Author Archives: friendsofcarringtonmossgmailcom

What exactly is the Vision for New Carrington?

Posted on by Leave a comment

Houses on stilts?  An estate by the lake? HGVs replaced by boats (well we like that idea)!

The recent heavy rainfall event significantly impacted many in our communities (and beyond), not only causing disruption to travel and a lot of inconvenience (wonder who’ll be jailed for that*) but also, very sadly, causing the deaths of wildlife and domestic animals.  The Manchester Evening News (2nd January) reported that 1,000 people were evacuated from their homes and several major roads were under water and closed for a long period. 

Whilst Trafford was “working closely with the Environment Agency, fire and rescue services, and the police to provide support to those in urgent need”, there was a huge amount of community support too.  Thanks to everyone who did their bit, particular thanks to Carrington Riding Centre for their support to those affected (humans and animals).

Despite the Environment Agency issuing six flood warning and four flood alerts, the Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, astoundingly stated that the severity of the flooding took authorities by surprise because no specific warnings were given!  He has called for “accountability”.  We wonder what he actually means by that.

Will he and his colleagues, the leaders of 9 districts in Greater Manchester, be held accountable, for example, for their decision to allocate land that is essential for climate mitigation in his Places for Everyone Spatial Plan.  One of those allocations is New Carrington, in which Trafford Council proposes to approve the development of 5,000 houses, 350,000m2 warehousing and 4 major new roads! 

These developments will mean that huge swathes of land that is currently capturing and storing thousands of litres of water will be concreted over, against the wishes of local communities, causing significant environmental and ecological harm and causing enormous risks to future generations (and not just in relation to flooding).

There is a lack of understanding at Trafford Council about just how much water is hosted by Carrington Moss.  This area has saved local communities from more severe flooding for decades.  You can see some of our videos showing the extent of flooding in previous years on the Carrington Lake page of our website.

The Met Office (and many others) have reported that rainfall is now heavier and more frequent than in the past.  Their scientists found that “rainfall associated with storms is becoming both more intense and more likely”.  Whereas we could, at one time, expect such events to be once in 50 years or so, those extreme weather conditions are now expected to occur at least once every five years. 

This means that wetland habitats, like Carrington Moss, are hugely valuable for the ecosystem services they provide. 

What is really worrying many in existing communities though, is that, if this very wet land is developed, future heavy rainfall events will not have the benefit of Carrington Moss to protect local areas.  Once a flood event has happened to their homes, residents will find it difficult to get insurance and there will be huge costs to the public sector (which is funded by us). 

Much of the land that is proposed for development is under high levels of water.  The Council and developers will tell residents that they have a sustainable drainage strategy but let’s be clear, draining all this water into the River Mersey (or Sinderland Brook) will cause local and downstream flooding.  This is contrary to national guidance and our concerns about this issue have been repeatedly ignored by Trafford, the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and the PfE Planning Inspectors. 

Will they all be held accountable for future flood events that occur here and in surrounding communities?

Many of you will have seen the Manchester Evening News article that reported the closure (once again) of the A555 Airport Relief Road, which had cars submerged to their rooftops!  Transport solutions such as this do not benefit anyone, and as Trafford themselves admit, the new road here (Carrington Relief Road) is expected to induce additional traffic into the area (definitely not what we need). 

We are currently expecting the consultation for the Carrington Relief Road to be issued later this month.  Please keep this flooding in mind when you respond.  We believe our alternative option is a more sustainable solution that will benefit both current and future residents. 

For more information about our ongoing campaign, please sign up to our monthly newsletter here and join us at our monthly online public meetings.

Note: Image credits Rob Duncan, Mary Lennon and Tony Shearwood

*for anyone who does not understand this reference, protestors who cause inconvenience to others by, for example, sitting in the road to raise an issue, can be jailed – yet those who knowingly make decisions that result in far more serious implications, such as planning for or approving development in areas that should be capturing flood water, putting current and future communities at real risk of harm, currently escape any accountability or punishment!

Risk to your local peatmoss – YOU can help!

Posted on by Leave a comment

Carrington Moss is Trafford’s largest peatland and is one of several across Greater Manchester.  Peatlands which store vast amounts of carbon – the worlds peatlands store twice as much carbon as all the world’s forests. Carrington Moss is a unique biodiverse habitat, home to an abundance of flora and fauna. It is the breeding and feeding grounds for many endangered wildlife creatures and birds, some of which are red listed.

Carrington Moss is a wetland that absorbs huge amounts of water and it is very wet for long periods each year. This is great news because the water keeps the peat active, holding in, rather than emitting, the carbon stored here. It is also our natural flood defence.  Without it, both local residents and communities downstream on the River Mersey are at a higher risk of flooding.

Carrington Moss is in danger!

Trafford Council have plans to concrete it over!

The council want the construct the £76 million Carrington Relief Road, which they say is NOT for the benefit of local residents. They also say it will INDUCE more traffic into the area.  Our recent surveys demonstrate that this is money poorly spent.

There are NO committed plans for investment in public transport in the area, so any new development will be unsustainable and levels of air, light, noise, vibration and water pollution will increase significantly.

The council want to build 350,000 square metres of warehousing and industrial units, in Carrington, of which 100,000 square metres will be on (formerly Green Belt) land that has peat of around 2m in thickness under the surface!  Yet, there are sufficient brownfield sites for those developments across Greater Manchester.

The council want to build thousands of houses on the moss when there are sufficient brownfield sites in the borough and beyond!

There are several ways you can help our campaign to protect this precious habitat

  • Email your councillors to express your objections
  • The Carrington Relief Road Consultation will be in January 2025.  You can respond to this consultation, details of which should be available on the council website. 
  • Alternatively, subscribe to our free newsletter and we will keep you updated.
  • Join our 200 Club lottery for just £22 a year.  Not only do you have the chance to win one of three cash prizes each month for 12 months, but you will also be helping us with our campaign.  Last month’s prizes were £74 (1st), £44 (2nd) and £15 (3rd).  The more members we have, the higher the prize money, so do encourage your friends and family to join too.

Unsustainable New Carrington – “Trapped Behind the Wheel”

Posted on by 2 comments

by Lorraine Eagling

Where we live and how we get around are key to what shapes our everyday lives.  A recent New Economics Foundation (NEF) report ‘Trapped Behind the Wheel’ found that

“far from moving our economy towards sustainability and improved wellbeing, England’s new homes in recent years have increasingly encouraged car-dependent lifestyles.

One factor in this change has been the outsized share of new homes being built in rural areas, which has risen continually across the country in recent years”.

New Carrington will be one of these car and HGV-dependent developments that will not be sustainable, nor will it deliver improved wellbeing for new and existing residents.  The majority of the housing and warehousing will be located on grade 2 agricultural land and part of a restorable 335 hectare peatmoss! 

Despite the proximity of New Carrington to Partington, Carrington and Sale West, there is currently a lack of adequate public transport and no committed funding for new public transport infrastructure.  In fact, there are no plans to connect New Carrington to the water, rail or tram network, despite the allocation being adjacent to the Manchester Ship Canal, having former railway lines running through the site and it being the largest development in Greater Manchester.

The Council are pushing ahead with this plan regardless of the experience of the past 15 years, which shows us that, without substantial changes and investment into new public transport infrastructure, there is a major risk of locking in increased car and HGV dependency for decades to come.

As a result, Trafford Council and the Government will not be able to deliver priorities such as

Bringing the cost of living down to more manageable levels, reducing spatial inequality and responding adequately to the climate emergency

In most cases, residents in New Carrington will face the higher costs of car dependent living. Their ability to enter paid employment or the training needed to secure a well-paid job is constrained by the availability of local public transport infrastructure.  

Although there are plans to improve bus services as part of the masterplan, Partington, Carrington and Sale West have seen bus services reduce significantly over recent years, so any increase in services provides no net gain overall. 

“A 2021 study demonstrated that in ‘left-behind’ neighbourhoods, which have high deprivation and poor social infrastructure provision, public transport is worse than average (74% have no railway station and bus journeys per capita have declined faster than the national average). Residents are less able to afford to compensate by owning a car (40% of households have no car, compared with 26% across England). These areas of the country typically have worse connectivity than the English average but rely more than other parts of the country on their local bus service”. (Emmet Kiberd, Benedikt Straňák, NEF, November 2024)

So, why is there no commitment to invest in new public transport infrastructure such as reopening the rail line between Irlam and Timperley?  Part of the answer may lie in the following figures.

“The public transport system in wealthier parts of the country, such as London and the south-east, is much more effective and gives residents there far more access to jobs than the equivalents in the north-west, Yorkshire, and parts of the Midlands. Despite this, public investment in transport has tended to overlook the parts of the country where it is most needed. The north of England would have received an additional £51bn in public investment in transport if it had matched the per capita level seen in London from 2014/15 to 2019/20. Similarly, investment in active travel infrastructure between 2016 and 2021 was £24 per person in London but only £10 per person in the rest of England. (Emmet Kiberd, Benedikt Straňák, NEF, November 2024)”

Regardless of the lack in funding in the north for public transport, Trafford Council plan to build a relief road (the name is misleading), with a current cost of £76million, which is very likely to rise! 

Why isn’t this money being used for new public transport infrastructure? If the Government is to deliver on its priorities, when there is a ‘black hole’ in public finances, surely public transport must take priority over road building.

Then, there is another question, why is Trafford pushing ahead with this development when there are other available sites and enough windfall sites over the past four years to provide 40% of the housing target for New Carrington? 

Emmet Kiberd and Benedikt Straňák (NEF, November 2024) suggest the reasons behind these questions are

  • “Favour cheaper greenfield land in a profit-driven housing development system.
  • Relatively lower levels of local political opposition to new developments in more remote areas.
  • A lack of early, integrated planning of transport, housing, and development sites, reinforced by substantial underfunding of public planning departments.

The provision of public transport and active travel for new homes is affected by:

  • The insufficiency of Section 106 funds to cover the public transport needed, together with the lack of negotiating power for councils tends to see transport provision lose out in a trade-off against social housing, community facilities, and other items.
  • The use of large amounts of public funding on expensive road infrastructure alongside new developments, encouraged by a lack of advance transport planning and car-centred approaches.
  • The provision of public transport and active travel for new homes, which is affected by poor public transport and active travel provision in adjacent neighbourhoods, due to congestion and a lack of safe walking and cycling routes”.

Clearly, there is a need for ambitious policies and brave decisions in relation to the New Carrington Masterplan because the second-best solutions that present themselves are unlikely to solve the problems and deliver the priorities that will bring the cost of living down to more manageable levels, reduce spatial inequality and respond adequately to the climate emergency.

Trafford has available sites for affordable housing, so why are they not being built?

Posted on by 2 comments

by Lorraine Eagling

The New Carrington Masterplan will result in the loss of a 335-hectare peat moss, Grade 2 agricultural land, woodlands and wetlands which will have dire consequences for local biodiversity and Trafford Council’s ability to be net zero by 2038.  These important habitats are to be concreted over and replaced with 5,000 houses and 350,000sqm of warehousing.

There is no doubt that there is a crisis in the availability of genuinely affordable housing (that is social/council housing) but Trafford and Greater Manchester appear to be planning to continue to build for investors, second home owners and airbnbs!

Building on a peat moss is not the solution to the affordable housing crisis.  Research from CPRE has shown that there are enough ‘shovel-ready’ brownfield sites in the UK for 1.2 million new homes, which will make a significant contribution to Labour’s goal of 1.5 million homes.

The Labour Government recently published five golden rules for house building which were articulated in their proposals for the updated National Planning Policy Framework.  They propose a sequential test which makes it clear that schemes must look to brownfield first, prioritising the development of previously used land wherever possible.

There are numerous suitable, local, brownfield sites, some of which are Council owned, that could be developed in advance of concreting over land that contributes to climate mitigation, nature’s recovery and our future food security.  These brownfield sites could provide much needed social housing, which is not what is proposed for the former Green Belt land on Carrington Moss. 

Here are some examples of such Council-owned sites, that are ready to be developed and are in locations that are serviced by good public transport links and local amenities (unlike the isolated area that is Carrington Moss, which the Council acknowledges is poorly served by public transport).

  • The former Depot on Higher Road, Urmston – this site has been lying empty for a number of years.  Following a freedom of information request, Trafford Council confirm this site was sold to a private developer.  To date, there have been no planning applications submitted for this site. 
  • The former Woodsend Primary School, Flixton – this site has been lying empty for a number of years.  Following a freedom of information request, Trafford Council confirm that they are looking at options to deliver homes on this site and would expect to make a decision within the next 12 months. 
  • Sale Magistrates Court, Sale – this building was demolished a number of years ago and the land sold to a private developer who submitted a planning application in December 2020.  To date, no building work has commenced.

In addition to these Council-owned sites, there are many other brownfield sites in Trafford awaiting development, as identified in the Council’s own Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (known as a SHLAA for short).

In response to our freedom of information request Trafford Council said

‘Delivery of homes including affordable homes is a priority for the Council. The Council is prioritising the delivery of homes at Council owned sites including Tamworth (Old Trafford), Former Sale Magistrates Court, Chapel Road (Sale) and Stretford Town Centre.

We also have a need to invest in other assets and services that benefit our communities. For example the Council is investing in its leisure portfolio which includes improvements at Urmston, Altrincham and Partington Leisure Centres. The receipts from land sales such as Higher Road Depot are part of the funding for these activities.’

We await progress with interest but, given that planning applications are already coming forward on former Green Belt and greenfield land, there is no doubt that the Brownfield First policy is NOT what is being pursued in Trafford!

Concerned about traffic? Email your Councillors about the Carrington Relief Road!

Posted on by 2 comments

Whilst we await the consultation for the Carrington Relief Road (CRR), we continue to collect data and scrutinise the traffic flows in our locality.  Our analysis is very revealing! So, why are we worried about the impact of the CRR? Read on to understand our concerns.  Contact your Councillors if you are concerned too (details of your Councillors can be found here).

Trafford Council has acknowledged that the construction of this £76million road is not for the benefit of existing residents (as stated in their Carrington Relief Road Environmental Impact Scoping Report)

“1.2. The key objective of the new Carrington Relief Road is to provide sufficient capacity within the transport network to deliver growth of housing and employment in the wider New Carrington masterplan area, and realise the socio-economic benefits of the future development. The redevelopment of this Site provides an opportunity to deliver a new link road for Trafford that will facilitate future phased development of c.5,000 new homes and 360,000sqm employment floorspace”.

Unfortunately, existing residents will be adversely affected by the new road as demonstrated below.  Yet, if monies were invested in public transport infrastructure, as previously promised in the local plan, there would be far greater health, economic and social benefits for both existing and new residents, not to mention the preservation of an area that supports climate mitigation, nature’s recovery and future food security.

So, why are there no plans to invest in train/tram infrastructure in what is the largest development in the Places for Everyone Plan?  It is described as the single largest regeneration scheme in the North West by Andrew Western, MP for Stretford and Urmston in his comment supporting the Wain Estates Case Study here.

Trafford Council’s Local Plan 2012 proposed to deliver “significant improvements to public transport infrastructure by improving access to Partington, the Regional Centre and Altrincham with links to the Metrolink system”.   The New Carrington Masterplan presents the perfect opportunity to deliver these much-needed improvements by directing the funding into schemes that already had the backing of the local businesses, Councils and the community, such as reopening the Cadishead Viaduct.  More information on that initiative can be found here.

Whilst we understand that funding is an issue and the Council are reliant on contributions from developers and the government, these types of schemes are long-term, sustainable solutions to the inequalities that exist in Partington, Carrington and Sale West and are a much better use of public money.  It is well documented that roads are short-term, unsustainable options.

We are already experiencing the impact of climate change, with erratic weather patterns leading to localised flooding and crop failure.  The proposals for New Carrington are contrary to Trafford’s declaration of a climate emergency in 2018 and its aims to be net zero by 2038.  The lack of funded sustainable transport options also conflicts with the Greater Manchester Transport Strategy 2040, which has a vision for 50% of trips to be made by sustainable modes, and states (page 8) that “Achieving the Right Mix is expected to lead to zero net growth in motor vehicle traffic in Greater Manchester between 2017 and 2040”). 

How will they meet these targets?

Whilst we acknowledge active travel forms part of the transport intervention in New Carrington, any progress made in getting people to choose active modes will be heavily outweighed by the significant increase in road traffic as described in their scoping report.  Walking cycling or horse riding next to over 3,000 HGVs a day will not be pleasant, safe or healthy!

The Proposed Road  

The western end of the Carrington Relief Road starts opposite the Saica Paper Factory and will run along the existing A1 Road behind Carrington Village.  This road is to be upgraded as part of the scheme.  The eastern end of the Relief Road will be constructed across Carrington Moss, from Isherwood Road to the junction of the Spur Road and Banky Lane. 

The cost of the overall scheme is currently estimated at £76 million but could rise due to the increased cost of materials, the need to address contamination and the complexity of building on or near to a 335 hectare peatmoss (hydrology issues will need to be tackled – depending on the final route).

In responding to Trafford’s ‘engagement event’ (which took place in 2021), in advance of the release of the CRR route options report, we put forward a proposal that would reduce HGV traffic through Carrington Village and negate the need to construct an expensive road across Grade 2 agricultural land, woodland and wetland habitats.

We proposed that the existing A1 Road be upgraded and opened up to all heavy goods vehicles to resolve the issue of hundreds of HGVs passing through Carrington Village every day.  We proposed upgrading the existing A6144 between Isherwood Road and the Carrington Spur, which is not at capacity, and reducing speed limits.  We also proposed upgrading the existing active travel routes across Carrington Moss.

Unfortunately, our suggestions (and those of Natural England – a national organisation that advises the government on all issues related to the natural environment), were ignored.  So, we have continued to collect traffic data and here is a summary of our findings:

Induced Traffic

Our most recent surveys focused on the pattern of traffic travelling from the west of Partington towards the M60. 

During term time, the total number of cars travelling from Warburton, Warrington and Lymm into Partington is 69% of the total number of cars recorded leaving Partington in the direction of Carrington.  During school holidays, this figure is 63%.  This shows that the majority of the traffic travelling through Partington towards Carrington is coming from outside the area.  The volume of this induced traffic will increase (as described in Trafford’s own Environmental Scoping Report – “Traffic flows are likely to increase due to the improved desirability of the route” paragraph 14.46)

What proportion of traffic will benefit from the new road

At the Manchester Road/Isherwood Road and Carrington Spur/Banky Lane junctions term time figures have been used, when traffic is highest.  Full details of our surveys can be found here and here.

  • During term time 37% of the traffic coming from the M60 is headed towards Carrington.
  • During term time 40% of the traffic from Sale West is headed towards Carrington
  • During term time 53% of the traffic from M60 or Sale West is headed towards Flixton.

The traffic headed towards Flixton would not use the relief road, so ……

….. only 18.1% (an average of 47% of 37% and 47% of 40%) of the traffic from the M60 and Sale West would use the new relief road.

Furthermore – during term time ……

….. only 32% of the traffic from Partington and Carrington heading towards the M60 would use the new road, as the rest of the traffic is headed towards Flixton.

Let’s think about that – only 18.1% of the traffic from the M60 and Sale West and only 32% of the traffic from Partington and Carrington would use the CRR – yet the Council is proposing to spend £76m on an outdated, unsustainable road-based solution!

Remember:

  • Congestion in Partington will increase significantly and will have a major impact on existing residents. Not only will there be increased induced traffic as described earlier, but the construction of approximately 3600* houses in central Partington, Partington East (which is really Carrington South) and Warburton will put extreme pressure on the road network – note that these numbers do not include the additional homes recently constructed or still to be built in other parts of Partington (Lock Lane, Oak Lane, Hall Lane).
  • Congestion from Sale West to the M60 at the Banky Lane Junction is the heaviest of all routes during peak times.  This will increase significantly due to induced traffic from the relief and the construction of 1450* houses in Sale West.

* Figures taken from the GMCA Joint Development Plan paragraph 11.381.

Having your say!

If you wish to express your opinion regarding this matter, the public consultation for the Carrington Relief Road is due to commence in the coming weeks.  You can also join the discussions at our monthly online public meetings – you will find the link to the next meeting here.  As mentioned above, you can also email your local Councillors to outline your concerns.

Simister Island Road Scheme

Posted on by One comment

Members of Save Greater Manchester’s Green Belt Group (including Friends of Carrington Moss) are supporting campaigners who are concerned about the plans to construct a new loop road on the M60 motorway.

But ………….. we are not experts in the examination of Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs).

Luckily, our friends at the Transport Action Network (TAN) certainly are and they will be joining us at our online meeting to discuss the examination (see below).  TAN is currently campaigning to get all the unaffordable road schemes, up and down the country, scrapped, including this one.  You can help with this by writing to Transport Secretary Louise Haigh, using the TAN template (click here) to help construct your letter.  The Funding Statement (paragraph 2.1.1) confirms that the cost of the Simister Island Scheme is estimated to be around £230 million, a scandalous waste of public money!

Our online meeting to discuss the Simister Island Scheme examination will be held on 17th September at 5:30pm – all are welcome – the link to the meeting is here.

If you are one of the many individuals or groups who registered as an Interested Party for the Simister Island Scheme Examination in Public, you may still be catching up with the huge list of issues that were raised in the initial Relevant Representations (you can see them all starting on page 9 of the Examination Library).  Many of them are picked up in the Initial Assessment of Principal Issues (Annex C, page 18) of the Rule 6 Letter.

If you feel that something important you raised is not covered there, you should mention this in a Written Representation, see below for the deadline.

It appears that the recently adopted Places for Everyone Plan has not been taken into consideration, particularly in terms of the cumulative impacts of air, noise, light, vibration and water pollution, and, of course, carbon emissions but also in relation to land allocated for development.  All of which needs further scrutiny.

The next deadline (Tuesday 24th September 2024) is for Interested Parties (that is all of those who have registered to take part in the examination) to submit Written Representations (WR), with summaries for any that exceed 1500 words.  We can also make a request to be heard at a future Open Floor Hearing (OFH).  Take the time to consider whether you would like to make further comments to the Planning Inspectors, would you like to submit some detailed evidence to substantiate your original representation?

There will be an opportunity for those who are affected by the proposed Compulsory Acquisitions to be heard at a specific future Hearing but those affected individuals need to make a request to be heard by 24th September. 

It is possible that the Planning Inspectors will request further information in advance of the 24th September deadline, so keep an eye on the Project Updates as they are circulated.

Please forward this link to anyone who may be interested either in the update or in joining the meeting.

Is the Carrington Relief Road really a relief road or just a green light to major development?

Posted on by 3 comments

By Lorraine Eagling

Following my blog about the New Carrington Transport Strategy (8th March), I decided to carry out some more traffic surveys to further clarify my findings and conclusions (you can read the previous blog here).

I carried out surveys in the morning rush hour during the Easter Holidays and then mid-term time (the week the GCSE examinations started).  This time the data was taken between 8.10 and 8.30, whereas last time the data was collected between 8.30 and 9.00.  I wanted to confirm that traffic increased significantly during term time and what direction was the traffic flowing.

The following tables show the percentage of cars and vans travelling in the different directions at the two major junctions that the relief road is purportedly to relieve.

Car and Van traffic at the Junction of Carrington Spur, Carrington Lane and Banky Lane

Percentiles of traffic flow (cars and vans) during peak times in the Easter holidays April 2024 – average hourly total 1833 vehicles

Percentiles of traffic flow (cars and vans) during peak times and term time April 2024 – average hourly total 2160 vehicles

There were tailbacks from the M60 heading towards Sale West.

Conclusions drawn from these tables regarding car and van traffic at this junction

  • During term time 63% of the traffic from the M60 is travelling towards Sale West, therefore, would not use the new relief road.
  • During school holidays 49% of the traffic from the M60 is travelling towards Sale West, therefore, would not use the new relief road.
  • The majority of the traffic from Sale West during school holidays and during term time (69% and 60% respectively) is travelling towards the M60, therefore, would not use the new relief road.
  • There is a 28% increase in the number of cars travelling from Carrington to Sale West during term time.
  • The busiest route (the highest traffic count) was from Sale West both during term time and school holidays.

This suggests that the majority of the traffic travelling from the M60 and the majority of the traffic from Sale West would not use the new relief road.  Also, the increase of 28% in traffic using the relief road during term time is school traffic which could be addressed using school buses. 

Car and Van traffic at the Junction of Carrington Lane, Flixton Road and Isherwood Road

Percentiles of traffic flow (cars and vans) during peak times of the Easter holidays April 2024 – average hourly total 2204 vehicles.

Percentiles of traffic flow (cars and vans) during peak time and term time April 2024 – average hourly total 3081 vehicles.

There were no tailbacks at any of the junctions, however traffic travelling towards the M60 was slow due to an accident on the M60 at Eccles.

Conclusions drawn from these tables regarding car and van traffic at this junction

  • During term time 64% of the traffic from Carrington/Partington is travelling towards Flixton.  This means that the majority of the traffic from Carrington and Partington will not use the section of the relief road that runs parallel to the existing A6144 between Isherwood Road and the Carrington Spur.  During school holidays this figure is 43% which is still almost half the traffic. 
  • During term time 49% of the traffic from the M60 travels toward Flixton and during school holidays this figure is 34%. 
  • It would be more direct to travel along the existing A6144 from the M60 if you were heading towards Flixton as you pass through one junction as appose to two junctions if you were to use the new relief road.  If we consider term time traffic, 37% of the vehicles from the M60 head towards Carrington.  Of this, 49% heads towards Flixton (and will most probably use the existing road), 51% heads towards Carrington and would probably use the new road.  So, that means 51% of the 37% of traffic, which is a total of 18% of the traffic coming off the M60, would benefit from using the new road.

Overall, the data shows that traffic increases significantly during term time.  At the Banky Lane Junction, the heaviest traffic flow is between Sale West and the M60.  At the Isherwood Road junction, the heaviest traffic flow is between Carrington and Flixton.  So, why do the council feel there is a need for a new road between these two junctions, that will cost in excess of £76 million (the figure keeps rising) – rather than seeking to use public money on alternative, more sustainable options?

As local residents have constantly explained, the major issue with the roads in this area, is the high number of HGVs passing residents’ homes, causing structural damage due to the vibrations, as well as air, noise, light and dust pollution. 

The following tables summarise the numbers of HGVs recorded during these surveys, some of which were travelling at excessive speeds.

HGVs at the Junction of Carrington Spur, Carrington Lane and Banky Lane

HGVs at the Junction of Carrington Lane, Flixton Road and Isherwood Road

We can see from these figures that the numbers of HGVs are consistent irrespective of the time of year.  Also, the numbers remain consistent whether it is peak time or not, as evidenced in previous traffic surveys.  Assuming a 10-hour working day (although residents will testify that these vehicles are running through the night), this is an average of 1500 HGVs a day.

You have to question why all of these vehicles pass residents, homes when there is already a road that bypasses Carrington Village?  Why hasn’t this road (the A1 service road) already been improved and made available to take HGVs off the A6144 through the Village and alleviate the long suffering of local communities?

During the course of doing these traffic surveys the only congestion I witnessed was along the Carrington Spur Road and that was as a result of an accident on the M60 at Eccles. 

Trafford Council’s website states

“The current route via the A6144 and Manchester Road is heavily congested by both cars and heavy goods vehicles (HGVs).  Affecting the lives and journey times of people living in the area. 

To provide easier and safer journeys, Carrington Relief Road will provide:

A new convenient route (Option F) to encourage HGVs to divert away from the congested A6144

Deliver improvements to make travelling by bus easier and safer

Provide new routes to enjoy when travelling by foot, bike and horse”

This statement is questionable.  Firstly, the route is only heavily congested when there are issues on the surrounding motorway networks.  Secondly, there is already an alternative route for HGVs that could be opened to divert HGV traffic away from the A6144.  Thirdly, we already have routes to enjoy when travelling on foot, by cycle or on horseback – these public rights of way could be improved at a significantly lower cost, bringing considerable health and wellbeing benefits (which will not be generated if residents are walking, cycling or horse riding next to a very busy major road).

The truth is this road is not being built improve the lives and journey times of people living in the area.  As Trafford Council’s own ‘Carrington Relief Road Environmental Impact Scoping Report’ states

“1.2. The key objective of the new Carrington Relief Road is to provide sufficient capacity within the transport network to deliver growth of housing and employment in the wider New Carrington masterplan area, and realise the socio-economic benefits of the future development. The redevelopment of this Site provides an opportunity to deliver a new link road for Trafford that will facilitate future phased development of c.5,000 new homes and 360,000sqm employment floorspace”.

So, Trafford Council admit that this relief road is not about improving the lives of existing communities but it’s to give the green light to build the biggest housing and industrial development in Greater Manchester.  Once again, the communities of Carrington, Partington, Sale West and Warburton have been failed. 

That Environmental Impact Scoping Report also recognises that through traffic will be induced into the area

“Traffic flows are likely to increase due to the improved desirability of the route” (paragraph 14.46)

and, if the 5,000 new homes and 360,000sqm of warehousing are built, it will not be long before the new relief road is at capacity and nothing has been gained but so much will have been lost (a 335 hectare peat moss, Grade 2 agricultural land, woodlands, wetlands, biodiversity, endangered species).

Trafford Council has failed to deliver on their promises of good public transport in successive Local Plans. 

Instead of spending in excess of £76million on a short-sighted plan, other options should be seriously considered and pursued, such as opening the train line linking Partington with Irlam and Timperley.  Long term prosperity and equality needs a public transport network that provides connectivity, reliability and sustainability for everyone and this is Trafford Council’s opportunity ensure our communities get this, at long last!

FOCM Response to CRR EIASCO

Posted on by Leave a comment

The Friends of Carrington Moss have responded to the Environmental Scoping Report for the Carrington Relief Road. Take a look at the issues we identified in our letter below:

Dear Planning and Development Team

The Friends of Carrington Moss are responding to the EIASCO Scoping report for the Carrington Relief Road (CRR) as there are a number of inconsistencies, errors and concerns in relation to the document.  We set out the most important issues below and in the attachment.

The document confirms that (paragraph 1.2) the key objective of the road “is to provide sufficient capacity within the transport network to deliver growth of housing and employment in the wider New Carrington masterplan area, and realise the socio-economic benefits of the future development”.  Yet, it has been sold to existing residents as a means of addressing their transport and isolation issues – which it will not do for the following reasons:

  • It will significantly increase traffic in the area, as acknowledged within the report
  • It does not provide any relief from the huge and increasing number of HGVs that travel on local roads every single day (along with the consequential air, dust, noise, light, and vibration pollution)
  • It will not bring any benefits to Partington or Sale West residents and whilst it is “intended to take traffic away from the A6144 Carrington Lane and Manchester Road” (paragraph 16.63), the expected significant increase in traffic levels is likely to result in Carrington Village being surrounded by a highly congested road network.

We do not believe these issues will be adequately tested within the Environmental Assessment (based on the contents of this Scoping report).  In addition, whilst the document purports to bring public transport benefits, other than delivering an increasingly congested road surface, the provision of improved public transport services is outside the scope of the scheme (despite paragraph 16.3 suggesting that the “new relief road will provide significant upgrades to public transport”).  An alternative scheme to reopen the former railway lines would bring significantly more benefits to current and future local residents.  We do not agree with the demolition of the Burford Bridge as that will restrict opportunities for rail connectivity to Carrington businesses in the future.

One of the main inconsistencies is that the document repeatedly states that the CRR “will comprise 4.1km of single carriageway road”.  Yet, the report also suggests that part of the road will be dualled.  This will, of course, result in greater land take, higher costs and more congestion (especially for West-bound traffic).

We are concerned that dualling even part of the road will result in inappropriate speeds (drivers tend to exceed the limit, rather than drive more slowly than allowed) and we will object to the proposed 40mph speed limit on the Eastern extent of the road (paragraph 4.38, see also paragraph 14.46).  This will be dangerous for those crossing, especially with horses, dogs or young children and will also lead to more wildlife casualties.

Whilst the document confirms (eg paragraphs 4.138, 9.21) that the CRR route is in Flood Zone 1 (the lowest risk of flooding), we are concerned that the lack of local knowledge underestimates the level of water captured in the area (please see the videos and images on the Carrington Lake page on our website which shows extensive surface water flooding on the site of the road).  According to the document it is intended that all the Attenuation Ponds will discharge into the River Mersey.  We are rather alarmed that this will lead to the potential for the Mersey to breach its banks more frequently than it currently does today.  This will have an impact on local residents and users of the Mile Road in Flixton.

In addition, Natural England suggested (at the Places for Everyone Examination) that there are 335 hectares of restorable peat at Carrington and we do not believe the impact of the proposed hydrological changes on the peat has been fully covered by the EIASCO Scoping exercise.

We will review the comments of the statutory consultees in relation to the issues scoped in and scoped out once they become available and we may have further comments at that time but we would like to highlight that Operational Vibration (paragraph 13.12) should be scoped in, rather than scoped out because of the number and weight of the HGVs that will travel the full length of the CRR (which could have significant adverse effects for the proposed new homes at the Eastern end of the site and the existing businesses at the Western end).

Furthermore, paragraph 16.23 dismisses the impact of the scheme on businesses within Aston upon Mersey but does not consider the productivity implications of the increased traffic and the delays they will be facing both at the Carrington Spur junction and on the Spur itself.

Whilst we appreciate that the document acknowledges (eg paragraphs 10.63 and 10.65) that the construction of the road will have significant effects, we do not believe all the impacts on human and wildlife health have been fully considered.  The Air Quality measures, for example, include locations way beyond the red line boundary (eg TR27, SAIN, TR25) and, as acknowledged in the report, refer to the Covid 19 period.  We are unclear whether the DEFRA modelling anticipates the level of development, especially the huge and increasing numbers of HGVs.  You may already be aware that Carrington Parish Council has installed an Air Quality Monitoring System on Manchester Road opposite the entrance to the business park.  The data from this system should be considered within the Environmental Assessment, along with relevant monitoring locations within the red line boundary.

The document confirms, in relation to Greenhouse Gas emissions, (paragraph 18.10) that “At the time of drafting this scoping report, only preliminary data and background research is available to inform the decisions”.  We would welcome further information as soon as it becomes available.

With all of the above and our attachment below in mind, we would appreciate the opportunity to discuss the road design and intended future actions in detail with the project team.

Kind regards

Marj Powner (Chair)

On behalf of the Friends of Carrington Moss

Summary of Issues and Concerns

Consultation

It is with great disappointment that we note that communities do not feature in this Environmental Scoping exercise in any way, shape or form, despite residents being the key stakeholder and the people with the most knowledge about the area within the red line boundary. 

Section 3 of the Scoping Report does not make it clear that there is a role for communities in the Environmental Scoping exercise (see paragraph 3.4).  This is a huge omission as the Scoping exercise should take into account inputs from (among others), the Parish Councils, the Friends of Carrington Moss, Trafford Wildlife, Peak and Northern Footpaths Society, and the British Horse Society.  We are the organisations with the in-depth knowledge of this site.  There should also be inputs from, for example, of the children with Special Educational Needs who regularly use the PROWs at the Eastern end of the site, between the Carrington Spur and Isherwood Road.

Paragraph 3.13 states that “Engagement with key stakeholders has been regularly undertaken over a number of years”.  This is incorrect.  Communities have only been involved in one very limited engagement exercise and, even then, our inputs were not included in the report to Committee (neither was the Natural England response). 

There is no mention of consultation in relation to the Environmental Scoping (ES) exercise in Sections 7, 8, 9 and 10

Section 11 (Biodiversity) suggests that future consultation for the ES will be carried out only with the GMEU.  Whilst their input is very valuable, the reserves on Carrington Moss are maintained by Trafford Wildlife and are also well known by Cheshire Wildlife Trust.

Section 12 (Socio Economic and Human Health) does mention “other interested parties” (paragraph 12.3) but it is not clear which organisations this refers to.

Sections 13, 14 and 15 suggest future ES consultation will only be carried out with statutory consultees.  Sections 16, 17 and 18 state that no consultation with statutory bodies has been carried out to date and does not mention involvement of communities.

Increasing Traffic Volumes

The document repeatedly highlights the impact of increasing traffic, with many references to the number of HGVs (see, for example, paragraphs 4.46, 4.47, 4.114, 7.5, 7.6, 10.72, 11.57 and 14.46), emphasising that design features will be needed to accommodate increased traffic volumes (including, for example, a signalised junction at the Lyondell Basell compound, along with a dedicated left-hand turning lane, and alterations to the Banky Lane junction to accommodate future traffic demands).  The report suggests that the CRR is planned to “limit the growth of road traffic” to single carriageway capacity (paragraph 7.5).  We do not believe the Environmental Assessment will test that premise (based on this scoping document), especially as that paragraph 11.57 suggests that traffic volume (and air pollution) increase is only a possibility, which is ludicrous given that the purpose of the road is to support extensive development.

The Friends of Carrington Moss has offered to share the outcome of our traffic counts with the project team to supplement the reliance on other outdated information (paragraph 7.14).  Our counts are up to date, taken by residents, in specific locations on the existing route, at various times (including during term time and school holidays).

Health and Wellbeing of existing residents and wildlife

Section 12 (Socio Economic and Human Health) appears to underestimate and minimise the potential impact of the scheme on existing residents.  We would like to see more emphasis on:

  • Alternative sustainable freight transport – rail and water
  • Alternative sustainable passenger transport – firm commitments to increase the bus services (these have been promised in the 2006 UDP and the 2012 Core Strategy)
  • The health implications of walking, cycling and horse riding next to over 3,000 HGVs a day and thousands of cars – rather than using the current safe, pleasant & healthy routes across Carrington Moss
  • The productivity benefits of green spaces and access to nature
  • The impact of the scheme on the health and populations of wildlife and birds (it seems the plan is to further reduce the already significantly depleted population of skylarks, for example, moving them elsewhere is not the answer)
  • The loss of recreational space and opportunities
  • Schools within the allocation area

There is a recognition that:

  • “the prevalence of asthma and COPD in the Study Area is likely to be higher than could be anticipated at a national level” (paragraph 12.80)
  • the “Site LSOAs are within the 6-8th worst performing deciles nationally for air quality, and within the 8-9th worst-performing deciles nationally for sulphur dioxide (SO2) levels” (paragraph 12.95)
  • “air pollution in Trafford generally (relating to fine particulate matter) is worse than regional or national levels” (paragraph 12.96)
  • “There are significantly more people living with disability within the area surrounding the Site than Trafford generally, or nationally” (paragraph 12.111)
  • “There is considered to be significantly higher prevalence of Asthma and COPD in the area surrounding the Site than could be anticipated at national level” (paragraph 12.113)
  • “Air quality in the Study Area is considered to be poor, and the Site lies within the Trafford Air Quality Management Area” (paragraph 12.114)

Given the above, we would like more information about the proposed mitigation of the significant health impacts of the scheme.

Inaccuracies and Inconsistencies

It would also be helpful if the report was accurate.  Paragraph 16.6, for example, states that “the Site was traditionally dominated by a long-established Petrochemical works” and paragraph 12.90 states that the “area surrounding the Site is largely industrial in nature, dominated by the Carrington chemical works and power station, and business parks”.  That is incorrect.  These statements refer only to the Western part of the site, which is not contentious.  The Eastern part of the CRR will be constructed on Grade 2 agricultural land.  This part of the site is dominated by fields, woodland and extensive landscape views!  

Paragraph 4.3 suggests that the site “is located close to the SRN including the M60, M62, M6 and M56 Motorways” and paragraph 12.103 describes Stretford & Gorse Hill communities as being “close” to the Site.  What is the definition of close?

Paragraph 11.14 states that “Brookheys Covert is managed by the Cheshire Conservation Trust as a nature reserve”.  Cheshire Conservation Trust hasn’t existed for quite some time – it was a forerunner of Cheshire Wildlife Trust.  Brookheys Covert is owned by the National Trust and the community organisation Trafford Wildlife conducts conservation work on their behalf.

Paragraph 4.25 suggests that “Between the Redline Site Boundary and the A6144 Carrington Lane to the north of the CRR Route is Sale Sharks Rugby Club Training Ground“.  We believe this should say Sale Rugby FC Training Ground.

There is a lot of confusion about Wards, populations and communities, which is why it would be a good idea to involve resident groups in this exercise.  Paragraph 12.61, for example, states that “The Proposed Development is located within Trafford Local Authority Area which had a usual resident population of 10,291 people, according to Census 2021 data”.  Which area does this figure actually relate to?

Similarly, paragraph 16.16 states that “the overall proposal of new Carrington will provide approximately 5,000 new houses across a total area of approximately 179.7 hectares”.  This figure should be checked as the overall allocation area is 1,153 hectares (which will provide both housing and warehousing development), of which Green Belt is 169 hectares.

St Marys Ward is now called Manor Ward (paragraphs 12.24, 12.127).  In terms of Wards “immediately surrounding the Site”, if Davyhulme, Flixton and Urmston are considered to meet this criteria, then Broadheath and Bowdon Wards should also be included.  Paragraph 12.190 mentions Warburton Ward.  Warburton is a village, it is in Bowdon Ward.

Paragraph 12.24 also mentions that, for comparative purposes, Salford City Council and Manchester City Council will be used as a baseline.  On what basis are these Councils comparative to Trafford (they are both urban/City areas with very limited rural locations)?  A more appropriate Council to use would be Tameside (which has a similar land area and a similar population level). 

Paragraph 12.31 suggests that “the most important sectors, by total employment for Trafford is within the Professional, Scientific, and Technical Sectors, followed by business support services, and Retail”.  These are not the sectors being provided by the New Carrington development!  Further information is required about this analysis.

Similarly, paragraph 12.47 states that “there is capacity at Primary and Secondary schools across Trafford” and paragraph 12.51 states that “Trafford have firm plans to deliver 1,330 additional new primary school places on a permanent basis to cater for the additional needs, for the period 2023/24 to 2024/25”.  This is not consistent with our own research and again, we would welcome more information about this analysis.

Paragraph 12.54 does not mention dentists or access to hospitals, which will be key community facilities and paragraph 16.22 does not mention Manchester United or Sale Rugby FC as local businesses.

There is an ironic typo in paragraph 4.4 but of more concern is the inference that the Ship Canal is a beneficial transport corridor (to the Atlantic Gateway).  The alternative of making use of this sustainable transport option has been dismissed in favour of an unsustainable road solution.

Finally, we believe that this document needs a further review to ensure it is as up to date as it should be.  Paragraph 14.6, for example, states that the consultation on the Trafford Local Plan has recently closed.  We do not believe there has been a consultation on the new plan since 2021.  Paragraph 17.8 refers to the Environment Bill 2020, which became law in 2021.

What will be the true cost of the Carrington Relief Road?

Posted on by Leave a comment

Committee member, Lorraine Eagling, reviews the agenda item relating to the plan for the Carrington Relief Road, which was discussed at Trafford’s Scrutiny Committee on 13th March 2024.  A link to the recording (from 47:49 minutes) can be found here and the report is available here.

The new part of the relief road will be constructed across farmland, parallel to the A6144 between Isherwood Road and the Carrington Spur.  In the presentation to the Scrutiny Committee the new road was described as ‘not a big road’ (despite previous suggestions that it would be a dual carriageway).  The main carriageway that carries motor traffic will be 7.3 metres wide and there will be 5 metres on either side for active travel (2.5m for pedestrians and 2.5m for cyclists), so a total of 17.3 metres wide.  

This field, which grew potatoes last year, will be sacrificed for the road and for housing

It is really encouraging to see that pedestrians and cyclists are given so much consideration, but would residents want to walk, let alone cycle beside a major road that carries over 3,000 heavy goods vehicles a day, along with a huge number of cars? 

Would an active travel corridor that runs parallel to the existing road be a better option?  We think it would!

And what about horse riders, we have over 1,000 horses stabled on and around Carrington Moss!  We have repeatedly raised their needs with Trafford and yet they still don’t even get a mention in this presentation!  At least one of the stables provides services to children with special educational needs.  Those children will not be able to ride near to the thousands of motor vehicles that will be travelling along the Carrington Relief Road every day, the noise alone will be an issue.  They currently have lots of options for circular routes along the very safe and very quiet public rights of way, short circuits or longer rides.  The road is going to fracture their routes and reduce the opportunities for these very vulnerable members of our community.

The Scrutiny Committee were given a presentation on the history of New Carrington, which showed that since the closure of the railway line in the 1980’s, Partington and Carrington have become increasingly isolated and car dependant.  Several Councillors raised the question of why sustainable options aren’t being re-introduced like re-opening the old railway bridge to allow for a light rail or full rail link between Irlam and Timperley.  Councillor Holden explained that this idea has been around for some considerable time because a bridge was built in Broadheath so that this train line would remain viable.  We know that former MP, Kate Green, with the backing of the residents of Partington and Carrington, lobbied Parliament about re-opening the line, so it is not new to Government. 

Now that HS2 has been scrapped, shouldn’t this be something the GMCA and Trafford Council actively pursues? Especially when New Carrington is the largest development in the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework (frustratingly, New Carrington is described by executive members as ‘one of the largest brownfield sites in Greater Manchester’, which is highly misleading given the majority of the brownfield land already has planning approval and 169 hectares of greenbelt will be released for the development of housing, warehousing and roads, affecting a 335 hectare peatmoss, Grade 2 agricultural land, woodland and wetland habitats).

Interestingly, Stockport Council, which pulled out of GMCA’s Places for Everyone (PfE) Plan in order to protect its greenbelt, is now in talks with TfGM and GMCA to have the Metrolink extended to their new transport interchange. 

So, as the largest site in the PfE Plan, why isn’t New Carrington being prioritised for such sustainable transport investment, especially when it is described as the ‘Western Gateway’?

In a recent traffic survey, carried out by Friends of Carrington Moss, during peak times we recorded approximately 50% of the traffic coming from the M60 going towards Carrington and less than 50% of the traffic from Carrington headed towards the M60.  In fact, approximately 50% of the traffic coming from the M60 is headed towards Sale West and over 60% of the traffic from Carrington and Partington headed towards Flixton.  Full details of our survey can be found in my previous blog here.

During term time, peak time traffic increased by approximately 500% and there was significant traffic queuing from the M60 to Sale West and from Sale West to the M60.  There was no queuing traffic in other directions or at other junctions.

In essence, only half of the traffic surveyed used the existing A6144, which the new road aims to relieve!  It is evident that the main cause of congestion is school traffic which could be reduced by reviewing Trafford’s school admissions policy and providing school buses.  Shouldn’t the Council tackle this issue instead of spending £76.5 million on a road that only 50% of existing traffic will use and that will offer no relief to the residents of Partington and Sale West as explained in my previous blog?

At the Scrutiny meeting, Councillors also raised the issue of how the Council will raise in excess of £54 million of public money for the relief road.  The Council’s Director of Growth & Regulatory Services, Adrian Fisher, acknowledged the risks and explained that when the planning committee addressed all of the infrastructure needs of New Carrington, which includes all roads, schools, playing fields etc, they decided that in theory there is enough funding from developers to meet needs.  He explained that the main issue is with the sequencing of the funding, that where the main risks arise is getting the first bit of infrastructure up and running.

Sequencing is definitely an issue, as it’s the chicken or the egg scenario.  Developers’ contributions are based on all development completed, but they won’t develop all sites unless the relief road is built!  Mr Fisher describes the site as the biggest in Greater Manchester and it will not able to deliver houses unless the road is built!

So, at what point will the developers make their contribution?  Trafford have recently had their fingers burnt when it comes to developers Section 106 contribution.  Also, as mentioned in the meeting, the developer contributions are not only for this road, but for other roads that will be needed for this huge site, for schools and other community facilities.  Will the developer contributions be enough for all this infrastructure?  The answer is a definite NO!

Councillor Carter asked how the new road would impact the peat land to the south of the proposed carriageway, in particular relating to drainage.  Mr Fisher acknowledged that there is significant peat in the south part of the site and that this will be an issue when it comes to development in that area and will be an important consideration.

We know how important peat moss is, so much so that the Government is investing in peat restoration to fight climate change.  With this in mind, why would Trafford Council give planning permission to build on this precious habitat?  The answer is that they are wedded to building a road, rather than advancing more sustainable options and, if they don’t give planning permission, they will not get the developers’ contributions towards the costs of the road.

Councillor Holden raised the issue of extensive contamination, and now there is the recent discovery of PFAS (Per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances) on the site.  Mr Fisher acknowledged that this will be addressed when building the new road and this is why the costs of the road has increased significantly.  He explained that a separate drainage system is needed to avoid contamination of groundwater as a result of run off from the road.  It was confirmed that the Council will be working with the land owner/developer and the Environment Agency to come up with a solution that avoids flushing out contaminants into local watercourses and environment.  We know that this area is particularly sensitive for the water environment given its location above a principal aquifer and nearby surface waters including the River Mersey and Sinderland Brook, so it is vital any contamination risks are appropriately remediated.

So, what will the true cost of the Carrington Relief Road be? Not just in financial terms but in relation to the ecology and biodiversity of the area, in relation to the health and wellbeing of residents and in relation to climate mitigation issues that will impact future generations, our children and our grandchildren? 

The overall price tag is ENORMOUS!!!

New Carrington Transport Strategy

Posted on by 5 comments

Lorraine Eagling looks at what the Strategy means to residents given today’s traffic volumes!

It’s without question that a transport strategy is desperately needed by the residents of Carrington, Partington, Sale West, Warburton and Ashton on Mersey even before the plans for New Carrington get underway, so it was encouraging when Trafford Council published The New Carrington Transport Strategy but very disappointing that no residents had been involved in its development.   

The residents of these isolated and poorly served towns have long been promised and waited for a plan that provides the transport solutions they deserve, that are sustainable and will provide long term options for existing residents and for future generations.

The Strategy describes all the sustainable options (scenario 3) that would provide residents with regular and reliable connectivity to the rest of Manchester.  Solutions that would provide the residents with access to trains and trams and reduce traffic on local roads.   The Strategy goes on to explain, however, that these long-awaited public transport services are not an option because they are too expensive to implement and the only affordable option is a relief road, now expected to cost a minimum of £76.5m (and that is before any resident requirements such as additional junctions, crossings and traffic calming measures, for example are included in the design). Reminiscent of Bullseye’s infamous phrase ‘look at what you could have won!’, residents have once again been let down. 

The proposed relief road will run along the existing A1 Road, which starts opposite the Saica paper factory, to Isherwood Road.  From here a new road will be constructed adjacent to the peat moss and across the farmland to meet the Carrington Spur Road at the junction with Carrington Lane in Sale West.  The new section of the road will have massive implications to the environment. More details about the impact of the CRR can be found at this link, where you can look at our many previous blogs about the Carrington Relief Road by scrolling down the web page.

It’s a very disappointing outcome and it is questionable when the following is taken into consideration:

  • There is no mention of HGV traffic anywhere in the report.  As we know, the huge number of HGVs is the main concern for residents in Carrington Village and beyond.
  • The traffic data used in the report is taken from TfGM 2017 base year, which is outdated and pre-covid.  Considering the implications of this Strategy, the data should be current.  It is not clear whether any actual traffic monitoring has been done at key locations in order to access what road interventions would have the greatest benefit.
  • In addition to the outdated TfGM data, the Strategy interpreted daily travel modes from evidence of what it describes as ‘comparable brownfield’ development sites in South Gloucestershire, including areas of Stoke Gifford, Bradley Stoke, Patchway and Filton, on the northern edge of Bristol.  These sites have their own train stations and are home to industries such as aerospace and hi-tech engineering.  This is hardly comparable to New Carrington, Partington, Warburton and Sale West, where there are no train stations and the main industry is HGV intensive warehousing and logistics.   Also, New Carrington is not just brownfield, it is green belt, comprising peatmoss, woodlands, wetlands and grade 2 agricultural land.

What about the traffic data?

We have been collecting our own traffic data at key junctions in Carrington and Sale West for several years, but to verify the figures in the report, we collected some specific data in February and March 2024.   The results of our survey are as follows:

Cars and Vans

Table 1 shows the average number of cars per hour, during peak times, at the junction of the Carrington Spur and Carrington Lane in Sale West.  The red data was recorded during school term time and the blue data was recorded during school holidays.

As expected, the number of cars increases around this junction during term time.  The data shows during term time there are almost four times as many cars travelling from the M60 to Sale West.  Also, the number of cars travelling from Carrington to Sale West is more than double during term time and the number of cars travelling from Sale West to Carrington is more than tripled.    

On average, a total of 2,728 cars pass through this junction during peak times.   During term time, 48% of the car traffic from the M60 is heading towards Sale West and 43% of the traffic heading towards the M60 is from Sale West.  Additionally, 39% of the traffic from Carrington is heading towards Sale West and 47% of the traffic from Sale West is heading towards Carrington.

Other observations at this junction are:

  • Traffic queuing along the Carrington Spur Road from the M60.
  • Traffic queuing along Carrington Lane towards the M60.
  • Other routes were flowing freely.
  • 2 buses maximum during the survey period.

Table 2 shows the average number of cars per hour during peak times at the junction of the A6144, Flixton Road and Isherwood Road in Carrington.  The red data was recorded during school term time and the blue data was recorded during school holidays.

As expected, car traffic increases during term time, with the exception of those vehicles headed towards Isherwood Road.  During term time the car traffic from Carrington to Flixton increases by almost five times.  62% of the car traffic from Carrington is headed towards Flixton.  It is also interesting to see that 36% of the traffic headed towards the M60 is from Flixton.

Other observations at this junction are:

  • All traffic was flowing and there was no queuing at any junction.
  • Some traffic was travelling at excessive speeds, including HGVs.
  • 3 buses maximum during the survey period.

According to the data in the Transport Strategy, 875 cars travel from Partington and Carrington to Urmston (the report does not mention Flixton) on a daily basis.  We recorded 678 in one hour during one peak time and 282 and hour during non-peak time.  It suggests that the data in the report is an underestimation for traffic moving in this direction.

The data in the transport strategy is not as specific as the data we collected but assuming the traffic from Carrington and Partington heading to ‘Sale West’ and ‘10km inside GM’ is the traffic headed towards M60, then their data suggests there are 10,587 cars per day travelling along the A6144 between Isherwood Road and the Carrington Spur Road.  Our data shows 663 cars during peak time and 502 cars during non-peak time per hour.  Assuming two peak times and 10 hours of non-peak traffic, that is a total of 6,346 cars travelling along this route.  This time, the data in the report seems an over-estimation for cars travelling along this section of the A6144. 

We will repeat our traffic count in the coming months, to test the validity of this result.

HGV Traffic

The data shows that during peak times there are approximately 152 heavy goods vehicles at the Carrington Spur junction and 213 at the Isherwood Road junction per hour.   At non-peak times, there are 208 and 206 respectively.  This suggests that HGV traffic is consistent irrespective of peak or non-peak times and is in excess of 2,000 per day. This figure will increase significantly as the proposed new warehousing is built.

Conclusions

Our data shows that:

  • The A6144 Carrington Lane in Sale West has as much car traffic as the A6144 in the direction of Carrington, as 48% of the traffic from the M60 turns towards Sale West during peak times.
  • The A6144 between Isherwood Road and the Carrington Spur has less car traffic than that suggested in the report.
  • There was no queuing traffic at the junction of the A6144 and Flixton Road during peak time. There was, however, significant queuing on the Carrington Spur and on Carrington Lane.
  • There is a massive increase in car traffic during term time indicating that there is insufficient public transport for students to get to school and a large proportion of students are travelling to schools from either outside the catchment area or from outside the borough.

Considering the findings of this data, how will the relief road reduce the traffic issues highlighted?

The biggest issue for the residents of Carrington Village has always been the large number of heavy goods vehicles that pass their front door every day.  The existing A1 Road could be opened immediately to redirect HGVs away from the village.  This would be a quick win (if the businesses in Carrington are willing to use that road).

Partington is experiencing housing development on a huge scale.  The new developments on Lock Lane, Hall Lane, Oak Road, Heath Farm Lane and the Greyhound will create another 1,291 dwellings.  Despite these developments increasing the number of houses in Partington by 38%, the routes in and out of Partington will remain the same.  Only after the cars and buses have contended with the congestion in Partington itself, can they access the proposed relief road further along the A6144.

For residents in Sale West and Ashton on Mersey to benefit from the proposed relief road to Carrington, they will have to access it from Carrington Lane which is already heavily congested even before the new relief road joins this junction. 

In essence, residents in Carrington Village will only benefit if HGV traffic moves onto the existing A1 Road.  Residents in Partington, Sale West and Ashton on Mersey will have to queue in traffic in their towns before they can access the relief road.  The new relief road, which will cost at least £76 million offers no relief to these residents who will see the population in their area increase significantly as a result of the Places for Everyone Plan.  There will be an additional 2,260 houses in Partington and Warburton, 1,443 in Sale West (in addition to the 263 already with planning permission) and 603 in Carrington Village. 

So how can this Transport Strategy justify such significant expenditure on a road that offers no solution to traffic issues that already exist? 

There are other considerations here too: 

  • Why hasn’t the A1 Road already been opened to HGV traffic to resolve the issues in Carrington Village? 
  • Why are so many students being driven to school? 
  • Do the school admissions policies in Trafford need reforming?
  • Does the Education authority or TfGM need to look at providing school buses? 

The data shows that it is school traffic and heavy goods vehicles that create the congestion along the A6144.   These are the issues that need addressing rather than spending £76 million on a scheme that will not solve the transport issues that have plagued this area for decades.  This money could contribute towards the ‘scenario 3’ solution in the Transport Strategy and should be invested in long term, sustainable passenger and freight transport interventions. 

There are several options that could be considered, such as:

  • opening the railway bridge between Irlam and Partington to give residents access to trains
  • opening up the ‘greenway’ and the former railway line from Partington to Altrincham to give residents access to trams
  • revisiting the 2012 Local Plan option to build a bridge from Carrington to Port Salford. 

These are long term sustainable options that will reduce congestion and open up Greater Manchester and the rest of the UK to residents of these local areas.

What we need is a Transport Strategy that meets residents’ requirements, why isn’t Trafford talking to us about it?

« Older Entries Recent Entries »