MENDIP SECONDARY GROWTH AREA
​
Thursday’s meeting was brilliant, with just one problem. This was to do with James Heappey MP, who was mentioned several times – mostly by people who wanted him to be there to hear the strength of their feelings, but he was not there, even though he had arranged to address a meeting in Walton the following evening. So, just when things felt like they were going well, this arrived late that night:
 
Walton Parish Council meeting, attended by James Heappey: Friday 8 June
 
JH spoke and answered questions for one and a half hours. Here's a brief summary of the main points he made, together with some quotations :
 
"Mendip" (an area encompassing Frome, Wells, Glastonbury, Street, Shepton)  has been identified as a "Secondary Growth Area" i.e an area ripe for development.
 
Better road links from the M5 to Mendip are needed. We want to plug Mendip in. A39/A361 is the only realistic option.
 
New roads come when there is an economic opportunity. 
 
HGV traffic is not a bad sign. 
No traffic means a stagnant economy. 
 
The question Walton must answer (same as the one I put to Glastonbury) is:
How many houses – in thousands – is a new road worth? 
 
Glastonbury Town Council must make up its mind what it wants before I go to meet with them. 
 
JH seems determined that by-passing the various pinch points in Pilton, Glastonbury, Walton and Ashcott is the way forward and he several times brushed aside questions and suggestions to designate other existing roads as county freight routes, or as viable alternative routes for aggregate lorries. 

Much of the Q&A was then about Hinkley traffic, and the A361 committee are aware of much of these details ...
 
From August we can expect many more aggregate lorries on the A361.
 
Background: 
For the first stage of the build, aggregate has come from a quarry near Cheddar by road via Axbridge to Hinkley. From August a different aggregate, coming from Whatley near Frome, will be needed to make concrete for the next phase.  
 
When EDF applied for planning they said this would be transported from Whatley by rail and then sea, arriving at a jetty at Hinkley C. However, the jetty will not be ready until next year, so from August onwards all aggregate from Whatley will  be transported by road, along the A361. This will involve 15 times as many lorries as currently travel this route. 
 
Actions to mitigate the effects of 100s more lorries each day:
 
1. JH recommends in, say, early September when this traffic has reached a peak flow, for local communities to mount some form of protest.
 
2. JH is in discussions with EDF to have night time limits set on Hinkley traffic. 
 
3. EDF have failed to meet their planning commitment. Although they cannot be stopped from using the roads, they could/should be leant on to provide compensation, to individuals along the route and/ or to local communities. 
Local communities can raise their concerns and e.g.if there are traffic calming measures, road safety etc. needed along this route we should apply to EDF for funding. 
 
4. Trucks to and from Hinkley are (in theory) identified with an "HPC" sign on the windscreen. Any driver of a truck who infringes regulations (speed limits, curfew times etc) will lose his (her) job. 
 
JH is going to arrange for info packs for Walton/Glastonbury/Pilton etc stating what the regulations are, and also arrange for a more easily visible way of identifying Hinkley vehicles. 

Some of this is misleading – for instance EDF have been granted a 'variation order' which increases the number of lorries they are allowed and may mean that their 'planning commitment' has been adjusted. On this subject, it is interesting to note what Somerset County Council representatives said to a meeting in Glastonbury Town Hall 12 years ago.  ​

The meeting in the Town Hall was brilliant. The hall was full – 250 people or so – and nearly all of them passionately in favour of protecting Glastonbury’s sacred and iconic landscape, with many ready to take direct action if necessary in support of the demand to have the County Freight Route through Glastonbury redirected. This was in complete contrast to James Heappey’s assurance that feedback regarding his bypass suggestion has been ‘overwhelmingly positive’.
 
A brief report appeared that evening on Facebook:

• The traffic down Chilkwell St and Bere Lane is appalling and getting worse because of Hinckley C. [Hinkley C is one element but it was also said that both the number and the size of trucks has generally increased over the years].
• Chilkwell Street is technically illegal for these lorries to use [this is a reference to the narrowness of the road near to Chalice Well gardens].
• No-one wants a bypass. End of. 
• The consultation process was seriously flawed. Many people didn't get a survey and for those who did, the survey apparently made it look as though a new road was the only option. A data scientist stood up and said that if he'd presented it, he would have been fired. 
• Serious pressure needs to be put on MDC [actually Somerset CC] to divert haulage companies (and sat nav companies) because there are other routes, e.g. down to the big arterial A303.
• That pressure probably needs to take the form of direct action, something that Glastonbury is very good at as there are so many activists here.
• There was a call for transparency in the Town Council as to who suggested the survey in its current form, and a declaration of vested interests.
• Vested interest declaration please from James Heappey, who seems heavily invested in a new road/Somerset E/W corridor to the M5 without other options - plus housing and commercial development to [help] pay for the new road, across a level 3 floodplain which is currently owned by other people, several of whom were at the meeting and who do not want to sell or split their land. Do write to your MP.

 
There were apparently ten Town Councillors present, but apart from the Greens who were running the meeting they all kept very quiet. There were a couple of brave HGV drivers who spoke, but their assurance that modern trucks are clean and emission-free carried little credence in the face of people’s actual experience of soot build-up on their window sills and some of their children’s asthma being made worse. There is also the noise, light pollution and on-going damage to the road surface to contend with. Sending all this heavy traffic through Glastonbury is inappropriate or worse.
 
Neither the MP nor either of Glastonbury & Street’s County Councillors were present, though Liz Leyshon (Lib-Dem) had said she would convey the feelings of this meeting to County Hall. Holly White, from a farming family who own land that would be split in two if the railway line proposal were to go ahead, offered to attend the next County Council meeting and speak for the three minutes allowed to members of the public.
 
There were also local councilors and members of the public from Pilton, Street, Walton and St Cuthbert Out (around Wells) at the meeting, and a suggestion that they should co-operate rather than working separately. How this could be followed up effectively would be a challenge, but with the right leadership would be well worth taking on.
 
Glastonbury’s four remaining Green Party Town Councillors had jointly written a letter to the paper last week, stating their belief that there should be no new road and HGV traffic should be moved to a different route. The meeting strongly supported this stance, and the energy ran high. It seemed very hopeful that they could feel the strength of their own constituency supporting them. One man who said he had voted for Heappey at the last election had decided never to do so again, and one woman who had supported the old railway line route for as bypass in the ‘consultation’ said she had changed her mind as a result of the meeting. Mostly, however, this was alternative Glastonbury empowering itself and perhaps realising its potential political strength.