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

10.124 The LPA timetable allows only a small gap between the assumed date of
the decision on the planning application (following an inquiry) and the further application
for LTP funding. A small amount of slippage could generate significant delays in the
LTP application. A further factor which could contribute to delay is the tendering
process. The LPA anticipates that it would issue tenders in October 2008, some two
months before the anticipated date of the decision on the CPO inquiry. Given the
importance of that decision to the project as a whole, it is unlikely that those tendering
would be willing to undertake the necessary detailed work until after that decision was
known. The tender acceptance date would, in all probability, be deferred by some
months.
10.125 The LPA’s timetable for delivery of the scheme relies on numerous
assumptions, of which those relating to funding are the most uncertain. Given my
consideration in the preceding sub-section of this report, I conclude that there is no
realistic prospect that a start on this project could be achieved within the plan period.
Having regard to the advice of PPG12 (paragraph 5.17) land should not be safeguarded
for this scheme.
10.126 I note the evidence of the LPA that, at present, it owns over 70% of the
land needed to build the road and is continuing to acquire land by negotiation. It believes
that over 95% of the necessary land will be in its ownership before the beginning of the
compulsory purchase process. If the LPA does, eventually, succeed in assembling the
necessary funding and statutory consents to enable it to construct the road, the absence of
a safeguarding policy need not, therefore, in practice, present an insuperable obstacle to
the eventual achievement of the scheme because of the limited scope for conflicting
development to stand in the way of land assembly.
The merits of related development opportunities
10.127 An objector argues that the UDP has not recognised particular
development opportunities that would arise from the construction of the A5225 road. He
advocates that land at Forshaw’s Tip, to the south of Hindley, should be included in the
list of sites identified in policy EV1A in respect of which the Council, in conjunction
with other parties, will secure reclamation and renewal. He argues that this tip is a
prominent feature within the local landscape and has a detrimental effect on the character
of its surroundings. He proposes that it should be reclaimed by a high quality residential
development which could proceed with or without the construction of the A5225 road.
This would contribute to the achievement of the national and local targets for the re-use
of previously developed land for housing, resolve contamination issues, provide
resources to upgrade local recreational facilities (including a local park and sports
pitches) and support the creation of a recreational footpath/cycleway.
10.128 The LPA confirms that policy EV1A does not refer to all derelict land
sites but only those which, in its view, have the highest priority for reclamation and
renewal. It has had regard to the resources available for site restoration and considers that
the natural regeneration of Forshaw’s Tip, by re-vegetation and tree growth, reduces its
420