It seems that everyone is trying to blame someone else for the various plans that have emerged for 'improvements' to the A361, which shows that the whole scheme has become politically toxic. For instance, on 19th November James Heappey replied to people in Pilton who had written to him opposing plans for a Pilton bypass. Apparently he was "unaware of plans that included proposals for Pilton", which seems rather lax of him, "and I obviously oppose all the routes currently suggested". Obviously he would, during an election campaign.

He continued: "Given the limited economic benefit of improvements east of Glastonbury and the widespread opposition within the community, I would not support any other proposals brought forward by the District Council unless – and only if – the local community asked me to get behind any new proposals. The current plans will not be supported by the Government, and the County Council has subsequently written to Mendip District Council to suggest that they be withdrawn". He was sure they would be, though "Since the plans were sponsored by MDC in the first place, the final decision must be theirs".

Meanwhile a statement from MDC, apparently in response to the same 'public outcry', makes clear that if the schemes for Glastonbury and Pilton go forward, "they will be led by Somerset County Council" – as will any public consultations, which are now expected in mid-2020. The County Council is after all the highways authority. It is misleading to say that the plans were "sponsored by MDC". They came forward under the previous Conservative administration, apparently as the result of some sort of back-room deal. Under the new Lib-Dem administration, however, nothing has been done to drop them or even to stop the District's money being spent on further developing them. 

​The word is that this is due to pressure from central government, and that the Mendip planners who produced the plans for 'indicative routes' are perfectly aware that they are all nonsense. The parties are now blaming each other for the results.

Heappey claims that the withdrawal of the Pilton schemes "really will be the end of the matter", which is perhaps a statement that will come back to haunt him. However this refers only to a Pilton bypass, not to the use of the Pilton–Glastonbury section of the A361 as part of the Major Road Network. Heappey’s reference to the 'limited economic benefit of improvements east of Glastonbury’ suggests that he would now favour going ahead with one of the Glastonbury proposals without road congestion in Pilton being addressed at all.

An important part of the way forward must now be closer co-operation between Glastonbury and Pilton at Town/Parish Council and District Council levels; after all, the A361 as it is now cuts Pilton in half and makes any effort to walk down the road from the top of the village to the pub positively dangerous. ‘Improvements’ around Glastonbury would further increase traffic flow through Pilton.

If the Conservatives are elected in December with a working majority, then the MRN will go ahead and the least damaging option that would satisfy the likes of Heappey and also the hauliers would be the Ridge Lane route. Using Ridge Lane would probably provide a better ‘strategic route into the heart of Mendip' (Heappey’s words) than coming through Pilton and Glastonbury. The case is based on incomplete traffic surveys, which suggest that only 30% of HGVs coming down the A361 continue beyond Glastonbury to the motorway (and similar figures in the opposite direction). It is extremely unlikely that 70% have Glastonbury as their destination, so a proportion (estimated 50% of total) must turn off at the B&Q roundabout and head down the A39 for Wells and beyond.

If this can be proven – which would require a 3-way Origin & Destination survey – the implication is that the Ridge Lane route would provide this proportion of HGVs with a shorter journey-time than via  the A361, whilst rebuilding the Ridge Lane route would also have at worst a negligible effect upon increasing traffic between Wells and Glastonbury through Coxley. The first point would interest the hauliers, who have historically supported the route, and the second would undermine the arguments put forward by St Cuthberts Out Parish Council against using such a route. Ridge Lane would also bypass Croscombe of course.

The original traffic survey was done by John Roberts of CPRE, a former council traffic engineer. He has only two cameras so that he is not equipped to carry out the necessary 3-way traffic survey; Glastonbury Town Council has been dragging its heals over providing a third, probably because they can’t get their heads around its significance. John is also opposed to upgrading Ridge Lane, which he would regard as new road building, and therefore against CPRE policy (as well as against Green Party and Friends of the Earth policy). He may have a point, but since all the current proposals involve building new roads – most of them across Grade 3 floodplain – it would be both environmentally preferable and cheaper.

If the Conservatives do not win the election, of course, then there is a good chance that building a new Major Road Network – and thus increasing road haulage and fossil fuel use – will be regarded as a bad idea in the light of climate change.

'The River Brue Rehabilitation Board' is designed to look at first sight like an official body, charged with restoring the River Brue to a good ecological and biological condition. This is certainly needed; but In fact it is an independent project intended to raise awareness about the river and related environmental matters. This will inevitably mean, in the present context, climate change. 

I am hoping that the shop will become a small community hub, to be used by people interested in the river and its environment; and also people campaigning or in other ways working to mitigate the growing crisis affecting our climate and ecology, and interested in creating a more resilient and sustainable community here in Glastonbury.

As part of this, I am proposing to use it – out of hours – as a 'micro-venue', and I am looking to make contact with actors, musicians, storytellers and other performers who would be interested in taking part in small-scale performances. These would not be restricted to the River Brue as subject matter, nor even to rivers generally, though I am asking that they should support Mother Earth in her present time of need. I am also open to other creative ideas that would fit with the project's ethos.

My starting point has been the river's depleted state and its history, which includes being cut off from the River Axe and its original outflow to the sea at Brean Down. In my book The River I described it as being once a substantial river, then a canal, and now a drain. Its medieval redirection, which divided what was once one river into two and separated the Brue's source from its original mouth, has become for me an allegory for our own state of separation – from each other, from the natural world, and from our own essential nature – a state that is at the root of the emergency that we now face.

My personal relationship to the River Brue now extends to five years, during which time I have written and published three books about or related to our local river. My intention is to write one more, which will be specifically focussed on action and based on the experience of the 'Rehabilitation Board'.  

The 12-month project is using premises at The Old Clinic in St John's Square, and is open to the public until November next year. It is dedicated to the River Brue and to related environmental matters, and it will provide information about different aspects of the river. Leaflets so far available deal with river pollution, the River Brue and climate change, the lowered water table due to pumping and drainage, deforestation and flooding, the medieval redirection of the Brue, our disappearing sacred landscape, and the future possibility of rewilding the river. All my books are also available.

The River Brue Rehabilitation Board is at 10 St John's Square, Glastonbury; other than by special arrangement it will keep to formal office hours, 9 am to 5 pm, Mondays to Fridays. For more information see the website: ​www.unique-publications.co.uk/river-brue-rehabilitation-board.html

On Tuesday October 29th there was a closed meeting of Glastonbury Town Council. Press and public were excluded at the request of Mendip District Council. Glastonbury’s Town Councillors seemed increasingly frustrated and mildly bewildered by this continuing attempt to keep the issue away from the public domain, which has led to rumours and speculation and has tended to erode the public's trust in their elected representatives.
 
At the meeting it was decided to respond to the proposals from Somerset County Council and Mendip District Council (see ‘Latest Plans for Glastonbury Bypass’, 7/10/19) by rejecting all four suggested routes intended to bypass Glastonbury. The Town Council also said that there is insufficient room on the ‘island’ of Glastonbury for development on the scale implied by the funding proposals, and asked for a more ‘wholesome’ approach to the whole matter. They are expecting a reply to which they can further respond, by which time it will be after the general election. 
 
This response was not just from the Green Party Town Councillors who now form a majority on the Council. One Lib-Dem Town and District Councillor told me that all the four routes around Glastonbury were ‘nonsense', and had been hurriedly put together as the result of pressure being brought to bear from central government level. This suggests that the campaign for a bypass is being encouraged by the Transport Department, which is of course promoting its plans for a Major Road Network including an upgraded A361/A39 between Shepton Mallet and the M5. Although he no longer has direct links to the Department for Transport, the immediate answer to the question of who is driving the effort to get these plans accepted and in place would appear to be James Heappey MP.

At Mendip District Council, Conservatives and Liberal-Democrats have been "fighting like ferrets in a sack"' as one observer put it, to pin the blame for these proposals on each other. They originated under the previous Conservative administration, though now Conservative councillors are demanding that the proposals should be "taken off the table" immediately.  This puts them in the position of being disloyal to their own MP;  one Conservative councillor has been heard to persistently blame Heappey's ambitions for development of the A361 for the current impasse. Meanwhile the Lib-Dems, who inherited the situation, have done nothing as yet to put a halt to the District Council's money being spent on further development of the proposals, or to stop them being put forward to central government for funding consideration.

The first People’s Assembly to take place in Glastonbury Town Hall was held on Saturday 26th October. This format is used by Extinction Rebellion, who promote it as a ‘radical new form of democracy, that puts decision making back in the hands of the people’.  Well over 80 people arrived, more than could be fitted into the small hall, and for the next Assembly the main hall has been booked. Publicity leaflets had invited people to take part in a process to create a ‘resilient and sustainable community’.
 
This followed on from the Climate Emergency Open Day held in September, and was organised by the Town Council’s Climate Emergency Committee. There was a general sense of ‘positive energy’, and most people felt pleased that a start had been made on this important process, though there are many difficulties to be overcome before it works well.
 
The Assembly itself was preceded by four short talks: Independent Town Councillor Paul Lund began by speaking about the United Nations climate conferences; Mendip District Councillor Tom Ronan, who holds the portfolio for Strategic Policy and Climate Change, outlined the District Council’s proposed plans; Bruce Garrard (me!) introduced Professor Jem Bendell’s concept of Deep Adaptation, and spoke about community resilience; and Somerset’s climate change adaptation officer Shelly Easton, who works for the Somerset Wildlife Trust, outlined practical steps she is taking with local farmers and landowners, and members of the wider community.
 
This was followed by the assembled people being divided into small groups to discuss proposals to address transport, food, and the natural environment; proposals were then fed back to the whole group. Time ran out before they could be prioritised, but the intention will be to do this next time.
 
At a feedback meeting of the committee the following week, problems were acknowledged: besides the lack of space, there was a lack of experience and understanding as to how the Assembly should work, on behalf of most of the people taking part and some of the organisers, with a consequent lack of clarity as to the intended outcomes; and there was also a sense that the meeting was rushed, with insufficient time to really get to grips with the issues.
 
Creating a comprehensive plan to enable a truly resilient community is an extremely challenging task, but the intention is there and by January, when the next People’s Assembly is scheduled to take place (Saturday January 25th), a more detailed framework will have been discussed.