http://www.nwda.co.uk/pdf/MerseyBeltStudyPolicyStatement by Northwest Regional Development Agency

Mersey Belt Study Policy Statement

October 2003

Foreword The Northwest Development Agency has considered this report and approved it as a statement of Agency policy. The Agency has also resolved to: a) Formally designate Alderley Park (Astra Zeneca), Macclesfield as an additional strategic regional site, within the boundaries indicated in the Macclesfield Local Plan and approved planning brief. b) Note the special importance of sites at Hooton Interchange (Ellesmere Port) and Wigan South Central as strategic opportunities for encouraging the development of knowledge based industry in RPGâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s North West Metropolitan Area, and working alongside the local authorities concerned, endorse the use of the Agencyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s powers and resources (including land assembly and if necessary compulsory purchase) to bring about their successful regeneration and development.

October 2003

Contents Section

Page

Introduction

Results of consultation

Regional Planning Guidance for the North West (RPG13) â&#x20AC;&#x201C; policy implications

Strategic regional sites

Comments received on potential additional strategic regional sites

General comments received

Responses to consultantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s recommendations

Appendices

Plan 1 Recommended strategy Plan 2 Key transport schemes

1 Introduction 1.1 The Mersey Belt Study was published in May 2002 and circulated to all local authorities in the North West and to other regional partners. The study sought to: • Identify the steps needed to manage better all assets within the Mersey Belt Southern Crescent so that economic potential could be encouraged and realised creatively, without compromising the principles of sustainable development. • Support and complement regeneration in the Metropolitan Axis by identifying realistic and sustainable opportunities to accommodate and deflect development pressures from the south to the north of the River Mersey in the short and long term. 1.2 During March and April 2003 the Agency circulated a draft Position Statement on the Mersey Belt Study for consultation. This set out the NWDA’s interim response to all the consultant’s recommendations; identified potential additional strategic regional sites; and clarified the position on terminology. 1.3 Since circulating the Position Statement the Agency has published the new Regional Economic Strategy (RES), and final Regional Planning Guidance for the North West (RPG13) has been issued by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. 1.4 Within the RES, Objective 9 ‘Ensure the availability of a balanced portfolio of employment sites’, both the key activities are relevant to the Mersey Belt Study: • 9.1

Secure the development of designated strategic regional sites to boost business growth opportunities.

• 9.2

Secure a complementary portfolio of sub regional and local employment sites.

1.5 Within the explanatory text to Objective 9 the Strategy makes further reference to the Mersey Belt Study: “A limited number of further (strategic regional) sites may be required, for example sites arising from local plans or from studies such as the Mersey Belt Study. In relation to the Mersey Belt Study the NWDA will prepare a position statement which will set out its own interim conclusions. The NWDA will then consult widely with regional partners and consider any representations before formally designating any further strategic regional sites”. 1.6 This Policy Statement completes the process referred to in the Regional Economic Strategy. It sets out the Agency’s final policy and response to recommendations. It is important to emphasise that the Agency is not a planning authority; nor is it taking any land use or transport planning decisions. Nonetheless this document does formally establish the Agency’s position for the future involvement in relevant planning and transport issues, including development plans, strategic planning applications, local transport plans and relevant national policies (such as Strategic Rail Authority and Highways Agency Policies). 1.7 The draft Position Statement was published before final RPG was issued. In finalising this Policy Statement the Agency has had regard to relevant policies in RPG. 1.8 The terms ‘Southern Crescent’ and ‘Metropolitan Axis’ are used above only as a matter of historical record. They have been useful analytical concepts, highlighting the different economic and regeneration issues within the densely populated functional areas around and between Manchester and Liverpool. RPG has reflected these issues in its identification of the North West Metropolitan Area Regeneration Priority Area, and in the special policy framework for North Cheshire. These RPG Policies are referred to, where relevant, in the Statement.

Page 1

2 Results of consultation 2.1 The draft Position Statement was issued for consultation on 18th March 2003. Consultees included the NWRA, GONW, the local planning authorities in the region, sub-regional partnerships, business organisations, higher education institutions, and environmental and transport interests in the North West (a full list of consultees and respondents is listed in Table A4 at the end of this section). Owners of the proposed additional sites were not consulted. The Position Statement was also made available on the Agency’s website (www.nwda.co.uk). The closing date for comments was 5th May 2003. 2.2 A total of 96 organisations were formally consulted, 22 of whom replied. This represents a response rate of 23%. In addition, one further response was received from a non-consultee; a private company1. 2.3 Table A1 compares the profiles of the types of organisations formally consulted with the consultees who replied and with all respondents. In comparing the proportion of those formally consulted and the consultees who replied, it can be seen that central/local government is considerably over-represented, as are environmental organisations. By contrast, business organisations are under-represented, as are transport organisations.

Table A1 – Profile of consultees and respondents Formally consulted

Central/local government

Consultees who replied

All respondents

Number

Business

Sub-regional partnership

Education

Environmental

Transport

Total

100

2.4 A similar analysis showing the geographical spread of formal consultees, consultees who replied and all respondents is in Table A2. As one would expect there is a relatively high response rate from areas directly affected by the Mersey Belt Study – Merseyside, Cheshire and Greater Manchester – with the highest response rate (32%) in Greater Manchester Table A2 – Consultees and respondents by area Formally consulted

Consultees who replied

All respondents

Number

Cheshire

Cumbria

Greater Manchester

Lancashire

Merseyside

National/Regional

Total

100

1A further response was received from an Association of Town and Parish Councils (a non-consultee). Due to its late arrival after the consultation deadline, it has not been considered.

Page 2

2.5 Table A3 is a cross tabulation of all responses by type and area.

Table A3 – Respondents by type and area Cheshire

Cumbria

Greater Manchester

Lancashire

Merseyside

National/ regional

Total

Central/local government

Business

Sub-regional partnership

Education

Environmental

Transport

Total

2.6 Section 5 (below) contains summaries of all comments received on each of the potential additional strategic regional sites. Section 6 contains summaries of all general comments received. Section 7 contains a table setting out: i.

consultants’ detailed recommendations;

ii.

NWDA’s interim response;

iii.

relevant local authorities;

iv.

a summary of each individual consultee’s comments; and

NWDA’s response to consultees’ comments.

Page 3

2.7 Table A4 lists all consultees and respondents.

Table A4 Organisation formally consulted

Responded

Association of Greater Manchester Authorities (AGMA)

✔

Organisation formally consulted

English Partnerships

Associated British Ports

Environment Agency

Barrow BC

Friends of the Earth

Blackburn with Darwen BC

Fylde BC

Blackpool BC

Greater Manchester Public Transport Executive (GMPTE) ✔

Government Office for the North West

Bury MBC

Greater Merseyside Enterprises

Carlisle City Council

Halton BC

CBI North West

Highways Agency

Chamber Business Enterprises

Hyndburn BC

Cheshire and Warrington Economic Alliance

Knowsley MBC

Cheshire County Council

✔

Lancashire County Council

Chester City Council

✔

Lancashire West Partnership

Chorley BC

Lancaster City Council

Congleton BC

Lancaster University

Copeland BC

Liverpool Airport

Countryside Agency

✔

Liverpool City Council

Council for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE)

✔

Liverpool John Moores University

Crewe and Nantwich BC

Liverpool Land Development Company

Cumbria County Council

Liverpool Vision

Cumbria Inward Investment Agency

Macclesfield BC

East Lancashire Partnership

Manchester Airport

Eden DC

Manchester City Council

English Heritage

✔

GO-Merseyside

Burnley BC

Ellesmere Port and Neston BC

Responded

English Nature

Allerdale DC

Bolton MBC (with Bolton WIDE)

Page 4

Table A4 (continued)

Manchester Enterprises Manchester Metropolitan University

✔

Table A4 (continued) Organisation formally consulted

Table A4 (continued) Responded

Organisation formally consulted

Mersey Docks and Harbour Company

Salford City Council

Mersey Partnership

Sefton MBC

Mersey/Dee Alliance

South Lakeland DC

Merseyside Policy Unit

✔

Merseytravel Manchester Investment and Development Agency Service (MIDAS)

South Ribble BC Strategic Rail Authority

✔

St Helens MBC Stockport MBC

New East Manchester

✔

Sustainable and Urban Regional Futures (SURF)

North Manchester Chamber Business Services North Manchester Partnership

Tameside MBC

North Manchester Regeneration

Trafford MBC

North West Business Leadership Team

UMIST

North West Chambers of Commerce

University of Liverpool

North West Regional Assembly

Responded

✔

University of Manchester

Oldham MBC

University of Salford

Pendle BC

Vale Royal BC

Preston BC

Warrington BC

Railtrack Group plc

West Cumbria Partnership

Ribble Valley BC

West Lancashire DC

RICS North West

Wigan MBC

✔

Rochdale MBC

Wirral MBC

✔

Rossendale BC

Wyre BC

Responses from non-consultees Peel Holdings plc

Page 5

3 Regional Planning Guidance for the North West (RPG 13) – policy implications 3.1 The draft Position Statement was prepared against the backcloth of the draft version of Regional Planning Guidance, issued in May 2002, and the Agency’s response to that draft. The Agency indicated that should final RPG be issued during the course of the consultation exercise, it would be taken into account alongside comments from consultees. 3.2 Final Regional Planning Guidance for the North West (RPG13) was published on 31st March 2003. Those policies that are of particular relevance to the Mersey Belt Study are outlined below. 3.3 Policies DP1 to DP4 set out RPG13’s Core Development Principles. Policy DP1 promotes “economy in the use of land and buildings” by establishing a sequential approach to meeting development needs. This essentially favours: (i) the effective use of existing buildings and infrastructure within urban areas, ahead of; (ii) previously developed land (particularly that which is accessible by sustainable modes of transport), and; (iii) previously undeveloped land where this avoids important areas of open space. 3.4 Policy DP4 seeks to promote sustainable economic growth, competitiveness and social inclusion. It says that development plans and other strategies should help to grow the region’s economy in a sustainable way and produce a greater degree of social inclusion. The Mersey Belt Study’s objectives of realising the Mersey Belt’s economic potential and deflecting development pressures from areas south of the River Mersey further north are consistent with the aims of Policy DP4. 3.5 RPG’s Spatial Development Framework is encapsulated in Policies SD1 to SD5. Policy SD1 says that the ‘North West Metropolitan Area’ (NWMA)2 should be the focus of a significant proportion of development and urban renaissance resources, especially the regional poles of Liverpool and Manchester/Salford (i.e. their city centres and surrounding inner areas). Elsewhere in Greater Manchester and Merseyside, priority is given to towns and boroughs with concentrations of social, economic and environmental problems. The whole of the NWMA is designated as a Regeneration Priority Area. 3.6 Policy SD2 deals with those parts of the NWMA outside Greater Manchester and Merseyside. It seeks to secure wideranging regeneration and environmental enhancement, especially in Runcorn, Widnes, Ellesmere Port, Warrington and Skelmersdale. In Ellesmere Port, significant enhancement is required in terms of image and opportunities for a higher quality of life. In relation to Warrington, Policy SD2 says the focus should be on regeneration and restructuring of the older areas and not allowing further significant outward expansion onto open land beyond existing commitments. 3.7 Policy SD4 addresses urban form and setting, with particular reference to the treatment of North Cheshire. Given the continued high demand for development in North Cheshire, it calls for a review of all development plan allocations to ensure that they are fully justified in relation to RPG13’s Core Development Principles and Spatial Development Framework. Policy SD4 advises that only those allocations which are sustainable and add significant value to the development of the national economy or which are of greater than regional significance should be retained, together with those which meet purely local needs. New allocations may be contemplated where they enable expansion of existing high technology and research establishments of at least regional significance. 3.8 Policy SD5 relates to the region’s Green Belts. It explains that the need to review Green Belt boundaries will be the subject of studies involving relevant local authorities and the Regional Assembly. These studies will, in turn, inform future reviews of RPG and subsequent reviews of development plans. This Policy Statement does not recommend the release of any sites from the Green Belt.

Page 6

2 The NWMA includes the whole of Greater Manchester and most of Merseyside (with the exception of parts of Wirral MBC), the town of Ellesmere Port and eastern half of Ellesmere Port and Neston, the town of Skelmersdale, Halton and the town of Warrington north of the Manchester Ship Canal and its urban area to the south.

3.9 Policy EC1 seeks to strengthen the regional economy through an increasing focus on the sectoral priorities within the Regional Economic Strategy3. All the key sites ‘Category A and B’ in the Mersey Belt Study have been identified for their potential to accommodate the target growth sectors (excluding tourism) at paragraph 4.7 of RPG13. 3.10 In line with the NWDA’s formal consultation response, Policies EC3 ‘Key Growth Sectors’ and EC4 ‘Knowledge Based Industries’ have been amalgamated into a revised Policy EC3 on Knowledge Based Industries. This states that, “…. development plans and other strategies should facilitate the development of sites with direct access to research establishments, including universities, higher education institutes and major hospitals. Priority locations will be in the main conurbations, close to centres of research, or within science parks….”. 3.11 Policy EC4 ‘Business Clusters’ seeks to promote the clustering of existing and new economic activities with the potential for sustainable growth. Clusters designed to support knowledge-based industries should make provision for networks based on information communication technologies and, as a preference, be located near to higher education institutes, major hospitals, research establishments or major technology-based businesses. 3.12 Policy EC5 on Regional Investment Sites no longer seeks to reserve such sites solely for inward investment. It says that development plans and other strategies should identify Regional Investment Sites for strategic business investment which supports the region’s sectoral priorities. This approach is clearly more supportive of the Regional Economic Strategy. Subsequent criteria for the identification of Regional Investment Sites remain largely unchanged from the previous draft version of RPG4. 3.13 Policy EC6 addresses “the regeneration challenge” of bringing the benefits of economic growth to areas of acute need. It calls for the NWDA’s investment in Regeneration Priority Areas and derelict land reclamation to be supported by development plan and local transport plan policies to encourage and simultaneously deliver: • improved linkages …. between thriving areas and other areas nearby where employment opportunities are more limited; and • co-ordinated and coherent efforts to enhance the attractiveness to potential investors of locations in more needy areas … especially within the North West Metropolitan Area. 3.14 The intentions behind Policy EC6 lie at the heart of the Mersey Belt Study. Specific recommendations clearly support EC6 by, for example, seeking to: • deflect development pressures from north Cheshire to those areas north of the River Mersey in greatest need of regeneration; and • maximise Omega’s potential by enhancing public transport accessibility from south Warrington and towns in neighbouring districts such as St Helens, Wigan and Halton. 3.15 RPG’s approach to town centres, retail, leisure and office development is set out in Policy EC8. The office development element of this policy is pertinent to the Mersey Belt Study. The final version of Policy EC8 has, in some part, allayed the Agency’s concerns about its potentially restrictive impact upon office development within the region. Office uses are directed to locations within or adjoining city, town or district centres, or locations near to major public transport interchanges in urban areas.

3References to the Regional Economic Strategy within RPG13 are to the first Regional Strategy published in 2000 4In designating its strategic regional sites the Agency is not taking any land use planning decisions but is nonetheless establishing its own position and policy direction as the basis for its future involvement in relevant planning issues and decisions. The identification of Regional Investment Sites is a matter for local planning authorities to consider, in consultation with NWDA, NWRA and GONW, and bring forward as appropriate through their development plans within the framework set by RPG.

Page 7

4 Strategic regional sites 4.1 The Mersey Belt Study identified 40 key sites as being suitable for knowledge based industries. The consultants classified 10 of these sites as ‘Category A’ in which public investment needs to be made, especially to improve accessibility, infrastructure and image. The other 30 ‘Category B’ sites, are no less important for knowledge-based industry in policy terms, but the consultants think that, in general they have a lower call on public investment for site preparation and assembly. 4.2 In addition, the consultants made site-specific recommendations about: (a) The feasibility of creating a new incubator/managed workspace centre of excellence in environmental technology in Warrington (Mersey Belt Study paragraph 3.14). (b) The potential of reserving a very high quality site in Warrington for a small number of target sector users (paragraph 3.38). (c) Allowing Astra Zeneca to redevelop and expand within its existing site at Alderley Park and, if necessary, allowing Astra Zeneca’s Alderley Park facility to expand into the Green Belt (paragraph 6.7). (d) Concentrating resources on a small number of locations and improving transport links in the “gap area” between the two conurbations – specific references to Wigan South Central and Middlebrook, Bolton (paragraphs 6.8 – 6.13). 4.3 The Position Statement circulated for consultation considered the recommendations of the consultants and identified six potential candidates for designation as strategic regional sites, as follows: • Alderley Park (Astra Zeneca), Macclesfield • Capenhurst, Chester • Chester City Centre • Hooton, Ellesmere Port • Middlebrook, Bolton • Wigan South Central 4.4 Specific sites are considered in turn below, where the discussion of specific sites needs to be read alongside the detailed summaries of responses given in Section 5. The Agency’s response on individual sites is also influenced by RPG and by comments made by some consultees (such as the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities) who expressed the view that resources should be concentrated on a smaller number of sites rather than thinly spread over a large number.

Alderley Park (Astra Zeneca), Macclesfield 4.5 The consultants recognised that the Astra Zeneca site at Alderley Park is a crucial component in the region’s life sciences cluster. They recommended that expansion should be encouraged by fostering links along a North-South Axis within Greater Manchester; improving public transport and road links (including the Alderley Edge Bypass); and, in very exceptional circumstances, allowing expansion which involved Green Belt release.

Page 8

4.6 One respondent supported Alderley Park as a strategic regional site. Macclesfield Borough Council, and the Council for Protection of Rural England expressed concern about the suggestion that expansion involving Green Belt release should be supported. Cheshire County Council noted that the site offered clear potential for consolidation for life science research. Notwithstanding their concerns about potential Green Belt expansion, Macclesfield Borough Council acknowledged the regional and national importance of the Astra Zeneca Site. The Merseyside Policy Unit noted that expansion of Alderley Park may comply with RPG Policy SD45. 4.7 RPG Policy SD4 states that in North Cheshire, “New employment land allocations may be contemplated where they clearly enable sustainable expansion of existing high technology and research establishments of at least regional significance”. The supporting text notes that, “Allocations will need to be retained if they will enable significant growth in the national and regional economy in respect of high technology and research enterprises…”. The policy clearly acknowledges the special significance of research establishments in North Cheshire and provides the framework for suitably supportive planning policy. 4.8 In addition, support is given by RPG Policies EC3 and EC4. Policy EC3, Knowledge Based Industries, says that development plans should facilitate the development of sites with direct access to research establishments. Sites should be close to centres of research, or within science parks and capable of providing good environmental quality. Policy EC4, Business Clusters, asks plans to promote clustering of new economic activities. Clusters to support knowledge-based industries may preferably be located near to major research establishments. 4.9 The significance of the Alderley Park Site to the region’s life science cluster, and indeed in a national context, cannot be doubted. It is a critical component in the regional and national economy. Designation as a strategic regional site should be confirmed, but only in relation to the area indicated as a major developed site in the Green Belt in the Macclesfield Local Plan and within the approved planning brief. In the light of this designation, the Agency will be able to take a view on any expansion proposals beyond that area, should they come forward in the future. The consultants other recommendations, including those relating to transport issues, should be supported. Following designation as a strategic regional site all the Board resolutions in the formal designation report of December 2001 would apply to the site.

Capenhurst, Chester 4.10 Capenhurst received positive comments from Cheshire County Council, Chester City Council and Peel Holdings, but was opposed by the Council for the Protection of Rural England. Merseyside Policy Unit were concerned that NWDA resources should be concentrated on sites closer to Merseyside. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council noted that Capenhurst was easily accessible by rail to Wirral residents. 4.11 Although well located on the Chester to Liverpool rail line Capenhurst is close to Hooton, and is outside the North West Metropolitan Area Regeneration Priority Area. Capenhurst should not be designated as a strategic regional site, but nonetheless remains a significant opportunity in North Cheshire for accommodating knowledge-based industries on an existing developed site (identified as a major developed site within the Green Belt) with good public transport access. It is therefore supported by RPG Policies SD4, EC3 and EC4.

5 Note: Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council have specifically endorsed the entire Merseyside Policy Unit response.

Page 9

Chester City Centre 4.12 Chester City Council, Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council and Peel Holdings supported the proposal, but Cheshire County Council, Merseyside Policy Unit and the Council for the Protection of Rural England raised concerns. Cheshire felt that designating city centre sites for growth target sectors could have implications for the overall balance of employment land in the City. The Merseyside Policy Unit noted that Chester is not in RPG’s North West Metropolitan Area Regeneration Priority Area, and said that there was a risk of competition with sites on Merseyside. Chester City Centre is identified only as a general location but it is anticipated that any development sites subsequently identified within the area would comply with RPG Policy DP1 by utilising existing buildings and previously developed land. Sites within Chester City Centre would also comply with the provisions of Policy EC8 in relation to office development. 4.13 Chester is identified as a key town in RPG Policy SD3. Chester City Centre remains a sustainable location for the development of knowledge-based industry within travelling distance by rail from several parts of Merseyside. It should not be designated as a strategic regional site, but the Agency should continue to give its policy support for the development of knowledge-based industry in this location as part of a mixed-use approach.

Hooton Interchange, Ellesmere Port 4.14 Cheshire County Council, Peel Holdings, Ellesmere Port and Neston Borough Council made positive comments. Cheshire believed the Hooton site could help to divert pressure from Chester. Ellesmere Port and Neston pointed to its importance as a key element in the Ellesmere Port and Neston Economic Development Zone (EDZ), and to the excellent public transport links with Ellesmere Port, Chester and Merseyside. 4.15 The Merseyside Policy Unit confirmed that the site is within the North West Metropolitan Area Regeneration Priority Area, although they appeared to confuse the site with the nearby Hooton Park site. To clarify the situation it is suggested that the site should in future be referred to as Hooton Interchange. 4.16 Hooton Interchange is a brownfield site identified as a major developed site in the Green Belt. It is located at a major public transport interchange, comprising a park and ride site and a rail junction with services to Chester, Frodsham, Birkenhead, Liverpool and other locations on the Merseyrail electrified system. Its development for office purposes is therefore supported by RPG Policy EC8. The site is within RPG’s North West Metropolitan Area Regeneration Priority Area, and it is close to areas of considerable social and regeneration need in Ellesmere Port. Its development would help to deliver Policy SD2’s objectives of enhancing Ellesmere Port’s image and opportunities for a higher quality of life. 4.17 Given the relatively small size of the site (14.6ha), designation as a strategic regional site is not considered to be appropriate. However the consultants’ identification of Hooton Interchange as a ‘Category A’ site in the Mersey Belt Study should be endorsed, and the Agency should use all relevant powers and resources (including land assembly and if necessary compulsory purchase) to secure development for knowledge-based industry. Discussions with the local authority are already well advanced.

Page 10

Middlebrook, Bolton 4.18 Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council, the Merseyside Policy Unit, and Peel Holdings supported the proposal. However the Council for the Protection of Rural England expressed concern at the sites’ poor bus links and its general location, and the Environment Agency referred to potential surface water drainage and flood risk issues. These would need to be considered in the light of RPG Policy ER8. Middlebrook is served by the adjoining railway station, and would need to be considered against the Policy criteria set out in Policy EC8 of RPG. 4.19 In their response to consultation, Bolton referred to a wider Middlebrook area which appears to be at variance with the site identified by Bolton in earlier discussions. The Agency should not designate Middlebrook as a strategic regional site but the wider Middlebrook area should be further discussed with Bolton with a view to providing Agency policy support for the development of knowledge-based industries if appropriate.

Wigan South Central 4.20 Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council, the Merseyside Policy Unit and Peel Holdings supported the proposal. There were no objections. 4.21 Wigan South Central is located in the centre of the “gap area” defined by the Mersey Belt Study consultants. It is a major brownfield development opportunity at a central location in RPG’s North West Metropolitan Area Regeneration Priority Area. Wigan is identified in RPG’s key diagram as a Metropolitan “key town”. Its rail hub provides direct services to national destinations on the West Coast Main Line, and services to many regional destinations. It is well served by public transport. Office development is therefore supported by RPG Policy EC8. As with Chester City Centre, Wigan South Central is identified only as a general location. However it is anticipated that any development sites subsequently identified would similarly comply with RPG Policies DP1 and Policy EC8. 4.22 Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council has committed itself to work with NWDA to implement the proposal and consultants are developing the concept currently. Major infrastructure investment will be required to deliver the proposals. The Agency should regard Wigan South Central as an important opportunity in the “gap area”. However further work and feasibility study has yet to be completed, and designation as a strategic regional site is not therefore appropriate at this stage.

Page 11

5 Comments received on potential additional strategic regional sites Alderley Park (Astra Zeneca), Macclesfield

Page 12

Organisation/comments

NWDA Response

Cheshire County Council: this is an established major developed site in the Green Belt with an approved development brief. It offers clear potential for consolidation of the life science research function.

Support noted.

Council for the Protection of Rural England: strongly oppose any future expansion of Astra Zeneca site into the Green Belt. Position Statement para 3.2 is misleading. The brief in the Macclesfield Local Plan does allow for further development within the existing site, but it does not allow for the site to expand into the Green Belt.

The NWDA Policy Statement takes this point into account.

Astra Zeneca is a single firm and therefore cannot be regarded as a ‘life sciences cluster’.

Astra Zeneca is a critical component in the region’s life sciences cluster.

Any proposals for physical expansion by Astra Zeneca would constitute a planning decision for the local authorities, and be outside the remit of the NWDA.

NWDA is not a planning authority but may still wish to offer a view on issues that are critical to the implementation of the Regional Economic Strategy.

Environment Agency: surface water drainage issues will have to be carefully considered to prevent flooding problems downstream. Sustainable Drainage Systems are recommended. Will require details of any proposed culverting works for EA consent.

This is a detailed implementation issue.

Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council: fully support the response prepared by Merseyside Policy Unit on behalf of the Merseyside local authorities.

Noted.

Macclesfield Borough Council: it is inappropriate to suggest that if necessary, further expansion should be allowed as this would be at odds with the review process built into the Planning Brief.

NWDA is not a planning authority but may still wish to offer a view on issues that are critical to the implementation of the Regional Economic Strategy.

The site has a single occupant and in no respect represents a life sciences cluster to which other companies should be attracted. Such an approach would not be in accordance with RPG.

Astra Zeneca is a critical component in the region’s life-sciences cluster.

The consultant’s policy recommendation should not be agreed. A response which acknowledges the regional/national importance of the Astra Zeneca site and the approved Planning Brief for the site is supported, but without the additional wording.

Support noted for position now taken in NWDA Policy Statement.

Organisation/comments

NWDA Response

Merseyside Policy Unit: any major expansion of this site would appear to conflict with RPG Policy EC5 on Regional Investment Sites.

Regional Investment Sites are a land-use planning designation and their identification and designation is a matter for development plans. Strategic regional sites are identified by the Agency to assist in delivering the Regional Economic Strategy.

Expansion may comply with Policy SD4 as it may add significant value to the regional economy. Not possible to give clear judgement without further details.

Noted.

Peel Holdings plc: welcome the inclusion.

Support noted.

Capenhurst, Chester Organisation/comments

NWDA Response

Cheshire County Council: support the concept that seeks to divert pressure from Chester to key sites along the strategic corridor to the north. The site is already identified in the local plan as a Major Developed Site washed over by the Green Belt.

Support noted.

Chester City Council: welcomes the proposal to include Capenhurst as a potential strategic regional site. Is identified as a â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Major Developed Site in the Green Beltâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; in the Chester District Local Plan. It lies adjacent to Capenhurst station and current presence of high-tech companies gives it significant potential for specific sectors.

Support noted.

Council for the Protection of Rural England: a major developed site within the Green Belt according to the Chester District Local Plan and is thus covered by PPG2 Annex C. Concerned that its designation as a strategic regional site may cause pressures on the Green Belt â&#x20AC;&#x201C; consider it unsuitable for designation.

Capenhurst is not to be designated as a strategic regional site.

Page 13

Capenhurst, Chester (continued) Organisation/comments

NWDA Response

Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council: fully support the response prepared by Merseyside Policy Unit on behalf of the Merseyside local authorities.

Noted.

Merseyside Policy Unit: site lies outside the North West Metropolitan Area (NWMA). Although well served by Merseyrail network, it would encourage further out-commuting from Merseyside â&#x20AC;&#x201C; contrary to principle of reducing the need to travel. More appropriate to concentrate NWDA investment resources on sites physically closer to the heart of the Merseyside conurbation, in line with RPG and PPG13 principles.

Capenhurst is not to be designated as a strategic regional site.

Peel Holdings plc: welcome the inclusion.

Support noted.

Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council: although site is outside NWMA it can be accessed by Wirral residents from the Merseyside Objective 1 SIA using the Birkenhead-Chester Merseyrail network.

This site will not be designated as a strategic regional site although its potential, particularly in the medium-term, is recognised.

Although it would be preferable to promote development of sites in NWMA, as the Capenhurst site is well served by public transport, is not being promoted through Local Plan process, and comprises previously developed land, Wirral MBC does not raise an objection to designation of this site.

Chester City Centre Organisation/comments

NWDA Response

Cheshire County Council: the principle of using employment sites within existing urban centres to attract growth target sector investment is supported. It is important that the specific sites are identified.

It is not proposed to designate Chester City Centre as a strategic regional site.

Designating these city centre sites for growth target sectors may have implications for the overall balance of employment land in the city.

Page 14

Chester City Centre (continued) Organisation/comments

NWDA Response

Chester City Council: welcomes the proposal to include Chester City Centre sites as a potential strategic regional site. A number of sites are allocated for employment development and mixed-use. Development briefs have been prepared for the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s North East Urban Action Area. The sites score highly in terms of sustainability. They would be ideally placed to meet the needs of the target sectors.

It is not proposed to designate Chester City Centre as a strategic regional site. However, its potential for the development of knowledge-based industry is acknowledged and the Agency will continue to give support as part of a mixed-use approach.

Council for the Protection of Rural England: in the emerging Chester District Local Plan, city centre sites are allocated for mixed development. Believe it is important to maintain this mixed-use approach and not to favour city centre sites purely for employment use. Urge caution in designating more strategic regional sites not least because of consequent over-heating pressures on the housing market itself, which competes with land for employment use.

Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council: fully support the response prepared by Merseyside Policy Unit on behalf of the Merseyside local authorities.

Noted.

Merseyside Policy Unit: identification of investment sites within Chester conflicts with RPG and with concept of NWMA. Chester has a high demand for land within the city centre, with sites being under pressure from the residential market. In parts of Merseyside, without full support from the NWDA and others, sites are at risk of remaining empty or derelict. NWDA needs to remain committed to concept of NWMA.

It is not proposed to designate Chester City Centre as a strategic regional site.

Peel Holdings plc: welcome the inclusion.

Support noted.

Page 15

Chester City Centre (continued) Organisation/comments

NWDA Response

Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council: RPG 13 identifies Chester as a key location within which development outside NWMA should be concentrated, whilst reflecting the need for continual conservation with sensitive integration of new development, where needed.

Chesterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s gateway role should be supported by high quality modern facilities. Development in Chester City Centre is likely to be small-scale and relatively accessible to Wirral residents via Birkenhead-Chester railway line. As sites under consideration are largely brownfield land within existing built up area, Wirral MBC raise no objection to designation of this site.

Hooton Interchange, Ellesmere Port

Page 16

Organisation/comments

NWDA Response

Support noted.

Council for the Protection of Rural England: Hooton Park is identified in the Cheshire Structure Plan as a strategic employment site and is currently used by Vauxhall. Development of this site should not come about at the expense of other sites in Ellesmere Port that may more directly contribute to a higher quality of life and environmental enhancement as indicated in RPG policies SD1/SD2.

The Council for the Protection of Rural England appear to have confused the Hooton site with Hooton Park. For clarification, the site will now be referred to as Hooton Interchange.

Its competing effect with Wirral Borough, especially the economic renaissance of Birkenhead, must be considered.

Hooton Interchange is highly accessible for Birkenhead residents via the Merseyrail system.

Hooton Interchange, Ellesmere Port (continued) Organisation/comments

NWDA Response

Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council: fully support the response prepared by Merseyside Policy Unit on behalf of the Merseyside local authorities.

Noted.

Merseyside Policy Unit: understand that this site is Hooton Park, to the north of the Vauxhall Car Plant. Support Hooton Park site. Would sustain a major regional employer and provide facilities that could not be located elsewhere.

Merseyside Policy Unit appear to have confused the Hooton site with Hooton Park. For clarification, the site will now be referred to as Hooton Interchange.

Site is within NWMA, although it is not currently well served by non-car transport. Site is allocated for employment in adopted Ellesmere Port and Neston Borough Local Plan.

Hooton Interchange is within the NWMA and is extremely well served by public transport.

Peel Holdings plc: welcome the inclusion.

Peel Holdings plc appear to have confused the Hooton site with Hooton Park. For clarification, the site will now be referred to as Hooton Interchange.

The Peel Group owns land fronting North Road adjacent to the Vauxhall Motors site and this should be regarded as part of the Hooton site. The North Road/Pioneer Business Park site at Ellesmere Port (40ha site within Ellesmere Port EDZ) is nearby and could form a linked site.

Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council: there is confusion over which site this is â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the Roften site (south of Hooton Station), or Hooton Park (north of Vauxhall Motors).

Noted. For clarification, the site will now be referred to as Hooton Interchange.

Comments below relate to Hooton Park (as identified in Ellesmere Port and Neston BC Local Plan).

Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council appear to have confused the Hooton site with Hooton Park.

Officers will recommend that Wirral MBC support the designation of this site. Although this site has potential to be a direct competitor with Wirral International Business Park (Strategic Regional Site), Hooton Park offers a size, type and nature of site that is not available within the Business Park. It is also situated close to the entrance to Manchester Ship Canal. Site is clearly within NWMA and is accessible from Wirral Objective 1 SIA. Although site is not well served by sustainable transport provision, it is allocated in the Ellesmere Port and Neston BC Local Plan. Development of this site would help to sustain a major regional employer (Vauxhall Motors).

Hooton Interchange is within the NWMA and is extremely well served by public transport.

Page 17

Middlebrook, Bolton

Page 18

Organisation/comments

NWDA Response

Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council (with Bolton WIDE): wholeheartedly support identification of Middlebrook as an additional strategic regional site. The identification of this site for high quality employment is fully supported by the adopted Bolton Economic Development Zone vision and masterplan.

Support noted.

Would like to clarify that the strategic regional site is the ‘wider Middlebrook area’ as specified in the Mersey Belt Study and confirmed in the EDZ masterplan. This clarification is important, as Middlebrook itself is a tightly defined site with limited development land left. It is the success of the original Middlebrook development that is the catalyst that enables the Council and partners to develop the potential of adjacent sites.

Boundaries and concepts require further discussion/clarification.

Council for the Protection of Rural England: believe Middlebrook site already has planning permission. Concerned that site is not within the urban centre of Bolton. Plans for its development must not undermine activities in the town centre, Horwich or Westhoughton. Site currently suffers from poor bus links.

Objection noted.

Development effects on the adjacent SSSI, site of biological importance and fluvial floodplain must be considered.

This is a detailed implementation issue.

Would like the Agency to clarify the reference to developing the ‘surrounding area’ as some of this is Green Belt land and should not be developed according to RPG policy SD5.

Agree that location of site is not clear.

Environment Agency: surface water drainage issues will have to be carefully considered to prevent flooding problems. Sustainable Drainage Systems are recommended. Will require details of any proposed culverting works for EA consent.

Potential for flooding problems is noted. This is a detailed implementation issue. Any development on this site would need to be considered against RPG Policy ER8 ‘Development and Flood Risk’.

Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council: fully support the response prepared by Merseyside Policy Unit on behalf of the Merseyside local authorities.

Noted.

Merseyside Policy Unit: support recommendations in principle as the site lies within the NWMA.

Support noted.

Peel Holdings plc: welcome the inclusion.

Support noted.

Wigan South Central Organisation/comments

NWDA Response

Council for the Protection of Rural England: position statement does not clarify exactly which sites are being considered. Therefore request that any development should be located on sites that are within the urban fabric and close to public transport, and should not encroach upon Green Belt or greenfield land.

These sites are to be defined, but the broad locations are likely to be within the urban fabric, close to public transport and not encroaching upon the Green Belt.

Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council: fully support the response prepared by Merseyside Policy Unit on behalf of the Merseyside local authorities.

Noted.

Merseyside Policy Unit: support recommendations in principle as the site lies within the NWMA.

Support noted.

Peel Holdings plc: welcome the inclusion.

Support noted.

Pemberton Colliery site in Wigan (16.9 ha allocated in the Wigan UDP) could fall within the category of Wigan South Central.

Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council: warmly welcome proposal to designate Wigan South Central as a strategic regional site. Wigan MBC commits itself to work with the NWDA to implement the proposal.

Support noted, however further feasibility study has yet to be completed.

Consultants are developing the concept, and results will be shared with NWDA.

Page 19

6 General comments received

Page 20

Organisation/comments

NWDA Response

Association of Greater Manchester Authorities (AGMA): AGMA has previously expressed concerns regarding the Mersey Belt Study. It is regarded as flawed in its analysis.

Disagree. The Agency does not accept that the statistical analysis is flawed.

The study’s apparent focus on the Southern Crescent was unfortunate. RPG focus on the NWMA provides a clear spatial context for identification of further strategic sites for the knowledge-based industries.

All references to the Southern Crescent are as a matter of historical record. RPG terminology is now used (see Introduction, paragraph 1.8).

The Mersey Belt Study has no land use planning status. Sites identified through the study still need to be assessed against the requirements of RPG, and inclusion within the NWDA’s portfolio of Regional Investment Sites is conditional upon the outcome of this assessment in each case.

Noted. Regional Investment Sites are a land use planning designation and their identification and designation is a matter for development plans. NWDA does not have a portfolio of Regional Investment Sites.

The Position Statement (para 2.40) states “the broad Mersey Belt Study strategy of ‘strategic corridors’ and the ‘gap area’ are not undermined by draft RPG or the Regional Economic Strategy review” however these spatial concepts are not given explicit credence in RPG.

The concepts are compatible with, and not undermined by final RPG.

It is essential that the identification of further strategic regional sites meets the policy requirements of RPG. It is not considered appropriate in this AGMA response to offer support or objection to individual sites.

RPG policy requirements refer to Regional Investment Sites, not strategic regional sites, which are not a land-use planning designation.

As the number of identified strategic sites increases, the resources to deliver them effectively have to be more thinly spread, and therefore their effective delivery may become more difficult.

Agreed. The NWDA Policy Statement reflects this concern. Only 1 additional strategic regional site will be designated.

The Mersey Belt Study must be seen as a useful contribution to the debate about the location of new industries in the evolving North West economy, but not an adequate basis for future policy development.

Noted.

Organisation/comments

NWDA Response

Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council (with Bolton WIDE): the Cutacre site on the Bolton/Salford/Wigan boundary offers a longer term opportunity for the identified ‘gap areas’. Would welcome its consideration as an addition to the list of strategic regional sites as part of the second review of the Regional Strategy in 2005/06.

The Agency agrees with AGMA’s comments (see above) on the need to concentrate resources, rather than spread them more thinly and thereby compromise the effective delivery of the strategic regional sites.

Cheshire County Council: from a general point of view it is clear that the four sites in Cheshire have significant potential to become the focus of strategic investment within the region.

Support noted.

It is however important to consider the spatial and land-use planning implications of designating additional sites. This is particularly important as the strategic sites are focused on the growth target sectors and not the totality of the economic base.

This is an issue for local planning authorities.

NWDA do not present a direct assessment of the ‘exceptional’ nature of the proposed additional sites, nor do they show that these sites cannot wait to be considered as part of the second review of the Regional Strategy in 2005/6.

The sites considered all emanate from a lengthy Mersey Belt Study research project carried out in full consultation with local planning authorities.

Countryside Agency: no comments.

–

Council for the Protection of Rural England: the position statement is welcomed in that it raises two key points: i) the need to relieve pressure for development in north Cheshire and search for ways to re-direct economic growth in the most sustainable way. ii) the public transport network in the Mersey Belt area is poor and there is often an over-reliance on road transport links to access many of the current potential strategic regional sites.

Support noted.

In light of PPG11 it is essential that NWDA activities conform to the Spatial Development Framework set out in RPG. Have serious concerns that the proposed additional strategic regional sites will cause development pressures in areas that are unable to absorb them.

It is now only proposed to designate 1 additional strategic regional site.

Would be helpful if terminology used by NWDA was consistent with RPG – Regional Investment Sites (instead of strategic regional sites).

Regional investment sites are a land use planning designation and their identification and designation is a matter for development plans. Strategic regional sites are identified by the Agency to assist in delivering the Regional Economic Strategy.

Page 21

Page 22

Organisation/comments

NWDA Response

The position statement refers to the Southern Crescent concept, and not just as a matter of historical record (e.g. para 1.8).

All references to the Southern Crescent are as a matter of historical record. RPG terminology is now used (see Introduction, paragraph 1.8).

Feel that the prosperous (or not) nature of the NWMA is not the prime criteria for the identification of this area in RPG. It is the urban nature that is of prime concern, and the need to protect the distinction between urban and rural areas.

Disagree. RPG Policy SD1 states that priority will be given to development in the NWMA which enhances its economic strength.

It is hard to see how the current proposed list of regional sites meets the criteria of RPG Policy EC5, or links to the urban renaissance agenda in the RES. Urge the NWDA to commit to choosing brownfield sites within the urban fabric in order to comply with RPG for north Cheshire.

See comments above on Regional Investment Sites.

Welcome a criteria-based approach to site identification but suggest that to comply with RPGâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Core Development Principles DP1, DP2, DP4 and Policy EC6, it may be better to judge first environmental and social criteria, so that investment sites can be more adequately matched to areas where the environmental capacity is large and to areas in need of jobs and investment. The reasoning that sites must be found for companies that would otherwise locate elsewhere was not accepted.

See comments above on Regional Investment Sites.

Would like clarification of strategic regional sites review process, in particular how sites would be de-selected from the NWDAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s list if new sites are added.

The RES sets out the status of strategic regional sites and any review process.

Concerned about selection process for the 14 additional sites. Ask for confirmation that any sites identified by NWDA as not matching regional investment site criteria will be automatically de-selected.

This is not an issue for the Mersey Belt Study.

Would be helpful to clarify how NWDA receives guidance on the suitability of sites in terms of conformity to planning policy.

Planning policy is set out in draft and approved development plans.

Feel that a further designation of sites before the partial review of RPG would be inappropriate. Has commented on the 6 potential additional sites but this does not signify endorsement of these sites prior to RPG review.

See comments above on Regional Investment Sites.

Final RPG policy EC4 clearly states now that the sequential approach does apply.

Policy EC4 refers back to Policy DP1

It should not be necessary to attract skilled people into an area: instead, local skills development should be promoted.

Disagree. The NWDA needs to attract and retain skilled people for the regional economy to grow.

Organisation/comments

NWDA Response

NWDA should give clear guidance on how many strategic sites are considered optimal for the region in order to prevent competition. In other regions there are fewer sites selected and it remains unclear why the North West feels it necessary to designate so many.

This is not an issue for the Mersey Belt Study. Only 1 additional strategic regional site will be designated.

It would be helpful for NWDA to clarify how sites will be brought forward in relation to each other.

This is not an issue for the Mersey Belt Study.

RPG Policy SD4 says that sites must have ‘at least regional significance’ if they are to be allocated for the ‘sustainable expansion of existing high-technology and research establishments’. Sites referred to in paragraph 3.10 as of sub-regional significance should be de-allocated by planning authorities and not promoted further by the NWDA.

Disagree. Policy SD4 also refers to local need. In any event, developments of at least regional significance may be attracted to these sites.

Environment Agency: comments limited to detailed environmental considerations on each site. Where sites allocated or subject to planning applications, local planning authorities are aware of views.

Noted.

If and when the principle of the additional sites are confirmed, would welcome further opportunities to discuss detailed arrangements to incorporate environmental sustainability requirements.

Noted.

Halton Borough Council: urge a thorough rewrite of the Position Statement (particularly of Sections 1 and 2) to reflect final RPG – including references to any outstanding reservations that NWDA may have on final RPG.

NWDA Policy Statement now has regard to final RPG.

The Mersey Belt Study aired a number of wider strategic concepts that still need further investigation (e.g. the ideas of ‘strategic corridors’ linking areas of different development potential, the ‘Mersey Belt Rail Circle’ and other strategic transport concepts). It is important that such ideas are not neglected under pressure of more immediate concerns.

Support noted.

Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council: fully support the response prepared by Merseyside Policy Unit on behalf of the Merseyside local authorities. Particularly endorse following points – process for developing Mersey Belt Study not fully linked with the RES and RPG; concerned with the continued reference to the Southern Crescent; and the Merseyside-wide view on the proposed additional strategic regional sites.

Noted.

Page 23

Page 24

Organisation/comments

NWDA Response

Lancashire West Partnership: for Lancashire West to punch its weight in helping to deliver the Regional Strategy, the number of strategic regional sites needs to be in balance.

Agreed.

If the 6 proposed sites are formally designated then 26 (84%) of the 31 strategic regional sites will be located across Merseyside, Manchester and Cheshire.

Only 1 additional strategic regional site will be designated.

Early development of sites at Lancaster University/Bailrigg, Cuerden and Royal Ordnance Factory is critical to delivery of LWP’s vision and strategy.

Not an issue for the Mersey Belt Study.

Liverpool Land Development Company: in general terms, LLDC naturally supports the targeting of investment to sites within the Mersey Belt section of the NWMA. Are content that 75% of key sites identified by consultants lie within NWMA.

Support noted.

Concerned at the differing perspectives of ODPM, DfT and NWRA overlaying the clear priorities set out in the RES – the private sector are confused by the uncertainty.

Noted.

Macclesfield Borough Council: despite the statement (para 1.6) that ‘Southern Crescent’ is only referred to as a matter of historical record, the continued use of the term is misleading – RPG wording should be used instead – i.e. North Cheshire.

Agreed. RPG wording is now used (see Introduction, paragraph 1.8).

Sections 1 and 2 need to be updated to reflect Final RPG. RPG should inform and influence the NWDA’s response to the consultant’s recommendations. It would be inappropriate for the NWDA to pursue policies that are in conflict with national and regional planning policies.

NWDA Policy Statement now has regard to final RPG.

RPG differentiates between the metropolitan authorities of Greater Manchester and the authorities in North Cheshire. The Mersey Belt Study largely ignores this differentiation.

NWDA Policy Statement now has regard to final RPG.

Organisation/comments

NWDA Response

Manchester City Council: the ‘Metropolitan Axis’ has shown a very strong resurgence in recent years, particularly in Manchester. It therefore has unique potential for further sustainable investment and growth.

The Mersey Belt Study recognises Manchester’s unique potential, as does the NWDA.

The analysis should have recognised the need to support and reinforce the competitiveness of Manchester, and to a lesser extent Liverpool, as the North West’s primary growth engine for knowledge-based industries.

The Mersey Belt Study recognises the potential of both the Manchester and Liverpool city regions as a whole, including the functionally linked areas of North Cheshire.

The Position Statement should recognise the centrality of the Knowledge Capital initiative in harnessing the potential of the region’s knowledge-based industries and in delivering the objectives of the RES.

The Knowledge Capital Initiative was developed after the Mersey Belt Study was carried out but it is entirely compatible with it.

The Position Statement does not acknowledge the priorities for regeneration identified in RPG. This is the substantive context within which the study should be considered. It must be updated to reflect final RPG, especially Policies EC3 and EC5.

NWDA Policy Statement now has regard to final RPG.

The identification of additional sites for designation, outside of the conurbation cores, would be counterproductive to the renaissance of the region’s major urban centres and the priorities within the RES.

Disagree. RPG Policy SD1 accepts that regeneration and development is also required outside the conurbation cores.

Merseyside Policy Unit: the reference in the Position Statement is to the 2000 Regional Strategy, not the 2003 RES – this needs to be made explicit.

Noted.

The Position Statement has been superceded by several policy changes in RPG. Highlight the prioritisation given in RPG to the two regional poles.

NWDA Policy Statement now has regard to final RPG.

The Position Statement implicitly continues to promote the concept of ‘Southern Crescent’ and as such, contravenes the spatial framework of RPG. The Merseyside Authorities are strongly committed to the NWMA concept, but there are also strong economic links with authorities within the identified ‘Southern Crescent’ area.

All references to the Southern Crescent are as a matter of historical record. RPG terminology is now used (see Introduction, paragraph 1.8). NWDA Policy Statement now has regard to final RPG.

Would be grateful for an indication of the process for taking the study forward – in particular the mechanisms required to approve the Position Statement and the status that the NWDA’s final response to the recommendations will have.

The NWDA Policy Statement makes clear the status of the Mersey Belt Study.

Page 25

Page 26

Organisation/comments

NWDA Response

Indicative timescales for consultation on specific regional investment sites would also be appreciated.

Individual sites will be taken forward in the context of development plans and reviews, as well as the Agencyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s corporate planning process. Regional Investment Sites are a land-use planning designation and their identification and designation is a matter for development plans. Strategic regional sites are identified by the Agency to assist in delivering the Regional Economic Strategy.

Manchester Investment and Development Agency Service (MIDAS): the report will need to be updated following publication of final RPG. RPG recognises potential for knowledge-based industry.

NWDA Policy Statement now has regard to final RPG.

The Mersey Belt Study should reinforce the Knowledge Capital Initiative, as supported by NWDA.

The Knowledge Capital Initiative was developed after the Mersey Belt Study was carried out but it is entirely compatible with it.

There is no rationale for identifying strategic regional sites unless they become magnets for development.

The sites considered all emanate from a lengthy Mersey Belt Study research project carried out in full consultation with local planning authorities. The Regional Economic Strategy confirmed the 25 designated strategic regional sites, and said that further sites arising from the Mersey Belt Study would also be considered.

The selection of sites in the Position Statement does not appear to reinforce the regeneration of the urban centres. Development of these sites contradicts the statement â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;NWDA recognises the role of the city regions as drivers of the regional economyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; (para 1.9).

Disagree. The majority of sites identified in the Mersey Belt Study are located within the North West Metropolitan Area, as identified in final RPG, with a very strong concentration in the core area of Greater Manchester (see Mersey Belt Study Figure 3.1, in the Appendices).

Concerned at designation of sites within north Cheshire as unless restricted, developers always find it easier to progress greenfield rather than brownfield sites.

Only 1 additional strategic regional site will be designated, for reasons supported in RPG Policy SD4.

Organisation/comments

NWDA Response

NWDA’s decision not to designate further strategic regional sites in Greater Manchester does not look at the long-term view. Research by Manchester Enterprises estimates that the Manchester sub-region is capable of creating over 100,000 jobs over the next 10 years. Further sites will be required to meet this demand.

AGMA’s response to the Mersey Belt Study does not seek the designation of any further strategic regional sites in Greater Manchester. The Agency agrees with AGMA’s comments (see above) on the need to concentrate resources, rather than spread them more thinly and thereby compromise the effective delivery of the strategic regional sites.

North West Regional Assembly (NWRA): within the Mersey Belt Study there is little consideration of the development principles, spatial framework or policies set out in draft RPG. It should have emphasised the importance and role of the metropolitan areas within RPG’s spatial framework.

NWDA Policy Statement on the Mersey Belt Study has regard to final RPG. The majority of sites identified in the Mersey Belt Study are located within the North West Metropolitan Area, as identified in final RPG (see Mersey Belt Study Figure 3.1, in the Appendices).

The Mersey Belt Study identified a number of transport corridors that appear to have little evidential basis and little relationship to the regional scale of multi-modal corridors, networks and priorities identified in the Regional Transport Strategy.

In terms of the potential additional Regional Investment Sites, the Assembly cannot endorse the Agency’s designated list until it is satisfied on issues such as the role and function of Regional Investment Sites, the justification and need, the overall quantum of sites, the process for their identification, monitoring of progress and their contribution to the regional economy.

The recommendations all emanate from a lengthy Mersey Belt Study research project carried out in full consultation with local planning authorities, and the Highways Agency. Some will need further discussion with NWRA in the context of the Regional Transport Strategy Review. RPG policy requirements relate to Regional Investment Sites. The Agency identifies strategic regional sites to assist in delivering the Regional Economic Strategy and does not designate Regional Investment Sites. Strategic regional sites are not a land-use planning designation. It is for development plans, where appropriate, to identify and seek to designate Regional Investment Sites.

Page 27

Page 28

Organisation/comments

NWDA Response

Several of the six potential sites are previously developed sites within the Green Belt. If the intention is to redevelop or intensify the uses on the existing sites, then this falls within the policy framework set out in PPG2. It is unnecessary for this to be the basis for the designation of Regional Investment Sites as a precursor to identification in development plans. If the proposal is for expansion of these then this would be contrary to PPG2 and to the Agency’s previous public statements.

Disagree. The Agency believes that it is helpful to designate Alderley Park (Astra Zeneca) as a strategic regional site. RPG policy requirements relate to Regional Investment Sites. The Agency identifies strategic regional sites to assist in delivering the Regional Economic Strategy and does not designate Regional Investment Sites. Strategic regional sites are not a land-use planning designation. It is for development plans, where appropriate, to identify and seek to designate Regional Investment Sites, taking into account Government policy guidance.

The express purpose of the study was to inform the review of RPG13. Now that final RPG has been published it seems to the Assembly that the Mersey Belt Study becomes of purely historical significance.

The purpose of the Mersey Belt Study was to provide recommendations to the NWDA based upon detailed independent research which was undertaken in full consultation with local planning authorities. The Regional Economic Strategy commits the Agency to preparing a position statement and formally designating any further strategic regional sites arising from the Mersey Belt Study.

Peel Holdings plc: feel the Mersey Belt Study is more relevant than many studies of regional development – it recognises the factors that drive investment decisions in the private sector.

Support noted.

Welcome the inclusion of the additional sites as identified.

Support noted, although NWDA proposes only to designate Astra Zeneca (Alderley Park)

Peel considers Barton to be highly suitable for a multi-modal freight terminal in addition to NWDA growth target sectors. Peel considers Carrington to be unsuitable as a strategic inter-modal rail terminal. The NWDA’s designation of the various strategic regional sites is inevitably contingent upon the outcome of the early review of RPG – at least so far as Barton, Carrington, Parkside and Ditton are concerned.

This issue is not relevant to the knowledge-based industries that are the focus of the Mersey Belt Study.

Organisation/comments

NWDA Response

Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council: release of this interim response to the consultant’s recommendations is broadly welcomed.

Support noted.

Despite change in spatial definition, with the whole of Stockport now being in NWMA, it is important that the links to parts of ‘North Cheshire’ continue to be recognised by NWDA. On this basis, the exploration of the Southern Crescent concept has been beneficial, with the Mersey Belt Study providing valuable information and ideas.

Support noted.

Welcome NWDA conclusion that the identification of ‘strategic corridors’ within the Mersey Belt Study is not undermined by draft RPG or the RES.

Support noted.

Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council: there are inconsistencies between RPG and the Mersey Belt Study. Any allocation of new strategic sites will need to meet the requirements of RPG. It is essential that the agencies involved at regional level work together to develop a consensus on sites that meet RPG criteria, are capable of delivering investment, and are widely accepted.

The NWDA is not taking land-use planning decisions and all sites are subject to the statutory planning process, particularly development plans and development plan reviews. NWDA Policy Statement now has regard to final RPG.

Allocation of resources to additional strategic regional sites should not undermine progress being made in Metropolitan Axis areas.

Noted.

Useful to refresh understanding of strategic regional site concept, and clearly identify their purpose.

The Agency intends to develop implementation plans for specific strategic regional sites which will clarify their purpose and objectives.

A more strategic approach to clusters may be required. AGMA will be considering the position following on from the Greater Manchester Strategy. The present approach appears to favour enhancing existing clusters. NWDA should engage more fully with sub-regional partners to identify prospects for clusters.

Noted.

University of Liverpool: wonder why there is as yet no mention of the Liverpool Science Park/Marconi Site – though assume this is simply a matter of timing. The fact that it is not in the study would not of itself preclude it appearing in NWDA response to the study.

Liverpool Science Park/Marconi Site is referred to as Wavertree Technology Park in the Mersey Belt Study (and in the strategic regional sites list in the Regional Economic Strategy).

Page 29

Page 30

Organisation/comments

NWDA Response

Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council: remains a lack of clarity with regard to the role of strategic employment sites in meeting demand.

The Agency intends to develop implementation plans for specific strategic regional sites which will clarify their purpose and objectives.

Recommend that NWDA give explicit support to the development of opportunities in the Metropolitan Axis and restricts support in the Southern Crescent only to Foreign Direct Investment. NWDA should press for restrictions on type of development on Southern Crescent sites either through agreements with local planning authorities or through ownership controls. The approach adopted must have a clear relationship to RPG.

NWDA Policy Statement now has regard to final RPG, including Policy SD4.

3.10

Housing land review to accommodate target sector workers.

2.33

‘Category A’

Category A

Consultants’ Policy Recommendation

Study Para. No.

Relevant local authority Knowsley, Oldham, Sefton.

Interim NWDA Response

Agree and ask these local authorities to carry out the reviews.

Support noted.

Peel Holdings plc: strongly support the need for more executive housing in the Metropolitan Axis.

These matters will be determined in the NWDA Corporate Plan. The Mersey Belt Study Policy Statement begins the process of setting priorities.

This is an issue for local authorities to consider.

Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council: need this be restricted to Knowsley, Oldham and Sefton? Tameside is already providing much accomodation in excess of £100,000.

Merseyside Policy Unit: would be useful if NWDA could clarify the funding arrangements that are likely to be put in place for ‘Category A’ sites, which are to prioritised.

This is an issue for local authorities to consider. (See paragraph 6.16 below).

NWDA Response

Council for the Protection of Rural England: it is not evident that only particular types of land are suitable for £100,000+ houses in the metropolitan axis north of the River Mersey. Successful urban renaissance will create housing in these areas that is a desirable place for skilled workers to live.

Organisation/comments

7 Responses to consultant’s recommendations

Page 31

Page 32

Consultants’ Policy Recommendation

Greater East Manchester.

Study Para. No.

3.10

Agree site categorisation but see no need to consider designation of further strategic regional sites given existing designations.

Interim NWDA Response

Manchester Investment and Development Agency Service (MIDAS): NWDA’s decision not to designate further strategic regional sites in Greater Manchester does not look at the long-term view. Research by Manchester Enterprises estimates that the Manchester sub-region is capable of creating over 100,000 jobs over the next 10 years. Further sites will be required to meet this demand.

Manchester City, Tameside.

NB this comment is also relevant to the following consultant’s recommendations in paragraph 3.11 – Manchester City Centre, Manchester Southern Corridor, Salford Quays, Davenport Green and Cheadle Royal. To avoid repetition, the same comment has not been entered under each of these recommendations in the schedule. This comment should nevertheless be considered alongside the NWDA response for each of these recommendations.

Organisation/comments

Relevant local authority AGMA’s response to the Mersey Belt Study does not seek the designation of any further strategic regional sites in Greater Manchester. The Agency agrees with AGMA’s comments (see Section 6, ‘General comments received’) on the need to concentrate resources, rather than spread them more thinly and thereby compromise the effective delivery of the strategic regional sites.

NWDA Response

Page 33

EDZs are not identified in the original Regional Strategy, the current Regional Economic Strategy, or Regional Planning Guidance.

Support noted.

Whilst New East Manchester is designated in the RES, as is Ashton Moss, the remainder of Tameside’s EDZ and sites within Denton are not clearly recognised. Are clearly supportive of Greater East Manchester ‘key sites’ concept. This also supports the importance of the Metrolink extension to Ashtonunder-Lyne and improvements along the E-W corridor.

Liverpool Land Development Company: agree.

Liverpool City.

Agree site categorisation but see no need to consider designation of further strategic regional sites given existing designations.

Liverpool City Centre.

3.10

Tameside has been added as a relevant local authority.

Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council: Tameside’s understanding was that the MBS defined Greater East Manchester as Manchester and Tameside. Request that Tameside is added as a relevant local authority.

Manchester City, Tameside.

Agree site categorisation but see no need to consider designation of further strategic regional sites given existing designations.

Greater East Manchester (continued).

3.10

NWDA Response

Organisation/comments

Relevant local authority

Interim NWDA Response

Consultants’ Policy Recommendation

Study Para. No.

Page 34

Should be considered as a potential strategic regional site as Ellesmere Port is a town within final RPG’s North West Metropolitan Area with regeneration and environmental enhancement needs; the site is at a park and ride interchange and is at a nodal point on the rail system giving rail access to Birkenhead, Liverpool, Chester, Helsby, Frodsham, Warrington and Manchester and particularly good access to Merseyside via the Merseyrail system.

Hooton.

3.10

Cheshire County, Ellesmere Port and Neston.

See Section 4 – strategic regional sites – Hooton.

Agree.

Omega.

3.10

See Section 5 – comments received on potential additional sites – Hooton.

Support noted. The Agency intends to clarify the role of Wavertree Technology Park.

Liverpool Land Development Company: welcome ‘Category A’ classification. Agency’s response could reflect that Wavertree Technology Park is targeting ‘knowledge-based technology companies’, rather than just ‘growth target sectors’ generally.

Liverpool City.

Agree.

Wavertree Technology Park.

3.10

Warrington.

NWDA Response

Organisation/comments

Relevant local authority

Interim NWDA Response

Consultants’ Policy Recommendation

Study Para. No.

Page 35

The Estuary.

3.10

3.11

Capenhurst.

3.10

Manchester City Centre.

Category B

Consultants’ Policy Recommendation

Study Para. No.

Support noted. The Agency intends to clarify the role of The Estuary.

Liverpool Land Development Company: welcome ‘Category A’ classification. Agency’s response could reflect that Estuary Phase 2 is being promoted as a ‘biomanufacturing zone’, rather than just ‘growth target sectors’ generally.

Liverpool City.

Agree.

Manchester City.

See Section 4 – strategic regional sites – Capenhurst.

See Section 5 – comments received on potential additional sites – Capenhurst.

Cheshire County, Chester City.

Should be considered as a potential strategic regional site in accordance with consultants’ conclusions (see above).

Agree site categorisation but see no need to consider designation of further strategic regional sites.

NWDA Response

Organisation/comments

Relevant local authority

Interim NWDA Response

Page 36

Consultants’ Policy Recommendation

Chester Business Park.

Chester City Centre sites.

Saighton Camp.

Study Para. No.

3.11

NWDA agrees that the site should not be de-allocated.

See Section 4 – strategic regional sites – Chester City Centre.

Noted.

Chester City Council: endorse the inclusion of Chester Business Park (and its proposed extension) as a strategic regional site, and welcomes the statement that this should be excluded from the de-allocation exercise suggested in policy SD4 of RPG. Its retention on the list will be essential to ensure its continued development and consolidation as one of the North West’s premier business locations.

See Section 5 – comments received on potential additional sites – Chester City Centre.

Chester City Council: the site is surrounded by Green Belt, but is not itself designated as Green Belt.

Cheshire County, Chester City.

Should be considered as a potential strategic regional site(s) to meet needs of target sectors in an area of high demand and limited supply and to protect them from inappropriate housing development.

Should not be considered as a potential strategic regional site in light of the uncertain planning status.

Agree.

NWDA Response

Organisation/comments

Relevant local authority

Interim NWDA Response

Page 37

Manchester Southern Corridor.

3.11

See also 6.7 below (foster links on north-south axis into south Manchester).

Manchester City.

Agree site categorisation but see no need to consider designation of further strategic regional sites.

Support noted.

Cheshire County, Vale Royal.

Should not be considered as a potential strategic regional site as it scored low/medium in terms of future public transport sustainability.

University of Liverpool: welcome Daresbury Park initiative.

Lostock Triangle.

The Position Statement and this Policy Statement only responds to specific recommendations in the Mersey Belt Study.

Request that this schedule includes specific responses to study paragraph numbers 3.30 and 3.31.

Manor Park IV should not be considered as a potential strategic regional site in view of its proximity to Daresbury Park/ Daresbury Laboratory Science Park location which is already designated as a strategic regional site.

Manor Park IV.

3.11

Support noted.

Halton Borough Council: accept NWDA conclusions re Daresbury Park location and Manor Park IV.

Halton.

Agree.

Daresbury Park location.

3.11

NWDA Response

Organisation/comments

Relevant local authority

Interim NWDA Response

Consultantsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Policy Recommendation

Study Para. No.

Page 38

Consultants’ Policy Recommendation

Salford Quays.

M60 Gateway.

Study Para. No.

3.11

Salford.

Stockport.

Agree.

Relevant local authority

Agree site categorisation but see no need to consider designation of further strategic regional sites.

Interim NWDA Response

NB this comment is also relevant to the consultant’s recommendations in paragraph 3.63 – M60 Gateway site(s). To avoid repetition, the same comment has not been entered under this recommendation in the schedule. This comment should nevertheless be considered alongside the NWDA response for the recommendations in paragraph 3.63.

Council for the Protection of Rural England: unsure how identification of sites in the M60 Gateway fits with the NWDA’s concern to avoid undue competition between sites. Manchester Airport sits largely within the Green Belt and any plans to change this would be opposed.

Organisation/comments

There is no current intention to seek Green Belt boundary changes.

NWDA Response

Page 39

NWDA has still to clarify the concept and boundaries of the M60 Gateway with Stockport MBC.

Waterside Park issue not finally resolved.

Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council: acknowledgement as key site for knowledge-based industries is welcomed. However, private sector activity is not sufficient on its own to release the huge potential of this area in a comprehensive way. Definition as a ‘Category B’ site must not inhibit continued funding intervention by the NWDA. M60 Gateway should not be ruled out as a replacement strategic regional site in SouthEast Greater Manchester, should Waterside Park (Tameside) not proceed.

Stockport.

Trafford.

Agree.

Agree site categorisation but see no need to consider designation of further strategic regional sites.

M60 Gateway. (continued).

Davenport Green.

Southbank, Victoria Warehouse and Barton Dock Road.

3.11

NWDA Response

Organisation/comments

Relevant local authority

Interim NWDA Response

Consultants’ Policy Recommendation

Study Para. No.

Page 40

Consultants’ Policy Recommendation

Cheadle Royal.

Kingsway.

Macclesfield sites.

Astra Zeneca.

Study Para. No.

3.11

Agree consultants’ recommendations on Astra Zeneca at Alderley Park, but designate strategic regional site on major developed site in Green Belt (see paragraph 4.9 above).

Agree but, with exception of Astra Zeneca site at Alderley Park, see no need to consider designation of further strategic regional sites.

Agree.

Agree site categorisation but see no need to consider designation as an additional strategic regional site.

Interim NWDA Response

Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council: acknowledgement as key site for knowledge-based industries is welcomed. Is currently being brought forward by private sector.

Stockport.

Support noted. Agree sites should not be de-allocated. Need for retention in planning policy terms is dealt with in response to consultant’s recommendation below (paragraph number 6.4). RPG Policy SD4 is also relevant.

See Section 4 – strategic regional sites – Astra Zeneca.

Macclesfield Borough Council: agree none of these sites should be considered as strategic regional sites, however it is important that they are retained as local employment sites and not de-allocated. A supporting statement in the Agency’s response would be welcomed.

See Section 5 – comments received on potential additional sites – Astra Zeneca.

Cheshire County, Macclesfield.

Support noted.

NWDA Response

Cheshire County, Macclesfield.

Rochdale.

Organisation/comments

Relevant local authority

Page 41

Consultants’ Policy Recommendation

Kings Business Park.

Specific sectors

Clatterbridge.

Salford University Business Park and Blackfriars.

Middlebrook.

Daresbury Laboratory.

Study Para. No.

3.11

3.13

Wirral.

Salford.

Bolton.

Halton.

Agree.

Agree but need further discussions with Bolton MBC to clarify consultants’ recommendations.

This is considered as the same location as Daresbury Park.

Knowsley.

Agree.

Agree consultants’ recommendations and will hold discussions with Wirral MBC and the landowner (Wirral NHS Trust).

Relevant local authority

Interim NWDA Response

See Section 5 – comments received on potential additional sites – Middlebrook.

Organisation/comments

See Section 4 – strategic regional sites – Middlebrook.

NWDA Response

Page 42 Cheshire County, Chester City, Ellesmere Port and Neston.

Cheshire County, Chester City, Ellesmere Port and Neston, Relevant Welsh authorities.

Halton BC, Knowsley, St Helens, Warrington, Wigan.

See 3.10 above (Capenhurst and Hooton).

Agree consultants’ recommendations and wish to discuss with the relevant local authorities.

Agree consultants’ recommendation.

Sites to the north of Chester adjacent to Chester – Liverpool railway.

North-east Wales/ West Cheshire needs and opportunities study.

Public transport access to Omega.

3.27 iii

3.33

3.27 ii

Cheshire County, Chester City.

See 3.11 above (Chester City Centre sites and Saighton Camp).

Chester windfall sites including Saighton Camp.

3.27 i

Warrington.

Agree this is an interesting idea and would wish to discuss it with Warrington BC but see no need to consider designation as a strategic regional site.

Warrington area environmental technology cluster.

3.14

Relevant local authority

Interim NWDA Response

Consultants’ Policy Recommendation

Study Para. No.

Merseyside Policy Unit: Halton should be added to list of relevant local authorities for public transport access to Omega. Improving access to Omega from eastern Merseyside is a priority.

Organisation/comments

Omission. Halton BC has been added as a relevant local authority.

NWDA Response

Page 43

Consultants’ Policy Recommendation

North-south accessibility through Warrington.

Warrington very high quality site.

Study Para. No.

3.35

3.38

Consultants recommendations no longer endorsed given new policy framework in RPG affecting Warrington.

See above.

Council for the Protection of Rural England: consider reservation of new site in south Warrington inappropriate and unnecessary.

Halton Borough Council: Given scale of development already committed in Warrington, reservation appears unnecessary and could damage prospects of other identified sites in the subregion, including Daresbury.

Merseyside Policy Unit: concerned at this proposal. Warrington shows some signs of overheating – more appropriate to identify suitable locations nearer the conurbations.

Warrington.

Agree consultants’ recommendations, have made representations to Warrington BC as part of UDP process, and would wish to continue discussions with Warrington BC and English Partnerships.

Noted.

Council for the Protection of Rural England: the measures should prioritise public transport.

Warrington.

Agree consultants’ recommendations.

NWDA Response

Organisation/comments

Relevant local authority

Interim NWDA Response

Page 44 See above. Objection to Warrington UDP to be withdrawn.

Support noted.

See Section 4 – strategic regional sites – Middlebrook.

North West Regional Assembly (NWRA): in light of the clear statement in RPG13 paragraph 4.22 that “…there is no need to identify additional sites for large single users”, the Assembly now expect this proposal, and the objection to Warrington’s UDP, to be dropped.

Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council: agree.

See Section 5 – comments received on potential additional sites – Middlebrook.

Warrington.

Manchester, City, Tameside.

Bolton.

Agree consultants’ recommendations, have made representations to Warrington BC as part of UDP process, and would wish to continue discussions with Warrington BC and English Partnerships.

Agree consultants’ recommendations.

Note consultants’ recommendations and wish to discuss with Manchester Airport.

See 3.13 above.

Warrington very high quality site (continued).

Greater East Manchester priority for knowledge based industry.

Remote Airport check-in East Manchester or Tameside.

Target sector (medical equipment) near Middlebrook.

3.47

3.48

3.58

3.38

NWDA Response

Organisation/comments

Relevant local authority

Interim NWDA Response

Consultants’ Policy Recommendation

Study Para. No.

Page 45

Consultants’ Policy Recommendation

M60 Gateway site(s).

Liverpool University Edge and incubator/ spin out Liverpool University.

Clatterbridge – discussions with Wirral/site owners.

Eight Key Transport Investment Priorities.

Study Para. No.

3.63

3.68

3.73

4.11

Agree that scope of study will not be widened and discussions will be held with Stockport MBC regarding the consultant’s recommendation in paragraph 3.63 of the Mersey Belt Study.

Support noted.

Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council: request clarification as to potential widening of scope of site. Mersey Belt Study (paras 4.54 – 4.56) supports location of airport related activities further out from the airport, allowing release of land at the airport for knowledge-based target sectors. Displacement of airport activities is clearly not the role envisaged for the M60 Gateway. Therefore question why Manchester Airport Western and Eastern Rail Links Study needs to precede feasibility work into M60 Gateway sites.

University of Liverpool: welcomes the Liverpool University Edge incubator spinout proposal.

Stockport.

Liverpool City.

Wirral.

Agree consultants’ recommendations. Site boundaries to be confirmed with Liverpool City Council and Liverpool Vision.

See 3.13 above.

Clarification – broadly agree the eight key transport investment priorities. These will be considered further as part of the RTS Review.

Clarification – agree to support consultant’s recommendation in paragraph 3.63 of the Mersey Belt Study and discuss further with Stockport MBC.

See 3.11 above.

NWDA Response

Organisation/comments

Relevant local authority

Interim NWDA Response

Page 46

Consultants’ Policy Recommendation

Manchester Airport WRL and Mersey Belt Rail Circle.

Study Para. No.

4.16-4.21

The consultants make no formal recommendation but the NWDA would point out that work is ongoing to establish options and examine their potential.

Interim NWDA Response

NWDA Response

Support noted.

See response to consultant’s recommendation in paragraph 4.11 (above).

Noted. See response to consultant’s recommendation in paragraph 4.11 (above).

Organisation/comments

Council for the Protection of Rural England: fully support this transport investment priority. Would welcome opportunity for involvement and consultation in the Manchester Airport Western and Eastern Rail Links study.

Macclesfield Borough Council: request early involvement and consultation of the options re Manchester Airport WRL.

Merseyside Policy Unit: Manchester Airport WRL has been de-prioritised from final RPG, to reflect SRA’s priorities. This is a cause for concern, given that Mersey Belt Rail Circle is dependent upon development of this scheme.

Relevant local authority Cheshire County, Chester City, Ellesmere Port and Neston, Halton, Liverpool City, Macclesfield, Manchester City, Salford City, Trafford, Vale Royal, Warrington, Wirral.

Page 47

Consultants’ Policy Recommendation

Manchester Airport WRL and Mersey Belt Rail Circle (continued).

Improvements in and into Manchester City Centre.

Study Para. No.

4.16-4.21

4.22-4.26

Support noted.

See response to consultant’s recommendation in paragraph 4.11 (above).

Support noted.

Liverpool Land Development Company: support this key transport investment priority. Agree that work should continue on eventual delivery of Mersey Belt Rail Circle, but it is not just a network to provide more convenient and sustainable access to Manchester Airport, but also to Liverpool John Lennon Airport. Better links between Liverpool and Manchester Airport are essential.

Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council: essential that Tameside are fully engaged in the development of the proposed Manchester Airport Western and Eastern Rail Links Study – position statement para 3.7 implies Stockport are the sole potential beneficiaries.

Council for the Protection of Rural England: fully support this transport investment priority.

Cheshire County, Chester City, Ellesmere Port and Neston, Halton, Liverpool City, Macclesfield, Manchester City, Salford City, Trafford, Vale Royal, Warrington, Wirral.

The consultants make no formal recommendation but the NWDA would point out that work is ongoing to establish options and examine their potential.

Manchester City.

NWDA Response

Organisation/comments

Relevant local authority

Interim NWDA Response

Page 48 Relevant local authority

Manchester City.

Liverpool City.

Interim NWDA Response

Agree in principle subject to further discussion.

Consultants’ Policy Recommendation

Support Manchester Rail Hub Study proposals (NWDA/HA).

Improvements in and into Liverpool City Centre.

Improvements in and into Speke Garston.

Study Para. No.

4.25

4.27-4.31

4.33-4.37

Support noted.

See response to consultant’s recommendation in paragraph 4.11 (above).

Support noted.

See response to consultant’s recommendation in paragraph 4.11 (above).

Liverpool Land Development Company: support this key transport investment priority. Supportive nature of consultant’s recommendations needs to be re-emphasised, given the outcomes of the Eastern Approaches Masterplan.

Council for the Protection of Rural England: fully support this transport investment priority. Liverpool Land Development Company: support this key transport investment priority. These must include upgraded access to an expanded Liverpool John Lennon Airport, as well as second Mersey crossing.

Support noted.

Liverpool Land Development Company: support this key transport investment priority.

Council for the Protection of Rural England: fully support this transport investment priority.

NWDA Response

Organisation/comments

Page 49

Consultants’ Policy Recommendation

Implement Mersey Tram Line 3 (before Lines 1 and 2).

The development potential of Speke Garston should be given due weight in assessing options for 2nd Mersey Crossing.

Study Para. No.

4.33

4.37

Relevant local authority

Agree consultants’ recommendations.

Halton, Liverpool City.

Liverpool City. Disagree consultants’ recommendation on Line 1. As Line 1 is so advanced and given Merseytravel support, NWDA consider that it should be implemented first but strongly support Line 3 as the next priority as it gives access to knowledge based industry, to the Liverpool Universities, to the Airport and to a strategic regional site. (Speke/Estuary).

Interim NWDA Response

NWDA Response

NWDA does not endorse the consultant’s recommendation on Line 1. NWDA recognises the economic significance of Line 3, but other regeneration and social inclusion issues are relevant. Further discussions to be held with Merseytravel.

See above.

Noted.

Organisation/comments

Merseyside Policy Unit: Line 1 serves a greater number of Pathways Areas than Line 3, which is why it was prioritised ahead of it. Development of Lines 2 and 3 will be taken forward as part of the next Merseyside LTP in 2005.

Liverpool Land Development Company: Line 1 must be constructed first because the Operations and Maintenance Centre (OMC) for the whole Merseytram system is to be constructed at the Gillmoss terminus of Line 1. Line 1 has now received DfT approval. University of Liverpool: welcome Line 3 as next priority. Liverpool Land Development Company: second Mersey crossing is a crucial element of maintaining attractiveness of Speke/Garston as an investment location over medium/long-term. Vital that the area’s potential is highlighted as a key part of the justification to DfT for funding.

Page 50

Consultants’ Policy Recommendation

Linkages between Greater East Manchester and South Manchester.

Support Manchester Rail Hub Study and SEMMMS proposals.

Investment in sustainable transport/new rail links.

Public transport improvements in Mid-Mersey.

Study Para. No.

4.38-4.43

4.38

4.40

4.44-4.47

Manchester City, Stockport, Tameside.

Agree consultants’ recommendations.

SEMMMS – NWDA strongly support the SEMMMS study recommendations.

Cheshire County, Macclesfield, Manchester City, Stockport, Tameside.

Relevant local authority

See 4.16 – 4.21 above.

Interim NWDA Response

Support noted.

Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council: welcome NWDA support of SEMMMS study and recognition that Development Plans and Development Briefs have a key role to play in assisting development of key target sectors.

Support noted.

Liverpool Land Development Company: support this key transport investment priority.

Support noted.

Council for the Protection of Rural England: fully support this transport investment priority.

Support noted.

University of Liverpool: agree consultant’s recommendations for the 2nd Mersey Crossing.

Council for the Protection of Rural England: fully support this transport investment priority.

NWDA Response

Organisation/comments

Page 51

This will be discussed further with the NWRA. Council for the Protection of Rural England: would not support M56 park and ride scheme unless it was based on brownfield land and was part of a multi-modal interchange point.

Cheshire County, Chester City, Halton, Macclesfield, Manchester City, Warrington.

Agree consultants’ recommendations and need to discuss with NWRA.

M56 park and ride – study recommended.

4.52

Support noted.

University of Liverpool: welcomes arrangements for public transport to promote knowledge-based growth in transport corridors.

Cheshire County, Chester City, Ellesmere Port and Neston, Liverpool City, Wirral.

Noted and ask relevant authorities to progress recommendation.

Multi-modal study – existing/potential public transport to promote knowledge based growth in transport corridors.

4.50

Support noted.

Liverpool Land Development Company: support this key transport investment priority.

Linkages between Chester and Liverpool.

4.48-4.53

NWDA Response

See response to consultant’s recommendation in paragraph 4.11 (above).

Warrington.

See 3.35 above.

Study of opportunities for public transport in Warrington.

4.46

Organisation/comments

Merseyside Policy Unit: a study to consider links between Liverpool and Chester is not set out in RPG – as such it is considered an arbitrary study. Such studies should be brought forward as part of the Regional Transport Strategy review process.

Relevant local authority

Interim NWDA Response

Consultants’ Policy Recommendation

Study Para. No.

Page 52

Interim NWDA Response

Noted.

Consultantsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Policy Recommendation

Manchester Airport.

Mersey/Ship Canal Crossings.

Study Para. No.

4.54-4.56

4.57-4.58

Halton, Knowsley, Liverpool City, Salford, Trafford, Warrington.

Cheshire County, Macclesfield, Manchester City, Stockport , Tameside, Trafford, Warrington.

Relevant local authority

NWDA Response

This will be discussed further with the NWRA.

Noted.

Organisation/comments

Macclesfield Borough Council: request early involvement in this study.

Merseyside Policy Unit: the NWRA is currently developing a regional Park & Ride strategy. This recommendation should feed into this.

Macclesfield Borough Council: would welcome early involvement in work on these matters.

Page 53

Consultants’ Policy Recommendation

Mersey Belt/Southern Crescent Multi Modal study (para. 10.36 final RPG).

Study Para. No.

4.58

Relevant local authority Cheshire County, Chester City, Ellesmere Port and Neston, Halton, Macclesfield, Manchester City, Stockport, Trafford, Vale Royal, Warrington.

Interim NWDA Response

Noted.

Macclesfield Borough Council: would welcome early involvement in work on these matters.

See response to consultant’s recommendation in paragraph 4.11 (above).

No specific recommendation was made by the consultants and therefore ‘Noted’ is an appropriate response. Any further consideration of this potential Multi-Modal Study is a matter to be considered as part of the RTS Review.

Halton Borough Council: interim NWDA response ‘Noted’ does insufficient justice to the significance of the River/Ship canal crossings. This should be given considerable weight in any wider Mersey Belt/Southern Crescent MMS. Halton Council ask the NWDA to reflect on the following: the Mersey Crossing, after completion of a major technical study, is going to be the subject of a major scheme appraisal to be submitted to Government in July 2003. The crossing has widespread support and Halton BC considers that it should be included as a key transport investment priority, supporting the Target Sectors.

NWDA Response

Organisation/comments

Page 54

Consultants’ Policy Recommendation

Policy Recommendations for the Mersey Belt Area.

Employment land policy Southern Crescent.

Recognise importance of existing employment allocations to knowledge based industry.

Promote small number of sites for specific sectors – close to stations on Chester-Liverpool line; north Wales/west Cheshire needs and opportunities.

Study Para. No.

6.4

See 3.27 (iii) above.

See 3.10 above (Capenhurst and Hooton).

Final RPG now contains a specific policy on knowledge-based industry (EC4).

Clarification: this refers to all sites identified in Figure 3.1 of the Mersey Belt Study (see map in appendices).

Agree consultants’ recommendations.

Interim NWDA Response

Cheshire County, Chester City, Ellesmere Port and Neston, Wirral.

Cheshire County, Chester City, Ellesmere Port and Neston, Halton, Macclesfield, Manchester City, Stockport, Trafford, Vale Royal, Warrington.

Relevant local authority

NB this comment is also relevant to the following further consultant’s recommendations in paragraph 6.4.

Council for the Protection of Rural England: would welcome NWDA clarification of how sites will be brought forward in relation to each other to prevent undue competition. A sequential policy towards their development would be welcome.

Organisation/comments

This is not an issue for the Mersey Belt Study.

NWDA Response

Page 55

Consultants’ Policy Recommendation

Reserve a small number of sites for investments that would be lost e.g. Davenport Green; EP site in Warrington.

Promote transport schemes to improve accessibility and sustainability of target sector sites.

Study Para. No.

6.4

Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council: Davenport Green is in Trafford, not Tameside.

Macclesfield Borough Council: welcomed – e.g. Alderley Edge Bypass.

Trafford, Warrington.

Cheshire County, Chester City, Ellesmere Port and Neston, Halton, Macclesfield, Manchester City, Stockport, Trafford, Vale Royal, Warrington.

See 3.11 and 3.38 above. Noted.

– ‘Reserve small number of sites for investments that would otherwise be lost’ and ‘Small number of key sites to be reserved and promoted’. To avoid repetition, the same comment has not been entered under these recommendations in the schedule. This comment should nevertheless be considered alongside the NWDA response for the further recommendations in paragraph 6.4.

Organisation/comments

Relevant local authority

Interim NWDA Response

Support noted. This point is reflected in Section 4 ‘Strategic Regional Sites’ in the main report (paragraph 4.9).

See 3.38 above

Error. Amendment has been made to ‘relevant local authorities’ column.

NWDA Response

Page 56 An issue for local authorities to consider in reviewing development plans.

Noted.

Council for the Protection of Rural England: this must consider RPG policy SD4. Given the large number of strategic regional sites and lack of a sequential policy towards their development, this does not seem reasonable as it may result in land not being used for more pressing alternate needs. B8 (warehousing) may be a good use for sites with public transport accessibility if it promotes a shift of freight from road to other modal forms.

Council for the Protection of Rural England: welcomes recognition of ‘landless’ employment growth.

Merseyside Policy Unit: reference to ‘landless employment growth’ still implies increased demand for housing and transport.

As above.

Noted and ask relevant local authorities to consider.

Noted.

Consider removal of wider employment allocations (esp. B8) on sites with good public transport accessibility.

Recognise “landless” employment growth in knowledge based sectors.

Employment land policy Metropolitan Axis.

6.4

NWDA Response

Organisation/comments

Relevant local authority

Interim NWDA Response

Consultants’ Policy Recommendation

Study Para. No.

Page 57

Bolton, Bury, Knowsley, Liverpool City, Manchester City, Oldham, Rochdale, Salford, St Helens, Stockport, Tameside, Trafford, Warrington, Wigan, Wirral.

As above.

Agreed.

Noted.

Agree consultants’ recommendations.

Noted and ask relevant local authorities to consider.

Noted.

Small number of key sites to be reserved and promoted.

Best sites – define usage as Southern Crescent.

Concentrate sites on Strategic Regional Corridors.

Local Employment Strategy for each site.

For non-MBS sites – permit but not promote target sector development.

6.4

Clarification: this refers to all sites identified in Figure 3.1 of the Mersey Belt Study (see map in appendices).

Relevant local authority

Interim NWDA Response

Consultants’ Policy Recommendation

Study Para. No.

Council for the Protection of Rural England: support.

Council for the Protection of Rural England: since the Southern Crescent concept is not approved, this is invalid.

Organisation/comments

An issue for local authorities to consider.

All references to the Southern Crescent are as a matter of historical record. RPG terminology is now used (see Introduction, paragraph 1.8).

NWDA Response

Page 58

R&D in Macclesfield

Foster links on northsouth axis (A34/M56) into South Manchester.

6.5 – 6.7

6.7

NB this comment is also relevant to the consultant’s recommendation in paragraph 6.7 – ‘Deal with road traffic hot spots’. However, to avoid repetition, the same comment has not been entered under this recommendation in the schedule. This comment should nevertheless be considered alongside the NWDA response for the recommendation in paragraph 6.7.

Council for the Protection of Rural England: must recognise impact of economic development policies in causing traffic growth. New policies, rather than new roads, are needed.

As above.

Noted and ask relevant local authorities and organisations to consider.

Promote sustainable transport links.

6.4

Cheshire County, Macclesfield, Manchester City.

Council for the Protection of Rural England: supports this where it concerns brownfield land and would fit with subregional housing allocations defined by RPG.

As above.

Agree consultants’ recommendations and ask relevant local authorities to consider.

Excess employment land – convert some to residential use.

6.4

Agree consultants’ recommendations and note special significance within conurbation core and close to universities.

Organisation/comments

Relevant local authority

Interim NWDA Response

Consultants’ Policy Recommendation

Study Para. No.

Disagree. This is dealt with in Section 4, ‘Strategic regional sites’ in the main body of the report (paragraph 4.9).

An issue for local authorities to consider.

NWDA Response

Page 59

Cheshire County, Macclesfield. As above.

Agree. Bypass now agreed.

See 3.11 above.

Deal with road traffic hot spots e.g. Alderley Edge.

Allow redevelopment and expansion of Astra Zeneca at Alderley Park.

Gap Areas.

South Central Wigan (Coalfields Communities).

6.7

6.8 – 6.13

6.11

Wigan.

As above.

Note and ask relevant authorities to investigate.

Improve transport links between cluster sites and between Macclesfield and Manchester.

6.7

Accept general location but consider that discussions are needed with Wigan MBC to identify the market potential for the target sectors in this locality, to identify a site(s) and define site boundaries, and to determine what needs to be done to bring this site(s) forward.

Relevant local authority

Interim NWDA Response

Consultants’ Policy Recommendation

Study Para. No.

An issue for local authorities and the RTS review to consider.

Merseyside Policy Unit: the need for better transport links between Macclesfield and Manchester requires further justification. There is a greater case to improve transport links in other parts of region, particularly Merseyside as an Objective 1 area.

See Section 5 – comments received on potential additional sites – South Central Wigan.

See Section 4 – strategic regional sites – South Central Wigan.

See Section 4 – strategic regional sites – Astra Zeneca.

Support noted. This is dealt with in Section 4, ‘Strategic regional sites’ in the main body of the report (paragraph 4.9).

Macclesfield Borough Council: would welcome if this involves the completion of Alderley Edge Bypass at an early date. Discussions on improving public transport links would be appreciated.

See Section 5 – comments received on potential additional sites – Astra Zeneca.

NWDA Response

Organisation/comments

Page 60

Consultants’ Policy Recommendation

Middlebrook, Bolton – most promising environmental setting.

Providing Quality Housing Sites.

Provide quality housing sites in the Metropolitan Axis and Southern Crescent.

Study Para. No.

6.13

6.14-6.18

6.16

Bolton, Bury, Knowsley, Liverpool City, Manchester City, Oldham, Rochdale, Salford, St Helens, Sefton, Stockport, Tameside, Trafford, Warrington, Wigan, Wirral.

Council for the Protection of Rural England: unclear what this means in practice. Housing figures set out in RPG should not be undermined.

An issue for local authorities to consider.

See Section 4 – strategic regional sites – Middlebrook.

See Section 5 – comments received on potential additional sites – Middlebrook.

Bolton.

See 3.13 and 3.58 above.

Noted and ask relevant local authorities to consider.

NWDA Response

Organisation/comments

Relevant local authority

Interim NWDA Response

Page 61

Consultants’ Policy Recommendation

Provide quality housing sites in the Metropolitan Axis and Southern Crescent (continued).

Study Para. No.

6.16

Relevant local authority Bolton, Bury, Knowsley, Liverpool City, Manchester City, Oldham, Rochdale, Salford, St Helens, Sefton, Stockport, Tameside, Trafford, Warrington, Wigan, Wirral.

Interim NWDA Response

Noted and ask relevant local authorities to consider.

Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council: the authority is running out of land for both employment sites and housing development. A re-allocation would be detrimental to Knowsley’s economic regeneration programmes.

This is an issue for Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council to consider.

Agree. Amendment has been made to precede the section with a header. The consultant’s policy recommendation has also been corrected accordingly.

Halton Borough Council: to better reflect the study report, this should be preceded by the heading ‘Providing Quality Housing Sites’ and deal with paras 6.14 to 6.18. A specific response is needed to para 6.18 recommendation ‘it is important that a steady supply of housing is achieved in the Southern Crescent as a whole to match the natural capacity of existing and proposed target sector employment locations’. NWDA endorsement of this recommendation would be helpful.

NWDA Response

Organisation/comments

Page 62

Development briefs for priority employment sites for target sectors.

6.26

Noted.

Quality and Design

6.26-6.31

Council for the Protection of Rural England: should include environmental standards of performance, and quality of visual impact.

This is an issue for local authorities to consider.

Peel Holdings plc: strongly support the need for more executive housing in the Metropolitan Axis. Believe NWDA should strengthen its recommendation so as to urge the local authorities concerned to positively promote the provision of executive housing in their areas.

All local authorities in study area.

Agreed, however this does not undermine the recommendation, as £100,000 was a good proxy when the Mersey Belt Study was drafted.

Merseyside Policy Unit: given recent house price increases, £100,000 is no longer a good proxy for ‘quality housing’.

Bolton, Bury, Knowsley, Liverpool City, Manchester City, Oldham, Rochdale, Salford, St Helens, Sefton, Stockport, Tameside, Trafford, Warrington, Wigan, Wirral.

Noted and ask relevant local authorities to consider.

Provide quality housing sites in the Metropolitan Axis and Southern Crescent (continued).

6.16

Agree consultants’ recommendations and ask relevant local authorities to consider.

NWDA Response

Organisation/comments

Relevant local authority

Interim NWDA Response

Consultants’ Policy Recommendation

Study Para. No.

Page 63

All local authorities in study area.

Agree consultants’ recommendations and ask local authorities and their associations to consider.

Agree consultants’ recommendations and ask relevant local authorities to consider.

Use Classes Order

Lobby Government to review.

Greater use of Davenport Green conditions.

6.32-6.34

6.32

6.34

Council for the Protection of Rural England: no good case has been made for the need to review the UCO. Must consider RPG policy SD4. Given the large number of strategic regional sites and lack of a sequential policy towards their development, reserving land for target sectors does not seem reasonable as it may result in land not being used for more pressing alternative needs.

This is an issue for local authorities and their associations to consider.

All local authorities in study area.

Agree consultants’ recommendations and ask relevant local authorities to consider.

High densities around transport hubs and to make public transport more viable.

6.30

Disagree. In some locations in the Mersey Belt it may be important to establish a new visual character.

Council for the Protection of Rural England: should include quality in terms of both environmental standards of performance, and visual impact in keeping with local character.

All local authorities in study area.

Agreed in principle and NWDA will discuss with individual authorities and agencies on a site-by-site basis.

Quality development as a condition of NWDA support.

6.27

NWDA Response

Organisation/comments

Relevant local authority

Interim NWDA Response

Consultants’ Policy Recommendation

Study Para. No.

Page 64 All local authorities in study area.

Agree consultants’ recommendations. NWDA has completed the exercise to map broadband across the whole region.

Fibre optic connections to target sector sites; map ICT infrastructure.

6.43

Disagree – legal obligations can be imposed.

LPAs unable to restrict available employment sites to target sectors, unless owned by the LPA.

Noted.

Airport supplier village within 20-minutes drive time.

This will be considered in any discussions with Manchester Airport.

In economic terms, drive time remains significant.

Council for the Protection of Rural England: the emphasis should be taken off ‘drive time’ – more sustainable options should be sought for both communications and goods deliveries.

Cheshire County, Macclesfield, Manchester City, Stockport, Tameside, Trafford, Vale Royal, Warrington.

Note and agree importance. Further discussions with Manchester City Council and Manchester Airport needed to deal with this issue.

Manchester Airport – target sectors within 5-minute drive time; airside requirements in Airport Operation Area.

6.40

Macclesfield Borough Council: 5 minute drive time seems unrealistic (should be up to 15 minutes drive time).

NWDA Response

Organisation/comments

Relevant local authority

Interim NWDA Response

Consultants’ Policy Recommendation

Study Para. No.

East Manchester * Ashton Moss * Waterside Park * Denton Cluster Liverpool City Centre * Wavertree Technology Park * Omega * Hooton Employment Area Capenhurst The Estuary Liverpool *

Strategic Regional Sites

✽

12✽ Key

Ellesmere Port and Neston

35✽

Strategic Corridors

Chester

Knowsley

10✽

Liverpool

✽

M57

M58

West Lancashire

16 40 15✽

M61

Wigan

Vale Royal

Note that the Northwest Development Agency does not endorse the consultant’s recommendations for a ‘Reserved Site’ in

Warrington as indicated on Plan 1 and Plan 2

M60

Macclesfield

✽

Congleton

en p tro resc Trafford Me C rn he o ut

Salford

Bury

Rochdale

2✽ 3✽ 4✽

Figure 3.1

Tameside

Oldham

29✽

M62

Stockport

37 38 1✽ 22 28 26 27 11 oundary 20 Manchester xis B nA a d n a u t o r 21 y i tB ol

Bolton

A R EA

Warrington

7✽

G A P

✪

M66

THE MERSEY BELT STUDY : RECOMMENDED STRATEGY

M56

Halton

M62

St Helens

The above plan has been reproduced for information from the Mersey Belt Study (May 2002)

Districts which should review availability of housing land to accommodate clusters from target sectors

Wigan South Central – see para 6.11

Reserve Site in Warrington – see para. 3.38

Astra Zeneca, Alderley Park – see para. 6.7

WALES

Sefton Manchester City Centre Sites Chester Business Park * Chester City Centre Saighton Camp Daresbury Park Location * Manor Park Lostock Triangle Manchester Business Park Sharston Green Birley Fields Princess Parkway Salford Quays M60 Gateway to Stockport Cheadle Royal M53 Davenport Green * Southbank Wirral Victoria Warehouse Barton Dock Road Kingsway * East Tytherington Business Park Danegate Parkgate Industrial Estate Earl Road Kings Court Kings Business Park * Clatterbridge Hospital Salford University Business Park Blackfriars Middlebrook Daresbury Laboratory

✪

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

Category B Sites

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Category A Sites

Plan 1 The Mersey Belt Study: Recommended Strategy (Figure 3.1)

8 Appendices

Page 65

hes

or S tudy

12✽

13 14

Chester

Ellesmere Port and Neston

Liverpool John Lennon Airport

10✽

Key

M56

16 40 15✽

Warrington

Vale Royal

he o ut

tr Me

Mersey Belt Rail Circle

M56 Strategic Park & Ride

Heavy Rail

Light Rail

Salford

Bury

M66

cen es Trafford r C

o rt

34 Macclesfield

Oldham

29✽

Figure 4.1

Stockport

KEY TRANSPORT SCHEMES

Congleton

Manchester Airport

25✽

d Park raffor to T

Note that the Northwest Development Agency does not endorse the consultant’s recommendations for a ‘Reserved Site’ in

Warrington as indicated on Plan 1 and Plan 2

M60

Rochdale

M62

to Tameside 37 38 ✽ 2✽ Tameside 1 22 28 26 27 11 3✽ d n a u o r 20 Manchester 4✽ y sB Axi n Rail Link from Manchester Airport a undary 21 to Stockp it t Bo to East Manchester ol

Further study needed of strategic public transport in Mid Mersey and North Chester rail corridor

Halton

7✽

M61

Bolton

A R EA

Wigan

The above plan has been reproduced for information from the Mersey Belt Study (May 2002)

Districts which should review availability of housing land to accommodate clusters from target sectors

orrid

✽

th C

il C r Ra

Strategic Regional Sites

Nor

Wigan South Central – see para 6.11

Liverpool

M62

p o rt

Reserve Site in Warrington – see para. 3.38

St Helens

G A P

✪

ra ns

Astra Zeneca, Alderley Park – see para. 6.7

M57

✽ il Eastern Corridor Light Ra Edge Lane ✽ Knowsley ✽

y rkb

Sefton

st Gar ke Spe

blic T

ea ey Ar Mers Midn i s t men prove

WALES

Manchester City Centre Sites Chester Business Park * Chester City Centre Saighton Camp Daresbury Park Location * Manor Park Lostock Triangle Manchester Business Park Sharston Green Birley Fields Princess Parkway Salford Quays M60 Gateway to Stockport Cheadle Royal M53 Davenport Green * Southbank Victoria Warehouse Wirral Barton Dock Road Kingsway * East Tytherington Business Park Danegate Parkgate Industrial Estate Earl Road Kings Court Kings Business Park * Clatterbridge Hospital Salford University Business Park Blackfriars Middlebrook Daresbury Laboratory

M58

West Lancashire

t o A i r p o rt

✪

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

Category B Sites

East Manchester * Ashton Moss * Waterside Park * Denton Cluster Liverpool City Centre * Wavertree Technology Park * Omega * Hooton Employment Area Capenhurst The Estuary Liverpool *

ail tR

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

ail Lin k

Category A Sites

i c Pu Strate g

e st ern R

Li gh

, R o chdale

ha m Old

Page 66 to

Plan 2 The Mersey Belt Study: Key Transport Schemes (Figure 4.1)

8 Appendices (continued)

The Northwest Development Agency manages all operations from its Headquarters at: PO Box 37 Renaissance House Centre Park Warrington WA1 1XB Tel: +44 (0)1925 400 100 Fax: +44 (0)1925 400 400 e-mail: Information@nwda.co.uk

In addition, there are five area offices for the implementation of local activities as follows: Greater Manchester Giants Basin Potato Wharf Castlefield Manchester M3 4NB Tel: +44 (0)161 817 7400 Fax: +44 (0)161 831 7051

Cumbria Gillan Way Penrith 40 Business Park Penrith Cumbria CA11 9BP Tel: +44 (0)1768 867 294 Fax: +44 (0)1768 895 477

Merseyside Station House Mercury Court Tithebarn Street Liverpool L2 2QP Tel: +44 (0)1925 400 100 Fax: +44 (0)151 236 3731

Lancashire 13 Winckley Street Preston Lancashire PR1 2AA Tel: +44 (0)1772 206 000 Fax: +44 (0)1772 200 049

Cheshire Brew House Wilderspool Park Greenalls Avenue Warrington WA4 6HL Tel: +44 (0)1925 644 220 Fax: +44 (0)1925 644 222 Visit: www.nwda.co.uk & www.englandsnorthwest.com

NWDA KADM 12/04 18000