Latest options for Glastonbury Bypass

7/10/2019

Lately there has been much talk and speculation about the latest plans for a Glastonbury bypass, though no firm information. There are certainly plans being formulated, as part of the government's Major Road Network scheme, and Town and Parish Councils along the A361/A39 route between Shepton Mallet and Ashcott are being privately kept informed. However, there seems to be an effort – presumably coming from Mendip District Council and Somerset County Council – to avoid public discussion of the issue.

The opinion of many people in Glastonbury is that the A361 through central Somerset is an inappropriate route for the Major Road Network, full stop. Nevertheless the route was agreed by Somerset County Council early last year – with no reference at all to local people. At the time there was considerable debate concerning a ‘Glastonbury bypass’ though nothing from the County Council, the MP or local press making clear that this was actually part of a national road-building programme with national objectives and priorities – and which would actually channel an increased volume of traffic through central Somerset.

There are now a total of eight schemes under consideration: three options for a Walton/Ashcott bypass, three options for a Glastonbury bypass, one for Pilton and one for Glastonbury and Pilton combined. Those that would directly affect Glastonbury are as follows:

The first two are slightly firmed up versions of the two 'southern route' proposals outlined last March. The third is a short version of the 'northern route' – and much closer to the Tor than the route along the railway line that has been previously suggested. The fourth is a new proposal, which would take traffic all the way from Whitstone Hill above Pilton to join the A39 (Wells road) north of Glastonbury – a potential 9.2 Km of new road. All these options would cause enormous damage to Glastonbury's landscape; it would also appear that they would all cost far more than the suggested £20 million, and most of them would probably cost more than the £50 million ceiling for MRN-funded schemes.

I think it is interesting to note that in August this year the cross-party Science and Technology Commons Select Committee of MPs stated that the government cannot reach its carbon reduction targets – flimsy as they are anyway – without reducing motor traffic. The government said it would ‘consider’ their paper, but has now confirmed the multi-billion pound Major Road Network programme. Locally, Glastonbury Town Council, Mendip District Council and Somerset County Council have all passed resolutions declaring a ‘climate emergency’, though there seems little awareness that this would be directly contradicted by new road-building schemes.

Glastonbury Town Council now has a majority of Green councillors, and the Green Party has a policy of no new road building. So far as Glastonbury Town Council policy is concerned however, this has been watered down to 'no new road building on the flood plain' – which would mean the longer southern route and the 'A39 strategic link'. The much shorter northern link would be so close to Glastonbury Tor that 'environmental considerations' would almost certainly put it out of contention. It therefore seems likely that the Town Council's preferred option would be the short southern route.

Our County Councillor Liz Leyshon has requested that these plans should not be made public at the present time because "we have no knowledge of who will be our Prime Minister and government in the next few months, and so decisions on road building are not likely to reach the top of the list of decisions for some time". I acknowledge that she is doing the best job that she can, probably in very difficult circumstances, but this reasoning seems spurious. This is a matter of immediate public concern, and the sooner local people have the chance to make their voices heard the better.

7 Comments

G PAUL TURNER

7/10/2019 01:11:45 pm

I declare an interest in living nearby the North Route on slide 18 and my relatives farm organic land which will be sliced through by this monstrous proposal. I confess an emotional connection to the fields, lanes and historic landscape which the proposal will destroy in order to build a new freight route for HGV through traffic.

I have not seen any discussion of a Pilton bypass in the local media. I have read about the Glastonbury proposals. Can you recall Pilton ever being discussed? My last information came from James Heappey MP at Walton Parish Council in June 2018 when he said that there was "no solution" to Pilton, which has three pinchpoints where large vehicles cannot pass each other, whatever solutions were found for Glastonbury, Walton and Ashcott.

There are already groups of people who have been shocked by this news which came only as a result of last week's parish impact meeting. I feel that Pilton should no longer be designated as a freight route and therefore road planning will be needed urgently, but the sooner the public strikes this monstrous proposal down, the cheaper it will be for the public purse in terms of expenditure on plans now.

The Northern Route on slide 18 will cut through organic farmland, destroying its carbon capture contribution to addressing the climate change emergency, cut wildlife routes across this rich countryside, destroy woodlands, cut across country lanes, footpaths and bridleways, and plonk modern freight-route-class carriageways down the side of one of the most important historic views in the United Kingdom - looking onto the site of the last battle in England and the world-important, religiously and mythologically significant, Glastonbury Tor.

The Route will have the additional consequence that two new direct routes are created along unsuitable lanes back and forth to Wells for all out-of-county traffic arriving down this "bypass" as well as for local people, firstly along Stoodley Lane and through Worminster in the parish of North Wooton to the A371, and secondly through Higher Westholme Road, Pilton Hill, North Wooton and Launcherley. I am asking District and local Town Councillors if North Wooton parish was represented at the parish impact meeting.

There is an existing solution of deepening the A37 at Lydford-on-Fosse railway bridge, which can be effected in a short period of time. This route reaches the A303, Yeovil and even the M5 along highly suitable freight roads without going through settlements.

There is another solution which is upgrading Ridge Lane, Old Wells Road, Shepton Old Road from Cannards Grave, Shepton Mallet to the A371 at Bishops Park Way, Wells. This does not go through any settlement. It is already heavily - and dangerously - used and will require upgrading for safety purposes in the near future. It has the great advantage of joining up Frome, Shepton Mallet, Wells and Glastonbury which will promote local development and connections for the benefit of local communities, as well as carry the heavy through traffic which does not benefit any town in our area.

Coxley will need a bypass, but it does anyway. Its bypass could link up with a Wells bypass striking out westwards from Morrisons which will create a settlement boundary road on the south side of the new housing developments at Vicarage Fields.

In contrast, the MDC proposals funnel more HGV through traffic into the Glastonbury area which will then be circled by modernised roads despite its need for preservation as a world-famous tourist and religious site. These proposals will not benefit Wells, but will create more intense use of country lanes to and from it as described above.

There is a route marked yellow on slide 17 which is environmentally preposterous which joins Shepton in a straight line to Coxley. This is another reason why the public and groups should shut down further steps on these proposals now. If they are not, one can imagine the justified and expensive environmental challenges which will be launched in opposition.

Some local people fear that solution to the problem of access to Glastonbury Festival may be driving the Northern Route and the yellow route. Our wonderful Festival runs for a month of days every 7 years. It cannot justify a solution which will impact the area all year round. As a Green festival, there is little point in it prohibiting plastic and promoting other environmental protections, and at the same time it creating such a hugely negative impact on the local environment through destroying organic farmland, woodland and countryside, destroying an iconic landscape and delivering an even greater source of HGV traffic, noise and pollution which Pilton already suffers.

Access to the festival site should be on private roads on land which would still able to be farmed, from the A37 at Pylle. Glastonbury Festival Parking, run by the festival, for instance, is less than 500 metres from the A37. The A37 also provide

Bruce Garrard

8/10/2019 07:17:08 am

Thanks Paul, it's really useful to have the perspective from Pilton.
I am also hoping that someone in Pilton will be able to lobby Michael Eavis to come out strongly and publicly against these proposals.

Lyn Lovell

16/10/2019 11:59:14 am

I totally agree that it is a monstrous plan. Unfortunately, your proposition aroused in me intense fear, the same fear that you guys are probably feeling all the time. You see, I live on Windmill Hill, or St Edmunds Hill to give it its true name. The idea of turning Old Wells Rd into a major highway and sending hundreds of HGVs along it every day fills me with despair. I do feel much the same about all the proposed routes,especially the Northern route because of how close it is to the Tor. How can we stop all this madness?

Martin Clark

26/10/2019 02:38:45 pm

Lyn - Paul was referring to Old Wells Road in Shepton, not Old Wells Road in Glastonbury.

Cllr. Paul Lund

8/10/2019 09:00:45 am

Thanks to Bruce, who got hold of the document being presented to parish council mayors/chairs and clerks, people now have access to information which still remains officially confidential - certainly here in Glastonbury. That might change after tonight's Full Council meeting and after the whole Council is updated on the plans - which have come from Mendip DC.

As one of four Ward Councillors for St Mary's in Glastonbury, I find it very difficult to be under such pressure to keep information from the public. We have been told we are not permitted to mention any of these latest plans and discussions - not, perhaps, until all the relevant parish councils have been visited by MDC staff with a presentation. I think this will be the third time that a matter has come up which Glastonbury councillors have been told is confidential and cannot be discussed with anyone outside of the meetings. It puts a lot of pressure on people elected to serve the public interest and for us to withhold information from those who elected us as well as serve the town as a whole.

I have also asked our town clerk to clarify some matters we have been advised on just recently as councillors. As I understand it, we cannot be seen to be in favour or against a development - i.e. a road/bypass - if it will affect us as residents (because we own a property/business/or anything that would be impacted). Since I am the only St Mary's Ward councillor to actually live in St Mary's Ward it would appear I cannot say I am against the new bypass proposals... or in favour! I have to be seen as neutral. This is despite the fact I canvassed at the elections as clearly not being in favour... and probably obtained votes because of that.

To take this point further, as a committed environmentalist when I took my seat at Glastonbury Town Council this May, I was asked to declare any and all interests, memberships, etc. I founded a not-for-private-profit CIC environmental company which I declared. The same one which put on free public exhibitions, meetings and information a few years ago to raise awareness of climate change. Now, I am told by my fellow councillors, I cannot write about climate change or give the council advice if it is with my organisation's hat on - even though no money is involved and nothing will be charged or asked for in return and I am just a volunteer - simply I am supplying information with some qualification of voluntarily running a respectable social enterprise. With that same hat on, I wrote the Council's Environmental Charter (in 2012) but now, does becoming a councillor mean I will have to effectively "leave the room" when any discussion about that takes place?

Similarly, none of the other councillors will be able to write about or advise the council about action on climate change if they are members of any environmental groups, except a political party.Confused? I certainly am!

Declaring an interest or involvement is now no longer enough. We cannot, it would seem, be a councillor and have a role elsewhere that would be helpful to advising the same council.

Somewhat of a distraction from the issue of roads, maybe, but I wonder where we are heading with all this secrecy and inability to say the things we were elected (one presumes) to say on behalf of the public.

So, next time you ask a councillor to comment upon something don't be surprised if they say nothing or "I cannot say at this time..."
because they might have been warned not to say anything.

Paul Lund
town councillor, Glastonbury.

Lynn Lovell

29/10/2019 08:07:02 am

Whoops I just unsubscribed by mistake....

I'm so glad to hear that there's no suggestion of a motorway up Windmill Hill!!!

Tracy Walton

12/1/2020 07:30:34 am

So what about residents in Butleigh Road who are finding it increasingly dangerous to exit our driveways safely? Do we nothink get a say?

Latest options for Glastonbury Bypass

Leave a Reply.

Archives