White Horse Alliance - A350 Westbury Bypass Campaign

Inquiry day: 13

Inquiry date: 9 July 2008

See notes part 1; part 2

Inquiry index

Notes, part 1

Original document(PDF): Day_12_James.pdf

Day Thirteen

1997 planning conference. Kansarai Appendix B. Confirm that as part of the planning conference, it was an open forum and public transport in WSB was one of the matters raised?

-As far as I'm aware

Funding. Can you confirm your understanding that there is a letter indicating funding within three years?

-Cannot recall, but accept it is there

Kansarai Appendix C. Second document, letter entitled 'Regional Funding Allocation, 6 July 2006'. Annex B. Schemes for funding within the next three years.

-Covered in my evidence that such schemes subject to certain conditions

Your evidence suggests that the funding arrangements should be treated with caution. Not saying that is an impediment to funding?

-Impediment, I would take to meaning a 'known barrier' to funding

You are not raising any impediment, you are raising a note of caution?

-The specific point I wanted to draw attention to is in Para4.5.2, containing context of Annex B list.

Planning policy. FP2.5.6. Not supported by West Wilts District Plan amendment. Letter indicating change from council member.

-Also referring to committee report, when legal adviser said position of District Council did not indicate support for scheme

Mack Appendices. Letter from Cllr Clegg, 22/02/05. Letter says District Plan first alteration improved in June, supporting text says route safeguarded for funding. District Plan Policy T1A. No requirement for it to be safeguarded until some event?

-In supporting text

Amendment would be the deletion of supporting text, would not otherwise affect the policy?


Confirm that no such note ever forthcoming?

-Not to my knowledge

RPG10. CD2.1. Section 8, Transport. Table 6, pg89. Infrastructure and Investment for Encouraging Sustainable Transport Systems. Also, Regional Transport Strategy Plan, pg86. One of the routes on the plan N-S transport links improvements, Southampton-Bath, Bath-Swindon. Any doubt that the Southampton-Bath route is the A36-A46 route?


Bath-Swindon is the A350?

-Also doubt

-Both described as transport corridor

-A350 and A36 elements in corridor

Table 6, references include road references?


Roads do not include A350 or specifically the A36 and A46. What is the road that runs from Southampton and addresses Bath World Heritage Site?

-That would be the A36

Table 6. Improvements to N-S transport links, can include improvements to road?


RPG10, Improvements to the A350 would be considered to fall within RPG10?

-Would fall within it, but another issue whether RPG10 supports road improvements

-Road improvement capable of being within policy

RPG10, roads mentioned specifically do not include A350?

-Overall context strongly relating to sustainability

-Proof 4.1.4, priority for sustainable transport. Four of five points speak strongly of thrust towards sustainable transport

-In this context must read case for improvements to road other that those specifically mentioned

Tran4, pg88. You have summarised points?


-Westbury not close enough to PUA to manage congestion in PUA

Table 6. Confirm that the reference to specific roads, at the time this RPG10 was drafted all trunk roads and motorways?


Within RPG10 it is important to take into account what is said in totality of section?


Tran 2, Strategic inter-urban and inter-regional transport networks. In the context of this document., given the fact the A350 capable of falling within definition of improvements to N-S transport links, must be the case that policy Tran 2 must apply?

-Don't think it must be the case

-RPG10 not specific

Doesn't need to be specific?

-Accept that in the context of RPG10, if you interpret the BB2SC corridor as being strategic inter-urban, then in that interpretation you could regard Tran 2 as applying.

RPG10, Para8.19. Efficient delivery of goods economically essential. Indicated yesterday that lorry route included the A350, but referred to as a local lorry route?

-Referred to a local improvement, not local route

CD2.9, LTP1. Pg197. Fig showing strategic and local lorry routes. A350 a strategic route?

-In LTP1 it does

-Didn't refer to as a local lorry route

-Since then RSS and other reports indicated that the A350 does not have the same significance as the A36 for lorries.

Is the position that the A350 still a lorry route?

-Cannot confirm that

-LTP1 is from 2001-2006

Not aware if it is part of lorry route?

-Part of signed lorry route, not aware of whether it is a primary strategic lorry route or some other lorry route.

RSS, also Simkins rebuttal, 4.17/4.21. Refer to Mr Simkins conflating EiP recommendation, raise question of status, nothing in report saying A350 has increased status, does not enhance environment. Do accept scheme would do something for the built environment?


What is the status of the A350 within the RSS?

-Intra-regional route, policy TR10.

RSS EiP, pgC60. Trans2 not a policy which applies to scheme?


Cross reference that to pgC31. Reference A. Priorities listed.

Trans 7, pgC62. Corridor management approach applied, we are in a strategic corridor?

-The caution has to be made that strategic means they all have equal status

In the context of the policy approach, they are not set out in order of priorities?


No comparative exercise?

-Saying that corridor management approach does not imply equal status.

Tran 7E makes it clear it does apply to the A350?


-Management approach for A350 very different to other corridors.

Tran 7, corridor management approach aims to improve reliability of journey times?


Tran 7. Highway authorities should reduce impact of travel on built and natural environment, quality of life, air quality, etc. Justification has been raised on the basis of impact on traffic on built and natural environment?


Quality of life?


Air quality?


Agree that bypass falls within approach?

-Basic conflict between built and natural environment

-Road construction not the only option.

RSS, Tran 7E . Point raised on next paragraph. Review on relationship between A36, A46 and A350 and traffic management at Bath. Need for review arises from activity within Bath?


Stronger traffic management in Bath intended to reduce traffic in Bath?


If that is the case and measures implemented, more traffic pushed onto A350?

-Cannot assume that before the review.

Consequence of Bath measures is that it is likely to increase traffic on A350?

-Do not accept conclusion

-Assuming fixed trip matrix across a very wide area. Wrong to assume that if traffic does not go through Bath it goes through A350.

-Wrong to make assumptions before review

-Possible that review will conclude that stronger demand management will reduce traffic in Bath and A350.

The one point not addressed in evidence or rebuttal, is the expressed attitude of the body responsible of RSS to importance of scheme on A350. Aware that body responsible for RSS have made views on bypass known?

-Aware that body supports bypass

Aware that body explained consistency of bypass with RPG10 and RSS?

-Regional funding allocation indicates consistency with regional strategies.

Kansarai Appendix C. Letter dated 24/05. Third paragraph – proposal in line with spatial strategy outlined, proposals will facilitate faster journey times to Trowbridge. Also complies with Policy Tran 2. A350 identified as regionally significant road. Represent attitude of body responsible for regional planning?

-Inconsistencies and contradictions

Mack final appendix. Letter sent to members of conformity panel. Response to application, members informed on same basis.


-Responses to note indicate that panel members or other members of board say that they completely disagree with that.

Responses not before inquiry?

-Can be made available before Cate Mack's evidence

Structure Plan. Rebuttal to Simkins, Para 3.3.5. In essence para tells us that structure plan not similar to predecessor document. Latter document stipulates Eastern bypass?


District Plan, Policy T1A, safeguards route of Eastern bypass?

-Safeguards route without supporting

-Still subject to para 3.4.3

In terms of development plan, we have identified that structure plan stipulates Eastern bypass, and District Plan T1A safeguards route?


-Subject to all comments made in course of evidence

-Has a bearing to importance attached to Development Plan

Law requires regard to Development Plan unless material considerations?

-Material considerations suggest otherwise

Source of comment that scheme predicated on that basis of traffic growth?

-Traffic growth forecasted in models

Traffic scheme justified on basis of traffic growth?

-Starting point is that there will be traffic growth

Starting point is that it should be there today, position not changed if traffic growth does not occur. Fundamental error in your assumption.

-Would change economic evaluation of scheme affected drastically by forecasts on traffic growth

Wrong that scheme predicated on basis of traffic growth?

-Assumption of traffic growth a significant assumption of scheme

Will scheme assist with Journey Time Reliability?

-Not in my view, though know that evidence from council states otherwise

Evidence from council includes journey times surveys?

-Also seen WHA journey time surveys

Surveys show difference of 10-21 minutes?

-Difference in time for journey between Warminster and West Ashton, surveys do not show effect on Westbury

-Yarnbrook roundabout is a more significant point of journey unreliability than Westbury town centre.

Accept that there is significant out-commuting from Westbury?


Planning system can facilitate creation of jobs?


Aware of the discussions that have taken place dealing with economic considerations?

-Aware, but evidence covered by others.

Pg3, Full proof 2.5.9. Scheme benefits. Scheme modelled with HGV ban on Station Rd, but not a firm proposal. Source of this understanding?

-Planning application said that following construction of bypass would seek HGV ban

-Correspondence between WCC and WHA saying no HGV ban

-Never discussed with Freight Quality Partnership.

Westbury Bypass Now

Would you agree that choice of route emotive issue for local residents?

-In sense that people have opinions

How much weight placed on local opinion?

-Something that should be given full consideration

-Champion local participation

WBN proof. Table 2.4.

-Number of problems with figures

-Respondents supporting only bypass on offer

-Since 1997 conference a large majority of people support bypass

-Surveys consistently showed more support for W route.

-Current surveys only ask about E route.

-Respondents led to believe that there is no viable alternative, when in fact there is, as recognised by WCC.

Landscape Proof. Section 4. Impact on Townscape. 4.2, appendices show photographs. Who took photographs?

-Jenny Raggett

How did she determine what peak periods were?

-Not aware

-Photos indicate traffic at stated times

-Ideally am peak photos would have been taken earlier

Photos taken approximately every 30 seconds. Only 56 photographs, over period of 53 minutes. Doesn't equate to one every 30 seconds?

-May well not do

Also photographs of Yarnbrook roundabout. Is it fair to assume that the reason why these were taken was to compare Yarnbrook off-peak with Westbury at-peak?

-Photos taken after Inspector's visit, when traffic levels were exceptional

-Traffic levels have been exceptional throughout inquiry due to road closures elsewhere.

Final sentence, 4.3. Gives indication of real extent of traffic impact. Not correct?

-Static photo will never give full impression of traffic impact


Mr Randle asked how long you had spent on the site. You said seven-eight days. How much of that was spent on each route site?

-1 ½ days at W route area

Where did you go in the area, and at what time of year?

-Visited in March

-Drove along all roads, walked along main footpaths, including path from Dilton Marsh that crosses railway and ends near Rudge.

Refer to WCC last published FW alignment running close to Fairwood. Actually runs through Fairwood, close to Brokerswood. Agree?

-Depends on definition of Fairwood

-According to OS definition, route passes close Fairwood, not particularly close to Brokerswood

-Emphasise that do not regard route as optimal FW route.

Opportunity do cross railway in cuttings. One cutting in Fairwood, and others. Accept that is where cuttings are?

-Was referring to Round Wood area, to west of Fairwood farm

-In principle route should follow railway, on the northern side

Suggesting that might be possible to cross railway at that point. Would there be any point crossing so close to A36?

-Would take further away from Standerwick

-Would have more space at that section of road

-Would be closer to Warminster

Would mean demolition of property at cutting?


-Emphasise that these are preliminary views, making in-principle assessment.

-Questioned why FW route has to go entirely to the N of WWTE – 1999 report pointed to several alternatives.

You refer to fact that route could come between trading estate?

-Because of existence of tree belt would not effect the Ham.

-Road could be thought of as more an access route to WWTE than a bypass

UPRAWW A/3.C. Flood risk map. Agree that serious challenges to extension of WWTE route to the west?

-Certainly challenges, unaware of whether these preclude extension

Accept that flood risk already for WWTE?

-Nature of these maps fail to show height of land close to river

Would you say flooding is a serious consideration for along FW route?

-Most of route avoids flood plain

Huge flooding area at Fairwood

-May well be that flood risk element prompted particular FW route as defined by WCC.

Map shows flooding areas that challenge routes that come closer to trading estate and the Ham?

-Clearly a flooding issue to address in the engineering design

-Similar to problems facing Glenmore link.

How has flooding impact been resolved at Glenmore Link?

-In principle crossing must be designed with sufficient capacity or with holding areas

Holding areas and some embankment of road?

-Not necessarily significant embankment of road

Level of noise coming from WWTE modest. What research did you do not industrial content of trading estate?

-Comments on W area based on visual impact, not noise.

Suggest that you witnessed considerable amount of noise from B3099. Where were you when you witnessed that?

-Where bridleway crosses railway.

-Could see and hear traffic.

-Also background hum from A36, can hear individual cars on B3099. Cars almost always present.

Comparing most tranquil part of E route with noisiest part of W route?

-Arguing that there is a not a critical difference between areas, apart from at Wellhead Valley

-Should not overstate impact on W route area, but less tranquillity in W route area.

Reference for assessment that W area less tranquil?

-See re-examination

B3099 only classified road that runs through W route area?


-Accept that more tranquil to the N of railway than to the S.

Suggest that biodiversity of W less than E.

-General point in evidence is that the level of information for FW route is not sufficiently equal to level of information of E route, for conclusion to be drawn that FW route not preferable.

-12 bat species affected by E route, 4-5 bats noted on W route, but less information available.

Aware that until the further surveys of the E route were undertaken following route selection, there was not the extent of information for E route either?

-Cannot confirm

-Not safe to conclude that there is greater impact on bat species on the FW route.

English Nature state that biodiversity increases westward?

-Not aware

Agree that we do not know which route has the greater impact?

-Agreed, but unless established that there is not a better alternative, cannot reach safe conclusion under habitats directive, that can proceed with preferred option.

Summary Proof 2.7. W route preferable, achieves more with lesser impact.

-At the moment have no basis for claiming that the E bypass has less biodiversity impact

SP2.7 should refer only to SLA?

-Overall impact, noting that there is a very sensitive section of the E route.

Landscape fit. Focused on Wellhead Valley and area around Bratton Rd. Because of embankment?

-Combination of cutting and embankment.

-Gradient for road inadvisable

Gradience of FW route coming to Black Dog Hill greater?

-Not aware. Meets A36 before Black Dog Hill.

Accept that considerable part of FW route would be embanked?

-Not necessarily

-WCC route crossed railway at inappropriate point so had to be embanked there.

Aware that Environment Agency would require embanked area of FW route to become a barrage to protect Trowbridge?

-Something that could be incorporated, could be seen as scheme benefit.

On railway through Fairwood a long embanked section

-Relatively low embankment

Rebuilt due to flooding issues after Hatfield

-Not aware


Levels of relative tranquillity. Betts Appendix HI. Section of WW District landscape character assessment, pg88. Last bullet point?

-Generally low level of tranquillity due to main road and railway

In appendices, also a map, Fig 7, in Appendix A. Sets out extent of WW landscape types and character areas.

Helps' supplementary proof, para 2.1.7. States local traffic forecasts suggests growth of 8% by 2009, 28% by 2024. Relevance to Mr Randle's questions?

-Indicates that scheme was using fact of growth as a starting point for scheme justification.

Conformity letter, from SWRA, 24/05/07. Date of publication of panel report?


Some time after letter from conformity officer?


-The panel report post dates the letter

EiP. Refer to list of priorities in terms of road schemes. When were they set out?

-In the EiP

-Post dates conformity letter

Taken to C31 EiP. Policy A. Trowbridge regionally significant town.


Mr Helps' additional information. Appendix 6. Coba model area. Does Trowbridge fall within modelled area?


Taken to Policy Tran 2, pgC60. Suggested that this policy only applies to SSCTs. Does that mean that issue related to demand management don't apply to Westbury?

-Don't take it as meaning that.

-Must ask whether places in the vicinity of Trowbridge contribute to demand management.

Traffic volumes in urban areas. WHA109. Stated that 13-15,000 AADT quite low. Flows of 25,000 regarded as high. Suggested that that level not seen in West Wiltshire. Site 132, County Way, Trowbridge. AAWT figures in the region of 25,000.


Residual levels though Westbury of around 7,000 AADT. Put to you that that would be local traffic. If you were a pedestrian, what would be the difference between local and through traffic?


-Possible that there would be higher proportion of HGVs in through traffic.

Landscape proof 3.1. Discussion of the scarp slope to the FW route. State that was highly visible but identifiably in another landscape character area. Summarise differences in views of scarp slope from W viewpoint and E viewpoint?

-Escarpment distant horizon from FW route. Intermittent view, screened by trees in places.

-On E side of Westbury, is a prominent continuous foreground feature. Much greater opportunity to appreciate fine detail.

LTP1. Referring to package of town centre improvements. LTP1 was 2001-2006?


Put to you that £1.3m sought for town centres improvements. Current position in respect to sum sought for town centre improvements?

-Still the same figure as far as aware


-Major scheme business case

On the LTP, you stated that various measures not bypass dependent. Could be funded through LTP block funding. What is meant by LTP block funding?

-Scheme is a major scheme, cost over £5.

-LTP covers host of far more minor improvements, costing in the thousands rather than millions

-Measures could cumulatively achieve aims

Yarnbrook – West Ashton. Asked whether aware of WCC's intention to address situation at Yarnbrook. Understanding of present status of Yarnbrook-West Ashton in respect of RFA funding?

-Intention set out in structure plan

-No indication that Yarnbrook improvement programmed within plan period.

-Table 3 includes worthy schemes that do not have funding – Yarnbrook not even in Table 3. Prospect of funded in foreseeable future very remote

How long might it be before something down at Yarnbrook?

-Given RFA budget pressures, there is no prospect of funding within the next fifteen years.

Reference to £7m added to scheme costs of FW route for A36 upgrading. Traffic figures did not require sum to be factored in.

-Based on information in guidance on carriageway standards, GA46-97

-Flows on A36 around 13-15,000 at the point where FW would join. In the region of 20,000 at Beckington roundabout. Very similar to flows between Westbury and Yarnbrook. FW route would increase numbers by 1-2,000. Case for upgrading road not brought about as a result of increased traffic flows.

-Additional traffic flows do not merit upgrade.

Inspector's Questions.

Mr James was asked about the increase on traffic on the A36 that would result from the construction of a FW bypass. Mr James said that there would be an increase of flows on the A36 to around 15-17,000, which was similar to the projected flows on the A350 following the construction of an E bypass.

Mr James was asked about his evidence that the area to the east of Westbury was considered for national designation in the 1940s and 1950s. Mr James noted that at the time there was no differentiation made between AONBs and National Parks. The Dower and Hobhouse reports appeared to favour upland areas for National Park status. National Parks have the dual role of recreation and preservation, whereas AONBs are mostly for preservation, and have equal preservation status to National Parks. Mr James agreed that the area considered was a very narrow strip, but noted that it was not dissimilar in shape to Pembroke Coast National Park.

Notes, part 2

Original document(PDF): Day_13_Whitelegg.pdf

Day Thirteen

John Whitelegg

Evidence in Chief

Prof Whitelegg read his summary proof of evidence on climate change. His main points were:

-Climate change is at or near the top of the policy agenda

-The Thames Gateway Bridge was rejected due to climate change considerations.

-Analysis of the scheme's effect on climate change has not been adequately assessed

-The scheme would increase greenhouse gas emissions.

Prof Whitelegg read the main points of his rebuttal proof to Mr Smyth's evidence:

-There are three sets of CO2 emissions figures. We are not told of scheme's projected emissions over a 60 year period.

-Mr Smyth did not give a cumulative figure for greenhouse gas emissions over sixty years, and did not attach a monetary value of carbon emissions.

-Increase in carbon emissions originally projected at 8.4%. Now revised to over 10%. 8.4% significant in itself, as we should be reducing carbon emissions, not increasing them.

-The UK is the first country in the world to provide for statutory emissions reductions.

-Para 7: concern that carbon calculations based on flawed AADT figures.

-Projects of this kind produce significant induced traffic.

-Unless emissions reduced, the world faces cataclysm

Prof Whitelegg was asked to read his summary proof on economic impact. His main points were:

-Lack of evidence showing link between increase in highway capacity and economic growth.

-Two-way road effect: roads drain away resources, lose out to more distant suppliers.

-The Government is committed to building a low carbon economy.

-Wiltshire is not an economically disadvantaged area

-The scheme would not effect economic regeneration

-The scheme departs from Nata guidance

-There has been a lack of demand management measures.

Prof Whitelegg read the main points of his rebuttal proof to Mr Helps' evidence:

-Para 5. Refer to Helps 9.6 - residents travel to jobs outside of the county. There is no clear causal relationship in bypasses and self-containment. No evidence indicates whether the bypass will increase or reduce out-commuting.

-Para 6. Links to primary routes of major importance to local business. No indication of factors other than transport that influence business location.

-Para 7. Tourism. No evidence that current road makes it difficult for Westbury to attract tourism No evidence that bypass would enable Westbury to improve its tourism industry.

-Para 14. Eddington report does not support Westbury Bypass. Do not regard Westbury as congested, or as a bottleneck.

-Para 15. Pricing and charging should be part of the policy mix. Pricing and charging can operate in a variety of contrasting environments.

Cross Examination

You were instructed on the same time-scale as Mr James?

-That is my recollection

Instructions received in verbal or written form?


Asked to do what?

-To review WCC case, especially with regard economic impact and climate change, then present evidence to inquiry.

Produced evidence on climate change. Are you saying that development projects such as roads cannot be build?

-Not in an absolute sense

-There would have to be a very rigorous process of appraisal

-Would not rule out possibility that in exceptional circumstances a road might be a possibility

-In the vast majority of situations, other solutions are preferable.

You are not claiming that the evidence you produced prevents a road being built, but that a long process must be undertaken?

-At the general level, there must be an option generation appraisal

-Specific point about Westbury that on carbon grounds the road should not proceed.

-Process need not be that long

-The carbon implications of scheme mean there is no case for the scheme to proceed.

So there should be no bypass at all, whether to the east or west?


Seen supplementary note on air quality produced by Smyth?


Climate proof 3.1 onwards. Criticism make is that haven't seen spreadsheet showing effect over 60 years?

-Concerned that have now seen three sets of figures. Predict there will be a fourth and fifth set at some point.

-Carbon emissions will vary over 60 years. May start at one figure, but induced traffic has a short, medium and long term impact. Spreadsheet needed to show if initial figure on emissions remains constant, or varies.

Are you making a formal request for the spreadsheet?


Will be communicated to Mr Smyth. Third set of figures. Aware of why there is now a third set?


Climate proof 3.9. Reference to PPS23.

-PPS1 of equal importance

Have a body of guidance from government relating to climate change.


You have produced information from other sources. If the inquiry follows the guidance from the PPS's, are we going far enough in meeting climate change consequences, or is more required?

-Difficult to know where to draw the line.

-Thames Gateway inspector took the view that looking at the totality of PPSs and PPGs there was a problem, due to clear commitment to reduce greenhouse gases.

-Must look at PPS23, but must also look at government climate change policy as a whole.

-Policy that kitchen underneath bathroom must not be flooded – but at the same time turning up that tap.

Climate Bill, still a Bill. We don't know when it will become law?

-Don't know for certain.

Within Climate Bill, no proposals to change planning system.


Planning system under which we are now operating recently been looked at in context of 2004 Act. Guides planning application. Climate P3.9. You would not argue that that goes anywhere near far enough?

-Happy with wording.

Guidance are that 'need to limit, and where possible reduce greenhouse gas emissions.' No planning requirement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in individual applications?

-Depends on meaning of 'where possible'

-It is possible to solve transport problem in Westbury a way that does not add to emissions.

On the basis that you say it is possible to meet situation in Westbury without increasing emissions, that would depend on what the measures would be?

-One has to go through process of option generation appraisal seriously.

-Can solve problem in a way that doesn't add to greenhouse gases.

Need idea of what we are seeking to achieve. Must meet objectives of scheme.

-Have to define objectives

-Make sure that we have a thorough grasp of possible solutions.

Must follow approach with any alternative.


If therefore a suggestion of FW route around Westbury, that solution would need to be examined to see it met objectives of scheme?

-Would be happy to look at all alternatives and conduct carbon audit.

Would not need to have a carbon audit for every scheme, if it became clear that scheme would not meet defined objectives?


Amounts to an identification of the problem, the objectives and then if alternatives are to be assessed, they are assessed in the light of the objectives of the scheme?

-Must avoid self fulfilling prophecy.

-Depends on definition of objective.

If you wish to relieve congestion in Westbury, you would not build bypass round Swindon?


-Wary of downgrading the importance of carbon reduction potential.

Thames Gateway decision. Appendix 1. TfL's evidence that scheme would result in 55,000 tonne carbon increase a year. Approach taken is to ask does the application conform to development plan? If not, are there relevant material considerations?


Have you returned to development plan documents?


Have you examined LTP1 and LTP2 in the context of economic development?

-Have read, but not used in economic proof.

Thames Gateway decision. Inspector undertook classic balancing exercise. Said was in conflict with development plan. Not material considerations exempting. That is the approach needed for this scheme?


-Thames Gateway a different scale project, but principle of the schemes the same.

-Westbury Bypass economic benefits very puny and weak, very large climate change disbenefits.

Haven't looked at documents that support economic justification for scheme?

-Agreed, but have looked at evidence on economic impact.

Have seen Mr Turner's evidence?


How much time spent analysing nature of existing problem in Westbury?

-Worked for WCC over ten years ago, spent a lot of time in area

-Made special visit a few weeks ago.

-Don't claim to be knowledgeable about local geography, but familiar with issues.

How much time spent in Westbury?

-One day this year.

-Three or four days over ten years ago.

As part of the information supplied to WHA, there was a document used, 'Westbury Saturn Model, Variable Demand Modelling', 12/12/07.

-Have downloaded less than a week ago

Information supplied to WHA last year?


Had not seen when drafted evidence. S4, Summary, Pg10. Fourth paragraph. Induced traffic very small figure?

-Sacher report 1994, reviewed 151 schemes.

-All studies argue that in circumstances where there is congestion relief, there will be induced traffic. 10% time saving produces 5% increase in traffic.

-Scheme will produce 20% time saving, should make 10% increase in induced traffic. Very different from 1.9% figure. Cannot find discussion about elasticity, and how elasticity selected and justified.

Rely on generalised average approach. Cannot say whether information produced by Mr Helps is wrong?

-Cannot say that it is right either.

Options for Westbury. You do make specific suggestion?


-Not commissioned to produce option generation appraisal

If it is accepted that there is a problem in Westbury, there are four options. Firstly the scheme before the inquiry. Another scheme, such as FW route. Measures within the town other than bypass. Or, do nothing.


-Quite happy that bypass proposals should be clearly explained and tested against non-bypass options.

-Do nothing not a serious option.

-Problem not well defined and empirically validated

-Huge amount of good practice on town centre measures, e.g. Car free houses.

Dr Hansen's speech. Reference to penultimate page of speech, 'requirements to halt carbon dioxide growth.' Mobile energy source – author intended mobility of the individual into the future?

-Cannot be totally sure

-Saying that climate change problem so severe that everything possible must be done to halt climate change. Part of the policy mix is alternatively fuelled vehicle.

We shouldn't take that speech as being a message that mobility of the individual through their own vehicle must cease overnight?


CD5.3. Committee Report. Pg13. Objections from various bodies. WBA objections don't specifically raise climate change.


-Point 7 talks of RSS, considers proposal at conflict with sustainability policies. Would imagine one of RSS policies is on climate change.

A350 Corridor Alliance don't specifically refer to climate change or RSS.


Pg19-20. CPRE, FoE, Transport 2000 – don't specifically refer to climate change.


Climate proof 2.1.3. Assessment process of do minimum ignoring other measures that might come forward?

-Making point that DM might be based on present trends, or based on measures other than bypass.

What other measures?

-In terms of evaluating DS, must be clear that DM does not mean Do Nothing.

-Could not find explanation for what DM reflects.

-Artificial comparison.

Wholly uncertain what future measures might be?

-Voluntary means a total unknown

-Possible for authorities to make development conditional on work and school travel plans.

A DM scenario is required so that an assessment of the scheme can be made?

-Has to be a DM, but DM should be transparent

Don't know the effect of travel plans?

-DM should be transparent and should allow for inspection.

-DM should not be based on assumption that present trends continue

CD13.1. Referred to in climate proof 3.5.1. Actually a discussion document on Eddington and Stern reports.

-Don't disagree with description

-But not just a discussion document

-Uses language such as 'fundamental goal of transport policy must be ...'

-A mixture of discussion and statement of policy.

Climate proof 3.5.6. Reference?

-2.23 on pg32

Eddington accepts link between transport and economic activity?


-Also says where and how he thinks transport policies should take place

-Not claiming that Eddington says there is a never a case for road building or improved transport infrastructure.

-Eddington calls for road pricing and demand management.

Accept that planning system has a role to play in terms of economic activity?


Planning system deals with land use, access arrangements, provision of workforce by allowing housing, etc.


Objectives of scheme set out in Economic Proof 5.2. Not claimed that road will lead directly to jobs.

-Helps Supplementary Proof 10.26. Pg39. Economic regeneration is a key objective of the Westbury Bypass.

-Not aware of statement saying purpose of bypass to create jobs.

-Economic regeneration means creating jobs.

Would you accept that bypass will improve transport links into WW and between WW towns?

-Improving links not just a matter of providing new road route.

-Bypass would be an additional link.

-May have two-way road effect – road will suck out economic activity.

Accept that scheme an improvement to transport links?

-Wouldn't use word 'improvement'

-Accept that it is an additional link.

Bypass will provide reliability on journey time that doesn't currently exist.

-Do not agree, there are other options.

Facilitate economic regeneration. If decided that it is an improvement, that facilitation would exist.

-Very happy with objective being to facilitate economic regeneration

-Unhappy with leap from that, to bypass mode

-Don't believe there is evidence that bypass would facilitate regeneration

Would bypass ease movements of goods?

-Could do that

-Could also encourage supply of goods from elsewhere, supplanting jobs and economic activity from area.

If at a national level there is a lack of evidence, must be looked at in context of local area?

-Experts must be brought in from outside locality

-Many statements lacking evidence

-Much 'evidence' actually conjecture.

Does ease of movement encourage new businesses and investment?

-Ease of movement need not lead necessarily to new investment. Could have neutral, positive or negative impact.

-Wiltshire in a highly sophisticated and connected economy. In that kind of economy, it is almost impossible that adding a bypass will facilitate economic regeneration.

How familiar are you with route that HGVs take coming from the south?

-Not familiar

EP Pg6, Table 2.3. M74 an extension to another motorway?


Extensive demolition of properties?

-Not aware

M74 proposal was promoted in the face of an active Scottish Government policy to reduce traffic. Not a policy to reduce traffic in England?

-To the best of my knowledge, we do not have the equivalent policy.

-LTP2. Limit growth of traffic in WW sustainable transport area.

-We have similar thing, but tends to be translated into commitment to reduce rate of growth, not as specific as in Scotland.

EP5.7 - Quote from LTP1, pg70. EP5.8 – Quote from LTP1, pg82. Pages between pg70 and 82 cover huge number of issues. No one should be under the impression that the economy paragraph leads straight into bypass paragraph?

-Was not stating that it did.

-No real deep purpose in setting out quotes in such a way.

LTP1, pg63. Familiar with strategy set out in LTP?


Objective pressures and reactions. Only reference to road improvements is to contribute to an efficient economy. Potentially build road to improve journey time reliability. LA not rushing to build road?

-Not saying rushing to build road

-Bypass inappropriate solution that harks back to 1960s

-Fails to comply with government policy

EP5.10. Analysis that Wiltshire prosperous relative to UK as a whole. Have you carried out investigation to the position of Westbury in relation to Wiltshire as a whole?


-Would be possible to collate information

LTP2, pg31. 3.5, Accessibility in Wiltshire. Reference to various factors. Pg32, shows indices of deprivation across Wiltshire.

-Westbury in highest segment, performing well.

Rebuttal to Helps. Para 5. Confirm that LTP1 shows Westbury has the highest element of output?

-Trying to take a broader view across country.

-Longer distance commutes an in built feature of transport landscape.

-'At the hard end of hard' to achieve reduction in commuting.

Para 6. No evidence of other factors that of major importance. Implying that links to primary routes a major factor?

-Accept that

-Possibly take dozens of factors into account.

Para 11. Guildford does have a bypass?

-Does have a bypass, but jams at junction

Para 15. Durham and London. Pricing and charging. Congestion charge in centre of London, and in Durham one U-shaped street in centre. Both city centre areas.



LTP2. Pg43-44. Ch3 – Problems and Opportunities. S3.9. Road traffic significant contributor to climate change.

-Transport not the only source of pollution, but only sector where growth threatens to outpace technology that can reduce emissions.

-At local level, LTP process allows LA's to implement more sustainable forms of transport.

'Towards a Sustainable Transport System'. In your experience, when you have Sec of State using phrase such as 'must', how likely is policy to change?

-Very unlikely

Officer's Report. Pg16. IV.

-The notion of road expansion as an engine of sustainable growth curiously outdated.

-Must use far lower levels of carbon.

-Road expansion does not bring with it delivery of low carbon society, in discord with government policy.

Taken to variable model report. When published?


Committee considering planning application?


Was model report available to committee or included in ES?


Would variable model report have informed scheme development?

-Would have been helpful

Asked about familiarity with Westbury. Worked for WCC over ten years ago. Boyle proof 1.3 – shortcomings of A350 route through Westbury long recognised, bypass discussed for decades. Report recommended E bypass in 1990. You would have worked in Westbury after that report?


PPS23. Published in 2005. Supplement to PPS1 published Dec 2007. How would you situate PPS23 requirement within supplement to PPS1?

-PPS1 strengthens what is said in PPS23

Emphasis on 'where possible' to reduce. In terms of limiting, are you aware of any evidence that scheme limits emissions?

-By definition, the scheme cannot limit in any way.

Inspector's Questions

Acknowledged that part of Wiltshire not a depressed area. State that no necessary correlation between road building and economic regeneration. Do you know places that are prospering, which have poor road access?

-Guildford – booming, despite terrible congestion in Surrey

-Selby – empty motorways

-Liverpool – v high quality motorways, but depressed area.

-Point that evidence base does not give anyone any comfort – transport infrastructure does not magically translate to economic gain.

Argument that a bypass is necessary, but not sufficient, to produce economic growth.

-Do not support

-Transport infrastructure low priority – 'buzz' higher priority for businesses considering investing.

-Should not get too bogged down in transport infrastructure

School and work travel plans and other demand management measures. Are these alternatives, or could they be complementary measures?

-Logically, no reason why there cannot be a bypass+ option

-Cost of alternatives considerably less than cost of bypass.

-Need to monitor congestion, then if alternatives not working consider further measures

-They become DM.

When precisely did you work for WCC?

-Run transport consultancy since 1993, had done consultancy work before then

-Probably in the 1990-1993 period, over a period of months.

-WCC wanted me to participate in seminars on sustainable transport

Was a bypass on the table at that stage?

-Public energised on problems on bypasses, both pro and anti.

-Westbury bypass not part of remit

Said that weren't arguing against personal mobility. Is there a viable alternative to petrol such as hydrogen?

-Yes, there will be in the area of electricity rather than hydrogen

-Current technology in prototype form

-Sweden will be oil free by 2020. Rely on more public transport and cycling. Need technology + behavioural change + spatial strategy + accessibility

In relation to how 'other measures' might relate to Westbury, is Westbury the right size of town for measures to make impact, similar size towns that have used alternatives?

-Examples, but not in UK -Holland, Denmark, Germany

-Measures start with HQ public transport to effect modal shift – car use under 20%.

-Workplace and school travel plans better in UK. Can get rid of school peak traffic. Can increase cycling, sustainable town initiative, cycling demonstration town initiative.

-Segregated cycling

-20 mph speed limit – gives feeling of safety and security, facilitates shift to cycling and walking.

-Share lorry space, can reduce lorry traffic by 60%.

Would involve freeing up space for through traffic?

-Investigate and increase rail freight

-Will be residual road freight, but can be reduced by 40-50%.

-If lorries going relatively slowly, degree of annoyance goes down dramatically

Top of page