Newsbrief No 96 5 January 2023
1. Major revision to route of M6 link road to Bailrigg garden village.
2. Lancaster in the national news - but for all the wrong reasons!
1. Major revision to route of proposed M6 link road to Bailrigg garden village.
Thanks solely to a visit by representatives from Lancashire County Council to a Chapel Lane (Galgate) resident, we now know that County (as Highways Authority) are proposing major revisions to the alignment of the link road from Junction 33 on the M6 to Hazelrigg Lane and to the new slip road on to the northbound M6. We understand that these revisions are deemed necessary to avoid destroying what may be a piece of ancient woodland. While saving any woodland from being tarmaced over may be welcome, the impact of these changes is to bring the new link road (plus street lighting, noise and pollution) much closer to several Chapel Lane houses and may involve the compulsory purchase of gardens. When the 6 route options were presented for public consultation in 2020, the alignment of the Central 1 option closely followed line of the existing M6 and so was substantially further away from Chapel Lane houses and without any real expectation that gardens would be subject to compulsory purchase. Central 1 was the option selected by Lancashire County Council’s Cabinet in 2021 after the public consultation.
We consider that this revision invalidates the route choice decision taken by LCC in 2021 and call on the Authority to reopen the whole public consultation on the route - it is far from clear that the route originally chosen (Central 1) would remain as the preferred option in the light of the new evidence that has only now emerged. That the presence of a piece of ‘what appears to be ancient woodland’ has only now become apparent raises (yet again) grave doubts as to the soundness of the cost and risk analysis on which the whole M6 Junction 33 Link is based - what other cost or risk surprises are lurking and who but council tax payers are going to finish up funding them?
Crucially, the consultation process was fundamentally flawed with the plans of this major revision being passed to just one resident rather than being distributed to all. This is not how public consultation is supposed to proceed. Issue no 2 of the Transforming Lancaster’s Travel Newsletter (March 2021) set out as ‘Next Steps’ the carrying out of field surveys to “collect information about the environmental conditions around the adopted route”. What we are now facing are major changes to the previously adopted route - not a scenario which County expected back in 2021. We consider that Lancashire County Council should have informed all residents of this as soon as the need for the change became apparent - but the revised plans are dated November 2022!
This major revision has not, we understand, yet been costed. Involving as it does a new bridge over Hazelrigg Lane for the northbound entry sliproad, a not insignificant cost increase would seem inevitable? In addition the location of the proposed Park & Ride scheme has been moved and is now to be located near to Hazelrigg Lane bridge under the M6. The revised plans also appear to show a new junction of some sort with Langshaw Lane on the link road - a further change from the scheme as put out for consultation in 2020.
The CLOUD Management Committee intends to raise these issues with Lancashire County Council. Please let us know your views on this - including suggestions for additional points you think we should be making.
Finally, we should make it clear that amongst the Chapel Lane residents directly affected by this route change, there are members of the CLOUD Management Committee. To avoid any suspicion that this Newsbrief is being issued solely on their behalf, we would like to confirm that the Newsbrief represents the views of the entire CLOUD Management Committee.
2. Lancaster in the national news -but for all the wrong reasons!
As those of you who read the Independent newspaper may have already seen, the Independent published an article on December 2022 under the headline :
Councils approve airport expansions, oil drilling
and motorways despite pledges to hit net zero by 2030.
Here is the link to the electronic version of the article : https://inews.co.uk/news/councils-approve-airport-expansions-oil-drilling-motorways-despite-net-zero-2030-2026291
The strapline to the article stated : Campaigners say they fear councils are not taking their climate commitments seriously as many continue to support high carbon infrastructure projects in their local areas. The article identified several local authorities which were persisting with high carbon projects and highlighted 4 authorities for particularly blatant breaches of their carbon reduction targets. In the case of Lancaster, here is what the Independent said :
Lancaster City Council - Declared a climate emergency in 2019 and has a target for the council to become net zero by 2030. In 2021, the council approved a masterplan for 9,000 new homes south of the city. The project will involve a remodelling of the M6 and the building of new roads. Critics have said the development makes a “mockery” of the council’s climate commitments and will lead to more cars on the road.
The other 3 authorities highlighted were :
Eastleigh Borough Council - Declared a climate emergency in 2019 and has a target for the council to become net zero by 2025 approved plans to allow Southampton Airport to extend its runway to attract airlines that fly larger planes and increase passenger numbers.
Luton - Declared a climate emergency in 2020 and has set a target for Luton to be net zero by 2040. In 2021, the council approved an expansion of Luton Airport, which would see the airport increase its capacity by one million passengers to 19 million per year. The decision is currently facing a public inquiry.
Shropshire - In 2019, Shropshire Council declared a climate emergency and has set a target to be net zero by 2030. The council has submitted a planning application for a new road plan for Shrewsbury with costs currently estimated above £100m. Climate campaigners say the money could be better invested in public transport.
While we may sometimes feel that Lancaster doesn’t register enough in the national media, this sort of attention is clearly unwelcome - but there is no escaping the Independent’s bleak assessment. Yet again CLOUD calls on Lancaster City and Lancashire County Councils to re-evaluate the costs and risks of the whole south Lancaster development and to carry out a proper carbon assessment of the associated road scheme.
In conclusion the CLOUD Management Committee would like to wish all CLOUD members a happy New Year. We all face the problems of inflation and higher energy, food and other prices and are grateful for your continuing support in these difficult times. We realise that there are more immediate challenges than opposing Bailrigg Garden Village and its massive road infrastructure. Nevertheless, for all our futures, we believe we must continue to oppose the construction of 9000 new houses - equivalent to a town the size of Kendal - and the cost, risk and climate emergency impact of the scheme.
Best wishes
Tony and Mary Breakell (on behalf of the CLOUD Team)
Comments