Cheadle and Gatley Lib Dems are moving
Your Lib Dem team for Cheadle West & Gatley Learn more
by Lib Dem team on 3 January, 2012
Update: the consultation for the A6 to Manchester Airport Relief Road has started and runs until 25th January 2013 – please see here for the full, latest, information on the project including maps and 3D simulation of the road.
145 Comments
[…] The latest proposed route (as of the end of 2011) can be seen here. transport […]
What traffic lights at the oil terminal junction I thought it was to have a massive roundabout. Traffic lights on the A6 in Hazel Grove I thought that as well suppose to have a massive roundabout. If this one is the final decision map when it gets built surely the traffic will back on to local roads and the SEMMMS report saying that the people in Stocxport want the bypass to go underneath and over exisiting roads (eg flyover, bridges, grade seperated junctions, free flowing dual carrigeway etc). Not a 2 lane dual carriageway with traffic lights at every junction THAT IS A BOTTLENECK. It should be a free flowing 2 lane dual carriageway so it can be upgraded to a 3 lane motorway in the near future. It was all planned in 1962 as a 3 lane motorway from A6 Hazel Grove to M56 Manchester Airport if anyone does not believe me I have got maps to proof it.
Hi Amran,
As you’d expect, the plans have changed a great deal since 1962! The current plan meets the needs we expect to have over the next 20 years and also meets the budget available to us to build the road.
Amran sells the original plans rather short, as it happens;
http://pathetic.org.uk/unbuilt/manchester_outer_ring_road_(south)/
I have to confess to a geeky interest in the old plans for motorways that never were. But there were just plans and if we want to make them more than that we need to make sure our proposals meet the needs and budgets of today.
I should say, though, that the piece on the outer ring road is misleading in one way – the section joining up Hazel Grove to the M60 at Bredbury is still very much a possibility – there are plans for it and we’d like to see it happen. At the moment there isn’t money for it – perhaps that will change one day.
Dear Iain,
Is the Hazel Grove to M60 Bredbury section would that be a 3 lane motorway or a 2 lane dual carriageway with traffic lights at every junction and a cycloe lane on it.
Oh and by the way Gareth I didn’t found it on that website I found it on Google it is only a small map of Manchester in 1962 showing proposed motorways around Manchester. It is a interesting map because you can see the M6 and the Barton Bridge being under construction so I am not copying someones elses work I think it was called SELNEC or something
By the way Iain the Hazel Grove to Manchester Airport Relief Road is going to be a one mega busy dual carriageway that is going to take a lot of traffic and I have heard rumours that they might but a cycle and pedestrian lane on it so you can walk and cycle on the bypass. Tell you one thing I will never ever walk on that bypass and I fell so sorry for a cyclist riding on it as well because their will not be any barriers just open space so if that cyclist is riding on it and gets hit by a massive truck travelling 60 mph I think that poor cyclist will die or get seriously injured.
I have got the old A-Z Manchester from 1993 showing proposed A6(M) and A555 on it and older maps 1945 and 1962 from that bypass
I would wait to see the detailed proposals rather than listen to rumours.
READ ALL ABOUT IT !!! READ ALL ABOUT IT !!!
The Spring budget in March 2012 George Osborne and the coalition government have withdrawn the money from the M56 Manchester Airport to A6 Hazel Grove A555 Relief Road and it will not be considered after the General Elections in 2015.
You never know this could be in the Stockport Express in March when the budget arrives.
Knutsford have got their bypass and the contractors have been awarded the work and due to start before 2015 so they will be happy and it is finally going to get built and it is not going to get cancelled.
What about the A555 Relief Road could that be cancelled or are they going to award the contractors the work. Well they say it is going to be on, then off, then back on, then off, then back on I don’t know about you lot but I just GIVE up.
We’re a bit more positive that that, and we’re working flat out to push the A555 scheme forward as quickly as possible.
Dear Iain,
I know how you feel and this stupid government should hurry up and build this BYPASS before they change their stupid minds again. I am looking forward when this bypass gets built. When they are building the A555 Relief Road you will see it on the Manchester A-Z being under construction and you see the another section towards the M60 Bredbury as a proposed dotted line and the A523 Poynton bypass dotted out as well.
I don’t think the section to the M60 Bredbury will be a proposed A6(M) motorway blue dotted line on the A-Z aka 1993 it will be a proposed yellow dotted line A555 Dual carriageway to the M60 Bredbury.
I don’t care if it is a stop and go traffic lights on every junction dual carrigeway and a cycle lane. I don’t care if they put a picnic site or a toilet on it something stupid like that on the bypass put just built it because it is LONG OVERDUE.
If everything goes as well this year we will see the contractors been awarded the work for the A555 Relief Road and the public inquiry will all go through. So they can start on it maybe late 2012 and early 2013. I JUST WISH THEY JUST HURRY UP AND BUILD THAT BYPASS.
I think the section towards Hazel Grove to M60 Bredbury will be called ‘A555 Relief Road : Phase 2 A6 Hazel Grove to M60 Bredbury’ and it will probably start it soon after the Hazel Grove to Manchester Airport is finished that will get the ball rolling maybe in 2016 they will start it. They might built the poynton bypass at the same time with Hazel Grove to M60 Bredbury being built aswell LETS GO AND GET THE BULLDOZER AND THE DIGGERS IN
Iain can we access the map without a facebook account?
Alan
Hi Alan,
You shouldn’t need a Facebook account to access the maps – I’ll have to check why that might be happening.
Amran,
It’s up to us in the local authorities, with Transport for Greater Manchester, to get building the road. Another public enquiry shouldn’t be needed, but planning permission is – and of course the purchase of land along the route.
We’re definitely going as quickly as we can.
Dear Iain
I got a map of Great Britain in 1936 showing network of motorways on it and it shows a motorway running from Manchester to Derby is that the Hazel Grove bypass.
I showed the map to a motorway contractor and he told me is that they put the two motorways onto the M6 and he also told me is that they have should have done the second motorway planned in 1936.
I think it would have went through the Peak District and bypassed all the traffic of the A6 between Stockport and Derby. It would have went through Buxton just north of the chapel bypass heading south eastwards towards Derby.
I think the motorway from 1936 would have run parallel with the A6 through the Peak District not so good really.
It also shows a big motorway running from Wales to Norwich (Bangor to Great Yarmouth) that is well the A6 bypass would have finish on it just southeast of Derby. So I think it would have connect Stockport to Great Yarmouth by motorway. I am trying to look for the original map of that 1936 map I only got a small version of it.
is Amran Khan real? my eyes are bleeding whilst trying to read his posts.
glad to see this finally getting some momentum.
welcome to the internet Alan
Yes Alex I am for real and I am not talking nonsense. I found that 1936 map in a book in stockport library called ‘Road and tracks for historians’ or something similar to it. In that book I found 3 maps of Great Britain one from 1936, the another 1938 and the third one from 1946 all showing motorway proposals on it. The 1946 one is more modern showing the M1, M6 and M62 on it
The 1936 one has a network of motorways on it and if you support the friends of the earth and the national trust well this is your worst nightmare it shows motorways running over protected parkland in Britain. It shows the
M27 running from Taunton to Dover
M53 running from Chester to Newport (M4)
The massive motorway running from Wales to Norwich this would have been bigger then the M4 and the M62.
A6(M) or M** Stockport to Derby motorway this would have ruined the peak district.
The 1938 map shows a 1000 miles of motorways on it. It shows the M1 and the M6 on it put it also shows the M67 going to Sheffield put no M62 I think that was a rethink of the M62 at the time.
So alex that 1936 map show that britain motorways will look like in the next 50 years time. So say good bye to the peak district and build the M67 going under the Woodhead tunnel and go all the way to the M1 near Sheffield and the motorway running from Stockport to Derby. SO BYE BYE BUILD MORE MOTORWAYS
Dear Iain
Iain you said to me that a lot of things has changed since 1962. WELL I DONT THINK SO. You know what they say about things is that you can not kill off a motorway. The Friends of the Earth said this on their website is that when they finish the Bredbury – Hazel Grove – Mcr airport bypass after 10 or 20 years they will upgrade all off the bypass to a 3 lane motorway so I think that 1962 map will probably make sense after all.
Tell the Con/Lib government to stop messing around on roads and get that Manchester 1962 map out off their archives or in the H.M treasury office and build it as a 3 lane motorway. It was orginally and planned as a 3 lane motorway not a 2 lane Dual carriageway with cycle lanes on it and traffic lights at every junctions on it and tell that stupid George Oshbourne to withdraw the money out of the SEMMMS A555 Relief Road and pumped more money into it say £500 million on it and give the bypass a new name like Hazel Grove to Manchester Airport Motorway M64 or M68 or M555 renamed after A555. I think M555 is a better number. COME BRITAIN BUILD MORE MOTORWAYS WE ARE FALLING BEHIND FROM EUROPE.
Ohh and by the way iain is that there is a another one from the 1970s map showing the SEMMMS relief road as a 3 lane motorway (Bredbury to Hazel Grove and Manchester Airport)
Dear Iain
I have heard that it is cheaper building a 2 lane dual carriageway and upgrading it to a 3 lane motorway then building a new 3 lane motorway.
A mile of 2 lane dual carriageway costs about £15 million and £10 million more to upgrading it to a 3 lane motorway.
A mile of a new 3 lane motorway costs about £29.9 million.
It is that true or false?
Can you tell me who is the name of the contractor who is going to build the A555 Relief Road and the actual date of the construction of the bypass. Thank you
Dear Iain
Don’t get to happy and don’t jump up and down that you got the money for the bypass.
WHERE ARE THE CONTRACTORS ????
WHEN IS THE ACTUAL DATE TO BUILD THE BYPASS ?????
Don’t forget we got the next budget coming in March and they are going to do more public spending cuts and the A555 Relief Road is going to be one of them.
You know whats going to happen in the House of Commons. George Osbourne is going to get the A555 Relief Road paper work and he’s is going to rip it up and shout proper loud in the House of Commons and say “GET LOST! YOU ARE NOT GETTING THAT BYPASS”.
We will probably wait for the next 50 years time for them to build that bypass. I will be surpise if they build that bypass because it has been talked about since 1945, 1962 and etc.
My dad said to me is that every 10 years they talk about building roads but nothing happens and then we wait 10 years later then they talk about it again.
I MEAN WHATS THE POINT TALKING ABOUT IT I MEAN JUST BUILT IT AND GET ON WITH IT.
They have to built it one day because the A6 in Hazel Grove in 10 – 20 years time will turn into a big massive car park day in and day out
Hi Amran,
As I’ve said before, we’re moving things on as quickly as we can. The next steps are to get planning permission for the road and to buy up the land. These are both legal requirements and both happening.
Once that’s done, we can start building.
Hi Iain
Thanks for updating us on the proposed road and providing the latest version of the proposal. It is very difficult to find hard information about the scheme – the SEMMMS web site seems to have stalled in this respect.
I am sure that any scheme of this nature does by now have at least a target programme for completing the design, submitting the planning application, tendering the scheme to select a contractor and undertaking construction. Are you able to share this with us?
Roger
Hi Roger,
I don’t have dates for each stage yet, though we should have soon.
The aim is to have the road completed by the end of the decade.
Hi Iain
Complete by 2020, the end of the decade!! The initial indication was a commencement of construction in 2013! Not only will the road relieve the unsuitable roads around SE Manchester of inappropriate (unacceptable) levels of traffic but was also intended to be a means of delivering economic benefits – opening up the SE east hinterland to the airport and the Enterprise Zone for instance, and at the same time directly creating jobs in construction – incidentally,as ever in any recession, one of the hardest hit of all the industries.
What can we do to get this badly needed road underway as soon as possible?
Roger
Hi Roger,
We’re doing everything to get this underway as soon as possible, and I very much hope construction will indeed get underway in 2013.
Brilliant!! Cheers Iain
Dear Iain
Tell that George Osborne to hurry up and give the contractors the work to start on this URGENT BYPASS. Before he changes his mind and CANCEL it in the Spring Budget in March in the House of Commons.
He better hurry up and start on it straight away before the A6 in Hazel Grove turns into a big car park it’s going get so bad in 10 – 20 years time you might even sleep on the A6 when all the traffic is at a stand still or even have a picnic on the A6.
Dear Iain
We should meet up somewhere and you and me should talk about that Bredbury to Hazel Grove bypass all day because I have got some maps to show you. I think I got one map showing different routes on it one of it was going through Dane Bank (A626/A627) junction near Marple.
I spoke to a guy in Hazel Grove Tyres and he told me that it would have been nice if the Hazel Grove bypass was a 3 lane motorway. I told him ‘why, why’. He told me is that it would have took all the traffic off the A6 in Hazel Grove. But we will probably end up with a 2 lane dual carriageway.
I think if John Mayor won the 1997 general elections Hazel Grove bypass would have been finished and the other one to the airport aswell. I think it would have been a motorway from Bredbury to Hazel Grove and Hazel Grove to Mcr Airport as a 2 lane dual carriageway.
I remember when John Prescott cancelled A6(M) Motorway and he said that it is going to be a 2 lane dual carrigeway from Bredbury to Manchester Airport.
BUT IT IS NO WAY BETTER THEN 1962 PROPOSAL ALL OF IT AS A 3 LANE MOTORWAY (BREDBURY TO MANCHESTER AIRPORT).
Iain do you remember A6(M) Hazel Grove to Heaton Norris Motorway was that the original plan for the Hazel Grove bypass because I heard rumours about it. They were serious about this motorway because it came back 3 times plus it was a better bypass for the A6 through Stockport then the other route. It would have went through Edgeley.
Dear Alex
BRING ON THE ENVIRONMENTIST’S ALEX BRING IT ON !!!!!!!!!!!!
I will just show them that 1936 map and they can just shut up because this is what britain motorways will look like in the next 50 years time.
BRING IT ON !!!!!! BRING IT ON !!!!!!!!!!!!
Dear Iain
George Osborne is going to walk right in front of you and say “GET LOST! YOU ARE NOT GETTING THAT BYPASS WAIT FOR NEXT 50 YEARS TIME”
Dear Iain
‘SEMMMS’ What a stupid name for a stupid road ‘A555 relief road a 2 lane dual carriageway with cycle lane and traffic lights at every junction.
This country should stop messing around on roads and road names and do it probably like this ‘M56 to A6 proposed 3 lane motorway’ and now that is a much better name that the stupid ‘SEMMMS’
Stick with the original plan and do it probably ‘M56 Manchester Airport to the M60 Bredbury 3 lane motorway’
THE 1962 PROPOSED ROUTE IS MILES, MILES, MILES, BETTER THEN THE STUPID ‘SEMMMS.
Thanks, Amran,
You’ve now posted 14 comments on this article – I think you’ve made your view clear!
Dear Iain
I will make my views clear until this MISERABLE COUNTRY BUILD THAT BYPASS. Then I will make my views clear and I will stop posting to this website.
I spoke to a motorway contractor about the bypass and I told him that the bypass is going to be a 2 lane dual carriageway with pedestrian and cycle lanes running on each ends.
He shouted in his car and said ‘THIS COUNTRY SHOULD STOP MESSING AROUND ON ROADS AND UPGRADE THAT TO A 3 LANE MOTORWAY’
Iain I think 99 percent chance that and will probably be that the bypass will probably get CANCELLED.
CANCELLED !!!! CANCELLED !!!! CANCELLED!!!!!!!!!
GO ON GET LOST YOU ARE NOT GETTING THAT BYPASS that’s what George Osborne going to say to you
Hope this does actually happen.
It’s a shame we cannot have an adult discussion about the proposals without some idiot doing the Internet equivalent of shouting over the conversation.
It’s not as if the points raised are salient, or current with the proposal….
Dear Michael
You call me an idiot this site is open to anyone so a ten year old kid can even say what they want on it.
Or even a 81 year old pensioner can go on it and say what they want on it because thats how long the road has been planned.
I spoke to a lynx taxi driver and he even went to the town hall and looked at the plans and they had maps of the Hazel Grove bypass since 1906 and it even says on the map ‘due to start 1906’
I MEAN 1906 THATS 106 YEARS AND THEY STILL HAVE NOT DONE THAT HAZEL GROVE BYPASS.
I went to his car and he told me is that he absolutely hate this country. I told him ‘why, why’. He said to me is that the Hazel Grove bypass is on…off…on…off….on…off
I mean just build that Hazel Grove bypass.
So you are calling me an idiot so why don’t you say that to George Osborne he cancelled the bypass in 2010 he will probably cancel it again.
Thats how I feel putting capitals letters on it just to proof my point to everyone and I am very angry with this country when it comes to building roads.
IF YOU WANNA BUILD A ROAD BUILT IT PROPERLY IF IT WAS ORIGINALLY PLANNED AS A 3 LANE MOTORWAY. BUILT IT HAS A 3 LANE MOTORWAY.
NOT A ‘STOP AND GO’ 2 LANE DUAL CARRIAGEWAY WITH CYCLE LANES ON IT.
Whats next a single lane carriageway bypass for buses only not for traffic. That will be great for the 199 bus and they will put cameras on it so if any traffic go on it they will get a fine for £1000 for using the bus bypass.
I think the bus bypass is a good idea and should get built and start charging drivers using it.
B5660 Hazel Grove to Manchester Airport buses only not for traffic relief road anyone.
[…] the latest maps of the A555 route, see here. cycling, streets Leave a […]
It is interesting to note that the Chancellors home constituency got its bypass extension immediatly after the election!!!!!
Good news and bad news – extract from the SEMMS web site
Overall funding is in place to construct the SEMMMS A6 to Manchester Airport Relief Road.
The expected overall cost for the scheme is £290 million. This is made up from a contribution of £165 million from Government, £29 million from the Greater Manchester Transport Fund, and £7 million from Manchester Airport.
The remaining funding will be provided using the Earnback model announced as part of the Deal for Manchester during the March 2012 budget.
The SEMMMS A6 to Manchester Airport scheme was identified as a priority scheme for Greater Manchester and, subject to the approval of the Combined Authority, is one of two schemes to be funded as part of the first phase of the earn back funding regime.
Stockport Council is now working with its partners, Manchester City Council, Cheshire East Council, Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) and Manchester Airport to submit a final business case to the Department for Transport before the summer of 2012.
Following this, a public consultation on the proposals for the scheme will then take place,leading to a planning application being submitted in early 2013.
The bad news? Early 2013 represents a quarter slippage from the end of 2012 previously reported
What a waste of money.
During a time when the calamitous ConDem partnership are making massive cuts to public services, they are willing to shell out £165m of government funds plus a further £29m from GMT just so someone can shave 5 minutes off their journey.
Having lived in Poynton for 20 years, I travel up and down Chester road at all times of the day, most days of the week, since the new roundabouts have been completed in the centre of Poynton, there is very little in the way of traffic backlog. Certainly not enough to warrant that kind of expenditure or negative impact to local housing and green areas. In fact even before the roundabouts, the only time traffic was an issue was ironically when roadworks were underway.
You lot seem to think that building roads is the answer to the ‘How do we stimulate the economy’ question, conveniently forgetting that due to the rise in fuel prices the need for bigger, wider, faster roads has all but been extinguished.
Try investing the money in the local area, not handing it out to large multinational firms who bleed every last penny out of any government project, while said government stands by watching the project cost spiral and keeps throwing tax payers cash at it in an effort to actually deliver something so as not to lose face.
This all smacks of a last ditch effort by two parties who know that the only reason they are in power is because nobody wanted Brown in the hot seat, who are acutely aware the people have lost what little faith they had in the abomination that is trying to pass itself off as a government, and who desperately don’t want their only legacy to be that they screwed the public over at every turn.
Guess what, building this road isn’t going to validate your time in charge.
Hi Iain,
What can be done if a property has been purchased and the Legal property search carried out comes back with ‘no issues’ to later find out that the Metrolink and this proposed dual carriageway will run approximately 150 metres at the back of the property!!!
I am very interested to know why, Iain, this road has suddenly changed from being heralded as a bypass for Hazel Grove to now being called the A555 link road. Could it be that the truth is, it bypasses absolutely nothing at all? I am intrigued to know how you think the one lane A6 through Didley, High Lane etc will actually cope with the huge volume of traffic accessing this fabulous new dual carriageway, not to mention the clogging effect around the 10 new junctions you are adding. I am also fascinated to understand how your position appears to differ so radically from Lib Dem policy which publicly states that it is categorically against road building, and also the coalition government claims that they are the greenest government ever and will protect our greenbelt. Sorry, Iain, this whole notion of public support is predicated on the hogwash that this road is a bypass. If Stockport Council told the truth, your % figures in favour of building it would undoubtedly change. I hope people see through you in time before you rip apart our precious greenspaces for ever.
Hi Julie,
The road as currently designed will reduce traffic for surrounding roads and areas, including the A6.
Perhaps you could provide a link to the Lib Dem policy against roadbuilding – not one I’m familiar with.
As you would expect for a scheme of this nature, extensive traffic modelling has been done – and will continue to be done – so we do have a very good idea of how the road will impact the surrounding areas, the traffic on the junctions etc.
I’m sure you’ll want to contribute to the public consultation and, needless to say, all these sorts of issues will be fully raised as part of that.
As for your final comments, if you have evidence that Stockport, Cheshire East and Manchester Councils are being dishonest, please do present it.
Iain
I will try to jog your memory, quoted directly from your party’s manifesto…
The Lib Dems have:
Encouraged local sustainable transport through funding from the Local Sustainable Fund, and incentives for increased bus usage, and improved cycling and pedestrian facilities
The Lib Dems are:
Encouraging a greater shift in freight traffic from road to rail as the carbon emissions from rail transport are significantly lower
The Lib Dems have:
Worked to improve the National Planning Policy Framework to ensure that the greenbelt is protected and to place sustainability at the heart of planning policy
Lib Dems will protect Britain’s biodiversity by:
Extending the protection offered by the designation of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) to other natural habitats that cannot be replaced, such as ancient woodland and upland moorland
….”making this coalition the greenest Government ever”…
The majority of this proposed road scheme passes through Greenbelt land, including a section of ancient woodland at Norbury Hollow which incidentally is absent from Stockport Council’s plans.
The report on the Business Case for the DTI states that freight traffic to the airport from “Cheshire, Derbyshire, Staffordshire, Yorkshire and beyond will increase from 170,000 tonnes to 250,000, all channelled through Greenbelt and most of it via the single lane A6 carriageway – again I ask you to explain how this improves conjestion on the A6?
Evidence of public support for this road for submission to the DTI is taken from the 2004 public consultation when the full scheme was proposed to link the airport to the M60 at Bredbury, therefore bypassing Hazel Grove and the A6. These figures are now out of date and irrelevant given funding has not been granted for the M60 link section. There is no reference to this significant change in the report.
I look forward to your reply.
Julie.
Thanks Julie – that certainly confirms my recollection of the Lib Dem policy: absolutely nothing at all saying the party is “categorically against road building”.
I look forward to you getting involved in the public consultation where you – along with everyone else – will be able to have your say and make your views officially known.
Perhaps I can help. This is from a Lib Dem document entitled “Fast Track Britain: Building a Transport System for the 21st Cenutry – June 2008”:
“Despite years of evidence to the contrary the Government continues to attempt to build their (sic) way out of congestion, building 15 times more miles of trunk road than railway since coming into power.
“This strategy has failed. The ‘New Approach to Transport Appraisal’ has been discredited and requires substantial amendment to more accurately reflect the impact of different transport options on the environment and society. There would be a presumption against major road-building projects.
“The aim for a zero-carbon Britain by 2050 necessitates a shift from road haulage to more sustainable methods of transporting freight.
“Liberal Democrats will promote a switch from road and air freight, to more sustainable methods including rail and water.”
I should follow this up with expert comments.
Jenny Jones, writing in the Guardian in 2009:
The Liberal Democrats say one thing about the environment at the national level and do something else entirely at the local … It seems the Lib Dems know much more about pursuing the Green vote than about pursuing Green policies.
Caroline Lucas, Green Party Leader:
Lib Dems use Green rhetoric to get into office, then systematically exploit their position by supporting road building schemes.
Regards, Kim
Iain
Nice attempt but stoney ground I’m afraid. I think the following 2 quotes are interesting..
Jenny Jones, writing in the Guardian in 2009:
“The Liberal Democrats say one thing about the environment at the national level and do something else entirely at the local … It seems the Lib Dems know much more about pursuing the Green vote than about pursuing Green policies.”
Caroline Lucas, Green Party Leader:
“Lib Dems use Green rhetoric to get into office, then systematically exploit their position by supporting road building schemes.”
2 interesting letters readers of your site might be interested to read on this coalition government’s policy direction on the environment:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/dec/03/observer-letters-government-green-future
No surprise, I will be taking full advantage of the public consultation and the freedom of speech we enjoy so much in this country. The same applies to this chat forum – I assume you’re not for one second suggesting I should refrain from disagreeing with you on your own site?
Incidentally you still seem to have avoided answering my questions above which surprises me as you seem very well informed when it comes to the “pros” for building this road
Hi Julie, Kim,
You’ve correctly spotted that our political opponents ofen attack us; no great surprise there.
The Lib Dems have consistently supported the need for this particular road to be completed over a number of years. If anyone went into the 2010 General Election – or indeed the 2005 or 2001 elections – thinking the Lib Dems were opposed to completing the construction of this half-built road, they really weren’t doing their homework!
You’ll have already noticed that I’ve no probem with you – or others – disagreeing with me on this site.
I’ve not avoiding answering your questions – the answer is that every piece of information will be put in the public domain prior to the public consultation so all the detailed information will be available for everyone to take a look at.
Iain, you still don’t say WHY you support this road. Why should a beautiful piece of Green Belt be ripped apart to build a dual carriageway when there is already a perfectly good route to the Manchester Airport – the M60 and M56 are motorways, that’s what they’re for. The proposed link road starts from a single-lane carriage way (the A6) and covers a similar distance to the motorways but with junctions every kilometer or so, it simply won’t be any quicker. It’s also not going to ease congestion (what little there is) in Poynton as it will fill up with new traffic that would ordinarily continue along the A6 or take the M60. The Business Plan is so fundamentally flawed as to be embarrassing.
It makes no mention of the fact that the road would go through Green Belt, something which requires proof that the scheme is exceptional.
The figures it relies upon are out of date – residents may have been in favour of the road in 2004, when the scheme included a Poyton Bypass to the south – there has been no public consultation for this road alone.
It goes against all the recommendations within the Poynton Local Plan, the National Policy Planning Framework and the legally-binding Climate Change Act, which insist upon protection for the Green Belt and a switch towards alternative forms of transport.
What about the fact that the road would destroy ancient woodland? This is from the NPPF: “planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland and the loss of aged or veteran trees found outside ancient woodland, unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss”. No attempt has been made to prove this; the Councils involved have merely omitted the ancient woodland from the route map.
The Business Plan claims that the road will have a neutral impact on carbon emissions. How can this possibly be true? If HGVs are to be encouraged to use this road 24 hours a day, causing constant light, noise and air pollution, on top of the 20% increase in journeys (induced travel, as always occurs with new roads – even the Highways Agency admits that), the carbon neutral claim cannot be substantiated.
The Business Plan proudly announces £100m of savings on the project – is that why most the elements designed to minimise the impact on the environment and residents have now been removed? For example, long sections that were to have been sunk in cuttings are now at ground level.
And it’s just laughable to claim that congestion on the local and strategic network is worse than in London. I lived in London for many years and I can promise you that the traffic levels up here are heavenly in comparison.
It’s clear that building new roads simply doesn’t work and the only way to ease congestion in the long term is to invest properly in public transport, as well as switching freight from road to rail. It will take a bold politician to stand up and fight for that but if anyone is willing to do so, they will go down in history as the person who saved Britain. Could that be you, Mr Roberts?
Hi Kim, I support completing this half-built road not only because of the reduction in congestion and journey times but importantly the creation of up to 5,000 new jobs enhancing our area.
You make a number of allegations against the road, which I would encourage you to submit to the public consultation so they can be examined properly and openly and everyone can see the evidence.
Oh Iain, I had to stifle a laugh at that one, your party’s track record at General Elections speaks for itself! Incidentally, I doubt you could class the RSPB, the Campaign to Protect Rural England, Greenpiece, Wildlife Trust, Friends of the Earth and Save Englands Forests as political opponents.
Anyway, you have a long way to go yet before you can get your digger out and start mowing down our ancient woodland and concreting over our greenbelt, but at least you’ll have Amran cheering you on from the sidelines, good luck with that!!!
On a more positive note. There are many who have welcomed the new road scheme because they do recognise that it will take inappropriate traffic off residential roads and streets which were never intended for the level of traffic which is now being experienced. Hazel Grove, Bramhall, Woodford (and to a lesser extent Poynton who ought to have their by pass progressed too) will all benefit from the removal of traffic to and from the South and East – Macclesfield and Buxton directions – heading towards the motorway network and the airport. The alignment of the scheme will be determined in detail the the route itself has now been reserved for decades so should be a surprise to no-one. the scheme is long overdue. And if anyone doubts the economic value of investment in infrastructure read the L.E.K report on the construction industry. Every £1 spent in construction contributes a total of £2.84 to economic activity.
Roger
The world has changed in 60 years – thank God, we used to think smoking was a harmless passtime. There is now overwhelming evidence to suggest that more roads lead to more traffic. Where do you imagine we will end up – with the whole of our island covered in tarmac? If we don’t change the way we manage transportation in this country quickly – ie develop greener public transport options instead of cancelling bus routes because they cost too much(???) then God help our kids.
The thing that maddens me most about this is that Mr Roberts’ party pontificates about this at central government level but the reality is that locally they cannot be bothered to come up with alternative solutions. This road has nothing to do with solving local traffic problems, its about generating money via the developers – its depressing.
Hi Julie
The extension of the A555 is actually part of the wider SEMMMS study which itself promotes improvements in public transport, cycling etc. You talk about ‘overwhelming evidence’. I believe that the definitive study in this respect was as early as 1992 and indeed did find evidence of traffic growth following improvements to reduce congestion. The circumstances here are somewhat different. This is not simply a congestion issue but one of an existing road system which is directing heavy through traffic along inappropriate roads and streets and through dense residential areas.
Any sustainable solution for South Manchester will remove this traffic, give us back our streets and improve our quality of life.
It may be that you are not personally experiencing this traffic by your front door?
Hi Roger
Yes you say that the Multi Modal Study is to look at ways of improving all forms of transport. But at the last council meeting on 5/7/2012, the bus comapnies were not interested in the A555 link to the airport unless infill housing development were built along it – ie through greenbelt put there for everyone to use – do you see the irony in that? The new road will bring more traffic, it is an unavoidable fact.
In the Stockport Council business case, it states clearly that this road will open up the airport to the east side of the country including an increase in freight tonnage – not only chugging through greenbelt, destroying everyone’s air quality – but also making the A6 situation south of the Rising Sun intolerable. The traffic has to go somewhere and to risk repeating myself, most of the point of this road is to generate more traffic not solve any local problems.
Hi Julie
You misunderstand green belt policy. Its purpose is to prevent urban sparawl and prevent neighbouring towns merging. The relief road does not affect this purpose and, again, remember that the road alignment has been reserved for decades. The arrangement of the road would be expected to relieve roads such as that south of the Rising Sun and of course through Hazel Grove where traffic is heading for the M60.
My final question may have been rhetorical but residential areas are already blighted by inappropriate traffic which would be relieved by the construction of this road.
Roger
Hi Julie,
I think you need to take a look at this site
http://www.pathetic.org.uk/features/secret_history/maps
Go to the select map to view and go to 1936 proposed motorway network. This is what britain motorway network will look like in the next 50 years time. If you are a environmentalist then look away now.
Where can I access up-to-date maps of the proposed route from the A6 to the existing roundabout on Woodford Road Bramhall.
Actually Roger, this may just help with YOUR ubderstanding of greenbelt – I’m not sure you got to the end of the sentence:
\The main purpose of the green belt policy is to protect the land around larger urban centres from urban sprawl, and maintain the designated area for forestry and agriculture as well as to provide habitat to wildlife\
Not sure where you have found your definition to include maintaining forestry and wildlife. The National Planning Policy Frameworks states:
9. Protecting Green Belt land
79. The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental
aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence.
80. Green Belt serves five purposes:
●● to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
●● to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;
●● to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
●● to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and
●● to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict
and other urban land.
I have a very big interest in this rd as I live right next to where it will run right behind my house sandwiching my house with the new slip rd at the back where it gets back onto the a6 heading to high lane and then the old a6 at the front of my house!
Firstly I couldn’t understand why would they not keep the roundabout at the junctions like generally every other dual carriage way in the country that keeps traffic flowing better and not lights?
Secondly I’m concerned that it will most likely bring more traffic to the area rather than take it away as its not the full link to bredbury so it’s just pouring more traffic into the areas especially high lane and disley etc?
Thirdly it’s going to take some of the nicest greenbelt in the area even those beautifull protected woods, I’m sure we will see how protected those woods are?
Finally why is there no official site to keep residents updated and when do we get a say, Ive not been consulted once yet and it’s going to be less than 30-40 metres from my house!
Ps why was it stated in Stockport express that based on figures it will cut congestion but the info was based on the full bypass going ahead and not the a555 link now it’s changed it’s name from a6m relief rd?
I really would appreciatte a reply on these concerning questions I have as you can see this is really really going to affect me!
The truth is the lib dems met in secret to get this road approved with the goverment
if you are are effected by this road – – then campaign , they ignored ancient woodland early on and refused government directives .
if you want even more traffic congestion to blight green belt land then more fool you. this road will ruin the countryside and many peoples lives. wake up people of stockport . campaign
Don’t get too exicited Iain, they did this in 2003. I remember I had a letter about the SEMMMS is that they are going to build the whole lot Bredbury to Mcr airport and the Poynton bypass and they got the money for it and it cost about £800 million. The public inquiry went ahead, and they were about start it in 2004 and all off it will be finished in 2007. The new transport minister cancelled it all at the last minute. Are we are going to be let down again. I will not be surpised if they build it because they have been talking about it since 1945.
I agree with the last comment we need to stand up and fight this road, as building more roads is not the answer to solving traffic problems. A big investment in public transport, subsidising fares and changing public perceptions on buses and trains might get people out of their cars and back on buses and trains. Get the tram to the Grove?? we need to start thinking outside of the box because when do you think they will need a by-pass to by-pass this one?? The proposed route will destroy ancient woodland and areas of natural beauty but what has that got to do with money at the end of the day and money talks to this lot in power apart from when they are cutting essential services so think of that when you get in your car!! to drive along pot-holed roads enjoy your journey, Iain!!!
agreed local resident
they are breaking the law by building the road to no where
no money
finacial irregularities
secret agreements
poltical voting gone wrong
VOTE AGAINST IT AS WELL AS THESE LIB DEMS AS THEY SEEM TO THINK THAT THIS ROAD WILL BRING THEM POLITICAL POWER
Whilst I’m clearly not going to persuade people dead-set against the road, I should make clear that the anonymous claims made by “another local resident” are completely false.
The funding package is there, there are no “financial irregularities” and no secret agreements. The business case and environmental study has been published in full and the whole scheme is, and remains, a joint project between Conservative Cheshire East, Labour Manchester and Lib Dem Stockport with opposition parties on each council scrutinising the process.
Don’t listen to Ian Roberts
At a recent Woodford community meeting the artist formally known as Jim Mcmahon – yes the Jim Mcmahon who offers to meet people and then completly talks over them – the head of planning Jim Mcmahon – states that the road will be built come what may and NO is not on the agenda . How wrong is that we have a consultation – but those who oppose are not allowed a voice ? Its already been deecided . How wrong and corrupt is that ?
Don’t listen to Ian Roberts – He clearly thinks No is not on the agenda either
The consultation is just a veiled guise for the community to think we may have a say in this horrendous scheme .
This road is wrong in so may ways
Oppose it
Campaign against it
Mr Roberts
We know all about the secret meetings
We know all about the financial irregularities
Don’t fool us
Not disclosing there is protected woodland and building a road through protected woodland is against the law
Come on Ian Roberts moderate the posts or we will think its a cover up
The road to no where with the lib dems lol
Explain Mr Roberts
Inside Out BBC 1 19:30.
We’ve hit ‘Peak Car’ and the costs of motoring are set to double over the next ten years. Why is our Govt blowing £30 BILLION on new roads then?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20526328
Hello Iain,
Bad road planner is back, I have look at the 3D video of the relief road and I have to say that is just pure bad road planning that traffic lights at every junction and on the A6 side is just a joke a T junction finishing and starting a dual carriageway now that is just bad road planning that. You might as well just built this poor bypass because the people and drivers in Hazel Grove are a bounce of miserable people and you are doing them a massive flavour for them. GO ON BUILT THIS POOR BYPASS.
This is the worst road plan since the completion of the M60 between Denton and Middleton section opened in 2000. Its is a big, big shame that it is not going to be a 3 lane motorway. Put a 2 lane dual carriageway with traffic lights at every junction is just bad road planning that. I am looking forward to hear your comments on this Iain about the junctions on it.
To bad road planner
I live in Hazel Grove
The reason am one of these miserable people is bacause this road is being planned
I will be happy if it does not get passed
And it won’t
4 December 2012: Kim Barrett from campaign group PAULA explains why you should join her in opposing the A6 to Manchester Airport Link Road.
Kim BarrettWhen somebody wants to sell you something, they’ll go to the ends of the earth to convince you that you need it. Sadly, much of what the current government is trying to sell us could actually bring about the end of the earth.
Cheshire East Council has recently begun switching off street lighting at night, to reduce carbon emissions, yet it is allowing a completely pointless dual carriageway to be built through its green belt. This is not a joke.
The A6 to Manchester Airport Relief Road is being presented under the banner of SEMMMS, a multi-modal scheme designed to ease local congestion to the south east of Manchester, of which road-building was one small element. Among the core aims was encouraging people to use their cars less and it was emphasised that the scheme would only work if all the varying aspects were introduced.
A6-Manchester Airport Link Road bannerCollective amnesia has since struck the councils involved – Manchester, Stockport and Cheshire East – and what they’re proposing now is the least useful bit, a dual carriageway which ploughs through ancient woodland, as well as green belt, before grinding to a chaotic halt at the single carriageway A6, which is already heavily congested. There will be no easing of local congestion with this road – it will actually get worse – and this is now nothing more than a route to the airport, George Osborne’s massively expanded airport with its Enterprise Zone and World Logistics Hub.
I should concede that there is one town that will probably see a drop in traffic and that’s Wilmslow, in the constituency of … George Osborne.
PAULA (Poynton Against Unnecessary Link-Roads to the Airport) has called for an immediate suspension of the public consultation, which was launched a good fortnight before all the relevant information was available. The local exhibitions have been presented with a comedy value of which Michael McIntyre would be proud.
Let me give you a couple of examples: Me: What does a noise increase of 5db or more mean? Is that 6db or 600? Stockport Council rep: I have no idea. It could be tearing a piece of paper or a jumbo jet taking off. Me: The A6 through Disley, which is already an Air Quality Management Area – this road will make air quality worse there. Aren’t you supposed to be improving it? Stockport Council rep: Yes, that’s unfortunate. It’s not a legal requirement, though.
The Business Case has more holes than Jim Royle’s vest and the traffic modelling is a delightful work of fiction. There is one road in particular, already at a standstill during rush hour, that will see a 23% increase in daily movements. Stockport Council has turned that into a 1% increase because, they say, there would be 22% more traffic if the road weren’t built. However, their spokeswoman has unwittingly showed us exactly where they’re going wrong. The graph she sent us reveals they’re using a study period of 1993 to 2010, to try to justify their projection of a huge increase in traffic but the graph also shows a dramatic fall since 2007.
The first of the consultation leaflets – they really aren’t making this process easy – proclaims that when they last asked residents about this road, 92% were in favour. Unforgivably, they’re quoting figures for a very different scheme – the actual number in favour of building the road they’re proposing now was 26%.
It’s true that they have consulted before, because this road has been proposed, in one form or another, since the 1930s. The question is, if it were so important, why hasn’t it been built already? The answer is simple: it’s not important at all. As David Rutley, MP for Macclesfield, admitted recently, as he stood and gazed at the stunning area by Mill Hill Hollow that will be obliterated by the road, if it weren’t for the current economic situation, they wouldn’t even be considering building it now.
So every avenue leads us to one conclusion: the Government is trying to build itself out of trouble and this road is just another ingredient in George Osborne’s half-baked plans for Manchester Airport, which in turn will lay the foundations for a third runway. Sorry, did I say that out loud?
PAULA is urging everyone who is concerned about the Link Road and the plans to expand Manchester Airport to respond to the consultation with a resounding ‘no’.
A guest post by Kim Barrett
More information:
PAULA website: http://www.saveourgreenbelt.uk.com/
SEMMMS consultation website: http://www.semmms.info/a6/consultation/
Listen to Kim on Stockport’s Pure FM, debating these issues with Cheadle MP Mark Hunter
You can also find out more on our interactive map of road schemes across the country.
Point 54
Roger Burton
You are way wrong mate
This bypass will create urban sprawl
Do you actually open your eyes and do you actually know the area in question ??
There is protected woodland that should remain prtected and is known as greenbelt
The bypass will destroy woodland , farmland and it will move urban areas closer together
doh
If people have evidence of wrongdoing, I really suggest you present it rather than continue to make totally unfounded allegations – presumably in the hope that some mud will stick! I’m certainly not aware of any.
Explain this
Danny Alexander held a secret meeting with Hunter and Stunell to discuss the road but wouldn’t disclose what went on in that meeting
So, the LibDems believe in open and honest government do they?
http://www.libdemvoice.org/danny-don-and-nick-stand-up-for-local-government-in-a-way-that-pickles-never-has-32000.html
Ah I see – mixing up “secret” and “private”. Thanks – that clears that one up.
What is the difference
You have been dishonest
We will discredit you and your road plans
I agree with Another local resident
Why did the council fail to indentify protected woodland until recently
Why did Alexander , Stunnel and Hunter have private / secret ( makes no difference to me ) meetings
The earnback scheme will mean that the tax payer will foot the bill for years to come
Would a political party want to be associated with this ??
Open Cast Coal extraction, Towers Farm, Poynton.
A SEMMMS opportunity?
In 1993 Coal Contractors Limited, now a
subsidiary company of Hall Construction (‘ extensive interests in mineral
recovery’), made an application to extract 250,000 tonnes of coal through
an open cast method of mining, to the east of Towers Road and to the South
of Norbury Brook. There was considerable local opposition to this
application through a well organised campaign which was supported by the
area’s Councillors and MP’s.
The scheme was eventually rejected in 1996, following an appeal by Coal
Contractors.
All well and good, but there are a few points we should note:
· One big benefit, according to Coal Contractors, was that the site
was adjacent to the then proposed MAELR (and the current SEMMMS route) and
therefore offered a unique opportunity to mitigate against one of the most
intrusive environmental impacts during road construction – that of lorry
traffic moving for disposal, over 2,000,000 cubic metres of earth and rock,
dug out as part of the road building programme. The scheme, very
generously, would take all that spoil and stuff it back into the hole left
following extraction of the coal. Apart from removing over 300,000 lorry
journeys from local roads, it was estimated that road building costs for
the bypass would be ‘ in the order of £6.5 million’ (1993 prices!).
· In addition, there would be further substantial reductions in
lorry traffic and extra savings for the road building scheme as a result of
the provision of large volumes of sandstone from the site for use in the
construction of the road.
Now, I am not a budding mineral extraction entrepreneur, but if I was, I
might want to resurrect this once failed open cast mining scheme.
Ironically enough, there is a man not a million miles away from here who
may be ambivalent about such an extraction scheme. Here is what he said in
2011:
*The extraction of coal is different from other considerations. The
operation is not permanent or long term, and nowadays there are now always
requirements for the restoration of land to high environmental standards,
which can sometimes involve great biodiversity benefits.*
*The period of extraction will vary considerable, depending on the
availability of resources, but most coal operations last for a far shorter
period than stone extraction or crushed rock operations, for example.
However, I recognise that three or five years-or perhaps longer-is still a
considerable time for local people to put up with such development, which
is why environmental effects are properly considered at the outset and
monitored throughout the life of a site’s operation. It also explains why
it is important that we get the right balance between the need for coal on
the one hand, and coal extractions environmental impact on local
communities on the other hand.*
Yes, this is our local MP Andrew Stunell, speaking for the Government, and
against a private members bill – the Planning (Opencast Mining Separation
Zones) Bill – which sought to extend separation between residential
properties and open cast mining to a distance of 500 metres. This Bill has
now lapsed and an attempt to get the 500 metre separation zone inserted
into the Localism Bill also failed. As a result opencast mining can come as
close to your back garden as the developer likes (unlike in Scotland and
Wales, where separation zones have been adopted).
Incidentally, there were approximately 39 properties within 200 metres of
the Towers Farm project, with a further 311 properties within 400 metres.
Little point then in asking Andrew Stunell if he would support 500 metre
separation between the back of our properties and the proposed SEMMMS road!
And i see in the press today that the government are trying to change the law regarding countryside and greenbelt with regards to new building projects
care to comment on that for once instead of deleting posts you don’t agree with
Dear Mr/Ms Process,
I’ve not seen the press report you mention – if the law changes, we’ll obviously comply with it.
I’ve never deleted a post I don’t disagree with. The only posts I’ve deleted here have been from people pretending to be someone they’re not: I reserve the right not to carry libellous content on this website!
Hello Iain
Bad Road Planner is back I am looking forward when this relief road get built in 2014 is it going to be traffic lights at every junction or is it going to be grade seperated junctions just like the old A555. I think it should be built the same standard as the old A555. Please remove them traffic lights on the A6 end and put a roundabout there thank you. Quickly build this relief road so the environments can stop putting nonsense on this forum.
Bad Road Planner will be back with a vengeance in 2013
Hello Iain
Bad Road Planner is back, I told you I will be back in 2013.
Point 33 Michael Roberts calling someone a idiot on the internet mate look at your road building in your country absolutely rubbish there are. Your country keeps talking about roads and you never actually built it. This road has been planned and talked about since 1945 I want be a bit surprise if it ever gets built. Plus it will not be a 3 lane motorway (original planned) but a 2 lane dual carriageway with traffic lights at every junction instant of having sliproads, roundabout and grade-seperated. Now thats what I call Bad Road Planning that.
Now that is my vengeance to Michael Roberts.
the bypass is bad news for the local area and the economy
anyone in rheir right mind can see that
I saw this on another site – care to comment
Quote
The Achilles heel in all of this SEMMMS consultations are the air quality studies that don’t appear to be available or been presented for discussion. Probably because numerous new roads planned across the UK have stumbled at the final planning stage when EU air pollution levels have not been met…nor ever will be!!
All across the UK roads are failing to achieve the EU standards for Air quality and these will be a strategic part of the final planning judicial process, already the A6 is way over the legal limits and the extra traffic the road will attract will send it spiralling to unacceptable levels.
The EU legal limit is 40ug/m3, Hazel Grove air quality on 9 Jan 2013 was 61ug/m3 – 50% higher than the legal limit.
Stockport Hazel Grove
Latest data
pollutant date time band index measurement unit
NO2 01/09/2013 00:00 Low 1 61.00 µg/m3
PM10 01/09/2013 00:00 Low 1 19.00 µg/m3
please check the Greater Manchester live website for your local air quality
http://www.greatairmanchester.org.uk/greatair/default.aspx
Already the EU are taking action….
UK Given Final Warning for Air Pollution Failures | 4 Jun 2010
The European Commission has sent the UK a final written warning over failures to meet European limits for dangerous airborne particles in London.
Particle pollution is understood to be responsible for over 35,000 annual premature deaths across the UK, and over 4,300 in London alone.
The final warning from the Commission follows the start of legal proceedings against the UK in January 2009 for failing to meet air quality standards that came into effect at the end of 2004. During 2009 the UK applied for a time extension, allowed under EU law, for meeting the standards, however the application for the London ‘zone’ was rejected due to the lack of a concrete plan for cleaning the air.
The next stage of the legal proceedings following the final warning would be action in the European courts, and ultimately fines ranging into hundreds of millions of Euros for Local councils failing to meet the legal limits.
So Yes lets all vote yes for higher pollution, more traffic jams and loss of our countryside, and million euro fines from the EU to repay through taxes or tolls…great vote winners SMBC, CMC and GM!!
In the interest of freedom of expression
Please do not delete this
The Achilles heel in all of this SEMMMS consultations are the air quality studies that don’t appear to be available or been presented for discussion. Probably because numerous new roads planned across the UK have stumbled at the final planning stage when EU air pollution levels have not been met…nor ever will be!!
All across the UK roads are failing to achieve the EU standards for Air quality and these will be a strategic part of the final planning judicial process, already the A6 is way over the legal limits and the extra traffic the road will attract will send it spiralling to unacceptable levels.
The EU legal limit is 40ug/m3, Hazel Grove air quality on 9 Jan 2013 was 61ug/m3 – 50% higher than the legal limit.
Stockport Hazel Grove
Latest data
pollutant date time band index measurement unit
NO2 01/09/2013 00:00 Low 1 61.00 µg/m3
PM10 01/09/2013 00:00 Low 1 19.00 µg/m3
please check the Greater Manchester live website for your local air quality
http://www.greatairmanchester.org.uk/greatair/default.aspx
Already the EU are taking action….
UK Given Final Warning for Air Pollution Failures | 4 Jun 2010
The European Commission has sent the UK a final written warning over failures to meet European limits for dangerous airborne particles in London.
Particle pollution is understood to be responsible for over 35,000 annual premature deaths across the UK, and over 4,300 in London alone.
The final warning from the Commission follows the start of legal proceedings against the UK in January 2009 for failing to meet air quality standards that came into effect at the end of 2004. During 2009 the UK applied for a time extension, allowed under EU law, for meeting the standards, however the application for the London ‘zone’ was rejected due to the lack of a concrete plan for cleaning the air.
The next stage of the legal proceedings following the final warning would be action in the European courts, and ultimately fines ranging into hundreds of millions of Euros for Local councils failing to meet the legal limits.
So Yes lets all vote yes for higher pollution, more traffic jams and loss of our countryside, and million euro fines from the EU to repay through taxes or tolls…great vote winners SMBC, CMC and GM!!
Appears the air quality will halt this bypass
Interesting that Mr Roberts has chosen not to comment on the air quality issue on the A6 in Hazel Grove, the levels for poynton are slightly lower, but any extra slow moving traffic through the village will quickly send these soaring into unacceptable EU levels.
http://www.cheshireeast.gov.uk/environment_and_planning/environmental_health/local_air_quality/what_is_pollution_like_near_me/diffusion_tube_monitoring/interactive_map/poynton.aspxoogle
SMBC, CEC, and GM are all struggling for cash and really don’t want a 300,000,000 euro fine, similar to the one hanging over London at the moment for failing to achieve clean air for the health of local residents.
Even more concerning are the proximity of the road to 2 primary schools locally, where air quality will be a major concern for all parents.
Please comment Mr Roberts and please do not delete posts
I’m interested that some people here seem to think their arguments are so weak they can only “win” the debate by falsely claiming that I delete posts (I don’t, except in a tiny number of cases where they may be libellous, and that’s not happened for months).
Please comment on the Polution levels Mr Roberts
Naturally, pretty much every development in the country increases pollution levels in some places and may reduces them elsewhere.
We’ll be responding to the specifics of this case as part of the response to the consultation over the next few weeks.
gasmasks will be provided as Councellors cannot breath clean air anymore
As someone who commutes the a6 disley to hazel grove every day, usually crawling in first gear for the majority of the journey, I really fail to understand how a scheme designed to bring more traffic to an area will improve congestion in an area. I didn’t know about the air quality issue. Well that is just disgusting. How can the authorities building this road fail to pay attention to European law? How about we all ignore local law and build huge extensions in our garden?
Does anyone know where all the funding is coming from and in what percentages?
This bypass is BAD NEWS for all who live in the local area. This is a sample fact and I am amazed that anyone is supporting it esp our local representatives such as Mr Roberts or could this just be all about money?? The road will encourage even more drivers to add to the congested A6 through Hazel Grove and the surrounding area in order to gain access to a road that will either take them to the airport or to join other already congested roads (Kingsway, M60, etc etc). I am no enviromentalist believe me but the road will have a devistating effect slicing through precious green belt land and incredible ancient woodland (Norbury woods off Old Mill lane). Air quality will be substantialy reduced to third world country levels (do we realy want our children to breath in even more poluted air?). Plus car use is in decline, yes decline so why promote its use? A bypass planned since the 40’s is not and never will be required. Why don’t we just improve our dated overcrowded expensive public transport system.
Take a look at the “Paula” web site as this action group speaks sense for all.
Just been reading through Amrans posts. Brilliant!!
The man talks complete sense about this ridiculous proposed enviromental disaster.
I have lived in the local area (Hazel Grove, Poynton and Disley all of my life. The more I read about this road the more I am against it, all who are for it (mostly the elected few) and all it will do to ruin the area. Besides my points raised in my previous e-mail the open cast coal mine near Towers Road, Poynton concerns me. It was dropped in the 90’s but I am sure it will resurface if this monstrosity is constructed.
Well said Paul Sum
I am with you every step of the way
Well said Paul Sum
Well said Paul Sum
Two words for you Mr Roberts
PROTECTED WOODLAND
Thanks Mike S, much appreciated. If enough of us stand against this obscene, ridiculous and pointless (sorry I didn’t mention EXPENSIVE) road to nowhere then I hope and pray that it won’t get built. If it does we will and our future generations will pay a heavy price for this destructive piece of tarmac. Please listen to the overwhelming opinion of your constituents Mr Roberts. Dramatic incredible ancient woodland and protected valued green belt are what make our much loved local area so special for all who live here. We don’t wish to live in another Milton Keynes with sprawling housing estates, mile upon mile of bypass roundabouts and link roads, mini retail parks, infill areas of industrial storage, open cast coal mines (mentioned previously the planned coal mine at Towers Road will become a viable proposition) and of course deteriorating air quality. Take heed Mr Roberts and all of your fellow representatives of your constituency.
Paul S – here is another website to voice your views
http://www.civicr.com/suburb/hazel-grove/forum/a6-to-manchester-airport-relief-road-c14/
PAULA has just been notified that the government have quietly done an about turn on the sale and protection of woodlands, the LUSH appointed consultants will be going over the SEMMMS business brief with a fine toothcomb, to see how this affects the route of the Airport Link Road at Carr Wood and other woodlands in Mill Hill Hollow. It may necessitate a massive route change which will increase costs and need extra time,….neither of which SMBC have with this project….
…….Yesterday, after months of deliberations – we have the final, official word from the government that they will do what more than half a million of us asked them to – and protect our nation’s forests for good.
Congratulations! We’ve really, truly, won.
It was a political defeat, and victory for people power they never saw coming.
Click here to see how we made it happen, and then share this image on Facebook:
https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/forests-timeline-share
In late 2010, the government announced a plan to introduce a new law to allow all publicly owned woodlands to be sold off in the future.
The government might have expected a few predictable protests, but there was nothing predictable about what happened next.
538,107 people signed the 38 Degrees petition
More than 100,000 of us contacted our MPs
We funded an independent poll, which found 84% of the public wanted our forests in public hands
Thousands raised nearly £60,000 to pay for ads in national newspapers
More than 30 local campaigning groups sprung into action around the country
Over 220,000 of us helped spread the word on social media
When the government finally did admit they got it wrong, they promised to set up an independent forestry panel to advise them on what should be done next.
Again, 38 Degrees members sprang into action:
34,000 of us wrote to the panel to tell them what we wanted for our woodlands’ future – more that 80% of all the responses they received
We gathered in places all over the England, to take pictures and discuss our ideas
A big group of 38 Degrees members brought all our ideas, as well as our top three priorities, to a public meeting with the panel in September 2011
And the Independent Panel on Forestry was critical.
They found the government had “greatly undervalued” the benefits woodlands provide for people, nature and the economy. They then called for forest policy to be held in public trust for the entire nation, shielded from political interference – with one member saying, “the tree cycle is wholly different to the electoral cycle.”[1]
So here we are today, more than two years after our campaign began – and the government has at last, quietly issued an official announcement confirming that they won’t try selling off England’s forests again.
That means we’ve done it. Our forests are safe, for good.
It’s thanks to all the people who fought so hard – including over half a million 38 Degrees members – that our beautiful forests and woodlands are now safe for generations to come.
Click here to share the good news, and tell others how people power saved our forests:
https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/forests-timeline-share
Together we should all feel incredibly proud about the part we played in saving England’s wonderful forests and woodlands. Please forgive the long email – but moments like these don’t happen every day. Again, thank you.
The 38 Degrees team
P.S: 38 Degrees takes no money from government, political parties or corporations – and with very little budget we hold politicians accountable 365 days each year. If you’d like to make a financial contribution to that, please chip in here: https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/start-your-direct-debit
NOTES:
[1] The Guardian, “No sell-off of forests, promises Caroline Spelman”: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jul/04/no-sell-off-forests-spelman
Cheers for the info Mike!
Time to look at the true facts
A folly in the making – A response to SEMMMS from CPRE Lancashire, the Campaign for Better Transport and North West Transport Roundtable
Posted on February 7, 2013
The business case and the environmental scoping report for a new road that would decimate part of the Green Belt around South East Manchester has been challenged by a consortium of environmental NGOs including CPRE.
The A6 to Manchester Airport Relief Road would be the first stage of a network of roads that were examined as part of the South East Manchester Multi Modal Study (SEMMMS) at the turn of the century. Most of them were given a green light by the study – but based on traffic models which predicted high traffic growth that has never materialised. A consultation about the first section of road closed on January 25th. CPRE Lancashire Branch lodged its own objection but also produced a very critical analysis of the Environmental Scoping Report that was submitted as part of a composite series of critiques co-ordinated by the Campaign for Better Transport (CfBT) and the North West Transport Roundtable (NW TAR).
Read the full report here :
http://www.cprelancashire.org.uk/uploads/SEMMMSA6-ManchesterAirportRoad-NWTAR&CfBT_published_web.pdf
The Lib/Con Government push the agenda of ‘Every Child Matters’ and then try to build a dual carriageway 100 metres from the classrooms of Queensgate Primary School and 30 metres from the edge of the playing field, even their own figures show a dangerous increase in the air quality affecting the young children’s developing lungs.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/mar/08/air-pollution-life-expectancy-dupont
Hi Andrew – happy to say we have a lot of evidence on the air quality and there is little increase of any kind – and certainly no dangerous increase – for either the playing fields or the buildings of Queensgate Primary School.
Hi, Happy to say that the parents don’t believe your models and it is unlikely that your evidence concerning the childrens health would stand up to a rigorous independent scrutiny.
I suppose the Councils completely ignore the evidence from the European study on the link. At a meeting with Mark Hunter last week, the councils own figures showed a 30% increase in particulate presence around the school.
Would you like to come to a meeting with the parents at Queensgate to explain your evidence, there is one coming up and we could invite you to it.
Don’t trust the LibDems because they are a bounce of bad road planners. T junction on a dual carriageway are you having a laugh Mr roberts. Traffic lights at every junction you don’t even know how to build a road properly. What I do not understand is that why they are building a 50 mph dual carriageway with traffic lights at every junction. The LibDems are bounce of bad road planners and I do not trust them with their road planning ideas.
Iain
we don’t appear to have had any comments from you regarding the 108 page official response to the scheme you are promoting.
Jimmy Mc’s response was dont believe everything you read…we werent sure if he meant the SEMMMS business case or the report…we believe the first!!!
You have been very quiet on this subject recently as your lack of knowledge about the air quality issues in Stockport.
Jimmy Mc’s response to this was that pollution on the A6 and A34 probably wouldnt increase any at Peak times, but maydo at off peak times……thats because as a standstill car park at peak times it cant get any worse.
cant wait to see where you go from here or do you just do as you have been told again and ignore everything????
come on Iain…whats your responses
I’ve been very happy to let the evidence speak for itself.
People here have demanded I take account of public opinion on the road and that public opinion is 7:1 in favour of getting it built.
The air pollution issue has been thoroughly dealt with and I can only suggest anyone, for or against the road, read what’s been produced and, if you think it’s wrong, demonstrate that.
I am very happy to take full account of both the evidence and public opinion – how about you?
Hello Iain
I just had a idea why don’t you remove all the traffic lights from every junction from this relief road and replace them with give way signs so everyone can give way to each other at every junction. At least that is the cheaper option then traffic lights. I am looking forward to hear your comments on this Iain you and your bad road planning ideas.
Hi – always good to have comments and views, but for the details of what will actually work for a road I think we need to go with the experts who can draw on decades of experience of how roads actually work over anonymous comments on the Internet.
If you believe that there is a 7 to 1 in favour of the new road give us a referendum on the matter which will decide once and for all
Hi Ron – I would be very happy to have a referendum if that was the legal process to follow. It’s not just that I believe people are in favour – it’s what they’ve said when over 9,000 people gave their opinions to the Council.
I would like to see a breakdown of the so-called 9000 because here in Bramhall very few of my acquantance are in favour due to “road blight” on their properties and air pollution.Noise from the road will also be a disturbing factor
Hi Iv just moved to Bosden farm and have just learned off this bypass?!?!
Where will it start and go?
I’m struggling to find the routes online
I know Bisden farm struggles at peak times do I’m all for a new rd/ rds
Hi Iv just moved to Bosden farm and have just learned off this bypass?!?!
Where will it start and go?
I’m struggling to find the routes online
I know Bosden farm struggles at peak times so I’m all for a new rd/ rds
Ps whilst we are at it why don’t we bring the tram link to Offerton and hazel grove. I’m all for it as is everyone I speak to
Hello Iain
I heard that Stockport Council are going to put a T junction on the start of the relief road on the A6 side. All the people on the A6 side are all going to vote for a roundabout. You and Stockport Council are going to say “Tough, you are getting a T-junction there”. If Hazel Grove to Bredbury section gets built you and Stockport Council are going to put a crossroad there and not a roundabout.
It will be funny if they cancel this relief road because nothing has not been finalized yet. No contactor has been awarded the construction work and they are being a bit funny with construction date. Whitehall will do a U-turn on it and cancel it at the last minute.
The relief road is poor traffic lights at every junction on it. The people in Hazel grove are a bounce of miserable people and they deserve this poor road and you are doing them a massive flavour and get it built and get them of their misery.
Now I know what the SEMMMS stands out for it means bad road planning and put traffic lights at every junction on a relief road.
I am looking forward to hear your comments on this Iain you and your bad road planning ideas.
Isn’t it time that we simply scrapped this ridiculous unwanted road system and concentrate on better alternatives such as improved public transport and more environmentally friendly options.
This planned road to no where will cost millions and cost the future of our beloved area irrepairable damage for future generations to come.
Picture this….and believe me it will happen.
Green belt land carved up, massive new housing estates, American style retail parks, OPEN CAST COAL MINING….
This will be the future. Our children will look back and weep, DON’T ALLOW THIS SCHEME TO PROCEED PLEASE!
Just discovered (PAULA website) that there were plans drawn up for an alternative road layout and junction near to the Robin Hood (Thai restrnt). This would have meant that the A6 realignment could have been avoided saving greenbelt farming land near to Simpsons Corner and avoiding the road carving its way through aincient protected precious woodland at Bluebell woods, Old Mill Lane. I’m furious and others would be as the plans were NOT RELEASED DURING PUBLIC CONSULTATION!!!!
The council should now RELEASE THE ALTERNATIVE ROUTE AND RECOMMENCE PUBLIC CONSULTATION!
Mr Roberts, this is a discrace and SMBC should be ashamed!!!!!!!!
Hi Paulsum,
I’m sorry you’ve been misled by the Paula website. No such plans were drawn up before the consultation.
The idea of the realignment came from Paula after the consultation. The Council, showing our willingness to explore every option, did some work for Paula on looking at the option they’d come up with. There were numerous problems with the proposal which came out of that work, and it certainly wouldn’t be a suitable option to consider further.
The Council could, of course, have not looked at this option and would have done nothing wrong if it hadn’t. However, throughout this process we have wanted to work with local residents and explore all the issues raised.
It’s unfortunate that Paula have used the goodwill shown by the Council to spread more misinformation.
“Goodwill”????
I don’t think that there is any of that on offer from SMBC Ian.
It is interesting to note that 95% of residents who have completed the on line SMBC planning application have stated that they are AGAINST the proposed road.
So where is the “overwhelming local support” that the Lib Dems say there is for this ridiculous extravagant scheme?
To be honest, I would have been absolutely shocked if the planning application had had lots of people writing in favour – that rarely happens.
However, we do have a good idea of people’s views because we asked them! Over 9000 people responded to our consultation with half being strongly in favour of the road and, overall, those in favour outnumbering those against by 5:1.
9000 responded to a questionnaire that was more interested in their race, gender, sexual orientation rather than the BIG ISSUE OF A ROAD THAT NO ONE BUT THE LIB DEMS WANT!
9000….Smbc’s figures.
Smbc, judge, jury and executioner in the A555 farce.
Anyway, with evidence building (illegal Co2 levels and no mitigation offered by the “Semmms” team) and increased resistance from the public and pressure groups this project will hopefully go the same way as the Hollingworth to Tintwistle bypass.
I think that if you’re approach to public opinion is to ignore the views of 9,000 residents and all political parties then you may struggle to persuade others that you’re right.
You claim the road is only wanted by the Lib Dems – we’ve fought hard for it, but of course the road is supported by all parties on Stockport Council as well as Manchester Council and Cheshire East Council, plus – by a margin of 5:1 the people who will be affected by it.
There’s nothing wrong with being in a minority on this one Paul – you have your view, most people disagree with you, but we can still respect that and make sure you can have your say.
95 percent object to this ridiculous, destructive, unnecessary, obscene road building scheme on the Smbc planning portal site. So who is in the minority Mr Roberts?
I think I’ve previously made the obvious and well-understood point about why measuring the popularity of something by how many people object/support a planning application tends to give you the wrong result because not many people who support applications will ever write in, whereas many people who oppose them will (especially when encouraged to write in by an active campaign group).
So, to repeat myself again, we know that the scheme is supported by the vast majority of residents, by every political group on Stockport Council, by all local MPs of different parties, by Manchester City Council and by Cheshire East Council.
You ask who is in the minority? You are. As I said previously, it doesn’t invalidate your view, and it’s important that you can have your say, but trying to twist the facts doesn’t do your case any favours.
It’s not necessary to twist the facts. They speak for themselves.
Clarity, honesty, the truth.
That’s what is required. Not smoke and mirrors.
I just find this constant rhetoric about delivering a road that people have desperately wanted/ needed for years as totally laughable. The scheme is NOT the same – it ends at a T junction on the A6. It’s only 5 minutes ago that the local councillors were congratulating themselves on securing the Hazel Grove bypass! Dear God, it has nothing to do with SEMMMS, it’s an access road to Airport City. It’s also probably illegal from an AirQuality perspective and will likely go the way of the M60 widening scheme -in the bin. One thing is for sure, the link with the M60 will never now get built, as traffic levels along the full route would push air pollution in to the stratosphere. If only politicians had memories longer than goldfish and tongues less forked
Let me introduce one simple fact. It is illegal to deliberately increase air pollution in an existing air quality management area. The A6 at Disley is an AQMA. Therefore, this road cannot be built.
I would just like to point out a few things about this road that make my blood boil. The first one is that the Lib Dems used to be against road building on environmental grounds and yet here we are with a Lib Dem local council pushing hard for a road through our countryside. I feel utterly betrayed and will be joining other ‘green’ minded individuals who voted Lib Dem in 2010, along with students, teachers, NHS workers and many thousands of others in making sure I never fall for anything else the Lib Dems ever say. Secondly, in this age of a rapidly warming planet caused by humankinds reliance on fossil fuels, why on earth are we building more roads when the evidence is clear – building new roads encourages more traffic and in turn actually leads to more congestion?! Which brings me on to my third and final point….with all the new housing, out of town retails parks and Airport City, the new road helps to facilitate, we are actualy going to end up with just ANOTHER congested road; it wont do a damn thing to reduce congestion nor improve air quality. What an absolute waste of my money and not such a great deal for my childrens future either. Shame on SMBC.
Well said Mike. Agree with every word as I’m sure do the vast majority of local residents.
Hello Iain
Bad road planner is back. I heard that the contractor has been awarded for the work for building this road and the first thing they will look at is that T-junction on the A6 and they will say that is not going to work on a dual carriageway and clearly they want a roundabout there.
You and Stockport Council are going to say tough put a T-junction there. I am looking forward to hear your comments on this Iain you and your bad road planning ideas.
Carillion has been awarded the lucrative contract to build this ridiculous white elephant road scheme….the same company that has substantial financial interests in AIRPORT CITY!
This stinks worse than a bag of old kippers.
The looming prospect of this destructive road and the 50 years of pontificating involved before the whole absurd scheme gets to this stage are concrete evidence that it is neither wanted or needed by the people who will be adversely effected by it.
Put simply the A555 relief road is already RUINING PEOPLES LIVES. Like a black cloud on the horizon, like the grim reaper marching towards us. We will loose something deeply precious if this monsterous rotten scheme goes ahead.
Just received a letter from Andrew Stunnel who states ( with much fury ) that the Conservative councellors have voted against planning permission for this road
Bravo the conservatives
I will welcome the public enquiry , if it gets that far , before being thrown out
Then we can enjoy cleaner air , greenbelt , fair politics again
The Conservatives opposed the road on the grounds that it wasn’t long enough – they wanted an extra section built near Poynton! Not sure that’s what you want.
140 posts on the A555 “road to nowhere except 1800 new homes at Handforth, Airport City and Woodford Garden Village” (what a quaint name for yet another massive sprawling estate!). No sign of the often quoted “overwhelming support” here Mr Roberts.
It’s funny how things sometimes just go around in circles. This thread started with Cllr Roberts stating that “a public enquiry should not be required again” yet, guess what, A PUBLIC ENQUIRY HAS JUST BEEN ANNOUNCED”…. Bravo!!
We have the same people lined up for the Public Enquiry that showed up the Mottram-Tintwistle bypass for the sham it was!! I think the A6-M’cr Airport ‘Relief’ Rd is as good as buried….no wonder they wont make public the traffic modelling data…but we WILL get it.
I was watching the 3D video of this relief road and there are a total of 10 traffic lights on it starting at the A6 to the airport direction and there are a 11 traffic lights on the airport to the A6 direction.
Building a dual carriageway that’s good but putting traffic lights on it that’s BAD.
Stockport Council will built this road and when it is up and running they will found out they did a big cook up on it and they will found out that roundabouts and slips roads where better.
Any news on Bosden farm, Bredbury and reddish m60 bypass since that is needed too
Phase one will cause more traffic
Phase two will be needed too
Thanking you Darren Watson