|
 
Visitors since 1st March 2005
If you have not visited for a while, please check the Archive page for any news you may have missed.
For T-shirts & Posters, please see the bottom of this page
Click Here for the TSLM Alternative Solutions
Click Here for TSLM Community News & Events
Recent News & Updates below:
..........................................................................................................
Update on Heysham M6 Link Road: August 2010
We wait for the Government's Autumn Spending Review, expected to be announced on 20 October, to hear whether the Government will fund this destructive and expensive scheme.
In the meantime, please continue to write to the Government - they have asked for your money-saving suggestions - to point out the many failings of this road, and copy to your local MP.
Many of you wrote to the leader of Lancashire County Council Geoff Driver, asking him to halt work on the road. He did not reply to the valid points that you raised, but instead sent a standard letter offering his justification for the scheme. TSLM have replied to his points in this letter:
Dear County Councillor Driver,
You have recently responded to those who wrote to you asking the County Council to stop work on the Heysham M6 Link Road.
You did not respond to the various points raised, but presented your case for the scheme in your own way, making points which I have summarised below, with TSLM’s comments.
1. The MORI poll of 2001 found 79% in favour of a link road between Heysham and the M6.
2001 is a long time ago, and County haven’t risked a poll since. When Geraldine Smith MP held a poll in 2007, well over 90% opposed this scheme. In 2001 the routes where thin lines on a map; once the details of the Northern Route were revealed, with embankments & cuttings, a bridge 26 ft high at Broadoak and 49 ft high over the railway, people realised the horror of the proposal and opposed it.
“Independent survey”?
52% supported…a Northern Route, whilst 48% supported the Western Route …once the key features of each route had been explained.
That gives it away - this wasn’t an impartial poll: the 1,000 people interviewed were told how good the scheme would be! And no-one explained to them “the key features” of non-road-building alternatives.
2. Some councillors were in favour of the Western Route, but their support has shifted to the Northern Route.
This is the argument that we need a bypass, and any bypass will do, even if it is a bad bypass, even if it is destructive, damaging to communities, won’t solve congestion and won’t bring jobs. And even if it costs £140 million which the government can’t afford. Not a good reason to build a road. Call it the “Northern or Nothing” nonsense.
3. The report produced by Faber Maunsell in July 2008 'Lancaster District Transport
Vision and Strategy Report' included the Heysham to M6 Link as a major building block
The Link is included in the report because that is the way that LCC wrote the brief. Yet there are statements in the report that alone the Link will not solve the transport problems of the district, and suggestions that a package of alternative transport solutions in the report would solve congestion, without the Link.
4. Although CO2 is a non-toxic naturally occurring gas it is considered as a global pollutant because it contributes to the "Greenhouse Effect". The CO2 emissions from England in 2007 were 419 million tonnes/year of which 113 million tonnes/year were from transport. The increase due to the Link Road is one five thousandth of England's transport emissions in 2007.
CO2 may be a "naturally occurring gas", but CO2 emissions from transport aren't naturally occurring: they're man-made, not part of the natural carbon cycle, and therefore stimulate global warming and initiate climate change.
You make the increased CO2 pollution caused by the Link Road appear insignificant. In fact, your own website (1) shows that the emissions from transport in the Lancaster district in 2007 were 346,000 tonnes/year. And, excluding motorways, it was 191,000 tonnes/year (2). So for local & regional roads in the Lancaster district, which are your responsibility, the increase due to the Link Road would be 12.3%. One eighth. Not so insignificant.
But LCC, and you as its leader, are specifically charged with reducing it. The Climate Change Act (2008) gives the Government a legally-binding commitment to reduce it by 34% by 2020, and by 80% by 2050. It is not acceptable to say “it’s only a little increase”. This increase will have to be reversed, and then policies put in place to achieve the reductions required by law. Not acceptable from anyone; from the leader of a County Council whose decisions on housing, planning, and local transport can have a significant influence over emissions, it borders on the criminal.
5. With air quality & road traffic noise, more residents benefit than are disadvantaged.
Near the existing road network, some residents will benefit a little from traffic reduction, for a time, until traffic builds up again to its present levels. On the other hand, near the new HGV route, where there are fields now, the deterioration in air quality and the increase in traffic noise will be massive and life-changing. HGVs thundering past bedroom windows at 26 feet high? There is no case, in law or in common decency, for debasing the living conditions in one area to achieve a slight improvement elsewhere.
6. The traffic forecasting model shows that there is a substantial reduction in total travel time
The traffic forecasting model shows that there is a small reduction in travel time for each trip, multiplied by a large number of trips, spread over 60 (sixty) years (as the guidance requires). A small reduction (a few minutes) won’t make much difference to each trip. Spreading the calculation over 60 years is nonsensical – just think how much transport has changed in the last 60 years. Indeed, the Conservative Party in opposition vowed to change this misleading aspect of the transport appraisal system.
7. The inspector said that this was the only alignment for the Link Road
The Inquiry into the Link Road in 2007 was strictly to judge whether the plans as presented by LCC were an appropriate use of the land in question. It did not consider whether the same aims could be achieved by a different routes, or by alternative measures. The inspector said as much: this Inquiry is to consider the application before it.
Like planning permission to build a house – if granted, it does not mean that that is the best place for a house, or that a house is what’s really needed.
These other matters would be considered at a second public inquiry, which has now been postponed.
8. The inspector said that the objectives of the Scheme cannot be met by alternative measures
But alternative measures were not presented to the inspector to consider; that was not the purpose of the planning inquiry. (see 7 above)
You fail to address the points put to you, that £140 million for 3 miles of HGV route, which doesn’t solve congestion and doesn’t bring jobs, cannot be Value for Money. You fail to accept that this scheme is contrary to the policy of the new Coalition government:
- we can’t build our way out of congestion;
- we must reduce emissions, not increase them,
- and by the way, we can’t afford it.
..........................................................................................................
7th July 2010: It's a long way back for the Link road, but the axe has not yet fallen
The Government has told LCC to stop work on the Heysham M6 Link Road, and the inquiry has been postponed, until after the Autumn Spending Review.
The Emergency Budget on 22 June introduced big cuts, and the Chancellor has asked Government departments, including the Department for Transport, to come up with massive cuts immediately for the Spending Review.
They have asked for the public’s suggestions about what should be cut.
So we now have a great opportunity to write to the Government and tell them why they should save £140 million by scrapping the controversial Heysham M6 Link Road. You can be sure that behind the scenes both the County Council and its appointed contractors will be lobbying hard for the taxpayers’ cash to build their massive dual carriageway monster.
The new Government wants to know your views now. Please write to them urgently, as every letter and email will count to stop the monster road. So please tell them that ---
- The massive £140 million Link is not value for money in the changed financial and environmental circumstances; it is now simply an extravagance.
- The Heysham M6 Link is not designed to tackle local traffic congestion or improve road movement between Lancaster and Morecambe.
- It fails to bring jobs and economic regeneration. The small number of extra jobs forecast, LCC’s consultant said, are “not worth building a road for”.
- The Link would destroy 173 acres of green belt. It would generate extra traffic which would produce an extra 23,500 tonnes of CO2 each year, but government is bound by law to reduce emissions.
- It is not supported by Lancaster City Council or Morecambe Town Council, and the County Council’s own 'exhibition exit poll' showed 76% of public against.
- Alternative transport plans, prepared by transport experts Faber Maunsell, are being held up by the Council. These integrated plans include improvements to bus and train services, park & ride, changes to the one way systems, and a bridge to the Luneside industrial area. They should have priority over the Link.
- The existence of these other Council-sponsored transport plans shows that the Link road does not solve our transport problems. This integrated transport package, not the Link road, is the answer to congestion, at under half the cost.
Please have your say on spending cuts. Write or email urgently to Transport Minister Norman Baker, and, if you can, copy to Treasury Secretary Danny Alexander and to our new MPs David Morris or Eric Ollerenshaw. Refer to Heysham M6 Link funding.
Give them your own opinion, and feel free to pick from the points above.
- Norman Baker MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Transport, Department for Transport, Great Minster House, 76 Marsham St., London, SW1 4DR.
email, info@normanbaker.org.uk
- RT Hon Danny Alexander MP, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, 1 Horse Guards Road, London, SW1A 2HQ.
email, ministers@hm-treasury.gov.uk
- David Morris MP (Morecambe & Lunesdale), House of Commons, London, SW1A OAA.
email, david.morris.mp@parliament.uk
The Heysham M6 Link plan belongs to another era. It is out of line with government policy on transport, on the environment, and on what the country can afford. With cheaper alternatives available, and so many other more deserving schemes, it should be axed immediately. The Government wants to hear from you: please take this opportunity to have your say.
Together we can stop the monster road...once and for all!
..........................................................................................................
16th June 2010: County Council Link Road Supremo resigns from Cabinet
Lancashire County Councillor Keith Young, the cabinet member for Highways and Transport, has resigned from the Cabinet just days after the Department for Transport told Lancashire County Council (LCC) to put a hold on plans to build the Heysham M6 Link road.
Cllr. Young told the Lancashire Evening Telegraph that "things were getting unsustainable. My wife and I decided it was time to ease off, and the only way I could do this was by giving up my cabinet job." The Councillor had been at the heart of a county-wide road gritting saga over the winter, which had been called 'a shambles from start to finish' by political opponents.
In May the Department for Transport (DfT) warned LCC that if they were to continue work on the Link road during the Government spending review, it would be at their own risk. LCC then defiantly issued a press release boasting that it was 'business as usual' for the Link road design team, and that public money was still being channelled into the project. This came at a time when many other council workers were worried about jobs and cuts to services. In that press release Cllr Young gave his support to the Link.
Last week it emerged that the DfT had again written to LCC warning them not to spend any more time and money on the Link until after the outcome of the Autumn Spending Review, and postponing the second public inquiry due in October.
"Cllr Young’s resignation is another major blow to the Link road scheme," said David Gate, chair of local transport campaign group TSLM. "Perhaps LCC will now concentrate on a cheaper, sustainable and more publicly acceptable alternative to the unaffordable and obsolete Link road plan. We hope the Council now brush the dust off the integrated transport plans for the district, drawn up by expert transport consultants."
..........................................................................................................
11th June 2010: Time to move on from £140 million Link road plan.
The Department for Transport has written to Lancashire County Council (LCC) saying that it is minded to postpone the local inquiry on the Heysham M6 Link (HM6L), scheduled for October, until the funding position is clearer, which is likely to follow the outcome of the Government’s Autumn spending review. And LCC is warned against spending more time and money preparing the £140 million road plan.
This follows publication of revised guidance from Secretary of State Philip Hammond on handling of local authority promoted major transport schemes, including the plan to build the HM6L.
The Secretary of State makes it clear that the Government priority is the record budget deficit. Local Authorities are told that schemes given conditional approval by the previous government, including the HM6L, will be reviewed as part of the spending review. Until then the Government can give no assurances on funding support.
"The writing is on the wall for the £140 million Link. The idea belongs to another era, and Lancashire County Council will now have an uphill task trying to demonstrate that it represents value for money”, said David Gate, chair of local transport campaign group TSLM.
“£140 million for 3 miles of HGV dual carriageway that doesn’t solve congestion and doesn’t bring jobs can’t be value for money. This scheme is out of line with government policy on transport, on the environment, and on what the country can afford.
"This is a huge blow to the Link plan, from which it may well not recover. It makes complete sense not to waste any more resources or public money on this project."
Before announcing his decision to postpone, Lancashire County Council was asked by the Secretary of State whether it could provide alternative sources of funding which would allow the inquiry process to continue.
"We hope that Lancashire County Council will now develop plans for more affordable alternatives to tackle Lancaster and Morecambe transport problems. The Link divided the towns, it would not have brought them together. A great starting point would be the integrated transport proposals prepared for the Council by transport experts Faber Maunsell," said Mr.Gate. “The people of Lancaster & Morecambe would support them on that.”
..........................................................................................................
17th May 2010: Axe hovers over Link road: DfT tells Council "if you continue work during funding review, it will be at your own risk."
The Department for Transport (DfT) has written to Lancashire County Council (LCC) warning them that funding for building new roads is under review. (See the letter by clicking here). The DfT is taking stock of the financial commitments on transport with the Treasury to allow new Ministers to consider priorities, and if LCC chooses to continue work on the Heysham M6 Link road scheme it will have to be at the County Council’s own risk. The controversial County Hall road building plan does not have government funding approval.
Yet LCC has obstinately issued a press release boasting that "it’s business as usual" for its Link road design team, and that public money is still being channelled into the project, even though many other Council staff are worried about funding cuts to other jobs and services. (See the press release by clicking here).
"The Heysham M6 Link road has been overtaken by financial and environmental realities," said David Gate, Chair of local campaign group Transport Solutions for Lancaster and Morecambe (TSLM).
The massive £140 million dual carriageway HGV road would cut through residential districts, and would destroy 173 acres of Green Belt. It has been calculated that the new traffic that it would attract would pump out an additional 23,000 tons of CO2 into the North Lancashire environment each year.
"Building the Northern route road would contradict the electoral promise of a low carbon economy, and TSLM will be advocating integrated transport plans for the district which will be a better and more sustainable stimulus than the under-performing Link road plan. LCC should halt work immediately on this scheme, which is poor value for money, and the forthcoming Public Inquiry in October should be put on hold pending the government’s decision on funding."
..........................................................................................................
13th April 2010: County Council comfort on Link bridge backfires.
Notwithstanding the enormous cost and intrusive work associated with the building of the controversial Heysham M6 road bridge at Halton, Lancashire County Council planners have failed to alleviate the fear of flooding for local residents. Following extensive computer modelling undertaken for the Council, the Council’s project manager could only manage to claim that the bridge would not make the existing flood problems any worse.
"This is no comfort to Halton residents, who are only too well aware of the power of the river in extreme conditions; everyone is concerned about debris causing blockage and flooding at this planned low level bridge," said Mike Jacob, a concerned Halton resident. "Climate change has sparked unprecedented flood events: what would happen if Cockermouth-type rainfall fell around Shap and Tebay, the Lune's catchment area?"
"Locals want an improved bridge redesign, but that would increase costs, making the £140 million pound Link road plans even more vulnerable to transport funding cuts,” said David Gate, chair of local transport campaign group Transport Solutions for Lancaster and Morecambe (TSLM). “This is a big issue: why else would Lancashire County Council produce a press release which actually says nothing new about the risks? This is a multi million pound scheme, and all they can say is that the existing low level bridge plan will not make existing risks worse. That does not look like value for money for the hard pressed taxpayer. Remember that local council taxpayers will have to pay half of any cost overspends, which are inevitable on a big road scheme like this."
TSLM believes that the Link road is an under-performing plan, which has been overtaken by financial and environmental events. TSLM would like to see it cancelled, and some transport budget money spent instead on integrated transport plans to tackle congestion between Lancaster and Morecambe.
..........................................................................................................
8th March 2010: Transport campaigners’ solutions get thumbs up from Shadow Transport Minister
Norman Baker, the Liberal Democrat Shadow Secretary of State for Transport, is no supporter of costly, ineffective and environmentally damaging new roads, like the proposed Heysham M6 Link, and he has written to local transport campaign group Transport Solutions for Lancaster and Morecambe (TSLM) to tell them just that.
Mr. Baker states in a letter to TSLM that government research, unearthed by the Campaign for Better Transport, shows that "the benefits forecast for new roads are not realised in practice.... and that this has implications for all new road projects including the Heysham M6 Link road."
Mr. Barker goes on to say: “Since 1997 the government has opened over 1,000 miles of new road (including widening) but only 27 miles of railway line. The Lib Dems want to encourage a modal shift towards greener modes of travel and this includes from road to rail. We would therefore invest in improving and expanding the railway network, in particular in High Speed Rail and line and station re-openings over costly, ineffective and environmentally damaging new road projects."
David Gate, chair of the group, said: “TSLM is not party political, but we are encouraged by this response from a major political party. The government research revealed by the Campaign for Better Transport was undertaken for the Highways Agency, and it casts major doubt on the value for money of road building. The findings coincide with warnings from the Department for Transport that regional authorities should expect substantial cuts in their transport funding."
The reports found that the overall traffic levels rose significantly as a direct result of opening each new road. Economic forecasts did not reflect the actual impact on local business, and any benefits were generally lower than predicted. CO2 emissions were higher than predicted, as were noise levels. Air quality was worse than forecast. Two thirds of the roads studied simply moved the traffic congestion elsewhere.
"In these difficult times, how can any political party justify spending £140 million of taxpayers’ money, when Government research shows that roads like the Heysham M6 Link do not solve peoples transport problems," says Mr Gate. "TSLM would like to see less money spent more effectively on the Faber Maunsell integrated transport plan for the district instead."
..........................................................................................................
5th February 2010: Please help TSLM to present its case at the 2010 Public Inquiry.
At the forthcoming Public Inquiry, probably in June 2010, TSLM intends to present a strong case demonstrating why the destructive, polluting and under-performing Heysham M6 Link road should not be built.
TSLM has now embarked on a 2010 fund-raising appeal, so that experts can be retained to help make the case against the road at the Public Inquiry.
We urge you to click on the button on the left, which will show you how to make an on line donation, or alternatively you can send a cheque to TSLM, PO Box 146, Morecambe, LA4 6WR.
Lancashire County Council has access to taxpayer funds to pay for its lawyers and experts, but we rely on you to help make our case.
Please help us, there is so much that still needs to be said and done. Together we can
Stop the Monster Road!
David Gate
..........................................................................................................
22nd January 2010: TSLM welcomes Link inquiry
Transport Solutions for Lancaster and Morecambe (TSLM) welcomes the announcement by the Government to hold a public inquiry into the Lancashire County Council (LCC) plan to build the highly controversial Heysham M6 Link HGV route across the North Lancashire Green Belt.
"Many difficult issues remain to be resolved before the Government considers funding this multi-million pound scheme," said David Gate, chair of TSLM, "and this inquiry will present an opportunity to present expert evidence to show why the damaging and destructive road should not be built."
The dual carriageway road, at present estimated to cost £140 million, would cut across residential districts and destroy 173 acres of Green Belt farm land. It has been calculated that the Link would generate an extra 23,500 tonnes of CO2 per year from vehicle emissions. It represents an attempt by LCC to attract heavy goods vehicles to use Heysham as their ferry route to Ireland. The plan is opposed by the district’s MP Geraldine Smith, and neither Lancaster City Council nor Morecambe Town Council support the County Council scheme.
"The North Lancashire public simply want an end to their in town traffic congestion misery, and for the transport budget to be spent on improving movement between Lancaster and Morecambe," said Mr Gate. "Sadly, the inquiry will probably focus on the road plan itself, and not on this top priority local issue. While County Hall in Preston pursues its Link road, no plans are being advanced to end the local traffic logjam nightmare."
TSLM supports an integrated transport strategy, which is not based on the £140 million lorry Link. It believes that lower cost plans produced for the district by transport consultants Faber Maunsell for an integrated package of measures for Lancaster and Morecambe should be the way forward for transport in North Lancashire.
..........................................................................................................
21st January 2010: Government reports threaten Link road funding.
Plans to build the controversial Heysham M6 Link Road face yet another major hurdle following the publication of Government reports. Research for the Highways Agency casts major doubt on the value for money of road building, and the findings coincide with warnings from the Department for Transport that regional authorities should expect substantial cuts in their transport funding.
Transport Solutions for Lancaster and Morecambe (TSLM) have studied the findings and we say that the reports are directly relevant to the Link and that the findings undermine the case for building the multi million pound road. We have written to the Government and other interested parties to tell them that the road is no longer a value for money scheme.
View he letter here
The reports, unearthed by the Campaign for Better Transport, found that overall traffic levels rose significantly as a direct result of opening each new road. Economic forecasts did not reflect the actual impact on local business, and any benefits were generally lower than predicted. CO2 emissions were higher than predicted, as were noise levels. Air quality was worse than forecast. Two thirds of the roads studied simply moved the traffic congestion elsewhere.
(See the CBT reports here)
"Lancashire County Council have a lot of explaining to do about their damaging and destructive Link road plans if they are to get the £140 million of public money needed for the Northern route," said David Gate, chair of TSLM. "Times have moved on, but it’s not just their dated idea of building an HGV route through our Green Belt, it’s the fact that they are not tackling the in-town congestion that makes the road plan such poor value for money."
Despite spending cutbacks across the board, the multi-million pound lorry generating Link remains the number one transport priority at County Hall in Preston. The Heysham M6 Link road would destroy 173 acres of the North Lancashire Green Belt, cut across residential districts, and generate an estimated extra 23,500 tonnes of CO2 per year. Alternative, less expensive plans for an integrated transport strategy for Lancaster and Morecambe have been prepared by transport consultants, but they are not being progressed or funded.
"In these difficult times, how can the Government justify spending £140 million of taxpayers’ money, when the Government’s own research shows that road projects like the Link do not solve people’s transport problems. We would like to see less money more effectively spent on an integrated transport plan for the district instead, and we have written to the Government to tell them so,"
..........................................................................................................
December 2009
Dear Members and Supporters,
Thank you for your continuing support, and as 2009 draws to a close, we would like to update you on the latest situation.
The deadline for objections to the Orders (Compulsory Purchase Orders and Side Road Orders) for the Heysham M6 Link (HM6L) road has now passed. Although we do not yet have official figures, we believe that the Government Office for the North East (GONE) has received over 400 formal objections, against two letters in support. This is an excellent total: thanks to all of you who wrote, once again, to express so eloquently your opposition to this flawed scheme.
GONE is now seriously considering whether to call an inquiry to allow public scrutiny of many of the contentious Link road issues.
Particular congratulations must go to Morecambe Town Council, who voted overwhelmingly (17-1) to send an objection. They join our MP Geraldine Smith and Lancaster City Council, as the elected representatives of this area who oppose the Northern route scheme.
Support for the damaging and destructive scheme comes only from County Hall in Preston. The new Lancashire County Council (LCC) does not appear to have any original transport ideas of its own; it merely plods along pushing the old Council’s outdated road scheme. Despite financial cutbacks to essential services in Lancashire, LCC is today continuing to spend many millions of pounds of public money on the Link road. With the reality of financial cutbacks, surely that money could be better spent on more deserving services for the people of Lancashire.
The Northern route dual carriageway would destroy 173 acres of our North Lancashire Green Belt, and its traffic would pump out an extra 23,500 tonnes of CO2 into our North Lancashire environment every year. All that devastation in the illusion that building an HGV road across the district will somehow regenerate the area.
LCC has just announced that the £140 million plan is going out to tender to large national construction firms. The reality of the ‘regeneration’ is that the lion’s share of this public money will not be spent locally, but will fill the coffers of national and multinational companies, and taxpayers will be saddled with a debt that is unknown, but huge.
In 2007 traffic consultants Faber Maunsell developed an integrated transport package for the district, including changes to the one way systems, park and ride, public transport improvements and a bridge at Luneside. These are measures that would really tackle congestion in the district, yet no money is earmarked for them, and it is likely that, with the budget blown on the Link Road, there will be no money left for them.
2010 will be another costly uphill struggle for LCC and its Link road plan; further public scrutiny is likely, and the chances of government funding must be receding when the country is in so much debt. We hope that a public inquiry will be called, and if it is, TSLM too will be asking for funding, to pay for the expert help that we shall need to present our case well.
Everyone at TSLM wishes you "Seasons Greetings and a Happy New Year."
..........................................................................................................
9th December 2009: Morecambe Town Council objects to Link road orders
By overwhelming majority (17-1), Morecambe Town Council (MTC) voted on Tuesday evening, 8 December, to object to the plans for the highly controversial Heysham M6 Link road.
MTC objects to the Compulsory Purchase and Side Road Orders and requests a reconsideration of all of the issues by a government appointed inspector. The grounds mentioned were inconvenience, loss of amenities, environmental damage, and adverse effects on residents, flora and fauna.
Councillor Roger Dennison said "Recent flood events in Cumbria, only a few miles from the catchment area of our River Lune, show that we must be absolutely certain that all the calculations have been done correctly, or we could create similar problems here. This scheme must be looked at again."
Morecambe Town Council joins a long list of opponents of the scheme, including the district’s MP Geraldine Smith, Lancaster City Council, Friends of the Earth and the Campaign to Protect Rural England, and TSLM, who represent the majority of the residents of the district who oppose the damaging and destructive road.
Councillor Geoff Marsland said that he had spoken to a representative of the Government Office for the North East (GONE), who confirmed that this was exactly the sort of objection to the road plan that GONE, who are handling the matter, would consider seriously.
"This scheme is being driven by Lancashire County Councillors from County Hall in Preston. It does not have Council support where it matters, in the north of Lancashire. Up here everyone wants integrated transport plans which would bring together Lancaster, Morecambe and the University, by tackling local congestion and improving in town transport measures," said David Gate, chair of local transport campaign group TSLM. "No one wants a lorry generating ferry link road, which destroys the green belt and produces 23,500 tonnes of extra CO2 a year, at twice the cost of the integrated transport measures."
The Government Office North East is at present giving serious consideration to the objections.
..........................................................................................................
8th December 2009: Link road planners sail into deep water
Lancashire County Council (LCC) planners have completely missed out an important step in the statutory planning process required for their Heysham M6 Link road plans.
They are required by law to provide a scheme under the Highways Act for the massive new low-level bridge over the River Lune, which is, at Halton, a navigable water. The Council has gone ahead with its Compulsory Purchase procedure without the necessary scheme, even though they were told by the Department for Transport that such a scheme would be needed.
The Government Office for the North East (GONE), acting on behalf of the Department for Transport, actually advised LCC's Solicitors in January 2009 that, if the river is navigable, then a scheme would be required.
"It seems that neither the lawyers nor the planners bothered to investigate whether the river is navigable at Halton," said David Gate, chair of local transport campaign group TSLM. "Everyone in this part of the world knows that the River Lune is most definitely navigable on that stretch, and we have collected a large body of evidence and sent it to the DfT to prove the point. Several boat and canoe clubs have used this stretch of river for many years. Local people have rowed on the River Lune for over a hundred years."
In the face of this mass of evidence of navigation, LCC will have no alternative but to make a scheme for the road bridge, submit it to the DfT for consideration and publish it for possible objection. As a minimum, this will add significantly to the timetable. The omission may also delay DfT consideration of a further public inquiry into the controversial £140 million road plans.
"The County Council has simply ignored the comments of government experts and gone full steam ahead with their plans. The planners from Preston have once again ignored local people. They have rushed to try and secure taxpayer funding before the Government implements spending cuts, but now they may have sailed their plan onto the rocks."
..........................................................................................................
26th October 2009: Urgent message from TSLM
Lancashire County Council has now issued the Orders to proceed with the Heysham-M6 Link Road. They are:
- The Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) to acquire the land for the road
- The Side Road Order (SRO) to alter, add to or block up local roads, bridleways and footpaths to allow it to be built.
- A Transfer of Highways Order (THO) to permit the new slip roads to be transferred to the Department for Transport, when built.
- A Connecting Roads Scheme to permit replacement of the entry and exit roads at M6 Junction 34 by a completely new layout of slip roads.
- A Scheme to permit the bridge carrying the road over the Lancaster Canal
Details are on LCC website:
http://www.lancashire.gov.uk/environment/env_highways/roads/heysham/index.asp
Any resident affected by this scheme, or opposed to it, may object to all five Orders. So too may people who travel locally and will be affected by the alterations to the local roads and rights of way. TSLM will be objecting, and we would like you to do the same. This may be your last opportunity to express your opposition to this massive road scheme.
PLEASE OBJECT NOW. If there are sufficient objections, there will need to be a Public Inquiry. The last Public Inquiry only gave a time-limited planning permission for the road, which only says that a road is an acceptable use of the land. It does not authorise building the road, nor determine the need for the road. Alternatives to the proposal can now be advanced.
We urge you to write to the Secretary of State for Transport, Government Office North East, (GONE), the government department responsible for handling the Orders submitted by Lancashire County Council, and object to the orders. This does not commit you to appearing at a Public Inquiry but it means that you will receive all future information circulated about the procedures and decisions made.
We believe the following matters would be valid grounds for an objection and, if any of these issues affect you, they could be included in your representation. You can object on any ground that you think relevant, but objections lodged must have grounds (reasons) to be valid.
- A new road has been the only option advanced by the County Council; no non-road building option has been appraised, contrary to government guidance.
- No other route has been assessed. A Western Route was rejected because it runs close to European Protected Areas (the Lune estuary), but its impact was not assessed. Nor were other alignments or solutions to the north of Lancaster – for example putting the road under the West Coast Main Line, not in a high bridge over it as proposed.
- A package of alternative measures to address local traffic problems, developed by the consultants Faber Maunsell for the local authorities, has never been presented officially or put out to local consultation.
- The road will increase traffic levels across the area and as a result produce an extra 23,500 tonnes of carbon a year, contravening the Government’s legally binding commitment to reduce emissions by 80% by 2050
- There is widespread opposition to the scheme, from residents, the local MP and Lancaster City Council; it would be wrong to proceed with a scheme which has so little local support
- Every person has the right to peaceful enjoyment of his or her possessions under Article 1 of the First Protocol on Human Rights, and no one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest. LCC believe the greater good is in promoting the scheme. As local residents, we disagree.
The list is not comprehensive and we include with this letter further grounds for objection that apply to particular areas*.
You may object to any or all of these Orders, but it would be simpler to object to all five in one letter.
You have until 10 December 2009 to respond in writing to Secretary of State for Transport, Government Office for the North East, Local Authority Orders Section, Citygate, Gallowgate, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 4WH or by email to Linda.smart@gone.gsi.gov.uk
You must state:
- The title of the order (“Heysham-M6 Link Road Orders and Schemes” is sufficient)
- The grounds of your objection
- Your name and address
If you email your objection, we recommend that you send your letter as an attachment to the email. If your objection is a simple e-mail, you must include your name and address for it to be valid. The name of the road scheme must be included to ensure your letter or e-mail is properly recorded.
YOUR ACTION IS ESSENTIAL. If these orders are made without objection, Lancashire County Council will have taken another major step towards the destruction of 173 acres of Green Belt, the generation of thousands more tonnes of greenhouse gasses, more lorries on our congested roads, and noise, light, vibration and airborne pollution for our district. The country's debt mountain will grow, but the transport problems of our district will still not have been addressed.
When you send a letter to the Department for Transport, would you please tell us, and if possible send us a copy of your letter to TSLM, PO Box 148, Morecambe LA4 6WR or email to admin@HeyshamM6Link.info
Read TSLM’s objection letter here
Yours sincerely,
David Gate,
TSLM
* Examples of impacts on our area from the road
Russell Drive & Endsleigh Grove
- The open space behind Russell Drive, which has been used for decades for walking & recreation, would be lost.
- Noise & light pollution and vibration from a road 26 feet high would be unbearable to residents.
- Traffic lights should be considered at Broadoak, instead of a high flyover, to improve traffic flows and reduce impact substantially.
- Large drainage ponds (SUDS ponds), collecting polluted run-off from the road, will increase the danger of flooding in Torrisholme.
Lancaster Canal
- The Lancaster Canal corridor into the countryside, a quiet and beautiful route from the city to Hest Bank, for boats, walkers, runners and cyclists, much used for leisure & recreation, would be blighted. A high bridge over the canal, carrying a noisy, lit main road, would destroy its character.
Slyne
- Massive increase in traffic on the A6 north of Lancaster (UP from 6,300 to 11,800 vehicles a day) will lead to increased noise and air pollution.
- Traffic in Hest Bank Lane increases by 100%.
- The realigned and elevated A6 will lead to loss of privacy
- New traffic lights on A6 will create queues of standing traffic, increased levels of pollution, and may increase risk of accidents.
- Ease of access to motorway network may increase the level of crime/burglary
- The Green Belt between the new road and the northern edge of Lancaster could be lost to development in the future, to the detriment of the area.
Beaumont
- More traffic at new traffic lights on A6 will lead to increased noise and air pollution
- Parking for residents, already difficult, will be made worse.
- As Green Lane enters the countryside, the rural tranquillity would be lost.
Halton
- A large roundabout at Shefferlands, with slip roads, will exacerbate all the unhealthy effects of a major road, viz. loss of air quality, noise and light pollution close to dwellings.
- It will induce extra traffic on the dangerous (20mph limit) section of the Halton road, close to Shefferlands.
- It will cause more development in future years, and the character of Halton as a rural village, separate from the Lancaster conurbation, will be lost.
- Ease of access to motorway network may increase the level of crime/burglary
- The new low-level bridge over the Lune could increase the risk from flooding
Grosvenor Park
The screen of mature trees and hedging between Morecambe Road and Grosvenor Park will be removed, exposing residents to increased traffic fumes and noise.
..........................................................................................................
28th August 2009: A transport opportunity goes begging at County Hall following election day chaos
Labour County Councillors, staring defeat in the face, tried to rush through orders on the building of the controversial Heysham M6 Link road in Labour's final days of power, committing their Conservative successors to the expensive, destructive and under performing Labour plan.
Despite major unresolved issues, the then Labour Council Cabinet member, Matthew Tomlinson, gave his go ahead on orders which would have triggered the compulsory purchase of millions of pounds worth of green belt farm land north of Lancaster and Morecambe, which would then be bulldozed by the Council to build a massive lorry route to Heysham from the M6.
Behind the scenes, the County Council planners were in discussion with the Department for Transport (DfT) on the content of the draft orders, and the DfT have since made a number of comments pointing out errors and suggesting changes to the Council's plans. There was no agreement on the orders as given the go ahead by Cllr Tomlinson, who lost his seat in the election a week later.
It was left to Transport Solutions for Lancaster and Morecambe (TSLM) to point this out.
Local MP Geraldine Smith took up her constituents' concerns, and raised the matter with the Department for Transport, urging Lancashire County Council to comply with the law and obtain a new and valid resolution to make the Orders. The Council's Solicitor has since announced that a new resolution will be considered in October.
"This scheme would have a major impact on my constituents", said Geraldine Smith MP, "and it is only right that the correct procedures should be followed at every stage."
David Gate, Chair of TSLM, said "What a pity that the new Council has not taken the opportunity to seize the transport initiative in Lancashire. The world has changed and moved on since this HGV route plan was first mooted. Plans to get Lancaster and Morecambe connected and moving again already exist, they are gathering dust in Council offices as they work to get the lorry route plan up and running. The new County Council has the opportunity to shake off the financial burden imposed by the old Council, and to prioritise these integrated transport plans to free up congestion in North Lancashire with less of a contribution to the national debt mountain."
"This damaging scheme, which will have such an impact on the people of the area, should go back to the full Council for a decision", said Mr Gate.
..........................................................................................................
29th July 2009: Lorry Link road - New dogs, same old tricks.
Despite a dramatic local election change at County Hall, in which many of the old promoters of the Heysham M6 lorry link road were swept away, the new Lancashire County Council has failed to seize the initiative and introduce cheaper and more efficient congestion-busting measures for North Lancashire .
A recent notice placed in the local media confirms that the 'new' Council plans to implement the old, Labour-controlled, Council’s decision to build an under-performing, expensive and destructive lorry road to Heysham Port, despite calls for transport measures to address the district’s pressing congestion problems.
"This massive road is designed to attract more heavy goods traffic into our district, to use Heysham Port rather than Liverpool, despite a major down-turn in Irish road transport trade, following the recession," said David Gate, chair of local transport campaign group TSLM. "The Lancaster and Morecambe district congestion problem is not being addressed, despite the road’s spiraling £140 million price tag. All we get in this district from this project is the loss of 173 acres of green belt and an extra dose of 23,000 tonnes of carbon emissions each year."
A package of integrated transport measures, including park and ride, public transport improvements and changes to the one way system has been developed for the district by council transport consultants, at a cost estimated to be half that of the lorry Link. But the plans continue to gather dust in Council offices while the politicians make their grand gesture
"It is surprising that this new Council wants to make such a major contribution to the country's massive debt mountain. They claim economic and regeneration benefits for the Link, but these were blown apart at the public inquiry," said Mr. Gate; "the reality of this dated political plan is more lorries, destruction of the green belt and additional vibration, noise, light and airborne pollution for thousands of local residents."
..........................................................................................................
17th July 2009: Contact your local councillors.
Dear members and supporters,
A couple of weeks ago, we contacted you to update you on the results of the local elections. TSLM urged you to email the new councillors, and ask them to make their mark by stopping the monster road, and starting new initiatives to get the congested traffic moving again.
We have been asked to provide email addresses, and by clicking the link below you will be directed to Lancashire County Council's own web site, with all the County Councillors' details, including e mail addresses.
http://www3.lancashire.gov.uk/council/councillors/countyCouncillors.asp
Some of you have asked which councillors to contact. We would suggest the new Cabinet, all the Conservatives, who are the new controlling group, and all councillors for the Lancaster area. Their e mail addresses are here. Copy them from this file, paste it into your TO box, and send the message.
Please take this opportunity to tell the new councillors that Labour's old link plan is too expensive, destructive and overblown and that cheaper and more effective plans for the district already exist. We don't want a debt mountain or an environmental nightmare, we just want to get the traffic moving again.
Please continue to play your part and stop the monster road!
..........................................................................................................
16th June 2009: Lights out for Link Lovers.
Support for the Link was a voter turn off in the local elections. Several of principal promoters were kicked off the Council, a severe blow to their monster road dream.
Labour lost control of Lancashire County Council. Hazel Harding (leader), lost her seat, as did previous Cabinet members for transport, Cllr. Tomlinson, Cllr. Martin and Cllr. Yates. All of these defeated Labour councillors were active promoters of the Link plans. Jean Yates planned to turn Heysham into a lorry park, but the electorate thought otherwise.
In the Morecambe Town Council elections, the Morecambe Bay Independents (MBIs) swept the board, winning 25 out of the 26 seats. These independents have consistently listened to the people of the area and opposed the Northern Route plan. In Torrisholme, their highest vote went to Linda Davies, who made national headlines with her heroic legal challenge to the Secretary of State's approval of the monster road.
Labour party activists stood under the confusing banner of the 'Residents First' party; however, the electorate saw them for who they really were, and all of those candidates, including Cllr. Jean Yates and Cllr. Janice Hanson, were defeated. This group of activists were responsible for the short-lived 'Love the Link' initiative, which was created to counter the success of TSLM.
However, several supporters of the plan remain on the County Council, and TSLM will now mount a lobbying campaign to win over the new Council. We want the Conservatives to review the scheme on value for money grounds, and to advance alternative congestion relief measures for the district.
At £140 million and rising, the Northern route is poor value for tax-payers, and a major contributor to the debt mountain. Will the Tories blow their transport budget for their term of office on Labour's overblown and under-performing road?
Cheaper and more effective alternative transport plans for the district already exist, but have been quietly suppressed in favour of the Northern route. We need to get the traffic in our district moving again and not allow our road system to act as a magnet for more international HGV's.
The Link is an environmental nightmare producing 23,500 tons of extra CO2 each year, and it is a destroyer of 173 acres of Green Belt. Conservative policy is sworn to protect the environment: let us now put that to the test.
We have all done a great job in making the Link road a main issue in the election, and now we have the opportunity to guide new Councillors onto the right path, not along Labour's overblown road. We urge you to email them and remind them that this is a situation where they can make their mark. This is what TSLM is fighting for, to get the traffic moving again and to stop the monster road.
..........................................................................................................
20th April 2009: No to the Northern route! Make your voice and your vote count on June 4th.
We have a great opportunity coming up on June 4th to let the County Council know how we feel about their plan to build the damaging and destructive HGV route across our district. The Councillors who voted in favour of the Monster Road are themselves coming up for re-election.
A major change at County Hall could well put an end to the Link Road nightmare. Please take this opportunity to make your voice heard. Ask your candidates for their stance on the Link Road and tell them why you oppose it. Encourage friends and neighbours to do the same.
TSLM is not a politically driven group and so we cannot tell you who to vote for, but we can remind you that all three of the main parties, led by Labour, were responsible for the Northern route go ahead, the matter was rushed through the Council Cabinet, and it was not debated or voted on by the full council. Before the vote there was no meaningful public consultation.
Many people are very angry about the way the County Council has conducted itself in this controversial matter and there is a determined mood to put matters right.
Please make sure that you, your family, friends and neighbours get out to vote, do your own informal canvassing, write to the local newspapers and let people know how you feel.
The Heysham M6 Link road is a politically-driven dud. It does not tackle the district's congestion nightmare, it is destructive and polluting and it would be a major contribution to the nation's debt mountain.
DON'T FORGET, USE YOUR VOTE ON JUNE 4TH.
..........................................................................................................
18th April 2009: Council’s "thorough fact check" fails to reveal thumbs down for the Link road
Documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act have revealed that, prior to the Governments decision to grant entry to the road building funding programme, Lancaster City Council failed to advise the Planning Inspectorate that the City Council had withdrawn its support for the controversial Heysham M6 Northern Link road.
Following the Public Inquiry on Lancaster’s Core Strategy, a draft Inspector’s Report was prepared by the Government Planning Inspectorate, and Lancaster City Council was asked to check it for errors and omissions. In June 2008 the Planning Services Department at Lancaster City Council replied, stating that "....the (City) Council has undertaken a thorough fact check of the report and appendices. The Council has found no fundamental errors of fact. There are a few very minor factual errors and typos which the Inspector may consider correcting.”
Yet in the draft Inspectors Report on the Core Strategy Development Plan was an erroneous statement that the City Council "supported" the Link road. In fact, the full Council had voted on 20th June 2007 specifically to withdraw support for the scheme.
Then Lancashire County Council, in its desperate bid to gain funding for the road, told the Government that the City Council actually supported the scheme.
"It’s hard to see how the officers at the City Council could make such a stupendous blunder," said David Gate, chair of local transport campaign group Transport Solutions for Lancaster and Morecambe (TSLM). "The polluting and destructive road plan is a massive controversy, and the full Council’s decision was so well publicised.
“The Inspector was misled. The Government was misled. In a recession when £137 million of taxpayers’ money is at stake, the democratic decision of the Council, reflecting the wishes of its electorate to reject the HGV route, is clearly fundamental.
"The City Council and a great many people who live in the district, including the sitting MP, have given this under-performing road a massive thumbs down, and the Government should have been told that before it parted with scarce public money."
..........................................................................................................
29th January 2009: Link Road joins the congested queue for taxpayer funding.
After a wait of nearly four years, the controversial Heysham M6 Link road has been granted “Programme Entry” status in its bid to secure funding from the Government. But no money is earmarked for congestion relief in Lancaster and Morecambe.
“Programme entry funding would cover £133 million of the costs of building the road. But it does not extend to any further measures designed to tackle in town congestion,” says David Gate chair of transport campaign group TSLM.
“It does not cover Park & Ride (£3.5 million), or congestion relief measures, or future cost overruns. The Government refuses to fund them, so the cash-strapped County Council must bear the cost, and who knows how many millions that will be? Lancashire's hard pressed taxpayers are now committed to a huge and unknown liability for the future.
“The County Council has pressed on with this scheme, in the face of opposition by the district’s MP Geraldine Smith, the City Council and the local public. They know it won’t solve congestion, won’t bring jobs, but will increase pollution. Yet there are alternatives. An integrated package of transport relief measures has been drawn up, and is on councillors’ desks at the moment. It would tackle congestion more cheaply than the Link Road.
“We know the Department of Transport is not happy with this scheme. We have met them, and the officers knew that the submission was flawed and inadequate in several key respects. We’re disappointed they’ve granted programme entry, but they are adamant that County must pay its full share of any further cost increases, and there are likely to be many.
“Pitfalls lie ahead for the Link plan before it destroys the Green Belt”, says Mr. Gate. “The County must get Compulsory Purchase Orders, with a possible public inquiry. Then they must get quotes from contractors, which may be over budget. And at each stage, the recession-bound Government has to give further approval. There’s still a very long way to go.”
..........................................................................................................
TSLM T-shirts and posters are now available
 
Available in Adult sizes: Small (36’’) to XL(44’’) - £5.50
and Children’s sizes: age 4-6, 7-8, & 9-11 - £4.50
(the children’s have Stop the M6 Link Road on both front & back)
Posters for display in your windows are free and available with a variety of slogans
..........................................................................................................
For historic stories and headlines, please see the Archive page.
This site was first published on 30th March 2005
|
