Not current or new local communities in the surrounding areas, who will suffer from significantly increased traffic, more congestion and the health consequences of air, noise, light, vibration, dust and water pollution, many homes will also be at a considerable risk of flooding
Not horse riders, walkers or cyclists who frequently use the traffic-free routes on, across and around Carrington Moss, whose current safe, healthy and very pleasant trips will be fractured by huge volumes of traffic, they will be required to walk or ride alongside hundreds of highly polluting vehicles, travelling at speed, which will be unsafe, unhealthy and very unpleasant
Not the red listed birds or the endangered wildlife species that breed and feed on Carrington Moss, their homes will be destroyed, their foraging corridors shattered, their lives at risk as victims of roadkill
Government data makes it clear that there are many households in the area which do not have access to a car. Building a new road will not benefit them at all (but they will still suffer the health consequences of increased pollution that are caused by others driving through their areas).
Over the past almost 10 years, despite confirming that this area is poorly served by public transport, Trafford has been unwilling to explore more sustainable alternatives, such as those proposed by the Friends of Carrington Moss.
We hope you will support our campaign to remove the Eastern part of the Carrington Relief Road (CRR) from the plans. This will bring numerous benefits to local communities and users of the moss and will reduce the costs to the public purse.
The submission of a planning application for the road is expected before Christmas. Once it has been validated by Trafford’s planning team, the documents will be made public, and the Friends of Carrington Moss will review them over the following couple of weeks. We’ll share our findings on social media, in our newsletter and at our online public meeting.
In the meantime, please follow, like and share our posts on social media and don’t hesitate to send any comments you may have to friendsofcarringtonmoss@gmail.com.
What is it? What are the key issues? and Why is it important for residents to respond?
As you know, the proposed developments on and around Carrington Moss are huge! 5,000 houses, 350,000m2 employment space and 4 major new roads, all threatening the 335 hectare peat moss (restorable irreplaceable habitat), the productive Grade 2 agricultural land, the woodlands and the wetlands, and all impacting 15 sites of biological importance and a site of special scientific interest, to say nothing of the populations of numerous red listed birds and endangered wildlife species.
Because of the size and scale of the proposed schemes, in addition to the typical costs that would be incurred when they put forward a planning application, developers will be required to contribute to the strategic requirements (such as roads, buildings to support education and healthcare, and utilities), which Trafford describes as ‘hard’ infrastructure. These costs would not have been required had the development been focused on previously developed (brownfield) land, rather than on former Green Belt and greenfield land in an isolated, unsustainable location.
The consultation documentation aims to set out the proportionate financial contributions for schemes that have not yet secured planning permission.
The strategy focuses on those so called ‘hard’ infrastructure items and supposedly prioritises the delivery of New Carrington “in a comprehensive and coordinated manner”. The document confirms (figure 19) that almost half of the identified ‘hard’ infrastructure costs will be funded from developer contributions, and the other half will be funded by the public sector and other sources.
Balanced? Sadly not!
Developer contributions are limited by government guidance. This means that, for a scheme to be considered viable, developers must achieve a certain level of profit. The contributions developers pay cannot be increased to the extent that the scheme would be considered unviable (ie they do not make the necessary level of profit). So, if there are any excluded or missing costs not incorporated within the calculations (and there are a lot of them), the proportions shown in the graphic above are very misleading.
The total contributions to be paid by the public sector should be explicitly and transparently shown, rather than covertly hidden in an appendix or not included at all! It is vital that communities understand the full cost of destroying our essential natural resources to facilitate building in such an unsustainable location.
The biggest issue is the lack of consideration of harms to, or destruction of, natural capital assets.
Given the extensive environmental and ecological harm/destruction to be caused as a consequence of Trafford choosing this location for development, the calculations should include the costs related to the mitigation of, or compensation for, the loss of Green Belt, the cumulative harm to natural capital assets (such as, for example, the peat moss, the woodlands, and the farmland). These have been explicitly excluded from the costs and subordinated to a future phase of the masterplanning work.
This means that the information provided in the documentation is incomplete and does not reflect the actual costs to be incurred if all the proposed developments go ahead.
Effectively, in omitting what we are calling the ‘Natural Infrastructure’ strategy from these calculations, the harms can be caused but funding may NEVER be available to provide the obligatory mitigation and compensation.
Why are we concerned?
Take a look at our response (here), but, in summary, not only have the natural infrastructure requirements been shelved to some point in the future, but our suggested amendments to the proposals have been summarily dismissed, resulting in unnecessarily inflated costs for the public purse.
The cost of the road schemes, for example, would be significantly reduced if our alternative proposals were accepted.
The eastern part of the Carrington Relief Road (CRR), across the moss, could be replaced with upgrades to existing active travel routes and improvements to existing roads (A6144 and Sinderland Lane). This would encourage modal change to walking, cycling and wheeling (it will be far more pleasant, safe and healthy to use active travel modes in a countryside setting, rather than next to a major road, with hundreds of HGVs hurtling along it every hour). It would also discourage the huge levels of induced traffic that will use this road, travelling between motorways and significantly impacting Partington and Warburton. The western part of the CRR, the A1 road, should be upgraded and opened to general traffic as planned to relieve the current issues in Carrington Village. The plan for the A1 should be amended to take HGV traffic away from the homes that have been built on Isherwood Road. This would require a very short road to run in parallel with Isherwood Road/Ackers Lane, rather than a new road all the way to the Carrington Spur.
The latest information received from the CRR team[1] shows that the current road (A6144) is much safer than an average road of the same type and that there is ZERO capacity to increase traffic on the Carrington Spur. Trafford should, therefore, not be proposing a new road that will allow traffic to travel at much higher speeds (particularly given the hazardous materials carried by some of the HGVs), or encourage more through traffic into the area.
Because it includes the eastern part of the road, the current CRR proposal unnecessarily inflates the cost of construction and ongoing maintenance (including for the attenuation ponds needed to capture all that water[2] currently stored on the moss), and the costs of the mitigation needed to address air, noise, light, vibration, dust and water pollution, along with other environmental enhancements. Costs will also increase for the NHS and other emergency services because of increased pollution and traffic accidents/incidents, and there is likely to be an upsurge in the requirement for mental health services due to the stresses caused to local residents because of construction, congestion, the loss of green spaces, and, possibly, future flooding!
Facilitating vehicle access onto Firsway from the new Sale West developments (1,500 homes) will significantly increase traffic and will result in that road becoming a rat run from the M60. It will require the felling of hundreds of trees, drastically affecting the wildlife and birds and impacting the dark skies in this area. It will also increase safety concerns on Firsway and, consequentially, the costs to the NHS/emergency services of dealing with any resulting pollution related health conditions and accidents/incidents on the road network. Limiting access through the Firs Plantation to active travel users only, would not only reduce the costs of constructing the Sale West Link Road, it would also reduce the cost of mitigating or compensating for environmental/ecological harms and the costs to the NHS.
For all the same reasons, we suggested that the Eastern and Southern Link Roads should not connect with each other, as this will result in huge levels of increased through traffic from the M60 and other motorways, particularly impacting Warburton. The proposed approach will also cause extensive damage to the very deep peat that will need to be compensated for. As with the other schemes, it will also significantly increase pollution and will impact the dark skies in this area, with consequential costs for the NHS and other agencies.
All the current proposals for these roads result in the need for higher contributions from the public purse, whilst our alternative options reduce the cost of constructing, the cost of mitigation/compensation for environmental/ ecological harms and the consequential costs to the healthcare sector and the emergency services.
The Healthcare costs included in the calculations seems to be limited to primary healthcare (which comprises doctors, dentists, pharmacists, and opticians), not mental health provision, not hospital provision (known as secondary healthcare) and not other emergency service provision. All of which will significantly increase as a result of the proposed developments. Furthermore, the Council does not recognise the impact on the need for increased social infrastructure because of the employment development (our objection to this is explained in our response).
Sustainable Development
The documentation repeatedly suggests that the ‘hard’ infrastructure is of the utmost importance to the sustainable delivery of New Carrington. Yet, given the definition of sustainable development this is hugely misleading.
The government’s National Planning Policy Framework (known as the NPPF[3]) defines sustainable development as “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”.
Given the proposed harms to, or destruction of, irreplaceable habitat, food producing cropland, woodland and wetland, it seems ‘sustainable development’ has a much narrower definition in this suite of documents.
With that definition in mind, it is clear that the New Carrington allocation cannot be ‘sustainable’, even with the proposed ‘hard’ infrastructure investment, because development here is dependent on considerable harm to, or the complete loss of, a number of essential natural capital assets that future generations will not be able to reverse.
And, what is worse, as mentioned above, the costs of mitigating and/or compensating for those cumulative harms is not even included in the calculations set out in this consultation and no information has been provided about how such funding requirements will be addressed, or when!
We would encourage you all to respond to the consultation. You do not have to go into the detail we have in our response, but it is important that the community voice is heard, particularly given that there will be future consultations related to the masterplan. Send your feedback to newcarrington.masterplan@trafford.gov.uk
What should you be asking for (in your own words)?
The masterplan project priorities should be reviewed to ensure that there is a comprehensive understanding of the costs of all elements of these proposals. The Natural Infrastructure Strategy should be considered a prerequisite to finalising the contributions scheme. It should be progressed with urgency, with its evolution including extensive engagement with communities. The land to be used for environmental and ecological mitigation or compensation should also be identified as a matter of urgency.
The documentation provided in this consultation should be updated and implemented when the full costs of the impact of development are known.
No environmental or ecological harms/destruction should be allowed to be caused until it is confirmed that funding for the mitigation and compensation for the loss of Green Belt and those extensive cumulative harms to the environment and ecology will become available. We also need confirmation of where any agreed mitigation or compensation will be located – it is possible that, because of the size and scale of the developments proposed here, enhancements will be implemented elsewhere, which means our local communities suffer all the health, wellbeing and traffic consequences of these plans, and others will benefit from environmental and ecological improvements in their areas!
As the first Carrington Relief Road (CRR) consultation goes live today (20th January 2025), we are issuing our first Call for Action to local communities. Please take the time to respond and encourage friends and family to participate too.
The consultation period includes some face-to-face sessions, and we hope you will be able to attend one of these. Just a reminder that the current CRR team are NOT responsible for the decisions made in the past and that they have been directed to give a very limited scope to the consultation, which is only based on the design of the road!
The inadequacies of this consultation have been determined by Trafford Council, and they have repeatedly rejected our requests for communities to be able to influence the wider aspects of transport solutions for the area – our next Call for Action will address this failure (see below).
This consultation ends on 28th February. Your inputs are extremely important, so do click on this link to read Trafford’s materials and submit your own response. We will be discussing this consultation at our next online public meeting on 28th January (6pm),the link to the meeting is hereand all are very welcome to join us.
At the meeting, we will highlight some of the key points to consider, which include the following:
there are two parts to the Carrington Relief Road (CRR):
we are totally supportive of the upgrading of the A1 route in Carrington (this runs through the employment zone from Isherwood Road to the A6144 near Saica Paper), all HGVs should be encouraged to use this road, rather than the A6144 through Carrington Village – this could have come forward years ago without any objections!
we are totally against the development of the road across Carrington Moss and have been proposing our alternative to Trafford for the last 4 years, without success – they are only interested in promoting the CRR, despite its escalating costs – it is a commitment to support development – not a solution aimed at benefiting existing communities
how the current design ‘benefits’ communities:
Carrington residents will only benefit from this new road if through-traffic and HGVs are unable to use the A6144 through the village, with appropriate traffic calming mechanisms put in place (otherwise, residents here will just be surrounded by constant traffic and the associated pollutant impacts)
Partington and Warburton residents will, sadly, not benefit from the scheme – Trafford has acknowledged that the road will induce additional traffic, much of which is likely to continue through Partington and Warburton, seeking an alternative route to the motorways, furthermore, given the low levels of car ownership in Partington, a new road will not reduce the isolation of this community (unlike a tram/train connection)
Sale West residents will be the most negatively affected by the scheme, they will suffer from huge increases to air, noise, light, vibration and water pollution, a significant, intensified and more frequent risk of local flooding, and the loss of the current safe, healthy and pleasant traffic-free recreational routes – we recognise that the recorded and unrecorded public rights of way will still be there, but, with the road solution, residents will be walking, cycling and horse riding next to the over 40,000 motor vehicles expected to use the road each day (including over 3,000 HGVs) – the number of vehicles will significantly increase from the current traffic numbers due to the proposed developments in the area and the induced traffic using the road as a ‘rat-run’!
Urmston residents will not benefit from the scheme either, but they are also likely to see an increase in traffic on their local roads and the risk of local flooding will increase due to the loss of water capture and storage on Carrington Moss (we do not believe the proposed attenuation ponds will be sufficient to replace the capacity lost when the road is built)
how the design ‘mitigates and compensates for the impact on the natural environment’:
the part of the road that cuts across Carrington Moss will severely impact red listed birds (including, for example, the skylark, which is prevalent along the route of the road) and protected/endangered species – we are very saddened by the thought of yet more roadkill!
the road will fracture the corridors used by wildlife and birds to access food and water sources – this will result in further depletion of their species
the road will also damage the peat moss (a restorable 335-hectare irreplaceable habitat according to Natural England) and the sites of biological importance/site of special scientific interest, even where these are not directly impacted – this is because of the changes to hydrology that will be required to keep the road water-free
it is likely that Trafford will consider that the attenuation ponds will replace the immense water capture and storage functionality of the moss – we think they underestimate the level of water captured here and this could lead to huge risks for local communities
Trafford is also likely to assume that these pond areas will create biodiversity gains, but what must be considered is that the losses will be experienced immediately, whereas any gains could take years to deliver, and, in that time, species will be lost to the area forever
the road will also impact the potential opportunities to support the Local Nature Recovery Strategy
the loss of productive Grade 2 agricultural land will impact future food security as this cannot be replaced elsewhere in Trafford
how the design constrains the development of the New Carrington Masterplan which is currently under development and covers the whole allocation area:
the CRR will significantly restrict and constrain what is possible in terms of recreational, ecological and natural capital benefits for the Sale West area, considerably increasing the inequities of access to green space for residents
the Natural Infrastructure Strategy underpinning the Masterplan has not yet even been discussed – this should determine the approach to mitigation and compensation for environmental and ecological harms to be caused across the allocation area (including the cumulative harms) – such issues should not be addressed as piecemeal solutions for individual developments, including the CRR.
Whilst we are keen for residents to respond as constructively as possible to this consultation, we also need to recognise that Trafford has not given communities the opportunity to influence either:
the choice of transport options for this area (why weren’t we asked if we wanted trams or trains, given the size and scale of the developments they are proposing, the number of years this has been under consideration, and the sheer common sense that we should make full use of the former railway lines running through the allocation area and the proximity of the Manchester Ship Canal?), or
the route options for the road.
You might want to mention this in the final section of the response questionnaire (headed “Further Comments / Queries), but with these things in mind, there will be a future Call for Action from local communities to address the total lack of previous consultation about the CRR.
Look out for our next blog for more community action on the Carrington Relief Road Consultation.
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!
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.
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.
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)!
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.
On the positive side, the Council has a wide range of responsibilities and there are areas for which Officers and Elected Members should be congratulated but ………..
the report highlights (paragraph 1.6) that
“The priorities for 2021-2024 are described as ‘better health, better jobs, greener future’ as outlined below:
Reducing Health Inequalities Working with people, communities and partners, particularly in deprived areas, to improve the physical and mental health of our residents. Supporting people out of poverty Tackling the root causes to prevent people from falling into poverty and raising people out of it. Addressing our Climate Crisis Leading the way in our region’s response, reducing our carbon footprint and tackling the impact of climate change”.
So, how does the New Carrington Allocation fit with those priorities?
It contradicts each of them!
Reducing Health Inequalities:
Carrington Moss currently provides deprived communities with a huge area of free to access green space, which will no longer be available due to the proposed development of 5,000 homes, 350,000 m2 warehousing and the plans for 4 major new roads. The moss currently has:
almost no traffic, so no air, noise, light, vibration or water pollution – fresh air to breathe (for both humans and wildlife), a peaceful environment for those with anxieties or other wellbeing issues, an area where you can hear and see red listed birds and other endangered wildlife, encouraging outdoor activities and hobbies that improve the health of local people
local residents participate in a number of sporting and recreational activities on Carrington Moss, including those professional athletes and children attending the Manchester United or Sale Rugby training grounds, the horse riders who use many of the circular routes (there are over 1,000 horses stabled on or around the moss) and the walkers, cyclists, bird watchers, nature spotters, photographers, artists …. the list goes on!
Supporting people out of poverty:
in the plans for the area, there is only one transport option being funded and prioritised – and that is a new road! So, those in transport poverty (and there are many in the local area who cannot afford to run a car) will have no benefits from this allocation (Trafford itself describes the area as currently having poor public transport provision)
furthermore, the only job opportunities being provided by the allocation are warehousing, which is very limiting in terms of both career choices and wages
and those currently working in the rural economy in the area (and their supply chains) will have their job or volunteer opportunities decimated or eliminated entirely!
Addressing the Climate Crisis:
the current habitats on Carrington Moss are essential to support the mitigation of climate change and the achievement of Trafford (and the region’s) carbon neutral ambition
these habitats include the 335 hectares of peat moss itself (which can be restored to capture and store huge volumes of carbon), Grade 2 agricultural land (which is perfect for growing crops to support the food security of current and future generations), large areas of woodland (which again are a great carbon store and provide shelter and food for the red listed birds and endangered wildlife) and wetlands (which capture and store huge volumes of surface water, that will have to be directed elsewhere when the area is concreted over
there are also a number of sites of biological importance and sites of special scientific interest on and around Carrington Moss, these are extremely important for conservation and nature’s recovery.
In addition to all of these benefits, Carrington Moss also has fantastic historical value. Obviously, the peat has been forming for thousands of years, horses have been ridden over the moss since medieval times, the Victorians used it for dumping night soil and waste (the remnants of the train tracks remain) and, in the Second World War, it was used as a decoy bombing site to save the centre of Manchester. As typical flat peatland terrain, it also boasts expansive views (you can see the hills over 20 miles away on a clear day). Imagine the future, with those views changed to HGVs thundering down the planned new road and 22m warehouses blotting out everything else in the landscape!
Paragraph 1.9 of the Council’s report confirms that a “new Corporate Plan is expected for July 2024”. Given the Places for Everyone Plan significantly reduces the protections brought in by the 2012 Core Strategy, ignores the advice of Natural England and unnecessarily decimates the largest natural capital asset in Trafford, can we expect a similar weakening of Trafford’s future corporate plan priorities?
Time will tell!
PS The Greater Manchester Combined Authority has published the responses to the Places For Everyone modifications consultation, our friends at Steady State Manchester have included the link in their short blog, available here.
PPS The Friends of Carrington Moss are working with other Greater Manchester groups to determine the next steps in our campaign to prioritise brownfield development across the region (and let’s face it, there is a lot of brownfield land that could be used, and GM has received significant public funding to regenerate it)! We’ll keep you updated as more information becomes available.
Friends of Carrington Moss 
You must be logged in to post a comment.