Letter: Divided by a bypass: the Batheaston-Swainswick protest

Sir: Bel Mooney's tactics over the Batheaston-Swainswick bypass were never likely to win friends and influence people. So the reaction reported by Peter Dunn ('Bypass opponents anger villagers in traffic trap', 21 May) is hardly surprising. What is indefensible, however, is Ms Mooney's misleading attack on the bypass inquiry ('Dear Robert Key', 13 May).

After a six-month hearing, the inspector rejected one of the three components of the Department of Transport's scheme - the proposed link across the Avon of the A36 and the A4. He clearly understood not only the environmental damage the other two components would cause, but also the weight to be given to that. 'Traffic advantages and benefits to the national economy,' he said, 'should only be allowed to accrue if there is no disproportionate disadvantage in landscape and other environmental terms' (paragraph 13.6).

He had 'no hesitation in concluding that the Swainswick bypass should be built' and 'built to urban dual-carriageway standards' (13.82), notwithstanding its massive cost (13.131). For Batheaston, he concluded that 'the only solution is a bypass and the need for this transcends almost every other consideration' (13.87). The inspector's report was full, fair and realistic.

The public inquiry is an important part of the democratic structure. It enables the views of the ordinary person to be conveyed with the least dilution

to the decision-makers. As the

inspector observed, however, 'where judgement is involved, it is impossible to satisfy everybody' (13.37). What Ms Mooney advocates devalues the public inquiry process and means, in the final analysis, that disorder should displace fairness.

Yours faithfully,

R. C. H. BRIGGS

Coombe Bissett,

Wiltshire

21 May