Hampshire County Council

Executive Member - Environment

24 March 2003

Chandlers Ford Railway Station and South Hampshire Crossrail Service

Report of the Director of Environment

Item 1

Contact: Richard Stocks, ext 5202

1. Summary

1.1 The following decisions are sought:

2. Reason

2.1 Approval is required to enable implementation of the scheme to proceed. If the decision is not made now then it is likely that the Rail Passenger Partnership funding for the scheme will be lost. The Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) has ceased such funding for at least the next two years. This is a partnership scheme with South West Trains who have made a commitment to run a passenger service from 18 May 2003.

3. Other Options Considered and Rejected

3.1 Not to proceed with the scheme. The Council would have failed to deliver on a significant scheme in the Local Transport Plan (LTP) and the first re-opening of a railway station. This would affect its credibility with partners and stakeholders.

3.2 Re-tendering the works contract was considered but this option would result in the withdrawal of the SRA funding for the scheme.

3.3 Officers have endeavoured to offset or remove the risks and liabilities inherent in opening, owning and running a railway station. The residual risks and liabilities could not be removed or transferred to another party.

4. Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Decision Maker or a Member or Officer consulted - None.

5. Dispensation granted by the Standards Committee - Not applicable.

6. Reason(s) for the Matter being dealt with if Urgent - Approval is required urgently to enable scheme implementation to proceed.

Approved by: Date:

Councillor K B Estlin

7. Introduction

7.1 This report seeks approval to proceed with the implementation of the Chandlers Ford railway station. This scheme is a key project in the LTP and SWHTS. It forms part of the major policy drive to achieve modal shift and choice in the area. This station is part of the Council's development of public transport in the sub region (Solent Transport), which was recently launched by the Under Secretary of Transport.

7.2 The Project Appraisal for this scheme was approved on 16 October 2002 (copy attached). However, it should be noted that the land figure included in the Project Appraisal was £250,000 whereas the current prediction is nearer £500,000 (see paragraph 9.2). Since that time a number of issues have emerged that require the risks involved to be considered and an agreed way forward determined. These issues have resulted in some delays to the preparation of the tender for the railway station in Chandlers Ford. This coupled with financial problems at the SRA and issues with the returned tenders has led to a situation where it is necessary to seek an urgent approval from the Executive Member for Environment for this scheme to proceed.

8. Rail Passenger Partnership (RPP) Bid

8.1 The RPP support for the South Hampshire Crossrail service, £3.3 million over three years, was confirmed, subject to three conditions, in a letter from the SRA on 31 October 2002. The conditions in the letter were:

8.2 These conditions have been met by both South West Trains (SWT) and the County Council in the formally submitted Project Plan on 14 January 2003.

8.3 Subsequent to the submission of the Project Plan the SRA announced that all non-contracted RPP schemes would not be funded due to cut backs in the RPP budget to meet other funding needs for the rail industry. Following an urgent meeting with the SRA, SWT signed and returned the letter of intent to enter into a contract which set out the conditions on which the RPP funding would be based. The two major conditions from the partnership's point of view are that:

8.4 The SRA has stated that any changes to the submitted Bid and Project Plan will result in the loss of the RPP funding.

9. Land and Lease Arrangements

9.1 The land required to provide the station is owned by either Network Rail (NR) or Eastleigh Borough Council (EBC). The original intention was for the land owned by EBC to be sold to NR. Following this the land would have been leased to SWT through its normal franchise asset process. The Council and EBC wished to impose some restrictions to control parking charges at the station car park and required that the land should revert to EBC, or EBC receive a credit for any subsequent sale of the land at market value. NR Estates were reluctant to accept the additional facility into their estate. It was felt that the only way forward was for the County Council to acquire the land from EBC and lease it to SWT with a completed station and car park.

9.2 The County Council has been negotiating with EBC for the land. EBC is committed to the provision of the station and is willing to sell the land. EBC has also indicated that it will enter into a Lands Tribunal Contract to allow early entry onto the land for the construction of the station and car park, so as not to delay the project. However EBC has a duty, as have all local authorities, to achieve best consideration for any land they dispose of. If this land is released for less than commercial value, then this decision will need to go to the Secretary of State for approval to sell at a discounted value. This application will take time and will leave a cost uncertainty. Whilst the Council can defer payment to EBC with a licence to enter, subject to paying the appropriate interest on the deferred payment, a lease arrangement will still need to be entered into with SWT prior to it taking possession of the station. The current estimated value of this land, without the station development, would be in the order of £500,000 (budget estimate was £250,000). This will have an impact on the scheme budget, which could necessitate the deletion of, in particular, the footbridge.

9.3 Since the proposed land arrangements changed in August 2002, to the County Council purchasing the land and leasing a station to SWT, there are some areas that need clarifying. Whilst in early negotiations the Council's position was made clear to SWT that a commercial return on the station facilities was appropriate in the circumstances, the current proposals from SWT are that the lease should be on a full repairing and insuring lease but at a peppercorn rent with the County Council, as landlord, also being responsible for renewals.

9.4 With only a peppercorn rent being charged and the County Council having the responsibility for renewals, no fund (from rents) will be accrued to facilitate this renewal. The renewals will include works to the station building such as roofing, new windows, or other major structural works and maintenance works to the car park. At some time in the future it may be necessary to replace the station building and car park (the platform will be NR's responsibility). Some of this work, other than routine maintenance, may be needed in 30+ years with the whole reconstruction of the building and car park well beyond 30 years and up to 125 years (the design life of the building). The whole costs of these renewals will currently fall to the County Council. The current cost for the station building being £300,000 and the car park £270,000.

9.5 This raises the issue of whether or not the County Council should lease the land at nil return. SWT is not prepared to pay a commercial rent to lease the station and the Chief Executive is investigating if a peppercorn rent, without Secretary of State's approval, is acceptable in these circumstances.

9.6 The issue of rents has caused SWT some concern. It transpires that in the RPP bid no allowance has been made for these costs on the service and therefore if they become payable SWT would lose some of the allowed profits under the funding arrangements.

9.7 Whilst it is not essential that the Lease between the Council and SWT be signed before the construction works commence, all parties (NR, SWT, EBC and Hampshire County Council [HCC]) are required to sign an Agreement for a Lease which will include draft leases between HCC and SWT and between NR and SWT in a substantially agreed form. The Agreement will include obligations on the Council to construct the station, including a requirement to pay as yet unspecified liquidated damages for delay. The Agreement requires the Council to meet all costs incurred by all parties in respect of the acquisition of the land and construction of the works.

9.8 The Council is also required to enter into a Works Agreement with NR, which will enable the Council to construct the platform. This agreement places all risks and liabilities on the Council, including liability for latent defects and responsibility for preventing vandalism on the site of the construction works and its approaches. NR accepts no liability for any costs, claims, delays, etc that may arise under the Agreement, and its total liability for any breach of the Agreement is limited to £9,000. It is unlikely that any further negotiation will bring about a change in these liabilities.

10. Planning Approval

10.1 Planning Approval for the station was granted by EBC on 19 February 2003. Whilst this gives the Council Planning Permission there are three conditions that are a cause for concern. Conditions 4 and 5 are essentially the same and prevent the Council opening the station until the whole works have been built. Because of previous delays to the programme, the completion of the platform is to be the priority in the development of the station, with the building and the car park following on later. It is not now possible to have the whole development in place for 18 May 2003, the start of the new service. If these conditions were enforced by EBC then SWT's losses, due to there being no passengers from Chandlers Ford, would be in the order of £3,000 a day. Officers of the Council have asked for a relaxation of these planning conditions with a commitment from the Council to open the car park as soon as safe and practical within the construction period. EBC supports the need to deliver the project and the Chair of the Local Area Committee (Councillor Olson) has indicated that he is prepared to relax conditions 4 and 5 to assist project delivery, a letter has been received to this effect from EBC and a formal relaxation will be sought.

10.2 Condition 13 states that the footbridge shall be constructed before the station is opened, or by another date to be agreed with EBC. Once the construction commences the Council will be bound to confirm when this footbridge will be built unless EBC agrees to amend the planning condition.

11. Service Arrangements

11.1 The RPP bid contract between the SRA and SWT will be initially for three years (the remaining period of the SWT franchise), after which the service benefits will be reviewed. If the service achieves predicted passenger numbers then this service is likely to become a Passenger Service Requirement for any future franchise operator. There is a risk that these passenger numbers will not be realised. However, during the production of the bid the Council and SWT made very cautious predictions in the modelling of passenger numbers. The Council and SWT will also be carrying out a promotional and advertising campaign to promote the service. This promotional campaign will only impact on the passenger numbers after the service has started. The risks of the service being withdrawn after the initial three years are considered to be low.

11.2 All the relevant service agreements, timetable slots, Network Change Agreements, etc have been arranged by SWT. To date the only remaining issue for the train service is an outstanding EWS (a freight operator) objection to the proposed service. The Rail Regulator is reviewing this objection. In essence EWS has objected to the loss of opportunities for future expansion of its services using the line between Romsey and Eastleigh. EWS has lost none of its current booked train paths nor any it has applied for because of the new service proposals from SWT. Its objections seem to relate to the need for expansion of their services if the Dibden Bay development is built. The Rail Regulator will make its decision on this before the new service starts on 18 May 2003. The Rail Regulator has given no indication of its views on this issue. It is considered by all concerned that the Rail Regulator is unlikely to uphold this objection. Whilst there is a risk that the proposed service will not be permitted, the risk of this is seen as low, as EWS has no firm proposals, nor has it consulted on any and, in any case, it would not need all the paths on this line.

12. The Construction Contract

12.1 The tender for the construction of the station was issued on 3 February 2003, to be returned by 3 March 2003. The six tenderers were:

12.2 Raynesway has submitted the only tender that is not qualified. Its covering letter sets out why it considers the tender to be poorly compiled, and indicates that under this re-measurement style contract the outturn price is likely to be more than the tender price. This has been clarified by Raynesway to be within allowable variations of tender price. Raynesway is the only contractor who could be appointed at this stage. The tender is within the four lowest prices, and others are effectively disqualified by their submitted qualifications. It is therefore considered that a robust case exists for the appointment of Raynesway.

12.3 The advice from the Chief Executive's Department is that in normal circumstances the project should be re-tendered because of the extent to which there were omissions and qualifications across all tenders. This brought into question whether the Council could reasonably make a judgement as to whether any particular tender constituted the best value and that the total price of the tenders could not be identified with any real certainty. This is especially problematical as there is little variation between the lowest four tenders, and Raynesway is the second lowest. The re-tendering process would delay the start of the works by some three months. The risks associated with accepting a tender are that there may be a challenge from one of the other tenderers on the basis that the process and decision were not fair and reasonable and also that the full cost may not be known. Any challenge could result in an injunction stopping the contract and/or the works. Such challenges are rare but not unknown.

12.4 There are many issues with re-tendering, most notably that it is likely that as the station building will not then be available for 27 September 2003 (the SRA's and SWT's contracted date) it is then likely that the SRA will withdraw the RPP funding for the project. Also as the construction of the platform will be after the new service has started (on 18 May 2003) this work will prove to be much more difficult as the frequency of the passenger trains will be two an hour passing the station. Either the service will need to be suspended, impacting on the SRA's other condition and risk of withdrawal of funding, or the platform works will need to be done at night over the weekends causing substantial disruption to local people. Also if the platform is not available for 18 May 2003, SWT will start to incur losses due to lost passenger revenues.

12.5 The risks to the project of not appointing a contractor now as opposed to re-tendering is that the scheme will in all probability fall due to the withdrawal of SRA funding. The financial losses to the Council to date would be in the order of £300,000-£400,000 with SWT losing £400,000 until the service could be curtailed in September. There is also a risk that the Council could lose the Southampton to Eastleigh service that has been subsumed into this proposal. Also SWT have entered into a four year lease for additional rolling stock. If this rolling stock was unable to be used elsewhere on the network this would cost them an additional £800,000- £900,000.

13. Insurances and Liabilities

13.1 Whilst some of the risks associated with the project will pass to the contractor under the construction contract, the Council will retain a substantial level of risk in the project. HCC limits its liability for claims from third parties for public liability by insuring risks in excess of £5 million. The railway station is not a normal scheme undertaken by the Council and there is concern from the Council's insurance brokers that this project is not covered under our normal policy. This is partly because of the nature of the risks, ie working on the rail network and also because they need to be convinced that the Council has power to undertake the project in the way proposed, ie buy the land, construct the station and lease it to SWT. They have requested a risk assessment to assess the Council's position. The assessment was received from the design consultant on 17 March 2003 and the Chief Executive will continue to liaise with the brokers to resolve this issue.

13.2 NR has included a requirement for insurance within the works agreement but has agreed that it will be for the contractor to take out a joint insurance policy to cover the liability of NR, HCC and the contractor in respect of damage to the works. There will be an as yet unspecified additional cost on the contract to provide this. They are happy that any other liability on the part of the Council will be met from its own resources without the need to satisfy NR that adequate insurance cover is in place.

13.3 The current insurances within the tenders are for £10 million, which is the normal level of insurance for Council works. There continues to be some uncertainty over whether this level of insurance will adequately cover the Council in the event of an incident and advice is being sought from the Council's brokers who will use the risk assessment to advise. However the proposed contractor, Raynesway, is known to carry £50 million of public liability insurance and it seems likely this will be sufficient. However, Raynesway has not had the opportunity to obtain a quote for the joint insurance of the works.

14. Conclusions

14.1 This project is unlike other Council projects in that it does not control delivery of all elements of the scheme and has been impacted by uncertainties in the rail industry. This is a key project in the integrated transport strategy for the area and failure to deliver the project may have a long term adverse impact on the delivery of the Council's SHRT strategy.

14.2 The project is not without risk and the purpose of this report is to highlight these and to determine whether they are acceptable to the authority. The key risk areas are:

Section 100 D - Local Government Act 1972 - background papers

The following documents disclose facts or matters on which this report, or an important part of it, is based and has been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report.

NB the list excludes:

1.

Published works.

2.

Documents which disclose exempt or confidential information as defined in the Act.

TITLE

LOCATION

Chandlers Ford Railway Station and South Hampshire Cross Rail service.

Environment Department

7951/RDS

Hampshire County Council

Executive Member - Environment

11 October 2002

Executive Member - Policy and Resources

16 October 2002

Project Appraisal: Chandler's Ford Railway Station (including the Valley Park to Toynbee School cycle ramp)

Report of the County Surveyor

Item 3

Item 8
(amended decision sheet)

Contact: Richard Stocks, ext 5202

1. Summary

1.1 The following decisions are sought:

2. Reason

2.1 The approval of the project appraisal will allow the tenders to be let and the scheme to be built.

3. Other Options Considered and Rejected

3.1 Consideration was given to reducing the facilities to be provided at the station to fit the original budget of £800,000. This was rejected because it is felt important to provide a high quality station from the outset. The budget was increased to £2 million at the Executive Member for Environment decision meeting on 16 July 2002. The additional £1.2 million coming from the County Council's Local Transport Plan.

3.2 Provision of the new station by Railtrack, with financial assistance from the Council, was rejected as, due to resourcing difficulties, Railtrack was unable to guarantee delivery of the project within the timescale required to take advantage of the developer's contribution.

4. Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Decision Maker or a Member or Officer Consulted - None.

5. Dispensation granted by the Standards Committee - Not applicable.

6. Reason(s) for the Matter being dealt with if Urgent - Not applicable.

Approved by: Date:

Councillor K B Estlin

Approved by: Date:

Councillor T K Thornber

HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

EXECUTIVE MEMBER - ENVIRONMENT

PROJECT APPRAISAL

_____________________________________________

11 OCTOBER 2002

_____________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

PROJECT:

PROJECT APPRAISAL: CHANDLER'S FORD RAILWAY STATION

__________________________________________________________________

COMMENCEMENT DATE:

JANUARY 2003

COMPLETION DATE:

MAY 2003

PLANNED YEAR OF START IN ACCORDANCE WITH CAPITAL PROGRAMME: 2002/03

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

1.

FINANCE (Client Department, Director of Property, Business and Regulatory Services [Estates Practice] and County Treasurer)

__________________________________________________________________

Current

Capital

Estimate

Programme

(at 2002

(at 2002

prices)

prices)

Capital Expenditure

£'000

£'000

Construction and Land to be purchased

1,877

1,877

Fees

Railtrack

93

93

Others

230

230

2,200

2,200

Less developers/

800

800

other contributions

1,400

1,400

Financial provision for total scheme

Total Cost

1.

From Committees own resources

(a) Capital programme (as above)

1,400

(b) Other

2.

From other resources

(a) Knightwood Development Package Chandler's Ford Rail Station

600

(b) Knightwood Development Package Valley Park to Toynbee School Cycles

200

TOTAL

2,200

Value of land for this project in HCC ownership £nil

Variations from capital programme

Revenue implications

£'000

% variation

to Committee's

budget

Net current expenditure

1

0.0010

Capital charges

183

0.1914

TOTAL net expenditure

184

0.1924

__________________________________________________________________

2.

STATEMENT OF NEED/JUSTIFICATION FOR PROJECT

(Client Department)

__________________________________________________________________

Background

Under the powers of its Act of 4 July 1844, the London and South Western Railway's branch line between Bishopstoke Junction (as Eastleigh station was then known) and Salisbury via Romsey was opened to passenger traffic on 1 March 1847, when Chandler's Ford railway station opened. The county map of 1850 shows Chandler's Ford consisting of a public house, a farm and the station. This probably explains the railway station's central location in the town. The Chandler's Ford railway station was closed for goods traffic on 4 May 1964, with passenger services being withdrawn on 5 May 1969, due probably to a lack of patronage as the service went to Portsmouth and not Southampton. Since then there has been substantial development in Chandler's Ford, the consequence of which has been a heavy reliance placed on the private car for any journeys made.

In 1989 studies were carried out into the expected traffic impact of the Knightwood Development, a 1,500 unit housing development. These assessments developed proposals for transportation schemes to mitigate against the traffic impact of the development. One of the cornerstones of the proposed public transportation schemes was the reopening of the railway station at Chandler's Ford. To this end an agreement was negotiated with Bloor Homes, developer of Phase I of the Knightwood Development, for a contribution of £600,000 towards the reopening of the railway station. This developer contribution was confirmed in a Section 278 Agreement in 1995 and by the former Roads and Development Sub-Committee on 17 January 2000. Following a report on the progress, programme and funding of the station proposals to the Executive Member for Environment on 16 July 2002 there is also an allocation of £1.4 million from the Local Transport Plan (LTP) capital programme for 2002/03, giving a total of £2 million allocated.

The County Council does not have any specific power relating to the provision of a railway station. However the Council does have the power, under Section 2 of the Local Government Act 2000, to do anything which it considers likely to achieve the promotion or improvement of the economic, social or environmental well-being of its area. Guidance confirms that it is for the local authority itself to decide whether any particular action would promote or improve well-being, taking account of its local circumstances and the wishes and needs of its communities. In the current case it is considered that the proposal would be a proper exercise of this power, having regard to a number of benefits that it will bring. These benefits are set out in this report.

Progress

Following the publication of the Integrated Transport White Paper in July 1998 negotiations commenced between the County Council and South West Trains (SWT) about a possible Rail Passenger Partnership (RPP). These discussions resulted in a firm proposal from SWT to run a service to Chandler's Ford, which is included in its franchise bid for this region. SWT is the preferred bidder for this region and this is due to come into operation in February 2003.

Following these commitments discussions were held with Railtrack which resulted in a feasibility study being carried out by Owen Williams Railways in 1999, completed in December 2000. This confirmed the technical feasibility of reopening the railway station. The proposals at this time were to provide a shuttle service between Chandler's Ford and Southampton Central via Eastleigh, stopping at all stations. This would require a revision to the signalling on this single-track line. The funding of this was not necessarily a problem as it would have been included in the track access charges for the service and therefore form a part of the RPP bid. This bid pre-qualified in October 2000 but, due to the recent number of serious and high profile rail accidents, Railtrack has taken the drastic action of taking control of all signalling resources in the rail industry and will not release resources for non-safety signalling. These resources are unlikely to be released for some considerable time, probably beyond the 2006/08 cut-off date for developer contributions. This means that the shuttle service between Chandler's Ford and Southampton Central via Eastleigh stopping at all stations option has had to be set aside.

The County Council and SWT have subsequently proposed an alternative hourly service (the South Hampshire Crossrail) which runs between Romsey, Chandler's Ford, Eastleigh, Parkway, Swaythling, St Denys, Southampton Central, Millbrook, Redbridge and Totton and back (see attached plan). In addition to local journeys, travellers would also have access to connecting trains to Winchester, London, Portsmouth, Bournemouth, Weymouth, Salisbury, South Wales and the West Country.

This will not require signalling but will require additional rolling stock but for limited additional patronage, thereby reducing the cost benefits. Nonetheless the RPP bid for this proposal pre-qualified earlier this year. The final RPP bid has been prepared by Mott MacDonald and was submitted on 12 August 2002. The Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) will then make its decision within 8-12 weeks.

Benefits

Chandler's Ford Railway Station is positioned centrally in Chandler's Ford. As such there are approximately 22,000 people living within 2.5 kilometres (1.5 miles) of the station (1991 census returns). It currently has the fourth highest population catchment for a station in Hampshire. The service will also link Eastleigh and the other suburbs of Southampton to the industrial/employment areas of Chandler's Ford, and Chandler's Ford with other areas of employment. This is particularly important for the 15% of households in Chandler's Ford, 25% within 0.75 miles of Eastleigh Station and 28% within 0.75 miles of Swaythling and St Denys stations, which do not have access to a car.

In terms of public transport links there are four bus routes with stops within five minutes walk of the railway station. The proposals will include for a bus turning area and studies are continuing into a bus link between Shannon Way and School Close which would take buses from Valley Park/Knightwood past the station.

The development of cycle links in Chandler's Ford is continuing and one of the main east-west links through the area, the Valley Park to Toynbee School cycle route, will go right past the station. There will be 10 cycle lockers and 15 Sheffield Stands provided at the station. This will provide space for 40 cycles in total.

The above information has been used to model the likely passenger numbers for the proposed service. This model predicts that there is likely to be 600-700 passenger movements per weekday in the first year of the station's operation, which is estimated to be 70% of demand, rising to 900-1,000 movements a weekday in the sixth year when the station realises its full potential. This compares well with Hedge End railway station which has in the order of 600 movements per day.

The SRA requires that the RPP bid identifies the financial benefits, the saved money from reduced congestion and accidents, pollution, health improvements, etc. The current ratio of benefits to service support costs is 1.5:1 over the period 2001-2030. This equates to estimated benefits saving to society in the order of £26 million in the period 2001-2030. Therefore even with the capital costs of the station of £2 million the estimated benefits for the service would be £24 million. The average year on year benefits at today's prices would be in the order of £0.5-£0.8 million. The majority of these benefits and revenue will come from the Chandler's Ford area.

__________________________________________________________________

3.

ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROPOSAL (Client Department)

__________________________________________________________________

National/County network and policies

Policy background

Government guidance on transport seeks to make best use of existing transport infrastructure, encourage the use of sustainable means of transport and reduce the adverse effects of road traffic.

The strategy for the development of the South East of England is guided by the South East England Regional Assembly (SEERA) and the South East England Development Agency (SEEDA). This region is noted for its high economic and housing growth and a strong emphasis is directed at providing travel choice and meeting sustainability targets.

The County Structure Plan (Review) for Hampshire embodies these principles and, through its transport policies, seeks to encourage greater use of the rail network as a key objective in meeting the needs of the future. The South Hampshire Rapid Transit (SHRT) proposal indicates the County Council's approach to developing public transport services in the southern half of the county. Working in partnership with transport operators, the business and other local community groups, SHRT is seen as a major proposal to meet Government and local transport targets.

South Hampshire Crossrail is a key element of the SHRT proposal and has been contained in the planning policies for this area for many years. The development of local plans has contained policies safeguarding this proposal and through the development process contributions have been collected to enable the development of the station at Chandler's Ford.

Working in partnership with the local community and transport operators is key to the success of local and national Government objectives. This proposal for a new rail service and railway station cannot be achieved without such support. The development of this proposal has taken several years but conditions are now right to implement this proposal in partnership with the key players.

The specific policies for this scheme are set out in the attached appendix.

Details of scheme and design standards

Following difficulties in securing signalling resources for the project, the County Council and SWT commissioned a consultant to take over Railtrack's role of project managing and completing the feasibility design to give an estimate confidence of +/- 10% and prepare the design and build tender documents. Steven Frankham Associates was commissioned to carry out this work. As a substantial amount of design work has been done for the feasibility study and estimates, Frankham's brief has been extended to carry out the detailed design and the preparation of a construction only tender. Plans of the current proposals will be displayed at the meeting and these include:

(i) a 50 space car park with two disabled spaces;

(ii) cycle parking facilities for 40 bicycles (10 lockers and 15 hoops);

(iii) a ticket office and waiting room (initially open from 0630-1300);

(iv) a bus turning and waiting area;

(v) kiss-and-ride facilities; and

(vi) CCTV.

The current design shows the inclusion of a footbridge in the project. This is shown as being a stepped bridge. During the design process a ramped bridge using 1:20 ramps for disabled users was investigated. The distance to be travelled by the disabled user over the ramped bridge would be further than using Hursley Road and Bournemouth Road footway and the proposed ramp for the Toynbee School cycle scheme. The provision of a lift has been investigated at the station but there is insufficient room on the platform (northern) for the steps and the lift. For these reasons the stepped bridge was deemed acceptable.

The proposed ramp for the Valley Park to Toynbee School cycle scheme will be included in the contract for the station work. It is considered that this will be the most efficient way of delivering both schemes as they are closely linked. The Toucan crossing and works in front of the Central Precinct will be considered later, either as part of a separate Term Maintenance Contract or Schedule of Rates contract.

Environmental impact

The site of Chandler's Ford station is currently derelict railway land, which has become overgrown with self-seeding shrubs and plants. The land has been safeguarded as a rail station in the County Structure and Borough Council Local Plans and planning permission has been granted, subject to detailed conditions.

Environment

There are no specific environmentally sensitive areas within the boundaries of the site. A watercourse (Monks Brook) flows through the site and under the railway line and platforms. Works in this area will therefore be kept to a minimum. The Environment Agency has been consulted regarding the proposals for Chandler's Ford station and has confirmed that it has "no objection in principle to the proposal" (letter dated 19 December 2000). However, the following was stated:

(i) surface water drainage from parking areas and hardstandings should be passed through an oil interceptor, which is designed and constructed to have a capacity compatible with the site being drained. Additionally, it was stated that roof water should not pass through the interceptor; and

(ii) the development requires a scheme stating the provision and implementation of a surface water regulation system, which should be approved and implemented by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme should also include a maintenance programme and established ownership for the future.

These comments have been taken into account and will be incorporated into the final station design.

Additionally, there is the risk of diesel spillage from the Class 170 rolling stock. The design of the station proposes to modify the existing track drainage to include it in the interceptor system.

Archaeology

The site of the railway station has no specific archaeological significance, but a Roman Road passes close to the site and the County Archaeologist will keep a watching brief during any excavation works.

Noise

At present, local noise levels are low; derived mostly from road traffic noise. However there are occasionally significant noise peaks of up to 90 dB(A) due to low flying jet aircraft approaching or leaving Southampton International Airport. The line between Romsey and Eastleigh is currently dedicated to freight movements, with one train per hour operating on the Totton to Southampton route section throughout the day.

Construction of the new station will involve noise, largely associated with earth moving and excavation. Noise levels at the site from construction will cease when the implementation of the scheme is completed.

The operation of passenger services along the Crossrail route will generate additional engine noise and wheel squeal in the order of 88 dB(A) at seven metres from the source. The greatest impact is likely to be around the Chandler's Ford area, where noise associated with braking and accelerating will be experienced. The new passenger service will consist of two train movements each hour during peak and off peak periods, generating noise on these occasions. A public address system will be installed and will operate at conversational levels to minimise local impact.

Air Quality

During construction it is likely that air quality will be adversely affected due to heavy vehicle operation. However, this will be removed once construction is complete.

During the operation of Crossrail services, local air quality will be affected by a reduction in car vehicle kilometres (and hence road vehicle emissions) but there will be emissions from the diesel rolling stock.

Urban/built environment

Construction of the station will impact on the current urban landform but minimal changes to the landscape character are predicted. During the construction phase, temporary adverse visual impacts will arise. There will be some permanent intrusion around the area of the new station from the immediate station infrastructure and parking facilities, and particularly from the use of the footbridge in close proximity to residential properties.

Land requirements

The land on which the station will be built is owned by Network Rail (NR) (Railtrack) and Eastleigh Borough Council. Railtrack's interests are the platforms which will be leased to SWT as part of the normal station access charges. The land owned by the Borough Council will be purchased by the County Council. This will then be leased to SWT who will be responsible during its franchise period for the maintenance of the station. Options will be investigated with a view to the station becoming a franchise asset at the end of the proposed rail franchise.

The ramp required for the cycle route and the access to the station will be built on a contiguous piece of land also owned by the Borough Council. This report seeks approval to negotiate an agreement and purchase the land required for these works.

Statutory procedures

The planning application was approved subject to submission of detailed designs. Two of the conditions on the planning approval related to the timing of the construction and station operation. These cause some problems and discussions on these points are continuing with Eastleigh Borough Council.

The planning process also identified the need to investigate some parking controls in the area to mitigate against possible displaced parking in the residential roads surrounding the station.

Public consultation

The proposals to reopen the railway station were included in an exhibition of a number of schemes proposed for the Chandler's Ford area in September 2000. The proposals were well received. The local Members, Councillors Davidovitz, Dowden, Luffman and Mrs Holden-Brown, have been consulted and fully support the proposals. Eastleigh Borough Council's Local Area Committee has been consulted and also fully supports the proposals.

Facilities for the disabled

The station has been designed to be fully compliant to current standards with regards to the disabled and the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA). The access to the station will be via a ramp access from the Bournemouth Road. The area of the car park will be lifted using the fill from the broken out platform etc. This will facilitate at-grade access to the station building and platform.

The one area where there have been some problems with regard to the DDA is the footbridge. The current design shows this as being a stepped bridge. During the design process a ramped bridge using 1:20 ramps for disabled users was investigated. The distance to be travelled by the disabled user over the ramped bridge would be further than using Hursley Road and Bournemouth Road footway and the proposed ramp for the Toynbee School cycle scheme. Also the ramped footbridge either would have had a much greater impact on the Bampton Court Flats or the bridge would have been moved to the western end of the platform, taking people significantly out of their way. The provision of a lift has also been investigated at the station but there is insufficient room on the platform (northern) for both the steps and the lift. For these reasons the stepped bridge was deemed acceptable.

Maintenance implications

The maintenance implications for the scheme will be dependent on the longer term lease negotiations. The intention is that the Lessee should be responsible for normal maintenance liabilities on a full repair and insuring basis, and indeed any liabilities arising as a result of the use of the site for the purposes of a railway station. There will be maintenance implications for the County Council, as highway authority, for the footbridge and cycle-ramp provided.

Crime and Disorder Act 1998

The Chief Constable has been consulted during the planning application and the station and car park facilities are being designed to comply with the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. The car park is being designed to secure car park principles. There will also be prominent CCTV cameras and a Help point on the station platform.

Sustainability

The project achieves the County Council's policy objectives for sustainable transport by promoting modal shift from the private motor car for commuter journeys. Also the reuse of the broken out platform as fill to the site will reduce the site's impact on local landfill sites and the associated vehicle movements.

__________________________________________________________________

4.

ROAD IMPROVEMENT - ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

(Client Department)

__________________________________________________________________

See paragraph 3.1.

__________________________________________________________________

Section 100 D - Local Government Act 1972 - background papers

The following documents disclose facts or matters on which this report, or an important part of it, is based and has been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report.

NB the list excludes:

1.

Published works.

2.

Documents which disclose exempt or confidential information as defined in the Act.

TITLE

LOCATION

Scheme file

Owen Williams Feasibility Report Planning Application Statement

Rail Passenger Partnership Bid

County Surveyor's Department

Implementation Section

7373/RDS

APPENDIX

POLICIES

Hampshire County Council Structure Plan 1996-2011 (Review)

T1 Integrated area and route transportation strategies will be prepared and promoted to reduce the need to travel and encourage the use of public transport, cycling and walking.

T3 Planning permission will be granted for transport infrastructure and facilities which:

T7 The effectiveness of the Strategic Road Network will be maintained by:

T9 Road and rail access to Hampshire's international ports will be maintained and improved, having regard to the other policies of the Plan. This is relevant in terms of employment access to the ports via Millbrook and Redbridge stations.

T10 Access to Southampton International Airport as a major interchange will be maintained and improved, having regard to the other policies of the Plan.

T11 Land will be safeguarded in local plans for the South Hampshire Rapid Transit, a mainly track based public transport system to serve the urban communities of Southern Hampshire.

T16 Where appropriate, land for the following major transportation schemes will be safeguarded in the Southampton Strategy Area:

Eastleigh Borough Local Plan (1997)

80 T Planning permission will not be granted for development which would prevent or prejudice the reopening to passengers of the Eastleigh to Romsey railway or Chandler's Ford station.

81 T Land will be safeguarded for the possible provision of a new access to Chandler's Ford station car park via Electron Way, as shown on the Proposals Map.

Eastleigh Borough Council has also designated the station area as a `Chandler's Ford Station - Special Policy Area'.

Principal Objectives of the Knightwood Contributions - Report to former Roads and Development Sub-Committee on 1 June 1998

(i) safety;

(ii) encouragement of alternative forms of transport to the private car, vis public transport, cycling and walking;

(iii) protect nearby communities from the adverse effects of transport generated by the development; and

(iv) the establishment of Templars Way as the principal access route to/from the Knightwood area.