APPENDIX 2

NOTES OF A MEETING HELD IN THE FORMER GRAND JURY ROOM,

WINCHESTER, ON 26 NOVEMBER 2003 TO DISCUSS M3 NOISE MITIGATION IN HAMPSHIRE

Present:

Hampshire County Council

Councillors: J Glen (Chair)

Mrs A E Bailey

K Chapman

Mrs P Holden-Brown

P Hutcheson

P Mason

Officers: R Chinn

Highways Agency

P Harwood

J Rylett

1. Apologies were received from Councillors R Baulk, K Estlin, Mrs S Glasspool, B Gurden, Mrs C Leversha, Mrs A McNair Scott and Mrs P Peskett.

2. Notes of the meeting of 23 July 2003 were agreed with no amendments.

3. Matters arising

Councillor Chapman had not heard from the Highways Agency regarding what action might be taken at Hatch. Mr Rylett responded saying that the matter had not been forgotten; the site had been considered but regrettably could not be placed high on the list of priorities. Priority had to be given to those sites in the previously circulated Hansard list. Mr Rylett was unable to say when noise fencing could be considered but confirmed there were plans during 2006/07 to deal with rutting in lane 1 between junctions 4 and 8. This would involve resurfacing with a low noise material.

Councillor Chapman was disappointed with Mr Rylett's response and acknowledged that the way forward was to raise the profile through the political process. The local MP, Andrew Hunter, had been involved but had not been able to secure a satisfactory commitment from the government. It might be possible to consider partnership funding to enable work to be undertaken in the short term. Councillor Chapman asked Mr Rylett to provide him with a cost estimate for noise fencing at Hatch following which he would consult with others.

Copies of a letter dated 14 October 2003 from Winchester City Councillor, Charlotte Bailey, to both the Secretary of State for Transport and Secretary of State for Education and Skills were circulated to Members, together with copies of questions raised in Parliament by Mark Oaten MP (attached).

Councillor Mrs Bailey commented on the letter and petition that accompanied it, referring in particular to Shepherds Down School at Compton. An OFSTED report identified noise from the motorway as having a negative effect on pupils' learning and recommended that noise levels be reduced, especially for pupils with limited attention. The reply from the Department for Education and Skills had merely referred the matter to the Department for Transport. Councillor Mrs Bailey indicated that her next move would be to raise the issue with Councillor Don Allen, Executive Member for Education, asking him to take the matter up with the Department for Education and Skills.

Councillor Hutcheson asked Councillor Mrs Bailey to keep Members informed of progress.

4. Update on Actions Arising from Previous Meetings

Mr Rylett gave a verbal report detailing progress with items identified at previous meetings, the main points of which were as follows:

A copy of the surveys/works programme was to be supplied as soon as available;

M3

The boundary fence between Junctions 12 and 13 (Eastleigh) had been secured;

Subject to the availability of funds the following projects were to be added to the programme with target timescales as stated:

Resurfacing of concrete sections between Junctions 8 and 9 (Popham and Winchester) - work planned to begin 2007/8;

Junction 8/A303 (Popham) - Roads renewal work planned for 2006/7 with structures work probably preceding that activity;

Resurfacing/repairs between Junctions 11 and 12 (Winchester and Eastleigh) is not planned at this stage as this particular section was constructed after 1988 and would, as a consequence, be regarded to be of lower priority. Work would only be brought into the programme should there be a maintenance need. The timing of survey work mentioned at previous meetings remained to be confirmed;

A34

Carriageway repairs/resurfacing between Litchfield and Whitchurch, North of Bullington Cross, planned for 2004/5, with additional and separate projects for bridge parapets over the railway at Whitchurch, as well as a section of the Winchester to Newbury scheme in the same year;

Carriageway repairs/resurfacing South of Bullington Cross are planned for 2005/6;

Mr Rylett agreed to provide a plan showing the sections to be maintained.

5. Future Discussions with the Highways Agency

Councillor Glen referred to discussions that had taken place regarding the format of future discussions with the Highways Agency, on both M3 noise and other matters involving the impact of the motorway and trunk road network on Hampshire's environment. He suggested that discussions that had taken place at these informal meetings had been very worthwhile and could be viewed in the context of the County Council undertaking its scrutiny role. He felt that it was important to formalise the discussions by asking the Environment Policy Review Committee (PRC) to invite the Highways Agency to an annual meeting at which ongoing discussion would be formally recorded. Councillor Estlin would consider the suggested way forward at his Decision Day on 9 December.

At the last meeting of this group it was suggested that the County Council could write to the Minister, setting down its concerns about government policies with regard to noise mitigation and other issues relating to the motorway and trunk road network. This is something the PRC could consider.

Councillor Chapman was concerned, given the PRC's workload, that insufficient time would be available to discuss detailed issues.

Councillor Mrs Bailey raised similar concerns. She questioned whether an annual meeting would be frequent enough.

Councillor Glen acknowledged the concerns and suggested that, through these meetings, key contacts had been made with the Highways Agency and Members would in future be able to discuss any concerns that they had direct with the Agency contacts. Mr Rylett was keen to improve communications with local Members and supported the suggestion.

Councillor Mrs Holden-Brown asked for the initial report to the PRC to be copied to members of this group.

6. Any Other Business

Mr Rylett responded to a question from Councillor Mrs Bailey concerning survey methods to measure carriageway deterioration employed by the Highways Agency.

Mr Harwood updated Members on progress with several studies that were discussed at the last meeting.

Councillor Glen thanked Members for contributing to the discussions that had taken place at these meetings. He also thanked John Rylett, Paul Harwood and Martin McMahon both for their willingness to attend the meetings and their professional input. Richard Chinn was also thanked for his input and for arranging and supporting the meetings.

RJC/BEB/M3

15.12.03

NOTES OF A MEETING HELD AT THE CASTLE, WINCHESTER

ON 23 JULY 2003 TO DISCUSS M3 NOISE MITIGATION IN HAMPSHIRE

AND OTHER ISSUES

Present:

Hampshire County Council

Councillors: J Glen (Chair)

Mrs A E Bailey

R Baulk

K Chapman

C Davidovitz

B Gurden

Mrs P Holden-Brown

Mrs A McNair Scott

P Mason

Mrs P Peskett

J Stocks

Officers: R Chinn

Highways Agency

J Rylett

P Harwood

1. Apologies had been received from Councillors A Dowden, K Estlin, Mrs S Glasspool, Mrs C Leversha, Alan Mills - Assistant Director of Environment, and Martin McMahon - Highways Agency.

2. Notes of the meeting of 11 February 2003 were agreed with no amendments.

3. Matters arising:

Councillor Chapman asked to be updated with regard to progress of noise studies at Hatch. Mr Rylett confirmed that the location had been included within the study process but in Mr McMahon's absence he was unable to provide more detail. He agreed to follow up and keep Councillor Chapman informed.

Mr Rylett reminded members of the sift criteria used by the Highways Agency when identifying whether a site qualifies for noise mitigation measures, following a request from Councillor McNair Scott.

Councillor Mason referred to earlier comments about the need for an investigation of rutting between junctions 11 and 12, and wondered whether surveys had now been undertaken. Mr Rylett confirmed that this had not yet been undertaken: timing of the surveys would be confirmed in due course.

Members expressed a wish to have copies of the surveys/works programme for Hampshire.

Councillor Mrs Holden-Brown's request for consideration to be given for a noise barrier to protect a recreational area between junctions 12 and 13 had been actioned but, regrettably, the Highways Agency could not afford the site a high priority. Councillor Mrs Holden-Brown mentioned that a dog had recently strayed onto the motorway and was fearful of the safety implications; children also play there. Mr Rylett acknowledged the need to secure boundary fencing as a matter of urgency and would take appropriate action.

Councillor Glen reminded attendees of the objectives of the meeting from the County Council's perspective; to receive information from the Highways Agency on works programmes, particularly those for noise mitigation measures, and to seek to influence priorities. He asked whether there was any opportunity for the County Council to influence decisions such as those made in response to Councillor Mrs Holden-Brown's request. Mr Rylett believed there was little opportunity for such influence given that priority had to be given to those sites listed in Hansard.

Councillor Davidovitz, in recognising the difficulty faced by the Highways Agency, asked how the County Council could influence priorities. Concrete sections of the M27 are to be re-surfaced and yet there are no plans for the M3. Mr Rylett referred to the Secretary of State's commitment to re-surface all concrete carriageways within a ten-year period. This will be achieved as part of planned maintenance where possible but there is no relationship to those sites within the Hansard list.

Members felt that, on occasions, due to the fact that the Highways Agency could only follow government policy, satisfactory responses would not be forthcoming. Where that is so, questions should be raised with the Minister through the political process.

Councillor Mrs Bailey made the point that the M3 was, prior to upgrading, the A33 trunk road. She thought it unfair that it was not placed in the same category as other pre-1969 trunk roads for the purposes of noise mitigation measures. Mr Rylett stated the reason was that new design parameters would have been applied at the time of upgrading to motorway standard.

4. Network Strategy:

Mr Harwood gave a presentation and covered various topics, including land use planning, major schemes, route management strategies and planning gain.

Regional planning guidance has moved away from "predict and provide" to the integration of roads into land use planning. Regional planning bodies have taken over responsibility for spatial planning.

The Highways Agency is now involved at all stages of the planning process, which enables timely responses. Previously the only opportunity to raise highway issues was at the end of the planning process.

Councillor Davidovitz sought clarification on whether the Highways Agency is consulted on planning issues by SEERA and whether SEERA takes account of transport issues as part of the regional spatial planning strategy. Mr Harwood confirmed that the Highways Agency was consulted but thought that in a few years time there will be a need to review transport strategy in the light of developing spatial strategy. Major schemes, ie those greater than five million pounds in value, are considered in the context of spatial strategy. Procedure requires the Highways Agency to consult with SEERA and to, if possible, achieve consensus of the need for major improvement before a scheme can be entered into the National Roads Programme.

Route management strategies bring together all aspects of planned work and land use planning along a route. Stakeholders are consulted and a route management strategy produced.

Four multi-modal studies embraced Hampshire as follows:

SWARMMS - London to West Country

SOCOMMS - Southampton to Dover

TVMMS - Thames Valley

A34 North from Southampton including M3 from M27

These studies have all been completed except that for A34, which had not yet started. The A34 study is to be managed by SEERA and confirmation of start date is awaited. Until the study is complete the presumption is that there will be no major schemes along this corridor.

The SWARMMS study had recommended dualling of A303 but not within Hampshire, the Hampshire length already being dualled.

As a result of the SOCOMMS study, widening of the M27 between junctions 3 and 4 and a climbing lane between junctions 11 and 12 had been included in the programme. Upgrading of A27 between M27 and A3M was also being considered, as was public transport and demand management options.

TVMMS had recommended no widening of M3 between junctions 2 and 8 until at least 2016 and the emphasis would be towards better use of the existing network, including public transport and demand management.

Comment was made about the M3 at Basingstoke, which was already operating at capacity. Councillor Chapman asked whether the Highways Agency was in discussion with Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council as M3 would need to figure within its local plan for the period to 2016. Mr Harwood confirmed that discussions were taking place with both the Borough and County Councils.

With regard to planning gain, the Highways Agency does not work in the same way as local planning authorities, ie Section 106 agreements, but does enter into agreements with developers under Section 278 of the Highways Act. The expectation is that developers would be required to fund measures on the network which are required to accommodate new development.

In the past the Highways Agency had only considered additional traffic generated by new development but in the future would need to look to developers to provide for additional transport capacity, eg subsidised public transport to free up capacity on the trunk road network.

Councillor Mrs Peskett asked whether the Highways Agency would require developers to subscribe to improved public transport. Mr Harwood thought not in that revenue would be a problem. There is a need to look at how capital works can, for example, provide commercial advantage for buses so that they can establish a priority over cars. If this could be achieved then a revenue stream would follow but the equation is a very difficult one to solve.

Councillor Stocks referred to the development of 4000 houses in Hart and sought clarification of the Highways Agency's involvement in the planning process for developments of this scale that created an impact on local roads long before the trunk road network. He believed that the skills required to analyse the impact of major developments on the road network do not normally exist at a local level, although it was appreciated that County Councils do have the expertise and that consultation between County and District Councils happens as a matter of routine. There is, however, a possibility that wrong decisions could be made. In such circumstances Councillor Stocks wondered whether the Highways Agency has powers to direct.

Mr Harwood explained that the Secretary of State does have powers of direction and the Highways Agency exercises those powers on his behalf, but only on the trunk road network.

Councillor Mrs Bailey enquired whether the Highways Agency provides advice to local planning authorities when new developments adjacent to motorways are proposed. Mr Harwood confirmed that on occasions such advice is given but generally it is accepted practice for developers to propose noise mitigation measures where required. The Highways Agency does not normally direct with regard to noise mitigation.

Councillor Mrs Bailey then referred to a document entitled "From Crisis to Cutting Edge" published by SEERA. The document contains maps showing congestion levels on the strategic road network. It was alarming to note that the map showing M3 appeared to suggest that congestion between junctions 11 and 13 is not at a critical level. She wondered about the impact on the network of the Dibden Bay development should it go ahead. Mr Harwood suggested that the maps were only intended to give an overview and should not be used for closer analysis.

Councillor Glen wondered why junction improvement schemes seemed only to go part way to achieving a solution. He recognised the problems associated with traffic forecasts but thought that a proactive approach at the design stage would avoid the need for further work at a later stage. In response Mr Harwood stated that junction improvements were generally designed to cope with forecast volumes fifteen years hence. Regrettably forecasts sometimes prove to be inaccurate.

Councillor Davidovitz enquired whether the "monitor and manage" approach could be successfully applied to existing pressure points. Mr Harwood thought that it could but care would be needed not to extend demand management too far. The consequences of so doing could, for example, adversely impact on the local economy; a fine balance has to be struck.

Councillor Davidovitz wondered what techniques were applied to ensure that road widening schemes did not adversely impact in noise terms on local communities. Mr Harwood confirmed that well developed processes exist which enable the increase in noise levels to be calculated. Noise mitigation measures would almost certainly be put in place to minimise the impact on local communities.

Councillor Mrs Peskett asked for a list of issues that were considered when undertaking multi-modal studies. Mr Harwood referred to the Government Office Method for Multi-Modal Studies (GOMMS). SEERA rather than the Highways Agency would be best placed to provide appropriate advice.

5. "Quick wins":

Design work has commenced for two schemes with a view

to undertaking work next year, as follows:

M3 junctions 8-9: Resurfacing of concrete sections.

M3 junction 8/A303: Maintenance of structures and roads renewal.

In addition £200,000 has been allocated this financial year to tackle the worst areas of rutting between junctions 4 and 8 of M3.

6. AOB:

Councillor Baulk referred to road noise that affected a school within his Division at a point where the M3 is elevated between Junctions 4 and 4a. He believed there was a need for a study but did not know who would take the responsibility. It was suggested that Rushmoor Borough Council might be able to assist, especially if complaints had been received.

Councillor Mrs Bailey referred to a guidance note that was used in the preparation of a report on noise at Shepherds Down School, Compton, and will circulate the document to members (attached).

Members agreed that issues raised during the meeting should be summarised and

presented to both Environment and Education Policy Review Committees for a decision on how they should be pursued. A number of questions need to be addressed.

It was suggested that the County Council needs to write formally to the Minister setting down its concerns on Government policies on noise mitigation and other issues relating to the trunk road network.

Councillor Mrs McNair Scott suggested that there is a need to consider cross cutting issues and thought that the SEN Panel also needs to be informed of the discussions that have taken place.

7. Date of next meeting: 2.00 pm on Wednesday 26 November 2003 in the former Grand Jury Library, Castle Yard, Winchester.

RJC/BEB/M3

28.07.03

NOTES OF MEETING HELD AT THE CASTLE, WINCHESTER ON

11 FEBRUARY 2003 TO DISCUSS M3 NOISE MITIGATION IN HAMPSHIRE

Present:

Hampshire County Council

Councillors: J K Glen (in the Chair);

Mrs A E Bailey;

K G Chapman;

C R H Davidovitz;

G W Davies-Dear;

B T Gurden;

Mrs P G E Holden-Brown;

P K Mason;

Mrs A M McNair Scott;

Mrs P G Peskett;

M L Sheehan;

J W Stocks.

Officers: R J Chinn;

A A B Mills (part).

Highways Agency

J Rylett;

M McMahon.

1. Apologies had been received from Councillors: A G Dowden; K B Estlin; Mrs S M Glasspool; Mrs C A Leversha.

2. The Chairman opened the meeting by welcoming Messrs Rylett and McMahon. Members appreciated the opportunity to discuss with the Highways Agency issues concerning M3 traffic noise and its mitigation.

The meeting followed a motion proposed at the County Council meeting on 25 July 2002 by Councillor Mrs A E Bailey when it was ordered:

`That this Council, in line with its policies on improving the Environment for our residents, work to bring forward the date of the resurfacing of the M3 with a low noise surface, particularly between Junctions 4 to 4(A) and 10 to 13 and any other seriously affected section and should also support improved noise barriers along the most densely populated sections.'

3. Mr Rylett explained that road noise had been a great concern in recent years and that he was charged to deliver part of the Department for Transport's policy relating to noise. He tabled a briefing paper (attached) which explained the background to current policy, criteria for determining whether sites qualify for further studies and how those sites are then prioritised for inclusion within the noise mitigation programme for which there is an annual ring fenced budget of £5 million.

The process is designed to ensure that sites are considered on a consistent basis. It is important to show that a fair and auditable assessment had been followed before agreeing scheme programmes.

The Hampshire section of M3 had benefited from some of the earlier noise mitigation schemes.

4. The Chairman invited members to ask questions and raise points for discussion, a summary of which is outlined below:

Councillor Stocks asked what action might be taken by the Highways Agency when circumstances change, eg new developments. He mentioned Otterbourne by way of example. Mr Rylett confirmed that where new development took place adjacent to motorways and trunk roads the developers should be required to provide noise mitigation, as appropriate, as part of the development.

Councillor McNair Scott mentioned problems which had arisen from the erection of a noise barrier within her Division, but on the opposite side of the motorway to an adjacent village. This had caused noise to be reflected to an extent where residents living within the village were now suffering from increased noise. Without knowing the specifics of this particular case, Mr Rylettt responded saying that the aim was to reduce noise effects for as many people as possible; high levels of population are tackled first. Two types of noise fencing were used - reflective and absorbent.

Councillor Gurden had some concerns about the criteria for eligibility and suggested that they may be too complex. He wondered about routine resurfacing and the issue of `wear and tear'. Mr Rylett confirmed that `low noise' surfacing was used as a matter of routine when motorways were resurfaced.

Councillor Stocks asked where noise is measured and whether readings were available for the populated areas of M3. Mr Rylett confirmed that noise measurements were taken adjacent to traffic and that he would be concerned if sufficient information was not available to support future bids. He believed the available information was sound.

Councillor Mason mentioned that residents of Colden Common were suffering from motorway noise. This location was some 2 miles from the motorway; the problem was believed to be worsening. He suggested that account should be taken of noise 2 or 3 miles away from motorways.

Councillor Mrs Bailey tabled a chart which showed M3 traffic growth and it was noted that traffic was increasing nationally at a rate of around 2% per year. A public meeting was held in 2001 to discuss noise between junctions 12 and 13. 300 people attended and others were unable to get into the hall. A survey was undertaken and noise in one garden adjacent to the motorway was measured at 70d(B)A. The problem had become much worse during the last 5 years.

Councillor Davidovitz enquired whether the sift criteria was ever updated. Mr Rylett referred to the list of 80 plus sites listed in Hansard saying that until such time as substantial progress had been made with the list he did not believe that a review would take place. Mr McMahon added that the Highways Agency had investigated sites from the Hansard list and had subsequently erected noise barriers alongside both carriageways at Farnborough and between junctions 6 and 7 Basingstoke, on the London bound side. These schemes had qualified under the sift criteria. He believed that the worst problems on M3 had now been tackled. He was now looking at further sites to see if effective solutions could be found.

However, there were no firm plans at the moment for further noise barrier schemes. Resurfacing was arranged on a priority basis, dealing with worn out roads. Surveys showed that M3 was generally in a reasonable condition although there were locations where lane 1 was showing signs of rutting and these would be dealt with within the next year or two as funds permit, but only the damaged areas.

Councillor Chapman raised concerns about the proximity of a residential caravan park at Hatch. Some homes were extremely close to the motorway. The Highways Agency had missed the site when undertaking studies. Mr McMahon did not know why the site was missed but committed to investigate and feed the site into the study process. He would keep Councillor Chapman informed.

Councillor Mrs Bailey referred to a Special School at Compton where 20% of pupils suffered with hearing problems. The County Council had commissioned a noise study which showed that background noise in classrooms was almost all above 40d(B)A. The advice given by the Department for Education was 40d(B)A for classrooms and 10d(B)A below that for classrooms containing children with hearing difficulties. She wondered whether the Highways Agency could consider special cases such as this. Mr Rylett indicated his willingness to look at the specifics of this case. Councillor Mrs Peskett thought the Special Needs Panel could add its support.

Councillor Gurden mentioned the Grove and Blackdam areas of Basingstoke where residents perceived that the measures installed were too little and too late, especially as vegetation had been cleared from the motorway in the area. There needed to be an ongoing dialogue with communities before deciding actions. He wondered whether district councils or the County Council might be prepared to contribute resources and whether that would speed up delivery. Mr Rylett was very happy to consider suggestions as to how communication could be improved and was prepared to

share information.

The Chairman wondered whether there had been dialogue with the County Council concerning planning gain. Mr Rylett was unaware of such discussion but thought that the Highways Agency Network Strategy team would be the correct point of contact.

Councillor Sheehan understood from the Minister's earlier comments that the whole length of M3 between junctions 4 and 4a would have noise barriers and was disappointed to note the long timescales for delivery.

Councillor Mrs Holden-Brown referred to a recreational area alongside the motorway between junctions 12 and 13 and asked Mr Rylett to investigate the possibility of erecting a noise barrier. Mr Rylett would add the site to his list.

Councillor Mason asked Mr Rylett to consider the need for resurfacing between junctions 11 and 12. He realised that the main problem was rutting within lane 1 but thought that it would be sensible to survey lanes 2 and 3 also to see whether there were any underlying problems.

Councillor Mrs Bailey mentioned a noise directive that was going through the European Parliament but was not sure of progress. She also mentioned the Community Plan for England and wondered whether the Deputy Prime Minister would channel resources into noise mitigation.

Councillor Stocks believed the meeting was very useful in terms of establishing limitations upon the Highways Agency. He thought it would be wise to meet regularly to carry on the dialogue.

Councillor Davies-Dear commented that as far as the Hansard list was concerned the M3 seemed to stop at Winchester and with that in mind he wondered how the southern length could be moved to the priority list. Mr Rylett commented that this length was built post 1988 and is judged therefore to meet current standards. It would be some time before the Highways Agency would start to look at newer sections of road.

5. The meeting concluded:

That a partnership approach was needed to address issues of motorway noise.

Regular meetings would be helpful. The next meeting should be arranged for July and a representative of the Highways Agency Network Strategy Team should be invited to attend.

Local MP's could be engaged via the Leader.

`Quick wins' should be discussed at the next meeting.

6. Date of next meeting - to be confirmed.

RJC/JH/M3

12 March 2003

8463Appdx2