17/05/2026
Letter received from the Disability Interest Group of Salisbury in support of replacing the footbridge. Thank you Kez and team, for all you do to support our community.
Dear Councillor Rideout,
I am writing to express my strong support for the full replacement of the Wyndham Road Footbridge and to raise serious concerns about the justification currently being used to avoid rebuilding it.
It has been suggested that compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act (now absorbed into the Equality Act 2010) prevents a like-for-like or modernised replacement. That argument is fundamentally flawed. The Act requires reasonable adjustments and equitable access — it does not permit the removal of an essential crossing without providing an alternative of equal safety, practicality and accessibility. Removing infrastructure that is relied upon by disabled people, children, families and older residents, without offering a comparable replacement, is the very definition of creating a new barrier.
This bridge is a key safe route to school. Its demolition will force pupils, including many who are vulnerable, to walk directly alongside a fast dual carriageway. The pavements on this stretch are narrow, exposed and already hazardous. Forcing children, wheelchair users, neurodivergent pupils, visually impaired pedestrians and families with pushchairs into this environment is indefensible from both a safeguarding and public-health standpoint.
An accessible replacement bridge is entirely viable. Modern compliant footbridges across A-roads exist throughout the country, with ramps, safe gradients, appropriate lighting and protective barriers, european standards could be followed and have a travelator installed to allow easy access for wheelchair users or those with mobility aids.
If the structure is removed without a suitable replacement, the impact will be disproportionately borne by disabled residents and school children — groups explicitly protected under the Equality Act. This exposes National Highways to significant equality-duty risk and undermines commitments to active travel, community safety and inclusive access.
We support you challenging the current proposal and to press for a full replacement that meets modern standards. The community deserves a safe, accessible crossing — not a dangerous diversion that places children and disabled residents in harm’s way.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I am happy to provide further professional insight if helpful.
Kind Regards
Kez Adey
Chair Disability Interest Group of Salisbury
