1. Section 51 advice
  2. Advice in detail

Advice to Matt Parkinson

Back to list

Enquiry

From
Matt Parkinson
Date advice given
10 April 2012
Enquiry type
Email

I am concerned that the proposed A556 'improvement' scheme fails on most, if not all, of the Governments five central objectives for transport to be examined through the NATA process. As you undoubtedly know these are Environmental, Safety, Economy, Accessibility and Integration. The current proposals put forward by the Highways Agency (HA) which the public are supposedly being consulted about, benefit one community to the detriment of six other hamlets and villages.

  1. Environment. As the proposals stand far from being an 'environmental improvement' scheme, the road will destroy prime agricultural land, woodland listed as being of 'Special Biological Importance' (Tabley Pipe Wood), countless ponds and the habitats of endangered species. No amount of 'wildlife mitigation' can compensate for the damage and loss of precious countryside. The improvement in air quality which the HA claim the new road will bring actually only benefit the residents of Chester Rd. The new road will shift the pollution to the communities of Tabley, Hoo Green, Hulseheath, Millington, High Legh and Little Bollington. Although the HA claim that the proposed road will be a 'free-flowing' one, the fact remains that even they acknowledge traffic will back up from J7 of the M56 and into these communities. Building new roads encourages increases in car use and quantity of journeys; which does not sit easily with Government targets for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases.

  2. Safety. The proposed scheme causes more safety problems than it solves. The anticipated increase in vehicles using back country lanes to reach the proposed junction at Millington for example will increase from around 120 each day to between 2-3000 each day! These lanes form part of the Cheshire Cycleway and are criss-crossed with bridleways and public footpaths. In fact they are barely wide enough in places to accommodate two vehicles passing. It is inevitable that there will be serious accidents. In addition as the proposed road will have a speed limit increase of 70mph (from the current 50mph) traffic will be travelling faster into the back of the queue at J7 of the M56; once again increasing the likelihood of serious injury should there be an accident or collision.

  3. Economy. The proposed road will do little to stimulate the economy other than providing short term construction jobs. The road is a replica of the current A556 minus two sets of traffic lights. It therefore does not increase capacity. The traffic will continue to queue and back up from J7 of the M56, at peak times, just as it does now. The proposed road will negatively impact the livelihoods of farming communities and agricultural businesses, particularly in Tabley and Millington. It is likely that some will struggle to keep going and vulnerable rural communities will suffer job losses at a time when they are already under increased pressure to stay financially afloat.

  4. Accessibility. The proposed road will further isolate the hamlet of Millington. Access for emergency response vehicles will be hindered, particularly for Millington Hall Lane. Far from increasing connectivity, new roads divide and sever communities from one another and once again, increase dependence on the car. Communities that were once relatively safe for children to play in become unsafe, parents keep their children inside and this all results in a reduction in quality of life and a loss 'community', which has implications for other social factors such as crime and anti-social behaviour.

  5. Integration. For a start the proposed scheme is against the Governments own policy on freight transport of a shift toward rail. It also makes vehicles travelling between two motorways, leave the motorway network, join an A road, then re-join the motorway network, rather than remain on the motorway. Improvements to Junction 20 of the M6 are the only logical, long-term solution to keeping traffic on the motorway network, (where it belongs) and would be advantageous to everyone living alongside the current A556. Improving J20 would be a true environmental improvement, it would benefit all communities (the current A556 could still be de-trunked), it would not result in communities being severed and torn apart, quality of life would not be destroyed and improving J20 would be SUSTAINABLE, in a way which the current proposals are absolutely not.

Advice given

See attached response.

Attachments

View advice (PDF)