We had hoped the collaborative way the New Carrington Masterplan is being managed would prevail for other aspects of development in the area, but sadly, no!  Once again, we have a “strategy” that has been agreed by Trafford’s Executive without any input from the residents who will be severely impacted by its implementation (not only by what is in the “strategy” but also by what is not)!

At a recent Trafford Executive Committee meeting (29^th January 2024), the report about Infrastructure and Development in New Carrington was introduced (we note there is a typo in the report date but it was presented in 2024, not 2023).  As part of this report the New Carrington Outline Transport Strategy was presented to the Executive.

On the positive side, the Council has begun an open and transparent process for developing the Masterplan for New Carrington (the details are on their website here).  This is good news, because, it is clear that residents have a lot to bring to the table in relation to what is needed in the area.

The Executive report itself is actually a marked improvement on previous documents created by Trafford about the Carrington Relief Road.  It does acknowledge some of the issues that have arisen (and continue to be identified).  In view of Trafford’s declaration of a climate emergency back in 2018 and its carbon neutral goals, set out in 2020, the accompanying Transport Strategy document, however, remains unambitious and has several major omissions.

Interestingly, that “strategy” document was produced in September 2023 but has been kept under wraps until after the Places for Everyone (P4E) Modifications Consultation was completed, which is rather disingenuous of Trafford’s politicians and officers, given that its contents signal concerns about whether the huge list of “Necessary Transport Interventions” set out at Appendix D (page 708) of the P4E Plan can, or will, be delivered. 

Resident Priorities?

Whilst the production of this “strategy” is to be welcomed, there has been no involvement of the community in determining the Vision, or the aspirations, and there is nothing in the document that suggests that communities will be engaged as the “strategy” evolves in the future!  It is, therefore, not a surprise that it merely continues to promote car/HGV-dependency, leaving a legacy of huge levels of air, noise, light, vibration and water pollution (to say nothing of the carbon emissions), that will result in poorer health outcomes for residents and higher costs to the public purse.  There is a reference to a specific consultation about one initiative, the Carrington Relief Road, but that was supposed to commence in January 2024, so is already behind schedule.

HGV traffic on the A6144 is, by far, the biggest concern for residents, yet there are no figures in this document which identify the size of the issue (either now or in the future), nor does it explain how Trafford proposes to address this problem.  The “strategy” confirms that the new road will be the panacea for freight transport!  Yet, we know that businesses are not in favour of restricting HGV use on the A6144, as was confirmed in a response to a planning application.  There is no indication about how the proposed route changes will be agreed with businesses and implemented so that travel through Carrington Village can be limited to local resident movements.

So, what we have now is a “strategy” which:

• does not address any of the issues related to the huge number of HGVs that are travelling on local roads, there are no references to sustainable freight transport solutions and no aspirations to even consider them – is this really a strategic document?
• does not estimate the anticipated induced traffic that will arise from the construction of the proposed new roads (causing more congestion, much higher levels of pollution and increased travel incidents), particularly for Partington, nor does it reveal the ultimate aim, set out in the GM Transport Strategy 2040, to create a link between the M60 and the M62 via Carrington (page 124/125), which will undoubtedly induce immense volumes of motor vehicle traffic through the area
• does not even mention the importance of local travel routes to horse riders (there are more 1,000 horses stabled in and around the area – source British Horse Society) – this is a huge gap as horse riders need specific surfaces (to reduce the potential for the animals to slip in wet weather, for example, and specific crossing points) – it would be inappropriate to consider active travel routes here without including their considerations.

The background facts are rather selective, there is no reference, for example, noting that Partington has a much lower rate of car ownership (27.2% of households with no cars or vans according to Census 2021) compared to the rest of Trafford (19.3%).  Neither is there any mention of the likely changes arising from the increased charges on the Warburton Toll Bridge.  There are no figures highlighting the difference in traffic volumes during school term times and school holidays (there is a marked variation in numbers which we have observed in our traffic counts that could be addressed through increased school bus services, cycling buses and other initiatives).

Because the proposed new road will be constructed adjacent to and beyond Carrington, it is more likely to induce additional traffic into Partington than to relieve traffic for residents there.  Other initiatives are needed to improve transport options for Partington residents, such as community transport and the reopening of the former railway line between Timperley and Irlam.  This latter scheme would be highly beneficial to the people of Partington and would enable sustainable passenger and freight transport to be fully examined.  Given the lack of consideration for this option from Trafford, Partington Parish Council has begun to explore opportunities to raise the funding needed for a feasibility study for the initiative.

What about the funding?

There is very little information in the document about the costs/funding of the overall “strategy”.  There are only figures related to the Carrington Relief Road (£76.5m) and the overall Greater Manchester Transport Strategy 2040 (£1.1b).  Our own very conservative estimate puts the overall cost of the “Necessary Transport Interventions” for the New Carrington development to be over £400m, see Appendix D (page 708) and listed in the graphic above. 

That GM Transport Strategy 2040 aims to reduce car use to no more than 50% of daily trips by 2040 and reduce demand on road space from freight, moving freight traffic onto rail and water-based transport by the same date. The associated Transport Delivery Plan states that “The Right-Mix aim is for 50% of trips to be made by sustainable modes across GM.  This will require zero net growth in motor vehicle traffic between 2017 and 2040, and non-car mode share to increase from 39% of all trips in 2017 to 50% of trips in 2040”.

With the strategic aim to significantly reduce motor vehicle traffic by 2040 (just 16 years away) in mind, along with the requirement for zero net growth in motor vehicle traffic, there is surely no business case for public money to be invested in a new road, that will impact the borough’s and the region’s carbon neutral ambitions, and generate huge levels of air, noise, light, vibration and water pollution.

Given the very marginal viability of the allocation, especially taking into consideration the contamination issues raised at the Executive Committee meeting, we believe that the public purse will be required to pick up the vast majority of these funding requirements and/or local residents will be forced to accept a huge development without the benefit of the Necessary Transport Interventions to make it, not only sustainable, but also tolerable. 

The Committee Report particularly highlights (paragraph 5.9) the long-elapsed time of the funding period for the Carrington Relief Road (a 9-year funding programme).  Consideration should be given to alternative options that may reduce the cost impact for the public purse and make sustainable transport solutions a reality.  This could include upgrading the existing routes (A6144 and the A1 currently private road in Carrington), along with significant enhancements to the public rights of way across Carrington Moss, making them suitable for extensive active travel, horse riding and, possibly, bus services only.  This would be a much more attractive option for encouraging modal shift as walking and cycling next to huge numbers of HGVs and other motor vehicle traffic is unpleasant, unhealthy and unsafe.

At the Executive Committee meeting a number of insightful questions were raised by Councillors, including Councillor Welton, who asked why there is no analysis of the costs of not achieving Scenario 3 (which is the most sustainable option).  As Councillor Welton highlighted, not achieving that scenario will lead to higher costs in terms of carbon emissions, poorer public health outcomes, increased traffic incidents and congestion and higher costs of road maintenance. 

More Missing information – Carbon Emissions!

The Transport Strategy does not include any information about the carbon implications.  There are no calculations that estimate what impact the different scenarios could have on Trafford’s carbon neutral ambitions. 

Interestingly, the “strategy” references the Greater Cambridge Local Plan to support its assertions in relation to compable sites.  In the P4E assessment work we have done with partner organisations, including Steady State Manchester (who produced an excellent document which calculates the carbon emissions resulting from P4E), our responses to the Planning Inspectors included reference to the Greater Cambridge Local Plan.  Their plan, unlike P4E, incorporated a Strategic Environmental Assessment that calculated the projected carbon emissions for each spatial option being considered (and they were comparable to the spatial options set out in P4E).  Cambridge discovered that coupling residential development and public transport leads to approximately 20% lower carbon emissions than a strategy that promotes car-dependent development in the Green Belt!

Given Trafford’s climate emergency declaration and carbon neutral ambitions, the document should be very clear how such a large development, and the associated road infrastructure, will impact both Trafford’s and the region’s carbon neutral goals.  The lack of sustainable freight transport options is a key consideration here because the carbon implications of the huge numbers of HGVs will be significant.

Comparing New Carrington with similar areas?

The “comparable” areas mentioned in the document are not actually analogous with New Carrington.  The benchmark sites (such as Filton, which has the UK’s largest Aerospace Area – BAE Systems, Rolls Royce, Airbus to name a few) are home to a Global Technology Centre and companies such as Filton Systems, Hewlett Packard and Viridor.  These industries are not like those businesses that are currently operating in (or are proposed for) New Carrington, which are predominantly warehousing/logistics units that generate extremely high numbers of HGV journeys.

Additionally, Filton and the surrounding areas of Stoke Gifford, and Patchway each have their own train station, whereas Carrington, Partington, Sale West and Warburton have no train stations and non are proposed in this “strategy”.  Another “comparable” site, Waterbeach, is a new development but, unlike New Carrington, it is getting its own train station.  There are no large warehousing sites proposed for that location.  It will have flexible workspaces and hubs (more cottage industry makers and creators) and, therefore, limited HGV traffic!  It is a real challenge to understand how these sites can be considered to be “comparable” to the New Carrington location!

The Executive Report states (paragraph 9.1) that “New Carrington will be the main growth point in Trafford for the next decade or more” but the New Carrington allocation is not even comparable to Trafford’s other major warehousing location – Trafford Park does have sustainable freight transport solutions!

What about the deep peat deposits on Carrington Moss?

At the P4E Examination in Public, Natural England’s contributions included the following:

• Natural England (NE) wrote to the planning inspectors in June 2023 (OD42), stating that there is extensive and restorable deep peat within allocation JPA33 (New Carrington), that the deep peat should be considered to be an irreplaceable habitat, and that “the combination of the location and the extent of development proposed by the allocation policy means the proposed development is incompatible with avoiding the deterioration of this irreplaceable habitat”
• NE’s view, set out in OD23, is that the development will not only prevent future restoration but “will cause irreversible damage to the body of peat directly under the developed land and the wider peat mass, which depends on the continuity of the flow of water”.  They go on to recognise that the degradation of the peat mass will also result in significant greenhouse gas emissions
• NE confirmed (in OD42) that their position is in line with the England Peat Action Plan, that there should be no development on (restorable) deep peat, and that peat should be kept wet and in the ground.  NE drew attention to their “extensive experience of peatland restoration projects” which provides considerable credibility to their professional judgement in this matter.

So, for Trafford to conclude in the report (paragraph 7.7) that “peat is not considered to be a significant constraint on future infrastructure provision” demonstrates a huge lack of understanding of the impact of hydrology on the main body of peat, which Natural England estimates to be around 335 hectares.  This is not a surprise, as it is recognised that Natural England are the experts, not Trafford, and their advice should be followed.

Even More Omissions from the “Strategy”!

Whilst the 29th January Executive Committee report mentions that the 2006 Unitary Development Plan (UDP) included a safeguarded route for the road and that the 2012 Core Strategy significantly underestimated the cost of such a route, it does not explain why the land that was safeguarded for the Manchester Ship Canal bridge is not included in the Transport Strategy.  This was also a Proposal E15 requirement in the 2006 UDP and one of the Implementation Projects listed in the 2012 Core Strategy (p80).  This initiative would reduce the number of HGVs (and other vehicles) on local roads significantly.  It is clear that the majority of the actions set out in previous local plans have not been delivered in this area and the potential benefits of the most sustainable solutions, particularly for freight, (such as bringing the former railway line back into use and/or transporting goods via the Manchester Ship Canal) have been totally ignored by Trafford for almost two decades.

The Carrington Relief Road appears to be going through a name change to the A1 Link Road.  The recognition that this road will not “relieve” anyone is welcome but we do wonder where the road will link from and to!  The government’s announcement about the funding to be made available as a result of cancelling HS2:states that “more than £500 million in funding will be provided for 2 major road schemes around Manchester. These include a new link road between the M62 and the M60”.  Whilst this initiative is set out in the Greater Manchester 2040 Transport Delivery Plan, and we assume the A1 link road is ultimately being proposed to provide the first stage of this scheme, the “strategy” makes no mention of this longer-term proposal.

More information:

There are many tables full of confusing information throughout the document.  The calculations about the number of trips do not include the current traffic numbers, the HGV movements and there is no estimate about the expected level of induced traffic.  So, effectively, there is no assessment of the expected overall traffic levels on the new road. 

The “strategy” states (page 18) that “Employment provision in the area should offer a wide range of employment types” and (page 15) that currently 6% of car journeys and 7% of public transport journeys are internal (within Carrington and Partington).  This suggests few residents currently work in the Carrington area, an assertion borne out by our own research.  The current and proposed employment development does not offer a diverse range of job opportunities (despite the assumption on page 38).  It is predominantly warehousing which requires a small, low paid workforce.  There should be more evidence to show how the target of 17% of internal journeys can be achieved.

The current conditions (set out on page 14) focus on Carrington and Partington, without referencing the issues related to Sale West or Warburton, which will be impacted significantly by this “strategy” and, as mentioned above, totally omits any reference to the huge number of HGV movements in the area.

What next?

We have requested a meeting with Trafford to discuss the contents of the “strategy” further and will provide an update to residents as soon as we are clearer about the implications.

Trafford has a website page dedicated to the Carrington Relief Road, you can access it here.

You can find our previous blogs about the Carrington Relief Road by scrolling down at this link.