Archived decisions

Decision Maker:

Executive Member - Environment

Date of Decision:

20 January 2009

Decision Title:

Review of Land Safeguarding, Totton Western Bypass (junction of A326/A336)

Decision Reference:

492

Report From:

Director of Environment

Contact name:

Dominic McGrath

Tel:

023 8042 7005

Email:

[email protected]

1) Summary

The following decisions were made:

1.1. That Hampshire County Council indicates that it intends to continue promoting the future dualling of the A326 Totton Western Bypass, and that land required for this specific purpose should continue to be safeguarded.

1.2. That Hampshire County Council further indicates that it no longer intends to promote the grade separation of the A326/A336 junction and that land safeguarded solely to accommodate this need no longer be safeguarded.

1.3. That existing land owned by the Highway Authority in the vicinity of the junction should be retained for highway, landscaping and amenity purposes.

1.4. That New Forest District Council and the New Forest National Park Authority be informed of this decision and asked to review the associated land safeguardings.

2) Reasons for the decision

2.1. The decision will, if approved, protect the future ability to improve the A326 Totton Western Bypass, including the potential to improve the capacity of the route. This will protect, and potentially enhance, the ongoing economic vitality of the Waterside area and the eastern part of New Forest District.

2.2. Any improvements to the route would also potentially enhance road safety.

3) Other options considered and rejected:

3.1. Option 1: Support the retention of all existing safeguardings.

a) Risk Assessment: This option is not recommended because the grade separation of the junction is considered to be unlikely to be a justifiable or deliverable option. There is a risk that retaining safeguardings for grade separation could prejudice the ability to retain those for future dualling of the A326.

3.2. Option 2: Support the retention of safeguardings for dualling of the A326 but seek abandonment of the safeguarding for grade separation.

a) Risk Assessment: This is the recommended option.

3.3. Option 3: Support the retention of safeguardings for grade separation of the junction but seek abandonment of the safeguarding for dualling of the A326.

a) Risk Assessment: This option does not offer any particular benefits, as the primary purpose of any improvements is to accommodate future increases in flows on the A326. Dualling would meet this purpose much better. It is also unlikely that the junction would operate safely without dualling of the A326.

3.4. Option 4: Seek the abandonment of all safeguardings in the vicinity of the junction.

a) Risk Assessment: This option would limit any future potential to upgrade the junction or the capacity of the A326.

3.5. Option 5: Do nothing.

a) Risk Assessment: This option is not recommended as the current safeguardings would be open to challenge and this would not meet past undertakings given on behalf of the County Council. If lost, this would then limit any future potential to upgrade the junction or the capacity of the A326 as above.

4) Conflicts of Interest:

4.1. Conflicts of interest declared by the decision-maker:

None

4.2. Conflicts of interest declared by other Executive Members consulted:

None

5) Dispensation granted by the Standards Committee:

None

6) Any reasons for the matter being dealt with if urgent :

None

7) Statement from the Decision Maker:

Approved by:

--------------------------------------------------

Date:

20 January 2009

Executive Member for Environment

Councillor M J Kendal