Statement
of Case against
the Hellifield and Long Preston Bypass Revocation Orders
on behalf
of
Long
Preston Parish Council
and
Long Preston Residents Association
1.
The need for a Bypass has been
established by virtue of the 1992 Hellifield and Long Preston Bypass Inquiry
and is still relevant. The supporting evidence from the 1992 Public Inquiry
into the Bypass anticipated the 1995 traffic levels. These levels
included a presumption of a tourist development in between Hellifield and
Long Preston. Present traffic flows are almost at the 1995 levels
without the tourist development having taken place. It should be noted
that a detailed planning application for the tourist development has been
submitted to Craven DC in summer 2005. The Highways Agency now says there is
no need for a bypass without demonstrating what has changed and without
supplying any alternative.
2.
The A65 has been re-categorised
as part of the non-core trunk road network. The Secretary of State in
1992 said that the A65 forms part of the National Trunk Road Network between
Leeds and the M6, linking the industrial areas of West Yorkshire, Cumbria
and West Scotland. There is substantial HGV traffic. It also connects the
population centres of West Yorkshire and Lancashire with the recreational
areas of the Yorkshire Dales National Park, the Lake District and other
areas of attraction in north-western England. It meets 4 out of the 5
criteria in the White Paper entitled A New Deal For Transport Better For
Everyone,
ie
a)
It links main centres of
population and economic activity,
b) It
accesses Leeds / Bradford Airport, Manchester Airport via
Leeds Railway Station and the ports
of Heysham and Stranraer,
c) It
joins peripheral regions to the centre, and
d) It
provides key cross border links to Scotland.
On this basis we would
suggest it is incorrect to consider the A65(T) as a non-core trunk road.
The need for a bypass should be considered on the basis of what the A65(T)
actually is rather than how it may be classified on paper.
3. The
Highways Agency believes that the revocation of the Bypass Orders will
reduce blight and remove the uncertainty faced by local communities.
In fact the opposite is true. The certainty and continuance of blight
will be established, as evidenced by the 1992 Inquiry Environmental
Statement. Then 350 residential properties as well as schools,
churches, pubs and shops were said to be blighted by the current A65(T).
The proposed Bypass would increase noise to 95 properties “although all of
these currently experience low ‘rural’ noise levels” (quote from the
Environmental Statement para 3.2.3).
4. The
current Bypass line is the solution to the current A65 traffic problems and
there should be no change to this until another acceptable solution has been
provided. Revocation will allow disposal of the land along the route
of the proposed bypass.
If the
land on this existing line order is released out of public ownership, it
will, at some future date when
there is a change of government and/or a change of policy,
mean serious delays in any future reintroduction of a bypass. All the
preparatory work, land assembly, legal planning and the engineering
necessary to proceed will
have to be reworked to gain the position already attained. Disposal of this
land will in effect substantially reduce the feasibility of any future
resurrection of the bypass scheme.
5. There
is a high volume of traffic and HGVs in the village.
6. There
have been a number of accidents around Long Preston.
7. There
is a potential danger to pedestrians because of the narrowness of the road
and pavements. In a number of places the pavements are too narrow to
accommodate a pram. In some places, where for example the pavement is only
0.5 metres wide, pedestrians are only a few inches from the sides of HGVs.
8. There
is also a potential danger to pedestrians crossing the road. For
example Kaley Hill at the eastern end of the village and at the west end of
the village. The current A65(T) is not only unpleasant for the local
population but discourages them from crossing the road. There is a
severance of the community within Long Preston with the school and church on
one side and the Village Hall, Post Office /shop and Methodist Chapel on the
other.
9. The
noise, dust and pollution caused by the A65 are environmentally
unacceptable. In addition many houses next to the A65 suffer from vibration,
causing minor cracks to walls and window frames.
10. Of
the 111 votes cast at the recent Planning for Real event (Long Preston
Village Plan), on the subject of a village bypass, there was a clear
majority of 88% in favour of a bypass.
11. The
proposed Bypass route would remove most of the traffic from a conservation
area within the Yorkshire Dales National Park.
12. The
current national Pennine Bridleway project is planned to come into Long
Preston along Back Lane. At the junction with the A65(T) it follows
the road west and is due to cross it at the western end of the village.
The current traffic levels on the A65(T) are an impediment to the completion
of this part of the national Bridleway route.
Evidence
a)
Department of Transport’s 1992
‘A65 Hellifield and
Long Preston Bypass
- Explanatory Statement’.
b)
Department of Transport’s 1992
‘A65 Hellifield and
Long Preston Bypass - Secretary of State’s reasons for
proposing’.
c)
Department of Transport’s 1992
‘A65 Hellifield and
Long Preston Bypass Environmental Statement’
d)
Department of Transport’s 1992
‘A65 Hellifield and
Long Preston Bypass
- Non-Technical Summary of the Environmental
Statement’.
e) July
1992 Inspector’s Findings of Fact,
Conclusions and Recommendations.
f) March
1993 Summary of Inspector’s Findings of Fact,
Conclusions and Recommendations.
g)
Photographic, traffic volume and
noise levels evidence.
h)
Long Preston Village Plan
|
