Contact: Peter Murnaghan, ext 6920 email:[email protected]

1. Summary

1.1 This report outlines a set of proposals for improvements by the Highways Agency for the M27/A27 corridor as part of its Route Management Strategy. The report also identifies the need to enter into a dialogue with the Highways Agency over the role of the M27 in connection with plans for development in South Hampshire.

2. Background

2.1 The Highways Agency has developed a Route Management Strategy (RMS) process to help it focus on local need and to consider how road planning can be integrated with other transport and planning decisions. RMSs are being developed for all parts of the Highways Agency's network across the country and represent its understanding of the function of each route and the problems and issues along it.

2.2 RMSs are designed to take a strategic approach to the maintenance, operation and improvement of the network, and to involve regional stakeholders and the public in the decision-making process. Each RMS will lead to the adoption of a rolling ten-year and three-year investment plan for each of the routes comprising the strategic road network.

2.3 The concept of RMSs does not preclude major schemes from being proposed when circumstances demand. It is estimated that some 70% of all traffic on the M27 corridor is local to the South Hampshire sub-region and it therefore performs more of a local role than motorways elsewhere in the country. In view of the development work being undertaken as part of the South Hampshire Strategy and the South East Plan, it will be important to maintain a dialogue with the Highways Agency over the future role of the M27.

3. M27/A27 Route Management Strategy

3.1 An RMS for the M27, A27 South Coast road was prepared by consultants for the Highways Agency in June 2004. The draft strategy covers the M27 and A27 trunk roads, between Cadnam and Emsworth, to the north of Southampton and Portsmouth. It includes the M271 and a short length of the M275 from junction 12 of the M27 to Tipner Lake bridge in Portsmouth. It does not cover the `old A27', where it parallels the motorway between Southampton and Cosham. This remains a local authority responsibility.

3.2 Since there had been a high level of public consultation on parallel issues on this corridor, the Highways Agency elected to consult with key stakeholders at a seminar on 14 July 2004 rather than carry out a further general public consultation. The specific objectives of the seminar were to:

(i) inform all interested parties of the purpose, extent and details of the study;

(ii) give all interested parties the opportunity to engage in the development of the strategy in line with Government policy and Highways Authority objectives;

(iii) involve interested parties in reviewing the route functions;

(iv) establish the views of interested parties on the problems along the route and understand what they consider to be the most serious; and

(v) enable interested parties to understand the position of others and that priorities and solutions can conflict with each other.

3.3 In addition to officers from the Highways Agency, the Government Office for the South East, Hampshire County Council and Southampton and Portsmouth City Councils, the seminar was attended by representatives of the district councils along the route, Associated British Ports, Portsmouth Port and Hampshire Police.

3.4 The main findings from the seminar were as follows:

(i) It was noted that the M27/ A27 route is at capacity during peak periods. At the same time increases in economic activity are generating more demand for travel. This is particularly evident at the major ports of Southampton and Portsmouth, and from the strong demand for new housing throughout the area.

(ii) It was recognised that it would be both difficult and inappropriate to widen the road to increase its capacity along the full length. There are however proposals to deal with local problems on the M27 by providing widening between Junctions 3 and 4, and climbing lanes between Junctions 11 and 12.

(iii) To deal with the increase in demand for travel, all parties now see the need to:

- discourage road travel during peak times;

- encourage the use of public transport; and

- improve public transport infrastructure.

(iv) The key role of the Solent Transport Partnership was noted, the Highways Agency being an active member and supporter of Solent Transport.

(v) Local authority officers drew attention to the apparently conflicting Government policies on planning applications for development within the proximity of trunk road junctions. On the one hand the Deputy Prime Minister is asking councils to facilitate more housing, but on the other hand such applications are resisted by the Highways Agency because they introduce more traffic onto the overloaded trunk road network. It is to be hoped that this apparent contradiction in Government policy will be addressed as a matter of urgency.

(vi) Participants noted that junctions on the M27 were under pressure, with particular reference to:

- Junction 1, restricted westbound capacity during holiday periods;

- Junction 3, M271 to Southampton, already congested and more heavy traffic likely to and from the port;

- Junction 5, already congested with likely future development of housing and airport;

- Junction 7, congested, with likely future development of housing;

- Junction 9, congested and more traffic likely from future development; and

- the section of A27 between M275 and A3(M) where cyclists and slow moving vehicles weave with motorway speed traffic.

(vii) There were several ideas for new bridges or dedicated lanes to provide local increases in capacity at a number of locations.

(viii) There were also ideas to improve conditions along the main carriageway. These include:

- variable speed limits;

- realignment of lanes at junctions to deal with queuing traffic; and

- improvements to lighting along the A27.

(ix) With regard to public transport and reducing car journeys, the following ideas were discussed:

- park and ride near M27 junctions (by local authorities);

- new links created by South Hampshire Rapid Transit, subject to Government funding; and

- possible high occupancy vehicle lanes.

(x) With regard to the major ports, the following ideas were discussed:

- consider improved signing, including multi lingual signing;

- consider feeding real-time traffic information to the ports; and

- major expansion planned within the existing port area of Southampton.

(xi) With regard to environmental issues, the following points were noted:

- the need to consider environmental enhancement such as improvement of habitats; and

- large gantries are not always appropriate because of visual intrusion.

(xii) New route options were also suggested:

- improve HGV access to and from Southampton and Portsmouth docks;

- improve HGV provision at Junction 3 and possibly Junction 2; and

- facilitate access to proposed developments adjacent to M27 Junction 9.

3.5 Officers of the local authorities requested that the Highways Agency extends its consultation period until Members of the Solent Transport Strategy Panel have had the opportunity to consider the matter. Copies of the draft strategy have been sent to each council in the area and a plan will be displayed at the meeting. The Highways Agency has agreed to consider all comments submitted before the end of October 2004.

Recommendations

1. That the Highways Agency be thanked for the opportunity to comment on the M27/A27 Route Management Strategy.

2. That the Panel endorse the package of measures to be included in the M27/A27 Route Management Strategy.

3. That the Government be encouraged to resolve its apparently contradictory position in respect of development applications in the vicinity of motorway and trunk road junctions as a matter of urgency.

4. That the Highways Agency be advised of the likely need for an early review of the Route Management Strategy in the light of the development of the South East Plan and the South Hampshire Sub-Regional Strategy.

8961/PJM