Bypass plan back on the road

Alan Salter and Dean Kirby

March 30, 2009

| Submit Comments | Comments (10) | Previous | Next

Manchester council leader Sir Richard Leese, part of the team working on the new plans

PLANS for a controversial new road are set to be resurrected - just days after they appeared doomed.

The Mottram-Tintwistle bypass looked set to be mothballed after regional planners decided the £315m scheme was `not a priority'.

The scheme was shelved for seven years and the Highways Agency, last week appeared to pull the plug on the project when it pulled out of a £16m public inquiry.

But planners now hope to revive the scheme with a shorter, cheaper version of the relief road on the edge of Tameside. The bypass would link Tameside with the A628 Woodhead Pass to south Yorkshire.

The revised scheme was revealed at the monthly meeting of the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities by Manchester council chief Sir Howard Bernstein.

The leaders of Greater Manchester's 10 councils will decide next month whether to ask the government to reinstate the project.

Sir Howard told the meeting that there had been a number of meetings with the Department for Transport about a `potential alternative alignment'.

He added that the plans could be put to the DfT for an `early funding decision' over the next few months.

However, the proposals are opposed by Stockport council, which favours a rival scheme.

Stockport council leader Coun Dave Goddard said: "This has been killed stone dead once. Manchester was sent away to come up with new priorities, not to bring the same scheme back within a week."

Manchester council leader Sir Richard Leese, part of the team working on the new plans, said: "A version of the scheme is being drawn up. If it stands up, it can be considered further. If it doesn't, it won't.

"There is no attempt by anyone to have one project pushed ahead of another."

It has been one of the most controversial and costly road schemes in the region with £20m already spent on plans.

When it was first announced in 2003 the estimated cost of the entire project was put at £90m. Last year that figure had more than trebled to £315m.

Emma Lawrence, from campaign group Save Swallows Wood, said: "We would be disappointed if they do decide to resurrect it. We will wait to find out the details, but we will be fighting it."

But Mike Flynn, of pro-bypass group Longdendale Siege Committee, said: "I would be in favour of this because it'd be better than nothing.

"Something needs to be done to take the traffic away from the villages."

| Submit Comments | Comments (10) | Previous | Next

Showing comments 1 to 10 and replies | View All

Savage Mandarin, Manchester (30/03/2009 at 11:12)

Who wants to let a cash cow die?

Simon (30/03/2009 at 12:14)

Another retarded plan....

Gary SK13 (30/03/2009 at 13:13)

What a great quote from Emma Lawrence ' we dont know the details but we will be fighting it',. How can you protest about something when you have no details?, it is this kind of petty bickering that has held up this bypass so far. This needs to be looked into properly this time, all the facts and figures collated and checked so that there is not the same result as the last enquiry. As i have said previously a majority of the people who live in this area want a solution now, not another enquiry that will take 10 years and end up on the scrap heap.

Simon (30/03/2009 at 13:56)

There were nearly 2000 objectors to the original scheme. About half as many supporters. I live locally and I agree that many of the objections came from non local people wanting to protect the environment. There was nothing stopping the non local petrol heads supporting the road but they didnt. Even the MPs Purnell and Levitt who supposedly supported the road didnt go to the public inquiry. Same for Roy Oldham, leader of Tameside council and his sidekick Sean Parker Perry - no show for them either.
Any solution the Higwhays Agency proposes is bound to be a road, thats all they do and thats what we dont want and I guess thats why Swallows Wood are opposing any new road in the area.

J.Hall, Tameside (30/03/2009 at 21:24)

Now we get down to the real dirty tricks which constantly radiate from these Political Administrators of our lives.
The Seige Committee have released a leaflet filled with absolute undiluted dross with more scare tactics and false representations than you could dream of.
So why don`t they hold a Public Meeting where their rhetoric could be totally dismantled and their credibility destroyed,which of course would include Roy Oldham`s non factual rhetoric.,
Now that`s what I call real democracy,not the back door smoke filled room discussions
which Politicians enjoy in between watching movies paid for with YOUR BLOODY MONEY

the_signalman, The Dark Peak (31/03/2009 at 00:13)

Perhaps they should revive the proposed route via Woolley Bridge and along the valley below Tintwistle. That would save the cost of the Glossop Spur, as the bypass would use its route. It would go nowhere near Swallows Wood, and they would also have to demolish the eyesore that is Rossington Park. Even the road would be less intrusive than that.

Roger Turning the Holme Valley Blue (31/03/2009 at 11:32)

Re open the Woodhead railway line and get those lorries off the road. There was talk of drive on, drive off services for lorries on freight trains. That would go a long way to easing congestion. The solution is there.

Longdendale Lad, Hollingworth (31/03/2009 at 12:26)

I agree with the_signalman but as Emma Lawrence says she would fight it - Save Rossington Park! The costing needs explaining. The Alderley Edge bypass is 3 miles and forecast to cost £51 million to be built by Cheshire County Council. The proposed Mottram-Tintwistle road is about 3.5 miles and forecast to cost £270 million to be built by the Highways Agency. The difference is due to the fact that the HA has to use the Nichols formula and schemes built by Local Authorities do not have to use that formula. If alternative plans go ahead with the road being built by the Local Authorities there would be no need for a public enquiry. I think a flyover at the M67 and M60 junction would help ease congestion at this point.

Simon (31/03/2009 at 13:22)

But the new Nichols formula is intended to provide a more accurate prediction of future costs so that tax payers / councils are presented with more accurate data so they can make well informed decisions. We cant let Tameside pull this stunt by pretending it aint going to cost what the Highways Agency said it would. The Highways agency gave up - so should Tameside!

Ian Ashton (16/07/2010 at 01:08)

They should use the principle of "Eminent Domain"
It's sort of like for the "Greater Good" One cannot succumb to this "NIMBY" mentality.
I drove to Glossop to visit my sister, came off the motorway past Hyde and it was down to one lane. Burnley to Godley 20 minutes Mottram to Glossop almost an hour.
Get real folks.

()

Report

News