Agenda item

(a)  Reference ED1552: A6 to Manchester Airport Relief Road – Planning Application

                        (Executive Decision Record and report enclosed)

To consider the call-in of executive decision ED1552

(b)  To consider any further call-in items.

(a)  Reference ED1552: A6 to Manchester Airport Relief Road – Planning Application

The Committee was informed that the Executive at its meeting held on 1 October 2013 had considered a report on the A6 to Manchester Airport Relief Road – Planning Application and had resolved:-

(1)  That approval be given to the preferred scheme for the A6 to Manchester Airport Relief Road and the submission of the planning application, with approval of the final plans, planning submission and associated assessment documents being delegated to the Chief Executive in consultation with the Executive Councillor (Economic Development and Regeneration); and

(2)  That in order to ensure the delivery of the Manchester Airport Relief Road, approval be given to the making of the necessary associated Compulsory Purchase Orders, side road orders and public rights of way changes, including diversions and changes of status from footpath to bridleway with detailed reports on these Orders being agreed with the Chief Executive and Executive Councillor (Economic Development and Regeneration).

The decision of the Executive had been ‘called in’ by Councillors William Wragg, Anthony O’Neill and John Smith.

Councillors William Wragg and John Smith explained their reasons for ‘calling-in’ the decision, namely that, although they were in favour of the overall scheme, they felt with regard to the proposed Junction 6 (Macclesfield Road) that Option 2 (underpass) should be pursued and not Option 1 (signalised junction) . The signalised junction would have a greater visual impact and increased noise, and there would be an adverse effect on air quality for those residents who lived close to the proposed junction. The councillors also expressed concerned about the traffic flow at the junction and the possibility of increased congestion as a result of the signalised junction, and its close proximity to the junction at Macclesfield Road (A523), Dean Lane and Mill Lane.

Two petitions containing 175 signatures from residents from a number of roads close to the proposed location of Junction 6 had been submitted to the meeting of the Stepping Hill Area Committee held on 9 July 2013. 95% of the signatories had stated their objection to the proposed junction (Option 1) and their preference for an underpass at this location (Option 2).

The following comments were made/issues raised:-

·         A Member felt that the consultation had shown a clear preference from local residents for an underpass at Junction 6 and he considered that the views of local residents had not been listened to properly.

·         Efforts had been made to minimise the visual and noise impact of the road.

·         A Member felt that more traffic would use the new road and dissipate the suggested congestion at the proposed Junction 6.

·         A Member expressed the view that the majority of the concerns about the proposed signalised Junction 6 were from residents who lived nearby. These concerns were not replicated by all the residents who lived in the area. The response overall from residents in Hazel Grove was in favour of the signalised junction.

·         There would be a greater impact on the Green Belt if the underpass option was pursued.

The Executive Councillor (Economic Development & Regeneration) (Councillor Iain Roberts) and the Service Director (Major Projects) responded to the issues raised. They advised that all the views had been listened to and a substantial amount of work had been undertaken to analyse the responses to the consultation. The proposed signalised junction had been put forward as the best option. The Scrutiny Committee had not previously disagreed with this proposal. Every effort had been made to minimise the visual and noise impact of the road with sound bunds and fencing being proposed as well as landscaping treatments. The anticipated traffic flows in the area had been modelled and traffic flows examined at all the junctions. The interaction between the proposed Junction 6 and the junction at Macclesfield Road (A523), Dean Lane and Mill Lane had been modelled and found to be low.

The following comments were made/issues raised:-

·         It was too simplistic to compare the options as a signalised junction or an underpass. Option 1 incorporated a new at-grade, signalised junction and Option 2 incorporated an underpass, two new signalised junctions and a new length of road.

·         Since phase one of the consultation, measures had been introduced to Option 1 by the SEMMMS A6 to Manchester Airport Relief Road Project Management Team in seeking to address the concerns raised by local residents, including:-

-       Noise mitigation measures, in the form of bunding and noise fencing.

-       Re-aligning the road southwards as far as practicable from the residents on Darley Road and Ashbourne Road.

-       Re-shaping and changing the specification of the landscaping and revising the height of the bunding to mitigate the visual impact.

·         No new issues had come to light since phase two of the consultation.

·         A response had been received from the Environment Agency during phase one of the consultation. It had made a strong preference for the new signalised junction in Option 1 because of the potential impact on Norbury Brook.

It was then

MOVED AND SECONDED – That no further action be taken in respect of the ‘call-in’.

For the motion 5, against 5.

The Chair exercised her casting vote in favour of the motion.

MOTION CARRIED

A named vote was requested in relation to the voting on this motion and the voting was recorded as follows:-

The councillors who voted for the motion were Councillors Andrew Bispham, Christine Corris, Stuart Corris, Kevin Hogg and Craig Wright.

The councillors who voted against the motion were Councillors Richard Coaton, Philip Harding, Syd Lloyd, David Sedgwick and John Smith.

It was then

RESOLVED – That no further action be taken in respect of the ‘call-in’.

(b)To consider any further ‘call-in’ items

There were no further ‘call-in’ items.