• YOU ARE NOT BEING TREATED FAIRLY because you are not being given the facts or the time to consider them. The consultation is being held over the busy Christmas and New Year period, so at best the timing is ill-judged and at worst it appears to have been planned to minimise serious debate and involvement by the public. Also, the wording on the consultation literature makes it look like a done deal. Did the County Council inform you properly by simply publishing the plans in some of the local papers. Not everyone in Stafford reads a paper, so has the consultation been fairly publicisied? STAR doesn't think so, and if this is the way things are done in Stafford, the county town where the traffic planning officers actually work, how well are these consultations carried out in the rest of the county?

• THIS IS NOT A BYPASS BUT AN ACCESS ROAD, as its main purpose would be to provide access to Burleyfields, the remaining stretch of green, farming land around Stafford Castle, between the Newport Road, Doxey Road and M6. The road would allow around 2,000 houses to be built, with £5 million of the costs for this road being met by the developers. Would this road just be a £31m subsidy for the land owners and housing developers paid for by you, the tax payer?
• THIS ROAD WOULD NOT REDUCE CONGESTION as more homes would mean more cars clogging up Stafford’s roads. Also, this road would do nothing to sort Stafford’s main traffic problem hotspots on the Lichfield, Weston and Wolverhampton Roads. The County Council keeps on claiming this road would ease congestion in Stafford, but the real reason is access for a new housing estate. In an interview on radio, one Councillor even claimed this road would ease congestion when the M6 is shut, but this doesn’t stand up, because the diverted traffic would still bottleneck at Foregate Street or the Wolverhampton Road. So why build there? Are we being mislead?
• HOW MUCH WOULD IT COST YOU? These kinds of projects often go over budget. One line of thought has it that the Government puts contracts like this out to tender and then has to accept the lowest bid, so the companies wanting the contract simply put in the lowest offer. Once the deal is done, any spending over the agreed budget is picked up by the tax payer. Other reasons for projects to go over budget are the customer (that's us, the taxpayer, via S.C.C.) changing their minds about what materials are to be used, or that not enough materials or work were expected to be needed.That is why these schemes often double in cost. So £36m could become £72m. Has the County Council told you who would pay for any overspend? How would you feel if any overspend were to be added to your Council Tax bill?
• THE DESTRUCTION OF DOXEY MARSHES. Everyone in Stafford knows how important the Doxey Marshes nature reserve is for rare wildlife. It has even been designated a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). This road would be a disaster, because the noise and disruption caused by building the road and the increased traffic would scare away some very rare animals which may never return. This could be the beginning of the end for Stafford’s most important natural asset.
• CLIMATE CHANGE affects each and every one of us. Going against both the perceived scientific wisdom and the UK Government's 2007 Climate Act, (which obliges the nation to reduce greenhouse emissions by 80% by 2050), this road would encourage more carbon emissions. Stafford needs a transport policy with a long-term view to reducing these emissions.
• THE MONEY WOULD BE BETTER SPENT ELSEWHERE.  At a time when public services are facing the worst cuts in living memory should the money not be saved for essential services? £31 million pounds is the equivalent of a new secondary school (£25) million, three new GP run health centres, or the salary for around 1000 nurses or 700 teachers.                                                      

On another point, STAR co-ordinator Tom Harris writes:"The wording in some of the original consultation material and press releases appears incredibly biased to me. This letter, which went out to some residents near the proposed route, clearly gives anyone who reads it the impression that this road is a done deal, and that the public may have a say about which of the four proposed routes it prefers. It does not seem to be putting a balanced argument based on facts and figures, but a list of assumed outcomes. It reminds me of a great trick a someone might employ to get what they want. One asks the other "What would you like to eat? Nothing, pizza, soup or burgers?". Nobody would reply that they want nothing, so whatever the the reply it will always be a choice the first person will be happy with because they chose all of the possible outcomes.

In fact, to me, it looks like the County Council wants the reader to arrive at just the conclusion they want them to, in the same way a used car salesman would do to get a quick sale. They even employ a subtle colour scheme ploy in the choices - nothing = blank = invisible, red = danger, blue = neutral, green = go!

Have a look at the wording on the site and in the materials and see if you agree. (NOTE: The site has recently been updated with a link to information on the 'strategic context'. This link was not on the original site and appears to have been added quietly.)

This is the press release in question, which was presumably written in response to the Express and Star front page story about Mike Shone of the Green Party calling for the plans to be scrapped.

How can the County Council claim this is a fair consultation when this press release not only appears to seek to influence opinion, but also gives the impression the plans will go ahead whatever the public’s opinion is and whatever the results of the surveys show. Statements such as “This is a major engineering project which will have a positive impact on Stafford’s infrastructure” gives the reader the impression that the decision has already been made and the road will be built regardless. For this reason alone I think the public should show Staffordshire County Council how unacceptable this practice is.

The real scandal is that the people of Stafford are not being presented with the local authorities’ plans for the town in a complete and upfront manner. The County Council is responsible for roads, so their poorly conducted consultation only paints half a picture. The Borough planners are responsible for housing, so they will only ever put their half. This way the people of Stafford will never be presented with the full picture, and so will never be in a position to make a reasoned judgement. I find this grotesquely undemocratic, unjust and unfair."

Read more about STAR and the arguments against these proposals at Tom Harris's blog.

UPDATE 12/01/10: Ten days to go and the leaflets are continuing to be distributed, with some or all of Hillcroft Park, Castletown, Castlefields and the Marston Road area having received copies. More volunteers are kindly coming forward all the time and other areas are set to receive leaflets in the coming days.

STAR understands the situation on the Weston and Lichfield Roads are set to get worse as a major industrial site on St Leonard's Avenue is set to be redeveloped, adding the strain of the traffic for more houses and offices.

UPDATE 08/01/10: STAR are taking receipt of 4,000 flyers today, the very day the consultation, or 'nonsultation', or even 'insultation', was due to end. Over the next ten days or so these leaflets will be distributed to commuters, bus passengers, motorists and homes. STAR will continue to get the message out.