Whats New?

TSLM
Appeal Fund
Donate Online

Visitors since 1st March 2005

If you have not visited for a while, please check the Archive page for any news you may have missed.
For T-shirts & Posters, please see the bottom of this page

Click Here for the TSLM Alternative Solutions

Click Here for TSLM Community News & Events

Recent News & Updates below:

..........................................................................................................

16th June 2009: Lights out for Link Lovers.

Support for the Link was a voter turn off in the local elections. Several of principal promoters were kicked off the Council, a severe blow to their monster road dream.
Labour lost control of Lancashire County Council. Hazel Harding (leader), lost her seat, as did previous Cabinet members for transport, Cllr. Tomlinson, Cllr. Martin and Cllr. Yates. All of these defeated Labour councillors were active promoters of the Link plans. Jean Yates planned to turn Heysham into a lorry park, but the electorate thought otherwise.

In the Morecambe Town Council elections, the Morecambe Bay Independents (MBIs) swept the board, winning 25 out of the 26 seats. These independents have consistently listened to the people of the area and opposed the Northern Route plan. In Torrisholme, their highest vote went to Linda Davies, who made national headlines with her heroic legal challenge to the Secretary of State's approval of the monster road.

Labour party activists stood under the confusing banner of the 'Residents First' party; however, the electorate saw them for who they really were, and all of those candidates, including Cllr. Jean Yates and Cllr. Janice Hanson, were defeated. This group of activists were responsible for the short-lived 'Love the Link' initiative, which was created to counter the success of TSLM.

However, several supporters of the plan remain on the County Council, and TSLM will now mount a lobbying campaign to win over the new Council. We want the Conservatives to review the scheme on value for money grounds, and to advance alternative congestion relief measures for the district.

At £140 million and rising, the Northern route is poor value for tax-payers, and a major contributor to the debt mountain. Will the Tories blow their transport budget for their term of office on Labour's overblown and under-performing road?

Cheaper and more effective alternative transport plans for the district already exist, but have been quietly suppressed in favour of the Northern route. We need to get the traffic in our district moving again and not allow our road system to act as a magnet for more international HGV's.

The Link is an environmental nightmare producing 23,500 tons of extra CO2 each year, and it is a destroyer of 173 acres of Green Belt. Conservative policy is sworn to protect the environment: let us now put that to the test.

We have all done a great job in making the Link road a main issue in the election, and now we have the opportunity to guide new Councillors onto the right path, not along Labour's overblown road. We urge you to email them and remind them that this is a situation where they can make their mark. This is what TSLM is fighting for, to get the traffic moving again and to stop the monster road.

..........................................................................................................

20th April 2009: No to the Northern route! Make your voice and your vote count on June 4th.

We have a great opportunity coming up on June 4th to let the County Council know how we feel about their plan to build the damaging and destructive HGV route across our district. The Councillors who voted in favour of the Monster Road are themselves coming up for re-election.

A major change at County Hall could well put an end to the Link Road nightmare. Please take this opportunity to make your voice heard. Ask your candidates for their stance on the Link Road and tell them why you oppose it. Encourage friends and neighbours to do the same.

TSLM is not a politically driven group and so we cannot tell you who to vote for, but we can remind you that all three of the main parties, led by Labour, were responsible for the Northern route go ahead, the matter was rushed through the Council Cabinet, and it was not debated or voted on by the full council. Before the vote there was no meaningful public consultation.

Many people are very angry about the way the County Council has conducted itself in this controversial matter and there is a determined mood to put matters right.

Please make sure that you, your family, friends and neighbours get out to vote, do your own informal canvassing, write to the local newspapers and let people know how you feel.

The Heysham M6 Link road is a politically-driven dud. It does not tackle the district's congestion nightmare, it is destructive and polluting and it would be a major contribution to the nation's debt mountain.

DON'T FORGET, USE YOUR VOTE ON JUNE 4TH.

..........................................................................................................

18th April 2009: Council’s "thorough fact check" fails to reveal thumbs down for the Link road

Documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act have revealed that, prior to the Governments decision to grant entry to the road building funding programme, Lancaster City Council failed to advise the Planning Inspectorate that the City Council had withdrawn its support for the controversial Heysham M6 Northern Link road.

Following the Public Inquiry on Lancaster’s Core Strategy, a draft Inspector’s Report was prepared by the Government Planning Inspectorate, and Lancaster City Council was asked to check it for errors and omissions. In June 2008 the Planning Services Department at Lancaster City Council replied, stating that "....the (City) Council has undertaken a thorough fact check of the report and appendices. The Council has found no fundamental errors of fact. There are a few very minor factual errors and typos which the Inspector may consider correcting.”

Yet in the draft Inspectors Report on the Core Strategy Development Plan was an erroneous statement that the City Council "supported" the Link road. In fact, the full Council had voted on 20th June 2007 specifically to withdraw support for the scheme.

Then Lancashire County Council, in its desperate bid to gain funding for the road, told the Government that the City Council actually supported the scheme.

"It’s hard to see how the officers at the City Council could make such a stupendous blunder," said David Gate, chair of local transport campaign group Transport Solutions for Lancaster and Morecambe (TSLM). "The polluting and destructive road plan is a massive controversy, and the full Council’s decision was so well publicised.

“The Inspector was misled. The Government was misled. In a recession when £137 million of taxpayers’ money is at stake, the democratic decision of the Council, reflecting the wishes of its electorate to reject the HGV route, is clearly fundamental.

"The City Council and a great many people who live in the district, including the sitting MP, have given this under-performing road a massive thumbs down, and the Government should have been told that before it parted with scarce public money."

..........................................................................................................

29th January 2009: Link Road joins the congested queue for taxpayer funding.

After a wait of nearly four years, the controversial Heysham M6 Link road has been granted “Programme Entry” status in its bid to secure funding from the Government. But no money is earmarked for congestion relief in Lancaster and Morecambe.

“Programme entry funding would cover £133 million of the costs of building the road. But it does not extend to any further measures designed to tackle in town congestion,” says David Gate chair of transport campaign group TSLM.

“It does not cover Park & Ride (£3.5 million), or congestion relief measures, or future cost overruns. The Government refuses to fund them, so the cash-strapped County Council must bear the cost, and who knows how many millions that will be? Lancashire's hard pressed taxpayers are now committed to a huge and unknown liability for the future.

“The County Council has pressed on with this scheme, in the face of opposition by the district’s MP Geraldine Smith, the City Council and the local public. They know it won’t solve congestion, won’t bring jobs, but will increase pollution. Yet there are alternatives. An integrated package of transport relief measures has been drawn up, and is on councillors’ desks at the moment. It would tackle congestion more cheaply than the Link Road.

“We know the Department of Transport is not happy with this scheme. We have met them, and the officers knew that the submission was flawed and inadequate in several key respects. We’re disappointed they’ve granted programme entry, but they are adamant that County must pay its full share of any further cost increases, and there are likely to be many.

“Pitfalls lie ahead for the Link plan before it destroys the Green Belt”, says Mr. Gate. “The County must get Compulsory Purchase Orders, with a possible public inquiry. Then they must get quotes from contractors, which may be over budget. And at each stage, the recession-bound Government has to give further approval. There’s still a very long way to go.”

..........................................................................................................

16th December 2008:

David

What would be your Christmas wish for transport?

Check out the thoughts of our Chairman on the
Campaign for Better Transport website

..........................................................................................................

13th December 2008:

Results of the TSLM Flower Quiz now on the TSLM Community page

..........................................................................................................

29th September 2008: Plea to County Councillors to reassess transport priorities in Lancashire.

North Lancashire based transport campaign group Transport Solutions for Lancaster and Morecambe (TSLM) has today written to County Councillors across Lancashire advising them of the increased liability of Lancashire's taxpayers, and the hold on the county's transport budget for many years to come, caused by the rapidly escalating costs associated with the proposed Heysham M6 Link road scheme.

The estimated costs of the scheme, £87.7 million in July 2005, have now risen to £134.7 million: an increase of 54% in just three years. The Government, which has not granted any funding for the scheme, has stated that, if it did make money available, it would not fund further cost increases, or the cost of any complementary measures for congestion relief for the Lancaster and Morecambe district.

A package of congestion relief measures, including park & ride, public transport
improvements and changes to one way systems, has been drawn up and costed at £96 million. No money has been earmarked for these congestion relief measures for North Lancashire, nor are there any initiatives under way to implement them.

"It goes without saying that money is tight at the moment, but Lancashire County Council (LCC) is determined to press on with a controversial road building scheme, which has consequences for the county's taxpayers and other transport projects in Lancashire, for many years to come," said David Gate, chair of TSLM. "If it spends the money on the road, it is very unlikely that the congestion relief measures will be implemented and Lancaster and Morecambe will continue to be log jammed.

"We believe that North Lancashire's congestion problem could be greatly relieved by
prioritising the integrated transport package that has been developed for the area, without resorting to building this road. The Link road would simply encourage more heavy goods traffic onto our roads to use Heysham port, and it would wipe out 173 acres of North Lancashire's Green Belt, and generate 24,000 tons of CO2 in its first year of
operation alone.

"It’s time for the County Councillors to re assess their transport priorities, and give North Lancashire's congestion relief measures the go ahead. We fear that if they build the Link road there will be nothing left in the kitty to tackle our horrendous congestion, without placing an unreasonable burden on Lancashire's taxpayers and blocking other transport plans in the County.”

..........................................................................................................

25th September 2008: Pictures from the latest TSLM Roller Disco on the Community Page

..........................................................................................................

22nd September 2008: Expert advises value for money congestion busting measures, not the Northern route

Concerned that vital Department for Transport appraisal guidance has not been followed in planning for the Heysham M6 Link road, and the fact that there is no clear statement as to what the costs really are, local campaign group Transport Solutions for Lancaster and Morecambe (TSLM) engaged a national transport expert, Keith Buchan to look into matters.

In his report, which is now being considered by the Department for Transport, he concludes that vital appraisal guidance has not been followed and that a proper alternative package of transport measures should be prepared to compare with the Northern route scheme.

"A considerable amount of work on other measures has already been done by council consultants Faber Maunsell and proposals have been made in a £120,000 report, but the Preston based County Council stubbornly sticks to the £189 million Link road as its top priority." said David Gate, chair of TSLM. "The main purpose of the Link is to attract more heavy traffic to use Heysham port, but for most local people between town congestion is the main priority."

"It will come down to a question of priorities; no one in their right mind thinks that the taxpayer can afford both. We believe that for half the price of the Link Lancaster and Morecambe could get the integrated transport solution that it deserves and we challenge the County Council to prove that we are wrong."

Download the report here (pdf)

..........................................................................................................

Halton residents' giant protest against the "Lune-y Bridge"

Giant billboards make a vivid protest against the proposed bridge over the Lune for the M6 link.

"Villagers have suffered disastrous floods in the past",
says Halton resident Mike Jacob.

This bridge will increase the risk of worse floods in the future. It is too low.
Its piers are at the edge of the water, and will trap hugh amounts of debris in a flood, damming the river for people living just upstream.

This bridge must not be built, especially at a time when flooding is predicted to be more intense and frequent."

..........................................................................................................

14th July 2008: Upcoming TSLM Community events:

TSLM are holding a Pub Quiz on 24th July and an afternoon Tea Dance on12th August for full details, see the TSLM Community page.

..........................................................................................................

7th July 2008: No Congestion Relief Cash From Government

Following the surprising news, from the Government Office for the North West, that the Department for Transport refuses to fund the Park and Ride plan as part of the Heysham M6 lorry link scheme, local MP Geraldine Smith asked a question in Parliament last week about much needed congestion relief measures for the district.

The answer from the Department for Transport reveals that the Government will not fund any congestion relief measures. It’s now up to Lancashire County Council to decide what to do about the traffic gridlock, and for them to come up with the money.

"This is yet another blow to the controversial Northern route scheme and a burden to the people of our district," says David Gate, Chair of Transport Solutions for Lancaster and Morecambe (TSLM) the local campaign group. "The Government will not pay for the Park and Ride because they do not consider it to be an integral part of the massive HGV road scheme: that's an estimated £3.5 million that Lancashire's taxpayers will have to find.

"It is also clear that the Government will not be funding any of the new proposals from the Vision Board’s eagerly-awaited Integrated Transport Study or measures advanced by Geraldine Smith MP and the Chamber of Commerce, so there is no money for Park and Ride, a one way system review, improved public transport or a bridge from Morecambe to Lancaster Luneside."

"We have always said that if the transport budget was blown on the Northern route there would be nothing left for local congestion relief, and that has just been confirmed by the Government."

"There is nothing positive for Lancaster and Morecambe in the Link road plans: it is just a lorry attracting route to Ireland, which will cause massive pollution and destroy our Green Belt. Its time that North Lancashire’s needs were given priority by the Government and Lancashire County Council, with effective plans to deal with our congestion and
support for our ongoing regeneration initiatives."

..........................................................................................................

23rd June 2008: Link road and Park and Ride- Government 'throws the wrong bit away'

Hopes for congestion relief for Lancaster suffered a setback when the Government told Lancashire County Council to remove the Park and Ride plan at J34 of the M6, from the Council's bid for funding of the controversial Heysham M6 Link road scheme.

"We think that they have thrown the wrong bit away," said David Gate chair of local transport campaign group Transport Solutions for Lancaster and Morecambe (TSLM). "Clearly, the Government could see that the Park and Ride was only added to the funding bid as last minute window dressing, for an otherwise destructive and damaging plan. Park and Ride is not an integral part of the HGV route plan.

"LCC has sold this road scheme - to the people of Lancaster & Morecambe and
to the Public Inquiry - as "integrated" with congestion-relieving measures. We've always said that's a sham - it's just a road scheme. This news shows that the Government doesn't believe them either, and agrees with us.

"With large scale development plans for Lancaster well in hand, the in-town traffic congestion problems for Lancaster and Morecambe are set to get worse. Other groups led by Geraldine Smith and the 'Vision Board' are pressing for another bridge into Lancaster, and other congestion-relieving measures, like rapid transit, park & ride, and a one-way system review. But the regional transport budget is already overspent by £187 million, and the Link road costs keep going up.

"The big question is: where is the money coming from to pay for the district's congestion relief in these tough economic times? The Link road would cost at least £185 million without the Park and Ride, and all it would do is attract more heavy goods vehicles into the district and destroy our Green Belt. There is a big transport funding issue for our district: the authorities are not tackling the main problem, congestion. The County Council should drop the underperforming road plan and use the money on a package of less damaging alternative measures designed to combat congestion and be of benefit to the area as a whole."

..........................................................................................................

17th June 2008: TSLM Fund raising boot sale held on 8th June

Report & pictures on the TSLM Community page

..........................................................................................................

13th June 2008: TSLM Annual General Meeting:
Four years on - a political sea change, and the Northern route plan now makes no sense at all.

On 20th May, TSLM held its fourth Review of the Year and Information Night (Annual General Meeting). Supporters were brought up to date with TSLM's activities over the past year, and our strategy for the future.

The event drew over sixty concerned residents to the Vale of Lune Rugby Club to hear from TSLM's strategy committee. No less than eleven TSLM members were eager to outline ongoing initiatives, from fund raising to letter writing, from leafleting to alternative solutions. Everyone was pleased to see such a high level of commitment, professionalism and diverse activity from the group.

To put matters simply, the £200 million monster road is now mired in controversy. It has not been given the funding go ahead, and the planning decision is under scrutiny in the High Court.

Nationally, fuel prices have gone through the roof; the days of carefree motoring and cheap HGV freight on our roads have gone forever. In other towns, like Manchester, the authorities are looking at alternative transport solutions, like improving public transport infrastructure and congestion charging.

In our district, not even the Councillors are touting the lorry-generating Link road as an answer to our transport problems. Indeed, our MP and the Chamber of Commerce want to invest in another Lune bridge, and the Council sponsored Vision Board is sitting on a £120,000 report by expert consultants, which recommends a package of innovative and integrated transport measures.

The regional transport budget is believed to be overspent by £181 million, and tough economic times lie ahead. If the Link did get the financial go ahead, there would be nothing left in the transport kitty to address Lancaster and Morecambe's congestion woes, and we would be stuck with a lorry-attracting road that, from the outset, 76% of local people said they didn't want.

It’s about time Preston-based County Councillors played catch-up: road building is destructive, expensive and it does not solve congestion; alternative solutions are out there, are being considered by forward-thinking authorities, and have been advanced for our district by TSLM for the last four years!

From day one, the Northern route plans have been criticised because the monster would destroy 173 acres of Green Belt, massively increase greenhouse gasses, and do little or nothing for our congestion problems.

Nothing has changed in four years, but the politics that swirl around this damaging and expensive plan have swung around markedly. Now, we are all aware of climate change: the government says we must cut emissions, but this scheme does the exact opposite. Soaring fuel prices show the folly of building more and more roads.

Last June, Lancaster City Council voted to withdraw support from the scheme. It is now up to the dinosaurs at Lancashire County Council to listen to local people and move on. Be assured that TSLM will continue to tell them just that as we continue our campaign to stop the Monster road.

At the meeting, TSLM made this statement about the ongoing legal challenge:

A high court action was filed on 18th March, by a resident of Russell Drive, against the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Hazel Blears. Lancashire County Council is named as an interested party to the action.

It is understood that the claimant seeks an order quashing the Secretary of State’s decision, which had granted planning permission for the link road.

The road would apparently be built 200 metres away from the claimant’s house at a height of 8 metres. She is concerned that she and her neighbours would suffer noise, air and light pollution.

TSLM understands that the claimant will seek to show that she has been
substantially prejudiced by errors of law, in the approach to, and lack of adequate reasons for, the Secretary of State’s decision.

The case is likely to last for several months, and while it is before the Court, and because TSLM is not a party, it is not appropriate for TSLM to comment further upon it.

We do wish to acknowledge that we support the claimant’s cause and we send to her our very best wishes for her success.

..........................................................................................................

20th May 2008: No joined up thinking on congestion measures. Don’t splash all the cash.

Great ideas are coming forward all the time to tackle congestion in Lancaster and Morecambe.

MP Geraldine Smith is leading a campaign to build another road bridge into Lancaster from Morecambe. Transport consultants working for the Vision board have come up with a range of transport ideas for the district, to deal with the local congestion nightmare. But Lancashire County Council, stuck in the past, is still trying get its hands on taxpayers’ money to pay for its lorry attracting £189 million Link road to Heysham port, which everyone sees will not tackle the district’s congestion.

Geraldine Smith MP, backed by the Chamber of Commerce, favours a new bridge scheme, and practical measures to improve traffic flow on Morecambe Road. Transport consultants Faber Maunsell have made a whole range of recommendations in their soon to be published £120,000 report, including 'rapid transit' between Morecambe, Lancaster and the University, Park and Ride 'Interceptor' Parking Strategy, and a one way system review.

With new developments going ahead at Luneside and Kingsway, and new plans for the Canal Corridor, the district’s already intolerable congestion problems are set to get much worse, with little or no relief from the new Link road.

"Several recommendations in the report look interesting, as alternatives to road building. Easing congestion between Lancaster and Morecambe should be the number one priority", said David Gate, chair of Transport Solutions for Lancaster and Morecambe, (TSLM), the local transport campaign group. "But the authorities don't seem to do joined up thinking. They want to splash all taxpayers’ cash on this one road scheme. It’s their only solution. We say: try the alternatives first. The regional transport budget is already overspent: don’t blow it all on the lorry attracting Link road.

"The Council admits to £140 million, but with compulsory purchase orders, damage claims and optimism bias, the likely ball park figure is now around £200 million.

“If the road goes ahead, there will be no money left for the realistic and practical measures to solve congestion that the district desperately needs.

“The choice is stark: measures to combat local congestion, or more lorries, more pollution and no Green Belt."

..........................................................................................................

10th March 2008: Uphill struggle for County on Link road cost

A question raised in Parliament by local MP Geraldine Smith has put Lancashire County Council (LCC) under the financial spotlight (Link). Last month, it issued a press release telling the public that Hazel Blears had given the controversial Heysham M6 Link road the go ahead (Link). In that release, it stated that the costs stood at £105 million.

Geraldine Smith MP questioned the Secretary of State for Transport on the funding, and Minister Rosie Winterton replied on 6 March that LCC had informed the Government that the latest 'outturn total cost' is estimated to be £140 million.

"It seems that the costs have leapt up by £35 million in one month," said David Gate, chair of transport pressure group TSLM, who favour
alternatives to road building. "The whole costs issue is likely to be a big headache for LCC. Its next step in the process is to convince the
North West Regional Assembly to support the scheme at the increased cost. The NWRA transport budget is already believed to be overspent by some £131 million.

"Even if the NWRA wanted to continue with this destructive and polluting, Green Belt destroying road, the whole issue would then go
back to the Department for Transport, who are considering the Link road’s bid for funding, submitted way back in July 2005. Here the County Council has to add a 35% 'optimism bias' to the £140 million, that's a whopping total of £189 million."

"LCC certainly have their work cut out to get their hands on the taxpayers’ money. With no answer to local congestion, no improvements to public transport and no extra bridge into Lancaster included in the package, the Link road looks like very poor value for money for everyone."

..........................................................................................................

28th February 2008: What will be lost? - Summer & Winter view from a garden on Russell Drive Torrisholme, where the proposed dual carriageway will pass through these fields at more than 26 feet high!

..........................................................................................................

16th February 2008: Message to TSLM Supporters - the fight’s not over yet!

Dear supporters,

You will have heard that the Link Road has been given planning permission. It is bad news. But it’s not the final answer. The road still has many hurdles to cross.

And TSLM will carry on fighting the Monster Road every step of the way.

We are taking legal advice to see if we can challenge the decision. We’ll keep you informed.

In the meantime, we have been asked by many shocked and deeply concerned people what they can do to stop this road that would so damage our district, and bring so few benefits.

The road has not got government funding yet.

It is important to make your views known now.

So please write to Rosie Winterton, Minister for Transport.

Ask her not to fund this destructive, polluting and underperforming scheme.

Copy your letter to our MP and councillors

Write to the press

Tell them the road:

Will not solve local congestion
Will not bring jobs. Job forecasts have been proved to be unfounded.
Will damage our environment, our Green Belt and our health
Will increase greenhouse gases which cause climate change
At £160 million for 3 miles of road, it is not value for money
There is widespread public opposition to the scheme across the district

At the Public Inquiry, TSLM showed that the road will cause great harm to the environment and Green Belt, and increase emissions of greenhouse gases. The Inspector agreed.

But he approved the scheme because he said there was no alternative. We disagree.

We agree with Lancaster City Council which voted against the scheme and for a package of measures to solve congestion. In a recent local survey, people’s preferred options were a public transport link between Lancaster and Morecambe, a Lune Bridge, and increased investment in trains & track. There are many more options.

Our MP Geraldine Smith is still opposing the scheme.

If anyone had taken the trouble to consult the public at the outset, they would have discovered that the vast majority of people who have to live with the consequences of this scheme are, and remain, opposed to it.

We have all fought long and hard for 3 years. We must keep fighting now.

If it goes ahead, it would be only the start of the destruction or our Green Belt.

There are many hurdles still for this road scheme to cross
The political climate is moving against building destructive roads. France has already embargoed them.

We must keep on fighting the Monster road

Please keep displaying your posters

Please ask relatives, friends and neighbours to write

David Gate
TSLM
February 2008

Rosie Winterton, Minister for Transport

Write to:

Rt Hon Rosie Winterton MP, Minister of State for Transport, Department for Transport, Great Minster House, 76 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DR

or email rosie.winterton@dft.gsi.gov.uk

Geraldine Smith MP

Write to: Geraldine Smith MP, House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA

or email smithg@parliament.uk

Your local City and County Councillor

For City Councillors see

http://committeeadmin.lancaster.gov.uk/mgMemberIndex.asp

For County Councillors see http://www3.lancashire.gov.uk/council/councillors/MyCouncillorFind.asp

..........................................................................................................

8th February 2008: ‘Monster Road’ plan approved: but it still won’t work.

Despite opposition from the district's MP, a withdrawal of support by Lancaster City Council, and a massive “NO” from the public, the Government today announced planning permission for the building of the controversial Heysham M6 Link road. The unpopular road will destroy 173 acres of the North Lancashire Green Belt and bring noise, vibration, light and air pollution to at over 1,000 households within 200m of the massive HGV dual carriageway.

"We at TSLM are devastated by the news, and we know that the decision will generate shock and anger across the district,” says David Gate, chair of transport campaign group TSLM who opposed the scheme at last year’s public inquiry. “This destructive road is a link to Heysham ferry port, nothing more. It won’t solve congestion, which is what concerns most people in the area. It won’t bring jobs to the area: those claims were shown to be pie in the sky. But it will bring pollution: 24,000 extra tones of CO2. With the whole world concerned about global warming, that’s exactly the wrong road to go down.

"The Government has sent a confusing message to the public. Last week it gave the go-ahead to two environmentally friendly public transport tram initiatives in nearby Blackpool and Manchester, worth over £187 million. This week it dumps an underperforming lorry attractor on Lancaster and Morecambe at a cost of £118 million and rising.

“But there is still a long way to go. Funding has not been approved by the Government. The fight will certainly continue against this scheme and for sustainable transport measures that people want and that really work.”

..........................................................................................................

16th December 2007: ‘Fishy Quiz’ Answers.

Congratulations to Simon Hutchinson, who won with every answer correct.

In joint second place were Lyn Gange and W N Stokes with just three wrong answers.

Click here to view the answer sheet.

..........................................................................................................

26th November 2007:

Transport group gives straight talking advice to Gordon Brown.

This week, Gordon Brown showed his green credentials. He pledged to reduce the UK’s greenhouse gases by 60%, or even 80%, by 2050. (1)

To help achieve this, a campaigning transport group called on the Prime Minister to scrap a road scheme which is more polluting than all approved local road schemes put together.

Transport Solutions for Lancaster and Morecambe (TSLM) (2) is fighting to stop Lancashire County Council building a new £160 million lorry route from the M6, across designated Green belt, to the ferry port of Heysham. The controversial road is set to produce 23,500 tons of extra CO2 in its first year of operation alone, and that means it would generate more greenhouse gasses than all of the other approved UK local road schemes put together. (3)

"Following a stark message from the United Nations on the threat of global warming, (4) and Gordon Brown’s pledge to reduce emissions, TSLM has written to Gordon Brown alerting him to the down side of building this monster road, and pointing him along the path towards sustainable transport choices and the need to reduce road travel," said David Gate, chair of the group. " We think that stopping massive spending on destructive road schemes in favour of less environmentally damaging alternatives is a no brainer. The PM knows this, and has pledged a massive reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050. But we know that he has to contend with local councillors and powerful pro road transport lobby, who have no intention of reigning themselves in."

"Plans to build speculative roads on Green belt countryside, to attract heavy goods traffic, are both outdated and obscene. Gordon Brown has the opportunity to send out a clear message to grass roots politicians that our environment comes first, road building is the last resort."

Download the letter here.

Notes

(1) Brown ready to make deeper emissions cuts | Special Reports | Guardian Unlimited Politics http://politics.guardian.co.uk/green/story/0,,2213648,00.html

(2) Transport Solutions for Lancaster & Morecambe (TSLM) is the local campaign group which opposes the construction of the Heysham M6 Link Road, and favours instead non-damaging sustainable transport solutions for the 21^st Century.

(3) Local Authority Major Road Schemes approved by the Department for Transport into the Local Transport Programme: total additional CO2 is 21,603 tonnes pa.

http://www.heyshamm6link.info/Evidence_on_Climate_change.pdf

(4) UN unveils full danger of climate change - Times Online

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2890960.ece

..........................................................................................................

29th October 2007: Campaigners meet to fight for Better Transport:

Campaigners from TSLM joined road protesters from all over the country in Birmingham on Saturday 27 October, to compare notes on their fight against unnecessary road building.

Renowned journalist George Monbiot gave the keynote speech, telling delegates that, to avoid environmental disaster, carbon emissions must be reduced by 90% by 2030. Building more roads is exactly the wrong way to go.

Estelle Taylor launched the brand-new website of Campaign for Better Transport www.bettertransport.org.uk (previously Transport 2000, which campaigns for better transport policies), packed with useful information for road protesters.

Becca Lush Blum exploded seven myths in favour of road-building (download pdf here)

The afternoon saw the innovative campaigners' clinic, when many experts and campaigners, including TSLM, shared their knowledge and experience with others in the same situation.

Mandy Kendall from TSLM said: "Meeting and learning from other people at the event was really useful.

"We learned that the world is near the 'tipping point' - damage to the environment may soon be irreversible. So we're fighting not just for our own environment in Lancaster & Morecambe, but for the future of everyone on the planet."

..........................................................................................................

19th October 2007: Council road boss admits omissions on Northern route plans.

In a surprise move, Lancashire County Councillor Tony Martin has delayed plans for an Ormskirk bypass, and he has admitted to the press that the County Council made errors in their preparations to submit the plan for the controversial Heysham M6 Link Northern route, which he did not want to repeat at Ormskirk.

And, mysteriously, Tony Martin appears to put words into the mouth of the Public Inquiry Inspector that he didn’t say – unless Tony knows something about the Inspector’s report that he shouldn’t know yet.

Cllr Martin told the Ormskirk Advertiser that the planning inspector at the Lancaster public inquiry had said to the County Council that they "hadn't looked at non-road schemes, alternatives such as encouraging more people to use public transport, park and ride schemes. Stuff like that. We said fine, we thought we'd done what we had to, but we'll take it on for the future. We are picking up on what the inspector said so there is less chance of the Ormskirk Bypass being called in by the Government when we present it." (1)

"A major part of our case against the £156 million Northern route was that Lancashire County Council had ignored Government guidance and common sense by rushing to build a road before considering alternatives," said David Gate chair of TSLM the local campaign group.

"Now after all this time and trouble, Lancashire County Council has admitted that what we have been saying has been right all along. And all along the Council has been wrong to ignore it."

“What’s more, the Inspector didn’t say those words at the Inquiry – he didn’t express any opinions: it would have been improper for him to do so. And his report is confidential between him and the Department of Communities and Local Government, until Hazel Blears, Secretary of State, announces her decision. Tony Martin can’t have seen it officially, and even if somehow he knows what it says, he should not be commenting on it. We’ve asked Tony for an explanation, but he hasn’t replied.

“He seems to be deliberately misquoting the Inspector, while admitting Lancashire County Council got it wrong. He doesn’t want to admit that the local campaign group was right.

"The Minister’s decision is due in January, and it is hard to see how the Government can give the go ahead after this admission. We need a solution to the district’s traffic congestion, not a polluting and destructive lorry route to Heysham port. Lancaster City Council has withdrawn its support from the scheme. How can we move forward without a proper integrated transport study which considers all the options?"

Note (1) http://icseftonandwestlancs.icnetwork.co.uk/icormskirk/news/tm_headline=plans-for-ormskirk-bypass-hit-by-delay&method=full&objectid=19929933&siteid=60252-name_page.html

..........................................................................................................

The Case against the Heysham M6 Link Road presented by TSLM and our partners ESTA at the Public Inquiry from 10 July to 10 August 2007

The overall case was presented by barrister Jeremy Pike. You can read a summary here.

Alan James gave detailed evidence on:

Options & Alternatives

Key points

LCC claims that the road will release roadspace to allow complementary measures, like more bus lanes. But TSLM says that these measures could and should be introduced now, without a road. Traffic reductions are so slight that they will not make any real difference.

In fact, the road will increase traffic by about 15%, increase CO2 by 23,500 tonnes per year, so is NOT sustainable, as government policy requires.

Government requires the investigation of all non-road-building alternatives: new roads should only be the policy of last resort. But LCC decided on a road solution many years ago. It pursues the Northern Route because its only other option, the Western Route, is unbuildable. It has spurned the opportunity to be guided by more up-to-date thinking, and government policy.

For Alan’s written statement, read Evidence on Options and Alternatives

Economic Impact

Key points

LCC claims that congestion on roads to the Morecambe & Heysham peninsula is holding back development. But TSLM says

The time saved on the journey from the M6 to Heysham (at most 9 minutes) is small, and would make little difference to overall journey times.
There is no evidence that businesses feel unable to expand
The Port is expanding and land is being developed, without the road
Business’s main concern is lack of people with the right skills, not lack of a road
Tourists are more influenced by the quality of the attractions when they arrive here, rather than a slightly shorter journey

In LCC’s Economic Impact Report, the forecast of new jobs tumbled dramatically from 6,014 to 949, of which only 595 would go to residents of Lancaster & Morecambe regeneration area (which includes prosperous as well as deprived areas).

So very unreliable forecasts.
LCC’s witness admitted that this number “was not worth spending £150 million on a road for”.
Most of the jobs forecast are unsuitable for unemployed people.

Roads go two ways: business can be sucked out of an area as well as brought in.

For Alan’s written statements, read: Evidence on Economic Impact 1 & Evidence on Economic Impact 2

Landscape

Key Points

The harm to landscape and the North Lancashire Green Belt by the scheme is agreed by Lancashire County Council to be severe, with an impact rating of “large adverse”.

Alan claims that many of the impacts of the road are understated, for example the loss of tranquility, particularly near the canal; the impact on the views from Torrisholme Barrow, and from urban areas of Lancaster, especially from Castle Hill and Williamson Park.

Benefits claimed for the scheme (new jobs and reduced congestion) are overstated or at best unproven or slight. Therefore these claimed benefits do not amount to being the ‘very special circumstances’ which would be needed to justify the degree of harm to the landscape and Green Belt by this scheme.

The Northern Route is not an acceptable alternative to the Western Route. Both have severe environmental constraints and both merit impact ratings of ‘major negative’. Therefore neither is acceptable. It has to be shown that all non-road solutions have been thoroughly examined before new road-building is considered – and this has not been done.

Much of the mitigation proposals are not specified, and in any case the potential for mitigating landscape impacts is limited, particularly as the route crosses the ‘grain’ of the landscape. Alan questions, among others, the value of ‘translocation’, the replacement of hedgerows if wildlife corridors are severed by the road and the quality of replacement footpaths

For Alan’s written statement, read : Evidence on Landscape and Green Belt

Phil Goodwin gave evidence on traffic

Key points

LCC forecasts assume that traffic increases in the area between 2001 and 2025, so most roads experience worsening conditions, with a slight improvement when the road is built. But these forecasts must be wrong: measures to reduce congestion would be introduced (Park & Ride, bus lanes, improved public transport, etc), because government policy demands them. LCC exaggerates congestion without a road, so the benefits of the road are exaggerated too. With a road, they say, the situation would not get better, just get worse more slowly.

The Secretary of State in her call-in letter says she wishes to be informed about public transport and the need to reduce travel, especially by car.

Policies exist to reduce traffic, and can be applied. In other parts of the UK,

Smart measures reduce congestion by 11 to 20%
Reallocation of road space is effective even in congested conditions, and
Road pricing could reduce congestion by 25 to 60%

The scheme increases car use. Other policies were available, and are in line with the SoS’s preoccupation with sustainable transport. This scheme did not have to be the only contender.

This is an old-fashioned scheme for a different world we don’t live in any more, assessed by old-fashioned tools which we shouldn’t be using any more.

For Phil’s full statement at the Inquiry: TSLM Evidence traffic

For his written statements:

Written evidence on Traffic 1

Written evidence on Traffic 1 summary

Written evidence on Traffic 2

Written evidence on Traffic 2 annex

John Whitelegg gave evidence on:

Air Quality

Key points

Air quality will be worse if the road is built, and the health effects are serious

There is no “safe” lower limit for many pollutants, and air pollution travels further than the 200m that LCC uses.

Lancaster & Morecambe College is very close, and it is not acceptable to introduce such a serious worsening of air quality for 5,000 young people.

LCC talks about properties affected, which does not take into account the number of people living or working in those properties; poor air quality damages people, and many people live close.

For John’s full statement, read Evidence on Air Quality

Noise

Key points

Noise is a seriously damaging health issue, and not just what LCC calls a “matter of annoyance".

Noise affects vulnerable groups and LCC has made no effort to identify these groups and where they live

Adding extra noise to the living environment of people who already experience noise is contrary to government policy

Nighttime noise is ignored, and this is perverse for a road for port traffic

For John’s full statement, read Evidence on Noise

Climate change

Key points

Government awareness and policy on every aspect of climate change is now very different to what it was when this scheme was put in place

There is a real policy clash between reducing greenhouse gases and granting planning approvals for big projects like this road

The HM6L is “business as usual” and makes no attempt to fit the new policy imperative

The road has a huge carbon burden - 23,500 extra tonnes of CO2 each year. LCC says it is a small percentage of the national total, but government says we must reduce the total, not increase it.

For John’s full statement, read Evidence on Climate Change

Accidents & safety

Key points

LCC claims the road will improve accidents and safety.

TSLM says there are much better and far cheaper ways to reduce road accidents and improve road safety, rather than building a road.

LCC is promoting more traffic and higher speeds, but that is inconsistent with reducing death and injury.

For John’s full statement, read Evidence on Accidents & Safety

John Gow presented the view of a Torrisholme resident, and the adverse impact on the community:
read View of Torrisholme resident

Jane Boland presented the view of a Slyne resident, particularly the forecast traffic increases in the area:
read View of Slyne resident

Mike Jacob presented the view of a Halton resident, and the fears of the new Lune bridge increasing the risk of flooding:
read View of Halton resident

Mike Porter presented written evidence on Biodiversity:
read Evidence on Biodiversity

Andy Yuille gave evidence on Planning matters:
read Evidence on Planning

Lillian Burns gave evidence on the Regional Funding Allocation Process: read read Evidence on Regional Funding Allocation

..........................................................................................................

5th September 2007: Winning numbers for the September 500 Club are as follows

1st prize

£100

Number 197

2nd prize

£50

Number 132

3rd prizes

£10 each

Numbers 147 / 47 /
453 / 188 / 56

Winners will be notified by phone or in person.