White Horse Alliance - A350 Westbury Bypass Campaign

Inquiry day: 2

Inquiry date: 18 June 2008

See notes part 1; part 2

Inquiry index

Notes, part 1

Original document(PDF): Day_2_18_June_Khansari_v2.pdf

18/6/08 C = Charlie K = Khansari R = Randle I = Inspectors

C WWreg doc CD4.4 published in 1996 K- yes

C Has thus benn updated? K my evidnece refers to this but no updates. Does refer to updates on certain aspects.

C 4.3 of proof. Diff access.. slow economic development. Pfr Whitelegg WHA p6 page 12

C para 5.10 table rankings of deprivation 2004 and 2007. 5.11 comments WW performs very well indeed source GVT data. Do you accept that? K - we pick on that. Towns in on A350 Wilts covers whole area. Segregate as in my evidence. South on A350 wages drop, population seem to be disadvantaged as you move away from the M4

C You accept GVT data WW is better off than 75%? K - I said that yes.

C Westbury specifically WW101. WWTrading Estate. Section the estate today. Vacancies at lowest levels 10 yrs.. management of estate effective. Do you acept that? K No. Accept at face value but doesn't tell me 75% or 90%. This should be read for what it is, an ad for the trading estate. I do know about property.

C Specific regeneration schemes for Westbury Town Centre WHA 102 5 towns initiative page 2 . regeneration of market place. More detail in WHA103 C dated 2007? K Yes. I must explain we work closely wiyh WWDC. WWDC are funding and this is online for this year.

C last page of this doc. plans on schedule. Has work started? K contract still being worked up, completion scheduled for Dec

C Public consultation June - Oct. Rather large file produced yesterday. Mouchel P Report. K that is town centre improvements. Not part of application, part of programme to follow bypass, once traffic removed.

C Market place. K offline and deliverable. C without the bypass? K Again I repeat off line and deliverable.

C WHA 104 Response WWDC 2004 reg consultation page 4 Restructuring of the economy has been successful. Do you agree? K I do not have the knowledge to agree or disagree.

C No sig problem with unemployment in WWilts. Agree? K it must be true if there...contradictory. Local jobs will decrease...A no unemployment, B successful? K I thinks it's contradictory evidence in rest of doc, set in context, 2004 lot of discussion. PUA/city areas and position seems to have changed. Rural authority did object to this in certain areas. Sub region of Bristol. National debate at time of this doc. Not supporting link with PUA's

C CPO's and deliverability. Orders published. Not the first time in respect of an Eastern Bypass. K as far as I know these published in 2007 only ones.

C prior to this? Minutes of meeting 2/9/98/WCC Not heard of this. Agenda item 10 resolved no 4 make a CPO for a Westbury bypas... Kdoesn't mean they were published

C were they published K I do not believe they were. 2005-6 we asked for deligation again and published 2007. C was this resolved?

C 1st section of AppB cabinet report 16/12/05 authorised CPO to be made..do you see that? Yes that is it.

C 2005 app withdrawn K Yes. C did not apply K I cannot reply

C 2005 and 2007 applications different.......? K I disagree with that. not a significant difference in 2005 and 2007 applications but minor changes in mitigation measures. SPO's and CPO's not significant changes.

C BBB2Sc this a local improvement measure? K yes

C para 5 report to cabinet Westbury bypass progress as a local scheme K yes

C para 6 K Yes C para 8 on basis of this analysis - benefit for drivers, limited to these points? K I would think so

C p 3 risk assess - (2005) there have been changes since then? K yes we've established that

C these risks still exist? K No scheme can be risk free

C many risks attached to this scheme? K at this stage there are many risks. WCC continues to fund necessary resources to progress the scheme.

C GVT funding CD10.1 DfT 2007 p4 para 2.2 This scheme has not achieved programme entry? K No. C MSBC not yet to Dft? K No 23/6/08

C p26 programme entry 3 stages satisfy 1,2 &3? K just explain. have already satisfied... funding has changed several times during this period. It has 3 stage approval system. We have been in consulotation with DfT last few months before application (goes in?) SO FAR WE HAVE HAD NO MAJOR QUERIES SENT BACK. The way we have done this.. early contractor procurement scheme, procurement is complete. did this as WCC realised input woudl be vital especially for mitigation measures. Will give evidence (Osborne)

C This scheme still does not have programme entry. K I already said that

C regeneration important part of the scheme? K yes

C regen imp part of scheme economic impacgt report must be produced. Has it? K I cannot confirm that. In early draft it is mentioned but I cannot confirm.

C Regen CD5.3 MSBC May 2007 officers report to regulatory committee p41 para 204 onwards. There is no mention of regeneration elements of the scheme? K improving reliability to WWilts towns is how this will help but I havn't come acroos the word regeneration.

Mr Randle

Q HaywoodPCC. Are you aware of all correspondance? K No

R Letters referred to H PCC. 14/5 21/3/07 and would be considered under this policy. K No repsponse to plann-ng . Local authority can be planner and provider of permission. We use diff. depts for scrutyiny pruposes.

R 3 remaining letter. Copy of that from planning insp/ K No idea

Copy of letter to Sec of State? Can you answer/ K No?

Can you help/ at time these letters sent 2007. Was it known that PI would be held? K Yes

Q from WHA CD 5.3 regul report. page 41 para 205 regeneration ? Word regeneration did not appear? K yes

R same doc para 10? 1997-8 plannning conference. What is position with regad to objectives and Would it meet these? K Yes

R CPO Appendix B 1st item 2005 compulsory purchase. Reasons produced (in folder) doc with orders para 1.7 page 3 CPO has been made and published authorised 16/12/05 and amended 31/8/07 v=by delegated powers. K Yes I should have explained. R is it authorised K Yes

R Funding. Not crossexam / Q are you aware that these matters have been considered and are aware that they are in the green folder K No R will return

WHA 104 RSS response Nov 2004. page 3 regeneration...para no unemployment council must be involved what does that mean? K Unforseen problems in future.

R penultimate proximity to PUAs priroty to make these towns self contained and stop out commuting = reduce traffic? What is relevance to out commuting? K Main objective to invite more investment to go with local jobs and higher paid jobs.

R Improvemnts of T links WWstrategy...WWDC region strat T improvement to A350. How does this scheme fit with this? K scheme is aimed at same objectives accessibilty to employment sites AQ shared

R WHA 103 (102 no date) Nov 07. Improvements already in Westbutry. Map shows A350 and market place. It would appear that there are granite sets and Yoks flags to A350. Works off line can be carried out. What does this show of finalising the plan? K Work can only be completed when flow of traffic reduced on A350 or would cause delays. Town Centre improvement, accessibilty walking cycling cannot do before bypass as not

R yesterday - departure application. Call in letter 11/7/07para 2 Sec policy .. very selective. Planning issues more than local. Nat policies.Local? K No Y=That is right

R climate change and later alternative route. Bypasses not acceptable how should a Western bypass be judged. K If roads bad for climate change then any road would be bad.

R PPS1 identiy policy basis is forbidden. K Not at all and I did say yest. whole strategy complies to that policy and I didn'd add MR Simpkins proof mentions that.

R policy imp climate to change has led to policy change, roads are forbidden. K No

R PPG13 .Annex C infrastructure this application (Infreat?) K Y

R comply with NATA. How has it followed this guidance? K you will see MSBC will show this assessment.

R para 8.10 of proof new RSS. We are in middle of process. 8.11 you are also in App C contact with SWRA? K Y. Letter dated MAY 07 After plan app? K Y. Comment of last para growth in line with RPG 10 in line selective to improve safety.... env improvements.

R over the page K _ A350 is a regional significant road......

R climate change known about then. K Y

R T Sust T Sy CD13.1 (no copy available of full doc) Climate change, forward, goal of T policy para set context para 3 longterm spending for roads.......continued investment...Does that include roads K Y

R cost of policies.....Does that relate to roads as well as other aspects/ K All

R discuss doc. Edd and Stern page with photo it begins a process of debate sustained and sustainable. Is that the begining? K it is a discussion doc

R page 28 para 214 depends on congetion, all modes congested....... How do we regard this? Cong over all periods or localised/ Part or full picture? K read it again. You have to have increase capacity if there are sustained periods. R West ? K leave to others

R County CD2.9 LTP 01-06 2.10 and 2.11 Annex 1 WWSTS (not 1996 doc purple one) page 70 6.2 towns challenges para 3 integrated package multi modal measures safe and sust T choices. What you said yesterday? K Y

R page 3 of forward Vision for strategy .Balance pop growth ... inward investment.. journey distances..The scheme should be seen as part of this as you pointed out? K Y most important to see it that way.

R page 4 annex Need 2.3 ... table.. obj and goal...Effect of scheme how many boxes would it tick K most if not all. Y, Y, Y Y Y econ Y accessY goods by rail part of strategy but not bypass schemeY rail passengers Y I(strtegy not scheme)....access to P T Would directly effect all but 2, but those 2 indirectly

R Targets LTP 2 page 73? 5.1 no ref to road building? K Y page 74 investment priorities high = delivery of LTP ! schmes K refers to E bypass. E B K Y

R funding listing... Last resort K Y

LTP p 123? transport management 11.2 responsibility CC has duty....is it case that CC have responsibility ? K Y

R LYP page 148 ch 9 congestion 149 point made no ref to Westbury? K Y Did not know of cons process. Ch 4 cons 4.2 look what we find 7/10/ event? K Y

R Event in Westbury. Congestion top priority but not Westbury. What can Westbury achieve that others cannot? K build a bypass/ Was that known / K Y

R journey time surveys A350. When was Semington opened ? K mid 2004

Would that have effect on A350?k Y

R traffic growth page 231 table county wide. At Actual and target. what T K Increasing R what mean K heavier traffic.

R not aware of proposal for future LTP p227 15.4 perf ind.. targets 4 principle 3 benchmarking and feedback. " analysis expect to modify trend in future? K influence other intiatives rail and trunk road

R table 14.2 LTP 5 yr exp final 3 entries Harnham.... Westbury exp 18.9 m 08-09. Bypass taken into account in the targets? K Y

R your Appendix B Results of planning conference App 8 economic (R we will paginate better next time!!!)

Figures you went through no offer of soft measurs? K Y

need for bypass 3rd Q K I am on wrong page

K does W need a bypass 87% yes

R chair of conf app 1 consultation and put forward their ideas. What was this? K open door

R some debate PT and some CC bypass rail and bus town and cycling K all modes of transport looked at

What more could WCC do? K No more than this

R Parkmann 1999 report app to Papp. P report which follow are they inApp B K Y

R Confirm Structure plan before Inq. Matters concerned for others rather than yourself? KY

Inspectors Yarnbrook and West Ashton a scheme there a high priority have seen some proposals what is progess? K Resource allocation has been agreed for this year. option appraisal to be drawn up this year. Dept leave this. Did some appraisal in the past but fresh look this year to come up with a solution.

WW A361 has it gone forever? K I think it was from days before many other schemes on the network improved and that has gone..

Decision to move funding decision to region part of general policy not specific to Westbury K over £5m will be prioritsed by region. Inspector Y

Inspector planning permission - outline consent granted in 2000? still extangt.

K market - farmers market Trowbridge and Frome but not Westbury last Friday of month 4 stalls?

Notes, part 2

Original document(PDF): Day_2_3_Helps.pdf


Q: There are difficulties with peak hour congestion in Westbury? NH: YES

Q: Of that congestion in peak hours, what contribution to it is the school run? NH:The School run can be in the a.m. peak

Q: What percentage? A: We look at traffic flows during term time and then school holidays.

Q. That is simplistic as they take holidays during the holiday period so traffic flows lower, so all school runs count against reduction we see in school holiday periods – cannot all be attributed to school runs – what percentage? NH: I do not have a figure.

Q You do not have a figure. You have no figure for peak hour proportion, one of many journey trips in the am peak, and cannot identify them.

Q Do you have any evidence about progress of School Travel Plans within the Westbury area? NH: Do have a School Travel Plans Officer and lots of schools.....

Q Schools in Westbury have School Travel Plans? NH: Do not have data

Q: Out-commuting in am peak N-bound. What is percentage of peak hour congestion for out-commuting? NH: No data to hand. The out-commuting data comes from the Census but for that specific criteria is not to hand.

Q: Any evidence about % out-commuting N-bound that are employed by WWDC or Wiltshire CC in Trowbridge? NH: The only way to have that data is surveys of CC staff and also WWDC.

Q: Not something which is in traffic model? NH: No information to hand

Q: Does Wiltshire or WWDC have Work Place Travel Plans in place? NH: Generally CC does, but not aware of status in DC.

Q: Public transport capacity travelling between Westbury and Trowbridge. Do you have any evidence to put to the Inquiry on the capacity? NH: There are bus passenger surveys taken by CC, particularly on services contracted to Council, and also data collected for regional Western Wiltshire model on public transport. In comparison with amount of data – very small figure, small amount travelled. Do not have data on capacity.

Q: When CC first embarked on model for Western Wiltshire Area – went up to Ch’ham and included Westbury in data collected for multi-modal modelling, making reference to actual level of trips taken? NH: Was quite small compared to number of car trips.

Q: Same question in respect of rail – rail travel between Westbury/Trowbridge am - % of capacity unutilised? NH: Mainly relates to boarding/alighting counts and rail company also collect own data but no figure showing what capacity is.

Q: In terms of modal splits – no current evidence as to what present situation is? NH: Very specific region.

Q: Take a wider perspective. Travel by residents from Westbury – more data which is included within evidence at 2 – 2.23 of brief.

Q: If this scheme is completed, how will you know what change will be made in terms of shifts to other forms of transport? NH: Because of the effects of traffic in Westbury, there will be an increase.

Q: That is a judgement on your perception of the quality of the walking environment and impact that traffic has on that. Therefore, taking that that where it is in model, and the scope of road scheme you will have difficulty in assessing changes in walking flows? NH: Expert opinion – upward in walking.

Q: But no indication of scale? NH: No, because of difficulty of data collection

Q:: Applies to walking, cycling, bus use? NH: Bus use – yes. Rail use – yes.

Q: WHA109 – AAT flows at bottom of first page – Haynes Road Westbury. NH: Have figures for weekday and whole week.

INSP: Grid of numbers – a row of numbers. What do numbers? Would it be helpful if I find original file AADT data – the first figure given for Haynes Road is 14,765 NH: 1996 – Yes

Q: Following year that reduced to 13,920? NH: Yes

Q: Further reduction in flow in 1998, then increase to 14,008, slightly higher? NH: Yes

Questions of NHelps 18/19th June 2008 Page 2

Q: Then reduction in year 2000, increase in 2001, no figures for 2002/3 but increase again in 2004, slight reduction in 2005 and 2006 a further reduction – fluctuations? NH: but latest figure ...

Q: In percentage terms less than 1% - 350 vehicles – OK – 1.8% NH: Yes

Q: Over an eleven year period we have had less than 2% traffic growth through Westbury? NH: Yes

Q: Fourth left. No.96 Heywood, N of Westbury, which will be affected by scheme. Ref.No: 96 Site L2 there the first figure is for 91 NH: Yes Heywood affected

Q: 13,531: 2006 – 14,122 + 80 in 2007. 1991 – 2006 figure % difference is 4.2% NH: Yes

Q: = 4.3% increase at A350 north of Westbury NH: Yes agreed

Q: No very substantial growth for sixteen year period

Q: There is advantage over A350 Corridor in number of bypasses – that around Warminster – may not be A350; bypass around Frome; Chippenham; Semington – so we may compare and contrast with post bypass – not much in terms of traffic, but purported economic benefits NH: Repeat.

Q: No.71 – Chippenham Western Bypass in 1998 – 13,083 and in 2006 – 20,469. In space of eight years a 36% increase in traffic – you accept? NH: I make it higher – increase of 7,387 = % of 56%!

NH: Yes, agree. Row 72 – much smaller increase of 20%

Q: In road traffic terms, increases of 20%? NH: The reason is these roads are new roads. When they open not necessarily taking new traffic so whilst agree an increase it = a decrease elsewhere.

Q: Increases on this corridor on bypasses built in last eight years total increase of 56% traffic flows. NH: Qualify – 1998 figure very low, lower than 1999.

Q: When you have new road you have to take account of when road implemented. NH: Accurate counts, but take issue with the fact that there is a difference between 1998/1999. Opening year you would have very significant % increase as going from nothing.

Q: Notwithstanding, in eight year period an increase of 56% NH: On that particular piece of road, and reduction elsewhere.

Q: Semington – 76. In 1991 – 15,786 NH: Yes agreed.

Q: Increasing in 2007 to 21,199 NH: Yes

Q: % - 24% rise with a bypass

INSP: Only one line attributed to Semington? NH: Because it says A Semington. Those flows consistent with what flows were. New figures are on bypass. Q: It would have been on old A350 through Semington – 34% increase NH: Yes

Q: Those stretches of A350 corridor, have you looked at those that have not had benefit of bypasses and have seen increases in 1 – 4.3% range - those bypassed have seen increases in the range of 35 – 56%! NH: Where new road scheme you need to look at bypassed road and bypass.

Q: Projected figures for this scheme - APP F Part A of ES. First take you to Drawing No. 3 which compares Do Minimum with Eastern Bypass. Drawing No. 4 shows do minimum/Eastern bypass in centre of Westbury. Drawing No. 5, do minimum compared with Option Z – Far Western. Then in drawing 6 we have centre of Westbury for Far Western Route Z . Just clarify situation in terms of the HGV ban modelling. The projections for the eastern bypass are predicted on the HGV ban on Station Road? NH: Yes

Q: The figures for the Far Western Route Z are not predicted with a ban on Station Road? NH: Correct.

Q: The do minimum scenario is not based, does not have an HGV ban on it? NH: Correct

Q: So, not exactly comparing like with like? NH: Well, the Far Western Route gives access to W.Wilts Trading Estate and then down towards Standerswick – no need for a ban on Station Road, it is not as essential.

Q: So essential so far as the first scheme is concerned? NH: Yes, essential

Q: Do we have a do minimum model with a ban on Station Road? NH: That would require – be slightly unusual, because HGV would come up through Westbury, carry on, go up to Yarnbrook and

Questions of NHelps 18/19th June 2008 Page 3

back down from north. To put in HGV ban would be too late because HGVs would have already come through Westbury.

Q: From the south? NH: Yes

Q: The HGV ban is .... we are not looking at like for like – one has an HGV ban? NH: The eastern route requires an HGV ban and western route, it is not such a strong requirement to have that ban.

Q: Drawing 004 – we are looking at figure between “do minimum” east with HGV ban on B3097 Station Road. To NW of that we have figure of HGVs “do mimimum” = 160/ with eastern bypass nil. Presumably that nil is attributable to the ban, not the bypass? NH: Eastern Bypass provides an alternative road. The alternative could be a longer diversion through Westbury

Q: Comparison FWRoute – ban on Station Road not necessary? NH: It would still reduce HGV travel avoiding further roads if you add the above on the Far Western

Q: So comparison between eastern and far western is not an equal one? NH: In terms of origin/ destination it is a comparison because you are showing distribution of traffic.

Q:: But large majority – over 90% - are general traffic and that is what model is demonstrating. Minor changes.

(Had to change notebooks a number of times to continue taking notes – at this stage am having difficulty choosing where to stitch them together again!)

2.4 NH: It is not intention of proposed bypass. 2009 proposed scheme would produce up to 50% reduction in HGVs. 54%/88% Warminster Road, a meaningful threshold of change.

2.5 It is correct that the Route Z is predicted to carry more HGVs? NH: Because E/W carries A361/

A350 but far less effective in Westbury where there is less than half the traffic relief. 84% - 66 compared to 99.

6.12 Not isolated – HGV ban on Station Road Westbury – Tackling congestion and Journey Time Reliability – tackling pinch points. 2.10.8

2.10.11 Statement 2.18 TAG map not to substitute transport performing badly when skill shortages have a much more important part to play – under performing area. WWilts is under performing area. “or” means a fixed demand assessment is acceptable. If it meant one of the criteria , but it is mid for both ten and fifteen year. COBA part, but important part. Fixed trip matrix used.

COBA 11 – updated two years ago so DfT continue to support this methodology.

Government policy to use COBA, therefore cannot be questioned at this Inquiry

CH: Doesn’t put forward an alternative to assess value for money of road schemes

WHA 107: Clarify that the requirement to undertake these tables - “New Deal for Transport” – does the DfT approach to undertake precisely in this way and produce the small table in this way and followed in case of Westbury? A: Did not affect traffic with HGV ban on Station Road.

CH: Could you produce this? A: It could be done, and it would show with the HGV ban on Far Western Route they would just simply divert to option Z.

CH: So taking them off Station Road could do that? A: Quite

Questions of NHelps 18/19th June 2008 Page 4

CH: When was ban on Station Road introduced into bypass, not from the start,? A: It was to remedy the HGV – during the modelling process, but it was obviously before. During the time would have been in the region of the time in the work, pre the first 2005 application? A: Do not know.

CH: Essentially the scheme element is by no means a firm scheme element. It is part of the scheme used but what if it is not enforced? WCC are not responsible for enforcement. A: But if it was implemented, the CC would request police take action and CC would also discuss with offending companies, or suppliers, to ensure the ban is enforced and is done on voluntary basis.

CH:: In terms of Model of HGV within Westbury, what is attributable to HGV ban, and what is not? A: ? what is meant?

CH:: 004 – B3098 – Do minimum HGV = 312

With Eastern Bypass = 12

How much of that reduction of 300 if attributable to the scheme for the bypass, and how much to the ban on Station Road? How much attributable to construction of Bypass? A: Shortest local route would continue through Westbury. Requirement of ban to ensure - and again SoS be assured, that if Planning Permission is granted for the scheme, that this will be implemented. List of Conditions and Planning Permission Condition that WCC required toenact traffic regulation on road.

CH:: First implementation – and enforcement? A: WCC would be to enact a Traffic Regulation Order to meet its requirements and a Condition, would also be added to monitor HGVs on road. Were it to be avoided police would be involved to find out why it is flouted.

CH: If you construct the new road and HGV bans implemented and difficulties are..... A: If you construct new road you would get a high degree of compliance, then police involved and prosecutions.

CH: What surety? A: Whole series of Traffic Regulations and CC in discussion with the Police. Would ask Chief Constable to make resources available and I would hope he would and there would be enforcements, painting a picture – hypothetical picture between Police, property owners

CH: The Planning Application says that you would seek to introduce a ban once the scheme is in place. As far as HGV reductions within Westbury town centre – no ban on Ham Road – what is attributable to bypass and what to HGV ban? A: Whole point of proposal is to relieve – the only way scheme will be constructed is to have a ban in place. The CC has made clear the HGHV ban is part of the scheme.

CH: It is not a part. A: It is a commitment the CC has made, part of the package as discussed with Kansari yesterday.

CH: The scheme is part of the wider package? A: part of scheme to put in town centre measures.

CH: That wider package of measures, no matter what that might be, it is not part of this application in fact? The traffic ban requires a Traffic Regulation Order? A: It does require a separate local process, if the decision is to permit this scheme.

CH:: Beyond HGV ban, traffic calming, taking various measures to make Westbury town centre more attractive for walkers, whole package of transport improvements: A: That package of town centre measures did not require planning permission, but are covered in the scheme. CC made commitment and if Traffic Orders are required to implement them, this Inquiry does not require those Conditions to receive Planning Permission.

CH;: So, if the CC commits itself to doing something, it will be done. A: Part of the scheme and part of costings.

CH: When did it commit itself to building the Westbury Bypass? A: The Preferred Route was reconfirmed in 2002 – the Eastern Bypass Preferred Route adopted 1998. More work on Western routes later.

CH: Then ten years? A: Was revisited - This package of measures is not part of PA.

CH: Not part of Environmental Statement? A: Any costings for scheme includes costings for measures.

Questions of NHelps 18/19th June 2008 Page 5

CH: But in terms of ES Assessment there has been no assessment of this package of measures? A: You are suggesting they would have detrimental effects?

CH: Not suggesting anything. A: They take advantage of reduction of traffic..

CH: Why is that in the Environmental Assessment, as technically they did not have to be in environmental Assessment as not part of Planning Application? NH: Work. There are preferred options for these measures but did not require full Environmental Assessment because CC has powers to effect these schemes.

CH: The package has not been assessed in ES nor assessed in any other way? NH: The major environmental effect is the road, did not require an ES in the same way as new road construction.

CH Accept Eastern scheme will result in increased traffic on certain parts of the Corridor. NH: Some increases on certain lengths?

CH: Yarnbrook and West Ashton – Drawing OO3. NH: Some do have increases, there is a re-distribution of traffic from centre of town, and some of links have changes in traffic.

INSP; Yarnbrook/West Ashton, for example – what numbers? NH: On 003, just south of North Bradley –

?? Where End?? 483 HGVs 572

With all vehicles/do minimum: 10,613

With Eastern 11,141

INSP: Yarnbrook vehicles stay same? Just north of Haynes Road :

All vehicles 13,423 - 14.565

HGVs 228 - 323


INSP: Next point – similar figures :

13,822 increases - 14,983

228 - 323

NH: Showing re-distribution

CH: West Ashton and Yarnbrook already pinch points, particularly Yarnbrook. This scheme does nothing to alleviate that – at certain points it exacerbates it. NH: There are changes in places, it will change levels of delay and increase some links’ use.

CH:: What effect on journey time reliability? A: Additional piece of evidence, in addition to schedule the TAG worksheets as assessed to our ?middle area? 19% reduction in stress. Takes the model of the network shown on these plans.

CH: Except Yarnbrook as pinch point in need of attention NH: not a part of this scheme?

CH: We have no intimation at all as to when a scheme to relieve Yarnbrook will come into effect? NH: Yes that is correct.

CH:: Do we have, as part of ES Impact, all these increases in terms of delays, congestion, air quality? NH: We have an impact of any delays as that is included in COBA.

NH:: Congestion? NH:: Included in COBA

CH:: Noise? NH: Ask expert

CH:: Air Quality: NH: Ask expert.

Questions of NHelps 18/19th June 2008 Page 6

New Pad!! CD 13.1 1.13 Westbury Community Plan & Invitation to LTP1 (1.12) – Westbury Library

CH: HGV ban in Station Road – if necessary they will have traffic regulation order in place. Inform Inquiry what the procedure is> NH: The procedure would be for the CC to advertise their intention to have traffic order – press advertisement – period of consultation and CC will discuss if they want to confirm the order.

CH: How long would that take? NH: Depend whether there were any objections. Would be within a year, possibly less.

CH: Objections from various people in units on Westbury Trading Estate? NH: Not associated with opening of bypass.

CH: If there were objections? NH: CC would still confirm the order if it was assured bypass opened by the time order came into effect – so happen at the same time.

CH: HGV ban – essential part of the scheme, and the scheme is part of a broader package of measures? NH: Yes

CH: Which should ease traffic flow? NH: No, not ease traffic flow.

CH: Sofaras objections to this scheme are concerned – has seen Officer Report “improved transport links ........ to facilitate, to ease transport of goods to encourage businesses to locate and facilitate ..... still very much objectives? NH: Yes.

CH: Scheme part of broader package of measures? NH: There is town centre measures, not actual part of planning application because they can be dealt with under the Highways Act.

CH: Town centre measures consist of what? NH: There is a report on town centre measures (checks) it may be document – banter – asked if copies were available and you have one and also have (INSP) Westbury Town Centre Preliminary Drawing WHA 111 – does not have copy? No.

CH: Within that document is there a summary of town centre measures that will be carried out? NH: Are you going to take questions about traffic model, or engineering measures of scheme which should be put to Mr. Stokes?

CH: We have the town centre measures set out in WHA 111, part of the package, what else does the package consist of? NH: The lorry ban we discussed; specific to this scheme, these are the main elements of this scheme. Application; town centre measures and the proposed HGV ban. But

when we talk about package, there is the whole WWST package which was part of LTP1 which covered whole area from Chippenham to Warminster which included variety of measures to assist all motor transport, so this set of measures for Westbury are part of that whole WWST Strategy.

CH: Anything about it in LTP2? NH: Was discussed yesterday - about real time bus passenger system implemented from Salisbury to Bath, including Westbury, where real time bus information with sattelite is implemented on corridor from Salisbury

CH: So have scheme within local package – town centre measures and lorry ban? NH: Well, LTP 1 were aspirations, but unfortunately some of aspirations, it is the CC intention to lobby for other improvements, particularly on railways. There have been improvements, minor, like cycle parking at stations to trying to regain the frequency on the rail service – lobbying of rail operators, etc., rather than capital work which County can take – and that also goes for Westbury Railfreight Terminal. That is something which CC would like to see, because where railfreight grants work, it is for the operators to make application and given grants – it is not permissible for the CC to use its resources to actually invest in railfreight facilities – and same true for new rail infrastructure – not possible for the DfT would prefer funding through other mechanisms other than LTP. Corsham Grant made and accepted, but unfortunately the rail service was withdrawn and did not go ahead. Lot of efforts to do new infrastructure because rail service, it ?? upon us – withdrawn by operator.

CH: Town centre improvements – can you summarise what they are? NH: Cannot be criticised for not covering that.

Questions of NHelps 18/19th June 2008 Page 7

CH: Soft measures are important – and could make the purported need for the bypass as less necessary?

INSP: You have report now is there not?

CH: The inference from Mr. Helps yesterday was that all these town centre measures could be implemented without planning permission? NH: It might be, for these engineering schemes, and we have a witness for engineering. Be best put for that.

INSP: Traffic modelling

CH: Will further planning permissions be required? NH: Kansari – I am not planning expert, or highway.

CH: No further planning permissions will be required, and given that these, the town centre measures, are part of the local package, I am trying to clarify the position with regards further planning permissions?

SR: More like fishing exercise – not sensible use of Inquiry time. Mr. Hopkins to express view - dealt with out of Inquiry time and agreement reached, but the reality is, this is not a question of whether planning permission required.

CH: Environmental Impact Assessment - that may follow on from whether planning permission required. where development is involved? NH: Had a brief – all measures are within the highway – do not require any land acquisition, therefore, CC can use its powers under the Highways Act 1980. In the CA there would be discussions with WWDC, but wide powers – usually implemented when planning permission given so not required for any of these.

CH: Take it up with Mr. Simpkins?

WHA112 – Advertisement – with inducement to participate – passed to NH to read it.

INSP: Can you help Mr. Helps with date of this document? NH: 3rd May 1999.

CH: It relates to WWSTS – to improve opportunity for walking, cycling, Government objective of encouraging modal shift? NH: Yes, package. Involved in production of this document – an A3 sheet delivered to all households in this area.

CH: Measures could include 20 mph zones in pedestrian areas, improved facilities for bus passengers, road closures, plus new cycle routes; bus information; improved train services – is that in place?

NH: No.

CH: One-way system that makes specific reference to the Westbury Bypass, making the inference that they could be implemented without the bypass? NH: Difficult without reducing traffic flow.

CH: Without the eastern bypass – the 20 mph limit in Westbury? NH: That could be implemented in Westbury. 20mph have been introduced in some residential areas but cannot confirm they are in Westbury.

CH: 20 mph, without an eastern bypass? NH: Do not know that there are in in the residential area – one of other witnesses may be able to assist with that – Mr. Slater.

CH: Pedestrian priority at junctions as part of raised tables, etc. these measures are included in the town centre measures? NH: No – planned to be introduced in conjunction with the bypass.

CH: Nine years ago? Have crossings been introduced in Westbury? They are measures within town centre measures? NH: The reason why these measures have not been introduced in Westbury – with the post bypass situation, the measures would be different with the bypass with reduced traffic flow, so rather than invest in meaures, then take them out and put in stronger priority measures, it was decided to put in wholesale measures with construction of the bypass.

CH: The only specific reference made to the ... is the potential for one way with contraflow bus lanes

NH: That option was not taken forward.

Questions of NHelps 18/19th June 2008 Page 8

CH: Improved facilities for bus passengers – have new cycle routes been introduced in Westbury since 1999? NH: Not aware of any. Mr. ?Stokes will be able to assist, they are certainly proposed as part of the town centre ....

CH: LTP1 Page 95 – summarised from previous documents, except there are a number of measures which could be implemented in Westbury which would affect traffic flows, that have not been – without a bypass? NH: Yes

CH: Take Page 95. Here we see a Map of Westbury with various measures outlined. Traffic calming zones, bus priority, cycle network, many round about existing A350. Traffic calmed contraflow. Then you see the note on the map itself, referring to a proposed Westbury Bypass – potentially both E and W; further public consultation will take place on this issue, when this was to be sofaras the Council was concerned – all could have been put in place without a Westbury bypass? NH Yes, not clear here a decision had been made to definitely pursue an eastern bypass.

CH: ? 1998? NH: There was a re-examination after 1998.

CH: Question was, all measures outlined could be implemented with a western bypass? NH: These measures are proposed as part of having a bypass scheme

CH: And it is clear here that the western routes were still being looked at then? NH: Yes, they could have been implemented with a western bypass scheme.

CH: Is there anything set out there which could not be implemented with a western bypass scheme? NH: No, they could be implemented, if a western route had been acceptable

CH: Public transport access to trading estate – can you tell me about bus services to this site, if one is living on Warminster Road and work on WWTE. How would one get there by public transport?

NH: There are sevices along Station Road from the town centre and there is a less frequent service which goes 264/265, then walk from stops.

CH: Our witness, Mr. Edwards, is giving evidence on public transport, I will come back to that. Mr. K in re-examination yestereay, on targets being met on LTP2, concluded that this scheme would have been included within the assessment of the targets? NH: Yes, he gave that evidence.f

CH: Is that your view? NH: The data collected, which is shown in ?trends? is without the bypass. Future projects would have been met with any schemes which the CC believed had a reasohnable chance to be implemented. How that would affect the ?trends?, that is a matter for how target set as to what final objective was, but I suspect that the overall targets would include the Westbury Bypass go ahead.

CH: Included in future projects – were Yarnbrook/West Ashton included? NH: No, do not think so.

CH: Goes back to Government Policy – new road schemes should be matter of last resort? NH: Other measures considered first.. No embargo on new road building, and that is set out in his rebuttal.

CH: Mr. K’s rebuttal, this is a local improvement scheme? NH: Local in sense that it is the A350 – accept local scheme;

CH: Mr. K’s Rebuttal, Page 12 – he refers to various road schemes, the context is set on Page 11, both within and elsewhere by DfT – A350 Semington/Melksham Diversion completed 2004. When was planning permission granted for that scheme? NH: Sometime prior to 2004 and that was WCC scheme.

CH: Bodmin/Indian Queens ? one of HA schemes, completed in 2007/08, but presumably authorised sometime prior to that? NH: A30 Bodmin/Indian Queens, a trunk road, major route.

CH: A38 Dobwells – trunk road? NH: It is in Cornwall, all promoted by HA.

CH: You’re not suggesting these schemes are comparable to the Westbury E . Bypass? NH: The A30 designated a Primary Route which means it connects centres of population which are primary destinations. Westbury not. People are going to other primary destinations so that is status of A350. The fact it is not a trunk road, whether a road is a trunk or not is often historic. Some roads are put forward for de-trunking, and not de-trunked, i.e. A36. No set criteria, no clear criteria as to

Questions of NHelps 18/19th June 2008 Page 9

whether road should be de-trunked or not, and believe A350 has some characteristics. Some trunk routes have much higher flows, but has characteristics so distinction is not completely clear: The HA is authority for them, but some are or are not and definition is not quite clear cut.

CH: All schemes would have been authorised or approved by whichever body sometime prior to publication of the supplement to PPS1? NH Yes, and prior to publication of discussion document “Towards a Sustainable Transport System”


CH: It would be helpful if you had the Officer’s Report May 2007, CD 5.13? NH: Yes, have document.

CH: Page 2 – we see there objectives of the scheme set out as defined by 97/98 Planning Conference First bullet: “Improved transport links in order to facilitate economic regeneration”. Very much consequent part of ?? ? NH Yes.

CH: come onto Officer’s Report, Page 25 – he lists the official Report into scheme benefits, Para; 98/99 sets out what the officer considers the situation to be in Westbury. Paragraph on air quality, two paragraphs on Westbury and Westbury Town Centre, talking about walking and cycling and over page, specific paragraph on WWTE – Major Employment Area – poor access, especially for heavy goods vehicles – narrow roads – poor alignment......IMPROVED ACCESS MOST SIGNIFICANT ELEMENT OF THIS SCHEME and infers an economic element – traffic flows, accidents ?

NH: Yes

CH: Going to your Proof – second – on wider benefits, starts P.29 NH: Yes

CH: Question put to Mr. K, he could not answer it, how many local jobs will this scheme create? NH:

No assessment.

CH: The Guidance for major schemes requires where there is a regenerative element to the scheme, as we saw yesterday, economic report to be produced? NH: Yes

CH: 2007 Guidance – CD 10.1 Page 37: Wider analysis 4.4.10 “where regeneration is an important element then promoters should always ......... Clearly this is where regeneration constitutes an important element – if you recollect Parkman in 1999 said that as a standard bypass scheme it is not

Government Policy, then WSPCC (Business Case) is supposed to be submitted next Monday? NH:

Week beginning 23rd.

CH: Have the DfT required an economic case, or on what basis have they not required it? The Guidance within NATA and supporting mech. It specifically mentions deprived areas, and where the benefits of the scheme and it requires Economic Impact Assessment, particularly where area has been identified as deprived and very low economic activity, so take it to mean where scheme cannot be justified on other grounds, you can use economic benefits. NH: In case of Westbury, benefits can be shown through COBA in EAR because the other supporting information which would have assisted the DfT in making funding allocations ....

CH: And presume because WW does not fall within area of economic deprivation .. NH: Yes, that is correct.

CH: Cambridge Econometrics sets out distances from national road network – Page 39 of proof - the Cambridge Econonmetrics Report provided with 4-5 pages of Tables, there is no test. All CE have produced is the tables in document. NH: They produced many tables – recognised as leading authority on economic projects, so were commissioned by Regional Assembly to undertake some work on how we have employment projections; what employment projections should be for the strategic towns and cities in SW and this work was assisted by LAs in collecting data. These 4-5 pages have been produced for the Inquiry, because the other tables are not relevant.

Questions of NHelps 18/19th June 2008 Page 10

CH: Yes, I requested copies of them from Council because they were referred to, but not accepted as documents.

SR: Is the request being made, when a specific question made we have done utmost to get information before Inquiry (?!!!!!) Was what was required by Mr. Hopkins? If information is, then request that all the information be produced, or not.

CH: I made a request, having seen evidence – they had not been provided so I made request for copies and what I was provided with was these five pages. If Mr. Helps is saying to me now, that there are other relevant documents produced, then clearly we are disadvantages by not having them. NH: In Appendix L there is information that is relevant to WW and Westbury. There will not be other information relevant – the information we can discuss is included within AP. L

CH: Provided by Economic Officer? NH: Yes

CH: In Survey Report? NH: It used data that was produced, useful data and is relevant to this Inquiry.

INSP: Question whether information collected by CE, not complete commission to CE, but data collected by CC, using ???? statistics and putting it in format which allowed comparisons to be made between different towns and cities. No new data collection, but pulling together data collected?

CH: So we have all relevant data on which this economic case is based? NH: Yes

CH: WW connectivity to major road network. Connectivity to key elements – how would you define?

NH: Connectivity can be defined in the quality of the network in respect of the standard of the network and also the distances to key destinations.

CH: And the area does not feature “well” compared to Para 9.2? NH: Not feature well – it is distance to high standard road, such as dual carriageway, motorways.

CH: Table 2 of WHA116, if we compare Westbury with Poole, would Poole be described as economically deprived and in need of regeneration? NH: Schemes such as the bridge, key aspect of that scheme is regeneration of the dockside and areas around the harbour. Poole is in need of regeneration;

CH: ? deprived area? NH: Parts of area which the Council considered.

CH: Connectivity to road network, is Westbury better placed than Poole? Journey to centre of London – similar. Nearest place on network, nearest motorway, surely Poole much worse placed? NH: The distance to places you state are similar for some.

CH: 2.20: Heathrow 95.3 m: Journey time: 1.52 - Poole 1.54 etc. etc. NH: By choosing location at coast you are bound to find - draw a circle around Poole and half is in the sea so bound to find it is further.

CH: If your hypothesis is correct, that distances from what is described as the motorway network is correct, then one would expect Poole to be exhibitiing numerous symptoms of economic decline?

NH: You are taking me to a town which has completely different characteristics to Westbury. Questions of validity of hypothesis – do you presume connectivity to good road network....... any failure to ......

CH: That is case County put forward. NH: Yes, Poole actually, although a port of SW, is very much more linked to SE in relation to connectivity. Possibly because of A350 course through Dorset to Poole, but Poole looks to towns to the east as part of economic region. Westbury on other hand

Is firmly within SW, but has high distances from dual carriageways and motorways compared to other towns, near the bottom end of linking of all these issues.

CH: What evidence do you bring to this Inquiry that good access to motorways and trunk road network gives rise to clear economic benefits? NH: That is not what saying in evidence. I was stating facts that have been collected as part of the work between CE and the CC.

Questions of NHelps 18/19th June 2008 Page 11

CH: Para. 9.5 DEFRA highlights numbers of people in Wiltshire are lowly paid with deprivation.. Are you suggesting that the fact in 13.54 – “paid less than two-thirds of wage”, is that caused by low access to trunk roads and motorway network? NH: The evidence I can give, and it was mentioned in Mr. K’s brief – we hear comments from employers who are looking to develop land, there is no direct proof, what my evidence gives is a number of characteristics which set out that in WW particularlyi going on to other aspects in my brief whicfh appear to be for Westbury give us some evidence to suggest - why is Westbury different from other areas and can be taken to mean this work provides information from which we can say why Westbury is exhibiting these trends. One of reasons we believe retail flow is poor, because it is not just poor access, environment of town centre is poor, holding back economic activity.

CH: Where is evidence for that retail? NH: Figures in L in Mr. K’s brief.

CH: That is caused by poor road access – where is evidence? NH: It is hypothesis that we argue, with data, whether or not you have 100% proof.

CH: You have data and ?effects or facts? And it would be for the Inspector to judge whether or not the case is made!

CH: What is evidence to show that improving road access will lead to improvements in minimum wages? NH: It is not possible, you cannot prove by 100% that without doubt there is cause and effect. Data is presented – L of Mr. K’s proof – which shows characteristics are used to demonstrate that Westbury is under performing in a number of areas and WW in a number of areas. Road improvements and reduction of traffic in Westbury will remove causes of under performance.

CH: What other reasons? Do you agree there are all sosrts of other factors which can contribute to relatively under-performing? NH; I accept there are other factors.

CH: It is not a matter that a road will raise GDP employment levels? NH: Advantage we have in this area, we have had roads in these areas, Council could have taken evidence from there.

CH: This is true, that is basis, but none of evidence has been produced. NH: That is correct.

CH: 9.6 Work Place based figures – it can be assumed that those on lower wages do not tend to travel for lower paid jobs. NH: No evidence to support that

CH: An assertion – people on low wages do not spend money on commuting long distances and if you increase medium wages, than people would be able to travel further and the converse is as applicable? NH: Not if you match rates with housing.

CH: Possibility of reducing commuting – but could increase it? NH: Depends

CH: Or commuting could remain the same? NH: Correct

CH: 9.8 Measure importance for local business. Clearly there is one, surely important, element of local business that can contribute to local economy – staff – schools? NH: Yes

CH: From specific aspect of someone’s business, distance/networks, it is one factor of many – happens to be interpreted - on which there has not been produced any evidence? NH: Correct.

CH: Tourism – 700,000 visitors from March – November – what assessment of role of tourism in Westbury? DO we have any evidence? NH: There is no evidence at all.

CH: There is no assessment of likely impact of this scheme on Westbury either? NH: Except that Westbury could take advantage post scheme – could frame itself as tourist destination.

CH: Has possibility, that with bypass round the town – it would take visitors out of Westbury, they would avoid Westbury and not go into the town? NH:If you take traffic out, it becomes more attractive.

CH: You may think that – where is the evidence? NH: No evidence.

CH: 9.11 High Priority. Identified in Community Plan, increased range of shops and businesses in town centre. Where is evidence that eastern bypass would increase range and number of shops in town centre? NH: The figures given in App. L of Mr. K proof do show this is an unusual fact about Westbury, it is link between population and retail flow and the type of retail flow. It is quite

Questions of NHelps 18/19th June 2008 Page 12

marked compared to some other WW towns and that is taken as evidence that one of the contributory factors is likely to be level of traffic going through Westbury, stopping people from shopping here. Residents travel further afield when in other towns they would be more likely to meet their needs by shopping in their town – quite a difference.

CH: They do not have large supermarket out of town? NH: But the retail offer is poor based on population.

CH: Has there been any analysis as to range of shops, what sort of shops and places the people of Westbury wish to see in the town? NH: Feel sure they have made requests, particular opportunities, but we did not have evidence.

CH: No evidence?

CH: 9.13 Population – housing increases, but number of jobs has not kept pace. Where is evidence?

NH: There are perhaps tables in App. L which has that information.

CH: I can see nothing in App. L about housing and local jobs not keeping pace? NH: That evidence could have been provided but has not been.

CH: Impact of traffic having detrimental effect on town? NH: This again, local concerns are expressed in many ways, sometimes verbally.

CH: Hearsay, but no evidence? NH: No evidence before this Inquiry.

Rebuttal: 2.5 – four lines up from bottom – 66% reduction in HGVs for Far West option? NH: Yes

CH: Was that Far West 66% reduction in Haynes Road? NH: meaningful new evidence.

CH: 2.8 – With regard to A350 journey time indicated – is it not surprising that journey time reliability measurement - seen as being one of major parts of scheme – and only surveyed twice a year! NH: The resources devoted to collecting data are quite substantial. All the data decisions are made on how frequently they can be undertaken and I am letting Inquiry know that is because of the large number of indicators sampled.

Very much hope that some of this rings bells of recognition Charlie! Sorry for delay - Anne

Top of page