Here is a nice photo of Llanbedr on a fine summer day. It graces the front page of Gwynedd Council’s Environmental Statement, which it has prepared to support it’s plans to build a bypass round the village. This wonderful document is all about what a jolly good care your council is taking of your surroundings. It runs to over 500 pages.

The photograph is taken from the middle of the field to the west of Maes Artro, looking north across Mochras Road, the bend in the river beside the riverside car park and picnic area, and along the line of the proposed bypass to the houses beside the main road at the north end of the village. It shows the attractive and tranquil countryside that Llanbedr is set in.

And now here is a graphic taken from Gwynedd Council’s ‘Fly Through’ video simulation of what their lovely new bypass will look like if they get to build it. This shows exactly the same location as it will be if a bypass is built, with the bend in the river and the car park, but from a slightly different angle,.

Although the video attempts to disguise the new bridge as much as possible by using some convenient placed trees to screen it, just look at the height of the bridge as represented in the ‘Fly Through’ image and then the size of the car that is approaching it. Clearly the height of the bridge where it crosses Mochras Road is not represented accurately in the video. No commercial vehicle could possibly pass under it, and even a car might be in danger of scraping its roof.

With that in mind, it’s worth taking another look at the first picture. Bear in mind what the bridge looks like, and then consider the environmental impact on the village, and the whole area around it, if a new road very similar to the Porthmadog Bypass is constructed on embankments at Llanbedr.

Data obtained from the Welsh Government under the Freedom of Information Act seems to show that the cost of a bypass has escalated rapidly even before the scheme has got off the drawing board.

A spend profile dated September 2016 estimates total expenditure to complete the project by quarter 2 of 2020 as £10,190,000.00.

Just four months later, another spend profile dated January 2017 shows expenditure to completion in quarter 2 of 2021 as £14,390,000.00.

That is an increase of £4,200,000.00, or over 40%.

The spend profiles can be found here, and it is worth noting that neither of them appear to include the half million pounds of funding allocated by the Welsh Government to kick-start the scheme prior to April 2016.

Among correspondence that was disclosed by Cardiff at the same time is this rather cryptic suggestion:

“Gc’s other option if WEFO doesn’t stack up is to include this scheme etc within the North Wales Growth deal bid to UK Gov.”

Translated, this apparently means that in order to obtain funding, Gwynedd Council is advised to apply to the UK Government if even the Welsh European Funding Office is reluctant to waste money on this inappropriate and unnecessary project. But wouldn’t it to be fascinating to know what ‘etc’ stands for in this context.

An eagle-eyed reader of Protect Llanbedr noticed this on page 107 of the Environmental Statement Gwynedd Council has made available as part of their so-called consultation about the Llanbedr bypass scheme.

5.3.27

The Economic impact assessment undertaken on this development suggests that the main impacts would be in the development of RPAS [Remotely Piloted Air System – aka drones] activities at the airfield. At the same time, improved road access is also considered to consolidate the employment in the airfield rather than induce huge increases. MRO [maintenance repair and overhaul] activity identified would be reliant in part on the development of the RPAS activities. Further development of the Business park is thought to be likely, although not a significant area of immediate growth.

 

5.3.28

In line with this, no specific physical development ofthe airfield site is currently planned or anticipated on a significant scale in the near future, with the economic model being based on the growth in industry primarily utilising existing infrastructure.

A 4 9 6 L l a n b e d r A c c e s s I m p r o v e m e n t: VOLUME 1: ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT

Now at the moment, ‘economic activity’ at the airfield seems only to be employing about 7 people full time (see here and here) in face of claims from the operators, Continue reading “Development? What development” →