1

Transport and Works Act 1992 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Transport and Works (Applications and Objections Procedure) (England and Wales) Rules 2006 Transport and Works (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 2004

The Midland Metro (Wolverhampton City Centre Extension) Order

CLOSING SUBMISISONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT

1. The fact that the inquiry has been short, and that there is little opposition to the

making of the order, is a clear indication that there is widespread recognition of the

benefits of the scheme.

2. There is no dispute that the scheme will deliver the key benefits which I set out in

my opening. I do not repeat that opening but do rely upon it, and ask you to

consider it when writing your report.

3. When making your report, you will wish to address the matters identified in the

Secretary of State’s statement of matters1. The evidence presented by the Applicant

addresses those matters2 and I do not intend to repeat it in these closing

submissions. I will provide brief submissions on each matter, but rely on the

unchallenged evidence, which I would ask you to consider in detail when writing

your report.

1. The aims and the need for, the proposed Midland Metro Wolverhampton City

Centre extension ("the scheme").

4. The aims of the scheme are identified in the concise statement of aims3.

5. The WCCE forms part of the wider Wolverhampton Interchange Project (“WIP”).

The WIP will deliver a multi-modal transport hub, commercial floorspace and

improve the strategic gateway to Wolverhampton and the Black Country.

1 INSP/4 2 Table 9.1 in Peter Adams PoE sets out where each matter is covered in the evidence. APP/P1.1/SCH 3 WCCE/A3

2

6. It is anticipated that the WIP will facilitate the development of 73,862 sq ft of

office/leisure/retail floor space providing 278 jobs. A further 321,000 sq ft of

floorspace will be created over subsequent years providing 1,590 jobs.

7. The need for the scheme is explained by Mr Adams in his proof of evidence4.

8. The lack of connectivity between Midland Metro Line 1 and the railway and bus

stations is a serious deficiency. That lack of connectivity disadvantages the travelling

public and undermines the Black Country LEP strategy of enhancing public transport

connectivity between the four strategic centres of Brierley Hill, Walsall, West

Bromwich, and Wolverhampton5.

9. The analysis conducted indicates that providing such linkages will prove attractive to

the travelling public and as a result patronage levels on Midland Metro will increase

by 4.6% by 2016 and by 5.4% by 20266.

10. There can be little doubt that there is a need to improve the connection between

the Metro and the existing bus and rail services. The WCCE will achieve that

connection and, as part of the WIP, will make a significant contribution towards

regeneration and job creation in Wolverhampton city centre.

11. I invite you to conclude that the need is established, and that the order if made will

enable that need to be met.

2. The main alternative options considered by Centro and the reasons for choosing

the proposals comprised in the scheme.

12. The environmental statement identifies the main alternatives considered by

Centro7.

13. A number of alternative means of linking the Metro and the railway station have

been considered since at least 1999.

14. In 2001 the Wolverhampton to Walsall via Wednesfied (5W’s) route was given

priority8.

4 Adams PoE 6.1-6.3 APP/P1.1/SCH 5 Adams PoE 6.1 APP/P1.1/SCH 6 Adams PoE 6.3 APP/P1.1/SCH 7 WCCE/A15 section 3.7 8 WCCE/A15 section 3.7.8

3

15. The 5W’s route was endorsed in the 2006 Local Transport Plan –the route envisaged

for Wolverhampton was a city centre loop9.

16. A series of plans showing the options considered was submitted to the inquiry. Mr

Adams explained those options. Options 1 and 4 are longer and affect more

stakeholders. Option 2 does not go to the station. Option 5 would also be longer,

would affect more stakeholders and would not interchange with the railway station.

17. In 2011/2012 the city centre loop proposals were replaced with the current more

direct twin track route along Piper’s Row10.

18. The May 2013 proposals would have required demolition of the Old Steam Mill.

That proposal was revised following objections from English Heritage and others11.

19. A summary assessment of the options is set out at page A17 of the Business Case

for the WIP12. As Mr Adams13 explained it was considered disproportionate to

prepare a full business case for each option (with resultant BCR). However it is Mr

Adams’ view that the alternative options would be likely to have a lower BCR as

benefits would be similar whereas the route would be longer (and therefore cost

more).

20. The alternatives considered have not been restricted to the route. Examination of

alternatives has also included detailed consideration of the stops on Piper’s Row,

and in particular the northbound stop. Mr Gardner produced the Aecom technical

note which considered such options14.

21. There can be little doubt that there has been a thorough consideration of

alternatives including extensive consultation over a considerable period, and that

there is no preferable alternative to the scheme now proposed.

22. Alternatives are often relevant in decision making when the preferred scheme is

held to cause some harm or has some other disadvantage. In those circumstances it

can be appropriate to consider whether the aims of the scheme could be achieved

without causing the harm complained of. This is not such a case, as there is no

9 WCCE/A15 section 3.7.12 10 WCCE/A15 section 3.7.14 11 WCCE/A15 section 3.7.16 12 WCCE/D1 table 2.1 page A-17 13 Oral explanation 14 Gardner Ap.3 APP/P3.3

4

suggestion that the proposals will cause such harm that it becomes desirable or

necessary to search for alternative means of achieving the desired objective.

23. To the extent that the scheme does cause harm, such as the less than substantial

harm to the setting of certain heritage assets, it is not suggested by any objector

that such harm could be overcome by an alternative alignment or other alternative.

24. I ask you to report to the Secretary of State that:

a. any harm is not such as to require alternatives to be considered any further.

b. there has been careful and detailed consideration of alternatives

c. there is no realistic alternative means of achieving the desirable outcomes

that the scheme will bring.

3. The extent to which the scheme would be consistent with the National Planning

Policy Framework, national transport policy, and local transport, environmental

and planning policies.

25. There is no dispute that the proposals are consistent with, and will advance the

objectives of the NPPF, national transport policy, and local transport, environmental

and planning policies.

26. All the relevant policies are identified in the evidence of Mr Ellingham. Mr Ellingham

also considers whether the scheme proposals comply with those policies. He

concludes that they do15. I do not repeat that analysis in these submissions, but I do

rely on it, and ask that you accept it.

27. Mr Young, in his representation, does allege conflict with Core Strategy policy

TRAN4 which seeks to create coherent networks for cycling and for walking.

28. There is no conflict with that policy.

a. Specific consideration has been given to impact on cyclists.

b. As explained by Mr Gardner crossing facilities have been provided allowing

cyclists to cross the tram tracks.

c. Further as demonstrated by Mr Gardner’s plan there are alternative

convenient and safe routes are available for cyclists enabling them to avoid

15 Ellingham PoE 6.58-6.59 APP/P7.1/TOW

5

using Pipers Row16. Those routes form part of the coherent network desired

by TRAN4, and provide safe, direct links for cyclists.

29. The clear conclusion that I invite you to draw is that the proposals accord fully with

the objectives of national and local transport and planning policies.

4. The adequacy of the Environmental Statement submitted with the application

for the TWA Order, having regard to the requirements of the Transport and Works

(Applications and Objections Procedure) (England and Wales) Rules 2006, and

whether the statutory procedural requirements have been complied with.

30. In considering this issue it is necessary to consider the environmental statement

(“ES”) as submitted together with the further environmental information contained

in the April 2015 Addendum17.

31. Mr Ritchie has considered whether the requirements contained in the 2006 Rules

have been complied with. He concludes that not only have the rules been complied

with but good practice has also been followed18. No other party contests Mr

Ritchie’s conclusion or makes any submission alleging a failure to comply with the

requirements.

32. I invite you, in your report, to endorse Mr Ritchie’s view.

5. The likely impact on the public, businesses and the environment of constructing and operating the scheme, including:

(a) impact of the proposed works on storage, access and servicing arrangements to premises;

(b) effect on Piper’s Row and Fryer Street car parks and the City ring road;

(c) impact on pedestrian, cycle and motor traffic during construction and

operation; and

(d) ecological impacts and whether any licences are likely to be required

16 WCCE/C2 paragraph 4.2, and Gardner Ap.2, APP/P3.3/ENG 17 WCCE/A15/6 18 Ritchie PoE 5.9 APP/P5.1/ENV

6

from Natural England.

5(a)

33. Control of road closures during construction is provided for by Article 43 of the draft

order. Article 43(2) could be relied upon to put in place temporary traffic regulation

measures – they can only be exercised with the consent of the traffic authority (the

City Council).

34. Impact of the proposed works on storage, access and servicing arrangements to

premises are considered in the transport assessment19 and by Mr Gardner in his

proof of evidence20. Specific construction impacts are considered by Mr Gardner at

paragraphs 5.13 to 5.22.

35. The inspector raised questions in relation to access to premises on Piper’s Row, in

particular access to the courts and to the Wulfrun Hotel. As explained by Mr

Adams, during construction:

a. It is proposed that alternative arrangements be made for Judges’ parking at

the Combined Court Centre.

b. It is proposed that vehicles transporting those in custody to the court will be

able to access the court from the bus station.

c. Alternative loading arrangements are available in Queen Street which allow

the Wulfrun Hotel to be serviced.

36. The access to the alleyway adjacent to the Wulfrun Hotel will not be accessible for a

limited period during the construction works. However the disadvantage to the

operation of the hotel is not great as alternative servicing is available using the

Queen Street loading bay.

37. Mr Lunt also considers transportation impact during construction (section 4) and

addresses matter 5 at his section 521.

19 WCCE/C7 section 10 20 APP/P3.1/ENG 21 APP/P4.1/TRA

7

38. The conclusion of the transport assessment is, that with the mitigation proposed,

the proposals are not considered to have an unacceptable impact on the accessing

and servicing requirements of existing operations and businesses22.

39. During operation of the tramway existing operations and businesses may be

affected by changes to traffic regulation. Those changes are made in schedule 7 to

the order; these include controlling the use of Railway Drive23 (as raised by the

inspector during the course of the inquiry). Physical measures will be put in place to

restrict the use of eastbound traffic over Railway Drive by use of rising bollards.

40. I invite you to conclude that, on the basis of the construction activities envisaged,

the changes to traffic regulation and other changes during operation, and the

assessment of those activities and changes to traffic regulation set out in the

evidence, there will be no unacceptably adverse impact.

5(b)

41. Impacts on Piper’s Row and Fryer Street car parks and on the road network are also

considered by Mr Lunt. Access to both car parks will be maintained during

construction24 and operation25.

42. Agreement has been reached with NCP in relation to the Piper’s Row car park and

the Fryer Street Car Park.

43. The Applicant has agreed not to exercise its powers in relation to the Fryer Street

Car Park (Plot 25).

44. In relation to Piper’s Row car park, the Applicant has agreed that the new car park

entrance on to Tower Street will be opened simultaneously with the closure of the

current Piper’s Row access. At the same time new signage will be provided to direct

people to the Tower Street entrance.

22 WCCE/C7 paragraph 10.4 23 Draft order Schedule 7 Part 2 Table 7 No. 7.1 24 Lunt PoE 5.4 APP/P4.1/TRA 25 Lunt PoE 5.8-5.10 and 5.11 APP/P4.1/TRA

8

45. The proposals will lead to a reduction in the number of parking spaces at the Piper’s

Row car park, however the reduction in number (15) is not significant when

compared to the approximately 3,800 parking spaces in the WV1 postcode area26.

46. The benefit to be derived by siting the northbound tramstop in Piper’s Row in such a

position as to avoid impeding right turning bus movements out of the bus station27

far outweighs any minor detriment arising as a result of the loss of 15 parking

spaces.

47. Mr Lunt considers impact on the City Ring Road during construction28 and

operation29.

48. Impact during construction will depend upon whether the Corn Hill access to the

railway station car park has been opened; this access is likely to be provided at an

advanced stage of the works, even if not already in place as a result of the WIP

project. Mr Lunt’s judgement on this issue is set out at his Table 4.130.

49. Based on the modelling report, Mr Lunt concludes that impact attributable to the

WCCE during operation is likely to be negligible31. The most appropriate

information to consider (in relation to northbound and southbound journey times)

is that in Tables 4.5 and 4.6 in Mr Lunt’s Appendix 3 as that is the product of the

average of 15 model runs.

50. On the basis of Mr Lunt’s evidence I invite you to conclude that there will be no

unacceptably detrimental impact on the Ring Road, whether during construction or

operation.

5(c)

51. Matter 5(c) is also considered by Mr Lunt. He considers impact during construction

to be acceptable32.

26 Applicant’s rebuttal to NCP paragraph 29, APP/R1/1/OBJ10 27 Gardner PoE 2.11-2.12 APP/P3.1/ENG 28 Lunt PoE 5.5, APP/P4.1/TRA 29 Lunt PoE 5.12, APP/P4.1/TRA 30 Lunt PoE page 11 APP/P4.1/TRA 31 Lunt PoE 5.12, APP/P4.1/TRA, and see Lunt Appendix 3 Tables 4.5 and 4.6 32 Lunt PoE 5.6, APP/P4.1/TRA

9

52. Mr Lunt has based his assessment during operation on the outputs of a VISSIM

micro simulation model as reported in the Transport Assessment33. The conclusion

of the traffic impact section of the TA is that the proposals are acceptable34. The

same conclusion is reached in relation to pedestrians35. The TA concludes that, with

mitigation, impact on cyclists will be negligible36.

53. During the course of the inquiry Mr Lunt explained the model outputs. It is clear

from the average delay times to all traffic37 that the delays attributable to the WCCE

(as distinct from the wider WIP project) cannot be described as unacceptable. The

reference to an average masks the fact that there will be an improvement to bus

journey times. Furthermore, even if there is some delay attributable to the WCCE it

has to be balanced against the advantages of the scheme; those advantages far

outweigh the delays identified.

5(d)

54. Matter 5(d) is considered by Mr Ritchie in his proof of evidence38. When the ES was

prepared it was not possible to gain access to the tunnel and void at the Old Steam

Mill and therefore there was some uncertainty as to whether bats were present.

That uncertainty has been resolved. A survey has been conducted, as reported in

the ES Addendum at paragraphs 1.5.4-1.5.839. It was discovered that the void space

and tunnel are not suitable for bats. As a result the prohibitions imposed by Article

12 of the Habitats Directive are not engaged and no European Protected Species

licence will be required.

55. The evidence I have referred to has not been contradicted and should be accepted. I

invite you to conclude that there will be no unacceptable impact on impact on the

public, businesses and the environment of constructing and operating the scheme.

33 Lunt PoE 5.7, APP/P4.1/TRA 34 WCCE/C7 paragraph 5.6 35 WCCE/C7 paragraph 7.2.7 36 WCCE/C7 paragraph 7.3 37 Lunt PoE Table 3.3, APP/P4.1/TRA 38 Ritchie PoE 5.10-5.15 APP/P5.1/ENV 39 WCCE/A15/6

10

6. The effects of the scheme on statutory undertakers and other utility providers,

and their ability to carry out undertakings effectively, safely and in compliance

with any statutory or contractual obligations.

56. Article 45 and schedule 8 of the draft order make provisions relating to statutory

undertakers. The standard provisions are included which enable, in relation to land

acquired under the order, statutory undertakers rights to be extinguished subject to

payment of compensation.

57. Mr Gardner considers the effects of the scheme on statutory undertakers at section

4 of his proof of evidence40. I rely upon, but do not repeat, that evidence.

58. As the majority of the construction works will take place within existing public

highways, the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 regime applies, and the stages

set out under that regime have been and will continue to be followed.

59. Notice of the TWA order was served on all the statutory undertakers and other

utility providers and no objections were made41. It should be noted that no utility

company objected.

60. There will be no undue impact on statutory undertakers and in cases where there is

an impact, appropriate measures are in place to protect the interests of statutory

undertakers.

7. The effects of the scheme on the statutory obligations, waterway operations

and navigational management of the Canal and River Trust, and proposals to

mitigate these effects.

40 APP/P3.1/ENG 41 Gardner PoE 4.6, APP/P3.1/ENG

11

61. No significant works are anticipated to be required to the existing bridge over the

Birmingham Canal. The arch bridge over the Birmingham Canal will have its

waterproofing renewed as part of the project42.

62. Agreement has been reached with the Canal and River Trust, who have withdrawn

their objection.

63. The protective provisions which the Applicant requests are included in the order will

protect the Canal and River Trust’s interests. The protective provisions prevent the

Applicant from exercising certain powers conferred on it by the order, unless

consent is given by the Trust.

64. I invite you to report to the Secretary of State that the order contains appropriate

and adequate provisions to mitigate impact upon, and to afford protection to, the

Canal and River Trust.

8. The implications for rail users, train operators, Network Rail and businesses

located at Wolverhampton Railway Station of works to the station in connection

with the scheme (including safety, parking, staff facility, and access issues).

65. The effect on rail users, train operators, Network Rail and businesses located at

Wolverhampton Railway Station is considered in the evidence of Mr Adams43.

66. The fact that Network Rail, the station facility owner, the train operating companies,

and businesses located at the station have reached agreement with the Applicant

can and should be taken as indicating that, so long as the relevant protective

provisions are included in the order, adequate arrangements are in place to protect

those interests.

67. Any scheme to improve facilities at a railway station is likely to cause some degree

of interference with existing arrangements. As a result all works have to be carried

out with care so as to avoid unnecessary disruption to rail operators and

passengers.

68. The main protection for rail interests is that works will be undertaken in accordance

with the agreements reached with rail companies, which provide for standard

42 Gardner PoE 5.12, APP/P3.1/ENG 43 Adams PoE 10.6-10.37 APP/P1.1/SCH

12

template rail industry agreements regulated by the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) to

be entered into at a later date, and by the inclusion of protective provisions in the

TWA order. The rail companies will have the ability to exercise control so as to

ensure that the works are carried out in such a way as to avoid undue interference

with their interests. Those agreements will also ensure that passengers can access

and exit the station safely and efficiently while construction works are underway.

69. The WCCE will have no impact on operational train services44.

70. On completion of the works:

a. The new tram stop at the railway station will provide a significant benefit to

rail station accessibility and interchange45.

b. The environment for rail users accessing the station will be improved by the

changed arrangements for traffic; vehicular access will be relocated from

Railway Drive to Corn Hill46.

c. There is likely to be a positive impact on the business of West Coast Trains47.

71. I invite you to conclude that, subject to the inclusion of the proposed protective

provisions, the interests of rail users, train operators, Network Rail and businesses

located at Wolverhampton Railway Station will be adequately protected.

9. The effects of the scheme on the Old Steam Mill (though noting that listed

building consent has been sought separately and granted for this element of the

works).

72. The alignment of the proposed tramway in the vicinity of the Old Steam Mill was the

subject of careful consideration. In May 2013 consultation was undertaken on a

proposed alignment which would have required demolition of the Old Steam Mill.

English Heritage (now Historic England) and others raised objections48.

44 Adams PoE 10.26, APP/P1.1/SCH 45 Lunt PoE 3.16, APP/P4.1/TRA 46 Gardner PoE 2.22, APP/P3.1/ENG 47 Adams PoE 10.28, APP/P1.1/SCH 48 WCCE/A15/2 ES Main volume paragraph 3.7.16

13

73. In response to those objections the alignment of the tramway in the vicinity of the

Old Steam Mill was revised and the current alignment put forward. That change of

alignment was endorsed by English Heritage49.

74. Some 727 sq m of land will be taken to provide space for the new access to the

revised Network Rail car parking spaces and for the new taxi drop off and

turnaround area50.

75. The 20th century steel clad north-west corner of the Old Steam Mill will be

demolished (for which listed building consent has been obtained), and the

remainder of the building will be stabilised and made safe51.

76. The current scheme has been considered by English Heritage who have stated that

they are fully satisfied by the amendments which have been made to address their

concerns about the alignment of the extension adjacent to the Old Steam Mill and

Corn Hill52. The fact that EH now raise no objection, and have expressed their

satisfaction with the changes should be given considerable weight.

77. The heritage impacts are considered by Mr Surfleet who concludes that the

proposals will have a positive effect on the significance and setting of the Old Steam

Mill53.

78. I ask that you report Historic England’s position, and the views of Mr Surfleet to the

Secretary of State and that you conclude that the impact on the Old Steam Mill will

be positive.

10. The measures proposed by Centro for mitigating any adverse impacts of the

scheme, including:

(a) the proposed Code of Construction Practice;

(b) any measures to avoid, reduce or remedy any major or significant adverse

environmental impacts of the scheme; and

49 WCCE/A15/2 ES Main volume paragraph 3.7.17 50 Gardner PoE 7.6, APP/P3.1/ENG 51 Gardner PoE 7.6, APP/P3.1/ENG 52 WCCE/A16 53 Surfleet PoE 8.1(6) APP/P6.1/CUL

14

(c) whether, and if so, to what extent, any adverse environmental impact would

still remain after the proposed mitigation.

79. A draft Code of Construction Practice has been prepared54, and the imposition of

condition 6 would ensure that a code in substantial accordance with the draft is

adhered to.

80. Mr Gardner describes the construction process in section 5 of his proof of evidence.

81. The measures to avoid, reduce or remedy environmental impacts of the scheme and

an analysis of the residual effects are described in the environmental statement in

each of the specialist chapters. The mitigation measures are summarised in chapter

16 of the ES. The proposed mitigation measures are also identified and described,

and an assessment of the significance of any residual effect provided, in Mr Ritchie’s

table at his Appendix 255.

82. The conclusions to be drawn are that:

a. A range of appropriate mitigation measures are proposed, and where

appropriate will be secured by the conditions proposed or by the terms of

the order.

b. The residual effects are, in the main neutral, negligible or beneficial.

c. Where residual effects are adverse, they are slight or minor save in the case

of views during construction activity56, and in relation to construction noise

and vibration which will be short term and can be regulated by the code of

construction practice.

d. The environmental effects are acceptable.

11. Whether there is a compelling case in the public interest for conferring on

Centro powers compulsorily to acquire and use land for the purposes of the

scheme, having regard to the guidance on the making of compulsory purchase

54 WCCE/A15/3 55 APP/P5.3/ENV 56 Major adverse effect on the view from Wolverhampton Railway Station is identified during construction in

scenario B, Ritchie Ap.2 page 55 of APP/P5.3/ENV, and Item 9 in Table 16.4 of the ES WCCE/A15/2

15

orders in ODPM Circular 06/2004, paragraphs 16 to 23; and whether the land and

rights in land for which compulsory acquisition powers are sought are required by

Centro in order to secure satisfactory implementation of the scheme.

83. The need for the scheme is established in Mr Adams’ evidence.

84. For the reasons set out above there are no realistic alternatives.

85. Mr Adams also identifies the transport benefits57 and the regeneration benefits58.

86. The scheme is an integral part of the WIP, which is predicted to deliver commercial

development which will result in the provision of over 1,500 jobs59.

87. The economic case is established by Mr Chadwick. The Benefit Cost Ratio of 2.5:1

demonstrates that the scheme is high value for money60. Although such a BCR is

simply stated it is the product of detailed analysis, and clearly establishes the

economic benefits of the proposals. Those economic benefits cannot be secured

unless the order is made.

88. Mr Gardner produces a schedule in which he identifies each plot of land and

explains the purpose for which it is to be acquired or used61. It is clear from Mr

Gardner’s schedule that each plot of land is required in order to carry the scheme

into effect.

89. The disadvantages of the scheme (e.g. some less than substantial harm to the

significance of heritage assets as a result of impact on setting), such as they are, are

minor (although that less than substantial harm should be given considerable

weight and importance when considering whether to direct that planning

permission be deemed to be granted62).

90. The very significant economic, transport, and regeneration benefits cannot be

secured unless the order is made and compulsory acquisition of land and rights is

authorised. Those benefits far outweigh any negative impact.

57 Adams PoE 6.4-6.13 APP/P1.1/SCH 58 Adams PoE 6.14-6.16 APP/P1.1/SCH 59 Adams PoE 6.14-6.15 APP/P1.1/SCH 60 Chadwick PoE 2.52 APP/P2.1/ECO 61 Gardner Ap.4, APP/P3.3/ENG 62 Surfleet Ap. 5 Barnwell Manor v. East Northamptonshire [2014] EWCA Civ 137 at paragraph 29,

APP/P6.3/CUL

16

91. To the extent that the rights afforded by Article 1 Protocol 1 of the European

Convention on Human Rights are engaged, the deprivation of possessions is clearly

justified in the public interest, and I invite you to so find in making your report.

92. There is a compelling case in the public interest for the order to authorise the

promoter to acquire the necessary land and rights and to use land temporarily,

without such authorisation the very many benefits will not be realised in the public

interest.

12. Having regard to section 25 of the TWA, whether the relevant Crown authority

has agreed to the compulsory acquisition of interests in, and/or the application of

provisions in the TWA Order in relation to, the Crown Land identified in the book

of reference.

93. I repeat the submissions made in opening.

94. The Wolverhampton Combined Courts Centre is land held by the Ministry of Justice

(“MoJ”) and is land in which there is a Crown interest for the purposes of section 25

of the Transport and Works Act 1992 (“TWA”). The Crown land can be acquired

compulsorily under a TWA order if the appropriate authority agrees. In this case the

appropriate authority is the MoJ who are the government department having

management of the land.

95. The MoJ, through their solicitors63, have indicated that whilst a legal agreement has

not yet been entered into the MoJ have agreed in principle to the acquisition of

those parts of the Crown land which will form new public highway. The MoJ have

also indicated that they agree in principle to measures to mitigate impact during

construction. The applicant requests that, when making your recommendations to

the Secretary of State, you proceed on the basis that, in due course, the agreement

which has been given in principle, will result in formal agreement.

63 Letter from Michelmores to the programme officer dated 27th May 2015

17

13. Centro’s proposals for funding the scheme.

96. As required64 the application was accompanied by an estimate of the costs of the

works65 and a funding statement66.

97. The total outturn cost of the Wolverhampton Interchange Project is stated to be

£39.4m, which includes the £18m67 cost of the WCCE.

98. The approach to capital funding is set out in the Financial Case section of the

business case and the funding position is as follows68:

LTB Major Schemes (BCLEP) £9m

ITB £3m

BCLEP (SEP) £4.5m

Wolverhampton City Council £1m

Prudential Borrowing £21.9m

-----------

Total £39.4m

99. As the expenditure on the WCCE is planned to fall towards the end of the overall

construction programme for the WIP it is likely that the majority of its funding will

come from the prudential borrowing funding stream.

100. It is anticipated that Centro will use the income derived from the station car

park to finance the loan repayments.

101. When Mr Adams wrote his proof of evidence, the arrangements necessary to

allow the car parking income to fund the borrowing were still dependent upon the

Secretary of State giving his agreement. On 29th May 201569 the Secretary of State

64 Transport and Works (Applications and Objections Procedure) (England and Wales) Rules 2006, Rule

10(3)(b)(ii) –estimate of costs. Rule 10(3)(a) proposals for funding 65 WCCE/A5 66WCCE/A6 67 Adams PoE APP/P1.1/SCH Table 7.1 68 Adams PoE APP/P1.1/SCH Table 7.2 69 Appendix 1 to Peter Adams’ Supplementary Proof of Evidence APP/P1.4/SCH

18

confirmed his support of the arrangements proposed. The Secretary of State’s

support for that agreement provides significant additional grounds for concluding

that the funding streams relied upon are likely to deliver the necessary funds to

ensure that the scheme proceeds.

102. No objector has sought to question the fact that funding will be forthcoming

to allow the scheme to be delivered.

14. The conditions proposed to be attached to the deemed planning permission

for the scheme, if given, and in particular whether those conditions satisfy the six

tests referred to in Planning Practice Guidance, Use of Conditions (Section ID:21a).

103. The proposed planning conditions are those set out in Mr Ellingham’s

evidence70 (with amendments discussed at the inquiry) and accord with established

TWA precedent.

104. The relevant policy test for use of conditions is that set out at paragraph 206

of the NPPF, namely that conditions should be necessary, relevant to planning and

to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in other

respects.

105. Both the City Council and Mr Ellingham conclude that the relevant policy

tests are met71.

15. Any other relevant matters which may be raised at the inquiry.

106. Mr Young has raised concerns about the impact of the scheme on cyclists.

The Applicant has provided a written response to Mr Young’s points72.

70 APP/P7.3/TOW Appendix 1 71 Ellingham PoE 6.83 APP/P7.1/TOW 72 APP/GEN7

19

107. Mr Gardner has produced a plan which shows two alternative routes for

cyclists73.

108. In their letter of support74 Wolverhampton City Council expressed the view

that: “At this stage, Centro, in partnership with Wolverhampton City Council (WCC),

have done everything reasonable to accommodate cyclist’s needs within the WCCE

proposals……”

109. I invite you to endorse the comment made by the City Council and to find

that Mr Young’s criticisms, whether in relation to alleged lack of information or

failure to make adequate provision for cyclists are wholly unjustified.

Conclusions

110. There is no serious challenge to the Applicant’s case75 (supported by the

evidence of the witnesses including Mr Ellingham76) that the WCCE will deliver the

following key benefits:

a. Improved integration between Metro, bus and rail modes providing new and

improved journeys for the travelling public.

b. Encouraging modal shift from private to public transport.

c. Enhancing railway station accessibility.

d. Providing a connection between the bus station and the railway station and

to all areas along the Metro line 1 route.

e. Facilitating access to HS2 in the future via line 1 and the proposed Metro

Birmingham Eastside Extension to Curzon Street Station.

f. Improving access to investment opportunities in the Black Country and more

widely in the West Midlands region.

g. Encouraging and facilitating the regeneration of land either side of Railway

Drive and the rail station as part of the WIP leading to the provision of over

73 Gardner Ap.2 APP/P3.1/ENG 74 quoted and repeated in SUPP/1/GEN6 75 Centro Statement of Case paragraph 14.1 76 Ellingham PoE 4.24 and 4.34 APP/P7.1/TOW

20

1,500 jobs and the provision of mixed leisure and commercial facilities for

Wolverhampton.

111. The WCCE is deliverable, there is no challenge to the feasibility of introducing

it, and funds are in place.

112. This scheme will deliver very significant benefits to Wolverhampton without

causing any unduly adverse impacts. I urge you to recommend to the Secretary of

State that he should make the order with the modifications put forward and give

the associated planning direction.

Landmark Chambers, Neil Cameron QC

180, Fleet Street,

London EC4A 2HG 9th June 2015