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.
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!
The Bee Network High Frequency Routes Map shows all the routes in Greater Manchester that have buses or trams every 12 minutes or less.
It is disappointing to see that, compared to the rest of Greater Manchester, Trafford has the least number of high frequency buses. Whilst all the other boroughs have at least two high frequency services, Trafford’s only frequent service is from Manchester City Centre to the Trafford Centre.
It probably comes as no surprise to the residents of Trafford that they have no high frequency buses, especially the residents of Partington, Carrington and Sale West, where the most frequent bus is every 25 minutes in rush hour, every half an hour during the day and every hour in the evening.
Residents are failed again
New Carrington will be the largest development in Greater Manchester, with 5,000 new homes and 350,000 square metres of industrial/warehousing across Carrington, Partington and Sale West. Despite what is set out in Appendix D of the Places for Everyone Plan, there is no formal commitment to invest in any public transport infrastructure. No trams, no trains (despite the former railway lines running through the allocation area) and no commitment to additional bus services.
The only transport commitment for New Carrington is the £132 million Carrington Relief Road.
In fact, according to the New Carrington Transport Strategy 2023, (page 63), bus services will “fall short of the currently unachievable addition of around 25 – 30 new buses which would be required for a fully sustainable Scenario 3, and which would enable a reasonably comprehensive network, along with 15-minute headway service to both Stretford and Sale Metrolink stations”. So, not only is there no commitment to public transport infrastructure investment but the proposed bus service will be inadequate for a development of this size.
Residents of Carrington, Partington and Sale West were promised improved public transport connections in Trafford Council’s 2006 UPD and in the 2012 local plan. These improvements never materialised and, despite the size and scale of the allocation, and the opportunity to finally deliver these promises, what we have seen is a clear lack of ambition to achieve what is required by the regulations, sustainable development!
An Unsustainable Development
As mentioned above, the only actual commitment for transport in New Carrington is the £132million Carrington Relief Road. This road is not only expensive, but will not benefit existing communities, particularly in Partington and Sale West as we have set out in our previous blog.
As the public transport options will NOT be ‘reasonably comprehensive’, New Carrington will be unsustainable, car dependent sprawl that causes huge amounts of harm to our natural capital assets.
In most cases, residents in New Carrington will face the higher costs of car dependent living. For those who do not have a car, their ability to enter paid employment or the training needed to secure a well-paid job, is constrained by the lack of local public transport options. Also, local public amenities are already oversubscribed, so, once the housing developments are occupied, residents will have to have to travel further afield to access schools, doctors, dentists etc.
Increased Air Pollution
The Carrington Relief Road is forecast to induce more motor traffic into the area, with the Environmental Impact Scoping Report confirming (paragraph 14.46) “Traffic flows are likely to increase due to the improved desirability of the route”.
The Let Manchester Breath Coalition’s response to the GM Clean Air Plan shows that Greater Manchester consistently has the highest levels of Nitrogen Dioxide in the country, car ownership is increasing well above the national average and Manchester ranks in the top ten for highest number of emergency admissions and deaths for lung conditions across the UK.
Air pollution is a public health emergency, so it is inconceivable that the only transport infrastructure for the largest development in Greater Manchester is a £132 million ‘relief’ road, that will be built on Grade 2 agricultural land. It will impact 15 sites of biological importance and a site of special scientific interest, along with woodland and wetland habitats. It will also damage (or lead to the destruction of) a 335-hectare peat moss that has the potential to absorb five times more carbon than a forest of an equivalent size. This is a complete betrayal of future generations.
Meeting Targets Will Be Impossible
Furthermore, the Greater Manchester Transport Strategy set out the “ambition to improve the transport system so that – by 2040 – 50% of all journeys in Greater Manchester are made by public transport or active travel“.
Car centric developments like New Carrington will make it impossible for the Greater Manchester Transport Strategy’s target to be met.
It certainly feels like the residents of Greater Manchester are being failed. Economic growth and profit are being put before public health and equality? Compare Andy Burnham’s plans for GM with those of David Skaith, the Mayor of North Yorkshire, who has said he will prioritise improving public transport in the region rather than campaigning for the A64 to be dualled!
Yorkshire has the opportunity to achieve sustainable development, NewCarrington certainly does not!
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.
The New Carrington Masterplan will result in the loss of a 335-hectare peat moss, Grade 2 agricultural land, woodlands and wetlands which will have dire consequences for local biodiversity and Trafford Council’s ability to be net zero by 2038. These important habitats are to be concreted over and replaced with 5,000 houses and 350,000sqm of warehousing.
There is no doubt that there is a crisis in the availability of genuinely affordable housing (that is social/council housing) but Trafford and Greater Manchester appear to be planning to continue to build for investors, second home owners and airbnbs!
Building on a peat moss is not the solution to the affordable housing crisis. Research from CPRE has shown that there are enough ‘shovel-ready’ brownfield sites in the UK for 1.2 million new homes, which will make a significant contribution to Labour’s goal of 1.5 million homes.
The Labour Government recently published five golden rules for house building which were articulated in their proposals for the updated National Planning Policy Framework. They propose a sequential test which makes it clear that schemes must look to brownfield first, prioritising the development of previously used land wherever possible.
There are numerous suitable, local, brownfield sites, some of which are Council owned, that could be developed in advance of concreting over land that contributes to climate mitigation, nature’s recovery and our future food security. These brownfield sites could provide much needed social housing, which is not what is proposed for the former Green Belt land on Carrington Moss.
Here are some examples of such Council-owned sites, that are ready to be developed and are in locations that are serviced by good public transport links and local amenities (unlike the isolated area that is Carrington Moss, which the Council acknowledges is poorly served by public transport).
The former Depot on Higher Road, Urmston – this site has been lying empty for a number of years. Following a freedom of information request, Trafford Council confirm this site was sold to a private developer. To date, there have been no planning applications submitted for this site.
The former Woodsend Primary School, Flixton – this site has been lying empty for a number of years. Following a freedom of information request, Trafford Council confirm that they are looking at options to deliver homes on this site and would expect to make a decision within the next 12 months.
Sale Magistrates Court, Sale – this building was demolished a number of years ago and the land sold to a private developer who submitted a planning application in December 2020. To date, no building work has commenced.
In addition to these Council-owned sites, there are many other brownfield sites in Trafford awaiting development, as identified in the Council’s own Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (known as a SHLAA for short).
In response to our freedom of information request Trafford Council said
‘Delivery of homes including affordable homes is a priority for the Council. The Council is prioritising the delivery of homes at Council owned sites including Tamworth (Old Trafford), Former Sale Magistrates Court, Chapel Road (Sale) and Stretford Town Centre.
We also have a need to invest in other assets and services that benefit our communities. For example the Council is investing in its leisure portfolio which includes improvements at Urmston, Altrincham and Partington Leisure Centres. The receipts from land sales such as Higher Road Depot are part of the funding for these activities.’
We await progress with interest but, given that planning applications are already coming forward on former Green Belt and greenfield land, there is no doubt that the Brownfield First policy is NOT what is being pursued in Trafford!
Whilst we await the consultation for the Carrington Relief Road (CRR), we continue to collect data and scrutinise the traffic flows in our locality. Our analysis is very revealing! So, why are we worried about the impact of the CRR? Read on to understand our concerns. Contact your Councillors if you are concerned too (details of your Councillors can be found here).
Trafford Council has acknowledged that the construction of this £76million road is not for the benefit of existing residents (as stated in their Carrington Relief Road Environmental Impact Scoping Report)
“1.2. The key objective of the new Carrington Relief Road is to provide sufficient capacity within the transport network to deliver growth of housing and employment in the wider New Carrington masterplan area, and realise the socio-economic benefits of the future development. The redevelopment of this Site provides an opportunity to deliver a new link road for Trafford that will facilitate future phased development of c.5,000 new homes and 360,000sqm employment floorspace”.
Unfortunately, existing residents will be adversely affected by the new road as demonstrated below. Yet, if monies were invested in public transport infrastructure, as previously promised in the local plan, there would be far greater health, economic and social benefits for both existing and new residents, not to mention the preservation of an area that supports climate mitigation, nature’s recovery and future food security.
So, why are there no plans to invest in train/tram infrastructure in what is the largest development in the Places for Everyone Plan? It is described as the single largest regeneration scheme in the North West by Andrew Western, MP for Stretford and Urmston in his comment supporting the Wain Estates Case Study here.
Trafford Council’s Local Plan 2012 proposed to deliver “significant improvements to public transport infrastructure by improving access to Partington, the Regional Centre and Altrincham with links to the Metrolink system”. The New Carrington Masterplan presents the perfect opportunity to deliver these much-needed improvements by directing the funding into schemes that already had the backing of the local businesses, Councils and the community, such as reopening the Cadishead Viaduct. More information on that initiative can be found here.
Whilst we understand that funding is an issue and the Council are reliant on contributions from developers and the government, these types of schemes are long-term, sustainable solutions to the inequalities that exist in Partington, Carrington and Sale West and are a much better use of public money. It is well documented that roads are short-term, unsustainable options.
We are already experiencing the impact of climate change, with erratic weather patterns leading to localised flooding and crop failure. The proposals for New Carrington are contrary to Trafford’s declaration of a climate emergency in 2018 and its aims to be net zero by 2038. The lack of funded sustainable transport options also conflicts with the Greater Manchester Transport Strategy 2040, which has a vision for 50% of trips to be made by sustainable modes, and states (page 8) that “Achieving the Right Mix is expected to lead to zero net growth in motor vehicle traffic in Greater Manchester between 2017 and 2040”).
How will they meet these targets?
Whilst we acknowledge active travel forms part of the transport intervention in New Carrington, any progress made in getting people to choose active modes will be heavily outweighed by the significant increase in road traffic as described in their scoping report. Walking cycling or horse riding next to over 3,000 HGVs a day will not be pleasant, safe or healthy!
The Proposed Road
The western end of the Carrington Relief Road starts opposite the Saica Paper Factory and will run along the existing A1 Road behind Carrington Village. This road is to be upgraded as part of the scheme. The eastern end of the Relief Road will be constructed across Carrington Moss, from Isherwood Road to the junction of the Spur Road and Banky Lane.
The cost of the overall scheme is currently estimated at £76 million but could rise due to the increased cost of materials, the need to address contamination and the complexity of building on or near to a 335 hectare peatmoss (hydrology issues will need to be tackled – depending on the final route).
In responding to Trafford’s ‘engagement event’ (which took place in 2021), in advance of the release of the CRR route options report, we put forward a proposal that would reduce HGV traffic through Carrington Village and negate the need to construct an expensive road across Grade 2 agricultural land, woodland and wetland habitats.
We proposed that the existing A1 Road be upgraded and opened up to all heavy goods vehicles to resolve the issue of hundreds of HGVs passing through Carrington Village every day. We proposed upgrading the existing A6144 between Isherwood Road and the Carrington Spur, which is not at capacity, and reducing speed limits. We also proposed upgrading the existing active travel routes across Carrington Moss.
Unfortunately, our suggestions (and those of Natural England – a national organisation that advises the government on all issues related to the natural environment), were ignored. So, we have continued to collect traffic data and here is a summary of our findings:
Induced Traffic
Our most recent surveys focused on the pattern of traffic travelling from the west of Partington towards the M60.
During term time, the total number of cars travelling from Warburton, Warrington and Lymm into Partington is 69% of the total number of cars recorded leaving Partington in the direction of Carrington. During school holidays, this figure is 63%. This shows that the majority of the traffic travelling through Partington towards Carrington is coming from outside the area. The volume of this induced traffic will increase (as described in Trafford’s own Environmental Scoping Report – “Traffic flows are likely to increase due to the improved desirability of the route” paragraph 14.46)
What proportion of traffic will benefit from the new road
At the Manchester Road/Isherwood Road and Carrington Spur/Banky Lane junctions term time figures have been used, when traffic is highest. Full details of our surveys can be found here and here.
During term time 37% of the traffic coming from the M60 is headed towards Carrington.
During term time 40% of the traffic from Sale West is headed towards Carrington
During term time 53% of the traffic from M60 or Sale West is headed towards Flixton.
The traffic headed towards Flixton would not use the relief road, so ……
….. only 18.1% (an average of 47% of 37% and 47% of 40%) of the traffic from the M60 and Sale West would use the new relief road.
Furthermore – during term time ……
….. only 32%of the traffic from Partington and Carrington heading towards the M60 would use the new road, as the rest of the traffic is headed towards Flixton.
Let’s think about that – only 18.1% of the traffic from the M60 and Sale West and only 32% of the traffic from Partington and Carrington would use the CRR – yet the Council is proposing to spend £76m on an outdated, unsustainable road-based solution!
Remember:
Congestion in Partington will increase significantly and will have a major impact on existing residents. Not only will there be increased induced traffic as described earlier, but the construction of approximately 3600* houses in central Partington, Partington East (which is really Carrington South) and Warburton will put extreme pressure on the road network – note that these numbers do not include the additional homes recently constructed or still to be built in other parts of Partington (Lock Lane, Oak Lane, Hall Lane).
Congestion from Sale West to the M60 at the Banky Lane Junction is the heaviest of all routes during peak times. This will increase significantly due to induced traffic from the relief and the construction of 1450* houses in Sale West.
If you wish to express your opinion regarding this matter, the public consultation for the Carrington Relief Road is due to commence in the coming weeks. You can also join the discussions at our monthly online public meetings – you will find the link to the next meeting here. As mentioned above, you can also email your local Councillors to outline your concerns.
Lorraine Eagling looks at what the Strategy means to residents given today’s traffic volumes!
It’s without question that a transport strategy is desperately needed by the residents of Carrington, Partington, Sale West, Warburton and Ashton on Mersey even before the plans for New Carrington get underway, so it was encouraging when Trafford Council published The New Carrington Transport Strategy but very disappointing that no residents had been involved in its development.
The residents of these isolated and poorly served towns have long been promised and waited for a plan that provides the transport solutions they deserve, that are sustainable and will provide long term options for existing residents and for future generations.
The Strategy describes all the sustainable options (scenario 3) that would provide residents with regular and reliable connectivity to the rest of Manchester. Solutions that would provide the residents with access to trains and trams and reduce traffic on local roads. The Strategy goes on to explain, however, that these long-awaited public transport services are not an option because they are too expensive to implement and the only affordable option is a relief road, now expected to cost a minimum of £76.5m (and that is before any resident requirements such as additional junctions, crossings and traffic calming measures, for example are included in the design). Reminiscent of Bullseye’s infamous phrase ‘look at what you could have won!’, residents have once again been let down.
The proposed relief road will run along the existing A1 Road, which starts opposite the Saica paper factory, to Isherwood Road. From here a new road will be constructed adjacent to the peat moss and across the farmland to meet the Carrington Spur Road at the junction with Carrington Lane in Sale West. The new section of the road will have massive implications to the environment. More details about the impact of the CRR can be found at this link, where you can look at our many previous blogs about the Carrington Relief Road by scrolling down the web page.
It’s a very disappointing outcome and it is questionable when the following is taken into consideration:
There is no mention of HGV traffic anywhere in the report. As we know, the huge number of HGVs is the main concern for residents in Carrington Village and beyond.
The traffic data used in the report is taken from TfGM 2017 base year, which is outdated and pre-covid. Considering the implications of this Strategy, the data should be current. It is not clear whether any actual traffic monitoring has been done at key locations in order to access what road interventions would have the greatest benefit.
In addition to the outdated TfGM data, the Strategy interpreted daily travel modes from evidence of what it describes as ‘comparable brownfield’ development sites in South Gloucestershire, including areas of Stoke Gifford, Bradley Stoke, Patchway and Filton, on the northern edge of Bristol. These sites have their own train stations and are home to industries such as aerospace and hi-tech engineering. This is hardly comparable to New Carrington, Partington, Warburton and Sale West, where there are no train stations and the main industry is HGV intensive warehousing and logistics. Also, New Carrington is not just brownfield, it is green belt, comprising peatmoss, woodlands, wetlands and grade 2 agricultural land.
What about the traffic data?
We have been collecting our own traffic data at key junctions in Carrington and Sale West for several years, but to verify the figures in the report, we collected some specific data in February and March 2024. The results of our survey are as follows:
Cars and Vans
Table 1 shows the average number of cars per hour, during peak times, at the junction of the Carrington Spur and Carrington Lane in Sale West. The red data was recorded during school term time and the blue data was recorded during school holidays.
As expected, the number of cars increases around this junction during term time. The data shows during term time there are almost four times as many cars travelling from the M60 to Sale West. Also, the number of cars travelling from Carrington to Sale West is more than double during term time and the number of cars travelling from Sale West to Carrington is more than tripled.
On average, a total of 2,728 cars pass through this junction during peak times. During term time, 48% of the car traffic from the M60 is heading towards Sale West and 43% of the traffic heading towards the M60 is from Sale West. Additionally, 39% of the traffic from Carrington is heading towards Sale West and 47% of the traffic from Sale West is heading towards Carrington.
Other observations at this junction are:
Traffic queuing along the Carrington Spur Road from the M60.
Traffic queuing along Carrington Lane towards the M60.
Other routes were flowing freely.
2 buses maximum during the survey period.
Table 2 shows the average number of cars per hour during peak times at the junction of the A6144, Flixton Road and Isherwood Road in Carrington. The red data was recorded during school term time and the blue data was recorded during school holidays.
As expected, car traffic increases during term time, with the exception of those vehicles headed towards Isherwood Road. During term time the car traffic from Carrington to Flixton increases by almost five times. 62% of the car traffic from Carrington is headed towards Flixton. It is also interesting to see that 36% of the traffic headed towards the M60 is from Flixton.
Other observations at this junction are:
All traffic was flowing and there was no queuing at any junction.
Some traffic was travelling at excessive speeds, including HGVs.
3 buses maximum during the survey period.
According to the data in the Transport Strategy, 875 cars travel from Partington and Carrington to Urmston (the report does not mention Flixton) on a daily basis. We recorded 678 in one hour during one peak time and 282 and hour during non-peak time. It suggests that the data in the report is an underestimation for traffic moving in this direction.
The data in the transport strategy is not as specific as the data we collected but assuming the traffic from Carrington and Partington heading to ‘Sale West’ and ‘10km inside GM’ is the traffic headed towards M60, then their data suggests there are 10,587 cars per day travelling along the A6144 between Isherwood Road and the Carrington Spur Road. Our data shows 663 cars during peak time and 502 cars during non-peak time per hour. Assuming two peak times and 10 hours of non-peak traffic, that is a total of 6,346 cars travelling along this route. This time, the data in the report seems an over-estimation for cars travelling along this section of the A6144.
We will repeat our traffic count in the coming months, to test the validity of this result.
HGV Traffic
The data shows that during peak times there are approximately 152 heavy goods vehicles at the Carrington Spur junction and 213 at the Isherwood Road junction per hour. At non-peak times, there are 208 and 206 respectively. This suggests that HGV traffic is consistent irrespective of peak or non-peak times and is in excess of 2,000 per day. This figure will increase significantly as the proposed new warehousing is built.
Conclusions
Our data shows that:
The A6144 Carrington Lane in Sale West has as much car traffic as the A6144 in the direction of Carrington, as 48% of the traffic from the M60 turns towards Sale West during peak times.
The A6144 between Isherwood Road and the Carrington Spur has less car traffic than that suggested in the report.
There was no queuing traffic at the junction of the A6144 and Flixton Road during peak time. There was, however, significant queuing on the Carrington Spur and on Carrington Lane.
There is a massive increase in car traffic during term time indicating that there is insufficient public transport for students to get to school and a large proportion of students are travelling to schools from either outside the catchment area or from outside the borough.
Considering the findings of this data, how will the relief road reduce the traffic issues highlighted?
The biggest issue for the residents of Carrington Village has always been the large number of heavy goods vehicles that pass their front door every day. The existing A1 Road could be opened immediately to redirect HGVs away from the village. This would be a quick win (if the businesses in Carrington are willing to use that road).
Partington is experiencing housing development on a huge scale. The new developments on Lock Lane, Hall Lane, Oak Road, Heath Farm Lane and the Greyhound will create another 1,291 dwellings. Despite these developments increasing the number of houses in Partington by 38%, the routes in and out of Partington will remain the same. Only after the cars and buses have contended with the congestion in Partington itself, can they access the proposed relief road further along the A6144.
For residents in Sale West and Ashton on Mersey to benefit from the proposed relief road to Carrington, they will have to access it from Carrington Lane which is already heavily congested even before the new relief road joins this junction.
In essence, residents in Carrington Village will only benefit if HGV traffic moves onto the existing A1 Road. Residents in Partington, Sale West and Ashton on Mersey will have to queue in traffic in their towns before they can access the relief road. The new relief road, which will cost at least £76 million offers no relief to these residents who will see the population in their area increase significantly as a result of the Places for Everyone Plan. There will be an additional 2,260 houses in Partington and Warburton, 1,443 in Sale West (in addition to the 263 already with planning permission) and 603 in Carrington Village.
So how can this Transport Strategy justify such significant expenditure on a road that offers no solution to traffic issues that already exist?
There are other considerations here too:
Why hasn’t the A1 Road already been opened to HGV traffic to resolve the issues in Carrington Village?
Why are so many students being driven to school?
Do the school admissions policies in Trafford need reforming?
Does the Education authority or TfGM need to look at providing school buses?
The data shows that it is school traffic and heavy goods vehicles that create the congestion along the A6144. These are the issues that need addressing rather than spending £76 million on a scheme that will not solve the transport issues that have plagued this area for decades. This money could contribute towards the ‘scenario 3’ solution in the Transport Strategy and should be invested in long term, sustainable passenger and freight transport interventions.
There are several options that could be considered, such as:
opening the railway bridge between Irlam and Partington to give residents access to trains
opening up the ‘greenway’ and the former railway line from Partington to Altrincham to give residents access to trams
revisiting the 2012 Local Plan option to build a bridge from Carrington to Port Salford.
These are long term sustainable options that will reduce congestion and open up Greater Manchester and the rest of the UK to residents of these local areas.
What we need is a Transport Strategy that meets residents’ requirements, why isn’t Trafford talking to us about it?
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.