Executive Report 3
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Executive Report Report to: EXECUTIVE Decision number: Earliest date for 12 th SEPTEMBER decision: 2007 3. M55 - NORCROSS ROUTE OPTION 1.0 Matter for consideration: 1.1 To consider the M55 - Norcross route option, for upgrading the A585(T) between the M55 motorway and Norcross Roundabout. At the meeting of the Leaders and Chief executives of the three Fylde coast authorities (Blackpool, Fylde and Wyre) on 19th July 2007, it was agreed that in principle the three Councils would support the ‘blue route’ (instead of the ‘yellow route’). 2.0 Recommendation(s): 2.1 That Blackpool Council officially supports the stance agreed on 19th July 2007 and will support the ‘blue route’ option for upgrading the A585(T) between the M55 motorway and Little Singleton (and by inference the ‘orange route’ between Little Singleton and Norcross Roundabout). 3.0 Category grouping: Corporate/Strategic 4.0 Community Plan objective: A Prosperous Town 5.0 Information 5.1 The A585(T) linking Fleetwood and the Wyre peninsula with the M55 motorway is currently operating close to capacity with journey times becoming increasingly unreliable and high traffic impacts on the communities through which it passes. Consultant Faber Maunsell appraised route improvement options as part of the Fylde Coast Sub-Regional Transport Study (March 2005). (For information, please see attached September 2006 consultation leaflet at Appendix 3a on the five key route options: 1) blue, 2) yellow, 3) purple 4) pink (then orange, with north and south options), or 5) red.) 5.2 The objective of the study was to identify an agreed strategy that will deliver solutions to:· Increasing volumes of traffic on the A585(T) between the M55 and Fleetwood;· Congestion and environmental problems adversely affecting the local communities along the A585(T);· Increasing traffic volumes and congestion on north-south routes in Blackpool and throughout the urban coastal strip;· Growing demand for freight access to the Port of Fleetwood and all-user access to the Wyre Peninsula; and· Provision of capacity and access to support regeneration of the Blackpool and Wyre urban areas. 5.3 The study affirmed the view that the ‘red route’ is too expensive to build and would have the most damaging environmental impact of all the options. The Fylde Coast Easterly Bypass (as it is also known) was selected in 1991 but approximately a decade later omitted from the Lancashire Structure Plan and Blackpool Local Plan because there was no prospect of implementation before 2016. According to Faber Mausell’s traffic modelling, in simplistic terms, this would relieve north-south traffic through the Blackpool urban area by 25%. The Fylde Coast Easterly Bypass was earmarked to facilitate north-south movements through the Fylde Coast Urban Area as well as relief of the A585(T). These issues have been examined in the study. The ‘yellow route’ would be an off-line replacement for the A585(T) across open countryside to Little Singleton with traffic using the existing M55 Kirkham junction (junction 3). This route is estimated to give 3% relief to Blackpool north-south traffic movements. The ‘blue route’ would necessitate the construction of a new junction on the M55 just to the west of the railway and would follow the line of the railway before joining the A585 at Little Singleton. The Faber Maunsell traffic model estimates that this route would give 7% relief to Blackpool north- south traffic movements. In addition, considering the study objectives above, the ‘blue route’ provides greater benefit than the ‘yellow route’. 5.4 The study found little difference in benefit between the ‘blue’ and ‘yellow’ routes but identified the latter as the preferred option, partly because of the Highways Agency’s objections to the establishment of a new junction on the M55 closer to ‘Marton Circle’ (junction 4) than allowed by their normal standards. However, exceptions have been made elsewhere on the UK’s motorway network and importantly the new junction would link two roads for which the Highways Agency is responsible. Despite providing a new grade separated junction on the M55, the ‘blue route’ is not vastly more expensive. Also, it would likely have only one intermediate junction, compared to three on the ‘yellow route’ and therefore would perform a more strategic role as intended. 5.5 The options went out to public consultation in October / November 2006. There was little support for the ‘pink’ or ‘purple’ routes. The ‘yellow route’ received the greatest support, followed by the ‘blue route’, and the ‘red route’. 5.6 A member / officer steering group meeting was held at County Hall Preston on 20th February 2007 to discuss the results of the public consultation exercise. At this meeting the Council’s Chief Planning Officer, Tim Brown, put forward a case on behalf of Blackpool Council for the ‘blue route’ on the basis that, it provided significant additional, albeit modest (7%), relief to north-south routes through Blackpool. This route was also arguably the least environmentally intrusive of the three main options (red, blue and yellow), following an existing transport corridor (the railway) rather than going across open countryside. There are a number of precedents for the Highways Agency relaxing their normal spacing standards. Finally, it seemed to be the only option upon which all three Fylde Coast authorities could agree. A united local authority position was considered vital if the current distant programming of this investment (post 2021 in the Regional Spatial Strategy) was to be brought forward. 5.7 Unfortunately, during this process, there was no presentation of the grounds upon which objection or strong objection to the options were expressed. Representatives from Faber Maunsell seemed unable to explain the reason for objections to the ‘blue route’, which appears to have the least impact on local communities and on open countryside. It should be noted that the Regional Funding Allocation for transport is already over committed until 2016.The M55 - Norcross scheme is not on the waiting list. Also, there is a presumption in the Regional Spatial Strategy that more schemes should be brought forward on the basis of sustainability (the current climate is not conducive to developing off-line new road schemes). Exceptions may be made for access to ports; indeed the reason why the A585 is still a trunk road is that it serves the Port of Fleetwood. The Highways Agency is responsible for the management of the M55 and the A585(T) strategic roads. 5.8 Does the information submitted include any exempt information? NO 6.0 Legal considerations: 6.1 None 7.0 Personnel considerations: 7.1 None 8.0 Financial considerations: 8.1 None 9.0 Perfor mance management considerations: 9.1 None 10.0 Risk management considerations: 10.1 None 11.0 Relevant Officer: 11.1 Jackie Potter, Executive Director of Tourism and Regeneration 12.0 Relevant Cabinet Member 12.1 Councillor M. Callow, Tourism and Regeneration 13.0 Consultation undertaken: 13.1 Fylde Coast Sub-Regional Transport Study (March 2005) – a study commissioned and funded in the main by Lancashire County Council, with some funding from the Highways Agency, North West Regional Assembly, Fylde Borough Council, Wyre Bough Council and Blackpool Council – which recommended the ‘yellow’ route. Subsequent public consultation exercise, October / November 2006. 14.0 Background papers: 14.1 None 15.0 Key decision information : 15.1 Is this a key decision? NO 15.2 If so, Forward Plan reference number: N/A 15.3 If a key decision, is the decision required in less than NO five days? 15.4 If yes , please describe the reason for urgency: 16.0 Reasons for recommendation(s): 16.1 To endorse the agreement made at the 19th July 2007 meeting between the Leaders and Chief Officers of Blackpool Council, Fylde Borough Council and Wyre Borough Council. 16.2a Is the recommendation contrary to a plan or strategy NO adopted or approved by the Council? 16.2b Is the recommendation in accordance with the YES Council’s approved budget? 16.3 Other alternative options to be considered: None 17.0 Call -in information: 17.1 Are there any grounds for urgency which would cause this decision to be exempt from the call-in process? NO 17.2 If yes , please give reason: N/A TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PROPER OFFICER 18.0 Policy, Overview and Scrutiny Committee Chairman (where appropriate): Date informed: N/A Date approved: N/A 19.0 Declarations of interest (if applicable): 19.1 20.0 Executive decision: 20.1 20.2 Date: 20.3 Reason(s) for decision: 21.0 Date of publication: 22.0 Call -in: 22.1 23.0 Notes: 23.1 .