Friday 3rd December 2004

County Halll Trowbridge Wiltshire BA14 8JD

3rd February 2004

Dear

A36 Wylye Valley - Traffic Management and Calming Measures

As you will be aware, the County Council have now adopted a "preferred route" for the A36 Wylye Valley Relief Road. You will appreciate that the proposal does not deal with all the issues on the route and, even with a "fair wind", it is likely that the completion of the scheme will be many years away.

In light of the above, I have met with staff from the Highways Agency (HA) and their managing agents, W S Atkins, to consider what might be done in the interim to improve conditions in the local communities along the route to be bypassed and elsewhere between the A303 and Wilton.

It was clear from these discussions that the HA's brief is very narrow, their "core business" being safety and maintenance. As a result, the burden for progressing local management and calming measures that seek to address severance and environmental concerns, rests with the County Council.

It is therefore proposed, subject to consideration of the 2004-05 budget by Members of the Council, to commission consultants to review:

The consultants will be asked to fully engage the local communities from the outset to ensure that the key problems, the potential solutions and the impacts of works are resolved in a "consensus" environment.

I hope you find the above helpful and I will write to confirm the position once Members have considered the budget.

Yours sincerely

Alan Feist
Assistant Director, Planning and Development

Department for
Transport

Great Minster House
76 Marsham Street
London SW1P 4DR

Tel: 020 7944 8015
Fax: 020 7944 4309
E-Mail: tony.mcnulty@dft.gsi.gov.uk

Web site: www.dft.gov.uk

Robert Kep MP
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA

Dear Robert

16 FEB 2004

Salisbury Transport Plan

Thank you for you letter of 26 January 2004 regarding the above.

You will be pleased to hear that I have now agreed to increase our contribution to the Salisbury Transport Plan to £21.928m as requested Wiltshire County Council. I hope you will agree that this demonstrates our continued and significant support for this important project. I am of course very sorry for the time that this process has taken but I am sure you will appreciate the need to ensure that these investments represent real value for money. I recognise the excellent work being taken forward by both Wiltshire and Salisbury and I am happy to support them with this additional investment.

Finally I am grateful for the patience shown by Wiltshire County Council and I understand the difficult situation our reappraisal has put them in. I look forward to visiting Salisbury at some point in the future to see the project for myself.

TONY MCNULTY

RK/SJA/Cons/Roads/LTP

26 January 2004

Tony McNulty MP
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State
Department for Transport
Great Minster House
76 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DR

Dear Tony

Salisbury Transport Plan

We had a word about this in the House just before Christmas, at the time you announced the national LTP figures. I expressed my concern at what we were hearing and you very kindly said that if there was a problem I should get in touch with you again.

Please may I come and see you to try and untangle what I believe to be a series of misunderstandings between your department, the Government Office of the South West in Bristol, Wiltshire County Council and Salisbury District Council?

The essence of the problem is set out in letters to you and the Secretary of State from Wiltshire County Council (23rd January) and Salisbury District Council (19th January 2004). I enclose copies for ease of reference.

In a nutshell when your Government cancelled the Salisbury bypass in 1997 we all got together and agreed a way forward. The local authorities have abided by that plan to the letter. The financial figures were all agreed with GOSW, on the basis of the figures provided by them as a result of advice from consultants appointed by them. I think the real problem is that those figures were flawed.

Salisbury has delivered a lot of the integrated transport plan originally agreed. Policies for pedestrians, cyclists, bus lanes, electronic traffic management for buses with real-time information of bus shelters, one park and ride site up and running and two more at an advanced stage with funds committed.

The Brunel link to Churchfields Industrial Estate, the Harnham Relief Road and the Wylye Relief Road projects are dependent upon the delivery of resources through the LTP settlements.

Given the happy cooperation between all concerned, we were alarmed when the whole Salisbury Transport Package was put on hold by your department last July. First we were told it would be reviewed by the end of October. Then we were told an announcement would be made in the LTP settlement before Christmas. In the event, the figures you announced were not only insufficient to carry the project forward, they have also compromised work in progress on the park and ride sites for which the local authorities have committed substantial resources. They are now looking at a very large black hole.

In transport investment terms the position we are all in simply does not make sense. The Department for Transport has, by its own decisions, put at risk its own policy to which we thought we were all signed up.

Please can I have an urgent meeting with you and your officials, together with the responsible cabinet members from Wiltshire County Council and Salisbury District Council, to discuss the way forward. This really is a serious problem. Having served as Minister for Roads and Traffic a decade ago, I assure you I would not bother you if I was not persuaded this crisis merits your attention.

Yours,

County Hall
TROWBRIDGE
Wiltshire
BA14 8JD

MyRef: FdRP/AF/Jan21

23 January 2004

Salisbury Transport Plan

You will be aware from our recent Local Transport Plan APR that the Salisbury Transport Plan Package, developed in partnership with Wiltshire County Council, Salisbury District Council and the Highways Agency by Government (GOSW) following abandonment of the Salisbury Bypass project in 1997, is delivering real changes in line with the new transport agenda.

It is therefore with great disappointment that I am writing to you to draw your attention to the appalling treatment this authority, and our partners at the District Council, have received from your offices. I attach a brief summary of the position, as we understand it, and feel sure you will recognise that we are being put in a totally unacceptable position.

Given the apparent climate of criticism surrounding the Government's track record on transport it seems perverse that we, as active partners who are demonstrating that your strategy can work, are being treated this way.

In light of the above, please may I ask that you speak to your staff to ascertain the current position and agree to meet with us to discuss the way forward at the earliest opportunity.

I look forward to hearing from you in the very near future and hope that you can bring some semblance of common sense to this ridiculous situation.

Yours sincerely

Fleur de Rhe-Philipe
Cabinet Member for Environment'

Copy: Robert Key MP
Kevin Wren, Leader, Salisbury District Council
Mr R K Sheard, Chief Executive, Salisbury District Council
Jane Henderson, Government Office, South West

Mr T McNulty
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State
Department for Transport
Room 5/17 Great Minster House
76 Marsham Street
London SW1P 4DR

SALISBURY TRANSPORT PLAN: A BRIEF HISTORY

In 1997, the incoming Government cancelled the Salisbury Bypass and announced the commissioning of a study to develop alternative solutions based on an integrated approach that would act as an exemplar to authorities across the UK on how to deliver the new transport agenda.

Between 1998 and 2000 the GOSW led this study and was successful in changing 'hearts and minds' to the extent that an integrated package of measures, including some road proposals, was accepted by the partners (including the Highways Agency, Wiltshire County Council and Salisbury District Council) as the appropriate way forward.

The study was completed just in time for the full package of measures to be included in Wiltshire County Council's first full LTP. The costings used in the bid to Government were those provided by GOSW from the study. It should be noted that during the study period Wiltshire County Council and Salisbury District Council used their own resources to pursue a number of schemes that would provide early progress on key strands.

The package was subsequently fully accepted for funding and work has subsequently progressed across a broad front. Performance against targets has been excellent, as evidenced in Wiltshire's subsequent APR submissions.

In December 2002, the settlement letter confirmed Government's continued support for the package, up to £13.7m, but it became apparent that many of the original GOSW cost estimates were inadequate and a revised budget was determined and discussed with GOSW. Advice was ought from GOSW and a bid for additional funding was submitted in spring 2003.

The 2002 settlement letter, whilst noting Government's continued support did not actually include an SCA certificate for funding in 2003/04. On raising this with GOSW, Wiltshire were assured that this was simply an administrative matter and that the SCA certificate would be issued once it was known how much additional funding would be made available. Wiltshire was encouraged to proceed with the programme.

During 2003/04 Wiltshire County Council made financial commitments, against the anticipated SCA, on advice from GOSW, to the tune of £2.6m and ongoing discussions were held to firm up on the bid for additional funding.

Having finalized the bid by early summer, Wiltshire County Council attended a meeting with GOSW and Dff in London, ostensibly to hear the outcome and to agree the funding profile for 03/04. At this meeting, officers were astounded to learn that the DfT now required a full reappraisal of the entire package and were told that no funding would be made available in 2003/04 until DfT had decided whether or not to continue to support the package!

As officers left this meeting they had to make hurried calls to pull a £2.5m contract for the Wilton Park & Ride site that the authority would not have been able to cover without the SCA support. As it was, Wiltshire County Council had to put on hold major elements of the highways maintenance programme to cover the funds already committed.

Further discussion with GOSW and DfT revealed the full horror of the authorities predicament in that they were to be asked to re-justify the Governments own package against the latest appraisal methodologies before a decision on funding would be made. Whilst recognising the need for Government to be prudent in managing its funding of projects this appeared to be at odds with the onus on delivering measures on the ground, especially as this was the 'Government's' own scheme.

Wiltshire subsequently engaged WS Atkins to review the package against the new guidance and was assured, on submitting the additional evidence that a decision would be made by November. The re-evaluation has shown that the package does pass all the necessary tests and demonstrates significant value for money across all elements.

Ongoing discussions to resolve any 'final points' on the appraisal were progressed and on 28th October, Officers attended a further meeting with DfT only to here that it was now likely that a decision would be deferred and included in the 2003 settlement letter.

Fortunately, some sanity subsequently prevailed and SCA funds to cover the commitments already entered into during 2003/04 was provided. Whilst this enabled the County Council to re-start its highway maintenance programme it would have to do so in the middle of winter when conditions are not ideal!

Throughout this period, Members at the County and District level have sought to avoid the matter being raised in the press and have worked tirelessly to manage the budgetary fall-out.

It was therefore with horror that the authorities read the LTP Settlement letter in December to find it was silent on the additional bid for Salisbury, despite re-confirming the Government's original commitment to £13.7m to enable progress to be made in 2004/05. Officers and Members were further infuriated to see that no SCA was attached for 2004/05!

The authorities have subsequently had conflicting advice from GOSW and DfT as to whether a decision to provide funding in 04/05, within the originally approved budget of £13.7m, will be subject to your approval or simply a 'profiling matter' that can be resolved by your staff.

At the time of writing the authorities are still uncertain if any funding is available in 2004/05 and have had to make decisions on their own capital and revenue budget in a 'vacuum'. It has not been possible tell the public and private sector partners what is going on and this is seriously undermining confidence in the strategy.

For its part, Salisbury District Council, which hypothecates large sums from increased parking charges to support the Park & Ride services, has been put; in the impossible position of having to set charges for 04/05 without knowing if it will need to cover the costs of servicing the 2 Park & Ride sites that might well come on stream during the financial year.

Is the Government as serious about the new transport agenda as its partners in Wiltshire?

Rt Hon A Darling MP
House of Commons Date
Westminster
London
SW1A OAA

Dear Minister

Re: Salisbury Transport Plan

Following a bid by Wiltshire County Council for additional funds to complete the approved Salisbury Transport Plan, The Government suspended funding of the Plan on 20 July 2003. Thankfully credit approvals were forthcoming in November 2003 to meet the County Councils existing commitments. However, all other work on implementing the Plan has now been on hold for 6 months.

It was disappointing that the Wiltshire settlement letter in December 2003 merely committed the Government to the original £13.7m funding, whilst deferring a decision on the additional money until the New Year. This failed to address the balance of funding (approximately £4m from the original £13.7m) that is still due in this LTP period. Initial inquiries of your officials before Christmas indicated that this was merely an oversight. I am now informed that your officials are unwilling to comment upon any allocation for the remaining two years of the LTP. We were originally promised an answer on the funding situation in November 2003. Your officials are now unwilling to provide any timetable as to when they can place this matter before you for decision.

Since the Government's own study into Salisbury's transport problems was completed, the District Council along with the County Council and other partners in good faith have been fully committed to implementation of the Study outcome. Government funding has been forthcoming based upon your own cost estimates. The District Council has also provided substantial capital resources. The Salisbury Transport Plan fully accords with Government policy and there is a consensus locally across the political spectrum and within the business community that this is the right approach.

For the District Council, improving transportation in Salisbury is a key political priority and the Salisbury Transport Plan is seen as the best way of achieving it. In so doing the District Council has made substantial commitments from its revenue budgets to support existing and future Park and Ride services, meet the ongoing costs of the Intelligent Transport System and implement demand management. Yet we find ourselves in an intolerable situation. With this all in place and after 6 months of waiting we still do not know whether the Government is prepared to see through the full implementation of its own study outcome. We are shortly to make key decisions on awarding a bus service contract for future park and ride sites and commensurate increases in city centre car park charges.

Please end this prevarication by your officials now. Commit the extra funding required so that the District and County Councils can get on and complete the Salisbury Transport Plan and achieve a transport solution for Salisbury in line with your own policy.

Your urgent response is requested.

Yours sincerely

Kevin Wren
Leader, Salisbury District Council

Stapleford Parish Council

Cllr Fleur de Rhe-Philipe
Cabinet Member for Environment
County Hall
Trowbridge
BA14 8JD

9th January 2004

Dear Miss de Rhe -Philipe

RE: Traffic Management and Calming Measures - Stapleford

Thank you for your letter of the 19 November 2003 regarding traffic management in Stapleford. In the letter you mention that,' contact has been made with the Route Administrator for the A36 to request a meeting to agree how this can be progressed.'

Has a response been received from the Highways Agency? Stapleford Parish Council are very keen to see the situation regarding traffic calming measures moving forward as soon as is possible.

I look forward to you reply.

Yours sincerely,

Virginia Neal Chairman

Cc: Robert Key
lan West

Peter Dawson
Head of Regional Transport
Government Office for the South West
2 Rivergate
Temple Quay
Bristol
BS1 6EB

24th November 2003

Dear Mr Dawson

Re: Annual Progress Report 2003 - Wylye Valley Relief Road

Thank you for your reply to my letter of the 7th October. There a two issues that I would like to raise.

1. Stapleford Parish Council hope that you will take into account the comments on the Wiltshire County Council Annual Progress Report attached to the letter sent to you on the 7th October. There was no reference to the eight pages of comments submitted with the letter.
   
2. In your letter there was no response to the invitation to officers from the GOSW to meet with members of Stapleford Parish Council to.

   "..show them first hand the additional problems the proposed Wylye Valley Relief Road will cause to residents and road users of the A36."

   I am well aware that an assessment of the Wiltshire County Council Annual Progress Report is currently in hand by the GOSW. It would seem that in order to make a proper assessment of the proposed scheme a visit to Stapleford would be very helpful to those involved in the decision making process.

I look forward to your reply,

Virginia Neal
Chairman, Stapleford Parish Council

Cc: Robert Key

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT

George Batten BSc (Hons) C.Eng FICE FIHT

Director of Environmental Services

Ms V. Neal,
Stapleford Parish Council,
Grants, Chapel Lane,
STAPLEFORD,
Wiltshire. SP3 4LL

Please ask for: Mr. P. Binley

OurRef: PB/LMG/004529/7137

25th November 2003

Dear Ms Neal,

Wylye Valley Relief Road

I refer to your letter of 7th October, 2003 to the Government Office for the South West.

There are a number of sections of the A3 6 route where the standard of carriageway provision, or road alignments, are sub-standard. The County Council would like to see the whole of the route brought up to a safe and consistent standard.

However, it is recognised that there are serious environmental constraints along the route and the amount of money available from central Government for major highway improvements is likely to be very limited. It has, therefore, been necessary for the County Council to set priorities in terms of what can realistically be achieved.

The Government-sponsored Salisbury Transport Study identified routes for a Wylye Valley Relief Road starting at Stapleford Bend. The County Council has examined routes which would also provide a bypass for Serrington/Stapleford but has reluctantly concluded that they would not be justified, at this stage, because of the cost and environmental implications.

The results of the scheme bid are expected in December. Should the scheme proceed in its present form, there is likely to be a Public Inquiry when you would be able to put forward alternative schemes and make representations to the independent Inspector who will make recommendations to the Secretary of State.

In the meantime the County Council officers will be working with the Highways Agency to bring forward interim measures to try and improve safety and conditions for residents in Stapleford and Serrington.

Yours sincerely

Alan Feist
Assistant Director, Planning and Development

Copy: Mr P. Dawson, Government Office for the South West
Mr R Key MP

Stapleford Parish Council

Cllr Fleur de Rhe-Philipe
Cabinet Member for Environment
County Hall
Trowbridge
BA14 8JD

21 October 2003

Dear Miss de Rhe-Philipe

RE: Traffic Management and Calming Measures - Stapleford

I have recently taken over as Chair of Stapleford Parish Council and I have been reading your reply to a letter from Colonel Brake dated 9 September 2003.

The final paragraph of the letter says, 'I will request a comprehensive review of traffic management and calming within the village to be undertaken to enable a robust case for funding to be developed through the local transport plan'.

The Parish Council is very keen to ensure that improvements are made to the dangerous road conditions within the village. For example for villagers crossing the A36 to use the shop and the pub, pedestrians using the pavements along the road and villagers turning into and out of the village in their cars from Berwick Road and Over Street.

You will have seen the requests from the Parish Council as far as traffic calming measures are concerned in the letter to you from Colonel Brake, dated the 13 August 2003. it is also suggested that double white lines are extended on the A36 right through the village past the shop/garage to prevent drivers from overtaking.

The Council are concerned that there is no timetable mentioned in your letter about when the review of traffic management and calming will take place. I would be grateful if you could supply an indication of the following;

• When will this review take place?
• When will funding be developed through the Local Transport Plan?

I look forward to your reply.

Yours sincerely

Virginia Neal

cc: Robert Key MP

Stapleford Parish Council

Peter Dawson
Head of Regional Transport
Government Office for the South West
2 Rivergate
Temple Quay
Bristol
BS1 6EB

7th October 2003

Dear Mr Dawson

Re: Annual Progress Report 2003 - Wylye Valley Relief Road

As a Parish Council directly affected by the proposed route of the Wylye Valley Relief Road, we are dismayed by the content of the Annual Progress Report and the quality of information submitted to Government. The proposed route will not provide relief for Stapleford and indeed, will make the current situation in the village much worse. As such, the proposed route cannot be called a Wylye Valley Relief Road as it does not provide relief for all the villages.

On page 5 of the Wiltshire Local Transport Plan 2003 Annual Progress Report Annex 4a the three main aims of the Wylye Valley Relief Road are outlined;

1. To provide traffic relief for local communities
2. To improve road safety
3. To provide a suitable route for the traffic using the A36

As no traffic relief is proposed for the community of Stapleford, the scheme fails on the first two of its three aims.

Of particular concern to Stapleford Parish Council is the fact that problems and issues that have been highlighted to justify the proposed Wylye Valley Relief Road between the Esso Garage/shop in Stapleford and Wilton have been totally ignored with respect to the Serrington end of Stapleford. This part of the A36 has similar problems to both Stoford and South Newton, with a pub and a shop on the other side of the A36 from the main part of the village and residences located along the road. The problems in Stapleford are exacerbated by a steep incline both in and out of the village that encourages vehicles to travel at high speed past the pub, shop and houses.

Enclosed are a number of photographs which illustrate some of the current traffic problems in Stapleford. These images show the already dangerous stretch of road on which traffic movements will increase by an additional 3,234 vehicle movements per day (Annex 4 Appendix E), if the proposed relief road is built.

Another issue for concern is that Stapleford Parish Council were not consulted about the fundamental changes to the northern route that were made following the public consultation in 2001.

Attached to this letter are comments from Stapleford Parish Council relating to the information presented in Annex 4A and Annex 4. We ask that these comments be taken into account when the Government Office for the South West discusses whether the proposed Wylye Vally Relief Road should be recommended for government funding.

In conclusion, the proposed Wylye Valley Relief Road, at an estimated cost of £34 million, will provide no relief for Stapleford and will indeed make the traffic situation much worse. It cannot be therefore said to provide value for money as it does not meet its stated aims and objectives.

The Parish Council would like to take this opportunity to invite officers from the Government Office for the South West to an on site meeting at Stapleford to show them at first hand the additional problems the proposed Wylye Valley Relief Road will cause to residents and road users of the A36.

We look forward to discussing the above issues with you in the near future.

Yours sincerely,

Virginia Neal
Chairman, Stapleford Parish Council

Cc: Alistair Darling - Secretary of State for Transport
Robert Key MP
George Batten (Wiltshire County Council)
Encl.

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT

George Batten BSc (Hons) C.Eng FICE FIHT

Director of Environmental Services

County Hall Trowbridge Wiltshire BA14 8JD
Fax: - (01225) 713400
Telephone:
Operator - (01225) 713000
Direct Line - (01225) 713412

Robert key, Esq, M.P.

Please ask for: Mr. P. Binley
OurRef: PB/LMW/003874/7137

August, 2003

Dear Mr. Key,

Wylye Valley Relief Road

Thank you for your letter of 18th July 2003 and the enclosed letter from Colonel Brake, the Chairman of Stapleford Parish Council.

Following the public consultation on route options held in October 2001 careful consideration was given to all of the alternative routes put forward. This included further consideration of the A303/A360 route.

The A303/A360 route was rejected on the grounds that it would not be attractive to A36 traffic. It would not be possible to ensure that through traffic would use it without some form of closure which would seriously inconvenience local traffic. If traffic could be made to use such a route it would increase journey times and vehicle operating costs. It would therefore not represent a good investment in economic terms, and would be unlikely to attract funding.

Whilst it is appreciated that many residents in the Wylye Valley would like to see traffic completely removed from the valley, it has to be said that in the current circumstances this is not a realistic option.

I enclose a copy of the consultation leaflet as requested. The currently adopted Preferred Route is very similar to the Northern Route included in the public consultation. However, it does not include the western end of the scheme which would bypass Stapleford. The inclusion of that section of the route would increase the scheme cost considerably, and would reduce the economic benefits of the project. The sensitivity and level of protection of the River Wylye mean that there would also be a strongly adverse environmental impact should a Stapleford Bypass link be included in the proposals. The County Council needs to make the best case in economic and environmental terms for any scheme, which has to compete for funding against other schemes nationally.

I can appreciate that not being able to include a bypass of Stapleford in the current bid has been a disappointment to the residents of Stapleford, but it is necessary for the County Council to be realistic when bidding for funds. It would of course be possible to include an extension to the scheme at a future date should circumstances change.

Yours sincerely

G.C. Batten

Encs

RK/SH/Cons/Roads

18 July 2003

George Batten
Director Environmental Services
Wiltshire County Council
County Hall
Trowbridge
Wiltshire
BA14 8JB

Dear George,

I enclose a letter from the Chairman of Stapleford Parish Council about the Wylye Valley Relief Road. We had a word about this a couple of weeks ago.

Please could you explain to me, briefly, why the A303/360 option has been dismissed?

Please would you be so kind as to let me see a copy of the original consultation document and questionnaire, including a map of the alternative routes? I have mislaid mine. Is it the case that the route currently proposed by the County Council if and when funds become available is a new one which has not been consulted on?

I would be most grateful for your advice.

DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT

Great Minster House
76 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DR

Tel: 020 7944 3084
Fax: 020 7944 4521
E-Mail: david.jamieson@dft.gsi.gov.uk

Web site: www.dft.gov.uk

OurRef: KM/DJ/012495/03
Your ref: RK/SJA/Cons/Roads

Robert Key Esq MP
House of Commons
LONDON
SW1A 0AA

4 AUG 2003

Dear Robert

Thank you for your letter dated 14 July.

As part of the 2000 Local Transport Settlement the Department confirmed that it would provide resources for completion of the non-road elements of the Salisbury Transport Package up to a maximum of £13.7m. This was confirmed in 2002 provided that the scheme makes sufficient progress in terms of costs and time-scales and this remained our position.

Unfortunately, as you say, my Department has received a request for a considerable increase in its previously agreed funding provision for this scheme. I am sure you will understand that, before proceeding, we would need to satisfy ourselves that the transport benefits still provide value for money at the higher cost. My officials are working with Wiltshire County Council on the preparation of a further assessment on which a decision can be based. Once this process has been satisfactorily concluded I will write to you again.

I hope this is helpful.

DAVID JAMIESON

RK/SJA/Cons/Roads

14 July 2003

Dr Kim Howells MP
Minister of State
Department for Transport
Great Minster House
76 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DR

Dear Kim

Salisbury Bypass/A36 (T)

The statement made to the House by the Secretary of State for Transport on 9th July on transport investment was very welcome and refreshing. I have now read the paper-"Managing Our Roads" and also studied the statement on Multi-Modal Studies.

I congratulate the Secretary of State on making some brave decisions. It is also with wry amusement that I notice that some of the schemes and ideas that the Labour Party in opposition so vociferously opposed when I was Minister for Roads and Traffic a decade ago, have now surfaced as Government policy!

I am writing to you, confident that I have the support of the vast majority of my constituents, to say how disappointed I was that it seems you have decided not to reverse the Government's 1997 decision to cancel the Salisbury Bypass Project. I wrote to your predecessor on 2001 reiterating my view, shared by the County Council Highways Authority and Salisbury District Council that a full bypass of Salisbury is the only long-term, sustainable solution to our traffic problems. Please will you reconsider this decision in the light of the Secretary of State's comment in his statement that "We also need to continue with road improvements to tackle bottlenecks to improve safety and reliability"?

Following the Government's decision to cancel the Salisbury Bypass Project, we all agreed to sign up to the Salisbury Transportation Package and some progress has been made. The County Council is in the lead on developing the Wylye Valley Bypass, the Brunei Link and the Harnham Relief Road. However, factors beyond the control of Wiltshire County Council have led to substantial slippage in this project. Furthermore, it is now clear that estimates of the cost of these three projects made at the time are now turning out to be seriously unrealistic. Decisions on these schemes are imminent and I will be writing to you separately about them.

One unfortunate consequence of the under-funding of the Salisbury Transport Package has been that in the current financial year there will be a zero spend on investment in cycling and walking infrastructure.

I must stress that both Wiltshire County Council and Salisbury District Council are doing their very best to work with the Government Office of the South West to deliver the package - but the project is slipping and it is also seriously under-funded. This is a grave disappointment to all of us. Before the project collapses - or various parts of it are consigned to the long grass, please will you meet me in the autumn, with a delegation from the local authorities concerned, so that we can give the Salisbury Transportation Project a fresh impetus in the light of the very welcome new emphasis being put on road infrastructure by the Secretary of State?

CC Councillor Peter Chalke, Leader Wiltshire County Council
Councillor Kevin Wren, Leader Salisbury District Council
Councillor Dennis Brown

Stapleford Parish Council

16 July 2003

Robert Key MP
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA

Dear Robert

Wylye Valley Relief Road (WVRR)

I enclose a copy of the Parish Council letter which was put before the Wiltshire County Council (WCC) Cabinet on 11th July. Upwards of 30 residents of Stapleford attended this noisy Cabinet Meeting, and most of them were given the opportunity to speak. They, and the whole village, are extremely angry at the latest development in the A36 saga.

I have seen a copy of your letter dated 9th July to various people in the village. I agree that there are always gainers and losers in road schemes, but I would like to make two points to you:-

1. The route agreed by WCC Cabinet last Friday is regarded here as a disgrace. To adopt a road which would run through Chain Drove, an integral part of this village, without any prior notice of such an intention being given is sharp practice indeed. We are taking this point further by means of a formal complaint.

2. It is not correct to say that there is only one possible route to relieve Stapleford. We do not want an A36 route across the meadows south of the Pelican. What we require - and are being denied - is a full evaluation of what has become known as the A303/360 option. This route is being pushed under the carpet by the planners, and WCC is not playing clean with us. This was the main theme of speakers at the Cabinet Meeting.

You should be in no doubt about the strength of feeling here - and further up the valley - against this latest proposal. The Parish Council accepts that, unless some form of possible route is put forward this month, there would be no chance of money anyway. However it is to be hoped that, if funds are allocated for a Wylye Valley Relief Road, the present fiasco can be sorted out and the money used to provide proper relief for the Wylye Valley.

Colonel J A Brake
Chairman

DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT

Great Minster House
76 Marsham Street
London SW1P 4DR

Tel: 020 7944 3084
Fax: 020 7944 4521
E-Mail: david.jamieson@dft.gsi.gov.uk

Web site: www.dft.gov.uk

Our Ref: KM/DJ/011150/03

Your Ref: RK/SJA/Cons/Bolton

Robert Key Esq MP
House Of Commons
LONDON
SW1A 0AA

4 AUG 2003

Dear Robert,

Thank you for your letter dated 30 June addressed to Kim Howells, enclosing a letter from your constituent, Mrs M Bolton of Serrington, Stapleford, Salisbury, about the use of speed cameras.

I was deeply saddened to hear about the death of Mr Morgan as a result of an accident on the road through Stapleford. Such tragedies reinforce my determination to reduce the toll of people needlessly killed and injured on our roads. I can assure Mrs Bolton that doing so remains a key priority of government.

One of the very real problems local authorities face in trying to improve safety on the roads for which they are responsible is to decide what measures need to be put in place and where. Road accidents are by and large by their very nature random events and sites and stretches of road only become targets for treatment once accidents have occurred. For example, roads where traffic speeds are generally high may never suffer accidents while other roads on which vehicles travel far more slowly might contain far greater danger due to their construction and the prevailing conditions.

Speed enforcement cameras are proving to be highly effective at reducing speeds, accidents and casualties in certain circumstances but they are not always the best solution in all cases. You mention flashing signs which I assume to be those that are activated by an approaching vehicle's speed. Again, these are very effective at reducing accidents by alerting drivers to specific hazards (such as sharp bends or hidden junctions) where even driving within the speed limit might pose a significant risk. In other circumstances, static signing, road markings or engineering measures might be more suitable.

It would serve no real purpose for speed cameras to be placed extensively without proven need. The system now in place that allows councils and the police to recover the cost of camera operation through speeding fine revenue is based on camera deployment being intelligence led. In other words the cameras are placed where they are most likely to reduce casualties that have resulted from speed related accidents.

The questions you have posed about casualty data should be directed to Wiltshire County Council. While the camera deployment guidelines allows for some flexibility in regard to site casualty history, it is they who will know the local circumstances and whether placing a camera on the stretch of road referred to would be helpful.

I hope this is helpful.

DAVID JAMIESON

RK/SH/Cons/McAllister

20 March 2003

You wrote to me on 13 February about the future of the Wylye Valley Relief Road. I replied to you on 25 February, and I said I had written to the Minister of Transport.

I now enclose a letter I have received from John Spellar, dated 13 March.

This is helpful in that it gives us more clues about the timing of the construction of the road. The Government says it is up to the County Council! However, the County Council has to seek the money from the Government through the Local Transport Plan Annual Progress Report.

We will keep up the pressure.

c.c. Councillor Dennis Brown

DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT

Great Minster House
76 Marsham Street
London SW1P 4DR

Tel: 020 7944 3082
Fax: 020 7944 4492
E-Mail: john.spellar@dft.gsi.gov.uk

Web site: www.dft.gov.uk

Our Ref: JS/002614/03

Robert Key Esq MP
House of Commons
LONDON
SW1A 0AA

13 MAR 2003

Dear Robert

A36(T) WYLYE VALLEY RELIEF ROAD

Thank you for your letter dated 24 February 2003 regarding the Wylye Valley Relief Road.

You are of course correct that the Wylye Valley Relief Road was recommended as part of the Salisbury Transport Study. As I said in reply to your parliamentary question, this proposal was included in the Wiltshire County Council's Local Transport Plan in July 2000. Wiltshire County Council stated in its Annual Progress Report that 'Work is continuing on developing the route options and assessing potential impacts so that a preferred Route can be adopted'. The Bristol/Bath to South Coast Study which is looking at the future of the A36 will report later this year (May or June) and will give an indication of what further improvements are desirable on the route. I do not consider that this study has delayed this scheme.

Once Wiltshire has decided on the preferred route for the scheme, and undertaken an appraisal based on our latest guidance, they will need to submit it to us as part of the LTP Annual Progress Report for us to consider. I do not have a date when Wiltshire will be in a position to make this submission to us. The Bristol/Bath to South Coast Study arose in part because of concerns raised by the South West Regional Assembly over our decision to detrunk the A36/A46 so I know they are keeping a close watch on the study, including sitting on the steering group. However as I have indicated the decision to progress this improvement will be one for Wiltshire County Council.

I do not consider that the full provision of the Salisbury Transport Plan is necessarily required for the detrunking of the A36/A46. The timing of detrunking following this study will depend on detailed negotiations between the Highways Agency and the individual Local Transport Authorities on the route, of which Wiltshire is only one.

JOHN SPELLAR MP

RK/SH/Cons/Roads/A36(T)

7 March 2003

Councillor Dennis Brown
26 The Drove
Amesbury
Salisbury
SP4 7AG

Dear Dennis,

I enclose the answer to a Parliamentary Question on the Wylye Valley Relief Road. This is breath taking! The term buck-passing is not strong enough.

I have also written to John Spellar. I will let you know what he has to say.

HOUSE OF COMMONS
WRITTEN PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION

For answer on: Monday 3 March 2003

Date answered: Wednesday 5 March 2003

DfTRef: 1444 02/03

Mr Robert Key (Salisbury) Party: CON

211 To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, for what reason the A36 (Wylye Valley Relief Road) Scheme has been delayed; and if he will make a statement. [100576]

Mr Jamieson

The Wylye Valley Relief Road was recommendation as part of the Salisbury Transport Study which was included in Wiltshire County Council's Local Transport Plan in July 2000. Wiltshire County Council stated in their Annual Progress Report that 'Work is continuing on developing the route options and assessing potential impacts so that a preferred Route can be adopted'. The Bristol Bath to South Coast Study which is looking at the future of the A36 will report later this year and will give an indication of what further improvements are desirable on the route. I do not consider that this study has delayed this scheme.

Author: Paul Walker
Transportation Planner
Tel: (01722) 434626
SDC Cabinet Member:
Cllr Dennis W Brown

BRISTOL & BATH TO SOUTH COAST STUDY

1.0 Purpose of Report

1.1 The purpose of this report is to outline progress to date with regard to the Bristol/Bath to South Coast Study.

2.0 Background

2.1 The Bristol/Bath to South Coast Study (BB2SC) is led by the Government Office for the South West and follows on from the Government's decision to detrunk the A36 and A46 from the M27 just north of Southampton to the M4 and Bath. Responsibility of the route is scheduled to be transferred from the Highways Agency to the relevant Highway Authorities (i.e. Wiltshire County Council on the A36 in Wiltshire) although no date for this transfer has yet been set.

2.2 With the Government's decision to proceed with detrunking the South West Regional Assembly and local highways authorities who will become responsible for these routes now require additional information to allow them to devise an appropriate strategy for managing the route when it becomes their responsibility.

2.3 The study aims to assess the scope for transfer of existing and potential passenger and freight traffic to rail, then assess how to manage the remaining traffic. Moreover the study aims to develop an integrated transport strategy to address the impact of through traffic particularly on the World Heritage City of Bath. The study will also examine how all modes of transport can contribute to meeting the transport needs within the area and identify opportunities to integrate different transport modes and encourage greater use of public transport.

2.4 In essence the study will:-

• Identify a strategy to manage the road link between Bristol/Bath and the South Coast to an appropriate and consistent standard;
• Have due regard for the potential of rail to convey both passengers and freight in the corridor;
• Identify measures required to reduce the impact of through traffic on Bath;
• Identify an implementation programme for the proposed measures; Identify constraints on implementation of the strategy.

2.5 More specifically the study poses the questions concerning the role of the A350 south of Warminster and whether the A36/A46 north of Warminster should remain a primary route as well as making better use of rail infrastructure. A key output will be a transport model for the whole area to examine the effect of different options.

2.6 The study is independent from the South West Area Regional Multi Modal Study (SWARMMS) which was published last year and focused on the role of transport links, both road and rail between London and the South West, specifically from the M3 to Penzance via the A303. That study made proposals in South Wiltshire for dualling of the A303 as well as a new parkway station and improved transport interchange facilities at Wilton.

3.0 Consultation Process & SDC Involvement

3.1 To date the consultants, WSP commissioned by the Government Office for the South West at the request of the South West Regional Assembly has published a commissioning report outlining the above issues and have undertaken roadside interviews and monitoring of the A36.

3.2 Future consultation will include:

• discussions with stakeholders, experts, elected members and businesses throughout the area;
• Developing the traffic model;
• Developing and testing options through the model;
• Public consultation taking place in the Spring of 2003 comprising citizen panels, workshops and newsletters;
• Recommending a final strategy;
• Issuing a final report scheduled for May 2003.

3.3 On receipt of the study recommendations, the South West Regional Assembly will make their own recommendations for schemes promoted by the Strategic Rail Authority or Local Highway Authority through the Local Transport Plan.

4.0 Issues for Salisbury and South Wiltshire

4.1 The study has yet to enter the consultation phase proper when Salisbury District Council will be formally consulted. However the needs of Salisbury and South Wiltshire need to be made known to the study at the present, developmental phase.

4.2 There are specific issues within South Wiltshire on the north south corridors that the study will need to address:

1. The role of the A350 south of Warminster
2. The role of a new railway station at Wilton in providing access to the rail network between Portsmouth/Southampton and Bristol/Cardiff.
3. Environmental and safety concerns on the A36 through the Wylye Valley.
4. Traffic congestion on the A36, Southampton Road in Salisbury.

A new railway station for Wilton (serving the Waterloo to Exeter line) was a proposal of the recently concluded SWARMMS study). The Wylye Valley Relief Road was included in the Plan to emerge from the Government Office led, Salisbury Transportation Study. The need to improve traffic conditions on the A36 Southampton Road was identified in the recent "Salisbury South Eastern Approaches Study" jointly commissioned by Salisbury District Council, Wiltshire County Council and The Highway Authority.

4.3 The study needs to consider the outcome of the SWARMMS recommendations such as the proposed station at Wilton whilst recognising that the outcomes of the study should be realistic and set in appropriate time and cost frame works. Recently multi-modal studies have been criticised for being unrealistic and it is important that the BB2SC proposes achievable objectives. Another contrast since the study was announced is the scaling down and withdrawal of schemes by the Strategic Rail Authority (including the freezing of the Rail Passenger Partnership Project) which could affect deliverability of rail schemes. This further emphasises the need for any study to be realistic.

5.0 Recommendation

In view of the above comments it is recommended that a letter is sent to the Government Office and the study consultants identifying the following areas of concern.

1. As things stand the A36 should not be detrunked without measures being in place to deal with traffic problems in and around Salisbury and South Wiltshire, especially the full provision of the Salisbury Transport Plan including the Wylye Valley Relief Road and on-line improvements along the A36 in Salisbury including the Southampton Road.

2. Any improvements should be related to all transport modes including rail and as such the provision of a station at Wilton relating to the Wylye Valley Relief Road and Wilton park and Ride;

3. The A36 should remain part of the Primary Route Network through South Wiltshire;

4. Any recommendations of the study should be realistic and achievable within the time frames set out.

Background Papers

Bristol/Bath to South Coast Study Newsletter December 2002

Government Office for the South West: London to South West and South Wales Multi Modal Study (SWARMMS) - Final Report, May 2002

Financial / Legal / Personnel / Communiity Safety / human Rights Implications

None

Environmental Implications

The emphasis on rail improvements will significantly improve transport sustainability.

Council Core Values

This report supports the core values listed below:

• Communicating with the Public
• Open, Willing Partner
• Protecting the Environment
• Thriving Economy

RK/SH/MP Corres/Spellar

24 February 2003

John Spellar MP
Minister for Transport
Department of Transport,
Local Government and
The Regions
Eland House
Bressenden Place
London SW1E 5DU

Dear John,

A36(T) Wylye Valley Relief Road

Please can you update me on what exactly is happening to this vitally important project?

When your government decided to cancel the proposed A3 6 Salisbury By-Pass in 1997, a Salisbury Transportational Package was identified. Flowing from that decision, the government decided to de-trunk the A36 and A46 from the M27 just North of Southampton to the M4 in Bath. Responsibility for the route is scheduled to be transferred from the Highways Agency to Wiltshire County Council in Wiltshire, although no dates for this transfer has yet been set. Since then, the Bristol/Bath to South Coast Study (BB2SC) has, it seems, led to a serious delay in the Wiltshire County Council plans to proceed with the Wylye Valley Relief Road project.

Please could you confirm that what I have said so far is correct?

Please can you give me a date for the completion of the BB2SC?

When do you anticipate that Wiltshire County Council will be authorised to proceed with the statutory planning procedures for the construction of the Wylye Valley Relief Road?

What will be the involvement of the South West Regional Assembly in all this?

The recent SWARMMS study recommended a new railway station for Wilton (serving the Waterloo to Exeter line). The Wylye Valley Relief Road was included in the plan for the Salisbury Transportation Study led by the government office of the South West. How does the Salisbury Transportation Study now interact with the proposals for the Wylye Valley Relief Road?

Is it your intention that the A36(T) will not be de-trunked without the full provision of the Salisbury Transport Plan including the Wylye Valley Relief Road and on-line improvements along the A36 in Salisbury including the Southampton Road?

I would be very grateful if you would let me know the answers to these questions, which are so vitally important to the economic and environmental health of my constituents.