Agenda item

Parvis Khansari - Director Highways and Environment, Wiltshire Council

The Chairman introduced Peter Binley, Head of Highways Assets and Commissioning and advised that the A350 Melksham bypass scheme had only recently been announced, therefore there was only a limited amount of information available at the present time.

Mr Binley stated that traffic had been growing on the A350 for many years and it needed upgrading as it was the primary north-south route between the M4 and the Dorset Coast. It also connected Wiltshire’s principal settlements of Trowbridge and Chippenham via Melksham. It was a key strategic corridor in Wiltshire Core Strategy and SWLEP’s Strategic Economic Plan and approximately 10,000 new homes were planned for the A350 corridor per decade. Sections of the A350 were subject to high traffic volumes, congestion and delays.

Slides were shown to the meeting detailing economic growth zones, commuter journeys in Wiltshire and traffic flows. Traffic flow through Melksham was remarkably high. For much of this traffic, Melksham was not their destination. It did not take much for the system to become overloaded. The traffic flow was expected to keep increasing.

A Melksham bypass scheme had been considered several times in the past and studies were undertaken in 1991, 2001 and 2016. In 2016 a funding bid was unsuccessful. In 2019 another bid was made to the Department for Transport’s Large Local Major Transport Schemes fund which was successful. The Government determined that there was a good business case to invest in the scheme and Wiltshire Council would receive £1.3 million from the Government to develop the scheme. The actual cost of developing and implementing the scheme could be up to £180 million.

There were several local constraints to any bypass route around Melksham, such as power lines, rail lines, rivers, flood zones, woodland and planned infrastructure. Other factors such as canal regeneration, archaeology, contamination and development opportunities would also be considered.

Many route options had been considered in the past. These were shown to the meeting and can be seen below.

The options to the East of Melksham were shown in more detail as shown below.

The routes were of different lengths. Obviously the shorter routes would be cheaper. However, it would be worth investing in a more expensive scheme if it was more effective. It was emphasised that at the present time no decision on a route had been made. Very complicated and detailed assessments would need to be completed using the latest data.

The next steps would include:

·       Revisiting the options appraisal, including a review of route options and the do nothing option;

·       Updating traffic and economic data;

·       Developing and designing the scheme in more detail; developing proposals to enhance pedestrian / cyclist / bus facilities / green areas et cetera;

·       Assessing environmental factors, constraints and mitigation measures;

·       Undertaking public consultation;

·       Finalising the scheme;

·       Submitting a planning application and preparing the Outline Business Case.

It was stated that there was lots of work to do still to do but the Government grant would help them to achieve this which was a major step forward.

The possible timescales for the project (subject to successful progress through planning, statutory procedures and the continuing availability of funding) was to undertake public consultation in 2021 on the options and preferred routes. Then to submit a planning application in 2022 and to progress to the build in 2024/2025.

In response to questions it was stated that:

·       It was not yet known if the A350 would be managed by Highways England rather than Wiltshire Council in the future. There would be pros and cons to such an arrangement. At the moment there was no sign that a change in management would occur.  

·       A member of the audience stated that the East route C went through countryside, it benefited Melksham but would be detrimental for Bowerhill and queried why the route was not put further out. In response it was stated that they will revisit and examine all the options, putting the route further out may be an option that would be examined. The constraints and proximity of properties would be considered. If the proposed route went close to properties, then screening options would be looked at.

·       It was not definite that the route would not go over the canal. That would be expensive, but this did not necessarily preclude it. There would have to be a balancing act with cost/saving benefit analysis. All the details would be examined.

·       All routes would be assessed including routes to the West of Melksham.

·       Cost was an issue and the costs had to be balanced against the benefits, there was a finite limit. The more the cost of the scheme increased the less likely the Government would be to fund it. A better understanding of all the data was required.

The Chairman reiterated that the route was not firm, all details would be looked at and the sort of issues being raised would be taken into consideration.

Mr Binley confirmed that it was very early days, there were lots of possibilities. They needed to find the best route considering all the factors.  

The Chairman thanked Mr Binley for the presentation and for answering questions. He also requested that Mr Binley provide a brief update on the Town Bridge.

Mr Binley explained that the part of the B3102 Bath Road which goes over the Town Bridge in Melksham would need to be closed in order to do repairs. The bridge had been built in the 1890’s and was widened in the 1930’s to add pavements. However, goods vehicles were now heavier and there was more traffic. The pavements on the bridge were weak and there was a risk that if a lorry mounted the pavement it could cause the bridge to collapse.  Therefore, action had to be taken to make the bridge safe. Pedestrian barriers were to be installed on both sides of the bridge to stop vehicles being able to mount the pavements. The work was going well at the moment and was likely to end at the end of April. Mr Binley apologised for the delays and stated that it was better to do the works now rather than have an unplanned catastrophe.  

The Chairman thanked Mr Binley for explaining the situation.