Tesco Values: the role of the Highways Agency in the Hattersley Tesco

Many thanks to NMB reader and occasional contributor kirtlegreen for this analysis of the role of the Highways Agency in relation to the Hattersley Tesco:

The Highways Agency are the Statutory Authority for trunk roads in the UK, so where a retail application might impact upon the national network, it is incumbent upon them to form and take a position as a key Statutory Consultee. In this role the Highways Agency duly placed a holding Objection on the Hattersley Tesco Extra application around May of last year, with the proposed store being adjacent to the highly congested M67 roundabout. This hold was pending closer examination of the matter and could, I believe, have been maintained indefinitely until the Agency were fully satisfied that the proposal would have no adverse impact on the trunk route East and West of the location (M67/A57/A628).

Had the Highways Agency Holding Objection been maintained, firstly, it would have been hard for Tameside to even hear the application let alone legally pass it. It would certainly have established the matter as one of national importance for the Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government, Eric Pickles. Whilst accepting there are numerous other issues with this store, I would venture to suggest therefore that their powers made the Highways Agency the “key or decisive witness” and their actions as a public body particularly worthy of scrutiny.

The Highways Agency in their role as statutory consultee employed Halcrow as consultants to review the evidence supplied by Waterman Boreham on behalf of the applicant, CTP (for Tesco). The evidence Halcrow looked at was based on work commissioned by Tameside Council (a retail study by White Young & Green) with projections employed - rather than facts - by Waterman Boreham to make traffic behaviour assumptions. In this rather circular way (considering the multiple involvement of Tameside Council) all the various transport consultants involved - Waterman Boreham, Halcrow and ultimately the Agency - reached the same very surprising conclusion.

Far from being the obvious traffic nightmare there would be a net reduction in trips at the M67 corridor as a result of the application for a Tesco at Hattersley! The more than dubious case, made on the basis of some hypotheses, was that reduction of outward journeys from Hattersley would offset any increase of inward traffic resulting in a benign outcome for the M67 corridor. A particular test of the M67 roundabout in this scenario was, as I have read it, thus considered an unnecessary further step.

This happens to be completely the opposite of what everyone could possibly expect to be the case, as witnessed by letters in the press and objections sent to the Planning Authority and the Secretary of State, who all see things in a far less favourable light. The general consensus in this area is that these findings simply cannot be right and a very sizeable consensus it is too, with over 2,500 people. Everyone apart from these traffic agencies/consultants seem to prefer the evidence of their own eyes, rather than guesswork and extrapolations within a retail study. They seem to think that a store with over 525 parking places in a road system operating at full capacity does not make any sense in planning or any other terms you care to think of. They appear to feel - with it must be said some considerable logic - that they will suffer adversely in many ways, with respect to falling property values, and a very considerable deterioration of quality of life, due to continual slow moving traffic in the area, i.e. gridlock. This is to the extent that people are talking about upping sticks and moving away. However once the Highways Agency, as representative of the Secretary of State, adopted the position given by Halcrow, the traffic implications of the Hattersley Tesco were suddenly going to be virtually impossible to challenge; the influence of the Highways Agency, whether contrary to obvious sense or not, being decisive in these considerations.

The issue therefore seems to be whether the Highways Agency are expected to follow some safe pattern of assessment, and whether that assessment is fully independent, complete and cannot be connected with the applicant in any way and is thus shown to be fundamentally sound - or not. Also, if the Agency has skimped the job -  for whatever reason - by not conducting their own survey, or in view of the congestion have conducted only a low level study, then how are the interests of the public within their remit protected?

Either we live in a despotic state, where the the public fund a planning process which is simply a facade, or the Highways Agency as Statutory Consultee to the process for its transport element should be able and willing to indicate adherence to a clear and satisfactory set of assessment guidelines, which are not ad hoc but firmly applicable in all cases. It would seem extraordinary if such guidelines do not exist for them and that in this case it cannot be demonstrated minutely, with full documentation, to show how they have been followed. The public, through representatives or themselves, would seem to have a clear right to scrutinise and test this process to satisfy themselves, particularly where such doubt exists as to the conclusions - as in this case.

There therefore remain questions to be answered, of perhaps both local and national importance here, regarding the transparency of the Highways Agency as a public body. Perhaps answering those questions will help in this particular matter?

New cost estimate for 'withdrawn' Mottram Bypass - £19.6 million

Our old friend John Hall has been doing some digging. He recently requested from the Highways Agency information about the total cost of the original Bypass scheme to date in a Freedom of Information request.

Now you may remember that we have covered pretty much every twist and turn of the issue of costs over the past 3 years. The last time we reported was in May last year, when the accumulated cost was £17,176,000, this figure having leapt up by £1,176,000 in less than 6 months.

In this context, the reply to John Hall's Freedom of Information request in somewhat staggering - the cost now stands at £19.6 million (or £19,600,000 in longhand), meaning that £2.4 million has been added to the costs in just over 12 months. Whether this is as a result of a re-audit of the accounts, or that the abandoned scheme is still accruing costs is unclear, but you may remember that in March 2009, 4NW allowed the Highways Agency £1.1 million over the next seven years towards 'ongoing administrative costs'. For 2009-2010, the HA were apportioned £100,000 for this.

So one way or the other, the costs the scheme seems to have accrued have already swallowed up more than double the next seven years money in 12 months.

Now think about this: the media and politicians keep telling us that there's no money left, and that we must all face cuts to jobs, wages, services etc. At the same time, executive pay is up, banks are still paying bonuses, there's loads of money for useless wars - and the Highways Agency are still swallowing horrendous amounts of money for an 'abandoned' road scheme. You couldn't make it up.

Revealed - the cosy meeting to progress 'Bypass 2.0'

This week has seen the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities publish a document (opens PDF) outlining which major transport schemes will be prioritised in the region and how they will be funded. The story has hit the headlines and is in today's Manchester Evening News.

If you don't know much about the background to this report, then you'd assume the numerous references to a 'Mottram Bypass' would be shorthand for the Mottram/Hollingworth/Tintwistle Bypass, even though the latter scheme is referred to only once in the document (on page 4). Look more closely at some of the tables illustrating costs, and you'll find the 'Mottram Bypass' is described as now only costing £100 million - and you may be wondering 'what happened to the other £200 million'?

But if you take this in the context of the previous AGMA press release issued at the end of March and also the TMBC Executive meeting last month, then you'll quickly start to understand something new is on the table.

And now, we can shed more light upon exactly who has been up to what in terms of progressing this new 'Bypass 2.0' scheme. Well, almost.

First we must set down some context. On 19th March 2009, representatives from various agencies met at the Highways Agency's offices at City Tower in Manchester. The date is neatly sandwiched between the announcement of the deferral of funding for the original bypass scheme by 4NW on 12th March and the announcement by the Highways Agency that they were withdrawing from the PI on 24th March.

The purpose of the meeting was to salvage something from the 4NW decision, and the (redacted) minutes of the meeting - obtained by John Hall - can be read here.

Upon reading the minutes, it quickly becomes clear that all of the major players in the Bypass have no intention of simply dropping the plan for a road through Longdendale, whatever their public position may be. Whilst this is unsurprising for the likes of Tameside MBC, you do start to wonder what is going on when the Highways Agency play a major part, and as you read further into the minutes, you realise it is they that are playing a strange game.

The key section of the minutes lies in section 5 'Existing scheme', with paragraph 7 showing duplicity is at work with regard to the Public Inquiry (emphasis added):

"(redacted) explained that the Public Inquiry had been adjourned but was still live. A discussion took place about the potential for a Phased Inquiry based on any revised option, and it was agreed that there may be some value in exploring this, dependent on the shape of any emerging proposals"

Presumably, this anticipates that the last two years (and as yet undisclosed £X million) have been 'phase 1' which is now adjourned, and that another scheme can be drawn up and emerge in 'phase 2' when it is ready.

Looking back to March 24th, when the Highways Agency announced their withdrawal from the PI, one has to look at the wording of their statement which we emphasised at the time (again, our emphasis added):

The Highways Agency is withdrawing from the current Mottram-Tintwistle bypass Public Inquiry

We feel that these minutes are an important part of the puzzle falling into place: they demonstrate that the statements made by Alex Bywaters - the head of the Bypass project - in his email to the PI programme officer are wilfully misleading, and also that the HA have clearly not formally withdrawn from the PI yet because it doesn't suit the plans that this little crowd have for our Valley and the wider area. After all, the idea for a 'phased Inquiry' that they float means that there must be a period of transition: closing the current PI would simply be the end, and getting another PI running at a later date would clearly be much harder. It wouldn't be 'phase 2', it would simply be a second Inquiry.

One also has to note that 'alternative proposals' as described in the minutes means a road drawn up by the agencies, and not those presented to the Public Inquiry so far. The minutes go further in a section entitled 'Alternative proposals', which is clearly concerned with TMBC's 'Bypass 2.0', and makes clear the background behind AGMA's announcement in the press yesterday.

What we would be interested to learn is whether or not those individuals that had taken time and effort to propose 'alternatives' to the bypass or were due to do so at the PI (i.e. the Translink scheme for reopening Woodhead) have been invited to be present at these discussions? And if not, why not?

There's much more to these minutes than can be commented upon by us at this time (particularly the role of GMPTE, Faber Maunsell and Sir Howard Bernstein who the minutes suggest are joined at the hip), and one interesting point to note is that some of those present were due to meet the following day to progress 'Bypass 2.0'. We wonder what went on there?

Finally, there's the issue of the redacted names. There seems to be a spurious reason given for not releasing these names, so we're inviting readers to posit exactly who these people are. If this all looks plausible, at a later date, we'll amend the minutes to show who we think was there. So let's have your ideas.

This one will run and run...

Public Inquiry - Bywaters leaps into action!

We have proof positive that the Highways Agency simply haven't been paying attention to a word the Public Inquiry Inspector says.

For the past couple of weeks, stalwart objector John Hall has been emailing Persona Associates reminding them of the wishes of the Inspector regarding the closure of the Public Inquiry (you'll remember our blog about it the other week).

Last week, the programme officer Brenda Taplin was forced to email the Highways Agency Bypass chief Alex Bywaters to get some movement. Brenda very handily passed the email, along with Bywater's reply, on to John Hall, and it's available to view here (opens PDF).

For those who don't want to open the PDF, Brenda reminds Bywaters of the Inspector's request, and stresses the urgency in a very 'scolding' manner.

Bywaters replies, portraying himself as piggy in the middle: he says that, from his end, the respective legal departments of the Treasury and the Department for Transport are 'debating' something. He then asks Brenda if the Planning Inspectorate know what's going on!

The immediate question is - does this mean that neither the people in charge of the Bypass project nor the programme officer for the PI know what's going on? On first impressions, it would seem not*.

The other observation we can make is that Bywaters has failed to update the programme officer about the reasons for the delay. She has to email him, and then only after being mithered by an objector. Bywater's closing line "I want and end to this as much as the Inspector!" is ridiculous given that Taplin has had to remind him of the Inspector's request. It would seem to us that neither of them are motivated unless prodded by someone else.

Given that this charade is currently costing more than £7,000 a day, you wonder what it will take to get someone somewhere to do something to end this farce...

*As for what the DfT and Treasury are debating - well, we'll blog about our own views on what that is in the days to come.

What's the delay?

You may remember back in the dark distant past - 31st March actually - the Public Inquiry Inspector issuing document X21 to the Inquiry. In the document (entitled "Possible Closure of the Inquiry"), John Watson politely requested that the Highways Agency withdraw the draft Orders, and other such legal niceties, and confirm for him the date when they planned to formally withdraw from the Inquiry. He further requested that they do so by 15th April, unless it was their intention to provide such notice "within 4 weeks of the date of this note".

Well, we heard nothing from the Highways Agency by the 15th April and 4 weeks later, no such notice is forthcoming. Once again, the Highways Agency are prepared to waste money by prolonging matters to the utter limit, a limit which the Inspector is wholly reluctant to enforce. 

Could it be that something else is going on? We'll leave you to speculate.

"Scrapped" Bypass to cost £1.1 million over next 7 years...

...despite the fact it's been deferred. Yes, in their finalised funding advice (not the draft - opens PDF), 4NW has recommended that the Highways Agency should still be paid up until 2016, and we quote:

"The revised spend profile includes a nominal £100,000 per annum to cover ongoing Highways Agency administrative costs during the deferral period (page 14)"

That's £100,000 per annum between 2009/2010 - 2014/2015 and a final payment of £500,000 in 2015/2016 before the "deferred" funding comes on stream again (see the table on page 17). Even the most convinced pro-bypass individual must surely agree this is on a par with Fred Goodwin's pension arrangements in terms of an outrageous waste of money?

The scheme must be completely scrapped, and any further allocation of fund completely cancelled forthwith.

EXCLUSIVE: Highways Agency pull out of Public Inquiry

The Highways Agency today issued a press release announcing their withdrawal from the Public Inquiry into the Longdendale Bypass. The text is below (bold is our emphasis, you'll see why):

The Highways Agency is withdrawing from the current Mottram-Tintwistle bypass Public Inquiry, it was announced today.

The decision has been taken after the Regional Leaders Forum, 4NW, informed the Department for Transport that after assessing its priorities for funding from the Regional Funding Allocation it wants to delay the proposed start of the scheme by at least four years, until 2016/17.

The decision also comes in view of the extended period of time between the publication of the draft proposals for the scheme in 2007 and the earliest date at which the Inquiry might be reconvened. It is important that all parties to the Inquiry have a fair opportunity to understand and test the evidence base for the scheme given that the traffic model, environmental statement and cost estimate will have changed since 2007. The additional delay to the scheme will now require further amendments to be made to the traffic model, environmental statement and cost estimate.

Work on the scheme had initially been planned to start in 2012, subject to the completion of statutory processes.

Announcing the withdrawal from the current Public Inquiry, the Highways Agency's Major Projects Director, Nirmal Kotecha, said:

"We would like to thank all those who have taken the time to express an opinion about the A57/A628 bypass scheme.

"Draft proposals for the scheme were published in 2007. Since then a Public Inquiry has been started and adjourned and there have been changes to the traffic model and the environmental statement. After careful consideration we therefore feel it is appropriate to withdraw from the current adjourned Inquiry and re-start statutory processes, subject to further advice to Ministers by 4NW. It is important that all parties to the Inquiry have a fair opportunity to understand and test the evidence base for the scheme."

Notice the use of the word 'current' before Public Inquiry. The "Notes to editors" at the foot of the press release are also very important:

Notes to Editors

The A57/A628 Mottram - Tintwistle bypass is a proposal to bypass the villages of Mottram in Longdendale, Hollingworth and Tintwistle which currently suffer high volumes of traffic from the A628 trans-pennine trunk route between Sheffield and Manchester. A local authority scheme known as the Glossop Spur is being promoted by Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council at the same time.

The joint PI considering both schemes commenced in June 2007. Pending production of revised traffic forecasts incorporating new national traffic growth forecasts and the Environmental Statement, the Inquiry was adjourned in December 2007.

In July 2008, the Department published updated scheme costs estimates for the HA Major Roads Programme, including a new range estimate for Mottram-Tintwistle of £223m to £315m with a central estimate of £270m.

4NW is the Regional Leaders Forum for the north west of England. It has responsibility for housing, planning, transport and economic development. 4NW has a board of members including council leaders from each of the five sub-regions, Cumbria, Cheshire, Lancashire, Merseyside and Greater Manchester, along with seven representatives from the private, non-governmental sector such as Manchester Airport Group, North West Universities Association and the North West Trades Union Congress - people who are responsible for delivering the strategy proposals at local level in the north west.

4NW is due to submit further advice to Ministers in April on its latest priorities for funding from the Regional Funding Allocation.

If 4NW wants to progress the scheme, the Highways Agency will restart the statutory processes, including publication of Draft Orders and Environmental Statement.

It's possible to draw both positive and negative conclusions from this news, and were sure to have something to dissect as time goes by. In the meantime, the Manchester Evening News are carrying the story, as are the BBC.

UPDATE: James Purnell's office turned up for a look at the blog just before 1 p.m., presumably in search of the news (for an explanation into why we know this is JP's office, see this blog from last year).

You can listen to the report from BBC Radio Manchester on the mp3 player below:

John Watson - for how much longer can the "rules cope"?

We note that the Glossop Chronicle had another article last week about the latest delays to the Public Inquiry (PI), and that it seems to reveal further slippage on the whole process. We're not sure why the Chronicle is so privileged, but the information has yet to appear elsewhere. Perhaps the Highways Agency (HA) are keen to spin the news that we gave the exclusive for the other week? Indeed, according to the sitemeter, Carillion have been spending a lot of time on the blog of late.

Careful readers of the HA's latest submission to the PI will have noticed that they promised to publish a 'consultation strategy' this month - September 2008 (para 5). And whilst no date for the new Exhibitions was mentioned, the indication was that the revised Environmental Statement and other important documents would be submitted to the PI by May 2009. On the surface, it looked like the exhibitions would take place between this September and next May.

But the Chronicle is now saying that the exhibitions will not take place until June 2009. And a new article in Saturday's Manchester Evening News makes it clear that 'Public Consultation' will follow, making this PI the longest running Road Public Inquiry on record.

'Public Consultation' implies a long period of time - possibly several weeks. It also implies that the public will be consulted, and hence that responses will be invited, as is usually the case.

But what the HA actually want - and what the Inspector John Watson seems to want to give them - is to hold a public consultation on effectively brand new information (let's dispense with this 'revised evidence' crap!) whilst also holding a Public Inquiry simultaneously.

Surely 'never the twain shall meet'? How can the public respond to a consultation whilst a PI is underway into the 'same' (actually anything but) proposals? The Planning Inspectorate's own guidance notes make it clear (para 7.5 onwards) that these would not be 'duly made' supports or objections, since the deadline for responses has already been made. So how will they be treated?

If it is the case that the Highways Agency are making a new consultation, and that there will therefore be a deadline for responses, where does that leave the existing objectors? Do they have to object all over again, or do their existing objections - made against wholly different evidence - still stand ('duly made')? Perhaps, as we've seen before with John Watson, he will state that the 'rules can cope' with such a dog's breakfast?

This increasingly intriguing muddle of a farce is surely breaking entirely new ground now. But we'd like to know exactly what kind of rules or guidance permit John Watson to let the PI continue when the Highways Agency have effectively re-written their entire case, and further, allow the HA to re-consult on a new road scheme whilst keeping the PI into the old one open!

EXCLUSIVE: Public Inquiry now put back to May 2009 - TWO YEARS since beginning

Today sees the publication of the first substantial and relatively un-evasive document the Public Inquiry (PI) has seen from the Highways Agency (HA) in a while. You can read it here (opens PDF).

To summarise it is not easy for one not overtly inclined to wade through jargon. But the upshot seems to be that having made a complete balls up the first time around, it's taking them so long now because they're so concerned to get it right this time. All of which will not be good news to this poor soul.

What's bizarre about this whole thing is that in the middle of the Public Inquiry, the Highways Agency are now essentially saying they are taking us back to a process they started nearly 3 years ago, before the PI began. In the document, they reveal that consultations will need to take place on the revisions to the Environmental Statement and that there will also need to be another series of Exhibitions!

But they save the best bit until last - all of this attention to detail (and care) means that the new information will not be presented to the PI until May 2009 - TWO YEARS since this whole thing started:

"Consequently, it is planned to submit the revised Environmental Statement, the Statement of Case, Economic Appraisal Report and Proofs of Evidence to the Inquiry in May 2009" (para 6.3)

We now believe that the PI must now be stopped, and forthwith. Since the whole basis for this PI is built on foundations of clay, and the HA want to re-consult the public on massive subsequent changes to their evidence, there is no need to continue with it - the evidence has moved on, and so must they. This Inquiry is redundant - it is a shotgun wedding to cover an embarrassingly illegitimate & imminent stillbirth that is the government's road policy.

The Longdendale Bypass & the Credit Crunch - is this the end of the road?

Today is somewhat of a watershed for this blog, because we finally got ourselves in newsprint. Yes, the MEN even asked us for a quote! The story was the one we broke nearly 2 weeks ago, about the massive projected cost increase of the Bypass.

But it's also bad news for other areas - the Government has approved the Cheshire (A34) bypass, and has pretty much underwritten it by pouring in £48 million (94%) of the total £51 million needed for the scheme. One can't imagine the government throwing £295 million at the Longdendale Bypass, and indeed, they have no intention of doing so.

So with an ever-widening 'funding gap' (between what Central Government will throw in and what the North West Local Authorities must find themselves) , the longer this whole thing plays out the better the chance this scheme - and others - will never see the light of day. In the coming months, expect to see the Longdendale Overlord Roy Oldham scuttling around government ministers and laying down the law at the North West Regional Assembly to get his pet project through.

But there is a wider context to all of this. As the costs increase paper outlines, road construction price inflation has doubled since the previous estimates, no doubt largely due to the price of crude oil and inflation generally - old costing models no longer stack up, hence the huge cost rises when these are rationalised. Is it any wonder that Road Construction firms are moving to merge to weather the bad times, not to mention diversify*.

And another way of looking at this is in the context of the much vaunted (but plainly fucked) Transport Innovation Fund (TIF) bid in Greater Manchester - the projected maximum cost of the Bypass is 10% of the money in the TIF. The Longdendale Bypass plan is 5.7 km long - apparently, 'transforming public transport in Manchester' (their words, not ours) is only worth 57 km of roads like the bypass - or 3 years of UK funding for the Iraq war (it's a good job we don't think the TIF bid is the holy grail which will deliver the North West from climate change, like Liberal Bourgeois Greens do - clearly, crumbs for the masters table will suffice for some).

Finally, the top of this blog has the latest New Report from Channel M. At one point, the reporter, Richard 'monkeys might fly out of my' Butt, states that he can understand why people 'have been campaigning so hard and so long' for the road - making his point against a backdrop of freely-flowing traffic. Clearly, there's no need to get hold of Mike Flynn to wring a quote out of - he does the job himself.

*Carillion - the contractors for the bypass - bought Alfred McAlpine in December 2007. McAlpine had the contract for maintaining Sainsbury's supermarkets. What a coincidence then that Sainsbury's have now plainly stated their intentions to build a Large Superstore in Glossop...

EXCLUSIVE: Bypass costs rise by between 20% - 70%

We have an exclusive here for you today: hot on the heels of the recent announcement that the Glossop Spur costs have risen by 54%, the Highways Agency has revealed that the cost of building the A628 Bypass have risen significantly.

This document outlines cost estimates on all major road schemes. The A628 Bypass comes in at between £223 million (minimum) and £315 million (maximum). This is an increase of between 21% to 71% on the costs increases announced in March 2007 in the Nichols Report (£184 million), and an increase of between 200% to 283% on the figures from 2003 (£90 million).

It's clear these costs are on a huge escalator, and cannot prove sustainable.

John Watson - resign, do it Monday!

The Highways Agency have taken all of the 7 days John Watson gave them this time last week to to respond to the questions he posed to them last week. Below are the questions posed by Watson (bold), and the answers provided by the HA (italics):

Does the Highways Agency still intend to submit revised evidence to the Inquiry?

It is still the Highways Agency’s current intention to submit revised evidence to the Inquiry.

If the Highways Agency still intends to submit revised evidence to the Inquiry, when does it intend to do so?

Our current developing programme still indicates that revised evidence will be
available in October 2008.

The Highways Agency have ignored the pre-amble to Watson's original questions which are the most revealing thing here, to wit:

(In March 2008) ... it was the Highways Agency's intention to submit revised evidence to the Inquiry, to produce revised traffic forecast for the Bypass and the Spur by the end of May 2008 and to make available at the end of May 2008 a firm programme for the submission of revised evidence to the Inquiry...

But why should they respond to this? After all, it is Watson's fault for not making this part of his question. To the less than casual observer, it is quite clear from the Highways Agency's answer that the timetable has slipped massively - again. Whereas in March they undertook to produce traffic forecasts and have a timetable for the submission of revised evidence by May, their answers today show that they now will only commit to submitting revised evidence by October 2008. In the meantime, we have to assume John Watson won't have to remind them again and live without a timetable.

As far as we're concerned, we're now changing tack - we've been easy on Watson up until now, but it is time for him to go. It's for his own good - this charade is surely holding back his career - and his professional integrity looks a bit suspect too. After all, the Highways Agency are blatantly 'driving' this Inquiry in a most flagrant manner.

It's no good - he has to go.

With friends like these...

If the truth be told, we don't get that many comments on the blog, but we get the odd interesting one from time to time. So a comment left yesterday on an old post is especially interesting. So much so, we've decided to feature it here.

But first, some context. You may remember that in August last year, the Highways Agency published several alternative proposals (opens PDF) to the bypass that had been drawn up in consultation with individuals. We posted at the time about the irony of the way the Highways Agency were concerned to firmly state their green credentials in ensuring the booklet was produced in an environmentally conscious manner (unlike their proposed dirty great proto-motorway through our valley), as well as the content of the booklet, and the bizarre routes outlined within it.

Yesterday, one of the people responsible for two of those routes left a comment on that post to highlight his experience with the people at Hyder Consulting in drawing up 2 of those proposals. We'll let him speak in his own words:

I was 'responsible' for alternatives 2 and 3 in the HA document. I say responsible, but the alternatives presented in this document bear very little relationship to those I actually submitted, and to those which I agreed with the 'nice chaps' from Hyder.

The first point I should make is that I submitted my alternatives as a sort of 'why not consider going in this general direction'. I in no way advocated a 920m tunnel, I realise this is as stupid as everyone else does. However, my 'rough line on a map' has been interpreted in this way, rather than the general suggestion intended. All the traffic control measures were added after I signed the plans off and some changes have also been made after that time. None of the notes I added have been included which explain the thinking behind this suggestion and in general I believe my alternatives have been made to look as bad as possible. I'm also not allowed any comeback on this - unlike the HA I can't revise my proposal and the only way I can 'correct' it is by presenting rebuttal evidence.

My general position is that I feel a Mottram bypass is necessary, but I don't feel that bypassing beyond here is appropriate. However, the other thing I wasn't happy about is that we could only present alternatives that were a 'complete alternative to the proposal'. We could not offer a better route in to Glossop and alternative measures for beyond which is what I would have preferred. My suggestions for a stepped plan including public transport improvements were also not deemed suitable for inclusion.

It seems the only alternative that will be considered to this bypass is another bypass and now that the main alternative route beyond Hollingworth has been built over there seems little point in even considering any alternative.

Well, how interesting is that? It seems that the Highway Agency/Hyder are so obsessed with their project, they even seek to ruin projects that are largely in sympathy, like some kind of jealous lover. It's not enough to change subtle details here and there, they have to embellish and even transform someone else's work without consulting them in an effort to make their own crappy disaster of a road look pre-eminent.

These are actually quite serious allegations (or should be) and we urge 'Stephen' to present that rebuttal evidence to the Inquiry. For all of those who still think the bypass is a project to alleviate Mottram of traffic and pollution, here is evidence that the Highways Agency are loath to co-operate on any other options, even if they are road-based.