Train Graphic
First Great Western Passengers' Forum First Great Western Coffee Shop - [home] and [about]
Have you suggestions for an incoming government?
Random Image
Current Running _ Last 2 days Acronyms/Abbreviations Station Comparator Rail News FGW co. site Site Style 1 2 3
September 03, 2010, 05:13:22 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forgotten your username or password? - get a reminder
News: A forum for passengers ... with input from rail professionals welcomed too
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Westbury Bypass refused  (Read 1109 times)
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4718



View Profile WWW Email
« on: July 04, 2009, 11:20:57 AM »

The report of the public enquiry into the proposed Westbury bypass was published in the last few days, together with the ministers' decisions. The report recommended that the proposal be rejected, and the ministers agreed.

The Westbury bypass would have cost many millions of pounds and was to be on the A350 - the road that parallels the TransWilts line.

Keys as to why the application was rejected:

* Conjestion is elsewhere
* Models are doubtful / limited use
* Doesn't fit long term plan
* Serious impact on environment (in parts only)
* Doesn't encourage modal shift
* Very expensive to improve conditions for few in town
* Possible that far west route may be better

Objections that were overruled:

* wildlife mitigation was adequate
* pollution fears were misplaced

and indeed it would have removed traffic from the town


I have written more / provided links to the full report / looked forward at

http://www.wellho.net/mouth/2268_Westbury-Bypass-Refused-looking-forward.html
Logged

Busy elsewhere for a few days ... update
Phil
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1118


ptolemyphil@hotmail.com
View Profile Email
« Reply #1 on: July 04, 2009, 10:14:54 PM »

An objection overrruled because "wildlife mitigation was adequate" sounds rather strange to say the least, but other than that I can't say I'm particularly unhappy about this decision - seems like the right one to me.

Logged
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4718



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #2 on: July 04, 2009, 10:19:52 PM »

An objection overrruled because "wildlife mitigation was adequate" sounds rather strange to say the least, but other than that I can't say I'm particularly unhappy about this decision - seems like the right one to me.

My wording, Phil ... I tried to summarise some 600 paragraphs that landed on my doormat.  More fully explained, the inspector said that the objectors were worried about the possible effect of the road on badgers, bats, dormice, great crested newts ... but that in each case he felt that the plans for the new road included sufficient measures that the effects on these species would be limited.
Logged

Busy elsewhere for a few days ... update
tramway
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 393


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: July 06, 2009, 04:00:08 PM »

I was always curious about the logic behind the eastern route as it didn’t really give ready access to the business park where most employment in the area is, the only beneficiary as I could make out would have been the cement works.

I don’t suppose Lafarge has much influence in the Council, or their decision to all but close their Westbury works may have influenced any decision makers.  Wink Lips sealed Lips sealed

Cement jobs axed

The arguments in Graham’s post could all be seen in a different light with a fully working cement works.
Logged
moonrakerz
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 536



View Profile
« Reply #4 on: July 06, 2009, 07:16:45 PM »

The Eastern route was the "preferred" route as it was the only one that was affordable - the Western route just priced itself out of being an option - except to the protesters.

The Eastern route did include a new link road from the Lafarge roundabout leading into the trading estate along the route of the old railway line which fed this site when it was a War Office depot many years ago.
See:  http://bypassnow.info/e1.jpg

I think the main reason the bypass was rejected this time was purely financial - £31M saved - at a stroke ! Needed for duck houses and moat cleaning  Grin Grin
Logged
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
This forum is provided by a customer of First Great Western, and the views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.firstgreatwestern.co.uk for the official First Great Western website. Please contact the adminstrators of this site if you feel that the content provided by one of our posters contravenes our posting rules (email link). Forum hosted by Well House Consultants