To receive a presentation from the Director of Growth and Regulatory Services.

The Director of Growth and Regulatory Services went through the presentation that had been circulated with the agenda. The presentation covered the reason the Carrington relief road was needed, the benefits the road would bring to the area, the Councils general principals around transport, and where the Council wanted to be in the future. The Council did plan to increase active travel and public transport but highways would continue to play a part in the transport plans in the borough. The presentation covered the other transport routes and options within the area. The presentation also informed the Committee of the public engagement that had been undertaken around the relief road plans.

After all the alternatives were considered, the Executive were asked to choose between options A and F. Option F was the preferred option but there had been a discovery of peat along the proposed road and further assessment was being undertaken. The presentation concluded with a slide informing the Committee of the next steps within the strategic programme and with links to additional information.

Councillor Winstanley asked for additional clarification as to exactly where the favoured proposed route would be. The Director of Growth and Regulatory Services demonstrated the route on the map on slide 11 of the presentation and explained how it would connect into the existing infrastructure.

Councillor Thompson asked where the peat had been found and what would happen if it was found that there was a large amount there. The Director of Growth and Regulatory Services showed the general area where the peat had been found and explained that if a large amount of peat was found then it would impact the preferred route and alternatives would be sought.

Councillor Newgrosh asked a series of questions on why further inspections were not being done on the other route following the discovery of peat along the preferred route, which could lead to it no longer being viable. Councillor Newgrosh felt that the number of responses received was very low for a consultation on such an important piece of infrastructure and asked to look at how the consultation was communicated. Councillor Newgrosh also noted that the GM aim was to reduce Traffic by 50% by 2040 and felt this plan was incongruous with that aim. Councillor Newgrosh’s final point was he felt the programme was not bold enough and asked why the proposed new rail line was not being considered instead, as the long-term benefits would be so much greater.

Councillor Wright responded by stating that the road programme would offer an improved route for existing residents in the area, which would help to assuage their concerns about the amount of development and the number of new homes and traffic this would bring into the area. Councillor Wright then provided the Committee with information as to the steps taken as part of the public consultation and the efforts made to get as high level of response as possible. Unfortunately, the low level of response received for this consultation was in line with standard level of feedback received from consultation exercises. 

The Director of Growth and Regulatory Services explained the Council’s approach to surveying options. He then went on to assure the Committee that the road was not the only transport development being done in the area and that the additional railway line was still under consideration by the Council and TFGM. 

Councillor Dagnall asked for more information regarding the requirements for a new road. The Director of Growth and Regulatory Services stated that there were several planning applications that had detailed assessments, which showed the need to have an additional road in the area.

A series of additional questions were raised but did not receive answers during the meeting. The questions were to be captured and a response provided to the Committee after the meeting.

The Committee agreed that they wanted to consider this item further and the committee requested that a timeline for the stages of the programme be provided so they could select items to consider and scrutinise. The Director of Growth and Regulatory Services responded that a document with the timings for the next stages of the programme could be shared with the Committee at their next meeting to help them plan further Scrutiny.

RESOLVED:

1)    That the presentation be noted.

2)    That the Carrington Relief Road be on the agenda of the next meeting of the Committee.