LORELY BURT MPWELCOMES DECISION TO SCRAP PLANS FOR MSAs

5.22.33pm GMT Mon 26th Jan 2009

Solihull's MP, Lorely Burt has welcomed the Secretary of State's final decision to scrap plans for motorway service areas on the M42 at the Catherine de Barnes and Box Tree Farm sites, saying the announcement was a "red letter day" for local residents and a victory for the environment.

Mrs Burt, who spoke against the development at last year's public enquiry, said:

"I am delighted that the decision has gone in favour of local residents and for preservation of the greenbelt in the Meriden Gap.

"Despite the strength of our arguments, this could have gone either way and the decision is a testament to the hundreds of individuals whose voices together carried the day."

ENDS

Editor's note:

MSA Evidence: Lorely Burt MP

It's a privilege to be permitted to address you on what is the last day of week 5 of this enquiry. 5 down and 2 to go!

I'm conscious, therefore, that some of what I have to say will have been covered before. I haven't had the opportunity of listening in to your previous deliberations, so I apologise in advance if I repeat arguments you are by now quite familiar with.

BUT I DO feel the need to represent the interests of the majority of LOCAL people who will be affected by this MSA should it go ahead.

Catherine-de-Barnes falls within my constituency and Box Trees does not. However, Solihull constituents will be radically affected if EITHER of these MSAs were to gain permission to go ahead.

Mr Chairman I don't 'do' technical. I should therefore be able to be brief and straightforward in this short contribution.

First may I turn to the overall location of either MSA within the road network.

What is the logic of building an MSA in the green belt in an already highly congested area?

Several of your contributors have and will question whether there is a need for an MSA along this crowded stretch of motorway.

The 30 mile rule does not automatically supersede the detrimental effect of building on the green belt. It's not a carte blanch to disregard the normal planning considerations, and particularly safety.

Mr Chairman I believe we have to consider not only the current but the future demands on this stretch of motorway.

Apart from the seemingly inevitable growth in traffic volume which affects all areas, there are several further factors to think about.

For Catney, there are the expansions and developments at the NEC and the Airport.

The NEC plans to bid for the new large casino and has already presented tentative plans to Solihull Council. If the regeneration benefits outweigh the social ills of gambling, I dare say it will be passed.

The BIA runway extension will be proceeding very soon. I can only imagine what the effect of road works needed to submerge the A45 under the runway will have. The word 'chaos' springs to mind.

But the Lodge, offering relatively cheap accommodation, will become the destination of choice for travellers, business people and exhibitors for the airport and the NEC: NOT for your long distance part way through their journey. THEY will probably want to get this congested piece of motorway BEHIND them before stopping to rest.

It would a destination in its own right. obviously the reason why the developers want to put it here.

The Lodge substantially extends the area of the site. And it will do NOTHING to help congestion, or the noise, light and air pollution for the residents of Catney.

When an event is being held at the NEC NOW the M42 is unable to cope. The ATM has made one heck of a difference, but if you consider the growth that is planned in traffic movements for both these venues, there is a danger NOW - without the added confusion of an MSA - that the M42 will be turned into a car park at peak times.

The 30 mile rule, as I understand it, will apply to drivers travelling between the M40 and the North West, and specifically the M54 to Telford.

A couple of simple road signs could divert those drivers needing a break west onto the M42 where there are services within a few miles at Junction 2 and on the M5.

It has been argued that the junction where the M5 joins the M6 wouldn't be able to cope with this, but I'm afraid the logic of this escapes me, Mr Chairman.

It's all got to go through this junction whether it's coming along the M6 NORTH of Birmingham or the M5 WEST of Birmingham.

And once you take the growth of traffic trying to access the NEC and airport into account, it may well be quicker for motorists to go west then north rather than north then west.

And while we're on NEED, who's actually SAYING there's a need for a MSA? Are drivers queuing up DEMANDING an MSA?

No, Mr Chairman, I think you'll find commercial considerations are driving things here, not the drivers themselves.

So next let's look at SAFETY. You will by now be much more expert than I at understanding how traffic enters and exits a motorway, and the concept of 'weaving'.

With 4 junctions already along this 7 mile stretch, and the ATM which has hitherto prevented the M42 from turning into a car park, we now are considering introducing a further junction.

When the ATM is switched on, the use of the hard shoulder is reduced for about a mile before the approaching junction. So it we adopt the Catney MSA proposal this will lose us a significant amount of hard shoulder traffic capacity in this stretch.

Mr Chairman, this will not only INCREASE the strain on the other 3 lanes of the M42 JUST at the point when it's getting ready to disgorge travellers to the NEC, BIA AND West Birmingham and Coventry…..

it will INCREASE the amount of traffic weaving in and out of lanes: transferring IN to access the MSA and OUT to get out of the MSA lane as dictated by the MSA instruction.

Hardly worth having an MSA at ALL at this point, is it?

Then there's this emergency strip which is supposed to enable drivers to pull up in emergency. Several of your contributors have referred to the confusion and safety that this may cause.

Still, Junction 4 doesn't have THIS problem. IT'S accessed through an existing junction.

But WHAT a junction. You will have heard how highly confusing it is NOW, Mr Chairman. When drivers who aren't familiar with it try to circumnavigate it coming North, goodness knows how the junction will cope!

Try cycling round it…if you dare. Walkers will be faced with an extra long walk due to footpath movements: rights of way will be lost. But who cares about cyclists and walkers when there's money to be made?

And we also have to factor in the additional traffic that will be accessing the junction as a consequence of business development very close to the junction.

Blythe Valley Phase 2: another 5000 jobs. TRW centre, Aspire Business Park. Then there's the controversial ASDA Superstore on Shirley High Street.

It all adds to what is already a highly congested area at peak times. Add drivers trying to find the services and the island will not only never cope, the confusion caused will be a recipe for a safety disaster.

So we've talked about the hapless driver using the M42. What will be the consequences for MY constituents?

Whether Box Trees or Catney is selected, the result will be increased congestion on the M42.

Increased congestion will cause drivers fed up with queuing on the motorway to find other routes to their destination.

So Shirley, already extremely congested at peak times, will take another hit. Dickens Heath will be filled with confused drivers trying to weave a way from Jn 3 of the motorway. Monkspath, Solihull, Elmdon, Olton - they'll all take a hit.

And the quality of life for the residents in my constituency will be all the poorer.

The panel will have already heard evidence about the increase in noise, air and light pollution in proximity to the MSAs themselves.

Noise from the M42 is already a big issue for residents living in the Monkspath and Hillfields areas. I am a Hillfields resident living at the other side of a golf course, but the drone of the motorway is evident and intrusive, day and night.

Additional vehicles pulling off the motorway would exacerbate the problem for residents in both locations, but particularly for Monkspath, Hockley Heath and, of course, Catherine de Barnes.

Now add to the equation a dissipated but real drop in the quality of life for everyone in Solihull.

And not only for the human inhabitants of Solihull and Meriden.

The Environment Agency considers the MSA will have a substantial impact on the ecology of the River Blythe SSSI in particular. Increased surface water run-off will pollute the Blythe, which WE use to draw water from at a later stage, let alone the wildlife which is dependent on it as a habitat.

We may think that the human inhabitants will experience a drop in the quality of THEIR lives: this is as NOTHING to the effect on our wildlife. Habitats disrupted or destroyed, food sources gone, behaviour disrupted by light pollution…I could go on, but I'm sure the panel has had this message already from people far more knowledgeable than I.

Wildlife can't speak for itself. Residents can.

In 2006 I asked Solihull residents through an Environmental Survey how many of them were prepared to oppose an MSA. 2817 households wrote back to say they would. This represents nearly 60% of households who returned the survey in my constituency. I conclude from this that the strength of feeling against the MSAs is high.

And not without reason.

All that I've said already notwithstanding, my deepest and greatest concern is in respect of the future of the Meriden Gap: an extremely valuable piece of Green Belt which has effectively served to separate the Birmingham/Solihull and Coventry conurbations for many years.

In Catherine de Barnes the proposed MSA falls in the main to the West of the M42, but it nevertheless tarmacs over a substantial area of green which is currently mostly existing farmland.

Certainly as far as Catney is concerned, the MSA would be situated on an area which Solihull Council would never willingly consent to large-scale development on, and the effect on the quality of life of the residents through noise pollution and traffic volume on roads never designed to take this volume will be severe.

In terms of threat to the Green Belt, the Jn 4 proposals represent an even greater threat. To be built on the East of the M42, the Meriden Gap would be effectively closed.

With pressure from the government on the need for building new housing - some of which may well have to go on the Green Belt - the granting of permission for the Jn 4 MSA could well spell the death-knell for the Meriden Gap.

In conclusion, the panel has to decide whether the demands for either MSA outweigh the detriment caused by building in the green belt.

I truly hope, for the reasons I have given, and for the reasons those far more knowledgeable than me - like the Highways Agency - have given, that you will conclude that they do NOT.