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

There is as far as SWAN is concerned no justification for this development on the proposed site, it has been clearly shown that it is contrary to both the present and emerging UDPs. It has been demonstrated through the evidence of Miss Hall and Mr Fearnley that the development will adversely affect the fauna and flora on site, we heard from members of the public who confirmed the presence of many rare or protected species. We have also heard how the proposals will be contrary to national and regional policies, its potential for adding to the increase in pollution, traffic and noise not only local but over the area. Miss Duckworth, and indeed Mr Goodman took us through the adverse effects from an economic aspect and the need for a development of this nature. Overall the assumption must be that the development simply is not sustainable on this site.

There are a number of other sites that have been flagged up as being more suitable, those that can be firmly put in the context of brownfield sites and others that are similar in makeup to the appeal site, but are more suitably located.

There is no evidence to suggest that this site is likely to attract inward investment, from overseas, or indeed other parts of the UK. The only such interest so far, has been that of Hitachi at Middlebrook. Chequerbent is not identified in the NWDA’s ‘Strategy Towards 2020’ as one of the key 11 strategic sites to be given priority for inward investment over the next 6 years.

There is no evidence that demand, for B1 usage, is likely to shift from the South Manchester Crescent to the North Manchester Corridor. Large sites are still available in the South area and have access to a large labour supply with low cost wages. The unsatisfied demand for B1 floorspace could easily be satisfied by one of these sites alone. Sites do exist along the North Manchester Corridor, but they are dominated by B2 and B8 usage, and still have vacant land and uses.

If a large site is needed for a high quality business park, then other sites are available within Bolton. British Aerospace has a grant for the demolition of buildings and a new infrastructure and Singing Clough a former tip, has a grant to clean the land of contamination. Both could then be landscaped as open green space to the specification required of a high quality business park.

Aerospace lies within an urban area, is partly brownfield and does not generate traffic that would travel through Horwich. It is 800 metres from the New Parkway Station. Its urban nature is compensated by its location with a backdrop of Rivington Pike and Winter Hill.

Singing Clough is in South Bolton, an area with relatively high unemployment rates.

As local industry expands, and moves location, land and premises have been released in central Bolton and in the M61 corridor. These sites provide suitable sites for small firms that require both old and new premises. An over supply of land would leave greenfield development first, leaving these brownfield sites and premises vacant, especially in inner Bolton, this conflicts with government policy of trying to regenerate inner urban areas (PPG4 para21).

Both Miss Duckworth and Mr Goodman gave evidence that there was no demonstrable need to develop this site, as opposed to other more suitable locations. The Appellants have not produced any evidence that suggests that the type of development proposed for this site could not be accommodated elsewhere, either as a whole or in individual units. As opposed to the quality evidence presented by opponents that more suitable urban brownfield sites could be utilised for a high quality business park.

Mr Eggleston has made it clear in his proof that he has only tackled the issues that the Planning Authority refused planning permission on, which set out in his rebuttal evidence of the proof of Mr James at para 1.3. In his cross examination Mr Eggleston took the view that simply because the Highways Authority had not objected, then highways matters were not matters that needed addressing by the appellants. Both of these assumptions are wrong, but nevertheless goes to the root of weight that his evidence can be given, if he is not mistaken in such simple assumption, he of course fails to address issues which he should base his value judgment on.

The evidence of the Appellants is flawed in that it fails to provide basic information to back up its claims of compliance with Government policy and Guidance. Mr James in his rebuttal evidence asks many questions, that needs to be asked of the proposals:

What is the baseline modal split for travel to work in the area?

How does the transport strategy modal split measure up against the baseline modal split?

How does it measure up against the norms of GTP best practice?

Are targets for walking and cycling better than current regional modal share realistically achievable, and if so what is the evidence that they will be achieved?

What numbers of employees will be generated by the development, and how do actual numbers relate to potential modal share and the practicalities of provision?

Mr James asks for example, what is the predicted modal share for travel by rail and the Daisy Hill shuttle bus, how many people is that, and will this number render the shuttle a practical proposition or not?

What proportion of the working population of Westhoughton would have to work at the site to achieve a modal share above 13.5% (the present regional figure) of the site workforce?

Does the developer envisage parking standards equating to a 40% modal share of SOV, or 50%, or 60%, or 70%, or more still?

The point is then made that without answers to these and many more questions, there is little or nothing to support a claim that the site meets sustainable transport criteria and national transport policy requirements.

Mr James made particular challenges as to the accuracy of Figure SE8. Making the point that the map is not to scale, stating that the circle radii appears to be around 20% more than the 2km/ 8km stated. The true isochrone would excludes much of Daisy Hill and Atherton from the walking isochrone shown on Fig SE8, (on this point we heard the evidence of Mr Carrington that Daisy Hill Station was just outside the walking distance of the site). Mr James went on to explain that a large chunk of Wigan and significant residential areas beyond Bolton/ Farnworth/ Little Hulton should be excluded from the cycling isochrone.

Mr James made the point that the Isochrone distances - 2km for walking and 8km for cycling - are the generally accepted maximum distances that non-enthusiasts are likely to walk or cycle to and from work. Going on to explain that within the ‘Isochrones’ there is a distance-decay model: a higher proportion of ordinary people will be prepared to walk 1km than 2km, or cycle 2km than 5km. His evidence was that it is not enough to say that x population lives within 2km of the site so it is well located for walking. A site in the middle of Westhoughton would be better for walking than Lee Hall, because the whole population would be within 1km. With similar arguments being put forward in respect of cycling.

Mr James states: a specific example of TPK’s failure to understand the needs of walkers and cyclists is their proposal for a combined footway/ cycleway along part of Park Road (main proof para 4.5.16), a practice which is specifically advised against in the DETR report on walking (DETR 2000 para 3.36).

Mr James points to the proof of Mr Eggleston where it states that "it is expected that many employees at the Business Park will live locally and will travel to work by sustainable modes". Mr James then gives the following analysis "However, the starting point for this expectation - that almost ten years ago 15% of employees working in Westhoughton lived in the local area, and 54% of these walked to work - does not support even the vague aspiration that "many" will use sustainable modes, and there is nothing by way of a clear statement of how many "many" is, to enable a judgement to be made. At best, if the 1991 figures still pertain (unlikely), and if 15% of employees at Lee Hall will live locally (no evidence), and if 54% of those people walk to work (unlikely, because of its particular location peripheral even to Westhoughton and on the wrong side of the road), then the modal share of walking will be some 8.1%, less than two thirds of the average for Greater Manchester which the new development must surely exceed if its sustainable transport credentials are to be upheld". This I submit is a correct appraisal.

Again with modal shifts Mr James points to the flaws in the assessment given by Mr Eggleston, whilst pointing to the way in which Mr Eggleston wrongly attempts to deflect any debate, Mr James making the comment: "In the light of the present scale and pace of change in transport planning, it is in my view unacceptable to rely on the old TIA system and then to deflect debate by claiming agreement on its terms of reference".

There are clearly challenges from Mr James on the way in which the projected congestion will affect the locality. Mr Eggleston appears to be making contradictory statements in his proof and the TIA, on the one hand he is saying that improvements on junctions will ease congestion, whilst on the other saying that constraints will discourage car use. I am afraid that he cannot have both his cake and eat it. If the junction improvements ease congestion then the flows will be better and therefore there will be no delays from congestion and therefore more cars will use the roads. Having said that does not mean that we support the approach that improvements will reduce congestion, it is simply to illustrate there is a problem, and that the appellants have not addressed the matter correctly. The reality is that what ever happens with this development here would be increased traffic, and increased congestion, congestion that by the appellants own admission is going to cause problems.

I believe that I have set out the arguments relating to the A5225 correctly within my proof. There is on the face of it real doubt as to whether the A5225 will ever be constructed. However the reality as of this moment in time we simply do not know. Apart from the Wigan Hub proposals there is no prospect of private funding for the road, and there is little prospect of government funding. But the matter has not been resolved, and will not be resolved until after the details of the Wigan Hub are published, and an assessment of the need to continue to reserve the transport corridor is made by the Highways Authority. The arguments put forward by Bolton are correct in this respect.

The developers have demonstrated through the original mixed-use development that they intend to make applications to develop a substantial section of their land holding on the Lee Hall Estate. The fact that they withdrew that application, and resubmitted a reduced application consisting of only the industrial elements of the original proposals (albeit not identical), points to the fact that they may very well return at some future point with further applications for the site, no challenge of this assertion was made by Mr Hills, or any of the Appellants witnesses.

If I am right in this assertion, then of course the developer should rightly have produced to this inquiry a Master Plan of their intentions for the extended site. Such a Master Plan is additional to the UDP policy obligation for this site to produce a planning brief. This is a material consideration that is sufficient on its own to refuse planning consent.

The Inspector asked the parties to address the issue of weight that needs to be attached primarily to ecology matters, but also to other issues not included in the 2 matters that the planning authority refused permission on.

The weight to be afforded to ecology should be looked at on the basis of a sliding scale, on the one hand there are issues of not very much importance on their own, whilst there are other matters such as the protected species that carry far greater weight. Whilst I accept that the traditional way of dealing with ecology is to mitigate the effects, however as with other areas of planning policy, such as transport, there is a fundamental shift in the approach to conservation, and the effectiveness of translocation.

Guidance from all quarters is such that translocation should only be as a last resort. Therefore the weight to be afforded any ecology has to be that much greater if translocation has to come into the equation. The problem is we do not know, because the surveys have not been carried out. The Appellant choose not to put any evidence from an ecologist before the inquiry that could be tested through cross examination, they have denied our ecologist access to the site, therefore no meaningful assessment has been carried out.

So the weight from ecology to be afforded must be in the balance, that is if there is a clear case that permission should be given then the scales from the weight of the ecology might not tip over sufficiently against development. However if the case is that development should not be granted then ecology would add to the scales. But the real importance comes into play when the issues are not so clear cut, at this point, not only ecology, but archaeology, air quality, noise, dust and the multitude of other matters that may be mitigated against come into their own in tipping the scales against development

However we also have to look at what has now become the backbone of planning policy, the need to ensure development is sustainable. Ecology comes high on this list of measure needed to be taken to ensure that development proposals meet the needs of today whilst protecting the needs of tomorrows generations. If as we have here many species that are rare or protected, then the question of protecting for tomorrows generations comes very much into play, and great weight needs to be afforded to their protection, however there is no scale that says this or that should be afforded to this or that species, each development must be taken on its own and assessed by the adverse effects that are known to be generated by the development, if as we have here little information, then of course the decision maker must err on the side of caution and give greater weight than if there was clear evidence of the effects of a development on the various aspects including ecology.

The mere fact that no objection is lodged by an official body does not mean that lesser weight should be afforded, quite the contrary, what one then needs to do is look at the degree of information that was available to those bodies, and then assess through the additional information available to the inspector whether the decision makers in those bodies may have reached a different conclusion had such additional information before them, then attach the weight accordingly.

It is sad that the appellants failed to take the question of ecology seriously, especially when as we have here there are protected species involved and a diverse makeup from an ecology viewpoint that we have on this site.

We find a varied listing of birds, provided by the Leigh Ornithological Society, we have the evidence of Miss Hall and Mr Fearnley, and other members of the public, as to the quality of wildlife. In particular we see Miss Hall pointing to the problems of the relocated wildlife area. And how the foraging area of the Great Crested Newts will be adversely affected, clearly demonstrating that the species are less likely to survive in this constrained environment. Added to the problems of a busy recreation area unsuited to a timid species, which it is unlawful to even handle.

We heard admittedly with some difficulty from Mr Fearnley of the problems of the water courses, again supported by the evidence of Miss Hall, of how these water courses if polluted from the development will have an adverse affect upon a much wider area, potentially spreading down through to the SBI Pennington Flash Country Park.

We heard how Badgers are known to frequent both SBIs that are close to the site, therefore they are likely to use at least part of the site, albeit no evidence was available to support this assertion due to the refusal of the Appellant to allow our ecologist access to the site.

Much was made of the wildlife corridors and the importance of the site in the linking of these together. This aspect cannot be over stated, to take out a vital link would be akin to dividing a continent into several islands, with vast oceans between them. The species unable to travel become trapped. Thus the need to preserve these corridors, it does little to the Appellants case to dismiss the illustration produced by Mr Fearnley as only arrows drawn on a map, it was explained that these arrows were simply to illustrate the point, and the flows of wildlife from the prospectus of an informed local resident, backed by the professional opinion of Miss Hall, that the arrows represent the likely travel patterns of wildlife, moving from one corridor to another.

Miss Hall goes into some detail of the importance of these corridors in her proof, where at para 15 she gives the equation derived by Richard Levins. She outlines the concept of Metapopulation, and put it that linked groups of colonies who periodically become extinct are recolonised from nearby. Thus the need for the corridors, and the illustration of the arrows to achieve this recolonisation.

The Inspector indicated that he wanted the parties to particularly address the issue of the boundaries of the appeal site, and those allocated within the UDP. This issue was flagged up in my summary. I believe there is no dispute as to the degree of weight that needs to be afforded to the policies of the UDP, they need then to be looked at in some depth, in as far as the appeal site is concerned the most important policy is PG11. The policy splits the site into 2 distinct areas as far as designation is concerned, the first part to the North and West of the proposed road are to be designated as industrial, the wording being contained in PG11(a), it defines it clearly to one side of the road, the proposals map (West) demonstrates this, by showing the proposed route, and shading the area of the allocation. The second area is set out in PG11(b), it states that the long term objective is housing land, however until access constraints are resolved it should remain as open land, at that point, and only at that point its allocated status will be reviewed, we have not reached that point, the land to the west of the proposed route is then allocated with in the plan as open land.

Whilst the alignment of the proposed A5225 is now known, which was not known at the time of the UDP inquiry, the clear intention of the proposal was for an industrial development that kept to one side of the by pass, whilst the appeal site straddles it. The policy in its accompanying text, makes the comment that before any development takes place their will be put in place a planning brief, that would look at the detail needed to be able to consider the question of development of the whole site in detail, that planning brief was never carried out, therefore the level of detail envisaged as never been compiled This then comes to the core of the problems facing the appellants in that they do not have the benefit of the whole site contained within the UDP, which clearly sees that development could take place on the other side, but that a planning brief would give the degree of information needed to make that decision, therefore without the benefit of the planning brief, or indeed any change in the boundary of the allocated industrial site, then it must be that the appeal site does not wholly come within the allocated area.

Section 16 of the UDP sets out the policy on reviewing the UDP, this shows that an annual review will take place, no such review has shown or indicated that the allocated site should be amended, albeit that the confirmed route of the A5225 has been known for several years. The Inspector can then only come the conclusion that the appeal site is not that shown in the UDP, and therefore different sections have to be looked at in different ways. However as the application is for outline planning permission for the whole site, the site should be looked at as not being within the UDP, and is therefore contrary to policy within the UDP not to develop open land. However as we now know the reality is that at the first real review of the UDP we see the proposal to remove the whole site as a development site to one of open land. My argument remains then that this site, or at the very least a significant part of it is not allocated as development land, and therefore to grant permission was contrary to the policy of the UDP.

Overall the application fails to be in accord with regional and national policy and guidance, particularly transport and policies that require a sequential approach to the allocation and development of Greenfield sites. Mr Carrington when cross examined seemed to have the fall back answer that no statutory body had objected, this is a very lame approach to the any rational that policies should not be adhered to simply because official bodies do not object. Such bodies may through the limitation of their remits have justified reasons not to object; those reasons may not involve consideration of planning policies. However quality decisions can only be made when quality information is provided, we do not know what the quality of the information that was given to these bodies upon which they formed their respective value judgements, because the Appellants have chosen not to put the various reports and information before the Inquiry, there is then no way of knowing, if the statutory bodies asked themselves the right questions, and therefore delivered the right answers, not only on policy but all other aspects of there need to make comment on a proposal.

The Appellants should come to this inquiry prepared and able to answer the points put to them, they should be able to demonstrate that all policies are met, and that the development falls foul of no policies, or where policy areas are breached that there are justified reasons for such breach, and that in all the circumstances the proposals are the only option available. There are no such justified circumstances for the breach of policies.

The application as is set out in my various letters and applications should have been the subject of an Environmental Statement, this has clearly shown through in the evidence. The Directive and the Regulations are clear, a development over half a hectare must be considered through the screening process as to whether the development is or is not an EIA development. Once the criteria of 20 hectares is exceeded then the proposal must be declared an EIA development, this shown in the letter dated the 21^st March 2000 from the GONW relating to the Bowlands Hey development, a site that could be said to mirror in as far as ecology is concerned the Lee Hall site, as well as the problems touched on in that letter of urban sprawl. And the fact that both sites are Greenfield sites.

Once this is correctly interpreted, it will be seen that the matter cannot be finally decided until the matter is considered by the Courts, it is our understanding that such a decision will be forth coming by Tuesday the 2^nd May 2000. This will of course, should leave be granted for judicial review, have the effect of having a stay on the decision making process until such time as the matter is finally adjudicated upon by the courts.

Should this then be decided in favour of the development being declared an EIA development, then the matter will come back to a reconvened inquiry which will mean that the matters, and additional matters not yet covered will need much greater scrutiny, and I hope that the appellants will take that on board in the preparation and presentation of their case, and the quality of the information contained within their Environmental Statement, after consideration of the requirement of the Regulations and the Directive.

Mr Hill choose in his cross examination of several of the SWAN witnesses to challenge their qualifications to address the issues that the individual witnesses were giving. Miss Duckworth, a local geography teacher, who teaches every day, the very subject that she was giving evidence on, her ability then to address those issues cannot be put into question, even though it is her first time that she has given evidence to an inquiry. Mr Fearnley of course was not giving evidence from a professional viewpoint, only as that of a local resident, who has an extensive knowledge of the locality. His evidence was then, one of being supportive of the only qualified ecologist to give evidence to the inquiry Miss Hall. Then my self, I of course set out clearly in my proof that my evidence is based upon practical experience as opposed to that of a qualified practitioner, however my knowledge base, and the ability to give a value judgment of the issues, is clear in the evidence I present, albeit, that Mr Hills may disagree on my analysis.

For all the reasons given I would ask the Inspector to uphold the decision of the Planning Authority and reject this Appeal.

Chris Maile

CfPS for and on behalf of SWAN