archive2007

16th December 2007: ‘Fishy Quiz’ Answers.

Congratulations to Simon Hutchinson, who won with every answer correct.

In joint second place were Lyn Gange and W N Stokes with just three wrong answers.

..........................................................................................................

26th November 2007:

Transport group gives straight talking advice to Gordon Brown.

This week, Gordon Brown showed his green credentials. He pledged to reduce the UK’s greenhouse gases by 60%, or even 80%, by 2050. (1)

To help achieve this, a campaigning transport group called on the Prime Minister to scrap a road scheme which is more polluting than all approved local road schemes put together.

Transport Solutions for Lancaster and Morecambe (TSLM) (2) is fighting to stop Lancashire County Council building a new £160 million lorry route from the M6, across designated Green belt, to the ferry port of Heysham. The controversial road is set to produce 23,500 tons of extra CO2 in its first year of operation alone, and that means it would generate more greenhouse gasses than all of the other approved UK local road schemes put together. (3)

"Following a stark message from the United Nations on the threat of global warming, (4) and Gordon Brown’s pledge to reduce emissions, TSLM has written to Gordon Brown alerting him to the down side of building this monster road, and pointing him along the path towards sustainable transport choices and the need to reduce road travel," said David Gate, chair of the group. " We think that stopping massive spending on destructive road schemes in favour of less environmentally damaging alternatives is a no brainer. The PM knows this, and has pledged a massive reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050. But we know that he has to contend with local councillors and powerful pro road transport lobby, who have no intention of reigning themselves in."

"Plans to build speculative roads on Green belt countryside, to attract heavy goods traffic, are both outdated and obscene. Gordon Brown has the opportunity to send out a clear message to grass roots politicians that our environment comes first, road building is the last resort."

Download the letter here.

Notes

(1) Brown ready to make deeper emissions cuts | Special Reports | Guardian Unlimited Politics http://politics.guardian.co.uk/green/story/0,,2213648,00.html

(2) Transport Solutions for Lancaster & Morecambe (TSLM) is the local campaign group which opposes the construction of the Heysham M6 Link Road, and favours instead non-damaging sustainable transport solutions for the 21^st Century.

(3) Local Authority Major Road Schemes approved by the Department for Transport into the Local Transport Programme: total additional CO2 is 21,603 tonnes pa.

http://www.heyshamm6link.info/Evidence_on_Climate_change.pdf

(4) UN unveils full danger of climate change - Times Online

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2890960.ece

..........................................................................................................

29th October 2007: Campaigners meet to fight for Better Transport:

Campaigners from TSLM joined road protesters from all over the country in Birmingham on Saturday 27 October, to compare notes on their fight against unnecessary road building.

Renowned journalist George Monbiot gave the keynote speech, telling delegates that, to avoid environmental disaster, carbon emissions must be reduced by 90% by 2030. Building more roads is exactly the wrong way to go.

Estelle Taylor launched the brand-new website of Campaign for Better Transport www.bettertransport.org.uk (previously Transport 2000, which campaigns for better transport policies), packed with useful information for road protesters.

Becca Lush Blum exploded seven myths in favour of road-building (download pdf here)

The afternoon saw the innovative campaigners' clinic, when many experts and campaigners, including TSLM, shared their knowledge and experience with others in the same situation.

Mandy Kendall from TSLM said: "Meeting and learning from other people at the event was really useful.

"We learned that the world is near the 'tipping point' - damage to the environment may soon be irreversible. So we're fighting not just for our own environment in Lancaster & Morecambe, but for the future of everyone on the planet."

..........................................................................................................

19th October 2007: Council road boss admits omissions on Northern route plans.

In a surprise move, Lancashire County Councillor Tony Martin has delayed plans for an Ormskirk bypass, and he has admitted to the press that the County Council made errors in their preparations to submit the plan for the controversial Heysham M6 Link Northern route, which he did not want to repeat at Ormskirk.

And, mysteriously, Tony Martin appears to put words into the mouth of the Public Inquiry Inspector that he didn’t say – unless Tony knows something about the Inspector’s report that he shouldn’t know yet.

Cllr Martin told the Ormskirk Advertiser that the planning inspector at the Lancaster public inquiry had said to the County Council that they "hadn't looked at non-road schemes, alternatives such as encouraging more people to use public transport, park and ride schemes. Stuff like that. We said fine, we thought we'd done what we had to, but we'll take it on for the future. We are picking up on what the inspector said so there is less chance of the Ormskirk Bypass being called in by the Government when we present it." (1)

"A major part of our case against the £156 million Northern route was that Lancashire County Council had ignored Government guidance and common sense by rushing to build a road before considering alternatives," said David Gate chair of TSLM the local campaign group.

"Now after all this time and trouble, Lancashire County Council has admitted that what we have been saying has been right all along. And all along the Council has been wrong to ignore it."

“What’s more, the Inspector didn’t say those words at the Inquiry – he didn’t express any opinions: it would have been improper for him to do so. And his report is confidential between him and the Department of Communities and Local Government, until Hazel Blears, Secretary of State, announces her decision. Tony Martin can’t have seen it officially, and even if somehow he knows what it says, he should not be commenting on it. We’ve asked Tony for an explanation, but he hasn’t replied.

“He seems to be deliberately misquoting the Inspector, while admitting Lancashire County Council got it wrong. He doesn’t want to admit that the local campaign group was right.

"The Minister’s decision is due in January, and it is hard to see how the Government can give the go ahead after this admission. We need a solution to the district’s traffic congestion, not a polluting and destructive lorry route to Heysham port. Lancaster City Council has withdrawn its support from the scheme. How can we move forward without a proper integrated transport study which considers all the options?"

Note (1) http://icseftonandwestlancs.icnetwork.co.uk/icormskirk/news/tm_headline=plans-for-ormskirk-bypass-hit-by-delay&method=full&objectid=19929933&siteid=60252-name_page.html

..........................................................................................................

The Case against the Heysham M6 Link Road presented by TSLM and our partners ESTA at the Public Inquiry from 10 July to 10 August 2007

The overall case was presented by barrister Jeremy Pike. You can read a summary here.

Alan James gave detailed evidence on:

Options & Alternatives

Key points

LCC claims that the road will release roadspace to allow complementary measures, like more bus lanes. But TSLM says that these measures could and should be introduced now, without a road. Traffic reductions are so slight that they will not make any real difference.

In fact, the road will increase traffic by about 15%, increase CO2 by 23,500 tonnes per year, so is NOT sustainable, as government policy requires.

Government requires the investigation of all non-road-building alternatives: new roads should only be the policy of last resort. But LCC decided on a road solution many years ago. It pursues the Northern Route because its only other option, the Western Route, is unbuildable. It has spurned the opportunity to be guided by more up-to-date thinking, and government policy.

For Alan’s written statement, read Evidence on Options and Alternatives

Economic Impact

Key points

LCC claims that congestion on roads to the Morecambe & Heysham peninsula is holding back development. But TSLM says

The time saved on the journey from the M6 to Heysham (at most 9 minutes) is small, and would make little difference to overall journey times.
There is no evidence that businesses feel unable to expand
The Port is expanding and land is being developed, without the road
Business’s main concern is lack of people with the right skills, not lack of a road
Tourists are more influenced by the quality of the attractions when they arrive here, rather than a slightly shorter journey

In LCC’s Economic Impact Report, the forecast of new jobs tumbled dramatically from 6,014 to 949, of which only 595 would go to residents of Lancaster & Morecambe regeneration area (which includes prosperous as well as deprived areas).

So very unreliable forecasts.
LCC’s witness admitted that this number “was not worth spending £150 million on a road for”.
Most of the jobs forecast are unsuitable for unemployed people.

Roads go two ways: business can be sucked out of an area as well as brought in.

For Alan’s written statements, read: Evidence on Economic Impact 1 & Evidence on Economic Impact 2

Landscape

Key Points

The harm to landscape and the North Lancashire Green Belt by the scheme is agreed by Lancashire County Council to be severe, with an impact rating of “large adverse”.

Alan claims that many of the impacts of the road are understated, for example the loss of tranquility, particularly near the canal; the impact on the views from Torrisholme Barrow, and from urban areas of Lancaster, especially from Castle Hill and Williamson Park.

Benefits claimed for the scheme (new jobs and reduced congestion) are overstated or at best unproven or slight. Therefore these claimed benefits do not amount to being the ‘very special circumstances’ which would be needed to justify the degree of harm to the landscape and Green Belt by this scheme.

The Northern Route is not an acceptable alternative to the Western Route. Both have severe environmental constraints and both merit impact ratings of ‘major negative’. Therefore neither is acceptable. It has to be shown that all non-road solutions have been thoroughly examined before new road-building is considered – and this has not been done.

Much of the mitigation proposals are not specified, and in any case the potential for mitigating landscape impacts is limited, particularly as the route crosses the ‘grain’ of the landscape. Alan questions, among others, the value of ‘translocation’, the replacement of hedgerows if wildlife corridors are severed by the road and the quality of replacement footpaths

For Alan’s written statement, read : Evidence on Landscape and Green Belt

Phil Goodwin gave evidence on traffic

Key points

LCC forecasts assume that traffic increases in the area between 2001 and 2025, so most roads experience worsening conditions, with a slight improvement when the road is built. But these forecasts must be wrong: measures to reduce congestion would be introduced (Park & Ride, bus lanes, improved public transport, etc), because government policy demands them. LCC exaggerates congestion without a road, so the benefits of the road are exaggerated too. With a road, they say, the situation would not get better, just get worse more slowly.

The Secretary of State in her call-in letter says she wishes to be informed about public transport and the need to reduce travel, especially by car.

Policies exist to reduce traffic, and can be applied. In other parts of the UK,

Smart measures reduce congestion by 11 to 20%
Reallocation of road space is effective even in congested conditions, and
Road pricing could reduce congestion by 25 to 60%

The scheme increases car use. Other policies were available, and are in line with the SoS’s preoccupation with sustainable transport. This scheme did not have to be the only contender.

This is an old-fashioned scheme for a different world we don’t live in any more, assessed by old-fashioned tools which we shouldn’t be using any more.

For Phil’s full statement at the Inquiry: TSLM Evidence traffic

For his written statements:

Written evidence on Traffic 1

Written evidence on Traffic 1 summary

Written evidence on Traffic 2

Written evidence on Traffic 2 annex

John Whitelegg gave evidence on:

Air Quality

Key points

Air quality will be worse if the road is built, and the health effects are serious

There is no “safe” lower limit for many pollutants, and air pollution travels further than the 200m that LCC uses.

Lancaster & Morecambe College is very close, and it is not acceptable to introduce such a serious worsening of air quality for 5,000 young people.

LCC talks about properties affected, which does not take into account the number of people living or working in those properties; poor air quality damages people, and many people live close.

For John’s full statement, read Evidence on Air Quality

Noise

Key points

Noise is a seriously damaging health issue, and not just what LCC calls a “matter of annoyance".

Noise affects vulnerable groups and LCC has made no effort to identify these groups and where they live

Adding extra noise to the living environment of people who already experience noise is contrary to government policy

Nighttime noise is ignored, and this is perverse for a road for port traffic

For John’s full statement, read Evidence on Noise

Climate change

Key points

Government awareness and policy on every aspect of climate change is now very different to what it was when this scheme was put in place

There is a real policy clash between reducing greenhouse gases and granting planning approvals for big projects like this road

The HM6L is “business as usual” and makes no attempt to fit the new policy imperative

The road has a huge carbon burden - 23,500 extra tonnes of CO2 each year. LCC says it is a small percentage of the national total, but government says we must reduce the total, not increase it.

For John’s full statement, read Evidence on Climate Change

Accidents & safety

Key points

LCC claims the road will improve accidents and safety.

TSLM says there are much better and far cheaper ways to reduce road accidents and improve road safety, rather than building a road.

LCC is promoting more traffic and higher speeds, but that is inconsistent with reducing death and injury.

For John’s full statement, read Evidence on Accidents & Safety

John Gow presented the view of a Torrisholme resident, and the adverse impact on the community:
read View of Torrisholme resident

Jane Boland presented the view of a Slyne resident, particularly the forecast traffic increases in the area:
read View of Slyne resident

Mike Jacob presented the view of a Halton resident, and the fears of the new Lune bridge increasing the risk of flooding:
read View of Halton resident

Mike Porter presented written evidence on Biodiversity:
read Evidence on Biodiversity

Andy Yuille gave evidence on Planning matters:
read Evidence on Planning

Lillian Burns gave evidence on the Regional Funding Allocation Process: read read Evidence on Regional Funding Allocation

..........................................................................................................

5th September 2007: Winning numbers for the September 500 Club are as follows

1st prize

£100

Number 197

2nd prize

£50

Number 132

3rd prizes

£10 each

Numbers 147 / 47 /
453 / 188 / 56

Winners will be notified by phone or in person.