12 Supporters 11 Opposers

Local Consultation Sham

<< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >>
 
FivewaysGrover
Villager

FivewaysGrover
Re: Local Consultation Sham
21st May 2013 at 1:47PM
The vast majority of people who 'voted' for option 1 in preference to option 2 probably live nowhere near the Fiveways and will not be affected by the decision.

There was no evidence presented to suggest Macc Road traffic would be reduced and Dean Lane traffic is forecast to increase. Under that outcome option 1 will cause chaos.
1 Likes 0 Dislikes Reply Reply Quote Quote Report Report  
cllrkevinhogg
Hazel Grove Councillor

cllrkevinhogg
Re: Local Consultation Sham
21st May 2013 at 2:11PM
I will ask the questions tomorrow when along with cllr Corris we are meeting Mr Mcmahon
1 Likes 0 Dislikes Reply Reply Quote Quote Report Report  
noroadm
Banned
Re: Local Consultation Sham
21st May 2013 at 2:22PM
Will this meeting be minuted   as we are entilted to know under the freedom of information act ?
0 Likes 0 Dislikes Reply Reply Quote Quote Report Report  
spectrum
Villager

spectrum
Re: Local Consultation Sham
21st May 2013 at 3:24PM, Edit: 21st May 2013 at 7:35PM by spectrum
My preference would be to have no junction at all, but unfortunately that wasn’t an option.

One of the problems that I perceive with having a junction at Macclesfield road is that it encourages prioritisation of that junction over Buxton road in order to miss out an additional set of traffic lights which are only a short distance apart.

This potentially will draw in more traffic to the Macclesfield road junction as a local access point which will already have traffic heading to Macclesfield from Hazel Grove impeded due to the relief road obviously getting priority, this in turn must have an effect on the surrounding roads.

Having no junction at Macclesfield road would allow unrestricted traffic flow along the relief road and along Macclesfield road which is surely one of the objectives of a “relief” road.

This would obviously mean that Hazel Grove would only have one local access point on Buxton road, but if the proposed 50% reduction in traffic northwest of the Buxton road junction is realised then this shouldn’t be an issue.

Having no junction at Macclesfield road would also prevent traffic from the south (Poynton/Macclesfield etc.) being drawn to that junction and encourage them to use the local access point on Chester road and eventually the Poynton bypass which will hopefully be constructed along with the new development at Woodford.
1 Likes 0 Dislikes Reply Reply Quote Quote Report Report  
RunningWalker
Villager

RunningWalker
Re: Local Consultation Sham
21st May 2013 at 10:20PM
FivewaysGrover,

The three opportunities to make your views known and influence the outcome of this scheme are flawed, and Jim McMahon knows this.

Opportunity 1: Contact your local councillor. Unlikely to get the response you want, as they are all fully supportive of this scheme (see previous threads within this Forum) and have no more influence on this scheme than you or I. The scheme is being sponsored by SMBC, but at the behest of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority, the ten boroughs of Greater Manchester, who own 64.5% of MAG (The Manchester Airports Group plc). This Group has its registered office at Manchester Town Hall. This Group have also recently (2/2013) secured planning permission for an Airport City (in Greenbelt land), so the resurrection of this road scheme at this time is no surprise. Indeed in June 2010, Manchester Airport issued a document "The Need for Land" about how it wants to expand over the next 20 years.

Opportunity 2: Further consultation between now and the promised Public enquiry. This consultation is window dressing, and having attended 3 of the local exhibitions last November and one of the LLF’s recently, spoken to and listened to others who have been to these events, and met with Jim McMahon, your analysis of the outcome of this process is not far off the mark. I was staggered and upset by the lack of preparation, knowledge and even enthusiasm for the scheme by the SMBC representatives at the exhibitions.

Don’t forget of course, this scheme has little to do with Hazel Grove or Stockport, as a Freedom of Information request to SMBC recently elicited this response:

Given that the Airport City development is specifically targeted at international trade, no formal consideration has been given to any potential impact on Stockport town centre."

And as a road to relieve perceived congestion in the Hazel Grove area, it is not fit for purpose, as a further Freedom of Information request to SMBC gained this response:

The link road is to improve access to a major employment destination and transportation hub”.
As we all know from the SMBC traffic analysis that the A6 at Stepping Hill will see only a 1% rise in traffic by 2017 if the road is not built and the number of morning peak car journeys into Manchester city centre has reduced by 15% in the last 10 years (see www.tfgm.com/LTP3 and http://paulagreenbelt.wordpress.com/2013/01/29/greater-manchesters-third-local-transport-plan-and-semmms/ ). Car use and road traffic is on the wane across the Western world. Peak car theory is very well documented elsewhere (see http://paulagreenbelt.wordpress.com/2013/02/07/peak-car-theory-explained-2/ ).

Opportunity 3: Make your case at the Public Inquiry. There is not much chance that individuals can make any impact at such an Inquiry (take a look at the Inspector’s Report on the Public Inquiry into the A6(M) Motorway (Stockport North-South Bypass) Proposals 17/11/87 – 19/4/88 as an example). The interested parties and lobby groups will have the greatest influence. Your best bet is to align with a group that is totally opposed to this scheme, a group that has some strong lobbying power behind it already (Campaign for Better Transport, Friends of the Earth, NWTAR, CPRE and many more), a group that will be represented at the Public Inquiry, a group that has already commissioned a response to this scheme. (see http://paulagreenbelt.wordpress.com/2013/02/07/a-folly-in-the-making-a-response-to-semmms-from-cpre-lancashire-the-campaign-for-better-transport-and-north-west-transport-roundtable/ ).

I think your suggestion of contacting local councillors is sound, as they are not completely aware of the strength and depth of feeling from those directly and indirectly affected by the scheme. We can then all make our views known next May when the local Council elections are due. Until then, Jim McMahon and his team are for this scheme, as are your local councillors, your local MP's et al, and thus the only logical action for those that oppose all or part of this scheme is to oppose the whole scheme. In this way you will have the greatest influence on any public inquiry.

In the meantime, you are welcome to take the opportunity next Monday (29/5/13) of a walk along part of the route of the scheme and discover just what this part of the SEMMMS strategy wants to tarmac over ( see http://paulagreenbelt.wordpress.com/2013/05/10/carr-wood-ancient-woodland-directly-in-the-path-of-the-a6-manchester-airport-relief-road/ and http://www.saveourgreenbelt.uk.com/ ).


0 Likes 0 Dislikes Reply Reply Quote Quote Report Report  
glenandem
Citizen

glenandem
Re: Local Consultation Sham
21st May 2013 at 10:31PM
Hi spectrum, valid points there but wouldn't it put even more pressure on probably what's going to be the busiest jct at Buxton rd as that's the start finish if you like and I presume the idea is to have the macc rd jct to help spread the load as to say!
Personally I think wherever you put jct's there's gonna be more traffic as this road in my opinion will just attract more vehicles from the airport direction heading over the hills and likewise the other way?
If you read he comments on Facebook semmms page, somebody has made a comment about anouther design that wasnt even an option that was thought to be a good choice?
My personal opinion is that the general public are being listened to fully and we are being leas to think its a choice we have when they're just trying to being it in as cheap as possible!
Good luck with your meeting with jim McMahon, I went about a yr or two ago and went into his office, he was helpfull showing me all the detailed plans but nothing I hadn't seen or didn't know about but he couldn't answer why the plan had changed where I live to yrs before, I told him it was because it was cheaper to do it the current way and all I got was a smile lol
0 Likes 0 Dislikes Reply Reply Quote Quote Report Report  
Norma_Stitts
Supervised

Norma_Stitts
Re: Local Consultation Sham
22nd May 2013 at 12:36AM
FivewaysGrover Wrote:

The vast majority of people who 'voted' for option 1 in preference to option 2 probably live nowhere near the Fiveways and will not be affected by the decision.


What an ignorant comment. Do you expect them to vote for the option nearest to them?

When did you buy your house? Why did you ignore the searches?
0 Likes 1 Dislikes Reply Reply Quote Quote Report Report  
FivewaysGrover
Villager

FivewaysGrover
Re: Local Consultation Sham
22nd May 2013 at 8:45AM
You completely misunderstand my point. I don't strongly object to the road - though for the impact on the environment I wish it wasn't happening. I object to Option 1 being given preference over Option 2 - and I strongly object to the mechanisms that have been put into place to ensure that Option 1 emerges as the 'preferred' option.

People 'voting' for the Junction choice at Macc Road, on the whole, live nowhere near it and haven't got the first idea of the the impact of their choice. Option 1 is Manchester driven and is the wrong option for the residents of Hazel Grove.
0 Likes 0 Dislikes Reply Reply Quote Quote Report Report  
noroadm
Banned
Re: Local Consultation Sham
22nd May 2013 at 2:00PM
As a fiveways grover surely you would object to the road ?
0 Likes 0 Dislikes Reply Reply Quote Quote Report Report  
FivewaysGrover
Villager

FivewaysGrover
Re: Local Consultation Sham
22nd May 2013 at 4:01PM
I've lived in the Grove all my life and my house now overlooks Norbury Hall Farm fields - so, yes, being selfish, the road is an eyesore I could do without. But on balance I think the road will on balance be of benefit IF they get the junction right.
0 Likes 0 Dislikes Reply Reply Quote Quote Report Report  
<< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >>
 

Tagged With..

 

More about SEMMMS / Hazel Grove & Poynton Bypass / A555 MAELR

Top

Main

Places

Opinions

Create