Document

Mersey Belt StudyPolicy Statement

October 2003

The Northwest Development Agency has considered this report and approved it as a statement of Agency policy.

The Agency has also resolved to:

a) Formally designate Alderley Park (Astra Zeneca), Macclesfield as an additional strategic regional site, within the

boundaries indicated in the Macclesfield Local Plan and approved planning brief.

b) Note the special importance of sites at Hooton Interchange (Ellesmere Port) and Wigan South Central as strategic

opportunities for encouraging the development of knowledge based industry in RPG’s North West Metropolitan Area,

and working alongside the local authorities concerned, endorse the use of the Agency’s powers and resources

(including land assembly and if necessary compulsory purchase) to bring about their successful regeneration and

development.

October 2003

Foreword

Section Page

1. Introduction 1

2. Results of consultation 2

3. Regional Planning Guidance for the North West (RPG13) – policy implications 6

4. Strategic regional sites 8

5. Comments received on potential additional strategic regional sites 12

6. General comments received 20

7. Responses to consultant’s recommendations 31

8. Appendices 65

Plan 1 Recommended strategy

Plan 2 Key transport schemes

Contents

1.1 The Mersey Belt Study was published in May 2002 and circulated to all local authorities in the North West and to other

regional partners. The study sought to:

• Identify the steps needed to manage better all assets within the Mersey Belt Southern Crescent so that economic

potential could be encouraged and realised creatively, without compromising the principles of sustainable

development.

• Support and complement regeneration in the Metropolitan Axis by identifying realistic and sustainable opportunities to

accommodate and deflect development pressures from the south to the north of the River Mersey in the short and

long term.

1.2 During March and April 2003 the Agency circulated a draft Position Statement on the Mersey Belt Study for consultation.

This set out the NWDA’s interim response to all the consultant’s recommendations; identified potential additional

strategic regional sites; and clarified the position on terminology.

1.3 Since circulating the Position Statement the Agency has published the new Regional Economic Strategy (RES), and final

Regional Planning Guidance for the North West (RPG13) has been issued by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

1.4 Within the RES, Objective 9 ‘Ensure the availability of a balanced portfolio of employment sites’, both the key activities

are relevant to the Mersey Belt Study:

• 9.1 Secure the development of designated strategic regional sites to boost business growth opportunities.

• 9.2 Secure a complementary portfolio of sub regional and local employment sites.

1.5 Within the explanatory text to Objective 9 the Strategy makes further reference to the Mersey Belt Study:

“A limited number of further (strategic regional) sites may be required, for example sites arising from local plans or from

studies such as the Mersey Belt Study. In relation to the Mersey Belt Study the NWDA will prepare a position statement

which will set out its own interim conclusions. The NWDA will then consult widely with regional partners and consider

any representations before formally designating any further strategic regional sites”.

1.6 This Policy Statement completes the process referred to in the Regional Economic Strategy. It sets out the Agency’s final

policy and response to recommendations. It is important to emphasise that the Agency is not a planning authority; nor is

it taking any land use or transport planning decisions. Nonetheless this document does formally establish the Agency’s

position for the future involvement in relevant planning and transport issues, including development plans, strategic

planning applications, local transport plans and relevant national policies (such as Strategic Rail Authority and Highways

Agency Policies).

1.7 The draft Position Statement was published before final RPG was issued. In finalising this Policy Statement the Agency

has had regard to relevant policies in RPG.

1.8 The terms ‘Southern Crescent’ and ‘Metropolitan Axis’ are used above only as a matter of historical record. They have

been useful analytical concepts, highlighting the different economic and regeneration issues within the densely

populated functional areas around and between Manchester and Liverpool. RPG has reflected these issues in its

identification of the North West Metropolitan Area Regeneration Priority Area, and in the special policy framework for

North Cheshire. These RPG Policies are referred to, where relevant, in the Statement.

1 Introduction

Page 1

Page 2

2.1 The draft Position Statement was issued for consultation on 18th March 2003. Consultees included the NWRA, GONW,

the local planning authorities in the region, sub-regional partnerships, business organisations, higher education

institutions, and environmental and transport interests in the North West (a full list of consultees and respondents is

listed in Table A4 at the end of this section). Owners of the proposed additional sites were not consulted. The Position

Statement was also made available on the Agency’s website (www.nwda.co.uk). The closing date for comments was

5th May 2003.

2.2 A total of 96 organisations were formally consulted, 22 of whom replied. This represents a response rate of 23%. In

addition, one further response was received from a non-consultee; a private company1.

2.3 Table A1 compares the profiles of the types of organisations formally consulted with the consultees who replied and with

all respondents. In comparing the proportion of those formally consulted and the consultees who replied, it can be seen

that central/local government is considerably over-represented, as are environmental organisations. By contrast,

business organisations are under-represented, as are transport organisations.

2.4 A similar analysis showing the geographical spread of formal consultees, consultees who replied and all respondents is

in Table A2. As one would expect there is a relatively high response rate from areas directly affected by the Mersey Belt

Study – Merseyside, Cheshire and Greater Manchester – with the highest response rate (32%) in Greater Manchester

1A further response was received from an Association of Town and Parish Councils (a non-consultee). Due to its late arrival after the consultation deadline, ithas not been considered.

Table A1 – Profile of consultees and respondents

Formally consulted Consultees who replied All respondents

Number % Number % Number %

Central/local government 52 54 16 73 16 70

Business 6 6 0 0 1 4

Sub-regional partnership 15 16 2 9 2 9

Education 7 7 1 5 1 4

Environmental 7 7 3 14 3 13

Transport 9 9 0 0 0 0

Total 96 100 22 100 23 100

2 Results of consultation

Table A2 – Consultees and respondents by area

Formally consulted Consultees who replied All respondents

Number % Number % Number %

Cheshire 11 11 5 23 5 22

Cumbria 9 9 0 0 0 0

Greater Manchester 25 26 7 32 7 30

Lancashire 19 20 1 5 1 4

Merseyside 16 17 5 23 5 22

National/Regional 16 17 4 18 5 22

Total 96 100 22 100 23 100

2.5 Table A3 is a cross tabulation of all responses by type and area.

2.6 Section 5 (below) contains summaries of all comments received on each of the potential additional strategic

regional sites.

Section 6 contains summaries of all general comments received.

Section 7 contains a table setting out:

i. consultants’ detailed recommendations;

ii. NWDA’s interim response;

iii. relevant local authorities;

iv. a summary of each individual consultee’s comments; and

v. NWDA’s response to consultees’ comments.

Table A3 – Respondents by type and area

Cheshire Cumbria Greater Lancashire Merseyside National/ TotalManchester regional

Central/local government 5 - 7 - 3 1 16

Business - - - - - 1 1

Sub-regional partnership - - - 1 1 - 2

Education - - - - 1 - 1

Environmental - - - - - 3 3

Transport - - - - - - 0

Total 5 0 7 1 5 5 23

Page 3

Page 4

2.7 Table A4 lists all consultees and respondents.

Table A4

Organisation formally consulted Responded

Association of Greater ManchesterAuthorities (AGMA) ✔

Allerdale DC

Associated British Ports

Barrow BC

Blackburn with Darwen BC

Blackpool BC

Bolton MBC (with Bolton WIDE) ✔

Burnley BC

Bury MBC

Carlisle City Council

CBI North West

Chamber Business Enterprises

Cheshire and Warrington EconomicAlliance

Cheshire County Council ✔

Chester City Council ✔

Chorley BC

Congleton BC

Copeland BC

Countryside Agency ✔

Council for the Protection of RuralEngland (CPRE) ✔

Crewe and Nantwich BC

Cumbria County Council

Cumbria Inward Investment Agency

East Lancashire Partnership

Eden DC

Ellesmere Port and Neston BC ✔

English Heritage

Table A4 (continued)


English Nature

English Partnerships

Environment Agency ✔

Friends of the Earth

Fylde BC

Greater Manchester Public TransportExecutive (GMPTE)

GO-Merseyside

Government Office for the North West

Greater Merseyside Enterprises

Halton BC ✔

Highways Agency

Hyndburn BC

Knowsley MBC ✔

Lancashire County Council

Lancashire West Partnership ✔

Lancaster City Council

Lancaster University

Liverpool Airport

Liverpool City Council

Liverpool John Moores University

Liverpool Land DevelopmentCompany ✔

Liverpool Vision

Macclesfield BC ✔

Manchester Airport

Manchester City Council ✔

Manchester Enterprises

Manchester Metropolitan University

Page 5



Mersey Docks and Harbour Company

Mersey Partnership

Mersey/Dee Alliance

Merseyside Policy Unit ✔

Merseytravel

Manchester Investment andDevelopment Agency Service (MIDAS) ✔

New East Manchester

North Manchester ChamberBusiness Services

North Manchester Partnership

North Manchester Regeneration

North West Business Leadership Team

North West Chambers of Commerce

North West Regional Assembly ✔

Oldham MBC

Pendle BC

Preston BC

Railtrack Group plc

Ribble Valley BC

RICS North West

Rochdale MBC

Rossendale BC



Salford City Council

Sefton MBC

South Lakeland DC

South Ribble BC

Strategic Rail Authority

St Helens MBC

Stockport MBC ✔

Sustainable and Urban RegionalFutures (SURF)

Tameside MBC ✔

Trafford MBC

UMIST

University of Liverpool ✔

University of Manchester

University of Salford

Vale Royal BC

Warrington BC

West Cumbria Partnership

West Lancashire DC

Wigan MBC ✔

Wirral MBC ✔

Wyre BC

Responses from non-consultees

Peel Holdings plc

3.1 The draft Position Statement was prepared against the backcloth of the draft version of Regional Planning Guidance,

issued in May 2002, and the Agency’s response to that draft. The Agency indicated that should final RPG be issued

during the course of the consultation exercise, it would be taken into account alongside comments from consultees.

3.2 Final Regional Planning Guidance for the North West (RPG13) was published on 31st March 2003. Those policies that

are of particular relevance to the Mersey Belt Study are outlined below.

3.3 Policies DP1 to DP4 set out RPG13’s Core Development Principles. Policy DP1 promotes “economy in the use of land

and buildings” by establishing a sequential approach to meeting development needs.

This essentially favours:

(i) the effective use of existing buildings and infrastructure within urban areas, ahead of;

(ii) previously developed land (particularly that which is accessible by sustainable modes of transport), and;

(iii) previously undeveloped land where this avoids important areas of open space.

3.4 Policy DP4 seeks to promote sustainable economic growth, competitiveness and social inclusion. It says that

development plans and other strategies should help to grow the region’s economy in a sustainable way and produce a

greater degree of social inclusion. The Mersey Belt Study’s objectives of realising the Mersey Belt’s economic potential

and deflecting development pressures from areas south of the River Mersey further north are consistent with the aims

of Policy DP4.

3.5 RPG’s Spatial Development Framework is encapsulated in Policies SD1 to SD5. Policy SD1 says that the ‘North West

Metropolitan Area’ (NWMA)2 should be the focus of a significant proportion of development and urban renaissance

resources, especially the regional poles of Liverpool and Manchester/Salford (i.e. their city centres and surrounding

inner areas). Elsewhere in Greater Manchester and Merseyside, priority is given to towns and boroughs with

concentrations of social, economic and environmental problems. The whole of the NWMA is designated as a

Regeneration Priority Area.

3.6 Policy SD2 deals with those parts of the NWMA outside Greater Manchester and Merseyside. It seeks to secure wide-

ranging regeneration and environmental enhancement, especially in Runcorn, Widnes, Ellesmere Port, Warrington and

Skelmersdale. In Ellesmere Port, significant enhancement is required in terms of image and opportunities for a higher

quality of life. In relation to Warrington, Policy SD2 says the focus should be on regeneration and restructuring of the

older areas and not allowing further significant outward expansion onto open land beyond existing commitments.

3.7 Policy SD4 addresses urban form and setting, with particular reference to the treatment of North Cheshire. Given the

continued high demand for development in North Cheshire, it calls for a review of all development plan allocations to

ensure that they are fully justified in relation to RPG13’s Core Development Principles and Spatial Development

Framework. Policy SD4 advises that only those allocations which are sustainable and add significant value to the

development of the national economy or which are of greater than regional significance should be retained, together

with those which meet purely local needs. New allocations may be contemplated where they enable expansion of

existing high technology and research establishments of at least regional significance.

3.8 Policy SD5 relates to the region’s Green Belts. It explains that the need to review Green Belt boundaries will be the

subject of studies involving relevant local authorities and the Regional Assembly. These studies will, in turn, inform

future reviews of RPG and subsequent reviews of development plans. This Policy Statement does not recommend the

release of any sites from the Green Belt.

2 The NWMA includes the whole of Greater Manchester and most of Merseyside (with the exception of parts of Wirral MBC), the town of Ellesmere Port andeastern half of Ellesmere Port and Neston, the town of Skelmersdale, Halton and the town of Warrington north of the Manchester Ship Canal and its urbanarea to the south.

3 Regional Planning Guidance for the North West (RPG 13) – policy implications

Page 6

3.9 Policy EC1 seeks to strengthen the regional economy through an increasing focus on the sectoral priorities within the

Regional Economic Strategy3. All the key sites ‘Category A and B’ in the Mersey Belt Study have been identified for

their potential to accommodate the target growth sectors (excluding tourism) at paragraph 4.7 of RPG13.

3.10 In line with the NWDA’s formal consultation response, Policies EC3 ‘Key Growth Sectors’ and EC4 ‘Knowledge Based

Industries’ have been amalgamated into a revised Policy EC3 on Knowledge Based Industries. This states that,

“…. development plans and other strategies should facilitate the development of sites with direct access to research

establishments, including universities, higher education institutes and major hospitals. Priority locations will be in the

main conurbations, close to centres of research, or within science parks….”.

3.11 Policy EC4 ‘Business Clusters’ seeks to promote the clustering of existing and new economic activities with the

potential for sustainable growth. Clusters designed to support knowledge-based industries should make provision for

networks based on information communication technologies and, as a preference, be located near to higher education

institutes, major hospitals, research establishments or major technology-based businesses.

3.12 Policy EC5 on Regional Investment Sites no longer seeks to reserve such sites solely for inward investment. It says that

development plans and other strategies should identify Regional Investment Sites for strategic business investment

which supports the region’s sectoral priorities. This approach is clearly more supportive of the Regional Economic

Strategy. Subsequent criteria for the identification of Regional Investment Sites remain largely unchanged from the

previous draft version of RPG4.

3.13 Policy EC6 addresses “the regeneration challenge” of bringing the benefits of economic growth to areas of acute need.

It calls for the NWDA’s investment in Regeneration Priority Areas and derelict land reclamation to be supported by

development plan and local transport plan policies to encourage and simultaneously deliver:

• improved linkages …. between thriving areas and other areas nearby where employment opportunities are more

limited; and

• co-ordinated and coherent efforts to enhance the attractiveness to potential investors of locations in more needy

areas … especially within the North West Metropolitan Area.

3.14 The intentions behind Policy EC6 lie at the heart of the Mersey Belt Study. Specific recommendations clearly support

EC6 by, for example, seeking to:

• deflect development pressures from north Cheshire to those areas north of the River Mersey in greatest need of

regeneration; and

• maximise Omega’s potential by enhancing public transport accessibility from south Warrington and towns in

neighbouring districts such as St Helens, Wigan and Halton.

3.15 RPG’s approach to town centres, retail, leisure and office development is set out in Policy EC8. The office development

element of this policy is pertinent to the Mersey Belt Study. The final version of Policy EC8 has, in some part, allayed

the Agency’s concerns about its potentially restrictive impact upon office development within the region. Office uses

are directed to locations within or adjoining city, town or district centres, or locations near to major public transport

interchanges in urban areas.

3References to the Regional Economic Strategy within RPG13 are to the first Regional Strategy published in 20004In designating its strategic regional sites the Agency is not taking any land use planning decisions but is nonetheless establishing its own positionand policy direction as the basis for its future involvement in relevant planning issues and decisions. The identification of Regional Investment Sitesis a matter for local planning authorities to consider, in consultation with NWDA, NWRA and GONW, and bring forward as appropriate through theirdevelopment plans within the framework set by RPG.

Page 7

4.1 The Mersey Belt Study identified 40 key sites as being suitable for knowledge based industries. The consultants

classified 10 of these sites as ‘Category A’ in which public investment needs to be made, especially to improve

accessibility, infrastructure and image. The other 30 ‘Category B’ sites, are no less important for knowledge-based

industry in policy terms, but the consultants think that, in general they have a lower call on public investment for site

preparation and assembly.

4.2 In addition, the consultants made site-specific recommendations about:

(a) The feasibility of creating a new incubator/managed workspace centre of excellence in environmental technology in

Warrington (Mersey Belt Study paragraph 3.14).

(b) The potential of reserving a very high quality site in Warrington for a small number of target sector users (paragraph

3.38).

(c) Allowing Astra Zeneca to redevelop and expand within its existing site at Alderley Park and, if necessary, allowing

Astra Zeneca’s Alderley Park facility to expand into the Green Belt (paragraph 6.7).

(d) Concentrating resources on a small number of locations and improving transport links in the “gap area” between

the two conurbations – specific references to Wigan South Central and Middlebrook, Bolton (paragraphs 6.8 –

6.13).

4.3 The Position Statement circulated for consultation considered the recommendations of the consultants and identified

six potential candidates for designation as strategic regional sites, as follows:

• Alderley Park (Astra Zeneca), Macclesfield

• Capenhurst, Chester

• Chester City Centre

• Hooton, Ellesmere Port

• Middlebrook, Bolton

• Wigan South Central

4.4 Specific sites are considered in turn below, where the discussion of specific sites needs to be read alongside the

detailed summaries of responses given in Section 5. The Agency’s response on individual sites is also influenced by

RPG and by comments made by some consultees (such as the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities) who

expressed the view that resources should be concentrated on a smaller number of sites rather than thinly spread over

a large number.

Alderley Park (Astra Zeneca), Macclesfield

4.5 The consultants recognised that the Astra Zeneca site at Alderley Park is a crucial component in the region’s life

sciences cluster. They recommended that expansion should be encouraged by fostering links along a North-South Axis

within Greater Manchester; improving public transport and road links (including the Alderley Edge Bypass); and, in very

exceptional circumstances, allowing expansion which involved Green Belt release.

4 Strategic regional sites

Page 8

4.6 One respondent supported Alderley Park as a strategic regional site. Macclesfield Borough Council, and the Council for

Protection of Rural England expressed concern about the suggestion that expansion involving Green Belt release

should be supported. Cheshire County Council noted that the site offered clear potential for consolidation for life

science research. Notwithstanding their concerns about potential Green Belt expansion, Macclesfield Borough Council

acknowledged the regional and national importance of the Astra Zeneca Site. The Merseyside Policy Unit noted that

expansion of Alderley Park may comply with RPG Policy SD45.

4.7 RPG Policy SD4 states that in North Cheshire, “New employment land allocations may be contemplated where they

clearly enable sustainable expansion of existing high technology and research establishments of at least regional

significance”. The supporting text notes that, “Allocations will need to be retained if they will enable significant growth

in the national and regional economy in respect of high technology and research enterprises…”. The policy clearly

acknowledges the special significance of research establishments in North Cheshire and provides the framework for

suitably supportive planning policy.

4.8 In addition, support is given by RPG Policies EC3 and EC4. Policy EC3, Knowledge Based Industries, says that

development plans should facilitate the development of sites with direct access to research establishments. Sites

should be close to centres of research, or within science parks and capable of providing good environmental quality.

Policy EC4, Business Clusters, asks plans to promote clustering of new economic activities. Clusters to support

knowledge-based industries may preferably be located near to major research establishments.

4.9 The significance of the Alderley Park Site to the region’s life science cluster, and indeed in a national context, cannot

be doubted. It is a critical component in the regional and national economy. Designation as a strategic regional site

should be confirmed, but only in relation to the area indicated as a major developed site in the Green Belt in the

Macclesfield Local Plan and within the approved planning brief. In the light of this designation, the Agency will be able

to take a view on any expansion proposals beyond that area, should they come forward in the future. The consultants

other recommendations, including those relating to transport issues, should be supported. Following designation as a

strategic regional site all the Board resolutions in the formal designation report of December 2001 would apply to the

site.

Capenhurst, Chester

4.10 Capenhurst received positive comments from Cheshire County Council, Chester City Council and Peel Holdings, but

was opposed by the Council for the Protection of Rural England. Merseyside Policy Unit were concerned that NWDA

resources should be concentrated on sites closer to Merseyside. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council noted that

Capenhurst was easily accessible by rail to Wirral residents.

4.11 Although well located on the Chester to Liverpool rail line Capenhurst is close to Hooton, and is outside the North West

Metropolitan Area Regeneration Priority Area. Capenhurst should not be designated as a strategic regional site, but

nonetheless remains a significant opportunity in North Cheshire for accommodating knowledge-based industries on an

existing developed site (identified as a major developed site within the Green Belt) with good public transport access.

It is therefore supported by RPG Policies SD4, EC3 and EC4.

Page 9

5 Note: Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council have specifically endorsed the entire Merseyside Policy Unit response.

Chester City Centre

4.12 Chester City Council, Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council and Peel Holdings supported the proposal, but Cheshire

County Council, Merseyside Policy Unit and the Council for the Protection of Rural England raised concerns. Cheshire

felt that designating city centre sites for growth target sectors could have implications for the overall balance of

employment land in the City. The Merseyside Policy Unit noted that Chester is not in RPG’s North West Metropolitan

Area Regeneration Priority Area, and said that there was a risk of competition with sites on Merseyside. Chester City

Centre is identified only as a general location but it is anticipated that any development sites subsequently identified

within the area would comply with RPG Policy DP1 by utilising existing buildings and previously developed land. Sites

within Chester City Centre would also comply with the provisions of Policy EC8 in relation to office development.

4.13 Chester is identified as a key town in RPG Policy SD3. Chester City Centre remains a sustainable location for the

development of knowledge-based industry within travelling distance by rail from several parts of Merseyside. It should

not be designated as a strategic regional site, but the Agency should continue to give its policy support for the

development of knowledge-based industry in this location as part of a mixed-use approach.

Hooton Interchange, Ellesmere Port

4.14 Cheshire County Council, Peel Holdings, Ellesmere Port and Neston Borough Council made positive comments.

Cheshire believed the Hooton site could help to divert pressure from Chester. Ellesmere Port and Neston pointed to its

importance as a key element in the Ellesmere Port and Neston Economic Development Zone (EDZ), and to the

excellent public transport links with Ellesmere Port, Chester and Merseyside.

4.15 The Merseyside Policy Unit confirmed that the site is within the North West Metropolitan Area Regeneration Priority

Area, although they appeared to confuse the site with the nearby Hooton Park site. To clarify the situation it is

suggested that the site should in future be referred to as Hooton Interchange.

4.16 Hooton Interchange is a brownfield site identified as a major developed site in the Green Belt. It is located at a major

public transport interchange, comprising a park and ride site and a rail junction with services to Chester, Frodsham,

Birkenhead, Liverpool and other locations on the Merseyrail electrified system. Its development for office purposes is

therefore supported by RPG Policy EC8. The site is within RPG’s North West Metropolitan Area Regeneration Priority

Area, and it is close to areas of considerable social and regeneration need in Ellesmere Port. Its development would

help to deliver Policy SD2’s objectives of enhancing Ellesmere Port’s image and opportunities for a higher quality of life.

4.17 Given the relatively small size of the site (14.6ha), designation as a strategic regional site is not considered to be

appropriate. However the consultants’ identification of Hooton Interchange as a ‘Category A’ site in the Mersey Belt

Study should be endorsed, and the Agency should use all relevant powers and resources (including land assembly

and if necessary compulsory purchase) to secure development for knowledge-based industry. Discussions with the

local authority are already well advanced.

Page 10

Middlebrook, Bolton

4.18 Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council, the Merseyside Policy Unit, and Peel Holdings supported the proposal. However

the Council for the Protection of Rural England expressed concern at the sites’ poor bus links and its general location,

and the Environment Agency referred to potential surface water drainage and flood risk issues. These would need to be

considered in the light of RPG Policy ER8. Middlebrook is served by the adjoining railway station, and would need to be

considered against the Policy criteria set out in Policy EC8 of RPG.

4.19 In their response to consultation, Bolton referred to a wider Middlebrook area which appears to be at variance with the

site identified by Bolton in earlier discussions. The Agency should not designate Middlebrook as a strategic regional site

but the wider Middlebrook area should be further discussed with Bolton with a view to providing Agency policy support

for the development of knowledge-based industries if appropriate.

Wigan South Central

4.20 Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council, the Merseyside Policy Unit and Peel Holdings supported the proposal. There were

no objections.

4.21 Wigan South Central is located in the centre of the “gap area” defined by the Mersey Belt Study consultants. It is a

major brownfield development opportunity at a central location in RPG’s North West Metropolitan Area Regeneration

Priority Area. Wigan is identified in RPG’s key diagram as a Metropolitan “key town”. Its rail hub provides direct services

to national destinations on the West Coast Main Line, and services to many regional destinations. It is well served by

public transport. Office development is therefore supported by RPG Policy EC8. As with Chester City Centre, Wigan

South Central is identified only as a general location. However it is anticipated that any development sites

subsequently identified would similarly comply with RPG Policies DP1 and Policy EC8.

4.22 Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council has committed itself to work with NWDA to implement the proposal and

consultants are developing the concept currently. Major infrastructure investment will be required to deliver the

proposals. The Agency should regard Wigan South Central as an important opportunity in the “gap area”. However

further work and feasibility study has yet to be completed, and designation as a strategic regional site is not therefore

appropriate at this stage.

Page 11

5 Comments received on potential additionalstrategic regional sites

Alderley Park (Astra Zeneca), Macclesfield

Page 12

Organisation/comments NWDA Response

Cheshire County Council: this is an established major developed sitein the Green Belt with an approved development brief. It offers clearpotential for consolidation of the life science research function.

Council for the Protection of Rural England: strongly oppose anyfuture expansion of Astra Zeneca site into the Green Belt. PositionStatement para 3.2 is misleading. The brief in the Macclesfield LocalPlan does allow for further development within the existing site, but itdoes not allow for the site to expand into the Green Belt.

Astra Zeneca is a single firm and therefore cannot be regarded as a‘life sciences cluster’.

Any proposals for physical expansion by Astra Zeneca would constitutea planning decision for the local authorities, and be outside the remit ofthe NWDA.

Environment Agency: surface water drainage issues will have to becarefully considered to prevent flooding problems downstream.Sustainable Drainage Systems are recommended. Will require details ofany proposed culverting works for EA consent.

Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council: fully support the responseprepared by Merseyside Policy Unit on behalf of the Merseyside localauthorities.

Macclesfield Borough Council: it is inappropriate to suggest that ifnecessary, further expansion should be allowed as this would be atodds with the review process built into the Planning Brief.

The site has a single occupant and in no respect represents a lifesciences cluster to which other companies should be attracted. Such anapproach would not be in accordance with RPG.

The consultant’s policy recommendation should not be agreed.A response which acknowledges the regional/national importance ofthe Astra Zeneca site and the approved Planning Brief for the site issupported, but without the additional wording.

Support noted.

The NWDA Policy Statement takes thispoint into account.

Astra Zeneca is a critical component inthe region’s life sciences cluster.

NWDA is not a planning authority but maystill wish to offer a view on issues that arecritical to the implementation of theRegional Economic Strategy.

This is a detailed implementation issue.

Noted.

NWDA is not a planning authority but maystill wish to offer a view on issues that arecritical to the implementation of theRegional Economic Strategy.

Astra Zeneca is a critical component inthe region’s life-sciences cluster.

Support noted for position now taken inNWDA Policy Statement.

Page 13


Merseyside Policy Unit: any major expansion of this site would appearto conflict with RPG Policy EC5 on Regional Investment Sites.

Expansion may comply with Policy SD4 as it may add significant valueto the regional economy. Not possible to give clear judgement withoutfurther details.

Peel Holdings plc: welcome the inclusion.

Regional Investment Sites are a land-useplanning designation and theiridentification and designation is a matterfor development plans. Strategic regionalsites are identified by the Agency to assistin delivering the Regional EconomicStrategy.

Noted.

Support noted.

Capenhurst, Chester


Cheshire County Council: support the concept that seeks to divertpressure from Chester to key sites along the strategic corridor to thenorth. The site is already identified in the local plan as a MajorDeveloped Site washed over by the Green Belt.

Chester City Council: welcomes the proposal to include Capenhurstas a potential strategic regional site. Is identified as a ‘Major DevelopedSite in the Green Belt’ in the Chester District Local Plan. It lies adjacentto Capenhurst station and current presence of high-tech companiesgives it significant potential for specific sectors.

Council for the Protection of Rural England: a major developed sitewithin the Green Belt according to the Chester District Local Plan and isthus covered by PPG2 Annex C. Concerned that its designation as astrategic regional site may cause pressures on the Green Belt –consider it unsuitable for designation.

Support noted.

Support noted.

Capenhurst is not to be designated as astrategic regional site.

Capenhurst, Chester (continued)

Page 14



Merseyside Policy Unit: site lies outside the North West MetropolitanArea (NWMA). Although well served by Merseyrail network, it wouldencourage further out-commuting from Merseyside – contrary toprinciple of reducing the need to travel. More appropriate to concentrateNWDA investment resources on sites physically closer to the heart ofthe Merseyside conurbation, in line with RPG and PPG13 principles.


Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council: although site is outside NWMAit can be accessed by Wirral residents from the Merseyside Objective 1SIA using the Birkenhead-Chester Merseyrail network.

Although it would be preferable to promote development of sites inNWMA, as the Capenhurst site is well served by public transport, is notbeing promoted through Local Plan process, and comprises previouslydeveloped land, Wirral MBC does not raise an objection to designationof this site.

Noted.

Capenhurst is not to be designated as astrategic regional site.

Support noted.

This site will not be designated as astrategic regional site although itspotential, particularly in the medium-term,is recognised.

Chester City Centre


Cheshire County Council: the principle of using employment siteswithin existing urban centres to attract growth target sector investment issupported. It is important that the specific sites are identified.

Designating these city centre sites for growth target sectors may haveimplications for the overall balance of employment land in the city.

It is not proposed to designate ChesterCity Centre as a strategic regional site.

Page 15

Chester City Centre (continued)


Chester City Council: welcomes the proposal to include Chester CityCentre sites as a potential strategic regional site. A number of sites areallocated for employment development and mixed-use. Developmentbriefs have been prepared for the city’s North East Urban Action Area.The sites score highly in terms of sustainability. They would be ideallyplaced to meet the needs of the target sectors.

Council for the Protection of Rural England: in the emerging ChesterDistrict Local Plan, city centre sites are allocated for mixed development.Believe it is important to maintain this mixed-use approach and not tofavour city centre sites purely for employment use. Urge caution indesignating more strategic regional sites not least because ofconsequent over-heating pressures on the housing market itself, whichcompetes with land for employment use.


Merseyside Policy Unit: identification of investment sites withinChester conflicts with RPG and with concept of NWMA. Chester has ahigh demand for land within the city centre, with sites being underpressure from the residential market. In parts of Merseyside, without fullsupport from the NWDA and others, sites are at risk of remaining emptyor derelict. NWDA needs to remain committed to concept of NWMA.


It is not proposed to designate ChesterCity Centre as a strategic regional site.However, its potential for the developmentof knowledge-based industry isacknowledged and the Agency willcontinue to give support as part of amixed-use approach.


Noted.

It is not proposed to designate ChesterCity Centre as a strategic regional site.

Support noted.

Page 16

Chester City Centre (continued)


Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council: RPG 13 identifies Chester as akey location within which development outside NWMA should beconcentrated, whilst reflecting the need for continual conservation withsensitive integration of new development, where needed.

Chester’s gateway role should be supported by high quality modernfacilities. Development in Chester City Centre is likely to be small-scaleand relatively accessible to Wirral residents via Birkenhead-Chesterrailway line.

As sites under consideration are largely brownfield land within existingbuilt up area, Wirral MBC raise no objection to designation of this site.


Hooton Interchange, Ellesmere Port


Cheshire County Council: support the concept that seeks to divertpressure from Chester to key sites along the strategic corridor to thenorth. The site is already identified in the local plan as a MajorDevelopment Site washed over by the Green Belt.

Council for the Protection of Rural England: Hooton Park is identifiedin the Cheshire Structure Plan as a strategic employment site and iscurrently used by Vauxhall. Development of this site should not comeabout at the expense of other sites in Ellesmere Port that may moredirectly contribute to a higher quality of life and environmentalenhancement as indicated in RPG policies SD1/SD2.

Its competing effect with Wirral Borough, especially the economicrenaissance of Birkenhead, must be considered.

Support noted.

The Council for the Protection of RuralEngland appear to have confused theHooton site with Hooton Park. Forclarification, the site will now be referredto as Hooton Interchange.

Hooton Interchange is highly accessiblefor Birkenhead residents via the Merseyrailsystem.

Page 17

Hooton Interchange, Ellesmere Port (continued)



Merseyside Policy Unit: understand that this site is Hooton Park, to thenorth of the Vauxhall Car Plant. Support Hooton Park site. Would sustaina major regional employer and provide facilities that could not belocated elsewhere.

Site is within NWMA, although it is not currently well served by non-cartransport. Site is allocated for employment in adopted Ellesmere Portand Neston Borough Local Plan.


The Peel Group owns land fronting North Road adjacent to the VauxhallMotors site and this should be regarded as part of the Hooton site. TheNorth Road/Pioneer Business Park site at Ellesmere Port (40ha sitewithin Ellesmere Port EDZ) is nearby and could form a linked site.

Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council: there is confusion over whichsite this is – the Roften site (south of Hooton Station), or Hooton Park(north of Vauxhall Motors).

Comments below relate to Hooton Park (as identified in Ellesmere Portand Neston BC Local Plan).

Officers will recommend that Wirral MBC support the designation of thissite.

Although this site has potential to be a direct competitor with WirralInternational Business Park (Strategic Regional Site), Hooton Park offersa size, type and nature of site that is not available within the BusinessPark. It is also situated close to the entrance to Manchester Ship Canal.

Site is clearly within NWMA and is accessible from Wirral Objective 1SIA. Although site is not well served by sustainable transport provision,it is allocated in the Ellesmere Port and Neston BC Local Plan.Development of this site would help to sustain a major regionalemployer (Vauxhall Motors).

Noted.

Merseyside Policy Unit appear to haveconfused the Hooton site with HootonPark. For clarification, the site will now bereferred to as Hooton Interchange.

Hooton Interchange is within the NWMAand is extremely well served by publictransport.

Peel Holdings plc appear to haveconfused the Hooton site with HootonPark. For clarification, the site will now bereferred to as Hooton Interchange.

Noted. For clarification, the site will nowbe referred to as Hooton Interchange.

Wirral Metropolitan Borough Councilappear to have confused the Hooton sitewith Hooton Park.

Hooton Interchange is within the NWMAand is extremely well served by publictransport.

Page 18

Middlebrook, Bolton


Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council (with Bolton WIDE):wholeheartedly support identification of Middlebrook as an additionalstrategic regional site. The identification of this site for high qualityemployment is fully supported by the adopted Bolton EconomicDevelopment Zone vision and masterplan.

Would like to clarify that the strategic regional site is the ‘widerMiddlebrook area’ as specified in the Mersey Belt Study and confirmedin the EDZ masterplan. This clarification is important, as Middlebrookitself is a tightly defined site with limited development land left. It is thesuccess of the original Middlebrook development that is the catalystthat enables the Council and partners to develop the potential ofadjacent sites.

Council for the Protection of Rural England: believe Middlebrook sitealready has planning permission. Concerned that site is not within theurban centre of Bolton. Plans for its development must not undermineactivities in the town centre, Horwich or Westhoughton. Site currentlysuffers from poor bus links.

Development effects on the adjacent SSSI, site of biological importanceand fluvial floodplain must be considered.

Would like the Agency to clarify the reference to developing the‘surrounding area’ as some of this is Green Belt land and should not bedeveloped according to RPG policy SD5.

Environment Agency: surface water drainage issues will have to becarefully considered to prevent flooding problems. Sustainable DrainageSystems are recommended. Will require details of any proposedculverting works for EA consent.


Merseyside Policy Unit: support recommendations in principle as thesite lies within the NWMA.


Support noted.

Boundaries and concepts require furtherdiscussion/clarification.

Objection noted.

This is a detailed implementation issue.

Agree that location of site is not clear.

Potential for flooding problems is noted.This is a detailed implementation issue.Any development on this site would needto be considered against RPG Policy ER8‘Development and Flood Risk’.

Noted.

Support noted.

Support noted.

Page 19

Wigan South Central


Council for the Protection of Rural England: position statement doesnot clarify exactly which sites are being considered. Therefore requestthat any development should be located on sites that are within theurban fabric and close to public transport, and should not encroachupon Green Belt or greenfield land.


Merseyside Policy Unit: support recommendations in principle as thesite lies within the NWMA.


Pemberton Colliery site in Wigan (16.9 ha allocated in the Wigan UDP)could fall within the category of Wigan South Central.

Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council: warmly welcome proposal todesignate Wigan South Central as a strategic regional site. Wigan MBCcommits itself to work with the NWDA to implement the proposal.

Consultants are developing the concept, and results will be shared withNWDA.

These sites are to be defined, but thebroad locations are likely to be within theurban fabric, close to public transport andnot encroaching upon the Green Belt.

Noted.

Support noted.

Support noted.

Support noted, however further feasibilitystudy has yet to be completed.

6 General comments received

Page 20


Association of Greater Manchester Authorities (AGMA): AGMA haspreviously expressed concerns regarding the Mersey Belt Study. It isregarded as flawed in its analysis.

The study’s apparent focus on the Southern Crescent was unfortunate.RPG focus on the NWMA provides a clear spatial context foridentification of further strategic sites for the knowledge-basedindustries.

The Mersey Belt Study has no land use planning status. Sites identifiedthrough the study still need to be assessed against the requirements ofRPG, and inclusion within the NWDA’s portfolio of Regional InvestmentSites is conditional upon the outcome of this assessment in each case.

The Position Statement (para 2.40) states “the broad Mersey Belt Studystrategy of ‘strategic corridors’ and the ‘gap area’ are not undermined bydraft RPG or the Regional Economic Strategy review” however thesespatial concepts are not given explicit credence in RPG.

It is essential that the identification of further strategic regional sitesmeets the policy requirements of RPG. It is not considered appropriatein this AGMA response to offer support or objection to individual sites.

As the number of identified strategic sites increases, the resources todeliver them effectively have to be more thinly spread, and thereforetheir effective delivery may become more difficult.

The Mersey Belt Study must be seen as a useful contribution to thedebate about the location of new industries in the evolving North Westeconomy, but not an adequate basis for future policy development.

Disagree. The Agency does not acceptthat the statistical analysis is flawed.

All references to the Southern Crescentare as a matter of historical record. RPGterminology is now used (see Introduction,paragraph 1.8).

Noted. Regional Investment Sites are aland use planning designation and theiridentification and designation is a matterfor development plans. NWDA does nothave a portfolio of Regional InvestmentSites.

The concepts are compatible with, andnot undermined by final RPG.

RPG policy requirements refer to RegionalInvestment Sites, not strategic regionalsites, which are not a land-use planningdesignation.

Agreed. The NWDA Policy Statementreflects this concern. Only 1 additionalstrategic regional site will be designated.

Noted.

Page 21


Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council (with Bolton WIDE): theCutacre site on the Bolton/Salford/Wigan boundary offers a longer termopportunity for the identified ‘gap areas’. Would welcome itsconsideration as an addition to the list of strategic regional sites as partof the second review of the Regional Strategy in 2005/06.

Cheshire County Council: from a general point of view it is clear thatthe four sites in Cheshire have significant potential to become the focusof strategic investment within the region.

It is however important to consider the spatial and land-use planningimplications of designating additional sites. This is particularly importantas the strategic sites are focused on the growth target sectors and notthe totality of the economic base.

NWDA do not present a direct assessment of the ‘exceptional’ nature ofthe proposed additional sites, nor do they show that these sites cannotwait to be considered as part of the second review of the RegionalStrategy in 2005/6.

Countryside Agency: no comments.

Council for the Protection of Rural England: the position statement iswelcomed in that it raises two key points:i) the need to relieve pressure for development in north Cheshire and

search for ways to re-direct economic growth in the most sustainableway.

ii) the public transport network in the Mersey Belt area is poor and thereis often an over-reliance on road transport links to access many ofthe current potential strategic regional sites.

In light of PPG11 it is essential that NWDA activities conform to theSpatial Development Framework set out in RPG. Have serious concernsthat the proposed additional strategic regional sites will causedevelopment pressures in areas that are unable to absorb them.

Would be helpful if terminology used by NWDA was consistent withRPG – Regional Investment Sites (instead of strategic regional sites).

The Agency agrees with AGMA’s comments(see above) on the need to concentrateresources, rather than spread them morethinly and thereby compromise the effectivedelivery of the strategic regional sites.

Support noted.

This is an issue for local planningauthorities.

The sites considered all emanate from alengthy Mersey Belt Study research projectcarried out in full consultation with localplanning authorities.

–

Support noted.

It is now only proposed to designate 1additional strategic regional site.

Regional investment sites are a land useplanning designation and their identificationand designation is a matter fordevelopment plans. Strategic regional sitesare identified by the Agency to assist indelivering the Regional Economic Strategy.

Page 22


The position statement refers to the Southern Crescent concept, and notjust as a matter of historical record (e.g. para 1.8).

Feel that the prosperous (or not) nature of the NWMA is not the primecriteria for the identification of this area in RPG. It is the urban naturethat is of prime concern, and the need to protect the distinctionbetween urban and rural areas.

It is hard to see how the current proposed list of regional sites meetsthe criteria of RPG Policy EC5, or links to the urban renaissance agendain the RES. Urge the NWDA to commit to choosing brownfield siteswithin the urban fabric in order to comply with RPG for north Cheshire.

Welcome a criteria-based approach to site identification but suggestthat to comply with RPG’s Core Development Principles DP1, DP2, DP4and Policy EC6, it may be better to judge first environmental and socialcriteria, so that investment sites can be more adequately matched toareas where the environmental capacity is large and to areas in need ofjobs and investment. The reasoning that sites must be found forcompanies that would otherwise locate elsewhere was not accepted.

Would like clarification of strategic regional sites review process, inparticular how sites would be de-selected from the NWDA’s list if newsites are added.

Concerned about selection process for the 14 additional sites. Ask forconfirmation that any sites identified by NWDA as not matching regionalinvestment site criteria will be automatically de-selected.

Would be helpful to clarify how NWDA receives guidance on thesuitability of sites in terms of conformity to planning policy.

Feel that a further designation of sites before the partial review of RPGwould be inappropriate. Has commented on the 6 potential additionalsites but this does not signify endorsement of these sites prior to RPGreview.

Final RPG policy EC4 clearly states now that the sequential approachdoes apply.

It should not be necessary to attract skilled people into an area:instead, local skills development should be promoted.

All references to the Southern Crescentare as a matter of historical record. RPGterminology is now used (see Introduction,paragraph 1.8).

Disagree. RPG Policy SD1 states thatpriority will be given to development in theNWMA which enhances its economicstrength.

See comments above on RegionalInvestment Sites.


The RES sets out the status of strategicregional sites and any review process.

This is not an issue for the Mersey BeltStudy.

Planning policy is set out in draft andapproved development plans.


Policy EC4 refers back to Policy DP1

Disagree. The NWDA needs to attract andretain skilled people for the regionaleconomy to grow.

Page 23


NWDA should give clear guidance on how many strategic sites areconsidered optimal for the region in order to prevent competition. Inother regions there are fewer sites selected and it remains unclear whythe North West feels it necessary to designate so many.

It would be helpful for NWDA to clarify how sites will be brought forwardin relation to each other.

RPG Policy SD4 says that sites must have ‘at least regional significance’if they are to be allocated for the ‘sustainable expansion of existinghigh-technology and research establishments’. Sites referred to inparagraph 3.10 as of sub-regional significance should be de-allocatedby planning authorities and not promoted further by the NWDA.

Environment Agency: comments limited to detailed environmentalconsiderations on each site. Where sites allocated or subject toplanning applications, local planning authorities are aware of views.

If and when the principle of the additional sites are confirmed, wouldwelcome further opportunities to discuss detailed arrangements toincorporate environmental sustainability requirements.

Halton Borough Council: urge a thorough rewrite of the PositionStatement (particularly of Sections 1 and 2) to reflect final RPG –including references to any outstanding reservations that NWDA mayhave on final RPG.

The Mersey Belt Study aired a number of wider strategic concepts thatstill need further investigation (e.g. the ideas of ‘strategic corridors’linking areas of different development potential, the ‘Mersey Belt RailCircle’ and other strategic transport concepts). It is important that suchideas are not neglected under pressure of more immediate concerns.

Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council: fully support the responseprepared by Merseyside Policy Unit on behalf of the Merseyside localauthorities. Particularly endorse following points – process fordeveloping Mersey Belt Study not fully linked with the RES and RPG;concerned with the continued reference to the Southern Crescent; andthe Merseyside-wide view on the proposed additional strategic regionalsites.

This is not an issue for the Mersey BeltStudy. Only 1 additional strategic regionalsite will be designated.

This is not an issue for the Mersey BeltStudy.

Disagree. Policy SD4 also refers to localneed. In any event, developments of atleast regional significance may be attractedto these sites.

Noted.

Noted.

NWDA Policy Statement now has regard tofinal RPG.

Support noted.

Noted.

Page 24


Lancashire West Partnership: for Lancashire West to punch its weightin helping to deliver the Regional Strategy, the number of strategicregional sites needs to be in balance.

If the 6 proposed sites are formally designated then 26 (84%) of the 31strategic regional sites will be located across Merseyside, Manchesterand Cheshire.

Early development of sites at Lancaster University/Bailrigg, Cuerden andRoyal Ordnance Factory is critical to delivery of LWP’s vision andstrategy.

Liverpool Land Development Company: in general terms, LLDCnaturally supports the targeting of investment to sites within the MerseyBelt section of the NWMA. Are content that 75% of key sites identifiedby consultants lie within NWMA.

Concerned at the differing perspectives of ODPM, DfT and NWRAoverlaying the clear priorities set out in the RES – the private sector areconfused by the uncertainty.

Macclesfield Borough Council: despite the statement (para 1.6) that‘Southern Crescent’ is only referred to as a matter of historical record,the continued use of the term is misleading – RPG wording should beused instead – i.e. North Cheshire.

Sections 1 and 2 need to be updated to reflect Final RPG. RPG shouldinform and influence the NWDA’s response to the consultant’srecommendations. It would be inappropriate for the NWDA to pursuepolicies that are in conflict with national and regional planning policies.

RPG differentiates between the metropolitan authorities of GreaterManchester and the authorities in North Cheshire. The Mersey BeltStudy largely ignores this differentiation.

Agreed.

Only 1 additional strategic regional site willbe designated.

Not an issue for the Mersey Belt Study.

Support noted.

Noted.

Agreed. RPG wording is now used(see Introduction, paragraph 1.8).

NWDA Policy Statement now has regardto final RPG.


Page 25


Manchester City Council: the ‘Metropolitan Axis’ has shown a verystrong resurgence in recent years, particularly in Manchester. It thereforehas unique potential for further sustainable investment and growth.

The analysis should have recognised the need to support and reinforcethe competitiveness of Manchester, and to a lesser extent Liverpool, asthe North West’s primary growth engine for knowledge-based industries.

The Position Statement should recognise the centrality of theKnowledge Capital initiative in harnessing the potential of the region’sknowledge-based industries and in delivering the objectives of the RES.

The Position Statement does not acknowledge the priorities forregeneration identified in RPG. This is the substantive context withinwhich the study should be considered. It must be updated to reflectfinal RPG, especially Policies EC3 and EC5.

The identification of additional sites for designation, outside of theconurbation cores, would be counterproductive to the renaissance ofthe region’s major urban centres and the priorities within the RES.

Merseyside Policy Unit: the reference in the Position Statement is tothe 2000 Regional Strategy, not the 2003 RES – this needs to be madeexplicit.

The Position Statement has been superceded by several policychanges in RPG. Highlight the prioritisation given in RPG to the tworegional poles.

The Position Statement implicitly continues to promote the concept of‘Southern Crescent’ and as such, contravenes the spatial framework ofRPG. The Merseyside Authorities are strongly committed to the NWMAconcept, but there are also strong economic links with authorities withinthe identified ‘Southern Crescent’ area.

Would be grateful for an indication of the process for taking the studyforward – in particular the mechanisms required to approve the PositionStatement and the status that the NWDA’s final response to therecommendations will have.

The Mersey Belt Study recognisesManchester’s unique potential, as does theNWDA.

The Mersey Belt Study recognises thepotential of both the Manchester andLiverpool city regions as a whole, includingthe functionally linked areas of NorthCheshire.

The Knowledge Capital Initiative wasdeveloped after the Mersey Belt Studywas carried out but it is entirely compatiblewith it.


Disagree. RPG Policy SD1 accepts thatregeneration and development is alsorequired outside the conurbation cores.

Noted.


All references to the Southern Crescent areas a matter of historical record. RPGterminology is now used (see Introduction,paragraph 1.8). NWDA Policy Statement nowhas regard to final RPG.

The NWDA Policy Statement makes clearthe status of the Mersey Belt Study.

Page 26


Indicative timescales for consultation on specific regional investmentsites would also be appreciated.

Manchester Investment and Development Agency Service (MIDAS):the report will need to be updated following publication of final RPG.RPG recognises potential for knowledge-based industry.

The Mersey Belt Study should reinforce the Knowledge Capital Initiative,as supported by NWDA.

There is no rationale for identifying strategic regional sites unless theybecome magnets for development.

The selection of sites in the Position Statement does not appear toreinforce the regeneration of the urban centres. Development of thesesites contradicts the statement ‘NWDA recognises the role of the cityregions as drivers of the regional economy’ (para 1.9).

Concerned at designation of sites within north Cheshire as unlessrestricted, developers always find it easier to progress greenfield ratherthan brownfield sites.

Individual sites will be taken forward in thecontext of development plans andreviews, as well as the Agency’s corporateplanning process. Regional InvestmentSites are a land-use planning designationand their identification and designation isa matter for development plans. Strategicregional sites are identified by the Agencyto assist in delivering the RegionalEconomic Strategy.


The Knowledge Capital Initiative wasdeveloped after the Mersey Belt Studywas carried out but it is entirelycompatible with it.

The sites considered all emanate from alengthy Mersey Belt Study researchproject carried out in full consultation withlocal planning authorities. The RegionalEconomic Strategy confirmed the 25designated strategic regional sites, andsaid that further sites arising from theMersey Belt Study would also beconsidered.

Disagree. The majority of sites identified inthe Mersey Belt Study are located withinthe North West Metropolitan Area, asidentified in final RPG, with a very strongconcentration in the core area of GreaterManchester (see Mersey Belt Study Figure3.1, in the Appendices).

Only 1 additional strategic regional site willbe designated, for reasons supported inRPG Policy SD4.

Page 27


NWDA’s decision not to designate further strategic regional sites inGreater Manchester does not look at the long-term view. Research byManchester Enterprises estimates that the Manchester sub-region iscapable of creating over 100,000 jobs over the next 10 years. Furthersites will be required to meet this demand.

North West Regional Assembly (NWRA): within the Mersey Belt Studythere is little consideration of the development principles, spatialframework or policies set out in draft RPG. It should have emphasisedthe importance and role of the metropolitan areas within RPG’s spatialframework.

The Mersey Belt Study identified a number of transport corridors thatappear to have little evidential basis and little relationship to the regionalscale of multi-modal corridors, networks and priorities identified in theRegional Transport Strategy.

In terms of the potential additional Regional Investment Sites, theAssembly cannot endorse the Agency’s designated list until it issatisfied on issues such as the role and function of Regional InvestmentSites, the justification and need, the overall quantum of sites, theprocess for their identification, monitoring of progress and theircontribution to the regional economy.

AGMA’s response to the Mersey Belt Studydoes not seek the designation of anyfurther strategic regional sites in GreaterManchester. The Agency agrees withAGMA’s comments (see above) on theneed to concentrate resources, rather thanspread them more thinly and therebycompromise the effective delivery of thestrategic regional sites.

NWDA Policy Statement on the MerseyBelt Study has regard to final RPG. Themajority of sites identified in the MerseyBelt Study are located within the NorthWest Metropolitan Area, as identified infinal RPG (see Mersey Belt Study Figure3.1, in the Appendices).

The recommendations all emanate from alengthy Mersey Belt Study research projectcarried out in full consultation with localplanning authorities, and the HighwaysAgency. Some will need further discussionwith NWRA in the context of the RegionalTransport Strategy Review.

RPG policy requirements relate to RegionalInvestment Sites. The Agency identifiesstrategic regional sites to assist indelivering the Regional Economic Strategyand does not designate RegionalInvestment Sites. Strategic regional sitesare not a land-use planning designation.It is for development plans, whereappropriate, to identify and seek todesignate Regional Investment Sites.

Page 28


Several of the six potential sites are previously developed sites withinthe Green Belt. If the intention is to redevelop or intensify the uses onthe existing sites, then this falls within the policy framework set out inPPG2. It is unnecessary for this to be the basis for the designation ofRegional Investment Sites as a precursor to identification indevelopment plans. If the proposal is for expansion of these then thiswould be contrary to PPG2 and to the Agency’s previous publicstatements.

The express purpose of the study was to inform the review of RPG13.Now that final RPG has been published it seems to the Assembly thatthe Mersey Belt Study becomes of purely historical significance.

Peel Holdings plc: feel the Mersey Belt Study is more relevant thanmany studies of regional development – it recognises the factors thatdrive investment decisions in the private sector.

Welcome the inclusion of the additional sites as identified.

Peel considers Barton to be highly suitable for a multi-modal freightterminal in addition to NWDA growth target sectors. Peel considersCarrington to be unsuitable as a strategic inter-modal rail terminal. TheNWDA’s designation of the various strategic regional sites is inevitablycontingent upon the outcome of the early review of RPG – at least sofar as Barton, Carrington, Parkside and Ditton are concerned.

Disagree. The Agency believes that it ishelpful to designate Alderley Park (AstraZeneca) as a strategic regional site. RPGpolicy requirements relate to RegionalInvestment Sites. The Agency identifiesstrategic regional sites to assist indelivering the Regional Economic Strategyand does not designate RegionalInvestment Sites. Strategic regional sitesare not a land-use planning designation.It is for development plans, whereappropriate, to identify and seek todesignate Regional Investment Sites,taking into account Government policyguidance.

The purpose of the Mersey Belt Study wasto provide recommendations to the NWDAbased upon detailed independentresearch which was undertaken in fullconsultation with local planningauthorities. The Regional EconomicStrategy commits the Agency to preparinga position statement and formallydesignating any further strategic regionalsites arising from the Mersey Belt Study.

Support noted.

Support noted, although NWDA proposesonly to designate Astra Zeneca (AlderleyPark)

This issue is not relevant to theknowledge-based industries that are thefocus of the Mersey Belt Study.

Page 29


Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council: release of this interimresponse to the consultant’s recommendations is broadly welcomed.

Despite change in spatial definition, with the whole of Stockport nowbeing in NWMA, it is important that the links to parts of ‘North Cheshire’continue to be recognised by NWDA. On this basis, the exploration ofthe Southern Crescent concept has been beneficial, with the MerseyBelt Study providing valuable information and ideas.

Welcome NWDA conclusion that the identification of ‘strategic corridors’within the Mersey Belt Study is not undermined by draft RPG or theRES.

Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council: there are inconsistenciesbetween RPG and the Mersey Belt Study. Any allocation of newstrategic sites will need to meet the requirements of RPG. It is essentialthat the agencies involved at regional level work together to develop aconsensus on sites that meet RPG criteria, are capable of deliveringinvestment, and are widely accepted.

Allocation of resources to additional strategic regional sites should notundermine progress being made in Metropolitan Axis areas.

Useful to refresh understanding of strategic regional site concept, andclearly identify their purpose.

A more strategic approach to clusters may be required. AGMA will beconsidering the position following on from the Greater ManchesterStrategy. The present approach appears to favour enhancing existingclusters. NWDA should engage more fully with sub-regional partners toidentify prospects for clusters.

University of Liverpool: wonder why there is as yet no mention of theLiverpool Science Park/Marconi Site – though assume this is simply amatter of timing. The fact that it is not in the study would not of itselfpreclude it appearing in NWDA response to the study.

Support noted.

Support noted.

Support noted.

The NWDA is not taking land-use planningdecisions and all sites are subject to thestatutory planning process, particularlydevelopment plans and development planreviews. NWDA Policy Statement now hasregard to final RPG.

Noted.

The Agency intends to developimplementation plans for specific strategicregional sites which will clarify theirpurpose and objectives.

Noted.

Liverpool Science Park/Marconi Site isreferred to as Wavertree Technology Park inthe Mersey Belt Study (and in the strategicregional sites list in the Regional EconomicStrategy).

Page 30


Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council: remains a lack of clarity withregard to the role of strategic employment sites in meeting demand.

Recommend that NWDA give explicit support to the development ofopportunities in the Metropolitan Axis and restricts support in theSouthern Crescent only to Foreign Direct Investment. NWDA shouldpress for restrictions on type of development on Southern Crescent siteseither through agreements with local planning authorities or throughownership controls. The approach adopted must have a clearrelationship to RPG.

The Agency intends to developimplementation plans for specific strategicregional sites which will clarify theirpurpose and objectives.

NWDA Policy Statement now has regardto final RPG, including Policy SD4.

7 Responses to consultant’srecommendations

Page 31

Stu

dy

Par

a. N

o.C

onsu

ltant

s’P

olic

yR

ecom

men

dat

ion

Inte

rim

NW

DA

Res

pon

seR

elev

ant

loca

lau

thor

ityO

rgan

isat

ion/

com

men

tsN

WD

AR

esp

onse

2.33

3.10

Hou

sing

land

revi

ewto

acc

omm

odat

eta

rget

sect

orw

orke

rs.

Cat

egor

y A

‘Cat

egor

y A’

Agr

ee a

nd a

skth

ese

loca

lau

thor

ities

to c

arry

out

the

revi

ews.

Kno

wsl

ey,

Old

ham

,S

efto

n.

Cou

ncil

for

the

Pro

tect

ion

ofR

ural

Eng

land

:it

is n

otev

iden

tth

aton

ly p

artic

ular

type

s of

land

are

sui

tabl

e fo

r£10

0,00

0+ho

uses

in th

e m

etro

polit

an a

xis

north

oft

he R

iver

Mer

sey.

Suc

cess

ful u

rban

rena

issa

nce

will

cre

ate

hous

ing

in th

ese

area

s th

atis

a d

esira

ble

plac

efo

rski

lled

wor

kers

to li

ve.

Tam

esid

e M

etro

polit

anB

orou

gh C

ounc

il:ne

ed th

is b

ere

stric

ted

to K

now

sley

, Old

ham

and

Sef

ton?

Tam

esid

e is

alre

ady

prov

idin

g m

uch

acco

mod

atio

n in

exc

ess

of£1

00,0

00.

Pee

l Hol

ding

s pl

c:st

rong

lysu

ppor

tthe

nee

d fo

rmor

eex

ecut

ive

hous

ing

in th

eM

etro

polit

an A

xis.

Mer

seys

ide

Pol

icy

Uni

t:w

ould

be u

sefu

l ifN

WD

A c

ould

cla

rify

the

fund

ing

arra

ngem

ents

that

are

likel

y to

be

puti

n pl

ace

for

‘Cat

egor

y A’

site

s, w

hich

are

topr

iorit

ised

.

This

is a

n is

sue

forl

ocal

aut

horit

ies

to c

onsi

der.

(See

par

agra

ph 6

.16

belo

w).

This

is a

n is

sue

forl

ocal

aut

horit

ies

to c

onsi

der.

Sup

port

note

d.

Thes

e m

atte

rs w

ill b

e de

term

ined

in th

e N

WD

A C

orpo

rate

Pla

n. T

heM

erse

y B

eltS

tudy

Pol

icy

Sta

tem

ent

begi

ns th

e pr

oces

s of

setti

ngpr

iorit

ies.

Page 32

Stu

dy

Par

a. N

o.C

onsu

ltant

s’P

olic

yR

ecom

men

dat

ion

Inte

rim

NW

DA

Res

pon

seR

elev

ant

loca

lau

thor

ityO

rgan

isat

ion/

com

men

tsN

WD

AR

esp

onse

3.10

Gre

ater

East

Man

ches

ter.

Agr

ee s

ite c

ateg

oris

atio

nbu

tsee

no

need

toco

nsid

erde

sign

atio

n of

furth

erst

rate

gic

regi

onal

site

s gi

ven

exis

ting

desi

gnat

ions

.

Man

ches

ter

City

,Ta

mes

ide.

Man

ches

ter

Inve

stm

ent

and

Dev

elop

men

t A

genc

y S

ervi

ce(M

IDA

S):

NW

DA’

s de

cisi

on n

otto

des

igna

te fu

rther

stra

tegi

cre

gion

al s

ites

in G

reat

erM

anch

este

rdoe

s no

tloo

kat

the

long

-ter

m v

iew

. Res

earc

hby

Man

ches

terE

nter

pris

eses

timat

es th

atth

e M

anch

este

rsu

b-re

gion

is c

apab

le o

fcr

eatin

g ov

er10

0,00

0 jo

bs o

ver

the

next

10 y

ears

. Fur

ther

site

sw

ill b

e re

quire

d to

mee

tthi

sde

man

d.

NB

this

com

men

tis

also

rele

vant

to th

e fo

llow

ing

cons

ulta

nt’s

reco

mm

enda

tions

in p

arag

raph

3.11

– M

anch

este

rC

ity C

entre

, Man

ches

ter

Sou

ther

n C

orrid

or, S

alfo

rdQ

uays

, Dav

enpo

rtG

reen

and

Che

adle

Roy

al. T

o av

oid

repe

titio

n, th

e sa

me

com

men

tha

s no

tbee

n en

tere

d un

der

each

oft

hese

reco

mm

enda

tions

in th

esc

hedu

le. T

his

com

men

tsho

uld

neve

rthel

ess

be c

onsi

dere

dal

ongs

ide

the

NW

DA

resp

onse

fore

ach

ofth

ese

reco

mm

enda

tions

.

AGM

A’s

resp

onse

to th

e M

erse

yB

eltS

tudy

doe

s no

tsee

kth

ede

sign

atio

n of

any

furth

erst

rate

gic

regi

onal

site

s in

Gre

ater

Man

ches

ter.

The

Age

ncy

agre

esw

ith A

GM

A’s

com

men

ts (

see

Sec

tion

6, ‘G

ener

al c

omm

ents

rece

ived

’) on

the

need

toco

ncen

trate

reso

urce

s, r

athe

rtha

nsp

read

them

mor

e th

inly

and

ther

eby

com

prom

ise

the

effe

ctiv

ede

liver

y of

the

stra

tegi

c re

gion

alsi

tes.

Page 33

Stu

dy

Par

a. N

o.C

onsu

ltant

s’P

olic

yR

ecom

men

dat

ion

Inte

rim

NW

DA

Res

pon

seR

elev

ant

loca

lau

thor

ityO

rgan

isat

ion/

com

men

tsN

WD

AR

esp

onse

3.10

3.10

Gre

ater

East

Man

ches

ter

(cont

inue

d).

Live

rpoo

l City

Cen

tre.

Agr

ee s

ite c

ateg

oris

atio

nbu

tsee

no

need

toco

nsid

erde

sign

atio

n of

furth

erst

rate

gic

regi

onal

site

s gi

ven

exis

ting

desi

gnat

ions

.

Agr

ee s

ite c

ateg

oris

atio

nbu

tsee

no

need

toco

nsid

erde

sign

atio

n of

furth

erst

rate

gic

regi

onal

site

s gi

ven

exis

ting

desi

gnat

ions

.

Man

ches

ter

City

,Ta

mes

ide.

Live

rpoo

l City

.

Tam

esid

e M

etro

polit

anB

orou

gh C

ounc

il:Ta

mes

ide’

sun

ders

tand

ing

was

that

the

MB

S d

efin

ed G

reat

erEa

stM

anch

este

ras

Man

ches

tera

ndTa

mes

ide.

Req

uest

that

Tam

esid

e is

add

ed a

s a

rele

vant

loca

l aut

horit

y.

Whi

lstN

ew E

astM

anch

este

ris

desi

gnat

ed in

the

RES

, as

isA

shto

n M

oss,

the

rem

aind

erof

Tam

esid

e’s

EDZ

and

site

sw

ithin

Den

ton

are

notc

lear

lyre

cogn

ised

.

Are

cle

arly

sup

porti

ve o

fG

reat

erEa

stM

anch

este

r‘ke

ysi

tes’

conc

ept.

This

als

osu

ppor

ts th

e im

porta

nce

ofth

eM

etro

link

exte

nsio

n to

Ash

ton-

unde

r-Ly

ne a

nd im

prov

emen

tsal

ong

the

E-W

corri

dor.

Live

rpoo

l Lan

d D

evel

opm

ent

Com

pany

:ag

ree.

Tam

esid

e ha

s be

en a

dded

as

are

leva

ntlo

cal a

utho

rity.

EDZ

s ar

e no

tide

ntifi

ed in

the

orig

inal

Reg

iona

l Stra

tegy

, the

curre

ntR

egio

nal E

cono

mic

Stra

tegy

, orR

egio

nal P

lann

ing

Gui

danc

e.

Sup

port

note

d.

Sup

port

note

d.

Page 34

Stu

dy

Par

a. N

o.C

onsu

ltant

s’P

olic

yR

ecom

men

dat

ion

Inte

rim

NW

DA

Res

pon

seR

elev

ant

loca

lau

thor

ityO

rgan

isat

ion/

com

men

tsN

WD

AR

esp

onse

3.10

3.10

3.10

Wav

ertre

eTe

chno

logy

Par

k.

Om

ega.

Hoo

ton.

Agr

ee.

Agr

ee.

Sho

uld

be c

onsi

dere

d as

apo

tent

ial s

trate

gic

regi

onal

site

as

Elle

smer

e Po

rtis

ato

wn

with

in fi

nal R

PG’s

Nor

th W

estM

etro

polit

anA

rea

with

rege

nera

tion

and

envi

ronm

enta

len

hanc

emen

tnee

ds; t

hesi

te is

ata

par

kan

d rid

ein

terc

hang

e an

d is

ata

noda

l poi

nton

the

rail

syst

em g

ivin

g ra

il ac

cess

to B

irken

head

, Liv

erpo

ol,

Che

ster

, Hel

sby,

Fro

dsha

m,

War

ringt

on a

ndM

anch

este

rand

parti

cula

rly g

ood

acce

ss to

Mer

seys

ide

via

the

Mer

seyr

ail s

yste

m.

Live

rpoo

l City

.

War

ringt

on.

Che

shire

Cou

nty,

Elle

smer

e Po

rtan

d N

esto

n.

Live

rpoo

l Lan

d D

evel

opm

ent

Com

pany

:w

elco

me

‘Cat

egor

yA’

clas

sific

atio

n. A

genc

y’s

resp

onse

cou

ld re

flect

that

Wav

ertre

e Te

chno

logy

Par

kis

targ

etin

g ‘k

now

ledg

e-ba

sed

tech

nolo

gy c

ompa

nies

’, ra

ther

than

just

‘gro

wth

targ

etse

ctor

s’ge

nera

lly.

See

Sec

tion

5–

com

men

ts re

ceiv

ed o

npo

tent

ial a

dditi

onal

site

s –

Hoo

ton.

Sup

port

note

d. T

he A

genc

y in

tend

sto

cla

rify

the

role

ofW

aver

tree

Tech

nolo

gy P

ark.

See

Sec

tion

4–

stra

tegi

c re

gion

al s

ites

– H

ooto

n.

Page 35

Stu

dy

Par

a. N

o.C

onsu

ltant

s’P

olic

yR

ecom

men

dat

ion

Inte

rim

NW

DA

Res

pon

seR

elev

ant

loca

lau

thor

ityO

rgan

isat

ion/

com

men

tsN

WD

AR

esp

onse

3.10

3.10

3.11

Cap

enhu

rst.

The

Estu

ary.

Cat

egor

y B

Man

ches

terC

ityC

entre

.

Sho

uld

be c

onsi

dere

d as

apo

tent

ial s

trate

gic

regi

onal

site

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ithco

nsul

tant

s’co

nclu

sion

s(s

ee a

bove

).

Agr

ee.

Agr

ee s

ite c

ateg

oris

atio

nbu

tsee

no

need

toco

nsid

erde

sign

atio

n of

furth

erst

rate

gic

regi

onal

site

s.

Che

shire

Cou

nty,

Che

ster

City

.

Live

rpoo

l City

.

Man

ches

ter

City

.

See

Sec

tion

5–

com

men

ts re

ceiv

ed o

npo

tent

ial a

dditi

onal

site

s –

Cap

enhu

rst.

Live

rpoo

l Lan

d D

evel

opm

ent

Com

pany

: w

elco

me

‘Cat

egor

yA’

clas

sific

atio

n. A

genc

y’s

resp

onse

cou

ld re

flect

that

Estu

ary

Phas

e 2

is b

eing

prom

oted

as

a‘b

iom

anuf

actu

ring

zone

’, ra

ther

than

just

‘gro

wth

targ

etse

ctor

s’ge

nera

lly.

See

Sec

tion

4–

stra

tegi

c re

gion

al s

ites

–C

apen

hurs

t.

Sup

port

note

d. T

he A

genc

y in

tend

sto

cla

rify

the

role

ofT

he E

stua

ry.

Page 36

Stu

dy

Par

a. N

o.C

onsu

ltant

s’P

olic

yR

ecom

men

dat

ion

Inte

rim

NW

DA

Res

pon

seR

elev

ant

loca

lau

thor

ityO

rgan

isat

ion/

com

men

tsN

WD

AR

esp

onse

3.11

3.11

3.11

Che

ster

Bus

ines

sPa

rk.

Che

ster

City

Cen

tresi

tes.

Sai

ghto

n C

amp.

Agr

ee.

Sho

uld

be c

onsi

dere

d as

apo

tent

ial s

trate

gic

regi

onal

site

(s)

to m

eetn

eeds

of

targ

etse

ctor

s in

an

area

of

high

dem

and

and

limite

dsu

pply

and

to p

rote

ctth

emfro

m in

appr

opria

te h

ousi

ngde

velo

pmen

t.

Sho

uld

notb

e co

nsid

ered

as a

pot

entia

l stra

tegi

cre

gion

al s

ite in

ligh

toft

heun

certa

in p

lann

ing

stat

us.

Che

shire

Cou

nty,

Che

ster

City

.

Che

shire

Cou

nty,

Che

ster

City

.

Che

shire

Cou

nty,

Che

ster

City

.

Che

ster

Cit

y C

ounc

il:en

dors

eth

e in

clus

ion

ofC

hest

erB

usin

ess

Park

(and

its

prop

osed

ext

ensi

on)

as a

stra

tegi

c re

gion

al s

ite, a

ndw

elco

mes

the

stat

emen

ttha

tth

is s

houl

d be

exc

lude

d fro

mth

e de

-allo

catio

n ex

erci

sesu

gges

ted

in p

olic

y S

D4

ofR

PG. I

ts re

tent

ion

on th

e lis

twill

be e

ssen

tial t

o en

sure

its

cont

inue

d de

velo

pmen

tand

cons

olid

atio

n as

one

oft

heN

orth

Wes

t’s p

rem

ierb

usin

ess

loca

tions

.

See

Sec

tion

5–

com

men

tsre

ceiv

ed o

n po

tent

ial a

dditi

onal

site

s –

Che

ster

Cit

y C

entr

e.

Che

ster

Cit

y C

ounc

il:th

e si

teis

sur

roun

ded

by G

reen

Bel

t,bu

tis

noti

tsel

fdes

igna

ted

asG

reen

Bel

t.

NW

DA

agr

ees

that

the

site

sho

uld

notb

e de

-allo

cate

d.

See

Sec

tion

4–

stra

tegi

c re

gion

alsi

tes

– C

hest

erC

ity

Cen

tre.

Not

ed.

Page 37

Stu

dy

Par

a. N

o.C

onsu

ltant

s’P

olic

yR

ecom

men

dat

ion

Inte

rim

NW

DA

Res

pon

seR

elev

ant

loca

lau

thor

ityO

rgan

isat

ion/

com

men

tsN

WD

AR

esp

onse

3.11

3.11

3.11

Dar

esbu

ry P

ark

loca

tion.

Man

orPa

rkIV

.

Lost

ock

Tria

ngle

.

Man

ches

ter

Sou

ther

n C

orrid

or.

Agr

ee.

Man

orPa

rkIV

shou

ld n

otbe

con

side

red

as a

pote

ntia

l stra

tegi

c re

gion

alsi

te in

vie

w o

fits

pro

xim

ityto

Dar

esbu

ry P

ark/

Dar

esbu

ry L

abor

ator

yS

cien

ce P

ark

loca

tion

whi

ch is

alre

ady

desi

gnat

ed a

s a

stra

tegi

cre

gion

al s

ite.

Sho

uld

notb

e co

nsid

ered

as a

pot

entia

l stra

tegi

cre

gion

al s

ite a

s it

scor

edlo

w/m

ediu

m in

term

s of

futu

re p

ublic

tran

spor

tsu

stai

nabi

lity.

Agr

ee s

ite c

ateg

oris

atio

nbu

tsee

no

need

toco

nsid

erde

sign

atio

n of

furth

erst

rate

gic

regi

onal

site

s.

See

als

o 6.

7be

low

(fo

ster

links

on

north

-sou

th a

xis

into

sou

th M

anch

este

r).

Hal

ton.

Che

shire

Cou

nty,

Vale

Roy

al.

Man

ches

ter

City

.

Hal

ton

Bor

ough

Cou

ncil:

acce

ptN

WD

A c

oncl

usio

ns re

Dar

esbu

ry P

ark

loca

tion

and

Man

orPa

rkIV

.

Req

uest

that

this

sch

edul

ein

clud

es s

peci

fic re

spon

ses

tost

udy

para

grap

h nu

mbe

rs 3

.30

and

3.31

.

Uni

vers

ity

ofLi

verp

ool:

wel

com

e D

ares

bury

Par

kin

itiat

ive.

Sup

port

note

d.

The

Posi

tion

Sta

tem

enta

nd th

isPo

licy

Sta

tem

ento

nly

resp

onds

tosp

ecifi

c re

com

men

datio

ns in

the

Mer

sey

Bel

tStu

dy.

Sup

port

note

d.

Page 38

Stu

dy

Par

a. N

o.C

onsu

ltant

s’P

olic

yR

ecom

men

dat

ion

Inte

rim

NW

DA

Res

pon

seR

elev

ant

loca

lau

thor

ityO

rgan

isat

ion/

com

men

tsN

WD

AR

esp

onse

3.11

3.11

Sal

ford

Qua

ys.

M60

Gat

eway

.

Agr

ee s

ite c

ateg

oris

atio

nbu

tsee

no

need

toco

nsid

erde

sign

atio

n of

furth

erst

rate

gic

regi

onal

site

s.

Agr

ee.

Sal

ford

.

Sto

ckpo

rt.C

ounc

il fo

rth

e P

rote

ctio

n of

Rur

al E

ngla

nd:

unsu

re h

owid

entif

icat

ion

ofsi

tes

in th

eM

60 G

atew

ay fi

ts w

ith th

eN

WD

A’s

conc

ern

to a

void

undu

e co

mpe

titio

n be

twee

nsi

tes.

Man

ches

terA

irpor

tsits

larg

ely

with

in th

e G

reen

Bel

tan

d an

y pl

ans

to c

hang

e th

isw

ould

be

oppo

sed.

NB

this

com

men

tis

also

rele

vant

to th

e co

nsul

tant

’sre

com

men

datio

ns in

par

agra

ph3.

63 –

M60

Gat

eway

site

(s).

Toav

oid

repe

titio

n, th

e sa

me

com

men

thas

not

been

ent

ered

unde

rthi

s re

com

men

datio

n in

the

sche

dule

. Thi

s co

mm

ent

shou

ld n

ever

thel

ess

beco

nsid

ered

alo

ngsi

de th

eN

WD

A re

spon

se fo

rthe

reco

mm

enda

tions

inpa

ragr

aph

3.63

.

Ther

e is

no

curre

ntin

tent

ion

tose

ekG

reen

Bel

tbou

ndar

ych

ange

s.

Page 39

Stu

dy

Par

a. N

o.C

onsu

ltant

s’P

olic

yR

ecom

men

dat

ion

Inte

rim

NW

DA

Res

pon

seR

elev

ant

loca

lau

thor

ityO

rgan

isat

ion/

com

men

tsN

WD

AR

esp

onse

3.11

3.11

M60

Gat

eway

.(c

ont

inue

d).

Dav

enpo

rtG

reen

.

Sou

thba

nk, V

icto

riaW

areh

ouse

and

Bar

ton

Doc

kR

oad.

Agr

ee.

Agr

ee.

Agr

ee s

ite c

ateg

oris

atio

nbu

tsee

no

need

toco

nsid

erde

sign

atio

n of

furth

erst

rate

gic

regi

onal

site

s.

Sto

ckpo

rt.

Traf

ford

.

Sto

ckpo

rt M

etro

polit

anB

orou

gh C

ounc

il:ac

know

ledg

emen

tas

key

site

fork

now

ledg

e-ba

sed

indu

strie

sis

wel

com

ed. H

owev

er, p

rivat

ese

ctor

activ

ity is

not

suffi

cien

ton

its

own

to re

leas

e th

e hu

gepo

tent

ial o

fthi

s ar

ea in

aco

mpr

ehen

sive

way

. Def

initi

onas

a ‘C

ateg

ory

B’s

ite m

ustn

otin

hibi

tcon

tinue

d fu

ndin

gin

terv

entio

n by

the

NW

DA

.

M60

Gat

eway

sho

uld

notb

eru

led

outa

s a

repl

acem

ent

stra

tegi

c re

gion

al s

ite in

Sou

th-

East

Gre

ater

Man

ches

ter,

shou

ld W

ater

side

Par

k(T

ames

ide)

not

proc

eed.

NW

DA

has

stil

l to

clar

ify th

eco

ncep

tand

bou

ndar

ies

ofth

eM

60 G

atew

ay w

ith S

tock

port

MB

C.

Wat

ersi

de P

ark

issu

e no

tfin

ally

reso

lved

.

Page 40

Stu

dy

Par

a. N

o.C

onsu

ltant

s’P

olic

yR

ecom

men

dat

ion

Inte

rim

NW

DA

Res

pon

seR

elev

ant

loca

lau

thor

ityO

rgan

isat

ion/

com

men

tsN

WD

AR

esp

onse

3.11

3.11

3.11

3.11

Che

adle

Roy

al.

Kin

gsw

ay.

Mac

cles

field

site

s.

Ast

ra Z

enec

a.

Agr

ee s

ite c

ateg

oris

atio

nbu

tsee

no

need

toco

nsid

erde

sign

atio

n as

an

addi

tiona

l stra

tegi

cre

gion

al s

ite.

Agr

ee.

Agr

ee b

ut, w

ith e

xcep

tion

ofA

stra

Zen

eca

site

at

Ald

erle

y Pa

rk, s

ee n

o ne

edto

con

side

rdes

igna

tion

offu

rther

stra

tegi

c re

gion

alsi

tes.

Agr

ee c

onsu

ltant

s’re

com

men

datio

ns o

n A

stra

Zene

ca a

tAld

erle

y Pa

rk,

but

desi

gnat

e st

rate

gic

regi

onal

sit

e on

maj

orde

velo

ped

site

in G

reen

Bel

t (s

ee p

arag

raph

4.9

abov

e).

Sto

ckpo

rt.

Roc

hdal

e.

Che

shire

Cou

nty,

Mac

cles

field

.

Che

shire

Cou

nty,

Mac

cles

field

.

Sto

ckpo

rt M

etro

polit

an B

orou

ghC

ounc

il:ac

know

ledg

emen

tas

key

site

fork

now

ledg

e-ba

sed

indu

strie

s is

wel

com

ed. I

scu

rrent

ly b

eing

bro

ught

forw

ard

by p

rivat

e se

ctor

.

Mac

cles

fiel

d B

orou

gh C

ounc

il:ag

ree

none

oft

hese

site

s sh

ould

be c

onsi

dere

d as

stra

tegi

cre

gion

al s

ites,

how

ever

itis

impo

rtant

that

they

are

reta

ined

as lo

cal e

mpl

oym

ents

ites

and

notd

e-al

loca

ted.

A s

uppo

rting

stat

emen

tin

the

Age

ncy’

sre

spon

se w

ould

be

wel

com

ed.

See

Sec

tion

5–

com

men

tsre

ceiv

ed o

n po

tent

ial a

dditi

onal

site

s –

Ast

ra Z

enec

a.

Sup

port

note

d.

Sup

port

note

d. A

gree

site

s sh

ould

notb

e de

-allo

cate

d. N

eed

for

rete

ntio

n in

pla

nnin

g po

licy

term

s is

deal

twith

in re

spon

se to

cons

ulta

nt’s

reco

mm

enda

tion

belo

w (

para

grap

h nu

mbe

r6.4

).R

PG P

olic

y S

D4

is a

lso

rele

vant

.

See

Sec

tion

4–

stra

tegi

c re

gion

alsi

tes

– A

stra

Zen

eca.

Page 41

Stu

dy

Par

a. N

o.C

onsu

ltant

s’P

olic

yR

ecom

men

dat

ion

Inte

rim

NW

DA

Res

pon

seR

elev

ant

loca

lau

thor

ityO

rgan

isat

ion/

com

men

tsN

WD

AR

esp

onse

3.11

3.13

3.13

3.13

3.13

3.13

Kin

gs B

usin

ess

Park

.

Spe

cifi

c se

ctor

s

Cla

tterb

ridge

.

Sal

ford

Uni

vers

ityB

usin

ess

Park

and

Bla

ckfri

ars.

Mid

dleb

rook

.

Dar

esbu

ryLa

bora

tory

.

Agr

ee.

Agr

ee c

onsu

ltant

s’re

com

men

datio

ns a

ndw

illho

ld d

iscu

ssio

ns w

ithW

irral

MB

C a

nd th

ela

ndow

ner(

Wirr

al N

HS

Trus

t).

Agr

ee.

Agr

ee b

utne

ed fu

rther

disc

ussi

ons

with

Bol

ton

MB

C to

cla

rify

cons

ulta

nts’

reco

mm

enda

tions

.

This

is c

onsi

dere

d as

the

sam

e lo

catio

n as

Dar

esbu

ry P

ark.

Kno

wsl

ey.

Wirr

al.

Sal

ford

.

Bol

ton.

Hal

ton.

See

Sec

tion

5–

com

men

tsre

ceiv

ed o

n po

tent

ial a

dditi

onal

site

s –

Mid

dleb

rook

.

See

Sec

tion

4–

stra

tegi

c re

gion

alsi

tes

– M

iddl

ebro

ok.

Page 42

Stu

dy

Par

a. N

o.C

onsu

ltant

s’P

olic

yR

ecom

men

dat

ion

Inte

rim

NW

DA

Res

pon

seR

elev

ant

loca

lau

thor

ityO

rgan

isat

ion/

com

men

tsN

WD

AR

esp

onse

3.14

3.27

i

3.27

ii

3.27

iii

3.33

War

ringt

on a

rea

envi

ronm

enta

lte

chno

logy

clu

ster

.

Che

ster

win

dfal

lsi

tes

incl

udin

gS

aigh

ton

Cam

p.

Site

s to

the

north

of

Che

ster

adja

cent

toC

hest

er–

Live

rpoo

lra

ilway

.

Nor

th-e

astW

ales

/W

estC

hesh

irene

eds

and

oppo

rtuni

ties

stud

y.

Publ

ic tr

ansp

ort

acce

ss to

Om

ega.

Agr

ee th

is is

an

inte

rest

ing

idea

and

wou

ld w

ish

todi

scus

s it

with

War

ringt

onB

C b

utse

e no

nee

d to

cons

ider

desi

gnat

ion

as a

stra

tegi

c re

gion

al s

ite.

See

3.11

abov

e (C

hest

erC

ity C

entre

site

s an

dS

aigh

ton

Cam

p).

See

3.1

0 ab

ove

(Cap

enhu

rsta

nd H

ooto

n).

Agr

ee c

onsu

ltant

s’re

com

men

datio

ns a

ndw

ish

to d

iscu

ss w

ith th

ere

leva

ntlo

cal a

utho

ritie

s.

Agr

ee c

onsu

ltant

s’re

com

men

datio

n.

War

ringt

on.

Che

shire

Cou

nty,

Che

ster

City

.

Che

shire

Cou

nty,

Che

ster

City

,El

lesm

ere

Port

and

Nes

ton.

Che

shire

Cou

nty,

Che

ster

City

,El

lesm

ere

Port

and

Nes

ton,

Rel

evan

tWel

shau

thor

ities

.

Hal

ton

BC

,K

now

sley

,S

tHel

ens,

War

ringt

on,

Wig

an.

Mer

seys

ide

Pol

icy

Uni

t:H

alto

n sh

ould

be

adde

d to

list

ofre

leva

ntlo

cal a

utho

ritie

s fo

rpu

blic

tran

spor

tacc

ess

toO

meg

a. Im

prov

ing

acce

ss to

Om

ega

from

eas

tern

Mer

seys

ide

is a

prio

rity.

Om

issi

on. H

alto

n B

C h

as b

een

adde

d as

a re

leva

ntlo

cal a

utho

rity.

Page 43

Stu

dy

Par

a. N

o.C

onsu

ltant

s’P

olic

yR

ecom

men

dat

ion

Inte

rim

NW

DA

Res

pon

seR

elev

ant

loca

lau

thor

ityO

rgan

isat

ion/

com

men

tsN

WD

AR

esp

onse

3.35

3.38

Nor

th-s

outh

acce

ssib

ility

thro

ugh

War

ringt

on.

War

ringt

on v

ery

high

qual

ity s

ite.

Agr

ee c

onsu

ltant

s’re

com

men

datio

ns.

Agr

ee c

onsu

ltant

s’re

com

men

datio

ns, h

ave

mad

e re

pres

enta

tions

toW

arrin

gton

BC

as

part

ofU

DP

proc

ess,

and

wou

ldw

ish

to c

ontin

uedi

scus

sion

s w

ithW

arrin

gton

BC

and

Engl

ish

Partn

ersh

ips.

War

ringt

on.

War

ringt

on.

Cou

ncil

for

the

Pro

tect

ion

ofR

ural

Eng

land

:th

em

easu

res

shou

ld p

riorit

ise

publ

ic tr

ansp

ort.

Cou

ncil

fort

he P

rote

ctio

n of

Rur

al E

ngla

nd: c

onsi

der

rese

rvat

ion

ofne

w s

ite in

sou

thW

arrin

gton

inap

prop

riate

and

unne

cess

ary.

Hal

ton

Bor

ough

Cou

ncil:

Giv

en s

cale

ofd

evel

opm

ent

alre

ady

com

mitt

ed in

War

ringt

on, r

eser

vatio

n ap

pear

sun

nece

ssar

y an

d co

uld

dam

age

pros

pect

s of

othe

rid

entif

ied

site

s in

the

sub-

regi

on, i

nclu

ding

Dar

esbu

ry.

Mer

seys

ide

Pol

icy

Uni

t:co

ncer

ned

atth

is p

ropo

sal.

War

ringt

on s

how

s so

me

sign

sof

over

heat

ing

– m

ore

appr

opria

te to

iden

tify

suita

ble

loca

tions

nea

rert

heco

nurb

atio

ns.

Not

ed.

Con

sulta

nts

reco

mm

enda

tions

no

long

eren

dors

ed g

iven

new

pol

icy

fram

ewor

kin

RPG

affe

ctin

gW

arrin

gton

.

See

abo

ve.

See

abo

ve.

Page 44

Stu

dy

Par

a. N

o.C

onsu

ltant

s’P

olic

yR

ecom

men

dat

ion

Inte

rim

NW

DA

Res

pon

seR

elev

ant

loca

lau

thor

ityO

rgan

isat

ion/

com

men

tsN

WD

AR

esp

onse

3.38

3.47

3.48

3.58

War

ringt

on v

ery

high

qual

ity s

ite(c

ont

inue

d).

Gre

ater

East

Man

ches

terp

riorit

yfo

rkno

wle

dge

base

d in

dust

ry.

Rem

ote

Airp

ort

chec

k-in

Eas

tM

anch

este

ror

Tam

esid

e.

Targ

etse

ctor

(med

ical

equ

ipm

ent)

near

Mid

dleb

rook

.

Agr

ee c

onsu

ltant

s’re

com

men

datio

ns, h

ave

mad

e re

pres

enta

tions

toW

arrin

gton

BC

as

part

ofU

DP

proc

ess,

and

wou

ldw

ish

to c

ontin

uedi

scus

sion

s w

ithW

arrin

gton

BC

and

Eng

lish

Partn

ersh

ips.

Agr

ee c

onsu

ltant

s’re

com

men

datio

ns.

Not

e co

nsul

tant

s’re

com

men

datio

ns a

ndw

ish

to d

iscu

ss w

ithM

anch

este

rAirp

ort.

See

3.1

3 ab

ove.

War

ringt

on.

Man

ches

ter,

City

, Ta

mes

ide.

Man

ches

ter,

City

, Ta

mes

ide.

Bol

ton.

Nor

th W

est

Reg

iona

lA

ssem

bly

(NW

RA

):in

ligh

tof

the

clea

rsta

tem

enti

n R

PG13

para

grap

h 4.

22th

at“…

ther

e is

no n

eed

to id

entif

y ad

ditio

nal

site

s fo

rlar

ge s

ingl

e us

ers”

,th

eA

ssem

bly

now

exp

ectt

his

prop

osal

, and

the

obje

ctio

n to

War

ringt

on’s

UD

P, to

be

drop

ped.

Tam

esid

e M

etro

polit

anB

orou

gh C

ounc

il:ag

ree.

Tam

esid

e M

etro

polit

anB

orou

gh C

ounc

il: a

gree

.

See

Sec

tion

5–

com

men

tsre

ceiv

ed o

n po

tent

ial a

dditi

onal

site

s –

Mid

dleb

rook

.

See

abo

ve.

Obj

ectio

n to

War

ringt

on U

DP

to b

ew

ithdr

awn.

Sup

port

note

d.

Sup

port

note

d.

See

Sec

tion

4–

stra

tegi

c re

gion

alsi

tes

– M

iddl

ebro

ok.

Page 45

Stu

dy

Par

a. N

o.C

onsu

ltant

s’P

olic

yR

ecom

men

dat

ion

Inte

rim

NW

DA

Res

pon

seR

elev

ant

loca

lau

thor

ityO

rgan

isat

ion/

com

men

tsN

WD

AR

esp

onse

3.63

3.68

3.73

4.11

M60

Gat

eway

site

(s).

Live

rpoo

l Uni

vers

ityEd

ge a

nd in

cuba

tor/

spin

out

Live

rpoo

lU

nive

rsity

.

Cla

tterb

ridge

–di

scus

sion

s w

ithW

irral

/site

ow

ners

.

Eig

ht K

eyTr

ansp

ort

Inve

stm

ent

Pri

orit

ies.

See

3.11

abov

e.

Cla

rific

atio

n –

agre

e to

supp

ortc

onsu

ltant

’sre

com

men

datio

n in

para

grap

h 3.

63 o

fthe

Mer

sey

Bel

tStu

dy a

nddi

scus

s fu

rther

with

Sto

ckpo

rtM

BC

.

Agr

ee c

onsu

ltant

s’re

com

men

datio

ns. S

itebo

unda

ries

to b

e co

nfirm

edw

ith L

iver

pool

City

Cou

ncil

and

Live

rpoo

l Vis

ion.

See

3.1

3 ab

ove.

Cla

rific

atio

n –

broa

dly

agre

e th

e ei

ghtk

eytra

nspo

rtin

vest

men

tpr

iorit

ies.

The

se w

ill b

eco

nsid

ered

furth

eras

par

tof

the

RTS

Rev

iew

.

Sto

ckpo

rt.

Live

rpoo

l City

.

Wirr

al.

Sto

ckpo

rt M

etro

polit

anB

orou

gh C

ounc

il:re

ques

tcl

arifi

catio

n as

to p

oten

tial

wid

enin

g of

scop

e of

site

.M

erse

y B

eltS

tudy

(pa

ras

4.54

– 4.

56)

supp

orts

loca

tion

ofai

rpor

trel

ated

act

iviti

es fu

rther

outf

rom

the

airp

ort,

allo

win

gre

leas

e of

land

att

he a

irpor

tfor

know

ledg

e-ba

sed

targ

etse

ctor

s. D

ispl

acem

ento

fairp

ort

activ

ities

is c

lear

ly n

otth

e ro

leen

visa

ged

fort

he M

60G

atew

ay. T

here

fore

que

stio

nw

hy M

anch

este

rAirp

ort

Wes

tern

and

Eas

tern

Rai

l Lin

ksS

tudy

nee

ds to

pre

cede

feas

ibili

ty w

ork

into

M60

Gat

eway

site

s.

Uni

vers

ity

ofLi

verp

ool:

wel

com

es th

e Li

verp

ool

Uni

vers

ity E

dge

incu

bato

rspi

n-ou

tpro

posa

l.

Agr

ee th

atsc

ope

ofst

udy

will

not

be w

iden

ed a

nd d

iscu

ssio

ns w

illbe

hel

d w

ith S

tock

port

MB

Cre

gard

ing

the

cons

ulta

nt’s

reco

mm

enda

tion

in p

arag

raph

3.6

3of

the

Mer

sey

Bel

tStu

dy.

Sup

port

note

d.

Page 46

Stu

dy

Par

a. N

o.C

onsu

ltant

s’P

olic

yR

ecom

men

dat

ion

Inte

rim

NW

DA

Res

pon

seR

elev

ant

loca

lau

thor

ityO

rgan

isat

ion/

com

men

tsN

WD

AR

esp

onse

4.16

-4.2

1M

anch

este

rA

irpo

rtW

RL

and

Mer

sey

Bel

t R

ail C

ircl

e.

The

cons

ulta

nts

mak

e no

form

al re

com

men

datio

n bu

tth

e N

WD

A w

ould

poi

ntou

tth

atw

ork

is o

ngoi

ng to

esta

blis

h op

tions

and

exam

ine

thei

rpot

entia

l.

Che

shire

Cou

nty,

Che

ster

City

,El

lesm

ere

Port

and

Nes

ton,

Hal

ton,

Live

rpoo

l City

, M

accl

esfie

ld,

Man

ches

ter

City

,S

alfo

rd C

ity,

Traf

ford

,Va

le R

oyal

,W

arrin

gton

,W

irral

.

Cou

ncil

for

the

Pro

tect

ion

ofR

ural

Eng

land

: fu

lly s

uppo

rtth

is tr

ansp

orti

nves

tmen

tpr

iorit

y.

Wou

ld w

elco

me

oppo

rtuni

ty fo

rin

volv

emen

tand

con

sulta

tion

inth

e M

anch

este

rAirp

ortW

este

rnan

d Ea

ster

n R

ail L

inks

stu

dy.

Mac

cles

fiel

d B

orou

ghC

ounc

il: re

ques

tear

lyin

volv

emen

tand

con

sulta

tion

ofth

e op

tions

re M

anch

este

rA

irpor

tWR

L.

Mer

seys

ide

Pol

icy

Uni

t:M

anch

este

rAirp

ortW

RL

has

been

de-

prio

ritis

ed fr

om fi

nal

RPG

, to

refle

ctS

RA’

s pr

iorit

ies.

This

is a

cau

se fo

rcon

cern

,gi

ven

that

Mer

sey

Bel

tRai

lC

ircle

is d

epen

dent

upon

deve

lopm

ento

fthi

s sc

hem

e.

Sup

port

note

d.

See

resp

onse

to c

onsu

ltant

’sre

com

men

datio

n in

par

agra

ph 4

.11(a

bove

).

Not

ed. S

ee re

spon

se to

cons

ulta

nt’s

reco

mm

enda

tion

inpa

ragr

aph

4.11

(abo

ve).

Not

ed. S

ee re

spon

se to

cons

ulta

nt’s

reco

mm

enda

tion

inpa

ragr

aph

4.11

(abo

ve).

Page 47

Stu

dy

Par

a. N

o.C

onsu

ltant

s’P

olic

yR

ecom

men

dat

ion

Inte

rim

NW

DA

Res

pon

seR

elev

ant

loca

lau

thor

ityO

rgan

isat

ion/

com

men

tsN

WD

AR

esp

onse

4.16

-4.2

1

4.22

-4.2

6

Man

ches

ter

Air

port

WR

Lan

d M

erse

yB

elt

Rai

l Cir

cle

(cont

inue

d).

Impr

ovem

ents

inan

d in

toM

anch

este

rC

ity

Cen

tre.

The

cons

ulta

nts

mak

e no

form

al re

com

men

datio

n bu

tth

e N

WD

A w

ould

poi

ntou

tth

atw

ork

is o

ngoi

ng to

esta

blis

h op

tions

and

exam

ine

thei

rpot

entia

l.

Che

shire

Cou

nty,

Che

ster

City

,El

lesm

ere

Port

and

Nes

ton,

Hal

ton,

Live

rpoo

l City

, M

accl

esfie

ld,

Man

ches

terC

ity,

Sal

ford

City

, Tr

affo

rd,

Vale

Roy

al,

War

ringt

on,

Wirr

al.

Man

ches

terC

ity.

Live

rpoo

l Lan

d D

evel

opm

ent

Com

pany

:su

ppor

tthi

s ke

ytra

nspo

rtin

vest

men

tprio

rity.

Agr

ee th

atw

ork

shou

ldco

ntin

ue o

n ev

entu

al d

eliv

ery

ofM

erse

y B

eltR

ail C

ircle

, but

itis

not

just

a ne

twor

kto

pro

vide

mor

e co

nven

ient

and

sust

aina

ble

acce

ss to

Man

ches

terA

irpor

t, bu

tals

o to

Live

rpoo

l Joh

n Le

nnon

Airp

ort.

Bet

terl

inks

bet

wee

n Li

verp

ool

and

Man

ches

terA

irpor

tare

esse

ntia

l.

Tam

esid

e M

etro

polit

anB

orou

gh C

ounc

il:es

sent

ial

that

Tam

esid

e ar

e fu

llyen

gage

d in

the

deve

lopm

ento

fth

e pr

opos

ed M

anch

este

rA

irpor

tWes

tern

and

Eas

tern

Rai

l Lin

ks S

tudy

– p

ositi

onst

atem

entp

ara

3.7

impl

ies

Sto

ckpo

rtar

e th

e so

le p

oten

tial

bene

ficia

ries.

Cou

ncil

for

the

Pro

tect

ion

ofR

ural

Eng

land

:fu

lly s

uppo

rtth

is tr

ansp

orti

nves

tmen

tpr

iorit

y.

Sup

port

note

d.

See

resp

onse

to c

onsu

ltant

’sre

com

men

datio

n in

par

agra

ph 4

.11(a

bove

).

See

resp

onse

to c

onsu

ltant

’sre

com

men

datio

n in

par

agra

ph 4

.11(a

bove

).

Sup

port

note

d.

Page 48

Stu

dy

Par

a. N

o.C

onsu

ltant

s’P

olic

yR

ecom

men

dat

ion

Inte

rim

NW

DA

Res

pon

seR

elev

ant

loca

lau

thor

ityO

rgan

isat

ion/

com

men

tsN

WD

AR

esp

onse

4.25

4.27

-4.3

1

4.33

-4.3

7

Sup

port

Man

ches

ter

Rai

l Hub

Stu

dypr

opos

als

(NW

DA

/HA

).

Impr

ovem

ents

inan

d in

to L

iver

pool

Cit

y C

entr

e.

Impr

ovem

ents

inan

d in

to S

peke

Gar

ston

.

Agr

ee in

prin

cipl

e su

bjec

tto

furth

erdi

scus

sion

.M

anch

este

rCity

.

Live

rpoo

l City

.

Live

rpoo

l City

.

Live

rpoo

l Lan

d D

evel

opm

ent

Com

pany

: su

ppor

tthi

s ke

ytra

nspo

rtin

vest

men

tprio

rity.

Cou

ncil

for

the

Pro

tect

ion

ofR

ural

Eng

land

:fu

lly s

uppo

rtth

is tr

ansp

orti

nves

tmen

tprio

rity.

Live

rpoo

l Lan

d D

evel

opm

ent

Com

pany

:su

ppor

tthi

s ke

ytra

nspo

rtin

vest

men

tprio

rity.

Sup

porti

ve n

atur

e of

cons

ulta

nt’s

reco

mm

enda

tions

need

s to

be

re-e

mph

asis

ed,

give

n th

e ou

tcom

es o

fthe

East

ern

App

roac

hes

Mas

terp

lan.

Cou

ncil

for

the

Pro

tect

ion

ofR

ural

Eng

land

: fu

lly s

uppo

rtth

is tr

ansp

orti

nves

tmen

tprio

rity.

Live

rpoo

l Lan

d D

evel

opm

ent

Com

pany

:su

ppor

tthi

s ke

ytra

nspo

rtin

vest

men

tprio

rity.

Thes

e m

usti

nclu

de u

pgra

ded

acce

ss to

an

expa

nded

Live

rpoo

l Joh

n Le

nnon

Airp

ort,

as w

ell a

s se

cond

Mer

sey

cros

sing

.

Sup

port

note

d.

Sup

port

note

d.

Sup

port

note

d.

See

resp

onse

to c

onsu

ltant

’sre

com

men

datio

n in

par

agra

ph 4

.11(a

bove

).

Sup

port

note

d.

Sup

port

note

d.

See

resp

onse

to c

onsu

ltant

’sre

com

men

datio

n in

par

agra

ph 4

.11(a

bove

).

Page 49

Stu

dy

Par

a. N

o.C

onsu

ltant

s’P

olic

yR

ecom

men

dat

ion

Inte

rim

NW

DA

Res

pon

seR

elev

ant

loca

lau

thor

ityO

rgan

isat

ion/

com

men

tsN

WD

AR

esp

onse

4.33

4.37

Impl

emen

tMer

sey

Tram

Lin

e 3

(bef

ore

Line

s 1

and

2).

The

deve

lopm

ent

pote

ntia

l of

Spe

keG

arst

on s

houl

d be

give

n du

e w

eigh

tin

ass

essi

ngop

tion

s fo

r2n

dM

erse

y C

ross

ing.

Dis

agre

e co

nsul

tant

s’re

com

men

datio

n on

Lin

e 1.

As

Line

1is

so

adva

nced

and

give

n M

erse

ytra

vel

supp

ort,

NW

DA

con

side

rth

atit

shou

ld b

eim

plem

ente

d fir

stbu

tst

rong

ly s

uppo

rtLi

ne 3

as

the

next

prio

rity

as it

give

sac

cess

to k

now

ledg

e ba

sed

indu

stry

, to

the

Live

rpoo

lU

nive

rsiti

es, t

o th

e A

irpor

tan

d to

a s

trate

gic

regi

onal

site

. (S

peke

/Est

uary

).

Agr

ee c

onsu

ltant

s’re

com

men

datio

ns.

Live

rpoo

l City

.

Hal

ton,

Live

rpoo

l City

.

Mer

seys

ide

Pol

icy

Uni

t:Li

ne 1

serv

es a

gre

ater

num

bero

fPa

thw

ays

Are

as th

an L

ine

3,w

hich

is w

hy it

was

prio

ritis

edah

ead

ofit.

Dev

elop

men

tof

Line

s 2

and

3 w

ill b

e ta

ken

forw

ard

as p

arto

fthe

nex

tM

erse

ysid

e LT

Pin

200

5.

Live

rpoo

l Lan

d D

evel

opm

ent

Com

pany

:Li

ne 1

mus

tbe

cons

truct

ed fi

rstb

ecau

se th

eO

pera

tions

and

Mai

nten

ance

Cen

tre (

OM

C)

fort

he w

hole

Mer

seyt

ram

sys

tem

is to

be

cons

truct

ed a

tthe

Gill

mos

ste

rmin

us o

fLin

e 1.

Lin

e 1

has

now

rece

ived

DfT

appr

oval

.

Uni

vers

ity

ofLi

verp

ool:

wel

com

e Li

ne 3

as

next

prio

rity.

Live

rpoo

l Lan

d D

evel

opm

ent

Com

pany

:se

cond

Mer

sey

cros

sing

is a

cru

cial

ele

men

tof

mai

ntai

ning

attr

activ

enes

s of

Spe

ke/G

arst

on a

s an

inve

stm

entl

ocat

ion

over

med

ium

/long

-ter

m. V

ital t

hatt

hear

ea’s

pot

entia

l is

high

light

ed a

sa

key

part

ofth

e ju

stifi

catio

n to

DfT

forf

undi

ng.

NW

DA

doe

s no

tend

orse

the

cons

ulta

nt’s

reco

mm

enda

tion

onLi

ne 1

. N

WD

A re

cogn

ises

the

econ

omic

sig

nific

ance

ofL

ine

3,bu

toth

erre

gene

ratio

n an

d so

cial

incl

usio

n is

sues

are

rele

vant

.Fu

rther

disc

ussi

ons

to b

e he

ld w

ithM

erse

ytra

vel.

See

abo

ve.

Not

ed.

Not

ed.

Page 50

Stu

dy

Par

a. N

o.C

onsu

ltant

s’P

olic

yR

ecom

men

dat

ion

Inte

rim

NW

DA

Res

pon

seR

elev

ant

loca

lau

thor

ityO

rgan

isat

ion/

com

men

tsN

WD

AR

esp

onse

4.38

-4.4

3

4.38

4.40

4.44

-4.4

7

Link

ages

bet

wee

nG

reat

erE

ast

Man

ches

ter

and

Sou

th M

anch

este

r.

Sup

port

Man

ches

ter

Rai

l Hub

Stu

dy a

ndS

EMM

MS

pro

posa

ls.

Inve

stm

enti

nsu

stai

nabl

etra

nspo

rt/ne

w r

ail

links

.

Pub

lic t

rans

port

impr

ovem

ents

inM

id-M

erse

y.

See

4.1

6 –

4.21

abov

e.

SEM

MM

S –

NW

DA

stro

ngly

supp

ortt

heS

EMM

MS

stu

dyre

com

men

datio

ns.

Agr

ee c

onsu

ltant

s’re

com

men

datio

ns.

Che

shire

Cou

nty,

Mac

cles

field

,M

anch

este

rCity

,S

tock

port,

Tam

esid

e.

Man

ches

terC

ity,

Sto

ckpo

rt,Ta

mes

ide.

Uni

vers

ity

ofLi

verp

ool:

agre

eco

nsul

tant

’s re

com

men

datio

nsfo

rthe

2nd

Mer

sey

Cro

ssin

g.

Cou

ncil

for

the

Pro

tect

ion

ofR

ural

Eng

land

:fu

lly s

uppo

rtth

is tr

ansp

orti

nves

tmen

tpr

iorit

y.

Live

rpoo

l Lan

d D

evel

opm

ent

Com

pany

:su

ppor

tthi

s ke

ytra

nspo

rtin

vest

men

tprio

rity.

Sto

ckpo

rt M

etro

polit

anB

orou

gh C

ounc

il: w

elco

me

NW

DA

sup

port

ofS

EMM

MS

stud

y an

d re

cogn

ition

that

Dev

elop

men

tPla

ns a

ndD

evel

opm

entB

riefs

hav

e a

key

role

to p

lay

in a

ssis

ting

deve

lopm

ento

fkey

targ

etse

ctor

s.

Cou

ncil

for

the

Pro

tect

ion

ofR

ural

Eng

land

:fu

lly s

uppo

rtth

is tr

ansp

orti

nves

tmen

tpr

iorit

y.

Live

rpoo

l Lan

d D

evel

opm

ent

Com

pany

:su

ppor

tthi

s ke

ytra

nspo

rtin

vest

men

tprio

rity.

Sup

port

note

d.

Sup

port

note

d.

Sup

port

note

d.

Sup

port

note

d.

Sup

port

note

d.

Sup

port

note

d.

Page 51

Stu

dy

Par

a. N

o.C

onsu

ltant

s’P

olic

yR

ecom

men

dat

ion

Inte

rim

NW

DA

Res

pon

seR

elev

ant

loca

lau

thor

ityO

rgan

isat

ion/

com

men

tsN

WD

AR

esp

onse

4.46

4.48

-4.5

3

4.50

4.52

Stu

dy o

fop

portu

nitie

s fo

rpu

blic

tran

spor

tin

War

ringt

on.

Link

ages

bet

wee

nC

hest

eran

dLi

verp

ool.

Mul

ti-m

odal

stu

dy –

exis

ting/

pote

ntia

lpu

blic

tran

spor

tto

prom

ote

know

ledg

eba

sed

grow

th in

trans

port

corri

dors

.

M56

par

kan

d rid

e –

stud

yre

com

men

ded.

See

3.3

5ab

ove.

Not

ed a

nd a

skre

leva

ntau

thor

ities

to p

rogr

ess

reco

mm

enda

tion.

Agr

ee c

onsu

ltant

s’re

com

men

datio

ns a

ndne

ed to

dis

cuss

with

NW

RA

.

War

ringt

on.

Che

shire

Cou

nty,

Che

ster

City

,El

lesm

ere

Port

and

Nes

ton,

Live

rpoo

l City

,W

irral

.

Che

shire

Cou

nty,

Che

ster

City

,H

alto

n,M

accl

esfie

ld,

Man

ches

terC

ity,

War

ringt

on.

Mer

seys

ide

Pol

icy

Uni

t: a

stud

y to

con

side

rlin

ks b

etw

een

Live

rpoo

l and

Che

ster

is n

otse

tou

tin

RPG

– a

s su

ch it

isco

nsid

ered

an

arbi

trary

stu

dy.

Suc

h st

udie

s sh

ould

be

brou

ght

forw

ard

as p

arto

fthe

Reg

iona

lTr

ansp

ortS

trate

gy re

view

proc

ess.

Live

rpoo

l Lan

d D

evel

opm

ent

Com

pany

:su

ppor

tthi

s ke

ytra

nspo

rtin

vest

men

tprio

rity.

Uni

vers

ity

ofLi

verp

ool:

wel

com

es a

rrang

emen

ts fo

rpu

blic

tran

spor

tto

prom

ote

know

ledg

e-ba

sed

grow

th in

trans

port

corri

dors

.

Cou

ncil

for

the

Pro

tect

ion

ofR

ural

Eng

land

:w

ould

not

supp

ortM

56 p

ark

and

ride

sche

me

unle

ss it

was

bas

ed o

nbr

ownf

ield

land

and

was

par

tof

a m

ulti-

mod

al in

terc

hang

epo

int.

See

resp

onse

to c

onsu

ltant

’sre

com

men

datio

n in

par

agra

ph 4

.11(a

bove

).

Sup

port

note

d.

Sup

port

note

d.

This

will

be

disc

usse

d fu

rther

with

the

NW

RA

.

Page 52

Stu

dy

Par

a. N

o.C

onsu

ltant

s’P

olic

yR

ecom

men

dat

ion

Inte

rim

NW

DA

Res

pon

seR

elev

ant

loca

lau

thor

ityO

rgan

isat

ion/

com

men

tsN

WD

AR

esp

onse

4.54

-4.5

6

4.57

-4.5

8

Man

ches

terA

irpor

t.

Mer

sey/

Shi

p C

anal

Cro

ssin

gs.

Not

ed.

Che

shire

Cou

nty,

Mac

cles

field

,M

anch

este

rCity

,S

tock

port

,Ta

mes

ide,

Traf

ford

,W

arrin

gton

.

Hal

ton,

Kno

wsl

ey,

Live

rpoo

l City

,S

alfo

rd,

Traf

ford

,W

arrin

gton

.

Mac

cles

fiel

d B

orou

ghC

ounc

il: re

ques

tear

lyin

volv

emen

tin

this

stu

dy.

Mer

seys

ide

Pol

icy

Uni

t: th

eN

WR

A is

cur

rent

ly d

evel

opin

g a

regi

onal

Par

k&

Rid

e st

rate

gy.

This

reco

mm

enda

tion

shou

ldfe

ed in

to th

is.

Mac

cles

fiel

d B

orou

ghC

ounc

il: w

ould

wel

com

e ea

rlyin

volv

emen

tin

wor

kon

thes

em

atte

rs.

This

will

be

disc

usse

d fu

rther

with

the

NW

RA

.

This

will

be

disc

usse

d fu

rther

with

the

NW

RA

.

Not

ed.

Page 53

Stu

dy

Par

a. N

o.C

onsu

ltant

s’P

olic

yR

ecom

men

dat

ion

Inte

rim

NW

DA

Res

pon

seR

elev

ant

loca

lau

thor

ityO

rgan

isat

ion/

com

men

tsN

WD

AR

esp

onse

4.58

Mer

sey

Bel

t/S

outh

ern

Cre

scen

tMul

tiM

odal

stu

dy (

para

.10

.36

final

RPG

).

Not

ed.

Che

shire

Cou

nty,

Che

ster

City

,El

lesm

ere

Port

and

Nes

ton,

Hal

ton,

Mac

cles

field

,M

anch

este

rCity

,S

tock

port,

Traf

ford

,Va

le R

oyal

,W

arrin

gton

.

Hal

ton

Bor

ough

Cou

ncil:

inte

rim N

WD

A re

spon

se ‘N

oted

’do

es in

suffi

cien

tjus

tice

to th

esi

gnifi

canc

e of

the

Riv

er/S

hip

cana

l cro

ssin

gs. T

his

shou

ld b

egi

ven

cons

ider

able

wei

ghti

nan

y w

ider

Mer

sey

Bel

t/S

outh

ern

Cre

scen

tMM

S.

Hal

ton

Coun

cil a

skth

e N

WD

Ato

ref

lect

on

the

follo

win

g:th

e M

erse

y C

ross

ing,

afte

rco

mpl

etio

n of

a m

ajorte

chni

cal

stud

y, is

goin

g to

be

the

subj

ect

of

a m

ajorsc

hem

e ap

prai

sal t

obe

sub

mitt

ed to

Gove

rnm

ent i

nJu

ly 2

003.

The

cro

ssin

g ha

sw

ides

prea

d su

pport

and

Hal

ton

BC

cons

ider

s th

at it

sho

uld

bein

clud

ed a

s a

key

trans

port

inve

stm

ent p

riorit

y, s

uppo

rtin

gth

e Ta

rget

Sec

tors

.

Mac

cles

fiel

d B

orou

ghC

ounc

il: w

ould

wel

com

e ea

rlyin

volv

emen

tin

wor

kon

thes

em

atte

rs.

No

spec

ific

reco

mm

enda

tion

was

mad

e by

the

cons

ulta

nts

and

ther

efor

e ‘N

oted

’is

an a

ppro

pria

tere

spon

se. A

ny fu

rther

cons

ider

atio

nof

this

pot

entia

l Mul

ti-M

odal

Stu

dyis

a m

atte

rto

be c

onsi

dere

d as

part

ofth

e R

TS R

evie

w.

See

resp

onse

to c

onsu

ltant

’sre

com

men

datio

n in

par

agra

ph 4

.11(a

bove

).

Page 54

Stu

dy

Par

a. N

o.C

onsu

ltant

s’P

olic

yR

ecom

men

dat

ion

Inte

rim

NW

DA

Res

pon

seR

elev

ant

loca

lau

thor

ityO

rgan

isat

ion/

com

men

tsN

WD

AR

esp

onse

6 6.4

6.4

6.4

Pol

icy

Rec

omm

enda

tion

sfo

rth

e M

erse

y B

elt

Are

a.

Em

ploy

men

t la

ndpo

licy

Sou

ther

nC

resc

ent.

Rec

ogni

seim

porta

nce

ofex

istin

g em

ploy

men

tal

loca

tions

tokn

owle

dge

base

din

dust

ry.

Prom

ote

smal

lnu

mbe

rofs

ites

for

spec

ific

sect

ors

–cl

ose

to s

tatio

ns o

nC

hest

er-L

iver

pool

line;

nor

thW

ales

/wes

tC

hesh

ire n

eeds

and

oppo

rtuni

ties.

Agr

ee c

onsu

ltant

s’re

com

men

datio

ns.

Cla

rifi

cati

on:

this

ref

ers

to a

ll si

tes

iden

tifi

ed in

Figu

re 3

.1of

the

Mer

sey

Bel

t S

tudy

(se

e m

ap in

appe

ndic

es).

Fina

l RPG

now

con

tain

s a

spec

ific

polic

y on

know

ledg

e-ba

sed

indu

stry

(EC

4).

See

3.1

0 ab

ove

(Cap

enhu

rsta

nd H

ooto

n).

See

3.2

7(ii

i) ab

ove.

Che

shire

Cou

nty,

Che

ster

City

,El

lesm

ere

Port

and

Nes

ton,

Hal

ton,

Mac

cles

field

,M

anch

este

rCity

,S

tock

port,

Traf

ford

,Va

le R

oyal

,W

arrin

gton

.

Che

shire

Cou

nty,

Che

ster

City

,El

lesm

ere

Port

and

Nes

ton,

Wirr

al.

Cou

ncil

for

the

Pro

tect

ion

ofR

ural

Eng

land

:w

ould

wel

com

eN

WD

A c

larif

icat

ion

ofho

w s

ites

will

be b

roug

htfo

rwar

d in

rela

tion

to e

ach

othe

rto

prev

entu

ndue

com

petit

ion.

A s

eque

ntia

l pol

icy

tow

ards

thei

rdev

elop

men

tw

ould

be

wel

com

e.

NB

this

com

men

t is

also

rele

vant

to th

e fo

llow

ing

furt

her

cons

ulta

nt’s

rec

om

men

datio

nsin

par

agra

ph 6

.4.

This

is n

otan

issu

e fo

rthe

Mer

sey

Bel

tStu

dy.

Page 55

Stu

dy

Par

a. N

o.C

onsu

ltant

s’P

olic

yR

ecom

men

dat

ion

Inte

rim

NW

DA

Res

pon

seR

elev

ant

loca

lau

thor

ityO

rgan

isat

ion/

com

men

tsN

WD

AR

esp

onse

6.4

6.4

Res

erve

a s

mal

lnu

mbe

rofs

ites

for

inve

stm

ents

that

wou

ld b

e lo

ste.

g.D

aven

port

Gre

en;

EPsi

te in

War

ringt

on.

Prom

ote

trans

port

sche

mes

to im

prov

eac

cess

ibili

ty a

ndsu

stai

nabi

lity

ofta

rget

sect

orsi

tes.

See

3.11

and

3.38

abo

ve.

Not

ed.

Traf

ford

,W

arrin

gton

.

Che

shire

Cou

nty,

Che

ster

City

,El

lesm

ere

Port

and

Nes

ton,

Hal

ton,

Mac

cles

field

,M

anch

este

rCity

,S

tock

port,

Traf

ford

,Va

le R

oyal

,W

arrin

gton

.

– ‘R

eser

ve s

mal

l num

berof

site

s fo

rin

vest

men

ts th

at w

oul

doth

erw

ise

be lo

st’a

nd

‘Sm

all

num

berof

key

site

s to

be

rese

rved

and

pro

mote

d’. T

oav

oid

rep

etiti

on,

the

sam

eco

mm

ent h

as n

ot b

een

ente

red

unde

rth

ese

reco

mm

enda

tions

in th

e sc

hedu

le. T

his

com

men

tsh

oul

d ne

vert

hele

ss b

eco

nsid

ered

alo

ngsi

de th

eN

WD

A r

espo

nse

forth

e fu

rthe

rre

com

men

datio

ns in

par

agra

ph6.4

.

Tam

esid

e M

etro

polit

anB

orou

gh C

ounc

il:D

aven

port

Gre

en is

in T

raffo

rd,

notT

ames

ide.

Mac

cles

fiel

d B

orou

ghC

ounc

il: w

elco

med

–e.

g.A

lder

ley

Edge

Byp

ass.

Erro

r. A

men

dmen

thas

bee

n m

ade

to ‘r

elev

antl

ocal

aut

horit

ies’

colu

mn.

See

3.3

8 ab

ove

Sup

port

note

d. T

his

poin

tis

refle

cted

in S

ectio

n 4

‘Stra

tegi

cR

egio

nal S

ites’

in th

e m

ain

repo

rt(p

arag

raph

4.9

).

Page 56

Stu

dy

Par

a. N

o.C

onsu

ltant

s’P

olic

yR

ecom

men

dat

ion

Inte

rim

NW

DA

Res

pon

seR

elev

ant

loca

lau

thor

ityO

rgan

isat

ion/

com

men

tsN

WD

AR

esp

onse

6.4

6.4

6.4

Con

side

rrem

oval

of

wid

erem

ploy

men

tal

loca

tions

(es

p. B

8)on

site

s w

ith g

ood

publ

ic tr

ansp

ort

acce

ssib

ility

.

Rec

ogni

se “

land

less

”em

ploy

men

tgro

wth

in k

now

ledg

e ba

sed

sect

ors.

Em

ploy

men

t la

ndpo

licy

Met

ropo

litan

Axi

s.

Not

ed a

nd a

skre

leva

ntlo

cal a

utho

ritie

s to

cons

ider

.

Not

ed.

As

abov

e.

As

abov

e.

Cou

ncil

for

the

Pro

tect

ion

ofR

ural

Eng

land

:th

is m

ust

cons

ider

RPG

pol

icy

SD

4. G

iven

the

larg

e nu

mbe

rofs

trate

gic

regi

onal

site

s an

d la

ckof

ase

quen

tial p

olic

y to

war

ds th

eir

deve

lopm

ent,

this

doe

s no

tse

em re

ason

able

as

itm

ayre

sult

in la

nd n

otbe

ing

used

for

mor

e pr

essi

ng a

ltern

ate

need

s.B

8 (w

areh

ousi

ng)

may

be

ago

od u

se fo

rsite

s w

ith p

ublic

trans

port

acce

ssib

ility

ifit

prom

otes

a s

hift

offre

ight

from

road

to o

ther

mod

al fo

rms.

Cou

ncil

for

the

Pro

tect

ion

ofR

ural

Eng

land

:w

elco

mes

reco

gniti

on o

f‘la

ndle

ss’

empl

oym

entg

row

th.

Mer

seys

ide

Pol

icy

Uni

t:re

fere

nce

to ‘l

andl

ess

empl

oym

entg

row

th’s

till i

mpl

ies

incr

ease

d de

man

d fo

rhou

sing

and

trans

port.

An

issu

e fo

rloc

al a

utho

ritie

s to

cons

ider

in re

view

ing

deve

lopm

ent

plan

s.

Not

ed.

Not

ed.

Page 57

Stu

dy

Par

a. N

o.C

onsu

ltant

s’P

olic

yR

ecom

men

dat

ion

Inte

rim

NW

DA

Res

pon

seR

elev

ant

loca

lau

thor

ityO

rgan

isat

ion/

com

men

tsN

WD

AR

esp

onse

6.4

6.4

6.4

6.4

6.4

Sm

all n

umbe

rofk

eysi

tes

to b

e re

serv

edan

d pr

omot

ed.

Bes

tsite

s –

defin

eus

age

as S

outh

ern

Cre

scen

t.

Con

cent

rate

site

s on

Stra

tegi

c R

egio

nal

Cor

ridor

s.

Loca

l Em

ploy

men

tS

trate

gy fo

reac

hsi

te.

Forn

on-M

BS

site

s –

perm

itbu

tnot

prom

ote

targ

etse

ctor

deve

lopm

ent.

Agr

eed.

Cla

rific

atio

n: th

is re

fers

toal

l site

s id

entif

ied

in F

igur

e3.

1of

the

Mer

sey

Bel

tS

tudy

(se

e m

ap in

appe

ndic

es).

Not

ed.

Agr

ee c

onsu

ltant

s’re

com

men

datio

ns.

Not

ed a

nd a

skre

leva

ntlo

cal a

utho

ritie

s to

cons

ider

.

Not

ed.

Bol

ton,

Bur

y,K

now

sley

,Li

verp

ool C

ity,

Man

ches

terC

ity,

Old

ham

,R

ochd

ale,

Sal

ford

,S

tHel

ens,

Sto

ckpo

rt,Ta

mes

ide,

Traf

ford

,W

arrin

gton

,W

igan

,W

irral

.

As

abov

e.

As

abov

e.

As

abov

e.

As

abov

e.

Cou

ncil

for

the

Pro

tect

ion

ofR

ural

Eng

land

:si

nce

the

Sou

ther

n C

resc

entc

once

ptis

nota

ppro

ved,

this

is in

valid

.

Cou

ncil

for

the

Pro

tect

ion

ofR

ural

Eng

land

: su

ppor

t.

All

refe

renc

es to

the

Sou

ther

nC

resc

enta

re a

s a

mat

tero

fhi

stor

ical

reco

rd. R

PG te

rmin

olog

yis

now

use

d (s

ee In

trodu

ctio

n,pa

ragr

aph

1.8)

.

An

issu

e fo

rloc

al a

utho

ritie

s to

cons

ider

.

Page 58

Stu

dy

Par

a. N

o.C

onsu

ltant

s’P

olic

yR

ecom

men

dat

ion

Inte

rim

NW

DA

Res

pon

seR

elev

ant

loca

lau

thor

ityO

rgan

isat

ion/

com

men

tsN

WD

AR

esp

onse

6.4

6.4

6.5

– 6.

7

6.7

Exce

ss e

mpl

oym

ent

land

– c

onve

rtso

me

to re

side

ntia

l use

.

Prom

ote

sust

aina

ble

trans

port

links

.

R&

D in

Mac

cles

fiel

d

Fost

erlin

ks o

n no

rth-

sout

h ax

is (

A34

/M56

)in

to S

outh

Man

ches

ter.

Agr

ee c

onsu

ltant

s’re

com

men

datio

ns a

nd a

skre

leva

ntlo

cal a

utho

ritie

s to

cons

ider

.

Not

ed a

nd a

skre

leva

ntlo

cal a

utho

ritie

s an

dor

gani

satio

ns to

con

side

r.

Agr

ee c

onsu

ltant

s’re

com

men

datio

ns a

ndno

te s

peci

al s

igni

fican

cew

ithin

con

urba

tion

core

and

clos

e to

uni

vers

ities

.

As

abov

e.

As

abov

e.

Che

shire

Cou

nty,

Mac

cles

field

,M

anch

este

rCity

.

Cou

ncil

for

the

Pro

tect

ion

ofR

ural

Eng

land

:su

ppor

ts th

isw

here

itco

ncer

ns b

row

nfie

ldla

nd a

nd w

ould

fitw

ith s

ub-

regi

onal

hou

sing

allo

catio

nsde

fined

by

RPG

.

Cou

ncil

for

the

Pro

tect

ion

ofR

ural

Eng

land

: m

ustr

ecog

nise

impa

ctof

econ

omic

deve

lopm

entp

olic

ies

in c

ausi

ngtra

ffic

grow

th. N

ew p

olic

ies,

rath

erth

an n

ew ro

ads,

are

need

ed.

NB

this

com

men

t is

also

rele

vant

to th

e co

nsul

tant

’sre

com

men

datio

n in

par

agra

ph6.7

– ‘D

eal w

ith r

oad

traf

fic h

ot

spots

’. H

ow

ever

, to a

void

repe

titio

n, th

e sa

me

com

men

tha

s no

t bee

n en

tere

d un

derth

isre

com

men

datio

n in

the

sche

dule

. Thi

s co

mm

ent s

houl

dne

vert

hele

ss b

e co

nsid

ered

along

side

the

NW

DA

res

pons

efo

rth

e re

com

men

datio

n in

para

grap

h 6

.7.

An

issu

e fo

rloc

al a

utho

ritie

s to

cons

ider

.

Dis

agre

e. T

his

is d

ealt

with

inS

ectio

n 4,

‘Stra

tegi

c re

gion

al s

ites’

in th

e m

ain

body

oft

he re

port

(par

agra

ph 4

.9).

Page 59

Stu

dy

Par

a. N

o.C

onsu

ltant

s’P

olic

yR

ecom

men

dat

ion

Inte

rim

NW

DA

Res

pon

seR

elev

ant

loca

lau

thor

ityO

rgan

isat

ion/

com

men

tsN

WD

AR

esp

onse

6.7

6.7

6.7

6.8

–6.

13

6.11

Impr

ove

trans

port

links

bet

wee

n cl

uste

rsi

tes

and

betw

een

Mac

cles

field

and

Man

ches

ter.

Dea

l with

road

traf

ficho

tspo

ts e

.g.

Ald

erle

y Ed

ge.

Allo

w re

deve

lopm

ent

and

expa

nsio

n of

Ast

ra Z

enec

a at

Ald

erle

y Pa

rk.

Gap

Are

as.

Sou

th C

entra

l Wig

an(C

oalfi

elds

Com

mun

ities

).

Not

e an

d as

kre

leva

ntau

thor

ities

to in

vest

igat

e.

Agr

ee.

Byp

ass

now

agre

ed.

See

3.11

abov

e.

Acce

ptge

nera

l loc

atio

n bu

tco

nsid

erth

atdi

scus

sion

s ar

ene

eded

with

Wig

an M

BC to

iden

tify

the

mar

ketp

oten

tial

fort

he ta

rget

sect

ors

in th

islo

calit

y, to

iden

tify

a si

te(s

)an

d de

fine

site

bou

ndar

ies,

and

to d

eter

min

e w

hat

need

s to

be

done

to b

ring

this

site

(s) f

orw

ard.

As

abov

e.

Che

shire

Cou

nty,

Mac

cles

field

.

As

abov

e.

Wig

an.

Mac

cles

fiel

d B

orou

ghC

ounc

il: w

ould

wel

com

e if

this

invo

lves

the

com

plet

ion

ofA

lder

ley

Edge

Byp

ass

atan

early

dat

e. D

iscu

ssio

ns o

nim

prov

ing

publ

ic tr

ansp

ortl

inks

wou

ld b

e ap

prec

iate

d.

Mer

seys

ide

Pol

icy

Uni

t:th

ene

ed fo

rbet

tert

rans

port

links

betw

een

Mac

cles

field

and

Man

ches

terr

equi

res

furth

erju

stifi

catio

n. T

here

is a

gre

ater

case

to im

prov

e tra

nspo

rtlin

ksin

oth

erpa

rts o

freg

ion,

parti

cula

rly M

erse

ysid

e as

an

Obj

ectiv

e 1

area

.

See

Sec

tion

5–

com

men

tsre

ceiv

ed o

n po

tent

ial a

dditi

onal

site

s –

Ast

ra Z

enec

a.

See

Sec

tion

5–

com

men

tsre

ceiv

ed o

n po

tent

ial a

dditi

onal

site

s –

Sou

th C

entr

al W

igan

.

Sup

port

note

d. T

his

is d

ealt

with

inS

ectio

n 4,

‘Stra

tegi

c re

gion

al s

ites’

in th

e m

ain

body

oft

he re

port

(par

agra

ph 4

.9).

An

issu

e fo

rloc

al a

utho

ritie

s an

dth

e R

TS re

view

to c

onsi

der.

See

Sec

tion

4–

stra

tegi

c re

gion

alsi

tes

– A

stra

Zen

eca.

See

Sec

tion

4–

stra

tegi

c re

gion

alsi

tes

– S

outh

Cen

tral

Wig

an.

Page 60

Stu

dy

Par

a. N

o.C

onsu

ltant

s’P

olic

yR

ecom

men

dat

ion

Inte

rim

NW

DA

Res

pon

seR

elev

ant

loca

lau

thor

ityO

rgan

isat

ion/

com

men

tsN

WD

AR

esp

onse

6.13

6.14

-6.1

8

6.16

Mid

dleb

rook

, Bol

ton

– m

ostp

rom

isin

gen

viro

nmen

tal

setti

ng.

Pro

vidi

ng Q

ualit

yH

ousi

ng S

ites

.

Pro

vide

qua

lity

hous

ing

site

s in

the

Met

ropo

litan

Axi

s an

d S

outh

ern

Cre

scen

t.

See

3.1

3 an

d 3.

58 a

bove

.

Not

ed a

nd a

skre

leva

ntlo

cal a

utho

ritie

s to

cons

ider

.

Bol

ton.

Bol

ton,

Bur

y,K

now

sley

,Li

verp

ool C

ity,

Man

ches

terC

ity,

Old

ham

,R

ochd

ale,

Sal

ford

,S

tHel

ens,

Sef

ton,

Sto

ckpo

rt,Ta

mes

ide,

Traf

ford

,W

arrin

gton

,W

igan

,W

irral

.

See

Sec

tion

5–

com

men

tsre

ceiv

ed o

n po

tent

ial a

dditi

onal

site

s –

Mid

dleb

rook

.

Cou

ncil

for

the

Pro

tect

ion

ofR

ural

Eng

land

: un

clea

rwha

tth

is m

eans

in p

ract

ice.

Hou

sing

figur

es s

etou

tin

RPG

sho

uld

notb

e un

derm

ined

.

See

Sec

tion

4–

stra

tegi

c re

gion

alsi

tes

– M

iddl

ebro

ok.

An

issu

e fo

rloc

al a

utho

ritie

s to

cons

ider

.

Page 61

Stu

dy

Par

a. N

o.C

onsu

ltant

s’P

olic

yR

ecom

men

dat

ion

Inte

rim

NW

DA

Res

pon

seR

elev

ant

loca

lau

thor

ityO

rgan

isat

ion/

com

men

tsN

WD

AR

esp

onse

6.16

Pro

vide

qua

lity

hous

ing

site

s in

the

Met

ropo

litan

Axi

s an

d S

outh

ern

Cre

scen

t(c

ont

inue

d).

Not

ed a

nd a

skre

leva

ntlo

cal a

utho

ritie

s to

cons

ider

.

Bol

ton,

Bur

y,K

now

sley

,Li

verp

ool C

ity,

Man

ches

terC

ity,

Old

ham

,R

ochd

ale,

Sal

ford

,S

tHel

ens,

Sef

ton,

Sto

ckpo

rt,Ta

mes

ide,

Traf

ford

,W

arrin

gton

,W

igan

,W

irral

.

Hal

ton

Bor

ough

Cou

ncil:

tobe

tterr

efle

ctth

e st

udy

repo

rt,th

is s

houl

d be

pre

cede

d by

the

head

ing

‘Pro

vidi

ng Q

ualit

yH

ousi

ng S

ites’

and

deal

with

para

s 6.

14to

6.1

8.

A s

peci

fic re

spon

se is

nee

ded

to p

ara

6.18

reco

mm

enda

tion

‘itis

impo

rtant

that

a st

eady

supp

ly o

fhou

sing

is a

chie

ved

in th

e S

outh

ern

Cre

scen

tas

aw

hole

to m

atch

the

natu

ral

capa

city

ofe

xist

ing

and

prop

osed

targ

etse

ctor

empl

oym

entl

ocat

ions

’. N

WD

Aen

dors

emen

toft

his

reco

mm

enda

tion

wou

ld b

ehe

lpfu

l.

Kno

wsl

ey M

etro

polit

anB

orou

gh C

ounc

il: th

eau

thor

ity is

run

ning

out

ofla

ndfo

rbot

h em

ploy

men

tsite

san

dho

usin

g de

velo

pmen

t. A

re-a

lloca

tion

wou

ld b

ede

trim

enta

l to

Kno

wsl

ey’s

econ

omic

rege

nera

tion

prog

ram

mes

.

Agr

ee. A

men

dmen

thas

bee

nm

ade

to p

rece

de th

e se

ctio

n w

itha

head

er. T

he c

onsu

ltant

’s p

olic

yre

com

men

datio

n ha

s al

so b

een

corre

cted

acc

ordi

ngly

.

This

is a

n is

sue

forK

now

sley

Met

ropo

litan

Bor

ough

Cou

ncil

toco

nsid

er.

Page 62

Stu

dy

Par

a. N

o.C

onsu

ltant

s’P

olic

yR

ecom

men

dat

ion

Inte

rim

NW

DA

Res

pon

seR

elev

ant

loca

lau

thor

ityO

rgan

isat

ion/

com

men

tsN

WD

AR

esp

onse

6.16

6.26

-6.3

1

6.26

Pro

vide

qua

lity

hous

ing

site

s in

the

Met

ropo

litan

Axi

s an

d S

outh

ern

Cre

scen

t(c

ont

inue

d).

Qua

lity

and

Des

ign

Dev

elop

men

tbrie

fsfo

rprio

rity

empl

oym

ents

ites

for

targ

etse

ctor

s.

Not

ed a

nd a

skre

leva

ntlo

cal a

utho

ritie

s to

cons

ider

.

Agr

ee c

onsu

ltant

s’re

com

men

datio

ns a

nd a

skre

leva

ntlo

cal a

utho

ritie

s to

cons

ider

.

Bol

ton,

Bur

y,K

now

sley

,Li

verp

ool C

ity,

Man

ches

terC

ity,

Old

ham

,R

ochd

ale,

Sal

ford

,S

tHel

ens,

Sef

ton,

Sto

ckpo

rt,Ta

mes

ide,

Traf

ford

,W

arrin

gton

,W

igan

,W

irral

.

All

loca

lau

thor

ities

inst

udy

area

.

Mer

seys

ide

Pol

icy

Uni

t: g

iven

rece

ntho

use

pric

e in

crea

ses,

£100

,000

is n

o lo

nger

a go

odpr

oxy

for‘

qual

ity h

ousi

ng’.

Pee

l Hol

ding

s pl

c: s

trong

lysu

ppor

tthe

nee

d fo

rmor

eex

ecut

ive

hous

ing

in th

eM

etro

polit

an A

xis.

Bel

ieve

NW

DA

sho

uld

stre

ngth

en it

sre

com

men

datio

n so

as

to u

rge

the

loca

l aut

horit

ies

conc

erne

dto

pos

itive

ly p

rom

ote

the

prov

isio

n of

exec

utiv

e ho

usin

gin

thei

rare

as.

Cou

ncil

for

the

Pro

tect

ion

ofR

ural

Eng

land

:sh

ould

incl

ude

envi

ronm

enta

l sta

ndar

ds o

fpe

rform

ance

, and

qua

lity

ofvi

sual

impa

ct.

Agr

eed,

how

ever

this

doe

s no

tun

derm

ine

the

reco

mm

enda

tion,

as £

100,

000

was

a g

ood

prox

yw

hen

the

Mer

sey

Bel

tStu

dy w

asdr

afte

d.

This

is a

n is

sue

forl

ocal

aut

horit

ies

to c

onsi

der.

Not

ed.

Page 63

Stu

dy

Par

a. N

o.C

onsu

ltant

s’P

olic

yR

ecom

men

dat

ion

Inte

rim

NW

DA

Res

pon

seR

elev

ant

loca

lau

thor

ityO

rgan

isat

ion/

com

men

tsN

WD

AR

esp

onse

6.27

6.30

6.32

-6.3

4

6.32

6.34

Qua

lity

deve

lopm

ent

as a

con

ditio

n of

NW

DA

sup

port.

Hig

h de

nsiti

esar

ound

tran

spor

thu

bs a

nd to

mak

epu

blic

tran

spor

tm

ore

viab

le.

Use

Cla

sses

Ord

er

Lobb

y G

over

nmen

tto

revi

ew.

Gre

ater

use

ofD

aven

port

Gre

enco

nditi

ons.

Agr

eed

in p

rinci

ple

and

NW

DA

will

dis

cuss

with

indi

vidu

al a

utho

ritie

s an

dag

enci

es o

n a

site

-by-

site

basi

s.

Agr

ee c

onsu

ltant

s’re

com

men

datio

ns a

nd a

skre

leva

ntlo

cal a

utho

ritie

s to

cons

ider

.

Agr

ee c

onsu

ltant

s’re

com

men

datio

ns a

nd a

sklo

cal a

utho

ritie

s an

d th

eir

asso

ciat

ions

to c

onsi

der.

Agr

ee c

onsu

ltant

s’re

com

men

datio

ns a

nd a

skre

leva

ntlo

cal a

utho

ritie

s to

cons

ider

.

All

loca

lau

thor

ities

inst

udy

area

.

All

loca

lau

thor

ities

inst

udy

area

.

All

loca

lau

thor

ities

inst

udy

area

.

All

loca

lau

thor

ities

inst

udy

area

.

Cou

ncil

for

the

Pro

tect

ion

ofR

ural

Eng

land

: sh

ould

incl

ude

qual

ity in

term

s of

both

envi

ronm

enta

l sta

ndar

ds o

fpe

rform

ance

, and

vis

ual

impa

ctin

kee

ping

with

loca

lch

arac

ter.

Cou

ncil

for

the

Pro

tect

ion

ofR

ural

Eng

land

:no

goo

d ca

seha

s be

en m

ade

fort

he n

eed

tore

view

the

UC

O. M

ustc

onsi

der

RPG

pol

icy

SD

4. G

iven

the

larg

e nu

mbe

rofs

trate

gic

regi

onal

site

s an

d la

ckof

ase

quen

tial p

olic

y to

war

ds th

eir

deve

lopm

ent,

rese

rvin

g la

ndfo

rtar

gets

ecto

rs d

oes

not

seem

reas

onab

le a

s it

may

resu

ltin

land

not

bein

g us

edfo

rmor

e pr

essi

ng a

ltern

ativ

ene

eds.

Dis

agre

e. In

som

e lo

catio

ns in

the

Mer

sey

Bel

titm

ay b

e im

porta

ntto

esta

blis

h a

new

vis

ual c

hara

cter

.

This

is a

n is

sue

forl

ocal

aut

horit

ies

and

thei

rass

ocia

tions

to c

onsi

der.

Page 64

Stu

dy

Par

a. N

o.C

onsu

ltant

s’P

olic

yR

ecom

men

dat

ion

Inte

rim

NW

DA

Res

pon

seR

elev

ant

loca

lau

thor

ityO

rgan

isat

ion/

com

men

tsN

WD

AR

esp

onse

6.40

6.43

Man

ches

terA

irpor

t–ta

rget

sect

ors

with

in5-

min

ute

driv

e tim

e;ai

rsid

e re

quire

men

tsin

Airp

ortO

pera

tion

Are

a.

Airp

orts

uppl

ier

villa

ge w

ithin

20

-min

utes

driv

etim

e.

Fibr

e op

ticco

nnec

tions

tota

rget

sect

orsi

tes;

map

ICT

infra

stru

ctur

e.

Not

e an

d ag

ree

impo

rtanc

e. F

urth

erdi

scus

sion

s w

ithM

anch

este

rCity

Cou

ncil

and

Man

ches

terA

irpor

tne

eded

to d

eal w

ith th

isis

sue.

Not

ed.

Agr

ee c

onsu

ltant

s’re

com

men

datio

ns.

NW

DA

has

com

plet

ed th

e ex

erci

seto

map

bro

adba

nd a

cros

sth

e w

hole

regi

on.

Che

shire

Cou

nty,

Mac

cles

field

,M

anch

este

rCity

,S

tock

port,

Tam

esid

e,Tr

affo

rd,

Vale

Roy

al,

War

ringt

on.

All

loca

lau

thor

ities

inst

udy

area

.

Cou

ncil

for

the

Pro

tect

ion

ofR

ural

Eng

land

: th

e em

phas

issh

ould

be

take

n of

f‘dr

ive

time’

– m

ore

sust

aina

ble

optio

nssh

ould

be

soug

htfo

rbot

hco

mm

unic

atio

ns a

nd g

oods

deliv

erie

s.

Mac

cles

fiel

d B

orou

ghC

ounc

il: 5

min

ute

driv

e tim

ese

ems

unre

alis

tic (

shou

ld b

eup

to 1

5m

inut

es d

rive

time)

.

LPA

s un

able

to re

stric

tav

aila

ble

empl

oym

ents

ites

tota

rget

sect

ors,

unl

ess

owne

dby

the

LPA

.

In e

cono

mic

term

s, d

rive

time

rem

ains

sig

nific

ant.

This

will

be

cons

ider

ed in

any

disc

ussi

ons

with

Man

ches

ter

Airp

ort.

Dis

agre

e –

lega

l obl

igat

ions

can

beim

pose

d.

8 Appendices

Page 65

M5

8

M5

7

M5

3

M5

6M

6

M6

0

M6

2

M6

6

M6

1

M6

2

M6

Live

rpoo

l

Ell

esm

ere

Por

tan

d N

esto

n

Ches

ter

Hal

ton

Know

sley

St

Hel

ens

War

ringt

onWig

anS

alfo

rd

Man

ches

ter

Traf

ford

Mac

cles

fiel

d

Val

e R

oyal

Sef

ton

Wes

t La

nca

shir

e

Wir

ral

WA

LE

S

Con

glet

on

Sto

ckpor

t

Tam

esid

e

Bol

ton

Bury

Roc

hda

le

Old

ham

Met

ropo

litan

Axis

Bou

ndar

y

Sout

hern

Cres

cent

Boun

dary

GA

P

AR

EA

5✽

1✽2✽ 3✽

4✽

8

96✽

7✽

10✽

35✽

29✽

3738

2226

2827

1120 21

2319

25✽

18

3234

30 31

17

2433

39

16 40 15✽

12✽

36

1413

✪

Figu

re 3

.1TH

E M

ER

SEY

BELT

STU

DY

: R

EC

OM

MEN

DED

STR

ATE

GY

Key

Stra

tegi

cCo

rrido

rs

Cate

gory

A S

ites

1Ea

st M

anch

este

r *2

Asht

on M

oss

*3

Wat

ersi

de P

ark

*4

Den

ton

Clus

ter

5Li

verp

ool C

ity C

entre

*6

Wav

ertre

e Te

chno

logy

Par

k *

7Om

ega

*8

Hoo

ton

Empl

oym

ent A

rea

9Ca

penh

urst

10Th

e Es

tuar

y Li

verp

ool *

Cate

gory

B S

ites

11M

anch

este

r City

Cen

tre S

ites

12Ch

este

r Bus

ines

s Pa

rk *

13Ch

este

r City

Cen

tre14

Saig

hton

Cam

p15

Dar

esbu

ry P

ark

Loca

tion

*16

Man

or P

ark

17Lo

stoc

k Tr

iang

le18

Man

ches

ter B

usin

ess

Park

19Sh

arst

on G

reen

20Bi

rley

Fiel

ds21

Prin

cess

Par

kway

22Sa

lford

Qua

ys23

M60

Gat

eway

to S

tock

port

24Ch

eadl

e Ro

yal

25D

aven

port

Gree

n *

26So

uthb

ank

27Vi

ctor

ia W

areh

ouse

28Ba

rton

Doc

k Ro

ad29

King

sway

*30

East

Tyt

herin

gton

Bus

ines

s Pa

rk31

Dan

egat

e32

Park

gate

Indu

stria

l Est

ate

33Ea

rl Ro

ad34

King

s Co

urt

35Ki

ngs

Busi

ness

Par

k *

36Cl

atte

rbrid

ge H

ospi

tal

37Sa

lford

Uni

vers

ity B

usin

ess

Park

38Bl

ackf

riars

39M

iddl

ebro

ok40

Dar

esbu

ry L

abor

ator

y

Astr

a Ze

neca

, Ald

erle

y Pa

rk –

see

par

a. 6

.7

Rese

rve

Site

in W

arrin

gton

– s

ee p

ara.

3.3

8

Wig

an S

outh

Cen

tral

– s

ee p

ara

6.11

✪

Dis

tric

ts w

hich

sho

uld

revi

ew a

vaila

bilit

y of

hou

sing

land

to a

ccom

mod

ate

clus

ters

from

targ

et s

ecto

rs

Stra

tegi

c Re

gion

al S

ites

✽

Pla

n 1

The

Mer

sey

Bel

t S

tudy

: R

ecom

men

ded

Str

ateg

y (F

igur

e 3.

1)

The

abov

e pl

an h

as b

een

repr

oduc

ed fo

rinf

orm

atio

n fro

m th

e M

erse

y B

eltS

tudy

(M

ay 2

002)

Not

e th

atth

e N

orth

wes

tDev

elop

men

tAge

ncy

does

not

endo

rse

the

cons

ulta

nt’s

reco

mm

enda

tions

fora

‘Res

erve

d S

ite’i

n

War

ringt

on a

s in

dica

ted

on P

lan

1an

d Pl

an 2

8 Appendices (continued)

Page 66

M5

8

M5

7

M5

3

M5

6

M6

M6

0

M6

2

M6

6

M6

1

M6

2

M6 Key

Furth

er s

tudy

nee

ded

of s

trate

gic

publ

ic tr

ansp

ort

in M

id M

erse

y an

d N

orth

Che

ster

rail

corri

dor

Ligh

t Rai

l

Hea

vy R

ail

M56

Stra

tegi

c Pa

rk &

Rid

e

Mer

sey

Belt

Rail

Circ

le

LightRailto

Kirkby

Light

RailE

aster

nCorr

idor

Speke Garston

to Airport

toSt

ockp

ort

toTa

mesid

e

toOldham,Rochdale

toTra

fford

Park

Edge

Lan

e

North Chester Rail Corridor Study

Strategic Public Transport Improvements in Mid-Mersey Area

Western

RailLink

Rail L

ink fr

om M

anch

ester

Airp

ortto

East

Manc

heste

r

Live

rpoo

l

Ell

esm

ere

Por

tan

d N

esto

n

Ches

ter

Hal

ton

Know

sley

St

Hel

ens

War

ringt

on

Wig

anS

alfo

rd

Man

ches

ter

Traf

ford

Mac

cles

fiel

d

Val

e R

oyal

Sef

ton

Wes

t La

nca

shir

e

Wir

ral

WA

LE

S

Con

glet

on

Sto

ckpor

t

Tam

esid

e

Bol

ton

Bury

Roc

hda

le

Old

ham

Met

ropo

litan

Axis

Bou

ndar

y

Sout

hern

Cres

cent

Boun

dary

GA

P

AR

EA

Man

ches

ter A

irpor

tLi

verp

ool J

ohn

Lenn

on A

irpor

t

5✽

1✽2✽ 3✽

4✽

8

96✽7✽

10✽

35✽

29✽

3738

2226

2827

1120 21

2319

25✽

18

3234

30 31

17

2433

39

16 40 15✽

12✽

36

1413

✪

Figu

re 4

.1K

EY

TRA

NSP

OR

T SC

HEM

ES

Cate

gory

A S

ites

1Ea

st M

anch

este

r *2

Asht

on M

oss

*3

Wat

ersi

de P

ark

*4

Den

ton

Clus

ter

5Li

verp

ool C

ity C

entre

*6

Wav

ertre

e Te

chno

logy

Par

k *

7Om

ega

*8

Hoo

ton

Empl

oym

ent A

rea

9Ca

penh

urst

10Th

e Es

tuar

y Li

verp

ool *

Cate

gory

B S

ites

11M

anch

este

r City

Cen

tre S

ites

12Ch

este

r Bus

ines

s Pa

rk *

13Ch

este

r City

Cen

tre14

Saig

hton

Cam

p15

Dar

esbu

ry P

ark

Loca

tion

*16

Man

or P

ark

17Lo

stoc

k Tr

iang

le18

Man

ches

ter B

usin

ess

Park

19Sh

arst

on G

reen

20Bi

rley

Fiel

ds21

Prin

cess

Par

kway

22Sa

lford

Qua

ys23

M60

Gat

eway

to S

tock

port

24Ch

eadl

e Ro

yal

25D

aven

port

Gree

n *

26So

uthb

ank

27Vi

ctor

ia W

areh

ouse

28Ba

rton

Doc

k Ro

ad29

King

sway

*30

East

Tyt

herin

gton

Bus

ines

s Pa

rk31

Dan

egat

e32

Park

gate

Indu

stria

l Est

ate

33Ea

rl Ro

ad34

King

s Co

urt

35Ki

ngs

Busi

ness

Par

k *

36Cl

atte

rbrid

ge H

ospi

tal

37Sa

lford

Uni

vers

ity B

usin

ess

Park

38Bl

ackf

riars

39M

iddl

ebro

ok40

Dar

esbu

ry L

abor

ator

y

Astr

a Ze

neca

, Ald

erle

y Pa

rk –

see

par

a. 6

.7

Rese

rve

Site

in W

arrin

gton

– s

ee p

ara.

3.3

8

Wig

an S

outh

Cen

tral

– s

ee p

ara

6.11

✪

Dis

tric

ts w

hich

sho

uld

revi

ew a

vaila

bilit

y of

hou

sing

land

to a

ccom

mod

ate

clus

ters

from

targ

et s

ecto

rs

Stra

tegi

c Re

gion

al S

ites

✽

Pla

n 2

The

Mer

sey

Bel

t S

tudy

: K

ey T

rans

port

Sch

emes

(Fi

gure

4.1

)

The

abov

e pl

an h

as b

een

repr

oduc

ed fo

rinf

orm

atio

n fro

m th

e M

erse

y B

eltS

tudy

(M

ay 2

002)

Not

e th

atth

e N

orth

wes

tDev

elop

men

tAge

ncy

does

not

endo

rse

the

cons

ulta

nt’s

reco

mm

enda

tions

fora

‘Res

erve

d S

ite’i

n

War

ringt

on a

s in

dica

ted

on P

lan

1an

d Pl

an 2

The Northwest Development Agency manages all operations from its Headquarters at:

PO Box 37Renaissance HouseCentre ParkWarrington WA1 1XBTel: +44 (0)1925 400 100Fax: +44 (0)1925 400 400e-mail: [email protected]

Greater ManchesterGiants BasinPotato WharfCastlefieldManchester M3 4NBTel: +44 (0)161 817 7400Fax: +44 (0)161 831 7051

MerseysideStation HouseMercury CourtTithebarn StreetLiverpool L2 2QPTel: +44 (0)1925 400 100Fax: +44 (0)151 236 3731

CheshireBrew HouseWilderspool ParkGreenalls AvenueWarrington WA4 6HLTel: +44 (0)1925 644 220Fax: +44 (0)1925 644 222

CumbriaGillan WayPenrith 40 Business ParkPenrithCumbria CA11 9BPTel: +44 (0)1768 867 294Fax: +44 (0)1768 895 477

Lancashire13 Winckley StreetPrestonLancashire PR1 2AATel: +44 (0)1772 206 000Fax: +44 (0)1772 200 049

In addition, there are five area offices for theimplementation of local activities as follows:

NWDA KADM 12/04 18000

Visit: www.nwda.co.uk & www.englandsnorthwest.com

Documents

Document