Westbury Bypass NO!

The South West Regional Assembly published its Table 1 of priority schemes which are recommended for funding, which does not include Westbury Bypass.

Table 2, within which WCC’s Westbury Bypass is now placed, is for low scoring schemes which require work on their environmental impact, affordability, etc, before they could potentially be recommended for regional allocation funding.

The political ploy to get around this at the SWRA Executive Committee Meeting on 18 Jan '06, by a manoeuvre to merge Tables 1 and 2, was heavily defeated.

A further attempt to push low scoring road schemes failed on 27 January '06. Nobody spoke in support of a Westbury bypass.    Transport funding allocation amendments now approved are for the prioritisation of other highway schemes.

 The 27 January 2006 full South West Regional Assembly endorsed the decision of its Executive Committee to keep WCC's Westbury Bypass scheme in Table 2.

Before any recommendation, environment and cost criteria must be satisfied.

The requirements have since been confirmed by the Department for Transport.

WCC's eastern bypass would have bad environmental impacts.   The costs for mitigation in the design are now making it unaffordable, by normal standards.

By contrast, some of the longer-term ideas in SWRA Table 3 are wholly viable. The Waterloo to Exeter railway improvement concept merely involves a couple of passing loops in the section that was previously dual tracked.   All conditions are easily satisfied.   This highly affordable and speedily achievable proposal is environmentally positive and can benefit the whole South West region - now.

In the 6 July '06 listings from the Department for Transport, WCC's would-be Westbury Bypass is under a title of  'Schemes which do not yet have approval (ie: not accepted into the Programme)'.    This appears to be clear enough.

The Transport Minister's 6 July 2006 letter also confirms schemes which are expected to be funded over the next three years.    These 'include schemes under construction and those expected to start construction (ie: approved schemes not yet underway)'.     Westbury Bypass is in neither category.

The eastern Westbury bypass development ought to be badly placed, as it is inherently unsatisfactory in environmental impact, affordability and the other criteria that it has to comply with for it to be considered for funding allocation.

This scheme has no public transport element; it avoids Westbury railway station.

Whilst procedures are followed, the eastern bypass scheme will not progress.

Wiltshire County Council is spending out on misleading PR spin otherwise.

A Wiltshire County Council presentation, given to the town council etc, included saying that a December 2006 DfT letter says anticipate funding in three years.

But WCC's 'December 2006 DfT anticipate funding letter' does not actually exist!

The DfT letter of 6 July 2006 is well identified.  It was on the internet in July 2006. There is no equivalent Department for Transport letter of December on the 'net.  The Dec '06 Government Office for the South West letter to Wilts County Council refers to the July 2006 DfT letter (ie: not to a December 2006 DfT letter).   There is no actual statement that funding for a Westbury Bypass is to be anticipated.

There is one prime source for the funding fallacy: Wiltshire County Council.