Rt Hon Patrick McLoughlin,
Secretary of State for Transport,
Department of Transport,
National Transport Casework Team,
Tyneside House,
Skinnerburn Road,
Newcastle Business Park,
Newcastle Upon Tyne,
NE4 7AR. 30th January, 2014
Dear Mr McLoughlin,
Compulsory Purchase of land for the A555/SEMMMS road Greater Manchester
SMBC are currently applying to compulsory purchase land for the A555/SEMMMS road that includes Carr Wood. Carr Wood is a bluebell wood that straddles the county boundary between Greater Manchester and Cheshire East near Hazel Grove. Carr Wood is included in the Ancient Woodland Inventory and is protected as such in the NPPF. The current plans show that the carriageway, let alone flanking earthworks, overlay the ancient woodland. Experts say that the zone of a road’s influence extends 100s of metres through ancient woodland. Carr Wood is about 300m wide. It is therefore likely that most of the woodland will be adversely affected by the road.
We contend that the Council (SMBC);
- incorrectly identified Carr Wood as an Site of Biological Interest despite MCC correctly identifying it as AW before SMBC took leadership of the project in 2000.
- supplied potential consultees with maps that omitted Carr Wood ancient woodland but which did show other neighboring areas of ancient woodland.
- did not consult recognised experts regarding suitable mitigation
- only produced alternative road alignments that mitigated the impact on the ancient woodland in September 2013 under pressure from NGOs and local residents.
We fear that allowing the ownership of the land to be transferred to the Council might result in damaging preparatory works being carried out before the road alignment and appropriate mitigation has been fully investigated.
We respectfully ask the Secretary of State to make provision to prevent any preparatory works that might adversely affect the ancient woodland before the road receives planning permission and before funding is fully granted. There are many instances of damaging preparatory works preceding cancellations of this road scheme which dates back to the 1930s. In this area alone cottages were demolished following compulsory purchase, just downstream of Carr Wood in the 1990s even though today’s alignment would probably have not required their elimination.
We trust the matter will be given the Secretary of State’s full consideration. Yours Sincerely,
Stephen Houston (Chair. PAULA residents group) 218 Chester Road Poynton Cheshire SK12 1HP (Mob 07929 603534)
Supporting drawings and notes
Council’s 2013 map of Carr Wood showing the their alternative route to the A6. We would contend the route is actually less expensive because it reduces three separate junctions on the A6 to 1 junction because there is more space available than at Simpsons Corner. It also simplifies the crossing of the railway by an overbridge normally preferred by the Network Rail engineers. Furthermore, the A6 residents do not have to endure the A6 traffic being rerouted past their rear gardens. The driving consideration for the Council is maintaining the 1930s alignment for a simplified extension up to the M60 at Bredbury. However the Council are predicting NO2 exceedances on the existing section of the A555 when the road opens caused by the traffic flow rising from 24,000 to 60,000 vehicles per day. A future connection to the M60 would just make this so much worse.
Part of Council’s drawing showing alternative route round Carr Wood (blue and brown notes added by PAULA)
The Council identified Carr Wood in their NATA worksheets (2013) as the most adverse environmental impact anywhere on the scheme but have proposed no mitigation, no other aspect of the scheme is identified as high as ‘Large Adverse’.
The overall assessment score of moderate adverse has been derived due to a number of individual moderate adverse assessment scores. The large adverse assessment score for the loss of a small area of ancient woodland at Norbury Brook Wood is unavoidable as the proposed scheme in this location is not subject to change due to
other physical constraints. As such and in line with WebTAG guidance the overall assessment score is considered to fairly represent the scheme as a whole.
Yet the Woodland Trust would have given the Council specific advice based on extensive research. In particular they advise a buffer zone between 50 and 150m wide separating the road from the woodland. This would have allowed the road to pass south of the wood joining up again with the A6, 300m further up the A6 towards High Lane.
The Trust sent the Council a letter of objection for the first phase of public consultation but the Council made no subsequent attempt to seek the Trust’s advice. The Trust is not included on list of consultees in the current planning application.
24th January 2012 Dear Sir or Madam, Proposal: A6 to Manchester Airport Relief Road
…The Woodland Trust objects to the proposed scheme as it will cause the direct loss to an area of ancient woodland. This site is Norbury Brook, also known as Carr Wood (grid ref: SJ933854) and is an area of Ancient Semi Natural Woodland (ASNW)….
….The protection of woodland in England – legislation and policy. The current mechanisms provide for the general protection of woodland in England and
for the specific protection of ancient woodland sites:….
…We hope that you find these comments of use. If you have any queries relating to the information that we have provided then please do not hesitate to contact us.
Yours sincerely
Katharine Rist Campaigner Ancient Woodland
In fact the 2010 environmental scoping report produced by the Council’s consultants included maps and supporting text that referred to other areas of ancient woodland nearby but completely omitted the existence of ancient woodland at Carr Wood. The Carr Wood area was simple
identified along with a far more extensive wooded area, as an SBI. At this time the Council’s Solicitor was preparing notes for briefing lawyers for the SEMMMS planning application in which he specifically refers to this ancient woodland. This implies a worrying lack of clarity in the Council’s appreciation of local Geography.
Part of figure 2c from the 2010 Environmental Scoping Report that omitted the ancient woodland (note in black identifying Carr Wood added later by PAULA)
Here is a commentary from Transport for Greater Manchester describing the significance of SBIs;
Sites of Biological Importance (or SBIs) are a nonstatutory designation used locally by the Greater Manchester districts. SBIs have no legal protection, but do receive some protection through different policies and they must be taken into consideration by the local authority when planning applications affect the site. Sites are selected using a
number of attributes that include; habitat type, diversity and rarity of the species present, and the sites naturalness.
compared to the protection of Ancient Woodland in the NPPF, paragraph 118;
..planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland and the loss of aged or veteran trees found outside ancient woodland, unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss.
Natural England responded to the request to comment, oblivious to the omission of the ancient woodland(19/07/2013);
Dear Mr McMahon
Proposal: A6 to Manchester Airport Relief Road – Phase 2 Consultation
Thank you for your consultation on the which was received by Natural England on 10 June 2013. Natural England is a nondepartmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.
Natural England has previously commented formally and informally on the EIA Scoping report in 2009 and 2010 and then in January 2013 we responded to a request from Mouchel for comments on scope of the EIA in the light of minor changes to the scheme design. Overall we were satisfied with scope and coverage of environmental issues related to our statutory purpose.
Having considered the information in the Phase 2 consultation, we have no further specific comments.
(Please excuse the abridged content. We would be pleased to send the original documents obtained under FOI and EIA if this would be useful. SH)
PAULA 