The Midland Metro (Wolverhampton City Centre Extension) Order

Transport and Works Act 1992 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Transport and Works (Applications and Objections Procedure) (England and Wales) Rules 2006 Transport and Works (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 2004 The Midland Metro (Wolverhampton City Centre Extension) Order CLOSING SUBMISISONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT 1. The fact that the inquiry has been short, and that there is little opposition to the making of the order, is a clear indication that there is widespread recognition of the benefits of the scheme. 2. There is no dispute that the scheme will deliver the key benefits which I set out in my opening. I do not repeat that opening but do rely upon it, and ask you to consider it when writing your report. 3. When making your report, you will wish to address the matters identified in the Secretary of State s statement of matters 1. The evidence presented by the Applicant addresses those matters 2 and I do not intend to repeat it in these closing submissions. I will provide brief submissions on each matter, but rely on the unchallenged evidence, which I would ask you to consider in detail when writing your report. 1. The aims and the need for, the proposed Midland Metro Wolverhampton City Centre extension ("the scheme"). 4. The aims of the scheme are identified in the concise statement of aims 3. 5. The WCCE forms part of the wider Wolverhampton Interchange Project ( WIP ). The WIP will deliver a multi-modal transport hub, commercial floorspace and improve the strategic gateway to Wolverhampton and the Black Country. 1 INSP/4 2 Table 9.1 in Peter Adams PoE sets out where each matter is covered in the evidence. APP/P1.1/SCH 3 WCCE/A3 1

6. It is anticipated that the WIP will facilitate the development of 73,862 sq ft of office/leisure/retail floor space providing 278 jobs. A further 321,000 sq ft of floorspace will be created over subsequent years providing 1,590 jobs. 7. The need for the scheme is explained by Mr Adams in his proof of evidence 4. 8. The lack of connectivity between Midland Metro Line 1 and the railway and bus stations is a serious deficiency. That lack of connectivity disadvantages the travelling public and undermines the Black Country LEP strategy of enhancing public transport connectivity between the four strategic centres of Brierley Hill, Walsall, West Bromwich, and Wolverhampton 5. 9. The analysis conducted indicates that providing such linkages will prove attractive to the travelling public and as a result patronage levels on Midland Metro will increase by 4.6% by 2016 and by 5.4% by 2026 6. 10. There can be little doubt that there is a need to improve the connection between the Metro and the existing bus and rail services. The WCCE will achieve that connection and, as part of the WIP, will make a significant contribution towards regeneration and job creation in Wolverhampton city centre. 11. I invite you to conclude that the need is established, and that the order if made will enable that need to be met. 2. The main alternative options considered by Centro and the reasons for choosing the proposals comprised in the scheme. 12. The environmental statement identifies the main alternatives considered by Centro 7. 13. A number of alternative means of linking the Metro and the railway station have been considered since at least 1999. 14. In 2001 the Wolverhampton to Walsall via Wednesfied (5W s) route was given priority 8. 4 Adams PoE 6.1-6.3 APP/P1.1/SCH 5 Adams PoE 6.1 APP/P1.1/SCH 6 Adams PoE 6.3 APP/P1.1/SCH 7 WCCE/A15 section 3.7 8 WCCE/A15 section 3.7.8 2

15. The 5W s route was endorsed in the 2006 Local Transport Plan the route envisaged for Wolverhampton was a city centre loop 9. 16. A series of plans showing the options considered was submitted to the inquiry. Mr Adams explained those options. Options 1 and 4 are longer and affect more stakeholders. Option 2 does not go to the station. Option 5 would also be longer, would affect more stakeholders and would not interchange with the railway station. 17. In 2011/2012 the city centre loop proposals were replaced with the current more direct twin track route along Piper s Row 10. 18. The May 2013 proposals would have required demolition of the Old Steam Mill. That proposal was revised following objections from English Heritage and others 11. 19. A summary assessment of the options is set out at page A17 of the Business Case for the WIP 12. As Mr Adams 13 explained it was considered disproportionate to prepare a full business case for each option (with resultant BCR). However it is Mr Adams view that the alternative options would be likely to have a lower BCR as benefits would be similar whereas the route would be longer (and therefore cost more). 20. The alternatives considered have not been restricted to the route. Examination of alternatives has also included detailed consideration of the stops on Piper s Row, and in particular the northbound stop. Mr Gardner produced the Aecom technical note which considered such options 14. 21. There can be little doubt that there has been a thorough consideration of alternatives including extensive consultation over a considerable period, and that there is no preferable alternative to the scheme now proposed. 22. Alternatives are often relevant in decision making when the preferred scheme is held to cause some harm or has some other disadvantage. In those circumstances it can be appropriate to consider whether the aims of the scheme could be achieved without causing the harm complained of. This is not such a case, as there is no 9 WCCE/A15 section 3.7.12 10 WCCE/A15 section 3.7.14 11 WCCE/A15 section 3.7.16 12 WCCE/D1 table 2.1 page A-17 13 Oral explanation 14 Gardner Ap.3 APP/P3.3 3

suggestion that the proposals will cause such harm that it becomes desirable or necessary to search for alternative means of achieving the desired objective. 23. To the extent that the scheme does cause harm, such as the less than substantial harm to the setting of certain heritage assets, it is not suggested by any objector that such harm could be overcome by an alternative alignment or other alternative. 24. I ask you to report to the Secretary of State that: a. any harm is not such as to require alternatives to be considered any further. b. there has been careful and detailed consideration of alternatives c. there is no realistic alternative means of achieving the desirable outcomes that the scheme will bring. 3. The extent to which the scheme would be consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework, national transport policy, and local transport, environmental and planning policies. 25. There is no dispute that the proposals are consistent with, and will advance the objectives of the NPPF, national transport policy, and local transport, environmental and planning policies. 26. All the relevant policies are identified in the evidence of Mr Ellingham. Mr Ellingham also considers whether the scheme proposals comply with those policies. He concludes that they do 15. I do not repeat that analysis in these submissions, but I do rely on it, and ask that you accept it. 27. Mr Young, in his representation, does allege conflict with Core Strategy policy TRAN4 which seeks to create coherent networks for cycling and for walking. 28. There is no conflict with that policy. a. Specific consideration has been given to impact on cyclists. b. As explained by Mr Gardner crossing facilities have been provided allowing cyclists to cross the tram tracks. c. Further as demonstrated by Mr Gardner s plan there are alternative convenient and safe routes are available for cyclists enabling them to avoid 15 Ellingham PoE 6.58-6.59 APP/P7.1/TOW 4

using Pipers Row 16. Those routes form part of the coherent network desired by TRAN4, and provide safe, direct links for cyclists. 29. The clear conclusion that I invite you to draw is that the proposals accord fully with the objectives of national and local transport and planning policies. 4. The adequacy of the Environmental Statement submitted with the application for the TWA Order, having regard to the requirements of the Transport and Works (Applications and Objections Procedure) (England and Wales) Rules 2006, and whether the statutory procedural requirements have been complied with. 30. In considering this issue it is necessary to consider the environmental statement ( ES ) as submitted together with the further environmental information contained in the April 2015 Addendum 17. 31. Mr Ritchie has considered whether the requirements contained in the 2006 Rules have been complied with. He concludes that not only have the rules been complied with but good practice has also been followed 18. No other party contests Mr Ritchie s conclusion or makes any submission alleging a failure to comply with the requirements. 32. I invite you, in your report, to endorse Mr Ritchie s view. 5. The likely impact on the public, businesses and the environment of constructing and operating the scheme, including: (a) impact of the proposed works on storage, access and servicing arrangements to premises; (b) effect on Piper s Row and Fryer Street car parks and the City ring road; (c) impact on pedestrian, cycle and motor traffic during construction and operation; and (d) ecological impacts and whether any licences are likely to be required 16 WCCE/C2 paragraph 4.2, and Gardner Ap.2, APP/P3.3/ENG 17 WCCE/A15/6 18 Ritchie PoE 5.9 APP/P5.1/ENV 5

from Natural England. 5(a) 33. Control of road closures during construction is provided for by Article 43 of the draft order. Article 43(2) could be relied upon to put in place temporary traffic regulation measures they can only be exercised with the consent of the traffic authority (the City Council). 34. Impact of the proposed works on storage, access and servicing arrangements to premises are considered in the transport assessment 19 and by Mr Gardner in his proof of evidence 20. Specific construction impacts are considered by Mr Gardner at paragraphs 5.13 to 5.22. 35. The inspector raised questions in relation to access to premises on Piper s Row, in particular access to the courts and to the Wulfrun Hotel. As explained by Mr Adams, during construction: a. It is proposed that alternative arrangements be made for Judges parking at the Combined Court Centre. b. It is proposed that vehicles transporting those in custody to the court will be able to access the court from the bus station. c. Alternative loading arrangements are available in Queen Street which allow the Wulfrun Hotel to be serviced. 36. The access to the alleyway adjacent to the Wulfrun Hotel will not be accessible for a limited period during the construction works. However the disadvantage to the operation of the hotel is not great as alternative servicing is available using the Queen Street loading bay. 37. Mr Lunt also considers transportation impact during construction (section 4) and addresses matter 5 at his section 5 21. 19 WCCE/C7 section 10 20 APP/P3.1/ENG 21 APP/P4.1/TRA 6

38. The conclusion of the transport assessment is, that with the mitigation proposed, the proposals are not considered to have an unacceptable impact on the accessing and servicing requirements of existing operations and businesses 22. 39. During operation of the tramway existing operations and businesses may be affected by changes to traffic regulation. Those changes are made in schedule 7 to the order; these include controlling the use of Railway Drive 23 (as raised by the inspector during the course of the inquiry). Physical measures will be put in place to restrict the use of eastbound traffic over Railway Drive by use of rising bollards. 40. I invite you to conclude that, on the basis of the construction activities envisaged, the changes to traffic regulation and other changes during operation, and the assessment of those activities and changes to traffic regulation set out in the evidence, there will be no unacceptably adverse impact. 5(b) 41. Impacts on Piper s Row and Fryer Street car parks and on the road network are also considered by Mr Lunt. Access to both car parks will be maintained during construction 24 and operation 25. 42. Agreement has been reached with NCP in relation to the Piper s Row car park and the Fryer Street Car Park. 43. The Applicant has agreed not to exercise its powers in relation to the Fryer Street Car Park (Plot 25). 44. In relation to Piper s Row car park, the Applicant has agreed that the new car park entrance on to Tower Street will be opened simultaneously with the closure of the current Piper s Row access. At the same time new signage will be provided to direct people to the Tower Street entrance. 22 WCCE/C7 paragraph 10.4 23 Draft order Schedule 7 Part 2 Table 7 No. 7.1 24 Lunt PoE 5.4 APP/P4.1/TRA 25 Lunt PoE 5.8-5.10 and 5.11 APP/P4.1/TRA 7

45. The proposals will lead to a reduction in the number of parking spaces at the Piper s Row car park, however the reduction in number (15) is not significant when compared to the approximately 3,800 parking spaces in the WV1 postcode area 26. 46. The benefit to be derived by siting the northbound tramstop in Piper s Row in such a position as to avoid impeding right turning bus movements out of the bus station 27 far outweighs any minor detriment arising as a result of the loss of 15 parking spaces. 47. Mr Lunt considers impact on the City Ring Road during construction 28 and operation 29. 48. Impact during construction will depend upon whether the Corn Hill access to the railway station car park has been opened; this access is likely to be provided at an advanced stage of the works, even if not already in place as a result of the WIP project. Mr Lunt s judgement on this issue is set out at his Table 4.1 30. 49. Based on the modelling report, Mr Lunt concludes that impact attributable to the WCCE during operation is likely to be negligible 31. The most appropriate information to consider (in relation to northbound and southbound journey times) is that in Tables 4.5 and 4.6 in Mr Lunt s Appendix 3 as that is the product of the average of 15 model runs. 50. On the basis of Mr Lunt s evidence I invite you to conclude that there will be no unacceptably detrimental impact on the Ring Road, whether during construction or operation. 5(c) 51. Matter 5(c) is also considered by Mr Lunt. He considers impact during construction to be acceptable 32. 26 Applicant s rebuttal to NCP paragraph 29, APP/R1/1/OBJ10 27 Gardner PoE 2.11-2.12 APP/P3.1/ENG 28 Lunt PoE 5.5, APP/P4.1/TRA 29 Lunt PoE 5.12, APP/P4.1/TRA 30 Lunt PoE page 11 APP/P4.1/TRA 31 Lunt PoE 5.12, APP/P4.1/TRA, and see Lunt Appendix 3 Tables 4.5 and 4.6 32 Lunt PoE 5.6, APP/P4.1/TRA 8

52. Mr Lunt has based his assessment during operation on the outputs of a VISSIM micro simulation model as reported in the Transport Assessment 33. The conclusion of the traffic impact section of the TA is that the proposals are acceptable 34. The same conclusion is reached in relation to pedestrians 35. The TA concludes that, with mitigation, impact on cyclists will be negligible 36. 53. During the course of the inquiry Mr Lunt explained the model outputs. It is clear from the average delay times to all traffic 37 that the delays attributable to the WCCE (as distinct from the wider WIP project) cannot be described as unacceptable. The reference to an average masks the fact that there will be an improvement to bus journey times. Furthermore, even if there is some delay attributable to the WCCE it has to be balanced against the advantages of the scheme; those advantages far outweigh the delays identified. 5(d) 54. Matter 5(d) is considered by Mr Ritchie in his proof of evidence 38. When the ES was prepared it was not possible to gain access to the tunnel and void at the Old Steam Mill and therefore there was some uncertainty as to whether bats were present. That uncertainty has been resolved. A survey has been conducted, as reported in the ES Addendum at paragraphs 1.5.4-1.5.8 39. It was discovered that the void space and tunnel are not suitable for bats. As a result the prohibitions imposed by Article 12 of the Habitats Directive are not engaged and no European Protected Species licence will be required. 55. The evidence I have referred to has not been contradicted and should be accepted. I invite you to conclude that there will be no unacceptable impact on impact on the public, businesses and the environment of constructing and operating the scheme. 33 Lunt PoE 5.7, APP/P4.1/TRA 34 WCCE/C7 paragraph 5.6 35 WCCE/C7 paragraph 7.2.7 36 WCCE/C7 paragraph 7.3 37 Lunt PoE Table 3.3, APP/P4.1/TRA 38 Ritchie PoE 5.10-5.15 APP/P5.1/ENV 39 WCCE/A15/6 9

6. The effects of the scheme on statutory undertakers and other utility providers, and their ability to carry out undertakings effectively, safely and in compliance with any statutory or contractual obligations. 56. Article 45 and schedule 8 of the draft order make provisions relating to statutory undertakers. The standard provisions are included which enable, in relation to land acquired under the order, statutory undertakers rights to be extinguished subject to payment of compensation. 57. Mr Gardner considers the effects of the scheme on statutory undertakers at section 4 of his proof of evidence 40. I rely upon, but do not repeat, that evidence. 58. As the majority of the construction works will take place within existing public highways, the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 regime applies, and the stages set out under that regime have been and will continue to be followed. 59. Notice of the TWA order was served on all the statutory undertakers and other utility providers and no objections were made 41. It should be noted that no utility company objected. 60. There will be no undue impact on statutory undertakers and in cases where there is an impact, appropriate measures are in place to protect the interests of statutory undertakers. 7. The effects of the scheme on the statutory obligations, waterway operations and navigational management of the Canal and River Trust, and proposals to mitigate these effects. 40 APP/P3.1/ENG 41 Gardner PoE 4.6, APP/P3.1/ENG 10

61. No significant works are anticipated to be required to the existing bridge over the Birmingham Canal. The arch bridge over the Birmingham Canal will have its waterproofing renewed as part of the project 42. 62. Agreement has been reached with the Canal and River Trust, who have withdrawn their objection. 63. The protective provisions which the Applicant requests are included in the order will protect the Canal and River Trust s interests. The protective provisions prevent the Applicant from exercising certain powers conferred on it by the order, unless consent is given by the Trust. 64. I invite you to report to the Secretary of State that the order contains appropriate and adequate provisions to mitigate impact upon, and to afford protection to, the Canal and River Trust. 8. The implications for rail users, train operators, Network Rail and businesses located at Wolverhampton Railway Station of works to the station in connection with the scheme (including safety, parking, staff facility, and access issues). 65. The effect on rail users, train operators, Network Rail and businesses located at Wolverhampton Railway Station is considered in the evidence of Mr Adams 43. 66. The fact that Network Rail, the station facility owner, the train operating companies, and businesses located at the station have reached agreement with the Applicant can and should be taken as indicating that, so long as the relevant protective provisions are included in the order, adequate arrangements are in place to protect those interests. 67. Any scheme to improve facilities at a railway station is likely to cause some degree of interference with existing arrangements. As a result all works have to be carried out with care so as to avoid unnecessary disruption to rail operators and passengers. 68. The main protection for rail interests is that works will be undertaken in accordance with the agreements reached with rail companies, which provide for standard 42 Gardner PoE 5.12, APP/P3.1/ENG 43 Adams PoE 10.6-10.37 APP/P1.1/SCH 11

template rail industry agreements regulated by the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) to be entered into at a later date, and by the inclusion of protective provisions in the TWA order. The rail companies will have the ability to exercise control so as to ensure that the works are carried out in such a way as to avoid undue interference with their interests. Those agreements will also ensure that passengers can access and exit the station safely and efficiently while construction works are underway. 69. The WCCE will have no impact on operational train services 44. 70. On completion of the works: a. The new tram stop at the railway station will provide a significant benefit to rail station accessibility and interchange 45. b. The environment for rail users accessing the station will be improved by the changed arrangements for traffic; vehicular access will be relocated from Railway Drive to Corn Hill 46. c. There is likely to be a positive impact on the business of West Coast Trains 47. 71. I invite you to conclude that, subject to the inclusion of the proposed protective provisions, the interests of rail users, train operators, Network Rail and businesses located at Wolverhampton Railway Station will be adequately protected. 9. The effects of the scheme on the Old Steam Mill (though noting that listed building consent has been sought separately and granted for this element of the works). 72. The alignment of the proposed tramway in the vicinity of the Old Steam Mill was the subject of careful consideration. In May 2013 consultation was undertaken on a proposed alignment which would have required demolition of the Old Steam Mill. English Heritage (now Historic England) and others raised objections 48. 44 Adams PoE 10.26, APP/P1.1/SCH 45 Lunt PoE 3.16, APP/P4.1/TRA 46 Gardner PoE 2.22, APP/P3.1/ENG 47 Adams PoE 10.28, APP/P1.1/SCH 48 WCCE/A15/2 ES Main volume paragraph 3.7.16 12

73. In response to those objections the alignment of the tramway in the vicinity of the Old Steam Mill was revised and the current alignment put forward. That change of alignment was endorsed by English Heritage 49. 74. Some 727 sq m of land will be taken to provide space for the new access to the revised Network Rail car parking spaces and for the new taxi drop off and turnaround area 50. 75. The 20 th century steel clad north-west corner of the Old Steam Mill will be demolished (for which listed building consent has been obtained), and the remainder of the building will be stabilised and made safe 51. 76. The current scheme has been considered by English Heritage who have stated that they are fully satisfied by the amendments which have been made to address their concerns about the alignment of the extension adjacent to the Old Steam Mill and Corn Hill 52. The fact that EH now raise no objection, and have expressed their satisfaction with the changes should be given considerable weight. 77. The heritage impacts are considered by Mr Surfleet who concludes that the proposals will have a positive effect on the significance and setting of the Old Steam Mill 53. 78. I ask that you report Historic England s position, and the views of Mr Surfleet to the Secretary of State and that you conclude that the impact on the Old Steam Mill will be positive. 10. The measures proposed by Centro for mitigating any adverse impacts of the scheme, including: (a) the proposed Code of Construction Practice; (b) any measures to avoid, reduce or remedy any major or significant adverse environmental impacts of the scheme; and 49 WCCE/A15/2 ES Main volume paragraph 3.7.17 50 Gardner PoE 7.6, APP/P3.1/ENG 51 Gardner PoE 7.6, APP/P3.1/ENG 52 WCCE/A16 53 Surfleet PoE 8.1(6) APP/P6.1/CUL 13

(c) whether, and if so, to what extent, any adverse environmental impact would still remain after the proposed mitigation. 79. A draft Code of Construction Practice has been prepared 54, and the imposition of condition 6 would ensure that a code in substantial accordance with the draft is adhered to. 80. Mr Gardner describes the construction process in section 5 of his proof of evidence. 81. The measures to avoid, reduce or remedy environmental impacts of the scheme and an analysis of the residual effects are described in the environmental statement in each of the specialist chapters. The mitigation measures are summarised in chapter 16 of the ES. The proposed mitigation measures are also identified and described, and an assessment of the significance of any residual effect provided, in Mr Ritchie s table at his Appendix 2 55. 82. The conclusions to be drawn are that: a. A range of appropriate mitigation measures are proposed, and where appropriate will be secured by the conditions proposed or by the terms of the order. b. The residual effects are, in the main neutral, negligible or beneficial. c. Where residual effects are adverse, they are slight or minor save in the case of views during construction activity 56, and in relation to construction noise and vibration which will be short term and can be regulated by the code of construction practice. d. The environmental effects are acceptable. 11. Whether there is a compelling case in the public interest for conferring on Centro powers compulsorily to acquire and use land for the purposes of the scheme, having regard to the guidance on the making of compulsory purchase 54 WCCE/A15/3 55 APP/P5.3/ENV 56 Major adverse effect on the view from Wolverhampton Railway Station is identified during construction in scenario B, Ritchie Ap.2 page 55 of APP/P5.3/ENV, and Item 9 in Table 16.4 of the ES WCCE/A15/2 14

orders in ODPM Circular 06/2004, paragraphs 16 to 23; and whether the land and rights in land for which compulsory acquisition powers are sought are required by Centro in order to secure satisfactory implementation of the scheme. 83. The need for the scheme is established in Mr Adams evidence. 84. For the reasons set out above there are no realistic alternatives. 85. Mr Adams also identifies the transport benefits 57 and the regeneration benefits 58. 86. The scheme is an integral part of the WIP, which is predicted to deliver commercial development which will result in the provision of over 1,500 jobs 59. 87. The economic case is established by Mr Chadwick. The Benefit Cost Ratio of 2.5:1 demonstrates that the scheme is high value for money 60. Although such a BCR is simply stated it is the product of detailed analysis, and clearly establishes the economic benefits of the proposals. Those economic benefits cannot be secured unless the order is made. 88. Mr Gardner produces a schedule in which he identifies each plot of land and explains the purpose for which it is to be acquired or used 61. It is clear from Mr Gardner s schedule that each plot of land is required in order to carry the scheme into effect. 89. The disadvantages of the scheme (e.g. some less than substantial harm to the significance of heritage assets as a result of impact on setting), such as they are, are minor (although that less than substantial harm should be given considerable weight and importance when considering whether to direct that planning permission be deemed to be granted 62 ). 90. The very significant economic, transport, and regeneration benefits cannot be secured unless the order is made and compulsory acquisition of land and rights is authorised. Those benefits far outweigh any negative impact. 57 Adams PoE 6.4-6.13 APP/P1.1/SCH 58 Adams PoE 6.14-6.16 APP/P1.1/SCH 59 Adams PoE 6.14-6.15 APP/P1.1/SCH 60 Chadwick PoE 2.52 APP/P2.1/ECO 61 Gardner Ap.4, APP/P3.3/ENG 62 Surfleet Ap. 5 Barnwell Manor v. East Northamptonshire [2014] EWCA Civ 137 at paragraph 29, APP/P6.3/CUL 15

91. To the extent that the rights afforded by Article 1 Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights are engaged, the deprivation of possessions is clearly justified in the public interest, and I invite you to so find in making your report. 92. There is a compelling case in the public interest for the order to authorise the promoter to acquire the necessary land and rights and to use land temporarily, without such authorisation the very many benefits will not be realised in the public interest. 12. Having regard to section 25 of the TWA, whether the relevant Crown authority has agreed to the compulsory acquisition of interests in, and/or the application of provisions in the TWA Order in relation to, the Crown Land identified in the book of reference. 93. I repeat the submissions made in opening. 94. The Wolverhampton Combined Courts Centre is land held by the Ministry of Justice ( MoJ ) and is land in which there is a Crown interest for the purposes of section 25 of the Transport and Works Act 1992 ( TWA ). The Crown land can be acquired compulsorily under a TWA order if the appropriate authority agrees. In this case the appropriate authority is the MoJ who are the government department having management of the land. 95. The MoJ, through their solicitors 63, have indicated that whilst a legal agreement has not yet been entered into the MoJ have agreed in principle to the acquisition of those parts of the Crown land which will form new public highway. The MoJ have also indicated that they agree in principle to measures to mitigate impact during construction. The applicant requests that, when making your recommendations to the Secretary of State, you proceed on the basis that, in due course, the agreement which has been given in principle, will result in formal agreement. 63 Letter from Michelmores to the programme officer dated 27 th May 2015 16

13. Centro s proposals for funding the scheme. 96. As required 64 the application was accompanied by an estimate of the costs of the works 65 and a funding statement 66. 97. The total outturn cost of the Wolverhampton Interchange Project is stated to be 39.4m, which includes the 18m 67 cost of the WCCE. 98. The approach to capital funding is set out in the Financial Case section of the business case and the funding position is as follows 68 : LTB Major Schemes (BCLEP) 9m ITB 3m BCLEP (SEP) 4.5m Wolverhampton City Council 1m Prudential Borrowing 21.9m ----------- Total 39.4m 99. As the expenditure on the WCCE is planned to fall towards the end of the overall construction programme for the WIP it is likely that the majority of its funding will come from the prudential borrowing funding stream. 100. It is anticipated that Centro will use the income derived from the station car park to finance the loan repayments. 101. When Mr Adams wrote his proof of evidence, the arrangements necessary to allow the car parking income to fund the borrowing were still dependent upon the Secretary of State giving his agreement. On 29 th May 2015 69 the Secretary of State 64 Transport and Works (Applications and Objections Procedure) (England and Wales) Rules 2006, Rule 10(3)(b)(ii) estimate of costs. Rule 10(3)(a) proposals for funding 65 WCCE/A5 66 WCCE/A6 67 Adams PoE APP/P1.1/SCH Table 7.1 68 Adams PoE APP/P1.1/SCH Table 7.2 69 Appendix 1 to Peter Adams Supplementary Proof of Evidence APP/P1.4/SCH 17

confirmed his support of the arrangements proposed. The Secretary of State s support for that agreement provides significant additional grounds for concluding that the funding streams relied upon are likely to deliver the necessary funds to ensure that the scheme proceeds. 102. No objector has sought to question the fact that funding will be forthcoming to allow the scheme to be delivered. 14. The conditions proposed to be attached to the deemed planning permission for the scheme, if given, and in particular whether those conditions satisfy the six tests referred to in Planning Practice Guidance, Use of Conditions (Section ID:21a). 103. The proposed planning conditions are those set out in Mr Ellingham s evidence 70 (with amendments discussed at the inquiry) and accord with established TWA precedent. 104. The relevant policy test for use of conditions is that set out at paragraph 206 of the NPPF, namely that conditions should be necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in other respects. 105. Both the City Council and Mr Ellingham conclude that the relevant policy tests are met 71. 15. Any other relevant matters which may be raised at the inquiry. 106. Mr Young has raised concerns about the impact of the scheme on cyclists. The Applicant has provided a written response to Mr Young s points 72. 70 APP/P7.3/TOW Appendix 1 71 Ellingham PoE 6.83 APP/P7.1/TOW 72 APP/GEN7 18

107. Mr Gardner has produced a plan which shows two alternative routes for cyclists 73. 108. In their letter of support 74 Wolverhampton City Council expressed the view that: At this stage, Centro, in partnership with Wolverhampton City Council (WCC), have done everything reasonable to accommodate cyclist s needs within the WCCE proposals 109. I invite you to endorse the comment made by the City Council and to find that Mr Young s criticisms, whether in relation to alleged lack of information or failure to make adequate provision for cyclists are wholly unjustified. Conclusions 110. There is no serious challenge to the Applicant s case 75 (supported by the evidence of the witnesses including Mr Ellingham 76 ) that the WCCE will deliver the following key benefits: a. Improved integration between Metro, bus and rail modes providing new and improved journeys for the travelling public. b. Encouraging modal shift from private to public transport. c. Enhancing railway station accessibility. d. Providing a connection between the bus station and the railway station and to all areas along the Metro line 1 route. e. Facilitating access to HS2 in the future via line 1 and the proposed Metro Birmingham Eastside Extension to Curzon Street Station. f. Improving access to investment opportunities in the Black Country and more widely in the West Midlands region. g. Encouraging and facilitating the regeneration of land either side of Railway Drive and the rail station as part of the WIP leading to the provision of over 73 Gardner Ap.2 APP/P3.1/ENG 74 quoted and repeated in SUPP/1/GEN6 75 Centro Statement of Case paragraph 14.1 76 Ellingham PoE 4.24 and 4.34 APP/P7.1/TOW 19

1,500 jobs and the provision of mixed leisure and commercial facilities for Wolverhampton. 111. The WCCE is deliverable, there is no challenge to the feasibility of introducing it, and funds are in place. 112. This scheme will deliver very significant benefits to Wolverhampton without causing any unduly adverse impacts. I urge you to recommend to the Secretary of State that he should make the order with the modifications put forward and give the associated planning direction. Landmark Chambers, Neil Cameron QC 180, Fleet Street, London EC4A 2HG 9 th June 2015 20