People and councillors in Chippenham have been having their say on the Future Chippenham road routes and what each will mean for the future of the town.

Residents asked about the types of crossings the routes would use, the transparency of the town council in supporting the bid, and the risk to floods in the areas marked for development in the Local Plan Review.

Local climate activist Adrian Temple Brown said the public consultation on the scheme should be stopped, claiming the paperwork available only contained one-third of the information, lacking both a carbon emissions budget and the estimated environmental impact.

They were quizzing Simon Hendey, director for housing and commercial development and Christine Lamb, programme manager on the Wiltshire Council Future Chippenham project, which asks residents to decide on three distributor road options which link the A350.

After their presentation to an online special town council meeting, Cllr James Adman asked if Chippenham was about to double in size because of the layout of the roads, saying this was a significant concern to himself and residents.

He is also worried what disruption the road would cause to the Chippenham to Calne cyclepath all options crossover while Cllr John Scragg was interested in the traffic benefits of the road.

Ms Lamb said the intention was to improve sustainable travel but admitted she had not seen detailed plans for the path.

Mr Hendey said it was not their role to comment on the potential for housing in Chippenham as this was part of the Local Plan Review.

Cllr Richard Bambury, who represents Pewsham, asked what traffic surveys had been done, saying: “I can only see these roads adding to the chaos in Pewsham and causing more distress for our existing residents.” He was told the Future Chippenham website included traffic surveys.

Cllr Jenny Budgell said the links between the Future Chippenham project and the Local Plan Review were confusing.

“It just seems to be that every meeting you go to you become more and more confused as to who is taking responsibility for what,” she said.

“Simon has said time and time again, ‘please do not confuse the two’. I cannot do that, it just seems ludicrous to me.”

Several councillors were annoyed there is no specific place in the consultation form for residents to object to any of the options, to which Mr Hendy said there was a comment box for people to give their views.

Cllr Peter Hutton said it would be ludicrous to build the road and then the houses to later find a hospital, for example, was needed.

Cllr Clare Cape said she felt the plan outlined vague benefits, while not mentioning the unwelcome effects on the environment and claimed Wiltshire Council had fobbed her off when she asked for it to be reworked in light of the climate crisis.

Cllr Nick Murry asked why the environmental impact was not undertaken before the survey. Ms Lamb said they had fast-tracked the scheme to take advantage of the £75m grant from Homes England. As work must be completed by March 31, 2024.

Ms Lamb added that biodiversity assessments on all options would be too costly but had utilised desk top surveys and one will be done once the preferred route is chosen.

“If there’s no commitments to improve the town centre then I don’t see why the people of Chippenham should be expected to take this development,” Cllr Ashley O’Neill said.

Asked if S106 monies from the scheme paid by the chosen developer would be spent in Chippenham, Ms Lamb said it was expected that the benefits would be for all, not just these proposed developments.

Cllr Desna Allen asked if there would be anything built into the consultation to account for the impact of the pandemic.

Cllr Webb said she hadbeen contacted by a resident concerned over the road route going through Stanley Park who was not made aware of the developments.

The public consultation ends on March 12.