An update on the Save Sawllow's Wood campaign - what's been going on over the summer and how the scheme is progressing.
The proposed construction in the Peak District area of a 6km by-pass for the villages of Mottram, Hollingworth and Tintwistle, and modifications to the A628 and A616 corridor between Tintwistle and junctions 35a and 36 of the M1 threatens the beautiful Longdendale valley and the nature reserve of Swallow's Woods. See Indymedia feature 
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/sheffield/2004/07/295367.html for more background info
ACTION ALERT!!
SUPPORT a LORRY BAN on A628 AND NOT A bypass
********************
To all our supporters:
1) WRITE TO THE PEAK DISTRICT NATIONAL PARK IN SUPPORT OF THE LORRY BAN
Campaign for the Protection of Rural England's independent report on the lorry ban proves that it needs further study. We all need to write to Tony Hams, Chair of Peak District National Park Authority as soon as you receive this email in order to put pressure on him to seriously consider the ban. CPRE has written with the support of national organisations (Ramblers', FoE, CPRE, Council for National Parks and Transport 2000).
We now need to show there is overwhelming support for this alternative to be looked at. If you all wrote there would be over 100 letters in his postbag, which would have a real impact. The Authority is meeting on Oct 14th but we need to influence him now if we are to get the Authority to think about the ban at that meeting.
The gist of what to say is at the bottom of this e-mail, but please use your own version if you can so that he gets many different responses as this will carry more weight than 100+ identical letters. The paragraphs in the brackets are more for you to understand what the report is saying so you feel confident to support it.
The address to send your letters is: Tony Hams, Chair of Peak District National Park Authority (Aldern House, Baslow Rd, Bakewell, DE45 1AE
2) DEMO OUTSIDE THE PEAK DISTRICT NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY HQ, 14th October 2005
To emphasise our point, we are organising a demo outside the national park authority headquarters in Bakewell. We need to be there for 9am so we can welcome meeting delegates with our message. If anyone is interested in coming along, please meet us there or e-mail Emma on
info@saveswallowswood.org.uk to arrange shared transport.
****************
Dear Mr Hams,
SUPPORT a LORRY BAN on A628 AND NOT A bypass
I/We are very concerned about the Peak District National Park Authority’s approach towards the Mottram-Tintwistle bypass. This is the only solution that has been offered to solve our appalling traffic problems yet it would destroy the countryside, double the amount of traffic in the area in 20 years time.
Heavy lorries cause disproportionate impacts to their actual numbers on the A628: they kill people, crash into property, emit toxic fumes, intrude in the landscape, and because lorries move more slowly and need more space to manoeuvre than cars they create traffic jams. The route both within the Park and through the villages is inappropriate for lorries.
The solution is to remove these lorries and thereby avoid building the bypass. By placing a weight restriction on the Woodhead and other neighbouring east-west routes we could ensure lorries use the motorways around the Park – the M1 M62 and M60.
This idea, which many local people have suggested in the past and there is wide support for, has now been formally endorsed by an independent transport professional Metropolitan Transport Research Unit (MTRU), working for the CPRE.
MTRU concluded that the benefits of diverting lorries would justify the costs even without taking the special quality of the area into account, and recommended further study of the proposal.
(MTRU used Govt figures to gives the costs to the environmental impacts of the lorries on the A628 – such as pollution, CO2 emissions, noise, road congestion and accidents – and showed that if the lorries transferred to the motorway network the costs to the environment would be more than halved even though the lorries are travelling twice as far.
Even taking into account the operating costs that the lorries would incur – fuel costs driver time – the environmental benefits outweighed the operating costs by £2.4 -6 million each year. So overall the environmental benefits win hands down.)
Now it’s up to you as the Park Authority to commission further study before the bypass progresses any further. The Authority would be failing in its statutory duty to protect the Park if it does not do this. We/I look forward to hearing from you!
Yours sincerely
[Your Name]
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/sheffield/2004/07/295367.html for more background info ACTION ALERT!!
SUPPORT a LORRY BAN on A628 AND NOT A bypass
********************
To all our supporters:
1) WRITE TO THE PEAK DISTRICT NATIONAL PARK IN SUPPORT OF THE LORRY BAN
Campaign for the Protection of Rural England's independent report on the lorry ban proves that it needs further study. We all need to write to Tony Hams, Chair of Peak District National Park Authority as soon as you receive this email in order to put pressure on him to seriously consider the ban. CPRE has written with the support of national organisations (Ramblers', FoE, CPRE, Council for National Parks and Transport 2000).
We now need to show there is overwhelming support for this alternative to be looked at. If you all wrote there would be over 100 letters in his postbag, which would have a real impact. The Authority is meeting on Oct 14th but we need to influence him now if we are to get the Authority to think about the ban at that meeting.
The gist of what to say is at the bottom of this e-mail, but please use your own version if you can so that he gets many different responses as this will carry more weight than 100+ identical letters. The paragraphs in the brackets are more for you to understand what the report is saying so you feel confident to support it.
The address to send your letters is: Tony Hams, Chair of Peak District National Park Authority (Aldern House, Baslow Rd, Bakewell, DE45 1AE
2) DEMO OUTSIDE THE PEAK DISTRICT NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY HQ, 14th October 2005
To emphasise our point, we are organising a demo outside the national park authority headquarters in Bakewell. We need to be there for 9am so we can welcome meeting delegates with our message. If anyone is interested in coming along, please meet us there or e-mail Emma on
info@saveswallowswood.org.uk to arrange shared transport. ****************
Dear Mr Hams,
SUPPORT a LORRY BAN on A628 AND NOT A bypass
I/We are very concerned about the Peak District National Park Authority’s approach towards the Mottram-Tintwistle bypass. This is the only solution that has been offered to solve our appalling traffic problems yet it would destroy the countryside, double the amount of traffic in the area in 20 years time.
Heavy lorries cause disproportionate impacts to their actual numbers on the A628: they kill people, crash into property, emit toxic fumes, intrude in the landscape, and because lorries move more slowly and need more space to manoeuvre than cars they create traffic jams. The route both within the Park and through the villages is inappropriate for lorries.
The solution is to remove these lorries and thereby avoid building the bypass. By placing a weight restriction on the Woodhead and other neighbouring east-west routes we could ensure lorries use the motorways around the Park – the M1 M62 and M60.
This idea, which many local people have suggested in the past and there is wide support for, has now been formally endorsed by an independent transport professional Metropolitan Transport Research Unit (MTRU), working for the CPRE.
MTRU concluded that the benefits of diverting lorries would justify the costs even without taking the special quality of the area into account, and recommended further study of the proposal.
(MTRU used Govt figures to gives the costs to the environmental impacts of the lorries on the A628 – such as pollution, CO2 emissions, noise, road congestion and accidents – and showed that if the lorries transferred to the motorway network the costs to the environment would be more than halved even though the lorries are travelling twice as far.
Even taking into account the operating costs that the lorries would incur – fuel costs driver time – the environmental benefits outweighed the operating costs by £2.4 -6 million each year. So overall the environmental benefits win hands down.)
Now it’s up to you as the Park Authority to commission further study before the bypass progresses any further. The Authority would be failing in its statutory duty to protect the Park if it does not do this. We/I look forward to hearing from you!
Yours sincerely
[Your Name]
e-mail:
Homepage:
Comments
Display the following comment