Arven Chemicals Limited (AC/0/1WR)

Transcription

1 HBC/19/5R THE MERSEY GATEWAY PROJECT (MERSEY GATEWAY BRIDGE) Land Acquisition &Assembly Arven Chemicals Limited (AC/0/1WR) Rebuttal by Alan W Scarisbrick Dip (Est Man) FRICS 1

2 MERSEY GATEWAY LAND ASSEMBLY & ACQUISITION CONTENTS Section Heading Page 1.00 Introduction Rebuttal Conclusion 10 2

3 1.00 Introduction 1.01 Set out herein is my rebuttal of the Written Representations prepared by Charles Hubbard of Edmund Kirby Chartered Surveyors (CCH/41227) on behalf of Arven Chemicals Limited (Arven) in respect of land and premises at Unit 12, Goddard Road, Astmoor Industrial Estate, Runcorn. My rebuttal relates to land assembly and the need for powers of compulsory acquisition Rebuttal Grounds of Objection lodged in Statement of Case 2.01 Whilst Arven s grounds of objection lodged in their Statement of Case on 7 th November 2008 have been addressed within my Proof of Evidence (HBC/19/1P) within Appendix 1 (parcel ) I should like to point out that the statement Halton Borough Council did not believe that the business did not meet the criteria for advanced acquisition is an inadvertent double negative and should have read Halton Borough Council did not believe that the business met the criteria for advanced acquisition Section 4.1 of Mr Hubbard s Written Representation states that The location of the proposed bridge and access roads could be positioned to avoid the compulsory acquisition of a number of key businesses, including Arven. It is suggested that there is undeveloped and unoccupied which would be considerably more suitable for the proposed bridge. This, it is suggested, would also benefit traffic travelling from Manchester from Junction 11 of the M65, as opposed to the convoluted journey via junction 12 of the M56. 3

4 2.03 It is not clear from this statement exactly where Mr Hubbard is suggesting that the proposed bridge and access roads should be repositioned. However, a number of route alternatives were considered and consulted upon during the development of the Project as explained in the evidence of Mr Steve Nicholson (HBC/2/1P) and in Chapter 5 of the Environmental Statement (see Figure 1). The proposed scheme which is being considered at this Inquiry was chosen because it provides the best overall solution taking into account the costs, benefits and impacts of the proposals In particular, a route to the east of the proposed Mersey Gateway, Route 4, from the Daresbury Expressway in the south to Fiddlers Ferry in the north (Figure 1) was considered, as well as two variations to this route, Route 4A and 4B, (Figure 2), which provided better links into the highway network in Widnes than Route 4. Paragraphs to in Chapter 5 of the Environmental Statement discuss these routes and the reasons why they were not considered to be feasible options. The relevant pages from the Environmental Statement are appended to this rebuttal for the information purposes. Continuity of Production and Retention of Employment 2.05 Mr Hubbard at paragraph when referring to the plant and equipment employed in the business states Some items are quite large and would be difficult to move to alternative premises. Removal on relocation could risk damaging the plant and machinery and require new or replacement equipment. The Council s Officers and advisors engaged on the Mersey Gateway Project visited Arven s premises on 19 th January During that site visit there was no evidence to suggest that any of the plant, machinery and equipment falls into the category of highly technical, specialist or scientific equipment that would be difficult to relocate. Furthermore, at no time during the site visit did Arven or their agent make reference to any plant and machinery other than that of a general nature. Arven did indicate during the site visit that their last relocation was undertaken in a relatively short period of time. There is no reason to suggest that their current business would be any more difficult or problematic to relocate, and indeed no evidence was provided or volunteered by Arven to indicate otherwise. 4

5 2.06 The cost of moving and reinstatement of plant and machinery on relocation is an allowable expense and may form part of a disturbance claim for compensation in accordance with the provisions of the compensation code. As such, there is no reason why the plant in question precludes compulsory acquisition or why this is not a matter that cannot be addressed by the Compensation Code Also at paragraph 4.2.2, Mr Hubbard states The site contains a specially constructed fireproof warehouse, located separately from the main unit and any relocation would require a similar building to be constructed with cost repercussions. The description specially constructed fireproof warehouse suggests that this structure is of significant scale and size and of a unusual highly technical specification, whilst in reality it is the outbuilding referred to in Mr Hubbard s section 2.3 extending to sq m (350 sq ft) and of relatively standard construction. Whilst Arven may have adapted the building for the storage of chemicals it is understood that it was in existence prior to Arven acquiring and taking up occupation in May Again, on relocation the cost for provision of a similar construction replacement building is an allowable head of claim under the compensation code In paragraph Mr Hubbard refers to the putting in place of health and safety procedures at any relocation premises being costly and time consuming to the Directors of the business. Any such costs associated with re-establishing health and safety procedures together with any requirement for retraining are allowable disturbance costs Mr Hubbard s comment at paragraph relating to relocation and potential effects on staff who reside in the locality is noted and in this regard through the provisions made within the Mersey Gateway Relocation Strategy it is envisaged that most, if not all affected businesses will be able to successfully relocate within the Borough. There are currently a large number of vacant premises in the locality and it is anticipated that a relocation of Arven, at the appropriate point in time, within the Borough is achievable. 5

6 2.11 It should be noted that whilst certain elements may be allowable heads of claim in theory, the principle and quantum of any specific claim is a matter for the Lands Tribunal and not for this inquiry. As such, the Borough Council will expect losses to be demonstrated, and attributable to the project before settling any claim. No Formal Approaches for Pre-CPO Acquisition 2.12 In addition to the pre- TWA application correspondence dating back to November 2006 GVA Grimley have, on behalf of Halton Council, been in formal discussions with Arven and its agents since August As stated at paragraph 6.11 of my Proof of Evidence (HBC/19/1P) In accordance with the resolution of the Mersey Gateway Executive Board on 7 th November 2007 the Land Acquisition Working Group (LAWG) has engaged with affected owners and occupiers. Halton Council does not wish to disturb businesses from their current premises before it becomes necessary when the various Orders and consents have been confirmed. Through consultation with businesses, including Arven, each has been considered on its own merit as to whether early relocation is appropriate due to its nature, size and requirements As part of the process for assessing the merits for early relocation the specific requirements of each business and likely timescale for physical relocation are taken into account. Mr Hubbard did provide on the 11 th February 2009 a draft circular accommodation requirement to which he was seeking his client s approval prior to distribution to relevant property agents. To date, I am not aware as to whether his client has approved the draft property requirement or whether it is being distributed to agents In light of the discussions with Arven and their agent and taking into account the size and nature of their existing premises it is considered, in accordance with the Mersey Gateway Relocation Strategy, that Arven does not have a specific requirement that would necessitate early relocation. 6

7 Limited Adequate Relocation Premises Available 2.15 In respect of Mr Hubbard s statement at that Arven have not been able to identify any suitable alternative accommodation to which they could relocate I am not aware that they have actively pursued a property search as Mr Hubbard suggested they would do in his previously referred to letter to GVA Grimley dated 11 th February The land requirement for the Mersey Gateway Project within the Astmoor Industrial Estate is relatively small compared to the overall size of the estate less than 10% At paragraph Mr Hubbard states Alternative accommodation elsewhere in the Borough is likely to be more expensive and less suitable for our client s needs. No evidence has been provided to support this statement. From our discussions with First Investments Ltd leading to the withdrawal of their objection we are aware that they see the Mersey Gateway as an opportunity to redevelop parts of their holding at Astmoor as outlined within the Mersey Gateway Regeneration Strategy (CD 163). The majority of the currently vacant premises within the Astmoor Industrial Estate are in the ownership of First Investments and its associated companies. In correspondence received from First Investments Ltd they have expressed a willingness to work with the Council to provide relocation options to those businesses affected by the project wishing to remain in the locality Mr Hubbard, at paragraph 4.4.3, mentions his clients would need to use, produce and store hazardous chemicals on site and that they would require special consents to handle them. Given that Runcorn has four top tier COMAH (Control of Major Accident Hazards) sites at INEOS and other more significant chemical manufacturers such as, Croda Europe, GE Betz, and as Arven is not a COMAH site, it is reasonable to assume that planning permission would be granted for the storage and handling of hazardous chemicals at a suitably located industrial site. Funding for the Scheme 2.18 The funding and financial implications of the Mersey Gateway Project are dealt with in the Proofs of others namely, David Parr (HBC/1/1P), Steve Nicholson 7

8 (HBC/2/1P) and Richard Threlfall (HBC/4/1P). Increased Traffic and Road Use 2.19 The points raised at Section 4.6 of Mr Hubbard s Written Representation are dealt with in the Proof of Evidence of Alan Pauling (HBC/8/1P). Insufficient Prior Consultation 2.20 I disagree with Mr Hubbard s statement at of his written evidence that Insufficient time in the programming has been provided for meaningful discussions and consultations with the Council and its advisors to identify if objections can be overcome or that the scheme can readily be adjusted to deal with the objections made. I consider that Halton Council has taken a proactive approach and acted responsibly in its consultations and negotiations with affected parties and objectors to the Mersey Gateway Project As stated at 6.01 of my Proof of Evidence (HBC/19/1P) Halton Council has contacted, written and visited each land objector or their appointed agent and conducted negotiations with affected owners and businesses in accordance with the guidance provided within Circular 06/2004. Wherever practicable, it has sought to acquire interests in land by agreement and to enter into agreements for acquisition, where appropriate, before embarking on compulsory purchase. Negotiations commenced in February 2008 (earlier in some cases) and are continuing in parallel with the compulsory purchase process. Halton Council s Evidence to the Inquiry 2.22 At 5.1 of his Written Representation, Mr Hubbard has quoted the statement from my Proof of Evidence (HBC/19/1P), Appendix 1 in relation to Parcels Halton Borough Council did not believe that the business did not meet the criteria for advanced acquisition which I have previously dealt with at 2.01 above confirming that the double negative was an error. 8

9 2.23 As Mr Hubbard points out at paragraph 5.2 During a meeting held in January 2009 representatives of Halton Borough Council indicated that they would provide a list of potential alternative/relocation properties to Arven Chemicals Ltd. David Lyon, the Council s Economic Development Officer engaged on the Mersey Gateway Project is still awaiting confirmation from Mr Hubbard that the draft circular accommodation requirement attached to his letter dated 11 th February 2009 has been approved by his client, in order to be able to assess Arven s requirements and provide a list of suitable relocation opportunities Mr Hubbard suggests at 5.3 that the Option Agreement declined by his client in August 2008 may be considered misleading and derisory. I can confirm that was by no means the intention. The aim of such agreements as set out in paragraph 6.20 of my Proof of Evidence (HBC/19/1P) is to give comfort as to levels of compensation including the basis upon which disturbance costs would be assessed. This is in accordance with the Compensation Code and is intended to provide the degree of comfort to businesses that they will be able to relocate their business at the appropriate time. Furthermore, Arven Chemicals did not attempt to negotiate the proposal, merely rejecting it out of hand Mr Hubbard states within his conclusions at paragraph 6.1 that Arven Chemicals Ltd are a well established business who have owner occupied their current premises on Goddard Road, Astmoor Industrial Estate for approximately 20 years. They are an established and successful business who compliment (sic) the industrial/employment within which it is based. I agree with this statement and therefore in the event that the Mersey Gateway Project did not proceed for any reason it would be both unfair and unacceptable to have relocated Arven and other similar businesses of a general nature unnecessarily. 9

10 2.26 I disagree with Mr Hubbard s statement at paragraph 6.2 that the approach made by GVA Grimley on behalf of Halton Borough Council have (sic) been minimal and may be considered as discriminatory. Arven s business case has been assessed in accordance with the policy within the Mersey Gateway Relocation Strategy and is considered due to its nature and size to be a business of a more general nature, not considered as a special case. As such it would be regarded as premature to acquire their property at the public expense and relocate the business prior to the confirmation of the necessary Orders and consents. Those businesses, referred to by Mr Hubbard, where agreements have been entered into for advanced acquisition are of a much larger and significantly more complex nature than that of Arven. Further, there is no evidence additional hardship suffered by Arven in default of an early acquisition The possibility of re-positioning the proposed Mersey Gateway to the east to avoid Arven and other businesses has been addressed in the Proofs of Evidence of others and rebuttals provided accordingly Conclusion 3.01 In conclusion, I respectfully consider that Arven Chemicals Limited s objections to the Mersey Gateway Project are either unfounded or relate purely to matters of compensation and that the Orders should be confirmed. 10

11 Figure 1 Figure 2

12 Route 4 Description Route 4 was proposed by The Acting Mersey Conservator and supported by the Environment Agency as an option that they considered would minimise effects on the hydrodynamics of the River. Route 4 is located approximately 4.5 km upstream of the SJB (as shown on Figure 5.14 above). It starts from Daresbury Expressway at Manor Park and heads northwards to the River crossing at Fiddlers Ferry. Once across the River it skirts the edge of the power station lagoons on embankment before crossing the saltmarshes, St. Helens canal and the railway line on a separate structure and joining Fiddlers Ferry Road west of the power station. Discussion Contamination is a significant negative constraint for the alignment of Route 4. Figure 5.18 highlights the areas of potentially significant contamination. The two areas shaded darker red, Johnson s Lane Tip in Widnes and Randles Island Tip in Runcorn, are to be avoided due to high levels of contamination and associated risks and were therefore instrumental in defining the alignment of Route 4. Figure Areas of Contamination The Widnes Waterfront EDZ would be affected by Route 4. Route 4 would have an effect at the eastern end of the EDZ where the alignment was changed to avoid the contaminated Johnson s Lane Tip. Route 4 would have to be taken around the northern perimeter of the EDZ to minimise the impact on this Development. If Route 4 were taken directly through the EDZ this The Mersey Gateway Project Chapter 5.0 Environmental Statement 1.0 Page 5.45 Alternatives

13 would clearly have a significant negative effect on the development proposals with the alternatives either being to split the site in two by the new road or to run along the canal corridor which would have significant impact on the visual aspects of the EDZ The traffic modelling undertaken as part of the MSA shows that Route 4 would only attract 47% of traffic in the design year from the SJB, but this figure was found to be much lower at opening (2007). The increase in flow at design year could not, therefore, be attributed to journey-time savings, but as a consequence of increasing congestion on the SJB. It can be seen that the attraction of traffic to the proposed Route 4 would not be of a sufficient level to allow the SJB to be reduced to two lanes Minimal congestion relief on SJB would not significantly improve access to existing areas of development but access to east south east Widnes and Manor Park would be improved. Conclusion Table 5.5 below provides a summary of those fixed route alternatives that were considered during the MSA process. Table 5.5 Summary of Fixed Route Alternatives Alternatives Alternatives taken Explanation forward? Route 1 Due to the number of properties required for demolition, effects on regeneration areas, its location within a PIZ, the unacceptable effects on designated ecological sites, noise and air quality issues and visual and cultural heritage effects Route 1 was not considered to be a feasible alternative. Route 2 Traffic modelling indicated that, although Route 2 would allow the SJB be reduced to two lanes, traffic relief would be marginal and the SJB would remain busy and with limited potential to provide improvements for public transport, cyclists and pedestrians. Options for de-linking of the SJB approach roads would impose longer journeys on crossings. For these reasons Route 2 was not considered to be a feasible alternative. Route 2A Due to its length Route 2A would not provide a significant reduction to traffic using the SJB and therefore not allow a downgrade in the number of lanes. In addition access via the junctions to the north and south of the River was considered to be indirect and not ideal. For these reasons it was not considered to be a feasible alternative. Route 3 Due to its negative effects on the Widnes Waterfront EDZ and the fact that it did not show as many benefits as Route 3A, Route 3 was not ultimately considered to be an acceptable alternative. Route 3A Route 3A offers the following benefits and was therefore considered to be a feasible alternative: a. Route 3A, which comprises the optimum elements of the Route 2 and Route 3 alignments, lies naturally on the desire line for through traffic. As a result, it achieved the highest proportion of trip reassignment from the SJB when compared with other routes and The Mersey Gateway Project Chapter 5.0 Environmental Statement 1.0 Page 5.46 Alternatives

14 Alternatives Alternatives taken forward? Explanation therefore provide the strategic and local traffic diversion required. This satisfactorily relieves the SJB and permits its return to local use. The only other alternative to achieve a similar traffic diversion was the on line alternative, Route 1. However this option was discounted based on a number of reasons provided; b. Route 3A has relatively straight forward junction solutions in comparison to other variations of this route options (Route 2, 3 and 2A); c. Route 3A avoids residential areas and has a minimal impact on industrial areas (unlike Route 1). Its elevation on the southern bank provides a real opportunity for exploiting the area under the bridge within the Astmoor estate for commercial use; and d. Route 3A involves the least impact on the existing highway network requiring a minimum of disruption to traffic and the local economy during construction. Route 4 Due to its location within an area of heavy contamination, potential effects on Widnes EDZ and minimal congestion relief on the SJB it was not ultimately considered to be an acceptable option In summary, the fixed route alternatives in their current configuration were not considered to be feasible options to address congestion issues in Halton. Refined Fixed Route Alternatives Routes 4A and 4B Description Route 4, which was proposed by the Acting Mersey Conservator, does not sit comfortably in the existing road network. At its southern junction Route 4 would link with the A558 Daresbury Expressway, which has only been partially developed. Onward links to the south and to the M56 are extremely indirect and preference would depend upon whether travellers would wish to proceed east (towards the M6 / Manchester) or West (Chester and North Wales). Traffic studies have indicated that the majority would be likely to use the Central Expressway and Junction 12 on the M56. Some would route through Daresbury and M56 Junction On the north bank the links to the A562 (Liverpool Road) and the A557 (to St Helens and M62 Junction 7) would be long and difficult. For an initial comparison with other options, a simple link into south-east Widnes was shown which minimised the effect on Widnes Waterfront EDZ and avoided the most contaminated areas To address the traffic problems with Route 4, further developments were modelled, Route 4A and Route 4B. The change from Route 4 was to continue the route westwards along the north bank of the Estuary to join directly with the A562 Speke Road to Liverpool. As with other fixed route options a grade separated junction would be provided with the A557 Widnes Eastern Bypass connecting with the M62 (Junction 7) and St Helens. These additional alternatives are outlined below and shown in Figure The Mersey Gateway Project Chapter 5.0 Environmental Statement 1.0 Page 5.47 Alternatives

15 Figure Route 4 Alternatives Discussion a. Route 4A progresses through the saltmarshes to the south of the St Helens Canal and crosses the canal and Ditton freight rail line once. b. Route 4B progresses north of the St Helens Canal and the freight line. This requires crossing the railway twice and maintaining the route at a much higher elevation. It would also occupy a significant proportion of the EDZ Route 4A would have severe adverse effects on the saltmarshes with a significant area on the north bank lost. The effect on the tidal river would be much reduced by crossing at Fiddler s Ferry (although not entirely eliminated since there would be need for some works within the River to provide the base for the tower of the bridge). The sole advantage of keeping the route to the south of the St Helens Canal would be so that the vertical alignment of the new road could be brought down to canal-bank level and visual intrusion minimised Route 4B would not adversely affect the saltmarshes to the same degree (although this is still not insignificant, particularly along the edge of Cuerdley Marsh). However, the alignment would have to be maintained at a much higher level (approximately 11m above saltmarsh) in order to cross the Ditton Freight Line twice within a distance of approximately 1km and to facilitate the grade separated junction with the Widnes Eastern Bypass. The result would be a visual wall along the north bank isolating Widnes from the foreshore. The routes would also prevent a large proportion of the proposed development of the area (Widnes Waterfront EDZ) and would require the demolition of Rhodia works. The Mersey Gateway Project Chapter 5.0 Environmental Statement 1.0 Page 5.48 Alternatives

16 Routes 4A and 4B would not attract sufficient traffic from the SJB to permit that crossing to operate successfully as the local bridge with an enhanced provision for cycling and walking Although work undertaken as part of the MSA indicates that all options for Route 4 (4, 4A and 4B) would have a reduced effect on hydrodynamics of the Estuary in comparison to alternative fixed route bridge crossings, the adverse effects on saltmarsh habitats to the north of the River, the cost of the scheme due to its respective length and its effect on local businesses (within Widnes Waterfront EDZ) resulted in these alternatives being discounted. Conclusion Table 5.6 below provides a summary of those modified fixed route alternatives that were considered during the MSA process. Table 5.6 Summary of Refined Fixed Route Alternatives Alternatives Alternatives taken Explanation forward? Route 4A Route 4A would have a severe adverse on the saltmarshes and therefore was not considered to be a feasible alternative. Route 4B Route 4B would prevent a large proportion of proposed development at Widnes Waterfront EDZ and would require the demolition of Rhodia Works, as such it was considered to be unfeasible In conclusion, the alternative that was considered to be the most feasible following the MSA analysis of all fixed route alternatives and associated modifications was Route 3A. 5.9 The Project Design Alternatives The following section explores design options which have been considered throughout the development of a new river crossing using Route 3A, which are the preferred alternative and the subject of this ES. Tolling vs Non-Tolling Option Original proposals for the preferred alternative, Route 3A, involved the development of an untolled scheme. Therefore, all assessment work undertaken, as summarised above proceeded on this basis. Following the submission of the MSA in 2003 the DfT requested additional information on a number of issues including the consideration of funding proposals by means of tolling. Studies undertaken concluded that without the tolling of both bridges (i.e. both the SJB and the New Bridge) transport distribution would be distorted and benefits associated with congestion relief not realised. It was therefore concluded that both bridges should be tolled. The MSA was re-submitted in 2004 providing detail of a tolled option for Route 3A. In March 2006 the DfT granted Programme Entry approval for the Project, along with conditions which were based on a tolled scheme. From this point onwards all further studies considered tolling. The Mersey Gateway Project Chapter 5.0 Environmental Statement 1.0 Page 5.49 Alternatives