Return to magazine articles index

At a meeting of the Joint Advisory Committee (JAC) of the Wye Valley Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) in March, the proposals for a cycleway between Chepstow and Hereford, funded by SUSTRANS, were rejected. Thus many months of controversy at the impact of such an initiative on the Wye Valley AONB were brought to a close.

Early developments were featured in this magazine in the Autumn of 1998. At that time the JAC agreed 'in principle' to the notion of a cycleway and a Feasibility Study was commissioned. That report was presented to the Committee on 9th July 2001 when it was intended that public consultation should take place over a six week period, commencing the following month, with a decision on the preferred route being taken at the November meeting of the JAC. This was felt to be an unreasonably limited timetable given that the proposals had been many months in gestation. In the event the JAC acknowledged that the public, and indeed members, required a longer period for consideration. Consequently it determined that consultation would take place over a 12 week period from the end of September and that public meetings would be held at various venues along the route with copies of the report and displays in local libraries. Responses to the Feasibility Study were required by 17th December and the outcome would be reported upon at the JAC meeting in March 2002.

Monmouthshire CPRW had been participating in the Dean Environmental Alliance since the original JAC decision in 1998. This body, which included representatives from ramblers, horse riders and local communities, had been concerned previously with the development of cycle tracks in the Forest of Dean. The experience gained during that period proved invaluable in addressing the proposals for the Wye Valley.

During the consultation process, local newspapers carried many letters and articles advancing the arguments for and against the proposal. Local MPs and AMs were lobbied and the public meetings were well attended. Monmouthshire CPRW formed close links with our neighbouring branch of CPRE in Gloucestershire. This co- operation was particularly important because the proposed route for the cycleway between Chepstow and Hereford straddled the border between England and Wales as well as crossing several local authority boundaries.

Our submission on the Feasibility Report was one of more than 260 formal responses that the process generated. It had been intended that these would be reported to the members of the JAC 3 days before their meeting on 11th March. With others, we were concerned that this was an inadequate period for members to be able to consider the volume of submissions and it was an issue raised with Monmouth MP, Huw Edwards. Following his approach to the AONB authority, it was agreed that members would receive the papers 7 days in advance of their meeting.

The thrust of the branch response was that the cycleway proposals were incompatible with the statutory obligations for an AONB. These require a very careful balance between conserving and enhancing the natural beauty and that of increasing the understanding and enjoyment by the public of the special qualities of an AONB. The Statute is unambiguous wherever conflict arises, then the former duty must have priority. The lower Wye Valley is unique amongst AONBs in that it is a narrow river gorge of international renown. The Feasibility Study failed, in our view, to acknowledge the inherent conflicts and it minimised the impacts upon the natural beauty.

Cycling is an admirable, environmentally friendly alternative form of transport, especially when links can be created for local communities, so reducing the use of motor vehicles. The Study proposals, however, raised the spectre of increased vehicular traffic in the Wye Valley with forecasts of up to 170,000 cyclists per annum. The original concept had been of a 'linear cycle touring trail between Chepstow and Hereford ... intended primarily for long- distance touring cyclists ... rather than a short-distance day trip trail ..." In fact, as the Study admitted, only 30% would be likely to be touring cyclists (with just 10% 'end to end riders') and the remaining 70% would be "short trip day visitors'. Of particular concern was the finding that 65% of these visitors could be expected to arrive by car. The conclusion therefore was that rather than reducing car use on the narrow roads and lanes of the valley, there would be a substantial increase with an inevitable demand for extra car parks. In fact, it is a policy of the JAC not to increase parking facilities in the lower Wye Valley.

Parts of the proposed route would lie along former railway tracks, an option which would lessen impact upon surrounding landscape and the flora and fauna. Other parts were much more controversial. This was no more apparent that the section between Brockweir and Bigsweir where the preferred option had been to cut a swathe through the water meadows on the Gloucestershire bank of the river. At the JAC meeting in March there had been a recognition from the technical working group of officers that this would be wholly unacceptable although finding a compromise route was likely to prove difficult. Identifying acceptable routes would have been a formidable task for the planners had the cycleway proceeded. Private landowners were opposed and there were inherent road safety problems in the highway alternatives. Indeed, in our response, CPRW Monmouthshire made recommendations for alternative routes which would offer utilitarian links between communities.

The Wye Valley looking north from Llandogo

There were many issues raised by ourselves and other respondents, all of which were before the members of the JAC on 11th March. During the morning a round table discussion took place between members before they moved to the formal agenda in the afternoon. There, the recommendation from the officers was to submit to local authorities and other constituent bodies a preferred route with interim and contingency options, and to forward the Feasibility Study for adoption as a basis for progressing further work and decisions on the cycleway project. After a very full debate, the Committee rejected this course. Instead, voting by the substantial margin of 11 to 3 with 1 abstention, members accepted a motion which is worthy of repetition in full.

Return to top of page