Town Planning Main Proof of Evidence Paul Ellingham
PROOF OF EVIDENCE Paul Ellingham MA MRTPI Town Planning Town Planning Evidence TRANSPORT AND WORKS ACT 1992 MIDLAND METRO (WOLVERHAMPTON CITY CENTRE EXTENSION) ORDER INQUIRY JUNE 2015 Page 1 of 33
1 PERSONAL DETAILS 1.1 This evidence is prepared by Paul Ellingham MA Town Planning MRTPI. 1.2 I hold an MA in Town Planning from the City of Birmingham University and have been a Member of the Royal Town Planning Institute since 1994. I have over 25 years of experience in the planning and development sectors both in the private and public sectors. 1.3 I am currently a Director in the Birmingham office of WYG and prior to that was a Director of Alliance Planning, a position I have held since 2007. I was employed as an Associate Director with Alliance Planning between 2005 and 2007.Alliance Planning was acquired by the multi-disciplinary consultancy WYG in September 2013 and during my employment at both firms have acted for Centro on a number of town planning matters. 1.4 Prior to my present employment with Alliance Planning, I was employed by Centro (the West Midlands Passenger Transport Executive) as Planning Team Leader (2000-2005) between 1996 and prior to that (1996-2000) as a Senior Planner. In my role as Planning Team Leader I was responsible for all town planning and environmental related matters including securing consents for a range of major transport infrastructure projects. 1.5 I was directly involved in the development of Midland Metro Line One and was a key part of the Centro Team for the Birmingham City Centre Extension 2005 Transport and Works Act Order. Whilst at Centro, I was also involved with the promotion of Transport and Works Act Orders for the extension of Midland Metro into Wolverhampton City Centre and the Wednesbury to Brierley Hill Extension. 1.6 I am therefore, familiar with the TWA Order process and with the planning issues associated with the development of tramway infrastructure within Wolverhampton City Centre and the wider West Midlands region. 1.7 In this matter, I am instructed by Centro on a consultancy basis, whereby I provide specialist town planning advice on a range of transportation projects. As a planning consultant under this arrangement, I have continued to provide planning advice to Centro on matters associated with the Midland Metro and the further development of the Network. In particular, I have been responsible for co-ordinating the discharge of planning conditions associated with the deemed planning consent for the Midland Metro Birmingham City Centre Extension between Birmingham Snow Hill and Centenary Square. This has included work to secure additional planning and listed building consents as necessary for the development of the Midland Metro network. 1.8 The evidence I shall give is true, given in good faith and represents my professional opinion regarding the merits of the Wolverhampton City Centre Extension (WCCE) Transport and Works Act Order (TWA) scheme. Page 2 of 33
2 SCOPE OF EVIDENCE 2.1 This evidence covers the town planning aspects associated with the works proposed as part the Wolverhampton City Centre (WCCE) Transport and Works Act (TWA) Order application. 2.2 It considers compliance with the relevant planning policies at the national and local levels, both adopted and emerging, in so far as they relate to the WCCE TWA Order and the proposed planning direction. 2.3 It also covers the relevant regeneration strategies, transport plans, policies and proposals in so far as they relate to this Order and related development at the Wolverhampton Interchange Project (WIP). 2.4 I also set out as a matter of background and factual evidence, the listed building consents that relate to the proposed works of the Grade II Steam Mill and reference where appropriate, the findings of the evidence given by Chris Surfleet in terms of the impacts of the scheme on designated heritage assets. 2.5 I address in my evidence the key matters that relate to planning policy and land use considerations. 2.6 In response to the Statement of Matters raised by the Secretary of State, I deal specifically with matters either in full or part that relate to 2 (Alternatives), 3 (Planning and Transportation Policy Compliance), 9 (Impacts on Heritage Assets and Planning Policy Considerations) and 14 (Planning Conditions). 2.7 All other matters such as the engineering design of the scheme, transport impacts, funding for the scheme, soundness of the Environmental Statement (ES), impacts on heritage assets and funding are addressed in evidence provided by others. Page 3 of 33
3 BACKGROUND TO THE SCHEME 3.1 Prior to the opening of Metro Line 1 in 1998, Centro carried out a review of the Midland Metro Network and developed a bite sized approach to securing future extensions to the tram network. As set out in the evidence of Mr Adams, they had to meet the following criteria: To make use of powers contained in the Midland Metro Acts (1989 [WCCE/B5], 1992 [WCCE/B7 and [WCCE/B8], and 1993 [WCCE/B9] and [WCCE/B10]); To be connected to Line 1; To be able to share the Line 1 depot; To attract private investment; and To be affordable. 3.2 The outcome of this process resulted in a single track loop in the east of the centre of Wolverhampton being proposed. Further development continued as part of a wider Metro strategy culminating in a smaller looped alignment closer to the station as part of a 5Ws Route. 3.3 As set out in sections 2.2 to 2.8 of the Report Detailing Consultation Undertaken [WCCE/A4] the route went through a process of consultation and refinement through a series of public consultations, including development of the alignment in the vicinity of the rail station in consultation with the WIP. 3.4 In winter 2011/ 2012 following further consultation with key stakeholders and the evolution of the commercial gateway masterplan for Wolverhampton, and the opening of the new bus station, a more direct twin-track alignment from the current Line 1 via Piper s Row to with a terminus stop outside the rail station was proposed by Centro. The objective being to fully integrate the Metro extension within the WIP proposals for the redevelopment of the rail station and the associated wider commercial development 3.5 Centro proceeded to undertake further design including undertaking consultation with National Express regarding the operation of the bus station, in particular facilitating a right turn exit for buses exiting the bus station onto Piper s Row. 3.6 As part of the consultation ahead of the submission of the application of the Order, English Heritage and other heritage groups objected to the proposed demolition of the Grade II listed Old Steam Mill which was required for the proposed alignment. In response to this, a track alignment optioneering exercise was undertaken in the vicinity of the Old Steam Mill and a revised alignment of the WCCE was proposed, which was endorsed by English Heritage [WCCE/A16]. Mr Surfleet in paragraphs 7.10-7.15 of his evidence provides further commentary on this process and his findings. 3.7 Following a further pre TWA application consultation exercise, the alignment was finalised and in the form as set out within the proposed Order. Further information on all of the consideration of alternatives and the consultation processes are contained within the ES [WCCE/A15/1, WCCE/A15/2, WCCE/A15/3, WCCE/A15/4, and WCCE/A15/5] and the Report on Consultation Undertaken [WCCE/A4]. Page 4 of 33
3.8 Alongside this Centro also undertook to secure a separate Listed Building approval to enable and authorise the works to the Steam Mill Building. This is referred to in the Evidence of Mr Surfleet and also in the submitted ES Addendum. 3.9 Further details in relation to the relevant listed building consent are contained in Mr Surfleet s evidence and document WCCE/A15/5. Page 5 of 33
4 THE SCHEME Background to the Wolverhampton Interchange Proposals 4.1 The WIP is intended to meet the aims of the Black Country Local Enterprise Partnership (BCLEP) relating to transport and regeneration in Wolverhampton to achieve a multi modal transport hub, deliver new commercial floor space for high value jobs, and improve the strategic gateway to Wolverhampton and the Black Country. Further details on the objectives of the WIP Project are contained in evidence given by MR Adams. 4.2 The Wolverhampton Interchange Project will redevelop the railway station building to provide 21st century facilities, delivering an improved passenger experience through the relocation of the main entrance and concourse area, new retail space and better security as a result of the introduction of ticket gates. 4.3 An expanded car park, incorporating improved public realm on the approach to the railway station, will also be provided. The existing Midland Metro tramway to central Wolverhampton will be extended to the railway station via a new stop at the bus station. This will improve interchange between the three modes of transport in the city: bus, rail and metro. 4.4 A carefully planned programme will see the car park extension, the new station and the tram extension built in sequence. Car Park Expansion 4.5 The construction sequence would commence with the extension and refurbishment of the current station car park, providing an additional 308spaces to the current 502 spaces. Lifts, CCTV, modern lighting and a better circulatory arrangement would be provided in this first phase, which would also see construction of a new access, additional taxi provision and short stay parking. 4.6 The current station access and taxi/short stay parking would remain in place during this phase of construction. A planning application for the car park extension has been developed in detail with Network Rail and is ready to submit. Station Rebuild 4.7 In the second major element of the project the new station building would be built in two phases, allowing the current station to continue to operate as normal during construction. 4.8 The station would provide larger modern retail and ticket sales/customer information facilities within the first half of the build, becoming available to passengers during the construction of the second half following demolition of the existing building. 4.9 The new station building would provide enhanced train operator backstage accommodation replacing the current unsatisfactory portakabin based accommodation. It would also enable effective gating of the station to be undertaken, providing significant industry benefits. Page 6 of 33
Metro Extension 4.10 The proposed Midland Metro extension will branch from the current terminus and will pass along Piper's Row to its junction with Lichfield Street and then through the heart of the new commercial development to the station. 4.11 Once delivered, the Metro extension will integrate the transport links provided by tram, rail and bus services, creating improved interchange opportunities and increased direct services. Commercial Gateway 4.12 Hand in hand with the redevelopment of the station and its car park Centro s partners Neptune and Wolverhampton City Council have begun to build the first 65,000 sq ft mixed retail, leisure and office development on Railway Drive. This will accommodate the range of end users actively seeking Grade A office floor space in the city centre and is anticipated to create 316 new jobs. 4.13 Remodelling the railway station will create a series of waterfront development sites for future office, hotel, restaurant and shopping development with the potential to provide a further 1,274 new jobs. The extension of the Midland Metro to the station creating a state of the art Public Transport Hub will be a catalyst for a vibrant new business and recreation quarter of the city. The Tram Extension Proposal 4.14 The WCCE is a 700 metre extension of the existing Line 1 from Bilston Street opposite the Wolverhampton Combined Court, running along the entire length of Piper s Row into Railway Drive where it will head towards the rail station and then turn right to terminate north of Corn Hill. The extension will mainly run on street (500 m) from the junction at Bilston Street to where it meets the existing forecourt of the rail station. 4.15 Within the Order site boundary, works required to be undertaken could be temporary and / or permanent in nature, depending on the location. Within the proposed Order [WCCE/A9/1 and WCCE/A9/2] are three categories of land: Temporary land: this is land that is temporarily required for providing construction access and carrying out minor highway works; Permanent land: this is land that is permanently required for the construction, maintenance and operation of the tramway; and Permanent rights over land: this is land over which permanent rights need to be acquired for the construction, maintenance and operation of the tramway. 4.16 The following works and associated operations are intended to be undertaken within the Order limits. Permanent Works Installation of 52 permanent Overhead Line Equipment ( OLE ) poles including associated foundations (final number subject to detailed design); Installation of 16 permanent OLE building cable fixings (final number subject to detailed design); Page 7 of 33
Installation of OLE; Earthworks, track laying and other associated infrastructure such as track drainage and alterations to existing highway drainage; Highway alterations including realignment and reinstatement/repaving of highway footpaths and dedicated cycle facilities; Modifications to highway signalling; Installation of tram signalling, communication and electrical equipment; Hard and soft landscaping works; Tram stops on Piper's Row and in the railway station car park; Accommodation works (e.g. works required to boundary walls, gates or frontages to accommodate the tram alignment); Installation of parallel feeders (cables and ducting that will run parallel to both the rail station Bound Line and the Birmingham Bound Line); and Cabinets to contain communication equipment and system, envisaged to be located within highway land These permanent works are specifically referenced in Schedule 1 to the draft Order and include as follows:- (1) Number of Work Work No. 1 Work No. 2 Work No. 3 Work No. 4 (2) Description of Work A tramway 239 metres in length (multiple lines), commencing 7 metres to the west of the junction of Dudley Street and Garrick Street and continuing eastwards along Bilston Street, incorporating the existing St George's tramstop, terminating at the junction of Bilston Street and Bilston Street Island. A tramway 649 metres in length (double and single lines), commencing at the junction of Piper s Row and Bilston Street running north within the carriageway of Piper s Row, incorporating both northbound and southbound tramstops, before turning east onto Railway Drive and travelling eastwards towards the railway station before turning south-east between the railway station and the multi-story car park buildings, where the double track section converges to a single track prior to the railway station tramstop, with a single line headshunt continuing 81 metres past the stop and terminating 5 metres north-west from the retaining wall bounding Corn Hill underbridge. The relocation of the multi-storey car park access from Railway Drive to Corn Hill, and construction of the new railway station taxi rank and drop off area. Extension to existing Midland Metro Line 1 sub-station 2, to accommodate new tramway overhead line power equipment. Temporary Works Construction compounds for storage or materials, plant and machinery, site accommodation including the provision of welfare facilities (wholly contained within the alignment corridor) Page 8 of 33
4.17 The WIP works (i.e. the demolition of part of the station, relocation of the rail station and MSCP accesses and associated removal of the steel cladding section of the Old Steam Mill) are scheduled to be delivered before the commencement of the construction of the WCCE. However, to allow for a scenario in which there are delays to the delivery of these aspects of the WIP, the Environmental Statement (ES) [WCCE/A15/2] has assessed the scenario that the WCCE will need to undertake the demolition of part of the station, provide temporary accommodation and a ticket office on an area of land next to the canal, north of the proposed alignment (known as the Banana Yard) in lieu of the section of station building to be demolished, relocate the rail station and MSCP accesses and the associated removal of steel cladding for the Old Steam Mill. 4.18 The land to be used or acquired for the Scheme in so far as it impacts on land use and land take is dealt with in the ES Addendum dated April 2015 and I comment on this further in Section 6 of my Proof of Evidence. 4.19 To reflect these different potential construction options, the following scenarios set out in Table 7.1 have been assessed within the ES to reflect the different potential construction timescales of elements of the WIP. Table 7.1 Assessment Scenarios Scenario A Assumes that the following has already been undertaken as part of the WIP prior to the construction of the WCCE: Removal of the steel cladding section of the Old Steam Mill; Demolition of a section of the existing station buildings; and Relocation of vehicular access to Wolverhampton Rail Station and the MSCP. Scenario B Assumes the WIP programme has encountered delay and therefore the elements of the WIP mentioned in Scenario A are undertaken by Centro at the same time as the WCCE works, i.e.: Removal of the steel cladding section of the Old Steam Mill; Demolition of a section of the existing station buildings; Provision of temporary accommodation and ticket office (in lieu of the section of station building to be demolished); and Relocation of vehicular access to Wolverhampton Rail Station and the MSCP. The effects of those elements of the WIP are therefore treated as part of the WCCE for the purposes of the Scenario B assessment. 4.20 The following additional works would be carried out within the Order limits under Scenario B: Removal of the steel clad section of the Old Steam Mill; Demolition of a section of the existing Wolverhampton Rail Station building; Page 9 of 33
Provision of temporary accommodation and ticket office, in lieu of the section of station building to be demolished; and Relocation of vehicular access to Wolverhampton Rail Station and the MSCP. 4.21 The footprint of the works within the Order is confined to the Limits of Deviation. The tram alignment terminates adjacent to Platform 5 of the rail station north of Corn Hill. The alignment has been designed to avoid the Grade II listed Old Steam Mill. To provide the run around and new station access it will be necessary to remove the Twentieth Century steel clad section of the building. Centro has Listed Building Consent to undertake these works. 4.22 The works to be undertaken on Railway Drive include works over the A4150 Ring Road and Birmingham Canal. Preliminary assessment of the ability of the existing Railway Drive Bridge over the A4150 Ring Road and the Birmingham canal bridge structures to support the proposed Metro loading has been undertaken [WCCE/C4 and WCCE/C5] and both are considered to be able to carry the additional loads created by the WCCE. 4.23 Further details of the engineering aspects of the WCCE scheme are given in the Proof of Evidence of my colleague Mr Jeremy Gardner [APP/P3.1/ENG]. Scheme Benefits Transport 4.24 The key benefits of the WIP/WCCE are as follows: improved integration between Metro, bus and rail modes of transport providing new and improved journeys for the travelling public; encouraging modal shift from private to public transport; rail station accessibility in improving connections with Metro services through delivering a Metro stop at the rail station; a direct connection between the bus station and the rail station and to all areas along the existing Line 1 route; facilitate access to HS2 in the future via Line 1 and the proposed Metro Birmingham Eastside Extension (BEE) to Curzon Street Station. 4.25 My colleague Mr Neil Chadwick sets out the Treasury and Department for Transport s approach to project appraisal within his Proof of Evidence [APP/P2.1/ECO]. The Business Case for the WIP is consistent with the Treasury s approach and as set out in the January 2013 DfT publication The Transport Business Cases [Appendix 1 of Mr Chadwick s Proof of Evidence]; the DfT s approach requires the development of a Five Case business case. These cases are: Strategic Case, Economic Case, Financial Case, Commercial Case and Management Case. The purpose of the business case is to demonstrate that: There is a robust rationale for the proposed scheme The proposed scheme will deliver value for money Page 10 of 33
The proposed scheme is affordable in terms of sources of funding (for construction and operation) Robust procurement arrangements for the necessary elements of the proposed scheme exist Robust governance arrangements exist and effective project management is in place 4.26 The business case for this scheme has followed this Five Case model and the Full Business Case, which is the subject of this evidence, follows this structure, and is document WCCE/D1. 4.27 The Economic Case sets out the Value for Money of the project in accordance with Government Guidance and shows that the scheme represents high value for money with a benefit to cost ratio of the scheme calculated as 2.9:1. The net present value over the appraisal period is 92.7 million. The evidence of my colleague Mr Neil Chadwick covers the Economic Case in further detail [APP/P2.1/ECO]. 4.28 The Financial Case for the project confirms the expected outturn costs and the funding sources from which they will be met. This is covered in Section 8 of Peter Adams Evidence. 4.29 The Management Case shows that the project is managed by a strong project team organisation with a mixture of in-house project managers and technical and operational light rail experts together with a strong team of supporting consultants and advisors covering all aspects of development and delivery. 4.30 The Commercial Case demonstrates Centro s recent experience in procurement of Midland Metro extensions with the BCCE and Fleet Replacement Programme. The contract for delivery of the WCCE will be tendered in a manner that attracts maximum private sector interest and that provides best value for money. This will be achieved through: The most appropriate procurement and contract strategy Robust risk and cost management Operator/maintainer involvement in design and construction Adoption of a strong partnering ethos in delivery 4.31 The Business Case is a strong one, showing that the benefits of the scheme outweigh its monetary costs and other disbenefits and as a consequence public sector funding of the project is warranted. Regeneration 4.32 Hand in hand with the redevelopment of the station and its car park, Centro s partners Neptune and Wolverhampton City Council have begun to build the first 65,000 sq ft of mixed retail, leisure and office development on Railway Drive. This will accommodate the range of end users actively seeking Grade A office floor space in the city centre and is anticipated to create 316 new jobs. Page 11 of 33
4.33 Remodelling the railway station will create a series of waterfront development sites for future office, hotel, restaurant and shopping development with the potential to provide a further 1,274 new jobs and levering in a further 80 million of private sector investment. The extension of the Midland Metro to the station creating a state of the art Public Transport Hub will be a catalyst for a vibrant new business and recreation quarter of the city. 4.34 The WIP will improve access to employment opportunities in the Black Country and more widely in the West Midlands region. Page 12 of 33
5 NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICIES RELEVANT TO THE TWA ORDER AND PLANNING DIRECTION APPLICATIONS 5.1 This sections sets out what I consider to be the main national and local planning policies relevant to the TWA Order and the proposed related planning direction. I also identify the key transportation policies at a national, regional and local level, along with nonstatutory regeneration strategies and guidance documents in so far as they are relevant to the TWA Order and the proposed related planning direction. 5.2 The following documents are relevant : National Planning Policy National Planning Policy Framework (2012) Local Development Plan Policy(Adopted) Black Country Joint Core Strategy (2011) Wolverhampton Unitary Development Plan (2006) Emerging Planning Policy Wolverhampton City Centre Area Action Plan 2015-2026 (Draft) Transport Policies and Plans West Midlands Local Transport Plan 2011 2026 Towards a World Class Integrated Transport Network (Centro, 2013) 5.3 I note in the below table the following relevant planning policies contained in each of the documents listed above: Planning Policy Document National Panning Policy National Planning Policy Framework (2012) Relevant Planning Policies Paragraph 7 (Sustainable Development) Paragraph 8 (Sustainable Development) Paragraph 14 (Sustainable Development) Paragraph 29 (Sustainable Transport Modes) Paragraph 31 (Infrastructure to Support Sustainable Development) Paragraph 35 (Sustainable Transport Modes) Paragraph 64 (Design) Paragraph 132 (Heritage Assets) Paragraph 134 (Heritage Assets) Paragraph 203 (Planning Conditions) Paragraph 206 (Planning Conditions) Page 13 of 33
Adopted Development Plan Policy Black Country Joint Core Strategy (2011) Policy CSP1 (The Growth Network) Policy CPS3 (Environmental Infrastructure) Policy CSP4 (Place-Making) Policy CSP5 (Transport Strategy) Policy DEL1 (Infrastructure Provision) Policy CEN1 (The Importance of the Black Country Centres for the Regeneration Strategy) Policy CEN 2 (Hierarchy of Centres) Policy TRAN 1 (Priorities for the Development of the Transport Network) Policy TRAN 2 (Managing Transport Impacts of New Development) Policy TRAN 4 (Creating Coherent Networks for Cycling and for Walking) Policy TRAN 5 (Influencing the Demand for Travel and Travel Choices) Policy ENV1 (Nature Conservation) Policy ENV2 (Historic Character and Local Distinctiveness) Policy ENV3 (Design Quality) Policy ENV4 (Canals) Policy ENV5 (Flood Risk, Sustainable Drainage Systems and Urban Heat Island) Policy ENV8 (Air Quality) Page 14 of 33
Wolverhampton Unitary Development Plan (2006) Policy D11 (Access for People with Disabilities Policy EP1 (Pollution Control) Policy HE1 (Preservation of Local Character and Distinctiveness) Policy AM1 (Access, Mobility and New Development) Policy D3 (Urban Structure) Policy D4 (Urban Grain) Policy D5 (Public Realm (Public Space/Private Space) Policy D6 (Townscape and Landscape) Policy D12 (Nature Conservation and Natural Features) Policy EP5 (Noise Pollution) Policy EP6 (Protection of Groundwater, Watercourses and Canals) Policy EP11 (Development on Contaminated Land or Unstable Land) Policy HE2 (Historic Resources and Enabling Development) Policy HE3 (Preservation and Enhancement of Conservation Areas) Policy HE4 (Proposal Affecting a Conservation Area) Policy HE5 (Control of Development in a Conservation Area) Policy HE6 (Demolition of Buildings or Structures in a Conservation Area) Policy HE7 (Underused Buildings and Structures in a Conservation Area) Policy HE12 (Preservation and Active Use of Listed Buildings) Policy HE13 (Development Affecting a Listed Building) Policy HE14 (Alternations and Extensions to Listed Buildings) Policy HE16 (Demolition of a Listed Building) Policy HE17 (Development Affecting the Settling of a Listed Building) Policy HE18 (Preservation and Enhancement of Local List Buildings and Sites) Policy HE19 (Development Affecting a Local List Building or Site) Policy HE22 (Protection and Enhancement of the Canal Network) Policy AM8 (Public Transport) Policy CC4 (City Centre Environment) Policy CC5 (City Centre Access and Mobility) Emerging Planning Policy Wolverhampton City Centre Action Plan 2015-2026 (Draft) Draft Policy CC6 (Transport) Draft Policy CC8 (High Quality Design and Public Realm) Draft Policy CC9 (Protecting and Enhancing Historic Character and Local Distinctiveness) Draft Policy CA3 (City Interchange and Commercial Gateway) Transport Policies and Plans West Midlands Local Transport Plan 2011 2026 Towards a World Class Integrated Transport Network Page 56 (A Rail and Rapid Transit Network Backbone for Development) Page 67 (Sub-Regional Balances of Long Term Themes) Paragraphs 3.40 3.42 (Metro (light rail / tram-train) Figure 3.2 (Midland Metro and Rapid Transit Lines) Figure 3.4 (West Midlands Long Term Passenger Rail and Rapid Transit Network) Page 104 106 (Draft West Midlands Strategic Transport Interventions ) Page 15 of 33
Page 16 of 33
6 MATTERS FOR THE INQUIRY AND OBJECTIONS TO THE TWA ORDER APPLICATION 6.1 I address in my evidence the key matters that relate in particular, to planning policy and land use. In response to the Statement of Matters issued by the Secretary of State, I deal specifically with matters either in full or part that relate to 2 (Alternatives), 3 (Planning and Transportation Policy Compliance), 9(Impacts on Heritage Assets/Planning Policy Considerations) and 14 (Planning Conditions). 6.2 All other matters such as the engineering design of the scheme, transport impacts, funding for the scheme, soundness of the Environmental Statement (ES), impacts on heritage assets and need are addressed in evidence provided by others and summarised below. Matter Covering Covered within 1 Aims and Need for Scheme The aims of the scheme are covered within section 2 of the Concise Statement of Aims [WCCE/A3]. The need for the scheme is covered in the Proofs of Evidence of Mr Peter Adams and of Mr Neil Chadwick. 2 Alternative Options The review and assessment of alternative modes and routes is covered within section 6 of Centro s Statement of Case [APP/SOC1], section 5 of Mr Peter Adams' Proof of Evidence and by Mr Jeremy Gardner. I deal with alternatives in Section 6 of my Proof with regards to how the preferred alignment complies or otherwise with local development plan policy. 3 Policy This is dealt with in sections 5 and 6 of my Proof of Evidence. 4 Adequacy of ES The methodology followed in assessing the various environmental impacts of the Order are fully set out in the Environmental Statement [WCCE/A15/1], [WCCE/A15/2] and [WCCE/A15/3]. Mr David Ritchie deals with the findings of the Environmental Statement in his Proof of Evidence. Mr Chris Surfleet covers the Cultural Heritage aspects in his Proof of Evidence. 5 Impact on the public, businesses and the public. The environmental impacts of the Order are fully set out in the Environmental Statement [WCCE/A15/1], [WCCE/A15/2] and [WCCE/A15/3]. Mr Jeremy Gardner deals with impacts on storage, access and servicing arrangements to premises in his Proof of Evidence. Mr George Lunt deals with the effects on Pipers Row and Fryer Street car parks and the City ring road and on the impact on pedestrian, cycle and motor traffic Page 17 of 33
during construction and operation of the scheme in his Proof of Evidence. Mr David Ritchie deals with the ecological impacts and whether any licences are likely to be required from Natural England in his Proof of Evidence. Mr Chris Surfleet covers the Cultural Heritage aspects in his Proof of Evidence. 6 Effects on Statutory Undertakings and other Utility providers 7 Effects on the Canal and River Trust Mr Jeremy Gardner deals this in his Proof of Evidence. Mr Jeremy Gardner deals this in his Proof of Evidence. 8 Implications for rail users, train operators, Network Rail and businesses located at Wolverhampton Railway Station This is covered in section 10 of Peter Adams' Proof of Evidence [APP/P1.1/SCH], by Mr Jeremy Gardner in his Proof of Evidence [APP/P3.1/ENG] and other witnesses as specifically referred to below. Mr Neil Chadwick reviews these impacts in the context of the business case for the scheme in his Proof of Evidence [APP/2.1/ECO]. Mr George Lunt deals with the impact on pedestrian, cycle and motor traffic during construction and operation of the scheme in relation to rail users in his Proof of Evidence [APP/P4.1/TRA]. 9 Impacts on the Old Steam Mill Section 6 of my Proof of Evidence covers the planning policy considerations of impacts to heritage assets and should be read in conjunction with the evidence of Mr Chris Surfleet. 10 Mitigation The ES [WCCE/A15/1], [WCCE/A15/2] and [WCCE/A15/3] identifies the potential impacts arising from the Order. Mr David Ritchie deals with the findings of the Environmental Statement and relevant mitigation in his Proof of Evidence. 11 Compulsory Purchase This is covered in section 4.23 of Mr Peter Adams' Evidence and in the Proof of Evidence of Mr Jeremy Gardner. 12 Crown Authority This is covered in Appendix B of Mr Peter Adams' Proof of Evidence. 13 Funding This is covered in section 7 of Mr Peter Adams' Proof of Evidence. Page 18 of 33
14 Planning Conditions I deal with the proposed planning conditions in Section 7 of my Proof of Evidence and Appendix 1. MATTER 2 - ALTERNATIVE ROUTE OPTIONS 6.3 As set in Sections 3.7-3.9 of the Environmental Statement Volume 2 Main Report (Doc WCCE/A15/2) and in Section 5 of the evidence of Mr Adams and Section 2.25 of Mr Gardner s Proof, a thorough and comprehensive assessment of alternatives was undertaken, prior to finalising the preferred route that is now the subject of this TWA Order application. Section 3.8 of the ES Volume 2 also identifies the extensive consultation process that was undertaken with key stakeholders and how this informed the final route alignment. 6.4 In so far as the preferred route relates to matters of planning policy and land use, I refer you to my evidence below, which confirms that the Scheme follows the aspirations of the Wolverhampton Unitary Development Plan (UDP)(Doc WCCE/E6/1), where in para 14.9.16 the Council promotes an on street extension of Midland Metro from its current terminus at St Georges to serve the bus and railway stations. 6.5 The WCCE Scheme alignment also aligns with the objectives of the emerging Wolverhampton City Centre Area Action Plan (AAP) (Doc WCC/E4), which like the adopted UDP also promotes an on street extension of Midland Metro to serve the bus and railway stations. However, it also reinforces the linkage and integration with the WIP Proposals and includes a spatial framework under Policy CA3 for the City Interchange and Commercial Gateway. Figures 6, 17 and 18 (Appendix 2) of the Draft AAP include an on street alignment to Midland Metro that is reflected in the Order Scheme and Proposal CC6 (Map Ref T12) (Appendix 3) identifies an extension of the existing Metro route from its current terminus to the Interchange. 6.6 There is an interface consideration however, in relation to the preferred alignment and the land take from the existing surface car park at Pipers Row, which is currently operated by NCP. This is dealt with in further detail in paragraphs 1.6.30-1.6.32 of the Addendum to the ES, whereby it is recognised that, to incorporate the alignment and configuration of the Metro Stop infrastructure, a limited amount of frontage land is required from the surface car park at Pipers Row. This is illustrated on AECOM Drawing WCCE-HDP-006-REV C01 (Appendix 2 of Mr Lidgley s Proof) and demonstrates that, whilst some of the existing car parking bays to the Pipers Row frontage will be required to accommodate the alignment, with a revised access arrangement and modifications to the car park layout, it can continue to function as a surface car park. Mr Lidgley in his evidence deals with this matter in further detail. 6.7 There is also the consideration of the long terms aspirations in the UDP and AAP for the car park land at Pipers Row to come forward as development site for a mix of commercial, retail, leisure and residential uses. These are set out in proposals CC7 (ii) of the UDP and Table CA3A of the AAP. As set out in the land use/land take section of the ES Addendum, I am of the opinion that the two proposals can co-exist as any future mixed use scheme on the Pipers Row land would benefit from excellent public transport facilities, including the new proposed Metro Stop and linkage to the bus and rail stations. It is recognised that whilst a small part (approximately 12.5%) of the future development Page 19 of 33
site would be required to accommodate the Metro alignment and stop infrastructure, this would not prevent the land coming forward for a mixed use development in the future, albeit on slightly smaller footprint. There is also the option for any new building on that site for the Pipers Row to oversail the Metro Stop at a higher level, which would not only reinforce the street frontage but would also maximise the potential floorspace on the upper floors. This would of course be the subject of discussions between the prospective developer and the local planning authority. 6.8 As such, I am content that the consideration of alternatives and route selection process has been robust and that the proposed route alignment, accords with current and emerging planning and transportation policy. MATTER 3 - THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE OBJECTIVES OF THE TWA ORDER ARE CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL, REGIONAL AND LOCAL TRANSPORTATION POLICIES 6.9 In terms of assessing how the scheme accords or otherwise with planning and transportation policy at a national and local level, I am familiar with the policy framework in so far as it relates to the WCCE Order. Whilst I do not cover every planning and transportation policy or plan listed above in full, I identify below, the key plans and policies that are of particular relevance to the Scheme and comment on how the WCCE Scheme accords or otherwise. 6.10 In particular, I will be referring to the following key planning and transportation policies and plans:- The National Planning Policy Framework, Wolverhampton UDP; Black Country Joint Core Strategy; Wolverhampton City Centre AAP; Towards a World Class Integrated Transport Network (2013); West Midlands Local Transport Plan 2011 2026 6.11 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (Doc WCC/E1) sets out what sustainable development means in practice for the planning system in England and provides the basis for planning decisions. The Framework states that economic, social and environmental gains should be sought jointly and simultaneously through the planning system. 6.12 The NPPF sets out the Government s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. Paragraph 6 confirms that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development which, for the purpose of the planning system, is defined by paragraphs 18 to 219 of the Framework, taken as a whole. 6.13 Paragraph 7 outlines the three dimensions of sustainable development (economic, social and environmental) and corresponding roles for the planning system: An economic role contributing to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right type is Page 20 of 33
available in the right places and at the right time to support growth and innovation; and by identifying and coordinating development requirements, including the provision of infrastructure. A social role supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of the present and future generations; and by creating a high quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community s needs and support its health, social and cultural wellbeing; and An environmental role contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; and, as part of this, helping to improve biodiversity, use of natural resources prudently, minimise waste and pollution, and mitigate and adapt to climate change including moving a low carbon economy. 6.14 Paragraph 8 makes clear that these roles should not be undertaken in isolation because they are mutually dependent. That is to say there are many overlapping factors to their operation, and they should be addressed together and as part of a balancing exercise. 6.15 Paragraph 14 states that at the heart of the NPPF is the presumption in favour of sustainable development, which is to be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-making. For decision taking this means approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay (unless material considerations indicate otherwise), and: where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, granting permission unless: - any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or - specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted. 6.16 The NPPF identifies a series of core planning principles which include, inter alia, actively managing patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling, and focusing development in locations which are or can be made sustainable. 6.17 Section 4 of the NPPF seeks to promote sustainable transport and seeks to widen transport choice. Paragraph 29 makes clear that the transport system needs to be balanced in favour of sustainable transport modes, giving people a real choice about how they travel, recognising that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas. 6.18 Paragraph 31 encourages local authorities to work with neighbouring authorities and transport providers to develop strategies for the provision of viable infrastructure necessary to support sustainable development. 6.19 Paragraph 35 states that planning authorities should exploit opportunities for the use of sustainable transport modes for the movement of goods and people. Page 21 of 33
6.20 Section 7 of the Framework confirms that great importance is attached to the design of the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute towards making places better for people. Paragraph 64 states that permission should be refused for development which is of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions. 6.21 Section 12 of the NPPF seeks to preserve and enhance the historic environment recognising that heritage assets (designated and non-designated) are an irreplaceable resource. Conservation should be carried out in a manner appropriate to the significance of the heritage asset. 6.22 The NPPF contains further guidance regarding the determination of applications affecting heritage assets. Paragraph 132 makes clear that where a proposed development has an impact on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Paragraph 133 states that Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss... Paragraph 134 goes on to say that where less than substantial harm to a designated heritage asset takes place as a result of the development proposal, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. 6.23 I expand on this further in evidence below in terms of my assessment of the findings of Mr Surfleet and how the impacts of the WCCE Scheme affect the designated heritage assets. 6.24 In so far as the above national planning policies are relevant, in my opinion and with reference to the Evidence given by Mr Adams and Mr Surfleet, the WCCE Order is in accordance with them in all respects. Statutory Development Plan (Adopted) 6.25 The current local planning policy framework for the Scheme includes the Wolverhampton Unitary Development Plan(2006)(Doc WCC/E6/1) saved policies, which continue to have effect until superseded on the adoption of a replacement development plan document, along with the Black Country Joint Core Strategy which was adopted in 2011. Wolverhampton Unitary Development Plan(2006) 6.26 In terms of the Wolverhampton UDP, as set out in Section 5 of my Proof, Policy AM8 is of particular relevance to the Order along with paragraphs 14.9.14 to 14.9.16. 6.27 Policy AM8 is the principal policy in the Plan that relates to the promotion of public transport and supports the further development of Midland Metro. 6.28 Paragraphs 14.9.14 of the Plan, go on to reinforce the importance of the railway station as a major gateway into the City Centre and the proposed Interchange scheme seeks to improve integration across all transport modes. In particular, 14.9.6 of the UDP reinforces the importance of Midland Metro contributing to the regeneration of the City Centre and a proposed street running extension from the current terminus at St Georges to serve the bus and rail stations. Page 22 of 33
6.29 It is evident that the WCCE scheme directly accords with Policy AM8 in that involves the further development of the Midland Metro Network and the proposed tramway alignment also achieves the aspirations of paragraphs 14.9.14-14.9.16 in terms of delivering improved interchange between all transport modes. 6.30 Policy CC4 of the UDP relates to priorities for improving the City Centre environment including promoting the right image and achieving high standards of design in new developments. As set out in Section 9 of the ES Volume 2, it concludes that with a commitment to high quality materials in keeping with the existing urban fabric the WCCE would be beneficial to the townscape character and visual amenity and achieve regeneration objectives. To ensure these benefits would be delivered through the detailed design process, it is proposed that adequate controls are provided to the Local Planning Authority via suitably worded planning conditions. These are set out in Appendix 1 and in particular, draft planning conditions 2, 3 and 4 would be applied to ensure a high level of design quality was delivered through the detailed design process for the Scheme. 6.31 Policy CC5 is also directly relevant to the Scheme and supports improved access and interchange to the rail station and the extension to Midland Metro services, with the objective for maximising the regeneration benefits of the Canalside Quarter. I have commented below on the merits of the scheme in relation to supporting development aspirations at the Canalside Quarter promoted under Policy CC7. 6.32 In terms of site specific land use allocations that are relevant to the Scheme, I refer to Section 1.6 of the AECOM ES Addendum which sets out the impacts of the scheme on land use and land take. 6.33 In terms of land required permanently for the operation of the scheme, the principal impacts relate to the frontage land at the Crown Court, frontage land at the NCP Car Park off Pipers Row, circulation space at the Railway and MSCP and frontage land at the Steam Mill. 6.34 Whilst there are no specific designations in the UDP for land at the Crown Court and the railway Station, over and above those already referred to above linked to Policy AM8, the land currently occupied by NCP as a surface car park is designated in Policy CC7(ii)(Cultural Quarter) for mixed use development including car parking. The Steam Mill and adjoining land is allocated under Policy CC12(vi) as requiring sensitive refurbishment and conversion for workspace or residential use. 6.35 I concur with the findings of the ES Addendum, that whilst the Scheme will involve some limited permanent land take from these two development sites, it will not undermine their ability to come forward in line with the development plan allocations CC7(ii) and CC12(vi) respectively. 6.36 In so far as the above saved policies of the Wolverhampton UDP are concerned, I am of the opinion that the Order is in accordance with these in terms of their support for supporting the regeneration of the City Centre, high standards of design, improved public transport interchange and extension of the Midland Metro network. Black Country Joint Core Strategy 2011 6.37 In terms of the Black Country Joint Core Strategy 2011(Doc WCCE/E3/1), Policies CSP5 and TRAN1 are of particular relevance to the Order in terms of the Scheme s compliance with adopted planning policy. Page 23 of 33
6.38 Policy CSP5 has the strategic objective to improve accessibility and connectivity of an integrated public transport network. Whilst Wolverhampton is already served by a range of public transport services, including rail, bus and light rail, connections and integration of these modes has been identified locally as a priority for improvement. 6.39 Para 2.38 of the Joint Core Strategy mentions specifically the development and promotion of high quality and reliable public transport, which includes Midland Metro, as a means to delivering the strategic transport objectives. 6.40 TRAN 1 of the Joint Core Strategy identifies the key improvements in transport infrastructure required to deliver the strategic objectives for the Black Country and these include the extension of the Midland Metro Network. Paragraph 5.2 goes on to stress the importance of providing a fast, reliable and high quality public rapid transit system between the key centres of Wolverhampton, West Bromwich and Birmingham. It also stresses the importance of better integration of all modes of public transport including bus, rail and Metro services. 6.41 In so far as the above Black Country Core Strategy Policies are concerned, the Scheme is in full accord as it will deliver provide a fast, reliable and high quality public transport service and also bring about improved integration of rail, bus and Metro services in Wolverhampton City Centre. Emerging Planning Policy Wolverhampton City Centre Action Plan 2015-2026 (Draft) 6.42 Wolverhampton MBC is promoting the Wolverhampton City Centre Action Plan( Consultation Draft February 2015)(Doc WCCE/E4) and key policies that I have identified as having particular relevance to the Scheme include Policy CC6(Transport), Policy CC8 (High Quality Design and Public Realm, and Policy CA3 (City Interchange and Commercial Gateway) 6.43 Policy CC6 sets out the strategic aims for new development and includes (a) supporting Phase 2 of the Interchange Project which includes an extension to Midland Metro to serve the rail and bus stations, along with the refurbishment of the MSCP and additional commercial, hotel and retail floorspace, along with the ability to extend Midland Metro towards Walsall, via New Cross Hospital and Wednesfield. 6.44 Policy CC8 aims to create a safe, attractive and well connected public realm through a requirement for development proposals to use good quality hard landscaping materials (traditional) and provide high quality street furniture and boundary treatments. The AAP under paragraph 3.3.3 identifies the Canalside Quarter and City Interchange/Commercial Gateway as a priority for improved design and place making. 6.45 Policy CA3 provides a more detailed set of regeneration objectives, with accompanying plans in the form of Figures 16, 17 and 18 (see Appendix 2) that illustrate the aspirations for development of the City Interchange and Commercial Gateway. The Policy and accompanying figures demonstrate a clear commitment by the Council, to the improved integration of public transport services and of particular relevance to this Scheme, the extension of Midland Metro from its existing terminus at St Georges to the railway station and associated works adjacent to the Steam Mill building. 6.46 Paragraph 4.4.3 of the Draft AAP, recognises the partnership between the Council, Centro, Network Rail and Neptune Developments as key to delivering the City Interchange and Commercial Gateway objectives. Page 24 of 33