JOIN PLANNING SANITY HERE

HELP US HELP YOU our work relies upon your donations and subscriptions to survive

MAKE A DONATION TO PLANNING SANITY HERE

1. This evidence relates to the legal framework, policy conflicts, and air quality of Appeal No. app/n4205/a/99/1033664 for the proposed industrial development (B1,B2 & B8) of 22.4 hectares of land off Park Road Westhoughton, and is presented on behalf of SWAN (Save Westhoughton, Act Now), (a local community group formed to campaign for the preservation of Westhoughton and its environs) by Chris Maile Chair of the Campaign for Planning Sanity (CfPS). I have a practical background of environmental campaign experience spanning some 20 years, and have been involved in many planning applications and public inquiries most recently as the advocate for the local community group opposing an application for what is promoted as Europe’s largest indoor sports centre, Xanadu. I have made studies of environmental and planning law, and through these studies and the perusal of the relevant Domestic and European Guidance, Regulations and Directives feel able to give to this inquiry a value judgement of the relevant policies, regulations and guidance.
2. The site was originally intended as part of a wider scheme of mixed-use development, the intention of the appellant in relation to the eventual use of the whole site has not been established. I contend that the decision-maker can refuse planning permission for a development that is being put forward as part of a wider scheme, but in a piecemeal way by holding back on elements of the application.
3. A development that is clearly intended to be part of a much larger development should not be allowed to proceed until the developer has put before the inquiry full details of his intended use for all the remainder of his land that forms part of the same holding. Such detail should be in the form of a Masterplan, and that Masterplan should form a material consideration in the decision-making process.
4. It is our case that the proposed development does not meet the criteria of sustainable development. The most widely accepted definition of sustainable development is that set out in PPG1(4) ‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’. This protection is not simply environmental, it is also the physical and visual amenity, both adverse and positive of a proposed development which needs to be taken into account.
5. Government policy is such that, within the planning system great weight must be attached to such issues as the need to protect the things that people value, in respect of the appeal site, it is clearly the case, as demonstrated by the large number of objections, and the membership of SWAN, that the local inhabitants value the wildlife and landscape of this site. They are also concerned with the potential for increasing poor air quality within the locality not only from the development it self, but also from increased traffic.
6. The site it self is set within a rural landscape that backs onto the urban area of Westhoughton, with the wider site stretching down towards the urban area of Hag Fold and Daisy Hill. Therefore the development will add to the urban sprawl.
7. The site has several distinctive archaeological features, the developers own consultants have pinpointed these. The site also has the benefit of existing recreational facilities in the recreation ground and the footpaths that run through the site, allowing the local community easy access to rural landscapes, thereby giving them the benefit of a rural leisure pursuit, which will be destroyed by the present proposals.
8. In defining suitable locations for development, plan policies should take into account:

• The contribution to regenerating existing urban areas;
• access to customers;
• the workforce catchment area;
• the availability of adequate infrastructure;
• various transport considerations including the particular needs of the freight industry. PPG1(21);

Whereas in rural areas, land that adjoins urban areas needs careful consideration, when developments are proposed for it (PPG1(31)). The development of this site does nothing towards contributing to regeneration of existing urban areas.

1. The prime rationale behind the allocation of this site for a high quality business park is the provision of new roads (A5225), as this is now doubtful, then the criteria of adequate infrastructure is not met.
2. Simply because land is in an agricultural classification 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.
3. There is the real possibility of there being problems with land drainage and the effects from the underlying aquifer and underground streams, therefore 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 this problem has far reaching consequences, not only for the connecting land to the site, but further afield through the watercourses affecting the Mersey Basin.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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:

• necessary;
• relevant to planning;
• relevant to the development to be permitted;
• enforceable;
• precise; and
• reasonable in all other respects.

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.

1. 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.
2. 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. As we now know the site has been reallocated the status of protected open land, the industrial allocated status having been removed.
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.
5. 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 use.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. There are 3 Bolton designated wildlife corridors that spread tentacles out into the area of the appeal site. 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).
9. 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.
10. 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 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.
11. 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. Policy PG11 which covers the wider part of the site states:
12. ‘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.
13. 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.
14. 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’.
15. 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. 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’.
16. 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.
17. 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.

• The development is unsustainable. It fails to meet the basic requirements of the existing UDP, in that development of this site cannot be carried out until such time as the route of the A5225 is known.
• It is premature in that the Deposit UDP has reallocated this land for other purposes.
• The proposed development is being carried out in a piecemeal fashion.
• The EIA thresholds have been exceeded and therefore the development has not had the degree of information required by law put forward for consideration. Therefore any decision taken without consideration of this information is susceptible to challenge as being unlawful.

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.