Mrs Karen Huntington
"I agree that we need to improve the flow of traffic through Lancaster but cannot see how this new road will help. I travel daily to Lancaster and the volume of traffic is mostly cars with only a small number leaving to go to the Motorway. The existing road that this new road would link with is mostly quiet compared to main route in which is constntly busy this section has been a fatality black spot in the past because of speed. What concerns me is that this road which will cost both in environmental terms and monitory will end up just like an expensive lorry lane .The junction on Morecambe road will become another hindrance on traveling from Morecambe into Lancaster as traffic often backs up at this point . I would also agree that the junction onto the M6 northbound from Caton road should be improved but that should be looked at independently. I feel the cost of this road would be wasted and best used elsewhere."

Terran Brown
"In short this is not the best route but its been chosen so we need to get on with it. The lack of a connection to the Lancaster industrial area over the lune from Morecambe road is a major mistake and will not allow that area to benefit ... traffic will be as bad as ever for locals."

Brian Abraham
"I am a Chartered Civil Engineer and before retiring was responsible for the management of the highway network in the north of Lancashire including the Lancaster district. I have dealt with on a day to day basis the effects of a lack of an adequate route between the M6 and Heysham/Morecambe and the impacts that this has on on most modes of transport (public transport/pedestrian/cycling/car and commercial traffic) within the urban core of the district. The lack of an alternative route for motorway traffic creates problems for highways maintenance, public utility activities (new and maintenance) and continues to put pressure on roads in many residential areas which have become heavily trafficked rat runs. In addition, the use of rural roads for rat running and the pressure on the A6 north and south of Lancaster in Carnforth and Galgate makes rush hour traffic unacceptable for locals. I believe the Northern link is essential is the district is going to make any form of economic progress which relies on good transport links."

Carole Johnston
"I cannot see how this route will benefit Morecambe and Heysham, the people who live near the road in Torrisholme will be badly affected by this road. The route from near the University to Snatchams [The Golden Ball] at Ovangle Road would be much better and help open the University students to once again come to Morecambe, once again Morecambe misses out to Lancaster. I just want to register my objection to this route, as do most of the people in Morecambe I am sure."

PetersonSBS Ltd
"I believe the completion of the link road is essential to the development of Heysham Port the industrial land between Heysham and the M6 whilst keeping only essential trafiic taking the route through Lancaster."

Matthew Fletcher
"I agree with the application as it will provide a long-overdue link from the motorway to Morecambe & Heysham. I see it as the first step to providing real solutions to traffic issues between Lancaster and Morecambe, as well as in areas like Carnforth and Galgate."

Susan Tamsin Whitfield
"I am a resident of Halton since March 1996. I choose not to own a car, and to walk instead. In keeping with current thinking around health, obesity, and minimising our carbon footprint amongst other things, I would like to encourage others to do the same. In my view, currently the walks around Halton are pleasant as the traffic situation is fairly manageable, meaning that noise and air pollution from exhaust fumes are not overly intrusive. I feel it is important to encourage walking as it is such an accessible activity (where the environs are conducive) and has many significant benefits. The proposed link road will increase the traffic volume in Halton and its environs considerably and that will drastically reduce my quality of life and reduce the likelihood of encouraging people to enjoy the healthful, pleasurable benefits of local walking. Walking in one's locality is put forward by various authors including Julia Cameron 'Walking in this World' as a way of moving to a more appreciative, less alienated, mentally healthier outlook, but it is well known that traffic noise is a source of displeasure rather than pleasure, or anything likely to improve people's states of mind. If this link road goes ahead I will want to move out of this area to somewhere quieter, and I expect others will feel the same, if I am unable to move for any reason I will be living here far less happily."

Steve Bennett
"I do not believe that the application demonstrates good value for money for the people of Lancaster and Morecambe. The cost of the new road will be high, the benefit to residents and local businesses will be very low. In particular, it has been implied that this road will improve local congestion between Lancaster and Morecambe during peak travel time, and these implications appear to be baseless. Personally, this scheme will greatly reduce the value of my property and land in Torrisholme, since it will change from being adjacent to a Green Belt, to being adjacent to a Motorway Link Road."

Ian McCulloch
"I do not believe this project will bring about the benefits that are claimed for it, and that it is far too much money to spend on such a road scheme at a time when there are much more important things to be spending the money on."

Geoffrey Roy Marsland
"The road will increase heavy goods traffic in the district with subsequent increase in noise, light, and carbon pollution. It will encourage development on present greenfields along it's length and ultimately result in in a change of designation from agricultural to urban thus encouraging urban sprawl and the loss of the amenity of green space. The subsequent change of character of a vast area argues against this project. The road does not address the present traffic congestion which is due to there only being one narrow bridge giving access to Lancaster from Morecambe. Further, most of the traffic will be heading South and the link will take it in the wrong direction - environmentaly peverse."

P H Lord
"The proposals are very ill thought out and will result in disruption, nuisance and inconvenience to numerous people on the route of the road. People living in Halton, Slyne w Hest and Torrisholme (Morecambe) will be substantially affected and the latest changes to avoid sinking the road into a cutting near Halton will exacerbate matters. People living in the Russell Drive area of Torrisholme will have a concrete monstrosity metres from their premises. The green belt between Lancaster and Slyne w Hest will be destroyed by a new roundabout. Additional traffic in Halton will cause nuisance and inconvenience to residents of that village. I realise it is too late to re-think but the most sensible route would have been from junction 33 (Hampson Green) across unpopulated areas to cross the Lune w a low level bridge then to connect w the existing Heysham bye pass. This would have had the added benefits of a connection to Lancaster University and Luneside development (not provided for with the present proposals) and the new Bailrigg business park. Please have a re-think before the inevitable happens."

Pendle Borough Council
"Thank you for consulting Pendle Borough Council onthe application. We are formally notifying you that we have no comments or objections to the scheme."

David Alexander
"1.The scheme is out-of-kilter with the Lancaster Local Development Framework(LDF),which focusses on regeneration and development in the south and east of the District,whereas the M6 Link runs through the west and north of the district,much of which is protected Green Belt. 2. The previously consented scheme(2008) set aside too many valid planning objections,the accumulative impact of which is harmful.Set aside - for the sole priority of lorried freight to Heysham harbour - were: a need for the Link and the viability of alternative proposals; its impact on designated regeneration areas; its impact on the character of the local countryside and landscape diversity; solving local traffic problems and congestion; an increase in greenhouse gas emissions; poorer air quality in some areas(eg Torrisholme); the controversial Green Belt; conflict with the LDF strategy; conflict with PPG13 over reducing road travel. 3. The Scheme will not solve local traffic congestion,a point admitted by the planning inspector.Government guidelines require full assessment of alternative proposals including non-road options( eg rail freight to Heysham;Faber Maunsell alternatives;improving mitigation measures for an alternative western route).Where is the environmental statement(ES) for the proposed park and ride? 4. The scheme will not bring lasting jobs and regeneration, and the job forecast was proven unfounded at the planning inquiry.The road claims huge economic and transport benefits, but not a single financial contribution has been received from local businesses who might benefit most. 5. The scheme will damage and destroy the environment,including 173 acres of Green Belt, and affect the health of local communities through greenhouse gases, noise, light, vibration and air pollution. 6. The planning inspector and the Secretary of State accepted the increase in greenhouse gas emissions of 23,500 tonnes as a significant adverse impact.It was simply set aside,despite the Stern Report and legally binding commitments to reduce Co2 emissions by 80% by 2050. 7. The £140+ million road is questionable value for money,particularly the open-ended financial commitment from Lancashire County Council.The business case is poor and needs full evaluation alongside alternative proposals. 8. The scheme raised considerable opposition and is not supported by Lancaster City Council or Morecambe Town Council.Local communities,including Lancaster & Morecambe College are against its intrusive and environmentally damaging impact.Under the Localism Act 2011,community wishes must reflect a greater degree of influence. 9. In summary, the recent amended scheme does not fundamentally alter its damaging nature.If anything,it makes things worse with the reduced quality and effectiveness of environmental mitigation measures.In becoming a 21st century equivalent of the 18/19th century 'meal roads',the scheme looks increasingly flawed.The IPC must treat the M6 Link as a fresh submission with a wider remit that can transparently correct the limitations and set-aside issues of the 2008 consent.There are effective,less expensive and damaging alternatives to this misplaced road scheme in encouraging a sustainable pattern of transport infrastructure for Lancaster District."

Ian Whitfield
"My daughter resides in the area affected by the application and I visit her regularly. I understand that it is probable that walking and other recreational activities in the vicinity of the proposed works will be grievously affected and possibly curtailed as a direct result of the application, and in addition traffic in the area where my daughter lives will increase considerably to the detriment of local residents and of visitors to the area as well. I suspect much of the area affected is green-belt country which should be protected from invasive development and retained for the use and pleasure of the public."

David Jesse
"I consider that this road is unnecessary,will destroy high quality agricultural land and irreplaceable bio diversity,will not solve the transport issues of the area and will contribute significantly to climate change accelerating carbon emissions."

Adrian Peacock
"Dear Sir/s I strongly support the proposed link road, not only will it promote economic growth on the Morecambe side of the Lune but also act as a long overdue direct route to the M6. For too long Morecambe/Heysham and the surrounding areas residents have been held to ransom by the road system to the peninsula, Greens and NIMBYs. This is a well documented and planned route with land identified and set aside for several years. Sadly as there is very little industry and job prospects in the local area I work to the south out of the district and unfortunately not out of choice, I am one of the many car drivers that use residential streets as rat runs in the morning just to reach the M6 to get to work. The public transport system is not appropriate for many users or myself and do agree with some opposed to the scheme that investment should be applied into new systems and alternative transport solutions. However this should be in addition to the M6 link and not act as a barrier to building the road which would give residents the road and job prospects they have long been entitled to. As with many consultations it is often the case that those opposed to schemes usually shout loudest and make their voices heard above everyone else, whereas those in favour think it’s a foregone conclusion and may not register their support. I hope this is not the case in relation to the link road and a fair view of overwhelming support is seen. While I believe that people genuinely do have real concerns about the link, I think it is a vital step in the regeneration and growth of the local area. If the TSLM or the Green party were around 800 years ago I’m positive they would have objected to the castle, any development on the quay or any road in and out of the area ever being built. Where would that leave Lancaster and the surrounding area today? None existent. Towns and cities need to expand and develop in a controlled way. The constant stunting and stalling of growth is killing off both Lancaster and Morecambe."

George Metcalfe
"To add my voice to this much needed link road."

Ramblers
"We are concerned with the closures, diversions and creations of public Rights of Way and any circumstances relating to these. The Landscape impact is also of concern"

J L Jacobs
"The heysham link road should be built as soon as possible to relieve traffic conjestion in lancaster,carnforth and galgate.If heysham harbour is to thrive and grow its a must.also it will be essential if a new power station is to be built. From my observations the vast majority of resedents approve of the road."

Christopher E P Martin
"I have lived in Morecambe for six years, and am strongly aware of the disadvantages of having a slow and unreliable access to the M6 motorway, as well as delays in travelling to and from Lancaster. I am aware that house prices in the area are generally well below the county average for comparable properties, partly because Morecambe is not currently an attractive place from which to commute to work at any distance. The access problem also deters day-trippers to the seaside, as well as longer-stay visitors, who should be attracted by the town's proximity to the Lake District. Morecambe could be an excellent low-cost base from which to explore this prime tourist area, but at present its potential in this regard is very underdeveloped. Unpredictable journey times to the M6 are also one reason why businesses have not shown more interest in locating in Morecambe in areas such as the White Lund Estate. The projected expansion of Heysham as a major international port also calls for much better access to the national transport network. The completion of the M6 Link therefore not only promises benefits for the immediate area, but also can be expected to significantly improve transport across the north-west, as well as between the UK and Ireland and the Isle of Man.Two surveys conducted in the last ten years have shown strong local support in principle for a motorway link. At the time when both Northern and Western routes were under consideration, this support was fairly evenly divided between the two routes. In 2007 a further survey was conducted by the then MP, Geraldine Smith, which appeared to show widespread objection to the Northern route. It was my task at the 2007 Inquiry to demonstrate that this survey was ill-grounded and could not be taken as reliable in any way (Evidence CM/P1). The essence of my criticism was that the survey did not target the whole of the Lancaster area, but only certain parts of Ms Smith's constituency closer to the route, where opposition might well be expected to be strongest. The survey was also accompanied by literature which did not highlight that planners by this stage regarded the Western route as undeliverable, nor did it allow people to vote for the Northern route as second-best option. If it had done so, it is probable that most people would have chosen this, because, in all the surveys, support for the 'No road at all' option has been consistently low. My contention, that outright opposition to the Northern route was much weaker than Ms Smith claimed, was substantially accepted by the Inspector."

Earl Haydock & Johnson (NFU Mutual Office Lancaster)
"We fully agree with the proposal for the necessity of the 'Link Road'. The traffic build up in and around the Morecambe area is at best annoying and temperamental and at worst soul destroying and grid locked!!! Our area of concern is for the impact on the build for our office located on Lancaster Business Park and for our members, many of whom are local farmers who may be impacted financially. We feel that the majority of objections would tend to be from the 'NIMBY' population adjacent to the proposed route, and although I understand and appreciate their concerns the need of the many should vastly outweigh the discomfort of the few. Any complaints re falling property prices are moot unless they have been in residence for in excess of 40 years when plans for a bypass were first considered. Even in this case the point still stands that the significant benefits to the majority of businesses and residents in and around the Morecambe/Lancaster area would far outweigh the problems."

Malcolm Snape
"My main reason for disagreement with the application is the "Fly over" crossing Torrisholme Road. I tried explaning my concerns to representatives at local "road shows" but I'm afraid that their own ideas were fixed so I spoke to deaf ears. Traffic volume through Torrsholme is already huge and the layout of the Link Road is going to increase traffic volume through the village even more. The Morecambe Road junction with the Link Road will be traffic light controlled, (yet another set on Morecambe road) this will mean people commuting from Morecambe to Lancaster or vise versa will be more likely to use Torrisholme to avoid being held up by another set of lights. Not only are we going to have to live with this increase in traffic volume but will also have to live with looking at an ugly fly over right outside our property which will be massively de-valued because of the above. The original reason for a link road was to decrease the volume of traffic through to Lancaster and Morecambe, this now seems to have swung to the re-generation of Morecambe and Heysham, is this because it has been realised that there will be no difference whatsoever in traffic congestion? That is apart from through Torrisholme where an increase in traffic volume is inevitable should the scheme go ahead."

Christopher Hanna
"The Heysham to M6 Link Road is extremely important for the future of the local economy and to strategically link the area into the national road network. Without this link Morecambe and Heysham remain geographically and economically isolated. With the link there will be greater connectivity to the rest of the UK and Europe that will encourage inward investment into the area and will greatly improve the movement of services and goods in an out of the area. The Link Road is also of European importance connecting Ireland to the rest of Europe, and forms part of the strategic European road infrastructure to ensure the all parts are fully integrated into the European economy and not disadvantaged by poor transport links."

J G Blacktop
"My property backs onto the Lancaster and Morecambe sports field where the link road will pass. The road will be approx the length of a football pitch from my boundary. The land at the moment is level with my garden and will therefore need to be raised about 6-7ft to join the proposed junction on the A589 Morecambe Road College junction. The gradient from the Torrisholme Road bridge will be such that traffic travelling towards Heysham will need to change to a lower gear and brake and in the opposite direction will need to pull up the gradient to meet the bridge. This will cause un-acceptable noise levels and disturb the peaceful environment I enjoy at present. The lighting columns will also affect me as my bedroom is facing the proposed route and light polution will disturb my sleep. The sports ground already floods at the end where the new junction will be and the higher ground level could cause local flooding which would affect my garden . All together the road will de-value my property and destroy the peacful armosphere which I enjoy at present."

Catherine Hanley
"I believe that full and proper consultation has never been held in relation to the slip road Halton. THis disqualifies the application made to the IPC. The issues which I personally would most have liked to be thoroughly examined were: The dangers attached to the 74% increase in traffic along Halton Road The incline of Lune Bridge."

Patrick Davies
"I strongly object to this application on the grounds of the impact it will have on my property value, the enviromental impact of increased noise and air pollution due to the raising of the road outside my property. I believe that the noise and air pollution alone will affect my rights under the EEC regulations with whom comunications have started."

David Hodgson
"I have been a taxi driver in the area covered by this examination for 30+ years and feel that the proposed link road should be approved. A bye-pass around Lancaster was first mooted in 1936 as even then Lancaster was recognised as a choke point on traffic growth to and from Morecambe. Since that time the nature of the traffic has changed from tourist and trippers coming to Morecambe to, now, heavy vehicles travelling to the port at Heysham. These heavy goods vehicles represent a high proportion of total traffic, travelling to and from the motorway, and by removing this traffic flows on existing roads would improve. Also as a taxi driver it would making our job easier by being able to travel to and from Lancaster quicker and therefore cheaper for our passengers as Lancaster is the only town in the country I know of where taxis are banned from all the bus lanes."

Mary Davies
"I strongly object to the submission of this application on the grounds of, The adverse affects of raising the road outside my property combined with the new set of trafffic lights will greatly increase the noise and pollution levels already in existence. The danger of flooding to my property wil dramaticly increase due to the road being raised, note that flooding has been a problem in the past. The value of my property will be adversly affected by all of the above."

Sarah Smith
"I fully suppot the complestion of the M6 link. I feel that it is important economic and growth link for the local area. It will help ease congestion, and promote the local area for sustainable business growth."

David W B Taylor
"I fully support this application believing that the completion of the Heysham to M6 Link as proposed will benefit the more economically deprived parts of the City of Lancaster including north Lancaster, Morecambe and Heysham by making them more accessible to the national motorway network. It will have the added benefit of reducing congestion and "rat running" through residential north Lancaster and the surrounding villages, particularly Halton, Slyne with Hest and Carnforth. Also I believe that the amendments to the originally approved scheme are not detrimental to the scheme or the parts of the district adjoining."

Peter Nicholas on behalf of Folderbeach Limited
"My client holds the freehold interest of the current Honda dealership at the corner of Northgate and the A683. The dealership is currently sublet. The scheme includes a proposal to widen the junction and in order to do so, a strip of land fronting Northgate is required. The concerns that arise are as follows: - Increased noise and vibration, as the highway will be hard against the current built accommodation. - The loss of the strip of land could affect the potential redevelopment of the site, especially with regard to a requiement for landscaping. - The scheme includes a new retaining wall and guardrail, the design of which could have a negative impact on the prominance of current building"

Keith Hanley
"I disgree that full and proper consultation has occurred as demanded for this application. Locally the village of Halton was never consulted or surveyed regarding the slip road and misrepresentation has taken place in representing to the LCC that it has. The LCC now knows this to be the case, and what i consider improper steps have been encouraged and taken locally to fill that gap subsequent to the time frame for the application. I consider this a serious matter procedurally and in view of the fact that crucial aspects of the slip road were never propwerly cosidered by those whom they most affect> I shall provide documentation and evidence for my views in the course of this enquiry."

Timothy Hanley
"My main concern is the lack of proper consultation with the community regarding the sliproad to Halton."

David W B Taylor on behalf of Colin Preston
"Mr Preston is concerned that his right of access will be affected by the scheme."

Alison Philp
"I do not think the road should go ahead, as it will not solve any of the traffic problems in the local area. It just seems to provide a way for haulage companies to get to Heysham Port. It will cause large amounts of noise and light pollution to the residents along its route, and destroy a valuable green belt area. The scheme will lead to greater carbon emissions. Other sustainable transport solutions should be looked at - these have not been properly considered. In particular public transport in the area should be improved."

Mount Recruitment Ltd
"As a Recruiter based in Heysham who with a number of local companies i can tell you as a matter of absolute certainty that quicker access from the Morecambe area to the motorway as well as any alleviation in the traffic congestion currently experienced in Lancaster will greatly improve the prospects of employers in the local area. Currently, employers are being restricted in the range of job seekers willing to work here due to the heavy traffic. This is in turn causing companies to move away from the area or prevents them from competiting as easily with companies based in more accessible areas. All of this has a knock on effect for the local economy and so the local community. I wholeheartedly support the Link road. Grant Bodie Mount Recruitment Ltd"

Duncan Woodcock
"I believe that a route connecting the M6 to the Port of Heysham is essential for the future prosperity of the area. In my view, whilst the proposed route may not be universally popular, it represents the best engineering solution on a cost/benefit basis and should be completed. My only disappointment is that thism process takes so long."

Mike Barrett
"I just wanted to state that I am very much looking forward to the M6 link road to be constructed. This is mainly due to making it a lot easier to travel in the area, as the traffic around Lancaster & Morecambe is a nightmare at busy times especially at rush hours. The work would also bring a lot of local employment to the area."

Frank Roe
"For over 17 years I worked full-time in Lancaster, travelling mostly by car from my home in Kendal. I shopped in Lancaster and White Lund and found traffic movements on the main roads often to be very, very slow. Sometimes getting in and out of Lancaster was horrendous due to hold-ups through the regular traffic volumes. This hold-up period started from schools opening and closing times right through to around 6 pm every evening. I now work occasionally in lancaster and welcome this measure to re-direct traffic on to the new link road. It will take many trucks and other vehicles away from the city centre - those that have a non-town centre destination. I welcome these plans."

K Cut Ltd
"I believe that this project is long over due My only concern is that it is not due to start until next year Our business is based on White Lund & has always been at a disadvantage because of the time taken to reach J34 on the M6. It can some days take as long from our factory to J34 M6 as to Preston. The amount of HGV traffic generated from Heysham Port as well as the Power Station will be able to move at a reasonable speed to reach J34 once the By Pass has been completed this alone must save on Co2 emisions"

Warrenpoint Harbour Authority
"Warrenpoint Harbour Authority (WHA) is the 2nd port in Northern Ireland and the 5th on the island of Ireland based on RoRo and Container traffic. WHA has a long established trade with the port of Heysham and Seatruck Ferries operate 2 ships per day between the two ports. This accounts for upwards of 100,000 units per annum of good moved between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. It is anticipated that this volume will grow as Heysham is well located to serve the North and Midlands of England and Warrenpoint is half way between Belfast and Dublin on the Irish Economic Corridor. This link is an important trade lifeline for the Province. The proposed Heysham to M6 Link Road is a vital measure to alleviate traffic delays, to cut down on environmental pollution and to reduce energy costs for the tens of thousands of customers that rely on the Warrenpoint to Heysham service. WHA fully supports the construction of this Link Road."

Jonathan Hargreaves-Townson
"We need this road for business links, to help prevent less plution to the environment. To help reduce business costs in our area and for growth, any one who can see this and is against the road it's because it personally effects them and their sorroundings, which makes selfish."

Maureen Hargreaves-Townson
"This road is essential to relieve the heavy traffic conjestion that occurs on route to Lancaster and therefore cut down on emmisions passing peoples homes. We need the road to encourage business growth and opportunity for better links to the motorway to encourage business into the area. This road has been the subject of years of conversation and examination let's get on with it NOW! before it starts to cost anymore money. It has been justified over and over."

Julian Healey
"I am strongly in favour of the proposed link road. It will bring much needed economic benefits to the whole area and will improve the lives of everyone who regularly uses the roads around Lancaster. It will open up many more possibilities for Heysham port and will make the construction of a new power station at Heysham more likely. Lancaster's current road system cannot cope with the volume of traffic and much of this is due to through traffic being forced to use the one way system. Access to the M6 will be much improved for many residents - for example the route from Bolton-le-Sands will now avoid the centre of Lancaster altogether. There will be significant environmental benefits due to the reduction in standing traffic. I accept the planners' decision that the northern route is the only viable route for the link road, and the planning authorities should now strenuously resist any attempts by campaigners to change this decision - if the northern route were to ultimately be rejected I believe the road will not be built in the foreseeable future and 30 years of debate and effort will have been wasted. I believe the northern route must be built, and the sooner that construction can start, the better."

Fat Media Ltd
"I write this as the owner director of a Lancaster company employing 37 staff and representing the interests of the company and its staff. Additionally I am from the area and make some points in a personal capacity. The Heysham M6 Link is urgently required. Our staff travelling from Blackpool and Preston (some 20 miles away) are able to travel to work quicker than those from Morecambe and the Heysham peninsula (less than five miles away) at peak times. This has put people living in those areas at an economic disadvantage as they travel to work or seek work. Alternative travel by train is seriously restricted by over capacity on the West Coast Mainline and a lack of investment in the Lancaster to Morecambe route. Buses, despite bus lanes, are also restricted by sheer volume of traffic down two narrow corridors. The knock on benefits are substantial. The Heysham M6 Link will provide an economic renaissance for Morecambe with the scope for investment as it becomes more accessible; the large industrial sites at White Lund and at Heysham Port will see improved levels of investment; traffic from key routes to the Isle of Man and Warrenpoint in Ireland will be offered better and quicker access to and from Heysham Port, also allowing for expansion of the port itself; and it will be strengthen the logistical case for a new nuclear power station at Heysham, as Heysham is closer to conurbations such as Manchester and Liverpool these are important national economic interests. There will be opposition, much of it ill-founded. Yet a silent majority see the economic benefits. In 1947 Lancashire planned its new motorways and trunk roads. Since then everyone has been built. The only exception is the Morecambe Link. We're 65 years overdue and its time it was progressed."

Colin S Bland
"Lancashire County Council has consulted on SOME details of the scheme but NOT all. · Other routes have NOT been properly considered the one that everyone voted for ie the Western Route The road doesn’t solve local congestion: traffic increases on many roads The road doesn’t achieve stated aims: job forecasts are unreliable. The scheme will damage local communities, bringing noise, light and air pollution to residential area's Traffic will increase by 74% on Halton Road, which is already a dangerous road. The cost to Lancashire taxpayers has NOT been clearly stated."

John Francis Regan
"The lack of a link between the industries and port of the Heysham to the motorway network means that the City of Lancaster has become a total blockage. This has hindered the development of Lancaster, Morecambe and Heysham."

Victoria Gettings
"I 100% agree with the link road and can't wait for it to be built. Living on Morecambe Road I see a build up of traffic every day that is not limited to "rush hours". Each day many wagon / trucks block the road getting to and from the ferry. The link road would eliminate this. My windows and inside of the house are affected by the pollution that the standing traffic creates each day, moving traffic does not cause as much pollution as sitting or idle traffic so pollution would reduce. When I travel to and from the motor way I currently have to sit through the traffic into the city centre, the link road will eliminate this too. Building the link road will create jobs. The new trees that are due to be planted along sections of the link road will absorb carbon (growing trees absorb more carbon than fully grown trees) so this would reduce more carbon / pollution. I think the link road is LONG over due and I can't wait for it to be built and to see the positive impact it will have."

John Derek Thompson
"As a resident of Middleton, I am very concerned at the fact that there are very few routes out of the area to go either North or South. I commute into Lancaster daily & on average this takes 40 minutes. There is a high level of road freight traffic upon all the routes to the motorway with the consequence of high congestion & pollution. When the proposed new road is built traffic from Heysham & Morecambe will be able to access the motorway system quickly with a consequential relief of other routes around the Lancaster area. The improved accessibility will have a knock on effect of increasing traffic to Heysham port & encourage inward investment to the area, thuis boosting the local economy & leading to job creation. I, therefore, strongly support the proposed scheme"

David Marsland
"The road will not alleviate traffic in and into Lancaster. It adversely affects green belt land and lancaster canal 26 ft embankment will be unsightly a very expensive road with very little benefit, it will be detrimental to the environment"

Anthony Williams
"I think alternative routes were not properly considered.This plan was not supported by the local city council."

Susan Partington
"I am totally for the M6 link I would have preferred the alternative route but any road is better than none at all, it is impossible for Morecambe to progress any further in both industry and the retail market with this constant stream of traffic through Lancaster city centre especially when there is an accident or anything the road is snarled up for hours which prevents future investment in the town."

James McCarthy
"The proposed road is unlikely to achieve the benefits aimed for. It will be unsightly, noisy and expensive. It may well make traffic problems in the area worse. The local green belt and Lancaster canal will suffer. Alternative solutions have not been fully explored."

John Buckley
"Consultation has been inadequate. Lancashire County Council has consulted on some details of the scheme, not the scheme as a whole. Other alternative solutions have not been properly considered, for example a package of sustainable transport measures. Other routes have not been properly considered. Road doesn’t solve local congestion: traffic increases on many roads."

Jon Powell
"I am very much in favour of the application, it has taken far too long already to get through the planning and consultation stage. The current road infrastructure around Caton Road is not able to cope with the amount of traffic trying to access Morecambe and Heysham via the M6 junction 34. The road is in an urgent state of repair and is constantly snarled with traffic. Thus the main entrance to the historic city of Lancaster is usually a smoggy traffic jam. The bypass will benefit the city of Lancaster, Morecambe and Heysham, both commuters, businesses and residents."

Stena Line
"Stena line is a shipping company that transports 3rd party trailers to and from Heysham and Belfast. Currently the number shipped is approximately 100k per year. Any improvements to the road infrastructure providing access between Heysham Port and the motorway network will be beneficial to our business and to our customers."

Caroline Jackson
"I am not in favour of the building of the M6 link for a number of reasons Firstly, it is hugely costly at a time of serious and worsening cuts at County Council level - services such as respite care for severely disabled young people are being cut in Lancaster, whilst millions are being spent on a road. It doesn't make sense to many local people in Lancaster Secondly, it has been put forward as an answer to congestion in central Lancaster and crossing the river, but since congestion is caused by local traffic there is no reason to expect it will make any difference to journey times or levels of pollution in the city centre Thirdly it brings heavy traffic, noise and air pollution to a large swathe of housing in the Torrisholme area and across to Beaumont - the changes to the plans have also meant the removal of measures originally put in to reduce these effects. Finally, estimated extra traffic will add 10-20,000 tonnes of extra CO2 to the atmosphere at a time when we are all urged to reduce carbon emissions There are a number of other measures, much more cost effective, that could be taken to reduce congestion and improve journey times in the Lancaster/Morecambe area. These have not even been considered by the county council, let alone piloted. The one aspect of the scheme that I consider has some importance, the remodelling of the north Lancaster motorway exit/entrance, could be achieved without any of the link road being built. The M6 link is an easy, hugely expensive but ineffective answer to a complex problem. At a time of crisis in public financing we owe it to all tax payers and especially the people in the local area to make sure money is invested wisely in infra structure, not thrown away on a grandiose scheme."

Jeremy North
"As a resident of Lancaster for over 16 years I have closely followed the frustratingly slow progress on seeing this major improvement to the district's infrastructure come to fruition.I personally feel the economic and social benefits have been well proved over the years, specifically at the public inquiry into the original planning application. Also,living in Skerton in close proximity to Skerton Bridge I am well aware of the volume of H.G.V. traffic that would be removed from this single crossing into the City and the undoubted benefits that would bring. I particularly feel that the many objectors who quote "lack of consultation" as an issue against the application are attempting to seriously misguide matters. The County Council's level of public consultation ,I feel is to be commended."

Andy Askham
"The new road will provide much needed relief to the congestion currently experienced in the Morecambe and Lancaster area. It will reduce dependancy on the current antiquated bridge bottleneck. It will improve access and generate business - and employment - for the Heysham area. It will provide the opportunity for the Port of Heysham to realise its potential."

Trevor Curnow
"There are a number of issues that cause me concern based on my knowledge of the application and my experience of living in Lancaster for over 20 years. 1. Those who support the application generally do so because they no longer believe the southern link road is ever going to happen. Few would make the northern link road their first choice. 2. The projected cost and construction time for the road has increased considerably over the past 5 years, making it difficult to believe that proper controls are in place. 3. Addressing traffic congestion in the Lancaster/Morecambe/Heysham area does not require the new road. There are other options such as: (a) better school transport to address the problems created by the school run; (b) better use of traffic signals: at present there are too many and a lot of them hinder the flow rather than help it; (c) park and rides; (d) more incentives to use public transport (private car use is actually going down at the moment for economic reasons; the time is ripe for this). 4. More roads tend to create more congestion rather than less. Look at the M25! 5. Aesthetically the road is an eyesore. Many of us will end up looking at the side of an embankment. 6 Projections regarding the economic benefits the road will bring seem to have little of substance to back them up. Any employment benefits will be very short term."

Norman Haworth
"As a Past President of the Lancaster and District Chamber of Commerce I am anxious to see the outcome of any discussions on the new road and sincerely hope that common sense will prevail and the construction of the road will proceed as soon as possible. This position is shared by a large number of Chamber Members."

Rick Carr
"I agree with the proposed route and works required. I reside in Morecambe, but travel to Manchester on most days, so the time and travel cost savings would be greatly appreciated. I also strongly believe this would greatly improve the potential of the area to attract visitors and business to the area"

Pascal Desmond
"Consultation has been inadequate. Lancashire County Council has consulted on some details of the scheme, not the scheme as a whole. Soft factors have not been properly considered, for example a package of sustainable transport measures Road doesn’t solve local congestion: traffic increases on many roads Road doesn’t achieve stated aims: job forecasts are unreliable. Scheme will damage North Lancashire Green Belt and Lancaster Canal Scheme will damage local communities, bringing noise, light and air pollution. Cost to Lancashire taxpayers not clearly stated."

Jennifer Lauruol
"I am against the construction of the M6 Link Road for the following reason: . It is a mis-use of taxpayer money . It will not reduce congestion in the centre of Lancaster . It will pave over greenfield sites, destroy neighbourhoods and cause noise and disruption . It will not serve the people of Lancaster or Morecambe, but only serve the nuclear power station at Heysham, which I am also against. . At a time when petroleum resources are past their peak, and climate change is a threat to the entire biosphere, building another road for more vehicles emitting more carbon emissions is pure folly, and also against the government's climate change legislation"

Louis Puttick
"I wholeheartedly agree with the plans. The ability for the m6 to access heysham port and salt ayre allowing the ease of truck movement along a managed and suitable road is essential for lancaster to be a progressing city in the united kingdom. The safety of the current roads handling the truck traffic is worsening and the costs of maintenance of these roads will escalate; there will be more traffic in the future, not less. People will have to travel further to work, and public transport in the rural area that lancaster is situated, is not a viable complete solution. Kind regards, Louis"

Louise Andrews
"The link road will not ease traffic congestion at all, it will move it to different locations and thus create even more congestion than we have now. It is of no economic benefit to the area The bulk of the congestion is during the school runs and this is evident during school holidays when it is relatively easy to drive in, out and around the area. This is supposed to be a time of economic austerity and I think in light of all the cutbacks in public services it is an immoral use of public money to build a new road when existing roads are still in bad repairs fro previous years frosts and snow."

Joy Warren
"I consider that in this period of peak oil we should be discouraging road transport as it will not be viable in a few years time. The U.K. has to cut down emmissions. It is a well documented fact that as soon as more roads are built to relieve pressure on existing roads, the new roads soon get equally congested."

Ian Magowan
"This scheme does not represent value for money. By the County Council's own admission, congestion between Lancaster and Morecambe will not be significantly reduced. It will have an adverse impact on the countryside to the north and east of Lancaster"

Clifford O
"I wish to ask that you turn down this application from Lancashire County Council. The proposed road will have little effect on the traffic problems in Lancaster and will destroy large areas of beautiful countryside and townscape. Traffic problems in Lancaster could be reduced by less intrusive and expensive traffic management solutions. The road will severely damage the environs of Torrisholme village and at the same time take away one of the few remaining green spaces in Morecambe, a heavily built-up seaside town. It will also destroy the peace and ambience of the Lancaster canal, an area treasured by walkers, cyclists and boaters, and a haven for wildlife. The huge cost of this road and the environmental damage it will create all seems to be predicated on a minimal time saving on the journey to Heysham port, at rush hour times. The road is a gigantic waste of money and should be rejected outright."

Kevin Goodall
"I agree with all aspects of the application. I believe it is essential for Morecambe and Heysham to have a direct link from the motorway bearing in mind the likelihood that car use is going to increase in the years ahead. Ultimately it will benefit Lancaster and Carnforth too in that it will reduce through traffic."

Cllr Darren Clifford
"The Heysham to M6 link scheme has been a key issue in public opinion and in local plans thereafter since at least 1949. Lancashire County Council, irrelevant of political persuasion, has maintained the scheme as a key priority, which is to the credit of all those involved. Investigation, followed by further consultation, followed by numerous planning inquiries now sees us at the present stage. Morecambe and Heysham has suffered economically for a generation from stagnation due to an understandable change in tourism habits. The peninsula and town area are isolated and requires tranport links to survive. This scheme is therefore vital for future generations for employment and commerce reasons. I represent Poulton Ward in Morecambe, I do not presume to speak for all my constituents, but the overwhelming view is one of support. Nor should the IPC regard submiissions from Morecambe Town Council as speaking for all members or indeed the community when one considers that of the 6 wards of the Town Council, 4 are represented by Councillors elected, in part at least, due to their support of the scheme before you. I therefore strongly support the Heysham to M6 Link scheme before you for examination."

Peter Whalley
"The planned road will neither reduce traffic congestion in Lancaster - which is the result of local traffic - nor promote trade through the port of Heysham - which is already working to capacity. While the envionmental cost will be enormous, devastating an area of green belt and blighting many properties."

Kevin Sanderson
"I wholeheartedly support the application I currently live in heysham and work in lancaster and it can often take up to 1 hour travelling the 4 miles into lancaster. this is primarily due to the growing freight traffic on the only road to the motorway and given the expansion taking place at heysham port this is only likely to get worse the new road will ensure that all this freight traffic is routed straight to j34 of the m6 avoiding the road into lancaster. a large percentage of the working population in heysham/ morecambe/ overton all commute to lancaster ( to either work in lancaster or to get to the motorway to commute further afield) and back each day so a significant number of people would benefit from reduced travelling time and therefore lower costs for fuel and lower emmission levels"

Dean Clinton
"I agree with the whole application."

Patricia Harrison
"I feel apposed to the new road because: there has been inadequate public consultation;no consideration of alternative solutions, routes or designs.The proposed road increases traffic on some roads and does not decrease congestion in town,nor does it achieve its stated aims e.g.:job forecasts are unreliable and short term.The scheme will damage the N.Lancs green belt, Lancaster Canal, local communities and businesses.There is a proposed high embankment at Torrisholme which is totally out of keeping with the local environment and not necessary if plans were scaled back.There would be a great increase in noise and air pollution.Costs to taxpayers are unclear."

Sally Stephens
"I grew up in Claughton (approx 4 miles up the Lune Valley from Halton) and now live in Morecambe, after previously living in Lancaster. I work in Kirkby Lonsdale and my mum lives in Hornby. So a lot of my life revolves around the Lune Valley. I am aware of the traffic issues between Lancaster and Morecambe, as both a local resident and driver. My first concern is that I do not feel that this route will solve many of the problems, as I am not convinced that enough south-bound traffic (from e.g. Heysham, or vice versa) will choose to travel out of the their way, towards the north. This is similar to the situation now, where much northbound traffic that 'should' use the Heysham bypass link still comes down the prom, as they prefer to take a more direct route where available. My second concern is with the environmental (local) impact - I see that later plans are going to be much more visually obtrusive (e.g. junction not sunken down), presumably to keep costs tight. This means the beautiful Lune Valley will be greatly affected. My third concern is with the level of traffic - it seems to be widely accepted now that the very act of building new routes encourages greater use of cars for journeys along those routes. So although there may be a short term improvement in traffic between, say, Lancaster and Morecambe, this is unlikely to be significant in the medium to long-term. My final concern is with the environmental (wider) impact and the balance between private and public transport, or equally between road and rail. I am very keen to see the port of Heysham expand, as well as Morecambe and Heysham regeneration be supported by 'gentrification' of housing and new business opportunities. However, I do not see that this needs this new route. We are lucky enough to have the local railway line to Heysham/ Morecambe/ Bare, and I think it would be better for more freight to be transferred to the mainline this way, and bypass local roads entirely. Similarly, the services that relate to school & work hours are well used - expansion of passenger services would be an alternative."

Virtual Lancaster
"I do not believe that the County Council can afford its financial liability for the project, given that it has already been forced to make cuts to crucial services for the vulnerable in our community. Isolated elderly people who aren't coping have been forced out of day centres because of fee increases of 500%. The road has been forced through by two lobbying forces, the Power station and the port. However neither have offered to share any part of the liability. Both Lancaster City and Morecambe Town Councils have voted against it. They have been ignored completely. The completed section which connects Heysham to Ovangle has the highest number of speeding offences in the area with people regularly clocked at over 80 miles an hour. It is used as a test acceleration route by local motor dealers. Why? Because it has hardly any traffic. We cannot afford to keep the electronic timetable in the bus station, but apparently we can afford astronomical sums for a road that nobody but a small, influential group wants. We do not want an evacuation route from the power station. We do not accept a plan that involves evacuation as a feasible option and destroys the countryside that thousands of local people enjoy. We want a decent, affordable public transport service that gets people to work and children safely to school in dry clothes."

Lancaster Canal Trust
"The Lancaster Canal Trust seeks to protect the canal, its heritage, its environment and the interests of its various users. The Lancaster Canal Trust is therefore particularly interested in the bridge carrying the new road over the canal, including its design and appearance, the detailing and quality of its finishes and how it fits into the landsacape in the area of the canal crossing. The Lancaster Canal Trust is neutral other matters of detail and on the principle of the development of the road."

Peter Wiltshire
"I thouroughly support the application for this link road. It is essential not only for the growth and development of Morecambe and Heysham, but for sound environmental reasons. Heavy traffic from Heysham Harbour and The two Nuclear Power Stations should not have to pass through a historic city, on roads which were never built for this purpose. Thomas Harrison's 1792 Georgian Bridge is a national treasure which is being severely damaged by the relentless heavy traffic which passes over it The quality of life of those who live, and work along the existing through roads will be vastly improved, whilst the number of those who will be adversly affected by the new road will be relatively small."

Cal Giles
"I believe the consultation was NOT adequate. LCC consulted on changes to the scheme, but refused to talk about the scheme as a whole – the need for it, and alternatives that would achieve the same objectives. People at the exhibitions told me that LCC only listened to views on minor details of the scheme. This scheme is not a NSIP, which the Planning act defines as a scheme carried out by or on behalf of the Secretary of State, and for purposes relating to the motorway. This scheme is predominantly neither of these, and even insofar as it affects slip roads to the motorway, these are a Highways Agency (HA) responsibility, but the HA won’t make the changes or even contribute towards them."

Dave Horton
"I have lived in Lancaster for 16 years. Throughout that time I have been a member (and usually a committee member) of Dynamo, the Lancaster and District Cycle Campaign. I am a sociologist, and have for the past three years undertaken research at Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, as part of a major research project, 'Understanding Walking and Cycling'. Between 2005 and 2011 the Lancaster and Morecambe District was a 'Cycling Demonstration Town'; I participated in many different endeavours related to this status. I speak and write about cycling policy and promotion academically, and for national and international media. At a time when - in response to climate change, oil depletion and growing obesity - we should be radically re-structuring our urban areas to accommodate cycling, and to increase very substantially the proportion of journeys being made by cycle, the proposed Heysham-M6 Link Road will take us in completely the wrong direction. By further facilitating and embedding car use as ordinary, this road will perpetuate the current marginality of low-carbon modes of mobility, not only cycling but also walking, and so defer the more fundamental changes which as a society we must face."

Anthony Warrington
"There is a need for an M6 to Heysham link road. This road however should be multi-purpose. The road as planned is mono-purpose. It would indeed take traffic from the M6 to Heysham, it does not however deal with the other major local problems that could easily be included. These in chief are the local Lancaster/Morecambe traffic problems. For example: Planning permission has recently been granted for over 300 new dwellings at Luneside Lancaster (on the south bank of the Lune beyond the railway bridge). The only access is either via Willow Lane-Lune Road or along the historic St Georges Quay. Both ultimately ending up on the already congested Lancaster one-way system. Furthermore access to the three largest employers in the area (the Infirmary, Cumbria University and Lancaster University) is not helped by the present plan as they are all South of the city. The Lune should be bridged at Snatchems (Heaton-with-Oxcliffe) thus taking traffic (both domestic and commercial from Lune Industrial Estate) away from Luneside and away from the city centre. A link to the M6 could be made near Lancaster University or at the existing south Lancaster junction at Hampson Green via widened existing roads."

Seatruck Ferries Ltd
"Seatruck Ferries is the largest ferry operator in the Port of Heysham with daily services to Dublin, Warrenpoint and Larne and fully support the building of the M6 Link. In 2011 Seatruck volumes through Heysham grew by 85% to 188,862 freight vehicles. Well over 95% of this heavy goods traffic currently transits through central Lancaster. The completion of M6 Link is absolutely vital to Seatruck not only to accommodate the current increased levels of cargo but also to stimulate further growth of our services which bring large economic benefits to the area. Over the past 5 years Seatruck has invested €400 million in freight ferries which are suitable for the tight confines of Heysham Port. This investment program has included the building of 8 new vessels creating a fleet of 12. Seatruck currently operate 56 sailings per week from Heysham and have grown our market share of the Irish Freight market from just 3% in 2004 to over 20% in 2011. The recent closure of Fleetwood has added further pressure to the road network with additional flows for Seatruck and Stena, the other Irish Ferry operator within the Port. Our sailing schedules are designed to meet the needs of the UK –Ireland logistics market and as such the vessels arrival and depart at peak rush hour times further adding to the traffic issues in Lancaster. Seatruck employs 40 direct staff in our Heysham head office but the indirect employment effects spread much more widely creating a significant economic benefit to the local area. As a freight only operator specialising in the shipment of unaccompanied trailers (without the cab and driver att) the secondary employment impact of the Seatruck services include stevedoring teams (dock workers) to load and discharge the vessel, local lorry drivers to collect and deliver the trailers and ancillary services such as local suppliers of ships stores and maintenance, tyre and fuel suppliers to the trailer operators. Since 2004 Irish Sea total volumes have grown by over 400% and Seatruck predict further growth on roll-on roll-off freight traffic through Heysham in years to come, as road haulage operators seek to reduce road mileage by using ports that are close to the origin and destination of the goods rather than transiting through Scotland or Wales as has historically been the case. As Seatruck seek to exploit these future opportunities the M6 Link road will become a key part of the marketing strategy. Seatruck believes that this will encourage an increase in port centric ‘logistic’ activity with the potential for large retail customers to establish Distribution Centres for Ireland in the Lancaster/Morecambe area. The congestion that currently exists in Lancaster is holding back this growth as it does not give operators certainty of journey time a factor which is critical especially with the ever increasing legislation re driving hours. The M6 link is required and gets the full backing of Seatruck Ferries. We look forward to addressing the IPC directly as part of this important planning process. Alistair Eagles Managing Director Seatruck Ferries"

Michael Dickinson
"I maintain that the proposed Northern route is totally flawed both in concept and design and as such I object to the whole route. I have lived and worked in this City for the last 30 years. I have no political, financial, or environmental interests in the Link road. I am simply a layperson who cares profoundly about this area in which i feel privIleged to live. The concept that a modern route can, literally, bulldoze it's way through the centre of a village, heading in a north easterly direction, in order to satisfy the business development requirements of a Peninsula from which it is proven 70% of traffic, predominantly lorries, require to head in a southerly direction, is to say the least, misconceived. Furthermore the design, as a primary objective of this route was, according to 4.5.6 of the 2008 Inspector's report, 'to remove significant volumes of traffic from the City centre', whilst the 'Comparison of Schemes' 2004 document refers to the proposed Northern route only removing 1/6th of traffic the abandoned Western routes would have removed 1/3rd. in a letter to me dated 22nd Dec. 2011 Lancashire County Councillor Tim Ashton now says 'it should be noted, however, that the objective of the scheme has never been to relieve traffic within Lancaster City centre.. After 20 years of debate they are still unclear as to their objectives!! In 8.4.2 of CJ Tipping's (Inspector) 2008 report he said 'No party has put forward any alternative proposal which has the potential to meet the objectives of the scheme'. A party, namely myself and two other individuals, who will each register as individuals, has now produced an alternative proposal, which I believe has the potential to meet the objectives of the scheme. This route is now known as THE LANCASTER BYPASS LINK ROAD (LBL) , a new SOUTHERN route which is supported by Morecambe Town Council, who submitted a plan of the route and supporting documentation to Lancashire County Council as part of their Consultation response document. This submission should now be available to you. I wish to emphasise the only resemblance to either of the two former Western routes is, arguably, a few hundred yards stretch od alignment in the proximity of the village of Aldcliffe, the remaining route and, specifically, the proposed LBL bridge spanning the Lune and the connection with a new Junction 33(a) on the M6 being on a different alignment. The environmental issues pertaining to the Western route cannot therfore be applied to the LBL unless a full assessment in accordance with HRA directives has been undertaken. I MAINTAIN THAT HAD INSPECTOR TIPPING BEEN AWARE OF THIS ALTERNATIVE ROUTE HIS DECISION TO GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION IN 2008 MAY WELL HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT."

Miles Newman
"I am very much against this bypass not only because it very definitely is not necessary and the huge amount of money would be much better spent elsewhere, but also: 1. Greenbelt areas, incl. mature trees, would be lost forever: 2. Disruption and loss of land would occur at Lancaster and Morecambe College: 3. A continuing noise disturbance would affect residents of Torrisholme: 4. Traffic on local roads will increase. It is generally the case that new roads fill up with increased traffic. 5. Otters have recently returned to the Lune and a major civil engineering project would very possibly deter them forever."

James Heard
"I firmly believe that the proposed link road will fail to solve the traffic problems that it seeks to address. The forecasts suggest that through traffic in Lancaster will be largely unchanged by the proposed road, it is therefore very difficult to see how such massive expenditure can be justified at a time of a severe world-wide recession. Investment in alternative transport initiatives would be cheaper and more effective in reducing congestion and stimulating the local economy. This scheme neither has the support of the majority of the local population, or of the council, and will cause irrevocable destruction to the surrounding countryside, decimating wildlife and lowering the quality of life for those unfortunate enough to live along the proposed route. In conclusion, the road is both unneeded and unwanted and the application should therefore be rejected."

Paula Ross-Clasper
"As a resident of Morecambe for over 5 years now, and previously a resident in Lancaster for a number of years, I can attest to the absolute need for direct vehicular access to the peninsula that comprises of Morecambe, Heysham (and other villages beyond Heysham). This would be of direct benefit to Morecambe Heysham etc and would also provide some relief to the city of Lancaster. At present one has three primary choices if one wishes to reach the motorway. I have tried all three under various conditions over the past few years. There is the option of going north to Carnforth junction 35 and tracking back if one is going south (consistently the fastest option I have found). One can take the scenic route via Halton and turn right after the Crook of Lune to Lancaster North (junction 34), or even travel across country yet further to Lancaster South (junction 33) if one feels intrepid. Finally there is the “sit it out” option and travel directly along the Morecambe Lancaster conduit into Lancaster to pick up the Caton Road and head out to the Lancaster north (junction 34). This is the least predictable. You can be sure you will have a long wait during the rush hours each morning and afternoon, upwards of 45 mins dragging through the roads at a snails pace. However, there may be a brief lull in the traffic and you could, lights prevailing, make it to the motorway in 15 to 20 mins. This translates to a large area currently impeded by poor road links. This state has existed for so long I think some who have lived in the area their entire lives do not actually recognise it as a problem at all. There is a constriction on development and I see young people walking around out of work. I fear for the health of the community as a whole if opportunities are not brought to the area. Better links will provide further development and thus jobs to the area, at the port, in the industrial quarters and in leisure and tourism. There are many ways in which this entire peninsula could benefit from this link. This takes nothing from the sadness for those who will suffer upheaval as a result of these changes, but if I may use an analogy, if we do not get “some blood flowing in the extremities” gangrene will set in."

David Ross-Clasper
"I have lived in the district for eleven years both in Lancaster and now in Morecambe since 2006. My wife and I have operated a business in the hospitality industry since 2008. Even though Lancaster has a wider choice of business and retail outlets than Morecambe, it is less stressful to travel 35 miles to Preston by train to shop, than 3 miles to Lancaster by car. We rarely travel to Lancaster unless it’s absolutely necessary. For us the M6 to Heysham link road will fundamentally enhance the accessibility and prosperity of the Morecambe/Lancaster district. Currently businesses based in Lancaster and Morecambe have to function every day in an environment where the road system is overloaded, congested, and prone to complete gridlock. The daily cost to business is delivery vehicles stuck in traffic, the unreliability of journey times within the local area, and difficulty in accessing the motorway network and airport. Completion of the Heysham M6 link road will significantly reduce business costs related to the present poor road links. Moreover I believe the M6 link will play an important role in stimulating new private investment and allowing local firms to expand, by improving road access to the district’s main areas of employment. It will also attract new economic activity associated with the expansion of trade through Heysham port and the construction of Heysham 3 power station. Heysham and White Lund industrial estate are the main sites of employment and their development has been inhibited by the poor road access from the M6. Since the late 1980s much progress has been made with the regeneration of Morecambe. Reconstruction of the promenade, coastal defence works, combined with public artworks and the restoration of the iconic Midland Hotel have helped reverse the process of decline, attract new visitors, and investors. However the process of regeneration is at a critical stage and the biggest constraint to further regeneration is Morecambe’s poor road access. The potential economic benefits that increased tourism could bring has not been realised as a consequence of poor road access to the district. It acts as a disincentive for people to visit in the first place. Those that do visit have a poor experience on arrival or departure, whilst some visitors to Morecambe avoid travelling into Lancaster or Bowland from the resort for local day visits. In my own business I have witnessed guests arriving fraught and frustrated after a long journey stuck in traffic from the M6 to Morecambe. The larger operators within Morecambe’s visitor economy have found it almost impossible to market for for 2-3 night residential conferences – organisers are bowled over by the beauty of the Bay but are put off by access problems. When Urban Splash redeveloped the Midland Hotel they failed to attract a hotel operator and initially ran the hotel themselves. The main reason why hotel operators were deterred from running the Midland was again down to the poor road access to the resort."

Annie Brownlee
"My worry about the new road structure, is increased traffic flow and the noise, plus being able to drive out of my property to join traffic on Morecambe Road."

Ms Gill Barraclough
"I wish to register my objection to the proposed Northern Route, which I regard as misconceived and inefficient and, indeed, damaging to this area. My name is Gill Barraclough. I have lived and worked in this area for 45 years and my family still lives in Lancaster. I have no political or financial interests in the link road. I am simply a local resident who is profoundly concerned about this area. Against the proposed northern route The proposed northern route would simply not do the job. The declared objectives for construction of a Heysham-M6 link were stated thus in para.4.5.6. of the planning inspector’s report 2008: ‘The primary objectives …are to improve the strategic access to the Port of Heysham and the Heysham Peninsular generally and to remove significant volumes of traffic from the City Centre.’ v The concept of the proposed northern route is flawed in that it does not travel in the direction required by over 70% of the traffic from the peninsular ie south v Journey times, and therefore carbon footprint , would be increased. v The route would carve its way through the village of Torrisholme destroying the environment for residents. v The route would drive through the campus of L & M College , thereby impacting on the lives of some 2000 people daily. v The redesigned Junction 34 would be convoluted and inefficient. v The route would not provide access to the Quay and would therefore not encourage or assist regeneration. v LCC have admitted ( November 2011 Newsletter) that, at the McDonald’s junction on Morecambe Rd, ‘there is congestion in the opening year and the congestion builds year on year’ v This is hardly surprising, since page 50 of their consultation document states that there will be an increase in traffic at this junction of 40% in the first year alone! In favour of the Lancaster By-pass Link (LBL) In 2008, the then planning inspector observed that there was no alternative route available for assessment. That is no longer the case. The Lancaster By-pass Link (LBL) is on a southern alignment and avoids built-up areas, offering a free flowing route which would: v connect the peninsula with the M6 v follow a southern alignment in line with the requirements of 70% of traffic from the peninsula v provide access to the Quay which is currently derelict and ripe for development v provide access to Lancaster University from the M6 from a new junction 33a v reduce congestion in Lancaster city centre by 30% v affect only 10% of the number of people adversely affected by the proposed northern route v avoid Torrisholme, L & M College, Morecambe Road and Caton Road v require only one traffic light-controlled junction v have minimal impact on any RAMSAR or European Protected Site, contrary to LCC assertions. I contend that the proposed northern route would aggravate traffic problems in and around the area, whereas the LBL would meet all requirements and offer better value for money."

S J Varden
"I am in support of the M6 link road because I find the daytime traffic congestion into and through Lancaster unbearable and a total waste of my time - so much so that I tend to avoid daytime travel into or through Lancaster if at all possible!"

Lesley Owen
"I am concerned that the proposed Heysham to M6 link road will affect the quality of life for residence of Russell Drive. It will bring noise, light and air pollution to the houses, which will result in a poor quality of life."

Paul Tynan
"I would like to support the scheme. Clearly a port and nuclear facility needs to have good access to the m way network. The road will allow the development of the heysham peninsula which is currently a relatively poor area. It will allow faster access to medical facilities for the population. It will allow a safer junction at the motorway which is currently short and dangerous. There will be a beneficial effect on traffic in lancaster. currently some lorries use the A6 south of lancaster and go through Lancaster centre to get to the port - I know this because i see them on my way to work."

Councillor Tim Hamilton-Cox
"Formerly (and for nearly 12 years) I owned and managed a business involving road haulage, based on the Lune Industrial Estate. So I am very familiar with the pattern of delays on the district's roads and the operating costs involved. But these costs, aggregated across all businesses operating in the district, do not justify the expenditure, agricultural land loss, and loss of amenity which this project represents. The value for money case is flawed because the elements of it fail to represent any sort of approximation to reality: from the value of time saved to the cost of oil now and projected into the future; and the elasticity of demand for oil. Indeed the road project fails to have any cognisance of sustainability or of real-world economics over the deemed 60-year life of the project. Whether it’s the IPC or LCC, somebody needs to explain how this project is justified in relation to the peaking of conventional oil production globally; the decline in oil production from the UK continental shelf and the increasing balance of payments deficit on energy this is causing given that the UK is now a net importer; and the impact on the aggregate UK balance of payments deficit. This is an attempt to hardwire current transport modes and patterns into a situation the main road transport fuels become progressively less affordable. Even now the data shows that road transport km travelled are peaking. The assumption of steady-state over 60 years is either foolishness or charlatanism. Even if new unconventional sources of crude oil are brought into use, there is no indication that these sources can keep up with the rate of depletion from conventional sources like the North Sea or Mexico. Throughout 2011, again, the cost of oil has exceeded the DECC scenario used in the VFM assumptions, even allowing for inflation. And the dollar price does not incorporate the devaluation of the pound vs. the dollar since 2007. The complacency of the attitudes to resource depletion and the affordability issues that it raises, mirror very well the complacency towards the financial system prior to 2007. Even allowing the principle of the road, serious questions need to be asked about the reduced building cost assumptions which the county council has adopted to squeeze down the headline total cost. Further the scale of the road planned is utterly unnecessary for the stated purpose. LCC should save construction cost and reduce land-take by downsizing the road to a single carriageway, speed-limited to 50 mph; and by making the Slyne Rd. A6 junction at grade and traffic light-controlled. In order to minimise impact on amenity, LCC should ensure that all the road is in cuttings bar the crossing of WCML and Lancaster Canal, where it should be shielded by acoustic fencing; Finally the analysis from LCC should include a cost-benefit analysis of a range of sustainable transport measures and existing road junction, routes and layouts which could be deployed as an alternative to new road-building."

Peel Ports Ltd (on behalf of Heysham Port Ltd)
"The Port of Heysham is classified as a “major port” handling some 3.4 million tonnes of cargo (2010). The Port’s specialises in the roll-on roll-off (ro-ro) sector and acts as a key trade gateway with services to Belfast, Warrenpoint, and Larne (Northern Ireland), Dublin (Eire), and Douglas (Isle of Man). The Port is also home to one of Europe’s major offshore supply bases providing logistics support to the Morecambe Bay gas fields. The Port has invested £10 Million in replacement Linkspans with a further £5 Million earmarked towards port infrastructural improvements. The ferry operators themselves, notably Seatruck and Stena Line have invested substantially through the introduction into service of larger capacity vessels and through additional scheduled sailings. The Port has experienced a 25% increase in volume in 2010 (when compared to 2009) handling in excess of 250,000 drop trailer units. The handling of drop trailer or “unaccompanied” freight will continue to be the dominant form of operation at Heysham Port. The nature of this is entirely geared towards road freight solutions and hence the current deficiencies in respect of accessibility to the Port and effects upon journey time reliability for hauliers are such that there is a strong case for the delivery of the M6 – Heysham Link. It is impractical to utilise the rail system for the transfer of ro-ro freight primarily due to the lack of the necessary infrastructure and loading gauge to Heysham Port itself and upon the wider UK rail network. The Government have identified a series of Strategic National Corridors providing connecting access to the main trade gateways (ports and airports) and the devolved administrations. A strategic connection (to Belfast) via Heysham Port has been included as linking to the M6 motorway. Heysham Port Ltd therefore fully supports the consenting of and delivery of the M6 – Heysham Link which is long overdue."

D A Miller & Sons
"This new link will be of utmost relevance to the logistics industry and if built will have a considerable positive impact on transport vehicles travelling in and out of Heysham for shipment to and from Ireland and Great Britain."

Dunstone Ltd T/A Spec-tran, Specialist Transport
"This would make it easier and less time consuming to get our trucks to Heysham ferry port. It would also allieviate trucks skirting Lancaster"

Penny Xerri
"I object to the proposals because of the deleterious effect to wildlife and the landscape that road building , maintenance and use will of necessity bring in this unspoilt farming and residential area ."

Phil Tate
"as a father of two young children i feel the less heavy traffic around lancaster the better also on a personal note hgv traffic is detrimental to my enjoyment of motorcycling due to numerous close shaves involving large vehicles"

Level 3 Communications
"Level3 owns telecommunications cables within the rail boundary of the affected land under wayleave agreements with Network Rail"

Furness Fluid Power Ltd
"I agree to the application, as it would be good for the local people and increase business on a local level, which will give more local people more job opportunities, as well as reliving congestion on the local route from the M6. In all, it’s a big step in the right direction."

Michael Whalley
"I am strongly in favour of the M6 link project. It ought to have been tackled years ago, as a western bypass, to avoid the current serious traffic movement problems, which continue to worsen by the day. I suggest that the people who really understand the need for the link live on the Heysham and Morecambe side of the river Lune. They have to contend with the hold-ups on a daily basis, challenges that can make the journey between the resort and Lancaster a nightmare. Many of those on the Lancaster side of the river, who do not have to run the gauntlet of Morecambe Road, are against the link per se.They belong to the golden age of bullock and cart transport and can in no way understand or appreciate - nor do they wish to - the problems faced by drivers using Morecambe Road. Their so-called alternative traffic management proposals do not provide a solution. Many of the more vociferous opponents of the scheme live in Torrisholme and, understandably, they are fearful about the project's possible impact on their way of life and on the value of their homes. I venture to suggest that had the western bypass not been ditched, and that mainly on spurious environmental grounds, the opposition from the Torrisholme and Halton areas would simply never have materialised. It is clear there is overwhelming support in the resort, from residents and from users of the ever-expanding Port of Heysham, for the link. Opponents who challenge this assumption are wrong. If the link does not go ahead this area will grind to a halt. This would undoubtedly have a damaging, possibly fatal impact on the Port of Heysham, which currently makes a signifcant contribution to the economy of this area, including employment. But perhaps even more worrying is that the economic outlook for the district as a whole would be even more gloomy than it already is. The M6 could provide the umbilical cord without which the district would simply shrivel and fade away economically."

Tom Berry
"I believe that this road will be a huge benefit to the local community. I also believe that it will solve a lot of the problems with traffic from Heysham/Morecambe into Lancaster as all motorway traffic will no longer use Morecambe Road. It can take 45 minutes to an hour to get from heysham to J34 of the M6 when the traffic is bad, this road will vastly reduce this time. I can't see any disbenefit to myself with the contruction of this road."

Stacey Robinson
"I agree with the M6 link from Heysham as this would ease the traffic within Lancaster City providing a direct route to the motorway which will not only benefit truck drivers etc. but also benefit anyone living within the local areas. The link may also increase jobs available at McDonalds situated on Morecambe Road, as passers would be more likely to eat there. This would also increase revenue for the company. This would benefit LMC students who live in areas such as Barrow-in-Furness as this would provide a fast route for them to get to college. I do not see why the Link should not go ahead, as at the end of the day, it is just another road and for those who do not agree with the link they have to see that roads are everywhere so, although it may cause disruption during the construction stages, what can they really argue once complete? As I can only see benefits!"

Superfreight LTD
"As a large haulage company we currently ship all our lorrys and trailers from Warrenpoint to Heysham and Belfast to Heysham. Having shipped this route also i can understand the need for a link road from Heysham to the m6 which needs to avoid the current area which is the main route. Our drivers currently can get delayed up to 2 hours coming into Heysham and also on the road out. The congestion with cars and trucks along this route also adds to the frustration. Last time I was in Heysham it took me 1.5 hours getting from the port of Heysham to the M6 motorway. The majority of the minor accidents we have in the UK are along greyhound bridge in lancaster where the traffic congests and then the lanes merge into one lane. This is the busiest point along this road and the frustration of commuters adds to this "accident black spot" Something needs to be done to allow a bypass or a direct link road from Heysham to the M6 motorway - this would benefit haulage companies, commuters and the general public and no doubt help local residents with traffic congestion in this area Heysham is a very busy port now and a direct link is needed to the m6"

David Andrew
"I would like to register my full support for the Heysham to M6 link road. I was born in Morecambe and have always lived here. The traffic problems have gradually got worse over the years. Traffic to and from Heysham Port has increased and the port expansion is good for the local area so should be encouraged. Good road links to the M6 are essential for this. My daily eight mile commute to work in Lancaster takes me around 45 minutes on average by car. The bus journey takes longer, around one hour. It looks likely that a third power station will be built at Heysham so road improvements will also be essential to allow the construction to be completed. The improvements to the M6 junction 34 are well overdue. This is one of the most dangerous motorway junctions in the country and will be finally improved by the link road junction. I note that the link road project includes a park and ride scheme. This will be an asset to Lancaster and is much needed. I look forward to construction work starting on the link road as soon as possible."

John Fawcett
"Whilst we do need a relief road I firmly belive this is the wrong route. It will take some traffic from Lancaster but will not solve the internal problems. We need a new bridge over the river but not at this point--Halton. It will not service the Lune industrial area and the City council have had plans for a houseing development on St Georges Key this in turn will cause more congestion as people travel to and from work--they WILL have cars despite the councils reasoning they will not and will drive through town at both rush hours. The best route would be the one proposed to join the M6 J33 to the A683 on Morecambe road with a bridge over the river at Marsh Point joining the round - a-bout on the A683 near Wicks. This would service Lancaster University and circumnavigate Galgate, Lune industrial estate, join the A683 thus serving White Lund, Heysham etc and solve any problems if the new housing development on the key went ahead in the future. It would also service the proposed new Hi-tech business park between Galgate and Lancaster. Galgate is a bottle neck now with University traffic and will be even worse if the new business park went ahead. It seems to me that LCC have adopted the stance of "any road is better than no road" but surely local [Lancaster] people are the best judge of the most effective route and are more aware of the problems than people from outside the area?"

Roger Procter
"As a life long resident of Morecambe, year on year I have seen commuting between Morecambe and the M6 harder and harder to achieve. On a good day it takes approx 20 minutes. on a bad day, up to an hour. It is often easier to travel down back lanes via Halton and even travelling to Caton to avoid main roads. I welcome the link road with open arms. It will allow access to the motorway for Morecambe in under 10 minutes. Morecambe and Heysham economic growth can only benefit from this. My business often takes me to Preston and the Lake district. The link road will benefit my business along with many others."

Morecambe Town Council
"Morecambe Town Council is a Parish Council representing the residents of Morecambe. Residents within the Torrisholme Ward in particular have indicated to their councillors they are against the proposed route. The Town Council therefore further considered this issue at its meeting on 19th January and resolved it wished to register in this process on the following grounds: "The Town Council remains against the apparent "done deal" portrayed by the County Council in its consultations on the revised proposals for the Heysham M6 Link Road, although it does acknowledge the need for a link road for which there are more suitable alternatives, and that proposals submitted by LBL for an alternative western route be forwarded with the Council's written submission at the relevant stage for written submissions in this process.”"

David Tyson
"I wish to express my support for the Link Road which will, in my opinion, alleviate much of the current pressure on traffic between Lancaster and Morecambe. Having made this journey over a number of years at a variety of times, it appears to me to be clear that peak traffic occurs when the Heysham to Isle of Man arrives and departs. The heavy goods and car traffic using Heysham to enter the North West and beyond will use the link road to join the M6. I also feel that the road will support the much needed regeneration of Morecambe and Heysham"

Maxi Haulage Ltd
"Our Company support the development as a major user of Heysham Port. Journey times to and from Heysham port are crucial to effective and efficient operation of our business. The current road is not adequate for the traffic levels. The proposal would reduce journey times and reduce considerably our carbon footprint which is adversely effected by our vehicles being stuck in slow and stationary traffic."

Stephen Landles
"I strongly support the scheme, for 4 main reasons which are specific to me and where I live in Halton. 1. Jobs: Many households in Halton depend on jobs in the White Lund or Heysham area or work for companies which service these industries. Companies don’t typically migrate to areas with poor transport links. So without good transport links we could expect less employment opportunities for the youth of Halton. And whilst I am at the other end of the employment lifecycle I want our village to have a mix of young people and families and not just tend towards a village for retired people. 2. Replace junction 34 which seems dangerous: This junction is clearly not to motorway standard; the north bound entry slip road has a particularly short acceleration lane and every time I use it I worry. Sometimes, like many other residents, I head north through the back roads and go through Carnforth to avoid this junction. 3. Take cars off Denny Beck Lane: The bridge over the Lune to Denny Beck Lane is not suitable for the volume of traffic it carries, though it can be a quick route to the motorway providing you are going with the peak flow. Against the traffic flow it is a night mare! I would like to see what could be done to improve the experience and safety of pedestrians and cyclist over the bridge. With the current road system I can see no opportunities to improve this; with the link road there will be more options. 4. Journey Time: With the link road, journeys to Heysham, Morecambe, White Lund & Hest Bank should be much quicker. Journeys to Lancaster should be slightly quicker. Journeys to the M6 will be slightly quicker and with less chance of scratching my car if using Denny Beck Bridge. These journey time improvements have a value for me. To me there are overwhelming benefits for Halton from the scheme. My main issue is the time it is taking to realise these benefits. It is so important to our area that we don’t lose any more time in getting this link operational."

Halton with Aughton Parish Council
"Halton with Aughton Parish Council would wish to register with the IPC to be part of the process re the M6 Link Rd. The Parish Council believes that it is in the interests of Halton to remain within the scheme but it does wish to express the wide implications on the village of Halton, and would wish to specifically address road safety issues within Halton Village. The roads are narrow and not able to cope with the volume of traffic intended to use the existing road."

Steve Gateley
"I fully agree with the plan to build the M6 link road proposed in the planning application. It will reduce the carbon foot print in the long term by removing the present slow moving traffic on Morecambe road. It will open up Heysham to new business projects. Bring work to the area."

Michael Milburn
"I fully support the proposed bypass solution but would also welcome other traffic control/easement measures as a co ordinated proposal or as a commited future plan.One sole solution will not solve all our traffic problems. We can employ alternatives to the bypass such as Park and ride/ more buses / pedestrian free routes i.e. less traffic lights on main thourough fares/ encanced cycle routes i.e. link to Hornby. I personally feel the bypass is necesary and the route is sound but we should adopt some of the alternatives as enhancements."

Samagita Moisha
"I have many concerns and objections about this proposed new road. My main concerns are about the long term damage to the greenbelt, the landscape, the wildlife along the river and canal - and more importantly the immediate damage to the human life near the proposed route. My own home is just south of the proposed A6 junction. Others have homes even closer and running such a huge elevated road through residential areas does not bear thinking about. Lancaster does certainly need new traffic solutions urgently - intelligent ways to reduce road traffic and the transport carbon footprint. This proposed road does nothing to solve the problems in Lancaster and will make life much more difficult and unpleasant for local people in many ways. Given the increasing expense and steadily diminishing supply of fossil fuel resources - the future viability of road haulage solutions and the building of new motorways needs to be very carefully examined. There are ways of moving frieght which are less damaging to the climate. The carbon footprint in transport and concrete in building the road needs careful investigation at a time when we need substantial cuts in our collective carbon emissions to meet international targets on climate change. At a time of cut backs in support for local council services I oppose this proposed road as a misuse of my taxpayers money. This relates to the plan as it stands regardless of inevitable increased costs. I attended the public consultations and was deeply concerned at the poor level of consultation which focussed on minutiae of detail and invited comment within a very narrow band of concerns."

John Klotz
"I am in favour of a link road between the M6 and the Port of Heysham. This should help alleviate congestion on main routes through Lancaster (mainly A6 north / southbound and Caton road)."

Woodside Haulage
"The proposed link will give far better access to Heysham Port for our vehicles reducing journey times, fuel used and thus reducing Co2 emmissions. Additionally, removing the need to transit Lancaster will reduce risk of accident.."

Paul McMeeking
"i strongly support the bypass, i am a regular visitor into lancaster (not by chose) and peak periods represent some of the worst traffic congestion i experience any where in the country, i also feel that a bypass will be beneficial to the local economy, the poor road network from the motorway coupled with the fact Morecambe is a depressed former sea side resort in my view makes the area more susceptable to a lack of investment and job opportunities, a bypass may help to regenerate the area and is desperately needed. The impact to the local area could only be positive in my view"

Ian Tipler
"I think the scheme is well planned and thought out. It will improve traffic flow through lancaster. Will there be provision for cyclists along the length of the route, if so will this be adjacent to the road or up the verge?"

Stephen Dewhurst
"This project is nearly fifty years old, it was needed then, and is needed now. Ilive by asda roundabout and notice that traffic starts to head towards the motorway from as early as six thirty, and continues till after nine o-clock. during this time between 8-9pm it is just one long traffic jam. Therefore i am in full support of the link road, which will take nearly all h.g.v. traffic off morecambe rd. I do suggest that you put information signs on the m6 before junction 34, informing all h.g.v over 7.5 tonnes use the new link road if going to morecambe or heysham as is the case further up the m6 at the Tebay turnoff, this is not policed, but is aderred to with no problem as the drivers know the consequences. many thanks steve dewhurst"

Mark Dunn
"To whom this concerns, I registering my details in favour of the application as i can see major benefits it will do once it is completed! I mainly work in morecambe but was offered a job with the same company i work for in Manchester, for more money etc.... however my issue wouldnt be sitting in traffic heading into Manchester but having to crawl through traffic from Morecambe to Lancaster each morning unless i set off much earlier which i decided not to take due to this. This link road would be a fantastic chance to consider roles like this in the future more confidently and without Morecambe/Lancaster traffic being a issue (not just getting to work but also getting home from it as well). Please consider my application as fact that if new or other chances come avaliable they can be consider with the link road helping to do so because due to access at the moment this is a big issue for people to increase there chance of better work/ better living! Many Thanks Mark"

Sue Holden
"* piecemeal consultation * more roads = more traffic movements * damage to green belt and canal area * increase in pollution - sound, light and air * alternative approaches not properly considered - and never tested * poor cycling environment"

Specialist Crane Hire Ltd
"We agree with te bypass to help business' make upi time getting to and from the motorway Also the construction work/jobs it brings to the area"

Jonathan Sear
"The road has very limited impact of traffic in Lancaster, which was the council's initial justification for the scheme. The climate impacts of the road are unacceptable The jobs projections are very uncertain and more jobs may be lost due to the "two way road effect" Consultation on realistic alternatives has been inadequate The landscape increase has been increased as a result of the road being redesigned and being higher at Shefferlands The cost impact on local tax payers is uncertain"

David Michael Daly
"An additional road was required some 30 years ago when the Gas Base and Power Station was set up at Heysham. Since then traffic has continued to increase as standard of living, population etc has increased and people decided it was more pleasant and time efficient to travel by car rather than train, bus etc, ie when you wanted and needed to travel, not requiring a detailed inspection of timetables, fares to see when you had to embark on your journey, many of which would probably be impossible to complete in reasonable time. Unfortunately with the growth of the Universities in Lancaster there was an influx of do-gooders and greens who want to return to historic days, live in caves and not join the progress that other areas have enjoyed and they then objected to vitually every plan or application that would keep Lancaster and area progressing. These combined with the NIMBYs have continued to obstruct the construction of this link road, which more logically should go west of and to the south of Lancaster to join the M6. Travelling anywhere to and from Lancaster over the only relatively accessible bridge over the Lune is usually a crawl and yet almost wherever you travel many new roads or road improvements are being carried out. Amongst my wide circle of friends and acquantancies there is no-one who objects to a new road, as usual the minority are the ones making the most noise. For goodness sake go with the majority and lets progress into the 21st century before its too late, a new road will only help to re-generate the area and make travelling in the district more pleasant for us all, drivers, walkers, cyclists etc"

Marianne Bennett
"The proposal would mean: loss of greenbelt loss of veteran trees loss of habitat for endangered species such as otter and vole it passes through Lancaster & Morecambe college of F.E grounds passes close to bedroom windows at Torrisholme increased traffic on many roads eg main road at Halton inc by 74%, it will not help with congestion between Lancaster and Morecambe, evidence shows new roads just fill up with cars and you are back to square one alternatives are available car usage seems to have peaked, £111M would be better spent on stopping the cuts I strongly oppose this proposal"

Judith Watson
"This scheme was promoted as a way of reducing congestion in Lancaster City centre, on this understanding it received support from residents and local businesses, only recently has the Lancashire City Council admitted that it will not do so. Support for the scheme was obtained under false promises. The expense to the local council tax payers has never been made clear, various costs have been given, but these are only a low estimate. LCC cannot or will not give the true cost. The scheme will ruin large amounts of green space, habitat for the natural wildlife, if the scheme goes ahead even more green spaces will disappear in further developments, there are some species of wildlife in the area which needs protecting not destroying."

Shealagh Whytock
"1. Main concern is the increased traffic Halton along Church Brow and along the High Road accessing the slip road to the Shefferlands roundabout on the M6 link road. Church Brow is narrow at the point where it goes through a very tight bend around the churchyard. The churchyard is level with its retaining wall, about 12ft. above the Church Brow road. The main entrance to the church (a grade 2 listed building with a Saxon cross in the Churchyard) is via a flight of steps leading down onto the road at the apex of a tight curve. There is no footpath at the church side of the road and only a very narrow footpath on the opposite side. Visitors leaving the church, preparing to cross the road, have no visibility either up or down Church Brow, and similarly traffic travelling into and out of the village is unable to see the church entrance until almost upon it. Despite traffic calming measures introduced recently there is still a tendency for cars to speed down the hill along Church Brow towards the church entrance. The Churchyard retaining wall is showing visible signs of damage with current levels of traffic. 2. Church Brow is used by cyclists to access points in north Lancaster. Because of the lack of pavement and the high church wall cyclists entering the village and travelling along Church Brow have no ‘escape’ route in the event of buses/vans/lorries meeting along this narrow stretch of road. The increase in traffic will make this even more dangerous. 3. There will be increased levels of pollution along Church Brow where the road effectively goes through a gorge created by the churchyard wall and housing on the opposite side of the road. At the lowest point of the road (by the church) the road rises steeply to the mini roundabout at the junction of Foundry Lane/High Road/Low Road and Church Brow – obviously increasing emissions at this point."

Alan James
"I have advised the local group Transport Solutions for Lancaster and Morecambe since 2006, and represented them at the 2007 inquiry. I agree with all the points that they have made consistently over the years - no solution to congestion, negligible regeneration benefits, environmentally destructive, alternatives never adequately considered - but in this personal objection I propose to focus on three issues, all concerned with alternatives: 1. Lancashire CC cannot rely on the 2007 inquiry as having established need for a road: whilst this was the Inspector's conclusion, and had to be accepted for the purposes of that application and permission, that does not make it necessarily right, and certainly does not mean that the conclusion should still prevail in the very different circumstances 5 years on. 2. The reasons for dismissing the western route, based on the opinion of Frances Paterson QC in 2004, are invalid because the opinion was based on a premise, that the scheme might damage the Morecambe Bay SAC, that was not demonstrated in terms that satisfy the procedures under the Habitats Directive. Whilst I do not support any major road solution, a regime that supports a road solution has to make a fair assessment that supports the preferred route: by dismissing the western route on a flawed appraisal of a single issue, and thereafter failing to do any further assessment, LCC has failed to do what is necessary to justify its choice of a northern route. 3. There has never been sufficient work to demonstrate that solutions not led by major road building would be insufficient to meet transport objectives in the area, least of all in the present context where traffic forecasts are significantly different from 2007, there is up to 30% less traffic forecast for the new road than in 2007, and the regeneration benefits - which were said to be the primary purpose of the scheme in the 2005 MSBC - have been proven so modest. I have all the project information and evidence available since the MSBC in 2005 to support my objection, along with the earlier evidence on SAC issues leading to the 2004 legal opinion."

Cllr Paul Woodruff
"I have been The Representative for Halton with Aughton at Lancaster City Council,for the Past 16 years. The Link road passes through The Parish and Ward I represent. There is no doubt.The Western Link Road was allways The Prefered Option. This was removed for various reasons. The Current Northern link is a poor substitute,with the need for an adjacent Bridge over The River Lune,a Real Concern,as is The So Called Halton Link. Though true to say a recent! parish Council survey showed considerable support for the Link. Recent MONEY SAVING alterations to The Shefferlands Roundabout Area,have altered the lay of the Road considerably,causing serious concerns. The Infrastructure Finance available for Improved Park & Ride,plus other community transport options ,are subject to acceptance of this Link, rather like a form of Blackmail. The costs of this Project are in LAUNCH MODE.,and continue to escalate. The City Council Opposed the Link in 2004/5. There is no Second Bridge,absolutely essential for a Traffic Relief for The City of Lancaster. However given the Statement from Lancashire County Council " The objective of The Scheme has NEVER BEEN To Relieve Traffic Within Lancaster City Centre. Wich more or less sums up the Project. It is a second Rate,Hobsons Choice,with no Second bridge. I support the need for a Heysham Link in Principle, The CITY NEEDS one and DESERVES one. NOT THIS ONE. It is a Project The County Council have Nailed Their COLOURS to!! They need to build it Whatever The cost Human & Financial. Our Great Little City Deserves BETTER."

Richard Champness
"1) Consultatio has been inadequate. Lancashire County Council has consulted on some details of the scheme, not the scheme as a whole. 2) Other alternative solutions have not been properly considered, for example a package of sustainable transport measures 3) Road doesn't solve local rush hour traffic gridlock e.g. on the main road between Lancaster & Morecambe. 4) Other viable and less costly routes have not been properly considered e.g. Lancaster By-Pass Link LBL ; details of which sent to Lancashire CC by Morecambe Town Council on 22/7/2011. 5)Scheme will damage North Lanashire Green Belt, Lancaster Canal and local communities bringing noise light and air pollution 6) Cost to Lancashire taxpayers not clearly stated"

Andrew Milligan
"I have been a resident in Morecambe since 1999, living on the Grosvenor Park Estate, which is immediately adjacent to the tie in of the proposed new link road to the exisiting highway (McDonalds Roundabout). As such, I am fully aware and directly affected on a daily basis by the congestion and delay resuting from traffic travelling either direction between Heysham/Morecambe and J34 of the M6 motorway. I am also of the view that the exisitng congested highway arrangements from Morecambe to the M6 motorway disadvantage the Heysham/Morecambe area and its residents in terms of attracting and establishing new leisure and business ventures which are essential for the future and long term prosperity of the area. I understand that the proposed route and construction of this major highway scheme will impact negatively on some affected individual homeowners, however I think the overall benefits for the Heysham/Morecambe community significantly outweigh this. I am therefore in full support of the proposed Heysham to M6 Link Road."

Victoria Newby
"I agree with the link road and can't wait for it to happen!"

Suzanne Milligan
"I have been a resident in Morecambe since 1999, living on the Grosvenor Park Estate, which is immediately adjacent to the tie in of the proposed new link road to the exisiting highway (McDonalds Roundabout). As such, I am fully aware and directly affected on a daily basis by the congestion and delay resuting from traffic travelling either direction between Heysham/Morecambe and J34 of the M6 motorway. I am also of the view that the exisitng congested highway arrangements from Morecambe to the M6 motorway disadvantage the Heysham/Morecambe area and its residents in terms of attracting and establishing new leisure and business ventures which are essential for the future and long term prosperity of the area. I understand that the proposed route and construction of this major highway scheme will impact negatively on some affected individual homeowners, however I think the overall benefits for the Heysham/Morecambe community significantly outweigh this. I am therefore in full support of the proposed Heysham to M6 Link Road."

Infinis Energy Services
"Will be good for us business - wagons will not be clogging up Lancaster's one way system."

Fenchurch Environmental Group Ltd
"The overall application is balanced and has taken consideration of the many historical studies, reviews and hearings. As a business operating in Morecambe, it willl provide us with the desperately needed improvements to the road links with the M6. This will make the transportation of raw materials in; and finished goods out of our facility much more timely and efficient. It will also help our valued customers to reach our facility without experiencing delays through Lancaster and thereby gaining the vitally important first impression that we are no longer in a business backwater The improved business environment will also encourage new companies to start up in the area and thereby stimulate employment and greatly improve the local economy."

Barry Howarth
"I am opposed to the Heysham-M6 Link Road:- The grounds and reasons for my objections are:- There is such widespread opposition to the scheme, from local residents and Lancaster City Council. With so little local support it is wrong to spend such a large amount of public money and proceed with the scheme. The tranquil Lancaster Canal and towpath route running close to my house with its stunning views of Morecambe Bay, the Lake District and rich wildlife, used by myself, family, neighbours and our visitors to enjoy walking, cycling, running and boating will have its character destroyed by the proposed 26 feet high bridge over the canal near to where I live, and the route of the proposed road and new constructions required. The proposed road would be noisy and polluting. The towpath also currently provides me with a healthy, quiet and environmentally friendly option of walking or cycling to my place of work. The increase of many vehicles travelling along the A6 north will create an unacceptable increase in noise and air pollution, and the road itself will increase traffic and produce tonnes of extra carbon a year which is totally unacceptable to me as a citizen of the area. It is my belief the proposed road will not solve Lancaster and surrounding areas transport infrastructure problems and a route to the South of Lancaster should be re-considered."

Fiona Howarth
"I am opposed to the Heysham-M6 Link Road:- The reasons for my objections are:- There is such widespread local opposition to the scheme from Lancaster City Council and from local residents. With so little local support it is unacceptable to spend such a large amount of public money especially with so many cuts being made in more vital services to proceed with the scheme. The Lancaster Canal and towpath route which runs close to my house with its wonderful views of Morecambe Bay, the Lake District and rich wildlife, used by myself, family, neighbours and our visitors to enjoy walking, cycling, running and boating will have its character destroyed by the proposed 26 feet high bridge over the canal near to where I live, and the route of the proposed road and new constructions required. The proposed road would be noisy and polluting. The peaceful healthy environment I currently enjoy would be greatly affected. The extra vehicles travelling along the A6 north will create an unacceptable increase in noise and air pollution, and the road itself will increase traffic pollution producing tonnes of extra carbon a year - all of which is totally unacceptable to me as a resident of the area. The scheme will in my opinion not solve the transport problems of the area."

Debbie Houghton
"My interest in this application is with regard to cycleways and dedicated cycle paths. The current Heysham bypass does not provide safe routes for cyclists and it is vitally important that this is improved as the road develops."

MCA Floorwise Ltd
"MCA Floorwise consider the link road would be extremely beneficial to us as a company, it would cut down our travelling time and costs when travelling on the M6. It would also make it easier for our suppliers to get to us. Currently our vehicles have to travel through Lancaster which causes us to lose valuable time both on the outward and return journeys."

Heaton-with-Oxcliffe Parish Council
"The proposals may have a significant impact on the Heaton-with-Oxcliffe area"

Professor John Whitelegg
"Statement by Professor John Whitelegg BA PhD LLB about the proposed Heysham M6 Link Road promoted by the Lancashire County Council 2nd February 2012 I would like to register my objection to this proposed road and my request to appear before any examination or discussion of the project before the IPC or its successor body. My objection is based on three grounds: ? It is contrary to the principles of sustainable development and these principles are central to the UK panning process e.g. section 10 (3) a of the Planning Act, 2008. The road will generate new traffic, will add to the number of car journeys for short trips and will generate extra greenhouse gas emissions. At a time of legally binding obligations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions it is perverse to spend public funds on a project that will add to them when alternatives are available that will reduce them ? The proposal is contrary to the transport appraisal process described in WebTag and intended to guide transport infrastructure decision taking through clear stages of problem definition, option identification and selection of preferred option. The whole HM6L process has flouted this guidance ? The HM6L if built will not do what the promoter says it will do. There is detailed evidence available on congestion and traffic flow and it is clear the road will not solve congestion problems. There is detailed evidence available on regeneration and job creation and the road will not create the jobs that are claimed for it by the promoter. There is detailed evidence available on HGV movement to the port of Heysham and the road will not remove the number of HGVs from the existing highway system claimed by the promoter I would like to appear at a public examination and explain these points and produce evidence in support of these points"

South Lakeland District Council
"Your ref : TRO10008 At a meeting on 26 January 2012, the South Lakeland District Council Planning Committee resolved to inform the Infrastructure Planning Commission that the District Council does not wish to make any representations in respect of the Lancashire County Council (Torrisholme to the M6 Link (A683 Completion of Heysham to M6 Link Road)) Development Consent Order."

JJ. Metcalfe Ltd
"When travelling between Lancaster and Morecambe during our working day. It cost us a great deal of time. Therefore a link road that removes some of the traffic would save us time & money."

Duncan John Berry
"I would strongly like to object to the planning application made by Lancaster County Council to build the northern link road. The solution to the M6 link is a poor one and does not consider the people who live north of the river. There lives will be changed to congested and polluted roads, giving a much poorer quality of life. In a survey carried out 75% of people did not want this solution and nor did they want to pay for it in TAX. We need to consider a better solution to this problem and one that gives due consideration to the poor transport links that exist around the Morecambe/Lancaster area. The old railway that is a cycle path is not utilised to its full potential and this would provide the additional link that is required. It would utilise an existing route and not cause the severe destruction that the present solution suggests. This solution is considerably cheaper and would provide a viable net work. It also has one major advantage is that it does not destroy peoples lives. It would require a new bridge over the Lune between the Carlisle Bridge and the Greyhound Bridge. I would support a solution that was favourable to all the local people and one that made sense for the transport users who would benefit from such a scheme."

Dales Dampcoursing
"Time travelling to and from different contracts in the area would be significantly reduced, thereby saving us a great deal of time and money. We feel we would benifit greatly from this link road."

S G Joinery
"We believe that this link would benifit our business greatly, saving us time and money travelling. We feel that it would also open up the area for new businesses, benifiting the whole community"

Ian Iles
"The road offers the least opportunity for developing the areas derelict industrial sites for the gegeneration of Morecambe.It does nothing to relievie the internal Morecambe Heysham Lancaster traffic congestion.Most importantly it has the highest adverse enviromenmental impact of all the routes ,on the people and communities adjacent to it I belive other routes have not been properly considered, i.e blue route should have be thoroughly exmined as this has not been properly considered and scrutinized even more so now the development at Baillrigg could go ahead. Scheme will be unsightly road on embankment 26 ft high right next to houses.replace embankment with traffic lights. Consultation has been inadequate, Lancashire county council has consulted on some details of the scheme, not on the scheme as a whole. Scheme does not give LancasterMorecambe a new bridge over the Lune River. Peoples qulity of life near the road will greatly be affected."

Stuart Lawson
"I oppose the schem because :- Other more cost effective and less visually and environmentally intrusive routes for a link road have not been considered, eg going under rather than over the main West Coast Railway line and the canal. Similarly intrusive is the proposed 8 metre high embankment near the junction of Torrisholme and Morecambe roads.. In some places such as Halton, and also along Slyne Road through Hest Bank and Bolton Le Sands, there will be massive increases in traffic with a very small compensating amelioration of the current traffic density problems between Lancaster and Morecambe. In essence, the construction of the Link road fails to meet its avowed intentions of improving the impact of traffic on the people who live here. In addition the regional and national economic case, for its construction, lacks detail, clarity and credibility."

Linda Potter
"We moved to Heysham in October 1984 and since then the M6 Link Road has been ongoing, please just build it! With 2 power Stations and a Port it must be badly needed."

North West Transport Roundtable (NW TAR)
"REPRESENTATION TO THE IPC ON THE HEYSHAM TO M6 LINK ROAD (HM6L) IPC REF. TR010008: ISSUES THE NW TAR WISHES TO EXPAND UPON LATER . The scheme promoters, Lancashire County Council (LCC), have not followed webTAG, the Department for Transport's (DfT's) transport appraisal system, the starting point of which should be an analysis of problems and consideration of wide ranging solutions. . The scheme contravenes the intentions of the 2008 Climate Change Act and also the UK's carbon reduction commitments: it would result in an overall increase of carbon emissions (10% in the study area). . The scheme is not compliant with the Local Transport White Paper of 2011: 'Creating Growth, Cutting Carbon'. According to the Economic Impact Report (of 2010) prepared for LCC, HM6L would produce only 898 net additional jobs (less than originally estimated for the 2007 public inquiry) but 1,095 residents would lose jobs as a result of the two-way road effect. This for an outlay of £123.25 m. And it would encourage new traffic movements and not deal with some key congestion problems, eg. in Lancaster centre. It would not "cut carbon". . Value for money is poor: it would be the most expensive Local Authority (LA) road (per mile/ kilometre) in the UK. . The scheme does not guarantee delivery of complementary measures, would not achieve modal shift and compares badly with the lower cost alternative measures of Transport Solutions for Lancaster & Morecambe (TSLM). . Traffic growth has flattened out since traffic modelling was conducted for the 2007 public inquiry. The scheme should be re-modelled. . Negative local environmental impacts (Green Belt, landscape, run-offs, air quality, noise and biodiversity) would outweigh perceived benefits . The Coalition Government has re-iterated on several occasions the value it attaches to Green Belt which it says it is determined to protect. This scheme effectively decimates the North Lancashire Green Belt."

Philip T Newby
"I object to the this project on the ground that firstly it will increase the amount of traffic on the road that is known as Carus park ie the road that you call Halton road, we already have a problem with speeding traffic and this will only become more of a problem and an increases in accidents and the results could be deaths of the public being the final outcome. Secondly it can not make sense in having the link road at the north end as 70%of the traffic come's from the south, so they will be increasing their travel by several miles,this means more fuel used and more wear on the vehicles, so wasting this countries valuable resources. Thirdly it is a known fact that it will not help the congestion to Lancaster city centre. Fourth they have disregarded all the surveys carried out on the public opinion as 76% of the people having seen the plans opposed to the building of the road, the damage to this green belt land were some rare birds live and nest near the river Lune like the Kingfisher and Nuthatch, so they will no doubt vanish for ever. Fifth there is alternative transport plan pepepared by transport experts Faber Maunsell yet these are not being properly considered. Regars Philip T Newby"

Geoffrey William Smyth
"My objections to the current proposed link road scheme are as follows. A) A comprehensive study of the transport needs of Lancaster and district for the future should be undertaken before commencing the work on the proposed road. This should include the following Future industrial, residential and amenity development of the above area. Finding a route that does not involve Torrisholme. Perhaps acceptance of the proposed Western Route would provide a route which avoids disturbance to the quality of life for the residents of Torrisholme Village could be reconsidered Consideration of the means by which people travel to/from work and access the city centre or the provision of adequate parking facilities and/or park and ride facilities. The public should be involved in this study so that they can have an input into their city for the future. Lancashire County Council have not justified the benefits of their scheme to the public. They should do so. There has been a long and consistent campaign against the current scheme. It must be obvious by now that the residents do not want it. this should be taken into account. The recent communities provides for the wishes of those affected to be taken into account. The proposed Western Route would enable access to to be gained to the the Marsh area of Lancaster which has large areas of land zoned for residential and industrial development and to which access is required if development is to proceed without overloading the city centre roads. Adoption of the Western Route would open up this area of Lancaster."

Maggie Trewhitt
"I oppose this scheme for the following reasons: - It will cause significant environmental damage to green belt land and the Lancaster Canal. - It will damage the local communities through which the road will be built in terms of increased air, light and noise pollution. These communities are currently quiet residential and rural areas and their character will be irrevocably changed. - The scheme will not help to alleviate local congestion to any significant degree. - Alternative schemes involving public and sustainable transport have not been properly considered. - The costs of the scheme will be substantial and are hard to justify in the current economic climate."

Highways Agency
"The Highways Agency (HA) on behalf of the Secretary of State for Transport is responsible for the M6 motorway and, in particular, Junction 34, the point at which the proposed link road connects to the motorway. The HA is a member of the Heysham to M6 Link Project Board and has been fully involved in the development of the proposals, in so far as the scheme relates to the motorway network. The scheme includes the full reconstruction of J34, which will bring the junction up to current standards to cater for the predicted traffic flows associated with the proposed link road. The HA has been fully consulted throughout and considers that all issues relating to J34 and the M6 motorway have been fully addressed."

Paul Knowles
"Disagree with the application. This wasteful expensive road will only redirect congestion in Lancaster from one sector to another, and will not provide a solution to our historical traffic problems. Alternative options need to be reviewed that will not result in the destruction of further green belt on the outskirts of the city. This project is being driven by the Lancashire County Council, were the local city council has already opposed the road scheme. The local residents of Lancaster are being dictated to by council office personnel who are not even associated with the area being affected."

Kris Littlewood
"In principle I am happy with the plans for the M6 link, and think that the link road is long overdue and once complete it will be a great asset to residents north of the river Lune. As a resident on Green Lane (adjacent to the proposed path of the road) my only concern is the noise that the road may generate in both the construction and once the road is open. I know that Green Lane is marked as an area that would see a lot of construction vehicles using it for access to land. Along with the noise this creates, it will likely create a lot of mess on the roads also. Will the council be ensuring the roads are kept in a clean usable state throughout the constriction process with regular road cleaning? Also steps must be put into place to ensure the construction noise is managed to acceptable times. I understand that you have put measures in place to reduce noise when the road is open. Are the methods being used, proven to work in all weather conditions (e.g. wind and rain)? I am sure you will have already taken these issues into account and trust that you will be able to answer my concerns. If this is the case, I am more than happy to support this fantastic development."

Darren Stalker
"I agree that a link road from the M6 to Heysham would benefit the local economy. However, I firmly believe that the proposed route will not substantially deliver the benefits that the western route would have delivered, such as a solution to the severe congestion through Lancaster at peak periods and the development of the Port of Heysham and industrial area. It is obvious to the vast majority of local people that the proposed route will not substantially deliver the required objectives, and that following completion of the proposed route, calls for a western route will once again be back on the agenda. Environmental. Otters. Otters are present throughout the year along the river where the proposed new bridge is to be constructed. The Environmental Statement should include an up to date survey relating to, inter alia, the presence of otters, which has not been undertaken. The survey on which the report relies was undertaken in 2009. There are references in the ES to an otter holt upstream at Caton, but indications that no holt exists in the vicinity of the proposed new bridge. I observe otters coming upstream from the vicinity of the proposed new bridge each night at dusk, and have photographic and video evidence to support these regular sightings. The Environmental Statement acknowledges that construction and operation of the proposed new road will have a negative impact on the low level population of otters in this area, contrary to UK and European legislation. I would like to submit a more detailed assessment of the deficiency of the Environmental Statement relating to the presence of otters and subsequent impacts during construction and operation of the proposed road. Economic Impact. Part A of the Environmental Statement makes a great deal out of the ‘substantial’ savings in journey time with the link in place (3.2.68), highlighting a reduction of 56% eastbound morning peak between Morecambe Road & the M6, and 64% westbound at evening peak. This equates to 6.7 minutes (EB morning peak) & 8.3 minutes (WB evening peak). These are the maximum savings at peak times. Non peak times are approximately 5 minutes. None of which backs up the argument for this route in terms of attracting business to the area. In their response to a letter raising concerns about the proposed road, Lancashire County Council conceded that resolving congestion was not the primary driver behind the proposed route, and that congestion through and to Lancaster from Morecambe would still be a problem. It is difficult therefore to see how this road would deliver economic advantage to the Morecambe area. Halton Road / Church Brow. The proposals for the route acknowledge that there will be an increase in traffic along Halton Road and Church Brow, which is a narrow and undulating country lane, from 4,600 to 8,000 vehicles per day. The proposals do not properly consider or address the impact of this substantial increase in traffic on the residents of Halton Road through to Church Brow i.e. safety, noise pollution and property values. 2.5m high acoustic barriers have been proposed for certain sections of the route, there are no proposals to install similar acoustic barriers to the new bridge section over the River Lune or along the entry and exit slip roads. The Lune valley through Halton already suffers from substantial noise pollution from the M6 motorway traffic. Noise from traffic travelling over the proposed new bridge will add to this, and possibly be amplified due to the acoustic properties of the existing motorway bridge."

Malcolm Atkiss
"I disagree with the proposed traffic lights at the junction of the by pass with Morecambe road adjacent to the McDonalds Restaurant. Issue 3 of the link admits that a roundabout would be better but requires a larger one than practical. So basically the traffic lights proposal by your own admission will cause congestion at this junction, and Morecambe Road already suffers from severe congestion at rush hour periods. I would propose that the by pass has a flyover at the junction with Morecambe Road so that through traffic on Morecambe Road and the by pass can flow freely. This flyover could continue over the college grounds minimising the impact on the college and continue over Torrisholme Road. Further I would propose that the by pass should reduce to one lane each way at the junction with Morecambe Road, with the other lane in each direction feeding the roundabout beneath (which is currently in place). Obviously it would be better to have the bypass have the slip roads in addition to a dual carriageway but this will cost more and require more land. This proposal will reduce congestion on the by pass and Morecambe Road compared with the traffic lights currently proposed. It may cost more but how much more? Considering Lancaster and Morecambe have to live with whatever is done for decades, a small extra cost is worthwhile."

Virginia Kelly
"This road will not solve local traffic congestion congestion will be intolerable while the work is being carried out noise levels from the proposed new road will be high at all hours adversely affecting me and the residents of the properties around me local communities will be destroyed ie Torrisholme The air will be polluted with diesel fumes from HGv's"

Axiom Displays Ltd
"My representation after looking at the proposal is the infrastructure would be more environentally friendly to the surrounding areas. Vehicles travelling to the port would use less fuel - less pollution and it would save wear and tear on the local roads. Inititially it would bring more employment to the area"

Rodney Banks-Lyon
"I OPPOSE THE LINK ROAD TO THE NORTH OF LANCASTER AS I GENUINELY DO NOT BELIEVE IT WILL SOLVE THE TRAFFIC PROBLEMS OF LANCASTER OR ACCESS TO HEYSHAM. A ROUTE TO THE SOUTH OF THE CITY IS IMMANENTLY MORE SENSIBLE."

Gina Dowding
"The application for this road is outdated in terms both of design and in terms of current thinking about transport planning. As a local resident who treasures the local landscape and as a former City Councillor, I know that this road proposa;l is not welcomed by thousands of people who live in this area. Other alternative solutions to increasing transport routes in this area have not been properly considered. Lancaster and Morecambe would benefit far better economically, environmentally and socially from a package of integrated sustainable transport measures. This proposed road does not solve local congestion and indeed will increase traffic on many roads, destroying community life and well being for local people. The job forecasts associated with the proposal are unreliable, and an equivalent if not greater number of jobs would be created by investment in a package of sustainable transport schemes such as rail and cycling infrastructure. This scheme would bring immeasurable damage in terms of noise and air pollution to exisiting communites along the new route and other centres of population such as the massive increased forecast in traffic in Halton on Lune. The recent consultation has been inadequate. Lancashire County Council has consulted on some details of the scheme but not the scheme as a whole. The public in this area have never been asked whether they would prefer to see other traffic reducing measures introduced. Most people who express support for the road do so because they believe it will drastically reduce traffic on the one-way system around Lancaster - even though any so called benefit in this respect is marginal and has shown to be shortlived. Further more the cost of this road to to Lancashire taxpayers has not been clearly stated. Regardless of the above arguments about better alternatives to a road in this area , there are many concerns about the whole design. Should any road be deemed to be the solution to traffic problems then other designs should have not been properly considered, for example a road under, rather than over, the West Coast Main Line and Lancaster Canal and a traffic light controlled junction at Morecambe Road/ Torrisholme Road to avoid an unsightly and damaging 26 ft high embankment. On this basis the application should be rejected and the County Council should be asked to reconsider the whole scheme."

Alan Lapworth
"The remodelling of junction 34 south slip road affects my property and access to the footpath, the new scheme includes additional lighting, carriageway alterations and signage to which I object."

Gillian Hodgson
"I disagree with the proposed link road for several reasons: the height of the fly-over in Torrisholme will be unsightly; other alternative routes have not been fully considered - if building bridges over the canal and and train track is a problem, how about some tunnels?; I don't beleive this link road will help with traffic congenstion, infact I think it will only increase in some of the smaller villages e.g. Halton; as a tax payer, I hoped that we would be considered as we are the ones footing the bill at the end of the day. Please have a look at the alternative routes suggested. Thank you."

Timothy James Maguire
"I object to the proposal on various counts including: The whole scheme is poor value for money giving little benefit to the local economy or residents. The design of the scheme is poor and gives far greater impact on the environment & residents than is needed. I believe there are far cheaper alternatives (including road transport) which would give the same if not greater benefits and that these alternatives HAVE NOT been correctly explored. Consultation with local residents has been poor and inadequate, and I also believe the scheme should have been publicised in much greater detail throughout Lancashire as a County because it is ALL Lancashire taxpayers who are responsible for part of the funding and any overspend."

Graeme Tobyn
"I am against the Heysham M6 link road scheme because this is going to damage the countryside just north of where we live - the Lancaster canal in Green Belt area - and in return we will not even have the needed second bridge across the lune to ease traffic in town. Indeed, congestion will increase on some roads. It has been obvious from the start that other routes have simply not been considered and even the full details of the proposed scheme has not gone out to local consultation. The cheaper solution of taking the road by flyover from Torrisholme and over the railway and canal will spoil the look of these areas. How much is this going to cost local taxpayers, I wonder? It's a waste of money"

Roy St Pierre
"I wish to object to the Heysham-M6 Link Road on the following grounds; a) the Lancashire contribution of £12.3 million to the scheme would be better spent on funding full GRIP engineering studies into all the rail re-opening schemes suggested in Lancashire (Skipton – Colne, Burscough curves, Rawtenstall – Manchester, Bury – Blackburn redoubling, Skelmersdale link and Poulton to Fleetwood b) the DfT contribution of £123 to this 3 mile road would be better spent on the above schemes meeting as it would most of the cost of them. c) I object because parts of the road are at great risk of flooding being close to sea level, especially given the exceptional climate conditions we are now seeing caused by climate change. d) I object to the permanent disruption to the education of students at the Lancaster Morecambe College. Instead of having the existing major road on one side of the college the new road would mean it would have a major road on two sides, the latter being raised, the consequence being an increase in noise, air and light pollution not only during road building but for ever. This will not be helpful to students’ studying. e) As an asthmatic I object to the extra pollution this new road will cause both to local residents and to the atmosphere. The road will also increase traffic levels across the area and as a result produce an extra 23,500 tonnes of carbon a year, contravening the Government’s legally binding commitment to reduce emissions by 80% by 2050 f) I object because of the increase in the distribution of noise pollution the roads will bring, in particular the background drone that motorways and other major roads produce, spoiling quality of life for local residents and visitors like myself. Local residents will be unable to sit outside in the summer or to have their windows open – double glazing cannot solve this problem. g) I object to the increase in public and private costs and family heartache this new road will produce given that over 3000 people die on the roads every year compared with 1 passenger in the last 6 years on the railways and none if any on the buses. h) I object to the extra demands this new road scheme will put on the emergency services because of accidents generated by it both during and after it’s construction as well as to the NHS both A & E and long–term care of those disabled in road crashes. i) I use local footpaths and the canal towpath for walking and believe the above will spoil my experience. I will no longer have the pleasure of a walk along a quiet footpath in the green belt. j) I also use the towpath for cycling as well as the local roads and again building these roads will spoil my experience – it has been shown by experience that new roads generate more traffic both on those roads and to access them. My cycle journeys on the local highways will be severely affected by the roadworks because of diversions, leading to inconvenience, loss of amenity and greater risk as proportionally, as a part of the road network, roadworks are a greater risk of danger to cyclists with their greater frequency of accidents. k) I object to the stopping up/disruption of parts of the Lancaster Morecambe Cycleway l) I object because a package of alternative measures to address local traffic problems, developed by the consultants Faber Maunsell for the local authorities, has never been presented officially or put out to local consultation. This raod will not solve traffic congestion in Lancaster. m) I object because a new road has been the only option advanced by the County Council; no non-road building option has been appraised, contrary to government guidance. n) I object because no other route has been assessed. A Western Route was rejected because it runs close to European Protected Areas (the Lune estuary), but its impact was not assessed. Nor were other alignments or solutions to the north of Lancaster – for example putting the road under the West Coast Main Line, not in a high bridge over it as proposed. o) I object because there is widespread opposition to the scheme, from residents, the local MP and Lancaster City Council; it would be wrong to proceed with a scheme which has so little local support p) I object because every person has the right to peaceful enjoyment of his or her possessions under Article 1 of the First Protocol on Human Rights, and no one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest. LCC believe the greater good is in promoting the scheme. As a frequent visitor and a Lancashire County Council Council Tax Payer, I disagree as do Lancaster City Council and many others, whether local residents or people from further afield. q) As a Lancashire County Council Council Tax Payer, I also object to my taxes being used to pay for any cost overruns (for which road building is notorious). These cost implications to Lancashire Council Tax Payers have not been spelt out clearly to them. r) The road will not gain the aims stated for the scheme and the employment benefit forecasts are not sufficiently robust I urge you to reject the above scheme."

David Penneey
"My objections and concerns centre around the envvironmental and economic costs of this proposal: 1. At an estimated cost of £123 million, Lancashire County Council will have to pick up the bill for any overrun on the budget. The cost of Motorway construction never keeps to budget. So, the Lancashire Council Taxpayer, including me, will haave to foot the bill for any extra cost. This scheme is a colossal waste of publ;ic money and will do little to improve transport links. Other forme of public transport, ssuch as rail, should be considered to relieve the congestion. 2. The environmental impact will add more pollution and accelerate harmful climate change. Furthermore, the new road will destroy important biodiversity sites along the route."

M A Godding
"I live on the south side of Lancaster and travel regularly to Morecambe and Heysham Port (to travel onwards to the IOM where we have relatives). This journey is frequently delayed in the section through Lancaster city centre. It seems ridiculous that in order to visit Morecambe and Heysham one has to navigate through Lancaster city centre as there is no other route from the south. If there were an alternative link I would gladly use it and avoid adding to the problems in Lancaster. Apart from the inevitable delays, the environmental probelms caused by such traffic and the inherent air pollution should not be allowed to continue. It has been confirmed recently that air pollution in both Lancaster and Galgate village are above recommended levels. This being entirely due to excess traffic and standing/slow moving traffic. An alternative traffic route would reduce this risk and go at least some way to improving the air people breathe. Road safety is very important and to reduce the heavy goods through traffic on Lancaster's narrow roads would go a long way to improving safety for other road users especially cyclists and pedestrians. This link road is key to this area and has my full support."

Brian Dean Godding
"The Heysham to M6 Link Road is an essential route to be able to significantly reduce the amount of traffic which passes through the centre of Lancaster on its way to Morecambe, Heysham and to Heysham Port and Ferry Terminals. The high current volume of 'unnecessary' traffic not only serves to clog up the city centre but also adds to the already unacceptable levels of carbon emissions in Lancaster and Galgate Village. When this Link Road is operational it will ease the congestion through the city centre and will make the through route an easier and more pleasurable journey for its users."

Mark Atkinson
"Bullet point thoughts. ~This route will not provide a by pass for Lancaster as the western route would. ~ This option is a second best option ~It will not decrease congestion in Lancaster which was one of the key elements of building the "by pass " road ~ It will be under used and therefore not value for money. ~ It is not logical or wise most people who live in the area, who voice an opinion, share this view ~Its benefits will be limited ~Although, discounted the western route is the only logical, value for money and viable one"

Susan Bowman
"I live directly across from the fields where the proposed road will run (aprroximately 50 yards from where the proposed rampart for the road will start). The pamparts are high as they will go across the main Northern Rail Line & will have to cross Lancaster canal.. It will seriously cut out light from our ground floor flat which faces north & receives very little sunlight as it is. Hammerton Hall Lane (formerly a bridle path) which is 4 yards from our lounge window is very prone to flooding & I dread the water overflow which will run down onto the lane & our flat. We have lived in our flat for 32 years & it has been adapted due to the disability of both my husband & myself . I need a ventilator for breathing & therefore, I am worried about vehicle pollution. The area concerned is used by walkers, horse riders & is a country side oasis situated between Morecambe & Lancaster. Furthermore, we have what I would consider to be "earth henges" to the northern fields of our area. Yours sincerely,          "

Mark Westal
"I AGREE WITH THE PLANED NEW ROAD LAYOUT AND THINK ITS LONG OVERDUE FOR A NEW BYPASS TO EASE TRAFFIC WOES AS WELL PROMOTE GROTH AT THE HARBOUR AND POWER STATION TO BRING IN NEW EMPOYMENT AND MONEY INTO THE AREA"

Alan Hutchinson
"Building major roads is an old approach to congestion problems, indeed the council have been pushing this approach for many years. The world has moved on and surely we have learned that if you build more roads they eventually fill up with traffic. To pursue the road building approach is therefore very short sighted. We currently have data showing car and thus fuel usage having peaked so why do we need this road. Some would say we need it to improve access to the Port, however data over the last 10 years shows port usage to be broadly flat. A third power station is on the cards for Heysham however this is not guaranteed and may not happen even if the road is built. It could be argued that since we have built 2 stations already without the road then we could build another similarly. There would be much lost locally if the road was built, a substantial amount of green areas would be lost, the local college would have to contend with increased noise and pollution as would the Crematorium, the river Lune with its newly returned otters will have to withstand a massive construction project, the quaint village of Halton will be changed for the worse forever, people in Torrisholme and other areas would have increased noise and pollution and many would suffer with a massive visible intrusion to make just a few points. On the plus side, there would be some jobs created for a year or two (but not many local ones) and Heysham folk going to the M6 will get an extra 5 minutes in bed in a morning. Its not good enough, the money should be spent elsewhere, perhaps on the welfare budget helping people who are not as lucky as most folks."

Dr C Finnerty
"I am not in favour of the proposal as currently stated on the basis that it seems unlikely that all the scheme objectives as stated in the Environmental Statement Vol1 Part A, (1.1.20; 1.2.2 and 3.1.2) will be met. The second of the objectives - to remove a significant volume of traffic from the Lune Bridges - with the additional aim of reducing the traffic problems in and through Lancaster, used to be the primary reason for building a link road (ES vol1 1.1.20) and ease of travel between the peninsula and Lancaster remains a key concern for those living in the area. However, the Council evidently regards any reduction in traffic in Lancaster as a useful by-product rather than an objective (ref: ES vol1 4.3.7) and whilst traffic across the bridges may well be reduced in the first year, I believe that this will be short-lived as those people currently making longer journeys in order to avoid sitting in a queue at present will switch back to using the bridges. The result will be that we quickly end up with the same situation as at present. The problem of HGVs travelling through Lancaster to Junction 33 could presumably be resolved by improving Junction 34 as there can be no reason for drivers of these vehicles to prefer crawling through the city than that they have a problem with using that junction. The third objective - to create opportunities for the enhancement of sustainable travel modes – fails in that there do not appear to be any opportunities that are created as a result of the building of the link road. The proposed Park and Ride at Junction 34 is not an integral part of the scheme and funding for it will have to be found from elsewhere. At the moment the bus lanes into Lancaster mean that journey times into the centre are often faster than by car. However, there are no bus lanes on the return route making that journey just as slow as in a car and without the perceived benefits that a car journey offers. This means that many people have still not been persuaded away from their car to other means of transport. If road journey times into Lancaster really are improved, car drivers who are currently using the buses are likely to again opt for the car as their means of travel resulting in a backward step for the use of sustainable transport. The fact that the electronic “Next Bus” display in the city bus station has recently been turned off due to lack of funds, makes me question what the ongoing commitment to more sustainable transport really is and whether the Council has any money for it. The fourth objective is to facilitate regeneration: There does not appear to be any hard evidence that a few minutes faster access from the motorway will actually result in the filling of the empty industrial spaces and the creation of more jobs local to the area but, I would suggest, there is a danger of an increase in HGV traffic to the detriment of those living near the new road. If the scheme does go ahead then I hope that its success will be measured according to how well each of the four stated objectives is fulfilled and not just on the basis that the construction of a road takes place."

John Pinches
"Very much in favour cant build it soon enough for me"

David Ian Limited
"As a local busines owner this new road is vital for us and the area. We have put up with traffic congestion into Lancaster and on towards the M6 Motorway for far to long. It must be built and quickly to improve the whole area for all sorts of reasons"

Pamela Gardner
"I feel that this road will not solve the traffic problem. We need another bridge across the Lune my suggestion being near to the Asda supermarket or even further west, to cross the riverwith a Park and Ride service, there many empty building in that area which could be used for that purpose, also to take traffic direct to the motoway juncture at Forton. If this proposed motorway takes place and drivers use it as expected it will just move one bottle neck from Morecambe road to Caton Road and not solve anything. I feel that it is an enormous waste of public money and there must be more important schemes who could use the money"

Sean Binning
"I have been a resident in the Lancaster and Morecambe district for many years and have followed the many debates about this road closely. I have seen no convincing evidence that the road will have the benefits stated. I am concerned that the quality of life of those in the immediate area affected and the surrounding areas has not been fully considered. In the present economic climate, it seems unlikely that the suggested benefits of the road can be realised. Lancaster and Morecambe are areas of great historic and scenic interest: increased traffic and a 26 foot high embankment will impact negatively on the whole district. The option of tunnelling beneath the railway line and the canal has not been fully considered. I would be happy if the scheme were finally scrapped in favour of an overall review of transport systems in the area which could include increased use of the railway and perhaps a road/rail dock outside Lancaster where road haulage could be off-loaded onto local rail transport. The cycle path from Lancaster to Heysham is in fact the remains of an old rail link which could be replaced and extended. Increased road haulage costs may change the economic landscape in the near future resulting in under-use of the proposed Link road which would then have been a vast waste of public money."

Alan Draper
"1. Other alternative solutions have not been properly considered, for example a package of sustainable transport measures which could achieve the intended aim and reduce local congestion. 2. Road doesn’t solve local congestion: traffic increases on many local roads. 3. Scheme will encroach on large areas of North Lancashire Green Belt. 4. Scheme will damage local communities, bringing noise, light and air pollution. 5. Scheme will be unsightly: road on embankment 26 ft high at Morecambe Road/ Torrisholme Road running very close to hundreds of houses. 6. Other designs have not been properly considered, for example: Road under, rather than over, the West Coast Main Line and Lancaster Canal. Traffic light controlled junction at Morecambe Road/ Torrisholme Road, rather than embankment 26 ft high."

Val McCann
"I am against this project for several major reasons: It will do nothing to help reduce traffic congestion in Lancaster itself and there appears to have been little or no attempt to consider alternative ideas. These could help local traffic whilst also reducing current congestion thus allowing the heavier traffic to move through to Heysham etc much quicker. This could be acheived at a much reduced cost, achieve the desired effect of speeding commercial traffic onto the motorway whilst also helping the local community. There is also clear evidence that passenger ferry traffic is almost certain to move towards Liverpool as the prefered route, and this has been confirmed in a recent statement from a major ferry operator confirms. The proposed road will cut through greenbelt land which no doubt will eventually be developed and encourage urban sprawl resulting in Halton losing its own identity. Noise polution in this area is already a major issue and the new proposals will only add to this issue and again alternatiive ideas to alleviate traffic numbers would reduce noise pollution. Please spend our money to create a 21st century solution with increased park & ride, bus lanes etc. I'm not a traffic expert but someone who cares about the local environment."

Lancaster City Council
"The City Council's Cemeteries Service is responsible for the maintenance of St Wilfrids Parish Churchyard. It is understood that the roadway directly in front of the church, Church Brow, would receive an extra 74% in traffic movements upon completion of this proposed scheme. The boundary wall to the church forms the actual edge of the roadway and runs for a considerable length. Throughout it's length the wall actually retains the church grounds to a height of around 6 or more feet. The Council are concerned that the vibration caused by the additional traffic will cause serious damage to this wall resulting in a financial burden to the Council for which, in these times of austerity, there is no budget."

Blackpool Council
"No objections"

Gillian Draper
"There is a better alternative route south of Lancaster. The alternative route does not split local communities. This present route will bring noise, light and air pollution to local communities and physically separates people from village life. It devastates vast areas of Green Belt, causing environmental damage, destroying bat roosts, owl foraging grounds etc. The run-off polluted water from the road will eventually enter the water table and ponds. It does nothing to alleviate local traffic congestion which only happens in school terms. The construction will tower 26ft high. Is this necessary? It does not bring jobs to the area. LCC's own consultants have said that the small number of extra jobs that the road might bring are 'not worth building a road for'. Other routes and other designs have not been properly considered ie. - road under rather than over the West Coast Main Line traffic lights at Torrisholme Road rather than 26ft high embankment"

Lynne Jones
"I oppose the Heysham to M6 Link Road scheme for the following reasons: Consultation has been inadequate, Lancashire County Council consulted only on details, not scheme as a whole. Alternatives have not been considered. Better designs have not been considered, eg road going under not over Lancaster canal and West Coast Rail line. Road doesn't solve local traffic congestion, in fact actually increases it on some roads. Job forecasts unreliable. It will cause irreparable damage to Green Belt and tranquil canal. It will damage local communities through noise, air and light pollution. Traffic increases in Halton village. Road also increases danger of flooding there. Full cost to taxpayers is not clear."

Richard Spencer on behalf of H.I. (Lancaster) Ltd
"This representation is on behalf of the owners of the Holiday Inn Hotel on Caton Road. Part of the scheme proposes the premament and temporary loss of some of the hotels grounds for construction and acess works. Combined with the close proximity of the works to the hotel these actions will impact on hotel operations. Assurances are required that the project will not be detrimental to the hotel's business before, during and post completion of the project"

Susan Wearing
"I do not agree with this application as it is not the best solution to our local trffic problems and I do not belive that it will achieve the stated aims but will damage local communities."

Sally Prior
"I am strongly opposed to the plans for the Heysham M6 link update for the following reasons: Having lived in Halton for 10 years feel this will cause noise, light and air polltion & will be dangerous for not only Halton villagers but others members of the public visting due to over 70% increase in traffic. I moved to a village to experience village life not live in a villlage used as a through road, Feel will also affect & decrease my house value. Will potentially cause damage to St Wilfreds Church Walls. From seeing the plans it WILL not improve traffic congestion. and will be unsightly & will damage green belt and Lancaster Canal areas not only in Halton area but other areas too. This must not go ahead !"

Peter Milward
"20yrs ago my fami ly and I purchased the house[ the address of which is included above] and one of the main reasons of the purchase was the clean, clear air that blew directly from the sea across the fields and into the house . Obviously a very healthy position to be in. At that time there was no mention of a major road being built only two hundred yards from the property with all the air polution that will go with it. It is a fundamental right of every person in the UK to enjoy the cleanest air possible and in our opinion the road will be in breach of our Human Rights. It is with this in mind that we intend to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights."

David Morris MP
"Dear sir, I write in support of the proposal to build the Heysham M6 Link Road linking Heysham and Morecambe with Junction 34 of the M6. The road, will provide much needed links with the Port of Heysham. Currently, Heavy Goods vehicles travel through Lancaster City Centre and the outlying villages. Improving road links with the port will provide economic growth for the region. I have said in the House of Commons on several occasion, Lancaster City Centre "is a car park." I will elaborate, currently those wishing to commute from the M6 motorway to my Morecambe & Lunesdale constituency must pass through Lancaster City Centre. This causes significant traffic congestion. The M6 link road would take this traffic out of Lancaster which can only be positive for the environment given that it is not unusual for commuters to spend a significant amount of time waiting in the one way system through Lancaster due to congestion. Finally, I would like to submit that the proposed M6 link road would have a positive impact on the proposed new Heysham 3 nuclear power station. I would be happy to discuss the above at a public hearing. Yours, David Morris MP - Morecambe & Lunesdale"

Stephanie Hall on behalf of Lancaster and Morecambe College
"The Council must demonstrate that there is a compelling case in the public interest for the land to be acquired compulsorily. The College will be left in the position that, post-completion of the link road, it must continue to operate its campus and operations with the busy link road running though it. Therefore, is vital that careful consideration has been given from an early stage to the detail, extent and timing of mitigation works to ensure that the students, staff and public can continue to use the campus appropriately, safely, comfortably and efficiently. It is reiterated that the College does not object to the proposals in principle, but seeks to secure appropriate and satisfactory mitigation measures. The College strongly takes issue with the chronology presented by the Council in the Consultation Report, section 6.46. Notwithstanding, the College does not propose to respond to these points here as they are not material to its case, but can provide further comments should the IPC so require. The College responded to the Council’s pre-application consultation by way of a written statement dated 28 July 2011. In summary, the concerns raised on behalf of the College were: land take; loss of car parking; loss of through route; access to sports pitches severed by the link road from the main campus; improvements to existing sports pitches; acoustic mitigation measures; and landscaping. A copy of this statement is available on request and will be appended to any subsequent written representations. Subsequently, the College stipulated the works that it wished to see contained in the Development Consent Order (“DCO”), a section 106 agreement and a separate, private agreement with the Council. The latter would enable the College to enforce the obligations directly against the Council (as developer) without having to rely on the Council (as local planning authority) to do so, which would be an unsatisfactory position. The College is pleased that the Council have incorporated some of the broad principles raised at the pre-application stage into the DCO. However, whilst the DCO permits the Council to undertake certain works, there is no obligation on the Council to do these works. Nor does the DCO provide a specification of the works or a timetable for carrying out the works, both of which are vital to protect the College’s position. As such, additional protection is required for the College by means of a section 106 agreement (and a separate contract between the Council and the College). The draft heads of term do not address all of the College’s concerns, both in terms of the issues to be contained in the agreement and the details (e.g. timing and specification). In addition, no reference is made to the separate contractual document. The Council suggests that it would offer a unilateral undertaking if the terms of the agreement cannot be agreed with the College. The College questions the lawfulness of this approach on the basis that, without the College as a party, the Council would be giving the undertaking to itself. From a practical perspective, as most of the mitigation measures will be taking place on the College’s land, it is vital that these are agreed with the College in advance. The College wishes to clarify that the previous unilateral undertaking referred to at paragraph 6.46.6 of the Consultation Report was entered into by the Council during the call-in inquiry, at which the College appeared as an objector. That undertaking is general in nature and does not deal with all of the issues that the College will face. The College is not a party to, and did not agree the terms of, the undertaking, and is unable to enforce directly any of its terms, other than by requesting the planning authority to do so. In addition, this undertaking will fall away once the existing planning permission expires. Finally, the College wishes to clarify the position regarding disturbance in paragraph 6.48.26 of the Consultation Report. The reason that the College has been unable to develop the corridor of land which will be compulsorily acquired is because the land has been reserved for highways purposes since the 1960s. In the absence of the road scheme, this land would have been available for the College to develop. The College reserves the right to submit a written representation at the examination stage and/or make oral representations at any open floor hearing and further reserves the right to add to or amend these representations as necessary."

Irene Gate
"I am against this road because. Won't solve city congestion, & actually increases on some roads. Job forecasts are unreliable. Sustainable transport measures have not been considered. It will bring light, noise & air pollution for very little benefit. It will damage greenbelt & communities. It will be a waste of taxpayers' money. Consultation has been inadequate, & other routes have not been properly considered. Traffic will increase by 74% on Halton Road. This is a dangerous village road. Unslightly 26ft high bridge at Torrisholme will cause a lot of HGV noise & disturbance to residents"

Elspeth Martin
"The construction of the proposed link road, as the proposal abuts my property, will directly affect me in the following ways: - increased air pollution - increased noise pollution - visual blight on the landscape - decreased quality of life - will not reduce congestion in Lancaster"

J Wilson
"DISAGREE WITH APPLICATION BECAUSE IT DESTROYS GREENBELT AGRICULTURAL LAND, AND WOULD NOT SOLVE LOCAL TRAFFIC CONGESTION. THE CASE FOR ITS CONSTRUCTION WAS THE HEYSHAM PORT WHICH IS NOW CONSIDERING SCALING DOWN ITS OPERATION AND MOVING IT TO LIVERPOOL. THE HUGE EXPENSE OF THIS DESTRUCTIVE ROAD CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED, OTHER WAYS OF SOLVING CONGESTION SHOULD BE FOUND."

Patricia Hutchinson
"This road is poor value for money. The money should be spent on public transport upgrades. This country has peaked in terms of car usage and therefore we should have also peaked in terms of roadbuilding. The "jobs" data provided to show benefits for the road building has been seen to be a farce over the years. With this changing so markedly over the years how can we believe any other predictions. A large area of greenbelt is consumed. This will be lost forever. No amount of artificial replacements can make up for this. There will be a severe effect on the views from various high points in the area eg from Williamson park. Locals will have to contend with noise, pollution and view damage. Screening can only counter this to a small extent. There will be a serious effect on Lancaster & Morecambe College's ability to provide the best study areas for students due to the noise."

Ross Chappell
"I support the application for the construction of the Heysham Link Road. I frequently drive through Lancaster and into Morecambe from Manchester. It takes me around 45 mins to get from Manchester to J34 of the M6 and then a further 45 mins to get from J36 across the river Lune. I fully support any Link road or improvements to J34."

Elizabeth Bott
"Lancashire County Council has consulted inadequately on some details of the scheme, not the scheme as a whole. The total cost to Lancashire taxpayers has not been made clear There has not been proper consideration of other routes which may be a better alternative to this propsed scheme The proposed road plan fails to solve local congestion: traffic increases on many roads The job forecasts are unreliable and won't achieve as much as they try to claim. This scheme will cause irreparable damage to the north Lancashire Green Belt and to the Lancaster Canal There will be unacceptable levels of environmental for damage for local communities, including air, noise, light and noise pollution. This proposed bypass plan includes an unsightly embankment which would rise to 26 ft high at Morecambe Road/ Torrisholme Road, looking hideous and being a real eyesor, as well as being yet anohter environmental hazard to publis health.."

Patrick Johnston
"I disagree with the application for many reasons, as do the majority of local people. The consultation has been inadequate. Lancashire County Council has consulted on some details of the scheme, not the scheme as a whole and other routes have not been properly considered . The other alternative solutions have not been properly considered, for example a package of sustainable transport measures, and other designs have not been properly considered, for example: ? road under, rather than over, the West Coast Main Line and Lancaster Canal ? Traffic light controlled junction at Morecambe Road/ Torrisholme Road, rather than embankment 26 ft high This plan doesn’t solve local congestion: traffic increases on many roads It doesn’t achieve stated aims: job forecasts are unreliable. The scheme will damage North Lancashire Green Belt and Lancaster Canal, it will damage local communities, and it will damage the environment and people's health, as it will bring noise, light and air pollution. The scheme will be unsightly: road on embankment 26 ft high at Morecambe Road/ Torrisholme Road At Halton there will be further problems - , ? traffic will increase by 74% on Halton Road, which is already dangerous. ? Steep incline on Lune Bridge will increase noise The full cost to Lancashire taxpayers is not clearly stated."

Linda Davies
"My home directly overlooks the greenbelt land where the proposed Northern Link route would be built. I have been receiving communications from Lancashire County Council that 'may affect your property' and the red line on the plan appears to reach as far as my house. However, it is not only for that reason that I have always been strongly opposed to the completion of the Heysham/M6 Link by the Northern route: It would devastate the historic village of Torrisholme, use up the only remaining greenspace between Lancaster and Morecambe add to the areas serious traffic problems where it crosses Morecambe Road. pass in close proximity to numerous homes,at the height of bedroom windows affect the wellbeing of numerous families, pollution and safety concerns taxpayers/residents want value for money - something to ease the areas traffic problems junction 34 could be remodelled without the link joining up there virtually no-one would use a 'park-and-ride' there - a similar one at Preston was closed. LCC's 'Northern or Nothing' stance and their refusal to contemplate alternatives is unacceptable. Another route, the 'Lancaster By-pass Link' would considerably ease the areas traffic problems by providing a bridge (or tunnel) across the river from the Heysham By-pass AND link up with the M6 without many of the drawbacks of the northern route. L.Davies. ."

Jane Boland
"The LCC website and exhibitions stated that the HM6L would "solve the flooding in Slyne". This is not true. The LCC website goes on to admit "further works will be required....ane we are working with the Environment Agency/Lancaster City Council to provide additional funding". There is no question of funding until the results of the borehole survey are known to establish the drainage flow in this area which will provide an idea of the type of works required. Even then, there is no guarantee of funding to connect the flooding area Slyne some 500 metres from the proposed enlarged Slynedales culvert."

Marilyn Lupton
"I am very concerned that this road has not been planned well enough to dissipate the traffic properly when it reaches Morecambe Road and an already very busy road will have a huge amount of traffic joining and xiting at the Morecambe Road junction. I expext there will be parking restrictions outside my home and throughout the day lines of standing traffic in both directions making access very difficult. The noise and pollution from this will be not only stressful but harmful to health. It seems to have been forgotten that this is a residential area, other residential areas in the Lancaster and Morecambe locality are now going down to a 20 mile per hour speed limit and I would welcome this as this will be safer, and cause less standing traffic. Ideally there should have been a bridge or a tunnel taking this road past Morecambe road with a new rod designed to take the traffic directly to Morecambe as the previous link takes it to Heysham, then ideally the western route would have been a better option providing the road that is really needed. I feel that I should be compensated to improve my home with regard to the noise and to recognise that my access to the road will be more difficult. I do plan to make more parking provision on my own land so that my visitors and deliverys to my property are not restricted."

Richard P. Taylor on behalf of David Varey Sowerby
"We support, in principle, the aims to enhance access for businesses, the improvements to the existing motorway junction and the potential benefits to the Port of Heysham, Heysham Power Station and the wider local and regional economy. Our principal concerns are specific to fencing, landscaping and access to retained land."

PMP TRANSPORT (IRELAND) LTD
"Personally i think that this is a good idea, especially for haulage companies as they could have a direct route to the M6 from Heysham. And also it could be good for the people living in Lancaster as it will take alot of the lorries away from the town."

Colonel Dew
"My reasons for opposing the scheme are as follows; 1. The road is wrongly sited. It is obvious that a quicker route to Heysham would come in from the SW direction, probably from exit 33 of the M6. There would be greater savings of fuel on a route that would be less than half the length of the present proposal. The journey times would be shorter and the route less congested with traffic lights and stop signs. There would be environmental benefits to more citizens, As no work has actually started on the proposed scheme I would like to suggest that a new look be made on the SW approach to Heysham. No satisfactory reason has ever been given for the exclusion of this route. If, as rumored, it is connected to a wild life issue then I believe this can be solved. There are so many 'green' counter balances in a SW route that an objective view would probably conclude that it would be a better environmental option. 2. As a resident of Halton Hall Gardens/Church Brow I wish to register my objections on the grounds of safety. Church Brow and the other roads connected to it are arguably one of the most dangerous in Lancashire. The narrow pedestrian 'pinch points', the bends in the road and the excessive speeds of rush hour (and other) traffic make it a walker's nightmare. These facts have been known to LCC for a long time. Their attempts to calm the traffic have failed and no positive suggestions, eg sleeping policemen, seem to be included in the current plan. 3. Connected to para 2 is the environmental and noise pollution problem, which can only be made worse by the present proposals and are unacceptable Colonel Peter Dew."

Broadoak Leisure Buildings Ltd
"I am the owner of the only business to be blighted by the proposed Heysham M6 Link Road. The land I lease is owned by Lancashire County Council and according to my Lease Agreement I am not entitled to any form of compensation. I established my business 25 years ago and employ 15 permanent staff, nearly all young men with families plus several part-time and seasonal workers. I take 15/16 year olds on Work Experience placements and I use the expertise of several local contractors. I have a good reputation in the area and provide a service to local rest/nursing homes and to the local authority. Most of my products are purchased locally or in the North West. I have, on numerous occasions, approached local City and County Council officials and asked for assistance with the re-location of my business. All the responses have been negative and I am totally dismayed by the lax attitude towards my plight. I cannot believe, in the present economic climate where unemployment is increasing and is now at a 17 year high (and likely to rise even further), that when setting such a huge budget for the cost of a major project, nothing is earmarked to help a small business such as mine to re-locate. If I have to close my business it will have a huge negative impact on my loyal staff and the local area as a whole. I do not believe the proposed link road represents a good solution to the local road congestion problems and, in my opinion, a road to the south of the city would be a more realistic option."

Halton Residents' Group
"Objections. Inadequate Consultation. 1. The restriction by Lancs CC officials at their Halton exhibition of the consultative process to mitigation measures such as landscaping and noise reduction. Inadequate consultation with residents about major changes to a Shefferlands roundabout and bridge over the Lune. Impact on Public Safety. 2. The dangers to public safety on Church Brow. This road is already dangerous due to tight blind bends, narrowness and high walls. It would have an extra 74% traffic. The High Road would have an extra 1000 vehicle movements through the centre of the village causing unacceptable danger. 3. The increased danger of accidents for all users of St. Wilfrid's Parish Church. Impact on the Natural and Built Environment. 4. The danger of collapse from traffic vibration of the ancient wall which retains the road at Church Brow and the wall similar wall which retains the Parish Church graveyard. These walls with notable gatepiers and houses are listed and in an historic conservation area. 5. The failure, in LancsCC environment assessment, to include recent data on otter movements in the River Lune and tributary streams along the proposed route. Evidence which will be available. 1. Accounts from residents showing the restriction of the consultation process. 2. Photographs from Church Brow and Halton High Road. 3. Experience from the 17 residents who form the Halton Residents' Group. 4. Logged and filmed evidence of otter movements over the past 12 months along the proposed route."

Caton-with-Littledale Parish Council
"Caton-with-Littledale Parish Council are in general agreement with and support the plans for the Heysham-M6 link road. Construction of the new M6 junction will have a significant impact on safety at the junction, particularly the Northbound entrance and exits. The Parish Council believes the link will improve traffic flows through Lancaster and significantly reduce congestion."

British Waterways
"Background The Project includes the construction of a new bridge to carry the link road over the Lancaster Canal in addition to a new culvert under the Canal to allow surface water from the new road to discharge to the River Lune. The draft development consent order contains powers to acquire land and rights on the Canal and towpath and temporarily close and de-water the relevant part of the Canal. BW owns and operates the Lancaster Canal. It is listed in the Book of Reference as landowner of plots number 101-114 (in respect of the Canal bridge) and 140-142 (in respect of the culvert). Plots 108, 109 and 112 are listed in Schedule 9 of the draft consent order (acquisition of rights only) and Plots 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 113, 140 and 141 are listed in Schedule 11 (temporary possession only). Plot 142 is listed in Schedule 9 and Schedule 11 While BW does not oppose the Order in principle it does have some specific objections to the current form of the proposals which are summarised below. Compulsory Purchase of Rights on the Lancaster Canal Under Clause 22(2), the acquisition of land in Schedule 9 is limited to the acquisition of such wayleaves, easements or new rights in the land, or the imposition of restrictive covenants affecting the land, as may be required for the purposes listed in Schedule 9. BW is concerned that, if the Order is made in its current form, the Council will not be restricted in the rights that it may acquire over that part of the Canal and towpath in the relevant plots . The Lancaster Canal is a “cruising waterway” listed in Part II of Schedule 12 of the Transport Act 1968, for which BW has a statutory obligation (under s105 of the 1968 Act) to maintain for continuous navigation for vessels of set dimensions. BW cannot accept any power of compulsory purchase of rights that could interfere with the navigation of the Canal or use of the towpath. BW seeks an undertaking from the Council that any rights to be acquired by the Council over the Canal and towpath will be with the written consent of BW, subject to strictly defined limits of horizontal and vertical deviation. Section 127 of the Planning Act 2008 provides that a development consent order may not authorise the compulsory acquisition of land or rights over BW land in the face of a representation from BW that has not been withdrawn without a certificate in the prescribed form from the Secretary of State. Interference with Lancaster Canal In addition to the inclusion of those BW plots listed in Schedule 11 (land of which temporary possession may be taken for the purposes of the works) the draft development consent order contains a power in Clause 18 to temporarily interfere with parts of the Canal by constructing temporary works as necessary, to moor vessels in the Canal, close the relevant part of the Canal to navigation and de-water that part of the Canal. Whilst the Council are not to close any more of the Canal than is necessary and must keep any period of closure to a minimum, this offers very little comfort to BW, as the Council could still close this part of the Canal for potentially any length of time that they deemed to be the “minimum” for the construction of the bridge and/or the culvert. BW will seek an undertaking from the Council that they will use their best endeavours to avoid any closure of the Canal or towpath in connection with the construction or maintenance of the authorised works and, where closure is essential, that this happens outside the cruising season which extends from the beginning of March to the end of October. Slynedales Culvert Other than the inclusion of the culvert works in Schedule 1 and the inclusion of BW plot numbers 140-142 there does not appear to be further details in the development consent order relating to the depth or dimensions of the culvert under the Canal. Clearly BW has obvious concerns in terms of the integrity of the Canal bed and will seek an undertaking from the Council to agree the position of the culvert under the Canal with BW prior to carrying out these works. We are also concerned over the lack of flood risk analysis in relation to the new culvert in the supporting information to the application. Hammerton Hall Farm Access Track The draft development consent order contains power to construct an access track linking farm land severed by the new road along the side of the Canal. BW is concerned that this access track is constructed in a way that safeguards the structural integrity of the Canal bank from heavy farm machinery and the Canal itself from polluting agricultural run-off. Construction Access Routes The construction access routes shown on supporting documentation to the application shows a number of primary construction access routes crossing the Canal, including routes over two of BW’s historic listed canal bridges (Hammerton Hall Bridge and Halton Road Bridge) which may not be suitable for heavy goods vehicle traffic or wide loads. Heritage and Environment BW has general heritage and environmental concerns including the appearance of the Canal bridge (particularly the canal facing materials) and the preservation of the historic milestone on the towpath in its correct situ in addition to run off from landscaped mounds and the adequacy of mitigation on impacts on wildlife in the canal corridor. Protective Provisions Schedule 13 of the draft development consent order is entitled “Protective Provisions”, although the Schedule itself is blank. BW would expect to see detailed protective provisions in its favour, in common with other schemes of this nature which involve the construction of bridges or tunnels over or under its waterways. This should include provisions for protection against detriment caused by construction or failure of the works, plan and design approval and compensation for costs (external or internal) costs incurred by BW for such approval and supervision of construction and subsequent maintenance works."

Cable & Wireless Worldwide
"Dear Sir/Madam, I represent Cable & Wireless Worldwide (C&WW), a licensed Telecommunication Code Operator. Upon receiving notification of the planned works for the Heysham to M6 Link Road I investigated as to whether C&WW have any network infrastructure in the area which would be effected by the proposed development. It has come to my attention that C&WW have 2 duct routes running along the A6. I require more detailed information regarding the proposed works at the A6 junction of the development, as well as assurances that our infrastructure will be retained/unaffected. I am able to provide plans and more information if required. Kind regards, Carl Ayres."

Paul Graveson
"I strongly disagree with this proposal as it directly affects my future, as I work for a business whose premises the by-pass will run right through"

Ann Sumner
"I strongly disagree with this proposal as it directly affects me due to the fact that the by-pass will pass directly through my work premises"

Martin Procter
"I strongly disagree with this proposal as it will directly impact on my employment prospects as the by-pass route directly goes through our premises"

David Duncan
"I disagree with this proposal as the by-pass runs directly through my work premesis, thus placing my job in jeopardy"

Ian Howard
"I object to this proposal as it will directly impact on my work prospects as the proposed by-pass will run directly through my work premesis"

Charles Turner
"I disagree with this proposal as it will potentially have a detrimental impact on my employment prospects as the by-pass goes directly through my work premesis"

H M T (Shipping) Limited
"As a major operator of transport services which require access to Heysham Port, we believe the need to improve the road link between the M6 and Heysham Port is vital in enabling the Port to grow and to allow us to offer reliable and cost effective services to our clients.."

Lee Whittaker
"I disagree with this proposal as it puts me in fear of my job as the by-pass, passes directly though my place of work"

D Winder-Shewan
"I disagree with this proposal as without suitable compensation for relocating my place of work I face the prospect of redundancy due to the by-pass passing directly through our builiders yard"

Keith Roach
"I fear the proposal is ill-conceived as it could very well result in my unemployment due to the by-pass running right through my place of work"

Colin Threfall
"I consider this proposal pernicious as its location could very well throw me out of employment due to its running through my place of work"

Mark Nelson
"The proposal is wrong as it directly threatens me with unemployment due to the decision to place it directly through my place of work"

John Craven
"I object to the proposal in ints current form as it could very well result in my unemployment due to the by-pass coming directly through my place of work"

Adam Pullen
"I disagree with the proposal as it could very well have an adverse effect on my employment status due to the by-pass running right through my place of work"

Campaign to Protect Rural England
"The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) has a unique combination of planning expertise – from involvement in campaigning and research on changes to national planning policy to detailed local knowledge and engagement – from its network of regional staff, branches and district groups. CPRE has opposed this scheme for many years and is registering to maintain its opposition during the examination. The draft National Networks National Policy Statement (NPS) has not been published and will not be designated before the decision on this scheme is made. The final National Planning Policy Framework has not been published either. We therefore reserve the right to amend our view of the principle issues and to raise new issues as appropriate. The lack of precedent, fact that the relevant NPS will not have been designated and serious flaws in the pre-application consultation process mean that there are many novel and complex legal and factual issues. In the circumstances we submit that there will be a need for an oral hearing in relation to all of the principle issues below. Adequacy of consultation The extent to which the promoter complied with the letter and spirit of statutory guidance on pre-application consultation. Reasons: The recent consultation by the promoter did not cover the need for the scheme or even its general alignment. There was clearly something radically wrong with that process, such that the promoter should not be entitled to rely upon it. Consideration of alternatives The extent to which better performing alternatives have been considered, including the extent to which opportunities for sustainable travel modes have already been taken up, including rail freight to Heysham port. Reasons: WebTAG requires full consideration of alternatives. Contrary to claims in the Environmental Statement (4.4.1), a comprehensive package of “inter-related measures” to achieve the scheme objectives or tackle the District’s transport problems has never been assessed as a whole. In any event the assessment carried out pre-dates current policy or practice, such as Smarter Travel measures. Traffic The effect the scheme would have on traffic patterns on the highway network (including considerations of traffic generated by the development during construction and operations, induced traffic, modal shift, reliability, environmental effects and in-combination effects with other proposals). Reasons: Traffic patterns have changed since the scheme was modelled, including negative growth in traffic generally and at Heysham port. The delivery of a package of “complementary measures” was a condition of the planning permission granted to the original scheme, because the scheme would not be acceptable without them. However, the source of funding for any such package has not been clearly identified. Green Belt, landscape and cultural heritage The effects the scheme would have on the natural environment and cultural heritage, including the impacts on the Green Belt and areas of relative tranquillity, the appropriateness of the mitigation proposed and the methodology used. Reasons: The scheme would cause significant harm to the landscape purposes of the North Lancashire Green Belt. There should be a detailed reconsideration of whether very special circumstances can be demonstrated. The land next to North Lancaster is prized and well used by local people. Economic effects The economic effects of the scheme including the impact on local businesses and the impact on tourism, as well as the weight it is appropriate to ascribe to small time savings versus net job losses. Reasons: The 2010 Economic Impact Report’s best estimate for the local area is that there will be a net decrease in jobs for residents of the local area if the scheme is built. The alleged value of the scheme comes largely from multiplying up predicted time savings for drivers in the range of zero to six minutes. These time savings will not make a significant difference to journeys in the real world. Climate change The degree to which the scheme and the assumptions it is appraised against can be reconciled with legislation and policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Reasons: The Environment Statement at 7.4.34 states that ‘The proposed scheme would increase carbon dioxide emissions in the study area by 10% per year.’ Through the Climate Change Act 2008 the Government has set a sharply declining trajectory – rather than a constant baseline - against which the scheme should be in fact assessed. The DfT has not set out how emissions from transport will be reduced after 2027 (i.e. covering the majority of the scheme’s appraisal period), meaning that there is great uncertainty as to transport trends modelled after then. There is a particular need to reduce the use of high emission vehicles, including HGVs which are difficult to decarbonise."

Specialist Crane Hire
"Specailist Crane Hire operate 14 heavy cranes and HGV's from our Northgate premises, employing 24 staff. We are in favour of the above link and consider it will be a great benefit both economically and environmentally. Environmental Benefits: 1. Reduced fuel use, noise and air pollution. 2. Improved road safety for pedestrian and cyclists particularly in Lancaster and Carnforth. 3. Improved flow of traffic for local residents traffic Economic Benefits: 1. Reduced fuel, time, haulage and maintenance costs to ourselves (Specialist Crane Hire). 2. A boost to local business competitivity due to the above as well as the economic benefits of the infrastructure project itself. 3. Improved logistic links to the rest of the businesses in the Lancashire area will improve the attractiveness of all local businesses, as suppliers from a speed of response perspective. 4. It will increase our employment growth potential from this location. 5. The economic benefits of improved links to the Port and Power Stations are potentially immense. Finally on a negative note i am dissappointed to se that there is to be a junction at Caton Road on the slip road creating a potential blockage to traffic entering Lancaster, Morecambe and Heysham for traffic from the south."

Cynthia Dickinson
"TRAFFIC CONGESTION This is a great problem in the Lancaster & Morecambe area and the proposed Heysham/M6 Link road will not solve it. This is acknowledged by Lancashire County Council. On some roads the amount of traffic will increase, making the congestion worse, causing more carbon emissions and affecting residents with increased noise and pollution. On many roads there would be little reduction in traffic and on the worst congested roads any potential reduction would soon vanish due to vehicles trying to access the new road. PORT OF HEYSHAM One of the proposed benefits was a faster time to reach the Port. But the Port is declining (by 22% between 2003 and 2009) in favour of Liverpool, which can accommodate larger ships. The Isle of Man Steam Packet Co. is currently threatening to quit the Port. This reduces the need for the road. JOBS/TOURISM There is no evidence that the road will create new jobs. The Economic Impact Report admits that nearly all the 898 to 1,125 new jobs forecast in the regeneration area could be lost by the "2-way road effect". Neither will the new road increase tourism to the area. People don't go to a place because they can get there 6 minutes faster! ENVIRONMENT There are concerns over flooding and contaminated run-offs, e.g. the SUDS pond west of Barley Cop Lane. Also Lancashire County Council admit that the proposed road would have a large adverse impact on parts of the route. The scheme is an inappropriate development for the Green Belt and now the City Council officers are considering a "Heysham M6 Link Road Development Corridor"! CONSULTATION In 2011 this was restricted to the substantial changes in the original design rather than looking at the whole (now new) scheme afresh. The public got the impression that this was a "done deal" and that is how the County Council has regarded it and does not take seriously any alternative to it. ALTERNATIVES These have not been properly examined. A package of sustainable transport measures, based on the Faber Maunsell Report commissioned by the County Council, was a condition of the planning permission granted for the old scheme in 2008. This plan has never been published. Other alternatives need new consideration, for example the Western routes that originally were the best and most favoured by both the City & County Councils. A new route, the Lancaster Bypass Link Road (LBL), was proposed by Morecambe Town Council as part of their official response to Lancashire County Council's 2011 consultation process. The council submitted all relevant documents including their new route plan. It appears to have been ignored. DfT guidance says other options must be worked through in detail. VALUE This proposed road scheme is not good value for money as it doesn't fulfill its objectives, especially the urgent problem of traffic congestion. Lancashire County Council has doubled its contribution to £12.3 million and has also agreed to take on all extra costs, cost overruns and inflation. This is a potentially huge burden for Lancashire tax payers."

Tom Askew
"My house, along with the other houses on Russell Drive are some of the closest homes to the proposed raod. I am very concerned about a number of issues that have not been properly addressed or considered by Lancashire County Council. The road will be very noisy, particularly when traffic is going to the Isle of Man TT. Besides this noise polution, the lighting on the road is very high as the plan is to have a huge bridge and the raising of the roadway to go over this edifice. This light polution will shine directly into bedrooms. These pollutants should have been negated by landscaping and tree planting but shortly before the last "consultation period" the local residents were sent a plan of a proposed park in the fields direcly behind my home. This park is for schools to visit but schools have no money for transport (both local schools have their own nature areas on site). There was no recognition that this was good agricultural land and could continue to be used so. They had no idea who would pay to lay out and maintain the "park". The fields behind Russell Drive are very low lying and are frequently covered in water. To date my home is dry but I fear that this proposed road will effect the water table and result in flooding. Insurance is near impossible to afford when flooding occurs! I have reviously mentioned the bridge. This will allow traffic to move freely through the village of Torrisholme, and thus cause an even greater "rat run" that exists at present. It means that as a resident I will have to find a route to avoid all this extra traffic and get to the junction on Morecambe Road to get onto the proposed road. To summarise my concerns they are: Light Polution Noise Polution Flooding Lack of landscaping Traffic Flow through Torrisholme"

Tom Askew on behalf of Mr Mark Drinkall - Chairman
"That the compulsory purchase order will be detrimental to Torrisholme Cricket Club in respect of restrictions detailed in registered title LAN71447 & service easements for the benefit of TCC off Barley Cop Lane Lancaster. Access to our cricket club ground will be restricted by the proposed road works as access is via Torrisholme Road (B5321), Barley Cop Lane, Morecambe Road, Lancaster (A683), and Morecambe Road, Morecambe (A589). At the junction of Torrisholme Road and Lancaster Road, the construction and the existence of a major road 26 feet high will bring noise, vibration and light pollution to the area and this continues across the fields adjacent to our cricket ground. This height of road is dictated by the need to lose spoil from diggings further towards the A6 and does not consider the adverse effects on the environment. We have occupied our ground for over 60 years and this road would be detrimental to the enjoyment of our facilities. The plans call for the use of SUDS ponds. SUDS ponds collect water in a storm, & allow it to soak into the water table gradually. However, 1. Moderate storms create the most polluted run-off: there's enough rainfall to wash pollutants into the ponds, but not enough to dilute them. 2. The ponds do not stop run-off from entering the water table, just delay it. 3. There is insufficient evidence about the effect over the years of sedimentation or accumulation of contaminants. 4. They must be maintained: sediment removed, inlets & outlets maintained. Who is responsible, and who pays? 5. Have they sufficient capacity as the design of the road will increase run-off from the East to the West of the scheme. 6. There could be a problem with insurance:"

Russell Drive Residents Association
"At the junction of Torrisholme Road and Lancaster Road, the construction and the existence of a major road 26 feet high will bring noise, vibration and light pollution to residents and this continues across the fields behind Russell Drive. This height of road is dictated by the need to lose spoil from diggings further towards the A6 and does not consider the adverse effects on the environment. The planners have increased the height of the road instead of considering placing a road junction at this point which would allow the residents of Bare, Torrisholme, Cross Hill and Scale Hall to easily join the proposed road, rather than having to work their way around to Morecambe Road junction. The planned layout will encourage those driving into Lancaster to by pass Morecambe Road junction by going through Torrisholme village. Traffic calming measures have been in place for some years to try to alleviate the already too greater use of this road into Lancaster. The Lancaster & Morecambe College lose some 153 parking places. These cars will park on the surrounding roads, including Russell Drive, and thus cause parking problems and increased traffic in residential roads and greater danger of accidents. The plans call for the use of SUDS ponds. SUDS ponds collect water in a storm, & allow it to soak into the water table gradually. There could be a problem with insurance:"

Mrs Michelle A Needham on behalf of Lancaster and Morecambe Vision Board
"The Lancaster and Morecambe Vision Board published its vision in June 2006. Within this document the following strategic statement was made and was reaffirmed at the last meeting of the board on 30 January 2012 (unapproved minutes, The Board was asked if it could continue to support the necessity for a Heysham M6 link. This was agreed). As quoted from the Vision Document : one of the key transformational projects : bringing the two major urban centres together through a combined and integrated transport solution."

Mrs R M McNeil
"I do not believe that this scheme will solve Lancaster's congestion; in fact traffic is expected to increase on many roads according to the consultation. At the consultation we were told that the government would pay a set amount and Lancashire council tax payers would be liable for the balance. As the scheme appears to have doubled in cost over the last 10 years this could have serious consequences for local services. The scheme will damage the green belt and Lancaster canal area. It is also going to be extremely unslightly in parts; particularly on 26' high embankment at Morecambe Road/Torrisholme Road. Why does the road have to go over rather than under west coast main line & Lancaster canal? Traffic lights at Morecambe Road/Torrisholme Road rather than a 26' high embankment? Steep incline on Lune bridge will increase noise. Job forecasts unreliable."

Rachel Faulkner
"I completely agree that there needs to be much better access to Heysham and Morecambe from the UK's transport infrastructure, although I personally believe it would probably be much better for the road to be to the south of Lancaster, rather than the north. I was under the impression until recently that the link road would go from the roundabout near to M6 J33 rather than J34. I would be against any development that threatens habitat of protected species, and would like the scheme to minimise the impact on the landscape and greenbelt land, although I recognise that this would be necessary to some extent. I think that the scheme's merits are theoretical: better links to Morecambe which would boost the local economy, tourism and job market, and if undertaken well the acheme would achieve this. I am fairly open-minded on the scheme and would, once briefed further, assess the scheme on its merits whilst suggesting any necessary modifications if relevant."

Sarah Dunsbee
"No more roads needed. At present particularly money needed to help people in their hard everyday lives. People affected badly by road building and afterwards also. Countryside and wildlife destroyed."

Abi Mills
"I think that the Heysham Bypass is an out dated, expensive idea that will not sort out the traffic problems of our area. Alternative solutuions to the problem need to be looked at that will have less impact on the environment."

Jadwiga Hanley
"I believe that the process and consideration of this issue has been rushed through. LCC sent its application at the beginning of December, and IPC, during a period which was partly occupied by Christmas, decided very quickly to accept. In particular, the crucial processes of consultation were not regularly or adequately followed. The local exercise at Halton offered discrepant advice and definitions of the scope of the consultation to those who attended. Different consultants present gave wrong information to my husband, according to LCC personel, and confusion reigned. Local consultation was never honestly conducted. The Parish Council, dominated by persons who had expressed their uncritical views widely and in the local press previously, have attempted to provide evidence of consultation AFTER the application went in. Their attempts were badly flawed and were described by many, including the Lancaster Lord Mayor, as "extremely biased". The charade reveals the truth that a gap had to appear to be filled. It has not. No realistic solutions have been proposed for alterations in Halton, some of which increase dangers to several kinds of road users. The problems have been examined and re-examined, but they are intractable. The slip road should have been considered separately, but because it was part of a total presentation to your body, it had to be defended through thjck and thin, against good reason. Following the alleged consultations, LCC officials and council representatives attended a meeting to try to push through local acceptance, but it was too late for credibility."

Tony Johnson
"As elected mamber of Lancaster City Council for Carnforth I am aware that many HGV's pass through the town every day. Carnforth is noted as having the worst air quality in Lancashire and any improvement can only be provided when the M6 link is completed. The link between Heysham and [originaly] the A6 has been promoted on the route chosen for many years, indeed no new buildings have been allowed to be constructed on it. We are also blited by imposed traffic signals on the A6 at Carnforth and I note that a roundabout is to be removed and signals installed on the link road. As they cost about £150,000 to install and £5,000 a year to run I submit that this is a waste of the taxpyers monies."

John Gow
"The proposal will do nothing to aleviate the main traffic problems in the area. It represents very poor value for money to the taxpayer. It will do nothing to help local unemployment It will be a blight on the green belt. It will increase pollution with respect to light, noise and air quality. It will bisect and very much spoil the village of Torrisholme."

Transport Solutions for Lancaster and Morecambe
"1. Scope of Consultation The scope of the consultation was restricted by LCC when it should have been a free, open consultation on the need for and principle of the proposed road. Should have been open because: • application for whole scheme under new form of statutory process; • traffic and economic justification for scheme had changed substantially; • LCC was seeking to consult ‘new members of the community’, not involved in previous consultation; • IPC’s requirements emphasise importance of allowing public to influence the project with feedback on potential options. This did not happen. 2. Scheme does not achieve its stated purposes • Access to Heysham Port: but Heysham Port suffered a significant (22%) loss of traffic between 2003 and 2009. • Traffic flows: much lower than previously forecast, and current modelling shows that much less (22%) traffic transfers to Link Road. • Complementary Measures: A condition of previous planning permission required LCC to draw up an action plan of complementary measures. But this plan is not there (other than P&R), and new funding arrangements leave no funding for it. • Economic Impact: The EIR warns of possibility of a net negative local economic impact, against original claim of 6,000 new jobs. 3. Alternative Solutions With new Planning Application, LCC should have reconsidered all the available alternatives, not just other road building options. It has not followed WebTAG Guidance, in working through in detail other options that would achieve the same objectives, to arrive at “Preferred Option”. 4. Alternative Alignments & Designs LCC has not properly considered, or recently consulted on, alternative alignments, or previous proposals for the present alignment, which included some alternative designs that might have been found preferable. 5. Scheme Changes Revisions to Shefferlands Roundabout were claimed to save £7.3m, because requirement for off-site disposal avoided. But all previous versions were stated to be "cut-and-fill balanced”. The savings claimed were overstated by about £ 5 million, revealing an unacceptable vagueness. The change to the gradient of the Lune Bridge has consequences for noise and light intrusion, not adequately investigated. 6. Flooding SUDS ponds are unlikely to cope with heavy rainfall, would overspill and contaminate environmental watercourses. 7. Climate Change Scheme will cause significant increase (10%) in carbon emissions, contravening the 2008 Climate Change Act. It will encourage car use, and push the trend upwards. 8. Landscape Scheme is acknowledged to cause a large adverse impact on the landscape north of Lancaster: any changes that would exacerbate this destructive impact are not acceptable. 9. Biodiversity LCC claims that the route is of low ecological value, but that fails to recognise the presence of, and impacts of the scheme on, veteran trees, protected hedgerows, species on the “Red Data Lists” , and other protected species, including bats, salmon and otters. 10. Green Belt The scheme is acknowledged to be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, and would cause significant harm to its purposes. Before it can be permitted, very special circumstances must be demonstrated. This must be reconsidered."

Mr C Linehan
"I have read the arguments made against the Heysham M6 Link Road by Transport Solutions For Lancaster and Morecambe. It would appear to me that they have raised many valid objections against the proposed development all of which will, I trust be fully considered by the Infrastructure Planning Commission prior in taking a decision whether or not to issue a development consent order for the Heysham to M6 Link Road. In particular, given that my property will be directly and adversely affected by this development: • The Green Belt will be adversely and significantly affected by this development. Shefferlands roundabout directly behind my house is now to be raised by 14 metres and the carriageway is to be taken over rather than under Halton Road. The proposed scheme changes will have a substantial and adverse impact on my and my neighbouring properties. I am also concerned that harmful development could follow what could come to be thought of as a “Heysham M6 Link Road Development Corridor” • Church Brow in the neighbouring village of Halton would be substantially and adversely affected by traffic flow increasing from 4,600 vehicles per day to 8000. The boundary wall of the Norman Church stands directly beside the road. It is built of stone blocks, is of substantial height and length and retains the human remains interred directly behind it. It is of concern that the increased traffic flow directly beside this wall could have a detrimental effect on the stability of the wall whatever speed restrictions are put in place."

Robert Brewer
"No amount of consultation or requests for forms to be filled can get away from the fact that this road represents extremely poor value for what it purports to do. By asking the residents to continually give theirs views on this subject is somewhat like the the EU asking for a referendum to voted on again because the wrong answer came out. This road as one of the costliest in the UK will not bring any benefit to the households in Lancaster/Morecambe because it does not address the fundamental traffic issue of inter Morecambe/Lancaster traffic. Providing a direct access to the port from the M6 has nothing to do with our major problem. As the port sailings are decreasing why the demand for a road. If it was to encourage business to come to a deprived area why has land, set aside for business use, at the southern Lancaster exit of the M6 not been taken up in the last 20 years. This land has direct access to the motorway system. Lancaster & Morecambe College will close if you remove half of the college for this road, what effect do you think that will have on local business? Broadoak garden centre a local business built from scratch employing local people will disappear. Green belt land being used for such a wasteful project as this is criminal and once the land is spoilt it will never return to its pastoral self. Look at the existing road from the harbour to Morecambe Rd a see the amount of traffic using this road its obvious this road is not needed, cost to much, and does not offer any solution to our traffic problems. No greenbelt, no jobs and a huge financial burden all when we are told to tighten our belts you should be ashamed of yourselves."

Mrs P Broadfield
"The view from my widow will completely change from countryside to seeing a monstrous unsightly road. Other routes have not been properly considered. The road will not slove the traffic problems in Lancaster.Traffic will just increase. Local villages will be damaged with noise, light and air pollution. Job forecasts are unreliable. How much will it cost Lancashire taxpayers."

Mr Graham Broadfield
"This route will not solve anything it will only increase traffic on many roads. Other routes have not been considered properly. It will damage local communities. Road will be unsightly, a flyover , traffic lights, huge roundabout all within 100 yds of my house. Other people have 26' high embankments. How much will it cost to taxpayers?"

Jenny Howick
"1. This road does not bypass it goes right through the village of Torrishome where traffic congestion is the worse in the area. 2. There will be over 1000 houses within 300 metres of this road where the area is having 20 miles zones put in at the moment for local traffic and this is going to be an extension of the motorway with a 70 mile limit. 3. Traffic lights on Morecambe this will be herrendous for local traffic as this is the busiest road in the area. 4. Air pollution the area of Torrisholme has two major roads going through it already 5. The unsightly road will affect the only bit of green belt left in Morecambe area. 6 .The fact that most people in the area who really think its a waste of money and if it does not effect them diffectly say its not good , but if we do not get anything else we may as well have something. .7. Morecambe/Torrisholme and the surrounding area has less per square mile of green belt in the country and this road will take that little bit away, so we have no green belt what so ever for a road that is not going to hepl local traffic what so ever. 8. Other routes eg Blue route or other bridges accross Morecambe lune rather than Halton lune or any changes to the road structure in the area."

Dorothy Hilton
"other alternative solutions have not been properly considered, for example a package of sustainable transport measures, and the road will not solve the traffic congestion in the area, on many roads traffic increases."

County Councillor Sam Riches
"As a County Councillor in Lancaster (elected May 2009) I believe the consultation on this scheme has not been adequate. Lancashire County Council has recently consulted on changes to the scheme, but refused to talk about the scheme as a whole – the need for it, and alternatives that would achieve the same objectives. I am particularly concerned that the County Council has not been transparent about the costs of the scheme, especially the potential for cost overruns, and how they would be met, nor about the extent to which other transport projects in the county - especially schemes to improve public transport - are affected by the financial commitment to this scheme. We have recently lost bus departure information display screens in Lancaster bus station and other bus stations in the county - they cost a fraction of the amount due to be spent on this road, but are deemed to be too expensive."

Peter Allward
"The idea of having a bypass is to reduce traffic from local roads and make it more economical not to build one that is just a personal route for Heysham Port who have just announced that Isle of Man steam packet shipping company are considering withdrawing their services from Heysham Harbour to Liverpool. So there will be fewer trucks going to Heysham. The majority of the HGV’s travelling to Ireland are from the south of England they will still travel through Lancaster rather than travel past Lancaster and double back on themselves. Most businesses on White Lund would like easy access to the Motorway, which in this case is to build a route south of Lancaster; this would alleviate traffic to and from Lancaster also they like to economise in time and petrol. Building a northern route will add time to the journey as if we had another option like a south of Lancaster route this would save a lot of time and fuel and this has to be considered surely due to saving the environment? The council have admitted that building this link road will not alleviate the traffic in Lancaster City centre and also the Luneside regeneration area which this is why we need a link south of Lancaster to help this area as well as White Lund and Heysham. At this current time traffic from Heysham/Morecambe area have to go around Lancaster's one way system to reach Luneside. Lancashire County Council have paid consultants to look into alternative routes and plans however they have not yet published any findings from the consultants so basically they have never offered a viable alternative. I would seriously suggest thinking about spending Tax Payer’s Money and spend it on something that is beneficial as once it is built you cannot take it down again. This link is going to affect greenbelt land, Lancaster and Morecambe College, local businesses, People’s health, add more pollution to the environment and Lancaster City Centre will be just as congested as ever."

Derek Hugh Allen
"Lancashire County Council has not taken into account the views of local residents. The data used in the IPC submission with particular reference to public views and traffic data is significantly out of date. A journey from McDonalds roundabout to Junction 34 of the M6 typically takes 8 minutes, the reverse journey from junction 34 of the M6 to McDonalds roundabout takes considerably longer dur to the obstructions created by the Highway's Department: 1. Poorly repaired road surfaces on Caton road 2. Extremely badly sequences traffic lights on Caton Road adjacent to Halfords and Parliament street - the lights at all juctions can be on red at the same time backing the traffic up in all directions. 3. A recently introduced 30mph speed limit on Greyhound bridge, again to create a traffic congestion during the IPC consultaion period. 4. The traffic lights at Scale Hall corner again badly sequenced. 5. The Bus lane on Morecambe road causing more traffic congestion - introduced during the recent consultancy period. 6. The existing Heysham By-pass has again recently had the speed limit increased to 60 mph although a high accident rate had until recently meant the speed limit was going to be reduced to 40mph to cut the accident level. The proposed Heysham to M6 link will not reduce the current traffic congestion issues between Lancaster and Morecambe. The are planned housing developments on St George's quay which will increase traffic in Lancaster - the road does not address this issue. On the A6 south of Lancaster, a supermarket development has recently been granted planning permission together with a Science/technology development at Lancaster University which will also generate addition volumes of traffic and consequently more traffic congestion which will not be addressed by the Heysham to M6 link road Morecambe Road currently has a high level of accidents and higher levels of traffic will potentially increase the rate of accidents. The road level adjacent to Lancaster & Morecambe college will create high noise pollution with heavy goods vehicles having to break and stop at the proposed A589 College junction."

Charles Leavey
"I am concerned - That the new link road will generate significant additional traffic movement through Halton village and also along the whole stretch of Halton Road; these roads are minor, the footpaths next to them are narrow; there will be extra dangers to people, especially the young and the old, who have to use these pavements; in particular there will be a great deal of strain put onto the mini roundabout at the foot of Halton High Road; this is very busy at peak hours now and is not fit for purpose as it stands; many schoolchildren wait for morning buses at this point and there is very little space for them now - extra traffic will pose extra dangers. - That the construction of a new Lune crossing will have major negative impacts on the wild life and ecology of the River Lune at this point"

John Walden
"The propossed route fails in comparison to what was previously described as the blue route on the following accounts: 15% less reduction in traffic volume through Lancaster City Centre than the Blue route On the original proposal the Blue route was approx £10 million cheaper than the proposed route The proposal does not solve the problem of Luneside being landlocked Workers travelling from Morecambe and Heysham to Lancaster University will cause signifcant traffic congestion to an already congested Galgate as they travel from J33 to the University. Companies working with Lancaster University will still struggle with transportation between Lancaster University and Morecambe and Heysham therefore stunting growth Traffic flows show that a more southern junction on the M6 will reduce milages Misses out on the opportunity of creating half a ring road to the historic City of Lancaster The Blue route has a far reduced human enviromental impact The Blue route is shorter and as such has a reduced enviromental impact both in the construction and then once operational especially when taking into consideration the requirement of a new bridge to access the landlocked Luneside"

Gavin Peacock
"I fully support the building of the aforementioned link road."

Stuart Hilton
"Consultation has been inadequate. Lancashire County Council has consulted on some details of the scheme, not the scheme as a whole. Other alternative solutions have not been properly considered, for example a package of sustainable transport measures. Other routes have not been properly considered. Have they thought about traffic light control at the junction at Morecambe Road/Torrisholme Road rather than an embankment 26 feet high, the road will not solve the traffic congestion in the area in fact it will cause traffic increase on many roads, the scheme will also damage local communities, bringing noise, light and air pollution to the area."

Janet Taylor
"I oppose the plans for any M6 link. I do not beleive the evidence you have stated is a good enough reason for you to build a new road. The only benefit will be to the contactors who build the road. The local area will not be enhanced or helped by this propsal. I. The heysham bypass is empty 95% of the time. Why are we spending millions on another empty road? II. Morecambe will not thrive due to this because people think it is run down and don't want to go there. III. The Lancaster one way system will not be any less busy as the traffic will still be delivering goods there and it is the main city for shopping in the area. IV. The park and ride needs to be placed further down Caton Road one of the industrial areas Standfast or there abouts. And what about traffic coming in from other directions. How is a park and ride in one area going to help there? I oppose this wholeheartedly."

Nicholas Feeney
"I believe this road scheme will not give any value for the vast amount of money that it will cost - an utter waste. I do not believe that it will in any way relieve the congestion between Lancaster and Morecambe during the rush hours and I speak as someone who commutes south on the M6 to work. A much better alternative would have been to consider alternatives which didn't involve road building at all or if building a new road is the only possibility (which I do not believe is true) then a new crossing over the Lune which could also have taken traffic into Lancaster, would have been a much,much better idea."

Jean Wetter
"My objection to the road and first point, is that it will completely cut an ancient village in half and cause noise and niuisance to a quiet area. The wildlife is many and varied,, and even in my garden, apart from the usual birds I have a woodpecker and a sparrowhawk. With bats in the evening. Why does scrubbing up many miles of ancient hedgerows and a beautiful area make sense. When we know the traffic going into Lancaster from this end will not help the jams. Now we hear the Isle of Man ferry company is moving their business to Liverpool, so there will be less heavy traffic co,ming this way."

Mrs Janice Snape
"I do not feel that the link road would do anything whatsoever for the traffic problems in Lancaster. This week has been Februray half term and I can leave home in the morning at 8.00am and be at work in central Lancaster by 8:15am whereas during termtime I leave at 8.00am and be at work by 8.45am sometimes 8.55am due to the volume of traffic. The main employers of this area are education therefore the varients in traffic are due to term dates."

Susan Walden
"The route chosen doesn't solve the traffic problems of the area. It is a longer route taking the traffic North when the majority of the traffic will want to travel South. Has this been chosen to resolve Junction 34 issues as against the real needs of the area. The proposed route is more costly and longer and does not take as much traffic out of Lancaster City Centre as the Blue Route. I think that the proposed route would be detremental to the environment and also to the health and well being of the people living in close proximity as it has a much higher impact on the local population than the Blue Route."

M A Sullivan
"HEYSHAM-M6 LINK ROAD 1. The Heysham-M6 Link Road is not a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project and should not be accepted by the IPC. It is a local authority road scheme. The proposed works at M6 Junction 34 do not make the proposal as a whole an NSIP. 2. The proposal does not accord with Government policies on the environment and on sustainable development. 3. There is no need for the proposal 4. The conflict between the proposal and local planning policy is significant. It is not a proposal on the adopted Local Plan proposals map. 5. Alternatives have not been considered adequately. 6. Public transport access to Morecambe is the priority, with the town having poor rail service. Infrastructure improvements should be rail-based, not a new road. 7. The future of Heysham as a port is doubtful in the long term and the volume of trade passing through it is declining. There is overcapacity in ports in Great Britain facing the Irish Sea. This reduces the justification for the proposed road"

County Councillor Christopher Coates
"I wish to object to the building of this road. The economic arguement is almost entirely reliant on the continued operation of the Port of Heysham. I do not believe that anyone has done any anaylisis of the likely effects of climate change and potential sea level rise on the operation of the Port. This is in my view a major oversight and until such a study is done into the long term viablility of the Port operations I believe that the economic case for the building of the link road is seriously flawed."

Max Davidson
"The proposed link road will destroy a valuable area of green belt ,significantly increase pollution, be a potential huge burden on the tax paying residents of the county whilst still not providing the benefits to the area that those in favour suggest it will bring. This road will not solve the severe traffic problems in Lancaster City Centre which are an increasing obstacle to those visiting or seeeking to invest in the city. It is highly debatable how much the building of this road will generate employment to the area once completed, estimates have been significantly downgraded since the scheme was first proposed. Whilst the area and the country need infrastructure projects in order to stimulate the economy and produce employment this proposed road is in danger of becoming a major 'white elephant' that will achieve neither of these whilst still leaving the city of Lancaster with its age old problem of congestion and continuing need for regeneration. The cost of the road scheme does not appear to meet the criteria of 'value for money' which would be essential for it to justify its enormous cost and must be stopped before a catatrophic mistake is made by building a road few people want or believe will benefit the community or local economy."

Rosemary Anderson
"I believe that the building of yet another motorway, affecting people's residential accommodation and destroying more of the green belt, is a wrong way to go. It is excessively expensive and other methods have not been tried, like, for example, Park and Ride, and better use of the train line to keep cars off the road."

Anne Chapman
"I wish to object to the proposed road because: - its construction and use will increase carbon emissions. - the destructive impact it will have on the countryside north of Lancaster through which it will pass."

Nicola Regan
"I am totally against the development of this Heysham M6 Link Scheme and can not believe it is still being considered. The Lancashire County Council report on a range of routes and alternative options that have been considered before the application of this scheme but the only one I am aware of is the Western bypass that was refused due to extinct newts. In our current climate, we are experiencing savage cuts in all aspects of local authority funding so how we can justify building a bypass costing 123 million pounds (111 million funding from the DFT) and 12 million from somewhere else!! Do we consider that the shortfall of 12 million will be contributed by tax payers as there has been no confirmation on how much tax payer’s money will be used. Why should our money be used to fund a project that the majority of people living in the surroundings areas do not want and the worst point is, we won’t get a say in the council tax rise as it will just go up. I have been made aware that the few people agreeing to the development of this road will not actually live anywhere near it, so decisions about our environment are being made by people the road won’t directly affect and the local people who are refusing the road are being ignored. The scheme will destroy massive amounts of green belt protected land and not to mention 1.73 acres of open countryside. It will not decrease the amount of traffic congestion in Lancaster that was proposed but increase the traffic. In turn this will increase the tonnes of emissions of CO2 into our environment. The road will directly affect my living surroundings as outside my house (if the road is accepted) will be affected by traffic lights which will control the link road and the A6 junction. At present the A6 is controlled by a 40mph speed limit and I have never encountered any congestion but I believe the new junction will itself cause congestion. If so many local people are fighting against this road, why is the scheme still being considered as the original aims of this road have changed so many times and to me the aims are not going to benefit anyone. Regards, Nicola Regan"

Rachel Watson
"The scheme seems to be the most destructive solution to the issue at hand. Destroying green space, cutting through communities, disrupting and damaging educational facilities (Lancaster & Morecambe College) and spending millions of pounds in doing these things when the country is meant to be making cut-backs. I grew up in Lancaster in the Scale Hall/Torrisholme area, still have family there and visit often and I know and understand the traffic issues well - there is a bottle neck between Lancaster and Morecambe which would not be solved by the proposed road. The main cause of problems is that people are commuting and taking their children to school between Lancaster and Morecambe, meaning that a high volume of traffic is trying to get over the bridges and into a complex one-way system. There are cheaper, more environmentally sound schemes which could alleviate these problems that have been dismissed with no investigation and apparently by people who have never lived in the area! There have also been comments made by 'officials' who don't live in the area that local people back the plans, I've not spoken to a single one who does!"

Elaine Mattison
"I believe that this proposed road 1. will not ease the traffic congestion in Lancaster itself as demontrated by previous professional documents submitted by TSLM. 2. will not live up to its business claim for the creation of jobs at Heysham port. Freight traffic by sea is already turning to Liverpool as a more preferred docking option. In any case this the cost of this hugely expensive road would be totally out of proportion with the 100+ mainly low paid jobs the road promises to deliver. 3. is not value for money, and particularly in these hard times, and our money would be better spent on other less costly road options to meet Lancaster and Morecambe's needs previously given to the enquiries. The savings could then be spent on social, employment and business creation much needed in our area. 4. is not an NSIP."

Lancashire Wildlife Trust
"Our comments relate to the ecological impacts of the proposal and focus on the following documents: Environmental Statement, Volume 1, Part A, Chapter 9 – Ecology and Nature Conservation (11063/6.1) Landscape and Ecology Management Plan. Rev 20. (11063/6.3) Landscape and Ecology Strategy (11063/6.3) Assessment of Nature Conservation Effects (11063/5.3) Site HASEMP Draft Plan June 2011 Rev A (11063/6.3) Costain Safety, Health & Environment Procedures and Guidance. Section 4 – Do Work. Ecology and Biodiversity (Natural Environment) Rev 3 June 2011 (11063/6.3) Construction Environmental Management Plan (11063/9.2) Proposed Unilateral Undertaking (11063/9.3) Broadly speaking, we are satisfied with the survey methodology/resultant data given the constraints and assumptions made regarding data gaps and the need for updated surveys. We also agree with the embedded design measures and generic/specific mitigation, enhancement and compensation measures. As regards any proposed translocation measures (e.g. Pink Waxcap), the existing JNCC guidance on Habitat Translocation is currently under review (revised guidance expected this year) which may have a bearing on the LEMP proposals. Our principal concern relates to the delivery of the Landscape and Ecology Management Plan (LEMP), should the project be approved, as its design and implementation will be vital to ensuring no net loss of biodiversity and actual biodiversity gain (‘building in beneficial biodiversity’). We welcome the recognition of the need to include BAP updates and respond to new initiatives (e.g. designated Local Nature Partnerships (LNP) and Nature Improvement Areas (NIA). We appreciate its status as a working document, but being new to the IPC process, we assume that its contents will be made legally binding upon the applicant in the event of project approval by means of the proposed section 106 Unilateral Undertaking. We welcome the draft planning obligations, in particular 1.3 of the Second Schedule referring to the appointment of a suitably-qualified ecology project manager for a 10 year period following the opening of the highway to traffic. We would urge close liaison between the appointed Contractors (Costain?) Ecological Clerk of Works (ECOW) and the proposed Ecology Project Manager to ensure no interruption in ecological supervision/implementation of works/monitoring. This needs to be incorporated into the relevant contracts/documents (HASEMP etc). Furthermore, detailed specifications for works need to be written into contracts to ensure that the best practice methodology is correctly delivered and monitored by the ECOW from the outset. Again, we are uncertain as to the appropriate delivery mechanism, but in the current and anticipated future economic climate, it is essential that the required funding for LEMP delivery needs to be identified and ring-fenced to ensure its delivery & prevent renegation at a future date. It also needs a contingency element, given the live nature of the Plan and possibility of cost change. We would suggest an advisory panel of nature conservation consultees to contribute to the ongoing development of the LEMP (e.g Habitat Creation Areas) and in the longer term, to review monitoring results with the applicant and agree/adjust management as required."

Dr Christopher Coldwell
"I feel the bypass is essential to the future of the Lancaster area. Month by month the main routes through Lancaster get more and more choked and this threatens the economic prosperity of businesses on Lancaster, Morecambe and Heysham."

Jo Guiver
"I wish to register my objection to the M6 Heysham Link road as a resident of Lancaster and Morecambe District (address   ). I object to the construction of the road because: • It will blight the lives and quality of life for many people in the vicinity through increased, noise, air pollution, danger and disturbance • It will generate extra traffic • This and its construction will increase climate-change emissions which will undo all the work which has been done within the area to reduce fossil fuel use, promote alternative energy, insulate houses and reduce total energy use • It will cost the Government (people) and the county Council money which would be better used to increase quality of life, well-being, health and welfare. • Its benefits are restricted to a very few and largely based on time-savings, which historically have been shown to result in longer journeys rather than shorter journey times. I hope these objections will be taken into account."

Dave Chesney
"I am familiar with the area, its traffic flow and commuter issues. The plan as proposed will dramatically increase long-distance commuting and create new bottlenecks elsewhere. It is also an irresponsible use of local peoples' money in the current economic climate,"

The Environment Agency
"The Infrastructure Planning Commission Temple Quay House Temple Quay Bristol BS1 6PN Our ref: CE/2012/105308/01-L01 Your ref: Date: 20 February 2012 Dear Sir/Madam COMPLETION OF HEYSHAM TO M6 LINK UPDATE ON CONSULTATION LANCASTER, TORRISHOLM We have reviewed the proposed Development Consent Order (DCO), Environmental Statement (ES) and supporting documents submitted as part of the above application. We are generally satisfied with the level of information that we have received from the applicants and on the whole they have incorporated our recommendations into their Environmental Impact Assessment. We strongly advise that the mitigation measures proposed in the Environmental Statement are included as requirements of the development consent order. This should occur on the following topics: 1. Protection of the Water Environment 2. Protection of Aquatic Habitats 3. Flood Risk Management, Including Reduction of Flood Risk We will submit further more detailed comments setting out our advice on specific wording of these requirements as part of our written representations. In addition to the mitigation measures proposed in the Environmental Statement we advise that mitigation is agreed on the following topic: 1. An agreed plan for fitting pollution control measures on the drainage outfalls to the River Lune and its tributaries. 2. Landscape plans should be agreed regarding the mitigation for loss of wetland habitats, including planting schemes. 3. A monitoring programme for aquatic species and habitats should be agreed. 4. The Landscape and Environmental Management Plan should include a detailed statement of how invasive species like Japanese Knotweed and Himalayan Balsam present within the works area will be dealt with, including method statement and map showing locations. These are invasive species and it is an offence to spread under Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. We are involved in ongoing discussions with Lancashire County Council on all of the above topics and we will continue to work with them to find an acceptable set of mitigation measures. Information Regarding Environment Agency Consents Flood Defence Consents The Environment Agency formal consent for the new proposed roadbridge was issued in September 2011 (CA8905). Further consent will be required for the temporary works associated with the construction of this bridge. There are numerous culverts and outfall structures to be installed. These will all require Section 23 Consent. After the 6 April all Section 23 Consents will be determined by the Lead Local Flood Authority. In this case the Lead Local Flood Authority will be Lancashire County Council. We request to be involved in further development of these proposals to determine details of stream diversions and opening, planting schemes, new culverts and culvert extensions. Yours faithfully Amy Heys Planning Liaison Technical Specialist      "

County Councillor Sarah Fishwick
"I fully support the Heysham to M6 Link because It will improve journey times to Heysham Port allowing it to expand Encourage more freight to travel by sea to and from Heysham to Ireland instead of travelling up the M6 to Stranraer Increase the liklihood of a new nuclear power plant at Heysham Increase economic viability of the Heysham penninsular where many brownfield sites are currently underused Improve access to and from Morecambe as a tourist and economic destination Reduce commuter and HGV traffic through Carnforth which has the worst air quality in Lancashire Reduce through traffic on Lancaster's streets Bring economic benefits to all of north Lancaster, Morecambe and Carnforth Encourage the renovation and regeneration of much of Morecambe's housing stock with the increase of employment opportunities Reduce air pollution on Caton Road and all roads currently used by HGV's to access White Lund, Heysham Port and all industrial units in the Morecambe and Heysham area. Improve Junction 34 of the M6 at present one of the most dangerous in the country. Lancashire County Councillor Lancaster Rural North"

Emily Heath
"I object to the construction of the Heysham-M6 link road on the following principal grounds: * It is not necessary - improved access to jobs and reductions in traffic congestion can be achieved through much cheaper, more environmentally sustainable and more socially inclusive measures such as investment in public transport, safe walking and cycling routes, green travel plans and reducing the need to travel. * The environmental and social damage (including noise, air pollution and CO2 emissions, severance of local communities, destruction of green belt, trees and hedgerows) is too great. * I believe that the scheme will encourage growth in car and lorry journeys leading to greater congestion, pollution and road danger. * In the longer term, increasing fuel costs (due to diminishing fossil fuel resources) and climate change are likely to result in a shift towards lower-carbon lifestyles and less long-distance car travel and freight haulage. It would be wise to plan for that now, rather than continuing to build more roads. * It is not good value for money, especially at a time of large cuts to public services, including those run by Lancashire County Council which will have to contribute a significant amount to the total cost of the road."

Stuart Parkinson
"I oppose the M6 Link Road for the following reasons: - the scheme will severely damage or destroy many local green spaces, including the Lancaster Canal. - the road will not solve local congestion - indeed traffic will increase on many roads. - the scheme will damage many local communities through increased air pollution and noise pollution. On Halton Road, which already has numerous dangerous spots, traffic is likely to increase considerably, increasing the risk of serious road traffic accidents. - projected figures for job creation and economic benefits are highly uncertain and unreliable. - other alternative measures, such as a package of sustainable transport measures have not been given due consideration. - consultation has not been adequate - the County Council has not consulted on the scheme as a whole, just certain details."

EDF ENERGY NUCLEAR GENERATION LTD
"EDF Energy Nuclear Generation Ltd operate both Heysham 1 and Heysham 2 Nuclear Power Stations. We are a significant employer in this area of the region and contribute to the local economy. EDF Energy also supports National Governments nomination of a potential new Nuclear Power Station at Heysham. The completion of the Heysham to M6 link road is supported by EDF Energy as it will improve accessibility to the existing Power Stations in Heysham and the potential new nuclear build nominated site in Heysham. This will improve travel to work for employees and contractors at Heysham 1 and 2 and for potential new nuclear build. EDFE reserves the right to produce additional and further representations when further details of the application and its effect on the interests of EDFE are available. EDFE also reserves the right to make representations to the Examining Authority and any issues at any specific hearings."

Mark Brook
"I would like to object to the Heysham M6 Link Road application, as it is hugely unpopular in the area and has not been consulted on correctly. Many of the statistics used by Lancashire County Council are outdated e.g. job creation and traffic numbers, and the cost of the scheme has continued to rise and rise. In the recent consultation, LCC were only in the many (and significant) changes they have made, but should have been listening to public opinion & looking at alternative (and much cheaper, and less environmentally damaging)) ways of solving Lancaster's rush hour traffic problem. Do not allow this dreadful scheme to go ahead, leaving the financial & environmental cost for generations to come. Move with the times & encourage smarter, greener thinking, and most importantly, take into account the views of the people who live in the area."

Marian McCraith
"If built, this road would run through some of the most beautiful countryside in the area – fields looking onto the exquisite Morecambe Bay, alongside Lancaster Canal and through farmland and open fields where ordinary people walk, fish and play. Time spent in these places is what brings joy into many people’s lives - the birdsong, changing colours of the trees, the dramatic sky-scapes and sense of tranquillity - after long days working in noisier, less beautiful places. It seems crass to even consider unearthing such a landscape to replace it with another noisy stretch of road. My own home is part of what began as a council estate. The children in the area spend their free time out of doors - very much as I did in the 1960s – playing in the fields, dipping for tadpoles, climbing trees and flying kites. They stroke the nearby horses and watch sheep, cattle and herons. Most of my neighbours are unlikely to write letters to their representatives at local or national level, but by doing so I hope I am making some of their voices heard, along with my own. I recently heard a radio programme in which people living around Stevenage, in the area known as ‘Forster Country’ (after the writer E.M. Forster who loved the ‘ordinariness’ of the countryside there) spoke passionately about their sadness at having lost so much ground to road-building and development. Surely we have a duty to preserve as much of the countryside as we possibly can, for ourselves and for future generations? Lancaster and Morecambe’s traffic problems need dealing with. But it is short-sighted to throw money into a new road; over time, roads create more traffic problems, not less. We should be looking at more imaginative, integrated and progressive solutions. And ones that show more real care for ordinary people."

Mary Chabrel
"I think that the Heysham-M6 link road is a complete waste of money. I think that the northern route would damage the aesthetic environment of rural farming of the land north of Lancaster. I do not believe that it would decrease congestion in Lancaster, as that is mainly locally generated traffic. I think that planning should look at implementing plans that reduce the need for people to travel, rather than encouraging more extensive travel for leisure / work purposes. Planning consents need to consider the impact that their permission would have on the use of additional carbon in society. The aim should be to reduce carbon use not to increase it. Mary Chabrel"

Andrea Brook
"HM6L should not be given approval for the following reasons: Consultation was very limited, and local people weren't given the chance to comment on the whole scheme, or any alternatives. In this current economic climate it would be wise of councils and the govt to seek the cheapest solution to problems rather than lumbering constituents with huge & un-necessary debts. The beautiful greenbelt cannot be recovered once this unwanted scheme is built - light, noise & air pollution will adversely affect the lives of local people, & wildlife will lose its habitat. The purpose of the road is to provide a link from the M6 to the port, but the port is in decline, so the road is not required. LCC has not investigated or implemented any complimentary measures to help reduce congestion, even though it was part of a planning approval - what else have they failed to do? If this road was the answer to Lancaster's congestion problem, it would have been supported by its city councils, and local people. However the majority of the people who live in the area (including myself, until recently) do not support this scheme and feel very let down by a planning system that is forcing a permanent & damaging monstrosity on them, in order for a few county council egos to be massaged."

English Heritage
"The project includes the associated development of the construction of a park and ride facility which inlcudes bus crew faciities and bus shelters. The Explanatory Memorandum to the draft proposed order explains that the park and ride facility is an integral part of the development and notes the role of public transport and parking in promoting tourism in Lancaster. The park and ride facility is located immediately south of the grade II listed building, workshop at Croskell's Farm. The Environmental Statement assesses both the construction and operation impacts of the park and ride on the listed building a Major and that its future viaibility may be put at risk by the scheme. The ES details Proposed Mitigation Measures and states that, "Proposals for the re-use of the Workshop and Building 5 at Cottams Farm will also be developed by Lancashire County Council to ensure the re-use of these buildings and their survival for the future". (ES 8.5.87). English Heritage welcomes this committment and we have produced guidance on the adaptive re-use, maintenance and repair of traditional farm buildings which will be of assistance. We understand that Lancashire County Council is now the owner of the listed building. The Schedule 2 Requirements make no reference to the lised building which is included within the Development Consent Order Boundary. We would wish to see the commitment to a sustainable future for this listed building secured through the development consent process. In addition the need for measures to protect the building during the construction phase and through to its re-use shoud be addressed in order that it does not deteriorate further."

Christopher Bowler
"Overall I support the scheme as it currently stands. I support the diverting of heavy good vehicles bound for and from Heysham and Morecambe away from Caton road, Owen Road, Greyhound bridge, Morecambe Road. To a road more suitable for the level and size of the traffic. I also support the addition of another bridge across the River Lune and the improvements for and improved access to and from the motorway for surrounding areas. The improvements to Junction 34 should also improve the safety of access to and from the motorway."

David Morgan
"Objections: Inadequate evidence on costings: 1. LCC have been vague and inconsistent on questions of cost that have been raised at various meetings. They have failed to answer my letter earlier this month which was looking for detailed answers and clarity. 2. Other costs outside the contract which LCC claim are essential to success e.g. 'Park & Ride' have not been identified and questions of feasibility remain. Evidence which will be available: 1. LCC have changed their answers to major cost questions that were well documented at the Planning Enquiry to justify changes at a later date. 2. The Government's fixed price contribution remains the same over time and with increased costs of materials and interest, LCC have not acknowledged how they will fund this potential increase. Independent cost indices are available to confirm such cost changes. 3. LCC's own costs i.e. tax payers' money for their staff and consultants have been aggravated by a series of delays and revisions to the scheme. Evidence will illustrate ongoing budget cost increases up to and within the construction period to completion. 4. Other costs essential to the project will be identified."

Preston City Council
"Preston City Council have no comments and therefore do not object to the proposed project."

Robert Delaney
"Dear Sir/Madam, Having followed the story of this road and having consulted the planning documents at Morecambe Library I would like to take this opportunity to comment. In my view this road is vital for better economic prospects of Morecambe and so I fully support the construction of the road detailed in the proposals. I also would like to add that I am in the process of establishing a business and have to decide where to locate the business. At present I can present a strong enough case to my investors to be based in Morecambe due to difficulties of accessing the M6. Should this road get the green light then it would make a huge difference in deciding to locate the business in Morecambe. Yours,"

Neil Jebb
"As a local resident of Halton I support the entire project primarily for local economy reasons. In summary I strongly believe the benefits out weigh the negative."

Robert Dixon Waugh
"Having used the local and national road system for over 40 years and worked at both Heysham Power Stations and Centrica I feel that my experience does not give me any confidence in the current propose scheme. When driving away from Heysham the obvious route to the M6 would across the Lune to the south of Lancaster and link up with the M6 south of Galgate as proposed by the Western Route. Unlike the Western Route the Northern Route has many drawbacks that the Lancashire County Council seem to have missed or ignored such as:- The scheme does not provide an answer to the original problem of traffic in Lancaster and access to the Lune Industrial Area and soon to be built residential estate. It has been recognised for many years that an extra Lune crossing was required to the south of Lancaster. The developer proposing to build on the Lune estate was requested, by the Council, to provide funding for a bridge to be built in a similar location to what would have been provided by the Western Route. To build another bridge adjacent to the existing M6 bridge does seem to be an exraordinary waste of time and resources. There will be a major increase in noise and pollution caused by vehicles climbing the hill from the proposed new bridge plus a major accident risk as they come over the brow and accelerate down the hill into a blinding sun setting over Morecambe Bay. Has the Health and Safety Risk Assessment aknowleged this. The forcasts for extra employment, although revised a few times , still seemed wildly optimistic and with the current economic climate totally unrealistic. The traffic predictions should also be viewed with some scepticism especialy as the IOM Steam Packet Company has stated that they could be relocating to Liverpool. It is not inconcievable that Peel Holdings, the main benefactor of the new road, could transfere all their opertations to Liverpool. As this is a distinct possibility the County Council should revert to the original purpose of the M6 Link road which was to alleviate the the problem of excessive traffic going through Lancaster, provide good access to the Lune Industrial area and a new route to north Lancaster, Morecambe and Heysham. The cost to the local taxpayers has still not been finalised even at this late stage of the project."

Geoffrey William Halliwell
"I wish to register my objection to the proposed Northern Route Heysham to the M6 Link Road. Having had sight of the plans for this link road I am of the opinion that it does nothing to alleviate the congestion of traffiic between Morecambe and Lancaster. anyone with local knowledge knows the majority of traffic is caused by people going to and from work locally, the school and university runs, shopping or attending appointments at the Royal Lancaster Infirmary therefore none of this traffic will use the Northern Link Road. The majority of H.G.V's travelling from the Heysham area will want to to go south on the M6, so it makes more sense to sight the Link Road to join the Motorway at Juction 33, cuttng miles off the journey which will be much more enviromentally friendly as they will use less fuel. This would also give better access to White Lund and the Lune Industrial Estates, the Hospital and the University and also relieve congestion through Galgate. This Link Road, as proposed will devastate Torrisholme Village, causing noise and pollution with a road 26 feet in the air and lighting above that all less than 200 meters from residental houses and will bring misery to many of the families who live there. The Link Road does not address the major problems of congestion in the Lancaster and Morecambe area and in fact will create more congestion where it crosses Morecambe Road. This will cause motorists who want to get to and from Lancaster to try and by-pass this junction by going through Torrisholme Village which is already saturated. The orginal opinion poll produced by Lancashire County Council and Lancaster City Council was a total sham and did not give a true picture of the objections to this proposal by the local population."

Neil McSporran
"The intended route will not solve the problems it is intended to, but will move the congestion to other areas of Lancaster and in particular Morecambe. It will also remove much needed sports fields from Lancaster and Morecambe College."

Natural England
"Natural England’s Relevant Representations Natural England is a non-departmental public body established under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. Natural England is the statutory advisor to Government on nature conservation in England and promotes the conservation of England’s wildlife and natural features. Natural England is a statutory consultee in respect of: i. plans or projects that are subject to the requirements of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (the “Habitats Regulations”) and may have a likely significant effect on European sites, including Special Areas of Conservation (“SAC”), candidate Special Areas of Conservation (“cSAC”) and Special Protection Areas (“SPA”), and, by way of Government policy, sites listed under the 1971 Convention on Wetlands of International Importance (“Ramsar site”) and; ii. proposals likely to damage any of the flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features for which a Site of Special Scientific Interest (“SSSI”) has been notified under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) (the “1981 Act”). In determining this application, the Secretary of State will be acting as the competent authority for the purposes of the Habitats Regulations. The Secretary of State is also a section 28G authority with specific duties under the 1981 Act in respect of the SSSIs. Natural England’s comments are based on information submitted by Lancashire County Council in support of its application for a Development Consent Order (“DCO”) in relation to the construction of the Torrisholme to the M6 Link (A683 Completion of Heysham to M6 (Junction 34) Link Road at Lancaster, Lancashire (the “project”). Headline Representations ? Natural England is satisfied that on the basis of information submitted that it can be demonstrated for purposes of the Habitats Regulations, that the project will not have a likely significant effect on Morecambe Bay SPA and Ramsar site; ? Natural England is satisfied that for the purposes of the 1981 Act, the project is not likely to damage the interest features of the Lune Estuary (SSSI) - notably certain bird species, such as curlew and oystercatcher, which sometimes feed on pastures within the corridor of the proposed link road during periods of high water; whilst the proposed construction methodology for the bridge in the Construction Management Plan should avoid impacts that could have a significant adverse effect on sedimentation within the SSSI downstream of the new crossing point over the river Lune. ? Natural England is not satisfied that issues relating to European protected species (bats and otter) have been fully assessed and mitigated for (see sections 1(v) and 2 below). ? Natural England advises that the project, if approved, is subject to all necessary and appropriate requirements, including delivery of the proposed Landscape and Ecological Management Plan to ensure that unacceptable environmental impacts either do not occur or are sufficiently mitigated. Natural England makes the following comments and will submit further specific representations in relation to each of the following topics in due course: Issues for consideration include 1. DCO requirements must ensure delivery of the Mitigation Package ((Construction Management Plan / Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) (6.3 Volume 1 ES Part C Appendices) / Section 106 Unilateral Undertaking relating to Landscape and Ecology (Document 9.3)) and Natural England welcomes further engagement with the applicants to ensure acceptable measures are included in the LEMP i) Ensuring various habitat creation areas secure a net gain for biodiversity, along with conservation and enhancement of BAP habitat and flora; ii) Ensuring management of habitat to restore and conserve habitat for Curlew and Oystercatcher (SPA species), Lapwing and other Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) species; iii) Ensuring management of habitat for bats, including, tree and hedgerow planting to provide foraging habitat; and mitigation for severance of flight line routes where these are dissected by the proposed road route; iv) Conservation and enhancement of the water environment through construction of balancing ponds. v) Natural England is aware that otters breed within the River Lune close to the proposed river crossing and note that survey information does not identify otters being present close to the application site. The DCO should therefore make provision for up to date survey information to be supplied to inform the Promoter and IPC in respect of otters breeding close to the application site and in particular any mitigation or licensing requirements that might be required. 2. European Protected Species Licensing European Protected Species: Common Pipistrelle Bat (Pipistrellus pipistrellus), Brown Long Eared Bat (Plecotus auritus) Natural England assessed a draft Bat Licence application for the Project in December 2011 which failed to meet our licensing requirements on all 3 tests. Advice was given and the issues that are outstanding will need to be addressed. We await fresh applications in due course. Natural England 20 February 2012"

Eric Cuthbertson
"The high monetary cost, destruction of green belt, and disruption of communities are not justified, since any likely benefits in reducing traffic congestion would be minimal. 1. Much of the congestion in the urban area is local traffic, mainly private cars, to and from local businesses, schools, hospitals, universities, etc., and does not involve HGVs to and from Heysham. 2. The major bottlenecks of Morecambe Road, the inadequate River crossings, particularly the antiquated Skerton Bridge, and the tortuous Lancaster one-way system would not be relieved by the proposed sheme. 3. I have observed on many occasions that the existing Heysham by-pass is very under-utilised by all traffic, including HGVs. 4. The choice of a northern route to the M6 would be beneficial mainly to HGVs and other vehicles travelling to and from Heysham from the north. For HGVs coming from or heading to the south it would be circuitous and it is likely that many would continue to use the Lancaster one-way system, to avoid extra mileage. 5. Access of HGVs to the Lune Industrial area would still require use of the inadequate Lancaster one-way system. 5. Local communities, particularly Torrishome and Halton would be faced with major disruption during the construction phase, and long-term loss of amenity (noise, pollution, visual disturbance, etc.) 6. Considerable green belt area, much of it of great beauty, would be destroyed. 7. The construction phase, including new flyovers, slip-roads and remodelling of Junction 34 would cause a major increase in congestion on the A6 north of Lancaster for a prolonged period. 8. Cost estimates have risen several times and would undoubtedly increase further, mainly at the Ratepayers' expense. Attention needs to be given to pursuing lower-cost alternatives, including the traffic layout on Morecambe Road, the Lancaster one-way system and, longer term, the river crossings."

John Leach
"The link road was proposed over 60 years ago. The world has changed since then. There is a need to reduce the emission of carbon into the atmosphere, yet this scheme increases the carbon footprint of society. The alternatives to the proposal were different road schemes with a cursory mention of other, less carbon intensive forms of transport. There is no economic assessment of these schemes; rather they are dismissed. It would be more challenging to enhance the transport of the region with less carbon intensive modes of transport but that is a challenge this proposal has failed to meet. It has to meet that challenge if the rhetoric of “the greenest government” is to be realised. There is a need to examine thoroughly the mix of alternatives to more roads. There is circumstantial evidence from other areas of highway development around Lancaster that Lancashire County Council tend dismiss alternatives to motor vehicles before those options are fully explored. This appears to have been what has happened with this proposed development. There are no clearly stated measures in the proposal to restrict the growth of carbon emitting vehicle traffic on the existing network once the proposed link road is open. Based on experience elsewhere, without such measures motorised vehicular traffic will likely increase and inhibit other less carbon producing forms of transport such as walking and cycling. The derivation of economic impact is given minimal explanation. There is no evidence of sensitivity analysis. There appears to be a belief that the plan will be followed precisely yet a robust plan should take into account the actions that will have to be taken. No effects of these are shown in the cost benefit (Economic) analysis. In summary the proposal has: 1. Not taken into account the shift in paradigm during the last six decades of the need to use less carbon emitting forms of transport; 2. An economic analysis that shows lack of rigour as it omits any signs of sensitivity analysis."

Eileen Mullervy
"• Consultation has been inadequate. Lancashire County Council has consulted on some details of the scheme, not the scheme as a whole. • Other alternative solutions have not been properly considered, for example a package of sustainable transport measures • Other routes have not been properly considered • Other designs have not been properly considered, for example: - road under, rather than over, the West Coast Main Line and Lancaster Canal - Traffic light controlled junction at Morecambe Road/ Torrisholme Road, rather than embankment 26 ft high • Road doesn’t solve local congestion: traffic increases on many roads • Road doesn’t achieve stated aims: job forecasts are unreliable. • Scheme will damage North Lancashire Green Belt and Lancaster Canal • Scheme will damage local communities, bringing noise, light and air pollution. • Scheme will be unsightly: road on embankment 26 ft high at Morecambe Road/ Torrisholme Road • At Halton, - traffic will increase by 74% on Halton Road, which is already dangerous. - Steep incline on Lune Bridge will increase noise • Cost to Lancashire taxpayers not clearly stated."

Raymond Parkinson
"I consider other routes need to be investigated for their merits.... The current scheme is a very unsightly planning proposal,especially at Torrisholme.... Will not solve any local congestion.... If the heysham ferry closes (as mentioned in the press) will it be a pointless expense ?"

Morecambe Town Council
"I was elected by the voters of Torrisholme ward to represent them on Morecambe Town Council because I promised to support them against the development that would have such a devastating effect on the village and community. N.B. L have registered in my own right as a resident who would be adversely affected by the development - registration I.D.:10015332"

Priscilla Jones
"• This link road does not adequately address Lancaster and Morecambe’s traffic congestion. • It will destroy an area of Green Belt. • It may increase the risk of flooding in the Halton area. • The proposed road does not give value for money. • It makes no consideration of other transport alternatives. • It will encourage the use or roads which in contrary to government initiatives. • The road will increase greenhouse gases. • It damages communities such as Torrisholme and Halton with air, light and noise pollution that could be irrevocable. • Lancaster and Morecambe College will suffer in such close proximity to the road losing valuable land that could be used for the development of new college buildings in the future. • The regeneration claims are flawed and have now been discredited."

Joyce Walker
"I disagree with the road in principle, the south route from junction 33 (M6) was not considered fully. The road costs to Lancashire taxpayers have not been clearly stated - and costs are increasing daily. Most of the traffic in Lancaster is local - this road will not solve that congestion - and traffic on many roads will increase. At Halton the steep incline on the Lune Bridge will increase noise and polution. The new bridge as proposed is of utilitarian design which obscures our existing bridge - M6 - Lune. At Torrisholme the sheme will be unsightly with the road 26 feet high near the houses. In both places it will cause light and noise pollution. The scheme will also damage the environment in the Green Belt and Lancaster Canal."

H.J. Fielding
"This is the wrong road, going in the wrong direction. This question has been the topic of discussion for many years. I've asked numerous people for ideas & opinions, & not one agrees with the application! Consultation by Lancashire County Council has been inadequate, as most working people have not been able to attend. The main, alternative route has not been considered, nor have alternative sustainable transport measures. This road will not: solve local traffic congestion, (in fact it will increase the problem) give the stated employment benefits. It will be unsightly, noisy & a pollutant. It will damage local communities, not least financially. As true total costs are unknown (but will surely be passed on to Lancashire taxpayers) The Halton area will suffer greatly. The proposed junction with the M6 looks horrendous on the plans, & , I suspect, be an abomination if it is allowed to go ahead In view of the massive local objections, it would seem to be an expensive political game. Dont build it!"

Richard P. Taylor on behalf of Paul Wilkinson
"We support, in principle, the aims to enhance access for businesses, the improvements to the existing motorway junction and the potential benefits to the Port of Heysham, Heysham Power Station and the wider local and regional economy. Our principal concerns are specific to fencing, landscaping and access to retained land."

A Moncaster
"1. This road will not solve local traffic congestion. 2. Damage will be done to the North Lancashire Green Belt. 3. Local communities will suffer greatly from eg. noise and air pollution. 4. The 26ft high embankment (and road) is visually unacceptable. 5. At a time of such austerity road schemes like this should not even be considered. The cost to the taxpayer is not specified, but would probably be considerable."

Richard P. Taylor on behalf of Sharon Tracey Wilson
"We support, in principle, the aims to enhance access for businesses, the improvements to the existing motorway junction and the potential benefits to the Port of Heysham, Heysham Power Station and the wider local and regional economy. Our principal concerns are specific to fencing, landscaping and access to retained land."

Mr Cyril Potter
"Slip road from Halton onto the proposed M6 Link to Heysham, via Halton Road/ Church Brow/ Shefferlands roundabout. This slip road was added by Lancashire County Council to the original M6 Link to Heysham scheme after the 2001 Public consultation. LCC claim there were many requests for a slip road from the village of Halton. LCC have been unable to substantiate this claim. Halton with Aughton Parish Council will assert that a majority of villagers are in favour of the slip road. The method they used to support this argument are questionable. Impact on public safety on Halton Road/ Church Brow. If the proposed M6 Link to Heysham is built, including the Halton slip road, L.C.C have forecast an increase of 74% traffic flow on Halton Road/ Church Brow (ie. 4600 to 8000 movements daily. L.C.C have acknowledged for years that this narrow road is an accident blackspot.With blind bends, all residents will confirm the dangers inherent on egress from the various gateways. A 74% increase in traffic will inevitably lead to serious accidents. Impact on the built and natural environment. With a 74% increase in traffic on Halton Rd/ Church Brow, there is a grave risk of damage through vibration to ancient retaining walls, either side of the road. This road lies in a high risk flood area and is periodically flooded, preventing all traffic movement. I will expand on these issues with documentation and photographs."

Joy Greenwood
"I OBJECT STRONGLY TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS ROAD. THE IDEA WAS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED TO BUILD A BY-PASS TO THE NORTH OF LANCASTER (AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE REJECTED WESTERN BY-PASS) IN ORDER TO EASE TRAFFIC CONGESTION THROUGH THE CITY. THIS ROAD, NOW CALLED MORE CORRECTLY THE HEYSHAM TO M6 LINK ROAD, WILL DO LITTLE TO EASE LANCASTER'S TRAFFIC PROBLEMS. IF A LINK TO HEYSHAM DOCKS AND THE POWER STATIONS IS INDEED NEEDED. SURELY PRIORITY SHOULD BE GIVEN TO IMPROVING THE ALREADY EXISTING LINK - THE SPUR OFF THE WEST COAST MAIN LINE RAILWAY, WHICH APPEARS TO BE UNDERUSED AND UNDERPROMOTED AT PRESENT. THE LINK ROAD, WHICHEVER ROUTE IT TAKES, WILL IRREVOCABLY DAMAGE THE LOCAL ENVIRONMENT FOR BOTH HOUSEHOLDERS AND FARMERS EN ROUTE; AND IMPINGE ON THE GREEN BELT NORTH OF THE CITY. MY OTHER OBJECTION IS THE MONETARY COST TO THE LANCASHIRE TAXPAYER AT A TIME WHEN SEVERE CUTS ARE TAKING PLACE IN OUR ESSENTIAL PUBLIC SERVICES. IT SEEMS INDECENT TO SPEND SO MUCH MONEY FOR THE BENEFIT OF SO FEW!"

Doreen Nabb
"1) Road doesn't solve local congestion traffic increases during school/college etc. term time to school/colleges within the area from Lancaster to Morecambe + Morecambe to lancaster. 2) Other alternative salution have not been properly considered, for example a package of sustainable transport measures. 3) Other routes have not been properly considered 4) Other designs have not been properly considered road to be under rather than over the west coast main line and canal. Traffic light controlled junction at Morecambe Rd/Torrisholme Rd rather than embankment 26ft high 5) Scheme will damage local communities, bringing noise, light and air polution at Halton traffic will increase by 74% in Halton Rd. which is already dangerous. Cost to Lancashire taxpayers not clearly stated, whilst austerity times show job loses. Important care facility closing."

John Wilding
"Objection 1. The serious dangers to public safety on Church Brow which would receive an extra 74% traffic. This road is already dangerous due to narrowness, blind bends and high stone walls. Exits and entrances to all properties are already extremely dangerous. 2 .The greatly increased dangers of accidents to all users of St. Wilfrid’s parish church. 3. Deleterious effects on the historic conservation area where 20 buildings, walls and ancient gate piers are listed. 4. Significant increase in noise, light and air pollution with reference to a Lune bridge, a roundabout at Shefferlands and increased traffic. 5. The failure in LCC environmental assessments, to include recent data on otter movements in the Lune and tributary becks along the proposed route Information and local knowledge Re 1-4 - Photographic evidence - Experience of living by Church Brow for over 30 years Re 5 – A complete log of otter sightings on this very stretch of the river Lune covering the last 10 months. - CCTV film showing 700 sightings of otters here over the last 10 months."

A J Bancroft
"- I agree that dealing with congestion in Lancaster/Morecambe is urgently needed. - The proposed Heysham to M6 Link Road will not solve congestion problem - Consultation has been less than comprehensive - Other routes have not been fully examined/investigated - The scheme will damage much good agricultural land - Local communities will be damaged (sound, light and air pollution creating an unhealthy environment) - Road embankment (26ft high) by entrance to crematorium lane on Torrisholme Road will be an eye-sore - Car parking on streets will be a problem when Lancaster and Morecambe College grounds are reduced. - The peace of the Lancaster and Morecambe crematorium will be compromised - Lancashire County Council has increased contribution to cost by £6,000,000 and agreed to cover any further extra costs - it is very doubtful if this project should/could be afforded when it will not solve the original congestion problem"

Roger Dennison
"I object to the original proposal on behalf of constituents The new proposals do not address the concerns 1 Environmental impact round the clock noise on elevated highway affecting wards of Skerton and Torrisholme. 2 Elevated nature of this highway will be difficult to mitigate effect above 3 In line with above, european legislation on human rights and environmental likely to be contravened (use of 1970's standards in UK unacceptible) 4 The nature of junction at Morecambe Road will result in excessive congestion and noise from particularily commercial vehicles will exacerbated affecting 1-3 above 5 Cost benefit analysis is flawed, as the only credible improvement is acess to the port of Heysham and the power station and these benefits are entirely dependant on economic activity externally which will be relatively low in the short to medium term. Not reflected in current figures 6 The local planning authority has identified a crossing of the Lune between Lancaster and Morecambe as essential which mitigates against the above proposed route. Many developments agreed require alt to proposed route below are examples 1/ South Lancaster development (inc Salgate air pollution) 2/ University science park 3/ Lancaster quay development"

Paul Mason
"I believe that the proposed M6 link to Heysham has many negative aspects. 1 I believe that a route to link the port of Heysham to the M6 has several other possibilities that would be far less damaging to what is currently a very beautiful area. 2 I believe that there has been insufficient consultation with the residents of Halton. The recent poll that was conducted that suggests that the village is in favour of the proposed road was carried out with a very small percentage of the village population - had the entire village been involved the results would have been very different. 3 I have no direct connection with the land in question and the house I live in would not be directly affected either audibly or visually by the proposed road system. 4 I believe that the plan to run the road through the neighbouring areas of the Slyne and Torrisholme has been taken because it is a cheaper alternative to the building of a bridge across the Lune to connect with the M6 at a point around JCT33 5 The argument that the traffic situation in Lancaster City Centre would be alleviated by the new road just isnt true. The vast majority of this is caused by traffic travelling between Morcambe & Lancaster directly not Heysham."

Mr Ronald Liver
"1/ Consultation has been inadequate and the views of local residents of Lancaster and Morecambe have been ignored. 2/ Other routes have not properly considered. 3/ The new road will not solve local congestion traffic increases on many roads 4/ Road doesn’t achieve stated aims and will also damage North Lancashire green belt and Lancaster Canal. 5/ Scheme will bring noise and increase a pollution. 6/ Scheme will be unsightly with a road on an embankment 26ft high at Morecambe Rd/Torrisholme. 7/ Traffic will increase on Halton Road which is already dangerous. 8/ Cost to Lancashire tax payers not clearly stated."

Elizabeth Lawson
"1. Lancashire C.C.'s justifications for the scheme have been undermined - over optimistic claims for new jobs and Heysham Port Traffic. Today the Isle of Man Steam Packet Co. says it is considering a move to Liverpool from Heysham, as it's freight customers would prefer this. 2. The proposed scheme ignores local problems such as gridlock in Lancaster city centre, and will move congestion to new districts in the area. 3. Consultation on this scheme has been very superficial, with no serious attempt to address local concerns. 4. A considerable increase in pollution is predicted by L.C.C. itself as a result of this scheme, ignoring government guidelines. Less polluting alternatives have not been seriously considered. 5. There is no transparency about the costs of this scheme, and no consultation to gain public approval since L.C.C. has agreed to open-ended funding of it."

Elma Eastwood
"I am totally against the dual carriage way connecting A683 & A589 Ref. No HEY-00013. We do not want any traffic flowing on to the Morecambe Rd as this a bottle neck for traffic going into Lancaster. We need another bridge over the the river Lune & this would be provided by the western By-Pass. Skerton bridge was built in 1789 for horse and carts. If this was washed away we would only be left with Greyhound bridge for 2 way traffic. The western by-pass comes out S of Galgate & traffic could join the motorway at Hampton Green & so avoid Lancaster. It would also provide easier access to the University"

June Simpson
"Fact 1 The most important point, I as a local would like to make - the bridge were it is going on the North 'Link is in the wrong place to help the people of L/C & M/C, I will be going through villages & funneling traffic through country side, with no help at all to local people. (Traffic wise) Fact 2 A bridge at the South of L/C would help everyone, 1) Local traffic 2) Houses are being build at the quay up to now 400 and rising, they could go over the new bridge (South) if going to M/C not touching L/C 3) Univercity traffic coming of M/C straight onto South 'Link - again not touching L/C 4) The lorrie's (heavy) would go straigh across to Heysham, not coming back on itself 10ml like they would on the North 'Link. 5) Most traffic has to go over Skerton Bridge build in the 1800, yes a good bridge in its time, but will it go on for ever? If that bridge was to callaps what then? A new bridge would be needed, and you cant build a bridge over night.!! 6) The cost would be so much less on South - than North. This is the oppinion of a local of 72 yrs & hubby 77yr a least think about what I have wrote."

Richard P. Taylor on behalf of David Sowerby
"We support, in principle, the aims to enhance access for businesses, the improvements to the existing motorway junction and the potential benefits to the Port of Heysham, Heysham Power Station and the wider local and regional economy. Our principal concerns are specific to fencing, landscaping and access to retained land."

Mrs Margaret Waring on behalf of Miss Nicola Waring
"My daughter xxx owns a flat on xxx abut 100 yards from the proposed overpass. xxx The flat is let as my daughter works away (teaching for the army) If we are unable to let the property when the work begins due to disruption, noise etc, she will be unable to pay her mortgage. Selling is probably not an option due to the threat of the proposed development. This is probably going to blight the property for several years to come. We have never had any difficulty letting to-date. Hopefully we won't in the future, but I would like to think we would be compensated if the worst happens."

Mr Deegan
"I feel that Lancashire County Council mislead the Dept. for Transport by incorrectly alledging that costs would be saved by raising the Shefferlands Roundabout if this road scheme goes ahead. I think that this whole scheme is a waste of public money. There is already a rail link to Heysham Port and this could be upgraded. New roads do not solve traffic problems."

John Westmoreland
"3.1 HEY-00006 1) Some query the need for the Link Road-a third Heysham Power Station is in prospect, but the previous two were co nstructed with (less than) the present road system. The Heysham Harbour area has not attracted the further developments possibly anticipated. If the purpose is to link Heysham to the M6, then "obviously" a Western route would be better, also servicing the various industrial estates and drawing that traffic away from Junction 34. 2) Lancashire County Council, etc:, I understand, originally favoured a Western route, which the then consultation documents told us, passed by the SSSI. If the will is there, any wildlife can be preserved, even if some were relocated (as successfully done on some other major projects). One wonders if previous advocates of the Western route now support the Northern route, for fear of having no new road at all. 3) M6 Junction 34 sits in a hollow, with a curve to the north and is not a good junction; it is also busy at commuting times (queueing on the hard shoulder not being unknown). More traffic will make it worse. I personally never use this junction. Junction 33 is safer, less busy and more free of other activities in the near vicinity. (One would not, however, want to cause greater traffic flow on the A6 through Galgate). 4) Construction and subsequent use of the Northern route will contribute noise, pollution, congestion and local property blight, passing through a residential area, also including the local College. One would also expect fewer interruptions and interactions in establishing a Western route. 5) Current leaflets and consultation information (see enclosed example) show pristine roads, set in countryside, with very little traffic. This is misleading, not representative of the whole route and docs not convince of the need for this Link Road. 6) Any arguments offered about travel distances for traffic using Junction 33 instead of junction 34 are of no consequence, in view of the negligible distance between them and are anyway outweighed by the considerations mentioned above. 7) The Northern route will do nothing to alleviate the area's most significant congestion and air pollution problems; those associated with (a) The Lancaster City Centre Ring Road, and (b) Traffic between Lancaster and Morecambe, in both directions. 8) The proposed Park & Ride at Junction 34 is a dubious prospect for success, but it might well attract traffic which would have otherwise used Junction 33 or 35, thereby increasing traffic at Junction 34."

Magda Westmoreland
"1) Some query the need for the Link Road- a third Heysham Power Station is in prospect, but the previous two were constructed with (less than) the present road system. The Heysham Harbour area has not attracted the further developments possibly anticipated. If the purpose is to link Heysharn to the M6, then "obviously" a Western route would be better, also servicing the various industrial estates and drawing that traffic away from Junction 34. 2) Lancashire County Council, etc:, I understand, originally favoured a Western route, which the then consultation documents told us, passed by the SSSI. If the will is there, any wildlife can be preserved, even if some were relocated (as successfully done on some other major projects). One wonders if previous advocates of the Western route now support the Northern route, for fear of having no new road at all. 3) M6 Junction 34 sits in a hollow, with a curve to the north and is not a good junction; it is also busy at commuting times (queueing on the hard shoulder not being unknown). More traffic will make it worse. I personally never use this junction. Junction 33 is safer, less busy and more free of other activities in the near vicinity. (One would not, however, want to cause greater traffic flow on the A6 through Galgate). 4 ) Construction and subsequent use of the Northern route will contribute noise, pollution, congestion and local property blight, passing through a residential area, also including the local College. One would also expect fewer interruptions and interactions in establishing a Western route. 5) Current leaflets and consultation information (see enclosed example) show pristine roads, set in countryside, with very little traffic. This is misleading, not representative of the whole route and does not convince of the need for this Link Road. 6) Any arguments offered about travel distances for traffic using Junction 33 instead of junction 34 are of no consequence, in view of the negligible distance between them and are anyway outweighed by the considerations mentioned above. 7) The Northern route will do nothing to alleviate the area's most significant congestion and air pollution problems; those associated with (a) The Lancaster City Centre Ring Road, and (b) Traffic between Lancaster and Morecambe, in both directions. 8) The proposed Park & Ride at Junction 34 is a dubious prospect for success, but it might well attract traffic which would have otherwise used Junction 33 or 35, thereby increasing traffic at Junction 34."

Michael Franklin
"1. The proposed route will not reduce the level of traffic which is a major problem between Lancaster and Morecambe. 2. Further considerations should be given to the Western route and the provisions of another bridge over the River Lung. 3. The proposed route will cause noise, air pollution and many other problems to the areas affected with little purpose. 4. There is, therefore no justification to spend such a large amount of money. 5. Another alternative which should be considered is to improve public transport services (mainly the railway). 6. I am concerned about the arrangements for draining surface water and the possibility of flooding."

Judith Franklin
"1. The majority of traffic for Heysham Port comes from the South, therefore the route should go from the South of Lancaster to Heysham - the Western route would be much more direct and provide a new bridge over the river, which is desperately needed. 2. The proposed route will cause a great deal of pollution from noise, fumes and light to a considerable number of homes. 3. We are very concerned about the possibility of flooding from surface water. 4. The cost of this route is rising all the time and will no doubt far exceed the figure being quoted. As the country and county are short of money this sort of spending on a route which will not serve its proposed purpose is profligate in the extreme."

Howard Dodgson
"We have now waited far too long for this Bi-Pass. I travel regularly between Lancaster & Morecambe. The traffic chaos on most occasions is a disgrace. The new road can only assist matters & ease congestion. Looking at the bigger picture, new jobs will be created and this will provide a much needed stimulus to the local and national economy. Lets get on with it!"

DH Kenworthy
"My objection's to the application for the (TR010008) is first the flood risk to The Grosvenor Park est. The Surface Water runoff from the for said {TR010008} into the into the above mentioned Grosvenor Park est. Weather the flow is slowed by a battle system as said at a previous meeting with the pro bypass lobby. The Drainage on Grosvenor Park est can cope with water from the existing roads as the water stands for long periods (weeks) as the flow south is in fact North flowing. If this Road goes ahead the Grosvenor park est will flood but other people who live on Grosvenor Park Dont Know as they are not engineers so they should be informed of that very soon."

Mrs E Hales
"1/ Other alternative solutions have not been properly considered i.e. Transport Expert, Faber Maunsell's recommendations. 2/ Other routes have not been properly considered. 3/ Road dosen't solve local congestion: Traffic increases on many roads. 4/ Road dosen't achieve sated aims: Job forecasts are unreliable 5/ Scheme will be unsightly: Road on embankment 26ft high at Morecambe Road/ Torrisholme Road/ Lancaster Road. 6/ Cost to Lancashire taxpayers not clearly stated. 7/ It is reported that the Government will support the Lancashire Council project to the tune of £111m. In the country's present financial situation this is not sustainable nor needed at this time. The total cost has yet to be realistically considered and agreed. 8/ The need to continually pay for the dredging of Heysham Harbour will lead to the port's restricted use. 9/ Isle of Man Steam Packet Co. have recently closed its Fleetwood service and most likely in the near future, its Heysham service. 10/ Liverpool, Holyhead and Stranraer will remain the Irish sea's main ports. 11/ Improvements should be made to the rail service between Lancaster and Heysham via Morecambe"

Mrs B Morrow
"I wish to stress that the proposed route from Heysham to the M6 would not affect me except that Morecambe Road would become busier where this link road would cross it. I have attended meetings where even the experts have admitted this proposed route would only result in a very small drop in in the traffic on Morecambe Road. A large number of people travel daily to work from Lancaster and District to White Lund Estate, Morecambe and Heysham and vice versa. The Westerley route with a new bridge over the river would take much of the traffic out of the city centre completely, especially people travelling South or to the Universities. Why should a good college of further education have to lose some of its land for this bad proposal or a road and , worse still, many people have their lives (and value of their homes ) ruined by having a high bridge over Torrisholme Road with noisy traffic built near them? Since traffic increased during the last century everyone like me, born and bred in Lancaster, has wished for another bridge to ease the situation. The proposed link does nothing to help but would cause much distress to many people."

Mrs K Staveley
"The consultation by L.C.C. re this application has been inadequate, covering only certain concepts, but not the scheme as a whole and the damaging impact it would have on the environment. Shorter and more direct routes are available which would considerably reduce the cost, but these have been summarily dismissed by L.C.C. The council have not taken into consideration alternative designs to the existing scheme - eg. underpasses and traffic light controlled junctions, all of which are feasible but which have again been dismissed. The link road will not solve the urgent need for reduction in local traffic congestion, and will increase the bulk of traffic on many roads. Irreparable damage will be caused to the North Lancashire green belt, Lancaster Canal etc, and will devastate much of the landscape and abundant wild life. The proposed 26ft high embankments over two major roads will be costly, unsightly, and will harm local communities by increasing noise, light and air pollution, and invasion of privacy to the many homes unfortunate enough to be sited close by. It has been estimated that the amount of traffic on roads approaching the small rural community of Halton, already dangerous and overused, would increase by 74% - and again, noise and pollution would be vastly increased. The cost of the construction of the proposed link road has still not been clearly stated to Lancashire tax payers, and the optimistic prediction of job creation by L.C.C. is at best unreliable. There is much opposition to this link road in the locality - Lancaster - Morecambe - Heysham - Slyne, and also the village of Halton. I sincerely hope the IPC will give full consideration to all of these points before granting approval of the scheme."