Our Concerns:
Is a bypass the right approach to infrastructure and traffic issues in 2026?
The Trust maintains a broad concern as to whether road building is the right approach in a time of climate and ecological crisis. Advances in technology reduce some of the original drivers for the bypass. For example, an increase in electric cars will lead to continued reductions in noise and air pollution on city roads; an increase in online and flexible working will reduce peak commuter traffic. Would it be better to use resources to improve public transport rather than facilitate further personal car travel? Does a bypass move us still further from Net Zero?
Lack of robust oversight
On the Council’s Back the Bypass website they state: “Every stage of the build will follow robust ecological protections, including pre-construction habitat surveys, on-site ecological supervision, seasonal scheduling to protect wildlife, and measures to safeguard watercourses, hedgerows and species.” But the Council submitted a planning application P261956/EIA to request a Screening Opinion to confirm whether the Proposed Enabling Works associated with the construction of the Hereford Western Bypass Phase One will require Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) on 29th July 2026, initially with only a two-day window for submitting comments. This led us to be concerned that work is being rushed in order to publicly demonstrate progress, with nature protections deprioritised as a result. This application was then withdrawn in September 2026.
In August, the Council requested that two documents, Precautionary Method Of Working and Landscape and Ecology Management Plan (LEM"), to be accepted in lieu of an Ecology Management Plan, as per Planning Condition 11, which should include a species and habitat protection and enhancement scheme. We do not believe this is sufficient to ensure requisite mitigation or habitat enhancement and are concerned that not complying with due process and rushing to start work will compromise opportunities for protections, mitigations or enhancements.
Loss or damage to irreplaceable habitats and impacts on protected species
Our objections to the original planning application for the Southern Link Road (now known as Phase One of the Bypass) (Application P151314/F, granted July 2016) included opposition to the destruction of Ancient Semi-Natural Woodland; destruction of hedgerows and ancient/veteran trees and the impacts on protected species (principally bats and otters) and other wildlife species. Further stages of construction will potentially cause further loss and damage, on an even greater scale.
The Council’s Landscape and Ecology Management Plan of 26th August 2026 confirms that the impacted area is home to many protected dormice, great crested newts, barn owl and bat species, among many other species of flora and fauna, confirming this as an area rich in biodiversity.
Reliance on mitigations
Mitigation, in the case of the Southern Link Road planting new woodland, cannot replace “irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland and … aged or veteran trees found outside ancient woodland.” While mitigation is an essential component of all development, it should not be used as a free ticket to disregard the loss of irreplaceable habitats.
River pollution
The poor state of our rivers may be what our county is now best known for. The construction and reality of the bypass will see additional outfalls created entering the Withy and Newton Brooks and these will carry road run-off and all its associated pollutants. A development of this size, within the catchment of the River Wye SAC cannot guarantee not to cause negative impacts on local watercourses and, ultimately, the River Wye.
As Herefordshire Council progresses their plans for a bypass, we would like to see:
- Meaningful ecological protections put in place, with oversight and monitoring at every stage of the process.
- A commitment, in further stages of the planning, to avoid all loss or damage to irreplaceable habitats and impacts on protected species, adapting plans wherever necessary.
- Mitigation proposals delivering genuine net gain for nature. While mitigation should not be a tool for easily allowing loss or damage to irreplaceable habitats, there should be extensive mitigation to compensate for the broader destruction to habitats and the addition of what is a major barrier to wildlife in the landscape. There should be robust monitoring of agreed mitigation and land allocated for mitigation must be protected in perpetuity.