THE White Elephant that is the Hampton new bridge project has indeed become a raging bull (a personal viewpoint)!

A Section 106 is mentioned in the original housing approval of 2012, an actual agreement was registered in 2014 which was replaced by the current agreement of September 3, 2020.

On enquiry I can find no source from where the idea of ‘a bridge’ came from in the first place.

I don’t think the town council were consulted on the idea and certainly not Evesham residents as such agreements are separate from the actual approval.

Some thought it would be a ‘nice thing to have’ without knowing the details.

There isn’t even a plan to connect it to the 2003 Wychavon-planed cycle route to Pershore!

If a ‘bridge’ was to be built, one next to the railway bridge connecting Bengeworth to the station would have had real utility — but that wouldn’t have been for ‘Hampton’.

That idea has been suggested several times, including at the planning stage for the new houses at the end of Kings Road, but totally ignored.

Worcestershire Highways staff have worked hard and diligently to produce the Evesham walking and cycling strategy but have had to do it entirely within their remit that only Evesham should be considered and of course had to comply with the recent national standard of LTN 1/20, a major cause of the cost increase on the new bridge itself and a good example of the ‘perfect’ being the enemy of the ‘good’.

The indicative cost for only the three ‘high’ priority plan routes for Evesham is some £23 million.

Will that happen?

A major obstacle to cost-effective active travel in the UK is the outdated design and regulation of the UK public highways.

It’s all about the ‘car’ with lip service for active travel even now and most importantly no attempt at producing an integrated system for easy and safe use for all.

I will bore people yet again that the UK should look at how the Swiss do things.

For the remaining funds of this bridge it would be possible to put in 40,000 Swiss-style yellow zebra crossings (an idea I promote!).

Those who know me will know that I’m passionate about ‘active travel’ and many people will be irritated by my view that 70 per cent of local journeys should be on foot or bicycle.

So I’m anxious that any resources available are best spent to that aim.

The question for the county council is should they continue with a white (possibly grey?) elephant or return the £3.1 million back to the developers and make full use of the remaining cash after the work so far and invest in something that will really aid active travel?

Robert Hale

Evesham