STJOIN
0191JP
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE ITEM 8
24TH NOVEMBER 1986
PROPOSED NEW M3 INTERCHANGE IN THE VICINITY OF MINLEY ROAD, COVE
REPORT OF THE COUNTY SURVEYOR AND COUNTY PLANNING OFFICER
1. Introduction
1.1 At its meeting on 3rd March 1986 the Committee resolved:-
"That planning permission be sought under Regulation
4(1) of the Town and Country Planning General
Regulations 1976 for development comprising a new
interchange on M3 and link road as shown on drawing
number M3/13."
1.2 The views of Hart District Council and Rushmoor Borough
Council were sought in accordance with the agreed consultation
procedures. The object of this report is to inform the
Committee of the comments received as a result of these
consultations and to suggest a way ahead towards the
construction of a new interchange. (Copies of all comments
received will be available in the Members Room prior to the
meeting).
2. Formal Comments Received
2.1 The following is an extract from a letter from the the Hart
District Council's Director of Planning setting out that
Council's reaction to the Planning Consultation:-
"Members of the Planning (Development Control)
Committee resolved at the meeting held on 3rd
September 1986, that
A Hampshire County Council be informed that
this Council raises objections to the proposals
for the following reasons:-
(a) the proposal is premature until such
time as a Highway Strategy for North
East Hampshire has been formally agreed
and until such time as a realistic
timescale for the interchange and
approach roads, which shows
construction of improvements to local
roads north and south of the M3,
construction of new roads dovetailed so
as to minimise disruption on the
surrounding residential areas, has been
agreed.
(b) In regard to the detailed proposals
notwithstanding (a) above, the closure
of Minley Road north of the M3 because
of the adverse effect of concentrating
related traffic movements on Trunk Road
and Fleet Road.
B Hampshire County Council be informed that
this Council considers that the closure of
Trunk Road should form part of the proposals
for the interchange.
C An early joint Member meeting be sought with
Hampshire County Council to discuss this
matter." (See paragraph 4.12).
2.2 The following are the resolutions made by two Committees of
Rushmoor Borough Council:-
(a) PLANNING COMMITTEE (9th July 1986)
"That, subject to the views of the Highways
Committee, Hampshire County be informed that no
objection is raised to the proposal."
(b) HIGHWAYS COMMITTEE (14th July 1986)
That no objection be raised on highway grounds to
the consultation in respect of the proposed M3
Interchange and link roads scheme in the vicinity of
Minley Road, Farnborough, subject to the introduction
of appropriate traffic management measures."
3. Public and Other Comments Received
3.1 COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM ORGANISATIONS
(a) Hawley Parish Council objects because:-
(1) The proposals are too close to a residential
area, and concern is expressed that the
supporting highway network is totally
inadequate;
(2) the Parish Council has always objected to a
junction in this area; and
(3) still maintain that the B3013 Fleet Bridge is
far more ideal, especially if linked with a
Fleet Eastern Bypass; and further
(4) the Parish Council objects to the closure of
Minley road and would like realistic evidence
of the results of a simulated traffic survey
for after the proposed traffic junction was
operational. It is felt that traffic patterns
have not been adequately assessed.
(b) Property Services Agency:-
No objections to the scheme subject to the
satisfactory resolution of the following points of
very real concern:-
(1) access to driver training area to be improved
to give better access to large vehicles;
(2) improvements to C4 Minley Road between
closure and A30 with particular reference to
safety of vehicles turning out of and into
Gibraltar Barracks and Minley Manor;
(3) improvements to be made for a safe pedestrian
crossing of C4 Minley road between Gibraltar
Barracks and Minley Manor with the provision of
a central refuge and suitable signing so that
drivers led to expect pedestrians.
(c) Nature Conservancy Council
No objections subject to care being taken during the
construction phase to minimise disturbance to the
meadowland adjacent to the new interchange.
(d) Countryside Action
Fully support the current proposal by the County
Council. This both satisfies the objections by Cove
residents by removing motorway bound traffic from
residential roads, and causes minimal damage to the
meadowland proposed SSSI of Foxlease and Ancells Farm.
(e) CRAM (Cove Residents against Minley Junction)
The Committee of CRAM welcome the application as it
demonstrates that the County Council is making
progress towards the implementation of its decision to
build a new M3 interchange to the west of Minley Road
bridge.
(f) Charles Church Developments Ltd
No objections to scheme but suggest an amendment to
the alignment of the Southwood Link Road and the
repositioning of the proposed roundabout on the south
side of the motorway.
(g) S W Fitton Ltd (on behalf of Mr M F Collard, the
owner of Easter Ross House)
(1) Mr Collard concerned at the stress to his
family caused by the threatened loss of his
family home and business;
(2) he feels that his has been brought about by
the accident of his home being close to an area
designated as an SSSI;
(3) he suggests the continued operation of the
waste transfer station in the area of land
bounded by the new link road and the eastbound
slip off M3.
(h) Pearsons Surveyors and Valuers (on behalf of Mr E D
Watts of Ewshot Farm, Farnham)
Mr Watts has an occupational interest in Whitehorse
Farm:-
(1) the proposed route and alignment of the Link
Road immediately south of the interchange,
together with the designs of the interchange
road junctions will result in unnecessarily
high construction costs;
(2) the design of the southbound lane junction of
the Link Road with the interchange will permit
unnecessarily excessive vehicle speeds being
achieved by traffic crossing the M3 from Minley
Road towards Southwood;
(3) the proposed closure of Bramshott Lane to
vehicular traffic from the east will cause
unnecessary hardship upon our clients in their
reasonable exercise of their rights in using
their land to the west of the Link Road;
(4) the Link road as routed severs lands to the
south of White House Farm without making any
access provisions for the severed lands to the
west of the Link road;
(5) they propose a westerly shift of the northern
section of the Link Road to give a more direct
route, reduce construction costs and will also
adjust entry angle on southern interchange
roundabout which will have the effect of
reducing road speed and eliminate a potential
traffic hazard;
(6) further thought should be given to the road
closure proposals affecting Bramshot Lane.
(i) Mr G Gosney, Arhchitectural Designs on behalf of
Broadhurst, Welcome Home Community Ltd:-
(1) object to the proposal on the grounds that
the scheme requires 0.33 ha of their land with
a further 0.44 ha sterilised to the west;
(2) in association with Charles Church
Developments suggest move the Southwood Link
Road approximately 28 metres to the west which
is still within the curtilage of their land and
that owned by Charles Church Developments;
(3) the benefits of this, they suggest, will be:-
(a) Link Road will be moved further from
the proposed new home at Broadhurst
(b) less land will be sterilised;
(c) shorter route, road construction
costs cut;
(d) proposals do not affect SSSI's.
(j) County Councillor B Harris, Hawley and Church
Crookham Division:-
(1) concerned that the opening of the new link
road will lead to a considerable increase in
the use of Trunk road, which is unsuitable to
bear this extra traffic;
(2) need to close Trunk Road possibly between
School and Harver Road;
(3) need to signalise junction of Trunk Road and
Fleet Road because of increased traffic on
Fleet Road once new link road opened. This
measure should be implemented prior to M3
scheme.
4. County Surveyor's Comments
4.1 There have been a number of letters of support for the
current proposals, including Rushmoor Borough Council, the
local residents group CRAM, the Nature Conservancy Council and
Countryside Action.
4.2 Hart District Council's concern regarding the use of Fleet
Road and Trunk Road is not justified by the traffic studies
carried out.
4.3 As regards Fleet Road, there would be some increase in
traffic from Cove and West Heath on the eastern end accessing
the new motorway junctions. This increase will be more than
offset by the reduction in traffic now using the urban road
network to access M3 at Frimley. The net effect, therefore,
of providing the junction will be to reduce traffic levels on
the eastern part of Fleet Road by about 2,000 vehicles per day
in 1991.
4.4 Regarding Trunk Road, irrespective of the provision of the
junction, traffic levels in Trunk Road (currently about 2,000
vehicles per day) are bound to increase due to the
construction of new houses on the west side of the road.
Nevertheless the provision of the revised junction is liable
to change the character of the traffic in Trunk Road in two
ways:-
(a) currently the road is used for through moves which
are anticipated to use the new link road to access the
motorway on the C4 north of the motorway;
(b) to a limited extent traffic local to the Minley Road
area could use Trunk Road, as one of several possible
routes, to access Fleet Road and the motorway Link
road.
However, on balance it is anticipated that the provision of
the junction will not have a large effect on traffic levels in
Trunk Road. Nevertheless, a provision was indicated in the
Planning Brief for the development of Whitehouse and Baringley
Farms, for traffic management measures on Trunk Road to
discourage its use by through traffic. To remove the
uncertainty on this matter, it is proposed that the Co unty
Council promote the closure of Trunk Road in parallel with the
procedures for the new junction.
4.5 Regarding improvements to the network, the draft Hart
Highway Strategy states in Recommendation 6:-
"Subject to the need being determined schemes be
prepared for improvements to the C2/B3016, B3013/C4
and junctions A30/B3016, A30/B3013 and B3013/C4."
The need and priority of such schemes will have to be
considered, together with the many other competing demands
throughout the County. The early construction of the new
junction will, however, provide immediate relief to severely
overloaded roads, particularly in Cove and Farnborough, and
provide badly needed relief in advance of constructing the
first stage of the Blackwater Valley Route.
4.6 Hawley Parish Council's suggestion tht the B3013 Fleet
Bridge is a far more ideal site for the junction has been
dealt with in the previous Committee report. Basically there
are serious engineering difficulties with a junction in this
location that would intefere with the Fleet Service Area and
involve substantial additional costs. Further, a junction on
this position would not attract the same volume of traffic
from the existing road network as the location just west of
Minley Road.
4.7 A number of residents in Fennel Close (Barningley Farm
Development) have objected to the proximity of the proposed
link road to their newly constructed houses. The alignment of
the link road has been subject to extensive public
consultation/discussion since May 1984 and it must be assumed
that the residents were fully aware of the proposal when they
purchased their properties from late 1985. The proposal was
also revealed on all Local Authority searches made on these
properties.
4.8 The requests that the route should be moved further to the
west conflicts with the strategy of avoiding unnecessary
intrusion into the countryside gap between Cove and Ancells
Farm. Although existing residential areas might benefit from
such a move, further houses would be likely to be built up to
the line of the road. Overall, therefore, there be no long
term real environmental advantages in favour of this
suggestion.
4.9 Both the P.S.A. and M.O.D have raised a number of technical
queries; on investigation and further consultation with the
respective parties these are all capable of satsifactory
resolution.
4.10 Bramshot Lane is to be closed for a length of approximately
500 metres adjacent to the motorway. Access to land to the
east of link road will be maintained from the southern section
of Bramshot Lane via Fleet Road.
4.11 With reference to the suggested use of land within the slip
road loop as a waste transfer station, the members should be
aware that in the past applications for such a use on this
site have been refused. An enforcement notice was served in
respect of this unauthorised use of the site and an appeal
against this notice was made to the Secretary of State whose
decision is currently awaited.
4.12 Hart District Council's request for a joint Member meeting
to discuss the matter of the new junction was able to be
included on the agenda of a meeting on 1st October 1986. This
was one of a series of meetings with District Councils
already set up to discuss the Mid and North East Hampshire
Structure Plans Draft Alterations and Draft County Strategy.
Hart representatives said they did not object to the location
or detail of the interchange but wanted to know the strategy
and priorities for highway improvements on nearby roads
relating to the interchange. Their main concern was that any
improvements to the associated road network necessary to
accommodate additional traffic as a result of the Interchange
should be provided at the same time. The County Surveyor's
view was that the Interchange did not necessitate the
immediate provision of any of the schemes referred to but that
the situation would be monitored (paragraph 4.5 above). They
were also concerned that Trunk Road should be closed now
rather than leaving it as a possibility for closure (see
paragraph 4.4. above). .
5. Conclusion
5.1 The route of the link road and layout for the interchange
has been the subject of extensive public consultation since
May 1984. It is considered that the proposed alignment of the
link road reflects a proper balance between the objective of
keeping the intrusion into the open space between Cove and
Fleet to a minimum and protecting the environment of houses
close to the proposal. The easterly location of the junction
affords the greatest relief to the existing highway network.
It is, therefore,
RECOMMENDED
That for the purposes of Regulation 4(1) of the Town and Country
Planning General Regulations 1976 and 1981 development comprising a
new interchange on M3 and link roads as shown on drawing number M3/13
be authorised.
0191J
This page has been taken from HANTSNET - Hampshire County Council's Information Network.
Top of this page
Hantsweb Homepage
Top of this page
Hantsweb Homepage