Representation by The Joint Councils - Gloucestershire CC, Cheltenham & Tewkesbury (The Joint Councils - Gloucestershire CC, Cheltenham & Tewkesbury)
- Date submitted
- 22 March 2024
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Gloucestershire County Council, Cheltenham Borough Council, Tewkesbury Borough Council – ‘The Joint Councils’ – Relevant Representation for the M5 Junction 10 Improvements Scheme Development Consent Order (DCO), March 2024. Gloucestershire County Council (GCC), Cheltenham Borough Council (CBC) and Tewkesbury Borough Council (TBC), referred to as ‘the Joint Councils’, are the host authorities for the GCC Major Projects Team (‘the Scheme Promoter’) M5 Junction 10 Improvements Scheme DCO (‘the Scheme’). The Joint Councils have long recognised the need for the Scheme to upgrade the only restricted junction on the whole of the M5 motorway and the transport network adjacent to Junction 10 of the M5. The Scheme would help increase the highway capacity around M5 Junction 10 and on the A4019. This would alleviate existing pressure on the local road network in and surrounding Cheltenham. The Scheme would also facilitate the transport demands generated by planned housing and economic growth around Cheltenham. It is the Joint Councils’ view that the Scheme would play a vital role in facilitating delivery and success of housing and economic growth opportunities set out in the Joint Core Strategy (JCS) adopted by the Joint Councils. In addition to informing the emerging Cheltenham, Gloucester and Tewkesbury Strategic and Local Plan (CGTSLP), Issues and Options Consultation, recently undertaken under Regulation 18 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 (as amended). The Joint Councils have been engaging with the Scheme Promoter through the original application for HIF and continued through the pre-application stage, providing advice on the design and impacts of the Scheme and discussing elements of the Scheme that GCC as the Local Highway Authority will become responsible for once the DCO is approved and the Scheme is constructed, together with ongoing updates in respect of the adopted JCS and the emerging CGTSLP. While the Joint Councils are fully supportive of the need and principle of the Scheme, there are a number of matters which require attention during Examination and within the draft DCO. These include: Environment • Air Quality (ES Chapter 5): o The potential air quality impacts of construction Heavy Duty Vehicle (HDV) movements in combination with traffic management routes (diversions) that potentially increase HDV flows and thus emissions on the road network. o The potential impacts of the Scheme on PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations at the identified future human health receptors within the transect locations. o The Joint Councils request dust mitigation measures to be submitted, as part of an updated Environmental Management Plan (EMP) to address this matter. • Noise and Vibration (ES Chapter 6): o The noise and vibration mitigation measures proposed. The Joint Councils are aware that the current assessments show that several residential properties would exceed the acceptable noise threshold that is exceeded which necessitates the need for potential noise insultation or temporary rehousing. o The Joint Councils request a Noise and Vibration Management Plan which will be included in the 2nd iteration of the EMP at the Detailed Design stage. Biodiversity (ES Chapter 7): o The principal concern for biodiversity is that the Scheme will result in loss and disturbance of habitats and introduction of structures and artificial lighting which will, in turn, result in severance and fragmentation of ecological connectivity. o The Joint Councils welcome that the Scheme includes a suite of embedded mitigation measures including habitat creation which aim to enhance and improve the habitats on site through increasing the area and quality of more valuable habitats, through creation and subsequent management. o A Biodiversity Net Gain assessment report concludes the project has the potential to achieve a net gain in excess of 10 % for habitats units. o The Joint Councils request that an Outline Landscape and Ecology Management Plan (LEMP be submitted to give assurance about the aims and objectives of proposed habitat creation and subsequent management and that this will deliver right habitats required to reduce the effect of the Scheme on priority species. The Joint Councils welcome that an outline LEMP has been requested by the Examining Authority. • Road Drainage and Water Environment (ES Chapter 8): o The potential water quality impact to the Severn Estuary and a robust justification for it being scoped out. o Water quality data (or summary of current conditions) for the watercourses in the study area. o Activity and associated mitigation that is likely to specifically impact the water environment. o The Joint Councils request that a summary of activity and associated mitigation, that is likely to specifically impact the water environment is provided, including a WFD water quality summary. • Landscape and Visual Impacts (ES Chapter 9): o The reported operational effect of visual receptor VR4 at Year 15, the reported magnitude of change at visual receptor VR5 at Year 1, and the reported operational effects of visual receptor VR24 at Year 1 and 15. The Joint Councils disagree with the conclusions on these reported effects mainly because existing vegetation on all three receptors will be removed and proposed planting could not replace their current situations. These would result in a change of views from vegetated buffers to views dominated by infrastructure including noise barriers. o The Joint Councils note that the management measures within the REAC and ES chapter are not yet included within the 1st iteration of the EMP. The Joint Councils request the inclusion of these measures in the 2nd iteration along with a Landscape and Ecology Management Plan. • Cultural Heritage (ES Chapter 11): o The Joint Councils would expect that the DCO application is supported by an Archaeological Management Plan (AMP). The Joint Councils are aware that no consultation on the AMP has been carried out and request an update from the Scheme Promoter on the progress of the AMP. The Joint Councils welcome that an outline LEMP has been requested by the Examining Authority. • Materials and Waste (ES Chapter 12): o The Joint Councils would welcome further information on whether the significant amount of primary materials (excluding steel) will be sourced from within Gloucestershire, the South West or elsewhere. This is to help with regional reporting where significant quantities are reported in the Aggregates Working Party reports as well as with planning for overall provision within the relevant Local Aggregate Assessments. o It is acknowledged that the actual contract/quarry is likely to be confidential at this point, but a broad location would be helpful. • Population and Human Health (Chapter 13): o Safety of pedestrians and equestrian users of the underpass during dusk till dawn given it will not be lit to allow the movements of bats. It is noted that the underpass will not be lit during dusk and dawn to allow the movement of bats. From an ecological perspective, this is recommended though it does pose a safety risk to pedestrians and equestrian users which the Joint Councils welcome further information on how this matter would be addressed. Climate (ES Chapter 14): o The approach to the carbon assessment. In particular, there is no consideration of the manufacturing of raw materials into products. The Joint Councils also disagree with the current method of estimating operation and maintenance emissions, specifically the assumption on the correlation between the increased use of low-carbon vehicles and the operation and maintenance estimates from tailpipe projections. o The climate effects of the Scheme on the Study Area without mitigation have not been carried out, which has not been explicitly stated or justified anywhere. This needs to be clarified within the Study Area. Transport Assessment, Highways and Design • The Joint Councils are pleased to see the inclusion of a detailed Walking, Cycling and Horse-Riding Assessment and Review (WCHAR) and a full Transport Assessment in the DCO application. • The Joint Councils are in full support of the scheme in the context that it provides the necessary infrastructure to deliver the identified Sustainable Growth to the West of Cheltenham. • The scheme presents an opportunity to manage the network with support of wider transport interventions around the central urban settlements of Cheltenham and Gloucester. • There are a number of complementary sustainable transport schemes being delivered to enable multi-modal travel to operate more efficiently. These are as identified within the overarching transport strategy for Gloucestershire. • Furthermore, the existing network constraints will be resolved to allow a clear hierarchy, routing and network management. This will help manage both local and national highway networks in both existing and future scenarios. • The Joint Councils recommended that the information within the Transport Assessment and WCHAR reports be summarised taking account of the detailed comments provided separately to the Scheme Promoter, as part of the ongoing negotiations. Draft DCO Detailed comments on the draft DCO and DCO Requirements have been provided to the Scheme Promoter separately. The Joint Councils will continue engaging with the Scheme Promoter to seek to agree necessary revisions in the DCO where possible. At this stage, we note the following: • Compensation arrangements for tree works and hedgerow removal – Paragraphs 4.134 and 4.136 of the Explanatory Memorandum to the draft DCO do not specify who the compensation is payable to for the tree works and if compensation is payable in relation to hedgerow removal pursuant to Article 36 of the draft DCO. • Street works – Paragraph 4.36 of the Explanatory Memorandum to the draft DCO does not explain why Article 11 of the draft DCO has to depart from the model provisions in that it authorises interference with any street within the Order limits, rather than just those specified in Schedules 3 and 4 of the draft DCO. • Consultation on the discharge of DCO Requirements – The Joint Councils require greater involvement in the consultation process prior to discharge of DCO Requirements. The Joint Councils should be named as prescribed consultees in relation to all relevant DCO Requirements in Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the draft DCO. • Responsibilities on the discharge of DCO Requirements – The draft DCO is unclear on some of the Requirements are required to be discharged by GCC as the County Planning Authority, when for issues such as noise, are the role of CBC and/or TBC as the Local Planning Authorities. • Protective provisions – The Joint Councils require clarification on whether draft protective provisions in Schedule 9 of the draft DCO will be finalised prior to the DCO coming into effect or will this need to be a precommencement obligation. Developer Contributions The Joint Councils are actively engaging with the Scheme Promoter in considering the proposed methodology in respect of developer contributions. Current engagement across the relevant developers and the Local Planning Authorities is ongoing.