BHLR: FINALE?
In what could be the final act in the long drawn out farce of the Bexhill to Hastings Link Road (BHLR) project, the promoters – East Sussex County Council – is preparing its ‘best and final bid for funding to the government. This will be published for all to see on the 9th September. We then have six weeks to make our comments and our own submissions.

The Hastings Alliance and its member organisations will be reading through the bid document to see just how ESCC can justify a spend of £100m on a project that is founded in fantasy and which fails to tick any boxes at all.

THE NEED TO MAKE OUR VOICE HEARD
The government’s Department for Transport (DfT) will be noting local levels of opposition to, as well as support for the scheme, and the Hastings Alliance and its all of its members and friends will be making it crystal clear that an overwhelming number of people in Bexhill, Hastings, Crowhurst and wider East Sussex do NOT want this extravagant, costly, environmentally damaging and irrelevant road carrying 30,000 vehicles a day through Combe Haven valley.

WHAT WE’LL DO
The Hastings Alliance will be making a submission to the DfT on its

View of Combe Haven from below Bynes Farm

alternatives to BHLR. We will challenge the conclusions of the promoters, and together with experts in the fields of transport and planning, will publish this in late September/early October and send it to government, press/TV and radio stations, and ESCC.

We will also have printed 2,500 postcards with a message to transport minister Norman Baker telling him that WE DON”T WANT THE BEXHILL TO HASTINGS LINK ROAD and describing our alternatives. With your help, these will be filled in individually by members of the public and ourselves and delivered, possibly in sacks! We will canvas the public in Bexhill and Hastings.

We will also HAVE FUN!

DIARY DATE:
CELEBRATE COMBE HAVEN VALLEY FAMILY EVENT – SATURDAY SEPTEMBER 24TH
We don’t need reminding of the very special qualities of Combe Haven Valley. In a very real sense our y16 year campaign to protect and safeguard it from those with a single focus on roadbuilding has been one long celebration of its beauty, tranquillity, ecology and history, enjoyed by generations of local people.

So, in the valley on that day between 2.00pm (out) and 6.00pm (return) you are all invited on a guided walk to the valley from Bexhill, Hastings and Crowhurst for unfurling of banners, a picnic (yours!) and a performance by popular local band the Cajun Dawgs at Bynes Farm. Children will be presented with a signed edition of a poem – inspired by the valley – by a nationally successful local poet and illustrated by a local artist.

Starting points for the walk will be:
Bexhill station; Bulverhythe playing fields entrance (Bexhill Road); Hastings station (for train to Crowhurst station start).
The return walk will begin at 6.00pm approx. to allow all to get home before it gets too dark.

The farmers at Bynes Farm – Ray and Laura Boggis – are enthusiastic supporters and have kindly offered a field for picnics (with stunning views of the valley), a trailer for the band to play on, and other basic facilities. The farm is also home to horses and other animals and they rightly ask that all of us take great care not to scare, and to keep clear of livestock and horses. Dogs welcome but on a lead please.

FURTHER INFORMATION, INCLUDING TRAIN AND BUS TIMES, WILL BE PUBLISHED ON THE WEBSITE IN EARLY SEPTEMBER

Horse, with Bynes Farm in the distance

Minister dismissive of sustainable alternatives

The ‘Stop Climate Chaos’ sponsored ‘panel’ event in Battle on 20th May offered us an opportunity to ask Greg Barker – MP for Bexhill and Battle, and minister for climate change – his views on the ever more costly Bexhill to Hastings Link Road, and in particular, whether he thought there was a case for re-examining the scheme in the light of predicted extra Co2 emissions of between 5 and 6,000 tonnes per year.

The question was asked, and expanded, to seek his views on looking afresh at alternatives which had been ignored or shelved for over a decade – a new station at Glyne Gap, real time bus information, quality bus routes and new and improved pedestrian and cycling facilities. His answer was disappointing.

Minister Barker explained that the alternatives had been looked at when there was plenty of money promised by the last government, and some good things had been delivered, but the people in Bexhill Road were fed up with congestion and pollution and the BHLR was essential. The future was in his view ‘the electric car’.

We believe that the (school term time) problems of congestion and air quality in Bexhill Road could have been dealt with many years ago by alternatives. As for the ‘electric car’, well, there may be improvements in local air quality in 15 to 20 years, but in any case, continuing with car based developments will bring more congestion and urban sprawl – with facilities difficult to reach for those with no car-  and more pressure on land in such places as Combe Haven valley. Electric cars will also kill and injure no less than conventional ones.

Parliamentary officer for Friends of the Earth, Martyn Williams emphasised the last point on road casualties and reflected that many MPs in England accepted the fact that building roads only led to more traffic and congestion, but made an exception in the case of their own local road scheme! Martin was applauded.

Conclusion: Greg Barker’s response was remarkable for its passionate defence of dull orthodoxy and techno-fix solutions.

Current situation

East Sussex County Council (ESCC) is hanging on grimly to its Bexhill to Hastings Link Road (BHLR) scheme, even though the costs have breached the £100m mark, and in spite of the BHLR giving the poorest value for money return in the group of 24 schemes being considered for funding. It’s bottom of the table. ESCC’s reaction to that includes a staggering doubling of the benefit to cost ratio (bcr). That’s worth a serious look at! (see below).

Unsurprisingly, BHLR features in the third ESCC draft Local Transport Plan – LTP3 – while other measures such as real time bus information, ‘Quality Bus Corridors’ and new railway stations are left on the shelf. Some of these potentially very useful schemes have already received considerable funding for feasibility and design, but for over a decade now BHLR has taken centre stage, diluting efforts to deliver sustainable transport choices. Our town centres in Hastings, Bexhill and Eastbourne are still far too traffic dominated, and pedestrian and cycling arrangements are sometimes farcical and often dangerous.

We are in dialogue with ESCC on LTP3, and also its aspirations in respect of the Local Sustainable Transport Fund (LSTF). This fund was launched by transport minister Norman Baker early in the year, and is primarily for small schemes, or packages of schemes, up to £5m. We understand that a bid is being made by ESCC for funding from the Department of Transport but have no information to date on what the council is intending to deliver on the ground. It is safe to say that whatever might come through LTSF funding would be undermined by BHLR if it went ahead.

Next phase of the campaign – analysis of ESCC’s case

This phase has to be geared up to the process which ESCC must follow. In early September it has to present a case which describes cheaper alternative options it has considered, social and economic impacts of the BHLR scheme, the extent of carbon impacts, and a more detailed breakdown of time savings, so that any small and insignificant time savings are not lumped together to give a large but meaningless figure. The ESCC case will be published, and at that stage, we will be able to analyse it and present a response.

Fortunately, we will have expert help in unpicking and appraising the county’s case and have been very lucky to receive in the last few days (early May) a grant of £1,000 from  an organisation set up some years ago to oppose environmentally damaging, costly and inappropriate major road schemes. We are very optimistic that a second fundraising effort will be successful, and news of that will follow in the next two to three months.

Our two experts are familiar with the area and will firstly be looking at ‘alternative options’ considered by ESCC – as well as options available but not pursued – that would be likely to better deliver benefits claimed for the BHLR. The second focus would be on the miraculous doubling of the benefit to cost ratio achieved by ESCC: from 2.19:1 to 4.24:1. Just how did they do that?

Message to the politicians

To make sure that those politicians who ultimately will make decisions on BHLR are left in no doubt that local people place a very high value on Combe Haven valley, we will be organising activities to catch some media attention, as well as having a good time in the process

We are planning a walk in the valley with two starting points: Bexhill and Hastings. Two groups of walkers will converge in the valley where a banner will be unfurled and a picnic enjoyed. There may be music, and decent weather. Planning is underway.

There will also be a postcard campaign, where a beautiful view on one side will amplify the message that the valley is a beautiful place in all seasons. On the other side will be the address of the Secretary of State for Transport. Getting the cards filled in by all those who cherish the valley, and sent off to the minister will be an important part of the campaign.

More beautiful valley views will be posted shortly!

CAMPAIGN UPDATE – MARCH 2011

The Bexhill to Hastings Link Road project looks to be in jeopardy: the money just isn’t there to fund all local authority schemes – least of all those which have become obsessions in the minds of their promoters, or dangerous ‘vanity schemes’.

So, following the Public Inquiry, and warnings to local authorities to halt work on their major schemes, where are we now?

East Sussex County Council (ESCC) continues to cling grimly to its plans to build the Bexhill to Hastings Link Road (BHLR). Costed in 2002 at £24m, the price tag now has breached the £100m mark. Here’s an overview of where we are:

Recent History

Following the May election, BHLR was placed on ‘hold’. In October, a ‘value for money’ assessment applied by the Department for Transport (DfT) to 22 local authority transport schemes put BHLR bottom of a list of 22 that are at the ‘development stage’. These are classified as the ‘Development Pool’.

All local authorities wishing to progress their schemes were asked by the DfT to submit an ‘Expression of Interest’ (EOI), describing their schemes and progress, to explore ways to deliver the scheme at a lower cost, and to describe their efforts to examine alternatives. Submissions were required by January 5^th 2011 and East Sussex County Council has taken this opportunity.

The ‘Expression of Interest’ submission.

In the EOI submitted by ESCC, some of the reasons for the most recent (post 2009) changes in costs are given as:

• Extra works in foundations where soil stability is a problem (+£3.17m)
• Temporary works during the main construction (+£3.35m)
• Contractor’s risk (+£4.5m)
• Preparatory cost (+£1.63m)
• Land cost (+£0.8m
• Inflation (+£1.63m)
• Reducing the planned capacity of the Egerton Stream storm water retention tank
• (-£3.36m)
• Transferring risk to contractor, and some non-materialisation of risk (-£6.38m)

In response to the DfT’s invitation to examine ways to reduce the call on government funds, ESCC has identified the following areas for saving costs:

Savings through ‘value engineering’ (revising structures and specifications to arrive at less costly solutions), e.g. –

• reducing the capacity of a flood storage tank
• narrowing carriageways over bridges
• changes in pavement design, specification, etc.

Although this would save £22m, there has been a net increase of £4.80m in the cost of BHLR. (Now £100.08m)

For ESCC, it would help of course if the ‘Benefit: Cost Ratio’  (BCR) was shown to have been too low, and by some means, could be improved upon. The promoters have attempted to do just that.

The EOI submission includes a claim by ESCC that the DfT figure for the BCR of 2.1:1 is wrong and that the true figure is 4.24:1 – this is more than double the DfT figure, and relies heavily on the council’s conclusion that the negative impacts on landscape and biodiversity have been overstated.

The EOI also notes that:

• There is no prospect of ‘developer contributions’ for some years.
• The developer funded road linking BHLR to Wrestwood Road in north Bexhill has been dropped or shelved.
• The above road still appears, however, in the bus route plans for all public transport options.
• Efforts will be made to bring forward the employment site development in north Bexhill ahead of housing, but there will evidently be a poor bus service.
• The BHLR will be part funded by 15 wind turbines to be built alongside the road.
• The turbines are expected to offset the CO2 emissions from traffic. (The Climate Change Act does not allow this: traffic emissions must be offset by sustainable transport measures. i.e. – measures within the transport sector.)
• Funding for the link to the A21 (Baldslow Link and Interchange) will be sought from an as yet unidentified source (c£30m). The route, which would pass through a designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), has yet to be identified – but there are three options.

The EOI and Alternatives

There is a repeated theme running through the EOI which expresses a fear that some misguided members of the public might run away with the idea that packages of sustainable transport alternatives and different land use scenarios could be seen as removing the need for the BHLR altogether. With such a strong and singular emphasis on the Link Road as a panacea for all conceivable ills, there is therefore no alternative: no ‘Plan B’.

In general, alternatives are dismissed. There is a reference to the effect that these might have acting together, but they are described as inadequate, and irrelevant to the major objective of opening up development land.

The Hastings Alliance View

• The promoters claim that the value of landscape, heritage and habitat has been overstated and that the impact on these by BHLR has also been overstated. We do not accept any devaluation of their value as part of an exercise to improve the BCR. In our view, the quality of the environment and opportunity of access to a large urban population with low car ownership suggest that there is a strong case for inclusion of the valley in the AONB.

• We do not accept that alternatives have been properly evaluated at any time during the past decade. Full packages of measures have never been assessed, while some individual alternative measures which have been tested in depth have been victims of inertia. ESCC wrongly assert that they have no influence on Network Rail and the bus operators.

• ESCC refer to their alternative ‘coloured’ routes for the BHLR as they appeared in the public consultation. This rather cynical exercise showed routes that could never have been built anyway as they passed through nationally important and protected wildlife areas. Put simply, the public were misled into thinking they were viable.

• We note the success of regeneration efforts in Hastings town centre, believe that the positive effects – including a fall in unemployment – are clearly discernible in the town, and regard the plans to bring forward the north Bexhill employment land as a threat to achievements realized so far, and the Link Road as completely irrelevant – or at worst – highly damaging, to the vitality of Hastings.

• The case for the wind turbines is very sketchy, agreed by the promoters to carry risk, and does not appear to have real relevance to the EOI.

• The inclusion of the Baldslow Link (presumably including the Baldslow Interchange) as an aspiration is also of doubtful relevance and given the history of cost escalation of the BHLR, the cost – ‘a minimum of £30m’ – is evidently not robust.

• We note that in respect of funding for BHLR: ESCC intend a spend of £9.34m (in addition to money spent thus far, c£15m); require £80.57m from Department of Transport; and have received no contributions from developers.

What Next?

ESCC must submit their ‘best and final bid’ to the DfT by September 9^th. This will be in ‘pro-forma’ documents and less weighty than the Major Scheme Business Case produced earlier. After submission, there will be no further dialogue with DfT. In addition:

• The bid should appear on ESCC website immediately after submission.

• We will have about a month to examine this, and feed in our comments.

• ESCC will need to demonstrate support for its scheme.

• In July, ESCC (and all councils) will be asked to reveal their financial plans. Councils will be warned against any proposals involving an increase in government funding.

In the next few weeks, the Hastings Alliance will be developing its campaign plans.

For further information/offers of help contact:

Derrick Coffee on 01323 646866

derrick.coffee@talk21.com

or:

Nick Bingham on 01424 883319

nbing@metronet.co.uk

Heavy snow on December 4th, 2010 transformed Combe Haven valley into an even more beautiful place. Fortunately, photographers were on hand to record some of the wintry scenes.

Combe Valley

The campaign against the proposed Bexhill-Hastings link road is now on the Guardian newspaper’s “Piece By Piece” campaign.

The Guardian’s Piece by Piece campaign is a showcase, hosted on the Guardian’s website, for local campaigns fighting for the UK’s natural habitats.

The Guardian says: The piece by piece project will bring together groups working to save biodiversity from ill-conceived development.

A spokesman for the Hastings Alliance said “the appearance of our campaign on this high-quality high-visibility location brings welcome publicity to our campaign.

Please visit the new site at www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/sep/13/combe-haven-valley-road-proposal

Proposed Bexhill to Hastings Link Road:
Reflections on the Public Inquiry

December 2009.

None of us make a habit of going to Public Inquiries, but the structure was somehow familiar: first, the opening statement by Rhodri Price-Lewis QC, on behalf of the promoters. Then presentations from the witnesses in support of the BHLR scheme – from East Sussex County Council, their various consultants, and Seaspace – Hastings and Bexhill branch of the government’s South East England Regional Development Agency – SEEDA. Each of them was gently interrogated by the QC in order to elicit or amplify some point or another to bolster their case.

The ESCC witnesses covered all the expected specialisms: Transport and Economics; Agriculture; Landscape and Visual Effects; Ecology; Noise; Engineering; Cultural Heritage (inc. Archaeology); Air Quality and Carbon; Flood Risk and Water Quality; Regeneration: Economic Context; Regeneration: Policy and Implementation.

After each witness came the chance to ask questions, and in the first stage of the Inquiry, we took opportunities to do that. Some of the questions were anticipated beforehand and some surfaced during and after the witnesses’ presentations. Some of the questions took a while to emerge from the general preamble, and the Inspector frequently urged those seeking to ask questions to move to the question (get on with it!). The answers we got were often interesting and helpful. Some of them were restricted by the brief within which the consultants had been asked to work, and some of them developed into bi-lateral discussions of the sort that we hear from time to time on Radio 4, and perhaps surprisingly within this adversarial process, not always without consensus.

A formal opportunity for us to cross examine the promoters witnesses followed. We could recall any witness we chose.

Next, it was the turn of the objectors – the Hastings Alliance and its constituent groups, Crowhurst Society and Parish Council, and individuals such as farmers, Laura and Ray Boggis, and Sarah Blackford – to make their presentations.

After our presentations, it was the turn of our presenters to be interrogated by the QC, though some got away with no questions at all. For a couple of us it was pretty uncomfortable, though occasionally ridiculous:

QC:What is the name of your organisation’s treasurer?

Our witness: I could give it to you on a piece of paper, but I’m not going to announce it in front of everyone. Anyway I’d have to ask her if she minded.

Inspector: Mr Price-Lewis, I don’t think this is getting us anywhere.

QC: I’ll move on

The written evidence of the promoters was generally well written and clearly set out, but there was a mass of often technical material to read in a relatively short period of time and we know of no objector who managed to read it all.

None of it sidestepped the question of environmental impact on landscape and biodiversity, which was demonstrably worse than had been earlier claimed. This really had the effect of emphasising that in the eyes and minds of ESCC there were no environmental obstacles that could possibly stand in the way of their scheme, planned mitigation may not work but is extensive, and that they could build the BHLR so they would.

In making their case that damage from the BHLR would be mitigated as far as possible, and otherwise was worth it because of the benefits, ESCC were at pains to emphasise that they had followed all the guidelines – but clearly to the letter rather than the spirit.

On the matter of CO₂ emissions though, the promoters failed to make a convincing case that they could compensate for the increased emissions through other undefined measures that would be taken under the ESCC climate change strategy.

In any case, the confidence of the promoters in the ability of BHLR to deliver regeneration and alleviate deprivation was so often and so strongly stated that the implication was clear: environmental costs were worth paying and risks worth taking.

However, a main plank of ESCC’s argument was that the BHLR was approved in all the various local plans and had been approved by democratic processes, which is certainly true, but neatly obscures the point that the need for the BHLR has always been assumed rather than demonstrated – otherwise we wouldn’t have had a Public Inquiry!

A separate but related issue was around the principle that all the components of the Five Point Plan were interdependent and that if one failed, the others would too. The promoters ? along with Hastings Borough and Rother District councils ? have no choice but to go on sticking to that position to get the money, so unsurprisingly, it was restated several times. On the ground though, things are obviously and visibly happening in a positive way that simply could not be undone. Some bits of the Five Point Plan are evidently working quite well without the BHLR, and this was admitted.

The Public Inquiry had a remit to examine the BHLR proposals in terms of its value for money, the degree to which alternatives had been examined, its environmental impact, and the question of need for the scheme. And a key objective was (I think) to shed light on these areas to enable the Inspector to consider the evidence, produce a report, and make recommendations to the two Secretaries of State on whether the BHLR should be given the go-ahead or not.

It is interesting and encouraging to reflect on the information that came to light in the Inquiry process and we can only hope that it made it into the Inspector’s notebook. Here is an attempt to summarise that information before memories fade:

• There is no equivalent traffic free valley of the quality of Combe Haven within reasonable walking distance of the urban populations of Bexhill and Hastings.
• The valley and the wildlife in it would be better off without the BHLR than with it.
• Under pressure from the Department for Transport, ESCC in late 2009, changed its description of the visual impact of BHLR on the valley from ‘moderate adverse’ to ‘significant adverse’.
• With the inextricably linked Greenway in place, the BHLR will be right up against the Combe Haven SSSI boundary for 1.2km: there is no planned buffer zone at Adams Farm.
• If it had chosen to do so, ESCC could have taken a first step in securing a new railway station at Glyne Gap by itself applying for planning consent to Rother District Council.
• Suggestions of possible sources of ‘third party’ funding towards costs of Glyne Gap station were made by Network Rail in summer 2008.
• In its examination of alternatives to the BHLR, for political reasons, ESCC did not examine the whole range of measures available to it. This omission is repeated in the work carried out just prior to this Public Inquiry by the consultant engaged by ESCC.
• Despite commitment in 2000, reiterated in 2002, to the principle of ‘workplace travel plans’ for organisations and businesses to help reduce congestion, by November 2009, no such plans have been implemented in Bexhill and Hastings.
• For those without cars in Bexhill, St Leonards and Hastings, costs of accessing any employment opportunities will be a major issue.
• It is clearly not inevitable that BHLR will be built. Despite this, there is worryingly no ‘plan B’.
• There once was a ‘plan B’. In the ESCC 2000 Local Transport Plan – 1, a ‘non-bypass’ scenario was envisaged and a plan designed to fit. It included provision for 500 houses at north Bexhill, and two quality bus corridors: one between Little Common west of Bexhill and Ore east of Hastings on the A259; and another on The Ridge. (This LTP also considered in some detail plans for two railway stations ? one at Glyne Gap and the other at West Marina). A case of ‘policy memory loss’?
• The equilibrium between demand for travel by car and other modes of transport seen as essential in the 2002 South Coast Multi Modal Study, which considered all forms of alternatives along with demand management, is not possible when measures other than the BHLR are compromised or ignored.
• It was accepted that there are many effective ways of moving families out of deprivation without building roads, for instance by offering free public transport to students.
• Despite claims that all elements (including BHLR) of the ‘Five Point Plan’ for regeneration are equally important, and that if one fails they all fail, the University Centre was acknowledged to be ‘a huge success’. The new FE college next to the new station is now (December 2009) part of the skyline and about to open, while the Ore branch of the FE, next to Ore station, is also about to open .
• In response to the question: ‘What if costs rise?’ the promoters say: ‘There can be no further cost increase for the BHLR’.
• There are no detailed plans of how to compensate for the CO₂ emissions at the construction phase or the operational phase of the BHLR. A biomass boiler in a school was mentioned by the ESCC scheme promoter as a way forward. But transport is a ‘non-traded’ sector and not within the EU carbon trading scheme. It must provide its own pathway to carbon reductions. It seems that little thought has been given as to how this might be done. Doubt was expressed as to whether the county’s position was consistent with national policy on carbon reduction.
• From the evidence, it appears that the BHLR will lead to key government targets for carbon reduction being exceeded by more than 18%. If replicated UK wide, approval of local authority road schemes such as BHLR would lead to unacceptable increases in CO2 emissions and propel the UK in the opposite direction to that required.
• Economic benefits of the scheme are explained largely through time savings (80%). But the time savings are overwhelmingly very small and could not be either of any practical use, or even discernible by road users.

Attached are the documents produced for the Hastings Alliance by Professor Alan Wenban-Smith and Keith Buchan, our expert witnesses.

What next?

The Inspector will complete his report in early 2010 (late Feb/early March). The report will then go to two Secretaries of State: for Communities and Local Government, and Transport.

Beyond that, there is huge uncertainty: the General election could be as early as March 25th so could the decision be postponed? Would the BHLR be subject to re-evaluation in the light of the need for cuts in public spending? Will resolutions flowing from the Copenhagen conference on climate change encourage a re-think?

What will we be doing?

East Sussex County Council will continue with their promotional material, including the periodical newsletter, so we will carry on promoting alternatives ? especially since in a time of recession, small, cheap, numerous and effective measures to beat congestion should be attractive to local and central government in their efforts to conserve public funds (our money!). We will aim for regular press releases, and keep up to speed with developments in the field of ‘sustainable transport’. This is timely and topical as ESCC are preparing their ‘Local Transport Plan 3′ for the county, covering the period until 2026.

We are intending an Alliance meeting for the 11th January in Hastings (1.00pm ’til 3.00pm at the Friends Meeting House, South Terrace) to discuss in more detail how we proceed. This will be confirmed a week before the date, if not sooner.

Thanks to its individual members and organisations, the Hastings Alliance has produced a mass of new data, revealed new perspectives, and challenged erroneous, uninspiring and tired orthodox strategies. The effort, sustained over years, is hugely appreciated.

Hoping members have a) a restful and peaceful, or, b) a riotous and exciting Christmas break (or possibly a mixture of the two!)

See you next year.

The Inquiry closed on 2nd December 2009 with a closing statement from Rhodri Price Lewis, the QC representing ESCC. Unsurprisingly, it did not reveal the slightest appreciation of the considerable quantity of new information that had been unearthed during cross examinations. But having a QC there in an inquiry of this kind was always going to obstruct any flow of information rather than assist it.

You may have had time to read some of the excellent submissions already on the website, but more have been put in, and together with our closing submissions, these will give you an up to date picture of proceedings.This list is not final. Click on the links below to view each document.

Summary of evidence

Friends of the Earth

Peter Poole – evidence

Peter Poole – closing remarks

Hastings Alliance – closing statement

Our expert witnesses (Alan Wenban Smith and Keith Buchan) were excellent and left some serious conclusions for the Inspector to mull over. Was £100m for road really the best way to regenerate the towns and to relieve deprivation? Would all the demonstrably already successful strands of the Five Point Plan really collapse if the road was cancelled? After all, it was admitted that the University Centre is a huge success, Can it be wise to asssume that the go ahead for the BHLR is inevitable and therefore there’s no need for a Plan B? And how can the scheme go ahead anyway with only a partial consideration of alternatives, and these as ‘stand alone’ and not strategically linked?

We hope that on his final field trip, the Inspector appreciated the beauty of the water filled valley in the glorious winter sunshine of last Tuesday: that was the only appearance of the sun in the entire three and a bit weeks of the Inquiry. The Inspector thanked whoever organised it in his closing remarks.

There are many perspectives that came to light for the Inspector to note that would have never seen the light of day had we not presented our case in the way we did. Of course, it could have been done better, but everyone taking part for us did a grand job! Thanks.

WHAT NEXT?

We understand that the Inspector’s report will be completed in mid/end February but will not be published before being passed on to the two Secretaries of State (John Denham, Department of Communities and Local Government), and Lord Adonis (Department for Transport). When or if it will be published is not clear at the moment. A ministerial decision will follow as the general election looms……

View our photo album

View our photo album here. This is why we need to save the Combe Valley.