Unsustainable New Carrington – “Trapped Behind the Wheel”
by Lorraine Eagling
Where we live and how we get around are key to what shapes our everyday lives. A recent New Economics Foundation (NEF) report ‘Trapped Behind the Wheel’ found that
“far from moving our economy towards sustainability and improved wellbeing, England’s new homes in recent years have increasingly encouraged car-dependent lifestyles.
One factor in this change has been the outsized share of new homes being built in rural areas, which has risen continually across the country in recent years”.
New Carrington will be one of these car and HGV-dependent developments that will not be sustainable, nor will it deliver improved wellbeing for new and existing residents. The majority of the housing and warehousing will be located on grade 2 agricultural land and part of a restorable 335 hectare peatmoss!
Despite the proximity of New Carrington to Partington, Carrington and Sale West, there is currently a lack of adequate public transport and no committed funding for new public transport infrastructure. In fact, there are no plans to connect New Carrington to the water, rail or tram network, despite the allocation being adjacent to the Manchester Ship Canal, having former railway lines running through the site and it being the largest development in Greater Manchester.
The Council are pushing ahead with this plan regardless of the experience of the past 15 years, which shows us that, without substantial changes and investment into new public transport infrastructure, there is a major risk of locking in increased car and HGV dependency for decades to come.
As a result, Trafford Council and the Government will not be able to deliver priorities such as
Bringing the cost of living down to more manageable levels, reducing spatial inequality and responding adequately to the climate emergency
In most cases, residents in New Carrington will face the higher costs of car dependent living. Their ability to enter paid employment or the training needed to secure a well-paid job is constrained by the availability of local public transport infrastructure.
Although there are plans to improve bus services as part of the masterplan, Partington, Carrington and Sale West have seen bus services reduce significantly over recent years, so any increase in services provides no net gain overall.
“A 2021 study demonstrated that in ‘left-behind’ neighbourhoods, which have high deprivation and poor social infrastructure provision, public transport is worse than average (74% have no railway station and bus journeys per capita have declined faster than the national average). Residents are less able to afford to compensate by owning a car (40% of households have no car, compared with 26% across England). These areas of the country typically have worse connectivity than the English average but rely more than other parts of the country on their local bus service”. (Emmet Kiberd, Benedikt Straňák, NEF, November 2024)
So, why is there no commitment to invest in new public transport infrastructure such as reopening the rail line between Irlam and Timperley? Part of the answer may lie in the following figures.
“The public transport system in wealthier parts of the country, such as London and the south-east, is much more effective and gives residents there far more access to jobs than the equivalents in the north-west, Yorkshire, and parts of the Midlands. Despite this, public investment in transport has tended to overlook the parts of the country where it is most needed. The north of England would have received an additional £51bn in public investment in transport if it had matched the per capita level seen in London from 2014/15 to 2019/20. Similarly, investment in active travel infrastructure between 2016 and 2021 was £24 per person in London but only £10 per person in the rest of England. (Emmet Kiberd, Benedikt Straňák, NEF, November 2024)”
Regardless of the lack in funding in the north for public transport, Trafford Council plan to build a relief road (the name is misleading), with a current cost of £76million, which is very likely to rise!
Why isn’t this money being used for new public transport infrastructure? If the Government is to deliver on its priorities, when there is a ‘black hole’ in public finances, surely public transport must take priority over road building.
Then, there is another question, why is Trafford pushing ahead with this development when there are other available sites and enough windfall sites over the past four years to provide 40% of the housing target for New Carrington?
Emmet Kiberd and Benedikt Straňák (NEF, November 2024) suggest the reasons behind these questions are
- “Favour cheaper greenfield land in a profit-driven housing development system.
- Relatively lower levels of local political opposition to new developments in more remote areas.
- A lack of early, integrated planning of transport, housing, and development sites, reinforced by substantial underfunding of public planning departments.
The provision of public transport and active travel for new homes is affected by:
- The insufficiency of Section 106 funds to cover the public transport needed, together with the lack of negotiating power for councils tends to see transport provision lose out in a trade-off against social housing, community facilities, and other items.
- The use of large amounts of public funding on expensive road infrastructure alongside new developments, encouraged by a lack of advance transport planning and car-centred approaches.
- The provision of public transport and active travel for new homes, which is affected by poor public transport and active travel provision in adjacent neighbourhoods, due to congestion and a lack of safe walking and cycling routes”.
Clearly, there is a need for ambitious policies and brave decisions in relation to the New Carrington Masterplan because the second-best solutions that present themselves are unlikely to solve the problems and deliver the priorities that will bring the cost of living down to more manageable levels, reduce spatial inequality and respond adequately to the climate emergency.

You must be logged in to post a comment.