Andrew Webber
"I am opposed to this scheme as it will require the destruction of local countryside and will lead to increased volumes of traffic through the Peak District National Park. We should be aiming to reduce overall traffic volumes, not just to reduce carbon emissions but to achieve wider sustainability and avert the Climate Emergency. It is a simple fact that building more roads leads to more traffic which will have a detrimental effect on the environments which the roads pass through, as well as the contributing to global warming. In particular the Peak District National Park should be protected at all costs."

John Pasiecznik
"I strongly oppose this proposed "half-a-bypass", as I suspect most other people in Glossopdale who responded to the latest (of many) public consultations in 2020 also do. If built, this wholly unsatisfactory half-a-bypass will actually greatly increase vehicular traffic in Hadfield, Hollingworth and Glossop, and Highways England admits that. I submitted a FOI request to Highways England to have a copy of the results of the 2020 public consultation, and finally received this response (pasted below) on 28.03.21. Can you now provide me with the full results of the 2020 consultation into this wholly unsatisfactory new road proposal. NB: For the past 60 years, local residents have been promised a FULL and PROPER bypass from the end of the M67 motorway at Mottram to the east of Tintwistle i.e. it will take ALL trans-Pennine traffic out of the whole of the Glossopdale and the villages of Mottram, Hollingworth and Tintwistle; what we're getting now is a cheap and incomplete compromise half-a-bypass which will cause more congestion and traffic problems in the area. Thanks John Dear Mr Pasiecznik, I am writing to advise you that we do hold information that is relevant to your request on 31/03/2021 but regret to inform you of my decision not to disclose this information. The information you requested is being withheld in reliance on the exception in regulation 12(4)(d) [EIR regulation 12] of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 because the information is in draft format and therefore incomplete. In applying this exception we have had to balance the public interest in withholding the information against the public interest in disclosure. The key public interest factors for and against disclosure are below: Request for Information EIR 101998 - A57 Link roads public consultation EIR Regulation 12(4)(d) – Material in the course of completion, unfinished documents and incomplete data Factors supporting disclosure Factors supporting non-disclosure There is a clear public interest in the work of government being closely examined to encourage the discharging of public functions in the most efficient and effective way; There is an important public interest in the work of public bodies being transparent and open to scrutiny to increase diligence and to protect the public purse; Information is in draft form and therefore incomplete. The data needs to be contextualised in order to interpret the information. If disclosed in current state i.e. without contextualisation, it may cause ambiguity once the final version of the report has been published. The Public Consultation report is to be published and made available to the general public in due course. If you are unhappy with the way we have handled your request you may ask for an internal review. Our internal review process is available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/highways-england/about/complaints-procedure If you require a print copy, please phone the Information Line on 0300 123 5000; or e-mail [email protected]. You should contact me if you wish to complain. If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at: Information Commissioner’s Office Wycliffe House Water Lane Wilmslow Cheshire SK9 5AF If you have any queries about this letter, please contact me. Please remember to quote reference number 101998 in any future communications. Yours sincerely, Andrew Dawson Project Manager – A57 Link Roads Regional Investment Programme NW Highways England | 5th Floor | 3 Piccadilly Place | Manchester | M1 3BN Web: www.highwaysengland.co.uk I am totally opposed to this half-a-bypass, half-baked scheme for the following pertinent reasons: * I live in Hadfield, and, if the half-a-bypass is ever completed (which I hope it never is) then traffic on nearby Dinting Road will INCREASE by 45%, with increases in traffic on nearby Shaw Lane and Cemetery Road. * Air pollution will increase on nearby Dinting Road. * There would be more vehicular noise near Woolley Bridge, close to my house. I could go on and on about the huge disadvantages of this half-a-bypass proposal but the above 3 points are important enough. For 60 years, we have been promised a FULL by-pass from the end of the M67 motorway to east of Tintwistle, by-passing Mottram, Hollingworth, and Tintwistle, Instead local residents are being fobbed off with this dreadful road scheme."

Peter Allen
"I believe the proposed road scheme will increase traffic rather than decrease it and will contribute to higher carbon emissions at a time when carbon emissions need to be cut drastically. Increased traffic at faster speeds will also increase accidents.The scheme will do little to reduce journey times, little to reduce air pollution and nothing to improve the quality of life for the vast majority of Glossopdale residents. Construction will cause massive inconvenience for many years, with little or no long term benefit. The tens of millions of pounds which the scheme will cost would be much better spent on improving public transport, including replacing diesel powered buses with electric or hydrogen powered buses. Pedestrian and cycle routes could be greatly enhanced"

Andrew Tickle
"In outline, I believe that the application should be refused on the grounds that it will not provide a sufficient balance of benefits (for the few) over a series of significant impacts (for the many). Whilst some residential areas will enjoy reduced traffic levels, overall traffic levels will increase markedly on many other satellite roads (and within the Peak District National Park, affecting wildlife and tranquillity), leading to further congestion, air pollution, carbon emissions and additional collisions and serious injuries. The scheme does not represent a sustainable solution to the problem, especially in the light of the climate emergency and the Government's binding target to reach carbon net zero by 2050 and significant reductions by 2030."

Emma Kane
"I would like to raise some concern about £8-10 billion being spent almost exclusively on more accessibility and access for car use. The area lacks any significant paths for pedestrians of cyclists that link up the surrounding areas and so many roads are almost impossible or dangerous to cross (Simmondley to Glossop for example has to cross Turnlee and there are no pedestrian crossing and some of the roads don't even have footpaths which makes it difficult when trying to cross with a child or for those who might not be as quick who can jump out of the road if a car comes round the blind corners). I feel that the area would benefit more from active travel alternatives either alongside this (not what has been suggested in the proposals as this doesn’t make the area accessible or touch on any of the major problems that cyclist or pedestrians face getting around to any extent). I believe there has been some initial work on a Car Free Longdendale that could make the area more useable by bikes and pedestrians. I feel if it was safer to travel around via bike or walk that perhaps more people would choose to travel some journeys via alternative means over the car and this would decrease the amount of cars that seem to be ever increasing in the areas surrounding Glossop. There are areas in Greater Manchester (through the Bee network) that have benefitted from money being spent on active travel and infrastructure and those areas now looks so much nicer and are just nicer places to be and I’m sure the house prices will have increased too. It sees unfair that the areas of Glossop would not also benefit from similar work and efforts being made on this. I would have thought that similar expertise should be sought to see how the area around here can also benefit from something similar rather than just building more and bigger roads to assume that this will solve all the issues of traffic but this I feel could actually make bring in more car travel to the areas (I believe there is evidence to suggest that sat navs for some journeys could start to show this route as an accessible route - normally they would have took a different route but if there was a bypass they would come through here instead if they get a bit of traffic) and then the residents of Tintwistle, Glossop, Mottram might not actually end up much better off 8-10 billion pounds later. I have also seen the analysis that has been done to say that the scheme currently proposed would increase traffic for some or move the traffic problem around. I read that the benefits to Mottram come at the expense of the rest of Longdendale and Glossopdale where traffic increases on many residential roads. I believe work has been done to now show that accidents would increase with 102 extra collisions over 60 years but on the A57 Snake Pass, a high risk road for a fatal or serious injury crash, there would be 160 extra collisions over 60 years. Over 60 years the scheme would add an extra 399,867 tonnes carbon dioxide. One tree absorbs around 1tonne of carbon dioxide in 100years. Given the climate emergency that had been declared by the government this seems to be a concerning figure. I also believe that air pollution improves for some households, for others nitrogen dioxide remains above the legal limit e.g. on Market Street, Hollingworth. Wildlife habitats would also be destroyed in these proposals and this seems to be on top of an ever increasing removal of green spaces in the area being made for the building of more housing."

Adam Rossi
"The people of Glossop, Hollingworth and Tintwistle have suffered long enough with out traffick from out of the area having a massive negative impact on day to life in the area. Whilst other areas such as Woodford and Knutsford have had several bypasses, this area is totally ignored. We need these roads now."

Adrian Lyne
"I am 76 years old and have lived in Glossop all my life. Fifty years ago I worked in Rochdale and traveled daily in the car. At the time it took 30 minutes to get to the top of Mottram moor. Since then traffic has increased four fold, due to house building and to Junction 34A on the M1 bringing heavy goods to east Lancashire. Which before went down the A62 corridor. In fact we have been waiting 50 years for this Bypass"

Alan Seel
"Over the years I have lived in Hadfield I have spent hours either queuing up Mottram Moor A57 westbound or on the M67 eastbound to travel in and out of the Longdendale Valley. The bypass was first mooted 50 years ago and in that time I have seen many less busy locations having a bypass built. The A628 / A57 corridor is a major trunk route often choked with traffic and tailbacks of 2 miles to get through Mottram is a regular occurrence. This can get much worse when there is a problem on the M62 and traffic diverts over Woodhead. The bypass will also reduce the pollution emitted by slow moving or stationary traffic when engines are idling for long periods. Reducing the traffic chaos in the area will reinvigorate Glossop and Hadfield by encouraging businesses and leisure into the area. The need for a bypass has never been greater. New house building in the Longdendale valley is generating increasing amounts of traffic as most people commute to get to work and visit shopping centres. Businesses will not relocate here due to the traffic problems and several big retail outlets have closed due to the pandemic. Two weeks ago on consecutive days problems on the M62 generated miles of queueing traffic on the M67 and A628 due to the bottleneck at Mottram. This is a regular occurrence. Glossop Labour party must not be allowed to stop the bypass after we've waited over 30 years for it."

Allen Cooke
"This project has been promised for more years than I can remember and cannot be completed soon enough ! The constant traffic build up and negative affects on many communities for miles around cannot be allowed to continue . The By-Pass is essential and long overdue . The existing road network is a blight on local people and affects communities , business and the health of people over a wide area . Any attempt to block or delay the By-Pass any further should be regarded as a criminal enterprise and a danger to local peoples wellbeing !"

Andrew Barker
"as a hadfield resident we urgently need the bypass building, the constant traffic and pollution it causes is ridiculous."

Andrew Mannix
"Please get on and build this bypass as soon as possible."

Andrew Payne
"I am in favour of the building of Mottram Bypass. Living close to the Chapel-en-le-Frith Bypass I have experienced the many benefits that such a scheme brings to the local community. I am in favour of the Bypass which will improve the local transport network for the benefit of local residents and the wider area."

Ann Oliver
"I have travelled through Mottram for over 50 years and am frustrated by the congestion and delays at the traffic lights and on the M57. Queuing traffic is bad for the environment. It is high time the motorway was extended to bypass the bottle neck of Mottram. I support the Mottram bypass proposal"

Annette Scullion
"There have been hundreds of houses built in the Glossop area with many more being built. most of the roads were built in Victorian times if not before, and cannot cope with the level of traffic. The road through Glossop is used by people travelling to and from Sheffield and Buxton and elsewhere making their way to the motorway, as well as by local people. There is a good railway link to Manchester Piccadilly, but many people work a distance from any of the railway stations. There is no alternative but to use a car if you have to go to work. I am from a Glossop family and have seen the mills close and Glossop become a commuter town. I doubt however that pollution levels have gone down much, just that the soot has been replaced by the exhaust fumes of cars sitting in long traffic jams. We have been promised and deserve this new road."

Anthony Coar
"I frequently need to travel through Glossop and Mottram to reach the M67. The current main route is far too congested and usually means that I have to sit in traffic breathing in fumes or find another route following the various rat runs in the area. Please, please, please get the bypass built not least for the health and sanity of the local residents as well as those travellers who have to put up with the present arrangements. This road is desperately needed to reduce the appalling congestion around the area. I use the route to the M67 regularly on journeys to the wider north west from Bamford. The present road arrangement is not fit for purpose. The new road should have been built years ago."

Anthony Gadsby-Mace
"Heavy traffic through Glossop Heavy traffic in and out of Glossop"

Anthony Hannan
"Building this bypass is essential with less traffic because at the moment it’s ridiculous and isn’t good for the environment and also dangerous with local schools on this hugely busy road. The sooner this bypass is built the better as the local people have suffered long enough!!"

Anthony Holt
"The Mottram Bypass(A57 link road plan) really must go ahead to alleviate the traffic problems that have been building up for 50 years. It is astonishing that outsiders (those who are not really practically affected by by the scheme )can influence the decision to the detriment of local people."

Anthony Patrick Roper
"The bypas is essential not only to relieve the Mottram hill traffic but also the traffic on minor roads (Simmondley Lane and High lane to Charlesworth) which is used as a rat run to avoid the jams. It can take half an hour to travel the first few mile out of Glossop, if someone has an alternative the I would be interested to hear, other than a train to Manchester!"

Barry Burney
"Please consider the fact that this bypass was first actioned fifty years ago. Had the bypass been constructed then at a much reduced cost we could of had the original plan which would’ve bypassed the three villages of Mottram Hollingworth and Tintwistle. Please let us learn from past failings and proceed with this application. With Mottram Moore the heaviest trunk route in the country we need it from the carbon emissions alone. I have walked up the Moore at a quieter part of the day and you can still taste the emissions from the HGVs. The fact that you can spend thirty minutes trundling up the Moore means so much traffic uses the rat run through Broadbottom. This traffic uses the very narrow bridge over the Etherow. A bridge designed and built for horse and cart traffic not twenty first century traffic. Please don’t let onto the back burner again we need it."

Brenda Cooke
"Glossop lies between two major cities, Sheffield and Manchester. Commuters and heavy goods vehicles use the Woodhead Pass and the Snake pass as routes between the two cities. The volume of traffic has grown exponentially over the last 40 years and the roads in the towns of Glossop, Tintwistle, Hollingworth and Mottram can no longer cope. The pollution from the traffic is detrimental to health. The traffic itself has caused many accidents, both in the towns and on the routes. A bypass is urgently needed. The Mottram bypass and Glossop Spur need to proceed as planned now and then a full bypass of Hollingworth and Tintwistle should follow. Hundreds of new houses have been built in Glossop and Hadfield over the last 40 years with no change to infrastructure. That change is vital to ensure the area can continue to grow and not be stifled by traffic jams. It is vital the Mottram bypass and Glossop Spur go ahead as the roads have become so congested its always rush hour. Hundreds of houses have been built in the area, over the last 30 years, without any improvement to infrastructure. The air quality has deteriorated as traffic idles, hour after hour, in the traffic jams. The A57 from the top of the M67 is a pinch point which continues to leaving Tintwistle A628 and Glossop A57. It has to be addressed so that the towns along the route can flourish. It makes no sense to have built the M67 to bypass Tameside which then dumps traffic into Mottram and beyond. The job of completing an improved route to Sheffield needs to be completed."

Brian Johnson
"I am in favour of this proposal and have been for the past 50 odd years the congestion through Mottram as been a nightmare for longer than I can remember. If this project had been done when it was first muted the problem would not have arisen and the cost would have been minimal compared with today."

Brian Moorhouse
"The Mottram Bypass is needed to ease the congestion on that particular route but Aid neighbouring routes across the Pennines. This will improve the quality of the air for the many small habitations used as an alternative route to thain crossing"

Callum Convery
"The building of a bypass to reduce the constant traffic build up from Hadfield to the M67 is vital. The reduction in traffic will allow for local services to be reached in quicker times when needed(doctors, dentists, opticians etc.) as well as commuting into Manchester for work and back, meaning less time spent sitting idle with the engine running."

Carl Askham
"This has been rumbling on for the whole of the last 30 years I’ve lived here and for many more before according to old friends and acquaintances! It will never happen!! Complete waste of time and space!!!!!"

Chris Howarth
"I have used this road for 55 years & personally must have wasted many hours stuck in traffic jams trying to get through Mottram. Many hundreds of hours must be wasted daily, not to mention the fuel too. I have used this road for almost 60 years & have wasted hundreds of hours in queues here. Having got this far it would be terrible if local people have to continue to waste so much time & energy getting through Mottram."

Chris Naughton
"We need to make sure the Mottram bypass happens as it will liberate the lives and homes and transport links for our area. The weight of outward traffic towards Sheffield passing through our area is incompatible with the infrastructure."

Chris Nelson
"The A57 link road is an essential upgrade, that should have been built many years ago. Although, it is not going to include Tintwistle and Hollingworth, it will take pressure off the roads around Glossop. I travel often between Chapel-en-le-Frith and the M62 corridor and have to leave home 1.5 hours earlier than I did 20 years ago."

Chris wood
"Complete the bypass"

Christopher Bolton
"Traffic congestion in the villages of Mottram, Hollingworth and Tintwistle is a considerable health hazard. That a solution has dragged on for more than 40 years is a disgrace. With regard to the health hazards it is clearly approaching the time when somebody must be held to account and legal action seriously considered. The economical considerations caused by delays are also important and the promise to level up appears to be a hollow promise. If these problems occurred in more affluent areas they would have been dealt with 30 years ago. I strongly support the proposed A 57 road links upgrade. Traffic congestion a nd the resulting pollution is quite unacceptable. Ongoing delays are an insult. Further delays should not be allowed - 50 years of delay is a lifetime."

Christopher Vincent Halpin
"Mottram bypass and Glossop spur Road is essential to us who live in and travel from Glossop"

Clive Easteal
"The bypass is well overdue. The amount of heavy goods using the current road creates considerable environmental hazards to residents. The Mottram and Glossopdale areas have increase traffic that due to the continuing growth of the population will only get worse. I consider the benefit to the local community in removing congestion around Glossopdale with this bypass will ensure a greater benefits to the environment with cleaner air,less noise and a better overall traffic flow."

Colin Cram
"1. The queueing traffic that exists for much of the day creates a huge amount of noxious fumes and CO2. The fumes will be poisoning the surrounding areas. 2. Good transport is essential for economic development. Business move in and existing businesses can expand and create new jobs. Unemployment would reduce and poverty - of which there is plenty in east Manchester, Glossop Mottram, Hollingworth, Tintwistle, Hadfield and Hattersley, would reduce. Many people would be better off. 3. More jobs in this area would mean that fewer people would need to travel away to work, e.g. to central Manchester and beyond, thus reducing CO2. 4. Glossop would be more easily visited by tourists, thus helping revitalise the High Street. Please note, I tried to send my response, but seemed to fail. So this is my second attempt at responding. The by-pass was needed 60 years ago. It is desperately needed now. 1. It will encourage businesses to set up in the Glossop area. There is too much poverty and unemployment in the Glossop area, particularly places such as Gamesley and Hattersley, but also in Glossop and Hadfield. 2. More decently paid jobs in Glossop and fewer unemployed will benefit the local community as, for example, more money will go into the High Street shops and other businesses. 3. The pollution created by queues of lorries and cars along the M67 - all with their engines switched on - either side of Mottram and in Hollingworth will be creating horrendous pollution. That will present a serious health risk to people who live near the road. Getting traffic moving will reduce the pollution, even if traffic volumes increase - which they probably won't. 4. Because the by-pass should eliminate the traffic queues belching out noxious gases, it is likely that CO2 emissions will reduce. 5. Eliminating the long traffic queues will reduce noise. 6. Nearly everyone I speak to is strongly in favour of the by-pass. They can all recognise the benefits. In short, the proposed by-pass is not a perfect solution for instance, it should also by-pass Tintwistle and Hollingworth. However, it will boost the economy, increase jobs for local people, reduce unemployment, reduce benefits payments, reduce noxious gases, reduce noise and reduce CO2 emissions. One issue I didn't mention is that several times I have seen emergency services, in particular ambulances, being stuck or very much slowed down in traffic queues. I would be grateful if you would add this to my representation as delays can cost lives."

Dave Burton
"Stationary traffic mornings and evenings and tail backs from Mottram traffic lights cause air and noise pollution. Public transport times are badly affected due to traffic hold ups. Driving out of the area towards Manchester can take 30 to 40 minutes. This causes driver impatience especially for drivers from the other side of the Woodhead. There has been no improvement to this road system for many years and many objections are from people who wish to keep the area in aspic and I suspect are not impacted greatly by the road and traffic problems. 20 years ago the full by pass was almost passed until objections by Julia Bradbury and this same lobby group prevented the build. This proposal does not impact the Peak District National Park."

David Blood
"The traffic issues for local residents are terrible, the infrastructure cannot cope with the amount of vehicles. This bypass has been long overdue and has been a failing by both the local and national authorities as to why this hasn't been completed before. Please do not listen to people or representations from outside the locality, we need this bypass now!!!"

David Jones
"The volume of traffic, especially heavy goods, has steadily increased over the past ten years. Accidents appear higher than average on the Woodhead Pass route, and pedestrians are frequently at risk in Mottram, Hollingworth, and Tintwistle. Glossop has become a gridlock town at times, and needs to be relieved of the heavy traffic for safety and health reasons. An effective bypass route away from Glossop is the only solution, and needs to begin now."

David O N James
"This project is needed in order to alleviate severe traffic congestion and improve air quality This project is badly needed to relief both significant traffic delays and congestion and the associated damage to air quality."

David Pegg
"I am fed up of the traffic all around the Glossop area."

David Roberts
"I am happy with the project. I am NOT happy that the roadway opposite my house is elevated and no in a cutting. I am NOT happy about only traffic calming on Woolley Lane , this needs a weight limit and a NO HEAVY VEHICLES , also something to deter it becoming a rat run or short cut to the Industrial Unit at Etherow Ind Estate. D Roberts"

David Wade
"I was born & raised in this area. Had various houses in & around mottram etc. Since moved out of the area around 10 years ago (albeit not too far), & the realisation of how much the traffic, morning & evening, affected me mentally, was crazy! Never thought much about it previously, but it was like a cloud had lifted, once I moved away, & started using other routes to/from home to work. This bypass is needed & has been needed for far too long. I grew up in [redacted]. I went to school in glossop. I bought my 1st house in mottram then moved to charlesworth myself. I grew up with the horrendous traffic issues & we all basically accepted it, (which is wrong). Since moving away from the area, albeit not too far, I can really see the silent damage it does to peoples lives, eg. Mental health, queuing every morning & night. Not shopping or using facilities in glossop as it’s easier & less stressful to go to other local towns Zloke Marple, Hyde, New Mills"

Dean Owen
"I would like to say that I fully support the Mottram Bypass & Glossop Spur Road being built. As a local resident and someone who uses this section of road regularly for commuting, I can say that it would be a most welcomed addition to the local area. Currently the roads are not safe for purpose as they are heavily conjested almost every single day, this creates issues with traffic flow and thus endangering driver/pedestrian safety. On my regular, nearly 2 hour commute, the most dangerous section to drive I belive is the area in which these roads will be diverting traffic away from. Without the build up of traffic this will allow vehicles to travel more freely and provde better visablity on pre-existing roads. This will also most likely increase traffic flow and thus reducing the time to jurney to places, which is something that is desperatly needed in the north west. The link road would be a great addition not only for locals, but for everyone traveling through our neck of the woods."

Denys G Froehlich
"I have lived here all my life. All my life a bypass has been required. I have spent a great deal of my life sat in traffic trying to get out of this valley. I do not have a great amount left and I would really like to spend Less in traffic queues. I still have to work and without the development sitting in traffic queues is the only option."

Derek James Dyson
"After many years of traffic flow problems in Glossop, I feel the link rod would be a great asset."

Derek O’Brien
"This is a vital, long overdue road development. It beggars belief that this section has not been completed years ago. 20+ years ago I regularly used the section that snarls from the M60 to the A628 and the situation has been no better in recent years when I’ve been foolish enough to try it! I regularly (twice weekly x2) use the Woodhead Pass from the Gun Inn to Flouche. The snarl heading towards Manchester can be pitiful. Recognising that consideration has been given to extensive engineering to ensure this trans-Pennine trunk road is upgraded there seems no reason to delay the building of the bypass to alleviate the problems well recognised. I am very much aware of green and climate control issues and support steps to build a better future. At the same time I think we need to be realistic. Of course if the Woodhead Tunnels and much of the track bed had not short sightedly been put beyond use we could have seen a lot of traffic diverted from the road. Let’s deal with the realities we face in the immediate future and get this bypass built."

Diane Allcock
"This area needs a bypass, the traffic problem is terrible and will only get worse as the population and house building increases, it is so needed"

Dino Hudson
"Please we need a full bypass to protect our village. The air pollution and traffic danger is too much for us."

Dominic O'Grady
"The traffic situation is dreadful. We have lived for many years with gridlocked traffic on Mottram moor. I hope this bypass will alleviate it to a tolerable level."

Donna Williams
"I would consent to the bypass to improve my commute time to Manchester each day for work, hopefully the bypass will improve the traffic on mottram more and glossop"

Dr L Edwards
"This has dragged on for years. The traffic issues have worsened as more and more housing is thrown up in and around Glossop. The situation is simply ridiculous as the population soars while infrastructure stagnates. It's not simply local traffic, it's not simply commuter traffic, it's not simply trunk traffic between Manchester and Sheffield, it's not tourist traffic for the Peak District. It's all of it. The case for better M60/M67/A57 traffic management is decades old. Technically, 50 years old. Yet we still have nothing in place as fiscal foot dragging and filibuster continue to perpetuate the procrastination. Traffic has overwhelmed Mottram/Hollingworth and Glossop and left us with increasing frequency and duration of jams and declining air quality as queues of internal combustion engines idle away wastefully adding to carbon emissions. DO SOMETHING or admit that nothing will happen. Don't patronise the residents affected with more psychobabble. Build it or don't but make a decision"

Edward Ridgley
"Over the last 40 years the population and car ownership has risen sharply but the infrastructure 'roads' has not. Further to this public transport has deteriorated. This combination has had a adverse affect on peoples quality of life and is in need of an urgent remedy."

Eric Eaton
"The A628 Woodhead Pass has long been the M62 alternative to cross the Pennines carrying many tons of freight and vehicles to support the Northern trade infrastructure. Unfortunately the traffic passes through communities stifling lifestyles and placing a heavy burden on commuting and young developing lives. Enough is enough!! If this was in the South East action to bypass theses communities would have happened many years ago. It’s time to sort this out and make our lives better!!"

Eric G D Parker
"I have lived in Hadfield for about 40 years. For a large part of that I had to commute through Hollingworth and Mottram. There was talk of a Mottram bypass when I first started that crawl to & from work. Quickly I realised it was going to take some effort to get a bypass passed. I used to joke "I'm going to be retired before this happens" - well, I am retired. Please do not condemn more generations of commuters to suffer the torment that I suffered for a large part of my working life. Please do not do anything to delay this important resource for our area. Regards Eric"

Eric Hilton
"We NEED this bypass - if you lived in Glossop and travelled out and back during the week - you would feel the same - its long long long overdue !,"

Fountain Bathrooms
"Congestion is appalling, the constant desire for more new housing in Glossop and area is putting an impossible strain on the road infrastructure , the schooling and other amenities such as sewage , water etc - having a spur and later a bi-pass would alleviate the constant addition traffic in the area making the roads safer and capable of lasting longer without the extra wear."

Gail Jeanette Haycock
"This road is very much needed to make the local area safer for the villages of Hollingworth and Mottram."

George Peck
"I have the problem of using A57 mottram moor for 60 + Yes whilst various properties have acquire d In other to build a bypass all to no avail ,instead more property is built in and around Glossop adding more pressure on infrastructure ,causing major holdup Accidents and heavy trucks using snake pass to avoid hold ups in tintwistle. The public transport for necessary commuters are very expensive expensive and in reliable,but more properties are being built"

Gillian Shaw
"I fully understand the reason for the bypass and give my support. The traffic in end out of Glossop is congested and travel to work means setting off early and getting home very late. This has an impact on my home life balance."

Gordon Phillips
"Traffic problems have increased so travelling is horrendous."

Graham Cox
"In 1972 /73 they built the Denton/Hyde bypass can we finally have it finished My copd is so bad due to the pollution that I'm thinking of moving after 40+ living here"

Grahame Parsons
"My representation main points are: 1. Currently the traffic flow between the end of the M67 and Mottram and beyond is absolutely abysmal for commuters in both directions causing major regular hold-ups and traffic back-up. 2. Travel through Mottram from Glossop for onward journeys to Stalybridge/Ashton for visits to Tameside Hospital for example is currently a horrendous experience due to the unacceptable hold-ups caused by the volume of traffic passing through Mottram. 3. For residents of Mottram points 1 and 2 above are making life a misery."

Gwyn Pritchard-Williams
"The current route is major bottleneck and needs alleviation The delays up Mottram Moore are notious and have been for many years so I cannot understand the logic of opposing the by-pass"

Heather Sheridan
"I support the bypass. Having lived in the area for many years and having had to sit traffic jams and the subsequent car pollution on a daily basis in order to get to and from work the bypass is essential. The ongoing delay of this continues to have an impact on the community, wider businesses and transport links."

High Peak Steels Ltd
"I support the application, the town has been crying out for a bypass, my company runs 8 trucks out of Glossop and have to leave 1 hour earlier every day to guarantee getting to their first drop on time because the of the hold ups on Mottram Moor. We are restricted in the number of drops possible because of drivers hours and making sure they get back to base before the heavy traffic starts on their journey home on Mottram Moor. The whole area would benefit from this new bypass and bring new business in to the area when people could trust the roads being free from heavy traffic."

James Hawthorn Wylie
"This needs to happen now. I moved here in 2000 and the bypass was then desperately needed. The need has only become more evident with higher through traffic volumes plus local traffic volume increases due to continued housebuilding and changes in demographics where previous home owners with no or one car ownership are being replaced with families with two or more vehicles. This area WILL grind to a halt if this bypass does not happen. There are objections to this plan but these cannot sway the current intended plan - whether this plan is perfect is no longer the discussion - this needs to be done now and further alterations considered later - this is no different to what he have seen in the road work generally where we have seen roads widened as traffic volumes have increased. There have been many reviews of the environmental aspects of the bypass over the years but I do not believe that any of them override the potential of the health impact on children (including my own) that live and travel within the area under discussion (my daughter [redacted] breathes in the fumes from stationary vehicles every school day). Jim Wylie"

Jane Kelly
"We desperately need the bypass for the people of Glossop. The traffic is heavily congested getting in and out of Glossop and it’s causes lots of problems for the local people getting to work and keeping their jobs. Even just accessing the facilities within the town is becoming a major problem and causes lots of stress. We have even considered moving out of Glossop after only living here for 2 and a half years - that’s how badly it affects you. The bypass is needed desperately for the residents of Glossop. We are the ones sat in long lines of traffic queues day in and day out when we are trying to go about our daily business, whether that be to work or to pick up grandchildren from school, to give care to our elderly parents etc. The length of time it takes to get out of Glossop and up Mottram Moor is just ridiculous - I’m even thinking of moving out it’s that bad!"

Janice Margaret Zielinski
"I am a resident living [redacted], we struggle with the congestion and pollution daily. Yes I support the bypass"

Jason Lester
"[redacted] the amount of traffic going and coming out of Glossop is ridiculous. The roads are just not able to cope with the amount. Also the pollution being omitted from traffic is causing health issues due to fumes and constant noise. More houses are being built in the surrounding areas with will only add to an already over congested situation."

Jean Kitching
"We desperately need this bypass. If Glossop is to expand and thrive the infrastructure needs to be upgraded. I am fed up sitting in traffic and queuing for over 40 mins to get home. The pollution is appalling. Thought we were trying to save the planet. Jean Kitching We need a bypass so Glossop can accommodate all the new houses being built"

Jean Simcock
"This bypass has been needed and promised for a number of years now. If you work in Manchester you need to leave home before 7am to arrive at work for 9.00. Public transport is practically non existent in Hadfield. With the large number of houses being built in Glossop and Hadfield the infrastructure as it now stands is not adequate for the number of cars using the route out of Glossop and Hadfield without taking into account the number of hgv’s coming over woodhead. This bypass is desperately needed ASAP."

Jeffrey White
"I consider the A57 Link Roads planned are essential to ease the horrendous daily congestion through Mottram and enable am improved traffic flow to and from Glossop to the Motorway. There must be speedy improvements to the local infrastructure as things are bad now but will deteriorate further in the short term because of the scale of the building of new properties in and around the Glossop Area."

Jennifer Littlewood
"I support the Mottram Bypass. Lifelong user of this road and have seen over 40 years the traffic get worse and bigger and dirtier and noisier. Action is needed now. I am in firm support for the bypass. It has been needed for manynyears to ease congestion and for the health of local people. We need it for our present and our future."

Jennifer Nelstrop
"Currently the considerable queuing leads to considerable pollution and nuisance over a considerable area. A by pass would greatly reduce the overall environmental impact and pollution."

Jenny Morris
"I can't believe we are being asked this yet again. I have been waiting for this bypass for the majority of my adult life. I am now almost 58 years old and suspect I will be dead before central govt decides the people in the North of England deserve what has been easily given to the South of England. The people of Ivybridge Devon,spencers wood outside Reading, Newbury etc etc got bypassed decades ago. But they are all I the South. Meanwhile planners approve yet more and more houses in the valley. Over 100 more are going up off dining Road very soon so more cars and more pollution from standing traffic. But obviously the quality of life for the people of glossop is unimportant to planners and Whitehall bean counters. I think if this bypass is cancelled yet again we should organise a march to parliament"

Jo Galvin
"We are in desperately need to have the by pass We have been in desperate need of this bypass for years and over the years our traffic problems have substantially increased. Now at last we have a real chance to invest in the futures of our children and it seems that the very people who should be supporting it are trying to block it for disguised political reasons. Please think of the future generations and invest in our children's futures by allowing this bypass to go forward and be constructed."

Joan Carr
"The bypass will improve local traffic and the pollution rates that come with excessive traffic. Also, transport links in and out of Glossop via road will be more reliable. Combined with the likely increase in tourism that a bypass would produce (due to tourists not being put off by the traffic) Glossop’s tourism industry will see a benefit. The bypass will also stop traffic diverting through small villages such as Charles worth and broad bottom, which in turn causes damage due to larger, heavier vehicles accessing these routes more regularly. Finally it will be safer for glossop citizens, including children, when walking or exercising along the roads. The volume of traffic and the speed at which it often travels is a severe threat to life in our community."

Joan Joyce
"I agree with the plan for the Mottram Bypass and Glossop Spur Road. I am 70 years old and have seen the traffic increase over the past 50 years. It is time to try and sort this problem of traffic jams in Londendale and Glossop and get the traffic flowing more freely and improve the air quality in this area. This plan is a starting point to achieve this. I want this by-pass to be completed as soon as possible. It is a beginning to a proper road structure to take traffic from our surrounding villages. It will take traffic polution to levels that we can live with. We have waited so long for a solution to the traffic chaos in the Glossop area we cannot let anything stop it going ahead."

Joe Cuddy
"I fully support the building of the proposed bypass due to the mind numbing time it takes to get back to my home in Glossop. Today 20/08/2021 I travelled back from the lake district, it took just over 90 minutes to reach the M67 motorway and then another 70 minutes to cover the last 8-9 miles to reach my home in Glossop. Absolutely ridiculous."

John Acton
"Glossopdale is an isolated number of villages & a town that has been cut off from its main centre of commerse, Greater Manchester, by the A57 which has been inadequate for approx 60 years.The traffick load on this road caused delayed journeys, increases transport costs & causes unessasery pollution ."

John Kappes
"A bypass for Glossop, Woolly Bridge is of the utmost importance to relieve the congestion on the road. For too long residents have had to endure pollution from standing traffic and over long car journeys. In line with national green policy this bypass must be elevated as top priority."

John Powell
"Quicker the bypass is built the better glossop we be owing that there are a lot of houses going up in Glossopdale We desperately need the bypass"

John Scampion
"I have used this road to travel to work in Manchester and to visit friends and relatives there. It is a nightmare and sometimes to avoid it I drive miles out of my way. I fully support this proposal."

John White
"Glossop has massively outgrown its capacity to allow its residents to move around the town. Houses keep going up, more people come to live here and the town is becoming gridlocked with cars almost continuously. There is no room for anymore vehicles to be passing through the town, hgvs have no alternative but to use Glossop as a corridor to the west side of the country. There is no way we should be getting this quantity of cars and HGV’s passing through our town, not just for quality of air for our family’s children but also for road safety too. Children are all around town pre and post school hours breathing in this heavy traffic fumes. To get to the town for food can take 30-40 minutes each way…..it’s less that 2 miles from my house. Something needs to be done. It is ruining our beautiful town."

John Wrigh
"The By Pass is necessary to alleviate the congestion around Mottram Moor and Brookdale It’s necessary for the environment cutting pollution"

Joyce Pegg
"There's too much traffic and too many new builds for the roads. The traffic in glossop is horrendous and getting worse. There are more than a hundred neww houses planned opposite dining railway station and wooley Bridge which is only going to make this situation Intolerable. If the bypass does not happen I dread to think how bad it's going to get"

Julian Bartolomeo
"Please let's get it done. It can sometimes take 2 hours to get from Glossop to Ashton due to traffic"

Karen Parker
"Glossop is a lovely town but the feeder roads into it are blocked by traffic going from Sheffield to Manchester over the Woodhead pass, especially HGV lorries which should not be allowed. ( they should be directed to the M62) Anyone living in Tintwistle, Hollingworth or Mottram are hounded each day by heavy traffic which should be directed via nearby fields and unpopulated areas. All [redacted] did their GCSE geography field study on local traffic. Bearing in mind - [redacted] this bypass is long overdue and very much needed. It needs sorting now. The Longdendale/Mottram bypass has been on the agenda for over 30 years as it is a much needed action. Still it is being opposed by people who do not live in the area, have probably never been to the area and therefore do not know how much traffic and the effects of it has on local residents. The time has come to listen and act upon the wishes of the people in this area."

Karen Woodward
"Families have been waiting for this for decades In the meantime the traffic has got worse no matter what time you try & drive out of glossop you have to queue up mottram more which creates massive pollution & locals that have to do this drive to work every day deserve this bypass after waiting soooo long There is more & more houses been built in glossop so we deserve the correct infrastructure to accommodate the residents."

Kathryn Barnes
"I live near Mottram and a bypass is needed to many lorry’s and trucks all Week all day"

Kay Hearsum
"Glossop has waited over 60 years for this bypass to go ahead and with all the extra houses being built in the area roads are busier than ever with backed up traffic and congestion. I really hope that Hovernment and people who do not live in the are get it put back yet again . Glosdop and its residents need this."

Kay Taylor
"I have been using this route for nearly 50 years, on and off, and I dread it. I have wasted countless hours stuck in barely moving traffic trying to get on and off the Mottram end of the M67, and then get through Glossop, or onto the Woodhead Pass. The rat runs through Charlesworth and Broadbottom are nearly as bad and are destroying those places. Mottram and Glossop need a bypass. Over the past 50 years I have been forced to endure totally unacceptable delays whilst using this route due to the volume and backlog of traffic. A total waste of petrol, time and resources. What was the point of the M57 if you queue for half an hour or more to get off it and then move forward at a snails pace on any route over the Pennines. This bypass needs to be built."

Keith Bolton
"I have lived in the area for over 40 years (Mottram and Glossop) and have a long experience of the traffic problems at the end of the M67, and before the motorway was built in travelling through Hyde and Denton on the way in to Manchester. The bypass is essential to the area:- Every year more and more houses are built in the area and traffic increases (even with a reasonable train service in to Manchester) High levels of pollution caused by very long traffic queues coming off the M67 at Mottram Time lost to all those stuck in the queue The commercial cost to businesses based in the area and travelling to the area Limits to commercial growth as business is put off by the traffic reputation of the area People having to travel out of the area for work, due to a reluctance of business to establish a base in the area due to travel time/cost resulting in limited local job opportunities A limit to the growth of the area in terms of the overall wealth of the region A promise of a bypass going back 30 - 40 years - it's about time that promise was fulfilled! K Bolton Having queued in traffic at the end of the M67 for tens of years (I’ve lived in Mottram and Glossop for 45 years), there is no doubt that the new bypass is required to ease congestion, queuing times and pollution."

Keith R Smart
"For many decades, the traffic congestion getting in and out of Glossop has been horrendous, and is getting worse, year on year. Much needed homes are being built in the area, but with them of course brings additional population, only adding to the traffic problems. At times a simple 4.5 mile journey from Glossop to Stalybridge can take between 40 minutes to an hour. To get to the M67 to access the wider motorway network (a 3 mile journey) can also take 40-50 minutes. The resultant time loss, petrol wastage, damage to the air quality plus the basic stress it places on everyone stuck in perpetual traffic jams is horrendous. This is to say nothing about the constant traffic flow outside people's homes in Hollingworth and Mottram, making their life intolerable. We've needed this bypass for decades, let's get it built NOW."

Keith Walker
"This by pass is long overdue. More and more houses are being built in the area without updating the road structure. There are only 3 small bridges giving access to Glossop and heaven forbid the main one is taken out by an articulated lorry we will be cut off."

Kerry Morris
"In favour of spur and bypass. Anything to reduce the congestion when a whole valley of comuters tries to cross a single mini roundabout and bridge every morning."

Kieran Marshall
"I agree to the bypass as it will help traffic flow massively through Glossop in and out it’s been busy for far to long"

Lee Coffey
"I am in full support of the bypass being built to ease congestion in the local area. The bypass has needed building for decades and with the current and future housing developments planned the people who live in the Mottram, Glossop and Tintwistle area need the bypass to be built more than ever. Other towns and villages in the North West (Bramhall / Altrincham) have had bypasses built which has eased congestion, and so the people of the Glossop area have waited long enough and the build should begin asap."

Leigh Hughes
"The M67 should never have been allowed to terminate where it meets the A57, north of Hattersley. Traffic coming off the motorway joins the flow on the A-road heading towards Glossop, which must pass then through the pinch point that is Mottram. This is a temporary inconvenience to the motorist, but a permanent bane to the people living alongside the A57, who have had to put up with endless traffic crawling past their houses since 1978. Sometimes these people are hard put even to exit their drives onto the main road. It is more than high time for the inhabitants of Mottram to be provided with a solution."

Levi Haden-Lubeck
"Dear Sir / madam, With regards to the urgently needed Glossop / Mottram Bypass, as a local of the area, for the entirety of my life our local roads have been clogged and crippled by the sheer volume of trucks, Cars and various large vehicles passing through the area from Morning until evening. For well over 4 decades we have been Promised a bypass to relieve the pressures on our little country roads and local bridges, and we have been continually let down along the way. As freight and rail traffic no longer use the sadly closed Woodhead tunnel, a great number of this passes along our roads every single day, It has become sheer hell just trying to leave the area for residents who wish to travel to neighbouring Hyde or Manchester for work or leisure. Due to the increase in traffic, even the local bus depot once on York Street, Glossop could not keep to its timetabled routes, and sadly stagecoach have closed and left Glossop now, leaving us now with just 1 single bus service, having once had around 8 bus services to Manchester direct from Glossop itself. Life for people living in the Glossop, Hollingworth, Mottram, Hadfield and Tintwistle areas has become a mystery and could be greatly improved if only the traffic issues were finally addressed in 2021. Thankyou for your time and consideration. Levi Haden-Lubeck"

Louise Isherwood
"I sit in awful traffic everyday, I was born here and lived her all my Life. It’s ok for labour to challenge this but perhaps they need to spend an hour every time they want to leave the area and then they won’t object to this. 50 years is far too long to wait for a spur when all I see is money being wasted on road works which don’t make a Difference other than cause more problems when the road gets closed. So Frustrated!!"

Mags Baron
"This link road HAS to go ahead. I have worked outside the Glossop area for over 30 years and have wasted well over a year of my life trying to get into and out of Glossop , not just at peak times but mid day and weekends. It's a total disgrace that people who do not live in Glossopdale and have never had to try and get in and out of the town are protesting against building the by pass. Businesses will not invest in Glossop any more due to the dire traffic congestion. Glossop has desperately needed a by pass for over 40 years. We have already waited far too long for the start of the work. No more delays!!!!!!"

Margaret Barton
"Traffic getting into and out of Glossop is getting worse. Hours of peoples time is spent in long queues. This causes traffic fumes which are bad for our health and the environment. Meanwhile more houses are being built. Action must be taken and a bypass started as soon as possible, it has been delayed too much already. We deserve a bypass."

Margaret Overson
"i am writing because of information received that there are doubts that the long awaited Mottram bypass and Glossop spur road may not go ahead despite promises that plans are in place for this to go ahead. The traffic situation is getting worse each year due to the drastic increase of new housing in the Glossop area. Over 40 years ago it was recognized that the bypass was needed. Since then thousands of new houses have been built, and more are planned. The congestion is not only causing serious travel delays but the health of people living near the roads is of concern due to pollution from so many vehicles vehicles. The nearest hospital is at Ashton which is over 7 miles away and so journeys for patients and their visitors is more traumatic. We desperately need this to go ahead. Millions of pounds must have already gone into the planning. Yours sincerely Margaret Overson [redacted]"

Margaret Spaven
"I live in Had field it is ridiculous the amount of heavy traffic on this residential road There are primary schools at the top and bottom of the road how a child has not been killed is a miracle .When lorries come up the road it affects the stability of the houses all of which are over 100 years old this heavy traffic can cause subsidence who will the pay . In the winter months heavy lorries have parked up because they could not get up into Woodhead they take no notice of the closed signs. We all need this bypass whether you live in Had field ,Padfield or Hollingworth we are villages not meant for heavy traffic Please allow this bypass the heavy traffic is affecting all of the villages Hollingworth.Padfield, Had field Tintwistle this is a rural area which is spoiled by the pollution from the amount of heavy traffic there is also a safety issue heavy traffic in areas where children are mobilising to and from school . The heavy traffic also causes subsidence issues who do the householders claim against the numerous haulage companies or the government for allowing heavy traffic to traffic through residential areas. The health issues caused by pollutants from the diesel fuel .We need this bypass ."

Mark McDonough
"I moved to Glossop in 2001, people warned me of the traffic problem (mottram moor). Having witnessed the friendly and beautiful town and its surroundings I thought I'd try it anyway. The traffic has got worse and worse, due to articulated lorries seeming the preferred Woodhead pass to the M62. I work in Manchester and whilst I can get the train sometimes, they don't run early enough so I drive, then I come home in the rush hour after a 12 hour day either sitting in traffic on Mottram or going via Broadbottom and sitting in traffic that way. Glossop and Hadfield need this bypass and I cannot believe it is taking so long. Lots of people I know have been relocating for one reason or other and all screened out Glossop because of the traffic problem. It can take 20 to 30 minutes to get 2 or 3 miles that takes you out of Glossop, it's simply ridiculous, I can only imagine the poor people who have to endure the very slowly moving carpark outside their homes in Mottram, not to mention the pollution slow moving traffic causes. We need this bypass now."

Mark Norcross
"This link road is essential for reducing congestion through Glossop and Mottram which are already at unacceptable levels. The pollutants this standing traffic is creating is having a negative impact on residents health and residents properties and is unsatisfactory. Come on you lot, you have Sat on this for long enough faffing with your red tape, it's time to free up these villages and get the traffic moving. The link road is an important addition to this town to ease the heavy flow of traffic through it and the associated risks the come with heavily trafficked areas."

Mark Owen
"This is an essential new road, promised to local people for more than a decade. Travel along this road is congested most of the time and a serious hindrance (and source of wasted emissions). The road project has dragged on for far, far, too long. It needs building ASAP- no more delays to vexatious campaigners…."

Martin Galvin
"This project is many years overdue and desperately needed. Traffic congestion on the A57 and A628 is a constant source of delay and frustration to the residents of Glossop, Mottram and Tintwistle, not to mention the pollution hazard from the constant queues of traffic, which includes many HGVs. Please approve this scheme which this area has been waiting for for many years. I have lived in Glossop for 32 years and regularly faced the long queues of traffic which extend both ways from the M67 all the way down into Glossop town centre. The bypass has been desperately required for all the years I have lived here and it was very disappointing when the scheme was cancelled during the last Labour government. We are now closer than ever to achieving relief not only for commuters and goods drivers but for the residents who live adjacent to the current routes. Please allow this scheme to proceed"

Martin Mowatt
"I support the building of the bypass and Glossop spur road"

Matt Capstick
"As a resident, the traffic congestion is awful. It’s been better during Covid, but it’s far quicker for me to travel to sheffield than to Manchester by road, which is ridiculous."

Michael Brown
"This must go ahead. We need the infrastructure in Glossop"

Michael Hall
"This proposed by-pass must be progressed as soon as is possible. The quality of life and safety of the residents in the area must take precedence over all other considerations."

Michael Harrison
"This project is vital to the area to reduce congestion locally and improve journey times on this important West-East route. It will also help reduce pollution."

Michael Madner
"For many years l have used the A57 through Glossop and Mottram to access the western motorway network. At any time of the day there is congestion starting at Woolley Bridge extending up Woolley Lane, onto Mottram Moor to the traffic lights at the junction where the A57 crosses the B6174. Not only is there congestion on my route but also on Market Street through Hollingsworth for traffic coming from the via the Woodhead Pass. Every time I make this journey I feel sorry for the local residents, pollution from vehicle exhausts, brake dust and noise. I can live with holdups, they are everywhere but the local residents should not have to put up with this in their daily lives when there is an alternative, and that is a bypass. I find it hard to believe that there are groups that object to local residents, many who will have young families due to a lot of the properties being suitable for first time buyers having a better quality of life. I accept that any major construction work will cause some disruption but this is how you get to an end result. Do the objectors have a better plan?"

Michael Watts
"We have waited far to long for this bypass.Having been promised for years it’s time to invest in this area instead of southern projects continually getting put first. The amount of new properties being built will only make the situation worse."

Michael Wood
"I support the building of the bypass 1. At the moment large traffic jams causing delay and pollution. 2.populated area causing disruption to their lives due to traffic at the moment and hazard to their health from pollution."

Mike Leigh
"As a resident of the area for 34 years, the traffic from Woolley Bridge to Mottram has gotten progressively worse as more and more housing estates have been built, without the infrastructure to support the increase in vehicle numbers. The bumper to bumper traffic can take as long as 30 minutes to get from Woolley Bridge roundabout to Mottram traffic lights. This must exacerbate pollution, which affects us all, so the bypass will reduce pollution, improve health and speed up journey times."

Mike Schofield
"I am fully in support of the Mottram Bypass & Glossop Spur Road and it will make it significantly easier and quicker to get out of Hadfield and Glossop and onto the M67. It would also improve local air quality and reduce rat running through Gamesley and Charlesworth. Clearly, the bypass is only part of the solution. We also need to improve our local public transport infrastructure"

N Varnouse
"Having used this road many times I always seem to get held up on the current route between Glossop and Mottram. This makes journey times unpredictable and very times consuming. A bypass would ameliorate the problems which currently occur and also prevent traffic moving slowly whilst allowing fuel emissions to pollute the atmosphere with idling traffic."

Naomi Beaman
"To reduce the traffic going through glossop reducing congestion and enabling residents easier commutes in and out of the area."

Oliver Gunnell
"I am in full support of the A57 Link Roads Programme, I have lived in the local town of Glossop for over 40years and the town and local area have outgrown the current road network, the traffic is congested daily from the area of Woolley Bridge Glossop to Mottram Post Office, this likely has a large impact on air quality and quality of life in the local area, and in my own personal experience seriously lowers a cars fuel efficiency also resulting in higher carbon emissions, I am confident the new plans will make traveling in and out of Glossop much better than it currently is."

Patricia Lyne
"The traffic in Glossop is horrendous. To get out of Glossop takes 30 minutes to do 2 miles. More and more houses are being built and the current infrastructure is totally inadequate. Throughout my lifetime there have been petitions for a By Pass and all have been unsuccessful. I sincerely hope that at last something constructive will be done."

Paul Bedwell
"Constant house building over the 34 years I have lived in Glossop has meant an ever increasing amount of traffic. There remains one obvious route out of Glossop for traffic travelling to Manchester. The principal time spent on a journey to Manchester is actually getting out of Glossop. Traffic stationary with engines running is clearly bad for everyone. At least the bypass is a start to alleviating the constant nightmare of actually getting out of the town. Continued house building in the Glossop area have burdened residents with a continual issue with heavy, slow moving traffic. Sometimes taking over an hour to get from one end of Glossop to the other. The by-pass is the first important step to alleviating the problem"

Paul Campbell
"This infrastructure route has been over due for some time now. In the North we have been promised a better link network for years and more specifically in the Government initiative for a Northern Powerhouse. I say, ‘Back it, or shove it’. We’re sick of all the broken promises. Why do we have to continually and repeatedly have to grovel for something of necessity."

Paul Newberry
"I believe that the Mottram Bypass will improve the road traffic situation for both local residents and those passing through the area. Please proceed with bypass."

Paul Noble
"As a result of work I have had to drive through mottram a number of times. Not only does the congestion cause major tailbacks but also residents are unable to get out of their premises. I have no doubt that at these times air pollution is high unfortunately the worst traffic is at school opening and closing times. Mottram is just one example of motorways built through the countryside without prior thought to the town and villages that will suffer. The bypass is needed more now than ever"

Paul Osborne
"I have lived in Glossop for 43 years. During this time I and my family have suffered massive stress whilst travelling to work, visiting friends and relatives, and general travel to gain access to other parts of the country. Every few years ( and this started before we moved here in 1978) we are given hope that there may be end end to this daily trauma. However, unlike many other towns and villages in England who have had a bypass built, this not happened for the Glossop area. Often we travel back from our holidays and have a reasonably traffic free journey only to find everything to grind to a halt at the end of the M67 at Mottram. I don’t understand why this road improvement scheme has not gone ahead. It’s time to listen to local people rather than the anarchists who don’t live anywhere near the area or have to travel across the Manchester to Sheffield route."

Peter Anderson
"I believe the A57 link roads are essential for the health and future prosperity on the surrounding area."

Peter Easter
"it will speed up traffic around glossopdale and take cars away from residential areas. THE BY PASS IS ESSENTIAL TO CUT TRAFFIC CONGESTION AS I HAVE SUFFERED FOR THE MAJORITY OF MY 30 YEARS DRIVING"

Peter Hughes
"I have lived in Glossop since 1995 and have suffered the daily inconvenience and wasted time from the fight to drive in and out of Glossop The byepass would be of great benefit to commuters by reducing time, cost and health issues caused by excessive traffic congestion, also an immense benefit to residents who live next to a constant traffic jam"

Peter Jarvis
"As a resident of Glossop I travel out of the area vis Mottram Moor most days. The traffic congestion seems to be getting worst as each year goes by. I would love to know the number of accidents/near accidents there has been going west, as cars fly up the outside lane and cut into the standing inside lane. Woolley Bridge is another big problem area, the bridge causes a lot of holdups and was not made for all the hgv’s that travel across it. There has been a huge increase in new housing, with many more planned and the road infrastructure needs to be up dated to keep pace. I support the proposed new road scheme."

Peter Kelsey
"This has been needed for 40years."

Peter Morgan
"Every time I drive that way in an attempt to get north of Manchester I am held up for at least 30 minutes. I comment to my wife how awful it must be for the residents who have to put up with queues outside their homes at all hours of the day and night and thank my lucky stars that I don’t have to make the journey daily as a commute."

Phillip Wilson
"I'm fully behind this project"

Prof. Antony D'Emanuele
"Intend to fully support this application. Growth of Glossop, including numerous new housing developments has resulted in congested roads and gridlock on traffic out of and into Glossop."

Professor Wesley Vernon
"The current road is a regular and major traffic jam. I live in the High Peak and this regularly puts me off travelling to and through this area. I used to travel a lot in my work and this is one of the worst examples of traffic jams I ever came across. The current road has been a terrible log jam for years leading to people trying to find alternative and inappropriate routes to avoid. Serious environmental impact through say. Burning fuel there and the extra distances travelled."

Richard Boffey
"Roads from the end of the M67 are very often clogged with traffic. This continues through Mottram and Tintwistle not only causing traffic delays but causing vast amounts of pollution trapped in the valley. The whole area around Glossop, Tintwistle and Mottram desperately need the bypass to be built ASAP. We have suffered congestion in this area for too many years."

Richard Jones
"I’m a small business owner who lives and operates in Glossop and require access to the M1 & M6 for my business. The construction of the bypass is essentially to the growth and prosperity of my business."

Richard Parker
"The Mottram bypass has been long promised & long overdue. The build up of traffic & the consequential issues for the local community are intolerable and unacceptable."

Richard Strek
"The area, particularly around Mottram and Hollingworth, has been clogged up with heavy traffic , HGVs in the main, for many years. The need for a bypass has been discussed for many, many years . The need is now desperate and would alleviate some, though not all, of the traffic congestion the area suffers. The cost obviously is spiralling but will keep doing so the longer the building of a bypass is delayed. The bypass is long overdue and should be built and opened sooner rather than later!!"

Richard Stubbs
"I have lived in the Greater Manchester are most of my life and often travelled to Sheffield, Doncaster using Woodhead or Snake Pass. The route from the end of the M67 through Motram is a well known bottleneck which can add up to an hour to the journey. I also have sympathy for the residents of that area who must at times be prisoners in their own homes."

Richard W J Tonkin
"I have lived in Glossop for 8 years. The bypass for Mottram is long overdue. In fact, it should be extended past Tintwhistle to Woodhead. The roads here are inadequate for the existing population let alone the rapidly increasing population. I took 30 minutes today to cover 4 miles just to leave Glossop. The "choke point" is Mottram Moor which this plan will help to circumvent. It must be built. I find it incredible that any local politician or local resident could object to this plan. Build it now. RW John Tonkin"

Richard Wilson
"[redacted] being affected by the amount of traffic passing my property I believe that we have been disregarded by not having a bypass other villages and towns on the same road have been prioritised over myself and my community I find it hard that we have to suffer traffic and pollution when other people have had bypasses Why am I treated differently all should be treated equally for example Stockbridge has had a bypass for a long time yet we are overlooked why Are my community being treated unfairly I find in this day and age that other communities are receiving improvements yet one of the busiest trunk roads in the country is not Please make sure a bypass is delivered for the A628 mottram bypass"

Rick Wood
"A must needed asset in view of the many new & planned housing additions in the area. The second phase must follow quickly to complete this proposal"

Rob Haycock
"This is much overdue and needed to relieve the traffic in Mottram and Hollingworth."

Robert Blair
"Having resided in Padfield for 30 years and experienced an ever increasing amount of traffic using a road that carries heavy lorries as well as commuters to and from work, the congestion in the area is getting worse year on year. People can be sat in traffic for upto 30 minutes to travel a relatively short distance. We have been promised a by-pass for what seems like an eternity and hope this time it can become a reality. Thank you"

Robert Coggin
"Easier access between the peak district and manchester without the long waits at the mottram end especially when on business. Living in the high peak the road infrastructure is not adequate enough to endure the levels of traffic through the borough if this bypass is not built it will only persist in more traffic build up and persist with the continual frustration of journey times to manchester and beyond"

Robert Montgomery
"The A57 link roads are essential to improve quality of life for residents of Glossop. Better transport links will improve air quality and ensure more prosperity for our region."

Robin Baldry
"Using that area of road on many occasions I have supported whoever has applied for this bypass to be constructed, it is an essential piece of road being used daily by many many drivers and is quite obvious a necessary action for this amount of finance to be given for this project"

Robin Barker
"I am writing to express my support for the Mottram bypass and Glossop sprur road. These are desperately needed measures and are some forty years overdue! Please let these go ahead with no further delay."

Rodney B Gilmour
"I fully support the Mottram bypass. I believe it will significantly improve the quality of life for both local residents, regular commuters and others like myself who occasionally travel that way and must contend with delays and the attendant pollution from vehicle exhaust."

Roger Wilkinson
"Why isn't the full 628/ bypass part of these proposals ? THE GLOSSOP SPUR is only a small part of reducing traffic flow and pollution through the High Peak and Tameside villages"

Roy Barton
"The traffic situation getting in and out of Glossop is getting more and more horrendous. The huge number of new properties being built is causing the roads to be gridlocked. The bypass, although not perfect, the full Tintwisle bypass would be better,would at least give some relief and allow traffic out of Glossop to avoid the small roundabout at Woolley Bridge. It is essential that the road should commence as soon as possible!"

Roy Ibbotson
"Mottram and Glossop have been waiting for the improvements to the A 57 for over 40 years and I wonder how many residents have suffered respiratory problems due to HVG’s queuing up the M67 and Mottram Moor. From an environmental perspective the sooner the A57 improvements are implemented the better."

Roy Ladyko
"We have been waiting may years for this bypass.We have had to endure daily gridlock in the rush hours and it can take regularly over half an hour to travel two miles to get to the M67 .It takes longer in the evening returning when daily there is standing traffic on the M67 Eastbound which can at times be at least 1 mile long waiting to exit the motorwa onto the A57 at the Eastern terminal roundabout.In winter this has the potential of serious risks of an an accident as traffic is travelling at speeds up to 70mph towards the standing traffic.These hold ups are also occuring more and more at other times of the day with the ever increasing volumes of traffic.Please be mindful there are people against this bypass that do not live in the area and, like now in the past have strongly objected to it."

Ryan Mountford
"This needs to happen to protect the small roads in and around the high peak"

Sharon Coombs
"The bypass is a much needed to ease the congestion in Glossop and the surrounding villages. The studies show that it would make it significantly easier and quicker to get out of Hadfield and Glossop and onto the M67. It would also improve local air quality especially for those who have breathing problems. There have been areas around the county where children are dying due to poor air quality, don’t let Glossop become one of those areas. It will also reduce rat running through Gamesley and Charlesworth."

Shirley Brown
"I live in Hadfield, Glossop and I have been waiting for this bypass for 40 years. I think it’s time the people of this area are listened to and given the bypass we so badly need to end the terrible congestion and pollution that we suffer on a day to day basis."

Simon Bellis
"This road has been a long time coming, the relief to the local area will be huge, allowing businesses and residents to move about easily and lifting the logjam tat happens every single day costing millions to the local and wider economy."

Stephen Ellingham
"I regularly have to travel across the Snake Pass (A57) and then on to the M60 in order to travel north on the M6. This journey means that I have to get from Glossop to the start of the M67, which is always congested, both travelling east and west and is one of the most congested roads I ever travel on. The by-pass in question would dramatically improve all journey times and also improve the lives of those people who live on the currently very congested road. This by-pass needed building years ago and it is even more urgently needed now."

Steve Foote
"I fully support the new link road other than to say I think it should be dual carriageway. To leave Glossop by car at present is horrendous with all the congestion around the small roundabout at Woolley Lane/Wooley Bridge and to try and get over the small bridge is mad as one large lorry blocks both lanes and cars are at a standstill until the lorry manages to straighten up. This means that often cars are just stopped and waiting minutes for the large vehicle to get over the small bridge. Cars are often backed up for a mile pass Glossop Caravans to enter the small roundabout and then it is totally congested for another mile plus until you get past the traffic lights at Mottram."

Steve Hitchmough
"Badly needed road improvement that will improve transport for local business and commerce, Reduce pollution and generally improve access to amenity around Glossop."

Stuart Goussetis
"It’s a sticking plaster for an ulcerated wound. This is not helping the local community or the environment"

Susan Jones
"Having been a previous resident of Glossop 5 years ago. One of the reasons I moved out of the area was because of the traffic around Glossop and mottram moor. This traffic is unbearable in both directions both in and out of the area. The effect of traffic fumes etc on the poor residents of the area is unacceptable. The current plans should also include by-passing the villages of Hollingsworth and also Tintwistle to solve the issue. I don't miss sitting in the traffic on a daily basis one bit. Enough is enough and this bypass is badly needed now it has gone on long enough."

Susan Leeson
"This part of the bypass would make it so much easier and quicker to get out of Hadfield and Glossop and onto the M67, and this in turn must surely improve our air quality. The existing public travel network just doesn’t allow people to get to the numerous out of area work locations in an acceptable amount of time so isn’t a realistic alternative to road travel. I see this bypass as the first step in improving the traffic problems and air pollution we have to endure in this location."

Terence Newman
"Long overdue. The villages of Hollingworth and Tintwhistle ar polluted by traffic fumes for at least twelve hours every day."

Terry Collins
"Traffic around glossop both around and through Glossop and Hadfield is slow and in some cases dangerous due to drivers frustration with the constant stop start slow progress. A relief road as proposed would alleviate much of the problems experienced by the residents of the area. Glossop urgently needs the bypass. Having being a staunch labour suppoterfor more than 60 years I am alarmed by the local party aposing the voice of the local people."

Tom Choularton
"This development is key to the local areas infrastructure"

Trevor Cooke
"It is vital that this road be built to start the relief of congestion in the Glossop area. This road has been needed for decades. You can travel all over the country but you can guarantee that as soon as you get back to Glossop you have to queue. We spend our lives planning what time to travel to avoid the worst of the queues. The requirement to build more and more houses in the area is only exacerbating the problem. To cancel the building of this road AGAIN would be a tragedy for the people of Glossop This bypass has been needed for decades. We have plan travelling out of Glossop around the time that the queues will be at a minimum. You can travel from anywhere in the country without major delay, there may be queues de to accidents, road works but the one thing you can guarantee is that as soon as you get to Glossop you will hit a long slow queue. Bypasses have been built all over the country (many in places that did not deserve one as much as Glossop. Please finally GET THIS BUILT and the second phase around Hollinsworth and Tintwistle"

Trevor Hoyland
"The route through Mottram is a major link between Derbyshire and Greater Manchester but constantly suffers from enormous delays because of the bottleneck on the Derbyshire side of the M67. That bottleneck not only hinders the free flow of commercial traffic, adding cost to essential journeys, but also leads to daily frustration for those who have to travel this route for work and who have to suffer very long delays. The damage to the air quality in the Mottram area because of stationary and slow-moving traffic is incalculable, putting the health and well-being of local residents, particularly children and young people at enormous risk. A By-Pass alongside improvements in the public transport infra-structure, primarily railway improvements, would go some way towards vastly improving the quality of life of many residents leading to more realistic journey times for commercial traffic and the general travelling public."

Trevor Williams
"This long overdue bypass is now urgently needed."

Wayne Latham
"Sick to death of queuing and this has been ongoing since 1957, long enough. There is little to no infrastructure around this area, and this bypass has been needed since the 1960s. Ques are horrendous.."

William Adair
"Glossopdale is a beautiful place to live but at the moment is a disaster to get in and out of. Queing traffic at both ends spoil the experience of our Magnificent area . I am sure that any first time visitors would never return because of congestion. Please press on with the plans for the spur to encourage more businesses to the area to provide jobs for local people.. Thank you for your kind attention William Adair"

Alex Gradwell-Spencer
"I am In Favour of the bypass"

Alexander Grey
"I'm in favour of this first stage of the bypass. I've lived [redacted] for 5 years. I must travel to the M67 via Mottram Moor due to a part [redacted] been private and I am finding myself sat in traffic more and more. I wouldn't possibly be able to work at the airport in normal 9-5 hours because it would take me hours to get to work. It's also terrible coming home in the afternoon. It took me an hour to travel from Hyde centre to home because of quing at the top of the M67. This bypass has been promised for too long and needs to happen. Thank you."

Alicia Harris
"In Glossop and the surrounding villages of Hadfield,Tintwistle and Padfield, there is one main road, the A57. This Road and its arteries are completely nose to tail with vehicles of all types. Trying to get out from the side roads to even get on the the A57 is taking more time these days adding prescious time on to the journey trying to get to hospital appointments and visiting family. Adding time to emergency vehicles trying to get to their emergencies. I have had friends suggesting we go to them because they are sick of the logjam on the roads trying to visit us! As an [redacted] and realising time before the completion of the by-pass could take years, if a By-pass is not completed [redacted] serious air pollution."

Andrew Lee
"The people who are trying to block this obviously do not have to commute out of the area nor are they aware of the continued housing developments in progress that will further block our roads and cause yet further delays congestion and pollution. We the residents [redacted] have waited many years for improved transport links and more delays will nor be accepted. Do people trying to block this scheme realise that there is not a bridge out of the Glossop are that will allow two HGV's to pass???"

Andrew Nichols
"I would like the bypass to be built as soon as possible. I live [redacted] in Charlesworth . This country Lane is busy all day long with commuters, vans and lorries trying to get round the queues on the A57."

Andy Howell
"I intend to support the proposal on the basis it will deliver much needed relief from traffic chaos to the town of Glossop and the surrounding area. I fully support the building of the A57 Link Roads. Mottrtam Moor and the surrounding areas have been blighted by excessive traffic and stifling congestion for decades and the sooner something is done to ease the blight the better."

Andy Wallace
"I have nothing else to add other than the bi-pass will be welcome and time saving millions of commuters."

Anita Carr
"There is a high volume of traffic coming to and from the M67 heading to the Snake Pass and the Woodhead Pass to cross the Pennines to Sheffield, passing through the small villages of Hollingworth and Tintwistle, and also the town of Glossop. The pollution levels from the heavy goods vehicles are dreadfully high as there are often holdups to the traffic in the village and on Mottram Moor. The road through the village is not capable of handling heavy traffic and congestion is the norm at all times of day. During lockdown there was a noticeable improvement to pollution and noise levels because of the reduction in traffic which suggests the Bypass would be effective on bringing about similar improvements. The bypass is a necessity for residents and commuters in the whole area."

Anita Pickup
"As a long-term resident of Glossop I am very conscious of the traffic problems in the town due to vehicles going towards Sheffield. At certain times each day it can be horrendous. A by-pass is the only solution, especially given the extensive house-building programmes which are a feature of the area as well. The blockage caused by the build-up of traffic at the end of the M67 makes it very difficult for Glossopdale residents to access their homes/ businesses each day. I have lived in Glossop for 25 years and the traffic continues to be a problem. I do want to preserve our beautiful countryside as much as possible, but an effective way of helping traffic to move speedily is essential."

Ann Lucas
"Traffic through Mottram is very slow in both directions caused mainly by traffic through the traffic lights in the centre especially vehicles turning right. This must also cause high levels of air pollution for those living along the affected roads. When travelling through Mottram it is very difficult and unpredictable meaning you have allow extra time. From my house it can take 10 minutes to reach the M60 but last week it took 40 minutes (in the middle of the day - not even at rush hour). Ideally the by pass should include Tintwistle but at least the Mottram by pass is a start."

Antony Mckeown
"In the 1990's I was [redacted]. One of my duties was to carry out speed checks A628 Tintwistle, when I was in my 30's (age). I had conversations with local residents about the proposed "Bypass" and always stated I will be retired before it is built. I am now retired and it still hasn't been built. Will it ever be built ? I hope so......"

Arran Burgreave
"The current road network can not support the traffic and with a large amount of houses to built in the area it is only going to get worse"

Barry Cargill
"I write to express my support for the project and to request that the bypass is built to alleviate the traffic congestion in our area. Traffic congestion is a serious problem and has been for years in this area and I would greatly appreciate this bypass being built as soon as possible as I travel both sides of the pennines on a daily basis and this would greatly reduce travel time and pollution caused by the traffic in this area which is a crucial route in the North West."

Beverley Vernon
"This road is necessary as already we have too many extra houses being built, bringing extreme pressure on the existing roads in the a"

Bryan McGee
"The bypass will firstly, greatly improve the infrastructure needed for a prosperous economy; secondly, it will improve the quality of lives of innumerable people living along the route to be bypassed. The proposed by-pass is an essential item of infrastructure for a thriving economy as well as reducing noise and air pollution for the community it will by-pass."

C Richardson
"Hello. I was born in Glossop and I remember that when I was 10 years old ,I am now 70, the problem of traffic on Mottrom Moor and the surrounding area was deing debated. Now the traffic is much worse and the enviroment for the people living in the area is intolerable .The health care for people is being put in danger because ambulances can not react fast enough due to congestion. Traffic noise is another big problem in the area especially around Brookfield and Woolley Bridge.Maybe this time something can be done to improve peoples lives. Thank You."

Carol Ripley
"It is absolutely crucial that this by pass goes ahead as the riads around are terribly congested and causing a lot of pollution. This is taking far too long. Why is it now being discussed again when it was agreed?"

Chris Sizeland
"I fully support the building of the bypass."

Christine Abrams
"I was brought up in Hattersley and Hollingworth and we have been waiting for a bypass for over 50 years! I know all the rat runs because I drive into Manchester most days and the Mottram Roundabout is the worst roundabout anywhere. This bypass needs to happen. If anyone is unsure about the bypass I suggest they drive from Glossop up the Moor and to the motorway and from the motorway to Glossop and you’ll see how bad it is. That’s why people use the rat run through Broadbottom to Charlesworth and past Gamesley. They also cut through Hatterlsey to Mottram causing a huge backlog of cars. The M57 is now as bad as Hyde Road used to be before they built the motorway- this bypass needs to be built ASAP - 50 years is a long time to wait, don’t let us wait another 50 years!"

Christine Johnson
"The A57 relief road will hopefully relieve often horrendous traffic delays around woolley bridge and mottram moor areas and will generally improve lives of local residents. It will improve pollution levels and reduce traffic emissions because traffic will be moving and it will not significantly blot the landscape."

Christine Tootell
"This proposed project is years overdue, living in Glossop for over 40 years has caused hours on end trying to get out of Glossop at all times during the day. With all the new house builds that has and is still progressing the situation can only get worse. Regards, Christine Tootell"

Claire Rimmer
"The building of this bypass is essential to improve the lives of everyone in Glossopdale. By reducing the numbers of vehicles, moving and standing in traffic queues, the air quality will improve and with it the health of the population. The bypass will go a long way to reducing the horrendous hold ups that occur coming into and out if Glossop that at times triple the travel time significantly impacting negatively on all aspects of life. The nearest emergency healthcare services being outside of Glossopdale in Stockport or Ashton. With more and more houses being built in Glossopdale the traffic problems will get significantly worse unless this bypass is built. The bypass is not a "nice to do" project but an essential must do project to improve all aspects of everyone's life in Glossop"

D Mills
"As someone who has lived in the area for many years, I am very concerned about the traffic pollution and terrible delays on Mottram Moor. Although I don't have a car myself, even travelling by bus along this route is a nightmare and the buses are frequently badly delayed meaning connections are very unreliable. We desperately need this bypass - now!"

David Andrew Ritchie
"Having travelled twice daily for eight years from Chapl-en-le-Frith to Stalybridge via Hayfield, Glossop, Dinting Vale and Woolley Lane and frequently experienced gridlock, the need for a “Mottram Bypass” was evident and unequivocal. Get it done and see the benefits."

David Atkinson
"I am a local resident of Mottram in Longdendale. I use the a57 on a daily basis for both committing and for social purposes. My property is on Broadbottom Road and is circa 1km from the junction of the A57 with Market Street. I make the following points in support of the application: 1) The current a57 is unfit for purpose. Simple local journeys to shops, leisure or to visit friends are often rendered prohibitively slow by the queueing traffic on the A57. 2) within Mottram village (in particular at the junction of market street) there has been a complete loss of any local amenity value to the intensity and scale of traffic on a constrained road. The new road will have a positive impact in allowing a return of this area to more appropriate residential and community uses. 3) The well documented delays around the A57 often cause drivers to choose more unsuitable shortcuts. Eg through Broadbottom or along Ashworth Lane. These are principally residential areas. 4) Delays around Mottram create a bottle neck and often cause knock on delays to the M67 and further up the Woodhead Pass. Removing congestion around Mottram will allow the overall flow of traffic to be improved."

David Birch
"I live near the bypass area and the bypass has desperately been needed for decades to ease chronic congestion through Mottram Hollingworth and Tintwistle. Even the immediate plans to bypass Mottram will be of immense help to local people and many users of this very busy i.portant trunk A road. Dreadful congestion for decades desperately needs addressing to ease traffic flow on this very important trunk road. It is a nightmare for local residents and regular travellers by this road. By now the M67 should have been extended over the Pennines to the M1 North of Sheffield."

David O'Connell
"When I first moved to Glossop over 45 years ago I was told we were going to have a bypass. Since then Glossop high street has become like a car park with traffic crawling through it. Local s have to find detours and dangerous rat runs just to get into town. We keep building new housing estates without any improvement to the roads or any ability to get out of Glossop. Many people having to resort to going through Charlesworth and Broadhottom to avoid the bottleneck at Mottram. I was a young man when I moved to Glossop and am now an old man who would love to see the bypass finished in my lifetime. We have been let down by successive governments who always manage to find the money for road improvements in the south of England."

David Ormrod
"This proposed by-pass will provide an important link to the M67 relieving pressure on local towns and villages."

Dean Grantham
"We need a bypass now"

Debbie Seel
"The Mottram bypass (A57 to A628) and Glossop spur (A57) are the works being considered. The A628 and Mottram section of A57 carry more heavy goods vehicles than any other A road in the country. It forms a east-west corridor across the Pennines. 2 motor ways (M1 (with A616 bypass)and M67) point at each other connecting East cities such as Sheffield with Manchester and between them lie the roads in question. I live in Hadfield and have suffered from delays often up to 30mins every time we attempt to join the road. This situation has gone on for decades! Money is spent on surveys, traffic counting, proposals and plans drawn up. Schemes are then opposed by outsiders and NOTHING gets done to elevate this bottle neck which is NOTORIOUS. The A628 is a MAJOR national road carrying goods east to west connecting major cities!!! A628/A57 The Woodhead pass into Mottram becomes a single carriage road carrying East/West freight. The road is used for National freight NOT local. For an A road it normally carries more traffic than any other single carriage road in England. During problems on M62 our normal local delays of 20mins become hours of gridlock. M1 spur (Stocksbridge bypass) pointed at M67 (off M60) 1988 creating mayhem for this valley. We have waited long enough! Tens of thousands of pounds are spent on searches, proposals and surveys which are always quashed whereas other places eg Altrincham, Barnsley.... get a bypass when their problems are tiny in comparison. There are 33,000 people and more house building going on and we are gridlocked!"

Dennis Smith
"The A57 Link Road will relieve the very heavy traffic congestion that daily travels along the current A57. It will also give rise to improved air quality to all the surrounding area bordering the road. Current plans for the area only consist of building more and more houses with no regard to improving the transport infrastructure. If this link road is not built the day will come very soon when traffic along the A57 in this area will come to a complete standstill."

Diane Wilson
"I have lived in Mottram for 5 years. We need the bypass. Traffic is held up outside my house all the time, lots of air pollution from the standing ttraffic, not to mention the noise and then the speeding down to the lights to try to beat them before turning red. Sometimes even going through red lights. Trying to cross the road is near impossible! Whilst huge lorry are whizzing past you as you wait on the narrow pavement. Trying to turn right at the traffic lights at Market Street/Stalybridge Rd is terrifying, and dangerous !"

Douglas Pickford
"To experience the traffiç connection in Glossop demonstrates the urgent need for them by pass"

Dr Peter Spencer
"We have waited so long for a bypass - it must go ahead. The local traffic conditions are blighting peoples lives and a bypass would resolve a very long-standing congestion problem."

Duncan Brierley
"Access to Greater Manchester and the motorway network west of Glossop is currently hindered by a severe bottleneck along the A57 particularly from Dinting to Mottram. This is further exacerbated where the A628 and the A57 converge. This situation will only intensify through time making the journey even more intolerable. On occasions when there is an incident on the M62 heavy traffic will invariably use the A638. This leads to utter chaos particularly at peak times. This situation is totally unacceptable and the good citizen’s of High Peak together with vehicles crossing the Pennines should not have to put up poor strategic planning and a failure of successive governments to invest in the infrastructure. There is a genuine need to resolve this issue and those with influence must do their part in pursuing a positive result promptly."

Elaine Hall
"We have been waiting decades for this bypass and in that time the village has seen a huge increase in the volume of traffic passing through it, especially with the countless number of houses being built in Glossop. I welcome this phase of the bypass, with a view to it being extended to the other villages."

Gayle Roberts
"I am in favour of the by-pass. The traffic is horredous at times. Sometimes getting out of Glossop can take 1.5 hours, and at times I have turned around and come home, missing appointments. Since ambulances sometimes need the route, the lack of by-pass with the amount of traffic is potentially life-threatening. Now Glossop has merged with Tameside hospital, the traffic is even worse. Plus there is more housing with two cars per household popping up all the time."

Gerald Tootell
"The delay on this proposed project has gone on far to long, Glossop has flourished with expansion of retail, industry and housing without the road facilities to accommodate the needs."

Glen Curtis
"Seriously, in this day and age how have no improvements been made to this notorious traffic hot-spot? It is known throughout the country - when someone askes you where you live and you tell them "Glossop", their first response is (whilst pulling a pained looking face) "ooh, traffic's bad there". It's become a but of a national joke. To continue to allow this build up of traffic - especially large transportation vehicle's - is bordering on a crime when you consider the levels of pollution that there is due to stationary traffic. I dread to think what the air quality is like for those poor residents that live within a relatively close radius of the area in discussion. The frustration levels that the traffic cause also lead many drivers to seek alternative routes, cutting through residential areas of Hattersley, Mottram and Broadbottom. How do you imagine a frustrated and impatient driver travels through these areas? It only takes one driver to reduce their focus in these areas to cause some form of accident. It might only be another car they damage but there is always a risk in these areas of a pedestrian being involved. With the "cut-through' areas you also experience much higher levels of traffic too. Air quality in these more densely populated areas will also be suffering. That is not acceptable. If you think the introduction of electric only car sales will cure this then you ate massively mistaken. It is very apparent that by this deadline we will be nowhere near ready for this switchover and the demand for second hand older diesel and petrol cars will be high. Plus in another 8 years there will be even more cars on the road and - more worryingly - more HGVs etc to cater for the rise in population. There will be no "natural" decline in pollutants for many, many years to come. You owe the residents of glossop and surrounding areas this bypass. Its long overdue."

Gordon Wellens
"Been needed for 50 years I lived in Glossop for over Twenty years and I have moved because of the nightmare of getting out of Glossop and reaching the M67. I can not understand why so short sighted politician want to sabbotarahage plans for the by-pass which as been needed for years . Shame on them"

Hannah Laxton
"I live in Glossop and journeys take far longer than they should - both for work and pleasure. This is incredibly stressful and time consuming and wasting precious hours of our lives: time better spent with our families. The bypass would improve our quality of life and improve the work/life balance for so many residents of the area."

J S Mills
"As someone who was born in Mottram more than 70 years ago I am aware of how long this process has been going on for and how badly it is needed. The traffic delays on Mottram Moor are intolerable and it is high time this issue was dealt with."

James Barnes
"I have lived in the area for over 50 years. I was aware of plans to build a bypass as a small boy. This road is long over due. I have been driving for over 30 years and I have seen quite roads turn into lines of traffic that are only quite late in the evening or very early in the morning. During the day time there are more lorries than cars that go up the Mottram Moor as they have come over the Woodhead to avoid traffic problems on the M62 We need this road now!"

James Birnie
"I lived in this area since 1984 during that before I retired travelling to work in Manchester for 31 years.This is probably the worst place for traffic I have ever experienced anywhere in my travels.When is there not queuing on Mottram Moor.A bypass is desperately needed."

James Croly
"With the continued building of new properties in the Glossopdale area is now more important than ever to ease the stain on our already struggling road network! Due to over population of the area the by-pass is now needed more than ever"

James Paul Street
"Its been needed for 30 years plus. When I first moved to the area getting to the M67 took about 11/12 minutes. Now its 20 mins plus, can be much longer. Too many houses built in Glossopdale over the years hasn't helped. Glossop frequently grid locked in bad weather. The area needs this bypass and the Tintwistle bypass. Do not understand anyone opposing it. My wife and I are retired so commuting is not a problem. However, when we travel out on holiday or visiting people via the M67/M60 we still need to plan our time to get out of Glossop usually first thing even at weekends."

Jane Scott
"Pre and post pandemic I have sat in stationary traffic on the M67 towards Glossop and then on Mottram Moor towards Manchester on my return. The air pollution caused by this unnecessary build up of traffic must be immense. Please build the by pass to improve the lives of road users and residents alike."

Janet Bingham
"The Mottram Bypass & Glossop Spur Road is desperately needed. Getting out of Glossop by car towards Manchester is an ordeal with massive queues at all times of the day. Woolley Bridge is a particular bottleneck because the bridge is too narrow to take two vehicles each time an HGV uses it. Tailbacks stretch back into Glossop town centre at peak times in one direction - and to the top of Mottram Moor and back to the Waggon and Horses at Matley in the other."

Janet Mills
"I have lived in the Gamesley area for 52 yrs now, so have seen the changes in the amount of traffic on local roads. House building has also increased enormously, and is still increasing by the day, meaning more cars . Many families now can have 2 or 3 cars. There are only 2 ways out of Glossop, the main route, or through Broadbottom, which has 1 local bridge just wide enough for 1 vehicle. If this bridge is out of order, the main route out of Glossop comes to a standstill , if the main route has a problem or temp traffic lights, the only way out is through Broadbottom, a village with one through road. Even trying to travel to the local shops in Glossop has now become a slow moving journey, and the same on the way back. This is a hazard for ambulances or any emergency vehicle . The by pass is essential for this area especially for future generations."

Jennifer Wellens
"I lived in Glossop for 20years and the road infrastructure was outrageous. Back Moor was constantly blocked and I would travel through Hattersley, Gamesley and Charlesworth to get to and from my home in Glossop to my work in Tameside. Having left Glossop 4 years ago but still need to access that area the situation is even worse now due to the large amount of new housing being built. Glossop high street is jammed daily with the volume of traffic(cars, vans, trucks) etc aiming to get over the Snake Pass. It needs sorting now!!!!! When I lived in Glossop 4 years ago my ability to access my teaching post in Tameside was a daily nightmare with the volume of traffic getting in and out of the town. I had to regularly take the longer route to and from work through Hattersley, Broadbottom and Charlesworth, which equally became congested, particularly on Long Lane, Charlesworth. Even to access the shops from Tesco at one end of the High Street down to my home near Manor Park was a nightmare with the volume of traffic blocking the High Street. This was not just people going about their daily lives but the encumbrance of huge trucks and lorries, blocking the High Street aiming to go over the Snake pass or coming from off the Snake Pass. With the huge amount of building now going on in Glossop and only the one main route through the town, the traffic problem is even more exacerbated."

John Bottomley
"I fully support this application as it will reduce the congestion through Glossop."

John Hewitt
"As a lifelong resident of Hadfield in Derbyshire, I would like to register my interest in this planning process. Most of my working life has included travel from Hadfield to Manchester and beyond so using the A57 trunk road to the M67 is critical. We saw the real benefits once the M67 was constructed and at that time eagerly awaited the extension to beyond Tintwistle at that time. Each week I spend hours in slow or stationary traffic any time of the day, but mainly morning and evening commute times. The effect is that pollution is greatly increased and the risk to pedestrians and cyclists is high as motorists become impatient and try to push their way through traffic. I often queue from near my home in Hadfield to the M67 travelling 3.5Km, taking 20 - 30 minutes, the same journey late at night would take me 5 minutes. This bypass is vital to the residents of Hadfield, Glossop, Gamesley, and the surrounding areas that feed the A57 traffic flow, especially with the increased volume over recent years"

Julie Haigh
"Glossop is a dormitory town with very few facilities within the town. A huge amount of new houses have been built in this area over recent years with no improvements to the road system and this has meant ever increasing congestion on all the roads out if the town leading to very long slow crawling queues, especially through Woolley Bridge, (over a narrow bridge), Tintwistle and Hollingworth, all feeding into Mottram Moor. Sitting in these queues not only causes a significant waste of time and fuel but also causes a major pollution problem."

Justin Beevor
"The new link road will provide a massive improvement to the quality of life for those living and travelling along the A57 through Mottram and Hollingworth. It would make it significantly easier and quicker to get out of Hadfield and Glossop and onto the M67. It would also improve local air quality and reduce rat running through Gamesley and Charlesworth. It would also improve the flow of north/south traffic through Mottram from/to Stalybridge and Broadbottom and beyond. These problems have been recognised for the best party of 50 years, and no other reasonable solutions have been found: it is high time that the new road is built, and I urge the committee to grant its consent."

Karen Rigg
"The new bypass and spur are essential for the ongoing sustainability of the towns of Glossop and Hadfield. Both places are growing with extensive house building taking place and people need to be able to thrive here rather than just survive. This includes the ability to travel safely and in a timely, environmentally appropriate manner. Waiting in huge traffic queues for extended periods of time is contributing to greenhouse gas emissions, poor respiratory health and missed appointments."

Kathleen Waterhouse
"The plan for the Mottram bypass has been needed for many years. There is very heavy traffic on this road every day and very many heavy goods vehicles use this road. It must be a nightmare for the people who live on this road and have to put up with the traffic. It also needs to be built to direct the traffic away from the area and ease problems for road users too. On many occasions there is standing traffic on this road. I use this road two or three times a week so I do actually have first hand experience of it. It is time the Government spent money on the roads in this area and I feel that a major alteration of this road is long overdue. The north of the country cannot keep being left out on major infrastructure plans."

Kay Worthington
"The amount of heavy traffic is horrendous plus the fumes which must affect the people living so close to the road."

Kevin Jackson
"Please just get it started to stop the ongoing misery for 1000's of commuters evry working day. Kind regards Kevin"

Lee Guard
"The traffic levels around Mottram seem to get worse year on year. The bypass is long overdue. It would help companies fulfill their deliveries quicker and make the roads safer for the people who live along the current route."

Lesley Perry
"This is one of the most important road improvements to help congestion in the Area that connects the High Peak to the Stockport & Manchester areas where most of the people from the Glossop over to Buxton work so commute on a daily basis as I did in the 1990’s when the traffic was so bad then it used to be a 30 minute queue every night just to get off the Motorway to join the next traffic jam into Glossop. To add to this please note that if the people don’t need to do this commute to work then the biggest employer in the Peak District in my opinion is Tarmac at Tunstead Buxton so how many Wagons use this Quarry on a daily basis via this route not to mention Lomas Distribution next door. I suggest you look at these figures."

Leslie Culshaw
"Waited too long for this and Brookfield spur fed up as are most people of excuses from people out side of our area and to find labour mps and professional protestors makes me sick to the stomach to them try living here and then you ll see the benefits of by bypass"

Linda Parker
"I can't believe that the proposed bypass is in jeopardy again. Traffic problems in this area are getting worse. More houses being worse. Local transport systems are inadequate, therefore cars are required for travel to work, shopping and leisure activities. Family and other visitors are reluctant to travel to this area. It's about time some of the promises to help this area are kept. Linda"

Lindsay Gilbert
"This bypass is desperately needed. Houses are gong up at speed in the area, however the roads cannot cope with current traffic levels. Queues, not just at rush hours often form right through Glossop tow centre to get over the bridge at woolley bridge and up to mottram moor until the motorway roundabout. Ask anyone to sum Glossop up in one word and they will say traffic."

Lorraine Parnell
"I as a resident in Hadfield, that travels out of the area for work & pleasure. Finds it frustrating that no matter what time of the day it is, still stuck in traffic on a regular basis. Mottram moor is a constantly gridlocked from top to bottom especially with hgv’s. Until this bypass has been built, I see not other alternative how this can be rectified, esp now there are more houses being built in the area, so obviously more cars. The bypass has my full support especially as a resident in Derbyshire."

Lorraine Stellings
"The traffic congestion through Glossop mottram and surrounding areas is ridiculous. Waiting/travelling times getting worse to access the motorway m67. We’ve been promised the relief road for as long as I can remember. Please just get on with it to give people travelling in this area some respite from congestion."

Louise Keogh
"-noisy traffic with lorries shaking the house as they pass. -traffic sitting in a queue giving off fumes which are no good for people's health. Some days it hangs in the air and is awful. - queuing to get anywhere and if there is an accident or breakdown, gridlock and everything comes to a standstill. - people becoming impatient and shooting through red lights and dangerously overtaking on the crossing outside the Hollingworth primary school. I [redacted] have a near miss with a vehicle at least once a week when someone sees the gun Inn lights on green and put the foot down failing to see the red light on the crossing. This puts people's lives in danger especially children crossing for school. -the road isn't built for all this traffic and there has/are more houses being built at Tintwistle, Hollingworth (on the organ pub site) and on the way to Glossop. You can't allow all these new houses and not put the infrastructure in to cope with all the extra cars"

Lynn Barber
"I wish to register my support for the A57 link roads scheme"

Lynn Cawley
"I live [redacted] in Mottram since 1982 and the traffic now to what it was then even though back then was horrendous is beyond that way beyond i can count 30 plus lorries in the traffic most days, there is no way i can even attempt to cross to the other side of the rd at most times in the day please help the people living here and further down the rd by making this road way happen and stop listening to people that dont even live with problem daily and dont even live in this area it needs to happen and has needed to happen many yrs before this its lethal living with this hell day and night"

Lynn Scarry
"I am a hadfield resident and travel through mottram everyday,via the bottleneck at woollybridge which is conjested with lorries which take up the whole bridge,the spur would remove traffic into and out of glossop,mottram moor gridlocked daily with added traffic from woodhead Personally I would also support a tintwistle bypass which would benefit both . The bypass will bring a quality of life to the area and It will improve traffic flow we have been waiting 50 years for this and we need the .bypass to go ahead."

Maggie Fennell
"I have lived in Glossop all my life (70 yrs) and from being a small town with 17,000 folks it is now bursting at the seams.....the roads leading into and out of the town are gridlocked from 05.45 to 1830 every weekday . These roads have never been updated and yet are supposed to facilitate the huge rise in traffic. I travel all over the UK every working day in my job and nowhere is as bad as Glossop. I must point out that for traffic to really run smoothly the proposed Mottram by-pass must be extended to the East of Tintwistle village as this is where traffic is backed up to most week days."

Malcolm Hodkinson
"This route has been heavily used for at least 50 years above its original carrying capacity.It has places where the unwary have come to grief. It is the first alternative for many vehicles including has when there are blockages or restrictions on the M62. The pollution caused by standing traffic is horrendous As a local I have used longer more rural routes to avoid the congestion, as do many others leading to small villages having excessive throughput. Given the volume of commercial transport who suffer delays and burn excess fuel on the route, in my opinion the £228million would be recouped by the exchequer within 5 to 10 years and would be a money maker thereafter.The delays to this project over the years do not make any sense either financially, environmentally or politically(drivers are also voters) It is my hope that this project is completed as soon as possible."

Mandy Bailey
"We desperately need this bypass to make it safer for all who live in this area. We need to reduce significantly the amount of traffic, travel time & pollution. The traffic can add an hour each way for people just to be able to get to & from work meaning that most people will be stressed & it affects their health. These roads are not meant for this amount of heavy traffic every day."

Mark Baron
"Having lived in Mottram for 23yrs, I cant understand why the bypass has not been built 20yrs ago. I cant get out of my estate because of traffic and feel we are held to ransom because of the traffic. If I nip out to hyde which is 2 miles away, surely an hour there and back is un reasonable. Road noise and dust is bad. I regularly see near misses people and cars squeeing into gaps the shouldnt be. So unfair for the people affected"

Mark Roy Priestley
"I want the bypass to be built, however I only consider this part to be Part 1, as the bypass needs to then be built for around Hollingworth and Tintwistle."

Marnie Richardson
"Living in the village of Mottram for 27 years I have seen the traffic increase so much. This causes very poor air pollution, traffic is daily queuing right outside my home. It’s not pleasant to sit in my garden due to the fumes. Access to the road is a problem due to the amount of traffic simply sat in the road waiting for traffic lights to change. I have waited long times to even get off my drive to go to work. Local roads are often gridlocked and this is constant, morning, night, weekend etc. Please give us quality air to breathe."

Mary Rhodes
"I fully support the Mottram by pass and Glossop spur road as it will reduce the amount of traffic through Hadfield and Glossop on roads that were built for horse and carts not the heavy traffic it has to endure now"

Matthew Laxton
"I live in Glossop and every journey towards Manchester has the potential to be at least half an hour longer than it needs to be, just to allow time for getting out of Glossop to the west. The bypass would significantly improve our quality of life, and help to improve the work/life balance of many local residents."

Michael Hopkinson
"I fully support the Mottramf bypass project. The A57 and Woodhead pass serve as vital cross Pennine links and it is quite incredible that road communication between two major cities,namely Sheffield and Manchester should be limited to a single track road as it is at Mottram. Air quality will be significantly improved if traffic is able to flow steadily through Glossop and heavy lorries carrying thousands of tons of limestone from the Peak District quarries Will not grindto a standstill on Mottram Moor causing misery to the local inhabitants .m"

Michael J Brown
"As a resident of this locality since 1967, I am sick and tired of the continual procrastination concerning this project. The current infrastructure is totally inadequate for 21st century traffic, and it is only going to get worse due to the continual push by developers to build more and more houses, and High Peak's council apparently inability to say no; but I digress, although it does have a bearing on road usage, this is another issue altogether. Get this bypass and spur road built now, we've waited long enough. I am convinced that had this traffic issue been anywhere else than in the north west of England it would have been built long ago."

Neil Oldham
"I am in favour of the bypass as it will reduce stationary traffic on the M67 eastbound during rush hour. It will also improve the traffic flow through Mottram and Glossop"

Neil Redmond
"It is vital for Hollingworth and the whole Glossop area this road gets Built, the population has increased and more houses planed And given the amount of through traffic, the economy benefits Will pay for the road by themselves, after decades of waiting We need this road urgently."

Nigel Attwood
"The traffic situation in the north of our area is appalling and it is vital that the relief road goes ahead."

Nigel Hollingworth
"Having lived & commuted from Glossop for over 20 year, I know the issues which the proposals are aimed at improving During peak times this area becomes a car park, and even during the day there can be issues So fully support the proposals"

Nigel Mason
"I wish to confirm my support for the A57 Link road development. Currently serious traffic congestion happens around Woolley Bridge roundabout, Mottram Moor, Mottram lights and through to the M67. This can be a problem seven days a week for 12 to 14 hours a day. The development should significantly improve the congestion and the overall experience of travelling through these areas. Many thanks N Mason"

Pamela Broadhurst
"This is a much needed and long overdue bypass which will make a vast difference to quality of life for those living around it and to travel times for those of us using it."

Patrick Adair
"I believe that the bypass will improve the communications for all the surrounding areas. I consider that the bypass is a benefit to Glossop and the surrounding area."

Paul Cliffe
"People who object don’t have to sit in heavy traffic on a Dailey basis, they don’t even live in the area and have nothing to do but jump on the bandwagon of objectors."

Paul Kelly
"I support the Mottram Bypass & Glossop Spur Road being built. Traffic is currently a nightmare and this will make it easier and quicker to get out of Hadfield and Glossop and onto the M67. It would also improve local air quality and reduce rat running through Gamesley and Charlesworth."

Paul Rockett
"As a local resident I constantly struggle with the Glossop Traffic situation. There seems to be no uniform pattern to it, I can leave the house at a certain time one day and get to my destination at one time. Leave the house at the same time the next day and I could be an hour late at the same destination. Working, picking up children attending appointments etc is a nightmare and has been for as long as I can remember. With so many new homes built and planned to be built in the area I can only imagine the situation is going to become unbearable in the very near future."

Pauline Gill
"The existing road is too small for the volume of traffic that travels both across the Pennines and to the town of Glossop and the neighbouring villages. Commuting to work in the towns of eastern Greater Manchester and the city of Manchester itself is very difficult because the volume of traffic results in long queues to reach the existing motorway network. This can add over an hour to the commute, increasing pollution and considerable driver stress which increases the likelihood of accidents. The proposed new road will help alleviate the problems although an extension is still needed for further east. It will also increase the range of job opportunities for areas in the Peak District which have a limited range of job opportunities, particularly for the younger generation."

Pauline Mary Wallis
"I have been completing surveys such as this since 1981 when I moved to Tintwistle ie forty years ago. At that time the local residents had been agitating for a proper bypass for some years. Whenever we seemed to be getting anywhere we were always thwarted by the Peak Planning Authority and others on the grounds of how it would affect the fauna and flora of the Moors. These objections could have been overcome by tunnels or viaducts such as at Conway etc. The only encouraging part of this plan is the possibility of controlling the HGVs by regulations re carbon emissions. Against the expense and damage to the environment that is the unstoppable juggernaut of the HS2, our little bypass is a skateboard. We need better West/East communications not North/South. What happened to "evening up"?"

Peter Haigh
"The section of roadway, from the end of the M67 to the traffic lights at the bottom of Mottram Moor, is the worst chokepoint on the whole Woodhead trans-Pennine route. It also carries local traffic between Glossop and the M67. This improvement will massively improve traffic flows in and out of Glossop and ease congestion on the trans-Pennine route - easing traffic pollution in the area, and most particularly easing pollution caused by stop-start HGV traffic travelling westwards up Mottram Moor. It is understood that this may increase traffic on the trans-Pennine route, especially through the adjacent chokepoints of Hollingworth and Tintwistle, and it is therefore essential that this improvement anticipates a Hollingworth/Tintwistle bypass."

Peter Kay
"I have lived in Padfield many years, and , observed the traffic situation getting to a a point of grid lock. For many years I commuted by by car into Manchester, and what a first was a journey of 30mins increased to any thing up to an hour and a half, so, I left home earlier and earlier. Glossop has one road out to Manchester, a very narrow road with a narrow bridge, which can only take one bus or goods vehicle at a time, and two cars if you are careful. This road the A57 joins with the A628 at the bottom of Mottram Moor, this is the only section of four lane road. At the top of this four lane section it returns to two lanes at a junction controlled by traffic lights a further delay to traffic flow. We then have another set of traffic lights and a two lane road. The distance travelled from the bridge to this point can take up to half and hour. Coming in the opposite direction at the end of the M57 slow moving traffic can reach half way to Hyde with a journey time of quarter 0f an hour plus. And more houses meaning cars will be trying to leave Glossop."

Peter Marriott
"The congestion must be eased. I use this route for business and it is a significant obstacle to business growth. Please approve the road improvement scheme"

Peter Owens
"The proposed bypass has been needed for over 30 years. Pollution and manhours lost due to the backlogs is incalculable. It is time to get the bypass built and improve this vital cross Pennine route"

Philip Beh-Mycock
"As a local person regularly using roads in the area covered by this proposal I strongly support the proposal as outlined.It will ease flow of traffic, improve safety,and much needed commerce. I see it as part of the governments levelling up policy, helping people, jobs,work and moving forward on what has been a very troubling problem. I strongly support the scheme going forward now."

Philip Haley
"My family and I have lived in Glossop for 42 years. The By-Pass (in it's various forms) had been proposed and promised long before then. I spent my entire working life since then travelling to and from Tameside to work at Tameside Hospital by public transport. My wife did the same to work as a nurse at the same hospital travelling by car. As you may be aware, it is now virtually impossible to make these journeys by public transport in order to get to work on time. Now, as retirees, we still have to make journey to visit my daughters family and our grandchildren, or to get to shops etc in Ashton or Stalybridge. Over all this time, we have seen a further gradual deterioration in the standard of public transport. The amount of traffic, both personal or commercial, has increased many fold. In the meantime, house building has continued unabated in Glossop and district. Many of these properties are large, and have room for at least two or more cars, which only exacerbates the situation. If this road scheme is not completed in the relatively near future it is unlikely that many residents in the High Peak area will live to see it! Whilst we live in the centre of Glossop, which is badly affected, I am just grateful that we don't live in Hollingworth or one of other smaller communities which are more badly affected by the heavy volume of traffic, using roads which were designed for Victorian traffic."

Philip Walthall
"Traffic flow from the east end of the M67 is appalling. Long queues form on a daily basis that back up from the Gunn Inn at the bottom of Mottram Moor all the way to and on to the M67. Traffic fumes caused by the congestion are awful and I assume air quality suffers due to the very slow moving traffic."

Phillip Sargeant
"I have been a resident of Mottram for over two years, and own a period property metres away from the very busy interchange of Stalybridge Road and Market Street/Mottram Rise. Over the years, houses have been demolished to accommodate increasing traffic levels, but this village interchange feels like the only bottleneck for heavy haulage vehicles moving goods from Manchester TO Sheffield. Mottram is an old mill town and the roads here are just not wide or big enough to accommodate the increasing levels at a sustainable level. The pollution must be high, the congestion and traffic queuing times are long. We purchased and renovated a very unique heritage property, an old 1790's tenament, in a village with many other fantastic pieces of living history properties. We have set about restoring and maintaining this property, but the vibrations from trucks thundering down the road causes significant vibrations through the building and is leading to structural damage of the road substrate and the houses nearby. If we want to maintain a good flow of traffic and our historic village for the future, then this promised bypass needs to be constructed."

Ray Metcalfe-Smith
"Traffic traveling up Mottram Moor towards the M67 and Manchester has been horrendously congested for years and is getting worse. This causes traffic to tail back along the A57 and through Glossop, often stretching back to Glossop town centre and beyond.. The cost in time wasting and frustration is incalculable as well as damage to the environment by petrol/diesel fumes.The bypass and spur road is desperately needed."

Robert Peter Rickards
"ON moving to Glossopdale in the mid 1970's, it was pleasing to hear that a new bypass was being planned. I never thought that over 40 years later, I would be signing yet another petition for this bypass to be built. I dread to think of the hours wasted sat in traffic, trying to get out of Glossopdale since the mid 70's. Please get the thing built as soon as possible and ease the frustration of those who have to travel today."

Roger Gladwell
"Mottram area up the moor is always slow going, due to weight of traffic and periods when it stops and backs up due to knock on effects from the traffic lights at Mottram cross roads. The scheme would relieve this, giving a smooth exit from Glossop, better air quality and reducing temptation to use the rat run through Broadbottom. It would allso be an essential first part of improved travel from Manchester to Sheffield, could be extended to by-pass Tintwistle."

Roger Horne
"This proposal will prevent the loss of millions of working hours each year. Every weekday radio programmes mention queuing traffic and delays in the area causing people to be late for work. The emissions produced by this queuing traffic are substantial."

S J Hunter
"This bypass is essential for the local community to be able to access and egress the local area without sitting in a queue particularly during rush hour. Emergency vehicles struggle at all times which makes the bypass even more essential."

S M Hardy
"THIS IS NOT, I REPEAT, NOT, A BYPASS. THE ONLY THINGS AT MOTTRAM OF ANY SIGNIFICANCE ARE A POST OFFICE, A CHEMIST, AND A SET OF ORDINARY SET OF TRAFFIC LIGHTS. SO STOP TRYING TO 'SELL' IT, AS A BYPASS, AS IT IS NOT. A ROAD THAT WOULD BYPASS TINTWISTLE AND HOLLINGWORTH, IS A BYPASS !!"

S Stott
"We need the bypass as the traffic is so heavy all the time and it impacts on everything you do. It will be very sad if it doesn’t happen"

Samantha Ratcliff
"I fully support the bypass proposal"

Samuel McNeice
"The TransPennine upgrade must go ahead as the people of the local community have suffered enough ever since the exit of the M1 stupidly opened to allow traffic over the woodhead pass without the proper road infrastructure in Tintwistle, Hollingworth and Mottram. Why have seen bypasses all over the country and yet this has always been treated with total disrespect. NOW IS THE TIME DO NOT LET IT SLIP AGAIN !"

Sandra Wray
"I fully support the urgent need for the bypass here are my reasons It is at times horrendous getting out of Glossop due to the volume of traffic GThere are hundreds if not thousands of new houses being built in the area thus the situation will become so much worse. I am also concerned regards emergency services such as ambulance, fire service,police being able to get in/out of the area in any emergency situation. My parents who are both [redacted], there have been many times when they have needed my help it has taken ages to get to them because it taken so long to firstly get out of Glossop and then up the moor. I welcome this much needed by pass it will go someway to ease the problems which will only get worse when the new housing stock is built."

Sharon Nichols
"I'm in favour of the bypass being built as soon as possible. Having lived on [redacted], Charlesworth for the last five years, I am horrified by the increase in traffic that has occurred over this period. Along with commuter traffic to the motorway, many work vans and lorries use this narrow road as a rat run throughout the day, constantly hitting the speed bumps harshly outside our property adding to the traffic pollution we have to endure."

Simon Cadogan
"I have read and support the cause mentioned herein."

Stephen Webster
"I travel frequently to the North West from my home in the High Peak using the A57. Regardless of time of day the road is often congested and obviously in peak time significantly so. Whilst this is frustrating to myself and adds time to my journey it is the local residents of the area that I have the most empathy for. When stationery in the traffic, which is most of the time my thoughts are with the local people who live in the immediate area and what they must suffer on a daily basis which must have a significant impact on their daily lives & health."

Steve Curtis
"I write in support of the proposed Mottram Bypass scheme together with the Glossop Spur. It's essential as a means of reducing the slow queuing traffic generated by the Mottram Moor bottleneck. However, it's also essential that this is seen as the 1st phase of the project to remove the associated environmental hazards brought about by the confluence of 2 extremely busy trunk roads which meet a Motorway head-on. There must be an additional plan going forward to reroute the A628 past / away from Tintwhistle and Hollingworth . In so doing, the A628 Woodhead traffic would never meet and compete with the A57 Snake Pass /Glossop traffic, until they meet at the M67 terminal roundabout."

Steven H Tinsley
"This relief road proposal has been the source of much debate for the 35 years that I have lived in Glossop. There is no doubt that the road will provide much needed infrastructure improvement for the whole valley. I know that Glossop inhabitants deserve a safer and more peaceful place to live and I sincerely believe that this relief road will provide this."

Steven Hall
"This needs to be built asap, hopefully with the Tintwistle bypass to follow. As a glossop resident the traffic is now reaching intolerable levels. We need this now. If this was in the south it would have been built decades ago."

Stewart Taylor
"The history of this project is well known so need not be repeated here. Simply, the traffic situation along the A57 from Glossop to Mottram traffic lights is intolerable both in the time it takes to complete the route by car or bus and the environmental impact with respect to traffic fumes - this applies equally to the Tintwistle to Mottram section of the A628. The population of Glossop has increased from just over 24,000 in 1971 to over 32,000 today with no new road infrastucture between Glossop and Hollingworth to support that growth. Over the same period car ownership has more than doubled. There are stories of tradesmen based in Tameside being unwilling to travel to Glossop to quote for jobs due to the traffic being so bad. The roads were, as expected, noticeably quieter at the height of the Covid - 19 pandemic with a journey from Glossop to Mottram Lights (3.5 miles) taking approximately 10 minutes. Traffic levels are back to pre-pandemic levels and that same journey is back to what it was - often in excess of 30 minutes - and prevails throughout the day (not just rush hours). With more housing slated for Glossop, travel from which into Tameside will increase yet further the number of vehicles using this inadequate trunk road, the Glossop Spur (and Mottram By-Pass, are needed more than ever."

Susan Stott
"We desperately need the bypass. The heavy constant traffic impacts on everything you do."

Terry Barber
"I am writing this message as I am in favour of the bypass. This upgrade to the local road infrastructure has been delayed for too long now and needs to be started as soon as possible. There are currently more and more houses being built in the area which if the road infrastructure is not upgraded then we will have some major problems going forward."

Terry Hermitage
"Glossop desperately needs the bypass, traffic volumes are only increasing due to more houses being built, it will improve air quality vastly too not to mention the inbound and outbound daily slog for commuters."

Trevor Birchall
"I am in support of the bypass because I regularly travel over the snake pass and through Glossop which is always a very slow journey until reaching the M67. A bypass would drastically improve the journey and obviously help relieve the constant congestion. I support the by pass as it will greatly improve my journey through Glossop onto the motorway."

William Owen Russell
"Having been born and lived in Glossop all my life (85 years) I was queuing on Mottram Moor 60 years ago. Even then people thought a bypass was a desirable method of dealing with traffic problems. Since that date the situation has become intolerable. Increased use of the motor car, HGVs plus extensive house building in the town has caused this deterioration. Any journey in a westerly direction involved substantial extra time to allow for traffic delays every day of the week."

William Pickup
"Glossop is in desperate need for this bypass. The town continues to grow in population and the traffic situation out of Glossop has been terrible for decades. Glossop is notorious for its awful journey into the town from Manchester and the M60. We have been promised this bypass for years and because there has not been one back street ways out of Glossop are choked too. This bypass must go ahead to support the Northern Powerhouse and allow easier journeys between Manchester and Sheffield/Leeds etc. I think the people of Glossop have reached the end of their tether as a bypass has been promised for over 50 years, and we feel that being in the north means that we are ignored and brushed aside. Thanks for reading this representation. Hi, the building of the bypass is absolutely essential. Getting in and out of Glossop has been getting worse every year due in part by more and more house building in Glossop. We have been waiting for this bypass for decades and I feel that Glossop is being treated as a second class town as other towns seem have their bypasses built in a fraction of the time that Glossop has had to wait. The traffic congestion is now appalling."

Alan Jackson
"The local village roads are excessively congested . The exhaust fumes are a danger to health The heavy lorries are causing deterioration of property along the present route All roads in this area are excessively congested the small villages like mine have a continuous stream of heavy very heavy good vehicles that cause dust and exhaust contamination that would obviously diminish if traffic had use any oass"

Alan Moxon
"With all the houses being built in Glossop, trying to get out of Glossop will be almost impossible,you might as well build a wall instead, this road is 50 years too late"

Craig Johnson
"I completely support the bypass as it will improve all our lives being able to come and go from Glossop without being constantly stuck in traffic. My husband and I commute together to Manchester which takes twice as long as it should and it puts friends and families off visiting knowing how long it takes to get here."

Daniel Trimmer
"This bypass has been sorely needed for ages. I am surprised that any supposed representative of local people should think otherwise. I am very concerned about the opposition of some local politicians to the proposed Mottram bypass. The scheme may not be perfect, but it is the only option in the short term. Without it, time-wasting traffic jams and unnecessary pollution will be with us forever."

David Sheppard
"This is a significant route between Sheffield and Manchester. The route is required for the following key reasons: * To relive congestion * To improve the environment, resutling from the congestion * To provide relief to local residents. I strongly support the application."

Helen Bowdur
"The case for the Mottram bypass and Glossop spur is irrefutable. It must go ahead if the people who live in the surrounding vicinity can travel in and out of Glossop with fewer hours in the day of major traffic congestion"

James W Milner
"The building of a motorway that leads into a bottleneck makes no economic sense. The benefits of this proposed extension must outweigh its cost and must proceed."

John Cassidy
"This new road is a vital link in the transport system for the North West"

John Haydn Jones
"A long overdue (part) bypass which will enable speedier exit from Glossop but in no way will it solve the problem of re-entry from Mottram Moor to Glossop. There seems to be a lack of joined up thinking. There are 10 sets of traffic lights through Glossop, traffic coming in to the town will rush as far as Mottram Moor then grind to a halt on meeting the succession of traffic light obstructions, unless such lights are coordinated. Witness the daily crawl now through the town for all the evidence you need."

Joyce Linaker
"I am mainly concerned about the volume of traffic. Primrose Lane is the main road for traffic going to Buxton and as such we get a lot of heavy traffic (lorries carrying stone, cement mixing vehicles etc.) on the lane. The noise sometimes is horrendous with these vehicles and at times the house feels like it physically shakes when they pass. The traffic starts at approx 5 a.m. in the morning so not much chance of a lie in. I feel the amount of traffic is also a hazard for schoolchildren making their way to the local primary schools in particular. I have lived in the Mottram/Glossop area since 1986 and prior to moving to Glossop lived on Matley Lane which was always used as a rat run by commuters and this whole area has needed the bypass for a very long time. Too many lorries on the A57 heading for the M67 instead of them using the M62 and it is the proximity of vehicles to the terraced houses in particular which poses such a danger to pedestrians. I think we have waited far too long for this bypass. My worries in respect of the traffic is mainly for the people who live in the area close to the roads and pedestrians, mainly children, who have to walk along these roads on their way to school/college. This is a serious issue for anybody who lives in these areas. I personally have lived in the Mottram/Glossop area since 1986 and have been waiting for the bypass since moving to the area."

Lynda Harper
"i support the application for the A57 link road as my son lives in glossop ,and this will make it easier for his family on the roads ,especially my grandson who travels to salford univercity,and for all the residents to move freely about ,it makes sense to relieve the towns and villages of pollution to a minium ,improve transport links upgrade to trains and buses will make a huge diffrence ,also it would make a diffrence to myself as i dont have a car and use trains to get to glossop ,it would be great if there was a direct link to glossop from where i live[redacted] i have to travel into manchester for the glossop train ."

Mark Flowers
"On the suggestion of my MP I have read the proposal and wish to support the development and therefore this next step in the building of the trans Pennines upgrade programme."

Michael Colin Hampson
"This by pass is a waste of money the road structure in the hadfield and glossop area is awful and all this does is move the bottle necks to a different part of hadfield and glossop with the amount of new housing being built in the area will make it even worse you only have to look at the school that was built in hadfield 2 years ago and already they are having to make it bigger what a joke the council and goverment are a joke ."

James Croly on behalf of Michelle Croly
"Expanding towns need road systems to suit, the Glossopdale area has expanded exponentially whereas the road system has remained virtually the same for the last half a century!"

Molwyn V Ashley
"The people of this area affected by the congestion have waited for the Glossop Spur long enough. Those lobbying against are very selfish, and to bring party politics into the argument is cynical in the extreme."

Nigel Woods
"I live in [redacted] mottram, on ashworth lane. The traffic to get from the pennines to the motorway is horrific. It has been the way for decades.[redacted]. Every weekend we would have to do this journey over the pennines and sit in traffic. Just getting up the steep hill from hollingworth can take half an hour or more. The traffic uses ashworth lane as a cut through to avoid and negate the queue at the end of the m67 that queues along the first exit past the 2 garages towards the Mottram post office. Our quiet little village b road has become an A road. The nay sayers have not lived in the middle of this traffic nightmare and their opinion is unjust. This bypass will decrease journey times dramatically and add hours of productive work onto each day meaning companies revenue will increase. It will revert our ashworth lane village busy road back to normal road level traffic numbers. I also have lived in Barnsley and worked in Manchester and had to do this commute on a daily basis for 2 years so have first hand experience of the journey the opposite way than described above. It is just as bad. The traffic starts to tail back in the mornings from the middle of the Fisheries in Tintwistle, past the old house on the right with the clock tower, past the park on the left (may be called etherow Country Park), all the way through hollingworth and up the steep hill towards mottram and the motorway. It is desperately needed. I would suggest that you see for yourself. Set off in a car at 7am from the other side of the a628 in Barnsley and try to get to Ashton-under-Lyne within an hour. You will find this journey takes you 90 minutes and half of it will be sat in traffic waiting to get up the hill towards mottram, from Tintwistle. Likewise, try leaving Manchester on a Friday night at 4.30 _ 5pm and get over the a628 towards Barnsley and the m1 and you will be queueing in traffic at the end of the m67 for about an hour until you reach hollingworth, where the traffic will get back to normal speed. I have seen some areas that are traffic niggtmares over the years and I must say this is high on the list as one of the worst. These words are 100% accurate. Do these journeys yourself at peak times if you don't belive me. Please get this bypass built, and quickly too. Thanks nigel"

Paul Gregory
"This bypass is crucial to speeding up trans-pennine routes and reducing the appalling traffic congestion pollution in the area. The proposed bypass is badly needed to better connect Sheffield to Manchester and will reduce the appalling delays to travel time and reduce fumes from standing traffic"

Penny Wardale
"As a local resident I support this bypass application. Traffic around this area is horrendous. We need this bypass."

Stephanie Tierney
"We need this to help the flow through our town centre and to get to work easier and quicker"

Steve Casey
"I have been a resident of Glossop for over 30 years and the blight on the area due to the huge traffic problems is getting worse. The area is the worst congested of any in the country and decades and decades of feasibility studies that have cost millions of pounds have produced NOTHING. Residents are subjected to hours of delays due to the traffic volume. This situation cannot continue as lives are frequently at stake with emergency vehicles regularly trapped in traffic jams. This project MUST PROCEED WITHOUT FURTHER DELAYS This bypass must go ahead... I am sick and tired of waiting in endless jams to get home from work no right minded individual could possible object to this badly need road improvement."

Steven Leahy
"Having lived in Hadfield for many years I have become increasingly frustrated at the severe traffic delays caused by the inadequate road infrastructure. The use of the A628 Woodhead Pass & A51 Snake Pass by so many heavy lorries and commuters which have to pass through the bottleneck of Tintwistle & Mottram effectively seals off Hadfield, Padfield and Glossop for most of the day. The A57 link road is not the full solution to the traffic problem as a full bypass between the M67 junction at Hattersley in the West, joining Woodhead Road East of Tintwistle is the answer but the link road will make a significant difference. Over the years there has been an enormous amount of residential development in our area but no attempt has been made to improve the infrastructure to cope with the increased traffic. There are no new employers in Hadfield but more and more houses are built which means purchasers of these new houses have to commute to Manchester, Salford and further afield. The A57 link road was needed 20 to 30 years ago to cope with the demand then, so it simply must be built."

William Martin
"Always seems to be a queue of traffic throughout the main Street."

William Taylor
"As a resident of Glossop I am often worried about the relentless traffic passing through and the effect it might have in the way of air pollution. I believe the bypass would help to reduce emissions and make Glossop a cleaner and safer place to live."

Adele Platt
"I feel the by pass is essential for the Glossop & tintwhistle residents."

Andrew Gillooly
"This has been 30+ years in the making and is still very much needed to help with the dreadful congestion situation in the Glossop area."

Bryan Michael Nield
"I agree with the proposals for the improvements for the A57 link roads on the basis that it will be far easier and quicker to get to the M67. In addition, this will improve the local air quality. Furthermore it will reduce traffic running through Gamesley and Charlesworth, and improve the public transport infrastructure."

Cassandra Anderson
"It would be a more efficient way to get onto the M67 for on Glossop . This a very congested road at best of times, which snakes through Gamesley and Charles Worth , would be good to improve Public transport and be easier to commute therefore . This is a vital Link Road , our roads badly need to accommodate more traffic capacity from the villages to the City , the benefits this will provide to the commuters and residents living in these areas and surrounding will be excellent. Please let this go ahead it is badly needed."

Don Capstick
"The bypass is already decades overdue with with traffic problems increasing on an almost daily basis. Apart from the massive increase in through traffic the to and from the motorway networks, the policy of granting permission for new housing in the local area has put hundreds more cars on the road which have contributed to the queues and the frustration of users. Any planner or politician who has doubts needs to spend a day on Mottram Moor counting how many drivers try to avoid queuing by driving around the line and cutting in, often blocking other cars trying to turn right at the lights. Alternatively try joining the frequent lines of vehicles on the M57 from Hyde to Mottram or A57 from Glossop to Mottram. Having been driving since the mid 60's I have first hand experience of the incredible increase in traffic volume and in the last couple of decades or so have spent hundreds of hours in my car stationary awaiting my turn. It's not good for me, my car or the environment."

Helen Nield
"This proposal will make such a difference to the quality of people's lives by improving local air quality together with the public transport infrastructure and the benefits that this will bring."

Hilary Hebron
"I object to this scheme for the following reasons; 1. It will increase traffic and encourage heavy goods vehicles on roads which are not suitable for them. 2. Building the bypass and the increased traffic will increase rather than decrease carbon dioxide emissions when the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] have just issued a red alert saying we must drastically and rapidly reduce our carbon emissions. 3.It will involve fragmentation, loss or displacement of diminishing wildlife habitats such as wet grazing meadows and of protected species, such as bats and barn owls. We need to conserve, increase and reconnect areas of land for nature not decrease and fragment them, which makes them less useable by wildlife. 4.The Peak District National Park should be a carbon sink, a haven for wildlife and a place where everyone can get outdoors and enjoy nature, and peace and quiet. More traffic on cross-Park roads will erode these special qualities. National policy requires trunk road traffic to avoid National Parks. 5.A lorry ban coupled with sustainable transport measures would bring lasting benefits and avoid the above adverse impacts. Highways England rejected this option in 2015 but, since then, the declaration of a climate emergency, the Covid-19 pandemic and a review of the Treasury’s rules to assess the value of roads - make reconsideration of this option essential. 6.The modelling is based on data, assumptions and projections from before the Covid pandemic and must be updated to reflect recent and future levels of home-working and the shift towards virtual meetings."

Jeremy Tarr
"propose that the long awaited bypass is actually built in my lifetime"

John Bradley
"The volume of traffic in on the road in Glossopdale is excessive and detrimental to the resident who live and work in the area. Resulting in delays and air pollution due to the lack of improvements to the infrastructure over decades whilst the residential expansion has rapidly increased. Improvements to the road system are urgently needed to help the area keep moving forward. It's disgraceful the some consiider their own personal politics more important than the people they are elected to represent! The bypass and spur are desperately needed to relieve the traffic in Glossop, Hollinwood and Tintwistle. Constant queuing, fumes and vibration form heavy goods vehicles are detrimental for the residents and the environment."

Marilyn James
"Currently there are only two ways in or out of the glossop area, one at broad bottom and one at woolley bridge. Both of these routes only support one way traffic. Since 1971 when I moved into the area there has been an ongoing attempt to get a badly needed bypass and the problem has just got worse and worse and worse. Crossing the road in the middle of Charlesworth, one takes ones life into ones hands, quite literally. More and more houses are being built in the area and all of these houses will have two or more vehicles. The air quality is rapidly deteriorating. I have developed pulmonary fibrosis and I know of several people in the area who also have the disease. This is only going to put more pressure on our over worked health service. It is vital that no more time is wasted in getting the bypass built. many people have been campaigning for over 50 years for this by-pass. this indicates how important they all feel it is. The traffic at rush hours particularly is horrendous and villages like charlesworth are losing their village character due to the excess traffic which passes through them. Public transport is very poor and unreliable and this forces people to use their own cars to get from A to B. Air quality is poor and getting worse due to the fumes from cars being held up by the the one way system at Broadbottom and Woolley Bridge."

Susan Bennett
"This has been going on for 50yrs it’s ridiculous. It’s getting more harder to get out of Hadfield or getting back in. More and more houses are being built, The time is is now to build the bypass."

Vincent Dineen
"this needs to happen there are more and more people living in the Glossop area so more traffic than ever all stuck trying to get into or out of Glossop."

Anne Worrall
"We're fed up with the Glossop Crawl - we need the by-pass. I support the building of the by-pass to relieve congestion in surrounding villages. I have lived her for 53 years and have watched our traffic conditions deteriorate over time. Anne Worrall"

Daniel Wood
"The Mottram Bypass should not be built. Greater investment in public transport - buses, trains, cycle routes etc are what will truly ease the congestion. If we want fewer cars on the roads then we need to make it easy for people to use an alternative. Building more roads encourages car use and only shifts the congestion to a different location."

Dianne Travis
"The delay in useing the road from Glossop to Stockport causes constant problems when going to visit relatives, or attending to business needs."

Felicity Leigh
"I fully support this application. The growth of Glossop, including numerous new housing developments, has resulted in congested roads - sometimes to the point of gridlock - due to the flow of traffic out of and into Glossop."

Graham L Harris
"1 My wife [redacted] the growth in traffic in Glosdop and its surrounds [redacted]. 2. Travelling time has increased out of proportion in the last decade to such an extent that a journey from my home to the centre of Mottram can take up to 25 minutes. This increased time, it used to be 5/7 minutes, is due to the increased traffic on arterial roads resulting from trans Pennine traffic trying to find alternative routes and population growth which is unsupported by existing infrastructure."

Ivor Bryan Tynan
"After what I think could be about 50 years (if not it seem like it). This bypass is still not on the starting grid. The endless time spent getting in and out of Glossop and time spent on the M67 from Denton to Mottram trying to get onto the A57 is ridiculous. As I drive round the country I see other bypasses being built but up here it seems to be out of sight out of mind. When and if it does come to fruition, only half the job is being done. The road needs to go through to the start of the Woodhead Pass not just to bypass Hollingworth."

Joy Overall on behalf of D & J Overall
"The level of traffic has increased vastly over the 18 years since we moved to Glossop. Every time we have to go onto Mottram Moor, it takes long and longer to travel a short distance, with the amount of lorries growing in number. We need this route to be thought through and and actioned upon swiftly. Yes it is going to cost a lot of money, but it is well overdue, with lorries getting bigger, more cars on the road, the roads were not set up for this level and size of traffic. Do we wait until houses collapse with the vibrations from the traffic.!! We need it to go through without further delay, as it will not be completed over-night."

Kevin James
"This By-pass will save hundreds of daily commuters and travellers, at least an hour off their journey . It is long overdue and also will help the residents of Glossop and surrounding areas that suffer from large amounts of carbon Monoxide gases that are spewed out into the air from stationary vehicles, constantly throughout the day."

Neil Wheatley
"hello, well if nothing is done soon the traffic will be at gridlock and no one will be going anywhere! the amount of house building in glossp and the surrounding area is going to make the traffic worse! the godley green development is going to make 2,500 houses that's at least another 2,500 cars! woolly bridge is a major bottleneck. the one problem i have is that this project will not reduce congestion! the only thing that will is the opening of the woodhead tunnel for trains to sheffield. as yet this is not even on the cards, i did tell them this at the consultation but as yet there are no plans to reopen woodhead. this was closed by Beaching due to a bypass being built! yes! we have waited that long! I see this as a first stage, then there should be a major effort to reopen woodhead. i do not have a car if i need to go to sheffield i have to get a train from hattersley to manchester piccadilly!!!! how bonkers is that!!!!!! best neil:-)"

Norma Westwell
"I support the building of the A57 link roads as they will stop some of the pollution and congestion that people who live along the routes experience. Traffic should be able to get into Glossop and Hadfield more quickly and rat runs through Gamesley and Charlesworth should have less traffic on them."

Simon Turner
"This bypass simply must be built as soon as possible. Only those who have not had to endure the misery of Mottram Moor, rat runs through Charlesworth and Glossop at a virtual standstill could oppose it. We have waited long enough. Get on with delivering and digging and stop consulting. You have had plenty of time to consider the need."

Sonia Tarr
"The Mottram Bypass is very much needed due to the heavy volume of traffic that chokes up Mottram village and the surrounding area and roads - trying to get from Glossop to Stalybridge is a nightmare. The traffic problem was caused a long time ago by the construction of junction 35A on the M1 which allows the high volume of lorries to travel over Woodhead and through Mottram to get to the M67 and beyond rather than continuing to the junction of the M62 The pollution level from the number of heavy vehicles queuing on Mottram Moor is also a major environmental issue"

Sue Dow
"I travel to Glossop most weeks to visit my daughter and grandchildren and the journey from the M57 to my daughter's home in Glossop is a nightmare. Often I am travelling to look after my grandchildren so that my daughter can work and the journey is very stressful as I am often delayed and spend so much time in traffic queues. This bypass is long overdue and would benefit many people and would cut emissions from stationary vehicles so would also improve the air quality."

Valerie Wolstenholme
"I think the Mottram by-pass and Glossop spur roads will make it easier to get in and out of Glossop easier and I'm also in favour of a new road through Hollingworth and Tintwistle."

David Clegg
"We need the bypass desperately too many new housing developments in Glossop and surrounding areas, Traffic congestion is becoming increasingly difficult Too many hospital appointments etc missed because of trouble getting in and out of Glossop. This bypass is long overdue , to get anywhere on time you have to allow more and more travel time . This is any time of day not just peak time . We have no hospitals or walk in centres in Glossop ,it is impossible to get to Thameside hospital in an emergency because of traffic congestion. Emergency services also cannot be relied upon to get to you in time"

Friends of the Trans Pennine Trail
"The Friends of the Trans Pennine Trail object to the scheme primarily because it would adversely affect the enjoyment of Trail Users. The local countryside, highly valued for its natural undeveloped character and open views, would be urbanised and the Green Belt would be cut in two. It would increase traffic on adjoining roads that are part of the Trail, increase CO2 emissions (Over 60 years of operation the scheme would add an extra 399,867 tonnes of carbon dioxide) adversely affect air quality and fragment wildlife habitats and hamper efforts to promote Active Travel and modal shift to walking, cycling and the use of Public Transport, thus going against publicly stated government targets. Air Quality Management Areas in Tintwistle and Glossop would still be needed and the increase in traffic will harm the delicate ecology of the Peak District National Park. A proper assessment of alternative options needs to be carried out. However, should the scheme go ahead the Friend’s concern is to ensure that the maximum benefit is achieved for Trail users and other participants in Active Travel in the area. The current A57 route must be re-modelled to give priority to walkers, cyclists and public transport users, otherwise both roads will simply fill up with traffic and there will be a net dis-benefit. Initial discussions with Highways England have identified a number of improvements that could be made to the scheme and we intend to ensure that implementation of these is carried out if the scheme goes ahead. Highways England has a poor record on delivery of Active Travel measures and this must not happen in this case."

Julia Kelly
"I have been waiting 40 years to get some improvement in access to Glossop. The Dinting end of the new link would be a suitable connection point to the Longdendale valley motorway if it is ever built."

Karel Krommendijk
"To keep heavy goods traffic from using local roadways and generally creating less 3rd party traffic and congestion. Making glossopdale more easily accessable and ending the misery of queuing on mottram moor. We've been waiting for 50 years for some improvement; Let's get it done!"

Lyn Francis-Dean
"Re A57 Link Roads Bypass I am a resident in Glossop. I am in favour of the Bypass going ahead. It is long overdue. The traffic situation is becoming untenable, it can take over 30 mins to get to Hyde from Glossop travelling by car. Going into the Manchester can take an hour or longer. With all the new housing developments that are currently being built in and around Glossop the situation is becoming worse."

Mark Kassar
"As a resident impacted by the traffic issues in Mottram I am registering as an interested party. I have suffered significantly for many years from the lack of a bypass and it's not secret that this is a major issue that is only getting worse, especially with the ongoing increase in house and therefore traffic in the area. Not only does this cause the obvious problem of trouble getting in and out of the area, I believe we have to consider the financial impact on area, people don't like to travel into the area due to the traffic and therefore this impacts local business, and potentially the value of homes. There is also the issue of health and how so much pollution standing and stop/start traffic causes in the immediate area. I strongly believe that a bypass is well overdue and needs to be built asap to resolve this issue which will never improve and only get worse without a bypass."

Paul Holmes
"This by pass is needed the time taken to get out of Glossop to the m67 is as long as it takes to get from the start of the m67 to centre of Manchester! Obsurb!"

Steven Howarth
"I live in glossop and agree with the proposed bypass."

Thomas Kassar
"I've been through a lot of recruitment calls for jobs from Manchester and further and everybody who I speak to(even someone I met in London) know Mottram Moore. It's a joke that the motorway ends at our town and then tries to push an entire motorways worth of traffic down one road. I'll do an hour commute with no traffic or a bit of traffic which is slow moving and as soon as I get back into the Hattersley area everything stops. Trying to get a career at 30 years old and having to turn down opportunities or ask for flexible hours so I can miss sitting in Hadfield and Mottram traffic is embarrassing. I've sat in traffic for 20 minutes or longer just to get to the motorway, it's ridiculous and the motorway is only a 2 mile distance from where I live. On top of the traffic everybody at the top of Mottram pushes in rather than waiting in the queue which makes it dangerous and even longer to get up. We're building more houses constantly around Glossop and Hadfield with no infrastructure and this is what happens. I daren't even go near Tintwistle as that is a guaranteed sea of cars so I only have one way out of Hadfield and that's the 20 minutes to go 2 miles for me just to get out of the town nevermind the actual journey time."

Allan Dyer
"Living in Tintwistle and therefore personally experiencing, almost on a daily basis, the challenges faced as a result of the increasing volumes of traffic pouring through the village, gives me endless cause for concern from the sheer difficulty of getting onto the main road to the very negative effect on our health of pollution from vehicle exhausts. In essence, when the M62 is closed (which is becoming a more commonplace event), the A628 becomes the M62. I live approximately 3 miles from the M67 roundabout to join that motorway and that journey can take up to an hour and a half. It is stressful, dangerous and needs to be resolved. Our village life in general is made hell by the lack of a suitable bypass around the village and sadly a bypass that has been "on the cards" for well over 50 years."

John Brandreth
"1, I lived on the A57 road for 30 years and in the area for almost 50 years. The volume of traffic on the A57 and A628 has increase tremendously causing delays and the slightest traffic problem i.e. a broken down lorry causes gridlock in roads adjacent to A57/A628 usually for several hours. 2. New build houses have increased the population quite dramatically but infrastructure has not been improved to cater for all the increased traffic. 3.Pollution from standing traffic is very high - a serious health hazard to the local population. 4. discussion of a bypass road has been ongoing for 50 years to my personal knowledge. Time for action is now."

Paul Egan
"The first part of the link is only half of what's required. We need the first part but the second must follow to make any true impact on traffic around Glossop and Tintwistle."

Stephen Robinson
"I have lived in Hadfield for over 20 years. I regularly need to "escape" Glossop / Hadfield for work / visit family on the Manchester side. My main points: - It’s getting worse covid gave a temp reprieve, but the traffic recently is a bad as ever. This morning ( 26.08.2021 ) @ 09:05 start - it took 22 minutes to travel 2.1 miles at 12 mpg (this is typical during congestion here). My car does 40+ on average normally. You need to live this problem and be stuck in it regularly to really appreciate how frustrating and soul destroying it really is. I wish objectors would consider the amount of pollution this causes with the stop / start traffic, how many millions of £’s have already been wasted in fuel, delays, break downs and further stop-start + accidents and ill-will caused by drivers “queue jumping” from the outer lane. I have even seen ambulances get stuck in this mess with lights flashing / sirens going. My stance is, we can no longer afford to wait, for 20+ years the campaigners against have effectively caused _nothing_ to happen or improve, it needs actions! No amount of train station building is going to fix the number of trucks that also significantly contribute to this problem. If this road was an artery, the patient would long ago be dead."

Trans Pennine Trail
"The Trans Pennine Trail (TPT) is a multi-user route through 27 Local Authorities across the north of England and is used by thousands of people every day as a route to school / work or as part of their leisure activities. It is a free resource open 24/7 and has been much needed for people during the Covid pandemic. The Trail has given a place for people to forget about the trials of everyday life, to re-connect with nature, to re-engage with their love of walking, cycling and horse riding. The Trans Pennine Trail partnership has objected to the format of the Highways England’s scheme due to the impact on the Trail. The local countryside is a highly valued natural asset in this area and has been a place of sanctity for many Trail users, particularly during the pandemic. The scheme does not take this into consideration. The TPT national office has made representations to every consultation regarding this project. It is imperative that this Highways England’s scheme also provides a robust NMU scheme that is in line with the Governments LTN1/20 considerations and provides for equestrians in terms of the Trans Pennine Trail alignment. Crossing points should be suitable for all relevant users. Sustainable transport schemes should be safely segregated from all road traffic. The scheme is not limited to the impact in the location of the A57 link road but the extra traffic generated across the A628 will also hugely impact on sustainable transport users of the Trail due to the existing 3 crossing points on the A628. The Peak District National Park Authority are working to support a modal shift to sustainable transport modes. Further traffic and congestion is contrary to this. The Trans Pennine Trail has provided details of the impact on the Trail and suggestions where improvements to the sustainable transport offer are needed. As we are now facing a climate emergency it is essential that sustainable transport is recognised as a vital part of the infrastructure of this programme. Should the scheme go ahead the Trans Pennine Trail national office asks that the scheme is re-modelled to give priority to all sustainable transport users to ensure provision is fit for purpose to encourage Trail uses and residents to use them with confidence. Initial discussions with Highways England have identified several improvements that could be made to the scheme and we intend to ensure that implementation of these is carried out if the scheme goes ahead"

Christine Brandreth
"Having lived on the area for most of my life and on the A57 for 30 years of that, I have seen an enormous increase in the amount of traffic passing through small villages and causing tremendous traffic jams and often queues miles long. This leads to difficult journeys for local people tryng to get to work etc. and also high pollution with standing traffic - especially from the many trucks and lorries that use the route. There are many cottages that are along the route that have only a small footpath between the house and the traffic. The bypass has been promised for over 50 years and it is now essential and should go ahead without further delay."

David Stirk
"The construction of the by-pass is imperative to the future growth within Glossopdale. Without it the area will simply stagnate due to the endless lines of slow moving and stationary traffic. 1995 I ran a company employing over 220 people in Stockort. The traffic situation then was if I needed to be in my office by 9.00am I had to leave my home in Glossop by 8.00am. However if I left home at 8.50am I could be sat at my desk by 9.10/9.15am. That was 27 years ago, the situation now is much worse we desperately need the by-pass now!"

Gordon John Gange
"I live in Hadfield, close to the A57. Like many in the Glossop area I do not want this scheme to go ahead until the Tintwistle stage is complete. A Mottram Bypass is not going to help Tintwistle, which desperately needs it. Furthermore I have several times raised the point that far from being a 'Glossop Spur', the Glossop exit is still being shown on all the maps as the main route. If this is signposted 'Glossop and Sheffield' it will funnel all the traffic into Glossop. I would like officially to contradict our MP's assertion that people who don't want the Bypass are 'professional protesters from outside the area'. I live in the area (the south end of Hadfield, a few hundred yards from the A57) and what I hear and discuss does not in any way support Mr Largan's assertion."

Jennifer Willis
"I am deeply disappointed that this is going ahead. It will have significant environmental implications for our local wildlife. It will move the current congestion problem elsewhere, ie Hollingworth where there is a primary school and a high school. Students already risk their safety in crossing the busy trunk road to catch the bus home. There needs to be a weight limit put on Woodhead. The lorries all need to be moved to an alternate more appropriate route."

Joanna Lyon
"I support the need for the Scheme. To leave the Glossop area and reach services, leisure and employment opportunities within the neighbouring Greater Manchester area, there is little choice but to use the A57, whether by car or bus. The train service is useful only if your destination is within central Manchester. With no connections to other lines until Manchester Piccadilly, reaching areas that are in local conurbations is impractical by train. Journey time reliability is extremely poor. This has a direct negative impact on local business (and with it, employment opportunities), and also reduces our quality of life and opportunities. Journeys that can’t be avoided, such as those for work or health appointments, are planned so as to arrive far earlier than should be necessary, simply to avoid being late, given the unreliability of the journey. There is no resilience in the network. The delay on occasions, when a vehicle breaks down, or roadworks reduce lane capacity, means it can take two hours to travel the first couple of miles. As noted by the Applicant, the consequence of the daily queueing is rat-running through local villages. Back roads around Stalybridge such as Matley Lane, or through Broadbottom and Charlesworth, as well as more local detours through Hadfield and Hollingworth, are frequently exploited. These roads should be local neighbourhood roads, but instead are busy, creating an unwelcome environment for residents. At present, using a bicycle for local journeys is unpleasant and risky. The difficulty of cycling up the steep hill is compounded by two lanes of queueing traffic, leaving little or no space to ride. The traffic conditions are not new. They have existed now for decades. However, they have become worse, with queues now extending throughout the day, starting much earlier in the morning not clearing until much later at night. The queues also extend physically, into neighbourhoods, and have far greater knock-on effects. House continue to be built and more are already planned for the future, increasing transport demands. The need for this scheme is not based purely on local problems. Many goods vehicles use Woodhead Pass as a strategic link between the M1 and the M60. Whilst it may be desirable to wish that they would all use the M62, this is not realistic due to the increased distance that this would incur. The demand for goods is not reducing and will not go away in the future. There is a need for this route to safely and properly accommodate strategic traffic, without the impacts on local neighbourhoods that this traffic, and its resultant displacement of cars, is currently causing. The Scheme can be, and has been, designed to minimise its environmental impacts. Appropriate Requirements can be placed upon the Applicant to ensure that all reasonable steps are taken to protect and enhance the environment."

Jocelyn Street
"The congestion due to a lack of bypass has been dreadful for years and should have been dealt with long ago. It has become ever more necessary."

Matt Hankins
"myself and my family are in total agreement for the need for this bypass to alleviate traffic and fumes in this area, we must have this bypass without delay"

Jill Crossland
"I support the planning application. As a resident of Tintwistle for over 40 years we need this road improvement scheme more than ever before. It would appear all other areas of the country have been improved whilst residents in this longdendale valley ha e been forgotten for too long. Get the road scheme built, the sooner the better."

Jocelyn Thornton
"I regularly need to drive to and from Scotland, and my preferred route is from the M60 through the outskirts of Glossop and Hayfield to Buxton. There are regularly very long queues and delays at the first island on this route. I have occasionally tried diverting through Charlesworth, but this is not a suitable road, and now is also frequented by heavy vehicles. This route is not designed to take heavy vehicles, and must cause additional problems for the village residents. Life for people living along the usual route must be thoroughly miserable and difficult, as the road is very narrow. Has the pollution level been checked? What are the costs of repairs to this route, caused by heavy traffic?"

S Walsh
"Quite simply getting in and out of Glossop is taking up an increasingly large part of my working and social days. It is not good for my state of mind."

Chris Lomas
"I support the building of the bypass and all the positive effects it will have. Mottram moor is a bottleneck and blighted this town for too long."

Christine Osborne
"I am writing to state how important it is that Glossopdale gets a Bypass. Traffic in the area has been horrific for years. I have lived here since 1978 - there have been issues about traffic not being able to flow since then. Life for residents in the area is stressful because of the queuing. My husband and I travel all over the country in our caravan, and we have a usually have a clear journey on our return until we get to the end of the M67 and then everything grinds to a halt. We have been waiting for this bypass for years and just as we think we will get somewhere, people seem to be working against us to destroy the plan."

Joanna Collins
"The scheme would increase traffic on residential roads in Glossopdale, on the M67 motorway into Manchester and on roads across the Peak District National Park, bringing more congestion and climate emissions. This does not comply with national policies for climate change, for the National Park and for modal shift to walking, cycling and public transport. I live in [redacted] which has seen increases in motor traffic over several years, adversely affecting the life of its residents and visitors’ enjoyment of the countryside. This will be exacerbated by additional traffic along the A57 and hence into the Hope valley (predicted informally by several experts). The A57 is a narrow road which is sometimes blocked due to snow, road repairs or other works. The A57 and roads linking to it from the Hope Valley cannot take this extra traffic. Over 60 years of operation the scheme would add an extra 399,867 tonnes of carbon dioxide. Over a lifetime of 100 years, one tree absorbs around 1 tonne of carbon dioxide but we cannot wait for nearly 400,000 trees to grow for a hundred years. The scheme was developed in 2015 since when the Climate Change Act has increased the target from 80% to 100% net zero by 2050. Many authorities have declared a climate emergency and set much earlier net zero targets of between 2030 and 2040. The IPCC’s latest report ramped up the urgency even further. Carbon emissions must be tested against international and national legislation and guidance including the Paris Agreement, the 2008 Climate Change Act’s legally binding target of net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, the UK Sixth Carbon Budget, science-based carbon budgets from the Tyndall Centre, and the National Planning Policy Framework which requires ‘radical reductions of greenhouse gas emissions’. Although air pollution improves for some areas, for others pollution levels remain above the legal limit, and the Air Quality Management Areas in Tintwistle and Glossop would still be needed. The scheme involves fragmentation, loss or displacement of diminishing wildlife habitats such as wet grazing meadows and of protected species, such as bats and barn owls. The impacts on the rich and diverse wildlife are minimised because species are considered only of ‘local value’. Local countryside, highly valued for its natural undeveloped character and open views, would be urbanised and the Green Belt would be cut in two. As above, it will affect areas within the National Park, affecting habitats and wildlife in an area which is designated as protecting and enhancing nature. Instead of the scheme, the funding should be spent on sustainable transport measures, technological improvements and behaviour change to reduce the need for motorised road transport, bring lasting benefits and avoid the above adverse impacts. But Highways England rejected this option. Far reaching changes since 2015 - the declaration of a climate emergency; the Covid-19 pandemic and increasing evidence of climate change and biodiversity loss ; make scrutiny of alternative options essential."

Melvyn Matthews
"The present plans will produce a further bottleneck just over a mile away at the lights at the Gunn Inn causing more delays into Glossop, and not giving any benefit to the traffic at Hollinworth, in fact making the traffic situation in this area far worse at a huge cost in financial terms and to the environment"

Anne Blears
"In the light of the challenge of global warming and the government’s commitment to net zero, I do not believe that the building of this link road is the most appropriate way to address the transport issues of the area. Much higher priority should be given to the development of rail links and improved public transport with the objective of reducing road traffic."

Nigel Godding on behalf of Nigel & Elizabeth Godding
"Having this Bypass will alleviate a lot of traffic and queuing time around Mottram, Hollingworth and Tintwistle area, particularly at peak times. Studies show that it would make it significantly easier and quicker to get out of Hadfield and Glossop and onto the M67 and would also improve air quality and reduce the rat runniung through Gamesley and Charlesworth."

Samantha Bennett
"The bypass is urgently required as the area becomes unusable most of the time due to exceedingly high volumes of traffic."

Ashley Hannay
"Glossop High Street is a traffic nightmare, the by-pass is essential."

Ernestine Marsden
"I have lived and worked in Glossop all my life and have never felt more strongly than now it is hell living here with lorries thundering up and down our roads the congestion on a daily basis dicouriging me from leaving the area or even venturing out in the area the public transport is awfull as the reduction in services from stagecoach due to running times and drivers hours being on the limit due to congestion i am currently wanting to move away ftom my birth town due to tbe unrealistic living caused by traffic and fumes of vehicles the bypass could help chang glossop for the better thank you for reading ."

James Grant
"I live in south Manchester, and have family in Sheffield and Rotherham so I am familiar with the A57 and A628 routes and the frequent tailbacks that result through Mottram and Glossop, and have sympathy for the residents that have to put up with HGVs and other traffic. I understand the desire for a bypass so that this traffic is diverted away from residiential areas. However I am concerned that in building a bypass the traffic volumes on A57/A628 across the Pennines and through the Peak National Park will increase as a result of induced demand. In particular, this is liley to increase the number of HGVs using these twisty routes which are also used by cyclists, walkers etc Ideally, we should be looking to move the HGV traffic in particular onto the M62 or better yet onto the rail network. Perhaps introducing tolls for (especially) goods vehicles using these two roads would be a better approach to reducing the traffic through Glossop and Mottram?"

Lisa Hopkinson
"1. The scheme would increase traffic. Although there are reduction in traffic through Mottram (but not those on Market Street or near the new underpass) there are increases in other areas including many residential areas, on the A628 trunk route through Tintwistle, and across the National Park including the A57 Snake Pass. Recent government reports on transport decarbonisation suggests that we need to reduce traffic to meet our climate goals. 2. The scheme would increase road accidents with 102 more collisions over 60 years. However, on the A57 Snake Pass, a high risk road for a fatal or serious injury crash, there would be 160 extra collisions over 60 years. 3. Over 60 years the scheme would add an extra 399,867tonnes carbon dioxide, but more importantly it will add an additional 123,454 tonnes up to the end of the fifth carbon budget in 2032. This would form a significant part of the Paris-aligned carbon budgets for the two local councils developed by the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. The UK Government has committed to a Nationally Determined Contribution of a 68% reduction in carbon emissions by 2030 on 1990 levels. Any scheme which increases carbon emissions over this period must be reviewed in the light of this and our international agreements. 4. Although the scheme improves air pollution for some households, the concentrations of deadly nitrogen dioxide (NO2) remains above the legal limit in other areas such as on Market Street in Hollingworth. For one property on Dinting Vale air pollution gets worse. The Air Quality Management Areas in Tintwistle and Glossop would remain. The Greater Manchester Clean Air Zone has been excluded from the air quality modelling but could lead to diversions to avoid paying the toll, creating congestion and pollution outside the Zone. 5. The scheme involves serious impacts on wildlife habitats such as wet grazing meadows and of protected species, such as bats and barn owls. The impacts on the rich and diverse wildlife are minimised because species are considered only of ‘local value’. Local countryside, highly valued for its natural undeveloped character and open views, would be urbanised and the Green Belt would be bisected. 6. There are viable alternatives to achieving the aims of the project that would be less damaging and bring more benefits. For example a lorry ban coupled with improved bus services, better walking and cycling infrastructure, reduced speed limits could be achievable in a relatively short time frame. Road pricing could also be an option. The option of a lorry ban was rejected in 2015. However since then the government has adopted a net zero carbon target, parliament and local councils have declared a climate emergency; there has been a Covid-19 pandemic which has impacted travel patterns; and the Treasury’s new Green Book has emphasised the importance of the contribution to government’s strategic goals (including net zero) when assessing road projects, rather than just a narrow emphasis on the Benefit Cost Ratio."

Mark Pugh
"I understand the widespread desire for a traffic scheme that will alleviate traffic problems through Mottram, Hollingworth and Tintwistle but I don't believe that the current proposal will deliver any appreciable benefits, especially to those in Hollingworth, Tintwistle and Glossop. Only Mottram will see a major reduction in traffic. It appears to me that the current proposals will simply deliver more traffic more quickly to the bottom of Mottram Moor and to Dinting Vale. I believe there should be a moratorium on new road building projects until the lasting effects of the Covid pandemic are known, particularly the effects of changes in road use/homeworking/alternative modes of transport which have been adopted by many over the last 18 months. Also, the increased use of electric vehicles will reduce pollutants along this route which will, in itself, negate some of the environmental arguments used to support the scheme. There are many approaches that should be looked at before committing over £220 million on this scheme - car-sharing schemes, car pool rental, public transport (buses and extension of Metrolink), adequate cycle routes and encouragement of use of e-bikes where commuting distances may put new cyclists off."

Paul Waring
"Point 1. It is currently policy to avoid road (and other) projects that impact upon National Parks. This road - its construction, use and maintenance will directly impact upon the Peak District National Park which the government has stated it wishes to protect. Point 2. As in most road projects (as recognized and accepted over decades) such additions to the road network lead to an increase in road traffic and the transfer of bottle-necks and pollution from one place to another. By-passes in themselves do little to alleviate traffic issues in one area without moving them to another. Therefore, it could be asked why is it being considered? Point 3. The National Policies relating to climate change mitigation will not be strengthened, assisted or actioned in any way by this by-pass. There is no provision for the pedestrian or the cyclist let alone any thought given to the idea of bus-lanes. Point 4. Based on existing studies the number of accidents and their appalling emotional and financial costs will increase. Even one more accident is one too many. Point 5. The building of new roads is only adding more problems to a very congested network which is rapidly crumbling. It also flies in the face of the Government's and other international administrations, scientific bodies and the likes' concern about carbon emissions which cannot be addressed by building new roads. Point 6. The impact upon wildlife, their habitat and the flora of the area will be severe with total loss of same in some areas and a very detrimental effect on other areas. Overall another major trauma for the natural environment which is recognized to be of major importance to peoples health and well-being. This damage also includes cutting the Green Belt in two which it is difficult to see can be justified. Point 7. Spending vast sums on new roads especially when so much of the existing network structure is falling apart does not appear to be a sensible or warranted means by which Climate Change and other issues (see above) can be successfully addressed. Better public transport (electric buses and trains) more cycle friendly options and better all-round pedestrian access is the way forward. This by-pass is not a viable option and never will be."

Richard Moss
"I don't support the construction of the bypass, It will attract more traffc: I recognise there are issues with congestion but to build a bypass to provide 'additional capacity' attracts even more traffic and moves the congestion somewhere else (slightly further along). Environment & Pollution: This will most likely result in increased pollution and traffic noise, and environmental damage and disturbance. Discrimination against non-car users: Rather than making it easier The most effective solution would be to create an effective, integrated public transport system and infrastructure that promotes journeys on foot and by and bicycle. These also options available to all rather than discriminating against those who do not use or have access to a car."

Simon Hunt
"i fully support the bypass being built ,due to the necessity for glossop and the surrounding area ,ease on pollution,mental health,general health ,economics,road safety ,it would have so many benefits for the local population"

David Franklin
"My interest is regarding the section of proposed highway from 123-133 Mottram Moor. From the latest version of the layout, there is no parking provision shown for these houses. The grass verge would prevent parking in this area. There are driveways at 133-135 Mottram Moor that will need access also."

Keith Povey
"I am in favour of the A57 link road going ahead as it is needed to reduce the traffic congestion in Mottram and Hollingworth"

Louisa Wilson
"I object to this scheme and would like to raise the following:- - traffic models predict traffic and air congestion to get considerabo.worse in the town centre of Glossop particularly Dinting area. - has there been consideration for the change in commute habits post covid. Many offices have switched to home working has this altered the models. -The Glossop spur road cannot be a success without the Tintwistle by-pass so the two projects should not be considered independently. If one were implemented without the other it would be worse than what we have today. - trans Pennine infrastructure is woefully lacking. Improvements in the rail network could help to alleviate some of the congestion we experience. Particularly haulage over rail. - with so little public funds this scheme needs considerable re-analysis before committing funds. There needs to be a new solution other than "build more roads""

Anne Lomax
"I believe the local residents have waited long enough for this bypass and that the work should finally be started."

E Naden
"I am concerned re the number of sets of traffic lights as this will involve queueing traffic and more pollution which the By pass should be eliminating."

Sport England
"The line of the link road/construction activity appears to affect a disused cricket ground, shown on the aerial image below and also shown on the red line boundary plan between Old Mill Farm Underpass and Mottram Underpass. This shows a proposed watercourse/ditch cutting across the north west corner of the cricket ground, although the video fly through shows the cricket ground will be unaffected. If the final development results in the loss of any part of this site this would prevent the site from being brought back into use should it be required to meet an identified need for pitch sports, either cricket or another pitch sport. It should be noted that Sport England’s remit is not purely to protect those playing fields that are currently in use but also those that are disused that could be protected and brought back into use to meet an identified need in future. Sport England applies its policy to any land in use as playing field or last used as playing field and which remains undeveloped, irrespective of whether that use ceased more than five years ago. Lack of use and poor quality should not be seen as necessarily indicating an absence of need for playing fields in the locality. Such land can retain the potential to provide playing pitches to meet current or future needs. With respect to disused /lapsed playing fields it should be emphasised that the lawful planning use of a lapsed site is still that of a playing field until such time as there is a formal change of use or development occurs, nor is there a positive obligation (under planning law) for any playing field to be actively used as such. Tameside Council are currently preparing a new Playing Pitch Strategy which will determine whether there is sufficient pitch provision or a deficit. This is the relevant Needs Assessment that informs whether a playing field is surplus to meet a community sport requirement, or should be replaced to meet an identified community sport need. As there is no evidence the site is surplus to requirement to meet paragraph 99(a) of the NPPF and Sport England Playing Fields Policy Exception E1, then mitigation is required to ensure the proposal meets paragraph 99(b) of the NPPF and Sport England Policy Exception E4. Both policies require an equivalent or greater quantity (playing field land) and equivalent or better quality to be provided. In this case as the site has been disused for several years and there are no pitch users that would be displaced, then qualitative improvements to an existing site in the locality may be considered. Any options should be discussed with Sport England and Tameside Council."

William George Joseph Owen Russell
"I am a lifelong resident of Glossop (85 years). I am aware that a Bypass has been necessary since 1960which was the year I found myself queuing daily on Mottram Moor to get to work. I believe that if a Bypass had been mooted then it would have been widely approved as an essential benefit to motorists and others. Since those far off days massive increase in car ownership plus the constant building of new houses means that Glossop has become gridlocked much of the time. Planning any journey requires one to allow double the time 'just in case'. I find it hard to believe that anyone who is in the unenviable position of travelling daily in the Manchester direction would not see the Bypass as a vital improvement."

Carina Humberstone
"I object to the scheme for the following reasons: The scheme would increase traffic. This conflicts with national policies to cut climate change emissions and shift car journeys to walking, cycling and public transport. Over 60 years the scheme would add an extra 399,867 tonnes of carbon dioxide. This conflicts with the Paris Agreement, the national Sixth Carbon Budget and the National Planning Policy Framework which requires ‘radical reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. Nitrogen dioxide air pollution remains above the legal limit in some areas and the Greater Manchester Clean Air Zone has been excluded from the air quality modelling. The road would harm vital wildlife habitats such as wet grazing meadows, and protected species such as bats and barn owls. The Peak District National Park is a haven for wildlife, carbon storage and a place where everyone can get outdoors and enjoy nature. More traffic on roads would harm these special qualities. Genuine solutions for congestion, air pollution and climate emissions should be pursued instead of building new road capacity – for example a ban on lorries, sustainable transport measures, and technological improvements."

Caroline Wilkinson
"I object to the proposals on the grounds they would be detrimental to my environment and the clean air and green open space I and my children and grandchildren currently enjoy. The building of new roads has never had a positive impact on an environment or traffic congestion, just moving the same problems just a little way further up the road. Our wildlife had a tremendous opportunity to recover and breathe during this pandemic no new roadbuilding anywhere will give us an opportunity to take stock and find real and lasting solutions to too much traffic and congestion."

Chris Bangs
"The plan makes no contribution to meeting a reduction in environmental damage along the route and will not ease the unacceptable increase of congestion in Glossop and neighbouring villages. The pressure on the road network adjoining the A628 is not addressed."

David Willis
"At a time when we are battling against the climate emergency, it appears stupid and irresponsible to add additional roads thus encouraging more traffic."

John Howe
"The plan will only move the traffic problem's down the A57 into Hollingworth and cause even worse pollution to houses that are much closer to the road and worse congestion at the junction, an utter waste of money."

Jonathan Atkinson
"I object to the A57 Link Roads for the following reasons: - The scheme will increase traffic around the majority of Glossopdale, in particular on minor and residential roads. - Air pollution improves for some households, for others nitrogen dioxide remains above the legal limit e.g. on Market Street, Hollingworth. For one property on Dinting Vale air pollution gets worse. The Air Quality Management Areas in Tintwistle and Glossop would remain. - Road accidents will increase with 102 extra collisions over 60 years but on the A57 Snake Pass, a high risk road for a fatal or serious injury crash, there would be 160 extra collisions over 60 years. - It will make a significant contribution to carbon emissions and in turn, negatively impact on climate change, adding an extra 399,867 tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. - A lorry ban coupled with sustainable transport measures and technological improvements would bring lasting benefits and avoid the above adverse impacts. But Highways England rejected this option. Far reaching changes since 2015 – the declaration of a climate and nature emergency and the Covid-19 pandemic – make scrutiny of this option essential."

Julie Jerram
"As a resident of Godley, Hyde I frequently travel on the A57 in the direction of Glossop/ Woodhead Pass. I know that there is serious traffic congestion and that this is a real inconvenience to motorists. Whilst a bypass would alleviate traffic queues and traffic pollution to the residents on the section of the A57 to be bypassed, I believe that the number of residents who would suddenly be exposed to heavy traffic, pollution, speeding, noise nuisance caused by increased traffic volumes would be far greater. I do not believe that adequate impact assessment has taken place specifically on the "downstream" impact of this bypass. It is very likely to increase traffic in the area generally and on this route and I believe that some of these motorists (and lorry drivers) will chose to drive on the A57 from Hyde to Mottram - a road which is lined for approximately 3 miles with houses. I lived on that road for 17 years until March 2021 and I moved house to get away from increasing traffic noises, excessive speeding, lorries going down the road (as an alternative to the M57) at all times of the day and night. I think this problem will get worse as traffic uses all routes to head to the bypass and cross Pennine routes. There same will apply to the A560 between the Mottram/ Hattersley roundabout and Gee Cross. Tameside Council have steadfastly refused to manage traffic on the A57 in Hyde . Their own Highways department have told me that this is due to a lack of funding. I believe that any additional traffic in this area will cause a breach of legal traffic pollution limits placing respiratory health (and other health) of residents at risk. I am also concerned that Tameside Council are proposing to build approximately 23000 houses on Godley Green. There are no proposals to deal with the extra traffic that this will cause to a countryside/ Green belt area. The improved road connections made by the A57 by pass will encourage people to buy houses on Godley Green perhaps, but at a local level, immense congestion will be caused, along with pollution and decimation of Greenbelt land which is heavily used by walkers, cyclists and horse riders. The bypass plans and Godley Green housing development combined will be a catastrophe for all but a very small number of residents and for nature, farms, horses, and sites of Special Scientific Interest. Each project is developed in a silo and furthers the agenda of business and not nature or residents. It is TOTALLY AT ODDS WITH GOVERNMENT PLEDGES TO REDUCE CARBON EMMISSIONS. I repeat that more residents will be exposed to traffic pollution, noise and speeding by increasing the capacity to move traffic in this area, than will benefit. I am extremely opposed to this plan and would also like any proposals to be viewed alongside timing and impact of associated developments - such as the huge Godley Green housing proposals in the same area, The impact on residents of Hyde, Godley, Gee Cross, Mottram and Broadbottom have been completely ignored and overlooked it would seem."

Michele Costa
"More traffic on the snake pass will make it more horrendous than it already is, I drive it to work every day and feel like I take my life in my hands each time, cars overtaking on my side of the road and this will increase with more traffic.!"

Rachael Fullard
"It will increase traffic outside our home and through the centre of Glossop which is already very congested and makes commuting much longer. It will increase traffic on snake pass and likely accidents on that stretch of road."

Stephen Ian Blakemore
"My representations will relate to the following matters:- Air quality impacts & proposed mitigation measures Environmental impacts & proposed mitigation measures Changes to traffic flow quantities Proposed demolition of any properties necessary for the proposed A57 Link Roads Proposals for Control of vehicular traffic speeds Proposed Emergency spaces for broken down vehicles Proposals for prioritising pedestrian/bicycle/horse traffic Proposals regarding control of flows of surface/ground water to minimise flooding"

Tom Miller
"the scheme will increase traffic damaging the environment"

George Tidmarsh
"People living in this area have been waiting nearly 50 years for this very necessary by-pass around Mottram village. Every day of the week there are long queues of heavyweight vehicles crawling up the A57, making journey times long and frustrating, as well as causing noise and air pollution. Several governments have examined this issue over the years and we have been told it will be approved, but we appear to be back to square one again ! Please Please make sure the By-Pass will get built this time !"

Georgina Barber
"These road developments in Longdendale would merely attract MORE traffic to the area causing more environmental damage than the present road systems do. And since they would merely lead the increased traffic on to the previous outlets at the other end bottle necks would ensue. The answer to traffic congestion requires far more foresight and radical solutions rather than these small, short term and inadequate ones. I am extremely opposed to the present plans."

Josephine Smith
"I dont believe the scheme will achieve the intended objective of reducing traffic congestion so I don't think it should go ahead. I'm basing my opinion on data from Highways England."

Josh Pugh
"To whom it may concern, I object to the construction of the proposed A57 Link Road as projections show it will likely lead to increased congestions at other points along the A57, thus shifting but not eradicating the problem. Yours sincerely, Joshua Pugh"

Antony Bruce
"Getting out of Glossop towards the M67 and Manchester is, on most occasions, a crawl. One lane of traffic moving slowly. It can take up to 45 mins just to get to the M67 and this is made much worse if only one thing goes wrong on the A57, such as road works or an accident. It can make life very hard and discourages people from coming to Glossop which holds back the local economy. At the very least, having another road that connects to the M67 via a different route would split that traffic between two roads and ease the congestion greatly. It would also stop cars taking the only other route out which requires you to use small roads that are used much more by pedestrians. Glossop has waited a long time for this road and I am in no doubt that the vast majority of people in Glossop and the surrounding areas not only support this road, but feel that they need it. The mental strain of knowing that if you need to make a dash to the hospital your journey time will be greatly increased by normal traffic or worse if there is a problem on the A57 is bad to say the least. Especially if you have children. We've lived with this strain for too long."

Bamford with Thornhill Parish Council
"The proposed scheme divides public opinion. The Council remains concerned about potential safety and environmental impacts from the scheme, caused by greater traffic volumes using the Snake Pass; it would like to see more evidence about other possible options."

David Bratley
"My representation is that the proposed link roads should not go ahead, for me the key reasons are: increased traffic sitting in Glossopdale leading to vastly increased air pollution, damage that will be caused to SSI's increased numbers of lorries on the local roads."

Hardip Hazelwood
"The bypass is needed as the areas surrounding Tintwistle/Hadfield/Padfield/Glossop is expanding at a phenomenal rate that traffic is very often at a standstill. Furthermore with more and more goods lorries using Woodhead the traffic is only going to get worse. We need to be progressive for the future not regressive where we move forward to a positive future."

Janet England
"This road is required and to be honest should have been built years ago. The traffic pollution caused by vehicles passing through to get to either the Woodhead road or the Snake pass is not acceptable. There are schools along the routes and young lungs are being exposed to unacceptable levels of pollution. The time taken to get in and out of the area (Glossop & Hadfield) increases year on year and this has an impact on the response times for the emergency services."

Julie Soboljew
"I have lived in the Glossop area for over 30years. When we first moved in we were waiting for the M60 to be complete. This made a huge difference once open. However the area has continued to build new homes and commercial premises with no road infrastructure to support the increased number of residences or businesses. Getting in and out of Glossop is almost at gridlock. There are limited ways in and out of Glossop and only one way over to Sheffield. There appears to be huge investments in building new roads/motorways in most other parts of the country. Yet Glossop still has had no development to cope with the increased demand for many years. Discussions were ongoing when we moved here in 1986 and still nothing!!!! Listen to the people who live here and are pleading for a road system fit for the 21st century."

Paul Saunders
"1) The The Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) figures presented in the documentation do not correspond to the figures published on the Department of Transport (DfT) web site. 2) The claim in the document 6.3 para 1.2.3 that the effect of traffic will get worse with time if significant improvements aren’t made is not addressed by this scheme, nor do the figures presented in the documentation support this comment. The estimated figures for ‘Do Minimum’ for 2025 show very little difference in traffic. If this scheme were to go ahead and meet the stated aim of improving connectivity between the Manchester and Sheffield city regions then there is likely to be more traffic attracted to the local roads that feed this scheme. 3) The ‘Do Something’ AADT figures show a 25% increase in traffic on M67 yet no significant increase for local roads which makes no sense. The figures indeed show significant reductions on Back Moor and Roe Cross and a slight reduction on Market Street Hollingworth with the scheme than without it. This scheme would make it more attractive for vehicles travelling from Stalybridge to the M67 to go through Mottram than to use Matley Lane. It would also attract more traffic to travel over Woodhead Pass and along Market Street Hollingworth. 4) There is an assumption within the scheme that there will be restrictions / calming on Hyde Road once it is detrunked. If this were to be implemented then it would encourage vehicles travelling from Stalybridge to the M67 to use Back Moor thereby increasing the traffic flow on Back Moor and encourage vehicles travelling from Broadbottom to the M67 to use Ashworth Lane. 5) Paragraphs 2.6.2 and 2.7.1 of the Traffic Management Plan state Mottram Moor will be reduced to only one lane eastbound. On 2nd and 3rd August 2021 the inside lane was closed at eastern end of Mottram Moor during working hours causing traffic to block up past the junction with Back Moor. If Mottram Moor is reduced during peak periods traffic will jam up even further making it difficult to exit Back Moor and causing longer delays on the A57 and M67 contrary to aim 3.1.2 in the document. 6) There is no mention of the visual impact of the embankment to the North of Mottram Moor on the properties on Mottram Moor. 7) For the first time in any document from Highways England there is mention of the noise pollution to the rear of the properties on the north of Mottram Moor from the embankment. The mitigation measure is 2.5m high noise barriers on the embankment, but there is no description of what these are. 8) Contrary to the statements made by Highways England during the public consultation there has been no consultation with the residence of the properties on Mottram Moor as to what will happen to the land at the front of our properties. Each time plans are brought forward the design for this area has changed. Indeed it is now unclear as to who will be responsible for the access roads here."

Rachel Downham
"I am objecting to the proposed A57 scheme for the following reasons: The scheme does not offer a solution for the congestion, air pollution and climate emissions that would result. Alternatives to building new road capacity are not being pursued– for example a ban on lorries, sustainable transport measures, and technological improvements. The scheme would increase traffic. This conflicts with national policies to cut climate change emissions and shift car journeys to walking, cycling and public transport. Over 60 years the scheme would add an extra 399,867 tonnes of carbon dioxide. This conflicts with the Paris Agreement, the national Sixth Carbon Budget and the National Planning Policy Framework which requires ‘radical reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. Nitrogen dioxide air pollution remains above the legal limit in some areas and the Greater Manchester Clean Air Zone has been excluded from the air quality modelling. The road would harm vital wildlife habitats such as wet grazing meadows, and protected species such as bats and barn owls. The Peak District National Park is a haven for wildlife, carbon storage and a place where everyone can get outdoors and enjoy nature. More traffic on roads would harm these special qualities."

Rachel Vernon
"I commute to work on week days from Glossop and I need to get to the M67. I am often stuck in very long queues that stretch right back from Mottram into Glossop. I am aware that it would also improve local air quality for residents of this stretch of road and make it easier for them to access their properties. It would also help to reduce the traffic jams that build up on the back roads through Gamesley and Charlesworth (and again, improve the local air quality and access to their properties)."

Richard Malkin
"The Mottram by-pass and Glossop spur road projects are long overdue. The present road system is a constant nightmare for commuters, local inhabitants and residents along the overcrowded route. Constant queuing traffic is a source of air pollution. This relief road has been in the planning stage for a ridiculous period of time and must be constructed as soon as possible. The huge number of new buildings currently under construction in Glossopdale have exacerbated the transport situation. The by-passing of Hollingworth and Tintwistle, although not included in this project, must also be regarded as essential."

Alison Evans
"The planning must consider the impact of traffic through the villages of Hollingworth, Tintwistle and along the A628 Woodhead Pass. Once the road infrastructure is improved at Mottram Moor it brings into question, will the flood gate open to enable a faster route onto the A628 and increase the volume of traffic along this route."

Kevin Knott
"Has the planning taken into account the improvement to Mottram Moor will open the flood gate to traffic through Hollingsworth, Tintwistle and onto the A628 Woodhead Pass."

Holme Valley Vision Network
"We object to the scheme for the following reasons: 1 The scheme would increase traffic on the wider network and specifically on the A6024 Holme Moss Road by 14% and on the A628T by 7% (ES Appendix 2.1 page 5). This would increase car dependency, and undermine modal shift to walking, cycling and public transport. This is contrary to national policy. The scheme could also undemine the efforts being made by Kirklees Council to reduce the congestion in the centre of Holmfirth and improve traffic flow. 2 Traffic issues in Longdendale are always seen in the context of movement along the A628T corridor between Manchester and Sheffield. The north-south movements are never taken into account. Access from Huddersfield, the Holme and Colne Valleys to Longdendale is particularly problematic due to the traffic on the A6024 Holme Moss road and its junction with the A628T. Traffic also uses the A635 as a way of accessing the M60. Heavy, and in some cases fast, traffic makes the A6024 and B6105 junctions with the A628T dangerous - both roads join the A628T at acute/oblique angles with limited visibility. HGVs also an adverse impact on the centre of Holmfirth and reduces the town centre attractiveness as well as affecting the quality of life of town centre residents. 3 Increases in traffic are caused in part by vehicles diverting off the M62 (Transport Assessment Report 7.2.13). Diversion of traffic off a motorway onto rural roads is unsustainable, leads to increased accidents and should not be allowed. What routes through West Yorkshire are the diverted vehicles using? Expecting them to divert to the M62 is unrealistic becasue of the additional time and cost taking this long journey would incur. Economics forces HGV onto the rural roads. 4 With increased traffic, as Highways England states, there would be more road accidents (102 extra collisions over 60 years) across the network. Transport Assessment Report Figure 7.8 Spatial Distribution of Safety Impacts shows the highest rate of increase in collisions occurs on the A628T but the A6024 to Holmfirth and the A616 to Huddersfield also have increases. Any increase in collisions is unacceptable. We should be aiming for zero road deaths. Kirklees MBC 2025 Transport Vision is for continuing road casualty reduction. Concern about the risks at the junctions at the Soverign, New Mill and the bottom of Dunford Road in Holmfirth have been expressed for many years but no solutions have yet been found. 5 Over 60 years of operation the scheme would add an extra 399,867 tonnes of carbon dioxide. Over a lifetime of 100 years, one tree absorbs around 1 tonne of carbon dioxide but we cannot wait for nearly 400,000 trees to grow for a hundred years. Carbon emissions must be tested against international and national legislation and guidance including the Paris Agreement, the 2008 Climate Change Act’s legally binding target of net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, the UK Sixth Carbon Budget, science-based carbon budgets from the Tyndall Centre, and the National Planning Policy Framework which requires ‘radical reductions of greenhouse gas emissions’. 6 Although there is no road building in the Peak District National Park, the 7% increase in traffic on the A628 through Longdendale would impair amenity for people using trails or exploring open access land. Tranquillity is already eroded. Highways England uses the existing impacts to argue the area is already degraded and to dismiss the impact of increased traffic. Instead it should be seeking to conserve and enhance the National Park."

Carol Beckett
"Dear Highways Department, This plan for the A57 Link Road is not fit for purpose. The initial objective has not changed, which is to alleviate the congestion, noise, pollution and stress that the people of Hollingworth and Tintwistle have to endure daily. This plan does absolutely nothing to help the people of Glossopdale, and I note your own department's predictions find it will increase traffic, including more heavy goods vehicles across the Woodhead Pass, the Snake Pass, through Dinting Vale and Glossop High Street, already incredibly busy thoroughfares. The journey time for commuters I see will be reduced by an estimated 1 to 8 minutes. Considering the hard won taxpayers money of £180 million that the work is estimated to potentially cost and the disruption to peoples lives that the roadworks will cause this plan is not justifiable or worth it in any way. The initial request for a bypass needs to be revisited and addressed properly or otherwise the money should be used, in these days of climate awareness, for more environmentally friendly purposes, ie. get the Woodhead railway line back in action for passenger and goods transport and prevent HGV lorries from using the Woodhead just for a start. A more creative and climate friendly solution should be found."

Derwent & Hope Woodlands Parish Council
"The link road will cause an increase in traffic along the A57 Snake Pass. The Snake Pass is subject to subsidence because parts of it are built on shale banks and the road is regularly closed to repair it. An increase in traffic will exacerbate this continuing problem. There are already many accidents on the Snake Pass and these will also increase in number with more traffic on the road. Road subsidence also causes accidents. (There have been three in the last month due to a dip in the road near the Snake Inn.) The road is often closed for hours at a time to clear up these accidents and the link road will only add to this problem. More wildlife will be killed on The Snake as the number of vehicles increases. The Snake Pass is used as a race track by cars and motorbikes both day and night. The link road will make the road more accessible to such users."

James Phillips
"The proposed Mottram bypass is an essential infrastructure project to ease the chaotic and damaging traffic bottleneck in the Motttam/Glossop area. Residents and businesses have been blighted by this issue for many years and this this development has been promised for decades. For it not to go ahead now would be betrayal of the people who live, work and transit through this area."

Julie Kelly
"I am concerned at the amount of traffic each day and the air pollution caused by this situation. The congestion is dreadful, travelling through the area is a nightmare. Traffic is always backed up coming in and out of Glossop. Surely it must be better for the environment if the changes went ahead."

Patricia Pasiecznik
"I am 100% opposed to this half-a-bypass proposal. It is NOT, repeat NOT, what the long suffering residents of Mottram, Hollingworth, and Tintwistle. The new High Peak Tory MP has extracted £180m from the government to build half-a-bypass which will, in Highways England, own research: * INCREASE traffic on Dinting Road, near my house, by 45% !! * it will INCREASE traffic in Brookfield by 31%, the Snake Pass by 38%, and New Road Tintwistle by 50%. This is completely and utterly unacceptable and you know it. * There will be more road accidents. * Air pollution will remain above the legal limit. * There would be increased noise for many residents. The half-a-bypass is a half-baked scheme and you know it. Scrap it now! We want a full bypass from the end of the M67 motorway directly to the east of Tintwistle - we've asked for that for 60 years."

Sheffield Climate Alliance
"Introduction We are commenting on this proposed scheme because it would increase greenhouse gas emissions during a climate emergency. Since the scheme was proposed in 2018, stronger local and national climate targets have been set, which the scheme could not reasonably align with. How transport projects are assessed against climate targets The National Networks NPS states it is unlikely that a road project will, in isolation, affect our ability to meet national carbon targets. Using this guideline alone is extremely inappropriate since it is clearly the cumulative impact of all road capacity that can endanger carbon targets. The fact that surface transport emissions have barely reduced in 25 years shows a more rigorous approach is long overdue. Meanwhile, TfN is currently carrying out analytical work for all northern transport. This has already shown that its current investment programme will not fit with newly tightened national climate targets. This should prompt all schemes to be examined more critically. Emissions associated with the scheme We compare these to the most appropriate notional transport carbon budget for the area. Tameside’s is the best comparator as it covers most (though not all) of the area of the scheme. Note that Tameside Council declared a Climate Emergency in February 2020 and committed to align with Greater Manchester ambitions to become net zero by 2038. Projected emissions are stated in paragraph 14.13.1 of Highways England’s Environmental Statement. The total construction and operational emissions are 84 484 tCO2e from 2023 until 2032. Here, we will consider the period from the roads’ opening in 2025 to the end of the fifth carbon budget, at the end of 2032. For simplicity, we will account for all the construction emissions within that period. Whilst technically inaccurate, this gives a less complex comparison than if the construction emissions are accounted for before the roads become operational. The evidence base behind Tameside’s climate targets is at [redacted]. From this, we derive a carbon budget of 4.57 MtCO2e for Tameside for the period 2025-2032. The national average of 27%, 1.23 MtCO2e, is allowed for transport. This means the link roads represent 7% of Tameside’s entire notional transport carbon budget. For just two link roads that feed traffic to and from more major roads, that is clearly a disproportionate share of the total emissions target for an entire Local Authority area. (In practice, the emissions would be spread across three Local Authorities area but this does not alter this principle). National carbon budgets are set at a more generous level than Tameside’s but again, our proportionality principle still holds. It should also be noted that the CCC has advised the Government that the most cost effective path towards meeting its net zero target involves out-performing the fourth and fifth carbon budgets. Conclusions We believe that in view of the climate emergency, all investment decisions need to fit with climate objectives. We urge that this link roads scheme proposal be rejected and consultations carried out on more sustainable transport solutions."

Sheila Saunders
"• Derbyshire councils have increased housing and industry/business in the Glossop area increasing traffic on A57 Mottram Moor, but they do not appear to ‘pay’ much for any of the infrastructure i.e. roads in Greater Manchester which their residents/businesses use. • The current plans do not separate the strategic trans-Pennine traffic from local traffic which is surely a necessity for Highways England. The plans seem to be of more benefit to Glossop than the A628 traffic but H.E. pick up the cost. • I cannot understand where some of the traffic flow figures have come from. There seem to be discrepancies between those given by H. E. and those published by Department of Transport. • I believe the plans do not successfully support the Scheme Objectives. Re: TR010034-000112 Connectivity and Societal: local community connectivity will not be significantly altered in Tintwistle and Hollingworth since the hold-up seems to be Jollies corner traffic lights in Mottram village. Residents on Mottram Moor and Back Moor, Mottram will be subject to more traffic using Back Moor. Capacity: The A628 goes to Barnsley and north and central Yorkshire, not just north Sheffield. The A57 Snake Pass is not good for HGVs. There is further development planned for the Westwood roundabout which I haven’t seen mentioned. This bypass will take increasing traffic diverted from M62 when that route has problems. Capacity and Environmental: The loss of Roe Cross roundabout access to the bypass and TMBC plan to reduce Hyde Road speed limit will increase traffic flow on Back Moor as traffic accesses M67. Residents at the junction of Back Moor and Mottram Moor will see very little improvement but potentially worsening of living conditions."

Climate Emergency Planning and Policy
"Dr Andrew Boswell, Climate Emergency Planning and Policy As an independent environmental consultant specialising in climate science, policy, and law, I object to the A57 Missing Link scheme: A. Table 14-16 of the Environmental Statement shows the scheme emitting over 100,000tCO2e of additional carbon emissions into the Climate Emergency era. B. The absence of cumulative, and short, medium and long-term, impact assessment of carbon emissions renders the Environmental Statement inadequate under the EIA Regs, and subject to EIA Reg 20. C. The applicant’s carbon assessment does not reduce operational carbon emissions over the 60-year appraisal period, as required by the government’s Transport Decarbonisation Plan (TDP) for ambitious quantifiable carbon reductions in transport at the local level. D. In the critical 4th carbon budget (2023-2027), an additional 55,253 tCO2e will be emitted, and approximately a further 29,231 tCO2e will be emitted in 2028-2030. These additional emissions fall in the period leading up to the UK international commitment, via its NDC under the Paris Agreement, to reduce emissions by 68% by 2030, creating a serious risk against the UK delivering on its NDC commitment by 2030. E. No carbon assessment of the scheme has been made against the period 2038-2049 when the UK is required legally to achieve net-zero, but the scheme is modelled to generate an enduring high-level of absolute carbon emissions. Scientists are clear that a net-negative world, with massive extraction of CO2 is required urgently well before 2050. See the recent report from Climate Crisis Advisory Group, chaired by Professor Sir David King, former UK Government's Chief Scientific Advisor commentary of the IPCC 6th Assessment report “The final warning bell” at www.ccag.earth. F. No assessment of the scheme has been made against the 36-year period 2050-2085, post the UK 2050 net-zero target when the scheme is modelled to emit infinitely greater emissions than the Government and CCC’s implied budget for the post net-zero era. The applicant has provided no indication of how these additional carbon emissions would be mitigated. This has a clear material impact on the ability of the UK to contribute to the global endeavour to stabilise global heating at 1.5oC, and it does not comply with the UK obligations under the Paris Agreement. G. CEPP do not accept that only comparing carbon emissions from the scheme against carbon budgets for the entire UK economy is a credible assessment method. It is a deliberate tactic to “loose the signal in the noise”, and it is antithetical to good science. H. Carbon emissions should be tested locally, regionally and nationally against the UK obligations under the Paris agreement including the UK’s Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC), the legally binding target under the Climate Change Act 2008 to meet net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, the UK Sixth Carbon Budget (6CB), the revised NPPF 152 planning requirement to “radical reductions of greenhouse gas emissions”, the statutory duty on Highways England under the Infrastructure Act 2015 section 5(2) to have regard for the environment, and relevant local authority Environmental Policies."

Rachel Croft
"I object to the proposed Mottram Bypass. It will do nothing to relieve traffic congestion or improve the air quality in Tintwistle or Glossop. It will simply move the existing problem elsewhere. What our local area desperately needs is improvements to public transport. And HGV drivers should be encouraged to use a different route to cross the Pennines (the M62). Better still, the government needs to implement policies to divert freight from the road network to rail."

Stacey Martin
"I live in Glossop and oppose the bypass. It will not relieve the congestion or improve the air quality in Glossop. The situation in Glossop is already dire, and funds being spent on this will prevent the government from having the funds to rectify the issue in Glossop. It will also lead to a further delay. As an up-and-coming town which will be important in both Derbyshire and Manchester, as well as in the important Northern connection routes, it is imperative that our traffic problem is fixed and not delayed."

Suzanne Kidd
"I object to the scheme for the following reasons: The scheme would increase traffic. This conflicts with national policies to cut climate change emissions and shift car journeys to walking, cycling and public transport. Over 60 years the scheme would add an extra 399,867 tonnes of carbon dioxide. This conflicts with the Paris Agreement, the national Sixth Carbon Budget and the National Planning Policy Framework which requires ‘radical reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. Nitrogen dioxide air pollution remains above the legal limit in some areas and the Greater Manchester Clean Air Zone has been excluded from the air quality modelling. The road would harm vital wildlife habitats such as wet grazing meadows, and protected species such as bats and barn owls. The Peak District National Park is a haven for wildlife, carbon storage and a place where everyone can get outdoors and enjoy nature. More traffic on roads would harm these special qualities. Genuine solutions for congestion, air pollution and climate emissions should be pursued instead of building new road capacity – for example a ban on lorries, sustainable transport measures, and technological improvements."

Chris Hallam
"The road will increase carbon emissions (CPRE report 2017) stated that new roads increase traffic for the given areas by 47% over 20 years. This fails to take into consideration the net zero carbon target of 2050. In addition a decline of U.K. species by 60% from 1970 numbers means that we cannot afford to destroy more habitats for native wildlife. This project while initially thought to be necessary over 20 years ago, nowadays does not have the support locally or need, with the change in working lifestyles since the Covid pandemic. As many have stated this is a Stone Age solution which will have a devastating effect on the area with increased air pollution as a result. The money could be better utilised on improving public transport rather than building this white elephant from a bygone age. On the edge of the Peak District National Park, such developments would impact wildlife and habitats in the park and this cannot be allowed. The Government have pledged to protect 30% of the UK’s land by 2030 to boost biodiversity, but this will do the opposite. This road should not be given approval in light of the global climate crisis, U.K. biodiversity loss and the clear conflict it has with Government pledges."

Iram Younis
"I am opposed to this scheme for the reasons stated below: I disagree with the fundamental premise on which the scheme is based. The application refers to strategic routes between Manchester and Sheffield which are needed in order to boost economic activity. I disagree that any route across the Peak District National Park should be considered strategic. The area should be fiercely protected. Furthermore, we are facing a Climate Emergency, the greatest challenge we face as a species. We should not be building new roads which inevitably lead to more traffic. Instead we should be focussing on sustainable solutions and aiming to reduce overall traffic volumes. I don't believe the benefits stated are acheivable - the bypass will do nothing to improve the reliability of journeys between Manchester and Sheffield. It will exascerbate it as it will lead to more traffic on the same unreliable roads. I don't think the consulation was conducted properly and should have been delayed until after the global pandemic. I know many people who hold strong views on the scheme who were not aware of the proposal due to lockdowns, bereavement and loss of employement. A new, more thorough consultation should be conducted in 2 years time once people have had time to recover from the impact of the pandemic."

Arthur Stanway
"My concerns about the proposal of the A57 Link Roads are, this will bring more traffic into the area. This will create more standing traffic in Tintwistle, making it even harder and more dangerous to exit New Road onto the A628 . This will also create more pollution within the area along with the smell of over heated breaks. Regards to Glossop this proposal will increase the grid lock within the Town especially in the rush hours of the day, creating more pollution. My proposal is to prevent HGV from using the A57 also the A628 as a short cut , or a scenic rout to and from the M1. My view all through HGVs should be made to use the existing Motorways ie M62 — M1."

Cameron Walker
"As a resident of Glossop I would like to register my objection to the proposed A57 Link Road. It doesn't make sense on any level. Glossop already has a traffic problem, this road will only make that worse. Moving the problem does not solve the problem, Longdendale and Glossopdale will bear the brunt of traffic increase. Not only does it not make sense from a traffic point of view, but given the global climate crisis a new road seems especially wrong headed. Over 60 years the scheme would add an extra 399,867 tonnes of carbon dioxide. While air pollution might improve for some households, for others nitrogen dioxide remains above the legal limit. The Peak District National Park is a bank for carbon, a haven for wildlife and a place where everyone can get outdoors and enjoy nature, and peace and quiet. With more traffic on cross Park routes these special qualities will be eroded."

Dr. Jeffery Brown
"1. The Highways England virtual consultations during the pandemic were woefully inadequate; no traffic modelling and no pollution modelling were provided. Since the DCO application, we have learnt of substantial predicted increases in traffic volume, noise and pollution. In addition, all of the other issues mentioned below have not been addressed to date as we have had no opportunity to feedback issues to Highways England. 2. The overall rationale for a road from the M67 to Glossop as part of “national infrastructure project” is questionable as it does not address the bottleneck on the main A628 through Tintwistle and Hollingworth. 3. A dual carriageway road across the remaining rural green belt in Mottram will irreversibly damage the rural environment in the area. 4. Previous bypass plans were abandoned at public inquiry due to inadequate traffic modelling (2007/2008). It seems important that there should be independent scrutiny and auditing of the latest models? 5. Mottram underpass and road structures through Mottram showground severely damages the rural character and heritage of the area including the demolition of historical buildings on Old Hall Lane. The scheme is detrimental to the remaining grade 2 listed buildings with increased noise and air pollution. The very popular historical Mottram Agricultural Show will also be abandoned if the scheme progresses. 6. Astoundingly, the proposed scheme will generate more and more CO2, it will not reduce CO2 and as such is contributing to climate change and should be scrapped. 7. The scheme will also increase the volume of traffic on the A628 and A57 thus contributing to more collisions and casualties on those notoriously dangerous roads. 8. There is a lot of talk about an additional main bypass scheme addressing traffic issues in Hollingworth and Tintwistle and Highways England are investigating this option. In fact, local MP's have suggested that this scheme is the pre-emptive stage for the main bypass. As such, are Highways England future-proofing this present scheme to cope with such an addition?"

Ian Snelling
"So what happens to people who live in Hollingworth and Tintwistle? Do we carry on with poisoning gasses. Unable to have windows open. Look at traffic outside our houses every day. Thousands of vehicles. Half hearted approach thus link road. Everybody knows its not the solution..full bypass is required from the m67 to right up woodhead to the m1"

Karen Smith
"One of Highways England's stated aims of the Mottram bypass is to improve the reliability of the journey time along the A57 in the Longdendale area, as currently 'the delivery of goods to businesses is often delayed and the route is not ideal for commuters' (Highways England, Project Information). The implication of making it easier for goods, commuters and other vehicles is more traffic will be attracted to use the road, bringing more traffic and pollution to the area. For instance, by making it easier to drive from Glossop to the M67 this will do nothing to reduce the number of cars and lorries travelling through Glossop. Making the route more attractive for car drivers will have the opposite effect. Via the link to Woolley Bridge, the bypass of Mottram will feed even more traffic onto the road into Glossop which is already at gridlock at peak times of the day. Instead of spending £228 million on a new road, the answer to the congestion in the area is to look at a package of measures which would reduce road traffic. This could include a meaningful increase in the subsidies for rail and bus travel, a new railway station at Gamesley, looking at measures to increase local rail capacity at peak times, safer walking and cycle routes. On a national level we need policies that divert freight from the road to the rail network, an encouragement of home working, and better community planning so that people do not need to travel so often for work or shopping. We also need generous subsidies for electric cars so that the traffic that remains is less polluting. The recent IPCC report 'Climate Change 2021:The Physical Science Basis' laid bare the climate crisis, and the urgency of the need to slash CO2 emmisions if we are to have any hope of avoiding the very worse effects of the warming climate due to human activity. The proposed Mottram bypass flies in the face of the climate catastrophe that is upon us."

Mary Moss
"The scheme will only relieve traffic congestion in a very small area, while almost certainly increasing congestion throughout Glossopdale and Longendale, in particular in Hollingworth and Tintwistle and on Glossop High Street. The Highways England report suggests that the maximum time saved, at best, would be 8 minutes. But this comes at an enormous cost, not only financial, but in terms of increasing traffic, and therefore increasing CO2 emissions, air and noise pollution. For some residents, air quality has already reached dangerous levels. Traffic is predicted to increase, and the scheme has not taken into account the possible impact of the Greater Manchester Clean Air Zone which will likely add a further traffic burden. There are other solutions to the problems of traffic in this area, for instance banning lorries, and improving bus services and rail links. The current proposal must be carefully scrutinised and re-assessed - it should not be allowed to go forward in its current form."

Nicola Raine
"I live with the A57 at the bottom of my garden in Tintwistle. The proposed mottram bypas and Glossop spur, will not reduce traffic but will INCREASE it!!. My children have to walk to school beside this road, more traffic will increase carbon emissions and blight our lives. Why are lorries especially not made to use the M62??? The A57/woodhead pass is totally unsuitable for large vehicles. PLEASE do not make the traffic increase, we want it to decrease or bypass us. Because of the issues stated above I vehemently OBJECT to the proposal."

Pauline Bell
"The Mottram by-Pass is a half-hearted measure that simply pushes the congestion from Mottram further towards Glossopdale. It will benefit the residents of Mottram but at the expense of Glossopdale residents. According to Highways England it will increase the traffic on New Road Tintwistle by 50% and worsen the air quality. New Road is already extremely dangerous, heavy lorries thunder past the terrace houses, pavements are narrow or missing altogether and the fumes are choking and damaging to health. Highways England predict that traffic on Brookfield will increase by 31%, Snake Pass +38%, Norfolk Street +21% and Dinting Road +45%. They also predict increases in traffic accidents. The A57 Snake Pass is already a medium-high risk road for a fatal or serious injury crash, they expect an extra 160 collisions over 60 years. Traffic is also expected to move off the M62, and as motorways are safer than other roads, this will may even more accidents. Given the increase in traffic and poorer air quality, the proposed Mottram by-Pass makes no sense at all. Instead of building this by-pass we should be looking at restricting HGVs on residential roads and encouraging vehicles to use the M62 rather than the Woodhead Pass and Snake Pass."

Poppy Simon
"I am writing to register my objection to the proposed A57 Link Roads and encourage the Examination to scrutinise the following issues. I believe the proposed benefits to Mottram will come at the expense of Glossopdale and Longdendale, as well as the Peak District at large. The scheme would increase traffic which in turn would increase air pollution, road traffic accidents and greenhouse gas emissions. The High Peak Borough Council has declared a Climate Emergency - investment should be focused on improving public transport and encouraging walking and cycling to reduce congestion rather than building a destructive new road through the Dark Peak, which was recently reported to be the most degraded upland environment in Europe. It also does not comply with national policies for climate change, and risks contravening national policy that requires trunk road traffic to go round National Parks as well. The scheme involves fragmentation, loss or displacement of diminishing wildlife habitats such as wet grazing meadows and of protected species, such as bats and barn owls. Local countryside, highly valued for its natural undeveloped character and open views, would be urbanised and the Green Belt would be cut in two. The peatlands of the Peak District are the UK's biggest carbon store, however, blanket bogs in poor condition release more carbon than they take in, therefore we should be restoring and protecting the moors of the National Park rather than further destroying it. Highways England should consider a lorry ban combined with sustainable transport options to protect the Peak District."

Roderick Lloyd Gray
"I submit that this proposed A57 link road, while benefiting a small area of Tameside, i.e. Mottram, it will have a hugely detrimental effect on Hollingworth, Tintwistle, Glossop and Hadfield. To save, on average, 5 minutes on journey times from Glossop into Manchester, you are prepared to spent a vast amount of money on a scheme that will increase traffic congestion in Glossopdale and along the A628 Woodhead Pass. This money would be better spent on improving public transport links in the area."

Roger Barrett
"Previously I have supported the application, but on examining the information contained in ‘6.5 Environmental Statement Appendix 2.1 Traffic Data’ I now am very much against the bypass going ahead. Highways England’s traffic data shows that, although there are very local improvements in the traffic levels following the bypass’s construction, ie at Mottram Moor, there are very significant increases in traffic levels in many surrounding areas, in particular within Glossop and specifically on Dinting Road where my family and I live. Dinting Road will see an increase in traffic of 46% (1,500 extra vehicles per day), post bypass and several other areas of Glossop will see similar, or worse increases (for example Brookfield sees an increase of 31%, or 4,950 vehicles per day). Even now without the bypass, Dinting Road (along with much of Glossop), suffers from significant traffic issues (volume and speed). An additional 46% of volume on this already struggling road is not something we wish to see and many other areas of Glossop will also suffer. Rather than solving the wider traffic problem, the bypass simply moves it elsewhere at a cost of £200m+. A further concern is that the bypass is being seen by our elected representatives as a magic bullet that solves the area’s traffic problems. As a demonstration of this, High Peak’s MP, a supporter of the bypass, is campaigning for no new housing in Glossopdale until the bypass is built. This is illogical, given that traffic levels will be increased in Glossopdale by the bypass. Unfortunately, the case for improving the area’s traffic has been simplified down to spending a vast sum of public money on a bypass which benefits a small area at the expense of creating much wider problems. The area’s traffic problems are far more complex and, unfortunately, appear to be being ignored – perhaps because building an expensive bypass is relatively easy and politically looks impressive. I would like to register myself as an interested party because the safety of the road I live on will be directly and adversely impacted."

Stewart Winterbottom
"The A57 link road does not reduce the traffic congestion in Tintwistle and Hollingworth. The proposed road does not bypass the village, therefore Tintwistle will continue to be subjected to heavy traffic, noise and pollution. I object to the a57 link road proposal as it should be on the a628 where we need changes"

Adam Rodgers
"I am against this planned bypass, if the UK is going to achieve Carbon Neutral by 2050, we should be encouraging other more environmentally efficient forms of transport"

Alex Henderson
"It is essential that the a57 link road gets completed traffic around Hollingworth & mottram can add almost 2 hours to my journey each working day it’s horrendous any objections are ridiculous not only for the locals living with traffic/pollution on there doorstep but for commuters using outdated infrastructure that doesn’t have the capacity to cope. reducing the time it takes to commute do the school run nip to the shops go to the doctors is surely a benefit for everyone in and around the community ."

Alice Song
"I believe the bypass will be very important to my quality of life living at Glossop. Especially with the building of more properties, the traffic will increase and the situation will just get worse and worse until a solution is found."

Anne Coackley
"I am in favour of anything which stops Charlesworth being a rat-run."

Anne Parkin
"there is a desperate need to improve the traffic problems in and around the Glossop area. The new by pass and spur road would certainly alleviate this situation .Also there would be better air quality without all the standing traffic belching out fumes . As a resident of Glossop l support the proposed plans we have been waiting for so long which will improve the situation for all."

Anthony Hall
"A57 link road would be an essential benefit to both commuters, local business and residents. I live in Tintwistle which is beset with horrific traffic issues that this link road would at least reduce. The full bypass is the only solution however. The situation currently for residents is unacceptable. The noise and air pollution caused by the standing traffic has to be remedied."

Austin Milner
"The traffic situation in and surrounding Glossop is an absolute disgrace and needs to be addressed. The bypass would be a significant addition to ease the problems in the local area and improve life for all those using Glossop and the surrounding area."

Ben Hodgkinson
"The Mottram bypass and Glossop spur road are badly needed improvements to local transport infrastructure. I moved to the area 3 and a half years ago, and the congestion in the area routinely causes significant delays to journeys out of the area to Greater Manchester, Lancashire and Cheshire. The upshot is that many friends and colleagues are reluctant to visit the area, preferring to meet elsewhere to avoid the traffic jams. This costs the region in terms of tourism, to the detriment of local hospitality and retail businesses. It also makes it a less desirable place to live and settle down long-term."

Bernadette Barlow
"Having worked in the taxi service for many years, the moor has a knock on effect on the whole of the Glossop area..rush hour, what about the weekend? Bumper to bumper all day long, people will opt for the bypass rather than using the moor.. freeing up the town centre. I cant understand why after all these years of screaming for one, labour go against it. It seems the more good is done the worse labour get."

Beverley Conway
"I have lived in Glossop all my life (55yrs). My biggest bug bear is the fact we can not get in or out of Glossop due to all the traffic. More & more houses are being built without a proper infrastructure. Heavy traffic runs through Glossop to get onto the Snake Pass & The Woodhead. A bypass would ease alot of this traffic & make the town safer. This goes for Hollingworth & Tintwistle too. The bypass most certainly should go ahead as planned & as soon as possible!!!"

Caroline Gilbert
"I live just off the A57 into glossop. This road is heavily congested, largely due to traffic which is held up joining Mottram Moor and passing through Woolley Bridge. The spur road will help this by providing a direct route up to the motorway for residents of Glossop. We have been waiting for this road for over 30 years. People from outside the area who are not affected on a daily basis have made many objections. I am very disappointed that the Labour Party are now seeking to block the final stage of consent for this road. I feel that I should make this representation as someone who lives in the area and have a vested interest in the project. A political group should not be interfering in the process at this late stage."

Charlotte George
"As a local resident of the area, close to the planned route of the new bypass I was thrilled to receive a notice of the intended works as Glossop is infamous for its congestion issues. As a frequent user of the A57 I am all too familiar with the poor traffic flow both during the day, weekday evenings and the entirety of the weekend. Improving the infrastructure and easing the congestion in the area will better service both the community and through traffic in the area. Increasing numbers of people are now working from home, myself included, meaning that rural areas with excellent transport links such as Glossop and Hadfield are becoming all the more desirable to home owners and investors however without the necessary infrastructure in place to service the new homes planned in the area both the planning consents and Section 106 agreements are purposeless. It is without a doubt that the roads must be adjusted in correlation with the increase in number of residents in order for the traffic to be manageable. In the long term, lack of such infrastructure will prevent house prices and desirability increasing in line with market trends and may even negatively impact them in some cases."

Charlotte Greenough
"The proposals would make a significant difference for the residents of the local area. The Mottram Moor to A57 link Road will provide a much needed extra 'exit' route from the glossop/hadfield area. Currently the main routes out of glossop towards Manchester (broadbottom, wooley bridge and Tintwistle) are all over narrow stone bridges which were not built to accommodate the volumes and sizes of vehicles they currently take. Route options are also far better for the emergency services in the area. All it takes is one accident on wooley bridge and the residents of the Hadfield road area cannot leave in their cars for hours because of stationary queuing traffic. The traffic in this area has been noticeably increasing over the last few years and this is now jot a rare event, so any effort to relieve this is welcomed. The section coming off the M67 roundabout would improve the dire situation we currently have with the frequent near misses on the roundabout with cars pushing into each other, and blocking the traffic flow for the other exits. The safety of the residents of Mottram would benefit from a the diverted traffic, currently trying to cross the A57 with the high volumes of traffic, speed (when its not in total gridlock) and the few crossing places is incredibly difficult."

Cherryl Forbes
"This bypass has been promised to and fought by local people for the last 60 years and majority are definitely in favour of it. Funding has finally been secured and the contract signed to build it. The Mottram Bypass & Glossop Spur will reduce congestion, improve air quality and reduce journey times. It will make it much easier to get out of Glossop or Hadfield and onto the M67 and whilst there may be a slight increase in cars meaning journey times will be reduced by so much as Mottram Moor and Woolley Lane will no longer be completely gridlocked every rush hour taking on average 30minutes to travel a very short distance. I cannot understand why at this late stage that a motion opposing the Mottram Bypass & Glossop Spur Road has been lodged. I’m afraid that myself and the overwhelming majority of local people will feel utterly let down."

Cheryl Morrell
"I live on Market Street in Hollingworth, which is the main / major road through , Hollingworth to Tintwistle and work Mon - Fri 22 miles away. The traffic is appalling and is literally nose to nose through both villages & right up / down Mottram more at peak times A.M & P.M not only causing daily major congestion but also excessive air and noise pollution . The Glossop Spur would greatly reduce congestion on Mottram Moor, which will be a complete positive lifestyle change for the better all round, which is surely for the best for the roads , people's welfare etc and after 50 years of lobbying for should still go ahead"

Christopher Carre
"I wish to support the application to build the bypass. The local area has suffered for too long without it."

CPRE Lancashire, Liverpool City Region and Greater Manchester
"Dear Planning Inspectorate, I am writing on behalf of the Campaign to Protect Rural England Lancashire, Liverpool City Region and Greater Manchester (CPRE) with a request to be an Interested Party and to represent at the hearings for the A57 Link Roads. CPRE wants a thriving, beautiful countryside for everyone. Tameside has lovely rural places that should be afforded protection as strategic transport infrastructure is planned. Key CPRE issues: Climate emergency harm, as highlighted by the evidence from the IPCC report in August 2021, requires a radical change to investment decisions. Air quality harm in the area is poor due to congestion and arising high levels of pollution causing many health problems and high mortality rates. More road building will exacerbate the problem. Residential amenity harm will be further harmed. More road development and traffic will lead to a decrease in tranquility with additional noise, vibration and light pollution. Green Belt, which aims to keep land permanently open, protects the land that is proposed to form the route. The Government has promised to maintain Green Belt protection. The road will be permanent, and it will increase vehicular activity in the area, which will lead to harm to Green Belt openness to a large extent, both spatially and visually. The road would harm the purposes of Green Belt, such as preventing urban sprawl, countryside encroachment, the merging of distinct areas and brownfield preference, contrary to Section 13 of the NPPF, July 2021. Very special circumstances do not exist. Landscape Character harm would occur as the road will have an urbanising effect in the rural fringe location. CPRE wants areas of predominately rural character to be protected from needless development. There would be substantial adverse change to the visual amenity and landscape character value. Greater Manchester ‘Places for Everyone’ is the Join Development Plan, (at Reg 19 consultation stage) and one of the strategic priorities is to deliver an integrated network with world class connectivity. The A57 Link Road proposed is contrary to the GMCA ambition to transition to a low-carbon economy. Post Coronavirus planning of strategic infrastructure requires an understanding of the long-term implications for travel to work and retail patterns with many people choosing to work from home and shopping online. There may be a material reduction in traffic flow through the Mottram area. Cumulative impacts should be properly assessed by National Highways, including those arising from several proposed large-scale developments, for example, the Godley Green Garden Village, which need scrutiny and adequate measures, such as mitigation at both the M67 J4 roundabout and M60 J24 Denton Island. In summary, when considering the abovementioned issues, I recommend that the application for the link road is refused. Jackie Copley MRTPI MA"

Savills (UK) Ltd (Savills (UK) Ltd) on behalf of Crossways Commercial Estates Ltd
"Dear Sir/ Madam, I write on behalf of Crossways Commercial Estates Ltd the freehold owners of part of the land affected by the A57 upgrade – land registry reference GM917343. The site comprises the eastern edge of the proposed link road. We support the principle of the A57 bypass, albeit have comments in respect of route alignment in the interests of avoiding sterilising land with development potential. These points have been outlined in our representations to Highways England dated 15th December 2020. The main points of which were as follows: - Support in principle - The need to move the signalised junction southwards at its Woolley Bridge tie in as per 2018 designs. - The need to move the River Etherow crossing further southwards as per 2018 designs. We wish to register our interest and maintain close engagement with the DCO process. Kind Regards, Rob Moore MRICS MRTPI"

Daniel Johnson
"Every single day I have to spend 30 minutes stuck in traffic on market street to do a ten minute drive to work. Every time I leave my home I’m stuck in traffic also all day and night all I hear is traffic a lorries rumbling down the road I live on a one way exit road but the amount of drivers that come through the wrong way just to avoid part of the traffic jam is unbelievable the traffic is that bad. The amount of vehicles that brake down on the main road due to a constant stop start is astonishing and people pushing in at the lights so they can get past some of the jam pits everyone at risk it’s not just once or twice I’ve witnessed atleast 20 cars so it at one stage where I’m stuck in traffic making the backlog even worse in the past it took me nearly 30 from tintwisle to hollingworth which I could have walked within 5 minute."

Darren Brocklehurst
"I fully support the building of the Mottram Bypass, both on a personal level and the fact that I also have a haulage business that works locally around this area. Glossop remains mostly inaccessible because of its congestion problem and the addition of the bypass wold put it more on the map for our shopping needs as well as our business needs. I hope common sense will prevail"

Garry Bagguley
"The bypass is critically needed and has been for a ver long time. It can add up to an hour each way on a journey. I am very much in favour of the by pass."

Gary Hammond
"I am in favour of the bypass and wholly disagree with Labours opposition"

Gavin Parkin
"I have lived in Glossop for over 40 years. In that period building has been prolific with no commensurate increase in the infrastructure. Getting out of Glossop especially to the M67 has become a nightmare. Worse still, Glossop residents use High Lane out of Simmondley as a ‘rat run’ to try and alleviate the long waits up Mottram Moor. Heavy morning traffic on High Lane may be considered dangerous as the road is narrow and winding. We need the bypass ."

Gemma Jones
"I lived in Hadfield until recently. We moved because of the horrendous traffic on the m67 affecting badly my partners work commute . Not only the work commute but daily trying to get up Mottram Moor and the M67 was horrendous. As I say , that bad we moved house. I still work in Glossop so still commute down Mottram Moor. It is an awful road, horrendous pollution, delays ambulances and emergency services as it is often totally gridlocked. Not just rush hour but all throughout the day."

Hayley Simpson
"A lorry ban coupled with sustainable transport measures and technological improvements would bring lasting benefits and avoid the above adverse impacts. But Highways England rejected this option. Far reaching changes since 2015 - the declaration of a climate emergency; the Covid-19 pandemic; and a review of the Treasury’s rules to assess the value of roads make scrutiny of this option essential. Although air pollution improves for some areas, for others nitrogen dioxide levels remain above the legal limit e.g. on Market Street in Hollingworth. In one part of Dinting Vale air pollution gets worse. The Air Quality Management Areas in Tintwistle and Glossop would remain. The Greater Manchester Clean Air Zone has been excluded from the air quality modelling but could lead to traffic diverting to avoid paying the toll, creating congestion and air pollution elsewhere. THIS POINTLESS ROAD IS TAKING MY BEAUTIFUL GRANS HOUSE ALONG WITH OUR AMAZING GREENBELT!! You want to take a day in my shoes and see how much of an impact this has had on my family! Maybe a day in my life and you would reconsider this whole project! This has made people ill! How would you feel if this was your family? Not knowing if day to day you can enjoy your life!! YOU ALL SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELVES!!!"

Robert Hodgetts Haley on behalf of High Peak Green Party
"If the purpose of the proposed new road is to resolve the longstanding problems of traffic congestion and air pollution in Glossopdale and Tameside, it fails. Projections for the proposal indicate substantial increases in traffic and related emissions on the A57 Brookfield (31%), A57 Snake Pass (38%), on minor roads - New Road Tintwistle (50%), Norfolk Rd (21%) and Dinting Rd (45%), and small but significant increases on the A6016 Primrose Lane, A57 High St East, Shaw Lane and Cemetery Rd. All these roads have households living adjacent to them and Dinting Road has a school. This comes at a cost of £228 million, not so much less than the £257 million, allocated in 2021-2022 to walking and cycling schemes in the whole of England. Economic benefits to local people would be better delivered by improved access to safe walking and cycling, and by better public transport options. The increase in traffic is also projected to provoke a substantial increase in traffic accidents in an area that already has significant risks. Constructing the new road will emit at least 38,970 tCO2e and the new road, when in use, would emit an extra 116,332tCO2e between 2023-37; over the 60-year assessment period, the scheme would add an extra 399, 867tCO2e. These figures apparently allow for electric vehicles in the traffic modelling. Though small, these amounts are heading in the wrong direction and undermine government’s legal duty to reduce emissions by 78% by 2035, as set out in the 6th carbon budge, and to reach net zero by 2050. Road building can’t provide a long-term solution to traffic problems, but this scheme doesn’t appear to provide much short-term relief either. No lasting solution will be found without a strategy to reduce demand for road use. Such a strategy should include: • Reversing of the centralisation of facilities and services that has degraded many communities • Ensuring that local facilities and services can be reached safely on foot and by bike. • Providing reliable, regular, affordable and integrated public transport • Reducing the need for many journeys by the use of telecommunications. • Reducing commuting by private car by ensuring that workplaces can be reached by public transport or by company-provided transport • Encouraging a large-scale transfer of freight to rail. • Active management of delivery by road o load sharing and return loads. o local authorities to set the weight limits appropriate for their roads. o Local authorities to determine times when deliveries can be made. Such a strategy may seem to require too much change, but reacting to ever-increasing demand by building more roads is not sustainable, especially considering the climate and ecological emergencies we are facing. In addition to the effects on traffic, pollution and carbon emissions, an area prized for its natural beauty will urbanised, reducing access to nature that has proved so important during the pandemic. Wildlife corridors will be disrupted at a time when we should be seeing efforts to reverse the fragmentation of habitats."

Ian Juby
"Please get this bypass built ASAP The whole area needs this to improve travel times and air quality."

Ingrid Lewis
"As a resident on Hyde Road Mottram, in theory I will benefit from the spur road, as traffic will be directed away from the road at the front of my property. However, this small gain is offset by what I believe will be substantial additional negative impacts. 1) The spur will do nothing to alleviate the overall weight of traffic travelling to/through Glossop or through Tintwistle and Hollingworth. It may even increase the traffic if drivers feel it's now a more viable alternative to the longer M62 option. 2) It will simply move the bottleneck at the Mottram lights to a different position further along the A57 closer to Glossop. 3) Green field areas will be divided by new roads, leaving remaining green spaces, including those behind my house, at greater risk of being deemed suitable for development. Such development will be both a major environmental disaster for the area, and will negate any benefits of the road scheme by further increasing traffic levels."

Jade Jackson
"I would like the bypass to be going ahead. The traffic within Glossop is an absolute nightmare and hopefully this will help. Considering we are having more houses built in the area we definitely need this bypass. Please consider this to be built as we will suffer horrendous traffic if not."

Jane Reynolds
"If the purpose of the proposed new road is to resolve the longstanding problems of traffic congestion and air pollution in Glossopdale and Tameside, it fails. Projections for the proposal indicate substantial increases in traffic and related emissions on the A57 Brookfield (31%), A57 Snake Pass (38%), on minor roads - New Road Tintwistle (50%), Norfolk Rd (21%) and Dinting Rd (45%), and small but significant increases on the A6016 Primrose Lane, A57 High St East, Shaw Lane and Cemetery Rd. All these roads have households living adjacent to them and Dinting Road has a school. These facts were not made clear during the consultation. This comes at a cost of £228 million, not so much less than the £257 million, allocated in 2021-2022 to walking and cycling schemes in the whole of England. Economic benefits to local people would be better delivered by improved access to safe walking and cycling, and by better public transport options. The increase in traffic is also projected to provoke a substantial increase in traffic accidents in an area that already has significant risks. Constructing the new road will emit at least 38,970 tCO2e and the new road, when in use, would emit an extra 116,332tCO2e between 2023-37; over the 60-year assessment period, the scheme would add an extra 399, 867tCO2e. These figures apparently allow for electric vehicles in the traffic modelling. Though small, these amounts are heading in the wrong direction and undermine government’s legal duty to reduce emissions by 78% by 2035, as set out in the 6th carbon budge, and to reach net zero by 2050. Road building can’t provide a long-term solution to traffic problems, but this scheme doesn’t appear to provide much short-term relief either. No lasting solution will be found without a strategy to reduce demand for road use. Such a strategy should include: • Reversing of the centralisation of facilities and services that has degraded many communities • Ensuring that local facilities and services can be reached safely on foot and by bike. • Providing reliable, regular, affordable and integrated public transport • Reducing the need for many journeys by the use of telecommunications. • Reducing commuting by private car by ensuring that workplaces can be reached by public transport or by company-provided transport • Encouraging a large-scale transfer of freight to rail. • Active management of delivery by road o load sharing and return loads. o local authorities to set the weight limits appropriate for their roads. o Local authorities to determine times when deliveries can be made. Such a strategy may seem to require too much change, but reacting to ever-increasing demand by building more roads is not sustainable, especially considering the climate and ecological emergencies we are facing. In addition to the effects on traffic, pollution and carbon emissions, an area prized for its natural beauty will urbanised, reducing access to nature that has proved so important during the pandemic. Wildlife corridors will be disrupted at a time when we should be seeing efforts to reverse the fragmentation of habitats."

Jason Egerton
"I believe they should implement a cross pennine ban on HGV's across the A628 route and A57 routes, local deliveries only. This could be Policed by anpr cameras with speed and safety measures for the villages to discourage through traffic. I am against this bypass in its current form. It will only move the problem traffic queues to other areas. I sit in queues every morning and evening in this area. I believe it is badly designed. There are too many roundabouts therefore areas for traffic to build up. The A628 should run round the back of Tintwistle and Hollingworth straight onto the M67 with no roundabouts or connecting roads. Local traffic stays the same as now. Of course the most cost effective solution is a HGV ban and speed restrictions for through traffic."

Jessica Mooney
"I believe the bypass should be built as it would allow easier access in and out of glossop aka the surrounding areas. Being a parent of two disabled children results in my having to attend multiple medical appointments on a regular basis and the horrendous traffic in and around glossop leads to me and my children having to spend prolonged amounts of time stuck in traffic which as you can imagine is quite stressful for them both. This also results in them having to be out of school for a lot longer than they need to be due to having to set off early than I should have to and coming back later than I should due to slow moving traffic which has a knock on effect on their education. I also worry about if either of them has a medical emergency and I cannot get them to the hospital fast enough due to the roads being blocked with traffic, as we all know there is a shortage in ambulances so in some instances it could be faster to transport them myself if the traffic wasn’t so bad at all times of the day."

Jimmy Mcgrane
"I support the bypass because as a hgv driver using the woodhead pass on a regular basis it often adds a hour + to my journey and makes it very difficult to manage my driving hours especially at peak times when the road to the m67 is completely gridlocked for miles this bypass is essential not only for the truck drivers but also the residents of Hadfield Tintwistle and surrounding areas"

Keiran Jones
"We need this bypass to go ahead. It affects our lives far more than it does yours. Day-by-day this traffic gets worse and without a way for residents to get out and to work efficiently, glossop and it’s surrounding areas continue to suffer, now more than ever. So please, from a local, this is what we need."

Lisa Barber
"This bypass is needed desperately. 30 minutes to go 2 miles is ridiculous. Driving RRP and from work is painful, stressful and has caused me panic attacks. The people that oppose this have never driven on the A57. Please pass this. Please get this built."

Liz Wood
"I do not agree with the proposed bypass. I do not believe it will reduce traffic around Glossop, I believe it will increase it due to 'perceived' better traffic flow. We need to review other options, key to this would be putting a weight limit on both Woodhead and Snake Pass (buses not included on Snake) therefore forcing HGV traffic to M62. This would massively alleviate the volume of traffic. Following that other suggestions could be reviewed once those measures have bedded in. Total sense!!!"

Liz Young
"The traffic through Hollingworth is ridiculous! The bypass must go ahead just to ease congestion in Hollingworth."

Margaret Dillon
"We need this by-pass because we wait a long time to turn onto our estate because of all the traffic. Not just cars but all the big lorries hurtling past. It is horrendous waiting in the traffic queues every night and morning trying to get up and down Mottram road. Its just one constant stream of big heavy lorries nearly blowing you over as they pass. We need the by-pass NOW!!!!!!"

Margaret Mulheran
"The proposed changes should NOT go ahead. The idea of a by pass is antiquated. Cars need to be taken OFF the road and rail and bus services need to return to public ownership. TAKE CLIMATE CHANGE SERIOUSLY! We are one world! Cut emissions and save lives. Invest in a healthy future. Reduce pollution don’t create more."

Matt Dinnery
"I live in Manchester and work in Glossop. I also need to visit Elsecar regularly. I am in support of the bypass."

Michaela Bromley
"Road accidents would increase (102 more collisions over 60 years) across the network. However on the A57 Snake Pass, a high risk road for a fatal or serious injury crash, there would be 160 extra collisions over 60 years. Over 60 years of operation the scheme would add an extra 399,867 tonnes of carbon dioxide. Over a lifetime of 100 years, one tree absorbs around 1 tonne of carbon dioxide but we cannot wait for nearly 400,000 trees to grow for a hundred years. Carbon emissions must be tested against international and national legislation and guidance including the Paris Agreement, the 2008 Climate Change Act’s legally binding target of net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, the UK Sixth Carbon Budget, science-based carbon budgets from the Tyndall Centre, and the National Planning Policy Framework which requires ‘radical reductions of greenhouse gas emissions’. I OBJECT AGAINST THIS AWFUL ROAD YOUR TAKING MY MOTHERS HOME/MY FAMILY HOME"

Mike Chetham
"A completely superfluous link road. Unnecessary waste of money. Spend the money on the cross Pennine rail link. People drive because public transport is unreliable. Improve cross Pennine rail and you will take cars off this road. Improve the capacity of the cross Pennine rail link and goods could be carried by rail. By improving the rail link you reduce traffic, and improve air quality upon the important habitat of the peat moorlands of the Pennines. This might have been an appropriate solution 50 years ago when the idea was first mooted. Not now. No to the A57 link roads."

Mike Reape
"Any Glossop and surrounding areas resident knows how vital the A57 link road is to ensuring a better quality of life. For a town that largely depends on travel into Greater Manchester, current journey times do not suit the needs of today’s population. This is a further compounded by the increase in residential developments, surely this problem is only going to worsen without the link road. Personally, I’ve lived in Glossop my whole life (23 years) and recently purchased a home in Tintwistle. Since starting working at the age of 17, I’ve seen journey times increase year on year. This will lead to discouragement for commuters like myself who are unable to use the train due to working in varying locations and many will look to leave the area. Additionally since moving to Tintwistle, I've been able to experience large scale congestion near my property. Surely this is damaging to health in terms of air quality etc? This bypass is needed as quickly as possible to bring Glossop and surrounding areas up to date by provide infrastructure to support the sheer amount of new homes being built."

Neal Linsky
"I'm in favour of the A57 link road as it will ease congestion at the end of the M67 at Hattersley and uphill from Hollingworth to Mottram. It will make journey times much quicker and less fuel will be used by motorists which will improve air quality. Also, approval /completion of the A57 Mottram/Glossop link road will make the Hollingworth/Tintwistle bypass more likely to happen, as this is badly needed."

Neil Yoxall
"This bypass needs to be completed, the congestion locally needs to be addressed and this application is the first stage of improving terrible roads in the area. There have been huge developments for housing which is also needed but currently the roads can not cope and have not done for over 30 years. As a resident I strongly believe this will improve our health and quality of life just by reducing the current volume of traffic going in the same direction. I’m strongly in favour of this application being approved. Kind regards Neil"

Pamela Bartolomeo
"Please, please, we need this By-pass. The travel out and in to Glossop is a nightmare, with traffic. I work for the NHS and at times have to leave a hour before l should do, for the distance to make sure l arrive on time. And traffic is blocked even at 6 15am. With the traffic blocked at times emergency vehicle's have major problems, It has become so dangerous now as so much traffic, and being rural with few services, the road is one of the only ways out of the area. This by pass has been promised for so long, major building projects for housing are taking place, so more cars will be on the roads. Also business can suffer locally as some people are put off with the sheer traffic to visit a local business. Please make this happen, so the people of Glossop and surrounding areas, can be more mobile and not trapped, by traffic, which are using roads which are not for purpose, today. As these roads were in use when traffic was not a problem, now they cannot cope."

Patricia Gyongyosi
"I travel weekly to my son's home in Diggle and regularly have delays. I'm sure the homes in the area would appreciate a by-pass to stop the pollution (noise and fumes). The large vehicles struggle to manoevre on the roads due to residential parking. School start and finish in the area adds to the busy roads and these add to residents problems. Surely all the research completed over the last 50 years would show that this area would benefit with this by-pass."

Paul Hitchen
"I support the bypass construction to alleviate the horrendous traffic problems in Glossop and at the end of the M67. The plans and consultation has been exhaustive. Further delays will cause prolonged traffic congestion, wasted journey time and pollution."

Pete Gaskell
"The scheme will really only have value for Glossop residents once the second phase is completed. Until that element is resolved I cannot, as a Glossop resident, endorse the first phase."

Peter Smith
"I was born in and lived in Glossop all my life and I can honestly say the traffic problem Has become progressively worse over the years Indeed it has become so bad that when I meat people from outside the area and say where I live their first comment is usually regarding the horrendous traffic problem Therefor I am wholely in Favour of the bypass Thank you Peter Smith [redacted]"

Philip Anderson
"A total bypass is needed, not part of one, a bypass running from the M67 Mottram Roundabout passing Mottram, Hollingsworth and Tintwistle and connecting to the A 628 offen called the Woodhead , the suggestion of a Tunnel though the Pennies is not necessary ."

Phoebe Campbell
"I support the bypass. It would improve traffic within Glossop town centre which during the week is impossible for those who live here to use. The air quality of our town centre would be improved, and our health because of this. Please do not delay this anymore. 50 years too long!"

Professor Michael Corcoran
"My concern is that the proposed scheme, taken together with other National Highways’ proposed schemes, would have consequences that run counter to the UK’s commitment to reduce the emissions of global heating gases (GHGs) as set out in the CCC 6th Carbon Budget and National Declared Contribution under the UN Paris Agreement. Very substantial CHG emissions associated with construction will be followed by an increase in road traffic at a critical time when the UK’s rate of reducing CHG emissions must be at its greatest. Emphasis in planning, including infrastructure planning, needs to focus on minimising the need for travel, shortening travel distances, and a shift to forms of transport other than privately owned cars. This is particularly important on routes taken by commuters. The degree to which these objectives can be achieved reduces the need for infrastructure projects of the type proposed."

Rachael Chard
"I fully support the proposed Mottram moor bypass and believe it will bring much benefit to the area, reducing journey times and air pollution. The existing infrastructure is not fit for purpose and this has been much needed for years."

Richard Dean
"This A57 link Road is long, long overdue. The queues of traffic in both directions are appalling. How many hours are wasted by drivers and passengers sitting in the current congestion? Having commuted this route for nearly 30 years I know what I am writing about. Perhaps most at risk are those that live on the A57, inhabitants of Mottram and Hollingworth particularly. The fumes from standing traffic, especially from the thousands of lorries that use the road, must have an extremely damaging effect on the health of those living nearby. I think particularly of the children who live in close proximity to the road. May I remind you of the case of Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah, where traffic pollution was a material cause of death? Very busy congested roads and people should be separated whenever possible - this link road will benefit everyone."

Rod Martin
"We need a bypass to stop 1,000s of HGVs thundering through the village as well to take the Glossop traffic away. It will significantly improve quality of air and thus life in Mottram"

Sarah Carter
"the bypass that should be phase 1 should be the one that bypasses mottram hollingworth and tintwistle, Why are we STILL waiting for funding for “phase 2” phase 1 has taken 50 years and probably won’t happen for a few years yet. I’m 43, lived here all my life, it takes me 20 minutes to travel 1 Mile to leave where I live, it’s ridiculous. highways England need to listen to the people this affects every day of our lives, listen to common sense, if they’re going to build a bypass they need to build it in the right place which is from the M67 to other side of tintwistle not mottram to Glossop."

Shabnam Rani
"I would like to voice my opposition to these plans because I do not think they offer good value for money for UK taxpayers. Recent studies by Highways Magazine have shown that similar schemes have resulted in more traffic, more congestion and have failed to provide the economic boost that was promised - in fact making a negative return on investment. Given that the aim of the scheme is to improve transport links between Manchester and Sheffield in order to provide economic growth and better delivery of goods to businesses, I believe that reinstating rail routes would be much more cost effective. A ban on HGV’s could then be implemented which would solve the problems highlighted around traffic through local roads and villages. Much of this infrastructure already exists, which would result in better value for money. This country is recovering from the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. This is highlighted by the recent announcement to increase taxes. We should be looking at ways to reduce overall spending, and invest more wisely in schemes that will provide a demonstrable return. This proposal does very little to justify the costs involved and how this will bring about tangible benefits. I also think these proposals are very harmful to the environment and do very little to negate the impacts of increased emissions and destruction of natural habitats. During the pandemic, the UK government prioritised the nation’s health over the economy. Why should we now prioritise the economy over the climate and the health of our future generations?"

Simon Unwin
"This bypass has been discussed for 50 years. Needs building now"

Sophie Leech
"This bypass is needed so much by local people just as much as other users. The congestion and air quality is extremely poor in the Mottram / Tintwistle and Hadfield areas. There are poor connections with the M67 at present and we need to work towards creating better more environmentally friendly links with other pennine towns as well as easing congestion for local people. This project must go ahead."

Stephen Darragh
"The delays are unacceptable. For this to continue would be ludicrous given there is apparent funding. The people of the village deserve a quiet road and the people that wish to travel on wood head wish to do so without delays. It makes sense to continue with the bypass. To do so would also assist businesses reliant on the road to move goods. It would be of great benefit to business, commuters and the community."

Stephen Marsden
"People have campaigned for years to get this bypass built. The pollution and congestion in Glossop from HGV's passing through constantly throughout the day is unfair and has no benefit to the local community. Mottram moor, Broadbottom and Glossop high street have been groaning under the exponential rise in traffic through the area for years. This bypass needs to happen."

Stuart Braddock
"The bypass is badly needed we have waited.and waited long enough he with brocken promises so its now time too keep the promise and build what is so badly needed"

Stuart Elliott
"I am appalled by the High Peak Labour Party's decision to campaign against the absolutely necessary Mottram by-pass, something that needed doing for almost 50 years, but year-on-year traffic between the M67 at Mottram onwards towards Sheffield gets worse and worse. This needs remedying asap."

Stuart O'Connor
"I stongly oppose the scheme for the following resons: 1. The scheme would increase traffic. The benefits to Mottram come at the expense of the rest of Longdendale and Glossopdale where traffic increases on many residential roads. This does not comply with national policies for climate change and the need to shift from cars to public transport. It also will result in increased polution from increased traffic. 2. The scheme involves fragmentation, loss or displacement of diminishing wildlife habitats such as wet grazing meadows and of protected species, such as bats and barn owls. The impacts on the rich and diverse wildlife are minimised because species are considered only of ‘local value’. Local countryside, highly valued for its natural undeveloped character and open views, would be urbanised and the Green Belt would be cut in two. 3 The Peak District National Park is a haven for everyone in the country. . National policy requires trunk road traffic to go round National Parks."

Susan fridlington
"Try to drive through glossop at any time, especially during the weekday and you realise why this is needed"

Tim Hoggard
"This bypass is vital to our areas infrastructure and is long overdue.Anyone concerned about environmental impact please consider the effects of all the queuing traffic emitted fumes for several hours every day and it’s effects on local population"

Zhiyuan Shao
"The bypass will hugely reduce the traffic and we have been waiting this bypass for 50 years."

Zoë Walker
"I live [redacted] and will be directly affected both positively and negatively by the link road. Negatively because it will turn up in the immediate view of the front of our house but positive because it will take the through traffic to glossop off the main road outside my house, reduce the cracks and shaking in my house from the big hgvs, allow me to have my window open on hot nights without the thundering sound of hgvs, reduce the pollution outside me house. I am frustrated with the wholly negative feedback about the road that comes out from residents in Hollingworth and want it noted that not all residents are against it. There’s a silent majority like myself that know it won’t fix everyone’s problems but it will improve a bit insignificant number of people who live directly on the roads it will bypass."

Adam Frith
"Development of infrastructure within the High Peak is critical. Our roads are aged and upgrades are needed right across the area."

Alan Bradley
"I was born in Glossop and remember the traffic in the 1950/60s, The streets and roads where originally for the horse and cart. How can anyone from Glossop not want the new road link"

Alan Culley
"I fully support the construction of the bypass and spur road, for the following reasons. I have lived in Glossop for 20 years and I regularly used the A628 both for business and personal use. The traffic congestion at times of maximum use must contribute to huge environmental pollution as well as motoring costs. The traffic numbers have greatly increased, in both directions, year by year particularly on goods transport which must be particularly harmful to the health and well being of the local population around Hollingsworth and Tintwistle. There is no other alternative transport to travel to Sheffield, and the excessive traffic over spills on to the A57 Snake Road which serves only to off load these issues (above) into central Glossop, which basically has one road in and out of Town."

Alan McGovern
"I am a local resident, having moved to Glossop in 1971 following assurances that a bypass was due to be built in order to relieve the traffic problems in Glossop. The stress of the daily rush hour grind out of - and returning to Glossop was the single most significant factor in my decision to retire, despite my own and my employer's desire for me to stay in post for A further five years. The extreme waste of commercial and personal time and physical resources, all of which increase the ultimate cost of living plus the adverse health cost to many residents should not be allowed to continue. Especially since the large number of additional households being created/built in Glossop well inevitably increase the adverse effects."

Alan Richard Hardy
"The bypass is necessary to reduce pollution and wasted time."

Alan Scapens
"I support the provision of the Mottram Bypass & Glossop Spur Road as it will help improve severe traffic congestion and improve local air quality."

Alastair Knox
"When I came to this area in 1970 it was difficult to get round Mottram and Glossop. 50 years later is many times worse. I avoid the area if I can as movement through it is so difficult. When I was working as a farm vet it slowed my attendance at urgent calls, and I dreaded getting calls to the area between 4-30 pm and about 7. The bypass is sorely needed."

Albert Slater
"In Emergency it would speed up Emergency services such as Ambulances."

Alison O’Brien
"This area desperately needs a bypass and has done for years. There is a constant traffic jam and the fumes must be horrendous. I use the Woodhead pass regularly and beyond the Gun Inn is always jammed solid. It’s a shame the tunnels are now obsolete and will not be able to be used by trains- that may once have been a possibility."

Allan Harrison
"The bypass is needed and has been needed for decades. People travelling through Longdendale have a right to free passage and the people living on the present route need less disruption and pollution"

Allan Kerrigan
"I do not believe this work should go ahead as planned. The communities in and around Glossop, Hadfield, Mottram and Tintwhistle deserve a proper bypass that seperates the flows of traffic heading towards the Woodhead and Snake passes. This scheme has been watered down and watered down and it appears will now only add to the traffic problems in the area in the long term."

Allen Critchlow Allsop
"Improving traffic flow in the area has to be a priority for those who live in the area."

Amanda Linfoot
"When working for a large health charity I used to frequently travel from Bamford (and Sheffield when I lived there) to many areas in the Northwest. There was always a bottleneck around the area adding sometimes a half hour to my journey - frequently I would be late for meetings even when making allowances for delays. This bypass has been on the agenda for years and needs to go ahead. Although I am now medically retired due to Multiple Sclerosis I travelled this route for work for nearly 13 years."

Amanda Wiseman
"As a resident living [redacted] Glossop I fully support the building of the long awaited by-pass. The queues of traffic in both directions are unbearable and will only get worse with all the new developments being built in Glossop. Something has got to be done to alleviate the congestion."

Amber Thompson
"I have been caught in a number of very difficult traffic jams on the current road. It seems that the proposed road improvements are very much needed by the people who live in the surrounding community."

Andrea Lomax
"Why oh why do we not have a bypass? It has taken over 50 years to get to this point. Scandalous. Just a big let down yet again and again and again and so on"

Andrew Byford
"I have travelled from Glossop into Tameside and beyond along the A57 for more than forty years. Traffic and congestion have increased considerably over the last twenty years and considerable time is spent sitting in traffic moving at less than walking speed in both directions and frequently backing up down the M67 from the west and into Glossop town centre from the East. This bypass and link should have been completed years ago and not stalled by professional objectors who frequently hide anonymously in the background feeding others to raise objections on their behalf."

Andrew Eyre
"I’m hoping that the bypass will allow free movement of traffic with less congestion. For many years I have commuted from Glossop and am constantly frustrated with the congestion around Mottram, Hadfield, Woolley Bridge and Tintwistle. I am 54 now and can only hope that this bypass is completed before I retire; this has been spoken about since I started work aged 18 and it’s time for action!"

Andrew Hamilton
"Needs Buliding asap the traffic is ridiculous the bypass for Mere was built and not needed in comparison for this"

Andrew Harrison
"This bypass is essential not only for us who live in the area but also for businesses. As a local business owner in Glossop i have struggled to recruit employees due to the traffic situation and the problems caused when commuting to the area. We have seen numerous customers miss or be late for meetings at our offices due to the severe delays encountered when travelling in to Glossop via Mottram and the M67. This has had and is still have an impact on my and i am sure many other local businesses. Surely if transport links are improved in an area you can see it will make it more attractive for businesses to consider setting up here. I cannot believe that the Labour party who are supposed to represent working people would even consider opposing this bypass. This will help bring jobs and prosperity to our area and all they seem to be concerned about is point scoring against the conservatives ! The politicians need to start thinking about the people rather than themselves which is clearly what is happening here !"

Andy Mannix
"This bypass is vital for the High Peak community and beyond. Please get on with it!"

Angela Dale
"I think that the planned A57 link will increase traffic and will not relieve congestion. it will make traffic worse in Tintwistle where traffic noise and air pollution are already at a shocking level. At a time of climate emergency we should not be building more roads. This simply increases carbon emissions. Instead, we need to focus on much better rail and road services, and better space for pedestrians and cyclists."

Angela Griffiths
"GLOSSOP PEOPLE MUST BE GIVEN THIS ESSENTIAL WAY TO TRAVEL TO LOCATIONS OF WORK AND ALL OTHERS WITHOUT THIS EXTRA STRESS TO THEIR DAILY LIFE , THERE IS NO OTHER ROAD TO CHANGE TO! THIS OBSESSION OF BLOCKING EVERY TRAFFIC PLAN MUST STOP, IT MEANS THERE ARE NO WINNERS, ALL ARE LOSERS, IT AFFECTS ALL GLOSSOP RESIDENTS, PLUS TAMESIDE RESIDENTS WHO LIVE ALONG - SIDE GLOSSOP AREAS, EMERGENCY SERVICES CANNOT COPE TO ACHIEVE THEIR NEED TO HELP! THERE ARE SO MANY NEEDS BEING NOT MET, BY THIS STUPID STALLING, IT MUST BE COMPLETED …….."

Anita Byrne
"My opinion is the bypass should go ahead - traffic in and out of Glossop and Hadfield is horrendous all the time. This is getting worse as houses continue to be built in the area and there is no infrastructure to support this Air quality around hollingworth and Mottram Moor is appalling. Cars , buses and lorries all at a standstill constantly . There has been a lot of money spent on this proposal already as this is a saga that has been going on for many many years I spent many years travelling up mottram moor and on a good morning it took 25 minutes or go 3 miles"

Anita Moss
"I object to the A57 links road as it will create an increase of traffic and pollution. This will conflict with national policies to cut emissions. We need to support car share, walking, cycling and public transport. The extra carbon dioxide conflicts with the Paris Agreement, which requires radical reduction of greenhouse gases. Nitrogen dioxide pollution remains above the legal limit and Greater Manchester clean air zone has been excluded from air quality modelling. The road will harm vital habitat for wildlife, including protected species such as barn owls and bats. The Peak District National Park is a haven for wildlife, carbon storage and an area for people to enjoy nature. More traffic will cause harm to wildlife and plants. Solutions are needed to reduce emissions and clean our environment. We do not want more roads and more cars/lorries."

Anna Girolami
"I would like the following issues to be considered: We are supposed to be reducing emissions, for the sake of people’s health and to try and get to Net Zero. This plan would actually increase traffic (and therefore emissions). It makes a mockery of national policies for climate change and the country’s attempt to shift to walking, cycling and public transport, rather than road transport. The scheme is completely out of sync with growing concern about climate change. It would add so much carbon dioxide to the atmosphere that it would take nearly half a million trees a hundred years to remove it. Surely this goes against both the Paris Agreement and our own Climate Change Act? The increase in emissions will only be detrimental to the health of many of the people who live in the area. Air pollution improves for in some areas but worsens in others e.g. on Market Street in Hollingworth. The scheme also impacts badly on wildlife (protected species of bats and owls) and habitats such as wet grazing meadows. Much-loved and highly-valued local countryside would be urbanised and the Green Belt would be cut in two. As a High Peak resident, I am also concerned about safety. Any benefits to Mottram come at the expense of the rest of Glossopdale which would suffer traffic increases on many residential roads. Road accidents are likely to become more common. Snake Pass is already a high risk road for serious accidents and work has shown that this scheme would lead to 160 extra collisions on that road over the next 60 years. A lorry ban together with sustainable transport measures could bring lasting benefits and avoid the problems outlines above. Why has Highways England rejected this option? Surely the events of the last few years - particularly the declaration of a climate emergency - make consideration of this option an urgent priority?"

Anna Smith
"To ease congestion through Glossop"

Anne Cawthorn
"I support the bypass, having been one of many people who have sat in the endless queues of traffic. The situation has got worse over the years and the only solution to the issue is to install a bypass. I cannot believe that a local council has opposed this long-standing plan. Traffic congestion brings health issues, which is unfair to the local community."

Anthony Brocklebank
"Traffic congestion on Mottram Moor has been a major problem for over fifty years.Before I retired I wasted hours every day in standing and slow moving traffic when leaving and returning to Glossop. The planned Glossop Spur offers a partial solution and its construction should not be postponed. Improving traffic flow has the potential to reduce air pollution and health risks now being experienced by both residents and residents."

B.Tynan
"Anyone with any sense would know a bypass Is long overdue. The amount of pollution caused by traffic jams trying To reach Glossop or the Woodhead Road is ridiculous."

Barbara Helm
"I am against this proposal as it will increase traffic through Glossop and other parts of Glossopdale. Traffic though Tintwistle is likely to increase by up to 50% this is not good for that area , the residents there are already suffering from the noise and pollution caused by current traffic numbers. Glossop already has a traffic problem , getting in. Bx out is difficult, particularly at certain times of the day. It seems this new development will affect traffic numbers adversely."

Bartek Verde
"As a local resident I support the construction of the bypass to ease traffic congestions and reduce journey times. I believe that the bypass will be a signifficant improvement to the local infrastructure."

Benjamin Powell
"The planned link road is an extremely ineffective use of public money. It will provide very little benefit whilst negatively impacting the local environment. Traffic will not be reduced and the benefit to people in the area will be limited to a very small number of houses who will be bypassed. Money needs to be invested in reducing car numbers on roads in the area rather than encouraging more to use it. HGVs and other heavily polluting vehicles need to be using alternative routes, public transport links need to be improved and promoted as does the use of cycling. 20 years ago public support for this project would have been very high but it is not fit for purpose in a world that is grappling with climate change."

Brian Boakes
"This bypass is a must for the residents of Glossopdale and surrounding communities. The 50 year delay has made living in the traffic strewn area a nightmare. I understand that there are environmental concerns and I'm not ignoring them but the bypass is a must for the area to make travelling in and out of the area easier for all. Opposition to it appears to be much more political than the opponents want to draw attention to. 50+ years is too long. Get on with it."

British Mountaineering Council
"The British Mountaineering Council is the national representative body for climbers, mountaineers and hill walkers in England and Wales. From our perspective the main issues we consider the Inspector should examine relate to the impact the Link Road will clearly have on the A57, the A628, and recreation in the Peak District National Park. The wider impact of the proposed Link Road must be every bit as relevant to its planning as the infrastructure of the road itself. Statutory purposes for which National Parks were created in this country include the landscape, biodiversity, conservation and enjoyment of the special qualities of those areas which were so dedicated, for National benefit. The title of the project – A57 Link Road – suggests part at least of the concept of the new road will be to facilitate traffic flows, and inevitably see an increase, onto the A 57 Snake Pass. This is already a high risk road for fatal and serious injury crashes. Increasing traffic flow on such a road would seem, self evidently, ill advised. Furthermore, we believe increasing traffic on a trunk road through a National Park to be contrary to National Policy. A foreseeable corollary will be demand for significant new engineering works on both this road, and on the A628, where these pass through the National Park, to the detriment of its conservation, and quiet enjoyment of its special qualities. Many established walking routes, and not just the National routes like the Pennine Way, cross areas of Peak Moorland north to south. Crossing the A57 and A628 is already hazardous with existing traffic flows. Additionally safe parking for vehicles is prohibitively difficult, a contributory factor to road safety issues and a cause of local nuisance. These aspects, let alone the impact on wildlife, do not, on our reading, receive anything like adequate coverage in the proposals. They must surely be integral to it: the Link Road is not just a stand alone development. It can not responsibly be considered in disregard of its wider impact on people, and indeed to wildlife. Even now roadkill is significant. Outdoor recreation and access to specially protected landscapes is directly relevant to the health of the community. It is as important nationally as ease of the passage of road traffic. The application to us would seem to be seriously lacking in any consideration of this essential element, and as it stands appears to have been conceived from an exclusively narrow perspective. Though outside our particular area of expertise we would also voice a general concern that increasing traffic flows, as predicted, will generate more carbon emissions, which would be contrary to National policies on their reduction. It would seem counter intuitive that the way to alleviate an acknowledged traffic flow problem is confined to a hugely expensive investment which can only increase that traffic flow, to the detriment of a valued National asset, and its enjoyment."

Campaign for National Parks
"We object to TRO10034 for the following reasons: Increasing road capacity is not the solution. There is evidence that road schemes justified on the basis of reduced journey times fail to deliver the promised economic benefits and road-building is particularly damaging in areas in or close to National Parks where the economy is heavily dependent on a high quality environment. Full consideration should be given to adopting alternative solutions to the traffic and congestion problems in this area before any consent is given to road-building. For example a National Park-wide weight restriction in conjunction with sustainable transport measures and technological improvements would bring lasting benefits and avoid the adverse impacts below. The Covid-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on our working and travelling patterns and the focus should now be on developing future travel options which encourage people to use alternatives to the car. The scheme is completely incompatible with the urgent need to tackle the climate emergency and the UK’s international and national commitments to reduce carbon emissions including the Paris agreement, the 2008 Climate Change Act, the legally binding target of net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, the UK Sixth Carbon Budget, and the National Planning Policy Framework which requires ‘radical reductions of greenhouse gas emissions’. Over 60 years the scheme would add an extra 399,867tCO2e. The scheme would damage the special qualities of the Peak District National Park and is incompatible with the statutory purposes of National Parks which are our finest landscapes with the highest level of protection. There is a long-established presumption against significant road widening or the building of new roads in National Parks “unless it can be shown there are compelling reasons for the new or enhanced capacity and with any benefits outweighing the costs very significantly” (paragraph 5.152 of the National Policy Statement for National Networks). It would also damage areas of local countryside which are highly valued for their natural undeveloped character, open views, tranquillity and recreational opportunities. By causing some traffic to divert from the M62, the scheme would result in increased traffic on many residential roads in Longdendale and Glossopdale. This undermines national policies to encourage walking, cycling and public transport for local journeys. It would also result in increased traffic on trans-Pennine routes through the National Park which is contrary to national policy. Furthermore, this increased traffic would lead to increases in collisions, particularly on cross-Park routes such as the A57 Snake Pass which already experience high levels of fatal and serious collisions. The transport appraisal and modelling must be scrutinised through the examination in order to ensure public confidence in the results. The modelling is based on data, assumptions and projections from before the legal acceptance of the new carbon budget and publication of the Transport Decarbonisation Strategy. It must therefore be updated to reflect them."

Captain Gordon F Rowley
"1) The continuous heavy traffic on the M67 to the roundabout joining the Hyde A57 towards Mottram Moor is a main route for heavy articulated lorries, further lorries and vans, and causes regular hold up for travelling in this area. 2) The situation at Mottram Moor crossroads is therefore extremely busy due to the traffic situation reference item (1). This is an A road with Ashworth Lane and Stalybridge road adjoining it The lorries and other traffic which are travelling both ways along the A57 are all having to stop at the crossroads traffic lights which causes a lot of pollution whilst there engines are idling. 3) Because of the congestion on the A57 through Mottram Moor crossroads, local drivers use Ashworth lane as a rat-run, making this residential road very busy and gridlocked at certain times throughout the day. It is there very noisy and often difficult to cross the road safely. 4) I have been driving for over forty and never witnessed as mainy articulated lorries constantly passing through both ways on one road whilst waiting for the light to change so as to cross the road."

Carl Scrimshaw
"This has been an issue for years. Having worked in the area for many years the situation is unbearable."

Catherine Coombes
"I totally support the bypass, after waiting almost 50 years, this cannot fail or be cancelled. It's so important to the local residents, and everyday road users, that the plans must go ahead. It will reduce pollution, improving the health & well being of every local resident, but most of all for the future of our children & the environment."

Charles Copestake
"I think that the proposed road improvement will help to reduce traffic congestion without too much negative effect to the area."

Charles Reade-Jahn
"Traffic on Mottram Moor is appalling and, quite apart from the obvious motoring, road safety and pollution issues, this brings down the profile and reputation of the whole area, with the identity of Glossop (and surrounding area) for many defined by this horrid and tedious experience to be endured before you can visit the place. In addition to the huge benefit to motorists and the local community of the bypass, easing pollution and congestion and improving road safety; this development will help restore peace and tranquillity to the area, which will benefit everyone. I remember Whaley Bridge and Chapel before that bypass was built; these are both now lovely places to visit, with only light traffic passing through. Mottram, Hattersley and Hollingsworth, Woolley bridge and Tintwistle have all put up with unreasonable levels of traffic misery for far too long already. I was delighted to hear there was finally some hope of this bypass going ahead. I am really disappointed to hear about this latest negative pressure. I am wholeheartedly behind the bypass project and hope my representation will help those making the final decision to allow this to proceed as planned"

Charlotte Farrell
"I believe the Examination should scrutinise the following issues: 1. The scheme would increase traffic. The benefits to Mottram (but not those on Market Street or near the new underpass) come at the expense of the rest of Longdendale and Glossopdale where traffic increases on many residential roads. This does not comply with national policies for climate change and modal shift to walking, cycling and public transport. 2. Road accidents would increase (102 more collisions over 60 years) across the network. However on the A57 Snake Pass, a high risk road for a fatal or serious injury crash, there would be 160 extra collisions over 60 years. There would be additional problems on the Snake Pass from subsidence as already it is unable to cope with the level of use and frequently has to be closed for repairs. This would impact on those who rely on it for immediate access. 3. It would mean additional traffic through the village of Bamford which already sees vehicles queuing at peak times on weekends because the volume of traffic is too great for the narrow road through the village causing tailbacks. 4. Over 60 years of operation the scheme would add an extra 399,867 tonnes of carbon dioxide. Over a lifetime of 100 years, one tree absorbs around 1 tonne of carbon dioxide but we cannot wait for nearly 400,000 trees to grow for a hundred years. Carbon emissions must be tested against international and national legislation and guidance including the Paris Agreement, the 2008 Climate Change Act’s legally binding target of net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, the UK Sixth Carbon Budget, science-based carbon budgets from the Tyndall Centre, and the National Planning Policy Framework which requires ‘radical reductions of greenhouse gas emissions’. 5. Although air pollution improves for some areas, for others nitrogen dioxide levels remain above the legal limit e.g. on Market Street in Hollingworth. In one part of Dinting Vale air pollution gets worse. The Air Quality Management Areas in Tintwistle and Glossop would remain. The Greater Manchester Clean Air Zone has been excluded from the air quality modelling but could lead to traffic diverting to avoid paying the toll, creating congestion and air pollution elsewhere. 6. The scheme involves fragmentation, loss or displacement of diminishing wildlife habitats such as wet grazing meadows and of protected species, such as bats and barn owls. The impacts on the rich and diverse wildlife are minimised because species are considered only of ‘local value’. Local countryside, highly valued for its natural undeveloped character and open views, would be urbanised and the Green Belt would be cut in two. 7. A lorry ban coupled with sustainable transport measures and technological improvements would bring lasting benefits and avoid the above adverse impacts. But Highways England rejected this option. Far reaching changes since 2015 - the declaration of a climate emergency; the Covid-19 pandemic; and a review of the Treasury’s rules to assess the value of roads make scrutiny of this option essential. 8. The Peak District National Park is a haven for wildlife and a place where everyone can get outdoors and enjoy nature, peace and quiet and also a significant bank of carbon. With more traffic on cross Park routes these special qualities will be eroded. National policy requires trunk road traffic to go round National Parks."

Chris Hazelhurst
"we badly need a bypass to free up our local roads,and to make transport in and out of our local area much easier than it currently is"

Chris Naughton
"Our area needs this bypass and has done for a long time. Over congested roads, bottlenecks at the end of the M67 into the Glossop/hadfield/hollingworth areas. Endless congestion, trapping residents in the location at peak times"

Chris nelstrop
"I support the building of the bypass"

Chris Wilding
"As a resident of Gamesley I have seen and had to drive with and against the increased flow of commuting traffic. The roads around this area are at busy times, especially morning rush hours, congested with cars, mainly single occupancy, heading to and from Greater Manchester, using this as a short cut to avoid Mottram Moor grid lock. I believe the bypass would not only free traffic flow on Mottram Moor but would also reduce the amount of traffic cutting through Gamesley, decreasing pollution and potentially reduce traffic accidents and incidents of near misses."

Christine Hazlehurst
"Dear Sir, Madam, I am a resident of Hadfield and was brought up in Glossop, I am now retired, for many years I travelled out of Hadfield to my place of work every day joining the queue up Mottram Moor with the frustration of not knowing how long it would take to reach my destination. For almost fifty years the people of the area have asked for a solution to the problem which has been continually shelved. The time has come for this issue to be sorted once and for all. Arthur Hazlehurst. [redacted]"

Christine Holden
"This bypass has been desperately needed for years to delay now would be madness and a kick in the teeth for all those local people who have suffered physically, mentally and with ill health."

Christine Ord
"With traffic congestion as it is these days, this is a sensible solution to the current problem. Until there are viable alternatives we cannot play at ‘King Canute’ and try to stop people travelling by car."

Christopher Davis
"Local people have been waiting for the Mottram Bypass for over 50 years. The funding has been secured and a contract signed to build it. Studies show that the Mottram Bypass & Glossop Spur will reduce congestion, improve air quality, and cut journey times. It will make it much easier to get out of Glossop or Hadfield and onto the M67. It will also significantly reduce rat-running through Gamesley and Charlesworth. This will be a huge benefit to the people who live and work in this area. The Mottram Bypass should go ahead."

Christopher Halpin
"I have personally been awaiting this by-pass for over 40years it is essential for the people of Glossop who are daily commuters to areas not served by the train service,"

Christopher Webster
"I fully support the construction of the Glossop spur Road and firmly belive this will improve the quality of life and the air quality for the whole of the Glossopdale Valley."

Clare Hughes
"Obvious to all residents that traffic is a major issue and the bypass has been badly needed for decades. Anyone that doesn't realise this clearly doesn't live in the area, or have the best interests of the local community or businesses at the heart of the matter. We have suffered enough and need to support the bypass especially with the continued increase of new housing. The infrastructure needs to be improved as a matter of urgency. Also with climate change as number one priority the bypass would improve air quality for the area, with much less standing traffic outside people's houses."

Colin Ball
"I believe that this bypass is in the best interests of the people of Glossop. Any means of reducing travel times from Hadfield or Glossop to Manchester should be applied. The traffic situation is only getting worse with the introduction of new properties being constantly built around the area. To not improve access to people's work and homes will have a detrimental effect on their lives caused by stress from sitting in longer queues"

Colin Iddles
"Please not I support the bypass as getting in and out of glossop can be hard work and the bypass will help a great deal"

Colin Morris
"The bypass is long overdue to reduce the journey times across the country. To reduce emissions affecting Hollingworth residents. To enable the northern powerhouse to succeed with better infrastructure. To improve traffic flows through Glossop."

Coral Crossley
"I support wholeheartedly the scheme to implement the proposed bypass"

CPRE Peak District and South Yorkshire
"We object to TRO10034 for the following reasons: Increasing road capacity is not the solution. Congestion and environmental pollution are caused by a majority of local commuters and a minority of through traffic of heavy lorries. Controlling the latter with a National Park-wide weight restriction, coupled with sustainable transport measures and technological improvements would bring lasting benefits and avoid the adverse impacts below. Highways England rejected this option in 2015. Far reaching changes since then - the declaration of a climate emergency; the Covid-19 pandemic; and revised Treasury rules to assess the value of new roads - make proper development of this option essential. The scheme would increase traffic, diverting some from the M62. The benefits to most of Mottram (but not all) come at the expense of the rest of Longdendale and Glossopdale where traffic increases on many residential roads. This is contrary to national policies for modal shift to walking, cycling and public transport. Road accidents would increase (102 extra collisions over 60 years) across the rest of the network. On the A57 Snake Pass, a high risk road for a fatal or serious injury crash, there would be an extra 160 extra collisions. Safety must not be compromised. Over 60 years the scheme would add an extra 399,867tCO2e. Carbon emissions must be tested against international and national legislation and guidance including the Paris agreement, the 2008 Climate Change Act’s legally binding target of net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, the UK Sixth Carbon Budget, and the National Planning Policy Framework which requires ‘radical reductions of greenhouse gas emissions’. Air pollution improves for some, for others NO2 remains above the legal limit e.g. on Market Street in Hollingworth. For one property on Dinting Vale air pollution gets worse. The AQMAs in Tintwistle and Glossop would remain. The Greater Manchester Clean Air Zone has been excluded from the air quality modelling but could lead to diversions to avoid paying the toll, creating congestion and pollution outside the Zone. Local countryside, highly valued for its natural undeveloped character, open views, tranquillity and recreation opportunities, would be urbanised. The scheme is inappropriate development in the Green Belt for which there are no ’very special circumstances’ for it to proceed. The impacts on the rich and diverse wildlife are minimised because species are considered only of ‘local value’. More traffic on routes crossing the Peak District National Park would erode its special qualities. National Park statutory purposes require the Park to be conserved and enhanced. National policy requires trunk road traffic to avoid National Parks. The transport appraisal and modelling must be scrutinised through the examination in order to ensure public confidence in the results. The modelling is based on data, assumptions and projections from before the legal acceptance of the new carbon budget and transport decarbonisation strategy and must be updated to reflect them. Cumulative effects of the scheme e.g. on the congested M60 J24 interchange, and with development in South Yorkshire and in Greater Manchester, are omitted or misrepresented."

Craig Herbert
"My representation is made as a life long resident of Glossop and Hadfield. I believe the bypass is a much needed piece of infrastructure and will greatly improve the local transport links. Please continue to move the project forward and complete what has been discussed for so long."

Daniel Michael Bowdren
"I support the long-hoped for bypass."

Darrell Massey
"Glossop has needed this bye pass for decades, the affect on my personal like, having to leave home at ridiculously early hours to beat the traffic going into and coming home from working in Manchester is a daily chore that dominates my working week. please allow this bye pass to go ahead and alleviate this Mottram Hill congestion once and for all."

Daryl Mullett
"Ease congestion and maintenance to sewers, roads and property. Safer villages for residents. Allow for less time delays on travel."

Dave Brock
"This area, and the country as a whole needs fewer vehicles and fewer roads. The Mottram Bypass is rightly opposed by many responsible organisations who have the well-being of nature and the environment at heart. Therefore I resolutely oppose the construction of this environmentally destructive bypass."

David Ashworth
"I have lived in Hadfield for nearly 60 years and actually worked on part of the original bypass plan 50 years ago when I worked for the Electricity board. The original plan was to have bypassed Hollingworth and Tintwistle. If the bypass had been built the it would have cost millions, not the hundreds of millions it will cost now. Since then we have seen the M67 built, numerous (too many), local housing developments leading to a subsequent massive increase in local traffic, not only at ‘rush hour’. Modern day objectors quote the road building on green field sites. Most of the recent and proposed local housing developments are also on green field sites. Glossop and district infrastructure cannot support more houses and cars and to ease, even, current congestion the bypass needs too be built NOW. This needs to be quickly followed by the second phase, to give Hollingworth and Tintwistle some long overdue peace. I have always supported the bypass."

David Brookes
"After a 50 year wait this road and second phase must be built"

David Eglin
"I fully agree with the Green Party submision with the following additional comments. The rail link through Woodhead should be recreated. Ever since Buchanan (1968) we know that road "improvements" create more traffic and more problems. The problems for this scheme are already visible in the traffic predictions. Number plate recognition could be is to impose a user tax on over used roads."

David Flavell
"Whilst I am not currently living in the Glossop area, I am aware of the congestion around the A57 and the A628 having lived in Hadfield for over 30 years. I recall that some mornings it would take me over 1 hour to get from my house on Waterside to the M67 at Mottram. Unfortunately not everyone can rely on public transport to get them to their place of work. Anything that can be done to ease the traffic congestion should be actioned immediately."

David John Ninnis
"I support the planning application"

David Lenehan
"Traffic congestion and environmental / clean air will only get worse around the whole surrounding area unless steps are taken to reduce this"

David Ripley
"For business and pleasure I have travelled through the congested Mottram and top of the M67 for 40 years on a regular business. At least 30 mins of my life is wasted every evening I use the roads not to mention the pollution caused by stationary traffic. Like many others I also try to avoid the worst traffic by cutting through Charlesworth but all this does is clog up these minor roads and add to the pollution on the kerbside. This road is desperately needed."

David Spiers
"see attached"

David Townsley
"I feel that the bypass/spur is much needed and should go ahead. It will alleviate the terrible traffic congestion in the Glossopdale area and assist the smoother flow of rush hour traffic onto the M67."

David Wetters
"The road is an essential development of the local infrastructure"

Dean Wilson
"I am for the bypass. I struggle getting out and in to Glossop and it makes my commute to Manchester nearly an hour long. More houses are being built, more traffic. The roads aren’t suitable and action is required"

Deborah J Apperley
"This by-pass has been on hold for far too long there is no reason why it shouldn’t be built the local council keeps building houses but we are choking on pollution daily. If the rail link hadn’t been taken away things might be less difficult for everyone especially if more freight was move by rail. But the current situation can’t go on for much longer the motorway needs to connect up to a better solution. Putting a tunnel underneath the moors is the best way to go we are behind other parts of the country."

Deborah Pitman
"I am mostly concerned about the embedded carbon in this project. Traffic will increase considerably. Pollution will increase. It does not fit with the climate emergency we are facing. More efforts to reduce car travel in essential. Not building more roads."

Denise Gregg-Smythe
"Register an interest to agree the bypass A57 link road to proceed. I am a resident of Hollingworth and the constant heavy goods vehicles and traffic flow is not healthy for children, the elderly and the environment"

Dennis Wilkinson
"Remove traffic hold ups out of glossop. Reduce pollution for local residents"

Denys G Froehlich
"Outline:- Time, money, Pollution. road safety I am almost 60.I have lived in the area for all of my life. I lived in Tintwistle until I was 25 when I moved to Hadfield. I like living in this area. I used to work every day on the other side of Mottram Moor, I have spent a great portion of my life sat in traffic trying to get out of this valley, wasting my time, polluting the air, being a potential accident target for this impatient drivers that unwilling to join the queue at the bottom of Mottram Moor along with the others. In order to alleviate some of this time wasting and pollution I decided to change my work type and worked mostly from home. Although this is much less advantageous financially. I spend 2 hours per day less in traveling. I am able to choose when I travel if I have to go over the hill but I still spend quite an amount of time in the line of traffic. I would like to earn more money but spend less time getting there and back. Please do not stop this project I have been waiting for personally for over forty years and others much longer."

Derek Baxter
"These road improvements are urgently needed and decades overdue with a vast majority of local people in full support."

Diane Kelly
"My family moved [redacted] in 1996 on the back of the knowledge that there was going to be a by-pass built. Here we are 25 years on, after enduring all those years of it taking me at worst 20 minutes to crawl along Woolly Bridge Road and then the madness of crawling up Mottram Moor with drivers cutting in, ITS A NIGHTMARE. So that is what we have had to live with. If I was still working, our “For Sale” sign would have gone up a few years ago, I couldn’t stand the stress. Another factor for the must have by-pass is the massive impact in our area of the unprecedented amount of new housing developments in and around Glossop. Basically Glossop is a one road in and one road out, and has had no infrastructure improvements for the 25 years we have lived here."

Doug Stott
"Traffic around the Gunn Inn is horrendous most times of the day, and pollution levels totally unacceptable."

Dr Michael Morris
"As someone who lives in the valley and works in South Manchester, I have a keen personal interest in the ability to easily get in and out of the valley which is currently hampered by the volume of traffic funnelled through the Mottram crossing. I am fully in support of any improvement to the management of traffic that will ease congestion and reduce the additional pollution caused by stationary traffic. I believe I have a vested interest as I use these roads on an almost daily basis."

Dr Nicholas Stevens
"I have lived in Glossop since 2002 and have commuted to Manchester for work by train and by car, and used the local roads to take my family shopping and to take my children to use sports and leisure facilities, and for medical appointments in Glossop and Manchester. In all these years the traffic delays caused by the inadequate roads linking Glossop to the M67 have eaten up countless hours, and have sometimes caused me to be late for work and other appointments. The proposed scheme to improve the roads connecting to the end of the M67 is long overdue, particularly given the expansion of the population of Glossopdale in the last few decades, and I believe it will greatly benefit the vast majority of the residents of the area as well as the local economy. I wish to register my wholehearted support for this scheme to go ahead. Dr Nicholas Stevens."

E J Donbaavnd
"I have lived in either the Simmondley or Charlesworth area since 1982. During that time the volume of traffic, associated congestion and inevitable delays on the M67, A57 and Mottram Moor area have become much worse. I already leave home much earlier than I should need to in an attempt to avoid being late for work. My employer does appreciate yet another tale about standing traffic delays on the A57. Green issues (environmental concerns should be partly addressed with the accelerating uptake of electric vehicles) and promoting the use of public transport can be a favourite response when objections are raised about the building of any new roads. What public transport is there in High Peak? One bus every two hours from Charlesworth village and a moderately reliable train service? A 32 mile round trip by car from home to my place of employment can take 90 mins on a bad day and maybe 50 mins when traffic is flowing smoothly. The same journey using public transport can be two hours each way (with no delays or breakdowns) and includes walking from Charlesworth to Broadbottom and back because the bus service is so infrequent With funding agreed and after a wait of fifty years, I truly hope that construction of the long promised bypass commences as scheduled."

Edward Hazelwood
"I fully support the A57 link roads plan. This is long overdue and will vastly improve current traffic conditions, and in the future with electric vehicles will reduce congestion. Any attempt to o block these plans is a regressive step backwards and severely impact future generations."

Elaine Dunkerley
"Since I was a child in the 1960s there has been a need for a solution to the traffic congestion into and out of Glossop along the A57. Following the many deliberations and research over the past 50 years it has been shown that something must be done. The Mottram Bypass & Glossop Spur offers a solution to try and ease congestion. It will make it much easier to get out of Glossop or Hadfield and onto the M67. It will also significantly avoid the need to seek ways round the traffic queues, for example via Gamesley and Charlesworth. Above all it will help improve and ultimately save many lives blighted by the poor air quality around the currently congested route from Hattersley into Glossop."

Elaine Ellingham
"I have been a regular user of the road through Mottram and have found it to be gridlocked at all times of the day not just the rush hour."

Elsie Gleadhill
"We have waited 50 years. It is time that something is done."

Emma Dixon
"I wish to object to the proposal. I believe the proposed changes will increase traffic problems and pollution and reduce air quality in my local area without easing congestion in the worst hit communities. Increases in heavy traffic such as lorries and vans will have a significant impact on air quality. The proposed road will fragment and damage local wildlife habitats and cut into our prized local landscapes through a national park. I believe this plan to create a new road goes against environmental and sustainability national policy and targets to reduce emissions. Priority should instead be put on efforts to reduce road traffic across the area, creating affordable and well planned public transport options, increasing the cycle network and encouraging local communities to change their transport habits to to better support sustainability and environmentally clean 'green' transport options."

Francis Paul Brown
"Due to years of travelling to Sheffield everyday for 30 years .I have been delayed hundreds of time due to the conjestion. The By Pass has been promised for years but it has still not happened. With the bypass proposed it make traffic flow better and reduce emissions due to standing andslow traffic. In my opinion it is essential"

Fred Waining
"I think this is good project and should be progressed asap"

G R Booth
"I am a frequent user of the roads in this area and fully support the construction of the proposed bypass. I am convinced it will have a positive influence on harmful vehicle immissions."

Gareth Simpson
". The scheme involves fragmentation, loss or displacement of diminishing wildlife habitats such as wet grazing meadows and of protected species, such as bats and barn owls. The impacts on the rich and diverse wildlife are minimised because species are considered only of ‘local value’. Local countryside, highly valued for its natural undeveloped character and open views, would be urbanised and the Green Belt would be cut in two. A lorry ban coupled with sustainable transport measures and technological improvements would bring lasting benefits and avoid the above adverse impacts. But Highways England rejected this option. Far reaching changes since 2015 - the declaration of a climate emergency; the Covid-19 pandemic; and a review of the Treasury’s rules to assess the value of roads make scrutiny of this option essential."

Giles Burton
"Can't belive the Mottram bypass is being objected to by the local Labour Party after a lifetime of campaigning by local people for the road. No consideration for those heavily affected by the current gridlock created when the motorway was terminated at this location. Await justification reasons with open jaw! The bypass needs funding approval and construction ASAP."

Glenn Byrne
"I have lived in Hadfield and worked in Manchester for 35 years. For all this time Mottram Moor has been a total bottleneck and log jam of traffic. As it constitutes a major road link between Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds, Rotherham and on into Humberside I cannot understand why this distressed arterial link was not given a bypass long before now. Over the period many new housing developments in the Glossop area have been built and this continues to be the case today. Sadly such developments have not been accompanies by infrastructure improvements that would allow free flow of traffic and or divert it away from urbanised areas. As I understand it full development of the bypass would improve the free flow of traffic, reduce congestion, improve the environment, reduce the risk of pedestrian injury, improve the local economy and the well being of everyone who has to travel along Mottram Moor."

Glenn Woods
"I am very much in support of this bypass. Although the scope does not cover the original Tintwhistle bypass, in my opinion it will provide some much-needed relief to a very busy set of roads and junctions. The council has approved several new house building projects, with more to come, but very little thought around infrastructure and the strain more road traffic will bring to the area. Commute times pre-COVID were unacceptable at best and the level of pollution due to congestion and the quantity of heavy vehicles is a very real concern for all, particularly those of us with children and elderly to care for. Of equal concern is access for emergency services, standing traffic will delay what could be critical care, fire safety and security response times. It is crucial we have, as a minimum, the currently planned road development."

Graham Hadfield
"Im tired of people holding back this bypass its disgusting that others in the country have progressed. I have travelled the Mottram road for over 40 years and its not acceptable the land is earmarked for the bypass and funds allocated GET ON WITH IT"

Graham Wolstenholme
"I am in favour of the by-pass as I hope it will ease the time it normally takes to get in and out of Glossop. I also think the new roads through Hollingworth and Tintwistle are needed to reduce the traffic in those areas"

Gregory V Windows
"After waiting for this bypass for 50 years, funding having been secured, it is imperative that the Glossop Bypass goes ahead. It will ease the traffic congestion in Hadfield and reduce back roads used as rat runs on the route. It will also lessen the pollution in built up areas, which is imperative, given the recent health warnings issued by scientists of the effects of pollution buildup trapped in local conurbations. It is vital that the planning department maintains it neutrality in this matter, whilst serving the best interests of the local areas and addressing the needs of the residents and furthermore those from areas slightly further afield, who must travel through these areas, adding to already congested roads. As someone who does use the current route, it would be of benefit to all concerned for you to grant this application. Whilst considering this plan it is also vital that the planning department is not diverted from its cause by idealist, with political agendas and stick with their usual realist views and of people and their everyday needs. Thank you for reading this. Greg Windows."

Hague Electrical Services Limited
"To support any possibilities of improving the terrible congestion inflicted upon road users in and out of Glossop. Businesses like ours suffer massive delays of deliveries of stock and materials. Employees waste many hours every day of the week sat in queues travelling in both directions. I hope by now that all relevant agencies have accrued sufficient data to confirm this."

Harold Balentine
"the byepass is long overdue"

Hazel Jones
"I am against the bypass because - - more pollution - destruction of wildlife habitats of deer, badger and fox which we see regularly where the road will be. - will bring more traffic to the area which will probably then make the bypass road blocked. - pointless as just moving traffic from one place to another -destroying our countryside and our village. - more roads is not the answer don't we want to stop climate change ? Why do we have to build more roads instead of thinking of ways to prevent more traffic I.e - stop building more houses in Glossop and surrounding areas it is ridiculous! Building another road is not an option why can't you use your brains and spend the money on something useful - Open the railline back on woodhead - the solution is changing the lights at the top at mottram this is what stops the flow of traffic a simple solution instead of a new road making new traffic in more areas! - ban HGV’s the pollution in hollingworth and up the Moore is too much! This bypass has destroyed my aunties life for over 30 years and continues to with this new plan as they try again to destroy her house!! She will not move and you will not destroy our lives and our countryside!"

Heather Gibb
"I have lived in glossop for 34 years and I think its ridiculous that we have now managed to receive funding to build the bypass which is desperately needed for one of the most conjested villages in the UK and now there is an opposition to this. The houses are being built all around us and the traffic situation is just getting worse. We cannot house the 1000s of extra people entering entering area without the road logistics to get in and out."

High Peak Green New Deal
"High Peak Green New Deal is both a Local Hub of Green New Deal UK and a Climate Action Group, linked to Friends of the Earth. Our goals are to decarbonise High Peak, create secure jobs, transform the economy, protect and restore nature, and promote global justice. We object to the A57 Link Roads for the following reasons: These new roads were promised to relieve congestion in Glossopdale and they will not do that. Traffic is predicted to increase, including on residential roads within the town but also in the wider High Peak, in the Hope Valley and across the Peak Park. More traffic would lead to more road danger, making it less likely people would walk and cycle for local journeys, and increasing car dependency. Government policy sees active travel as a priority ‘for our daily activities…We will use our cars differently and less often’. More traffic means more carbon emissions, at a time when nearly everyone recognises that emissions need to be reduced dramatically, to prevent runaway climate change. Over the next 8 years the UK has promised to reduce climate emissions by 68% as part of its commitment to the Paris Agreement. This scheme takes us in the wrong direction and would emit ~ 84,500tCO2 over the next two critical carbon budget periods and nearly 400,00tCO2 over the next 60 years. More traffic also means more air pollution, and more accidents. The two Air Quality Management Areas would remain in Dinting Vale and Tintwistle and more traffic will make it harder to reduce pollution to a level that does not harm human health. Accidents would increase on the wider road network within High Peak especially on the A628T and A57 Snake Pass. At the very least there should be no increase in road collisions but we should be aiming like Greater Manchester for net zero accidents. There will be no relief for Tintwistle which sits either side of the A628 trunk route. The proposed road doesn’t bypass the village. Heavy traffic of lorries, noise and pollution will continue to blight residents’ lives. With each consultation since 2017 local people have consistently and repeatedly asked for measures to relieve Tintwistle of these impacts. During the 2018 consultation, Highways England reported this as one of ‘the key concerns raised during the consultation that we are unable to resolve’. There is no commitment to any other scheme at this time. Tintwistle must not be left to endure the continuing degradation of its environment and residents’ wellbeing. A solution exists. A ban on through traffic of lorries across the Peak Park, 20s plenty, more space for pedestrians and cyclists, travel planning, and better rail and bus services would address the current situation quickly without road building and give great value for money. The applicant rejected this option without rigorous assessment; it must be properly developed now and implemented."

Hilary Collard
"I have lived in Glossop for 35 years and have witnessed the continuous development of housing, from large estates to flats in converted mills and homes on every available plot of land. In that time the transport infrastructure has hardly changed and I've heard the M67 described as a motorway with a traffic jam at each end. As a director of Glossop Creative Trust, I am passionate about the creativity of this town and its wealth of talent. We want to see not only individuals but also independent businesses established and flourishing on the High Street and the town's iconic buildings being brought back to life. The natural beauty of the Peak District has attracted people to live here, housing has been provided and Glossop has a heritage to be exploited. The town is on the cusp of a great future as a cultural landmark and centre for tourism but how many visitors will come if they have to queue the length of the A57 from Mottram Moor to the Snake Pass and aren't able to find parking when they get here? There has been investment by large supermarket and restaurant chains, who have obviously estimated the potential for business in Glossop, but future growth will be severely limited if nothing is done about the traffic congestion. Finally, as the owner of an AirBnB property in the town centre, I wonder how many guests will return for more holidays if their recollection of time spent in Glossop brings to mind the hours wasted in traffic jams as they tried to explore the area? PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE do not delay building the Mottram Bypass and Glossop Spur Road any longer."

Holly McBride
"I write to express my objection to the creation of the A57 Link Road. This can only be a very temporary solution to move the traffic and will not decrease congestion in the area; in fact traffic is predicted to increase. As a resident of Glossop for nearly fifteen years I am as desperate as anyone to reduce the volume of traffic travelling through the town, but I strongly believe that the link road is not the answer. Instead, we need better national and local public transport infrastructure, a reduction of freight through the area's roads, and a massive investment in cycling. I now commute by bicycle to work in Dukinfield, and find that the only cycle lane on my route is the short stretch from Back Moor to Roe Cross. This needs to change for the benefit of local public health as well as the global climate emergency."

Howard Carter
"The above bypass is urgently needed. The congestion at present is unacceptable and gives rise to rat runs elsewhere in Charlesworth and elsewhere. Travelling to M67 from Buxton we currently go via Charlesworth and Hattersley but the jams in Charlrsworth are horrendous due to traffic dodging around parked vehicles. Bypass would alleviate this."

Ian Reed
"I feel that it is extremely important that we go ahead with the planned by pass and Glossop spur Road, as someone who has lived on the A57 Woolley Lane, I know the sheer volume of traffic pass our homes is not only damaging the structure but also the mental health of those living right along side at times fast traffic ignoring the speed limits or HGV'S passing you at only an arms length away, this can be terrifying. I now live on a cul de sac in Glossop after living with promises and promises from one government to the other. Anytime and everytime I attend a hospital appointment, it is virtually impossible to plan a time or know just how it is going to take to get outside of Glossop and Hollingworth, you end up sat behind HGVs almost in a convoy first along A57 Brookfield, then along Woolley Lane and then finally Mottram Moor, we the local residents have now waited our fair share of time, we now need action and not words."

Ian Whitehouse
"This road development has been needed for many years to alleviate congestion and I fully support it for the benefit of local residents in particular and the travelling public in general."

Ian Wilson
"I relocated to this area in 1995 to start new job in Stalybridge, even back then the commuting traffic was reasonably heavy in and out of Glossop and it was expected that the bypass would be progressing within a couple of years! Here we are over 25 years later with no progress on any transport route out of Glossop yet a substantial increase on "new build" housing estates and generally an increase in car ownership. It is really a disgrace that the workers in Glossop that need to travel by car have put up with delay and procrastination for so long. There is so much wasted time and fuel spent sitting in the traffic to get in and out of Glossop and surrounding area. Even those using public transport and emergency vehicles have extended and unpredictable journey times. Can we please move forward asap with this phase of the bypass and finally give some relief and hope for the future to the Glossop area residents. I would trust that objections from those not actually living in this area are discounted as not valid - it is the working people like myself having suffered from the poor road links for over 25 years that are real and credible. Just look at the two bridge options (Wooley Bridge and Broadbottom Bridge) we rely on to get the daily commuters in and out of Glossop area if heading to Tameside & Manchester. These bridges were likely put in place for horse & cart traffic not HGVs! Please get on with it, no more un-needed delays. This bypass would be the best for so many people in the local area who at the moment have to content with daily traffic holdups delays and detours. I've been living here for 40 years and the traffic problems have multiplied year on year with the increasing house building happening everywhere in our area things are ony going to be getting worse Every time the M62 is closed due to numerous reasons all that traffic detours through for the A628 or into Glossop on the A57. I have been on many new bypasses over the years all over the country and the journey has not only become quicker but also safer and more pleasant with an obvious reduction of traffic in the areas bypassed. Please consider this application and agree for the go ahead."

Ivan Taylor
"I believe the bypass is a long awaited essential necessity."

Ivona Meigh
"Completion of the by-pass is a necessity that is long overdue. We need it to decrease the non-local traffic, which is causing serious congestion as well as noise and air pollution. Over the 17 years I have lived in Glossop both these aspects have increased immensely."

J Falconer
"I support the Mottram Planning Bypass; the area has been congested since I was a child ; and plans constantly submitted then delayed. The route is used by vehicles as a passing business suburb route around motorways linking greater Manchester m62 / m1 deviated routes - so full of hgvs, cars and stationary traffic daily Exhaust fumes emission in a countryside where a bypass should have been completed years ago as planned I strongly support the plans for the Mottram Bypass."

J H Harrison
"This will help to minimise the gridlocks which occur in and around the area"

Jackie Kilkenny
"I support the building of this road scheme."

James Constantine
"I do not want this bypass because - woodhead will have an increase in traffic - it does nothing for tintwistle - wildlife and countryside is being taken away - the road is pointless just being moved from one place to another - huge amount of pollution!! - the road goes from 2 lanes back to one when you are going back to glossop so how on earth does this work?? - destroys our little villages - stop building houses in the area and in glossop!!!!"

James Drakeford
"I believe that this programme would be beneficial for the area - as long as phase 2 around Hollingworth and Tintwhistle is also completed. This will allow traffic to travel between Manchester and Sheffield mor eeasily, without impacting the local villages through which this route currently runs. It should also be greener because whilst more cars may use the road, they would not be at a standstill at traffic lights as they currently are. Phase 1 on its' own will not improve traffic between the two cities or benefit many residents in my opinion."

James Heatlie
"This bypass for this very busy stretch of road bordered for much of it's length by houses and shops is long overdue. It will alleviate noise pollution, travel times and congestion for the local community."

James Stead
"I am a Hadfield resident working from Manchester with significant work-related travel meaning I regularly have to drive the car for work duties. We have battled for the Mottram bypass for 50+ years and now that funding has been secured we must not let party politics get in the way. This bypass will unlock our lives, reduce traffic noise and pollution from HGVs, improve road safety for our families and older residents, allowing Glossopdale to develop economically for our children and their children's sake. It has benefitted from cross-party support and must not be derailed by short-termist thinking."

Jane Waterhouse
"I support the by-pass. I live in a house which sits directly on the A57 and we are badly affected by the damage to the air quality caused by slow moving traffic, particularly heavy large engined diesel vehicles, which is often stationary waiting for the traffic lights to change at the Mottram cross roads. I know there will be disruption during the construction phase, but the promise of a quieter and cleaner, less polluted environment is what I am looking forward to in the longer term. The sooner the better, please."

Janet Hargreaves
"It will dramatically improve what has been a very serious 60 year traffic jam . Such an improvement is bound to result in reduced pollution in the area. Such an improved traffic scheme will not only give substantial relief to the residents of the town but will greatly enhance Glossop as a place to live and work. Glossop has recently embarked upon an ambitious house building programme which will benefit considerably from improved traffic flow. The economic value to Glossop and district by such improved connections to the motorway network is bound to give long term benefits to the town and its citizens."

Janet Lockett
"Mottram has needed a bypass for many many years and they have been promised one several times with no result. The problem is continuing to worsen."

Janice Wilson
"We moved to[redacted] Glossop in 1967 with our two young children.At the time of purchasing our newly built property and one of its selling points was that a bye pass was to be built to enable people to commute more easily to their places of work .Employment was falling in the town and it appeared that most of the incomes worked out of the are of Glossop .My husband included .Well here we are in 2021 54yrs later and at last there seems to be evidence that the long awaited by pass is about to happen.Well it was until the Labour Party decided that they didn’t like the idea of any Conservatives getting any credit for finally getting things moving .This really isn’t about parties it’s about getting things moving in order that Glossop doesn’t become completely grid locked .Please can we have a it of common sense instead of petty rivalry and work together to get this job done ."

Jay Richards
"I am 100% in agreement with plans for bypass. This town cannot continue any longer with this poor access."

Jean Astill
"The area is desperate for the Mottram Bypass & Glossop Spur Road being built."

Jenni Carruthers
"I support the Mottram bypass. I regularly drive that route and I regularly get stuck in traffic taibacks that can take me anything up to 2 hours stuck on the motorway just waiting to get to Mottram roundabout. I have witnessed arguements and on 1 occassion a punch up caused by frayed tempers due to queuing traffic and people refusing to wait their turn. I am sure that a bypass would alleviate all these problems."

Jennifer Brook
"Over the 20+ years I have lived here the traffic has increased.During peak periods the village iis used as a”rat run” mainly towards the M67 motorway and particularly busy to cross the traffic lights at Mottram moor. It can take up to 20 mins to get through these lights . Any deterioration in the weather always leads to huge queues and as the Glossop area is known for road closures on either or both the Snake pass and the Woodhead pass with many commercial vehicles using the M67 chaos can ensue as drivers look for alternative routes alongside car drivers."

Jennifer Horrocks
"We have waited over 50 years for a bypass. it takes so long to get in and out of Glossop. You have to time your journeys in order to keep travelling times down. Queing traffic causes polution."

Jennifer Richards
"Think bypass is absolutely essential and needs to be built without delay"

Jeremy Fewster
"As a resident of Glossop [redacted], so regularly uses the a57 as a route to and from work, I see the bypass as an essential piece of infrastructure for the area. Both from an environmental and a mental well-being view point."

Joan Newton
"Having spent many hours in traffic queues, waiting at It he Mottram round about to continue my journey towafds Glossop , I am convinced that this bipass road is long overdue."

Joanne Zabel
"Heavy traffic on Mottram Moor making it an arduous journey at least. Danger to human life from constant HGV's and similar."

Johm Morgan
"Having had my journey times blighted,[redacted] and excess noise and pollution levels I strongly support the bypass scheme. To have this economic and social throttling continue is not justifiable and unduly penalises locals in this area."

John Brennand
"Been waiting for this road for 50 years. Should be taken right over to Yorkshire border. was once called by Road Haulage Ass as woodhead goat track to Sheffield. Get it built."

John Devlin
"This bypass is needed as traffic is horrendous in Glossop! It affects journey times, air quality and congestion. The bypass is long overdue!"

John Gilman
"I wish to support the A57 Link Roads project so that it will reduce dis-amenity for local residents, improve East-West (trans pennine) transport links, reduce congestion, air pollution and improve the local economy through the construction project and long term benefits of improved accessibility."

John Haigh
"The A57 Link Road Upgrade is a much needed addition to the transport network and to free the restraints and delays encounter when leaving Glossop and indeed when traveling around Glossop. The HGV's and indeed private individuals which use this road, as I do wait hours sat in traffic over a 12 month period, public transport does not serve my needs or indeed the requirements of most people with the costs preventative. I run a business in GLOSSOP and additional costs are forced on the company by the constant traffic problems which are experienced by way of the traffic jams. a link road is greatly needed and soon."

Jean Kitching on behalf of John Kitching
"The amount of new housing being built at the moment is far to many for our roads to cope with."

John Rawicz-Szczerbo
"I understand that the Glossop Labour Party have just passed a formal motion opposing the Mottram Bypass & Glossop Spur Road and have committed to “campaign vigorously” against the bypass and have even pledged to donate money towards professional lobbyists efforts to block this badly needed link road. This is clearly yet another naked attempt to scupper the ‘leveling up’ agenda of the UK Government to improve the quality of life for all citizens, in particular to this local community that have been waiting for the Mottram Bypass for over 50 years The commissioned studies show that the Mottram Bypass & Glossop Spur will reduce congestion, improve air quality, and cut journey times. It will make it much easier to get out of Glossop or Hadfield and onto the M67. It will also significantly reduce rat-running through Gamesley and Charlesworth. I have been involved in financing regeneration my entire business career and the effect of properly considered infrastructure in transformative to the economy and citizens it serves. Please do not allow the extreme wing of the Corbyn Supporting Labour party derail a project essential to unlock the economic fortunes of all in the local community of many generations. As an ex-constituent, who until recently was a resident for over 13 years, to deny this long shelved project when the funding is in place to improve the quality of life for all would be bizarre. Please do not allow BAD POLITICAL MIS-REPRESENTATION derail the aspirations and dreams of the local community. Do not pass up on the ability to create economic benefits that will generate new revenues to the Local Authority and improve the Social Care provision in the local community."

John Williams
"This highway relief scheme is long overdue, the bottlenecks caused by traffic delays are both frustrating to the travelling public and harmful to the local environment."

John Youatt
"To be sure that the planning balance between harm to the natural environment is justified by an essential need to manage traffic better. To be sure that there is not a better option. If neither apply, to oppose the current proposals."

Jonathan Cantrill
"I wish to register my concerns with regard to the A57 Link Roads. Firstly the plans in there current form will move congestion from one area to another without solving the issue. In fact creating the link road will attract more traffic to the whole of Glossopdale as cross pennine traffic looks for a quicker route. The A624 between Chapel-en-le-Frith is already subject to many HGV vehicles for which the road is particularly unsuitable, the building of the new road will significantly increase the likelihood that they will chose this route. Secondly the environmental impact of further road expansion to encourage road use, when alternative greener transport use is urgently needed to help counter the global environmental emergency. Air pollution in the Glossopdale area will increase, which directly increases deaths, impairs development of children, and the increase in noise will have a detrimental effect on all those in the area. Thirdly the cost of the scheme is scandalous, (estimated to be £180m), the money should be spent far more wisely on improvements to other alternative transport strategises, public transport, etc. An investment of this amount in the Glossopdale area would bring wonderful benefits to the community as a whole. Fourthly I regularly use the A555 airport link road, a recently completed bypass scheme which cost an incredible £550m and has done nothing to alleviate the original congestion, is poorly designed (similar to the proposed A57 link roads), floods to the point that it has to close regularly, causes tailbacks for miles around the area. A direct comparison with how this road joins the A6 at High Lane will clearly show without question the current A57 Link Roads proposal will not work and should be scrapped immediately under its present form. Finally an investigation should be launched in to who benefits financially from this scheme, certain individuals and companies are set to make a fortune out of the scheme, MP’s and government ministers who are backed by donors who are set to benefit directly or indirectly from the construction of this folly are pushing for the project, and it is clearly based on profit first and people second."

Jonathan Crunkhorn
"I am in favour of approving the building of the A57 link roads."

Joseph Poore
"I oppose the construction of the A57 link road for two reasons. Firstly the road runs through fields and more development for road infrastructure the expense of habitat for wildlife is simply unacceptable when we have so many roads already. Secondly because the focus on increasing road area - when we are facing major global warming and other environmental change - yet the lack of focus on cycling infrastructure and more sustainable forms of transport is wrong. Roads have slowly crept up on us and turned our lived environment into one where cars dominate. This was never a choice I made and I wish we had a different world to live in."

Julian Graves
"As a Glossop resident for almost 20 years I have seen at first hand the abysmal traffic problems that Glossop and the surrounding area suffer from. Before I moved to the area a work colleague told me about the 'plans' for a bypass that had been mooted for many years. He was, shall we say, extremely sceptical that anything would ever happen. We are now closer to a workable solution than we've ever been and we really mustn't let this opportunity slip through our fingers. The economic benefits to the area and the mental health of legions of impatient motorists in the area will be only two of the many benefits when the plans come to fruition. To back out of a solution at this point will consider this and future generations to continued motoring and economic misery."

Julie Cross
"As a working resident of hadfield, who works nights we desperately Need the bypass approving over the past 10 years traffic has increased Enormously with all the new houses being built but the road infrastructure Has not kept up with this my journey to and from work has trebled in time And after a 12 hour nurses job it is beyond exhausting to spend A further hour trying to get home and to bed before I leave for work again!! Please allow this bypass to go ahead!!!!"

Juliet Hardy-Wilson
"The traffic around Mottram and Hollingworth is horrendous which has meant that many village roads including through Charlesworth have become a rat run. [redacted] on a typical afternoon we had over 500 cars in one hour pass by on Long Lane, many of whom were speeding. This road is desperately needed and has been for years. There are more houses being built in the Glossop area which will only increase pressure on the roads"

Kalah Ashdown
"How you can claim the A57 link will relieve congestion through Hollingworth and Tintwistle is laughable! Your decision to construct the A57 link, ignoring the needs, and health, of the people in the villages of Hollingworth and Tintwistle will result in far more traffic. HGV's, and commuting traffic, will use the A57 link, and A628, as a short cut, rather than using the M62. More traffic will result in more carbon emissions - Routinely monitored air quality in Tintwistle has detected an exceedance of the legal limit for nitrogen dioxide - 40g m-3. Your planned A57 link will increase this, impacting the lives of those who live in the village. Not only air quality: I live on Manchester Road in Tintwistle, my living room is 1.5 metres from the road, a road where traffic drives through, every day, exceeding the speed limit of 30 mph. We have no speed cameras or traffic calming measures. These speeding road users, driving erratically through the villages are lethal to pedestrians and cyclists! There is a cheaper solution, one that doesn't require a bypass: *A weight limit on the A628 would redirect heavy traffic back to the road designed to cater for it *Traffic calming measures in the villages *A 20 mph limit through our villages, with pavements outside our homes, looking after the safety of pedestrians Other than this I’d like to hear how you think bringing even more traffic this way will stop these issues?"

Kathy Ford
"This longed for Bypass should go ahead, we have waited long enough, Houses were demolished to make way for this when I was at Primary School in the late 60's. The Transport Infrastuture simply cannot cope, and is the same as it was in the 6O's I urge to continue with the proposals very strongly"

Katie Javanaud
"I oppose the development of the Mottram bypass and find the proposal to be an affront to any environmentally conscientious individual. At a time when climate change is commanding the government's attention, it is wholly inappropriate to build a new road such as this running through an area of outstanding natural beauty. The solution has to be fewer cars, not more roads. Building this bypass would further exacerbate the noise and air pollution in the area and these issues are already serious and evident for local residents. There should be a far greater emphasis on improving public transport infrastructure in the area so that people can travel freely but in a way that is consistent with environmental values and the preservation of the beautiful landscape of Derbyshire."

Keith Buckley
"This road is urgently needed to improve living environment for residents along roads in Woolly Bridge."

Ken Thompson
"I believe that the improvements in air quality and traffic congestion make the proposed bypass a desirable solution"

Kerry-Anne Berry
"Although I no longer live in the area affected by the horrendous traffic that this bypass would help to alleviate, I did for many years and know how badly this is needed. Residents that consistently have to deal with the traffic, noise and pollution caused on a daily basis, let alone the hundreds of businesses affected should be listened to as a priority. This has gone on for far too long, and this bypass is urgently needed to improve the lives of those affected."

Kevin Hughes
"Mottram needs a bypass and Glossop needs a spur. Prior to the pandemic, my daily commute to Manchester was a nightmare, especially the evening return due to the congestion around Woolly Bridge and the M67/Mottram Moor. Although somewhat less now, the impending return to pre-pandemic levels is clear. Like many I have no option to using public transport and hence the plans for the Mottram bypass and Glossop spur will make a positive impact on my journey - and hopefully will be delivered soon"

Kevin Ogden
"I support the process, this is urgently needed. I commute to MAN Airport and during rush hour this can take upto two hours. More than half of this time is getting out of Glossop."

Kim Clarke
"I support all works to address the traffic issues in and out of Glossop and building a bypass, particularly the full bypass. This cannot carry on, more and more homes and traffic but in thought of infrastructure."

Kim Price
"Currently Matram Moor and Glossop are gridlocked most days of the week with traffic leaving the motorways and heading through Glossop to access routes to Sheffield. The traffic standing still affects the life quality of residents who have to persevere with air and noise pollution. It affects town centre trade as people choose to go out of Glossop rather than sit in a queue of traffic to reach a local shop / supermarket. The by pass/ring road is needed to offer a direct link from the major motorways through to areas leading to Sheffield and reduce therefore the traffic entering into Glossop from Matram Moor."

Kimberley Jordan
"I fully support the bypass; it will open up job prospects (potentially bringing more money into our town) and significantly save time in our lives too! Us Glossop folk spend hours of our week just trying to get in and out of the town. Sitting in standing traffic for this amount of time must be bad for our health, with all the pollution it generates, as well as the poor people who live on Mottram Moor/Woolley Bridge."

Knut Hultmann
"It is absolute essential that the bypass is built sooner than later. This will improve life quality for the inhabitants in the area substantialy."

Kris Clayton
"I am in support of the scheme. I believe having looked at the plans it will make a huge positive difference to the lives of all residents & travellers in the local area. It will stop Broadbottom & Charlesworth being a rat run. It will end the nightmare of access to & from their homes for residents of Hollingworth, Woolley Bridge & Mottram in Longdendale. Vehicles traveling through the area will have their queuing times reduced & the dramatic reduction in standing traffic will improve air quality & reduce carbon. It is essential this scheme goes ahead as soon as possible."

Kryssie Tedde
"A disgrace that this is taking so long - I’ve waited 30 years to get this far and now the Government is asking again if this road is needed. [redact]"

Lawrence Flanagan
"Dirt and noise are excessive, it is like living on a traffic island, which in fact it is. People are moving out of the street more than usual. I have to block the road waiting to park in the drive, because of queuing traffic. The traffic fumes mean we can not sit outside."

Leigh Vincent
"I can not believe that the bypass is to be delayed, or even cancelled yet again. Look at other area around greater Manchester that have received bypasses with much less of a need. If only local councillors could work with there elected MP, together, to get this done. Are all the studies on air pollution in vicinity of property been ignored. The spur moved heavy traffic away from residential property. It's no good arguing, about possible rail ...that debate has long gone with the closing of the woodhead tunnel. We continue to build in glossop and surrounding areas, with no infrastructure in place to support traffic demands. Glossop is known nationally as a traffic hall hole...avoid if you can. The spur is not the infinite solution, but it offers relief to many homeowners whose health is affected every day by poor air quality. It will offer a quicker route out of glossop, and support big business in the area. The m67 is know as the motor way to nowhere...its ridiculous. Can you believe that the biggest delay on my trip to Wolverhampton last week, was the end of the M67. I wish I had the time to write more on this subject, but I'm workin a 2-10 shift...oh yes, it's worth pointing out that most taxpayers are commuters, most voters will not accept this. Ridiculous. On a side not, when improving my property in 2001 which had been hit so many times by traffic, I had nothing but problems with planning, at great expense. Natural stone, not render, off road parking issues when I improved site lines and pulled the property back from the edge of the road. Wooley bridge, welcome to glossop. Long queues, delays, poor air quality, pub thays been empty for 20 years, that's constantly vandalised. They used to call the m67 an improvement corridor ...unbelievable"

Leonard Watson
"Totally unacceptable amount traffic using Broadbottom as a rare run."

Lesley Ward
"I am concerned that this bypass will increase traffic in Glossop and Tintwhistle. I am also very concerned about the negative effects it will have on the environment. Why haven’t considerations been given to improving the railway connection between Glossop, surrounding areas and Yorkshire? This isnt really a bypass its a spear road that will only move the traffic problem but wont solve anything. This is a massive waste of public money. There are absolutely no guarantees that any Phase Two will be agreed in which case Phase one shouldn’t go ahead as it will achieve nothing because larger scale traffic problems in the area wont be solved."

Linda Timperley
"We cannot get to our homes due to constant standing traffic , or open our windows due to exhaust fumes. We have waited over 30 years for this bypass and been promised it the only people who object don't live here. Reference the A57 bypass."

Linda Wood
"I have lived in Glossop all my life (71 years) and in that time the journey times to other Towns in the area - Hyde, Ashton etc have doubled in the time it takes to get to them Traffic when I worked at Wall's in Godley took on average 10 - 15 minutes - I would not like to estimate what it is now. We need the BY-PASS and SPUR ROAD as a matter of urgency as we have waited over 50 years for it !!"

Lindsay Allott
"This plan only moves congestion towards Already gridlocked towns (eg Glossop). It is too expensive. It will lead to higher pollution levels for local people. It will increase rather than decrease traffic. Other, cheaper and more environmentally options have not been fully explored."

Lynne Taylor
"1 Mottram village is polluted and regularly grid locked 2 Traffic is often queued down the end of the M67, causing tailbacks on other roads including through Hattersley housing estate, affecting the health of children and adults 3 The building of new homes around Mottram and Godley Green, over 2500 houses will increase the traffic problems in the area, the infrastructure is not able to support more traffic on existing roads. 4 Mottram Moor is a racetrack at times with frustrated drivers speeding after queuing at the lights"

Margaret Clare
"Traffic through Glossop over the Pennine routes is getting worse by the day and apart from continual frustration with local traffic, the detriment to the roads is ridiculous. The bypass is desperately needed"

Margaret Nield
"I am so very tired of trying to cross Manchester Road, Tintwistle. It is getting more dangerous by the minute we desperately need a by pass as soon as possible we have been waiting for so many years and nothing gets done about it , please give us the by pass we need.Thank You for reading this plea."

Marianne Stevenson
"I support the building of the Mottram/Glossop Bypass as the only viable initial solution to the huge traffic problems we have in this area. I expect the construction to provide the least destruction possible to the natural environment and that in due course it will be extended to bypass the villages of Hollingworth and Tintwistle. I can see no her solution to the traffic congestion we all experience in this area other than removing the A road status of he A628, which is never likely to happen."

Marj Hayes
"The current road infrastructure in Glossop and surrounding areas cannot cope with the volume of traffic which has increased to unacceptable levels over the past 50 years given the current infrastructure and new homes are still being built to exacerbate the situation. We need the bypass asap. 50 years of waiting is far too long."

Mark
"This current plan will do nothing to relieve the current traffic situation if anything it will only make things worse it will be a waste of money and by the time it is completed it will have no bearing on the increase in traffic that the surrounding areas will have due to more houses being built"

Mark Claydon
"I support the A57 Link Roads (previously known as Trans Pennine Upgrade Programme) Planning Inspectorate Reference: TR010034"

Mark Longden
"It is my opinion that the bypass is absolutely needed, the back up of traffic heading for the motorway is ridiculous ! Let’s have some common sense !"

Martin Hill
"It is vital that this road goes ahead, for the people of Glossop and Hollingworth, who spend a large part of their lives stuck in traffic, we can't keep building houses without the inferstucture being put in place."

Martin Jolly
"I have read the proposals in detail. Although I do not believe that they will lead to a reduction in the traffic using our local roads, I do believe that they will create fewer constrictions particularly in Mottram and in the approaches to Glossop, and I think the end result will be more fluid traffic management. As a Yorkshireman it is 60 years since I first started coming through this area to visit one of my father's offices in Stockport I vividly remember the hold ups we used to face even then on the road leading to Mottram. I have lived now in Glossop for 36 years and cannot believe at the situation has actually worsened. Please do not allow any further procrastination."

Martyn Lloyd
"Glossop which still has a growing number of cars needs help to ease congestion This spur will do that We also badly need the rest of the by pass It is incredible that two major cities like Manchester and Sheffield do not have a main road link and traffic has to use Woodhead and Snake Roads Martyn Lloyd"

Mary Fitton
"I believe that the proposed A57 link road will only reduce traffic on mottram moor. There will be no relief of traffic/air pollution through the villages of crowden, tintwistle and hollingworth on the A628. In fact, and as confirmed by a highways rep at a consultation, the traffic will increase through these villages. It will also not reduce traffic on the A57 from Glossop to the proposed road. There seems to be no mention in the plans of the effects of this road on the wider surrounding areas above. Given the present concern with climate change, should other solutions be considered to reduce traffic, air pollution ie remove large freight vehicles from the A628/use of rail/a trans pennine rail tunnel. The link road will eat into the small green belt that is left between glossop and tameside, reducing wildlife habitat. Increased traffic on the A628 will also affect wildlife and habitat"

May Powell
"Bypass MUST go ahead"

Michael Dennett
"I support the Mottram bypass and Glossop spur road planning application, because for far too long the area has been choked by traffic nearly all day long every day. The current road network into Glossop is simply not fit for purpose with the amount of traffic using the roads - the current 3 lane motorway rapidly reducing to a single carriageway at Mottram roundabout with traffic lights at the crossroads shortly afterwards, is absurd. With the increasing number of houses been built in the Glossop area now and no doubt in the future, it would seem ridiculous not to build the infrastructure to go with it. Obviously there is also significant pollution caused by slow moving traffic and even though a relatively small amount of countryside would be damaged by the building of the bypass, I feel the benefits would outway any damage."

Michael Millward
"I am in total support for A57 link roads, as a life long resident of the High Peak (64 years)we have been waiting and campaigning for this bypass for as long as I can remember. Please do not allow these plans to be scuppered for political gains. Please think of the improved environment rather than short term political gains."

Mike Hunter
"I’m support of this development and application"

Mike Madner
"For many years l have used the A57 through Glossop and Mottram to access the western motorway network. At any time of the day there is congestion starting at Woolley Bridge extending up Woolley Lane, onto Mottram Moor to the traffic lights at the junction where the A57 crosses the B6174. Not only is there congestion on my route but also on Market Street through Hollingsworth for traffic coming from the via the Woodhead Pass. Every time I make this journey I feel sorry for the local residents, pollution from vehicle exhausts, brake dust and noise. I can live with holdups, they are everywhere but the local residents should not have to put up with this in their daily lives when there is an alternative, and that is a bypass. I find it hard to believe that there are groups that object to local residents, (many who will have young families due to a lot of the properties being suitable for first time buyers) having a better quality of life. I accept that any major construction work will cause some disruption but this is how you get to an end result. Do the objectors have a better plan?"

Mr Lloyd
"It is undeniably essential that the infrastructure of this country and in particular the North West,is improved in order to reduce congestion, thus improving air quality. The Mottram and Tintwistle bypass and road improvements are long overdue as are other similar schemes. No more stalling, get them done."

Mrs Varnouse
"Mottram and Glossop Spur by pass as well as the Hollingworth and Tintwhistle section should go ahead to reduce congestion, reduce pollution from waiting and stationary traffic in hol ups and to enhance travelling times. Residents I the area will also benefit from quiter, less busy roads and cleaner air."

Natasha Manson
"I travel a lot with work and have to use this road. It’s the worst road in Derbyshire by far, you sit in traffic her 90% of the time. It can be that bad it’s backed up past glossop caravans, on occasion I’ve been sat in a traffic queue for well over an hour. I feel for the residents that live in the area because of the disruption it causes and the environment due to the fumes from vehicles sitting there running whilst in the queues."

Neil Wildey
"The economic, social and environment benefits from reduced traffic congestion, to not only residents of Glossop but those of the High Peak area as a whole, of the planned A57 Link Road should easily be enough to ensure that construction takes place as soon as possible. The congestion can only get worse as more housing is built in the area. Also, the increased traffic on the A6 to the south (High Lane to Whaley Bridge ) which is the result of the recently opened Manchester Airport Eastern Link Road, has meant more of the traffic traffic transiting the Peak Park in an easterly or westerly direction, using an alternative route through Glossop onto the A57 in both directions. Delaying the planned link road would also negatively impact the much needed economic growth and prosperity benefits that it will bring to the area."

Nicola Kassar
"I strongly support the Mottram Bypass & Glossop Spur Road being built, the area is in dire need of this."

Oliver Wilson
"As a Glossop local, it goes without saying that the planned bypass will be a great help in daily life for myself as well as many others , in the ease of car traffic that it will bring about. I deemed it necessary to voice my opinions on such a matter given the importance of this plan to create the bypass being completed without hindrance. I believe in our local MP Robert Largan's promise and hope to see this dream a reality."

Patricia Milner
"I agree on the glossop bypass"

Paul Child
"Provision of this road scheme will relieve traffic congestion in the Mottram and Hollingworth villages and reduce the environmental impact that is suffered by their residents."

Paul Coverley
"The bypass would allow my business in the High Peak to operate much more efficiently and increase the chances of it remaining as a significant employer in the area ( Hayfield/New Mills)"

Paul Parkins
"Again the bypass is trying to be prevented with no reasonable excuse. The local council is allowing 100s of new houses to be built in Glossop Hadfield and surrounding areas yet not allowing of any improvements in the local road network. As a local resident who sits on Mottram Moor every morning and evening for at least 45 minutes per day this bypass is needed."

Paul Scullion
"This is an essential improvement in the Gloosopdale road system which will reduc3 travelling times, increase mpg and decrease pollution."

Paul Spooner
"I support the building of the new bypass and it is unbelievable that any councillors worth the name are trying to block this."

Paul Tighe
"This bypass will considerably ease the traffic flow in many ways. It will stop stop unnecessary journeys to avoid the traffic congestion as it is now. It will allow allow through traffic not to occupy local roads unnecessarily. It will cut journey times. All of these will help reduce noise, pollution and environmental health for all."

Paul Wild
"I have been commuting up and down Mottram Moor for 60years and seen the traffic congestion go from bad to worse and worse to horrendous .The promise of a by pass all those years ago gave us all some hope to look forward to and now with plans in place ,to cancel the scheme would be a disaster to all people in the area and all users of the current road"

Pete Dawson
"I oppose the proposed scheme on the basis it will bring more traffic into Glossop on th A57. It is not a viable relief road."

Peter Collard
"I have lived in Glossop for 40 years and, particularly in the last 5 have noticed a large building program of housing that has not been reflected in improving the roads infrastructure. As a result the main A57 is frequently gridlocked and local drivers create rat runs, frequently dangerously speeding past schools as they seek to travel to the West - to Stockport and Manchester. This plan should have been implemented years ago."

Peter Creighton
"The current infrastructure cannot cope with the sheer volume of traffic and urgently requires this bypass to help the unbelievable congestion that we have to fight through on a daily basis."

Peter Robinson
"I object to the scheme. I am astounded that Highways England can bring forward a scheme that impacts so adversely on local roads in the Hope Valley. I am particularly concerned about the 38% increased traffic on the Snake Pass and with it more than the total number of collisions on the wider network. Highways England forecasts an extra 102 collisions on the wider network over 60 years; plus an extra 160 collisions on the A57 Snake Pass alone. The A57 Snake Pass is classified by EuroRAP on its 2017-2019 results map as a persistently high risk rural road. This is despite the County Council reducing the speed limit to 50mph with intermittent enforcement in 2007. The A57 Link Roads would worsen this risk yet Highways England dismisses any responsibility for safety and has no regard for regular users of the routes such as residents. It also dismisses the impact on amenity as it ‘would be limited to within approximately 10 m of the road’ and the road currently detracts from the special qualities of wildness and tranquillity. Yes, noise can be heard more than a mile north or south of the A57 when walking or climbing but the statutory purposes of the Park demand that its special qualities are conserved and enhanced, not made worse by more traffic. Cars and motorcycles regularly use the Snake Pass at high speeds. This intimidates people who might like to cycle on it or walkers who have to cross it or use the verges to link up footpaths. It also leads to road kill of mountain hares, badgers and livestock. Traffic increases and increased collisions are unacceptable and contrary to national policy – all highway authorities are aiming for a reduction in road deaths and injuries, Greater Manchester is aiming for zero road deaths. I am not convinced that any of the traffic data can be relied on – there are a number of anomalies which need interrogating. Traffic flows are fundamental to understanding the impacts of the scheme on the environment from air quality, noise and carbon emissions to landscape, recreation, wildlife and cumulative impacts with other developments. The examination must scrutinise and understand (a) the impacts of the scheme in generating traffic, and then (b) the impact of the generated traffic on all aspects of the environmental assessment and on safety."

Peter Simon
"I oppose the DCO Application for reasons given here in summary . 1. On balance the scheme fails to establish a benefit that outweighs the considerable adverse impacts. In particular the scheme is unworkable with unsustainable impacts at its Eastern end due to inscreased traffic flows on a constrained road network. 2. The Applications "Case for the Scheme" (CftS_ attempts but fails to establish necessary compliance with NN NPS (National Networks National Policy Statement 2008) and the NPPF with subsequent revisions (National Planning Policy Framework 2012). 3. The case for NN NPS compliance does not hold with regard to loss of Green Belt through the scheme, as no overall benefit is established (see 1) and no alternatives are considered. There are other GB issues unresolved in the CftS because cumulative and associated loss in Tameside exceeds that stated and assessed. 4. Local Policy is also a consideration. 5. The CftS climate impact assessment method predates formal national regional and local climate emergency declarations (2019) so should not be considered fit for purpose for such an assessment now. When government net zero carbon targets were set a cumulative rather than scheme specific assessment become appropriate and the application would then fail on this count. 6. Further the CftS fails to resolve ambiguities within the scheme proposal as a whole, such as possible future requirement for "A628 climbing lanes" within the National Park and the relevance of a future probable Clean Air Zone designation. Inclusion or exclusion of such matters is clearly needed to allow for a safe test of traffic model data, impacts and thus merit or otherwise of the scheme. 7. The bio-diversity loss due to the scheme is unacceptable and mitigation proposals are not plausible or sufficient. 8. PINS Advice note 17 informs the CftS assessment Section 6 Planning History etc but this is discretionary. I wish to suggest that the binding annual OAN new build quota within the plan period would be a particularly reliable indicator of planning "certainty" (eg for Glossopdale within High Peak Borough) and should have been included for a safe assessment of cumulative impact in any CftS and Environment Statement. 9. Although within the proximity of the scheme the impacts on Glossopdale are not properly considered. No transport plan for the settlement is offered. 10. The 2020 winter scheme consultation was inadequate as no critical traffic model data was available to public or statutory consultees. This renders all responses unqualified in this respect open to question as to their validity. 11. Similarly the consultation was held inappropriately at the height of an exceptional state of health emergency. It was threadbare and fragmented in the extreme which compounds the concern that due process was not followed. Similarly a significant postcode demographic including my own address were excluded from a mail shot for cost reasons, which I regard as discriminatory and unacceptable. 12. Such other matters as may arise."

Phil Duckworth
"This road needs building to stop congestion in Glossop so listen to the voter and do this for the people."

Phil Hesketh
"I support the bypass. Having lived with the traffic for 29 years myself, and some of my neighbours for many more, it is time to stop all of the political bickering and get it done. We live in a daily nightmare of congestion and noise and delay. I see this as only a partial success, because until the villages of Hollingworth and Tintwistle are accommodated in time, we cannot declare this as 'job done'. We live in a day and age that the Victorians would have looked at and said 'we would have decided on it and built it in 3 years!', not 50 plus!"

Phil Ransom
"I support the bypass"

Philip Norman Barton
"I regularly drive from Buxton via the M62 to Leeds/Bradford. The obvious quickest satnav route is via the A57, through Mottram to the M67. However, because of delays between Glossop and Mottram, I usually take narrow back roads via Charlesworth, Broadbottom and Hyde. I therefore strongly support building of this bypass and its eventual extension around Tintwistle."

Raymond Barker
"This bypass has been needed for decades. To block it now would be a travesty. Travelling around the country, there are very few roads as bad as the A57/A628 around the Mottram/ Tintwistle/Glossop area . There is no such thing as a short quick visit locally, there are always problems in one form or another. Very disappointed to hear about the local Labour Party objections as I am a strong labour supporter"

Rebecca Orchard
"I support this bypass"

Lesley Hoban on behalf of Rebecca Perry
"Rebecca works in Manchester and has this congestion every working day"

Richard D Wilson
"We need this bypass it is essential for our mental health and well being and for the environment. We should have had this 25 years ago please ensure this is done as soon as pssible."

Richard Wood
"With the volume of traffic currently trying to access the M67 from A57 Glossop, Tintwistle, Hadfield & Padfield etc. the backlog of queuing traffic which is not only at rush hour times is usually back to Dinting. From here this stop go queue takes around 20 - 25 minutes to arrive at the M67 roundabout creating adverse air quality for those unfortunate pedestrians and residents of houses along the route who must find it most uncomfortable not to mention unhealthy to leave their windows open. A by-pass would perhaps generate more traffic but potentially for the majority of the time this traffic would flow freely thus keeping air pollution to a minimum. For the sake of the health of those residents I urge you to look positively to agreeing to the proposals for the long overdue by-pass."

Robert Kenworthy
"The Pennines need a second Motorway crossing especially in the winter. The M62 is not sufficient for serving England nowadays as a main link across the country. The M67 was always intended to be extended to the M1, with a tunnel under the Peak District. This second Motorway would link the towns and cities such as Doncaster, Sheffield, Rotherham etc with Manchester and Liverpool to improve trade and increase GDP. When the Woodhead is closed it is announced on French radio, so that tells you how much international and UK traffic is crossing over Woodhead. The villages of Mottram, Hollingworth and Tintwistle have had enough of the air pollution, noise and thundering of trucks every minute passing through. How would anyone like to have the equivalent of a full blown Motorway passing your front door every day? It is a health hazard as well as very dangerous to the local people. Please do something even if its just the Mottram by-pass for now with intentions of extending it at a later date. At least doing something like the Mottram by-pass now is better than what we have had over the last 50 years!!!"

Robert Naylor
"I strongly support this programme, TR010034, a57 Link Roads. As a new resident of Glossop who travels frequently on the M6/M5 for business, I have been dismayed at the almost constant traffic backlog from Glossop Hight Street, through Whaley Bridge and up to the A67 roundabout. This bottleneck must cost thousands of hours in wasted time every day, not to mention the extra pollution caused by idling vehicles sitting in stationary traffic. This improvement scheme is vital both for business/ commerce and for the health and peace of mind of people living along the current almost permanently blocked "artery"."

Robert Quarmby
"Necessary to reduce the continuous traffic congestion and subsequent environmental pollution in the area."

Roger Womack
"For too long the residents of Mottram, Hadfield, Glossop, Charles worth and Broasbottom have suffered from the enormous amount of through traffic from Manchester to Sheffield, either directly or as a result of "Rat Runs". The plans to alleviate this problem by adding a bypass from the end of the M67 through, initially, to Hollingworth and Glossop are a long long tiime coming and can only benefit the majority of people who regularly are stuck in mile long traffic jams both on the M67 and A57 Sheffield road in and out of Glossop. It can only help- with the environment too, reducing the number of vehicles stood in queues with their engines running."

Rosalind Hardy
"I feel that the pollution caused by the slow moving and often stationary traffic is a major factor especially given the current global crisis. Also it can be quite dangerous as frustrated motorists are frequently trying to push their way in at the front of queues of equally frustrated motorists who then try to block them."

Roy Calder
"Having been a resident of GLOSSOP for almost twenty years I have been disappointed in the time it has taken to deliver the initial stage of this project. while it will not address all the issues we face in the area, I feel that the proposed project will reduce the congestion and, by reducing the amount of time people spend sitting stationary in traffic will make a major improvement in the air quality for the residents living close to the current road."

Russell Baker
"As someone who worked in Glossop I confirm the importance of this relief road. it will greatly improve the quality of life for local residents who are currently faced with effectively being locked in. It is vital that this project continues."

Russell Gard
"I fully support the new link road as above but would prefer roundabouts rather that light controlled junction as originally suggested. As a regular use of Brookfield amd Mottram Moor by car and pushbike I can see significant benefits for users of both modes - in the latter, safety will improve no end.."

S J Hunter
"It is in the best interests of the local people for the bypass to proceed. It can take over an hour from queueing at the end of the motorway to reaching Glossop town centre during rush hours, this is not good for the environment nor the residents."

Sam Hardy
"The need for the scheme: The link road separates the A57 traffic from the A628 traffic. This will enable the slow queue to be eliminated on Mottram Moor, and reduce the long tailbacks on the A628 and A57 which form from time to time. The impact of the scheme: This link road scheme as it stands actually makes the A628 route more attractive for drivers, as the Mottram Moor delay is removed, and so will increase traffic through Tintwistle, Hollingworth, and Glossop. The queue as the traffic leaves the M67 at Denton Rock will also be increased. The pollution outside my house in Tintwistle is already at an illegal level. This scheme will make that situation worse as traffic accelerates uphill as they pass the 40mph sign. The potential after the scheme: The main advantage of the proposed scheme, is that it makes a bypass of Tintwistle and Hollingworth more likely, as much of the required infrastructure is included in this scheme. However, it would be cheaper overall to include it now at this stage."

Sandra Weedon
"Ease of access to M67 Quality of life for the local residents Improved air quality for area."

Sarah Broadbent
"A agree with this submission."

Sharon Jones
"I am against the road for the following reasons, encouraging more people to come through the area, thus causing more pollution we have enough now. Hollingworth school is on the main road which is in the firing line for all this traffic. Ban hgvs from our villages, there should be a law which bans them. Causing more flooding we have many natural springs in the surrounding area. We have wildlife badgers deer fox that live in the area you plan to build the road to nowhere. Glossop traffic will still be as bad going in. It’s not solving a single thing. Also going through the nicest part of mottram it’s madness. Don’t want to see another road got enough get the railway back in use for freight too much on roads. Climate change let’s get in the real world as the environment is in a mess."

Sheila Bailey
"We have waited a very long time for this by pass. Now everything is put in place it appears as though some people are trying to stop it. The bypass is needed because of the number of cars which now build up without the bypass, and is causing pollution and increasing the amount of Co2 in the atmosphere because of the number of cars being held up. The consequent air pollution causes many health issues as well. This is a bypass that is urgently needed."

Simon Hollinghurst
"Hurry up and get it done , other towns and areas are leap years ahead of us - its a National disgrace that is always in the news about traffic jams"

Simon Hurrell
"I strongly support this important investment in local infrrastructure"

Stephanie Haley
"This area is blighted by transpennine traffic -particularly trucks. It is much worse than when a bypass was first promised many years ago. The hills in this area make polution from reving vehicles worse. Glossop could be an effective tourist town if its main street was not blighted by traffic."

Stephen Christie
"There are more houses being built in this area every day and the infrastructure can not cope We need the bypass now"

Stephen Ellingham
"I have lived in Hope Valley for over 35 years and have had to make many journeys through Glossop and onto the M67. Through this, I am aware of the usual gridlock between Glossop and M67 and think that building this link is the only way forward. The return journey from M67 back to Glossop is often worse. Some years ago, I had to regularly commute from Hope Valley to Manchester, and the return home often took me over 2 hours due to traffic. Build the By-Pass as soon as possible!"

Stephen Hague
"As a native of Glossop who has always resided here, I have first hand knowledge of the massive increase in the congestion caused by the bottleneck at Mottram. The sheer waste of fuel, time and subsequent increase in pollution are appalling. Everyone within the Glossopdale valley whether a motorist or not, suffers from this congestion."

Stephen Mason
"I have used the roads mentioned and every time the congestion and delays have been horrendous and a nightmare to people who live in the area. The bypass is essential to relieve congestion and improve air quality."

Stephen Oswald
"This Bypass is essential and years overdue [redacted] in Tameside and a resident of Glossop I know first hand what a huge difference this will make. I am shocked but not surprised that the local looney left are trying to stop this as they do not represent working people."

Stephen Yorke
"I oppose the Planning application for the following reasons: 1 While the current traffic problems at Mottram will be eased there will be a significant increase in traffic in Glossopdale, Woodhead Road and the Snake Pass. 2 This increase in traffic will inevitably generate poor air pollution affecting more people than now. 3 There is likely to be an increased risk of road accidents due to the increased traffic in areas of complex and inadequate road networks."

Steve Lomas
"For the bypass"

Steven Ellis
"We have lived in the area for years and the end of the M67 is a discussing mess it’s always got held up traffic and makes any journey unpleasant and means that extra fumes are put into the environment. One of the main routes from Manchester to Shefield is not up to 21st standards and needs to be done."

Stuart Broadhurst
"I have been a resident of the High Peak for over 20 years. Before this, over 40 years ago, I attended Longdendale High School and travelled from Hyde via bus service to Hollingworth. Throughout this period there has been tremendous congestion, delays and additional pollution to the Mottram, Hollingworth, Dinting and Tintwistle areas due to the high volume of traffic, much of which is commercial vehicles. The Mottram By-pass was supposed to have been built around 1980 as a continuation of the new M67 motorway, but due to funding was never completed. After this, the scheme has been in and off mainly dependent on which political party is in power. This relief road is now planned to go ahead with stage 1 of the spur and is very much long overdue. Please do not let party politics stop this much needed venture again, the project should not be used to win 'Brownie points'. It is worth noting that since this scheme was devised there have been several other relief roads constructed, including Alderley Edge & High Lane and a further road is now under construction at Poynton. Perhaps these have been completed due to the areas being more affluent? Thank you in anticipation Mr S Broadhurst"

Stuart Clarke
"As someone who spends hours each week queuing to get in and out of Glossop I do wonder why there even needs to be a consultation on this project. Anyone from the National Infrastructure Planning Board just needS to stand around Mottram Moor or the end of the M67 each morning or night to see this !!"

Stuart Roberts
"This is a bypass that has been promised for years, it must go ahead and not be blocked by Labour."

Susan Hall
"This is a much needed road for everyone, it will free up a lot of traffic going through Glossop"

Susan Parkes
"My representation is about noise and pollution in Charlesworth. I first moved to [redacted] before the M67 was opened and although some would use High Lane as a short cut to Glossop it was relevantly quiet and pollution free. I have now resided [redacted] Charlesworth for over 40 year's and things are very different now with people trying to get to and from the M67. I have never been able to sleep with my bedroom window open because of the noise and the fumes, if there has been an accident it can go on for hours. My husband and I could never understand why they would build a Motorway 4 1/2 miles long with a roundabout at both ends. The Glossop Spire and a rout round Tintwistle should be approved and money not waisted doing only half the work."

Terence Cross
"The very long overdue Mottram Bypass and Glossop Spur Road is desperately needed to alleviate the horrendous traffic congestion in the town. This is especially urgent in light of the additional housing that is currently being built in the area which is exacerbating the problem."

Thomas Power
"The bypass has been sought for by the people of this constituency for decades. It has been thoroughly researched and and finally approved for commencement. The obvious massively beneficial outcome will reduce the appalling traffic congestion and massively reduce pollution and enhance air quality along with many other benefits. It makes complete sense to continue apace with this operation and should be allowed to continue as arranged without further delay."

Tom Hodgson
"I believe this bypass is required, the traffic around Glossop is horrendous when trying to access the Motorway westbound from the High Peak."

Tom Hughes
"My concern is the lack of any action to relieve the village of Tintwistle 0f the burden of very heavy traffic at all times, day and night. The village, for years, has been ignored in respect of the impact traffic has imposed on it. The A628 passes through the village and it is normal now to see convoys of very large lorries pounding through at all times, day and night at speeds well in excess of the 30mph speed limit. What makes this worse is the absence of a pavement on the westbound side of the road, with front doors of houses opening directly onto the road. where there is a pavement, it is far too narrow for people to walk safely. this makes bus stops difficult to access without crossing the road. The situation is made far worse when the M1, M62, and M6 have difficulties and even more traffic is imposed upon our village. In addition the resulting air pollution increases to very high levels which are a danger to health. Please give some consideration to the welfare of our villagers, many of whom are of less than tender years. Thankyou, Tom Hughes"

Tony England
"As a local resident of Glossop I am very much in favour of the proposed A57 Link Roads Upgrade on the grounds of existing extreme traffic congestion in and around Glossop, resultant air pollution (Dinting Primary School in daily close proximty to exhaust fumes, being a worrying example) and the adverse effect on emergency vehicle access."

Tracy Welford
"I personally am fed up to the back teeth of not being able to get In it out of glossop, more and More houses are being built adding to this huge problem. I also work in the community and getting from A to B is unbelievably difficult given we have times to adhere to."

Trevor Hoyland
"The proposed by-pass will improve air quality, speed up journey times for commuters and businesses and prevent rat-running which adversely affects the whole area. The present situation is deplorable and has been for many years and the inability to improve it undermines the reputation of the area and of those with responsibility for its social and economic well-being."

Trudy Phillips
"It is vitally important that the Bypass and Spur roads are built. I have lived in Glossop for over 40 years and have seen the traffic situation worstening over the years. The roads cannot cope with the amount of traffic. The situation will get worse because there have been a lot of new houses built in Glossop.,many iof which are top of the range and residents will probably have multiple cars. This project must go ahead and be started as soon as possible. The Glossop area is a lovely place to live but for commuters it's a living hell."

Val Trivett
"We have been awaiting this for ages and it will alleviate congestion!"

Vanessa Mccallum
"I support the Mottram Bypass and spur road being build. I have previously lived very close to Mottram Moor and now live in the centre of Glossop, I have lived in the area for more than 20 years. Myself and the local community have been waiting for this bypass and spur road to be build for more than 50 years, its well needed and overdue. It's needed to reduce congestion, improve air quality, reduce journeying time and reduce fast traffic through Gamesley and Charlesworth. Just to also add more and more people are enjoying the benefits of the beautiful Derbyshire and surrounding countryside due to recent events, so taking this into consideration, there has been more traffic around, so this is needed more than ever, as people are holidaying around the area more which is brilliant for the local community. please consider my option, thank you and kind regards Vanessa Mccallum"

Vera Linda Mellor
"Just an ordinary member of the public who feels strongly about reducing traffic congestion and the quality of the air we breathe."

Wanda Power
"The Bypass is long awaited and much needed for the residents of Hadfield and Glossop who are forced to waste time on a daily basis sitting in gridlocked traffic whilst trying to get to the M67 and to the Stalybridge, Ashton and Oldham areas, and coping with the rat runs created by the congestion. To block these works merely on a Labour point scoring basis is not taking account of local frustration and is not a true representation of the voters requirements - many of whom unadvisedly voted for a Labour Council."

Wayne Latham
"There is little to no infrastructure around this area, and this bypass has been needed since the 1960s. Ques are horrendous.."

Wendy Willoughby
"Without the new bypass there can be no spur road to relieve the progress of heavy traffic coming from the Woodhead Pass and the M1 which has to travel through Tintwhistle to get to the M67 and Manchester beyond. This spur road will also give better access across the Pennines for traffic travelling towards the M1 to the North East. This has to be part of better road connections across the North to enable the “levelling up” promised by the Giverbment."

Zakida Bi
"I am against this scheme for the following reasons:   1. It would be the start of a new expressway across the Peak District National Park to South Yorkshire, driving more traffic across this beautiful area and devastating its strongly protected landscapes. 2. It would increase CO2 emissions and worsen the Climate Emergency. Greater Manchester and Sheffield Authorities are rightly pushing for big reductions in car travel to meet their Net Zero Carbon targets. The focus should be on reducing traffic, not building more roads. 3. It would increase traffic and push the traffic jam a bit further east on to the A628 trunk road and the A57. It is a widely accepted fact that more road space generates new traffic and this is always significantly greater than that forecasted. 4. Air pollution levels would remain at unacceptable levels – Highways England modelling of local air quality with the link roads shows that NO2 concentrations would remain above the legal limit in Mottram, Dinting Vale and along the A628. Any proposed scheme should fully resolve such issues. 5.This road would spoil the countryside and landscapes around Mottram, and ruin people’s enjoyment of them and their wildlife. This beautiful part of the world is being slowly eroded by needless development when we should be focussing on finding sustainable solutions.   The root cause of the issues is heavy transport through the National Park. I believe the solution is to ban lorries across the National Park and invest in rail links to enable more efficient and reliable transportation of goods. We need more forward thinking measures to be implemented urgently if we are to relieve all the local communities and avert the climate threat to all our futures and those of our children.    "

Adrian Hopkinson
"I support the application for the Mottram by pass however I do think that this will only part solve the huge congestion issues and a by pass of Hollingworth and Tintwisle is also needed."

Andrew McCallum
"the bypass is essential."

Andy Booth
"I object as this is not a bypass, reports which are freely available have proved that emissions and traffic will in fact increase. A full bypass or weight limit on the A628 and B6105 is required. The link roads will do nothing more than move the problems to another area whilst increasing usage of the Woodhead pass which was never designed to."

Anthony Hague
"I hope the plans get approved [redacted] have lived in this area all my life .The traffic is getting worse so hopefully the road will stop people having to be stuck in traffic trying to get to and up mortal moor."

Anthony Rodrigues
"We Live [redacted] Tintwistle, we have to live with Cars going past our Property often but more so HGV's causing noise 247 Monday all the way to Sunday there is no rest. I Object to the Road being Built and confirm that you should put a Ban on HGV's in our Local Area. We have Children going to school crossing at the crossing with Lorries going straight through the Red Lights. They are spoiling our Towns, they can use the M62 Motorway which is designed for them to use. This affecting many lives you buildings this road which is not going to help any town in the area but divert traffic who might not even use the road an carry on with the existing. you propose the speed limit to be 50 MPH we don't want faster roads we went less roads and less Vehicles. This is our Towns with Wildlife and Countryside where people walk and enjoy the quiet life. Please do not build this Road think of the environment, Climate Change the People who live or will live next to the new road. I Do no want this road and I object to it."

Barry Ward
"I’ve lived in glossop for all of my life and all that time it’s been an absolute nightmare to get in or get out of glossop. Whilst all of the various vehicles queue up to get in or out and having standing vehicles with their engines running and going not very far, pollution levels must be higher than having all of those vehicles moving. Furthermore the valuable time lost to queuing up to leave glossop or to get back into glossop has a serious impact on people’s well-being and also the impact on shops and other roads being turned into short cuts to try and avoid the inevitable jams of traffic so making other areas of glossop, hadfield and tintwistle seriously congested and gridlocked. We really do need this to change for the health of everyone in glossop and the surrounding areas be it mental or pollution. I’m now fast approaching 55 and I know that this has gone on too long. Build the road and let’s make glossop a town that can breathe again."

Bill Jubb
"The HGV traffic which leaves the motorway at Mottram is intolerable and has been increasing since it was opened in the late 1960's. The original plan was for it to go to Sheffield and the cost was budgeted by Government. Now that funding will only pay for the Mottram /Glossop section. I am 79 years old and probably not be alive to see the completion of stage one."

Brian Mallalieu
"Having wasted too long on a number of occasions just sitting or creeping up Mottram Hill (unnecessarily polluting the atmosphere!) trying to reach the motorway, I am appalled at the utter disregard for local people's interruption & pollution because of the obstinacy of Glossop Labour in their objection. People matter before ideology!"

Cadent Gas Limited (WITHDRAWN) (Cadent Gas Limited (WITHDRAWN))
"Please refer to representation and documents submitted to [email protected]"

Colin O'Flaherty
"I Object to the Scheme for the reasons below. I believe it shifts the traffic from one location to another and doesn't solve the problem. the traffic benefits to Mottram come at the expense of others. A 4 way traffic light controlled junction at the top of Mottram moor will cause even more standing traffic than there currently is. It cuts through greenbelt land that will destroy local countryside which is home to local wildlife, and this will also open up the land for further development. It will encourage more HGV traffic through Hollingworth and Tintwistle. The Money would be better invested in public transport improvements, to encourage people to use that rather than using a car."

Dan Reeds
"I support this bypass. It has been known to be required for the last few decades and its continued delay is causing continued traffic issues to the surrounding areas. Regards,"

Daniel Cornwell
"I have lived in Glossop for the past twenty years plus (off and on) and this bypass MUST be started on time. Otherwise the traffic will continue to grow and the links from Manchester Eastwards are not good enough. The north lacks investment and for the region to grow we need much better transport infrastructure - this has to be just be the start. Also from an environmental perspective it is dangers for the people of Mottram/Tintwistle and Hollingworth. Finally - this has to be the start of an integrated transport system for Glossopdale and beyond - we may only be 12 miles from Manchester and 20ish from Sheffield but at times it feels a world away."

Darren Jones
"The proposal does little to improve the traffic passing through Tintwistle. In fact it makes the route more attractive to through traffic and may increase the number of vehicles on the road."

David Baines
"I represent myself as someone who uses this route when travelling from Buxton to reach the M60 and go northwards. I have used this route over 30 years and observed the congestion getting worse, so I often use the local roads via Charlesworth to avoid the queues along Glossopdale."

David F May
"I support the building of the A57 Link Roads to help ease traffic congestion in the Longdendale Valley and Glossop area."

David Kirkwood
"I have lived in the broad vicinity of this proposed scheme (A57 Link Road/Mottram bypass) for over 30 years and am well aware of the serious traffic congestion this scheme aims to alleviate and the difficulties it has posed to local residents for many years. However having carefully read the documentation submitted by Highways England in support of the scheme it is clear that aside the inevitable carbon costs predicted in the proposed construction phase even the proposers acknowledge the scheme, once in operation, will in all probability generate significantly increased carbon emissions compared with the status quo. Given the well documented and evidenced threats of serious climate disruption alongside clear government undertakings to radically and rapidly reduce greenhouse gas emissions , the scheme as proposed demonstrably runs counter to meeting binding climate targets. In addition the scheme will irrevocably damage local biodiversity and also have serious negative amenity impacts on the fringes of and within the boundary of the Peak District National Park. Alternate well documented and significantly more sustainable solutions to solving the acknowledged problems of congestion in this area have been put forward. Given the seriousness and urgency of addressing the climate crisis these solutions should prevail."

David Morgan
"Concern over the increase of traffic through Hollingworth and Tintwistle and the impact on air quality in these villages as a result of the proposed link roads. The proposed scheme should enable traffic to flow better through the aforementioned villages, however as a result of this I believe more vehicles will be encouraged to use this route adding yet more air pollution and increasing road safety issues through these villages. The whole area needs a full and comprehensive scheme which bypasses Mottram, Hollingworth and Tintwistle instead of the proposed scheme which only shifts the congestion to different parts of Glossopdale but has the overall effect of increasing traffic through the area."

David Scott
"As a resident of glossop I spend most of my life sat in traffic either on my way to work or my way home I am disappointed that an objection has been made against the bypass which we have waited for all my life (I'm 42) this objection isn't about what the people of the area want more about what a sad political party who has no supporters what if every time you leave your house for what should be a 15 minute journey u have to leave an extra 15 minutes early just to get out of glossop and then coming home its just luck that nothing has happened around the a57 like a broken down lorry that will have u in a que for maybe 2 hours just to do a 15 minute journey every time you are sat in traffic you are missing time with love ones or not doing something you promised please think about the families that are missing out on things while we are sat in never ending traffic the people who have objected clearly don't live in this area and probably get to eat dinner with their family every evening instead of sitting in a very hot car in summer or a freezing car in winter this opposition is political and not what the people who use the road want"

Della Fahy
"I am for the bye pass to go ahead. I live in Broadbottom , at certain times of the day our road is like a motorway. The cars using our village as a cut through do not always follow the speed limit and also drive in between the speed bumps. I am disabled with a young daughter and crossing our road, you take your life in your hands. It's only a matter of time before someone is seriously injured or worse. There is also a junior school just off the main road."

Della Leddy
"I am a local resident of Hadfield and Glossop, and have been waiting a very, very long time for the Mottram Bypass, in fact for over 50 years for this to come to fruition. I believe the funding has now been approved, and the contract has been signed to build the bypass and Glossop Spur, which is a great achievement. The bypass will mean that the traffic on Woolley Lane will flow more freely, we will not have any more lengthy queues to get onto Mottram Moor, and access to the M67 will be far better. The Mottram Bypass & Glossop Spur will not only reduce congestion, it will improve the local air quality for local residents. It will also significantly reduce the heavy traffic through Gamesley and Charlesworth, which are hotspots in the rush hour. We need this bypass more than ever as the amount of traffic passing through seems to be ever increasing."

Duncan Adam Rimmer
"It is vital that the bypass is built as soon as possible. Due process has been done over many years, so there should be no delays pampering to extreme views."

Elizabeth Hughes
"The bypass needs to go ahead as currently planned as soon as possible. The traffic around Glossop and the surrounding areas is intolerable and must have a detrimental effect on peoples' health, mental wellbeing and the local economy."

Friends of the Earth England, Wales and Northern Ireland
"We object to the scheme for the following reasons: 1. Over 60 years the scheme would add an extra 399,867 tonnes carbon dioxide. Carbon emissions must be tested against international and national legislation and guidance including the Paris Agreement, the 2008 Climate Change Act and UK Sixth Carbon Budget that legally commits the UK to a 78% reduction in emissions (compared to 1990 levels) by 2035, and the National Planning Policy Framework which requires “radical reductions of greenhouse gas emissions”. The Committee on Climate Change’s 2021 Progress Report states “Decisions on investment in roads should be contingent on analysis justifying how they contribute to the UK’s pathway to Net Zero. This analysis should demonstrate that the proposals would not lead to increases in overall emissions”. 2. The scheme would increase traffic. The benefits to Mottram (but not those on Market Street or near the new underpass) come at the expense of the rest of Longdendale and Glossopdale where traffic increases on many residential roads. This does not comply with national policies for climate change and modal shift to walking, cycling and public transport. 3. Air pollution improves for some households but for others nitrogen dioxide remains above the legal limit. The Air Quality Management Areas in Tintwistle and Glossop would remain. The Greater Manchester Clean Air Zone has been excluded from the air quality modelling therefore its impacts on traffic flows and routes have not been included in air pollution assessments of the scheme. 5. The scheme involves fragmentation, loss or displacement of diminishing wildlife habitats such as wet grazing meadows and of protected species, such as bats and barn owls. The impacts on the rich and diverse wildlife are minimised because species are considered only of ‘local value’. Local countryside, highly valued for its natural, undeveloped character and open views, would be urbanised and the Green Belt would be bisected. 6. Genuine solutions for congestion, air pollution and climate emissions should be pursued instead of building new road capacity – for example a ban on lorries, sustainable transport measures, and technological improvements. These measures would bring lasting benefits and avoid adverse impacts. Highways England rejected this option in 2015. Far reaching changes since then - as the climate crisis has come to the fore, the impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic, and a review of the Treasury’s rules to assess the value of roads - make scrutiny of this option essential. 7. The Peak District National Park is a haven for wildlife, carbon storage and a place where everyone can get outdoors and enjoy nature. More traffic on roads would harm these special qualities. National policy requires trunk road traffic to avoid National Parks. 8. The transport appraisal and modelling must be made available and scrutinised through the examination in order to ensure public confidence in the results. The modelling is based on data, assumptions and projections from before the Covid pandemic and must be updated to reflect recent and future levels of home-working and the shift towards virtual meetings."

Gale Blackburn
"This road will not solve the snarl up of traffic on Mottram Moor The governments road building schemes are by now most likely illegal under the Paris Climate Agreement and there can be no case for it now we are in a climate and ecological emergency. The State of Nature WWF report 2020 sets out the catastrophic impact that humanity is having upon the natural world. Building this road on the green space we have left eg Swallows Wood will impact upon it more."

Gareth Vaughan
"After the amount of tax already spent on this project over several years of planning, and the continuous building of housing in the High Peak, the amount of heavy goods traffic coming over the A57 to and from the M1 then YES I think the bypass needs to go ahead."

Gillian Mellor
"This relief road as been promised for many years and yet again some one wants to stop it. It would be a great improvement to the area as the air quality would improve and there wouldn't be the conjestion with the traffic as there is now. It is horrendous travelling on the road from Hadfield to the motorway the other side of Mottram Moor and sometimes the traffic backs up to Brookfield and further during peak times. The asset of this link road would be that it would ease conjestion but more important it would dramatically improve the air quality in the area and I fully support this prodject."

Graeme Shackleton
"I back the bypass because current traffic is really bad takes me an extra hour to get to work"

Graham Beaumont
"I feel that the land taken from me [redacted] will be excessive, And I do not wish to sell anymore land than that is needed for the link road to sit on only. I can understand that some land may be used during the build, but once the road is finished I want to retain all the remaining land on both sides of the road. I require this for my rescue animals such as two rescue dogs that i can not walk out in the park as they are reactive, so i need the land so they have a place to work of energy. Plus I need the land for grazing for the pony's. We have had pony's on the land as long as we have owned it."

Graham Preston
"To borrow a quote from the Chair of the Glossopdale Labour Party Branch [redacted] "Peter Allen, Chair of the Glossopdale Labour Party Branch, said: “Everybody recognises the dilemma people are in. On the one hand, you don’t want to oppose something that might help alleviate the tremendous problem. Traffic, noise and air pollution is the leading issue for most people in Glossop. But as we looked at the plan in more detail, as we have done, we have come to the view that this particular scheme as not going to help but actually going to make things worse.” In my experience a view shared by a lot of people I know who live and drive 'in' Glossop. So were the work to go ahead how will we measure its success? How would you measure its success? It may improve things for Mottram and Tintwhistle and more probably Charlesworth/Broadbottom as well but all this smooth running stream of traffic (incoming) on the Glossop spur will hit a buffer around Brookfield. Even with the current ‘rat runs’ from the M67 (eg: Broadbottom/Charlesworth/Dinting (/Simmondley) we have queues building up through town from Woolley Bridge. So if people no longer try to avoid the queue off the M67 it seems the traffic at Brookfield will increase. The queue will simply have been moved increasing problems for people in Glossop and along peripheral roads such as Dinting Rd and Derbyshire level. And then factor in people who 'realise' then can now zoom over the snake via the A57 rather than trundle over the 628 etc It may seem facetious but its worth remembering that Highways England or whatever they were called then, in a sense created this whole problem by upgrade work on the M1 and building the M67. Presumably leaving the bit in the middle till later. Note: None of this considers the wider environmental issues. We are addicted to our cars, motor vehicles produce significant pollution, contribute to climate change and can have a significant negative impact on peoples lives. Public transport is relatively neglected, zero support for pedestrians / cyclists. Assuming a large number of journeys from Glossop are commuting / shopping in the Gtr Manchester area wouldn’t it be better to spend this sort of money delivering a proper public transport system?"

Heather Rodrigues
"We Object to the Road being built, it will not help us in Tintwistle, we live on [redacted], which is currently 40 mph speed limit, which the HGV's don't normally do more like 6o MPH and when your pulling out your drive on a bend this is not safe, plus you pull up on to the curb to reverse into your Drive and get beeped at! The HGV should be made to use the M62 Motorway and the Quick route on the Woodhead Pass to be removed from Sat Navs. The Road that is intended to be built is going to cause more traffic more incidents if it is a 50MPH Speed Limit bear in mind you are going through the middle of Houses, The Wildlife in the area you intend to build this awful road is thriving we have Badgers Foxes and Deers that regular Visit the Local Area. Hollingworth/Mottram People already have Mottram Moor to live with and now you want to build another one which is not going to help the Flow of Traffic in the Local Area. We have people who will be loosing their houses or more still having to live in a house with 2 roads going past there houses. Rather than all this money being spent on a road (which isn't going to help) it might be a good place to start to make our Villages more safe, speed cameras lower speed limits no HGV. The crossing aren't safe you press it turns green to cross a HGV & Cars are still going through without stopping especially the Woodhead Crossing. Climate change is a big thing that needs to be helped we don't need another road to make this even worse. BAN HGV's Make the Road Safer !"

Ian Beckett
"This scheme will not decrease the overall traffic reduction through Mottram, Hollingworth and Tintwistle. This scheme only addresses Mottram and Mottram Moor road. Moving the bottle-neck from the end of the M67 to the A57 at Spring Tavern will not achieve this. The traffic infrastructure leaving Glossop has not been addressed since I relocated here in 1975 - in the meantime Glossop has seen a consistent growth in population and therefore the daily commuter traffic. The main A57 through Dinting and the town centre can already add 20 minutes to a journey. This spur will not alleviate this but increase volume further, I understand at least by 20% but possibly 40%. A recent survey lead by the Wythenshawe Lung Unit shows that Glossopdale is in the top 23 sites of the UK with deaths from lung cancer. More vehicle fumes will not improve this situation."

Jacqueline Corrigan
"Also, we need a Buxton bypass as well."

Jacquie Grace
"I do not believe that this link road will provide any immediate or long term benefit to either the road users or the residents of Mottram as it will not reduce the volume of traffic that use the A628 which is a major contributor to the volume of traffic on Mottram moor…. The loss of habitat the creation of two additional bottlenecks , at both roundabouts, will increase air pollution, not solve it . It will not reduce traffic use in Hollingworth or Tintwistle, in fact Govt data has modelled an increase in volume of traffic and as such, is environmentally damming and will affect the air quality for the villages ,place more pressure on already at capacity local networks."

James Michael Ward
"I visit the area at least once a month and enjoy using footpaths in the area to both get to where I need to and enjoy the surrounding countryside. Building this road will reduce the amount of countryside there is to enjoy. Building more roads is not a solution to existing traffic problems, as the new roads will fill up with more traffic, which will be used as a justification for building even more roads in the future. This is a vicious circle which needs nipping in the bud now. You should be investing in public transport including reopening the Woodhead railway line."

Jason Farrow
"1 - the proposed road will not relieve mottram Hollingworth and tintwistle from traffic congestion, who and why are you proposing a road that goes in the wrong direction and will increase traffic problems to Hollingworth and tintwistle? 2 - why are you compulsory purchasing more houses than essentially needed on old hall lane, Mottram? Why are you forcing families out of their homes? Also under valuing their properties? 3 - why are you proposing to cut down more trees than needed on old hall lane, mottram? 4 - why are you compulsory purchasing land that you will not need and will not be affected by your proposals? 5 - how will the south side of mottram show ground be accessed? 6 - why are you adding traffic lights that will cause congestion, eg - mottram moor junction, the original idea of a roundabout would work so much better, why have traffic start stopping unnecessarily especially at off peak time which will add to noise and pollution, 7 - this whole scheme is very poorly designed and will not serve the intended purpose, it will add to traffic chaos and have a severe and damaging effect on people's lives, It's my opinion that this proposed road should be abandoned with immediate effect, If you are going to build a road to relieve traffic you seriously need to take another look and reconsider this, it really is the wrong road going in the wrong direction, please please please put a stop to this now!"

Jeannette Thompson
"I travel regularly thro Mottram on my way to work in Mossley ...I have done this journey for over 40 odd years and the traffic, congestion /crawling traffic and consequent added pollution has been problematic for all of that time. A bypass has been also been talked about for much of that time. Surely , it is time to make some progress on this."

Jennifer Powell
"I am not convinced that the outlined proposal will satisfy many of the criteria for improvement in the following areas. 1. Certainly for the foreseeable future traffic appears likely to increase in key areas where it is already unfeasibly excessive such as at the approaches to and within Glossop and Tintwistle. 2. There is insufficient emphasis on the requirement to and measures actively and urgently to reduce traffic. 3. An inevitable consequence of any increase in traffic for whatever length of time will be an increase in emissions - areas such as Dinting Vale, Tintwistle and Glossop are in urgent need of remedial action to reduce the daily pollution of residential streets. 4. There is likely to be major disruption to the ecology of the area surrounding the bypasses with a consequent deterioration in air and land quality.. 5. There should be priority given to improving the provision of alternative forms of transport with the aim of removing lorries and cars from the road rather than encourage further use by improving facilities for them as distinct from residents and other transport-users. 6. I should like to see funding re-allocated to improving the above points rather than in shoring up road networks the benefits of which are questionable in light of current thinking."

Jeroen Peters
"Having taken account of all the data models and traffic predictions, I do not believe that it is justified to spending the proposed budget. The benefits are just too small what, in effects is only to move a problem. While Glossop clearly and urgently needs and upgraded and modern infrastructure, this proposal is just not the answer but merely a temporary sticking plaster. Poor value for money in an era where we need to find new solutions for different times rather than this."

John Scarry
"I fully support the proposed Glossop spur road and bypass. The through HGV traffic in the the area and the other vehicles is killing the area especially Hadfield,Tintwhistle, Hollingworth and Mottram with pollution of air and noise. Delays become worse every day with traffic queuing from Mottram back to Woodhead in one direction and from Hollingworth to Hyde v the M67 in the other."

John Stubbs
"I oppose the construction of the A57 Link Roads on the following grounds: 1 increased traffic generated by the construction of these roads, is likely to adversely affect Bamford through increased traffic flows through the village 2 increased traffic noise and air pollution through Bamford stemming from the extra traffic generated. 3 the seriousness of the climate change problem and the urgent need to reduce CO2 emissions for which a reduction in road transport is essential. 4 fragmentation of the Tameside Green Belt 5 lack of consideration of alternative to road construction to reduce road traffic levels"

Jon Whitley
"1. The National Park area already suffers from excessive traffic. It would be hard to argue that the A57 links will not add to this problem. 2. It’s widely acknowledged that adding to a road network only serves to reduce congestion for a short period. Motorists have a level of tolerance for congestion (which is arguably rising over the long term) and so traffic will naturally increase to fill any new road capacity until congestion levels match or exceed those experienced today. The resultant cost will be that that level is reached with increased road traffic, flying in the face of the National Planning Policy Framework which requires ‘radical reductions of greenhouse gas emissions’. Add to that the carbon cost of building the infrastructure and destruction of any natural habitat unlucky enough to be in the way. 3. The budget for this scheme necessarily comes at the expense of other schemes (particularly transport schemes) which could be part of the solution for the National Planning Policy Framework rather than a part of the problem. 4. That this scheme appears to be so much in contravention of the Climate Change Act opens the opportunity for a strong legal challenge should it proceed. Following this route puts in jeopardy not only the cost of the development but also the cost of mounting a legal defense and potentially any reparations in the event of a legal loss. This is not a good use of tax payer funds."

Karl Wheeler
"This must be done to ease congestion caused by the number of houses built in the area"

Katie Fielding
"As a Glossop resident, I think that the proposed A57 Link Roads scheme should not go ahead. The resins for this are, in summary: 1) it will lead to more traffic in the area overall; 2) it will lead to an increase in CO2 emissions, when as a country we urgently need to reduce these emissions to net zero; 3) it will cause an increase in air pollution overall in the local area; 4) it will lead to further loss of valuable natural habitat, and further depletion of wildlife and loss of biodiversity in the local area; 5) it is likely to cause further damage to the Peak District National Park."

Kenneth Hardman
"Travel by road from Glossop westwards via the A57 to and from the M67 is typified by long queues of vehicles throughout the day, which causes high levels of pollution, and lengthy time delays in actual journeys. The problem is exacerbated by high levels of vehicles evident daily at the A57/628 'Gun Inn' junction with large car and lorry traffic flows using the Woodhead Pass and local 'rat-runs' via Tintwistle to avoid the congestion linked to access to and egress from Glossop. The proposed Hollingworth/Mottram Bypass would significantly decrease the present negative consequences of high volumes of traffic flows from, and through, the Glossop area, which, additionally, are increasing by excessive growth of new-build housing estates without consideration of local relevant infrastructural provision."

Leona Cassell
"There will be no relief for Tintwistle as the proposed road doesn't bypass the village, I believe the traffic will increase which will mean more carbon emissions at a time when everyone recognises that emissions need to be reduced dramatically, more traffic, more air pollution. Heavy traffic, noise and pollution will continue blight residents lives."

Lisa Stansfield
"This bypass should go ahead to cut down on traffic jams and air pollution."

M Ashley
"I lived in Hollingworth 40 years ago and traffic was very heavy then. Now it is much worse with queuing heavy goods vehicles, buses and cars belching fumes. The air quality and constant noise suffered by residents must be both unpleasant and injurious to health, not to mention the rat runs in surrounding areas caused by these jams. For members of the Labour Party to oppose plans to alleviate these problems is appalling. It is political point-scoring of the worst kind."

Maggie Deakin
"I have lived in this village since 1985, with a short break between 1988-1992. Thirty two years in total, after removing the 4 year break. I have the traffic increase over these years. It used to be that Monday-Friday, mainly during rush hours periods, the almost grid lock situations would be happening. But as the years have passed there is no longer any let up. This now only happens for specific reasons, Woodhead is closed, for acidents, roadworks or weather. The weekends are no longer quieter. The introduction of the 35A exit on the M1 and small Manchester sign, have contributed significantly to the increase in traffic through the village. If there are any problems on the M62, this increases the traffic along this route. There is a primary school on the main road, Market Street, the levels of pollution will no doubt effect the health of many, but specifically, children playing out exposed to traffic fumes, every break and lunch period. The houses on the Market Street are filthy, residents constantly need to clean their windows and doors due to the dirt and dust generated by this constant heavy and slow moving traffic. When I lived on Highfield Gardens, my daughter was run over at the age of 16 years, thrown into the air and landing onto the bonnet smashing the window screen at the point of contact with her head, outside the One Stop, then Healds, when the slow moving traffic, resulted in a vehicle pulling out of the queue, driving the wrong direction, onto the opposite/wrong side of the road to get outside the shop. The stationary traffic had resulted in a hgv driver kindly, leaving a very big space in front of his lorry and allowing her to cross, she was only looking to her left for oncoming traffic into the village heading out towards Woodhead, as expected. She did not expect a vehicle to come from her right out of the stationary queue, driving in the wrong direction on that side of the road. She is just one of many casulties in this village. I witnessed a child being run over on the pelican crossing outside the school, when a car failed to stop in time, when the lights were on red. It is appalling, that people have to put up with this situation day in, day out. And this will only get worse as the house building increases in Glossop, Hadfield and Tintwistle. Without the necessary infrastructure, they'll be longer, lengthier queues, many more numbers of people with health problems, many more casulties, pedestrians and drivers/passengers, and quality of life will deteriorate even more. Drastic action is required now, not later. As I write this another 52 houses are being built in Hollingworth. A large number of houses are being built on various new estates in Glossop. It's hard to believe the situation could be any worse, but inevitably all these new houses will increase the existing problem to worse than the current unbearable."

Malcolm Taylor
"I have lived in Hadfield since 1994 and have seen he growth of traffic through both Personal use and HGV's through the villages of Hadfield, Tintswistle and Hollingworth over the years. The growth of these villages and the town of Glossop with new housing developments and planned developments for the future, require the by-pass that has been proposed to be agreed and actioned now. The increase of CO2 gas from the vehicles in these villages is also now becoming a possible environmental and health concern not to mention the economical impact in addition. We have been waiting for the bypass for years, the residents of all the surrounding villages want this to happen."

Margaret Hopkinson
"I fully support this project however I do think if it by passes Tintwistle and Hollingworth, then it would provide a better solution to all the extra traffic which has increased over the years."

Marjorie Saggerson
"The residents of Glossop have been waiting years for a by-pass which is long overdue. Instead more and more houses are being built without any thought of ways of getting out which has caused long queues of traffic delays at all times. Without a bypass the Council should not permit any more housing developments!"

Mel Hammond
"Glossop needs the bypass due to the extensive new housing developments being built and the associated congestion it brings. This congestion in its depth and complexity has grown over the 50 yrs the local residents have had to endure let alone the through heavy vehicles and their drivers frustration. To prevent this bypass going ahead is totally illogical."

Meriel Lindsay Boyd
"The proposed A57 link road will only divert the heavy traffic from Mottram Moor. It will have no effect on the heavy traffic and air pollution on the A628 Woodhead Pass through the villages of Hollingworth, Tintwistle and Crowden, where I reside. There will still be heavy traffic on the A628 as well as heavy traffic on the main street through Glossop Town Centre. Indeed of some traffic follows the bypass and wants to get over Woodhead Pass, it will go via the B6105, Woodhead Road, which is not built for heavy traffic and HGVs. The way the bypass takes traffic into Glossop Town Centre will encourage more heavy traffic over the A628 Woodhead Pass as drivers will not want to sit in the traffic jams which already exist there. The plans are very narrow in their thinking as they do not consider the impact on the adjoining areas. The link road cuts into green belt, reducing wildlife habitats. The increase in traffic on the A628 will also have an impact on wildlife and their habitat, not to mention excessive pollution"

Michael Jones
"On this occassion, I believe that the new road will be good for the environment, preventing the ever present congestion and resultant pollution. We will soon all be driving electric cars and the argument that new roads cause greater pollution will no longer be relevant. It will also be good for the local economy, allowing an easier commute into Manchester and improve the links between Manchester and Sheffield - an important part of the 'levelling-up' agenda."

Moemen Metwally
"As a resident of Glossop a bypass is needed to permit traffic between South Yorkshire and the North West (not just Sheffield and Manchester) to travel safely without navigating narrow streets and infringing on the residents quality of life."

Savills (UK) Ltd (Savills (UK) Ltd) on behalf of Mr D Radford
"Dear Sir/ Madam, I write on behalf of Mr. D Radford the freehold owners of part of the land affected by the A57 upgrade – land registry reference GM306567. The site comprises part of the central area of the proposed link road and abuts Carrhouse Lane. We support the principle of the A57 bypass, albeit have comments in respect of route alignment in the interests of avoiding sterilising land with development potential. The main points of which were as follows: - Support in principle - The need to move the road alignment southwards to avoid the potential development site. - The need to move the attenuation areas southwards to the east of the site outside my client’s land. We wish to register our interest and maintain close engagement with the DCO process. Kind Regards, Rob Moore MRICS MRTPI"

National Trust
"Introduction National Trust is a conservation charity with a membership of more than 5 million people. We are legally responsible for the protection of some of the most beautiful and environmentally sensitive places in England. Within the Peak District National Park, we own and manages a wide range of landscapes and their related flora and fauna, from open moorland, limestone gorges, edges and cloughs to enclosed farmland. Much of this land is of international importance for biodiversity and is designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest, Special Protection Areas, and Special Areas of Conservation. National Trust owns large areas of land on either side of the A57 Snake Pass as it travels through the Peak District. As well as passing through highly designated land, this road is essential to our operation, providing access for National Trust tenants to the land they farm and manage, as well as to their homes. The Snake Pass is a challenging road on which accidents occur, parts of which are also subject to land stability issues. Summary National Trust has concerns about the likely increase in traffic over the A57 Snake Pass through the sensitive environment of the Peak District. We are keen to see measures employed to restrain traffic on the Snake Pass while also reducing environmental impacts and/or delivering biodiversity enhancements. Key issues We are concerned about the modelled traffic increase on the Snake Pass and associated impacts on the statutory purposes and special qualities of the Peak District, for example impacts on tranquillity, access/recreation and biodiversity. We are concerned about detrimental effects on the biodiversity of the Peak District as a result of worsening air quality along the Snake Pass, which passes through designated sites. We would wish the applicant to carefully consider and address this issue. We will examine the findings of the Environmental Statement and Habitats Regulations Assessment in relation to these issues. We are concerned about the modelled increase in accident risk on the Snake Pass. This, and ongoing land stability issues, pose a risk to the operations of National Trust staff and tenants. Mitigation and enhancement We believe that the applicant should be proposing measures to disincentivise cross-park traffic on the A57, and to ameliorate its impacts, for example traffic restraint/technology measures such as tolling/charging, reduction of speed limits or average speed checks, subject to visual impact. Such measures would have multiple interrelated benefits such as: reduced impacts on the National Park, reduced accident rates, improved air quality and a reduction in nitrogen deposition. We are keen to see mitigation, compensation and/or environmental enhancement to counter the impacts of the scheme on designated sites. National Trust land adjacent to the Snake Pass may offer a potential receptor site for such measures and we would welcome the opportunity to engage more fully with the applicant. We also wish to see ongoing monitoring of traffic and air quality along the Snake Pass to ensure that the impacts of the scheme are understood, with triggers to implement additional mitigation if necessary."

Neil Best
"1. This does not resolve the issue of traffic flowing across between Manchester and Sheffield. It simply redistributes part of it through small village communities that will suffer as a result. I live on the rat run that is Woolley Bridge Road, seeing high volumes of speeding and articulated traffic for which the road is ill equipped. This is predicated to increase and will cause misery for householders in the area who already have to queue regularly to exit their own drives. Pollution is appalling along this route and will only worsen with the current proposals. The only solution is a complete rethink and full bypass, not this rather half hearted, poorly considered compromise."

Nicholas jenkinson
"Due to me working in Manchester I regularly travel up & down Mottram Moor & the M67. I have too time my journeys too work too avoid the rush hour traffic. This can add 30-60 minutes to my working day. Also this can add a hour worth of pollution to the atmosphere while I'm sat in traffic. Please build the bypass this has been going on for 50 years now. Please do the right thing. Regards Mr N Jenkinson."

Noelle Arnfield
"I object to the proposed development of the A57 link as the proposed plan will increase the flow of traffic through Glossop thus impacting further on the level of air pollution in the valley. Additionally during the evening rush hour and at weekends when motorists are accessing the Peak District National park via Glossop, which is known as the gateway to the Peak District, the road traffic is currently tailed back from the town centre for a distance of approximately one and a half miles. The afore mentioned tailback will be extended due to the predicted increase of traffic flow through Glossop, once again increasing air pollution levels and extending travel times in the area."

Udo Pope on behalf of Peak and Northern Footpaths Society
"PNFS objects to the A57 Link Roads Scheme for the following reasons: 1. The adverse effect that the Scheme would have on users of the six footpaths that would be partially stopped up and diverted by the Scheme, both in terms of its effect on the views from those footpaths and the change to the character of those footpaths. In particular, the generally quiet and rural nature of those footpaths will be irretrievably changed. 2. In most cases walkers on those six footpaths would be required to pass through underpasses likely to be perceived as ugly and intimidating. PNFS would prefer appropriate footbridges to be provided closer to the current routes of those footpaths, as requested by PNFS during the consultation carried out in November/December 2020. 3. The adverse effect of the Scheme on the views from other footpaths in the vicinity of the Scheme, for example the views in an Easterly direction from footpath number 93 in Longdendale and the views in a South Westerly direction from bridleway number 108, also in Longdendale. 4. The increased traffic noise that is likely to be audible to people walking on the six diverted footpaths, as well as other footpaths in the immediate vicinity of the Scheme. 5. The adverse effect on people using public rights of way or walking on access land (in terms of both noise and visual intrusion) caused by the increase in traffic expected to result from the Scheme on the A628 through Longdendale and the A57 Snake Pass. The expected increase of approximately 38% in Annual Average Daily Traffic using the Snake Pass (see Appendix 2.1 of the Environmental Statement), amounting to 1,150 additional vehicles per day in 2025 (including 115 HGVs), would be particularly damaging in that regard. 6. The Environmental Statement’s assessment of the visual impact of the Scheme on views from public rights of way is considered inadequate. In particular, the Statement concludes that, 15 years after opening of the new roads, there would be “residual significant effects” on the views from only five footpaths (see section 7.9.63 of Chapter 7). PNFS rejects this conclusion. By way of example, those five footpaths do not include footpath number 93 in Longdendale. The magnitude of the effect on the view from that footpath (after 15 years) is stated by the Environmental Statement (see page 87 of Appendix 7.1, item V-P-10) to be only “Minor Adverse” and the significance of that effect is stated to be only “Slight Adverse”. As it is clear that walkers on LON/93 would have a panoramic view of the new single carriageway road (in place of the current view of green fields) and as the Year 15 photomontage of the view from the nearby “Viewpoint 8” (see sheet 21 of Figure 7.9v) shows that traffic on parts of the new road would be clearly visible from that viewpoint, this conclusion seems incomprehensible."

Peter Beard
"I am strongly in favour of the A 57 Link roads project. We need a bypass because of pollution from dense standing or slow moving traffic. Some days the queue takes 30 minutes to pass through Motram lights, in either direction. You can smell the fumes in the car even with the windows shut. For most journeys there is no viable rail alternative unless you are going to Manchester. The traffic queue can add 30 minutes on a journey to Stalybridge, or Barnsley, or Cheadle! The lack of a bypass is stunting the growth and development of Glossop, both cultural and economic. When I moved to Glossop in 1978 I was told the bypass had been promised for the last 20 years. It's time the promise is made good."

Peter Knowles
"The bypass has been needed for years. The road queues in the surrounding area are time-wasting and frustrating for all motorists and also, as we are realising, bad for air quality. Must go ahead now that funding has been agreed."

Peter Lea
"Bypass well and truly well overdue. No more delays please"

Philip Bennett
"I lived in Hadfield for eleven years comuting between home Stockport, Ashton and Manchester daily finding the volume of trafic and the problems they caused intolerable not only to regular users on Motram Moor but to a great extent to emergency vehicles. I now live in Buxton but still visit Hadfield to help a friend travel to hospital."

Philip Hinchliff
"If this helps just 1% then at least its doing something because the roads around the area are shocking obviously they all need to lead up to building the bypass and linking up with it .also having a bypass built isn't a bad for the surrounding area as if you look at bypasses built in other areas with nature took into account the areas have seen wildlife increase +10% and that's not a bad thing is it"

R Blair
"Having lived in the area for 30+ years I have experienced an increase in volume of traffic. This leads to extended periods of time where traffic is at a standstill or extremely slow moving. The by-pass has been promised for years and is a necessary addition to the local infrastructure to go some way to dealing with the problem."

Raimond Burgess
"This section of highway is traffic congested most times of the day for the sake of the residents and the environmental waste of fuel something should be done."

Richard Gibson
"I think the link road is a good idea and is long overdue . Anything to help the current terrible traffic situation is a must"

Robert Faulkner
"Far from easing the load, the scheme would increase traffic, especially to Glossop. At a time when we are trying to cut emissions, the extra traffic would increase them. This would adversely affect the quality of air for our residents, especially the children. There would be a negative effect on wildlife in the area, which includes the Peak National Park, which should be protected not put at risk in this way."

Ruth Pothecary
"I object to these By Pass for numerous reasons some of which are below: 1) The consultation appears incomplete and seriously flawed and was certainly not addressed to a sufficiently large enough area or populace. 2) The funding for this project should be spent on improving Public transport, cycleways and pedestrian access. This would help to properly address the climate emergency rather than add to emissions. 3) The project will only move road network issues from area to another: a known and recognized outcome for such schemes. 4) The scheme by its existence goes against our policies which aim to reduce pollution and effects detrimental to the stability of the globe's climate. 5) Existing studies show that accidents will increase because of this venture and not necessarily just on the by-pass. 6) The detrimental effects on flora and fauna, the green belt and National Park is/has not been justified. The preliminary work relating to and investigating same has not been properly carried out it appears. 7) The existing road network is overstretched, poorly maintained and constantly subject to delays which cost millions (accidents etc.) while adding to carbon emissions. It makes sense to try and reduce road usage (by cars at least) and invest in other clean means of transport for people and goods. Thank you."

Ruth Terry
"I think the proposed plans will not significantly change the traffic problem we have on glossop. With the increase of houses being built there will be a larger population trying to move around which will continue to cause traffic issues."

Sarah Beard
"I support the building of the Mottram Bypass and Glossop Spur road. I believe that the Glossop Spur will help to reduce congestion especially at Woolley Bridge and Mottram. It will also reduce the amount of traffic using Charlesworth, Broadbottom and Old Glossop as a rat run. Air quality in built up areas should improve as less traffic will be travelling there. Hopefully journey times will be quicker as traffic should be flowing more freely"

Karen Burgess on behalf of Skin Solutions Clinic
"This section of highway is traffic congested most times of the day for the sake of the residents and the environmental waste of fuel something should be done. Hours of extra journey time for locals and commuters"

Stephen Bagshaw
"1. Adverse landscape and visual impacts. 2. Loss of Open Access Land. 3. Threat to PDNP. A Trojan Horse for a Motorway by stealth 4. Threat to wildlife, conservation and the natural environment. 5. Viable and realistic alternatives such as a Gyratory Flow system around Mottram, lorry bans etc too easily dismissed by a road centric organisation. 6. Loss of Mottram Showground. 7. Threatens to increase traffic not lessen it by making it a more attractive route, storing up further problems for the future. 8. Air quality, vibration, light and noise pollution set to worsen in many affected areas. 9. Increase in CO2 emissions. 10. Will disconnect communities still further by creating more roads. 11. Will lead to more housing between Spring Tavern and Mottram Moor, blurring distinction between communities and adding more traffic to the area. 12. Delivers no benefit for Hollingworth, Tintwistle or the High Peak. 13. Transforms Mottram from a semi-rural community to an urbanised mass of concrete. 14. Scheme is short sighted, lacking in imagination and offers little or no benefit to the area. A jobs-for-the-boys creation scheme from a non-neutral organisation."

Sue Moyes
"The spur road will make no difference, the congestion will just be moved somewhere else. All heavy transport should be banded from taking the short cut rough Hollingsworth and Tintwistle to get to the M1 as it affects so many lives in these villages which were never meant for such traffic, once this situation is solved and the heavy lorries directed up the M62 to the M1 the congestion on the roads through the above villages and Glossop will be resolved. The spur road in time will show that it has not impact on congestion and a complete waste of tax payers money."

Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council
"Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council wishes to register to participate in the examination regarding the application by Highways England for an Order Granting Development Consent for the A57 Link Roads scheme (previously known as the Trans-Pennine Upgrade). The A57 Link Roads scheme broadly supports the aim of the Tameside Corporate Plan to ensure modern infrastructure and a sustainable environment and the policy aims of the Council’s Inclusive Growth Strategy (2021) and the Council’s growth priorities. The current scheme has evolved over more than 50 years as alternative ideas have been explored to address the heavy congestion on the A57 and A628 strategic roads between Manchester and Sheffield, currently resulting in unreliable journeys, poor air and noise quality and a general blight on communities.. The Council is currently finalising its Local Impact Report (LIR) against the headings noted below: - Economic Growth and Transportation, especially around: o Existing key businesses in and around the A57 including the Hattersley, Mottram, Hollingworth and local area; o Existing and potential strategic Housing Sites in the local area to include areas around Hattersley, Hyde and Godley Green; o The proposed Bredbury Industrial Estate on the Tameside/ Stockport boundary; o The effects of the initiative on land values / commercial property rental values at employment sites in and around the A57 as noted above; o Existing areas of underutilised economic development potential along the A57 corridor; o The benefits of the new initiative forming the first stage of a wider road programme around Mottram, Hollingworth and Tintwistle. - Noise and Vibration - Geology, Soil and Ground Condition as a result of the proposed scheme - Material impacts on the scheme - Air Quality especially linking in with the developing Greater Manchester Clean Air Plan - Landscape and Visual Impacts - Archaeology and Cultural Heritage - Ecological and Nature Conservation - Road Drainage and Water Quality - Construction Traffic - Road Safety Once completed the LIR will be submitted to the examination to enable the Council to give further details of the likely positive and negative impacts of the proposed development in Tameside."

Thomas Hopkins
"The mottram bypass is long overdue and very much needed. It had been proven that it will reduce congestion through Glossop and must go ahead. Please proceed with my permission. Also, please ignore the high peak labour party who are going against the plans just because the current conservative mp is backing the plans and it is close to getting done. Don't make it a political decision."

Thomas Wheeler
"There is a clear conflict between the Government’s policies on transport and climate change. On transport, they are promoting schemes such as this one which would encourage the use of private cars by making car journeys easier and quicker, thereby increasing greenhouse gas emissions. The construction of new roads also involves massive greenhouse gas emissions for example from the machinery used to build the road and in the manufacture of the concrete/tarmac used for the road surface. Many of these schemes would also destroy valuable wildlife habitat and carbon ‘sinks’ in the form of hedgerows and woodland. On climate change, the Government has committed to reducing emissions by 78% by 2035 and to net-zero by 2050. Transport Secretary Grant Shapps has indicated that, as part of the necessary move to a low-carbon society, “we will use our cars less”. It is often argued that major roads need additional lanes to accommodate increasing traffic – however, as Grant Shapps indicated, decarbonisation requires a reduction in traffic. This removes any argument that additional capacity is required. At best building this new road would be a waste of money and of our limited carbon budget. At worst it would induce additional traffic, meaning that the Government fails in its ambitions to reduce car use and greenhouse gas emissions, and I consider this to be the more-likely outcome of proceeding with this scheme. The Climate Change Committee has advised that the Government’s current policies are not sufficient to meet the above decarbonisation targets. The Government will therefore have to “introduce more challenging measures” to avoid missing these objectives. It is my view that cancelling road expansion projects such as this will be required to achieve the necessary reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. I therefore object to this scheme in its entirety on the grounds that it would increase greenhouse gas emissions, both in the short and long term, is not consistent with the Government’s decarbonisation policies and is likely to damage wildlife habitats. Since the Government’s decarbonisation commitments are enshrined in law, proceeding with this scheme is potentially unlawful and the project should therefore be terminated at the earliest possible opportunity."

Tim Ibbotson
"I think the bypass should go ahead. It is vital to the local community"

William Mather
"I don't see how spending near £300million on a road to bypass a few houses is worth it as traffic will not be any better infact I think it will be worse e.g. high lane A6 with the new airport link road. The new road will speed up traffic when on it west but traffic will be queued up trying to get on it pushing traffic further back into Glossop and then after it will just join the Denton traffic on the end of the m67 so travel times won't be that much different to what they are now. East bound traffic will just queue at the new light system going across or onto Mottram Road and even if it did fliw better more traffic would use it so more traffic would be going through Tintwistle. I don't think this is the answer even as a part 1 of a project, I think its going to bring in more traffic and more pollution in the area and £300million can be spent more wisely, traffic will always be there all you are doing is pushing it onto another road"

Yasir Hayat
"I am opposed to the plans. While there are lots of people who would like to see traffic issues resolved, I do not think this is the right way to do it. There are many people who live in the Glossop and Mottram areas because of the natural beauty of the area. I along with many others do not want to see this destroyed in order to build new roads which will lead to more traffic. I also do not believe the consultation was conducted fairly and properly. It should not have been held during the COVID-19 pandemic and should have been delayed. Many people who will be affected by the scheme were not given a fair opportunity to have their say as they were dealing with the impacts of the virus. I believe the scheme was preconceived with little attention given to viable alternatives. The information provided by Highways England is not in a format that is easily digestible by the general public. It does not set out clear aims and does not provide any evidence that it will work."

Abigail Roberts
"The link road will not make any difference to Tintwistle and the surrounding villages. Which are currently plagued by extremely high volumes of traffic. In particular HGVS. The planned new route does not bypass these villages especially Tintwistle where I live. New Road is often gridlocked by vehicles trying to find a short cut off the Woodhead. The new link road needs to by pass the area. It will also bring more traffic into Glossop. The decision has been made by men in suits who have no knowledge of the area."

Alison Roberts
"The proposed bypass A57 Links road, will only force more traffic to the Glossop area on the current A57. The congestion all the way from Glossop has increased 10 fold in the last 5 years. It also does not address the villages of Hollingworth and Tintwistle, it will still force heavy weight vehicles and traffic through these villages. They are dangerous and huge polluters. Currently, during evening rush hour East bound traffic is backing up from past New Road all the way to the M67...this will not change. I live on New Road which is becoming more dangerous each day, due to HGVs coming off the Woodhead Road to avoid the delays ahead, again the proposed bypass will not remove this. The simplest and most cost effective way to deal with the volume of traffic and levels of pollution, is to introduce a weight limit from The Gunn Inn (access only excluded) ensuring all HGVs and larger vehicles use the M62 as a trans pennine route. Anyone living here will know how bad the situation is and how disappointing it was to find out the bypass would no longer include Tintwistle. Thank you"

Allan Greenwood
"There are vehicles passing within a few feet of peoples front doors. We have seen queuing traffic for miles over the A628. All you need is accident on the M62 and it causes chaos. How the Glossop spur is going to relieve congestion is beyond me. All the villages on the Yorkshire side have been bypassed. (Stockbridge Deepcar) For 40 years we have been told (every election time) we will get a bypass, it’s about time it happened. ?"

Amy Butler
"Traffic is predicted to increase. More traffic means more carbon emissions, at a time when nearly everyone recognises that emissions need to be reduced dramatically, to prevent runaway climate change. More traffic also means more air pollution, and more accidents There will be no relief for Tintwistle . The proposed road doesn’t bypass the village. Heavy traffic, noise and pollution will continue to blight residents’ lives. It doesn’t have to be like this. A ban on through traffic of lorries across the Peak Park, 20s plenty, more space for pedestrians and cyclists, travel planning, and better rail and bus services would address the current situation without road building and give great value for money."

Anne Robinson
"I object to the scheme: National Highways has not considered the future purpose of the trans-Pennine route in its entirety within the changed circumstances since its 2015 assessment of options. Its plans are in disarray. They have been downgraded from a tunnel under the National Park, to over-ground dualling, to single carriageway improvements (a bypass of Hollingworth and Tintwistle; Woodhead climbing lanes). With 12 miles lying in the National Park and many more in its setting, the future of this route should not be addressed piecemeal in chunks that National Highways thinks it can progress; because each piece will fuel demand for the next piece. The future of this entire route between the M67 and the M1, passing through internationally protected wildlife sites and carbon sinks, should be reset to address the top strategic priorities – the climate and nature emergencies, fulfilment of National Park statutory purposes and improvement of the environment for all the local communities. I urge the Examination to make the reset happen now, before the A57 Link Roads progress any further. Alternative options which were prematurely and inappropriately rejected should now be appraised. They would avoid the following impacts: • Carbon emissions increase – by 399,867 tonnes of carbon dioxide over 60 years. Radical reductions are required by NPPF, Climate Change Act 2008, UK’s 6th Carbon Budget and commitments to Paris Agreement. • Traffic increases – on many residential and rural roads, and through villages. National policy requires modal shift to walking, cycling and public transport. • Road collision increases – on the wider network and particularly the Snake Pass are contrary to national and local policies. • Communities severed - Hollingworth, Tintwistle, Crowden, Langsett and communities further east along the trans-Pennine route would continue to endure the intimidating and toxic environment of heavy through traffic. • AQMA objectives jeopardised – NO2 levels remain above the legal limit in Hollingworth in the GM AQMA, but have not been assessed in the Tintwistle AQMA and only partially assessed for the Dinting Vale AQMA. Greater Manchester’s Clean Air Zone could lead to traffic diverting to avoid paying the toll, creating congestion and air pollution elsewhere. • Harm to Peak District National Park – statutory purposes require it to be conserved and enhanced; increases in cross-Park traffic would erode its special qualities and enjoyment of them by the public. National policy requires trunk road traffic to avoid the Park. • High risk of flooding – at Brookfield and from the Mottram Moor underpass has yet to be fully addressed. • Biodiversity - Impacts on the rich and diverse wildlife are minimised because species are considered only of ‘local value’. • Local countryside blighted - highly valued and enjoyed for its natural undeveloped character, open views and distinctive cultural features, it would be urbanised. • Unacceptable development in the Green Belt - with no ‘very special circumstances’ to allow it. • High noise levels – remain for several communities and those enjoying the outdoors. All of the above rely on the traffic modelling. Traffic data appears inconsistent. The anomalies need interrogating. The actual impacts of the scheme may be worse."

Anthony Rae
"As a transport and climate campaigner who works at the local, regional, sub-national transport body (Transport for the North) and national levels, the issues I will wish to include within a written representation to be considered by an Examination principally relate to the additional carbon emissions that will be generated as a result of this scheme, and also the additional road traffic. As a member of the DfT/TfN reference group previously considering the possibility of a trans-Pennine tunnel there may also be issues relating to the scheme’s strategic context and justification. I have reviewed the outline information prepared by CPRE concerning potential climate change impacts: ‘Over 60 years of operation the scheme would add an extra 399,867 tonnes of carbon dioxide. Over a lifetime of 100 years, one tree absorbs around 1 tonne of carbon dioxide but we cannot wait for nearly 400,000 trees to grow for a hundred years. Carbon emissions must be tested against international and national legislation and guidance including the Paris Agreement, the 2008 Climate Change Act’s legally binding target of net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, the UK Sixth Carbon Budget, science-based carbon budgets from the Tyndall Centre, and the National Planning Policy Framework which requires ‘radical reductions of greenhouse gas emissions’. The potential for an additional 400,000tonnes CO2 needs to be understood in the context of i) the appropriate local transport decarbonisation objectives and targets; ii) the targets of the TfN decarbonisation strategy; iii) the proposed emissions reduction pathway of the DfT transport decarbonisation plan (TDP); and iv) the transport emissions pathway identified by the Climate Change Committee in their 6th carbon budget report. In the context where transport emissions at both local and national levels have not reduced significantly below the 1990 baseline level for the Climate Change Act, have stayed level or even increased in the 5 year period up to 2019 (pre-covid), and are taking up an ever increasing share of local and national carbon budgets, then it’s imperative that the potential carbon generation impact of the scheme is rigourously scrutinised against local/regional/national targets for radical transport decarbonisation. Since at the present time the results of the consultation on the TfN strategy had not yet been published, and the dataset underpinning the TDP has not yet been released, it will be necessary to review the scheme’s impact in relation to those strategic frameworks at a later date. It will also be necessary to understand the outputs and validity of the traffic generation modelling, which within the Trans-Pennine tunnel working process were never adequately revealed."

CS,JJ & WE Bower on behalf of C Bower & Sons Ltd
"As a director of C Bower & Sons Ltd I am concerned about severance of land from the remainder of its landholdings and, more particularly, how the severed land will be accessed for continuing agricultural purposes. We have been given no precise details about the current proposals so have been left with no alternative other than to follow this procedure. There are also concerns about the area of land being taken for the proposed scheme."

Chris Cuff
"The link roads will generate more traffic and carbon emissions."

Christine Jolly
"I wish to support the Mottram Bypass to decrease congestion along Woolley Lane and Mottram Moor. Additionally to decrease traffic fumes affecting houses along the A628 through Tintwistle"

CS, JJ & WE Bower on behalf of CS,JJ & WE Bower
"We have serious concerns about the impact of the scheme on our business from a viability point of view. There are implications for the running and practicality of the business from a severance point of view. We have serious reservations about the new access provisions for the business which have not been discussed in any detail with us. They were discussed in outline nearly twelve months ago but nobody has had the courtesy since to refer the detail to us: these plans are the first that we have seen with the new access proposals and are not detailed enough for us to make any meaningful decisions. We feel very strongly that far too much land is being taken for the wrong purpose, and that the overall scheme does not address the underlying issues in the area."

Daniel Wimberley
"PREAMBLE The case for this scheme is pitifully weak. If the panel were to recommend its construction and the Secretary of State were to give the go-ahead, it is wide open to legal challenge (see section LEGAL below). It has been 50 years in the making , which in itself suggests something is wrong. It is a road looking for a reason. However, the environmental gains in the built-up areas implied by HE in the consultation are now revealed to be worse than non-existent while the reflected glory and supposed benefits of being a “Trans-Pennine Upgrade” scheme depends on future plans to go over (politically problematic, if not impossible) or to go under (financially improbable) the Pennines. ISSUES OF DISAGREEMENT 1 Confusion about the scope and purpose of the scheme 50 years in the making suggest deep-seated problems with this scheme. This needs to be explored – just what is the problem (or problems)? The proposers tell us little about the history of this scheme (see TAR 1.4.4 – 1.4.6, which does not link to any further explanation so I assume there isn’t one.) In particular the proposers HE seem to imply benefits for the scheme from other yet to be formulated, yet to be consulted on “gleams-in-the-eye” sections. These should be excluded from consideration by the EiP. 1a Aims of the scheme It was hard for me to find these amongst the consultation documents – in a form that is where they were operational things which could be defined and measured and not “wishes”. I will, and the panel should, create a list of what the aims actually are, distilled from the documents of HE and then consider the big question: what is the most cost-effective, user – friendly etc. way of meeting these aims – and is it this scheme? Or does the scheme really not pass this test? 2 History of the scheme and road alternatives to the option being put forward On the face of it the scheme i.a. funnels traffic through Tintwistle and Longdendale and therefore increases traffic nuisances in these two settlements. Why was the option including a bypass for these two settlements not taken forward and offered for consultation? 3 government policy on climate change The consultation hardly referred to this aspect at all. This is odd when climate change and its ramifications are the defining issue of our time and when government policy and guidance evolves almost monthly on this, and always in the direction of firmer tackling of the Climate Emergency. I will, and the panel should, consider the effect of this evolution on the case for the scheme. 3a government policy on equality I will, and the panel should, examine how this scheme fits in or does not fit in with the government’s emphasis on equality – sometimes referred to as “levelling up”. 4 specific effects of climate change on the scheme Is the scheme resilient enough to face the new risks brought about by climate disruption? 5 the traffic network predictions – technical The proposer publishing this data as late as possible has a) undermined the public consultation (I return to this later, in the LEGAL section) and b) made it more difficult for the predictions, the methodology and assumptions underlying them and the way the methodology was applied, to be peer-reviewed or scrutinised. The EiP should not “take them as read,” and nor will I. (See also para. 11 on VfM.) 6 the traffic network predictions – substantive We now see, (though consultees could NOT see) that were the scheme to be built, traffic is predicted to increase on roads across the local area. I will, and the panel should, examine the consequences of this for all traffic nuisances, and establish how many people are affected under different scenarios. 7 the effects of the scheme on local people I will, and you should, look closely at these effects. I intend to show that the scheme will not improve the lives of local people – their health, their environment, their businesses, their access to work - in fact quite the reverse. This is a completely failed version of “levelling up”. 8 non-road alternatives to the scheme This scheme, expensive in finance and resources as it is, will pre-empt and make less likely alternative investments which WOULD improve local people’s lives. I will consider, and so should the panel: were such alternatives considered by HE, should they have been included in the consultation, the fact that without them the consultation was fatally biased, (see also paragraph 12) and whether what happened contradicted government policy and guidance. A particular case is the need to fund and implement staggering improvements to the rail network. 9 Green Belt The scheme goes straight through the Manchester designated Green Belt. Once again I do not remember seeing these words in the consultation documents. For the significance of this kind of omission see the LEGAL section. What is the value foregone here? The government now has a whole agenda around valuing natural capital. What are the implications for the case for this scheme? 10 the “growth” argument This important argument – that economic growth is 'held back by this imperfect road' - is stated at e.g. TAR para. 1.1.1. It may seem plausible, obvious even, but I will, and you should, look at this carefully. I think it will not stack up under rigorous questioning from myself and the panel. 11 Value for Money (VfM) and Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) The EiP must carefully examine this, the following factors come to my mind: • The history of this scheme suggests a degree of muddle, the panel must beware of conceptual errors • The effect on traffic nuisances throughout the whole area, now that HE have published traffic predictions, and the consequences for VfM • The effect of changes in society on predicted traffic e.g. less commuting, and hence on some of the assigned values • How goods traffic will evolve/reduce in the coming decades • The effect of policies to promote sustainability one example being the promotion of active travel and public transport within the National Park. LEGAL AND QUASI-LEGAL ISSUES 12 the consultation may have been illegal and was certainly non-compliant with Nolan The information provided by HE to the public at consultation stage was inadequate, in particular they did not provide the public with their traffic network data, both predicted (as at the time of the consultation) and actual. The public were therefore unaware of the situations regarding traffic nuisances and could not come to an informed view. Other important information was also missing. This non-provision of essential information to the public breaks both the Nolan Principles and the obligations laid upon HE by the SOCC. There were also other breaches of their obligations under the SOCC. If there is no satisfactory explanation, then I submit that the consultation must be ordered to be re-run. 13 air pollution There are legal limits which constrain schemes such as this. I will and the panel should, consider this matter carefully and ensure that HE are complying with the legal requirements in this area."

David Hogg
"Objection to the A57 link road to Glossop It is not an inter-grated plan and fails to deal with the whole infrastructure of the area. It marginally addresses congestion in Mottram however fails to address the congestion and free movement of traffic in Tintwistle, Hollingworth and Glossop and across the Peak District. Does not solve the problem of traffic in Hollingworth and Tintwistle. Roads are narrow and bordered by housing communities. It fails to address traffic reduction and the separation of traffic from local communities and housing as more traffic will be generated due to the increased level of housing development across Glossopdale and the surrounding area. It will shift the traffic problem to Glossop which does not have the infrastructure to cope with increased traffic as it passes through the centre of the town creating a significant conflict of interests. It will Lead to a bottleneck and congestion in centre of Glossop at the crossroads by the Norfolk inn. Already an issue. Remember this plan will increase the quantity of traffic travelling between Sheffield and Manchester on the snake pass. This is not a suitable major routeway due to weather conditions and narrowness of the carriageway and the notorious dangers of this road. The A57/snake pass is one of the most dangerous roads in the county and country with numerous serious and fatal accidents. Frequent winter closures because of the altitude of the road clearly does not address a long-term solution. More traffic will be attracted to the Snake pass route which cannot accommodate additional traffic nor is the route suitable for large quantities of HGV’s and intercity traffic. Currently the centre of Glossop is very congested as it is at the moment and it will further split the community Does not take account of other road users. No provision for cycle lanes, pedestrians or parking for householders with terraced houses and therefore requiring on street parking. Does not offer any traffic calming measures. Goes against current policies on reducing the environmental impact of traffic for local residents and the wider community. Increases the environmental impact on the national park and goes against current policy on reducing noise and air pollution. An inter-grated plan for the whole area is require"

David Morton
"The project is incompatible with our Climate Emergency and will result in a large boost to carbon emissions, including construction, and induced traffic Use of land, particularly pristine land, and other wildlife habitats, and farmland, all of which is at a premium I have seen at first hand the detrimental impact of construction for large projects like this (e.g. HS2) and the huge collateral damage The project is incompatible with the objectives of the UK Government’s recent Transport Decarbonisation Plan The likely cost is a drain on public spending, and like most other large projects, almost certain to rise. The money needs to be redirected to other post-pandemic projects such as Active Travel and cycling infrastructure"

David O'Brien
"As a life long Glossop resident with deep family connection in the Church Road area of Hollingworth, I would like to raise my concerns that the road project as is, is nothing more than a waste of money and carbon, designed to do little more than line the pockets of the road building agencies and their suppliers. The proposed plan will worsen traffic outside my house, destroy greenspace and release untold amounts of chemicals and pollution into the local area. The raising of weight restrictions on the a57 snake pass and a628 woodhead would do more to remove congestion from the area, an effective bypass would need to begin before entering Tintwistle, from the Sheffield side, at the same time as the provision of a Glossop to hattersly slip road. This would be vastly more intrusive on the environment and unfathomably expensive. In a time we are supposed to build back better I fail to see how the aims of the proposal will be achieved. We should spend the money on providing better public transport and subsidies for those who use them, thus taking more cars of the road, lowering pollution and congestion. I 100% second the views of C.P.R.E. SEE LINK BELOW for a far more articulate argument [redacted] The scheme would increase traffic. The benefits to Mottram come at the expense of the rest of Longdendale and Glossopdale where traffic increases on many residential roads. Road accidents would increase with 102 extra collisions over 60 years but on the A57 Snake Pass, a high risk road for a fatal or serious injury crash, there would be 160 extra collisions over 60 years. Over 60 years the scheme would add an extra 399,867tonnes carbon dioxide. One tree absorbs around 1tonne of carbon dioxide in 100years. We cannot wait for nearly 400,000 trees to grow for 100years. Carbon emissions must be tested against international and national legislation and guidance. Air pollution improves for some households, for others nitrogen dioxide remains above the legal limit e.g. on Market Street, Hollingworth. For one property on Dinting Vale air pollution gets worse. The Air Quality Management Areas in Tintwistle and Glossop would remain. Wildlife habitats, such as wet grazing meadows, and protected species, such as bats and barn owls, would be lost. Local countryside, highly valued for its natural undeveloped character and open views, would be urbanised and the Green Belt would be cut in two. A lorry ban coupled with sustainable transport measures and technological improvements would bring lasting benefits and avoid the above adverse impacts. But Highways England rejected this option. Far reaching changes since 2015 – the declaration of a climate and nature emergency and the Covid-19 pandemic – make scrutiny of this option essential. The Peak District National Park is a bank for carbon, a haven for wildlife and a place where everyone can get outdoors and enjoy nature, and peace and quiet. With more traffic on cross Park routes these special qualities will be eroded."

David Walker
"Although the proposed scheme provides relief for Mottram, it does nothing to reduce the HGV load on either the Woodhead or Snake pass. Highways England has not put forward any proposals to improve the traffic through Glossop. This scheme will increase traffic and pollution and provide little benefit to local people."

Derbyshire Climate Coalition
"In response to the climate emergency, campaigners across Derbyshire set up Derbyshire Climate Coalition in February 2019. This is not aligned to any political party. The coalition is calling for local councils in Derbyshire and Derby to lead and develop plans to make their local areas ‘zero carbon’ by 2030. We object to the scheme for the following reasons: The scheme would emit 399,867tCO2e of additional carbon emissions over a 60year period from 2025. During the critical period up to 2030 the scheme would emit an additional 55,253tCO2e during UK’s 4th carbon budget period (2023-2027) and an additional 29,231tCO2e during the UK’s 5th carbon budget period (2028-2032). No carbon assessment has been made for the period of 2038 to 2050 by the end of which the UK is legally required to achieve net-zero. Quantifiable carbon reductions at the local level are a fundamental part of local transport planning and funding (Government’s Transport Decarbonisation Plan, August 2021) Carbon emissions must be tested against international and national legislation and guidance including the Paris Agreement, the 2008 Climate Change Act’s legally binding target of net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, the UK Sixth Carbon Budget, science-based carbon budgets from the Tyndall Centre, and the National Planning Policy Framework which requires ‘radical reductions of greenhouse gas emissions’. The scheme would increase traffic, diverting some from the M62. The benefits to most of Mottram (but not all) come at the expense of the rest of Longdendale, Glossopdale and other parts of Derbyshire where traffic increases on many residential and rural roads. This is contrary to national policies for modal shift to walking, cycling and public transport. Modal shift is a strategic priority for the Government’s Transport Decarbonisation Plan – ‘Public transport and active travel will be the natural first choice for our daily activities…We will use our cars differently and less often’ – but the scheme would increase car dependency. The natural world is also in a state of emergency, with the net loss of biodiversity in the UK continuing. The scheme involves fragmentation, loss or displacement of diminishing wildlife habitats such as wet grazing meadows and of protected species, such as bats and barn owls. The impacts on the rich and diverse wildlife are minimised because species are considered only of ‘local value’. Conserving and enhancing local wildlife as well as the rare is essential to nature’s and our survival. Encroachment of development on the countryside must be stopped if biodiversity loss is to be halted and reversed. The applicant has failed to scrutinise alternatives that would avoid all the adverse impacts the Link Roads would impose on local people and the environment. De-trunking of the A628T corridor with a Park-wide ban on through traffic of heavy lorries, substantial improvements for safe walking and cycling, and for buses throughout Glossopdale and Longdendale would reduce traffic and carbon emissions and allow people to travel without needing a car."

Derbyshire County Council
"A57 Link Roads Scheme Development Consent Order S56 Representation from Derbyshire County Council and High Peak Borough Council This representation has been jointly prepared by Derbyshire County Council (DCC) and High Peak Borough Council (HPBC). For context, both authorities have engaged with Highways England throughout the Development Consent Order process, including attendance at the stakeholder meetings organised by Highways England. Nevertheless, the two Councils submitted holding objections in response to the public consultations held by Highways England in both 2018 and 2020. Fundamentally, the objections were due to the lack of supporting information regarding the traffic and related implications of the scheme. In relation to the DCO application as submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, unfortunately, our current position is that our holding objection should be maintained. In spite of our previous request for further information, the Environmental Statement and supporting documents do not address our concerns. Having reviewed the submission, the two Councils have identified a number of gaps in the transport assessment data and subsequent queries and requests for information have been made to Highways England. In the context of the above, a summary is provided below of the Member and Officer comments of both authorities on the scheme. Member Comments: Derbyshire County Council Consultation on the DCO application and supporting Environment Statement has been undertaken with Derbyshire County Council’s Elected Members Becki Woods (Etherow Electoral Division), Jean Wharmby (Glossop and Charlesworth Electoral Division) and Daniel Greenhalgh (Glossop and Charlesworth Electoral Division) for their comments on the scheme. At the time of writing no comments have been received from Derbyshire County Council’s Elected Members. Any Member comments subsequently received will be submitted to the DCO examination at a later date, particularly as part of the two council’s joint Local Impact Report. Member Comments: High Peak Borough Council Specific comments from HPBC members will be included within the next phase of consultation on the DCO in the Local Impact Report. Officer Comments Highways Impacts • DCC, as Highway Authority for that part of the scheme that falls within High Peak Borough within Derbyshire, fully recognises the severe impacts of existing traffic flows on the highway network on the A628 and A57 and the associated adverse implications for the residents of Woolley Bridge in Derbyshire and Mottram Moor in Tameside and the wish for Highways England to address these issues. However, DCC is also concerned about the wider impacts of the Scheme on the highways network, particularly on the A57 through Glossop and A628 through Tintwistle. • This is because the Scheme and its likely improvements to connectivity and reduction in travel times to and from the Manchester conurbation could potentially make it more attractive to road users in Derbyshire and consequently increase traffic flows with a corresponding reporting of future accidents on both the A57 through Glossop and A628 through Tintwistle. • Liaison is on-going with Highways England and their consultants to fully evaluate the likely highway and highway safety impacts of the scheme on the Derbyshire road network through the transport modelling evidence submitted as part of the Environment Statement. • Issues have recently been raised by the two local authorities regarding the transport evidence that has been submitted with the DCO and further information sought from Highways England. A57 Junction Design • DCC’s Officers have been liaising with Highways England’s consultants regarding the detailed design and layout of the highway scheme, particularly the new signal-controlled junction between the new link road and the existing A57 at Woolley Bridge. This includes consideration of a proposed new consented housing development adjacent to the junction over which liaison has also taken place between Highways England’s consultants, DCC’s officers and the applicant for the housing development. • With regard to the proposed design of the signal controlled junction on the A57 at Woolley Bridge, in discussions with Highways England’s consultants, DCC’s Network Management Officers have expressed some significant concerns about the design of the scheme, particularly the proposed inclusion of two lanes on the new link road that approach the new junction to turn right to head southwards on to the existing A57 which then also has two lanes that merge into one on the A57 after a relatively short distance. DCC’s Officers consider that such a design raises safety issues with the merging of traffic down to one lane on a relatively short distance of highway and have requested that Highways England’s consultants give this issue further thought as the County Council would prefer to see a more traditional one lane design solution for traffic turning right off the new road to head south towards Glossop, particularly if the County Council is being requested to adopt the new junction following completion of the scheme. Although these concerns remain, it is noted that Highways England has amended the junction design in the DCO submission so that there is now a longer stretch of two lanes heading southwards on the existing A57 before they merge into the single lane. It is Highways England’s position that a two-lane design solution is required for capacity reasons. • With regard to the proposed access to the consented residential scheme to the east of the new junction on the A57, discussions between each of the parties has established the principle of a mutually acceptable design solution for the junction, approval has now been given for the adoptable estate street, including its link to the new junction. A57 Street Lighting Design and Location • DCC’s Officers have been liaising with Highways England’s consultants regarding the detailed design, specifications and location of street lighting for the scheme. Discussions are on going although the principle of the design, specification and location of the street lighting for the scheme has been agreed. Air Quality • HPBC has designated Air Quality Management Areas on sections of the A57 at Dinting and on the A628 in Tintwistle. • Our response to Highways England’s public consultation in 2020 raised concerns about the impact of the scheme in the AQMA, particularly given that the PEIR had not considered the implications for these designations. This omission appeared to be on the basis that the changes in traffic flows with the scheme open were not sufficient to meet the screening criteria • Unfortunately, the assessments submitted in support of the Development Consent Order application also omit consideration of the impacts on the AQMAs. The Council is keen to explore the basis for this by examining the underlying assumptions and projections in the traffic modelling. Seemingly, traffic is projected to avoid the A57 through Glossop town centre by taking alternative routes such as Shaw Lane. Heritage Impacts • DCC’s Heritage Officers have reviewed the Heritage Chapter of the Environment Statement. DCC’s key concern is the potential impact of the highway scheme on the setting of Melandra Castle, a Scheduled Monument that sits on high ground overlooking the proposed development to the south-west and the need to ensure that the potential impacts are adequately mitigated. Although DCC’s officers have raised a number of issues regarding statements made in the Environment Statement relating to the potential impacts, notwithstanding this, Officers are supportive of the proposed mitigation measures set out in Table 6-5 of the Heritage Statement to help reduce the level of visual impact in the immediate setting of the castle. Landscape Comments • DCC’s Landscape Architect has reviewed the DCO submission and considers that he has no substantial comments to add at this stage having been involved in this submission as part of an ongoing process. DCC’s Landscape Architects considers that he is satisfied that the relevant documents have been referenced as part of the Landscape and Visual Impacts Assessment (LVIA) and that additional viewpoints he identified previously as being required during the PEIR consultation, specifically from residential properties at Woolley Bridge and from locations near Melandra Roman Fort, have now been included in the formal assessment. Ecology Comments • DCC’s Ecologist considers that there are no ecological sensitivities immediately apparent, at least within the Derbyshire area relating to the scheme. Comments were made on the PEIR, when it was concluded that the ecological assessment appeared to be adequate in scope, robust in approach, and suitable with regards to the surveys undertaken. In this context, no further comments are provided on the Environment Statement submitted in support of the DCO application. Climate Change • DCC’s Climate Change Officer has reviewed the Climate Change Chapter of the Environment Statement. A number of comments are made regarding the need for further detail or clarification about the potential impacts on climate change and proposed mitigation. These include: • There is a lack of reference to, and acknowledgement of, the Government’s strategic priorities of reducing emissions, and increasing modal shift to active travel. • The assessment does not take account of any potential opportunities for renewable energy installations and generation within the Scheme’s boundary, which seems like a missed opportunity to explore options. Furthermore, there does not appear to be any mention of electric vehicle charging infrastructure and it is considered that there may be an opportunity for EV Rapid Hubs to be located along any proposed route. • Vehicle emission factors take account of Department for Transport fleet projections including conventional vehicles (petrol and diesel) as well as hybrid and electric vehicles, but do not take account of government commitments to changes in fleet makeup, for example the phasing out of conventional fuel cars and vans by 2030. • The assessment around road user impacts and traffic numbers does not appear to take into account changes to travel and work patterns brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic over the past 18 months, some of which are likely to be sustained in the long term, leading to more home working and flexi-time travel. Flood Risk • DCC’s Flood Team Officers have reviewed the Environment Statement and consider at this stage they are not able to fully comment on the flood risk implications of the scheme as there is no drainage strategy available to assess and it is too early in the process for the developer to have designed this. Officers will therefore provide fuller comments later on in the DCO process. Accessibility / Public Rights of Way Issues • DCC’s key concerns relate to the connectivity of the highway scheme with the surrounding Public Rights of Way network, particularly the Trans-Pennine trail that runs close to the eastern boundary of the scheme adjacent to the River Etherow and existing A57 Wooley Bridge. Officers welcome and support the proposed design of the link road, which includes provision of a new footpath/cycle path running alongside the south-side of the new highway link road to Mottram Moor. Clarification is required, however, whether the footpath / cyclepath would also be used for horse riders. • Officers also welcome the connection of the new footpath / cyclepath with the Trans-Pennine Trail where it emerges alongside the River Etherow adjacent to the existing A57. This was an issue raised with Highways England on its PEIR consultation in 2020 and has now been addressed in the DCO submission. Waste Matters • DCC’s Officers consider that, overall, the scheme and its supporting documentation makes sound provision with regards to waste infrastructure and waste management issues and makes appropriate reference to the waste hierarchy. The waste hierarchy is key as the scheme is likely to involve a large amount of earth works and aggregate and stone excavation and usage as the scheme progresses. As much of this material should be utilised on site and as part of the scheme as possible - if this is carried out then only minimal amounts of residual waste should need to find a home within local waste infrastructure. Economy and Regeneration • We are keen to determine the implications of the scheme to the local economy. This theme will be considered as part of our Local Impact Report. HPBC has commissioned a Masterplan for the Glossop Gateway corridor from Woolley Bridge into Hadfield and Glossop town centre along the A57 with a view to maximising any potential opportunities and benefits which may arise from the scheme. However, as outlined above, this work cannot conclude without further consideration of the traffic flows. Land Interests • For the record, HPBC has land interests which are relevant to the scheme, namely land on the western side of the A57 at Brookfield, Glossop. The land in question forms part of the gateway to the Trans Pennine Trail. The applicant is aware of this interest. Yours Sincerely Neil Rodgers Executive Director Place – High Peak Borough Council Chris Henning Executive Director Place – Derbyshire County Council"

Glossopdale Branch Labour Party
"Glossopdale branch Labour Party is made up of residents from across the Glossopdale area, including Glossop, Hadfield, Padfield, Tintwistle, Gamesley, Charlesworth and Chisworth This branch believes that the proposed A57 Link Roads Scheme will do nothing to relieve the problems of traffic congestion and noise and air pollution in Tintwistle and the wider Glossopdale area. On the contrary, according to the proposers of the scheme themselves, traffic is predicted to increase, including on Glossop High St and through Tintwistle, whose residents and elected representative have already made clear to us how disappointed they are with the proposed scheme, which will not by-pass the village. More traffic will lead to more air pollution and more accidents, including more fatalities Heavy traffic of lorries, noise and pollution will continue to blight residents’ lives. With each consultation since 2017 local people have consistently and repeatedly asked for measures to relieve Tintwistle of these impacts. During the 2018 consultation, Highways England reported this as one of ‘the key concerns raised during the consultation that we are unable to resolve’. Alternative solutions do exist. A ban on through lorry traffic through the National Park, 20 mph speed limits and more space for pedestrian and cyclists, together with a better funded and integrated public transport system would address the current situation more quickly and would provide much better value for money. The half-baked,half by-pass will not solve the major problem of traffic congestion in Glossopdale. It will simply move it a little further down the road. The by-passing of Mottram will feed more traffic on to the roads in and out of Glossop, which are already at gridlock for much of the day. The huge disruption and inconvenience it will cause during construction will result in little or no benefit for the residents of our community"

Halina Billingham
"I am against this proposed by pass as it will damage wildlife and precious greenspaces and it will not lead to less traffic. From experience I have seen other bypasses built professing to reduce traffic but this is never the case, more roads mean more cars. Please try to think outside the box, create better public transport,encourage people to walk/bike/use buses. Make public transport so efficient and good value or even free. Leave Swallows wood alone for the wildlife for our health and our future generations to enjoy. You cant maje more land please do not destroy it for a hugely expensive folly which will not succeed in its claims. Halina Billingham"

High Peak Borough Council
"This representation has been jointly prepared by Derbyshire County Council (DCC) and High Peak Borough Council (HPBC). For context, both authorities have engaged with Highways England throughout the Development Consent Order process, including attendance at the stakeholder meetings organised by Highways England. Nevertheless, the two Councils submitted holding objections in response to the public consultations held by Highways England in both 2018 and 2020. Fundamentally, the objections were due to the lack of supporting information regarding the traffic and related implications of the scheme. In relation to the DCO application as submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, unfortunately, our current position is that our holding objection should be maintained. In spite of our previous request for further information, the Environmental Statement and supporting documents do not address our concerns. Having reviewed the submission, the two Councils have identified a number of gaps in the transport assessment data and subsequent queries and requests for information have been made to Highways England. In the context of the above, a summary is provided below of the Member and Officer comments of both authorities on the scheme. Member Comments Derbyshire County Council Consultation on the DCO application and supporting Environment Statement has been undertaken with Derbyshire County Council’s Elected Members Becki Woods (Etherow Electoral Division), Jean Wharmby (Glossop and Charlesworth Electoral Division) and Daniel Greenhalgh (Glossop and Charlesworth Electoral Division) for their comments on the scheme. At the time of writing no comments have been received from Derbyshire County Council’s Elected Members. Any Member comments subsequently received will be submitted to the DCO examination at a later date, particularly as part of the two council’s joint Local Impact Report. High Peak Borough Council Further comments from HPBC members will be included within the next phase and the Local Impact Report. Highways Impacts • DCC, as Highway Authority for that part of the scheme that falls within High Peak Borough within Derbyshire, fully recognises the severe impacts of existing traffic flows on the highway network on the A628 and A57 and the associated adverse implications for the residents of Woolley Bridge in Derbyshire and Mottram Moor in Tameside and the wish for Highways England to address these issues. However, DCC is also concerned about the wider impacts of the Scheme on the highways network, particularly on the A57 through Glossop and A628 through Tintwistle. • This is because the Scheme and its likely improvements to connectivity and reduction in travel times to and from the Manchester conurbation could potentially make it more attractive to road users in Derbyshire and consequently increase traffic flows with a corresponding reporting of future accidents on both the A57 through Glossop and A628 through Tintwistle. • Liaison is on-going with Highways England and their consultants to fully evaluate the likely highway and highway safety impacts of the scheme on the Derbyshire road network through the transport modelling evidence submitted as part of the Environment Statement. • Issues have recently been raised by the two local authorities regarding the transport evidence that has been submitted with the DCO and further information sought from Highways England. A57 Junction Design • DCC’s Officers have been liaising with Highways England’s consultants regarding the detailed design and layout of the highway scheme, particularly the new signal-controlled junction between the new link road and the existing A57 at Woolley Bridge. This includes consideration of a proposed new consented housing development adjacent to the junction over which liaison has also taken place between Highways England’s consultants, DCC’s officers and the applicant for the housing development. • With regard to the proposed design of the signal controlled junction on the A57 at Woolley Bridge, in discussions with Highways England’s consultants, DCC’s Network Management Officers have expressed some significant concerns about the design of the scheme, particularly the proposed inclusion of two lanes on the new link road that approach the new junction to turn right to head southwards on to the existing A57 which then also has two lanes that merge into one on the A57 after a relatively short distance. DCC’s Officers consider that such a design raises safety issues with the merging of traffic down to one lane on a relatively short distance of highway and have requested that Highways England’s consultants give this issue further thought as the County Council would prefer to see a more traditional one lane design solution for traffic turning right off the new road to head south towards Glossop, particularly if the County Council is being requested to adopt the new junction following completion of the scheme. Although these concerns remain, it is noted that Highways England has amended the junction design in the DCO submission so that there is now a longer stretch of two lanes heading southwards on the existing A57 before they merge into the single lane. It is Highways England’s position that a two-lane design solution is required for capacity reasons. • With regard to the proposed access to the consented residential scheme to the east of the new junction on the A57, discussions between each of the parties has established the principle of a mutually acceptable design solution for the junction, approval has now been given for the adoptable estate street, including its link to the new junction. A57 Street Lighting Design and Location • DCC’s Officers have been liaising with Highways England’s consultants regarding the detailed design, specifications and location of street lighting for the scheme. Discussions are on going although the principle of the design, specification and location of the street lighting for the scheme has been agreed. Air Quality • HPBC has designated Air Quality Management Areas on sections of the A57 at Dinting and on the A628 in Tintwistle. • Our response to Highways England’s public consultation in 2020 raised concerns about the impact of the scheme in the AQMA, particularly given that the PEIR had not considered the implications for these designations. This omission appeared to be on the basis that the changes in traffic flows with the scheme open were not sufficient to meet the screening criteria • Unfortunately, the assessments submitted in support of the Development Consent Order application also omit consideration of the impacts on the AQMAs. The Council is keen to explore the basis for this by examining the underlying assumptions and projections in the traffic modelling. Seemingly, traffic is projected to avoid the A57 through Glossop town centre by taking alternative routes such as Shaw Lane. Heritage Impacts • DCC’s Heritage Officers have reviewed the Heritage Chapter of the Environment Statement. DCC’s key concern is the potential impact of the highway scheme on the setting of Melandra Castle, a Scheduled Monument that sits on high ground overlooking the proposed development to the south-west and the need to ensure that the potential impacts are adequately mitigated. Although DCC’s officers have raised a number of issues regarding statements made in the Environment Statement relating to the potential impacts, notwithstanding this, Officers are supportive of the proposed mitigation measures set out in Table 6-5 of the Heritage Statement to help reduce the level of visual impact in the immediate setting of the castle. Landscape Comments • DCC’s Landscape Architect has reviewed the DCO submission and considers that he has no substantial comments to add at this stage having been involved in this submission as part of an ongoing process. DCC’s Landscape Architects considers that he is satisfied that the relevant documents have been referenced as part of the Landscape and Visual Impacts Assessment (LVIA) and that additional viewpoints he identified previously as being required during the PEIR consultation, specifically from residential properties at Woolley Bridge and from locations near Melandra Roman Fort, have now been included in the formal assessment. Ecology Comments • DCC’s Ecologist considers that there are no ecological sensitivities immediately apparent, at least within the Derbyshire area relating to the scheme. Comments were made on the PEIR, when it was concluded that the ecological assessment appeared to be adequate in scope, robust in approach, and suitable with regards to the surveys undertaken. In this context, no further comments are provided on the Environment Statement submitted in support of the DCO application. Climate Change • DCC’s Climate Change Officer has reviewed the Climate Change Chapter of the Environment Statement. A number of comments are made regarding the need for further detail or clarification about the potential impacts on climate change and proposed mitigation. These include: • There is a lack of reference to, and acknowledgement of, the Government’s strategic priorities of reducing emissions, and increasing modal shift to active travel. • The assessment does not take account of any potential opportunities for renewable energy installations and generation within the Scheme’s boundary, which seems like a missed opportunity to explore options. Furthermore, there does not appear to be any mention of electric vehicle charging infrastructure and it is considered that there may be an opportunity for EV Rapid Hubs to be located along any proposed route. • Vehicle emission factors take account of Department for Transport fleet projections including conventional vehicles (petrol and diesel) as well as hybrid and electric vehicles, but do not take account of government commitments to changes in fleet makeup, for example the phasing out of conventional fuel cars and vans by 2030. • The assessment around road user impacts and traffic numbers does not appear to take into account changes to travel and work patterns brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic over the past 18 months, some of which are likely to be sustained in the long term, leading to more home working and flexi-time travel. Flood Risk • DCC’s Flood Team Officers have reviewed the Environment Statement and consider at this stage they are not able to fully comment on the flood risk implications of the scheme as there is no drainage strategy available to assess and it is too early in the process for the developer to have designed this. Officers will therefore provide fuller comments later on in the DCO process. Accessibility / Public Rights of Way Issues • DCC’s key concerns relate to the connectivity of the highway scheme with the surrounding Public Rights of Way network, particularly the Trans-Pennine trail that runs close to the eastern boundary of the scheme adjacent to the River Etherow and existing A57 Wooley Bridge. Officers welcome and support the proposed design of the link road, which includes provision of a new footpath/cycle path running alongside the south-side of the new highway link road to Mottram Moor. Clarification is required, however, whether the footpath / cyclepath would also be used for horse riders. • Officers also welcome the connection of the new footpath / cyclepath with the Trans-Pennine Trail where it emerges alongside the River Etherow adjacent to the existing A57. This was an issue raised with Highways England on its PEIR consultation in 2020 and has now been addressed in the DCO submission. Waste Matters • DCC’s Officers consider that, overall, the scheme and its supporting documentation makes sound provision with regards to waste infrastructure and waste management issues and makes appropriate reference to the waste hierarchy. The waste hierarchy is key as the scheme is likely to involve a large amount of earth works and aggregate and stone excavation and usage as the scheme progresses. As much of this material should be utilised on site and as part of the scheme as possible - if this is carried out then only minimal amounts of residual waste should need to find a home within local waste infrastructure. Economy and Regeneration • We are keen to determine the implications of the scheme to the local economy. This theme will be considered as part of our Local Impact Report. HPBC has commissioned a Masterplan for the Glossop Gateway corridor from Woolley Bridge into Hadfield and Glossop town centre along the A57 with a view to maximising any potential opportunities and benefits which may arise from the scheme. However, as outlined above, this work cannot conclude without further consideration of the traffic flows. Land Interests • For the record, HPBC has land interests which are relevant to the scheme, namely land on the western side of the A57 at Brookfield, Glossop. The land in question forms part of the gateway to the Trans Pennine Trail. The applicant is aware of this interest."

Ian Rigg
"I am aware that there has been a recent attempt by one political party to try and prevent this progress, which is many, many years overdue. It is nothing short of hypocritical given their candidate was waxing lyrical about it when they held office. This bypass is essential. The gridlock experienced by people living in Glossop has gotten worse over the years, not to mention the health concerns of breathing in noxious fumes when traffic is static. Mottram Moor, in its current form, is a source of frustration and leads to road rage. That said there does need to be further consideration of the traffic flow along the A57 either by synchronisation of traffic lights, or removing some altogether. There would be no significant change for traffic heading towards Glossop unless this is addressed, although traffic leaving Glossop would benefit."

Jill Kirk
"The plans for the bypass will do nothing to alleviate the congestion in this area. It will encourage traffic and pollution into a valley that already has poor air quality. It is simply carving up more countryside for no gain. If anything it is to the detriment of the area. There seems little imagination having gone into the plans other than to just create more roads. A far cheaper and environmentally friendly consideration would be to put a weight limit on the roads to encourage heavy vehicles to use the motorways in the area."

Jo Dagustun
"As a local resident, I welcome the opportunity to register as an interested party. I have significant concerns about this application. This is a complex project, which should cost-effectively address the needs of various interests, including those of the local communities and those of people/businesses who travel through the area of impact. I suggest that the current proposal doesn’t achieve this. A key local interest is the need to address traffic congestion through Mottram, Hollingworth and Tintwistle. This scheme does not do this (focusing instead on just one small area of local concern) nor achieves part of this objective without creating significant negative impacts (shifting traffic congestion rather than eliminating it and increasing traffic in other areas). As it stands, the proposal leaves the local area with significant remaining traffic issues: a more innovative package of measures seems necessary, beyond the limited scope of Highways England. A key part of the problem relates to the project’s long gestation: rooted in decades-long discussions and with widespread frustration about lack of action, there has been very little scrutiny of how well the current plan fits with current needs and the current policy environment. We have key policy drivers regarding air pollution, carbon reduction, road safety and active travel, yet this proposal seems to have not caught up with that policy agenda. Why is this scheme, at minimum, not carbon neutral? Why is air pollution in the local area of impact (including near primary schools) not being brought down to safe levels? Where is the ambition in this proposal for a reduced reliance on cars and other private vehicles? What signals does this proposal give about active travel in the local area? Given the proposed introduction of major road crossings in local walk to school routes, a shifting of congestion to areas containing schools, as well as a projected – and frankly shocking - increase in road accidents, my fear is that this project will work to undermine rather than improve efforts to encourage safer roads and active travel. In terms of process, I can testify that the current proposal – spread over c.200 documents - contains key information that was not available in the most recent public consultation. This key information includes: traffic flow information, changes in estimated travel times and local road accident projections. It is not acceptable that this information was not available for the public consultation, a consultation that was poorly designed to encourage critical response. (Please review the unrealistic flyover video, which underlines the ‘sales pitch’ inherent in the consultation approach.) My sense is that the new information offered in this application may have cast doubt for many on the overall benefit of the scheme, and that the panel should therefore reject the suggestion that the proposal is well-supported locally without further evidence e.g. are the minor improvements to travel times in line with the expectations of supporters of this scheme; how do consultees feel about increased congestion in some areas and increased travel times for some journeys; how do consultees feel about the significant increase in traffic expected along the Snake Pass? Are we confident that the consultees have ‘voted’ for more road traffic accident casualties than is projected to be the case without this scheme? Thank you."

Joan Rutherford
"I OBJECT to the proposed A57 Link Roads for the following reasons: * likely increase in traffic levels leading to noise and increased pollution; * likely increase in traffic accidents; * impacts on wildlife habitats; * loss of open countryside; * fragmentation of the Tameside Green Belt; and * disruption, noise and pollution during construction. The proposal will do nothing to reduce traffic congestion in Glossop. The country is in a climate crisis. The estimated (current) cost of £180 million would better spent on improving and promoting public transport and active travel to assist in meeting carbon reduction targets."

John J. Bower
"I am registering my objection to the proposed scheme, on the basis that what is proposed will not achieve any beneficial results. This directly affects me as a landowner"

John Rourke
"Planning Inspectorate Reference: TR010034 With regard to the above. I wish to confirm my total support for the bypass construction and reject any attempt by whatever party to cancel the same. The residents of Glossop have been waiting for this for nearly 50 years to my knowledgeand I think it is high time that the project gets under way. Many regards John Rourke"

Justin Coyne
"Points raised by myself 1 congestion 2 pollution 3 alternative to the link road A57 4 environmental impacts"

Keith Buchan
"I am writing to register as an objector to this scheme in somewhat unusual circumstances. I am a Chartered Transport Planning Professional and have some 40 years experience in transport planning. I now spend most of my time working for the Transport Planning Society running their qualifications and professional development scheme. I am currently acting as an expert adviser to the CPRE PDSY. Since March 2021 I have been trying to obtain what I would consider to be basic information from the then Highways Agency, now renamed National Highways. This was for two reasons: first to scrutinise the work supporting the scheme and secondly to help in the finalising of better performing alternatives to the proposed scheme. The scrutiny point is important – in 2007 a scheme was abandoned after serious flaws were found in the modelling. It is important to note that this is a scheme falling within Greater Manchester at one end and the setting of the National Park at the other. It therefore poses complex transport planning problems whose solutions should frame infrastructure proposals, not be led by them. Further details on this will be delivered in the technical report to my client which they intend to submit to you in support of their objection. I am using whatever data I have to hand. To be clear this alternative package includes measures to lower the demand on the network (passenger and freight); to manage traffic through the two corridors so that its impact is reduced; and to support sustainable travel. This is in line with Government policies including the legal acceptance of the Sixth Carbon Budget in June this year and the publication of the DfT Decarbonisation Strategy in July. The latter is in line with the Greater Manchester 50-50 vision for local travel which would have a major impact on the forecasts used for the scheme. The issue of how to deal with forecasting and uncertainty has always been present in WebTAG, but the publication of the DfT Uncertainty Toolkit in May 2021 gives clear further guidance. The uncertainty log provided for this scheme does not comply with this or indeed the earlier guidance. A “low” traffic forecast is mentioned but no detail is provided. What concerns me is that there has been a succession of failures to supply basic information and reply to reasonable requests for clarification. It is important to note that a WebTAG compliant appraisal may or may not have been completed – but it has not been supplied. The Transport Assessment (TA) is not the same as an Appraisal (we teach this to our entry level graduates) although the TA supplied appears to refer to one. This is completely unacceptable on many grounds including professional practise and I have started a formal complaint with National Highways on their failure to respond. My specific objection is that insufficient evidence has been presented to the DCO to test compliance with Government policy or guidance. From what has been submitted it would appear that it does not."

Laura Blake
"I do not believe this scheme will improve traffic, in fact I believe it would increase traffic, and doesn't comply with national policies for climate change and modal shift to walking, cycling and public transport. We should be complying with Carbon Net Zero, yet this scheme would add nearly 400,000 tonnes of carbon emissions. The scheme would also increase the amount of accidents. Air pollution would be bad in some areas, and more traffic means more deadly PM2.5 as well The scheme would be destructive and harmful to humans and also wildlife and their habitats. I strongly oppose this scheme"

Linda Walker
"I am very concerened that the scheme as proposed will: 1) do nothing for Tintwistle, where residents are desperate for some relief from traffic and pollution 2)increase traffic through Glossop and on the Snake Pass, causing more pollution and probably more accidents 3) cost £180 million which will not be money well spent These funds could be much better invested in improving public transport and making safe routes for walking and cycling throughout the High Peak. Heavy lorries could be banned from travelling through the area which would greatly help Hollingworth and Tintwistle. Road building is incompatible with our environmental commitments, and especially so when the road proposed will be beneficial to so few local residents."

Lynn Winspear
"As a resident of Bamford my concerns about the proposed Mottram bypass are as follows: The bypass will enable much freer flow of traffic from the M67 directly over Snake Pass, an already highly dangerous route. It will encourage an increase in HGV traffic to take a route from the M6 to the M1 south, as well as from the M1 north to the M56 through the Peak District National Park, via Hope Valley, which is already under serious pressure of vehicle congestion, as a result of recreational, business and industrial traffic. It will further encourage already heavy motorcycle use of the route through the village, currently a serious cause of noise nuisance within the Valley. Though congestion at Mottram has long been a real problem that needs resolving, this plan, without measures to restrict vehicle flow from the A57 through Hope Valley, will simply shift congestion from Mottram into the villages all along Hope Valley as well as access routes to the M1 via Broomhill in Sheffield. The existing route through Hope Valley has significant pinch points in Bamford and Hathersage and Fox House that are along the obvious route from the M67 to the M1 via Owler Bar, Norton , and the Dronfield and Chesterfield bypasses. Traffic in Hope Valley is already excessive, particularly at weekends and during holiday seasons, with business and industrial traffic competing for road space, with recreational motorcycles and very large groups of cyclists from clubs in Sheffield and beyond. The main road through Bamford village has very tight bends as well as a narrow railway bridge on a bend, leading to traffic lights at Sickleholme. Further increase in traffic at this junction will cause a dangerous tailback to the railway bridge and a blind corner, which has already suffered fatalities through traffic accident. Increasing traffic into Hope Valley, when the current traffic impacts in terms of noise, pollution, congestion and danger to pedestrians and cyclists and residents in Hope Valley is already unsustainable, without any plan to restrict that traffic, is highly distressing. The potential damage to one of the most beautiful areas of the National Park is extremely alarming, for both the visitors to the park and the residents."

Margaret Thompson
"The proposed A57l Link road is overdue due and essential to the are."

Maxine Pigram
"I wish to register my opposition to the A57 Link Road. This proposal will not ease traffic congestion and is likely to increase it as more traffic will be descending on this already congested area. I live on the main road in Tintwistle and the quality of my enjoyment of this village is blighted by the fact I can hardly get across the road to my parked car. The traffic is relentless and at time it almost feels like we're under siege when traffic regularly builds up from Mottram traffic lights way backed up past my house and hardly moving. The spell of burning rubber, the continuous thundering past of huge lorries which quite frankly shake the very foundations of my cottage. I've lived here over 6 years and I believe the only solution is to build a bypass around Tintwistle or stop the heavy vehicles using this road altogether- maybe stopping the M62 turnoff altogether for heavy vehicles. Thank you for listening. Maxine Pigram."

Michael Bowman
"This by pass needs to be be built as the traffic is ridiculous or you put a 7.5ton limit on the woodhead pass"

National Grid Electricity Transmission plc
"Dear Sir/Madam REPRESENTATION BY NATIONAL GRID ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION PLC (“NGET”) TO THE A57 Link Roads (previously known as Trans Pennine Upgrade Programme) DCO (“THE PROJECT”) NGET wishes to make a relevant representation to the Project DCO in order to protect its position in relation to infrastructure and land which is within or in close proximity to the proposed Order limits. NGET’s rights to retain its apparatus in situ and rights of access to inspect, maintain, renew and repair such apparatus located within or in close proximity to the Order limits should be maintained at all times and access to inspect and maintain such apparatus must not be restricted. The documentation and plans submitted for the above proposed scheme are being reviewed in relation to impacts on NGET’s existing apparatus and land interests located within this area, and NGET may require protective provisions to be included within the DCO to ensure that its interests are adequately protected and to ensure compliance with relevant safety standards. NGET will liaise with the Promoter in this regard. NGET assets which have been identified as being within or within close proximity to the proposed Order limits are: OVER HEAD LINE ZZC Route 400kV - BREDBURY - STALYBRIDGE – Tower ZZC014. As a responsible statutory undertaker, NGET’s primary concern is to meet its statutory obligations and ensure that any development does not impact in any adverse way upon those statutory obligations. NGET reserves the right to make further representations as part of the examination process but in the meantime will negotiate with the promoter with a view to reaching a satisfactory agreement. I hope the above information is useful. If you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours sincerely Spencer Jefferies Development Liaison Officer, Land and Acquisitions."

Nina Beard
"This By pass is badly needed to improve the health & safety of residents on A628. Too many houses have been built & are continuing to be built without any regard to infrastructure being upgraded to cope with rising levels of vehicular traffic."

Norwich & Norfolk Friends of the Earth
"I wish to explain in detail the amount of carbon emissions resulting from the construction of the road/s and during it's lifetime, and that such plans could be illegal to put into place because they contravene the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement which the UK Govt signed up to. There are also issue to be explored concerning the increase of toxic fumes into the atmosphere and damage to the living environment"

Patricia Mary Gray
"In my view the proposed A57 Link Road will do nothing to alleviate the problems in Hollingworth and Tintwistle. It is a very expensive proposal which could end up not pleasing anybody. My preferred ways to ease the problem would be through using the rail network for freight, and much better public transport (to include a station at Gamesley) helped by subsidies. Knocking ten minutes or so off a trip into or through Glossop, does nothing whatsoever to lessen the number of cars and lorries passing through, indeed it could make problems much worse for the A57 through Glossop. Emissions would get higher through sheer volume. Nothing in this proposal helps Hollingworth, Tintwistle, or parts of Hadfield. Environmentally this Link Road would be a disaster."

Paul Bruce
"If this was down south it would of been built years ago.shows again that us up north have no choice .if they had to suffer the traffic we have then they would be marching on no10."

Paula de Felipe Martinez
"I oppose the building of the Mottram bypass known as the A57 link roads, where I live. It has been stablished that: 1) The scheme would increase traffic. Even though I personally stand to benefit from lower driving times getting in and out of my own household in Hollingworth, the benefits to Mottram and Hollingworth come at the expense of the rest of Longdendale and Glossopdale where traffic increases on many residential roads. 2) Road accidents would increase with 102 extra collisions over 60 years but on the A57 Snake Pass, a high risk road for a fatal or serious injury crash, there would be 160 extra collisions over 60 years. 3) Over 60 years the scheme would add an extra 399,867tonnes carbon dioxide. Carbon emissions must be tested against international and national legislation and guidance. With effects of clima change already on full display and consequences to be suffered by generations to come, it is imperative that we plan fuor a grenner future. This roads would achieve the opposite. 4) Air pollution improves for some households, for others nitrogen dioxide remains above the legal limit e.g. on Market Street, Hollingworth. For one property on Dinting Vale air pollution gets worse. The Air Quality Management Areas in Tintwistle and Glossop would remain. 5) Wildlife habitats, such as wet grazing meadows, and protected species, such as bats and barn owls, would be lost. Local countryside, highly valued for its natural undeveloped character and open views, would be urbanised and the Green Belt would be cut in two. 6) A lorry ban coupled with sustainable transport measures and technological improvements would bring lasting benefits and avoid the above adverse impacts. But Highways England rejected this option. Far reaching changes since 2015 – the declaration of a climate and nature emergency and the Covid-19 pandemic – make scrutiny of this option essential. 7) The Peak District National Park is a bank for carbon, a haven for wildlife and a place where everyone can get outdoors and enjoy nature, and peace and quiet. With more traffic on cross Park routes these special qualities will be eroded. For all the above reasons, I believe this investment would have more certain negative impact than potential benefits to the community I live in and to the larger area surrounding it, specially the Peak District National Park. Thank you for taking my representation under consideration. Kind regards, Paula de Felipe Martinez"

Peak District National Park Authority
"The Peak District National Park (PDNP) lies to the east of the scheme; therefore, none of the works have a direct impact. However, the Environmental Statement (ES) raises concerns for the Peak District National Park Authority (PDNPA) regarding the indirect effects of the scheme. These effects are due to increased traffic flows, principally on the A628 Woodhead and A57 Snake Passes. Forecasts indicate that the A628 Woodhead Pass will see a daily increase in traffic of 850-950 vehicles (2025) and 900-1,100 vehicles (2040); the A57 Snake Pass will see an increase in vehicles of 1,150 (2025) and 1,450 (2040). This growth in traffic may negatively affect the Special Qualities of the PDNP, whilst impacting on the achievement of the Authority’s Statutory Purposes (Section 61, Environment Act, 1995). We have concerns regarding the effects of the scheme on the following: - 1) Air Quality a) Tintwistle AQMA –is acknowledged within the ES, however, there is no assessment of the effects of the predicted increased traffic flows on it. b) Designated sites (A628) – are already subject to high traffic flow and associated Nitrate deposition. Whilst predicted increased flows for 2025 do not meet the 1,000-vehicle threshold, we believe that an assessment of impact should have been undertaken. 2) Cultural Heritage a) Tintwistle Conservation Area (TCA) – will see a slight increase in traffic. The ES suggests a ‘non-significant, neutral, residual effect’. This will, however, have an adverse effect on how the TCA is experienced. b) Heritage Assets (A57) – the increase in traffic on the Snake Pass is significant (38%). The ES (Table 7.32) describes this as a ‘slight increase’ (VP23) indicating no change to the Special Qualities of the PDNP. Heritage assets are part of the attraction for people to the area. They include the Ladybower Reservoir and a significant cluster of scheduled monuments (Hordron Edge, Bamford Edge, Crook Hill and Bridgend Pasture). Increased traffic flows could impact adversely on the enjoyment and experience of these important monuments within their landscape setting. 3) Landscape and visual We are concerned with how the indirect landscape impacts (increased traffic flow) of the scheme have been assessed. National Policy seeks to ensure that road schemes and their effects are thoroughly assessed to avoid or minimise impacts on NPs. We don’t believe that appropriate landscape receptors have been adequately defined at the correct level of detail to determine indirect landscape effects (on character and perceptual aspects such as tranquillity, wildness, remoteness etc) within the PDNP. Where negative impacts have been recognised, ‘slight adverse’ effects are not considered to be material. In the case of NPs we believe that slight adverse effects are a material consideration. This is particularly pertinent due to the cumulative harm caused by additional traffic flows on what are already busy roads through affected valleys. 4) Biodiversity a) Nitrate deposition –see point 1b. b) Noise disturbance and wildlife collision – have been screened out for the A628 SPA/ SAC. However, increases in traffic, especially HGV’s, will create more constant noise and provide less breaks in the traffic, meaning that there is likely to be more potential for collision. The fragmentation of habitat will also lead to more collision risk and fatalities. Increased roadkill will attract more predators and has the potential to impact on ground nesting birds. The increase in background noise generated by additional traffic is also likely to add to the general disturbance of ground nesting birds, potentially reducing the area of usable habitat. We believe that these impacts should be reassessed taking the above into account. 5) Noise and vibration a) Effects on designated sites –see point 4b b) Effects on quiet enjoyment –existing traffic levels on the A628 Woodhead and A57 Snake Passes have a negative impact on the tranquillity of the surrounding open countryside, with traffic noise being a major feature. Increased levels of traffic along these routes will further reduce tranquillity, especially for those using the trails or footpaths that parallel or cross these busy roads (e.g. Pennine Way, Pennine Bridleway, Trans Pennine Trail (TPT)). 6) Population and health a) Severance –the A628 Woodhead and A57 Snake Passes are crossed at various points by footpaths and trails (see 5b). Crossing points are already difficult and, any increase in traffic for either route is likely to worsen conditions. Loss of tranquillity and increased severance will negatively affect the enjoyment of the PDNP by users of these routes, with an adverse impact on the Authority’s second statutory purpose. b) Road safety – the ES indicates that the scheme will result in an increase in RTCs along the Snake Pass. Given the geography of the road it’s is likely that any collisions are more likely to be severe than slight. The human cost of such events is devastating for those involved. It is also likely that any increase in collisions will require remedial works that will in turn negatively impact on the landscape of the PDNP. 7) Climate The ES contains detailed consideration of the physical effects of climate change on the scheme that appear robust and thorough. However, consideration of the schemes contribution to climate change is not analysed with an equivalent rigour. The summary of the effects of the scheme on Climate Change appear simplistic and do not offer an adequate assessment; as it is inevitable that almost all individual site or project-based greenhouse gas emissions will appear insignificant when compared to the National Carbon Budget and reduction targets. By extension, it also suggests that all individual GHG emissions can be ignored due to their relative scale when compared to National Targets; an approach which would not be considered acceptable in other areas of activity. The summary suggests that the scheme in isolation is unlikely to produce significant effects on the climate. However, it should not be considered in isolation but as part of an accumulative process that is changing the climate and damaging the environment. We would suggest that a more local assessment of impact is undertaken to consider the emissions in relation to those who are likely to benefit from the scheme and the immediate area where its impact will be felt, would be more appropriate. 8) Cumulative Impacts Our submission focusses on the indirect impacts of the scheme on the PDNP. Some of these impacts have been assessed as minor or insignificant within the ES. However, we are particularly concerned about the cumulative impacts of the scheme on the following: - a) Tintwistle – increased traffic flows through the village are likely to worsen air quality and noise & vibration; increase severance and effect experience of the TCA. b) Designated sites – increased traffic flows are likely to increase nitrate deposition, noise disturbance and collisions with wildlife. It is of particular concern that the effects of the increase in traffic on the A628 have not been assessed in relation to these impacts. c) Quiet enjoyment – increased traffic flow will affect both tranquillity and the quiet enjoyment of the landscape. It is also likely to negatively affect the use of important multi-user routes due to the increased difficulty of using crossing points."

Public Health England
"Thank you for your consultation regarding the above development. Public Health England (PHE) welcomes the opportunity to comment on your proposals at this stage of the project and can confirm that: With respect to Registration of Interest documentation, we are reassured that earlier comments raised by us on 17th December 2021 have been addressed. In addition, we acknowledge that the Environmental Statement (ES) has not identified any issues which could significantly affect public health. PHE is satisfied with the methodology used to undertake the environmental assessment. Following our review of the submitted documentation we are satisfied that the proposed development should not result in any significant adverse impact on public health. On that basis, we have no additional comments to make at this stage and can confirm that we have chosen NOT to register an interest with the Planning Inspectorate on this occasion. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or concerns."

Ray Collins
"The A57 Link Road proposal will do nothing to solve the problems of cross pennine traffic along the Woodhead and Snake passes. The current proposal will, on Highways England's own figures increase traffic through Hollingworth and Tintwistle villages, as well as through Dinting Vale and Glossop Town Centre. All of these areas are already severely impacted by traffic noise and illegal air quality. The proposal will benefit a small number of people living in Mottram, however the residents of Tintwistle and Hollingworth, who are more severely affected by current traffic (as their houses are closer to the carriageway than those in Mottram) will be negatively affected. This is unacceptable from the Pareto principle of decisions increasing the overall public benefit. There are many changes that will affect transport in this area over the next few years including the Manchester Clean Air Zone, increased home working and electrification of road transport. These impacts need to be understood before committing to the disruption of building a new road scheme"

Richard Hallows
"I have read the conditions and want this bypass to go ahead"

Richard Hawker
"I object to this road scheme. As a nation, we should not be squandering our depleted financial resources on such schemes, which, on past performance, alleviate congestion for a short few years, and then another 'relief' scheme is deemed necessary. The government has committed to tackling climate change - a legal obligation now - and building new roads can only increase carbon emissions, due to both construction and operation. It will be decades before all road transport is electric, so that is no solution to the climate emergency. This is a beautiful part of the country, on the edge of the peak district. We should not be encroaching on this land at all; it is precious, and we take such places for granted in this incredibly varied country of ours. Once we have destroyed the landscape, it can never be restored. Other countries, with mile and miles of featureless (as in Poland and Hungary for instance) must think we are mad to build roads on these areas. Most traffic is cars; the government's stated aim to achieve a 'modal shift' from cars to public transport. This will not be achieved by spending money building roads which benefit cars much more than buses. END"

Richard Holland
"It is my belief that the Examination should pay particular attention to the following issues that arise from the scheme: 1. The scheme envisages and ensures an increase in traffic, displacing the current concentration into other areas. By doing so, it will mean the scheme doesn’t comply with government policies around climate change, and also the ‘modal shift’ away from private motor car use and towards cycling, walking and public transport. 2. The scheme envisages an increase in road accidents. Accidents, and the resulting injuries, deaths and trauma, should be minimised, not increased. 3. The scheme envisages and ensures increased carbon emissions. Therefore, the scheme runs contrary to international and national legislation and guidance. 4. There is a trade-off between mitigating pollution in some areas, and worsening it in others, such as Dinting Vale. Both Glossop and Tintwistle remain as Air Quality Management Areas, despite the claims of the scheme to reduce pollution. 5. The undeveloped character of the local countryside, on the fringes of the original National Park would be ruined by the scheme, entailing increasing urbanisation and encroachment on the beautiful open views. I understand that the scheme minimises the impacts on such important protected species as bats and barn owls by considering them ‘only’ of ‘local value’ - to an extent, this is true - as a local person, I and many others in the local community value them a great deal, and I am sure the same cannot be said of fragmented individuals in private motor cars merely ‘passing through’, perhaps until they reach their destination? 6. There is historical obstinacy in Highways England’s refusal to consider a lorry ban/weight reduction on the route in question. Yet whilst their view has remained static, the world has changing massively, and demands that this scheme is examined with reference to the declaration of a climate emergency and the review of the Treasury’s rules to assess the value of roads. 7. The promoters and backers of this scheme have been historically determined to effectively encroach onto a National Park, despite national policies requiring trunk road traffic to go around such areas. These policies exist for a primary reason: to protect such areas from through traffic. This must be upheld. It is notable that some of the promoters of this scheme see it as a step towards a greater objective of road which reaches directly into the Park. That cannot be allowed to happen."

Richard Leyshon
"I wish to object to the A57 Link Roads scheme on the grounds that: 1. the scheme will not meet its stated aims. Rather, by encouraging and increasing traffic through Glossop, Hollingworth and Tintwistle, it will increase traffic congestion and worsen air quality in these communities. There will be relief provided to residents of Mottram but this will be significantly counterbalanced by negative impacts on the above - mentioned areas; 2. the UK Climate Change Act commits the UK government to reduce greenhouse emissions by at least 100% of 1990 levels by 2050. This scheme will lead to increased carbon emissions and, therefore, runs counter to the aims of this legislation; 3. encouraging further traffic through the Peak District National Park will undermine its aims of providing possibilities for quiet enjoyment of the Park; 4. the stated economic benefits of the scheme are unclear. The BCR assessment also appears to be based on an out of date calculation of the scheme cost and, in any event, does not indicate a high cost / benefit ratio; 5. there will be local impacts upon wildlife and flora, including trees; 6. there does not appear to have been adequate consideration given to alternative means of reducing traffic congestion and improving air quality within the Glossop, Hollingworth and Tintwistle areas. These might include consideration of freight reduction / diversion measures, promotion of alternative modes for personal travel and sustainable transport initiatives."

Harrison Elliott on behalf of Robert Largan MP
"Planning Inspectorate 15 September 2021 Dear Sirs Re: A57 Link Roads Planning Inspectorate Reference: TR010034 As the Member of Parliament for High Peak and as a resident of Glossop, I am registering to become an interested party to formally respond to the consultation on the A57 Link Roads (Mottram Bypass and Glossop Spur). Although the proposed scheme would not be in my constituency, apart from a small section of the Glossop Spur, the scheme will have a large and beneficial effect on the Glossopdale area of my constituency (with the exception of Tintwistle, which I will come to later). There have been traffic problems on the A57/A628, particularly the section from the motorway to the Gun Inn junction in Hollingworth, for decades. A solution has equally been promised for decades - by governments of all colours. At no time, however, has a solution been more necessary than now. Over the past 5 years or so, large increases in house building and approved planning applications for housing developments in both Glossopdale and elsewhere have put additional pressure on the A57/A628. Glossopdale has become more and more popular over the years - unsurprisingly, as it is a fantastic place to live. It's great that more people are discovering how great our area is, but this popularity has brought additional pressures with it, and none more so than the traffic pressure, as more and more people commute to Manchester, Tameside and Stockport - with most of them using the A57 through Mottram. We need the bypass more than ever. I have always fully supported a bypass being built, and I know that support is widespread amongst residents in Glossopdale, with thousands of local people have signed my petition to get the bypass built. Living in Glossop myself and having spent a large amount of time talking to local residents, I believe that there is overwhelming support for the bypass locally. I fully support the proposed scheme. As part of this, I am very pleased that pedestrians and cyclists have been considered at every stage, and I believe that they will be travelling through the area a lot easier and less stressful than at present. Finally, I want to state as strongly as I can that this scheme cannot be the end of the work on the A628. The residents of Tintwistle in my constituency (and Hollingworth, not in my constituency) have lived for decades with heavy traffic going past their front doors - in some cases just a few feet from their front doors. This is bad for their health with all the fumes, it is bad for their sense of community, and it is downright dangerous. Tintwistle residents deserve a break from the unrelenting traffic, air pollution and constant noise. They deserve a bypass too. I will always consider this scheme as only the first phase of what is really needed, and that work towards an urgently needed second phase - around Tintwistle and Hollingworth – must urgently follow these proposals. Yours sincerely Robert Largan MP Member of Parliament for High Peak"

Ruth George
"As county councillor for Whaley Bridge and Chinley I am concerned at an increase in traffic on the A624, including the dangerous junction at Chinley As a local resident I am concerned at the projected increase in traffic on many roads through Glossopdale, including an increase in congestion and air pollution. The levels of asthma in Glossop and Hadfield are already a third higher than the national average and it's vital air pollution does not increase. I believe it is important to assess the impact of Manchester's Clean Air Zone on the area, including any increase in large vehicles around the outskirts of the zone, including in Glossop. The increase in traffic through Tintwistle and Hollingworth due to the CAZ and the link road needs to be assessed and the improved route between Manchester and Sheffield, including a bypass of Hollingworth and Tintwistle brought forward to deliver the strategic improvements necessary. Sustainable travel plans throughout Glossopdale need to be delivered at the same time as the link roads scheme to alleviate congestion, together with improvements to public transport, including the long-promised station at Gamesley to help meet clean air targets and improve connectivity."

Sharefirst My Journey to School
"• What measures are in place to reduce predicted accidents increases? • More detail on design widths of multi-user paths would be welcome, especially if bi-directional and shared by various non-motorised users including equestrian users. Traffic overtaking horses on the off-side, passing close by or close to the local speed limit, for example HGVs and buses, can pose a particular hazard for horses and equestrian users. How will segregated paths encourage ‘passing wide and slow’? Raising awareness through signage and inclusion of training in the scheme could help reduce accidents. • We’d like to study junction detail at the Gun Inn regarding suitability for equestrian users and onward connection to the Coach Road Bridleway. • The A57 link road will move the congestion from Mottram Moor; however will this open the floodgate to traffic using the route through Hollingworth, Tintwistle and onto the A628 Woodhead Pass? You can see there have been improvements to the A628 for example the stretch of road alongside the Dog and Partridge Pub, and also improvements already in place to connect to the M1 motorway. As far as we can see there are no plans for Hollingworth, Tintwistle and Crowden on the A628. What is the forward plan for continued investment in sustainable travel choices in the region? • The road proposal continues to pass close to Hollingworth Primary School and residential areas of Hollingworth, Tintwistle and Cowden. How will current congestion, air quality, safe crossing and safe journeys away from the road be improved? • The road layout is unchanged at Dinting (AQMA zone) with current persistent high NO2 exceedences close to Dinting Primary School, Air pollution, particularly NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 adversely impacts respiratory health and mental health, and traffic modelling for Dinting indicates projected traffic increases with additional HGV load from Glossop Spur road. Given the important artery through Brookfield, Gamesley, Dinting into Glossop and onward to Snake Pass, should the DCO boundary be revised to include Dinting? • How will A57 link road proposals integrate into the Local Plan review underway? • How can local, regional and national government better collaborate towards long term funding to strengthen strategic planning in sustainable travel by TMBC, DCC, HPBC and TfGM and unlock regional investment? • What is driving the predicted increases in traffic volumes at Hattersley / M67 J3-4(1), Dinting(7), A57 Sheffield Road(28) Hollingworth(10), A628 Crowden-Woodhead(23-26)? Are the decreases in traffic at Woolley Bridge realistic(20)? • The traffic modelling is based on data collected in 2015 with an additional range of recent surveys. Does the methodology fairly represent travel impacts from the pandemic, for effective junction operation and signalling solutions at Hattersley, Hollingworth, A628, Glossop Spur Road, Dinting and responsive train and bus services? • How will habitats for notable and protected species be monitored for sensitive mitigations once works have commenced? • When will assessment of Clean Air Zone for users of A628 / A57 be available? • What is status of national discussions regarding increasing size of HGVs?"

Sheffield Green Party
"We believe that a reduction in road transport and radical moves towards a transport network based largely on public transport is essential to meet the challenges of air pollution and climate change. Therefore, all new road expansion proposals need to be examined carefully, at a time when travel habits and policy are rapidly changing. Heavy traffic through Mottram has long been an issue. The link roads are designed partly to relieve this but would push the most serious congestion further east. Tintwistle and Glossop, particularly Dinting Vale, already have almost continuous day-time congestion which is largely independent of the Mottram congestion, but worsened by the latter. Given that new roads nearly always attract greater volumes of traffic, we should assume those areas will suffer even more. Yet there is a much more serious and wider issue that is not being addressed. This is to urgently reduce greenhouse gas emissions to address the climate emergency that Parliament and local authorities across the country have recognised. In October 2019, High Peak Council declared a Climate Emergency and “pledged to work towards a carbon neutral High Peak by 2030”. In November 2019, Derbyshire County Council pledged to become carbon neutral by 2032. In February 2020, Tameside Council declared a Climate Emergency and is now committed to become ‘carbon neutral’ by 2042 with 13.1% year on year reductions in climate emissions. The link road proposals should be assessed against these ambitions. However, the Government’s own official climate advisory body, the CCC, has repeatedly warned that current policies will not put the UK on a path towards meeting the legally binding Climate Change Act. Its recent recommendations for more rapid emissions reductions (by 68% rather than 61% by 2030) have been accepted. The Government clearly accepts the need for more rapid action but there is still a wide gap between the targets and the policies designed to meet them. We therefore believe it appropriate to compare the stated impacts of the scheme to the Tameside Council climate ambitions, which are supported by recent robust evidence. [ https://carbonbudget.manchester.ac.uk/reports/E08000008/ ] This Tyndall Centre report shows that Tameside has a carbon budget of 4.57 MtCO2e for the period 2025-2032 [see Figure 1]. If the proportion of this for surface transport is 27%, as it is nationally [PEIR 14.4.1], this would be 1.23 MtCO2e. If the construction emissions are accounted for evenly between 2025 and 2032 and in the transport sector, total emissions from the scheme up to the end of 2032 (the end of the national Fifth Carbon Budget period) would be 84884t. This represents 7% of Tameside’s notional transport carbon budget. For just two link roads, that is clearly a disproportionate share of the total emissions targets for an entire Local Authority area. The various authorities in the area need to develop a transport strategy which recognises how quickly greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced. It would also bring air quality within legal limits. These new link roads cannot reasonably fit with any such plan. New road building will have to be minimised, in common with everywhere else in the UK. Authorities and their partners in both Manchester and Sheffield are developing transport strategies that involve substantial reductions in road traffic. These involve a much greater emphasis on providing facilities local to where people live, active travel and public transport. These plans would be hampered by increased road traffic between the two cities. The tranquillity of the Peak District National Park in between them would also be clearly harmed. We urge that this scheme be rejected."

Stuart Daly
"The uninterrupted row of traffic is beneficial to the economy and the environment."

Transport Action Network
"Transport Action Network (TAN) wishes to register its objection to the A57 Link Roads scheme for the following reasons: The proposed scheme will increase traffic which will increase pressure for more road building in the Peak District National Park. The scheme will increase carbon emissions by a minimum of 438,837 additional tonnes of CO2e, according to National Highways calculations. This figure is arrived at by adding the extra user emissions generated by the scheme estimated to be 399,867 tonnes CO2e and the construction emissions estimated to be 38,970 tonnes CO2e. This does not include the emissions resulting from site clearance and tree felling or land use change or many other aspects. The monetised cost of the additional carbon resulting from the scheme is given as -£17.4m at paragraph 5.2.21 of the Case for the Scheme. However, this does not use the new carbon values published by BEIS on 2 September 2021 which quadrupled the cost of carbon. The increase in collisions: National Highways predict there will be 102 extra collisions over the 60 year appraisal period for the scheme. However on the A57 Snake Pass, already a very dangerous road with a high collision rate, due in part to its elevation, extreme weather conditions and sharp bends, there would be an extra 160 collisions over 60 years due to the increase in traffic caused by the scheme. The Combined Modelling and Appraisal Report appears to be missing from the draft DCO application, nor is there an Appraisal Summary Table showing the impacts of the scheme over the 60 year appraisal period, and their monetised costs and benefits. There has been inadequate consultation on this scheme. The traffic data for the scheme was not available during the consultation stage which has denied people the opportunity to make an informed response. This critical data, which shows increases in traffic on many roads, was only made available in the draft DCO application documentation. Alternatives to the scheme have not been adequately assessed, including non-roadbuilding alternatives such as detrunking the A628, implementing an HGV ban in the National Park, and redirecting traffic via the motorway network. It is inconsistent with national planning policy (NPPF and NPSNN) to direct extra traffic through a National Park. The impact on the landscape and the Peak District National Park"

Savills on behalf of Trustees of Mrs E Bissill’s Marriage Settlement
"Ref: TR010034 We do not object to the principle of the A57 Link Roads however we have a number of objections to the proposals. We engaged through the consultation process and our client submitted a consultation response but we have not received a response. We requested a meeting to discuss the scheme but no meeting has been forthcoming. Our objections are as follows: Excessive land take • We have not been provided with clarity on the extent of land to be permanently acquired and request that Highways England demonstrate the need for the permanent land take, specifically the landscaping/planting areas. • A large area of the land below the new road will be used for temporary compound purposes. We require detail of the proposed access and use of this compound. • We note that an attenuation pond and watercourse are to be created, and rights of way diverted. Confirmation of the future ownership of these areas is required. • Land Plan - 2 of 10 shows (2/1i, 2/1g, 2/1a, 1/9a & 1/9b) areas of temporary land take with permanent rights acquired. We request details of the permanent rights together with the justification for these rights. Excessive rights being acquired • A right of way is reserved for maintaining ecology mitigation. The route shown is not an acceptable route for this purpose. We require clarity on the proposed right of way and why it is necessary in that location. • We request that Highways England demonstrate the need for the diverted and excessive rights of way which will have a detrimental impact on the farming of the land. Farming /business impact We require more information regarding the proposed fencing, drainage, farm access and underpass to assess the impact on the land and farming business. • We note that the width of the underpass is stated to be 3.5m wide, there are no height measurements. We require a full specification of the underpass proposed. • We require confirmation that a legal unrestricted right of access will be provided for the use of the underpass. • Field drainage is not shown on the culvert and drainage drawings. We require confirmation that a field drainage scheme will be designed and implemented by a specialist agricultural drainage contractor. • There are currently four culverted crossing points over the Hurstclough Brook. We require confirmation that these access points will remain Residential property • Old Mill Farmhouse is situated approximately 185m from the new road. The farmhouse is in very close proximity and there will be a significantly detrimental impact on the residential amenity. • We have not received any details relating to the proposed mitigation measures in respect of noise, light and vibration. • We request a copy of the EIA which covers noise, light and vibration impacts. We require details of mitigation measures proposed for noise, light and vibration. We are willing to discuss the above matters with Highways England with a view to seeking a satisfactory conclusion for both parties, but until such time as a satisfactory conclusion is reached, this objection remains extant."

Victoria Gaffney
"The Highways England figures show the new spur road - not bypass as was originally proposed - will increase congestion on roads in Glossopdale, and increase accidents on Snake Pass, which would have a large adverse affect on the local area I live in. My house backs onto Primrose Lane which is expected to see an increase in the number of vehicles. I commute to work in Sheffield via Snake Pass, which is a difficult road to drive on and I am very concerned about the risk of increased accidents on this road. There are a range of other measures that could be used to reduce traffic or take it away from cars and onto other transport forms, this is the only sustainable way to improve the situation, improve health and reduce travel times. I would be much more supportive of a scheme that bypassed Mottram, Tintwistle and Hollingworth. However, the situation has changed somewhat since COVID, and with the impending Greater Manchester Clean Air Zone, we need to look at longer term strategies, not just building bigger roads. Continuing to blindly support this project is meaningless if Hollingworth and Tintwistle plans are not already in the pipeline, which they are not. This isn't a stepping stone to a full bypass, it's a waste of time and money."

Zara Fernley
"I believe the Examination should scrutinise issues including increased air pollution and subsequent health issues caused by this in the Glossop area, the proposed destruction of greenbelt land, increased carbon emissions and lack of consideration given to alternative options such as weight restrictions on the Snake Pass and Woodhead. I object to the proposal for A57 link road for the reasons detailed below: 1. The scheme would increase traffic on many residential roads in Glossop. The benefits to Mottram come at the expense of the rest of Longdendale and Glossopdale where traffic volume and air pollution is already an issue. 2. Road accidents would increase across the network. On the A57 Snake Pass, a high risk road for a fatal or serious injury crash, there would be 160 extra collisions over 60 years. 3. Over 60 years of operation the scheme would add an extra 399,867 tonnes of carbon dioxide. Carbon emissions must be tested against international and national legislation and guidance including the Paris Agreement, the 2008 Climate Change Act’s legally binding target of net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, the UK Sixth Carbon Budget, science-based carbon budgets from the Tyndall Centre, and the National Planning Policy Framework which requires ‘radical reductions of greenhouse gas emissions’. 4. Although air pollution improves for some areas, for others nitrogen dioxide levels remain above the legal limit e.g. on Market Street in Hollingworth. In one part of Dinting Vale air pollution gets worse. The Air Quality Management Areas in Tintwistle and Glossop would remain. The Greater Manchester Clean Air Zone has been excluded from the air quality modelling but could lead to traffic diverting to avoid paying the toll, creating congestion and air pollution elsewhere. 5. The scheme involves fragmentation, loss or displacement of diminishing wildlife habitats such as wet grazing meadows and of protected species, such as bats and barn owls. The impacts on the rich and diverse wildlife are minimised because species are considered only of ‘local value’. Local countryside, highly valued for its natural undeveloped character and open views, would be urbanised and the Green Belt would be cut in two. 6. A lorry ban coupled with sustainable transport measures and technological improvements would bring lasting benefits and avoid the above adverse impacts but Highways England rejected this option. Far reaching changes since 2015 - the declaration of a climate emergency; the Covid-19 pandemic; and a review of the Treasury’s rules to assess the value of roads make scrutiny of this option essential. 7. The Peak District National Park is a haven for wildlife and a place where everyone can get outdoors and enjoy nature, peace and quiet and also a significant bank of carbon. With more traffic on cross Park routes these special qualities will be eroded. National policy requires trunk road traffic to go round National Parks."

Natural England
"Please find attached Natural England’s Relevant Representation for TR010034 as part of our registering our interest."