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!
There have been numerous concerns raised about the route of the Carrington ‘Relief’ Road across Carrington Moss, as it will cause significant harms to both human and wildlife populations and several of our members have suggested that there is a significant lack of awareness shown by those making the decisions about this proposal.
With this in mind, we hope you will all join us on a walk along the public rights of way near to the Carrington Moss part of the route for the new road. We plan to meet on Dainewell Park on Saturday 8th February at 2pm.
We’d like you to invite your Councillors and your MP to join us on the walk, so we can share our concerns. If you are not sure who your Councillors or your MP are, click on this link to find out. You just need to put in your post code and, hey presto, the information is there. When the details come up, you will see a link at the right-hand side which says “Write to all your Councillors”. You can drop them a note and invite them to come along. If you click on your MP’s name, you can also send an email to him inviting him to come along and hear your concerns about the road. The more invitations the politicians receive, the more likely they are to join us on the walk.
As we mentioned in our previous blog (Call for Action 1 Respond to the Consultation), the Friends of Carrington Moss welcome the long-awaited opening of the A1 route through the employment area of Carrington, but all HGVs should be required to use that route, rather than travelling along the A6144 through Carrington Village. The CRR consultation confirms that “HGVs will not be banned on the A6144” but this should be challenged in consultation responses.
It is disgraceful that Trafford Council have enabled the current situation being experienced by Trafford residents living in Carrington, including the air, noise, light and vibration pollution they are suffering day and night. During the past more than 10 years of planning for unviable and unsustainable growth here, Trafford Council has not identified and/or committed funding for sustainable passenger and freight transport solutions for the area. This is particularly shocking given the anticipated number of HGVs using local roads each day, including those that will carry hazardous materials. There are various alternative options Trafford could have considered, including using the former railway lines, the Manchester Ship Canal and the potential to deploy pipelines (there are several of these in the area already)!
We do, though, have major concerns about the part of the route which runs across Carrington Moss. Not just because of the impact it will cause to Sale West residents and the lack of benefits to surrounding communities, but also because of the harm it will cause to the 335-hectare peat moss (described by Natural England as irreplaceable and restorable), the productive Grade 2 agricultural land, the extensive woodland and the wetland habitats. All of which are essential to a sustainable future for our children and grandchildren. The road, and the wider plans for New Carrington, will also significantly impact 15 sites of biological importance and a site of special scientific significance.
Click here to join our online public meeting on 28th January at 6pm to discuss these issues further. All are welcome.
Finally, despite highlighting previous inaccurate, incomplete or misleading information in CRR materials, the consultation resources (letters and website) have yet more examples. We will be requesting a further Call for Action from local communities. Look out for our next blog for more information on this.
As the first Carrington Relief Road (CRR) consultation goes live today (20th January 2025), we are issuing our first Call for Action to local communities. Please take the time to respond and encourage friends and family to participate too.
The consultation period includes some face-to-face sessions, and we hope you will be able to attend one of these. Just a reminder that the current CRR team are NOT responsible for the decisions made in the past and that they have been directed to give a very limited scope to the consultation, which is only based on the design of the road!
The inadequacies of this consultation have been determined by Trafford Council, and they have repeatedly rejected our requests for communities to be able to influence the wider aspects of transport solutions for the area – our next Call for Action will address this failure (see below).
This consultation ends on 28th February. Your inputs are extremely important, so do click on this link to read Trafford’s materials and submit your own response. We will be discussing this consultation at our next online public meeting on 28th January (6pm),the link to the meeting is hereand all are very welcome to join us.
At the meeting, we will highlight some of the key points to consider, which include the following:
there are two parts to the Carrington Relief Road (CRR):
we are totally supportive of the upgrading of the A1 route in Carrington (this runs through the employment zone from Isherwood Road to the A6144 near Saica Paper), all HGVs should be encouraged to use this road, rather than the A6144 through Carrington Village – this could have come forward years ago without any objections!
we are totally against the development of the road across Carrington Moss and have been proposing our alternative to Trafford for the last 4 years, without success – they are only interested in promoting the CRR, despite its escalating costs – it is a commitment to support development – not a solution aimed at benefiting existing communities
how the current design ‘benefits’ communities:
Carrington residents will only benefit from this new road if through-traffic and HGVs are unable to use the A6144 through the village, with appropriate traffic calming mechanisms put in place (otherwise, residents here will just be surrounded by constant traffic and the associated pollutant impacts)
Partington and Warburton residents will, sadly, not benefit from the scheme – Trafford has acknowledged that the road will induce additional traffic, much of which is likely to continue through Partington and Warburton, seeking an alternative route to the motorways, furthermore, given the low levels of car ownership in Partington, a new road will not reduce the isolation of this community (unlike a tram/train connection)
Sale West residents will be the most negatively affected by the scheme, they will suffer from huge increases to air, noise, light, vibration and water pollution, a significant, intensified and more frequent risk of local flooding, and the loss of the current safe, healthy and pleasant traffic-free recreational routes – we recognise that the recorded and unrecorded public rights of way will still be there, but, with the road solution, residents will be walking, cycling and horse riding next to the over 40,000 motor vehicles expected to use the road each day (including over 3,000 HGVs) – the number of vehicles will significantly increase from the current traffic numbers due to the proposed developments in the area and the induced traffic using the road as a ‘rat-run’!
Urmston residents will not benefit from the scheme either, but they are also likely to see an increase in traffic on their local roads and the risk of local flooding will increase due to the loss of water capture and storage on Carrington Moss (we do not believe the proposed attenuation ponds will be sufficient to replace the capacity lost when the road is built)
how the design ‘mitigates and compensates for the impact on the natural environment’:
the part of the road that cuts across Carrington Moss will severely impact red listed birds (including, for example, the skylark, which is prevalent along the route of the road) and protected/endangered species – we are very saddened by the thought of yet more roadkill!
the road will fracture the corridors used by wildlife and birds to access food and water sources – this will result in further depletion of their species
the road will also damage the peat moss (a restorable 335-hectare irreplaceable habitat according to Natural England) and the sites of biological importance/site of special scientific interest, even where these are not directly impacted – this is because of the changes to hydrology that will be required to keep the road water-free
it is likely that Trafford will consider that the attenuation ponds will replace the immense water capture and storage functionality of the moss – we think they underestimate the level of water captured here and this could lead to huge risks for local communities
Trafford is also likely to assume that these pond areas will create biodiversity gains, but what must be considered is that the losses will be experienced immediately, whereas any gains could take years to deliver, and, in that time, species will be lost to the area forever
the road will also impact the potential opportunities to support the Local Nature Recovery Strategy
the loss of productive Grade 2 agricultural land will impact future food security as this cannot be replaced elsewhere in Trafford
how the design constrains the development of the New Carrington Masterplan which is currently under development and covers the whole allocation area:
the CRR will significantly restrict and constrain what is possible in terms of recreational, ecological and natural capital benefits for the Sale West area, considerably increasing the inequities of access to green space for residents
the Natural Infrastructure Strategy underpinning the Masterplan has not yet even been discussed – this should determine the approach to mitigation and compensation for environmental and ecological harms to be caused across the allocation area (including the cumulative harms) – such issues should not be addressed as piecemeal solutions for individual developments, including the CRR.
Whilst we are keen for residents to respond as constructively as possible to this consultation, we also need to recognise that Trafford has not given communities the opportunity to influence either:
the choice of transport options for this area (why weren’t we asked if we wanted trams or trains, given the size and scale of the developments they are proposing, the number of years this has been under consideration, and the sheer common sense that we should make full use of the former railway lines running through the allocation area and the proximity of the Manchester Ship Canal?), or
the route options for the road.
You might want to mention this in the final section of the response questionnaire (headed “Further Comments / Queries), but with these things in mind, there will be a future Call for Action from local communities to address the total lack of previous consultation about the CRR.
Look out for our next blog for more community action on the Carrington Relief Road Consultation.
Houses on stilts? An estate by the lake? HGVs replaced by boats (well we like that idea)!
The recent heavy rainfall event significantly impacted many in our communities (and beyond), not only causing disruption to travel and a lot of inconvenience (wonder who’ll be jailed for that*) but also, very sadly, causing the deaths of wildlife and domestic animals. The Manchester Evening News (2nd January) reported that 1,000 people were evacuated from their homes and several major roads were under water and closed for a long period.
Whilst Trafford was “working closely with the Environment Agency, fire and rescue services, and the police to provide support to those in urgent need”, there was a huge amount of community support too. Thanks to everyone who did their bit, particular thanks to Carrington Riding Centre for their support to those affected (humans and animals).
Despite the Environment Agency issuing six flood warning and four flood alerts, the Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, astoundingly stated that the severity of the flooding took authorities by surprise because no specific warnings were given! He has called for “accountability”. We wonder what he actually means by that.
Will he and his colleagues, the leaders of 9 districts in Greater Manchester, be held accountable, for example, for their decision to allocate land that is essential for climate mitigation in his Places for Everyone Spatial Plan. One of those allocations is New Carrington, in which Trafford Council proposes to approve the development of 5,000 houses, 350,000m2 warehousing and 4 major new roads!
These developments will mean that huge swathes of land that is currently capturing and storing thousands of litres of water will be concreted over, against the wishes of local communities, causing significant environmental and ecological harm and causing enormous risks to future generations (and not just in relation to flooding).
There is a lack of understanding at Trafford Council about just how much water is hosted by Carrington Moss. This area has saved local communities from more severe flooding for decades. You can see some of our videos showing the extent of flooding in previous years on the Carrington Lake page of our website.
The Met Office (and many others) have reported that rainfall is now heavier and more frequent than in the past. Their scientists found that “rainfall associated with storms is becoming both more intense and more likely”. Whereas we could, at one time, expect such events to be once in 50 years or so, those extreme weather conditions are now expected to occur at least once every five years.
This means that wetland habitats, like Carrington Moss, are hugely valuable for the ecosystem services they provide.
What is really worrying many in existing communities though, is that, if this very wet land is developed, future heavy rainfall events will not have the benefit of Carrington Moss to protect local areas. Once a flood event has happened to their homes, residents will find it difficult to get insurance and there will be huge costs to the public sector (which is funded by us).
Much of the land that is proposed for development is under high levels of water. The Council and developers will tell residents that they have a sustainable drainage strategy but let’s be clear, draining all this water into the River Mersey (or Sinderland Brook) will cause local and downstream flooding. This is contrary to national guidance and our concerns about this issue have been repeatedly ignored by Trafford, the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and the PfE Planning Inspectors.
Will they all be held accountable for future flood events that occur here and in surrounding communities?
Many of you will have seen the Manchester Evening News article that reported the closure (once again) of the A555 Airport Relief Road, which had cars submerged to their rooftops! Transport solutions such as this do not benefit anyone, and as Trafford themselves admit, the new road here (Carrington Relief Road) is expected to induce additional traffic into the area (definitely not what we need).
We are currently expecting the consultation for the Carrington Relief Road to be issued later this month. Please keep this flooding in mind when you respond. We believe our alternative option is a more sustainable solution that will benefit both current and future residents.
For more information about our ongoing campaign, please sign up to our monthly newsletter here and join us at our monthly online public meetings.
Note: Image credits Rob Duncan, Mary Lennon and Tony Shearwood
*for anyone who does not understand this reference, protestors who cause inconvenience to others by, for example, sitting in the road to raise an issue, can be jailed – yet those who knowingly make decisions that result in far more serious implications, such as planning for or approving development in areas that should be capturing flood water, putting current and future communities at real risk of harm, currently escape any accountability or punishment!
Where we live and how we get around are key to what shapes our everyday lives. A recent New Economics Foundation (NEF) report ‘Trapped Behind the Wheel’ found that
“far from moving our economy towards sustainability and improved wellbeing, England’s new homes in recent years have increasingly encouraged car-dependent lifestyles.
One factor in this change has been the outsized share of new homes being built in rural areas, which has risen continually across the country in recent years”.
New Carrington will be one of these car and HGV-dependent developments that will not be sustainable, nor will it deliver improved wellbeing for new and existing residents. The majority of the housing and warehousing will be located on grade 2 agricultural land and part of a restorable 335 hectare peatmoss!
Despite the proximity of New Carrington to Partington, Carrington and Sale West, there is currently a lack of adequate public transport and no committed funding for new public transport infrastructure. In fact, there are no plans to connect New Carrington to the water, rail or tram network, despite the allocation being adjacent to the Manchester Ship Canal, having former railway lines running through the site and it being the largest development in Greater Manchester.
The Council are pushing ahead with this plan regardless of the experience of the past 15 years, which shows us that, without substantial changes and investment into new public transport infrastructure, there is a major risk of locking in increased car and HGV dependency for decades to come.
As a result, Trafford Council and the Government will not be able to deliver priorities such as
Bringing the cost of living down to more manageable levels, reducing spatial inequality and responding adequately to the climate emergency
In most cases, residents in New Carrington will face the higher costs of car dependent living. Their ability to enter paid employment or the training needed to secure a well-paid job is constrained by the availability of local public transport infrastructure.
Although there are plans to improve bus services as part of the masterplan, Partington, Carrington and Sale West have seen bus services reduce significantly over recent years, so any increase in services provides no net gain overall.
“A 2021 study demonstrated that in ‘left-behind’ neighbourhoods, which have high deprivation and poor social infrastructure provision, public transport is worse than average (74% have no railway station and bus journeys per capita have declined faster than the national average). Residents are less able to afford to compensate by owning a car (40% of households have no car, compared with 26% across England). These areas of the country typically have worse connectivity than the English average but rely more than other parts of the country on their local bus service”. (Emmet Kiberd, Benedikt Straňák, NEF, November 2024)
So, why is there no commitment to invest in new public transport infrastructure such as reopening the rail line between Irlam and Timperley? Part of the answer may lie in the following figures.
“The public transport system in wealthier parts of the country, such as London and the south-east, is much more effective and gives residents there far more access to jobs than the equivalents in the north-west, Yorkshire, and parts of the Midlands. Despite this, public investment in transport has tended to overlook the parts of the country where it is most needed. The north of England would have received an additional £51bn in public investment in transport if it had matched the per capita level seen in London from 2014/15 to 2019/20. Similarly, investment in active travel infrastructure between 2016 and 2021 was £24 per person in London but only £10 per person in the rest of England. (Emmet Kiberd, Benedikt Straňák, NEF, November 2024)”
Regardless of the lack in funding in the north for public transport, Trafford Council plan to build a relief road (the name is misleading), with a current cost of £76million, which is very likely to rise!
Why isn’t this money being used for new public transport infrastructure? If the Government is to deliver on its priorities, when there is a ‘black hole’ in public finances, surely public transport must take priority over road building.
Then, there is another question, why is Trafford pushing ahead with this development when there are other available sites and enough windfall sites over the past four years to provide 40% of the housing target for New Carrington?
“Favour cheaper greenfield land in a profit-driven housing development system.
Relatively lower levels of local political opposition to new developments in more remote areas.
A lack of early, integrated planning of transport, housing, and development sites, reinforced by substantial underfunding of public planning departments.
The provision of public transport and active travel for new homes is affected by:
The insufficiency of Section 106 funds to cover the public transport needed, together with the lack of negotiating power for councils tends to see transport provision lose out in a trade-off against social housing, community facilities, and other items.
The use of large amounts of public funding on expensive road infrastructure alongside new developments, encouraged by a lack of advance transport planning and car-centred approaches.
The provision of public transport and active travel for new homes, which is affected by poor public transport and active travel provision in adjacent neighbourhoods, due to congestion and a lack of safe walking and cycling routes”.
Clearly, there is a need for ambitious policies and brave decisions in relation to the New Carrington Masterplan because the second-best solutions that present themselves are unlikely to solve the problems and deliver the priorities that will bring the cost of living down to more manageable levels, reduce spatial inequality and respond adequately to the climate emergency.
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.
Members of Save Greater Manchester’s Green Belt Group (including Friends of Carrington Moss) are supporting campaigners who are concerned about the plans to construct a new loop road on the M60 motorway.
Luckily, our friends at the Transport Action Network (TAN) certainly are and they will be joining us at our online meeting to discuss the examination (see below). TAN is currently campaigning to get all the unaffordable road schemes, up and down the country, scrapped, including this one. You can help with this by writing to Transport Secretary Louise Haigh, using the TAN template (click here) to help construct your letter. The Funding Statement (paragraph 2.1.1) confirms that the cost of the Simister Island Scheme is estimated to be around £230 million, a scandalous waste of public money!
Our online meeting to discuss the Simister Island Scheme examination will be held on 17th September at 5:30pm – all are welcome – the link to the meeting is here.
If you are one of the many individuals or groups who registered as an Interested Party for the Simister Island Scheme Examination in Public, you may still be catching up with the huge list of issues that were raised in the initial Relevant Representations (you can see them all starting on page 9 of the Examination Library). Many of them are picked up in the Initial Assessment of Principal Issues (Annex C, page 18) of the Rule 6 Letter.
If you feel that something important you raised is not covered there, you should mention this in a Written Representation, see below for the deadline.
It appears that the recently adopted Places for Everyone Plan has not been taken into consideration, particularly in terms of the cumulative impacts of air, noise, light, vibration and water pollution, and, of course, carbon emissions but also in relation to land allocated for development. All of which needs further scrutiny.
The next deadline (Tuesday 24th September 2024) is for Interested Parties (that is all of those who have registered to take part in the examination) to submit Written Representations (WR), with summaries for any that exceed 1500 words. We can also make a request to be heard at a future Open Floor Hearing (OFH). Take the time to consider whether you would like to make further comments to the Planning Inspectors, would you like to submit some detailed evidence to substantiate your original representation?
There will be an opportunity for those who are affected by the proposed Compulsory Acquisitions to be heard at a specific future Hearing but those affected individuals need to make a request to be heard by 24th September.
It is possible that the Planning Inspectors will request further information in advance of the 24th September deadline, so keep an eye on the Project Updates as they are circulated.
Please forward this link to anyone who may be interested either in the update or in joining the meeting.
Committee member, Lorraine Eagling, reviews the agenda item relating to the plan for the Carrington Relief Road, which was discussed at Trafford’s Scrutiny Committee on 13th March 2024. A link to the recording (from 47:49 minutes) can be found here and the report is available here.
The new part of the relief road will be constructed across farmland, parallel to the A6144 between Isherwood Road and the Carrington Spur. In the presentation to the Scrutiny Committee the new road was described as ‘not a big road’ (despite previous suggestions that it would be a dual carriageway). The main carriageway that carries motor traffic will be 7.3 metres wide and there will be 5 metres on either side for active travel (2.5m for pedestrians and 2.5m for cyclists), so a total of 17.3 metres wide.
This field, which grew potatoes last year, will be sacrificed for the road and for housing
It is really encouraging to see that pedestrians and cyclists are given so much consideration, but would residents want to walk, let alone cycle beside a major road that carries over 3,000 heavy goods vehicles a day, along with a huge number of cars?
Would an active travel corridor that runs parallel to the existing road be a better option? We think it would!
And what about horse riders, we have over 1,000 horses stabled on and around Carrington Moss! We have repeatedly raised their needs with Trafford and yet they still don’t even get a mention in this presentation! At least one of the stables provides services to children with special educational needs. Those children will not be able to ride near to the thousands of motor vehicles that will be travelling along the Carrington Relief Road every day, the noise alone will be an issue. They currently have lots of options for circular routes along the very safe and very quiet public rights of way, short circuits or longer rides. The road is going to fracture their routes and reduce the opportunities for these very vulnerable members of our community.
The Scrutiny Committee were given a presentation on the history of New Carrington, which showed that since the closure of the railway line in the 1980’s, Partington and Carrington have become increasingly isolated and car dependant. Several Councillors raised the question of why sustainable options aren’t being re-introduced like re-opening the old railway bridge to allow for a light rail or full rail link between Irlam and Timperley. Councillor Holden explained that this idea has been around for some considerable time because a bridge was built in Broadheath so that this train line would remain viable. We know that former MP, Kate Green, with the backing of the residents of Partington and Carrington, lobbied Parliament about re-opening the line, so it is not new to Government.
Now that HS2 has been scrapped, shouldn’t this be something the GMCA and Trafford Council actively pursues? Especially when New Carrington is the largest development in the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework (frustratingly, New Carrington is described by executive members as ‘one of the largest brownfield sites in Greater Manchester’, which is highly misleading given the majority of the brownfield land already has planning approval and 169 hectares of greenbelt will be released for the development of housing, warehousing and roads, affecting a 335 hectare peatmoss, Grade 2 agricultural land, woodland and wetland habitats).
Interestingly, Stockport Council, which pulled out of GMCA’s Places for Everyone (PfE) Plan in order to protect its greenbelt, is now in talks with TfGM and GMCA to have the Metrolink extended to their new transport interchange.
So, as the largest site in the PfE Plan, why isn’t New Carrington being prioritised for such sustainable transport investment, especially when it is described as the ‘Western Gateway’?
In a recent traffic survey, carried out by Friends of Carrington Moss, during peak times we recorded approximately 50% of the traffic coming from the M60 going towards Carrington and less than 50% of the traffic from Carrington headed towards the M60. In fact, approximately 50% of the traffic coming from the M60 is headed towards Sale West and over 60% of the traffic from Carrington and Partington headed towards Flixton. Full details of our survey can be found in my previous blog here.
During term time, peak time traffic increased by approximately 500% and there was significant traffic queuing from the M60 to Sale West and from Sale West to the M60. There was no queuing traffic in other directions or at other junctions.
In essence, only half of the traffic surveyed used the existing A6144, which the new road aims to relieve! It is evident that the main cause of congestion is school traffic which could be reduced by reviewing Trafford’s school admissions policy and providing school buses. Shouldn’t the Council tackle this issue instead of spending £76.5 million on a road that only 50% of existing traffic will use and that will offer no relief to the residents of Partington and Sale West as explained in my previous blog?
At the Scrutiny meeting, Councillors also raised the issue of how the Council will raise in excess of £54 million of public money for the relief road. The Council’s Director of Growth & Regulatory Services, Adrian Fisher, acknowledged the risks and explained that when the planning committee addressed all of the infrastructure needs of New Carrington, which includes all roads, schools, playing fields etc, they decided that in theory there is enough funding from developers to meet needs. He explained that the main issue is with the sequencing of the funding, that where the main risks arise is getting the first bit of infrastructure up and running.
Sequencing is definitely an issue, as it’s the chicken or the egg scenario. Developers’ contributions are based on all development completed, but they won’t develop all sites unless the relief road is built! Mr Fisher describes the site as the biggest in Greater Manchester and it will not able to deliver houses unless the road is built!
So, at what point will the developers make their contribution? Trafford have recently had their fingers burnt when it comes to developers Section 106 contribution. Also, as mentioned in the meeting, the developer contributions are not only for this road, but for other roads that will be needed for this huge site, for schools and other community facilities. Will the developer contributions be enough for all this infrastructure? The answer is a definite NO!
Councillor Carter asked how the new road would impact the peat land to the south of the proposed carriageway, in particular relating to drainage. Mr Fisher acknowledged that there is significant peat in the south part of the site and that this will be an issue when it comes to development in that area and will be an important consideration.
We know how important peat moss is, so much so that the Government is investing in peat restoration to fight climate change. With this in mind, why would Trafford Council give planning permission to build on this precious habitat? The answer is that they are wedded to building a road, rather than advancing more sustainable options and, if they don’t give planning permission, they will not get the developers’ contributions towards the costs of the road.
Councillor Holden raised the issue of extensive contamination, and now there is the recent discovery of PFAS (Per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances) on the site. Mr Fisher acknowledged that this will be addressed when building the new road and this is why the costs of the road has increased significantly. He explained that a separate drainage system is needed to avoid contamination of groundwater as a result of run off from the road. It was confirmed that the Council will be working with the land owner/developer and the Environment Agency to come up with a solution that avoids flushing out contaminants into local watercourses and environment. We know that this area is particularly sensitive for the water environment given its location above a principal aquifer and nearby surface waters including the River Mersey and Sinderland Brook, so it is vital any contamination risks are appropriately remediated.
So, what will the true cost of the Carrington Relief Road be? Not just in financial terms but in relation to the ecology and biodiversity of the area, in relation to the health and wellbeing of residents and in relation to climate mitigation issues that will impact future generations, our children and our grandchildren?
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?
We had hoped the collaborative way the New Carrington Masterplan is being managed would prevail for other aspects of development in the area, but sadly, no! Once again, we have a “strategy” that has been agreed by Trafford’s Executive without any input from the residents who will be severely impacted by its implementation (not only by what is in the “strategy” but also by what is not)!
On the positive side, the Council has begun an open and transparent process for developing the Masterplan for New Carrington (the details are on their website here). This is good news, because, it is clear that residents have a lot to bring to the table in relation to what is needed in the area.
The Executive report itself is actually a marked improvement on previous documents created by Trafford about the Carrington Relief Road. It does acknowledge some of the issues that have arisen (and continue to be identified). In view of Trafford’s declaration of a climate emergency back in 2018 and its carbon neutral goals, set out in 2020, the accompanying Transport Strategy document, however, remains unambitious and has several major omissions.
Interestingly, that “strategy” document was produced in September 2023 but has been kept under wraps until after the Places for Everyone (P4E) Modifications Consultation was completed, which is rather disingenuous of Trafford’s politicians and officers, given that its contents signal concerns about whether the huge list of “Necessary Transport Interventions” set out at Appendix D (page 708) of the P4E Plan can, or will, be delivered.
Resident Priorities?
Whilst the production of this “strategy” is to be welcomed, there has been no involvement of the community in determining the Vision, or the aspirations, and there is nothing in the document that suggests that communities will be engaged as the “strategy” evolves in the future! It is, therefore, not a surprise that it merely continues to promote car/HGV-dependency, leaving a legacy of huge levels of air, noise, light, vibration and water pollution (to say nothing of the carbon emissions), that will result in poorer health outcomes for residents and higher costs to the public purse. There is a reference to a specific consultation about one initiative, the Carrington Relief Road, but that was supposed to commence in January 2024, so is already behind schedule.
HGV traffic on the A6144 is, by far, the biggest concern for residents, yet there are no figures in this document which identify the size of the issue (either now or in the future), nor does it explain how Trafford proposes to address this problem. The “strategy” confirms that the new road will be the panacea for freight transport! Yet, we know that businesses are not in favour of restricting HGV use on the A6144, as was confirmed in a response to a planning application. There is no indication about how the proposed route changes will be agreed with businesses and implemented so that travel through Carrington Village can be limited to local resident movements.
So, what we have now is a “strategy” which:
does not address any of the issues related to the huge number of HGVs that are travelling on local roads, there are no references to sustainable freight transport solutions and no aspirations to even consider them – is this really a strategic document?
does not estimate the anticipated induced traffic that will arise from the construction of the proposed new roads (causing more congestion, much higher levels of pollution and increased travel incidents), particularly for Partington, nor does it reveal the ultimate aim, set out in the GM Transport Strategy 2040, to create a link between the M60 and the M62 via Carrington (page 124/125), which will undoubtedly induce immense volumes of motor vehicle traffic through the area
does not even mention the importance of local travel routes to horse riders (there are more 1,000 horses stabled in and around the area – source British Horse Society) – this is a huge gap as horse riders need specific surfaces (to reduce the potential for the animals to slip in wet weather, for example, and specific crossing points) – it would be inappropriate to consider active travel routes here without including their considerations.
The background facts are rather selective, there is no reference, for example, noting that Partington has a much lower rate of car ownership (27.2% of households with no cars or vans according to Census 2021) compared to the rest of Trafford (19.3%). Neither is there any mention of the likely changes arising from the increased charges on the Warburton Toll Bridge. There are no figures highlighting the difference in traffic volumes during school term times and school holidays (there is a marked variation in numbers which we have observed in our traffic counts that could be addressed through increased school bus services, cycling buses and other initiatives).
Because the proposed new road will be constructed adjacent to and beyond Carrington, it is more likely to induce additional traffic into Partington than to relieve traffic for residents there. Other initiatives are needed to improve transport options for Partington residents, such as community transport and the reopening of the former railway line between Timperley and Irlam. This latter scheme would be highly beneficial to the people of Partington and would enable sustainable passenger and freight transport to be fully examined. Given the lack of consideration for this option from Trafford, Partington Parish Council has begun to explore opportunities to raise the funding needed for a feasibility study for the initiative.
What about the funding?
There is very little information in the document about the costs/funding of the overall “strategy”. There are only figures related to the Carrington Relief Road (£76.5m) and the overall Greater Manchester Transport Strategy 2040 (£1.1b). Our own very conservative estimate puts the overall cost of the “Necessary Transport Interventions” for the New Carrington development to be over £400m, see Appendix D (page 708) and listed in the graphic above.
That GM Transport Strategy 2040 aims to reduce car use to no more than 50% of daily trips by 2040 and reduce demand on road space from freight, moving freight traffic onto rail and water-based transport by the same date. The associated Transport Delivery Plan states that “The Right-Mix aim is for 50% of trips to be made by sustainable modes across GM. This will require zero net growth in motor vehicle traffic between 2017 and 2040, and non-car mode share to increase from 39% of all trips in 2017 to 50% of trips in 2040”.
With the strategic aim to significantly reduce motor vehicle traffic by 2040 (just 16 years away) in mind, along with the requirement for zero net growth in motor vehicle traffic, there is surely no business case for public money to be invested in a new road, that will impact the borough’s and the region’s carbon neutral ambitions, and generate huge levels of air, noise, light, vibration and water pollution.
Given the very marginal viability of the allocation, especially taking into consideration the contamination issues raised at the Executive Committee meeting, we believe that the public purse will be required to pick up the vast majority of these funding requirements and/or local residents will be forced to accept a huge development without the benefit of the Necessary Transport Interventions to make it, not only sustainable, but also tolerable.
The Committee Report particularly highlights (paragraph 5.9) the long-elapsed time of the funding period for the Carrington Relief Road (a 9-year funding programme). Consideration should be given to alternative options that may reduce the cost impact for the public purse and make sustainable transport solutions a reality. This could include upgrading the existing routes (A6144 and the A1 currently private road in Carrington), along with significant enhancements to the public rights of way across Carrington Moss, making them suitable for extensive active travel, horse riding and, possibly, bus services only. This would be a much more attractive option for encouraging modal shift as walking and cycling next to huge numbers of HGVs and other motor vehicle traffic is unpleasant, unhealthy and unsafe.
At the Executive Committee meeting a number of insightful questions were raised by Councillors, including Councillor Welton, who asked why there is no analysis of the costs of not achieving Scenario 3 (which is the most sustainable option). As Councillor Welton highlighted, not achieving that scenario will lead to higher costs in terms of carbon emissions, poorer public health outcomes, increased traffic incidents and congestion and higher costs of road maintenance.
More Missing information – Carbon Emissions!
The Transport Strategy does not include any information about the carbon implications. There are no calculations that estimate what impact the different scenarios could have on Trafford’s carbon neutral ambitions.
Interestingly, the “strategy” references the Greater Cambridge Local Plan to support its assertions in relation to compable sites. In the P4E assessment work we have done with partner organisations, including Steady State Manchester (who produced an excellent document which calculates the carbon emissions resulting from P4E), our responses to the Planning Inspectors included reference to the Greater Cambridge Local Plan. Their plan, unlike P4E, incorporated a Strategic Environmental Assessment that calculated the projected carbon emissions for each spatial option being considered (and they were comparable to the spatial options set out in P4E). Cambridge discovered that coupling residential development and public transport leads to approximately 20% lower carbon emissions than a strategy that promotes car-dependent development in the Green Belt!
Given Trafford’s climate emergency declaration and carbon neutral ambitions, the document should be very clear how such a large development, and the associated road infrastructure, will impact both Trafford’s and the region’s carbon neutral goals. The lack of sustainable freight transport options is a key consideration here because the carbon implications of the huge numbers of HGVs will be significant.
Comparing New Carrington with similar areas?
The “comparable” areas mentioned in the document are not actually analogous with New Carrington. The benchmark sites (such as Filton, which has the UK’s largest Aerospace Area – BAE Systems, Rolls Royce, Airbus to name a few) are home to a Global Technology Centre and companies such as Filton Systems, Hewlett Packard and Viridor. These industries are not like those businesses that are currently operating in (or are proposed for) New Carrington, which are predominantly warehousing/logistics units that generate extremely high numbers of HGV journeys.
Additionally, Filton and the surrounding areas of Stoke Gifford, and Patchway each have their own train station, whereas Carrington, Partington, Sale West and Warburton have no train stations and non are proposed in this “strategy”. Another “comparable” site, Waterbeach, is a new development but, unlike New Carrington, it is getting its own train station. There are no large warehousing sites proposed for that location. It will have flexible workspaces and hubs (more cottage industry makers and creators) and, therefore, limited HGV traffic! It is a real challenge to understand how these sites can be considered to be “comparable” to the New Carrington location!
The Executive Report states (paragraph 9.1) that “New Carrington will be the main growth point in Trafford for the next decade or more” but the New Carrington allocation is not even comparable to Trafford’s other major warehousing location – Trafford Park does have sustainable freight transport solutions!
What about the deep peat deposits on Carrington Moss?
At the P4E Examination in Public, Natural England’s contributions included the following:
Natural England (NE) wrote to the planning inspectors in June 2023 (OD42), stating that there is extensive and restorable deep peat within allocation JPA33 (New Carrington), that the deep peat should be considered to be an irreplaceable habitat, and that “the combination of the location and the extent of development proposed by the allocation policy means the proposed development is incompatible with avoiding the deterioration of this irreplaceable habitat”
NE’s view, set out in OD23, is that the development will not only prevent future restoration but “will cause irreversible damage to the body of peat directly under the developed land and the wider peat mass, which depends on the continuity of the flow of water”. They go on to recognise that the degradation of the peat mass will also result in significant greenhouse gas emissions
NE confirmed (in OD42) that their position is in line with the England Peat Action Plan, that there should be no development on (restorable) deep peat, and that peat should be kept wet and in the ground. NE drew attention to their “extensive experience of peatland restoration projects” which provides considerable credibility to their professional judgement in this matter.
So, for Trafford to conclude in the report (paragraph 7.7) that “peat is not considered to be a significant constraint on future infrastructure provision” demonstrates a huge lack of understanding of the impact of hydrology on the main body of peat, which Natural England estimates to be around 335 hectares. This is not a surprise, as it is recognised that Natural England are the experts, not Trafford, and their advice should be followed.
Even More Omissions from the “Strategy”!
Whilst the 29th January Executive Committee report mentions that the 2006 Unitary Development Plan (UDP) included a safeguarded route for the road and that the 2012 Core Strategy significantly underestimated the cost of such a route, it does not explain why the land that was safeguarded for the Manchester Ship Canal bridge is not included in the Transport Strategy. This was also a Proposal E15 requirement in the 2006 UDP and one of the Implementation Projects listed in the 2012 Core Strategy (p80). This initiative would reduce the number of HGVs (and other vehicles) on local roads significantly. It is clear that the majority of the actions set out in previous local plans have not been delivered in this area and the potential benefits of the most sustainable solutions, particularly for freight, (such as bringing the former railway line back into use and/or transporting goods via the Manchester Ship Canal) have been totally ignored by Trafford for almost two decades.
The Carrington Relief Road appears to be going through a name change to the A1 Link Road. The recognition that this road will not “relieve” anyone is welcome but we do wonder where the road will link from and to! The government’s announcement about the funding to be made available as a result of cancelling HS2:states that “more than £500 million in funding will be provided for 2 major road schemes around Manchester. These include a new link road between the M62 and the M60”. Whilst this initiative is set out in the Greater Manchester 2040 Transport Delivery Plan, and we assume the A1 link road is ultimately being proposed to provide the first stage of this scheme, the “strategy” makes no mention of this longer-term proposal.
More information:
There are many tables full of confusing information throughout the document. The calculations about the number of trips do not include the current traffic numbers, the HGV movements and there is no estimate about the expected level of induced traffic. So, effectively, there is no assessment of the expected overall traffic levels on the new road.
The “strategy” states (page 18) that “Employment provision in the area should offer a wide range of employment types” and (page 15) that currently 6% of car journeys and 7% of public transport journeys are internal (within Carrington and Partington). This suggests few residents currently work in the Carrington area, an assertion borne out by our own research. The current and proposed employment development does not offer a diverse range of job opportunities (despite the assumption on page 38). It is predominantly warehousing which requires a small, low paid workforce. There should be more evidence to show how the target of 17% of internal journeys can be achieved.
The current conditions (set out on page 14) focus on Carrington and Partington, without referencing the issues related to Sale West or Warburton, which will be impacted significantly by this “strategy” and, as mentioned above, totally omits any reference to the huge number of HGV movements in the area.
What next?
We have requested a meeting with Trafford to discuss the contents of the “strategy” further and will provide an update to residents as soon as we are clearer about the implications.
Trafford has a website page dedicated to the Carrington Relief Road, you can access it here.
You can find our previous blogs about the Carrington Relief Road by scrolling down at this link.
Friends of Carrington Moss 
You must be logged in to post a comment.