Archived decisions

Contact: Frank Baxter, ext 6581 email: [email protected]

1. Summary

1.1This report considers key schemes relevant to the North Hampshire Transport Strategy area which Members are asked to note. It seeks the Panel's endorsement of the principle of not proceeding with further development of the A287/Redfields Lane junction improvement. It requests that the panel note the decision of the Executive Member with regard to the A33/A339/Reading Road/Popley Way improvement. Members are also asked to advise the Executive Member on their views on the Brighton Hill, Roundabout scheme.

2. A287/Redfields Lane

2.1 In response to concerns about road safety at the A287 junction with Redfields Lane south of Church Crookham, a feasibility study was undertaken in March 1999. In October 2002 the County Council reviewed the five major scheme options identified by the study. All cost around £2m and involved substantial land acquisition and significant environmental damage. Of the options the preferred one was a new roundabout situated 300 metres to the west of the existing junction; Bowling Alley and Redfields Lane would both be closed.

2.2 In April 2002 a low cost safety scheme was introduced at the junction at a cost of £12,700. Preliminary figures indicate that the scheme has been effective in reducing accidents. In the three year period prior to 25 April 2002 there were ten reported injury accidents. There have been three reported (slight) injury accidents in the two years since. It is recommended that the junction is monitored closely before any decision to implement a major scheme is considered further. The present results cast serious doubt on the need and cost effectiveness of a larger scheme option based on road safety grounds.

2.3 A major scheme would now cost at least £2.3m plus land and legal costs which might involve compulsory purchase. These estimates assume no problems in delivery. In addition, because the junction is effectively moved to a different location, the preferred option was not investigated to the same level of detail as the others. There would also be some damage to legally protected habitats which might involve mitigation measures to be considered. A large scheme could easily cost in excess of £5m.

2.4 The proposed development of the Queen Elizabeth II Barracks has resulted in an opportunity to collect further contributions. It is possible that a large contribution could be available for off-site measures. There is a suggestion that all of the contribution could be spent on this scheme. This would be to the detriment of other schemes needed because of the development or other schemes that might deliver greater benefits for less money. A list of potential alternative schemes is attached as an Appendix.

2.5 A Transport Assessment for the QEII Barracks indicated that the impact of development traffic on the junction would be relatively small. The access strategy for the development seeks to distribute the majority of the generated traffic via Beacon Hill Road to the east of the site. The proposed roundabout would be detrimental to the strategy by attracting more traffic to the Redfields Lane junction.

2.6 A key issue is the ability to acquire the necessary third party land for the improvement and the cost of that land. Legal precedents elsewhere would allow third party land owners to claim `ransom' value related to the value of the development that the improvement would facilitate. This ransom value would be high. The exact value would be uncertain until the matter was considered at a Land Tribunal. The County Council would have to commit to the scheme and land acquisition before the land value is determined at a Tribunal. There is no guarantee that the funding offered by the developer would meet the land cost. The developer is not willing to purchase land directly from third parties and this is no doubt influenced by the ransom issue. Hence it is considered imprudent to proceed on the basis of such uncertainty and potential liability.

2.7 Another legal issue would be likely to arise in that the land might need to be purchased using compulsory purchase powers. Using such powers requires there to be a significant justification which at the moment is not apparent. This casts significant doubt on this scheme being deliverable even if the level of funding needed could be found. Using compulsory purchase powers would not circumvent the ransom issue.

2.8 In the past contributions in excess of £800,000 have been collected towards an improvement at this junction to address a road safety problem which appears at this time to have been resolved. Most of the agreements are flexible and the contributions can be spent on other local transport issues such as those potential schemes listed in the Appendix. Not proceeding

with the scheme would release money to be spent elsewhere as well as directing any contributions from the QEII proposal towards managing the traffic impacts of the development in line with the findings of the developer's transport assessment.

2.9 In light of the success of the low cost safety improvement there would appear to be little benefit in progressing a major scheme. The scheme itself would be environmentally damaging as it passes close to ancient woodland and designated conservation sites. It is considered imprudent to proceed because of the uncertainty and potential liability relating to land acquisition. Hence Members are requested to support the principle of not proceeding with the scheme.

3. A33 Enhancements, Basingstoke

3.1 As part of development work on the South East Plan (SEP) officers and Members will be considering the impact of various growth options and will be asked to consider increased district housing figures. Greater clarity on the impact of such growth will become apparent over the next year as the Draft SEP is consulted on and then submitted to Government by the Regional Assembly (SEERA).

3.2 Basingstoke is defined as a Regional Transport Hub in the Regional Transport Strategy. SEERA has made it clear that such hubs should be the focus for future development. The uncertainly about the quantity, location and nature of this development means that some planned schemes for Basingstoke and Deane will need to be considered in light of the SEP as it develops. This predominantly effects schemes that are needed to accommodate increases in traffic and manage congestion.

3.3 In light of the SEP work it is apparent that a much more detailed understanding is needed of the infrastructure requirements of future growth for Basingstoke and Deane. In order to achieve this the County Council is seeking to develop an urban and land use transport model. By collecting large amounts of data on journey patterns, quantities and flows and land uses a model will allow a greater appreciation of development impacts and infrastructure needs. These will help in answering some key questions about the future strategy for the A33 corridor in light of future development. As Reading is also a Transport Hub and the focus for additional development, it is clear that improvements on the A33 corridor will need to reflect proposals in the South East Plan.

3.4 On the 21 January the Executive Member for Environment will be asked to consider putting on hold the implementation of the A33/A339/Reading Road/Popley Way improvement during 2005-06. The result of his decision will be reported orally to this Committee.

4. A30 Brighton Hill, Basingstoke

4.1 There is a long history behind this scheme which resulted in the Executive Member for Environment requesting that a Member and Officer Sub Group be convened to assist him in making a decision about the schemes future. There followed two such meetings on the 18 May and 24 August 2004. Copies of the minutes of these meetings will be available at the panel meeting. The conclusion reached at those meetings was that an accident reduction and carriageway maintenance scheme be undertaken. There were 27 slight injury accidents recorded during a three year monitoring period. In July 2004 a serious injury accident was recorded outside of the three year period.

4.2 Signalisation of the roundabout was investigated. Due to the junction's geometry and size, modelling revealed that not only would such a scheme be expensive, requiring an additional circulatory carriageway, it offered little benefit in congestion terms over the scheme currently being developed .

4.3 The current proposals are generating some concerns about the proposed left turn only out of Western Way element of this scheme. Traffic on the downhill part of the roundabout approaches this junction at speed. There have been eight accidents recorded near this junction arm, two of which involved vehicles exiting Western Way onto the junction. The consultation on the scheme will therefore be seeking views on the scheme with and without the left turn only.

4.4 Another concern is that the junction is overloaded and that this is only a temporary measure. However the scheme is not seeking to address a congestion problem. It is predominantly an accident reduction scheme with some additional benefits.

4.5 It should be noted that all of the costs (£1.5 million) of this scheme are to be met from external funding. However if the Homebase contribution of £423,000 is not spent on the scheme before May 2006 it will need to be handed back to the developer together with the 5 years of interest accrued.

Recommendation

That the Panel:

(i) notes the report;

(ii) endorses the principle of not proceeding with further development of the A287/Redfields Lane junction improvement;

(iii) notes the decision of the Executive Member with regard to the A33/A339/Reading Road/Popley Way improvement; and

(iv) advises the Executive Member on the Panel's views related to the Brighton Hill, Roundabout scheme.

9159/FB

APPENDIX

FLEET Possible Schemes for Development

1. Introduction

A decision to not proceed with the A287/Redfields Lane Junction scheme could release up to £3m in developer contributions principally derived from the proposed QEII Barracks housing development. It is suggested that these monies could be most usefully spent on developing a Transport Master Plan to tackle congestion, road safety and accessibility issues and to develop solutions across the wider area of Fleet, Church Crookham and the surrounding area. The plan could also include measures to advance road and footway maintenance programmes.

The following is a brief description of some of the principal schemes and studies suggested to be considered in preparing a master plan. These possible schemes are subject to further assessment before being considered for inclusion in the capital programme.

2. Eastern By-Pass

Plans are well advanced to upgrade the Kennels Lane link road giving an improved alternative access to junction 4a of the M3. This presents an opportunity to develop a southern access route from Beacon Hill Road via Aldershot Road and A323 Fleet Road to Iveley Road and Kennels Lane. Junction improvements at Aldershot Road/Fleet Road and Fleet Road/Iveley Road would probably be required. The scheme would help relieve the Reading Road South - A3013 Fleet Rd route through the centre of Fleet.

An origin-destination survey in Reading Road South will be required to confirm traffic movements in this area.

3. Reading Road South Congestion Relief

The use of Reading Road South as a major traffic corridor in both directions has given rise to slow moving peak hour traffic. Queues are exacerbated by drivers waiting for opportunities to turn right into residential road. A scheme could be evaluated to widen Reading Road South sufficiently to enable right-turn pockets to be introduced. In addition it might be appropriate to close some entrances to and/or exits from side roads.

4. Station Access

Access to Fleet station could be improved for all modes of transport. The car park is over capacity. There is high cycle usage yet cycle routes stop short of the station entrance. Pedestrians have difficulty crossing the road both at the station entrance and also at Fleet Rd north of the roundabout where there is another pedestrian access to the station. An accessibility strategy for the station would consider the following:-


· roundabout layout and possible replacement by a signalised junction

· access improvements for pedestrians and cyclists

· vehicle access and car parking strategy

· bus interchange facilities

· potential for BDIS or real-time bus information

5. Traffic Signals Review

This would ensure that signal timings are optimised and the potential for introducing CCTV for traffic management and parking control, pedestrian phases and advanced stop lines for cyclists is considered at key junctions including:

· Kings Rd/Clarence Rd (not signalised) and Kings Rd/Albert Rd

· Reading Rd South/Aldershot Rd: this is close to the canal and appears to have a high pedestrian count

· Aldershot Rd/Kings Rd/Norris Hill Rd: footway improvements are also required - there are no tactile surfaces

Changes at the following two junctions have not been included in the current town centre proposals but could be reconsidered if justified in the longer term:

· Fleet Rd/Kings Rd: visibility to the right is restricted for pedestrians crossing Kings Rd from east to west

· Fleet Rd/ Reading Rd North (Oatsheaf).

6. Pedestrian Strategy

Accessibility for pedestrians and the mobility impaired is an area-wide issue that could be tackled by developing an effective Pedestrian Strategy for Fleet. Potential measures include:

· a new controlled crossing on Reading Rd South around Basingbourne Rd junction to help Courtmoor School children cross the road

· a new footway on the B3013 Beacon Hill between the A287 and Cadet Way to allow easy passage of pedestrians from the estate to/from bus stops near the junction with the A287

· a new pedestrian crossing in Albert Rd to give rear access to Kings Shopping Centre

· local widening of footways to improve wheelchair accessibility

· a new footway in Pilcot Hill

· an advanced footway maintenance programme

7. Public Transport

Improvements to the public transport infrastructure could include bus stop improvements and real-time information. The potential for shuttle buses to operate between the QEII Barracks and Fleet station via an Aldershot Rd/Norris Hill Rd/Kings Rd/Fleet Rd route would be considered together with possible priority measures.

8. Cycle Routes

A strategic cycle network has been proposed for Fleet and could be implemented in stages according to available funding and justification. The following is a list of possible links in suggested order of importance:

· Fleet North to South Spine Route:

· Pondtail Link:

· A323 Norris Hill Rd (Norris Bridge to Pondtail Bridge Cycle Path):

· Hart Leisure Centre to Fleet Centre:

· Fleet Outer Loop:

· QEII Barracks Loop:

Cycle parking could be provided at the station, near shops and at employment and leisure facilities.

9. Travel Information and Marketing

There are various `soft' measures which could be considered for Fleet including:

· travel awareness initiatives such as a `Walk to School' week

· a Cycle Map of Hart to include routes in Fleet and Yateley

· promotion of lift share initiatives and/or car clubs

· personalised journey planning