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.
Have you noticed changes taking place on and around Carrington Moss? These changes largely involve the removal and loss of natural habitat or longstanding features of the landscape. Some are taking place without any planning permission or council oversight at all.
Residents have noticed changes on Isherwood Rd (on the left as you drive in from the A6144). A large vehicle was observed removing hedgerow recently. The site was left with ground disturbed and an electric fence installed.
Many hedgerows are considered to be protected priority habitat. They are vital for a wide range of species, including birds, insects, and mammals, and provide essential movement and feeding corridors for wildlife. Because of their high ecological value, the conservation, restoration, and enhancement of hedgerows are typically a material consideration in planning decisions. Yet, if there is no planning application, there is no protection and no consideration of the Hedgerows Regulations 1997. Hedges and trees also protect the land from soil erosion and flooding, particularly in areas that are subject to significant surface water flooding, like Carrington Moss.
Sadly, this hedgerow destruction is not the only example. The temporary road to the planned Battery Storage System (BESS) will also damage the natural environment. That environmental damage will be carried out under ‘permitted development’ rules. This is development which requires no planning permission, there is much less oversight and NO environmental assessment! So, huge harm to the deep peat in the area, perhaps impacting the wider mossland, no protection for wildlife and birds or the habitats they use for breeding and feeding. The BESS itself will be adjacent to a Grade A site of biological importance, and the developer identified 79 bird species that will be impacted by their scheme.
Elsewhere on the moss, despite alternatives that would reduce car use to their site, MUFC has created an overspill car park on productive Grade 2 agricultural land, without any planning permission, again impacting wildlife corridors and the land used by red listed ground nesting birds, such as the skylark.
In addition, numerous large established trees were felled at the back of the National Grid site, leading to the forestry Commission posting notices forbidding any further tree felling activity without permission.
Nearby, the copse at the junction of Carrington Lane and the Spur Road has been stripped of its trees and shrubs, degrading the land before any potential planning application is submitted. The remnants of this vital former bird and wildlife corridor can be seen opposite the Mersey Farm pub
So, biodiversity can be seriously harmed without a planning application being put forward and this is all happening in addition to the destruction of the natural environment that will be caused by the proposed developments on and around Carrington Moss, including the Carrington Relief Road.
It cannot be sustainable to further deplete the populations of threatened or endangered species. And it is not only the birds and wildlife that suffer, without those trees and hedgerows, where do you think all that water will go??? Your homes and gardens, your health and wellbeing could be seriously impacted – so continue to share your photographs of all the damage being caused on and around Carrington Moss and let your councillors know what YOU think.
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!
In a recent Parliamentary statement, the Minister of State for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook MP), suggested that “Planning is principally a local activity. It is local plans that set out a vision and a framework for the future development of any given area, addressing needs and opportunities in relation to housing, the economy, community facilities and essential infrastructure – as well as a basis for conserving and enhancing the natural and historic environment, mitigating and adapting to climate change, and achieving well designed places. Local plans are the best way for communities to shape decisions about how to deliver the housing and wider development that their areas need”.
The theory is that if a local authority doesn’t have a Local Development Plan (LDP), it can leave greenfield (land that has never been built on before) vulnerable to speculative schemes from the big developers. The converse should, therefore, apply. Having an LDP should increase the amount of development that is based on local need, rather than on corporate greed.
If only this were true!
An investigation by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) recently revealed that around “60% of all houses built in 2021 to 2022 were delivered by speculative private development”, and that “the country’s reliance on this model has seen the gap widen considerably between what the market will deliver and what communities need”.
The CMA also found evidence during the study which indicated some housebuilders may be sharing commercially sensitive information with their competitors, which could be influencing the build-out of sites and the prices of new homes. The Community Planning Alliance responded to a consultation about this issue, stating that the suggested remedy is so insignificant (in both financial and process terms) that it will not deter similar breaches in the future (from these and other providers).
Currently local development plans are not shaped by citizens; they are manipulated by developers. Resident input is neither welcomed, nor taken into account, as can be seen by the previous lack of effort to involve Trafford residents in either the LDP or the Places for Everyone (PfE) planning processes, nor to address the feedback they gave.
Despite analysis confirming that over 80% of those responding to the PfE consultation in 2019 either disagreed or mostly disagreed with the New Carrington proposals, the outcome was not to remove this unnecessary, environmentally destructive allocation or reduce it to just the brownfield land. No, Trafford continued with the developer proposals to damage or completely destroy a 335 hectare irreplaceable habitat (a restorable deep peat moss), productive Grade 2 agricultural land, woodland and wetland habitats, impacting 15 sites of biological importance and a site of special scientific interest, along with populations of red listed birds and endangered wildlife.
In their letter to the planning inspectors, Natural England confirmed that “the combination of the location and the extent of development proposed for this allocation mean the proposed development could not be accommodated without at least causing the deterioration of this deep peat irreplaceable habitat at the site, if not its loss”.
These damaging proposals were only adopted with PfE in 2024, yet already its policies are being ignored, and the principles upon which the PfE consultation was based, are not being upheld.
The PfE planning inspectors introduced specific policy criteria for the New Carrington Allocation (now known as JPA30 in the adopted PfE Plan).
Policy criterion 1 (page 447), for example, states that development of this site will be required to be “in accordance with a masterplan that has been developed in consultation with the local community and approved by the local planning authority”. The criterion continues “Central to the masterplan shall be the consideration of opportunities to restore habitats, strengthen ecological networks, and manage the carbon and hydrological implications of development, having regard to the presence of peat on parts of the site”.
Policy criterion 24 (page 450), requires that developments “Undertake hydrological and ground investigations as necessary to inform the comprehensive masterplan and use of suitable construction techniques to ensure any loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitat, and adverse impacts on the hydrology of undeveloped areas, is minimised. Where loss or deterioration is unavoidable, a suitable compensation strategy should be identified and delivered, including the potential restoration of lowland raised bog and complementary habitats elsewhere within the site”.
It seems that the word ‘requires’ in a planning context should be interpreted as ‘required if the developers or the Council want it to be required’!
When taking the PfE plan through the modifications process, the planning inspectors were very deliberate in their choice of wording, adapting policy criteria as they felt necessary. Where policy criteria are to be subject to ‘get out clauses’ such as ‘where possible’ or ‘where appropriate’ or even where ‘it is not practicable or financially viable’ they included these terms within the criteria. In fact, several of the JPA30 policy criteria are subject to these limitations.
Criterion 1 has no such restrictions. Yet, despite the masterplan NOT being developed, AND a ‘suitable compensation strategy’ NOT being in place Trafford has approved a planning application (115160) on 19.9 hectares of very deep peat!
The approval of this planning application has set a number of dangerous precedents, with the interpretation of policy criteria now subject to the whims of specific schemes. Dismissing the “be required to” means that other criteria can also be disregarded or interpreted in a way that is contrary to general perceptions, in current and future planning applications.
Furthermore, the consultation for PfE was based on the premise that it would “avoid 10 districts proposing further amendments to the Green Belt in Local Plans” and that PfE would be “the only opportunity to make changes” to the Green Belt (see PfE document 07.01.25 Green Belt Topic Paper and Case for Exceptional Circumstances to amend the Green Belt Boundary). Despite this, the planning inspectorate has since approved development on Trafford’s retained Green Belt and Trafford consider that incursions into retained Green Belt on Carrington Moss for temporary road building “is an appropriate form of development in the Green Belt”.
Thus, not only are the policies within the PfE plan ineffective, but the basis on which the consultation was undertaken was flawed, as the GMCA and the participating districts are not in a position meet their stated commitment. This means that the expenditure incurred on examining the policies is also wasted.
One could ask what was the point of spending huge amounts of public money (multiple millions of pounds), over a 10 year period, to agree a spatial plan with careful policy wording that can just be ignored (unless that abhorrent waste of public funds was simply to enable developers to access 2,400 ha of Green Belt land across Greater Manchester, when there was sufficient brownfield to more than meet housing and employment requirements)!
Finally, unlike developers, communities cannot appeal a planning decision, even when NPPF and/or LDP policies have not been complied with. This is a gross inequity within the planning system. It means that citizens ONLY have the option to request a judicial review (JR). Not only is this an avenue that the government wishes to curtail, it also requires the communities themselves to fund the action (they cannot use public funds, like a local authority, nor can they use a corporation’s funds, which developers can take advantage of). Given that communities must request donations from the personal pockets of citizens, there is no such thing as a ‘frivolous’ JR from a community perspective (despite this government’s rhetoric suggesting otherwise)!
All in all, if the policies in the NPPF and an LDP can be cherry-picked to meet the needs of Councils and corporations, they are not providing good value for public money, nor are the associated decisions made in the public interest. Sadly, what we are seeing demonstrated here is a gross betrayal of current and future generations!
If you’d like more detail, read on!
Quick background for those who are unaware
A Local Development Plan (LDP) comprises all the documents that guide development and land use within a specific local authority area, providing a clear set of planning policies that should determine where and when development can and cannot happen to ensure transparency and consistency. Once adopted, these documents become statutory, they are supposed to be legally binding and must be taken into account when making planning decisions.
When planning applications are submitted, they are assessed against the policies in the LDP and also against the policies set out in the government’s National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
If an LDP is out-of-date, there is a presumption that the Local Planning Authority (LPA) will grant planning permission for sustainable development. This is called ‘the presumption in favour of sustainable development’ and is set out at paragraph 11 of the current NPPF.
The term ‘sustainable development’ is not clearly defined (probably deliberately, as successive governments have been keen to ensure developments are approved no matter what harms they cause). Some authorities, developers and planning inspectors appear to only consider the materials a building or road is constructed with, and do not (for example) take into account whether an irreplaceable habitat will be damaged, whether there is sufficient social and economic infrastructure to support the scheme or whether there will be other environmental impacts (increased air, noise, light, vibration or water pollution, increased carbon emissions, increased risk of flooding, for example). New Carrington certainly cannot be considered to be a sustainable development but its allocation for development has been approved by the planning inspectorate!
As an aside, there is also Permitted Development, which means that some specific types of development do not need a planning application (such as the conversion of offices and shops to housing). These schemes could, potentially, override agreed LDP policies.
What about Trafford’s LDP?
LPAs should develop their LDPs in consultation with their local communities, to ensure the plan reflects local needs and aspirations. Back in May 2025, FOCM responded to Trafford’s latest consultation on its new Local Plan. A quick review will show that we made lots of comments. We await the next iteration to see if any of them have actually been taken into account.
We certainly do not feel that our previous inputs were taken seriously. It is clear that Trafford’s proposals for New Carrington were fixed and firm BEFORE the public consultation. Whilst there has been some reduction in scale, this was not at the same level as in other districts. Given that Natural England also objected to the harms proposed to what they describe as a 335 hectare restorable and irreplaceable deep peat moss, it is astounding that the development was not restricted to brownfield land (there is plenty of it in the area).
The consultation process for PfE was abysmal. Residents were not made aware of the environmental and ecological harms proposed, nor of the size and scale of the proposals (which were originally 16,000 houses and 7m m2 employment space). In the 2019 consultation, there were over 150 documents (comprising over 14,000 pages) to review. These documents were full of factually incorrect and/or disingenuous statements. The Friends of Carrington Moss was actually constituted following the introduction of signage on the public rights of way that stated ‘Trespassers will be prosecuted’. A clear indication that the developer considered the allocation to be a done deal!
What actually happens?
Well, there is an immediate ‘get out’ clause in the government’s guidance, which states that there is “a requirement set in law that planning decisions must be taken in line with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise”.
And there’s the rub!
Material planning considerations are the things an LPA must take into account when deciding whether to approve or decline a planning application. It is assumed that these considerations help to ensure that planning decisions are rational and are based on established policies and evidence.
Can it really be considered rational to:
build on an irreplaceable habitat, in an area that hosts 15 sites of biological importance and a site of special scientific interest?
develop in an area that hosts significant surface water flooding every year?
significantly increase air, noise, light, vibration and water pollution, for populations of humans and endangered wildlife and birds?
put even more pressure on local resources (such as schools and health services), especially in an area that Trafford considers to be poorly served by public transport?
destroy woodland, wetlands and productive Grade 2 agricultural land when there are a significant number of brownfield sites in Trafford and elsewhere in Great Manchester?
Maybe those who have a short term, increase my wealth agenda, think it is rational? We disagree!
The planning officers consider what is known as ‘the planning balance’. This is a process of supposedly weighing the benefits and harms of a proposed development. In determining whether the potential benefits of a development outweigh the negative impacts, or vice versa, the planners use their ‘judgement’.
In the Officer Report for planning application 115160 (Battery Energy Storage System adjacent to the Shell Pool Reserve and the Flare Stack), Trafford set out which documents represent the LDP:
The Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan Document (PfE), adopted on 21st March 2024
The Trafford Core Strategy, adopted 25th January 2012
The Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan (UDP), adopted 19th June 2006
The Greater Manchester Joint Minerals Plan, adopted 26th April 2013.
Trafford decided that the application should be approved, despite:
The ground investigation reports revealing that the land was very deep, restorable peat
The application not complying with the LDP policies, including the requirement for a Masterplan and a ‘suitable compensation strategy’ for the harms to be caused to the peat (the lack of a final Peat Management Plan agreed with Natural England)
Pitiful compensation (via Biodiversity Net Gain) of just 1.15 hectares
The visual impact on nearby residents (especially given the flat mossland landscape)
No calculation of the carbon impact of removing or piling the peat (despite Trafford’s Carbon Neutral Action Plan and the Greater Manchester aim to be Carbon Neutral by 2038)
The document confirming that this “site is allocated for employment use within the New Carrington Allocation”, yet the development will not result in a single local job being created and using the site for this purpose will reduce the potential for employment opportunities for local residents (its previous use as productive Grade 2 agricultural land did provide jobs for local people), another indication of unsustainable development
That the planning officer suggested the application proposals are unique is bizarre. There are now 3 BESS within Carrington and a further 2 elsewhere in Trafford. Another rather surprising conclusion reached by the planning officer is that the Friends of Carrington Moss represents a single household and, due to written objections being limited to just “5 addresses, including Friends of Carrington Moss”, they did not meet Trafford’s threshold (10 addresses) for raising the application with the Planning Committee.
In relation to the New Carrington Masterplan, the planning officer did not consider the need for mitigation of the environmental and ecological harms to be caused, both within the site and across the allocation in general but limited their assessment to whether the scheme would be impacted by one of the 4 proposed new roads!
To date, there has been no consideration of how the harms to, and losses of, natural capital assets will be addressed across the allocation area (either in PfE or through the Masterplan discussions). So, how does the planning officer know that premature planning applications, such as this one, will not conflict with the eventual requirements.
In fact, the planning officer states that, in relation to this planning application, “it is considered that the site itself is not needed immediately to contribute to the site-wide green and natural infrastructure strategy”. Given that this 19.9 ha site comprises deep restorable peat, this suggests that decisions have been made about the natural infrastructure strategy in advance of any collaboration with local residents!
Interestingly, their ‘judgement’ was that there was “no fundamental conflict with the emerging masterplan, that would preclude this development from coming forward ahead of it. Nevertheless, this approach can only be supported if the application makes the appropriate financial contribution set out in the Council’s latest Interim Planning Strategy (IPS) for New Carrington (February 2024)”. In other words, if the developer pays towards the Carrington Relief Road, approval could be granted, if they didn’t it could not.
We fundamentally disagree with this premise. Whilst we believe developers should fully contribute to infrastructure requirements, their contributions should not determine whether a scheme meets other policy needs, including the impact on natural capital assets! It should be noted, however, that Trafford has recent lost an appeal where they refused a development because the applicant (Peel) did not agree to fund the infrastructure requirements according to Trafford’s formula.
The planning inspectors held a specific hearing during which Natural England confirmed that the 335 hectare peat moss at New Carrington (then JPA33) was irreplaceable and restorable. Yet, in their final report (paragraph 235), having taken NPPF guidance about irreplaceable habitats into account when considering whether the allocations were ‘sound’, the planning inspectors determined that, despite there being sufficient brownfield land to exceed housing ‘targets’, they were content that the GMCA was entitled to make the judgement that an allocation that could completely destroy a 335 hectare irreplaceable habitat (paragraph 635) met the wholly exceptional reasons test (now NPPF 193c). This decision was strongly challenged by Natural England at the hearing and local communities also disagree that the public benefit clearly outweighs the loss or deterioration of the habitat given the amount of brownfield land available across the urban areas of Greater Manchester.
The benefits the planning inspector’s refer to in their decision are also set out at paragraph 635, which suggests that “The allocation would make a very significant contribution to Trafford’s housing and employment needs, as well as contributing to the strategy of sustaining the competitiveness of the southern areas. It would also involve substantial regeneration of previously developed land, bringing with it associated social and environmental benefits”.
Local communities must monitor that these so called ‘benefits’ are actually achieved (no one else will do that). If they are not delivered, Trafford has sacrificed our much-used local green space, irreplaceable habitat and other natural capital assets for huge developer profits, with no mitigation or compensation for communities or the many local populations of red listed birds and endangered wildlife!
Trafford Council has approved the development of a Battery Energy Storage System on Carrington Moss (the third in Carrington, with more elsewhere in Trafford). This scheme will not only result in the loss of productive Grade 2 farmland (essential for food security), and the food and foraging corridor of 79 red and amber listed bird species (which the applicant notes are utilising the adjacent site of biological importance), it will also necessitate the removal of up to 192,000 cubic metres of peat moss, which will release tens of thousands of tonnes of carbon into our atmosphere.
The approval is contrary to Places for Everyone (PfE) policy, which specifically states that no development can take place on Carrington Moss until the New Carrington Masterplan is in place. The PfE plan was only adopted in March 2024, after 10 years in the making. At barely a year old, and despite the millions of pounds of public money spent on its development, its policies are now being disregarded by Trafford Council!
The scheme is also contrary to the brownfield first policies in PfE, which has Strategic Objectives for both housing and employment sites that confirm Greater Manchester WILL “Prioritise the use of brownfield land“. There are acres of vacant brownfield land adjacent to the site in question, so why isn’t this land being used for this development?
Despite past reassurances, from Trafford Council’s Strategic Planning and Development Department, that policies will be ‘rigorously’ applied and no development will take place until the Masterplan is in place, the same department did not object to this planning application.
Even more concerning, this controversial application did not go before the planning committee, which would have allowed local residents to raise their concerns to Councillors. Despite repeated objections, including in relation to the health and safety of residents, and the lack of compliance with policies in the development plan, this planning application was approved by a Council Officer, with needless haste.
I have written to the Council (copy below) requesting an explanation as to why this decision has been made, contrary to policy. Local Councillors have been copied into the email and I have invited them all to come along for a walk across the moss, so they can see first-hand, the impact this and future developments are going to have to this unique habitat.
Letter to Trafford Council’s Strategic Planning and Development Department:
Thank you for your response. I fully appreciate that this is not a simple or straightforward process. I too get bogged down with the paperwork and reading. It is no wonder that very few members of the general public have the time to read the masses of paperwork in order to fully understand the implications of The New Carrington Masterplan.
I did receive your email of 22nd May with the updated schedule. My subsequent email was in response to the approval of the BESS, despite it being contrary to criterion 1 of JPA 30 and your reassurances that the council is ‘rigorously applying’ criterion 1.
For the sake of those reading this email trail for the first time, criterion 1 states ‘Development of this site will be required to be in accordance with a masterplan that has been developed in consultation with the local community and approved by the local planning authority. The masterplan must include a phasing and delivery strategy, as required by policy JP-D1. Central to the masterplan shall be the consideration of opportunities to restore habitats, strengthen ecological networks, and manage the carbon and hydrological implications of development, having regard to the presence of peat on parts of the site. It should also have regard to the anticipated Hynet North West Hydrogen pipeline (as relevant). The masterplan will be prepared in partnership with key stakeholders to ensure the whole allocation is planned and delivered in a coordinated and comprehensive manner with proportionate contributions to fund necessary infrastructure‘
I fully support green energy and understand it’s role in achieving net zero, but apart from this approval being contrary to the above policy, the destruction of a peat moss to develop a BESS is illogical. The release of carbon during construction will outweigh the carbon benefit of the facility. The development will involve the excavation of up to 192,000m3 of peat which will release at least 35,000 tonnes of carbon.
This development is certainly not sustainable, (‘a development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’) as it will not only destroy premium agricultural land that provides food security for future generations, but will negate the ability to restore the precious carbon capturing peat that is one of our best defence against climate change.
It should also be noted that of all the boroughs in Greater Manchester (with the exception of Oldham and Rochdale who were unable to provide me with the information) Trafford will lose the most agricultural land (481 hectares) under Places for Everyone. At no point in the development of this plan, has the livelihood of the tenant farmers been mentioned.
I understand that this decision was made by the planning officer, but I have to express my deep concerns that despite the fact that the Masterplan has not been developed, according to the officer’s report, your Strategic Planning and Development Department made no objection to the application.
Why didn’t this application go to the Planning Committee when it is such a highly sensitive application? Also, what was the burning platform that made it impossible for this application to wait for the Masterplan to be agreed? The Places for Everyone Plan took years to develop at a cost of tens of £millions to the public purse, but within months of its adoption, the policies therein are not adhered to.
This approval calls into question just how ‘robust’ the masterplan will be if applications are already being approved. Once a precedent is set, it is unlikely the plan will able to ‘withstand challenge and scrutiny’. This is played out in the officer’s statement ‘It is noted that there have been two recent appeal decisions in Trafford for BESS applications where the Battery Energy Storage System compounds were in the Green Belt – Land Off Golf Road APP/Q4245/W/24/3343250 and Land at Wild Fowl Farm, Carrington Lane, APP/Q4245/W/24/3354822. The Inspectors concluded in both cases that Green Belt and any other harm was clearly outweighed by the very significant benefits in supporting the transition to net zero and in helping to secure stability and security in energy supply. Although not directly comparable, these cases are material in terms of the recent approach taken by Inspectors.’
It is hard to understand why the officer has approved this application when they themselves state ‘‘The NPPF, at paragraph 11, introduces ‘the presumption in favour of sustainable development.’ For decision-taking purposes, paragraph 11c explains that ‘the presumption in favour’ means approving development proposals that accord with an up-to-date development plan without delay’.
This application does not accord with the most up to date plan (Places for Everyone) as the Masterplan is not yet in place.
The officer also states ‘Where a planning application conflicts with an up-to-date development plan, planning permission should not normally be granted, paragraph 12 of the NPPF explains. The Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan was adopted on 21 March 2024. As development plan policies in Places for Everyone are very recently adopted, they are up-to-date and should be given full weight in decision making’.
With reference to factors that must be weighed in the balance, the officer’s report states that ‘The supporting documents states that the planning application is located on this land due to its close proximity to the Daines National Grid substation. The Applicant holds a grid connection agreement with NGET to connect the proposed BESS project to this substation’.
Whilst this is true, this site is grade 2 agricultural land that is constantly used for growing crops and is home to land nesting birds. However, there is 27 hectares of vacant hard standing brownfield land directly North of the site which is equidistant to the Daines National Grid substation and would be suitable. Why wasn’t this fact weighed in the balance when making the decision, particularly when one of the Government’s Golden Rules is ‘Brownfield First’ and one of the Places for Everyone’s Objectives is to put brownfield first for both housing and employment.
It should also be noted that some of the Officer’s knowledge of the New Carrington Allocation is incorrect as they state that there will be ‘major investment in public transport’. Sadly, this is not the case. Even though New Carrington is the largest allocation in Places for Everyone, there is no commitment for investment in public transport infrastructure. Furthermore, despite the Governments recent announcement of a £2.5 billion funding boost for public transport in Greater Manchester, Carrington, Partington and Sale West have not been earmarked for any of this.
As you appreciate, my main concern is the loss of green and natural infrastructure. The Officer states ‘Taking all of these factors into account, it is considered that the site itself is not needed immediately to contribute to the site-wide green and natural infrastructure strategy. That strategy and the subsequent JPA 30 compliant masterplan is capable of being produced and implemented without the application site in the first instance, as it will be able to have regard to its longer-term availability.
Here the officer is referring to the long-term plan to restore the peat at this site once the BESS is decommissioned. This raises two questions that should have been taken into account; a) the removal of 192,000 m3 of peat will limit what can be restored in future, b) why isn’t the peat being restored now to protect future generations, in twenty years time it will be too late? Another consideration is, if this development does go ahead, who will be responsible and has the expertise to ensure the peat extraction will be in accordance with the Peat Management Plan?
The officer goes on to say ‘However, since the application proposals are not in accordance with Criterion 1 of Policy JPA 30, any approval must robustly secure the compensation, so that it can contribute and link to the site-wide green and natural infrastructure’.
Already, the ability to robustly secure the compensation is compromised, as Manchester United have built a car park on land which is designated as the green corridor in JPA 30. I await the findings from your planning enforcement officers regarding this car park.
In the New Carrington Ecological Assessment which was in your last email, the Greater Manchester Ecology Unit states ‘GMEU has not itself carried out large-scale, detailed field-based ecological assessments of the entire allocation. Such a level of survey is regarded as beyond the scope of the assessment, generally carried out at the masterplanning or planning application stage of the land-use planning system’.
Is this large-scale, detailed field-based ecological assessment underway as part of the Masterplan, to ensure any approval will robustly secure the compensation, so that it can contribute and link to the site-wide green and natural infrastructure’? This is urgently needed to ensure a holistic approach, to not only help in the fight against biodiversity loss and climate change, but to ensure that existing communities are protected from flooding, air pollution, noise pollution and a loss of having access to open green spaces for mental well-being.
At one of the drop-in events for the Carrington Relief Road, the information boards said, in relation to BNG measures, “the scheme aims to transform what is currently unused land for the better with planting proposed on what is currently a brownfield site”. When questioned where this brownfield is located, the staff at the session pointed to the green belt agricultural land. When this was highlighted, they admitted that they were not entirely sure where this unused land will be.
In an attempt to clarify where these BNG measures will be, the question was sent directly to the team at Amey in February, together with a number of other questions, including ‘In relation to the attenuation ponds, are these being constructed to mitigate the impact of the road alone or are they expected to also mitigate the impact of other development in the eastern part of New Carrington?
Unfortunately, we had no response from Amey, so a freedom of information request was done to which we had a reply this week. The response to the BNG question was ‘The brownfield land is the Shell Carrington Estate’. The response to the attenuation ponds was ‘These are designed based on highway drainage, not relating to developments’.
Clearly describing the brownfield land as the Carrington Estate is very vague, and the response to the attenuation ponds demonstrates the ad-hoc nature of the planning applications for this site. Without a holistic approach, there is greater risk of flooding and a greater loss of biodiversity. This is why the inspectorate set out criterion 1 and emphasised the need for a Masterplan to be in place before any applications are approved.
It begs the question, how did the officer come to the conclusion that ‘As such there is no fundamental conflict with the emerging masterplan, that would preclude this development from coming forward ahead of it’ when there has been no discussion with stakeholders regarding the natural infrastructure, no evidence that there is any site-wide plan with regards natural infrastructure and that this site may be needed for mitigation and compensation under the masterplan.
All that the community have ever asked for is to be listened to. For years the communities have put forward sustainable alternatives that would benefit the communities of Partington, Carrington and Sale West, without the need to destroy a peat moss, wetlands, woodlands and agricultural land. Unfortunately, all of the ideas and the advice of other stakeholders, such as Natural England, have been ignored. So, the promise of stakeholder meetings at which we could discuss the issues that matter the most to us, in particular the green infrastructure, was really appreciated. At the one meeting so far, which was last July, we did not get the opportunity to raise our concerns and put forward our suggestions. Instead, we were asked to submit our thoughts with the promise that there would be further stakeholder meetings. I hope that these will recommence soon, as you suggested in your previous email.
I sincerely apologise for the length of my email. I appreciate you are working hard on this project, but to be honest, I have lost faith in the whole system. Who will benefit the most from New Carrington? Not the communities or future generations. They will face more traffic, air pollution, no improvement to public transport, social isolation and inequalities, less green space, a loss of biodiversity, flora and fauna essential for well-being, a loss of identity due to urban sprawl, higher risk of flooding, the list goes on. The winners will be the developers, who’s only objective is to make as much profit as possible irrespective of the costs to humans and nature and the planning system facilitates this.
We have little influence of what happens Nationally and Globally when it comes to the destruction of the natural world. Here we have an opportunity to do the right thing, to put nature before profit, to look at the alternatives and ensure we leave a legacy that will benefit future generations. If all decision makers did this, we would not be in the middle of a climate crisis.
My invitation to you to take a walk across the Moss still stands (although cycling would be best as the site is huge), so that maybe you will understand why we feel so strongly about its destruction. I welcome Local Councillors along too.
A final thought, ‘Let’s put GDP growth aside and start a fresh with a fundamental question that is what enables human beings to thrive? A world in which every human being can live a life with dignity, opportunity and community and where we can all do this within the means of our life-giving planet’. Kate Raworth, Senior Teaching Associate at Oxford University. I believe this is possible, so I will continue to fight to protect Carrington Moss, if only so that in years to come, I can look my children and grandchildren in the eye and say that I tried my best.
There have been numerous concerns raised about the route of the Carrington ‘Relief’ Road across Carrington Moss, as it will cause significant harms to both human and wildlife populations and several of our members have suggested that there is a significant lack of awareness shown by those making the decisions about this proposal.
With this in mind, we hope you will all join us on a walk along the public rights of way near to the Carrington Moss part of the route for the new road. We plan to meet on Dainewell Park on Saturday 8th February at 2pm.
We’d like you to invite your Councillors and your MP to join us on the walk, so we can share our concerns. If you are not sure who your Councillors or your MP are, click on this link to find out. You just need to put in your post code and, hey presto, the information is there. When the details come up, you will see a link at the right-hand side which says “Write to all your Councillors”. You can drop them a note and invite them to come along. If you click on your MP’s name, you can also send an email to him inviting him to come along and hear your concerns about the road. The more invitations the politicians receive, the more likely they are to join us on the walk.
As we mentioned in our previous blog (Call for Action 1 Respond to the Consultation), the Friends of Carrington Moss welcome the long-awaited opening of the A1 route through the employment area of Carrington, but all HGVs should be required to use that route, rather than travelling along the A6144 through Carrington Village. The CRR consultation confirms that “HGVs will not be banned on the A6144” but this should be challenged in consultation responses.
It is disgraceful that Trafford Council have enabled the current situation being experienced by Trafford residents living in Carrington, including the air, noise, light and vibration pollution they are suffering day and night. During the past more than 10 years of planning for unviable and unsustainable growth here, Trafford Council has not identified and/or committed funding for sustainable passenger and freight transport solutions for the area. This is particularly shocking given the anticipated number of HGVs using local roads each day, including those that will carry hazardous materials. There are various alternative options Trafford could have considered, including using the former railway lines, the Manchester Ship Canal and the potential to deploy pipelines (there are several of these in the area already)!
We do, though, have major concerns about the part of the route which runs across Carrington Moss. Not just because of the impact it will cause to Sale West residents and the lack of benefits to surrounding communities, but also because of the harm it will cause to the 335-hectare peat moss (described by Natural England as irreplaceable and restorable), the productive Grade 2 agricultural land, the extensive woodland and the wetland habitats. All of which are essential to a sustainable future for our children and grandchildren. The road, and the wider plans for New Carrington, will also significantly impact 15 sites of biological importance and a site of special scientific significance.
Click here to join our online public meeting on 28th January at 6pm to discuss these issues further. All are welcome.
Finally, despite highlighting previous inaccurate, incomplete or misleading information in CRR materials, the consultation resources (letters and website) have yet more examples. We will be requesting a further Call for Action from local communities. Look out for our next blog for more information on this.
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!
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?
“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.
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.
Friends of Carrington Moss 
You must be logged in to post a comment.