1. preamble

1. PREAMBLE

1.1. I have the honour to report that from 6 to 7 November 2002 I held concurrent public local inquiries at the North Staffordshire Hotel, Stoke-on-Trent for the purpose of hearing objections and representations concerning proposals by the Secretary of State for Transport to make under Sections 10, 14, 41, 106, 108, 125, 239, 240, 246 and 250 of the Highways Act 1980, and under Section 2 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 the following Orders:

1.2. I carried out a site inspection on Friday 8 November 2002 accompanied by representatives of the Highways Agency, the Objectors and other interested parties who had attended the inquiry.


1. preamble

2. introduction

2. INTRODUCTION

2.1. The A500 Potteries 'D' Road runs from the M6 at junction 15 through the Potteries to rejoin the M6 at junction 16, and the section under consideration is known locally as Queensway. The purpose of the scheme is to assist with the economic regeneration of Stoke-on-Trent by relieving traffic congestion on the A500 at the busy Stoke Road and City Road junctions. The scope of the scheme embraces the replacement of the two existing roundabouts at these junctions with two underpasses, the building of new bridges to provide direct links across the A500, priority measures for buses and improved access for pedestrians and cyclists. The Trent and Mersey Canal would be realigned to follow its original Victorian route and the River Trent would be taken from its existing culvert to run in an open channel so as to encourage the proliferation of wildlife and plants. Other measures would include a reduction in noise levels, enhanced landscaping, improved visual effect of existing structures, improved access to the canal towpath and the demolition of existing subways.

2.2. At the start of the inquiry there were 6 statutory objections to the Slip Roads, Side Roads and Compulsory Purchase Orders from the Stoke-on-Trent Communibus charity, and from local residents and businesses. In addition there were 2 valid objections from an interest group and from a resident of Australia. Two objectors appeared at the inquiry, together with one supporter of the draft Orders. Two letters of objection were handed in during the course of the inquiry which was attended by a total of 43 people.

2.3. The main grounds for objection were first, that Communibus would lose so much of their operating area that they would no longer be able to provide a charitable transport service to the less able; secondly, that adjustments could and should be made to some layouts so as to obviate the disadvantageous effects on certain businesses; and thirdly, there would be unacceptable disruption to some local residents during the construction phase.

2.4. Other objectors expressed safety concerns over the likely increase in traffic using narrow residential roads onto which it would be diverted during the development phase; and over the arrangements for fire and rescue vehicles to reach the scene of hazardous fluid spillages should these occur along the length of the proposed scheme. One non-statutory objector challenged the concept of the scheme, believing the allocated funds would be better spent on piecemeal development of existing waterfront facilities.

2.5. There was one request to adjourn the inquiry for three to four months, which I report in section 4 below. I did not accede to the request.

2.6. Counsel for the Highways Agency confirmed that all statutory formalities had been complied with. There were no legal or procedural submissions, and no indication that any party would be making an application for costs.

2.7. During the inquiry it emerged that in one case precise details of ownership and occupation of some parcels of land mentioned in the Schedule to the Compulsory Purchase Order were incorrectly shown. All parties present at the inquiry agreed to modifications to correct both this and other minor factual details in the Schedules to the Orders.

2.8. This report contains a brief description of the A500 Stoke Pathfinder Project and its surroundings, the gist of the cases presented and my conclusions and recommendations. Lists of inquiry appearances, documents, plans and photographs are attached.


2. introduction

3. a description of the a500 stoke pathfinder project and its surroundings

3. A DESCRIPTION OF THE A500 STOKE PATHFINDER PROJECT AND ITS SURROUNDINGS

3.1. The length of the A500 under consideration runs through an urban corridor bisecting the city of Stoke-on-Trent, an area characterised by a mixture of commercial, industrial, residential, educational, civic and community land uses. Close by are the conservation areas of St Peter's Churchyard and Winton Square, together with several notable and listed buildings, including St Peter's Church, the Town Hall and Stoke Railway Station with its associated hotel. There are other buildings of special local interest nearby, including another church and a former tile works.

3.2. Immediately to the north of the main road there are industrial buildings to the east, and a residential area, together with Hartshill Park situated on rising ground, to the west.

3.3. Immediately to the south of the City Road Junction the main road is bordered by industrial development and three areas of terraced housing. Further to the east, but still adjacent to the main road, lies the former Stoke City football ground, now awaiting development.

3.4. The Trent and Mersey Canal together with the main London to Manchester railway line run close to the east of the main road through industrial units and several vacant development sites, the most notable of which is the Station Site located between the canal and the main railway station. This canal is a main feeder for water into the canal system in the Midlands and is a significant navigation route.

3.5. The River Trent flows from south to southwest through the area, mainly in a culvert within the A500 corridor but in an open channel to the south of Whieldon Road. At one point it passes beneath the Trent and Mersey Canal thence under the City Road Junction to a point where it is joined by the Fowlea Brook before continuing onwards under Whieldon Road and over a triple weir by the former football ground. The Fowlea Brook in turn flows in a southerly direction in its culvert beneath the line of the A500 central reserve and weaves to and fro beneath the existing A500 before joining the River Trent at the City Road junction.

3.6. Parts of all these watercourses would be affected by the proposed scheme. They have generally been modified to contain a 1 in 100 year flood in most places, but a risk of flooding has been identified in two areas, one of which is where the River Trent and Fowlea Brook meet. All three watercourses currently take untreated highway drainage water.

3.7. The total length of the trunk road scheme is approximately 3.2 kilometres.


3. a description of the a500 stoke pathfinder project and its surroundings

4. procedural submission - application for adjournment

4. PROCEDURAL SUBMISSION - APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT

Mr Hopkins Shirley

4.1. On the second day of the inquiry, after reading his proof and before his cross-examination Mr Hopkins Shirley applied for an adjournment of several weeks. His concern was that, drawing on his Australian experience in the construction of road tankers, he believed the proposed scheme had design shortcomings with regard to its ability to facilitate rapid ingress of emergency vehicles, and in order to progress his objection to the Orders he wished to consult technical experts in his own country who were not currently available to him because of distance.

4.2. Furthermore, Mr Hopkins Shirley, in his capacity as a claimant to thrones in Scotland, and Poland, to several English titles, and to lands in America, Australia, Samoa and other territories, expressed interest in some of the land described in the Schedule to the Compulsory Purchase Order, but was not equipped with his proof of title. He also wished to challenge the land and compensation costs given in the Highways Agency's statement of case, and on these matters he also needed to take expert advice.

Mr Goatley

4.3. For the Highways Agency, Mr Goatley urged resistance to the application because the Agency's process and procedures regarding the bringing of the proposed scheme to a public inquiry had all complied with the 1994 Highways Procedure Rules (S.I. 1994 No. 3263 The Highways (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 1994.); this included compliance with regularity and with timescales. There was no indication that Mr Hopkins Shirley had been prejudiced in any way by the operation of these rules, and there was no evidence of any attempt, within the time available to him, to instruct such experts to attend as he believed he needed.

4.4. The material dates were:

4.4.1. 29 April 2002. Mr Hopkins Shirley objected to the proposals. His objection was acknowledged by the Highways Agency on 3 May 2002, and further correspondence seeking clarification of the nature of his objection was sent to him on 21 May 2002.

4.4.2. 6 June 2002. Mr Hopkins Shirley stated that he had noted the inquiry was to be held in November, and that he would be attending with his representative.

4.4.3. 13 June 2002. Mr Hopkins Shirley was informed by the Highways Agency that neither land ownership nor compensation were matters for consideration at the inquiry.

4.4.4. 16 July 2002. Highways Agency Statement of case sent to Mr Hopkins Shirley.

4.4.5. 5 September 2002. Mr Hopkins Shirley advised that the inquiry was likely to start in the week commencing 4 November 2002.

4.5. Mr Goatley submitted that Mr Hopkins Shirley had been aware of the inquiry start date since June which meant he had had sufficient opportunity to get all necessary help. There had been no satisfactory explanation as to why he had not taken this opportunity. The scheme was of significant public importance and it was undesirable to hold it up any longer.

Inspector's ruling

4.6. I had no reason for considering Mr Hopkins Shirley to have been prejudiced. All statutory procedures had been complied with, and the parties to the inquiry had exchanged statements of case by 8 August 2002. Mr Hopkins Shirley had been fully informed of inquiry dates throughout the five months leading to its start, and I noted from his letter, forwarded by his sister on 8 August 2002 to the Highways Agency, that he was then planning to attend the inquiry with an adviser.

4.7. The essence of his objections were that there would be inadequate emergency access, and inadequate arrangements for oil and spilt fuel run off on the one hand, and that more land than was necessary was to be compulsorily purchased on the other. I did not perceive any prejudice against his ability to advance these valid objections, and there had been nothing to prevent his experts, had he have consulted them in the months available to him, from submitting their supporting evidence in writing. There was no justification for adjourning the inquiry to allow more time to prepare invalid objections concerning land ownership and compensation.

4.8. I dismissed the application for adjournment.


4. procedural submission - application for adjournment

5. the case for the highways agency

5. THE CASE FOR THE HIGHWAYS AGENCY

The material points were:

Background

5.1. Most junctions on the A500 had flyovers or underpasses, the exceptions being the roundabouts at Stoke Road and City Road in the central section of the Potteries 'D' Road. This section, Queensway, was constructed between 1974 and 1977. It had originally been intended to have the A500 pass over Stoke Road on a flyover and beneath City Road in an underpass. In the event, the underpass and flyover were omitted and roundabouts were built instead.

5.2. Traffic congestion steadily increased and in 1993 a proposal was published both to widen Queensway and to add the flyover and underpass. An alternative of two underpasses had then been discarded on the grounds of cost. Further development was suspended during a governmental review of the national roads programme. The project was subsequently reintroduced into the national road programme and announced in the 1998 Targeted Programme of Improvements (DETR A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England.) as a scheme the primary objective of which was to assist with regeneration and integration. Resulting from a 1999 House of Commons motion, proposals were developed by the design and build contractor appointed by the Highways Agency; and the scheme became known as the A500 Stoke Pathfinder Project.

Policy statements

National policy

5.3. Issuing from the current transport White Paper (A New Deal for Transport Better for Everyone published in July 1996.), the Government's policy for trunk roads (DETR A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England) included the proposed scheme. The new approach to appraisal of such schemes, documented in Guidance on the Methodology for Multi-Modal Studies (GOMMS), was applied to the project, the results of which are addressed in paragraph 8.22 below.

Regional policy

5.4. The proposals complied with the Regional Planning Guidance for the West Midlands (RPG 11.). This document was under review, but the scheme also conformed with the urban renaissance, balance of economic growth across the region, accessibility and mobility, conservation and environmental enhancement, management and development of the region's highway network, and priorities for investment set out in the RPG's new draft.

Local planning policy

5.5. The Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Structure Plan contained policies concerned with enhancing the strategic highway network, improving the free flow of traffic - particularly commercial traffic - on the A500 trunk road, enhancing the local landscape, safeguarding biodiversity, protecting water resources, and enhancing existing conservation areas and green spaces. The proposed scheme conformed closely with these local policies.

5.6. The scheme supported, or conformed with, the current City of Stoke-on-Trent Local Plan's policies of land take-up, provision of pedestrian and cycling facilities, extension of the network of open spaces, improvement of the city's watercourses, reduction of flood risk, enhancement of wildlife habitats, and the conservation of any important archaeological finds. The scheme also conformed with the published deposit draft of the City Plan Review 2011.

Local Transport Plan

5.7. Stoke-on-Trent's Local Transport Plan (City of Stoke-on-Trent Local Transport Plan 2001/02 to 2005/06.) provided for enhancement of the city's economic development by the implementation of the scheme's proposals. Using the Pathfinder approach, the partnership of the scheme's contractor with the City Council was expected to ensure the scheme integrated with, and complemented, the latter's own proposals for adjacent roads published in the Local Transport Plan.

Canal Strategy

5.8. The Stoke-on-Trent Canals Strategy provided for a continuous green corridor along the River Trent suitable for recreation, and identified potential riverside improvements, some of which were addressed by the proposed scheme.

Need for the scheme

5.9. This section of the A500 suffered from severe traffic congestion, particularly during peak times, with long queues building at both roundabouts. The A500 corridor was difficult to cross on foot and on bicycles and so divided the important parts of the city centre. Subways were particularly poor, and existing bridges and walls were both unattractive and had an adverse effect on the city's environment, including its waterways.

5.10. Problems arising from the existing road plan.

5.10.1. Congestion. The busiest sections of the A500 (between Stoke Road and Shelton New Road) carried up to 60,000 vehicles per day, which was well in excess of the desirable maximum flow for a two-lane dual carriageway. Because of the severe congestion at the two roundabouts, which occurred for long periods during the day, it was anticipated there could be no increase in traffic flows until improvements were made.

5.10.2. Safety. Even though they caused only slight injuries on account of the relatively low vehicle speeds involved, most accidents on this section of the trunk road did occur on the approaches to the two roundabouts. Elsewhere within the limits of the proposed scheme the A500 had a significantly higher accident rate than the national average for roads of a comparable standard.

5.10.3. Severance. Due to the difficulties of crossing the A500 corridor, particularly on foot and on bicycles, important parts of the city had tended to become isolated from each other. These included: to the east the university and railway station, and to the west the civic centre and town hall, Hartshill Park, and the conservation area of St Peter's churchyard. Industrial sites, housing and shopping centres lay on both sides, as did several buildings of local interest.

5.10.4. Development. The present congestion and environmental problems brought about by traffic emissions were acting as major constraints to the development of many vacant sites abutting, or near to, the A500.

Purposes of the scheme

5.11. The purpose of the scheme was to improve safety and relieve congestion at the existing roundabouts at Stoke Road and City Road. Its declared objectives were:

5.11.1. To reduce congestion at these junctions by means of a scheme compatible with the city's transport proposals and supportive of the objectives for regeneration and employment.

5.11.2. To assist in the creation of a transport system which encouraged access by the most appropriate form of transport to development sites and to the general urban area.

5.11.3. To provide an environmentally acceptable scheme which protected and enhanced the built and natural environment.

5.11.4. To improve safety for all road users.

5.11.5. To improve access across the A500 trunk road for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport, and in particular to facilitate access to the railway station and Stoke town centre.

Alternative schemes considered by the Highways Agency

5.12. The length of the trunk road under consideration already existed. Given the space constraints imposed by the surrounding urban environment a new off line route was rejected at an early stage, the only exception being relatively minor line adjustments to accommodate new slip roads. Widening to three lanes in each direction was to be achieved largely within the existing highway boundary.

5.13. An alternative replacement of the Stoke Road roundabout with a flyover had been considered, and indeed had been announced by the then Department of Transport in August 1993, before the project was subsequently suspended. In 1998, using the New Approach to Appraisal methods, four contactors tendered design solutions taking account of the 1993 preferred route announcement, but endeavouring to improve on it whilst ensuring that the environmental impact was equivalent to, or better than, the 1993 scheme. The successful submission included replacing the former plan for a Stoke Road flyover with an underpass.

5.14. The gist of alternative solutions considered were:

5.14.1. Taking Stoke Road over or under the existing A500: rejected due to the presence of the canal and the need to limit demolition along Stoke Road.

5.14.2. Provide a flyover for the A500 over Stoke Road: rejected on the balance of environmental disbenefits.

5.14.3. Taking City Road over or under the A500: rejected for reasons similar to those in 5.14.1.

5.14.4. Provide a flyover for the A500 over City Road: rejected on the balance of environmental disbenefits, particularly with regard to St Peter's Churchyard conservation area.

5.14.5. Retaining existing roundabouts with upgraded traffic lights and pedestrian subways: rejected because they would not provide the required levels of access, safety, or environmental improvements.

5.14.6. Geometrical adjustments to the existing roundabouts: rejected because of their inferior landscape and spatial qualities, the reduced availability of public open space land, their continuing adverse impact on the canal area, and highway alignment issues.

5.14.7. At Whieldon Road a layout using the principle of linked slip roads: rejected due to complications connecting into the A50 junction.

Reasons for chosen scheme

5.15. Tender submissions were assessed on quality and price; the winning choice was the contractor with the best overall submission which met the scheme's objectives. One reason for not proceeding with a flyover was that it would have necessitated the demolition of the Glebe Street bridge, generating consequences for the local road network now deemed unacceptable.

The Proposed Scheme

New junctions

5.16. Two existing roundabouts would be removed and replaced by underpasses taking the line of the A500 at both junctions significantly below existing ground level. The underpasses would be more compact than the roundabouts. New bridges at the Stoke Road and City Road junctions would provide direct links across the A500 at a similar level to the present roundabouts. Both these bridges would include priority measures for buses, and improved access for pedestrians and cyclists. Both Stoke and City Roads would be straightened through the centre of the former roundabouts.

Waterways

5.17. At Stoke Road the Trent and Mersey Canal would be realigned to follow its 19th Century route which would improve navigation for boat users. At City Road the River Trent would be taken out of its culvert to run in an open channel on a new course to the west of the A500. Existing vertical concrete walls would be replaced with sloping grassed banks.

Shelton New Road to Stoke Road

5.18. The A500 would be widened to three lanes in each direction with on and off slip roads at the Shelton New Road and Stoke Road junctions. On the western side of the A500 there would be improvements near to Stoke Road including a new open channel for the Fowlea Brook.

Stoke Road to City Road

5.19. This section of the A500 would remain as two lanes in each direction but would be rebuilt within the current wide central reservation. The existing A500 carriageways would be converted into new link roads running on either side of the new carriageways between Stoke Road and City Road. Some sections of the link roads would be reduced in level to enable the canalside wall to be reduced in height. There would be a new northbound on-slip just to the south of Glebe Street bridge, and a new southbound on-slip to the south of Stoke Road. Glebe Street bridge would remain unchanged. Emergency lay-bys for traffic travelling in both directions would be positioned in the vicinity of the underpasses.

City Road to A50

5.20. New links would be built on either side of the A500 between City Road and Whieldon Road, and new slip roads would be provided south of Whieldon Road to connect the links to the A500. The existing Whieldon Road underpass would be retained. The A500 would be widened to three lanes in each direction within the existing carriageway boundary.

Measures to reduce environmental effects

5.21. Placing sections of the trunk road below existing ground level would itself reduce the environmental effect of the scheme. To this end additional works were proposed, namely:

5.21.1. Low noise road surface treatment.

5.21.2. New environmental barriers and replacement of existing barriers with less intrusive ones.

5.21.3. New tree and shrub planting and the treatment of retained structures with high quality materials.

5.21.4. Enhancement of watercourses to improve appearances and benefit wildlife.

5.21.5. New footpaths and cycleways adjacent to the new open channel for the River Trent.

5.21.6. With regard to the canal conservation area, a reduction of the number of bridges spanning it; improved pedestrian and cycle access to it; and improved screening, new paving, new lighting, new tree and shrub planting, and the provision of seating along it.

5.21.7. The enhancement of St Peter's churchyard conservation area with new planting and the realignment of the Church Street footpath outside the churchyard's boundary wall.

5.21.8. New lighting along the trunk road corridor to minimise light spillage.

5.21.9. Demolition of the existing subways and their replacement with improved access and safer road crossings for pedestrians and cyclists.

Benefits of proposed scheme

5.22. The benefits of the proposals were expected to be:

5.22.1. Assistance with the economic regeneration of Stoke-on-Trent by the removal of development constraints.

5.22.2. Relief of the current severe traffic congestion on this section of the A500, particularly at peak periods on the Stoke and City Roads roundabouts. Traffic capacity would increase to accommodate the forecast 50,000 vehicles per day, with peaks of 4,500 vehicles per hour, in each direction.

5.22.3. Provision of better access for public transport, pedestrians and cyclists across the A500 corridor, and improved safety along it.

5.22.4. Reductions in total emissions from road traffic, including reductions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide.

5.22.5. A general improvement in the immediately surrounding townscape's quality and character.

Effect on road safety

5.23. Compared with existing conditions, the proposed scheme would offer a significant reduction in the number of road casualties along the A500. On the other hand, there presently having been a relatively large measure of traffic suppression, these reductions would be offset by additional accidents brought about by induced traffic. COBA analysis results for the 30 year evaluation period were:

Traffic Forecast ScenarioDecrease in CasualtiesDecrease in No. Personal Injury
FatalSeriousSlight
Low Growth3.23035255
High Growth04131

Environmental Effects

Environmental Statement

5.24. A full Environmental Statement assessing the environmental impact of the proposed scheme was published with the draft Orders in March 2002 in accordance with EC Directive 85/337 as amended by EC Directive 97/11 as applied by Section 105A of the Highways Act 1980 as amended by the Highways (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1999. It contained detailed assessments of the scheme's impacts on landscape integration, noise, air quality, townscape, the built heritage, archaeology, geology, the water environment, biodiversity, accessibility, journey ambience, and disruption due to construction, together with assessments of all mitigation measures proposed for the scheme.

Landscape integration

5.25. The scheme supported the majority of national, regional and local land-use policies. The expected minor loss of development land would not fit with local policies, but this disbenefit would be more than outweighed by the other potential benefits of the scheme for development. The scheme would have no effect on agriculture.

Assessment: Beneficial.

Noise

5.26. Noise levels were predicted to rise due to increased road traffic capacity and usage. Environmental barriers would reduce some of the impact. Although some properties and amenity areas within the study area would experience a reduction in noise, the majority of properties and some amenity areas would experience perceptible increases.

Assessment: Adverse.

Air quality

5.27. Within and adjacent to the A500 corridor air pollution levels were predicted to rise marginally, although no dwelling would experience adverse effects. Otherwise local air pollution would reduce after the road works were completed, compared with existing levels.

Assessment: Neutral.

Townscape

5.28. Improved screening and the lowering of the main road would reduce visual intrusion. The townscape would further benefit from restoration of the river and canal; the reduced size of the road junctions and some existing structures; and the improved design of new and existing structures, including the use of better quality finishes.

Assessment: Large Beneficial.

Built heritage

5.29. For the three conservation areas: there would be a moderate beneficial effect on the canal area, a slight beneficial effect on St Peter's Churchyard, and a neutral effect on the Winton Square (Winton Square is the area of the railway station and associated North Staffordshire Hotel.) conservation area.

Assessment: Slight Beneficial.

Archaeology

5.30. Out of the one scheduled ancient monument and 40 sites of regional or local importance, the scheme would have a slight beneficial effect on 12 sites, a moderately adverse effect on one, a slight adverse effect on 8, and a neutral effect on the rest.

Assessment: Neutral.

Geology

5.31. There are no designated geological sites within the study area. Within the 165,000 cubic metres of material to be removed to licensed landfill sites, there would be 40,000 cubic metres of contaminated material. Removal of this contaminated material together with an increase in hard cover would reduce exposure to contaminated soils and would reduce the potential for contaminating water resources.

Assessment: Neutral.

Water environment

5.32. Apart from one negligible decrease and one negligible increase there would be no change to flood risks from the watercourses.

Assessment: Neutral.

5.33. Water quality would be improved because of the removal of long stretches of the River Trent and Fowlea Brook from culverts; introduction of oil interceptors, spillage containment and reed beds to control pollution from road run off; ceasing A500 drainage into the canal; replacement of roundabouts with underpasses which would reduce the probability of a serious accidental spillage; and the removal of road drainage connectivity to groundwater.

Assessment: Slight Beneficial.

Biodiversity

5.34. The overall effects on the canal would be neutral. The River Trent and Fowlea Brook would benefit from reductions in culvert lengths and from habitat creation. Other areas have negligible to lower biodiversity value or would not be affected by the proposals.

Assessment: Minor Gain.

Accessibility

5.35. Accessibility over the A500 would be improved, and severance would be reduced for pedestrians, especially the disabled, elderly and children. Cyclists would experience a lesser beneficial effect.

Assessment: Moderate Beneficial.

Journey ambience

5.36. The scheme would bring reduced traffic congestion, improved road layout, improved navigation on the canal, and improved links for pedestrians and cyclists. Separation of through traffic from local traffic and a co-ordinated system of direction signs would reduce traveller stress. The scheme would enhance views on local roads on the one hand, but restrict them on the A500 on the other.

Assessment: Large Beneficial.

Disruption

5.37. Construction would last for two years. Work would be sequenced to maintain full traffic flow on the A500 as well as access across it. Construction traffic would be directed away from residential areas and sensitive buildings. There would be some night time working. Flows on the River Trent and Fowlea Brook would be maintained by means of temporary diversions in order to avoid flood risk, but navigation on the canal and access to the towpath would be interrupted for a limited period during winter.

Assessment: Temporary Slight Adverse.

Cumulative effects

5.38. The majority of localities would experience a mixture of adverse (relating to noise), beneficial and neutral impacts which would result in no overall cumulative effect. Some properties would experience adverse cumulative effects resulting from a low adverse visual effect and an increase in noise levels.

5.39. A few properties on Liverpool Road would experience a beneficial cumulative effect made up of a medium beneficial improvement in visual impact and a decrease in noise levels. Conversely, some other properties would experience an increase in noise levels.

5.40. There would be a beneficial cumulative effect on both the canal and the River Trent.

Disruption during construction

5.41. During construction existing junctions would be operated under signal control; two traffic lanes on the A500 would be maintained, albeit with reduced widths; noise, dust and vibration would be minimised; and there would be no high noise activities such as pile driving at night. Construction works would have a moderate adverse impact on journey ambience.

Economic Assessment

Scheme cost

5.42. The estimated scheme cost, including works by other authorities, compensation, design and supervision was £35.5M (excluding VAT), based on first quarter 2001 prices.

Transport Economic Efficiency

5.43. A standard cost benefit analysis evaluation using the TUBA (Transport User Benefit Appraisal.) and QUADRO (QUeues And Delays at ROadworks.) models calculated the future financial benefits of the scheme, discounted to a 1998 base year, to be:

Journey time reliability

5.44. Based on Governmental Advice (Guidance on the Methodology for Multi-Modal Studies, Volume 2, Appendix I) the impact of the scheme on journey time reliability was assessed as slightly to moderately beneficial.

Wider economic impacts

5.45. The proposed scheme would provide access to an area of Stoke-on-Trent with recognised regeneration status under the Single Regeneration Budget initiative (A national scheme to provide funding in support of regeneration activities carried out in partnership with local groups.). Additionally, the city's flagship development of the adjacent railway site would not proceed without the A500 scheme. The overall assessment of the proposals were that they would achieve the Government's Wider Economic Impacts objective.

Appraisal Summary Table

5.46. An Appraisal Summary Table had been produced by the Highways Agency to conform with the Guidance on the Methodology for Multi Modal Studies. This is at Inquiry Document 2.31A.

Effect of the Orders

Trunk Road and Slip Roads Order

5.47. The effect of the Trunk Road and Slip Roads Order would be to authorise the Secretary of State:

5.47.1. To construct approximately 3.2 kilometres of new main road, generally along the line of the existing A500, between a point on the south side of Shelton New Road overbridge and a point on the north side of the A50 interchange north overbridge, which, on completion, would become a trunk road.

5.47.2. To construct 14 sections of slip roads to connect the main route with other highways at Shelton New Road, Stoke Road, under Glebe Street Bridge, City Road, Whieldon Road and the A50.

Side Roads Order

5.48. The effect of the Side Roads Order would be to authorise the Secretary of State:

5.48.1. To improve the following highways:

5.48.2. To stop up the following highways:

To stop up an existing private means of access to the west of the Whieldon Road underpass and replace it with new means of access.

5.48.3. To divert the Trent and Mersey Canal running from a point 97 metres east of Stoke Road to a point 55 metres west of Stoke Road on the north of the new trunk road, and provide a new length of watercourse with a minimum width of 8.85 metres and a minimum depth of 1.5 metres.

5.48.4. To construct a new bridge over the realigned Trent and Mersey Canal.

De-trunking Order

5.49. The effect of the De-trunking Order would be to authorise the Secretary of State to cause 223 metres of the existing A500 to cease to be classified as a trunk road.

Compulsory Purchase Order

5.50. The effect of the Compulsory Purchase Order would be to authorise the Secretary of State to purchase 141 parcels of land or the right to enter those parcels in the City of Stoke-on-Trent. This land was required to be available at the appropriate time to construct the new trunk road and to improve the existing one; to construct or improve other highways; to provide new means of access; to divert the Trent and Mersey Canal; to execute works on other watercourses, including their diversion; to use during the course of construction; and to mitigate the adverse effects of the scheme on its surroundings. The land to be compulsorily purchased amounted only to that which was sufficient to build the scheme and reasonably mitigate its effects.

5.51. Land was required now so that work may commence in September 2003. The scheme was included in those targeted by the Government, and funds would be available for construction in that year.

Proposed Modifications

5.52. Following receipt of objections and representations to the draft Orders, the Highways Agency had proposed modifications to the scheme which would affect three of them as follows:

Affecting the Trunk Road and Slip Roads Order

5.53. In response to representations, and to overcome an objection to the Trunk Road and Slip Roads Order, the Highways Agency had proposed providing a U-turn facility at the Whieldon Road underpass, which would not require any further land. The Trunk Road and Slip Roads Order would need to be amended as I indicate in Appendix C to provide the necessary short additional length of highway.

[Note. This proposal is illustrated in Appendix A6 to the Highways Agency's proofs of evidence at Inquiry Document 4.1.9.]

Affecting the Side Roads Order

5.54. To overcome objections from cyclists the Agency had agreed to provide dedicated bus lanes across the Stoke Road and City Road bridges, together with consequential on-road facilities for cyclists. Detailed design matters would have to be agreed with the local highway authority.

Affecting the Compulsory Purchase Order

5.55. Land registry details, recently to hand, informed the Highways Agency that the rights to enter, inspect and maintain a retaining wall on land adjoining the City Road junction were already possessed. Nothing further would be required, so plots 17/1 and 17/2 should be removed from the Schedule to the Compulsory Purchase Order.

5.56. The Agency had agreed to amend proposals with regard to the dimensions of a raised planting bed in St Peter's Close so as to overcome an objection concerning a footway access. The size of plot 4/1 should be reduced from 55 to 38 square metres.

5.57. After CPO publication it had been agreed that works to part of an existing Church Street retaining wall could be carried out without the need for encroachment onto privately held land. As a consequence the Agency had requested plots 4/3 and 15/2 be deleted from the Schedule to the Compulsory Purchase Order, and the sizes of plots 4/2 and 15/1 be amended to 402 and 57 square metres respectively.

5.58. In response to a representation, and to overcome a further objection, design of the proposed culvert works in Brook Street had been amended in order to reduce the impact on adjacent offices and to maintain full traffic movement at the junction of Brook Street and St Peter's Close. Plot 1/41 would no longer be needed and should be deleted from the Schedule to the Compulsory Purchase Order.

[Note. The Highways Agency's modified proposals for this area of the scheme are illustrated in Appendix A3 to the proofs of evidence which is at Inquiry Document 4.1.9.]

5.59. Plots 19/1 and 19/2 had been conveyed to Claymoss Properties Ltd.

Consultation

5.60. All relevant statutory and non-statutory organisations have been consulted. In particular there were consultations with:

5.60.1. Stoke City Council, British Waterways and the Environment Agency on environmental issues.

5.60.2. English Heritage, Stoke City Museum, the Potteries Heritage Society and the Commission of Architecture and Built Heritage on heritage issues.

5.60.3. The Environment Agency and Stoke City Council on drainage issues, including the proposed diversion of the River Trent.

5.60.4. Developers and landowners with sites and land near the proposed scheme.

5.61. Interested organisations and members of the public were first given the opportunity to comment on, object or support the proposals during a public exhibition in January 1993. Subsequently the draft Orders were published and a public exhibition of the current proposals was held on 11 to 13 April 2002 at the start of a 6 week consultation period.

5.62. English Nature had confirmed that in their view the scheme was not contentious due to its urban setting.

Views of Other Authorities

5.63. Staffordshire County Council, Stoke City Council, the North Staffordshire Chamber of Commerce, the North Staffordshire Partnership and the Freight Transport Association all strongly supported the proposed scheme.


5. the case for the highways agency

6. the case for the supporters

6. THE CASE FOR THE SUPPORTERS

The material points were:

Staffordshire County Council

6.1. The County Council welcomed the proposals which were expected to have a significant and beneficial impact on traffic congestion, to contribute to a more sustainable transport system for the conurbation, to enable other employment land to be brought forward into the development programme and to support the economic strategies for the area, including the North Staffordshire Regeneration Zone plan.

Stoke-on-Trent City Council

6.2. The City Council believed the scheme was vital to its regeneration, transport and environmental aspirations. It was supported on the grounds that first, it would remove a long standing barrier to inward investment; secondly, it would permit development particularly of brown field sites; thirdly it would benefit non-car access across the A500, and improve links between communities on either side of the road; and fourthly, the proposed quality design would improve the amenity and appearance of the A500 corridor.

North Staffordshire Chamber of Commerce and Industry

6.3. Surveys of local businesses had concluded that congestion caused by the current road layout was costing in the region of £152 million per year. Construction of the project was expected to act as a catalyst for investment in business, housing and the general environment.

North Staffordshire Partnership

6.4. Site development was at the core of the North Staffordshire Partnership's economic regeneration efforts, which would only be accomplished after significant improvement to traffic flows along the A500. Current traffic congestion and increased journey times were contributing to a poor image of the area and were a deterrent to investment.

Freight Transport Association

6.5. The Freight Transport Association supported the proposed scheme because it was expected to reduce congestion and driver frustration as well as reduce noise and pollution.


6. the case for the supporters

7. the case for the objectors

7. THE CASE FOR THE OBJECTORS

7.1. Apart from the President of Living Streets (An initiative run by the Pedestrians Association.) most of the other objectors broadly supported the scheme, and agreed the need for it on de-congestion and/or regeneration grounds. The President of Living Streets was opposed to most, if not all, aspects of the scheme, and indeed sought to challenge its benefits. I report this group's concerns first before going on to examine the remaining detailed objections and misgivings of corporate and individual objectors. There were no counter-objections to any of the alternative proposals.

Living Streets

The material points were:

Government policy

7.2. The group preferred the creation of a new regeneration partnership embracing, among others, Stoke City Council, English Partnerships and the Highways Agency to use the budgeted figure to promote an urban renaissance. City centre roads should not be part of the nation's high speed trunk road network, and the Highways Agency should not be building city centre access roads which were the responsibility of local authorities. If the A500 were a local authority road £35.5M would not be spent on it.

Disbenefits

7.3. Increasing the capacity of the A500 would bring added traffic, casualties, noise and air pollution to the centre of Stoke generating a negative impact on the health of central Stoke residents. The several negative side effects would also include loss of potential development land, greater visual intrusion, loss of grassed areas and the provision of only three crossing points for pedestrians and cyclists.

Regeneration

7.4. Following the demise of the area's former industry, if central Stoke were to flourish the dominance of transport needed to be reduced. The Trent Valley's urban renaissance should be based on mixed-use waterside development, not on a project that treated its valuable central area as a transport corridor.

7.5. Lacking expertise in the field, the Highways Agency was not an agency for regeneration. There was no involvement of English Partnerships, the proper authority for these matters.

7.6. A scheme which was forecast to increase traffic flows to 80,000 vehicles per day by 2020 could not contribute to regeneration and integration.

7.7. The Agency's economic assessment did not attempt to evaluate the scheme's regeneration benefits, and the evidence for its ability to deliver regeneration or social integration was not in scale with an investment of £35.5M.

Inclusion

7.8. The scheme would exclude those people without cars, and would not provide for express bus services between the city centre and the suburbs. Conditions for pedestrians and cyclists would not be improved on increasingly busy city centre roads.

Rebuttal by the Highways Agency

Government policy

7.9. The Agency was already working with Advantage West Midlands, Stoke City Council and others to assist regeneration. Improving the A500 was an important first step to assist others to regenerate Stoke. These agencies, together with the North Staffordshire Partnership, all considered that implementing the proposed scheme was the key to regenerating the city. A vision for Stoke's regeneration existed and had been articulated, as evidenced by the new City Local Plan which brought forward measures to improve the urban environment in which people lived, worked and enjoyed themselves.

7.10. The Agency would not be participating in the building of city centre access roads. It was the improvement in the A500 trunk road which required the existing roundabouts to be upgraded by replacing them with underpasses. That this would also improve city centre access would be a beneficial consequence which would in turn contribute to regeneration initiatives.

Disbenefits

7.11. Even though car journeys would not be discouraged, accessibility improvements would positively encourage more sustainable transport choices which in turn could reduce the need for local vehicle trips and offset the claimed addition to casualties, noise and air pollution.

7.12. Computer modelling did not show any increase in casualties or accidents over the evaluation period. Noise levels would increase since there would be more traffic, but they would be mitigated with quieter road surfaces, noise barriers and noise insulation. Assessment of traffic emissions using high traffic growth revealed no adverse air quality impact. No dwellings would experience air quality below objective standards either in the opening year or 15 years after opening. Total road traffic emissions, including carbon dioxide, would reduce.

7.13. The majority of the scheme would be built within existing highway boundaries; only 0.71 hectares of third party land would be taken. Small parcels of land would be required from four development sites but they amounted to less than 10% of the areas in each case. There would be no prejudice to the intention to develop.

7.14. In the majority of cases there would be a beneficial impact upon the townscape quality and character in the surrounding area.

7.15. Most of the grassed areas to be lost lay within the central reservation of the existing trunk road where they were of little benefit. Conversely, replacement areas would be provided at Stoke Road, Liverpool Road, Shelton New Road, City Road and Maclagan Street.

7.16. Crossing points at Stoke and City Roads would be much improved, and Glebe Street bridge would be retained. No need for further crossing points had emerged. Should development of the Stoke station site justify a further crossing, that would not be prohibited by the A500 proposals.

Regeneration

7.17. The Agency did not agree that, either in land terms or visually, transport infrastructure dominated the Trent Valley. The A500 corridor would not be expanded, and much of the proposed highway improvements would be below ground level. The canal already was a recreational and visual asset in the valley and the scheme would present important redevelopment opportunities to transform the urban character and visual quality of the area. It would not be feasible to remove the present A500 from alongside the canal, river and railway and build a bypass without causing major environmental disruption and the replacement of city centre and development site access roads.

7.18. Advantage West Midlands were the regional development agency for the West Midlands responsible for administering the single regeneration budget. The A500 scheme had been developed in consultation with this agency which supported it, and it also had the support of the North Staffordshire Partnership. There was full coordination between all the local agencies concerned with local regeneration initiatives.

7.19. With regard to the claim that increased traffic flows could not contribute to regeneration, this was not a view held by the collaborating parties concerned with the project. The scheme was part of an integrated transport strategy believed by those concerned locally to be an essential precursor to removing congestion and to improving access to development sites.

7.20. Finally, techniques had not yet been developed which would enable regeneration benefits to be included in an economic assessment.

Inclusion

7.21. Bus lanes were now to be provided across the Stoke Road and City Road bridges, and the proposed scheme would also provide safer, pleasanter and more direct routes for cyclists and pedestrians, both across the A500 and on routes parallel with it.

7.22. Better bus routes and freedom from congestion would create an environment in which companies and local authorities would be encouraged to develop new bus schemes and improved timetables.

7.23. Once the A500 scheme was in place the local highway authority would have greater scope for reconsidering highway layouts in the city centre, and without the congested roundabouts there would be less incentive for traffic to rat-run through adjacent local streets. Both these factors would lead to improved conditions for cyclists and pedestrians in the city centre. Contrary to the claim by Living Streets, the proposed scheme did therefore address the needs of those without access to cars.

Statutory objector

The material points were:

Loss of facilities

7.24. Communibus, a local charity which provided transport for those who, for reasons of age, disability or poverty, had no car, operated from rail company land adjacent to the Stoke Road roundabout. Canal realignment would require part of this land to be taken (Plot 6.1 on the Schedule to the Compulsory Purchase Order), the consequence of which would be the elimination of the charity's office building together with a sizeable part of its ambulance parking area. Such action would run counter to policy E2 of Stoke-on-Trent's current Local Transport Plan which called for proposals to take account of the mobility needs of people with disabilities. Realignment of the canal was not essential to the Pathfinder Project's aims, and Communibus wished the proposed scheme to be modified to remove the threat to their premises. This could be achieved by substituting a flyover for the A500 at Stoke Road instead of the planned underpass.

Interruption during construction

7.25. Vernon Road, the access route into the Communibus site, would be obstructed by major engineering work during the scheme's two year construction period. Additionally, heavy plant would intrude into the charity's currently barely adequate operating area. If on completion Communibus were able to resume operations from the current site (should means have been found to maintain its size) then relocation would still be necessary for the period of construction.

Traffic congestion

7.26. The project would not rectify current traffic congestion unless the A500's three-lane stretch were to be continued to its junction with the A50.

Rebuttal by the Highways Agency

7.27. The Agency had offered to provide alternative accommodation within the same general site in order to enable Communibus operations to continue. Alternative accommodation would be provided in lieu of compensation. If operations were to continue then there would be no violation of the Local Transport Plan policy with respect to access for the disabled. Further to that, the proposed improvements to the A500 would create the possibility of providing good access for people with mobility difficulties using the services of transport operators.

7.28. A flyover at the Stoke Road junction had been rejected because it would have an adverse environmental and visual effect, it would provide no opportunity for cyclists and pedestrians to cross the main road, there would be no additional open space, and there would be no pedestrian access to the enhanced canal.

7.29. With regard to the size of the A500, including the slip roads there would be three lanes in each direction as far south as the A50 junction.

Valid objector

The material points were:

Land take

7.30. The objector mentioned in paragraph 4.1 above, having informed the inquiry of his family's claim to the title of much of the land specified in the Schedule to the Compulsory Purchase Order, submitted that too much land was to be acquired for the proposed scheme, and that the figure of £800,000 for land and compensation costs in the Highways Agency's economic assessment was inaccurate because it did not represent a fair market value for all the land and rights involved.

Safety

7.31. The design of the A500, running through two underpasses in an urban area, did not provide adequate arrangements for emergency access and rescue should there be an accident involving a large vehicle loaded with hazardous materiel. Emergency access by means of hard shoulders was available on motorways; similar arrangements should be provided on the A500.

7.32. In addition, the design failed to make adequate provision for oil and fuel run-off in the event of a major spillage along the proposed route.

Rebuttal by the Highways Agency

Land take

7.33. Much of the build would be on land within the present highway boundary. Small amounts of additional land would be required for minor road changes, for a new slip road and for watercourse alterations. Nearly all land take would be from vacant development land; no houses would be removed, and only two domestic garages needed to be demolished. Acquisition and compensation costs had been advised by the local Land Valuer, by which the Highways Agency stood.

Safety

7.34. With regard to emergency access and hard shoulders, the scheme's design complied with the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges in all material respects. There was no requirement on this stretch and class of road to provide hard shoulders, nor was it feasible so to do because land constraints precluded the provision of a road to motorway standards. There was a maximum travel of 500 metres from the nearest access to reach any point on the trunk road.

7.35. The proposals incorporated oil interceptors on all outfalls for spilt fuel arising from a road tanker accident, and in this regard the A500 would be no different from the other 860 kilometres of urban roads in the area. A spillage risk assessment, published in the project's Environmental Statement, showed that the level of risk was considered acceptable. There was no need for additional spillage containment measures. There would be no material deviations from the Ministry's approved standards.

Written objections

Compensation

7.36. If a proposed advertising hoarding would be affected, compensation should be payable.

7.37. Rebuttal. There was a restrictive covenant on the relevant land preventing erection of permanent or temporary structures.

Journey times

7.38. Journey times for those accessing the Hyde Industrial Estate might increase.

7.39. Rebuttal. Figures were not available, but the Agency anticipated journey times would reduce. In particular, those using the full length of the A500 would save four minutes in peak hours and two to three minutes in off peak hours.

Access to Lytton Street

7.40. Concerns over vehicular access to Lytton Street when approaching on City Road from the east would affect property values.

7.41. Rebuttal. This objection could be overcome by modifying the proposed scheme to provide a U-turn facility at Whieldon Road. This was the reason for the modification proposed in paragraph 5.53 above.

Disruption during construction

7.42. The Environmental Statement did not adequately address the substantial disruption which construction would cause to residential properties close to the highway improvement and River Trent diversionary works. Partial and selective demolition of the worst affected houses should be considered.

7.43. This disruption would drive tenants away causing a consequential loss of rental income.

7.44. Rebuttal. It was accepted that there would be disruption for residents of some streets immediately adjacent to the project, the impact of which had been fully addressed in the Environmental Statement. Mitigation measures would be in place in order to reduce the impact to reasonable levels, and the resultant scheme would amount to a considerable improvement to the area concerned. Demolition was neither required nor justified, particularly as improvements on completion of the scheme would include provision of a new landscaped riverside footpath and cycleway, and an attractive replacement screen wall, set further back from the houses, to provide visual and noise protection.

Access to a private garage

7.45. Concern was expressed over the restriction of access to a private garage behind Cornwallis Street when works had been completed.

7.46. Rebuttal. The designated access to this garage lay along the lane to the west of Cornwallis Street. The land which was the subject of future restriction was owned by the Stoke City Council and did not form a legal access to any of the Cornwallis Street garages. As the objector did not have a right to use the land in question the Highways Agency did not accept it had a duty to provide an alternative route, regardless of the size of vehicles desiring to use it.

Prejudice to future development

7.47. Compulsory purchase of plot 21/4 would prejudice the future development of this land which would be compounded by the Agency's use of currently spare drainage pipe capacity.

7.48. Rebuttal.

7.48.1. This plot was included in the Schedule to the Compulsory Purchase Order so as to allow the Agency access to maintain an existing drainage pipe scheduled for use as a drainage outfall. The pipe is already used to carry road drainage. There would be no new restrictions on development of the land in question.

7.48.2. The landowner did not have planning permission for development of any description. Therefore there was no justifiable reason for expending additional public funds to lay a new drainage pipe when it had the right to use spare capacity in the existing pipe.

Other submissions

The material points were:

Concern for the effect in North Street

7.49. There would be increased noise experienced in North Street on completion of the scheme because of increased vehicular speed. Noise insulation of individual houses should be considered. The existing screen wall should incorporate acoustic dampening on one side and environmental screening on the other.

7.50. Rebuttal. The Environmental Statement addressed the effects on these properties and concluded that there would be a noticeable increase (up to 4dB(A)) due to increases in traffic flow and speed. Any increase in noise would be curtailed by the use of low noise surfacing on the A500. Acoustic dampening would be examined at the detailed design stage, and if proved cost effective would be incorporated in works to the screen wall. Detailed noise assessment had yet to be undertaken; preliminary assessment showed that several properties in North Street, including that of the correspondent, were likely to qualify for offers of noise insulation at ground or first floor level. Proposals included landscape planting on the North Street side of the existing brick screen wall, and this was assessed to be more attractive than the existing plain brick finish.

Concern over increased use of rat runs

7.51. Local councillors expressed concern that Campbell Road and adjacent streets, already used as rat runs by northbound traffic seeking to avoid congestion on the two roundabouts, would experience significant increase in such use during the scheme's construction. A variety of traffic regulatory measures would be needed, and the Highways Agency should consider creating a new facility for local residents by way of a sufferance payment.

7.52. Rebuttal. The build contractor would maintain two lanes of traffic in each direction on the A500 throughout the construction period, albeit with limited lane closures for specific activities such as erecting bridge beams. The Agency would cooperate with the local highway authority over the matter of traffic restriction measures to deter traffic from rat running during this period; elected local members would participate in this cooperation. The Agency had no authority to provide recreational or leisure facilities when the scheme did not affect those already in place.


7. the case for the objectors

8. conclusions

8. CONCLUSIONS

8.1. Bearing in mind the submissions and representations I have reported, I have reached the following conclusions, reference being given in brackets to earlier paragraphs where appropriate.

Compliance with Policy Statements

8.2. The interest group - Living Streets - expressed a wish to see the budget currently set aside for the scheme passed to a new form of regeneration partnership, the task of which would be to promote urban renaissance in a different way, largely based on reduced dominance of transport. Apart from the knowledge that the proposals had already been developed in close partnership with all appropriate local authorities, particularly those concerned with the area's regeneration, and apart from the knowledge that all these authorities had expressed full support for the current scheme, the fact that its provision is a matter of Government policy negates any requirement to question the need for it (5.3).

8.3. In other respects I am satisfied that the proposed scheme complies with all published and adopted regional and local policies, including those concerning the Trent and Mersey Canal, and that it would integrate with the Local Transport Plan (5.4 - 5.8).

Conclusion

8.4. It seems to me that the necessity for uprating the A500 Potteries 'D' Road has long been identified at all levels in the planning hierarchy, and endorsed by all relevant planning bodies. The proposal being advanced by the Highways Agency complies with these endorsed documents.

Need for the Scheme

8.5. There is a near universal view of the pressing need for the scheme, with which I agree. The need for regeneration in and around the city of Stoke-on-Trent has long been recognised, as has the restraint on further development caused by traffic congestion on the A500. This very busy trunk road has only two at-grade junctions in its central section, and these have now become severe bottlenecks which restrict the road's capacity to handle the forecast increase in traffic which further regeneration would bring (5.9)(5.10.1)(7.1).

8.6. Other factors contributing to the need are:

8.6.1. Safety. The A500 has a high accident rate which is forecast to go down with the building of the proposed scheme (5.10.2).

8.6.2. Severance. The A500 corridor divides the city in two, with much of its centre on one side, and facilities such as the station and university on the other. Access across the main road, particularly for pedestrians and cyclists is both difficult and hazardous, and in public transport slow and uncertain (5.10.3).

8.6.3. Poor environment. On the one hand the area is visually unattractive, and on the other emissions from slow moving vehicles at ground level give rise to environmental problems which discourage contemplation of development in the road's immediate vicinity. Many potential sites lie vacant awaiting the scheme's implementation (5.10.4).

8.7. Provision of an A500 trunk road improvement scheme has been a matter of governmental policy since 1993 (5.3).

Conclusion

8.8. For reasons of the commercial and industrial regeneration being dependent on relief from congestion, road traffic safety, relief from severance, and a pressing need for environmental improvement, I am convinced there is a compelling need for a scheme of the nature now being proposed.

The Proposal

8.9. To satisfy the need for it the scheme has five purposes, namely: to reduce congestion, to facilitate access by appropriate forms of transport to development sites and the city's general urban area, to protect and enhance the environment, to improve road safety, and to improve access across the A500 corridor. There are no challenges to these purposes (5.11).

8.10. At an early stage there had been a proposal to build a flyover to carry the trunk road over the Stoke Road junction. However, recent developments in appraisal methods have shown that replacing both current roundabouts with underpasses would be a better choice, mainly because continuing with the flyover solution would lead to consequences for the local road network now deemed unacceptable (5.15).

8.11. Other alternatives were considered and the winning choice was that which was assessed to be the best overall one which met the scheme's objectives. Its features would include:

8.11.1. Relief of the congestion at the two roundabouts using underpasses taking up less room (5.16).

8.11.2. Increasing the capacity of the A500 to three lanes in each direction so as to be able to cope with forecast traffic increases (5.18- 5.20).

8.11.3. Provision of wide, surface level bridges with facilities for buses, pedestrians and cyclists to cross the trunk road safely and conveniently (5.16).

8.11.4. Improvements to three waterways to turn them into environmentally and visually attractive recreational areas, including improved navigation on the Trent and Mersey Canal (5.17).

8.11.5. Measures to reduce the otherwise adverse effects of a scheme designed to encourage more traffic, and other measures to enhance the existing environment for the benefit of local residents and users. These would include demolition of the presently forbidding subways (5.21).

The Case Against the Proposal

Living Streets

8.12. The claim by Living Streets is that a city centre road should not be part of the nation's high speed trunk road network; increasing the capacity of the present A500 would have environmental disbenefits; proceeding with the scheme as proposed would lead to loss of development and amenity land; increased traffic flows could not contribute to regeneration and that certain sections of the community would be disadvantaged (7.2 - 7.4)(7.6)(7.8).

8.13. The scheme should be discarded in favour of a different approach centred on mixed use waterside development rather than one which treats the city's valuable central area as a transport corridor (7.2).

8.14. I do not think this different approach has sufficient merit in the context of a project aimed at assisting with the regeneration of this significant area of the West Midlands, the importance of which has been nationally recognised through its inclusion in the Government's Targeted Programme of Improvements. All parties and authorities concerned with implementing regeneration proposals strongly support the scheme on the grounds that without it regeneration in the form of redevelopment of presently vacant sites cannot proceed until the problem of traffic congestion has been overcome (6.1 - 6.5). In my view, the alternative of a waterside development has no prospect of meeting this primary requirement, for which reason it should be discarded.

8.15. With regard to Living Street's detailed objections to the proposal, I have carefully studied the Highways Agency's responses to them and as a result am satisfied that they have each been satisfactorily rebutted. There remains nothing of sufficient substance in this objection to overcome the manifest advantages of the scheme.

8.16. Conclusion. The matters put forward by Living Streets are effectively objections not so much to the need for a scheme of some description, but rather to the proposed solution being an upgrading of the trunk road lying in the city's central corridor. However, the problems needing to be addressed in order for Stoke's regeneration to move forward are of such a magnitude that in my view they can only be overcome by removing the severe congestion on the Stoke Road and City Road roundabouts. To solve these congestion problems there seems to me to be no realistic proposal other than that represented by the scheme under consideration. Nor do its disbenefits, highlighted by the President of Living Streets, appear to me to outweigh the public benefit of the published scheme.

Conclusion

8.17. I can find no reason to believe that the proposed scheme would not be the best option of those considered by the Highways Agency. The Living Streets alternative is inappropriate to investigate further for the reasons I give in paragraph 8.16 above.

Environmental Assessment

8.18. The Environmental Statement for the scheme, complying with European and United Kingdom directives, is set down in inquiry documents 2.7 and 2.8, and I note that all statutory and a number of non-statutory bodies have been consulted during the course of the scheme's assessment; their comments being included within the Environmental Statement. There is no significant challenge to the accuracy or relevance of the Environmental Statement (5.24)(5.60).

8.19. My consideration of the environmental effects of the proposed scheme leads me to conclude that they would generally be beneficial, or at least neutral, exceptions being:

8.19.1. The majority of properties and some amenity areas within the study area would experience a perceptible increase in noise because of the increased road traffic the scheme would undoubtedly bring (5.26).

8.19.2. Pollution levels within the A500 corridor would rise marginally, but dwellings would not be affected (5.27).

8.19.3. There would be a moderately adverse archaeological effect on one building, if it were to remain (5.30).

8.19.4. There would be temporary interruptions to navigation on the canal together with access to its towpath during construction (5.37).

8.20. This assessment was not entirely agreed by the President of Living Streets who claimed that increasing the capacity of the A500 would generate a negative impact on the health of Stoke residents, and would visually degrade the area by intrusion and a consequential loss of grassed areas (7.3). I have considered these claims carefully, but do not agree with them because first, noise nuisance would be largely (although not entirely) mitigated (7.12); secondly, the air quality would not be below standard at any dwellings (7.12); thirdly, most of the grassed areas to be lost already lie within the highway boundary, conversely new areas would be provided in locations where they would have amenity value (7.15); and fourthly, not only would the visual intrusion of the trunk road itself reduce after being sunk into underpasses but many areas would be visually enhanced with landscaping and by the use of good quality attractive materials (5.28). There were no dissensions of substance to this view I have reached, either at the inquiry or in the written submissions.

Conclusion

8.21. I confirm that the Environmental Statement and other environmental information, including comments and representations by statutory consultees and members of the public, have all been taken into account in reaching my conclusion which is that, while there would be some disbenefits to the public, they would be of a relatively minor nature and would be overwhelmingly offset by the scheme's benefits both to the public and to the future well being of the area.

Appraisal Summary Table

8.22. An Appraisal Summary Table for the proposed scheme is set out in inquiry document 2.31A. Apart from environmental issues, the appraisal addresses safety, economic and other matters which I have reported in paragraphs 5.22 to 5.45 and addressed in paragraph 8.19 above.

8.23. On the topic of accessibility, Living Streets disagreed with the Highways Agency's assessment, claiming instead that there would be exclusion of those without cars, there would be inadequate provision of some bus services, and that conditions for pedestrians and cyclists would not improve (7.8).

8.24. Following further consultation, the Agency has agreed to address provisions for buses within the ensuing detailed design of the road layouts, and I firmly believe that by this means these objections by Living Streets would be overcome. This is because providing dedicated bus lanes in appropriate areas, particularly over the Stoke Road and City Road bridges would not only enhance the ability of public transport to operate efficiently, but would improve conditions for pedestrians and cyclists too. More generally, overcoming the present severe congestion at the two roundabouts would then give the local highway authority the ability to make other arrangements in favour of those travelling without cars (7.21 - 7.23).

Conclusion

8.25. With this improvement to the scheme in place I am therefore able to support the appraisal.

Support for the Scheme

8.26. There is near universal support for the scheme not only from those agencies and authorities specifically concerned with its outcome, but also from those who have made representations; that is from those objecting to matters of detail as well as from those directly agreeing with it (6.1 - 6.5)(7.1).

Objections to the Orders

Trunk Road and Slip Roads Order

8.27. With regard to the objection that traffic congestion on the trunk road would not be satisfactorily ameliorated because its three lane stretch would not reach as far as the A50 junction (7.26), I find that this would not be the case. This is because all three lengths (that is to say: north of Stoke Road, south of City Road, and the length in between) would indeed have three lanes in each direction. With regard to the stretch in between the two junctions, the third lane in each direction would consist of a link road running along the existing A500 carriageway, and these would be available as well as the two lanes of the new carriageway (7.29).

8.28. Proposed modification. The objection concerning vehicular access to Lytton Street when approaching on City Road could be overcome by the provision of a U-turn facility at Whieldon Road, to accomplish which I recommend the Slip Roads Order be appropriately modified. This proposed modification had the agreement of all parties to the inquiry (7.40)(7.41)(5.53).

Conclusion

8.29. It seems to me that there are no remaining objections of substance to the Trunk Road and Slip Roads Order which cannot be overcome by agreed modifications to it. In my opinion it would be expedient to make the Order in order to improve the national system of routes for through traffic, taking account of the requirements of local and national planning, including the requirements of agriculture, and I therefore conclude that there are no reasons why the Order should not be made.

Side Roads Order

Loss of facilities

8.30. There seems to me to be a reasonable concern that the scheme, both when completed and particularly during construction, would be so intrusive, and would so drastically curtail the operations of Communibus, that its charitable aims of providing local transport for the disadvantaged could no longer be met (7.24)(7.25). In the steady state situation after the scheme comes into operation I believe a solution to the problem ought to be available as suggested by the Highways Agency by means of the provision of alternative accommodation, but care would be needed that the charity's residual vehicle parking area would be sufficient for its needs. This may entail negotiations with the holders of railway land. Although these are matters beyond the scope of the inquiry and of my consideration of the draft Orders, they are nevertheless matters which would be within the Secretary of State's powers to address, and for this reason I bring them now to his attention. It is my considered opinion that resolution of the concern by this means would be reasonable: altering plans for re-aligning the canal would not (7.27 - 7.28).

Safety

8.31. Having carefully considered the safety concerns based on the one hand on the claim of inadequate provision for emergency access and rescue, and on the other of inadequate arrangements for liquid run-off in the event of a major spillage along the proposed route (7.31 - 7.32), I am satisfied that the scheme's design complies without deviation with national standards in these respects. I therefore conclude that there is insufficient substance to these objections (7.34 - 7.35).

Journey times

8.32. There is no evidence to support the claim that journey times for those accessing the Hyde Industrial Estate would increase. On the contrary, those figures which are available show the opposite is likely to be the case. I therefore conclude there to be no substance in this objection (7.39).

Private access

8.33. The concern that an objector's current route into his private garage would be interrupted cannot be entertained by the Secretary of State because the objector has no legal right over this land. The designated access for which he does have a right would not be adversely affected (7.46).

Increased use of rat runs

8.34. Rat running through adjacent residential streets occurs now because of severe congestion on the two roundabouts, and the proposed scheme is designed to overcome it. To minimise any increase in rat running during construction both lanes of the trunk road in each direction would be available except when specific activities require their closure. Traffic regulatory measures lie beyond the authority of this inquiry, and are in any event the responsibility of the local highway authority, but it would be by these means that the objection could be accommodated (7.52).

Proposed modifications

8.35. The Agency's proposals to provide dedicated bus lanes across the Stoke Road and City Road bridges together with consequential on-road facilities for cyclists can all be progressed at the scheme's detailed planning stage; they would not materially affect the Side Roads Order as drafted (5.54).

8.36. As drafted, the Order refers to the stopping up of subways at each location in the singular. This should be modified to reflect the fact that there are more than one subway at each of the two major road junctions.

Summary

8.37. There are no objections to the proposed replacement of the one stopped up private access, and other means are available to overcome the concerns of Communibus. There are no matters of substance to persuade me that the Side Roads Order should not be made as drafted.

Conclusion

8.38. I am satisfied that the proposals for improving or stopping up the highways in question and for the stopping up of a private means of access in the Side Roads Order are necessary to meet the scheme's objectives. With regard to the highways, other reasonably convenient routes would be available before the highways are stopped up, and with regard to the one private means of access, a replacement means of access would become available before the stopping up takes place. None of the individual objections, nor their sum, are sufficiently substantial to overcome the merits of the proposed scheme. I have carefully reviewed the Authority's proposed amendments to it with regard to the provision of bus lanes and consider that these improvements would have no material effect on the Order's substance. Other modifications are of a minor editorial nature, and I agree they should be made.

Detrunking Order

Proposed modification

8.39. It was agreed at the inquiry that the lengths of road referred to in the Schedule to the draft Detrunking Order were expressed with the decimal point incorrectly sited by three places to the left. The Order would require a minor modification to correct this.

8.40. Otherwise I am satisfied that the de-trunking of the proposed lengths of the existing A500 is necessary to meet the scheme's objectives. There are no objections to the draft Order, and in my opinion it would be expedient to make the Order in order to improve the national system of routes for through traffic, taking account of the requirements of local and national planning, including the requirements of agriculture. I therefore conclude that there are no reasons why the Order should not be made.

Compulsory Purchase Order

8.41. Objections to the Compulsory Purchase Order concern:

8.41.1. Loss of part of Communibus' operating area (7.24).

8.41.2. A general claim that too much land, inadequately valued, was to be taken for the proposed scheme (7.30).

8.41.3. Compensation to be paid for the affect of the Order on use of a proposed advertising hoarding (7.36).

8.41.4. Consideration of demolition of some residential properties because of intolerable disruption (7.42).

8.41.5. Compensation for loss of rental income (7.43).

8.41.6. Perceived prejudice to the future development of one plot mentioned in the Schedule to the Order (7.47).

8.41.7. The necessity for noise insulation of some properties together with other acoustic amelioration on completion of the scheme (7.49).

8.42. The adverse effects of the Order on the Communibus area are those I have already addressed in paragraph 8.30 above. With regard to the other objections:

8.42.1. No evidence has been advanced that, apart from those areas agreed by the Highways Agency no longer to be necessary as a result of further negotiations with the landholders concerned, any of the land in the Schedule to the Order would be superfluous to the requirement for successful completion of the proposals. There has been no challenge of substance to the land acquisition and compensation costs provided by the local land valuer.

8.42.2. Compensation, whether or not it would be justified, is not a matter to be addressed under the terms of the Compulsory Purchase Order (7.37).

8.42.3. There would undoubtedly be an adverse effect by way of disruption to residents of some streets in the vicinity of construction work. But when I set these disbenefits against the mitigation measures to be put in place during construction on the one hand, and against the significant improvements in the area's amenity after the project is completed on the other, I believe a reasonable balance lies with proceeding with the scheme as proposed, rather than unjustifiably and unnecessarily demolishing properties (7.44).

8.42.4. This applies similarly to the concern expressed by a landlord about disruption during the construction period driving away his tenants and reducing his rental income. In any event, provision of compensation is not a matter within my authority to address.

8.42.5. There would be no prejudice to any permitted site development plans (7.48.2).

8.42.6. Qualification for some noise insulation of some properties would be addressed when detailed noise assessment is undertaken. It is not a matter to be addressed by the Secretary of State at this stage (7.50).

Proposed modifications

8.43. The modifications set out in paragraphs 5.55 to 5.58 above are either proposed by the Highways Agency as a result of negotiations with landholders to overcome objections, or have been found more recently to concern rights which are already held. I agree they should all be embodied before the Order is made.

8.44. The inquiry was informed that Scheduled plots 19/1 and 19/2 had recently changed hands. The draft Order would need modification to reflect the correct land ownership.

Ancillary Matters

8.45. It has been confirmed that the Compulsory Purchase Order and Schedules only cater for the area of land necessary to build the scheme and reasonably mitigate its effects (5.50). Land is required to be available for construction to begin in 2003 (5.51).

Conclusion

8.46. I am satisfied that all the land in the Compulsory Purchase Order is required to implement the scheme, and the Order addresses no more land than is necessary. If the Orders are made, work would start in September 2003, and for this reason I am also satisfied that no land is proposed to be acquired ahead of time. In my view there is a compelling case for the scheme to be implemented in order to overcome the acute traffic congestion so as to enable regeneration of Stoke-on-Trent to progress. Likewise, having regard to paragraph 8 of DOE Circular 14/94 there a compelling case for the land's compulsory purchase in the public interest. The loss of any interests could be met by compensation.

8.47. None of the individual objections, nor their sum, are sufficiently substantial to overcome the merits of the proposed scheme. I have carefully reviewed the Authority's proposed amendments to the Order and find the grounds for advancing them to be convincing. I agree they should be made.

Final Conclusion

8.48. The cumulative weight of the above arguments points to a clear conclusion in favour of the Highways Agency's proposals with regard to the Trunk Road and Slip Roads Order, the Side Roads Order, the Detrunking Order and the Compulsory Purchase Order; I can see no reason why they should not be made with the minor modifications I have indicated.


8. conclusions

9. recommendations

9. RECOMMENDATIONS

9.1. I recommend that:

9.1.1. The A500 Trunk Road (Stoke Pathfinder Project) and Slip Roads Order 200 be modified as referred to in paragraph 8.28 above, and detailed in Appendix C, and that the Order, so modified, be made.

9.1.2. The A500 Trunk Road (Stoke Pathfinder Project) Side Roads Order 200 be modified as referred to in paragraph 8.36 above, and detailed in Appendix C, and that the Order, so modified, be made.

9.1.3. The A500 Trunk Road (Stoke Pathfinder Project) Detrunking Order 200 be modified as referred to in paragraph 8.39 above, and detailed in Appendix C, and that the Order, so modified, be made.

9.1.4. The A500 Trunk Road (Stoke Pathfinder Project) Compulsory Purchase Order (No ) 200 be modified as referred to in paragraphs 8.43 and 8.44 above, and detailed in Appendix C, and that the Order, so modified, be made.

I have the honour to be
Sir
Your obedient Servant

R F Shercliff
Inspector


9. recommendations