Representation by Jo Dagustun
- Date submitted
- 16 September 2021
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
As a local resident, I welcome the opportunity to register as an interested party. I have significant concerns about this application. This is a complex project, which should cost-effectively address the needs of various interests, including those of the local communities and those of people/businesses who travel through the area of impact. I suggest that the current proposal doesn’t achieve this. A key local interest is the need to address traffic congestion through Mottram, Hollingworth and Tintwistle. This scheme does not do this (focusing instead on just one small area of local concern) nor achieves part of this objective without creating significant negative impacts (shifting traffic congestion rather than eliminating it and increasing traffic in other areas). As it stands, the proposal leaves the local area with significant remaining traffic issues: a more innovative package of measures seems necessary, beyond the limited scope of Highways England. A key part of the problem relates to the project’s long gestation: rooted in decades-long discussions and with widespread frustration about lack of action, there has been very little scrutiny of how well the current plan fits with current needs and the current policy environment. We have key policy drivers regarding air pollution, carbon reduction, road safety and active travel, yet this proposal seems to have not caught up with that policy agenda. Why is this scheme, at minimum, not carbon neutral? Why is air pollution in the local area of impact (including near primary schools) not being brought down to safe levels? Where is the ambition in this proposal for a reduced reliance on cars and other private vehicles? What signals does this proposal give about active travel in the local area? Given the proposed introduction of major road crossings in local walk to school routes, a shifting of congestion to areas containing schools, as well as a projected – and frankly shocking - increase in road accidents, my fear is that this project will work to undermine rather than improve efforts to encourage safer roads and active travel. In terms of process, I can testify that the current proposal – spread over c.200 documents - contains key information that was not available in the most recent public consultation. This key information includes: traffic flow information, changes in estimated travel times and local road accident projections. It is not acceptable that this information was not available for the public consultation, a consultation that was poorly designed to encourage critical response. (Please review the unrealistic flyover video, which underlines the ‘sales pitch’ inherent in the consultation approach.) My sense is that the new information offered in this application may have cast doubt for many on the overall benefit of the scheme, and that the panel should therefore reject the suggestion that the proposal is well-supported locally without further evidence e.g. are the minor improvements to travel times in line with the expectations of supporters of this scheme; how do consultees feel about increased congestion in some areas and increased travel times for some journeys; how do consultees feel about the significant increase in traffic expected along the Snake Pass? Are we confident that the consultees have ‘voted’ for more road traffic accident casualties than is projected to be the case without this scheme? Thank you.