Hereford Transport Package (HTP)
- Meeting of General scrutiny committee, Wednesday 18 July 2018 10.00 am (Item 14.)
- View the background to item 14.
To undertake pre-decision call in scrutiny of the Cabinet’s proposed decision to select a preferred route for Hereford bypass as part of the Hereford Transport package.
Note: Please note that the appendices to the Cabinet report as listed below have been published individually as supplements. They include some very large files that may take some time to download. The screen may appear blank for a time during this process:
Appendix 1 - Hereford Transport Package Phase 2 Consultation report
Appendix 2 - Hereford Transport Package Stage 2 Scheme Assessment Report
Appendix 3 - Hereford Transport Package Stage 2 Environmental Assessment Report
Appendix 4 - Hereford Transport Package Route Selection Report
Appendix 5 - Hereford Transport Package Preferred Route Report
Appendix 6 - Hereford Transport Package Active Travel Measures Report
Appendix 7 - Hereford Transport Package Equality Impact Assessment
The Committee undertook pre-decision call in scrutiny of the Cabinet’s proposed decision to select a preferred route for Hereford bypass as part of Hereford Transport Package.
The draft report for submission to Cabinet on 27 July was appended to the report.
Councillor PD Price, cabinet member – infrastructure, (CMI) made an opening statement.
The principal points were:
· The Hereford bypass was a key infrastructure project that was necessary to drive the economic growth of Hereford and the region. It was recognised as a priority project not only in the council’s Economic Vision, Local Plan Core Strategy (LPCS) and Local Transport Plan (LTP) but also within the Marches Strategic Economic Plan and Midlands Connect regional transport strategy.
· The Hereford Transport Package would enable the delivery of essential future housing, employment and the new University. It would provide an alternative route for traffic which currently travels through the city reducing the current impact on air quality and noise within the city in particular in relation to homes and schools close to the existing A49 road. The bypass would provide a reliable and resilient route around the city which would have significant regional benefits. It would improve road safety in the city, enable significant improvements to the city’s public realm and encourage healthy lifestyles by helping more people to walk and cycle.
· The consultation had a total of 4,351 responses. In their response 68% of people said they agreed that the HTP would help to address the transport problems in Hereford and enable growth. 59% believed a bypass should form part of the package of measures and 87% said that they agreed a package should include walking, cycling, bus and public realm measures.
· Consultants had assessed the environmental, engineering, economic and traffic factors affecting the different routes and prepared detailed reports. The recommendation was that the red route should be the preferred route for further development.
· The red route would mean fewer homes were exposed to excessive noise; fewer homes would need to be demolished; a lower impact on Belmont Park and the setting of Belmont Abbey, a lower impact on ancient woodland and important trees and a lower impact on Yazor Brook which would mean a lower cost of mitigation.
· Subject to cabinet’s decision consultants would carry out further work to develop detailed proposals for the design of the red route which would then be subject to a further public consultation later in the year. The results would inform a future cabinet decision to confirm the bypass scheme and associated package measures in early 2019.
· Alongside scheme development, the Council continued to engage with relevant Government departments and agencies regarding the funding for the scheme.
The Head of Infrastructure Delivery (HID) presented the draft cabinet report.
A video showing the shortlist of possible bypass routes that had been used during the phase 2 consultation was shown.
The Project Director WSP (PDWSP) then gave a presentation a copy of which is attached to these minutes at Appendix 2.
Local ward members for wards where there was potentially a particular impact had been invited to attend and make a statement highlighting issues that had been identified by residents in the respective wards.
Councillor TL Bowes was unable to attend the meeting. She had submitted a statement that had been circulated to members of the Committee and was read to the meeting by the Chairman on her behalf. In summary this stated:
· She was one of the residents affected by the proposals.
· From personal experience, as well as from residents in and around Belmont, she was aware of the traffic chaos in Hereford. Like all residents she wanted the traffic problems in Hereford to be fixed. However, she did not believe the proposal would address the issues faced by residents. Studies showed that eighty percent of Hereford city traffic was local, with only 20% of traffic through traffic. The proposal to build new homes would mean a much larger increase in traffic with most of those people wanting to get into the City.
· Belmont Rural Parish Council’s formal response to the consultation stated if the road were to go ahead then their preferred option would be the olive/black route as this would have less impact on Belmont residents. Their feedback and that of local residents appeared to have been ignored.
· The proposed road will have a massive impact on residents. There were options which meant the road could be built further away from existing homes, lessening the impact, pollution and noise levels but the red route which had the most impact on residents had been chosen.
· In the consultation exercise residents had very clearly shown they want the council to prioritise walking, cycling and active transport measures. It was suggested these should be considered first rather than after the consultation. There were other options such as building another bridge (a bridge to the East is already being investigated by the City Council), it would cost a fraction of the money, could be built relatively quickly and would be used by many businesses especially those on Rotherwas, remove some traffic lights, subsidise buses, create more cycle routes.
· More housing was needed in Hereford, especially low-cost housing for local people. The council needed to plan but could be innovative in its choices and be a “leader” rather than a follower.
· The Committee should consider residents affected by the plan and, if the bypass was to proceed, listen to residents and parish councils and choose the route with the least impact. It was stated that the red route had the least environmental impact. It had a massive impact for many Belmont Residents and account should be taken of their views.
Councillor RI Matthews made a statement. In summary he stated that the principal constraints in respect of the road were: the proposal had a damaging impact on homes and businesses, the landscape character, the River Wye Special Area of Conservation (SAC), and Site of Special Scientific interest (SSI) and surrounding wildlife habitats. The need for a high level viaduct over the River Wye would introduce extra noise and vibration and light pollution. There was an adverse effect on the Yazor brook flood plain. The geography meant that aquifers could be close to the surface adding to engineering problems. There was an Environment Agency groundwater protection zone. There was a risk to bore holes at the Three Elms relied on by Heineken and Cargills. There would also be an adverse effect on archaeology, the Hatton trail, and Belmont Abbey. There would be blocking of bridleways. The bisection of the Three Elms housing site would cause noise vibration and air pollution. Destruction of and harm to of ancient, veteran and notable trees. Destruction of parkland at Belmont House. High level crossing of River Wye SAC/SSI east of Warham house. Impacts on homes and businesses in Warham, the Queen Elizabeth II jubilee field held in trust, Warham farm including the community farm, destruction of old woodland and plants alongside the river, surface water pollution, destruction of the avenue of lime trees on Kings Acre Road. Referring to a case in West Sussex he suggested a decision to proceed would be subject to judicial review. He also expressed dissatisfaction with the cabinet member’s approach suggesting that it was time for someone else to lead on the issue, taking an independent approach.
Councillor PE Crockett commented that she endorsed the comments made by Councillor Bowes and Matthews. The main issue raised by her constituents was how it was possible to proceed with a decision in the absence of responses to the consultation from Highways England and Natural England.
Councillor J Johnson commented that he was an adjoining ward member but the route did not directly affect his ward.
(The meeting adjourned between 11.12 and 11.30.)
The Committee commenced its debate by seeking in the first instance to address the points that had been raised by public questions before proceeding to raise other issues.
In discussion the following principal points were made:
· It was asked whether Warham Community Farm had been taken into account during consultations and in the Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA).
The cabinet member infrastructure stated that this was the case. He outlined several discussions that had taken place. The upshot was that the landowner had indicated he was prepared to safeguard the farm as an enterprise within his landholding.
The PDWSP added that the EqIA identified issues relating to the community farm as did the route selection report.
Members proposed that the landlord and the operators of Hereford Community Farm should be asked to confirm their position in writing.
· Clarification was sought on the production of a value for money assessment.
The PDWSP commented that a benefit cost ratio analysis was not relevant to the route selection process. That analysis would be presented to the Department of Transport as part of the submission of the business case for the Hereford Transport Package as a whole.
A member commented that there was an opportunity cost to the council of allocating funding to the HTP that could be used elsewhere and the council therefore had to demonstrate the value for money of that expenditure.
The PDWSP commented that once the preferred route was agreed further detailed work could be undertaken on active travel measures. Some major aspects of these measures were dependent upon the bypass, others could be progressed independently of it. Everything was being done in line with national guidance.
The Assistant Director Environment and Place (ADEP) commented that the council would have to make a decision based on overall value for money. That would be based on overall cost benefits when a decision to progress it was required and having regard to funding provided by government and what would be expected to be provided locally. Development undertaken to date was in accordance with the Core Strategy and the Local Transport Plan.
· It was questioned to what extent the active travel measures and projects such as the university were dependent upon the bypass.
· Members proposed that it would be helpful if high level information to aid understanding the process of delivering a new road scheme were to be provided to members and the public.
· Members also proposed that presentations delivered to the Committee be made publicly available with the cabinet papers. Officers also acknowledged comments that setting out the ‘summary of the suite of documents’ more prominently would assist members and members of the public to access the information.
· It was asked whether there was any action the council could take to divert traffic from the A49 through the City onto the bypass if the existing route were not detrunked.
The CMI commented that detrunking would be a decision for the Secretary of State to take once the road had been built.
The ADEP commented that the Council was working closely with Highways England on the bypass scheme and active travel measures. Any measures with a bearing on the A49 if it were not detrunked would need to be agreed with the Department of Transport. However, the council controlled the other radial roads and working with Highways England a number of measures could be taken regardless of whether the A49 was detrunked.
The PDWSP added that the council would be able to influence the choice of route by drivers through signing and other measures. People would soon realise that it was quicker to use the bypass.
· Assurance was sought that the conclusions presented to the Committee were the result of a robust and objective process. It was requested that it be highlighted to the Committee where there were any report areas where the underlying studies and analyses may have been relatively incomplete or weak.
The ADEP commented that it had been emphasised to the consultants that the reports needed to be comprehensive. The technical process had been subject to independent review by Atkins, a separate consultancy. That had concluded that the process that WSP and BBLP had followed had been satisfactory and appropriate. Independent legal advice had also been sought and that had concluded that the paperwork to be presented to Cabinet was satisfactory to support the decision making process.
The independent reviews had not identified the absence of a response to the consultation from Highways England and Natural England as a weakness. As the briefing supplement issued to the Committee noted the project team was working closely with these and all other appropriate statutory bodies.
Members proposed that Natural England and Highways England should be requested to make a consultation response on the route selection, if they wished.
· It was observed that BBLP had not formally signed off the quality control section on the front of the reports before the Committee.
The Project Director BBLP (PDBBLP) confirmed that he had seen the reports and had submitted them to the Council. Subject to any updates, such as might arise as a result of the Committee’s meeting, he was content to sign the final version.
Members proposed that it should be ensured that all reports presented to cabinet were formally signed off by BBLP, to provide assurance.
· Whilst there had not been a formal response from Highways England or Natural England to the consultation process it was asked if these bodies had made any separate submissions or expressed opinions that it would have been appropriate to include in the information before the Committee.
The HID commented that whilst they were working closely with Highways England they had expressed no preference on the route. Highways England remained supportive of the scheme.
In relation to Natural England there were impacts associated with the scheme and work would continue with them to develop mitigation measures that were satisfactory to them.
The ADEP commented that Highways England had made clear on the public record that the bypass was a scheme Herefordshire Council was promoting. Highways England were part of Midlands Connect and that organisation’s strategy included the Hereford bypass as an early priority. Highways England was therefore supportive of the principle of the bypass. As it was a council scheme they were consultees on the detail but were not responsible for choosing the route.
· The anxiety of residents needed to be recognised.
· In response to a question the PDBBLP commented that at this preliminary design stage the red route was some 270m from Belmont Abbey, 425m from Belmont House, 95 metres from Warham House and from the eastern side of the bypass it was some 100m to the edge of the community farm buildings. The route did clip the Warham farm outbuildings as it crossed the lane at lower Breinton.
· In relation to the economic viability of the Bay Horse Inn on King’s Acre Road, the HID commented that construction of a roundabout in that location meant the approach to that would require some land from the corner of the Bay Horse car park. The building itself would not be affected; the access to it from King’s Acre Road would require examination.
· On the subject of peak journey times the PDWSP commented that whichever route was agreed it would be tested in conjunction with the active travel measures. This would enable traffic flows and journey times to be assessed. This work remained to be done and the detail of the interaction between the bypass and the active travel measures was not known at the moment.
· It was suggested that given the volume of technical information a matrix summarising the comparative advantages and disadvantages of the routes and why the red route had been selected would be beneficial. The PDWSP commented that this could be done but this would not reflect the logic and the reasoning set out in the route selection report.
Members discussed this proposal but the consensus was that sufficient information was available within the existing documentation and the production of a summary should not form a recommendation.
· The documentation in a section on the impact on people and communities (appendix 3 section 13.6) referred to subjectivity in the assessment of views and a reliance on modelling that was 20 years old.
The HID commented that the DMRB standards were national standards to which local authorities and Highways England worked. A number of these were 20 years old but they remained the current standards that authorities were required to follow. The council would use new guidance as it was produced.
· With reference to public questions 14 and 15 the PDWSP commented that the standard of the road had not yet been decided. This depended on the traffic modelling work. If this indicated all or parts of the road needed to be dual carriageway this could be accommodated within the route corridor. An assessment had been carried out on noise and air quality. Overall the red route was the best performing route.
· In relation to reduction of HGV traffic through the City the PDWSP commented that this was not relevant to the selection of a preferred route because the same amount of diversion would be expected whichever route were to be selected. The assessment to date had focussed on comparing the relative impact of the routes. The benefits in air quality in noise reduction and from active travel measures had not been presented to the Committee.
· It was asked why, as local residents in the Belmont Rural ward had indicated a preference for the olive route, the red route been preferred at that point. The PDWSP stated that at that section of route it was clear that yellow, cyan and orange routes were worse in terms of noise. The choice between olive black 1 and red/black 2 was a much finer choice initially. In terms of noise levels, olive black 1 affected 12 properties, red black 2 affected 13. However, it would be difficult if not impossible to provide acceptable noise mitigation on olive black 1. It would involve noise bunds that would have an adverse impact on an historic environment and its setting. It would be much easier to provide noise reduction measures on red black 2 given the topography and this would not have the same impact on the historic setting.
· A question was asked as to whether in assessing consultation responses any greater weighting had been given to responses from organisations as opposed to individuals. The PDWSP explained how the report on the outcome of the consultation had been compiled including responses to the questionnaire and written responses. No relative weighting had been applied between questionnaire responses and written responses. The information that had been received had been presented in the report.
· The Environmental Lead, WSP commented on discussions with the Woodland Trust. The Trust had wanted to avoid impact on Drovers Wood and on ancient woodland and ancient veteran trees. The red route avoided Drovers Wood and avoided direct impact on ancient woodland. The red route had one of the lower impacts on ancient and veteran trees along its length.
· The HID commented that the detailed design would seek to mitigate the impact of the route.
· The PDWSP confirmed in relation to public question 3 that the increases in cost estimates applied to all routes. The red route was the second cheapest. However, cost had not influenced the choice of route. There was little difference between the routes in terms of traffic and engineering. Environmental and social impacts, including noise and the impact on the historic environment, had been strong differentiators.
· The HID outlined the provisions for compensation for those whose properties were directly affected. There was a frequently asked questions section on the council website and the council had offered support and advice. She confirmed that the council could consider discretionary powers.
Members proposed that a range of discretionary powers to compensate households impacted by the proposed route be considered and options presented back to this committee at the appropriate time.
· It was suggested that every effort should be made to ensure that good practice was followed in relation to measures to facilitate movement corridors for wildlife and people.
The HID commented that the detailed mitigation measures would be set out in the stage 3 consultation and if a planning application were made these would need to be included in an environmental statement. Part of the project brief was to achieve a net positive biodiversity gain.
Members proposed that detailed proposals on the biodiversity measures come back to this committee for their own scrutiny once a decision on a preferred route has been taken with a detailed design at an appropriate time.
· It was asked if account was being taken of lessons learned from other similar projects across the country.
The PDWSP commented that active travel measures were key in this regard and that was the single biggest lesson that had been learned by the industry. The bypass and the active travel measures were a package and it was crucial comprehensive measures were implemented to improve travelling conditions in the city for pedestrians and cyclists.
It was asked whether consideration of active traffic management techniques would form part of the future consideration of the project and contribute to more sophisticated traffic modelling.
The PDWSP commented that there were a number of simple measures identified in the consultation responses that would benefit pedestrians and cyclists, including being able to cross roads and negotiate junctions more easily and safely. It was important in considering more ambitious aspects of the package that these simple measures were not overlooked. There was a limit to what could be considered within the HTP. He understood the council was looking at other measures outside that package.
It was observed that it was important that lessons were learned from some active travel measures that had been implemented in the county that had not proved successful, for instance some cycle schemes. The ADEP commented that there was a wish to design schemes to the best possible standard. There were some exemplary schemes within the county and expert input was being sought. The council was part of the government’s local cycling and walking infrastructure planning process giving access to additional support from the Department of Transport to design and develop plans for cycling and walking in the city.
Members proposed that detailed proposals on the active travel measures come back to the committee for their own scrutiny once a decision on a preferred route had been taken, with identification of those active travel measures that can go ahead regardless of delivery of the by-pass at the appropriate time.
(The meeting adjourned between 13.07 and 13.55 pm.)
· With reference to public question 10 it was remarked that Appendix 3 section 4.9.2 stated that it was assumed there was no scenario under which the Hereford Bypass would be constructed without the Southern Link Road (SLR) first being in place.
The ADEP referred to the paragraphs on this subject set out in the supplementary briefing note concluding that the SLR was a committed development and had no bearing on the choice of a preferred route.
· It was asked whether the level of consultation response was sufficient for weight to be given to it.
The PDWSP confirmed that the response was large enough to take account of the views submitted. All responses had been reviewed and assessed and taken into account. The specific views of specific businesses had not been taken on explicitly. In contrast, the response from Historic England was one to which particular regard had been had. Their response in relation to Belmont Park had expressed their view that red black 2 would be preferable having regard to the effect on the historic environment.
· The PDWSP explained that the company carried out similar work for many other local authorities, for Highways England and for the Welsh Government.
· In the consultation process the public had been provided with plans showing the lines of the route. However, these did not show the effect of the routes within the landscape of the numerous embankments and cuttings and enable the public to gain a real impression of them. It was questioned whether an informed response could have been given in such circumstances and whether this undermined the consultation response.
The PDWSP commented that the usual approach had been followed. The Government process that had to be followed was based on proportionality. This meant giving sufficient information at the appropriate time to enable people to make reasonable and sensible decisions. It would be extremely expensive to provide such modelling along what was an 8km route. He did not consider that the consultation response had been undermined. It was normal not to provide that level of detail at this stage for a scheme that was so long and complex.
The PDBBLP confirmed that further work had been undertaken since the consultation but the information was only indicative. The detailed design work would provide full detail. At the moment there was a 50 metre corridor for each of the 7 options. Engineering drawings had been made to enable comparison of the 7 routes.
A Member recorded concern that detailed information had not been available for key locations and crossing points, noting with regard to cost that several stretches of the route coincided.
The ADEP commented that the design to date was for indicative purposes to enable comparisons to be made. The council had not determined the final design of the scheme.
· Appendix 3 (5.7.31) indicated that the national expectation was reductions in emissions would be achieved through improvements in vehicle technology. It was asked whether the modelling was assuming the same number of cars, and therefore no reduction in congestion, but reduced emissions as a consequence of this technological improvement.
The PDWSP commented that the issue did not have a bearing on the route selection. The traffic forecasting methodology was laid down by government. This took account of a range of factors including demographic change, fuel price and technology. The bypass and active travel measures would improve traffic flow and journey times through the city centre.
· It was questioned why percentages were used at some points in the reports and actual numbers at others. The PDWSP commented that the aim had been to provide both and that the full information was available within the documentation.
· A Member suggested that the statistics quoted by the CMI in his introduction in relation to those expressing support for a bypass required clarification in that the reference was to those who had responded to that question in the consultation document. Not all respondents had answered that question. The PDWSP commented that the figure quoted, that 59% of people supported the bypass, was in answer to a direct question within the consultation. Account could only be taken of those who answered specific questions.
Another Member noted that the relevant information was available within the consultation report.
· Page 30 of the consultation report 6.1.43 stated that people were negative about whether the scheme would meet its objectives. It was suggested that this should be explicitly considered moving forward to increase public confidence on this point.
· It was asked how, in view of the severe impacts it was stated the scheme would have, the claim that biodiversity would be improved would be monitored and evidenced, over what timeframe, and what action would be taken if it was found not have improved.
The HID reiterated that it the aim was to have net benefit biodiversity gain. The ADEP added that the question related to the detailed design and monitoring of the scheme not to the selection of the route. There would be a monitoring process and that would be set out at a later stage.
The ELWSP outlined the approach to mitigation, achieving biodiversity net gain and how this would be monitored and measured.
Members proposed that detailed proposals on the biodiversity measures were reported to the committee for their own scrutiny once a decision on a preferred route has been taken with a detailed design at an appropriate time.
· It had been stated that the red route had less impact on the Yazor Brook area. Clarification was sought on the mitigation proposed in that area.
The PDWSP commented that the red route crossed at a narrower part of the flood plain so it required a smaller structure to mitigate the effect. He confirmed that this required less concrete to be used and was cheaper.
· It was asked what the impacts were on the domestic and commercial water supply and whether the red route had a better or more detrimental impact.
The CMI commented that it was part of Welsh Water’s Asset Management Programme to meet future demand in Hereford. It had no relevance to the road and route selection.
The ADEP added that Welsh Water’s scheme would be delivered in advance of the road scheme. The detailed design of the road scheme would take account of the assets of Statutory Undertakers, in the same way as any other scheme would.
· It was asked whether regard had been had to neighbourhood development plans in particular Breinton NDP B15 and B16 where the new bridge would cross the river.
The ADEP commented that planning policies were set out in documentation and consultants had taken them into account. The Planning Coordinator, WSP stated that all adopted neighbourhood development plans were referred to in the route selection report and had been given weight.
· It was asked whether mindful of cost a decision in principle only should be taken on a preferred route until it was confirmed that the southern link road could be delivered as planned.
The HID explained the remit of the Public Inquiry relating to the exercise of powers to acquire land for the SLR. Discussions were ongoing with landowners and the inquiry would take place if agreement was not reached. The Inquiry would deal specifically with land required for that scheme alone.
The ADEP commented that the costs identified in the report were the costs of doing the next stage of work. Any impact would be on the delivery timescale of the bypass. The Core Strategy envisaged the bypass being delivered part way through the core strategy period to enable growth in Hereford to take place.
The CMI added that it was likely that slippage in the programme would mean increased cost. The intention was to avoid this and deliver the scheme as quickly as possible.
· A planning inspector had stated that the HTP route decision should be delegated to the Hereford Area Plan (HAP). It was questioned what implications there were of taking a decision on a route ahead of that Plan.
The CMI commented that the HAP would take account of the decision on the route.
· In response to a question about the loss of grade 1 and 2 agricultural land the PDBBLP commented that this amounted to some 50 hectares and there was very little difference in land take between the routes.
· It was asked what areas of the decision relating to the selection of the red route caused the most concern in each topic area.
The PDWSP commented that he was confident that the documentation produced represented a sound professional piece of work that correctly identified the relative advantages and disadvantages of the options and enabled the routes to be compared against one another in a consistent way leading to the conclusion as to which was the best performing route overall.
The ADEP added that the assessment highlighted the issues that had been taken into account. The body of work stood as a whole.
· A Member commented that the Committee had been examining whether the appropriate evidence base had been assembled and whether the process and analysis and decision making was robust to support the selection of the red route. He had not observed any weaknesses in the approach that had been taken. The Committee should be cautious if it was minded to recommend any fundamentally different outcomes.
A majority of members indicated support for the selection of the red route.
That (a) the executive be recommended:
I. that Natural England and Highways England are requested that they make a consultation response on the route selection, if they wish;
the landlord and the operators of Hereford
Community Farm be asked if they would be prepared to write a
statement as to the impact of the preferred route on the
deliverability of their service;
III. presentations delivered to the scrutiny committee be made publicly available with the cabinet member papers; and
IV. it be ensured that all reports presented to cabinet are formally signed off by BBLP, to provide assurance;
(b) the executive be advised that the committee feels able to support the proposed red route based on the current evidence presented, subject to the above recommendations;
(c) a high level members briefing seminar for all members on understanding the process of delivering a new road scheme be provided, from which councillors can disseminate that understanding to members of the public and the information be placed on the council website;
(d) detailed proposals on the active travel measures come back to the committee for their own scrutiny once a decision on a preferred route has been taken, with identification of those active travel measures that can go ahead regardless of delivery of the by-pass at the appropriate time;
(e) detailed proposals on the biodiversity measures come back to this committee for their own scrutiny once a decision on a preferred route has been taken with a detailed design at an appropriate time; and
(f) a range of discretionary powers to compensate households impacted by the proposed route are considered and options are presented back to this committee at the appropriate time.
- Hereford Transport Package - General Scrutiny Report, item 14. PDF 308 KB
- Hereford Transport Package (HTP), main report, item 14. PDF 1 MB
- Supplement Supplement 1 - Appendix 1 - Hereford Transport Package Phase 2 Consultation report 1807_Redacted, item 14. PDF 45 MB
- Supplement Supplement 2 - Appendix 2 - Hereford Transport Package Stage 2 Scheme Assessment Report _Redacted, item 14. PDF 38 MB
- Supplement Supplement 3 - Appendix 3 - Hereford Transport Package Stage 2 Environmental Assessment R_Redacted, item 14. PDF 160 MB
- Supplement Supplement 4 - Appendix 4 - Hereford Transport Package Route Selection Report 18072018_Redacted, item 14. PDF 7 MB
- Supplement Supplement 5 - Appendix 5 - Hereford Transport Package Preferred Route Report 18072018_Redacted, item 14. PDF 1 MB
- Supplement Supplement 6 - Appendix 6 - Hereford Transport Package Active Travel Measures Report 18_Redacted, item 14. PDF 4 MB
- Supplement Supplement 7 - Appendix 7 - Hereford Transport Package Equality Impact Assessment 1807_Redacted, item 14. PDF 2 MB
- Supplementary questions from scrutiny -18 July 2018, item 14. PDF 335 KB