Outcomes from Public Meeting 19th November 2025

We held a very well attended meeting with residents of Salisbury (sincere apologies to those who were turned away because the Guildhall was at capacity, 200 people) regarding the fate of the footbridges across the A36 in Salisbury. 

Some very interesting and pertinent questions were posed by residents, which challenged the thinking behind the plans currently in place.  Advice has been sought from The Transport Action Network and The Disability Interest Group of Salisbury and both support the reasoning for wanting to keep both footbridges in the interests of the community.  We are now aware that alternatives such as providing an elevator or creating a non-compliant bridge is possible.  DIGS are very concerned that the Equality Act is being used as an excuse to remove the footbridges.

We were briefed by representatives from National Highways, Chirs Hilldrup and two of his colleagues, regarding the current plans, which it was explained are still being worked on.  They shared that both bridges will be demolished and that there are no plans for them to be repaired in any way.  

There will be a new bridge at Victoria Road, but it is now planned to be where the current bridge stands, this is to mitigate some of the concerns regarding tree removal and impact on flats.  However, an awareness of the smallness of the railway bridge leading to the very large new foot/cycle bridge needs further investigation.  

The Wyndham Road bridge cannot be replaced due to current standards.  However, through further investigation, it is clear that, in special circumstances, all bridges do not have to be.  The National Highways Team committed to investigating this further.  It was also clear that surrounding roads had not been considered in the planning of alternative routes across the A36, which also needs further investigation.

Wiltshire Councillors who were in attendance, have also committed to working to ensure that this vital link is kept in order to keep our community intact.  Wiltshire Council is a stakeholder and therefore has been kept up to date and informed of the progress of the plans.  As residents of Salisbury, we believe that we are best placed to be consulted with and will be challenging our Wiltshire Councillors to ensure that all information is shared in a timely manner.

Next steps:

• Ensure that your voice is heard by completing the survey on the website, all responses are being shared with National Highways and Wiltshire Council
• Email or write to your Wiltshire Councillor and ask for regular updates of any meetings and information about the bridges that they receive
• Write to Heidi Alexander MP (Secretary of State for Transport), Jo Shanmgalingam (Permanent Secretary of DfT) and John Glen MP for Saliisbury to express your views

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Jo Shanmgalingam - This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

• Sign up to be part of the survey of footfall on the bridges to take place on Monday 1^st and Saturday 6^th December

  ---

Below is an email response from a resident that she sent to Wiltshire Council following them emailing her confirming that the Wyndham Footbridge will be demolished and not replaced.

Response to Wiltshire Council

Thank you for your reply and for confirming that National Highways intends to remove the Wyndham–Wordsworth footbridge without replacement.

However, your response raises several concerns that require clarification and further action.

1. Structural condition does not justify removal without replacement

If the bridge has reached the end of its life, that is an argument for renewal, not for permanent loss of the walking route.
Many bridges across the UK are replaced at end-of-life as a matter of course. National Highways’ position appears to be based on convenience, not safety.

2. The Equality Act is being misrepresented

You state that the Equality Act requires a fully accessible replacement bridge, and that this makes replacement impossible.

However, the Equality Act:

• Does not require every piece of infrastructure to be replaced on a like-for-like basis,
• Does not mandate specific design solutions (e.g., long ramps),
• Does require public authorities to consider all reasonable alternatives and to avoid disproportionate negative impacts on protected groups.

Removing a bridge that is heavily used by:

• disabled residents,
• older people,
• families with children,
• people with mobility limitations (even those who cannot use steep ramps),

without providing any alternative safe crossing risks worsening equality outcomes, not improving them.

The Equality Act cannot be used as justification to reduce accessibility.

3. National Highways must consider alternative accessible designs

If long ramps are not feasible, other options must be assessed, including:

• A new span with a smaller footprint using modern materials,
• A lift-assisted crossing (as used elsewhere in the UK),
• A realigned bridge with ramps on available land,
• A pedestrian underpass,
• A controlled at-grade crossing designed to meet safety and traffic standards.

Your response does not indicate that any alternatives have been modelled, published, or consulted upon.

4. Removal will increase traffic and contradicts Wiltshire policy

The loss of this walking link will:

• force short trips into cars,
• increase school-run traffic,
• reduce sustainable travel,
• worsen air quality,
• undermine Wiltshire’s Climate Strategy, LCWIP, and Core Strategy commitments to prioritise walking.

These issues were not addressed in your response.

5. Lack of public consultation is unacceptable

This bridge is a major pedestrian link used daily by residents.
The Council’s position appears to be that National Highways can remove it without public consultation and with no requirement to provide safe alternative routes.

This is not acceptable to the community.

Wiltshire Council should, at minimum:

• Publicly challenge the lack of consultation,
• Request publication of all assessments,
• Advocate for safe alternative provision,
• Represent the interests of Salisbury residents,
  which is its duty as the local authority.

6. Duty of the Council to protect residents

The Council has obligations under:

• The Public Sector Equality Duty,
• Highway safety responsibilities on local roads,
• Climate and health strategies,
• Active travel commitments.

Supporting the removal of the bridge without replacement or mitigation contradicts those obligations.

7. Request for action

Please confirm:

1. Will the Council formally request that National Highways publish:

1. • their options appraisal,

1. • safety assessment,

1. • equality impact assessment,

1. • pedestrian modelling
     before any removal takes place?

2. Will the Council challenge National Highways’ interpretation of the Equality Act, given that removing a pedestrian route entirely may create greater inequality?
3. Will the Council engage with residents before forming a final position?
4. Will the Council support the community in seeking a safe, accessible replacement or alternative crossing?

In summary

The bridge may need replacing—not removing.
The Equality Act should protect accessibility, not be an excuse for its reduction.
And Wiltshire Council should stand up for local residents by insisting on consultation, transparency, and safe alternatives.