Letters

Below are letters published in the Dorset Evening Echo

Derek Fawell 10 February 2007

ROAD OFFERS NO RELIEF TO PLANET

It will be a very sad day if the so-called Weymouth Relief Road gets the go-ahead. I say this as someone who lives close to the Dorchester Road and travels on it regularly by car and bus. I am not one of the out-of-towners that our MP and others keep slating.
Apart from the fact that it will offer relief only to Upwey and Broadwey and not at all to Weymouth, the proposed road will blight many hundreds of properties in Littlemoor which will be affected by the noise and pollution of fast vehicles going through their midst.
In addition the constant background of traffic noise will ruin the tranquillity of the beautiful Lorton Valley which many of us like to walk in regularly for peace and quiet. Two Mile Copse, next door, which will be equally badly affected by the noise, is the last remaining piece of proper woodland anywhere in the Weymouth area. We should be protecting these valuable assets at all costs.

The most important reason, though, why the road should not be built, is that it is now beyond doubt that our overuse of fossil fuels is rapidly causing dramatic changes in the climate.
We are entering a completely new era which, frankly, frightens me. We should be starting to reduce our energy use - and that includes use of cars.
The relief road, like all other new roads built in the past, will inevitably encourage the use of more cars. We should be doing exactly the opposite and doing everything we can to reduce the number of private cars on the road (and, incidentally, removing the congestion as well).

The single most important factor that causes delays in peak hours, is the large number of cars that have only one person in them. Only a small number of these drivers need their cars for use at work, and most journeys could easily be shared.
Even better, the three big public service employers in Dorchester that are the cause of most of the traffic during peak hours, could easily supply buses to pick up their workers at various points in Weymouth.
Most of the time I find the Dorchester Road to be perfectly adequate. The occasional really bad jams caused by roadworks could be largely eliminated if the narrower sections of the road were dug up only at night, something that would cost a tiny fraction of the proposed cost of the new road.
The occasional high vehicle getting stuck under the railway bridge could be avoided by lowering the road at that point (as has been done in other parts of the country). Better programming of the Littlemoor lights could alleviate the summer jams of holidaymakers coming into Weymouth on Saturday mornings.

It is highly probable that government will impose petrol (carbon) rationing within the next ten years as part of a worldwide agreement to reduce fossil fuel use. In that case there will automatically be a considerable reduction in traffic and the large amount of money spent on the road will be a complete waste.
We should be starting to spend this money instead on the public transport infrastructure that is going to be vital to make it possible to get around Dorset and the rest of the country.

The present Dorchester Road would be perfectly adequate for the reduced number of vehicles likely to be needing to use it in the future.

Guy Dickinson March 20 2007

THE PROPOSED WEYMOUTH RELIEF ROAD

Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, some of the recent letters to the Echo in support of this road seem to have misrepresented some of the points. In a way the argument is at risk of becoming circular but, if I may, I’d like to summarise the case against this road.

There is congestion on the Dorchester Road (and many other roads in Weymouth). It is the same in virtually any town in this country. Weymouth is not a special case. The answer is not to throw thousands of tons of concrete at these problems. It has been proved time and time again that building more roads does not work and only exacerbates the problem by encouraging yet more cars.

This particular “relief road” is a bad idea for many reasons. It may relieve the residents of Dorchester Road but what sort of a solution is that if it simply transfers their problem to the residents of Littlemoor and elsewhere. Weymouth is already congested and can take no more traffic – park and ride or no. It will, by Dorset County Council’s own figures, increase CO2 production, over the current road, well in excess of 2,000 tonnes in the first year alone, with more in subsequent years. This is not an insignificant figure (as stated by some) when compared with the reductions in CO2 the County Council is signed up to.

It is not needed for the Olympics. The London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games has clearly stated that spectators will arrive by public transport, by cycle or on foot. This is a commitment to the International Olympic Committee that got us the Games and cannot be altered. A temporary park and ride for 1,000 cars will be built and the current 7,000 car parking spaces in Weymouth and Portland will be reduced to 500 for the duration of the Games. So the town will not be “in gridlock” as Mr Knight describes! In addition, Weymouth & Portland has been promised £18 million to enable public transport in the area to be transformed in time for the Games.

It will destroy irreplaceable ancient woodland. It will cause extensive damage to Dorset’s unique Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Huge gashes will be carved in the Ridgeway and Southdown Ridge and a high embankment with an ugly junction on top built across the tranquil Bincombe Valley. It is not needed for the local economy, as unemployment and deprivation in Weymouth & Portland is relatively low. Large companies like New Look decide not to have a national distribution centre in Weymouth, not because of any congestion on the Dorchester Road, but because they need to be close to the centre of the nation’s motorway system.

The main point is: what can be done to improve this situation which is faced by people all over the country? No time has been spent by the DCC to consider the alternatives to building a road – which is extraordinary. The current bus services are totally inadequate, many of the buses old, infrequent and unappealing. There are no electronic timetables showing when the next bus is coming. Train services should be much more frequent. An innovative new light rail system has been suggested which could contribute significantly to reducing commuter traffic.

The County Council, District Council and County Hospital are known to cause a large proportion of the rush hour traffic. What is stopping them from providing buses for their employees or coming up with other ideas for getting them out of their cars? Most cars at rush hour on the Dorchester Road, as elsewhere, are carrying only the driver. Many more buses should be provided to ferry children to school – if they cannot walk there. Road works could be arranged much more conveniently, at night if needs be. The Littlemoor junction could be restructured to make it work much more efficiently and improve the traffic flow considerably.

The price to be paid for this very damaging new road is too high; - and in financial terms, when all the bills are in, is likely to cost well in excess of the current estimate of £78 million. We must not solve our traffic problems like this – there is already too much concrete everywhere. Cars will soon be less frequent anyway, when the oil starts to run out! I can understand why some people might initially think a new road is the answer but after further thought, it really isn’t! Please forget about the road and think of alternatives. For more details please visit www.bypassthebypass.org

Dorset County Council, take the lead!

Jane Burnet

In his letter of March 28th “We’ll Soon Need Road”, Donald Ward attempts to show that Dr. Dickinson, not the road supporters, is guilty of misrepresentation. However, I suggest Mr. Ward is guilty of misinterpreting what Dr. Dickinson was saying to suit his own argument.

I agree with Mr. Ward , it is true that cars are bought because they are more convenient than public transport. But an inconvenient truth is that more car journeys means more CO2. Should we be spending millions to enable cars to move even more easily (until they reach the town centre where there will be even more congestion and air pollution) or should we be spending the money to make public transport and cycling, etc, more convenient?

When I read Dr. Dickinson’s letter I did not get the impression he was saying that people buy cars because there are more roads. Mr Ward seems to have misunderstood. I think if he reads the letter again he will see that Dr. Dickinson’s point is that more roads encourages more car use when alternatives are available. I don’t think any ‘self appointed environmentalist’, or Dr. Dickinson, would suggest that we shouldn’t own cars or use them for certain journeys. But there are occasions when we are all guilty of hopping in our cars when there are perfectly good alternatives. It is these journeys that transport policy should be discouraging but that road building actively encourages. Is it not true, for example, that most people who drive to Bournemouth and Southampton from here to go shopping could just as easily take the train and would if the roads were slower? And would this be such a hardship given we are trying to save our planet?

Mr. Ward’s point about CO2 emissions, that they would be reduced on the Dorchester Road, suggests a misunderstanding of the science of global warming. Dr. Dickinson’s point was that there would be a net increase of 2000 tonnes of CO2. It doesn’t matter if this CO2 is produced on the Dorchester Road, the bypass or in China. Any increase in CO2 production is a step in the wrong direction if we are going to avoid disastrous climate change.

Mr ward said that cars enhance the lives of ordinary people, the ‘lower orders’, he said. CO2 production is making life a living hell for millions in Africa struggling with worsening drought caused by global warming, caused by the CO2 we produce. People in Africa are ordinary people, our cars do not enhance their lives. In a globalised world shouldn’t we be moving away from parochial thinking and towards accepting our moral responsibility to think about the impact of our actions on the world’s poorest people?

2012 would be an ideal opportunity to showcase Weymouth as an enlightened, environmentally responsible resort, with cycle tracks everywhere possible, superb public transport, and clean air. Weymouth should be aiming to become the destination for the growing numbers of environmentally aware consumers/ holiday makers. Let’s be a market leader. Let’s show the world, in 2012, that Weymouth is forward thinking, clean and green. That will be money well spent.


These 4 from David Moth

1)
A relief road will devastate the lives of anyone living near it.
I MUST comment on recent articles in support of the relief road proposal. I feel that the people of Weymouth and Portland are not being told the full story with respect to this road.
The Weymouth relief road is currently the most damaging new road under review at the moment. If it goes ahead, totally unacceptable environmental damage will be done to the Ridgeway (a 19-metre deep gash, reminiscent of Twyford Down), Southdown Ridge (16-metre gash), the Lorton Meadow Nature Reserve and the irreplaceable ancient woodland at Two Mile Coppice.
Both the Stern Report and the Eddington Report have concluded that road transport must pay its environmental costs and recognise that road building does not represent good value for money.
In fact the Prime Minister himself has said that it is environmentally irresponsible to attempt to build our way out of the problems we face on the roads; we must seek more environmentally friendly ways and we must utilise our existing transport networks more efficiently.
The recent windfall of £18million from the South West Regional Assembly, recently reported in the Echo, will go some way to addressing this need.
There is a nationwide uprising against road building in the light of recent research into accelerating global warming. There have been a very large number of local objections to the proposed road in addition to the objections forthcoming from across the country, which surely indicates the level of opposition to road building in general.
Motor transport in this country accounts for 21 per cent of UK carbon dioxide emissions - this is a figure we simply must reduce for the future of both Weymouth and the planet.
There is not, and never has been, any connection between the London Olympics candidate file and the completion of the Weymouth relief road. On the contrary, London 2012's objective is that all spectators to the games arrive by public transport, by cycle or by foot. Measures have been made available to ensure this happens.
There is considerable evidence to hand which shows emphatically that building new roads will lead to traffic induction. More traffic will be attracted to the area.
In Newbury, for instance, 10 years after the highly controversial Newbury by pass was built, traffic has increased in the area by 48 per cent in the last four years and has already exceeded levels forecast for 2010.
The Coutryside Agency commissioned a study that concluded that the road would increase road congestion in and around Weymouth and provide only very short-term relief.
It is clear that the Weymouth relief road will in fact not actually provide relief for many people and will devastate the lives of those thousands of people living anywhere near the new road.
As recent articles in the Echo have stated, there is still time to make your views felt to the chief planning officer at County Hall, Dorchester, DT1 1XJ.
I implore everyone who has a concern for the future of Weymouth and the planet to contact County Hall voicing their objections to this scheme.

2)
Big, yes our plans have to be big (Michael Wheller 17/03/07 - ‘Easier way to solve the problem‘) to solve transport problems both within and beyond the Weymouth - Dorchester corridor. (Coun Ian C Gardner 16/03/07 - ‘Sadly this is not a relief road alternative‘). Something the Weymouth Relief Road certainly will not do. Also, to tempt people out of their cars and onto bicycles and / or public transport will need big ideas. Stephen Bunting’s letter 14/03/07 (‘More roads are not the answer‘) showed a most refreshing attitude to the madness of 33 million cars on the roads of Britain and highlighted one person’s solution to the problem. The bicycle is an amazingly flexible answer to many, not all, transport problems and one which is currently vastly under exploited for a variety of reasons.
Since the 1998 transport white paper (July 1998), right up to the present time, Government policy has been to build new roads through AONB and SSSI’s only in the most exceptional circumstances. Weymouth is not exceptional - there are 100’s of towns with similar or more severe traffic problems than ours. As environmental damage will soon be costed into the benefit to cost ratios of a road project the final cost of the Weymouth Relief Road can be expected to soar beyond the already staggering £77 million estimate.
Building the relief road would be an easy option giving small initial returns but no long term benefits to our community - to show vision and commitment to a sustainable future for Weymouth is a huge challenge. DCC has the opportunity to take up this challenge and to create a transport system, based on reduced car use, for us all to be proud of. I would like to ask the planning committee to accept this challenge on 5th April, to reject the Weymouth Relief Road and build us a transport system to take us on into the 21st century and beyond, which residents, businesses and visitors together will be able to enjoy.
David Moth
Springfield Rd
www.bypassthebypass.org

3)
JOY Burrow's response (Relief road is no risk to planet (Echo, February 28) to my previous letter indicates that the main point of my letter has been misinterpreted.
I should say that I have a certain sympathy for the pro-road campaigners, because I believe we are both actually striving for the same results: to reduce the traffic and the CO2 emissions on Dorchester Rd.
Instead of building a new road, which will increase traffic flow and hence emissions, we are choosing to achieve our aims by promoting transport solutions that are sustainable in the long term.
I am, of course, not suggesting that the Weymouth Relief Road will result in the destruction of the planet. What I am saying is that the new road is forecast to result in increased CO2 emissions from year one.
This is because the new road will be longer and faster than the old and with the forecast increase in traffic higher emissions are inevitable.
Because we in the UK are large polluters per head, any reduction in emissions we can achieve will make a difference.
The Stern Report tells us that if we invest now in emissions reduction, we will pay a significantly lower price than if we choose to do nothing.
Doing nothing is not an option any longer and neither, I believe, is building this road.
David Moth, Springfield Road, Broadwey.
9:22am Friday 2nd March 2007
David Moth, Springfield Road, Broadwey.

4)
If I may reply to P Smith and Crayston Lee, both of whom expressed an interest in hearing more details of our sustainable alternatives to building the Weymouth Relief Road.
We consider the following list of measures would, collectively, solve the transport problems of the Dorchester-Weymouth corridor at less cost and in a far more sustainable way than construction of the proposed Weymouth Relief Road, the final cost of which we understand would be over £70 million:

1 Designation of the A354 through Upwey and Broadwey as a clearway between 0700 and 1800 hours.
2 Redesign of the Dorchester Road - Littlemoor Road junction to reduce delays.
3 Implementation of a comprehensive Workplace Travel Plan for Dorset County Council employees.
4 Implementation of comprehensive Workplace Travel Plans for all medium and large size organisations in the Weymouth - Dorchester area, particularly for Dorset County Hospital, West Dorset District Council and Dorchester Prison.
5 The setting of more ambitious targets for modal transfer through School Travel Plans, particularly for Wey Valley Secondary School and Saint Nicholas & Saint Laurence, Saint John's and Radipole Primary Schools.
6 A comprehensive review of parking provision in Weymouth and Dorchester with the objective of modal shift from car use to public transport, cycling and walking.
Construction of the five cycleways listed in the 2000 LTP.
7 Introduction of a fully integrated bus system for the Weymouth-Dorchester corridor that would include express services between the two urban centres supported by feeder services supported in turn by suburban and rural parking facilities for cars and cycles.
8 Implementation of a light railway scheme between Weymouth and Dorchester that would stop at:
Weymouth Ferry terminal; Town centre/Debenhams; Weymouth railway station (rebuilt); Radipole halt; New Look; Wey Valley School; Upwey; Tesco Dorchester; Dorchester Hospital; Dorchester South
9 Establishment of formal Bus Quality Partnerships.
10 Construction of bus lanes.
11 Introduction of bus priority measures.
12 Provision of real-time bus information.
13 Installation of weather protection, seating and raised kerbs for all bus stops.
14 Coordination of bus and train timetables.
15 Introduction of a public transport interchange at Weymouth railway station.
16 The dualling of the railway between Moreton and Dorchester South and an upgrade to signalling and power supplies to facilitate increased frequency of service between Weymouth and Bournemouth.
17 The introduction of a through Exeter - Yeovil Pen Mill - Weymouth train service utilising the current freight-only chord at Yeovil.
18 Introduction of increased frequency of rail service and reduced journey times between Weymouth & Bristol and Weymouth & Waterloo.


If the County Council decided to abandon its pursuit of the Weymouth Relief Road and focus its attention instaed on securing the £18 million Olympic Games Transport Package recently proposed by the South West Regional Assembly, the resources available would enable a start to be made on most of these measures. This would have an immediate and lasting impact on the efficiency of transport in our local area. There are sustainable and far less damaging measures that could be taken to solve the transport problems of the area without the need to build the Weymouth Relief Road.
David Moth
Springfield Rd

Derek Fawell 4th April

Most people don't seem to realise that the argument over building the 'relief road' has moved on.

Climate change is now the only issue we should be considering.

The debate is no longer about whether or not we OUGHT to reduce our CO2 emissions, but what we are going to do about transport when we are inevitably FORCED to reduce them, when global warming takes a serious hold. Within the next decade some form of carbon/petrol rationing is bound to start coming in, and we shall have to use public transport or else not travel out of Weymouth at all. I just can't see people sharing their cars with strangers (but that would certainly help to solve the problem)! One positive outcome will be that the Dorchester Road will become much less congested, and essential traffic will use it more easily.

If we do go ahead with building the new road, not only will valuable resources be wasted, but we will certainly go to the back of the queue for getting government money for alternatives. If we don't get the buses and trains that are going to be necessary to cope with the much increased demand, Weymouth could slowly become cut off and eventually turn into a backwater.

Those people who, like A Parham (March 27) and G Allen (March 31) say that "the car is here to stay" really need to take their heads out of the sand and look at what is happening to the planet.

Harry Burden, who is vehemently in favour of building the road, pours cold water on the idea of global warming (23 March). Jim Knight, our MP, obviously thinks the same, despite the latest international climate report contributed to by over two thousand of the world's leading scientists, and which clearly states the seriousness of the situation.

Do our representatives really want to be remembered as the last of the climate change deniers? It's time they started leading from the front and putting the long-term needs of our town to the fore. They should be using all their influence to getting the resources for putting a first-class public transport system into place now.

Guy Dickinson 4th April

Dear Sir

In response to Mr Burden’s letters, all I will say is: please visit the website www.bypassthebypass.org. There he will find out everything he needs to know. There is no point in repeatedly exchanging letters in the paper, missing the point and trying to find the best sound-bite.

The basic principle is that building more roads is yesterday’s solution to a nationwide problem. Even his supremo, Mr Blair, said recently: “we cannot simply build more and more roads, particularly when the evidence suggests that traffic quickly grows to fill any new capacity”. Also David Miliband, commenting on the Channel 4 Great Climate Change Swindle which Mr Burden alludes to, says – “I am convinced well beyond reasonable doubt that the swindle is not being perpetrated by the vast, vast majority of scientists in the world”.

Details are on the News section of the website.Building more roads will not work! It’s just that simple.

Sarah Stewart, Dorcehester Road 4th April

Why is it that so often those opposing reasonable, well-researched arguments feel the need to resort to vitriolic personal attack to justify their position?

Donald Ward's letter ('We'll soon need road even more', Echo, March 28) attacking Dr. Dickinson's perfectly sensible letter outlining reasons for opposing the bypass is a classic example of this. He dismisses him and others who feel the same as 'control freaks', 'self-appointed experts' and of talking 'arrant nonsense', whilst failing to put forward any original solutions himself.

He somewhat naively feels sure that Dorset County Council would "grasp any other workable solution with heartfelt relief....." Well, yes, you would think so, wouldn't you? But alas, they haven't. That's the whole point of the argument against the bypass.

Please Mr. Ward, avail yourself of the facts before attacking those who are working so hard to bring some sanity into this debate.

James Stewart, Dorchester Road, Weymouth. 20 April

Public inquiry will show truth

I couldn't believe what I was reading today in article ‘Fears over relief road inquiry’ (Echo, April 16). Or, more sadly, I could believe it, because it is, frankly, all we have come to expect.

Jim Knight, MP, accuses opponents of the scheme of "using every trick in the book" - by which I presume he means calling for an open and honest debate at a public enquiry about the pros and cons of this scheme where all the true facts and figures can at last be aired.

In fact, Mr Knight shouldn’t be afraid of a public inquiry. It will provide an unbiased decision , and if the claims for the merits of this road outweigh the disadvantages, then the scheme should be given the go-ahead.

Amazingly, he still seems to believe that the success of the 2012 Olympics is somehow tied in with the building of this road when one of the factors in Weymouth winning this bid was precisely the fact that the use of cars to access the events would be drastically diminished and more sustainable alternatives relied upon instead.

I fail to see how Dorset County Council's support for this scheme "sends out a positive message".

On the contrary, it sends out the message that the local authority is a weary old dinosaur with its head in the sand, whose only idea for moving people and traffic between Weymouth and Dorchester is an outdated plan to build a totally unnecessary road which will create many many more problems than it will solve.

If it wanted to send out a positive message in time for the 2012 Olympics it should be fervently embracing the idea of presenting Weymouth and Portland as a forward-thinking, intelligent, imaginative, clean, green town where traffic and people move about with the minimum possible adverse impact on our health, stress levels and beautiful countryside.

When he says "the issue has been determined locally" and "the view of those accountable is clear - they want this relief road" - I take it he means all those councillors on the planning committee, who, like sheep, voted the way they were told to vote on 5th April by approving the scheme.

They did this instead of thinking for themselves to consider the pros and cons of this scheme and reflecting as our "democratically elected leaders" what we, the majority electorate want, which is 75% of the local population manifestly opposed to this insane scheme which seeks to wield a giant sledgehammer to crack a tiny little nut.

Even more depressing is the realisation of how few of those councillors actually took the trouble to inform themselves properly of the issues before nodding through the scheme, as evidenced by one Liberal Democrat councillor who stated that he didn't even understand the facts about climate change before going on to vote for a road which will increase carbon dioxide emissions by over 2,000 tonnes in the first year alone! Is that being "accountable"?!

Mr Knight is right to say that he spends an awful lot of his time on this issue - he has to - he has staked his Westminster career on getting this scheme pushed through, regardless of the mayhem it will cause. We have local elections on 3rd May - I call upon all those who oppose this dreadful scheme to show their displeasure by voting out all those in our local government who approved it.

Katherine Russell, Weymouth

I write in response to Geoff Kirby’s letter (Cars will stay: get used to it Echo April 7) where he rather unwisely dismisses most of what Derek Farwell says in his letter.

We have reached and passed the time of “Peak Oil” production. Oil will soon gradually become scarcer and therefore more expensive and possibly rationed. At some time between 2010 and 2020 the world's supply of oil and gas will fall below the level required to meet international demand.

He also says we can use hydrogen powered cars and electric cars which can be manufactured or charged by using nuclear power – what nuclear power? The power stations are old and about to close! And anyway the transfer of energy in this way is very inefficient.

Let’s face it, cheap power to drive is soon coming to an end. In any case, Derek Fawell’s main point was Climate Change and CO2 production. It has been stated in previous letters to this paper that the Dorset County Council’s own figures show a projected increase in CO2 production from the new road of over 2000 tonnes in the first year alone. (New roads induce more car use). Surely Mr Kirby has noticed the recent U.N. releases recently about the seriousness of global warming – among all the many other similar statements?!

Finally, and perhaps most important, where does Mr Kirby think all this road building will end? Even if cars carry on indefinitely (which they won’t), will he keep building more and more roads?

Guy Dickinson 30th April 2007

May I please make two points that have arisen recently?

The first concerns the article in the Echo (21st April) featuring Messrs Tweed, Piles, Stephens and White of Strategic Planning who claimed “the £77 million relief road is 'critical' to a successful games”. Mr White said there may be 35,000 spectators for the games and not 15,000, as reported to the International Olympic Committee. Roughly about 200,000 attend the Weymouth Carnival each year so 35,000 is not a very significant number, even if Mr White’s guess is an accurate one. Incidentally, the Chinese are planning for just 8,000 in 2008!

Mr White should know by now that his pet project is not vital to the success of the Games. He should start to listen to the Olympic Delivery Authority to whom he is responsible.

It might be of interest that the Chinese have said of their sailing venue: “During construction, we also take the protection of natural landscapes into consideration” adding that they plan to build a tunnel through a hill rather than construct a road over it in order to preserve the countryside. It is clear that the Chinese People's Republic has more concern for safeguarding its unique environment than Dorset County Council has for safeguarding ours – which, the Council continually reminds us, is Dorset residents' number one priority.

Secondly, coming up to the elections, I have to say it is almost comical how the local politicians totally defy their official party policies to suit themselves. Actually its tragic.

The bicycling and the prudent environmental words from Mr Cameron will obviously take some time to reach the local Conservatives!

The local Labour party are completely at odds with their masters. Mr Blair said “we cannot simply build more and more roads, particularly when the evidence suggests that traffic quickly grows to fill any new capacity”. Mr Knight, however, has become an almost fanatical road builder instead, using every trick in the book to do so. Most of the Labour councillors seem to follow his lead – they too presumably think it will help their own personal careers.

However, the most surprising perhaps are the Liberal Democrats, whose Shadow Transport Secretary, Alistair Carmichael MP, said last November: "The Stern Report showed that action is needed now to encourage people out of cars and on to buses and trains. Spending ever larger sums on road building is no way to achieve this." Yet a Lib Dem councillor on the planning committee said he didn’t understand carbon dioxide and its effects, and that we need more roads, not less. [Removed by Editor - But most amazing is Mr Beaman, standing for election, who actually puts the Relief Road as his most important issue!!]

I’m afraid it is hardly surprising politicians command such little respect from the public!