WELSH GOVERNMENT INQUIRY DOCUMENT

Transcription

1 WELSH GOVERNMENT INQUIRY DOCUMENT REFERENCE NO. : WG ID 016 RAISED BY: Merthyr Motor Auctions DATE: 18/04/2018 RESPONDED BY: Welsh Government DATE: 02/05/2018 (document dated 27 th April 2018) SUBJECT: to clarification questions by Merthyr Motor Auctions 1. Welsh Government to provide I write in response to clarification questions submitted to the Programme Officer on 18 April 2018 by Merthyr Motor Auctions. RESPONSE: Please find enclosed below.

2 Adran yr Economi a r Seilwaith Department for Economy and Infrastructure Patrick Robinson Burgess Salmon LLP obo Merthyr Motor Auctions Sent Digitally (Patrick.Robinson@burges-salmon.com) Dear Mr Robinson Eich Cyf/Your Ref: Ein Cyf/Our Ref: qa & qa OBJ027R1 Date: 27 April 2018 THE WELSH MINISTERS (THE NEATH TO ABERGAVENNY TRUNK ROAD (A465) (ABERGAVENNY TO HIRWAUN DUALLING AND SLIP ROADS) AND EAST OF ABERCYNON TO EAST OF DOWLAIS TRUNK ROAD (A4060) AND CARDIFF TO GLAN CONWY TRUNK ROAD (A470) (CONNECTING ROADS) (DOWLAIS TOP TO HIRWAUN)) AMENDMENT ORDER AND COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER 201- I write in response to your clarification questions submitted to the Programme Officer on 18 April 2018 in respect of your objection to the above draft Orders. My responses to your questions are provided below: E1. In what other locations on Phases 5 and 6 of the A465 scheme are PMA underpasses being provided? PMA underpasses would be provided for existing accesses at the following locations Court Farm Underpass Ch 4,140 Nant Moel Underbridge Ch 6,350 Gurnos Farm Underpass Ch 12,275 Two of the underpass accesses would be shared with public rights of way. The other underpass has multiple beneficiaries and would also provide access to the proposed attenuation ponds at Gurnos. There would be no underpasses provided for sole individual use.

3 E2. In what other locations have PMA underpasses been provided on earlier phases of the A465 dualling? There are no locations on earlier phases of the A465 dualling where underpasses have been provided solely for PMAs. E3. Please explain the WG position on (a) the engineering feasibility / acceptability and (b) cost of: - - An underpass on private land beneath the new and existing carriageway linking the north and south parts of the MMA site; - The replacement of earth embankment to the north of the new carriageway within the MMA site with retaining wall; a) Engineering feasibility/acceptability Following the scrap yard fire beneath the M1 near Mill Hill in April 2011, the Highways Agency (HA) undertook a high level scoping study to understand the scale of potential risk from activities beneath and adjacent to the elevated sections of their networks. The work looked at general principles, vulnerabilities of different structures and types of land use; producing an initial assessment of the potential sources and categories of risk. The output of this work resulted in the publication of the Initial Fire Risk Audit Report (Highways Agency) dated May The underpass is feasible in engineering terms. However, it is not acceptable on the basis of a risk assessment undertaken with reference to the procedure detailed in the above document The replacement of the earth embankment with a retaining wall is feasible in engineering terms but not on environmental grounds as planting is proposed on the embankments to provide mitigation screening. b) Cost The underpass would increase the cost of the scheme. The retaining wall would increase the cost of the scheme.

4 E4. What policy basis is advanced a) for the WG s proposed design of the works within the MMA site and b) WG s claimed inability to meet MMA s alternative design and access requirements (as set out in Questions E3 and B5)? a) The design of the proposed scheme in the vicinity of MMA site has been developed with cognisance of the policy considerations in Mr Mark Dixon s Proof of Evidence along with the rest of the project. b) I refer you to our response at point E.3 E5. If lower than requested by MMA, what height of PMA underpass would WG countenance on the MMA site? An underpass is not acceptable to Welsh Government due to the risk to public highway asset and considerable additional cost. The height of the PMA is not an influencing factor. E6. Please provide any correspondence between Jacobs and Welsh Government on the discussions between them leading to the conclusion that the engineering solution sought by MMA in this location cannot be provided. Enclosed is an extract from the structural fire risk assessment relevant to your client s site. It was undertaken based on the risk assessment guidance in the Highways Agency Initial Fire Risk Audit Report. E7. Please explain what consideration has been given by WG to how the MMA site can remain operational at all times and at all stages of the WG scheme construction for: a) The scenario where the private underpass and additional land to the north being sought by MMA is provided, and b) For the scenario where WG provides alternative access to MMA off Pant Road to the South of the A465. By way of example, and not to limit the answer to be provided by WG, these considerations include in respect of the continuation of MMA s present use during construction; maintenance of suitable access, ensuring adequate on-site operation space and protection from damage of stored vehicles on site. Welsh Government requested written details of MMA s business operation to enable consideration of the impact on MMA s business to be considered. This was not provided by MMA prior to publication of the draft Orders or draft Supplementary Orders.

5 Notwithstanding this, WG has provided information to enable MMA to consider and advise WG how MMA could mitigate their losses since early Parties affected by a highway scheme are under a duty to mitigate the impact on their businesses as they are best able. The District Valuer has requested details from MMA of how they could mitigate the impact on their business operations. No details have been provided by MMA. B1. What assessments have been made of the potential impact on MMA s business by construction and operation of the scheme? Welsh Government requested written details of MMA s business operation to enable consideration of the impact on MMA s business operations to be considered. This was not provided by MMA prior to publication of the draft Orders or draft Supplementary Orders. B2. What is the overall predicted allowance made for disturbance compensation within the overall 22m land acquisition figure? We do not reveal allowances for individual parcels of land due to the commercial sensitivity. Land compensation is dealt with by the District Valuer under the Land Compensation Act. It is not a matter for the Public Local Inquiry. B3. What part of this figure in B2 for disturbance compensation relates to MMA? We do not reveal allowances for individual parcels of land due to the commercial sensitivity. Land compensation is dealt with by the District Valuer under the Land Compensation Act. It is not a matter for the Public Local Inquiry. B4. What provision in WG s assessments has been made for the potential economic and social effects of any job losses at MMA as a result of the scheme? Welsh Government requested written details of MMA s business operation to enable consideration of the impact on MMA s business operations to be considered. This was not provided by MMA prior to publication of the draft Orders or draft Supplementary Orders. As a result, a high level assessment has been undertaken for the Environmental Statement. Table sets out that impact. It is defined as Moderate Adverse.

6 B5. What consideration has WG given to the inclusion within the scheme of compensation land for MMA to the north of the site to offset the effect of land lost to the site through construction and operation of the scheme? The Welsh Government can only compulsorily purchase the minimum land necessary for the construction of a highway scheme. Welsh Government do not have the powers to compulsorily purchase compensation land as replacement land for landowners. G1. Please advise on which witnesses called by Welsh Government are best positioned to answer questions in respect of the above matters given the extent of their brief at this inquiry? The questions on the above matters, where appropriate for consideration in the Public Local Inquiry, will be answered by Mr Mark Dixon, Chief Witness. Yours faithfully Mark Dixon Project Engineer Department for Economy and Infrastructure

7 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED Annex A - Risk Assessment Criteria This is a simple formula to determine the ranking for identification of critical sites. The highest identified risk score was allocated for each category. Business type below/adjacent motorway/trunk road Score (A) Petrol or chemical storage 5 Other combustible materials in open storage 4 (including agricultural storage of hay/straw) Materials in closed storage, industrial building 3 General office buildings, housing or car parking 2 Open ground, river, canal, road, railway 1 Scale of occupation Score (B) Total occupancy or large volumes of materials 5 Medium occupancy 3 Low occupancy 1 Proximity to structure Score (C) Beneath structure 5 Business within 5metres of edge of structure 4 Business between 5 and 10 metres of edge of structure 3 Business between 10 and 100 metres of edge of structure 1 Structure vulnerability Score (D) Structure has critical components or vulnerable features 5 such as pre-tensioned beams, post-tensioning, hinge or half-joints, steel beams or is already subject to BD79 management for its deck Structure has a reinforced concrete deck 3 Brick or masonry arches 1 Risk factor (for prioritisation ranking only) Score AxBxCxD= Overall score There is no determining cut-off score for potential further action. However, to establish a focus for this initial scoping study, risk bandings have been established. For the purposes of this report, scores of are considered higher risk, to be of medium risk and less than 50 a lower risk. Only High Risk locations have been prioritised for further investigation.

8 Assessment of Fire Risk at Structures Structures Fire Risk Assessment Table 1 Fire Risk Assessment Structure Business Type Below / Adjacent Motorway / Trunk Road Scale of Occupation Proximity to Structure Structure Vulnerability Risk Factor Score A Score B Score C Score D Pant Road Viaduct Key High Medium Low 50 In assessing the potential risks for the Pant Road Viaduct, the following assumptions were made: - Vehicles are being stored directly underneath the viaduct; There are a large number of vehicles being stored on site; These vehicles may contain petrol / diesel; and There may be other (unknown) combustible materials stored underneath and / or in close proximity to the viaduct 1