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
7. THE CASE FOR THE OBJECTORS
7.1. Apart from the President of Living Streets (An initiative run by the Pedestrians Association.) most of the other objectors broadly supported the scheme, and agreed the need for it on de-congestion and/or regeneration grounds. The President of Living Streets was opposed to most, if not all, aspects of the scheme, and indeed sought to challenge its benefits. I report this group's concerns first before going on to examine the remaining detailed objections and misgivings of corporate and individual objectors. There were no counter-objections to any of the alternative proposals.
Living Streets
The material points were:
Government policy
7.2. The group preferred the creation of a new regeneration partnership embracing, among others, Stoke City Council, English Partnerships and the Highways Agency to use the budgeted figure to promote an urban renaissance. City centre roads should not be part of the nation's high speed trunk road network, and the Highways Agency should not be building city centre access roads which were the responsibility of local authorities. If the A500 were a local authority road £35.5M would not be spent on it.
Disbenefits
7.3. Increasing the capacity of the A500 would bring added traffic, casualties, noise and air pollution to the centre of Stoke generating a negative impact on the health of central Stoke residents. The several negative side effects would also include loss of potential development land, greater visual intrusion, loss of grassed areas and the provision of only three crossing points for pedestrians and cyclists.
Regeneration
7.4. Following the demise of the area's former industry, if central Stoke were to flourish the dominance of transport needed to be reduced. The Trent Valley's urban renaissance should be based on mixed-use waterside development, not on a project that treated its valuable central area as a transport corridor.
7.5. Lacking expertise in the field, the Highways Agency was not an agency for regeneration. There was no involvement of English Partnerships, the proper authority for these matters.
7.6. A scheme which was forecast to increase traffic flows to 80,000 vehicles per day by 2020 could not contribute to regeneration and integration.
7.7. The Agency's economic assessment did not attempt to evaluate the scheme's regeneration benefits, and the evidence for its ability to deliver regeneration or social integration was not in scale with an investment of £35.5M.
Inclusion
7.8. The scheme would exclude those people without cars, and would not provide for express bus services between the city centre and the suburbs. Conditions for pedestrians and cyclists would not be improved on increasingly busy city centre roads.
Rebuttal by the Highways Agency
Government policy
7.9. The Agency was already working with Advantage West Midlands, Stoke City Council and others to assist regeneration. Improving the A500 was an important first step to assist others to regenerate Stoke. These agencies, together with the North Staffordshire Partnership, all considered that implementing the proposed scheme was the key to regenerating the city. A vision for Stoke's regeneration existed and had been articulated, as evidenced by the new City Local Plan which brought forward measures to improve the urban environment in which people lived, worked and enjoyed themselves.
7.10. The Agency would not be participating in the building of city centre access roads. It was the improvement in the A500 trunk road which required the existing roundabouts to be upgraded by replacing them with underpasses. That this would also improve city centre access would be a beneficial consequence which would in turn contribute to regeneration initiatives.
Disbenefits
7.11. Even though car journeys would not be discouraged, accessibility improvements would positively encourage more sustainable transport choices which in turn could reduce the need for local vehicle trips and offset the claimed addition to casualties, noise and air pollution.
7.12. Computer modelling did not show any increase in casualties or accidents over the evaluation period. Noise levels would increase since there would be more traffic, but they would be mitigated with quieter road surfaces, noise barriers and noise insulation. Assessment of traffic emissions using high traffic growth revealed no adverse air quality impact. No dwellings would experience air quality below objective standards either in the opening year or 15 years after opening. Total road traffic emissions, including carbon dioxide, would reduce.
7.13. The majority of the scheme would be built within existing highway boundaries; only 0.71 hectares of third party land would be taken. Small parcels of land would be required from four development sites but they amounted to less than 10% of the areas in each case. There would be no prejudice to the intention to develop.
7.14. In the majority of cases there would be a beneficial impact upon the townscape quality and character in the surrounding area.
7.15. Most of the grassed areas to be lost lay within the central reservation of the existing trunk road where they were of little benefit. Conversely, replacement areas would be provided at Stoke Road, Liverpool Road, Shelton New Road, City Road and Maclagan Street.
7.16. Crossing points at Stoke and City Roads would be much improved, and Glebe Street bridge would be retained. No need for further crossing points had emerged. Should development of the Stoke station site justify a further crossing, that would not be prohibited by the A500 proposals.
Regeneration
7.17. The Agency did not agree that, either in land terms or visually, transport infrastructure dominated the Trent Valley. The A500 corridor would not be expanded, and much of the proposed highway improvements would be below ground level. The canal already was a recreational and visual asset in the valley and the scheme would present important redevelopment opportunities to transform the urban character and visual quality of the area. It would not be feasible to remove the present A500 from alongside the canal, river and railway and build a bypass without causing major environmental disruption and the replacement of city centre and development site access roads.
7.18. Advantage West Midlands were the regional development agency for the West Midlands responsible for administering the single regeneration budget. The A500 scheme had been developed in consultation with this agency which supported it, and it also had the support of the North Staffordshire Partnership. There was full coordination between all the local agencies concerned with local regeneration initiatives.
7.19. With regard to the claim that increased traffic flows could not contribute to regeneration, this was not a view held by the collaborating parties concerned with the project. The scheme was part of an integrated transport strategy believed by those concerned locally to be an essential precursor to removing congestion and to improving access to development sites.
7.20. Finally, techniques had not yet been developed which would enable regeneration benefits to be included in an economic assessment.
Inclusion
7.21. Bus lanes were now to be provided across the Stoke Road and City Road bridges, and the proposed scheme would also provide safer, pleasanter and more direct routes for cyclists and pedestrians, both across the A500 and on routes parallel with it.
7.22. Better bus routes and freedom from congestion would create an environment in which companies and local authorities would be encouraged to develop new bus schemes and improved timetables.
7.23. Once the A500 scheme was in place the local highway authority would have greater scope for reconsidering highway layouts in the city centre, and without the congested roundabouts there would be less incentive for traffic to rat-run through adjacent local streets. Both these factors would lead to improved conditions for cyclists and pedestrians in the city centre. Contrary to the claim by Living Streets, the proposed scheme did therefore address the needs of those without access to cars.
Statutory objector
The material points were:
Loss of facilities
7.24. Communibus, a local charity which provided transport for those who, for reasons of age, disability or poverty, had no car, operated from rail company land adjacent to the Stoke Road roundabout. Canal realignment would require part of this land to be taken (Plot 6.1 on the Schedule to the Compulsory Purchase Order), the consequence of which would be the elimination of the charity's office building together with a sizeable part of its ambulance parking area. Such action would run counter to policy E2 of Stoke-on-Trent's current Local Transport Plan which called for proposals to take account of the mobility needs of people with disabilities. Realignment of the canal was not essential to the Pathfinder Project's aims, and Communibus wished the proposed scheme to be modified to remove the threat to their premises. This could be achieved by substituting a flyover for the A500 at Stoke Road instead of the planned underpass.
Interruption during construction
7.25. Vernon Road, the access route into the Communibus site, would be obstructed by major engineering work during the scheme's two year construction period. Additionally, heavy plant would intrude into the charity's currently barely adequate operating area. If on completion Communibus were able to resume operations from the current site (should means have been found to maintain its size) then relocation would still be necessary for the period of construction.
Traffic congestion
7.26. The project would not rectify current traffic congestion unless the A500's three-lane stretch were to be continued to its junction with the A50.
Rebuttal by the Highways Agency
7.27. The Agency had offered to provide alternative accommodation within the same general site in order to enable Communibus operations to continue. Alternative accommodation would be provided in lieu of compensation. If operations were to continue then there would be no violation of the Local Transport Plan policy with respect to access for the disabled. Further to that, the proposed improvements to the A500 would create the possibility of providing good access for people with mobility difficulties using the services of transport operators.
7.28. A flyover at the Stoke Road junction had been rejected because it would have an adverse environmental and visual effect, it would provide no opportunity for cyclists and pedestrians to cross the main road, there would be no additional open space, and there would be no pedestrian access to the enhanced canal.
7.29. With regard to the size of the A500, including the slip roads there would be three lanes in each direction as far south as the A50 junction.
Valid objector
The material points were:
Land take
7.30. The objector mentioned in paragraph 4.1 above, having informed the inquiry of his family's claim to the title of much of the land specified in the Schedule to the Compulsory Purchase Order, submitted that too much land was to be acquired for the proposed scheme, and that the figure of £800,000 for land and compensation costs in the Highways Agency's economic assessment was inaccurate because it did not represent a fair market value for all the land and rights involved.
Safety
7.31. The design of the A500, running through two underpasses in an urban area, did not provide adequate arrangements for emergency access and rescue should there be an accident involving a large vehicle loaded with hazardous materiel. Emergency access by means of hard shoulders was available on motorways; similar arrangements should be provided on the A500.
7.32. In addition, the design failed to make adequate provision for oil and fuel run-off in the event of a major spillage along the proposed route.
Rebuttal by the Highways Agency
Land take
7.33. Much of the build would be on land within the present highway boundary. Small amounts of additional land would be required for minor road changes, for a new slip road and for watercourse alterations. Nearly all land take would be from vacant development land; no houses would be removed, and only two domestic garages needed to be demolished. Acquisition and compensation costs had been advised by the local Land Valuer, by which the Highways Agency stood.
Safety
7.34. With regard to emergency access and hard shoulders, the scheme's design complied with the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges in all material respects. There was no requirement on this stretch and class of road to provide hard shoulders, nor was it feasible so to do because land constraints precluded the provision of a road to motorway standards. There was a maximum travel of 500 metres from the nearest access to reach any point on the trunk road.
7.35. The proposals incorporated oil interceptors on all outfalls for spilt fuel arising from a road tanker accident, and in this regard the A500 would be no different from the other 860 kilometres of urban roads in the area. A spillage risk assessment, published in the project's Environmental Statement, showed that the level of risk was considered acceptable. There was no need for additional spillage containment measures. There would be no material deviations from the Ministry's approved standards.
Written objections
Compensation
7.36. If a proposed advertising hoarding would be affected, compensation should be payable.
7.37. Rebuttal. There was a restrictive covenant on the relevant land preventing erection of permanent or temporary structures.
Journey times
7.38. Journey times for those accessing the Hyde Industrial Estate might increase.
7.39. Rebuttal. Figures were not available, but the Agency anticipated journey times would reduce. In particular, those using the full length of the A500 would save four minutes in peak hours and two to three minutes in off peak hours.
Access to Lytton Street
7.40. Concerns over vehicular access to Lytton Street when approaching on City Road from the east would affect property values.
7.41. Rebuttal. This objection could be overcome by modifying the proposed scheme to provide a U-turn facility at Whieldon Road. This was the reason for the modification proposed in paragraph 5.53 above.
Disruption during construction
7.42. The Environmental Statement did not adequately address the substantial disruption which construction would cause to residential properties close to the highway improvement and River Trent diversionary works. Partial and selective demolition of the worst affected houses should be considered.
7.43. This disruption would drive tenants away causing a consequential loss of rental income.
7.44. Rebuttal. It was accepted that there would be disruption for residents of some streets immediately adjacent to the project, the impact of which had been fully addressed in the Environmental Statement. Mitigation measures would be in place in order to reduce the impact to reasonable levels, and the resultant scheme would amount to a considerable improvement to the area concerned. Demolition was neither required nor justified, particularly as improvements on completion of the scheme would include provision of a new landscaped riverside footpath and cycleway, and an attractive replacement screen wall, set further back from the houses, to provide visual and noise protection.
Access to a private garage
7.45. Concern was expressed over the restriction of access to a private garage behind Cornwallis Street when works had been completed.
7.46. Rebuttal. The designated access to this garage lay along the lane to the west of Cornwallis Street. The land which was the subject of future restriction was owned by the Stoke City Council and did not form a legal access to any of the Cornwallis Street garages. As the objector did not have a right to use the land in question the Highways Agency did not accept it had a duty to provide an alternative route, regardless of the size of vehicles desiring to use it.
Prejudice to future development
7.47. Compulsory purchase of plot 21/4 would prejudice the future development of this land which would be compounded by the Agency's use of currently spare drainage pipe capacity.
7.48. Rebuttal.
7.48.1. This plot was included in the Schedule to the Compulsory Purchase Order so as to allow the Agency access to maintain an existing drainage pipe scheduled for use as a drainage outfall. The pipe is already used to carry road drainage. There would be no new restrictions on development of the land in question.
7.48.2. The landowner did not have planning permission for development of any description. Therefore there was no justifiable reason for expending additional public funds to lay a new drainage pipe when it had the right to use spare capacity in the existing pipe.
Other submissions
The material points were:
Concern for the effect in North Street
7.49. There would be increased noise experienced in North Street on completion of the scheme because of increased vehicular speed. Noise insulation of individual houses should be considered. The existing screen wall should incorporate acoustic dampening on one side and environmental screening on the other.
7.50. Rebuttal. The Environmental Statement addressed the effects on these properties and concluded that there would be a noticeable increase (up to 4dB(A)) due to increases in traffic flow and speed. Any increase in noise would be curtailed by the use of low noise surfacing on the A500. Acoustic dampening would be examined at the detailed design stage, and if proved cost effective would be incorporated in works to the screen wall. Detailed noise assessment had yet to be undertaken; preliminary assessment showed that several properties in North Street, including that of the correspondent, were likely to qualify for offers of noise insulation at ground or first floor level. Proposals included landscape planting on the North Street side of the existing brick screen wall, and this was assessed to be more attractive than the existing plain brick finish.
Concern over increased use of rat runs
7.51. Local councillors expressed concern that Campbell Road and adjacent streets, already used as rat runs by northbound traffic seeking to avoid congestion on the two roundabouts, would experience significant increase in such use during the scheme's construction. A variety of traffic regulatory measures would be needed, and the Highways Agency should consider creating a new facility for local residents by way of a sufferance payment.
7.52. Rebuttal. The build contractor would maintain two lanes of traffic in each direction on the A500 throughout the construction period, albeit with limited lane closures for specific activities such as erecting bridge beams. The Agency would cooperate with the local highway authority over the matter of traffic restriction measures to deter traffic from rat running during this period; elected local members would participate in this cooperation. The Agency had no authority to provide recreational or leisure facilities when the scheme did not affect those already in place.
