Infrastructure Planning Blog

This week’s entry looks at the latest DCO decision relating to the Simister Island upgrade.

Isla Bonita

The Secretary of State this week granted development consent for the M62/M60/M62 Simister Island. The Decision Letter (DL) is here. The DCO is here.

The project – promoted by National Highways – consists of the construction of a northern loop around the junction to allow vehicles to bypass the current traffic light-controlled roundabout.  This is a busy junction, used by about 90,000 vehicles a day.

Here are the key takeaways:

• Somewhat unusually, at paragraph 18 of the DL, the SoS simply adopts and endorses wholesale the ExA’s recommendations and conclusions in relation to alternatives, geology and soils, historic environment, material assets and waste and combined and cumulative effects. 

• Despite what the DL describes as a “modest” (later “narrow”) benefit to cost (BCR) ratio of 1.17 (i.e., £1 spent = £1.17 return to society in benefits), the DL concludes that the scheme represents positive value for money, particularly when wider economic and strategic benefits are taken into account (specifically, reduced congestion and improved journey times).

• On biodiversity net gain (BNG), the scheme would result in an increase of area-based units by 3.68%, 58.50% for hedgerow units and 0.00% for river and stream units.  Natural England were looking for the project to achieve at least 10% net gain on all units. The DL says: “The Secretary of State notes that the Applicant does not consider that further compulsory acquisition of land is justified to achieve 10% gain on all units, as there is currently no requirement to do so”.  The SoS agreed.  BNG is proposed to be introduced for NSIPs next Spring (see here).

• The DL follows a well-trodden path on climate / greenhouse gas emissions. Local carbon budgets aren’t the relevant metric against which carbon impacts fall to be assessed.  The national carbon budgets perform that function.  Nevertheless, the SoS “encourages the Applicant to continue engaging with local authorities to align delivery with local climate strategies and to support local decarbonisation efforts where feasible”.

• The SoS did not consider that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Finch had particular implications for the scheme.  There was no evidence establishing a causal connection between the scheme and any additional indirect effects that had not already been set out in the ES. 

• The green belt conclusions merit some explanation.  Following submission of the DCO application, the Greater Manchester Combined Authority published the Places For Everyone (PfE) Plan (see here).  The Plan forms part of the statutory development plan of the nine PfE authorities, of which Bury (the host authority for this scheme) is one.  An effect of the publication of PfE was to reduce by 19 hectares the amount of Green Belt land within the Order Limits. The PfE plan is now the subject of a legal challenge by Save Greater Manchester Green Belt Limited, which is still to be heard.  The DL therefore poses the following question: if the PfE plan is quashed and the Green Belt boundary reinstated to bring 19ha of Green Belt back into the Order Limits, would this affect the scheme’s ability to comply with the NPS green belt tests?  The SoS does not think it would: the harm to the Green Belt and loss of openness would be greater, but the very special circumstances justifying inappropriate development in the Green Belt would still overcome that harm. 

• There was quite a lot of noise about noise.  The ExA thought that an extension should be provided to existing noise barriers to reduce operational noise impacts for 17 properties located adjacent to the scheme.  NH disagreed, arguing that the use of Low Noise Surfacing alone would be sufficient to remove significant adverse effects from road traffic noise.  The SoS agreed with the ExA. The DCO therefore contains a requirement to submit a noise barrier scheme of mitigation to the SoS for approval.  That scheme will need first to weigh up the interaction of the noise barriers with other environmental factors such as visual impacts, vegetation clearance and biodiversity.  

• Haweswater underpass (shown and described as the “eyesore tunnel” here) was extensively debated. The footpath would need to be closed for 6-8 weeks during construction, which would require pedestrians to use a diversion route that is 1.7km longer.  Interested parties and the ExA thought that the scheme should include proposals for the improvement of the underpass.  NH said it was exploring designated funding (a pot of money available to National Highways to fund wider improvements like this) but could not guarantee it would be available.  It also said agreements with third parties such as United Utilities might be necessary to secure improvements.  The SoS has taken quite a robust approach, imposing a requirement to deliver a scheme of improvements to the path.

• On compulsory acquisition matters: 

• The SoS "...strongly advises that for future applications, the Applicant should engage proactively and promptly with Affected Persons and to finalise agreements without unnecessary delay". Take note.
• Compulsory acquisition powers were refused in relation to three points (plots 1/1a, 2/1av and 2/1aw). Part of plot 1/1a formed part of the back garden of some residential properties, but the owners had not been consulted as part of the project, which all seems a bit odd.

• There are lots of changes to the DCO: another striking out of “materially new or materially worse effects” (in a bid to secure approval for environmentally better solutions) in favour of the standard “materially new or materially different” (on that, the DL notes that “… it remains the Secretary of State’s view that the purpose of this qualification is not necessarily to allow or prohibit effects that are beneficial, but rather to enshrine that more than material changes in environmental impact are reported in the environmental statement”.) A requirement has been added obliging the Applicant to consider future flood risk datasets on an ongoing basis as part of the project’s flood risk assessment.

In other DCO decision news, the SoS yesterday confirmed it was delaying a decision on the Five Estuaries Offshore Wind Farm Project (see here). This is to allow time to request information (TBC what that is) that was not considered during the examination. The statement to Parliament says:

“Whilst it is not my preference to extend, I am clear that applications for consent for energy projects submitted under the Planning Act 2008 must meet the necessary standards.”

The new deadline is 17 December 2025.

This publication is intended for general guidance and represents our understanding of the relevant law and practice as at September 2025. Specific advice should be sought for specific cases. For more information see our terms & conditions.