1

HBC/10/1P

THE MERSEY GATEWAY PROJECT

(MERSEY GATEWAY BRIDGE)

SOCIAL IMPACT

PROOF OF EVIDENCE OF

Dr. Clare Twigger-Ross

2

This proof of evidence relates to the implications of the following applications and

proposed orders:

Planning Application for full planning

permission for works lying within

Runcorn comprising improvements to

the Central Expressway, Weston

Link, the Weston Point Expressway

and Junction 12 of the M56

motorway, dated 31 March 2008

Planning Application for full planning

permission for works lying within

Widnes comprising modifications of

the northern approaches to the Silver

Jubilee Bridge, dated 31 March 2008

Listed Building Consent Application

for modifications to the carriageway

of the Silver Jubilee Bridge, dated 31

March 2008

The River Mersey (Mersey Gateway

Bridge) Order (application under

section 6 of the Transport and Works

Act 1992 to the Secretary of State for

Transport for an order under section

3(1)(b) of that Act)

The A533 (Silver Jubilee Bridge)

Road User Charging Scheme Order

2008

The Halton Borough Council (Mersey

Gateway - Queensway) Compulsory

Purchase Order 2008

The Halton Borough Council (Mersey

Gateway - Central Expressway)

Compulsory Purchase Order 2008

The Halton Borough Council (A533

Central Expressway) Side Roads

Order 2008

The Halton Borough Council (A533

Queensway) Side Roads Order 2008

Application ref:

APP/D0650/V/08/1203385/2095113

APP/D0650/V/1203384/2095069

APP/D0650/V/08/1203386/2095114

TWA/08/APP/05

Appeal ref:

3

Contents

1. Personal details

2. Role in Mersey Gateway Project

3. Scope of evidence

4. Background

5. Description of study area, and methodology

6. Baseline

7. Relevant policy

8. Project specific initiatives

9. Identification of issues

10. Identification of effects: Do nothing scenario

11. Identification of effects: construction

12. Identification of effects: operation

13. Conclusions

Appendices

Appendix 1 Construction area map

Appendix 2 Overview of social research

Appendix 3 List of SIA variables

Appendix 4 Maps of vulnerable groups distribution, education facilities,

health facilities and leisure facilities in Halton

Appendix 5 Relevant legislation and policy

Appendix 6 Summary of impacts and effects

Appendix 7 Summary of objections and responses

Appendices 8 – 17 articles and extracts referred to in proof of evidence

Appendix 8 Barrow 1997

Appendix 9 Petts 1999

Appendix 10 IAIA 2003

Appendix 11 Burdge 2004

Appendix 12 Vanclay 2003

Appendix 13 Extracts from Office of National Statistics

Appendix 14 Meadows 2008

4

Appendix 15 Extracts on regeneration projects from HBC website

Appendix 16 Extract from Urban Renewal Baseline

Appendix 17 Halton Borough Council Focus on the economic downturn

5

1 Personal Details

1.1 My name is Dr. Clare Twigger-Ross and I am an associate consultant at

Collingwood Environmental Planning specialising in social research and

social appraisal. Collingwood Environmental Planning (“CEP”) is a small,

multi-disciplinary consultancy, based in London and employed throughout

the UK and EU.

1.2 CEP provides a broad range of services in environmental and sustainability

assessment and planning, with a research and capacity building focus to

much of our work. Current priority areas for CEP are water and flooding,

climate change adaptation, spatial planning, social research and

ecosystem services. CEP undertakes commissions for a variety of client

groups, including European agencies, central, regional and local

government, government agencies and private companies. However, in

relationship to this project my work has focussed on socio-economic

impact assessment.

1.3 I hold a PhD in Psychology from the University of Surrey, an MSc in

Environmental Psychology from the University of Surrey and an MA (Hons)

in Psychology from the University of Edinburgh.

1.4 I am a Chartered Psychologist, graduate member of the British

Psychologist Society, a Member of the International Association for Person

Environment Studies (IAPS) and a Fellow of Royal Society of Arts (FRSA)

1.5 I have more than ten years of experience in social research. I have

carried out both quantitative and qualitative research projects, specifically

in environmental topics, and I lead CEP’s social appraisal and social

research work areas. I have worked on the Poole lifting bridge social

impact assessment in 2004 with Gifford.

6

2 Role in the Mersey Gateway Project

2.1 I was engaged in August 2002 in order to provide expert advice on the

design and delivery of the socio-economic impact assessment for the

Mersey Gateway Project. I have worked as part of the Mersey Gateway

Environmental Impact Assessment team since that time, to oversee the

socio-economic impact assessment and associated social research.

2.2 I set out the design of the social impact assessment in 2002 and oversaw

the drafting of the relevant chapter of the Mersey Gateway Environmental

Statement (Environmental Statement, Chapter 20 CD14).

2.3 Further I oversaw the social research carried out for the project between

2002 and 2007. More details of the social research undertaken can be

found in Appendix 2 of this proof of evidence and the reports from the

research (MVA, 2003, 2004, 2004, 2005, 2005, and 2007 CD151,152,

216, 156,157,159).

2.4 The research was undertaken as an integral part of the socio-economic

impact assessment process with the findings providing evidence for the

assessment and direction in terms of mitigation.

2.5 The aim of my involvement was to ensure that there was both an

understanding of the social profile of those who were to be affected by the

scheme together with an assessment of the nature of the socio-economic

effects of the construction and operation of the Mersey Gateway Project.

2.6 I have also been involved in advising on the design of mitigation and

measures for the socio-economic effects. In addition, I have been

involved in advising on the Sustainable Transport Strategy (Halton

Borough Council, 2009 CD182) which was developed after the socio-

economic assessment.

7

2.7 This proof draws on the evidence from the socio-economic impact

assessment together with information from the Sustainable Transport

Strategy (Halton Borough Council, 2009 CD182), and the Mersey Gateway

Regeneration Strategy (GVA Grimley, 2008, CD127) in order to evaluate

the socio-economic effects of the project. Since the socio-economic

impact assessment further analysis has been carried out largely associated

with the Sustainable Transport Strategy (CD182) and the Mersey Gateway

Regeneration Strategy (GVA Grimley, 2008, CD127). I draw on that

information for my analysis here in this proof of evidence.

8

3 Scope of evidence

Socio-economic impact assessment within the EIA process

3.1 My evidence explains the key aspects of the socio-economic impact

assessment covering both the construction and operation phases of the

project. The socio-economic impact assessment was carried out in order

to assess the effects of the Project on social receptors within and

surrounding the Borough of Halton. In addition, I discuss the role of the

Sustainable Transport Strategy which is being promoted alongside the

project and is an integral part of the wider Mersey Gateway initiative and

its effects on the social receptors in Halton.

3.2 The extent to which social and economic effects are assessed within an

environmental impact assessment is the subject of debate within the

environmental impact assessment community. For example, the

'environment' and 'man's health and well-being' have been identified as

the focus of environmental impact assessment with the suggestion that

the second aspect is emphasised possibly because the scientific

community may tend to focus on the biological/geographical/physical

environment (Petts 1999 extract in Appendix 9). The experience of

environmental impact assessment in practice has encouraged an

increasingly inclusive definition. Barrow (1997 extract in Appendix 8) also

highlights that 'environment' is often poorly defined and interpreted in

different ways in impact assessments, concluding that as there is so much

interaction between physical, biological, social, cultural and economic

components it makes sense to use the word in its broadest sense.

3.3 In terms of the legal requirements for environmental impact assessment

Schedule 4 of the regulations (1999 CD175) describes what has to be

included into an environmental statement which includes:

9

“ 3. A description of the aspects of the environment likely to be

significantly affected by the development, including, in particular,

population, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climatic factors, material assets,

including the architectural and archaeological heritage, landscape and the

inter-relationship between the above factors.” (Schedule 4, Part 1,

Statutory Instruments 1999 No. 293 The Town and Country Planning

(Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations

1999) (CD175).

3.4 In the case of the Mersey Gateway it was especially important to include

this assessment for two key reasons

1) The area in which the Project is located has high levels of

deprivation and therefore both benefits and disbenefits of the

project are likely to be accentuated.

2) The focus of regional and local initiatives is on improving levels of

deprivation and therefore understanding how the Project will

contribute to those broader aims was important.

3.5 In order to assess the socio-economic effects of the Project I followed

guidance and good practice in Social Impact Assessment. Specifically, the

socio-economic impact assessment was undertaken in line with The

International Principles for Social Impact Assessment, produced by the

International Association of Impact Assessment (IAIA 2003 Appendix 10).

I took this approach because these principles (IAIA 2003 Appendix 10)

that have been adopted by the International Association for Impact

Assessment which is the professional association for Impact Assessment.

3.6 Social Impact Assessment1 can be defined as ‘analysing, monitoring and

managing the intended and unintended social consequences, both positive

and negative, of planned interventions (policies, programmes, plans,

projects) and any social change processes invoked by those interventions’

1 Although termed Social Impact Assessment it should be noted that it is within the scope of that process to examine socio-economic effects, that is, effects on employment but only at a local level; not wider economic effects.

10

(Vanclay 2003 Appendix 12). In order to establish what those social

consequences might be I drew on the methodology laid out by Burdge

(2004a extract Appendix 11). In the Mersey Gateway socio-economic

impact assessment I used Burdge’s list of social impact variables as a

starting point (Appendix 3), for the scoping phase of the environmental

impact assessment. The outcome of this is reported in the Scoping Report

for the environmental impact assessment (Gifford, 2007 CD287). Where

appropriate, his assessment methods were used in the assessment

process (Burdge, 2004, Extract in Appendix 11).

3.7 There is a wider purpose to this proof than providing the findings from the

socio-economic impact assessment. The socio-economic impact

assessment was carried out for the environmental impact assessment and,

to do that, assumptions were made about a worst case scenario. However,

the socio-economic impact assessment and further information gathering

has led to the development of mitigation and tailoring of elements of the

scheme to reduce the effects observed in the socio-economic impact

assessment.

3.8 In this proof of evidence as well as understanding the socio-economic

effects of the Project, I consider the extent to which there are socio-

economic effects that support the seven objectives of the Project. In order

to do this, I will present background information on the importance of

accessibility for facilitating activities of daily living, and the effects of

reducing worklessness on other areas of deprivation. I also present the

methodology used in the socio-economic impact assessment followed by

relevant background information on the social profile of Halton. This is

then followed by a discussion of the social effects in relation first to the Do

Nothing scenario, then the Do Something scenario in relation to the key

objectives of the Project where appropriate.

11

4 Background

4.1 This proof of evidence is concerned with presenting evidence on the

socio-economic effects of the Project. It follows and draws upon Mr

Pauling (HBC/8/1P) and Mr Russell’s proofs (HBC/9/1P). Mr Pauling

shows the effects of the Project on the transportation network

(HBC/8/1P). Mr Russell (HBC/9/1P) shows that the effect of the

improvements in the transportation network reliability has economic

benefits for Halton and surrounding areas.

4.2 In this proof I want to consider how those two key effects will affect

local people in Halton, specifically those living in deprived areas. The

reason for this focus is that Halton does have high levels of deprivation

and if the Project is to be “more than just a bridge” (GVA Grimley, p 1

CD127 and Parr HBC/1/1P) and be the catalyst for regeneration in

those areas then it is important to understand the potential effects on

the people in those areas.

4.3 Before I introduce the approach that I have taken to this assessment, I

will discuss some relevant research findings relating to, the importance

of accessibility for facilitating activities of daily living, and the effects of

reducing worklessness2 on other areas of deprivation.

The importance of accessibility for facilitating activities of daily living

4.4 To begin with it is important to understand the implications for

everyday life of both poor transport and improved accessibility. A key

document in relation to how poor transport contributes to social

exclusion in deprived neighbourhoods was published by the Social

2 Worklessness is a less familiar term than unemployment used to describe all those without work. (from CLG, 2008a)

12

Exclusion Unit in 2003 (SEU, 2003, CD270). At the heart of the

document is the concept of accessibility which is described as:

“can people get to key services at reasonable cost, in reasonable time

and with reasonable ease? Accessibility depends on several things:

does transport exist between the people and the service? Do people

know about the transport, trust its reliability and feel safe using it? Are

people physically and financially able to access transport? Are the

services and activities within a reasonable distance? Solving

accessibility problems may be about transport but also about locating

and delivering key activities in ways that help people reach them.”

(SEU, 2003, p 1 CD270 )

4.5 The report reviewed a large body of research from a wide range of

sources. From that five areas where poor transport acts as barriers are

described:

Access to work: lack of and the cost of transport is a real and

perceived barrier to finding and getting jobs

Access to learning: costs of transport for students and poor

access to education facilities are a barrier to learning.

Access to healthcare: reported difficulties getting to local

hospitals as well as missed appointments or choosing not to seek

medical help.

Access to food shops: without a car access to supermarkets is

difficult.

Access to social, cultural and sporting activities:

participating in these activities is important to people’s quality of

life.

4.6 In terms of access to work, problems with transport can prevent people

from attending interviews. Further it can lead people to apply for jobs

in a narrow geographical area, and may result in people turning down

jobs. While this is not a problem for the majority of people seeking

work, for a significant minority it can act as a key barrier to

employment. Even if people do find work, transport problems can still

13

restrict the range of job opportunities available, and mean that they

stay unemployed longer than otherwise might be the case (SEU, 2003,

CD270). In the policy area transport matters have tended to be

overlooked, but have an important role to play in peoples’ ability to find

and stay in work (Meadows, 2008; Appendix 14 Joseph Rowntree

Foundation 2008 CD299)

4.7 In terms of the relative importance of transport as a barrier to finding

work a study for the New Deal for Young people found that the top two

main problems associated with finding or keeping work were mobility

related. They were “no jobs nearby” and “lack of personal transport”

(cited SEU, 2003 para 1.4 CD270). This research concludes that poor

transport is a barrier both perceived and actual to people looking for

and keeping work.

4.8 The second area is that of poor access to learning, specifically access to

educational facilities. Families on low incomes may have to choose

their nearest school regardless of whether it is their preferred school

because there is free transport (over 3 miles) only for the “nearest

suitable school”. If parents wish to send their child to a school further

a field then transport costs can become a burden. Further, in areas

where there is poor and costly public transport then people are more

reliant on having a car to be able to take children and young people to

and from after-school activities. It is suggested that in low income

families some children may be missing out because they are not able to

attend these activities (SEU, 2003, para 1.5 – 1.14 CD270).

4.9 In terms of access to healthcare it is clear that in many areas hospitals

have been built with little regard to access by public transport and

there have been closures of numbers of smaller hospitals serving local

areas. The SEU report (SEU, 2003 para 1.19 CD270) provides a

number of key statistics around the effects of poor access to healthcare

facilities:

14

1. Around 20 per cent of people find it difficult to travel to hospital. A

much higher proportion (31 per cent) of people without access to a

car has this difficulty.

2. 3 per cent of people (or over 1.4 million) have missed, turned down

or not sought medical help because of transport problems

experienced in the past year. This rises to 7 per cent of people

without access to a car.

3. More than half of older people travelling to hospitals and dentists in

London experience some difficulties in getting there, as do a third of

those attending GPs or health centres.

4. 23 per cent of people who use mental health services say that

financial problems have restricted their ability to access these

services; the majority of these responses related to transport

problems.

5. Research commissioned by the SEU indicates the extent to which

poor transport contributes to missed health opportunities. Although

not based on a statistically representative sample, interviews with

230 low-income people in six case study areas showed that about

one-third said they had at some time missed a health appointment

because of transport difficulties

4.10 With respect to access to food shops it is clear that many of the large

supermarkets are located in places that are not easily accessible to

public transport, (i.e. “out of town supermarkets”). This can leave

those who don’t have access to a car in the position of either paying for

taxis, taking long trips on public transport to get to those supermarkets

or shopping at smaller, often more expensive, local shops (SEU, 2003,

para 1.20 CD270).

4.11 Finally, research shows the importance of social networks, leisure and

cultural activities for people’s quality of life. People without cars are

around twice as likely as those with cars to identify transport as a

barrier to participation in a range of social and cultural activities. This

can impact on seeing friends and family, access to leisure facilities, and

libraries. Seeing friends and family has other knock-on benefits

15

associated with it. Specifically, evaluation of labour market initiatives

shows that people who get work often have heard about the job

through a friend or family member. Also, people without good social

networks have been found to have poorer health outcomes. (see SEU,

2003 p 1.25 – 1.29 CD270).

4.12 Lack of good transport can be a specific issue for older people’s

participation in activities such as leisure, day centres, caring, and

volunteering. Research (DTLR, 2001 cited in SEU, 2003 para 1.27

CD270) has shown the importance to older people of simply getting out

of the house.

4.13 This section has provided background information on the importance of

accessibility to a range of socio-economic outcomes. Improvements to

accessibility can have wide reaching positive impacts, and can be

especially important within areas of deprivation.

Deprivation and the role of worklessness.

4.14 In this section I want to discuss the interrelationships between

employment and other areas of deprivation together with the effects of

reducing worklessness. Reducing the rates of worklessness is at the

centre of the National Regeneration Framework (CLG, 2008 CD267)

and sustainable employment as a route out of poverty is at the heart of

the National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal (CLG, 2007 CD266)

and. Worklessness is a problem in disadvantaged neighbourhoods even

though the number of registered unemployed has declined over recent

years. This is because there are now pockets of disadvantage within

regions whereas there used to be big regional differences in terms of

disadvantage.

4.15 Worklessness is recognised as a complex issue which requires

understanding of local needs together with local solutions in order to be

addressed. It is of such importance because of its relationship to other

areas of deprivation. That is, if worklessness improves, other areas of

16

life improve as well. “crime rates, liveability, environment, health and

education indicators are generally better in areas of lower worklessness

and higher economic activity and increasing worklessness can act as a

trigger for areas falling into a spiral of decline” (CLG, 2007, p 9

CD266).

4.16 Evidence from the New Deal for Communities (CLG, 2008 CD268) using

2006 household survey data has examined the extent to which there

are interrelationships between different dimensions of change. For

example, as worklessness rates in an area decrease, health outcomes

improve. This and other interrelationships (see CLG, 2008, p 50 – 51

CD268) suggests that renewal should be seen in the round with change

in one area linked to change in other areas.

4.17 Work examining the relationship between the different deprivation

domains of the Index of Multiple Deprivation (cited in CLG 2008 Annex

B CD267) further highlights the relationship between the different

domains. This is illustrated in the chart below:

17

Figure 1 Indices of Multiple Deprivation, cited in CLG, 2008 Annex B

CD267

4.18 Finally, I want to discuss the central importance of economic success to

other areas of deprivation. Analysis of the IMD 2007 (see Annex B,

CLG 2008 CD267) shows that weak economies are central to poor

outcomes for communities and that there are clear relationships

between economic measures (e.g. employment and income) and social

outcomes (e.g. crime, education and health).

4.19 Indeed, evidence suggests that places can enter into a cycle of decline

where there is a weak economic base. Figure 1 gives an overview of

the drivers behind area based cycles of decline.

Figure 2: Overview of the drivers of the cycle of decline that affects

deprived areas (CLG, 2005 p 12 CD252)

18

With the right interventions, it is suggested that decline can be halted and

turned instead into a cycle of success. Figure 2 describes that

cycle:

Figure 3 Cycle of success (CLG, 2005, p. 16 CD252)

4.20 It can be seen that a healthy labour market is key to generating that

cycle of success and that there is a complex interplay between

economic, social and physical factors that contribute to the success or

failure of an area. For regeneration interventions to be successful (see

CLG, 2008a, for further details) they need to address the causes of

deprivation, specifically the economic circumstances of an area, which

are fundamentally related to social outcomes. Further, an area

response is recommended, that is, area specific needs and functions

must be taken into consideration as it is clear that local contexts will

facilitate some interventions over others. Finally, the legacy effects of

an area also need to be understood, that is, what has happened in the

past in that place and specifically has there been a history of persistent

deprivation which will require intensive action. Tackling worklessness

is crucial to reversing decline “given a lack of employment is often a

key determinant of wider personal problems” (CLG, 2008, p 87

CD267).

19

4.21 Providing jobs alone is not enough to improve the economic fortunes of

people in areas of deprivation (Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2008,

CD298). Other key factors include connectivity (Joseph Rowntree

Foundation 2008 CD298), training, advice and financial support for job-

seekers (Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2008 CD299). Connectivity is

highlighted (Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2008 CD298), and refers to

the ability of job seekers to get to the places where the job

opportunities are to be found, and that might mean travelling further

afield than is usual. Areas where there is ease of movement between

key employment sites are going to encourage people to take up job

opportunities.

4.22 Looking at some evidence of the effect of employment on individuals it

is clear that there are implications for general life satisfaction. A

review paper carried out for the Cabinet Office looking at life

satisfaction (Strategy Unit, Cabinet Office, 2002 CD251) provides some

useful evidence on its correlates. Life satisfaction in this review is

taken from surveys asking people if they are satisfied with their lives in

general. This simple measure has been shown to correlate highly with

more sophisticated mental health scales, ratings by others who know

the individual and behavioural measures (more detail on the

measurement of life satisfaction can be found pages 7 – 8, Cabinet

Office, 2002 CD251).

4.23 Some of the findings are relevant to the discussion in this section.

First, there is a positive relationship between job satisfaction and life

satisfaction. Job satisfaction itself is influenced by a range of factors

including personal control, variety, income, job security, skill use,

physical demands and job demands, making it difficult to say that

having a job per se improves life satisfaction. However, there is

considerable research that shows that being out of work has a negative

effect on your life satisfaction, with research showing that unemployed

EU citizens are less satisfied with their lives than others

(Eurobarometer, 2000, cited in Cabinet Office, 2002 CD251). Further

research (see Cabinet Office, 2002 page 22 for more details CD251)

20

shows that, using the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ12) measure

of mental health people who were employed or self-employed had

almost half the levels of mental distress scored by those who were

unemployed.

4.24 This finding varies with age, level of education, regional unemployment

and length of joblessness. Specifically people in areas of high

unemployment felt less mental stress than those in areas of lower

unemployment and those who had been jobless for longer than a year

had lower levels of mental stress than those who had been jobless for

less than a year.

4.25 This overview provides evidence for the interrelationships between

different dimensions of deprivation together with evidence for the

importance of tackling worklessness in deprived areas as a catalyst for

wider social benefits.

21

5 Description of study area, and methodology

Study area and vulnerable groups

5.1 The study area for the socio-economic impact assessment was the

Borough of Halton with a specific emphasis placed on those

communities within Lower layer Super Output Areas (LSOA) that the

Project runs through. Lower layer Super Output Areas (LSOAs) are

part of a new geographic hierarchy designed to improve the reporting

of small area statistics in England and Wales. The aim was to develop

a system which overcame some of the deficiencies in the Ward system,

so each unit is comparable in population size to every other unit and its

boundaries remain the same. LSOAs are one of three layers of Super

Output Areas: lower, middle and upper. Lower layer super output

areas (LSOAs) refer to a geographical area in which there live a

minimum of 1000 people and an average of 1500 people (as counted at

the 2001 census). There are 34,378 Lower Layer SOAs in England and

Wales (32,482 in England, 1896 in Wales). In Halton there are 79

LSOAs in Halton in 21 wards.

5.2 The Project passes directly through 14 LSOAs within the wards of

Beechwood, Halton Castle, Halton Brook, Halton Lea, Heath, Mersey

and Riverside.

5.3 The study area was chosen because it was an area that could be

examined in enough detail so that the assessment would be meaningful

yet was manageable within the constraints of the Project.

5.4 The socio-economic impact assessment used results from other impact

assessments (transport, air quality and noise) together with

information from the Wider Economic Impacts report (WEIR, Amion,

2009 CD200) each of which had slightly different study areas.

Specifically the WEIR economic study area was defined using travel to

work distances and the likely extent of travel in relation to the New

22

Bridge and therefore, taken as a 40 minute drive from the New Bridge.

The air quality and noise assessments referred to specific Project

construction areas designated A – I as detailed in the Construction

Methods Report (Appendix 1 to Mike Jones’ proof of evidence

HBC/5/1P) These areas are presented in Appendix 1.

5.5 Consideration was also given to vulnerable groups within communities

in Halton who are likely to be particularly sensitive to effects associated

with the development of the Project. These groups are detailed further

in Chapter 20, Section 20.2 in the Environmental Statement (CD14).

For the purposes of this assessment vulnerable groups in the study are

defined as:

Vulnerable Group Data used to define Vulnerable Groups within HaltonElderly 2001 Census data for % residents aged over 65.Disabled 2007 IMD data for % residents considering themselves

disabledIndividuals/ families with long term limiting illness

2007 IMD data for % residents considering themselves to have a long term limiting illness

Unemployed 2007 IMD data for % residents who are economically deprived;2001 Census data for % residents who are economically active who consider themselves ‘unemployed’.

Low income groups 2007 IMD data for % residents experiencing income deprivation

Ethnic minorities 2001 Census data for % residents who do not classify themselves as ‘White British’

Residents from deprived communities

2007 Index of Multiple Deprivation overall score for deprivation.

Table 1 - Data used to Define Vulnerable Groups in the Study Area

5.6 A map showing a summary of the distribution of these groups within

Halton can be found in Appendix 4, and individual maps for each of the

vulnerability characteristics can be found in Chapter 20 of the

Environmental Statement, Appendix 20.1 CD14.

23

Assessment process

5.7 Social effects were assessed mainly using qualitative data with

quantitative data used where available.

5.8 In this study, “quantitative data” refers to information that is

understood through numbers e.g. population statistics. By contrast,

“qualitative data” refers to data that is collected in order to provide a

description of the range of issues around a given topic. In terms of

social research it is often collected using focus groups and interviews

and analysed by examining information for themes and relationships

between information. For example in this study the range of different

views about the Project were collected in the Stage 7 social research

(see Appendix 2 for more details). However, views can be counted

and so in this study once the range of views had been gathered using

the focus groups a questionnaire was devised in order to see how many

people agreed/disagreed with each view expressed thereby providing

quantitative evidence for the study.

5.9 The research was carried out using best practice research methods.

That is, issues of reliability and validity were addressed. With respect

to research into attitudes and opinions there are a number of key

aspects that need to be taken into account. These are sampling,

development of questions, and analysis of results.

5.10 For the focus groups it was important to hear from specific groups of

people, e.g. people living close to the proposed crossing and certain

vulnerable groups, so groups were set up with people from those

categories. For the larger survey work it was important to get an

understanding of views from a sample that was representative of

characteristics across the sample area. To do this the researchers

ensured that the sample frame included key demographic

characteristics such as age, sex, ethnicity, and disability as well as

covering a spread of geographical areas so that the sample represented

24

the profile of people in Halton (MVA report, 2007 Section 4 CD159).

Both these approaches are standard good practice for social research.

5.11 With respect to the development of questions for the focus groups and

the survey work again good practice was followed. The focus groups

allow exploration and discussion of issues and participants have time to

reflect on their attitudes and views. For the larger survey work in

Stage 7 the questions that were put into the survey were developed

out of the focus group work, worded in such a way as to prevent

respondents being led to answer in a specific way. For example,

respondents were asked about both the positive and negative aspects

of both construction and operation of the Project the Stage 7 survey

(MVA report 2007, Section 4 CD159).

5.12 Finally, I want to discuss the analysis of the data. Qualitative data for

this research was analysed by question with the researchers drawing

out the themes and using quotes for illustrative purposes. This is a

standard approach to analysing qualitative data. With respect to the

analysis of the quantitative data the statistical package SPSS3 was used

which enables frequency counts, percentages, cross- tabulations and

other statistical tests to be carried out on the data. It is the standard

package for analysis of social data used by social scientists.

5.13 Data were collected through a combination of desktop analysis of

information from the other assessments (e.g. air quality, noise and

transport), data from the primary and secondary research exercises

detailed in Chapter 20 paragraphs 20.5.9 to 20.5.12 of the

Environmental Statement (CD14) and expert opinion.

5.14 Impact significance, prior to the implementation of mitigation measures

was determined using the following criteria:

a. Status of effect - Positive or negative;

b. Duration of the effect (short/medium/long term);

3 SPSS – statistical package for social sciences

25

c. Permanent or temporary effect;

d. Direct or indirect effect;

e. Magnitude of the effect (low/moderate/high); and

f. Importance/ Sensitivity of receptor (low/moderate/high).

5.15 Each of these is given in more detail in Chapter 20 of the ES. These

criteria follow general EIA standard practice.

5.16 Each impact identified within the socio-economic impact assessment

had a specific method for assessing the geographical extent and

significance of that impact. These are outlined in paragraphs 20.5.32 to

20.5.42 of the Chapter 20 of the Environmental Statement (CD14)

5.17 The ‘Do Nothing’ assessment considers the key effects which the study

area is likely to experience without construction of the Project. Effects

are considered up to 2015.

5.18 The ‘Do Something’ assessment considers the effects which the study

area is likely to experience with construction of the Project and further

to the Project being operational (up to 2030).

5.19 Table 2 shows those variables that were chosen to be studied in the

socio-economic impact assessment. They were chosen on the basis

that they were likely to be the most significant for the Project.

26

Potential Impact

Phase of Development

Reason for inclusion within the Socio-economic impact assessment.

Specific Variables assessed within the impact

Construction An influx of construction workers and a change in population structure may have an impact on communities within Halton.

Change in population structure.

Operational Jobs and regeneration in Halton may encourage people to remain/come to Halton.

Change in population number,

Influx/ Outflow of temporary workers;

Presence of an outside agency; and

Change to community infrastructure.

Construction Construction related jobs have the potential to benefit the local community.

Change in employment opportunities.

Operational Jobs may be created for the operation of the Project or as part of the regeneration it brings, which local communities may benefit from. This will depend on the types of jobs created.

Change to economic inequities;

Change in employment equity of minority groups;

Changing occupational opportunities.

Construction The construction of the Project may change levels of noise, air pollution, exposure to contamination and safety on the roads within Halton.

Change in perception of, or actual health and amenity issues for individuals in Halton.

Operational Reduced congestion may change potential health impacts associated with exposure to contamination, noise, air quality levels and road safety.

Change to health and safety due toconstruction/ maintenance plant and vehicles.

Change to levels of local air pollutants;

Changes in noise and vibration levels;

Changes in exposure to contamination

Change in recreational opportunities and associated health effects

Changes in access to facilities and social networks

Construction The construction of the Project has the potential to effect local access to social networks and facilities around Halton and upon their individual’s daily

Change to daily living and movement patterns;

27

living and movement patterns. A change in access, through a change to the transport network, is also likely to create high levels of stress.

around Halton.

Operational The Project has the potential to impact local’s access to social networks and facilities around Halton.

Change to social networks;

Change in leisure opportunities;

Change in access to health facilities;

Change in access to education facilities

Change in availability of amenity and recreational land.

Construction The construction of the Project may require the demolition of facilities in Halton that may have an impact people that use these.

Change in availability of residential/ commercial properties and community facilities;

Change in availability of recreational land

Table 2 List of variables studied in the socio-economic impact

assessment

28

6 Baseline

6.1 A detailed socio-economic baseline was developed for the socio-economic

impact assessment and this is presented in Chapter 20 Section 20.6 of the

Environmental Statement (CD14). That baseline covers general levels of

deprivation, health, employment, access to services and attitudes to the

local area. In this proof of evidence information is presented on all of

those areas and is derived from that Chapter.

General levels of deprivation

6.2 It is clear that there are high levels of deprivation in Halton. Overall, on

the Indices of Multiple Deprivation4 (IMD) Halton was ranked as the 39th

(worst 12%) most deprived Borough in England in 2007 (based on the

average rank out of 354 local authorities) with 1st being the most

deprived and 354th the least deprived. This is an improvement on its

2004 ranking of 21st most deprived and shows that based on the average

IMD rank, deprivation levels within Halton Borough are improving. To

describe what is meant by high levels of deprivation I will provide some

statistics for one of the LSOAs which is in the top 20% in the country for

deprivation. It is located in Halton Castle ward in Runcorn, and the Project

is in Halton Castle. In that area (LSOA 010B) there were 702 households

in which 1508 people were counted in the 2001 census. Of those

households 53.56%, over half, had no adults in employment (full time,

part time or self employed). 50.43% of those 702 households had one or

more person in the household with a long term life limiting illness. Just

over half of the households in this area have no car (385 out of 702

4 The Indices of Multiple Deprivation are a set of indices developed originally in 2000 when a comprehensive survey of deprivation was undertaken by the Department of the Environment and the Regions6 (DETR), for each ward within England. They were updated in 2004 and again in 2007 by the Social Disadvantage Research Centre at the University of Oxford. The 2007 IMD is made up of 7 Domain Indices comprising a. Income (22.5%); b. Employment (22.5%); c. Health and Disability (13.5%); d. Education, Skills and Training (13.5%);e. Barriers to Housing and Services (9.3%);f. Living Environment (9.3%); andg. Crime (9.3%). 2007 IMD data uses 2001 Census data and 2003 – 2005 government data. A detaileddescription of the data from which the 2007 IMD domains are comprised is presented inAppendix 20.3.of Chapter 20 of the ES CD14

29

households (54%)). Nearly half (46.45%) of the 16 – 74 year olds

resident in that area have no qualifications. 44.11% of those who are

economically active have full or part-time jobs are self employed or

students. 8.64% are unemployed which is nearly twice the average for

Halton (which is 4.53%).

6.3 Several vulnerable groups have been identified within the study area,

including; older people, disabled, individuals/ families with long term

limiting illness (e.g. Parkinson’s disease), unemployed, ethnic minorities,

faith groups and deprived areas5. The groups were identified by mapping

census data using GIS techniques. The distribution of these groups is

shown in Figure 20. 2 Appendix 4 of this proof of evidence.

6.4 These groups are considered vulnerable6 because they have characteristics

that put strains on their daily living. For example, a wheelchair user is

likely to find it harder to “just go shopping” because s/he may have to

travel on pavements that are not designed for wheelchairs, negotiate

ramps etc. Similarly, someone who is on a very low income is less likely

to have the money to be able to afford a car which will reduce

opportunities for ease of access to facilities.

6.5 Halton, as is described in the paragraphs below, has areas of deprivation.

The Project aims to improve access and reduce congestion in order to

stimulate economic regeneration across Halton. If those aims are achieved

the scheme will be beneficial to these vulnerable groups

6.6 The IMD (2007 Appendix 13 for relevant tables) statistics revealed that

the most deprived areas in Halton are located close to the route of the

Project (i.e. Riverside, Halton Castle and Halton Lea). As shown in Figure

5 In the study the overall IMD was mapped against LSOAs using GIS and producing a map of “deprived areas” where each LSOA is given a colour showing in which band of deprivation it is located. 6 It should be noted that defining people as “vulnerable” using assigned categories only provides a proxy to the subjective feeling of vulnerability. People’s expressed feeling of vulnerability may not match their assigned category. However, we can say that it is more likely that someone in a vulnerability category is likely to experience negative effects than someone who is not in that category.

30

20.6 Appendix 4) several of the most deprived LSOAs (within the worst

20% nationally) are located in close to the Project. These LSOAs are

predominantly located within the wards of Halton Castle, and Halton Lea in

Runcorn on the south side of the river and Riverside in Widnes to the

North of the river7. Figure 20.6 in Appendix 4 shows the extent of

deprivation across the study area with those showing greatest deprivation

shown in dark shading. It can be seen that a number of the LSOAs are

shaded dark grey.

6.7 I consider that the Mersey Gateway Project has the potential, alongside

other initiatives, specifically the Mersey Gateway Regeneration Strategy

(GVA Grimley, 2008 CD) and Sustainable Transport Strategy (Halton

Borough Council, 2009 CD) to provide opportunities to make a positive

contribution to the issue of deprivation.

Services and access to services

6.8 There is a good range of services, primary schools, amenities and

recreation/leisure facilities provided within the Borough both in Runcorn

and Widnes (see Figures 20.9 and 20.17, in Appendix 4.) Whilst there is

a good range of facilities it is worth mentioning two key facilities for

Halton: The Brindley Theatre and Arts Centre on the south side of the river

and the Stobart Stadium Halton on the north side of the river. The

Stobart Stadium Halton is home to Widnes rugby club but also holds other

key sporting events and is unique in Halton. The Brindley is an arts and

cultural centre and similarly is a unique facility in Halton. Both these

facilities aim to draw people in from the whole of Halton and beyond.

6.9 However, the provision of higher education establishments and hospital

health care services is more limited (see Figures 20.9 and 20.14 in

Appendix 4). In terms of higher education facilities a key one is Riverside

college. This has three campuses across Halton, two on the north side of

the river (Kingsway and Cronton) and one on the south side of the river.

7 This includes include the LSOAs of 007A, Halton 010A, Halton 010B, Halton 013E, Halton 015B, Halton 013F, Halton 007C, Halton 007D, Halton 010D and Halton 010E

31

Each campus is unique such that students wanting to do a specific course

will have to attend a specific campus.

6.10 In terms of hospitals there are two in Halton, the Halton General Hospital

(south of the River in the ward of Halton Lea) and Highfield Hospital (north

of the River in the ward of Kingsway). Halton General offers facilities for

both in and out patients and has a minor injuries unit, but has no Accident

and Emergency (A&E) department. Highfield Hospital has clinical facilities

for maternity patients, but no in-patients department or A&E. Halton

General Hospital is situated in Runcorn just east of the A533 Central

Expressway, which leads north to the SJB. The closest A&E departments

to Halton are in Whiston Hospital in Merseyside or Warrington Hospital in

Warrington. Warrington Hospital predominantly serves residents of

Runcorn whilst Whiston Hospital predominantly serves residents of

Widnes.

6.11 In terms of access to services, The Social Research Mersey Gateway

Community Facilities Research Report Stage 58 (MVA, 2005 CD157)

identified that Halton General Hospital serves residents on both the

northern and southern banks of the River. Furthermore, residents on the

northern side of the River make a significant number of journeys across

the SJB in order to access Halton General Hospital (located in Runcorn).

These trips are shown in Chapter 20, Figure 20.15 of the Environmental

Statement CD14. Highfield Hospital is located off Highfield Road, which

leads straight down to Ditton Roundabout Junction

6.12 As well as understanding where facilities are located it is important to

identify how people travel within the Borough. Halton has a lower number

of people owning a car/van or having access to a car/van than the UK

average. Figure 20.13 in Appendix 4 shows the percentage of residents

with no access to a car or van. It also shows where the car/van ownership

is lower than the UK mean. It can be seen that the lowest levels of

car/van ownership in wards close to the Project are Halton Castle,

8 This survey involved distributing questionnaires at key community facilities which were then filled in by users of those facilities in Halton.

32

Riverside and Windmill Hill wards. In this proof of evidence in Section

11.27 I will show how the Project will potentially benefit people in those

areas through the improvements to public transport, walking and cycling.

33

Current attitudes to access across the Mersey

6.13 Social research undertaken to date (outlined in Appendix 2) indicates that

the Silver Jubilee Bridge is regarded as an integral aspect of daily life for

residents in Halton.

6.14 Seven phases of social research were undertaken over the development of

the Project from 2002 through to 2007. In Stage 1, in 2002 (MVA, 2002,

CD317) the research focussed on the current perceptions of the Silver

Jubilee Bridge (SJB), current travel patterns and travel needs within

Halton. The focus groups carried out with residents (sampled to include

participants from vulnerable groups) showed that the key reasons for

travel across the SJB included visits to hospitals for appointments, visiting

friends and families, travelling to work and educational facilities and for

leisure activities (including shopping). Participants indicated that the SJB

is very important to their daily life as it allows them travel between

Runcorn and Widnes for reasons outlined above.

6.15 The key issue with the SJB was considered to be congestion (due to

increasing traffic, road works and accidents) in particular during the rush

hour periods. Other concerns were the reliability of the bus service across

the SJB. For these reasons it was felt that public transport was therefore

an unfeasible option. Facilities for cyclists and pedestrians were deemed

to be unsafe due to traffic speeds, narrow lanes etc. The 2002 research

indicated that respondents had taken measures during everyday life to

‘overcome’ these problems including avoiding crossing at peak times and

avoiding crossing at all.

6.16 The businesses interviewed for Stage 1 tend to cross by car or van. Their

trips ranged from local trips to destinations in the North West region or

further afield. The business telephone survey of 201 businesses revealed

that the most common origins and destinations of bridge traffic by

businesses in the survey were, unsurprisingly, Widnes (77.6%) and

Runcorn (72.1%). The majority of these businesses were based in Halton.

Over a quarter of businesses also used the bridge to travel to/from

34

Liverpool (27.4%) and more than one in ten travelled to/from Warrington

(15.9%) across the bridge.

6.17 The businesses interviewed in Stage 1 viewed the SJB as important for

their customers travelling to their business, employees’ access to work,

business trips, encouraging regeneration and delivery schedules. This

highlights the importance of the SJB for local and regional businesses

6.18 The Stage 2 social research carried out in 2003 (MVA, 2003. CD151)

focussed mainly on discussing the different route options proposed at that

time for the new bridge. Participants in focus groups (adjacent to the

different route options) were asked about the main issues associated with

the SJB. As with the previous research, the issues raised included the

following:

a. Congestion during rush hour periods;

b. Congestion due to breakdowns, accidents and road works (and a lack of

alternative routes);

c. Safety concerns;

d. No advanced warnings of delays to allow alternative routes to be

chosen;

e. Inadequate public transport links across the bridge;

f. Inadequate pedestrian and cycle crossing provisions;

g. Poor safety on access roads;

h. Poor lane signage;

i. Poor design of access roads; and

j. Inadequate lighting on approach roads.

6.19 Participants indicated that these issues mean unpredictable journey times

and delays across the river, resulting in missed appointments and reduced

ability to plan trips effectively. This can often create high levels of stress

for drivers affecting general quality of life. In addition, due to the high

levels of congestion, residents have chosen places of work, healthcare,

social activities and shopping which avoid crossing the River. Access to

essential facilities such as hospitals is often perceived to be hampered due

to congestion.

35

6.20 Businesses participating in workshops within the Stage 2 social research

expressed concerns that congestion on the bridge has a high impact on

local businesses, with employees often late and many businesses having

to plan their deliveries around peak traffic times. It was also felt that the

bridge also acts as a barrier to businesses on opposite sides of the river,

making it difficult for them to work together (MVA, 2003, para 3.2.1

CD151)

6.21 Stage 3 research (MVA, 2004 CD216) focussed on attitudes towards tolling

and again also gathered views of the existing issues with the SJB. The

eight focus groups included a focus group with residents on low incomes

and a group with elderly/or disabled residents. In terms of the

perceptions of the SJB each group felt that congestion on the SJB was a

severe problem in Halton and often resulted in people being late for work,

seeking employment on their local side of the river, making alternative

plans to avoid the bridge and not visiting friends and family on the other

side.

6.22 This view was emphasised by the business focus groups who thought that

congestion was having a financial impact on companies in Halton (MVA,

2004, para 9.2.3). It was felt that accidents and road works worsened the

congestion problems and associated effects.

“Yes and you are late for work as well.” (Residents from low income

households focus group MVA, 2004, para 5.3.3 CD216).

6.23 Participants in the Stage 3 focus groups felt that current public transport

was unreliable and therefore inadequate and not a suitable substitute if

tolls were implemented.

“There is no viable public transport, it’s not an option”. (Elderly and

disabled residents focus group MVA, 2004, para 6.5.12 CD216).

6.24 In the Quality of Life postal survey (582 respondents from a sample of

1046 Halton residents) carried out for Stage 6 (MVA, 2005, CD157) of the

social research, using their usual form of transport, respondents were

36

asked what, if anything, has the biggest impact on their journey times to

local destinations. The most common responses were: volume of traffic

(109 responses ) accidents and hold-ups on the Silver Jubilee Bridge (72

responses); poor bus service (52 responses); and road works (60

responses)

6.25 Whilst respondents said it was very/fairly easy to reach the majority of

their local facilities, one in four respondents stated that they found it

fairly/very difficult to reach a cultural facility from their home, and just

under one in three found it fairly/very difficult to reach their local hospital.

More than eight in ten respondents stated that it took them more than 20

minutes to walk to both of these facilities (MVA, 2005 p 22 - 23, Fig 5.1,

CD156)

6.26 Stage 7 of the social research focussed on attitudes and perceptions of the

Project both in terms of its construction and operation, rather than on the

existing attitudes towards the SJB. Findings from Stage 7 research are

presented in Sections 10 and 11 on the construction and operation effects

of the Project.

6.27 From the social research it is clear that there is a perception that the SJB

acts as a barrier to the carrying out of daily activities and that currently

public transport, walking or cycling are not considered a viable alternative

to crossing the river.

Employment

6.28 As to employment, the 2001 National Statistics show that a lower

proportion of Halton’s population of working age (16 – 74) are employed,

at 57%, than the national average at 60.9%. Data obtained from

Neighbourhood Statistics (extracts in Appendix 13) shows that

unemployment in 2001 in Halton, at 4.6% was higher than the regional

average of 3.63% national average of 3.35%. However, the State of the

Borough Review (Halton Borough Council 2009) indicates that although

unemployment rate has risen to 3.6% (October 2008) from 2.9% (October

37

2007) long term unemployed has decreased to 10.4% from 11.3% over

the same period.

6.29 Government statistics (Office for National Statistics extracts in Appendix

13) suggest that Halton has an above average rate (regional and national)

of 16 – 74 year olds obtaining no qualifications. Studies from Halton

Borough Council (Urban Renewal Baseline Report 2005 extract in Appendix

18) have also shown that persons aged over 19 years old lack employment

skills. This has led to many businesses recruiting from outside the

Borough and therefore not investing within Halton.

6.30 Halton’s UDP (2005 CD115) identifies that unemployment amongst the

under 25s in Halton is the 2nd highest in England and Wales (at 33.6%).

Data obtained from the 2007 IMD (extracts in Appendix 13) shows the

highest ranking (most deprived) LSOA, for employment within Halton, is

located within Halton Castle ward (bordering the Project construction

route), which is ranked 87th nationally. In addition, the highest rate of

unemployment in 2001 for Halton was also identified in the ward of Halton

Castle (LSOA Halton 010A) at 11.54% (national average 3.35%).

6.31 Mr Russell gives a useful summary of the levels of unemployment in

Halton and the wider area in his proof of evidence (HBC/9/1P para 4.4.5

and Appendix 2 ).

6.32 In terms of employment, it will be important, where possible, for any jobs

created by both the construction and operation of the project to be

available for people local to Halton.

Health

6.33 Of Halton’s total population 21.5% have a Long Term Limiting Illness

(compared to 17.93% in nationally and 20.72% regionally) and 11.6%

have a general health that is classified as ‘not good’ (compared to 9.0% in

England) (National Census Data 2001 extracts in Appendix 13). The wards

of Daresbury, Birchfield and areas of Farnworth reported above national

38

average levels of health, but these wards are representative neither of the

Borough as a whole nor its most deprived areas.

6.34 Health issues in Halton are further reflected by high mortality statistics.

Between 1999 and 2003, Halton has been consistently ranked within the

worst four Boroughs in the country for deaths from all causes. The life

expectancy figures for 2003 to 2005 indicate a life expectancy for males in

Halton of 74.5 and for females of 78.3, which is lower than the national

average life expectancy (males 76.9 and females 81.1).

39

7 Relevant policy

7.1 Table 1 in Appendix 5 presents a summary of relevant national, regional

and local legislation and policies applicable to the assessment of social

issues within Halton that are relevant to the Project. The policies and

legislation detailed were used to help determine the relevant socio -

economic baseline of Halton Borough detailed in Chapter 20, Section 20.6

of the Environmental Statement (CD14) and to select the effects assessed

within that Chapter.

7.2 It is clear that Halton is an area of need with people who have

vulnerability characteristics e.g. low income and poor health. For these

reasons policy and legislation highlighted have been aimed at improving

deprivation and health. Given this, it was appropriate to understand the

potential impact on people in Halton from the Project through a socio-

economic impact assessment.

40

8 Project-specific policy initiatives

Mersey Gateway Sustainable Transport Strategy (CD182)

8.1 The Mersey Gateway Sustainable Transport Strategy (Halton Borough

Council, 2009 CD182) is being promoted alongside the Project and is an

integral part of the wider Mersey Gateway initiative It is important

specifically to this proof because of the benefits it will bring in terms of

improved public transport, cycling and walking facilities to Halton, and in

particular to areas in Halton with high levels of deprivation.

8.2 Mr Pauling in his proof provides information on the Mersey Gateway

Sustainable Transport Strategy (CD182), detailing the objectives and the

Improvement Themes (HBC/8/1P para 14.30 – 14.71). I reproduce here

the vision and objectives.

8.3 The Mersey Gateway Sustainable Transport Strategy (Halton Borough

Council, 2009 CD182) has the following overarching vision:

To identify and promote a network of high quality, safe, affordable,

accessible and environmentally friendly travel measures for local residents,

businesses and visitors to Halton, which support the key objectives of the

LTP and the Project.

8.4 This aim is supported by six objectives which are:

1. Further improve accessibility for residents living in the most deprived

wards in the Borough to a wide range of key facilities including

employment, education/training, health, leisure and retail facilities;

2. Reduce the future reliance on carbon intensive modes of travel through

encouraging promotion of greater use of public transport, walking and

cycling options;

41

3. Support the continued regeneration of the Borough, through ensuring

that new, high quality sustainable transport opportunities are delivered as

part of the Project and associated Mersey Gateway Regeneration Strategy;

4. Improve the modal share of journeys into the 3 main commercial

centres of the Borough (Runcorn town centre, Widnes town centre and

Halton Lea) by sustainable forms of transport, thereby supporting the

regeneration of the centres;

5. Further develop new strategic high quality sustainable transport

links/corridors through the Borough utilising the opportunities provided by

the Project and thereby improving key Mersey Belt and Liverpool City

linkages; and

6. To mitigate the impact of tolls on vulnerable groups by providing

attractive alternatives to private vehicles for cross-river travel within the

Borough and neighbouring communities.

8.5 The Mersey Gateway Sustainable Transport Strategy (CD182) is based on

two phases; phase 1 initiatives will be supported by the tolling stream

from the Project and will be implemented between 2014 to 2022, and

phase 2 will draw on a variety of public and private sector funding

available at the time of implementation - 2022 onwards.

8.6 It can be seen from these objectives that the issues of accessibility for

residents living in the most deprived wards and supporting regeneration

initiatives are central to this strategy.

Mersey Gateway Regeneration Strategy (CD127)

8.7 Mr Parr (HBC/1/1P)and Mr Nicholson (HBC/2/1P para 10.3) introduce the

Mersey Gateway Regeneration Strategy (CD127) and Mr Russell

(HBC/9/1P para 8.3.18 to para ) and Mr Brooks (HBC/3/1P) provide

information relating to the Mersey Gateway Regeneration Strategy in their

proofs of evidence. For the purposes of this proof of evidence it is

42

important to stress that the strategy facilitates wider socio-economic

benefits in Halton. The Mersey Gateway Regeneration Strategy echoes the

principles and direction of the framework for regeneration (CLG, 2008

CD267) together with recent reviews of what works in terms of

regeneration (Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2008 CD298) and discussed in

Section 4 of this proof of evidence. That is, it recognises the complexity of

regeneration and takes a threefold approach emphasising accessibility and

movement, development and economic prosperity, image and place

making. These three priority regeneration objectives are reproduced

below:

Priority Regeneration Objective 1 – Image and Place-Making

Significantly lift perceptions of Widnes and Runcorn to meet the visionary

aspirations held by the Council, as embodied in the Mersey Gateway

Project, and ensure any new development, attributable to the catalytic

effect of the Bridge, makes a positive enhancement to the character of the

locality in terms of design quality and resource use.

Building on the strong local sense of community, and place, deliver the

considerable regeneration opportunities presented by the Mersey Gateway,

enhancing and promoting key assets in each of the localities (physical and

community).

Priority Regeneration Objective 2 – Accessibility and Sustainable

Movement

Increasing the catchment area for labour, goods and markets, such that

the Mersey Gateway opens up new opportunities for employment in the

Liverpool City Region for Halton’s residents and increases the ability to

access markets and customers for Halton’s businesses.

Facilitate enhanced movements by pedestrians, cyclists and local vehicular

travellers (particularly by public transport patronage) through the de-

linking of unnecessary infrastructure, the down-grading and removal of

43

unnecessary expressway infrastructure, improved access to the

expressway / highway system where appropriate, the removal of through-

traffic presently utilising the Silver Jubilee Bridge and the provision of new,

dedicated infrastructure for sustainable modes of travel.

Build on the positive impacts for all user-groups attributable to the Mersey

Gateway and maximise opportunities for further local connectivity and

accessibility for existing communities by coordinating with the Halton

Sustainable Transport Strategy in promoting ease of movement

throughout the area and beyond, particularly by public transport modes

but also through greater opportunities for walking and cycling linked to

health benefits.

Priority Regeneration Objective 3 – Development and Economic

Prosperity

Significantly improve the commercial, and residential, accommodation in

the area having particular regard to local needs, and providing good

quality, affordable and resource efficient accommodation to meet

contemporary and future market requirements and aspirations, through

key redevelopment proposals attributable to the scheme.

To bring back into use land for new development that is currently occupied

by highways infrastructure deemed unnecessary following the completion

of the Mersey Gateway, with a particular focus on bringing back into use

contaminated land in West Bank and Southern Widnes, for new uses.

Development should use land, energy and water resources prudently,

minimising the production of waste and increasing reuse, recycling and

recovery of waste. (GVA Grimley, 2008, p 33-34 CD127)_

8.8 Further, the regeneration strategy provides local solutions for five specific

areas of Halton which are: West Bank (Southern Widnes); Runcorn Old

Town; Astmoor; Halton Lea; and Rocksavage.

44

8.9 West Bank, Runcorn Old Town and Astmoor were chosen on the basis of

their direct impact relationships with the Bridge. Halton Lea and

Rocksavage were selected because of the indirect relationships attributable

to re-defined patterns of movement raising their prominence in the

borough.

8.10 The objectives for each of these five areas of impact provide tailored

approaches to regeneration in each of those areas, with each area having

a distinctive focus. For each area there is a preferred option which is

described in summary by Mr Russell in his proof (HBC/9/1P paras 8.3.18 –

8.3.32) and in full in the Mersey Gateway Regeneration Strategy (pages

44 – 74 CD127).

8.11 The approach shows a clear appreciation of the need to provide local,

contextualised solutions that recognise the legacy of each area. It is an

appreciation of those issues that is needed in order for regeneration

interventions to have a chance of being successful. The Mersey Gateway

Regeneration Strategy is not part of the Project but has been introduced

by Halton Council in order to ensure that the Project is a catalyst for

social, environmental and economic change in the Borough and wider

areas.

Project objectives

8.12 Mr Parr has set out the Project Objectives in his Proof of Evidence

(HBC/1/1P) which are reproduced below for reference.

1 To relieve the congested SJB, thereby removing the constraint on local

and regional development and better provide for local transport needs;

2 To apply minimum toll and road user charges to both the Mersey

Gateway Bridge and the SJB consistent with the level required to satisfy

the affordability constraints;

45

3 To improve accessibility in order to maximise local development and

regional economic growth opportunities;

4 To improve local air quality and enhance the general urban environment;

5 To improve public transport links across the River Mersey;

6 To encourage the increased use of cycling and walking; and

7 To restore effective network resilience for road transport across the

River Mersey.

46

9 Identification of issues

9.1 The key issues that will be addressed in this proof of evidence are the

socio-economic implications for people in Halton of the do nothing

scenario, the construction phase of the Project and the operational phase

of the Project.

9.2 This proof of evidence has been developed from the socio-economic

impact assessment carried as part of the Environmental Impact

Assessment of the Project reported in the ES. The socio-economic impact

assessment focused on the socio-economic effects, specifically effects on

daily living, for people local to the project. That assessment (see Chapter

20 of the Environmental Statement CD14) showed that in the construction

phase there were some positive effects associated with the project (e.g.

employment) and, a number of negative effects (e.g. noise). In terms of

the overall effect on people in the local area, in the operational phase up

to 2030, the socio-economic impact assessment assessed the effects as

generally positive after mitigation and enhancements.

9.3 The key9 socio-economic impact assessment variables in the construction

phase that will be discussed are:

1. Changes in employment opportunities;

2. Changes in perception of or actual amenity issues for individuals

in Halton; and

3. Changes in access to facilities and social networks.

9.4 For the operational phase the key socio-economic impact assessment

variables that will be discussed are:

1. Changes in employment opportunities;

2. Change in perception of, or actual amenity issues for

individuals in Halton; and

3. Changes in access to facilities and social networks.

9 Key in this case refers to those effects that were assessed as having a moderate or high positive or negative effect in the Socio-economic impact assessment

47

9.5 Since the publication of the socio-economic impact assessment, the

Mersey Gateway Sustainable Transport Strategy (Halton Borough Council,

2009 CD182) (and the Mersey Gateway Regeneration Strategy (GVA

Grimley, 2008 CD127) have been published. Mr Russell (HBC/9/1P) Mr

Brooks (HBC/3/1P and introduced by Mr Nicholson (HBC/2/1P). It was

important to review the findings of the socio-economic impact assessment

in the light of the publication of these documents.

9.6 My key focus is on the effects of the Project on people in Halton, many of

whom are currently experiencing high levels of general deprivation (see

Section 6 of this proof of evidence).

9.7 In order to do this I will review the Do Nothing and Do Something

scenarios, consider the findings of the socio-economic impact assessment

in respect of the construction and operation phases of the Project. Where

appropriate within the operational phase effects I will consider the effects

against the seven objectives of the project as listed in Section 8.12.

48

10 Identification of effects – Do nothing scenario

10.1 In this section I will examine the effects of the do nothing scenario at 2015

looking at transport, employment and regeneration initiatives.

10.2 Mr Pauling provides evidence on the need for the project in transportation

terms (HBC/8/1P, Section 5). He concludes, that essentially the do

nothing option shows that the SJB’s current peak period congestion levels

would spread out to other times of the day increasing journey times and

further reducing reliability for road users. This would mean it would be

hard to find times in the day when any journeys made for work, education,

health and social reasons could be made reliably.

10.3 Halton has secured primary route network funding of £14.3M to support a

programme of maintenance on the SJB and associated complex of

structures during 2008/09 Halton Borough Council, LTP2, Interim Review

Report, 2008 p 12) However, as identified within Halton’s LTP2 in order to

bring the SJB to a steady state condition, HBC will require £38m to provide

a 10 year programme of structural maintenance (Halton Borough Council,

LTP2, Interim Review Report, 2008, p 22 CD279). The secured £14.3M

will provide necessary funds to work towards securing the essential

maintenance work required but will not be enough to secure

improvements to the bridge. Further, the £14.3M will not provide as

much as half of the required budget to maintain a business as usual

situation.

10.4 In terms of alternatives, the transportation evidence concludes that public

transport, cycling and walking cannot provide adequate alternatives to the

car for cross-river trips. The benefits of improvements in public transport

would not be fully realised because of the lack of physical infrastructure

improvements to the SJB to facilitate improved cross river public transport

links. Further, there would not be the revenue from the tolls that is

needed in order to fund the Sustainable Transport Strategy. As the

49

sustainable transport strategy is intimately connected with the Project it

would not be implemented. People would be faced with increasing

congestion on the Silver Jubilee Bridge and no adequate realistic

alternative to using the car.

10.5 Despite all other initiatives which will be developed/ implemented during

the ‘do nothing’ scenario, Halton’s LTP2 Interim Review Report (September

2008) identifies that ultimately ‘Halton’s strategy to tackle congestion

rests with the Mersey Gateway (MG) scheme, the associated SJB

modifications & SJB maintenance schemes, and the implementation of the

MG Sustainable Transport and Regeneration Strategies’. (page 19, Halton

Borough Council, LTP2 Interim Review Report - September 2008 CD279)

10.6 Without the improvements on the SJB and investment in public transport

the increased opportunities afforded to local people as a result of having a

reliable cross-river service, both by private and public transport, in terms

of access to leisure (e.g. The Brindley Centre, Stobart Stadium Halton),

education (e.g. Riverside college) and health (e.g. Halton General) will

remain unrealised.

10.7 Mr Russell (HBC/9/1P para 4.4.9 – 4.4.14) cites research undertaken by

the Liverpool City Region Economic Projections and Prospects (2007

CD106) which identified that employment within Halton and the

neighbouring Boroughs as likely to increase, with the highest rates of

increase being noted in Halton and Warrington. However, it is noted that

this research was carried out before the current economic downturn and

Mr Russell indicates (HBC/9/1P para 4.4.10) that this will have negative

effects in terms of employment on the area as is the case across the

country. It has already led to some current changes within employment,

housing and personal economic financial situations of many residents

within Halton. Halton Council research (Halton Borough Council, 2008

Appendix 17) has identified that claimant unemployment increased within

Halton with the largest increase in the Liverpool City Region between

November 2007 and November 2008 from 2.8% to 4.1%.

50

10.8 With respect to regeneration, in Halton Council’s UDP (CD115) describes

regeneration planned between 2005 and 2016. It is worth commenting

on two major projects that are underway: the Widnes Waterfront

economic development zone, and the 3MG – Mersey Multimodal Gateway.

10.9 The Widnes Waterfront Economic Development Zone is described on the

Halton Council website (extract appended to this proof of evidence,

Appendix 15):

“The Widnes Waterfront Economic Development Zone programme aims to transform over eighty hectares of low quality industrial land into a new, regionally significant, development site consisting of commercial office and light industrial developments in a dramatic waterfront setting. A Masterplan, prepared in consultation with key stakeholders and the local business community, sets out the vision and outputs for the area. It is anticipated that the programme will create almost 2,700 new jobs. Commercial developments from the Easter Group, the Forward Partnership, Priority Sites and Widnes Regeneration Ltd are planned.”

10.10 In terms of progress on this development, a new B&Q retail warehouse is

open and the plans are advanced for The Hive leisure development.

Planning permission has been granted for a six-screen cinema, an ice rink,

bowling alley and restaurants including Frankie and Benny’s as part of a

major new leisure development at Venture Fields, Widnes. This is to be

developed by a joint venture between St Modwen Properties PLC and

Halton Borough Council. Currently, the development is on hold while the

scheme prepares to initiate specialised remediation works before the main

construction work can start.

10.11 Improvements to the physical environment are also taking place together

with plans for more landscaping and a cycleway. These developments will

make this a destination for people in Halton and beyond and its full

potential will be unrealised without the Project.

10.12 The second major project is the 3 MG Mersey Multi Modal Gateway

(previously known as the Ditton Strategic Rail Freight Park). Halton

Council endorsed the Masterplan for the Park in December, 2004. It

supports a number of local, regional and strategic objectives regarding the

sustainable movement of goods and materials, as outlined in the

51

Government's Transport White Paper, the Northwest Regional Freight

Strategy and in Halton's Local Transport Plan. The programme will realise

the potential for developing a major new rail/road freight handling and

logistics park at Ditton covering roughly 180 hectares. The Stobart group

started work on building two new warehouse distribution centres in March

2009. The location of 3MG is such that it will benefit from the Project.

Without the Project, that potential for further development of 3MG is less

likely to be fully realised.

10.13 Further, a number of additional key developments within Halton are

outlined within the Mersey Gateway Regeneration Strategy (as described

in Section 8, CD127). However, as stated these delivery of these

developments are based on the presence of the Project and “In this

respect, the Strategy establishes a vision for how the Council,

stakeholders and residents, envisage change being delivered in these

localities following the delivery of the new bridge” (GVA Grimley, 2008,

page 8, para 1.19 CD127), further noting that “it is important to note that

any regeneration benefits claimed in this Strategy are made based upon a

direct relationship with the Mersey Gateway itself” (GVA Grimley, 2008

page 8, para 1.20 CD127).

10.14 It is clear that in a ‘do nothing’ scenario these regeneration benefits are

not going to be realised. These developments include regeneration and

development within the key areas of West Bank, South Widnes, Runcorn

Old Town, Astmoor Industrial Estate & Wigg Island, Halton Lea and

Rocksavage & Clifton. All these areas have high levels of deprivation and

without the regeneration facilitated by the Project those areas are likely to

remain with high levels of worklessness and related issues of deprivation.

10.15 I conclude that based on the evidence of others, particularly Alan Pauling

(HBC/8/1P) in the do nothing option there will be increased congestion on

the SJB which will make it more of a barrier for people to move around

Halton to get to places of work, education and leisure activities.

52

10.16 Further, because the Sustainable Transport Strategy is intimately related

to the Project it will not be fully implemented without the Project, so

people will face continued lack of adequate public transport, walking and

cycling facilities in Halton again limited access to key facilities. The

ongoing regeneration projects e.g. 3MG and Widnes Waterfront are less

likely to reach their full potential because the cross river transport links

will be limited. Finally, in a “do nothing” scenario the future regeneration

projects that target the areas most in need in Halton, as outlined in the

Mersey Gateway Regeneration Strategy will not be realised. Given this the

opportunities to improve accessibility and reduce worklessness thus

further facilitating a cycle of success and securing related positive social

outcomes in Halton are unlikely to be realised. Further, given the

assumption that the socio-economic context in Halton in the do-nothing

scenario is unlikely to change dramatically between now and 2015 it is

likely that levels of deprivation will remain high with the related negative

social outcomes I have identified elsewhere in this proof of evidence.

53

11 Construction effects

11.1 In this section, I will discuss the key effects of the construction under the

Do Something scenario. A summary of all the effects assessed under the

do something scenario is presented in Appendix 6, for reference, with

further details of their assessment to be found in Chapter 20 of the ES,

section 20.7.13 – 20.7.141 CD14

11.2 As I have said elsewhere, during the construction phase there will be some

positive effects together with some low-moderate negative effects of the

project after mitigation and enhancement. In the following section I will

discuss only those effects that were assessed as moderate - high, either

positive or negative before mitigation and enhancement. I will consider

how those effects are to be mitigated or enhanced as this addresses some

of the key issues that have been raised through the development of the

Project. Further, as noted, there has been further analysis of issues

brought forward by the Environmental Statement and as such it is

important to show where appropriate those issues have been progressed

since the Environmental Statement.

11.3 I will start with changes in employment opportunities, then discuss

changes in perception of, or actual health and amenity issues for

individuals in Halton and finish with changes in access to facilities and

social networks.

Changes in employment opportunities

11.4 In the construction phase there was one residual (i.e. after mitigation and

enhancement measures) high positive impact and that is the increase in

job opportunities for appropriately qualified individuals seeking

employment within Halton.

54

11.5 Total direct construction jobs from the Project as discussed by Graham

Russell (HBC/9/1P para 6.1.13) are estimated to be 370 permanent full

time equivalent jobs (based on 3,700 person years and the convention

that 10 person years is equivalent to one permanent job).

11.6 Mr Russell (HBC/9/1P para 6.1.5) suggests that perhaps a third of labour

may be drawn from the local area, a further third from the wider region,

and the remaining third from elsewhere, based on other major

construction projects. “Local” is defined as the “area of influence” which is

defined as that area within a forty minute drive time of the Project. The

WEIR (Amion, 2009 p. 38 Table 6.3, CD200) identifies that taking into

account leakage and multiplier effects there are estimated to be a total of

189 jobs in the area of impact and 471 in the North West region.

11.7 Due to the number of job opportunities that could be provided over the

whole study area (including those areas which have been specifically

identified as vulnerable to unemployment) the effect of employment

opportunities will be of high magnitude even though employment

associated with the construction phase will be temporary and short term in

nature. Therefore, a change in employment opportunities during the

construction of the Project to appropriately skilled/ qualified individuals

seeking employment was assessed to be of high positive significance in

the socio-economic impact assessment.

11.8 Social research Stage 7 (MVA, 2007 CD159) focus group research

identified that participants within every group were keen to state that local

labour should be used where possible so as to provide employment

opportunities locally. Respondents also commented that construction of

the Project provides an opportunity to provide local labourers seeking

employment within the Borough with jobs and new skills

11.9 The effect of having job opportunities in these areas means that there is

the potential for people to get out of worklessness. As discussed in Section

4, reductions in worklessness are related to improvements in other areas

of life e.g. health, income and crime. Job opportunities are plainly

55

desirable and can help people with appropriate skills out of worklessness.

Nonetheless, a number of supporting aspects need to be in place in order

for those job opportunities to help people in deprived areas and I will

discuss three of these aspects relevant to this project and how they are

being addressed in Halton in the paragraphs below. The three areas are:

connectivity, training schemes, and direct advice and support to people as

they make the transition into work.

11.10 Connectivity refers to having the right transport connections between

where there are concentrations of worklessness and the places of

employment. In the construction phase the jobs will be in areas of high

levels of unemployment which should help overcome the potential barrier

of work not being close to where people live.

11.11 With respect to training local people to be able to take on those jobs, it

was recommended in the socio-economic impact assessment that in

anticipation of construction, local training initiatives and opportunities

should be provided for local residents to decrease the skills gap and

provide adequate and targeted training for construction workers to

subsequently obtain jobs for the Project.

11.12 Halton Council policy is that ‘Halton will implement its basic skills strategy

and develop activity that enables local people to access employment’ and

‘Halton will continually map, review and address the skill deficits in the

Borough to enable businesses to recruit and develop their workforce’

(Halton Gateway to Prosperity 2005 – 2008 para 4.6 CD118).

11.13 The Halton People into Jobs initiative, which has been operated by the

Council since 2000, offers a job finding service for local unemployed

residents. Halton People Into Jobs is working with Construction for

Merseyside to increase local skills available for the Project. In addition, the

Halton Employment Partnership (HEP), is a new initiative, that brings

together expertise from various employment, learning and skills agencies

including the Halton Borough Council’s Adult Learning and Skills

Development Division and Halton People into Jobs, the Learning and Skills

56

Council, Job Centre Plus, local FE Colleges and Training Providers, and

Sector Skills Councils. It is supported by the Local Strategic Partnership.

11.14 Halton Employment Partnership aims to fill gaps in current mainstream

provision by providing a complete employment offer to businesses and

local residents. The Partnership can provide support with pre employment

training, apprenticeships and workforce development. The HEP team of

trainers and designers, based with the Adult Learning and Skills

Development Division, have recently launched a sector specific

Employability Skills Programme aimed at supporting residents back into

sustainable employment.

11.15 A number of construction training programmes are currently available

from colleges within and surrounding Halton, including Riverside College,

ranging from a BTEC 1st Diploma to a BTEC National Diploma. In addition,

there are new trade apprentices being offered at Riverside College. The

effect of these training courses will be to increase the skills level of people

in Halton, which has a positive impact in itself for people and their

situations. It should also mean that there will be people with relevant skills

available to work on the Project thereby providing much needed local

employment.

11.16 A third key component in supporting people who are out of work into work

is that of practical advice and support with all the aspects needed to find

and keep work e.g. help with application forms, interviews and travel.

Halton already has a service for people that does this - “Halton People Into

Jobs”, which provides a range of support and advice for people entering

the work force.

11.17 Employment opportunities provided through construction of the Project will

be predominantly located within the construction route, which includes the

wards of Riverside, Halton Castle and Mersey which have high levels of

employment deprivation as discussed in Section 6. Job opportunities

provided within these wards will be of high importance to the appropriately

skilled/ qualified individuals seeking employment. The effects of some

57

people in these areas being able to get into work is likely to improve other

areas of their lives, bringing direct benefits in terms of income and status

together with the provision of experience which has the potential to help in

terms of getting future work.

11.18 In the socio-economic impact assessment (CD14 para 20.7.23 – 20.7.33),

consideration was given to the potential for an “influx of workers” as a

result of the construction project and based on figures available at that

time it was assessed as of moderate negative significance, in terms of

resulting increase in pressure on community facilities and service and in

terms of possible increased feelings of insecurity amongst residents

associated with an influx of workers from outside the area.

11.19 However, at the time of socio-economic impact assessment there was less

detailed evidence on the potential numbers of jobs that would be

generated in the construction period. As noted in para 11.6 above, Mr

Russell (HBC/9/1P) suggests that one third of the construction jobs are

likely to be resourced from elsewhere (beyond the North West region),

which, based on his figures would be 122 jobs. This is less than half the

number discussed in the socio-economic assessment (which estimated 250

jobs would be resourced out of the region), and whilst still significant using

Burdge’s criteria10 it is considerably lower than previously assessed.

11.20 In terms of mitigation, the key issue will be to ensure that there is

adequate liaison and communication between the

contractor/concessionaire and the local community and this was

recommended in the socio-economic impact assessment. To this end

provisions have been made in the Construction and Operation Code of

Practice for Environmental Management (CD291), to ensure that the

liaison is in place. With this mitigation in place the effect was assessed as

low negative in the socio-economic impact assessment.

10 This criterion states that the impact to the population structure will be significant if the number of workers employed per month is >40, >25% of the workforce or the construction period is >6months

58

11.21 A further issue assessed in the socio-economic assessment was the effect

of the relocation of businesses due to compulsory acquisition. It was

assessed as high negative for employees and employers of those relevant

businesses before mitigation. Mr Russell discusses the effects on existing

businesses (HBC/9/1P) and Mr Scarisbrick provides information on the

relocation strategy in his proof of evidence (HBC/19/1P).

11.22 Clearly, there will be disruption for those businesses which are to be

relocated but this will be minimised by the relocation strategy. Further,

there will be some businesses which may not be able to relocate locally

and so some jobs may be lost to areas outside Halton.

11.23 With the relocation strategy in place, this effect was assessed as a low

negative.

Changes in perception of, or actual health and amenity issues for

individuals in Halton.

11.24 In terms of how the construction of the bridge will impact on people’s

perception and actual amenity issues e.g. noise, air quality, greenspace

the details of that are addressed in the proofs of evidence of Mr Freeborn

(HBC/12/1P), Ms Brown (HBC/11/1P), and Mr Brooks (HBC/3/1P)

respectively. The reason for mentioning it here is that those aspects

together impact on people’s everyday lives. Again, the focus is on those

effects that were assessed as moderate to high positive or moderate to

high negative in the socio-economic assessment before mitigation and

enhancement as this addresses some of the key issues that have arisen as

the Project has developed. I will also indicate how those effects are to be

mitigated or enhanced. I will discuss noise, air quality and greenspace.

11.25 The proof of evidence from Mr. Freeborn has identified that construction of

the Project is likely to result in some moderate to high negative effects in

construction Areas D (Mersey Gateway Bridge), F (Bridgewater Junction),

G (Central Expressway and Lodge Lane Junction), and I (Silver Jubilee

Bridge and Widnes de-linking) in close proximity (100m or less) to the

59

Project before mitigation. One of these temporary effects were noted to

be of high negative significance to individuals specifically on Wigg Island

(in Area D). Wigg Island Community Park is a nature reserve currently

attracting an estimated 25,000 visitors a year (Halton Borough Council).

11.26 In Area F (Bridgewater Junction) and Area I (Silver Jubilee Bridge and

Widnes de-linking) the noise was assessed as of moderate negative

significance. In Area G effects on the Central Expressway and Lodge Lane

junction were assessed as moderate negative significance. Woodside

Primary School (5 – 11 year olds) is at Lodge Land junction and has 197

pupils (school profile http://schoolsfinder.direct.gov.uk/8762297/school-

profile). It is estimated to have a moderate negative effect before

mitigation.

11.27 Mr Freeborn provides details on the mitigation of the noise effects in his

proof of evidence (HBC/12/1P Section 8.2). The contractor will be

required to enter into an agreement with the local authority under section

61 requirements of the Control of Pollution Act 1974. Further during the

construction phase a Noise and Vibration Management Plan will be

implemented as part of the Construction Environmental Management Plan.

Two low to moderate effects at Wigg Island and Woodside School will

remain. He states “Where possible within the construction programme

noisy works near to schools will be scheduled preferentially in school

holiday periods to further mitigate the impact” (para. 8.5)

11.28 The proof of evidence from Ms Brown provide details of air quality effects

from construction activities (HBC/11/1P). Two issues arise that have been

assessed of moderate - high negative significance. These are to do with

construction dust and change in air quality resulting from road traffic

emissions (NO2 and PM10 ). With respect to construction dust, she

concludes that with the CEMP and mitigation measures, along with

monitoring during construction the effects on air quality at receptors

within 100m of the construction areas would be of low negative

significance and that air quality concentrations will be maintained to be

within the AQS objectives.

60

11.29 With respect to effects on increased emissions due to congestion/queuing

on the local road network Ms Brown concludes (HBC/11/1P) that with the

Construction Traffic Management Plan required by planning conditions

potential disruption to traffic flows will be reduced through traffic

management measures. The Construction Traffic Management Plan will be

in place throughout the construction programme. Given this the effects are

considered to be of moderate significance close to those roads affected,

but short term (mostly affecting peak periods) and temporary.

11.30 The timing of construction work was debated during the focus group

studies carried out for the Stage 7 social research (MVA, 2007 CD159)

with regards to the level of noise and disruption resulting from the Project

activities. Responses were mixed. There were those people who

suggested that noisy construction activities should be undertaken at night

because any disruption to traffic and daily movements would be greater if

it occurred in the daytime. However, residents living in close proximity to

the alignment route were concerned over the level of noise and disruption

to households, if construction work occurred at night.

11.31 The Construction and Operation Code of Practice for Environmental

Management (COPE CD291) details what will need to be addressed by the

Construction Environmental Management Plan and the Construction Traffic

Management Plan.

11.32 Within the Construction Environmental Management Plan there will be a

Noise and Vibration Management plan. These are enforced through

Planning conditions 7 and 8 (CD302).

11.33 Finally, in the socio-economic impact assessment there was one moderate

negative effect with respect to greenspace affecting individuals and

families within communities and LSOAs surrounding the project.

Specifically, the effect on greenspace of Project construction activities is

discussed by Mr Brooks (HBC/3/1P). The loss of greenspace will result in a

subsequent loss of public recreational area and associated visual impacts.

61

The majority of greenspace land being lost is either within St Michaels Golf

Course which is currently closed and disused or is saltmarsh. The socio-

economic impact assessment focused the effects of loss of greenspace

from St. Michaels golf course. St. Michael’s Golf Course is currently closed

on public health grounds due to chronic ground contamination. There is

desire to reopen the golf course but there are no specific proposals nor

funding sources identified for its remediation and reopening. Mr Brooks

concludes that the loss of greenspace is acknowledged but the harm is

considered to be limited (HBC/3/1P). Other effects upon such land will

either not be significant or will be addressed by provision of replacement

space.

Change in access to facilities (employment, further education

establishments) and social networks

11.34 The transport chapter of the Environmental Statement (Chapter 16, CD14)

identified there will be negative effects on car users, pedestrians, cyclists

and bus users due to disruptions and road closures resulting from

construction activities of the Project. From those effects

11.35 Specifically, car users within the wards of Riverside, Halton Castle, Halton

Brook, Heath, Grange and Beechwood (construction areas A,B,C,D, E, F,G,

H and I) were noted to experience effects of moderate negative

significance. Effects to bus users through road closures, disruptions and

traffic management (including the rerouting of services along the A557

Widnes Eastern Bypass within the wards of Mersey and Heath) resulting

from construction activities were considered to be of moderate negative

significance in construction areas A,B,C,D,E,F,G and H). The Transport

Chapter 16 of the Environmental Statement (CD14) concluded that

disruptions, closures and rerouting of footpaths will incur effects of

moderate negative significance to pedestrians at a number of locations11

11 a. PRoW linking Cross Street and Ashley Way with Spike Island and the Transpennine Trailin the ward of Riversideb. PRoW across St Michael’s Golf Course within the ward of Riverside;

62

11.36 From this the socio-economic assessment examined the effects on

different activities of that potential disruption. Details of this are provided

in Chapter 20 of the Environmental Statement paras 20.7.60 – 20.7.86

(CD14).

11.37 Three effects from that assessment were considered to be moderate

negative before mitigation by the socio-economic impact assessment.

These were, the effects to existing employers/employees in Halton

resulting from disruption from construction activities, effects on travelling

public (car users) of changes in access to further education

establishments, and the effects on the travelling public (all transport

modes) on daily movements across the river.

11.38 The mitigation for these effects was suggested in the socio-economic

impact assessment that in line with requests identified from public

research, the Council should ensure that all road, busway, cycleway,

watercourse and footpath closures are clearly advertised, with diversion

routes clearly marked, both during and in advance of construction works,

with diversion routes clearly marked. These mitigation measures have

been taken into the Construction and Operation Code of Practice for

Environmental Management (COPE CD291).

c. PRoW along the Manchester Ship Canal and footpaths along Wigg Island in the ward ofHalton Castle;d. PRoW along Astmoor Road within the ward of Halton Castle;e. Prow along the Bridgewater Canal within the wards of Halton Castle and Halton Brook; andf. PRoW across the Central Expressway within the wards of Halton Castle, Halton Brook,Grange and Halton Lea; andg. PRoW east of the new Lodge Lane Junction.

63

12 Operational Effects

12.1 In this section I will discuss the principal operational effects that were

identified as a result of the socio-economic impact assessment together

with the implications from the Mersey Gateway Sustainable Transport

Strategy (Halton Borough Council, 2009 CD182), the Mersey Gateway

Regeneration Strategy (GVA Grimley, 2008 CD127) and the tolling road

user charging proposals that are part of the Project. Where appropriate I

will discuss them in relation to the seven strategic objectives of the Mersey

Gateway Project detailed in paragraph 8.12.

12.2 I will start with changes to employment opportunities looking at the

implications of the improved employment opportunities described by Mr

Russell in his proof of evidence (HBC/9/1P). Then I will discuss changes to

perception or actual health and amenity issues specifically focussing on

potential of the improved cycling and walking for improved physical

fitness. Finally, I will discuss changes in access to facilities and social

networks focussing on the implications of improved accessibility across the

SJB following from Mr Pauling’s evidence (HBC/8/1P )

Changes in employment opportunities

12.3 In this section I will summarise the effects of the Project on employment,

discuss the measures in place to support the realisation of job

opportunities in Halton and discuss the implications for associated wider

social benefits.

12.4 Three key effects of the Project on employment opportunities are

described by Mr Russell (HBC/9/1P para 8.3.13 – 8.3.34): :

a. direct employment opportunities,

b. inward investment employment opportunities and

c. regeneration effect employment opportunities.

64

12.5 As Mr Russell has presented in his proof (HBC/9/1P para 8.3.13), the

Project is estimated to provide directly approximately 98 operational jobs

These jobs are likely to comprise the following

a. Management - 10 jobs;

b. Administration including. Toll Collection - 63 jobs;

c. Security - 10 jobs;

d. Building maintenance - 2

e. Bridge and toll emergency and maintenance - 13.

12.6 Discussions undertaken with MerseyTravel with regard to the Mersey

Tunnels have identified that it is likely that approximately 66% of these

jobs (which equates to 65 jobs) will be available to residents within the

Regeneration Areas as defined in the WEIR (see Mr Russell’s proof of

evidence for details, HBC/9/1P para 8.3.14).

12.7 A large proportion (64%) of the operational jobs will be provided through

toll booth collections. The toll booth operation positions will be located at

the toll booth plazas within the ward of Riverside. The LSOA within the

east of Riverside is ranked within the worst 4% for employment

deprivation and has an unemployment rate of 7.07%, which is above the

average unemployment rate for Halton (of 5.53%). The LSOA within the

west of Riverside, where the main toll plaza will be located, is designated

within the worst 20% for employment deprivation and has an

unemployment rate of 3.98%, (which is below the Halton average). The

majority of neighbouring LSOAs have unemployment rates of >5.53%.

The communities within Riverside are therefore highly sensitive to changes

in employment opportunities, but due to the small number of job positions

available and small area over which these jobs will be provided, direct

operational job opportunities will be limited.

12.8 The second area of potential for increased employment opportunities is

that of inward investment. Mr Russell provides details of this in his proof

of evidence (HBC/9/1P para. 8.3.15 – 8.3.17), specifically that on the

basis of the available evidence, “it is assumed that the Mersey Gateway

65

Project could potentially result in, say, 1,500 gross jobs12. Based on the

travel patterns within the transport model, it is estimated that

approximately 50% of these (750) will be taken up by RA residents (293

managerial; 225 white collar; 68 skilled; and 165 unskilled13)”.

12.9 Finally, in terms wider regeneration benefits resulting from the project Mr

Russell in his proof (HBC/9/1P para 8.3.18 – 8.3.32)discusses the impact

of the Mersey Gateway Regeneration Strategy in terms of generation of

jobs in each of the five regeneration areas. It is relevant to discuss these

further here as they refer to areas in Halton where there will be the

potential to deliver new jobs. The fact that these jobs will be local to

Halton is critical to the focus on improving deprivation as this puts jobs

local to where there are concentrations of people without jobs. Further,

the increased connectivity facilitated by the Project and the Mersey

Gateway Sustainable Transport Strategy means that there will be increase

opportunities for people to get to these jobs.

12.10 The numbers of jobs that are potentially deliverable for Halton in each of

the five areas are presented below, and come from the Mersey Gateway

Regeneration Strategy and Mr Russell’s summary in his proof of evidence

(HBC/9/1P paras 8.3.18 – 8.3.32) As noted in Section 8, the first three

areas, West Bank, Runcorn Old Town and Astmoor Industrial Estate will

have direct impacts from the Project, whilst Halton Lea and Rocksavage

and Clifton will benefit indirectly from the Project.

West Bank

12.11 The preferred option for the area of West Bank is to develop it in terms of

housing, community facilities as well as commercial development. It is

expected to provide a range of new family and waterside housing and the

proposed new commercial development has the potential to deliver 160

new jobs within Halton.

12 This is considered to be reasonable and would equate to only 30% of the potential

jobs that might be accommodated within the 3MG Project.13 The occupational distribution is assumed to be the same as the current average

profile for the RA local authority districts. (from Mr Russell’s proof HBC/9/1P)

66

Runcorn Old Town

12.12 The aim for Runcorn Old Town is that it becomes a place people want to

visit rather than just to pass through and the proposed new commercial

development has the potential to deliver over 230 new jobs within Halton

Astmoor Industrial Estate

12.13 The aim for the Astmoor Industrial Estate is to upgrade and improve the

premises and to consider a new future in terms of land use and

development and the proposed new commercial development in this area

has the potential to deliver over 520 new jobs within Halton.

Halton Lea

12.14 The preferred option for Halton Lea centres around the future of the

shopping centre and the associated proposed new commercial

development has the potential to deliver in excess of 100 new jobs within

Halton.

Rocksavage and Clifton

12.15 The preferred option for Rocksavage and Clifton is to develop the area for

leisure and recreation, improving green spaces and walking and cycling

access and the proposed new commercial development has the potential

to deliver in excess of 160 new jobs locally within Halton.

12.16 Not all of the jobs that may be delivered through the Mersey Gateway

Regeneration Strategy can be considered to be directly attributable to the

Project. Mr Russell in his proof of evidence (HBC/9/1P paras 8.3.32)

suggests that up to 25% of the additional jobs across the wider area might

be attributed to the Mersey Gateway Project.

12.17 Taking all these three areas together, direct jobs, inward investment and

regeneration effects it is estimated that some 1,235 local additional jobs

for residents of the RAs will be created by 2030 after allowing for losses in

employment through negative impacts and displacement (see Mr Russell’s

proof of evidence HBC/9/1P paras 8.3.52, Table 8.5). The sensitivity

67

analysis suggests the impact could range between 986 and 1,849 jobs

available to RA residents.

12.18 The likelihood of the benefits from these job opportunities being realised

for people who are currently experiencing worklessness is supported by

several key factors. Similar considerations are discussed at paras 11.10 –

11.14 of this proof of evidence.

12.19 First, the job opportunities are located in and near areas of deprivation

within the Borough. The direct jobs associated with the tolling of both

bridges will be local to Riverside, ward which has been described earlier as

having high levels of deprivation. The inward investment jobs specifically

those at 3MG are in Riverside ward. Part of the West Bank area of impact

in the Mersey Gateway Regeneration Strategy is also in Riverside ward.

All the five areas of impact within the Mersey Gateway Regeneration

Strategy have been chosen specifically because they are areas of need.

12.20 Secondly the economic analysis (Mr. Russell’s proof of evidence HBC/9/1P)

suggests that numbers of local people are very likely to get those jobs,

that is, a good proportion of the jobs will be taken by people who live in

the local area as opposed to people from outside of the region. This is

facilitated by training schemes, improved public transport and access,

together with support and advice through, for example the Halton People

into Jobs programme.

12.21 Taken together this means that there is the potential to develop the

conditions for a health local labour market which is crucial to preventing

cycles of decline in areas of deprivation and instead facilitating cycles of

success as discussed in Section 4. Improved economic conditions in areas

of deprivation have knock on effects for other areas of deprivation,

improving health outcomes, income, and reducing crime. This points to

the central importance of reducing worklessness and the Project is a vital

piece in the regeneration picture that is being developed in Halton and the

wider city region and has the potential to provide associated positive social

outcomes for people living in Halton.

68

12.22 This shows how Objective 3 is being met through the project.

Improvements to the transport network due to the Project should act as a

catalyst for local and regional development opportunities.

Changes in perception of, or actual health and amenity issues for

individuals in Halton.

12.23 In this section I will discuss the effects in terms of perception of, or actual

health and amenity issues for individuals in Halton. The socio-economic

impact assessment found that the significant effects within this category

are air quality, noise and increased potential for physical fitness due to

improve access and facilities for cycling and walking. Again, I will consider

this in conjunction with the Sustainable Transport Strategy where

appropriate. I will begin by discussing some of the issues arising from the

air quality and noise proofs of evidence, followed by a discussion of the

potential benefits from cycling and walking that will be facilitated by the

Project and the Mersey Gateway Sustainable Transport Strategy (CD182).

12.24 The Air Quality proof of evidence (Ms Brown HBC/11/1P) has identified

that users of the SJB and users of the Greenway Road in Runcorn will be

subject to effects of high positive significance to due to a decrease in

emissions of NO2 and effects of moderate positive significance due to a

decrease in emissions of PM10. Furthermore, effects of low positive

significance will be noted to the health of individuals at a regional level

due to predicted changes in the regional NOx, PM10 and CO2 emissions.

Effects of low negative significance have been identified to users of the

A533 Central Expressway (in Halton Castle, Halton Brook and

Whitehouse), the Whitehouse Expressway (Palacefields), the New Bridge,

the M56 Motorway and Deacon Road, Widnes.

12.25 In general, the Project will result in improvements in noise of moderate

positive significance to residential properties within close proximity to the

Project; specifically those properties surrounding the SJB. Beneficial noise

effects will result where traffic is removed from the local transport

69

network. There will be localised effects of high positive significance to

individuals at West Bank Primary School and Weston Point Community

School (180 and 114 pupils respectively). These are permanent effects

and therefore will be good for the well-being and quality of life of those

affected. Mr Freeborn provides more information on the details of these

effects in his proof of evidence (HBC/12/1P ).

12.26 Residents’ expectations, of the landscape further to the Project being

complete, identified from social research indicates a general positive

attitude towards the New Bridge with respondents stating that ‘I think the

new bridge will make the area look nice’ and that ‘I think it will be a

benefit, quite aesthetic, look good for the area’. 71.8% of people

surveyed in the questionnaire at Stage 7 (MVA, 2007 para 4.5.2 CD159)

felt the area would look much better or better than currently after

construction of the project.

12.27 These effects show Objective 4 of the Project is being met, that is there

will be improvements to local air quality (Ms Brown’s proof of evidence

provides more details on this HBC/11/1P) together with enhancement of

the general urban environment (Mr Beswick’s proof of evidence provides

more details on this HBC/7/1P).

12.28 The next area I want to consider is the potential for improved physical

fitness from cycling and walking due to the Project and Sustainable

Transport Strategy. Currently, there are low levels of cycling and walking

across the SJB. (see the TAG Sub Objective data detailed in Chapter 20

20.7.107 to 20.7.113 CD14 and extracts in CD285, 286) which was

sourced from work undertaken for Chapter 16: Transport of the

Environmental Statement CD14)

12.29 The TAG Physical Fitness Sub Objective assessment undertaken in the

Transport Chapter 16 of the Environmental Statement identified that both

walking and cycle journeys undertaken across the SJB exceed the 30

minutes per day exercise level recommended by the government. This

70

means that if people regularly walk or cycle across the bridge it will have

positive benefits to their health and well-being.

12.30 As discussed by Mr Pauling in his proof of evidence (HBC/8/1P), the

Project together with improvements outlined in the Mersey Gateway

Sustainable Transport strategy will improve physical facilities for

pedestrian and cycling across the river. Renovated, safer and more

accessible facilities across the SJB have the potential to increase the

number of pedestrian and cycle trips across the river. The Options Values

Sub Objective (TAG Unit 3.6.1 CD285) assessment undertaken in the

Transport Chapter 16 of the Environmental Statement (CD14) identified

that approximately 1,950 of Halton’s residents could potentially use

improved cycling and walking facilities along the SJB as a realistic travel

option due to the relative distance of their home from the SJB.14.

Pedestrian trips across the SJB will be of localised origin and would

therefore primarily begin and finish within the wards of Mersey and

Riverside thereby improving accessibility in and out of those wards.

12.31 The LSOAs in which the SJB is located are within the worst 4% nationally

for health deprivation and so if people from those wards undertake

increased exercise the health benefits within these wards will be of high

importance which is why, in line with the Transport Chapter TAG Physical

Fitness Sub Objective (CD285), the health benefits to residents in Halton

through increased and improved walking and cycling opportunities,

(additional trips over 30 minutes) were assessed as of positive significance

in the socio-economic impact assessment.

12.32 The provision in the Project for improvements to facilities for cyclists and

pedestrians are further facilitated by the Mersey Gateway Sustainable

Transport Strategy (Halton Borough Council, 2009 CD182). Specifically,

Improvement Theme five of the sustainable transport strategy to be

implemented in Phase One 2014/15 describes how Halton Council and

partners will “ seek, as part of the strategy, to develop a step change in

14 Realistic pedestrian and cycling travel distances from the SJB were taken at 2km and 5km respectively

71

the provision of facilities and routes for pedestrians and cyclists across the

Borough” (page 80, Sustainable Transport Strategy, 2009 CD182)

12.33 Provision of physical infrastructure and new routes needs to be

accompanied by management strategies to advise and encourage people

to change behaviours. Encouraging people to use these and other mobility

opportunities in Halton is supported by Halton’s Neighbourhood Travel

Team. The Neighbourhood Travel Team provides services and advice on

mobility management throughout the borough and is the focus of

Improvement Theme 4 of the Mersey Gateway Sustainable Transport

Strategy which as part of Phase 1 of the Mersey Gateway Sustainable

Transport Strategy will further develop mobility management measures

across the Borough. Of relevance in terms of encouraging people to take

up cycling and walking for health is one of the measures which specifies

the continued development of “healthy lifestyles” initiatives in partnership

with NHS St. Helens and Halton PCT.

12.34 As well as having the physical infrastructure on the SJB, together with

improved routes on either side of the river it will be important that there

are places people can reach by cycling and walking that they want to go to

and from. This is where the Mersey Gateway Regeneration Strategy

preferred options are important to consider. At each end of the SJB are

areas that have been designated regeneration areas: West Bank (in

Riverside ward) and Runcorn Old Town (in Mersey ward). As discussed in

Section 8 of my evidence, both of the preferred options for these areas

propose developments that give them the potential to be places people will

work, live and in the case of Runcorn Old Town, visit. In terms of walking

and cycling, the preferred option for West Bank (located in Riverside ward)

in the Mersey Gateway Regeneration Strategy, aims at developing a “walk-

able environment ……with walking and cycling particularly encouraged,

where this contributes to health objectives.” (GVA Grimley, 2008, para 5.7

CD127). There are also proposed improvements in pedestrian and cycling

accessibility in the preferred option for Runcorn Old Town (situated in

Mersey ward).

72

12.35 From this evaluation I conclude that Objective 6 of the Project, to

encourage increased use of cycling and walking is being addressed and

that from those opportunities there is the potential to have a positive

effect on health and well being from increased physical exercise for people

in Halton.

Changes in access to facilities (education, retail, health) and social

networks (visiting family and friends in Halton)

12.36 In this section I will discuss the effects on access to facilities and social

networks: First, considering the general implications of the transportation

conclusions, secondly, I will examine the implications for work related

trips; and finally I will discuss the implications for other trips together with

the measures in place to reduce any negative effects on specific groups.

12.37 For the purposes of this proof, the key question is to what extent and in

what ways will the Project affect accessibility for people in Halton to a

work, health, leisure and other facilities. In order to examine this it is

pertinent to look how all trips might be affected by the Project in terms of

accessibility (improved or otherwise) and what types of trip might be

facilitated or suppressed by the project. All the trips that people make

facilitate their daily lives. As discussed in Section 4 increased accessibility

and connectivity has the potential to benefit all areas of daily living

including getting and retaining jobs, accessing healthcare, accessing

educational facilities.

12.38 In the social research stated preference study (MVA, 2004, page 10, para

4.4.2 CD152) when asked about which bridge they would prefer to use if

both were subject to tolls, those on leisure or personal business trips

(58%), and those making local journeys (61%) were more likely than

other respondents to continue to use the Silver Jubilee Bridge. Those

travelling on business (35%) or making non-local journeys (42%) are

most likely to use a new bridge.

73

12.39 This evidence suggests a separation of uses between the SJB and the New

Bridge, with people regarding the SJB to be used more for “local daily

living” trips and the New Bridge regarded to be used for non-local and

business trips. The design of the Project reflects these prospective travel

patterns. The New Bridge and associated road junction modifications will

divert regional traffic away from the SJB, leaving the SJB for local traffic

only.

12.40 Mr Pauling provides the conclusions in his proof on the effects of the

Project on transportation (HBC/8/1P para 15.99 – 15.106) of his proof of

evidence). From his analysis it can be said that accessibility across the

river will be improved as a result of the Project. This is because journey

times become quicker and more reliable. Further, the SJB will be relieved,

enabling it to accommodate public transport, walking and cycling because

longer trips are removed from the SJB.

12.41 The decrease in local traffic and provision of a reliable through route via

the New Bridge was assessed (by the transport assessment) as resulting

in effects of high positive significance to car users and users of public

transport, in that their journey times will be slightly reduced, journey

reliability will be improved and there will be an associated decrease in

traveller stress15. People may also be encouraged to travel more as

journeys become easier thereby increasing accessibility across the

borough. As one participant in the Stage 3 social research commented:

“I’d go and see the kids more”. (Elderly and disabled residents focus

group) (MVA, 2004, para 6.4.6 CD216).

15 Traveller stress is defined and measured by WebTag. Traveller stress is the adverse mental and physiological effects experienced by travellers. Three main factors influence travellers stress: Frustration – caused by a drivers inability to drive at a speed consistent with their own wishes relative to the standard of the road, or delays on public transport; Fear of potential accidents – caused by the presence of other vehicles, inadequate sight distances and the possibility of pedestrians stepping into the road. Fear is highest when speeds, flow and the HGV content is high. Route uncertainty – can be influenced by the extent to which they have planned their journey and the quality of route information, whether provided to users before they begin their journey, or en route.

74

12.42 Access across the river to a wide range of facilities: hospitals (Halton

General), education facilities (Riverside college) which has three campuses

around Halton each with different courses available, places of employment

(eg 3MG, Speke Approach, The Heath Business and Technical Park,

Daresbury Innovation Centre, Daresbury Science & Innovation Campus)

and leisure facilities (e.g. The Brindley, Stobart Stadium Halton) will be

improved for all users, both private and public. Overall, this means that

people will know that if they make a journey cross river they will be able

to do it more reliably than currently is the case. A key issue from the

social research (MVA, 2003 Stage 1 research CD) was the fact that

currently people find it difficult to know how long it will take them to cross

the SJB and that can lead to missed appointments, and dissuade people

from making trips in the first place.

12.43 The majority of respondents taking part in the Stage 7 research (76.7%

CD159 para 4.5.2) felt that journey reliability and predictability would be

much better or better once the Project had been built. 74.8% felt that the

local economy/local businesses/employment would be better or much

better after the construction of the project and 72.7% thought that traffic

flows near their homes would improve. These views show the positive

attitude of residents towards completion of the Project with regards to the

transport network.

12.44 However, from the socio-economic impact assessment it was also found

that proposed tolling of the SJB and the New Bridge would be likely to

affect access to facilities and social networks through possible financial

exclusion of individuals with a lower expendable income or individuals who

don’t want to pay a toll to visit friends, family and facilities which were

previously free to access (Chapter 20 of the Environmental Statement,

CD14). Mr Nicholson (HBC/2/1P para 11.3) and Mr Parr (HBC/1/1P)

provide evidence on why both bridges need to be tolled.

12.45 What is clear from Mr Pauling’s evidence (HBC/8/1P) is the impact of

tolling on the number and types of trips that the model predicts will be

taken on the SJB and the new Bridge in the Do Something scenario at

75

2015 and 2030. First, in terms of numbers, the tolling regime provides

the mechanism for ensuring that the increased capacity provided by a

second bridge does not mean that there will be increased numbers of

vehicles on the bridges.

12.46 Secondly, from the tolling regime there is a change from the do minimum

in terms of the balance of types of trip taken. It is clear that trips made

for businesses will benefit at 2015 and 2030 from the improved reliability

and reduced congestion. People making trips for work and especially

those working for businesses that depend on crossing the bridge for their

business will be able to get to their destinations on time and in time, thus

facilitating business and economic development.

12.47 Further, in 2015 commute trips (trips to work and places of education) are

reduced in the morning peak and between the peak hours across the SJB,

but by 2030 that effect will reduce and an increase in trips to work and

places of education in the mornings (commute) is forecast. People will be

able to cross the bridge more reliably, benefiting from the full range of

opportunities in terms of work and education across Halton.

12.48 In terms of provision of local employment the five areas of impact listed in

the Mersey Gateway Regeneration Strategy are predicted to provide local

employment as discussed in the previous section. Increased accessibility

across the river means that people from both Runcorn and Widnes may

start to view job opportunities on the opposite side to where they live as

possible places to work, specifically in the areas of West Bank, Runcorn

Old Town and Astmoor Industrial estate. As noted in Section 4 research

on access to jobs suggests that one of the issues that accompany lack of

physical access to work is that of a sense of limited horizons in terms of

where to look for work. If Halton becomes more accessible through the

Project and the Mersey Gateway Sustainable Transport Strategy

(CD182)together with the Mersey Gateway Regeneration Strategy

(CD127) it is possible that residents may consider going further afield to

find work and also to access other facilities.

76

12.49 Social research (MVA, 2003 CD151) identified that individuals indicated

that they may reduce their cross river social trips to friends and family if

the bridges were tolled. A reduction in trips may result in less frequent

visits to see elderly relatives or individuals with long term limiting illnesses

in addition to other social networking trips. Furthermore, it was suggested

that implementation of tolls may hinder access to hospitals, including

access to hospital appointments or visiting sick friends/ relatives

12.50 In the focus groups carried out in 2004 (MVA, 2004, CD216) people were

concerned about the effects of tolling on specific groups: it was felt that

the main effects would be experienced by the elderly, people on low

incomes, the unemployed, local businesses (especially small firms) and

people accessing education and health facilities. Reasons given for this

included: financial restrictions, a lack of alternatives or convenient public

transport and an inability to use public transport (elderly and disabled).

“A lot of people wouldn’t be able to afford to go and see their families”

(Residents of Castlefield and Mersey Employees focus group CD216).

12.51 These comments were echoed in the research in 2007 (CD159) specifically

by those in the low income group and those living close to the proposed

new bridge. However, despite concerns over the toll charges, members of

the focus groups stated that, ultimately most users would pay the toll

through necessity and convenience.

“I think when it comes down to it you’d just pay wouldn’t you, especially if

it makes the journey quicker” (travelling public group, MVA, 2007 CD159),

12.52 Due to the potential of social exclusion to a proportion of the population

within and surrounding the Borough, and the extent of income deprivation

within the area, effects of toll charging to access were assessed in the

socio-economic impact assessment as being of high negative significance.

However, the socio-economic impact assessment was carried out working

with a “worst case scenario”, that is, tolled bridges with no discounts and

little to facilitate access for those who might be negatively affected by the

77

tolling and at the time the Mersey Gateway Sustainable Transport Strategy

(CD182)was in an embryonic form and therefore was not able to be taken

into account. Further, details of the Mersey Gateway Regeneration

Strategy(CD127) were not developed. As such I have re-visited that

assessment in the light of the publication of the those documents and the

road user charging order.

12.53 In terms of “other” trips, (e.g., to leisure, health facilities, friends and

family), these become reduced in 2015 at all times of the day. That effect

is reduced by 2030 with increases in these trips in both the morning and

evening peak hours by 2030. These types of trip, whilst low value in

economic terms are often of high social value. Going out with friends, and

visiting family have been shown to have positive social benefits. For this

reason it is important to ask how that reduction in trips is addressed.

There are three ways in which the effect might be reduced: first, if there

are alternative viable destinations for people to go to that don’t involve

crossing the river, second, if there are viable alternatives in terms of other

modes of transport for people to use other than the car and third, if the

framework for discounts ensures that vulnerable groups in Halton are not

negatively affected by the tolling.

12.54 In terms of having alternative places to go that have the facilities that

people want to use, the implementation of the Mersey Gateway

Regeneration Strategy means that in time there is likely to be more

activity local to the five regeneration areas, some of which may mean that

people prefer to use facilities local to their homes rather than crossing the

bridge. For example, in the preferred option for Halton Lea the aim is to

examine the future of the shopping centre, and if there were to be

substantial improvements in that place in terms of shopping then it might

become a place people would regularly shop for bigger items rather than

travelling further afield.

12.55 The aim for West Bank, Runcorn Old Town and Rocksavage and Clifton to

be improved in terms of leisure and recreation with increased walking and

cycling facilities in West Bank, a focus on developing the “market town”

78

potential in Runcorn Old Town and an emphasis on green spaces in

Rocksavage and Clifton, making these places people may choose to spend

time in over cross river destinations.

12.56 In terms of there being viable alternatives to using a car to enable people

to cross the river to make those “other” trips currently, there are limited

public transport links across the River. Details in Mr Pauling’s proof of

evidence (HBC/8/1P Section 7) .

12.57 In terms of public transport the Project facilitates its improvement because

first, the Project itself frees up space on the SJB which will be used for

public transport improvements. Second, because of the reduction in cars

on the SJB public transport journeys will become more reliable, making it

feasible to go on the bus to appointments. Third, the Mersey Gateway

Sustainable Transport Strategy provides a step change in public transport

provision (partly funded by the Project), through improving the service

frequency on the current routes, many of which go through the most

deprived wards of the Borough, improving the physical environment of

the bus stops, and adding additional routes to key employment (3MG),

education (Riverside college) leisure (Stobart Stadium Halton) and

healthcare facilities (e.g. Halton General Hospital), Improvement Theme 2

of the Sustainable Transport Strategy “primarily focuses on addressing

the key bus service accessibility gaps for low income communities by

increasing the accessibility of employment, training, health, education,

social and food retail shopping opportunities” (para 4.4.13, Halton

Borough Council, 2009 CD182).

12.58 Finally, with the necessary tolling of the SJB and the new bridge people

are likely to look to public transport to provide a cheaper option for

crossing the SJB. The transport assessment concluded that the Project is

likely to have a positive effect to the local public transport system with a

beneficial effect on service frequency and reliability. This conclusion was

based upon the knowledge that most of Halton’s population live within

walking distance of a bus stop and therefore have access to public

transport. The density of population in Halton means that there is

79

potential to have a more metropolitan approach to the use of public

transport where its use becomes more the norm and not considered as a

“second best” option. The Project together with the Mersey Gateway

Sustainable Transport Strategy has the potential to deliver that approach.

12.59 It is likely that the number of individuals using improved pedestrian and

cycling facilities across the SJB will increase as a result of the

implementation of toll charges on both the New Bridge and the SJB. As the

Sustainable Transport Strategy suggests, “Once tolling is introduced on

both the SJB and the New Bridge, walking will gain a competitive

advantage” (page 31, Mersey Gateway Sustainable Transport Strategy,

2009 CD182).

12.60 Finally, it is important to look at the framework for discounts to see in

what ways it supports vulnerable groups in Halton who might be

negatively affected by the tolling, specifically low income car users and

disabled drivers.

12.61 With respect to the first group, car drivers on low incomes16. There are

potentially a number of discount schemes that could be put in place to

help car drivers on low incomes. It should be recognised that Halton

Council (see Mr Nicholson’s proof of evidence, HBC/2/1P Section 9.4) have

not specifically identified a framework of discounts at this point to allow

flexibility and responsiveness to changing circumstances and to be able to

work with the concessionaire to develop an equitable tolling strategy.

There is a framework set out in the Road Users Charging Order Scheme

(CD222 which will allow a number of alternative tolling schemes to be

explored. This approach has also been undertaken in order to meet the

second objective of the Project which is to apply minimum toll and road

user charges to both the Mersey Gateway bridges consistent with the level

16 .In terms of how many people are likely to fall into the category of low income car owners, we can show the areas of high income deprivation together with the numbers of households with one or more, car/van. To take an example of one LSOA in which has high levels of income deprivation and is in the Halton Castle ward of Halton, on the south side of the river (010b). In the 2001 census 702 households were recorded, of which 319 had one or more car or van. There are 47,938 household in total in Halton. Of these 19,952 live the top 20% LSOA for income deprivation and of those 11,212 have access to a car/van

80

required to satisfy affordability constraints. Mr Parr states in his proof of

evidence that the council “has already resolved to make the Silver Jubilee

Bridge toll free for public transport and to seek to maximise toll discounts

for local residents and frequent users ” (HBC/1/1P para 5.4.13.

12.62 Secondly, with respect to disabled drivers it is clear from Explanation of

Tolls and Road User Charging (CD23) document that there will be

discounts for disabled drivers together with consideration of other discount

schemes for frequent users. Specifically, paragraphs 14 and 15 state that:

14. The proposed Order and the Scheme do not provide for mandatory discounts or toll exemptions, except in some cases. These include an obligation to give discounts to disabled drivers, who must apply for concessions to the Council.

15. Similarly, the Council is taking powers to enable it to offer frequent user or tag-based discount schemes, such as season tickets. It will investigate the feasibility of such an approach when it negotiates with prospective concessionaires.

12.63 Having the second route across the Mersey and therefore improving the

resilience of the transport network should provide a sense of security to

residents that they will be able to go about their daily lives without

disruption and to benefit them in terms of opening up places and

opportunities across the borough. The effects outlined above taken

together should provide that sense of dependability on the transport

network for residents, the travelling public and employees in Halton.

81

13 Conclusions

13.1 I conclude that under the do nothing scenario people will find increasing

difficulty in accessing cross river facilities by car or by public transport,

key regeneration projects are unlikely to fulfil their full potential and that

key areas of Halton that need regenerating will remain unregenerated.

13.2 In the construction period in terms of the significant effects assessed in

the socio-economic impact assessment I conclude that there will be some

benefits in terms of locally based job opportunities which have an

increased probability of being filled by local residents because of key

measures that are being put in place to improve connectivity, training and

support for people getting into work. In terms of impacts of the

construction on daily activities through disruption the COPE (CD291)

through the Construction Environmental Management Plan and the

Construction Transport Management Plan will mitigate any noise effects,

air quality, and access issues and deliver mitigation highlighted in the

socio-economic impact assessment.

13.3 In the operational period I conclude by considering the findings presented

in the proof of evidence against the relevant Project objectives.

13.4 First, in relation to Objective 1, the social benefits of improving

worklessness in an area with high levels of deprivation. Specifically,

improved worklessness is associated with better health outcomes, higher

incomes and reduced levels of crime. The Mersey Gateway Regeneration

Strategy and the Mersey Gateway Sustainable Transport Strategy

together with other council initiatives provide the policies and processes

needed to facilitate those associated social benefits.

13.5 Second, in relation to Objective 2 this proof of evidence explains that the

proposed approach to tolling will deter some trips but the trips that people

will make in their cars will be more reliable and journey times will be

82

quicker and therefore they will be getting a direct benefit from paying the

tolls. Having those reliable journey times means that getting to

appointments, work and education facilities will be improved which in turn

can open up a wider range of opportunities to local people. In terms of

alternatives to using cars, the tolling of the bridges enables the

implementation of the Sustainable Transport Strategy which will make

public transport, a viable alternative to using cars. The discount

framework outlined by Mr Nicholson (HBC/2/1P para 9.4.15 – 9.4.17) will

enable key groups of car users (e.g. disabled, local residents and frequent

users) not to be negatively affected by the tolling regime.

13.6 Third, in relation to Objective 3 this proof of evidence explains that

improved accessibility can provide improvements in terms of people

finding and keeping work, use of health and education facilities, together

with benefiting by enabling people to “just get out of the house”.

13.7 Fourth in relation to Objective 4 this proof of evidence explains that air

quality will be improved and that the general urban environment will be

enhanced.

13.8 In relation to Objective 5 this proof of evidence explains the potential

benefits that improved public transport in areas of deprivation can bring.

Specifically, with the Sustainable Transport Strategy the Project provides

connectivity between areas of deprivation in the borough with key facilities

both cross-river and either side of the river. In addition, the Mersey

Gateway Regeneration Strategy shows how the five different areas of

impact will be improved such that they become places people will want to

go to, to shop (e.g. Halton Lea, ), to visit (e.g. Runcorn Old Town), and to

live (e.g. West Bank).

13.9 In relation to Objective 6 this proof of evidence explains the benefits that

improved facilities for cycling and walking will bring. Specifically, the

opportunities for local residents to cycle and walk to local destinations

provide opportunities to improve health and well-being. In addition, the

83

improvements will make cycling and walking viable alternatives to using

the car which has benefits for both car owners and non-car owners.

13.10 Finally, in relation to Objective 7, improved network resilience will mean

that local people will be assured that in emergencies the borough will

continue to function effectively.