£31m Westbury Bypass scheme thrown out (From Wiltshire Times)
Get involved! Send photos, video, news & views. Text WILTS TIMES to 80360 or email us
£31m Westbury Bypass scheme thrown out
12:03pm Thursday 2nd July 2009 in Latest News By James Williams
£31m Westbury Bypass scheme thrown out. Map from www.westburybypass.com
The £31m Westbury bypass scheme has been thrown out by the Government, it has been revealed today.
The eastern bypass route, which would have gone from the Westbury Cement Works, under the gaze of the White Horse to a new roundabout near Madbrook Farm, Warminster, was rejected by the secretary of state Lord Adonis.
The £31m pot of funding earmarked for the scheme would have included £1.3m for improving Westbury town centre. A public inquiry into the bypass was held last summer.
Wiltshire Council’s cabinet member for highways and transport, Dick Tonge, has expressed his disappointment following the announcement.
Mr Tonge said: “The decision will come as a blow to many residents and businesses in Westbury.
“We did everything in our power to try to get the scheme off the ground, as we believed it would benefit many residents and businesses in the town, as well as traffic using the A350.
“We will now examine the reasons behind the decision and decide the way forward.”
The bypass, which had been under discussion for many years, would have included an important link to the West Wilts Trading Estate.
The refusal letter from the Government stated: “The proportion of HGVs and the accident rate are not exceptional for a primary route passing through a town.
"Traffic delays and journey time unreliability are primarily caused by problems elsewhere rather than on the length of the A350 that would be bypassed.”
Mike Williams, president of Wessex Chamber of Commerce, said the refusal would have an impact on the town’s economy.
He said: “I heard from Wiltshire Council who I’m sure are as disappointed as us at the decision.
“We hoped the bypass would sustain the business that already exists in the town as well as encouraging more companies to this part of the county."
However, White Horse Alliance secretary Patrick Kinnersly was delighted the bypass was refused.
He said: “It’s wonderful news for us. As the inspector said it’s a dead road scheme which would take away valuable countryside for no good reason.
“Now we can get on with the job of working out a way to reduce traffic in our town without losing our landscape, farmland and wildlife we have."
Westbury Mayor Sue Ezra said: “I’ve got to say personally I’m bitterly disappointed.
“The town desperately needs a bypass as we’re being stifled by the traffic.
“I still feel the eastern route is the right route, the western route would be far too expensive.
"I expect there will be a lot of disappointed people in the town because we’ve been waiting for a bypass for a long time.”
For the full story and more reaction see this week's front page story in the Wiltshire Times, out in some outlets later today.
Comments(78)
Meester David
says...
12:30pm Thu 2 Jul 09
This was basically a plan to destroy what little contryside is left
around Westbury burying fileds under tarmac and concrete and has been thrown out for the crackpot idea that it was.
This government has done something right at last.
Anyway, you could always try walking or cycling Russell and get some of that fat off.
Russell Hawker
says...
12:59pm Thu 2 Jul 09
The decision letter from the Government dated 1st July is about refusing the planning application which went to a public inquiry.
Funding is a separate matter and, as far as I know, funding still exists for the bypass scheme in the "regional transport allocation" established in 2005/2006 by the regional assembly (and which the Government has not changed ... so far).
Stonemog
says...
1:26pm Thu 2 Jul 09
I still remain on the fence but I do find it refreshing that this stage in the process wasnt treated as merely a "tick in a box" for something that felt inevitable.
Regardless, chin up, Westbury!! let's take some pleasure in the preservation of our escarpment's beauty.
blamethebiscuits
says...
1:34pm Thu 2 Jul 09
Now the Govt tell us:
“The proportion of HGVs and the accident rate are not exceptional for a primary route passing through a town.
"Traffic delays and journey time unreliability are primarily caused by problems elsewhere rather than on the length of the A350 that would be bypassed.”
If this is true, Wiltshire Council and WCC before it ought to have known those facts and worked out that the scheme was unnecessary and would not be approved.
A great deal of public money appears to have been wasted in planning this scheme, conducting consultations, holding public enquiries. It could have been spent instead on filling in potholes and general road maintenance.
Angel831
says...
1:36pm Thu 2 Jul 09
i wonder how many of the campaigners against it actually live in wiltshire LET alone westbury..... many just jump on the band wagon just because they can and they like a fight...not that it actually affects them
sad decision for westbury and our slowly dying high street :(
Russell Hawker
says...
1:53pm Thu 2 Jul 09
Meester David
says...
2:43pm Thu 2 Jul 09
“The town desperately needs a bypass as we’re being stifled by the traffic."
WRONG! What the town, in fact the whole country 'needs' is FAR LESS cars and lorries on the roads. Let gridlock happen and THEN something sensible will be done about reducing car use. More concrete and tarmac eating our heritage away is NOT the answer!
Mike Hawkins
says...
3:28pm Thu 2 Jul 09
Meester David wrote:Perhaps somebody could explain how you can reduce the level of cars and lorries on the roads to any significant amount.
"Westbury Mayor Sue Ezra said: “The town desperately needs a bypass as we’re being stifled by the traffic." WRONG! What the town, in fact the whole country 'needs' is FAR LESS cars and lorries on the roads. Let gridlock happen and THEN something sensible will be done about reducing car use. More concrete and tarmac eating our heritage away is NOT the answer!
We all have to work and their is very little local industry, the public transport system is an expensive, unreliable shambles.
In order to protect more of our countryside, no new houses to be built (these are siutated on land that the flowers, dormice, etc want.
If anybody has any REAL world answers I would be interested to hear and back them.
howcomethatdoesntsurpriseme
says...
3:37pm Thu 2 Jul 09
THEY HAVEN'T GOT ANY MONEY
Got it?
It's possible to talk down an economy sure - but we are waaay past that point - the government is bust, broke, bankrupt.
Nobody sane wants to buy Gordoun's gubmint bonds - what does that tell you?
Shame for Westbury dwellers but there's a bigger issue here.
canaryred
says...
3:57pm Thu 2 Jul 09
Russell Hawker
says...
4:10pm Thu 2 Jul 09
canaryred wrote:This is categorically incorrect.
Any fool can see that the purpose of this 'by-pass' was not to bring relief to the long suffering residents of Westbury but to enclose farmland between the existing town and a new road. This enclosed land would be unusable for farming and would be filled with yet more houses to be occupied by people who work elsewhere. If you doubt it, check out Chippenham, Melksham, Frome etc etc.
All of the relevant farmland is in a designated "special landscape" protection zone where the planning policy prevents any housing or commercial development outright. This is in addition to the main housing policy that already prevents home-building outside the designated town limit boundary.
I can see no argument ever arising to ditch that special landscape protection policy - regardless of whether a bypass would have been built (as it would have to be hidden from view itself because of the same policy using cut and fill plus heavy tree-planting).
The anti-bypass protestors have constantly made misleading claims like this.
In reality, planning authorities choose where to put more homes etc based on looking at where the right opportunities are in the area and avoiding protected special landscape areas.
In Westbury's case, there are plenty of other parts of the town where residential development can occur without touching the special landscape zone by the Salisbury Plain escarpment.
In fact, not only are other parts of the town available, but they would provide better connectivity to any new residential areas by virtue of the existing road network.
nigel1952
says...
4:14pm Thu 2 Jul 09
While I agree that something needs to be done regarding the traffic in Westbury, it couldnt be at the expense of the Wellhead area at the base of the Downs escarpment. We already had the white Horse disfigured by the cement works and the chalk mine, the eastern bypass would have completed the defilement of this great great piece of english landscape.
Meester David
says...
4:28pm Thu 2 Jul 09
It is actually spot on and as someone who earns his crust from such building work you are FULLY aware of this. The good news is that others on the council saw right through you Hawker.
canaryred
says...
4:30pm Thu 2 Jul 09
As for planning policy, that can change at the drop of a hat, no matter how well meaning the planners of the present day. I remain distrustful.
Independently
says...
4:33pm Thu 2 Jul 09
This is the mayor speaking. Talk about buying a dog and barking yourself eh?
It is a FACT that you CANNOT keep putting more and more cars on the road ad-infitum! What part of that can you not understand? Do you suggest we stack them on top of each other?
A hefty congestion charge would help for starters. Say a tenner a day to drive into Westbury. Too much? Walk!
Mike Hawkins
says...
5:58pm Thu 2 Jul 09
Independently wrote:1. I am not the mayor!
"If anybody has any REAL world answers I would be interested to hear and back them." This is the mayor speaking. Talk about buying a dog and barking yourself eh? It is a FACT that you CANNOT keep putting more and more cars on the road ad-infitum! What part of that can you not understand? Do you suggest we stack them on top of each other? A hefty congestion charge would help for starters. Say a tenner a day to drive into Westbury. Too much? Walk!
2. HOW do you reduce the numbers of cars? Are you a car owner? If so, do you work? Can you get to work without as car? If so, why do you have a car?
Or do you mean every body but you should reduce their car use?
Please refer to my previous question, and , if possible, answer it.
If anybody does have any REAL WORLD solutions, I would truly be interested in hearing them.
westbury chap
says...
6:11pm Thu 2 Jul 09
Perhaps an alternative route can now be found through the biggest trading estate in wiltshire instead of one of the best areas of countryside
Mike Hawkins
says...
6:39pm Thu 2 Jul 09
westbury chap wrote:I also favour a bypass (not caring which way it went), but do not believe the western route will be considered. Also, the majority of protestors who opposed the eastern route and called for the western route would then object to this.
i am very pleased today!!! although i am in favour of a by pass i was very very anti it going through the wellhead valley!!! Perhaps an alternative route can now be found through the biggest trading estate in wiltshire instead of one of the best areas of countryside
Sorry, forget all about Westbury having a bypass. It just isn't going to happen.
Wobblymonster
says...
8:12pm Thu 2 Jul 09
Westbury does need a bypass as the amount of traffic is not going to diminish unless fuel supplies dry up over night.
If the jubilant protestors don't like a bypass then perhaps they might swap houses with somebody who lives on the A350 through town for a couple of weeks and then they may see the other side of the argument when they are kept awake by traffic noise.
chalkywhite
says...
8:57pm Thu 2 Jul 09
You can bet you bottom dollar they didn't get there by public transport.
blamethebiscuits
says...
9:01pm Thu 2 Jul 09
Doh! If traffic noise were the test, the road builders would have work for the next 200 years.
ladymosscat
says...
9:05pm Thu 2 Jul 09
ladymosscat
says...
9:11pm Thu 2 Jul 09
Russell Hawker
says...
9:33pm Thu 2 Jul 09
blamethebiscuits wrote:biscuits
Many people have put in a great deal of work on a Westbury by-pass, much of it at public expense. Now the Govt tell us: “The proportion of HGVs and the accident rate are not exceptional for a primary route passing through a town. "Traffic delays and journey time unreliability are primarily caused by problems elsewhere rather than on the length of the A350 that would be bypassed.” If this is true, Wiltshire Council and WCC before it ought to have known those facts and worked out that the scheme was unnecessary and would not be approved. A great deal of public money appears to have been wasted in planning this scheme, conducting consultations, holding public enquiries. It could have been spent instead on filling in potholes and general road maintenance.
The points you highlight need to be put in the right context:
* The route may be a primary route and the proportion of HGVs and accidents may not be unusually high, but the whole level of traffic including HGVs needs to be squared with the fact that we have old narrow roads with several hills and ninety degree turns over mini-roundabouts with terraced housing with front doors right on the pavements. This is hardly ideal and is certainly a normal reason for seeking an alternative route away from the old and narrow residential streets currently in use.
* Traffic delays etc on the A350 may be primarily caused in other parts of the A350 at present (actually this means Yarnbrook), but those parts were planned to be addressed by the council in the NEXT bypass proposal ... thus making that argument obsolete by then. The fact is that huge delays often occur to A350 traffic in Westbury whenever any incident occurs to block one lane of the road, and especially in the Summer when traffic levels are at their peak and often mean an almost continuous line of traffic snaking throught the town. That continuous line often makes it difficult for anyone to cross the road unless they run between the lorries and cars.
* WCC certainly knew all the relevant facts ... but the inspectors have down-played the real problems of congestion etc on the current A350 route and have been forced to take into account newer Labour Government road planning polcies designed to reduce car use rather than address the need for better roads.
* Whilst any abandoned project with substantial abortive costs looks like a waste, the real issue is who has caused the waste. The county council had the statutory responsibility to find a viable solution to the traffic problems in Westbury and on the A350 and they came up with the only viable scheme, which the Government actually did confirm would be funded if it gained planning permission.
It is simply new Labour anti-car policies that have forced the planning inspectors to conclude that the bypass proposed does not conform to current planning rules (set by Government).
I blame Labour and its mad anti-car polcies which make no sense in a rural area because most people rely on their cars to be able to lead any form of normal life.
Russell Hawker
says...
9:45pm Thu 2 Jul 09
ladymosscat wrote:The agent selling the land is simply playing up the "potential" based on pure speculation. This misleading sales talk, pure and simple.
just to add, We were told that land between the bypass would not be filled with houses, but if you drive up to the white horse, there is land being sold which states..'possible planning permission for housing because it is in the town limits which includes the new bypass..What is that all about then?.
In fact, the land for sale is outside the town limit and has NO PROSPECT WHATSOEVER of being put within the town limit and so being able to be given planning permission for housing.
The bypass route has no bearing on where the town limit is.
You need to understand that the town limit runs ulong the back of Studland Park (including Upland Rise etc). That estate is built on a hill facing Westbury which is not actually part of the escarpment. That hill rises up from the back of Studland Park and then the fields you are talking bout descend into the Wellhead Valley which is between the subject hill and the Salisbury Plain escarpment.
When people look up at the hills from Westbury, they see an optical illusion as if the houses are built on the escarpment. But they are actually built on a different hill, which I am sure is how those houses managed to get planning consent.
The Wellhead Valley is totally different because it is recognised and adopted as a special landscape area and protected as such.
It is pure nonsense to suggest that the protection policy would be dropped at any moment just because a road goes through the area.
ladymosscat
says...
9:52pm Thu 2 Jul 09
Russell Hawker
says...
10:18pm Thu 2 Jul 09
Meester David wrote:I have never been involved with residential development myself nor have I worked in Westbury since the early 80s.
"This is categorically incorrect." It is actually spot on and as someone who earns his crust from such building work you are FULLY aware of this. The good news is that others on the council saw right through you Hawker.
The council has not made the decision to reject the bypass. The council actually proposed and backed the bypass, which I fully supported.
westbury chap
says...
10:23pm Thu 2 Jul 09
Russell Hawker
says...
10:28pm Thu 2 Jul 09
westbury chap wrote:It was an independent inquiry in the sense that the planning inspectors were employed by the Government, not the Council which proposed the bypass.
i thought it was an independent enquiry!! to blame it on labour is just clutching at straws!! the right decision has been made and its fantastic that wellhead valley has been saved!!!
Government Planning Inspectors have to take account of current planning policy, especially any new national policies for roads.
Labour has introduced a whole raft of planning policies that militate against building new roads, to encourage less people to use cars.
Their fundamental theory is that the way to tackle car congestion is to make it worse and make people use inadequate public transport ..... which is just misery all round for rural areas where public transport is just hopelessly inadequate and has no chance of ever being adequate to replace cars.
If Labout had not changed the rules, the Planning Inspectors would have played by the previous rules and would have recommended that the bypass be approved.
westbury chap
says...
10:34pm Thu 2 Jul 09
Russell Hawker
says...
10:39pm Thu 2 Jul 09
As far as I am concerned, the next move is to get a full review of how to re-route A350 traffic away from Westbury town without going through Wellhead Valley.
Only when that exercise has reached its ultimate conclusion will we either have a western bypass (of sorts) or no bypass at all. If it is the latter, this will finally be the full justification for going back to the drawing board for the eastern, shorter, most-viable route again.
westbury chap
says...
10:42pm Thu 2 Jul 09
icareabout,westbury
says...
11:15pm Thu 2 Jul 09
icareabout,westbury
says...
11:30pm Thu 2 Jul 09
blamethebiscuits
says...
1:10am Fri 3 Jul 09
Realistic old man
says...
9:12am Fri 3 Jul 09
Its Roads and Climate Campaigner Richard George said: "It should come as no surprise to anyone that this road was rejected, because it would have destroyed swathes of countryside but provided very few benefits for the people of Westbury. In fact the inspector found that it would have increased traffic levels along the A350, blighting Yarnbrook and other communities.
"This is just the latest victory for a coalition of local people which has already beaten numerous road building projects along the A350, including the Wellow Bypass, the Salisbury Bypass (and its clones), the Wylye Valley scheme and the Codford-Heytesbury scheme. It's time for Wiltshire and Dorset to drop their plans to build a motorway from Bath to the south coast by stealth, and focus instead on giving people real transport choices."
How many people in Salisbury and the Wylye Valley, and now Westbury, would actually agree with those sentiments ? Fine if you don't live there and have to put up with the pollution, vibration and noise from the traffic.
Luddites, 21st century Luddites. Back to the horse and cart.
€d
says...
1:57pm Fri 3 Jul 09
Meester David wrote:When are you getting rid of your car?
"Westbury Mayor Sue Ezra said:
“The town desperately needs a bypass as we’re being stifled by the traffic."
WRONG! What the town, in fact the whole country 'needs' is FAR LESS cars and lorries on the roads. Let gridlock happen and THEN something sensible will be done about reducing car use. More concrete and tarmac eating our heritage away is NOT the answer!
Mike Hawkins
says...
6:42pm Fri 3 Jul 09
€d wrote:He won't. Just expects everybody else to!
Meester David wrote: "Westbury Mayor Sue Ezra said: “The town desperately needs a bypass as we’re being stifled by the traffic." WRONG! What the town, in fact the whole country 'needs' is FAR LESS cars and lorries on the roads. Let gridlock happen and THEN something sensible will be done about reducing car use. More concrete and tarmac eating our heritage away is NOT the answer!When are you getting rid of your car?
Talk Is Cheap
says...
8:41pm Fri 3 Jul 09
Anything that means I don't have to drive through the place.
shutup
says...
9:21pm Fri 3 Jul 09
“hugely disappointed”. I ll bet a share of 31 million would come in handy in the current economic Climate. With the Leigh park property investments not being too profitable at the moment I guess there are some poor souls left feeling quite bitter tonight.
I'm sure those in the know will find another way to cream a nice profit out of the Tax payers.
Perhaps the community can employ the awesome skills of our local campainger to start a new campaign to knock down the cement works instead and perhaps build a nice shopping center with a much needed access road going the longest way round possible. (We could call it the Green fields retail park) Its still far enough away from Leigh park so as not to affect property values/Investments and those poor souls who have lost out now can still get rich quick!!
As for a bypass who cares as long as its not in my back garden
ozz 06
says...
9:38pm Fri 3 Jul 09
Finally where were the "Alliance" when the wildlife was displaced and countryside concreted over in Westbury Leigh by a few glutoness housing companies ? Oh of course it was no where near any of their houses !!
Angel831
says...
9:23am Sat 4 Jul 09
ozz 06 wrote:Finally where were the "Alliance" ........when no where near any of their houses !!
A sad day for Westbury.A chance to rid the town of an increasing traffic problem and gain a huge investment to improve not only the town centre but also a few outer lying areas.Very short sighted in my view.I feel for the people of West End,Haynes Rd and Warminster Rd having to endure many more years of noise and pollution. Finally where were the "Alliance" when the wildlife was displaced and countryside concreted over in Westbury Leigh by a few glutoness housing companies ? Oh of course it was no where near any of their houses !!
i expect you will find that many of the campagners against the bypass didnt even live in westbury or surrounding vilages and few actually lived in the same county....... the wildlife was just a reason to get it stopped.... half of these people complaining about the bypass dont really care one way or the other about the anilamls it was the the means to an end for them with the desired results.. they used any way open to them ....
Russell Hawker
says...
9:51am Sat 4 Jul 09
shutup wrote:This is pure mischief based on a series of false premises and / or assumptions.
My sympathy lies with the folk who stood to get a free meal when this bypass was built. What about the poor land owners who may have made a fortune?I can imagine the Landowners who have lost out will be “hugely disappointed”. I ll bet a share of 31 million would come in handy in the current economic Climate. With the Leigh park property investments not being too profitable at the moment I guess there are some poor souls left feeling quite bitter tonight. I'm sure those in the know will find another way to cream a nice profit out of the Tax payers. Perhaps the community can employ the awesome skills of our local campainger to start a new campaign to knock down the cement works instead and perhaps build a nice shopping center with a much needed access road going the longest way round possible. (We could call it the Green fields retail park) Its still far enough away from Leigh park so as not to affect property values/Investments and those poor souls who have lost out now can still get rich quick!! As for a bypass who cares as long as its not in my back garden
I am not involved with anyone who owns property investments and who also wanted the bypass. The one issue I got involved in as a result of a malicious and muddled serial liar and false accuser, was a property owned by my brother on the current A350 .... but he has always been dead against the bypass and I have been cleared on that matter by the relevant investigatory authorities and, also, again in another judicial tribunal which cleared me of another matter and where the tribunal stated that I am able to act in the public interest on the bypass regardless of my brother's property BECAUSE I am not supporting my brother's (long-standing and public view which represented as a former town councillor himself until he stood down in 2003).
The reason for the long'ish entrance drive into Leigh Park Local Centre is that highways engineers wanted a long enough entrance road to slow down traffic before it entered the car park. Otherwise you would have the only place in Leigh Park where cars can come straight off a distributor road and enter a pedestrian area.
Meester David
says...
10:41am Sat 4 Jul 09
Independently
says...
10:44am Sat 4 Jul 09
Russell Hawker
says...
2:45pm Sat 4 Jul 09
ladymosscat wrote:The signs say "Agricultural land with possible development potential".
drive up and have a look at the wording on the sign...i don't mind saying i read it wrong
This is just sales talk based on the fact that any landowner with land next to the town hopes that one day planning for something may be allowed.
I have already pointed out that two separate policies excist to prevent development .... and therse are certainly not policies that can be dropped at the drop of the proverbial hat now if a bypass had gone anywhere nearby and the policies exist for reasons that would still be relevant with a bypass.
Independently
says...
3:34pm Sat 4 Jul 09
bellend's are us
says...
5:51pm Sat 4 Jul 09
but remember folks his a expert on all subjects known to man.
AdrianFox
says...
8:48pm Sat 4 Jul 09
Good sense has prevailed. Congratulations to all concerned, particularly the well informed and intelligent people in the Bypass Alliance.
Adrian Fox, Breil, France. Ex Westbury and Bratton Parish Councillor, and WWDC councilor
blamethebiscuits
says...
12:18pm Sun 5 Jul 09
Wobblymonster
says...
12:32pm Sun 5 Jul 09
ladymosscat wrote:The implication in this passage is that you used to live in those areas but no longer. Many people don't have the luxury or choice to move given the present financial climate and after the press on this subject are unlikely to attract prospective buyers unless reducing the price of their property significantly with the possibility of sustaining a substantial loss and facing negative equity (if they haven't already).
If the people affected by the traffic noise are so so unhappy, why don't they move..Yes i am speaking from experience having lived at chalford, Bratton Road and West End. Yes it is horrid taking a bath and being shaken about but you have a choice to move. I came back from Harrow a few months back. You have never seen traffic like it ...no bypass posters in the windows, though.Common sense and people power can sometimes win through...That is called a democratic society at it's best
The comparison of Harrow to Westbury is not a realistic one given the fact that it is a suburb of Greater London and has a significantly larger population. According to the 2001 Census the figures are:
206814 people in harrow against 11135 in Westbury.
Not much of a comparison I think you'll agree.
Meester David
says...
1:27pm Sun 5 Jul 09
So 'given the present financial climate' what makes you think that public money should be available for this hair brained scheme?
If you don't like it clear off as Hawker would say. You knew the situation when you moved here.
€d
says...
2:01pm Sun 5 Jul 09
Meester David wrote:ohhh you fibber, it was on your drive yesterday.
I *haven't* got a car Hawkins you stupid twot!
Meester David
says...
4:32pm Sun 5 Jul 09
Let's see you put your money where your mouth is then Ed. £1000 says that I do NOT own a car?
shutup
says...
8:38pm Sun 5 Jul 09
shutup wrote:Did I make a Reference
My sympathy lies with the folk who stood to get a free meal when this bypass was built. What about the poor land owners who may have made a fortune?I can imagine the Landowners who have lost out will be
“hugely disappointed”. I ll bet a share of 31 million would come in handy in the current economic Climate. With the Leigh park property investments not being too profitable at the moment I guess there are some poor souls left feeling quite bitter tonight.
I'm sure those in the know will find another way to cream a nice profit out of the Tax payers.
Perhaps the community can employ the awesome skills of our local campainger to start a new campaign to knock down the cement works instead and perhaps build a nice shopping center with a much needed access road going the longest way round possible. (We could call it the Green fields retail park) Its still far enough away from Leigh park so as not to affect property values/Investments and those poor souls who have lost out now can still get rich quick!!
As for a bypass who cares as long as its not in my back garden
To you Mr Hawker?
I was trying to point out that there are winners and losers in this deal, and that those whom MAY have lost out on a fortune MAY be feeling quite unhappy. Also that perhaps some of the most accomplished
Campaigners could be engaged in other money spinning projects to help them continue to feel valued by the community whilst giving an opportunity for every one involved to maintain a healthy bank balance. Obviously as is always the case this would be for the benefit of the community. At no time did I refer to you Mr Hawker In fact until I read this article I had never heard of you, perhaps this is because I have only recently moved to the area and until yesterday I had no interest in a bypass. With regards to assumptions and false premise the only assumption I have made as an outsider is that the force driving someone to tarmac green fields when there are better alternatives is profit and loss.
The other assumption is on your part and that is that I was referring to you. The premise or basis for my concern (not argument) is simply that some one will get rich and someone will lose money. having lost money personally I feel sympathy for the folk who thought they were in for a big payout.
Russell Hawker
says...
6:56am Mon 6 Jul 09
Your comments are some of the most obvious bull$h!t in this thread.
There is no reason to feel sorry for anyone who might irrationally think that they have missed out on a windfall.
You are just stirring up the nonsense propogated by anti-bypass protestors that landowners were expecting to get planning permission for houses and business parks along the route of the bypass.
It's just scare tactics - pure and simple ..... and your reference to Leigh Park and property was an obvious dig at me in various ways.
I will ignore the more moronic remarks made by others.
Russell Hawker
says...
7:00am Mon 6 Jul 09
AdrianFox wrote:I remember you, Adrian.
As someone who campaigned long and hard against the eastern route, I am absolutely delighted that the government has seen sense. I always remember the referendum we held in Westbury where 90% voted against this route, and then the County Council said their view didn't matter! Democracy has triumphed in the final analysis. Even though I moved to France in 2003 I have always dreaded returning to Westbury and seeing a motorway sized road cutting across the beautiful Westbury hills escarpment. Good sense has prevailed. Congratulations to all concerned, particularly the well informed and intelligent people in the Bypass Alliance. Adrian Fox, Breil, France. Ex Westbury and Bratton Parish Councillor, and WWDC councilor
The anti-bypass campaign has largely been based on a continuous series of misleading claims designed to scare local people into not supporting the bypass ..... however I think in the end this had little impact on the actual decision which has largely relied on the fact that the Labour Government have quite literally re-written the rule book in recent years as to what takes priority when asessing major new roads for planning purposes: the environment around the new road or the environment in the town which needs a bypass.
Russell Hawker
says...
7:03am Mon 6 Jul 09
€d wrote:He normally has at least 2 cars on his drive, although I have only seen him drive one of them.
Meester David wrote: I *haven't* got a car Hawkins you stupid twot!ohhh you fibber, it was on your drive yesterday.
bellend's are us
says...
9:21am Mon 6 Jul 09
Russell Hawker wrote:you just cant help yourself can you hawker,your a nasty little bully hiding behind your keyboard aren't you??
shutup
Your comments are some of the most obvious bull$h!t in this thread.
There is no reason to feel sorry for anyone who might irrationally think that they have missed out on a windfall.
You are just stirring up the nonsense propogated by anti-bypass protestors that landowners were expecting to get planning permission for houses and business parks along the route of the bypass.
It's just scare tactics - pure and simple ..... and your reference to Leigh Park and property was an obvious dig at me in various ways.
I will ignore the more moronic remarks made by others.
Meester David
says...
9:26am Mon 6 Jul 09
Independently
says...
10:13am Mon 6 Jul 09
I take it that Hawker will be the fat lady in a nice new dress?
Independently
says...
10:15am Mon 6 Jul 09
I don't think you could hide something as fat as Heather Hawker behind a keyboard!
New 2 Trow
says...
12:58pm Mon 6 Jul 09
Russell Hawker
says...
1:32pm Mon 6 Jul 09
New 2 Trow wrote:It's one old man who is obsessed with using multiple IDs to hassle me with stupid, moronic and hilarious comments.
What I cant understand is how many of you Westbury-ites must have turned out to vote for Russell?
My vote and majority has gone up at all of the elections in Westbury I have taken part in since 2002.
You can't judge public opinion by who shouts the loudest or by obsessive extreme views.
I will not be hassled out of these threads.
It is for Wiltshire Times to at last block the moronic and personal attacks.
Independently
says...
2:04pm Mon 6 Jul 09
If that were to happen your rubbish wouldn't be posted here at all Heather.
Meester David
says...
2:33pm Mon 6 Jul 09
That is what you would prefer to think Hawker. The truth is that I haven't a clue who these people are who you have upset. A check with WT server logs would show that we are very much different readers independently responding to your highly offensive and half baked postings.
shutup
says...
5:12pm Mon 6 Jul 09
Russell Hawker wrote:I find your abusive comments hurtful Russell I was on your side. I am all for making a profit by what ever means necessary.
shutup
Your comments are some of the most obvious bull$h!t in this thread.
There is no reason to feel sorry for anyone who might irrationally think that they have missed out on a windfall.
You are just stirring up the nonsense propogated by anti-bypass protestors that landowners were expecting to get planning permission for houses and business parks along the route of the bypass.
It's just scare tactics - pure and simple ..... and your reference to Leigh Park and property was an obvious dig at me in various ways.
I will ignore the more moronic remarks made by others.
As a mere observer I feel I should point out that the biggest looser in all this is (besides the obvious) is the white horse attraction. The bypass I am sure would have brought tourists in their droves we could have had a nice visitor center at the top with a nice restaurant car park etc etc such as you see in Snowdonia and perhaps even a land train to the top such as you see on Weston seafront. With virgin now practically moved out this would bring in much needed jobs to Westbury. I for one would be very keen to drive the train. Why should only the dogger's and tree hugger's with the odd suicidal pilot strapped to a kite be allowed to make use of this attraction,It should be developed for the benefit of everyone.
It should also be pointed out that we are lucky the romans only painted a white horse on that hill, look what they did to Cerne Abbas. I bet you wont want your wife to wakeup and see that monster every morning.I think I should point out to Russel who seams to have an over active conscience that my reference to not having a giant phalice is not directed at you. To get back to my point i dont think the personal abuse here is Necessary so please stop!.
Meester David
says...
5:23pm Mon 6 Jul 09
Lol. Nice post - Yes stop it Russell.
Zarqwan
says...
9:54pm Mon 6 Jul 09
BECAUSE YOU ARE A BUNCH OF SQUABBLING HALF-WIT CHILDREN!
And you ruined it for our town. Congratulations, that's the spirit. You must feel jolly proud of yourselves.
Superb Job!
shutup
says...
10:26pm Mon 6 Jul 09
You people cant help but try to inflame things can you!!
Meester David
says...
10:46pm Mon 6 Jul 09
Superb Job!"
Do you really think that the government has the faintest idea of who Russell Hawker is let alone whether he belongs to the Westbury troll club?
Anyway Westbury would be far better off without Hawker so let's excommunicate him to the gates of the city or Bratton depending on how far we can get him loaded on a horse cart.
Volunteers to pull the cart step fowarded.
shutup
says...
10:58pm Mon 6 Jul 09
My First impression is that the very vocal Mr Hawker is not popular! Is it because of this Troll club?
Or, is it because everything he dose is driven by a desire to be popular.
Meester David
says...
9:17am Tue 7 Jul 09
http://www.cafepress
.com/landoverbaptist
/1372131
AdrianFox
says...
1:06pm Tue 7 Jul 09
Good luck Westbury, but please elect some sensible people to your council. I note that co-option is back in vogue! Hardly the way to find out what local people really think!
Sally Beenwell
says...
2:16pm Tue 7 Jul 09
shutup wrote:
What is this westbury troll club i would like to know more. My First impression is that the very vocal Mr Hawker is not popular! Is it because of this Troll club? Or, is it because everything he dose is driven by a desire to be popular.
Not at all this is the Russell/Heather Hawker mutual appreciation society.This is where we all agree with the Hawker point of view. where we attack woman and their children. We attack the disabled. We slag off the Sick and elderly. And we disagree with anyone who has a different point of view to the almighty Hawker. On the other hand we suck up to anyone who we consider an important person and we hold a brolly over VIP heads when it rains.
HAIL THE ALMIGHTY RUSSELL/HEATHER HAWKER.
Russell Hawker
says...
8:52am Sat 11 Jul 09
shutup wrote:Some of your comments are amusing, BUT you are simply lying and writing bull$h!t when you accuse me of abuse.
Russell Hawker wrote: shutup Your comments are some of the most obvious bull$h!t in this thread. There is no reason to feel sorry for anyone who might irrationally think that they have missed out on a windfall. You are just stirring up the nonsense propogated by anti-bypass protestors that landowners were expecting to get planning permission for houses and business parks along the route of the bypass. It's just scare tactics - pure and simple ..... and your reference to Leigh Park and property was an obvious dig at me in various ways. I will ignore the more moronic remarks made by others.I find your abusive comments hurtful Russell I was on your side. I am all for making a profit by what ever means necessary. As a mere observer I feel I should point out that the biggest looser in all this is (besides the obvious) is the white horse attraction. The bypass I am sure would have brought tourists in their droves we could have had a nice visitor center at the top with a nice restaurant car park etc etc such as you see in Snowdonia and perhaps even a land train to the top such as you see on Weston seafront. With virgin now practically moved out this would bring in much needed jobs to Westbury. I for one would be very keen to drive the train. Why should only the dogger's and tree hugger's with the odd suicidal pilot strapped to a kite be allowed to make use of this attraction,It should be developed for the benefit of everyone. It should also be pointed out that we are lucky the romans only painted a white horse on that hill, look what they did to Cerne Abbas. I bet you wont want your wife to wakeup and see that monster every morning.I think I should point out to Russel who seams to have an over active conscience that my reference to not having a giant phalice is not directed at you. To get back to my point i dont think the personal abuse here is Necessary so please stop!.
I have absolutely not been "abusive" in this thread to anyone.
All I have referred to is the utter nonsense, bull$h!t and misleading comments, lies etc which people have actually written.
Criticising their wrong claims is not personal abuse.
It's not my fault if you fail to understand the difference between correct robust criticism of an argument (ie. words) and personal abuse (ie. the person).
In fact, your false claims of abuse are just more of your own nonsense to create a misleading stir here.
It's just more of your own bull$h!t.
shutup
says...
11:07am Mon 13 Jul 09
Russell Hawker says...
12:20pm Thu 2 Jul 09
Two-thirds of the planning application support letters resulted from my campaigning (ie. using forms on the back of my leaflets) on the basis that the bypass would give the town a terrific boost as well as diverting away all the traffic which causes high levels of congestion, noise and pollution in the town (we have a designated air-quality zone in the town due to high levels of traffic pollution).
My understanding is that the County Hall administration will now quite rightly regard this result as a very bad experience caused almost entirely by the Labour Government shifting national and regional policies at the same time (during the last 10 years) that the project was being worked up into detail.
One will quite understand if it becomes clear that the Wiltshire Council administration decides that there is no point in trying again on any route until a rational set of polices is established which would allow a bypass scheme ... and this could only come about (I believe) under a stable and confident Conservative Government that decides to invest in our strategic and main local road network (as well as other transport systems).
This is a sad day for the majority in Westbury who held a view about the bypass, as most wanted the bypass - especially the business community.
I did once publish a statement that I would resign as a councillor if the outcome of the public inquiry was both a refusal and a firm recommendation for a western route.
My bitterest of opponents will now have some reason to be disappointed today ..... as no recommendation for an alternative route has been made.
I believe the planning inspector concluded that the bypass is not justified (on the case given) not least because he regards the traffic flow through Westbury as "modest" and the environmental and other costs outweigh any benefits from the bypass.
I find that conclusion bizarre ... but there it is.
The anti-bypass protestors did put up a fantastic fight, bringing in hundreds of campaigners from all over the country and beyond.