Unique Publications - Independent Publishing in Glastonbury, UK
  • Home
  • About
  • Publications
  • News/Blog
  • River Brue Rehabilitation Board
  • Glastonbury Archive Material
  • Other Glastonbury Authors
  • Bruce's Articles and Stories
  • Antonio Bivar
  • Local Resources
  • Unique Publications History
  • Contact
  • View Shopping Cart

Glastonbury Southern Bypass proposal

2/3/2019

31 Comments

 
Picture
Picture

I was surprised to discover that, in spite of the government's preoccupation with Brexit negotiations, the Transport Department has made some progress with its Major Road Network proposals – more or less on schedule. The 'Peninsula Transport Shadow Sub National Transport Body' has been set up, with its chief responsibility being to prioritise road schemes from the South West for submission to the Transport Department for approval and funding.

Ten schemes have been short-listed (seven MRN schemes and three 'Large Local Major' schemes, though the difference is not entirely clear). These include three in Somerset, one of them called 'A361 Glastonbury Bypass and Pilton'. Regarding this, Somerset County Council has produced an 'Options Assessment Report' on the basis of which a Glastonbury Southern Bypass has been proposed. The previously suggested northern route, along the old railway line behind the Tor, does not get a mention.

There are two options for the proposed southern bypass: the 'Short Route' – essentially the southern route that was included in the Town Council's survey last year, from Edgarley Road near Millfield Prep School to the junction between Bere Lane and Fisher's Hill – and a 'Long Route' that would continue across South Moor (or just above it along the foot of Wearyall Hill), cross the River Brue and join the A39 at the roundabout on the Glastonbury side of Street. The short route has an 'indicative scheme cost' of £40 million, and the long route £70 million (both of which figures are probably optimistically low). The County Council claims that the 'Benefit to Cost Ratio' in either case would be at least 10:1, on the basis of a so-called 'high-level benefits analysis' – presumably the kind of estimates and suppositions that were discredited by the CPRE two years ago in their report 'The end of the road?'.

The short route, of course, would not do the job; although it would bypass Chilkwell Street and Bere Lane, it would actually increase the volume of heavy traffic using Fisher's Hill and Street Road, and the endless debate would simply continue, just shifted along a bit. The long route, on the other hand, would have to cross a significant stretch of wetland and bridge the River Brue, very expensive engineering work which would almost certainly incur substantial cost over-runs. This is important because the Transport Department is only offering to provide funds up to £50 million per scheme, and there is an overall cap of £100 million on any one MRN project.

A minimum of 15% of the overall costs, and an expected average of 30%, would have to be met 'locally'. This would actually mean through partnership funding from housing and property developers, who would effectively be able to buy planning permission for development associated with the road scheme.

So what about the "and Pilton" that is tacked on to the end of the title of the proposal? The County Council's submission acknowledges that Pilton is affected by HGV traffic in much the same way as Glastonbury, though it avoids mentioning that  if Glastonbury had a bypass but Pilton did not, overall traffic through Pilton would increase and the 'pinch point' there would become intolerable. What it does say is that "in Pilton the scheme options have not yet been established", which seems rather strange at this stage; but that "a key consideration" will be the nearby Glastonbury Festival site, presumably because they would like to put a definitive stop to traffic problems related to large numbers arriving for and leaving from the event. But how this can be included in the same scheme as a Glastonbury bypass and still be kept within what would clearly be tight budget restrictions is a mystery yet to be solved.

There is also the problem of Ashcott and Walton, which would need to be bypassed if this route were to become fit for purpose as part of the Major Road Network. The Ashcott and Walton bypass is also on the regional short-list, though included as an 'LLM' scheme rather than as part of the MRN, apparently because with an 'indicative cost' of £90 million it is outside the range of current MRN bids. 

The Peninsula Transport Shadow Sub National Transport Body meets at County Hall in Exeter. It has five committee members including Councillor John Woodman, Somerset County Council's cabinet member for transport. There are also a number of co-optees but these do not include either of Glastonbury and Street's County Councillors – who have not even been kept informed of these developments. There was a meeting in Exeter on Friday March 1st at which it was agreed to choose three of the ten short-listed schemes in time to be presented for government perusal in July. The only scheduled meeting before then will be on May 24th. (Press and public are able to attend – except when items concerned with the nitty gritty of finances are being discussed; these are exempt from the Freedom of Information Act).

It seems rather unlikely, if only three schemes are to be chosen from the whole of the southwest, that more than one will be from Somerset. Peninsula Transport's three proposals will then be prioritised by the government along with other road schemes proposed from other regions. How many will actually be chosen is not clear. Any that do get through all these hoops will then be set to go ahead during the financial year 2024/25 – by which time anything could have happened to the UK's politics and economy, not to mention likely rising water levels on the Somerset Levels and Moors due to climate change. In my opinion, our MP James Heappey will only see his plan for a 'strategic road into the heart of Mendip' come about if he has a very persuasive word in the ear of his boss, Secretary of State for Transport Chris Grayling.

For anyone who would like to look at all this more fully, here are links to details of the MRN and LLM prioritisation process and to details of the ten scheme submissions being considered by Peninsula Transport (Glastonbury is on pages 23-26, including a larger copy of the map above). Happy reading!

See update on this blog post
​
31 Comments
Ian Fraser
2/3/2019 06:53:37 am

As ever, thank you Bruce for your work and publishing it.

Reply
Indra
2/3/2019 08:02:46 am

Looks like the long routes been kicked into the very long grass..and the south to follow, i'd like to see them try putting it past Millfield. Beautifully written Bruce.

Reply
David Williams
2/3/2019 10:11:20 am

Thanks for clarifying the muddle as it stands

Reply
Jane Lockhart
2/3/2019 12:32:42 pm

Thanks Bruce.

Reply
Ramona
2/3/2019 04:02:21 pm

thanks Bruce.

Reply
Jacqui Roberts
3/3/2019 02:45:55 am

Thank you very much Bruce for that top write up it helps a lot to see what is happening with it all. What an incongruous name, "The Peninsula Transport Shadow sub National Transport Body" doesn't exactly trip off the tongue easily!!!
I thought if the short route was used it would not go up and over Fisher's Hill but carry on from Bretenoux Road and below Wearyall Hill? Not the case then?

Reply
Bruce Garrard
3/3/2019 03:48:01 am

Hi Jacqui, I know the map at the top isn't very clear – but the short route would be up and over Fisher's Hill, the long route would be across South Moor (probably immediately below Wearyall Hill), then crossing the river and joining the A39 at the roundabout outside Street.
So far as I can make out the decision between the two would be made by the government, not by anyone in Glastonbury or even in Somerset. We might get a say on the exact route.

Reply
Lindsay
4/3/2019 02:22:56 pm

I wonder what Mike Eavis makes of this? I presume that the major opposition to any new roads for Glastonbury will put any proposals way down the list. We need all HGVs to be redirected to the A37/A303. It is only the quarry lorries that suffer significantly financially, and with all that mitigation funds money about, surely EDF can compensate them at £10 a journey for the extra fuel. That's £1000 a day for the 100 journeys made through Glastonbury. £250,000 a year for the 10 years that it takes to build Hinkley. A mere scratch in their £19 billion budget. And way cheaper than building a bypass. Plenty of cash out of a possible £20 million pound bypass budget left over to address the low railway bridge at Lydford. Or, perhaps the HGV drivers should just take home a little less money ... typically £15 for a waged driver? Though probably more self-employed. The real problem is the majority on Glastonbury Town Council want development, more houses, more factories, more commercial space, more concrete, more tarmac. More money for the council coffers. Thanks to Bruce again for keeping your finger on the button with government developments. PS can the A361 Action Group meet on a Saturday morning next as we have a strong objector on Chilkwell St who is well clued up and would like to attend but works as a human bot at Clark's 2-10pm. PPS: google maps currently directs traffic via Keinton Mandeville .... as the A361 is closed.

Reply
Bruce Garrard
5/3/2019 05:32:09 am

Thanks for your thoughts Lindsay.
By the way, Michael Eavis really doesn't like to be called Mike.

Reply
Christine Prior
7/3/2019 07:14:43 am

Thanks Bruce great to have up to date information.

Reply
Nev
7/3/2019 11:29:27 am

What do you think of these plans, Bruce? Do you think Glastonbury residents have any chance whatsoever in modifying or halting them?

Reply
Bruce Garrard
8/3/2019 01:06:04 am

I think these plans are dreadful, to be honest. My personal priority is to help preserve what's left of the Somerset Wetlands, and as you may know I have written a book about the River Brue. This scheme, at least the 'long version', would directly threaten the river and would virtually destroy an important and historic stretch of the levels on South Moor. The 'short version' would be only half a bypass and wouldn't work either for many local residents or in terms of the Major Road Network. Perhaps we shall be pleased if Millfield School, many of whose pupils have some very influential parents, manage to veto the scheme altogether.
As for Glastonbury residents modifying or halting the plans – at the time of the ludicrous 'Road Consultation' last year we were promised by the Mayor a full and proper public consultation at a later stage. Apparently there will be some kind of consultation this summer, but the basic route has already been decided by people who have nothing to do with Glastonbury, on the basis of an 'Options Assessment Report' (whatever that is). So I imagine that at best we shall be able to tweak the road scheme a little, and perhaps we shall have a say on where the 1,000 new houses are to go – though not on whether or not we want them. This would enlarge Glastonbury by 25%, so it is a serious matter.
In addition to all this there is the need to bypass Pilton (apparently as part of the same scheme), though so far the County Council has said nothing about how it would do this or how much it would cost.
On the face of it the whole scheme is badly put together and, in the words of County Councillor Liz Leyshon, "the Somerset schemes were not very well developed when compared with some of the others". In other words they are really quite sketchy, as compared to those from other counties in the southwest which will be competing with them for available funds.
So it should fail. What worries me is that different versions of this scheme have been actively promoted by our MP James Heappey, in the context of development in Mendip District as part of the 'hinterland' of Hinkley Point C nuclear power station. Heappey is Parliamentary Private Secretary to Chris Grayling, the Transport Secretary, and they may have cooked up this scheme in advance (including the Ashcott/Walton bypass, and some sort of scheme for Pilton including improved access for the festival site). It is Mr Grayling who ultimately makes the choice as to which schemes go ahead, and he is not well known for making rational, honest choices when it comes to spending public money.
We shall just have to wait and see on most of this. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to express how I really feel about it all!

Reply
Tracy Walton
16/3/2019 04:13:34 am

As a resident of Butleigh Road how do we residents safely get out of our driveways?! The short route is just passing the problem from one to another. The southern long route will use Bretwnoux road that was originally built for the purpose.

Reply
Martin Campbell
24/3/2019 03:30:39 pm

Thanks for this Bruce. As a Street Road resident this does make for worrying reading.

Reply
Terry Clay
29/3/2019 05:51:38 am

Thanks for your sterling work on this Bruce, very informed and informative.

Reply
Paul Lund
3/4/2019 04:36:39 am

Excellent, Bruce!
I think your incisive analysis should be more widely read - especially by all the residents affected by such proposals... and everyone who has an interest in Glastonbury - whether that is for the land, its wildlife, heritage, festival (Pilton) or local business based on tourism.
Whilst there is nothing wrong in what Lindsay MacDougall says (above) it is worth pointing out that those town council members she points to have scarcely any influence in dictating what major roads are developed? We know of one councillor who could privately profit from a northern route bypass. Going up the political chain, then things start to look more like government pursuing an industrial development strategy for UK jobs expansion as a way to sell the deal.
I attend most town council meetings and have heard County Councillor Liz Leyshon put this current position of consultation and decision making as being outside the influence of local elected members, such as herself. She also replied to a question about the end date (2025) and said that the government would have signed off contracts and work was to have begun by that time. Of course, we know, the major increase in heavy lorry traffic on the A361 is because of aggregates going to Hinkley Point, ergo either bypass would be too late if it was only going to solve the volume of HGVs. I made a note at that Same March meeting which says: It would not be a success if the solution to traffic congestion on the A361, through Glastonbury, was that half of the countryside around the town was lost to housing and other new development. Perhaps this came from one of the councillors?
Now we are in local election mode - it worth finding out from candidates standing for town and district who is favour of what proposal or against!

I will be standing this time as an INDEPENDENT for St Mary's ward on town and district councils. I am NOT in favour of any new roads, bypasses or further new industrial development on green fields. I have been a part of the Neighbourhood Planning process - member of the NP Steering Group - from the start. The Plan is now waiting to go to Mendip for inspection, before it is presented to the public for a vote - a Yes or No referendum (well, we know this referendum should be simple enough?). You should be aware that there will be candidates standing who will not have been party to this local planning procedure, they might not even know the background to or the recent debates about roads in Glastonbury. It is worth electors asking candidates to explain to them anything that they are not clear about. Whilst not standing for the Green Party this time (their selection procedure went against me) I do have environmental issues at the heart of my campaign ♥

Paul Lund, St Mary's Ward INDEPENDENT candidate.
Redlands resident

Reply
Bruce Garrard
3/4/2019 08:42:39 am

Thanks Paul, I'm glad you feel that my analysis should be more widely read, a feeling which is echoed by the editor of the Glastonbury Oracle this month. Please feel free to send a link to any of your potential electors for whom you have an email address.

I don't know whether you have read the update to this blog post (28/3/19). I was wondering how you feel, as a District Council candidate, about Mendip financing Somerset County Council's 'southern bypass' road proposals to the Peninsula Transport Shadow Sub National Transport Body? It smells distinctly fishy to me.

Reply
Paul Lund
3/4/2019 04:35:22 pm

Happy to pass on this your blog link whenever we can.

To answer your question as best I can, given I am just a candidate for the role at this point in time, it does seem to be outside the normal scope of a district council to be involving itself financially in a county council remit highways investigation.

I have now taken a look at your other blog. Apologies for not seeing that before but this is the first time I have seen any of your work on this site. The matter should raise public concerns as to what is going on here. Clearly and without any explanation from the authority we are speculating as to the reason or motives for funding this study or giving it such support.
As you might expect me to say: if I am elected to Mendip District Council then I can ask for clarification - on behalf of the residents. Having said that, let's not be kidding ourselves that the way the cabinet members control budgets and spending the answer you want maybe a lot harder to discover.
I am happy to talk off the public record if you want to give me more of your thoughts.

ewan
6/4/2019 02:03:41 pm

The increase in traffic since 2015 is or was due to agreement toHinkley Point C. What happens if or when it is mothballed or cancelled as being too expensive to sustain?
I find the outlined plan of a bypass to the top of Fishers Hill to be totally unrealistic.Likewise the long route over the levels.
Perhaps a route from say Pylle to Kingweston would take traffic out to Ashcott or Berhill and avoid Glastonbury and Street altogether?

Reply
Debra
7/9/2019 02:30:18 pm

I'm really struggling to find a map of the actual routes proposed rather than just a general map of connection points like the one above. Is there a published map anywhere?

Reply
Bruce Garrard
8/9/2019 12:03:06 am

We're all struggling, including our County Councillor!
A few weeks ago there was an article in the local paper saying that the plans for a bypass had been dropped, and there would just be (unspecified) alterations to the road at the Chalice Well end of Chilkwell Street and also in Pilton, to alleviate the worst 'pinch points'. Then this was declared to be a 'misinterpretation' of what Peninsula Transport and the County Council had said, though I haven't seen any press release or suchlike that would tell us what was actually said.
Last month County Councillor Liz Leyshon updated Glastonbury Town Council as best as she could, pointing out that whatever form it takes, the Glastonbury/Pilton scheme is No 5 out of a list of six put forward to government from the southwest, and only 3 are likely to be given the go-ahead – at least in the short-term. She also said that once the County Council has drawn up a list of options there will be some form of public consultation as to which option we would prefer.
As she said, 'We still have no maps of route options, they will come as part of the Option Development stage which will lead to public consultation.'
Since the County Council is in financial meltdown, and the government is in political meltdown, when or whether this might come to anything is completely unpredictable.

Reply
Debra
9/9/2019 07:59:29 am

Thank you, that's very helpful info.

Tracy Willcox
27/9/2019 08:29:13 am

A couple of points i think should be taken into consideration. Firstly the new pier at Hinkly is complete thus reducing the number of lorries connected to the build. Secondly I think that certain land about 14 acres on South Moor forms part of a trust (and held forever) whose rental income is supposed to go to the poor, and for the education of the children ( born and bred local people) not incomers.

Reply
Tracy Willcox
27/9/2019 08:31:36 am

reroute all the lorries is a far better option

Reply
Tracy Willcox
27/9/2019 08:36:14 am

Perhaps the old sea route will naturally open up again with the rise in sea levels ... now that would be amazing ... !

Reply
Bruce Garrard
28/9/2019 10:15:01 am

Hi Tracy, thanks for these ideas. It would be particularly helpful to have details of the land and the trust fund – I don't know if you can find out more, or point me in the right direction?
Since the Hinkley C pier was completed the number of 44-tonne quarry lorries has certainly been reduced, though the total number of HGVs is still far more than is comfortable. We still await Somerset County Council's latest plans, and a government decision as to which road schemes will be funded.
Yes, re-routing the lorries would certainly be a better option. The simplest answer would be to send them (from Canards Grave outside Shepton) down the A37 onto the A303 and then to the motorway that way. Any change of route would require some expenditure on up-grading the road(s) concerned, and the A37 would require a low railway bridge to be at East Lydford to be re-engineered.
In my opinion this would be a far better use of money than knocking down houses in Chilkwell Street and Pilton in order to widen 'pinch points' on the A361. This is apparently one of the County Council's options, priced at £20 million.
I think the old sea route may well open up again as a result of sea levels rising ... which would indeed be amazing, though it would also come with other serious problems ...

Reply
Paul Lund
27/9/2019 02:02:46 pm

County Councillors reports to the town council (monthly) are now available - from this September - on the glastonbury.gov.uk web site under 'Documents' and 'Councillors Reports' or use https://glastonbury.gov.uk/councillors-reports/

As your Ward Councillor at town, I was successful in getting the County and District Councillor reports to be published in this way (and Police reports) which have previously not been available through any other means - other than when spoken (in public) to the council.
They now give all residents the time to read and understand - as well as to indicate what the individual councillors are more concerned about in Glastonbury.


In a previous topic above - about the press report error - that is correct and the newspaper was inaccurate about the Southern Bypass no long being considered.

Whilst many residents are very anxious to know what is happening about this whole situation, so are the councillors. Please watch the reports on the link above, as they may reveal more sooner than the press.

The October Council meeting is on Tuesday 8th October (always second Tuesday of the month). Reports should appear soon after the meeting but we have no time frame for exactly when.

I hope more information will be forthcoming at the October town council.

Cllr Paul Lund
paul.lund@glastonbury.gov.uk



Reply
Bruce Garrard
28/9/2019 10:32:38 am

Thanks Paul. I'm hoping that minutes of the newly reconstituted A361 committee will appear somewhere on the website too. Judging by the number of responses to this blog post it is an issue of huge interest to people in Glastonbury, but under the previous regime no minutes were ever published.

Reply
Cllr Paul Lund
12/3/2020 11:51:20 am

An update on the roads - for anyone not in the local network of what's being said or written.
It recently emerged that Somerset County Council - or their highways planning senior staff - have decided to take the Glastonbury Bypass off the list of routes intended to go forward into the next stage of planning. The Pilton village proposals have also gone, I believe.

I questioned our County Councillor, Liz Leyshon, about this at our Council Meeting on Tuesday 10th March 2020, so that we can be absolutely clear = if this scheme has gone off the table has it gone for good.

The answer will be found in the Minutes of the next Peninsula transport (sub shadow) group, we were told and when they are located or released then the town clerk will post them on our town council web site.

I want to be really optimistic that we have now heard the end of this, but I get a nagging feeling that until we see the words used by the body that is proposing the routes, we can't be certain what they still have in mind.

And, in case you were a supporter of these new roads because of the congestion of traffic, the council has not stopped looking for and pressing others to find alternative ways of re-routing traffic that need not come through the edge of town, and supporting other solutions that do not rip-up our precious countryside or green fields.

Thank you for your interest and views on all these roads so far.

Paul

Reply
Bruce Garrard
19/3/2020 06:47:36 am

Thanks Paul
I have now updated the bypass story (see Blog pasty dated 18/3/2020), and barring any unforeseen major developments I would like to see this subject closed.

Bruce

Reply
Bruce Garrard
19/3/2020 06:52:19 am

PS Please excuse the typo!
I meant to put 'Blog post'. I must have been thinking about my lunch!

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Archives

    July 2020
    June 2020
    March 2020
    January 2020
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    September 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    October 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    December 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    October 2013
    July 2013
    May 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.