The Blackwater Valley Action Group
The “European dimension” to the A120 proposals

We urge Ministers, the Highways Agency, Essex CC and existing and prospective MPs to reject the inclusion of the A120/M11 route in the European Union's 1996 Trans-European Network Project 13, so that Ministers and the Highways Agency can focus on the immediate priorities of

  • alleviating congestion and improving safety by upgrading the existing A120 between Braintree and Marks Tey
  • and to devoting maximum resources to upgrading the existing A120E/A12/A14 route between Harwich and the M6 in the Midlands.

In that way the UK would have fulfilled its European obligations in a more economically and environmentally sensible way, and solved existing problems with the A120 rather than waiting until they might be able to afford some super-highway for trans-European freight lorries through the Blackwater Valley!

At the Highways Agency’s public consultation in February 2005 on its proposals for the Braintree – Marks Tey section of the A120, local residents were horrified to discover that one of the justifications for building a whole new 4/6-lane highway (rather than just upgrading the existing road) was that it would be part of a Trans-European Network project.

We had been aware of plans to link the Eastern ports of Felixstowe and Harwich to Holyhead via Birmingham but we had understood that this involved providing upgraded links to mainland Europe via ferry links to Scotland and Wales, the A14 and M6 roads across England, and the ferry ports of Felixstowe and Harwich. Those in favour of such a Trans-European Network project no doubt hoped that “European money” would be available for such upgrades.

 The EU's Trans-European Network Project 13 - agreed in 1996
However it was only on closer inspection of the European Commission’s proposals (2002, ISBN 92-894-3963-7) that we discovered that “Project 13 - Ireland/United Kingdom/Benelux road link” (approved 1996) included two routes from the Eastern ports to the Midlands, the existing A14/M6 route and a route taking Harwich traffic down past Colchester on to the A120 to Stansted then Northwards up the M11 to join the A14. In reality the obvious solution for Dublin-bound Harwich road traffic is to join the A12 at Colchester, go North up the A12 to Ipswich and join the North-West bound A14 towards then Midlands.

In today’s more environmentally-conscious times, it is hard to understand how the British Government and Brussels could have even considered designating the A120/M11 as a serious proposal for Harwich – Birmingham road traffic, and such a project needs serious re-evaluation if the UK and the EU are serious about their environmental commitments. Any “European money” should be devoted to upgrading the existing A14/M6 route, including interchanges such as Copdock/Ipswich.

The “European dimension” appears to have skewed decision-making in favour of building a major new highway across virgin countryside rather than addressing the urgent need to upgrade the existing A120 and providing much-needed new or improved bypasses at Bradwell, Coggeshall and Marks Tey. Also anyone who knows the region knows that the A12 (especially from the M25 to Ipswich) deserves higher prioritisation, and following a spate of accidents and blockages both Essex and Suffolk transport chiefs have called on the government for urgent action on the A12, which is a route of national importance.

However it seems that the “European dimension” may also account for another aspect of the Highways Agency’s thinking regarding the A120 between Braintree and Marks Tey, namely the rejection of the route originally favoured by Essex CC (presented by Mouchel), namely for the new A120 to join the A12 South of Kelvedon. The Highways Agency did not initially even look at this option as it considered it to be too much of a “North-South” dogleg or diversion for road traffic between the Eastern ports and the Midlands.

As the BWvAG pointed out, this rejection of Essex CC’s route was absurd if the Highways Agency was happy for the traffic to go North-South for 30 miles on the M11! We understand that Essex CC now also agree with the Highways Agency’s rejection of a Braintree-Kelvedon option. The same logic should surely also apply in even greater measure to the extravagant idea of having a second, more Southerly leg to the Trans European Network Project 13?

We urge Ministers, the Highways Agency, Essex CC and existing and prospective MPs now also to reject the inclusion of the A120/M11 route in the proposed Trans-European Network project, so that Ministers and the Highways Agency can focus on the immediate priorities of alleviating congestion and improving safety by upgrading the existing A120 between Braintree and Marks Tey and to devoting as many resources as can be justified to upgrading the existing A120/A12/A14 route between Harwich and the M6 in the Midlands.