Members of the public are invited to put questions to the Chair and Cabinet Members on any matters within the powers and duties of the Cabinet, subject to the exclusions set out in the Code of Practice. (Questions must be submitted no later than 30 minutes prior to the commencement of the meeting on the card provided. These are available at the meeting. You can also submit via the Council’s website at www.stockport.gov.uk/publicquestions)
Minutes:
Members of the public were invited to put questions to the Cabinet on any matters within its powers and duties, subject to the exclusion set out in the Code of Practice.
Seven questions were submitted relating to the A6-M60 Relief Road draft Strategic Outline Business Case (DSOBC):-
(1) The first question asked whether the SOBC claim that monitoring of traffic on major roads in Stockport indicated an approximately 15% increase since 2001 was misleading since this figure was influenced by growth of M60 traffic whereas traffic on the A6 north of Hazel Grove had actually declined by at least 12% and on the A627 by approximately 4%. The Cabinet was also asked whether the exclusion of these other figures from the DSOBC was misleading the Cabinet to progress with through the scheme.
In response, the Cabinet Member for Economy & Regeneration stressed the transparency of the Council on the evidence gathered as part of DSOCB, including publishing the draft document on the website in advance of its consideration by the Scrutiny Committee. The statement referred to in the question was part of a summary statement at the end of a longer section relating to current context, including congestion and road safety and referenced the Department for Transport (DfT) traffic count data on which it was based, which was publically available to enable full examination of the detailed figures for individual roads.
It was further responded that when considering data this should be viewed in full context as the figures quoted in the question relate to an area the Council had been working hard to improve the public transport connectivity so a reduction in traffic flows was to be expected.
It was further stated that the purpose of the DSOBC was to examine whether there was an overall strategic case for the proposals. Should the DfT and the Council decide to seek funding to progress to the next stage of business case development, further work would be undertaken to look at the detailed case for the scheme and its potential impact on current traffic flows in Stockport.
(2) The second question expressed concern about the impact a relief road would have on the Goyt Valley, asking whether the Cabinet had heard the discussion at the recent Scrutiny Committee at which members had commented that this area was an area of outstanding landscape and nature and therefore accepted that ruining the Goyt Valley would be a grievous loss to Stockport.
In response, the Cabinet Member for Economy & Regeneration replied that the greenspace and natural areas of Stockport were one of its great strengths, and the Goyt and Poise Brook Valleys were very dear and important to many in Stockport. She also stated that many residents in Stockport have said that congestion was having a significant impact on their lives. The reason for developing the DSOCB was to assess the overall strategic case for the scheme and to weigh up some of the issues raised in the question. It was stressed that if the decision was taken by the Council and DfT to progress the scheme to the next stage of business case development, further work would be undertaken to assess any environmental impacts, and the Council would undertake public consultation to ensure that all residents and businesses in Stockport were able to give their views.
(3) The third question stated that the Scrutiny Committee was informed that the traffic modelling for the DSOBC had considered induced traffic. It was queried whether the DSCOBC had actually used fixed-matrix modelling that cannot show induced traffic, and if it did model induced traffic details of how this was done were requested. It was further queried whether it was sufficient to proceed with the business case process without information on induced traffic.
It response, the Cabinet Member for Economy & Regeneration stated that the traffic modelling could be utilised to examine screen lines to understand changes in origin / destination. Were the scheme to progress to a full business case, the traffic modelling and all other areas of the business case would continue to be developed. The traffic modelling undertaken for the A6MARR scheme concluded that there was very little induced traffic expected with that scheme and the after traffic surveys once that scheme opens would allow this to be monitored.
(4) The fourth question asked whether the Cabinet should have received information necessary to make decisions about the DSOBC, namely the Business Case’s Volume 2 and the comments made by members of the Scrutiny Committee. It was suggested that Volume 2 contained information about effect that the bypass would have on traffic, whereas the DSOBC contained very little information. The Cabinet was asked whether it agreed that this was inappropriate, why proper procedure had not been followed, and that the Business Case should be returned with Volume 2 to the Scrutiny Committee before it is considered by the Cabinet.
The Cabinet Member for Economy & Regeneration reiterated that the Council was being fully transparent on the evidence gathered as part of the DSOBC that had been published on the website well in advance. As a draft document, work was ongoing to finalise the document and any supporting documents, all of which would be made available on the website. Members of the Cabinet were aware of the helpful questions and comments raised by the Scrutiny Committee and would thank them for their assistance in reviewing this important document.
(5) The fifth question expressed deep concern at the impression that the DSOBC dismisses Offerton as ‘ordinary and lacking distinctiveness’, questioning whther the authors had visited the green spaces in this area, and asking the Cabinet to repudiate the comment of the officer at the Scrutiny Committee who stated that the road would bring improvement to tranquillity in Offerton, as this would not be the consequence.
The Cabinet Member for Economy & Regeneration responded by stating that the reference quoted in the question related to the high level assessment of the impact the potential road could have on townscapes (i.e. the built environment) of Offerton, and was definitely not a comment on the landscape of the area that was recognised in the report as unique and special.
With regards to the officer’s comments at the Scrutiny Committee, these referred to the expectation that the road would reduce traffic flows, and therefore noise and congestion in the Offerton area.
(6) The sixth question referenced the DSOBC appendices and the indication of a significant increase in traffic forecast on Offerton Lane of 179% westbound in the morning peak, suggesting that the Bypass would not operate in the way the Business Case it was implied, and asking the Cabinet to pause to examine these figures?”
In response, the Cabinet Member for Economy & Regeneration stated that the appendices on the website were draft documents and in any modelling output it would be expected to find individual links with figures that needed further investigation as part of the ongoing development of the scheme design. Nevertheless the local model validation report demonstrated that the model met accepted standards.
A seventh question had been submitted by a member of the public who was not present at the meeting. The Chair reported that, in accordance with the Code of Practice, a written response would be provided to the questioner.