M6 Expressway: Motorway would be countryside munching monster

10 January 2006

Countryside campaigners CPRE [1] have branded the proposals for a 50 mile new tolled motorway through the Staffordshire and Cheshire countryside as a ‘countryside munching monster’. Their dismay follows the first of two ‘stakeholder seminars’ by the Highways Agency to consider whether to build the M6 Expressway [2] or widen the existing M6; no non-road building options were considered.

Paul Hamblin, CPRE’s Head of Transport Policy, said:

‘The Government consulted on the idea of a new tolled motorway and 9,313 of the 9,528 respondents objected to it [3]. Astonishingly, Ministers have said there is no consensus on the idea and asked the Highways Agency to develop this concept anyway.’

The four statutory environmental advisors to the Government have this week expressed their opposition to the concept and called for it to be rejected [4].

Paul Hamblin added:

‘Government Ministers and the Agency say the choice is between a bigger M6 or a new tolled motorway. But the “third way” is to better manage traffic without destroying the countryside with new road building. This was a front running option of a £2 million Government study published almost four years ago [5]. Having ignored the public’s response they are now denying the sensible way forward.

‘The motorway would munch through countryside, add to climate changing emissions, and simply accelerate gridlock on the roads at either end.’

NOTES FOR EDITORS

1. CPRE, the Campaign to Protect Rural England, is a charity which promotes the beauty, tranquillity and diversity of rural England. We advocate positive solutions for the long-term future of the countryside. Founded in 1926, we have 60,000 supporters and a branch in every county. President: Sir Max Hastings. Patron: Her Majesty The Queen.

2. It is envisaged that the M6 Expressway would run from Junction 11a north of Birmingham to just north of Junction 19 in north Cheshire. While the Highways Agency has said that it would run close to the existing M6 for half its length, natural features, viaducts, and Motorway Service Areas prevent this for some of its length. The first meeting was held in Penkridge (Staffordshire) today (10 January). A second meeting will be held in Sandbach (Cheshire) on 13 January.

3. Only a little over 1% of those who responded to a Department for Transport consultation in Summer 2004 said that they supported the M6 Expressway concept. Opposition came from members of the public, many parish councils, the four statutory environmental advisors (see below) and the West Midlands Regional Planning Body.

4. The four statutory environmental advisors (Countryside Agency, English Nature, English Heritage and Environment Agency) have all objected to the M6 Expressway concept. In a joint letter to the Transport Minister, Stephen Ladyman sent on 9 January, they write, ‘The Statutory Bodies’ shared position regarding the M6 Expressway is that the proposal should be rejected due to its potential impacts on the built and historic environment and its likely severe impacts on the surrounding landscape, designated sites, waterways, flood plains and on local communities. We are concerned that the feasibility study is going ahead despite the significant level of opposition on environmental grounds expressed by consultees to the proposal’.

5. The Government commissioned a Midlands to Manchester Multi-Modal Study (MIDMAN). The study examined a range of options for improving transport between the two conurbations, and reported in March 2002. It ruled out an entirely new motorway and widening the existing M6 to dual five lanes. It looked at a non-road building option that included charging for road use, and considered it was ‘a matter of judgement’ as to whether this option should be adopted or the existing M6 widened to dual four lanes.

---

Press releases, papers and documents published on this page are the intellectual property of an organisation unrelated to Central Lobby. We promote their parliamentary and political campaigning activities as they are subscribers to the Central Lobby service.

As such, Central Lobby does not edit, endorse, or attempt to balance the opinions expressed on this page. The content of press releases and other such types of content are the responsibility of the originating organisation.