A1P (1) MAJOR HIGHWAY SCHEMES - A5225 ... - Wigan Council

10.111 The LPA confirms that it is, in any case, preparing its mitigation measures
for the road on the principle that the population of protected species should be maintained
within their natural range. Before such species can be disturbed a licence must be issued
by DEFRA (on the basis of advice by English Nature). To obtain this it is necessary for
the LPA to demonstrate that it has followed this approach. The licensing system provides
another element of protection at planning application stage.
10.112 PPG9 (paragraph 24) does advise, however, that nature conservation
issues should be included in surveys of local authority areas required by sections 11 and
30 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to ensure that development plans are
based on fully adequate information about local species and habitats. It is, therefore, not
sufficient for consideration of these matters to be postponed to a later stage. The absence
of detailed information on the impact of the scheme on nature conservation interests is a
factor which reduces confidence that the route which is proposed to be safeguarded is, in
detail, the appropriate one. Objectors note that in the RDD the LPA is seeking to
safeguard a very specific area of land for the construction of the road. I concur with their
view that, in advance of the publication of the EIA and the formulation of detailed
mitigation measures, it is not possible to be certain that the necessary mitigation of its
effects can be achieved within the safeguarded area.
10.113 In respect of the effect of the scheme on public rights of way, the Council
has, as DINC 8, proposed an additional policy (C1X) to protect the integrity of the
network (refer to the section of this report which relates to policy EV3A). In respect of
the effect on residential amenity and road safety these matters can be assessed only when
the design of the road is finalised. Insufficient information is available at RDD stage of
the UDP preparation process to enable me to comment on the potential effects of the road
on the amenities of the occupiers of particular dwellings.
10.114 Objectors draw attention to the fact that the land to be safeguarded lies, in
part, within the green belt. PPG2 (paragraph 3.12) advises that the statutory definition of
development includes engineering operations. These are inappropriate development
within the green belt unless they maintain openness and do not conflict with the purposes
of including land in the green belt. Such an assessment can be made only when the design
of the road is known. In any case, even if the scheme was considered to be one of
inappropriate development, it would be necessary to consider whether the harm by reason
of inappropriateness (and any other harm) was clearly outweighed by other
considerations and, therefore, whether very special circumstances exist to justify the
scheme. Location of the road within the green belt is not, therefore, an in-principle barrier
to the safeguarding of land for its construction.
The prospects for the funding of the scheme
10.115 The current cost of the scheme is estimated to be some £113 million. Only
a small proportion of this, some £15 million, was committed at the time of the inquiry.
Objectors argue that the proposal is not firm or programmed and that it does not have
417