25.11.2014 Views

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

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

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

The LPA concurs and has considered the need for this. It has identified the role of<br />

disused railway lines in accommodating its proposals for part of the <strong>A5225</strong> <strong>Wigan</strong> and<br />

Hindley Bypass, part of the Ashton Northern Bypass, the route of the Leigh Guided Busway<br />

and part of the Greenway network under policy C1E.<br />

10.185 PPG12 (paragraph 5.22) advises that, in safeguarding land from<br />

development in order to retain it for a potential transport route, LPAs should be realistic<br />

about the prospects for a start of the project within the plan period and sensitive to the<br />

implications of blight. No information has been presented to me, either by the LPA or<br />

objectors, to indicate that there is a realistic prospect of such a transport scheme being<br />

promoted, let alone started, on any other section of disused railway line within the plan<br />

period. There is, therefore, no basis on which I can recommend safeguarding such land<br />

from competing development.<br />

The interests of horse riders<br />

10.186 Objectors at FDD stage argue that the UDP should recognise horse riders<br />

as legitimate and vulnerable road users. The LPA concurs and, at RDD stage, makes<br />

specific reference to horse riders within the hierarchy of accessibility presented in policy<br />

A1. The recognition that they are vulnerable road users is expressed in an addition to the<br />

reasoned justification to that policy at RDD stage. Objectors advocate that the needs of<br />

equestrians should be considered in the Local Transport Plan and the Road Safety<br />

Strategy. My remit extends only to the merits of the replacement UDP, however.<br />

Recommendation<br />

I recommend:<br />

(REC 10.28) that no modification be made to the RDD in response to these<br />

objections.<br />

441

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!