There was comparatively little debate amongst the councillors and much of that was oddly off focus.

A biased, insular and fundamentally ignorant procedure, altogether, I thought.

Us transport/environmental campaigners who were there did our best.  We presented the facts.

The WCC committee chairman would not read out pre-submitted statements, where questioners were not in attendance, as it was not worthwhile, as the councillors knew about them, he said, but he did not allow the time in lieu for those of us who were there.  He was constantly interjecting if ever we were overrunning our two minutes, even when it did not allow our submitted statements or questions to be read out completely. He was also interjecting (even within our set time) if we deviated from our pre-submitted texts.

I had this done to me, whilst within my allotted space to talk, but I too carried on regardless, just louder.

Oh, and the County Council's prepared responses mostly dodge the questions or concerns.

We remained to listen to the informed debate of our Wiltshire County Councillors.  We were disappointed.

In response to an ACA solicitor's letter warning that the scheme was open to legal challenge because of its inadequate mitigation, an official told the councillors something like: that this was probably covered in the environmental statements, that the council's legal advisor had not had time to consider the implications..., so the councillors may as well ignore them.

Another objector had earlier bravely and skillfully detoured from the script of her own questions to mention that the ACA letter was only 21 pages, whereas the general public had been expected to read, digest and comment on over 2400 pages of complex issues in the WCC environmental statements in 21 days, at a rate of over 100 pages a day.   As she said, it seems that different rules apply for WCC and its officers.

A councillor suggested a visit to the intended route of the bypass, as if the councillors had not studied it, but was put off and consequently not supported in this by the others saying something like they had been out to the chalk quarry previously and had seen enough of the bypass route from there.

Prompted by the ACA questions, a councillor subsequently went on to ask about the impact of the extra HGVs on Southwick etc (information which is within the WCC statements, with contradictory conclusions).  But the County Councillors were reassured by an officer that this was a matter for the Highways Authority.  Which is...?  Yet the highways chiefs and the councillors in charge were all there together.

A vote for the application was called.  Seven out of twelve committee members present raised their hands.  In a previous odd twist, the original chairman, who had made the number on the committee up to fourteen, was removed, completely, just before this Westbury bypass planning application meeting on 16 May 2007. There was a party briefing meeting on 14 May, at which we believe councillors were 'advised' how to vote.

I am not the only one who observed that our Wilts county councillors did not have a proper debate over whether adverse impact outweighed need.  In fact, apart from environmental and transport campaigners, no-one really considered the adverse impact.

Wiltshire County Council shrilled "Westbury bypass plans approved" to the media, but this was never true.  As a Departure Application, it always had to be referred to the Government.  There is no planning consent.

* In July 2007, the Government ordered an independent inquiry into WCC's planning application.