Statement on behalf of Wing Parish Council

made to the Public Inquiry into the Side Road and CPO orders for the

Stoke Hammond and Western Linslade Bypasses

30th July 2003

 

  1. My name is Martin Shrubsole, MA and Fellow of the Institute of Logistics and Transport, and elected Member of Wing Parish Council. I have been a resident at 21 Moorlands Road, Wing (Post code LU7 0RD), for 20 years. Moorlands Road is on the Eastern boundary of Wing, and no 21 is approximately 200metres North of the Leighton Road section of the A418.
  2. Thank you for allowing the opportunity to make a statement on behalf of Wing Parish Council; I propose to address the Parish Council’s interests under the following four headings:
    1. my remit and standing vis a vis the Parish Council;
    2. the Parish Council’s long standing position in respect of the cases for both the Stoke Hammond/Western Linslade and Wing Bypasses;
    3. the aspects of the proposed schemes on which the Parish Council considers that, in the interests of the villagers of Wing, it must express a view; and
    4. factors that, if the Inspector is minded to recommend that consent be given to the orders, the Parish Council would wish him to incorporate into any qualifications that he might attach to that recommendation.
  4. My Remit and standing vis a vis Wing Parish Council;
    1. When the opportunity to register as an objector, or supporter, to this application presented, the then members of the Parish Council chose not to assert their interest.
    2. With the change of membership of the Council following the elections on 1st May 2003, the view was taken that the Parish Council should seek to take a more proactive role in all matters relating to traffic-management in the larger Wing area.
    3. As a consequence, and in part because of previous involvement in such issues, to which I will make further allusion below, I was asked to attend this Inquiry, in the role of Observer, but with the specific remit to report back to the Parish Council at its meeting on 29th July, including making any recommendations as to representations that the Council should make to this Inquiry.
    4. The content of this statement has been laid before the Parish Council at its meeting on 29th July, and adopted, with minor editorial amendments, as reflecting fairly representations that the Council believe should be made to the Inspector.

  6. The Parish Council’s long standing position in respect of both the Stoke Hammond/Western Linslade and Wing Bypasses;
    1. The Parish Council’s position is primarily to support the early building of an appropriately routed and sized bypass for Wing. It also has concerns to achieve a significant measure of traffic reduction and calming within the village. In the view of the Council, the building of an appropriately routed and sized bypass of Stoke Hammond and Western Linslade, is an integral part of meeting the needs of Wing.
    2. This is not a new position for Wing Parish Council. At the time of the 1993 Public Inquiry into the then proposed Wing Southern Inner Bypass, the Parish Council chose to entrust the representation of the village’s interests to a specially constituted pressure group STRIVE (Stop Trunk Route Invading Village Environment). This decision was not taken lightly, but reflected the fact that STRIVE had been at pains to conduct a proper scientific survey of the opinions of all registered electors in the village; that survey had revealed that a majority of all electors supported STRIVE’s three declared objectives, namely for
      1. the construction of a bypass for Wing, but on a more outer alignment than either of the routes consulted on by Bucks CC:
      2. encouragement of the building of a Western Linslade bypass as providing associated relief for Wing High Street, Littleworth and Burcott; and
      3. such necessary traffic calming measures as might be required to ensure traffic was diverted onto any new roads.
    4. In the event, the Inspector’s recommendations, and the Secretary of State’s decision, in respect of the 1993 Public Inquiry largely adopted the case advanced by STRIVE (and other objectors) that inner routes were unacceptable. The Inspector further chose to recommend that, of the two outer routes for which STRIVE had campaigned, the Northern appeared the more appropriate.
    5. As a matter of record, I was the chairman of STRIVE, and one of its witnesses at the 1993 Public Inquiry.
    6. The Parish Council has been given assurances that it will have an active role in Bucks County Council’s formulation of definitive new proposals for a Wing Bypass. In the meantime, the Parish Council assumes that the previous decision of the Secretary of State has considerable force, and that nothing should properly be promoted or sanctioned which could possibly frustrate translating that decision into reality.
  8. The aspects of the proposed Stoke Hammond/Western Linslade bypass that impact directly upon the interests of the villagers of Wing;
    1. The Parish Council does not believe that it should go back on previously expressed support, in general, for a bypass for Stoke Hammond/Western Linslade. However the Council considers that there are four aspects of the proposal before this Inquiry which could, if not properly addressed, constitute a threat to the interests of Wing and Burcott. These are respectively
      1. the likely implementation date of this proposal, and the period of time that might elapse before the construction of an appropriate Wing bypass;
      2. the innate attractiveness (or not) of the Stoke Hammond/Western Linslade bypass as an alternative to the routes currently in use, in particular the route between Aylesbury and Milton Keynes via Wing, Burcott, Soulbury, Three Locks, and Stoke Hammond;
      3. the extent to which other traffic management measures might be required to reinforce such attractiveness in the long term; and
      4. the additional special measures that might be necessary during any transitional period between the opening of the current scheme and the opening of a Wing bypass, however few or many years that might be.
    3. Wing Parish Council is concerned to hear that Bucks CC’s plans for Wing Bypass are for no earlier than 2010. They would be very distressed if, by reason of pressure to meet other objectives, construction were not to start ‘til some much later date. In the ideal world, the Wing and Stoke Hammond/Western Linslade bypasses would be designed and built together; however, the Council recognises the practical realities of a need to stage expenditure, or risk projects being cancelled because they have become cumulatively too expensive. Wing Parish Council is therefore more concerned to minimise any potential harmful side-effects, for the villages of Wing and Burcott, of a transitional period of at least 5 years between the opening of the current scheme, and that of Wing Bypass.
    4. The Parish Council has to take into account two key considerations in relation to any period of transition. Bucks CC assert that whilst a majority (over 70%) of the traffic between Aylesbury and Milton Keynes that passes through Wing, then passes over the C76 through Burcott and Soulbury, a significant proportion stays on the A418 to Linslade and then makes its way onto the Stoke Road (and vice versa). For Wing this implies one of two outcomes;
      1. if the current scheme is efficient and effective, then that current majority of Aylesbury to Milton Keynes traffic will stay on the A418 to Wing Hill roundabout, and thence pass over the current scheme, and so be diverted away from Burcott and Soulbury;
      2. if the current scheme is inefficient, and therefore ineffectual, there is a real possibility that an increased proportion of traffic will use the new road between the Soulbury Road (B4032) roundabout and the Northern Link (i.e. to bypass Stoke Hammond and Soulbury), but will still transfer onto the C76 through Burcott and Wing.
    6. In the former of these cases the Parish Council has to acknowledge that there will be a significant increase in traffic on the Eastern stretch of the A418 in Wing (past the Village Hall), but that the High Street, Littleworth and Burcott will get immediate and potentially long term relief (i.e there will be villagers that benefit to offset others who will, in the short term, lose out). Further relief to the A418, Eastern or Western sections, can only come with a Wing bypass.
    7. In the latter case, residents along the A418 would experience broadly the same proportions of traffic as at present (ie subject only to natural growth), but the volumes through Burcott and the High Street could proportionately increase, if some of that traffic that currently does not use the C76 were now induced to do so (i.e there will be no beneficiaries, and some real losers).
    8. Such considerations must influence the Wing Parish Council’s attitude to the debates about the location of the junction between the current scheme, and a future Wing bypass, and also to the proposals for alternative routes tabled by objectors.
    9. The Parish Council recognises that the alignment promoted for the current scheme, as it approaches the Wing Hill Roundabout, is on a tight radius curve (510m radius), and does not make any explicit provision in relation to an ultimate junction with the Wing bypass. On the other hand the Council notes the assurance given in evidence by Mr Saunders for Bucks CC that "The connection between these two schemes has been considered, resulting in the Linslade Western Bypass being designed in such a way that it does not prejudice the connection or route of any future Bypass. It is accepted that there may be some abortive cost at the southern end of the proposed Linslade Western Bypass if a northern route for a Wing Bypass is selected. However this is not unusual and any changes both economic and environmental will be considered with the Wing proposals" (Para 10.2 (c)).
    10. [In practical terms the location of the junction between the current scheme and a Wing Bypass, were such to be built on any but the Outer Southern of the routes considered at the 1993 Public Inquiry, lies within one general area; and would axiomatically break into the 510m radius curve in the present proposal. It is also probable that the configuration of any such junction will depend upon whether, at the time of its design, the East West, or the Aylesbury-Milton Keynes flow is seen to dominate. As a matter of record, the junction layouts for all routes considered at the 1993 Inquiry appeared to be predicated upon East –West being the predominant direction of flow.]
    11. Wing Parish Council notes that, at this Inquiry, there has been debate about the relative lengths of journey time between the Fenny Stratford Bypass and Wing, as between the present route, and that proposed in the current scheme. In practice the key decision driver, as it affects Wing and Burcott, is the difference in journey time between the Soulbury Road (B4032) roundabout and Wing by the new road, as compared with the C76 route. Measured on the map in the Information update No 2, there does not appear to be a great difference in the road distance between these points over the two routes, and therefore the relative efficiency of the respective carriageways is potentially decisive. In this respect, Wing Parish Council’s views on the Western Linslade bypass are influenced by the following considerations;
      1. the injection into the 510m radius curve of a premature junction or roundabout (i.e. one built in anticipation of a future need), that required traffic to slow down, would reduce the overall attractiveness of the bypass route;
      2. moving the B4032 roundabout to a point West of Dollar farm, as canvassed in Alternative Route 1, would tend to shorten the route (and journey time) via the C76, with no compensating gain to the journey time achievable over the bypass;
      3. the proposal, in Alternative Route 2, to run the by-pass from Wing Hill roundabout in a straight line to a roundabout near Burcott Hall Farm, and then to follow the alignment of the C76, might have superficial attractions were there to be an agreed complementary scheme for Wing which was built concurrently, but, in the immediate term, without a Wing bypass, it would serve to funnel all traffic for Aylesbury through Wing, with none being prepared to make the dogleg via Wing Hill Roundabout. This would be quite unaceptable;
      4. dual carriageways, with higher speed limits and more unfettered opportunities for over-taking, potentially deliver more consistent journey time improvements.
    13. It seems reasonable to postulate that traffic management measures, whether road humps, speed limits, one way schemes or chicanes, could be introduced into Wing and the C76 route in order to impose a sufficient journey time penalty over that route, as compared with the current scheme, to ensure that the there would be a transfer of traffic to that scheme. It is more difficult to see how, for either of the two Alternative Routes (both of which tend to disadvantage any use of the Bypass as compared with the C76 route), sufficiently draconian traffic management measures could be introduced to protect Wing High Street and Burcott.
    14. A comparable dilemma, in respect of the transitional period, arises in respect of the mitigation of the severance that an increased traffic flow along the Eastern A418 represents as between the Village and the Recreation Ground. This could conceivably be addressed by the introduction of a footbridge or a pelican crossing. However some such measures (eg a pelican crossing) could bring journey time penalties to the A418/Linslade Western bypass route, and would have to be introduced in such a way that they did not serve to negate the impact of traffic management measures on Littleworth and the C76.
    15. Finally, after the opening of both Stoke Hammond /Western Linslade, and Wing Bypasses, there will be a need for further Traffic management measures to ensure that the only traffic entering Wing on the A418 from either East or West is either local traffic or traffic destined for the Mentmore or Ledburn directions.
  10. Wing Parish Council’s Shopping List: If the Inspector is minded to recommend that consent be given to the orders tabled for this Inquiry, Wing Parish Council would urge him to caveat that recommendation with the following qualifications, none of which would serve to inhibit the scheme, as proposed, but which would materially protect the residents of Wing and Burcott. These qualifications/conditions are
    1. that in order that they may enjoy the cost gain of not having to provide a premature junction (with a Wing Bypass) West of Wing Hill Roundabout in the Western Linslade bypass, Bucks CC should be explicitly disbarred, in any future comparative assessment of routes for the Wing bypass, from introducing (as a factor influencing choice of route) the relative cost of alternative locations for the junction with the Western Linslade bypass;
    2. Bucks CC should be required to promote, sponsor and fund, to the reasonable satisfaction of Wing Parish Council, effective traffic management measures to ensure that, from the opening of the Stoke Hammond/Western Linslade bypass, the achievable journey time for through traffic between Aylesbury and Milton Keynes and using the C76 through Burcott, is significantly greater than that achievable using the new bypass via Wing Hill roundabout;
    3. Bucks CC should be required to promote, sponsor and fund, to the reasonable satisfaction of Wing Parish Council, effective mitigation measures to minimise the severance effects of the increased traffic flows on the Eastern stretch of the A418, without thus negating the impact of other traffic management measures.

Martin Shrubsole MA FILT

Councillor, Wing Parish Council