Representation by Sarah-Jane Page
- Date submitted
- 14 July 2024
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
The A46 Newark bypass scheme will cause numerous negative issues including increased kinds of pollution (noise, air, visual, and light pollution), exacerbated by the fact the road will generate more traffic to the area. The scale of the project is vast and out of proportion to be in such close proximity to a small historic market town, and one that already suffers from much road infrastructure, being where the A17, A1 and A46 meet. Pushing the road into a space where there is not enough room causes issues that will impact people’s everyday lives and negatively impact population health, both during the three-year construction period and on the scheme’s completion. This scale of infrastructure typifies the road designs near or through city centres from 50 years ago, such as the Gravelly Interchange in Birmingham (more commonly known as “Spaghetti Junction”). These kinds of schemes are now deemed out of touch and inappropriate. Residents in Glasgow – where the M8 motorway carved up two communities in the 1960s – are now campaigning for its removal, such is the harm that it has caused. Why is National Highways seeking to impose similarly damaging proposals to a market town where the route will have a similar effect? This scheme will not solve Newark’s traffic problems and is not designed to, given the principal aim is to get freight vehicles past Newark and to the ports. New bottle necks will be created, and there has been a poor assessment regarding how the bypass will interact with the local road network, especially in relation to the change in people’s behaviour as they engage with the road network in new and different ways (indeed, the bypass will generate even more traffic to an already overburdened traffic area). Whilst two roundabouts are being removed, two more are being created (Brownhills Junction and a new roundabout on the A46 near to Farndon which is part of a separate scheme). The complexity of the scheme has not been sufficiently mapped to understand how these new designs will interact with each other. The scheme is generating a disproportionate amount of carbon relative to its size, and this is because of the scheme’s complexity as it must go over the river and the A1. This carbon generation is incompatible with a drive to net zero; the operation of the scheme would increase carbon by an additional 539,312 tCO2e over its 60-year lifetime. The economic return on this scheme is low (£1.20 of benefits for each £1 spent). It is a waste of money and other initiatives that would prove more beneficial to the community of Newark urgently need to be explored.