Archived decisions
Hampshire County Council Solent Transport Strategy Panel 12 October 2005 Developer Contributions - Chilworth Report of the Director of Environment |
Item 9 |
Contact: Iain Reeve, ext 5301 email: [email protected]
1. Background
1.1 Developers' contributions have been obtained to implement transport improvements, particularly cycle facilities, near the Chilworth Science Park. Planning is at an advanced stage for a project to use these contributions and Local Transport Plan (LTP) funding to build a shared use cycleway between Chilworth Science Park and the M3/A33 interchange, where it would link into the north Southampton cycle network.
1.2 This link has been identified through the Southern Test Valley Cycles Feasibility Report (Atkins 2004), including its continuation to North Baddesley (March 2002). The whole route, from Southampton to North Baddesley, is spilt into two links at Chilworth. These two schemes were also highlighted in the Test Valley Cycle Strategy (July 2003) but no prioritisation is given to either in terms of implementation due to funding constraints.
1.3 The Chilworth to Southampton link is programmed in the 2005/06 capital programme. The estimated cost is £150,000, of which £30,000 has already been incurred in fees.
2. Local View
2.1 Chilworth Parish Council has stated in correspondence that it would like the County Council to use the developer contributions from the Chilworth developments to construct a different cycleway from Chilworth to North Baddesley. The local Member, Councillor Perry, supports this view and has asked that work on the programmed scheme should be suspended whilst a review takes place.
2.2 Chilworth Parish Council's view is that the route from Chilworth village to North Baddesley benefits the community of Chilworth more than the route to Southampton, as children can cycle to North Baddesley Primary School. In addition, they believe that employees of Chilworth Manor and Science Park are more likely to use this link.
2.3 The route Chilworth Parish Council proposes starts at the entrance to Chilworth village (adjacent to St Denys church) and proceeds north-west along the A27 to finish at the existing footway at the northern end of the Golf Club service road. It is the Parish Council's view that cyclists should then proceed along the existing footway to the Castle Lane junction where no cycle facilities currently exist.
3. Comparison of Schemes
3.1 The following table offers a comparison between the scheme currently in the Capital programme and the scheme proposed by the Parish Council.
Chilworth to Southampton |
Chilworth to North Baddesley (Church to footpath north of golf course) | |
Linkages |
Would link into the existing cycle network in Southampton City at the M3/A33 interchange (safely by-passing gyratory traffic). |
Does not link into the existing cycle network at North Baddesley - stops north of golf course and relies on an exiting narrow footpath to continue to the village. |
Safety |
Would provide a formal facility for cyclists thus improving road safety. Currently 5 (42%) of 12 accidents from Chilworth to Southampton on the A27 involve cyclists (from February 2002 to end of January 2005). Three of the five cycle accidents occurred on the A27 at the junction of the Science Park. |
No accident history involving cyclists along the proposed Church to golf course link. Therefore no immediate accident improvements are to be gained. There are two accidents at the Castle Lane junction, neither involving cyclists and three at the Rownhams Road crossroads, none involving cyclists. |
Science Park |
Links directly to the Science Park, therefore directly benefits employees. |
Provides a link to the Science Park from the North, although this does rely on cyclists using an existing footway link from the Church to the Science Park. This comparison does not include the additional costs of altering the footway in this section to cycleway standards to make a continuous link to the Science Park. |
Lighting |
Repositioning of existing lighting has already been costed into the programmed scheme |
Improved lighting may be required, and additional to scheme costs may be highlighted by safety audit. |
Crossing facilities |
This scheme incorporates a junction improvement scheme with a central crossing refuge at the junction at the Clump Inn (Manor Road). This will aid the safe crossing, together with minor junction re-alignment, for pedestrians and cyclists across this wide bell mouth where two of the five cycle accidents have occurred. |
No crossing facilities are required. |
Costs |
£150,000 Chilworth Science Park to Southampton Note that £30,000 of this budget has already been incurred in fees. |
£220,000 (+ SUs*) £246,000 (+SUs) to Castle Lane £465,000 (+SUs) to Rownhams Road/Nutburn Road crossroads Note these costings are at 2002 prices. Note: SUs indicates `Statutory Undertakings', which relates to gas, telecoms, etc plant. |
Risks |
Return of Chilworth Science Park developer funding plus interest by April 2006 unless a deed of variation to extend the time period for the programmed scheme can be agreed. |
The scheme would have a significant funding gap, which would need to be found from within the LTP budget. |
4. Discussion
4.1 The Panel's advice is sought on the comparison between the two schemes. The existing scheme would have the benefits of being substantially cheaper, of linking into existing cycle networks and tackling a known casualty problem. It can also be implemented considerably more quickly. Part of the developers' contributions would expire if not used by April 2006, unless an extension can be secured in the meantime.
4.2 However, the Parish Council would prefer that the developers' contributions were used towards alternative schemes to the north of the Science Park. This would arguably be of more benefit to the residents of North Baddesley, although it would be more expensive and there is no record of cycling-related accidents along the proposed route. The scheme could not be implemented for some time, and would need to be prioritised within the LTP capital programme for future years, where there will be a reduced allocation for cycling.
4.3 One option would be to proceed with the planned scheme, but to remit the proposed alternative for consideration as part of the capital programme for the second LTP. Taken together, the two schemes would provide a longer continuous cycle route. This would need to be subject to value for money considerations as part of the development of the capital programme, including advice from the Panel on relative priorities. To put this into context, £805,000 has been allocated county-wide for cycling schemes in the current financial year, and £3.73 million to all schemes in the Solent area (note that there will be some overlap between these figures).
5. Impact Assessments
5.1 This report provides a position statement only, therefore an impact assessment, in terms of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act, has not been undertaken.
Recommendation
That the Panel advises the Executive Member for Environment: South Hampshire and Resource Management on the relative merits of the two schemes, and any implications for future priorities in the Solent area capital programme for the second Local Transport Plan.
Section 100 D - Local Government Act 1972 - background papers | |
The following documents disclose facts or matters on which this report, or an important part of it, is based and has been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report. | |
NB the list excludes: | |
1. |
Published works. |
2. |
Documents which disclose exempt or confidential information as defined in the Act. |
TITLE |
LOCATION |
None. |
665/IR