Agenda item

To consider a presentation from the Service Director (Major Projects)

The presentation will set out the key elements of the second phase consultation for the A6 to Manchester Airport Relief Road Scheme, in particular on the final proposals for the junction treatments. This consultation will inform the final decision on the proposed scheme before it proceeds to formal planning application stage.

Officer contact: Sue Stevenson, 0161 474 4351, sue.stevenson@stockport.gov.uk

Jim McMahon, Service Director (Major Projects) attended the meeting and provided an update on the outcomes of Phase 1 of the consultation on the A6 to Manchester Airport Relief Road Scheme. An update was also provided on the second phase consultation that was currently underway on the emerging preferred scheme.

The presentation covered the following key issues:-

·                There had been over 9000 responses as part of the Phase 1 Consultation, with 70% indicating support for the scheme and 13% not in favour.

·                As part of the local engagement activity, there was a clear difference of opinion between the response from the consultation as a whole and those of residents in the immediate vicinity of the proposed Junction 6 (Macclesfield Road). Additional information had been provided to the residents to explain the emerging preferred option for this junction treatment.

·                Every effort was being made to minimise the visual and noise impact of the road with sound bunds and fencing being proposed as well as landscaping treatments.

·                The proposed scheme would also include a dedicated cycle route along the entire length (including retrofitting the existing A555 road) as well as a range of measures to project access to rights of way that intersected the road route.

·                The second phase of consultation was currently underway and 85,000 letters had been sent to properties along the proposed route. Exhibitions and local liaison groups would also be held.

The Chair made reference to the petitions submitted earlier in the meeting in relation to the proposed Junction 6 Treatment and invited Mr McMahon to respond.

In response it was stated that the petitions were likely to reflect the Project Team’s own analysis of the consultation responses. The matter had been discussed extensively as part of the resident liaison group and the analysis shared with residents indicated that both Option 1 (signalised junction) and Option 2 (underpass) were comparable in terms of visual impact, noise levels and environmental impact/ air quality. Given this, it was felt that on balance the signalised junction was the more cost effective option.

Councillors commented that for the residents closest to the proposed junction the visual, noise and air quality impact would not be comparable to an underpass and that the Executive needed to carefully consider the merits of this option given the strength of local feeling.

The following additional issues were raised:-

·                Whether analysis had been undertaken on levels of noise generated between 12-6am as this was often more disruptive to residents than day time noise levels. In response it was stated that the analysis undertaken was in accordance with national guidelines, but that further investigation could be undertaken to determine what these levels might be. In response to further comments it was stated that should there be a requirement to produce this analysis it would be completed.

·                Whether the road/ junctions would be lit and the impact on nearby properties. In response it was stated that both light and noise mitigation measures were being planned for the route and that modern lighting was more effective at minimising light spillage. It was confirmed that for safety reasons all junctions would be lit.

·                Whether the junctions at the north end of the proposed road would lead to increased levels of congestion at existing junctions on the A6. In response it was stated that traffic modelling indicated that there would be a reduction in waiting at a number of junctions in the area, including the A6/ Macclesfield Road junction.

·                What difference, if any, there was between the route of the road should a signalised junction or an underpass be constructed at the Junction 6 location. In response it was stated that the line of the road would essentially be the same, although the overall amount of area used to construct these two options would differ.

·                What the rational was for the proposed Junction 6 treatment. In response it was stated that providing convenient access points to the bypass would maximise the opportunities for vehicles to access it, thereby reducing the burden on other, less appropriate local roads. Councillors commented that a junction at this location should hopefully lead to a significant improvement in traffic levels in Hazel Grove.

·                Clarification was sought on the likely impact on traffic levels on roads in the vicinity of the proposed bypass. In response it was stated that on certain roads, notably Torkington Road and the A6 south of the proposed bypass, it was projected that there would be modest increases (given that increases in traffic movements were expected regardless of the new road). For vehicles movements north of the bypass (through Hazel Grove) there were expected to be significant reductions in hourly movements in comparison to the increases elsewhere.

RESOLVED – (1) That Jim McMahon be thanked for his attendance and presentation.

(2) That the comments of the Area Committee be considered as part of the A6 to Manchester Airport Relief Road Scheme Second Phase consultation.

(3) That the Service Director (Major Projects) be requested to provide the members of the Area Committee with details of the analysis of:-

·         noise generated by the proposed road between the hours of 12midnight and 6am, with particular reference to the noise generated at the proposed junctions;

·         traffic movements on Bean Leach Road.