Tag Archives: sustainability

Developer Contributions Consultation

Posted on by Leave a comment

Also known as Trafford’s New Carrington Masterplan Funding Mechanism and Delivery Strategy Consultation (closing date 15th October)

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!

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3uG5SzmzjA

[2] https://friendsofcarringtonmoss.com/carrington-lake-2/

[3] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/67aafe8f3b41f783cca46251/NPPF_December_2024.pdf

Poor Public Transport for the New Carrington Allocation Area

Posted on by Leave a comment

Lorraine Eagling

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, New Carrington certainly does not!

Call for Action 2 – Carrington Relief Road!

Posted on by Leave a comment

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.

Call for Action 1 – Carrington Relief Road!

Posted on by One comment

Respond to the Consultation

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 here and 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.

What exactly is the Vision for New Carrington?

Posted on by Leave a comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unsustainable New Carrington – “Trapped Behind the Wheel”

Posted on by 2 comments

by Lorraine Eagling

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Simister Island Road Scheme

Posted on by One comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Carrington Moss – once again supports local residents

Posted on by Leave a comment

Capturing and storing huge volumes of water, reducing the risk of our rivers bursting their banks as frequently as they otherwise would do! 

The ditches are full and Carrington Lake has reappeared, the water is extensive and deep, so take care when you are out and about, especially if visibility is poor.

With flood warnings relating to Storm Henk being issued today, it is useful to remind local residents of the many ecosystem services delivered by Carrington Moss (also known as the Moors to some local people) and the extensive natural capital benefits the area provides.

Trafford’s Natural Capital Account states that “a natural capital approach is about everyone understanding the benefits – ensuring the protection and enhancement of natural assets are fully considered in decision making”.  So, the Places for Everyone (P4E) plan should have taken full account of the natural capital value of peat, for example, incorporating all the ecosystem services it provides, and the plan should have evaluated all the other natural capital benefits and ecosystem services of the Green Belt land to be released if the P4E plan is adopted as currently proposed.

The extensive natural capital assets at New Carrington include its:

  • soil resources (the peat mass and the Grade 2 best and most versatile agricultural land)
  • vegetation, including extensive woodlands, hedgerows and other plants
  • natural flood management and carbon capture capabilities
  • ecological corridors, which sustain the habitats of over 25 red listed birds and a number of endangered/protected wildlife species, insects and reptiles
  • ability to reduce the impact of air, noise, light, vibration and water pollution in the surrounding areas
  • active travel routes, which are used extensively for walking, cycling and horse riding (there are over 1,000 horses stabled on and around Carrington Moss)
  • access to nature-based recreational activities which provide physical and mental health benefits to local communities, including social prescribing
  • access to nature-based volunteering activities and outdoor learning for schools
  • preservation of heritage assets
  • extensive landscape views, which are typical of lowland mossland habitats.

Our own, very conservative, estimates suggest that Carrington Moss accrues over £15m in natural capital benefits each year.  We understand this benefit is not included in the £71m figure calculated by Trafford.  They have decided not to capture all assets but have identified those they believe represent “the most critical in an urban context”.  This is consistent with the approach taken by P4E, which completely ignores our rural communities, the rural economy and rural assets, including the associated natural capital benefits provided.

The plans for development on Carrington Moss will cause significant harm to its natural capital assets and we do not believe a comprehensive evidence base has been assembled (contrary to the statement in P4E document 07.01.25, paragraph 1.8).  The majority of the natural capital assets within the New Carrington allocation area have not been measured and there are many data omissions in the P4E documentation. 

Our public bodies appear to have no understanding of what will be lost as a result of the unnecessary and unsustainable plan to release our Green Belt.  Trafford’s current plan includes the destruction of historic wetland habitats, then the creation of new areas of wetland.  This is totally irrational, does not make either ecological or financial sense, will require funding from the public purse, and would not represent the best value for public money.

Neither Trafford, nor the GMCA, have undertaken an assessment of the consequential loss of natural capital assets or the impact to ecosystem services that will occur if the P4E plan is adopted as currently proposed.  This is despite GM’s 5 year Environment Plan (5YEP) setting out the responsibilities for Local Authorities, which appear to have been ignored, including:

  • “GMCA and LAs will embed a natural capital approach into strategy and plan development
  • GMCA and LAs will support peatland restoration approaches and provide a clear framework for approach and delivery as part of a resilience strategy”.

The 5YEP also aims to prioritise action to “protect, maintain and enhance our key natural assets”, including restoring “50-75% of our peatlands” (odd, then, that Trafford plans to destroy a 335 hectare peat moss).  

How local residents can support Carrington Moss

With all the above in mind, please take the time to sign and share our petition asking the Secretary of State to review the Places for Everyone Plan as it does not bring any benefits to local residents and could result in severe consequences, including the increased risk of future local flooding!