General   (General discussion, talk about anything.)

Spud 1, maybe that is why the Dept of Transport scrapped the idea, the escalating costs due to poor ground conditions.
I go on a website regularly of the British Geological Survey for allsorts of stuff. One of the sections on there will give you access to borehole records and maps all over the country. Some of the info is restricted but all of the hundreds of boreholes and trial pits done for the A5225 scheme are there to be looked at.
You can see the proposed route as it was then in 1990 when the boreholes were done. If you compare it with the latest proposals for the route you can see where it has been changed because of the ground conditions. Not just at Amberswood but at the other opencast site it was originally designed to cross at Daisy Hill. At Daisy Hill, the opencast contractor was instructed to provide an "engineered" strip across the backfill and it was done under supervision. However, when the boreholes were done later, the strip was found to be unsuitable for road construction. Fortunately, at Daisy Hill, they had scope to move the road completely off that route and put it into a junction with Atherleigh Way at Howe Bridge.
They have no scope for that at Amberswood. They have already moved parts of the route at least twice but there is quite a long stretch which cannot be moved.
I think the council is bluffing when they keep going on about building this road, just as a PR exercise.