Skip to main content
Find a National Infrastructure Project

Beta This is a beta service - your feedback will help us to improve it

Advice to Mr Parkinson

Back to list

Enquiry

From
Mr Parkinson
Date advice given
13 August 2012
Enquiry type
Email

Mr Parkinson sent the following email to the Planning Inspectorate:

I am emailing you about an anomaly which came to my attention earlier this week regarding the Highway Agency's reporting of progression of their scheme for a bypass for the A556 in Cheshire; the 'Knutsford to Bowdon "Environmental Improvement" Scheme'.

On 20th July 2012 the HA sent out letters to the 700 individuals who responded to their consultation process, which ended on 16th April, updating us on progress. In that letter they state, and I quote :

"We will be undertaking further work on assessing alternatives such as M6/J20 improvements during the next few months. We will publish more information about our findings in the Consultation Report. In the meantime we are maintaining progress on developing the A556 scheme".

As you can imagine this brought about a certain degree of hope that the A556 Lobby Groups professionally produced report into delivering a cost-effective alternative to the bypass (ie. M6 junction 20 improvements) would be looked at and considered carefully by the Highways Agency - as they are statutory bound to do so.

However in a statement to Knutsford.com earlier this week they said, and I quote:

"We did receive an alternative scheme proposal, but we are not planning to progress this as an option, as our assessment is that it would not deliver value for money, and would result in more traffic on local lanes in rural communities. Our consultation report will include our detailed response on this too." Article here: http://www.knutsford.com/news/article/6729/revised-scheme-for-a556-upgrade

This seems at best contradictory and at worst means that they have already written off our proposals without appearing to have taken any appropriate level of response time to examine them properly and thoroughly. Our alternative scheme could potentially save taxpayers over £100M, without taking anywhere near as much greenbelt land, destroying the environment for endangered species or disrupting the lives and businesses of hundreds of people. It also seems that they are telling seven hundred people one thing whilst in fact they have already decided the bypass is going ahead, which makes a complete mockery of the entire 'consultation' process.

As a committee member of the A556 Lobby Group, I look forward to hearing from you in due course about this.

Advice given

The Planning Inspectorate sent the following advice:

Your correspondence will remain on file and will be made available to the Inspector once the application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate.

In the meantime you may wish to contact the Highways Agency directly during this pre-application stage to inform them of your comments. The Planning Act 2008 regime is a frontloaded process, therefore if you have comments to make, direct contact with the applicant prior to submission of their application is advised.

As you may be aware, the Infrastructure Planning Commission has been abolished and its functions and staff have transferred to the Planning Inspectorate. Our advice notes have been re-branded and some alterations have been made in light of changes brought by the Localism Act 2011, I have included a link to our advice notes for your information: http://infrastructure.planningportal.gov.uk/legislation-and-advice/advice-notes/

If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact us.