Transport Insights

Transport secretary Heidi Alexander’s request for more information about National Highways’ £340m M60/M62/M66 Simister Island project as she considers its planning application has generated some media coverage and an interesting snippet about how the company spends our money.

At the heart of the issue is a dispute about what, if anything, the scheme will do to improve the Haweswater underpass, which goes under the motorway and provides a form of access for local people.

Here’s the question that Alexander asked after ministers said they would throw money at the scheme.

The Secretary of State is aware that, during the examination, the Applicant indicated that it was exploring designated funding to support some improvements to the Haweswater underpass.

The Secretary of State requests an update from the Applicant on whether a bid has been made for that designated funding, and if so, any update as to whether that bid has been successful.

Bear in mind that then the applicant (National Highways) talks about making a “bid” for designated funding, it is claiming to make a bid to itself.

Anyway, here is its answer:

The Applicant confirms that a bid for Designated Funding to carry out improvements to the Haweswater Underpass will be made to seek to secure its delivery in the financial year 2026/27 as all funds have now been allocated for the 2025/26 financial year. The Applicant would reiterate that there is no guarantee that funding will be made available, and the improvements are outside the scope of the Scheme.

So National Highways is happy to spend £340m on a scheme to increase road capacity but is going to pass the begging bowl to itself to improve access for locals. And when it says there is no guarantee that funding will be made available, it is something of an understatement.

Designated funds for environmental, safety and active travel (etc) purposes existed under the first two road investment strategies and are within the interim settlement for the current year. But the third road investment strategy hasn’t been agreed and there is no guarantee that it will have designated funds, let along what they might be directed at.

So National Highways is telling the transport secretary as part of a formal, legal planning process that it “will” make a bid (to itself) for cash from a fund that does not currently exist.

Transport Action Network, with whom I have worked, disputes the claim that the underpass, which is on land owned by NH and goes directly under the M60, is not part of the scheme, pointing out that it will be significantly altered as the motorway will be widened and the underpass lengthened.

It says the underpass is “flooded, muddy, unfit for walking on”.

The Manchester Evening News has picked up on the issue and has comments from local councillors who, like TAN, want to see the underpass improved so that it represents a link between communities, rather than the barrier that it is currently.