The M1/M69 Link, Consultation and the Highways Agency
Submitted by: Malcolm Fox on Jun 05, 2006
Note: Whilst I am a Parish Councillor and Past-Chair, the
views I express here are entirely my own and do not reflect
upon, nor commit, the Leicester Forest East Parish Council
in any way.
The M1 Widening and M1/M69 link road Consultation Evening
at the Parish Hall a week ago last Monday was a lesson to
the Highways Agency in 'how not to do it'.
First, it was insensitive to hold a Consultation Evening
in Kirby Muxloe when the main effects of the proposed scheme
would be in Leicester Forest. East. I put this down to their
a lack of local knowledge and not asking the really local
councils.
Second, having been pushed to have another consultation in
Leicester Forest East, they should have ensured that all houses
affected had a letterbox delivery of the day, date and location,
in good time. They said that they commissioned a delivery
agency to do this but many people either did not receive a
notice or very late on.
Third, having annoyed people by an apparent lack of notice,
they were not prepared for the intense interest of the residents
who came along.
Fourth, it is usual in these consultations to present alternative
schemes and they should have presented some in this case.
I was concerned that the scheme presented was on a 'take it
or leave it' basis.
Fifth, some small progress was made by a councillor acting
as de facto Chair for a stand-up question and answer session.
There is a lot going on at various levels and I understand
that there are plans for a Consultation Meeting organised
by the Parish Council on Tuesday, the 13th, in the Parish
Hall which will help them with their formal written response
to the Highways Agency.
My view is that the proposed scheme will have a serious environmental
impact on the centre and southwest parts of Leicester Forest
East. It is far too complex, overengineered and very expensive
for what it sets out to do. The disruption caused by the replacement
of the A47 overbridge will be horrendous. It will cause a
blight on house sales in the Parish because the proposed scheme
will not be started until 2013, completion 2015. The revised
north-bound LFE Service Area will need an access road from
the west, across land to the south of Forest East Lane (or
as an extension to it!), because the current service road
access bridge will be removed.
Various people are working hard on alterantive schemes but
the essence of any alternative proposals must be:
- to move the start of the M1//M69 flyover to the south,
between the LFE Service Area and Jn.21. This removes the need
to replace the A47 Hinckley Road overbridge, a major reduction
in cost, requiring no house/front garden purchases and no
construction chaos.
- moving the start of the M1/M69 link road flyover to south
of the LFE Service Area will leave the Service Area untouched,
another major reduction in cost. The service access road and
bridge from the Hinckley Road will remain and no service access
from the west behind existing housing will be needed.
- the south-bound M1/M69 flyover slip road will be on land
to the east of the M1 (to the left going south) already owned
by the Highways Agency, which they were apparently unaware
of. The northbound M69/M1 connection can be achieved by improving
the existing slip road.
[I USED TO HAVE AN OLD, ~1970'S, MAP OF LEICESTER WHICH SHOWED
A DRAFT FLYOVER FROM THE M69 TO THE M1, BETWEEN THE LFE SERVICE
AREA AND Jn.21. HAS ANYONE GOT ONE OF THESE MAPS? - THAT WAS
THE REASON FOIR THE PURCHASE OF THE STRIP OF LAND ON THE EAST
OF THE M1 WHICH RUNS DOWN TO THE MAKRO CARPARK, JUST SHORT
OF WATERGATE LANE].
- the M1/M69 Link road would run behind the Lubbesthorpe
Abbey archeological site, to the southwest of it, causing
very much less wild life, ecological and archeological damage
than the proposed scheme,
- the new road would be much shorter and only require one
bridge and a short fly-over, against five bridges and a long
fly-over for the Highways Agency. Again, a substantial reduction
in cost.
- the environmental impact of schemes including these features
on Leicester Forest East would be minimal. Blight on the housing
market in Leicester Forest East would not happen.
ARGUMENTS AGAINST the revised schemes - mainly with traffic
conflict for vehicles emerging from the southbound Servivce
Area to continue down the M1 and southbound vehicles wanting
to exit at Jn.21. However, if we look around the motorway
network and its junctions, there are plenty of similar examples
of several junctions within the distance of the LFE Service
Area and Jn.21. My examples would be various junctions on
the M25, such as immediately south of the Dartford Bridge
Crossing, the complicated junctions immediately south of the
M4/M5 interchage near Bristol, a more recent design being
the series of M621/M1, M62 and A650 junctions in West Yorkshire.
Readers will no doubt have similar series of motorway junctions
in mind elsewhere from their experience.
An alternative tunnel underpass scheme has been mooted. The
problem with this is that the Highways Agency avoids them
because of the consequences of accidents occurring in them.
The 'lie of the land' just before Jn.21, dropping down towards
the junction, would give a steep descent to a curving underpass
tunnel, not good in winter. The land is very sandy, difficult
to construct a tunnel in, with many deepwater springs in that
area which surface in the fields nearby. For these conditions,
a tunnel would be very expensive.
The underpass on Watergate Lane might be considered for the
southbound M1/M69 link, it is wide enough for two lanes in
the same direction. The difficulty is with the curving approach
roads required on each side of the underpass and the land
for the curved road required possibly impinging on the Lubbesthorpe
site. Through access on Watergate Lane would also be lost.
This alternative should be considered but it probably will
not 'go very far'.
It is not enough to be against the current Highway Agency
proposal - we must prepare good arguments against it and also
propose much better alternative schemes. I am very pleased
to discuss alternative schemes which are much better overall
,and in particular for LFE, than the Highways Agency Scheme.
Anybody could have designed the Highways Agency scheme, clearly
'anybody did' without much thought, local knowledge or sensitivity.
There must be a better way which does not cause such an environmental
impact on Leicester Forest East
