White Horse Alliance - A350 Westbury Bypass Campaign

Inquiry day: 8

Inquiry date: 27 June 2008

See notes part 1; part 2

Inquiry index

Notes, part 1

Original document(PDF): Day_8_Rawlings.pdf

Day Eight

Mr Randall announced that there had been an error in the HGV figures. Mr Helps is to be recalled. Corrected figures and draft business plan to be available by mid-Monday.

Mick Rawlings

Evidence in Chief

Mr Rawlings was asked to read from Para S5 until the end of his summary proof (SP).

Mr Rawlings was referred to Appendix E of his full proof, WANHS letter, 22/03/07. His response to these objections is contained in 6.3 to 6.16 of his full proof (FP).

Mr Rawlings was asked to read para 2.1 of his response proof (RP).

Mr Rawlings was asked to read 2.11 of his RP.

Cross Examination

Table 8.3 in ESV3 referred to in RP. Actually located in CH8 V1.

V3, 8.3. Layout. A350 runs around town centre. Agree?

-Runs around the retail core

A350 does not run through most of historic route through Westbury.

-Still affects W Con Area

Main con area not affected by A350?

-Agreed, not directly affected

Description of impact, but not assessment? Assessment score of moderate/large beneficial.


In V1, s10. Historic Environment. Pg246-7. Assessment of impact significance criteria. Significant differences between moderate and slight beneficial? Modern beneficial enhances, slight does not?


These criteria used in Table 8.3?

-Different TAG unit, applied in different ways.

Should find in s8 an equivalent table setting out criteria. P126, para8.20

s10 V1. 10.118. No direct adverse effect or on formal fabric of listed building. 10.119. Slight beneficial effect on centre. Significance criteria from Tag2.2.9.?


Slight adverse effects on several buildings nearer scheme route.


pg273. Significance of residual effects. Residual effects neutral for archaeology, slight beneficial for built heritage.


V3 ES. Appendix 3.2. Comparison tables for E and FW routes. E route moderate adverse on iron age and prehistoric sites at Bratton Road. Moderate adverse on Barkley Lodge? Where is Barkley Lodge?

-Adjacent to Barkley Lodge.

-Entrance lodge to former stately home.

Barkley Lodge and Grade II farm house B2599 only listed buildings affected by FW route?

-Difficult to assess without knowing precise route

-Grade I listed building nearby

Without knowing precise route, may be possible to avoid Barkley Lodge?


Greater amount and quality of historic sites along E route.

-More is known about E route due to greater surveying work.

-Further W greater density of archaeological sites

Both routes summarised as slight adverse?


RP2.13. Numerous other listed buildings located within 100m of current A350. Significance of 100m?

-No particular significance.

-No absolute limits for effects of road.

-No guidance on study limits

RP2.15. Collective value of all historic buildings described as high. Derived from guidance?

-No, standard procedure.

No gradation in terms of importance in the same way as listed buildings?


ES: slight beneficial effect on built environment. Now assessed as moderate beneficial in 2.16. What changed?

-Nothing changed.

-Slight beneficial in CH10, deals specifically with historic buildings

-Visual issue, townscape – moderate beneficial.

-Two slightly different issues.

Highly subjective exercise?


Effects of non-road build options, e.g. soft traffic measures. Not assessed package?


Assessed effects of proposed town centre improvements?


Is archaeological field work ongoing?

-Now complete

Archaeological mitigation. Has strategy been developed?

-Contained in recent RPS document.

White Horse. Oldest and largest in Wiltshire?

-Considered to be the oldest currently.

-Includes Bratton Camp

Setting of White Horse important for Westbury and for Wiltshire?


A non-road build option would have no impact on White Horse?

-Presumably not

FW route would have significantly less impact than E route?


Inspector's Questions

Mr Yellowley asked why there was an assessment of neutral at 10.1 of the ES, when the route was expected to have a slight adverse effect on more sites. Mr Rawlings said that he was not involved in the scheme at the time of the ES, and thatif he were to assess the scheme now he would expect to predict a slight adverse effect. He said that he agreed that there would be a slight beneficial effect on the built environment of the town centre. Neutral was the correct assessment on the overall historic environment.

Mr Yellowly said there appeared to be an inconsistency in terms of whether there was a moderate or slight beneficial effect on the built environment. Mr Rawlings said he had not produced the tables in WHA107. Mr Rawlings said that TAG was lagging behind DMRB. Mr Rawlings said he could not account for the discrepancy with the EV.

Notes, part 2

Original document(PDF): Day_8_Swift.pdf

Day Eight

Mr Langton read out an email from Colin Little to Patrick Kinnersly stating that the reason why WCC had not gained access to Beggar's Knoll to assess the bat population was because they had never asked.

Paul Swift

Examination in Chief

Mr Swift was asked to read from para 1.2 to 1.4 of his full proof.

Mr Swift was asked to read from 2.1 to 2.7

Mr Swift was asked to read from 3.2 to 3.3

Mr Swift was asked to read from 6.1 to 6.11

Mr Swift was asked to read s7.7

Mr Swift was asked to read s2.1 of his response proof.

Mr Swift acknowledged that any compensatory flood storage should be done on a level by level basis as a condition of planning permission

Cross Examination

Annex D, PPS25. Sequential test. Referred to in s3 of proof. D1. Scheme falls within scope of annex?


Planners should only consider sites in zone 3 if no reasonably available sites in zones 1 and 2. In terms of sequential tests, county's case that there are no reasonably available sites in zones 1 and 2.

-Highly likley that this kind of development would need to cross zone 3.

What consdieration has been given to a route that would avoid zone 3.

-Alternative routes have been explored

-Highly likely that alternative routes would also have crossed zone 3

Is this a matter of fact?

-FW route will pose a greater flood risk than scheme

Non-road build option would not involve encroachment on zone 3?


-Current A350 probably does cross zone 3 locations

Table D2. Case that scheme regarded as essential transport infrastructure?


Essential to what?

-Essential in terms of traffic and congestion

As part of sequential test, decision makers must be satisfied that development essential?


Matter for Sec of State, not County to decide whether essential?


Annex D, pg27. Exception test. Development must provide sustainability benefits that outweigh flood risks.


Development should be on previously developed land. Is scheme on previously developed land?


If not on previously developed land, there must be no reasonably alternative sites. Alternative sites?

-Only familiar with proposed route and the FW route to a lesser degree.

Compensatory storage. Required by Environment Agency?

-General requirement and standard practice.

Accept that compensatory flood storage required?


Level-for-level compensation required?


Has compensation land been identified?

-Identified on a plan incorporated into flood assessment report.

Is this at level-for-level?

-Minimal excavation required

Is land available?

-Currently grazing land, currently floods.

-Will continue to flood once a century. Flood risk may increase slightly.

Is land currently owned by council?

-Not aware

-Not aware of whether part of CPO

-Agreement may be needed with local landowner

Is it usual that land remains under control of landowner?


Level-by-level storage a planning condition. Circular 11.95. Para 3. Conditions should only be imposed if precise and relevant. Unclear in whose ownership the land would remain.

-In normal circumstances, landowner would retain land.

Inspector's Questions

FP3. 3. Should say 1%, not 0.01%, probability.

Mr Swift said that the FW route would specifically increase the flood risk for the trading estate. Compensation would not be fully effective in removing increased flood risk. Additional compensation might be necessary.

Top of page