Campaign warns road proposals could be just the beginning of Highways England’s plans for Rimrose Valley
The Save Rimrose Valley campaign is concerned that controversial plans [1] to build a dual carriageway through the popular country park may not be limited to the road itself.
Minutes obtained via a Freedom of Information Request [2] indicate that key stakeholders; the Road Haulage Association and the Freight Transport Association are seeking the provision of 24/7 facilities for HGV drivers and their vehicles.
Such facilities typically include secure parking spaces, diesel fuel pumps, a service building with changing rooms and showers and even a café.
Responding on behalf of the campaign, Stuart Bennett said:
“Our communities have feared that Highways England’s road proposals would be the green light for even further development to support the port’s expansion. The space required for such facilities is considerable which begs the question; where would they go? Have sections of Rimrose Valley already been earmarked for this?
“Whilst parking and rest facilities for HGV drivers are clearly important and would help tackle some of the issues currently being experienced on our residential streets because of the Port’s activities, we maintain that drivers shouldn’t even be in this vicinity in the first place. We need a solution which moves the vast majority of these containers away from the port and out to the wider country without the need for HGVs. Lorries do not belong on residential roads and public parks.
“Highways England has already admitted it is struggling to secure support for its scheme [3]. Have any promises been made to provide these facilities to get haulage companies and their trade associations onside? It would certainly soften the blow of the new road being an even longer route to and from the port than what is there today.”
Notes:
[1] The proposed road through Rimrose Valley Country Park is to upgrade the current A5036 Liverpool Port Access Road. Highways England wants to build this road after a consultation where it offered only two options, both of which were unpalatable to the local community and in fact weren’t any choice at all. Option B (Rimrose Valley) was the least favoured. Summary of results here:
[2] Link to minutes of meeting between Arcadis, Highways England and the Road Haulage Association and Freight Transport Association:
https://www.saverimrosevalley.org/stakeholders
[3] Link to excerpt from Highways England–Peel Ports email communications in which H.E. admits it is struggling for support for the scheme: https://183ebe35-e8b2-41ba-a4d5-f04ad354d4ec.usrfiles.com/ugd/183ebe_746165608ded4838ba26d6a4bf2fb3de.pdf
Kommentare