Memorandum submitted by Save Swallow's
Wood
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 In the villages of Mottram, Hollingworth,
and Tintwistle, plans for a bypass (the "A57/A628 Mottram-Tintwistle"
bypass) have been on the table in various guises for the last
35 years. On 31 January draft Orders were published for a scheme
that was put to public consultation in 1992 and we expect there
will be a Public Inquiry. 1.4km of the proposed bypass is within
the Peak District National Park boundary, whilst the remainder
will devastate several working farms and permanently destroy the
character of the valley, SSSI and LNR sites.
1.2 Save Swallow's Wood is a local campaign
group who opposes the A57/A628 Mottram-Tintwistle Bypass on environmental
grounds.
2. IMPACT OF
CURRENT AND
FUTURE TRAFFIC
FORECASTS ON
CO2 EMISSIONS
2.1 The Highways Agency's own published
figures show that building the bypass will lead to a 124% increase
in traffic using the A628 and a 7% increase in local CO2.
In contrast, the traffic if nothing is done traffic growth is
forecast to remain static, as the road network is already at capacity,
which acts as a constraint on this route.
2.2 By the Highways Agency's own admission,[79]
the following Government policies relating to climate change will
be adversely affected by this scheme:
— Energy White Paper—Our Energy
Future Creating a Low Carbon Economy, DTI (2003)
— Climate Change—the UK Programme,
DEFRA (2000)
2.3 The Highways Agency claims that the
scheme is beneficial in terms relating to the Transport White
Paper—The Future of Transport: A Network for 2030 (2004),
however it's justification for this is based on the scheme already
being listed in the TPI and its purpose being to reduce congestions.
What this assessment does not consider is the impact on climate
change within the White Paper, on which it clearly has an adverse
impact.
3. CONSIDERATION
OF ALTERNATIVES
3.1 Unlike many other road proposals, the
Mottram-Tintwistle scheme is fairly unique in that alternative
solutions could be implemented if there were the political will
to tackle them.
3.2 For example, the A628 runs parallel
to the now disused Woodhead tunnel and railway line. Until 1982
this was a fully operational line, bringing passenger and freight
across the Peak Park to Manchester from Sheffield and Penistone.
3.3 In the last 10 years there have been
three rail and two road management proposals put to decision makers
at all levels, and all have been rejected in favour of the road-building
option. These alternatives are:
— Arriva's proposal to re-open Woodhead
tunnel and offer passenger rail services between Manchester and
Sheffield.
— Central Railways' proposal, to reopen
Woodhead tunnel and as part of a high-speed North-South network,
enabling Transpennine rail-freight and passenger services.
— Translink's proposal to reopen Woodhead
tunnel as a rail-freight link, offering rolling stock carriage
from the M1 to the M60.
— Weight restrictions on the A628,
put forward by CPRE and investigated by independent consultations
Metropolitan Transport Research Unit (MTRU).
— Road user charging proposals, put
forward by Derbyshire CC to the Transport Innovation Fund (TIF).
3.4 Despite all these potential alternatives
focussing on the problem of HGV movements, and HGV movements being
identified as the major justification for the building of the
road proposal, none of these proposals has been thoroughly investigated,
nor measured against current Government policy regarding sustainable
transport and climate change. Furthermore, four of the five proposals
would be privately funded and self-financing, whilst a study conducted
by MTRU concluded that for the fifth (weight-restriction), "the
benefits would outweigh the costs", even without taking into
consideration the character and environmentally sensitivity of
the area.
February 2006
79 Refer to Environmental Statement A57/A628 Mottram-Tintwistle
Bypass and A628/A616 Route Restraint Measures, 1.7 Other
Government Policies, published by the Highways Agency. Back
| 
