Better information for your journey
The National Traffic Control Centre collects real-time information on road conditions.
The Project Control Framework
On 1st April 2008 we launched the Project Control Framework. The Framework sets out how we, together with the Department for Transport, manage and deliver major improvement projects.
Traffic news on your desktop
Helpful ways to access the latest traffic information when you need it.
A500 City Road & Stoke Junction Improvement
8. CONCLUSIONS
8.1. Bearing in mind the submissions and representations I have reported, I have reached the following conclusions, reference being given in brackets to earlier paragraphs where appropriate.
Compliance with Policy Statements
8.2. The interest group - Living Streets - expressed a wish to see the budget currently set aside for the scheme passed to a new form of regeneration partnership, the task of which would be to promote urban renaissance in a different way, largely based on reduced dominance of transport. Apart from the knowledge that the proposals had already been developed in close partnership with all appropriate local authorities, particularly those concerned with the area's regeneration, and apart from the knowledge that all these authorities had expressed full support for the current scheme, the fact that its provision is a matter of Government policy negates any requirement to question the need for it (5.3).
8.3. In other respects I am satisfied that the proposed scheme complies with all published and adopted regional and local policies, including those concerning the Trent and Mersey Canal, and that it would integrate with the Local Transport Plan (5.4 - 5.8).
Conclusion
8.4. It seems to me that the necessity for uprating the A500 Potteries 'D' Road has long been identified at all levels in the planning hierarchy, and endorsed by all relevant planning bodies. The proposal being advanced by the Highways Agency complies with these endorsed documents.
Need for the Scheme
8.5. There is a near universal view of the pressing need for the scheme, with which I agree. The need for regeneration in and around the city of Stoke-on-Trent has long been recognised, as has the restraint on further development caused by traffic congestion on the A500. This very busy trunk road has only two at-grade junctions in its central section, and these have now become severe bottlenecks which restrict the road's capacity to handle the forecast increase in traffic which further regeneration would bring (5.9)(5.10.1)(7.1).
8.6. Other factors contributing to the need are:
8.6.1. Safety. The A500 has a high accident rate which is forecast to go down with the building of the proposed scheme (5.10.2).
8.6.2. Severance. The A500 corridor divides the city in two, with much of its centre on one side, and facilities such as the station and university on the other. Access across the main road, particularly for pedestrians and cyclists is both difficult and hazardous, and in public transport slow and uncertain (5.10.3).
8.6.3. Poor environment. On the one hand the area is visually unattractive, and on the other emissions from slow moving vehicles at ground level give rise to environmental problems which discourage contemplation of development in the road's immediate vicinity. Many potential sites lie vacant awaiting the scheme's implementation (5.10.4).
8.7. Provision of an A500 trunk road improvement scheme has been a matter of governmental policy since 1993 (5.3).
Conclusion
8.8. For reasons of the commercial and industrial regeneration being dependent on relief from congestion, road traffic safety, relief from severance, and a pressing need for environmental improvement, I am convinced there is a compelling need for a scheme of the nature now being proposed.
The Proposal
8.9. To satisfy the need for it the scheme has five purposes, namely: to reduce congestion, to facilitate access by appropriate forms of transport to development sites and the city's general urban area, to protect and enhance the environment, to improve road safety, and to improve access across the A500 corridor. There are no challenges to these purposes (5.11).
8.10. At an early stage there had been a proposal to build a flyover to carry the trunk road over the Stoke Road junction. However, recent developments in appraisal methods have shown that replacing both current roundabouts with underpasses would be a better choice, mainly because continuing with the flyover solution would lead to consequences for the local road network now deemed unacceptable (5.15).
8.11. Other alternatives were considered and the winning choice was that which was assessed to be the best overall one which met the scheme's objectives. Its features would include:
8.11.1. Relief of the congestion at the two roundabouts using underpasses taking up less room (5.16).
8.11.2. Increasing the capacity of the A500 to three lanes in each direction so as to be able to cope with forecast traffic increases (5.18- 5.20).
8.11.3. Provision of wide, surface level bridges with facilities for buses, pedestrians and cyclists to cross the trunk road safely and conveniently (5.16).
8.11.4. Improvements to three waterways to turn them into environmentally and visually attractive recreational areas, including improved navigation on the Trent and Mersey Canal (5.17).
8.11.5. Measures to reduce the otherwise adverse effects of a scheme designed to encourage more traffic, and other measures to enhance the existing environment for the benefit of local residents and users. These would include demolition of the presently forbidding subways (5.21).
The Case Against the Proposal
Living Streets
8.12. The claim by Living Streets is that a city centre road should not be part of the nation's high speed trunk road network; increasing the capacity of the present A500 would have environmental disbenefits; proceeding with the scheme as proposed would lead to loss of development and amenity land; increased traffic flows could not contribute to regeneration and that certain sections of the community would be disadvantaged (7.2 - 7.4)(7.6)(7.8).
8.13. The scheme should be discarded in favour of a different approach centred on mixed use waterside development rather than one which treats the city's valuable central area as a transport corridor (7.2).
8.14. I do not think this different approach has sufficient merit in the context of a project aimed at assisting with the regeneration of this significant area of the West Midlands, the importance of which has been nationally recognised through its inclusion in the Government's Targeted Programme of Improvements. All parties and authorities concerned with implementing regeneration proposals strongly support the scheme on the grounds that without it regeneration in the form of redevelopment of presently vacant sites cannot proceed until the problem of traffic congestion has been overcome (6.1 - 6.5). In my view, the alternative of a waterside development has no prospect of meeting this primary requirement, for which reason it should be discarded.
8.15. With regard to Living Street's detailed objections to the proposal, I have carefully studied the Highways Agency's responses to them and as a result am satisfied that they have each been satisfactorily rebutted. There remains nothing of sufficient substance in this objection to overcome the manifest advantages of the scheme.
8.16. Conclusion. The matters put forward by Living Streets are effectively objections not so much to the need for a scheme of some description, but rather to the proposed solution being an upgrading of the trunk road lying in the city's central corridor. However, the problems needing to be addressed in order for Stoke's regeneration to move forward are of such a magnitude that in my view they can only be overcome by removing the severe congestion on the Stoke Road and City Road roundabouts. To solve these congestion problems there seems to me to be no realistic proposal other than that represented by the scheme under consideration. Nor do its disbenefits, highlighted by the President of Living Streets, appear to me to outweigh the public benefit of the published scheme.
Conclusion
8.17. I can find no reason to believe that the proposed scheme would not be the best option of those considered by the Highways Agency. The Living Streets alternative is inappropriate to investigate further for the reasons I give in paragraph 8.16 above.
Environmental Assessment
8.18. The Environmental Statement for the scheme, complying with European and United Kingdom directives, is set down in inquiry documents 2.7 and 2.8, and I note that all statutory and a number of non-statutory bodies have been consulted during the course of the scheme's assessment; their comments being included within the Environmental Statement. There is no significant challenge to the accuracy or relevance of the Environmental Statement (5.24)(5.60).
8.19. My consideration of the environmental effects of the proposed scheme leads me to conclude that they would generally be beneficial, or at least neutral, exceptions being:
8.19.1. The majority of properties and some amenity areas within the study area would experience a perceptible increase in noise because of the increased road traffic the scheme would undoubtedly bring (5.26).
8.19.2. Pollution levels within the A500 corridor would rise marginally, but dwellings would not be affected (5.27).
8.19.3. There would be a moderately adverse archaeological effect on one building, if it were to remain (5.30).
8.19.4. There would be temporary interruptions to navigation on the canal together with access to its towpath during construction (5.37).
8.20. This assessment was not entirely agreed by the President of Living Streets who claimed that increasing the capacity of the A500 would generate a negative impact on the health of Stoke residents, and would visually degrade the area by intrusion and a consequential loss of grassed areas (7.3). I have considered these claims carefully, but do not agree with them because first, noise nuisance would be largely (although not entirely) mitigated (7.12); secondly, the air quality would not be below standard at any dwellings (7.12); thirdly, most of the grassed areas to be lost already lie within the highway boundary, conversely new areas would be provided in locations where they would have amenity value (7.15); and fourthly, not only would the visual intrusion of the trunk road itself reduce after being sunk into underpasses but many areas would be visually enhanced with landscaping and by the use of good quality attractive materials (5.28). There were no dissensions of substance to this view I have reached, either at the inquiry or in the written submissions.
Conclusion
8.21. I confirm that the Environmental Statement and other environmental information, including comments and representations by statutory consultees and members of the public, have all been taken into account in reaching my conclusion which is that, while there would be some disbenefits to the public, they would be of a relatively minor nature and would be overwhelmingly offset by the scheme's benefits both to the public and to the future well being of the area.
Appraisal Summary Table
8.22. An Appraisal Summary Table for the proposed scheme is set out in inquiry document 2.31A. Apart from environmental issues, the appraisal addresses safety, economic and other matters which I have reported in paragraphs 5.22 to 5.45 and addressed in paragraph 8.19 above.
8.23. On the topic of accessibility, Living Streets disagreed with the Highways Agency's assessment, claiming instead that there would be exclusion of those without cars, there would be inadequate provision of some bus services, and that conditions for pedestrians and cyclists would not improve (7.8).
8.24. Following further consultation, the Agency has agreed to address provisions for buses within the ensuing detailed design of the road layouts, and I firmly believe that by this means these objections by Living Streets would be overcome. This is because providing dedicated bus lanes in appropriate areas, particularly over the Stoke Road and City Road bridges would not only enhance the ability of public transport to operate efficiently, but would improve conditions for pedestrians and cyclists too. More generally, overcoming the present severe congestion at the two roundabouts would then give the local highway authority the ability to make other arrangements in favour of those travelling without cars (7.21 - 7.23).
Conclusion
8.25. With this improvement to the scheme in place I am therefore able to support the appraisal.
Support for the Scheme
8.26. There is near universal support for the scheme not only from those agencies and authorities specifically concerned with its outcome, but also from those who have made representations; that is from those objecting to matters of detail as well as from those directly agreeing with it (6.1 - 6.5)(7.1).
Objections to the Orders
Trunk Road and Slip Roads Order
8.27. With regard to the objection that traffic congestion on the trunk road would not be satisfactorily ameliorated because its three lane stretch would not reach as far as the A50 junction (7.26), I find that this would not be the case. This is because all three lengths (that is to say: north of Stoke Road, south of City Road, and the length in between) would indeed have three lanes in each direction. With regard to the stretch in between the two junctions, the third lane in each direction would consist of a link road running along the existing A500 carriageway, and these would be available as well as the two lanes of the new carriageway (7.29).
8.28. Proposed modification. The objection concerning vehicular access to Lytton Street when approaching on City Road could be overcome by the provision of a U-turn facility at Whieldon Road, to accomplish which I recommend the Slip Roads Order be appropriately modified. This proposed modification had the agreement of all parties to the inquiry (7.40)(7.41)(5.53).
Conclusion
8.29. It seems to me that there are no remaining objections of substance to the Trunk Road and Slip Roads Order which cannot be overcome by agreed modifications to it. In my opinion it would be expedient to make the Order in order to improve the national system of routes for through traffic, taking account of the requirements of local and national planning, including the requirements of agriculture, and I therefore conclude that there are no reasons why the Order should not be made.
Side Roads Order
Loss of facilities
8.30. There seems to me to be a reasonable concern that the scheme, both when completed and particularly during construction, would be so intrusive, and would so drastically curtail the operations of Communibus, that its charitable aims of providing local transport for the disadvantaged could no longer be met (7.24)(7.25). In the steady state situation after the scheme comes into operation I believe a solution to the problem ought to be available as suggested by the Highways Agency by means of the provision of alternative accommodation, but care would be needed that the charity's residual vehicle parking area would be sufficient for its needs. This may entail negotiations with the holders of railway land. Although these are matters beyond the scope of the inquiry and of my consideration of the draft Orders, they are nevertheless matters which would be within the Secretary of State's powers to address, and for this reason I bring them now to his attention. It is my considered opinion that resolution of the concern by this means would be reasonable: altering plans for re-aligning the canal would not (7.27 - 7.28).
Safety
8.31. Having carefully considered the safety concerns based on the one hand on the claim of inadequate provision for emergency access and rescue, and on the other of inadequate arrangements for liquid run-off in the event of a major spillage along the proposed route (7.31 - 7.32), I am satisfied that the scheme's design complies without deviation with national standards in these respects. I therefore conclude that there is insufficient substance to these objections (7.34 - 7.35).
Journey times
8.32. There is no evidence to support the claim that journey times for those accessing the Hyde Industrial Estate would increase. On the contrary, those figures which are available show the opposite is likely to be the case. I therefore conclude there to be no substance in this objection (7.39).
Private access
8.33. The concern that an objector's current route into his private garage would be interrupted cannot be entertained by the Secretary of State because the objector has no legal right over this land. The designated access for which he does have a right would not be adversely affected (7.46).
Increased use of rat runs
8.34. Rat running through adjacent residential streets occurs now because of severe congestion on the two roundabouts, and the proposed scheme is designed to overcome it. To minimise any increase in rat running during construction both lanes of the trunk road in each direction would be available except when specific activities require their closure. Traffic regulatory measures lie beyond the authority of this inquiry, and are in any event the responsibility of the local highway authority, but it would be by these means that the objection could be accommodated (7.52).
Proposed modifications
8.35. The Agency's proposals to provide dedicated bus lanes across the Stoke Road and City Road bridges together with consequential on-road facilities for cyclists can all be progressed at the scheme's detailed planning stage; they would not materially affect the Side Roads Order as drafted (5.54).
8.36. As drafted, the Order refers to the stopping up of subways at each location in the singular. This should be modified to reflect the fact that there are more than one subway at each of the two major road junctions.
Summary
8.37. There are no objections to the proposed replacement of the one stopped up private access, and other means are available to overcome the concerns of Communibus. There are no matters of substance to persuade me that the Side Roads Order should not be made as drafted.
Conclusion
8.38. I am satisfied that the proposals for improving or stopping up the highways in question and for the stopping up of a private means of access in the Side Roads Order are necessary to meet the scheme's objectives. With regard to the highways, other reasonably convenient routes would be available before the highways are stopped up, and with regard to the one private means of access, a replacement means of access would become available before the stopping up takes place. None of the individual objections, nor their sum, are sufficiently substantial to overcome the merits of the proposed scheme. I have carefully reviewed the Authority's proposed amendments to it with regard to the provision of bus lanes and consider that these improvements would have no material effect on the Order's substance. Other modifications are of a minor editorial nature, and I agree they should be made.
Detrunking Order
Proposed modification
8.39. It was agreed at the inquiry that the lengths of road referred to in the Schedule to the draft Detrunking Order were expressed with the decimal point incorrectly sited by three places to the left. The Order would require a minor modification to correct this.
8.40. Otherwise I am satisfied that the de-trunking of the proposed lengths of the existing A500 is necessary to meet the scheme's objectives. There are no objections to the draft Order, and in my opinion it would be expedient to make the Order in order to improve the national system of routes for through traffic, taking account of the requirements of local and national planning, including the requirements of agriculture. I therefore conclude that there are no reasons why the Order should not be made.
Compulsory Purchase Order
8.41. Objections to the Compulsory Purchase Order concern:
8.41.1. Loss of part of Communibus' operating area (7.24).
8.41.2. A general claim that too much land, inadequately valued, was to be taken for the proposed scheme (7.30).
8.41.3. Compensation to be paid for the affect of the Order on use of a proposed advertising hoarding (7.36).
8.41.4. Consideration of demolition of some residential properties because of intolerable disruption (7.42).
8.41.5. Compensation for loss of rental income (7.43).
8.41.6. Perceived prejudice to the future development of one plot mentioned in the Schedule to the Order (7.47).
8.41.7. The necessity for noise insulation of some properties together with other acoustic amelioration on completion of the scheme (7.49).
8.42. The adverse effects of the Order on the Communibus area are those I have already addressed in paragraph 8.30 above. With regard to the other objections:
8.42.1. No evidence has been advanced that, apart from those areas agreed by the Highways Agency no longer to be necessary as a result of further negotiations with the landholders concerned, any of the land in the Schedule to the Order would be superfluous to the requirement for successful completion of the proposals. There has been no challenge of substance to the land acquisition and compensation costs provided by the local land valuer.
8.42.2. Compensation, whether or not it would be justified, is not a matter to be addressed under the terms of the Compulsory Purchase Order (7.37).
8.42.3. There would undoubtedly be an adverse effect by way of disruption to residents of some streets in the vicinity of construction work. But when I set these disbenefits against the mitigation measures to be put in place during construction on the one hand, and against the significant improvements in the area's amenity after the project is completed on the other, I believe a reasonable balance lies with proceeding with the scheme as proposed, rather than unjustifiably and unnecessarily demolishing properties (7.44).
8.42.4. This applies similarly to the concern expressed by a landlord about disruption during the construction period driving away his tenants and reducing his rental income. In any event, provision of compensation is not a matter within my authority to address.
8.42.5. There would be no prejudice to any permitted site development plans (7.48.2).
8.42.6. Qualification for some noise insulation of some properties would be addressed when detailed noise assessment is undertaken. It is not a matter to be addressed by the Secretary of State at this stage (7.50).
Proposed modifications
8.43. The modifications set out in paragraphs 5.55 to 5.58 above are either proposed by the Highways Agency as a result of negotiations with landholders to overcome objections, or have been found more recently to concern rights which are already held. I agree they should all be embodied before the Order is made.
8.44. The inquiry was informed that Scheduled plots 19/1 and 19/2 had recently changed hands. The draft Order would need modification to reflect the correct land ownership.
Ancillary Matters
8.45. It has been confirmed that the Compulsory Purchase Order and Schedules only cater for the area of land necessary to build the scheme and reasonably mitigate its effects (5.50). Land is required to be available for construction to begin in 2003 (5.51).
Conclusion
8.46. I am satisfied that all the land in the Compulsory Purchase Order is required to implement the scheme, and the Order addresses no more land than is necessary. If the Orders are made, work would start in September 2003, and for this reason I am also satisfied that no land is proposed to be acquired ahead of time. In my view there is a compelling case for the scheme to be implemented in order to overcome the acute traffic congestion so as to enable regeneration of Stoke-on-Trent to progress. Likewise, having regard to paragraph 8 of DOE Circular 14/94 there a compelling case for the land's compulsory purchase in the public interest. The loss of any interests could be met by compensation.
8.47. None of the individual objections, nor their sum, are sufficiently substantial to overcome the merits of the proposed scheme. I have carefully reviewed the Authority's proposed amendments to the Order and find the grounds for advancing them to be convincing. I agree they should be made.
Final Conclusion
8.48. The cumulative weight of the above arguments points to a clear conclusion in favour of the Highways Agency's proposals with regard to the Trunk Road and Slip Roads Order, the Side Roads Order, the Detrunking Order and the Compulsory Purchase Order; I can see no reason why they should not be made with the minor modifications I have indicated.
