Contact: Jonathan Crabb, ext 6047

1. Summary

1.1 The following decisions are sought:

(i) That the detailed plans for the Market Place, Bell Street, Church Street, The Hundred and Latimer Street, Romsey be approved for implementation, subject to:

(a) further work on the provision of parking for the disabled and the street furniture to be used in the scheme;

(b) further minor alterations as may be necessary; and

(c) approval of the project appraisal.

(ii) That The Hundred and Latimer Street be implemented as a first phase, utilising the existing South West Hampshire Transport Strategy (SWHTS) capital programme funding and developer's contributions.

(iii) That the Market Place, Bell Street and Church Street be implemented as a second phase, subject to the identification of funding sources.

2. Reason

2.1 Development of this project will make a significant contribution to the implementation of the agreed Romsey Movement and Access Study and the objectives of the South West Hampshire Transport Strategy. A report on the public consultation is attached as an appendix.

3. Other Options Considered and Rejected

3.1 On 21 November 2001 the South West Hampshire Transportation Panel (having considered this project at a number of meetings) approved a detailed report on the way forward. The panel agreed to the detailed design process for Option 3 for the Market Place, over the other potential options and the remainder of the scheme, due to its contribution towards the objectives of the project.

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

7648/JC

APPENDIX

Romsey Town Centre Enhancement : Report of Public Consultation

1. Background

1.1 Hampshire County Council and Test Valley Borough Council have jointly commissioned transport consultant Scott Wilson Associates to consider options for the Romsey Town Centre Pedestrian Enhancement Scheme.

1.2 Funding for the scheme from the SWHTS programme is supplemented by the Section 106 Agreement made by Test Valley Borough Council for the proposed Alma Road foodstore.

1.3 A number of reports have previously been presented to the South West Hampshire Transportation Panel (previously the Southampton Area Transport Strategy Joint Members' Panel) providing progress on the scheme.

1.4 This transport scheme is intended to create an area of greater pedestrian priority in the centre of Romsey. It will link with conservation, urban design and economic development objectives. Traffic will continue to pass through the main shopping areas but, where possible, road space will be reallocated to provide a safer, more pedestrian-friendly space for residents, traders and visitors. Good walking routes from the new foodstore to the rest of the town centre will be created to encourage linked trips. Traffic speeds will be reduced by self-enforcing traffic calming features, and illegal parking will be made less likely in many areas. Space for unloading and loading of delivery vehicles will be retained and on-street disabled parking provided where possible.

1.5 The objectives for the scheme are set out as follows to:

(i) enhance pedestrian facilities;

(ii) control traffic speed;

(iii) enable provision for access by buses and cycles;

(iv) maintain access for deliveries;

(v) consider the need for on-street parking (included disabled); and

(vi) use high quality design which maintains the historic character of the town.

1.6 Following agreement at a previous Southampton Area Transport Strategy Joint Members' Panel, a public exhibition was jointly hosted by the County Council and Test Valley Borough Council in June 2001. Three options for the enhancement of the town centre were published for public consultation. In total 235 written responses were received relating to these options.

1.7 A Joint Members' meeting of the two authorities was held on 31 October 2001 to consider the responses to the consultation. Following this, in March 2002, Test Valley Borough Council agreed that Option 4 proposed by a member of the public should not proceed as it failed in principle to satisfy the transportation aims jointly agreed with the County Council, and that option 3 should be taken forward as part of the detailed design consultation process.

1.8 Following this meeting on 21 November 2001 the South West Hampshire Transportation Panel approved a detailed report on the way forward. This proposed the detailed design process for Option 3 for the Market Place, over the other potential options and the remainder of the scheme due to its contribution towards the objectives of the project.

1.9 Following the detailed design process, a further period of public consultation was undertaken on the detailed schemes in September 2002, the details of which are set out in this report.

2. Consultation

2.1 An extensive consultation programme was undertaken with a period of four weeks for comments to be made, including:

(i) letters sent to all those people who commented on previous options;

(ii) letters sent to properties in the streets where proposals were being put forward;

(iii) letters sent to local organisations;

(iv) letters sent to all parish councils south of Stockbridge;

(v) extensive coverage in the local press;

(vi) exhibitions at the town hall (three days including Saturday and one late evening and at the Borough Council offices, Romsey for the duration of the consultation period, including two late evenings);

(vii) an exhibition at Romsey Forum meeting; and

(viii) presentations to Quality Retail Marketing and Romsey Disability Forum.

2.2 It is estimated that around 1,500 people have seen the proposals at the exhibitions and whilst on display at the Borough Council Offices, Romsey. Even allowing for some double counting, where people may have viewed more than once, the exhibitions have been well attended. The population of Romsey town is 14,650 and Romsey area (excluding town) is 25,160. (Small Area Population Forecasts 1999 based update).

3. Results of Consultation

3.1 Following the consultation exercise the two Councils have received 541 written responses containing a large number of detailed comments.

3.2 The main objections related to:

(i) loss of parking - need for more parking;

(ii) loss of character of the town - too modern a design;

(iii) too much building work going on in the town - disruption that would result;

(iv) congestion resulting from the amended traffic system; and

(v) location of delivery bays.

3.3 Of the 130 businesses directly contacted 19 shops/businesses wrote in; 15 of which were objecting, 3 were in support and 1 requested waiting until after Waitrose is built.

3.4 Two objected to possible noise in the evenings from the proposed pedestrian area in Market Place and one to the space outside the Tavern. Three specifically objected to Latimer Street being made one-way and proposed traffic calming for the street. Two town centre businesses objected to having delivery bays outside their shops and one objected to not having delivery space outside their shop.

3.5 Romsey Town Council has been part of the discussions on the development of the scheme throughout the process. The Town Council would like a delivery bay at the Hundred/Latimer Street junction but supports the tree being located there. It would also like no left turn into the cut opposite Waitrose and a contra-flow cycle lane along Latimer Street. In Bell Street and Church Street it would like removable bollards and does not want any reduction in pavement widths from the original proposals. With regard to Market Place, five Town Councillors object because they do not like the planned traffic movement and pedestrian area, and suggest that "the whole of the Market Place is left to joint sharing by pedestrians and vehicles, thereby continuing the present circulation around the Palmerston Statue." The three County Councillors support the proposals.

3.6 The following table summarises the comments received:

SUMMARY OF ROMSEY TOWN CENTRE ENHANCEMENT SCHEME COMMENTS

3.7 It should be noted that those comments that indicate a `no' for support do so for different reasons. Some consider the scheme does not go far enough in terms of reducing traffic and increasing pedestrian provision, whilst others feel too much provision is being made for pedestrians.

3.8 It is notable that with regard to The Hundred, Latimer Street, Church Street and Bell Street a significant number of responses expressed no comment either in favour or against the proposals.

3.9 The main points raised for and against the individual proposals are outlined in the table below.

Market Place

Hundred/Latimer Street

Latimer Street

Church Street

Bell Street

Market Place

3.10 The proposals for this area attracted the most individual comments.

Congestion/Concerns over Traffic Flows

3.11 Concerns were raised about the unmarked junction in the Market Place with regard to safety and traffic congestion. The traffic calming features in Bell Street and Church Street should slow the speed of vehicles entering the Market Place to less than 20 miles per hour (mph), removing traffic looking for parking spaces and causing delays while reversing into spaces or waiting for one to become available, and the provision of delivery bays should ease movements in this area. The proposed junction is considered appropriate for implementation. Following this it will be monitored and, if considered appropriate, the statutory markings for a mini-roundabout could be put in place.

Loss of Character

3.12 With regard to comments on the style of street furniture, this can be reconsidered with alternative options to reflect the character of Romsey and take account of any potential misuse, without altering the general principles of the scheme.

3.13 A dislike of any change in the appearance of the town is expressed and concern over the impact is recognised. However, proposals have been identified in response to concern about traffic in the centre and poor pedestrian environment. It is considered that the proposals will not harm the character of the town centre.

3.14 The concerns over the paved areas attracting undesirable uses are noted but it would be unreasonable not to provide facilities for shoppers and pedestrians on the basis that they may be misused. The areas provided are in highly visible locations overlooked from all sides with through traffic alongside, and this, together with the use of close circuit television (CCTV) in the town centre is likely to discourage any improper use of the area.

Loss of Parking

3.15 The impact that any loss of short-term parking could have on trade is a clear concern. The proposals would result in the loss of a number of short stay on-street spaces. The value both the public and businesses place on them is acknowledged. However, they represent a very small proportion of the overall supply of parking and their removal is concluded to be justified. The provision of short-term parking within the town centre will be monitored and if necessary changes to ensure an adequate supply can be considered. The Borough Council is considering providing additional car parking to serve the town centre and more short stay parking will be available when Waitrose is completed, which the public would have access to.

3.16 More dedicated disabled spaces have been provided and further consideration can be given to the provision of more dedicated spaces within those car parks closest to the town centre. There is, however, little scope within the scheme to alter the location of the disabled bays proposed without a detrimental impact on the provision of delivery areas or the area of widened footway available to pedestrians.

Location of Delivery Bays

3.17 With regard to comments on delivery bays, many shops in Romsey require deliveries at different times during the day and the bays have been provided to accommodate that. There may be scope for businesses to coordinate their delivery times to ensure maximum benefit and use. The bays have been located in response to a business delivery survey carried out early in the design process.

Option 4

3.18 A number of comments supported an alternative proposal for the Market Place often referred to as Option 4. The merits of Option 4 were carefully considered in the previous consultation and were not supported by either the County Council or Test Valley Borough Council.

The Hundred/Latimer Street

Location of Delivery Bays

3.19 There are concerns over loading being allowed and whether sufficient space has been provided. It is considered that sufficient space has been provided to meet the needs of businesses, in light of the information supplied by local businesses on their delivery requirements.

Loss of Parking

3.20 There are concerns raised regarding loss of on-street parking. Some provision for the disabled in this location would be desirable to enable them to have easier access to shops in The Hundred, but is not achievable if the loading bays are to remain of sufficient length and allow other vehicles to pass a parked delivery vehicle. Any provision would reduce the area of widened footway. The provision for the disabled within the nearest car parks will be considered to see whether additional spaces could be provided.

3.21 With regard to comments on the areas where the pavements and road are level, in these areas there is a one inch granite kerb to help those with impaired vision to distinguish between pavement and road. It will be possible to put tactile paving down to alert the visually impaired to areas of pavement where the kerb is replaced by the more level surface. It is proposed that bollards are used to restrict vehicle access to the larger pedestrian areas.

3.22 The response relating to the use/misuse of the pedestrian space in the Market Place are relevant with regard to the area outside the Tavern. (see paragraph 3.14 above).

Latimer Street

3.23 Latimer Street will become a major pedestrian route between the new Waitrose store and the commercial centre of the town. It is important that all the pedestrian routes linking the store, particularly Latimer Street, are seen as being safe and attractive, to encourage linked trips. Wider footways in Latimer Street can only be achieved by narrowing the carriageway.

Congestion/Traffic Flows

3.24 A number of comments were made on the impact of traffic flows leading to congestion in The Hundred and a lack of alternative routes out of the town. The concerns are understood, and for some local journeys there will be a loss of convenience and a small increase in journey times. Information available on the number of movements affected suggests that the highway network can accommodate the re-routing of trips. The impact on Portersbridge Street is not easily quantified but it is proposed that the impact of changes be monitored and the potential for measures kept under review.

3.25 Having reviewed the comments made it is recommended that the proposed one way (south) scheme for Latimer Street be pursued.

3.26 The inconvenience to cyclists wishing to travel north along Latimer Street is to be regretted but there is insufficient space for a safe contra-flow lane to be included. There will be an alternative route north and east of the town centre through the new Waitrose site and out to Station Road and Alma Road.

Disruption Related to Building Works

3.27 There has been some concern about the amount of development taking place and whether the impact of the new Waitrose store has been taken into account. Its impact has been assessed and it is due to the anticipated changes in pedestrian movements once the new store is open that the proposals for Latimer Street are being put forward.

Loss of Parking

3.28 There are concerns relating to loss of car parking but there is no short-stay parking reduction during the day. Concerns about a lack of disabled parking in this area are addressed in paragraph 3.20 above.

Loss of Character

3.29 It is not considered that there would be an adverse impact on the character of the street by the small increase in pavement widths and narrowing of the carriageway.

Church Street and Bell Street

3.30 Similar comments were made for the proposals in these two roads. Concerns were raised about the areas where footpaths and roads are level. These points are addressed in paragraph 3.21 above.

Congestion/Traffic Flow

3.31 Some people felt that Church Street should either have restricted traffic or be made one-way, but it is not considered that at this stage the potential benefits of such changes should be pursued.

Loss of Parking

3.32 There is little on-street parking during the day in either street and no significant loss as a result of this scheme. To ensure the traffic entering the Market Place is slowed and to make the streets safer for pedestrians, it is considered that the traffic calming measures are justified.

Location of Delivery Bays

3.33 Problems with deliveries were pointed out and it is acknowledged it is difficult to make adequate provision in these areas, but the delivery bays identified should help to reduce current problems.

General Comments

3.34 Several people feel that there has been, and will be in the near future, a great deal of major development taking place in Romsey with the new Waitrose, the extension to Bradbeers, and the Brewery site all coming forward and potential changes at the old Waitrose store. It was suggested that the impact of these should be monitored before further work is carried out and there were also some general concerns about the impact of further construction work within the town centre and the way it could affect trade. The development referred to is likely to increase numbers of pedestrians in the centre of the town. The town centre proposals are seeking to make the area more attractive to them and encourage linked trips. It is considered that the scheme should proceed. The concerns regarding disruption are recognised and in developing an implementation programme a key objective would be to minimise impact on the town.

3.35 Other comments made related to the inclusion of other areas outside the scope of the enhancement area. The resources available have been secured to meet particular objectives of the Hampshire Local Transport Plan and to improve the streets adjoining the proposed new store. The other areas suggested can be kept under review and the impact of the proposed changes be monitored, with a view to looking at possible changes if required in the future.

3.36 The Borough Council is in the process of taking on the powers of on-street parking enforcement, which is planned to be operational in October 2003. This will have implications for the current practice of on-street parking in the town centre.

3.37 As part of the implementation of the scheme, a monitoring programme will be undertaken to assess the impacts of the scheme, which will be considered against the objectives of the programme.

4. Resources

4.1 The original funding for the work was available from three sources:

4.2 In response to the earlier consultation (June 2001) the public was concerned that any proposals should be of a high quality in terms of materials. The preferred schemes have been designed to provide a high quality environment with the use of natural materials. The revised estimated costs of the scheme where materials have been selected to reflect the character of the town and be of high quality exceeds the resources identified and will require some additional funding.

4.3 It is proposed that, having regard to the importance of linking the new store to the centre of town and concerns regarding Market Place and the impact of implementing the total package, The Hundred and Latimer Street should be implemented first, with the Market Place, Church Street and Bell Street to follow.

4.4 The revised cost for the scheme is £2,300,000, which will require additional resources for implementation. Therefore, the County Council's total contribution for this scheme would be £1,800,000, an increase of £1,100,000 over the existing £700,00 programme. It is proposed that the first phase is carried out to utilise the existing SWHTS capital allocation of £600,000 within the current Local Transport Plan period. Implementation of the second phase should be progressed once the appropriate level of resources has been secured through the capital programme or other sources. Opportunities for additional developer contributions will be pursued as and when appropriate. The finance implications are being considered within another report at the special meeting of the Executive for Member for Environment on 24 January 2003.

4.5 One of the important issues to come out of the consultation was that a high quality environment was a key aspect of any scheme. The option of providing a reduced specification for the scheme should therefore not be pursued.

5. Borough Council's Views

5.1 The scheme has been jointly developed with Test Valley Borough Council, which formally considered responses to the consultation on 4 December 2002. The Borough Council resolved the following:

(i) That the improvements for Market Street, Bell Street and Church Street be supported in principle.

(ii) That the scheme for The Hundred and Latimer Street be supported in principle, subject to:

(a) further work on the provision of parking for the disabled and the street furniture to be used in the scheme; and

(b) further minor alterations as may be necessary.

(iii) That, in terms of implementation, The Hundred and Latimer Street should form a first phase, with the Market Place, Bell Street and Church Street as a second phase, subject to further review of the traffic and the scheme after the first phase is implemented.

(iv) That the County Council be requested to confirm that it will contribute to the proposed first phase of the work and that it will review the allocation of funds to enable a second phase to be implemented.

6. Conclusion

6.1 The overall view from members of the public is that Romsey town centre should be enhanced, but there is no consensus on how this is to be achieved. This is reflected in the comments about the detailed proposals that have been put forward.

6.2 The proposals for the Market Place in particular have raised the largest number of objections. Some of these concerns relate to too much space being provided for traffic but the majority relate to the greater priority being given to pedestrians.

6.3 Some of the concerns raised, such as the issues of the style of street furniture and improving the amount and location of disabled parking, can be looked at in more detail to help overcome these objections. The matter of the sufficiency of the town's parking provision is an accepted objective, which Test Valley Borough Council is seeking to address by ongoing negotiations.

6.4 The junction within the Market Place can operate safely but there is scope for road markings, an over-runable island or a mini-roundabout if this is considered necessary in the future. This will be monitored post implementation.

6.5 With regard to the comments that the scheme will be detrimental to the character and trade of Romsey if the parked cars are replaced by pedestrian areas, or if the town is changed, it has to be acknowledged that the scheme will alter the town's appearance to some extent and it is a matter of judgement as to whether the change will be detrimental or beneficial to the town. Test Valley Borough Council's view is that it is a positive one which is echoed by the South West Hampshire Transport Panel.

6.6 There is greater support for the proposals for the eastern part of the scheme at the lower end of The Hundred/Latimer Street and Latimer Street, although some concerns have been raised. It is considered that, in this area, the benefits will outweigh the disbenefits, particularly in view of the fact that the pedestrian movement at this end of the town will be altered as a result of the provision of the new Waitrose store and large car park next to Latimer Street.

6.7 Taking account of all the comments received, it is considered that the overall benefit to the town will be a positive one and the proposals should be progressed in their entirety. Some additional work should be done to look at alternative parking and the provision of additional dedicated disabled bays within the car parks. The concerns raised about the quality of the materials, type of street furniture and of high quality workmanship being used can be taken into account in the final details of the schemes.

6.8 The concerns relating to the amount of work being carried out in Romsey and the disruption this could cause to local businesses should be taken into account and the work phased. In view of the imminent changes at the eastern end of the town and the availability of some of the funding for this work from the development of Waitrose, The Hundred and Latimer Street should be implemented first, with the Market Place, Bell Street and Church Street as a second phase, subject to funding.