Agenda item

To consider a report of the Corporate Director for Place Management and Regeneration

The report encloses the draft strategic outline business case for the A6 to M60 Relief Road. In line guidance from the Department for Transport, this is the first phase of the decision making process for any major transport scheme and further work is required to develop the full business case for the project.

The Scrutiny Committee is invited to review and comment on the draft strategic outline business case for the A6 to M60 Relief Road.

Officer Contact: Sue Stevenson on 0161 474 4351 or email: sue.stevenson@stockport.gov.uk

The Corporate Director for Place Management and Regeneration submitted a report (copies of which had been circulated) enclosing a draft strategic outline business case for the A6 to M60 Relief Road. In line with the guidance from the Department for Transport, this was the first phase of the decision making process for any major transport scheme and further work was required to develop the full business case for the project.

The Cabinet Member for Economy and Regeneration (Councillor Kate Butler) attended the meeting to present the report and respond to Members’ questions.

 The report would be considered by the Cabinet at its meeting to be held on 14 November 2017.

The following comments were made/issues raised:-

• There was a divergence of views amongst the Members of the Scrutiny Committee with regard to the benefits of the scheme.
• A Member contended that the report stated on a number of occasions that the scheme was for the benefit of the Stockport Town Centre Access Plan and Stockport Town Centre public realm improvements yet the scheme would add considerable traffic volumes to High Lane.
• Paragraph 1.5.1 stated that the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework ‘was a joint plan to manage the supply of land for jobs and new homes across Greater Manchester up to 2035. A Member felt that this should be amended to ‘maybe’ as the Framework was still out for consultation and had not been agreed.
• With regard to paragraphs 2.5.20-2.5.21 of the consultants’ report, the figures in the Accelerated Growth Strategy were still being re-assessed as part of the refresh of the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework. It was queried how that affected the ability of this Scrutiny Committee to scrutinise the draft strategic outline business case for the A6 to M60 Relief Road and whether this business case was contingent upon the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework being implemented.
• With reference to paragraph 1.6.2 of the consultants’ report, a Member requested to see the Appendices in Volume 2 and the Forecasting and Economic Assessment report.
• Clarification was requested on what was being done about the increased traffic volumes predicted on the A6 between Hazel Grove and New Mills (paragraph 3.3.3 of the consultants’ report refers).
• The report mentioned a package of mitigation measures which would be implemented to limit any negative impacts resulting from the scheme. Clarification was requested on whether these would be prescribed in the planning application or whether these would be decided if approval was given to build the road.
• Clarification was requested on what mitigation measures would be proposed for High Lane given that these had been implemented already for the A6 to Manchester Airport Relief Road scheme.
• Scheme Objective 2.2.3 in the consultants’ report stated ‘reduce the impact of traffic congestion on local businesses and communities’. A Member enquired how this objective would be met for communities south of the proposed new road.
• Paragraph 2.3.14 of the consultants’ report referred to current pipeline investment in the town centre standing at approximately £560 million and a Member requested that some of that investment should be spent in the Council’s district and local centres.
• In the light of the fact that the M60 through Stockport was heavily congested in the peak periods and given the physical constraints there was limited scope for any capacity improvements, it was enquired what would happen to the M60 at Junction 25.
• It was recognised that there was significant congestion daily on the south east quadrant of the M60 and Highways England had plans to implement a smart motorway scheme along this section.
• With regard to accident clusters in paragraph 2.4.27 of the consultants’ report, a Member felt that there would be a better comparison against accidents per traffic movement.
• Paragraph 2.4.36 of the consultants’ report referred to plans by the Elected Mayor for Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, to publish a new plan to tackle congestion and commission an urgent review of the condition and configuration of Greater Manchester’s busiest roads. A Member queried how this tied in with adding significant traffic to the already congested A6 through High Lane.
• Paragraph 2.4.56 of the consultants’ report stated ‘the A6 to M60 Relief Road Scheme would remove unnecessary traffic from the A6’ yet reference was made elsewhere in the consultants’ report to traffic being essential to the economy. The assertion that space should be freed up for public realm improvements was also queried by a Member.
• Paragraph 2.5.41 of the consultants’ report referred to heavy goods vehicles blocking one lane of the A6 when making deliveries. A Member queried whether this should be managed by enforcement rather than the proposed new road. The pedestrian/cycle environment through Hazel Grove coupled with the impact of congestion on noise, severance, vibration and poor air quality were adversely affecting the vitality of Hazel Grove but in the view of a Member could apply equally to High Lane.
• Paragraph 2.5.45 of the consultants’ report referred to the ambition for ‘Greater Manchester to be known for the quality of the urban areas and natural environments with transport emissions reduced to near zero and new transport schemes delivering environmental enhancements whenever possible’. In the view of a Member, the exact opposite would result for High Lane.
• Reference was made to most journeys in the borough being carried out north to south and not east to west. The consultants’ report stated ‘the largest commuting flow between districts within Greater Manchester was a broadly north-south movement between Stockport and Manchester and the largest equivalent flow across the Greater Manchester boundary was again a north-south movement between Cheshire East and Stockport. The A6 to M60 Relief Road Scheme would directly facilitate these two largest commuting movements that supported the Greater Manchester economy.
• With regard to paragraph 2.6.2 of the consultants’ report which related to the ‘SEMMMS Refresh to 2040’, it was stated that since the completion of the study in 2002  approximately £63million had been spent on SEMMMS projects and a Member requested data on how many of these projects had worked and helped people utilise different modes of transport.
• The A6 Masterplan referred to in the consultants’ report was the same plan that was considered by the Scrutiny Committee at its meeting held on 6 July 2017 when the Scrutiny Committee did not recommend to support its adoption. A Member reiterated his objection to narrowing the A6 and that, in his view, the new road would move traffic problems from the A6 to the Goyt Valley.
• Some Members stressed the importance of preserving the Goyt Valley.
• With regard to paragraph 3.4.2 of the consultants’ report, reference was made to the sum total of monetised benefits being represented by the Present Value of Benefits including changes in noise and local air quality etc. It needed clarifying where these changes in air quality would be.

·         Paragraph 3.5.11 of the consultants’ report stated that the scheme would reduce traffic flows on existing routes. In the view of a Member it should state that the scheme would reduce traffic flows on some existing routes as the report had already stated that there would be increased traffic flow on some roads. The report should also state over what period of time the reduction would be over.

• Clarification was sought on paragraph 3.6.5 of the consultants’ report which stated that ‘these resources (recreational) had been enhanced and protected for these purposes over a number of years. However, the reduction of traffic along the A6 in Stockport town centre from the junction with the proposed scheme could create benefits to the tranquillity’.
• Clarification was sought on which areas were designated  Air Quality Management areas following the original SEMMMS report.
• With reference to paragraph 3.6.31 of the consultants’ report, clarification was sought on the Net Total Assessment for PM10 score being -1,900.13.
• Paragraph 3.6.32 of the consultants’ report referred to a maximum deterioration in the air quality of 2.7 micro grams predicted in High Lane and a Member requested what the current levels were and what the EU limit was.
• In the section of the consultants’ report on Flood Risk, the report stated that the area was assessed as a Large Adverse Impact for Water Environment. Direct impacts on two notable areas of flood risk and the crossing of Poise Brook would require significant realignment and culverting of the watercourse. Measures to manage and mitigate potential impacts to flood risk, flood flow conveyance and biodiversity were unresolvable but potentially mitigable. Clarification was sought on the effect of the route being also partially located in a groundwater source protection zone.
• Measures to manage and mitigate potential impacts to flood risk, flood flow conveyance and biodiversity were still in development.
• A Member expressed surprise that the benefits of the completed SEMMMS Road Relief Road Phases 1 and 2, if constructed, would have been largely eroded by 2024. He requested that Officers revisit the original business case for the A6 to Manchester Airport Relief Road to see what was stated there.
• The consultants’ report stated that the proposed scheme would alleviate a number of bottlenecks on the A6. Although this would be true for a period of time, a Member queried whether this would be solving problems of congestion and air quality/noise or just moving the problems elsewhere. He referred to a report from the Campaign to Protect Rural England which challenged the road building consensus and attempted to demonstrate that more road building schemes created more traffic. The purpose of the proposed road needed to be examined.
• Another Member of the Scrutiny Committee supported the view that building a new road would not reduce congestion overall and would move the bottlenecks to elsewhere in the borough.  Encouraging people to buy electric vehicles would help improve air quality and negate the needed for the new road. Support was given to multi-modal solutions to congestion problems.
• The consultants’ report needed a greater emphasis on environmental and sustainability issues.
• A Member queried where the business case fed into the process at a time when no Government funding had been announced for the scheme.
• In order to try and ensure the protection of the natural environment, an environmental assessment of the proposed scheme would be carried out and consultation would take place with groups affected by the proposals.
• Paragraph 4.3.3 of the consultants’ report referred to the outturn cost estimate for the A6 to M60 Relief Road scheme being £477.25million, including the provision of a new bridge and a new tunnel. In the view of one Member this was a prohibitive cost.
• Hazel Grove had benefited from the new section of the A6 at the start of the A6 to Manchester Airport Relief Road and the view was expressed that the status quo was not an option in Hazel Grove.

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.