Responses

Objectors to the scheme have responded to the Representations from LCC, contained in the massive (93 MB) file on IPC/NID website, and others.

These are some of the responses:

 

From Alan James:

·      Highways Agency (HA) appears to accepting the lower standards for slip roads at J34 of the M6 in LCC’s new design, which must compromise safety.           <AJ Response to HA>

·      Heysham Port is NOT one of the “Strategic Ports” identified by DfT.       <AJ Response Heysham Port>

·      The plan to demolish bat roosts at Cottam’s farm (for the P&R site) is contrary to the Habitats Directive. <AJ Response to NE>

·      The evidence from the ferry companies highlights how successful they have been, and are now, without a new road. <AJ Response to Ferry Companies>

·      LCC       <AJ Response to LCC>

§      does not address the charge that it has not followed the government’s appraisal process;

§      forecasts that traffic will be up to 30% lower than previously, but does not go on to conclude that this weakens the case for the road;

§      fails to justify the damage to the Green Belt;

§      presents costings that are flawed

§      changed the design at Shefferlands leading to unacceptable gradients from the new Lune bridge

 

From John Whitelegg:   <JW Response>

·      Regional Planning Policy, as expressed in the North West Regional strategy, does not mention the Port of Heysham.

·      Traffic forecasts show 20% to 30% less traffic. International studies show that the period of traffic growth in 25 countries, including Britain, is over. This undermines the case for the road.

·      Lancaster City Council voted to reject the scheme in 2007, a decision which has not been reversed.

 

From CPRE:    <CPRE Response>

                       <CPRE Response summary>

·      The scheme conflicts substantially with national, regional and local policy. The negative impacts of the scheme would clearly outweigh the benefits. The scheme should not be granted consent.

 

From NW Transport Roundtable (NWTAR) and Campaign for Better Transport (CBT):           <NWTAR - CBT Response>

 

·      LCC has failed to follow government guidance on appraising the scheme

·      The traffic modelling based on 2008 data shows 20% to 30% less traffic than previously. Since 2008, traffic growth in the area has been zero. LCC should now do the modelling again, using a zero growth scenario.

 

From Mike Porter:        <TSLM Response>

 

·      On Natural Environment & Ecology: the surveys of protected species and mitigation measures are inadequate.

·      On drainage

 

From David Gate          < TSLM Response>

·      On the Socio-economic impact: LCC has exaggerated the hoped-for beneficial effects, and offered no real evidence, or any description of how jobs will be created.

 

From Mike Jacob & Halton Residents’ Group: < Halton Residents Response >

·      Road safety in Halton is jeopardised by the scheme

·      Damage to the fabric of St Wilfrid’s Church can be expected

·      LCC has failed to carry out a survey of otters, a protected species, or say how it will protect their habitat.