3urri ri (ylghqfh 0u (gzdug 0hooru...my instruction my mott macdonald colleagues had been advising...

Proof of Evidence Mr Edward Mellor Haydock Point North APPEAL REF: APP/H4315/W/20/3256871

January 2021

Mott MacDonald 9 Portland Street Manchester M1 3BE United Kingdom T +44 (0)161 914 8880 mottmac.com

Mott MacDonald Limited. Registered in England and Wales no. 1243967. Registered office: Mott MacDonald House, 8-10 Sydenham Road, Croydon CR0 2EE, United Kingdom

Proof of Evidence Mr Edward Mellor Haydock Point North APPEAL REF: APP/H4315/W/20/3256871

January 2021

Mott MacDonald | Proof of EvidenceHaydock Point North

415187 | 415187-450 | A | January 2021

Contents

1. Qualifications and Experience 1

2. Scope of Evidence and Matters for Consideration 3Scope of my evidence 3Bibliography 4

3. The Development Proposals 6Summary of Proposals 6

4. Transport Policy and Guidance 8National Policy 8Regional Policy 10Local Policy 11

5. Transport Assessment Review 14Scope of the review 14Assessment Methodology 15Impact on General Traffic 16

Highway Impact assessment 18Summary of junction modelling and mitigation measures 24Impact on Walking and Cycling 25Access to Bus and Rail 26Impact on Road Safety 29Summary

6. Statement of Matters 32

7. Summary and Conclusions 36Summary 36Conclusions 36

8. Statement of Truth 38

Appendices to be separately bound 39


415187 | 415187-450 | A | January 2021


415187 | 415187-450 | A | January 2021

1

1. Qualifications and Experience

1.1.1 My name is Edward Mellor. I am a Divisional Director with MottMacDonald, a global, employee owned multidisciplinary designconsultancy. I have been employed within the Integrated TransportDivision which provides design services in all transport modes to thepublic and private sector since 2004.

1.1.2 I am a Chartered Engineer, and a member of both the CharteredInstitution of Highways and Transportation, and the Institution of CivilEngineers and as such am bound by their respective codes of conduct.

1.1.3 I was instructed in September 2020 by St Helens Council (StHC) inrespect of the proposed development proposals at Haydock Point North(HPN) to represent the council as their Highways expert witness. Prior tomy instruction my Mott MacDonald colleagues had been advising StHCon transport planning matters and specifically HPN.

1.1.4 In preparation of my evidence I have carried a full and thorough review ofthe transport impact assessment and appraisal.

1.1.5 I am familiar with the HPN sites and surroundings. I have visited thearea on a number of occasions to observe the traffic operation on thehighway network. During the preparation of my evidence I have beenparty to meetings and discussions with officers of the local planningauthority and the applicants transport consultants.

1.1.6 During my career, I have gained over 30 years’ experience in TransportPlanning in both the public and private sectors and have been employedby Mott MacDonald since 2004. I have led and advised on numerouslarge-scale infrastructure projects with demanding logistics matters. Ihave significant experience in the appraisal of development impacts andidentifying suitable mitigation measures to support sustainable traveloptions. I have previously advised StHC and acted as an expert witnesson their behalf. I have acted as their highways witness for the conjoinedParkside Phase 1 (PPh1) and Parkside Link Road (PLR) Inquiry inJanuary 2021.

1.1.7 I have advised and worked with Local Authorities, GovernmentDepartments including Highways England and Department for Transportand developers of Nationally Significant Infrastructure projects. I haveadvised Central Government departments on the transport impacts of the


415187 | 415187-450 | A | January 2021

2

development of several logistics sites across the UK in preparation forUK Government exit of the EU.

1.1.8 My experience with the transport and logistics matters of largedevelopment proposals is relevant to the matters being considered.

1.1.9 In my evidence I will review the adequacy of the proposals. I have notelaborated further on matters which are contained within the Statementof Common Ground (SoCG) between StHC and the applicants. [CD25.8].


415187 | 415187-450 | A | January 2021

3

2. Scope of Evidence and Matters forConsideration

Scope of my evidence

2.1.1 My evidence covers the Transport Assessment undertaken by Vectos onbehalf of the applicant.

2.1.2 As HPN has an agreed SoCG and in the interest avoiding unnecessaryrepetition I have focused my evidence on matters not in the SoCG. Ihave referenced agreed matters where it is helpful for clarification. Forthe avoidance of doubt, there is not a specific highway reason for refusal.Nonetheless, the SoS has asked to be informed about the impact on thelocal and strategic highway network. Further, I understand such issuesshould form part of the overall planning balance.

2.1.3 Matters in the SoCG can be summarised as follows;

● Development trip distribution and assignment.

● Arrangement of the proposed traffic signal-controlled access to

the A580.

● Arrangement of the proposed roundabout access to A49 Lodge

Lane.

● The partial stopping up of A49 Lodge Lane (between Haydock

Island and the proposed site access roundabout)

● Areas of safeguarded land.

● Works to the A580 / M6 junction 23 (Haydock Island).

● Diversion of A49 Lodge Lane

● Provision of a pedestrian footway / cycleway on the north side of

the A580 connecting Haydock Island to the proposed traffic

signal-controlled site access.

● Funding commitment for a site-specific bus service.

2.1.4 I will consider the following items in my proof of evidence.


415187 | 415187-450 | A | January 2021

4

The existing transport network and level of service, and asummary of the submitted scheme proposals.

The Transport Assessment [CD 15.74] and the subsequentupdated technical notes [CD 18.2, 18.3, 18.6, 18.8 & 18.9 ].

2.1.5 In Chapter 3 I provide a summary of the development proposals as theyrelate to transport and highways.

2.1.6 In Chapter 4 I consider relevant national, regional and local transportpolicies.

2.1.7 In Chapter 5 I summarise the approach taken by the developers’transport consultant Vectos to assessing the transport impacts.

2.1.8 In Chapter 6 I consider the relevant transport matters the Secretary ofStates wishes to be informed about (CMC 1 2nd October 2020), inparticular;

Matter a), the acceptability of the scheme with regard to local and

national planning policy as well as emerging policy.

Matter d), highway matters – Junction 23 mitigation, diversion of A49

Lodge Lane and contribution to wider Junction 23 improvement scheme.

Sustainable travel works/measures.

Matter i), any wider highway or other benefits.

2.1.9 In Chapter 7 I conclude my findings.

2.1.10 In Chapter 8 I provide a statement of truth.

Bibliography

2.1.11 The documents referred to and utilised as part of my review and reliedupon on in my evidence are set out below. These documents are alsoreferenced in the transport specific SoCG.

● Vectos, Addendum Technical Note 2 (ATN2), July 2018 [CD

18.6]

Vectos, Addendum Technical Note 3 (ATN3), March 2019 [CD

18.8]


415187 | 415187-450 | A | January 2021

5

● Vectos, Addendum Technical Note 4 (ATN4), April 2019 [CD

18.9]

● Mott MacDonald, Technical Note Response to ATN4, July 2019

[CD 20.12]

● Vectos, Transport Assessment Update May 2020 [CD 17.29]


415187 | 415187-450 | A | January 2021

6

3. The Development Proposals

Summary of Proposals

3.1.1 The HPN site is located on land to the North East of the A580 EastLancashire Road / A49 Lodge Lane Haydock. At the south west cornerof the site the A49 and the A580 are connected at junction 23 of the M6also known as Haydock Island. The site proposal consists of an OutlinePlanning application with all matters reserved except for access. Theproposal is for 167,225m2 of B8/B2 use ancillary office and associatedsite facilities floor space, car parking, landscaping, site profiling,transport, drainage and utilities infrastructure. The site setting is shownin the Parameters Plan drawing Appendix A.

3.1.2 The delivery of HPN will require alterations to the adopted highwaynetwork which can be summarised as follows:

The site will have two means of access, a three-arm roundabout tothe A49 Lodge Lane on the western edge of the site (shown inAppendix B) and a three-arm traffic signal controlled junction onthe southern side of the site to the A580 East Lancashire Road(shown in Appendix C).

The existing A49 Lodge Lane between junction 23 of the M6 andthe proposed roundabout development access will be modifiedsuch that it will be one-way traffic only from junction 23 to theproposed development access (shown in Appendix E).

The two access junctions will be connected via a two-way spineroad which will form a realigned A49 (shown in Appendix F). Thesite spine road will provide the route for the realigned A49 whichwill form part of the StHC adopted road network. The spine roadis a reserved matter in the planning application submission.

3.1.3 In addition to the site enabling access improvements, the developer hascommitted to providing mitigation works which are captured in the SoCGand in summary are as follows;

● Funding commitment to a site shuttle bus or new commercial

service.

● Travel plan commitments to reduce the reliance on travel by car.


415187 | 415187-450 | A | January 2021

7

● Provision of a shared footway/cycleway on the north side of the

A580 between junction 23 and the proposed traffic signal

junction.

● Prohibiting vehicular access from the A49 Lodge Lane to the

A580 / junction 23 (north side)

● Delivery Management Plan

● Safeguarded land to deliver potential future A49 realigned link if

Lodge Lane north were fully stopped up in the future..

3.1.4 The Proposed roundabout to the A49 has been subject to anindependent Road Safety Audit (RSA) commissioned by Vectos [CD18.14]. The roundabout will operate as a standard give-wayarrangement. The proposed alterations to the section of the A49between Junction 23 (Haydock Island) and the site access roundaboutwill not allow traffic to directly access junction 23 via the A49 LodgeLane.

3.1.5 The proposed site access on the A580 comprises of a new three-armsignalised junction. The site access spine road is the minor arm and theA580 the mainline. The proposed scheme involves minor realignment ofthe A580 eastbound carriageway (towards Manchester). This is toenable widening of the westbound carriageway (towards Liverpool) intothe central reservation to provide a segregated right turn lane into theHPN site. The scheme also includes pedestrian and cycle crossingprovision through the junction connecting the proposed shared-use pathwith an existing footway (shared footway/cycleway) to the south of theA580.

3.1.6 All of the proposed highway works and mitigation to the A49 Lodge Laneand A580 East Lancashire Road are within the Strategic Road Network.


415187 | 415187-450 | A | January 2021

8

4. Transport Policy and Guidance

National Policy

4.1.1 I have reviewed the relevant national, regional and local transport policiesthat I consider are relevant to the HPN proposals.

National Planning Policy Framework [CD 1.1]

4.1.2 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out thegovernment's planning policies for England and how these are expected tobe applied. The NPPF is therefore a material consideration whendetermining planning applications. The most recent version of the NPPF,published in February 2019), considers Promoting Sustainable Transportin Chapter 9. Of note in Chapter 9: Promoting sustainable transport, inparticular paragraphs 102, 103, 104, 108, 109 and 111

4.1.3 Paragraph 1021. makes specific reference to transport issues beingconsidered at the early stages of proposal development in order thatdevelopment impacts on the highway network can be addressed.Opportunities for sustainable transport modes, such as walking and publictransport should also be explored2.

4.1.4 Chapter 93 gives importance to the location of development that promotesustainable transport objectives and hence offering a choice of travelmode.

4.1.5 The importance of plan policy making and developing infrastructure is setout in paragraph 1044 which offer transport choices and enable largedevelopment proposals. Furthermore, it states5 that planning policiesshould provide for high quality walking and cycling networks andsupporting facilities such as cycle parking.

1 Bullet point a

2 Bullet point c

3 Paragraph 103

4 Bullet point c

5 Bullet point d


415187 | 415187-450 | A | January 2021

9

4.1.6 Further consideration is given in Chapter 96 to development proposals withregards to sustainable transport. Development sites are expected toensure sustainable travel opportunities which are appropriate to thedevelopment are adopted, and appropriate access is considered for alluser and transport impacts can be suitably mitigated .

4.1.7 Alternative travel choices are detailed in the Framework Travel Plan [CD16.12], and form part of the agreed SoCG.

Planning Practice Guidance: Travel Plans, Transport Assessments andStatements [CD7 tbc]

4.1.8 Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) is a supplement to the NPPF andprovides the industry, including decision makers guidance to navigatethrough the planning system. PPG contains specific guidance in relationto the preparation of Travel Plans, TAs and Statements. PPG explainsthat TA should be tailored to particular local circumstances8.

4.1.9 PPG explains that The TA may propose mitigation measures where theseare necessary to avoid unacceptable or “severe” impacts, which couldotherwise be a reason for refusal of an application. Highway mitigation forHPN has been negotiated and agreed in the SoCG [CD 25.8].

National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) [CD9 tbc]

4.1.10 An update to NPPG was published in 2019. Of relevance to transport isparagraph 31:How can authorities assess need and allocate space forlogistics? The “critical” contribution that that logistics sector has in indelivering economic benefits and supplying services and goods isrecognised. Importantly NPPG acknowledges that the locationalrequirements of the logistic sector are different from those of “generalindustrial land” and this distinction should be considered in the formulationof planning policy.

4.1.11 Paragraph 31 continues by stating “Strategic facilities serving national orregional markets are likely to require significant amounts of land, good

6 Paragraph 108, bullet points a, b & c

7 No CD ref as of 26/01/21

8 Paragraph 7



415187 | 415187-450 | A | January 2021

10

access to strategic transport networks, sufficient power capacity andaccess to appropriately skilled local labour”.

Regional Policy

Third Local Transport Plan for Merseyside (LTP3) [CD 22.35]

4.1.12 LTP3 provides the statutory framework for the policies and plans that willguide the future provision of transport in Merseyside up to 2024. The LTP3was published in 2011 and was developed in accordance with the firstversion of the NPPF and was a requirement of the Transport Act 2000.

4.1.13 The LTP3 has six goals, with equal status:

1. Help create the right conditions for sustainable economic growth

by supporting the priorities of the Liverpool City Region, the Local

Enterprise Partnership and the Local Strategic Partnerships.

2. Provide and promote a clean, low emission transport system

which is resilient to changes to climate and oil availability.

3. Ensure the transport system promotes and enables improved

health and Illbeing and road safety.

4. Ensure equality of travel opportunity for all, through a transport

system that allows people to connect easily with employment,

education, healthcare, other essential services and leisure and

recreational opportunities.

5. Ensure the transport network supports the economic success of

the city region by the efficient movement of people and goods.

6. Maintain our assets to a high standard.

4.1.14 Annex 4 of the LTP3 contains the Freight Strategy for the Liverpool CityRegion. The Freight Strategy directly supports Goal 5 to ensure theeconomic success of this city region by the efficient movement of peopleand goods.

4.1.15 LTP3 Freight Strategy defines the Strategic Freight Network (SFN) inMerseyside. The Strategic Freight Network identifies those routes mostsignificant for the through movement of freight in the Merseyside authority


415187 | 415187-450 | A | January 2021

11

regions. Relevant to HPN are the M6, A580 East Lancashire Road andthe M62.

Local Policy

St Helens Local Plan Core Strategy (CS) [CD 2.2]

4.1.16 The CS is the principal planning document in the St Helens LocalDevelopment Framework (LDF). The CS contains policies to guide futuredevelopment towards the spatial vision of St Helens. The CS SpatialVision is:

“In 2027, St.Helens will be a regenerated Borough. Taking advantage

of its location between Liverpool and Manchester, it will have a

vibrant economy, a healthy, safe and attractive environment and

inclusive, sustainable communities.

The Town Centre and its surrounding area will be the vibrant focus of

the Borough, with expanded shopping and leisure facilities, a new

stadium for St.Helens Rugby League Football Club and a

redeveloped St.Helens College.

The majority of new housing developed, including affordable housing,

will be developed in the core settlement of St.Helens, with particular

priority on creating sustainable communities in the deprived areas,

including parts of Parr, Thatto Heath, Four Acre and St.Helens Town

Centre.

4.1.17 Policy CP211: Creating a Sustainable Future for St Helens, requiresdevelopment to be located where there is a choice of travel modes.

4.1.18 Sites are required to be located where there is good access to publictransport or the opportunity to improve public transport and facilities.

4.1.19 Development is required to be within convenient walking distances of railstations (800m) or bus stop (400m) with good quality bus services12.

11 Section 4, page 97

12 Section 4(i) Ensuring a choice of travel mode, page 96


415187 | 415187-450 | A | January 2021

12

4.1.20 Developments that generated significant movements of freight arerequired to be located on sites with opportunities for rail access, or whereno such option is available then located close to Freight Priority Route(FPR)13 network (A580 and M6).

St Helens Local Plan Preferred Options [CD 22.44]

4.1.21 Policy LPA 07: Transport and Travel, makes specific reference to thetransport and access requirements of future development proposals. Thepolicy largely aligns with the current Core Strategy Policy CP 2: Creatingan Accessible St Helens.

4.1.22 LPA 0715 states the need to locate development which generate largemovements of freight where there is good access to rail, or designatedFreight Priority Routes. The policy16 also expects development to activelypromote sustainable travel modes and make adequate provision forwalking and cycling. It is also expected that development will be locatedwhere there is existing access or good potential to provide access topublic transport.

St Helens Borough Local Plan 2020 – 2035, Submission Draft January2019 [CD 3.18]

4.1.23 The Local Plan sets out the future development objectives of StHC andare an important part of the policy framework. The Local Plan will in timereplace the Core Strategy.

4.1.24 Of note is Policy LPA 07 Transport and Travel18. Noted here is thestrategic objective to use the transport network to amongst other thingsfacilitate economic growth and access. It is also noted that the appeal siteis proposed to form safeguarded land, in order to meet longer termdevelopment needs well after the end of the Plan period in 2035.

Policy Summary

4.1.25 As required by Core Strategy Policy CP2, in the absence of theopportunity for rail access HPN is well located for convenient access to theFPR via the A580 and M6. Policy CP also seeks convenient walking

13 Section 4(ii) Sustainable location of significant generators of journeys, page 97



18 Paragraph 4.27.1 page 56


415187 | 415187-450 | A | January 2021

13

access to rail stations and bus stops. The nearest rail station (Newton leWillows) is beyond the required 800m being some 3.2km distance.Although there are bus stops north of the site entrance on the A49 withinthe required 400m, services are limited to the 320 service. The 320 doesoperate a good level of frequency in the core hours but does not connectwith key local areas such as Newton le Willows rail station and businterchange.

4.1.26 The applicant has committed to address this with commitments in theSoCG with the provision of a shuttle bus. The proposed routing is shownin Appendix H. The bus will connect the site to Newton le Willows busstation, Earlestown station and St Helens bus station. The proposed routealso connects residential area including those with low economic activity.Such a requirement is considered to be necessary (in NPPG terms) inorder to make the site adequately sustainable.

4.1.27 I am satisfied that HPN proposals are cognisant of the relevant national,regional and local transport policy and guidance. The site is well locatedto access the A580 and M6 freight routes, and the developers is seekingto improve access with the provision of a shuttle bus and financialcontribution to reinforce existing bus services. In addition, theinterpretation of PPG used to set out a TA that is tailored to reflect localcircumstances has been followed.


415187 | 415187-450 | A | January 2021

14

5. Transport Assessment Review

Scope of the review

5.1.1 The transport appraisal of HPN has developed over a process ofconsultation with the applicants’ transport planning consultant Vectos.The documents reviewed as part of the assessment are listed in thebibliography below.

5.1.2 The first Transport Assessment and associated evidence were submittedby Vectos in March 2017. Following this submission, an addendumTransport Assessment was submitted in December 2017. Since this timethere has been ongoing consultation between Vectos and St HelensBorough Council (StHC), Mott MacDonald (on behalf of StHC), WiganCouncil (WBC), Highways England (HE) and WSP (consultants for HE)resulting in further work being prepared and submitted by Vectos.

5.1.3 The additional technical work was submitted in the form a number ofAddendum Technical Notes (ATN’s) to address responses from variousconsultees. Mott MacDonald (on behalf of StHC) has also providedresponses during this interim period, in response to the Vectos ATNsAppendix D. The resubmitted application P/2017/0254/OUP has beenreviewed against all comments, agreements and updates that wereagreed between stakeholders and the applicant/representatives.

5.1.4 In consultation with both HE and St Helens Council in early 2018, thedevelopment proposals were modified so as not to prejudice a potentialM6 J23 enhancement scheme option, which included proposals to stop-upboth A49 arms of the junction and realign them onto the A580. TheTransport Assessment Update has been prepared by Vectos tosummarise the current position which has been agreed with the relevanthighway authorities (St Helens and Highways England) through pre-application and post-application consultation to date.

5.1.5 In chronological order, leading up to the most recent submission, keydocuments relevant to this review of the Transport Assessment Updateare as follows;

● Environmental Statement Addendum 2 Volume 3 (Technical

Appendices and Figures/Plans) [CD 17.29]

● Parameters Plan (Appendix 1.1) [CD 17.29]


415187 | 415187-450 | A | January 2021

15

● Proposed A580 Highway Improvements NMU Proposal

(Appendix 1.3) [CD 17.29]

● Proposed Development Access off A49 Lodge Lane (Appendix

1.4) [CD 17.29]

● Proposed A580 Highway Improvements Development Access

(Appendix 1.5) [CD 17.29]

Assessment Methodology

5.1.6 The transport consultant Vectos consulted with StHC regarding the scopeand methodology to be adopted in the assessment in 2017. Since thattime there has been an iterative process of reviewing the TA and provisionof further information for the purposes of clarification and revision. The TAmethodology can be summarised as:

● Review of relevant national, regional and local transport planning

policy;

● description of site location and review of existing site access

arrangements, surrounding highway network and highway safety

records;

● description of the proposed development and proposed access

arrangements;

● undertaking a Standard Accessibility Assessment19 to consider

access by walking, cycling and public transport;

● description of assessment scope (St Helens, Wigan, and

Highways England networks);

● details of baseline traffic data sources, assessment years, traffic

growth, committed developments and HPN development traffic

generation and distribution;

19 St Helens Council Supplementary Planning Document, Ensuring a Choice of Travel


415187 | 415187-450 | A | January 2021

16

● highway impact derived from traffic modelling at proposed site

access junction (A49 and A580) and various off-site junctions in

St Helens, Wigan and on the Strategic Road Network (SRN);

● details of proposed off-site highways mitigation, including

modelling.

● sensitivity assessment of the partial and full closure of the A49 at

Haydock Island.

● Framework Travel Plan and.

● Summary and conclusions of the assessment.

Impact on General Traffic

5.1.7 HPN will be accessed via two newly created junctions.

● Traffic signal-controlled access to the A580 east of Haydock

island (junction 22 of the M6)

● Roundabout access from a realigned A49 Lodge Lane north of

Haydock Island.

5.1.8 Due to the nature of the planning application (all matters reserved exceptfor access) the quantum of B2 and B8 uses is not defined. For thepurposes of this assessment, it was agreed with SHBC (and HighwaysEngland) to adopt 80% B8 and 20% B2 uses. Regarding trip rates for B2uses, based on knowledge of operators’ requirements, any B2 use wouldmost likely only occupy a smaller proportion of the proposed floorspace.As such the proposed B8/B2 split is considered appropriate. Suchparameters will need to be secured by conditions, to ensure any finaldevelopment falls within the scope of the assessment.

5.1.9 Separate trip rates were used for different vehicle types to represent thelikely generations, for both B8 and B2 elements.

5.1.10 The B8 trip rates have been derived from the Florida Farm NorthTransport Assessment (P/2016/0608), as advised by SHBC. Thisprovides a consistent assessment of B8 development for this application incomparison to Florida Farm, Parkside Phase 1 (PPh1) and Parkside LinkRoad (PLR) both subject to Planning Inquiry in January 2021. The FloridaFarm trip rates have also been used by in the assessment of the land at


415187 | 415187-450 | A | January 2021

17

M6 Junction 25 (DB Symmetry) proposed freight site in Wigan20 whichwas subject to Planning Inquiry in December 2020.

5.1.11 This issue has been the subject of contested evidence in respect of theParkside Phase 1 Inquiry and does not need to be repeated in any greatdetail.

5.1.12 The Florida Farm trip rates were calculated with reference to the TRICSdatabase (Version 7.2.1). This data was then supplemented with anadditional survey of the OMEGA North logistics development inWarrington. Comparisons as a sensitivity test were also made with twosimilar scale employment sites in close proximity to the Florida Farm Northsite in October 2016 (Hall Wood Avenue, Haydock and Axis BusinessPark, Knowsley).

5.1.13 I consider these local/average derived trip rates as advised by StHCofficers to be relevant for use in assessing B8 Distribution sites in thisarea. StHC own guidance on Transport Assessment21 encourages theagreement of trip rates prior to the submission of a planning application (a“First Principles Approach”). The guidance advices on the use of TRICS(or similar) database or a first principle approach to trip generation. In thecase of HPN, StHC highway development control officer requested thatthe Florida Farm trip rates should be used. This is consistent with thecouncil’s approach to assessing PPh1 and PLR.

5.1.14 B2 trip rates have also been derived by Vectos to represent the 20% B2element of the development proposals. Trip rates for the proposed B2floorspace have been calculated using the TRICS database (Version7.3.3), selected from the ‘Employment / Industrial Estate’ land usecategory.

5.1.15 These B2 trip rates have been accepted by StHC as being an appropriaterepresentation, and I am in agreement with this conclusion.

5.1.16 The new development trips have been assigned to the network using aseparate approach for both light and heavy vehicles, as would beexpected for a development proposal such as this.

5.1.17 The distribution of employee trips to the development site has beenderived using ‘Journey to Work’ information from the 2011 Census.

20 Land at M6 junction 25 Wigan, Transport Assessment Addendum (Crofts Ltd), July 2019 Section 4.4 Proposed Development Tripspage 9

21 Guidance Note for the Submission of Transport Assessment, March 2016, Trip Generation, page 10


415187 | 415187-450 | A | January 2021

18

Determination of the origin/ destination of employment trips was based ona one-hour drive time catchment, established surrounding the site. The2011 Census data was then interrogated to determine the proportionaldistribution of employment trips within the catchment. Assignment of tripsto the network was then based on GIS fastest route analysis, with typicaltraffic conditions accounted for.

5.1.18 I am satisfied that the adopted Trip Distribution is appropriate for use inthis instance.

5.1.19 Appropriate assessment years have been included within the TransportAssessment, as follows;

● 2022 baseline

● 2024 opening year, and

● 2027 assessment year.

5.1.20 To derive future year traffic growth forecasts, Version 7.2 of the TEMProdatabase has been interrogated with growth factors derived for the‘Haydock’ area.

5.1.21 It was agreed with StHC that the alternative assumptions function could beapplied to remove any allowance for housing or employment growth. Thiswas on the basis of the committed development within St Helens andWigan included within the assessment.

5.1.22 In my opinion the above approaches represent valid assessmenttechniques for use in relation to this application,

Highway Impact assessment

5.1.23 Through a process of engagement (applicant, StHC and Wigan BC), it wasagreed that the following junctions within St Helens needed to bemodelled.

● Junction 1 – A580 / M6 J23

● Junction 2 – A580 / Proposed Site Access

● Junction 3 – A49 / Proposed Site Access

● Junction 4 – A49 Lodge Lane / A499 Penny Lane

● Junction 5 – A580 Haydock Lane

5.1.24 The junction locations are shown in APPENDIX K


415187 | 415187-450 | A | January 2021

19

5.1.25 In addition to the above junctions in St Helens a further 5 junctions wereidentified by Wigan Council to be modelled. I have not reviewed theassessment of these junctions and it is my understanding that Wigancouncil have no highway objection to the HPN proposals.

5.1.26 The Highway impact / junction modelling assessment has been agreedand forms part of the SoCG [CD 25.8]. For ease of reference I haveprovided an overview of each junction below.

Junction 1 – M6 J23 (Haydock Island)

5.1.27 The junction is a grade separated traffic signal-controlled roundaboutproviding a link between the A580, A49 and the M6 motorway. Thejunction has been modelled using LinSig software and assessed with thefollowing assessment scenarios.

● 2022 Baseline year.

● 2024 Opening Year Without Development (Existing layout).

● 2024 Opening Year With Development (mitigation layout).

● 2027 Future Year Without Development (Existing layout).

● 2027 Future Year With Development (mitigation layout).

5.1.28 The existing junction is forecast to operate with a maximum DoS of117.6% in the AM peak and 134.0% in the PM peak Without HPN. Themaximum queue forecast in the AM peak is on the A580 eastbound andwestbound, where 91 pcu are forecast to queue. In the PM peak hour themaximum queue is 119 pcu forecast on the A580 eastbound approach.This shows that the existing junction is forecast to operate above practicalcapacity Without HPN.

5.1.29 Mitigation has been proposed by the applicant (as requested by bothHighway England and Mott MacDonald on behalf of StHC) at the junctionwhich involves the stopping up of the A49 Lodge Lane junction entry.Highways England and StHC jointly wish to see an improvement to theHaydock Island junction.

5.1.30 There is currently no agreed future scheme for the improvement toHaydock Island Junction. There is (i) no agreed improvement; (ii) noconfirmed cost of the improvement; (iii) no identified funding; (iv) noconsent from HE; (v) no planning permission; and (vi) no prospect of anysuch scheme being conceived, considered, agreed, funded andconstructed in the short term.


415187 | 415187-450 | A | January 2021

20

5.1.31 Studies undertaken have, however, indicated that that the closure of bothA49 accesses at Haydock Island would be required to improve the junctionperformance [CD 22.2]; M6 Junction 23 Haydock Island CapacityFeasibility Study, Revision A, June 2019 WSP. The report concludes22

“This study has revealed that any significant improvements at the junctionhinge on the diversion of Lodge Lane away from the gyratory carriageway,either in isolation or in conjunction with another junction improvementscheme. In this commission, the modelling of these diversions was limitedto indicative alignments and conceptual junction geometries”. Theconclusion further states that alternatives to the full closures of LodgeLane should be considered including making bother arms of the A49 one-way (exit only from junction 23).

5.1.32 The proposed alteration to the A49 Lodge Lane will still enable vehicles toexit Junction 23 onto Lodge Lane but will prevent vehicles accessingJunction 23. This removes the requirement to allow traffic to exit the A49under traffic signal control hence reducing the number of trafficmovements at the junction circulatory.

5.1.33 Additional improvements are provided, involving the widening of the A580east and west approaches to facilitate extended queuing distances for thededicated left-turn lanes, to reduce blocking of the ahead lanes. Thescheme also includes widening of the A580 eastbound and westboundahead lanes through the middle of the at-grade ‘hamburger’ below the M6mainline.

5.1.34 In the corresponding 2027 scenarios with the proposed mitigation and withthe addition of HPN traffic the maximum forecast DoS is 112.2% and133.7% in the AM and PM peak hours respectively. The maximum queueis forecast to increase to 92pcu in the AM peak hour and remain at 119pcu in the PM peak hour [CD23 tbc; Technical Note 415187-406 V2,Haydock Point North, Table 8.2 pages 22/23]. Overall junction PRCimproves by 6.1% and 0.4% in the AM and PM peak hours, although thejunction is still forecast to operate above practical capacity. The operationof the mitigated junction ‘With HPN’ is improved compared to the existingjunction ‘Without HPN’. The proposed scheme therefore mitigates theimpact of HPN traffic in 2027. However, I would consider the operationalimprovement to me marginal.

22 Section 12.2, LODGE LANE DIVERSION, page 40



415187 | 415187-450 | A | January 2021

21

Junction 2 – A580 / Proposed Site Access

5.1.35 The junction represents the primary site access point for the developmentsite and would be a new traffic signal-controlled junction on the A580. Thejunction has been modelled using LinSig software based on the proposedlayout. The following scenarios have been tested:

● 2024 Opening Year with HPN (proposed layout)

● 2027 Future Year with HPN (proposed layout)

5.1.36 The proposed junction is forecast to operate with a maximum DoS of73.3% in the AM peak and 88.0% in the PM peak. The maximum queue isforecast in the PM peak is on the A580 eastbound (towards Manchester),where 34 pcu are forecast to queue in lanes 2 and 3 (both ahead lanes).The results show that the junction is forecast to operate within practicalcapacity in 202724 .

5.1.37 Queues forecast in the 2027 assessment extend to circa 200m on theeastbound approach. Based on junction spacing, it is not anticipated toresult in interaction with vehicles exiting Junction 23 which is locatedapproximately 500m from the proposed A580 site access junction.

5.1.38 This junction has also been appropriately tested under a ‘Full Closure’scenario, in which access and egress to A49 Lodge Lane North is closedfrom M6 Junction 23. This assessment assigns all A49 traffic demandsvia this site access junction. The purposes of this test is to ensure that thejunction has sufficient capacity to accommodate any potential scheme atJunction 23 which may fully stop-up the A49 arms of the junction.However, it should be noted that whilst the Junction 23 study [CD 22.2]identifies that the diversion of the A49 are required to facilitate a futureimprovement, and options are considered there is no committed futurescheme so the test is hypothetical. The study further notes25 “Based onthis preliminary modelling, the Diverging Diamond would appear to be theonly option which would accommodate forecast traffic flows in the Designyear 2033 and on this basis, should be taken forward to more detaileddesign modelling and preparation of more robust cost estimates” This isOption D in the report and has a cost estimate of £37.8m26. I am not

24 CD tbc Table 8.6 pages 28 & 29

25 12.1 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS page 39, 4th paragraph

26 Table 12_1 page 40


415187 | 415187-450 | A | January 2021

22

aware of such a scheme currently being considered for entry onto anyfunding programme.

5.1.39 Under this scenario the proposed junction is forecast to operate with amaximum DoS of 80.1% in the AM peak and 93.2% in the PM peak. Themaximum queue is forecast in the PM peak is on the A580 eastbound,where 39 pcu are forecast to queue in lane 3 (ahead lane)27. The resultsshow that the junction is forecast to operate just over practical capacity.Full closure of the A49 results in the maximum DoS increasing comparedto 2027 scenario without full closure of the A49.

5.1.40 This is forecast to result in only a slight detriment to operation of thejunction compared to the proposed partial closure of the A49 Lodge Lanescenario. Queue lengths on the A580 eastbound are forecast to extend to39 vehicles in the worst-case, equating to a circa 225m queue lengths. Asjunction 23 is located approximately 500m west of the proposed junctionwhich demonstrates no interaction is expected between the junctions.

Junction 3 – A49 / Proposed Site Access

5.1.41 This junction is a proposed three-arm roundabout junction enabling accessto the site and providing a connection from the A49 to the A580/M6 via aproposed spine road to the proposed A580 traffic signal-controlled access.The junction has been modelled using Arcady (Junctions 9) based on theproposed layout. The following scenarios have been tested:

● 2024 Opening Year with HPN (proposed layout)

● 2027 Future Year with HPN (proposed layout)

5.1.42 The proposed junction is forecast to operate with a maximum RFC of 0.84in the AM peak and 0.77 in the PM peak. The maximum queue forecast is5 pcu in the AM peak hour. The results show that the junction is forecastto operate within capacity28.

5.1.43 Forecast operation shows that the junction will operate within practicalcapacity (0.85). Queues forecast in the 2027 assessment show amaximum queue length of 5 pcu (approximately 30m) on the southboundapproach. Based on the spacing to the Penny Lane junction, which islocated approximately 190m north of the roundabout, queues are notexpected to result in any interaction.

27 CD tbc Table 8.8page 31

28 CD tbc Table 8.10, page 33


415187 | 415187-450 | A | January 2021

23

Junction 4 – A49 Lodge Lane / A499 Penny Lane

5.1.44 Junction 4 has recently been upgraded to a traffic signal-controlledjunction as part of the approved Haydock Green development. Theupgraded form of the junction has been modelled using LinSig based onthe finalised layout. The following scenarios have been tested:

● 2022 Baseline Without HPN (committed layout)

● 2022 Baseline With HPN (committed layout)

5.1.45 The junction is forecast to operate with a maximum DoS of 77.0% in theAM peak and 81.1% in the PM peak without HPN. The maximum queueforecast in the AM peak is on the Penny Lane approach, where 14 pcu areforecast to queue. The maximum queue in the PM peak hour is 15 pcu onthe A490 Lodge Lane southern arm. The results show that the junction isforecast to operate within practical capacity without HPN29.

5.1.46 With the addition of HPN development traffic the junction is forecast tooperate with a maximum DoS of 81.5% in the AM peak and 85.9% in thePM peak. The maximum queue forecast in the AM peak is on the PennyLane approach, where 16 pcu are forecast to queue. The maximum queuein the PM peak hour is 17 pcu on the A490 southern arm30. The resultsshow that the junction will continue to operate within practical capacityfollowing the addition of HPN development traffic.

5.1.47 The junction is considered to have adequate reserve capacity toaccommodate HPN traffic.

Junction 5 – A580 Haydock Lane

5.1.48 A580 / Haydock Lane 5 is a four-arm traffic signal-controlled junctionbetween the A580 and Haydock Lane. The junction was recentlyupgraded to include a fourth northern arm providing a link to the FloridaFarm North site from the A580. The form of the junction has beenmodelled using LinSig based on the upgraded layout. The followingscenarios have been tested:

● 2027 Baseline without HPN Development

● 2027 Baseline with HPN Development

29 12.1 CD tbc Table 8.11, Page 34

30 12.1 CD tbc Table 8.11, page 34


415187 | 415187-450 | A | January 2021

24

5.1.49 The junction is forecast to operate with a maximum DoS of 80.1% in theAM peak and 82.6% in the PM peak without HPN. The maximum queueforecast in the AM peak is on the A580 east approach (towards Liverpool)where 23 pcu are forecast to queue. The maximum queue in the PM peakhour is 27 pcu also on the A580 eastern approach. The results show thatthe junction is forecast to operate within practical capacity without HPN31.

5.1.50 With the addition of the HPN development traffic the junction is forecast tooperate with a maximum DoS of 82.1% in the AM peak and 84.6% in thePM peak. The maximum queue forecast in the AM peak is on the A580east approach where 24 pcu are forecast to queue. The maximum queuein the PM peak hour is 30 pcu also on the A580 eastern approach32. Theresults show the junction is forecast to continue operating within practicalcapacity following the addition of HPN traffic.

5.1.51 The modelling summary shows that the junction will operate withincapacity and therefore the scheme that was delivered recently is suitableto accommodate committed development and HPN traffic whilstmaintaining operation to a satisfactory level.

Summary of junction modelling and mitigation measures

5.1.52 A process of review was undertaken by Vectos leading up to thesubmission of the Transport Assessment Update. Each review hasidentified points of clarification or required corrections to the modellinginputs and assumptions.

5.1.53 The modelling submitted has been reviewed against previous commentsand issues raised by Mott MacDonald in response to Vectos ATN3 [CD18.8] and ATN4 [CD 18.9]. The modelling results correlate withassessments submitted in ATN4 and is reflective of comments made byMott MacDonald.

5.1.54 Mott MacDonald confirm that the modelling undertaken to determine theimpact of development traffic at junctions within the StHC networkdemonstrates that with the proposed mitigation and site accessinfrastructure would not result in a severe impact on the network in termsof capacity. The proposed Junction 23 works are aligned to a widerimprovement scheme [CD 17.21] which is yet to be determined or agreed.Given the small level of operational benefit identified in paragraph 5.1.33




415187 | 415187-450 | A | January 2021

25

Improvements to Junction 23 can therefore be considered neutral. In myreview of this work I consider the modelling to be valid and acceptable.The acceptability of the modelling is in part based on the mitigation andaccess strategy proposed by the applicant. As noted previously in myproof, these include the following:

● Creation of a new roundabout on the A49 Lodge Lane for the

realigned A49 (shown in Appendix B)

● Provision of a future-proofed site access junction on the A580

(shown in Appendix C)

● Stopping up of A49 Lodge Lane North to M6 J23 (shown in

Appendix E)

● Improvements to M6 J23 (shown in Appendix E)

● Realignment of A49 Lodge Lane N through the development site

(shown in Appendix F)

● Commitment to an appropriate shared footway/cycleway

provision on the realigned A49 (shown in Appendix G)

● Provision of enhanced footway/cycleway on the A580 between M6 J23

and the site access (shown in Appendix J)

● Commitment to an enhanced public transport provision (discussed in the

next sub-section of this proof)

Impact on Walking and Cycling

5.1.55 The submitted Framework Travel Plan (FTP) [CD 16.12] acknowledgesthe limitations of considering the application when much of the internal sitedetails are reserved matters. Walking and cycling catchment figures areprovided in Figures 2.1 and 2.2 in the FTP33.

5.1.56 The StHC SPD Ensuring a Choice of Travel34 contains an ‘AccessibilityStandard Assessment’ (ASA) which has been applied in the TransportAssessment Update.

33 Appendix R Transport Assessment Update May 2020

34 Ensuring a Choice of Travel (2010)


415187 | 415187-450 | A | January 2021

26

5.1.57 The (ASA) summary presented in the TA35 shows that the site does notwholly comply with the StHC location criteria, which encouragesdevelopment to be located in areas with the best levels of access (e.g.town or district centres).

5.1.58 However, in my opinion given the outline nature of the planning applicationit is not realistic to fully apply the assessment, and the logistics nature ofthe development should be considered when applying the StHC ASA test.In addition, much of the internal site details are reserved matters.

5.1.59 Vectos explain the merits of the location of the site given the proposedindustrial B2/B8 land use (with immediate access to the SRN), which willprevent HGV traffic routing through residential areas and local roads thatwould give rise to adverse impacts.

5.1.60 The ASA does demonstrate that there are suitable facilities for walking,cycling and public transport trips to and from the site.

5.1.61 The TA makes refence to on-site cycle parking and says this will weagreed a reserved matter. Similarly, on-site walking facilities are areserved matter.

5.1.62 The applicant has committed to providing a footway and cycleway on thenorth side of the A580. This will existing facilities at Haydock Island to theproposed traffic signal-controlled access. Cycle and pedestrian crossingfacilities will be incorporated at the traffic signal-controlled junction to theto the existing footway/cycleway on the south side of the A580.

Access to Bus and Rail5.1.63 Newton le Willows rail station and bus interchange is located

approximately 3.2km from the HPN proposed site access on the A49. Thestation is located on the northern route of the Liverpool to Manchester lineand is within the Merseytravel region. The station is a modern facilitywhich functions as a local transport hub providing interchange between railand bus.

5.1.64 The station provides two services per hour in either direction betweenLiverpool Lime Street and Oxford Road & Piccadilly in Manchester.Improvements to the rail network in 2015 have reduced journey times areapproximately 20 minutes to Liverpool and 25 minutes to Manchester.The station was refurbished in 2019 and now includes the following:

35 Appendix C Transport Assessment Update May 2020


415187 | 415187-450 | A | January 2021

27

● Step free access to and between the platforms via new subwayand lifts

● Bus interchange adjacent to the new ticket office● New 400-space car park (expanding from the existing 100

spaces)● Dedicated drop-off and pick-up area● Improved passenger waiting facilities● New toilet facilities● Additional cycle parking

5.1.65 The bus interchange at Newton le Willows station is at the hub of 3interconnecting services.

5.1.66 Bus service 360 service connects Warrington Bus Station to Wigan BusStation. The route also serves the areas of Golborne (Wigan) and Hulme(Warrington).

5.1.67 Bus service 34 connects St Helens bus station to Leigh Bus Station viaEarlestown.

5.1.68 Bus service 22 connects Warrington bus station to Ashton in Makerfield.The service also connects Vulcan Village, New Boston, Wargrave andEarlestown.

5.1.69 Bus stops are located on the A49 Lodge Lane approximately 50m north ofPenny Lane. The bus stops have an information sign but are not providedwith shelter facilities. The stops are served by a single bus route the 320which travels via Penny Lane and Lodge Lane serves St Helens andWigan. The 320 service does not connect to Newton le Willows rail stationand bus interchange. There are 6 busses per hour in each directionreducing to 2 busses per hour in the evening.

5.1.70 The applicant acknowledges the limitations of the bus access and hascommitted to the provision of a supporting financial package for delivery ofa shuttle bus or commercial service.

5.1.71 The details of any such service are subject to the requirements of thedetailed operation of the site and the needs of the local populace, subjectto agreements with both the Local Planning Authority and MerseyTravel.

5.1.72 The applicant proposes an initial route for a new shuttle bus service, whichis shown as Appendix H. I have reviewed this proposal to assess thepopulation characteristics within the 400m catchment area of the proposedshuttle bus route. I have conducted analysis to calculate the number of


415187 | 415187-450 | A | January 2021

28

residents, working age residents, and deprived residents within 400metres of the bus route. Core Policy CP236 requires significant generatorsto be located within 400m of safe and convenient walking distance of busstops. In my opinion applying the same logic to access to bus stops fromhome would seem reasonable. Bus stop locations are yet be determinedso using a distance of 400m from the bus route is a reasonable proxy atthis stage.

5.1.73 Ordnance Survey (OS) code point data for postcodes within the 400mcatchment polygon were used and spatially joined to Index of MultipleDeprivation (IMD) quintiles and deciles of deprivation scores, based on theLower Super output Area (LSOA) they fell within. This is a standardstatistical assessment approach recommended by Public HealthEngland.37

5.1.74 To disaggregate the population data, the total 2019 mid-year estimatepopulation figures were divided by the total number of domesticresidences within that LSOA, creating an average population perresidence figure. To calculate the total for the catchment area, thispopulation per residence figure was multiplied by the sum of residences togive a total population. This method ensures that the catchment populationfigures reflect where people reside within the area.

5.1.75 Table 5.1 below presents the number or residents (total population) andworking age residents (those aged 16-64) within the catchment area.

Table 5.1: No. of residents within catchment areaMetric TotalTotal population within 400m of the proposed bus route 49,523

Total working age population (16 to 64) within 400m ofthe proposed bus route

31,038

5.1.76 Table 5.2 below presents the number of residents within the 400mcatchment area that reside in an LSOA which is in the most deprived 10%(decile) of LSOAs within England as of 2019.

36 Section 4, bullet point (i) page 97

37 Public Health England, Technical Guidance, Assigning Deprivation Categories June 2017


415187 | 415187-450 | A | January 2021

29

Table 5.2: No. residents within the 400m catchment area that reside in an LSOA which isin the most deprived 10% (decile) of LSOAs within England as of 2019

Metric TotalTotal deprived (most deprived decile) population within400m of the proposed bus route

17,764

Total deprived (most deprived decile) working agepopulation (16 to 64) within 400m of the proposed busroute

11,163

5.1.77 Table 5.3 below presents the number of residents within the 400mcatchment area that reside in an LSOA which is in the most deprived 20%(quintile) of LSOAs within England as of 2019.

Table 5.3: No. residents within the 400m catchment area that reside in an LSOA which isin the most deprived 20% (decile) of LSOAs within England as of 2019

Metric TotalTotal deprived (most deprived quintile) population within400m of the proposed bus route

31,222

Total deprived (most deprived quintile) working agepopulation (16 to 64) within 400m of the proposed busroute

19,609

5.1.78 This only represents a high-level analysis at this stage and would requirefurther consideration at the point of implementation. The presentedanalysis based on the route initially proposed by the applicantdemonstrates that a suitable solution to public transport accessibility hasbeen proposed to complement the existing services.

Impact on Road Safety

5.1.79 Highway safety was reviewed in the TA. This involved a review ofcollisions across a wide study area and demonstrated that there were noexisting highway safety issues that would be exacerbated by thedevelopment.

5.1.80 A Stage 1 Road Safety Audit (RSA1) for the A580 Site Access and theproposed A49 roundabout on Lodge Lane has been undertaken, and Ihave considered this as part of my evidence.

5.1.81 The RSA1 makes recommendations as to how the issues identified can beresolved through minor design amendments. The designer (Vectos) hasprepared a designer’s response pro-forma which details their responses tothe issues raised. This demonstrates that the issues will be consideredthrough Detailed Design stages and I am in agreement with this.


415187 | 415187-450 | A | January 2021

30

5.1.82 Swept path analysis has been provided for the A580 site access junctionand the A49 Lodge Lane roundabout. The analysis shows that a largearticulated vehicle can navigate the junctions without overrunning and istherefore acceptable.

5.1.83 The swept path analysis also shows that an abnormal sized vehicle suchas a ‘Low-Loader’ can also navigate the junctions satisfactorily. This wasa necessity of the analysis on the basis of an existing operator within theHaydock Industrial Estate using a ‘Low-Loader’ at specific times of theyear, accessing via the A49 Lodge Lane arm.

Summary

5.1.84 The TA has been prepared following the methodology and scope agreedwith StHC. There have been a number of supplementary documentsproduced to provide addition clarification and detail following initialsubmission and to meet the request from STHC to incorporate therealignment of the A49 Lodge Lane. The process has engaged withWigan council and Highways England.

5.1.85 Mitigation has been proposed to improve highway operations, facilities forpedestrians and to offer alternative travel choices to access the site.

5.1.86 In my opinion the proposed highway mitigation (agreed in the SoCG) arein accordance with NPPF policy which requires impacts to be mitigated toan acceptable degree.

5.1.87 The ASA undertaken for the development has some limitations givenreserved detail matters in the planning application.

5.1.88 The site is not well served by bus and passenger rail services and doesn’tmeet the requirement of StHC Core Strategy Policy CP238. This policyrequires significant generators of traffic to be located within 800 metres ofsafe and convenient walking distances of stations on the passenger railnetwork or within 400 metres of safe and convenient walking distance ofstops and interchanges on high-frequency bus service networks. Forreference the Core Strategy defines significant generators of journeys asthose requiring at least a Transport Statement in Department for TransportGuidance for Transport Assessments or those classed as Large or Majorin Ensuring A Choice of Travel SPD39.

38 Creating an Accessible St Helens, paragraph 4 (i)

39 St Helens Core Strategy, page 97, footnote 1


415187 | 415187-450 | A | January 2021

31

5.1.89 However, the applicant has committed to address bus and rail connectivitywith a contribution of £1m towards a site shuttle bus to enhancing thechoice of travel mode. The shuttle bus could connect to Newton leWillows station, Earlestown station, St Helens town centre and selectedresidential areas to reduce trips by car.

5.1.90 The area surrounding the site within 500m, 1000m and 2000m traveldistances is shown in the walking and cycling isochrone plots in AppendixI. This confirms that a limited number of local amenities exist within the400m and 800m walking catchments, although a bus stop does exist atthe upper limit of the 400m walking catchment, which would besupplemented appropriately by the proposed site shuttle bus.

5.1.91 A 2,400m, 4,800m, 7,200m and 8,000m isochrone has been provided forcycling catchments, demonstrating that there is safe existing provisionfor cyclists which will be complemented by proposals put forward by theapplicant, specifically in relation to additional cycling facilities on the A580and along the realigned A49 within the site.

5.1.92 It has also been agreed that prior to the first use of the buildings on site aTravel Plan Coordinator will be appointed and who’s responsibilities willinclude monitoring the travel plan, promoting the individual measurespresented in the travel plan and liaising with public transport operators.

5.1.93 The site does not benefit from rail connectivity, but it is well located toaccess the strategic road network and access Freight Priority Routes(FPR) as required by Core Strategy policy CP240.

40 Paragraph 4, (ii) page 97


415187 | 415187-450 | A | January 2021

32

6. Statement of Matters

6.1.1 The Secretary of State has identified a number of issues that they wish tobe informed about. Relevant to transport and highways are the followingmatters referenced from the first Management Case Conference held on.23rd September 2020

a)- The acceptability of the scheme with regard to local and nationalplanning policy as well as emerging policy.

6.1.2 In response to Matter a), I Conclude in Chapter 4 that I am satisfied thatHPN proposals are cognisant of the relevant national, regional and localtransport policy and guidance. The NPPF requires all travel modes to beaccommodated for and transport impacts to be mitigated. Through theFramework Travel Plan a number of enhancement measures have beenproposed in addition to the provision of a site shuttle bus. Thedevelopment highway access proposals have been modified to to ‘futureproof’ an improvement at the M6 junction 23 (should any such schemecome forward in the future which is not considered to be likely in the shortterm).

6.1.3 The site is well located to access the A580 and M6 freight routes. In myopinion the developer has met the requirements of StHC Core StrategyPolicy CP 2: Creating a Sustainable Future St Helens;

● Whilst the site does not have the opportunity for rail access it isconveniently located to access the M6 and the A580 freightroutes.

● The developers proposed shuttle bus will enhance busconnectivity and provide a convenient access to Newton leWillows rail station and bus interchange, Earlestown rail stationand St Helens bus station.

d)- Highway matters – J23 mitigation, diversion of A49 Lodge Lane andcontribution to wider J23 improvement scheme. Sustainable travelworks/measures.

Junction 23.


415187 | 415187-450 | A | January 2021

33

6.1.4 The Junction 23 study [CD 22.2] commissioned by the Steering Group (StHelens Council, Highways England and Wigan Council) was to considerpreliminary design options. Works were previously undertaken at thejunction in 2014/15 by Highways England as part of the DfT Pinch PointFund. The study states41 “Although the Pinch Point Scheme gave someimprovement to the operational performance and reduced congestion atthe junction, the M6 J23 still experiences significant congestion duringpeak traffic times and when race meetings are held at Haydock Park”.

6.1.5 There are no commitments to fund improvements in Highways England’scurrent Road Investment Strategy (RIS) programme (2020 - 2025). Part ofthe study optioneering includes the closure of the A49 on both sides of thejunction to facilitate the improvement. During the development of the HPNproposals the applicant agreed to modify the access proposals which willprohibit access to junction 23 from the A49 Lodge Lane. This will beachieved by physically stopping up this section of Lodge in a southbounddirection

6.1.6 This modification has been tested by the applicant’s transport consultantVectos and shown to improve the functionality of the junction.

6.1.7 Following publication of the HPN proposals Planning Committee Report[CD 20.1] on the 16th November 2020. The applicants planning consultantTurley submitted a letter dated 20 November 2020 to StHC [CD42 tbc].The first two sections of the letter consider Junction 23 Study andHighways Impact. In response to this letter and other matters StHCproduced a Report Addendum which was submitted to the PlanningCommittee held on the 23rd November 2020 [CD 20.2].

6.1.8 The letter from Turley states that the proposed works at Junction 23contribute to a future scheme that the council is seeking to deliver, andthat the diversion of the A49 Lodge Lane facilitates access to thedevelopment site and supports the council’s proposals. It is also noted theA49 diversion did not form part of the applicant’s original proposalssubmitted in March 2017. Turley also contend that the A49 works are acritical first stage and represent a significant contribution to Junction 23.Turley contest that this a material improvement that should weigh in favourof the proposal in the planning balance.

6.1.9 In the addendum report the council responded:

41 Section 2.2, final paragraph page 4



415187 | 415187-450 | A | January 2021

34

● Paragraph 10 – The Junction 23 Study is not adopted councilpolicy and there are no funding commitments for a future junctionimprovement.

● Paragraph 12 – the A49 closure has a dual function in accessingthe site proposals.

● Paragraph 18 – there is no real prospect of a futurecomprehensive scheme coming forward so it should be givenlittle weight.

● Paragraph 19 – The A49 diversion is a benefit to thedevelopment and highway capacity the consideration ofalternative access proposals is immaterial.

● Paragraph 20 – It is agreed that the investment in the highwayworks should be given significant weight in favour of thedevelopment

● Paragraph 29 – it is accepted that the operation of junction 23would improve as a result of the proposed development and thatqueuing in this location would improve. This should weigh infavour of the proposals in the overall planning balance.

6.1.10 It is a matter of common ground that the applicants’ improvements tojunction 23 will deliver an improvement in operational performance. Asnoted in my proof of evidence at Paragraph 5.1.33 the assessment ofjunction 23 demonstrates that there is an improvement with the schemewhen compared to the ‘Do Minimum‘ (without development) in theassessment years. This level of improvement should be considered as deminimis.

6.1.11 Given there is currently no confirmed prospect of a comprehensiveimprovement to junction 23, there is no benefit which can be considered.

Sustainable travel works / measures

6.1.12 A new walking and cycling link will be provided between Junction 23(Haydock Island) and the proposed traffic signal-controlled junction on theA580 where currently none exist. In addition, a controlled pedestrian andcycle crossing will be incorporated into the traffic signals to link the newfacility to an existing footway on the south side of the A580. The creationof this ‘missing link’ provides a facility that may encourage cyclists andpedestrians to use this route.


415187 | 415187-450 | A | January 2021

35

6.1.13 The route is currently limited in use by active mode users and the new linkis not likely to increase the number of non-development related walk/cycletrips, however the connection is viewed as an appropriate mitigationmeasure for the development proposals assisting with the overallaccessibility of the site, thereby providing the option to walk/cycle to thesite.

6.1.14 The developer has produced a Framework Travel Plan (FTP) which setsout objectives to contribute to and promote sustainable travel. The FTPforms part of the SoCG. Much of the FTP ambition will be deferred forreserved matters applications. Similarly, measures on the HPN site toencourage sustainable travel such as cycle parking and managing thenumber of car parking spaces will be agreed at later stages of the planningprocess.

i) - Any wider highway or other benefits.

6.1.15 The applicants’ commitment to an enhanced shuttle bus has the potentialto reduce trips by car on the wider highway network. The measures toimprove Junction 23 (Haydock Island) described above will benefit otherroad users by improving the operation of this junction. Improved walkingand cycling provision on the A580 will offer an opportunity for walking andcycling.


415187 | 415187-450 | A | January 2021

36

7. Summary and Conclusions

Summary

7.1.1 Within my proof of evidence, I have considered the assessmentundertaken to present the transport impacts of HPN.

7.1.2 In Chapter 4 I have consider the relevant national and local transportpolicies and guidance considered relevant to the proposals.

7.1.3 In Chapter 5 I consider the approach taken to consider the transportimpacts.

7.1.4 In Chapter 6 I have consider the matters raised by the Secretary of Statesrelevant to transport.

Conclusions

7.1.5 In Chapter 4 I have considered the policy fit of HPN. Whilst the site hasno means of access to the rail network, it does benefit from close andconvenient access to Freight Priority Routes (FPR) A580 and the M6.This a requirement of Core Strategy Policy CP2: Creating an AccessibleSt Helens. Although the site has no opportunity for direct access to theexisting rail network on balance, I consider that the benefits of convenientaccess to the FPR make HPN a good location for a freight facility limitingimpacts on the local highway network.

7.1.6 The site has poor access to passenger rail services. Newton le Willowsrail station and bus interchange being approximately 3.2km (2 miles) fromthe site. The existing bus stops on the A49 whilst convenient located forwalking access are limited in service provision (the 320 service only) andhas no bus connectivity to the onward train and bus services operatingfrom Newton le Willows rail station and bus interchange.

7.1.7 The applicants propose a shuttle bus as part of a contribution of £1m toreinforce existing bus services and accessibility. The shuttle bus willconnect the HPN development to local residential areas, Newton leWillows rail station and bus interchange, Earlestown station and St Helensbus station as agreed in the SoCG and illustrated in Appendix H. The£1m contribution will be made as a S.106 agreement which will set outhow the contribution will be allocated. These measures are necessaryand will contribute to providing alternative travel choices.


415187 | 415187-450 | A | January 2021

37

7.1.8 The applicant was required by StHC to use the Accessibility StandardAssessment required by the Ensuring Choice of Travel SupplementaryPlanning Document (SPD). The assessment shows that the site does notcomply with the location criteria that encourages development to belocated in areas with the best levels of access, such as town or localcentres. The assessment does acknowledge that some of the matters forconsideration are reserved matters and not technically part of theassessment.

7.1.9 The applicant proposes that given the sites location close to the FreightPriority Route (FPR) network they will ensure that HGV traffic is not routedthrough residential areas and local roads that would otherwise give rise tounacceptable impacts.

7.1.10 Unlike the Parkside proposals there is no specific City Region or CoreStrategy policy support for HPN.

7.1.11 In my opinion the locational benefits of being very closely located to theFPR and SRN outweigh the limitations of walking and bus access. Theapplicant has recognised the constraint and has proposed acceptablemitigation by the provision of a staff shuttle bus and travel plan measuresto encourage alternatives to single car occupancy journeys.

7.1.12 In Chapter 5 I have reviewed the developers’ approach to considering thedevelopment proposal transport impacts. The TA appraisal for HPN havefollowed an approach of working closely with highway and planningofficers at StHC and updating the TA with supplementary information asrequired. The site access proposals have been modified to include thepartial closure of the A49 Lodge Lane which could be part of an as yet tobe determined future improvement to Junction 23.

7.1.13 In my opinion the approach to assessing the transport impacts isproportionate to the quantum of the development.

7.1.14 I have considered and responded to transport matters raised by theSecretary of State in Chapter 6 of my proof.

7.1.15 I have used my professional judgement to carefully consider thedevelopment proposals which I have set out in my proof of evidence. Myconclusion is that there are no transport impact or policy considerationsthat should prevent the proposals being granted planning consent.


415187 | 415187-450 | A | January 2021

38

8. Statement of Truth

8.1.1 The evidence I shall give is true, given in good faith and represents myprofessional opinion regarding the merits of the proposals and I havecarried out my assessment in accordance with the Code of ProfessionalConduct of the Institution of Civil Engineers and Chartered Institution ofHighways and Transportation.


415187 | 415187-450 | A | January 2021

39

Appendices to be separately bound

A. General arrangement drawing.

B. A49 Lodge Lane site access roundabout.

C. A580 East Lancashire Road site traffic signal-controlled junction.

D. Particulars of Addendum Technical Notes (ATNs).

E. Improvements to M6 junction 23.

F. Realignment of A49 Lodge Lane through the development site.

G. A49 Lodge Lane footway/cycleway.

H. Proposed shuttle bus route.

I. Walking, cycling isochrone.

J. A580 footway / cycleway.

K. Location of assessed junctions.


415187 | 415187-450 | A | January 2021

40

mottmac.com

3urri ri (ylghqfh 0u (gzdug 0hooru...my instruction my mott macdonald colleagues had been advising...

Documents