Representation by Daniel Wimberley
- Date submitted
- 16 September 2021
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
PREAMBLE The case for this scheme is pitifully weak. If the panel were to recommend its construction and the Secretary of State were to give the go-ahead, it is wide open to legal challenge (see section LEGAL below). It has been 50 years in the making , which in itself suggests something is wrong. It is a road looking for a reason. However, the environmental gains in the built-up areas implied by HE in the consultation are now revealed to be worse than non-existent while the reflected glory and supposed benefits of being a “Trans-Pennine Upgrade” scheme depends on future plans to go over (politically problematic, if not impossible) or to go under (financially improbable) the Pennines. ISSUES OF DISAGREEMENT 1 Confusion about the scope and purpose of the scheme 50 years in the making suggest deep-seated problems with this scheme. This needs to be explored – just what is the problem (or problems)? The proposers tell us little about the history of this scheme (see TAR 1.4.4 – 1.4.6, which does not link to any further explanation so I assume there isn’t one.) In particular the proposers HE seem to imply benefits for the scheme from other yet to be formulated, yet to be consulted on “gleams-in-the-eye” sections. These should be excluded from consideration by the EiP. 1a Aims of the scheme It was hard for me to find these amongst the consultation documents – in a form that is where they were operational things which could be defined and measured and not “wishes”. I will, and the panel should, create a list of what the aims actually are, distilled from the documents of HE and then consider the big question: what is the most cost-effective, user – friendly etc. way of meeting these aims – and is it this scheme? Or does the scheme really not pass this test? 2 History of the scheme and road alternatives to the option being put forward On the face of it the scheme i.a. funnels traffic through Tintwistle and Longdendale and therefore increases traffic nuisances in these two settlements. Why was the option including a bypass for these two settlements not taken forward and offered for consultation? 3 government policy on climate change The consultation hardly referred to this aspect at all. This is odd when climate change and its ramifications are the defining issue of our time and when government policy and guidance evolves almost monthly on this, and always in the direction of firmer tackling of the Climate Emergency. I will, and the panel should, consider the effect of this evolution on the case for the scheme. 3a government policy on equality I will, and the panel should, examine how this scheme fits in or does not fit in with the government’s emphasis on equality – sometimes referred to as “levelling up”. 4 specific effects of climate change on the scheme Is the scheme resilient enough to face the new risks brought about by climate disruption? 5 the traffic network predictions – technical The proposer publishing this data as late as possible has a) undermined the public consultation (I return to this later, in the LEGAL section) and b) made it more difficult for the predictions, the methodology and assumptions underlying them and the way the methodology was applied, to be peer-reviewed or scrutinised. The EiP should not “take them as read,” and nor will I. (See also para. 11 on VfM.) 6 the traffic network predictions – substantive We now see, (though consultees could NOT see) that were the scheme to be built, traffic is predicted to increase on roads across the local area. I will, and the panel should, examine the consequences of this for all traffic nuisances, and establish how many people are affected under different scenarios. 7 the effects of the scheme on local people I will, and you should, look closely at these effects. I intend to show that the scheme will not improve the lives of local people – their health, their environment, their businesses, their access to work - in fact quite the reverse. This is a completely failed version of “levelling up”. 8 non-road alternatives to the scheme This scheme, expensive in finance and resources as it is, will pre-empt and make less likely alternative investments which WOULD improve local people’s lives. I will consider, and so should the panel: were such alternatives considered by HE, should they have been included in the consultation, the fact that without them the consultation was fatally biased, (see also paragraph 12) and whether what happened contradicted government policy and guidance. A particular case is the need to fund and implement staggering improvements to the rail network. 9 Green Belt The scheme goes straight through the Manchester designated Green Belt. Once again I do not remember seeing these words in the consultation documents. For the significance of this kind of omission see the LEGAL section. What is the value foregone here? The government now has a whole agenda around valuing natural capital. What are the implications for the case for this scheme? 10 the “growth” argument This important argument – that economic growth is 'held back by this imperfect road' - is stated at e.g. TAR para. 1.1.1. It may seem plausible, obvious even, but I will, and you should, look at this carefully. I think it will not stack up under rigorous questioning from myself and the panel. 11 Value for Money (VfM) and Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) The EiP must carefully examine this, the following factors come to my mind: • The history of this scheme suggests a degree of muddle, the panel must beware of conceptual errors • The effect on traffic nuisances throughout the whole area, now that HE have published traffic predictions, and the consequences for VfM • The effect of changes in society on predicted traffic e.g. less commuting, and hence on some of the assigned values • How goods traffic will evolve/reduce in the coming decades • The effect of policies to promote sustainability one example being the promotion of active travel and public transport within the National Park. LEGAL AND QUASI-LEGAL ISSUES 12 the consultation may have been illegal and was certainly non-compliant with Nolan The information provided by HE to the public at consultation stage was inadequate, in particular they did not provide the public with their traffic network data, both predicted (as at the time of the consultation) and actual. The public were therefore unaware of the situations regarding traffic nuisances and could not come to an informed view. Other important information was also missing. This non-provision of essential information to the public breaks both the Nolan Principles and the obligations laid upon HE by the SOCC. There were also other breaches of their obligations under the SOCC. If there is no satisfactory explanation, then I submit that the consultation must be ordered to be re-run. 13 air pollution There are legal limits which constrain schemes such as this. I will and the panel should, consider this matter carefully and ensure that HE are complying with the legal requirements in this area.