file:///P|/131003_TR010002_%20A556%20Lobby%20Group%20Response.(Part%201%20of%203).htm
Subject: FW: A556 Lobby Group Response
Attachments: Lg RESPONSE TO NIDB.docx; A556 Presentation.pptx; HA JNC20 Findings.pdf
From: A556 Lobby Group xxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 6:29 PM
To: Knutsford to Bowdon
Subject: Fw: A556 Lobby Group Response
Dear A556 Knutsford to Bowdon Team
Please find attached our response to your questions, plus further attachments for your perusal,
the LG presentation PP and the HA J20 report we are questioning.
Regards
Suzi Cowan
A556 Chairman
This email was received from the INTERNET and scanned by the Government Secure Intranet antivirus service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number
2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisation’s IT Helpdesk.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
**********************************************************************
Correspondents should note that all communications to Department for Communities and Local Government may be automatically logged,
monitored and/or recorded for lawful purposes.
**********************************************************************
file:///P|/131003_TR010002_%20A556%20Lobby%20Group%20Response.(Part%201%20of%203).htm [03/10/2013 10:30:39]
A556 Lobby Group Request for additional Background Information Question 25 Please find enclosed two emails, 1 from the Freight Transport Association (FTA) and 1 from the Road Haulage Association (RHA) NB the ‘Linda’ referred to is from the Mere Residence Association, who ‘piggy backed’ one of the LG newsletters. Question 26 The differential in the numbers is due to our numbers growing at different intervals as we gained more support through a variety of lobbying initiatives. ƒ We held a public meeting at The Swan gaining the audience through the distribution of leaflets ƒ Through that, we recruited volunteers from other parishes to form an ‘executive team’ ƒ We opened a bank account The A556 Consultation Fund ƒ We set up an email address ƒ We created a website ƒ We created a Facebook page ƒ We created a Linked in page ƒ We held regular team meetings and public meetings ƒ We raised funds ƒ We updated our followers with regular emails and leaflet drops ƒ We employed CBO Transport ƒ We were overcome by offers of support and volunteers for leaflet drops to engage others further afield ƒ We contacted all Parish Councils to unite our efforts ƒ We had meetings with our local Council, The Fire Brigade, George Osborne, The FTA and the RHA, the HA outwith the parish council meetings, we went to the House of Commons to meet with the then Under Secretary of State etc ƒ We attended seminars run by the Campaign for Better Transport ƒ We organised Walks ƒ We increased awareness of the LG option v the HA through a PR campaign including BBC Radio Manchester, through our local newspaper the Knutsford Guardian, through Private Eye and the Independent Newspaper and Manchester Evening news (all press cuttings can be forwarded if wished) ƒ We held a public presentation at The Cottons Hotel, Advert, Petition and photograph of LG executive team enclosed and our PP Presentation as a separate attachment ƒ At the presentation, a donation of a stand at the Cheshire Show was donated ƒ At the presentation a request for a second presentation for those living further afield was made, we complied ƒ From the meeting with George Osborne, a letter and petition were circulated, please see enclosed 1 A556 Lobby Group 2 A556 Lobby Group 3 A556 Lobby Group THE A556 LOBBY GROUP ‘Campaigning For A Sustainable Solution’
PRESENTING THE TH 5
OPTION TO UNITE THE PARISHES OF: BUCKLOW HILL: HIGH LEGH: MERE: MILLINGTON: ROSTHERNE & TABLEY AT THE COTTONS HOTEL WEDNESDAY 30TH MAY @ 7.30PM Please come ……………………………………………………………………………… FROM THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE NB We Used The Same Advert for the Presentation at Tabley just changing the Venue, Address and Date Details 4 A556 Lobby Group THE A556 LOBBY GROUP PETITION ‘Campaigning For A Sustainable Solution’
We the undersigned prefer option 5 as designed by CBO Transport and presented by the A556 Lobby Group on 30th May 2012 at the Cottons Hotel Knutsford rather than any of the 4 options proposed by the Highways Agency. NAME PARISH POSTCODE
SIGNATURE NB We Used The Same Petition for the Presentation at Tabley just changing the Venue, Address and Date Details 5 A556 Lobby Group The Executive Team Enjoying Their Triumph 6 A556 Lobby Group A556 LOBBY GROUP “ C ampaigning For a Sustainable Solution”
Sunday 24th February 2013
Dear Friend
I attended a meeting with George Osborne on Friday 8th February. I hope that you will be as surprised and
gratified with the question he asked me, as I am. Which I in turn am asking you.
Before answering the question, I would urge, that you consider the following:
•
•
•
•
•
The fact that the HA scheme does not improve the congestion at Junction 19 as traffic still has to
leave the M6 via the slip road and arrive at the roundabout with traffic lights before accessing the
new road
The fact that the A50, not a great road itself will carry increased traffic loads as it will be the main
‘thrust’ for traffic leaving or accessing Knutsford – causing even greater traffic delays at the Mere
Traffic lights.
That although the HA scheme suggests that Mereside Road could see a drop of 50% of its current
traffic flow, all locals who know the area believe that rather than sit in the A50 traffic jam drivers
would use Mereside Road to access the bridge onto Chapel Lane as a short cut and therefore the
decrease in traffic would be either negligible or worst case scenario even more
The fact that the HA scheme does not improve the congestion at the bottle neck of Junction 7 of
the M56 – even with their introduction of a flyover. They agree that with the flyover dropping down
onto the existing slip road there will not be an improvement to the bottleneck.
For those of you interested in the environment, traffic jams cause more air pollution and carbon
emissions than moving traffic – therefore, neither Junction 19 nor Junction 7 will see a benefit to
this.
For those people who have been lobbying for years to give Mere a bypass, you most sincerely have my/our
sympathy it cannot have been easy to see this road become busier over the years. We are not immune to
your plight and apart from the Lobby Group scheme, we also have a variety of other measures to make the
road safer and quieter.
The Lobby Group has worked tirelessly to become a voice to be heard. This has been done with local
funding and volunteer labour. Our satisfaction with no guarantee attached is to be told that there will
probably be a hearing to test the viability of each scheme.
I also attach the ‘question’ as asked from Mr Osborne to me; but decided to hold a referendum in order to
ensure that I do not misrepresent you. I appeal to you therefore to complete the attached and respond at
your earliest convenience.
I look forward to receiving your replies
Regards
Suzi Cowan
Chairman A556 Lobby Group
2 Denfield Cottage | Millington Hall Lane | Millington | Altrincham | WA14 3RP E: a556road@live.co.uk W: www.a556road.co.uk 7 A556 Lobby Group A556 LOBBY GROUP “ C ampaigning For a Sustainable Solution”
Further to a meeting with George Osborne on Friday 8th February with Suzi
Cowan (Chairman A556 Lobby Group) and Jeremy Bloom (Head of Highways
North West).
The following question was asked by Mr Osborne:
Would you, if given the choice in regard to the A556 Knutsford to Bowdon
Environmental Improvement Scheme prefer to:
A) Go ahead with the HA scheme
B) Keep the A556 as it is
PLEASE TICK EITHER BOX A or B. Your choice will be treated without prejudice
Name:
…………………………………..
Address: …………………………………..
Postcode: ……………………………………
Parish:
…………………………………….
SIGNATURE: ………………………………
Replies can be posted to:
A556 Lobby Group Denfield Cottage & Stables Millington Hall Lane Cheshire WA14 3RP
Or be dropped into our ballot boxes at:
The Swan Hotel (Bucklow Hill Lights) The Estate Office (Rostherne Village)
N.B. Boxes will be in situ from Friday 1st March until Friday 8th March
Or emailed to: a556road@live.co.uk
Or if necessary, we will collect please call on 07768898085 to arrange
All replies will be treated in confidence. The results of the referendum will be
shared after the closing date; and with George Osborne.
PLEASE NOTE FINAL DATE FOR ALL RESPONSES IS MARCH 22ND 2013
2 Denfield Cottage | Millington Hall Lane | Millington | Altrincham | WA14 3RP E: a556road@live.co.uk W: www.a556road.co.uk T: 07768 898085 8 A556 Lobby Group In conclusion, we hope that from the small amount of examples we have submitted, you are satisfied as to how we garnered our support and numbers? Question 27 Please find as a separate attachment a copy of the pages the HA sent to the LG in regard to the LG Junction 20 Scheme. We do have a number of issues with this, namely: ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
We would like to see the traffic appraisal referred to. We would like the HA to provide the Cost Benefit Ratio report they claim to have produced. We would also like the HA to provide a Cost Benefit Ratio Report and an Economic Viability Report based on the Final LG proposal submitted to the NID with the closure of the existing A556 at J19. Have the HA proven that the motorist would prefer a shorter route that takes longer than a longer route that is shorter in time? We would also ask the HA to prove their theory that the majority of the traffic would not travel the extra 5 miles, but instead leave the M6 at J18 (this journey we have timed and measured the length please see LG report, Page 6 Paragraph 3) An Analagy: From Postcode WA14 3RP to Prestwich Manchester Via the Motorway is 20.1 miles taking 32 minutes From Postcode WA14 3RP to Prestwich Manchester Via the City Centre is 16.5 miles taking 41 minutes The shorter journey takes more time due to traffic lights and congestion, whilst the longer route is faster and proves the more popular journey for the majority of travellers? Why do the HA persist in the argument that the majority of motorists would not use the J20 Option if it were made available to them. Furthermore: We would ask the HA on what basis and for what reason was their Scheme ‘sold’ to the Parishes affected in meetings and at the Public Consultation as an Environmental Improvement and for what reasons was it abandoned before submission to the NID. 9