A Brief History Of The Belper Bypass
Anyone driving north to south through Belper will know how difficult it can be getting along the A6. You may think it’s a relatively new problem – you may be surprised to hear that congestion on Bridge Street was first acknowledged as a predicament for the town over 90 years ago.
The mid-Derbyshire section of the modern A6 was created when the mill-owning Strutts and Arkwrights funded a turnpike road from Derby, passing through Belper and Matlock. An Act of Parliament allowing the building of the road was passed in 1817, and the road was officially opened in 1820. But Bridge Street, from King Street to The Triangle, already existed as part of the Nottingham to Ashbourne Turnpike Road which came down King Street and headed off across the river at Bridgefoot. So Bridge Street was heavily used for both routes, hence the success of two coaching inns, The George and Dragon and The Red Lion (now the Lion Hotel).
Bridge Street was tight, but in those days it wasn’t such a problem. A century later, the motor car had arrived in Belper, and in 1923, for the first time, a congestion problem was acknowledged, and proposals were made to Belper Urban District Council for widening the street. After much discussion, the idea was dropped.
In May 1935, councillors discussed a bypass for the first time, starting from opposite Gibfield Lane and ending at The Triangle. Widening Bridge Street was also discussed again, as was a road on the west bank of the river, running from Milford to Whatstandwell. The council approved the widening scheme but not a bypass, yet still no action was taken.
Lobbying by Belper MP George Brown in September 1958 temporarily halted a planned road scheme across the meadows, to allow the townspeople’s views to be heard. A public meeting was called to put together reasons for opposing the new road plan, and these were collated for a formal representation to the Ministry of Transport. The following May, Brown lead the anti-road deputation to the Ministry. The widening of Bridge Street was raised again as an alternative. Finally, in May 1960, Brown’s protests over loss of sports facilities were said to have been a major influence in the final decision to scrap the plans for a bypass across the Meadows. Fourteen years passed, then in November 1974 it was announced that Bridge Street would not be widened after all.
In April 1976 a new bypass proposal was labelled ‘third-rate’ by Amber Valley Councillors, with claims that public opinion was ‘25 to 1’ against the scheme. A public meeting was held in February 1978 to consider plans for a new road. About 40 turned out and all made strong objections.
Ten years passed, and then in 1988 Amber Valley Borough Council was told the possibilities of a Belper bypass were ‘beyond 2000’ as Derbyshire County Council regarded it is a low priority scheme.
In July 2001 interest in a relief road was expressed again in consultation exercises and by councillors following a Future of Belper Conference.
It seems discussion of the possibility of traffic improvements in that part of the town come round in a regular cycle, and for now there’s no solution in sight.
By Adrian Farmer
Feature photo: Bridge Street, Belper
3 thoughts on “A Brief History Of The Belper Bypass”
Is the meeting to be a public meeting?
Imagine what a traffic free Bridge St. could be like without the lorries and cars and all the noise and fumes. I could imagine thriving shops, pavement cafes with flower boxes on the street and weekly markets. Just think how a traffic free Bridge St. could boost tourism to the town. As it stands today Bridge St has a very negative impact on the potential of this ‘almost’ lovely town.
With the closure of the Courtalds factory, perhaps it is the right time to reconsider the proposal of a bypass and additional car parking.
Belper needs a bypass for the A6 Bridge Street to relieve congestion during the day. Virtually every day at any time there is one or more vehicles which need to stop but this delays every one else. Communities all over Britain have faced the same problem and solved it by diverting some of the load. The result has generally been a rise in value of property along the road because of the reduced traffic plus better shop takings because shoppers can browse more easily. Compare King Street and Bridge Street for commercial activity. For Bridge Street it is a choice of short term loss with a long term gain, versus the current stagnation.
Once the Thornton site has been developed this option will be lost so action is needed now.
GDPR, Your Data and Us: https://nailed.community/gdpr-your-data-and-us/