Easton Lane Link— inquiry - Trust Annual Report 1979
In August the announcement of an inquiry into the proposed Easton Lane Link Road presented the Winchester Preservation Trust with a difficult decision: how much of its resources should be committed to objections at this inquiry, which could only be regarded as an overture to the inquiry into the far reaching proposals contained in the draft Winchester Town Centre Plan. The cost of mounting an effective objection at any Public Inquiry tends to run to thousands rather than hundreds of pounds if professional witnesses and counsel are to be employed. Clearly, the Town Centre Plan proposals will have the more important impact on Winchester, and the proper investigation into those proposals and preparation of any objections thereto should not be prejudiced by diversion of resources into the preliminary Easton Lane Link Road inquiry. Yet the Easton Lane proposals did have a direct bearing on the traffic management problems in the Town Centre, and it was the view of the Trust that a decision on this access road would pre-empt certain solutions to that problem and would have a direct influence on the specific proposal to widen North Walls, on which the Trust had already expressed its concern. For the Easton Lane inquiry, therefore, it was decided that the Trust should pool its financial resources with other objectors to employ a professional town planning witness — Mr. Leslie Ginsburg, A.A.Dip.l., A.R.I.B.A., Dist.T.P., F.R.T.P.I. of Associated Planning Consultants — because much of the town planning groundwork and research would be common to both inquiries. The Trust committed itself to £500 as its share of the expenditure on the Easton Lane inquiry.
The inquiry itself lasted for only six days, and then was adjourned for six months at the request of the County Council to permit adequate preparation of the County's evidence. At the start of the inquiry the County claimed that the Easton Lane proposal stood on its own merits: the road was needed whatever the outcome of the M3 and Town Centre Plan inquiries. The County was asked by objectors and by the Inspector to submit evidence to substantiate this claim. This evidence was accepted by the Counsel for the County as both important and relevant to the County's case, yet after a few days the County had to seek a 'sine die' adjournment on the grounds that the traffic data required was so complex that considerable time was required to prepare the computer models and forecasts. It is difficult to interpret this extraordinary development in any way other than the result of inadequate preparation by the County Surveyor's Department. For many years now this road proposal has been included in the list of urgently required projects by the County: yet as soon as it is submitted to independent scrutiny the evidence to justify that need requires several months to be obtained. Not surprisingly the inspector before granting the adjournment did criticise the County's conduct.
While this particular feature was the most glaring of the County's shortcomings, it was by no means an isolated instance. For example, it was not until the opening day of the inquiry itself that the County Surveyor's Department was willing to recognise that there was a conflict in the plans it had prepared to show the nature of its proposals. In order to resolve this conflict, the County on the opening day agreed to withdraw certain compulsory purchase orders and not to implement certain planning consents that had already been obtained. The ratepayer might be forgiven for wondering how the cost of issuing such purchase orders and obtaining such planning consents was justified in the first place.
Then again on many occasions, even as recently as the County Surveyor's report to the Planning and Transportation Committee on 29th October, 1979, it has been claimed that this road is urgently needed to relieve traffic in Southgate Street and in Chesil Street. The traffic data submitted to the inquiry, however, indicated that the Easton Lane Link road had no effect on the traffic in Southgate Street and actually increased the flow in Chesil Street. Unless explained, such discrepancies between the information given to County Councillors and the data submitted to an independent Inspector must cause concern to any Society that looks for responsible decision making by Local Planning and Highway Authorities.
Overall, it is unfortunate that the County Council has adopted standards in the presentation of this road proposal that have fallen well short of those recommended by the Leitch Committee. Although the Leitch recom¬mendations are not yet mandatory for local Authorities, the Preservation Trust would expect them to serve as a model below which no responsible authority would seek to set its own standards. In particular, the County Surveyor's Department has been most reluctant to release to representatives of the Trust the source data on which the traffic forecasts and assignments have been prepared. The Trust hopes that this information will be made available more willingly in time for the resumption of the Easton Lane inquiry and for the Town Centre Plan inquiry. The County Council as the Highway Authority is responsible for the traffic data used in the preparation of the Town Centre Plan. It will, therefore, be unfortunate if continuing uncertainty about that data prevents proper consideration of the many important proposals contained in that plan. Many would support the view that the future development of Winchester is too important a matter for it to be based on faulty traffic assumptions and data.