Greater Manchester (Leigh Guided Busway) Order

Print Print page   Download PDF PDF image

Messrs Bircham Dyson Bell
Solicitors and Parliamentary Agents
50 Broadway
Westminster
London
SW1H 0BL

Ellis Harvey
Head of the TWA Orders Unit
Zone 9, 9th Floor
Southside
105 Victoria Street
London
SW1E 6DT

Direct line: 020 7944 3293
Fax: 020 7944 9637
e-mail: transportandworksact@dft.gov.uk

Web site: www.dft.gov.uk/strategy/twa

Our Ref: TWA/3/1/195
Your Ref: PHT/B008253

29 June 2005


Dear Sirs,

Transport and Works Act 1992

Town and country planning act 1990

Applications for the proposed greater manchester (leigh busway) order and deemed planning permission

  1. I am directed by the Secretary of State for Transport to refer to the public inquiry held between 10 September and 8 October 2002 and to my letter of 13 October 2003 on behalf of the Secretary of State in connection with the applications made by your clients, the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive ("GMPTE"), for:

a. the Greater Manchester (Leigh Busway) Order ("the Order") to be made under sections 1 and 5 of the Transport and Works Act 1992 ("the TWA"); and

b. a direction as to deemed planning permission to be issued under section 90(2A) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

The Order as applied for would authorise construction of a 7 kilometre twin-track guided busway between Leigh, Tyldesley, and Ellenbrook using the trackbed of an abandoned railway, with an adjacent recreation route for walkers and cyclists and, in part, for equestrians. The busway would form part of GMPTE's Quality Bus Corridor ("QBC") between Leigh and Manchester. The proposals were described more fully in the Secretary of State's letter of 13 October 2003 ("the October 2003 letter").

  1. This letter must be read in conjunction with the October 2003 letter as it is the two letters, taken together, which convey the full reasons for the Secretary of State's decisions on these applications. A copy of the earlier letter is therefore enclosed for ease of reference.
  2. The October 2003 letter set out the Secretary of State's provisional views on these applications on the basis of the evidence then before him, including the inquiry Inspector's report. The letter explained, however, that the Secretary of State was unable to come to a final view on the Inspector's conclusions and recommendations because he required more information on two particular matters before he could make a properly informed decision on the applications. These matters were -
    • the impact of the proposed busway on habitats of the Great Crested Newt ("the GCN"), in regard to which he invited GMPTE to carry out further, detailed surveys and to identify specific mitigation measures; and
    • the implications of the Inspector's recommendation that equestrian facilities be extended along the whole length of the proposed recreation route.
  4. On 21 October 2004 GMPTE submitted to the Secretary of State the additional information required by him. This included an Addendum to the environmental statement ("ES") which had accompanied the Order application, a report on the feasibility of extending the bridleway between Tyldesley and Ellenbrook, and a copy of GMPTE's protected species licence application to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in respect of the GCN. The Addendum to the ES contained the results of further surveys of the GCN and other protected species, worked up mitigation proposals for the GCN, and an assessment of the environmental implications of extending the bridleway to Ellenbrook. In addition, GMPTE provided details of the changes to the Order and associated plans which would be required if the Secretary of State were to decide that the bridleway should be extended in the manner recommended in their feasibility report.
  5. GMPTE made the additional information available for public inspection in the area of the proposed busway and served copies of this on those who had appeared at the inquiry and on those originally served with the application documents, allowing until 2 December 2004 for representations to be made on the new material. In that period the Secretary of State received representations from six parties who had previously objected to these applications. The Secretary of State subsequently allowed opportunities for GMPTE to comment on these representations and for the six parties to respond. In the light of these exchanges he concluded that it was not necessary to re-open the inquiry to examine the additional information.

Summary of the Secretary of State's decision

  1. The Secretary of State has decided to make the Order, with modifications, and to direct that planning permission be deemed to be granted, subject to the conditions set out in Annex 1 to this letter. The Order modifications will include provision for extending the proposed bridleway to Ellenbrook. The reasons for his decision are given below.
  2. In a separate letter being issued today, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has decided to give the protected species licence in respect of the GCN referred to in paragraph 4 above.

Secretary of State's consideration

  1. The Secretary of State has considered GMPTE's additional information and the representations made in response to it alongside all the evidence previously available to him. The following paragraphs set out by topic, in largely the same order as in the October 2003 letter, the conclusions he has reached in the light of all the evidence. The main arguments made in the representations referred to above are summarised under the relevant headings.

Objectives of and justification for the Order proposals

  1. These matters were addressed in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the October 2003 letter. On the basis of the information then available the Secretary of State agreed in principle with the Inspector's assessment of the need and justification for the Order proposals. He accepted that, subject to his consideration of the further evidence requested from GMPTE, the objectives of the scheme were sound and in accordance with policy at all levels; that the scheme had significant advantages in comparison with both rail-based and road-based alternatives; and that the scheme was economically robust.
  2. In the representations made since the October 2003 letter, some objectors reiterated arguments which had been put to the inquiry questioning the justification for the proposed busway. In addition, one objector (Mr Wilson of Worsley) argued that GMPTE's inquiry evidence on the economic case for the scheme had been invalidated because their estimate of the capital cost had risen from £30.9 million at the time of the inquiry to £42.3 million in the Greater Manchester Transport Plan (Annual Progress Report 2004). In his opinion this seriously undermined the Secretary of State's provisional views on the case for the scheme. In response, GMPTE gave details of the increase in capital costs, the largest element of which was the additional cost of acquiring higher grade vehicles for use on the QBC. They added that under the Department for Transport's current appraisal procedures the scheme would give a benefit to cost ratio of 1.3:1 at a £42.3 million capital cost.
  3. Having considered the further evidence received since the inquiry, the Secretary of State sees no reason to take a different view on the overall need and justification for the proposed busway from that expressed provisionally in the October 2003 letter. He is satisfied that the further information provided by GMPTE (discussed more fully under the relevant topic headings) adequately addresses the two matters referred to in paragraph 3 above and has not brought to light any reason in principle why the scheme should not be authorised.
  4. The Secretary of State wishes to make clear that the economic case for the busway referred to in the representations will be subject to detailed appraisal by the Department separately from this decision when GMPTE submits the scheme for final funding approval. His decision to make the Order is entirely without prejudice to any subsequent funding decision and it does not imply that public funds will necessarily be forthcoming. Nevertheless, before making a TWA Order the Secretary of State wishes to be satisfied that a scheme is reasonably capable of attracting sufficient funding so that there is a reasonable prospect of the powers in the Order being implemented. Having considered the Inspector's assessment of the economic case for this scheme and the representations made in response to the October 2003 letter, he is so satisfied.

Compulsory acquisition

  1. In paragraph 11 of the October 2003 letter, the Secretary of State provisionally agreed with the Inspector that there was a compelling case in the public interest for conferring the compulsory acquisition powers applied for by GMPTE, subject to certain amendments recommended by the Inspector. However, he was unable to conclude at that time that there was a reasonable prospect of the scheme going ahead and, consequently, whether he would be justified in granting the compulsory purchase powers sought. Taking into account his conclusions above on the need and justification for the proposed busway and the decision of the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to give the GCN licence referred to in paragraph 4 above, he is now satisfied there is a reasonable prospect of the scheme being implemented such as justifies granting compulsory acquisition powers for the purposes of the busway. He is satisfied that there is a compelling case in the public interest for giving those powers, which are necessary to enable the scheme to be implemented. He confirms, therefore, that he will include in the Order the compulsory acquisition powers sought by GMPTE, subject to the amendments recommended by the Inspector.

Statutory undertakers

  1. The Secretary of State agreed with the Inspector in paragraph 13 of the October 2003 letter that the protective arrangements for statutory undertakers were satisfactory, subject to the execution of an agreement between GMPTE and United Utilities and to his consideration of any representations from statutory undertakers about the bridleway extension recommended by the Inspector. GMPTE has since confirmed that the agreement with United Utilities is in place. Furthermore, the Secretary of State received no representations from statutory undertakers about the bridleway extension. He therefore confirms his provisional view that the protective arrangements for statutory undertakers are satisfactory.

Impact on local residents and business

  1. In paragraph 20 of the October 2003 letter the Secretary of State agreed with the Inspector's assessment that none of the impacts of the proposed works on residents or businesses, except in relation to equestrian recreation, would be unacceptable. As regards provision for equestrians, on the basis of the evidence then available the Secretary of State was unable to come to a view on whether the extension of the bridleway from Tyldesley to Ellenbrook recommended by the Inspector would be acceptable or should be required. In paragraph 21 of the October 2003 letter the Secretary of State noted also the Inspector's comments on the merits of providing additional recreation space and crossing facilities for equestrians and agreed that on the information then available no obligations should be imposed on GMPTE in these respects. He sees no reason to alter the views he expressed on these matters in the October 2003 letter, other than to consider the further evidence he has received about equestrian facilities.
  2. The feasibility report submitted by GMPTE in October 2004 concluded that -
    • long sections of the currently proposed recreation route between Tyldesley and Ellenbrook could be widened from 3 metres to 4.5 metres to accommodate an extension of the bridleway; and
    • where the recreation route could not easily be widened, 3 metres was sufficient to accommodate equestrian use.

The Addendum to the ES found that widening the recreation route as recommended in the feasibility study would have no significant additional environmental impacts to those identified in the ES.

  1. In representations on GMPTE's additional information, some support was expressed for the proposed extension of the bridleway to Ellenbrook. However, the Campaign for Planning Sanity ("CPS") on behalf of the Busway Noway Campaign expressed concerns about the closeness of the proposed busway to the bridleway and the adverse effects of this on all users of the route - walkers, cyclists, horses and riders. CPS did not consider that encouraging bus drivers to slow down when passing horses would be a realistic or effective solution. While continuing to object in principle to the loss of the existing vehicle-free bridleway, they argued that if the scheme were approved the recreation route should be redesigned so that at least 90% of it was segregated from the busway to minimise the danger to users of the route. CPS also had concerns about the greater loss of existing vegetation and the increase in earthworks and retaining walls as a result of extending the bridleway to Ellenbrook. Another objector (Mrs Gaskell of Lowton St Mary) while supporting the extended bridleway objected to the proposed closure of existing paths and access points to the recreation route which are currently used by equestrians.
  2. In response, GMPTE restated their view expressed at the inquiry that the buses would be quiet (but not silent) so that horses should not be terrified by noise. Horses would be further away from the passing buses than on a typical country road and the intermediate hedge and fence could be raised if this were thought necessary. Local horses would soon become accustomed to the buses and riders would learn to control them. As regards the greater loss of vegetation and increase in earthworks, GMPTE said that the revised proposals had been designed to minimise the impact on sensitive areas and the visual impact would not be significantly worsened. GMPTE confirmed also that the proposed amendments to accommodate the bridleway extension did not alter the original proposals concerning the various crossings of the busway. They were not aware of any instance where an existing path or access point would be stopped up without effective replacement.
  3. Having considered GMPTE's additional information and the subsequent representations, the Secretary of State takes the view that the extension of the bridleway to Ellenbrook would be a desirable enhancement of the recreation route. He is satisfied that this extension would not significantly alter the impact of the scheme on the environment or on local residents from that considered at the inquiry and could be implemented without compromising the safety of users of the recreation route. With these considerations in mind, he accepts the Inspector's recommendation that the bridleway extension should be provided in mitigation for the detrimental effects of the scheme on equestrian users of the existing track. The Secretary of State intends, accordingly, to impose an additional condition on the deemed planning permission requested by GMPTE to require the recreation route to be available for equestrian use between Holden Road (Leigh) and Newearth Road (Ellenbrook) before the busway is opened for the operation of public services.

Environmental impact and mitigation measures

  1. In paragraph 27 of the October 2003 letter the Secretary of State agreed with the Inspector, except in one important respect, that the ES and the supplementary information submitted to the inquiry were adequate for the purposes of determining these applications and that the environmental impact of the scheme and the proposed mitigation measures would be acceptable. For the reasons given in paragraphs 28 and 29 of that letter, however, the Secretary of State explained that it would not be appropriate for him to determine these applications until the impacts of the scheme on the GCN had been adequately assessed by GMPTE and suitable mitigation measures identified.
  2. The results of GMPTE's subsequent surveys of the GCN population in the vicinity of the busway were reported in the additional information submitted by them in October 2004. Two ponds were found to hold small GCN populations on which the impact of the busway would be minimal due to their distance from the development. A third pond close to the busway corridor (Pond 15) held a medium population. In the short term, GMPTE did not expect construction of the busway to affect adversely the GCN population in this pond due to the amount and quality of terrestrial habitat that would still be available. The mitigation measures described in the ES to prevent newts accessing the construction corridor would also safeguard the GCN. In the long term, GMPTE considered that their provision of three new ponds within 150 metres of the pond, the inclusion of amphibian underpasses in the design of the busway and sympathetic habitat management would enhance the GCN population.
  3. GMPTE also re-surveyed other protected species including bats and water voles as recommended by the Secretary of State in paragraph 30 of the October 2003 letter. The results of these surveys in the Addendum to the ES validated the conclusions of the ES. They confirmed, in particular, that no protected species licence would be required in respect of the mitigation measures for bats and that no changes to the scheme design were needed to mitigate impacts on water voles, whose presence in the area had declined significantly since 2000.
  4. In representations on GMPTE's additional information some objectors questioned the adequacy of the surveys of the GCN and other species reported in the Addendum to the ES. They considered that even with the proposed mitigation in place construction of the busway would have a significant adverse impact on all animal and plant life which thrived along the disused railway line. CPS argued that construction of the busway would add to the "sponge" effect of other developments referred to in the Addendum to the ES, drying up more ponds and ditches and destroying wildlife habitats. Furthermore, they believed that it would not be possible for the construction works to be programmed in such a way as to avoid harming both the GCN and the bird population along the route of the busway. For these reasons, some objectors remained of the view that, overall, the negative ecological effects of the busway were not justified by the alleged benefits of the scheme.
  5. In response, GMPTE affirmed the results of their ecological surveys which had been carried out in accordance with accepted methodologies and guidelines. With regard to the GCN, they said that all reasonable steps had been taken to identify and survey relevant water-bodies to which access had been granted. In those places where GCN populations had subsequently been found in garden ponds adjacent to the route of the busway the mitigation proposals would be extended to exclude newts from the working area. Careful supervision of all works in the vicinity of Pond 15 by a licensed newt worker would minimise disturbance and the new ponds already constructed by GMPTE nearby would provide a habitat and resource for the GCN and other wildlife such as water voles affected by the drying-up of ditches and ponds elsewhere.
  6. GMPTE explained that vegetation clearance prior to construction of the busway would take place during the winter, before the start of the breeding season for birds. This would not conflict with the measures to exclude amphibians from the construction corridor which would be carried out during the previous summer. More generally, GMPTE confirmed that vegetation clearance along the route would be confined to the busway corridor. This meant that retention of existing vegetation corridors alongside the busway together with new landscape planting would maintain the connectivity of the wildlife corridor.
  7. The Secretary of State is satisfied that, taking together the ES, the supplementary information put before the inquiry, the further evidence provided by GMPTE in October 2004 and the representations made in response to it, he now has sufficient information to enable him to assess the likely environmental impacts of this scheme for the purposes of this decision. He confirms for the purposes of section 14(3A) of the TWA that he has considered all this environmental information and has complied with the procedural requirements of that section.
  8. With regard specifically to the ecological impacts of this scheme about which he invited GMPTE to provide further information, the Secretary of State has considered the Addendum to the ES and the representations referred to above. He is satisfied in the light of this evidence that GMPTE have adequately assessed the impacts of the scheme on the GCN and other protected species and have proposed appropriate mitigation measures to minimise the adverse impacts of the busway. He has accordingly concluded that the effect of the scheme in terms of the loss of wildlife habitat and disruption to continuity of habitat would, with mitigation, be acceptable. Furthermore, he sees no reason to alter his provisional view expressed in the October 2003 letter that, in other respects, the adverse environmental impacts of the scheme once mitigation measures were in place would also be acceptable. For the purposes of section 14(3AA) of the TWA, he considers that the main measures to avoid, reduce and if possible, remedy any major adverse environmental effects are those set out in the ES (including its Addendum) and in the proposed planning conditions. He considers that any residual adverse effects that would remain after mitigation would be within acceptable levels and would be offset by the wider benefits of the scheme.

Green Belt

  1. In paragraphs 34 to 37 of the October 2003 letter, the Secretary of State expressed the view that the proposed busway including the park-and-ride site at Tyldesley could reasonably be regarded as appropriate development within the Green Belt. He was in any event satisfied that, subject to satisfactory resolution of the two matters on which he required more information from GMPTE (discussed above), very special circumstances existed to justify these developments in the Green Belt. Bearing in mind his conclusions above on those two matters, his views on the appropriateness of the busway proposals remain as described in the October 2003 letter.

Cumulative impacts

  1. In paragraph 39 of the October 2003 letter, the Secretary of State provisionally agreed with the Inspector that the cumulative impacts of the Order proposals and the other developments associated with the QBC would not significantly add to the impacts already identified as arising from the Order. Having considered GMPTE's additional information the Secretary of State confirms his agreement with the Inspector's view.

Use by bus operators of the proposed busway

  1. The Secretary of State sees no reason to alter his view expressed in paragraph 43 of the October 2003 letter that GMPTE's proposed arrangements for the procurement of services and the selection of operators were sufficient.

The Secretary of State's overall conclusions on the Order

  1. In paragraph 47 of the October 2003 letter the Secretary of State explained that he was at that stage unable to form a view on the overall acceptability of the Order proposals until GMPTE had provided the information requested in that letter. In the light of the information and representations he has received since that letter, he is now able to reach a view on the Inspector's overall balancing of the advantages and disadvantages of the Order proposals, as summarised in paragraph 46 of the October 2003 letter.
  2. The Secretary of State shares the Inspector's view that the proposed busway would provide substantial benefits to the public in the locality. He is satisfied that it would meet its objectives to establish a high grade public transport route providing an attractive alternative to the private car, to help to reduce social exclusion, and to improve the economic prospects of the area. He considers also that the multi-user path adjacent to the busway would be a valuable resource for local residents, improving accessibility to the countryside and recreational opportunities. The Secretary of State recognises that the scheme would have some adverse environmental impacts, but he is satisfied that they would be brought within acceptable levels by GMPTE's proposed mitigation measures and that the change in character of the trackbed would be offset by the wider benefits achievable by the scheme.
  3. The Secretary of State has, for these reasons, concluded that the benefits of the Order proposals significantly outweigh their disadvantages and he has therefore decided that it is in the public interest to make the Order.
  4. In paragraph 41 of the October 2003 letter, the Secretary of State accepted that the Order, if made, should be modified in the ways recommended by the Inspector in Appendix 3 to his report, except for the deletion of article 19 (about obstruction to construction of the busway). He sees no reason to alter his provisional views on the Order, subject to one qualification and subject to the further modifications detailed below which are in addition to those recommended by the Inspector. The qualification is that he has decided not to alter paragraph 2(7) of Schedule 10 (provisions relating to statutory undertakers, etc.) in the way requested by BT and recommended by the Inspector. He considers that this amendment, which is inconsistent with the established precedents for such protective provisions in TWA Orders, could adversely affect the interests of other utilities covered by Schedule 10 who have not been consulted by GMPTE on the change.
  5. The further modifications to the Order which the Secretary of State intends to make are as follows:-
    • to delete at GMPTE's request article 35 (about concessionary travel) and article 36 (about fuel duty grants) which they now consider to be unnecessary;
    • to insert into article 47 (power of disposal etc.) a requirement for GMPTE to obtain the Secretary of State's consent before disposing of the authorised works or any land held in connection with them or the right to operate the works, so that he can satify himself on the suitability of the recipient;
    • to amend Schedule 2 (about the acquisition of certain land) and Schedule 4 (about the provision of new or substitute streets) in the ways described by GMPTE in their additional information so as to provide for the extension of the proposed bridleway from Tyldesley to Ellenbrook;
    • in paragraph 2(7) of Schedule 10 (provisions relating to statutory undertakers, etc.) to delete the words "as revised and re-issued from time to time" in relation to the Code of Practice on Diversionary Works as it is not considered appropriate to provide for the effect of a statutory instrument to be variable as a result of changes to non-statutory measures such as a code of practice; and
    • to make various minor drafting amendments which do not materially alter the effect of the Order.

The Secretary of State is satisfied that these additional modifications would not make a substantial change in the proposals before him for approval, such as would require him to give a further opportunity for representations to be made under section 13(4) of the TWA.

  1. With regard to section 5(6) of the TWA, the Secretary of State is satisfied that in every instance where the Order will authorise the extinguishment of a public right of way over land, either an alternative right of way has been or will be provided or the provision of an alternative right of way is not required.

Planning direction and conditions

  1. The Secretary of State is satisfied, for the reasons given in this letter, that planning permission should be deemed to be granted for the development provided for in the Order, subject to the imposition of suitable conditions. In paragraph 45 of the October 2003 letter, he set out his provisional views on the planning conditions proposed by GMPTE and on the Inspector's assessment of them. The Secretary of State's conclusions on those matters are given below, including details of further changes to the conditions which he considers appropriate. The conditions which he intends to attach to the planning direction are set out in Annex 1 to this letter.

Condition 1

The Secretary of State has concluded that this proposed condition describing the documents to which the deemed planning permission relates is unnecessary and should be deleted.

Condition 2 (now 1)

He has concluded, for the reasons given in the October 2003 letter, that the time limit in this condition for completion of development is inappropriate and should be deleted.

Condition 5 (now 4)

GMPTE have confirmed that the siting of the items listed in this condition is to be as shown on the technical development plans and that any changes would require the approval of the local planning authority under condition 4 (now 3). The Secretary of State accepts, therefore, that no change to this condition is necessary.

Condition 8 (now 7)

GMPTE have agreed that paragraph (e) about works to trees etc. should be moved to form part of paragraph (a), being a matter of detail to be approved by the local planning authority.

In addition, sub-paragraph (a)(iii) has been amended as shown in Annex 1 to reflect the Secretary of State's decision that the proposed bridleway should be extended to Ellenbrook.

Condition 10 (now 13)

This condition, which requires that works be executed in accordance with the approval of the local planning authority, has been modified to apply also to "other matters", as some of the conditions in Annex 1 do not concern works. The condition has been moved to a more appropriate position at the end of the Annex.

Condition 13 (now 11)

GMPTE have agreed with the Secretary of State's provisional view, for the reason given in the October 2003 letter, that the modification to this condition recommended by the Inspector is unnecessary. The condition therefore remains as originally proposed by GMPTE.

New condition 12

This condition about provision of equestrian facilities on the recreation route between Leigh and Ellenbrook has been inserted for the reasons given in paragraph 19 above.

General

A number of further drafting changes have been made to clarify the effect of the conditions. In particular, additional definitions of terms used in Annex 1 have been provided and several conditions have been modified to specify that where the approval of the local planning authority is required this shall be in writing.

  1. The letter conveying the planning direction will be issued shortly at the same time as the Order is made, once a notice of this determination has been published in the London Gazette.

Notice under section 14 of the TWA

  1. A notice of the Secretary of State's determination given pursuant to section 14(1)(a) of the TWA is enclosed.

Challenge to decision

  1. The circumstances in which the validity of the Secretary of State's decision may be challenged are set out in Annex 2 to this letter.

Distribution

  1. Copies of this letter and the enclosures are being sent to all those who appeared at the inquiry and to the Ramblers' Association.

Yours faithfully,

Ellis Harvey
Head of the TWA Orders Unit

Annex 1

Conditions which the Secretary of State intends to attach to the deemed planning permission

In these conditions, unless the context otherwise requires: -

"the development" means development for which provision is included in the Order;

"Environmental Statement" means the Environmental Statement submitted with the application for the Order on 31 January 2002, including the Addendum to the Environmental Statement dated August 2004;

"the guided busway" means the guided busway system authorised by the Order;

"the local planning authority" means Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council or Salford City Council, or both, as the case may be;

"the Order" means the Greater Manchester (Leigh Busway) Order 2005; and

"the works plans" means the plans certified by the Secretary of State for Transport as the works plans for the purposes of the Order.

1. Time limits

The development shall begin within five years from the date on which the Order comes into force.

Reason: To ensure that development is commenced within a reasonable period of time.

2. Contaminated land

(a) The development shall not begin until a scheme to deal with contamination, including gaseous and non-gaseous contamination of soil and groundwater, has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority.

(b) The above scheme shall include an investigation and assessment to identify the extent of contamination and the measures to be taken to avoid risk to the public, to buildings and to the environment when the site is developed.

Reason: To identify the need for contaminated land remedial action.

3. Change of centre line, construction method, propulsion or guidance system

Where the siting of a proposed work is to deviate from the centre line shown on the works plans, or the method of construction, or the method of propulsion or guidance, is to vary from that specified in the Environmental Statement, a scheme of environmental mitigation measures shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing. Approval shall not be withheld unless the local planning authority is satisfied that the scheme is inadequate to mitigate any additional environmental impact arising from the proposed deviation, change in construction method or change in method of propulsion or guidance.

Reason: To secure appropriate mitigation in the event of changes in the centre line, construction method, propulsion or guidance system.

4. Design and external appearance

Work shall not start on the following items of development until prior written approval of their design and external appearance has been obtained from the local planning authority -

(i) guided busway stops;

(ii) bridges and associated structures;

(iii) permanent fencing and any acoustic fencing associated with the guided busway;

(iv) property boundary treatments where permanently altered;

(v) culverts and drainage channels; and

(vi) car parks.

Reason: To enable reasonable and proper control to be exercised over aspects of the details of the development.

5. Materials

No item of development shall begin until samples of materials to be used in any external surfaces have been submitted to, and their external appearance approved in writing by, the local planning authority.

Reason: To ensure satisfactory external appearance in the interests of visual amenity.

6. Demolition and reinstatement

The site of any demolition or relocation of a building or structure shall be made good or restored in a manner and timescale to be agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: To avoid detriment to the character of the area arising through delays in redevelopment or for want of making good.

7. Landscaping

(a) No development shall start on the site of any work until the following have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority: -

(i) a scheme for the landscaping of the site of that work;

(ii) details of the specification and position of any fencing and any other measures to be taken to protect retained trees and landscaping from damage before or during the course of the works;

(iii) details of the specification and position of measures to separate walkers and cyclists from horse riders between Holden Road (Leigh) and Newearth Road (Ellenbrook) and walkers from cyclists elsewhere on the recreation route to be provided alongside the guided busway; and

(iv) details of work (including lopping, topping or removal) it is proposed to carry out during construction to any trees, hedges and other significant landscape features adjacent to the boundary of the works.

(b) The landscaping scheme shall be carried out not later than 12 months from the date when the guided busway is brought into operation for public use.

(c) Any trees or shrubs planted in accordance with this condition which are removed, die, become seriously damaged, or become seriously diseased, within 36 months of planting shall be replaced within the next planting season. Replacements must be a similar size and species to those originally required to be planted.

(d) Any site where vegetation is removed and any adjoining property boundaries which may be thus exposed shall be reinstated or made good, or replaced with suitable boundary treatment, following the completion of the works, as part of the above landscape scheme.

Reason: To ensure the proper landscaping of the site of the development.

8. Archaeology

(a) No development shall take place until the implementation of a programme of archaeological work has been secured in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority.

(b) The scheme of investigation shall provide for archaeological recording of buildings of historic interest under threat of demolition, and an archaeological watching brief along sections of the route identified in the scheme as having archaeological potential.

Reason: To ensure an opportunity for archaeological investigations before construction works start, and to ensure that remains of archaeological interest are properly recorded.

9. Drainage

No development shall begin until the local planning authority has approved in writing a scheme for the disposal of foul and surface water during construction and operation. This shall include measures: -

(a) to pass all surface water drainage through a settling lagoon and oil interceptor before discharge to any watercourse or surface water sewer; and

(b) to ensure that during construction any ditch, stream, watercourse or culvert passing through the site is protected or diverted so as not to impede the flow or affect drainage to or from adjoining land.

Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment.

10. Storage of liquids

Any facilities for the storage of oils, fuels or chemicals shall be sited on impervious bases and surrounded by impervious bund walls, details of which shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing. The volume of the bunded compound shall be at least equivalent to the capacity of the storage tank (or tanks) plus 10%. All filling points, vents, gauges and sight glasses must be within the bund. The bund drainage system shall be sealed with no discharge to any watercourse, land or underground strata. Associated pipe-work shall be above ground and protected from accidental damage. All filling points shall discharge downwards into the bund.

Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment.

11. Environmental Statement and Code of Construction Practice mitigation measures

No development shall begin until a scheme for implementation of mitigation measures specified in the Environmental Statement and Code of Construction Practice has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority.

Reason: To mitigate any environmental impact arising from the scheme.

12. Provision for equestrian use

The recreation route to be provided alongside the guided busway shall be available for equestrian use between Holden Road (Leigh) and Newearth Road (Ellenbrook) before the guided busway is brought into operation for public use.

Reason: To ensure that appropriate equestrian facilities are provided alongside the guided busway.

13. Execution in accordance with written approval

For any condition that requires the written approval of the local planning authority, the works or other matters thereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with that approval unless subsequently otherwise approved in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: To ensure that development takes place in accordance with approved details unless the local planning authority agrees otherwise.

End

Annex 2

Right to challenge orders made under the TWA

Any person who is aggrieved by the making of the Order may challenge its validity, or the validity of any provision in it, on the ground that -

  • it is not within the powers of the TWA, or
  • any requirement imposed by or under the TWA or the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992 has not been complied with.

Any such challenge may be made, by application to the High Court, within the period of 42 days from the day on which notice of this determination is published in the London Gazette as required by section 14(1)(b) of the TWA. This notice is expected to be published within three working days of the date of this decision letter.

>Challenges to deemed planning permission given in connection with a TWA order

There is no statutory right to challenge the validity of the Secretary of State's direction that planning permission shall be deemed to be granted for development for which provision is included in the Order. Any person who is aggrieved by the giving of the direction may, however, seek permission of the High Court to challenge the decision by judicial review.

A person who thinks they may have grounds for challenging the decision to make the Order or the decision to give the direction as to deemed planning permission is advised to seek legal advice before taking any action.