy, iSec is developing a masterplan for Parkside East focussed on the provision a major SRFI incorporating a new food manufacturing and distribution ‘Super Hub’ for the North West of England; The model of development proposed for Parkside East is similar to a scheme being progressed by iSec at Thames Enterprise Park, serving the London conurbation; iSec is in advanced discussions with a Freight Operating Company (FOC) for the SRFI at Parkside East and is working with specialist SRFI advisors to inform design; The intention of iSec is to progress the proposals at Parkside East through a Development Consent Order, with the expectation that this process will conclude at the end of 2023; and Development of Parkside East could start in 2024 and would likely take up to 10 years to be fully developed.’
7.73 The presence of an experienced SRFI operator in control of and preparing proposals for the Parkside site makes the deliverability of the SRFI following implementation of the PLR a very likely prospect. This high probability of delivery of the SRFI is a strong material consideration in favour of the PLR.
Economic Benefits
7.74 Mr Russell sets out in his evidence the anticipated economic benefits from construction of the PLR. These include training opportunities and employment which comprises the
6354.12.018 89 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 90
equivalent of 40 years’ full time employment. The PLR will facilitate the phased development of Parkside Phase 2 and the SRFI which will bring further construction employment. However, Mr Russell sets out the very substantial economic benefits which will arise from the operation of Parkside Phase 2 and the SRFI.
7.75 Mr Russell estimates that the provision of new employment floorspace through the Parkside Phase 2 and SRFI developments could support the creation of 6,590 gross FTE jobs (PLR.GR.1, paragraph 3.31). Mr Russell estimates that Gross Added Value (GVA) from the operation of Parkside Phase 2 and the SRFI will be £391m in St Helens; £417.4m in the Wider Impact Area; and £425.9m in the Liverpool City Region (Mr Russell, Table 9, page 17). This would be an effect of large beneficial significance.
Sustainability Benefits
7.76 Modal switch of freight to rail has long been identified as strongly contributing to carbon reduction and this is reinforced in national policy. NPPF paragraph 148 promotes sustainable development and states that the planning system should support the transition to a low carbon future, helping shape places in ways that contribute to radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, supporting renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure.
7.77 On a European level the EU Road Map to a Single European Transport Area 2011 (CD 5.93 sets out the vision for transport in Europe over the next 40 years. The overall goal set when the document was published was to achieve a 60% reduction of transport emissions by 2050. Part of this would be achieved by modal shift moving 30% of road freight to other modes such as rail or waterborne transport by 2030 and 50% by 2050 (CD 5.93, page 9).
7.78 The UK has left the European Union although the UK government has stated further commitment to carbon reduction plans. Its latest statement during the preparation of my proof of evidence was made on 3rd December 2020 which I include at my Appendix 3. This is stated to be the most ambitious carbon reduction plan of any developed country and will require substantial activity. Switching freight to rail is acknowledged as important to carbon reduction and the PLR is critical infrastructure to allow Parkside SRFI to make an important contribution to this target.
6354.12.018 90 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 91
7.79 The NPSNN (CD 3.10) confirms at paragraph 2.53 that the Government believes that it is important to facilitate the development of the intermodal rail freight industry because the transfer of freight from road to rail has an important part to play in the low carbon economy and in helping to address climate change.
7.80 The PLR is critical to delivery of the SRFI and securing the sustainability benefits that will arise and this is a strong material consideration in its favour.
6354.12.018 91 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 92
8.0 OVERALL CONCLUSION
8.1 I have concluded that the PLR will cause harm to Green Belt openness and to the purpose of preventing sprawl in the countryside. I consider that the PLR as a stand- alone development will cause limited harm. The development of Parkside Phase 2 and particularly the SRFI east of the M6 will give rise to greater harm. Substantial weight must be given to this harm.
8.2 I have concluded that there will be other harm arising from the PLR and from the secondary effects of the development it will facilitate. This includes harm to landscape character and harm to some to views. The harm to landscape will not occur on or near to sites designated for their landscape value or to ‘valued landscapes’. The harm to views is not so severe as to be regarded as unacceptable to amenity.
8.3 There will be harm to identified heritage assets. I acknowledge that the less than substantial harm identified nonetheless requires careful consideration in the planning balance. I note that Historic England does not object to the PLR when considering effects on the Registered Battlefield and that the historic environment advisers to two planning authorities do not raise objections when considering other heritage assets. The harm that will arise comes from developments that will bring substantial economic benefits in a location that has unique characteristics suited to that development. I consider that this outweighs the harm
8.4 The PLR will give rise to the loss of just over 20 hectares of best and most versatile agricultural land. The PLR will facilitate the development of the SRFI which will occur on around 125 hectares of agricultural land assumed to be within the definition of best and most versatile land. NPPF paragraph 170 requires that economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land are recognised in planning decisions. The loss cannot be mitigated but nor can it be avoided: this asset coincides with the position of the Parkside site near the M6 and M62 motorways and the WCML and Liverpool-Manchester railway lines which make the site unique.
8.5 I have identified that there are material considerations that weigh in favour of the PLR when considering its purpose in facilitating the development which will give rise to the secondary effects identified. I consider that the identified material considerations clearly outweigh the harm to Green Belt and the other harm that would arise and so very special circumstances exist.
6354.12.018 92 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 93
8.6 I have identified that with the exception of Green Belt policies, the PLR is in general accordance with the development plans of St Helens and Warrington. Given my conclusion that very special circumstances exist to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and that the relevant Green Belt policies in each development plan require compliance with national planning policy, I conclude that the PLR proposal is consistent with each development plan provided it comprises sustainable development.
8.7 St Helens Policy CSD 1 sets out a presumption in favour of sustainable development broadly consistent with the approach identified in the Framework and Warrington Policy CS1 similarly sets out that part of its Overall Spatial Strategy is achieving sustainable development.
8.8 I consider the PLR proposal against the three strands of sustainable development below.
Economic Objective
8.9 The economic benefits of Parkside regeneration which will be supported by the Parkside Link Road have been set out extensively above with benefits accruing to St Helens and Warrington as well as the wider Liverpool City Region. These include direct employment during construction of the PLR and the very substantial direct employment and additional economic activity resulting from supply linkage and income multiplier effects.
Social Objective
8.10 Social benefits will accrue from the forecast substantial economic activity that Mr Russell sets out in his evidence. These include training and education benefits and Mr Russell refers to the recent completion of the new Northern Logistics Academy for St Helens College to provide specialist transport and logistics training to help ensure that students gain the skills employers will seek.
8.11 Importantly, Mr Russell explains in the later parts of Chapter 3 of his evidence that the Parkside Phase 2 and SRFI developments are close to areas suffering from severe levels of deprivation, including some parts of St Helens that are amongst the most deprived areas in the country. Mr Russell confirms that there are other significant
6354.12.018 93 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 94
concentrations of deprivation and lower levels of residents in employment in other parts of the City Region when compared to wider averages.
8.12 In parts of St Helens employment deprivation is a particular problem, with a relatively high proportion of households classed as workless. Mr Russell confirms that the number of jobs in the St Helens borough has remained relatively static, with higher levels of employment growth experienced within the wider sub-region. He explains that many of the jobs would be accessible to new entrants to the labour market and those who are currently unemployed although it is likely technological change will drive a greater need for specialised technical skills presenting opportunities for improving the pathways to work and career advancement. These represent substantial social benefits which will arise from development facilitated by the PLR.
Environmental Objective
8.13 The PLR will deliver substantial biodiversity net gain as Mr Hesketh has demonstrated in his evidence. The exact form and details of the development in Parkside Phase 2 and the SRFI will determine their effects on the local environment but Mr Hesketh explain that there is no reason why each cannot provide biodiversity net gain by onsite or other measures.
8.14 The Parkside site’s particular value is its ability to deliver increased rail freight. This is acknowledged as being an important contribution to carbon reduction which is an environmental imperative, reinforced by the UK government in December 2020. Its unique characteristics close to north-south and east-west railway lines and motorways make the site ideal for a multimodal facility bringing these national environmental benefits.
8.15 Taking account of all of the above, I conclude that the PLR proposal facilitating the development of Parkside Phase 2 and the SRFI comprises sustainable development. Considering the development plans as a whole, having taken account of policies including Green Belt policies, I conclude that the PLR complies with the development plans and should be approved without delay.
6354.12.018 94 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 95
9.0 SUMMARY
9.1 My name is Ian Jeffrey Grimshaw. I am a Chartered Member of the Royal Town Planning Institute and a Chartered Member of the Landscape Institute. I am a Director of The Environment Partnership (TEP) Limited which I co-founded over twenty years ago.
9.2 I have worked on a large number of infrastructure and development projects taking the lead on securing planning permission and related consents. TEP has provided a range of services to St Helens Council as applicant in connection with the Parkside Link Road including town planning advice. I have overseen these services on the project since early 2017.
9.3 The PLR is a proposed road that would be in the Green Belt of St Helens and Warrington. It would facilitate development at Parkside Phase 2 and a Strategic Rail Freight Interchange at Parkside East. The development plan in St Helens comprises the Core Strategy 2012, saved policies from the Unitary Development Plan, policies from the Joint Merseyside and Halton Waste Local Plan and adopted Supplementary Planning Documents.
9.4 St Helens Council submitted its emerging Local Plan for Examination in October 2020. It proposes removal of the land at Parkside from the Green Belt. It has little material weight at present although the evidence base supports material considerations I identify in my evidence.
9.5 The development plan in Warrington comprises the Warrington Core Strategy and adopted Supplementary Planning Documents.
9.6 I consider Green Belt policy in Section 4.0 of my evidence. I note that relevant policy in the development plans refer to national policy. I consider that the PLR is inappropriate development in the Green Belt because I find that it will cause harm to openness and harm to one of the purposes of Green Belt. When considering harm, I consider the direct harm of the PLR as a new road in the Green Belt and the secondary effects of the development which the PLR will facilitate.
9.7 I consider that the PLR will cause limited harm to openness because primarily it is a development at ground-level and does not enclose land. I note that Green Belt
6354.12.018 95 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 96
commonly washes over roads including motorways. The PLR would cause limited harm to the purpose of safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. The secondary effects of development facilitated by the PLR will have a greater effect on openness and on the Green Belt purpose of safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.
9.8 Green Belt policy requires that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. Inappropriate development should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Very special circumstances will not exist unless potential harm to the Green Belt and any other harm resulting from the proposal is clearly outweighed by other considerations.
9.9 I consider the extent of compliance with development plans’ policies other than Green Belt policy in Section 6.0 of my evidence. I consider that the PLR including the secondary development it will facilitate is in general compliance with the development relevant development plan policies. There would be some harm caused to aspects of the environment, including some harm to heritage assets, to landscape character and to some views. There would be loss of best and most versatile agricultural land to the PLR and a much larger area lost to the SRFI east of the M6. These matters comprise ‘other harm’ to be carried forward to weigh against the PLR. I note that there would be substantial economic benefits from the development facilitated by the PLR.
9.10 For very special circumstances to exist, the harm to Green Belt and the other harm must be clearly outweighed by other considerations. I consider other material considerations in Section 7.0 of my evidence. I identify the following categories of material considerations.
Policy Support 9.11 There has been long held policy support for an SRFI and related development at Parkside. Much of this forms the evidence base for the Submission Version of the St Helens Local Plan. Amongst the matters demonstrated in the evidence base is the high suitability of the site because of its location which is close to the West Coast Main Line and the Liverpool to Manchester railway lines as well as being close to the M6 and M62 motorways.
6354.12.018 96 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 97
Need for the Parkside Development 9.12 I refer to the St Helens Local Plan evidence base and to Mr Sandwell’s evidence in setting out the need for the Parkside development. Mr Sandwell brings contemporary evidence of demand for the type and scale of development that the Parkside site can provide. The need will meet local, regional and some national demands. The PLR is needed to realis the benefits that the Parkside site can bring and for it to be developed in phases to meet demand.
Absence of Alternatives 9.13 The characteristics of the Parkside site are unique. I refer to analysis of criteria for SRFI which demonstrate that the Parkside site meets each of these and make it an excellent opportunity for the types of development the PLR will facilitate. The combination of factors that make it suitable are rarely found. There are no options for the PLR which will not be in Green Belt land.
Deliverability of the PLR 9.14 The PLR comprises a ‘shovel-ready’ project with funding in place and contracts which can allow it to proceed quickly. These circumstances are present now but may not be in the future.
Deliverability of the SRFI 9.15 There is an experienced developer of SRFI which has control of land at Parkside East and is preparing a delivery programme. The SRFI is deliverable and the PLR will facilitate this development and its benefits along with Parkside Phase 2.
Sustainability Benefits 9.16 There will be substantial economic benefits to St Helens, a wider impact area and to the Liverpool City Region from development facilitated by the PLR. The benefits include direct economic benefit from construction of the PLR, Parkside Phase 2 and the SRFI together with benefits from employment as the developments commence operation.
Environmental Benefits 9.17 The Parkside Link Road as a development will secure demonstrable biodiversity net gain. The SRFI will play an important part in the delivery of carbon reduction from
6354.12.018 97 PLR.IJG. 1- Pg 98
modal shift of freight. This contribution is well-recognised as a benefit of rail-related development which would be facilitated by the PLR.
9.18 In my overall conclusion, I consider that very special circumstances are shown which clearly outweigh the harm to Green Belt and any other harm caused by the PLR proposal. I consider that the proposal is compliant with the development plans.
9.19 The PLR will bring economic benefits as has been demonstrated. It will bring social benefits, particularly by the economic benefits being experienced by areas suffering from severe levels of deprivation and also from training and employment benefits being accessible to people from areas of deprivation.
9.20 The benefits from biodiversity net gain and from carbon reduction meet environmental objectives.
9.21 I conclude that the PLR represents sustainable development and should be approved without delay.
6354.12.018 98