I HAVE observed the planning process for the new Mersey crossing for about a decade by representing a local sailing club.

The early stages were very public discussions involving everyone from residents to emergency services, including our modest club.

The consultation process culminated in an Environmental Assessment Report 2008, which was published widely and went to Parliament, which approved the Mersey Gateway Bridge Order 2011.

For our sailing club the big message of the order was the principle that the river would remain open for navigation except for key stages in the construction.

Time passed and we have reached the construction stage and just had a meeting with the constructors.

They explained that they now have a Works Act and local planning permissions obtained from Halton Borough Council which supersede the agreements of 2008 and the 2011 order.

The river will now be closed at all times except for about eight specific openings per year to be requested at least a month in advance and agreed only if they don’t conflict with construction work.

We were worried as our slipway is used by emergency services for access up and downriver, but the constructors said that they had already made specific individual agreements with the RNLI and other agencies.

I challenged the spokesman that the Work Act and local planning as he described them had allowed him to revoke any commitments made in public and replace them with local deals between themselves and any individual groups that they chose.

His reply was that we could take what was being offered within their new operational practices or have nothing.

When we pointed out that these local river amenities were in Warrington he made it clear Halton’s needs were their focus and they had little interest in Warrington.

That response explained how an agreement to toll the existing bridge as well as the new had been reached. To toll only the new would create chaos in Halton as travellers sought the free route.

But by tolling both bridges the avoidance of tolls would divert more traffic to Warrington.

Having our sailing curtailed for a few years is small beer compared to the opportunity of a major new transport link for the north west, but it is the cynical disregard for publicly made commitments that worries me.

I now understand why campaigners refuse to engage even with the feasibility stage of major public projects.

If commitments made to engage those affected by a project can simply be overturned by subsequent Works Acts then who will ever trust the planning process in future?

ROB MCCULLOCH
Appleton