Peak gateway faces fresh delays

Alan Salter

May 09, 2006

| Submit Comments | Comments (13) | Previous | Next

PLANS for a bypass that will act as a gateway to the Peak District could be delayed due to the number of objections.

The 3.5-mile road would take motorists away from the congested roads of Mottram, Hollingworth and Tintwistle.

But after 13 weeks of consultation, the Highways Agency has received a staggering 1,400 letters of protest.

Residents of the three villages have begged for a bypass since the 1970s as lorries have switched from the crowded M62 to cross the Pennines to Sheffield and the south.

The routes carry more than 40,000 vehicles a day. If the bypass opens, 95 per cent of traffic will be removed from Mottram, more than 80 per cent from Tintwistle and about 25 per cent from Hollingworth.

Postponed

However, the scale of objections from elsewhere means a public enquiry, scheduled for the end of the year, may have to be postponed until next year.

After a planning inspector makes his recommendations, Transport Secretary Douglas Alexander will then have to decide whether the é112.5m link from the M67 to the A616 Woodhead Pass can go ahead. Next year's proposed start date for a 2010 finish is now in doubt.

A Highways Agency spokesman said: "There are a lot of objections, but given that the bypass affects the Peak District National Park, it is not surprising."

Among the issues to be resolved for the bypass to go-ahead is how to discourage drivers from using the bypass in preference to the M62. One idea is to install traffic lights at the junction with the A616 near Langsett.

ARE you for or against the Peak gateway plans? Have your say.

| Submit Comments | Comments (13) | Previous | Next

Showing comments 1 to 13 and replies | View All

Chris, Manchester (10/05/2006 at 10:46)

I am all for it as I work in Glossop and the residents here all want it too. I'll bet most of the objectioners are out-of-town folk and general NIMBY's to boot.

Jake Long, Mancester, City Centre (10/05/2006 at 11:24)

It is about time that we had more roads in this country. Lets hope that they build them wide enough to make them fit for the purpose instead of trying to appease the environMENTAList loby.

Andy, Bury (10/05/2006 at 11:50)

A staggering 1400 letters received as part of the consultation? Bury MBC received 2,229 written submission to its consultation on closing schools. The vast majority opposed closures and yet the council voted for closures. These "consultations" are just a sham. They're conducted to make people feel they are taking part in decision making when, in fact, their views are ignored.

Good luck though to the people of Mottram, Hollingwort and Tintwistle. The traffic's a nightmare there. Why the authporities can't ban HGVs from the Snake and Woodhead passes I don't know though.

Charles Ashbury, Derbyshire Dales (10/05/2006 at 19:15)

I lived in Longdendale (Hollingworth in fact) for years, until moving away because of the traffic. You couldn't get to work or cross the road to the shop. It's funny that the Peak District National Park Authority, the biggest objector, wasn't mentioned in your report. They have woken up to Labour's lies to get this road built. Instead of solving congestion, it will actuallly make it worse, the Highways Agencys own report (available to the public) says so itself. Most of the traffic is NOT Trans-Pennine, but Manchester to Glossop. Lazy commuters all sat in one-person occupied cars, whilst a pefectly under-utilised railway, once propsed to be converted to Metrolink sits idle. Simple, cheap solution is a HGV ban on the Peak Park. Jake, are you a member of the Railway Conversion League or summat? This road IS NOT going to being built without a fight, much like the new M60 round the back of Bramhall, Hazel Grove and Bredbury.

Jake Long, Mancester, City Centre (10/05/2006 at 19:43)

If they banned HGV's from snake pass and all other narrow roads for that matter then traffic would flow quicker and more freely which is the last thing that the authorities want, especially when they are looking for excuses to introduce pay as you go road charging.

Ricky G, Whitefield (10/05/2006 at 20:59)

Mr Jake Long - would you be as keen for new roads if they were being built in your back yard????

Peter, Glossop (11/05/2006 at 09:31)

The road proposal is a disgrace! Its taking a "sledgehammer to crack a nut" and ruining the Park in the process. Like the guy in Bury said, start thinking about rerouting HGVs in the shortterm, and then reopening Woodhead longer term. And lets have a Metro out here, and fast bus lanes to get commuters into town.

tameside ted, tameside (11/05/2006 at 11:15)

the highways agency should be disbanded if they delay this any further! they are in existence to serve the public and the clear message from the people who actually LIVE in the area is GIVE US OUR BYPASS.... !

Kev, Mottram (11/05/2006 at 12:52)

I live in Mottram and am dreading the day the bypass is built. Not only will it wreck the local countryside it will double the traffic and pollution in the area - thats certainly not the solution we want! Ban the lorries from the Woodhead Pass and improve the public transport in the area. We can't build our way out of congestion! Fortunately, local people realise that the bypass is not a solution they want, hence the massive opposition!

I suggest the Highways Agency stop wasteing their time and tax payers money on a dead duck.

JNR, Hollingworth (11/05/2006 at 20:38)

We are in desperate need of the bypass - only one mile of the Park will be affected so it is simply untrue to say it wll be ruined.

If it doesn't go ahead the only alternative will be to charge none-Tameside residents a ??10 a day congestion charge for using our roads.

The status quo is simply not an option for local people, and banning HGVs will have only a minor impact.

David Bond, Wellington, New Zealand (11/05/2006 at 22:46)

The stupidest thing of all was the closing of the Woodhead electrified rail route including its modern, 3-mile long tunnel. This is where the heavy traffic could and should be. I did hear recently of a group trying to re-open it to provide a cross-Penine shuttle-service for lorries. This is where the answer lies, not in building more roads.

tameside ted, tameside (12/05/2006 at 10:46)

in a telephone call to the highways agency this morning I found that there area 1400 objections AND 1400 letters of support!! M.E.N. failed to mentionthat in their story!

Chris, Mottram (12/05/2006 at 13:34)

Fast buses, express trains, freight on the rails. All these thing need to be subsidised. More cars and truck means more tax revenue for the government. Tarmac over the whole country so we can all live in a concrete jungle with anonymous shops and 100 mile commutes. If the none car transport modes had the same statutory powers and the ??~will??TM we could all get the bus and trains effectively. Take Stalybridge train station, no parking spaces available after 07:30. The forthcoming revamp should include a 1000 space free car park. Will it happen, no, there will be some fancy signs and a lick of paint. Building this bypass will be the death of the Longdendale valley.

()

Report

News