Representation by Save Greater Manchester's Green Belt (Save Greater Manchester's Green Belt)
- Date submitted
- 1 July 2024
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
We object to the proposed scheme at Simister Island Interchange. Both St Margaret's C of E Primary School ( 200m from the M62) and Parrenthorn High School (300m away from M62 & M60) are too close and will be negatively impacted. National Highways have only ever proposed or examined variations of a road-building proposal, never non-roadbuilding alternatives to reduce demand or its impact. It is one of the busiest motorway junctions in the northwest and is already within Noise Important Areas (NIA) and Air Quality Management Areas (AQMA). Rather than increasing capacity, National Highways should be seeking to reduce demand. Construction is set to take place at night over a three-and-a-half-year period, causing unacceptable noise and disturbance to residents. Night-time motorway closures will transfer traffic onto the local road network, increasing noise, disturbance and increasing air pollution for residents. Increase of noise for residents and users at Kenilworth Avenue, Warwick Close, Warwick Avenue and Peveril Close to the south, Balmoral Avenue, Kensington Street, Glendevon and Conisborough Place, Duddon Close and Derwent Avenue, to the north, and closer to Junction 18 at Brathay Close, Rothay Close, Marston Close and parts of Parrenthorn Road and Corday Lane. There is no road accident information and we believe the scheme would lead to an increase in fatal, serious and slight casualties. With or without the scheme, air pollution levels will still be unacceptably high, above safe limits and in some places will be made worse. We are aware neither Manchester City Council, Bury Council or Rochdale Council have up-to-date figures on air quality monitoring within the area. No detailed air quality modelling has been carried out by councils and/or National Highways. It seems there is no collaboration by authorities at all on this issue. National Highways should be examining solutions that will decrease the unacceptable level of noise and air pollution caused by the existing road network. There are no significant benefits to the scheme, only small time savings. This results in the scheme being low value for money with a benefit-to-cost ratio of just 1.17. The scheme barely pays its way, with every £1 spent on the scheme, taxpayers only see £1.17 of benefits. This situation could easily change with any cost overruns. 68 hectares of land surrounding Junction 18 is in the Green Belt. There is no assessment of Green Belt harm. Carbon emissions would be increased by 62,013 tonnes during construction, and 151,090 tonnes over 60 years due to the increased traffic. This makes it even harder for the UK to reach its legally binding climate targets when it is already struggling to do so. We believe the scheme will increase traffic, pollution and carbon emissions and will impact GM's ability to meet its targets (for carbon emissions, nature's recovery, air pollution, etc). The scheme is not a sustainable solution. It will not support a modal shift from road to rail/water for freight transport. It will not support a modal shift from road to public transport/active travel for car users. Local people and wildlife will be significantly impacted by the increased pollution caused by the scheme (air, noise, light, vibration and water). No investigation into the high incidence of respiratory disease in Blackley has been forthcoming, this was brought up at the P4E Examination in Public but not adequately addressed. There is no information about the carbon emissions caused by the construction of the scheme, nor the total additional carbon emissions over the lifetime of the scheme. Traffic modelling is based on 2018 forecasts, which are 5 years out of date (there have been significant increases in traffic in GM since 2018). Costs are estimated at between £260m-£340m for the scheme itself, but there are potential additional transport interventions which would take the costs significantly over this figure - we believe the funding would be better spent on sustainable transport options for Greater Manchester (public transport and sustainable freight).