Contact: Rick Clayton, ext 5026 email: [email protected]

1. Summary

1.1 This report provides Members with an update on the progress and way forward for the design of the Stubbington Bypass. It also describes the recent Community Participation exercise and outlines the response to date.

2. Background

2.1 Following consideration of the Fareham-Gosport Peninsula Accessibility Study, on 22 Nov 2001 this recommended that preparatory design work be undertaken on a bypass of Stubbington. This scheme was recommended as the priority amongst a number of measures for the peninsula.

2.2 The stated objective of the scheme is to improve access for trips to and from the peninsular to the west and improve the current environmental and safety problems within Stubbington village, which are deteriorating as the route becomes busier.

2.3 A number of potential routes for the bypass have been identified in recent years but there is currently no safeguarded route in the County Structure Plan or the adopted Fareham Borough Local Plan.

2.4 Work is continuing to investigate and evaluate the three main options (and minor variations) and recommend a preferred route. This encompasses issues such as road network benefits, engineering considerations, planning, land ownership, transport by all modes and economic, social and environmental impacts.

3. Progress to Date

3.1 In the summer of 2002 the County Council's consultant, Atkins, was commissioned to undertake preliminary studies to identify a preferred route alignment for the Bypass and ascertain its effects on the surrounding road network. To date these studies have concentrated on identifying the bypass alignments and localised Stubbington issues. A brief description of progress made on the various aspects of the study follows.

Highway Engineering

3.2 It is proposed that any bypass provided for Stubbington is likely to be built as a standard single 7.3 metre wide carriageway with 1 metre hard strips for a 60 mph design speed. The proposed routes vary in length from 3 to 5 kilometres.

3.3 At-grade junctions, likely to be roundabouts, will be provided to connect the new road to the existing network.

3.4 Previous studies had highlighted two route corridors - northern and southern, with a third `central' corridor recently identified, see attached location plan. (It should be noted that this plan is produced for illustrative purposes only, to give an indication of possible route options.)

3.5 A large number of possible alignments within these broad corridors (shown as hatched areas on the plan) were produced, taking into consideration ecological, environmental and other non-engineering constraints. To reduce the number of options to take forward for further study, these alignments were then assessed in highway design terms with regard to horizontal alignment and meeting other design criteria.

3.6 This process has shown that the northern option from Newgate Lane to Peak Lane (shown as a dashed line on the plan) is the poorest performing of the three broad corridors examined. To provide the benefits of a bypass this option would also require extensive capacity improvements along the whole length of Newgate Lane. Due to the level of development in this vicinity and the impact on HMS Collingwood, this appears the least feasible corridor and will not be studied further.

3.7 The central corridor connecting Newgate Lane to Titchfield Road will also require some form of additional capacity improvement to the southern end of the Newgate Lane corridor connecting to the B3334.

3.8 The southern corridor alone requires no improvement to the Newgate Lane corridor but does include an option requiring land take from HMS Daedalus. This alignment would allow a priority-type junction from Gosport Road which could provide some degree of discouragement to north-west bound drivers turning off to pass through the village.

3.9 In highway engineering terms alone, it is proposed that further studies concentrate on the central and southern corridors. The dashed line section of the northern option from Newgate Lane to Peak Lane is no longer considered viable and further study has been suspended.

Traffic/Transportation Issues

3.10 A traffic model has been developed to predict future years' traffic flows on the possible scenarios including `Do Nothing', `Do Minimum' (low-cost traffic management) and with the various bypass options.

3.11 Consideration of both general and permitted development-related traffic growth is built into the traffic model to produce robust estimates of traffic flows, impacts at junctions and predicted congestion levels. Further analysis will be required on this work to allow fuller appraisal of each option and its effects on the strategic highway network.

3.12 An in-depth study of transportation issues has highlighted the tidal nature of traffic flows in and out of the peninsula and identified the significant volumes of traffic using the B3334 through Stubbington to access the M27 corridor. Peak-hour congestion is further compounded by traffic generated from the village itself which, with a population over 10,000 with limited local employment opportunities, acts as a dormitory town for those employed in Fareham, Gosport and beyond.

3.13 Studies of the local issues for the village, coupled with the Community Participation exercise (see below), have identified many opportunities for transportation improvements for Stubbington. These have shown that whilst the Bypass might be the major part of the answer, complementary measures would be required to maximise benefit to the village.

Environmental Assessment

3.14 The Stage 1 assessment looked in broad terms at the area through which the proposed bypass would be constructed. Statutory and local environmental groups have been consulted, which has highlighted that in environmental terms there are no crucial issues raised to date, although due consideration will have to be given to any effects on the nearby Site of Special Scientific Interest at Titchfield Haven and other adjacent designated sites.

3.15 Amongst the broad range of environmental studies the main concerns raised so far include:

(i) land use - negative effects on the strategic gap, where the bypass could result in development pressures to infill;

(ii) visual impact of the bypass and the severance of the open space, plus diversion of footpaths and bridleways could result in loss of this `rural' community amenity; and

(iii) the presence of a Brent Geese feeding area.

3.16 Further study of these issues and other potential environmental impacts, including those relating to noise, water and air quality and the effects of construction, will be covered in the Stage 2 Environmental Assessment which is ongoing. This Stage 2 Assessment will look in more detail at the relative environmental impacts of each option, and comparison of these will assist in the choice of a preferred route.

Geotechnical Investigations

3.17 These have highlighted that, across the study area, the poor structural quality of the underlying soils and the high water table will necessitate extensive ground engineering measures (including possible embankment construction) to support a bypass and any associated structures. This could add significantly to the costs of the scheme and may have greater environmental impacts.

Consultation

3.18 A Community Participation exercise was conceived to commence early consultation with the residents of Stubbington and the surrounding area. This process is supplementary to the statutory consultation to be held for stakeholders and the public at a later date. To date this has comprised the events detailed in Table 1 below.

TABLE 1

3.19 The Awareness Day was intended to inform local residents of the consultation process and start gathering the views of the public. Approximately 400 participation packs were distributed with questionnaires and pre-paid envelopes. This resulted in 156 questionnaires being returned, with over 95% of respondents recognising the problems of levels of through traffic especially during peak hours. Over three-quarters of those responding also see the need for and would support a bypass, but 85% think that additional complementary measures would be necessary.

3.20 The Awareness Day was followed by the distribution of the first newsletter to approximately 16,500 households. The purpose of this newsletter was to disseminate more detailed information and elicit people's opinions on topics of interest in the village. The newsletter generated an additional 80 replies by phone, post and email.

3.21 Approximately 150 organisations and individuals representing interests in the wider Stubbington area were invited to attend stakeholder workshops. Unfortunately there were only 23 attendees in total at the two sessions but some useful conclusions were reached which are summarised below:

(i) Too much traffic in Stubbington means the roads are congested, with the area being organised around accommodating traffic.

(ii) The quality of life and the environment suffers as a result of traffic levels.

(iii) There are safety concerns, especially for vulnerable users.

(iv) The traffic situation in Stubbington is uncomfortable and frustrating for everyone - pedestrians, cyclists, bus and car travellers.

(v) A solution is needed to remove traffic from the village centre and provide good alternatives to the private car. This will require a mix of solutions, major and minor, short and long term.

(vi) A bypass could be only part of the answer - complementary measures would be required with better education and information about alternatives to car travel.

(vii) The effects on the environment should be important in deciding the best solutions.

3.22 The second newsletter informed residents about the issues included in responses to the questionnaires and the workshops and also provided details of the public exhibition held in June.

3.23 The objectives of the public exhibition were to provide information on the issues raised during the consultation and the initial solutions proposed to improve transport in Stubbington. This was reasonably well attended and generated a further 26 responses. The issues raised at this event served to stress the importance of the main issues previously identified, such as traffic congestion, road safety, concerns about the Bypass alignments, public transport provision, school run problems and concerns about the scale of residential development in the area.

3.24 The aim of the exercise was to engage the public and gather their opinions on the transport issues affecting Stubbington. It is hoped this approach will achieve greater acceptance and ownership of the scheme and assist in identifying problems and opportunities, whilst maintaining a high level of information available to the public. It is intended to continue with this method of consultation, with future newsletters and exhibitions to report progress to village residents and the wider population.

4. Major Scheme Bid Process

4.1 Recent guidance from the Department for Transport (DfT) has indicated that for a Major Transportation Scheme Bid to be approved a more onerous and detailed appraisal of the scheme is now required.

4.2 This process is intended to maximise the scheme viability and clarify the justification against current national criteria. It therefore requires the scheme promoter to incur additional costs to meet the required level of detailed appraisal and evaluation without any guarantee of receiving the funding.

4.3 In practical terms this means that the scheme costs and benefits are subject to more rigorous analysis under optimistic and pessimistic scenarios. It is now necessary to complete the detailed design of the preferred scheme together with additional `Next Best' and `Low Cost' alternative schemes that would broadly meet the same objectives.

4.4 It is also necessary to have removed or minimised potential risks to the scheme and obtained any powers or approvals for it, such as planning permission, compulsory purchase and public inquiry.

4.5 A Major Scheme Bid must now demonstrate good value for money against Central Government's five objectives for transport:

(i) Environmental impact;

(ii) Safety;

(iii) Economy;

(iv) Accessibility; and

(v) Integration.

It must also relate its justification to:

(i) Distribution and equity;

(ii) Affordability and financial sustainability; and

(iii) Practical and public acceptability

to allow the DfT to complete its evaluation of a transportation scheme appraisal.

4.6 As a result of these additional requirements the Major Scheme Bid will take longer to prepare and submit. It is expected that a submission might be complete by 2007 dependent on a number of external factors yet to be determined.

5. The Way Forward

5.1 For schemes of this scale the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges recommends a three Stage Assessment reporting approach. Much of the Stage 1 work of the various disciplines involved is now complete. This has identified the environmental, engineering, economic and traffic advantages, disadvantages and constraints associated with the broadly defined corridors.

5.2 Further analysis of this work and more detailed Stage 2 studies on the remaining feasible corridors will identify a preferred alignment. This then needs to be included as the safeguarded route in the relevant statutory documents that will replace the Fareham Borough Council Local Plan and County Structure Plan. At some stage in the statutory process this scheme is likely to require a Public Inquiry.

5.3 Following identification of a preferred route, detailed design of both the bypass and associated traffic calming within Stubbington village will also be required, including all relevant stakeholder and public consultation.

5.4 It will also be necessary to identify complementary improvements to related elements of the surrounding network (ie Broom Way, Gosport Road, Peel Common Roundabout, Peak Lane, Titchfield Road and Titchfield Gyratory) and measures for sustainable modes of transport.

5.5 Consideration must be given to the requirements for the Major Scheme Bid, in particular the investigation of Alternative Scheme options that could achieve the same broad objectives.

6. Conclusions

6.1 A single carriageway bypass around Stubbington village is proposed to improve access from the peninsula to the A27 western corridor. Combined with traffic calming within Stubbington, it should also alleviate safety and environmental concerns within the village itself.

6.2 Investigations have shown that the northern route from Newgate Lane to Peak Lane (shown as a dashed line on the attached plan) is not feasible, therefore the next stage of studies should concentrate on the southern and central route options. However it is recognised that the Stubbington bypass in isolation will not solve all the accessibility issues along the peninsula to the A27/M27 western corridor. To meet this objective and therefore satisfy the criteria for a Major Scheme Bid it will be necessary to consider other improvements to the highway network. There is an opportunity for further strategic network improvements in this area to be considered within the South Coast Multi-Modal Study bid.

6.3 Recent consultations with local people have identified the transport related issues of concern within Stubbington, and will continue to provide information for the process and development of the bypass design and any necessary complementary transport measures. Findings from this early consultation have indicated strong levels of support from Stubbington residents for a bypass.

6.4 In environmental terms, the first stage studies have shown that, whilst there are no `show stoppers', there is still much detailed study to undertake and measures will be required to mitigate against the effects of the proposed bypass. The poor quality of the underlying soils will result in the need for additional construction materials, with environmental and financial implications.

6.5 These studies will take several years to complete to ensure that the Bypass is justified, meets legal, planning and other requirements, and represents value for money. The current project programme is working towards a Major Scheme Bid for funding in July 2007 and for works to be complete by 2011. An initial cost estimate at today's prices is between £15 million and £30 million. A more robust estimate is being prepared as part of ongoing assessments.

Recommendation

That the progress of the project be noted.

8220/RC