Transportation

The Transport Assessment (TA) supporting the proposed residential development is deemed invalid because it is built on a foundation of outdated and fundamentally flawed socio-economic assumptions about travel behaviour, rendering its conclusions on critical impacts unreliable.

Specifically, the invalidity stems from the following issues:

1. Reliance on Outdated and Unrealistic Travel Assumptions

The traffic modelling at the core of the TA appears to be based on assumptions that fail to reflect contemporary travel patterns, making its data inadequate for a development of this scale. This failure is critical because it leads to a dramatic underestimation of car usage and impact.

• Failure to Account for Post-Pandemic Working Patterns: The modelling does not reflect the significant shift in commuting behaviour that has occurred since 2020, particularly the trend of professionals moving from urban centers to greener suburbs.
• Miscalculation of Resident Demographics and Car Dependency: The TA appears to assume a significant proportion of residents will work locally. However, the sources argue that the likely price point of up to 700 new-build homes will attract higher-income professionals (e.g., nurses, doctors, academics) who are far more likely to commute by private car to major regional economic centers like Liverpool and Manchester.
• Inadequate Use of Data: The reliance on generalized data that informed the 2016 Local Plan is considered "wholly inadequate" for accurately assessing the development's impact.

This flawed approach means the TA dramatically underestimates car dependency, average trip lengths, and the true impact on the strategic road network, such as the M57.

2. Failure to Address Critical Deficiencies Identified by National Highways

The applicant failed to adequately resolve significant concerns raised by National Highways, a key statutory consultee. These omissions leave the Council without the necessary information to make an informed decision on highway capacity and safety.

• Missing Assessments: Formal requests from National Highways, documented in the Environmental Statement's Scoping Report (ES2), for two key pieces of analysis were not provided by the applicant:
  1. A "Merge-Diverge Assessment to be undertaken of SRN Junctions M57 Junctions 4 and 2".
  2. "Evidence to be provided for the routing assignment of the trip distribution and include M57 Junction 3".
• Critical Omission for Commuters: The omission of data regarding M57 Junction 3 is a critical oversight, as this junction represents the most likely route for Liverpool-bound commuters, precisely the demographic likely to inhabit the new housing.

3. Unreliable Conclusions on Safety and Air Quality

Because the fundamental inputs (the volume, distribution, and type of traffic generated) are fundamentally miscalculated by the TA, all subsequent assessments based on this data are rendered unreliable.

• Highway Safety: The Council cannot be assured that the "residual cumulative impacts on the road network would [not be] severe" (a requirement under NPPF, paragraph 116) and therefore cannot lawfully approve the application on highways grounds.
• Air Quality: The Air Quality Assessment (ES10) uses the flawed traffic data as its primary input. Consequently, its conclusion that the operational effects will be "not significant" is based on an underestimation of vehicle movements and is deemed unsafe.

In summary, the Transport Assessment is invalid because it is based on outdated notions of how people travel, leading to a misrepresentation of the development's impact, and because the applicant failed to supply technical information deemed necessary by highway experts to assess the safety and capacity of the Strategic Road Network.