SIR: I am an objector to the A5225 and as a result have maintained a close interest in any activity concerning its progress. Newspaper articles referred to the resurrection of this road. They imply this was a recent development which is untrue. The road was never withdrawn, but put on hold in November 1996 for three months as a result of lobbying. This was to allow local bodies to explore the option of raising private finance to build it. At the end of the period AMEC put in an outline proposal but a decision on it was put on hold due to the election. The present government is undertaking a review of national roadbuilding and the future of this road is still uncertain. Further, my information suggests that the AMEC proposal, in order to reduce costs, is a vastly scaled down version of that proposed by the Highways Agency.

The Council Leader of Wigan Metro stated that the information in the articles is incorrect in detail and that the Metro have not entered into any negotiations with AMEC.

The general public were made aware of the "cancellation " via all the media outlets at the time. Properties on the route were blighted, how many of the owners have since spent money on them secure in the knowledge that their property had a future? The Metro blithely claim the Highways Agency will pick up blight costs but will it include these additional costs?

There is nothing wrong in Wigan Metro trying alternative ways of getting the road built but the secretive manner in which they appear to be doing it is. The exercise has been going on since the road was officially cancelled.

Why haven't councillors made the matter public and saved some of the electorate possibly needless expense? Why the secrecy? What have they to hide?

Jim Ellis

Anti Road Campaigner

Newark Road, Hindley

Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.