Mersey barrage NO-ONE would dispute that another Mersey crossing is needed, and it seems that the powers that be have decided on a nice looking modern road bridge, to the east of the current Runcorn and Widnes bridge. However, some 20 years ago, my then geography teacher conducted a study into a 'Mersey barrage', which would lie to the west, closer to Liverpool airport. The purpose of this was threefold: 1. To continue the M57 (and A5300) as a continuous six lane motorway link to the M53 and M56. 2. To reduce the volume of traffic (and pollution) going through Halton, extending the life of the current bridge and 3. To provide environmentally clean hydro electricity from the vast amount of water that would build up behind the barrage. The electricity could be sold to large petrol and chemical industries close by, thus paying for the barrage itself by this method, rather than 'taxing' the motorist again by slapping a 'toll' on the new bridge and the current one. With the world's attention turning towards renewable energy sources like HEP, would such a barrage not be more preferential than a simple, albeit nice looking road bridge? Mark Leavesley,
Walton Students exploited THE ward I represent on Liverpool city council has the highest proportion of students anywhere in the city, living cheek by jowl with some of the most deprived communities in Europe. The developers' free-for-all is not in the interests of long-standing city centre communities like Marybone. Most of my constituents living in Marybone would profoundly disagree with the council's assertion that student housing has contributed to the regeneration of their area. It's not in the interests of students, often compelled by rampant market forces, to live in unsafe areas in poor quality private accommodation. What's more, the present approach is unsustainable, contributing to the collapse of the housing market in many parts of our city. Like Cllr Paul Clein, I have called on Liverpool to follow the lead of Leeds and Birmingham and introduce a policy restricting further development of student housing in certain parts of the city. Like Cllr Clein I am disappointed that the council's ruling Lib Dem Cabinet appear to have rejected this option in favour of leaving it to the developers. Unlike Cllr Clein, however, neither I nor my party sit on the Council's Cabinet. Cllr Nick Small,
Labour, Central ward | 
Article
