'A crime against nature'

Brian Lashley

July 13, 2007

| Submit Comments | Comments (16) | Previous | Next

A scenic view at Hollingworth

A BYPASS between Mottram and Tintwistle would `disfigure' one of the most beautiful parts of the country, a public inquiry heard.

The proposed 3.5mile road will take motorists away from the congested roads of Mottram, Hollingworth and Tintwistle and link Tameside with the A62 Woodhead Pass to Yorkshire.

Campaign groups have been set up, both supporting and objecting to the bypass.

Georgina Barber, from Tintwistle, told the inquiry at Stalybridge Civic Hall the bypass would destroy the environment, wildlife and countryside which is among the best in the country.

It would force traffic on to roads in other small villages, while traffic calming measures would result in congestion rather than alleviating it.

Ms Barber said: "If it goes ahead it will be a crime and I do not use that word lightly. It will be committing a crime against the natural environment for no benefit.

"We need radical ways of dealing with this. The bypass is not radical, it is an old fashioned way that will make things worse."

Asked by Charles Calvert, representing the highways agency, if congestion was a problem that needed tackling she agreed it was, but said there must be a better alternative than the proposed bypass.

Earlier, the hearing was told by Brian Butler, vice-chair of the Longendale Siege Committee, that the relief road was needed as the amount of traffic had caused serious deterioration to the living environment and village amenities.

He said: "It is obvious that these so-called transport campaigners do not give a damn about the hundreds of people who have this horrendous traffic corridor within a couple of metres of their front doors.

"They are quite happy for them to continue to suffer for their ideological objectives and ideals that would leave us with another 20 years of noise and pollution association with the daily crawl of near stationary traffic."

Residents of Mottram, Tintwistle and Hollingworth have asked for a bypass since the 1970s, as lorries have switched from the M62 to reach Sheffield and the south. The routes carry more than 40,000 vehicles a day, including 4,000 lorries.

The hearing has been adjourned until September.

What do you think of plans for a bypass? Have your say.

| Submit Comments | Comments (16) | Previous | Next

Showing comments 1 to 16 and replies | View All

Life Is Not Fair, Audenshaw (13/07/2007 at 08:25)

"It would force traffic on to roads in other small villages, while traffic calming measures would result in congestion rather than alleviating it."

Quite. Nimbys.

ace, manchester (13/07/2007 at 11:17)

Life Is Not Fair, Audenshaw
That is what this government is good at creating congestion by bad road planning? these people have not got any idea how to control traffic you just have to look around manchester how the planners have turned four lane roads into two lanes? "now that sounds like good planning" NOT!

AH, Manchester (13/07/2007 at 12:33)

soon the whole of england will be the concrete jungle - full of car fumes, noise, small overpriced housing and other people's kids.

Life Is Not Fair, Audenshaw (13/07/2007 at 16:15)

Yes and there will be congestion still when they've got their way and destroyed all the greenbelt, what will they do then?

Saint, Middleton (13/07/2007 at 18:49)

Damaging our countryside that will be irrevocable just can't be allowed to happen, we need competant people running the country that live in the real world, I would suggest more trucks doing bulk runs when the roads are quiet, and expand the metrolink to get rid of empty buses that clog up our roads.

jackie (14/07/2007 at 14:30)

It seems to me that both the environmentalist and the people of Hollingworth/Tintwistle both want the same thing, a solution to the damage the vehicles are having on both the health of the villagers and the nature surrounding. Even without a bypass the collosal amount of fumes coming from the vehicles are still damaging this beautiful part of the country, so can we not work together to find a joint solution instead of battling over a bypass?

jackie (14/07/2007 at 14:37)

I live in one of thw worst affected areas. Two nights ago I woke to poisonus fumes filling up in my house, only to go outside and find a coach had pulled up left it's engine running and was allowing it's passengers to get off to get food, they very nicely dumped most of their rubbish and cans in my front garden as a souvenier of this.

jackie (14/07/2007 at 14:43)

Why was so much money paid from our taxes to extend the motorway so that vehichles would not have to use this route of which the roads are highly unsuitable to these type of vehicles anyway? So what a waste of money. Make them use the road that has already been provided for them. Stop letting money and business bully and dictate our environment.

Ken of Glossop, Glossop (15/07/2007 at 18:33)

This valley is already "Disfigured" by the endless stream of congested traffic. The roads are dangerous to cross and there are several schools on route. The pollution caused by the crawling traffic is already killing the local wildlife and, more importantly, the local people. The noise and dirt caused is awful. A bypass would solve these problems, free flowing traffic produces far less pollution and , if away from populated areas, far less harmful.
Existing motorways have proved to be a haven for wild life rather than destroying it. In the end people are more important than a small bit of countryside.Most of the objectors to this bypass have never even been to this part of the country and probably couldn't even tell you where is was if asked.
Ken

david rowlands, manchester (15/07/2007 at 19:07)

Nothing is of greater value than our countryside - it's preservation should always take precedent over commerce. No doubt that much of this lorry haulage should be going through the now disused Manchester - Woodhead - Sheffield railway line. Government money would have been better spent re-openong this line than further road building - even if this costs more. These short-termist, expedient, politicians have no appreciation for the pricelessness of our native land. No patriotic government would allow the further and unecessary desecration of our countryside.

Ken of Glossop, Glossop (17/07/2007 at 20:32)

I feel I must reply to the comments of David Rowlans who says that nothing is more important than the countryside.. what, even the lives of your relatives and friends? People are far more important than a bit of grass and a few trees which can easily be replanted. David says "why not reopen the Woodhead rail tunnel?" Well if you did, at fantastic expense, it could only carry a small amount of the existing traffic. It would cause far greater destruction of the countryside as it would need a lot of renewal work. A host of electricity pylons would have to be errected as the National grid power lines now come through the tunnel. The Longdendale trail, a nature walk,
would be destroyed as it uses the old railway. Massive rail yards would have to be built at both ends to handle traffic, again far more destruction of the countryside than the proposed bypass, this idea and many others have been considered and thrown out as "pie in the sky"
Ken of Glossop

Brian Butler, Hollingworth (18/07/2007 at 14:58)

Reopening the Woodhead tunnel would not deal with the HGV traffic, do any of these people who suggest this think that people are suddenly going to switch their means of conveying goods to a more expensive and less convenient method. If it did remove the HGV's it would not have any impact on the light vehicles which pass through the valley, which are the largest percentage of the 40,000 vehicles using this route daily. As for the comments about "disfiguring" one of the most beutiful parts of the countryside, this is a complete exaggeration. The part of the bypass which falls in the National Park is 1.3 km long, if it were 100metres wide along that length, it would amount to 0.13Sq km. Not a great amount in comparison with the 1438 Sq km of the Nat Park. But the benefits a bypass could bring to three villages is enormous.

Joey, Ashton under Lyne, (18/07/2007 at 15:17)

The tree huggers have 93% of the UK as a green and pleasant land.
The 7% that is urban is not excessive.

DAVID ROSSITER, HOLLINGWORTH (19/07/2007 at 15:32)

These anti bypass people need to get their priorities right. How they exagerate over bypass dessicration. All of Swallows Wood to walk in and they moan over 4% intrusion, not loss. How much area do they need to exercise their limbs? I don't see hoards of people using it every day. Those who do need foot scrapers at the exits to remove the dog muck from their boots and shoes. Why don't the tree lovers do something positive about that. We villagers like fresh air, get appointments on time, feel safe in our environment, too you know

The Catcher, In the Rye (19/07/2007 at 15:51)

I had the M60 thrust into my locality along with all it's additional traffic, noise, filth etc. Why shouldn't you.

Gerrit tarmacced!

Robert Haycock (20/07/2007 at 07:26)

As a long standing resident of Hollingworth who actually lives on the A57 the comments that it being a crime against nature is way off the mark. The emotive statements that are banded about about it destroying the country side is a crime in itself. The proposed bypass is less than 6km with less than 2km affecting swallows wood, the truth of the matter is that less than 4% of swallows wood would be affected and where this does impact on the area would be built to the highest standards with nature in mind. As a regular hill walker I am aware of the sensitive nature of the countryside but there is no other feasable alternative, people who say the by imposing a wieght limit or by increasing public transport would relieve the situation has been proven by many studies over the years not to be true. The constant thunder of traffic just yards from our front doors is hell to live with day after day. As for bypasses in general just look at the Chapel bypass just up the road, this has brought much relief to the people there and is stil a place of natural beauty, 40,000 vehicles a day use Mottram Moor, this can not continue!

()

Report

News