A heated debate has erupted over Herefordshire Council's ambitious plans for a £40 million bypass project, with the public demanding transparency and accountability from the transport department. The controversy revolves around the council's preparations for the first phase of the bypass, which has sparked concerns among residents and local leaders alike.
During a recent cabinet meeting, the council's transport chief, Councillor Philip Price, faced a barrage of questions regarding the project's progress and decision-making process. The meeting focused on the council's proposal to acquire approximately 30 hectares of land between the A49 and A465 for the bypass construction, with a target start date within the next year.
But here's where it gets controversial: the council has yet to make public its detailed plans and justifications for pursuing a compulsory purchase order (CPO), a move that has raised eyebrows among residents and city councillors.
Resident Jim Hardy took the opportunity to grill Councillor Price, asking why the plan had not been shared with the public. Price's response, that the council intended to publish the details "in due course", left many unsatisfied.
Hardy pointed out that the council's "statement of reasons" for the CPO option, which referenced transport modelling from 2025, had not been made available. This statement, he argued, was crucial to understanding the benefits and impact of the bypass project.
And this is the part most people miss: the council's own councillor, Jeremy Milln, who was not representing the council at the meeting, revealed that Price had previously assured him that environmental impact studies and a full business case review would be in place "later this year". However, in a written response to Milln before the meeting, Price stated that these would be provided "next year, ahead of the construction contract award".
Milln called out Price's response as "untruthful" and demanded that he either correct his previous statement or provide the business case and studies this year. Price's reply was evasive, promising to "write to [Milln] with an answer" as they navigate various time delays.
The transport chief also addressed resident Emil Morfett's concerns about the project's biodiversity impact, assuring him that the council had allocated a budget to meet the necessary biodiversity net gain requirements.
Another resident, Tracey Bowes, highlighted the potential benefits of the bypass for Bloor Homes' proposed 540-home development, which is awaiting planning permission. However, she questioned why the council had not secured funding from this specific developer or future developers to contribute to the bypass's costs.
Price acknowledged the complexity of the issue and promised to provide a written response.
As the debate rages on, the public awaits clarity and transparency from the council. With differing opinions and interpretations, it's time for the council to provide answers and address the concerns of its residents. What do you think? Should the council be more forthcoming with its plans, or is there a valid reason for keeping certain details under wraps? Share your thoughts in the comments below!
