As you may remember, we wrote to Sefton Council back in June. You can read the letter here.
In it, we conveyed concerns expressed by the public over the announcement of two new logistics hubs, to be located alongside the A5036. We also wanted to clarify their connections to the LCR's Freeport plans.
The reason we raised this is because these kinds of development aren't in tune with the steps that need to be taken to reduce traffic on the A5036.
And, unless traffic reduction measures are pursued, this plays into the hands of both National Highways and Peel Ports, who are pushing for the new Port Access Road to increase capacity.
After a delay caused by the general election, Sefton Council subsequently responded offering a meeting, which took place at the beginning of September.
Peter Dowd MP, who was cc'd on our letter, also attended the meeting with this falling within his Bootle constituency, along with Council Officers and a representative of the LCR's Freeport team.
The minutes are now approved and we're in a position to report on our meeting, as follows.
Reaffirmed opposition to Port Access Road
Both Peter Dowd MP and the Leader of Sefton Council, Marion Atkinson, began by reaffirming their opposition to National Highways' existing plans for the port access road.
Why are more logistics hubs being built alongside the A5036?
We highlighted that both the Atlantic Park and Bridle Road developments are alongside the A5036 and will therefore invite more HGV traffic onto the main port access route and surrounding roads.
The Bridle Road site is being led by Total Developments
We felt that Sefton Council’s Maritime Corridor project and consultation had laid the ground for these developments, with road/junction widening schemes proposed in both locations.
We wanted to understand how this is reconciled with statements made by previous council Leader (Cllr Maher) in 2020 about the negative impacts the Freeport project could have on South Sefton communities and the environment, given that Atlantic Park’s website advertises itself as a customs sub zone to support Liverpool’s new Freeport status.
The responses were as follows.
Cllr Atkinson advised that, as per Sefton Council’s current Local Plan, Atlantic Park is a designated employment site, and has been for at least 50-60 years which makes it attractive to developers. The council has a role to seek economic stability and it is hoped that these sites will lead to job creation in the local area, which is important where council wards experience high levels of deprivation. It is estimated that Atlantic Park may generate up to 450 jobs locally.
Peter Dowd added that in relation to the land at Bridle Road, Santander originally had plans to expand, creating more jobs locally, but after they pulled out this opportunity was lost so other employment opportunities were welcomed.
Executive Director, Stephen Watson, stated that the Council's position isn't 'jobs at any cost', but both locations are good opportunities for employment. Because of their nature as employment sites, he added that they may not need environmental impact assessments as part of the planning process.
For our part, whilst we understand why the specific sites themselves may not need environmental impact assessments, we remain concerned that the traffic each site will generate will feed into the ongoing, wider environmental and health impacts being felt by the surrounding communities.
Are these developments being driven by the Freeport?
Responding to the sites' connections to the Freeport, Liverpool City Region Freeport representative Giles Jones explained the distinction between the Freeport and the maritime port and went on to address Atlantic Park’s website content specifically.
He advised that it is factually incorrect that the website, or any other promotional material is advertising Atlantic Park as an approved customs subzone.
We learned that this text on the Atlantic Park website is factually incorrect.
Only 3 tax and customs sites have been identified in the city region: Parkside (St. Helens); 3MG (Halton) and Wirral Waters (Wirral).
To date, just 3 businesses have been assigned Freeport status further to completing an application process with HMRC: two in Knowsley and one in St Helens.
Whilst individual companies/tenants who may operate within Atlantic Park (or Bridle Road) could, in future, apply for specific status’ associated with a Freeport, this has not happened, and the criteria applied to become an approved customs site operator are stringent.
We also discovered that it is incorrect for the website to promote Atlantic Park as "A development by" the LCR Freeport. The Freeport has no involvement with the development at Atlantic Park.
We learned that the Atlantic Park development is not an LCR Freeport initiative
He took away an action to contact the agents representing Atlantic Park to correct this misleading information on their website and we are chasing this.
He went on to clarify the maritime port and Peel Ports’ involvement in the Freeport project. The Port of Liverpool itself has no Freeport status as either a tax or customs site.
He offered an example of how the Freeport could be good for South Sefton, citing Parkside in St Helens - a former colliery and prime land for regeneration - as one of the three LCR Freeport tax sites.
There are proposals to develop a strategic rail freight interchange at this location which would be of regional and national significance, with the potential to link directly to the maritime port, therefore reducing HGV movements between these destinations.
He added that projects like this reflect the LCR Freeport’s commitment to multi-modality in the way freight moves across the region.
Clearly, we welcomed this as an example of how logistics should be done, but we remain of the belief that, at its most basic level, a successful Freeport will mean an even busier maritime port, with more and more HGV movements, unless schemes such as the above are prioritised over road haulage at every stage.
Executive Director, Stephen Watson added that he was part of the discussions around the Freeport opportunity at the time it was raised, so was in a position to confirm that Sefton Council never put forward sites for Freeport status for the reasons covered in Cllr Maher’s press release.
Either way, won't this mean more HGVs?
We asked whether attendees agreed that, whether or not directly Freeport related, these sites will lead to an increase in traffic and HGV movements to/from the maritime port and between the ‘approved’ Freeport sites?
Cllr Atkinson stated that she lives in the area and sees the traffic on the A5036 and believes that much of it is cars, not HGVs. The Maritime Corridor scheme seeks to mitigate their impact by introducing active travel measures (walking/cycling) and bus lanes, but she advised that "the area needs these employment sites". She added that land has recently been secured alongside Lunt Meadows with 100 hectares to be preserved by National Trust, offering this as confirmation that the council is aware of its net zero commitments.
In response to this, we pointed out that whilst it is true that a large proportion of the traffic on the A5036 is cars, HGVs are the worst polluters on the UK's roads, take up more space (and therefore capacity) and contribute most to the air, noise and vibration pollution experienced by local residents.
Peter Dowd reiterated his earlier point, advising that he has opposed plans for a new port access road in some form or other for over 25 years. Equally, he opposed the proposed widening of the A5036 because of the impact increased HGV movements would have on the adjacent communities.
He stated that this hasn't being the 'popular' position and has created tensions across communities within his constituency, but he believes that the "road/no road" argument is only part of the bigger picture, referencing his work in this area at a City Region level (see below).
He also recalled that during the formation of Sefton's Local Plan, the council had a real challenge to fend off unbridled development. Again, he said this stance was unpopular at the time but has proven to be a success in protecting certain sites from over development.
We clarified that our campaign is not “anti-everything” and that no one opposes new jobs, or affordable houses, but it is our belief that the public’s perception of, and concerns around, these logistics hubs stem from a lack of communication of the reasoning behind them.
What has happened to the vision set out in ARUP report?
Another of the things that struck us about the proposed logistics hubs is that they are out of step with the recommendations outlined in the Council's own report from 2020.
Commissioned by Sefton Council, The ARUP report proposed the creation of inland hub(s), connected by alternative port logistics technology, as a way of tackling the impact of a port operating in a residential setting, like ours.
Whilst the sites are inland, these new logistics hubs will be entirely road and HGV dependent, passing homes, schools and places of work. And, without incentives to use public transport and active travel (walking & cycling), they also run the risk of contributing to greater car movements in the area.
We asked what had happened to this ambition?
Stephen Watson advised that nothing has changed since the Sefton Council/ARUP report was published in 2020 and the appetite to pursue these remains. Throughout this time, the Council's focus has been on 2 things:
How does it connect people to jobs? and
How does it minimise the impact of more goods movements/port activity?
We learned that the ARUP work has not moved to the second phase (full feasibility) as it has needed certainty around the available budget, which returns to what will or won't happen with National Highways' Port of Liverpool Access Road.
Without understanding what money is available, it would simply be a repetition of the 2020 study.
He advised however that the Council and the LCRCA and the LCR Freeport team do have dialogue about these issues and potential solutions.
He went on to say that the Port Access Steering Group (PASG) has always had a desire to address these challenges, taking into account changes in travel behaviours post-Covid and the loss of a major job site in the area (Santander).
He stated that this remains on the agenda and enthusiasm is still there, but PASG has not met for a long time because of the pause in the road project. However, its Technical Working Group, tasked with exploring alternatives to road, has been.
We asked if it was possible to provide an update on this piece of work. How much progress has been made, what modes have been explored and how many solutions are under consideration? We are waiting for a response to this request.
Peter Dowd confirmed that so much hinges on the budget allocated to this scheme. He highlighted previous comments he has made; that if the port is so important to the regional and national economy, it should have a budget to match to ensure that the solution delivered is the correct one; not the cheapest.
For our part, it is still concerning to learn that PASG has not been meeting while the current impasse around the road continues.
This is because both the Department for Transport and Peel Ports have repeatedly told us that PASG is the correct forum for discussions on port access.
How much progress could have been made on non-road alternatives in this forum since it was formed, over a decade ago, if it had been a priority?
It remains our view that PASG should have clear objectives, deadlines to deliver them, be more transparent, and be made to consult with the communities who will have to deal with the consequences of its decisions.
The work of this group should be a vital means of pushing back on any road proposal either now, or in the future.
The ideal position to have been in would be for new Transport Secretary, Louise Haigh, to be presented with a study of viable alternatives to demonstrate that road was not the best, or even the only option.
Imagine if this work had been completed and had fed into the ongoing assessment of all road projects.
Coming back to the solutions proposed in the ARUP report, Cllr Atkinson said that any alternative modes of port infrastructure bring their own problems in terms of green belt status of land near motorway network, such as the M58. For rail solutions, there are pinch points where freight and passenger services meet, with passenger taking priority.
We acknowledged the complexities around identifying the ‘right’ solutions - and locations for any inland hubs - and reconfirmed that our campaign does not take a NIMBY stance when it comes to green belt.
However, based on our understanding, alternative modes of moving freight have the ability not just to bypass the A5036, but to connect even further afield. The M57 and the M62 are already home to huge commercial and industrial units.
This could mean that any inland hub need not be located in Sefton at all, if the space to do it without disturbing green belt simply isn't there. Knowsley, Halton or St Helens could be interested in the opportunity. Even Port Salford sits within the LCR’s Freeport Zone, despite its Manchester location.
All in all, it remains frustrating to see the possibilities presented by Freeport and its decarbonisation and innovation agendas, with the spectre of a port access road still on the table, which would be completely at odds with these objectives.
How this links to Net Zero ambitions for the City Region and Sefton
Peter Dowd highlighted that he is currently chairing an All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for the Liverpool City Region. A report produced by the APPG, Liverpool University and the Heseltine Institute on Net Zero sets out 5 "manifesto" commitments across the City Region for scaling up green prosperity.
The objectives lend themselves to the situation we have in South Sefton. Better, greener transport is a priority, for example.
There are no references to the Port of Liverpool in the report, with shipping contributing massively to the region's CO2 emissions. However, this may be explained by the fact that it was only in May of this year that the UK government committed to reflecting emissions from the maritime (and aviation) sectors into our carbon budgets.
You can read the report here.
Cllr Atkinson advised that Sefton Council is playing its own part in these net zero plans. It has been involved in the LCR’s work bringing buses back under public ownership, for example.
Conclusions
Whilst the original purpose of the meeting was to understand how the logistics hubs have come to pass, all 'roads' inevitably lead to conversations around The A5036 Port of Liverpool Access Road.
There were some encouraging noises, but it would appear to boil down to what the new Labour government does next, following its transport infrastructure spending review, which we've talked about here.
If they cancel the road, sustainable options like rail and innovative solutions like those in the ARUP report become possible. These would signal a shift away from a HGV-dependent port and the 'need' for logistics hubs like these being built in such close proximity.
If they approve it, as well as being a dark day for South Sefton, we believe it would make life more and more difficult for our Labour-led Council to achieve the kind of future it wants for people in this part of the borough.
All eyes on the October budget, when we should find out.
Comentários