Stockport Council News

Councillor Robers has no idea where the Cheadle Constituency Link Road is. It is the one mentioned in this Financial Times article:-

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/970b1678-ff77-11e2-a244-00144feab7de.html#axzz2l7LGUEd8

http://www.stockport.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/116502

If you grit your teeth and listen to Cllr Wright’s account of his private meeting with Transport Minister Normal Baker, he states Baker’s commitment to trams post 2016 for Stockport (I think). Has this then been taken into account re the need for the road?

“And…. they are actually referring to the Air Quality Directive. Another first!

Previously they had the same trouble with this as Kryten had, saying ‘Smeghead’.”

04 November 2013 09:0
Dear Mrs Oliver,

I am writing in response to your request for information (ref FOI 7840).

The relevant Council Service(s) has searched for the requested information and our response is as follows.

With reference to your request for the conditions that have to be met for release of DfT monies / funding, the offer of funding is subject to the following conditions:

· This funding approval is granted entirely without prejudice to any view that the Secretary of State or other Ministers may take on any future application for statutory powers or in accordance with any other functions.

· The scheme must be implemented in accordance with the scheme proposals as set out in your business case dated November 2012, including that it will be delivered within the timescale as subsequently agreed, subject to any changes which may occur as a result of further design or as a result of any remaining statutory procedures. Ministers reserve the right to reconsider their decision on funding if there are any changes to the overall cost, scope or design of the scheme which they consider to be material, particularly where such changes would alter the value for money of the scheme. You must notify the Department immediately of any such material changes, and provide on request any appropriate evidence to determine the impact of the changes on the scheme’s value for money.

· The Department’s contribution will be a maximum of £165.0m. No further funding will be provided by the Department. GMCA is responsible for funding expenditure over and above this amount.

· Should the final cost of the scheme be lower than £230.37m, the savings will be shared between the Department and GMCA in proportion to the share of funding as set out in this letter.

· Should this scheme progress to Full Approval, further detailed conditions may apply to any grant payable. These may include matters not yet discussed with you.

· SMBC as lead authority will be responsible for the validity of the procurement process for the scheme.

· We expect GMCA to keep us closely informed of progress with, and expenditure on, the scheme and it is important that GMCA completes and returns quarterly monitoring forms by the due dates. The Department also reserves the right to request more frequent progress reports as necessary, to have sight of project board papers and meeting notes, and for its representatives to attend project board meetings.

· SMBC will be required to undertake an evaluation of the scheme in line with DfT guidance at your own expense the details of which we would wish to discuss with you. We would expect you to make the results of this evaluation available to the Department.

· SMBC is required to ensure that there is an appropriate project assurance mechanism in place, including formal Gateway reviews, and to make the results and recommendations of such reviews available to the Department on request.

· SMBC should ensure that the variable demand modelling for the scheme is appropriate and a range of sensitivities are carried out (e.g. may consider recalibrating the variable demand model based on peak hour generalised cost from the traffic assignment model and revise the economic appraisal, as well as employing a range of sensitivity tests of alternative reasonable assumptions). This should address the uncertainty in the scheme benefits related to the demand model methodology.

· SMBC should update the forecast uncertainty logs for the scheme to ensure appropriate assumptions are made (for example, assumptions about which road, public transport and Local Sustainable Transport Fund schemes are included in the forecast year Do-Minimum and Do-Something scenarios).

· SMBC should review the need for the Public Transport model and enhance/update as appropriate.

EIR 2004 enquiry

Dear FOI Officer,

Simon Oldfield anticipates that my request for some of the information regarding the SEMMMS air quality projections may not be not be held by SMBC.

Please see my original request to SMBC below. Simon suggests Greater Manchester but Disley is in Cheshire East.

If you indeed hold the relevant information for your area could you please answer the questions one and two from my original request.

The data sets alluded to are described as pollutant levels at ‘properties’ but property is not a term referred to in the Air Quality Directive (DIRECTIVE 2008/50/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe). Are these data sets indented to support the proposition that SEMMMS will contribute to reducing current breaches of the Directive?

SEMMMS have also produced NO2 pollution maps that seem to show that when he road opens many new Directive breaches will occur along the A555 between the A34 and Woodford Road, Bramhall.

Kind regards,

Steve Houston

Poynton

Cheshire

——————————————
In the course of the second phase of the public consultation the SEMMMS team made the following statements

Along the route of the scheme, there will be areas where annual average NO2 concentrations exceed the limit value specified in the UK Air Quality Strategy. However, should the scheme be granted consent, air quality modelling indicates that a far greater number of properties will benefit than will be disadvantaged in air quality terms as traffic is diverted away from existing congested roads with air quality objective exceedances to this purpose designed by-pass.

A large number of properties within the greater Manchester area and Cheshire East currently exceed annual average NO2 objectives due to local traffic movements. A number of properties in Disley are predicted to experience an increase in pollutant levels if the scheme goes head with 3 additional properties exceeding the air quality objective as a result of increased traffic in this area. However it is predicted that 780 properties in Greater Manchester will be removed from exceedance as a result of the proposed scheme as traffic levels in those areas is reduced.

Moreover the 780 properties represent only 18% of the properties experiencing exceedances in 2017. It is very surprising that properties experience exceedances because although some roadside measurement sites are recording exceedances the levels drop away rapidly further from the road.So these projections imply a very serious health problem.

1) The locations of the properties predicted to experience exceedances with or without the road. Of these please identify schools and properties that fall outside the scope of the air quality directive (eg factories and industrial installations). For each property please identify the position selected to be representative of the property (eg worst affected boundary, worst affected building facade).

2) The predictions for the roadside measurement sites in the areas affected by these high predicted levels.

http://www.itv.com/news/granada/story/2013-10-13/chinese-company-set-to-join-airport-city-development/

“The fact the Chinese are building it is further evidence that Airport City will be the UK centre for the importation of cheap Chinese goods. No wonder they are building SEMMMS & bypassing the A556…the amount of heavy freight to-ing & fro-ing will be immense.”