East Midlands Parkway Station (Land Acquisition) Order

Print Print page   Download PDF PDF image

Messrs Berwin Leighton Paisner
Adelaide House
London Bridge
London
EC4R 9HA

Ellis Harvey
Head of the TWA Orders Unit
Zone 9/09
Southside
105 Victoria Street
London SW1E 6DT

Direct line: 020 7944 2483
Fax: 020 7944 2479
E-mail: transportandworksact@dft.gsi.gov.uk
Web site: http://www.dft.gov.uk/

Our Ref: TWA/03/APP/03
Your Ref: VYL/20556/1

22 December 2004

Dear Sirs

Transport and Works Act 1992

Application for the proposed East Midlands Parkway station  (Land aquisition) Order

1. I am directed by the Secretary of State for Transport to say that consideration has been given to the report of the Inspector, Mr R M Barker BEng(Hons) CEng MICE FIHT concerning the application made by your clients, Midland Mainline Limited ("MML"), for the proposed East Midlands Parkway Station (Land Acquisition) Order ("the Order") to be made under sections 1 and 5 of the Transport and Works Act 1992 ("the TWA"). The Inspector held a public inquiry into this application on 22 June 2004.

2. The Order, if made, would authorise MML to compulsorily acquire land and rights over land, and to temporarily use land, required for the provision of the proposed East Midlands Parkway railway station ("the EMP") and associated parking facilities, access roads and highway improvements. The new station would be sited on the existing railway line between Derby and Loughborough adjacent to the Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station. Outline planning permission for the construction of the EMP, including park and ride capacity for up to 1000 cars and associated access and highway improvement works, was granted by Rushcliffe Borough Council on 19 November 2002.

3. The Secretary of State notes that, of the 13 objections originally made, only one was outstanding at the beginning of the inquiry. This was from the Campaign to Protect Rural England ("the CPRE"), who did not appear at the inquiry but who relied on their written representations. Apart from MML's representatives, two supporters gave evidence at the inquiry; and three others gave evidence which registered certain concerns but which neither supported nor opposed the EMP.

4. A copy of the Inspector's report of the inquiry is enclosed. His conclusions are set out in section 8 of his report. The Inspector recommended in section 9 of his report that the Order be made with modifications.

Summary of Secretary of State's decision

5. For the reasons given below, the Secretary of State has decided to make the Order, with modifications.

Secretary of State's consideration of the Inspector's conclusions

The need for the EMP scheme

6. MML stated at the inquiry that the main objective of the scheme was to secure the increased accessibility and use of the railway system as part of a multi-modal transportation improvement for the area. This objective had three key strands - to attract longer distance car users from the M1 on to the main rail line, to provide park and ride based rail links for local commuters into Nottingham, Leicester and Derby, and to provide a rail/bus link to East Midlands Airport. MML contended that the scheme would result in significantly improved access to rail, with a resultant reduction in car trips and distances travelled; would integrate with other local and national transport policies; and would make a major contribution to providing a sustainable and integrated transportation system in this part of the region.

7. The Inspector concluded that there was evident need for the EMP, which had attracted significant support. He was satisfied that it complied with all adopted policies, and he noted that it had the support of the Strategic Rail Authority and that planning permission for it was in place. He accepted that the proposed Green Belt location was the most appropriate of the options considered.

8. The Inspector was also satisfied from the evidence that the scheme would adequately and safely accommodate predicted passenger traffic. In his judgement, it would meet its objectives, and the delivery of those objectives would amount to a considerable public benefit.

9. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that there is evident need for the scheme and that it would meet its objectives. He agrees that delivery of those objectives would be of considerable public benefit.

Environmental impacts

10. The Inspector was satisfied that MML had fully and carefully considered the environmental impacts of the scheme and that, taking account of the proposed mitigation measures, there would be no unacceptable adverse environmental effects. He considered that the scheme's major public benefits outweighed its environmental effects.

11. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the EMP scheme would have no unacceptable adverse environmental effects, especially when weighed against the public benefits it would bring.

Economic assessment

12. The Inspector noted that there was no dissent from the economic assessment of the scheme. Economic benefits would outweigh the scheme's costs and it would produce a positive return on investment over 25 years, being cash positive in 11 years. The Secretary of State sees no reason to dissent from this assessment. He is satisfied, from the evidence before him, that there is a reasonable prospect of the scheme attracting the necessary funding to enable it to be implemented.

The CPRE's objection

13. The main grounds for the CPRE's objection were the encouragement of car use, the contravention of Green Belt policy, the misdirection of financial support and the impact of additional road traffic that would be attracted by the proposed station.

14. The Inspector attached little weight to the CPRE's argument that the EMP would encourage car travel into the Green Belt, in view of the counter-balancing net overall reduction in car journeys both on the M1 and into nearby urban centres. Whilst he accepted that there would be some merit in providing better public transport to existing stations in urban centres, he did not consider that this consideration would outweigh the overall public benefits of the EMP.

15. As regards Green Belt planning policy, the Inspector considered that this was a matter which had already been dealt with by the local planning authority and it had no locus in consideration of the present Order.

16. With regard to the CPRE's contention that facilities at existing city centre stations should be improved, whereas the EMP was likely to divert funding away from those stations, the Inspector saw no evidence to support this assertion. He considered that the EMP would provide a real opportunity to increase accessibility to the rail network. He also considered that the EMP would not prevent the eventual provision of a link to the East Midlands Airport.

17. Whilst the Inspector accepted that there would be an increase in traffic on the A453 in the locality of the EMP, he was satisfied that the access junction would operate satisfactorily and remain within capacity until after the 2015 design year. Junction 24 of the M1 would not, in his opinion, be materially affected and he saw no evidence that the proposal would cause increased congestion locally on the M1. Overall, the Inspector concluded that the CPRE's case against the EMP should carry little weight.

18. The Secretary of State agrees that, for the reasons given by the Inspector, the grounds advanced against the scheme by the CPRE carry little weight when measured against the strong arguments advanced in favour of the scheme.

19. With regard to the objection made by the CPRE on Green Belt planning policy grounds, the Secretary of State considers that the existence of outline planning permission demonstrates that the local planning authority was satisfied that the scheme was acceptable in planning terms. He does not consider that it would be appropriate for him, in the context of the present Order application, to review whether or not it was right for the planning authority to have given such permission. Rather, he is concerned to establish that there is a compelling case for the scheme in the public interest such as would justify the use of compulsory purchase powers.

Other representations

20. With regard to Mr Hymen's concerns regarding future access to North Bridge Cottage from which road haulage and funfair businesses are operated, the Inspector was satisfied that appropriate access would be maintained. In regard to the assurance sought from archaeological groups that adequate precautions would be taken in excavating the area, the Inspector was satisfied that the scheme provided for in condition 16 of the planning permission would address these concerns. The Secretary of State accepts the Inspector's advice on these matters.

Need for compulsory purchase

21. The Inspector was satisfied that all the land and rights to be acquired under the Order were necessary to implement the scheme, and that MML had a clear idea of how it intended to use the land. He was further satisfied that budgetary provision was in place; that no land was proposed to be acquired ahead of time; and that the scheme was unlikely to be blocked by any impediment to implementation.

22. Having regard to ODPM Circular 02/2003 on Compulsory Purchase Orders, the Inspector was persuaded that there was a compelling case for compulsory purchase in the public interest which justified interfering with the human rights of those with an interest in the land.

23. In summary, the Inspector considered that the cumulative weight of all the arguments pointed to a conclusion on balance in favour of MML's proposals. He could see no reason why the proposed EMP should not be built. He therefore recommended that the Order be made subject to the changes set out in the schedule to inquiry document MML/9.

24. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector, for the reasons given, that a compelling case has been made for the scheme such as justifies the use of compulsory purchase powers, and that the relevant criteria in ODPM Circular 02/2003, and in ODPM Circular 06/2004 issued on 31 October 2004, are met.

The Secretary of State's decision

25. For all the reasons given in this letter, the Secretary of State is satisfied that a strong case has been made for making the Order in the public interest. He has therefore decided to make the Order, as recommended by the Inspector, but subject also to the following modifications:

  • in article 12 (transfer of functions under Order) to clarify the distinction between provisions relating to the disposal of land held by MML for the purposes of the EMP and those relating to the transfer of MML's functions under the Order;
  • to insert into article 12 a requirement for MML to obtain his consent to the transfer of any of its functions under the Order; the Secretary of State considers that this requirement is appropriate to enable him to be satisfied that it is in the public interest for any function under the Order to be transferred to another person; and
  • various minor drafting amendments which do not materially alter the effect of the Order.

He is satisfied that none of those modifications would amount to a substantial change in the proposals for the purposes of section 13(4) of the TWA.

26. This letter should be taken as the Secretary of State's notice of his decision as required by section 14(1)(a) of the TWA. A notice of this decision will be published shortly in the London Gazette, as required by section 14(1)(b).

Challenge to decision

27. The circumstances in which the Secretary of State's decision may be challenged are set out in the note enclosed with this letter.

Distribution

28. Copies of this letter and the Inspector's conclusions and recommendation are being sent to those who appeared at the inquiry or submitted representations.

Yours faithfully,

ELLIS HARVEY
Head of TWA Orders Unit