Agriculture

1. Agricultural Quality, reports states mainly 3b, but excludes the recreation ground from its assessment, therefore this should be excluded from that overall classification, making 20% of the site higher quality land than 3b. But in any event simply because land is in a category below 3a does not automatically make that land development land. The land classifications are set out in the MAFF publication Agricultural Land Classifications of England and Wales. PPG7 Annex B3 tells us that grade 3b is of moderate quality, not as indicated by the Appellants as low quality agricultural land. Whilst the higher grades of agricultural land have higher threshold of protection nevertheless land in the lower grades still have the same protection as the higher grades in all matters relating to the need to protect and preserve the countryside.
2. Land drainage and the effects from the underlying aquifer and underground streams (see proof of David Fearnley). Consideration needs to be given to the consequences for other agricultural land and the potential need to redesign and implement land drainage systems affected by the development (PPG7 Annex B12). The Appellant has not addressed this issue, yet has far reaching consequences not only for connecting land to the site, but further afield through the watercourses affecting the Mersey Basin.

Archaeology

1. By looking at the Archaeological Report of the mixed use development we see at Appendix 1 a list of the main archaeological features, items 1, 3,4,8 have direct bearing on the appeal site. Item 1 is a circular cropmark potentially prehistoric; Item 3 is an ancient field system/trackway of unknown age; Item 4 is the Lee Hall Settlement of medieval origin; Item 8 is a settlement of 19^th century origin. More details of these features are contained in the Proof of Dave Fearnley. For the purpose of this evidence it is sufficient to flag them up in respect of the need to ensure there is sufficient protection of the historic environment, as per the obligation in PPG1 (32)
2. It is clear from PPG16 that considerable weight must be given to sites that contain, or potentially contain archaeological remains. PPG16 (6) states: ‘Archaeological remains should be seen as a finite, and non-renewable resource, in many cases highly fragile and vulnerable to damage and destruction. Appropriate management is therefore essential to ensure that they survive in good condition. In particular, care must be taken to ensure that archaeological remains are not needlessly or thoughtlessly destroyed. They can contain irreplaceable information about our past and the potential for an increase in future knowledge. They are part of our sense of national identity and are valuable both for their own sake and for their role in education, leisure and tourism’.

Strengthening this PPG16(8) has the sentence: ‘Where nationally important archaeological remains, whether scheduled or not, and their settings, are affected by proposed development there should be a presumption in favour of their physical preservation’. From all of this we must conclude that simply because archaeological feature’s are not scheduled archaeological remains then it does not exclude them from protection within the planning process, and due weight should be given to them, especially as we have in the instant case remains that even the Appellants admit are of pre-historic origin, and therefore we conclude should be preserved.

A5225

1. The A5225 has little or no prospect of ever being completed, however the Appellant argues that he will in effect be putting in place the first leg of the by-pass. However if that is the case, and we take into account the many other road improvements that will need to be put in place before the development could be approved, we have to ask the question will the development provide sufficient funds to ensure the provision of this first section of the A5225, and all these other improvements.
2. A development before it is granted planning permission should have a realistic prospect of being completed. So okay the Appellant will argue that the point can be ensured by conditions, or alternatively by a Section 106 Agreement. I argue that no such condition or agreement can effectively be put in place.
3. In the first instance if the new road is to be the first leg of the A5225 then it must be constructed to the specification required for a by-pass. Which leave many problems for the developer, first the development proposal is for an exit onto the roundabout, whereas the by-pass proposal is for an under pass of the Chequerbent roundabout. Would it not then be reasonable to expect such a proposal to be carried out, after all if the development is completed, and insufficient land is reserved for the eventual underpass, may that not put into jeopardy the viability of the by-pass.
4. But on the other hand if we turn to Government Guidance on conditions we would see that it would be near impossible to put into place such a condition. Not only that but guidance is such that it would be unreasonable to attach to a planning application a condition that a road must be of a greater standard than that required to serve the development. For this we need to turn to Circular 11/95 where at para 14 it sets out that conditions attached to planning applications should be:

1. Again with relevant to planning, whilst the needs for good road links may be relevant to the grant of planning permission, I submit that it is not relevant whether the access road is built to a greater specification than that required. If the whole of the by-pass was a real possibility, then of course the specification of this section may have been relevant. But it is not, and therefore it is not a relevant consideration.
2. The same applies to the next consideration, is it relevant to the development to be permitted. The developers might argue that it is because, they cannot obtain planning permission because of the reserved by-pass corridor. However this then brings us to the point of Bolton’s argument that the development is premature, to quote their Rule 6 Statement para 8 ‘In light of the possible cancellation of the road scheme, it would be premature to approve the proposal until there is certainty about future road issues around Westhoughton’. That I submit is a very correct argument. Therefore on one hand the by-pass could be said to be relevant to the development, because they cannot gain planning permission on land that is in a protected road corridor, and therefore would require the construction of the by-pass as a pre-requisite to the planning permission. But on the other if it is relevant, that strengthens the argument that the land cannot be built upon because there is no certainty about its implementation. Is such a condition enforceable, this will not be known until we see the wording of the conditions.
3. Is the elements of the development relating to the potential conditions precise, the answer again has to be no. We do not know the exact details of the proposed route through the site, its links off to feed the industrial units (which cannot be direct off a road that is in effect constructed as the first link of a by-pass). Nor do we know details of width, access, numbers of lanes and so forth. The proposal as submitted cannot then be said to be precise in the context of this test.
4. The final point of being reasonable in all other respects, simply does not get off the ground. It is not reasonable to build the first leg of a by-pass that is going effectively nowhere, where the remainder of the by-pass will most likely not be constructed. A final point on this is land take for a road of the specification that would be required of a by-pass, as opposed to the land take for a normal service road for an industrial road, the land take I submit would be such as to reduce the size of the proposed development site to such a degree as to make the proposals unrealistic, and therefore likely to fail as being an unreasonable over optimistic development on a site the size of the appeal site.
5. I conclude that it would be manifestly unreasonable to attach a condition to a planning application requiring a road to be built to the specification required of a by-pass.
6. If we then turn to the arguments relating to a Section 106 agreement. DOE Cir 11/95 para 12, which sets out that a condition should be considered before an obligation: ‘This is because the imposition of restrictions by means of a planning obligation deprives the developer of the opportunity of seeking to have the restrictions varied or removed by an application or appeal under Part 111 of the Act if they are or become inappropriate or too onerous’. And this come to the route of the developers problems if they take on board the many road alterations, as well as providing a section of the A5225, which may very well prove far to onerous (costly) for a development of this size especially as the new road will potentially reduce the percentage of land that will generate an income.

Plan Led System

1. There is a need to proceed from a plan-led prospective, in that sufficient weight should be accorded to the emerging UDP, albeit that the development was before the planning committee at an early stage of the development of the emerging UDP that has now been adopted by the LA, I therefore put it that due weight should be given to the adopted plan. As we now know the site has been reallocated the status of protected open land, the industrial allocated status having been removed.
2. PPG1 (40) makes it clear that sufficient weight should be given to interests of acknowledged importance. Whilst the development site is in the current UDP and has been so for many years, whilst relevant, that fact is not exclusively important. We need to take into account the changing understanding of the need to preserve and protect for tomorrow’s generation, the effect that developments of this nature can have on both the rural and urban areas, pollution, traffic congestion, and so forth. In that respect I put it that the emerging UDP more clearly defines modern thinking and policy, local, regional, national and European.
3. The Inspector must take into account new policies and guidance that may not be in accord with the approved development plan, PPG1 (45). This is taken further in PPG1 (46) with the direct obligation to remove sites that are no longer appropriate, and reallocate them to other more realistic uses.
4. PPG1 ANNEX A1 Policies should be based on a proper assessment of the character of the surrounding built and natural environment. Whilst a proper assessment may have been carried out when the current UDP was approved, that criteria no longer applies due to the fundamental change in our understanding of the need to preserve and protect, therefore I put it that the present allocation has not had the benefit of a proper assessment of the character of the surrounding built and natural environment.

Playing Fields

1. Can that section of the site stated to be for relocated playing fields and conservation be included within an application for outline planning consent. On the one hand we have the developers saying, that they want planning permission for the whole site, 2.4 hectares of which are for relocated playing fields and conservation, whilst on the other hand they state that the application is for less than 20 hectares because the rest of the site is not for industrial. Therefore is that part of the application or not. If it is not then let them alter the application accordingly, with all the consequences that would result.
2. Which would mean that permission would need to be applied for change of use that is from agricultural to sports and recreation. The present application is for outline permission for industrial B1, B2 & B8 to include consideration of access, all other matters being reserved. What eventually is erected on the site and where any buildings or other structure are placed is a question for the reserved matters stage, all that is important at this stage is the principle of developing within the red line, which includes the disputed 2.4 hectares. It must be assumed in this appeal irrespective of what the developer says that the whole site can at the end of the day be developed for industrial units. It most certainly cannot be assumed that the stated recreation area is to be used for recreation and wildlife, because the Inspector does not have the requisite power to grant outline planning permission for that purpose. Albeit he could grant permission with suitable conditions to that effect.

Traffic - Congestion

1. PPG 4 (10) sets out that development should be discouraged where such development is likely to add unacceptably to congestion. In the present proposals it is clear that the development will lead to unacceptable congestion. The TIA says as much, albeit that it states that with suitable mitigation that can be got over. However that mitigation is not within the gift of the appellant, the land is all highways authority land, without a full mitigation package before the inquiry, or a suitable Grampian type condition there can be no guarantee that these needed mitigation measures will ever be achievable. And without them, by the developers own admission the proposals would create unacceptable congestion.
2. PPG4 (15) states Planning permission should normally be granted unless there are specific and significant objections such as a relevant development plan policy, unacceptable noise, smell, safety, and health impacts or excessive traffic generation. From the last paragraph we see the potential problems of not being able to put into place the required mitigation to relieve congestion. But in any event the congestion relieving mitigation proposals only look at 4 locations, whereas the congestion created will be wide spread, with added cumulative effects from at least 2 other known developments that appear on the face of the known information have not been included in the traffic assessment. That is Bowlands Hey, and the development at Belvedere Farm Hindley Green, which already has planning permission, albeit that permission is the subject of a challenge by way of an application for leave to apply for judicial review.
3. Once these figure are added to the Lee Hall site, especially as we suspect, the land owner comes back at a later date with a further application for housing on the extended Lee Hall site. This would lead to a much increased traffic problem in the general area of Westhoughton, most of which would see traffic coming onto Park Road.
4. The traffic forecasts are set to rise by 13% by the year 2016 according to the TIA 7.3.1 but they then go onto say that this will not be the case because of Government policies to reduce traffic, but does this not surely make the point that these types of developments that increase traffic are contrary to the policy to reduce traffic.
5. The traffic will queue right back onto the westbound carriageway of the M61 with 319 vehicles by the year 2016 TIA 7.3.2.2 Whilst we need greater calculations here, we would be looking at having well over half a mile of traffic queuing on the main carriageway of the M61, effectively reducing the capacity of the M61 to a two carriageway motorway. However in the July update to the TIA it states that in 2016 the queue is 419 vehicles.
6. In TIA 7.4.1 it states: In summary, without any infrastructure improvements, growth in existing traffic flows to the opening and the future years of 2006 and 2016 would result in significant problems across the highway network in the vicinity of the Lee Hall site:-

1. The developers assert that they will restrict the access in Platt Lane at its northern end. Whilst this may be a good move in terms of relieving traffic on the Northern section of Platt Lane. It will in effect cause other problems as great, or greater than those that are reputed to be cured will. Such as diverted traffic not accessing Plant Lane from the North needing to access the new link via Chequerbent roundabout, adding to congestion on Park Road and Chequerbent.

1. There are 3 Bolton designated wildlife corridors that spread tentacles out into the area of the appeal site (see proof of Vanessa Hall). The area just south of the site has a County designated status as a Site of Biological Importance (SBI). Both of these allocations are local designations and are afforded some protection from the wording contained in PPG9 (15): ‘Many sites of local importance are given designations by local authorities and by local conservation organisations. These sites are important to local communities, often affording people the only opportunity of direct contact with nature, especially in urban areas. Statutory and non-statutory sites, together with countryside features which provide wildlife corridors, links or stepping stones from one habitats to another, all help to form a network necessary to ensure the maintenance of the current range and diversity of our flora, fauna, geological and the landform features and the survival of importance species’. And para 16: ‘The Habitat Directive requires Member States to endeavour to encourage the management of features of the landscape which are of major importance for wild flora and fauna (see paragraph 23 below). These features are those which, because of their linear and continuous structure or their function as stepping stones, as essential for mitigation, dispersal and genetic exchange. Examples given in the Directive are rivers with their banks, traditional field boundary systems[such as hedgerows], ponds and small woods’. For full details of the adverse effects on fauna and flora see the proof of Vanessa Hall.
2. It is clear from a policy viewpoint that considerable weight should be given to the allocated status of SBI and Wildlife Corridors, the fact that the site is crucial to the continued viability of these features are we submit a material consideration that should be given full weight.

Bolton UDP

1. The first comment to be made on the allocation of the site is that only a proportion of the site is allocated in the UDP for employment purposes, whilst a total of 20 hectares are allocated, the allocated site differs from the Appeal site. This gives a number of problems for the Appellants, in the UDP site the by-pass borders the site, whilst in the appeal site it passes through the middle. Obviously the present proposal would not have been agreed upon or have been taken into account at the UDP inquiry, as different criteria would have applied.
2. The next point is that of course the present site is not wholly a designated site within the UDP. Therefore different considerations need to be applied to each section of the site. Those areas that are designated as being suitable for a high quality business park, must be dealt with in accordance with the concept of prematurity raised by Bolton and supported by SWAN. Whilst those sections not allocated for employment usage being dealt with as being contrary to the policy of the UDP to develop unallocated land CE12: The Council will not normally allow development on the defined areas of open land which are outside the urban area but not in the Green Belt. From this it is clear that the Council clearly had it in mind not to allow development on the defined areas of open land, as opposed to allowing development generally within an area. If the present site is allowed to proceed this could have the effect of extending the area of allocated development land within the Lee Hall Site, the developer could in all reality return at a later date with an application to develop the remaining UDP allocated portion of the site.
3. Policy PG11 which covers the wider part of the site states:

‘The Council will ensure that the development of the Lee Hall area of Westhoughton is co-ordinated with, and takes full advantage of, the building of proposed new roads in the vicinity.

the northern part of the site (Chequerbent) to the west of the proposed Wigan, Hindley and Westhoughton bypass is allocated for a high quality business park.

the southern part of the site west of the proposed bypass is intended primarily for housing but because of access constraints it has not been allocated for housing development in this plan. This part of Lee Hall should remain as open land until the access constraints can be resolved when the justification for its release will be re-assessed taking into account the other policies of the Plan’.

4. From this we see that the development of the area is to take full advantage of the proposed A5225, the whole concept of allowing this site to be included is based upon the construction of this road, had there been no road proposal, then this site may very well not have been included within the plan. That is not one small section, as would be the case if the proposed section through the appeal site was to be constructed, but the whole road. There is no evidence that the rest of the road will ever be constructed. The second point, which is gone into in more detail elsewhere, is the site is allocated for ‘high quality business park’, whereas the present application is for B1, B2 & B8 development, this mixed use cannot be described as a ‘high quality business park’. As the site allocation in the UDP is quite specific (17E) in that it is linked to policy PPG11 and the provision of the A5225. On this last point if we look at the landscaping plan for the proposed A5225 we see that in fact there is very little left of the appeal site.
5. The text of the UDP in this section makes it quite clear the whole development of this area is based upon the new road, stating that ‘The development of the northern part of the site cannot proceed until the final alignment of the proposed Wigan, Hindley and Westhoughton bypass and associated junction is known …… The southern part of Lee Hall should remain as open land until the access constraints can be resolved’. From this we see that development of the extended site is only intended as part and parcel of the bypass, it must be summed up as ‘no bypass no development’.
6. The roads surrounding the site are awash with accident blackspots (figure 5 of the TIA), any increase in traffic will increase this problem, increasing the traffic to the degree that this development will, must conflict with the obligation in UDP policy CE5. ‘The Council will assess development proposals in terms of their contribution to creating the safest possible environment’.

1. PPG24 (3.20) puts it that outline planning permission for developments where there is potential for significant risk of pollution. Para 3.21 concludes: ‘However, once outline permission has been granted, it would be unreasonable to attach conditions to the detailed approvals of environmental matters that have the effect of nullifying the outline permission’. The development is for High Tech Industries, warehousing and manufacturing, this brings us into the realms of high risk pollution from
2. There is a real potential for the pollution of the Mersey Basin from contaminants entering the surface water and from there contaminating the under-lying aquifer which will transfer the pollution over a wide area, not only through the ground water but also the Westleigh and Pennington Brooks. 4.17 of RPG13 points out that half the river length in the Mersey Basin is classified as poor or bad. Any increase in polluted ground-water will add to this problem.
3. Add to this unacceptable car related air pollution from the heavy congestion caused by the development, in particular in the area of Park Road, where this high level of pollution will have an adverse effect upon the health of local residents living in that area of Westhoughton. As well as for the higher levels of condensed pollution to be found in vehicles moving slowly or becoming stationary due to the high levels of congestion.

1. In the agreed statement both the Local Authority and the Appellant admit that the development is over 20 hectares, with the statement in the 2nd para of page 2: The site (as amended) comprises approximately 22.1 hectares (54.5 acres) of predominately agricultural land…’. Which clearly strengthens the objector’s arguments that there should be an ES for this development, the Indicative Threshold having been exceeded.

1. The case against the proposed development is overwhelming, it is an unsustainable development on green field site, that will see unacceptable increases in traffic congestion, will deny the local children access to the only play area that is close to their homes. Bringing big increases in air and noise pollution. The failure to also submit a Master Plan of the land owners intention for the whole site conflict to the degree that there is only one conclusion that the Inspector can come to.

1. For all the reasons set out in this proof we ask that the Inspector upholds the decision of the Local Authority, and rejects this Appeal.