5.07.05:
HEYSHAM M6 LINK TALKS – TSLM MEET WITH LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL
A meeting with Lancashire County Council’s new transport chief has given fresh impetus to the fight against the Heysham M6 Link road.
This week representatives from Transport Solutions for Lancaster and Morecambe (TSLM) met Mr. Tony Martin the County Councillor newly appointed to deal with transport issues at County Hall. In an open and cordial meeting TSLM outlined the publics concerns about the planned road and suggested some alternatives to road building. Mr. Martin listened carefully and there was discussion on the potential of many of the alternatives to the road. Amongst other things Mr. Martin promised to take a look at the ‘traffic calming’ scheme at Scale Hall, the main cause of the traffic tailbacks.
Nevertheless Lancashire County Council is pressing on with its plans for the Northern Route and the planning application will be made in December. The date has been put back for technical reasons.
“We are pleased that LCC has listened to our views on this controversial issue” said David Gate chair of TSLM. “LCC is well aware of the public outcry about the Northern Route and along with its road planning, it will consider looking at alternatives to alleviate the district’s congestion problems”.
“The meeting has given us a strong incentive to step up our fight to stop the building of this destructive and ineffective road and to work on promoting alternatives to ease the congestion problems”.
At the meeting, TSLM gave Tony Martin this letter, to explain their opposition to the road:
Re:- Heysham M6 Link road.
Dear Mr Martin
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to meet with you and for allowing us to put forward our group’s views on the proposed road scheme.
We are members of Transport Solutions for Lancaster and Morecambe (TSLM), a group of several hundred people from the area, who are opposed to the building of this road for a number of reasons that we would like to explain to you. TSLM is also associated with several organisations who share our concerns, such as the Campaign to Protect Rural England, Friends of the Earth, and the Green Party. Our objective is to stop the building of the Northern route and to promote alternatives which are less destructive, more effective, and cheaper than road building.
There is a great deal of opposition to the road proposal in the Lancaster and Morecambe district beyond TSLM and its supporters. Our MP is against the building of the road and a local newspaper has launched a campaign of its own in response to local concern. We also know that Lancashire County Council (LCC) received many letters of protest in consultation on the draft Local Transport Plan (2005/06-2010/11); you only have to look at the views expressed on the “Transport Forum” on LCC’s internet website to see the extent of the concern. When LCC Cabinet rushed through the decision on 2nd September 2004 they did so suggesting that the plan had overwhelming support in the district, but this is simply not the case. In your own MORI poll in 2001 only 16% of people strongly supported the building of the Northern route (28% tended to support). Indeed, only 14% of those polled thought that road building was the answer to the congestion problem.
Following your public exhibitions and our “alternative” exhibition, our own poll shows that public support for the Northern route has slumped. Using only the figures from those attending the LCC exhibitions (338 respondents), only 10% wanted a Link Road . (53% wanted alternative solutions to compare to the road, plus 29% wanted only alternative solutions.) Had your Cabinet consulted the public in 2004, this would have become apparent much sooner, and time and money would not have been wasted.
The public can now see that this massive and ugly dual carriageway is not a congestion bypass, it serves only to take traffic to and from Heysham port to the M6 at Halton. This represents around 2% of the total volume of traffic in the area. The vast majority (80%) of the traffic is moving in and between Lancaster and Morecambe. Here the benefits would be small, with permanent increases on some roads and temporary reductions on others.
People in the district agree that the effect of the Northern route on this congestion would be minimal, but the damage to our communities and our environment would be massive and unacceptable. 70ha of our green fields to the north of the towns would be given over to concrete and tarmac, with the loss of trees and wildlife. The road would split the Torrisholme community in two. It would run within 300 metres of 734 homes and thousands would suffer noise, light and exhaust pollution, and for what? The congestion problem would not have been alleviated
Furthermore, there is no hard evidence that the road would regenerate the economy of Morecambe & Heysham. While we welcome inward investment into the area, the Government’s Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment (SACTRA, 1999) showed that new roads can suck investment out of an area as well as bring it in. Indeed LCC’s decision not to have a second bridge to the Luneside East development is clearly contrary to the wishes of Lancaster City Council, which made its acceptance of the scheme conditional on the Luneside bridge being built.
The cost of satisfying some regional spatial planning vision for a team in Manchester or Brussels will be well over £100 million, and misery for thousands. We believe it is contrary to Government thinking: Alistair Darling (Secretary of State for Transport) said recently “We cannot build our way out of our present problems.” The transport white paper (1998) said “Since new roads can lead to more traffic, adding to the problem not reducing it, all plausible options need to be considered before a new road is built.” TSLM believes that there are many alternatives that are less damaging and cheaper to implement. We know that the Department of Transport prefers this kind of approach, as they showed in their recent “Smarter Choices” package for local authorities. We are also encouraged by the fact that LCC promotes alternative ideas in its latest Draft Local Transport Plan (e.g. rapid transit systems), but why not for Lancaster and Morecambe?
The present plans are so flawed and controversial that they merit a public inquiry now. The Northern route scheme for the Heysham M6 Link is deeply unpopular, inefficient, expensive and destructive and we call upon you, your Cabinet and the full committee to take stock and reconsider. The people of Lancaster and Morecambe do want a resolution of their transport problems but at a financial and environmental cost that we can all afford.
Yours Sincerely,
TSLM
30 June 2005