A NEW look Northern bypass with a link to the Luneside development site could be the solution to Lancaster's traffic problems, a local MP has claimed.
Morecambe MP Geraldine Smith says the idea, which also being examined by the city council next week, could provide all the benefits of a Western bypass, without prompting objections
City councillors will also consider the possibility of a revised route for a Northern bypass, which would open up the vast former Williamson complex on Luneside, considered key to the area's industrial development plans for coming years.
The council will also face a formal complaint from its Green group that a new report does not take any account of the road's environmental impact.
Miss Smith claims that the Western route, slammed by government inspectors, would provide superior economic and traffic benefits but believes an adapted Northern route could be an effective compromise.
She said: "I believe that this may well provide an acceptable alternative that both meets the needs of the area and satisfies the Government's requirements."
Members of the city council's cabinet are to be told that the idea of building a bridge which would allow traffic from Luneside to reach the M6 without passing through the city centre is "worth bearing in mind."
A report, by the council's corporate director for regeneration, John Donnellon, says: "Any policy direction opposed to the Western route would not, therefore, necessarily prejudice the council's hope to regenerate Luneside provided the Northern route could be amended to open up Luneside."
The council plans to meet with representatives of the Government office for the North West (GONW) to clarify their position, after a letter described the choice of a Western route as 'perverse'.
The report adds: "In the meantime, it would be wise for members to recognise the importance of this response, and the apparent message that it sends on the likely Government position on this matter."
Meanwhile, Green councillors say the report is misleading and a complaint has been made to GONW and the council's chief executive, because the long term environmental impacts are not considered as 'sustainability implications.'
Group leader, Cllr Emily Heath, said: "It is completely unacceptable for such a one-sided report to be presented to councillors.
"We all know that there are arguments for and against a bypass, so to pretend that there are no environmental problems with it is totally misleading. Councillors cannot make an informed decision if they are not given the full facts."
Cllr Heath claims that the only environmental impacts discussed in the report are the road's effect on the one way system, ignoring the creation of more long distance car and lorry journeys, increases in greenhouse gas emissions and damage to the countryside and internationally recognised wildlife areas.
She added: "When government officers consider whether to accept and fund a new road scheme, they look for evidence that the impacts on the environment, economy, safety, accessibility and integration of transport have been properly taken into account, and that alternative (non-road building) schemes have also been considered. Clearly this has not been done in the case of the Heysham-M6 link road."
The report also reveals that more than 800 people objected to the inclusion of the Western bypass in Lancaster's local plan.
Just 45 people responded to the plan with support for the scheme while of those who were against the plan, 111 opposed any route while 256 preferred the Northern route.
Around 15,000 responses have been received to the county council's recent consultation exercise, which compared the Northern and Western routes. Results are being collated and are expected to be released shortly.
City and county councillors will meet shortly to discuss the outcome of the consultation before deciding what, if any, route should be included in the area's local plan for the next five years.
see this weeks letters
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article